PART
I.
CHAP.
I.
In
Answer
to
Mr.
O'
s
1st
Chap.
THE
Rector
in
his
Preface
to
the
T.
N.
complained
of
the
unfair
way
which
the
Dissenters
have
taken
up
in
managing
Controversies
,
that
is
,
of
their
bringing
in
other
matter
,
nothing
at
all
belonging
to
the
Point
in
debate
;
which
is
as
when
a
Lawyer
,
when
he
is
pleading
the
Cause
of
his
Client
,
and
setting
forth
his
Title
unto
the
〈◊〉
in
Question
,
should
fall
foul
upon
his
Clients
Adversary
,
exposing
his
Person
and
upbraiding
him
with
his
private
,
perhaps
,
but
suppos'd
Faults
and
Infirmities
.
I
instanc'd
in
three
things
,
which
are
the
common
Topicks
of
the
Dissenters
railing
against
the
Episcopal
Clergy
,
and
which
they
will
be
sure
to
hook
in
,
whatever
the
Matter
in
Controversy
be
.
But
if
recrimination
be
but
cavilling
(
as
one
of
their
own
Authors
speaks
)
much
more
〈◊〉
Accusing
.
My
Instances
were
,
That
the
Episcopal
Divines
are
Arminians
,
That
the
Church
of
England
Symbolizes
with
the
〈◊〉
;
That
the
Bishops
are
proud
Lords
,
and
Lordly
Prelates
.
And
if
all
this
were
true
,
what
does
it
signify
in
the
Question
about
Church-Government
?
Mr.
O.
In
the
Contents
of
his
first
Chap.
at
the
beginning
,
Advertises
his
Reader
,
that
,
The
Dissenters
are
justified
in
their
way
of
mannaging
Controversies
.
Indeed
he
should
have
edeavour'd
it
,
if
he
would
have
answer'd
to
the
purpose
,
and
his
way
of
Vindicating
the
Dissenters
,
should
have
been
(
I
conceive
)
either
to
deny
the
charge
laid
against
'em
,
or
else
to
justify
the
fitness
and
reasonableness
of
that
way
of
controverting
.
But
instead
of
this
,
he
falls
upon
the
old
strain
of
accusing
us
(
the
Rector
)
of
Arminianism
,
of
Symbolizing
with
〈◊〉
,
and
the
Bishops
for
being
Lords
,
which
is
nothing
to
the
Question
between
him
and
me
here
,
viz.
Whether
it
be
fair
to
charge
ones
Adversary
with
supposed
faults
,
which
have
no
relation
to
the
Question
in
hand
,
unless
he
is
so
vain
as
to
imagin
,
that
his
own
repeated
practice
,
is
a
sufficient
justification
of
the
Dissenters
managing
Controversies
.
In
giving
an
Account
of
the
Nature
of
our
Church-Government
,
I
observ'd
in
general
,
That
our
Episcopal
Government
is
establish'd
upon
certain
Canons
and
Laws
,
made
and
consented
unto
by
the
Convocation
,
consisting
of
Bishops
and
Presbyters
,
and
by
the
multitude
of
Believers
;
That
is
,
by
their
Representatives
in
Parliament
,
and
that
,
thus
it
was
in
the
Council
of
Jerusalem
,
Acts
15.
This
is
plain
matter
of
Fact
,
and
one
would
have
thought
incapable
of
being
cavill'd
at
;
and
yet
Mr.
Owen
who
is
a
Master
at
that
knack
,
has
many
things
to
oppose
me
in
it
,
and
has
found
many
disparities
in
the
Resemblance
.
As
,
1.
He
affirms
that
,
The
Apostles
,
&c.
〈◊〉
Jerusalem
enjoined
the
Def.
P.
24.
necessary
for
bearance
of
〈◊〉
few
things
:
but
the
Convocation
has
made
canons
enjoining
the
practice
of
unnecessary
things
,
to
create
offence
.
Ans.
These
last
words
are
as
Malicious
,
as
false
,
and
without
ground
.
How
can
Mr
O.
at
this
distance
tell
,
or
how
could
the
Dissenters
of
those
times
know
,
that
the
Design
of
the
Convocation
was
to
〈◊〉
offence
?
Has
he
,
or
had
they
the
gift
of
〈◊〉
Spirits
?
Or
dare
they
presume
to
lay
claim
to
one
of
the
Transcendent
Attributes
of
God
;
his
Omniscience
and
knowing
the
Secrets
of
Mens
Hearts
?
The
things
enjoyn'd
by
the
Apostles
(
excepting
Fornication
)
were
not
necessary
before
they
were
enjoyn'd
,
but
only
Charitably
and
Prudentially
necessary
:
And
so
our
few
Ceremonies
too
were
and
still
are
,
Charitably
and
Prudentially
necessary
,
which
was
the
Reason
of
their
being
enjoin'd
at
first
,
and
still
continu'd
amongst
us
.
The
Council
of
Jerusalem
did
not
widen
the
door
of
Church-Fellowship
(
as
Mr.
O.
asserts
)
but
made
it
straighter
,
if
the
matters
here
spoken
of
,
can
be
said
to
belong
unto
Church-Fellowship
.
The
Gentile
Believers
had
a
Natural
right
to
eat
bloud
,
things
strangled
,
and
things
offer'd
unto
Idols
,
when
sold
in
the
Market
:
But
the
Apostles
depriv'd
'em
of
this
Liberty
,
commanding
them
to
Symbolize
with
the
Jews
in
the
forbearance
of
'em
.
And
I
would
know
a
Reason
,
why
in
a
few
matters
of
Indifference
,
Decency
and
Solemnity
,
it
is
not
Lawful
for
the
Church-Governours
,
now
to
restrain
the
Liberty
of
Believers
.
I
say
in
some
few
things
out
of
Charity
to
many
Foreign
Protestants
,
who
have
Ceremonies
,
and
to
the
Primitive
Christians
,
which
were
not
without
'em
,
even
as
the
Apostles
restrain'd
the
Liberty
of
the
Gentile
Believers
in
Charity
to
the
Jews
?
And
why
is
it
not
as
Lawful
for
us
to
Symbolize
with
the
Primitive
Christians
,
and
our
Foreign
Brethren-Protestants
,
as
the
Apostles
with
the
Jews
.
2.
Mr.
O.
goes
on
,
The
Council
of
Jerusalem
freed
the
Christians
from
the
Yoke
of
Circumcision
.
Ans.
But
it
put
on
them
those
three
Yokes
aforesaid
.
Besides
as
the
Apostles
freed
the
Christians
from
Circumcision
,
or
rather
declar'd
them
free
from
it
:
for
they
were
never
under
that
bondage
:
so
did
the
Convocation
free
us
from
all
Superstition
and
Idolatry
.
3.
The
Apostles
(
he
adds
)
asserted
that
Christian
Liberty
,
which
Jesus
Christ
purchased
and
obliged
us
to
maintain
,
Gal.
5.
1.
Ans.
And
yet
the
Apostles
took
away
the
Gentiles
Liberty
in
the
things
aforemention'd
.
The
Text
of
Scripture
here
cited
,
has
a
false
construction
put
upon
it
.
The
Liberty
there
spoken
of
,
is
not
a
Liberty
not
to
do
any
thing
,
which
is
in
its
own
Nature
indifferent
,
no
not
a
Liberty
from
all
the
smaller
Observations
of
the
Law
;
for
then
the
Apostles
could
not
have
enjoin'd
the
forbearance
of
the
three
things
,
nor
could
Paul
have
Preach'd
and
Urg'd
,
the
observation
of
those
Decrees
,
as
he
did
,
Acts
16.
4.
But
't
is
the
Liberty
from
the
bondage
of
Circumcision
,
which
made
Men
Debtors
to
the
whole
4.
He
complains
of
the
number
of
our
Canons
,
whereas
(
says
the
Apostles
at
Jerusalem
made
none
new
,
and
continued
but
a
few
which
were
obliging
before
.
Ans.
That
these
three
Canons
made
by
the
Apostles
at
Jerusalem
,
were
new
to
the
Gentile
Believers
,
is
out
of
all
question
,
tho'
Mr.
O.
affirms
the
contrary
;
not
new
;
as
if
they
had
never
been
known
or
heard
of
before
;
but
they
were
,
I
say
,
new
to
the
Gentile
Believers
,
who
were
not
before
oblig'd
to
the
observation
of
'em
,
tho'
Mr.
O.
says
they
were
.
But
whereas
the
Apostles
at
Jerusalem
continued
(
made
)
but
a
few
Canons
;
't
is
true
:
nevertheless
at
other
times
,
and
at
other
places
,
they
might
have
made
more
than
threescore
for
any
thing
we
know
.
The
code
of
the
Universal
Church
,
consists
of
two
Hundred
and
seven
Canons
:
yet
they
were
made
at
several
Paul
,
The
rest
will
I
set
in
order
when
I
come
,
1
Cor.
11.
14.
And
again
,
Hold
the
Traditions
which
ye
have
been
taught
,
whether
by
word
or
our
Epistle
.
2
Thes.
2.
15.
That
thou
shouldest
set
in
order
the
things
that
are
wanting
,
Tit.
1.
5.
But
5.
The
Apostles
(
says
Mr.
O.
)
Annexed
no
〈◊〉
nor
Excommunications
against
the
breaker
of
their
Canons
,
they
only
concluded
'em
with
these
gentle
words
,
from
which
if
you
keep
your selves
,
ye
shall
do
well
.
Ans.
Well!
and
the
Gentile
Believers
readily
obey'd
the
Apostles
Decrees
without
more
ado
,
not
stubbornly
clamouring
for
〈◊〉
Liberty
wherewith
Christ
had
made
'em
free
.
For
Christ
had
made
the
Gentile
Christians
free
from
the
three
Canons
of
the
Apostles
,
as
well
as
from
Circumcision
.
But
doing
well
was
an
effectual
motive
in
those
days
unto
Obedience
,
though
not
in
these
Licentious
Times
of
ours
.
If
the
punishment
annext
unto
Canons
be
now
more
severe
than
ordinary
,
it
is
because
some
Men
are
more
Stiff
and
Refractory
,
more
Disobedient
and
Unpeaceable
than
the
Gentile
Believers
were
of
old
.
6.
Mr.
O.
adds
,
The
Canons
of
Jerusalem
were
made
by
the
Apostles
,
Elders
and
the
whole
Church
:
But
ours
by
the
Bishops
and
Presbyters
in
Convocation
,
which
are
the
true
Church
of
England
by
representation
,
by
which
he
thinks
to
destroy
the
parallel
,
because
the
Multitude
of
Believers
were
not
present
at
the
making
our
Canons
,
as
they
were
at
the
making
of
those
at
Jerusalem
.
To
obviate
this
Exception
,
I
observ'd
that
our
Canons
were
consented
unto
,
or
confirmed
and
receiv'd
,
by
the
Multitude
of
Believers
,
that
is
,
by
their
representatives
in
Parliament
.
But
Mr.
O.
having
nothing
else
to
cavil
at
,
or
wherewith
he
might
invalidate
the
Parallel
,
which
is
so
much
to
the
advantage
of
our
Church
,
and
fatal
to
the
Dissenters
,
corrupts
my
words
,
and
by
way
of
gloss
adds
,
To
the
Multitude
of
Believers
,
that
is
(
says
he
)
the
Church
.
I
say
,
and
say
it
again
,
that
the
Parliament
represents
the
Multitude
of
Believers
,
but
I
never
said
,
That
is
the
Church
,
nor
any
thing
like
it
.
This
Invention
was
hammer'd
out
at
Mr.
O's
own
Forge
,
whence
an
abundance
of
the
same
kind
have
been
uttered
.
All
the
colour
he
has
for
thus
misrepresenting
me
,
is
,
that
I
make
the
Bishops
to
answer
the
Apostles
,
the
Presbyters
,
the
Elders
;
therefore
I
must
make
the
Parliament
to
answer
the
whole
Church
.
And
so
I
do
:
yet
this
will
do
Mr.
O.
no
service
.
For
that
expression
,
The
whole
Church
,
in
the
15
th
of
Act.
22.
is
not
so
exact
,
but
will
need
a
little
explanation
on
this
Occasion
.
These
words
then
the
Whole
Church
cannot
be
understood
strictly
:
for
the
whole
Church
here
must
be
distinguish'd
from
the
Apostles
and
Elders
:
but
surely
these
also
were
part
of
the
whole
Church
properly
speaking
.
The
words
then
are
meant
of
the
Multitude
of
Believers
(
they
are
call'd
the
Multitude
,
v.
12.
)
and
in
contradistinction
to
the
Apostles
and
Elders
,
and
therefore
I
avoided
saying
,
The
whole
Church
,
and
chose
to
express
my self
thus
.
The
Multitude
of
Believers
,
I
am
,
then
I
flatter
my self
pretty
safe
from
Mr.
O.
and
my
Diocesan
too
,
were
he
(
what
he
is
far
from
being
)
the
most
severe
and
haughty
Prelate
in
Christendom
.
Because
it
is
a
common
Objection
against
the
Church
of
England's
Constitution
,
that
Parish
Priests
have
no
power
of
Discipline
,
I
asserted
that
,
They
have
power
to
rebuke
and
admonish
,
and
to
suspend
for
a
while
from
the
Lord's
Supper
.
And
so
(
says
Mr.
O.
)
have
private
Persons
power
to
rebuke
and
admonish
,
Mr.
O.
never
heard
of
that
common
and
receiv'd
distinction
between
fraternal
,
private
,
or
charitable
Admonition
,
and
that
which
is
publick
and
Ministerial
,
and
Authoritative
.
Well!
but
as
for
our
power
of
suspending
,
he
alledges
't
is
but
for
fourteen
days
,
and
after
that
the
Sinner
is
left
to
the
Ordinary
.
Ay!
Here
we
have
the
bottom
of
the
Dissenting
Ministers
Design
out
.
They
would
be
all
so
many
little
Popes
,
from
whom
there
lies
no
appeal
.
The
very
Men
who
decry
Tyranny
,
are
setting
up
for
Arbitrary
Government
,
and
will
not
endure
that
in
another
,
which
they
aspire
to
themselves
.
All
I
shall
reply
unto
him
is
,
to
present
him
with
the
judgment
of
Calvin
,
and
Beza
;
and
I
hope
Mr.
O.
will
lend
both
his
Ears
unto
these
two
Presbyterian
Oracles
.
The
former
affirms
—
That
to
trust
Excommunication
in
the
hands
of
every
Parochial
Minister
,
and
his
particular
Congregation
,
is
contrary
to
the
Apostolick
practice
:
the
latter
declares
what
the
Discipline
at
Geneva
was
,
viz.
That
the
Parochiat
Ministers
proceed
no
further
than
Admonition
:
but
in
case
of
contumacy
,
they
certify
the
Presbytery
of
the
City
.
It
is
certain
the
power
of
excommunication
is
in
the
hands
of
the
Magistrates
of
that
City
.
But
Mr.
O.
further
objects
,
That
we
have
no
power
to
Ans.
This
is
nothing
to
the
present
Question
between
us
,
which
is
whether
our
Parish
Priests
have
any
Power
of
Discipline
.
They
may
have
some
power
,
tho'
not
this
.
And
that
they
have
some
power
,
to
wit
of
Ministerial
Admonition
,
and
Suspension
from
the
Lords
Supper
,
has
been
already
asserted
and
prov'd
,
I
presume
,
yea
,
and
granted
also
.
This
then
is
a
new
and
impertinent
Subject
,
thrust
in
here
meerly
to
make
a
noise
and
dust
with
,
and
to
avoid
the
thorough
discussion
of
the
Point
in
hand
.
2.
The
Dissenting
Ministers
,
have
a
greater
power
than
we
have
,
or
pretend
to
,
't
is
confest
,
&c.
to
refuse
whomsoever
they
please
,
even
the
Children
of
the
most
upright
Believers
.
They
are
responsible
to
no
Law
,
nor
to
any
Superiour
that
I
know
of
,
in
case
of
refusal
,
nor
to
any
punishment
.
Only
perhaps
the
parties
aggriev'd
will
withdraw
their
Contributions
.
But
upon
these
terms
we
also
have
a
power
to
Judge
whom
we
will
,
and
whom
we
will
not
Baptize
:
't
venturing
the
loss
of
our
Livings
,
as
they
must
of
their
Contributions
.
3.
Mr.
O.
Supposes
here
,
what
cannot
easily
be
believ'd
ever
did
,
or
will
happen
,
viz.
that
Jewish
;
or
Gentile
,
or
Theistical
Parents
,
will
offer
their
Children
unto
Christian
Baptism
,
or
suffer
others
to
bring
'em
to
that
Holy
〈◊〉
.
4.
Perhaps
the
Children
of
very
wicked
Christians
are
brought
to
be
〈◊〉
.
These
we
acknowledge
we
have
not
power
to
refuse
:
for
so
we
know
,
that
the
Children
of
wicked
Jews
were
to
be
admitted
unto
Circumcision
,
in
the
room
whereof
our
Lord
introduc'd
Baptism
:
and
we
are
perswaded
the
former
is
the
Rule
and
Pattern
of
the
latter
.
5.
If
it
should
so
happen
that
the
Child
of
a
Jew
,
or
Turk
,
or
Infidel
,
or
Heretick
Excommunicated
,
or
Theift
,
or
Atheift
should
be
put
into
our
Hands
to
be
Baptized
,
't
is
confest
we
take
our selves
oblig'd
to
Baptize
'em
:
but
't
is
with
this
Proviso
,
that
there
be
sufficient
Susceptors
,
or
Persons
who
will
undertake
to
bring
'em
up
in
the
Christian
Religion
.
And
of
the
sufficiency
of
these
Sureties
we
are
the
judges
,
except
an
Appeal
be
made
from
us
unto
our
Diocesian
,
who
may
over-rule
us
if
he
sees
just
cause
for
it
.
6.
and
Lastly
,
How
the
Apostles
and
Presbyters
,
in
the
Apostles
days
manag'd
themselves
in
the
Point
of
Infant-Baptism
;
Mr.
O.
should
have
done
well
,
first
to
have
stated
it
out
of
the
New
Testament
,
before
he
brought
this
exception
upon
the
Stage
.
Mr.
O.
further
objects
—
That
we
have
no
power
to
forbear
giving
the
〈◊〉
a
Notorious
Offender
,
unless
we
prosecute
him
in
the
Bishops
Court
.
Ans.
1.
The
Reader
may
apply
the
Two
first
Answers
,
to
the
former
Objection
unto
this
,
whereby
he
'll
see
how
Frivolous
and
Impertinent
it
is
.
2.
Mr.
O.
Should
have
excepted
thus
,
save
for
fourteen
days
.
3.
It
is
a
most
false
and
wicked
saying
,
that
of
Mr.
O's
—
That
if
he
be
absolv'd
in
the
Court
,
we
must
give
him
the
Eucharist
,
though
we
know
him
never
so
Impenitent
.
We
cannot
know
a
Mans
impenitency
except
himself
declares
it
,
either
by
his
Words
or
Actions
,
and
continuing
in
his
Sins
.
In
either
case
I
can
forbear
giving
him
the
Lords
Supper
,
and
in
fourteen
days
certify
as
before
.
Nay
,
by
Canon
109
,
I
am
not
to
admit
him
to
the
Lord's
Supper
,
till
he
is
reform'd
,
and
of
this
I
am
the
Judge
.
I
cannot
〈◊〉
but
this
method
is
troublesome
,
&c.
but
it
is
not
odious
〈◊〉
the
Eyes
of
good
Men
,
nor
is
it
possible
to
be
fruitless
,
if
the
Parish-Priest
is
resolute
.
The
Ordinary
cannot
relieve
the
Impenitent
Sinner
,
nor
compel
the
Priest
to
admit
him
.
This
course
is
indeed
rarely
undertaken
,
and
that
because
(
as
I
have
experienc'd
)
if
one
warn
a
Wicked
Person
,
one
that
is
scandalously
so
,
he
'll
besure
not
to
offer
himself
,
left
he
be
turn'd
back
and
publickly
disgrac'd
in
the
Face
of
the
Congregation
.
The
method
is
as
I
have
said
troublesom
:
but
better
a
mischief
than
an
inconvenience
.
Better
many
Sinners
be
admited
,
than
one
good
Man
rejected
.
If
the
Parish
Priest
should
have
it
in
his
own
Power
and
Breast
to
abstain
,
whom
he
pleas'd
,
and
for
as
long
time
as
he
thought
fit
without
Liberty
to
appeal
,
his
private
Revenge
,
or
the
influence
of
the
Parties
Enemies
,
might
engage
him
to
deprive
a
good
Man
,
of
the
comfort
of
that
Holy
Ordinance
.
I
have
an
Instance
of
this
kind
ready
at
hand
,
a
late
one
,
and
in
my
Neighbourhood
.
A
Member
of
the
Congregation
,
had
given
Evidence
in
behalf
of
a
Church-Man
against
a
Dissenter
.
No
Body
objected
against
his
Testimony
as
false
,
'T
was
thought
rather
favourable
to
the
Dissenter
.
At
his
return
from
the
Assizes
,
a
Message
was
brought
him
by
some
of
the
Congregation
,
that
he
was
to
forbear
coming
to
the
Communion
,
he
was
also
reprimanded
by
the
Minister
,
for
giving
Evidence
against
a
Brother
,
the
Sub-poena
being
not
actually
,
though
ready
be
to
serv'd
upon
him
,
in
case
he
refus'd
to
go
without
it
.
This
was
not
Commutation
,
I
acknowledge
,
which
we
hear
of
so
oft
,
but
it
was
base
Corruption
,
and
〈◊〉
to
be
punish'd
by
the
Judge
.
Yet
Mr.
O.
goes
on
,
and
tells
me
—
We
have
no
power
to
call
persons
to
Repentance
openly
before
the
Church
.
Ans.
As
much
as
Mr.
O.
has
.
He
or
I
may
call
'em
to
Publick
Penance
:
but
't
is
at
their
choice
,
whether
they
will
obey
us
.
Such
Penitents
are
but
like
Mr.
Baxter's
Christians
,
meer
Volunteers
.
Lastly
,
he
urges
that
,
we
have
no
power
to
judge
any
Man
to
be
Excommunicated
,
nor
to
absolve
'em
.
Ans.
Mr.
O.
is
so
fond
of
the
Power
of
judging
,
that
't
is
a
Thousand
pities
he
was
not
bred
a
Lawyer
,
that
so
in
good
time
he
might
have
been
My
Lord
Judge
:
for
I
suppose
he
has
no
exception
against
a
Temporal
Lordship
.
But
it
falls
out
to
his
great
mortification
,
that
in
the
Post
he
is
in
,
though
he
pretends
to
be
a
Judge
,
yet
he
is
but
a
Cryer
,
the
Mouth
of
his
Congregation
,
and
ecchos
their
Sentence
of
Excommunication
,
and
that
of
Absolution
also
.
How
can
he
do
less
,
since
he
eats
their
Bread
,
wears
their
Livery
,
and
is
their
Stipendiary
.
I
produc'd
him
an
Example
of
this
kind
just
now
.
But
that
we
have
power
to
judge
and
absolve
,
is
manifest
in
Office
of
Visitation
of
the
Sick
.
the
case
of
Dying
Persons
,
confessing
their
Sins
and
desiring
Absolution
.
In
a
word
,
we
are
not
asham'd
of
the
name
Priest
,
though
we
are
sensible
the
Dissenters
,
oft
call
us
so
out
of
contempt
:
and
we
are
asham'd
of
their
folly
in
upbraiding
us
with
a
Title
,
which
the
holy
Scripture
has
given
us
.
CHAP.
II.
Being
an
Answer
to
Mr.
O's
2d
Chap.
IN
thè
first
Chapter
of
the
Tentamen
N.
my
design
was
to
consider
in
their
Order
,
all
those
Passages
of
Scripture
which
seem
any
way
to
concern
Ordination
,
or
any
other
Act
of
Ecclesiastical
Government
,
excepting
what
belongs
to
the
Church
of
Ephesus
in
particular
;
which
is
Treated
of
by
it self
afterward
.
Here
I
take
notice
of
Matthias
constituted
an
Apostle
in
the
place
of
Judas
,
Act.
1.
of
the
Deacons
being
appointed
and
ordain'd
unto
their
Office
,
Chap.
6.
of
Peter
and
John's
laying
on
of
hands
upon
some
of
the
New
Converts
of
Samaria
,
Chap.
8.
of
Ananias
imposing
hands
upon
Saul
.
Chap.
9.
of
Barnabas
and
Saul's
Separation
unto
the
Ministry
of
the
Gentiles
.
Chap.
13.
of
the
Ordinations
mention'd
.
Chap.
14.
of
St.
Paul's
laying
hands
on
twelve
at
Eph.
Chap.
19.
of
Timothy's
Ordination
spoken
of
,
1
Tim.
4.
14.
2
Tim.
1.
6.
Epis.
21.
6.
and
not
known
when
nor
in
what
place
given
him
:
of
the
delivering
the
Incestuous
Person
unto
Satan
.
1
Cor.
5.
and
of
the
Council
of
Jerusalem
,
Ast.
15.
Now
't
is
all
one
to
me
,
and
to
my
design
in
this
Chapter
,
what
becomes
of
the
four
first
Instances
,
and
of
that
other
in
the
19
th
of
Acts
,
whether
they
were
Ordinations
or
not
.
If
not
,
let
Mr.
Prinn
look
to
it
,
or
Mr.
O.
in
his
behalf
.
As
they
will
do
me
no
good
,
so
they
can
do
me
no
harm
.
Though
if
they
should
prove
Ordinations
,
the
advantage
I
made
of
'
emis
of
some
moment
in
the
Question
before
us
,
they
being
perform'd
either
by
Apostles
,
or
Prophets
,
no
other
inferior
and
ordinary
Church
Officer
joining
with
'em
,
which
was
what
I
level'd
at
against
Mr.
Prinn
.
But
the
first
uncontroverted
Ordination
unto
the
Ministry
of
the
Word
and
Sacraments
,
is
that
of
Barnabas
and
Saul
,
Act.
13
th
.
This
Ordination
was
had
by
Prophets
and
Teachers
,
who
receiv'd
an
express
and
extraordinary
Commission
from
God
,
to
separate
these
two
unto
the
work
whereunto
(
says
the
Holy
Ghost
)
I
have
called
them
.
Seeing
then
Prophets
,
as
Superiour
,
and
extraordinary
Species
of
Church
Officers
,
influenc'd
by
the
immediate
and
express
Command
of
the
Holy
Ghost
;
presided
over
this
work
of
Separating
Barnabas
and
Saul
,
it
can
be
no
sufficient
warrant
nor
Precedent
unto
meer
Presbyters
,
to
Ordain
by
Virtue
of
their
Ordinary
Power
and
Office
.
Herein
lies
the
force
of
my
Observation
,
which
ought
to
have
been
fairly
answered
.
But
Mr.
O.
instead
of
this
falls
a
cavilling
,
at
my
expounding
Prophets
and
Teachers
,
the
same
Persons
that
is
,
ordinary
Ministers
(
or
Presbyters
)
endu'd
at
that
time
with
the
Gift
of
Prophesy
,
or
receiving
a
Special
Commission
from
Heaven
.
Whereas
He
will
needs
have
'em
distinct
Persons
and
Officers
:
Prophets
and
Teachers
in
Sensu
Diviso
.
Ans.
I
will
not
here
deny
but
Mr.
O's
interpretation
may
be
true
,
yet
neither
can
I
see
any
thing
hinders
but
mine
may
be
so
.
For
Caiaphas
was
but
an
ordinary
(
though
the
supreme
)
Officer
in
the
Church
of
the
Jews
,
and
yet
he
prophesy'd
,
and
by
Consequence
pro
hâc
vice
was
a
Prophet
.
If
a
Man
would
have
describ'd
him
,
it
had
not
been
improper
to
have
said
,
he
was
a
Prophet
and
the
High
〈◊〉
.
Now
,
how
to
compromise
this
small
difference
between
us
,
I
know
not
.
I
'll
therefore
suppose
what
Mr.
O.
takes
for
granted
,
(
though
at
the
same
time
I
think
the
contrary
is
most
evident
,
Saul
and
Barnabas
,
at
least
being
both
Prophets
and
Teachers
;
)
the
Prophets
there
spoken
of
,
were
Persons
different
from
the
Teachers
.
Yet
if
it
be
so
,
my
Argument
is
not
alter'd
,
nor
ever
the
worse
:
still
the
Teachers
were
presided
over
by
the
Prophets
,
and
still
the
Ordainers
acted
by
Special
and
extraordinary
Commission
from
Heaven
,
which
cannot
warrant
ordinary
Presbyters
and
Teachers
,
to
Ordain
by
Virtue
of
their
ordinary
Power
.
If
Mr.
O.
himself
,
or
any
Layman
,
should
ordain
some
Person
by
Special
Command
from
God
appointed
thereunto
,
no
body
could
with
Reason
call
his
Ordination
into
Question
.
But
then
this
could
not
rationally
be
drawn
into
example
,
nor
justify
every
private
Believer
in
England
,
to
ordain
at
his
own
Pleasure
.
It
is
not
Material
,
whether
the
Revelation
was
immediately
given
to
the
Teachers
,
or
to
the
Prophets
only
,
and
by
them
unto
the
Teachers
:
nevertheless
I
think
Mr.
O.
ought
not
to
deny
the
former
.
The
words
run
thus
—
And
they
(
the
Prophets
and
Teachers
)
Ministred
unto
the
Lord
and
fasted
,
and
the
Holy
Ghost
said
,
Separate
me
Barnabas
and
Saul
,
&c.
and
when
they
had
fasted
,
and
prayed
,
and
laid
their
〈◊〉
on
them
,
they
sent
'em
away
.
They
who
sent
Barnabas
and
Saul
away
,
were
the
same
that
separated
them
by
imposition
of
hands
,
and
they
who
separated
Barnabas
and
Saul
,
were
the
Persons
to
whom
the
Holy
Ghost
spake
,
and
they
to
whom
the
Holy
Ghost
spake
,
were
the
Persons
,
that
Ministred
unto
the
Lord
and
fasted
;
and
they
who
Ministred
unto
the
Lord
and
fasted
,
were
the
Teachers
as
well
as
the
Prophets
.
Therefore
the
Revelation
was
communicated
immediately
to
the
Teachers
,
therefore
the
Teachers
were
Prophets
also
:
therefore
this
is
no
Precedent
unto
common
Presbyters
,
to
ordain
by
virtue
of
their
ordinary
power
;
by
consequence
my
Argument
holds
good
.
Concerning
the
Ordinations
spoken
of
Act.
14.
23.
I
noted
that
Paul
and
Barnabas
acted
not
therein
,
by
any
Special
Revelation
,
but
by
their
Apostolical
Power
,
being
not
assisted
therein
by
any
Presbyters
;
that
therefore
these
cannot
be
good
Presidents
for
Presbyterian
Ordination
.
Mr.
O.
Replies
that
,
this
Instance
makes
little
for
me
.
Ans.
It
makes
thus
much
for
me
,
that
it
makes
nothing
for
the
Dissenters
,
nor
against
me
,
which
is
what
I
design'd
by
it
:
though
I
might
say
it
is
a
plain
Instance
of
Ordination
,
by
Church
Officers
,
Superiour
to
Presbyters
.
As
for
Mr.
O's
reason
why
Philip
did
not
lay
hands
on
with
Peter
and
John
,
viz.
because
it
was
no
Ordination
,
but
conferring
the
extraordinary
Gift
of
the
Spirit
,
which
Philip
could
not
do
,
Mr.
O.
forgot
to
take
notice
of
the
whole
Argument
,
but
Answers
it
by
halves
.
I
urg'd
,
that
Philip
had
the
extraordinary
and
Miraculous
Gift
of
the
Spirit
,
which
was
usually
conferred
by
Imposition
of
hands
.
that
though
he
had
this
Gift
,
yet
he
could
not
give
it
:
that
therefore
they
who
have
a
Gift
,
yet
may
not
have
power
to
conferr
that
Gift
;
and
by
consequence
,
that
those
Persons
who
are
ordain'd
to
the
Ministry
of
the
Word
and
Sacraments
,
it
does
not
follow
that
they
can
Ordain
,
which
was
the
thing
to
be
prov'd
.
There
is
nothing
that
I
perceive
meriting
any
Reply
until
we
come
to
that
piece
of
Discipline
,
1
Cor.
5.
where
we
read
of
the
Incestuous
Corinthian
Excommunicated
(
as
I
contend
)
by
the
Authority
and
Command
of
St.
Paul
.
But
Mr.
O.
insinuates
,
that
the
Apostle
reproves
the
Corinthians
for
not
excommunicating
the
Sinner
themselves
,
1
Cor.
5.
2.
Ans.
This
verse
proves
it
not
.
The
expression
is
in
the
Passive
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
—
That
the
Offender
might
be
taken
away
.
By
whom
?
Why
not
by
the
Apostle
?
He
may
as
well
be
thought
to
chide
'em
,
for
not
informing
him
of
the
misdemeanour
,
to
the
end
,
the
Offender
might
be
delivered
unto
Satan
by
St.
Paul
himself
.
The
whole
Story
as
we
shall
shew
Countenances
this
Interpretation
.
Ay
,
but
(
says
the
Minister
)
the
Apostle
enjoins
the
Corinthians
to
avoid
disorderly
walkers
,
v.
13.
Ans.
But
this
is
by
the
Apostles
express
commandment
still
.
Besides
to
put
away
from
among
themselves
that
wicked
Person
,
is
not
to
deliver
him
to
Satan
,
or
to
expel
him
the
Church
,
but
Not
to
eat
with
him
,
v.
11.
that
is
,
not
to
have
any
Familiarity
with
him
,
in
civil
Conversation
.
In
this
the
Apostle
does
indeed
declare
,
v.
12.
that
the
Corinthians
had
power
to
Judge
,
with
whom
they
might
be
Familiar
,
and
with
whom
not
;
But
it
does
not
hence
follow
they
had
power
to
Excommunicate
.
Now
that
it
was
St.
Paul
who
judged
and
decreed
,
and
gave
theSentence
of
Excommuncation
against
the
Offender
,
will
appear
plainly
,
if
we
read
the
first
part
of
the
3
d
verse
,
with
the
5
th
v.
(
for
all
the
rest
is
a
Parenthesis
)
Thus
then
let
us
put
'em
close
together
,
v.
3.
For
I
verily
,
as
absent
in
Body
,
but
present
in
Spirit
,
have
determined
already
(
then
v.
5.
)
to
deliver
such
an
one
unto
Satan
.
For
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
must
be
governed
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
so
the
Excommunication
most
certainly
proceeded
from
the
Apostle
.
It
is
also
worthy
consideration
,
that
the
Corinthians
did
not
receive
again
into
their
Communion
,
this
Excommunicated
Person
,
until
the
Apostle
had
absolved
him
,
and
then
besought
them
to
confirm
their
Love
towards
him
.
2
C.
28.
10.
In
the
next
place
I
am
accused
of
altering
and
perverting
the
Text.
〈◊〉
heavy
charge
,
which
ought
not
to
be
passed
over
lightly
.
The
Accusation
is
,
that
v.
4.
I
have
put
the
Words
thus
,
Of
my
Spirit
,
whereas
the
Translators
leaving
out
of
,
render
the
place
thus
,
My
Spirit
,
not
Of
my
Spirit
.
Ans.
Since
the
Grammatical
construction
will
bear
it
,
there
is
no
reason
of
accusing
me
of
perverting
the
Text.
Now
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
may
be
coupled
with
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
being
put
absolute
and
into
a
Parenthesis
.
Upon
this
supposition
,
then
,
thus
the
Words
,
may
be
laid
—
In
the
name
of
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
and
my
Spirit
(
or
of
my
Spirit
)
which
is
the
same
thing
)
when
ye
are
gathered
together
,
&c.
So
that
Mr.
O.
could
not
have
any
just
pretense
for
his
Accusation
,
whatever
becomes
of
my
Interpretation
of
the
Text.
This
,
perhaps
he
may
call
into
Question
:
and
my
purpose
now
is
to
vindicate
it
.
I
cannot
reconcile
my self
unto
that
Opinion
,
which
Couples
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
with
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
thus
more
plainly
in
English
—
When
ye
and
my
Spirit
are
gathered
together
.
Paul
was
now
at
Ephesus
,
both
Body
and
Spirit
.
I
can
form
no
Idea
of
his
Spirit
assembling
with
the
Corinthians
,
at
so
great
a
distance
.
True
,
he
tells
'em
,
that
he
is
present
(
with
'em
)
in
Spirit
,
but
Corrects
himself
immediately
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
As
though
I
were
present
.
So
that
the
Sense
is
,
St.
Paul
was
present
with
'em
,
in
Heart
and
Affections
,
studying
their
welfare
,
wishing
them
well
,
and
praying
that
their
Souls
might
be
Saved
,
and
their
Church
Edified
,
in
Peace
and
Purity
.
Or
,
why
not
present
among
'em
by
his
Authority
?
As
we
say
,
the
King
is
every
where
present
in
his
Dominions
,
by
his
Influence
and
Providence
.
But
that
the
Spirit
of
Paul
should
be
gathered
,
or
assembled
with
the
Corinthian
Congregation
,
is
a
too
harsh
and
improper
Expression
,
at
least
in
my
Fancy
and
Opinion
,
especially
,
since
so
Commodious
and
agreeable
Sense
may
be
given
of
the
Words
.
Nor
let
any
one
suspect
me
to
have
advanced
this
Interpretation
to
serve
a
cause
which
stands
in
no
need
of
it
.
For
if
it
shall
still
be
thought
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
are
to
be
coupled
,
then
the
latter
Words
must
import
the
Apostles
Authority
,
(
as
I
formerly
expounded
it
)
:
And
least
the
Apostle
should
seem
too
assuming
,
in
thus
insisting
on
his
own
'
Authority
,
with
great
caution
he
adds
—
With
the
Power
of
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
.
As
if
he
had
said
,
my
Authority
,
but
in
Conjunction
with
,
and
subordination
to
the
Power
of
Christ
.
For
so
the
Apostle
was
wont
oftimes
carefully
to
prevent
mistakes
,
left
he
should
be
thought
to
haveUsurpt
his
Power
.
Thus
he
,
2
Cor.
10.
8.
speaking
of
his
Authority
,
adds
,
Which
the
Lord
hath
given
us
,
&c.
And
Chap.
2.
10.
(
which
comes
nearer
to
our
purpose
)
when
he
had
granted
the
Absolution
of
the
Excommunicated
Person
,
I
forgave
it
(
says
he
)
in
the
Person
of
Christ
.
Upon
the
whole
matter
,
thus
much
,
at
least
,
may
be
said
of
this
Instance
of
Ecclesiastical
Discipline
,
that
St.
Paul
directed
and
commanded
it
,
which
is
all
I
need
to
be
concerned
for
.
For
then
it
can
be
no
president
for
a
College
of
Presbyters
,
much
less
for
a
particular
Minister
of
one
single
Congregation
,
to
Excommunicate
,
which
was
the
thing
I
intended
to
Evince
.
I
proceed
now
to
the
Story
of
〈◊〉
's
Ordination
briefly
related
,
1
Tim.
4.
14.
2
Tim.
1.
6.
of
which
in
the
first
place
,
I
delivered
this
as
my
own
settled
Opinion
,
That
Timothy
underwent
two
Ordinations
,
the
one
for
Presbyter
,
the
other
for
〈◊〉
(
or
Supreme
Ruler
)
of
the
Church
of
〈◊〉
.
One
of
my
Reasons
for
this
,
was
,
because
Paul
himself
seemed
to
me
to
have
been
twice
Ordained
,
once
Act.
9.
15
,
〈◊〉
,
17.
and
again
Chap.
13.
the
first
,
unto
the
Ordinary
Ministry
of
the
Word
,
the
second
,
unto
the
Apostle
of
the
Gentiles
.
Against
this
Mr.
O.
Argues
.
1.
That
Paul
,
was
more
than
an
Ordinary
Minister
of
the
Word
(
Gal.
1.
1.
)
meaning
before
he
received
that
Imposition
of
hands
,
Act.
13.
that
is
,
from
the
time
of
his
Conversion
.
Ans.
He
might
as
well
say
,
that
Paul
was
an
Apostle
from
his
Birth
or
from
his
Mother's
Womb
,
Gal.
1.
15.
For
then
(
as
we
there
read
)
God
separated
him
.
Besides
this
Testimony
of
Scripture
,
Gal.
1.
1.
proves
not
what
't
is
alledged
for
;
because
Paul
wrote
this
Epistle
to
the
Galatians
,
after
he
had
been
Ordained
,
(
Acts
13.
)
then
confessedly
on
all
sides
,
an
Apostle
.
2.
He
argues
from
,
2
Cor.
12.
2.
Act.
9.
17.
that
Paul
was
honoured
with
Visions
and
Revelations
,
and
received
extraordinary
Gifts
of
the
Holy
Ghost
.
Ans.
Neither
will
this
prove
Mr.
O's
point
:
for
Philip
had
extraordinary
Gifts
of
the
Spirit
,
and
was
Honoured
with
Revelations
,
Acts
8.
Cornelius
a
Roman
Centurion
,
not
yet
a
Christian
,
only
a
Jewish
Proselite
,
had
a
Vision
,
Act.
10.
13.
and
the
Gentiles
before
they
were
Baptized
,
received
the
Holy
Ghost
,
and
spake
with
Tongues
,
v.
44.
46.
why
not
Paul
then
,
even
when
he
was
but
a
meer
Minister
,
or
Presbyter
?
He
still
pleads
,
that
Paul
was
more
than
an
Ordinary
Presbyter
,
at
Ananias's
laying
on
of
hands
upon
him
,
1
Cor.
15.
8
;
9.
where
(
says
Mr.
O.
)
Paul
reckons
himself
one
of
the
Apostles
,
from
the
time
of
his
Miraculous
Conversion
.
Ans.
This
I
deny
.
Paul
does
not
there
reckon
himself
an
Apostle
from
his
Conversion
.
He
tells
the
Corinthians
that
he
had
seen
Christ
,
which
qualified
him
for
being
an
Apostle
and
Witness
of
Christ's
Resurrection
,
but
conferred
not
the
Gift
,
or
Office
.
And
he
tells
'em
he
was
born
out
of
due
time
,
and
was
;
as
it
were
,
a
〈◊〉
in
comparision
with
the
twelve
(
who
were
Apostles
before
him
)
,
and
therefore
〈◊〉
least
of
the
Apostles
,
which
words
do
not
imply
,
that
he
was
an
actual
Apostle
,
so
soon
as
he
was
converted
,
but
,
that
when
he
wrote
that
Epistle
,
he
was
then
an
Apostle
,
though
the
least
,
and
the
last
of
'em
.
Mr.
O.
Yet
alledges
.
Gal.
1.
15
,
16
;
17.
Neither
went
I
(
says
Paul
)
up
to
Jerusalem
,
to
them
which
were
Apostles
before
me
,
which
(
says
the
Minister
)
implies
,
he
was
an
Apostle
himself
at
that
time
.
Ans.
At
what
time
?
The
natural
sense
is
,
that
at
the
time
of
St.
Paul's
writing
this
Epistle
to
the
Galatians
,
he
was
then
an
Apostle
,
that
's
undeniable
.
But
was
it
not
true
,
and
might
not
Paul
appositely
say
,
that
the
twelve
were
Apostles
before
he
was
,
meaning
before
he
was
called
by
the
Holy
Ghost
,
and
Solemnly
separated
thereunto
by
the
Prophets
and
Teachers
,
at
〈◊〉
,
Act.
13.
1
,
2
,
3
?
Moreover
,
to
confirm
my
Point
,
I
offer
to
consideration
,
that
if
Paul
was
an
Actual
Apostle
,
in
foro
Ecclesiae
,
from
his
Conversion
,
why
then
was
he
separated
〈◊〉
,
by
the
Prophets
and
Teachers
,
Act.
13.
If
it
be
askt
what
then
is
the
meaning
of
that
Text
,
Gal.
1.
1
?
And
was
not
Paul
called
to
the
Apostleship
of
the
Gentiles
by
Christ
,
〈◊〉
.
9.
15
?
Ans.
I
said
enough
of
this
in
the
〈◊〉
.
Nov.
In
short
,
then
in
Acts
9.
Paul
is
only
designed
for
the
Apostleship
,
not
actually
admitted
to
it
.
In
〈◊〉
.
13.
Paul
is
actually
,
effectually
and
solemnly
〈◊〉
into
the
Apostleship
,
and
there
expresly
called
thereunto
by
God
.
v.
2.
Separate
me
Barnabas
and
Saul
,
for
the
work
,
whereunto
I
have
called
them
,
that
is
,
to
the
Apostleship
of
the
Gentiles
.
Hereunto
Paul
(
I
conceive
)
alludes
,
Gal.
1.
1.
and
in
other
places
,
where
he
speaks
of
his
being
called
to
the
Apostleship
by
God
.
For
the
further
confirmation
,
therefore
,
of
my
own
Opinion
,
I
offer
unto
consideration
,
that
there
is
little
recorded
of
his
success
in
Preaching
the
Gospel
,
from
the
time
of
his
Conversion
,
to
that
of
his
Separation
(
which
was
about
Eleven
Years
)
that
his
old
name
of
Saul
was
all
that
while
continu'd
unto
him
,
and
he
is
never
once
called
Apostle
.
That
after
his
separation
,
Act.
13.
all
his
Labours
are
Remembred
exactly
,
and
his
wonderful
success
recorded
,
his
name
was
immediately
changed
into
Paul
Act.
13.
9.
and
the
Title
of
Apostle
given
him
.
Act.
14.
4.
14.
Yet
I
am
prest
with
that
Passage
,
Act.
22.
18.
21.
where
our
Lord
appeared
unto
him
in
the
Temple
at
Jerusalem
,
saying
—
Make
haste
,
get
thee
quickly
out
of
Jerusalem
,
v.
18.
for
I
will
send
thee
far
hence
unto
the
Gentiles
:
and
this
was
before
his
Ordination
,
mentioned
,
Act.
13.
Ans.
But
this
was
long
after
his
Conversion
,
and
therefore
shews
,
that
he
was
not
the
Apostle
of
the
Gentiles
from
the
beginning
,
God
having
not
as
yet
sent
him
.
This
interview
between
Jesus
Christ
and
Paul
,
was
at
his
being
at
Jerusalem
,
spoken
of
,
Act.
9.
26.
Gal.
1.
18.
as
I
conceive
,
and
happened
(
I
do
acknowledge
)
before
his
Separation
,
Act.
13.
But
let
us
mind
the
Words
—
I
will
send
thee
:
The
Lord
did
not
then
actually
send
him
,
but
promised
that
he
would
hereafter
send
him
to
the
Gentiles
.
And
the
performance
of
this
promise
Paul
doubtless
waited
for
,
as
the
other
Apostles
did
,
another
promise
of
the
like
Nature
,
Act.
1.
4.
8.
As
this
latter
promise
was
afterward
made
good
to
the
Twelve
,
on
the
Day
of
Pentecost
,
so
was
the
former
unto
Paul
,
Act.
13.
It
remains
then
very
probable
,
that
Paul
was
a
Minister
of
the
Word
,
before
he
was
an
Apostle
,
that
he
was
twice
Ordained
,
And
so
was
Barnabas
also
.
first
to
the
ordinary
Office
of
a
Presbyter
,
secondly
to
the
Apostleship
of
the
Gentiles
,
which
is
a
good
reason
therefore
to
believe
Timothy
twice
Ordained
,
first
to
the
Office
of
a
Presbyter
,
1
Tim.
4.
14.
secondly
,
to
the
Prefecture
(
or
Bishoprick
)
of
Ephesus
.
2
Tim.
1.
6.
So
Jerom
himself
expounds
that
,
2
Tim.
1.
6
—
ad
Episcopa●um
scilicet
.
Before
I
dismiss
this
,
I
will
for
once
take
notice
of
a
most
disingenuous
and
deceitful
Remark
of
my
Adversaries
,
when
he
thus
informs
his
The
Rector
(
says
he
)
allows
that
Timothy
was
made
a
Presbyter
by
Presbyters
,
which
Mr.
O.
cannot
but
know
,
is
false
;
By
Presbyters
.
(
when
I
say
so
)
't
is
manifest
,
and
I
oft
enough
declared
,
that
I
understood
such
Presbyters
as
Ordained
Timothy
,
but
had
Special
,
Divine
and
Extraordinary
Commission
from
God
thereunto
,
or
else
in
Conjunction
with
,
and
Subordination
to
some
extraordinary
Prophet
presiding
over
them
:
but
not
by
Virtue
of
their
own
single
ordinary
Power
:
That
,
therefore
this
Instance
cannot
be
drawn
into
Consequence
;
I
observe
this
for
once
(
as
I
said
)
to
shew
what
an
Adversary
I
have
to
do
with
,
and
to
give
the
Reader
a
Taste
of
the
way
of
his
Controverting
.
I
have
pretermitted
,
and
will
pass
over
some
hundreds
of
this
kind
.
In
the
Explication
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
I
observed
,
that
by
Prophecy
might
be
understood
Prophets
,
the
Abstract
for
the
Concrete
,
as
Presbytery
is
put
for
Presbyters
:
that
,
if
Timothy
was
Ordained
but
once
,
then
must
he
have
been
Ordained
by
Paul
(
2
Tim.
1.
6.
)
,
who
also
was
specially
determined
thereto
by
Revelation
,
and
so
acted
therein
as
an
Apostle
and
Prophet
,
that
is
,
Ordained
Timothy
by
Prophecy
,
the
Presbyters
joining
with
him
:
that
if
there
were
more
Prophets
than
one
concerned
in
this
Ordination
,
Silas
might
have
been
another
,
who
is
stiled
a
Prophet
,
Act.
15.
32.
he
having
been
Paul's
Companion
before
,
Timothy
v.
40.
and
after
also
Chap.
16.
25
,
17
,
15
,
18
,
5.
Lastly
,
that
if
nothing
of
this
will
be
allowed
,
then
it
must
be
said
,
that
the
Presbyters
by
Special
Revelation
,
and
Prophecy
appointed
thereunto
,
Ordained
Timothy
.
And
I
give
Mr.
O.
his
choice
of
any
of
these
Expositions
:
If
he
accepts
the
last
(
as
most
likely
he
will
)
it
is
however
no
precedent
or
warrant
for
Ordinary
Presbyters
,
by
Virtue
of
their
Ordinary
Power
and
Office
,
to
Impose
hands
and
Conferr
Orders
.
Mr.
O.
in
reply
to
this
,
〈◊〉
not
offer'd
one
Syllable
:
but
he
has
interposed
some
(
as
he
thinks
)
witty
descants
upon
the
Rector's
words
and
notions
,
merely
to
evade
the
Argument
,
and
to
perplex
it
;
which
I
account
not
worth
my
particular
Notice
.
But
whereas
he
thus
Paraphrases
on
my
Words
,
Neglect
not
the
Gift
that
is
in
thee
,
which
was
given
by
Prophets
,
with
the
laying
on
of
the
Hands
of
Prophets
,
intimating
it
to
be
Nonsense
,
observe
me
once
more
,
and
Remember
that
the
Rector
proposed
two
ways
of
Interpreting
this
Passage
in
Timothy
.
First
,
That
by
Prophecy
may
be
meant
Prophets
in
the
Concrete
,
distinct
from
the
Presbyters
,
spoken
of
in
the
same
Period
;
and
then
the
sense
must
be
,
Neglect
not
the
Gift
which
was
given
thee
by
Prophets
,
(
directed
and
determined
unto
that
Action
,
by
some
Extraordinary
and
Express
Command
of
God
)
with
the
laying
on
of
the
Hands
of
the
Presbyters
,
as
assistants
in
the
Solemnity
.
Either
this
is
sense
,
or
I
have
none
,
and
being
admitted
,
confirms
my
Point
,
That
Ordinary
meer
Presbyters
Ordained
not
Timothy
by
their
ownsole
Power
.
Secondly
,
Or
else
the
Passage
may
thus
be
understood
,
That
Prophecy
is
to
be
taken
in
the
Abstract
,
as
it
lies
in
the
Text
,
and
the
Presbyters
were
the
Persons
,
unto
whom
the
Prophecy
came
,
appointing
them
to
Ordain
Timothy
,
who
therefore
were
Prophets
,
and
not
Ordinary
Presbyters
in
that
particular
Action
.
On
this
supposition
the
Words
must
run
,
Neglect
not
the
Gift
,
which
was
given
thee
by
Prophecy
,
with
the
laying
on
of
the
Hands
of
the
Presbyters
,
unto
whom
the
Prophecy
came
.
And
this
ought
to
pass
with
Mr.
O.
for
sense
,
if
he
is
Master
of
any
,
and
shews
,
that
meer
Ordinary
Presbyters
,
did
not
Ordain
Timothy
,
by
Virtue
of
their
Ordinary
Power
,
but
by
Special
Commission
from
God
.
But
Mr.
O.
confounds
these
two
different
Interpretations
,
putting
them
together
(
which
ought
to
be
considered
separately
)
contrary
to
all
Laws
of
Disputation
,
and
then
pretends
to
have
found
out
some
Absurdity
,
or
Nonsense
in
the
Rector's
Gloss.
Moreover
,
the
Gloss
is
not
absurd
,
even
as
Mr.
O.
has
laid
it
.
For
supposing
that
by
Prophecy
is
meant
Prophets
,
and
that
the
Presbyters
were
those
Prophets
,
't
is
proper
enough
to
say
,
That
Timothy
was
ordained
by
Prophets
,
with
the
laying
on
of
the
Hands
of
the
Prophets
,
the
former
Clause
donoting
who
ordained
him
,
the
latter
by
what
Ceremony
or
Solemnity
,
it
was
performed
.
Nor
is
it
a
degrading
Paul
,
when
we
make
him
a
Prophet
,
which
is
an
order
inferior
to
Apostle
,
as
Mr.
O.
weakly
enough
argues
.
It
s
But
Mr.
O.
questions
whether
the
Apostles
were
the
Heads
of
then
the
Churches
by
them
planted
must
have
had
two
or
more
Heads
.
Ans.
If
ever
any
Man
lov'd
to
Trifle
,
and
Embroil
matters
with
Trivial
,
and
Sensless
Difficulties
,
the
Minister
is
He.
For
what
if
〈◊〉
was
inferior
to
Paul
,
and
(
as
I
may
say
)
a
Subaltern
Apostle
?
then
the
Objection
is
gone
.
And
what
if
several
Persons
in
equal
Power
,
mav
make
up
(
not
Heads
,
but
)
one
Political
Head
in
a
Society
?
Then
the
Wonder
is
over
.
In
Dioclesian's
Days
,
there
were
several
Emperours
Socii
Imperii
.
There
were
lately
two
Czars
in
Moscovy
,
and
two
Princes
in
England
.
'T
is
indeed
Monstrous
,
when
a
Natural
Body
has
two
or
more
Heads
:
But
that
a
Political
Body
or
Society
,
should
be
governed
by
two
or
more
Persons
jointly
in
a
Parity
,
nothing
is
more
Ordinary
:
Casar
indeed
was
of
another
Mind
,
and
his
Maxim
was
,
Imperium
non
capit
duos
:
but
't
was
his
Pride
and
Ambition
,
which
Prompted
him
to
say
so
.
For
matter
of
Fact
,
and
his
Successors
Practice
,
has
abundantly
confuted
him
.
But
if
Mr.
O.
will
not
allow
two
or
more
Governours
of
a
Body
Politick
,
to
be
called
the
Head
of
that
Society
,
then
are
the
Presbyterian
Churches
,
and
the
Independent
Congregations
,
so
many
Bodies
without
an
Head
.
And
I
think
,
a
Body
without
any
Head
,
is
altogether
as
Monstrous
,
as
a
Body
with
two
or
more
.
Mr.
O.
adds
,
The
Presbyters
at
Jerusalem
had
many
Apostles
Ans.
1.
All
the
Twelve
Apostles
were
Instrumental
,
in
planting
this
Church
,
which
therefore
was
Subject
to
all
,
for
a
good
while
,
as
to
one
Head
.
Secondly
,
James
afterwards
was
made
the
Ordinary
Resident
Church-Governour
,
as
is
very
probable
.
Thirdly
,
The
Elders
spoken
of
,
Acts
15.
were
not
those
of
Jerusalem
only
(
as
I
conceive
)
but
such
also
as
came
thither
from
others
parts
,
Judea
,
Syria
,
&c.
and
were
Members
of
the
Council
,
and
on
that
score
,
not
so
much
Subject
but
Assistants
to
the
Apostles
.
〈◊〉
,
The
Apostles
and
Elders
now
Assembled
,
intermedled
not
in
the
Government
of
this
Church
at
this
time
,
but
met
here
(
it
might
have
been
in
any
other
place
,
if
they
had
so
pleased
)
to
determin
a
Question
which
concerned
all
Churches
,
wherein
there
were
any
Jewish
Converts
,
as
may
be
gathered
from
,
Acts
16.
4.
But
Paul
the
Apostle
(
says
the
Minister
)
had
Power
over
Ans.
Why
not
?
I
require
a
Reason
.
It
was
his
particular
care
for
the
Reason
assigned
.
A
Colonel
has
Power
over
the
whole
Regiment
,
but
'specially
over
his
own
Troop
.
Every
Apostle
had
a
Transcendent
Power
over
every
Presbytery
(
grant
it
,
)
yet
he
was
the
Ordinary
Governour
of
those
Churches
,
which
he
had
formed
.
Camerarius
Comments
upon
the
Disignat
〈◊〉
,
&c.
Paul
means
in
this
place
,
that
a
District
,
as
it
were
a
Plat
of
ground
,
was
given
him
,
whereon
he
might
build
a
Church
.
Still
the
care
of
all
the
Churches
lay
upon
the
Apostles
,
as
to
right
and
Power
,
although
for
the
better
Government
of
them
,
they
divided
the
〈◊〉
,
as
the
〈◊〉
of
Propagating
the
Gospel
required
.
Mr.
O.
If
the
Apostle
joined
the
Presbytery
with
him
,
in
the
Ordination
of
Timothy
,
it
proves
that
Presbyters
have
an
Inherent
Power
of
Ordaining
.
Ans.
True
,
it
may
safely
be
granted
,
in
Conjunction
with
the
Apostle
,
and
with
Bishops
,
but
not
without
them
.
The
House
of
Commons
has
an
inherent
Power
to
make
a
Vote
of
Parliament
,
but
not
without
the
Lords
;
and
both
Houses
have
an
inherent
Power
to
make
a
Law
,
but
not
without
the
King
.
'T
is
he
that
inspires
Life
and
Breath
into
it
,
after
the
two
Houses
have
formed
the
Carcass
.
Lastly
,
Mr.
O.
adds
—
The
Apostles
are
Distinguished
from
the
Ans.
This
is
not
appositely
observed
:
for
it
was
a
Council
not
a
Presbytery
,
though
the
Presbyters
of
Jerusalem
were
in
it
:
haply
other
Presbyters
also
,
besides
an
Apostle
(
or
Apostles
)
though
he
be
the
Head
(
or
Governour
)
of
a
Presbytery
,
may
be
aptly
distinguished
from
that
Presbytery
,
whereof
he
is
Head
:
and
yet
at
the
same
time
he
is
a
Member
of
that
Presbytery
.
Jesus
Christ
is
by
St.
Paul
called
the
Head
of
the
Body
,
(
the
Church
)
Eph.
22.
23.
c
4
,
15
,
16.
Col.
1.
18.
and
so
is
distinguished
from
the
Body
,
though
we
cannot
properly
call
any
thing
a
Body
,
except
we
comprehend
the
Head
also
:
for
a
body
is
not
a
Body
without
the
Head
;
and
the
Head
is
a
Member
of
the
Body
.
And
yet
St.
Paul
distinguishes
between
the
Body
,
that
is
the
Church
,
and
Christ
the
Head
of
it
;
when
at
the
same
time
,
Christ
the
Head
,
must
be
believed
a
Member
of
his
own
Body
.
I
expect
then
Mr.
O.
will
in
good
time
rally
npon
St.
Paul
,
and
expose
his
Expression
,
as
he
has
mine
.
Moreover
though
the
Apostles
are
distinguished
from
the
Elders
,
yet
it
follows
not
that
they
are
distinguished
from
the
Council
(
or
Presbytery
)
when
the
Members
of
a
Body
are
distinguished
from
one
another
,
they
are
not
to
be
understood
as
distinguished
from
the
Body
,
but
from
one
another
only
.
St.
Paul
speaking
of
the
Natural
body
,
1
Cor.
12.
tells
us
,
that
though
the
Members
of
that
Body
are
many
,
yet'tis
but
one
Body
:
and
he
distinguishes
also
the
Members
from
one
another
,
as
the
Hands
from
the
Feet
,
and
both
from
the
Eyes
,
and
all
these
from
the
Ears
,
and
the
Hand
from
the
rest
of
the
Body
,
but
yet
he
affirms
,
they
are
all
of
the
Body
,
and
together
make
up
the
Body
.
So
St.
Luke
reckons
the
two
Principal
and
Constituent
Parts
of
the
Council
at
Jerusalem
,
and
distinguishes
between
the
Apostles
and
the
Elders
,
between
the
Head
and
the
lower
Members
,
but
not
between
the
Head
and
the
Body
,
between
the
Apostles
and
Council
:
for
no
one
can
think
but
the
Apostles
were
a
part
of
the
Council
,
or
,
if
you
please
,
call
it
a
Presbytery
.
I
beg
the
Readers
patience
,
when
I
say
,
a
Body
is
not
a
Body
without
an
Head
.
Our
late
Presbyteries
were
such
Bodies
without
visible
Heads
.
The
Classical
Body
moved
to
the
place
of
meeting
,
I
say
moved
without
an
Head
.
A
frightful
Spectacle
!
When
it
had
sat
a
few
moments
without
an
Head
,
it
then
made
it self
an
Head
,
a
President
or
Moderator
,
protempore
,
who
was
before
but
an
inferior
Member
,
but
now
mounted
up
for
an
hour
or
two
,
to
be
the
Head
.
But
it
may
be
ask'd
who
was
the
Head
,
when
this
〈◊〉
was
set
up
?
Herein
the
Body
acted
without
an
Head
.
However
the
Business
of
the
day
being
over
,
the
Artificial
Head
drops
off
from
the
Shoulders
,
and
thence
〈◊〉
is
an
Hand
or
a
Foot
,
as
before
.
So
every
Member
of
the
Body
in
its
turn
,
becomes
the
Head
;
and
the
Head
dwindling
again
into
a
small
Member
.
The
Body
then
continues
for
some
Days
or
Weeks
without
an
Head
.
And
would
it
not
scare
one
to
see
a
Body
once
more
without
an
Head
?
Hereby
Mr.
O.
may
see
,
't
is
possible
to
ridicule
the
Presbyteries
,
if
one
will
take
the
Liberty
to
confine
Words
to
their
Natural
Signification
,
when
they
are
used
Metaphorically
.
As
to
my
Exposition
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
I
am
not
sensible
Mr.
O.
has
advanced
any
thing
considerable
against
me
.
Only
,
after
his
usual
and
Sophistical
manner
he
draws
in
what
is
admitted
in
one
place
;
and
opposes
it
to
what
is
supposed
in
another
,
which
can
with
no
Justice
be
done
.
When
ex
.
gr
.
I
explain
this
Passage
,
1
Tim.
4.
14.
supposing
that
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
is
meant
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
the
concrete
.
It
is
a
miserable
shift
to
make
use
of
,
what
I
here
assert
against
what
afterward
I
propose
,
when
I
have
admitted
the
phrase
to
be
understood
in
the
Abstract
,
and
then
assert
Paul
to
be
at
least
one
,
and
the
Head
or
Governour
of
the
Presbytery
.
I
had
laid
down
several
ways
of
Expounding
the
Text
,
and
had
permited
Mr.
O.
to
chuse
which
he
pleased
,
that
the
Argument
might
be
brought
to
a
certain
head
.
But
instead
hereof
he
jumbles
'em
all
〈◊〉
,
contrary
to
allLaws
of
Disputation
.
And
whereas
I
laid
this
clearly
before
the
Reader
,
p.
33.
by
summing
up
briefly
what
had
been
said
,
he
〈◊〉
us
off
with
calling
it
a
Recapitulation
of
my
long
perplexed
〈◊〉
upon
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Mr.
O.
has
indeed
perplex'd
it
:
but
it
has
been
judged
pretty
clear
by
others
.
I
wish
Mr.
O.
would
have
furnished
us
with
a
better
.
Carpere
vel
noli
〈◊〉
,
vel
ede
〈◊〉
.
But
the
Minister
is
better
at
pulling
down
than
building
up
:
and
indeed
it
is
in
a
great
measure
the
true
Character
of
the
whole
Party
.
In
the
Conclusion
of
my
Discourse
upon
the
General
History
of
the
Apostolical
Churches
and
their
Government
,
I
examined
that
passage
of
St.
Peter
,
1
Eph.
5.
but
do
not
find
my
Adversary
to
have
said
any
thing
to
that
purpose
,
or
which
in
the
least
affects
the
account
I
gave
of
it
.
Some
Cavils
are
to
be
met
with
,
but
such
,
as
if
any
one
suspects
of
Moment
,
let
him
but
compare
'em
with
what
I
said
in
the
〈◊〉
.
Nov.
p.
37.
to
p.
42.
and
he
will
easily
discern
the
shifts
Mr.
O.
〈◊〉
put
to
,
in
framing
but
a
Colourable
Reply
.
Among
many
other
things
;
I
will
only
in
short
produce
one
,
and
the
rather
because
Mr.
O.
has
repeated
it
,
I
〈◊〉
above
20
times
,
and
yet
't
is
nothing
but
what
I
granted
more
than
once
.
'
〈◊〉
this
,
〈◊〉
and
Titus
(
says
he
)
are
no
where
expresly
called
Now
I
had
oft
enough
〈◊〉
in
T.
N.
and
cautioned
against
all
mistake
and
〈◊〉
cavil
,
that
〈◊〉
.
and
〈◊〉
.
are
never
called
Bishops
,
only
contended
they
were
the
Supreme
Rulers
of
the
Churches
of
〈◊〉
and
Crete
,
that
is
,
in
the
Language
afterwards
prevailing
in
the
Church
,
they
were
Bishops
.
And
yet
for
all
this
we
are
at
every
turn
told
,
they
are
never
in
Scripture
expresly
called
Bishops
,
nor
constituted
Diocesan
Bishops
,
as
if
I
,
or
any
other
ever
asserted
it
.
Nevertheless
that
which
I
affirm
(
and
which
is
sufficient
to
my
purpose
)
,
is
that
they
had
express
Commission
from
St.
Paul
to
govern
those
Chuches
,
and
the
particular
Acts
of
Supreme
Power
,
are
expresly
committed
to
them
,
which
is
enough
(
I
think
)
to
prove
'em
the
Supreme
Rulers
of
those
Churches
,
and
is
all
I
contend
for
.
Besides
Mr.
O.
should
Remember
,
that
he
himself
acknowledges
'em
Evangelists
,
which
where
Officers
in
the
Church
,
Superiour
unto
Ordinary
Presbyters
,
according
to
the
supposition
agreed
upon
between
him
and
me
:
but
on
the
other
hand
,
whether
the
Presbyter
spoken
of
,
1
Pet.
5.
and
Act.
20.
were
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
's
not
to
be
disputed
,
but
whether
they
had
the
Supreme
Power
committed
to
them
,
is
the
Question
,
and
is
(
I
hope
)
resolved
in
the
Negative
,
to
Satisfaction
in
the
formentioned
Pages
of
T.
N.
viz.
that
it
does
not
appear
so
from
those
Expressions
—
Feed
the
Flock
of
Christ
,
taking
the
oversight
thereof
:
Take
heed
unto
the
Flock
over
which
the
Holy
Ghost
has
made
you
Overseers
,
to
feed
the
Church
of
God
.
For
it
can
not
be
denied
but
that
these
Exhortations
might
be
properly
given
to
the
Rectors
and
Vicars
of
the
Church
of
England
,
though
subject
to
a
Diocesian
Bishop
.
Yea
,
might
be
given
to
every
ordained
Presbyter
,
APPENDIX
.
MR
O.
excepts
many
things
against
my
Instance
of
the
Jews
That
the
Fathers
,
and
particularly
Clem.
Roman
.
seems
to
make
this
a
President
for
the
Government
of
Christian
〈◊〉
,
&c.
To
the
Authority
of
Clemens
,
I
added
in
the
Margin
Jerom's
Epistle
to
Euag.
That
which
deserves
to
be
consider'd
is
,
that
he
observes
the
Jewish
High-Priest
to
have
been
a
Type
of
Jesus
Christ
,
the
High-Priest
of
our
Profession
,
and
says
he
,
We
follow
the
Jewish
Typical
precedent
,
that
is
,
we
acknowledge
Jesus
Christ
to
be
our
High-Priest
.
Ans.
For
all
this
,
the
Jewish
Oeconomy
was
a
Type
of
the
Christian
,
at
least
the
Pathers
,
though
they
make
not
the
Jewish
High-Priest
a
Type
of
the
Christian
Bishop
.
Yet
they
make
him
a
Precedent
,
or
Pattern
of
him
:
and
Clemens
does
so
in
particular
,
as
also
many
others
,
as
I
shall
shew
in
its
proper
place
,
viz.
my
Answer
to
his
Plea
:
But
why
has
not
Mr.
O.
after
so
much
pains
taken
in
Vindicating
Clemens
from
what
is
imputed
to
him
,
endeavoured
to
take
off
the
force
of
my
other
Testimony
out
of
Jerom
?
There
was
something
in
the
wind
,
that
he
who
undertakes
to
reply
so
fully
to
the
Authority
of
Clemens
,
leaves
poor
Jerom
in
the
lurch
,
and
has
not
one
Syllable
to
plead
in
his
behalf
.
But
the
〈◊〉
of
this
is
plain
,
't
was
too
hard
a
Knot
for
the
Minister
at
〈◊〉
to
Unty
,
or
so
much
as
to
cut
.
Blundel
promised
to
account
for
it
,
but
was
not
as
good
as
his
Word
.
Walo
put
us
in
hopes
of
it
from
Salmafius
:
But
he
deceived
the
World
of
their
expectation
:
and
honest
Ludovicus
Capella
,
was
afraid
to
take
the
least
notice
of
it
.
I
know
nothing
that
can
excuse
Mr.
O.
and
the
other
Gentlemen
〈◊〉
a
Parting-blow
upon
this
Argument
,
Mr.
O.
entertains
us
with
a
piece
of
Drollery
.
The
Rector
(
says
he
)
calls
the
〈◊〉
Ordinary
Ministers
,
and
at
the
same
time
,
saith
they
,
were
Prophets
,
that
is
extraordinary
Ministers
.
One
would
think
if
they
were
Ordinary
Ministers
,
they
were
not
extraordinary
,
If
Extraordinary
,
not
Ordinary
.
Now
the
Rector
undertakes
to
reconcile
this
Contradiction
,
and
to
expose
Mr.
O.
as
a
meer
Trifler
.
The
same
Man
may
be
an
Ordinary
and
an
Extraordinary
Person
,
on
several
Accounts
,
not
Secundum
idem
.
I
'll
give
him
one
single
Instance
,
and
so
〈◊〉
this
Point
.
Mr.
O.
is
(
as
I
reckon
)
but
an
Ordinary
Minister
,
and
yet
I
account
him
an
Extraordinary
Wrangler
.
I
had
said
in
T.
N.
according
to
my
present
apprehensions
,
that
James
was
not
the
Apostle
,
but
Mr.
O.
will
needs
have
him
the
Apostle
,
that
is
,
one
of
the
Twelve
,
for
that
was
my
meaning
.
Ans
,
This
I
am
sensible
,
has
of
old
,
and
is
still
,
a
Controversy
among
the
Learned
:
and
Bishop
Pearson
,
whom
the
Minister
gets
on
his
side
,
as
ost
as
he
can
,
is
not
very
Positive
in
it
,
though
he
〈◊〉
that
Way
.
However
,
I
'll
comply
with
Mr.
O.
for
once
,
and
let
James
pass
for
one
of
the
Twelve
Apostles
:
but
then
I
must
accquaint
him
,
that
one
of
the
Twelve
Apostles
,
was
the
fixt
and
constant
Prefect
or
Ruler
,
that
is
,
Bishop
of
the
Church
of
Jerusalem
.
We
read
of
him
being
at
Jerusalem
,
Act.
12.
17.
Gal.
1.
19.
Act.
15.
13.
Gal.
2.
9
,
12.
Act.
21.
18.
All
which
time
to
his
Death
,
takes
up
near
Thirty
Years
,
as
is
computed
.
It
seems
then
that
he
was
fixt
and
resident
at
Jerusalem
.
Salmasius
thinks
that
he
never
was
absent
from
Jerusalem
,
nor
mov'd
a
foot
once
from
thence
to
his
Dying
Day
.
Now
that
he
was
Prefect
or
Clem.
Alexandrinus
,
from
the
Council
of
Constantinople
,
from
Hegesippus
,
and
from
Jerom
,
besides
Theodoret.
Hist.
l.
5.
c.
9.
a
Cloud
of
Witnesses
more
(
and
among
them
Calvin
)
that
might
be
adduced
in
confirmation
of
this
.
Whoever
pleases
to
be
so
curious
,
E.
Hist.
l.
2.
c.
23.
may
be
directed
to
'em
in
the
fourth
Chapter
of
the
Learned
Mr.
Burscough's
Treatise
of
Church-Government
,
from
APPENDIX
.
IN
this
Chapter
Mr.
O.
has
mov'd
two
Controversies
in
Philology
his
Master-Piece
,
on
which
he
seems
to
value
himself
;
the
first
whereof
is
,
that
I
call
the
Government
of
the
Church
by
the
Apostles
an
[
*
](A42789-e10430-b)
*
De
Repub.
Dial.
8.
disparages
Oligarchy
in
comparison
with
Monarchy
,
and
Aristotle
[
†
](A42789-e10470-b)
†
Polit.
l.
3.
c.
7
,
8.
calls
it
not
Oligarchy
(
for
with
him
that
s
the
Corruption
of
the
Government
)
but
Aristocracy
:
yet
that
the
word
.
Originally
signifies
a
lawful
and
honest
kind
of
Government
,
and
sets
forth
the
true
and
distinct
Nature
of
it
,
as
is
manifest
from
its
Etymology
,
which
Aristocracy
doth
not
;
for
this
word
,
according
to
the
Philosopher
,
denotes
any
of
the
Three
sorts
of
Government
well
managed
:
that
〈◊〉
in
Herodotus
[
*
](A42789-e10540-b)
*
Thalia
or
l.
3.
c.
80.
commends
this
form
of
Government
,
by
the
very
name
of
Oligarchy
:
that
Plutarch
[
†
](A42789-e10580-b)
†
In
libel
.
de
Mon.
Olig
.
&
Dem.
speaks
of
it
,
under
the
same
name
,
describing
it
also
by
two
Words
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
calling
its
Corruption
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
not
〈◊〉
:
that
Hesychius
[
*
](A42789-e10650-b)
*
Lexic.
voce
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
reckons
up
Three
kinds
of
Government
,
one
of
which
is
Oligarchy
:
and
Lastly
,
that
Aristotle
himself
confesses
[
†
](A42789-e10690-b)
†
Arist.
ubi
supra
.
when
a
few
govern
well
,
and
for
the
Common
good
,
it
is
a
right
and
just
Government
,
plainly
implying
there
was
no
harm
in
the
Word
Oligarchy
,
or
in
the
Government
,
though
in
his
time
and
Country
custom
had
disparaged
it
.
The
next
thing
he
quarrels
about
is
my
writing
Sanedrin
,
and
that
I
seem
to
make
it
an
Hebrew
word
.
Ans.
The
Rector
neither
makes
nor
seems
to
make
Sanedrin
an
Hebrew
word
:
but
if
Mr.
O
,
had
any
good
Nature
,
or
Observation
in
him
,
he
would
rather
have
concluded
that
the
Rector
seems
to
derive
the
Word
from
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
as
himself
also
believes
.
For
my
writing
Sanedrin
without
the
Aspirate
h
in
the
middle
,
might
reasonably
have
been
judged
,
done
,
in
Conformity
to
the
Greek
Language
,
which
frequently
casts
away
the
Aspirat
h
in
the
middle
of
Compound
words
,
the
Conjugates
at
least
of
many
derived
from
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
this
especially
Synedrium
.
Wherefore
since
Mr.
O.
will
needs
have
〈◊〉
borrowed
from
the
Greeks
,
't
is
more
conformable
to
the
Original
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
to
writ
it
Sanedrin
,
not
Sanhedrin
with
the
Aspirat
.
And
to
speak
the
very
Truth
in
writing
that
Word
,
my
thoughts
were
ever
upon
the
Greek
Noun
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
without
〈◊〉
into
the
Orthography
.
But
when
all
is
said
concerning
this
Word
Sanhedrin
,
I
must
acknowledge
,
I
have
some
scruple
,
and
suspition
about
it
.
'T
is
very
odd
in
my
Thoughts
,
that
the
Name
of
this
great
Council
,
which
began
with
Moses
,
should
descend
from
the
Greek
Tongue
,
a
long
while
unknown
to
the
Jews
:
And
that
it
should
have
no
other
Title
in
the
Hebrew
Language
,
that
I
ever
heard
of
.
But
〈◊〉
,
or
too
much
,
of
this
Trivial
matter
.
CHAP.
III.
Being
an
Answer
to
Mr.
O's
3d
Chap.
MR
O.
in
this
Chapter
,
undertakes
,
first
to
〈◊〉
his
Hypothesis
,
scil
.
that
Paul
at
his
taking
final
leave
of
the
Ephesian
Elders
(
Act.
20.
)
appointed
them
the
sole
Governours
of
that
Church
,
in
a
Parity
,
and
that
this
Constitution
was
,
and
was
intended
to
be
unchangeable
.
I
will
briefly
run
through
his
Arguments
,
and
as
I
go
along
,
make
my
Answer
to
every
one
of
'em
singly
.
Mr.
O.
The
Apostle
did
not
appoint
one
Presbyter
Supreme
,
Ans.
I
shall
consider
in
the
following
Fifth
Chapter
,
this
pretence
of
their
being
extraordinary
Officers
,
and
Evangelists
,
whereby
Mr.
O.
would
evade
our
Argument
,
for
Timothy's
being
made
the
Prefect
or
Ruler
,
of
Ephesus
,
in
the
Apostles
stead
,
mean
while
,
granting
there
is
no
hint
in
the
Epistle
to
Tim.
that
he
was
Ordained
to
be
the
Apostle's
Successor
in
Ephesus
(
though
the
second
Epistle
1.
6.
is
a
shrewd
Intimation
of
it
,
according
to
Jerom
)
yet
it
follows
not
hence
,
that
he
was
not
the
Apostle's
Successor
.
The
Reverend
Dr.
Stratford
was
not
Ordained
Presbyter
,
with
〈◊〉
design
to
be
afterward
Bishop
of
Chester
,
and
yet
for
all
that
,
he
is
Bishop
of
this
See
.
Mr.
O.
The
Apostle
did
,
and
it
was
the
proper
Season
,
and
his
Duty
,
at
his
taking
final
leave
,
to
settle
the
Government
of
that
Church
:
But
he
then
committed
it
to
the
Presbytery
,
in
a
Parity
,
and
not
to
any
single
Person
,
Act.
20.
28.
Ans.
1.
For
any
thing
to
be
found
in
that
,
Act.
20.
28.
St.
〈◊〉
might
have
before
this
time
,
appointed
a
single
Person
,
over
the
Ephesian
Elders
,
and
so
have
left
it
.
These
words
—
Take
heed
therefore
unto
your selves
,
and
to
all
the
Flock
,
over
which
the
Holy
Ghost
has
made
you
Overseers
,
to
feed
the
〈◊〉
of
God
,
might
,
and
may
properly
enough
at
this
day
,
be
spoken
unto
Presbyters
,
subject
to
a
President
(
or
Bishop
)
set
over
them
.
But
2.
If
the
Supreme
Power
was
here
committed
to
the
Elders
,
however
,
it
s
not
proved
,
nor
can
be
,
that
it
was
in
a
Parity
:
the
words
might
have
been
spoken
to
'em
,
divisim
,
severally
,
which
divests
one
part
of
the
Dissenters
,
of
their
Presbyteries
.
3.
However
it
was
,
suppose
the
Government
lodged
in
the
Presbytery
,
St.
Paul
might
afterwards
,
by
Divine
Authority
,
intrust
it
with
a
single
Person
.
As
to
the
matter
of
fact
,
whether
he
did
so
,
is
the
present
controversy
;
the
Issue
whereof
will
depend
on
what
follows
.
Mr.
O.
We
may
with
better
reason
affirm
,
that
Timothy's
Ans.
Not
so
.
If
Timothy's
Supreme
Power
followed
that
of
the
Elders
,
(
as
shall
be
proved
)
and
if
it
cannot
be
proved
,
that
the
〈◊〉
of
Government
committed
to
Timothy
was
ever
changed
,
afterwards
by
any
subsequent
Act
of
the
Apostles
,
the
Objection
vanishes
.
Mr.
O.
Paul
gives
not
the
least
hint
,
Act.
20.
of
any
Ruler
set
;
or
to
be
set
over
them
:
That
he
must
needs
know
what
Government
God
would
have
setled
in
the
Church
,
&c.
Ans.
What
hint
is
there
to
be
observed
,
in
the
1st
Epistle
to
lim
.
concerning
Presbyterian
Parity
?
Or
indeed
of
the
Presbyters
having
the
least
share
in
the
Church
Government
?
It
was
as
necessary
he
should
mention
the
Presbytery
in
his
first
Epistle
to
Timothy
(
supposed
by
Mr.
O.
written
before
the
farewel
Sermon
)
as
to
make
mention
of
their
Prelatical
Bishop
,
in
his
Farewel
Sermon
.
Nor
did
the
Apostle
know
beforehand
,
all
the
mind
and
Intentions
of
God
concerning
his
Church
.
He
knew
not
so
much
as
what
would
befal
himself
,
save
,
what
other
Prophets
told
him
(
v.
23.
)
and
yet
still
he
was
left
in
the
dark
as
to
many
things
(
v.
22.
)
.
I
see
no
reason
for
believing
,
Paul
must
needs
know
at
that
time
,
God's
Intention
of
altering
the
Church
Government
afterwards
.
If
so
,
't
is
not
to
be
wondred
,
he
did
not
acquaint
the
Presbyters
with
it
.
Besides
,
there
's
good
reason
to
think
,
that
Paul
,
though
he
knew
it
,
would
not
acquaint
'em
with
it
,
at
that
time
.
Happy
he
saw
they
would
not
then
brook
,
nor
endure
to
hear
of
the
alteration
,
and
of
being
subject
to
any
other
single
Person
,
except
the
Apostle
himself
:
especially
when
no
Occasion
was
,
as
yet
,
given
for
it
.
But
in
process
of
time
,
after
some
of
themselves
were
risen
,
and
had
spoke
perverse
things
,
and
turning
Schismaticks
,
〈◊〉
drawn
away
Disciples
after
them
.
v.
30.
then
was
the
time
for
changing
the
Government
,
and
charging
Timothy
to
silence
those
that
taught
false
Doctrine
,
1
Tim.
1.
3.
and
then
it
was
,
that
at
least
the
Humble
,
and
Peaceable
,
and
Obedient
,
and
Holy
Presbyters
,
would
readily
submit
to
the
Change
.
Mr.
O.
Asks
,
whether
there
were
no
Prophecy
of
Timothy's
Ans.
I
have
given
a
reason
of
this
already
:
But
further
note
,
that
there
was
such
a
Prophecy
,
as
I
believe
,
1
Tim.
1.
18.
though
it
might
not
have
been
.
given
,
till
after
Paul's
farewel
Sermon
.
I
add
,
it
is
very
probable
also
,
that
he
was
Ordained
unto
it
,
2.
Epist.
1.
6.
So
St.
Jerom
thought
,
as
I
have
already
observ'd
.
Mr.
O.
to
overthrow
the
common
reason
given
of
the
change
of
Church
Government
,
asserts
,
That
the
establishment
of
the
Presbytery
at
Ephesus
,
was
for
a
remedy
against
Schism
,
therefore
the
Elders
were
admonished
,
to
Oversee
the
Flock
,
v.
28.
Ans.
The
Minister
here
,
is
not
at
all
fair
in
his
reasoning
;
for
the
Remedy
,
which
the
Apostles
prescribes
against
the
Wolves
,
or
Interlopers
,
that
would
thrust
themselves
in
among
'em
,
and
against
the
Vipers
,
which
would
arise
,
out
of
their
own
Bowels
,
was
,
to
take
heed
to
themselves
,
and
to
the
Flock
,
to
feed
the
Church
of
God
,
the
other
words
,
over
which
the
Holy
Ghost
has
made
you
Overseers
,
being
only
a
reminding
them
,
by
the
way
,
of
their
Power
and
Duty
.
All
Government
,
of
what
kind
soever
it
be
,
't
is
confest
,
is
in
general
a
Remedy
against
Schism
:
But
these
Elders
,
are
not
said
,
to
have
been
Ordained
Overseers
by
the
Apostle
,
as
if
that
particular
Government
of
Presbyterian
Parity
,
was
especially
intended
for
a
Remedy
against
future
Schism
.
The
proper
and
parcular
Remedy
here
prescribed
,
by
St.
Paul
,
is
,
To
take
heed
,
&c.
and
as
it
follows
v.
31.
To
watch
,
&c.
without
which
't
was
impossible
to
provide
Effectually
against
a
surprize
from
their
Enemies
,
the
Wolves
,
and
the
Vipers
,
there
spoken
of
.
Being
Overseers
,
or
Governours
of
the
Church
,
would
not
do
the
Work
,
(
whether
they
acted
in
a
Parity
or
in
Subordination
to
some
single
Person
,
was
the
same
thing
as
to
the
Apostles
Argument
here
,
and
whether
it
were
the
one
or
the
other
still
)
it
was
their
taking
heed
and
watching
,
must
secure
'em
against
Schisms
and
against
Heresies
.
But
if
afterward
this
Presbyterian
Parity
,
was
by
experience
found
inconvenient
,
rather
a
Nursery
,
and
Occasion
of
Schism
,
and
therefore
for
that
very
reason
,
altered
into
Prelatical
form
of
Government
,
for
the
security
of
the
Church
in
Peace
and
Order
,
as
Jerom
owns
,
it
is
most
proper
,
to
say
,
that
Prelacy
was
introduced
into
the
Church
,
as
a
designed
Remedy
against
Schism
,
and
not
Presbyterian
Parity
,
which
was
indeed
the
Occasion
of
it
,
at
least
,
was
not
sufficient
to
prevent
it
.
Mr.
O.
further
argues
,
that
God
did
not
,
could
not
change
variableness
nor
shadow
of
turning
.
Ans.
Such
general
Harangues
(
though
grounded
on
true
Principles
,
if
rightly
understood
,
and
explained
)
prove
nothing
.
For
on
the
other
side
,
we
know
that
God
oftimes
Repents
,
and
takes
new
measures
for
the
accomplishing
his
own
great
and
good
designs
.
God
imployed
Noah
,
a
Preacher
of
Righteousness
,
to
perswade
the
then
wicked
World
to
Repentance
and
Reformation
;
when
this
succeeded
not
,
it
repented
him
that
he
had
made
Man
,
and
so
he
drowned
all
the
World
,
except
eight
Persons
.
God
,
who
himself
in
a
Peculiar
manner
,
governed
Israel
;
appointing
what
Prophets
and
Rulers
should
succeed
at
a
vacancy
(
the
Government
of
Israel
,
is
hence
called
a
Theocracy
)
yielded
to
the
importunity
of
the
People
,
and
gave
them
a
King
,
Saul
to
govern
them
,
after
the
manner
of
the
Nations
.
But
presently
after
,
it
repented
God
that
he
had
set
up
Saul
to
be
King
,
because
he
turned
back
from
following
God
.
1
Sam
15.
11.
Where
then
is
the
absurdity
in
saying
,
God
upon
the
Occasion
of
Schisms
,
directed
the
Apostles
to
alter
the
Government
among
the
Christians
?
Or
rather
(
as
Bishop
Pearson
[
*
](A42789-e12330-b)
*
De
serie
&
Succes
.
p.
73.
speaks
)
to
perfect
and
compleat
it
.
For
the
Apostles
,
so
long
as
it
seemed
good
unto
'em
,
retained
in
their
own
hands
the
Government
of
all
the
Churches
by
them
founded
,
as
appears
from
,
Act.
14.
21
,
22
,
23.
and
Chap.
15.
36.
but
when
the
time
of
their
departure
drew
on
,
or
when
business
encreasing
on
their
hand
,
by
reason
of
their
many
conversions
,
they
were
forced
,
to
be
absent
,
or
distant
from
those
Churches
a
long
time
,
they
substituted
in
their
Rooms
,
Successors
and
single
Persons
to
preside
over
the
Churches
:
Which
indeed
in
exact
speaking
was
not
a
Change
,
but
a
continuance
rather
of
the
former
Government
,
all
the
difference
being
,
that
whereas
the
Apostles
were
Governours
of
many
Churches
,
these
their
Successors
were
Rules
but
of
one
haply
,
of
which
difference
I
speak
afterwards
.
Mr.
O.
after
he
had
endeavoured
to
confirm
his
own
Opinion
,
Mr.
O.
The
1
Tim.
1.
3.
does
not
say
,
that
Paul
constituted
Ans.
Let
the
Text
with
the
other
Passages
of
this
Epistle
,
relating
unto
the
Powers
committed
unto
Timothy
speak
for
it self
.
I
put
'em
together
in
T.
N.
and
Mr.
O.
has
no
other
way
to
evade
the
force
of
the
Evidence
,
but
pleading
that
Timothy
,
was
an
Evangelist
,
and
extraordinary
Officer
,
as
before
is
noted
.
Mr.
O
St.
John
resided
long
at
Ephesus
,
after
Paul's
departure
thence
,
he
returned
thither
after
his
Release
from
his
Banishment
at
Paimos
,
and
lived
there
,
and
among
the
other
Asian
Churches
until
Trajan's
days
:
By
consequence
St.
John
was
the
Supreme
Ruler
of
Ephesus
,
and
not
Timothy
Ans.
Let
us
see
what
the
Authors
,
he
quotes
,
say
in
this
matter
,
Euseb.
l.
3.
c.
18.
writes
.
That
in
the
Persecution
rais'd
by
Domitian
,
John
was
banished
into
the
Island
Patmos
.
And
out
of
〈◊〉
,
that
he
received
his
Revelation
at
the
latter
end
of
Domitian'
s
Reign
.
No
more
than
this
is
here
writes
that
John
returned
to
Ephesus
,
after
he
was
released
,
&c.
There
is
here
not
a
Syllable
of
returning
,
nor
of
Ephesus
,
nor
of
Released
,
nor
of
living
at
Ephesus
,
or
among
the
other
Asian
Churches
until
Trajan'
s
day
.
This
notwithstanding
,
I
do
acknowledge
that
Euseb.
in
other
places
asserts
these
things
.
But
this
signifies
Asian
Churches
(
after
the
manner
it
may
seem
of
a
Metropolitan
.
)
To
the
same
purpose
speaks
Jerom
,
C.
S.
E.
Sub
Nerva
Principe
redit
Ephesum
〈◊〉
usque
ad
Trajanum
perseverans
totas
Asiae
fundavit
rexitque
Ecclesias
.
They
affirm
not
that
John
governed
these
Asian
Churches
,
Immediately
after
St.
Paul's
departure
into
Macedonia
,
but
in
the
days
of
Trajan
,
and
after
his
release
out
of
Patmos
.
Nor
do
they
tell
us
,
who
governed
Ephesus
,
and
the
other
Asian
Churches
,
from
the
time
of
Paul's
going
into
Macedonia
,
1
Tim.
1.
3.
unto
the
Reign
of
Nerva
,
or
Trajan
:
And
therefore
Timothy
might
in
that
Interval
of
time
(
notwithstanding
any
thing
here
produced
to
the
Contrary
)
have
been
the
Ruler
(
or
Bishop
)
of
Ephesus
.
I
do
further
grant
that
〈◊〉
,
l.
3.
c.
3.
writes
that
John
remained
among
the
Asian
Christians
,
or
Churches
until
Trajan
:
but
he
says
not
that
the
Apostle
remained
there
,
from
the
time
of
Paul's
last
departing
from
Ephesus
into
Macedonia
,
when
he
constituted
Timothy
Ruler
(
or
Bishop
)
there
.
One
thing
must
not
be
omitted
,
that
whereas
Eusebius
,
and
Irenaeus
confess
(
what
is
indeed
manifest
in
Scripture
)
that
Paul
founded
these
Asian
Churches
,
yet
Jerom
makes
John
the
〈◊〉
and
Ruler
of
them
.
(
Totas
Asiae
fundavit
&
rexit
Ecclesias
)
which
how
to
reconcile
may
deserve
a
few
words
.
That
Paul
founded
the
Asians
Churches
,
cannot
be
deny'd
,
and
settled
their
Government
,
ought
not
to
be
Questioned
:
That
these
Asian
Churches
were
to
decay
,
by
the
time
of
John's
Banishment
into
Patmos
,
is
manifest
from
the
Epistles
unto
the
Seven
Churches
in
the
Revelations
.
That
John
after
his
Release
,
returning
into
〈◊〉
new
form'd
,
regulated
and
reformed
〈◊〉
Churches
,
is
most
probable
,
and
therefore
is
said
by
Jerom
,
to
have
founded
and
governed
them
.
Perhaps
he
removed
some
of
the
Angels
or
Bishops
of
those
Churches
,
who
had
misbehaved
themselves
,
in
their
Offices
,
whether
for
a
while
he
personally
govern'd
'em
all
himself
,
without
continuing
or
placing
over
them
Bishops
:
or
whether
as
a
Metropolitan
having
a
subordinate
Bishop
in
every
Church
under
him
,
cannot
with
certainty
be
determined
,
but
't
is
out
of
Question
,
that
he
appointed
Bishops
in
them
,
before
he
dyed
,
as
appears
from
〈◊〉
Epistles
,
and
from
those
remarkable
words
,
in
Tertullian
,
[
*
](A42789-e13410-b)
*
De
Praescrip.
adv.
Haer.
c.
32.
Ordo
Episcoporum
ad
Originem
recensus
in
Joannem
stabit
Authorem
.
Mr.
O.
that
he
may
shake
off
the
Argument
,
for
Bishops
1.
That
Angels
Minister
to
the
Heirs
of
Salvation
,
Heb.
1.
14.
which
imports
a
Ministery
not
Superiority
.
Ans.
He
abuses
the
Text
:
't
is
Ministring
for
not
to
the
Heirs
of
Salvation
.
They
Minister
to
God
for
us
.
So
the
King
is
the
Minister
of
(
or
to
God
)
Rom.
13.
4.
for
us
:
Nevertheless
he
is
our
Superior
,
even
as
the
Angels
are
.
Briefly
by
this
Argument
neither
Jesus
Christ
,
nor
the
Apostles
,
nor
Bishops
,
nor
Presbyters
,
nor
Dissenting
Ministers
,
have
any
Authority
:
for
all
these
Minister
for
our
Salvation
,
or
pretend
it
.
2.
That
Angel
singular
is
often
taken
Collectively
for
Angels
plural
,
as
are
Stars
also
.
Ans.
Mr.
O.
has
not
produced
one
example
hereof
.
If
any
one
is
at
leisure
,
to
examine
the
Text
cited
by
him
,
he
'll
find
this
true
:
For
of
Mal.
2.
7.
I
treat
by
and
by
.
3.
That
the
Epistles
were
directed
to
all
the
believers
of
the
Asiatick
Churches
(
so
I
understand
him
)
and
not
to
the
Angels
only
.
Ans.
Not
so
:
But
to
the
Angles
only
for
the
use
of
the
Believers
.
4.
That
't
is
uncertain
whether
there
is
an
Hierarchy
among
the
Angels
,
that
the
Pseudo-Dionysius
makes
them
the
lowest
Order
:
that
therefore
they
cannot
represent
the
highest
Order
in
the
Church
.
Ans.
'T
is
meer
jangling
to
alledge
the
Opinion
,
of
an
Author
confessedly
spurious
.
But
't
is
manifest
that
there
is
an
Angelical
Hierarchy
from
[
*
](A42789-e13780-b)
*
Dan.
10.
13.
ch.
12
1.
1
Thes.
4.
16.
Scripture
,
and
that
Angels
are
the
Superior
Order
may
be
gathered
from
,
Rom.
3.
38.
where
they
reckoned
He
that
is
least
in
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
is
greater
than
the
mightyest
Potentate
of
the
Earth
.
Even
Jesus
Christ
himself
is
called
an
Angel
,
Mal.
3.
1.
5.
That
the
Holy
Ghost
in
the
Epistles
alludes
to
the
Minister
,
of
the
Synagogue
,
in
Conformity
to
the
Language
of
the
Old
Testament
,
Job
.
33.
23.
Hag.
1.
13.
Mal.
2.
1
,
7.
ch.
3.
1.
Ans.
In
these
Texts
there
is
no
mention
of
Synagogues
,
nor
any
where
else
in
the
Old
Testament
.
Nor
do
we
meet
with
Angels
of
the
Synagogue
,
but
Ruler
in
the
New
:
nor
any
where
else
but
in
the
late
Rabbins
.
Job's
Messenger
was
either
a
real
Angel
,
or
extraordinary
Prophet
,
Interpreter
and
one
of
a
Thousand
,
v.
23.
Hagga
was
a
Prophet
,
so
was
the
Baptist
,
not
Ministers
of
Synagogues
.
When
Mr.
O.
appeals
unto
Malachy
,
he
is
gone
from
the
Synagogue
,
to
the
Temple
,
and
so
quitted
his
Argument
.
Nor
doth
Priests
,
Mal.
2.
1.
signify
all
,
even
the
Secondary
Priests
in
the
Temple
,
but
the
High
Priests
only
in
Succession
,
who
are
therefore
,
v.
7.
exprest
in
the
singular
and
indefinitely
,
or
if
Mr.
O.
will
have
it
so
,
Priests
here
signfies
Collectively
,
all
High
Priests
.
For
it
must
be
confest
,
when
the
Subject
of
a
Proposition
is
put
indefinitely
,
in
the
singular
number
,
and
the
Predicate
belongs
to
the
whole
Species
,
then
the
Subject
may
be
taken
Collectively
,
and
is
equivalent
to
an
Vniversal
Proposition
,
as
when
we
say
,
Man
is
a
rational
Creature
,
we
mean
all
Men
are
so
.
But
it
will
be
said
that
the
Predicate
,
viz.
his
Lips
should
keep
knowledge
,
&c.
appertains
to
the
whole
Species
of
Priests
,
even
the
Secondary
.
I
reply
,
1.
Supposing
this
,
yet
still
there
was
an
High
Priest
in
the
Temple
:
And
therefore
agreeably
hereunto
,
though
all
the
Elders
were
called
Angels
(
admitting
this
)
yet
there
was
an
Arch-Angel
in
every
Church
,
unto
whom
the
Epistles
were
directed
,
who
was
,
The
Angel
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
For
2
Angel
in
the
Epistles
,
is
not
described
by
a
Specifical
,
but
an
individual
Character
,
ex
.
gr.
the
Angel
of
the
Church
of
Ephesus
.
