I. THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CHUECH. II. THE FOEMAL CAUSE OF A PARTICULAR
CHURCH. III. OF THE POLITY, RULE, OR DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH IN GENERAL.
IV. THE OFFICERS OF THE CHURCH.
V. THE DUTY OF PASTORS OF CHURCHES. VI. THE OFFICE OF TEACHERS IN THE CHURCH.
VII. OF THE RULE OF THE CHUECH, OR OF
RULING ELDERS. VIII. THE NATURE OF CHURCH POLITY OR RULE, WITH THE DUTY OF EL- DERS. IX. OF DEACONS.
X. OF EXCOMMUNICATION. XI. OF THE COMMUNION OF CHURCHES.
M.DC.LXXXIX.
VOL. XVI.
PREFATORY NOTE.
Ox the ground of some statements in the following treatise, which was published in 1689, it has been gravely argued that the author returned to tlie Presbyteriauism of his early days before he died. In the " Inquiry concerning Evangelical Churches," (sec vol. xv.), •which forms the tirst part of this work, Owen states that he would " neither examine nor oppose tlie opinion" in favour of "a national church-state, arising from an association of the oiEcers of particular churches, in several degrees, which tliey call classical and provin- cial."— P. 202. He declares, in his answer to Stillingfleet, that had the Presbyterian go- vernment been established at the Restoration " without a rigorous imposition of every thing supposed by any to belong thereto," Presbyterians and Independents "would liave been both to blame" if they had continued in a state of separation from each other. "If it shall be asked, then," he proceeds, "why they did not formerly agree in the Assembly ? I answer, — (1.) I was none of them, and cannot tell; (2 ) They did agree in my judgment well enougli, if they could have tliought so; and further I am not con- cerned in the difference."— P. 433. Tlie author of the anonymous memoir prefixed to Marshall's edition of his Sermons remarks, " He was of so healing a temper, that I heard him say before a person of quality and others, that he could readily join with Presbytery as it was exercised in Scotland." In his MSS. Analecta, under date 1716, the historian Wodrow records the following statement : — " Mr Cleorge Redpath told me two or three yeirs ago, when in Edinburgh, that he visited Dr Owen on his deathbed, and Presbytery and Episcopacy came to be discoursed of; and the Doctor said how he had seen his mis- take as to tlie Independent way, and declaied to him a day or two before his death, that, after his utmost search into the Scriptures and antiquity, he was now satisfied that Presbytery was the way Christ had appointed in his new testament church." If we add, that on the subject of the ruling elder (see chapter vii. of the following treatise) the views of Owen are in perfect harmony with Presbyterianism, and that, under certain qualifications, he contends for the lawfulness and authority of synods, we exhaust the evidence that in his last days he Avas more of a Presbyterian than an Independent.
Mr Orme admits that '' he seems to contend for a distinct office of ruling elder, or for elders who are called to rule and not to teach;" but he argues that it was a view which could not be reconciled with his other sentiments, and that it differs from the Presby- terian scheme, according to wliich pastor and elder "are offices so distinct that the ministers alone are considered as mere pastors, and the elders as mere laymen." But Presbyterians really do not hold that elders are laymen, or that there is any difference in respect of rifficc between the minister and ruling elder, although their functions vary, rule being common to both, while teachinp is the duty of the pastor ; and on this point Owen was no more chargeable with inconsistency as an Independent than other eminent men of the same denomination, — Thomas Hooker, Cotton Mather, and Timothy Dwight, — who contend for the office of the ruling elder. Some Presbyterians would homologate implicitly the exposition which our author gives of the nature and objects of synodical action ; but here his agreement with Presbyterian principles is, on the whole, not so clear and decided as in the case of the ruling elder. He objects to synods determining articles of faith, and issuing orders and decrees on their own authority; but asserts their " authority " to " declare the mind of God from the Scripture in doctrine, or give counsel as unto practice. " There is nothing in this view from which Presbyterians would dissent.
That he should differ from both parties on some points is not sui'pri.-ring when we mark how carefully he has thought out his own views trom Scripture, giving a freshness and originality of colouring to his treatises on church-government which render them to the present day peculiarly interesting and worthy of consultation. It is only, however, by a process of torture to which no man's language should bo subjected that Owen can be claimed as a Presbyterian. We may gladly accept his decision on some points,— not as confirming Presbyterianism so much as affording room for the hope that, on matters of polity, evangelical churches may yet be united in common action and under the same forms. But the opinions of Owen can only be understood by reading the former part of this treatise in connection with this which follows, and " which," says Chauncey, " he esteemed as his legacy to the church of Christ." In the latter part there is no recanta- tion of the principle so copiously urged in the former, that "the visible church- state which Christ hath instituted under the new testament consists in an especial society or congregation of profes.sed believers; " and that for two hundred years after Christ there is no nienticn " of any other organical, visibly professing church, but only that which is parochial or congregational." That Owen might deem it possible to accomplish and secure all the ends of congregational duty under the system of Presbytery may be true; but that, in regard to the si)irit and substance of the ecclesiastical system for which he pleaded, he was a Congregationalist, it would be hardihood to question. To the story of Redpath must be opposecl the assertion of Chauncey, by whom this treatise was edited, that it was corrected liy Owen immediately before his death. Had he undergone a change of view so complete as is represented, he was not the man to quit the world in a spirit of dishonourable reticence, but would have frankly avowed to what extent his pre- vious convictions had been modified or abandoned.