APPENDIX, No. XVII. The following notes of this discussion, though evidently incomplete, having been preserved, are here inserted, from an authentick MS. Bishop. Owen. Mr. Owen, to enter into that matter as soon as I can which is the cause of our meeting, I do desire you here that you would give some satisfactory account of your title to the ministry which you exercise, and also of the reason of your separation from the Church of England. I call that the Church of England which is by law established. I desire you to give account in the first place, by what right it is that you take upon you the ministry. My Lord; I judge myself every way unfit to manage a discourse of this nature before so great an auditory. I am a child in years and knowledge, and your lordship a father in both respects; my converse hath been with a few modern authors, and your lordship's with many venerable and ancient; and, therefore, you have every way the advantage; I can speak but very little, and possibly to little purpose; but the reasons are in print, and to nominate them will be but actum agere. There is Ames's Fresh Suit,* Alsop's Melius Inquirendum; the answer of the London divines, who were commissioned to debate with the bishops; there is Mr. Baxter's Plea, and his late Reasons, why ejected ministers ought to preach; and what Dr. Owen hath written; and none of these, that I have heard, answered. These strenuously vindicate our cause, and might effectually vindicate my silence at this time; but, * See Reliq. Baxter. part i. pp. 13, 14. Bishop. Owen. Bishop. my lord, having had more satisfying experiences, of your candour and goodness, I cast myself at your feet, not as an opposer, but as a learner. You were pleased to promise me protection with reference to the laws, that I may fully speak my thoughts. Your lordship knows that we cannot speak our reasons, but we render ourselves obnoxious to the severity of the law, and it would be satisfactory to me if you would please to move the magistrates present that they will manifest the same candour towards me, if I should, by unwary expressions, transgress the limits of the law. My lord, to come to the business;-I have been three times with your lordship, and have given you, as I thought, a pretty full account of my call to the ministry, and of the lawfulness of it. I was ordained by presbyters, whose ordination I look upon as valid; that which I insisted upon, as one of my first arguments. You go on and leave me some things to say, which I cannot say, unless I will speak them now presently. Those books that you mentioned, I have not read one of them. I am not so happy to have time to spare to read all the late books that come forth. I hope I shall not need the reading of any of them. We have abundantly enough out of those books that have been anciently written. For that which you speak of, that you desire that whatever you say, you may not suffer any prejudice by it; that, as for my own part, I do promise you, and I desire of the magistrates here, that whatever you say, by way of dispute, (I only promise as to my own part,) you shall not receive any prejudice by what you say, and I do not think you can speak within the compass of the magistrates; the matter doth not require it. I will preserve you from suffering any prejudice, so far as I am able, in way of dispute. Now to what you say as to your reason. As to my ordination, I acquainted your lordship I was ordained by presbyters. My argument is this,presbyter and bishop are identitive both as to name and office. That is, both those names of bishop and presbyter are used of one and the same person. Mr. Baxter, referring to an interview with Archbishop Usher, says,-" I asked him his judgment about the validity of presbyters' ordination; which he asserted, and told me, that the King asked him at the Isle of Wight, wherever he found in antiquity, that presbyters alone ordained any? And that he answered,-I can show your Majesty more, even where presbyters alone successively ordained bishops; and instanced, in Hierom's words, Epist. ad Evagrium, of the presbyters of Alexandria choosing and making their own bishops, from the days of Mark till Heraclus and Dyonisius.” Reliq. Baxter. lib. i. part ii. p. 206. Owen. They have the same commission, the same work, and, therefore, are the same order. Dodwell. They who receive their order from them, which are the same with bishops, are the same with bishops. But, ergo. Roberts. I suppose there is no time to form syllogisms. Dodwell. Bishop. Owen. Bishop. Owen. Bishop. Dodwell. Roberts. Bishop. Roberts. Bishop. Without a syllogism, it is easy to evade one argument, with starting a new. When you find yourselves hurt with syllogisms, you may waive the argument. They that receive their order from those that are the same with bishops, have the same call that those have who are bishops. But those persons have received their order from those that are the same with bishops, ergo. The minor will be denied, that presbyters and bishops are of the same order.