If
it
be
said
this
is
a
Specifical
Character
,
because
all
the
Elders
were
Angels
of
that
Church
,
I
return
that
cannot
be
.
For
no
body
ever
directed
a
Letter
,
thus
indefinitely
to
all
,
and
to
every
one
,
or
any
one
of
the
same
Denomination
.
The
Title
may
haply
belong
to
many
Persons
,
for
different
Reasons
,
and
yet
the
Letter
is
intended
for
some
one
more
Eminently
called
so
.
As
if
a
Letter
were
directed
,
To
the
Speaker
of
the
House
of
Commons
,
though
every
Member
is
Speaker
,
if
he
pleases
,
and
though
of
the
Topping
and
forward
Commoners
,
we
usually
say
,
They
are
Speakers
,
because
they
often
Speak
to
matters
in
Debate
,
yet
every
Foot-Boy
will
apprehend
the
Letter
is
sent
,
to
a
particular
determinate
Person
commonly
called
,
The
Speaker
.
Wherefore
if
all
the
Elders
of
Ephesus
were
in
some
sense
Angels
,
yet
The
Angel
must
mean
some
single
Person
,
known
in
Special
manner
stiled
Angel
,
who
could
be
no
other
than
the
Prelatical
Ruler
of
that
Church
.
A
great
deal
is
argued
in
defense
of
the
Hebrew
Reading
of
Deut.
32.
8.
against
that
of
the
Seventy
.
But
besides
what
has
been
elsewhere
offered
in
the
Vindication
of
the
latter
,
I
here
add
,
That
Clemens
Edit.
Cant.
Comment.
in
Dan.
c.
7.
2.
Romanus
*
,
that
Origen
*
,
and
Jerom
*
,
himself
the
fierce
Stickler
for
the
Hebrew
,
reads
the
place
according
to
the
Seventy
.
It
may
then
with
Reason
be
suspected
,
that
the
proud
conceited
Jews
,
corrupted
this
Scripture
,
to
magnify
themselves
and
their
Nation
,
as
if
God
in
dividing
the
Nations
,
had
his
Eye
'specially
on
the
Sons
of
Israel
,
modelling
the
World
according
to
the
number
of
them
,
that
went
down
with
Jacob
into
Aegypt
,
as
the
Rabbins
imagine
.
As
for
the
precise
number
of
Provinces
,
and
their
Guardian
Angels
,
though
the
Rabbins
,
and
the
Hebrew
Reading
of
Deut.
32.
8.
seem
to
determine
them
by
the
number
of
Jacob's
Children
,
who
went
with
him
into
Aegypt
,
yet
neither
the
Seventy
,
nor
I
have
adventured
so
punctually
to
define
it
,
but
have
left
that
point
uncertain
and
indefinite
.
It
is
not
known
into
how
many
Provinces
God
cast
the
World
at
first
,
nor
can
we
tell
into
how
many
more
he
might
afterwards
multiply
,
or
into
how
few
reduce
it
:
For
even
the
Romans
were
wont
sometimes
to
increase
,
and
sometimes
to
diminish
their
Provinces
.
As
therefore
God
might
(
for
any
thing
we
know
)
in
the
beginning
,
have
divided
the
Nations
into
Seventy
times
seven
Provinces
,
and
constituted
so
many
Guardian
Angels
over
them
,
and
afterward
altered
the
number
of
both
,
by
adding
or
diminishing
,
as
he
saw
good
:
So
might
he
have
appointed
,
and
varied
the
Number
of
Bishops
,
as
the
Condition
of
the
Church
requir'd
,
into
sometimes
more
,
and
sometimes
less
.
I
will
conclude
the
whole
Argument
,
with
two
or
three
Observations
,
which
will
confirm
what
is
before
pleaded
;
That
there
is
an
Hierarchy
among
the
Celestial
Spirits
,
and
Angels
(
as
I
said
according
to
the
current
Opinion
in
former
times
)
presiding
as
Guardians
over
Kingdoms
and
Provinces
,
is
Witnessed
by
[
*
](A42789-e14490-b)
*
Comment.
in
Zach.
1.
8.
Jerom
,
who
thus
delivers
himself
,
Angeli
,
qui
Regnis
&
Nationibus
praesidebant
.
That
Angels
in
the
Revelations
is
an
Allusion
to
these
Guardian
Angels
,
is
countenanc'd
Clemens
Alexandrinus
[
†
](A42789-e14550-b)
†
Strom.
l.
6.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
&c.
The
Progressions
of
Bishops
,
Presbyters
,
and
Deacons
,
are
(
I
think
)
imitations
of
the
Angelical
Glory
,
and
of
that
Ordination
:
As
also
by
that
other
of
Origen
[
*
](A42789-e14590-b)
*
Homil.
in
cap.
3.
S.
Lucae
.
Per
singulas
Ecclesias
,
&c.
There
are
two
Bishops
in
every
Church
,
one
visible
(
the
Man
Bishop
)
the
other
invisible
(
the
Angel
Bishop
.
)
I
think
there
may
be
found
both
an
Angel
and
a
Man
,
good
Bishops
of
the
Church
,
and
as
it
were
Partners
in
the
Work
.
Lastly
,
Optatus
Milevitanus
[
†
](A42789-e14650-b)
†
Cont.
Parmen
.
l.
2.
p.
44
,
45.
Ed.
Stiles
Bishops
,
Angels
,
and
plainly
alludes
unto
the
Apocalyptical
Angels
.
Nor
have
I
met
with
that
Conceit
about
the
Angel
of
the
Synagogue
(
the
Charan
or
Bishop
)
in
the
Primitive
Fathers
,
who
make
Mr.
O.
whereas
I
argu'd
,
that
the
Synagogue-Rulers
were
subject
to
the
〈◊〉
High
Priests
,
Ch
(
says
he
)
so
are
Presbyters
to
Jesus
Christ
our
High
Priest
.
Ans.
But
we
are
inquiring
about
subjection
unto
visible
Rulers
,
and
if
Mr.
O.
will
needs
have
the
Synagogue
a
Pattern
of
the
Christian
Congregations
,
then
the
Presbyters
must
be
subject
unto
some
visible
Superiour
,
(
as
were
the
Rulers
of
the
Synagogues
)
which
he
is
obliged
to
Name
.
Till
then
my
Observation
is
of
Moment
,
but
his
Reply
meerly
Delusory
,
and
Evasive
.
Mr.
O.
Let
the
Bishops
produce
as
clear
a
Charter
for
their
Order
,
as
the
High-Priests
did
for
theirs
,
and
we
'll
submit
.
Ans.
First
,
It
is
sufficient
,
I
suppose
,
that
the
Bishops
Charter
is
a
clear
one
,
as
to
the
Power
they
Claim
and
exercise
,
tho'
not
as
to
the
Title
of
Bishop
.
It
makes
no
great
matter
what
becomes
of
that
.
Secondly
,
Let
Mr.
O.
bring
as
clear
a
Proof
of
Presbyterian
Parity
,
or
Independency
,
or
of
Presbyters
exercising
the
Supreme
Acts
of
Ecclesiastical
Jurisdiction
,
as
are
to
be
produced
from
the
Epistles
to
Tim.
and
Tit.
in
behalf
of
Prelacy
,
that
is
,
for
a
single
Persons
presiding
over
Churches
and
governing
them
,
and
there
's
an
end
of
the
present
Controversy
.
Thirdly
,
I
ask
Mr.
〈◊〉
.
between
him
and
me
,
whether
he
does
not
submit
to
some
Religious
usages
,
for
which
there
is
not
so
clear
a
Charter
in
the
New
Testament
,
as
there
is
in
the
Old
,
for
some
of
the
Jewish
Rites
.
Whether
he
has
as
clear
and
express
Commandments
for
Infant
Baptism
,
for
the
Observation
and
Divine
Institution
of
the
Lord's-Day
,
for
days
of
Publick
and
general
Fasts
or
Humiliation
,
for
Singing
David's
Psalms
,
in
Metre
,
as
the
Jews
had
for
Circumcision
,
for
Saturday-Sabbath
,
for
their
Fasting-Days
,
and
for
their
Singing
the
Book
of
Psalms
,
in
their
way
?
It
is
not
then
for
want
of
a
clear
Charter
(
as
I
fear
)
that
he
refuses
to
submit
to
Bishops
,
but
for
want
of
a
clear
Understanding
,
and
a
peaceable
and
humble
mind
.
He
that
can
sit
down
with
reasonable
Deductions
,
and
be
prevailed
with
,
to
make
no
scruple
of
doing
what
is
thereby
recommended
unto
him
,
if
he
were
steady
to
his
own
Principle
,
ought
to
be
satisfyed
with
the
like
Reasonable
Conclusions
,
in
all
other
matters
of
Religion
.
I
said
in
the
T.
N.
that
a
great
deal
of
the
Temple-Worship
,
being
Moral
Religion
,
it
was
as
much
the
Pattern
of
the
Christian
,
as
the
Synagogue
Worship
was
.
And
on
that
account
,
the
Jewish
Priesthood
might
be
the
Pattern
of
the
Christian
Hierarchy
.
Mr.
O.
says
no
,
because
the
Jewish
Priesthood
was
appropriated
to
the
Ceremonial
worship
of
the
Temple
,
though
they
performed
the
moral
parts
there
also
.
Ans.
Though
the
Jewish
Priesthood
,
and
the
Temple
worship
,
were
incumbred
with
Ceremonies
,
yet
they
might
be
the
Pattern
of
the
Christian
Priesthood
and
Worship
.
An
embroidered
Garment
may
be
the
Pattern
of
a
plain
one
;
They
may
both
be
like
in
shape
,
and
in
substance
,
though
not
in
Ornament
,
and
their
Trimming
.
Besides
,
though
the
Levitical
Ceremonies
were
abolished
,
yet
some
others
were
substituted
by
Jesus
Christ
,
in
their
room
,
as
Baptism
,
and
the
Lord's-Supper
.
But
how
could
the
Synagogue
(
which
had
no
Ceremony
at
all
,
only
the
Moral
parts
of
Religion
performed
in
it
)
according
to
Mr.
O's
reasoning
,
be
a
pattern
of
the
Christian
Churches
,
which
have
Ceremonies
?
There
is
as
much
disagreement
between
a
Synagogue
,
which
has
no
Ceremonies
,
only
Natural
Religion
exercised
in
it
,
and
a
Christian
Church
which
has
Ceremonies
,
besides
the
natural
Religion
,
as
there
is
between
the
Temple
which
had
Levitical
Ceremonies
,
and
the
Christian
which
has
not
.
Mr.
O.
argues
,
that
the
Legal
Priests
,
and
Altar
,
and
Priesthood
were
changed
.
Ans.
True
,
as
to
the
Levitical
Ceremonies
:
But
not
as
to
any
thing
which
was
Moral
:
And
Government
,
I
conceive
,
is
a
part
of
Moral
Religion
:
though
therefore
a
Levitical
Ceremonial
High-Priest
was
not
ordained
for
the
Christian
Church
,
yet
in
Imitation
of
the
Jewish
Ecclesiastical
Government
,
a
Christian
High
Priest
,
might
be
appointed
,
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Law
being
laid
aside
.
Mr.
O.
The
Moral
Worship
in
the
Synagogues
might
be
performed
by
such
as
were
no
Priests
.
Ans.
And
will
Mr.
O.
therefore
assert
,
that
any
Man
may
in
a
Christian
Publick
Congregation
,
perform
the
Moral
parts
of
Worship
?
This
very
Observation
of
Mr.
O's
,
shews
that
the
Synagogues
were
not
the
Pattern
of
Christian
Churches
or
Congregations
;
because
I
take
it
for
granted
,
that
none
among
us
can
perform
,
even
Moral
Worship
,
in
Publick
,
except
Deacons
,
Presbyters
,
and
Bishops
.
It
rather
,
therefore
,
imports
that
the
Temple
Worship
is
the
Pattern
of
the
Christian
:
Because
,
as
none
but
the
Priests
and
Levites
,
could
perform
the
Moral
Worship
in
the
Temple
(
2
Chron.
30.
27.
Nehem.
9.
5.
Joel
2.
17.
)
Even
so
among
us
,
none
can
,
except
Bishops
,
Priests
,
and
Deacons
.
I
shall
〈◊〉
my
Answer
to
Mr.
O's
Discourses
about
〈◊〉
's
Epistles
,
to
the
Reply
,
which
I
intend
unto
his
Plea
,
Judging
that
the
most
proper
place
.
We
are
then
now
to
Treat
of
Titus
,
and
enquire
whether
he
was
the
Supreme
Ruler
of
the
Church
in
Crete
,
by
the
appointment
of
Paul
.
I
had
affirmed
in
T.
N.
and
(
I
think
)
prov'd
it
.
But
,
Mr.
O.
tells
us
,
〈◊〉
no
where
said
that
Paul
made
Titus
Bishop
of
Crete
.
Ans.
It
is
sufficient
to
me
,
that
Paul
committed
to
him
,
the
Supreme
Governing
Powers
over
that
Church
.
I
〈◊〉
not
about
the
word
Bishop
.
On
the
other
side
,
I
retort
,
that
't
is
no
where
said
,
that
Paul
ordained
or
constituted
any
one
Presbyter
in
Crete
:
will
it
follow
that
he
made
none
at
all
.
Mr.
O.
Titus
was
left
in
Crete
,
but
for
a
Season
,
perhaps
not
above
half
a
Year
,
Paul
charging
him
to
come
to
him
unto
Nicopolis
,
&c.
Tit.
3.
12.
Ans.
According
to
my
Hypothesis
,
it
might
be
some
Years
after
Paul's
leaving
Crete
,
that
he
sent
for
him
unto
Nicopolis
.
The
Apostle
,
as
I
suppose
,
left
him
at
Crete
,
as
he
sailed
from
Italy
to
Judaea
,
after
his
release
from
his
first
Imprisonment
at
Rome
:
and
long
after
,
as
he
was
returning
to
Italy
,
he
sent
for
him
to
Nicopolis
.
If
this
be
once
proved
(
as
I
promise
)
then
Titus
was
not
left
in
Crete
for
a
Season
.
But
according
to
Mr.
O's
Hypothesis
,
I
cannot
imagine
that
Titus
could
have
been
left
in
Crete
half
a
Month
,
far
enough
short
of
half
a
Year
,
and
too
short
a
time
to
set
in
Order
the
things
that
were
lacking
,
To
ordain
Elders
in
every
City
,
To
stop
the
Mouths
of
false
Teachers
,
To
rebuke
'em
,
and
that
with
all
Authority
:
In
a
Word
,
To
reject
〈◊〉
,
after
a
second
Admonition
.
This
surely
was
above
a
Months
Work
,
or
indeed
half
a
Years
.
It
implies
a
permanent
and
continued
Employment
.
I
said
,
according
to
Mr.
O's
Hypothesis
,
Titus
had
not
sufficient
time
for
the
Work
whereunto
he
was
appointed
.
For
he
attended
Paul
from
Achaia
unto
Macedonia
,
and
so
into
Asia
,
till
they
arrived
at
Jerusalem
;
of
all
which
I
shall
have
occasion
to
treat
more
punctually
in
the
Fourth
Chapter
.
However
it
cannot
(
I
own
)
be
denied
,
that
Paul
called
Titus
from
Crete
,
and
,
by
consequence
,
it
will
be
said
,
he
was
not
the
fixt
Ruler
(
or
Bishop
)
there
.
Ans.
The
resident
Governors
of
Churches
,
in
the
Apostles
days
,
were
not
so
tyed
to
their
Posts
,
that
they
might
not
,
on
any
account
whatever
,
stir
thence
.
It
is
not
to
be
doubted
,
but
that
they
removed
for
a
while
,
at
the
Apostle's
call
,
and
for
the
furtherance
of
the
Gospel
,
unto
other
places
,
and
afterwards
returned
to
their
Residence
again
.
I
do
suppose
,
Titus
went
to
St.
Paul
at
Nicopolis
,
and
thence
with
him
unto
Rome
:
That
as
he
returned
back
unto
Crete
,
by
the
Apostle's
direction
,
he
took
Dalmatia
in
his
way
〈◊〉
poem
.
27.
p.
169.
Regard
unto
the
Fathers
,
and
so
frequently
quotes
'em
,
for
the
support
of
his
own
Opinions
,
will
take
notice
of
this
Evidence
.
Mr.
O.
here
tells
us
,
That
,
the
Elders
in
Crete
were
chosen
by
the
〈◊〉
,
before
they
were
ordained
by
Titus
,
grounding
himself
upon
,
Act.
14.
23.
where
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
the
word
used
,
and
is
rendered
Ordained
,
but
implies
choosing
.
Ans.
Although
this
is
not
to
the
Point
here
debated
,
yet
,
lest
I
should
be
thought
to
over-slip
a
Difficulty
,
I
answer
,
That
there
is
not
in
the
Epistle
to
Titus
,
the
least
intimation
of
the
Multitudes
chusing
the
Elders
,
but
the
contrary
rather
,
the
Qualifications
and
fitness
of
the
Candidates
;
unto
that
good
Office
,
being
left
unto
the
judgment
of
Titus
.
Nor
does
it
appear
,
in
Acts
14.
23.
that
the
Multitude
chose
those
Elders
,
there
spoken
of
.
〈◊〉
if
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
this
place
signifies
Ordaining
;
then
here
's
not
one
word
of
choosing
'em
;
but
if
it
signifies
choosing
,
then
were
the
Two
Apostles
,
Paul
and
Barnabas
,
the
Electors
,
as
well
as
the
Ordainers
.
Why
not
?
So
God
first
without
the
suffrage
of
the
People
,
chose
the
Twelve
Apostles
(
Act.
10.
41.
)
where
the
same
word
is
used
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
;
and
then
Ordained
'em
,
Act.
2.
by
anointing
'em
with
the
Spirit
.
Nor
is
Mr.
O.
mistaken
,
when
he
imagines
me
Dreaming
,
that
after
Ordination
,
Titus
assigned
those
Elders
some
new
Powers
,
which
I
think
is
intimated
in
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
does
not
properly
signify
to
Ordain
,
but
pre-supposes
Ordination
,
and
imports
the
placing
of
those
Elders
in
their
particular
Stations
.
And
this
,
I
believe
,
is
distinct
from
their
Ordination
.
Mr.
O.
after
a
tedious
Discourse
about
Evangelists
(
of
which
number
he
reckons
〈◊〉
and
Titus
)
having
contended
a
degrading
them
,
who
had
a
general
Power
over
all
the
Churches
,
to
tie
'em
to
Residence
in
one
particular
Church
,
making
Ordinary
Officers
of
'em
.
Ans.
I
do
not
apprehend
this
to
be
a
degrading
them
.
For
whilst
they
continued
the
Companions
and
Fellow
Labourers
of
the
Apostles
,
and
unfixt
Officers
of
the
Church
,
they
cannot
properly
be
said
to
have
had
a
general
power
over
all
Churches
,
but
were
continually
at
the
beck
and
Command
of
the
Apostles
,
to
dispatch
such
Orders
,
as
were
from
time
to
time
given
them
.
As
they
had
no
certain
place
of
Residence
,
so
neither
had
they
any
certain
work
,
but
were
like
Reformades
in
an
Army
,
who
have
nothing
to
do
,
but
what
the
General
by
a
special
Order
employs
'em
in
upon
sudden
Occasions
.
If
it
be
allowable
,
magnis
componere
parva
,
to
explain
the
Condition
of
the
unfixt
Evangelists
,
by
an
Instance
well
known
in
this
County
Palatine
of
Lancaster
,
they
were
like
to
our
Itinerant
Preachers
,
founded
by
Q.
Elizabeth
of
Famous
Memory
.
These
have
a
Power
from
the
Bishop
of
the
Diocess
,
to
Preach
,
&c.
in
any
Church
,
or
Chappel
within
the
said
County
,
as
his
Lordship
shall
direct
them
,
or
they
know
is
necessary
and
convenient
to
the
Service
of
the
Reformation
.
They
have
a
general
Power
to
Preach
in
the
Churches
in
Lancashire
.
Now
if
the
Bishop
fixes
them
in
some
Rectory
or
Vicarage
,
no
Man
will
say
they
are
degraded
,
though
the
Exercise
of
their
Ministery
is
brought
into
a
narrower
Compass
than
before
.
But
I
have
spent
more
Words
on
this
slight
Objection
,
than
it
deserves
.
APPENDIX
.
MR
O.
Whereas
I
affirm'd
,
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
ought
properly
T.
N.
p.
64.
Ordination
,
he
hence
concludes
,
I
give
up
one
of
Titus'
s
main
Powers
,
adding
,
if
this
Text
proves
not
Titus
his
Ordaining
Power
,
no
one
in
that
Epistle
doth
.
Ans.
But
Mr.
O.
forgets
that
himself
,
as
well
as
the
Rector
,
have
all
along
taken
it
for
granted
,
that
whatever
Powers
were
committed
to
〈◊〉
,
were
also
given
unto
Titus
,
and
reciprocally
,
what
to
Titus
,
were
committed
to
Timothy
.
Besides
,
I
take
it
to
be
out
of
Controversy
,
that
he
,
to
whom
any
one
Part
of
Supreme
Power
is
given
,
is
to
be
understood
as
invested
with
all
:
Consequently
if
Titus
was
to
appoint
where
every
Presbyter
was
to
officiate
,
he
then
had
the
Power
of
Ordination
also
.
As
in
like
manner
,
though
Timothy
had
no
express
Commission
to
reject
Hereticks
after
the
second
Admonition
,
yet
because
Titus
had
that
Power
,
so
had
〈◊〉
likewise
.
In
short
,
Titus
had
Authority
to
receive
Accusations
,
and
to
rebuke
openly
,
as
well
as
Timothy
,
had
1
Epist.
to
Tim.
5.
and
Timothy
to
excommunicate
the
Contumacious
,
as
well
as
Titus
had
,
Ch.
3.
10.
and
both
had
power
to
ordain
,
because
one
had
.
CHAP.
IV.
Being
An
Answer
to
Mr.
O's
4th
Chap.
THE
Question
here
is
,
whereas
St.
Paul
gave
Timothy
those
ample
Commissions
and
Instructions
,
that
we
read
of
in
his
first
Epistle
,
concerning
the
Government
of
the
Ephesian
Church
,
some
time
after
he
had
besought
him
to
abide
still
at
Ephesus
,
when
he
went
into
Macedonia
,
1
Epist.
1.
3.
What
was
that
precise
time
of
Paul's
going
into
Macedonia
,
and
beseeching
Timothy
to
abide
at
Ephesus
?
In
the
Tent.
Nov.
following
Bishop
Pearson
,
I
resolved
this
Question
thus
,
That
Paul's
Journey
,
here
spoken
of
,
could
not
be
meant
of
any
of
those
mentioned
in
the
Acts
of
the
Apostles
;
that
therefore
it
must
be
some
other
,
after
his
bidding
the
Elders
of
Ephesus
Farewel
:
That
coming
to
Jerusalem
,
he
was
there
made
Prisoner
,
and
thence
carried
to
Rome
,
where
he
continued
about
2
Years
in
Bonds
:
That
being
at
length
released
,
he
returned
into
the
Eastern
Parts
again
,
visiting
the
Churches
;
and
then
as
he
passed
out
of
Asia
,
into
Macedonia
,
besought
Timothy
to
abide
at
Ephesus
,
as
the
fixt
Ruler
,
or
Bishop
of
that
Church
;
And
shortly
,
after
dispatched
the
1st
Epistle
to
him
.
That
Paul
himself
,
some
while
after
,
went
back
into
Italy
,
and
unto
the
utmost
parts
of
the
West
,
Preaching
the
Gospel
,
and
being
at
length
once
more
got
unto
Rome
,
was
there
Imprisoned
a
second
time
,
when
he
wrote
the
second
Epistle
to
Tim.
a
little
before
he
was
Beheaded
.
We
are
now
to
consider
Mr.
O's
Objections
against
all
this
.
Mr.
O.
To
abide
still
,
doth
not
imply
a
continued
Residence
:
Ans.
There
is
a
great
difference
between
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
here
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Act.
17.
14
,
15.
The
former
implies
a
continued
stay
at
Ephesus
,
the
latter
only
signifies
Silas
and
Timothy's
halting
,
that
is
,
tarrying
behind
Paul
at
Beraea
.
Besides
,
we
have
no
account
of
Timothy's
sudden
remove
from
Ephesus
:
But
we
have
of
Timothy's
leaving
Beraea
soon
after
,
Act.
18.
5.
1
Thes.
3.
2.
Lastly
,
the
Orders
given
unto
Timothy
,
at
Ephesus
,
were
many
and
Important
,
which
also
required
time
to
be
executed
,
which
does
not
appear
to
have
been
the
Case
of
Timothy
at
Beraea
.
Mr.
O.
Timothy's
stay
there
(
at
Ephesus
)
was
but
short
,
that
is
,
until
the
Apostle
came
to
him
,
1
Tim.
3.
14.
ch.
4.
13.
Ans.
There
is
no
Colour
of
Argument
in
this
.
It
is
not
said
,
he
must
tarry
no
longer
there
,
than
till
Paul
came
to
him
;
Nor
can
that
be
the
meaning
;
For
then
it
would
follow
,
that
Timothy
was
to
give
attendance
to
Reading
,
to
Exhortation
,
and
to
Doctrine
,
but
till
the
Apostle
came
to
him
:
Which
(
I
hope
)
Mr.
O.
will
not
affirm
.
Besides
,
Paul
was
not
certain
of
his
going
to
Ephesus
shortly
;
Therefore
he
adds
,
1
Tim.
3.
15
—
If
I
tarry
long
,
&c.
from
which
Passages
I
gather
,
That
Paul
,
at
his
first
beseeching
of
Timothy
,
to
abide
at
Ephesus
,
thought
his
Instructions
not
full
enough
,
and
therefore
intended
to
see
Timothy
,
shortly
at
Ephesus
,
and
to
furnish
him
with
further
Orders
,
how
he
ought
to
behave
himself
in
the
House
of
God
,
the
Church
of
Ephesus
committed
to
him
:
But
because
he
suspected
he
might
tarry
long
,
he
therefore
in
the
mean
while
sent
him
this
Epistle
:
All
which
shews
,
that
Timothy
was
designed
for
the
fixt
Ruler
of
Ephesus
.
Although
the
Apostle
resolved
to
visit
him
there
shortly
:
Not
to
remove
him
thence
,
but
to
give
him
fuller
Directions
about
the
management
of
the
Government
of
the
Church
.
Mr.
O.
He
was
not
fixt
as
Resident
at
Ephesus
,
because
,
the
Apostle
afterward
called
him
to
Rome
,
2
Tim.
4.
9.
21.
Ans.
I
will
take
an
Opportunity
by
and
by
,
to
Discourse
about
Residence
,
where
the
weakness
of
this
Objection
will
fully
appear
.
In
the
Interim
I
'll
only
acquaint
the
Reader
,
that
according
to
Mr.
O's
own
Hypothesis
,
it
could
not
be
less
than
between
three
and
four
Years
,
after
the
writing
of
the
first
Epistle
,
that
Paul
sent
for
〈◊〉
unto
Rome
,
and
according
unto
mine
,
about
six
Years
.
which
is
a
considerable
stay
,
or
Residence
in
one
Place
.
I
say
,
further
that
Paul's
sending
for
Timothy
to
Rome
,
is
no
Argument
that
Timothy
for
ever
quitted
that
Post
:
That
he
returned
back
to
Ephesus
,
must
be
made
appear
from
Ecclefiastical
History
,
the
Scripture
going
no
further
,
in
the
Account
of
Paul
and
Timothy
,
than
that
,
in
the
second
Epistle
Sophronlus
,
or
Jerom
[
*
](A42789-e17780-b)
*
Catal.
scr.
Witness
that
he
was
Martyr'd
at
Ephesus
,
and
Photius
[
†
](A42789-e17810-b)
†
Cod.
254.
acquaints
us
,
with
the
time
and
Occasion
,
viz.
At
the
detestable
Festival
called
Mr.
O.
Objects
against
the
time
assign'd
(
in
T.
N.
)
of
Paul's
That
nothing
can
be
concluded
from
Luke's
silence
in
this
Point
:
For
't
is
certain
that
he
doth
not
mention
all
the
Journies
of
Paul
and
Timothy
.
Ans.
I
readily
grant
that
bare
silence
is
no
good
Proof
,
without
some
other
considerations
to
support
it
;
and
I
also
grant
,
that
Luke
mentions
not
all
Paul
and
Timothy's
Journeys
:
But
I
contend
that
he
Omits
none
of
Paul's
from
the
13
th
Chapter
unto
the
end
of
the
Acts
of
the
Apostles
,
as
any
impartial
Man
will
believe
,
if
he
carefully
reads
that
part
of
the
History
.
And
for
proof
of
this
,
I
shall
at
present
content
my self
with
the
acknowledgement
and.
Testimony
of
Beza
himself
,
who
thus
writes
particularly
as
to
Paul's
Journeys
into
Macedonia
—
Ter
omnino
vidit
Macedoniam
Paulus
,
ut
ex
historiae
filo
apparet
.
Quamvis
enim
non
omnia
perscripserit
Lucas
,
ita
tamen
contextam
historiam
esse
apparet
,
ut
non
plures
profectiones
in
Macedoniam
possint
In
Dissertat
.
de
Serie
&
Succes
.
P.
75.
constitui
.
Paul
saw
Macedonia
,
but
thrice
,
as
is
manifest
from
the
History
,
as
't
is
closely
laid
together
by
Luke
.
For
though
he
remembers
not
all
things
,
and
every
little
movement
of
the
Apostle
,
yet
his
History
appears
so
contrived
,
that
more
Journies
of
his
into
Macedonia
cannot
be
assigned
or
allow'd
.
I
do
not
indeed
believe
that
St.
Luke
has
set
down
within
the
time
mention'd
,
every
Step
the
Apostle
made
by
the
by
,
unto
Towns
,
and
Villages
near
at
hand
.
While
Paul
was
at
Corinth
,
't
is
to
me
out
of
Controversy
,
that
he
went
into
the
Neighouring
places
,
Preaching
the
Gospel
,
though
Luke
has
not
told
us
so
.
There
were
Christians
,
and
a
Church
at
Cenchrea
,
Rom.
16.
1.
where
doubtless
the
Apostle
had
taught
the
Word
of
God
:
but
Luke
omitted
this
.
Nevertheless
,
't
is
senseless
to
think
,
the
Historian
should
forget
so
considerable
a
Voyage
,
as
this
of
Paul's
going
from
Ephesus
,
unto
Macedonia
,
and
leaving
Timothy
behind
him
.
But
that
which
I
further
add
,
is
,
That
I
do
not
rely
barely
on
St.
Luke's
silence
,
but
observe
,
that
in
his
History
,
he
has
left
no
room
for
St.
Paul's
placing
Timothy
at
Ephesus
,
at
any
of
those
three
times
,
when
he
went
into
Macedonia
.
And
if
this
be
well
prov'd
,
as
has
been
,
and
shall
be
once
more
,
then
another
Journey
of
Paul's
into
Macedonia
must
be
searched
for
,
and
I
do
believe
may
be
,
and
has
been
found
out
.
In
order
to
make
out
all
this
,
let
us
first
examine
the
Ministers
Hypothesis
.
Mr.
O's
Hypothesis
is
this
,
That
St.
Paul
at
Ephesus
,
sent
Corinth
.
Act.
19.
21
,
22.
expecting
him
back
at
Ephesus
,
1
Cor.
16.
10
,
11.
that
't
is
most
likely
,
Timothy
went
back
to
Paul
,
at
Ephesus
,
where
the
Apostle
left
him
,
when
he
went
into
Macedonia
,
Act.
20.
v.
1.
which
(
as
Mr.
O.
thinks
)
is
the
meaning
of
that
,
1
Tim.
1.
3.
My
business
then
is
to
prove
,
That
this
could
not
be
.
In
order
whereunto
I
must
give
here
an
exact
Narrative
of
Paul
from
the
time
of
his
two
Years
stay
at
Ephesus
,
unto
his
bidding
the
Elders
farewell
,
at
Miletus
,
in
his
Passage
towards
Jerusalem
;
from
whence
it
will
appear
plainly
,
that
Paul
could
not
leave
Timothy
at
Ephesus
,
at
that
time
,
when
he
went
into
Macedonia
,
mentioned
,
Act.
20.
1.
Paul
having
Resided
at
Ephesus
two
Years
(
Act.
19.
10.
)
(
and
perhaps
more
)
purposed
in
Spirit
to
pass
〈◊〉
Macedonia
,
to
〈◊〉
,
thence
to
Jerusalem
,
and
so
to
Rome
(
v.
21.
)
.
Some
while
〈◊〉
he
departed
from
Ephesus
,
news
came
to
him
of
the
Schism
at
Corinth
,
which
occasioned
his
first
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians
.
That
the
Apostle
sent
this
Letter
from
Ephesus
,
is
manifest
from
1
Cor.
16.
8
,
19.
That
Timothy
carried
this
Letter
,
appears
from
Chapter
4.
17.
Ch.
16.
10.
and
that
Timothy
at
the
same
time
,
had
received
Orders
from
the
Apostle
,
to
go
into
Macedonia
,
may
be
seen
Act.
19.
22.
St.
Paul
resolving
to
〈◊〉
at
Ephesus
,
or
in
Asia
,
for
a
Season
,
that
is
,
till
Pentecost
,
1
Cor.
16.
8.
Now
because
Paul
designed
to
tarry
in
Asia
but
for
a
Season
,
that
is
,
till
〈◊〉
,
and
because
in
his
Letter
to
the
Corinthians
,
he
promises
to
come
to
them
shortly
,
Ch.
4.
19.
it
cannot
be
doubted
,
but
Timothy
set
forth
on
this
Journey
from
Ephesus
to
Macedonia
,
and
so
to
〈◊〉
in
the
Spring
about
Easter
,
in
the
Month
of
March
.
Paul's
stay
therefore
at
Ephesus
,
after
Timothy's
Departure
,
was
about
six
Weeks
.
The
Apostle
〈◊〉
leaving
Ephesus
at
Whitsontide
,
came
to
Troas
(
2
Cor.
2.
12.
)
thence
unto
Macedonia
(
ch.
7.
5.
)
where
the
long
expected
Titus
met
him
,
ch.
7.
6.
Timothy
also
came
to
him
in
Macedonia
,
and
joined
with
him
in
the
second
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians
(
ch.
1.
1.
)
Paul
and
Timothy
,
having
spent
some
Month
,
in
Macedonia
,
gathering
the
Contributions
,
and
exhorting
the
Brethren
(
Act.
20.
2.
)
unto
Liberality
,
as
I
suppose
,
set
forward
for
Greece
,
where
they
tarried
all
the
three
Winter
Months
,
Act.
20.
2
,
3.
that
is
Wintered
at
Corinth
,
as
the
Apostle
had
promised
,
1
Cor.
16.
6.
During
his
stay
here
,
Paul
wrote
his
Epistle
to
the
Romans
,
ch.
15.
25
,
26.
Timothy
being
then
with
him
,
ch.
16.
21.
Early
in
the
Spring
,
as
the
Apostle
was
about
to
〈◊〉
from
〈◊〉
to
Syria
,
and
so
to
pass
forward
unto
Jerusalem
,
as
he
had
before
laid
his
Journey
,
he
suddenly
altered
his
Purpose
;
the
Occasion
whereof
was
the
Jews
lying
in
Wait
for
Him
.
So
he
returned
into
Macedonia
,
sending
Timothy
before
him
,
whom
nevertheless
he
overtook
at
Troas
.
Hence
Paul
and
his
Company
hasted
unto
Miletus
,
where
the
Apostle
calling
to
him
the
Elders
of
Ephesus
,
bid
em
Farewel
.
Act.
20.
3
,
5
,
6
,
15
,
17.
The
Arguments
I
raise
hence
against
Mr.
O's
〈◊〉
are
as
follow
.
1.
Here
is
not
sufficient
time
for
Timothy's
Journey
from
Ephesus
to
Macedonia
,
so
to
Corinth
,
and
back
again
to
Paul
at
Ephesus
,
before
the
Apostle
departed
thence
.
According
to
Mr.
Berry's
Maps
,
Corinth
is
distant
from
Ephesus
,
above
500
[
*
](A42789-e19590-b)
*
Near
700.
Italian
,
or
English
Miles
,
if
one
travel
by
Troas
,
and
through
Macedonia
:
So
that
backward
and
forward
,
Timothy
must
have
gone
more
than
a
Thousand
Miles
in
six
weeks
time
,
besides
crossing
the
Sea
,
that
's
to
say
,
30
[
†
](A42789-e19650-b)
†
Or
38.
Miles
a
day
,
which
is
incredible
,
especially
if
it
be
considered
,
that
he
had
much
Business
to
dispatch
,
both
in
〈◊〉
and
at
Corinth
:
And
Mr.
O.
will
not
,
I
suppose
,
allow
that
he
travelled
on
the
Lord's-Days
.
Against
this
it
will
be
objected
,
That
Paul
looked
for
Timothy
back
at
Ephesus
,
1
Cor.
16.
11.
and
that
the
length
of
the
Journey
ought
〈◊〉
to
be
pleaded
against
so
good
an
Evidence
of
the
Matter
of
Fact
.
Ans.
I
deny
that
St.
Paul
expected
Timothy
back
at
Ephesus
,
but
in
Macedonia
rather
:
The
Words
are
—
That
he
may
come
unto
me
,
for
I
look
for
him
.
But
whether
at
Ephesus
where
he
then
was
,
or
in
Macedonia
,
where
he
hoped
shortly
to
be
,
is
not
said
.
Now
Paul
had
just
before
advertised
the
〈◊〉
,
I
do
pass
through
Macedonia
,
v.
5.
and
doubtless
he
had
told
Timothy
as
much
before
:
He
departed
from
Ephesus
,
Acts
19.
Besides
when
Paul
at
Ephesus
wrote
his
first
Epistle
to
the
Cor.
he
at
that
very
time
resolved
to
tarry
in
Asia
but
for
a
Season
.
Acts
19.
22.
and
to
go
unto
Corinth
shortly
,
1
Ep.
4.
19.
'T
is
then
most
probable
that
Timothy
was
to
meet
Paul
,
in
Macedonia
,
and
that
the
Apostle
expected
him
there
,
and
there
we
find
'em
together
at
the
writing
of
the
second
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians
.
2.
There
was
no
occasion
for
Timothy's
going
back
unto
Paul
at
Ephesus
,
and
tarrying
there
after
the
Apostle
was
departed
unto
Macedonia
.
St.
Paul
had
himself
settled
that
Church
of
Ephesus
,
and
left
it
in
good
Order
.
He
had
furnished
it
with
Presbyters
and
able
Ministers
.
There
were
among
them
as
yet
no
Wolves
,
no
Vipers
,
no
false
Teachers
,
who
deserved
to
be
brought
before
Timothy
,
and
Rebuked
openly
for
their
disorderly
walking
.
Thus
it
was
at
Paul's
departure
,
and
thus
it
continued
some
time
after
:
Even
when
the
Apostle
the
next
year
called
together
the
Elders
at
Miletus
,
all
was
still
well
among
'em
.
The
Apostle
makes
no
complaint
to
the
contrary
,
nor
had
he
any
reason
for
it
.
Why
then
〈◊〉
Timothy
be
put
unto
such
an
unreasonable
Fatigue
,
when
there
was
nothing
for
him
to
do
,
at
Ephesus
?
And
yet
,
3.
(
As
we
read
in
the
first
Epistle
to
Tim.
)
there
was
much
Business
,
and
more
than
he
could
dispatch
,
in
that
little
time
allowed
for
his
stay
there
by
Mr.
O.
There
is
the
more
force
in
this
Argument
,
because
the
Apostle
at
his
Writing
the
first
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
soon
after
from
Macedonia
,
hopes
to
be
with
him
at
Ephesus
shortly
,
(
1
Ep.
3.
14.
)
Was
Timothy
left
at
Ephesus
,
in
the
Apostle's
room
to
discharge
so
many
important
Matters
,
as
are
reckoned
up
in
that
Epistle
,
and
yet
the
Apostle
intend
to
return
unto
Ephesus
shortly
;
and
serve
him
with
a
Writ
of
Ease
?
It
is
incredible
.
4.
Paul's
hopes
of
returning
shortly
,
from
Macedonia
unto
Timothy
at
Ephesus
,
1
Tim.
3.
14.
according
to
Mr.
O's
Hypothesis
,
are
wholly
Inconsistent
with
his
former
Purposes
of
going
from
Ephesus
to
Macedonia
,
so
to
Achaia
,
and
thence
to
Syria
by
Sea
,
and
so
to
Jerusalem
:
For
we
read
that
he
still
continued
in
that
mind
after
Winter
,
Act.
20.
3.
which
shews
plainly
that
the
Apostle
after
his
leaving
Ephesus
,
neither
intended
nor
hoped
to
see
it
any
more
at
this
time
.
He
did
not
then
write
his
1st
.
Epistle
to
Tim.
whilst
he
was
now
in
Macedonia
,
newly
come
from
Ephesus
,
because
he
could
not
then
think
of
returning
to
Ephesus
shortly
,
his
Journey
to
Jerusalem
being
then
laid
quite
another
way
,
and
by
Consequence
he
did
not
leave
nor
beseech
Timothy
to
abide
at
Ephesus
,
at
this
his
departure
thence
into
Macedonia
.
5.
Paul
was
in
great
hast
to
gather
the
Collections
in
Macedonia
and
Achaia
,
that
he
might
bring
them
to
Jerusalem
,
by
the
next
Pentecost
,
if
it
were
possible
,
Act.
20.
16.
In
so
great
hast
,
that
being
at
Troas
in
his
way
to
Macedonia
,
though
a
Door
was
opened
unto
him
,
that
is
,
though
he
had
a
Prospect
of
Converting
many
Souls
unto
God
,
yet
he
refused
to
〈◊〉
;
But
set
forward
immediately
unto
Macedonia
,
2
〈◊〉
.
2.
12
,
13.
How
then
can
it
be
imagined
that
he
designed
or
hoped
to
return
shortly
unto
Timothy
at
Ephesus
,
when
he
would
not
tarry
a
while
at
Troas
,
no
not
though
he
saw
his
Preaching
would
have
effect
among
those
People
?
and
at
the
same
time
aimed
to
pass
unto
Jerusalem
,
through
syria
by
Sea
,
as
before
is
noted
.
6.
It
Timothy
(
as
Mr.
O.
Imagines
)
returned
unto
Paul
at
Ephesus
,
before
his
Departure
thence
for
Macedonia
,
about
Pentecost
,
the
Apostle
had
had
no
Occasion
of
being
restless
at
Troas
,
2
Cor.
2.
13.
Nor
in
Macedonia
,
Ch.
7.
5
,
6.
because
of
Titus
coming
not
to
him
from
Corinth
.
Was
St.
Paul
troubled
about
Titus
,
whether
he
was
Well
and
in
Health
?
or
earnest
to
know
how
the
Contributions
at
Corinth
went
on
?
or
curious
to
hear
what
Effect
his
First
Chiding
Letter
had
on
the
Corinthians
?
Timothy
if
he
had
reached
Paul
at
Ephesus
,
had
certainly
satisfy'd
his
Curiosity
,
in
all
these
things
.
But
seeing
he
was
restless
and
uneasy
,
both
at
Troas
and
in
Macedonia
,
upon
some
or
all
the
foresaid
Accounts
,
after
he
had
left
Ephesus
,
't
is
certain
Timothy
came
not
to
him
at
Ephesus
,
and
by
consequence
he
left
not
Timothy
at
Ephesus
,
when
he
went
to
Macedonia
at
that
time
,
nor
then
besought
him
to
abide
there
.
7.
If
Paul
left
Timothy
at
Ephesus
now
,
at
his
departure
thence
unto
Macedonia
,
't
is
Plain
,
Timothy
abode
there
but
a
very
small
while
:
For
he
was
presently
with
Paul
in
Macedonia
again
,
which
is
not
at
all
agreeable
to
the
Business
,
St.
Paul
afterward
in
his
Letter
committed
to
Timothy's
Charge
.
The
Case
between
them
stood
thus
.
Paul
desired
Timothy
to
abide
at
Ephesus
,
hoping
doubtless
and
designing
to
be
back
with
him
in
a
little
time
.
But
because
the
Apostle
had
not
yet
given
Timothy
all
the
necessary
Orders
,
nor
sufficient
Instructions
,
how
he
should
behave
himself
in
the
Administration
of
the
Ecclesiastical
Government
at
Ephesus
,
and
because
he
foresaw
behave
himself
in
the
House
of
God
,
the
Church
.
These
things
manifestly
shew
that
Timothy
was
intended
to
tarry
a
good
while
at
Ephesus
,
and
till
Paul
came
to
him
,
1
Epist.
4.
13.
although
it
should
happen
to
be
long
:
And
likewise
to
continue
there
,
though
Paul
had
come
to
him
shortly
.
If
Paul
had
been
certain
of
his
returning
shortly
to
Timothy
at
Ephesus
:
He
had
not
sent
him
this
Epistle
:
For
so
't
is
intimated
,
1
Tim.
3.
14
,
15.
These
things
write
I
unto
thee
hoping
to
come
unto
thee
shortly
:
But
because
they
had
been
needless
,
or
might
have
been
thought
so
,
if
Paul
had
been
certain
of
his
going
unto
him
shortly
.
He
therefore
adds
〈◊〉
way
of
excuse
;
But
if
I
tarry
long
(
as
perhaps
I
may
)
I
therefore
write
these
things
unto
th
e
,
that
thou
may'st
know
how
thou
oughtest
to
behave
thy self
in
the
〈◊〉
,
which
I
have
committed
unto
thee
.
This
is
not
at
all
consistent
with
Timothy's
being
suddenly
after
with
Paul
in
Macedonia
,
2
Cor.
1.
1.
If
so
,
why
should
the
Apostle
talk
of
coming
to
him
at
〈◊〉
shortly
;
and
,
if
it
happen'd
otherwise
,
write
to
him
concerning
his
Behaviour
in
the
Government
of
the
Church
?
But
let
us
descend
unto
〈◊〉
.
In
the
first
of
Tim.
and
5th
Chapter
,
the
Apostle
instructs
him
to
reward
the
Elders
that
Rule
well
with
double
honour
,
especially
if
they
〈◊〉
labour'd
in
the
Word
and
Doctrine
,
v.
17.
to
hear
Complaints
made
against
Elders
and
examine
Witnesses
,
v.
19.
to
rebuke
offending
Blders
openly
,
as
he
found
Cause
,
or
to
acquit
'em
,
if
the
Accusation
was
not
sufficiently
proved
against
'em
,
v.
20.
and
to
Ordain
Elders
,
as
need
required
,
v.
22.
All
which
implies
that
Timothy
was
designed
to
continue
at
Ephesus
some
considerable
time
:
whereas
according
to
Mr.
O's
Hypothesis
Timothy
tarryed
not
at
Ephesus
till
Paul
came
to
him
,
but
went
to
Paul
in
Macedouia
,
soon
after
the
receipt
of
this
Epistle
,
which
is
incredible
,
and
(
as
I
said
)
inconsistent
with
the
Instructions
aforesaid
contained
in
the
Epistle
.
8
Timothy
accordingly
did
abide
at
Ephesus
a
considerable
time
,
as
appears
from
the
Apostles
second
Epistle
,
which
is
very
agreeable
to
my
Hypothesis
,
but
not
at
all
to
Mr.
O's
.
Nay
but
,
Mr.
O.
will
say
the
second
Epistle
was
sent
to
Timothy
from
Rome
,
in
the
time
of
Paul's
first
Imprisonment
.
The
Apostle
〈◊〉
from
Miletus
to
Jerusalem
,
had
left
him
there
,
or
thereabouts
in
Asia
;
and
therefore
this
second
Epistle
proves
not
that
Timothy
continued
at
Ephesus
,
a
good
while
after
Paul
left
him
there
,
Paul
sending
for
him
to
Rome
.
Ans.
It
shall
e'er
I
make
an
end
,
once
more
be
Demonstrated
(
under
Mr.
O's
favour
,
I
say
,
Demonstrated
)
that
the
second
Epistle
was
wrote
in
Paul's
second
Bonds
at
Rome
.
Mean-while
Mr.
O's
Assertion
,
that
Timothy
went
not
with
Paul
to
Jerusalem
,
but
tarryed
behind
in
Asia
,
is
supported
by
no
probable
Circumstance
in
Scripture
.
It
must
be
confest
,
that
St.
Luke
no
where
expresly
tells
us
,
that
Timothy
accompanied
Paul
thither
.
But
there
is
no
force
in
this
;
because
Luke
mentions
none
of
the
Apostle's
other
Companions
,
who
went
along
with
Him
,
with
the
Contributions
unto
Jerusalem
,
except
Trophimus
.
Nevertherless
it
cannot
be
doubted
but
many
accompanied
him
,
not
only
to
Jerusalem
,
but
to
Rome
also
,
who
nevertheless
are
omitted
by
Luke
.
To
say
nothing
of
Luke
himself
,
Colos.
4.
14.
Philem.
24.
Tychicus
was
one
,
Eph.
6.
21.
Colos.
4.
7.
and
Titus
another
,
who
is
never
once
named
by
St.
Luke
in
the
whole
Book
of
the
Acts
,
and
yet
doubtless
went
with
Paul
from
Corinth
,
and
so
to
Jerusalem
,
and
thence
to
Rome
:
in
proof
whereof
,
see
2
Cor.
8.
19.
And
not
that
only
,
but
who
was
also
chosen
of
the
Churches
,
to
travel
with
us
with
this
Grace
or
Gift
,
the
Corinthians
Charity
:
which
Words
of
St.
Paul
are
to
be
understood
of
Titus
,
not
of
Luke
mentioned
in
the
precedent
Verse
.
The
precedent
Verse
being
cast
out
,
or
put
into
a
Parenthesis
,
thus
the
17th
and
19th
Verses
will
run
—
For
indeed
He
(
Titus
)
accepted
the
Exhortation
,
but
being
more
forward
of
his
own
accord
He
went
in
to
you
,
and
that
only
(
that
is
,
he
did
not
only
accept
my
Exhortation
,
and
went
willing
of
himself
,
but
over
and
above
)
He
was
also
Chosen
of
the
Churches
to
travel
with
us
,
with
this
Grace
.
For
the
Apostle
is
here
professedly
writing
in
the
Commendation
of
Titus
,
and
mentions
Luke
but
by
the
bye
:
and
Titus
was
the
Person
,
who
took
most
Pains
in
forwarding
the
Collections
at
〈◊〉
,
for
which
Reason
,
't
is
most
Rational
to
believe
,
he
was
Chosen
for
one
to
carry
them
.
Nor
am
I
singular
in
this
exposition
,
Sir
Norton
Knatchbul
,
in
the
Synopsis
,
differs
but
very
little
〈◊〉
me
,
correcting
the
Parenthesis
thus
—
Misimus
cum
eo
fratrem
(
〈◊〉
laus
,
&c.
)
cum
hoc
ministerio
sive
dono
,
implying
,
that
both
Titus
and
Luke
,
were
sent
with
the
Corinthians
Liberality
unto
Jerusalem
.
I
will
not
take
upon
me
to
Vindicate
this
Gentleman's
Correction
of
the
Text
,
but
he
plainly
shews
,
that
he
thought
Titus
went
along-with
the
Contributions
to
Jerusalem
,
which
is
all
I
contend
.
for
.
There
are
the
same
〈◊〉
to
believe
Timothy
attended
Paul
to
Jerusalem
,
and
then
to
Rome
.
-
1.
Because
Timathy
was
employ'd
by
St.
Paul
,
to
promote
the
Collections
in
Macedonia
,
as
Titus
in
Achaia
(
For
that
was
his
Errand
,
I
make
account
when
Paul
sent
him
into
Macedonia
,
Act.
19.
22.
)
And
we
ought
in
Reason
to
believe
〈◊〉
was
join'd
in
the
Commission
,
for
carrying
the
Relief
unto
Jerusalem
;
since
he
had
been
imploy'd
in
forwarding
and
Collecting
them
.
This
the
rather
〈◊〉
.
-
2.
We
read
He
was
with
Paul
at
Rome
in
the
Apostle's
first
Imprisonment
,
doubtless
accompanying
Paul
thither
from
Miletus
,
and
Jerusalem
,
Heb.
13.
2
,
3.
Philip.
〈◊〉
.
1.
Colof
.
1.
1.
Now
then
if
Timothy
went
along
with
Paul
,
to
Jerusalem
,
and
to
Rome
,
then
he
could
not
continue
at
Ephesus
,
or
in
Asia
,
a
considerable
time
,
neither
was
the
second
Epistle
written
to
him
,
in
the
Apostles
first
Imprisonment
,
as
Mr.
O.
supposes
.
Having
(
as
I
hope
)
given
irrefragable
Arguments
,
that
Paul
at
his
going
into
Macedonia
mentioned
,
Acts
the
20.
1.
did
not
then
leave
Timothy
behind
at
Ephesus
,
beseeching
Him
to
abide
there
,
I
will
now
consider
,
when
it
was
,
that
the
Apostle
left
Titus
in
Crete
to
set
in
order
the
things
that
were
wanting
.
My
Opinion
is
(
as
I
have
declared
at
large
in
T.
N.
)
that
Paul
being
Released
from
his
first
Imprisonment
at
Rome
,
and
returning
into
the
East
,
as
he
promised
or
hinted
in
several
of
his
Epistles
,
writ
to
'em
from
Rome
,
touched
at
Crete
,
and
having
laid
a
Foundation
of
a
Christian
Church
in
that
Island
,
prosecuted
his
Journey
Eastward
,
leaving
Titus
behind
to
perfect
it
:
whom
therefore
he
afterwards
furnished
with
Instructions
about
the
Government
of
that
Church
,
in
his
Epistle
to
Titus
.
Instead
of
this
Mr.
O.
Proposes
the
Opinion
of
Dr.
Lightfoot
,
which
is
,
that
when
Paul
returned
from
then
he
left
Titus
there
(
in
Crete
)
Tit.
1.
5.
thinking
that
he
should
presently
,
after
a
little
stay
in
Greece
,
have
〈◊〉
forwards
towards
Jerusalem
.
As
he
was
about
to
Sail
into
Syria
,
the
Jews
laid
wait
for
him
,
which
made
him
return
through
Macedonia
,
Acts
20.
3.
About
that
time
(
as
Dr.
Lightfoot
conceives
)
he
writ
the
Epistle
to
Titus
,
in
which
he
calls
him
to
Nicopolis
,
where
〈◊〉
intended
to
Winter
,
Tit.
3.
12.
He
had
some
thoughts
of
Wintering
in
Corinth
,
1
Cor.
16.
6.
but
it
seems
,
〈◊〉
his
Resolution
,
he
determined
to
Winter
in
Nicopolis
a
City
of
Epirus
,
not
very
far
distant
from
Corinth
.
Titus
according
to
appointment
came
to
him
,
and
was
thence
sent
by
him
to
Corinth
to
hasten
the
Collections
for
the
Saints
in
Judea
,
2
Cor.
8.
16
,
17.
Ans.
Before
I
come
to
the
main
Business
,
I
must
take
notice
of
several
mistakes
and
Inconsistences
in
this
Account
.
1.
That
Paul
cannot
be
said
to
have
returned
from
Macedonia
to
Greece
,
whereas
yet
in
this
Peregrination
he
had
not
been
.
For
Paul
first
came
from
Ephesus
into
Macedonia
,
then
went
into
Greece
,
Acts
20.
2.
He
returned
indeed
afterward
out
of
Greece
into
Macedonia
again
,
v.
3.
but
he
did
not
return
out
of
Macedonia
into
Greece
.
But
the
meaning
is
,
I
presume
,
〈◊〉
must
be
,
as
far
as
I
am
able
to
comprehend
him
,
that
Paul
when
(
or
as
)
he
went
from
Macedonia
into
Greece
left
Titus
in
Crete
,
Tit.
1.
5.
which
is
absurd
,
as
any
one
will
confess
,
that
knows
the
Geographical
Situation
of
these
Places
.
2.
Mr.
O.
thinks
that
Paul
intended
to
Winter
at
Nicopolis
:
but
't
is
evident
,
he
intended
to
Winter
at
Corinth
,
1
Cor.
16.
6.
and
't
is
as
evident
,
that
he
did
Winter
there
,
Act.
20.
3.
for
he
〈◊〉
there
three
Months
.
3.
Mr.
O.
says
,
Paul
returned
through
Macedonia
,
Act.
20.
3.
about
the
time
as
he
writ
the
Epistle
to
Titus
,
in
which
He
calls
him
to
Nicopolis
.
But
Paul's
Return
through
Macedonia
,
was
in
the
Spring
,
and
He
was
got
to
Philippi
by
Easter
,
Act.
20.
6.
How
then
could
he
about
this
time
write
to
Titus
,
and
in
his
Letter
call
Titus
to
him
at
Nicopolis
,
where
he
was
determined
to
Winter
,
and
yet
Winter
was
already
past
.
4.
Nicopolis
(
says
Mr.
O.
)
a
City
of
Epirus
not
far
distant
from
Corinth
.
Only
about
170.
Miles
:
that
's
nothing
with
Mr.
O.
But
I
have
shewn
that
't
is
unlikely
Paul
should
at
this
time
determine
to
Winter
at
Nicopolis
,
where
He
had
never
as
yet
been
,
and
where
there
was
no
Christian
Church
,
that
we
known
of
:
and
't
is
yet
more
unlikely
that
the
Apostle's
hast
,
whereof
we
have
spoken
,
should
permit
him
to
go
so
far
directly
another
way
from
Jerusalem
.
Lastly
,
says
the
Minister
,
Titus
came
to
Paul
at
Nicopolis
,
and
was
thence
sent
by
the
Apostle
to
Corinth
to
hasten
the
Collections
.
But
the
mischief
is
,
Paul
wrote
the
second
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians
by
Titus
from
Macedonia
before
Winter
,
before
the
three
Months
mentioned
,
Acts
20.
3.
and
then
sent
him
to
hasten
the
Collections
.
Whether
Mr.
O.
has
done
Dr.
Lightfoot
right
in
this
confused
Account
I
am
not
concerned
to
examine
.
He
has
made
this
his
own
Hypothesis
,
and
〈◊〉
I
all
along
ascribe
it
to
him
.
Well!
letting
these
things
pass
,
Mr.
O's
meaning
is
(
I
guess
)
that
Paul
going
from
Macedonia
into
Greece
,
visited
Crete
in
his
way
,
and
there
left
Titus
.
Ans.
I
do
not
yet
understand
how
it
can
be
properly
said
,
that
Paul
as
he
went
from
Macedonia
into
Greece
visited
Crete
in
his
way
.
Greece
is
in
the
way
from
Macedonia
to
Crete
,
how
then
did
he
visit
Crete
in
the
way
as
he
went
from
Macedonia
to
Greece
?
However
,
sometime
hereabouts
—
(
Mr.
O.
will
say
)
between
his
leaving
Macedonia
,
and
settling
in
Greece
,
Paul
visited
Crete
,
and
left
Titus
there
,
which
is
the
thing
I
now
undertake
to
disprove
:
but
will
first
as
my
Foundation
,
tell
the
Story
of
Iitus
,
as
exactly
as
I
can
gather
it
from
Scripture
.
Paul
at
Ephesus
,
dispatched
Titus
away
to
Corinth
about
the
Collections
,
as
I
conceive
,
a
Year
or
more
before
he
sent
Timothy
unto
Macedonia
;
as
may
be
gathered
,
from
2
Cor.
8.
6
,
10.
chap.
9.
2.
where
the
Apostles
testifies
of
the
Corinthians
,
that
they
were
ready
a
Year
ago
.
For
this
Reason
it
was
that
Paul
looked
and
longed
for
Titus's
return
,
after
above
a
Years
absence
.
But
Titus
at
last
came
to
Paul
in
Macedonia
,
and
gave
him
an
Account
what
effect
his
first
Epistle
had
upon
the
Corinthians
,
2
Cor.
7.
6
,
7
,
&c.
as
also
of
their
willingness
to
Contribute
towards
the
Relief
of
the
Poor
Saints
at
Jerusalem
,
chap.
8
,
10
,
11.
chap.
9.
2.
Hereupon
Paul
(
and
T
mothy
)
writ
the
second
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians
,
Titus
carrying
it
,
2
Cor.
8.
6
,
18.
I
must
add
,
here
another
short
account
of
Paul
He
left
Ephesus
soon
after
Pentecost
,
and
arrived
(
let
us
imagine
)
in
June
at
Philippi
in
Macedonia
.
There
he
gave
much
Exhortation
,
Acts
20.
2.
which
implies
(
as
I
gather
)
that
he
spent
much
time
in
Macedonia
:
let
us
suppose
he
tarry'd
there
,
till
about
November
.
Then
He
set
forward
for
Greece
where
he
abode
three
Months
,
v.
3.
that
is
till
February
,
thence
he
returned
early
in
the
Spring
into
Macedonia
,
and
was
got
as
far
back
as
Philippi
by
Easter
,
v.
6
and
so
crost
the
Sea
into
Asia
,
Act.
20.
This
premised
,
my
Arguments
against
Mr.
O's
Hypothesis
are
as
follow
.
1.
Here
is
no
time
that
can
be
assigned
for
Paul's
sailing
unto
Crete
,
and
there
Founding
a
Church
.
If
it
be
thought
,
that
during
the
〈◊〉
which
is
allowed
for
his
stay
in
Macedonia
,
he
might
go
to
Crete
,
that
cannot
be
granted
:
because
Luke
would
doubtless
have
taken
notice
of
so
considerable
an
Enterprize
:
and
besides
,
I
do
suppose
,
Paul
was
too
busy
in
forwarding
the
Collections
,
and
giving
much
Exhortation
,
to
undertake
such
a
long
Voyage
:
Lastly
,
Luke
plainly
says
,
that
Paul
came
from
Macedonia
(
not
from
Crete
)
into
Greece
.
If
then
within
the
time
assigned
to
his
stay
in
Macedonia
,
he
went
to
Crete
,
he
must
have
returned
back
again
,
first
into
Macedonia
,
and
then
have
gone
into
Greece
,
which
is
absurd
to
suppose
.
Nor
did
he
sail
out
of
Grecce
into
Crete
.
For
then
Luke
could
not
have
writ
,
that
he
abode
three
Months
,
in
Greece
,
one
half
of
which
time
must
at
least
have
been
spent
in
that
Voyage
to
and
again
,
and
in
tarrying
there
.
2.
Nor
could
Titus
accompany
the
Apostle
thither
at
this
time
.
Titus
was
sent
alone
from
Macedonia
to
Corinth
:
His
business
at
Corinth
,
was
to
encourage
and
promote
the
Contributions
,
as
abundantly
appears
in
the
second
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians
.
3.
If
Titus
went
along
with
Paul
unto
Jerusalem
with
the
Contributions
(
as
cannot
in
reason
be
deny'd
)
:
how
then
could
he
be
left
in
Crete
to
perfect
that
Church
,
and
set
in
Order
the
things
that
were
wanting
?
I
Surely
this
required
more
than
two
or
three
Months
.
Paul
was
two
whole
Years
at
least
in
planting
the
Church
of
Ephesus
:
but
Titus
could
finish
that
in
Crete
(
it
seems
)
in
as
few
Months
.
4.
The
great
hast
Paul
was
in
,
and
the
Multiplicity
of
business
in
Macedonia
,
and
Achaia
that
lay
on
his
hands
,
and
the
Application
wherewith
he
pursued
it
,
will
not
suffer
us
to
believe
,
that
at
this
time
he
undertook
such
a
great
,
and
a
new
Work
,
that
of
the
Conversion
of
the
Island
of
Crete
.
At
this
time
all
other
Concernments
of
the
Church
were
laid
aside
,
and
gave
place
unto
that
of
forwarding
the
Collections
,
and
carrying
them
to
Judea
.
5.
That
Passage
(
Titus
3.
12.
)
when
I
shall
send
unto
thee
Artemas
or
Tychicus
,
make
hast
to
come
unto
me
at
Nicopolis
:
for
I
have
determined
there
to
Winter
,
quite
overthrows
Mr.
O's
(
O
Dr.
Lightfoot's
)
Hypothesis
:
For
Paul
at
that
time
,
fix'd
by
Mr.
O.
neither
intended
,
nor
did
Winter
at
Nicopolis
but
at
〈◊〉
,
as
has
been
proved
.
Paul
as
yet
had
never
been
so
far
Westward
as
Nicopolis
in
Epirus
,
to
Preach
the
Gospel
as
may
be
collected
,
from
2
Cor.
10.
14
,
16
—
We
are
come
(
says
the
Apostle
)
as
far
as
to
you
in
Preaching
the
Gospel
:
but
we
hope
to
Preach
the
Gospel
in
the
Regions
beyond
you
,
that
is
in
Epirus
,
which
as
yet
it
seems
he
had
not
done
.
How
then
could
he
intend
to
Winter
at
Nicopolis
?
which
implies
that
there
were
Christians
there
already
,
among
whom
he
would
Winter
:
but
we
know
of
none
as
yet
in
those
parts
.
6.
Paul
(
as
has
been
noted
already
)
was
in
so
great
hast
to
go
unto
Jerusalem
,
that
he
would
not
lose
any
time
,
no
not
tarry
to
Preach
the
Gospel
at
Troas
,
〈◊〉
a
Door
was
open
〈◊〉
him
:
how
then
shall
we
believe
that
he
made
a
Voyage
by
〈◊〉
into
Crete
,
to
Plant
a
Church
there
,
when
it
does
not
appear
he
had
the
least
encouragment
beforehand
,
to
expect
any
considerable
Success
,
as
he
had
at
Troas
?
7.
I
in
general
before
noted
,
what
great
business
St.
Paul
had
both
in
Macedonia
and
at
〈◊〉
,
which
would
not
dispense
with
his
Absence
from
them
.
He
could
not
at
this
time
take
so
long
a
Journey
as
to
Crete
,
about
the
Conversion
of
that
Island
,
which
would
require
a
longer
stay
than
he
could
dispense
with
:
particularly
,
let
it
be
observed
,
that
his
work
at
Corinth
was
more
than
Ordinary
,
viz.
to
reduce
'em
unto
Peace
,
and
Unity
,
and
Order
.
So
he
promised
,
1
Cor.
11.
34.
The
rest
will
I
set
in
order
when
I
come
.
Whoever
shall
duly
weigh
these
things
with
a
〈◊〉
mind
,
will
be
convinced
,
that
St.
Paul
at
this
time
of
his
going
from
Ephesus
into
Macedonia
,
and
〈◊〉
,
and
tarrying
there
did
not
,
could
not
beseech
〈◊〉
to
abide
at
〈◊〉
,
nor
yet
sail
unto
Crete
to
Plant
a
Church
there
leaving
Titus
to
finish
it
.
Mr.
O.
Here
is
no
express
Proof
that
Paul
(
after
his
Release
)
from
his
Imprisonment
at
Rome
)
visited
Ephesus
.
Ans.
The
Rector's
〈◊〉
as
laid
in
T.
N.
does
not
require
that
Paul
visited
Ephesus
.
I
took
notice
of
Mr.
Bain's
Mistake
,
in
saying
or
supposing
that
Paul
left
Timothy
at
Ephesus
,
as
if
Paul
had
then
been
there
:
but
no
such
thing
is
to
be
found
,
in
1
Tim.
1.
3.
Besides
I
exprest
my
Thoughts
thus
,
That
Paul
being
at
〈◊〉
,
going
unto
Macedonia
(
as
he
had
signified
Philipp.
1.
25
,
26.
)
then
besought
Timothy
to
abide
at
Ephesus
.
Not
that
Paul
was
,
at
the
time
〈◊〉
his
beseeching
Timothy
,
at
Ephesus
,
but
at
Troas
:
Neither
is
it
necessary
to
suppose
that
Timothy
was
then
at
Ephesus
:
for
St.
Paul
might
,
by
Letter
beseech
Timothy
to
abide
at
Ephesus
,
though
he
had
at
that
present
been
at
Troas
with
Paul
,
or
Timothy
in
some
other
place
.
These
are
unnecessary
Repetitions
.
Mr.
O.
Whereas
in
proof
of
Paul's
return
into
the
East
,
after
his
Enlargement
from
Prison
,
I
alledged
(
2
Tim.
4.
20.
)
Trophimus's
being
left
at
〈◊〉
sick
,
&c.
the
Minister
replies
,
It
is
most
likely
that
Asia
,
Act.
27.
2.
Ans.
〈◊〉
to
Sail
?
Surely
Mr.
O.
forgets
himself
.
Paul
was
now
a
Prisoner
in
Bonds
,
How
then
could
the
Apostle
intend
?
or
determine
which
way
the
Ship
must
Sail
?
Our
Translation
haply
,
which
is
not
very
exact
here
,
betray'd
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
foul
Mistake
—
Meaning
to
Sail
,
&c.
but
in
the
Original
,
't
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
being
about
to
Sail
by
the
Coasts
of
Asia
we
(
all
in
the
Ship
)
Lanched
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Paul
and
his
〈◊〉
;
that
meant
or
designed
which
way
they
would
Sail
;
but
the
Centurion
and
Master
of
the
Ship
,
who
determined
that
Point
.
But
for
the
Ships
Sailing
by
the
Coasts
of
Asia
,
the
Reason
is
plain
:
for
thither
the
Ship
was
bound
,
no
further
in
the
way
to
Rome
:
and
therefore
they
changed
their
Ship
at
Myra
,
v.
5.
a
City
of
Lycia
,
part
of
the
Southern
Coasts
of
Asia
;
and
took
another
belonging
to
Alexandria
,
so
Sailing
directly
into
Italy
,
v.
6.
It
was
then
neither
Paul's
〈◊〉
,
no
nor
the
Centurions
Commands
,
which
brought
the
Ship
by
the
Coasts
of
Asia
〈◊〉
Myra
,
but
the
Merchants
Business
,
which
indeed
lay
so
far
in
the
direct
Road
unto
Italy
.
For
every
one
knows
the
Ancient
way
of
Sailing
,
before
the
Compass
and
Loadstone
were
〈◊〉
they
chose
〈◊〉
Legere
littus
to
Sail
by
the
Coasts
,
as
much
as
they
safely
could
,
and
they
were
generally
,
all
what
we
now
call
Coasters
.
For
they
had
no
certain
way
to
Steer
directly
,
from
Place
to
Place
,
in
the
open
broad
Sea
,
except
by
the
Sun
or
Stars
,
which
did
not
always
appear
:
so
that
they
were
wont
to
keep
within
sight
of
Land
,
if
possible
.
But
I
pass
this
,
and
further
say
to
Mr.
O.
that
't
is
a
very
absurd
Conjecture
to
think
,
that
Paul
in
his
Voyage
touch'd
at
〈◊〉
.
As
if
Miletus
lay
in
the
way
from
Myra
to
Italy
,
or
as
if
the
〈◊〉
nturion
,
or
the
Master
of
the
Ship
would
go
out
of
their
way
,
I
know
not
how
many
days
Sail
to
accompany
Paul
in
visiting
the
Churches
at
and
near
Miletus
,
when
as
Paul
was
a
Prisoner
sent
to
Rome
.
The
Centurion
could
never
have
answered
it
to
his
Superiours
.
As
for
the
other
two
Suppositions
,
that
Miletus
might
be
a
Town
in
Crete
,
of
that
name
,
or
the
Island
Malta
,
it
cannot
be
deny'd
,
that
then
Paul
might
in
his
Voyage
from
Judea
to
Italy
,
have
left
Trophimus
in
one
,
or
in
either
of
those
two
places
:
but
what
then
will
become
of
Paul's
having
been
at
Troas
,
2
Tim.
4.
13.
and
at
Corinth
,
v.
20
?
If
then
he
touch'd
not
at
Troas
,
and
at
Corinth
in
his
Passage
from
Jerusalem
to
Rome
,
(
as
for
the
foresaid
reasons
is
clear
)
there
is
good
ground
to
believe
he
visited
Miletus
in
Asia
,
Philippi
,
and
other
Churches
at
the
time
by
me
assigned
.
This
will
further
be
disputed
by
and
by
.
After
all
this
Mr.
O.
undertakes
directly
,
to
Vindicate
the
Ancient
Ephesus
,
Act.
20.
Ans.
If
this
were
substantially
proved
,
yet
still
it
will
not
follow
,
that
Timothy
was
not
the
Supreme
Ruler
(
Bishop
)
of
Ephesus
.
For
first
nothing
in
Paul's
Farewell-Sermon
,
proves
the
Elders
to
be
the
Supreme
Governours
of
that
Church
,
as
has
already
been
made
out
.
And
as
for
Paul's
taking
no
notice
of
〈◊〉
in
that
Farewel
Sermon
,
I
must
retort
,
that
neither
did
Paul
mention
the
Elders
,
in
the
Commission
given
to
Timothy
,
in
the
first
Epistle
,
which
Mr.
O.
supposes
written
before
that
farewel
Sermon
.
There
are
several
Epistles
to
the
Churches
,
wherein
the
Presbyters
are
not
mention'd
:
but
it
will
not
thence
be
concluded
that
they
had
no
Presbyters
atall
:
much
less
ought
it
to
be
gathered
,
that
Timothy
was
not
the
Supreme
Ruler
(
Bishop
)
of
Ephesus
,
because
he
is
not
spoken
of
in
so
short
a
〈◊〉
-
Speech
.
But
these
things
have
been
oft
enough
spoken
of
:
let
us
then
hear
Mr.
O's
Arguments
proving
the
first
of
Timothy
was
writ
before
the
Farewell-Sermon
.
Mr.
O.
Argues
from
Paul's
excommunicating
Alexander
the
He
adds
,
that
this
Excommunication
was
not
long
after
his
Apostacy
,
and
so
is
mentioned
as
a
late
thing
.
Ans.
I
'll
not
create
Mr.
O.
any
unnecessary
trouble
:
but
grant
that
the
same
Person
is
mentioned
in
both
places
.
But
I
must
say
,
it
does
not
appear
that
this
Alexander
was
a
Christian
,
at
the
uproar
in
Ephesus
mentioned
,
Act
19.
The
contrary
is
most
probable
.
He
is
called
a
Jew
(
not
a
Christian
Believer
)
v.
34.
If
so
,
then
he
,
who
never
yet
Believed
,
could
not
yet
be
an
Apostate
and
Consequently
could
not
be
Excommunicated
.
But
say
he
were
a
Christian-Jew
,
it
does
not
appear
that
he
had
any
hand
in
raising
the
Tumult
against
Paul
,
or
that
he
Apostatized
from
the
Faith
at
that
time
.
That
his
Excommunication
was
not
long
after
his
Apostacy
I
easily
admit
:
but
when
he
Apostatized
,
I
do
desire
to
be
informed
,
as
also
where
or
to
what
Church
he
belonged
,
when
he
Apostatized
,
and
was
Excommunicated
.
The
most
likely
was
the
Ephesian
.
Let
that
be
supposed
.
The
Question
then
is
still
,
when
he
〈◊〉
,
and
was
Excommunicated
?
But
,
the
Truth
is
,
we
are
in
the
Dark
both
where
and
when
he
Apostatized
,
and
by
Consequence
know
not
when
Paul
Excommunicated
him
.
And
therefore
nothing
can
be
drawn
hence
in
proof
of
the
time
of
the
Apostles
writing
the
first
Epistle
to
Timothy
.
Mr.
O.
Puts
the
Objection
against
himself
,
How
came
Timothy
His
Resolution
of
this
Difficulty
is
out
of
Dr.
Lightfoot
,
as
follows
—
Paul
designing
to
have
Sailed
for
Syria
,
Acts
20.
3.
came
near
to
Timothy
,
and
there
discovering
the
Danger
laid
in
his
way
by
the
Jews
(
which
also
might
have
involved
Timothy
)
he
brought
him
away
back
with
him
,
and
so
both
returned
again
into
Macedonia
,
and
when
Winter
was
over
,
they
set
Sail
for
Asia
again
.
Ans.
I
'll
venture
to
call
this
a
senseless
Story
,
though
Mr.
O.
has
Fathered
it
upon
the
Learned
Dr.
Lightfoot
,
truly
or
falsly
is
no
matter
to
me
.
For
,
1.
Timothy
was
not
at
Ephesus
when
Paul
was
about
to
go
for
Jerusalem
.
He
was
with
Paul
in
Macedonia
,
2
Cor.
1.
1.
Act.
20.
4.
Except
Mr.
O.
will
affirm
,
as
indeed
in
the
Account
He
gives
of
this
Matter
,
he
must
suppose
,
that
Timothy
went
back
from
Corinth
,
to
Paul
at
Ephesus
,
thence
following
him
to
Macedonia
,
then
returned
to
Ephesus
again
,
and
lastly
,
was
thence
fetched
back
by
the
Apostle
unto
Macedonia
once
more
,
and
Wintered
with
him
in
Greece
,
and
then
returned
with
Paul
through
Macedonia
to
Miletus
,
all
which
has
already
been
disproved
.
2.
It
is
here
implyed
by
Mr.
O.
that
Paul
attempted
to
sail
for
Syria
,
and
Judea
before
Winter
,
which
is
inconsistent
with
Act.
20.
3.
and
1
Cor.
16.
6.
3.
It
is
here
supposed
that
Paul
designed
to
sail
for
Syria
from
Macedonia
;
whereas
't
is
plain
,
it
was
from
Corinth
or
Greece
,
Act.
20.
3.
And
there
(
in
Greece
)
He
abode
three
Months
,
and
when
the
Jews
laid
wait
for
Him
,
as
he
was
about
to
sail
into
Syria
,
〈◊〉
purposed
to
return
through
Macedonia
.
4.
It
is
supposed
that
Paul
was
actually
sailing
towards
Syria
,
and
was
come
near
to
Timothy
at
〈◊〉
,
where
He
discovered
the
Jews
,
lying
in
wait
for
him
.
Whereas
He
had
discovered
the
Jews
Plot
in
Greece
,
when
He
was
about
to
sail
or
just
before
he
took
Ship
,
and
therefore
alter'd
his
purpose
,
and
returned
't
is
not
said
into
Macedonia
(
though
that
's
true
)
but
through
Macedonia
into
Asia
,
v.
4.
5.
'T
is
supposed
that
Paul
designed
to
take
Ship
for
Syria
before
Winter
,
or
before
it
was
over
:
which
cannot
be
:
because
He
Winter'd
at
Corinth
,
Act.
20.
3.
compared
with
1
Cor.
16.
6.
or
at
Nicopolis
,
as
Mr.
O.
mistakes
.
6.
'T
is
supposed
the
Jews
lying
in
wait
came
to
his
knowledge
,
when
he
was
near
Timothy
at
Ephesus
,
and
that
Timothy
(
then
supposed
at
Ephesus
)
might
be
involv'd
in
the
danger
:
but
the
wait
laid
for
Paul
,
by
the
Jews
was
designed
in
Greece
,
and
there
made
known
unto
Paul
,
which
prevented
him
from
going
by
Sea
,
and
determined
his
Journey
through
Macedonia
.
There
are
but
two
Reasons
,
that
I
can
Imagine
,
why
the
Jews
laid
wait
for
Paul
;
both
which
will
argue
it
was
in
Greece
,
and
not
at
or
about
Ephesus
.
1.
Because
He
had
in
Greece
of
late
Zealously
preach'd
the
Gospel
.
2.
Because
He
had
now
a
considerable
quantity
of
Money
to
carry
thence
to
Jerusalem
.
Now
if
the
Jews
Plot
was
laid
against
Paul
in
Greece
,
and
Paul
not
know
it
there
,
how
came
He
to
know
it
at
or
near
Ephesus
?
And
how
could
〈◊〉
at
Ephesus
be
involved
in
the
danger
,
which
threatened
the
Apostle
in
Greece
?
In
short
,
there
are
so
many
wild
and
unaccountable
Suppositions
in
this
conceit
,
and
so
contrary
to
the
plain
and
obvious
meaning
of
the
Text
,
that
nothing
but
a
stiff
and
resolute
adherence
to
a
Cause
,
could
have
brought
it
into
the
head
of
any
Man
,
and
engaged
others
to
defend
it
.
Before
I
make
an
end
of
this
,
let
us
take
a
view
of
the
Ramble
,
which
Mr.
O.
has
cut
out
for
Timothy
this
Year
.
Timothy
went
from
Ephesus
,
about
Easter
,
to
Macedonia
,
and
so
to
Corinth
:
he
came
back
from
Corinth
to
Ephesus
again
,
where
he
arrived
by
Whitsontide
:
He
followed
Paul
shortly
,
after
into
Macedonia
,
thence
some
way
or
other
was
got
to
Ephesus
once
more
.
St.
Paul
fetches
him
back
unto
Maceaonia
again
,
carries
him
with
him
unto
Corinth
,
so
to
Nicopolis
,
back
to
Corinth
,
thence
once
more
unto
Macedonia
,
and
so
to
Miletus
,
where
he
took
up
his
Quarters
of
Refreshment
,
as
Mr.
O.
believes
:
and
indeed
〈◊〉
high
time
,
after
such
a
Fatigue
which
he
underwent
,
in
about
14
Months
,
amounting
to
about
4000.
Miles
.
Mr.
O.
The
first
Epistle
to
Timothy
must
be
written
before
,
1.
Mr.
O.
Argues
hence
,
because
Timothy
was
a
Young
Man
,
at
Paul's
writing
the
second
Epistle
,
the
which
he
proves
from
the
Apostle's
Exhortation
to
him
—
Flee
Youthful
Lusts
,
2
Tim.
2.
22.
Ans.
Not
to
trouble
my self
,
or
the
Reader
,
about
Mr.
O's
Calculations
,
I
will
admit
that
Timothy
was
three
or
four
and
forty
years
Old
,
when
Paul
according
to
my
Hypothesis
,
in
his
second
Imprisonment
,
wrote
the
second
Epistle
.
and
advised
him
to
flee
Youthful
Lusts.
It
might
not
be
improper
to
Caution
him
,
at
that
Age
,
against
Youthful
Lusts
,
such
as
Young
Men
are
chiefly
inclined
to
.
Who
is
there
,
that
has
not
known
Men
of
40.
of
50.
of
60.
Years
of
Age
,
overcome
with
these
Lusts
?
Well!
but
says
Mr.
O.
Timothy
was
also
a
〈◊〉
man
,
1
Tim.
5.
23.
and
therefore
't
is
not
likely
,
that
Paul
should
warn
a
sickly
Man
above
40.
Years
Old
,
against
Youthful
Lusts
,
2
Tim.
2.
22.
Ans.
At
Paul's
writing
the
first
Epistle
,
Timothy
was
Valetudinary
.
True
,
but
at
his
writing
the
second
,
he
might
be
recovered
and
confirmed
in
his
Health
:
it
does
not
appear
he
was
still
sickly
.
Mr.
O.
For
the
same
Reason
(
sc.
because
he
was
a
Young
Man
)
Paul
calls
Timothy
Son
,
1
Tim.
2.
18.
2
Tim.
2.
1.
Ans.
Mr.
O.
I
am
perswaded
does
not
believe
himself
,
when
he
urges
this
as
an
Argument
,
for
Timothy's
being
a
Young
Man
.
Was
Onesimus
a
Young
Man
,
when
Paul
called
him
his
Son
,
Phil.
v.
10
?
Was
Mark
a
Young
Man
,
whom
St.
Peter
calls
his
Son
,
1
Peter
5.
13
?
Were
all
those
Believers
Young
Men
,
of
whom
St.
John
speaks
,
3
Epi.
4.
?
Or
were
all
the
Christians
at
Corinth
Young
Men
?
And
yet
Paul
calls
'em
his
Sons
,
1
Cor.
4.
14.
But
,
he
calls
'em
so
for
a
quite
different
Reason
than
is
assigned
by
Mr.
O.
viz.
Because
in
Christ
Jesus
he
had
begotten
them
through
the
Gospel
,
1.
Cor.
4.
14.
And
on
the
same
account
he
Challenged
Onesimus
for
his
Son
(
v.
10.
Philem.
)
Whom
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
begotten
in
his
Bonds
.
There
are
Sundry
Reasons
,
why
Men
are
wont
to
call
others
their
Sons
;
which
I
will
not
insift
on
.
One
among
the
rest
is
,
when
there
is
a
great
difference
in
Age
:
Then
the
Older
will
call
the
Younger
Son
,
though
the
Younger
has
past
his
Juvenile
Years
.
But
in
T.
N.
I
gave
another
different
Reason
of
Paul's
calling
Timothy
Son
,
which
I
hope
will
satisfy
every
Body
,
but
one
who
will
be
pleased
with
nothing
,
but
his
own
Phansies
.
2.
Mr.
O.
In
his
next
Reason
for
the
Second
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
being
writ
in
Paul's
first
Imprisonment
,
many
things
are
affirmed
,
but
nothing
proved
,
He
asserts
,
that
that
Second
Epistle
was
written
Philippians
,
Colossians
and
Philemon
,
Timothy's
Name
being
prefixt
to
them
;
which
therefore
supposes
,
Timothy
now
got
to
Rome
,
according
to
Paul's
Order
,
2
Tim.
4.
9.
Ans.
The
Proper
Answer
hereunto
is
,
that
Paul's
Writing
unto
Timothy
,
2
Tim.
4.
9.
to
come
to
him
at
Rome
,
agrees
every
whit
as
well
with
Mine
as
Mr.
O's
Hypothesis
.
The
Question
then
between
us
,
is
not
to
be
decided
hereby
,
but
by
other
Circumstances
,
which
are
to
be
spoken
of
anon
.
And
to
cut
off
all
unnecessary
jangle
,
the
same
I
reply
to
his
third
Argument
,
taken
from
Mark'
s
being
with
Paul
in
his
first
Bonds
:
The
same
Circumstances
may
agree
to
the
same
Persons
at
different
times
.
4.
Mr.
O.
Phansies
that
Paul's
sufferings
mentioned
,
2
Tim.
3.
11.
which
happen'd
at
Iconium
,
Lystra
and
Antioch
,
Twenty
Years
before
the
Apostle's
Second
Imprisonment
at
Rome
,
imply
,
that
that
Second
Epistle
was
written
sooner
,
than
his
second
Imprisonment
:
for
the
Apostle
would
not
(
't
is
likely
)
mention
Events
so
long
since
past
,
when
there
were
other
later
Sufferings
of
his
,
that
were
much
fresher
in
his
Memory
.
Ans.
First
,
if
there
be
any
force
in
such
kind
of
weak
Reasonings
as
these
,
then
I
ask
,
supposing
with
Mr.
O.
this
second
Epistle
written
in
the
Apostle's
first
Bonds
,
why
,
did
he
not
rather
mention
his
latter
Sufferings
at
Jerusalem
,
which
Timothy
(
being
then
in
Asia
according
to
Mr.
O.
)
knew
little
of
,
and
were
the
the
last
that
had
happen'd
unto
the
Apostle
,
except
those
inconsiderable
ones
at
Rome
?
But
the
plain
account
of
this
Passage
is
,
that
St.
Paul
is
now
animating
Timothy
to
undergo
Afflictions
,
as
became
a
Minister
of
Jesus
Christ
:
To
this
end
the
Apostle
lays
before
him
,
his
own
Example
,
v.
10
,
11.
and
instances
in
his
own
Sufferings
at
Iconium
,
&c.
But
't
was
indifferent
which
of
his
Sufferings
.
He
offered
unto
Timothy's
consideration
:
one
as
well
as
another
,
a
former
as
well
as
a
latter
would
set
forth
Paul's
Faith
,
Long-suffering
,
Charity
,
Patience
,
and
Demonstrate
God's
Goodness
and
Protection
of
such
as
endure
Persecution
for
his
name's
sake
:
because
God
had
delivered
Paul
out
of
them
all
.
And
might
not
Paul
say
all
this
unto
Timothy
in
his
second
as
well
as
in
his
first
Imprisonment
?
If
Mr.
O.
has
no
better
Arguments
than
such
as
these
,
to
prove
the
second
Epistle
written
in
the
Apostle's
first
Imprisonment
,
he
had
better
keep
'em
to
himself
:
they
betray
the
want
of
good
Evidence
,
and
the
weakness
of
his
Hypothesis
,
rather
than
Establish
it
.
5.
Mr.
O.
advances
another
Argument
,
viz.
"
from
Tychicus
Timothy
Ch.
4.
12.
speaks
of
Tychicus's
Journey
to
Ephesus
:
therefore
this
second
Epistle
must
be
written
about
the
same
time
,
as
that
to
the
Ephesians
was
,
sc.
in
his
〈◊〉
Bonds
.
Ans.
But
what
absurdity
is
it
to
believe
,
and
assert
that
Tychicus
carry'd
those
Epistles
to
the
Ephesians
and
Colossians
,
from
Paul
a
Prisoner
at
Rome
the
first
time
?
and
then
in
the
Apostles
second
Bonds
,
afterward
to
have
once
more
been
sent
to
Ephesus
,
as
is
exprest
2
Tim.
4.
12.
As
if
Tychicus
might
not
have
been
with
Paul
at
Rome
in
both
Imprisonments
.
These
things
were
noted
in
T.
N.
but
the
Minister
urges
'em
afresh
without
pretending
to
reply
unto
the
Solution
,
I
there
offered
of
this
small
Difficulty
.
Here
let
it
be
observed
how
Mr.
〈◊〉
.
proves
that
Tychicus
went
along
with
Paul
to
Rome
in
his
〈◊〉
Bonds
,
viz.
from
Acts
20.
4.
where
he
is
reckoned
among
those
that
accompany'd
Paul
from
Macedonia
into
Asia
,
and
then
carrying
Letters
from
Rome
to
the
〈◊〉
and
Colossians
:
This
is
plain
beyond
Contradiction
,
Tychicus
certainly
went
with
Paul
to
Rome
,
at
the
Apostles
first
Imprisonment
.
Mr.
O.
has
demonstrated
it
.
But
is
it
not
every
whit
as
plain
that
Timothy
also
was
one
of
those
who
accompany'd
Paul
from
Macedonia
into
Asia
,
Act.
20.
4.
and
do
we
not
find
that
he
was
with
Paul
at
Rome
,
Philip
1.
1.
Colos.
1.
1.
Heb.
13.
23
?
And
does
it
not
then
follow
according
to
Mr.
O's
own
Argument
(
when
the
Interest
of
his
Cause
is
forgot
or
not
concerned
)
that
Timothy
went
with
Paul
to
Rome
,
at
his
first
Imprisonment
?
If
this
be
a
good
proof
of
Tychicus
going
along
with
Paul
to
Rome
,
't
is
as
good
for
Timothy's
.
Thus
all
Mr.
O's
petty
Arguments
and
Sophisms
,
for
Paul's
writing
the
second
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
in
his
first
Bonds
are
overthrown
by
himself
.
Great
is
Truth
,
and
sometimes
breaks
forth
,
and
shines
through
the
thickest
Mists
of
Prejudice
and
Prepossession
.
The
Conceit
then
of
Timothy's
being
left
behind
Paul
in
Asia
,
invented
merely
to
support
a
Cause
(
that
of
Paul's
writing
the
second
Epistle
in
his
first
Bonds
)
is
now
out
of
Doors
,
and
henceforth
forever
to
be
laid
aside
.
6.
Mr.
O.
The
second
Epistle
was
written
in
his
first
Bonds
,
He
was
delivered
out
of
the
Mouth
of
the
Lion
,
that
all
the
Gentiles
might
hear
the
Gospel
,
that
is
,
that
he
might
go
about
,
and
Preach
the
Gospel
to
many
Nations
.
Ans.
Mr.
O.
has
unworthily
inverted
the
Order
of
the
Words
,
and
so
drawn
'em
to
a
wrong
sense
.
Thus
the
Apostle
writes
—
The
Lord
stood
with
me
,
and
Strengthen'd
me
,
that
by
me
,
the
Preaching
might
be
fully
known
,
and
that
all
the
Gentiles
might
hear
:
and
I
was
delivered
out
of
the
Mouth
of
the
Lion
.
The
sense
of
which
Words
is
plainly
this
,
that
Paul
by
some
Special
Assistance
from
God
,
so
well
pleaded
his
own
,
and
the
Cause
of
the
Gospel
at
the
Tribunal
of
Caesar
(
where
all
the
Gentiles
,
a
great
number
of
the
Principal
Courtiers
,
and
others
being
Present
)
heard
him
,
That
he
escaped
Condemnation
at
that
time
:
He
was
delivered
out
of
the
Mouth
of
the
Lion
;
his
deliverance
was
the
Effect
of
the
good
management
of
this
Cause
or
vindicating
the
Truth
of
the
Gospel
,
before
the
Roman
Gentiles
.
But
as
for
the
Gentiles
in
other
Nations
,
hearing
the
Gospel
it
was
not
the
effect
of
his
Deliverance
at
this
time
as
Mr.
O.
by
misplacing
the
parts
of
the
Text
would
have
it
understood
.
Besides
,
when
't
is
said
,
I
was
delivered
,
it
is
not
said
,
from
his
Confinement
,
as
if
he
had
been
immediately
set
at
Liberty
(
for
then
he
would
not
have
sent
for
Timothy
)
but
rather
have
gone
to
him
according
to
his
Intentions
(
as
is
supposed
by
Mr.
O.
)
But
because
he
sent
for
Timothy
after
the
deliverance
here
spoken
of
it
follows
,
that
he
was
still
a
Prisoner
,
though
he
had
for
once
escaped
with
Life
.
Lastly
,
if
this
was
his
Deliverance
from
his
first
Imprisonment
,
then
he
could
not
write
to
Timothy
to
come
unto
him
:
because
Timothy
was
with
him
already
,
[
*
](A42789-e29880-b)
*
As
Mr.
O.
has
elsewhere
supposed
.
That
is
before
his
Enlargement
from
his
first
Bonds
.
Philip.
1.
1.
Colos.
1.
1.
Heb.
13.
23.
Upon
the
whole
Matter
this
Passage
shews
the
Epistle
was
writ
not
in
the
Apostle's
first
,
but
second
Bonds
.
7.
Mr.
O's
next
proof
taken
from
Luke
,
is
of
the
same
Nature
with
his
5th
Argument
speaking
of
Tychicus
:
The
same
Reply
therefore
,
that
I
made
to
the
5th
will
serve
here
,
〈◊〉
mutandis
.
8.
Mr.
O.
Argues
from
the
Apostle's
Cloak
left
at
Troas
2
Tim.
4.
13.
which
hap'ned
(
says
the
Minister
)
at
his
going
to
Jerusalem
,
just
before
his
being
sent
Prisoner
to
Rome
.
This
Cloak
was
a
Roman
Habit
,
which
might
have
prejudiced
the
Jews
against
him
:
therefore
he
left
it
at
Troas
:
but
being
arrived
at
Rome
,
he
sent
for
his
Cloak
,
his
Roman
Habit.
Ans.
Though
some
believe
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
here
mention'd
,
was
Paul's
Cloak
,
his
Penula
,
a
Latin
word
made
into
Greek
,
by
the
Transposition
and
Alteration
of
some
Letters
:
Yet
't
is
but
very
uncertain
whether
they
are
in
the
right
.
For
why
may
not
Penula
be
made
out
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
as
well
as
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
out
of
Penula
?
Whatever
it
was
,
suppose
a
Roman
Habit
,
which
Paul
had
brought
with
him
from
Rome
,
after
his
Enlargement
from
his
first
Bonds
,
according
to
my
Hypothesis
,
why
might
he
not
leave
it
at
Troas
,
at
that
time
that
he
sailed
thence
into
Macedonia
?
For
soon
after
he
wrote
his
first
Epistle
to
Timothy
(
as
I
contend
)
wherein
he
shews
that
his
Intentions
were
to
return
into
〈◊〉
parts
once
more
,
1
Ep.
3.
14.
which
was
the
Reason
of
his
leaving
his
Cloak
there
behind
him
,
intending
afterwards
to
call
for
it
,
but
haply
being
prevented
,
and
so
making
forward
for
Rome
,
when
there
be
sent
for
his
Cloak
.
This
is
a
fair
account
of
this
Passage
about
the
Apostle's
Cloak
,
without
straining
it
to
a
Sense
which
no
body
ever
thought
of
before
,
and
which
has
no
Foundátion
in
Scripture
.
But
after
all
this
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
here
rendered
Cloak
is
a
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
never
to
be
met
with
again
,
either
in
Scripture
or
in
the
Ancient
Classical
Greek
Authors
;
And
therefore
its
signification
is
very
uncertain
:
it
may
denote
a
Cloak
,
and
it
may
denote
any
thing
else
,
an
Hat
,
ex
.
gr
.
or
a
Shirt
:
it
may
signify
some
sort
of
Writings
,
or
Cover
to
carry
Writings
in
,
〈◊〉
to
this
last
,
the
best
Criticks
incline
.
E.
in
the
Synopsis
Criticorum
,
thinks
it
was
a
little
Cheft
,
Box
,
or
portable
Cover
to
carry
Books
and
papers
in
,
grounding
himself
on
the
Syriac
Translation
;
where
't
is
rendered
domus
Scriptorum
.
Dr.
Ham.
gathers
from
Phavorinus
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifies
Parchments
rolled
up
,
and
was
the
very
same
,
which
the
Apostle
〈◊〉
calls
the
Parchments
,
as
is
imply'd
in
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
—
Bring
with
thee
the
Parchments
rolled
up
,
and
the
Books
which
I
left
at
Troas
,
but
especially
the
former
the
Parchments
;
fail
not
to
bring
'em
,
Others
understand
thereby
an
Hebrew
Volume
of
the
Old
Testament
,
deriving
it
from
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
that
is
the
Liber
or
inward
Rind
of
a
Tree
,
on
[
*
](A42789-e30520-b)
*
As
also
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
a
smooth
Piece
of
Wood
to
write
on
,
Tabula
.
.
In
this
uncertainty
about
the
signification
of
this
Word
,
and
the
variety
of
Opinions
concerning
it
,
how
is
it
possible
to
form
any
Argumenr
thence
?
Or
of
what
force
can
the
Reasoning
be
,
which
is
grounded
on
it
?
See
more
of
this
Word
in
Suicerus
Lexic.
9.
Mr.
O.
argues
to
this
purpose
,
That
such
as
were
Ans.
Whether
Peter
was
more
severely
dealt
with
than
ordinary
,
cannot
be
determined
,
from
Act.
12.
6.
except
we
had
an
account
of
some
other
milder
Treatment
of
him
on
some
other
Occasion
.
Besides
,
it
may
happen
that
one
Chain
may
be
as
long
,
and
as
heavy
as
two
other
Chains
.
I
have
known
one
Rope
as
long
as
two
other
Ropes
:
and
a
Prisoner
may
be
as
roughly
handled
,
and
as
securely
preserv'd
from
escaping
with
one
long
Chain
,
as
with
two
short
ones
.
In
the
Apostle's
first
Imprisonment
,
which
was
indeed
favourable
,
although
St.
Luke
describes
his
sufferings
in
the
singular
,
Act.
28.
20.
even
as
St.
Paul
himself
does
,
Eph.
6.
20.
Yet
elsewhere
we
have
'em
exprest
in
the
Plural
,
Philip.
1.
7.
Insomuch
as
in
my
Bonds
,
v.
13.
my
Bonds
in
Christ
.
v.
14.
By
my
Bonds
,
v.
16.
To
my
Bonds
.
Colos.
4.
18.
My
Bonds
,
Philem.
10.
My
Bonds
,
and
v.
13.
In
the
Bonds
of
the
Gospel
.
So
that
Paul
in
his
first
Imprisonment
was
ty'd
with
many
Bonds
or
Chains
:
as
also
he
was
in
his
second
(
as
I
reckon
it
)
2
Tim.
2.
9.
For
which
(
Gospel
)
I
suffer
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
unto
Bonds
.
The
difference
then
between
his
first
and
second
Imprisonment
,
was
not
as
to
the
number
of
his
Bonds
and
Chains
,
but
other
hardships
which
he
endured
in
his
latter
Imprisonment
.
If
any
one
will
consider
the
difference
,
between
his
Imprisonment
as
't
is
described
in
the
Acts
;
and
again
,
as
't
is
very
plainly
set
forth
by
several
Intimations
in
the
second
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
whereof
I
spoke
particularly
in
the
T.
N.
He
will
be
forced
to
confess
,
that
that
in
the
Acts
was
his
first
Imprisonment
,
and
that
other
referred
to
,
in
the
second
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
to
have
been
his
latter
Imprisonment
,
and
that
the
singularity
or
plurality
of
his
Bonds
mentioned
in
both
,
will
not
decide
this
Controversy
.
Mr.
O.
Demas
was
with
Paul
at
Rome
,
in
his
first
Imprisonment
,
Colos.
4.
14.
we
read
nothing
of
his
being
there
in
his
second
Imprisonment
.
Ans.
There
is
a
manifest
difference
between
Paul's
Imprisonment
,
described
in
the
Acts
,
and
in
the
second
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
which
clearly
proves
the
second
Epistle
written
in
Paul's
latter
Imprisonment
,
ex
.
gr
.
In
the
first
Demas
was
with
him
,
and
because
there
was
then
little
or
no
Danger
,
Demas
stuck
close
to
him
:
but
in
the
latter
,
when
all
turned
away
from
him
,
Demas
among
the
rest
(
then
also
with
the
Apostle
at
Rome
)
forsook
him
in
the
Extremity
.
This
account
is
very
Natural
.
Is
it
not
possible
,
Yea
probable
that
Demas
was
with
him
in
both
Imprisonments
?
Besides
't
is
an
unsufferable
Impertinence
to
urge
such
kind
of
Arguments
,
as
are
reconcilable
with
both
sides
of
the
Question
;
such
is
Demas's
attendance
upon
Paul
in
his
Bonds
.
But
whereas
he
adds
,
that
we
read
〈◊〉
of
Demas
being
with
Paul
at
Rome
in
his
second
Imprisonment
,
't
is
so
absurd
an
Observation
upon
his
Principles
,
that
nothing
could
have
been
said
more
absurdly
.
For
on
his
Supposition
,
that
the
second
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
was
written
in
Paul's
first
Imprisonment
,
where
should
we
read
in
Scripture
of
Demas
,
being
with
Paul
in
his
second
Imprisonment
,
which
on
this
Hypothesis
is
not
mentioned
any
where
in
Scripture
?
But
because
a
second
Imprisonment
is
on
all
hands
acknowledg'd
,
any
unprejudiced
Person
will
own
,
that
we
have
the
Circumstances
of
it
plainly
enough
intimated
,
in
the
second
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
which
cannot
agree
with
his
first
Imprisonment
,
as
I
noted
in
T.
N.
There
is
a
Passage
,
in
this
second
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
which
my
Adversary
confesses
stands
in
his
way
:
't
is
this
ch.
4.
6.
I
am
now
ready
to
be
offered
,
and
the
time
of
my
departure
is
at
hand
.
I
have
fought
the
good
fight
,
I
have
finished
my
Course
,
I
have
kept
the
Faith
.
Hencefore
there
is
laid
up
for
me
a
Crown
of
Righteousness
.
Every
Parcel
of
this
Period
argues
,
that
the
Apostle
had
no
hopes
or
expectation
of
being
set
at
Liberty
,
and
escaping
the
present
Danger
.
I
am
now
ready
to
be
offered
,
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
I
am
now
offered
already
,
or
as
good
as
actually
Sacrificed
.
When
a
thing
in
Futurition
is
exprest
in
the
present
Tense
,
it
denotes
the
certainty
of
the
Event
.
And
the
time
of
my
departure
is
at
hand
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
is
very
near
me
,
and
has
been
a
good
while
hovering
over
my
Head
.
I
have
fought
the
good
Fight
:
My
work
in
this
World
is
at
an
end
,
and
the
Fight
is
over
.
I
have
finished
my
Course
:
Nothing
more
remains
for
me
to
do
,
but
to
wait
the
time
of
my
approaching
Death
.
I
have
kept
the
Faith
:
I
have
persevered
stedfastly
in
the
Truth
now
to
the
very
last
.
Hencesorth
there
is
laid
up
for
me
a
Crown
,
&c.
Therefore
nothing
now
remains
but
comforting
my self
with
the
hopes
,
and
Expectations
of
the
Future
Reward
.
Hence
we
gather
that
this
second
Epistle
was
wrote
in
the
Apostle's
latter
Imprisonment
,
which
ended
in
his
Martyrdom
.
Mr.
O.
Paul
speaks
not
here
of
his
approaching
Martyrdom
,
but
intimates
that
being
now
old
and
worn
with
Travels
,
and
hard
Labour
,
and
now
in
Bonds
,
he
could
not
last
long
.
Ans.
Paul
,
it
must
be
confest
,
even
in
his
first
Imprisonment
,
stiles
himself
the
Aged
,
Philem.
v.
9.
But
let
us
enquire
into
his
Age.
At
Stephen's
Martyrdom
,
he
was
a
Young
Man
(
I
'll
suppose
as
Mr.
O.
has
of
Timothy
)
about
Twenty
Five
Years
old
,
Act.
7.
58.
and
this
was
in
the
Thirty
Fourth
Year
of
Christ
.
In
the
Sixty
Second
Year
of
Christ
,
he
was
first
Prisoner
at
Rome
.
So
that
at
his
writing
the
second
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
which
Mr.
O.
will
have
to
be
in
his
first
Imprisonment
(
as
that
to
Philemon
was
)
the
Apostle
was
but
about
Fifty
Three
or
Fifty
Four
Years
old
.
He
was
but
in
his
viridi
Senectute
in
his
first
,
and
Green
old
Age.
It
was
not
then
his
extream
old
Age
,
which
put
him
in
mind
of
his
sudden
dissolution
now
at
hand
,
as
it
were
in
the
course
of
Nature
.
Neither
was
it
any
decay
of
Health
,
and
Strength
occasioned
by
his
Labours
,
and
the
hardships
which
he
had
met
with
.
We
read
not
that
he
ever
was
Sick
or
Weak
,
or
under
any
disorder
as
to
his
bodily
Health
.
That
he
continued
vigorous
,
and
healthful
after
his
first
Imprisonment
must
be
acknowledged
,
when
we
remember
that
after
his
Release
(
as
is
not
denied
by
Mr.
O.
himself
)
he
went
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Unto
the
utmost
limits
of
the
West
,
preaching
the
Gospel
,
which
he
could
never
have
undertaken
,
had
he
been
wasted
with
Pains
and
Travels
.
Nor
did
his
Bonds
in
the
first
Imprisonment
,
intimate
that
his
Death
was
then
at
hand
.
For
he
had
all
along
great
hopes
of
enlargement
,
as
has
been
oft
noted
out
of
his
Epistles
.
But
it
was
a
violent
Death
he
then
foresaw
,
and
that
he
was
to
be
offered
up
as
a
Sacrifice
,
by
the
shedding
of
his
Bloud
(
so
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
denotes
)
,
to
be
made
a
Martyr
or
Witness
of
Jesus
Christ
.
Nothing
is
more
plain
than
this
,
if
we
would
lay
aside
our
Prejudices
.
Mr.
O.
Objects
,
Philip.
2.
17.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
and
this
was
certainly
in
his
first
Bonds
.
Ans.
But
who
sees
not
a
vast
difference
?
In
that
to
the
Philippians
,
he
puts
the
Case
,
If
I
be
offered
;
I
joy
and
rejoice
,
and
will
undergo
it
Gladly
:
this
is
not
an
expectation
,
but
a
meer
supposition
of
Death
or
Martyrdom
,
as
is
plain
from
verse
24
—
But
I
trust
in
the
Lord
,
that
I
also
my self
shall
come
shortly
.
So
that
Paul
looked
not
for
Death
at
this
time
:
as
he
did
at
the
Writing
of
the
second
to
Timothy
.
Mr.
O.
Objects
,
Act.
21.
13.
I
am
ready
to
die
at
Jerusalem
.
Ans.
St.
Paul
did
not
here
fore-see
or
expect
to
die
at
Jerusalem
:
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
I
am
ready
or
prepared
and
resolved
(
if
it
so
please
God
)
to
lay
down
my
Life
for
the
sake
of
Christ
.
Mr.
O.
Objects
,
1
Cor.
4.
9.
ch.
15.
31.
second
Epistle
4.
11.
The
first
of
these
Passages
shews
only
that
God
had
counted
the
Apostles
worthy
to
suffer
Death
for
his
names
sake
,
and
had
appointed
them
unto
it
.
But
as
to
the
time
when
,
or
place
where
〈◊〉
not
said
:
whether
at
Jerusalem
or
at
Rome
,
whether
in
the
first
or
in
the
second
Imprisonment
,
whether
when
the
Apostle
was
Fifty
,
or
Sixty
,
or
Seventy
Years
Old
,
cannot
hence
be
gathered
.
As
for
Paul's
dying
daily
,
I
suppose
none
will
allow
it
as
pertinently
urged
.
Lastly
,
when
the
Apostle
says
,
we
are
always
delivered
unto
Death
,
he
has
an
Eye
in
General
unto
the
Hazards
they
were
constantly
exposed
unto
,
but
not
to
any
particular
designed
time
of
his
own
Death
.
But
here
in
2
Tim.
4.
6.
St.
Paul
speaks
positively
in
the
present
Tense
,
without
any
Reserve
or
Limitation
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
I
am
now
already
as
it
were
offered
,
which
is
more
than
the
Conditional
phrase
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
if
I
be
offered
.
Again
it
's
one
thing
to
say
,
I
am
at
the
point
to
die
,
and
another
,
I
am
prepared
for
it
.
It
is
one
thing
to
be
appointed
at
a
distance
unto
Death
,
as
all
Men
are
,
or
unto
Martyrdom
as
the
Apostles
were
,
and
another
〈◊〉
say
,
I
am
even
now
ready
to
be
offered
.
To
Conclude
Mr.
O's
Reasoning
here
is
very
lame
and
imperfect
.
Mr.
O.
Adduces
those
other
passages
following
,
2
Tim.
4.
17
,
18.
I
was
delivered
,
and
the
Lord
shall
deliver
me
,
parallel
to
that
,
2
Cor.
1.
10.
Ans.
'T
is
true
Paul
was
this
once
delivered
out
of
the
Mouth
of
the
Lion
:
but
it
does
not
follow
that
he
shall
be
again
delivered
:
Yes
says
Mr.
O.
it
follows
—
And
the
Lord
shall
deliver
me
.
It
is
an
Elegancy
to
apply
a
former
word
or
expression
unto
a
different
matter
.
He
had
said
,
I
was
delivered
from
the
Sentence
of
Death
;
and
then
passes
off
quite
to
another
thing
,
and
says
He
—
The
Lord
shall
deliver
me
,
From
what
?
From
every
evil
work
,
from
doing
any
thing
in
the
present
pressures
,
and
dangers
unworthy
of
a
Christian
or
Apostle
and
thereby
will
preserve
me
to
his
everlasting
Kingdom
.
Mr.
O.
Paul
did
not
expect
to
die
very
suddenly
,
Ans.
This
is
truly
observed
and
very
obvious
,
and
therefore
we
do
not
affirm
that
Paul
certainly
expected
to
die
,
so
very
suddenly
,
but
that
he
might
send
for
〈◊〉
.
It
sufficeth
to
say
,
that
he
expected
not
to
be
loosed
from
these
Bonds
,
but
by
Martyrdom
at
last
.
That
He
judged
at
the
writing
of
this
Epistle
,
his
Death
might
be
deferred
for
some
time
,
haply
till
Timothy
came
.
Still
Death
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
hovered
over
him
,
and
he
plainly
saw
his
Enemies
,
would
first
or
last
by
one
means
or
other
take
away
his
Life
.
Nor
do
we
〈◊〉
that
Paul
was
now
already
under
a
Sentence
of
Death
;
and
that
for
the
same
reason
,
because
he
had
sent
for
Timothy
.
We
rather
affirm
that
his
deliverance
,
out
of
the
Mouth
of
the
Lion
,
was
only
his
escaping
the
Sentence
of
Condemnation
at
that
time
:
That
he
was
remanded
unto
Prison
,
and
reserved
for
another
Trial
,
when
ever
it
pleased
the
Emperor
to
appoint
it
.
Or
else
to
be
Sacrificed
unto
the
Fury
of
that
Bloudy
Prince
,
Nero
,
by
a
sudden
and
Arbitrary
or
extrajudicial
Decree
,
as
I
rather
believe
.
One
great
Argument
with
Mr.
O.
is
,
that
St.
Paul
at
his
Farewel
committed
unto
the
Ephesian
Elders
,
the
Supreme
Government
of
that
Church
,
as
the
perpetual
and
unalterable
Method
of
Government
,
knew
he
should
never
see
there
Faces
more
,
Act.
20.
25.
Or
rather
that
,
They
should
never
see
his
Face
any
more
.
I
offered
at
a
small
Criticism
on
the
Explication
of
this
Passage
,
but
laid
no
stress
on
it
.
The
Minister
takes
a
great
deal
of
They
should
not
all
see
his
Face
any
more
;
Yet
Timothy
did
according
to
Mr.
O's
own
Hypothesis
,
and
so
did
Trophimus
the
〈◊〉
,
who
went
with
him
to
Jerusalem
.
Besides
,
't
is
hard
to
believe
that
St.
Paul
should
so
peremptorily
affert
without
exception
,
that
not
one
of
'em
should
see
his
Face
any
more
.
But
as
I
said
,
I
insist
not
on
this
.
Mr.
O.
who
busies
himself
in
〈◊〉
what
I
made
no
account
of
would
have
better
employ'd
himself
,
if
he
had
more
solidly
replied
to
what
I
laid
most
weight
on
,
that
is
,
that
the
Apostle's
saying
,
I
know
was
only
Conjectural
:
Paul
thought
so
;
but
he
was
not
absolutely
assured
of
it
.
But
Mr.
O.
is
of
Opinion
that
this
is
sufficient
to
his
purpose
,
that
Paul
thought
they
should
see
his
Face
no
more
.
That
therefore
he
was
not
wanting
in
his
Duty
of
settling
the
Government
,
but
gave
his
final
Orders
on
that
Point
,
constituting
the
Elders
,
the
Governours
of
that
Church
,
because
he
had
no
hopes
of
seeing
them
any
more
.
Ans.
I
have
had
occasion
more
than
once
in
this
Book
to
acquaint
the
Reader
,
that
Paul
did
not
now
(
so
far
as
we
find
in
Scripture
)
commit
the
Supreme
Government
unto
the
Ephesian
Elders
.
That
the
28.
Verse
in
the
20
th
of
Acts
reaches
not
that
sense
,
as
is
before
made
out
,
and
shall
be
once
more
before
I
conclude
this
Chapter
.
Mean
while
supposing
he
had
delivered
the
Supreme
Power
into
their
hands
,
yet
the
Government
might
be
altered
,
or
perfected
afterwards
upon
occasion
by
the
same
Divine
Power
,
which
first
constituted
it
.
But
after
all
this
,
Mr.
O.
not
content
with
this
Argument
of
his
,
urges
,
That
Paul
doth
not
use
to
express
himself
to
positively
—
I
know
,
when
he
speaks
Conjecturally
.
Ans.
1.
In
all
Reason
the
Apostle
ought
to
be
his
own
Interpreter
.
And
he
tells
the
Ephesian
Elders
,
Acts
20.
22.
that
he
knew
not
the
things
that
should
be
fall
him
there
,
(
at
Jerusalem
.
)
How
then
could
Paul
say
absolutely
,
and
without
any
reserve
or
condition
,
that
they
should
see
his
Face
no
more
?
If
Festus
had
sent
Paul
to
Rome
by
Land
,
through
Syria
,
and
Asia
,
through
Ephesus
,
and
Troas
,
as
he
might
,
if
he
had
pleased
,
and
Paul
knew
not
the
Contrary
,
then
the
Ephesian
Elders
must
have
seen
his
Face
once
more
.
Ans.
2.
I
do
undertake
to
produce
an
Instance
of
Paul's
speaking
as
peremptorily
or
positively
,
as
he
does
here
in
the
20
th
of
Acts
,
and
yet
Mr.
O.
shall
and
has
confest
it
,
spoken
conjecturally
or
uncertainly
,
as
of
a
future
contingent
.
I
send
him
then
to
Philip.
1.
25.
The
Apostle
had
said
,
that
he
desired
to
be
disolved
:
but
that
to
abide
in
the
flesh
was
more
necessary
for
them
—
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
And
having
this
confidence
I
know
I
shall
abide
and
continue
with
you
all
.
The
Case
here
is
this
(
that
I
may
accommodate
my self
to
the
ordinary
,
and
less
observant
Reader
)
Paul
wrote
this
Epistle
from
Rome
in
his
first
Imprisonment
,
he
tells
the
Philippians
that
he
knew
he
should
abide
and
continue
with
them
,
which
implies
his
return
unto
the
Eastern-Churches
,
and
particularly
into
Macedonia
,
whereof
Philippi
was
a
principal
City
:
and
yet
Mr.
O.
all
along
disputes
,
and
denies
the
certainty
of
Paul's
going
back
into
the
Eastern
parts
,
though
Paul
assured
the
Philippians
with
an
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
same
word
which
he
used
when
he
spake
thus
to
the
Ephesian
Elders
,
I
know
that
ye
shall
see
my
Face
no
more
.
If
then
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
I
know
,
is
but
Conjectural
in
the
Epistle
to
the
Philippians
(
as
Mr.
O.
must
grant
)
why
not
in
the
20
th
of
Acts
?
Why
then
does
Mr.
O.
deny
Paul
returned
into
the
East
,
after
his
enlargement
out
of
Prison
,
grounding
himself
on
Acts
20.
25.
If
he
was
positive
in
the
Philippians
,
and
in
the
Acts
,
Mr.
O.
has
lost
one
half
of
his
Argument
,
and
besides
is
obliged
to
reconcile
Paul
in
the
Acts
,
with
Paul
in
the
Epistle
to
the
Philippians
.
But
I
,
who
allow
both
spoken
conjecturally
,
that
is
,
with
a
Possibility
of
failing
,
am
no
further
concerned
than
to
prove
that
de
facto
,
he
went
back
into
the
East
,
which
(
I
suppose
)
is
sufficiently
demonstrated
already
.
From
what
has
been
said
in
this
Chapter
,
it
is
manifest
that
Mr.
O.
has
in
no
tolerable
degree
vindicated
the
Old
Chronology
,
which
fixt
upon
the
20
th
of
the
Acts
,
as
the
time
of
Paul's
beseeching
Timothy
to
abide
at
Ephesus
,
when
the
Apostle
was
going
to
Macedonia
:
neither
has
he
produced
any
one
good
Argument
,
that
the
second
Epistle
to
Timothy
was
wrote
in
the
Apostle's
first
Imprisonment
at
Rome
.
Once
more
I
observe
if
he
had
evinced
both
these
(
as
is
also
noted
in
T.
N.
)
it
would
not
be
a
sufficient
proof
of
the
Presbyterian
Parity
.
For
I
once
again
repeat
it
,
that
I
did
not
avoid
that
older
Opinion
,
which
allows
the
second
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
to
have
been
written
in
Paul's
first
Imprisonment
at
Rome
,
consequently
,
that
the
first
Epistle
was
written
before
the
Apostle's
taking
leave
of
the
Ephesian
Elders
,
and
by
Consequence
,
that
he
besought
Timothy
to
abide
at
Ephesus
,
when
He
was
going
to
Macedonia
,
Acts
20.
1.
I
did
not
,
I
say
,
lay
aside
this
old
Hypothesis
,
as
if
Episcopacy
was
not
defensible
on
that
supposition
,
but
rather
to
bring
the
Controversy
into
as
narrow
a
compass
as
might
be
.
I
did
therefore
in
the
latter
end
of
the
Third
Chapter
,
in
T.
N.
shew
that
though
Paul
had
before
the
Congress
at
Miletus
,
constituted
Timothy
the
Ruler
(
Bishop
)
of
Ephesus
,
yet
was
he
not
obliged
to
take
notice
of
Timothy
in
that
,
his
Farewel-Sermon
.
Because
Paul
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Galatians
,
and
that
other
to
the
Ephesians
,
and
that
First
and
Second
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
takes
no
Notice
of
the
Elders
,
neither
does
John
,
Peter
,
or
Jude
in
their
Epistles
,
nor
lastly
,
does
Ignatius
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Romans
make
mention
of
either
Bishop
,
Presbyter
or
Deacon
:
but
shall
we
thence
conclude
,
that
those
Churches
had
none
of
those
Officers
in
them
?
Is
it
not
as
reasonable
to
believe
that
Timothy
the
then
supposed
Ruler
(
Bishop
)
of
Ephesus
,
might
be
omitted
by
the
Apostle
in
his
Farewel-Sermon
,
as
the
Presbyters
in
his
first
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
wherein
he
professedly
Treats
of
Church-Government
,
and
one
would
think
could
not
have
forgot'em
,
when
he
was
discoursing
on
such
an
Argument
.
Particularly
let
it
be
remembred
that
Ignatius
himself
,
whose
other
Epistles
so
often
,
and
so
fully
remember
Bishops
,
Presbyters
and
Deacons
,
in
that
to
the
Romans
,
had
not
oneSyllable
of
any
of
'em
;
and
yet
he
knew
very
well
that
Bishops
(
as
well
as
Presbyters
)
were
then
established
throughout
the
World
,
as
he
Witnesses
in
that
to
the
Ephesians
.
'T
is
then
no
Proof
that
Timothy
,
was
not
even
at
that
time
the
established
Ruler
(
Bishop
)
of
Ephesus
,
because
the
Apostle
thought
not
fit
to
mention
him
in
his
Farewel
Sermon
.
These
things
Mr.
O.
was
pleased
to
pass
by
unanswered
:
and
why
,
let
any
one
judge
.
I
am
sure
they
overthrow
the
best
Argument
the
Dissenters
have
against
Bishop
Timothy
.
Now
whether
(
as
Mr.
O.
pleads
)
Paul
Acts
20.
Commits
the
Government
of
Ephesus
to
the
Presbyters
only
,
not
by
a
Prudential
or
Temporary
Constitution
,
but
Divine
,
by
the
Power
of
the
Holy
Ghost
,
v.
28.
enough
has
been
said
of
this
already
.
Nevertheless
it
may
be
proper
to
repeat
a
little
for
the
satisfaction
of
those
,
who
haply
have
not
read
the
T.
N.
I
do
then
acknowledge
,
that
the
Ephesian
Elders
were
made
Overseers
of
the
Church
by
the
Holy
Ghost
,
having
Power
to
feed
the
Flock
committed
to
their
Charge
.
But
this
is
no
Argument
against
Timothy's
Bishoprick
there
,
or
his
Prelatical
Power
over
them
.
For
it
is
not
inconsistent
to
say
,
that
Timothy
was
appointed
their
Ruler
(
Bishop
)
;
and
at
the
same
time
,
that
the
Presbyters
were
made
Overseers
of
the
Flock
under
Timothy
.
We
Presbyters
of
the
Church
of
England
,
do
believe
our
ourselves
to
be
Overseers
of
the
Flock
,
and
that
by
Divine
Authority
too
;
and
yet
at
the
same
time
we
acknowledge
our
Diocesans
to
preside
over
us
,
by
the
same
Divine
Authority
.
Our
Bishops
themselves
declare
as
much
in
their
Atlmonition
at
the
Ordering
of
Priests
,
viz.
That
we
are
Messengers
,
Watchmen
and
Stewards
of
the
Lord
,
to
teach
,
premonish
,
feed
,
and
provide
for
the
Lord's
Family
,
and
to
seek
for
Christ's
Sheep
,
that
are
dispersed
abroad
.
And
at
our
Ordination
,
the
first
Question
is
—
Do
ye
think
in
your
Hearts
,
that
ye
be
truly
called
according
to
the
will
of
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
?
What
is
all
this
less
than
that
spoken
to
the
Ephesian
Elders
—
Over
which
the
Holy
Ghost
has
made
you
Overseers
to
feed
the
Church
of
God
?
It
follows
not
then
from
these
words
,
that
St.
Paul
put
into
the
Presbyters
hands
the
sole
,
intire
;
and
supreme
Government
of
that
Church
.
They
might
even
then
be
,
and
be
left
subject
unto
Bishop
Timothy
(
for
any
thing
that
can
be
rightly
inferred
from
thence
)
as
we
are
to
our
Diocesan
Bishops
.
If
our
Provincial
Archbishop
,
should
at
his
Metropolitical
Visitation
at
the
same
rate
,
exhort
as
ordinary
Presbyters
—
To
take
heed
to
our selves
,
and
to
the
Flock
over
which
the
Holy
Ghost
has
made
us
overseers
,
to
feed
the
Church
of
God
,
not
mentioning
our
Diocesan
Bishops
at
all
,
shall
it
thence
be
concluded
that
Dr.
Stratford
our
Reverend
Diocesan
is
not
the
Bishop
of
Chester
?
These
things
I
think
ought
not
to
have
been
shuffled
off
by
Mr.
O.
as
unworthy
,
but
perhaps
it
may
be
said
more
truly
above
his
Answering
.
Before
I
conclude
this
Chapter
,
there
are
two
Arguments
which
the
unreasonable
Opposition
Mr.
O.
has
made
unto
my
Hypothesis
,
has
suggested
to
me
,
proving
,
I
am
bold
to
say
,
demonstrating
,
that
the
second
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
was
wrote
in
St.
Paul's
Second
Imprisonment
at
Rome
.
I
will
lay
'em
as
briefly
,
and
as
plainly
as
I
can
before
the
Reader
,
and
so
make
an
end
.
1.
If
the
second
〈◊〉
to
Timothy
,
was
written
in
St.
Paul's
first
Imprisonment
(
as
Mr.
O.
affirms
)
it
must
then
have
been
written
either
before
,
or
at
the
same
time
,
or
after
the
Epistles
to
the
Colossians
and
〈◊〉
.
1.
Not
before
the
Epistles
to
the
Colossians
and
Philemon
were
written
,
as
Mr.
Owen
himself
acknowledges
.
Def.
page
133.
For
Paul
at
the
writing
of
the
second
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
had
sent
Tychicus
to
Ephesus
,
(
Chap.
4.
12
)
.
How
then
could
Tychicus
be
the
Bearer
of
the
Epistle
to
the
Colossians
,
if
he
was
already
gone
to
Ephesus
,
before
the
writing
of
that
Epistle
to
the
Colossians
?
The
second
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
therefore
could
not
be
written
before
that
unto
the
Colossians
.
2.
Not
at
the
same
time
,
as
the
Epistles
to
the
Colossians
and
Philemon
were
written
.
For
Timothy
,
who
in
the
second
Epistle
to
〈◊〉
,
was
sent
for
by
Paul
to
Rome
(
Chap.
4.
9.
)
was
even
then
with
Paul
at
Rome
,
and
joined
with
him
in
the
Epistles
to
the
Colossians
and
Philemon
(
Chap.
1.
1.
)
Therefore
the
second
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
could
not
〈◊〉
written
at
the
same
time
,
as
that
to
the
Colossians
was
.
3.
Not
after
the
Epistle
to
the
Colossians
was
written
.
For
then
Timothy
,
who
joined
in
the
Epistle
to
the
〈◊〉
,
must
have
been
gone
back
into
Asia
before
St
Paul
,
which
't
is
certain
he
did
not
,
Heb.
13.
23.
or
else
he
must
have
returned
again
to
Paul
at
Rome
,
and
once
more
gone
back
into
Asia
with
him
.
In
like
manner
〈◊〉
,
who
carry'd
the
Epistle
to
the
Colossians
,
from
Paul
and
Timothy
,
must
have
returned
unto
the
Apostle
at
Rome
,
and
thence
been
sent
back
unto
Ephesus
.
2
Tim.
4.
12.
And
all
this
during
the
Apostle's
first
Imprisonment
,
which
is
not
in
the
least
Probable
.
'T
is
such
a
Wild-Goose-Chase
,
as
no
rational
Man
can
admit
.
Therefore
the
second
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
was
not
written
after
that
to
the
Colossians
.
If
then
it
was
written
neither
before
,
nor
at
the
same
time
,
nor
after
those
to
the
Colossians
,
and
Philemon
,
it
was
not
written
at
all
during
the
Apostle's
first
Imprisonment
,
therefore
it
must
needs
have
been
written
in
his
Second
.
2.
The
other
Argument
is
grounded
upon
the
Story
of
Demas
,
as
't
is
related
in
the
second
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
and
in
the
Epistle
to
the
Colossians
,
and
that
other
to
Philemon
,
I
shall
represent
it
first
according
to
Mr.
O's
Hypothesis
,
and
secondly
according
to
my
own
.
According
to
Mr.
O's
Hypothesis
,
Demas
had
forsaken
Timothy
.
Paul
in
the
same
second
Epistle
,
after
Demas
had
forsaken
him
,
sent
for
Timothy
from
Asia
unto
Rome
,
(
v.
9.
)
.
Timothy
being
come
to
Rome
,
joined
with
Paul
in
the
Epistles
to
the
Colossians
(
Chap.
1.
1.
)
and
to
Philemon
(
v.
1.
)
and
yet
Demas
was
still
with
Paul
at
Rome
,
even
though
he
had
forsaken
Paul
,
and
he
is
by
the
Apostle
and
Timothy
,
mentioned
with
Honour
in
both
Epistles
,
Colos.
4.
14.
Philem.
24.
after
he
had
forsaken
the
Apostle
.
This
is
absurd
enough
.
For
here
are
several
Inconsistences
,
yea
,
Contradictions
in
the
Story
.
as
't
is
laid
by
Mr.
O.
-
1.
Demas
had
forsaken
Paul
(
2
Tim.
4.
〈◊〉
.
)
and
yet
had
not
forsaken
him
,
Colos.
4.
14.
Philem.
24.
-
2.
Demas
had
forsaken
Paul
,
and
was
departed
to
Thessalonica
,
and
yet
was
still
with
Paul
at
Rome
.
-
3.
Demas
was
at
Thessalonica
and
at
Rome
,
at
the
same
time
.
-
4.
Demas
at
once
was
an
Apostate
,
and
yet
a
〈◊〉
Labourer
with
Paul
,
〈◊〉
Tim.
4.
10.
Philem.
24.
Mr.
O.
may
try
(
if
he
please
)
whether
he
can
surmouut
these
Difficulties
.
But
according
to
my
Hypothesis
,
Demas
continued
with
Paul
at
Rome
,
all
his
first
Imprisonment
there
being
little
or
no
danger
:
at
this
time
Paul
wrote
the
Epistles
to
the
Colossians
,
and
that
to
Philemon
,
and
therein
Commends
Demas
,
there
being
then
no
reason
to
the
Contrary
.
But
in
the
Apostle's
second
Imprisonment
,
when
the
Christian
Religion
(
and
the
Apostle
in
particular
)
was
more
violently
persecuted
,
then
the
Apostle
wrote
the
second
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
and
then
Demas
had
deserted
Paul
,
and
withdrawn
himself
into
Macedonia
,
as
indeed
all
Men
then
forsook
him
,
2
Tim.
4.
16.
Let
the
Reader
judge
,
whether
this
is
not
a
plain
and
coherent
Account
:
but
Mr.
O's
confused
,
false
,
and
utterly
irreconcilable
with
it self
.
In
a
word
,
here
is
an
end
(
I
suppose
)
unto
that
part
of
the
Controversy
,
about
the
time
of
Paul's
writing
the
second
Epistle
to
Timothy
.
It
must
need
be
in
his
second
Imprisonment
.
And
thus
Mr.
O's
main
Bulwark
,
raised
for
the
defence
of
the
Old
Chronology
〈◊〉
;
Paul's
writing
the
first
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
before
his
leaving
Miletus
,
Act.
20.
is
demolished
,
and
levelled
with
the
Ground
.
THE
APPENDIX
.
I
Must
not
deny
,
as
I
once
before
acknowledged
,
that
I
borrowed
my
Hypothesis
,
about
the
time
of
Paul's
beseeching
Timothy
to
abide
at
Ephesus
,
from
Bishop
P.
and
that
I
believed
him
,
to
have
been
the
first
publick
Author
of
it
.
I
am
very
sure
he
cited
none
.
And
that
passage
out
of
the
Rhemists
produced
by
Mr.
O.
't
is
confest
,
I
was
not
aware
of
.
And
what
then
?
They
stumbled
upon
,
and
had
a
suspicion
of
something
,
which
they
were
not
able
to
make
out
distinctly
.
But
the
Bishop
of
Chester
has
done
it
,
with
the
approbation
of
the
most
Learned
Men
,
except
such
as
are
led
aside
with
the
〈◊〉
of
Interest
,
and
have
espoused
a
cause
which
will
not
allow
it
.
And
yet
I
hope
I
may
say
without
Breach
of
modesty
,
that
I
did
add
some
further
proofs
and
Confirmations
of
this
NewChronology
;
though
they
〈◊〉
absolutely
necessary
,
those
of
Bishop
Pearson's
being
sufficient
without
'em
,
as
I
freely
own
.
Mr
O.
is
not
mistaken
when
he
say
,
Miracles
are
grown
very
common
in
this
last
Age.
But
he
has
not
proved
his
Proposition
by
a
proper
Argument
.
He
should
have
alledged
those
Miracles
of
this
Age
,
who
cast
out
the
Devil
at
Surey
:
and
that
Miracle
of
this
Age
,
who
undertook
the
Defence
of
the
pretended
Exorcists
,
and
yet
acknowledged
the
Imposture
at
the
same
time
.
It
is
indeed
a
surprizing
N.
N.
Miracle
that
the
Devil
should
be
cast
out
,
where
he
never
entered
:
and
much
more
,
that
two
Confident
Ministers
should
assume
to
themselves
the
Glory
of
Dispossessing
Dicky
,
when
't
is
well
know
that
several
other
good
Men
pray'd
for
that
unhappy
Wretch
.
If
Mr.
O's
displeased
,
that
I
called
Bishop
Pearson
the
Miracle
of
his
time
,
I
cannot
help
it
:
but
would
be
glad
he
would
shew
me
his
equal
from
among
the
Dissenters
.
Of
all
others
,
I
would
advise
him
not
to
instance
in
that
great
Man
Mr.
Baxter
,
I
cannot
believe
his
own
Testimony
of
himself
sc.
That
he
and
〈◊〉
Amanuensis
understood
Ninteen
Languages
.
All
the
World
knows
Mr.
Baxter
,
did
not
understand
Latin
very
well
.
Haply
he
understood
English
:
and
that
's
all
I
verily
believe
he
was
Master
off
.
But
this
Boast
of
his
,
puts
me
in
Mind
of
a
certain
Bishop's
Chaplain
,
Who
told
his
Lord
,
that
they
two
had
been
during
the
Civil
Wars
,
in
all
the
Prisons
in
England
.
The
Bishop
Modestly
reply'd
(
being
unwilling
to
load
his
Enemies
with
an
untruth
)
I
was
never
in
more
than
one
(
and
there
indeed
he
had
been
near
upon
twenty
Years
)
Ay
but
(
the
Chaplain
answered
)
I
have
been
in
all
the
rest
.
Thus
perhaps
Mr.
Baxter
,
and
his
Amanuensis
understood
Ninteen
Languages
:
Mr.
Baxter
understood
English
,
and
his
Scribe
the
remaining
Eighteen
,
and
here
we
have
two
other
Miracles
of
this
Age.
A
Man
of
no
Learning
,
making
as
great
a
Figure
,
at
least
Noise
,
as
any
other
even
in
this
Learned
Age
:
And
his
Amanuensis
who
understood
Eighteen
Languages
,
much
more
than
Solomon
did
,
as
I
believe
,
or
any
Man
will
ever
do
again
.
But
the
greatest
Miracle
of
all
is
that
Mr.
Baxter
and
his
Scribe
understood
Ninteen
Languages
,
yet
no
use
is
made
of
any
of
'em
to
any
purpose
,
except
the
English
,
in
all
the
Voluminous
works
of
that
Great
Man
.
Mr.
O.
informs
us
,
that
St.
Paul
had
Preached
the
Gospel
in
〈◊〉
at
that
time
,
when
being
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
he
wrote
his
Epistle
to
the
Romans
.
I
will
convict
him
of
a
great
mistake
(
to
say
no
worse
)
by
laying
the
Testimony
before
the
Reader
—
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
So
that
from
Jerusalem
,
and
round
about
unto
Illyricum
,
I
have
fully
〈◊〉
the
Gospel
of
Christ
.
Not
in
but
unto
Illyricum
,
which
spoils
the
Ministers
Argument
in
that
place
.
Concerning
Paul's
Preaching
the
Gospel
in
Spain
and
the
Western
parts
of
Europe
,
I
chanced
to
express
my self
thus
—
All
the
〈◊〉
say
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
went
to
Spain
,
and
to
the
remotest
parts
of
the
West
,
&c.
And
at
this
he
takes
occasion
to
reproach
me
in
general
for
my
crude
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
because
I
said
All
,
&c.
〈◊〉
,
I
must
needs
own
that
every
Father
has
not
affirmed
this
.
But
I
have
this
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
self
,
that
't
is
ordinary
to
express
a
Notion
thus
Universally
,
〈◊〉
nevertheless
there
are
many
restrictions
,
and
exceptions
unto
the
Universal
〈◊〉
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Mr.
O.
with
some
Instances
out
of
Scripture
,
Rom.
5.
18.
By
the
Righteousness
of
one
,
the
free
Gift
came
upon
all
Men
unto
Justification
of
Life
.
John
12.
32.
And
I
,
if
I
be
lifted
up
from
the
Earth
,
will
draw
all
Men
unto
me
.
Titus
2.
11.
For
the
Grace
of
God
that
bringeth
Salvation
,
〈◊〉
appeared
unto
all
Men.
Mr.
O.
I
do
suppose
in
the
explanation
of
these
,
and
many
other
the
like
Passages
in
Scripture
,
thinks
himself
oblig'd
to
qualify
them
with
some
Limitations
.
To
speak
of
that
only
which
was
last
named
.
I
ask
Mr.
O.
Whether
the
Grace
of
God
had
then
(
when
Paul
wrote
to
Titus
)
appeared
to
all
Men
?
Yea
,
had
it
then
appeared
to
one
Thousandth
part
of
Mankind
?
Or
if
he
will
have
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
governed
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
was
it
saving
Grace
unto
all
Men
without
exception
?
Or
to
the
greatest
Number
of
Men
?
Or
only
,
to
some
few
?
Let
Mr.
O.
deal
with
me
,
as
he
is
forced
to
deal
with
the
Holy
Scripture
,
and
then
an
end
will
soon
be
put
unto
this
squabble
.
I
did
not
then
intend
to
be
understood
so
strictly
,
as
if
not
one
individual
Father
had
omitted
to
record
that
piece
of
History
concerning
Paul
:
No
nor
that
the
Major
part
of
'em
had
mentioned
it
.
But
that
a
great
many
of
the
best
reputed
among
'em
,
who
had
occasion
to
speak
of
this
matter
have
attested
it
.
Some
Instances
I
will
here
annex
out
of
the
late
Learned
Bishop
of
Worcester
.
Orig.
Britan.
P.
36
,
&c.
The
first
is
that
of
Eusebius
,
that
some
(
Apostles
)
passed
over
the
Ocean
to
those
which
are
called
the
British
Islands
:
And
as
the
Bishop
argues
,
of
all
others
,
Paul
was
most
likely
,
seeing
we
read
of
him
alone
in
Scripture
,
designing
to
go
Westward
into
Spain
.
Rom.
15.
28.
Theodoret
,
That
St.
Paul
brought
Salvation
to
the
Islands
that
lie
in
the
Ocean
,
Having
just
before
mentioned
Spain
.
Jerom
,
That
Paul
having
been
in
Spain
went
from
one
Ocean
to
another
,
imitating
the
motion
of
the
Sun
of
Righteousness
;
of
whom
t
is
said
,
His
going
forth
,
&c.
And
that
Jerom
meant
our
Western
Ocean
cannot
be
doubted
:
for
he
elsewhere
says
,
That
St.
Paul
after
his
Imprisonment
Preached
the
Gospel
in
the
Western
Parts
.
Clemens
Romanus
,
That
St.
Paul
Preached
Righteousness
through
the
whole
World
,
and
in
so
doing
,
went
to
the
utmost
bounds
of
the
West
.
Venantius
Fortunatus
describes
Paul's
labours
thus
.
Transit
ad
Oceanum
,
vel
qua
facit
insula
Portum
Quasque
Britannus-habet
terras
,
quasque
ultima
〈◊〉
.
Hereunto
I
add
,
an
Authority
of
my
own
Collection
,
't
is
No
one
doubts
but
that
St.
Peter
,
and
Paul
himself
Preached
Jesus
Christ
unto
the
Western
Parts
,
which
they
went
unto
.
I
shall
conclude
this
with
the
Words
of
the
Learned
Mr.
Baxter
,
who
Learnedly
expresseth
himself
thus
,
in
that
Learned
Book
of
his
intitul'd
Methodus
〈◊〉
,
and
in
one
of
the
Ninteen
Languages
,
which
he
,
and
his
Amanuensis
understood
,
Et
reverd
〈◊〉
scripta
〈◊〉
&
seipsa
,
&
me
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
bac
〈◊〉
;
ego
me
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
non
possum
justificare
.
I
proceed
now
to
Mr.
O's
Challenging
me
with
making
Ans.
I
read
of
a
certain
Man
,
Jo.
5.
5.
Which
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Tears
,
and
that
Jesus
Christ
knew
,
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
been
now
a
long
time
in
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
never
been
made
whole
all
that
while
.
God's
time
for
every
thing
is
the
best
,
at
least
we
ought
to
wait
his
leasure
,
and
not
prescribe
how
soon
he
shall
heal
our
Infirmities
,
of
what
kind
soever
they
be
.
But
let
us
examine
these
Fourteen
Years
,
which
he
Challengeth
me
with
.
Dr.
Lightfoot
perhaps
computes
the
time
so
as
will
reach
Fourteen
Years
:
but
he
's
none
of
my
Oracle
.
I
am
of
Opinion
,
he
has
scarce
spoken
one
true
word
,
in
matters
relating
unto
this
Controversy
,
and
this
happen'd
by
the
first
false
step
he
made
,
about
the
time
of
Paul's
beseeching
〈◊〉
,
&c.
But
I
can
reduce
these
Fourteen
Years
into
Seven
,
all
which
time
Paul
had
not
an
opportunity
of
applying
the
Remedy
;
and
thus
I
do
it
.
With
Bishop
Pearson
,
I
reckon
the
Corinthian
Schism
to
have
happen'd
in
the
Year
of
Christ
57.
A
Year
he
tarry'd
in
Macedonia
and
Achaia
,
about
two
Years
I
allow
for
his
stay
at
Jerusalem
,
and
Voyage
to
Rome
.
He
remained
two
Years
a
Prisonér
there
,
and
two
Years
may
be
allotted
for
his
Return
into
the
East
,
visiting
and
settling
the
Government
of
those
Churches
;
in
all
about
Seven
,
which
at
least
in
the
Gross
agree
with
Bishop
Pearson's
Chronology
.
But
whereas
Mr.
O.
makes
me
say
,
the
first
〈◊〉
to
Timothy
was
writ
Anno
69.
It
is
a
Palpable
Mistake
(
to
say
no
〈◊〉
.
)
He
hereby
imputes
unto
me
at
least
Four
or
five
Years
more
than
I
ever
reckon'd
upon
.
Well!
but
how
came
Paul
to
defer
changing
the
Government
,
so
long
as
Seven
or
Eight
Years
?
This
doubtless
Mr.
O.
will
think
strange
,
and
not
to
be
granted
.
Ans.
The
Reason
is
obvious
from
the
History
of
Paul
.
The
Corinthian
Schism
broke
out
:
Paul
endeavour'd
to
heal
it
by
Argument
,
and
proceeded
no
further
with
them
at
that
time
.
He
therefore
receives
their
Contributions
,
hastes
to
Judea
,
is
there
Imprisoned
,
sent
to
Rome
,
and
there
held
in
Durance
two
Years
.
After
he
returns
into
the
East
:
by
this
time
the
like
Schism
had
burst
out
at
Ephesus
,
and
haply
in
other
Churches
:
and
now
was
the
time
,
and
the
first
fair
opportunity
he
had
to
alter
or
perfect
the
Government
,
and
to
place
Timothy
,
in
his
stead
over
the
Church
of
Ephesus
,
and
others
over
the
rest
.
Mr.
O.
All
this
is
confidently
affirmed
after
the
Rectors
usual
Ans.
It
is
so
natural
to
Mr.
O.
to
Challenge
me
with
Confidence
,
that
he
cannot
forbear
even
when
I
least
deserve
it
.
I
am
therefore
obliged
for
once
,
to
set
the
Saddle
on
the
right
Horse
:
for
I
'll
not
resemble
him
to
blind
Bayard
,
as
he
very
rudely
doth
me
.
In
that
Paragraph
,
to
which
Mr.
O.
refers
,
in
the
T.
N.
I
gave
a
Summary
of
Paul's
Travels
in
the
East
,
after
his
Enlargement
from
his
first
Imprisonment
at
Rome
:
wherein
I
am
far
from
confidently
affirming
,
all
his
particular
movements
from
place
to
place
,
tho'
I
guess
at
them
.
I
over
and
over
,
and
yet
more
than
once
over
again
delivered
my
Opinion
with
so
much
Precaution
,
that
no
Man
of
the
least
Modesty
would
have
Tax'd
me
with
Confidence
on
that
score
.
If
any
one
is
at
leisure
to
inform
himself
in
the
Truth
,
let
him
but
turn
to
the
87th
page
of
T.
N.
and
he
'll
presently
see
what
care
I
took
,
and
what
modesty
I
us'd
in
proposing
my
own
Thoughts
,
what
frequent
Interruptions
and
Parentheses
I
all
along
inserted
,
varying
and
repeating
them
meerly
,
that
I
might
not
seem
too
positive
in
such
minute
Circumstances
.
Ex.
gr.
As
may
reasonably
be
supposed
.
Again
,
't
is
likely
.
And
again
,
This
may
be
allow'd
.
And
once
more
,
very
probably
.
Then
I
conclude
Hitherto
we
have
built
upon
Conjecture
.
Let
then
any
Man
of
sense
Judge
,
whether
Mr.
O.
deserves
not
once
more
to
be
Corrected
〈◊〉
a
more
than
Ordinary
sharpness
.
CHAP.
V.
Being
an
Answer
to
Mr.
O's
5th
Chap.
THIS
Chapter
is
intirely
spent
about
Evangelists
.
In
T.
N.
I
suppos'd
with
my
Adversary
,
-
1.
That
they
were
an
Order
of
Church
Officers
distinct
from
Apostles
,
Prophets
,
Pastors
,
or
Teachers
.
-
2.
That
in
degree
they
were
next
under
Prophets
,
and
above
Pastors
or
Teachers
:
I
added
my
own
Opinion
,
-
3.
That
they
were
not
only
Companions
of
the
Apostles
,
ready
to
serve
in
the
Work
of
the
Gospel
,
where-ever
&
whensoever
they
should
be
sent
upon
any
special
and
Emergent
business
:
but
sometimes
likewise
fix'd
in
some
certain
places
as
Resident
Governours
of
those
Churches
,
in
the
Room
of
the
absent
or
dying
Apostles
,
of
which
number
I
reckon'd
Philip
,
Timothy
and
Titus
,
to
have
been
.
Mr.
O.
Because
Titus
was
to
Ordain
Elders
in
every
City
,
Ans.
There
is
no
necessity
that
every
City
must
needs
have
a
Bishop
.
At
least
in
the
Infancy
of
the
Church
,
and
whilst
Titus
alone
presided
over
it
.
It
was
not
so
in
Crete
,
nor
was
there
any
occasion
for
it
.
Admitting
that
in
the
next
Age
,
Christians
and
Churches
multiplying
,
and
all
the
Apostles
dead
then
,
haply
there
might
be
Bishops
in
many
〈◊〉
,
and
some
Person
constituted
the
Archbishop
of
that
Island
.
I
say
admitting
this
,
it
will
not
hence
follow
,
that
the
Power
of
Ordination
was
in
him
solely
,
and
not
in
the
other
Bishops
also
.
An
Archbishop
is
not
of
a
different
species
from
a
Bishop
,
but
was
appointed
,
and
agreed
unto
by
the
Bishops
among
themselves
for
Peace
and
Orders
sake
;
although
there
might
be
plausible
Reasons
given
out
of
Scripture
it self
,
for
the
Institution
of
Archbishops
.
But
that
's
〈◊〉
of
my
concernment
.
This
is
certain
among
our selves
,
when
a
Bishop
is
made
an
Archbishop
,
he
receives
no
new
Ordination
,
consequently
no
new
Divine
Power
,
more
than
he
had
before
;
that
therefore
as
to
the
Office
of
Ordaining
and
Governing
their
Dioceses
,
a
Bishop
and
an
Archbishop
are
the
same
thing
,
and
that
the
Archbishop
cannot
supersede
the
Episcopal
Power
,
of
his
Provincial
Bishops
.
Mr.
O.
will
not
allow
that
Philip
was
the
fixt
,
and
settled
Evangelist
at
Caesarea
.
Ans.
Nor
am
I
positive
it
was
so
.
I
gave
my
Reasons
for
it
out
of
Scripture
,
such
as
do
I
confess
perswade
me
to
believe
it
.
But
the
Minister
is
of
another
Mind
.
I
cannot
help
that
,
nor
do
I
wonder
at
it
.
Where
almost
is
there
a
Man
to
be
found
,
who
is
willing
to
renounce
his
former
Sentiments
or
Errours
?
Mr.
O.
requires
it
to
be
proved
,
that
Philip
was
settled
and
resided
at
Caesarea
,
and
that
he
was
no
where
else
,
&c.
Ans.
'T
is
hard
Mr.
O.
should
require
me
to
prove
a
Negative
;
all
I
can
say
is
,
I
read
not
of
his
being
any
where-else
.
After
an
account
given
of
his
Labours
in
Preaching
the
Gospel
,
whilst
he
was
yet
but
a
Deacon
,
for
any
thing
that
appears
,
I
find
him
,
as
it
were
sitting
down
at
Caesarea
.
Acts
8.
40.
He
preached
in
all
the
Cities
,
till
he
came
to
Caesarea
,
which
words
seem
to
Intimate
that
there
he
rested
.
The
next
news
we
hear
of
him
is
,
that
near
upon
Twenty
Years
after
we
find
him
still
at
Caesarea
,
and
then
stiled
an
Evangelist
,
a
Title
plainly
there
distinguished
from
Deacon
(
who
was
or
had
been
one
of
the
seven
Deacons
,
but
was
now
it
seems
an
Evangelist
)
:
and
further
't
is
said
of
him
,
that
at
〈◊〉
he
had
an
House
and
Family
there
,
and
in
Condition
to
entertain
Paul
and
his
Companions
many
days
,
Acts
21.
8
,
9
,
10.
I
think
that
here
is
a
tolerable
proof
that
he
dwelt
,
and
was
the
fixt
Evangelist
of
Caesarea
.
Mr.
O.
May
not
an
unsettled
Officer
have
a
settled
Family
?
Caesarea
might
be
his
Birth
place
,
or
he
might
Marry
there
,
because
he
had
four
Daughters
there
Prophetesses
.
Ans.
These
are
bare
Possibilities
at
most
,
which
cannot
countervail
those
Circumstances
and
matters
of
〈◊〉
,
whereon
I
build
my
Conjecture
.
Herein
I
appeal
to
the
Reader
.
Besides
,
tho'
't
is
possible
an
unsettled
Officer
,
may
have
a
settled
Family
:
Yet
a
settled
Officer
,
must
have
a
settled
Family
(
one
would
think
)
if
he
has
〈◊〉
at
all
.
Caesarea
might
be
his
Birth
place
.
This
is
possible
:
and
it
might
not
be
,
which
is
most
Probable
.
'T
is
great
odds
on
my
side
.
I
have
all
the
Cities
in
Judea
(
to
say
nothing
of
all
the
other
in
the
Empire
,
and
elsewhere
,
where
Jews
liv'd
)
to
set
against
Caesarea
.
His
name
would
make
one
think
he
was
an
Hellenist
,
and
born
somewhere
among
the
Greeks
.
His
being
chosen
a
Deacon
,
in
favour
of
the
Grecians
,
argues
something
this
way
:
as
also
that
,
at
that
time
his
Habitation
was
at
Jerusalem
:
for
why
else
should
he
be
chosen
a
Deacon
there
?
He
removed
thence
meerly
upon
occasion
of
the
Persecution
.
After
all
,
imagine
he
was
born
at
Caesarea
,
this
is
no
reason
against
his
being
an
Evangelist
there
.
Once
more
,
He
might
Marry
there
.
True
,
that
's
possible
:
but
't
is
as
possible
that
he
Marry'd
at
Jerusalem
,
or
any
other
of
the
Cities
,
where
he
had
preached
the
Word
.
But
Mr.
O's
Reason
why
he
might
Marry
there
,
is
a
very
pleasant
one
,
sc.
because
he
had
Daughters
there
Prophetesses
:
as
if
he
might
not
have
Marry'd
in
another
place
,
and
yet
his
Daughters
live
with
him
at
Caesarea
.
Children
are
no
evidence
,
where
a
Man
was
Marry'd
.
But
what
if
he
was
Marryed
there
?
Might
he
not
also
have
been
the
settled
Evangelist
there
?
His
Marrying
at
Caesarea
could
be
no
hindrance
,
nor
is
an
Argument
against
it
.
Lastly
,
't
is
most
absurd
to
suppose
from
Acts
the
8.
40.
That
he
Marry'd
at
Caesarea
.
For
't
was
now
about
20
Years
since
he
arriv'd
first
at
Caesarea
.
There
Mr.
O.
thinks
he
might
Marry
,
and
so
settle
his
Family
.
I
deny
it
.
He
must
in
all
likelyhood
have
been
Marry'd
before
he
ever
came
to
Caesarea
;
and
that
because
he
had
four
Daughters
Prophetesses
.
For
if
he
was
there
,
and
then
Marry'd
,
the
oldest
of
these
Prophetesses
must
have
been
but
Nineteen
Years
old
,
and
the
youngest
but
Sixteen
.
It
is
not
credible
,
that
at
this
Age
they
should
be
Prophetesses
.
Lastly
,
the
most
probable
conjecture
is
,
that
he
Marry'd
before
he
was
converted
,
or
became
a
Minister
of
the
Word
.
Mr.
O.
He
was
an
Evangelist
before
he
came
to
Caesarea
,
which
the
Minister
confirms
by
Bishop
Pearson's
Testimony
.
Ans.
It
is
no
wonder
that
Bp.
Pearson
should
be
of
this
Opinion
,
who
esteem'd
an
Evangelist
to
be
,
not
a
distinct
Species
of
Officer
in
the
Church
,
but
to
denote
a
bare
Preacher
of
the
Gospel
.
But
Mr.
O.
who
believes
it
otherwise
,
and
I
who
have
supposed
it
,
must
seek
for
other
proofs
of
Philip's
being
an
Evangelist
before
he
settled
at
Samaria
.
Mr.
O.
Philip
Preached
up
and
down
,
by
virtue
of
an
Extraordinary
call
,
Act.
8.
6
,
7
,
26
,
39.
Ans.
The
places
cited
prove
that
Philip
had
extraordinary
Gifts
,
and
Abilities
,
and
sometimes
an
Extraordinary
call
unto
some
certain
place
to
Preach
the
Word
.
But
Philip
had
no
extraordinary
call
unto
the
office
of
an
Evangelist
that
I
can
meet
with
,
though
he
had
Extraordinary
Gifts
in
Preaching
the
Gospel
.
For
any
thing
I
read
Philip
was
yet
but
a
Deacon
.
'T
is
then
reasonable
to
believe
that
he
was
afterward
appointed
the
Resident
〈◊〉
of
Caesarea
.
Mr.
O.
observes
very
truly
,
and
I
freely
acknowledge
that
this
Philip
died
at
Hierapolis
,
and
by
consequence
was
not
the
fixt
Evangelist
of
Caesarea
,
citing
for
this
Eusebius
,
E.
H.
l.
3.
I
am
forc'd
again
to
expose
his
unfaithful
representing
Authors
,
making
'em
write
what
is
not
to
be
found
in
them
.
The
Historian
in
l.
3.
c.
31.
first
speaks
of
Philip
the
Apostle
—
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
One
of
the
twelve
,
who
died
at
Hierapolis
.
But
he
affirms
it
not
of
Philip
the
Deacon
,
or
Evangelist
.
To
the
same
purpose
〈◊〉
—
Philippus
Apostolus
,
in
Phrygia
praedicat
Evangelium
Domini
Jesu
.
Sepelitur
Hierapoli
cum
〈◊〉
bonorifice
.
'T
is
true
Euseb.
at
the
latter
end
of
that
Chapter
,
speaks
also
of
Philip
,
the
Evangelist
and
his
Daughters
(
says
he
)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Who
lived
with
their
Father
Philip
in
Caesarea
.
But
not
a
Syllable
of
Hierapolis
.
Nay
,
here
is
a
tolerable
proof
that
Eusebius
thought
Philip
lived
,
and
resided
in
〈◊〉
.
Here
then
we
have
another
Instance
of
Mr.
O's
false
dealing
with
Authors
.
Mr.
O.
still
contends
that
Timothy
and
Titus
,
were
not
resident
(
Bishops
)
Evangelists
,
the
Apostle
calling
'em
both
Ans.
From
Scripture
it
cannot
,
because
the
Holy
History
The
Question
is
,
whether
Eusebius
asserts
the
〈◊〉
to
have
been
Resident
,
or
unfixt
Ministers
in
l.
3.
c.
37
,
38
,
39.
Mr.
O.
maintains
this
latter
Opinion
,
〈◊〉
testifying
—
That
they
Ans.
True
,
all
this
Eusebius
Witnesseth
:
but
it
proves
not
Mr.
O's
Point
.
This
many
Evangelists
did
for
some
time
,
but
were
afterwards
fixt
in
some
certain
place
to
govern
particular
Churches
,
as
appears
from
the
Examples
,
Eusebius
produces
,
sc.
〈◊〉
,
Clemens
Romanus
,
Polycarp
and
Papias
,
all
which
(
he
assures
us
)
were
the
constant
residing
Bishops
of
particular
Churches
(
Euseb.
l.
3.
c.
39.
)
though
they
had
been
sometime
before
unfixt
Evangelists
,
attending
the
Apostles
uncertain
Orders
,
as
the
necessities
of
Religion
occasionally
required
.
And
this
is
what
I
insisted
on
in
T.
N.
that
Evangelists
were
both
fixt
and
unfixt
,
according
as
the
Apostles
Ordered
them
,
that
therefore
fixedness
,
or
unfixedness
is
not
a
proper
Note
,
nor
distinguishing
Character
of
an
Evangelist
;
he
may
be
one
,
or
the
other
,
or
both
at
different
times
,
as
is
manifest
from
Eusebius
.
Though
I
delivered
my self
in
T.
N.
to
this
effect
,
Mr.
O.
takes
no
notice
of
it
,
but
urges
again
the
old
Argument
,
avoiding
what
I
observed
out
of
Eusebius
,
in
proof
that
his
unfixt
Evangelists
,
became
afterwards
the
fixt
Bishops
of
Churches
.
It
remains
then
that
Evangelists
,
many
of
'em
were
according
to
Eusebius
,
fixt
Ministers
,
which
is
all
I
am
concerned
for
;
and
by
Consequence
so
might
Timothy
and
Titus
be
.
Another
Controversy
is
moved
about
St.
Mark
,
whether
Ans.
I
do
readily
grant
,
that
Mark
was
a
great
while
an
unsettled
Minister
,
waiting
on
the
Apostle
Peter
,
and
by
him
dispatched
up
and
down
,
upon
the
Service
of
the
Church
,
though
afterward
he
went
,
or
was
sent
unto
Alexandria
,
where
he
planted
a
Church
,
and
Govern'd
it
.
Mr.
O.
shakes
me
off
by
objecting
—
I
may
as
well
make
Peter
a
Resident
Apostle
,
because
Eusebius
saith
,
that
Linus
succeeded
him
in
the
Government
of
the
Church
of
Rome
.
Ans.
Supposing
Peter
was
there
,
so
long
as
't
is
reported
of
him
,
I
must
profess
I
think
he
was
the
Resident
Apostle
of
Rome
,
for
there
are
Men
of
Learning
and
Observation
,
who
will
tell
Mr.
O.
that
Peter
was
the
first
Bishop
of
Rome
;
that
Apostles
were
wont
to
have
the
special
care
and
oversight
over
some
particular
Church
or
Churches
,
besides
their
general
Power
,
which
extended
unto
all
Places
.
Of
Peter
,
Jerom
testifies
—
ibique
(
Romae
)
viginti
quinque
annos
Cathedram
Sacerdotalem
tenuit
(
Petrus
)
:
And
I
hope
this
Father
is
of
some
credit
,
and
in
esteem
with
the
Minister
.
They
will
tell
him
,
that
the
removing
from
place
to
place
,
and
from
one
City
or
Country
to
another
,
was
not
of
the
Essence
of
an
Apostle
:
that
they
might
,
if
they
thought
fit
,
remove
,
or
else
continue
and
fix
.
That
if
an
Apostle
upon
some
Emergent
Occasion
〈◊〉
to
another
place
,
this
proves
not
that
he
was
not
before
his
removal
,
the
settled
Minister
of
the
former
Church
;
no
more
than
when
a
Non-con
Minister
leaves
his
former
Congregation
,
and
running
into
a
remote
Country
adheres
to
a
new
one
.
Will
Mr.
O.
in
this
case
deny
that
he
was
ever
the
settled
Minister
of
the
former
?
They
will
tell
him
,
that
an
Apostle
when
he
removed
,
did
still
hold
(
even
in
his
Absence
)
the
Government
of
the
Church
which
he
left
,
until
he
thought
fit
to
fix
his
Successour
,
or
was
by
Death
prevented
taking
any
further
care
of
it
.
There
want
not
Examples
of
this
kind
.
Thus
't
is
believed
,
Euodius
succeeded
Peter
at
Antioch
,
in
the
Apostles
Life
time
,
and
Linus
at
Rome
after
his
Death
.
And
by
the
same
Reason
it
's
Probable
that
Annianus
succeeded
Mark
,
tho'
not
with
the
same
Title
and
Character
.
But
Mr.
O.
has
St.
Chrysostom
on
his
side
—
Who
went
not
about
every
where
but
(
only
)
"
Preached
the
Gospel
,
as
Priscilla
and
Aquila
,
&c.
He
grants
that
the
Evangelists
did
not
go
about
Preaching
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
every
where
as
the
Apostles
did
:
but
yet
they
Travell'd
up
and
down
into
divers
places
,
as
the
Apostles
appointed
them
,
distinguishing
forsooth
,
between
every
where
,
which
belong'd
to
Apostles
,
and
divers
places
,
which
was
proper
to
Evangelists
.
Ans.
I
don't
find
that
Chrysostom
speaks
one
Word
here
of
Evangelists
,
as
if
they
Travell'd
into
divers
places
,
though
not
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
every
where
,
as
Mr.
O.
Glosses
upon
the
passage
.
The
Instance
of
Priscilla
and
Aquila
,
will
not
evince
this
.
For
though
we
read
of
some
removals
of
these
two
Persons
,
yet
it
was
not
in
Order
to
Preach
the
Gospel
,
but
on
some
other
Account
.
Their
first
movement
was
from
Rome
to
Corinth
〈◊〉
being
by
the
Emperors
Edict
Banished
thence
.
This
then
was
not
moving
up
and
down
into
divers
places
,
by
the
Apostles
Direction
,
to
Preach
the
Gospel
:
but
in
Obedience
to
the
Civil
Magistrates
,
and
for
their
own
security
.
The
other
motion
was
in
Company
with
Paul
from
Corinth
to
Ephesus
,
where
Paul
proceeding
in
his
Journey
towards
Jerusalem
,
left
Aquila
and
Priscilla
,
Act.
18.
19
,
21.
Whereas
then
Mr.
O.
says
,
that
Aquila
and
Priscilla
,
removed
from
Corinth
to
Ephesus
,
doubtless
by
Paul
'
s
appointment
,
as
other
Evangelists
did
,
I
see
no
such
thing
in
the
Text.
I
rather
think
it
was
because
they
were
all
of
the
same
Craft
or
Trade
,
Tent-Makers
,
v.
3.
and
as
we
shall
see
anon
,
not
such
Evangelists
as
Mr.
O.
and
I
am
now
disputing
about
.
Mr.
O.
The
Apostles
went
up
and
down
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
every
where
,
whither
the
Spirit
Guided
them
,
and
at
their
own
pleasure
:
but
Evangelists
not
every
where
at
their
own
pleasure
,
but
up
and
down
as
the
Apostles
appointed
.
And
this
forsooth
,
must
be
Chrysostom's
Meaning
,
that
Evangelists
did
not
go
up
and
down
every
where
as
they
pleased
:
but
that
't
is
imply'd
they
Travell'd
whithersoever
the
Apostles
were
pleased
to
direct
them
.
Ans.
There
is
no
Substance
at
all
in
this
slight
Gloss.
For
the
Apostles
themselves
strictly
speaking
,
did
not
go
up
and
down
at
their
own
pleasure
,
every
where
,
but
were
under
as
great
restraint
,
and
determination
as
the
Evangelists
were
.
As
the
Evangelists
were
under
the
Conduct
and
Command
of
the
Apostles
,
so
were
the
Apostles
under
the
Conduct
and
Determination
of
the
Spirit
,
as
Mr.
O.
confesses
.
The
Apostles
then
travell'd
not
up
and
down
at
their
own
pleasure
,
no
more
than
the
Evangelists
did
:
and
the
Evangelists
went
up
and
down
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
into
as
many
Cities
,
and
Nations
as
the
Apostles
did
,
and
perhaps
more
.
But
to
pass
over
abundance
of
Trivial
Observations
made
by
the
Minister
,
I
will
here
endeavour
to
explain
the
meaning
of
this
dark
Passage
of
St.
Chrysostom
,
which
I
suspect
Mr.
O.
either
does
not
,
or
will
not
understand
,
or
has
not
duly
considered
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
In
which
Words
his
meaning
is
(
as
I
conceive
)
that
there
were
a
sort
of
Evangelists
,
who
went
not
up
and
down
to
Preach
the
Gospel
Publickly
,
but
only
taught
and
instructed
some
People
that
came
to
them
,
privately
at
home
,
and
such
were
Priscilla
and
Aquila
,
so
we
read
of
'em
,
Acts
18.
26.
Aquila
and
Priscilla
,
took
Apollos
unto
them
,
and
Expounded
unto
him
the
way
of
God
more
perfectly
.
Unto
this
passage
,
I
am
apt
to
believe
Chrysostom
alludes
.
For
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
imports
their
not
going
up
and
down
to
preach
Publickly
,
will
be
easily
granted
me
,
I
hope
:
and
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
signifies
private
instructing
,
may
be
inferr'd
from
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
In
which
sense
't
is
taken
,
Mat.
18.
15.
Tell
him
his
fault
between
him
,
and
thee
alone
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Chapter
14.
23.
When
he
had
sent
the
Multitude
away
,
he
went
up
into
the
Mountain
apart
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
privately
)
to
pray
:
And
when
the
Evening
was
come
,
he
was
there
alone
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
;
or
private
by
himself
:
see
Luke
9.
18.
He
was
praying
alone
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Thus
Aquila
and
Priscilla
instructed
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
privately
,
and
alone
,
not
in
publick
Assemblies
,
or
in
the
Face
of
the
Church
;
not
every
where
,
but
in
private
,
and
at
home
.
If
this
be
the
Sense
of
St.
Chrysostom
,
the
place
nothing
belongs
to
the
Controversy
between
Mr.
O.
and
me
.
St.
Chrysostom
goes
on
,
and
having
in
the
fourth
and
last
Place
named
Pastors
and
Teachers
,
he
puts
the
Question
to
himself
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
;
are
Pastors
and
Teachers
less
?
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
Yes
,
he
answers
they
are
less
than
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Less
than
those
,
who
travel
abroad
and
preach
publickly
,
as
being
invested
with
the
Evangelical
Office
:
But
not
less
than
Aquila
and
Priscilla
,
who
were
only
private
Evangelists
.
Thus
far
St.
Chrysostom
has
informed
us
of
two
sorts
of
Evangelists
.
1.
The
private
,
who
went
not
up
and
down
to
Propagate
the
Gospel
in
Publick
,
but
at
home
only
and
privately
.
2.
Such
as
did
travel
up
and
down
,
and
were
publick
Evangelists
.
Here
there
ought
to
be
a
full
Point
.
Then
he
proceeds
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
The
meaning
whereof
is
more
fully
—
There
are
Evangelists
,
who
reside
,
and
continue
in
one
place
,
as
Timothy
and
Titus
.
He
had
spoken
before
of
private
Evangelists
,
viz.
Such
as
Aquila
and
Priscilla
,
and
of
Publick
Evangelists
,
who
travelled
abroad
and
preached
the
Gospel
,
and
now
Thirdly
,
he
mentions
another
sort
of
Evangelists
,
who
were
fixt
and
resided
in
a
certain
place
as
Timothy
,
and
Titus
.
Which
how
far
it
favours
Mr.
O's
.
Opinion
I
leave
to
the
Judgment
of
the
Reader
.
If
any
one
else
offers
me
a
better
explication
of
this
obscure
passage
in
Chrysostom
,
I
shall
thankfully
embrace
it
.
In
the
mean
time
,
I
believe
,
it
makes
nothing
for
my
Adversary
,
nor
does
it
in
the
least
distress
me
.
Yea
,
it
agrees
with
my
notion
and
Eusebius
,
as
I
have
Expounded
him
,
and
I
presume
agreeably
to
his
meaning
.
St.
Chrysostom
,
Lastly
,
mentions
a
fourth
sort
of
Evangelists
,
sc.
who
wrote
the
Gospels
,
but
they
come
not
under
the
present
Subject
.
Lastly
,
Mr.
O.
pleads
that
Chrysostom
,
doth
not
〈◊〉
among
Evangelists
,
but
among
Pastors
and
Teachers
.
Ans.
How
then
is
Chrysostom
of
Mr.
O's
side
,
as
he
boasted
before
?
How
will
he
thence
prove
that
Evangelists
travelled
up
and
down
as
Timothy
and
Titus
did
?
And
what
becomes
of
Mr.
O's
constant
affirming
,
they
were
Evangelists
,
and
extraordinary
Officers
?
But
if
my
Exposition
holds
good
,
as
I
hope
it
will
,
then
Timothy
and
Titus
,
are
reckon'd
among
fixt
Evangelists
,
and
not
among
Pastors
and
Teachers
.
Besides
,
I
am
not
concerned
among
whom
Chrysostom
reckons
'em
:
they
were
fixt
according
to
Chrysostom
,
and
the
sole
and
the
Supreme
Power
was
committed
to
'em
by
Paul
,
as
is
plain
in
the
Epistles
.
Whatever
then
their
Title
was
,
they
were
the
settled
Rulers
of
those
Churches
.
Finally
Mr.
O.
cites
Eusebius
for
saying
,
It
was
only
reported
,
that
Timothy
was
the
first
Bishop
of
Ephesus
,
but
that
there
was
no
certainty
,
who
succeeded
the
Apostles
in
the
Government
of
the
Churches
,
&c.
for
which
he
〈◊〉
,
Euseb.
H.
E.
l.
3.
c.
4.
Ans.
If
Eusebius
had
written
to
this
purpose
,
the
Words
however
imply
that
some
single
Persons
succeeded
the
Apostles
,
though
it
was
not
known
of
a
certainty
who
they
were
,
nor
what
their
Names
were
.
But
setting
aside
this
,
the
Principal
thing
here
to
be
remark'd
,
is
,
that
Mr.
O.
according
to
his
usual
Custom
,
has
misrepresented
Eusebius
.
The
Historians
Words
are
as
follows
.
How
many
,
and
who
of
the
true
Followers
(
of
the
Apostles
)
were
reckoned
sufficient
to
feed
the
Churches
founded
by
Those
only
excepted
which
any
one
may
gather
out
of
Paul
'
s
Epistles
.
For
this
(
Paul
)
had
innumerable
Fellow
Labourers
and
(
as
he
calls
'em
)
Fellow-Soldiers
,
very
many
of
whom
were
by
him
thought
worthy
of
immortal
Fame
,
he
having
in
his
Epistles
given
an
everlasting
Testimony
of
them
,
and
Luke
also
in
the
Acts
reckoning
them
by
their
Names
.
Among
these
Timothy
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
is
reported
to
have
receiv'd
the
Episcopacy
of
the
Ephesian
Diocess
,
even
as
Titus
also
of
the
Churches
in
Crete
.
But
Mr.
O.
craftily
transposes
the
Historians
Words
.
He
begins
at
the
latter
end
—
It
was
(
says
he
)
only
reported
that
Timothy
was
the
first
Bishop
of
Ephesus
.
Then
he
adds
,
from
the
beginning
of
this
long
Period
;
That
there
was
no
certainty
who
succeeded
the
Apostles
,
&c.
As
if
it
were
but
a
Report
,
and
not
a
certainty
,
that
Timothy
and
Titus
were
Bishops
of
their
respective
Churches
.
Whereas
Eusebius
first
says
,
't
was
uncertain
how
many
,
and
who
governed
the
Churches
,
that
vast
number
of
〈◊〉
planted
by
the
Apostles
:
only
he
excepts
those
mentioned
by
name
in
the
Acts
,
and
Paul's
Epistles
,
who
certainly
ruled
the
Churches
planted
by
the
Apostles
:
and
among
them
(
says
he
)
't
is
reported
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
where
is
this
reported
?
Why
in
St.
Paul's
Epistles
,
't
is
Witnessed
,
that
Timothy
received
the
Bishoprick
of
Ephesns
,
and
Titus
of
Crete
.
And
I
hope
the
Testimony
drawn
from
the
Historical
part
of
the
Apostles
Epistles
,
is
not
an
uncertain
Report
.
With
the
help
of
that
common
distinction
,
between
Ordinary
and
Extraordinary
Church-Officers
,
the
Dissenters
〈◊〉
off
,
whatever
is
brought
against
them
out
of
Scripture
.
They
will
tell
you
that
the
Apostles
,
and
the
Evangelists
were
Extraordinary
Officers
,
and
cannot
be
drawn
into
Consequence
,
nor
made
a
President
for
Bishops
,
these
being
but
Ordinary
Church-Officers
.
Mr.
O.
I
do
believe
,
serves
himself
of
this
subterfuge
,
near
an
hundred
times
in
this
Defence
of
his
,
and
the
Plea
.
My
design
then
here
is
to
examine
this
Distinction
,
that
this
short
Chapter
may
rise
to
some
degree
of
Proportion
with
the
rest
.
The
Question
then
is
,
what
is
an
extraordinary-Officer
:
And
my
Answer
is
,
't
is
of
two
kinds
.
1.
An
Extraordinary
Officer
properly
speaking
is
one
,
whose
very
Office
is
Extraordinary
and
Temporary
.
Such
were
the
Dictators
among
the
Romans
,
so
long
as
that
People
preserv'd
their
Liberty
.
These
Dictators
were
Created
upon
some
occasion
of
extream
danger
threatning
the
Common-Wealth
,
which
being
over
,
there
was
an
end
of
the
Officer
,
and
Office
both
.
The
Dictator
returned
back
to
the
Plough
,
and
the
Consuls
again
reassumed
the
Administration
of
the
publick
Affairs
.
Of
this
kind
is
the
High-Steward
in
England
,
who
is
constituted
the
chief
Manager
at
the
Coronation
of
the
King
,
or
Trial
of
a
Peer
.
But
so
soon
as
these
Solemnities
are
over
,
there
's
an
end
of
the
High-Steward
.
He
breaks
his
Staff
,
the
Ensign
of
his
Honour
and
Office
,
and
becomes
a
private
Man
,
as
he
was
before
.
Such
I
reckon
Prophets
in
the
Church
to
have
been
,
God
raising
them
up
by
an
extraordinary
Commission
for
the
necessary
Service
of
Religion
:
but
it
was
not
necessary
,
that
a
Prophet
should
have
a
Successor
,
or
that
the
Office
of
a
Prophet
should
be
continued
:
For
in
the
Jewish
Church
Prophets
ceas'd
,
as
well
as
in
the
Christian
,
which
every
one
knows
and
acknowledges
.
2.
An
Extraordinary
Officer
is
one
,
whose
Office
generally
speaking
,
at
least
several
parts
of
his
Office
are
Ordinary
,
necessary
and
of
perpetual
use
:
But
who
is
endued
with
many
Singular
,
Personal
,
and
extraordinary
qualifications
,
and
advantages
for
the
Discharge
of
his
Office
.
Such
was
Aaron
the
High-Priest
of
the
Jews
.
Such
were
the
Seventy
taken
in
by
Moses
,
to
bear
with
him
part
of
the
burden
of
the
Government
.
Such
were
the
Apostles
,
and
Evangelists
,
the
Pastors
and
Teachers
(
many
of
'em
)
in
the
Apostles
days
as
I
make
account
,
and
am
now
about
to
explain
.
The
Ordinary
necessary
,
and
permanent
parts
of
the
Apostolical
,
and
Evangelistical
Offices
were
Preaching
the
Word
,
Administring
the
Sacraments
,
Ordaining
Elders
and
managing
the
Government
,
and
Discipline
of
the
Church
.
With
respect
hereunto
the
Apostles
,
and
Evangelists
were
Ordinary
Church
Officers
;
Though
having
received
from
God
,
many
extraordinary
personal
Gifts
enabling
them
to
discharge
their
Office
more
effectually
;
on
which
Account
they
may
be
called
extraordinary
Officers
also
.
For
so
we
are
wont
to
call
even
Persons
of
very
Eminent
Natural
Parts
,
and
mighty
Improvements
in
knowledge
,
extraordinary
Men
:
Much
more
then
those
,
who
receive
their
divine
Abilities
immediately
from
God
.
But
still
for
all
that
,
their
Office
was
but
Ordinary
,
and
it
was
necessary
,
and
God
appointed
that
there
should
be
a
Succession
unto
the
Ordinary
Apostolical
,
and
Evangelistical
Offices
,
(
though
he
did
not
continue
the
extraordinary
Gifts
.
So
it
appears
from
those
Words
of
our
Lord
—
And
lo
,
I
am
with
you
alway
,
to
the
end
of
the
World
.
[
Matt.
28.
20.
This
promise
of
Christ
cannot
be
thought
to
belong
to
the
Apostles
personally
:
for
they
were
mortal
,
how
then
could
Jesus
Christ
be
with
them
alway
,
and
to
the
end
of
the
World
?
Nor
is
the
Promise
to
be
understood
of
extraordinary
Gifts
and
Assistances
,
such
as
were
given
to
the
Apostles
and
Evangelists
:
For
we
know
that
those
ceased
in
the
Church
,
in
an
Age
or
two
.
It
remains
therefore
,
that
in
the
fore-mentioned
Passage
,
Christ
promised
to
be
with
his
Church
alway
unto
the
end
of
the
World
,
in
the
Ordinary
work
of
the
Ministery
,
Preaching
the
Word
,
Discipling
Nations
,
Administring
the
Sacrament
,
exercising
Discipline
,
and
Governing
the
Church
.
And
from
hence
it
follows
,
that
they
in
whose
hands
is
lodged
the
Power
of
Preaching
the
Word
,
and
Administring
the
Sacraments
,
of
Ordaining
,
and
Governing
the
Church
at
this
day
,
are
Successors
unto
the
Apostles
and
Evangelists
,
and
invested
with
the
same
Powers
,
that
the
Apostles
and
Evangelists
were
,
though
not
with
such
Extraordinary
Gifts
;
and
by
Consequence
are
the
same
Species
of
Church-Officers
.
ex
.
gr
.
Was
not
Caiaphas
,
as
truly
the
High-Priest
as
Aaron
,
and
the
Sanhedrim
in
the
Apostles
days
,
the
same
that
it
was
in
Moses's
?
only
excepting
the
Eminent
Gifts
,
which
were
bestowed
on
the
one
,
and
not
on
the
other
.
I
conclude
then
,
that
the
Apostolical
and
Evangelistical
Offices
,
were
(
if
we
will
speak
exactly
)
Ordinary
;
tho'
the
Apostles
and
Evangelists
Abilities
were
Extraordinary
.
And
that
the
Apostles
and
Evangelists
had
,
and
to
this
day
have
,
and
will
,
and
ought
to
have
unto
the
end
of
the
World
,
Successors
in
all
the
Ordinary
parts
of
their
Office
.
But
it
will
be
Objected
,
if
the
Apostolical
,
or
Evangelistical
Ans.
1.
It
is
held
not
without
Reason
,
that
the
name
Apostle
descended
at
least
upon
their
next
,
and
immediate
Successors
,
which
some
call
Secondary
Apostles
,
the
Inseriour
Ministers
being
indifferently
called
Bishops
or
Presbyters
.
But
in
a
little
time
the
Apostles
Successor
,
laid
aside
that
Title
of
Apostle
,
out
of
modesty
contenting
themselves
with
that
of
Bishop
,
and
the
inferiour
Ministers
with
that
of
Presbyter
.
To
this
purpose
Theodoret
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
James
the
Just
,
and
〈◊〉
the
Apostle
of
the
Philippians
.
Titus
,
and
others
are
called
Apostles
,
2
Cor.
8.
23.
Therefore
it
may
be
further
observed
,
that
the
Ancient
Fathers
〈◊〉
'em
indifferently
,
both
Apostles
and
Bishops
[
*
](A42789-e41760-b)
*
Kal
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
〈◊〉
.
,
as
may
be
seen
in
Jerom
,
〈◊〉
and
Salvian
,
as
Mr.
B.
informs
me
.
It
may
not
here
be
passed
over
,
that
in
after
Ages
,
the
Learned
Writers
often
called
the
Apostles
themselves
by
the
Name
of
Bishop
[
†
](A42789-e41830-b)
†
Ep.
23.
Comment.
ad
Ephes.
,
as
may
be
seen
in
in
Cyprian
and
Hilary
:
and
in
Eusebius
,
Peter
is
reckoned
2.
That
the
changing
of
the
Title
of
the
Office
cannot
import
the
ceasing
of
the
Office
.
Caesar
was
Emperor
by
the
Title
of
Perpetual
Dictator
,
Augustus
his
Successor
by
that
of
Caesar
:
and
the
following
Emperors
by
those
of
Caesar
and
Augustus
,
(
though
Caesar
at
length
was
appropriated
to
one
It
will
again
be
Objected
,
that
since
Ordinary
Presbyters
are
Ans.
The
Solution
of
this
Difficulty
(
such
as
it
is
)
depends
upon
Matter
of
Fact
,
sc.
how
God
was
pleased
by
the
Apostles
to
determine
this
Point
.
This
is
not
the
place
to
dispute
the
Question
,
whether
the
Apostles
convey'd
their
whole
Power
and
Office
unto
every
,
or
to
all
Presbyters
;
it
has
,
I
am
in
hopes
,
been
cleared
in
the
Negative
,
both
in
these
and
my
former
Papers
:
but
to
the
Objection
I
reply
,
that
when
an
Office
is
attended
with
Variety
of
Work
,
it
does
not
follow
of
necessity
,
that
he
who
succeeds
in
one
part
of
the
Office
,
must
be
reckoned
to
succeed
in
all
.
It
cannot
be
doubted
,
but
the
Apostles
had
it
in
their
Power
to
divide
,
and
put
the
several
parts
of
their
Office
into
several
hands
:
and
we
have
an
Instance
that
they
did
so
.
They
made
seven
Deacons
unto
whom
they
committed
the
care
of
the
poor
,
and
distribution
of
the
publick
Alms
,
which
was
before
in
the
Apostles
themselves
.
But
then
no
one
will
say
,
that
because
the
Apostles
conferred
upon
these
Seven
one
part
of
their
Office
,
that
therefore
they
must
be
understood
to
have
committed
to
'em
all
the
rest
,
sc.
the
Powers
of
Ordination
,
of
Government
,
and
of
Discipline
.
By
parity
of
Reason
,
though
Presbyters
succeeded
the
Apostles
,
and
were
by
them
Ordained
unto
that
part
of
the
Apostolical
Office
,
viz.
Ministring
in
the
Word
and
Sacraments
,
it
will
not
follow
,
that
they
also
received
the
whole
Apostolical
Power
,
that
of
Ordination
,
Government
,
and
Discipline
.
'T
is
further
Objected
,
That
the
Apostolical
Power
extended
it
every
where
,
the
Evangelistical
reached
to
divers
places
and
Countries
,
but
it
cannot
be
pretended
that
the
Episcopal
Power
,
and
Jurisdiction
is
so
large
,
and
as
it
were
unlimited
.
'T
is
rather
confined
unto
a
certain
Compass
or
District
,
as
we
plainly
see
;
for
which
reason
the
Bishops
are
not
the
Apostles
,
nor
the
Evangelists
Successors
.
Ans.
'T
is
no
hard
matter
to
get
over
this
small
Rub.
This
unlimited
Power
of
the
Apostles
,
may
be
reckoned
among
their
Extraordinary
,
and
personal
Privileges
,
and
so
does
us
no
prejudice
.
The
Office
may
be
the
same
,
though
the
extent
of
Power
may
be
more
in
one
than
in
another
.
The
Bishop
of
Eugubium
,
was
as
truly
a
Bishop
,
as
the
Pope
of
Rome
.
And
Ptolemy
was
as
really
,
and
to
all
intents
and
purposes
,
King
of
Aegypt
,
as
Alexander
had
been
of
that
,
and
many
other
vast
Kingdoms
and
Provinces
:
and
as
he
was
really
a
King
,
so
he
was
really
Alexander's
Successor
also
.
For
who
will
say
,
that
William
〈◊〉
,
was
not
Will
.
the
Conqueror's
Successor
,
because
he
succeeded
him
not
in
the
Dukedom
of
Normandy
,
as
well
as
the
Kingdom
of
England
?
We
see
by
these
Examples
,
that
one
may
have
several
Successors
,
into
several
parts
of
their
Jurisdiction
.
How
large
soever
the
Diocess
of
the
Apostles
or
Evangelists
was
,
yet
the
Bishops
may
be
their
Successors
,
unto
some
parts
of
their
Jurisdiction
.
Among
the
Romans
,
they
who
inherited
any
part
of
the
Decedent's
Estate
(
were
they
few
,
or
were
they
many
)
were
all
called
Haeredes
,
and
distinguished
according
to
the
Proportion
allotted
them
.
Hence
we
read
of
Haeredes
ex
deunce
,
ex
quadrante
,
ex
semuncia
,
ex
semisse
;
as
well
as
Haeres
ex
asse
,
who
inherited
all
.
But
what
if
after
all
this
,
every
Bishops
Power
extends
it self
through
the
whole
World
,
being
not
in
its
own
nature
limited
and
fixt
to
any
one
single
District
?
Some
have
thought
so
,
and
upon
good
ground
too
.
After
many
other
Reasons
,
and
Evidences
of
the
Universal
Power
of
Bishops
given
by
Mr.
B.
p.
56.
It
seems
to
〈◊〉
a
strong
Argument
for
it
,
that
Bishops
in
Synods
have
ever
exercised
their
Power
in
other
Diocesses
,
as
well
as
in
their
own
.
I
do
not
see
by
what
Authority
Bishops
in
Councils
could
take
upon
'em
,
to
correct
the
Miscarriages
of
particular
Bishops
within
their
own
Diocesses
,
to
remove
the
Heretical
,
or
Schismatical
,
to
restore
the
unjustly
deprived
,
to
confirm
the
Customs
and
Polity
of
single
Churches
,
except
on
this
one
Principle
,
That
every
Bishop
is
a
Bishop
of
the
Church
Universal
,
and
has
an
inherent
Power
over
all
the
World
,
and
every
where
.
'T
is
true
,
it
must
at
the
same
time
be
〈◊〉
,
that
for
Peace
and
Order's
sake
,
and
to
the
end
the
Churches
may
be
certainly
taken
care
of
,
Bishops
are
limited
to
some
particular
Diocess
,
as
to
the
constant
and
Ordinary
Administration
of
Church
Affairs
;
and
one
Bishop
is
not
suffered
to
interlope
in
anothers
District
without
necessity
:
Nevertheless
on
extraordinary
Occasions
,
such
as
Apostacy
,
Heresy
,
and
Schism
,
the
other
Bishops
made
use
of
their
general
Power
,
to
rectify
Disorders
even
in
those
Churches
,
where
Ordinarily
they
had
no
Jurisdiction
.
Every
Bishop
then
is
a
Bishop
every
where
,
besides
the
constant
care
of
some
particular
Church
committed
unto
him
.
But
it
will
lastly
be
Objected
—
That
Apostles
and
Evangelists
Ans.
1.
Some
of
the
Apostles
were
fixt
,
or
at
least
fixt
themselves
.
Thus
James
the
Apostle
(
or
at
least
an
Apostle
)
was
the
constant
residing
Prefect
or
Bishop
of
Jerusalem
.
So
was
Simeon
after
him
.
So
was
Peter
at
Rome
for
25
years
,
according
to
Jerom.
So
was
John
in
Asia
for
a
long
time
.
So
was
Timothy
at
Ephesus
,
and
Titus
in
Crete
.
But
2.
Bishops
are
no
otherwise
fixt
than
were
the
Apostles
.
I
have
shewed
before
that
upon
necessary
occasions
they
interposed
any
where
.
Besides
,
a
Bishop
may
in
unconverted
Nations
pass
from
one
City
and
Country
to
another
,
and
plant
Churches
,
as
the
Apostles
did
.
Thus
Frumentius
As.
Ch.
5.
6.
3.
It
is
so
difficult
a
matter
to
define
exactly
what
Residence
is
,
and
when
a
Man
may
be
said
to
be
fixt
:
how
oft
,
how
long
,
and
on
what
Occasions
he
may
be
allowed
to
be
Absent
,
and
yet
at
the
same
time
be
the
settled
Minister
of
a
Church
,
that
I
think
no
Man
alive
can
,
with
any
tolerable
certainty
prononuce
a
Person
not
to
have
been
the
Resident
Ruler
,
or
Bishop
of
a
Church
,
because
he
finds
him
employ'd
in
some
other
place
upon
some
extraordinary
Service
of
the
Church
.
I
make
no
difficulty
to
affirm
,
that
when
,
and
as
oft
as
any
Emergent
necessity
requires
it
,
and
his
Superior
Commands
him
,
a
fixt
Resident
Officer
may
leave
his
Flock
for
some
time
,
and
attend
the
Business
,
which
he
is
thus
'specially
called
to
:
and
yet
still
he
is
their
fixt
and
settled
Minister
.
If
Paul
called
Timothy
to
him
at
Rome
from
Ephesus
,
and
Titus
from
Crete
,
it
will
not
follow
they
were
not
the
fixt
and
Resident
Rulers
(
Bishops
)
of
those
Churches
,
which
the
Apostle
had
before
committed
to
'em
;
no
more
than
that
the
British
Bishops
,
who
by
Order
of
the
Emperor
Constantius
assisted
at
the
Council
of
Ariminum
,
were
not
the
fixt
Resident
Bishops
of
the
British
Churches
;
Or
that
the
Members
of
the
Assembly
of
Divines
,
were
not
the
settled
Rectors
,
Vicars
,
or
Lecturers
,
of
their
respective
Congregations
,
though
they
were
a
good
while
absent
from
'em
,
and
sitting
at
Westminster
.
4.
One
may
be
the
fixt
Minister
of
a
Church
,
and
yet
afterward
remove
to
another
place
and
settle
there
.
I
suppose
my
Neighbour
Mr.
B.
had
been
the
fixt
Minister
of
some
Congregation
in
the
West
of
England
,
before
he
settled
here
among
us
.
So
that
if
for
some
important
Reasons
,
Paul
had
quite
removed
Timothy
from
Ephesus
,
and
Titus
from
Crete
,
appointing
Tichycus
in
the
Room
of
the
former
,
2
Tim.
4.
12.
And
Artemas
to
succeed
the
latter
,
Tit.
3.
12.
This
will
not
evince
,
That
Timothy
was
never
the
fixt
Ruler
(
Bishop
)
of
Ephesus
,
or
Titus
of
Crete
.
To
draw
toward
a
Conclusion
all
alterable
Circumstances
,
such
as
Extraordinary
divine
Gifts
,
different
Titles
,
Largeness
,
or
extent
of
Power
over
all
or
very
many
Cities
and
Countries
,
and
unfixedness
as
to
any
one
City
or
Province
,
or
whatever
else
of
this
kind
may
be
alledg'd
,
make
no
difference
between
the
Apostolical
,
or
Evangelistical
and
the
Episcopal
Power
.
It
is
the
Ordination
which
conferrs
the
Office
,
and
the
Power
,
not
the
fixedness
or
unfixedness
of
the
Ordainer
.
'T
is
the
Power
of
Ordination
given
unto
Apostles
,
Evangelists
and
Bishops
,
which
enables
'em
to
Ordain
others
,
not
any
alterable
Circumstance
,
which
is
observed
in
any
of
'em
.
In
a
word
,
that
Ordinary
Officers
,
may
succeed
Extraordinary
Officers
(
understand
Extraordinary
in
the
second
signification
before
laid
down
)
must
needs
be
confest
by
our
Adversaries
themselves
,
I
mean
the
Presbyterians
.
They
affirm
,
and
believe
that
they
succeed
the
Apostles
in
the
Office
of
Ministring
in
the
Word
and
Sacraments
of
Ordaining
,
Governing
,
and
exercising
the
Discipline
of
the
Church
.
With
what
Front
then
can
any
of
'em
deny
,
that
Ordinary
Officers
(
and
such
at
this
day
are
they
at
the
best
)
may
succeed
Extraordinary
ones
,
in
the
exercise
of
an
Ordinary
Office
?
Or
with
what
Colour
can
they
pretend
,
that
fixt
Officers
(
such
are
they
themselves
now
,
as
they
believe
)
cannot
succeed
those
who
were
unfixt
,
that
is
the
Apostles
?
So
that
these
Quirks
of
Extraordinary
,
and
unsettled
Officers
are
devis'd
merely
to
disguise
the
Truth
,
and
gull
the
simple
Part
of
Mankind
into
Schism
and
Errour
.
The
APPENDIX
.
MR.
O.
thinks
he
presses
very
hard
upon
me
,
when
upon
I
must
be
forc'd
to
deny
the
Diocesan
Bishops
,
to
be
the
Pastors
of
their
〈◊〉
Churches
,
contrary
to
the
Prayer
in
the
Ember-Weeks
.
Ans.
The
Good
Man
has
(
I
fear
wilfully
)
forgot
what
I
discoursed
about
Pastors
in
T.
N.
to
this
effect
,
that
in
Scripture
Pastor
is
a
common
Name
given
to
Superior
,
and
to
Inferior
Officers
in
the
Church
,
as
Minister
also
is
.
Here
in
the
Epistle
to
the
Ephesians
,
it
can
mean
none
but
the
Ordinary
Teachers
:
Pastors
and
Teachers
by
the
Figure
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Importing
the
Ordinary
Pres-byters
,
for
which
reason
Pastors
is
twice
together
left
out
,
1
Cor.
12.
28
,
29.
In
after
Ages
it
by
degrees
came
to
signify
Bishops
,
at
least
principally
them
,
and
so
(
as
I
reckon
)
it
is
taken
in
this
Sense
,
in
the
Ember-Weeks
Prayer
,
Bishops
and
Pastors
,
there
signifying
the
same
Church-Officers
.
I
say
perhaps
:
for
tho'
I
will
not
assuredly
affirm
,
that
by
Pastors
in
that
Collect
,
is
meant
the
Presbyters
,
who
assist
at
Ordinations
,
and
examine
the
Candidates
for
Orders
,
and
lay
on
hands
with
the
Bishop
:
yet
the
Prayer
is
capable
of
that
Sense
;
The
Bishops
and
Pastors
,
that
is
,
The
Bishops
and
the
Assisting
Presbyters
.
But
Mr.
O.
adds
,
If
the
Rector
says
,
they
are
both
Pastors
and
Evangelists
,
he
confounds
those
Officers
,
which
the
Apostle
distinguisheth
.
Ans.
If
what
I
said
just
now
be
not
—
a
sufficient
Reply
hereunto
,
I
add
,
that
one
and
the
same
Person
may
have
distinct
Offices
,
and
the
distinct
Titles
belonging
to
those
Offices
.
John
was
an
Apostle
and
an
Evangelist
.
Every
Apostle
was
a
Prophet
,
was
an
Evangelist
,
was
a
Pastor
and
Teacher
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
The
Apostles
had
all
the
Ministerial
Mr.
O.
engages
me
once
more
to
enter
the
Lists
with
Alexandria
,
Annianus
,
which
he
says
,
ought
to
be
Anianus
,
with
a
single
(n)
at
the
beginning
.
Ans.
I
have
the
Paris
Edition
of
Eusebius
,
the
best
extant
in
the
World
,
as
all
agree
.
I
in
my
writing
Annianus
conformed
my self
to
that
Copy
,
wherein
I
find
him
not
once
called
Anianus
.
And
Valesius
a
Critick
of
the
first
Form
,
vindicates
himself
for
writing
it
with
a
double
Medicean
MSS.
unto
whom
(
he
adds
)
Ruffinus
and
Jerom
Subscribe
[
†
](A42789-e43720-b)
†
In
my
Jerom
't
is
Anianus
,
Cat.
Script
.
Marcus
.
.
For
Annianus
is
a
Latin
Word
,
deduced
from
Annius
,
as
Valerianus
from
Valerius
;
and
many
other
of
the
same
Nature
are
obvious
,
to
any
who
read
the
Roman
〈◊〉
.
Particularly
there
was
a
Poet
of
good
esteem
,
in
the
Reign
of
Adrian
the
Emperor
,
named
Titus
Annianus
,
as
I
observed
contra
Arian
.
p.
767.
in
Helvicus's
Chronology
accidentally
,
when
I
was
looking
for
another
thing
.