* Acts, xx. 17, 28. Paul came to Miletus, sends for the presbyters of Ephesus, and gave them a charge of the flock, calls them bishops; and that we may not conceive that it is only the mere name that is given them, he bids them rule the flock. You produce that text, Acts, xx. 17, 28, when the same persons,— Methinks it were convenient that that hypothesis were understood. I say there are several times, of scripture, when we say presbyters, are not the same with bishops, we mean, that when there was a church government established, to last to the end of the world, they were distinguished; we suppose that in the first age. In the second, the church was governed by In the third degree, there were churches imperfectly constituted; and possibly, in this time, there might be some instances. But, in the last age of the apostles, when churches were perfectly constituted by them, and left as a precedent for them to imitate, presbyters and bishops were left distinct. We urge that they were the same at that time in acts; -prove any rule for the alteration. The reason why they are all one, is because the same persons and officers are called presbyters, and afterwards bishops, and the same word ascribed to them, they were then all one. We do grant, that the same persons, the same officers, were called presbyteri, and episcopi. So the same apostles were called, apostoli and diaconi. But not in point of office. I will show you that, in point of office, they were the See Dr. M'Crie's Life of Knox, vol. 1. p. 386. Roberts. same, Acts i. Apostoli and episcopi, who are all of the same office. That makes for us. If one and the same office may have several names, that apostoli were diaconi, why may not presbyteri be episcopi? If the apostles were called apostoli and diaconi, they were distinct offices. The presbyters succeed the bishops. You will say the same of the deacons. No, not so, they were to take care of the poor. If you will refer it to St. Jerome, we shall soon determine it. Dodwell. This is the case you are concerned in, if you will refer it to St. Jerome, we will refer it to him. Owen. Leave St. Jerome. If your lordship please, we are upon the foundation of the scripture. Please to give a satisfactory answer to that objection, that the same persons are called presbyters and bishops. Bishop. I say, while the apostles were the sole officers in the church, they had all those names in themselves. I showed you the apostles were called episcopi, and presbyteri, and diaconi. Henry. They had them all virtually and eminently in themselves. Roberts. When they made standing officers for the church, they made only presbyters and deacons. Bishop. It is denied that they made no other officers besides. The apostles made single persons to be governors of churches. Dodwell. A single presiding presbyter. Henry. Bishop. Henry. Bishop. Dodwell. If there were no more but this one place, it makes it as clear as the sun, that the same persons were presbyters and bishops.* It makes it as plain as the sun, that they were called so before they were distinguished; by the same rule, deacons may be applied to them. Jesus Christ is called the deacon,-minister of the circumcision. He is called All; that I showed you that these words at first, before there were distinct offices in the church, were promiscuously used. If you would please to say in those times wherein See Fox's Acts and Monuments, v. 2, p. 411. fol. 1641. The Answer of John Lambert to the Bishop's Articles. Henry. Dodwell. Henry. churches were imperfectly planted; for proving of the There were nine arcontes among the Athenians. I showed that in the same office; yet there have been presidents that have had some prerogative by virtue of their place. As the chairman of a committee, the presbyters that ordained us, had a moderator. You are pleading for the bishop. There was never a bishop to be found when I was ordained. Dodwell. There were bishops, but they must not ordain out of their own diocese. Bishop. For that which you produce, Acts, xx, it was before there was any single person settled in that church, while it was under the power of the apostles themselves; but afterwards, there was a single person placed in that church, with a superiority over those persons that you call bishops and presbyters. Henry. Roberts. Prove that. 1 Timothy, i. 3., the church of the Ephesians of which we read, Acts, xx; and there, after that which was spoken by the apostle, there he writes this Epistle to Timothy, wherein he minds Timothy wherefore he left him at Ephesus. He left him there with such a power as to govern the presbyters, and to ordain, govern, reward, and punish; therefore, there was afterwards a person set over those presbyters, with such a power, as we ascribe to the bishops. That power comprised no more than the power of an ordinary presbyter. Bishop. It hath a greater power than you ascribe to single presbyters. Roberts. Henry. The power lies in the minister to declare God's judgments and mercies, and church censures. There is no power committed to Timothy, but what did agree to him as a presbyter. Bishop. Hath every individual person the same power that was here committed to Timothy? Henry. Bishop. I see no passage there that doth not agree to the office of a gospel minister as such. Here is first a power given to him who should have a |