'T
is
true
,
other
MSS.
write
him
Anianus
,
as
Mr.
O.
does
,
and
〈◊〉
has
Hananias
.
But
what
then
?
When
a
Word
is
differently
written
,
may
not
one
chuse
to
write
it
,
as
he
pleases
?
Haply
,
if
I
had
chanced
to
have
followed
those
,
who
believe
the
right
name
to
be
Anianus
,
Mr.
O.
could
have
amended
it
into
Annianus
.
But
I
do
him
too
much
credit
,
by
supposing
he
knew
any
thing
of
this
different
way
of
writing
Annianus
.
Mr.
O.
hopes
the
Rector
will
not
make
a
settled
Church
This
I
suppose
he
intends
for
a
little
piece
of
Wit
,
or
a
Jeer.
Ans.
Why
not
a
Bishop
as
well
as
an
Evangelist
?
And
why
not
a
settled
Church-Officer
,
as
well
or
rather
than
an
〈◊〉
one
?
I
am
sure
a
〈◊〉
and
virtuous
Woman
,
is
not
very
forward
to
gad
abroad
:
't
is
her
Character
that
she
Loves
home
,
and
not
often
appears
in
publick
.
St.
Chrysostom
makes
her
an
Evangelist
.
Let
Mr.
O.
look
how
well
that
suits
with
his
professed
Opinion
of
Evangelists
being
Extraordinary
unfixt
Officers
.
Let
Mr.
O.
acquit
St.
Chrysostom
,
and
his
own
dear
self
in
the
first
place
,
and
the
Rector
will
be
safe
I
am
confident
.
But
surely
Mr.
O.
knows
an
Ancient
Father
(
of
good
credit
with
him
,
tho'
with
no
body
else
)
I
mean
Dorothaeus
—
who
among
other
of
his
Fables
makes
Priscilla
a
Bishop
.
If
his
Authority
be
so
good
,
Mr.
O.
has
the
Mystery
proved
to
him
.
Mr.
O.
It
is
well
observed
by
the
late
Learned
Bishop
of
Worcester
,
that
the
first
that
called
Timothy
Bishop
of
Ephesus
,
was
Leontius
Bishop
of
Magnesia
in
the
Council
of
Chalcedon
,
Four
Hundred
Years
after
.
Ans.
By
the
Ministers
good
leave
,
I
must
Question
the
Truth
of
what
he
here
asserts
,
though
he
backs
it
with
never
so
good
Authority
.
Whoever
shall
tell
me
that
,
The
first
,
who
called
Timothy
Bishop
of
Ephesus
,
was
Leontius
Bishop
of
Magnesia
,
in
the
Council
of
Chalcedon
,
must
excuse
me
if
I
say
,
he
is
grosly
mistaken
.
Eusebius
,
who
lived
,
and
Flourished
above
an
Hundred
Years
before
that
Council
,
says
,
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
which
must
at
least
be
understood
of
the
Ecclesiastical
History
before
Eusebius's
Time
)
It
is
recorded
in
History
,
That
Timothy
first
received
the
Episcopacy
of
the
Diocess
of
Ephesus
.
Jerom
calls
him
Bishop
[
*
](A42789-e44540-b)
*
We
find
him
acknowledged
Bishop
of
Ephesus
,
in
the
Apostolical
Constitutions
,
by
Chrysost.
Hom.
15.
in
1
Tim.
and
by
Theodoret
Argument
.
in
1
Tim.
and
in
his
Comment.
1
Tim.
3.
1.
all
before
the
Council
of
Chalcedon
.
.
Thus
much
I
have
adventured
to
say
,
before
I
consult
Mr.
O's
Testimony
,
borrowed
from
the
Irenicum
.
But
I
am
now
going
to
consult
the
Learned
Bishop
of
Worcester
,
and
examine
whether
he
was
guilty
of
this
Oversight
,
imputed
to
him
by
the
Minister
—
Well!
I
have
deliberately
,
as
well
as
I
can
,
read
the
〈◊〉
and
303
d
pages
of
the
Irenicum
,
and
I
find
Mr.
O.
has
served
that
Reverend
Author
,
as
he
has
done
many
a
good
one
besides
,
in
downright
Terms
belying
him
.
Mr.
〈◊〉
(
so
I
will
make
bold
to
call
him
,
that
Book
being
wrote
in
his
Youth
,
and
before
he
had
received
the
Honours
which
were
afterward
deservedly
bestowed
on
him
)
speaking
there
of
the
Succession
of
Bishops
,
tells
us
,
That
the
Succession
at
Ephesus
is
pleaded
for
with
greatest
Confidence
by
Leontius
Bishop
of
〈◊〉
,
in
the
Council
of
Chalcedon
.
Mr.
〈◊〉
(
't
is
confest
)
afterward
has
these
Words
—
No
wonder
then
if
Leontius
makes
Timothy
Bishop
of
Ephesus
,
and
derives
the
Succession
down
from
him
.
He
does
not
affirm
,
that
Leontius
first
called
Timothy
Bishop
of
Ephesus
.
But
that
't
is
no
wonder
,
if
he
made
Timothy
Bishop
of
Ephesus
,
and
thence
proved
the
Succession
of
Bishops
,
by
the
Succession
of
the
Ephesian
Bishops
,
down
from
Timothy
.
He
made
Timothy
Bishop
of
Ephesus
;
but
he
was
not
the
first
that
did
so
:
for
many
had
done
it
before
him
.
I
will
not
deny
,
perhaps
this
Learned
Author
at
that
time
Questioned
,
whether
Timothy
was
so
or
no.
However
he
did
not
assert
,
that
Leontius
was
the
first
that
called
him
Bishop
of
Ephesus
.
Mr.
O.
then
,
who
seems
to
value
himself
,
for
the
Hundreds
of
his
quotations
would
do
well
,
if
he
more
〈◊〉
,
Forbes
and
Stillingfleet
,
Saravia
and
some
others
,
particularly
Mr.
Baxter
(
from
whom
Mr.
O.
has
borrowed
at
least
two
of
his
Arguments
in
his
Plea
,
almost
verbatim
,
and
many
of
the
Testimonies
,
wherewith
he
has
confirmed
'em
)
and
he
shall
be
thought
by
Ignorant
Readers
Helluo
Librorum
,
a
Devourer
of
Books
,
a
Man
of
infinite
Reading
,
and
intimate
acquaintance
with
the
Fathers
,
and
Ancient
Writers
,
when
perhaps
he
never
read
one
of
'em
,
no
nor
so
much
as
consulted
the
particular
Testimonies
,
which
he
cites
out
of
'em
.
But
't
is
one
thing
to
dabble
in
Authors
,
and
another
throughly
to
understand
,
and
truly
to
represent
'em
.
CHAP.
VI.
Being
an
Answer
to
Mr.
O's
6th
Chap.
THE
Principal
Matter
whereof
may
be
reduced
unto
Four
Heads
.
-
1.
What
has
already
been
argued
between
us
in
the
former
Chapters
,
which
I
quite
lay
aside
.
-
2.
What
will
fall
in
my
way
,
when
I
Reply
farther
unto
the
Plea
,
which
I
reserve
to
a
more
convenient
Place
,
the
second
part
of
this
Book
.
-
3.
What
is
here
de
novo
started
against
the
Rector
,
which
I
make
the
Subject
of
this
last
Chapter
.
And
,
-
4.
The
Cavils
,
wherewith
he
has
furnished
out
this
last
part
of
his
Defence
,
which
are
considered
apart
in
the
Appendix
.
In
Vindicating
the
Politie
of
the
Church
of
England
,
I
asserted
in
T.
N.
That
the
Parish
Priests
have
a
share
of
Power
in
the
Ecclesiastical
Government
;
for
as
much
as
all
the
Canons
,
or
Laws
of
the
Church
are
made
by
them
,
with
their
knowledge
and
consent
in
Convocation
.
Mr.
O.
The
Acts
of
Convocation
are
no
Laws
,
till
they
be
confirmed
in
Parliameut
.
Ans.
They
are
,
though
not
Civil
,
yet
Ecclesiastical
Laws
,
and
formerly
at
east
obliged
in
Conscience
,
as
the
late
Bishop
of
Worcester
informs
me
,
Ecclesiastical
Cases
p.
336.
372
,
373.
'T
is
nothing
to
me
,
whether
in
Convocation
they
be
made
Laws
of
the
Land
;
I
was
speaking
of
the
Laws
of
the
Church
.
Besides
,
Mr.
O's
Charge
against
us
was
,
that
all
the
Power
in
the
Church
is
in
the
Bishop's
Hands
.
But
this
Argument
of
his
Excludes
not
only
the
Presbyters
,
but
the
Bishops
also
from
having
any
Power
in
the
Ecclesiastical
Legislative
.
For
't
is
likewise
true
that
the
Decrees
of
Convocation
,
tho'
they
were
made
by
the
Bishops
only
,
as
Mr.
O.
would
insinuate
,
yet
would
not
be
Laws
of
the
Land
till
confirmed
by
Parliament
.
Thus
the
Minister
by
denying
or
questioning
too
much
has
destroyed
the
Subject
of
the
Question
,
the
Bishops
also
being
hereby
strip'd
of
their
Power
,
as
well
as
the
Presbyters
.
'T
is
then
to
no
purpose
for
us
to
dispute
whether
the
Bishops
have
all
the
Ecclesiastical
Power
in
their
hands
,
or
whether
the
Presbyters
have
some
,
since
according
to
Mr.
O.
neither
of
'em
have
any
.
Mr.
O.
Has
every
Parish
Priest
a
Power
of
making
Church
Laws
?
If
not
,
&c.
He
thinks
—
they
have
not
,
and
argues
,
That
if
the
Parish
Priests
make
Laws
by
their
Representatives
,
and
shall
therefore
be
thought
to
have
Power
of
Discipline
,
it
will
follow
,
that
Free-holders
have
Power
of
Government
,
their
Representatives
in
Parliament
,
being
concerned
in
the
making
Laws
.
Ans.
The
Rector
asserts
not
that
Every
Parish
Priest
has
a
Power
of
making
Church
Laws
.
It
were
an
unreasonable
thing
.
But
every
Parish
Priest
has
a
share
in
the
Power
of
making
Ecclesiastical
Laws
,
which
he
executes
by
his
Representative
in
Convocation
:
and
I
add
,
Every
Free-holder
has
a
share
of
Power
in
making
the
Political-Laws
.
But
all
this
is
Trifling
.
Nothing
is
more
evident
than
this
,
what
is
done
by
a
Representative
is
the
Act
and
Deed
of
the
Persons
represented
.
And
nothing
is
more
Ordinary
,
than
to
tell
discontented
People
,
when
the
Laws
are
executed
upon
them
,
that
they
are
of
their
own
making
,
that
is
made
by
their
Representatives
.
Mr.
O.
The
Convocation
is
not
a
just
Representative
of
the
Clergy
.
Ans.
There
are
two
things
only
(
that
I
know
of
)
necessary
to
make
a
just
Representative
.
-
1.
That
the
Representers
be
sufficient
as
to
Number
.
-
2.
That
they
be
freely
chosen
by
the
Represented
.
On
both
accounts
I
will
prove
that
the
Convocation
is
a
just
Representative
of
the
Clergy
.
1.
One
cannot
from
the
reason
of
the
thing
gather
with
any
certainty
,
what
number
of
Representers
is
necessary
to
make
a
just
Representative
,
and
't
would
be
in
vain
to
all
edge
the
private
Sentiments
of
Men
,
among
whom
it
will
haply
be
found
quot
homines
tot
sententiae
,
so
many
Men
,
so
many
Minds
.
The
surest
way
then
to
determine
this
Point
is
(
I
think
)
to
compare
the
Convocation
with
the
House
of
Commons
,
which
is
the
Representative
of
People
.
My
Argument
lies
thus
—
If
the
House
of
Commons
be
a
just
Representative
of
the
People
,
as
to
the
number
of
the
Representers
,
which
no
Body
,
I
presume
,
will
dare
to
deny
,
then
the
Convocation
is
a
just
Representative
of
the
Clergy
.
Let
us
then
compare
the
number
of
the
Representers
and
the
Represented
in
the
House
of
Commons
with
the
number
of
the
Representers
,
and
Represented
in
the
House
of
Convocation
.
The
People
of
England
represented
in
Parliament
,
are
according
to
Dr.
Chamberlain's
computation
in
〈◊〉
Angliae
,
between
five
and
six
Millions
:
Their
Representers
in
the
House
of
Commons
about
five
hundred
.
The
Clergy
of
England
,
are
,
I
reckon
,
about
fifteen
Thousand
(
allowing
ten
Thousand
for
the
Parsons
,
Rectors
,
and
Vicars
of
so
many
Parishes
,
and
adding
to
these
the
Masters
and
Fellows
of
the
Colledges
in
both
Universities
,
Chaplains
,
Lecturers
,
and
Curates
,
which
will
in
all
amount
to
five
Thousand
more
)
as
I
will
grant
,
because
I
will
not
favour
a
side
;
tho'
it
may
be
they
'll
not
reach
above
one
Third
part
of
that
Number
.
The
Representers
of
these
fifteen
Thousand
in
Convocation
,
are
an
hundred
Sixty
and
Six
,
which
make
up
the
two
lower
Houses
of
Convocation
in
both
〈◊〉
.
Any
Man
may
hence
discern
at
first
sight
,
the
disproportion
between
five
hundred
Members
of
the
House
of
Commons
,
Representing
above
five
Millions
of
People
.
And
one
Hundred
Sixty
and
Six
Members
of
Convocation
representing
only
fifteen
Thousand
Clergy
.
Every
Parliament
Man
(
let
us
now
consider
them
〈◊〉
)
represents
about
ten
Thousand
Persons
:
But
every
Member
of
Convocation
represents
not
much
above
Ninety
.
The
difference
then
is
as
Ninety
to
ten
Thousand
.
If
then
the
Members
of
the
House
of
Commons
are
in
respect
of
number
,
a
just
Representative
of
the
People
(
as
we
all
believe
)
much
more
are
the
Members
of
Convocation
,
a
just
Representative
of
the
Clergy
.
Now
because
the
Wisdom
and
Integrity
of
Representers
is
to
be
regarded
also
,
as
well
as
their
Number
,
and
because
their
Wisdom
and
Integrity
,
cannot
be
better
judged
of
,
than
by
considering
the
freedom
of
their
choice
,
we
are
in
the
next
place
to
enquire
whether
the
Members
of
Convocation
are
not
as
freely
chosen
by
the
Clergy
,
as
the
Members
of
Parliament
are
by
the
People
.
Let
it
then
be
remembred
that
a
great
part
of
the
Nation
,
have
not
any
Voice
at
all
in
the
Election
of
Members
of
Parliament
:
For
(
we
know
)
a
vast
number
of
Servants
,
Labourers
,
Mechanicks
,
Shop-keepers
,
Merchants
,
Artists
of
all
sorts
.
Scholars
,
Attorneys
,
Lawyers
,
Physicians
,
Divines
(
not
having
Freehold
Estates
)
Copy-holders
,
Minors
also
,
and
single
Women
have
no
Voice
in
the
Election
of
any
Parliament
Man
:
That
is
(
as
I
reckon
)
four
parts
of
five
of
the
People
are
not
at
all
admitted
to
chuse
Parliament
Men.
But
all
the
Parsons
,
Rectors
and
Vicars
,
have
Suffrages
in
the
Election
of
Members
of
Convocation
,
and
these
Electors
are
two
Thirds
of
the
Clergy
,
viz.
Parsons
,
Rectors
and
Vicars
,
being
ten
Thousand
by
my
former
Calculation
.
It
appears
hence
,
that
if
the
House
of
Commons
is
a
just
Representative
of
the
People
with
respect
to
their
Election
,
much
more
is
the
Convocation
a
just
Representative
of
the
Clergy
:
four
fifths
of
the
People
,
as
I
reckon
,
being
intirely
excluded
from
choosing
Members
of
Parliament
,
and
but
one
Third
part
of
the
Clergy
from
choosing
Members
of
Convocation
.
But
to
evince
this
,
and
make
it
yet
more
plain
,
we
must
go
another
way
to
work
,
because
of
the
various
methods
,
whereby
Persons
by
Ancient
Custom
,
or
Constitution
become
Members
of
Parliament
,
and
of
Convocation
without
any
due
Election
.
Of
the
five
hundred
Members
of
the
House
of
Commons
,
one
hundred
are
Knights
,
chosen
only
by
Free-holders
,
who
are
not
haply
an
eighth
part
of
the
People
of
England
;
and
the
other
four
hundred
are
Citizens
,
Burgesses
and
Barons
of
the
Cinque
Ports
,
Elected
by
an
handful
of
Men
,
who
are
not
(
I
believe
)
a
fiftyeth
part
of
the
People
of
England
.
And
these
latter
,
in
respect
of
the
Body
of
the
Nation
,
I
can
scarce
admit
to
be
elected
;
they
may
more
fitly
be
said
to
come
in
by
Privilege
.
Of
the
one
hundred
Sixty
and
Six
Members
of
Convocation
,
about
fifty
two
,
or
a
third
part
are
chosen
Proctors
,
by
the
Parsons
,
Vicars
and
Rectors
,
who
are
two
thirds
of
the
Clergy
;
about
an
hundred
and
fourteen
,
come
in
by
vertue
of
their
Dignities
(
as
Deans
and
Arch-Deacons
)
or
by
the
Election
of
the
Chapters
only
.
Let
any
one
then
judge
whether
the
lower
Houses
of
Convocation
,
are
near
so
much
cramp'd
with
Members
by
Privilege
,
as
the
House
of
Commons
is
:
four
parts
of
the
House
of
Commons
,
being
chosen
by
not
a
fiftieth
part
of
the
Pople
,
and
the
fifth
part
of
'em
,
by
about
an
eighth
part
of
the
People
;
But
a
third
part
of
the
Convocation
is
chosen
by
two
thirds
of
the
Clergy
,
and
the
rest
by
privilege
.
If
then
the
House
of
Commons
,
notwithstanding
what
has
been
observed
,
are
by
all
Wise
Men
look'd
upon
as
a
just
Representative
of
the
People
,
with
respect
unto
their
choice
,
as
well
as
their
number
,
I
would
know
a
Reason
,
why
the
Convocation
is
not
a
just
Representative
of
the
Clergy
.
Now
least
what
has
been
said
shall
not
be
thought
clear
enough
,
and
sufficient
to
evince
what
it
is
intended
for
,
there
being
a
great
uncertainty
in
such
Calculations
,
I
shall
compare
the
Convocation
with
the
Assembly
of
Divines
at
Westminster
,
who
(
if
I
am
not
much
mistaken
)
will
be
found
on
both
the
forementioned
Accounts
,
that
is
of
Number
,
and
of
Choice
to
have
been
not
so
just
a
Representative
of
the
Clergy
,
as
the
Convocation
is
.
This
will
be
dispatched
in
a
very
few
Words
.
In
the
Year
1643.
the
Parliament
called
that
Assembly
,
consisting
of
one
hundred
twenty
and
two
Persons
:
Of
whom
let
it
be
noted
,
1.
That
they
fell
short
of
the
two
Houses
of
Convocation
,
forty
four
in
number
,
besides
,
that
there
were
some
Scots
among
'em
.
2.
That
not
one
of
'em
was
chosen
by
the
Clergy
,
but
all
Nominated
by
the
Parliament
.
Either
then
let
Mr.
O.
give
over
taxing
the
Convocation
,
as
if
it
were
not
a
just
Representative
of
the
Clergy
,
or
confess
the
Westminster
Assembly
,
to
have
been
packed
to
serve
a
Turn
,
contrary
to
all
Law
and
Justice
.
In
short
,
and
to
retort
Mr.
O's
Reflections
,
the
Assemby
of
Divines
,
were
all
of
'em
(
except
a
few
Nominated
for
a
Colour
)
the
Parliaments
Creatures
,
chosen
by
them
alone
.
The
rest
,
if
they
had
joined
in
the
Westminster
Deliberations
,
had
been
meer
〈◊〉
:
there
were
enough
to
out-vote
'em
,
besides
,
those
Lords
and
Commoners
,
who
were
taken
into
the
Assembly
,
like
so
many
Lay-Elders
to
Influence
their
Counsels
,
and
prevent
any
Decree
that
might
be
offered
contrary
to
that
Parliaments
Inclinations
or
Designs
.
Mr.
O.
If
the
Rector
can
find
no
proof
in
Scripture
,
that
Ans.
We
suspend
not
by
virtue
of
our
own
sole
inherent
Power
,
but
in
conjunction
with
our
Diocesan
,
with
his
knowledge
and
consent
.
There
is
a
great
Difference
between
an
Inherent
Power
for
Presbyters
to
suspend
(
a
precedent
for
which
I
require
out
of
Scripture
)
and
to
suspend
for
a
time
,
according
to
the
Constitutions
of
the
Church
,
and
in
Subordination
to
the
Bishop
,
unto
whom
the
Party
Suspended
may
appeal
.
Mr.
O.
Whereas
I
affirmed
,
that
the
Ordinary
Elders
had
herein
is
imply'd
,
that
Ordinary
Presbyters
had
the
Supreme
Authority
before
that
time
,
and
Challenges
the
Rector
to
prove
they
were
ever
deprived
of
it
afterward
.
Ans.
There
is
no
such
thing
imply'd
by
the
Rector
,
but
only
supposed
at
most
,
to
avoid
all
unnecessary
Disputes
with
his
Adversaries
.
But
if
it
were
out
of
question
,
that
the
Ordinary
Elders
had
once
the
Supreme
Authority
,
yet
the
Apostle
committing
afterward
the
Supreme
Authority
,
unto
single
Persons
,
ex
.
gr
.
unto
Timothy
and
〈◊〉
,
and
making
no
mention
at
all
of
the
Ordinary
Presbyters
,
must
be
understood
to
supersede
the
Power
,
that
was
before
in
the
Presbyters
,
and
to
subject
them
unto
those
single
Persons
for
the
future
.
But
this
is
the
Point
in
Controversy
throughout
these
Papers
,
and
needs
not
here
to
be
insisted
on
.
Mr.
O.
Here
the
Rector
fairly
confesses
there
were
no
Bishops
,
when
the
Epistle
to
the
Ephesians
was
written
in
Paul's
first
Bonds
.
Ans.
The
Rector
supposes
it
only
,
as
is
said
before
,
but
does
not
grant
it
.
Nay
,
he
is
quite
of
another
mind
.
But
it
sufficeth
to
his
Hypothesis
,
that
single
Persons
were
(
afterward
at
least
)
Constituted
Rulers
(
Bishops
)
in
the
Churches
.
Mr.
O.
〈◊〉
could
not
receive
the
sole
Power
of
Ordination
,
because
Paul
took
in
the
Presbyters
,
1
Tim.
4.
14.
Ans.
Here
Mr.
O.
(
if
I
take
him
right
)
grants
that
〈◊〉
was
Ordained
by
〈◊〉
,
taking
the
〈◊〉
into
his
Assistance
.
This
is
as
much
,
as
I
desire
,
and
the
exact
Pattern
of
our
Ordinations
.
Presbyters
therefore
did
not
by
their
own
sole
Power
Ordain
,
but
in
Conjunction
with
the
Apostle
.
On
the
other
hand
,
if
the
Revelation
concerning
Timothy's
Ordination
,
came
to
the
Presbyters
,
as
well
as
to
St.
Paul
,
they
then
acted
not
as
Ordinary
〈◊〉
,
but
as
Prophets
,
and
so
cannot
warrant
Ordinary
Presbyters
,
Ordaining
by
Virtue
of
their
Ordinary
Power
.
〈◊〉
,
it
no
where
appears
that
Paul
joined
the
Presbyters
in
Commission
with
Timothy
,
it
may
then
be
reasonable
to
conclude
,
that
Timothy
received
the
sole
Power
,
though
't
is
sufficient
for
me
to
say
,
He
had
the
Supreme
.
Mr.
O.
But
Paul
joined
〈◊〉
with
him
in
the
Ordinations
,
Acts.
14.
23.
Ans.
Be
it
so
:
yet
still
if
Barnabas
was
an
Apostle
as
well
as
Paul
(
as
is
manifest
from
Acts
14.
4
,
14.
Gal.
29.
)
And
if
Barnabas
was
equal
to
Paul
,
as
many
believe
,
and
Mr.
O.
will
not
deny
,
then
we
are
but
where
we
were
before
.
This
is
nothing
to
Ordinary
Elders
Ordaining
.
That
Barnabas
was
tho'
not
equal
to
Paul
,
yet
independent
on
him
,
may
be
probably
hence
gathered
that
in
the
sharp
Contest
between
'em
,
Barnabas
submitted
not
to
Paul
but
separated
from
him
,
Acts
15.
39.
Besides
,
Barnabas
received
the
same
Commission
that
St.
Paul
did
,
and
at
the
same
time
,
Acts
13.
1
,
2.
However
,
admitting
Barnabas
was
but
a
Secondary
Apostle
,
which
I
rather
believe
,
or
〈◊〉
,
yet
Mr.
O.
will
not
(
I
hope
)
deny
he
was
more
than
an
Ordinary
Elder
,
what
then
is
this
to
Ordinary
Elders
Ordaining
,
by
their
own
sole
Power
,
and
inherent
Authority
?
And
how
will
it
hence
〈◊〉
,
that
because
Paul
admitted
Barnabas
,
an
Apostle
,
at
least
a
Secondary
Apostle
,
to
join
in
the
Ordinations
,
(
Acts
14.
23.
)
that
therefore
Timothy
joined
the
Ordinary
Presbyters
with
him
?
All
this
notwithstanding
,
I
give
Mr.
O.
what
he
cannot
prove
,
sc.
That
Timothy
did
not
Ordain
alone
.
'T
is
enough
to
my
purpose
,
that
he
was
constitued
the
Principal
Judge
and
Director
in
Ordinations
,
as
in
all
other
Acts
of
Jurisdiction
.
Mr.
O.
The
Rector
having
argued
from
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
Timothy
,
Ans.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
these
places
produced
against
me
is
Limited
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
which
makes
a
great
difference
.
A
Man
may
be
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
reside
or
abide
in
a
place
one
,
two
or
three
Days
,
or
Months
,
or
Years
,
and
yet
we
know
what
't
is
to
reside
,
when
't
is
spoken
undeterminately
.
As
for
those
Words
—
Till
I
come
,
1
Tim.
4.
13.
't
is
no
Limitation
of
Timothy's
Residence
at
〈◊〉
,
nor
does
it
imply
,
that
his
Authority
there
must
then
cease
.
If
it
were
so
,
then
after
Paul
was
come
to
〈◊〉
,
〈◊〉
must
have
left
off
,
Giving
attendance
unto
Reading
,
to
Exhortation
,
to
〈◊〉
,
which
yet
I
suppose
were
Duties
perpetually
incumbent
upon
him
,
let
the
Apostle
be
at
〈◊〉
or
not
.
In
a
word
,
St.
Paul's
going
shortly
to
Timothy
at
Ephesus
,
was
not
with
intent
to
remove
him
thence
,
but
to
Instruct
him
throughly
,
how
to
behave
himself
in
the
House
of
God
,
the
Church
committed
to
his
Charge
,
as
is
before
observed
and
proved
.
Nevertheless
,
least
the
Apostle
should
be
prevented
of
his
intended
Visit
,
and
should
tarry
long
(
as
he
suspected
might
happen
)
he
sent
him
for
the
present
this
Epistle
containing
the
sum
of
what
afterward
,
when
he
came
to
Ephesus
,
he
would
more
at
large
communicate
unto
him
.
But
these
are
Repetitions
.
Mr.
O.
to
prove
that
〈◊〉
had
been
furnished
with
the
Corinth
,
Philippi
and
Thessalonica
,
as
he
was
afterwards
at
Ephesus
,
"
Alledges
the
Rectors
granting
that
unfixt
Evangelists
"
governed
the
Churches
,
and
Ordained
Elders
under
the
Apostles
.
Ans.
This
Concession
proves
not
that
Timothy
was
furnished
with
the
same
powers
in
Greece
and
Macedonia
,
as
at
Ephesus
.
For
1.
It
does
not
appear
that
Timothy
was
an
Evangelist
,
when
sent
to
Corinth
,
&c.
This
is
no
where
to
be
found
in
Scripture
.
But
in
St.
Paul's
second
Epistle
to
Timothy
,
which
was
a
great
while
after
he
had
been
sent
to
〈◊〉
,
Philippi
and
Thessalonica
;
then
indeed
't
is
intimated
he
was
an
Evangelist
,
and
not
before
.
2.
It
seems
Evident
unto
me
,
that
Timothy
was
sent
unto
Greece
and
Macedonia
,
for
quite
other
purposes
,
than
to
govern
those
Churches
,
and
Ordain
'em
Elders
:
His
business
at
〈◊〉
was
To
Establish
and
comfort
the
Christians
there
,
concerning
their
Faith
(
1
Thes.
3.
2.
)
And
afterward
,
he
went
thither
again
to
hasten
their
Contributions
,
as
I
conceive
.
His
Business
to
〈◊〉
,
was
to
carry
the
Apostles
Letter
,
concerning
the
〈◊〉
Schisms
and
Contentions
.
We
read
of
no
Commission
given
him
to
receive
Accusations
,
to
reprove
Offenders
openly
,
to
examine
the
Qualification
of
the
Candidates
for
Holy
Orders
,
or
to
Ordain
Elders
,
either
at
Corinth
,
〈◊〉
or
Thessalonica
,
as
He
had
at
Ephesus
.
3.
Eusebius
(
on
whose
Authority
the
Hypothesis
of
unfixt
They
went
from
place
to
place
,
among
those
who
had
not
yet
heard
the
Word
of
Faith
,
Or
where
no
Churches
were
as
yet
established
.
But
Paul
had
already
planted
Churches
at
Corinth
,
Philippi
and
Thessalonica
.
These
then
were
not
places
proper
for
an
unfixed
Evangelist
to
be
imploy'd
in
,
and
therefore
Timothy
did
not
the
work
of
an
Evangelist
in
those
Cities
,
that
is
,
he
had
not
the
same
Powers
there
,
as
at
Ephesus
.
So
that
I
still
call
upon
Mr.
O.
to
prove
Timothy
was
furnished
with
the
same
Powers
in
Greece
and
Macedonia
,
as
he
was
after
at
Ephesus
.
4.
If
Timothy
had
been
furnished
with
the
same
Powers
,
at
his
going
to
Greece
and
Macedonia
,
as
at
Ephesus
,
why
should
Paul
resolve
for
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
there
to
instruct
〈◊〉
in
his
Office
?
And
because
he
foresaw
,
that
Journey
might
possibly
be
put
off
for
a
longer
time
,
why
did
he
dispatch
a
Letter
to
〈◊〉
,
wherein
in
the
mean
while
,
he
gives
him
the
necessary
Orders
for
the
better
Ruling
of
the
Church
?
〈◊〉
,
I
suppose
was
not
so
forgetful
as
to
need
these
Instructions
,
if
he
had
before
been
furnished
with
'em
,
when
he
was
sent
to
〈◊〉
,
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
.
Mr.
O.
A
great
part
of
T.
N.
is
to
prove
,
That
Presbyters
Ans.
I
shew'd
by
Induction
of
Particulars
,
that
the
Presbyters
were
subject
unto
the
Apostles
in
every
single
Act
of
Government
:
That
either
an
Apostle
or
a
Prophet
,
was
constantly
at
the
Helm
to
guide
and
direct
'em
.
The
Elders
had
not
a
discretionary
Power
in
any
Case
,
that
we
read
of
.
But
Timothy
and
Titus
(
though
they
also
were
subject
to
St.
Paul
,
whenever
he
thought
fit
to
interpose
,
yet
)
generally
speaking
were
left
unto
the
Judgment
of
their
own
private
Discretion
,
as
appears
from
the
Rules
of
Government
prescribed
'em
by
the
Apostle
.
There
is
a
manifest
difference
between
Timothy
and
Titus
,
their
subjection
to
the
Apostle
,
and
that
of
the
Ordinary
Elders
:
See
the
Preface
.
Mr.
O.
Whereas
in
proof
of
many
Congregations
in
the
Church
of
Ephesus
,
I
cited
Acts
19.
10.
All
they
which
dwelt
in
Asia
heard
the
Word
of
the
Lord
Jesus
.
And
backed
this
with
Ignatius's
calling
himself
the
Bishop
of
Syria
,
not
of
Antioch
only
,
but
of
some
considerable
part
of
the
adjacent
Country
.
The
Minister
Replies
,
This
is
little
to
the
purpose
,
and
that
Men
will
talk
any
thing
.
But
Ans.
Do
not
these
Observations
render
it
highly
probable
,
that
the
Ephesian
Church
was
also
composed
of
several
Assembles
in
City
and
Country
?
And
is
not
this
a
good
account
why
a
Bishop
,
and
many
Presbyters
,
and
Deacons
were
employ'd
in
the
Church
of
Ephesus
,
not
serving
one
Congregation
alone
in
the
City
,
but
others
also
in
the
Country
round
about
called
Asia
?
If
there
had
been
but
one
Congregation
at
Ephesus
,
one
Bishop
,
or
Presbyter
might
have
sufficed
.
The
Christians
at
that
time
of
day
were
not
so
wealthy
,
as
to
multiply
Church-Officers
more
than
needed
.
This
is
not
(
I
confess
)
to
Mr.
O's
Purpose
,
but
I
hope
't
will
be
thought
to
mine
.
Mr.
O.
further
pleads
That
the
Rector
(
understand
in
Order
to
prove
there
were
many
Congregations
in
that
Church
)
May
as
well
say
,
that
the
Church
of
Jerusalem
took
in
the
Parthians
,
and
dwellers
in
Mesopotamia
,
Cappadocia
,
&c.
for
all
these
heard
the
Word
of
the
Lord
Jesus
.
Acts
2.
9
,
11.
as
well
as
those
of
Asia
did
.
Ans.
That
's
the
thing
which
I
do
affirm
.
The
Parthians
,
and
Dwellers
in
Mesopotamia
here
mentioned
,
belonged
unto
the
Church
of
Jerusalem
,
so
many
of
'em
,
as
were
converted
.
For
the
Dwellers
in
Mesopotamia
,
v.
9.
are
said
to
be
Dwellers
at
Jerusalem
,
v.
5.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
the
word
in
both
places
.
Now
if
they
Dwelt
at
Jerusalem
,
can
it
be
doubted
,
whether
they
belong'd
to
that
Church
?
The
Difficulty
is
,
how
the
same
Persons
should
be
called
Dwellers
at
Jerusalem
,
and
in
Mesopotamia
at
the
same
time
.
To
this
I
answer
,
Mr.
O.
is
as
much
concerned
as
I
am
to
give
an
account
of
the
Difficulty
.
Nevertheless
I
'll
venture
to
shoot
my
Bolt
for
once
,
leaving
every
Man
Liberty
to
judge
of
it
,
as
he
sees
cause
.
I
am
not
satisfy'd
with
their
Opinion
,
who
say
that
these
Dwellers
in
Mesopotamia
,
&c.
came
up
to
Jerusalem
only
for
a
time
,
to
observe
the
Feast
of
Pentecost
.
How
then
could
they
be
called
Dwellers
at
Jerusalem
?
Mr.
Mede
B.
1.
Disc.
20th
being
of
this
Opinion
expounds
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
v.
5.
a
short
stay
,
and
v.
9th
a
durable
Mansion
,
supporting
his
Exposition
by
Gen.
27.
44.
1
Kings
17.
20.
But
't
is
not
likely
,
Luke
would
use
the
same
Word
,
in
the
same
Period
,
in
so
different
Senses
,
and
so
perplex
his
Reader
.
I
reckon
then
that
many
Jews
,
who
formerly
dwelt
in
Mesopotamia
,
and
were
born
there
,
v.
8.
had
now
shifted
their
Dwellings
,
and
resided
at
Jerusalem
.
They
who
had
before
dwelt
in
Mesopotamia
,
did
now
dwell
at
Jerusalem
,
in
expectation
as
some
think
of
the
Messiah
,
and
by
consequence
the
Church
of
Jerusalem
,
might
take
in
the
Dwellers
in
Mesopotamia
.
And
what
is
said
here
of
the
Dwellers
in
Mesopotamia
,
must
be
apply'd
unto
the
Medes
,
and
Parthians
,
and
Cappadocians
,
&c.
More
particularly
,
I
thus
explain
it
.
There
were
at
Jerusalem
,
many
Schools
or
Colleges
,
for
the
Education
and
Instruction
of
Youth
in
Religion
.
These
Colleges
were
built
at
the
Charge
of
such
Jews
as
lived
in
Foreign
Countries
,
and
sent
their
Youth
to
Jerusalem
to
be
brought
up
in
the
knowledge
of
their
Law
.
Their
Tutors
or
Instructors
,
were
probably
Natives
of
the
same
Countries
.
All
these
being
born
in
Foreign
Nations
,
and
therefore
called
Dwellers
in
them
,
are
nevertheless
reckoned
as
at
this
time
Dwellers
in
Jerusalem
,
where
they
now
resided
,
and
so
being
Converted
,
might
become
Members
of
the
new
Christian
Church
at
Jerusalem
.
But
this
is
a
Matter
of
little
moment
in
the
present
Controversy
.
Mr.
O.
If
the
Power
of
conferring
other
Powers
,
is
greater
than
those
other
Powers
,
then
Bishops
,
who
make
an
Archbishop
are
greater
than
he
is
:
and
so
are
Bishops
than
Kings
who
they
Crown
,
as
also
Recorders
or
Town-Clerks
,
than
Majors
,
whom
they
Swear
.
Ans.
I
know
very
well
that
my
Proposition
is
liable
to
several
exceptions
,
which
it
is
not
worth
while
to
trouble
the
Reader
with
.
It
s
certain
,
that
when
a
free
People
,
Superior
to
the
Candidate
,
elect
themselves
a
King
,
they
are
become
subject
to
him
,
not
greater
than
he
is
:
And
that
because
they
divest
themselves
of
the
Power
,
which
they
put
into
the
hands
of
another
.
The
Case
is
the
same
,
when
Bishops
make
an
Archbishop
.
They
subject
themselves
to
him
,
and
thence-forward
,
he
is
their
Superior
.
But
this
is
not
the
Case
before
us
.
He
who
is
possest
of
a
Power
,
and
is
able
also
to
conferr
the
same
Power
upon
another
,
not
diminishing
nor
destroying
his
own
Power
,
must
needs
be
greater
than
he
who
receives
that
Power
,
but
is
not
able
to
give
it
to
another
.
A
Bishop
(
as
my
supposition
is
)
having
Power
to
Minister
in
the
Word
and
Sacraments
,
is
also
enabled
to
confer
this
Ministry
upon
others
,
that
is
to
Ordain
Presbyters
,
and
yet
deprives
not
himself
of
it
.
He
still
Ministers
in
the
Word
and
Sacraments
himself
.
But
he
is
greater
thàn
a
Presbyter
,
because
the
Presbyter
,
though
he
has
received
the
Power
of
Ministring
in
the
Word
and
Sacraments
,
yet
he
〈◊〉
Ordain
another
unto
that
Office
,
as
the
Bishop
can
.
Nothing
needs
be
plainer
.
But
I
will
illustrate
it
by
a
known
Instance
.
There
are
twenty
four
Knights
of
the
Garter
,
the
King
is
one
of
them
.
Every
Knight
of
the
Garter
,
cannot
create
a
Fellow
of
the
Order
,
but
the
Sovereign
only
.
For
which
Reason
He
is
called
the
Sovereign
,
and
is
greater
than
the
other
Companions
of
the
Order
are
,
I
mean
quatenus
the
Sovereign
Knight
.
And
therefore
he
is
greater
than
the
rest
;
because
he
is
not
only
a
Knight
of
the
Garter
,
but
can
make
one
,
I
need
not
apply
it
.
As
to
Mr.
O's
other
Instances
,
they
are
but
so
many
〈◊〉
Mistakes
.
It
's
the
Hereditary
Title
or
Election
,
which
makes
the
King
,
and
not
he
who
is
appointed
to
manage
the
publick
Ceremony
,
of
setting
the
Crown
on
the
King's
Head
,
and
giving
him
the
Oath
.
And
Mayors
,
are
made
by
the
Election
of
the
FreeMen
of
the
Corporation
,
and
not
by
the
Town-Clerks
or
Recorders
,
who
Swear
them
.
THE
APPENDIX
.
MR
O.
whose
manner
it
is
to
〈◊〉
off
Arguments
which
Ans.
This
is
nothing
to
the
Argument
before
us
:
this
is
no
Scripture
proof
,
that
Presbyters
ever
Excommunicated
,
or
suspended
.
And
though
I
will
not
take
upon
me
to
defend
or
palliate
any
unwarrantable
Practice
;
yet
I
am
of
Opinion
that
some
Corrupt
Administrations
,
are
not
a
sufficient
reason
for
destroying
Governments
,
either
Civil
,
or
Ecclesiastical
:
for
then
an
end
must
be
put
unto
all
Government
whatever
.
Nor
do
I
believe
one
〈◊〉
-
Administration
can
excuse
another
:
I
mean
Recrimination
is
no
just
Defence
.
Nevertheless
against
my
Inclination
,
yea
,
and
my
Resolution
too
,
I
'll
for
once
walk
a
little
out
of
my
way
,
and
tell
Mr.
O.
a
story
,
by
the
bye
,
to
the
end
he
may
not
be
too
much
conceited
of
the
Integrity
and
Innocence
of
his
own
Party
;
but
may
thence
see
the
Corruption
of
Humane
Nature
,
and
be
convinced
that
Presbyterians
are
not
so
sweet
as
some
would
have
'em
thought
to
be
;
but
when
't
is
in
their
Power
,
they
also
can
be
willing
to
Commute
,
as
well
as
other
People
.
The
second
Presbyterian
Class
,
in
the
Province
of
Lancaster
(
as
't
was
called
)
began
at
Bury
,
March
25.
1647.
And
continued
there
by
Adjournments
till
February
13th
.
1650.
In
which
space
of
time
they
met
often
,
as
they
declared
,
By
virtue
of
an
Ordinance
of
Parliament
,
not
at
all
pretending
to
Divine
Commission
,
that
I
find
in
the
Records
of
that
Class
,
which
I
have
by
me
.
The
Presbyterian
Ministers
,
and
Lay-Elders
,
thus
meeting
were
entertain'd
,
or
rather
entertain'd
themselves
,
at
the
House
of
one
John
Redfern
,
an
Inn-Keeper
in
the
said
Town
of
Bury
.
I
say
entertained
themselves
,
for
like
true
Members
of
a
Church
Militant
,
and
as
if
they
had
been
real
Soldiers
,
for
the
setting
up
the
Kingdom
of
Jesus
Church
,
they
lived
upon
Free
Quarter
,
or
at
least
,
run
into
their
Landlord's
Debt
,
above
twenty
Pounds
.
To
give
'em
their
due
,
they
had
some
Design
to
pay
him
off
,
and
to
that
end
,
were
devising
to
raise
the
Money
out
of
the
Purses
of
such
as
were
Obnoxious
to
their
Spiritual
Discipline
,
that
's
to
say
,
they
intended
to
commute
,
and
Punish
the
Offenders
Purses
,
instead
of
bringing
them
to
the
Stool
of
Repentance
.
But
Oliver
it
seems
,
〈◊〉
in
their
way
and
forbade
the
Bans
,
and
so
the
honest
Men
adjourned
to
fresh
Quarters
at
Bolton
.
Thus
poor
John
Redfern
was
wronged
,
and
no
satisfaction
could
be
had
by
fair
means
.
But
being
ask'd
why
would
he
not
sue
'em
,
he
reply'd
—
No
:
the
Remedy
is
worse
than
the
Disease
,
and
Justice
is
not
to
be
had
.
Here
then
we
have
an
Example
of
,
at
least
,
designed
Commutation
,
or
which
is
worse
,
of
as
Errant
a
piece
of
Roguery
,
as
can
Ordinarily
be
met
with
in
History
.
Here
we
have
a
Bevy
of
Presbyterian
Saints
of
the
first
Rate
.
Painful
Preachers
,
and
Zealous
Lay-Elders
gathered
together
in
the
fear
of
God
(
so
doubtless
they
were
willing
it
should
be
believed
)
to
Reform
the
Country
hereabouts
,
and
yet
giving
an
Example
of
the
most
scandalous
Knavery
,
such
as
a
good
Heathen
,
or
Turk
would
have
been
ashamed
of
.
I
hope
there
is
no
Precedent
in
the
Gospel
for
this
kind
of
Discipline
.
〈◊〉
any
questions
the
matter
of
Fact
,
as
't
is
here
related
.
I
am
able
to
prove
it
,
when
reasonably
required
thereunto
.
Mr.
O.
The
Rector
supposes
that
some
in
the
Church
may
Ans.
I
do
so
.
But
then
at
the
same
time
I
suppose
'em
Ordained
,
not
Lay-Elders
.
Mr.
O.
When
I
alledged
,
Heb.
12.
15.
in
proof
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
not
an
Artificial
Word
,
as
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
,
and
observed
that
Believers
are
there
exhorted
,
To
look
diligently
,
&c.
Mr.
O.
asks
,
Are
all
Believers
bid
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
look
diligently
to
the
Flock
,
as
the
Pastors
of
it
?
Ans.
No.
But
because
it
hence
appears
that
the
verb
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
used
in
a
common
sense
applicable
to
any
Man
,
therefore
I
conclude
,
that
nothing
of
certainty
can
be
argued
from
it
,
concerning
the
Power
of
Government
.
And
I
further
say
,
that
as
Believers
are
not
directed
to
play
the
Bishops
,
or
to
look
diligently
unto
the
Flock
,
as
Pastors
of
it
,
so
neither
can
it
be
proved
,
by
this
verb
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
that
Elders
were
to
look
diligently
unto
the
Flock
,
as
the
Supreme
Pastors
of
it
,
or
as
Timothy
and
Titus
,
who
were
Commissioned
to
do
so
.
Mr.
O.
Who
so
bold
as
blind
Bayard
.
Ans.
Whether
Mr.
O.
exposes
the
Rector
,
or
his
own
Wit
and
good
Breeding
,
by
such
a
rude
and
trivial
Diverb
,
I
leave
to
the
Reader
,
to
decide
,
Such
a
Clownish
expression
,
shews
him
to
have
convers'd
rather
among
rude
Carters
and
Dray-Men
,
than
Men
of
Polite
Learning
,
or
Celebrated
Authors
that
〈◊〉
boasts
so
much
of
,
and
pretends
to
be
so
wonderfully
〈◊〉
in
.
Now
the
occasion
of
this
Elegant
and
spruce
Questionis
this
.
The
Rector
in
T.
N.
represented
his
Hypothesis
borrowed
from
Bishop
Pearson
,
as
an
Argument
,
which
no
Papist
had
ever
thought
on
before
.
But
Mr.
O.
belike
has
chop'd
upon
something
to
that
purpose
,
as
he
thought
in
the
Rhemish
Testament
,
for
which
cause
I
am
here
compared
to
a
Blind
Tit.
'T
is
confest
(
though
there
's
no
need
to
confess
it
,
as
will
appear
presently
)
I
was
not
aware
of
that
Passage
of
the
Rhemists
,
and
I
am
certain
〈◊〉
Pearson
makes
no
mention
of
'em
,
or
of
any
other
Author
,
which
drew
me
into
this
mistake
,
if
it
will
prove
one
at
last
;
but
what
if
it
should
?
It
does
not
in
the
least
affect
me
,
that
Mr.
O.
is
able
to
find
me
once
in
an
Errour
.
I
pretend
not
to
be
infallible
or
Omniscient
.
I
have
somewhat
a
better
Proverb
to
excuse
my self
with
,
than
Mr.
O.
had
to
revile
me
.
Aliquando
bonus
dormitat
Homerus
.
The
good
Old
Man
Homer
himself
,
was
not
only
blind
,
but
asleep
too
sometimes
.
Nor
would
I
trouble
my self
to
make
more
Words
on
this
slight
Occasion
,
were
it
not
that
I
think
my self
obliged
to
vindicate
Bishop
Pearson
,
least
any
one
should
surmise
,
that
he
was
beholden
to
the
Rhemists
for
his
New
Chronology
,
about
the
time
when
Paul
besought
Timothy
to
abide
at
Ephesus
,
and
yet
had
not
the
Ingenuity
to
acknowledge
it
.
Let
us
then
in
the
first
place
produce
the
Rhemists
Words
,
which
are
as
follows
.
This
Epistle
was
written
,
as
it
seems
after
Paul's
first
I
hope
to
come
to
thee
quickly
(
1
Tim.
3.
14
)
That
's
to
say
at
Ephesus
,
where
he
had
desired
him
to
remain
.
Ans.
But
though
the
Rhemists
here
stumbled
upon
a
small
part
of
the
Truth
,
they
offer'd
nothing
in
Confirmation
of
it
,
neither
in
the
Argument
,
nor
in
their
Observations
upon
the
Epistle
it self
.
Nor
(
which
is
to
be
noted
)
did
they
in
the
least
make
use
of
their
Opinion
in
proof
of
Episcopacy
:
But
Bishop
Pearson
did
both
,
without
being
beholden
to
the
Rhemists
,
for
one
Syllable
towards
the
Establishment
of
this
New
Chronology
.
Moreover
the
Rhemists
,
speak
only
of
the
Time
of
Paul's
writing
this
Epistle
,
not
of
his
Beseeching
Timothy
to
abide
at
Ephesus
,
at
his
going
into
Macedonia
:
concerning
which
they
have
not
given
the
least
intimation
,
but
left
that
part
of
the
Old
Chronology
as
they
found
it
.
Only
they
seem
to
think
that
Paul
,
having
long
before
his
Imprisonment
besought
Timothy
to
abide
at
Ephesus
,
did
now
,
after
he
was
Dismissed
and
set
at
Liberty
,
viz.
about
the
time
that
he
wrote
to
the
Hebrews
,
and
immediately
after
his
Enlargement
,
send
this
Letter
unto
Timothy
,
which
is
an
Hypothesis
quite
different
from
that
of
Bishop
Pearson's
,
as
any
one
that
understands
,
and
remembers
what
has
already
been
offered
upon
the
Argument
,
will
readily
confess
.
So
that
the
Learned
Prelate
was
not
in
the
least
beholden
unto
the
Seminary
at
Rhemes
,
for
the
Discovery
and
proof
of
this
New
Chronology
,
the
Time
of
Paul
'
s
beseeching
Timothy
to
abide
at
Ephesus
.
There
was
then
little
Occasion
for
Mr.
O's
challenging
me
with
Boldness
,
and
giving
me
that
undeserv'd
Character
—
That
when
I
am
remotest
from
Truth
I
am
then
most
consident
.
I
leave
it
to
my
Adversaries
themselves
,
the
Dissenters
,
to
determine
,
which
of
the
two
is
in
the
point
of
Time
now
debated
,
guilty
of
most
Confidence
.
Well
,
but
Mr.
O.
Thought
of
this
Argument
before
the
Rector
published
it
.
Ans.
Haply
so
,
but
the
Question
is
,
whether
he
ever
thought
of
it
before
Bishop
Pearson
brought
it
to
Light
.
And
if
he
has
been
so
long
acquainted
with
it
,
as
he
would
have
us
think
,
or
has
prepared
a
Dissertation
to
vindicate
the
Old
Chronology
,
as
he
boasts
,
I
hope
't
will
be
better
put
together
than
his
Defence
,
and
that
one
time
or
other
,
we
shall
be
blest
with
a
sight
of
so
Elaborate
a
piece
of
Work
:
in
the
mean
while
,
I
am
of
Opinion
,
that
if
Mr.
O.
had
been
so
long
acquainted
with
this
New
Chronology
,
and
had
prepared
a
Dissertation
to
vindicate
the
Old
one
,
his
Defence
would
have
been
more
tight
and
correct
,
than
I
find
it
;
His
Plea
,
would
have
had
something
in
it
surely
,
relating
to
this
New
Chronology
.
In
fine
,
that
Mr.
O.
thought
of
the
Bishop's
Argument
,
before
the
Rector's
Book
came
forth
,
is
not
material
;
but
that
He
thought
of
it
before
the
Rector
proposed
it
to
him
,
we
have
only
his
own
Word
for
it
,
which
is
not
much
worth
in
this
case
of
Self-Testimony
;
Yea
,
granting
this
also
,
I
have
good
reason
to
believe
he
derived
this
part
of
his
knowledge
from
Bishop
Pearson
,
for
a
Reason
best
known
to
my self
.
Mr.
O.
has
wonderfully
demonstrated
,
from
2
Tim.
4.
9.
21.
Annals
of
Paul
.
What
I
excepted
against
in
Dr.
Whitaker
,
was
not
that
which
Mr.
O.
pretends
to
make
Answer
to
,
but
that
he
asserted
Equals
could
receive
Accusations
as
Timothy
did
.
This
the
Dr.
proved
(
if
Mr
Prinn
wrongs
him
not
)
from
a
Synod
of
Bishops
,
who
received
an
Accusation
against
one
of
their
own
Number
,
and
then
Censured
him
for
his
Fault
.
Now
how
far
this
is
from
a
proof
of
what
it
was
alledged
for
,
I
shewed
at
large
,
and
Mr.
O.
who
Taxes
me
for
so
doing
overlooks
it
,
nor
makes
any
Reply
to
it
.
Indeed
it
is
not
to
be
Answered
if
it
〈◊〉
true
,
as
I
think
none
will
deny
,
that
one
Bishop
is
not
equal
,
but
Inferior
and
Subject
to
a
Synod
of
Bishops
.
Therefore
a
Synod's
receiving
an
Accusation
against
a
Bishop
,
is
no
proof
of
the
Doctor
's
Assertion
,
but
an
Instance
of
the
contrary
.
As
for
Mr.
O's
own
examples
out
of
St.
Cyprian
,
were
they
never
so
convincing
(
which
shall
in
its
place
be
considered
)
they
will
not
however
Vindicate
Dr.
Whitaker
,
nor
are
a
proper
Answer
to
my
Exceptions
against
him
.
The
proportion
of
Dioceses
,
how
large
at
most
they
ought
to
prout
viri
prudentes
definiverint
,
as
Superiors
shall
think
fit
to
Order
,
and
not
by
the
Caprice
and
humoursome
phancy
of
every
overweening
Opinionanist
,
and
self
conceited
Reformer
.
Mr.
O.
hears
the
Rectors
Parish
has
four
or
five
Chappels
in
it
.
Ans.
The
Rectors
Parish
has
neither
five
nor
four
Chappels
in
it
.
Tho'
the
Ministers
Ears
be
never
so
long
,
yet
is
he
mistaken
herein
.
If
it
had
twenty
,
't
is
nothing
to
the
purpose
.
Mr.
O.
Because
the
Rector
affirm'd
it
no
more
impossible
for
To
leave
his
first
Love
,
than
for
Judas
to
betray
his
Master
,
is
mightily
disturbed
,
and
to
confute
it
musters
up
many
Commendations
given
of
Timothy
in
Scripture
.
Ans.
In
T.
N.
I
declared
my
Opinion
plainly
,
that
Timothy
was
not
that
Angel
there
spoken
of
:
yet
supposing
it
,
't
was
not
impossible
for
Timothy
to
be
guilty
of
some
Defection
.
The
Commendations
alone
render
it
not
impossible
.
Abstracting
from
Matter
of
Fact
then
,
that
Judas
an
Apostle
,
who
had
the
Power
of
Casting
out
Devils
,
should
turn
Apostate
,
is
as
strange
,
as
that
Timothy
should
leave
his
first
Love
.
Lastly
,
when
't
is
for
his
turn
,
Mr.
O.
can
admit
,
that
Timothy
might
be
overtaken
with
Youthful
Lusts
,
but
when
he
wants
an
Occasion
of
Cavilling
,
then
't
is
monstrous
horrid
to
suppose
it
possible
for
Timothy
to
be
guilty
of
some
Defection
from
the
Truth
.
If
the
one
was
possible
,
why
not
the
other
?
But
especially
if
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
spoken
of
2
Tim.
2.
22.
Signifie
the
Lusts
of
the
Mind
,
its
proneness
to
Paradoxes
,
to
New
up-start
Opinions
,
curious
Conceipts
,
and
Innovations
in
Religion
,
of
which
kind
we
reckon
Presbytery
and
Independency
,
which
are
but
of
Yesterday
,
and
the
product
of
Minds
addicted
unto
Novelties
.
I
do
not
find
Commentators
Ordinarily
Expounding
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Youthful
,
i.
e.
Fleshly
Lusts
,
but
to
the
Sense
I
have
now
given
them
.
In
a
Word
,
whoever
attentively
reads
Rev.
2.
2
,
3
,
6.
will
find
considerable
Commendations
of
the
Angel
of
Ephesus
,
perhaps
not
much
Inferior
to
those
of
Timothy
in
other
places
of
Scripture
;
And
yet
this
Angel
left
his
first
Love
.
'T
was
not
impossible
then
,
but
Timothy
might
do
so
likewise
.
I
have
now
done
with
Mr.
O's
Defence
.
If
I
have
left
any
thing
of
Moment
unanswered
;
Or
if
I
have
failed
giving
full
satisfaction
to
any
Material
Difficulty
Objected
against
me
,
I
do
promise
either
to
supply
these
Defects
,
or
fairly
to
confess
my self
unable
.
Only
I
could
wish
all
personal
Reflections
,
and
unnecessary
Digressions
might
be
laid
aside
,
that
Arguments
be
plainly
proposed
,
and
〈◊〉
as
few
words
as
may
be
,
that
no
trickish
and
evasive
Answers
be
made
,
when
we
have
nothing
else
to
reply
.
And
finally
,
that
we
would
not
take
to
task
a
piece
of
an
Argument
,
and
the
weakest
part
of
it
too
,
and
then
make
the
Reader
believe
we
have
fully
accounted
for
the
Difficulty
,
when
in
Truth
we
kept
our selves
all
the
while
at
a
distance
,
and
never
came
near
the
Merits
of
the
Cause
.
THE
SECOND
PART
:
Wherein
All
Mr
Owen's
Authorities
for
Presbyterian
Parity
,
and
Ordination
by
Presbyters
are
overthrown
;
and
particularly
is
prov'd
,
THAT
The
Church
of
ENGLAND
,
Ever
since
the
Reformation
,
HELD
The
Divine
Apostolical
Right
of
EPISCOPACY
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
&c.
One
ought
to
endure
to
the
utmost
rather
than
divide
the
Church
of
God
:
and
dying
rather
than
rend
it
in
pieces
,
is
a
no
less
glorious
Martyrdom
,
and
in
my
Opinion
greater
than
being
a
Martyr
for
not
Sacrificing
unto
Idols
.
In
this
latter
Case
a
Man
suffers
for
his
own
sake
only
,
in
the
former
for
the
whole
Church
.
Dionys.
Alexand.
apud
Euseb.
Eccl.
Hist.
l.
6.
c.
45.
LONDON
:
Printed
in
the
Year
1699.
THE
INTRODUCTION
.
HAving
spoken
of
the
Government
of
the
Christian
Church
in
General
,
and
as
far
as
the
Holy
Scriptures
afford
us
any
Light
:
Having
thence
shewn
that
meer
Presbyters
alone
did
never
exercise
any
Supreme
Act
of
Jurisdiction
of
any
kind
that
can
be
there
discovered
,
except
in
Conjunction
with
,
and
subordination
to
some
extraordinary
Officers
as
Apostles
or
Prophets
:
Having
in
particular
traced
the
manner
of
Government
at
Ephesus
,
unto
the
Death
of
St.
John
the
Apostle
;
and
the
Martyrdom
of
St.
Ignatius
,
and
found
it
cast
by
St.
Paul
into
the
same
Form
,
as
the
Church
of
England
is
at
this
Day
,
viz.
consisting
of
three
distinct
Orders
of
Ministers
(
the
Title
only
of
the
Supreme
Governours
haply
excepted
)
and
so
continued
after
him
,
as
I
said
unto
the
time
of
Ignatius
:
And
Lastly
,
having
answered
all
the
Objections
raised
against
our
Episcopal
Government
,
by
Mr.
O.
in
his
Book
Entituled
A
Plea
,
&c.
(
So
many
of
'em
,
I
mean
,
as
seemed
to
carry
any
weight
in
them
,
and
concerned
the
times
,
within
the
Compass
of
which
I
have
confin'd
my self
hitherto
,
that
's
to
say
,
the
Apostolical
Age.
)
After
all
this
,
it
remains
that
I
consider
the
Arguments
,
which
to
the
same
purpose
he
was
drawn
from
Ecclesiastical
History
,
beginning
where
the
Scripture
ends
,
and
so
descending
unto
these
last
Ages
,
before
which
time
Episcopacy
was
never
brought
into
Question
for
Fifteen
Hundred
Years
,
save
by
one
Arch-Heretick
Aërius
,
of
whom
more
hereafter
.
My
Adversary
indeed
thinks
he
has
found
in
Old
Authors
many
Instances
,
favouring
the
Presbyterian
Identity
and
Parity
,
and
Ordination
by
Presbyters
:
This
is
now
to
be
Examined
.
If
my
Answers
shall
be
thought
Old
,
I
have
this
excuse
for
my self
,
that
the
Objections
are
old
also
:
and
in
such
a
Case
it
is
pardonable
if
not
necessary
,
especially
when
an
Adversary
demands
,
and
even
duns
;
yea
,
and
reproaches
one
for
not
having
already
undertaken
it
.
I
pretend
not
then
to
make
new
discoveries
never
heard
of
before
,
in
the
Controversy
now
before
us
,
(
though
haply
some
few
things
not
observed
before
,
may
be
,
here
offered
to
the
Reader
)
but
to
apply
the
proper
Answers
unto
the
Old
Objections
,
wherewith
Mr.
O.
has
endeavoured
to
embroil
and
perplex
the
Truth
.
I
will
not
tie
my self
unto
his
Method
,
which
is
not
so
well
fitted
to
my
design
,
it
being
my
purpose
to
Manage
the
Dispute
only
〈◊〉
Matters
of
Fact
,
which
being
once
cleared
from
countenancing
the
Presbyterian
or
Congregational
Polities
,
Mr.
O's
.
Syllogisms
will
and
must
fall
to
the
Ground
.
I
will
then
digest
and
dispose
all
his
Authorities
,
and
my
Replies
to
'em
,
though
not
exactly
(
for
the
controversy
〈◊〉
not
on
the
Niceties
of
Chronology
)
yet
pretty
near
to
the
Order
of
Time
,
to
which
they
belong
;
I
begin
with
the
Epistle
of
Clemens
Romanus
unto
the
Church
of
Corinth
,
which
is
the
best
Colourable
Argument
the
Dissenters
do
or
can
bring
for
themselves
.
CHAP.
I.
Of
the
Testimony
of
Clemens
Romanus
.
THE
substance
of
what
Mr.
O.
argues
from
this
Epistle
against
Prelatical
Episcopacy
,
and
in
favour
of
Presbyterian
Parity
is
,
whereas
I
affirm
in
T.
N.
Clement
seems
to
make
the
Jewish
High-Priest
,
the
Inferior
Priests
and
Levites
a
Precedent
for
the
Government
of
Christian
Churches
by
a
Bishop
,
Presbyters
and
Deacons
—
That
Clement
no
where
saith
there
were
those
three
distinct
Unto
all
which
it
's
reply'd
;
1.
I
readily
grant
Clement
no
where
expresly
affirms
there
were
three
distinct
Orders
in
the
Christian
Church
:
or
that
the
High-Priests
,
Priests
and
Levites
in
the
Jewish
Church
,
were
the
Pattern
of
Bishops
,
Presbyters
and
Deacons
in
the
Christian.
Thus
much
is
granted
:
Nevertheless
,
what
I
cited
him
for
may
be
true
,
and
is
so
,
sc.
That
He
seems
to
make
the
Jewish
Government
the
Pattern
of
the
Christian
,
as
we
are
wont
to
argue
from
him
,
comparing
the
one
with
the
other
.
One
would
think
this
joined
with
Jerom's
Testimony
,
cited
with
it
in
T.
N.
pag.
1.
were
sufficient
to
warrant
me
thus
modestly
to
〈◊〉
,
that
Clement
seems
to
〈◊〉
the
Jewish
Government
a
Pattern
of
the
Christian
,
which
others
before
me
have
done
:
as
Dr.
H.
in
his
Dissertations
,
and
Dr.
〈◊〉
,
Cod.
Can.
&c.
l.
2.
e.
11.
But
Mr.
Mede
deserves
particularly
to
be
taken
notice
of
,
who
has
more
than
once
declared
his
Judgment
in
this
matter
.
Let
us
hear
him
teaching
us
that
,
In
things
for
which
we
find
no
rule
given
in
the
New
Testament
,
there
we
are
referred
,
and
left
to
the
Analogy
of
the
Old
.
He
instances
in
St.
Paul
arguing
,
for
the
maintenance
of
the
Ministers
of
the
Gospel
(
1
Cor.
9.
13
,
14
)
in
Infant
Baptism
,
in
hallowing
the
first
Day
of
the
Week
,
in
the
three
Orders
,
Bishops
,
Priests
and
Deacons
,
asserted
by
Jerom
to
be
derived
from
〈◊〉
,
his
Sons
,
and
the
Levites
;
and
Lastly
,
in
this
Passage
of
St.
Clement
to
the
same
purpose
.
Once
more
He
Expounds
those
Words
,
in
Clemens
Romanus
to
the
Corinthians
—
We
ought
to
do
all
things
in
Order
,
as
the
Lord
has
commanded
,
putting
the
Question
to
himself
thus
,
Where
has
the
Lord
commanded
this
?
and
answering
himself
thus
,
In
the
Analogy
of
the
Old
Testament
.
Now
Clement
in
the
next
following
parts
of
his
Epistle
,
treats
in
general
of
the
time
when
the
Christian
Ministrations
were
to
be
performed
,
the
place
where
,
and
the
Persons
by
whom
.
If
then
the
Analogy
of
the
Law
was
a
Divine
Commission
unto
the
Christians
,
if
the
Temple
of
the
Jews
,
a
Precedent
of
the
Christian
Churches
,
if
the
Jewish
Sabbath
,
of
the
Christian
Lord's-Day
,
why
not
the
Levitical
three
Orders
of
the
Christian
〈◊〉
,
Priests
and
Deacons
?
But
that
which
is
of
most
moment
is
,
that
many
other
Fathers
following
Clement
(
as
Jerom
,
Synesius
,
Cyprian
and
Firmilianus
,
of
whom
I
have
spoken
elsewhere
)
did
not
forget
to
allude
or
appeal
to
the
Law
of
Moses
,
in
confirmation
of
the
three
Orders
of
Church-Officers
among
the
Christians
.
St.
Cyprian
said
,
He
had
a
Divine
Law
to
punish
his
rebellious
Deacon
,
Quoting
Deut.
17.
12.
Numb.
16.
1.
Here
He
thinks
himself
invested
with
the
same
Authority
as
Aaron
was
,
and
through
Aaron
to
have
received
it
from
God
.
The
like
we
meet
with
in
several
other
Epistles
.
And
indeed
the
names
Sacerdos
,
2.
As
I
acknowledge
Clement
did
not
totidem
verbis
assert
the
Orders
,
so
I
observe
that
though
He
expresly
mentions
two
only
,
yet
he
affirms
no
where
,
that
there
were
two
only
kinds
of
Officers
in
the
Church
of
〈◊〉
,
and
no
more
.
Or
thus
,
though
he
mentions
two
only
,
yet
he
denies
not
expresly
,
but
that
there
might
be
a
third
.
3.
I
join
issue
with
Mr.
O.
that
Clement
ought
to
be
expounded
by
the
Scripture
;
but
surely
not
by
the
two
places
only
which
he
has
alledged
,
all
the
rest
being
laid
aside
.
The
Epistle
then
of
Clement
must
be
Expounded
by
the
Whole
Scripture
,
and
what
Intimations
of
three
Orders
are
any
where
therein
to
be
found
.
This
has
been
done
already
,
and
needs
not
be
drawn
in
here
again
,
to
lengthen
and
confound
the
Argument
.
Only
thus
briefly
to
the
two
Passages
adduced
by
Mr.
O.
Though
St.
Paul
,
Philip.
1.
1.
mentions
Bishops
and
Deacons
only
,
and
no
third
Superior
Officer
in
that
Church
:
yet
Chap.
2.
25.
〈◊〉
calls
Epaphroditus
(
by
whom
he
sent
this
Epistle
)
the
Apostle
of
the
Philippians
:
and
though
1
Tim.
3.
ch.
He
names
Bishops
and
Deacons
only
,
and
no
third
Officer
,
yet
(
as
I
hope
has
been
sufficiently
made
out
)
he
had
constituted
Timothy
Ruler
of
the
Church
of
Ephesus
,
and
particularly
of
the
Elders
there
.
So
that
there
were
at
Philippi
three
Orders
,
an
Apostle
,
Bishops
(
or
Presbyters
)
and
Deacons
.
Likewise
at
Ephesus
,
Timothy
the
Ruler
of
that
Church
,
and
Bishops
(
or
Presbyters
)
and
Deacons
:
and
the
same
is
to
be
believed
of
the
Church
of
Corinth
,
when
Clement
wrote
to
'em
,
if
we
will
suffer
our selves
to
be
guided
by
Scripture
and
Reason
.
4.
That
Clement
exhorted
the
Corinthians
to
be
subject
unto
the
Presbyters
,
is
certain
.
But
so
did
Ignatius
require
,
that
the
Churches
should
be
subject
to
their
Presbyters
,
tho'
at
the
same
time
he
urged
the
Christians
,
and
specially
the
Presbyters
themselves
to
be
subject
to
the
Bishop
.
The
Flock
may
be
subject
to
the
Presbyters
,
and
at
the
same
time
they
and
the
Presbyters
ought
to
be
subject
to
the
Bishop
.
Again
,
that
the
Presbyters
governed
the
Church
in
common
,
is
not
questioned
,
but
that
they
did
so
without
a
Bishop
,
is
no
where
expresly
said
.
Lastly
,
that
Clement
expresly
mentions
no
Chief
Bishop
at
〈◊〉
,
I
own
;
especially
,
not
by
the
name
Bishop
:
but
still
He
seems
to
speak
of
an
Order
of
Church-Officers
,
Superior
to
,
and
distinct
from
Presbyters
.
Page
the
that
they
had
been
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Subject
to
〈◊〉
Rulers
,
and
giving
convenient
honour
unto
the
Presbyters
.
And
again
p.
〈◊〉
.
Let
us
worship
the
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
let
us
reverence
our
Governours
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
Let
us
honour
our
Presbyters
.
One
would
think
here
is
sufficient
Intimation
of
an
Order
of
Church
Officers
Superior
unto
Presbyters
,
and
distinct
from
them
.
5.
Clement
was
himself
Bishop
,
or
Supreme
Ruler
of
the
Church
of
God
at
Rome
,
being
(
as
't
is
thought
)
the
same
Person
that
we
read
of
Philip.
4.
3.
Now
't
is
not
at
all
likely
,
that
Clement
a
Person
of
unquestionable
Piety
and
Integrity
,
being
a
Prelatical
Bishop
himself
at
Rome
,
should
approve
or
countenance
the
Presbyterian
Parity
at
〈◊〉
;
and
that
those
two
Apostolical
Churches
,
should
thus
widely
differ
in
their
Form
of
Government
.
6.
It
may
deserve
our
Observation
,
what
Clement
writes
towards
the
Conclusion
of
his
Epistle
,
p.
69.
thus
—
Whoever
among
you
is
Generous
and
Charitable
let
him
resolve
thus
,
If
the
Sedition
,
Contention
,
and
Schisms
are
risen
on
my
account
,
I
'll
be
gone
where-ever
ye
will
,
and
whatever
the
People
require
,
that
I
'll
do
:
only
let
the
Flock
of
Christ
,
and
the
Presbyters
set
over
them
,
live
in
Peace
.
Methinks
the
Author
in
these
Words
,
plainly
enough
distinguishes
between
that
Generous
Person
first
spoken
of
,
and
a
considerable
part
of
the
Presbyters
immediately
after
mentioned
separately
from
him
.
This
Generous
Person
was
it
seems
settled
in
some
Post
or
Office
,
by
one
Party
of
the
〈◊〉
,
or
atleast
continued
in
it
,
against
the
Mind
and
Inclination
of
the
Rest.
From
hence
sprang
the
Quarrels
and
Schisms
among
'em
.
Now
what
Office
could
this
be
,
but
that
of
the
Prelatical
Bishop
?
He
could
not
be
a
meer
Presbyter
,
for
he
's
plainly
distinguished
from
them
.
And
besides
,
't
is
not
to
be
imagined
that
one
common
Presbyter
,
equal
with
the
Rest
,
should
have
been
the
occasion
of
such
a
dangerous
Schism
,
or
that
his
Absence
should
immediately
put
an
end
to
it
,
as
't
is
here
imply'd
.
Nor
will
any
one
(
I
believe
)
say
,
that
He
was
a
Deacon
,
much
less
an
Ordinary
Believer
.
He
was
then
(
as
I
conceive
)
the
Prelate
of
that
Church
:
but
not
acceptable
to
one
party
of
the
〈◊〉
,
and
on
this
Occasion
the
Peace
of
the
Church
was
disturbed
.
Clement
not
intermeddling
among
'em
as
to
the
Merits
of
the
Cause
,
advises
this
Generous
Person
out
of
Charity
,
and
for
the
Peace
of
the
Church
,
to
abdicate
and
depart
from
his
Office
,
to
the
end
,
some
other
succeeding
with
the
Universal
Consent
of
the
Corinthians
,
by
this
means
a
Period
might
be
put
unto
their
Divisions
.
In
further
proof
of
this
,
I
offer
unto
Consideration
,
what
I
long
since
wrote
in
my
Clement
upon
the
Margin
,
but
was
not
so
happy
as
to
refer
to
the
Author
whence
I
had
taken
that
Note
;
'T
is
this
,
That
from
the
Passage
of
Clement's
Epistle
just
before
set
down
at
length
〈◊〉
and
others
,
after
him
conjecture
,
that
Clement
was
named
by
Peter
to
be
Bishop
of
Rome
,
and
the
Apostles
immediate
Successor
,
but
refused
it
for
a
like
Reason
,
that
he
here
exhorts
the
Generous
Person
at
Corinth
,
to
lay
down
his
If
I
be
the
Jonas
that
raises
the
Storm
,
throw
me
into
the
Sea
,
and
let
these
Tempests
cease
;
I
am
willing
to
undergo
whatever
you
have
a
mind
to
,
to
be
Banished
the
Throne
,
and
to
be
cast
out
of
the
City
.
Only
be
careful
to
Love
Truth
and
Peace
.
And
so
he
Voluntarily
departed
.
See
St.
Chrys.
Hom.
11.
in
Ephes.
Office
.
Now
't
was
very
proper
for
Clement
,
to
urge
his
own
reason
and
example
,
and
especially
since
his
Modesty
,
and
Condescension
gained
him
afterward
the
Affections
of
that
Church
,
and
at
length
advanced
him
unto
the
Bishoprick
of
Rome
.
The
like
he
hints
unto
this
Generous
Person
,
as
a
Motive
to
him
to
resign
,
in
the
next
Period
.
He
(
says
Clement
)
who
shall
do
thus
,
shall
procure
to
himself
great
Glory
in
the
Lord
,
and
every
place
(
every
Church
)
will
receive
him
.
The
Passage
in
Epiphanius
whereof
I
speak
,
is
in
English
as
were
both
the
first
Apostles
and
Bishops
of
Rome
,
then
Linus
,
afterward
Cletus
,
and
next
him
Edit.
Paris
.
Clement
,
Contemporary
of
Peter
and
Paul
.
Nor
let
any
one
wonder
,
that
others
before
Clement
received
the
Episcopacy
from
the
Apostles
,
seeing
Clement
was
their
Contemporary
.
Whether
He
received
Ordination
to
the
Episcopacy
,
and
declined
it
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
whilst
they
(
the
Apostles
Peter
and
Paul
)
surviv'd
,
for
He
says
in
one
of
his
Epistles
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
I
depart
,
I
am
gone
,
let
the
People
of
God
abide
in
Peace
,
designing
this
for
others
Good
and
advantage
:
or
whether
,
&c.
It
may
perhaps
be
objected
,
that
Clement
ascribes
not
the
Corinthian
Schisms
to
that
one
Generous
Person
only
,
but
to
some
misunderstandings
between
the
People
,
and
the
Presbyters
,
some
of
the
latter
being
not
suffered
to
continue
in
the
exercise
of
their
Ministry
any
longer
at
Corinth
.
So
't
is
intimated
,
pag.
58.
in
these
Words
—
It
would
be
no
little
Sin
in
us
,
to
cast
off
those
(
Presbyters
or
Bishops
)
who
have
discharged
the
Office
of
their
Ministry
,
〈◊〉
and
without
blame
:
for
we
see
that
they
have
removed
some
(
Presbyters
)
whose
Conversation
was
laudable
,
and
who
exercised
their
Ministry
among
you
blamelesly
.
Brethren
,
&c.
All
that
needs
be
answered
hereunto
is
,
1.
Clement
manifestly
teaches
elsewhere
,
that
the
Schism
arose
on
the
account
of
one
(
or
two
Persons
)
p.
62.
'T
is
(
says
He
)
a
shame
,
an
arrant
shame
,
and
unworthy
a
Christians
Conversation
,
that
the
ancient
and
most
firmly
established
Church
(
of
Corinth
)
should
raise
Sedition
against
the
Presbyters
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
for
one
or
two
Persons
:
that
there
being
a
Difference
among
them
about
their
Bishop
(
that
Generous
Person
)
it
must
needs
follow
,
that
the
Presbyters
were
involved
in
the
Controversy
,
and
by
Consequence
,
that
some
of
'em
were
deserted
,
and
laid
aside
by
those
of
the
People
,
who
had
an
aversion
to
the
Bishop
(
that
Generous
Person
so
oft
mentioned
)
as
well
as
to
some
of
the
Presbyters
,
who
stuck
close
to
him
.
2.
It
may
reasonably
be
thought
that
the
two
Persons
here
spoken
of
,
were
the
Bishop
in
Possession
,
and
the
other
whom
the
Corinthians
would
have
advanced
into
his
〈◊〉
.
In
short
,
if
〈◊〉
if
what
on
this
Head
has
been
offered
for
the
clearing
the
〈◊〉
of
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
the
meaning
of
the
Epistle
(
which
to
us
at
this
distance
is
dark
enough
)
be
of
any
moment
,
it
may
then
be
allowed
,
that
Clement
has
intimated
,
that
there
was
at
Corinth
a
Prelatical
Bishop
,
and
that
the
Reason
why
he
makes
no
plainer
mention
of
him
,
but
was
forced
himself
to
interpose
,
in
procuring
the
Peace
of
the
Church
of
Corinth
,
was
the
Prejudices
a
great
part
of
the
Presbyters
,
and
People
had
conceived
against
their
Bishop
,
who
was
〈◊〉
unable
by
his
own
Authority
,
to
allay
the
Heats
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
'em
,
and
for
that
cause
was
advised
by
Clement
Voluntarily
to
surrender
his
Office
and
depart
.
It
is
not
an
uncommon
thing
for
Authors
to
comprehend
three
Orders
of
Church-Officers
in
two
Words
,
or
at
least
to
mention
two
Orders
only
,
when
yet
they
acknowledge
a
Third
.
This
Dichotomy
is
to
be
met
with
in
the
Scripture
it self
.
The
three
Officers
of
the
Jewish
Church
,
are
frequently
expressed
by
Priests
and
〈◊〉
,
wherein
〈◊〉
High-Priest
,
who
without
controversy
was
a
Third
,
is
included
.
〈◊〉
himself
in
this
Epistle
takes
notice
—
That
the
Priests
and
Levites
,
came
out
of
Abraham's
Abraham
.
Clemens
Alexand
.
in
his
〈◊〉
,
cited
by
Mr.
O.
speaks
there
only
of
the
two
Orders
,
Presbyters
and
Deacons
,
in
the
Christian
Church
,
Id.
Ct.
Strom.
and
Paedag.
cited
by
Bishop
Pearson
in
his
Vindiciae
Ign.
Epist.
and
yet
elsewhere
,
he
reckons
up
expresly
the
Bishops
also
with
the
other
two
.
In
the
former
place
,
〈◊〉
Presbyters
must
comprehend
Bishops
;
at
least
they
ought
not
to
be
excluded
,
though
the
Author
there
omits
them
.
So
〈◊〉
in
his
Apologetick
comprehends
Bishops
,
and
Presbyters
under
one
common
Name
Seniores
,
yet
he
〈◊〉
distinguishes
the
Three
Orders
,
in
Lib.
de
Baptismo
c.
17.
Optatus
Milevit
.
an
Opt.
Milev
.
Ed.
Casaub.
Lond.
p.
66.
hundred
times
o'er
acknowledges
the
three
Orders
,
yet
once
he
contents
himself
,
to
express
'em
in
two
Words
only
,
Bishops
and
Deacons
.
There
are
(
says
he
in
the
place
cited
)
on
the
Margin
)
quatuor
genera
〈◊〉
,
Four
Orders
of
Men
in
the
Church
;
but
he
sums
'em
up
in
three
Words
,
viz.
Bishops
,
Deacons
,
and
the
Faithful
.
It
may
deserve
observation
,
that
at
this
time
of
the
Day
,
and
with
Optatus
,
ordinarily
Bishop
signify'd
the
Prelate
of
a
Church
;
shall
I
then
be
allowed
hence
to
infer
there
were
either
no
Presbyters
,
or
no
Prelatical
Bishops
according
to
this
Fathers
Judgment
,
because
forsooth
,
He
here
mentions
'em
not
distinctly
?
It
cannot
be
fairly
Collected
hence
,
as
every
one
〈◊〉
.
This
is
manifest
that
Optatus
,
in
those
two
Words
,
Bishops
and
Deacons
,
must
understand
the
three
Orders
,
Bishops
,
Presbyters
and
Deacons
,
else
He
loses
one
of
his
four
Orders
of
Men
in
the
Church
.
Besides
saying
here
(
sicut
supra
dixi
)
he
refers
us
backward
to
p.
16.
and
p.
51.
in
both
which
places
he
mentions
〈◊〉
Bishops
,
Presbyters
and
Deacons
.
Wherefore
the
Premisses
considered
,
't
is
reasonable
to
believe
,
that
Clemens
Romanus
likewise
did
,
in
the
same
manner
express
the
three
Offices
of
the
〈◊〉
Church
in
two
Words
,
comprehending
the
Prelate
in
Bishops
and
Deacons
.
It
ought
not
here
to
be
forgot
,
what
St.
Chrysostom
has
observed
,
〈◊〉
of
old
were
called
Bishops
also
and
ad
Philip
.
ch.
1.
1.
〈◊〉
:
for
in
deed
Presbyters
in
some
things
resemble
both
.
They
Minister
(
like
Deacons
)
unto
the
Bishop-whilst
he
Officiates
,
and
are
subject
unto
him
as
the
other
are
:
But
they
Minister
in
the
Word
and
Sacraments
,
as
well
as
the
Bishop
does
,
and
have
under
him
the
over-sight
of
some
part
of
the
Flock
:
for
which
reason
they
may
not
incongruously
be
called
Bishops
.
But
,
Blundel
(
and
his
Followers
,
I
remember
)
to
reconcile
unto
their
own
Hypothesis
,
the
different
way
of
the
Fathers
reckoning
up
the
Ministerial
Orders
of
the
Christian
Church
,
asserts
,
that
sometimes
they
conform
their
Language
to
the
Scripture
and
Apostolical
Age
:
At
other
times
to
their
own
Customs
,
and
the
Ecclesiastical
Constitutions
.
In
the
former
case
they
use
the
Dichotomy
mentioning
only
Presbyters
(
or
Bishops
)
and
Deacons
:
in
the
latter
they
divide
'em
into
three
Ranks
,
Bishops
,
and
Priests
,
and
Deacons
.
But
this
device
will
not
do
their
Work
,
and
must
be
laid
aside
,
for
the
following
Reasons
.
1.
St.
Cyprian
,
against
whose
Testimony
for
Episopacy
this
Distinction
was
principally
levelled
and
framed
,
though
He
often
falls
into
the
Dichotomy
,
yet
asserts
,
the
Divine
Right
of
Bishops
.
Cum
hoc
igitur
(
sicut
omnis
Actus
Ecclesiae
per
eosdem
praepositos
gubernetur
)
divina
lege
fundatum
sit
—
The
Government
of
the
Church
by
Bishops
is
(
says
He
)
founded
upon
a
Divine
Law
.
That
the
Praepositi
here
are
meant
Bishops
is
not
to
be
doubted
of
,
if
we
look
backward
unto
the
foregoing
parts
of
this
Epistle
.
He
begins
it
thus
—
Our
Lord
,
whose
precepts
we
ought
to
Reverence
,
and
Observe
,
establishing
the
Honour
of
the
Bishop
and
the
Churches
affairs
,
says
,
&c.
And
again
he
adds
—
Hence
the
Ordination
of
Bishops
and
the
Affairs
of
the
Church
,
pass
through
the
course
of
〈◊〉
and
Successions
,
so
that
the
Church
is
established
on
Bishops
,
and
every
Act
of
the
Church
is
governed
,
per
eosdem
Praepositos
,
by
the
same
Praepositi
,
that
is
,
Bishops
.
If
then
Bishops
were
by
Divine
Right
in
the
Judgment
of
Cyprian
,
he
must
speak
in
the
Language
of
the
Apostolical
Age
,
where
the
Divine
Right
ends
,
as
well
as
his
own
,
when
he
reckons
up
the
three
distinct
Orders
of
Bishops
,
Presbyters
and
Deacons
.
But
of
this
see
more
in
Mr.
Dodwell's
10th
Cypr.
Dissertation
.
Nor
can
these
Praepositi
and
Episcopi
,
be
understood
of
Presbyters
:
for
Cyp.
(
whatever
any
may
fancy
of
Praepositi
)
never
calls
Presbyters
,
Bishops
;
Nor
could
he
conformably
to
his
own
Writings
.
He
professes
thus
of
himself
and
other
Bishops
—
Neq
,
Tract
.
Concil.
Carthag
.
de
Baptis
.
Haeret.
P.
229.
enim
quisquam
nostrum
Episcopum
se
Episcoporum
constituit
.
None
of
us
makes
himself
a
Bishop
of
Bishops
.
But
if
the
Presbyters
were
Bishops
,
then
Cyprian
was
a
Bishop
of
Bishops
.
2.
Optatus
in
the
same
Breath
,
in
one
short
Period
expresses
himself
both
ways
,
as
well
in
the
Bipartite
,
as
in
the
Tripartite
Form
.
Therefore
he
must
surely
be
understood
to
respect
one
and
the
same
Age
in
the
same
Sentence
.
If
he
had
therein
an
Eye
unto
the
Apostolical
Age
,
Blundel's
Distinction
is
of
no
Advantage
to
our
Adversaries
.
Still
upon
that
supposition
,
there
were
three
Orders
in
the
Apostles
time
:
If
He
referred
to
his
own
Age
,
then
although
He
comprehends
'em
in
two
Words
,
yet
was
there
three
Orders
of
Ministers
in
the
Church
.
3.
Ignatius
can
with
no
Colour
of
reason
be
supposed
to
look
to
any
other
than
the
Apostolical
Age
,
wherein
he
lived
a
great
while
,
and
was
Martyr'd
but
about
ten
Years
after
the
Apostle
St.
John
.
His
three
Orders
therefore
Bishops
,
Presbyters
and
Deacons
,
were
not
,
strictly
speaking
,
of
Ecclesiastical
,
but
Apostolical
Constitution
.
By
consequence
Blundel's
device
makes
nothing
for
the
Identity
of
Bishops
and
Presbyters
.
4.
It
no
manner
of
way
relieves
our
Adversaries
,
from
our
Argument
grounded
on
the
Scriptures
,
which
use
the
Dichotomy
,
and
in
it
comprehend
the
three
Jewish
Orders
,
the
High-Priests
,
the
second
Priests
and
the
Levites
.
In
conformity
whereunto
the
Fathers
,
may
be
thought
to
have
summed
up
the
Christian
Ministers
in
two
Words
also
.
If
it
be
asked
,
with
what
Congruity
could
the
Fathers
so
often
fall
into
this
Dichotomy
,
and
yet
at
the
same
time
believe
the
three
Orders
to
be
by
Apostolical
Constitution
?
The
Answer
is
easy
.
Except
the
Ruling
part
,
that
's
to
say
,
the
Administration
of
the
Church
Government
,
and
Discipline
,
otherwise
the
Presbyters
were
and
still
are
among
us
,
as
it
were
equal
to
Bishops
,
sc.
in
the
Ministry
of
the
Word
and
Sacraments
,
wherein
they
Officiate
as
effectually
as
the
Bishops
themselves
:
for
which
Reason
they
may
be
accounted
the
Bishops
Peers
,
and
both
not
unfitly
called
by
one
common
name
.
Even
as
I
before
observed
from
St.
Chrysoftom
,
Presbyters
are
comprehended
in
Deacons
,
as
agreeing
in
some
things
common
to
both
.
8.
And
in
the
last
place
that
which
I
insist
,
and
chiefly
rely
upon
,
as
a
just
Answer
unto
the
Argument
grounded
on
St.
Clement's
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians
is
this
,
that
't
is
drawn
only
from
a
Negative
,
Clement's
not
expresly
mentioning
the
three
distinct
Orders
,
which
I
contend
is
unconcluding
.
I
have
oft
enough
produced
Instances
out
of
Scripture
,
of
the
Apostle's
not
constantly
remembring
all
the
Church-Officers
in
their
Epistles
,
and
frequently
mentioning
none
at
all
.
To
keep
my self
within
the
Compass
of
my
present
Province
,
the
Ecclesiastical
History
,
Ignatius
,
whose
great
Design
in
all
his
other
Epistles
was
to
assert
,
and
vindicate
the
three
Orders
of
Bishops
,
Presbyters
and
Deacons
,
passes
'em
all
over
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Romans
.
But
't
is
no
good
Consequence
that
therefore
the
Church
of
Rome
,
had
not
in
it
so
much
as
a
Presbyter
or
a
Deacon
.
It
may
farther
be
considered
,
that
much
more
an
Argument
deduced
from
an
Author's
silence
can
be
of
no
force
,
when
there
are
other
positive
,
and
express
Witnesses
attesting
the
Truth
brought
into
Question
.
If
a
Witness
deposes
,
that
John
and
Richard
,
were
engaged
in
the
Murder
of
Robert
,
this
shall
not
quit
Thomas
,
if
another
Witness
swears
he
also
had
an
hand
in
the
Assassination
.
Clement
mentions
Bishops
(
or
Presbyters
)
and
Deacons
,
not
so
much
as
intimating
,
that
there
was
a
Prelate
at
Corinth
(
let
that
now
be
supposed
:
)
But
his
Contemporary
Ignatius
,
has
again
and
again
testify'd
that
there
were
Bishops
,
Priests
and
Deacons
in
several
Churches
,
to
which
he
wrote
,
and
particularly
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Ephesians
,
that
there
were
these
three
distinct-Officers
,
throughout
the
World
as
far
as
he
knew
,
and
by
consequence
at
Corinth
;
Though
Clement
,
for
Reasons
best
known
unto
himself
,
thought
not
fit
to
mention
the
Prelate
.
Nor
can
it
with
Reason
be
pleaded
,
that
Ignatius
was
ignorant
of
the
Government
of
this
Apostolical
Church
of
Corinth
,
as
I
suppose
it
will
be
granted
.
From
the
whole
then
I
gather
that
Clement's
Silence
is
no
good
proof
,
that
there
was
no
Prelatical
Bishop
at
Corinth
,
because
his
Contemporary
is
positive
there
was
;
which
now
brings
me
to
the
Testimony
of
Ignatim
in
this
Controversy
.
CHAP.
II.
Ignatius
his
Testimony
.
IGnatius
,
Clement's
Contemporary
,
the
Disciple
and
Friend
of
St.
John
,
the
Apostle
,
and
Martyr
of
Jesus
Christ
,
has
so
plainly
,
so
fully
,
and
so
often
in
his
Epistles
,
given
in
his
Testimony
unto
the
three
distinct
Orders
of
Church-Officers
,
Bishops
,
Priests
and
Deacons
:
and
I
have
so
exactly
,
and
at
length
cited
his
Words
in
T.
N.
p.
59.
60
,
67
,
68
,
69
,
70
,
71
,
72
and
73.
that
one
might
justly
wonder
,
this
Truth
should
any
longer
be
called
into
Question
,
after
so
clear
Evidence
produced
.
Mr.
O.
has
sundry
things
to
throw
in
our
way
,
which
I
must
consider
in
their
Order
,
and
remove
,
if
it
be
possible
.
1.
Mr.
O.
would
bring
the
credit
of
these
Epistles
into
That
Daille
endeavoured
to
prove
'em
Spurious
,
and
La
Roque
with
great
Judgment
,
reply'd
unto
the
Learned
Bp.
of
Chester
,
Dr.
Pearson
,
who
had
endeavoured
to
confute
Monsieur
Daille
,
in
his
Vindiciae
Epist
.
S.
Ignatii
.
Ans.
The
Genuineness
of
these
Epistles
was
never
questioned
by
any
Learned
Man
,
that
I
know
of
,
since
Dr.
Pearson
published
his
vindication
of
'em
,
save
by
Monsieur
La
Roque
,
who
attempted
to
support
Monsieur
Daille
but
without
success
.
I
never
heard
he
gained
any
one
Proselyte
.
'T
is
confessed
,
I
have
not
read
that
French
Gentleman's
Book
,
the
Reason
whereof
is
,
that
when
Dr.
Pearson
was
by
his
Friends
dealt
with
to
make
a
Reply
to
La
Roque
,
the
Wise
Man
answered
,
There
was
no
need
of
it
,
that
La
Roque
had
advanced
nothing
of
Moment
against
his
Vindiciae
,
and
that
the
Authority
of
St.
Ignatius's
Epistles
remained
still
unquestionable
.
This
I
remember
very
well
was
the
common
Discourse
among
us
many
Years
ago
,
in
the
University
of
Cambridge
,
and
the
Event
confirms
it
:
no
Body
now
daring
to
deny
them
,
not
the
Dissenters
themselves
,
though
sometimes
in
general
they
would
have
'em
pass
for
uncertain
.
It
's
not
intended
hereby
to
disparage
Monsieur
La
Roque
in
the
least
.
His
Misfortune
was
,
that
,
He
undertook
the
Defence
of
an
ill
Cause
against
a
Potent
Adversary
,
in
such
a
Case
the
Learned'st
Man
in
the
World
,
must
be
forced
to
retire
with
dishonour
and
disappointment
.
But
for
Mr.
O.
to
say
that
,
'T
was
not
agreed
among
the
Learned
,
&c.
when
one
only
Learned
Man
is
to
be
found
that
stands
out
,
is
too
much
(
I
think
)
to
offer
unto
the
World
,
as
if
the
Balance
were
even
,
and
the
Learned
equally
divided
about
the
Genuineness
of
Ignatius's
Epistles
.
I
am
perswaded
Mr.
O.
himself
believes
,
what
Bishop
Pearson
has
proved
'em
to
be
,
though
he
would
〈◊〉
that
they
are
yet
doubtful
:
But
enough
of
this
.
2.
Mr.
O.
further
contends
,
There
are
strong
presumptions
,
Ans.
The
Presumptions
Mr.
O.
means
are
those
He
speaks
of
in
his
Plea
and
Defence
,
as
I
suppose
,
grounded
upon
some
slight
Passages
in
the
Epistles
,
as
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
such
like
,
of
which
enough
has
already
been
said
,
unless
their
sense
could
be
more
certainly
determined
.
For
He
and
I
may
talk
and
dispute
till
Dooms-Days
,
that
thus
,
or
thus
those
Phrases
may
or
ought
to
signifie
,
and
at
last
leave
the
Matter
as
we
found
it
,
undecided
,
and
every
Man
to
choose
what
sense
he
pleases
,
as
his
Interest
sways
him
,
or
as
his
Affections
and
adherence
to
a
Cause
shall
Byass
him
.
Letting
then
these
things
pass
;
the
Answer
which
I
make
,
shall
be
to
lay
before
the
Reader
some
Reasons
,
as
will
I
hope
evince
the
Truth
,
and
prevail
with
him
,
to
embrace
the
sense
of
this
Father
,
which
we
have
already
given
,
and
to
believe
that
Ignatius
his
Bishops
were
truly
Prelatical
and
Diocesan
.
And
,
1.
Were
it
as
Mr.
O.
affirms
,
yet
the
Dissenters
are
Universally
departed
even
from
this
Form
of
Church
Government
.
What
one
Congregation
among
'em
has
its
Bishops
,
Presbyters
and
Deacons
,
and
the
Bishop
the
Supreme
Manager
without
whom
nothing
ought
to
be
done
?
But
2.
Whereas
he
tells
us
,
that
Ignatius
his
Bishop
was
but
the
chief
Pastor
of
a
Church
,
that
is
the
Moderator
of
the
Presbytery
,
this
cannot
be
,
if
we
will
allow
Ignatius
to
have
been
a
Man
of
common
Sense
and
Understanding
.
For
what
more
absurd
and
impertinent
,
could
have
been
written
than
all
along
in
these
seven
Epistles
,
to
distinguish
so
carefully
between
the
Bishop
,
and
his
Presbyters
,
and
yet
all
the
while
the
Bishop
,
was
but
one
of
the
Presbyters
,
set
up
only
to
Moderate
in
their
Presbyteries
,
and
debates
for
Orders
sake
?
Or
how
could
Ignatius
direct
,
(
as
Mr.
O.
pleads
)
that
the
Presbyters
,
should
do
nothing
without
the
Bishop
,
nor
the
Bishop
without
the
Presbyters
,
except
he
thought
the
Bishop
a
distinct
Species
of
Officer
from
the
Presbyters
,
and
the
Presbyters
from
the
Bishop
?
The
Bishop
then
,
and
the
Presbyter
must
needs
be
two
different
Orders
,
in
Ignatius's
Opinion
.
It
is
objected
,
that
since
the
Obligation
was
reciprocal
,
i.
e.
the
Bishop
could
do
nothing
without
the
Presbyters
,
as
the
Presbyters
could
not
Act
without
the
Bishop
,
the
Bishop
therefore
had
no
preheminence
above
the
Presbyters
.
I
answer
,
1.
That
however
the
Bishop
must
be
allowed
to
have
been
more
than
an
Ordinary
Presbyter
,
yea
at
least
equal
to
the
whole
Presbytery
,
and
to
have
himself
made
a
distinct
Order
from
it
,
(
the
very
Reciprocal
Obligation
here
objected
of
necessity
implies
as
much
)
.
2.
Not
only
so
,
but
as
the
King
is
the
Supreme
Monarch
of
this
Nation
,
and
more
than
the
Lords
or
Commons
,
though
He
can
enact
no
Law
without
the
Parliament
,
as
the
Parliament
cannot
without
him
;
as
the
King
,
I
say
,
makes
a
distinct
State
of
the
Realm
(
this
I
think
Mr.
O.
will
grant
)
so
was
Ignatius
his
Bishop
,
an
Officer
different
from
the
Presbyters
(
if
the
Father
spake
Sense
in
his
Epistle
)
and
Superior
to
them
.
If
it
be
enquired
,
wherein
could
his
Supremacy
consist
?
I
reply
,
that
after
any
Laws
and
Constitutions
were
resolved
on
,
between
the
Bishop
and
the
Presbytery
,
or
whatever
was
known
to
have
been
ordained
by
the
Apostles
,
he
had
the
care
and
oversight
to
see
'em
executed
,
and
in
matters
of
greatest
moment
,
he
generally
was
the
executor
of
'em
himself
in
Person
,
as
the
King
is
in
the
Secular
Affairs
of
this
Nation
.
For
as
the
King
does
nothing
,
that
is
,
makes
no
New
Laws
without
the
Parliament
,
yet
he
sees
to
the
Execution
of
'em
after
they
are
once
made
,
and
of
all
other
the
ancient
Laws
of
the
Realm
,
and
that
without
the
Parliament
:
so
the
Bishop
though
he
did
nothing
,
that
is
made
no
New
Constitutions
without
the
Presbytery
,
yet
't
was
he
who
had
the
care
of
their
Execution
,
and
of
the
more
Ancient
,
and
Apostolical
Decrees
and
Traditions
.
It
must
necessarily
have
been
so
,
if
Ignatius
his
Epistles
carry
any
Sense
in
them
.
But
perhaps
a
positive
proof
of
all
this
will
be
demanded
from
me
out
of
the
Epistles
.
To
this
purpose
,
then
observe
,
1.
What
Ignatius
writes
to
the
Ephesians
—
Whom
the
Master
(
Jesus
Christ
)
sends
unto
the
Administration
of
his
own
Houshold
(
the
Church
)
we
ought
so
to
receive
him
as
we
would
receive
the
Master
that
sent
him
.
'T
is
then
manifest
we
ought
to
look
upon
the
Bishop
,
as
we
ought
to
look
upon
the
Lord
(
Jesus
Christ
)
.
Here
it
appears
,
that
Ignatius
accounted
the
Bishop
to
be
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
Administrator
of
the
Church
or
Houshold
.
2.
That
though
Ignatius
exhorts
the
Churches
to
be
subject
to
,
and
obey
the
Bishop
and
the
Presbyters
also
,
(
And
so
He
does
to
the
Deacons
too
,
in
the
Epistles
to
the
Trallians
,
Philadelphians
,
and
Smyrneans
)
:
yet
he
never
thus
prescribes
Obedience
to
the
Presbyters
,
or
the
Presbyteries
only
,
or
without
mentioning
the
Bishop
with
and
before
'em
.
But
he
frequently
admonishes
the
Church
to
obey
the
Bishop
without
express
mention
of
the
Presbyters
.
3.
That
though
He
advises
the
Church
to
be
subject
unto
the
Bishop
and
Presbytery
(
and
to
the
Deacons
also
)
,
yet
he
never
advises
them
expresly
to
do
nothing
without
the
Presbyters
,
or
Presbytery
.
Besides
,
Mr.
O's
saying
that
the
Bishop
could
do
nothing
without
the
Presbyters
,
is
without
ground
in
these
Epistles
,
it
being
never
said
,
Do
nothing
without
the
Bishop
and
the
Presbytery
,
much
less
simply
,
Do
nothing
without
the
Presbyters
.
4.
'T
is
not
to
be
forgotten
,
what
Ignatius
takes
special
notice
of
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Magnesians
—
You
must
not
abuse
or
despise
Voss.
Edit
.
p.
31.
the
Youth
of
our
Bishop
(
Demas
)
,
but
pay
him
all
Reverence
,
as
I
know
the
Holy
Presbyters
do
,
who
look
on
the
Ordinance
(
the
Bishop
as
I
take
it
,
or
the
Episcopacy
)
not
as
a
new
Device
;
but
as
Wise
Men
they
submit
unto
him
in
the
Lord
,
or
as
the
Institution
of
Jesus
Christ
.
So
then
the
Presbyters
were
subject
and
obedient
to
the
Bishop
.
But
where
will
it
be
found
,
that
the
Bishop
is
admonished
or
advised
to
obey
the
Presbyters
?
5.
When
Ignatius
was
in
Bonds
ravished
from
his
People
,
or
Church
,
H
thus
writes
to
the
Romans
—
Which
(
the
Church
in
Syria
)
in
my
stead
now
〈◊〉
the
Lord
only
for
its
Shepherd
.
But
though
the
Church
of
Syria
had
lost
its
Bishop
,
and
was
then
at
present
without
one
,
yet
surely
they
had
not
lost
all
their
Presbyters
.
And
if
the
Church
of
Syria
retained
yet
her
Presbyters
,
as
by
the
quiet
that
Church
even
then
had
must
be
thought
,
they
Is.
Voss.
Ed.
P.
45.
might
easily
have
made
to
themselves
a
Chief
Pastor
or
Moderator
,
out
of
their
remaining
Number
,
and
not
been
destitute
of
a
Shepherd
(
as
Ignatius
bewails
)
whole
loss
or
absence
at
present
,
could
only
be
supply'd
by
the
chief
Shepherd
and
Bishop
of
their
Souls
.
Here
by
the
way
,
the
conceit
of
a
temporary
Moderator
,
must
be
thrown
out
of
Doors
.
Ignatius
was
Bishop
of
,
Syria
for
life
:
nor
could
they
have
another
whilst
He
was
living
,
tho'
absent
in
Bonds
.
This
was
the
Reason
,
he
so
Passionately
resented
the
unhappiness
of
that
Church
of
Syria
,
that
they
were
forced
to
be
without
a
Bishop
,
which
they
needed
not
to
have
been
,
if
another
〈◊〉
Pastor
and
Moderator
might
have
been
constituted
in
his
absence
and
Life-time
,
which
by
the
Presbyterian
Principles
might
easily
have
been
done
.
6.
Ignatius
over
and
over
prescribes
,
that
the
Churches
should
do
nothing
without
the
Bishop
,
and
not
only
so
in
these
General
Terms
,
(
which
haply
will
be
understood
of
his
presiding
in
Presbyteries
,
and
moderating
in
their
Debates
for
Order's
sake
)
,
but
also
in
particular
,
that
Marriages
should
not
be
Celebrated
,
the
Lord's-Supper
should
not
be
administred
,
nor
Baptism
given
unto
.
Believers
without
him
,
without
his
appointment
and
approbation
.
This
shews
that
Ignatius
his
Bishop
,
was
not
only
the
President
in
their
Synods
and
Deliberations
,
but
the
Supreme
Director
of
the
Execution
of
the
Laws
,
and
Rules
of
the
Church
,
without
whose
leave
the
〈◊〉
could
not
Marry
,
nor
Administer
the
Sacraments
.
'T
is
all
we
desire
of
the
Dissenters
,
if
we
might
prevail
with
'em
,
that
they
would
not
presume
to
do
any
thing
without
the
Bishop
,
and
particularly
not
to
Ordain
Presbyters
.
Lastly
,
Although
he
often
calls
the
Presbytery
the
Council
of
God
,
and
College
of
the
Apostles
,
yet
to
keep
chief
Pastor
:
or
Moderator
in
their
Assembles
pro
tempore
.
They
were
Prelatical
,
and
in
the
nature
of
their
Office
Superior
to
Presbyters
.
It
remains
that
we
shew
,
they
were
Diocesan
Bishops
,
that
is
,
had
the
oversight
of
more
than
one
Congregation
;
for
this
is
another
Objection
Mr.
O.
has
raised
against
our
established
Diocesan
Episcopacy
.
For
Proof
hereof
let
it
be
remembred
.
1.
That
if
there
were
not
in
Ignatius
his
time
,
de
facto
Diocesan
Bishops
,
they
were
at
least
formed
and
designed
for
such
,
when
ever
the
multitude
of
Believers
should
be
encreased
.
It
has
already
been
observed
,
that
Titus
left
by
St.
Paul
in
Crete
,
to
Govern
that
Church
,
was
particularly
directed
by
the
Apostle
to
Ordain
Elders
in
every
City
,
in
all
,
or
as
many
Cities
as
should
afterward
receive
the
Faith
,
or
in
Order
to
convert
more
of
'em
.
I
gather
hence
that
Titus
was
intended
to
be
the
Ruler
of
all
these
Congregations
.
Let
Mr.
O.
make
him
a
Bishop
,
or
an
Archbishop
,
't
is
all
one
to
me
;
he
was
constituted
to
be
Ruler
over
many
Cities
and
Congregations
.
Thus
at
least
it
was
(
I
conceive
)
in
these
Asiatick
Churches
to
whom
Ignatius
wrote
,
as
will
hence
appear
,
viz.
that
every
of
these
Churches
was
furnished
with
a
Prelatical
Bishop
,
with
Presbyters
and
Deacons
under
him
.
To
what
purpose
else
so
many
Presbyters
,
and
such
distinct
kinds
of
Orders
?
One
or
two
at
most
might
have
sufficed
'em
at
present
,
especially
if
it
be
considered
,
that
the
Christians
at
that
time
were
not
in
so
flourishing
a
condition
,
as
to
be
able
to
maintain
so
many
Church-Officers
for
one
Congregation
;
nor
was
there
business
enough
to
employ
'em
all
in
the
service
of
that
one
Congregation
.
'T
is
then
most
rational
to
believe
,
that
so
many
Presbyters
and
Deacons
,
were
provided
at
least
for
carrying
on
the
Conversion
of
the
Infidels
,
and
multiplying
them
into
several
Congregations
.
But
if
every
Congregation
,
must
have
had
or
was
,
intended
to
have
a
Bishop
,
we
should
doubtléss
have
read
of
Bishops
,
ex
.
gr
.
at
Ephesus
,
as
well
as
Presbyters
in
the
Plural
.
Let
us
then
suppose
what
is
most
reasonable
to
admit
,
that
some
at
least
of
these
Churches
had
been
in
Ignatius's
time
,
multiply'd
into
several
Congregations
,
yet
still
there
was
but
one
Bishop
.
I
do
not
remember
that
ever
we
read
of
two
Bishops
,
of
any
one
City
in
all
Antiquity
,
excepting
when
the
Christians
of
that
City
were
harrassed
and
disturbed
,
with
Schisms
and
Divisions
.
Now
who
can
imagin
,
that
no
one
City
in
the
World
,
even
in
Ignatius's
time
,
Plin.
l.
10.
E.
97.
ever
had
more
Believers
in
and
near
it
,
than
did
Assemble
for
Divine
Worship
in
one
place
?
Especially
in
those
times
of
Persecution
,
when
the
Christians
skulked
,
and
could
not
with
safety
meet
in
great
numbers
,
nor
had
Rooms
capacious
enough
,
and
therefore
cantoned
themselves
into
several
Meetings
.
Let
any
one
put
all
these
things
together
,
and
impartially
weigh
them
,
and
he
will
not
easily
grant
that
Paradox
,
that
there
was
no
more
than
one
single
Congregation
in
any
City
;
nor
will
he
make
any
scruple
to
believe
that
Ignatius's
Bishop
,
was
at
least
designed
to
preside
over
several
Presbyters
and
Congregations
.
Lastly
,
the
Negative
that
there
was
but
one
Congregation
in
any
of
'em
has
not
been
proved
,
neither
can
by
any
express
Testimony
.
I
conćeive
it
behoves
our
Dissenters
,
to
make
this
out
before
they
can
throughly
justifie
their
Congregational
Churches
.
But
let
us
now
come
to
particulars
,
and
therefore
.
2.
Note
,
that
Ignatius
stiles
himself
Bishop
of
Syria
,
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Romans
.
Now
how
large
a
tract
Syria
contained
,
I
need
not
say
,
neither
will
I
affirm
he
was
Bishop
of
all
Syria
,
taken
in
its
utmost
Latitude
.
But
seeing
he
calls
himself
,
and
was
Bishop
of
Syria
,
't
was
more
than
of
the
bare
City
Antioch
,
as
any
one
will
confess
.
His
Episcopal
Power
must
have
extended
unto
some
considerable
compass
of
Ground
,
in
the
adjacent
parts
of
the
Country
,
else
it
had
been
foolish
to
have
pretended
himself
,
to
be
the
Bishop
of
Syria
,
when
he
was
only
Bishop
of
Antioch
,
and
of
one
Congregation
there
.
Will
any
one
then
suffer
himself
to
believe
〈◊〉
was
Bishop
but
of
one
Congregation
only
?
It
cannot
enter
into
my
head
so
much
as
to
think
it
possible
:
because
it
must
be
supposed
there
were
Congregations
in
Syria
as
well
as
at
Antioch
:
in
Country
as
〈◊〉
as
City
.
3.
I
reckon
also
that
the
Church
of
Ephesus
,
consisted
of
more
than
one
Congregation
,
and
my
Reasons
are
1.
As
I
argued
in
T.
N.
p.
145.
from
Act.
19.
10.
That
the
Church
of
Ephesus
took
in
all
Asia
—
All
they
of
Asia
heard
the
Word
of
the
Lord
Jesus
,
from
the
mouth
of
Paul
,
who
then
resided
at
Ephesus
,
and
there
Preached
the
Gospel
first
in
the
Synagogue
(
v.
8.
)
then
in
the
School
of
Tyrannus
(
v.
9.
)
.
Asia
,
I
expounded
Asia
the
Proper
:
but
I
would
crave
leave
a
little
to
mend
that
Gloss
,
understanding
it
only
of
some
of
the
nearer
parts
of
it
,
adjoining
unto
Ephesus
,
which
belonged
ùnto
Asia
the
Proper
.
And
wheras
the
Historian
expresses
Himself
thus
largely
all
Asia
,
and
yet
intends
(
as
I
suppose
only
the
Neigbhouring
parts
of
it
,
we
need
not
much
admire
at
this
,
since
it
is
so
said
to
aggrandize
and
Magnify
the
success
,
and
Increase
of
the
Gospel
.
We
have
an
Instance
of
this
kind
of
expression
in
the
Chapter
before
us
,
Act.
19.
27.
where
the
mad
and
superstitious
People
of
Ephesus
Glory
of
their
Goddess
Diana
,
that
all
Asia
,
and
the
World
Worshippeth
Her
:
and
yet
,
v.
34.
she
is
called
Diana
of
the
Ephesians
:
at
least
she
was
not
Worshipped
all
the
World
over
strictly
speaking
.
So
I
read
Jo.
12.
19.
Behold
the
World
is
gone
after
him
;
and
yet
only
some
Numbers
of
the
Jews
followed
Christ
.
In
short
,
by
all
Asia
,
is
to
be
understood
the
Ephesian
Asia
,
or
that
part
which
adjoined
pretty
close
unto
Ephesus
,
whither
their
secular
business
oft
drew
the
Country
People
:
Their
Curiosity
first
lead
them
unto
the
Synagogue
and
School
of
Tyrannus
,
and
so
they
became
Acquainted
with
the
Word
of
the
Lord
Jesus
and
embraced
it
,
of
these
Country
Converts
we
read
in
this
Chapter
,
v.
31.
—
And
certain
of
the
chief
of
Asia
,
which
were
his
Friends
sent
unto
him
,
&c.
Nor
is
it
an
unusual
thing
to
call
the
parts
of
a
Country
,
near
unto
the
Principal
City
by
the
general
Name
of
the
Province
,
whereof
it
is
but
a
little
Member
.
Thus
(
as
is
before
observed
)
Ignatius
stiles
Himself
Bishop
of
Syria
;
not
of
all
Syria
,
properly
so
called
,
as
will
I
hope
be
granted
me
,
but
of
the
Country
round
about
Antioch
,
which
was
within
the
limits
of
Syria
.
So
then
if
all
they
which
dwelt
in
Asia
,
in
the
Adjacent
parts
of
Ephesus
,
as
well
as
in
the
City
its
self
,
heard
the
Word
of
the
Lord
Jesus
,
both
Jews
and
Greeks
,
v.
10.
and
this
within
the
space
of
those
two
Years
,
the
Apostle
remained
at
Ephesus
,
it
must
be
allowed
that
the
Church
of
Ephesus
was
too
numerous
to
be
contained
within
one
Single
Congregation
;
and
it
is
reasonable
to
believe
,
that
there
were
some
Congregations
in
the
〈◊〉
(
especially
in
Ignatius's
time
)
which
the
Presbyters
of
Ephesus
,
in
Ordinary
,
attended
under
the
Bishop
.
If
it
be
doubted
whether
these
Country
Proselytes
,
or
these
Country
Congregations
,
were
Members
of
the
Church
of
Ephesus
,
some
Reasons
or
Evidences
to
the
contrary
must
be
assigned
.
We
read
no
where
of
any
Prelatical
Church
(
which
must
be
confessed
,
the
Form
of
Church
Government
thereabouts
in
Ignatius's
Time
)
nearer
Ephesus
,
than
that
at
Magnesia
,
distant
from
Ephesus
about
fourscore
Miles
.
But
that
the
Country
Presbyters
and
Congregations
within
the
foresaid
Tract
,
did
belong
unto
Ephesus
is
most
probable
hence
,
that
the
Scripture
all
along
speaks
of
the
Church
of
Ephesus
and
of
Asia
,
as
one
and
the
same
Church
:
Acts
20.
18.
Ye
know
(
says
He
to
the
Ephesian
Elders
)
after
what
manner
I
have
been
with
you
from
the
first
day
,
that
I
came
into
Asia
.
Acts
19.
31.
Certain
of
the
chief
of
Asia
.
2
Cor.
1.
8.
We
would
not
(
Brethren
)
have
you
ignorant
of
our
trouble
,
which
came
to
us
in
Asia
.
Acts
20.
16.
Paul
determined
to
sail
by
Ephesus
,
because
He
would
not
spend
the
time
in
Asia
.
These
expressions
could
never
have
dropt
from
the
Holy
Pen-Men
,
except
the
Church
of
Ephesus
had
extended
its
self
,
round
about
in
the
Country
of
Asia
.
We
read
〈◊〉
times
that
when
St.
Paul
speaks
of
the
Affairs
of
Corinth
,
He
uses
the
Word
Achaia
(
whereof
Corinth
was
the
Principal
City
.
Rom.
15.
26
,
16.
6.
〈◊〉
Cor.
16.
15.
2
Cor.
9.
2.
1
Thes.
1.
7.
)
Which
is
an
Evidence
,
that
the
Church
of
Corinth
comprehended
a
good
part
of
Achaia
.
From
the
whole
I
gather
there
must
needs
have
been
several
Congregations
,
belonging
to
the
Church
of
Ephesus
,
even
in
St.
Paul's
days
,
much
more
in
the
days
of
Ignatius
,
and
if
so
,
then
Onesimus
was
a
Diocesan
Bishop
of
Ephesus
.
But
Secondly
.
I
also
pretended
to
evince
by
an
Heap
of
Arguments
T.
N.
p.
139.
140
,
141.
collected
from
the
Form
of
Church
Government
,
drawn
up
by
the
Assembly
of
Divines
,
and
Vindicated
by
the
London
Ministers
after
in
their
Jus
Divinum
Ministerii
Anglicani
,
that
in
St.
Paul's
Time
,
there
were
several
Congregations
in
the
Church
of
Ephesus
:
Mr.
O.
who
tells
his
Reader
somewhere
in
his
Defence
,
that
He
has
followed
and
Answered
me
Paragraph
by
Paragraph
,
has
made
a
shift
to
skip
over
these
Proofs
:
They
come
too
near
the
Quick
.
I
shall
be
forced
therefore
for
that
Reason
,
and
the
more
strongly
to
Establish
my
Position
to
repeat
them
once
more
,
and
so
dismiss
the
Epistles
of
Ignatius
.
The
Assembly
,
and
the
London
Divines
,
undertook
to
evince
by
Scripture
,
that
even
in
the
Days
of
St.
Paul
,
there
were
several
Congregations
in
the
Church
of
Ephesus
,
and
argued
as
follows
—
The
Number
of
Prophets
and
Teachers
at
Ephesus
were
many
,
Paul
continued
there
two
Years
and
three
Months
,
settled
thereabout
twelve
Disciples
,
who
Prophesied
Act.
19.
1.
6
,
7.
How
should
these
thirteen
Ministers
be
employ'd
,
if
there
were
not
many
Congregations
?
compare
also
Act.
20.
17
,
18
,
36
,
37.
where
't
is
said
of
the
Bishops
(
or
Presbyters
)
of
Ephesus
,
that
Paul
〈◊〉
down
and
prayed
with
them
all
,
and
they
all
wept
sore
.
Here
is
a
good
number
imply'd
.
The
gift
of
Tongues
,
also
was
given
unto
all
these
twelve
Prophets
,
Act.
19.
6
,
7.
To
what
end
,
if
they
had
not
several
Congregations
to
speak
unto
in
these
several
Tongues
?
The
multitude
of
believers
must
needs
be
great
at
Ephesus
.
For
first
,
why
should
Paul
,
who
had
Universal
Commission
to
plant
Churches
in
all
the
World
,
stay
about
two
Years
at
Ephesus
,
if
no
more
had
been
converted
there
,
than
to
make
up
one
single
Congregation
?
Act.
19.
8
,
10.
During
this
space
(
secondly
)
all
that
dwelt
in
Asia
(
usually
Meeting
at
Ephesus
for
Worship
)
heard
the
Word
of
the
Lord
Jesus
,
both
Jews
and
Greeks
.
Act.
19.
10.
At
the
knowledge
of
Paul's
Miracles
(
thirdly
)
Fear
fell
upon
all
the
Jews
and
Greeks
,
dwelling
at
Ephesus
,
and
the
Name
of
the
Lord
Jesus
was
magnified
,
Act.
19.
17.
Many
of
the
believes
(
fourthly
)
came
,
and
confessed
and
shewed
their
deeds
,
v.
18.
whereby
is
intimated
,
that
more
did
believe
than
did
thus
,
(
fifthly
)
Many
also
of
them
that
used
curious
Arts
,
brought
their
Books
together
and
burnt
them
before
all
Men
,
and
they
counted
the
price
of
them
,
and
found
it
fifty
thousand
pieces
of
Silver
,
(
This
they
would
never
have
done
publickly
,
if
the
Major
part
,
or
atleast
a
very
great
and
considerable
part
of
the
City
,
had
not
embraced
the
Faith
,
that
City
being
so
furiously
zealous
in
their
Superstition
and
Idolatry
)
.
So
mightily
grew
the
Word
of
God
and
prevailed
,
Act.
19.
19
,
20.
Paul
testifies
(
sixthly
)
that
at
Ephesus
a
great
Door
,
and
Effectual
was
opened
unto
Him
,
viz.
a
most
advantagious
opportunity
of
bringing
in
a
mighty
Harvest
of
Souls
to
Christ
.
1
Cor.
16.
8
,
9.
Put
all
these
together
,
how
is
it
possible
to
imagine
upon
any
solid
〈◊〉
,
that
there
were
no
more
than
one
single
Congregation
in
the
Church
of
Ephesus
?
These
are
the
Assemblies
,
and
London
Ministers
Arguments
,
which
Mr.
O.
may
do
well
at
his
leisure
to
confute
if
He
can
.
If
He
can't
,
and
as
I
am
apt
to
suspect
will
not
endeavour
,
then
my
point
is
gained
.
For
if
even
in
Paul's
days
,
there
were
many
Congregations
in
the
Church
of
Ephesus
,
then
much
more
in
the
times
of
Ignatius
,
the
Christian
Religion
doubtless
getting
ground
continually
in
those
parts
upon
the
Gentile
Superstition
,
as
is
manifest
afterwards
from
the
Churches
hereabouts
planted
,
and
mentioned
in
the
Revelations
;
to
which
may
be
added
Magnesia
and
Trallis
out
of
Ignatius's
Epistles
,
none
of
which
are
to
be
found
in
the
story
of
St.
Paul
,
except
Laodicea
,
that
I
can
remember
.
Now
I
will
not
contend
that
,
every
of
the
Churches
spoken
of
in
Ignatius
was
〈◊〉
Diocesan
,
not
knowing
how
early
they
were
planted
.
But
thus
much
I
repeat
again
,
they
were
intended
to
be
cast
into
the
same
Model
as
Ephefus
was
,
as
many
be
gathered
from
the
Bishops
,
Presbyters
and
Deacons
fixt
in
them
,
which
was
,
as
I
may
say
,
the
Foundation
of
larger
Churches
to
consist
of
many
Congregations
,
after
more
believers
,
should
by
the
Grace
of
God
,
be
added
unto
the
Churches
.
By
this
time
(
I
am
in
some
Hopes
)
't
is
undeniably
proved
,
1.
That
the
Bishops
of
those
Churches
,
to
whom
Ignatius
wrote
,
were
Prelatical
,
that
is
,
were
of
a
Distinct
species
of
Church-Officers
,
and
Superior
to
the
Presbyters
,
who
were
subject
to
them
.
2.
That
they
were
likewise
Diocesan
,
that
is
,
Rulers
over
several
Congregations
,
and
over
the
Presbyters
and
Deacons
,
who
Ordinarily
Ministred
in
them
,
from
whence
it
must
be
concluded
that
the
several
Passages
,
of
whose
Sense
Mr.
O.
and
I
have
disputed
,
must
be
so
expounded
as
to
be
made
agreeable
to
Prelatical
and
Diocesan
Episcopacy
.
Whether
I
have
done
it
,
is
left
to
the
Judgment
of
the
Reader
,
if
He
please
to
consult
the
T.
N.
To
speak
only
of
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
one
Altar
,
very
briefly
,
because
He
alledges
the
Testimony
,
of
no
less
a
Man
,
than
the
Famous
Mr.
Mede
,
for
one
Numerical
Altar
,
and
not
a
Specifical
one
,
as
I
expounded
it
.
Those
Words
in
Ignatius's
Epistle
,
ad
Magnes
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
are
thought
to
favour
one
Numerical
Altar
,
which
Mr.
O.
contends
for
,
of
which
thus
Mr.
Mede
delivers
Himself
—
Here
is
a
Ans.
No
more
have
we
at
this
day
.
Though
we
have
many
Churches
in
a
Diocess
,
yet
every
Church
has
an
Altar
,
and
but
one
:
and
so
it
might
be
at
Magnesia
,
for
any
thing
that
is
yet
said
to
the
contrary
.
But
Mr.
Mede
goes
on
—
It
should
seem
they
had
but
one
Altar
to
a
Church
,
taking
Church
for
the
Company
or
Corporation
,
of
the
Faithful
United
under
one
Bishop
,
in
the
City
or
place
where
the
Bishop
had
his
See
or
Residence
;
as
the
Jews
had
one
Temple
,
and
one
Altar
for
the
Whole
Nation
,
United
under
one
High-Priest
.
The
Author
endeavours
to
confirm
this
(
as
Mr.
O.
truly
says
)
out
of
Justin
Martyr
,
and
St.
Cyprian
.
Ans.
But
still
Mr.
O.
misrepresents
Mr.
Mede
,
as
if
He
were
positive
herein
,
which
is
not
so
.
For
1.
Mr.
Mede
lays
down
his
position
very
cautiously
—
it
should
seem
:
intimating
,
it
was
not
very
clear
from
those
Words
of
Ignatius
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
;
for
these
Words
many
imply
only
,
that
every
Temple
had
but
one
Altar
,
as
it
is
with
us
,
and
yet
there
might
be
more
Temples
than
one
in
the
Bishop's
Churches
,
and
therefore
more
Altars
.
2.
Mr.
Mede
at
the
same
time
,
thinketh
the
Bishop's
Churches
to
have
been
Diocesan
:
For
though
they
had
not
several
Altars
,
yet
they
had
several
Oratories
or
lesser
Temples
(
says
He
)
as
the
Jews
had
their
Synagogues
.
So
that
the
one
Numerical
Altar
in
the
Bishop's
Church
,
does
not
prove
his
Church
to
consist
of
one
Congregation
only
in
this
Learned
Gentleman's
Opinion
;
no
more
than
the
one
Altar
in
the
Temple
of
the
Jews
,
proves
there
were
no
Synagogues
.
3.
Mr.
Mede
to
back
his
Conjecture
,
grounded
on
Ignatius
,
produces
two
Testimonies
,
the
one
out
of
Justin
,
the
other
out
of
Cyprian
;
and
because
he
is
not
positive
or
certain
of
the
Conclusion
he
draws
from
them
,
it
will
be
no
breach
of
Modesty
,
if
I
examine
whether
Mr.
Mede
has
well
grounded
his
Conjecture
on
those
two
Fathers
.
Justin
Martyr
in
his
second
Apology
thus
writes
—
All
that
live
in
Cities
or
Countries
,
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
plural
)
meet
togeher
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
in
one
place
(
so
Mr.
Mede
)
to
Celebrate
the
Holy
Eucharist
.
This
Passage
does
not
evince
that
the
Bishop's
Church
taken
for
the
whole
Company
of
Believers
united
under
him
had
but
one
Altar
,
for
which
I
offer
the
following
Reasons
,
First
,
Because
Justin
here
intends
not
to
give
the
Gentiles
an
Account
of
the
Politie
,
and
Government
of
the
Christian
Churches
;
nor
how
many
sort
of
Church-Officers
there
were
among
them
,
nor
how
many
Congregations
under
one
Bishop
,
but
of
the
manner
of
their
Divine
Worship
,
and
that
not
in
one
single
Congregation
,
but
in
all
;
His
meaning
is
that
in
all
Towns
and
Countries
throughout
the
World
,
the
Christians
belonging
to
any
one
Congregation
,
or
certain
district
met
together
,
&c.
For
all
this
there
might
be
several
Congregations
under
One
Bishop
.
If
I
for
example
should
write
to
a
Foreigner
,
concerning
the
manner
of
our
Worship
here
in
England
,
not
intermedling
with
the
Nature
of
our
Government
,
might
I
not
,
ought
I
not
to
say
?
All
that
live
in
Towns
or
Countries
(
or
where-ever
there
is
a
Congregation
)
meet
together
in
one
place
,
though
at
the
same
time
there
be
many
Churches
,
and
many
Congregations
,
united
under
one
Bishop
of
the
Diocess
,
which
thus
meet
together
for
Divine
Worship
?
Secondly
,
Whereas
Justin
mentions
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
President
,
who
Celebrates
the
Divine
Worship
in
these
single
Congregations
,
there
is
no
necessity
of
Understanding
Him
,
speaking
of
the
Bishop
only
.
He
may
using
one
common
Title
for
both
,
speak
of
the
Presbyters
,
who
preside
over
the
Divine
Worship
in
their
particular
Congregations
.
So
Mr.
Mede
expounds
Antistes
afterward
;
not
the
Bishop
only
,
but
the
Bishop
or
Presbyter
,
that
is
,
He
who
Ministers
in
the
Congregation
at
that
time
.
Thirdly
,
Supposing
He
means
the
Bishop
,
He
does
but
instance
in
,
and
exemplify
the
Christian
Worship
,
by
the
most
Honourable
Assembly
,
sc.
that
,
wherein
the
Bishop
himself
Ordinarily
Presided
in
Person
,
not
excluding
others
,
wherein
the
Presbyters
Ministred
.
Fourthly
,
Justin
,
because
he
writes
in
the
Plural
Towns
and
Countries
,
and
of
Christian
Worship
in
General
,
or
indefinitely
must
here
intend
all
Christian
Assembles
in
the
World
:
And
therefore
it
may
as
well
hence
be
concluded
,
that
there
was
but
one
Numerical
Congregation
or
Altar
in
the
World
,
as
that
there
was
but
one
in
the
Bishop's
Church
.
Upon
the
whole
matter
,
the
Point
is
no
manner
of
way
proved
from
Justin
Martyr
.
As
for
St.
Cyprian
,
who
condemns
the
setting
up
Altar
against
Altar
,
it
can't
thence
be
gathered
,
that
a
Diocesan
Bishop
had
but
one
Numerical
Altar
.
What
this
Father
blames
,
is
setting
up
an
Altar
against
the
Bishop's
Altar
,
in
opposition
to
it
,
not
in
Subordination
to
and
Communion
with
it
.
It
is
true
here
what
our
Lord
spake
on
another
occasion
,
He
that
is
not
against
the
Bishop
,
is
for
him
,
and
He
that
is
not
with
the
Bishop
,
is
against
Him
.
In
St.
Cyprian's
Time
there
were
several
,
not
Oratories
only
,
but
〈◊〉
stately
,
and
magnificent
Churches
in
the
same
Cities
,
and
within
the
limits
of
one
Bishop's
Jurisdiction
.
So
Optatus
Milevita●us
relates
—
post
Persecuit
Ed.
Me.
Ca.
saub
.
Lond.
1631.
l.
1.
p.
16.
onem
apud
Cirtam
,
quia
Basilica
necdum
sueram
restituta
in
DOmum
Urbani
Carisi
consederunt
,
&c.
Many
TRaditors
(
afterward
turning
Donatist
Bishops
)
met
the
House
of
Urbanus
〈◊〉
,
after
the
Persecution
〈◊〉
Cirta
,
because
the
Temples
were
not
yet
restored
,
&c.
Now
Cirta
was
an
Episcopal
See
in
Cyprians'ss
Time
,
and
Crescens
was
Bishop
of
it
[
†
](A42789-e57570-b)
†
Con
Cart.
Int.
Cyp.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Har.
p.
23
2.
Ed.
Ox.
,
and
the
Persecution
here
spoken
of
was
that
of
Dioclesian
,
wherein
these
Temples
were
taken
away
from
the
Christians
.
They
must
then
have
been
built
before
that
Emperor's
time
.
It
follows
hence
,
that
at
Cirta
the
Christians
had
several
Churches
before
Dioclesian
Reigned
,
that
is
not
long
after
Cyprian
,
even
in
the
Third
Age
;
therefore
there
were
in
the
Cyprianic
Age
,
several
Congregat●●●●●in
in
the
same
City
,
and
Episcopal
Church
,
and
consequently
several
〈◊〉
.
For
no
man
can
think
that
among
these
Basilicae
these
Magnificent
Churches
,
that
one
only
had
an
Altar
.
And
so
from
the
whole
it
may
be
gathered
,
that
the
erecting
Altar
against
Altar
,
condemned
by
Cyprian
,
was
not
the
erecting
more
Numerical
Altars
,
than
one
in
an
Episcopal
Church
,
but
erecting
them
,
or
any
one
of
them
in
Opposition
to
the
Bishop
.
This
Father
then
does
not
favour
Mr.
Mede's
Conjecture
at
all
.
The
Premises
duly
considered
,
I
think
Igantius's
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
one
Altar
was
rightly
interpreted
by
me
;
since
it
is
made
so
manifest
,
that
his
Bishop
was
both
Prelatical
and
Diocesan
.
I
need
not
then
trouble
my self
any
further
,
about
the
meaning
of
the
other
slight
Passages
objected
〈◊〉
me
out
of
that
Father
,
since
they
must
all
some
way
or
other
be
reconciled
with
this
Hypothesis
,
and
I
hope
I
was
not
very
wide
of
the
Truth
in
the
Tentamen
Novum
.
CHAP.
III.
Of
St.
Mark
the
Evangelist
,
Founder
of
the
Church
of
Alexandria
.
I
Having
produced
the
testimony
of
Eusebius
(
Hist.
lib.
2.
ch.
16
,
17.
)
in
proof
of
a
multitude
of
Christians
at
Alexandria
,
about
the
time
that
Philo
the
Jew
wrote
his
Treatise
,
de
vita
Contemplativa
,
which
was
in
the
Days
of
Claudius
the
Emperor
,
or
beginning
of
Nero's
Reign
,
near
fifty
Years
after
Christ
,
Mr.
O.
excepts
against
the
Testimony
as
follows
—
That
this
Passage
of
Eusebius
,
overthrows
the
notion
of
the
that
a
Diocess
is
the
lowest
species
of
a
Church
:
that
Eusebius
speaks
of
Churches
in
the
plural
:
that
therefore
there
must
be
Bishops
of
Alexandria
,
and
not
one
Bishop
only
:
that
Mark
was
an
Evangelist
,
that
is
,
an
extraordinary
Officer
in
that
Church
:
that
Annianus
,
Mark'
s
Successor
was
not
a
Bishop
of
a
Superiour
Order
,
but
an
Honourable
President
in
their
Assemblies
,
and
a
Moderator
in
their
Synods
,
without
Power
of
Jurisdiction
over
his
Collegues
.
Ans.
I
am
not
concerned
in
the
private
Opinions
of
Modern
Authors
,
who
assert
a
Diocess
to
be
the
lowest
species
of
a
Church
:
nor
will
I
trouble
my self
to
shew
how
they
limit
their
Notion
,
and
explain
themselves
in
that
point
,
nor
whether
Mr.
O.
fairly
deduces
his
consequence
from
that
Passage
of
Eusebius
,
〈◊〉
therefore
there
must
be
Bishops
,
not
one
Bishop
only
of
Alexandria
.
Let
the
Assertors
of
this
Notion
see
to
it
,
Mr.
O's
Reasoning
,
such
as
it
is
,
affects
not
me
nor
my
Hypothesis
,
it
being
my
firm
perswasion
,
that
a
single
Congregation
as
well
as
Diocess
,
is
even
in
Scripture
called
a
Church
.
Only
let
it
be
observed
,
Mr.
O.
grants
,
that
there
were
according
to
Eusebius
,
several
Churches
or
Congregations
in
Alexandria
,
but
how
He
will
Evince
there
were
several
Bishops
there
,
I
am
yet
to
seek
.
'T
is
moreover
supposed
,
that
Mark
was
an
Evangelist
(
or
an
Extraordinary
Officer
)
:
And
what
then
,
still
Annianus
an
Ordinary
one
might
succeed
him
,
in
the
Ordinary
Office
of
Governing
a
Diocesan
Church
.
See
Part
the
first
,
Chapter
the
fifth
.
And
tho'
Mark
was
an
Evangelist
(
an
Extraordinary
Officer
)
which
Mr.
O.
must
confess
,
and
had
Power
over
all
the
Presbyters
there
,
yet
(
says
Mr.
O.
)
Annianus
was
not
a
Bishop
of
a
Superior
Order
,
with
Power
of
Jurisdiction
over
his
Collegues
,
but
an
Honourable
President
or
Moderator
in
the
Synods
.
But
this
is
only
Mr.
O.'s
singular
conceit
;
we
are
in
the
present
Controversy
to
be
guided
by
what
Eusebius
tells
us
,
that
Annianus
succeeded
Mark
,
in
the
Administration
of
the
Church
of
Alexandria
.
Can
any
one
understand
less
thereby
,
than
that
Annianus
received
the
same
,
and
all
the
Power
of
Jurisdiction
,
that
Mark
had
?
In
short
,
I
cannot
discern
Mr.
O.
has
advanc'd
any
thing
against
me
,
or
laid
his
own
sentiments
so
close
together
,
as
to
be
consistent
with
themselves
.
from
the
Acts.
Fourthly
,
The
Therapeutae
composed
Hymns
of
divers
kinds
in
Metre
,
which
the
Christians
did
not
till
afterwards
in
the
Days
of
the
Antanini
.
Fifthly
,
The
Therapeutae
spread
themselves
throughout
the
World
,
and
were
many
in
Aegypt
,
but
the
Cristians
few
;
Whereunto
it
may
be
replyed
.
First
,
the
Christians
expounded
the
Law
Allegorically
,
as
is
manifest
from
the
Epistle
to
the
Hebrews
,
and
some
Passages
in
St.
Paul's
other
Epistles
:
and
besides
,
though
the
Jews
did
endeavour
to
improve
the
Law
by
some
Allegorical
deductions
from
it
,
yet
they
held
Primarily
unto
the
Literal
sense
,
and
accordingly
observed
the
Law
;
whereas
the
Christians
rejected
it
in
the
Literal
Sense
,
and
adhered
only
to
the
Allegorical
.
This
then
proves
the
Therapeutae
to
be
Christians
,
rather
than
Jews
.
Secondly
,
it
must
be
confess'd
,
that
the
Christian
Religion
was
then
New
,
and
the
Writings
of
the
Apostles
and
Evangelists
of
a
later
date
;
they
could
not
in
any
reason
be
called
Ancient
.
Nevertheless
Philo
,
here
meant
the
Writings
of
the
Old
Testament
,
which
were
out
of
controversy
Ancient
,
and
which
the
Christians
even
the
Apostles
and
Evangelists
made
frequent
use
of
.
They
may
properly
enough
be
called
the
Christians
Ancient
Authors
.
Besides
,
tho'
Philo
(
this
must
be
owned
)
believed
the
Therapeutae
to
be
a
Sect
of
the
Jews
,
and
because
they
were
conversant
in
the
Writings
of
the
Old
Testament
,
thence
Collected
,
that
they
were
of
the
Jewish
Religion
,
yet
this
is
no
good
Consequence
.
It
would
not
pass
(
I
think
)
if
one
should
say
Timothy
was
no
Christian
,
but
a
Jew
,
because
the
Apostle
saith
,
He
knew
the
Holy
Scriptures
(
of
the
Old
Testament
)
which
were
able
to
make
him
wise
unto
Salvation
.
Thirdly
,
Philo
does
not
affirm
the
Therapeutae
pray'd
twice
a
Day
only
,
but
intimates
the
quite
contrary
.
His
Words
are
,
they
passed
the
whole
day
in
exercising
themselves
,
understand
,
in
Prayers
,
Praises
,
and
other
Offices
of
Piety
and
Devotion
.
Hence
rather
it
may
be
gathered
that
the
Therapeutae
,
pray'd
three
times
a
Day
,
as
did
the
Ancient
,
and
more
devout
part
of
the
Jews
,
Psal.
55.
17.
Dan.
6.
10.
Acts.
3.
1.
as
well
as
the
Christians
.
Fourthly
,
It
is
no
On
the
contrary
,
that
they
were
Christians
may
be
gathered
hence
,
because
their
Religious
Exercises
,
their
Lives
and
Manners
,
and
their
Discipline
were
conformable
to
the
Christians
,
even
in
things
peculiar
to
the
Christians
.
They
divided
their
Substance
among
their
Friends
,
as
the
Christians
are
said
to
have
done
in
the
Acts
:
The
Women
among
them
ingaged
into
a
State
of
Celibacy
,
which
the
Jewish
Women
would
not
no
;
they
observed
Lent
,
or
the
Fast
about
Good
Friday
more
strictly
,
than
at
other
times
;
for
indeed
otherwise
their
whole
Life
was
Abstinence
.
In
a
Word
,
they
had
three
Orders
of
Church-Officers
:
First
,
they
that
performed
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
that
is
Presbyters
)
,
Secondly
,
they
that
were
employ'd
about
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
that
is
Deacons
)
and
Thirdly
,
those
that
obtained
the
highest
degree
of
Office
amongst
them
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
that
is
Bishops
.
On
these
and
other
accounts
(
which
I
pass
by
)
Eusebius
roundly
affirms
—
I
judge
that
Philo
'
s
Words
are
plainly
,
and
without
controversy
to
be
understood
of
Christians
.
Besides
,
I
cannot
easily
perswade
my self
,
that
Scaliger
and
Valesius
at
this
distance
of
time
should
see
further
into
the
matter
,
than
Eusebius
,
Jerom
and
Epiphanius
,
who
flourish'd
much
nearer
those
Days
,
whereof
Philo
wrote
.
Nor
do
we
ever
read
of
the
Therape●●ae
,
before
Philo
brought
them
to
Light
,
for
any
thing
I
have
found
;
and
as
for
Josephus
(
who
doubtless
had
read
Philo
)
he
takes
no
Notice
at
all
of
them
,
't
is
probable
,
because
they
were
Christians
.
So
that
I
conceive
them
,
to
be
as
New
as
the
Christians
,
yea
Christians
,
though
Philo
did
not
or
would
not
own
it
,
being
desirous
(
it
should
seem
)
to
commend
his
own
Nation
and
Religion
,
by
representing
,
the
strict
Holiness
and
Devotion
of
these
Therapeu●ae
,
as
of
a
Sect
of
the
Jews
.
Nevertheless
,
we
ought
here
to
Remember
what
Eusebius
,
almost
in
the
beginning
of
the
Seventh
Chapter
,
has
expresly
delivered
of
these
Therapeutae
,
viz.
that
they
were
Apostolical
Men
,
〈◊〉
of
the
race
of
the
Hebrews
(
or
Jews
)
and
for
that
Reason
in
a
great
measure
observed
the
Jewish
rites
,
and
institutions
,
as
the
Jewish
Christians
at
Jerusalem
,
and
in
Judea
generally
did
,
even
unto
the
Subversion
of
the
City
by
Titus
.
They
were
then
Christian-Jews
,
or
Jewish-Christians
,
who
both
believed
in
Christ
,
and
yet
were
〈◊〉
of
the
Jew
,
of
which
kind
we
meet
with
many
in
the
Acts
of
the
Apostles
.
Whoever
will
impartially
consider
what
has
been
said
,
will
(
I
hope
)
be
induced
to
believe
they
were
Christians
.
I
am
pretty
sure
't
is
the
only
way
to
reconcile
the
Arguments
brought
on
both
sides
.
The
Christians
then
,
(
as
I
designed
to
prove
)
must
have
been
many
at
Alexandria
,
and
in
AEgypt
,
whilst
Mark
presided
there
or
soon
after
:
they
had
many
Churches
,
and
Annianus
succeeded
Mark
in
the
Government
of
them
,
we
reading
of
no
other
Bishops
,
then
at
or
near
Alexandria
,
but
Annianus
;
Mr.
O.
has
not
told
us
of
one
.
Yet
Mr.
O.
pleads
—
Mark
was
no
resident
Evangelist
at
Paul
,
Acts.
12.
25.
ch.
13.
13.
2
Tim.
4.
11.
Philemon
.
24.
Col.
4.
10.
with
Barnabas
,
Acts
15.
39.
and
at
Cyprus
:
with
Peter
at
Babylon
,
●
Ep.
5.
13.
And
since
he
was
thus
employ'd
in
divers
Countries
one
after
another
by
these
three
Apostles
,
he
could
not
be
the
Resident
Evangelist
at
Alexandria
.
Ans.
First
,
all
this
is
nothing
to
the
Argument
drawn
from
Annianus
his
succeeding
Mark
,
and
having
the
Administration
of
the
Church
of
Alexandria
committed
to
him
;
for
he
might
succeed
in
the
Administration
,
when
the
Evangelist
left
it
,
and
betook
himself
to
another
Work
.
Secondly
,
I
conceive
there
were
three
several
Persons
Named
Mark
,
all
to
be
found
in
the
Scriptures
before
cited
;
for
't
is
in
no
wise
probable
,
that
Paul
,
and
Barnabas
,
and
Peter
,
should
all
have
the
same
Person
to
be
their
Disciple
and
Companion
,
since
they
all
took
a
different
Course
,
and
Travelled
into
distant
Provinces
to
propagate
the
Gospel
.
Thirdly
,
Paul
fell
out
with
,
and
separated
from
Barnabas
,
who
took
Mark
along
with
him
,
Paul
refusing
it
,
Acts
15.
28.
we
never
read
that
they
pieced
again
.
'T
is
not
likely
then
,
that
the
same
Mark
should
accompany
Paul
afterwards
;
and
yet
we
read
of
one
Mark
with
Paul
,
all
along
in
the
Texts
alledged
;
Nor
can
it
be
thought
that
Paul
would
receive
this
Mark
again
,
who
had
deserted
him
,
and
for
that
reason
been
rejected
by
him
.
Fourthly
,
There
was
not
a
right
understanding
between
Peter
and
Paul
,
as
appears
from
the
Epistles
to
the
Galatians
and
Corinthians
.
'T
is
not
then
probable
,
that
the
same
Mark
attended
them
both
.
Fifthly
,
The
several
Characters
and
Descriptions
,
given
unto
Mark
in
the
places
adduced
by
Mr.
O.
do
〈◊〉
that
there
were
three
of
that
Name
.
First
,
In
Acts
12.
12.
Ch.
13.
13.
Ch.
15.
37
,
39.
the
Mark
in
all
these
Texts
spoken
of
,
is
either
called
John
only
,
or
John
sirnamed
Mark
:
but
he
quite
forsook
Paul
,
and
adhered
to
Barnabas
in
the
last
quoted
place
,
Act.
15.
39.
This
note
of
distinction
imports
,
that
there
were
other
Marks
,
besides
this
John
.
For
Secondly
,
I
read
of
Mark
the
Nephew
of
Barnabas
,
or
Barnabas's
Sister's
Son
,
Col.
4.
10.
He
doubtless
was
the
Man
,
who
was
Paul's
Disciple
and
Companion
,
after
his
separation
from
Barnabas
,
and
continued
with
him
to
the
end
of
Paul's
Life
.
Col.
4.
10.
Philem.
24.
2
Tim.
4.
11.
But
lastly
there
was
a
Mark
,
Peter's
Son
,
and
with
Peter
,
when
he
wrote
his
first
Epistle
at
Babylon
,
1
Pet.
5.
13.
For
the
several
Reasons
before
alledged
,
he
could
be
neither
of
the
two
former
Marks
,
and
moreover
Eusebius
constantly
Eus.
Ec.
Hist.
lib.
2.
ch.
15.
l.
3.
ch.
39.
l.
5.
c.
8.
makes
him
the
Disciple
,
Interpreter
,
and
Follower
of
Peter
.
'T
is
then
incredible
,
he
should
have
been
the
Companion
of
Paul
or
of
Barnabas
.
This
last
also
is
the
Evangelist
,
of
whom
the
dispute
is
betwixt
Mr.
O.
and
me
,
who
is
but
once
mentioned
in
Scripture
,
and
that
at
Babylon
,
which
being
in
Aegypt
(
as
many
with
reason
hold
)
he
might
be
a
Resident
Evangelist
at
Alexandria
,
though
occasionally
with
Peter
at
the
writing
that
Epistle
at
Babylon
.
But
〈◊〉
any
will
contend
St.
Peter's
Babylon
was
Rome
,
be
it
so
what
absurdity
is
it
to
affirm
with
Eusebius
,
that
Peter
sent
him
from
Rome
to
Alexandria
,
where
he
planted
that
Church
,
and
departing
this
life
bequeathed
the
Government
of
it
to
Annianus
.
Yet
once
more
admitting
Mark
,
after
he
had
formed
and
regulated
that
Church
of
Alexandria
,
to
have
removed
unto
some
other
Cities
and
Countries
(
for
I
am
by
no
means
obliged
to
maintain
that
he
dy'd
there
,
nor
does
Eusebius
expresly
say
so
,
that
I
know
of
)
't
is
enough
for
me
to
affirm
with
Eusebius
,
that
Annianus
took
the
Administration
of
that
Church
of
Alexandria
,
left
it
.
To
conclude
,
if
there
was
but
one
Mark
,
who
sometimes
was
with
Peter
,
at
other
times
with
Paul
and
Barnabas
,
then
with
Barnabas
alone
,
after
that
with
Paul
again
,
and
lastly
with
Peter
,
yet
this
hinders
not
,
but
at
last
he
settled
at
Alexandria
.
Neither
will
his
occasional
removals
thence
at
the
Apostle's
call
,
destroy
his
Residence
,
See
part
the
First
,
Chapter
the
Fifth
,
whither
I
refer
the
Reader
for
Satisfaction
:
'T
is
high
time
now
to
consider
Mr.
O's
Plea
,
on
this
Argument
.
I
am
referred
to
Page
.
126.
St.
Jerom
is
the
only
Ancient
Author
,
that
has
any
thing
of
the
particular
manner
of
Church
Government
established
,
by
Mark
〈◊〉
Alexandria
,
and
on
whose
Authority
the
Presbyterians
very
much
rely
.
What
he
says
is
—
The
Alexandrian
Presbyters
,
from
Mark
to
Heraclas
,
call'd
one
chosen
from
among
themselves
,
and
placed
in
a
higher
degree
,
I
say
,
called
him
Bishop
.
But
he
tells
us
not
,
who
chose
him
,
nor
who
Ordained
him
,
so
that
we
are
yet
at
a
loss
,
as
to
one
main
part
of
the
Controversy
,
for
any
thing
Jerom
has
discovered
to
us
.
Only
one
would
have
expected
,
that
if
the
Presbyters
at
any
time
had
Ordained
their
Bishop
,
this
Father
would
not
have
failed
to
let
us
know
it
,
for
the
Honour
of
himself
,
and
those
of
his
own
Order
.
He
also
informs
us
in
the
same
Epistle
that
—
One
Presbyter
was
set
over
the
rest
for
a
remedy
against
〈◊〉
and
this
was
done
Postea
,
that
is
,
after
John's
two
last
Epistles
,
those
of
Paul
to
Timothy
and
Titus
,
and
the
first
of
Peter
were
written
:
for
Bishop
and
Presbyter
,
were
all
one
till
then
,
as
He
supposes
,
and
we
must
be
made
to
believe
.
But
't
is
very
hard
to
believe
all
this
upon
the
credit
of
Jerom
:
Nay
,
Jerom
himself
did
not
believe
it
,
if
we
may
believe
him
:
for
he
confesses
,
that
Paul
made
Timothy
Jerusalem
,
statim
〈◊〉
Apostolos
,
and
if
Mark
appointed
a
Bishop
to
be
chosen
,
and
set
over
〈◊〉
of
the
〈◊〉
at
Alexandria
,
then
this
Remedy
against
Schism
was
found
out
,
and
establish'd
in
the
Apostle's
Days
,
it
being
certain
,
that
Mark
dy'd
before
Peter
and
Paul
,
or
〈◊〉
I
might
argue
to
the
same
purpose
,
from
another
Passage
in
Jerom
,
Mark
himself
was
the
first
Bishop
of
Alexandria
.
Therefore
this
Remedy
against
Schism
was
prescribed
in
the
Apostle's
Days
,
and
by
the
Apostles
also
,
and
therefore
Bishops
must
needs
be
of
Divine
Institution
,
even
in
the
Opinion
of
Jerom
himself
.
But
still
the
difficulty
remains
,
who
chose
and
Ordained
the
Bishop
,
after
Mark
was
gone
.
Here
Mr.
O.
thinks
He
has
caught
us
,
having
found
an
unquestionable
Testimony
,
that
the
Presbyters
at
Alexandria
,
both
chose
their
Bishop
,
and
Ordained
him
,
yea
,
and
Ordained
one
another
:
So
't
is
testified
by
〈◊〉
in
his
Origines
〈◊〉
,
set
forth
by
Mr.
Selden
many
Years
ago
.
His
Words
are
,
Mark
appointed
Hananias
(
or
Annianus
)
first
Patriarch
(
or
Bishop
)
of
Alexandria
,
and
Twelve
Presbyters
his
constant
Assistants
,
to
the
end
,
that
when
the
Patriarchship
was
vacant
,
they
should
chuse
one
of
their
own
Number
,
should
lay
hands
on
his
Head
,
and
bless
him
,
and
create
him
their
Patriarch
:
then
after
that
they
should
elect
some
Eminent
Person
,
and
make
him
〈◊〉
in
the
Room
of
him
,
who
was
made
Patriarch
,
that
so
there
should
be
always
Twelve
〈◊〉
,
&c.
This
Mr.
O.
calls
a
full
proof
of
Presbyters
,
chusing
and
Before
I
give
a
direct
reply
,
I
will
try
what
can
he
gathered
from
this
Narrative
of
Eutychius
,
in
favour
of
Episcopal
Government
.
First
,
'T
is
Natural
,
hence
to
gather
that
Mark
,
not
so
much
as
dreamed
of
a
Parity
between
the
Bishop
and
his
Presbyters
.
His
conceit
was
there
should
be
Twelve
Presbyters
,
answerable
to
the
Apostles
,
and
a
Bishop
,
〈◊〉
them
like
Christ
over
his
〈◊〉
.
Secondly
,
By
this
Constitution
of
Mark'
s
at
Alexandria
,
Episcopacy
must
be
acknowledged
,
the
first
Government
set
up
in
that
Church
,
and
because
Mark
was
an
inspired
Evangelist
,
it
was
Divine
also
.
Thirdly
,
Note
,
that
according
to
Eutychius
,
the
Presbyters
were
to
chuse
their
Bishop
,
and
not
the
People
,
which
the
Dissenters
will
not
very
well
like
of
,
Fourthly
,
That
the
Presbyters
Ordained
new
Presbyters
,
which
will
scarce
go
down
with
the
Dissenting
Congregations
now
a
Days
.
Fifthly
,
That
excepting
accidents
the
Patriarch
or
(
as
Mr.
O.
)
the
Moderator
of
the
Class
was
chosen
for
Life
,
which
the
Presbyterians
will
not
allow
of
.
Sixthly
,
That
the
Dissenters
are
every
whit
,
as
much
departed
from
the
Observance
of
St.
Mark'
s
model
,
as
they
can
pretend
we
are
,
yea
,
and
much
more
too
.
Thus
much
being
premised
;
that
which
I
would
reply
to
〈◊〉
his
story
is
,
that
he
is
the
first
that
told
it
,
that
he
is
an
Author
of
no
Credit
,
and
that
there
are
considerable
exceptions
to
be
made
against
him
,
and
his
Tale.
They
are
as
follows
—
First
,
He
is
acknowledged
by
Selden
himself
,
to
have
lived
but
in
the
Tenth
Century
,
about
900
Years
after
the
pretended
constitution
of
St.
Mark
.
He
alledges
no
Writer
or
Records
known
unto
us
,
from
whence
he
received
this
account
,
nor
is
it
known
that
there
were
any
such
.
Besides
,
Jerom
who
was
several
times
in
Egypt
,
knew
nothing
of
this
,
which
is
very
strange
,
〈◊〉
should
500
Years
after
,
and
when
their
Records
had
been
destroyed
by
the
Saracens
.
It
must
then
rest
upon
the
credit
of
〈◊〉
himself
alone
,
and
what
that
is
will
appear
by
and
by
.
In
the
mean
time
this
Tale
of
〈◊〉
must
not
pass
,
being
wrote
by
one
,
who
lived
at
so
great
a
distance
of
time
from
the
matter
of
Fact
,
delivered
by
Him
without
any
other
known
Ancienter
Author
to
support
him
,
besides
,
He
is
an
Obscure
Writer
Pop't
up
into
the
World
to
serve
a
cause
,
and
therefore
cannot
Merit
belief
.
Secondly
,
〈◊〉
differs
from
many
Authors
of
more
Unquestionable
Authority
than
himself
.
He
differs
from
Ignatius
,
who
affirms
that
Presbyters
ought
to
do
nothing
without
the
Bishop
,
not
Baptize
,
not
Marry
,
not
Celebrate
the
Eucharist
without
the
Bishop
:
but
according
to
〈◊〉
,
they
Ordained
without
him
.
He
differs
from
Eusebius
,
so
far
at
least
as
to
relate
,
what
Eusebius
knew
nothing
of
.
It
is
very
strange
that
Eusebius
so
diligent
,
and
so
exact
an
Historian
,
so
curious
,
and
inquisitive
a
Searcher
,
into
the
Antiquities
of
the
most
Eminent
Churches
,
from
their
first
Plantation
,
particularly
this
of
Alexandria
,
should
not
have
discovered
any
thing
,
of
the
Presbyters
Ordaining
their
Bishop
and
one
another
:
that
,
he
that
has
acquainted
us
with
the
Names
of
all
the
Patriarchs
from
Mark
to
Alexander
,
the
precise
Order
of
their
Succession
,
the
Year
when
every
Bishop
succeeded
,
in
what
Emperor's
Reign
it
was
,
and
sundry
,
other
remarkable
things
which
happened
in
that
Church
,
should
be
wholly
silent
,
and
ignorant
of
this
Constitution
,
of
St.
Mark
.
More
over
〈◊〉
says
,
that
Mark
wrote
the
Gospel
which
bears
his
Name
,
in
the
first
Year
of
Nero's
Reign
:
but
Eusebius
affirms
,
it
was
done
in
the
Days
of
Claudius
,
Nero's
Nero
,
Eusebius
not
till
the
Eighth
Thirdly
,
He
relates
many
things
in
his
Annals
(
whereof
these
Origines
are
a
part
)
against
the
Faith
of
all
approved
History
.
He
makes
the
Council
of
Nice
,
to
have
consisted
of
2048.
Bishops
,
which
is
not
credible
:
He
says
,
Peter
was
crucified
in
the
Twenty
Second
Year
after
Christ
:
and
he
reckons
Origen
a
Bishop
.
Fouthly
,
Even
in
these
Origines
,
he
is
not
at
one
with
himself
.
He
writes
,
that
Mark
went
unto
Barca
to
preach
the
Gospel
,
that
then
Claudius
Caesar
dy'd
,
and
Nero
succeeded
him
:
that
in
the
Reign
of
Nero
,
Peter
the
Prince
of
the
Apostles
,
wrote
the
Gospel
of
Mark
,
with
Mark
in
the
Roman
Tongue
,
and
in
the
City
of
Rome
,
and
yet
that
Mark
was
slain
at
Alexandria
,
in
the
first
Year
of
Nero.
But
if
Mark
was
Martyr'd
at
Alexandria
,
in
the
first
Year
of
Nero
,
it
cannot
be
,
that
he
was
at
Rome
with
Peter
in
Nero's
Reign
,
and
joyned
with
him
in
Writing
the
Gospel
.
Fifthly
,
Eutychius's
story
seems
most
improbable
,
and
in
my
Judgment
overthrows
its
self
.
For
if
the
Presbyters
had
the
Power
,
first
of
chusing
,
and
then
Ordaining
one
from
among
themselves
to
be
Patriarch
,
and
after
that
,
Ordained
the
new
Presbyter
also
,
to
what
purpose
was
a
Bishop
created
?
was
he
to
be
a
Bishop
of
Clouts
,
to
sit
in
his
Chair
and
gravely
to
look
on
,
whilst
the
Eleven
Presbyters
Chose
and
Ordained
the
Twelveth
,
and
he
have
no
Hand
in
it
?
Sixthly
,
The
Origines
consists
of
so
many
Childish
,
Ridiculous
,
and
Absurd
Relations
,
that
no
wise
Man
can
given
any
credit
to
so
trifling
an
Author
.
That
story
of
Mark'
s
going
to
a
Shoe-Maker
or
Cobler
,
to
have
his
Shoe-Latchet
mended
;
of
Hananias
pricking
his
Finger
with
the
Awl
,
and
thereupon
growing
Angry
:
of
Mark'
s
〈◊〉
him
with
a
Promise
to
heal
his
Finger
,
if
He
would
belive
in
Christ
:
of
Hananias
believing
and
being
cured
;
and
Lastly
,
of
Mark'
s
Baptizing
him
thereupon
,
and
making
him
Patriarch
of
Alexandria
,
is
to
me
incredible
.
Another
of
the
like
Nature
,
is
that
of
Alexander's
desiring
that
the
Patriarch
of
Alexandria
,
should
not
be
called
Papa
,
whereas
it
had
been
decreed
before
in
the
Days
of
Heracles
(
I
suppose
for
distinctions
sake
)
Bishops
being
stiled
Fathers
,
therefore
it
was
judged
fit
,
that
the
Patriarch
should
be
Honoured
with
the
Title
of
Grand-Father
.
But-why
Alexander
should
be
so
Self-denying
,
as
to
refuse
an
Honourable
Title
,
which
several
of
his
Predecessors
had
had
beforehim
,
is
to
me
a
Mystery
.
Again
,
that
wonderful
design
of
Mark
(
as
〈◊〉
reports
it
,
to
have
always
the
exact
Number
of
Twelve
Presbyters
in
Alexandria
,
appears
to
me
not
very
Solid
.
Lastly
,
of
the
same
stamp
is
,
that
request
of
Peter
to
be
crucify'd
with
his
Head
downward
,
that
he
might
not
have
the
Honour
to
die
,
in
the
same
manner
as
Jesus
Christ
did
.
I
fancy
,
that
Peter
never
requested
such
a
thing
,
or
if
He
did
,
that
Nero
never
granted
it
.
Seventhly
,
Whereas
Eutychius
would
make
us
believe
,
that
Mark'
s
Rule
about
the
Presbyters
of
Alexandria
(
not
the
Neighbouring
Bishops
of
Egypt
)
chusing
and
Ordaining
the
Patriarchs
,
and
Presbyters
continued
unto
the
Days
of
Alexander
,
(
who
must
therefore
be
the
last
that
was
Ordained
by
the
Presbyters
,
about
the
Year
310.
)
:
Yet
St.
Cyprian
,
who
flourish'd
above
60
Years
before
Alexander
,
has
something
that
makes
me
suspect
the
contrary
,
and
that
Mark
establish'd
no
such
Order
at
Alexandria
,
St.
Cyprians's
Words
are
these
—
Propter
quod
diligenter
de
Traditione
divina
,
&
Leon
,
Asturica
,
and
Emerita
in
Spain
:
from
whence
't
is
manifest
,
that
this
was
a
Divine
Tradition
,
an
Apostolical
Practice
,
that
the
Bishops
of
the
Province
should
Assemble
,
Chuse
and
Ordain
a
new
Bishop
,
and
that
it
universally
obtained
,
apud
nos
(
says
the
Father
)
among
us
in
Africa
,
and
almost
in
all
the
Provinces
in
the
World
,
in
the
Roman
Empire
besure
.
And
I
take
Cyprian
to
be
a
much
trustier
Author
,
than
Eutychius
,
or
Jerom
either
.
To
support
this
Testimony
of
St.
Cyprian
,
I
produce
the
First
,
of
the
Apostolical
Canons
,
which
were
collected
before
St.
Cyprian
,
at
least
a
good
while
before
the
Nicene
Council
(
as
Dr.
Beverigde
has
shewn
)
Cod.
Can.
Vind.
I.
1.
c.
4.
wherein
,
as
is
by
Selden
pretended
,
the
Custom
of
Alexandria
was
alter'd
;
but
〈◊〉
cannot
be
,
as
may
be
gathered
from
the
first
Canon
aforesaid
,
which
runs
thus
—
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
If
then
this
Apostolical
Canon
was
in
force
before
the
Council
of
Nice
,
then
it
was
not
the
Nieene
Council
,
which
altered
the
Alexandrian
Custom
,
as
Eutychius
and
Selden
suppose
,
it
having
been
a
much
more
Ancient
practise
,
it
seems
for
the
Provincial
Bishops
,
to
Ordain
Bishops
.
And
so
Eutychius
is
mistaken
in
this
point
also
.
If
ever
there
was
such
a
Rule
establish'd
by
Mark
at
Alexandria
,
of
Presbyters
Ordaining
Bishops
,
or
Presbyters
,
it
was
changed
before
Alexander
or
the
Nicene
Council
,
yea
,
before
St.
Cyprian's
time
.
Eighthly
,
Whereas
Eutychius
asserts
,
there
were
no
Bishops
in
Egypt
till
Demetrius
,
it
is
proved
to
the
contrary
by
that
most
Learned
Prelate
Bishop
Pearson
,
from
several
good
Testimonies
,
and
particularly
Vind.
Ig.
Epis.
Part.
1.
c.
10.
from
the
Vetus
Vita
Marci
,
and
Rabanus
Maurus
Abbot
of
Fulda
,
of
both
which
Mr.
Selden
likewise
takes
Notice
.
The
former
writes
thus
—
Pentapolim
pergit
(
Marcus
)
&
Ordinans
Episcopos
,
per
Regiones
illas
,
&
Clericos
;
iterum
Alexandriam
venit
.
The
latter
thus
—
Ordinaverat
(
Marcus
)
pro
se
Episcopum
Annianum
,
〈◊〉
quoque
longe
lateque
〈◊〉
Episcopos
.
Mr.
Selden
to
avoid
the
force
of
these
Testimonies
has
invented
this
Shift
,
sc.
that
Mark
made
these
Bishops
in
Pentapolis
only
,
and
not
in
Egpyt
.
If
one
ask'd
why
Mark
should
make
Bishops
in
Pentapolis
,
and
not
in
〈◊〉
also
,
it
would
be
hard
for
Mr.
O.
to
give
a
satisfactory
answer
to
it
.
Besides
't
is
said
,
that
Mark
made
Bishops
,
per
Regiones
illas
,
doubtless
the
meaning
is
through
all
the
Countries
,
that
he
travelled
between
Alexandria
and
Pentapolis
;
and
surely
Egypt
was
one
of
them
.
And
why
should
one
Patriarch
or
Bishop
,
suffice
for
Alexandria
and
all
Egypt
,
but
not
for
Pentapolis
?
Except
Mr.
O.
would
be
so
kind
as
to
furnish
us
,
with
so
early
an
instance
,
of
a
vast
City
and
Province
,
under
the
Government
of
one
single
Bishop
.
It
cannot
then
be
questioned
,
but
that
there
were
from
the
beginning
Bishops
in
the
Province
of
Egypt
,
as
well
as
one
in
the
City
of
Alexandria
.
Ninthly
,
Whereas
Eutychius
says
,
that
Mark
appointed
the
Twelve
Presbyters
to
chuse
their
Patriarch
,
and
by
Imposition
of
Hands
,
and
Prayers
to
Ordain
him
,
yet
Bishop
Pearson
has
produc'd
several
ex
Presbyteris
,
&
〈◊〉
Graecorum
Traditionem
a
Sancto
Luca
Ordinatus
est
,
that
is
,
Abilius
was
chosen
out
of
the
Presbyters
(
or
from
among
them
,
as
Jerom
has
it
,
not
by
〈◊〉
)
and
according
to
the
Tradition
of
the
Greek
Church
,
was
Ordained
by
St.
Luke
.
Furthermore
〈◊〉
,
who
wrote
the
Lives
of
the
Alexandrian
Patriarchs
,
informs
us
,
that
Cerdon
who
succeeded
Abilius
,
and
Cerdon's
Successors
unto
Demetrius
,
were
Ordained
by
the
Bishops
out
of
that
Region
,
that
is
,
Egypt
,
I
suppose
.
By
all
which
it
appears
,
that
there
were
Bishops
in
Egypt
before
Demetrius
,
who
Ordained
the
Patriarch
,
or
Bishop
of
Alexandria
.
Tenthly
,
It
is
not
like
,
that
〈◊〉
had
any
Authentick
Records
,
belonging
to
the
Churches
of
Alexandria
and
Egypt
,
the
Saracens
having
destroy'd
and
burnt
'em
all
,
long
before
Eutychius
was
born
;
so
that
where
he
wanders
from
the
Truth
,
or
when
he
〈◊〉
,
we
must
conclude
,
he
fram'd
his
Annals
,
and
Origines
out
of
his
own
Brains
,
or
some
uncertain
Monkish
Traditions
and
Legends
,
then
currant
among
them
.
To
conclude
,
supposing
the
Alexandrian
Presbyters
,
by
St.
Mark'
s
appointment
,
did
Elect
the
Patriarch
or
Bishop
,
yea
,
and
Ordain
him
too
,
yet
it
must
be
confess'd
,
that
Bishops
)
however
chosen
and
Ordained
)
are
as
early
as
he
,
and
by
Divine
Right
,
St.
Mark
being
a
Person
inspired
,
and
consequently
having
Authority
from
God
,
at
least
from
the
Apostles
,
to
establish
the
Government
of
the
Chuches
,
which
he
founded
,
with
what
Face
then
could
Selden
produce
these
Origines
,
to
justifie
the
Presbyterian
design
in
the
late
Troubles
(
I
do
not
now
say
for
altering
the
way
of
choosing
,
and
Ordaining
them
)
but
for
quite
extirpating
Episcopacy
?
Or
with
what
Colour
of
Reason
can
Mr.
O.
argue
against
Episcopacy
,
and
blame
us
for
not
observing
the
supposed
Method
of
chusing
and
Ordaining
our
Bishops
,
〈◊〉
himself
and
his
Partizans
are
undermining
the
Fabrick
,
which
St.
Mark
is
confest
to
have
built
,
and
levelling
it
to
the
very
Foundation
?
Let
our
Adversaries
first
conform
themselves
to
this
Rule
of
St.
Mark
,
let
them
in
every
City
chuse
,
and
Ordain
a
Bishop
for
Life
,
unto
whom
themselves
,
and
all
the
Faithful
in
the
City
and
Country
adjacent
must
be
Subject
,
and
unto
whose
care
and
conduct
,
the
Administration
of
the
Ecclesiastical
Affairs
may
chiefly
be
committed
,
and
when
they
have
done
this
,
then
let
them
lay
before
us
this
special
Author
Eutychius
:
It
will
be
time
enough
then
to
consider
farther
of
him
:
Mean
while
it
seems
not
fair
nor
honest
,
to
bring
this
Fabulous
instance
on
the
Stage
against
us
,
which
they
themselves
will
not
be
guided
by
.
The
〈◊〉
is
Eutychius
,
of
whom
we
have
been
speaking
,
liv'd
about
900
Years
distance
from
the
〈◊〉
by
him
related
,
without
any
intermediate
Testimony
to
confirm
his
story
:
He
differs
in
many
things
,
from
several
good
Authors
of
much
more
credit
than
himself
:
He
relates
things
against
the
Faith
of
all
History
;
he
contradicts
himself
,
〈◊〉
own
story
〈◊〉
its
self
,
he
intermixes
many
little
Foolish
and
very
improbable
Remarks
,
he
is
contradicted
by
more
Ancient
Writers
,
yea
,
and
more
unquestionable
than
himself
;
Jerom
,
whose
design
and
Argument
needed
it
,
makes
no
mention
of
that
Constitution
of
St.
Mark
,
and
lastly
,
the
Dissenters
themselves
observe
it
not
.
By
this
instance
therefore
;
〈◊〉
they
do
us
harm
they
do
themselves
no
good
,
yea
,
rather
hereby
they
condemn
themselves
.
But
Lastly
,
against
the
Testimony
of
〈◊〉
,
I
lay
that
of
〈◊〉
.
Echellensis
de
Orig.
Alexand.
Ecl.
which
I
borrow
from
the
Worcester
.
Echellensis
tells
us
out
of
Severns
Alex.
Bishop
of
the
Asmonaeans
,
and
of
the
Sect
of
the
〈◊〉
or
〈◊〉
,
that
after
the
Death
of
the
Patriarch
,
the
Presbyters
met
together
and
prayed
,
and
proceeded
to
Election
:
The
first
Presbyter
declared
it
belonged
to
them
to
chuse
their
Bishop
,
and
to
the
other
Bishops
(
in
Egypt
)
to
consecrate
him
.
To
which
the
Bishops
then
present
assented
,
only
saying
,
if
he
were
worthy
they
would
consecrate
him
,
whom
they
chose
,
but
not
otherwise
:
So
then
they
had
it
seems
,
a
Negative
Voice
in
the
Election
.
And
Elmachinus
makes
this
a
Constitution
of
St.
Mark
in
the
first
Foundation
of
that
Church
,
and
saith
it
continued
to
the
Nicene
Council
,
about
which
time
it
was
ordered
,
that
the
Bishop
might
be
chosen
from
any
place
or
Church
whatever
,
and
this
was
all
the
Alteration
in
the
Constitution
of
the
Alexandrian
Church
at
the
Council
of
Nice
,
whatever
Selden
or
Eutycbius
say
to
the
contrary
.
CHAP
IV.
Of
the
Syriac
Translation
of
the
New
Testament
.
MR.
O.
argues
,
that
the
the
Syriac
〈◊〉
,
which
is
so
very
Ancient
,
that
is
comes
nearest
in
time
to
the
Original
,
useth
not
two
Words
,
one
for
Bishop
,
another
for
Presbyter
,
as
our
Translation
and
the
Greek
do
;
but
it
hath
only
Kashishaa
:
The
Word
in
Chaldee
,
and
in
Syriac
,
signifies
Presbyters
.
From
whence
we
are
to
conclude
,
that
in
the
Opinion
of
the
Syriac
Translators
,
Bishops
and
Priests
(
though
two
Words
in
the
Greek
)
are
nevertheless
but
one
,
and
the
same
Species
of
Church-Officers
,
and
therefore
express'd
but
by
one
Word
in
the
Syriac
Translation
,
which
properly
signifies
,
〈◊〉
,
or
Elders
.
First
,
Supposing
all
this
true
,
viz.
that
Bishop
and
Presbyter
in
Scripture
denote
,
one
and
the
same
kind
of
Church-Officer
,
in
the
Judgment
of
the
Syriac
.
Translators
,
who
therefore
described
them
by
one
Word
only
in
their
own
Language
:
Yet
this
hinders
not
but
that
there
was
another
Order
of
〈◊〉
Rulers
,
Superiour
to
Bishops
and
Presbyters
.
Thus
much
(
I
take
it
)
has
been
abundantly
proved
already
in
the
Tentamen
Novum
,
〈◊〉
and
Titus
,
being
such
Church
Governours
,
Superior
to
the
Bishops
and
Presbyters
,
though
not
distinguish'd
by
any
Special
and
appropriate
Title
.
So
that
,
if
all
Mr.
O.
has
here
said
,
and
his
Deduction
from
it
were
true
,
't
will
do
him
no
Service
,
nor
us
any
disadvantage
in
the
present
Cause
.
But.
are
commonly
invested
with
all
those
Powers
,
which
Inferiors
have
;
but
Inferiors
cannot
pretend
to
all
the
Power
,
that
Superiors
have
.
'T
is
no
wonder
therefore
to
me
,
if
Bishops
are
sometimes
stil'd
Presbyters
,
since
the
Apostles
themselves
in
Scripture
,
and
Bishops
oftentimes
in
〈◊〉
are
so
called
.
Therefore
.
Thirdly
,
Mr.
O.
has
not
got
the
least
advantage
of
us
,
by
starting
this
Criticism
about
the
Syriac
Translation
:
But
rather
has
lost
ground
,
so
far
as
these
Translator's
Authority
will
go
.
For
because
he
thought
it
a
good
Argument
on
his
side
,
that
the
Syriac
Translators
of
the
New
Testament
(
as
He
imagined
)
used
not
two
Words
for
Bishop
and
Presbyter
,
but
one
only
,
sc.
Kashishaa
:
it
follows
,
that
because
't
is
found
to
the
contrary
,
that
they
used
several
other
Words
,
none
of
which
are
employ'd
to
express
Presbyter
by
,
this
ought
to
be
taken
as
a
good
proof
on
our
side
,
that
even
in
the
New
Testament
there
is
a
distinction
,
between
the
Order
of
a
Bishop
,
and
that
of
a
Presbyter
,
if
Mr.
O's
own
way
of
reasoning
has
any
force
in
it
.
Finally
,
if
the
Syriac
Version
be
so
very
Ancient
as
Mr.
O.
thinks
,
one
might
believe
Ignatius
to
have
had
an
hand
in
the
Translation
:
For
he
was
a
Bishop
of
Syria
.
And
who
then
can
imagine
the
Translators
to
have
so-much
as
Dream'd
of
the
Identity
of
Bishops
and
Presbyters
?
CHAP.
V.
Concerning
the
Church-Government
,
in
the
North-West
parts
of
Scotland
.
THere
is
an
Argument
for
the
Government
of
Churches
and
Ordination
by
Presbyters
drawn
from
the
Scots
,
who
being
converted
to
Christianity
about
the
Year
200.
(
as
is
thought
upon
the
Authority
of
Tertullian
)
had
no
Bishops
among
them
,
but
were
Ruled
by
meer
Presbyters
only
,
and
that
for
〈◊〉
Centuries
after
.
The
Dissenters
argument
grounded
on
this
Tradition
,
is
more
at
large
thus
,
according
as
it
is
urged
by
Mr.
Baxter
their
Oracle
,
as
I
find
in
the
History
called
an
Account
of
Church-Government
,
&c.
by
My
late
Lord
Bishop
of
Worcester
.
First
,
Mr.
Baxter
tells
us
of
a
sort
of
Men
called
Culdees
,
that
first
guided
the
Affairs
of
Religion
in
Scotland
long
before
the
coming
of
Palladius
,
and
yet
were
not
Bishops
,
but
Monks
and
Presbyters
.
Secondly
,
That
these
Culdees
chose
some
few
among
themselves
to
be
as
Governours
to
the
Rest
,
whom
Writers
called
Scotorum
Episcopos
,
Bishops
of
the
Scots
.
Thirdly
,
That
these
New
found
Bishops
of
the
Scots
,
had
only
the
Name
of
Bishops
,
about
which
he
(
Mr.
Baxter
)
will
not
contend
with
the
Episcopal
Party
.
By
the
way
,
nor
will
I
contend
about
the
Name
Bishop
,
but
Mr.
Baxter
acknowledges
,
that
they
were
as
〈◊〉
to
the
Rest.
And
here
is
the
thing
which
is
more
than
the
Name
only
of
Bishops
.
Fourthly
,
That
afterwards
〈◊〉
began
a
Higher
sort
of
Bishops
,
but
the
Culdees
still
kept
up
the
greatest
part
against
him
.
Fifthly
,
That
Columbanus
his
Monastery
,
in
the
Isle
of
Hy
restored
the
Culdees
strength
;
and
the
Monks
out
of
that
Island
,
were
the
most
prevailing
Clergy
of
Scotland
,
who
had
no
proper
Episcopal
Ordination
,
but
bare
Election
and
Ordination
of
Presbyters
.
This
piece
of
History
is
just
〈◊〉
all
over
;
one
would
guess
't
was
Eutychius
his
Mark
,
who
first
converted
these
Northern
-
Britains
,
and
setled
the
Government
like
unto
that
at
〈◊〉
.
But
against
all
this
,
I
have
in
the
first
place
to
ask
,
who
in
good
earnest
,
converted
these
Northern
-
Britains
?
Mr.
O.
thinks
it
was
the
Southern
-
Britains
.
I
will
take
him
at
his
Word
,
and
then
demand
,
whether
it
be
not
most
reasonable
to
believe
that
the
Northern
-
Britains
did
,
with
the
Faith
receive
the
same
Church-Government
,
as
the
Southern
had
,
who
converted'em
:
And
that
the
Southern
-
Britains
has
Bishops
among
them
from
the
beginning
,
is
out
of
doubt
,
and
confess'd
by
the
Elders
,
and
Messengers
of
the
Congregational
Churches
,
met
at
the
〈◊〉
,
October
the
12th
1658.
In
the
Preface
of
their
Declaration
;
that
its
true
in
respect
of
the
Publick
,
and
open
Profession
of
Presbytery
or
〈◊〉
,
this
Nation
had
been
a
stranger
to
each
way
,
it
is
possible
ever
since
it
had
been
Christian
i.
e.
till
about
1640.
It
is
without
all
doubt
to
me
,
that
the
Southern
-
Britains
,
very
early
received
the
Christian
Faith
,
and
perhaps
in
the
Apostle's
Days
,
and
by
St.
Paul
too
,
as
My
〈◊〉
Lord
of
Worcester
has
made
very
probable
,
Orig.
Bri.
c.
1.
both
from
the
Testimony
of
many
Fathers
,
and
some
considerable
Conjectures
of
〈◊〉
own
.
But
the
Question
is
,
whether
the
Inhabitants
of
the
North
,
and
North-West
parts
of
Britain
beyond
Edenburgh
,
received
the
Faith
before
Columbanus
,
settled
in
the
Island
of
Hy
or
Jona
.
Our
〈◊〉
will
have
it
,
that
these
North
People
became
Christians
,
at
least
about
the
Year
of
Christ
200.
and
from
that
time
(
until
〈◊〉
came
among
them
)
were
governed
by
Monks
and
Culdees
,
who
were
Presbyters
only
.
This
Opinion
is
grounded
chiefly
on
a
known
Testimony
out
of
〈◊〉
,
Tertul.
adv.
〈◊〉
.
c.
7.
who
writes
that
the
Faith
of
Christ
had
then
〈◊〉
unto
〈◊〉
loca
Romanis
〈◊〉
,
and
these
places
must
needsbe
the
North-West
parts
of
〈◊〉
beyond
Edenburgh
,
which
the
Romans
had
〈◊〉
subdued
.
Now
Tertullian
flourished
about
the
end
of
the
second
Century
,
or
beginning
of
the
Third
.
Ans.
This
Passage
of
〈◊〉
reaches
not
the
point
;
it
can't
be
hence
deduced
what
was
the
Government
of
that
Church
,
supposing
those
Northern
parts
,
were
thus
soon
converted
.
〈◊〉
might
have
been
〈◊〉
up
there
for
any
thing
we
know
or
find
proved
:
And
it
is
likely
,
it
was
so
,
if
(
as
Mr.
O.
〈◊〉
)
they
received
Christianity
from
the
Southern
-
〈◊〉
,
as
I
observed
before
.
But
let
us
look
more
narrowly
into
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
some
parts
belonging
to
the
〈◊〉
,
were
then
become
〈◊〉
,
〈◊〉
.
those
who
had
not
yet
submitted
their
〈◊〉
unto
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
But
who
〈◊〉
were
is
the
Question
.
Some
think
they
were
the
Britains
next
beyond
the
Picts
Wall
.
who
were
not
Conquered
by
the
Romans
,
and
besides
were
small
,
and
inconsiderable
Conversions
,
no
Church
being
formed
or
established
among
them
:
For
so
〈◊〉
in
the
place
cited
mentions
many
other
Countries
,
where
happly
some
few
scattered
Christians
lived
,
though
no
Church
was
regularly
established
.
Now
though
this
is
sufficient
to
convince
me
,
that
the
People
of
the
remote
North
and
North-West
of
Scotland
(
now
so
called
)
beyond
Edenburgh
,
were
not
meant
by
〈◊〉
;
yet
foreseeing
it
will
not
satisfie
others
,
whose
Interest
and
Cause
will
not
suffer
them
easily
to
be
perswaded
,
I
will
therefore
take
the
Liberty
to
offer
my
own
Thoughts
unto
the
Readers
Consideration
,
My
Conjecture
then
is
,
that
the
Loca
Britannorum
Romanis
inaccessa
referred
unto
by
〈◊〉
,
were
no
other
than
Ireland
.
Ptolomy
reckons
the
Islands
of
the
World
thus
.
First
,
Taprobane
the
Greatest
:
The
next
was
(
GREAT
)
Britain
,
otherwise
〈◊〉
Albion
,
and
the
Third
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
another
Island
of
the
Britains
called
Ireland
.
And
Pliny
says
,
Albion
was
named
Britany
,
yet
all
the
Neighbouring
Island
were
called
Britannies
,
and
that
Ireland
of
Old
time
was
inhabited
by
Britains
.
Aristotle
(
or
whoever
de
mundo
C.
3.
was
the
Author
of
that
Book
de
mundo
)
Witnesses
,
that
there
were
in
the
Ocean
two
the
greatest
Islands
in
the
World
,
called
〈◊〉
'
'
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
&
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Albion
and
Ireland
.
Thus
much
I
have
gathered
from
Mr.
Cambden
.
I
shall
add
Cam.
Brit.
EngEdit.
1.
fol.
p.
23.
&
.
〈◊〉
.
see
Heyl
Cosm.
one
of
my
own
Collection
from
Dionysius
de
situ
Orbis
,
who
speaking
of
our
Western
Ocean
says
.
[
†
](A42789-e65110-b)
†
Dion
.
de
situ
Orb.
Edit.
Lond.
1658.
Carm.
565.
566.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
who
then
can
doubt
,
but
that
Ireland
was
meant
by
〈◊〉
's
Britannorum
loca
,
as
well
as
any
other
places
of
the
Britains
,
since
't
is
well
known
the
Romans
never
carried
their
Arms
,
nor
extended
their
Conquests
,
so
far
as
unto
that
Island
,
although
they
were
not
ignorant
of
the
place
,
be
sure
in
Tertullian's
Days
,
no
nor
in
Augustus's
time
,
when
Dionysius
the
African
wrote
?
〈◊〉
himself
in
the
same
Period
adds
,
and
Multarum
Insularum
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
many
Islands
unknown
to
us
,
where
the
Gospel
had
got
footing
.
But
least
the
unwary
Reader
should
think
these
very
Words
overthrow
my
Opinion
,
and
that
the
Island
,
Ireland
,
being
unknown
to
〈◊〉
,
cannot
be
meant
by
the
Loca
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
inaccessa
,
it
must
be
noted
that
by
〈◊〉
,
he
intends
such
Islands
with
whom
they
had
no
Commerce
in
Ordinary
,
nor
an
exact
account
of
.
〈◊〉
that
they
were
wholly
ignorant
of
them
cannot
be
;
for
then
〈◊〉
must
talk
at
Random
and
Nonsense
.
How
could
He
say
,
that
Christianity
was
propagated
in
these
Islands
,
if
they
were
altogether
〈◊〉
.
There
is
a
passage
in
Archbishop
〈◊〉
,
I
must
not
〈◊〉
over
.
Brit.
〈◊〉
.
〈◊〉
.
p.
〈◊〉
.
Neither
did
Celestine
employ
less
care
about
freeing
the
Britains
from
the
Pelagian
Heresies
—
a
Bishop
being
Ordained
〈◊〉
the
Scots
;
while
be
studies
to
preserve
the
Roman
Island
Catholick
,
〈◊〉
also
made
the
Barbarous
Island
Christian
,
the
former
whereof
was
Great-Britain
,
the
latter
Ireland
.
The
forecited
Words
are
〈◊〉
's
which
Vitus
Basinstochius
[
†
](A42789-e65420-b)
†
Id.
p.
198.
thus
expounds
,
and
thereby
illustrates
Tertullian
.
When
Prosper
said
Britannies
,
doubtless
〈◊〉
called
the
Roman
Island
,
Britain
,
and
the
other
Island
called
Barbarous
,
he
understood
to
be
Ireland
,
whither
the
Power
of
the
Roman
〈◊〉
't
is
believed
never
came
.
It
will
be
Objected
hence
,
that
therefore
because
the
Pope
is
here
said
to
have
sent
a
Bishop
(
〈◊〉
is
meant
)
and
by
him
made
Ireland
Christian
,
Ireland
embraced
not
the
Faith
till
that
time
,
〈◊〉
about
430.
by
consequence
〈◊〉
is
not
to
be
understood
of
Ireland
.
But
I
reply
,
First
,
That
Prosper
and
〈◊〉
,
must
be
supposed
to
speak
a
〈◊〉
de
Rome
,
as
believing
none
were
good
Christians
,
but
who
depended
on
the
Pope
.
Besides
,
Ireland
was
Christian
long
before
this
,
as
the
story
of
〈◊〉
proves
.
But
Secondly
,
It
may
with
Reason
〈◊〉
supposed
,
that
a
great
part
of
Ireland
was
yet
unconverted
.
Or
Thirdly
,
The
Scots
a
Foreign
People
,
〈◊〉
,
and
Barbarous
had
more
〈◊〉
invaded
,
and
Conquered
them
,
and
withal
very
much
impaired
the
Christian
Religion
,
(
as
the
〈◊〉
once
did
here
in
England
)
nevertheless
,
that
about
the
Year
430.
the
Christian
Religion
,
by
the
Preaching
of
〈◊〉
,
or
rather
St.
Patrick
was
restored
again
.
If
it
be
demanded
of
me
,
how
I
prove
,
that
Ireland
became
Christian
before
〈◊〉
,
I
reply
,
't
is
proved
by
the
same
〈◊〉
,
others
would
prove
that
the
North
and
North
West
of
the
now
Scotland
,
was
so
early
converted
,
that
is
,
by
〈◊〉
's
Testimony
;
and
which
〈◊〉
the
must
likely
conjecture
,
must
now
be
left
to
the
Reader
.
The
summ
is
,
if
〈◊〉
may
as
well
speak
of
Ireland
,
as
of
any
other
place
,
here
is
then
no
proof
of
so
early
a
Conversion
in
the
utmost
North
of
Great
Britain
.
But
let
us
hear
what
Mr.
O.
has
advanc'd
in
this
Controversy
:
For
indeed
my
business
is
with
him
.
He
begins
then
and
Acquaints
us
.
The
Histories
of
Scotland
tell
〈◊〉
their
Churches
were
Governed
by
〈◊〉
without
Bishops
,
for
above
200
Years
,
and
therefore
had
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
by
〈◊〉
.
In
confirmation
hereof
,
Mr.
O.
cites
Hector
〈◊〉
,
John
Major
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
indeed
these
are
the
best
and
the
most
Ancient
and
only
Witnesses
,
that
can
be
produced
in
that
Cause
,
except
the
invisible
〈◊〉
,
who
at
best
was
but
in
the
Eleventh
Century
.
But
these
were
the
most
Errand
〈◊〉
of
Legends
as
ever
appeared
in
publick
,
having
no
Author
,
no
Records
before
them
,
to
support
what
they
affirm
concerning
their
Country
and
its
affairs
.
Thus
much
my
Lord
of
St.
〈◊〉
in
his
Historical
Account
has
objected
against
these
,
and
other
such
Fabulous
Historians
:
And
Mr.
O.
who
has
read
this
Learned
.
Bishop
,
ought
not
to
have
urged
these
〈◊〉
,
unless
〈◊〉
had
taken
off
the
Bishops
Exceptions
against
them
.
True
,
he
tells
us
,
Archbishop
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
with
Approbation
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
E.
〈◊〉
.
p.
〈◊〉
.
799.
800.
But
when
I
consult
Archbishop
〈◊〉
,
I
find
him
indeed
citing
these
Authors
,
page
800.
but
not
,
no
not
〈◊〉
Himself
,
with
Approbation
,
unless
his
very
citing
them
must
〈◊〉
taken
as
an
Approbation
of
them
,
which
I
must
〈◊〉
Mr.
O.
is
his
〈◊〉
.
For
the
said
Archbishop
in
his
Preface
to
that
Book
〈◊〉
,
the
Reader
would
object
against
him
,
the
Obscurity
and
little
Credit
of
many
of
his
Authors
ingenuously
Confesses
,
that
he
had
gathered
together
a
〈◊〉
of
all
manner
of
Authors
,
good
and
bad
,
new
and
old
,
to
the
end
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Historian
might
from
thence
pick
,
what
seemed
to
his
purpose
and
probable
:
But
that
otherwise
(
he
〈◊〉
)
〈◊〉
was
not
so
void
of
sense
,
〈◊〉
to
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
of
Monmouth
,
or
Hector
Boethius
,
or
any
other
of
the
lower
Form
,
as
〈◊〉
of
〈◊〉
thing
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Hence
it
follows
,
that
Archbishop
〈◊〉
cites
them
not
with
Approbation
,
especially
not
〈◊〉
,
and
therefore
not
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
who
is
the
vir
gregis
,
the
〈◊〉
and
Leader
,
in
all
the
Romantick
Stories
of
the
Antiquity
of
the
Scotch
Nation
and
Church
.
It
is
to
be
observed
Hector
Boethius
,
the
last
of
the
three
takes
upon
him
to
mend
the
former
,
Fordon
,
and
Major
,
saying
(
what
Mr.
O.
leaves
out
)
Palladius
was
the
first
,
that
was
made
Bishop
,
by
the
Pope
among
the
Scots
;
whereas
in
former
times
,
Bishops
were
taken
out
of
the
Culdees
and
Monks
,
the
People
chusing
them
.
Here
then
the
Witnesses
do
not
agree
among
themselves
:
For
Fordon
says
without
Bishops
,
and
Major
Presbyters
only
,
but
Boethius
plainly
intimates
the
Scots
had
Bishops
in
former
times
,
though
not
of
the
Roman
Stamp
,
nor
thence
sent
unto
the
Scots
.
Palladius
was
the
first
of
the
Roman
Bishops
,
not
the
first
Bishop
.
Whoever
chose'em
is
nothing
to
our
purpose
:
The
Scots
had
Bishops
before
Palladius
,
according
to
Boethius
,
who
were
pickt
out
of
the
Monks
and
Culdees
:
But
he
says
,
not
Ordained
by
them
.
It
may
as
well
be
affirmed
,
that
because
our
Bishops
at
this
Day
are
taken
out
of
the
Presbyters
,
that
therefore
they
are
Ordained
by
them
.
Lastly
,
The
said
Archbishop
Usher
,
there
produces
another
Testimony
out
of
John
Baly
,
who
Writes
—
Palladius
was
sent
among
the
Scots
,
that
he
might
establish
the
Episcopal
Order
among
them
,
after
the
Roman
Fashion
,
for
(
He
adds
)
the
Scots
had
before
that
time
their
Bishops
,
and
(
other
)
.
Ministers
,
as
it
was
among
the
Britains
after
the
Asiatick
Manner
.
But
it
pleased
not
the
Romans
(
the
Popes
)
who
affected
Ceremonies
,
and
hated
the
Asiaticks
.
But
though
the
Scots
were
Anciently
the
Inhabitans
of
Ireland
,
yet
says
Mr.
O.
these
Authors
call
the
Ancient
Inhabitants
of
(
the
now
)
Scotland
,
by
the
Name
they
were
known
in
their
own
days
,
and
to
them
Palladius
is
thought
to
have
been
sent
.
True
!
But
't
was
their
ignorance
or
worse
,
nothing
being
more
clear
,
than
that
the
Ancient
Inhabitants
of
the
now
Scotland
,
were
Britains
and
Picts
,
not
Scots
.
This
is
fully
made
out
in
the
Historical
Account
of
the
Church-Government
,
&c.
as
well
as
by
Archbishop
Usher's
Authorities
,
to
whom
I
refer
the
Reader
.
Whereas
Bede
l.
5.
c.
10.
relates
,
how
that
Columba
was
the
first
Teacher
of
the
Christian
Faith
,
among
the
Tramontane
Picts
,
to
the
North
,
Mr.
O.
thus
glosses
on
that
Passage
—
He
was
the
first
knew
of
,
implying
there
were
others
before
,
that
Bede
knew
not
of
.
Ans.
At
this
rate
all
Authorities
may
be
eluded
:
And
all
the
Testimonies
produced
by
Mr.
O.
in
favour
of
his
Cause
,
may
easily
be
laid
aside
.
Bede
〈◊〉
no
other
,
yet
the
contrary
is
true
;
thus
,
I
may
say
,
Fordon
and
Major
talk
of
Presbyters
and
Monks
,
among
the
Scots
without
Bishops
:
That
is
,
that
they
knew
of
;
but
however
there
were
Bishops
among
them
Bede
himself
gives
not
the
〈◊〉
occasion
for
this
gloss
,
but
is
as
positive
herein
,
as
any
Writer
can
be
.
And
he
is
a
better
Witness
in
these
Matters
,
than
Fordon
,
Major
,
and
Boethius
.
These
talk
of
matter
before
their
time
a
1000
Years
,
without
any
Authority
to
back
their
Relations
:
Bede
,
of
things
which
happened
but
about
140
Years
,
only
before
his
time
.
For
〈◊〉
flourished
Anno
560.
and
Bede
was
born
Anno
707.
and
flourish'd
735.
In
short
then
Bede
might
well
understand
what
happened
at
〈◊〉
,
and
among
the
Northern
Picts
,
the
English
Saxons
,
having
so
lately
received
Christianity
from
the
Bishops
,
sent
hither
by
Columba
,
and
his
Successors
.
Mr.
O.
goes
on
to
acquaint
us
,
Christianity
was
much
more
Ancient
in
the
North
of
the
now
Scotland
,
and
that
't
is
proved
by
Bishop
Cowper
.
Ans.
Bishop
Cowper
,
laboured
under
the
common
Disease
of
easily
believing
,
and
advancing
the
Antiquity
and
Honour
(
as
he
thought
)
of
his
own
Nation
.
He
brought
no
Testimony
of
Credit
,
but
that
out
of
Theodoret
,
which
belongs
unto
the
Southern
Britains
(
for
of
Tertullian's
we
have
before
Treated
)
.
But
Mr.
O.
would
be
resolved
in
some
Queries
.
First
,
When
the
Fathers
mention
Joseph
of
Arimathea
,
Simon
Zelotes
,
&c.
to
have
Preached
the
Gospel
in
Britain
,
what
reason
have
we
to
exclude
North
Britain
?
The
zeal
of
those
Apostles
and
Apostolical
Men
,
and
their
Charity
would
Prompt
them
,
to
endeavour
the
Propagation
of
the
Gospel
throughout
Britain
;
and
part
of
the
now
Scotland
,
belonged
then
to
the
British
Kings
.
Ans.
I
know
no
Father
that
mentions
Joseph
of
Arimathea
,
and
Simon
Zelotes
,
except
haply
Dorotheus
,
who
is
the
Father
of
a
Thousand
Lyes
,
or
Fordon
,
Major
,
Boethius
,
Fleming
,
Balaeus
,
and
Bellar.
de
S.
E.
p.
91.
such
other
later
and
Legendary
Writers
.
I
can
give
several
good
reasons
against
the
North
-
Britains
being
so
early
converted
,
and
good
ones
too
,
as
I
think
Britain
Anciently
was
divided
into
very
many
petty
Kingdoms
:
None
of
the
Princes
received
the
Faith
very
early
(
that
we
know
of
)
save
Lucius
perhaps
:
The
Romans
never
penetrated
into
the
now
Scotland
,
till
a
good
while
after
,
and
it
was
by
their
means
in
part
,
that
Christianity
spread
its
self
.
The
Picts
in
North
-
Scotland
never
stoop't
to
their
Yoke
,
which
rendred
their
Conversion
more
difficult
.
And
something
(
I
hope
)
in
this
point
may
be
ascribed
unto
the
Secret
Will
and
Providence
of
God
.
Can
Mr.
O.
give
me
any
other
Reasons
than
such
as
these
,
that
the
Saxons
and
Angli
in
Germany
,
who
over-run
Britain
,
were
no
sooner
converted
,
tho'
Tertullian
reckons
the
Germans
in
General
,
to
have
been
Christians
in
his
time
?
Nor
were
the
Apostles
themselves
,
nor
the
Apostolical
Men
always
Successful
in
their
endeavours
.
St.
Paul
was
forbid
to
Preach
in
Asia
,
Acts
,
16.
6.
'T
is
a
wretched
way
of
proving
a
matter
of
Fact
in
Question
,
from
such
slender
Probabilities
.
By
the
like
Arguments
one
might
prove
,
that
all
Europe
,
Asia
and
Africa
,
embraced
the
Gospel
a
Thousand
Years
since
,
even
the
most
Northern
Scythians
,
the
most
Eastern
Indians
and
Seres
,
and
the
Africans
about
the
Cape
of
Good-Hope
.
In
short
,
though
Paul
plants
,
and
Apollos
Waters
,
yet
't
is
God
,
who
gives
the
Increase
.
'T
is
certain
the
Apostles
themselves
did
not
always
take
Fish
,
where-ever
they
cast
their
Net
.
Our
Lord
foretold
them
as
much
,
directing
them
therefore
to
shake
off
the
dust
of
their
Feet
,
as
a
Testimony
against
them
,
that
rejected
their
Doctrine
.
But
enough
of
Mr.
O's
first
Query
.
Secondly
,
He
asks
if
the
North
-
Britains
received
their
first
Conversion
by
Men
sent
from
Rome
(
as
seems
from
Bede
,
E.
H.
l.
3.
c.
4
)
How
came
they
to
keep
their
Easter
,
after
the
Eastern
Manner
.
Ans.
This
is
accounted
for
by
the
Bishop
of
St.
Asaph
,
and
Mr.
O.
ought
to
have
acquiess'd
,
or
else
refuted
Tramontaene
〈◊〉
,
beyond
Edenburgh
,
whither
we
say
the
Romans
,
neither
Gentiles
nor
Christians
,
nor
the
Christian
Religion
,
ever
reached
before
Columba
settled
at
Hy
,
who
also
came
thither
not
from
Rome
,
but
Ireland
.
Mr.
O.
farther
pleads
these
words
of
Bede
.
I.
1.
ch.
13.
That
primus
Episcopus
ad
Scotos
Creden
tes
.
therefore
the
Scots
were
Christians
before
Palladius
.
Ans.
If
this
Testimony
be
adduced
to
any
purpose
,
't
is
to
prove
,
that
the
Tramontane
Picts
received
Palladius
,
their
first
Bishop
from
〈◊〉
,
the
Roman
〈◊〉
,
that
before
that
time
they
believed
,
and
had
Presbytery
only
,
but
no
Bishops
,
because
Palladius
was
the
first
.
Now
to
shew
the
Disingenuity
of
this
Suggestion
,
it
must
be
noted
very
briefly
out
of
the
Historical
Account
,
that
by
Scots
,
are
here
meant
the
Scots
in
Ireland
,
that
Bede
has
not
a
word
of
their
form
of
Government
;
that
some
Copies
read
ad
Scotos
convertendos
,
which
would
imply
,
that
they
were
not
yet
Christians
;
that
primus
(
in
Prosper
,
whence
Bede
is
thought
to
have
taken
his
Narrative
)
in
some
Copies
is
read
primitus
,
that
is
,
formerly
;
that
Palladius
and
Patricius
,
were
designed
for
the
Primates
only
,
or
the
first
Bishops
in
rank
;
and
finally
,
that
't
is
true
,
Palladius
was
the
first
Bishop
,
sent
into
Ireland
by
the
Pope
;
Yet
there
were
Bishops
before
that
Time
,
of
which
Number
Archbishop
Usher
produces
Four
.
De
Prim.
E.
B.
p.
800.
801.
This
was
the
first
attempt
of
reducing
Ireland
to
the
Obedience
of
the
Pope
.
I
'll
say
nothing
of
Mr.
O's
confessing
Palladius
was
sent
into
Ireland
.
Plea
148.
Mr.
O.
now
promises
us
an
Instance
of
Presbyters
Ordaining
Bede
H.
E.
l.
3.
5
,
15
Ans.
But
Mr.
O.
acknowledges
that
there
were
Bishops
at
Hy
,
and
in
that
Province
from
Bede
,
lib.
3.
ch.
4.
and
the
Ulster
Annals
agree
hereunto
.
What
need
we
say
any
more
to
resolve
this
difficulty
?
Some
Bishop
with
the
Abbot
and
his
Presbyters
,
laying
hands
on
(
as
our
Custom
is
at
this
Day
)
Ordained
Aidan
,
For
to
what
purpose
were
these
Bishops
among
them
,
if
not
to
Ordain
?
The
Government
was
in
the
Abbots
Hands
:
the
Presbyters
were
able
to
Minister
in
the
Word
and
Sacraments
:
The
Bishops
bufiness
then
was
certainly
to
Ordain
.
Mr.
O.
excepts
against
the
Ulster
Annals
,
as
not
being
attested
by
any
Author
of
that
Age
:
And
yet
they
agree
in
most
things
with
Adamnanus
,
and
with
〈◊〉
,
and
are
a
little
relied
on
by
Archbishop
Usher
.
Mr.
O.
urges
(
a
Bishop
being
supposed
in
the
Monastery
He
was
subject
to
the
Abbot
,
and
thinks
he
has
here
sufficiently
reply'd
,
to
My
Lord
of
St.
Asaph's
Solution
of
that
difficulty
;
I
do
therefore
add
thereto
.
Ans.
Nothing
is
more
certain
than
that
Bishops
were
wont
to
be
in
Monasteries
.
I
read
in
Theodoret
,
of
eleven
residing
in
those
of
Egypt
,
from
their
Youth
up
to
their
Extreame
Old
Age
,
and
when
they
were
Bishops
too
.
Theod.
E.
H.
l.
4.
ch.
22.
Now
though
the
Bishops
of
the
Province
were
subject
to
the
Abbot
of
Hy
,
yet
it
must
remembred
also
,
that
the
Abbots
Jurisdiction
extended
it self
throughout
the
Province
.
No
wonder
then
,
if
the
Provincial
Bishops
were
〈◊〉
to
the
Abbots
:
Rule
and
Order
required
thus
much
.
If
one
of
our
English
Bishops
should
〈◊〉
into
a
College
of
Oxford
,
and
readmit
himself
a
Member
of
the
University
,
He
becomes
thereby
subject
unto
the
Head
of
that
College
,
and
to
the
Chancellor
within
the
Precincts
of
the
University
.
And
that
I
may
not
fain
a
case
,
some
of
our
Bishops
have
held
a
Prebendary
of
a
Collegiate
Church
in
Commendam
:
He
is
thereby
subject
to
the
Dean
therein
,
all
matters
belonging
to
that
Church
,
even
as
〈◊〉
says
,
the
Provincial
Bishops
were
to
the
Abbots
of
Hy
,
viz.
within
the
Abbot's
Jurisdiction
.
But
we
know
for
all
this
the
Chancellor
of
Oxford
,
and
the
Dean
of
a
Cathedral
cannot
Ordain
.
Besides
,
the
Abbots
of
Hy
,
though
they
retained
an
External
Government
over
all
in
the
Province
,
the
Bishops
not
excepted
:
Yet
as
to
the
Episcopal
and
Ministerial
Acts
of
Religion
,
in
that
Age
belonging
to
Bishops
,
the
Abbots
gave
place
to
Bishops
,
as
〈◊〉
appear
from
the
following
story
,
in
My
Lord
of
St.
Asaph
,
It
was
it
seems
as
Bishops
then
used
to
do
:
which
shews
that
notwithstanding
the
Abbots
Temporal
Jurisdiction
(
as
I
may
call
it
)
Columba
acknowledged
the
Episcopal
Order
,
to
be
Superior
to
that
of
a
Presbyter
.
Lastly
,
Bede's
inusitato
more
(
for
the
right
understanding
whereof
,
I
refer
to
the
Historical
Account
)
implies
,
that
this
〈◊〉
,
Quid
mibi
profers
〈◊〉
Ecclesiae
consuetudinem
?
Cum
〈◊〉
Turba
〈◊〉
,
and
the
Whole
World
was
Episcopal
.
The
first
person
sent
into
Northumberland
,
from
Hy
was
one
described
only
,
but
without
a
Name
in
Bede
.
Returning
back
to
Ipsum
esse
dignum
Episcopatu
:
and
then
in
the
next
Chapter
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Aidan
at
his
Ordination
,
〈◊〉
Antistes
.
So
then
in
Bede's
Language
Antistes
is
a
Bishop
,
and
the
nameless
Person
we
speak
of
is
called
so
a
little
〈◊〉
:
He
was
therefore
a
Bishop
,
if
Aidan
was
.
Lastly
,
Aidan
belike
was
a
Presbyter
before
he
was
Ordained
Bishop
of
Northumbria
:
if
so
,
to
what
purpose
was
he
Ordained
,
if
not
to
a
distinct
Office
?
I
do
suppose
all
Mr.
〈◊〉
Material
Objections
are
accounted
for
by
this
time
,
and
his
Proofs
of
Presbyterian
Ordination
invalidated
.
I
will
conclude
this
Chapter
with
two
Observations
.
First
,
It
cannot
with
any
reason
be
imagined
,
but
that
there
were
Bishops
in
the
Province
of
Hy
,
because
Columba
,
the
first
Abbot
thereof
came
out
of
Ireland
;
there
we
read
of
Bishops
among
whom
he
was
educated
,
convers't
freely
with
them
,
and
was
Ordained
by
them
.
He
was
Ordained
Deacon
by
Finian
Bishop
of
Meath
,
and
was
an
Intimate
Friend
of
Columbanus
Bishop
of
Laghlin
,
and
Ordained
Presbyter
by
one
of
them
,
most
probably
by
Columbanus
,
from
whom
also
he
might
take
his
Name
,
as
Eusebius
Bishop
of
Caesarea
,
did
that
of
Pamphilus
,
Hist.
Account
c.
5.
After
he
was
Abbot
of
Hy
,
he
propagated
Bishops
among
the
Northumbrians
,
from
whom
our
English
Saxons
derived
.
On
this
account
it
was
my
Lord
of
St.
Asaph
argued
,
that
the
Scotch
Ordinations
must
needs
be
Episcopal
,
meaning
those
at
Hy
:
which
he
confirmed
by
this
Consideration
,
because
the
Romans
(
Austin
the
Monk
,
and
his
Associates
)
did
not
dislike
the
Orders
,
that
they
found
in
the
British
Church
,
as
being
Episcopal
,
though
derived
from
the
Monastery
of
Hy.
To
this
Mr.
O.
excepts
,
that
if
by
British
Bishops
be
meant
the
Church
of
South
Britain
,
't
is
not
to
the
purpose
as
we
observed
before
.
Ans.
Nothing
is
more
plain
than
that
my
Lord
Bishop
meant
the
Church
of
South
Britain
.
Whatever
Mr.
O.
observed
before
is
not
Material
,
but
my
Lord
Bishop's
Observation
is
manifestly
to
the
purpose
.
For
if
the
Romans
did
not
dislike
the
Orders
of
the
Church
of
South
Britain
,
they
could
not
dislike
the
Orders
of
Hy
,
because
the
South
Britains
derived
their
Orders
from
Hy
,
and
doubtless
were
the
same
:
and
the
reason
they
disliked
neither
was
because
they
were
Episcopal
,
as
were
the
Romans
and
all
the
World
beside
.
Mr.
O.
adds
,
if
the
Orders
〈◊〉
at
Hy
,
be
intended
as
not
disliked
by
the
Romans
,
yet
(
says
he
)
the
Romans
were
not
so
ignorant
of
the
Privileges
of
Abbots
as
to
dislike
their
Ordinations
,
which
are
allowed
by
that
Church
.
Decret.
Greg.
Abbas
,
si
sit
Presbyter
,
conferre
potest
Ordinem
Clericalem
.
Ans.
Ordo
Clericalis
may
possibly
here
〈◊〉
neither
the
Episcopal
nor
Presbyterial
,
nor
the
Diaconal
Order
,
but
the
Inferior
Orders
only
,
such
as
the
Sub-Deacons
,
Acoluthists
,
Exorcists
,
Psalmists
,
Lectors
and
Door-keepers
.
But
that
the
Episcopal
Order
is
not
meant
,
is
to
me
past
dispute
:
For
the
Romans
never
allowed
an
Abbot
Presbyter
to
Ordain
a
Bishop
that
I
heard
of
.
Secondly
,
If
this
Privilege
was
allowed
by
the
Roman
Pontifs
to
the
Presbyter
,
Abbots
.
It
was
allowed
to
such
of
them
only
,
who
't
is
likely
owned
the
Jurisdiction
of
the
Roman
See
.
But
not
unto
those
,
who
refused
subjection
to
it
,
as
did
the
Abbots
of
Hy
,
Mr.
O.
knows
very
Well
.
This
Privilege
then
,
whatever
it
was
,
could
not
be
the
reason
of
the
Romans
not
dislkeing
the
foresaid
Orders
.
Thirdly
,
The
Decretals
mentioned
were
made
or
put
together
,
by
Gregory
the
Nineth
Pope
of
Rome
,
in
the
Thirteenth
Century
,
about
709
Years
after
these
Abbots
of
Hy
,
almost
as
many
after
Austin
the
Monk
,
and
therefore
not
appositely
here
alledged
.
Fourthly
,
Mr.
O.
seems
here
to
countenance
Presbyterian
Orders
,
by
Popish
〈◊〉
,
and
Canonsframed
in
the
Dregs
of
Time
,
when
the
Romish
Corruptions
were
at
their
Height
.
But
I
like
them
never
the
better
for
that
.
The
Romans
are
more
excusable
in
this
then
our
Dissenters
,
'T
was
their
Principle
,
that
all
Church-Officers
derive
from
,
and
depend
meerly
upon
the
Pope's
Will
.
He
may
then
communicate
the
Priviledge
to
whom
he
will
,
even
to
a
Deacon
.
But
that
a
Presbyterian
Dissenter
should
justify
his
Orders
by
a
Pope's
decree
is
something
extraordinary
and
Extravagant
,
as
I
fancy
.
But
Secondly
,
I
would
observe
that
Columba
a
Presbyter
himself
usurp't
(
or
received
from
the
Prince
of
the
Province
of
Delried
)
a
Dominion
over
a
great
Province
in
the
North-West
of
the
now
Scotland
,
over
the
Monks
and
Culdees
(
if
any
such
were
)
,
yea
even
over
his
Fellow
Presbyters
themselves
:
for
all
or
many
of
them
at
least
were
Presbyters
,
and
lastly
,
over
the
Bishop
also
,
if
it
will
be
acknowledged
there
were
such
in
the
Province
of
Hy.
Besides
,
he
yet
retained
a
Jurisdiction
over
the
Monastery
of
Dearmuch
in
Ireland
,
which
himself
had
formerly
erected
,
and
his
Successors
over
many
more
Monasteries
of
lesser
Note
,
which
sprang
out
of
these
two
,
both
in
〈◊〉
and
in
〈◊〉
.
Now
this
is
a
wonderful
piece
of
Antiquity
to
justifie
the
Priciples
,
E.
H.
l.
3.
c.
4.
and
Practices
of
the
United
Brethren
at
present
amongst
us
.
If
it
proves
Presbyterian
Ordination
it
destroys
Presbyterian
Parity
,
unless
Mr.
O.
will
assert
,
that
the
Monks
of
Hy
were
equal
to
the
Abbots
,
and
that
every
Monk
was
the
Abbot
in
his
Turn
,
pro
Tempore
.
What
Room
then
has
Mr.
O.
to
talk
of
Bishops
receiving
their
Power
from
Kings
,
ruling
over
many
Churches
and
Congregations
,
exercising
Jurisdiction
over
their
Fellow
Presbyters
(
as
he
thinks
)
and
that
for
life
too
?
All
this
did
Columba
and
his
Successors
,
who
are
pretended
by
Mr.
Baxter
,
to
have
restored
the
Culdees
(
or
Presbyters
)
strength
against
the
incroachments
of
Palladius
.
But
all
this
while
the
Tyrants
only
were
changed
,
not
the
Tyranny
,
the
name
altered
not
the
thing
.
Instead
of
Palladius
,
the
Culdees
and
Monks
were
in
the
Hands
of
Columba
:
and
in
the
place
of
a
Bishop
was
set
up
an
Archpresbyter
.
Moreover
,
I
would
ask
whether
in
the
supposed
Ordinations
at
Hy
by
Presbyters
,
the
Monk-Presbyters
could
or
did
Ordain
without
the
Abbot-Presbyters
.
If
not
(
as
I
believe
all
will
and
must
grant
)
our
United
Bretheren
will
find
little
relief
from
this
rare
Instance
of
Presbyterian
Parity
and
Ordination
.
I
should
here
have
concluded
this
Chapter
,
but
Mr.
O.
in
the
midst
of
this
Controversie
,
has
interwoven
an
invidious
Reflection
upon
Episcopacy
,
and
asserted
,
that
the
Hierarchy
in
the
Churches
of
Ans.
1.
If
the
Heathens
had
Sundry
Officers
in
the
Administrations
of
their
Idolatrous
Religion
,
subordinate
to
one
another
,
it
will
not
follow
the
Christians
took
it
from
them
?
Why
not
from
the
Jewish
Hierarchy
?
His
beloved
Hilarius
Sardus
is
of
this
Opinion
:
or
why
may
it
not
not
be
thought
a
piece
of
Natural
Religion
,
wherein
the
Patriarch
,
Jews
,
Gentiles
,
all
agree
?
But
let
us
see
how
he
attempts
to
make
good
this
Reflection
of
the
Christians
,
deriving
their
Hierarchy
〈◊〉
the
Heathen
.
He
grounds
it
on
the
Epistle
of
Julian
to
Arsacius
,
the
Gentiles
Chief-Priest
in
Galatia
,
and
after
the
Citation
of
a
scrap
out
of
Eusebius
,
which
I
do
not
find
in
the
places
directed
to
,
cries
out
,
Here
is
a
Precedent
for
Bishops
intermedling
with
state
affairs
.
Whereas
any
one
may
know
that
will
but
read
,
or
understand
that
Epistle
(
which
Mr.
O.
never
did
I
preceive
)
that
't
is
intirely
spent
about
Religious
matters
,
and
directs
how
Arsacius
the
Chief
Priest
should
behave
himself
,
in
Governing
the
affairs
of
the
Gentile
Religion
.
Thus
we
are
wont
to
be
teazed
by
a
sort
of
Men
,
that
do
not
or
will
not
understand
what
they
say
;
who
,
so
they
may
cast
dirt
upon
us
,
care
not
how
ignorantly
and
falsly
they
do
it
.
But
to
let
this
pass
.
The
Question
here
is
,
whether
the
Christians
derived
their
form
of
Church
Government
by
Bishops
from
the
Gentiles
,
or
the
Gentiles
from
them
.
This
latter
I
undertake
to
make
out
.
First
,
From
the
Ancient
Writers
of
the
Primitive
Church
,
who
argue
for
the
Divine
Authority
of
Bishops
,
as
being
borrowed
from
the
Levitical
High
Priests
,
Priests
and
Levites
.
All
the
World
knows
this
;
I
need
not
bring
forth
〈◊〉
Testimonies
,
even
Mr.
O's
so
oft
mentioned
Hilary
is
one
:
but
of
this
I
have
spoke
before
.
Secondly
,
Although
the
Druids
according
to
Caesar
,
had
such
a
sort
of
Government
among
them
yet
in
the
East
,
where
Episcopacy
was
first
established
,
the
Gentiles
had
no
such
Government
,
as
appears
from
what
Eusebius
has
noted
,
of
Maximinus
de
morte
Pers.
c.
36.
newly
taken
up
by
the
Heathens
—
Maximinus
novo
more
Sacerdotes
Maximos
per
singulas
Civitates
singulos
ex
Primoribus
fecit
—
parumque
hoc
fuit
,
nisi
etiam
Provinciis
ex
alticre
Dignitatis
gradu
singulosquasi
Pontifices
superponeret
—
Maximinus
then
first
(
Novo
more
)
created
Chief
Priests
in
every
City
,
and
as
if
this
had
been
too
little
,
he
Ordained
as
it
were
High-Priests
over
Whole
Provinces
:
It
was
then
a
new
device
among
the
Gentiles
,
first
set
up
by
Maxinisnus
in
conformity
to
the
Christians
.
Thirdly
,
The
same
is
proved
out
of
that
very
Epistle
of
Julian
,
to
Arsacius
the
chief-Priest
of
Galatia
,
though
quoted
by
Mr.
O.
himself
,
as
if
it
were
on
his
side
.
I
am
ashamed
any
Man
,
that
pretends
to
Religion
and
Learning
,
should
thus
foully
misrepresent
Authors
,
and
make
as
if
they
had
written
,
what
is
manifest
they
never
so
much
as
dreamed
of
.
To
shew
this
,
I
'll
first
sum
up
what
Sozomen
himself
relates
concerning
this
matter
,
and
then
give
you
an
abridgment
of
Julian's
Epistle
,
that
follows
in
the
same
Chapter
.
He
says
—
The
Emperor
(
Julian
)
desiring
also
with
the
same
degrees
and
Prerogatives
of
Supremacy
.
And
sundry
other
things
are
mentioned
,
wherein
Julian
was
resolved
to
imitate
the
Christians
:
He
adds
in
general
—
The
Emperor
endeavoured
to
conform
the
Gentile
unto
the
Christian
Institutions
.
Then
follows
Julian's
Letter
to
Arsacius
,
the
Chief
Priest
of
Galatia
,
wherein
there
is
not
a
Syllable
of
State-Affairs
(
as
Mr.
O.
has
falsly
suggested
)
,
not
a
word
that
intimates
,
as
if
the
Christian
derived
their
Government
from
the
Gentiles
.
He
only
admonishes
Arsacius
to
take
care
about
Sundry
,
particular
things
belonging
unto
Morality
,
such
as
Hospitality
to
Strangers
,
care
about
burying
the
dead
,
that
the
Flamines
should
not
frequent
the
Theater
,
nor
Drink
in
Taverns
,
nor
profess
any
Trade
.
He
advises
him
to
build
Hospitals
for
the
Poor
,
and
promises
to
furnish
him
with
Moneys
to
do
it
:
He
warns
him
not
to
pay
visits
often
to
Great
Men
,
but
to
write
to
'em
only
,
and
live
retiredly
:
that
the
Inferior
Flamines
should
not
meet
secular
Officers
,
when
they
entred
the
Cities
in
Pomp
,
〈◊〉
they
came
to
the
Temples
of
the
Gods
;
who
when
they
are
entred
,
are
then
but
private
Persons
.
In
a
Word
,
he
Orders
Arsacius
to
endeavour
to
make
the
Flamines
good
Men
,
by
shaming
them
unto
their
Duty
or
perswading
them
,
or
removing
them
from
the
Priestly
Ministry
:
to
bestow
Honour
on
them
who
obey'd
,
but
the
the
stubborn
and
contumacious
to
expel
.
First
,
From
the
Whole
it
appears
that
all
this
Policy
of
Julian
was
taken
from
the
Christians
,
whose
Rules
and
Government
he
knew
very
well
,
having
himself
once
been
a
Christian
,
and
a
Reader
in
the
Church
.
True
!
many
Writers
of
latter
Ages
have
taught
,
that
the
Christians
followed
the
Gentiles
in
their
Church-Government
.
But
't
is
not
my
business
to
account
for
the
dreams
and
fancies
of
School-Men
,
and
other
Authors
that
follow
them
:
Although
at
the
same
time
I
am
of
Opinion
,
that
the
Primitive
Church
regulated
their
Parishes
,
Diocesses
and
Provinces
,
according
to
the
Divisions
,
which
they
found
ready
made
to
their
Hands
,
by
the
Civil
Magistrate
,
and
perhaps
to
the
districts
formerly
appointed
by
the
Druids
in
these
Western
parts
,
which
might
occasion
those
Authors
to
affirm
,
that
the
Episcopal
Government
it self
,
was
borrowed
from
them
,
which
is
(
we
see
)
a
great
mistake
.
To
conclude
;
seeing
we
have
found
the
Government
of
the
Gentile
Religion
(
in
the
East
at
least
)
was
taken
from
the
Christian
,
being
before
more
like
unto
the
Presbyterian
or
Congregational
,
the
Reflection
may
be
retorted
upon
our
Adversaries
,
and
it
may
with
more
Truth
be
said
,
that
they
had
their
Pattern
from
the
Gentile
Priests
.
If
any
one
desire
a
more
full
and
Learned
account
of
this
,
let
him
consult
the
late
Bishop
of
Worcester
.
CHAP.
VI.
Concerning
Fortunatianus
Bishop
of
Assurae
,
Basilides
and
Martialis
two
Spanish
Bishops
.
MR
O.
endeavours
to
prove
that
Presbyters
,
and
People
Epicteto
fratri
Martialis
.
Cyprian
acquainted
herewith
,
in
that
Letter
exhorts
Epictetus
,
and
the
People
not
to
receive
him
,
〈◊〉
to
acknowledge
him
any
more
for
their
Bishop
.
How
this
story
establishes
Mr.
O's
Proposition
,
I
am
not
able
to
discern
.
For
1st
,
By
this
Argument
the
Bps
were
subject
unto
the
People
,
as
well
as
to
their
Presbyters
,
which
Mr.
O.
would
do
well
to
consider
of
.
2
ly
,
It
does
not
appear
that
Fortunatianus
,
was
ever
accused
or
cited
to
Answer
unto
the
Charge
laid
against
him
:
by
consequence
no
Judiciary
Sentence
was
pronounc't
upon
him
.
The
Fact
was
Notorious
.
He
had
of
his
own
accord
abdicated
and
turned
to
the
Gentiles
.
Thirdly
,
If
Fortunatianus
was
formally
cited
,
accused
and
condemned
,
it
follows
not
that
Epictetus
the
supposed
Presbyter
,
and
the
People
were
his
Judges
.
One
may
with
more
reason
imagine
that
the
Cause
was
brought
,
if
at
all
,
before
the
the
Provincial
Bishops
and
by
them
decided
.
Fourthly
,
It
s
not
certain
that
Epictetus
was
was
a
meer
Presbyter
〈◊〉
for
ought
any
one
knows
or
can
say
to
the
contrary
,
Epictetus
filled
the
Episcopal
Chair
at
Assurae
,
when
Cyprian
wrote
that
Epistle
.
Fifthly
,
Supposing
Epictetus
was
only
a
Presbyter
,
yet
here
is
no
mention
of
a
formal
Process
or
Judgment
given
against
Fortunatianus
:
but
only
a
caution
given
to
that
Church
,
not
to
receive
him
again
.
For
the
matter
of
Fact
(
I
suppose
)
was
plain
.
The
unfortunate
Man
had
Sacrificed
,
and
thereby
abandon'd
his
Bishoprick
.
But
Peace
being
restored
,
he
will
needs
intrude
into
it
again
,
having
as
is
to
be
presumed
)
some
Friends
at
Assurae
favouring
his
pretences
.
This
is
certain
the
design
of
St.
Cyprian
in
this
Epistle
,
was
not
to
advise
them
,
to
call
Fortunatianus
before
them
to
try
,
and
to
condemn
or
depose
him
,
but
only
to
warn
the
Church
of
Assurae
,
to
think
no
more
of
their
former
Bishop
,
who
had
〈◊〉
into
Idolatry
,
and
was
therefore
no
Bishop
at
all
.
And
this
was
agreeable
to
the
Rule
,
which
the
Churches
of
Rome
and
of
Africa
,
and
of
the
Whole
World
had
formerly
made
,
as
the
Learned
〈◊〉
has
observed
—
That
such
as
had
Sacrificed
should
be
deprived
Annal.
Cyp.
p.
46.
of
their
Ordination
and
Sacerdotal
Honour
,
and
upon
their
Repentance
should
be
admitted
unto
Lay
Communion
only
.
The
Observation
is
taken
out
of
the
67
th
Epistle
(
of
which
I
am
to
speak
by
and
by
)
in
these
Words
—
Jam
pridem
nobiscum
&
cum
omnibus
omnino
Episcopis
in
toto
mundo
constitutis
,
etiam
Collega
noster
Cornelius
Sacerdos
pacisicus
ac
justus
,
ac
martyrio
honoratus
decreverit
ejusmodi
homines
ad
poenitentiam
quidem
agendam
posse
admitti
,
ab
Ordinatione
autem
〈◊〉
atque
sacerdotali
honore
prohiberi
.
It
is
not
then
to
be
denyed
,
but
that
as
the
Presbyters
and
the
People
of
a
Diocess
(
when
't
is
Notorious
that
their
Bishop
has
Apostatized
,
and
fallen
into
Idolatry
,
and
for
some
time
deserted
them
,
and
another
is
substituted
in
his
place
(
which
was
I
presume
the
Case
before
us
)
have
a
Power
by
the
Law
of
Reason
,
and
of
Scripture
too
to
refuse
him
,
when
he
offers
to
obtrude
himself
again
upon
'em
;
so
more
especially
since
there
is
a
solemn
〈◊〉
Ecclesiastical
Law
provided
in
the
Case
.
But
I
demand
of
Mr.
O.
to
give
me
an
instance
,
when
ever
the
Presbyters
and
People
called
their
Bishop
into
Judgment
before
them
,
censured
and
rebuk't
,
acquitted
or
condemned
him
,
either
when
the
Fact
was
in
Question
,
or
the
matter
objected
against
him
,
was
in
Controversy
about
its
lawfulness
.
Until
Mr.
O.
produces
an
Instance
of
one
of
these
kinds
,
he
is
far
short
of
proving
that
Presbyters
,
and
People
may
receive
an
accusation
against
their
Bishop
,
as
Timothy
had
Power
to
do
against
Elders
.
For
Timothy
had
Power
to
receive
an
Accusation
upon
information
of
Witnesses
,
and
to
rebuke
the
offender
accordingly
,
and
if
need
were
to
reject
him
,
Titus
3.
10.
We
are
then
safe
as
yet
,
notwithstanding
any
thing
St.
Cyprian
has
written
in
this
Epistle
.
The
Case
of
Basilides
and
Martialis
,
is
much
what
the
same
,
as
that
of
Fortunatianus
,
and
is
to
be
found
in
the
67
th
Epistle
of
St.
Cyprian
.
'T
was
wrote
by
St.
Cyprian
in
his
own
name
,
and
in
the
The
People
have
Power
either
of
chusing
good
Bishops
or
refusing
unworthy
ones
:
Again
,
the
People
ought
to
separate
from
a
Wicked
Bishop
:
that
Episcopal
Ordinations
ought
to
be
Celebrated
sub
populi
assistentis
Conscientia
,
with
the
knowledge
and
assent
of
the
People
present
,
to
the
end
that
by
the
People
the
Crimes
of
bad
Men
may
be
detected
,
the
Merits
of
good
Men
may
be
testified
,
and
so
a
right
and
regular
Ordination
may
be
made
,
which
shall
have
been
examined
by
the
judgment
and
suffrage
of
all
.
St.
Cyprian
goes
on
—
That
is
to
be
observed
,
which
is
held
among
us
in
Africa
,
and
almost
in
all
Provinces
,
that
to
the
end
Ordinations
be
rightly
made
,
all
the
next
Bishops
of
the
same
Province
meet
together
with
the
People
,
for
whom
the
Bishop
is
design'd
;
and
let
the
Bishop
be
chosen
in
the
presence
of
the
People
,
which
knows
and
has
been
acquainted
with
the
Lives
and
Conversations
of
the
Candidates
.
This
we
understand
has
been
done
among
you
,
in
the
Ordination
of
Sabinus
our
Collegue
,
how
that
the
Bishoprick
was
given
him
,
and
hands
laid
on
him
with
the
Suffrage
of
the
whole
Fraternity
,
and
by
the
Judgment
(
or
decree
)
of
the
Bishops
,
who
were
present
at
the
Meeting
,
and
who
had
sent
their
Letters
(
of
Consent
)
concerning
the
Bishop
to
be
chosen
.
That
which
I
would
deduce
from
all
this
is
,
that
because
the
Power
of
chusing
and
Ordaining
a
Bishop
,
was
lodg'd
in
the
Provincial
Bishops
together
with
the
People
of
the
Diocess
,
it
must
follow
that
the
Power
of
depriving
,
consequently
of
receiving
Accusations
against
the
Bishop
,
was
〈◊〉
in
the
same
Provincial
Bishops
,
and
and
the
People
of
the
Diocess
.
And
if
this
be
so
,
then
Basilides
and
Martialis
were
deposed
by
the
Provincial
Bishops
,
in
the
presence
and
with
the
Consent
of
the
People
,
and
so
Mr.
O's
inference
from
this
story
will
not
hold
,
sc:
that
the
Presbyters
and
People
may
receive
an
accusation
against
their
Bishop
,
that
's
to
say
in
a
Judiciary
way
.
Moreover
it
seems
to
me
very
probable
by
some
passages
in
this
Epistle
,
that
the
People's
Power
in
chusing
or
rejecting
their
Bishop
consisted
only
in
the
Testimony
,
which
they
gave
to
the
Provincial
Bishops
,
concerning
the
Lives
and
Conversations
of
the
Bishop
propounded
by
the
Provincial
Bishops
to
succeed
.
I
gather
this
from
those
words
—
〈◊〉
ipsa
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
vel
eligendi
dignos
sacerdotes
,
vel
indignos
recusandi
,
the
which
is
more
clearly
explained
in
the
same
Paragraph
,
where
Cyprian
adds
,
Ordinationes
Sacerdotales
non
nisi
sub
populi
assistentis
Conscientia
fieri
oportere
,
ut
plebe
presente
,
vel
detegantur
malorum
crimina
vel
bonorum
merita
predicentur
.
Ordinations
ought
to
be
with
the
knowledge
of
the
People
,
that
the
Crimes
of
bad
Men
might
be
discovered
,
and
that
the
deserts
of
good
Men
,
might
be
made
known
unto
〈◊〉
Provincial
Bishops
,
who
were
indeed
the
proper
Electors
.
The
same
is
shortly
after
again
explained
—
Episcopus
deligatur
Plebe
Presente
,
quae
singulorum
vitam
,
plenissime
novit
,
&
〈◊〉
.
actum
de
ejus
Conversatione
perspexit
—
—
Let
the
Bishop
he
chosen
(
by
the
next
Bishop
of
the
Province
)
the
People
being
present
,
who
knew
the
lives
of
each
(
Candidate
)
and
saw
every
Man's
Works
and
Conversation
.
So
that
the
Peoples
business
seems
but
to
have
been
only
to
give
testimony
for
or
against
the
Candidate
for
the
Bishoprick
,
whilst
the
Synod
of
the
Provincial
Bishops
chose
and
Ordained
him
.
However
this
be
,
it
is
manifest
from
the
whole
—
that
the
Presbyters
and
the
People
did
not
(
without
the
Provincial
Bishops
)
by
virtue
of
their
own
sole
and
proper
Power
hear
,
or
receive
Accusations
in
a
Judiciary
way
,
much
less
take
upon
'em
to
give
Sentence
upon
their
own
Bishops
,
which
is
the
thing
affirmed
by
Mr.
O.
without
any
ground
or
Reason
produced
out
of
these
Epistles
.
Whoever
will
impartially
read
St.
Cyprian
,
must
confess
he
is
intirely
Ours
.
Among
all
others
,
he
is
the
most
hearty
and
Zealous
Assertor
of
Episcopacy
,
tho'
he
used
and
exerted
his
Power
with
exemplary
Humility
and
Moderation
.
The
Rector
in
T.
N.
observed
,
that
in
the
Epistles
to
Timothy
and
〈◊〉
,
no
share
in
the
Government
of
these
Churches
was
given
to
the
Presbytery
,
whereby
is
signified
at
least
,
that
these
two
were
the
Supreme
or
Principal
Rulers
of
those
Churches
committed
to
their
Charge
.
After
this
the
Rector
granted
,
nevertheless
,
that
the
Presbyters
were
not
,
ought
not
to
be
utterly
precluded
from
all
interest
in
the
Government
of
the
Church
,
as
appears
from
the
Council
of
Jerusalem
,
Acts
15.
Hereunto
after
some
Cavils
,
and
charging
me
with
contradicting
my self
(
I
leave
that
to
the
Judgment
of
the
Reader
)
the
Minister
gravely
admonishes
us
—
—
,
that
Cyprian
did
nothing
without
the
Council
of
his
Presbyters
,
and
without
the
Consent
of
the
People
Epistle
6.
Erasm.
Ans.
1.
This
Passage
proves
not
that
the
Presbyters
were
equal
unto
St.
Cyprian
:
it
may
as
well
be
said
the
People
were
equal
both
to
the
Presbyters
and
to
St.
Cyprian
.
All
that
can
hence
be
gathered
is
,
what
I
intimated
and
granted
before
,
that
the
Presbyters
have
a
subordinate
〈◊〉
in
the
Government
,
and
are
as
a
standing
Council
to
the
Bishop
:
but
the
Bishop
is
the
Supreme
and
Principal
.
'T
is
so
in
our
Civil
Government
,
especially
when
we
have
a
Wise
and
Good
King
.
He
does
nothing
of
moment
without
the
advice
of
his
Peers
,
and
Consent
of
his
People
in
Parliament
.
2.
It
may
be
questioned
,
whether
St.
Cyprian
thought
himself
in
strictness
obliged
to
this
,
or
whether
it
was
his
own
Voluntary
and
prudent
Resolution
,
and
Condescention
unto
his
Presbytery
and
People
.
The
whole
passage
runs
thus
—
Solus
rescribere
nihil
potui
,
quando
à
primordio
3.
St.
Cyprian
did
take
upon
himself
sometimes
on
extraordinary
Occasions
,
to
dispatch
some
Ecclesiastical
Affairs
without
the
Consent
of
his
Presbyters
,
and
People
,
(
as
in
the
Ordination
of
Aurelius
the
4.
The
Council
and
Consent
of
the
Presbyters
,
and
People
CHAP.
VII
.
Of
the
Scythians
.
MR
O.
very
positively
after
Blundel
asserts
that
—
The
Power
of
Ordination
and
Government
,
was
in
the
Hands
of
Captive
Presbyters
under
the
Scythians
beyond
Ister
,
for
about
70
Years
from
the
Year
260
to
the
Year
327.
Now
if
this
were
as
certainly
true
as
Blundel
,
and
Mr.
O.
have
confidently
reported
out
of
the
Historian
,
it
would
do
them
no
Service
at
all
:
forasmuch
as
it
is
not
deny'd
but
that
Christians
in
Captivity
,
and
under
other
necessities
also
may
govern
themselves
,
and
Worship
God
without
Bishops
,
yea
,
without
Presbyters
and
without
Deacons
;
so
our
Lord
has
determined
in
general
,
God
will
have
Mercy
and
not
Sacrifice
.
But
not
to
insist
on
this
;
let
us
see
,
with
what
Artifice
these
two
Gentlemen
have
misrepresented
and
corrupted
Philostorgius
,
on
whom
they
Father
the
foresaid
Story
.
To
this
end
I
will
make
him
speak
English
.
Philostorgius
saith
,
that
Ulphilas
one
of
the
Transistrian
the
Hellespont
)
into
Asia
,
they
invaded
Galatia
and
Cappadocia
.
And
having
made
very
many
Captives
,
among
whom
were
some
of
the
Clergy
,
they
returned
into
their
own
Country
with
much
prey
.
Wherefore
those
Captives
and
Holy
Men
,
thus
mixt
with
the
Barbarians
,
brought
over
not
a
few
of
them
,
unto
true
Piety
and
Godliness
,
and
perswaded
them
,
that
instead
of
the
Gentile
Superstition
they
would
embrace
the
Christian
Religion
.
Of
the
number
of
those
Cap.
tives
were
the
Ancestors
of
Ulphilas
.
This
Ulphilas
,
therefore
was
the
Leader
of
those
Holy
Men
,
who
lately
came
out
of
Gothia
(
or
Scythia
)
and
was
their
first
Bishop
constituted
after
this
manner
.
When
by
the
King
of
the
Goths
,
he
was
sent
Embassador
with
some
others
,
unto
the
Emperor
Constantine
,
he
was
Ordained
by
Eusebius
,
and
other
Bishops
with
him
,
Bishop
of
those
,
who
became
Christians
in
Gothia
,
and
were
now
past
over
the
River
Danube
into
the
Empire
this
multitude
of
Refugees
,
the
Emperor
plac'd
in
Maesia
,
that
is
,
on
the
Roman
side
and
Bank
of
Ister
.
There
is
nothing
more
Material
in
this
story
,
as
't
is
delivered
by
Philostorgius
.
Upon
this
passage
then
,
I
observe
as
follows
.
First
,
That
Philostorgius
was
by
the
Ancients
noted
for
an
Impudent
,
Lying
,
and
Impious
Historian
:
and
therefore
his
Relations
Photius
Bibliothec
.
ch.
40.
p.
26.
not
easily
to
be
credited
,
especially
in
the
matter
now
before
us
.
Philostorgius's
business
was
,
to
advance
the
Name
and
reputation
of
Ulphilas
(
being
a
profess'd
Arian
,
as
well
as
himself
was
)
and
therefore
he
remembers
that
Constantine
,
called
him
Moses
,
and
caused
him
to
be
Ordained
the
first
Bishop
of
the
Christian
Scythians
or
Goths
.
The
latter
of
which
,
I
shall
by
and
by
shew
is
not
true
,
not
in
the
sense
Blondel
would
have
it
.
Secondly
,
That
Philostorgius
in
the
foresaid
Relation
,
is
singular
and
by
himself
,
none
of
the
Ecclesiastical
Historians
before
or
after
him
,
making
any
mention
of
the
things
related
concerning
Ulphilas
:
and
this
is
enough
to
bring
him
into
suspicion
,
when
he
commends
Ulphilas
,
as
the
first
Bishop
of
the
Goths
or
Scythian
Christians
.
Thirdly
,
Not
to
insist
on
either
of
the
former
Observations
,
but
allowing
Philostorgius
,
to
be
a
faithful
Historian
,
and
taking
the
matter
of
Fact
as
granted
,
I
farther
note
,
that
Philostorgius
speaks
of
Clergy-Men
in
General
carried
,
into
Captivity
,
not
mentioning
the
particular
Species
.
So
that
among
the
Captivated
Clergy-Men
,
there
might
be
Bishops
,
and
there
might
not
be
Presbyters
,
for
any
thing
Philostorgius
has
said
,
or
Mr.
O.
can
tell
.
It
is
not
to
be
gathered
from
him
,
that
Ulphilas
himself
was
so
much
as
a
Presbyter
,
when
he
first
went
unto
Constantine
.
Jeroms
Adversaries
therefore
might
with
as
much
Truth
,
and
for
the
Honour
of
Deacons
have
hence
concluded
,
that
the
Power
of
Government
,
and
Ordination
was
in
the
Hands
of
Deacons
in
Scythia
,
for
these
70
Years
,
as
Blundel
could
make
his
Inference
for
Presbyters
.
The
most
probable
Conjecture
is
,
that
there
were
some
of
all
sorts
,
sc.
Bishops
Priest
and
Deacons
.
Fourthly
,
I
might
demand
of
Mr.
O.
to
prove
that
there
was
any
one
Presbyter
among
those
Christian
Captives
,
which
haply
,
he
will
be
put
hard
to
do
,
but
in
the
mean
while
I
'll
undertake
to
demonstrate
,
that
there
was
at
least
one
Bishop
in
Scythia
,
before
Ulphilas
,
viz.
Theophilus
,
who
was
one
of
the
Nicene
Fathers
,
and
subscribed
the
Canons
of
that
Council
,
so
Eusebius
Witnesseth
—
also
the
Bishop
of
Persis
was
present
at
the
Synod
,
Vit.
Con.
c.
7.
nor
was
there
wanting
a
Scythian
Bishop
.
Socrates
names
him
—
Theophilus
who
being
Bishop
of
the
Goths
,
〈◊〉
there
present
subscribed
Council
.
Theophilus
therefore
was
Bishop
of
the
Goths
before
the
Nicene
Synod
,
and
was
present
at
the
Council
and
subscribed
it
.
Therefore
the
power
of
Ordination
,
and
the
Government
of
the
Scythian
Church
was
not
in
the
Hands
of
Presbyters
among
the
Christian
Goths
(
or
Scythians
)
for
about
70
Years
,
as
Mr.
O.
and
Blondel
have
affirmed
,
but
in
the
Hands
of
Bishops
,
or
of
a
Bishop
at
least
.
I
add
,
that
seeing
we
find
a
Bishop
among
the
Goths
before
the
Nicene
Synod
,
't
is
but
reasonable
to
think
that
Bishops
,
or
a
Bishop
at
first
went
along
with
the
Captive
Christians
into
Scythia
,
or
that
one
soon
followed
them
thither
.
I
will
confirm
this
Con
-
jecture
from
that
passage
in
Sozomen
,
who
informs
〈◊〉
that
—
it
was
an
Ancient
Custom
(
speaking
of
the
Scythians
)
that
one
Bishop
only
govern
the
Churches
of
that
Province
.
Sozomen
is
now
writing
of
the
Church-affairs
,
in
the
Reign
of
Valentinian
and
Valens
,
that
is
about
the
Year
370.
43
Years
after
Ulphilas
had
been
first
Ordained
Bishop
.
Now
Ulphilas
was
not
long
before
this
time
alive
according
to
Socrates
,
and
invented
the
Gothick
Letters
,
〈◊〉
the
Reign
of
Ancient
Custom
among
the
Scythian
Christians
,
that
one
Bishop
only
governed
their
Province
,
when
as
this
Ancient
Custom
,
forsooth
,
had
been
but
of
40
Years
continuance
from
the
first
,
and
there
had
been
but
Two
,
and
the
former
of
them
dead
but
about
four
Years
before
.
For
both
Ulphilas
and
Vetranio
were
Bishops
in
the
Reign
of
Valens
[
*
](A42789-e73300-b)
*
Soz.
l.
6.
c.
37.
The.
li.
4.
c.
47.
.
The
sum
is
there
were
Bishops
in
Scythia
,
during
some
part
at
least
of
the
70
Years
mentioned
by
Mr.
O.
and
in
all
likelihood
all
the
while
.
I
defy
Mr.
O
,
to
shew
the
contrary
out
of
Philostorgius
,
or
any
other
Historian
extant
.
There
does
remain
indeed
a
small
Difficulty
to
be
accounted
for
,
viz.
How
then
comes
it
to
pass
,
that
Philostorgius
calls
him
the
first
Bishop
of
the
Goths
,
if
the
Goths
had
Bishops
before
him
?
The
answer
hereunto
is
easy
and
〈◊〉
.
Fifthly
,
Theophilus
,
who
was
present
at
the
Nicene
Synod
,
was
Bishop
of
the
Goths
beyond
the
Danube
(
or
Ister
)
:
for
they
came
not
over
the
River
into
the
Roman
Empire
,
till
after
the
said
Synod
.
Upon
their
Arrival
or
at
their
request
,
Constantine
allotted
Maesia
for
'em
to
inhabit
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
part
of
the
Roman
Empire
,
which
lay
to
the
Banks
of
the
Danube
,
on
this
side
the
River
,
and
named
Ulphilas
to
be
Bishop
,
and
he
was
the
first
Bishop
of
the
Cisistrian
Scythians
within
the
Roman
Empire
,
and
Ordained
by
Eusebius
Bishop
of
Caesarea
,
tho'
Theophilus
before
him
had
been
Bishop
of
the
Transistrian
.
So
Socrates
,
Moreover
to
this
Faith
even
Ulphilas
himself
,
Bishop
So
that
after
all
this
,
it
can't
be
questioned
,
but
that
the
Gothick
Christians
were
long
before
Ulphilas
governed
by
Bishops
,
although
Blondel
and
Mr.
O.
have
so
roundly
denyed
it
without
,
yea
,
against
plain
Evidence
to
the
contrary
.
Upon
a
farther
Search
into
Blondel
,
I
find
him
acknowledging
,
what
I
have
before
spoken
of
Theophilus
Bishop
of
the
〈◊〉
;
but
Mr.
O.
who
pretends
to
improve
Arguments
,
has
left
this
lamer
and
more
imperfect
then
he
found
it
.
Let
us
then
see
what
answer
Blundel
has
framed
against
Theophilus
the
Scythian
Bishop
:
It
is
as
follows
.
If
we
grant
Theophilus
was
Bishop
of
the
Gothick
Metropolis
before
〈◊〉
,
we
will
being
hereby
furnished
with
a
stronger
Weapon
justifie
our
Cause
:
For
they
who
make
to
themselves
a
Bishop
their
Superior
,
who
dare
deny
them
a
Power
of
Ordaining
Presbyters
,
which
are
but
their
equals
.
Ans.
This
Argument
is
grounded
upon
a
Supposition
,
which
is
not
to
be
allowed
of
nor
can
be
proved
.
Blondel
takes
it
here
for
granted
,
the
Scythian
Presbyters
Ordained
their
Bishops
,
Theophilus
for
instance
.
But
one
may
surmize
several
other
things
with
equal
probabilty
,
any
of
which
will
overthrow
this
wonderful
Demonstration
.
As
1.
It
may
be
supposed
that
a
Bishop
,
or
Bishops
were
by
the
Scythians
,
at
their
irruption
into
Galatia
and
Cappadocia
,
carryed
Captives
into
Scythia
,
as
was
before
observed
;
or
2.
That
some
Bishop
might
follow
the
Captive
Christians
into
that
Barbarous
Country
,
being
first
Ordained
in
the
Empire
.
Theophilus
(
which
is
a
Greek
Name
)
haply
was
so
made
and
Ordained
their
Bishop
,
or
3.
the
Scythian
Church
might
send
one
of
their
own
Presbyters
to
be
Ordained
by
the
Imperial
Bishops
,
as
Ulphilas
after
was
.
For
that
there
was
a
Correspondence
between
the
Scythian
and
Imperial
Churches
is
past
doubt
,
when
we
consider
that
Theophilus
Bishop
of
the
Scythians
,
assisted
at
the
Council
of
Nice
.
There
is
nothing
in
Philostorgius
the
only
Author
of
this
Tale
,
that
thwarts
any
one
of
thesethree
suppositions
,
or
that
Countenances
Blondel's
surmises
of
the
Scythian
Presbyters
Ordaining
their
own
Bishop
.
That
of
Ulphilas
being
the
first
Bishop
,
I
have
already
accounted
for
.
2.
If
the
Scythian
Presbyters
Ordained
a
Bishop
to
preside
over
them
(
supposing
this
)
it
hence
follows
they
thought
it
necessary
to
have
one
:
and
rather
then
have
none
chosen
in
their
necessity
,
to
constitute
and
Ordain
him
themselves
contrary
to
the
Ordinary
and
established
Method
,
of
which
they
could
not
be
ignorant
.
But
this
is
said
upon
a
bare
supposition
of
the
Scythian
Presbyters
Ordaining
their
Bishops
,
which
is
not
proved
nor
at
all
probable
,
as
I
have
shewed
before
.
That
which
appears
above
board
is
,
that
the
Scythians
had
a
Bishop
,
which
,
setting
apart
meer
Conjectures
on
both
sides
,
is
sufficient
to
my
purpose
.
CHAP.
VIII
.
Of
the
Chorepiscopi
.
THE
Occasion
of
their
Institution
,
as
I
conjecture
,
was
either
1.
To
promote
and
quicken
Conversions
in
the
Countries
and
Villages
subject
to
the
City
Bishops
:
or
2.
After
believers
and
Congregations
were
there
multiplyed
to
be
as
Suffragans
,
and
Assistants
for
the
better
Government
of
the
Churches
.
And
because
it
was
a
Fundamental
Law
in
the
Church
,
that
there
ought
not
to
be
two
Bishops
in
one
Diocess
,
with
plentitude
of
Power
(
it
being
impossible
to
serve
two
Masters
)
therefore
these
〈◊〉
,
were
intirely
under
,
the
Jurisdiction
of
the
City
Bishops
,
who
were
indeed
the
〈◊〉
.
There
is
not
any
Monument
of
Antiquity
,
that
I
am
aware
of
,
from
whence
we
may
better
understand
the
Nature
of
these
Chorepiscopi
,
than
the
Canon
of
the
Council
of
Antioch
,
which
I
will
therefore
transcribe
at
length
into
English
.
They
who
reside
in
Villages
and
in
the
Country
,
or
are
Now
the
main
Question
is
,
whether
these
Chorepiscopi
were
real
Bishops
Superior
to
and
distinguished
from
Presbyters
,
and
in
whom
was
lodged
the
Episcopal
Character
and
Power
.
The
Affirmative
is
proved
by
the
following
Arguments
.
1.
I
consider
,
that
the
Title
of
Bishop
and
the
Power
of
Ordaining
Presbyters
,
was
then
acknowledged
to
be
in
'em
,
which
I
can
never
be
induced
to
believe
,
would
have
been
granted
them
at
that
time
of
Day
,
if
they
were
meer
Presbyters
.
They
were
under
the
same
Bishop
as
the
City
Presbyters
were
;
How
came
they
to
have
that
Honourable
Title
bestowed
on
them
,
which
the
City
Presbyters
had
not
?
Were
the
Country
Presbyters
(
such
the
Chorepiscopi
were
according
to
Mr.
O.
)
far
more
Honourable
and
better
deserving
the
Title
of
Bishop
then
the
City
Presbyters
were
?
I
can
imagine
no
other
reason
of
this
,
but
because
they
had
received
the
true
stamp
and
Character
of
Bishops
,
had
an
inherent
habitual
Power
to
do
whatever
any
Diocesan
could
,
and
more
than
any
meer
Presbyter
was
able
to
do
:
Only
as
yet
they
were
not
Diocesan
Bishops
,
having
no
Independent
Diocesses
of
their
own
to
Govern
,
and
by
consequence
were
under
some
limitations
,
which
Diocesans
were
not
.
2.
I
remember
that
by
the
same
Conncil
of
Antioch
,
they
were
3.
Again
the
10th
Canon
of
Antioch
decrees
,
that
the
Chorepiscopi
although
they
had
received
imposition
of
Hands
by
Bishops
,
may
not
dare
to
Ordain
a
Presbyter
or
Deacon
:
the
obvious
meaning
whereof
is
,
that
although
the
Chorepiscopi
were
Ordained
Bishops
;
〈◊〉
,
they
might
not
Ordain
Presbyters
or
Deacons
without
leave
from
the
Diocesan
.
If
a
Chorepiscopus
received
the
real
Character
or
Power
of
a
Bishop
,
he
might
be
apt
to
think
and
conclude
with
himself
,
that
he
might
Ordain
Presbyters
and
Deacons
,
as
well
as
the
Diocesan
being
of
the
same
Order
with
him
.
No
says
the
Canon
:
And
the
Reason
of
this
Prohibition
is
manifest
,
because
at
present
he
acted
only
as
a
Comminister
and
Assistant
in
anothers
Diocess
,
where
he
might
not
exert
his
Episcopal
Power
without
Licence
from
the
Diocesan
,
nor
could
do
it
without
Breach
of
the
Peace
and
Order
of
the
Church
:
We
have
something
of
this
kind
even
among
our selves
at
this
day
.
A
Diocesan
Bishop
out
of
his
own
Diocess
,
and
whilst
he
abides
in
another
Mans
,
can't
Ordain
Presbyters
and
Deacons
without
〈◊〉
from
the
proper
Bishop
:
and
something
of
this
Nature
I
find
in
the
18th
Canon
of
Ancyra
,
where
a
Presbyter
being
supposed
to
be
Ordained
Bishop
for
another
Diocess
,
but
rejected
is
permitted
to
return
to
his
former
Post
,
but
still
to
as
be
a
Presbyter
though
retaining
his
Episcopal
Honour
and
Character
:
One
may
then
be
a
real
Bishop
,
and
have
the
habitual
Power
and
Intrinsick
Character
of
a
Bishop
,
and
yet
can't
put
forth
the
Act
and
Ordain
in
anothers
Diocess
.
There
is
no
reason
he
should
;
it
would
breed
Confusion
.
4.
Chorepiscopi
were
real
Bishops
,
because
they
had
an
equal
Right
and
Authority
,
to
assist
,
vote
,
decree
,
and
confirm
Canons
at
Councils
as
Diocesan
Bishops
had
.
Divers
of
them
subscribed
the
Council
of
Nice
.
It
must
be
confess'd
that
meer
Presbyters
did
so
likewise
,
but
it
was
in
the
Name
and
stead
of
their
Principals
,
as
their
very
subscriptions
shew
.
Thus
Vito
(
or
Victor
)
and
Vincentius
Presbyters
,
and
Pope
Sylvester's
Legates
,
subscribed
the
Nicene
Synod
,
yet
added
to
their
common
Names
,
Romanus
or
Roma
missus
:
So
in
the
Council
of
Carthage
,
Anno
419.
two
Roman
Presbyters
and
Legates
of
the
Pope
did
—
Philippus
Presbyter
,
Legatus
Ecclesiae
Romanae
,
Asellus
Presbyter
,
Legatus
Ecclesiae
Romanae
.
But
the
Chorepiscopi
subscribed
in
their
own
Names
,
without
mentioning
any
Delegation
at
all
,
and
therefore
acted
by
their
own
proper
inherent
Authority
,
and
by
consequence
were
real
Bishops
.
Having
(
I
presume
)
proved
,
that
the
Chorepiscopi
had
the
True
Episcopal
Character
impress'd
on
them
,
I
come
to
consider
Ant.
A.
D.
344
(
or
341
)
he
lays
it
down
that
—
the
Chorepiscopi
or
Country
Bishops
Ordained
Presbyters
,
until
they
were
restrained
by
that
Canon
.
I
agree
with
Mr.
O.
so
far
,
that
't
is
very
likely
,
the
Chorepiscopi
presumed
to
Ordain
Presbyters
in
another
Bishop's
Diocess
,
until
they
were
prohibted
by
this
Canon
.
It
was
necessary
,
they
should
be
restrained
for
the
peace
and
good
Order
of
the
Church
,
from
having
an
uncontroulable
Liberty
of
Ordaining
in
another
Bishops
Diocess
,
and
without
his
consent
.
The
rule
is
highly
reasonable
and
observed
to
this
Day
.
However
this
be
,
the
Canon
will
do
Mr.
O.
no
service
,
if
the
Chorepiscopi
were
real
Bishops
,
and
more
than
Presbyters
,
of
which
I
have
already
produced
sufficient
proof
.
Again
Mr.
O.
gathers
,
that
if
these
Chorepiscopi
were
Bishops
,
then
it
appears
that
Bishops
were
made
not
only
in
Cities
,
but
in
Country
villages
.
This
I
grant
also
unto
Mr.
O.
but
it
nothing
concerns
the
Matter
in
Hand
.
We
must
Distinguish
between
Diocesan
Bishops
,
whose
seat
and
Principal
Church
was
oft-times
in
Villages
,
and
the
Chorepiscopi
,
who
were
not
Diocesans
,
but
the
Comministri
and
Vicarii
of
the
City
Bishops
.
Now
how
far
the
Delegated
Power
of
a
Chorepiscopus
extended
,
no
one
alive
can
tell
at
this
Day
.
'T
is
nothing
likely
,
that
it
was
confined
to
one
Village
only
,
as
Mr.
O.
contends
,
though
haply
his
Ordinary
Residence
,
and
particular
care
might
be
in
some
Country-Town
,
where
he
discharged
the
Ordinary
Duty
of
a
Presbyter
,
and
on
that
score
may
be
accounted
as
a
Country
Presbyter
under
the
City
Bishop
;
such
at
this
day
is
even
a
Diocesan
Bishop
,
who
is
by
Commendam
possest
of
a
Rectory
in
anothers
Diocess
.
He
can
Act
there
but
as
a
Presbyter
,
except
he
has
leave
from
the
proper
Bishop
.
For
ought
any
thing
then
that
Mr.
O.
says
or
pretends
to
prove
,
the
delegated
Power
of
a
Chorepiscopus
reach'd
to
more
than
one
or
half
a
dozen
Villages
.
Well!
Mr.
O.
goes
on
and
tells
us
,
that
—
The
Country
Villages
,
where
the
Chorepiscopi
were
fixt
,
were
but
thinly
Peopled
with
Christians
,
the
Majority
or
at
least
great
Numbers
of
the
People
being
Heathens
,
by
which
,
(
he
adds
)
we
may
guess
at
the
bigness
of
Primitive
Diocesses
,
which
were
scarce
as
large
as
our
lesser
Parishes
.
Here
are
divers
things
supposed
and
asserted
,
but
none
proved
.
1.
'T
is
supposed
that
the
Chorepiscopus's
Power
,
was
confined
to
one
Village
or
Country
Parish
only
;
this
ought
to
be
made
out
by
Mr.
O.
2.
'T
is
asserted
,
that
these
Country
Villages
were
thinly
Peopled
with
Christians
,
but
that
is
more
then
Mr.
O.
knows
;
and
the
contrary
is
more
probable
,
so
.
that
they
abounded
with
Christians
now
in
the
Reign
of
Constantius
,
Son
of
Constantine
,
the
Great
,
when
that
Council
of
Antioch
was
held
,
and
from
whence
Mr.
O.
makes
the
Deduction
.
Besides
't
is
likely
,
that
a
Chorepiscopus
was
never
made
,
but
where
the
Christians
were
Numerous
.
In
short
,
how
,
thin
soever
particular
Villages
were
of
Christians
,
yet
there
being
many
,
very
many
Villages
,
all
of
them
having
some
Christians
,
and
a
Power
over
them
being
committed
to
the
Chorepiscopi
,
this
note
of
Mr.
O's
is
not
very
much
to
the
purpose
.
But
however
from
the
Premises
he
Collects
4.
That
we
may
thence
guess
at
the
bigness
of
Primitive
Diocesses
,
which
were
scarce
as
large
as
our
lesser
Parishes
.
Something
of
this
Nature
might
perhaps
be
conjectured
,
if
all
Mr.
O.
has
asserted
without
proof
,
and
overlook'd
without
Examination
were
true
.
But
I
ask
whether
this
be
not
an
intolerable
piece
of
Confidence
to
intimate
at
this
rate
,
that
these
Country
Villages
were
seperate
,
and
independent
Diocesses
,
when
as
't
is
manifest
from
the
very
Canon
,
that
they
were
Appendages
of
the
City
Diocess
,
and
Mr.
O.
proceeds
and
affirms
,
That
the
Chorepiscopi
are
an
instance
of
Bishops
,
without
subject
Presbyters
;
they
were
but
Parish
Bishops
,
under
City
Bishops
.
Say
then
a
Chorepiscopus
had
the
charge
of
one
only
single
Village
or
particular
Congregation
,
specially
allotted
to
him
,
which
at
this
day
,
we
call
a
Parish
(
admitting
this
)
:
yet
it
follows
not
,
that
he
was
a
Bishop
without
subject
Presbyters
:
probably
he
had
some
district
of
the
Diocess
committed
to
his
particular
care
and
inspection
.
The
Canon
of
Antioch
seems
to
intimate
thus
much
—
It
seemed
good
to
the
Synod
,
that
the
Chorepiscopi
govern
the
Churches
(
in
the
plural
)
subject
to
them
,
and
to
content
themselves
with
this
care
and
sollicitude
of
constituting
Readers
.
But
granting
they
had
no
subject
Presbyters
,
but
acted
Ordinarily
as
Parish
Presbyters
:
yet
they
were
real
Bishops
,
and
ready
upon
occasion
to
discharge
the
Diocesans
Office
,
when
required
,
which
Prebyters
could
not
.
Morever
if
these
Chorepiscopi
,
were
only
Presbyters
and
Bishops
of
a
small
Congregation
(
as
Mr.
O.
has
before
concluded
)
why
was
the
caution
given
them
against
Ordaining
Presbyters
and
Deacons
,
except
it
was
for
other
Parishes
or
Churches
?
For
surely
they
did
not
Ordain
Presbyters
and
Deacons
for
themselves
.
If
they
did
,
even
so
they
must
have
had
Presbyters
subject
to
them
.
In
short
,
they
had
doubtless
a
delegated
Power
from
the
City
or
Diocesan
Bishop
,
to
Ordain
Presbyters
and
Deacons
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
where
and
when
ever
occasion
required
.
But
in
the
last
place
Mr.
O.
urges
,
the
second
Council
of
〈◊〉
.
Can.
7th
which
makes
the
Chorepiscopi
,
to
be
one
and
the
same
with
〈◊〉
.
This
Council
was
Provincial
aud
held
in
Spain
,
Anno
620.
which
is
therefore
,
of
no
great
Authority
with
me
:
especially
since
the
Argument
it
insists
on
,
is
chiefly
drawn
from
the
Ecclesiastical
Laws
of
the
Roman
Church
:
For
so
the
Canon
concludes
—
quoe
〈◊〉
eis
a
sede
Apostolica
prohibita
esse
noscuntur
.
Nevertheless
,
that
I
may
not
be
thought
to
decline
any
thing
said
on
this
subject
,
that
has
the
appearance
of
an
Argument
against
me
,
I
answer
,
that
although
by
the
first
design
and
institution
of
the
Chorepiscopi
,
they
were
real
Bishops
(
so
it
was
before
and
after
the
Councils
of
Ancyra
and
Antioch
,
for
sometime
)
yet
not
long
afterwards
an
end
was
put
to
these
Chorepiscopi
.
So
I
read
in
the
Council
of
Laodicea
Can.
57.
held
Anno
364.
There
,
and
then
it
was
decreed
that
—
Bishops
were
not
to
be
made
any
more
in
Villages
,
and
in
the
Countries
(
understand
within
anothers
Diocess
)
but
only
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
their
steads
:
which
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
were
but
Presbyters
intrufted
with
the
Administration
of
some
part
of
the
Episcopal
Power
.
But
't
is
observable
what
is
after
added
,
as
for
those
(
Chorepiscopi
)
who
have
been
already
made
,
the
former
Canons
of
Ancyra
and
Antioch
must
be
observed
by
them
,
that
they
do
nothing
without
the
Consent
of
the
City
Bishop
.
Where
we
see
plainly
a
Supersedeas
is
given
unto
that
Order
of
the
Chorepiscopi
,
for
the
future
.
Nor
is
this
alteration
to
be
wondered
at
.
For
the
making
the
Chorepiscopi
,
or
Vicarious
Bishops
in
the
Country
,
belonging
to
anothers
Diocess
was
meerly
an
Ecclesiastical
Constitution
,
and
by
the
same
Power
that
it
was
introduced
it
might
again
be
annulled
.
I
observe
moreover
,
that
the
2d
clause
above
mentioned
,
which
still
reserves
to
the
former
Chorepiscopi
their
Power
,
which
had
been
committed
to
them
by
the
City
Bishops
,
shews
that
they
had
received
some
Character
,
which
a
Council
could
not
deprive
them
of
.
For
otherwise
the
Power
of
the
former
Chorepiscopi
,
might
have
been
Abrogated
as
well
as
the
Order
its
self
,
intirely
dissolved
for
the
future
.
The
occasion
of
this
change
made
by
the
Laodicean
Fathers
doubtless
was
,
that
they
had
by
experience
found
some
inconveniences
and
disorders
,
happening
through
these
Chorepiscopi
,
who
it
may
be
could
never
be
hindred
from
Ordaining
Presbyters
and
Deacons
,
in
other
Bishops
Diocefses
contrary
to
all
Order
and
good
Rule
.
Therefore
an
end
was
put
to
them
,
and
in
their
place
were
substituted
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
who
I
imagaine
were
like
our
Archdeacons
at
this
Day
,
and
were
instituted
for
the
Diocesan's
ease
in
matters
of
less
moment
:
but
upon
no
account
were
to
have
the
Episcopal
Character
impress'd
on
them
with
Power
to
Ordain
,
no
not
with
the
Bishops
Licence
.
Accordingly
the
late
Learned
Bishop
of
Worcester
observes
,
That
Lanfranc
〈◊〉
Eccles.
Cas.
P
,
146.
made
an
Archdeacon
with
Jurisdiction
in
his
See
,
that
Thomas
Archbishop
of
York
,
first
divided
his
Diocess
into
Archdeaconries
,
and
Remigius
Bishop
of
Lincoln
,
his
into
seven
Archdeaconries
,
says
Harry
of
Huntingdon
.
One
occasion
hereof
was
the
laying
aside
the
Chorepiscopi
,
as
too
much
assuming
unto
themselves
.
The
sum
of
what
has
been
said
is
,
that
the
〈◊〉
were
at
first
real
Bishops
,
but
in
anothers
Diocess
,
where
they
might
put
forth
such
Episcopal
Acts
as
were
permitted
them
within
some
certain
limited
district
,
and
even
Ordain
Presbyters
and
Deacons
,
when
expresly
delegated
thereto
by
the
Diocesan
:
that
they
refided
in
some
Country
Villages
,
where
their
Ordinary
and
constant
Work
was
no
other
than
of
Presbyters
,
and
so
were
look'd
on
as
the
Diocesans
Presbyters
,
which
can
by
no
means
prejudice
their
Episcopal
Character
.
One
may
be
a
Bishop
yet
without
a
Diocess
,
as
one
may
be
a
Presbyter
without
a
Title
or
Parish
.
The
Council
of
Laodicea
,
thought
fit
to
put
an
end
unto
this
Order
,
so
did
the
Romans
and
Spanish
Churches
,
as
also
the
English
.
Haply
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
Archdeacons
might
have
the
Title
of
Chorepiscopi
,
for
some
while
continued
to
them
being
substituted
in
their
room
:
but
this
is
no
proof
,
that
they
were
Presbyters
at
their
first
Institution
,
when
the
real
Episcopal
Character
was
〈◊〉
on
them
,
though
no
Diocess
was
yet
actually
allotted
them
.
This
is
what
I
thought
needful
,
and
enough
to
be
offered
in
Answer
to
the
Difficulties
started
about
the
Chorepiscopi
.
As
for
that
Epistle
to
〈◊〉
it
shall
suffice
to
note
that
't
is
one
of
those
,
which
are
accounted
Spurious
,
as
may
be
Collected
from
Bellarmin
himself
,
whose
Judgment
is
—
ejus
scripta
non
extant
,
exceptis
paucis
Epistolis
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
suns
inter
Epistolds
S.
Hieronymi
,
aliique
in
Hiftorid
〈◊〉
.
l.
2.
c.
22.
l.
5.
c.
10.
11.
The
rest
CHAP.
IX
.
Of
the
Council
of
Nice
.
MRO.
as
if
all
Antiquity
were
on
his
side
,
omits
not
to
argue
even
from
the
Council
of
Nice
its
self
,
in
favour
of
the
Power
of
Presbyters
Ordaining
,
which
is
a
discovery
so
new
and
surprizing
,
that
one
would
〈◊〉
the
Whole
Chriftian
Church
had
been
blind
above
these
1300.
Years
last
paft
,
till
he
with
the
help
of
Mr.
Baxter
,
has
been
pleas'd
to
open
all
our
Eyes
at
last
and
to
assure
us
—
that
the
Council
of
Nice
,
decree'd
concerning
the
Presbyters
Ordained
by
Melitius
at
〈◊〉
,
as
follows
—
Hi
autem
Qui
Dei
Gratia
,
&
nostris
(
lege
vestris
)
precibus
adjuti
ad
〈◊〉
Scbisma
deflexisse
compersi
sunt
,
sed
se
intra
Catholica
&
Apostolicae
〈◊〉
fines
ab
erroris
Labe
vacuos
continuerint
,
Authoritatem
〈◊〉
tum
Ministros
〈◊〉
.
&c
,
Mr.
O.
has
taken
this
Passage
out
of
Mr.
Baxter
,
and
he
out
of
some
Translator
,
that
did
not
or
would
not
understand
the
Historian
aright
.
The
Words
are
part
of
a
Letter
wrote
by
the
Nicene
Fathers
,
to
the
Church
of
Alexandria
,
wherein
they
gave
an
Account
to
that
Church
,
of
what
had
been
propounded
and
examined
in
the
Synod
,
and
what
had
been
decreed
,
and
confirmed
therein
,
as
first
,
That
the
Impiety
than
with
Arrius
)
viz.
that
he
should
remain
in
his
own
City
,
but
that
he
should
have
no
Power
to
Ordain
or
to
propose
the
names
(
of
the
Candidates
to
the
holy
Function
)
;
only
he
might
retain
the
bare
Title
of
his
Honour
(
that
is
of
Bishop
)
;
that
those
who
had
been
constituted
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
by
him
being
first
confirmed
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
by
a
more
solemn
and
Religious
Imposition
of
the
Hands
of
the
Bishop
of
Alexandria
,
might
be
allowed
to
joyn
in
matters
properly
belonging
to
them
,
but
that
until
they
had
obtained
their
Honour
and
Ministry
again
,
they
should
be
second
unto
all
those
,
who
in
every
Diocess
and
Church
,
have
been
before
proposed
under
the
Authority
of
our
most
beloved
Collegue
Alexander
:
And
moreover
,
should
have
no
Power
to
propound
the
Names
of
those
who
are
subject
to
Alexander
,
nor
in
short
to
do
any
thing
without
the
Consent
of
the
Bishop
of
the
Catholick
Church
of
Alexandria
This
is
all
the
Nicene
Synod
wrote
concerning
the
Melitians
or
those
,
who
had
been
constituted
(
and
Ordained
)
by
Melitius
.
Here
's
not
a
Syllable
(
of
Presbyters
or
)
of
Ordaining
Ministers
;
the
passage
may
as
well
,
and
is
to
be
〈◊〉
of
Bishops
,
and
of
Ordaining
Bishops
.
But
for
the
more
thorough
understanding
it
,
we
must
remember
that
Melitius
,
whilst
Peter
was
Patriarch
of
Alexandria
,
had
been
Bishop
of
Lycus
,
a
City
in
Egypt
subject
to
the
said
Patriarch
:
—
that
during
the
Persecution
under
Maximinus
,
Peter
absconding
,
Melitius
had
taken
upon
him
to
constitute
(
or
Ordain
)
Bishops
,
if
the
Nicene
Fathers
hid
herein
decreed
nothing
against
the
Melitian
〈◊〉
,
they
had
left
their
work
very
lame
and
imperfect
.
Besides
,
〈◊〉
became
Schismatical
not
by
Ordaining
Presbyters
,
but
by
Ordaining
Bishops
.
Hence
Sozomen
observes
,
that
Melitius
—
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
had
usurp'd
the
Power
of
Ordaining
,
which
did
not
all
belong
unto
him
.
The
Power
of
Ordaining
whom
?
Why
not
Bishops
?
For
till
by
this
means
he
was
fallen
into
〈◊〉
,
he
had
certainly
(
as
Bishop
)
Power
to
〈◊〉
Priests
and
Deacons
,
but
not
of
Ordaining
or
〈◊〉
Bishops
without
the
〈◊〉
leave
.
And
this
was
I
suppose
,
if
not
his
only
fault
,
yet
his
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Wherefore
,
when
the
Nicene
Fathers
decreed
,
that
the
〈◊〉
,
who
had
been
constituted
and
Ordained
by
〈◊〉
,
might
not
intermeddle
in
the
constituting
(
or
Ordaining
)
others
,
until
themselves
had
been
confirmed
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
by
a
more
Solemn
imposition
of
Hands
,
they
must
thereby
mean
,
that
the
Melitian
Bishops
being
Ordained
Schismatically
,
were
suspended
from
Ordaining
until
they
had
been
confirmed
by
the
Patriarch
,
and
some
of
the
Egyptian
Bishops
subject
to
him
.
And
this
is
all
that
the
Synod
declar'd
concerning
the
Melitians
.
But
neither
Mr.
O.
nor
Mr.
Baxter
,
for
any
thing
I
can
see
in
the
Plea
,
have
taken
any
Notice
of
this
Passage
,
〈◊〉
whereof
we
are
amus'd
with
something
less
Pertinent
to
the
matter
in
Hand
,
as
I
am
now
about
to
shew
.
For
the
Nicene
Fathers
go
on
in
that
Epistle
to
speak
of
the
Alexandrians
,
that
is
,
such
as
had
not
withdrawn
themselves
from
Alexander
the
Patriarch
,
nor
had
ever
adhered
to
Melitius
.
They
thus
then
farther
write
to
the
Church
of
Alexandria
,
concerning
these
latter
and
Regular
Clergy
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
&c.
But
as
for
those
,
who
by
the
Grace
of
God
,
and
through
your
Prayers
have
been
found
in
no
Schism
,
but
have
ever
stood
firm
,
and
unmoveable
in
the
Catholick
Church
,
it
pleased
the
Holy
Synod
,
that
they
should
have
Power
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
point
out
,
and
to
give
up
the
Names
of
〈◊〉
as
were
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
worthy
to
be
of
the
Clergy
,
and
in
short
,
to
do
all
things
according
to
the
Ecclesiastical
Law
and
Constitution
:
which
is
the
passage
misrepresented
by
Mr.
O.
and
Mr.
Baxter
,
wherein
the
Synod
confirms
to
'em
,
their
Ancient
Rights
and
Privileges
.
Having
given
I
hope
,
an
exact
account
of
this
latter
part
of
that
Epistle
,
let
us
now
see
whether
Mr.
Baxter
or
Mr.
O.
have
done
so
.
To
which
end
I
observe
,
that
here
is
not
one
Word
of
Presbyters
,
at
least
not
of
Presbyters
Ordaining
,
and
〈◊〉
of
all
of
Presbyters
,
who
had
been
Ordained
by
Melitius
,
nor
lastly
(
which
was
the
thing
Mr.
O.
aimed
at
)
of
Presbyters
Ordaining
Ministers
.
1.
They
speak
not
of
Presbyters
,
that
is
,
not
in
particular
,
and
expresly
of
them
alone
,
as
is
manifeft
to
any
one
,
that
has
his
Eyes
in
his
Head
:
but
only
in
General
of
such
as
had
not
been
engaged
in
the
Melitian
Schism
.
These
surely
must
be
Bishops
,
as
well
as
Presbyters
or
Deacons
.
The
truth
is
,
they
include
all
the
Three
Orders
,
and
that
s
the
reason
in
this
whole
Epistle
,
they
Name
no
one
of
them
expresly
,
meaning
to
confirm
them
all
(
as
well
Bishops
as
Presbyters
,
that
had
stuck
close
to
Alexander
)
in
their
Ancient
Respective
Powers
and
〈◊〉
.
2.
Much
more
they
speak
not
of
the
Ordaining
Power
of
Presbyters
.
Mr.
O.
at
least
ought
not
to
say
so
;
for
what
then
will
become
of
the
Authority
of
Father
〈◊〉
,
who
asserts
,
that
Alexander
or
the
Nicene
Council
first
deprived
them
of
it
?
what
did
this
Synod
or
Alexander
both
deprive
'em
of
it
,
and
confirm
it
to
them
?
that
cannot
be
.
Either
then
Eutychius
is
out
in
his
story
,
or
Mr.
O.
is
a
little
mistaken
about
the
Letter
of
the
Nicene
Fathers
.
Besides
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
does
not
〈◊〉
to
Ordain
,
but
the
〈◊〉
as
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
one
Word
to
put
up
the
Names
of
the
Candidates
for
Holy
Orders
,
and
Sozomen
in
his
account
of
this
Fact
uses
that
single
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
chuse
,
Socrates
expressing
it
in
two
Words
(
as
Valesius
has
observed
)
Exegetical
of
one
another
;
it
being
usual
for
Authors
to
embellish
their
writings
,
and
give
them
a
grateful
Emphasis
by
a
Variety
,
and
redundancy
of
Expression
.
No
body
at
this
diftance
of
time
can
tell
all
the
Customs
of
this
Church
,
and
what
Honorary
〈◊〉
the
Presbyters
might
have
at
the
publick
〈◊〉
.
However
this
be
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
not
to
be
expounded
Ordaining
.
And
yet
admitting
that
it
signifies
so
,
't
is
not
necessary
to
understand
the
passage
of
Presbyters
Ordaining
;
it
may
as
well
be
presumed
to
be
intended
of
Bishops
Ordaining
,
there
being
no
circumstance
that
limits
the
sense
unto
Presbyters
:
and
as
for
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
these
Words
are
spoken
of
those
,
that
were
to
be
Ordained
,
and
not
of
the
Ordainers
,
and
may
as
well
be
taken
to
mean
such
as
were
thought
worthy
to
be
Bishops
,
as
those
who
were
〈◊〉
worthy
to
〈◊〉
made
Presbyters
.
For
in
the
Ancient
Ecclesiastical
Writers
,
we
read
of
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
as
well
as
of
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
But
least
of
all
.
Thirdly
do
the
Nicene
Fathers
speak
here
of
the
Melitian
Presbyters
,
because
the
Melitians
,
had
not
,
according
to
the
Character
here
given
of
these
Persons
,
stood
firm
and
unmoveable
in
the
Catholick
〈◊〉
,
but
had
been
engaged
in
the
Melitian
Schism
.
Nor
4.
does
the
Synod
speak
of
Ordaining
Ministers
,
if
by
Ministers
our
Adversaries
understand
Presbyters
(
which
Title
they
seem
at
this
day
to
affect
,
and
usurp
to
themselves
,
though
it
generally
denotes
all
the
Three
Orders
.
)
These
four
mistakes
has
Mr.
O.
committed
at
the
beginning
of
his
Account
of
the
Nicene
Synod
.
Before
I
proceed
to
consider
what
He
farther
advances
on
this
Occasion
,
I
will
only
Note
,
that
the
Patriarchs
of
Alexandria
had
power
over
the
Bishops
,
and
Whole
Church
of
Egypt
,
with
its
Appendages
long
before
the
Synod
of
Nice
.
That
they
had
then
power
over
these
Churches
appears
plainly
from
this
Epistle
,
which
in
several
places
speaks
of
them
as
Subject
to
the
Bishop
of
Alexandria
:
that
the
Alexandrian
Patriarchs
had
Power
over
them
before
the
Patriarch
Alexander
is
evident
from
the
Melitian
Schism
,
which
had
not
been
a
Sinful
Schism
,
if
Peter
and
〈◊〉
,
Alexander's
Predecessors
had
not
had
Jurisdiction
over
them
:
That
this
Power
of
the
Patriarchs
was
very
Ancient
,
is
also
manifest
from
the
6th
Canon
of
the
Nicene
Council
,
which
begins
thus
—
Let
the
Ancient
Customs
obtain
which
are
in
Egypt
,
Libya
and
Pentapolis
,
that
the
Bishop
of
Alexandria
have
power
over
all
these
Provinces
:
which
shews
lastly
,
the
extent
of
their
Power
through
〈◊〉
,
Libya
,
and
〈◊〉
,
and
that
it
had
been
an
Ancient
Custom
,
that
is
,
long
before
Alexander
,
and
the
Synod
of
Nice
,
yea
,
before
Peter
and
Achillas
.
Thus
much
being
said
for
the
right
understanding
of
that
Letter
of
the
Nicence
Fathers
,
let
us
now
proceed
to
examine
what
Mr.
O.
has
inferred
from
the
last
mentioned
passage
,
according
to
Mr.
Baxter's
Lamentable
Translation
of
it
.
Mr.
O.
argues
—
If
any
say
the
meaning
is
,
that
these
Presbyters
shall
Ordain
and
govern
with
Bishops
,
but
not
with
out
them
,
it
is
granted
.
For
the
decree
refers
to
the
Ecclesiastica
Instituta
;
but
this
sheweth
,
that
Ordination
belongeth
to
the
Presbyters
Office
,
and
consequently
is
no
nullity
,
tho'
an
irregularity
as
to
the
Canons
,
when
't
is
done
by
them
alone
.
His
meaning
is
(
as
I
take
him
)
that
Presbyters
have
an
Inherent
and
Intrinsick
power
to
Ordain
,
but
that
the
Nicene
Fathers
had
by
their
Ecclesiastical
Constitution
restrained
that
power
,
so
that
it
should
not
be
exerted
,
but
with
the
Bishops
:
that
when
the
Presbyter
did
Ordain
without
Bishops
,
't
was
only
an
irregularity
〈◊〉
breach
of
the
Ecclesiastical
Constitution
,
not
a
Nullity
.
But
to
this
I
reply
.
1.
That
the
Nicence
Fathers
(
as
has
already
been
observed
)
speak
not
of
Presbyter
only
,
but
of
all
the
Three
Orders
Bishops
,
Priests
and
Deacons
,
who
are
hereby
every
one
of
them
,
allowed
to
do
what
properly
belong
to
their
own
Order
,
according
to
the
Ancient
Custom
and
Constitution
of
that
Church
.
2.
That
therefore
supposing
their
meaning
to
be
(
what
Mr.
O.
would
have
it
)
that
Presbyters
in
particular
,
according
to
the
Ecclesiastical
Constitution
,
shall
Ordain
with
the
Bishops
,
and
not
without
them
,
it
will
not
follow
,
that
Ordination
by
Presbyters
alone
without
Bishops
is
vallid
,
and
only
an
irregularity
:
Because
it
may
with
as
good
Reason
be
hence
concluded
,
that
the
Presbyters
power
to
Ordain
with
the
Bishops
belonged
to
them
,
but
by
Ecclesiastical
Constitution
only
,
and
not
by
any
inherent
Right
.
There
is
nothing
in
this
Letter
,
that
argues
any
thing
for
their
Intrinisick
power
to
Ordain
.
The
most
that
can
be
said
is
,
that
they
had
an
Ancient
Right
by
Ecclesiastical
Constitution
,
and
Custom
to
Ordain
with
Bishops
,
and
if
so
,
then
their
Ordaining
without
Bishops
was
a
Nullity
,
as
well
as
an
Irregularity
;
because
they
transgress'd
that
very
Law
which
alone
gave
them
their
Power
.
3.
It
is
a
great
mistake
,
to
think
every
thing
established
,
or
rather
reinforc'd
by
Ecclesiastical
Constitution
,
has
no
better
Foundation
than
that
very
Ecclesiastical
Constitution
or
Reinforcement
.
A
Divine
and
Scriptural
Law
may
,
and
has
been
oftentimes
confirmed
and
renewed
by
a
Synodical
Decree
,
and
subjected
to
Ecclesiastical
Penalties
.
The
Lord's-Day
,
which
Mr.
O.
will
not
deny
to
be
Holy
by
Divine
Institution
,
has
been
made
so
by
Humane
appointment
also
,
and
punishments
decreed
against
those
that
prophaned
it
.
This
is
manifest
among
out
selves
here
in
England
,
and
Constantine
Ordained
the
first
Day
of
the
Week
for
Divine
Worship
:
Shall
we
say
,
the
Lord's-Day
was
Eus.
Hist.
Cons.
〈◊〉
.
4.
c.
18.
not
Holy
and
Appropriate
to
Divine
Worship
before
that
Emperor's
Constitution
?
Of
the
same
Nature
,
are
the
38.
41.
42
,
49.
50
,
51.
&c.
Can.
Apostol
.
The
Decree
then
of
the
Synod
of
Nice
hinders
not
,
but
that
it
might
have
been
a
Divine
Institution
,
that
Presbyters
Ordain
and
Govern
,
only
with
and
under
Bishops
.
And
if
this
be
so
,
as
I
have
formerly
(
t
is
hoped
)
made
good
,
then
Presbyters
Ordaining
without
Bishops
will
prove
a
Nullity
,
and
contrary
to
the
Divine
and
Scripture
Rule
,
as
well
as
an
Irregularity
or
contrary
to
the
Ecclesiastical
Laws
.
But
how
does
the
Ecclesiastical
Constitution
shew
,
that
Ordination
belongs
to
the
Presbyters
Office
?
His
meaning
(
I
suppose
)
is
that
the
Nicene
Synod
,
could
not
appoint
Presbyters
to
Ordain
with
Bishops
,
except
the
Presbyters
had
a
Prior
,
and
an
intrinsick
power
to
Ordain
.
But
I
ask
,
why
may
not
the
Synod
shew
thereby
,
that
the
Presbyters
intrinsick
power
(
what
ever
it
was
)
belonged
to
them
only
in
Conjunction
with
Bishops
?
And
not
separately
from
'em
.
If
a
Prince
Commands
the
General
of
his
Army
to
do
nothing
of
Moment
,
without
the
advice
of
the
Principal
Field-Officers
,
this
shews
that
the
Field-Officers
have
a
Power
to
Act
with
the
General
and
under
him
,
but
not
that
they
have
a
power
to
Act
seperately
and
without
Him
:
And
if
the
General
or
other
the
Kings
Ministers
declare
this
part
of
the
Commission
to
the
Field-Officers
,
they
may
and
ought
to
Act
in
Conjunction
with
their
General
(
for
the
Commission
so
appoints
)
;
but
it
would
be
presumption
and
Mutiny
to
Act
without
the
General
,
which
if
they
presumed
to
do
their
Orders
would
of
them selves
be
Null
and
invalid
.
Briefly
Mr.
O.
must
first
prove
,
that
the
Nicene
Fathers
supposed
the
Presbyters
to
have
an
Intrinsick
power
to
Ordain
alone
,
before
he
can
make
out
that
their
separate
Ordinations
are
irregular
only
,
and
not
invalid
in
themselves
.
But
Mr.
O.
again
argues
that
—
If
it
be
said
these
(
Nicene
Constitutions
)
condemn
Schismatical
Ordinations
(
which
he
grants
,
yet
answers
)
that
Schism
as
such
cannot
make
Ordinations
Null
,
though
it
implys
an
Irregularity
.
Hereunto
I
return
,
that
Schism
as
such
does
make
the
Ordination
Null
.
It
is
Null
as
to
the
Exercise
of
the
Office
so
conferred
,
though
not
as
to
the
habitual
Power
or
intrinsick
Character
given
.
This
seems
to
have
been
the
very
Sense
of
the
Nicene
Fathers
,
in
this
their
Epistle
to
the
Church
of
Alexandria
.
The
Melitian
Bishops
,
because
they
had
been
Schismatically
Ordained
,
were
suspended
from
the
Exercise
of
their
Office
,
yet
their
Character
was
not
declared
utterly
void
and
annull'd
.
There
was
Room
left
for
their
exercising
it
again
upon
some
certain
Conditions
,
and
the
Title
of
Bishop
was
still
continued
unto
'em
,
which
could
not
be
,
if
the
Character
had
been
intirely
lost
or
Null
.
Hitherto
belongs
the
Case
of
Colluthus
and
Ischyras
,
which
some
Episcopal
Divines
have
urged
against
the
Validity
of
Ordination
by
Presbyters
;
for
,
say
they
,
Ischyras
Ordained
by
Colluthus
a
Presbyter
,
is
in
Athanasius
constantly
called
and
declared
no
Presbyter
,
but
a
meer
Laic
,
and
not
suffered
so
much
as
to
have
the
Honor
and
Title
of
Presbyter
,
as
all
others
of
the
Melitian
Schism
,
Episcopally
though
Schismatically
Ordained
were
allowed
:
So
the
Nicene
Fathers
had
decreed
.
The
reason
why
Ischyras
was
rejected
is
this
,
he
had
been
Ordained
by
a
Presbyter
only
,
viz.
Colluthus
,
Blondel
has
taken
much
pains
to
perplex
this
Fact
with
sundry
difficulties
,
and
Objections
thrown
in
our
way
on
purpose
to
render
it
useless
unto
us
in
the
present
Controversie
:
and
Mr.
O.
also
has
made
his
observations
on
it
.
I
shall
consider
them
both
,
and
to
that
end
shall
in
the
first
place
produce
the
Principal
passages
,
that
occur
in
Athanasius's
second
Apology
relating
to
the
said
Colluthus
and
〈◊〉
.
There
I
read
of
.
Ischyras
,
who
neither
was
Ordained
by
the
Church
,
nor
,
Ep.
Syn.
Alex.
p.
722.
apud
.
Ath.
when
Alexander
received
the
Presbyters
,
Ordained
by
Melitius
,
was
reckoned
among
them
(
that
's
to
say
in
Melitius
his
〈◊〉
)
:
so
that
he
was
no
Presbyter
.
How
then
or
by
whom
was
he
created
a
Presbyter
?
By
Colluthus
?
For
that
alone
remains
to
be
pretended
.
But
't
is
granted
on
all
hands
,
that
Colluthus
died
Presbyter
,
all
his
Ordinations
were
void
,
and
all
Ordained
by
him
,
in
the
Schism
reduced
into
the
Order
of
Laicks
—
But
they
(
the
Eusebians
and
Melitians
)
called
a
private
Fellow
Presbyter
—
Ischyras
was
not
acknowledged
a
Presbyter
by
Athanasius
.
Ischyras
was
not
so
much
as
a
Presbyter
,
he
never
was
a
Presbyter
Ep.
Syn.
Sard.
ad
Eg.
&
Afr.
p.
764.
of
Melitius
(
not
Ordained
by
him
)
Ischyras
was
in
no
wise
a
Cleric
,
though
the
Eusebians
,
and
'T
is
remarkable
,
that
Ischyras
in
his
submissive
Letter
,
unto
Ischyras
our
accuser
is
no
manner
of
way
a
Presbyter
,
because
Ischyras
never
was
a
Minister
of
the
Church
,
but
boasted
Ep.
Mar.
Presb.
&
Diac.
ad
Curiosum
.
p.
792.
himself
to
be
a
Presbvter
of
Colluthus
,
though
no
Body
believed
him
—
so
that
He
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
was
deposed
by
the
Alexandrian
Synod
,
and
number'd
among
the
Laics
.
Ischyras
a
Fellow
,
that
called
himself
a
Presbyter
,
but
was
Epist.
Maret
.
Presb.
&
Diac.
ad
Curiosum
.
p.
794.
no
Presbyter
:
for
he
was
Ordained
by
a
Catholick
Presbyter
(
Colluthus
)
,
who
himself
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
was
but
an
Imaginary
or
Counterfeit
Bishop
,
and
was
Commanded
in
the
General
Council
(
of
Alexandria
)
by
Hosius
,
and
the
other
Bishops
to
be
a
Presbyter
,
as
he
had
been
before
:
So
that
by
consequence
all
Ordained
by
him
,
went
back
into
their
former
place
,
and
Ischyras
appeared
a
Laic
.
The
Eusebians
and
Melitians
called
this
Fellow
Bishop
,
who
Ep.
Syn.
Hier.
p.
802.
was
not
at
all
a
Presbyter
:
but
they
made
the
Emperor
to
write
unto
Colluthus
(
for
nothing
〈◊〉
amiss
to
them
)
that
a
Church
be
provided
for
Ischyras
,
and
immediatly
caused
him
to
be
called
a
Bishop
,
when
he
was
not
so
much
as
a
Presbyter
:
From
all
which
we
think
the
case
as
before
stated
is
clear
.
But
Blondel
contends
,
"
That
Colluthus
was
a
real
Bishop
Ordained
Apol.
pro
sent
.
Hieronymi
.
Sect.
3.
p.
317.
&c.
by
Melitius
,
though
Shismatically
,
which
is
only
a
Canonical
Irregularity
;
but
however
he
was
Episcopally
Ordained
,
and
a
real
though
Schismatical
Bishop
:
That
if
he
had
out-lived
this
storm
raised
against
him
,
by
the
Alexandrian
Synod
,
he
must
have
been
a
partaker
of
the
favour
granted
to
such
by
the
Nicene
Fathers
,
and
by
consequence
would
have
been
a
Bishop
,
though
created
Schismatically
:
and
therefore
that
Ischyras
,
if
at
all
Ordained
by
Colluthus
,
was
Episcopally
Ordained
,
and
so
could
not
be
deposed
for
being
Ordained
by
a
Presbyter
,
but
as
Schismatically
Ordained
by
a
Bishop
in
Schism
.
The
design
of
all
which
is
to
wrest
out
of
our
Hands
this
Weapon
,
and
to
make
it
believed
,
that
the
case
reaches
not
Ordination
by
Presbyters
:
For
Blundel
is
very
positive
,
and
thus
expresses
himself
—
It
is
false
and
frivolous
to
assert
,
that
Ischyras
was
no
Presbyter
,
simply
for
this
one
reason
,
that
he
was
Ordained
by
Colluthus
a
Presbyter
:
Because
Colluthus
was
a
real
Bishop
,
after
what
manner
created
is
little
to
the
Point
.
In
Answer
hereunto
,
and
to
evince
that
this
is
a
Clever
Instance
in
Antiquity
against
Ordinations
by
Presbyters
,
I
will
reduce
the
Whole
case
into
three
Questions
.
1.
Whether
Colluthus
was
ever
Ordained
Bishop
by
Melitius
.
2.
Whether
Ischyras
was
ever
Ordained
Presbyter
by
Colluthus
3.
Supposing
he
was
not
,
whether
Ischyras
became
a
Laic
for
want
of
any
Ordination
,
or
because
Schismatically
Ordained
by
a
Schismatical
Bishop
,
or
lastly
,
because
Ordained
by
a
Presbyter
only
.
Qu.
1.
〈◊〉
.
Whether
Colluthus
was
ever
Ordained
Bishop
by
Melitius
.
Ans.
Never
.
For
he
is
all
along
called
Presbyter
,
never
Bishop
,
nor
Schismatical
Bishop
:
He
is
described
as
one
,
that
took
upon
him
the
Episcopacy
,
personated
and
pretended
to
be
what
he
was
not
,
a
Bishop
.
If
he
had
been
a
real
,
Ischyras
was
not
in
the
number
of
those
recieved
by
Alexander
;
and
Against
all
this
is
it
will
haply
be
replyed
,
as
Blundel
has
endeavoured
Ans.
1.
Here
lies
the
Knavery
:
For
't
is
not
Colluthus
,
but
Caluthus
,
who
is
mentioned
in
the
Breviculum
.
And
least
this
should
be
thought
a
mistake
in
Writing
or
in
Printing
,
I
undertake
to
prove
beyond
all
Contradiction
,
that
they
were
different
Persons
however
,
if
not
different
in
Name
also
.
For
't
is
granted
by
Blundel
,
and
in
its
self
manifest
,
that
our
Colluthus
died
before
the
Synod
of
Nice
broke
up
,
or
Alexander
returned
into
Egypt
,
and
demanded
of
Melitius
this
Breviculum
.
But
the
Caluthus
named
in
the
Breviculum
,
when
Melitius
brought
it
to
Alexander
,
now
returned
from
Nice
into
Egypt
was
then
alive
:
So
it
follows
in
Athanasius
,
immediately
after
the
Breviculum
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
These
Persons
then
present
,
Melitius
brought
unto
Alexander
the
Bishop
.
So
that
,
as
the
Accusers
of
Athanasius
,
pretended
he
had
Killed
Arsenius
,
though
Arsenius
was
then
alive
:
Even
so
by
a
contrary
Artifice
,
Blundel
will
have
our
Colluthus
alive
:
Though
he
was
already
Dead
,
whosoever
then
were
Ordained
by
our
Colluthus
,
were
Ordained
by
a
meer
Presbyter
.
Qu.
2.
2.
Whether
Ischyras
was
ever
Ordained
Presbyter
by
Colluthus
.
Ans.
That
he
was
no
Presbyter
is
so
often
affirmed
,
that
we
need
not
trouble
our selves
to
enquire
farther
into
that
matter
.
However
,
that
he
was
Ordained
by
Colluthus
(
because
Blundel
is
inclined
to
believe
not
)
will
require
a
little
proof
.
And
1.
I
note
that
though
Athanasius
plainly
enough
denies
,
he
was
at
all
a
Presbyter
,
yet
still
with
respect
to
Melitius
,
is
no
manner
of
way
a
Presbyter
,
because
he
was
not
mentioned
in
the
or
Register
of
those
whom
Meltitus
Ordained
.
This
Argument
,
which
he
brings
here
,
shews
Ischyras
was
not
Ordained
a
Presbyter
by
Melitius
:
But
't
is
no
proof
against
Colluthus
his
Ordaining
of
him
,
neither
did
or
could
Athanasius
mean
so
.
Thus
the
Sardick
Fathers
,
He
never
was
a
Presbyter
of
Melitius
.
2.
Ischyras
He
was
Ordained
by
the
Catholick
Presbyter
Colluthus
,
who
counterfeited
Himself
a
Bishop
,
and
moreover
add
,
that
all
Ordained
by
Colluthus
,
and
among
the
rest
,
Ischyras
became
and
were
mere
Laics
.
'T
is
evident
then
,
that
Ischyras
was
Ordained
by
Colluthus
,
and
yet
was
not
a
Presbyter
,
because
Colluthus
himself
was
but
a
Presbyter
.
4.
Supposing
Ischyras
was
not
really
Ordained
by
Colluthus
,
the
point
will
come
to
the
same
Issue
:
For
the
Alexandrian
Synod
not
troubling
themselves
to
enquire
into
the
matter
of
Fact
,
but
taking
it
for
granted
,
that
he
was
Ordained
(
it
was
the
same
thing
with
them
)
they
pronounced
the
Sentence
against
Him
,
that
he
was
not
a
Presbyter
,
because
he
was
Qu.
3.
3.
Whether
Ischycas
was
declared
a
meer
Laic
,
either
because
not
Ordained
at
all
,
or
because
Schismatically
Ordained
,
or
else
because
he
was
Ordained
by
a
Presbyter
only
,
viz.
Colluthus
.
Ans.
It
having
been
proved
,
that
Colluthus
was
no
Bishop
,
that
Ischyras
was
Ordained
by
him
,
at
least
supposed
by
the
Synod
of
Alexandria
,
to
have
been
Ordained
by
him
,
the
first
part
of
the
Question
is
at
an
end
,
it
was
not
because
he
had
not
been
Ordained
at
all
;
and
then
I
affirm
he
became
a
Laic
,
not
simply
because
he
was
Schismatically
Ordained
,
but
because
he
was
Ordained
by
a
Presbyter
,
who
had
no
competent
power
to
Ordain
at
all
.
For
1.
Colluthus
is
ever
called
Presbyter
(
not
once
Bishop
or
Schismatical
Bishop
that
I
find
)
or
barely
〈◊〉
or
Catholick
Presbyter
,
or
one
that
counterfeited
himself
a
Bishop
,
as
in
the
Synodical
Letter
of
the
Alexandrian
Fathers
,
and
by
the
Presbyters
and
Deacons
at
Mareota
.
They
all
then
looked
upon
Ischyras
as
Ordained
by
a
Presbyter
,
and
for
that
reason
his
Ordination
Null
.
For
so
2.
It
is
expresly
recorded
,
Colluthus
died
a
Prebyter
,
therefore
all
his
Ordinations
were
void
,
and
all
Ordained
by
him
in
the
Schism
were
reduced
into
the
Order
of
Laics
,
says
the
Synodical
Letter
of
the
Alexandrian
Fathers
.
Ischyras
was
no
Presbyter
,
for
he
was
Ordained
by
the
Catholick
Presbyter
Colluthus
;
so
that
by
consequence
all
Ordained
by
him
went
back
into
their
former
place
,
and
Ischyras
appeared
a
Laic
,
say
the
Presbyters
,
and
Deacons
at
Mareota
.
But
it
will
be
objected
,
that
the
Words
in
the
Alexandrian
Synod
are
—
all
Ordained
by
Colluthus
in
Schism
became
Laics
,
implying
by
those
Words
〈◊〉
Schism
,
that
therefore
his
Ordinations
were
void
,
not
because
Colluthus
was
a
Presbyter
,
but
because
his
Ordinations
were
Schismatical
.
Ans.
1.
It
is
very
true
in
Fact
,
that
all
Colluthus
his
Ordinations
were
Schismatical
,
yet
this
was
not
the
proper
and
immediate
reason
of
their
Nullity
;
but
only
mentioned
as
a
Circumstance
which
aggravated
his
Crime
,
the
True
Reaon
,
being
assigned
in
the
former
Clause
of
that
Period
—
Colluthus
being
a
Presbyter
died
,
therefore
all
his
Ordinations
were
void
,
viz.
because
he
died
a
Presbyter
,
and
for
the
same
reason
those
Ordained
by
him
were
meer
Laicks
.
2.
Schism
,
if
it
was
one
reason
of
the
Nullity
of
Colluthus
his
Ordinations
,
yet
it
was
not
the
only
one
:
For
another
was
,
because
Colluthus
died
a
Presbyter
.
3.
I
do
confess
the
Alexandrian
Fathers
,
prosecuted
the
Melitians
with
the
utmost
Rigor
,
declaring
all
their
Ordinations
without
exception
utterly
void
;
so
that
such
as
were
Schismatically
Ordained
,
were
Universally
Commanded
to
be
what
they
were
before
.
But
the
Nicene
Fathers
came
to
a
better
Temper
,
and
in
some
Degree
confirmed
the
Schismatical
Ordinations
,
that
is
,
such
as
were
meerly
Schismatical
:
And
yet
Ischyras
was
not
permitted
to
tast
of
this
favour
?
Why
so
?
Why
,
because
there
was
another
fatal
blot
in
his
Escocheon
,
which
could
never
be
wiped
out
,
viz.
He
had
been
Ordained
by
a
Presbyter
only
.
4.
It
is
a
great
mistake
to
think
that
Schism
must
needs
be
understood
of
the
breach
of
the
Ecclesiastical
Laws
only
.
There
is
Schism
in
departing
from
some
Scripture
or
Divine
Rules
,
which
not
immediatly
appertaining
to
the
Fundamentals
and
Essence
of
Religion
,
denominates
the
Persons
not
Apostates
or
Hereticks
,
but
Erroneous
and
〈◊〉
only
.
If
any
of
the
believers
at
Antioch
,
had
presumed
to
eat
Blood
contrary
to
the
Apostolical
Decree
concluded
on
at
Jerusalem
,
he
had
been
doubtless
a
Schismatick
.
Thus
we
reckon
the
Dissenters
Schismaticks
,
as
departing
from
the
Divine
Apostolical
Constitution
of
Episcopacy
.
Colluthus
a
Presbyter
Ordaining
Ischyras
did
it
in
Schism
,
true
!
but
't
was
such
a
Schism
as
contravened
a
Divine
Law
,
and
so
the
Alexandrian
Fathers
thought
for
any
thing
I
see
to
the
contrary
,
when
they
condemned
his
Schismatical
Ordinations
as
Null
in
themselves
.
For
surely
that
which
is
done
against
a
Divine
Law
,
(
and
such
is
Schismatical
Ordination
,
Schism
being
a
Work
of
the
Flesh
)
is
in
its
self
Null
and
of
no
Effect
.
5.
We
ought
to
distinguish
between
the
Law
its
self
,
and
the
Censures
of
the
Church
declared
against
the
breach
of
that
Law
.
The
Law
may
be
of
Divine
Appointment
,
though
the
Censure
is
meerly
Ecclesiastical
.
St.
Paul
has
given
us
a
Canon
,
that
a
Bishop
ought
not
to
be
a
striker
:
Blundel
himself
suspecting
(
as
I
believe
)
that
the
Whole
Fabrick
;
which
he
had
with
so
much
Artifice
,
and
Subtlety
here
raised
in
Opposition
to
us
,
would
not
stand
,
is
therefore
content
at
least
to
grant
that
—
Ischyras
was
for
this
one
reason
accounted
a
Laic
,
because
he
was
Ordained
by
a
Presbyter
,
by
Colluthus
a
Presbyter
:
But
says
it
does
not
hence
follow
that
Bishops
alone
had
power
given
them
by
the
Apostles
to
Ordain
,
or
that
Presbyters
werenot
Originally
invested
with
that
Power
:
And
he
adds
,
that
nevertheless
,
Ordination
by
Presbyters
was
only
a
Violation
of
the
Ecclesiastical
Constitution
,
which
he
endeavours
to
confirm
from
numerous
Instances
of
Ecclesiastical
Canons
,
by
Vertue
whereof
Bishops
,
Presbyters
and
Deacons
,
were
sometimes
deposed
for
Canonical
Irregularities
.
Ans.
This
is
a
sorry
shift
and
unworthy
so
Learned
a
Man
;
for
on
the
other
side
,
I
am
able
to
produce
several
Canons
,
and
have
already
produced
enough
,
the
matter
of
which
Canons
is
grounded
on
Scripture
,
though
reinforced
by
Ecclesiastical
Penalties
.
It
will
not
follow
then
,
that
because
the
Ecclesiastical
Canons
forbid
Presbyters
to
Ordain
(
reserving
that
Power
to
Bishops
)
upon
pain
of
Deposition
or
Deprivation
,
&c.
therefore
this
was
not
a
Divine
Appointment
,
but
Ecclesiastical
only
.
For
at
this
rate
Blondel
might
pretend
the
27th
Canon
Apostolical
,
the
matter
of
which
is
,
that
a
Bishop
must
not
be
a
striker
,
is
a
meer
Ecclesiastical
Constitution
,
which
yet
we
know
is
one
of
St.
Paul's
Canons
,
1
Tim.
3.
3.
Though
at
the
same
time
we
must
confess
that
the
Deposition
,
which
is
the
Penalty
annex'd
is
purely
Ecclesiastical
.
The
matter
of
some
Church
Canons
is
often
purely
Ecclesiastical
as
well
as
the
Penalty
;
but
it
will
not
follow
that
all
are
so
.
For
as
the
Prince
frequently
causes
old
Laws
to
be
observed
,
reinforceing
them
by
Proclamation
,
so
have
Synods
done
with
Ancient
Scripture
Laws
and
Rules
.
In
this
Case
the
King
makes
not
new
Laws
,
nor
the
Synods
new
Ecclesiastical
Canons
.
The
Primitive
Christians
were
wont
to
explain
,
and
propound
unto
the
Church
the
belief
of
the
great
Fundamental
and
Essential
Articles
of
Christianity
,
as
that
of
the
Trinity
against
the
Arrians
,
and
that
of
Grace
against
the
Pelagians
,
upon
pain
But
Blondel
goes
on
:
Ischyras
was
deposed
by
the
Alexandrian
Ans.
This
is
what
we
utterly
deny
,
and
is
indeed
a
Meer
quirk
,
no
better
than
fooling
.
Ischyras
and
many
others
were
not
properly
deposed
,
but
only
declared
no
Presbyters
,
as
being
Ordained
by
a
Presbyter
,
which
may
reasonably
be
gathered
from
the
Expressions
used
in
the
foresaid
Synodical
Epistles
.
concerning
such
as
Colluthus
had
Ordained
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
Ischyras
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
denote
no
more
.
And
therefore
,
when
the
Synod
of
Jerusalem
complained
,
how
the
Eusebians
caused
Ischyras
to
be
called
Bishop
,
they
aggravated
the
Insolence
in
these
Words
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
whereas
he
was
not
so
But
Blundel
gives
it
yet
a
siner
Turn
thus
—
It
was
usual
in
that
Age
(
says
he
)
to
reduce
real
Bishops
and
Presbyters
,
transgressing
the
Canons
of
the
Church
,
ad
Laicam
Communionem
:
and
yet
it
cannot
be
deny'd
,
but
they
had
been
real
Bishops
.
Ans.
This
is
very
true
:
But
is
just
such
another
piece
of
Sophistry
as
before
,
and
reaches
not
the
Merits
of
the
Cause
.
For
1.
this
will
not
evince
that
ever
〈◊〉
was
a
Presbyter
,
though
some
real
Presbyters
for
Crimes
proved
upon
them
were
allowed
only
Lay-Communion
.
He
has
not
〈◊〉
us
that
they
were
declared
meer
Laics
:
They
were
only
suspended
from
performing
the
Office
of
Presbyters
,
and
admitted
to
Lay-Communion
,
their
Character
still
(
as
I
may
say
)
lying
dormant
in
them
.
If
any
such
Instance
were
to
be
found
,
it
can't
thence
be
gathered
,
that
Ischyras
also
was
so
dealt
with
.
'T
is
absurd
to
argue
from
one
or
a
few
particular
Instances
,
unto
all
others
or
to
any
other
single
Case
,
especially
which
differs
from
them
.
For
't
is
one
thing
to
misdemean
ones
self
in
an
Office
,
another
to
counterfeit
it
.
The
former
is
deprived
from
performing
,
what
he
is
orherwise
rightly
qualify'd
for
,
the
latter
is
not
what
he
pretends
to
be
.
The
instance
of
the
former
kind
is
of
a
pure
Ecclesiastical
Punishment
,
whereas
the
latter
labours
under
a
defect
and
Error
of
the
first
Concoction
which
in
the
Nature
of
the
thing
annuls
all
his
following
Ministerial
Acts
,
he
having
never
received
the
Power
,
which
he
pretends
to
.
Though
therefore
a
Real
Presbyter
is
for
his
misbehaviour
sometimes
condemn'd
to
Lay-Communion
,
yet
the
suspension
taken
of
,
as
he
once
was
,
so
he
again
becomes
a
real
Presbyter
to
all
intents
and
purposes
.
'T
is
no
good
Consequence
hence
drawn
that
a
Counterfeit
Presbyter
(
such
was
Ischyras
)
who
is
declared
a
meer
Laic
,
must
needs
have
been
a
Presbyter
:
Neither
will
it
follow
that
he
,
who
has
usurp'd
the
Seat
of
a
Presbyter
,
from
whence
he
is
thrust
down
and
deposed
,
was
ever
a
real
Presbyter
.
For
a
Man
may
well
enough
be
said
to
be
deposed
from
an
Office
which
he
usurps
and
discharges
for
a
while
,
but
never
had
a
Right
and
Title
to
.
A
Real
King
,
though
deposed
was
once
a
real
King
;
that
's
undeniable
;
but
one
that
personates
and
is
called
a
King
,
and
Acts
all
the
parts
of
the
Royal
Character
for
a
time
,
must
be
acknowledged
never
to
have
been
a
real
King
.
'T
was
Ischyras
his
Case
,
He
Acted
the
part
of
a
Presbyter
,
and
was
afterwards
Kick'd
off
the
Stage
,
shall
it
hence
be
concluded
He
was
once
a
real
Presbyter
?
Under
Blondel's
favour
I
think
not
.
But
Let
us
see
now
what
Mr.
O.
(
who
has
a
Knack
at
improving
Arguments
)
〈◊〉
offered
about
the
Case
of
Ischyras
.
He
acknowledges
Colluthus
was
but
a
pretended
Bishop
,
and
therefore
was
Commanded
Ans.
But
I
ask
then
,
why
was
Ischyras
laid
aside
as
a
meer
Laic
?
Surely
,
not
because
his
Ordainer
falsly
assumed
the
Character
of
Bishop
,
which
belonged
not
to
him
.
But
then
(
say
I
)
is
it
not
hard
my
Ordainers
Dissimulation
(
supposing
him
otherwise
to
have
the
Power
)
should
annul
my
Orders
.
But
Colluthus
his
Ordinations
were
vacated
,
not
because
he
pretended
to
be
a
Bishop
and
was
not
,
but
because
he
was
a
Presbyter
without
Power
to
Ordain
.
Well!
But
Mr.
O.
tells
us
,
Ischyras's
Ordination
was
declared
void
as
being
not
acknowledged
by
the
Authors
,
Colluthus
belike
not
owning
he
had
Ordained
Ischyras
:
So
that
it
not
appearing
,
't
was
taken
for
granted
,
He
was
never
Ordained
,
and
so
He
became
a
Laic
,
no
Presbyter
;
not
because
he
was
Ordained
by
a
Presbyter
,
but
for
want
of
any
Ordination
,
that
appeared
.
The
meaning
of
all
which
(
as
I
apprehend
)
is
that
the
instance
makes
nothing
against
Ordination
by
Presbyters
,
seeing
here
was
no
Ordination
at
all
,
Ischyras's
Ordainers
not
owning
,
that
they
had
imposed
hands
on
him
.
For
answer
hereunto
I
referr
the
Reader
to
what
is
above
replyed
unto
something
of
this
kind
:
The
sum
whereof
is
that
Ischyras
was
either
really
Ordained
by
Colluthus
the
Presbyter
,
or
at
least
by
his
Judges
taken
for
such
,
which
is
the
same
thing
.
As
for
Dr.
Field's
Argument
(
his
Authority
I
meddle
not
with
)
cited
by
Mr.
O.
in
these
Words
,
Presbyters
Ordinations
were
accounted
void
by
the
Rigor
of
the
Canons
in
use
then
,
because
Ordinations
sine
Titulo
were
Null
,
Concil.
Chalced.
Can.
6.
it
belongs
not
to
the
time
we
are
now
speaking
of
,
the
Council
of
Chalcedon
being
Held
an
Hundred
and
twenty
Years
after
that
of
Nice
:
Nor
was
the
Qualification
of
a
Title
required
till
long
after
that
Council
of
Chalcedon
,
wherein
also
I
meet
not
with
a
Syllable
of
annulling
Ordinations
for
want
of
a
Title
.
That
6th
Can.
makes
void
Clancular
Ordinations
not
given
visibly
in
the
Face
of
the
Church
,
the
Rule
,
which
required
the
Candidate
to
be
offered
unto
the
suffrage
of
the
Clergy
,
and
People
in
the
Churches
and
Congregation
,
being
neglected
,
as
Justellus
has
observed
from
the
Word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
The
method
of
Requiring
Titles
indeed
grew
up
afterwards
,
which
the
Canonists
in
the
following
Ages
gathered
from
this
sixth
Canon
of
Chalcedon
,
as
fancying
some
Analogy
or
Agreement
between
them
in
Reason
as
Calvin
Lexic
.
Jurid
.
teaches
me
.
However
let
us
take
the
Argument
as
't
is
propounded
.
Ordinations
by
Presbyters
were
accounted
void
not
in
themselves
,
but
by
the
Rigor
of
the
Canons
in
use
then
:
How
does
this
appear
?
Why
,
because
Ordinations
sine
Titulo
were
null
by
the
sixth
Canon
of
Chalcedon
,
which
is
just
as
if
one
should
pretend
to
prove
the
Lord's-Day
not
Holy
by
Divine
appointment
but
by
the
Ecclesiastical
Constitution
,
because
the
other
Holy-Days
are
not
.
Is
it
not
possible
the
Lord's-Day
may
be
Holy
by
Divine
Institution
,
though
Good
Friday
is
not
?
Or
that
Ordinations
by
Presbyters
may
be
Null
in
themselves
and
by
Scripture
,
though
Ordinations
sine
Titulo
be
uncanonical
only
?
But
,
if
Mr.
O.
intended
this
only
as
the
Judgment
of
so
Learned
a
Person
as
Dr.
Field
,
I
let
it
pass
as
such
,
being
no
ways
obliged
to
account
for
the
Opinions
of
private
Doctors
.
The
Reverend
Author
of
the
Naked
Truth
(
if
I
rightly
apprehend
Mr.
O.
for
I
lift
not
to
look
after
the
Book
its
self
)
intends
to
prove
by
the
Nicene
Canon
(
which
forbids
Bishops
to
Ordain
in
one
anothers
Diocesses
)
that
the
Irregular
Ordinations
by
Bishops
are
as
Null
,
as
the
irregular
Ordinations
by
Presbyters
.
Now
there
is
no
strength
in
this
Reasoning
.
I
can
scarce
allow
it
to
be
sense
.
He
ought
first
to
make
out
,
that
Presbyters
have
power
to
Ordain
,
and
then
indeed
the
irregular
Ordinations
of
the
one
would
be
Null
as
well
as
of
the
other
and
both
alike
:
But
we
deny
Presbyters
to
have
Power
to
Ordain
(
be
sure
That
Nicene
Canon
gives
them
none
)
and
therefore
the
Comparison
here
is
foolish
and
frivolous
.
'T
is
as
if
one
should
lay
down
this
grave
Maxim
—
the
Irregular
Sentence
of
a
Judge
is
as
Null
,
as
that
of
a
private
Man
,
whereas
a
private
Man
can
give
no
decretory
Sentence
at
all
.
I
own
Bishops
in
their
Ordinations
were
under
many
Canonical
Restraints
,
and
some
of
their
irregular
Ordinations
were
decreed
Null
,
at
least
so
as
that
the
Ordained
,
were
not
allowed
to
exercise
their
Function
.
But
to
talk
of
the
Irregularities
of
Ordinations
by
Presbyters
is
to
suppose
it
proved
they
have
Power
to
Ordain
,
which
is
to
beg
the
Question
.
I
am
sure
their
power
is
not
intimated
in
the
Nicene
Canons
(
as
that
of
Bishops
is
)
nor
in
any
other
that
I
am
yet
acquainted
with
.
If
a
Canon
were
any
where
to
be
found
restraining
Ordinations
made
by
Presbyters
,
and
limiting
the
manner
and
circumstances
of
'em
,
't
were
reasonable
thence
to
gather
that
Presbyters
had
Power
to
Ordain
:
But
the
Canonical
Restraints
laid
upon
Bishops
will
not
convince
me
that
Presbyters
had
that
Power
.
Finally
one
may
by
the
same
Reasoning
conclude
that
Deacons
,
yea
,
that
every
Ordinary
believer
had
power
to
Ordain
,
as
well
as
Bishops
.
Thus
I
proceed
in
the
Argument
—
By
the
Nicene
Canons
,
Bishops
Ordinations
in
others
Diocesses
without
consent
are
forbid
,
and
hence
we
see
,
the
irregular
Ordinations
of
Bishops
are
as
Null
as
the
irregular
Ordinations
of
Ordinary
believers
and
Deacons
:
But
this
is
no
better
than
beating
the
Air
,
out
of
nothing
to
gather
something
.
For
all
this
while
neither
Deacons
nor
Believers
have
power
at
all
to
Ordain
.
Haply
Mr.
O.
has
left
the
Reverend
Authors
Argument
short
:
So
I
dismiss
it
.
CHAP.
X.
Of
Aerius
.
THis
was
a
Turbulent
and
Heretical
Presbyterian
the
only
one
to
be
met
with
in
all
Antiquity
.
It
may
not
be
amiss
in
few
Words
to
present
the
Reader
with
his
Character
,
as
't
is
transmitted
to
us
by
St.
Austin
and
Epiphanius
.
The
former
tells
us
,
that
being
a
Presbyter
he
is
Aust.
de
Haer.
5.
3.
reported
to
have
been
troubled
,
because
he
could
not
be
Ordained
a
Bishop
;
that
he
fell
into
the
Arrian
Heresie
,
adding
to
it
some
of
his
own
Conceits
,
as
that
stated
Fasts
ought
not
to
be
observed
,
and
that
a
Presbyter
ought
no
ways
to
be
distinguished
from
a
Bishop
;
that
the
Aerians
his
followers
admitted
to
their
Communion
only
the
Continent
,
or
such
as
embraced
a
Celibate
Life
,
and
who
had
so
far
renounced
the
World
,
as
to
account
nothing
their
own
:
And
did
not
abstain
from
Flesh
in
the
appointed
times
,
as
Epiphanius
writes
.
This
Epiphanius
,
among
many
other
Errors
,
and
some
of
the
aforesaid
particularly
remembers
that
he
sought
to
be
a
Bishop
but
could
not
obtain
it
.
He
calls
it
Ep.
Haeres.
56.
sive
.
77.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
an
hairbrained
and
mad
Doctrine
,
sc.
that
of
the
Identity
of
Bishops
and
Presbyters
.
When
Epiphanius
had
reckoned
up
a
great
many
of
his
Errors
and
Heresies
,
he
proceeds
to
refute
'em
,
and
in
the
first
place
takes
him
to
task
for
that
about
the
Identity
of
Bishops
and
Presbyters
,
In
short
,
he
sets
him
forth
as
a
very
Wicked
and
Impious
Fellow
.
It
is
not
material
in
the
Dispute
,
whether
Aerius
was
an
Heretick
,
or
is
called
so
by
Epiphanius
and
St.
Austin
on
the
account
of
his
teaching
Bishops
and
Presbyters
to
be
equal
.
I
am
sure
St.
Austin
places
this
Error
of
his
in
the
front
and
before
that
of
Arrianism
:
And
both
condemn
him
for
his
Opinion
about
Bishops
and
Presbyters
,
which
is
sufficient
to
my
Purpose
,
For
I
am
not
concerned
about
private
Persons
Opinions
,
such
as
Bishop
Jewel
though
an
excellent
Man
,
and
one
of
the
greatest
Ornaments
of
our
Church
and
of
the
Reformation
,
or
others
mentioned
by
Mr.
O.
[
*
](A42789-e81810-b)
*
Page
114.
123.
124.
—
Whatever
their
Sentiments
were
,
I
shall
hereafter
shew
,
that
it
was
ever
the
publick
Judgment
of
the
Reformed
Church
of
England
,
that
Bishops
were
Jure
Divino
,
and
I
hope
't
is
no
breach
of
Modesty
to
confront
theirs
with
the
Churches
Authority
.
CHAP.
XI
.
Of
Hilary
the
Deacon
.
IT
is
not
agreed
among
the
Criticks
,
who
was
the
Author
of
the
Commentaries
on
St.
Paul's
Epistles
,
which
are
in
the
Works
of
St.
Ambrose
,
Vol.
5.
and
't
is
as
uncertain
unto
whom
belong
the
Quaestiones
veter
is
&
novi
Testamenti
in
St.
Austin
,
Tom.
4.
There
are
some
excellent
passages
found
in
them
,
and
cited
by
Austin
in
his
Tracts
against
the
Pelagians
Aust.
de
nat
&
grat
.
cont.
Pel.
c.
62.
under
the
Titles
of
〈◊〉
&
Sanctus
Hilarius
,
whence
some
conclude
they
cannot
be
ascribed
to
so
ill
a
Man
as
the
Deacon
:
But
that
either
Hilary
Bishop
of
Poictiers
,
or
Hilary
of
It.
ad
Bonif.
1.
4.
p.
916.
Arles
must
have
them
.
Yet
Vossius
[
*
](A42789-e82060-b)
*
〈◊〉
.
Pelag.
Pars.
1.
p.
168.
contends
that
those
Titles
of
Beatus
&
Sanctus
,
were
by
Custom
and
in
Civility
given
to
all
Clergy-Men
,
whether
they
deserved
them
or
not
,
as
at
this
Day
,
Reverendus
&
Venerabilis
are
:
That
the
Commentaries
were
written
when
Damasus
was
Rector
Ecclesiae
,
Pope
of
Rome
,
Comment.
in
3.
Cap.
1.
Ep.
ad
Tim.
and
that
Hilary
of
Poictiers
,
dying
in
the
second
Year
of
Damasus
,
was
too
Old
,
to
have
either
time
or
strength
to
perform
such
a
Work
,
whilst
that
Pope
was
living
:
And
lastly
,
that
Hilary
of
Arles
,
came
too
late
to
write
in
Damasus
his
Pontificate
,
or
to
be
quoted
by
St.
Austin
.
And
thus
the
Commentaries
and
Questions
will
fall
to
the
Deacon's
share
.
Ans.
1.
'T
is
certain
to
me
,
Hilary
of
Poictiers
was
not
the
Author
of
the
Questions
and
Commentaries
,
as
we
now
have
them
:
But
not
for
the
reason
assigned
.
Those
words
〈◊〉
bodie
Rector
est
Damasus
are
on
1
Tim.
3.
from
whence
to
the
end
of
the
Commentaries
are
but
52
leaves
in
Folio
,
which
he
might
have
time
and
strength
to
finish
in
that
Popes
first
Year
.
The
Commentaries
moreover
break
off
abruptly
at
the
10th
Ch.
of
the
Hebrews
,
and
the
work
is
left
unfinished
,
whence
it
may
be
thought
that
there
his
Life
or
his
strength
might
fail
him
.
But
still
it
is
confessed
Hilary
of
Poictiers
was
not
the
Author
of
them
:
They
are
too
mean
to
be
Fathered
upon
so
great
a
Man
.
2.
The
Particular
Testimonies
spoken
of
before
cannot
be
attributed
unto
Hilary
of
Arles
:
For
he
flourished
Twenty
Years
after
Austin
.
3.
Neither
can
they
belong
to
the
Deacon
a
Reason
of
no
credit
or
Authority
,
as
I
shall
shew
.
Wherefore
4.
They
were
cited
out
of
some
Work
of
Hilary
of
Poictiers
not
now
extant
,
which
may
be
confirmed
by
another
Testimony
in
Austin
(
not
yet
observed
by
any
that
I
know
of
)
writing
still
against
the
Pelagians
—
Ecclesiae
Catholicae
adversus
Haereticos
acerrimum
Defensorem
cont.
Jul.
Pelag.
L.
l.
Vol.
3.
Tom.
7.
p.
490.
Venerandum
quis
ignorat
Hilarium
Episcopum
Gallum
?
Which
can
be
understood
of
no
other
Hilary
then
the
Bishop
of
Poictiers
,
as
is
manifest
from
what
has
been
said
.
5.
Neither
〈◊〉
nor
〈◊〉
,
allowed
this
Deacon
so
much
as
a
place
in
their
Catalogues
of
Ecclesiastical
Writers
,
being
it
seems
unworthy
that
Honour
.
Bellarmine
indeed
incidentally
mentions
him
in
his
Observations
on
Ambroses's
Works
,
yet
makes
no
reckoning
of
him
.
But
Jerom
falls
foul
on
him
calling
him
in
derision
Orbis
Deucalionem
,
Hier.
Dial.
Orth.
&
Lucif
.
Tom.
1.
p.
627.
and
adds
—
libellos
adversus
nos
de
Haereticis
rebaptizandis
edidit
.
It
can't
then
be
thought
St.
Austin
would
build
upon
this
Deacons
Authority
.
Thus
much
I
thought
fit
to
say
concerning
the
Passages
of
St.
Austin
borrowed
out
of
Hilary
,
supposed
by
some
to
be
the
Deacon
,
and
Author
of
the
Commentaries
and
Questions
,
of
which
I
will
now
say
something
considering
them
in
the
Lump
.
1.
I
do
suppose
the
same
Person
or
Persons
(
whosoever
they
were
)
wrote
these
Commentaries
and
Questions
.
Blondel
Himself
is
of
this
Opinion
,
and
so
is
Bellarmine
in
his
Observations
on
Ambrose's
The
Author
(
says
he
)
repeats
many
the
same
things
in
several
places
,
propounds
the
same
Questions
,
and
treats
of
'em
over
and
over
again
;
is
not
constant
in
his
Opinions
:
Some
scraps
out
of
other
Mens
Works
are
often
inserted
:
He
repeats
what
he
had
said
〈◊〉
,
but
in
a
quite
different
stile
.
He
is
very
idle
in
starting
Questions
,
which
he
ought
not
.
There
is
a
perfect
confusion
in
the
Work
.
Sometimes
he
writes
Commentaries
,
sometimes
Controversie
:
Sometimes
he
Preaches
,
and
sometimes
disputes
very
Foolishly
and
Meerly
Prates
.
He
is
often
Scurrilous
and
Abusive
,
and
yet
has
said
many
things
worthy
to
be
read
and
known
,
but
gathered
out
of
others
.
He
cites
not
his
Authors
,
he
cheats
the
Reader
with
counterfeit
Titles
.
By
the
repetitions
and
the
disorder
in
his
matter
he
writes
of
,
by
his
Tumultuous
and
Womanish
Talkativeness
he
even
kills
his
Reader
.
The
first
part
seems
to
be
the
Work
of
some
Greek
affecting
to
speak
Latin
,
&c.
Erasmus
is
more
favourable
to
the
Commentaries
,
yet
confesses
the
Prefaces
are
not
St.
Ambroses's
,
but
some
busy
and
illiterate
Fellow
tack'd
'em
to
the
Commentaries
.
I
make
account
then
these
Commentaries
and
Questions
are
of
no
Credit
or
Authority
in
any
Controversy
whatever
.
2.
The
compiler
of
them
has
intermixt
several
things
favouring
Episcopacy
,
and
so
is
Jack
O'
both-sides
.
1.
He
expounds
the
Angels
(
spoken
of
1
Cor.
11.
10.
)
Bishops
grounding
himself
on
the
Revelations
:
And
gives
the
Reason
why
Women
ought
to
be
covered
in
the
Church
because
of
the
Angels
,
that
is
,
Bishops
,
quia
Episcopus
personam
habet
Christi
&
vicarius
est
Domini
,
sustains
the
Person
of
Christ
and
is
the
Vicar
of
the
Lord
.
The
which
must
be
understood
of
the
Days
of
Paul
:
Else
the
Explanation
is
altogether
fruitless
and
impertinent
.
2.
He
resembles
the
Deacons
to
the
Levites
,
Presbyters
to
the
Priests
,
whereof
one
was
the
High-Priest
unto
whom
the
Bishop
answers
see
Question
101.
3.
He
grants
Timothy
had
the
Power
ofOrdaining
committed
to
him
by
Paul
in
these
.
Words
,
unde
Quemadmodum
Episcopum
ordinet
Timotheus
,
ostendit
Paulus
.
But
he
no
where
expresly
allows
this
to
the
Presbyters
.
Many
other
Observations
,
if
it
were
worth
while
,
might
be
Collected
out
of
this
Author
tending
to
the
same
purpose
.
3.
He
contradicts
himself
the
Holy
Scripture
,
and
the
most
Ancient
Writers
in
the
Church
.
He
affirms
that
at
first
all
might
Preach
,
Baptize
and
explain
Scripture
,
but
after
,
Churches
were
Establish'd
and
Distinct
Offices
were
appointed
,
and
the
Church
began
to
be
govern'd
another
way
,
so
that
no
Man
should
presume
to
Officiate
in
Holy
things
,
except
he
were
Ordained
.
Whereas
nothing
is
more
manifest
than
that
there
were
at
the
Council
of
Jerusalem
[
*
](A42789-e82940-b)
*
Acts
15.
,
besides
,
Deacons
two
Species
of
Officers
at
least
,
Apostles
and
Elders
,
to
say
nothing
of
Prophets
,
of
whom
also
we
read
,
Act.
15
,
That
when
St.
Paul
wrote
his
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians
,
there
were
set
in
the
Church
by
God
himself
,
Apostles
,
Prophets
,
Evangelists
,
Pastors
,
Teachers
,
&c.
The
same
are
to
be
met
with
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Ephesians
.
In
that
to
the
Philippians
we
read
of
their
Apostle
,
of
their
Bishops
(
or
Presbyters
,
)
and
their
Deacons
.
Timothy
and
Titus
had
their
Elders
and
Deacons
under
them
.
To
omit
sundry
,
other
examples
hereof
in
Scripture
,
Clemens
Romanus
tells
us
,
that
the
Lord
appointed
who
were
to
Minister
in
Divine
Offices
among
the
Christians
,
and
Ignatius
needs
not
here
to
be
brought
in
for
Evidence
.
But
let
us
consider
the
several
Instances
Mr.
O.
gives
in
Confirmation
of
this
Paradox
,
that
there
were
no
Ministers
in
the
Church
at
the
beginning
.
The
first
is
of
Philip.
But
Philip
had
been
Ordained
by
Imposition
of
Hands
,
and
besides
was
a
Person
endued
with
extraordinary
and
supernatural
Gifts
,
that
is
was
a
Prophet
,
and
of
such
I
readily
grant
it
true
,
that
they
were
not
strictly
and
indispensably
ty'd
to
common
Rules
of
Order
,
but
might
do
what
the
Spirit
moved
'em
to
.
But
't
is
remarkable
what
Hilary
himself
says
of
Philip
,
Evangelistae
Diaconi
sunt
sicut
Philippus
.
So
then
here
were
Ministers
thus
Early
besides
the
Apostles
.
As
for
Apollos
Act.
18.
24.
to
pass
by
other
Observations
that
might
be
useful
,
I
much
question
whether
,
when
he
preach'd
at
Ephesus
,
he
was
yet
a
Christian
,
or
rather
am
positive
he
was
none
:
For
he
knew
only
the
Baptism
of
John
,
v.
25.
unto
whom
therefore
Aquila
and
Priscilla
,
expounded
the
way
of
God
more
perfectly
,
v.
26.
And
tho'
after
this
he
still
Preach'd
at
Corinth
,
v.
28.
it
may
be
said
that
by
this
time
he
had
been
Ordained
to
it
,
for
any
thing
appears
to
the
contrary
:
And
we
must
not
think
none
were
Ordained
,
but
such
of
whom
't
is
expresly
testify'd
in
Scripture
:
We
ought
rather
to
conclude
all
were
Ordain'd
because
many
were
.
Of
Aquila
and
Priscilla
,
their
instructing
Apollos
,
I
have
shewed
elsewhere
,
that
it
was
private
not
Ministerial
Instruction
.
In
short
,
I
know
not
one
Example
of
a
Person
unordained
,
and
of
ordinary
Gifts
only
,
that
took
upon
him
to
Preach
in
any
Christian
Assemblies
,
much
more
to
administer
the
Holy
Sacraments
;
nor
can
I
fancy
,
when
that
time
was
of
which
Hilary
speaks
,
when
every
Man
that
would
,
did
Administer
in
the
Word
and
Sacraments
.
But
the
story
of
Vrigen
is
urg'd
,
who
was
made
Catechist
in
the
School
of
Alexandria
,
and
taught
the
Catechumens
in
the
Rudiments
of
Christianty
,
as
Dr.
Cave
relates
it
,
and
what
is
yet
more
,
Theoctistus
Bishop
of
Cesarea
,
and
Alexander
Bishop
of
Jerusalem
invited
him
to
Preach
before
them
.
As
Africa
has
always
been
noted
for
a
Country
abounding
with
strange
and
Monstrous
Creatures
;
so
are
we
continually
pester'd
with
some
surprizing
and
extraordinary
fact
in
the
Egyptian
Church
,
as
if
that
differed
from
all
the
World
besides
.
But
to
this
Example
of
Origen
,
I
first
say
,
that
Mr.
O.
is
as
much
obliged
to
reconcile
it
with
the
Presbyterian
Principles
,
as
I
am
with
the
Episcopal
:
That
Origen
,
though
he
instructed
the
Catechumens
at
Alexandria
in
the
principles
of
Christianty
(
so
do
our
School-Masters
though
not
Ordained
:
)
Haply
once
or
so
he
preach'd
at
Cesarea
before
he
had
been
Ordained
,
(
so
do
our
Fellows
of
Colleges
at
the
University
)
:
Yet
this
is
nothing
to
the
Sacraments
,
which
he
did
not
presume
to
Administer
;
and
lastly
though
Theoctistus
and
Alexander
of
Jerusalem
,
out
of
Curiosity
desirous
to
hear
the
great
Origen
Discourse
upon
some
profound
point
in
Christianty
invited
him
into
the
Pulpit
,
yet
Demetrius
Bishop
of
Alexandria
condemn'd
it
,
and
it
became
a
Scandal
and
occasion
of
offence
among
them
.
Mr.
O.
speaking
of
Evangelists
would
prove
them
to
have
Ans.
This
is
more
absurd
then
any
thing
I
have
met
with
in
my
Adversary
.
Sine
Cathedra
,
without
a
fixt
Residence
?
He
might
as
well
have
rendred
it
without
fear
or
Wit.
The
meaning
doubtless
is
,
that
whereas
Presbyters
had
their
Stalls
,
as
well
as
the
Bishop
,
and
sate
in
his
Presence
,
sine
Cathedra
.
Stantibus
Diaconis
,
we
often
meet
with
in
St.
Cyprian
;
and
Hilary
himself
took
Notice
—
that
the
Deacons
did
not
assume
the
Privilege
of
sitting
in
the
Church
,
had
〈◊〉
Cathedra
,
no
seat
in
it
.
Jerom
has
also
observ'd
the
same
:
Sedent
Presbyteri
,
stant
Diaconi
.
So
that
Hilary's
meaning
was
hereby
to
distinguish
the
one
from
the
other
,
and
intimated
that
Deacons
were
inferior
to
Presbyters
,
being
not
suffer'd
to
sit
or
to
have
a
Stall
in
the
Church
,
as
the
other
had
.
In
short
,
no
one
surely
will
dare
to
say
,
that
Deacons
were
unfixt
Officers
in
the
Church
,
either
in
the
Apostles
or
in
Hilary's
Days
.
Mr.
O.
and
before
him
Blondel
,
in
Order
to
prove
that
Ans.
1.
The
Controversy
is
not
about
the
manner
of
succeeding
into
the
〈◊〉
.
The
Method
is
either
prescrib'd
in
Scripture
or
not
.
If
it
be
,
let
the
Presbyterians
shew
where
,
and
we
promise
to
observe
it
for
the
future
:
If
not
't
is
left
to
the
Church
,
to
Order
this
Circumstance
as
shall
be
thought
fit
.
In
the
mean
time
we
may
not
lay
aside
Bishops
,
because
we
have
not
a
Divine
Rule
about
their
Succession
.
Many
things
are
appointed
in
the
Word
of
God
,
the
particular
Circumstances
being
left
at
large
unto
Humane
Prudence
.
We
are
commanded
to
read
the
Scriptures
,
but
not
how
much
at
a
time
,
whether
one
or
more
Sections
,
whether
one
or
more
Chapters
,
nor
in
what
Order
:
Shall
we
therefore
abolish
the
Command
it self
,
because
these
Circumstances
are
not
expresly
delivered
to
us
in
Scripture
?
God
forbid
!
Supposing
then
that
there
have
been
different
Customs
taken
up
about
the
way
of
Succeeding
into
the
Episcopacy
,
this
is
no
prejudice
against
Episcopacy
its
self
.
2.
It
is
some
matter
of
wonder
to
me
how
the
Affairs
of
the
Church
could
be
prejudiced
by
the
Oldest
Presbyters
,
succeeding
as
of
right
to
the
first
Chair
or
Presidency
,
if
he
received
thereby
no
Power
or
Jurisdiction
as
our
Adverrsaries
pretend
.
3.
It
is
false
,
and
nothing
can
be
falser
then
this
conceit
of
the
Oldest
Presbyter
succeeding
into
the
Episcopacy
.
Timothy
was
a
Young
Man
and
promoted
by
St.
Paul
,
and
that
not
for
his
Age
,
but
his
Merit
:
For
surely
none
can
believe
he
was
the
Oldest
among
the
Ephesian
Elders
.
What
occasion
then
for
the
Apostles
Admonition
—
let
no
Man
despise
thy
Youth
,
if
all
the
Presbyters
were
Younger
than
himself
?
And
Jerom
,
who
affirms
that
Paul
Ordained
Timothy
Bishop
of
Ephesus
,
his
Maxim
was
,
Presbyter
aetatis
Nomen
est
,
Episcopus
Officii
:
It
had
then
been
more
Congruous
according
to
our
Adversaries
Argument
to
have
named
all
of
'em
Bishops
,
except
the
President
,
who
should
have
been
called
Presbyter
as
being
the
Eldest
among
them
.
Afterwards
Ignatius
exhorts
the
Magnesians
,
not
to
despise
Demas
their
Bishop
for
his
Youth
.
Lastly
,
〈◊〉
assures
us
,
that
the
Presbyters
of
Alexandria
by
Mark'
s
Institution
,
chose
their
Patriarch
,
so
that
Merit
and
Election
not
Age
determined
the
Competition
.
By
the
way
they
also
according
to
this
Author
Eutychius
Ordained
their
Patriarch
by
Prayer
and
Imposition
of
Hands
:
With
what
Truth
then
could
Hilary
assert
.
Episcopi
&
Presbyteri
〈◊〉
est
Ordinatio
?
But
I
have
done
this
Fictitious
Hilary
his
Questions
and
Commentaries
,
too
great
an
Honour
in
wasting
thus
much
Paper
about
Him
and
Them
.
CHAP.
XII
.
Of
St.
Jerom
'
s
Testimony
.
BEfore
I
examine
the
Testimonies
of
this
Father
alledg'd
by
Mr.
O.
in
favour
of
the
Identity
of
Bishops
and
Presbyters
,
I
will
lay
down
my
own
Hypothesis
,
such
,
I
am
perswaded
,
as
is
agreeable
to
the
Word
of
God
.
And
I
am
of
Opinion
also
will
go
a
great
way
to
reconcile
Jerom
with
himself
.
As
for
my
own
Opinion
I
make
account
with
Bp.
Pearson
,
that
toto
Orbe
throughout
the
World
.
The
period
of
time
,
when
this
Course
was
Taken
by
the
Apostles
,
I
have
spoken
of
in
the
Preface
.
But
Jerom
in
this
Circumstance
seems
not
at
one
with
himself
.
For
whereas
in
his
Commentaries
on
the
Epistle
to
Titus
,
he
supposes
the
Apostles
to
have
taken
up
this
Resolution
after
the
Corinthian
Schism
,
yet
making
James
Bishop
of
[
*
](A42789-e84380-b)
*
Phil.
2.
25.
.
Blondel
himself
acknowledges
there
were
a
Secondary
sort
of
Apostles
among
the
Churches
,
Persons
of
the
Highest
Rank
and
most
Eminent
Gifts
.
I
take
these
things
in
some
measure
proved
sufficiently
before
,
and
in
what
follows
,
and
most
reasonable
in
themselves
to
be
supposed
.
Nevertherless
if
the
Adversaries
shall
reject
them
,
as
't
is
most
likely
they
will
,
I
shall
only
say
that
I
am
not
much
concerned
about
them
,
that
is
,
whether
it
be
possible
to
make
Jerom
write
consistently
with
himself
.
If
not
,
his
Testimony
in
the
Controversy
before
us
,
is
not
worth
a
Rush
,
he
having
contradicted
himself
,
and
overthrown
in
one
place
,
what
he
is
made
to
have
affirmed
in
another
.
The
Question
then
upon
Jerom's
Authority
is
not
about
the
precise
time
,
when
this
Remedy
against
Schism
was
applyed
by
the
Apostles
;
that
's
to
say
,
whether
before
or
immediately
after
the
Corinthian
Divisions
(
let
Jerom
look
to
that
)
:
But
more
generally
,
whether
he
believed
or
ever
asserted
,
or
could
consistently
with
himself
assert
,
that
this
Provision
against
Schism
was
devised
and
made
not
till
after
the
Apostles
decease
.
The
Presbyterians
are
oblig'd
to
hold
the
Affirmative
,
or
else
give
up
the
Cause
.
My
business
then
is
to
prove
that
Jerom
did
not
believe
nor
ever
asserted
,
nor
could
intend
to
assert
,
that
the
Decree
about
chusing
one
from
among
the
Presbyters
,
and
setting
him
above
the
rest
,
to
preside
and
Govern
the
affairs
of
the
Church
was
made
after
the
Apostles
days
,
by
some
Ecclesiastical
Constitution
;
but
that
it
was
the
Ordination
and
Appointment
of
the
Apostles
themselves
:
This
I
pretend
to
make
appear
by
the
following
Observations
out
of
Jerom.
1.
These
Words
of
Jerom
,
toto
Orbe
decretum
est
,
must
denote
it
to
have
been
an
Apostolick
Constitution
.
For
an
Ecclesiastical
Decree
obliging
all
Christendom
to
its
Observation
could
never
have
been
made
for
above
200
Years
after
the
Apostles
decease
;
and
nothing
less
then
an
Oecumenical
Synod
had
competent
Power
to
prescribe
this
Remedy
against
Schism
.
But
there
never
was
any
such
Universal
Council
before
that
of
Nice
(
too
late
to
Father
the
Decree
in
the
Judgment
even
of
our
Adversaries
themselves
.
)
Moreover
this
Apostles
Canons
(
as
they
are
commonly
called
)
which
are
a
Collection
of
the
most
Ancient
Decrees
of
the
Church
,
take
it
for
granted
,
Can.
Apos.
1.
2.
and
others
.
that
the
Government
of
the
Church
was
lodg'd
in
the
Hands
of
Bishops
,
and
only
regulate
some
Circumstances
about
their
Ordinations
and
the
Methods
of
their
Government
.
If
Bishops
had
been
meerly
by
Ecclesiastical
Constitution
,
we
should
certainly
have
found
them
established
in
these
Apostolical
Canons
.
It
is
not
to
be
imagin'd
the
Collectors
of
them
would
have
omitted
so
important
a
Decree
as
this
,
whereon
so
many
of
their
other
Canons
are
built
as
on
a
Foundation
.
Jerom's
toto
Orbe
decretum
est
,
must
then
imply
that
Episcopacy
was
an
Apostolical
Constitution
.
2.
The
same
may
be
〈◊〉
from
those
Words
,
Remedium
Schismatis
&
Episcopum
nominabant
,
in
Jerom's
Epistle
to
Evagrius
.
The
Remedy
then
against
Schism
,
must
be
as
Ancient
as
the
Presidents
,
who
according
to
Jerom
were
called
Bishops
.
Now
they
were
stil'd
Bishops
before
Ignatius
was
Martyred
,
as
abundantly
appears
in
his
Epistles
;
therefore
this
Remedy
against
Schism
was
divised
in
the
Apostolick
Age
,
except
any
one
will
affirm
that
Ignatius
,
and
all
the
other
Followers
,
Disciples
,
Fellow-Labourers
,
and
Fellow-Soldiers
of
the
Apostles
,
who
gave
Testimony
to
the
Gospel
of
Christ
even
unto
Bloud
,
prepared
this
new
Remedy
against
Schism
,
so
soon
as
the
Apostle
St.
John's
Eyes
were
Shut
;
and
took
upon
them
to
set
up
a
Government
in
the
Church
,
which
the
Apostles
were
altogether
strangers
to
,
as
our
Adversaries
suppose
.
3.
Jerom.
Witnesseth
over
and
over
again
,
that
Bishops
were
established
in
the
Churches
,
whilst
the
Apostles
lived
and
flourished
.
Upon
those
Words
—
Quae
est
in
to
per
impositionem
manuum
mearum
,
he
Jer.
com
.
in
2d
.
Ep.
ad
Tim.
c.
1.
v.
6.
thus
glosses
scilicet
ad
Episcopatum
.
Upon
those
other
Words
—
cum
Episcopis
&
Diaconis
,
he
thus
comments
—
hic
Episcopos
Presbyteros
intelligimus
,
non
enim
in
una
Urbe
plures
Episcopi
esse
potuissent
,
Id.
in
Philip.
c.
1.
v.
1.
Tom.
3.
that
place
,
yet
there
was
then
an
Higher
Degree
of
Bishops
,
of
whom
there
could
be
but
one
in
a
City
.
Now
Jerom
here
must
of
necessity
speak
of
the
Apostles
days
,
else
his
Comment
had
been
altogether
vain
and
absurd
.
For
to
expound
St.
Paul's
〈◊〉
by
an
usage
,
which
sprang
up
in
the
Church
long
after
,
were
sensless
.
Besides
,
he
thinks
Epaphroditus
was
at
that
time
Bishop
of
Philippi
,
as
is
plainly
implyed
when
he
glosses
on
the
other
passage
in
this
Epistle
—
Epaphroditum
Commilitonem
meum
—
Commilito
propter
honorem
:
Quia
&
ipse
acceperat
in
illis
Apostolatus
Officium
.
Epaphroditus
then
was
the
Apostle
of
the
Philippians
according
to
Jerom
,
that
is
in
the
Ecclesiastical
Language
he
was
their
Bishop
.
Again
whereas
Jerom
questions
Archippus
to
have
been
a
Deacon
of
the
Church
of
Coloss.
ch.
4.
17.
yet
elsewhere
,
he
puts
the
question
to
Himself
—
Quid
est
ministerium
Id.
Com.
ad
Phil.
2.
Tom.
3.
quod
Archippus
accepit
a
Domino
?
And
Answers
—
Legimus
,
&
Archippo
Commilitoni
Nostro
,
exquo
puto
aut
Episcopum
eum
fuisse
Colossensis
Ecclesiae
,
aut
si
ita
non
est
,
&c.
hereby
though
not
positively
asserting
him
the
Bishop
of
Coloss
,
yet
implying
plainly
by
the
Disjunctive
there
were
Bishops
in
those
days
.
Moreover
Jerom
in
his
Catalogue
of
Ecclesiastical
Writers
reckons
up
,
James
made
Bishop
of
Jerusalem
by
the
Apostles
,
and
Simeon
after
him
,
Timothy
of
Ephesus
,
Titus
of
Crete
by
Paul
,
and
Polycarp
of
Smyrna
by
John
.
On
the
45
Psalm
.
he
thus
speaks
—
Constituit
Christus
in
omnibus
finibus
Mundi
Principes
Ecclesiae
i.
e.
Episcopos
:
And
that
by
Princes
he
here
meant
single
Supreme
Governours
of
Churches
,
appears
from
his
Comment
on
the
1st
of
Titus
,
where
he
has
this
Observation
,
that
Paul
was
then
forming
a
Prince
of
the
Church
of
Crete
.
This
Institution
then
being
by
Jerom
attributed
unto
Christ
himself
,
must
be
understood
as
done
at
least
by
the
Apostles
of
Christ
.
Lastly
,
Jerom
Notes
[
†
](A42789-e85100-b)
†
Com.
in
1.
Cap.
Ep.
ad
Galatas
.
,
that
all
who
saw
the
Lord
,
and
Preached
the
Gospel
were
called
Apostles
,
paulatim
vero
tempore
procedente
,
others
also
were
Ordained
Apostles
by
them
,
whom
the
Lord
had
chosen
,
as
Epaphroditus
.
We
can
understand
no
less
by
Ordained
Apostles
here
,
than
those
who
were
set
over
Churches
to
Rule
them
called
afterwards
Bishops
:
And
the
paulatim
here
being
to
be
understood
of
the
Apostles
time
,
will
let
us
in
to
the
understanding
Jerom's
paulatim
and
his
postquam
,
in
his
Commentaries
on
〈◊〉
,
and
that
the
Decree
there
spoken
of
was
put
in
Execution
by
the
Apostles
themselves
but
by
Degrees
.
If
then
Epaphroditus
was
Bishop
of
Philippi
,
Archippus
of
Coloss
,
James
of
Jerusalem
,
Timothy
of
Ephesus
,
and
Titus
Bishop
and
Prince
of
Crete
,
Polycarp
of
Smyrna
,
and
in
a
Word
,
if
there
were
Bishops
and
Princes
appointed
by
Christ
in
all
Quarters
of
the
World
,
and
all
whilst
Paul
was
alive
in
the
Opinion
of
Jerom
,
then
Jerom's
toto
Orbe
〈◊〉
est
,
is
to
be
understood
of
an
Apostolical
Constitution
.
4.
The
occasion
of
setting
up
one
above
the
〈◊〉
to
take
the
care
and
charge
of
the
Churches
,
of
necessity
implies
that
the
Apostles
themselves
instituted
Episcopacy
.
It
was
according
to
Jerom
the
Corinthian
Schisiu
:
And
yet
more
particularly
(
because
our
〈◊〉
contend
that
Jerom
only
alluded
to
the
Corinthian
Schism
,
not
that
that
Schism
in
particular
was
the
occasion
of
the
Decree
:
Which
is
but
mere
〈◊〉
at
best
:
)
I
farther
note
the
Schism
,
which
gave
occasion
to
the
Decree
,
was
according
to
Jerom
founded
on
such
a
Principle
and
pretence
,
as
is
not
to
be
met
with
in
any
other
Church
than
that
of
Corimh
,
nor
in
any
other
Age
than
that
of
the
Apostles
.
The
pretence
(
as
Jerom
believ'd
)
was
—
posiquam
unusquisq
,
eos
quos
baptizaverat
suos
esse
putabat
non
Christi
,
&c.
alluding
to
the
1
Cor.
1.
13
,
14.
15.
If
then
the
toto
Orbe
decretum
was
occasioned
by
the
Corinthian
Schism
,
which
in
Jerom's
Judgment
sprang
from
that
false
and
foolish
Principle
,
that
every
Minister
might
challenge
to
himself
all
those
Christians
,
whom
he
had
Baptized
,
to
be
Members
of
his
own
separate
Congregation
,
the
Remedy
against
this
disease
must
of
necessity
be
confess'd
to
have
commenced
soon
after
this
Corinthian
Schism
,
and
by
consequence
in
the
Apostles
days
.
5.
Jerom's
instancing
in
the
Church
of
Alexandria
confirms
,
what
I
am
proving
,
viz.
that
Bishops
were
appointed
in
the
Apostles
Days
.
[
*
](A42789-e85510-b)
*
Ep.
Evag.
A
Marco
Evangelista
usque
ad
Heraclam
Presbyteri
unum
ex
se
electum
&
excelsiori
gradu
collocatum
,
Episcopum
nominabant
.
Here
we
have
a
Bishop
of
Alexandria
name
and
thing
acknowledg'd
by
Jerom
,
from
Mark
the
Evangelist
.
Therefore
Jerom
must
have
believed
the
〈◊〉
Orbe
decretum
est
,
happened
in
the
Apostles
days
,
since
many
of
them
survived
St.
Mark
.
6.
The
Character
and
Commendation
Jerom
gives
of
this
Institution
of
Bishops
,
I
observed
before
what
he
has
written
on
the
45
Psal.
constituit
Christus
in
omnibus
mundi
finibus
Principes
〈◊〉
.
If
then
it
was
an
Institution
of
Christ
,
it
must
needs
be
at
least
Apostolical
,
so
he
calls
it
;
Ut
sciamus
Traditiones
Apostolicas
sumptas
de
veteri
Testamento
.
The
Apostolical
Traditions
(
or
Institutions
)
were
borrowed
from
the
Old
Testament
.
And
that
Episcopacy
and
the
three
Distinct
Orders
of
Church
Officers
,
Bishops
,
Presbyters
,
and
Deacons
〈◊〉
included
,
yea
,
principally
meant
here
by
the
Apostolical
Traditions
is
evident
from
what
follows
—
Quod
Aaron
&
filii
ejus
atque
Levitae
in
Templo
fuerunt
〈◊〉
sibi
Episcopi
Presbyteri
&
Diaconi
vindicent
in
Ecclesia
Christiana
.
Quod
Aaron
&
filios
ejus
hoc
Episcopum
&
Presbyterum
noverimus
.
7.
Jerom
not
〈◊〉
and
more
than
once
insinuates
that
Bishops
succeeded
the
Apostles
.
Apostolorum
locum
tenent
Episcopi
[
*
](A42789-e85700-b)
*
Jer.
Ep.
54.
,
Bishops
hold
the
place
of
the
Apostles
.
Habes
pro
Apostolis
Episcopos
filios
Apostolorum
,
you
have
instead
of
the
Apostles
,
Id.
in
Psal.
45.
Bishops
the
Sons
of
the
Apostles
,
Episcopi
&
Presbyteri
〈◊〉
in
Exemplum
Apostolos
&
Apostolicos
viros
,
quorum
honorem
Id.
Ep.
13.
ad
Palin
.
possidentes
habere
nitantur
&
Meritum
,
and
let
Bishops
and
Presbyters
take
for
their
Pattern
,
the
Apostles
and
Apostolical
Men
,
whose
honour
they
possess
,
and
therefore
should
endeavour
to
have
their
Merit
.
Non
est
facile
stare
loco
Pauli
,
tenere
gradum
Petri
[
†
](A42789-e85810-b)
†
Id.
Ep.
1.
ad
Heliodor
.
.
'T
is
no
easy
matter
to
stand
in
the
place
of
Paul
to
possess
the
degree
of
Peter
.
Omnes
(
so
.
Episcopi
)
sive
Romae
,
sive
Eugubii
,
sive
Constantinopoli
Rhegii
,
sive
Alexandriae
,
sive
Tanais
(
I
may
add
from
Jerom
sive
Divites
,
sive
Pauperes
,
sive
Sublimes
,
〈◊〉
Inferiores
)
Apostolorum
sunt
Successores
.
[
*
](A42789-e85910-b)
*
Id.
Ep.
85.
Evag.
All
Bishops
whatever
,
are
the
Apostles
Successors
.
And
whereas
in
this
very
Epistle
,
He
is
exalting
his
fellow
Presbyters
as
high
as
with
any
colour
of
Pretence
he
was
able
,
yet
no
such
thing
as
this
drops
from
him
,
sc.
that
the
Presbyters
are
the
Apostles
Successors
.
—
If
then
Bishops
are
the
Apostles
Successors
,
as
if
Jerom
may
be
Judge
,
they
were
,
then
also
the
Office
of
a
Bishop
must
needs
be
by
Apostolical
Institution
:
For
none
could
appoint
Successors
unto
the
Apostles
but
the
Apostles
themselves
.
8.
The
early
establishment
of
Bishops
in
the
very
days
of
the
Apostles
,
or
at
least
,
immediately
after
them
,
will
force
any
Ingenious
Man
to
confess
Episcopacy
was
of
Apostolical
Institution
.
This
also
Jerom
has
witnessed
,
[
*
](A42789-e85960-b)
*
Cat.
S.
E.
Clem.
telling
us
that
Clement
,
(
of
whom
we
read
,
Phil.
4.
)
was
the
4th
(
some
said
the
2d
)
Bishop
of
Rome
after
Peter
:
That
Ignatius
[
†
](A42789-e86020-b)
†
Id.
Ignat.
in
C.
S.
E.
was
the
3d
Bishop
of
〈◊〉
after
Peter
:
That
Papias
,
a
Disciple
of
St.
John
the
Apostle
,
was
Bishop
of
Hierapolis
,
and
Quadratus
,
a
Disciple
of
the
Apostles
,
Bishop
of
Athens
.
Clement
,
Ignatius
,
Papias
,
Quadratus
,
and
an
innumerable
Company
,
(
whose
Names
and
whose
particular
Diocesses
are
not
Transmitted
unto
us
,
says
Eusebius
)
should
dare
not
only
to
decree
,
and
consent
to
the
Alteration
of
Church-Government
,
but
themselves
to
Usurp
and
Exercise
an
Authority
over
their
Equals
contrary
to
the
Apostolical
Rule
and
Practice
.
From
the
whole
then
that
has
been
said
,
I
may
reasonably
conclude
.
1.
That
Episcopacy
,
which
is
by
Jerom
called
The
Remedy
against
Schism
,
was
Set
up
and
Decreed
〈◊〉
the
Apostles
in
their
own
days
.
2.
That
though
he
terms
it
an
Ecclesiastical
Custom
and
Constitution
,
he
is
to
be
taken
to
mean
in
opposition
to
〈◊〉
Veritati
,
our
Lord
's
own
Personal
Appointment
,
and
not
unto
Apostolical
Tradition
,
or
Institution
.
3.
That
what
I
have
offer'd
in
this
Chapter
towards
the
reconciling
Jerom
with
himself
,
is
most
reasonable
to
be
admitted
.
And
lastly
,
That
the
Power
and
Authority
allowed
by
Jerom
unto
Bishops
,
particularly
that
of
Ordination
,
and
the
other
of
Confirmation
,
belong'd
to
them
by
virtue
of
the
Apostles
Commission
,
and
were
not
Restraints
laid
upon
the
Presbyters
by
Ecclesiastical
Canons
,
That
of
Confirmation
he
deduces
from
Scripture
in
his
Dialogue
against
the
Luciferians
.
But
Mr.
O.
will
,
perhaps
say
,
that
all
this
is
nothing
to
him
,
and
to
the
Objections
he
has
laid
in
our
way
.
I
am
then
obliged
now
to
consider
in
particular
what
Observations
he
has
mustred
up
out
of
Jerom
,
and
levelled
against
Episcopacy
in
favour
of
the
Presbyterians
Claim
.
Mr.
O.
then
Pleads
,
that
Jerom
has
shew'd
the
Presbyters
of
Alexandria
〈◊〉
their
Bishops
for
almost
200
Years
,
and
that
he
Ans.
Jerom
has
not
shew'd
,
nor
so
much
as
directly
asserted
that
the
Presbyters
of
Alexandria
made
their
Bishops
:
But
he
has
omitted
several
Circumstances
not
only
Material
,
but
Advantagious
to
his
main
Design
,
if
they
had
been
true
.
Jerom
,
both
in
his
Commentaries
on
Titus
,
and
in
his
Epistle
to
Evagrius
,
speaks
constantly
in
the
Passive
Voice
,
how
that
one
was
chosen
,
and
set
over
the
rest
;
but
by
whom
he
says
not
.
Why
not
by
the
Neighbouring
Bishops
?
Why
not
by
the
Predecessor
as
well
as
by
the
Presbyters
?
Jerom
has
not
expresly
told
us
that
the
Bishop
of
Alexandria
chosen
out
of
the
Presbyters
,
received
another
,
and
a
new
Consecration
,
nor
that
the
Presbyters
Ordained
him
,
all
which
would
have
tended
much
to
the
Honour
of
himself
,
and
his
Fellow-Presbyters
.
True
,
he
expresly
says
,
the
Presbyters
nam'd
him
Bishop
at
his
Instalment
,
bnt
this
does
not
necessarily
imply
either
that
they
Chose
,
or
Ordained
him
.
He
ought
,
and
doubtless
would
have
spoken
out
,
if
either
,
or
both
these
things
had
been
true
.
Whereas
then
Mr.
O.
adds
,
Jerom
mentions
no
other
way
of
Constituting
them
but
by
Presbyters
,
Orbis
Major
est
Urbe
.
It
should
indeed
seem
by
the
Allusions
wherewith
Jerom
explains
himself
,
that
the
Presbyters
chose
one
of
their
own
Number
,
and
set
him
over
the
rest
.
So
(
says
he
)
the
Army
chooses
their
General
,
the
Deacons
their
Arch-Deacons
.
Admitting
then
this
at
present
,
I
reply
.
1.
'T
is
no
where
so
much
as
hinted
in
Jerom
,
that
the
Alexandrian
Presbyters
Ordain'd
their
Patriarchs
:
But
rather
the
contrary
,
that
the
neighbouring
Bishops
impos'd
Hands
on
him
.
Quid
facit
excepta
Ordinatione
Episcopus
quod
non
faciat
Presbyter
?
In
which
words
he
must
have
an
Eye
unto
the
Custom
of
the
Alexandrian
Church
,
from
Mark
to
Heraclas
,
and
Dionysius
,
implying
that
Bishops
,
not
Presbyters
Ordain'd
all
that
while
.
Well!
But
I
have
admitted
that
the
Presbyters
of
Alexandria
chose
their
Patriarch
,
and
then
Mr.
O.
argues
[
*
](A42789-e86670-b)
*
Plea
Ibid.
That
Jerom
makes
this
an
Argument
of
the
Identity
of
Bishops
and
Presbyters
.
Ans.
Whatever
may
be
inferred
from
Jerom
,
I
am
very
sure
this
is
no
good
Argument
for
the
Identity
and
Equality
of
Bishops
and
Presbyters
.
For
it
is
plain
that
Ordinary
Deacons
were
not
the
same
,
nor
equal
to
Arch-deacons
,
nor
the
Army
to
the
Emperor
,
(
as
I
have
occasionally
observ'd
elsewhere
)
although
the
Deacons
chose
their
Arch-deacons
,
and
the
Army
set
up
the
Emperor
.
For
to
what
purpose
is
an
Arch-Deacon
chosen
,
or
a
General
,
if
they
be
but
still
equal
to
the
Army
,
and
to
the
Deacons
,
if
they
have
no
power
over
them
?
There
is
a
memorable
Story
to
our
purpose
,
of
the
Emperor
Valentinian
.
He
had
been
chosen
Emperor
by
the
Army
.
The
It
was
in
your
choice
(
fellow
Soldiers
)
whether
you
would
chuse
me
Emperor
or
not
;
but
since
you
have
chosen
me
,
what
you
require
is
in
my
power
,
not
yours
,
and
ye
ought
to
rest
contented
as
good
Subjects
.
But
to
return
unto
Jerom.
I
have
shew'd
before
out
of
him
,
that
the
Apostles
made
Bishops
;
what
then
is
become
of
this
Argument
for
Parity
in
all
the
Churches
of
the
World
,
except
Alexandria
?
But
if
Jerom
contradicts
himself
past
all
relief
,
I
cannot
help
it
.
Yet
again
.
Why
may
not
one
imagine
that
Jerom's
principal
aim
being
to
maintain
the
Honour
of
Presbyters
above
Deacons
,
he
noted
that
at
Alexandria
,
the
Bishop
was
chosen
not
out
of
the
Deacons
,
but
unum
ex
se
,
viz.
out
of
the
Presbyters
?
Ay
,
but
't
will
be
reply'd
,
that
Jerom
in
this
Epistle
design'd
to
prove
that
Bishops
and
Presbyters
,
were
at
first
the
same
,
and
that
to
other
Arguments
for
their
Identity
,
he
subjoyns
this
Story
of
the
Church
of
Alexandria
.
I
reply
,
not
so
,
if
Mr.
O.
will
allow
me
to
reconcile
Jerom
with
himself
.
I
am
not
indeed
able
to
account
for
Jerom
,
when
he
proves
the
Identity
of
Bishops
and
Presbyters
,
from
sundry
places
of
Scripture
,
the
Epistles
of
Peter
and
Paul
,
and
St.
John
;
and
yet
gives
us
a
Catalogue
of
several
Bishops
in
that
time
.
But
this
I
say
,
Jerom
after
he
had
advanc'd
the
Honour
of
Presbyters
above
Deacons
,
in
that
Epistle
to
Evagrius
,
telling
us
there
was
a
time
when
Bishops
and
Presbyters
were
the
same
.
He
proceeds
to
argue
from
the
Church
of
Alexandria
,
that
there
,
even
to
Heraclas
and
Dionysius
,
for
200
Years
,
the
Bishops
were
chosen
out
of
the
Presbyters
,
not
out
of
the
Deacons
,
which
Observation
was
not
designed
to
prove
the
Presbyterian
Identity
,
nor
the
Parity
,
but
the
Honour
given
to
the
Presbyters
above
Deacons
,
because
the
Patriarch
was
for
a
long
while
chosen
out
of
their
Number
only
.
Lastly
,
Let
what
will
become
of
Jerom
and
his
Arguments
,
this
is
sure
,
and
confessed
on
all
Hands
,
there
were
always
Bishops
of
Alexandria
from
the
beginning
of
their
Conversion
by
Mark.
It
no
manner
of
way
belongs
to
the
present
Controversy
how
,
or
by
whom
chosen
and
set
up
.
If
the
Scripture
shall
be
thought
not
to
have
determin'd
this
point
,
I
mean
what
way
,
and
bywhom
the
Bishops
shall
be
Constituted
,
it
is
then
in
the
Church
to
determine
,
but
not
utterly
to
lay
them
aside
.
But
Mr.
O.
goes
on
[
†
](A42789-e87030-b)
†
P.
128.
We
read
not
of
any
other
Consecration
of
the
Bishops
of
Alexandria
,
than
the
Presbyters
Election
,
and
their
placing
him
in
an
higher
Degree
,
and
naming
him
Bishop
.
No
,
has
Mr.
O.
forgot
,
or
did
he
not
know
till
aster
he
had
thus
shot
his
Bolt
,
that
according
to
Eutychius
,
cited
this
very
128th
p.
that
by
the
Institution
of
Mark
,
The
Presbyters
when
the
Patriarchship
was
vacant
,
chose
one
of
their
Number
,
on
whose
Head
they
laid
their
Hands
,
and
blessed
him
,
and
created
him
Patriarch
.
And
if
this
be
true
,
Jerom
forgot
a
very
material
thing
that
would
have
made
for
the
Honour
of
Presbyters
and
their
Identity
with
Bishops
;
and
Mr.
O.
forgot
another
,
that
of
the
Presbyters
imposing
Hands
on
their
new
Patriarch
,
which
I
take
to
be
somewhat
more
than
Electing
,
Placing
and
Naming
him
Bishop
.
Mr.
O.
proves
[
*
](A42789-e87140-b)
*
Plea
Ibid.
there
was
anciently
no
other
Consecration
but
Electing
,
Placing
and
Naming
him
Bishop
,
from
the
Testimony
of
Polydor
Virgil
,
who
in
his
Book
de
Invent.
rerum
,
l.
4.
c.
6.
〈◊〉
,
(
says
Mr.
O.
)
that
anciently
in
making
Bishops
there
were
no
Ceremonies
used
,
&c.
Ans.
Mr.
O.
has
a
Knack
above
all
other
Men
to
misrepresent
Authors
:
And
though
I
resolved
not
to
concern
my self
with
late
Writers
:
Yet
being
Polydor
was
in
his
time
a
Learned
Man
,
and
of
no
small
Reputation
in
the
Roman
Church
of
Engl.
I
will
with
Mr.
O.
pay
some
deference
to
his
Testimony
and
Character
.
Let
us
then
hear
,
what
Polydor
has
delivered
in
the
place
cited
.
He
tells
,
That
Jesus
Christ
created
twelve
Pontiffs
,
whom
he
called
Apostles
,
also
Seventy
Disciples
,
whom
he
made
(
Sacerdotes
)
Priests
;
that
from
these
latter
the
Order
of
Presbyters
arose
,
that
the
Apostles
and
Disciples
were
not
admitted
into
their
Office
by
any
other
Rites
save
only
the
Election
or
Institution
of
Christ
.
Which
Polydor
proves
immediately
after
from
the
practice
of
the
Apostles
in
taking
Matthias
into
their
Number
,
and
instituting
the
Seven
Deacons
.
Let
us
run
through
Polydor's
Argument
backward
,
and
see
what
it
says
.
The
Apostles
imposed
Hands
on
the
Seven
Deacons
,
therefore
on
Matthias
,
and
by
consequence
according
to
Virgil
,
so
did
Christ
lay
Hands
on
the
Apostles
,
and
Seventy
Disciples
.
So
that
this
Authority
out
of
Polydor
recoils
upon
himself
.
Indeed
Mr.
O.
owns
as
much
:
But
then
thereby
he
destroys
his
own
propositition
,
which
is
,
We
know
no
other
Ceremony
but
Election
,
&c.
But
is
not
Impositiof
Hands
a
Ceremony
,
and
more
than
Electing
,
placing
and
nominating
him
Bishop
?
I
am
perswaded
it
is
a
Ceremony
.
Thus
Mr.
O.
confutes
himself
,
when
he
pretends
to
confirm
his
Opinion
.
I
cannot
pass
by
one
thing
,
which
Polydor
very
falsly
tacks
to
his
Discourse
here
concerning
the
Original
of
Imposition
of
Hands
,
which
he
derives
from
our
Lord
and
his
Apostles
,
but
adds
,
atque
hinc
olim
Edir
.
Novi
.
Bat.
1671.
p.
336.
factum
,
&c.
hence
it
came
about
that
〈◊〉
,
(
it
was
an
Old
Ecclesiastical
Practice
)
in
Consecrating
a
Bishop
,
the
Presbyters
imposed
Hands
,
and
for
this
cites
Cyprian's
fourth
Epistle
to
Felix
(
in
the
Oxford
Ed.
the
67.
'T
is
pity
Mr.
O.
stumbled
not
upon
this
Hint
of
Virgils
.
In
appearance
't
is
better
then
any
He
has
produced
in
his
Plea
.
But
the
comfort
is
there
is
nothing
like
this
to
be
found
in
that
Epistle
;
and
this
I
thought
proper
to
Note
to
the
End
,
no
new
trouble
should
be
created
me
upon
Virgil's
Authority
.
Mr.
O.
Jerom
saith
the
Custom
was
changed
,
from
the
time
of
Heraclas
and
Dionysius
.
What
Custom
?
Not
the
Election
of
a
Bishop
by
Presbyters
and
People
:
For
that
continued
long
after
;
therefore
it
must
be
be
the
〈◊〉
of
Bishops
(
which
afterwards
was
done
)
by
Neighbouring
Bishops
in
the
way
of
Consecration
,
that
is
laying
on
of
Hands
,
as
I
apprehend
Mr.
O.
Hence
we
must
learn
,
that
before
Heraclas
and
Dionysius
,
the
Bishops
were
not
consecrated
by
Imposition
of
Hands
,
but
barely
elected
,
&c.
that
after
〈◊〉
and
Dionysius
the
Custom
was
altered
,
and
then
they
were
Consecrated
by
Neighbouring
Bishops
with
Imposition
of
Hands
.
Ans.
Jerom
teaches
us
no
such
thing
.
He
is
here
only
falling
upon
a
new
Argument
,
as
I
said
before
,
to
advance
the
Honour
of
Presbyters
above
Deacons
,
sc.
that
at
Alexandria
,
the
Bishops
were
always
chosen
(
ex
se
)
out
of
the
Presbyters
,
says
Eutychius
,
not
out
of
the
Deacons
(
though
the
Custom
was
afterwards
changed
about
the
time
of
Heraclas
and
Dionysius
,
or
not
until
Alexander
as
〈◊〉
)
:
Nevertheless
were
Bishops
from
the
beginning
Consecrated
by
laying
on
of
Hands
,
for
any
thing
Jerom
intimates
,
and
which
Eutychius
has
affirmed
,
as
may
also
be
reasonably
presumed
and
gathered
from
the
practice
of
the
Apostles
recorded
in
the
Epistles
to
Timothy
,
yea
,
and
from
Jerom
himself
in
the
following
Period
,
excepta
Ordinatione
,
Eutychius
his
Words
are
,
the
Eleven
Presbyters
laid
their
Hands
on
the
Bishop
(
Elect
)
and
Blessed
and
Created
him
Patriarch
.
This
Rule
was
made
by
Mark
himself
.
Mr.
O.
after
a
long
Quotation
out
of
Eutychius
thus
Triumphs
,
Here
is
a
full
proof
of
Presbyters
chusing
and
creating
their
Bishop
,
and
that
by
Imposition
of
Hands
,
and
Benediction
or
Prayer
.
Ans.
1.
And
here
is
a
full
proof
that
Bishops
were
from
the
beginning
,
and
were
Created
also
by
Imposition
of
Hands
,
which
Mr.
O.
just
before
denyed
upon
the
Authority
of
Jerom
,
and
was
now
to
have
proved
,
if
he
had
stuck
close
to
his
Argument
.
But
it
must
be
confess'd
,
Eutychius
does
assert
the
Alexandrian
Presbyters
chose
,
and
created
their
own
Bishops
by
Imposition
of
Hands
and
Benediction
,
Wherefore
2.
not
to
insift
any
more
on
the
incompetency
of
Eutychius
his
Authority
,
a
late
obscure
and
false
Historian
,
I
ask
how
Mr.
O.
will
be
able
to
reconcile
Jerom
with
Eutychius
,
the
former
affirming
(
as
Mr.
O.
understands
him
)
that
the
Presbyters
chose
,
and
set
up
their
Bishops
unto
Heraclas
and
Dionysius
(
then
it
seems
this
Custom
ceas'd
)
the
latter
unto
Alexander
:
That
is
to
say
,
Eutychius
will
have
this
Custom
to
have
continued
90
Years
longer
then
Jerom
assigned
it
.
Eutychius
says
,
the
Presbyters
all
that
while
Ordained
their
Patriarchs
by
imposition
of
Hands
;
Jerom
no
such
matter
,
but
rather
the
Contrary
:
They
only
(
as
Mr.
O.
will
have
it
)
chose
placed
and
named
him
Bishop
.
We
must
then
dismiss
them
both
as
the
Evangelist
did
the
Witnesses
against
our
Lord
,
their
Witness
does
not
agree
together
.
I
only
add
,
that
the
6th
Canon
of
the
Nicene
Council
seems
to
overturn
at
least
Eutychius
his
Testimony
:
Let
the
Ancient
Customs
continue
,
which
I
understand
of
all
things
established
by
this
Synod
,
and
among
the
rest
that
of
the
Neighbouring
Bishops
in
Egypt
,
Ordaining
the
Patriarchs
of
Alexandria
.
For
if
this
Synod
(
as
Eutychius
believed
)
at
the
motion
of
Alexander
the
Patriarch
had
altered
the
Old
Custom
,
with
what
Face
could
they
have
laid
down
this
Rule
,
Let
the
Ancient
Customs
continue
?
Or
was
it
Wisdom
to
exasperate
the
Alexandrians
with
a
New
decree
,
when
they
were
already
engaged
in
Schisms
and
Contentions
about
the
Melitian
Ordinations
?
To
shut
up
this
Chapter
,
whatever
Jerom
shall
be
made
to
say
concerning
the
Alexandrian
Presbyters
,
chusing
placing
and
nominating
their
Bishop
,
he
no
where
affirms
they
Ordained
him
by
imposition
of
Hands
and
Prayer
:
He
acquaints
us
that
the
Apostles
Ordained
Bishops
in
their
Time
,
not
the
College
of
Presbyters
.
If
afterwards
the
Presbyters
of
Alexandria
chose
,
and
created
their
Bishop
by
Imposition
of
Hands
,
it
was
at
best
but
an
Ecclesiastical
Indulgence
,
for
which
there
is
no
Rule
or
Precedent
to
be
found
in
Scripture
or
in
the
Apostles
Days
.
But
I
am
well
satisfy'd
,
that
in
truth
there
could
be
no
such
Liberty
allowed
them
.
Neque
〈◊〉
aliquid
cuiquam
largiri
potest
Humana
〈◊〉
,
ubi
intercedit
&
Legem
tribuit
divina
CHAP.
XIII
.
Of
the
Carthaginian
Councils
.
IT
were
to
be
wish'd
that
,
when
Men
built
an
Argument
upon
the
Testimony
of
an
Author
,
they
would
〈◊〉
read
and
weigh
him
,
and
be
sure
to
understand
him
too
before
they
pretend
to
bring
him
forth
as
a
Witness
unto
the
matter
in
Controversy
:
And
also
that
they
would
let
him
speak
the
Whole
Truth
.
But
in
the
next
instance
Mr.
O.
seems
to
have
overlook'd
both
these
necessary
Precautions
,
and
has
at
Adventures
produc'd
a
Scrap
of
a
Testimony
in
favour
of
himself
,
as
he
thinks
,
but
which
in
the
end
will
prove
fatal
to
his
Cause
,
and
will
confirm
the
World
in
the
Belief
,
that
he
is
either
very
rash
and
ignorant
in
his
own
Quotations
,
or
that
he
will
stick
at
nothing
,
so
he
may
seem
to
support
his
own
Opinion
.
The
Fathers
(
says
He
[
*
](A42789-e88390-b)
*
P.
159.
)
in
the
second
Council
of
Carthage
,
Anno
428
[
†
](A42789-e88410-b)
†
An.
397.
did
observe
,
That
until
that
time
some
Diocesses
never
had
any
Bishops
at
all
,
and
thereupon
Ordained
,
they
should
have
none
for
the
future
.
They
would
never
have
made
such
a
Canon
,
had
they
concluded
the
Government
by
Bishops
to
be
Jure
Divino
.
I
agree
with
Mr.
O.
in
the
Deduction
he
has
made
,
provided
the
Premises
were
true
.
To
make
these
good
,
therefore
he
quotes
that
Canon
aforesaid
thus
—
placet
ut
Dioceses
,
quae
〈◊〉
Episcopos
acceperunt
,
non
habeant
.
Whoever
first
formed
this
Argument
against
Episcopacy
,
has
grosly
abused
his
Reader
and
the
the
Council
too
.
Mr.
O.
perhaps
borrowed
it
of
Mr.
Baxter
or
some
such
kind
of
Author
,
whose
Interest
and
Partiality
will
not
suffer
them
to
let
the
Reader
see
the
whole
Period
,
least
at
the
same
time
he
should
discern
the
Truth
,
and
themselves
be
found
Guilty
of
Falsification
,
which
I
doubt
not
to
make
out
in
a
few
Words
.
To
which
end
I
will
take
the
Liberty
to
lay
the
Canon
before
the
Reader
in
its
own
Language
.
For
though
the
African
Fathers
used
the
Latin
Tongue
,
yet
all
the
Latin
Copies
among
us
at
this
Day
were
derived
from
the
Greek
Version
,
as
Justellus
tells
us
,
which
is
therefore
the
most
Authentick
,
and
ought
to
be
accounted
of
greatest
Authority
.
The
said
Canon
therefore
runs
thus
—
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
In
English
thus
—
It
was
determined
that
the
People
in
the
Diocesses
(
not
the
Diocesses
)
having
formerly
belong'd
to
Bishops
,
but
never
having
had
a
proper
Bishop
of
their
own
,
should
not
have
(
now
for
the
Future
)
their
own
proper
Rectors
,
that
's
to
say
Bishops
,
except
by
the
Consent
of
that
Bishop
under
whose
Jurisdiction
(
at
present
)
they
are
.
From
whence
it
appears
1.
That
the
People
here
spoken
of
were
aforetime
Subject
to
Bishops
,
which
Mr.
O.
has
miserably
perverted
by
saying
,
that
—
till
that
time
the
Diocesses
never
had
any
Bishops
at
all
,
contrary
to
the
apparent
sense
of
that
Canon
,
which
affirms
it
,
and
describes
those
People
thus
—
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
again
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
is
,
the
People
here
spoken
of
were
even
in
the
possession
,
and
under
the
Jurisdiction
of
Bishops
:
Ex.
gra
.
To
make
the
matter
plainer
to
Mr.
O.
The
People
of
Lancashire
cannot
be
said
never
to
have
had
any
Bishops
at
all
,
it
being
well
known
that
the
Bishop
of
Chester
is
their
Diocesan
.
2.
The
People
mentioned
in
the
Canon
had
not
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
a
proper
Bishop
peculiar
to
themselves
.
Thus
it
is
true
,
that
the
County
of
Lancaster
never
had
to
this
Day
a
proper
Bishop
of
their
own
.
3.
The
African
Fathers
did
not
Peremptorily
resolve
that
those
People
should
have
no
Bishop
for
the
future
,
though
Mr.
O.
has
very
falsly
affirmed
it
.
But
two
things
they
define
,
either
first
that
they
should
continue
in
subjection
to
their
former
Bishop
,
that
is
to
keep
to
my
Example
,
that
the
County
of
Lancaster
should
continue
as
a
Member
of
the
Diocess
of
Chester
:
Or
else
secondly
,
that
they
should
be
erected
into
a
Distinct
Bishoprick
,
and
have
their
own
proper
Bishop
,
provided
nevertheless
that
it
be
with
the
Consent
of
their
former
Bishop
,
or
thus
in
the
Example
,
that
the
County
of
Lancaster
should
be
made
a
Bishoprick
by
its
self
,
and
have
a
proper
Bishop
of
its
own
,
provided
my
Lord
of
Chester
would
consent
thereunto
.
There
is
another
Canon
,
in
the
African
It
pleased
the
Synod
that
the
People
,
who
never
had
proper
Bishops
of
their
own
,
should
not
have
them
,
Except
it
be
so
decreed
in
a
full
Provincial
Synod
,
and
(
particularly
)
by
the
Primate
,
and
with
the
Consent
of
that
Bishop
,
unto
whose
Government
that
Church
(
or
the
aforesaid
People
)
formerly
belonged
.
Mr.
O.
then
,
〈◊〉
he
had
dealt
honestly
and
faithfully
with
the
African
Fathers
and
with
us
,
should
have
cited
the
whole
Period
at
length
,
and
not
abused
them
,
and
endeavoured
to
cozen
the
present
Age
with
such
Counterfeit
Stuff
.
I
have
this
only
farther
to
remark
upon
these
Canons
of
the
Carthaginian
Councils
(
and
so
shall
conclude
)
,
that
the
Occasion
of
making
the
former
(
and
of
the
latter
too
as
is
probable
)
was
the
Ambitious
and
Haughty
,
and
Aspiring
,
Stubborn
and
Foolish
(
for
all
these
Epithets
are
there
bestowed
on
them
)
Disposition
of
some
Presbyters
,
who
raising
their
Crests
against
their
own
Bishops
,
and
Wheedling
the
People
by
some
indirect
means
,
would
needs
in
a
Disorderly
manner
make
themselves
their
Rectors
i.
e.
Bishops
.
This
immediately
follows
in
the
aforesaid
Canon
as
any
one
that
pleases
may
see
at
his
Leisure
.
To
prove
that
Presbyters
have
power
to
impose
Hands
in
Ordination
Mr.
O.
alledges
[
*
](A42789-e88860-b)
*
P.
88.
the
4th
Council
of
Carthage
[
†
](A42789-e88880-b)
†
Held
Anno
〈◊〉
.
Can.
3.
—
Omnes
Presbyteri
qui
Praesentes
sunt
,
Manus
suas
juxta
manum
Episcopi
super
caput
illius
(
Ordinandi
Presbyteri
)
teneant
.
Ans.
1.
He
has
not
given
us
the
Canon
intire
having
left
out
something
,
which
perhaps
will
go
a
great
way
to
the
overthrowing
his
Argument
,
as
will
be
seen
anon
.
Thus
the
Canon
runs
—
Episcopo
eum
(
sc.
Presbyterum
)
benedicente
Omnes
,
&c.
But
it
is
not
unusual
for
Mr.
O.
to
quote
his
Authors
by
Halves
,
and
to
suppress
,
what
seems
to
make
against
him
.
At
this
rate
he
may
soon
get
the
Christian
World
on
his
side
,
so
many
of
'em
at
least
as
will
not
be
at
the
pains
or
are
unable
to
examine
his
Authorities
.
2.
This
Canon
,
though
Caranza
and
other
Authors
mention
it
,
is
not
to
be
found
in
the
African
Code
set
forth
by
Justellus
,
which
makes
me
suspect
,
that
the
Fathers
,
who
in
the
Council
of
Trull
,
took
the
African
into
the
Code
of
the
Universal
Church
,
look'd
upon
it
either
as
Spurious
,
or
rejected
it
as
to
the
matter
therein
decreed
.
But
I
will
not
insist
on
this
.
3.
It
is
most
reasonable
to
interpret
one
Canon
by
another
.
The
said
Council
decreed
.
—
Vt
Episcopus
sine
Concilio
Clericorum
suorum
Clericos
non
Ordinet
.
From
〈◊〉
one
would
guess
that
the
Imposition
of
the
Presbyters
Hands
was
designed
only
〈◊〉
a
Testimony
,
that
the
Bishop
Ordained
with
the
advice
and
consent
of
the
Presbyters
,
at
least
not
without
them
.
4.
If
Presbyters
laid
on
Hands
as
proper
Ordainers
,
how
comes
it
to
pass
that
in
other
Councils
and
Canons
of
the
Church
it
s
declared
that
the
Bishop
only
Ordains
and
not
the
Presbyters
?
In
the
2.
Council
of
Hisp.
Can.
6.
—
Episcopus
enim
sacerdotibus
&
Ministris
solus
Honorem
dare
potest
.
Can.
7.
Nam
quamvis
cum
Episcopis
plurima
illis
(
Presbyteris
)
Mysteriorum
Communis
sit
Dispensatio
;
quaedam
tamen
sibi
prohibita
noverint
,
sicut
Presbyterorum
&
Diaconorum
Consecratio
.
But
the
fifth
Canon
is
remarkable
.
The
Occasion
of
it
was
this
.
A
certain
Bishop
being
Blind
,
laid
on
his
Hands
at
the
Ordination
of
some
Presbyters
and
Deacons
with
the
rest
of
his
Presbyters
;
&
Presbyter
quidam
illis
contra
Ecclesiasticum
Ordinem
benedictionem
dedisse
fertur
.
For
which
(
't
is
added
that
)
the
Presbyter
deserved
to
be
condemned
,
but
that
he
was
in
the
mean
time
dead
.
From
whence
I
think
't
is
plain
,
1.
That
Ordination
was
not
effectually
given
by
Imposition
of
Hands
,
but
by
Benediction
the
Charge
or
Commission
(
wherein
properly
consifted
the
Ordination
)
which
was
given
to
the
Ordained
.
2.
All
the
Irregularity
here
committed
was
,
that
the
Presbyter
presum'd
Benedicere
,
and
there
with
it
may
be
to
give
the
Commission
,
that
is
to
Ordain
,
which
if
Imposition
of
Hands
was
Ordination
,
had
been
no
Irregularity
at
least
no
Essential
defect
,
as
it
is
declared
to
be
.
3.
For
if
Imposition
of
Hands
be
the
Ordination
,
then
there
was
no
Irregularity
in
these
Ordinations
,
the
Bishop
having
laid
his
Hands
on
the
Ordained
,
as
't
is
testifyed
in
the
Canon
,
as
well
as
that
Presbyter
,
who
blest
him
.
4.
The
Orders
thus
conferred
were
declared
Null
by
the
Council
—
Hi
(
Presbyteri
&
Diaconi
)
gradum
sacerdotii
&
Levitici
Ordinis
quem
perverse
adepti
sunt
,
amittant
.
So
that
〈◊〉
the
whole
it
appears
,
that
in
the
Judgment
of
these
Fathers
and
of
the
Church
at
that
Time
,
laying
on
of
Hands
was
not
properly
Ordination
,
and
by
〈◊〉
,
though
Presbyters
impose
Hands
,
yet
they
do
not
Ordain
,
which
〈◊〉
overthrows
Mr.
O's
Major
Proposition
.
But
let
us
see
how
Mr.
O.
confirms
his
Major
,
He
endeavours
it
by
this
Medium
—
That
which
is
an
Ordaining
Act
bespeaks
an
Ordaining
Power
:
But
Imposition
of
Hands
is
an
Ordaining
Act.
Therefore
,
&c.
To
the
Minor
I
answer
by
denying
Imposition
of
Hands
to
be
an
Ordaining
Act
,
't
is
only
an
outward
and
Solemn
Concomitant
of
it
,
as
is
before
Evinc'd
though
Warranted
by
Holy
Scripture
.
By
the
Imposition
of
the
Bishops
and
Presbyters
Hands
is
signifyed
to
the
Congregation
present
,
that
the
Bishop
Ordains
the
Person
with
the
advice
Consent
and
Council
of
his
Presbyters
.
But
Mr.
O.
adds
,
I
should
be
glad
to
see
one
Instance
given
in
the
Apostles
days
,
of
Persons
laying
on
of
Hands
in
Ordination
,
that
had
no
Ordaining
Power
.
If
I
should
affirm
that
those
mentioned
1
Tim.
4.
14.
imposed
Hands
,
but
had
no
Ordaining
Power
,
I
am
very
sure
he
can't
disprove
me
:
And
if
I
should
demand
one
Instance
in
the
Apostles
times
of
meer
Presbyters
laying
on
of
hands
,
or
Ordaining
without
a
Bishop
;
I
am
sure
Mr.
O.
cannot
produce
it
.
But
Mr.
O.
pleads
[
*
](A42789-e89320-b)
*
P.
90.
How
then
comes
the
Bishops
to
urge
the
Scripture
?
(
1
Tim.
5.
22.
)
Lay
hands
suddenly
on
no
Man
,
in
favour
of
Timothy's
Ordaining
Power
,
and
thence
to
infer
that
he
was
Bishop
of
Ephesus
,
since
he
might
lay
on
Hands
,
and
yet
have
no
Ordaining
Power
,
nor
be
Bishop
.
This
difficulty
is
easily
resolved
.
If
there
were
no
other
Argument
for
Timothy's
Episcopal
Power
in
the
Church
of
Ephesus
;
but
that
Text
only
,
it
might
thence
be
fairly
inferred
,
that
Timothy
was
Bishop
of
Ephesus
,
and
had
the
Power
of
Ordaining
,
because
no
other
are
joyn'd
in
Commission
with
him
;
nevertheless
,
though
this
prov'd
it
not
,
it
may
be
evinc'd
from
other
pregnant
Passages
in
those
Epistles
to
Timothy
,
which
I
need
not
repeat
.
Nor
do
we
acknowledge
Presbyters
may
perform
all
the
outward
Acts
of
Ordination
:
That
of
Benediction
belongs
not
to
them
at
all
.
But
(
says
he
)
What
does
the
Presbyters
imposing
of
Hands
signifie
,
if
not
an
Ordaining
Power
?
I
have
told
him
already
,
it
denotes
their
Approbation
,
and
that
the
Bishop
〈◊〉
with
their
Advice
and
Consent
:
No
,
(
he
replys
[
*
](A42789-e89470-b)
*
P.
91.
)
they
could
signifie
their
Approbation
some
other
way
without
imposition
of
Hands
,
as
by
saying
Amen
to
the
Ordination
Prayers
.
But
this
is
to
be
wiser
than
God
and
his
Apostles
,
who
have
(
as
I
often
have
supposed
,
though
I
need
not
grant
it
)
recommended
this
way
,
which
adds
an
agreeable
Solemnity
unto
the
Action
;
at
least
the
Church
has
thought
fit
to
admit
the
Presbyters
to
lay
on
Hands
,
and
thereby
to
signify
their
Approbation
(
of
such
as
are
taken
into
their
own
proper
Ministry
)
in
a
particular
way
and
different
from
the
Peoples
testifying
their
Assent
.
And
this
is
the
reason
why
at
the
Ordination
of
a
Deacon
,
Presbyters
were
not
to
impose
Hands
,
sc.
Quia
non
ad
Sacerdotium
sed
ad
Ministerium
Consecratur
,
[
*
](A42789-e89510-b)
*
Con.
Carth.
4.
Can.
3.
as
the
African
Fathers
declared
.
In
short
,
this
Canon
〈◊〉
with
others
,
which
appropriate
the
Power
of
Ordaining
Presbyters
unto
Bishops
only
,
(
as
is
above
observ'd
)
seems
to
me
to
shew
,
that
in
the
judgment
of
the
Ancients
,
Presbyters
had
no
Inherent
Original
Power
of
laying
on
Hands
,
but
that
't
was
granted
to
them
by
Ecclesiastical
Constitution
only
.
Otherwise
,
probably
they
would
have
had
Power
of
Imposition
of
Hands
at
the
Ordination
of
Deacons
also
.
Briefly
,
because
in
the
Prosecution
of
this
Argument
Mr.
O.
appeals
to
the
Scripture
so
oft
for
proof
of
certain
things
that
fell
in
his
way
whilst
he
was
managing
this
Point
;
I
do
once
more
here
desire
,
what
I
have
often
call'd
for
,
one
single
probable
proof
,
or
Example
from
Scripture
of
bare
ordinary
Presbyters
Ordaining
,
or
laying
on
of
Hands
without
some
Superior
presiding
in
the
Action
,
5.
And
to
conclude
this
Discourse
about
the
Councils
of
Carthage
,
I
that
am
not
much
concern'd
about
Men's
Opinions
,
nor
whether
the
Presbyters
impose
Hands
tanquam
Ordinantes
,
or
tanquam
Approbantes
only
,
am
very
well
content
every
one
should
abound
in
his
own
sense
,
provided
there
be
an
Agreement
in
Practice
,
and
an
occasion
be
not
thereby
taken
to
raise
Schisms
and
Emulations
in
the
Church
.
Let
this
matter
be
bang'd
in
the
Schools
so
long
as
Criticks
shall
please
,
yet
seeing
there
is
no
colour
for
asserting
Presbyters
to
be
Ordainers
without
the
Bishop
,
whatever
they
be
with
him
,
I
make
no
difficulty
to
affirm
that
their
Ordinations
without
the
Bishop
,
are
without
Precedent
,
either
in
Scripture
or
Antiquity
,
and
by
consequence
,
in
themselves
Null
and
Invalid
.
A
partial
Cause
can
never
produce
the
〈◊〉
Effect
.
Mr.
O.
being
about
to
establish
the
Ordaining
Power
of
the
Presbyters
,
instances
in
the
22d
Canon
of
the
fourth
Council
of
Carthage
,
wherein
it
is
Decreed
:
That
Bishops
must
not
Ordain
without
their
Presbyters
,
as
Presbyters
not
without
Bishops
,
that
therefore
he
may
as
well
say
Bishops
have
no
Power
to
Ordain
,
because
they
could
not
Ordinarily
do
it
without
their
Presbyters
:
As
we
affirm
Presbyters
have
no
Power
to
Ordain
,
because
they
can't
Ordain
without
Bishops
.
Ans.
Let
us
see
the
Canon
at
length
[
*
](A42789-e89650-b)
*
Apud
Caranz
.
Conc.
Carth.
4.
—
Ut
Episcopus
sine
Concilio
Clericorum
suorum
Clericos
non
Ordinet
,
ita
ut
&c.
It
is
hence
apparent
that
the
Bishop
Ordain'd
,
and
not
the
Presbyters
,
though
he
was
to
take
along
with
him
the
Counsel
and
Advice
of
his
Prebyters
.
Let
Mr.
O.
produce
me
a
Canon
to
this
Effect
,
Presbyteri
sine
Concilio
Episcopi
sui
Clericos
non
Ordinent
,
and
then
it
will
be
time
for
us
to
think
of
a
further
Answer
unto
this
Cavil
.
Mr.
O.
urges
[
*
](A42789-e89700-b)
*
Def.
p.
117.
farther
the
following
Canon
;
[
†
](A42789-e89720-b)
†
Can.
23d
.
The
Bishop
may
hear
no
Man's
Cause
without
the
Presence
of
his
Clergy
:
Otherwise
the
Bishop's
Sentence
shall
be
void
,
unless
it
be
confirm'd
in
their
Presence
.
This
we
can
assent
unto
without
Prejudice
to
our
main
Cause
.
But
I
read
no
where
that
the
Presbyter's
Sentence
shall
be
void
without
the
Presence
of
the
Bishop
:
The
reason
is
,
because
the
Presbyters
gave
no
Sentence
at
all
.
Mr.
O.
to
confirm
his
Maxim
that
Lay-Men
were
allow'd
to
Preach
,
at
the
Request
of
the
Clergy
cites
[
*
](A42789-e89760-b)
*
Def.
p.
63.
Con.
Carth.
4.
Can.
98.
the
Carthaginian
Canon
.
—
A
Lay-Man
may
not
dare
to
Preach
,
whilst
the
Clergy
are
present
,
unless
they
ask
him
.
Ans.
I
have
given
my
Opinion
of
this
Matter
before
.
It
affects
the
Presbyters
as
well
as
the
Bishops
,
and
is
of
as
much
force
against
Mr.
O.
(
unless
he
'll
turn
Quaker
)
as
against
the
Rector
.
But
over
and
above
I
note
this
Canon
is
not
taken
into
the
universal
Code
,
and
therefore
was
rejected
in
the
Council
of
Trull
.
CHAP.
XIV
.
Of
Paphnutius
and
Daniel
.
THE
next
thing
Mr.
O.
urges
in
behalf
of
Presbyters
Ordaining
is
the
Story
,
which
Joannes
Cassianus
tells
of
one
Paphnutius
,
a
Presbyter
Abbot
,
who
made
Daniel
his
design'd
Successor
,
a
Deacon
first
,
and
then
Goaequare
sibi
etiam
Sacerdotis
honore
festinavit
—
Optansque
sibi
Successionem
That
Theophilus
then
Bishop
of
Alexandria
,
did
not
pronounce
Ans.
It
must
not
be
deny'd
but
that
this
Instance
of
Presbyters
Ordaining
appears
the
fairest
of
all
others
that
Mr.
O.
has
muster'd
up
in
his
Plea
.
Nevertheless
,
what
I
have
to
reply
,
is
as
follows
.
1.
It
is
but
a
single
Instance
of
a
(
for
ought
I
know
)
Humoursome
Abbot
,
who
took
upon
him
to
do
this
contrary
to
the
known
and
establish'd
Order
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
particularly
,
of
the
Alexandrian
,
whereof
he
is
supposed
to
have
been
a
part
:
The
Desert
of
Scetis
,
where
he
usually
resided
,
adjoining
to
the
Lake
Maria
,
or
Maeris
,
which
borders
on
Egypt
.
2.
Whereas
't
is
urged
,
that
Theophilus
,
Bishop
of
Alexandria
,
did
not
pronounce
this
Ordination
void
and
null
that
we
read
of
,
there
is
no
great
matter
in
this
.
For
it
may
with
as
great
reason
be
argued
,
that
Theophilus
would
have
Censured
it
,
if
it
had
come
to
his
knowledge
,
there
being
no
probability
that
Theophilus
would
have
past
by
such
a
Disorder
and
Affront
done
to
the
Ecclesiastical
Constitutions
,
seeing
Peter
and
Alexander
of
Alexandria
,
his
Predecessors
,
would
not
bear
with
the
Melitians
.
3.
'T
is
wonderful
that
Mr.
O.
should
Insinuate
that
it
was
neither
irregular
,
nor
unusual
,
which
in
former
Cases
he
has
granted
over
and
over
again
.
4.
Valesius
tells
me
,
[
*
](A42789-e90260-b)
*
Annot.
in
Soc.
P.
7.
&
112.
that
Paphnutius
was
engaged
in
the
Melitian
Schism
,
as
Ephiphanius
testisies
,
de
Haeresi
Melitianorum
.
He
also
observes
,
that
the
Schism
was
then
improv'd
unto
Heresie
.
'T
is
no
wonder
then
that
an
Heretical
Schismatick
should
presume
to
break
through
the
Rules
and
Orders
of
that
Church
,
from
which
he
divided
,
and
usurp
a
Power
that
nothing
belonged
to
him
.
And
hence
also
may
be
drawn
the
reason
why
Theophilus
took
no
notice
of
what
Paphnutius
did
,
he
being
a
Schismatick
,
(
if
not
an
Heretick
)
and
out
of
the
Communion
of
the
Church
;
and
what
had
the
Patriarch
to
do
to
judge
them
that
were
without
already
?
As
St.
Paul
speaks
in
somewhat
a
like
Case
.
But
5.
I
will
not
content
my self
with
these
Answers
,
though
I
Festinavit
coaequare
,
made
baste
to
equal
Daniel
with
himself
in
the
Honour
of
the
Priest-hood
.
And
Lastly
,
desiring
to
provide
a
most
worthy
Successor
to
himself
whilst
he
was
alive
,
Provexit
promoted
him
to
the
Honour
of
the
Presbytership
.
The
Question
is
whether
these
Words
signifie
that
Paphnutius
Ordained
Daniel
.
That
he
did
so
,
can
no
ways
be
concluded
from
this
Testimony
of
Cassianus
.
For
,
1.
It
has
been
ordinary
to
attribute
that
unto
a
Person
,
which
indeed
he
only
commanded
,
or
directed
,
devised
,
or
procured
to
be
done
.
Thus
Parents
are
commonly
said
to
make
their
Sons
Ministers
,
but
Ordain
them
not
themselves
.
Thus
Patrons
among
us
make
and
prefer
Vicars
and
Rectors
of
Churches
(
and
the
King
Bishops
)
though
Bishops
Ordain
and
Institute
them
.
Thus
Joshua
made
him
sharp
Knives
,
and
Circumcised
the
Children
of
Israel
.
Joshua
5.
3.
Now
I
hope
Mr.
O.
will
not
affirm
that
Joshua
himself
made
the
sharp
Knives
,
or
Circumcised
all
these
Israelites
with
his
own
hands
.
But
to
come
yet
nearer
to
our
purpose
,
I
read
in
St.
Cyprian
[
*
](A42789-e90600-b)
*
Cyp.
Ep.
52.
Novatus
Felicissimum
nec
permittente
me
nec
sciente
sua
factione
&
ambitione
Diaconum
constituit
.
The
enquiry
is
,
whether
Novatus
,
a
Presbyter
,
imposed
hands
and
Ordained
Felicissimus
,
a
Deacon
,
and
whether
St.
Cyprian
is
thus
to
be
understood
.
This
doubt
is
to
be
〈◊〉
from
another
passage
of
St.
Cyprian
in
the
same
〈◊〉
.
Qui
(
Novatus
)
isthic
(
Carthagine
)
Diaconum
fecerat
sc.
Felicissimum
,
illic
(
Romae
)
Episcopum
fecit
,
sc.
Novatianum
.
Novatus
made
Felicissimus
a
Deacon
at
〈◊〉
,
and
Novatianus
a
Bishop
at
Rome
.
But
how
?
Not
Ordaining
him
himself
,
but
procuring
,
or
encouraging
him
to
be
Ordained
by
Bishops
,
as
we
read
in
Eusebius
[
*
](A42789-e90790-b)
*
Eus.
E.
H.
l.
6.
c.
43.
—
Novatianus
,
a
Presbyter
of
Rome
,
(
by
Eus.
called
Novatus
also
)
having
from
some
remote
parts
of
Italy
invited
three
Bishops
unto
Rome
,
forced
them
to
Ordain
him
(
Novatianus
)
Bishop
.
This
was
the
Contrivance
of
the
African
Novatus
,
as
we
learn
from
Cyprian
.
As
then
Novatus
did
not
Ordain
Novatianus
,
but
three
Bishops
procured
for
the
purpose
;
so
neither
can
it
be
thought
he
Ordained
Foelicissimus
Deacon
,
but
by
his
Policy
and
Interest
got
him
to
be
Ordained
:
And
yet
Cyprian
witnesseth
that
he
made
(
fecit
&
constituit
)
the
one
a
Deacon
,
and
made
(
fecit
)
the
other
a
Bishop
.
In
like
manner
〈◊〉
made
Daniel
a
Deacon
and
a
Presbyter
,
that
is
appointed
and
commanded
him
to
take
Orders
.
For
being
the
Abbot
,
he
had
the
Authority
to
determine
his
own
Monk
unto
the
Orders
of
Deacon
and
Presbyter
.
But
It
may
not
be
amiss
to
consider
what
Blondel
has
from
this
Testimony
of
Cassianus
advanced
[
*
](A42789-e91020-b)
*
Apol.
358.
for
the
establishment
of
Presbyterian
Ordination
.
He
places
this
fact
in
the
Year
390.
when
the
Egyptian
Church
enjoyed
a
profound
Peace
,
and
Theophilus
was
Bishop
of
Alexandria
,
and
the
Government
of
this
Church
was
improved
in
a
manner
into
a
Secular
Dominion
.
If
in
these
Circumstances
(
He
argues
)
a
Presbyter
might
Ordain
Presbyters
,
how
much
more
before
the
ancient
simplicity
of
the
Gospel
was
shackled
with
Novel
Constitutions
.
Ans.
It
is
is
some
prejudice
against
this
Story
of
Cassianus
,
that
neither
〈◊〉
,
Sozomen
,
Theodoret
,
nor
any
of
those
Ecclesiastical
Historians
,
though
they
mention
Paphnutius
,
should
have
one
Syllable
of
this
Action
,
nor
so
much
as
mention
Daniel
.
Besides
the
Egytian
Churches
were
not
in
so
perfect
Tranquility
,
as
Mr.
Blondel
imagines
,
and
represents
them
.
The
Melitian
Schism
still
remained
among
them
,
and
this
Paphnutius
was
one
of
them
,
as
I
have
before
observ'd
;
so
that
it
is
not
be
wondered
at
,
that
Paphnutius
presumed
to
Ordain
,
and
Theophilus
overlook'd
,
and
neglected
it
.
For
what
had
he
to
do
with
them
that
were
already
out
of
the
Church
and
Excommunicated
,
as
the
Melitians
must
needs
be
supposed
.
This
premised
I
frame
an
Argument
against
Blondel
,
and
(
as
I
conceit
)
every
whit
as
good
as
his
.
'T
is
this
.
If
in
the
most
Turbulent
State
of
the
Egyptian
Church
,
when
Alexander
was
Bishop
of
Alexandria
,
the
Ordinations
of
Melitius
and
Colluthus
were
declared
invalid
,
it
is
Morally
impossible
that
the
Ordination
of
Daniel
by
Paphnutius
,
should
be
approved
or
connived
at
,
when
Theophilus
being
Bishop
of
Alexandria
,
the
Episcopacy
was
raised
to
a
higher
degree
of
Grandeur
,
and
the
Peace
of
the
Church
better
established
.
To
conclude
this
Chapter
,
let
it
be
remembred
,
what
I
have
already
noted
out
of
Theodoret
,
how
that
Bishops
were
wont
to
Hist.
Eccl.
l.
4.
c.
22.
reside
among
the
Monks
in
the
Wilderness
of
Egypt
,
and
that
seven
of
them
are
said
to
have
done
so
from
their
Youth
up
,
to
their
extreme
Old
Age
,
even
when
they
were
Bishops
;
and
a
little
Sense
will
perswade
one
to
believe
,
that
Daniel
was
Ordained
by
a
Bishop
,
Paphnutius
the
Abbot
commanding
and
directing
his
Monk
to
receive
Holy
Orders
.
CHAP.
XV.
Of
Pope
Leo
'
s
Decree
.
THE
case
was
this
.
There
were
was
in
the
Diocess
of
Rusticus
Bishop
of
Narbona
(
as
may
be
conjectured
from
Pope
Leo's
Epistle
)
some
Persons
,
who
toook
upon
'em
to
Ordain
,
and
who
are
called
by
that
Pope
Pseudo
Episcopi
.
Rusticus
complains
thereof
in
a
Letter
to
Leo
,
which
is
not
extant
that
I
know
of
.
Leo's
Answer
is
—
There
is
no
reason
they
should
be
accounted
Bishops
,
who
were
neither
chosen
by
the
Clergy
,
nor
desired
by
the
People
,
nor
Consecrated
by
the
Provincial
Bishops
at
the
appointment
of
the
Metropolitan
.
Whence
,
when
the
Question
often
arises
concerning
the
Honour
(
he
means
Episcopacy
,
and
the
Power
of
Ordaining
)
who
can
doubt
that
,
what
does
not
appear
to
have
been
truly
Conferred
,
is
in
no
wise
to
be
given
by
those
Pseudo
Episcopi
.
But
if
any
Clergy-Man
in
those
Churches
,
which
belong
unto
their
own
proper
Bishop
,
have
been
Ordained
by
those
Pseudo
Episcopi
,
and
the
Ordination
was
performed
with
the
Consent
and
appointment
of
the
Presidents
(
or
proper
Bishops
)
it
may
be
ratify'd
;
provided
they
remain
in
those
Churches
.
This
Pope
Leo
flourished
about
the
Year
442.
Now
Mr.
O.
who
alledges
,
this
Decree
of
Pope
Leo
against
Two
things
are
remarkable
in
the
decision
of
Leo
the
Great
.
1.
That
our
English
Bishops
wanting
two
of
the
requisites
mentioned
in
the
Popes
Decree
,
sc.
The
Election
of
the
Clergy
,
and
the
demand
of
the
People
,
their
Ordinations
therefore
have
a
Canonical
Nullity
in
them
,
and
our
English
Bishops
would
have
been
reckoned
Pseudo
Episcopi
in
Leo's
time
.
Upon
which
remark
I
make
the
following
Reflexions
.
1.
We
are
beholden
to
Mr.
O.
for
making
his
simple
Friends
believe
that
we
are
departed
from
the
decrees
of
the
Popes
.
From
henceforth
then
let
them
not
reproach
our
Bishops
for
Popish
.
2.
Mr.
O.
is
in
the
right
.
Pope
Leo
perhaps
would
have
called
our
Bishops
Pseudo
Episcopi
:
I
am
sure
at
this
Day
the
Popes
do
not
fail
to
condemn
'em
as
such
.
3.
The
uncanonical
Ordination
of
Bishops
among
us
,
will
not
excuse
that
of
the
Presbyterians
,
much
less
justify
their
Anti-Scriptural
Ordinations
.
No
one
can
defend
himself
by
Recrimination
:
But
a
greater
fault
can
never
be
excused
by
a
lesser
.
4.
We
are
so
far
from
tying
up
our selves
to
the
strict
observation
of
Papal
or
Provincial
Canons
,
that
we
think
not
our selves
absolutely
oblig'd
to
the
Observation
of
the
Decrees
of
the
Oecumenical
Synods
,
but
take
Libery
to
vary
from
them
,
when
ever
necessity
or
great
convenience
invites
us
to
it
:
Otherwise
we
endeavour
to
conform
our selves
to
them
,
as
much
as
is
possible
.
5.
I
have
more
than
once
in
the
Preface
to
I.
N.
and
in
the
former
part
of
this
Treatise
(
I
hope
)
sufficiently
evinc'd
,
that
our
Bishops
want
neither
the
Election
of
the
Clergy
,
nor
the
Consent
of
the
People
,
and
therefore
their
Ordinations
on
that
score
have
no
Canonical
Nullity
in
them
.
But.
2.
Mr.
O.
remarks
from
the
foresaid
Decree
of
Pope
Leo
,
That
the
consent
of
the
true
Bishops
ex
post
facto
made
the
Ordination
of
meer
Presbyters
lawful
,
which
could
not
be
unless
Presbyters
had
an
intrinsick
Power
of
Ordination
.
Hereunto
I
return
.
1.
Mr.
O.
ought
first
to
prove
that
these
Pseudo
Episcopi
were
meer
Presbyters
.
I
am
otherwise
perswaded
and
think
I
can
evince
it
out
of
Leo's
Decree
.
2.
The
consent
of
the
true
Bishops
was
not
required
ex
post
facto
(
that
's
the
disingenuous
and
false
Gloss
of
an
Adversary
)
but
antecedent
to
the
Ordination
,
as
appears
from
these
Words
,
&
(
si
)
Ordinatio
Clericorum
consensu
&
judicio
Praesidentium
facta
est
,
if
the
Ordination
of
the
Ministers
was
made
with
the
Consent
and
appointment
of
the
Bishops
.
Let
any
Man
of
understanding
judge
whether
this
Consent
and
appointment
of
the
Provincial
Bishops
,
was
to
be
Antecedent
to
the
Ordinations
or
to
follow
them
.
3.
Whereas
Mr.
O.
renders
Pseudo
Episcopi
false
Bishops
as
it
were
in
opposition
to
true
Bishops
(
so
he
renders
proprios
Episcopos
)
't
is
I
think
a
mistake
.
The
proper
Bishops
being
the
Bishops
of
the
Diocesses
within
the
Provinces
,
and
by
consequence
the
Pseudo
Episcopi
,
such
as
had
no
Diocess
there
,
and
therefore
could
not
Ordain
regularly
without
the
consent
and
appointment
of
the
proper
Bishops
of
the
Diocesses
:
Of
which
I
have
spoken
before
.
Upon
the
Whole
matter
,
how
Mr.
O.
will
be
able
to
infer
hence
,
that
Ordination
by
meer
Presbyters
can
be
lawful
,
or
that
they
have
an
intrinsick
Power
to
Ordain
,
I
am
yet
to
learn
.
If
these
Pseudo
Episcopi
were
real
Bishops
,
as
they
must
have
been
,
if
their
Ordinations
were
valid
when
the
proper
Bishops
consent
was
first
obtained
,
what
is
this
to
the
Advantage
of
Presbyterian
Ordination
?
〈◊〉
who
will
believe
the
Pope
of
Rome
at
this
time
of
Day
,
viz.
in
the
middle
of
the
5th
Century
would
decree
any
thing
that
might
Countenance
the
Ordinations
of
meer
Presbyters
?
This
is
plain
,
that
though
the
Pope
called
'em
Pseudo
Episcopi
,
yet
they
reckon
themselves
real
Bishops
,
and
not
meer
Presbyters
:
Which
is
a
strong
presumption
that
in
those
times
,
meer
Presbyters
were
not
allowed
to
Ordain
.
For
to
what
purpose
else
should
they
assume
the
Title
and
Character
of
Bishops
?
Our
Presbyterians
do
not
think
there
is
any
need
for
them
to
usurp
the
Title
of
Bishops
,
and
that
because
they
believe
themselves
to
have
Power
of
Ordination
,
as
Presbyters
.
All
the
Difficulty
is
why
Leo
calls
'em
Pseudo
Episcopi
,
if
they
were
real
Bishops
.
Ans.
The
reason
hereof
I
conceivé
is
,
because
they
had
been
Ordained
Bishops
,
but
were
not
possessed
of
any
Diocesses
in
those
Provinces
,
and
yet
took
upon
them
to
Act
there
,
which
they
ought
not
to
have
done
,
it
being
contrary
to
the
peace
and
establish'd
Order
of
the
Church
,
This
appears
from
the
first
Words
of
the
Decree
.
There
is
no
reason
they
should
be
accounted
Bishops
(
that
is
have
Liberty
to
Act
as
Bishops
in
those
Diocesses
and
Provinces
)
who
were
neither
chosen
by
the
Clergy
,
nor
desired
by
the
People
,
nor
Consecrated
by
the
Provincial
Bishops
at
the
appointment
of
the
Metropolitan
.
From
these
Words
't
is
plain
that
he
speaks
not
of
meer
Presbyters
:
For
it
was
never
required
by
any
Ecclesiastical
Canon
,
that
meer
Presbyters
were
to
be
Ordained
by
the
Provincial
Bishops
with
the
Consent
of
the
Metropolitan
.
This
Ecclesiastical
Rule
and
Constitution
concerned
Bishops
only
.
So
that
I
reckon
the
Pope
called
them
Pseudo
Episcopi
,
not
because
they
were
not
Ordained
Bishops
,
but
because
they
acted
irregularly
in
other
Bishops
Diocesses
.
CHAP.
XVI
.
Of
the
Churches
in
the
Island
of
Taprobane
.
WE
are
come
now
to
the
Year
520.
when
(
says
Mr.
O.
)
In
the
Island
of
Taprobane
,
or
[
*
](A42789-e92180-b)
*
Or
Ceylon
.
Zeilan
,
as
't
is
now
called
,
there
was
a
Church
of
Christians
governed
by
a
Presbyter
and
his
Deacon
,
without
any
Superiour
Bishop
to
whom
he
or
his
Flock
was
Subject
.
This
Island
is
above
2000
Miles
in
Compass
,
a
Province
big
enough
for
a
Bishop
,
yet
had
none
in
Justin
the
Emperor's
time
,
which
was
about
the
Year
520.
but
was
under
the
Jurisdiction
of
a
Presbyter
Ordained
in
Persia
,
who
in
all
likelyhood
Ordained
his
Successor
,
and
would
not
be
at
the
trouble
of
sending
for
one
to
very
remote
Countries
:
From
hence
Mr.
O.
roundly
concludes
—
that
Bishops
were
not
thought
Essential
to
Churches
,
no
not
in
the
6th
Age
,
and
that
meer
Presbyters
have
power
of
Jurisdiction
,
and
consequently
of
Ordination
.
I
'll
not
now
contest
the
Truth
of
the
story
;
Let
us
rather
suppose
the
matter
of
Fact
to
be
as
it
is
reported
by
Mr.
O.
—
But
I
have
these
following
things
to
reply
to
it
,
and
to
the
conclusion
drawn
from
it
.
1.
How
does
Mr.
O.
know
that
this
Presbyter
and
his
Deacon
,
and
the
flock
of
Christians
belonging
to
'em
were
without
a
Superior
Bishop
,
to
whom
they
were
Subject
?
They
might
be
subject
to
some
Bishop
in
Persia
,
for
any
thing
he
can
tell
or
the
first
Relator
says
.
'T
is
true
,
this
Presbyter
regebat
,
he
did
rule
the
flock
,
but
it
might
be
under
some
Bishop
;
the
likelihood
hereof
is
the
greater
,
because
he
was
Ordained
in
Persia
,
and
from
thence
sent
to
propagate
the
Gospel
.
2.
Whereas
Mr.
O.
thinking
to
magnify
the
Power
of
Presbyters
,
and
to
shew
what
vast
Churches
have
been
rul'd
by
them
without
Bishops
,
acquaints
us
that
this
Island
is
(
or
was
)
2000
Miles
in
Compass
,
and
that
it
was
big
enough
for
a
Bishop
,
it
might
not
be
unseasonable
to
ask
him
first
,
whether
he
is
not
mistaken
in
the
extent
of
the
Island
.
Heylin
makes
it
but
700
or
800
at
most
.
Well
but
I
'll
not
stand
with
Mr.
O.
for
1200
or
1300
Miles
;
Almost
two
thirds
shall
〈◊〉
break
Squares
between
him
and
me
,
especially
since
he
has
so
good
a
Geographer
on
his
side
as
N.
Lloyd
;
granting
then
this
.
2.
Neither
his
Country-Man
Lloyd
,
nor
Heylin
make
any
mention
of
Christians
in
this
Island
.
The
story
then
may
be
but
a
Fable
at
last
.
3.
I
ask
whether
there
were
any
more
than
one
single
Congregation
of
Christians
in
this
Island
,
or
more
than
one
Presbyter
and
his
Deacon
.
If
not
he
has
the
reason
why
there
was
no
Bishop
in
the
Island
;
but
that
the
Presbyter
and
his
Flock
were
subject
unto
some
Persian
Bishop
.
If
he
says
there
were
Christians
up
and
down
in
the
Island
(
as
his
telling
us
of
the
large
compass
of
it
seems
to
intimate
)
and
many
Congregations
,
and
yet
this
Presbyter
ruled
'em
all
,
why
then
we
have
a
real
,
though
not
nominal
Bishop
,
I
mean
in
respect
of
Jurisdiction
.
4.
Whereas
Mr.
O.
makes
this
Reflection
,
that
this
Island
in
Compass
2000
Miles
,
was
a
Province
big
enough
for
a
Bishop
,
he
'll
give
me
leave
(
I
hope
)
to
retort
,
that
it
seems
it
was
not
too
big
for
one
Presbyter
and
his
Deacon
.
3.
Let
it
be
observed
,
that
Mr.
O.
knows
not
but
this
Presbyter
had
a
Predecessor
in
that
Island
:
For
there
is
a
Tradition
that
Philip
the
Evangelist
preached
the
Gospel
in
Persia
,
India
and
Taprobane
.
I
demand
then
upon
that
supposition
,
who
Ordained
his
Predecessor
?
A
Bishop
in
Persia
in
likelihood
;
for
so
much
is
reasonably
gathered
from
this
Presbyter's
being
himself
Ordained
there
;
and
Bishops
were
before
that
time
in
Persia
.
4.
Since
we
must
contend
with
likelihoods
,
I
ask
whether
it
be
not
much
more
likely
,
that
this
Presbyter
being
Ordained
in
Persia
,
did
take
care
rather
,
that
his
Successor
(
if
he
had
any
)
should
be
there
Ordained
likewise
,
than
that
himself
should
presume
to
Ordain
Him
.
There
is
not
any
the
least
ground
to
conjecture
,
that
the
Presbyter
himself
Ordained
Him
;
but
there
is
some
to
think
that
his
Successor
was
Ordained
in
Persia
,
viz.
because
he
himself
was
.
5.
Admitting
that
the
Church
of
Christ
in
this
Island
of
Taprobane
continued
there
for
some
Ages
,
if
it
increased
not
much
(
which
is
most
likely
because
we
hear
nothing
more
of
it
)
it
might
depend
upon
and
remain
subject
unto
some
Persian
Bishop
,
and
be
under
his
Guidance
and
direction
,
as
our
Western
Islands
are
under
the
Bishop
of
London
.
If
it
flourish'd
and
Christians
multiply'd
considerably
there
,
who
can
tell
but
they
had
Bishops
of
their
own
afterwards
?
The
summ
of
the
matter
is
—
A
certain
Monk
called
Cosmas
(
a
Man
of
no
Note
and
Reputation
that
I
know
of
)
tells
a
lame
story
of
a
Presbyter
(
without
a
Name
,
which
renders
the
Tale
Suspicious
)
who
in
the
Year
520
,
(
when
all
the
World
besides
was
confessedly
Episcopal
)
was
Ordained
in
Persia
(
where
the
Government
of
the
Church
was
Episcopal
)
and
ruled
a
Church
in
Zeilan
(
no
one
knows
how
Numerous
,
or
how
long
he
ruled
it
,
nor
how
long
it
continued
a
Church
)
without
a
Superiour
Bishop
(
says
Mr.
O.
which
is
more
than
is
testify'd
by
the
Relators
)
and
in
all
likelihood
Ordained
his
own
Successor
,
and
would
not
be
at
the
Trouble
of
sending
for
one
to
very
Remote
Countries
(
all
which
is
spoken
at
Random
,
it
being
in
the
story
not
so
much
as
intimated
that
he
had
any
Successor
,
or
that
he
Ordained
him
,
or
that
he
was
unwilling
to
get
a
Successor
from
a
remote
Country
)
.
And
from
hence
without
any
Colour
of
pretence
very
rashly
,
and
very
weakly
Mr.
O.
has
gather'd
that
even
in
the
6th
Century
,
Bishops
were
thought
Essential
,
and
that
meer
Presbyters
have
Power
to
Ordain
.
If
this
must
pass
for
a
tolerable
Argument
against
Episcopal
Government
,
or
in
the
least
favours
the
Presbyterian
,
I
do
renounce
all
pretence
to
common
Sense
.
CHAP.
XVII
.
Of
Pelagius
his
Ordination
.
WE
have
now
been
a
long
Journey
in
search
after
some
Instance
of
Presbyters
Ordaining
,
or
some
Law
and
Custom
that
warrants
it
:
We
have
been
in
Africa
,
and
among
the
Moors
in
Egypt
,
and
the
Desert
of
Scetis
,
at
Taprobane
,
which
lies
to
East-India
,
among
the
Northern
Scythians
,
in
England
,
and
in
France
,
and
among
the
Picts
,
and
Scots
,
in
the
most
remote
parts
of
Britain
:
We
have
examined
the
most
famous
Councils
and
their
Definitions
,
of
Nice
,
of
Ancyra
,
Antioch
,
and
the
Carthaginian
Synods
,
and
all
to
as
little
purpose
as
they
who
seek
a
Needle
in
a
Bottle
of
Hay
.
We
are
now
at
length
going
to
visit
Limina
Apostolorum
,
Rome
its
self
the
Centre
of
Christendom
,
and
thence
to
learn
what
may
be
found
in
the
practice
of
St.
Peter
,
and
St.
Paul's
Successors
for
Presbyters
Power
to
Ordain
:
And
surely
we
will
not
decline
the
determination
of
this
Question
,
which
the
Infallible
Church
has
made
by
her
Example
.
To
this
purpose
therefore
we
are
put
in
Mind
of
the
Ordination
of
Pelagius
Bishop
of
Rome
,
which
happened
about
the
Year
555
and
is
remembred
by
Anastasius
,
who
wrote
the
lives
of
the
Popes
.
Anastasius
then
Pelagius
the
first
,
Bishop
of
Rome
,
was
Ordained
by
John
Bishop
of
Perusia
,
Bonus
Bishop
of
Florence
,
and
Andreas
Presbyter
de
Hostia
:
Whereas
by
the
Canons
three
Bishops
are
absolutely
necessary
for
the
Ordination
of
a
Bishop
.
Before
I
make
a
direct
Answer
to
this
and
to
the
Argument
,
which
Mr.
O.
builds
upon
the
Fact
it
is
requisite
,
that
I
tell
the
story
a
little
more
largely
.
For
some
Men
have
got
a
Scurvy
Trick
to
leave
out
whatever
is
to
their
Disadvantage
or
In
validates
the
Force
of
their
Argument
,
it
being
not
the
Truth
but
the
Interest
of
the
Cause
,
which
they
labour
to
support
.
The
story
then
is
thus
.
Vigilius
,
the
Immediate
Predecessor
of
Pelagius
[
*
](A42789-e93190-b)
*
Anasta
.
,
at
least
had
been
his
Enemy
and
a
cause
But
if
such
as
these
shall
pass
for
good
Precedents
,
any
Irregularity
in
the
World
may
at
this
Rate
be
Justifyed
.
Thus
much
being
premised
,
let
us
see
what
use
Mr.
O.
makes
of
this
Ordination
of
Pelagius
.
He
argues
thus
—
Either
Pelagius
was
no
Canonical
Bishop
,
&c.
or
else
a
Presbyter
has
Intrinsick
Power
of
Ordination
,
&c.
that
is
,
either
Pelagius
was
no
Canonical
Bishop
,
and
then
the
Succession
was
interrupted
in
the
Church
of
Rome
,
and
Consequently
the
English
Bishops
have
no
Canonical
Succession
,
Or
,
&c.
Ans.
I
reply
that
though
Pelagius
was
no
Canonical
Bishop
,
i.
e.
not
Canonically
Ordained
,
yet
this
notwithstanding
the
English
Bishops
have
true
Canonical
Succession
.
For
1.
We
need
not
pretend
to
derive
the
Succession
of
our
Bishops
from
the
Popes
of
Rome
;
't
is
more
probable
that
they
are
the
Successors
of
St.
Paul
or
some
other
Apostolical
Men
,
who
first
planted
the
Gospel
here
in
the
Days
of
the
Apostles
or
soon
after
:
So
that
we
are
not
concerned
at
any
Irregularity
supposed
in
the
Roman
Succession
.
2.
We
had
Bishops
here
in
England
,
(
or
Britain
)
long
before
Pelagius
was
Pope
of
Rome
,
it
being
certain
that
some
British
Bishops
assisted
at
the
Council
of
Arles
held
in
the
days
of
Constantine
the
Great
,
and
at
that
of
Ariminum
called
together
by
Constantius
his
Son
,
above
200
Years
before
Pelagius
:
And
this
Race
of
Bishops
continued
even
unto
Austin
the
Monks
coming
hither
.
Whatever
then
becomes
of
Pelagius
his
Consecration
,
't
is
no
matter
to
us
:
His
Irregularity
affects
not
our
English
Bishops
.
3.
Supposing
(
what
nevertheless
is
not
true
)
that
the
Heathen
Saxons
,
the
Angli
and
the
Danes
,
quite
extirpated
Christianity
in
this
Land
,
until
Austin
the
Monk
coming
from
Rome
,
with
the
Pope's
Commission
once
more
reduced
,
and
brought
back
the
Inhabitants
of
this
Isle
unto
the
belief
of
the
Gospel
,
and
gave
us
a
new
line
of
Bishops
:
Yet
still
the
Irregularity
of
Pelagius's
Consecration
will
not
at
all
disparage
our
Succession
of
Bishops
,
as
Mr.
O.
knows
very
well
,
if
he
would
not
dissemble
.
For
I
ought
to
believe
that
he
has
read
the
known
History
of
Venerable
Bede
,
o'er
and
o'er
,
and
thoroughly
digested
him
,
because
he
so
oft
and
familiarly
quotes
him
in
the
Plea
,
&c.
He
may
then
please
to
remember
that
Austin
was
not
Created
Bishop
by
Pope
Gregory
,
but
by
Etherius
Archbishop
of
Arles
in
France
—
Interea
vir
Domini
Augustinus
&
ab
Archiepiscopo
ejusdem
Civitatis
Etherio
juxta
quod
jussa
Sti.
Patris
Gregorii
acceperant
,
Archiepiscopus
Genti
Anglorum
Ordinatus
est
.
So
that
from
henceforth
Mr.
O.
and
the
Papists
may
take
notice
that
the
English
Bishops
as
to
the
Succession
of
their
Orders
,
are
nothing
beholden
to
the
Bishops
of
Rome
,
at
least
not
unto
Pelagius
;
that
if
Etherius
was
a
Canonical
Bishop
(
as
I
must
believe
till
the
Contrary
is
prov'd
)
so
was
Austin
a
Canonical
Bishop
,
and
so
are
our
English
Bishops
unto
this
day
,
whatever
becomes
of
Pelagius
his
Consecration
.
Without
any
farther
fear
of
danger
therefore
I
may
Conclude
that
Pelagius
was
no
Canonical
Bishop
,
that
is
;
was
not
Canonically
Ordained
,
and
yet
we
have
a
true
Succession
of
Canonically
Ordained
Bishops
in
England
.
But
Mr.
O.
goes
on
—
Or
else
he
was
a
Canonical
Bishop
,
and
what
then
?
Why
then
it
follows
,
a
Presbyter
has
a
Canonical
Power
to
Ordain
(
for
so
Andreas
had
,
if
Pelagius
was
Canonically
Ordain'd
)
and
then
by
another
consequence
,
that
Presbyters
have
an
Intrinsick
Power
to
Ordain
:
Because
no
Ecclesiastical
Laws
can
give
to
any
Order
of
Men
a
Canonical
Power
to
that
,
which
they
have
not
an
Intrinsical
Power
to
do
.
Supposing
this
,
(
for
I
need
not
contend
the
truth
of
it
)
the
Answer
then
to
the
whole
Argument
is
,
(
as
before
)
that
Pelagius
was
not
Canonically
Ordained
.
But
now
I
think
on
't
,
what
if
a
Man
should
affirm
that
Pelagius
was
Canonically
Ordained
,
and
yet
assert
,
that
a
Presbyter
has
not
an
Intrinsical
Power
to
Ordain
?
The
first
Apostolical
Canon
decrees
—
Let
a
Bishop
be
Ordain'd
by
two
or
three
Bishops
.
Pelagius's
Consecration
therefore
was
Canonical
,
being
performed
by
two
Bishops
according
to
this
Canoh
,
and
Presbyter
Andreas
may
stand
for
a
Cypher
.
True
,
the
Nicene
and
other
Synods
afterwards
said
by
three
Bishops
.
Nevertheless
the
Apostolical
Canons
being
always
reckoned
as
part
of
the
Code
of
the
universal
Church
,
the
Nicene
(
and
all
other
)
Canons
ought
in
conformity
to
this
to
be
favourably
interpreted
,
I
mean
that
it
did
not
intend
peremptorily
to
command
,
but
rather
prudentially
advised
that
if
it
could
be
,
a
Bishop
should
be
Consecrated
by
three
Bishops
.
It
is
not
improbable
but
Pelagius's
Consecration
was
upon
this
very
Account
afterwards
allow'd
of
.
For
this
is
manifest
,
that
Pelagius
(
what
ever
his
Ordination
was
)
is
not
reckoned
amongst
the
Schismatical
Bishops
of
Rome
,
but
was
acknowledged
,
and
peaceably
submitted
to
.
Mr.
O.
then
is
too
positive
,
when
he
affirms
that
—
by
the
Canons
three
Bishops
are
absolutely
necessary
for
the
Ordination
of
a
Bishop
.
Without
all
peradventure
,
fewer
might
serve
in
cases
of
Necessity
,
as
this
haply
afterwards
might
be
judged
.
If
God
himself
is
pleas'd
that
his
own
Laws
shall
submit
to
those
of
Necessity
,
much
more
the
Canons
of
the
Church
shall
.
Wise
Men
have
so
determin'd
,
even
in
this
particular
case
.
Gregory
declared
that
Austin
(
notwithstanding
the
Canons
)
might
himself
alone
Consecrate
Bishops
,
&
quidem
in
Anglorum
Ecclesia
,
in
qua
solus
tu
Episcopus
inveniris
,
Ordinare
Episcopum
non
aliter
nisi
sine
Episcopis
potes
[
*
](A42789-e94110-b)
*
Bede
E.
H.
〈◊〉
.
1.
c.
27.
Resp.
8.
.
Doubtless
,
then
the
meaning
of
the
Canons
must
be
,
that
in
Ordinary
,
and
when
it
may
be
with
convenience
three
Bishops
are
requir'd
to
the
Consecration
of
a
Bishop
,
though
even
one
in
the
case
of
Necessity
be
sufficient
.
I
will
not
affirm
there
was
a
necessity
in
the
case
of
Pelagius
,
(
because
there
was
no
necessity
he
should
be
Bishop
of
Rome
)
yet
after
his
Consecration
,
the
wise
Italians
might
judge
it
necessary
to
overlook
the
later
Canons
,
and
confirm
his
Consecration
rather
than
create
an
Anti-Pope
,
and
a
Schism
in
the
Church
.
Pelagius
then
was
a
Canonical
Bishop
according
to
the
Apostolical
Canon
,
though
not
Canonically
Ordained
according
to
the
strictness
of
the
Nicene
Canon
.
But
it
will
be
demanded
why
did
not
Pelagius
content
himself
with
two
Bishops
,
but
took
in
a
Presbyter
to
assist
in
the
Ordination
?
The
reason
is
plain
,
because
Pelagius
being
a
wise
Man
,
(
as
is
to
be
presumed
)
though
not
so
good
as
were
to
be
wished
,
would
give
his
Adversaries
as
little
occasion
as
was
possible
to
quarrel
at
his
〈◊〉
.
If
therefore
he
could
not
get
three
Bishops
,
he
at
least
procured
two
,
and
a
third
Person
,
and
so
came
as
near
to
the
Nicene
Canon
as
he
could
.
He
observed
the
number
,
though
not
the
exact
Qualification
of
the
Ordainers
,
and
so
vary'd
as
little
from
the
Rule
,
as
might
be
.
Hereby
he
made
account
to
impose
upon
the
ignorant
Multitude
,
who
't
is
likely
were
the
principal
Spectators
of
the
Solemnity
of
his
Ordination
:
For
the
Clergy
would
not
be
present
to
countenance
his
Ordination
,
whom
they
hated
.
CHAP.
XVIII
.
Of
the
Waldenses
,
the
Boyarians
,
the
Lollards
,
and
some
other
People
,
who
separated
themselves
from
the
Roman
Communion
.
OF
the
Waldenses
Mr.
O.
speaks
in
his
Preface
,
page
1.
&c.
and
in
the
Plea
p.
156
,
to
the
effect
following
.
—
That
the
Vaudois
,
or
Waldenses
have
had
no
other
(
Ministers
)
for
near
500
Years
past
,
than
Presbyters
Ordained
by
Presbyters
without
Bishops
;
that
they
maintain
all
Ministers
to
be
in
a
state
of
Parity
;
that
their
Presbyters
imposed
Hands
for
Ordination
;
that
the
Fratres
Bohemi
had
their
Succession
of
Ministers
from
these
Waldenses
.
And
for
the
truth
of
all
this
,
he
quotes
Perrin's
History
of
the
Waldenses
.
Of
what
Authority
Perrin
is
,
may
be
hence
guessed
,
that
the
Synod
,
which
set
him
on
work
,
disapproved
it
,
as
I
am
told
;
or
whether
Mr.
O.
has
given
us
an
honest
and
fair
Account
of
him
I
know
not
.
I
am
a
Stranger
to
that
Author
,
nor
can
I
hereabouts
light
on
him
,
neither
am
I
very
much
concerned
about
any
thing
he
says
;
which
is
so
late
,
sc.
according
to
Mr.
O's
Computation
,
near
1200
Years
after
Christ
,
and
so
obscure
,
that
no
weight
can
be
laid
upon
the
Argument
drawn
from
the
Practice
of
these
Waldenses
;
I
say
obscure
.
For
they
being
a
poor
and
illiterate
,
thin
,
scatter'd
and
harassed
People
,
and
almost
always
under
Persecution
,
it
is
Morally
impossible
they
should
have
an
exact
History
of
themselves
transmitted
unto
these
last
Ages
,
especially
,
considering
that
their
Enemies
the
Papists
,
made
it
their
business
to
destroy
the
most
ancient
Records
of
that
People
,
and
as
Sir
S.
Morland
testifies
,
[
*
](A42789-e94510-b)
*
Hist.
Wal.
l.
1.
p.
8.
the
most
that
is
known
of
them
,
is
supposed
generally
to
be
taken
out
of
their
Adversaries
Writings
,
who
will
sometimes
make
bold
to
load
those
,
who
separate
from
them
,
with
Calumnies
,
and
fasten
on
them
odd
Opinions
,
meerly
to
expose
and
render
them
the
more
odious
.
Lastly
,
although
I
do
not
delight
to
detract
from
their
Merits
,
yet
I
see
no
great
reason
for
those
excessive
Commendations
some
think
〈◊〉
to
bestow
on
them
,
when
I
call
to
mind
,
that
at
the
time
when
the
Fratres
Bohemi
became
〈◊〉
acquainted
with
them
,
they
found
the
Waldenses
taking
the
Liberty
of
going
to
Mass
,
and
joyning
with
the
Papists
in
their
Idolatrous
Worship
[
*
](A42789-e94560-b)
*
Com.
p.
24
Nevertheless
,
these
Exceptions
set
apart
,
what
I
find
in
such
Authors
as
are
at
hand
shall
here
be
produced
to
confront
the
others
cited
by
Mr.
O.
to
the
end
the
Reader
may
judge
,
whether
Mr.
O.
and
his
Author
Perrin
have
made
a
faithful
Report
of
the
Waldensian
.
Churches
,
at
least
,
whether
it
may
not
truly
be
affirmed
,
that
the
History
of
that
People
is
so
uncertain
,
that
no
Argument
can
thence
be
drawn
to
countenance
the
Presbyterian
Government
,
and
Ordination
by
meer
Presbyters
.
Sir
Sam.
Morland
in
his
History
of
the
Waldenses
;
shews
[
*
](A42789-e94660-b)
*
Morland
,
lib.
1.
p.
10.
that
Claudius
,
Archbishop
of
Turin
,
was
a
great
Promoter
of
true
Doctrine
against
Roman
Idolatry
in
his
Diocess
,
that
the
Waldenses
succeeded
this
Archbishop
,
[
†
](A42789-e94720-b)
†
Id.
p.
11.
that
the
said
Archbishop
delivered
his
Doctrine
to
his
Disciples
,
and
these
unto
their
Successors
unto
the
ninth
and
tenth
Centuries
[
§
](A42789-e94740-b)
§
Morl.
Introd.
.
In
the
Year
1059.
the
Waldenses
again
separated
from
Rome
[
¶
](A42789-e94770-b)
¶
Allix
.
History
of
the
Churches
of
Piedmont
.
p.
238.
In
the
Year
1223.
the
Albigenses
in
Bulgaria
,
Croatia
and
Dalmatia
,
had
one
Bartholomew
,
whom
they
stiled
their
Pope
.
The
Pope's
Legate
called
him
Bishop
,
Mat.
Paris
,
Anti-Pope
,
adding
,
that
he
drew
over
to
him
Bishops
,
and
others
,
and
that
he
Ordained
Bishops
[
*
](A42789-e94850-b)
*
M.
Par.
317.
Bib.
Pat.
Tom.
4.
pt.
2.
p.
752.
In
the
Year
1254.
Reinerius
makes
mention
of
their
Bishops
in
Lombardy
.
In
the
Year
1470.
the
Waldenses
in
Moravia
and
Austria
,
had
Bishops
[
†
](A42789-e94950-b)
†
Com.
H.
W.
Pres.
ad
Rat.
Discip.
&c.
They
asserted
that
they
had
Lawfully
Ordained
Bishops
among
them
,
and
an
uninterrupted
Sucession
of
that
Order
,
even
from
the
Apostles
,
although
out
of
hatred
to
the
Papists
,
they
chose
to
call
them
Seniores
and
Antistites
.
In
their
Responsio
Excusatoria
[
†
](A42789-e95000-b)
†
Fascic
.
rerum
expetendarum
.
Anno
1500.
they
declare
,
Nec
summum
〈◊〉
Romanum
,
nec
nostrum
,
nec
quempiam
alium
caput
esse
〈◊〉
,
plainly
intimating
,
that
they
had
Bishops
among
them
,
as
well
as
the
Romanists
.
Anno
1655.
Leger
was
Moderator
of
the
Churches
of
the
Valleys
,
Thus
much
is
delivered
as
Matter
of
Fact
;
let
us
now
see
what
were
their
Principles
concerning
Church-Government
.
Wolfius
[
†
](A42789-e95110-b)
†
Lect.
p.
380.
saith
,
They
held
there
were
but
three
Degrees
of
Church-Officers
sc.
Bishops
,
Priests
,
(
Sacerdotes
)
and
Deacons
;
the
same
is
delivered
by
Guido
.
But
Aeneas
Sylvius
[
†
](A42789-e95170-b)
†
C.
35.
p.
14.
—
that
a
Bishop
is
not
Superior
to
a
Presbyter
,
either
in
Dignity
,
or
in
Power
,
as
Alphonsus
de
Castro
also
observed
[
*
](A42789-e95190-b)
*
Adv.
Haer.
l.
11.
p.
337.
;
and
most
of
the
Popish
Writers
charge
them
with
that
Opinion
.
But
one
of
them
,
viz.
Reinerius
does
set
forth
their
Doctrine
and
Practice
to
the
effect
following
,
—
The
Cathari
,
(
or
Puritans
,
meaning
the
Waldenses
)
have
four
Ecclesiastical
Orders
,
viz.
the
Bishop
,
the
elder
Son
,
the
younger
Son
,
(
something
like
the
Chorepiscopus
,
or
Suffragan
Bishop
)
and
the
Deacon
.
The
Office
of
the
Bishop
is
always
tenere
Prioratum
,
to
possess
the
Supremacy
in
every
thing
done
,
in
the
Imposition
〈◊〉
Hands
,
in
Celebrating
the
Lord's-Supper
,
and
in
beginning
the
Prayers
,
as
does
the
elder
Son
in
the
Bishop's
absence
.
The
said
Orders
are
created
by
the
Bishop
,
or
by
the
Sons
with
the
Bishops
〈◊〉
.
When
the
Bishop
is
dead
,
the
younger
Son
Ordains
the
elder
a
Bishop
;
then
the
Bishop
Ordains
the
younger
Son
to
be
the
elder
;
and
lastly
,
another
younger
Son
is
chosen
by
(
Prelatis
&
Subditis
)
the
Ministers
and
People
,
and
Ordain'd
.
But
by
another
part
of
these
Cathari
,
near
the
Sea
,
thus
,
—
The
Bishop
before
his
death
Ordains
the
elder
Son
Bishop
,
(
to
succeed
him
)
and
then
as
before
.
All
the
aforesaid
Ordinations
are
made
with
Imposition
of
Hands
,
and
the
Honour
of
Ordaining
,
and
giving
the
Holy
Ghost
,
is
attributed
unto
the
Bishop
,
or
unto
him
that
is
the
elder
Son
,
who
holdst
he
Book
of
the
New-Testament
Reinerus
Bib.
Pat.
Tom.
4.
Part.
2.
p.
758.
upon
the
Head
of
him
on
whom
the
hands
are
laid
.
Thus
much
their
Adversaries
said
of
them
,
wherein
,
doubtless
,
there
is
a
mixture
of
Truth
and
I
alshood
;
at
least
this
miserable
People
scattered
up
and
down
,
did
somewhat
vary
in
their
Rites
,
and
were
never
at
all
times
and
in
all
places
steady
to
themselves
.
I
have
mentioned
before
,
how
that
about
the
Year
1470.
the
Waldenses
in
Austria
and
Moravia
had
Bishops
;
and
from
these
it
was
that
the
Fratres
〈◊〉
drew
the
Succession
of
their
〈◊〉
Orders
;
which
History
will
deserve
here
to
be
more
particularly
Transcribed
.
In
order
whereunto
,
I
must
now
tell
the
Story
of
the
Fratres
Bohemi
as
Comenius
,
and
the
History
of
the
Persecut
.
Bohem
,
have
made
it
ready
to
my
Hands
,
fetching
it
from
the
very
beginning
of
Christianity
.
The
Sclavonian
Nations
were
Converted
in
the
Apostles
times
.
Rom.
15.
19.
2
Ep.
to
Tim.
4.
10.
By
Sclavonians
,
Comenius
means
all
the
Nations
from
Macedonia
Northward
,
even
to
Russia
,
Polonia
and
Germany
.
Some
proof
of
their
early
embracing
the
Gospel
,
he
fetches
from
St.
Jerom
,
who
was
Born
In
the
sixth
Synod
of
Constantinople
,
in
the
Year
680.
the
Lombards
and
Sclavonians
,
are
acknowledged
to
be
Christians
:
About
the
Year
861.
Cyrillus
and
Methodius
,
two
Graecian
Bishops
,
made
the
[
†
](A42789-e95680-b)
†
Hist.
Bohem
.
Persec.
c
1.
p.
1.
P.
7.
After
this
,
Comenius
mentions
Ditmarus
Saxo
,
Bishop
of
Prague
*
.
The
History
of
the
Bohemian
Persecution
tells
of
Waytichius
II.
Bishop
of
Prague
,
in
the
Year
907.
of
Boleslaus
Pius
,
another
Bishop
of
Prague
,
Anno
965.
of
Priests
viz.
Anno
1400.
the
Bohemian
Churches
separated
from
the
Roman
,
upon
the
account
that
the
Publick
Prayers
were
made
in
the
Latin
Tongue
,
that
the
Clergy
were
obliged
to
Celibacy
,
that
Transubstatiation
was
made
an
Article
of
Faith
,
and
that
the
People
were
deprived
of
the
Cup
in
the
Lord's-Supper
.
This
occasioned
the
dispersion
of
the
Bohemians
,
and
their
Settlement
in
Austria
,
from
whence
they
sent
unto
the
Greek
Church
for
the
Ordination
of
their
Ministers
,
and
had
hopes
given
them
of
their
obtaining
it
.
They
removed
after
into
Silesia
.
Now
it
was
that
Gregory
,
an
Holy
Man
,
was
by
the
Persecutors
tortured
;
but
falling
into
a
Trance
,
felt
no
pain
,
and
was
believed
,
dead
.
Recovering
,
he
told
his
Friends
of
a
Vision
,
wherein
,
among
other
things
,
he
saw
three
Men
standing
about
a
Tree
laden
with
Fruit
,
and
defending
it
from
the
Birds
[
†
](A42789-e95960-b)
†
P.
21.
;
and
about
the
same
time
the
Fratres
Bohemi
were
under
some
trouble
of
Mind
how
they
should
for
the
future
be
provided
with
a
Succession
of
rightly
Ordained
Ministers
.
For
they
considered
that
(
though
several
of
the
Roman
Priests
came
over
to
them
)
it
was
too
uncertain
to
hope
for
them
〈◊〉
Rome
.
They
doubted
also
,
whether
the
Ordination
was
valid
,
when
a
Presbyter
,
and
not
a
Bishop
,
Ordained
a
Presbyter
,
and
that
if
the
Question
was
once
mov'd
about
it
,
whether
they
should
be
able
to
defend
such
an
Ordination
,
either
at
Home
or
Abroad
.
At
length
,
after
some
Years
deliberation
,
viz
1467.
and
about
6
Years
after
the
said
Vision
of
Gregory
,
having
Fasted
and
Pray'd
for
Direction
from
God
,
they
resolved
upon
the
following
Course
.
They
chuse
nine
of
the
most
deserving
Brethren
,
and
fittest
for
the
Ministry
:
They
wrap
up
twelve
Tickets
,
nine
whereof
were
Blanks
,
and
three
full
ones
,
having
writ
on
them
—
est
,
that
is
to
say
,
as
they
meant
it
should
signifie
—
it
is
the
Will
of
God
;
but
the
Blanks
were
to
denote
it
was
not
the
Will
of
God
they
should
have
Bishops
.
These
twelve
Tickets
being
mixed
,
were
delivered
to
a
young
Boy
,
(
not
knowing
what
he
did
)
to
be
distributed
one
to
every
one
of
those
nine
Persons
.
'T
is
manifest
that
the
nine
Blank
Tickets
might
every
one
have
been
given
out
unto
those
nine
Persons
,
from
whence
it
would
have
been
concluded
,
that
what
they
were
about
to
do
,
was
not
the
Will
of
God
.
But
it
so
hap'ned
that
the
three
full
Tickets
were
delivered
to
three
of
the
nine
,
sc.
to
Kunwaldius
,
Praelausius
,
and
Crenovius
.
And
hence
they
gathered
assuredly
,
that
what
they
were
designing
,
was
the
Will
of
God
,
sc.
to
seek
for
Episcopal
Orders
,
and
the
means
of
continuing
a
right
Succession
of
them
,
and
that
to
that
end
those
three
Persons
were
to
be
Ordained
Bishops
.
Accordingly
they
sent
three
Persons
unto
the
Church
of
the
Waldenses
,
who
were
at
that
time
planted
in
the
Confines
of
Moravia
and
Austria
,
acquainting
them
with
what
was
done
,
and
asking
their
Advice
.
One
of
these
three
was
Michael
Zambergius
,
so
called
,
because
he
was
Pastor
Zambergensis
[
†
](A42789-e96130-b)
†
Com.
p.
20.
,
his
true
Name
being
Michael
Bradacius
.
How
it
came
to
pass
that
he
was
sent
in
the
room
of
one
of
the
other
three
chosen
by
lot
,
is
not
said
[
*
](A42789-e96160-b)
*
It
may
be
〈◊〉
died
in
the
mean
time
.
.
But
Zambergius
,
and
the
other
two
,
coming
to
the
Wâldenses
,
find
one
Stephen
their
Bishop
,
who
calling
to
him
another
Waldensian
Bishop
,
and
some
Ministers
,
they
create
these
three
Bishops
with
imposition
of
Hands
,
thereby
conferring
on
them
the
Power
of
Ordaining
Ministers
[
*
](A42789-e96210-b)
*
Com.
p.
23
,
24
,
25.
H.
Boh.
Per.
p.
59
,
60.
.
〈◊〉
three
new
Ordained
Bishops
of
the
Fratres
Bohemi
were
the
three
which
〈◊〉
saw
in
his
〈◊〉
,
Guardians
of
the
Tree
,
that
is
,
of
the
Bohemian
Churches
.
Note
that
the
Waldenses
affirmed
themselves
to
have
had
a
lawful
and
uninterrupted
Succession
of
Bishops
from
the
Apostles
days
[
†
](A42789-e96280-b)
†
Com.
Pref.
ad
Rat.
Dis.
His.
Boh.
Pers.
ubi
supra
.
,
and
derived
their
Original
from
the
time
of
〈◊〉
.
This
hap'ned
I
reckon
,
about
1420.
or
1430.
About
the
Year
1500.
my
Author
witnesseth
that
there
were
200
Churches
in
Bohemia
and
Moravia
.
In
the
History
of
the
Bohemian
Persecution
,
after
their
having
received
Bishops
from
the
Waldenses
,
I
read
of
Lucas
Pragene
,
Bishop
of
the
Bohemians
[
*
](A42789-e96370-b)
*
P.
79.
,
of
Sanctuariensis
,
an
Italian
Bishop
,
who
for
Conscience
sake
embraced
the
Bohemian
Communion
Anno
1482.
[
†
](A42789-e96420-b)
†
P.
81.
and
of
Philip
,
Bishop
of
Sidon
,
being
among
them
Anno
1493.
Afterwards
in
the
Year
1499.
the
Bohemians
sent
as
far
as
Armenia
for
Ordination
[
§
](A42789-e96480-b)
§
P.
82.
,
their
Succession
perhaps
by
some
accident
failing
.
Anno
1542.
I
find
Joanes
Augusta
,
was
their
Antistes
,
The
next
year
after
,
I
meet
with
a
great
number
of
the
Bohemians
retired
into
Prussia
,
whom
their
Bishop
Mathias
Sionius
About
1556.
a
Synod
was
held
in
the
middle
of
Moravia
,
where
were
present
more
than
200
of
the
Clergy
.
Then
George
Israel
for
the
Polonian
Churches
,
and
Johannes
Blaboslaus
for
the
Moravian
.
At
the
same
time
Joannes
Nigranus
,
was
Bishop
in
Bohemia
.
Now
it
was
that
the
Arrians
(
afterwards
called
Socinians
)
disturbed
the
Peace
,
Order
and
Unity
of
the
〈◊〉
Bohemi
,
asserting
that
the
Pastors
(
alias
,
the
Ministers
,
or
Presbyters
)
had
power
to
do
all
things
in
the
Church
.
And
this
Paradox
they
pretended
to
advance
,
left
any
thing
that
smelt
of
Popery
should
remain
among
them
,
who
had
renounced
that
Communion
[
§
](A42789-e96750-b)
§
P.
44.
.
Therefore
they
were
so
true
to
their
Principle
,
as
not
only
to
disallow
of
Bishops
,
(
called
Seniors
,
or
Superintendants
)
but
to
deny
even
the
Godhead
of
Jesus
Christ
,
〈◊〉
forsooth
,
the
Papists
maintain'd
that
Doctrine
:
But
for
the
same
reason
they
might
as
well
have
denyed
the
Being
of
God
himself
.
At
the
same
time
,
in
〈◊〉
Polonia
,
the
Fratres
Bohemi
had
five
Bishops
for
so
many
Diocesses
,
vix
.
the
Crasovian
,
the
〈◊〉
,
the
〈◊〉
,
the
Russian
,
and
the
Belsensis
Diocess
.
Anno
1571.
Joannes
Calephus
,
was
their
Bishop
in
Bohemia
,
Joannes
Laurentius
,
in
Poland
,
Stanislaus
and
Andreas
Stephanus
,
Johannes
Adam
Comenius
a
Moravian
,
and
another
,
a
Polonian
,
their
Elect
Bishops
,
Annno
1632.
[
¶
](A42789-e96990-b)
¶
Com.
Ded.
〈◊〉
.
p.
8
,
9.
Comenius
after
this
History
,
(
of
which
I
have
given
a
Summary
Account
so
far
as
belongs
to
the
present
Argument
)
has
furnished
us
with
another
Tractate
,
which
he
stiles
—
Ratio
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
〈◊〉
in
Unitate
fratrum
Bohemorum
.
The
Pontifical
of
the
Bohemian
Brethren
,
as
I
may
call
it
,
the
substance
whereof
is
as
follows
.
—
He
tells
us
,
That
in
their
Church
whereof
himself
was
a
Bishop
Elect
,
there
were
four
Orders
of
Ministers
,
sc.
the
〈◊〉
,
sen
Antistites
,
or
the
Prepositi
Ministrorum
,
sometimes
called
Vigiles
,
or
Speculatores
,
Superintendentes
,
or
Superattendentes
,
that
is
as
he
explains
himself
in
our
Language
Bishops
.
2
Conseniores
,
which
he
expounds
Coepiscopi
,
or
Chorepiscopi
,
or
the
Bishops
Fellows
.
3.
Pastors
,
who
were
also
Ordinarily
called
Ministers
,
the
same
as
with
us
are
stiled
Presbyters
,
Priests
or
Elders
.
4.
Deacons
called
〈◊〉
Administratores
,
or
Adjutores
.
Among
the
Bishops
there
were
besides
a
Praeses
,
or
Primate
,
or
the
first
Bishop
.
The
President
's
,
or
Primate's
Office
,
among
other
things
,
was
to
appoint
and
call
Synods
.
The
Office
of
the
Bishops
,
besides
other
things
,
was
to
Ordain
all
Ecclesiastical
Degrees
,
as
Deacons
,
Pastors
Conseniors
and
Seniors
,
(
or
Bishops
)
.
All
other
Degrees
were
obedient
and
subject
to
the
Bishops
.
The
Conseniors
were
Coadjutors
to
the
Seniors
,
(
or
Bishops
)
,
had
power
with
the
Seniors
(
or
without
them
,
but
by
their
Direction
and
Command
)
to
be
Members
of
the
Ecclesiastical
Senate
,
and
were
above
the
Pastors
or
Deacons
.
Their
business
was
to
provide
for
good
Order
,
to
acquaint
the
Seniors
with
Misdemeanors
,
to
admonish
the
Ministers
,
to
observe
the
Ecclesiastical
Statutes
and
Customes
,
to
provide
fit
Persons
for
the
Ministry
,
to
exercise
Discipline
over
the
Ministers
,
together
with
the
Bishops
,
or
without
them
,
yet
by
their
Direction
,
to
examine
the
Candidates
The
Seniors
Ordain
all
Orders
.
The
Seniors
are
chosen
by
the
Seniors
,
Conseniors
and
Pastors
,
and
are
Ordained
in
a
General
Assembly
with
Imposition
of
Hands
.
At
the
Solemnity
is
sung
that
Hymn
,
—
come
Holy
Ghost
,
&c.
The
former
,
or
the
Ordaining
Seniors
,
offer
the
new
created
Bishop
their
right
Hands
in
token
of
Fellowship
.
The
Conseniors
theirs
in
token
of
Obedience
.
The
Conseniors
being
Ordained
with
Imposition
of
Hands
give
their
right
Hands
to
the
Seniors
,
in
token
of
Obedience
,
to
the
former
Conseniors
,
in
token
of
Fellowship
.
The
Ministers
offer
theirs
to
the
new
created
Conseniors
in
token
of
Obedience
.
Ministers
are
Ordained
by
the
Seniors
,
with
laying
on
of
Hands
of
the
Seniors
,
so
many
as
are
present
.
At
the
Solemnity
they
sing
that
Hymn
,
—
come
Holy
Ghost
,
&c.
The
new
Ordained
Ministers
give
their
right
Hands
unto
the
Seniors
and
Conseniors
in
token
of
Obedience
,
to
the
Pastors
in
token
of
Fellowship
,
and
the
Deacons
offer
their
Hands
to
them
in
token
of
Observance
.
To
conclude
,
it
most
be
confessed
,
that
Comenius
says
Bishop
and
Presbyter
are
one
,
(
I
suppose
he
means
have
the
same
Power
and
Authority
to
Minister
in
the
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
;
and
this
is
out
of
all
doubt
)
;
but
withal
he
intimates
that
a
Bishop
is
one
,
who
is
moreover
,
an
Inspector
,
or
Superintendent
,
and
for
this
cites
Acts
20.
28.
His
mind
is
(
I
suppose
)
that
St.
Paul
in
the
17th
verse
,
addressed
himself
generally
to
all
Presbyters
,
whether
meer
Elders
,
or
those
who
moreover
had
the
oversight
of
the
rest
.
But
in
the
28th
〈◊〉
he
turns
his
Speech
unto
those
,
especially
,
who
had
been
made
Bishops
.
And
this
is
but
what
the
Syriac
Version
seems
to
imply
,
wherein
(
as
has
already
been
noted
)
verse
the
17th
Elders
is
rendered
by
Kashishaa
,
which
properly
,
and
only
signifies
Elders
;
but
verse
the
28th
Episkupea
is
used
,
which
denotes
Overseers
.
However
this
be
,
if
any
one
carefully
observes
,
what
has
been
before
related
concerning
the
Government
of
the
Church
of
the
Bohemians
,
it
is
impossible
to
conceive
but
that
Bishops
(
or
Seniors
)
were
somewhat
more
than
meer
Presbyters
.
The
Division
of
Ecclesiastical
Officers
into
three
or
four
Orders
,
the
Power
of
Ordaining
appropriated
to
Bishops
,
the
great
care
they
had
about
getting
a
right
Succession
of
Orders
〈◊〉
Bishops
,
and
many
other
remarkable
passages
before
mentioned
,
render
this
point
uncontestable
:
From
the
whole
,
I
think
it
follows
,
that
the
Waldenses
,
and
the
Fratres
Bohemi
were
governed
by
Bishops
superior
to
Ministers
,
or
Pastors
,
long
after
they
were
separated
from
the
Roman
Idolatrous
Communion
;
yea
that
the
Waldenses
had
Bishops
within
150
Years
,
and
less
,
the
Fratres
Bohemi
within
160.
that
therefore
Mr.
O.
is
utterly
mistaken
,
who
avers
that
the
Waldenses
had
no
other
Ministers
than
Presbyters
for
near
500
Years
last
past
,
and
that
Presbyters
Ordained
Presbyters
without
Bishops
.
The
contrary
is
most
certain
,
if
my
Authors
have
not
deceived
me
.
Mr.
O.
was
not
insensible
of
this
Matter
of
Fact
,
of
the
Bohemians
deriving
their
Bishops
from
the
Waldenses
,
but
he
shuffles
us
off
with
saying
,
That
the
Waldensian
Bishops
were
only
Titular
Bishops
[
†
](A42789-e97600-b)
†
P.
157.
.
That
is
indeed
meer
Presbyters
honoured
with
the
bare
Title
of
Bishops
.
If
Mr.
O.
had
not
known
that
remarkable
Story
about
Zambergius
,
and
two
others
,
being
Ordained
Bishops
by
Stephen
and
another
Waldensian
Bishop
,
he
might
possible
have
been
pardonable
in
some
measure
for
this
his
rash
and
groundless
Assertion
:
But
seeing
he
has
thus
against
Knowledge
,
and
〈◊〉
perverted
the
〈◊〉
Truth
,
by
a
gloss
of
his
own
making
,
without
any
ground
,
how
any
one
should
excuse
him
I
can't
tell
,
and
whether
he
will
be
able
to
defend
himself
,
I
much
question
.
In
the
mean
while
I
'll
endeavour
to
demonstrate
that
what
he
has
laid
down
concerning
the
Waldensian
Bishops
,
as
if
they
were
such
in
Title
only
,
is
a
senseless
Surmize
,
altogether
false
,
and
no
manner
of
way
reconcileable
with
the
Faith
of
History
.
For
let
us
but
run
over
the
Story
once
more
very
briefly
,
and
the
truth
will
appear
bright
as
the
Sun
at
Noon-day
.
Let
it
be
rembered
then
,
that
the
Bohemians
after
their
Separation
from
the
Church
of
Rome
,
were
a
good
while
supplied
from
thence
with
Bishops
and
Presbyters
,
who
forsaking
the
Romish
Communion
joyned
themselves
to
that
of
the
Reformed
Bohemians
,
and
by
consequence
had
been
Episcopally
Ordained
.
But
the
Bohemians
considering
with
themselves
that
it
was
a
very
uncertain
thing
to
depend
upon
such
a
casual
way
of
having
rightly
Ordained
Ministers
,
and
very
much
doubting
,
whether
Ordination
by
Presbyters
alone
,
was
good
and
valid
,
after
much
deliberation
among
themselves
;
Solemnly
ask'd
〈◊〉
of
God
by
Prayer
and
Fasting
upon
that
Question
,
Now
,
if
they
believed
a
Presbyter
could
validly
Ordain
Presbyters
,
there
had
been
no
need
for
any
thing
of
this
kind
.
Why
should
they
be
deliberating
from
time
to
time
near
Six
Years
about
having
Episcopal
Orders
,
and
that
in
a
true
Succession
?
If
a
Presbyter
having
the
bare
Title
of
Bishop
was
sufficient
to
Ordain
,
there
had
been
no
need
to
have
sent
Zambergius
unto
the
Waldensians
:
It
had
been
but
affirming
that
Bishop
and
Presbyter
is
all
one
,
and
that
the
one
has
Power
to
Ordain
,
as
well
as
the
other
.
Why
all
this
Fasting
and
Praying
,
and
seeking
direction
from
God
about
a
thing
of
nothing
,
a
Name
and
Title
?
What
was
this
but
to
abuse
themselves
and
the
World
,
and
to
mock
God
also
with
Pretences
unto
Religion
and
Tenderness
of
Conscience
,
when
't
was
nothing
but
meer
Hypocrisie
.
Let
it
be
farther
considered
,
what
a
device
they
formed
about
resolving
themselves
concerning
the
Will
of
God
,
whether
they
should
seek
for
a
Right
Succession
of
Bishops
for
the
continuance
of
Holy
Orders
among
them
.
Is
it
likely
they
would
have
us'd
so
much
Precaution
against
any
fraud
in
the
delivery
of
the
Lots
and
in
the
Designation
of
the
Persons
?
And
all
this
only
that
they
might
have
a
true
Succession
of
the
Title
of
Bishop
,
when
they
had
the
Power
before
.
Zambergius
at
least
was
a
Pastor
(
or
Minister
or
Presbyter
)
before
he
was
created
Bishop
by
Stephen
.
Could
not
he
have
Ordained
Presbyters
as
many
as
there
was
need
of
,
and
so
transmitted
the
Succession
of
Holy
Orders
unto
future
Generations
?
I
am
perswaded
if
any
one
should
presume
to
say
that
〈◊〉
was
only
a
Titular
Apostle
but
indeed
no
more
than
a
Disciple
,
Mr.
O.
would
be
ready
to
rebuke
so
〈◊〉
a
Conceit
.
Can
any
one
imagine
the
Apostles
would
have
put
the
Multitude
upon
chusing
one
into
the
place
of
Judas
,
telling
them
it
was
necessary
his
Bishoprick
should
be
filled
by
another
,
and
because
they
chose
two
that
they
should
by
prayer
and
〈◊〉
of
Lotts
decide
,
which
of
the
Competitors
should
succeed
and
be
declar'd
Apostle
?
And
after
all
this
Apostle
was
nothing
but
a
Word
,
a
Title
,
was
not
different
from
Disciple
.
The
fratres
Bohemi
were
but
in
a
low
and
Poor
Persecuted
Condition
.
They
had
no
need
to
have
been
at
the
pains
and
Charge
of
Three
Persons
,
and
perhaps
more
taking
a
long
and
dangerous
and
expensive
Journey
unto
the
Waldenses
,
and
all
for
an
empty
and
unnecessary
Title
of
Honour
,
and
which
they
might
have
as
well
assumed
unto
themselves
as
the
Waldenses
had
done
before
'em
according
to
Mr.
O.
Well
,
but
perhaps
Mr.
O.
has
not
so
good
an
Opinion
of
the
Bohemians
as
he
has
of
the
Waldenses
.
The
Bohemians
perhaps
were
fond
of
Bishops
,
and
disirous
of
a
right
Succession
;
and
some
of
the
dregs
of
Roman
Superssition
yet
remain'd
among
them
:
But
the
Waldenses
were
nothing
so
:
Their
Titular
Bishops
were
nothing
but
Presbyters
〈◊〉
another
Name
.
Neither
will
this
do
Mr.
O's
.
Work
.
For
the
Bohemians
declared
to
the
Waldenses
all
that
had
past
among
them
,
their
Scruples
about
Presbyterian
Ordination
,
and
a
true
Succession
of
Orders
,
the
way
they
took
to
know
the
Mind
of
God
.
The
Waldenses
approved
of
all
they
had
done
,
assur'd
the
Bohemians
that
the
Succession
of
Bishops
among
them
was
from
the
Apostles
:
And
so
Stephen
and
his
Collegue
Ordained
Three
Bohemians
Bishops
.
Can
these
Good
Men
the
Waldenses
be
excused
in
all
this
,
if
Bishop
was
but
a
Word
,
a.
Title
〈◊〉
no
more
than
Presbyter
?
They
should
rather
have
told
them
(
as
Mr.
O.
has
assured
us
)
,
that
there
s
no
difference
between
Bishop
and
Presbyter
,
that
among
them
Presbyters
Ordain
Presbyters
,
though
under
another
Title
.
That
the
Bohemians
were
mistaken
,
and
that
it
was
〈◊〉
Rag
of
Popery
still
cleaving
to
'em
,
to
Advance
an
Order
of
Bishops
above
Presbyters
,
unto
whom
the
Power
of
Ordaining
belong'd
.
The
Waldenses
ought
plainly
to
have
thus
undeceived
the
Bohemians
,
and
let
them
know
their
Error
about
the
Necessity
of
Bishops
.
They
ought
not
to
have
assured
'em
that
they
had
a
Succession
of
Bishops
from
the
Apostles
,
and
bolstered
them
up
in
their
Error
by
creating
Bishops
.
If
the
Waldenses
play'd
the
Bohemians
this
Trick
,
I
cannot
esteem
'em
what
Mr.
O.
would
have
us
believe
'em
Presbytorian
Saints
,
but
as
rank
Hypocrites
as
I
ever
read
of
.
For
no
Man
can
〈◊〉
the
Waldenses
,
except
by
allowing
'em
to
have
been
of
that
perswasion
,
that
a
Presbyter
can't
Ordain
a
Presbyter
,
and
that
Orders
and
the
Succession
,
of
the
Power
of
Ordaining
must
pass
through
Bishops
not
Titular
,
but
really
distinguish'd
from
Presbyters
and
Superior
to
them
:
Nor
were
the
Bishops
and
Ministers
all
one
,
except
in
Title
.
How
then
came
the
Ministers
by
joining
Hands
at
their
Ordination
,
to
promise
Canonical
Obedience
unto
the
Bishops
?
Lastly
let
it
be
considered
,
that
the
whole
Rationale
of
the
Bohemian
Hierarchy
,
was
in
all
probability
taken
from
the
Waldenses
,
from
whom
their
Episcopacy
was
derived
.
Besides
,
if
Stephen
was
by
Title
only
a
Bishop
,
but
really
a
Presbyter
and
no
more
,
how
could
the
Bohemians
be
able
hereby
to
defend
their
Orders
and
the
Succession
of
them
against
their
Adversaries
abroad
(
meaning
I
believe
the
Papists
,
when
as
indeed
their
Ordinations
were
meerly
Presbyterian
,
though
in
Title
Episcopal
?
And
what
sorry
comfort
was
this
to
the
Bohemians
,
that
the
Three
Titular
Bishops
being
returned
to
their
own
People
could
only
Acquaint
'em
,
that
they
had
indeed
been
Ordain'd
by
two
Titular
Bishops
,
who
nevertheless
were
but
Presbyters
such
as
they
themselves
were
before
,
and
to
tell
you
the
truth
,
we
have
deliberated
long
upon
this
business
,
we
have
prayed
and
fasted
in
vain
,
and
God
by
answering
our
sign
in
the
Affirmative
has
but
at
last
deceived
us
.
We
have
taken
a
long
and
chargeable
Journey
to
the
Waldenses
,
but
have
brought
no
thing
back
worthy
our
pains
,
but
a
Word
and
Empty
Title
.
Thus
the
whole
Action
was
meer
Pageantry
,
a
Scene
of
Imposture
,
and
an
Intrigue
carried
on
by
Hypocrites
on
both
sides
:
This
must
be
confessed
,
if
the
Waldensian
Bishops
were
meerly
Titular
(
as
Mr.
O.
is
pleased
to
say
)
.
On
the
other
Hand
the
History
assures
us
,
that
the
fratres
Bohemi
were
exceedingly
comforted
and
encouraged
at
the
return
of
their
Presbyters
now
created
Bishops
and
deriving
their
Orders
in
an
uninterrupted
Succession
from
the
Apostles
,
as
they
believ'd
.
But
at
length
my
Adversary
seems
to
melt
a
litle
and
to
come
half
way
over
to
us
.
He
professes
thus
in
his
own
and
Brethren's
Name
—
We
dislke
not
that
for
Orders
sake
the
Exercise
of
this
Power
should
be
Ordinarily
restrained
to
the
Graver
Ministers
,
provided
they
assume
it
not
as
proper
to
them
by
Divine
Right
,
nor
clog
it
with
unscriptural
Impositions
.
From
this
Conclusion
of
Mr.
O.
it
follows
—
1.
That
in
Mr.
O's
Judgment
the
Church
may
restrain
the
Power
of
Ordaining
,
taking
the
Exercise
of
it
from
some
of
the
Yonnger
Fry
,
and
lodging
it
in
the
Hands
of
the
Graver
sort
.
But
the
mischief
is
,
the
Younger
sort
will
presently
cry
our
against
the
Usurpation
,
they
will
plead
,
That
they
are
Presbyters
as
well
as
others
,
and
have
an
Inherent
Power
to
Ordain
;
that
it
can't
be
taken
from
them
by
Ecclesiastical
Constitutions
;
that
they
can't
in
Conscience
part
with
that
Power
and
Right
,
which
the
Scripture
gives
them
.
And
in
short
will
turn
all
Mr.
O's
Battering
Rams
against
the
Graver
Ministers
,
which
he
has
planted
against
our
Bishops
,
and
with
more
Reason
too
.
For
St.
Paul
when
he
restrained
the
Power
of
Ordination
,
he
had
not
respect
to
Age
,
but
to
Ability
.
〈◊〉
by
was
but
a
Young
Man
,
when
Paul
set
him
over
the
Church
of
〈◊〉
,
and
I
have
reason
to
think
〈◊〉
was
so
too
.
For
he
admonishes
him
to
take
care
that
〈◊〉
Man
despise
him
,
c.
2.
15.
where
I
suppose
it
is
to
be
understood
that
Titus
also
was
but
young
.
And
Demas
Bishop
of
Magnesia
,
in
Ignatius
was
a
Young
Man
also
.
2.
If
Mr.
O.
would
be
pleased
to
give
me
leave
to
suppose
St.
Paul
as
Wise
as
himself
,
't
is
all
I
ask
.
I
will
suppose
then
,
that
the
said
Apostle
for
Orders
sake
did
restrain
the
exercise
of
the
Ordaining
Power
to
some
Persons
by
Him
made
Choice
of
,
and
for
the
prevention
of
Schism
did
prescribe
the
same
Rule
unto
the
Churches
,
which
Mr.
O.
sees
some
reason
for
now
doubtless
then
St.
Paul
left
not
the
Power
of
Ordaining
promiscuously
unto
all
Presbyters
,
but
limited
it
unto
a
few
,
I
will
not
say
the
Graver
or
Older
sort
,
but
the
Wiser
and
most
Holy
.
If
Mr.
O.
would
nourish
this
Principle
,
and
make
such
Deductions
from
it
as
't
is
capable
of
,
he
would
soon
see
that
Episcopal
Ordination
is
Apostolical
.
But
I
believe
his
own
Party
will
conn
him
no
Thanks
for
this
Liberal
Concession
.
Mr.
O.
adds
—
and
not
clog
it
with
unscriptural
Impositions
.
If
there
be
any
Order
in
a
Church
some
few
things
must
of
necessity
be
imposed
:
But
this
is
what
the
Dissenters
aim
at
,
that
every
one
may
be
left
at
Liberty
to
say
and
do
what
is
right
in
his
own
Eyes
.
The
Impositions
laid
upon
the
Ordained
among
us
are
not
such
as
the
Bishops
themselves
alone
devised
,
but
the
Whole
Church
consented
unto
,
and
though
they
be
not
prescrib'd
in
Scripture
,
they
are
not
Antiscriptural
nor
introduc'd
into
the
place
of
any
thing
required
by
the
Word
of
God
.
In
short
,
did
not
the
Presbyterians
when
they
were
in
the
Saddle
clog
their
Ordinations
with
unscriptural
Impositions
?
I
mean
that
of
taking
the
Covenant
.
But
this
is
to
carry
the
Controversy
into
another
Quarter
.
I
shall
therefore
let
it
pass
.
Of
the
Lollards
.
〈◊〉
has
,
it
is
〈◊〉
,
fastned
that
Practice
on
the
Lollards
that
their
Presbyters
after
the
manner
of
Bishops
did
create
new
Presbyters
,
and
that
every
Priest
(
or
Presbyter
)
has
as
good
a
Power
to
bind
and
loose
,
and
to
Minister
in
all
other
things
belonging
to
the
Church
as
the
Pope
himself
gives
or
can
give
.
But
to
this
it
may
be
reply'd
,
that
't
is
only
the
report
of
an
Adversary
,
and
perhaps
may
be
a
Scandal
.
It
may
again
be
answered
,
that
these
Lollards
came
too
late
to
prescribe
unto
the
Church
in
any
thing
by
them
practised
.
It
may
yet
further
be
said
that
,
when
People
grope
their
way
in
a
Dark
Night
,
it
is
no
wonder
if
they
now
and
then
stumble
.
They
are
to
be
both
pittied
and
pardoned
.
For
lastly
,
't
is
manifest
(
if
the
Testimony
of
their
Adversaries
concerning
them
be
admitted
)
that
the
Lollards
look'd
upon
even
Presbyters
as
an
Order
no
ways
approv'd
of
by
God
.
It
was
one
of
their
Maxims
—
Presbyteratus
non
est
〈◊〉
approbatus
a
Deo
.
So
that
Presbyters
as
well
as
Bishops
are
by
the
same
Authority
utterly
〈◊〉
the
Church
.
It
was
another
of
their
Opinions
〈◊〉
to
〈◊〉
(
〈◊〉
.
566.
)
that
no
Day
is
Holy
,
not
the
Lord's-Day
(
or
Sabbath
Day
as
People
will
call
it
)
,
but
that
on
every
Day
Men
may
work
,
eat
and
drink
,
&c.
If
then
the
Lollards
erred
thus
grosly
in
these
points
,
it
is
no
wonder
that
they
were
mistaken
in
that
of
the
Government
of
the
Church
by
Bishops
.
But
if
their
Authority
be
〈◊〉
to
establish
Presbyters
in
the
Power
of
Ordaining
,
by
the
same
Authority
it
may
be
proved
the
Lords-Day
is
not
Holy
.
Yea
,
rather
,
〈◊〉
the
Order
of
Presbyters
be
not
approved
of
by
God
,
't
is
in
vain
for
Mr
O.
to
equal
them
unto
Bishops
,
because
the
Lollards
brought
them
down
as
low
as
the
People
,
and
utterly
Cancelled
their
Office
,
at
least
denyed
it
to
be
of
Divine
Institution
.
In
short
,
I
think
they
were
a
well
meaning
,
but
ignorant
People
,
who
had
〈◊〉
and
Knowledge
enough
to
discover
the
gross
Superstition
,
Idolatry
and
Corruptions
of
the
Romish
Church
;
but
not
to
define
the
true
Doctrine
of
the
Gospel
,
about
Government
and
Discipline
.
Finally
note
here
,
that
this
Instance
of
the
Lollards
(
who
appeared
at
soonest
about
the
end
of
the
14th
Century
)
is
by
Mr
O.
brought
in
proof
of
this
Proposition
,
that
Ordination
by
Presbyters
was
valid
in
the
Primitive
Church
.
Now
I
don't
believe
that
there
is
one
other
Author
extant
,
that
pretends
such
Familiar
Acquaintance
with
the
Fathers
and
Councils
as
Mr.
O.
does
,
especially
not
among
the
Protestants
,
that
ever
reckoned
the
Practice
of
the
14th
Century
for
Primitive
.
The
4th
or
5th
Age
are
the
latest
we
are
wont
to
appeal
to
,
at
least
under
the
Title
of
the
Primitive
Church
.
But
what
?
all
are
Fathers
with
Mr.
O.
that
favour
his
Opinion
,
and
the
Primitive
Church
will
never
have
an
end
,
so
long
as
any
thing
can
be
found
conformable
to
the
Presbyterian
Discipline
.
Concerning
the
Boiarians
,
or
Bavarians
,
who
,
as
Mr.
O.
would
have
us
believe
,
were
once
Presbyterians
,
I
will
only
say
thus
much
in
short
.
I
find
in
their
History
written
by
Jo.
Aventinus
Edit.
Basil.
1580.
that
from
the
earliest
times
of
their
embracing
Christianity
they
had
Bishops
,
aud
long
before
they
submitted
their
Necks
to
the
Yoke
of
the
Roman
Pontifs
.
I
have
made
some
Collections
and
Remarks
out
of
the
fore-mentioned
Historian
;
but
will
not
trouble
my self
,
or
Reader
with
them
.
He
that
is
curious
,
and
has
a
mind
to
search
into
the
Principles
and
Practice
of
this
People
,
may
take
Aventinus
into
his
Hands
,
and
satisfie
himself
whether
ever
there
was
a
time
when
the
Boiarians
were
without
Bishops
,
and
governed
by
Presbyters
only
.
It
is
not
indeed
the
design
of
this
History
to
treat
of
this
Argument
directly
;
but
however
,
as
he
goes
along
,
he
still
occasionally
mentions
the
Boiarian
Bishops
,
even
before
they
were
brought
into
subjection
to
Rome
.
CHAP.
XIX
.
Of
the
Doctrine
of
the
Church
of
England
at
and
since
the
Reformation
.
THE
Controversy
at
last
is
brought
to
our
own
Doors
,
and
continued
down
to
our
own
Times
:
This
Doctrine
hath
been
maintained
also
by
the
Church
of
England
,
both
Popish
and
Protestant
.
Hereunto
belong
the
Testimonies
which
he
has
in
dvers
〈◊〉
of
his
Plea
drawn
from
the
publick
Acts
of
the
Church
and
State
,
and
the
〈◊〉
Sentiments
of
private
Doctors
,
both
of
the
Roman
and
Protestant
Communion
,
both
of
the
Established
and
Dissenting
Party
among
us
.
All
I
am
concerned
for
,
is
to
consider
whether
the
Identity
of
Presbyter
and
Bishop
has
been
declared
in
any
publick
Act
of
this
Kingdom
to
be
found
,
or
produced
by
Mr.
O.
out
of
the
National
Records
,
at
,
or
since
the
Reformation
.
For
't
is
nothing
to
me
,
if
the
Popish
Church
of
England
was
of
the
same
Opinion
with
our
Dissenters
,
as
perhaps
many
Papists
were
for
advancing
the
Power
and
Supremacy
of
their
Pontiff
.
Nor
is
it
my
business
to
account
for
every
casual
Expression
,
that
has
dropt
from
the
Pen
of
any
Episcopal
Writer
,
much
less
of
the
Dissenters
,
whose
Golden
Sayings
make
up
a
great
part
of
those
numerous
Quotations
wherewith
he
hath
〈◊〉
his
Plea
.
My
design
is
upon
Mr.
O.
himself
,
and
the
Authorities
he
has
gathered
out
of
the
publick
Transactions
,
or
such
as
were
directed
and
confirmed
by
the
Government
.
Mr.
O.
has
alledged
three
against
us
;
the
little
Treatise
,
commonly
called
,
The
Bishops
Book
,
another
,
called
,
The
Institution
of
a
Christian
Man
,
and
a
third
is
that
Celebrated
MS.
〈◊〉
Published
by
Mr.
Stillingfleet
,
the
late
Lord
Bishop
of
Worcester
,
in
his
Irenicum
;
all
which
(
as
I
shall
prove
)
belong
unto
the
Reign
of
Hen.
VIII
.
and
whatever
Opinions
are
there
to
be
met
with
,
are
not
to
be
imputed
to
our
first
Reformers
,
at
least
,
not
as
their
fixed
and
settled
Judgment
;
for
I
reckon
,
that
in
Hen.
VIII's
Days
,
the
Reformation
was
but
an
Embryo
in
the
Womb
,
newly
conceived
,
not
brought
forth
,
that
in
Edward
VI.'s
time
't
was
an
Infant
new
Born
,
and
in
its
Swadling
Cloths
,
and
in
Queen
Elizabeth's
Reign
arrived
to
the
best
degree
of
Perfection
and
Maturity
,
that
it
has
yet
been
able
to
attain
unto
,
during
which
Queens
Government
,
something
also
is
objected
to
us
,
which
shall
be
examined
in
its
Order
.
The
Bishop's
Book
,
was
an
Explanation
of
the
Ten
Commandments
,
Strypes
Mem
A.
B.
Cranmer
.
l.
1.
c.
13.
p.
50.
the
Creed
,
and
the
Grounds
of
Religion
,
fitted
for
the
Common
Peoples
Instruction
.
'T
was
composed
by
sundry
Bishops
,
of
whom
,
Cranmer
was
chief
,
by
vertue
of
a
Commission
issued
out
by
Henry
VIII
.
in
the
Year
1537.
established
by
Parliament
,
and
Printed
by
Tho.
Barthelet
,
with
this
Title
.
The
Godly
and
Pious
Institution
of
a
Christian
Man
.
Out
of
this
Book
,
Fox
has
furnished
us
with
this
following
Passage
—
[
*
](A42789-e99120-b)
*
B.
of
Mar.
Vol.
2.
That
there
is
no
mention
made
,
neither
in
the
Scripture
,
nor
in
the
Writings
of
any
Authentick
Doctor
,
or
Author
of
the
Church
,
being
within
the
Times
of
the
Apostles
,
that
Christ
did
ever
make
,
or
constitute
any
Distinction
,
or
Difference
to
be
in
the
preeminence
of
Power
,
Order
,
or
Jurisdiction
,
between
the
Apostles
themselves
,
and
the
Bishops
themselves
,
but
that
they
were
all
equal
in
power
,
&c.
and
that
there
is
now
,
and
since
the
time
of
the
Apostles
any
such
diversity
.
It
was
devised
by
the
ancient
Fathers
of
the
Primitive
Church
for
the
Conservation
of
good
Order
and
Unity
in
the
Catholick
Church
.
that
these
Bishops
(
the
Authors
of
that
Book
)
affirm'd
the
difference
of
Bishops
and
Presbyters
was
a
Device
of
the
Ancient
Fathers
,
and
not
mentioned
in
Scripture
.
Ans.
This
Deduction
is
downright
false
,
and
directly
against
the
obvious
Meaning
of
the
Words
.
The
design
of
that
Prince
at
that
time
,
was
to
throw
off
the
Pope
,
and
his
Jurisdiction
over
the
Church
and
Bishops
of
England
;
to
this
end
in
the
Bishops
Book
't
is
affirmed
,
that
as
the
Apostles
were
equal
among
themselves
,
so
were
the
Bishops
equal
among
themselves
in
the
Apostollcal
Times
,
or
(
according
to
Jerom
)
that
the
Bishop
of
Rome
was
not
by
Divine
Right
Superior
to
the
Bishop
of
Eugubium
:
That
therefore
as
I
anon
observe
out
of
The
King's
Book
,
Patriarchs
,
Primates
,
Metropolitans
,
and
Archbishops
,
and
particularly
,
the
Pope
of
Rome
had
originally
no
Preeminence
and
Authority
over
other
Bishops
;
particularly
,
not
over
the
English
;
only
that
it
was
a
voluntury
Agreement
among
themselvs
for
Orders
sake
:
But
from
the
beginning
it
was
not
so
.
Here
is
not
one
word
of
Presbyters
,
or
exempting
them
from
Subjection
unto
Bishops
.
Now
,
that
I
have
not
done
the
least
wrong
unto
this
Book
,
I
appeal
to
what
I
find
elsewhere
,
taken
thence
by
Mr.
Strype
[
†
](A42789-e99330-b)
†
Mem.
p.
53.
.
How
that
the
Church
of
England
is
in
no
Subjection
to
the
Pope
,
but
to
the
King's
Laws
:
That
Priests
and
Bishops
never
had
any
Authority
by
the
Gospel
,
in
matters
Civil
and
Moral
,
but
by
Grant
and
Gift
of
Princes
,
that
it
was
always
,
and
ever
shall
be
Lawful
unto
Kings
and
Princes
,
with
the
Consent
of
their
Parliaments
,
to
revoke
and
call
again
into
their
Hands
,
or
otherwise
,
to
restrain
all
the
Power
and
Jurisdiction
given
,
and
permitted
by
their
Authority
and
Assent
,
and
Sufferance
,
without
which
,
if
the
Bishop
of
Rome
,
or
any
other
Bishop
whatsoever
,
should
take
upon
them
any
Authority
,
or
Jurisdiction
in
such
matters
as
〈◊〉
Civil
,
that
Bishop
is
not
worthy
the
Name
,
is
an
Usurper
,
and
Subverter
of
the
Kingdom
:
That
the
Church
of
England
is
a
Catholick
and
Apostolick
Church
,
as
well
as
that
of
Rome
:
That
there
is
no
difference
in
Superiority
,
Preeminence
,
or
Authority
of
one
(
Bishop
)
over
another
:
But
they
be
all
of
equal
Power
and
Dignity
,
and
that
all
Churches
be
free
from
the
Subjection
and
〈◊〉
of
the
Church
of
Rome
.
The
Equality
here
spoken
of
in
the
beginning
,
and
in
the
latter
end
of
this
Period
,
is
not
between
Bishops
and
Presbyters
in
the
same
Church
,
but
between
Bishop
and
Bishop
,
Church
and
Church
,
and
particularly
,
that
no
Church
(
that
of
England
especially
)
is
subject
to
Rome
.
And
though
in
the
beginning
he
names
Priests
and
Bishops
,
such
Priests
haply
were
meant
as
took
upon
them
to
Act
here
in
England
,
in
Subordination
to
,
and
by
the
Popes
Authority
;
not
a
Syllable
of
the
Equality
of
Bishops
and
Priests
is
here
to
be
found
;
only
that
both
depend
upon
the
Civil
Magistrate
,
and
that
in
Civil
and
Moral
Matters
only
.
The
second
Testimony
alledged
by
Mr.
O.
is
another
(
if
haply
it
be
another
)
Book
,
entituled
—
The
Institution
of
a
Christian
Ans.
In
the
first
place
,
I
will
here
present
the
Reader
with
what
the
Author
of
the
Memorials
has
delivered
concerning
Bishops
Book
,
otherwise
called
The
Godly
and
Pious
Institution
of
a
Christian
Man
,
of
which
before
,
came
forth
again
two
Years
after
,
sc.
in
the
Year
1540.
but
bearing
another
Name
,
viz.
A
necessary
Doctrine
and
Erudition
for
a
Christian
Man
;
Printed
also
by
Barthelet
:
That
this
also
was
once
more
Published
in
Engglish
,
and
dated
Anno
1543.
as
at
the
end
of
the
said
Book
,
according
to
the
Custom
of
those
Times
;
though
at
the
bottom
of
the
Title
Page
I
find
it
dated
also
1534.
This
was
composed
by
Cranmer
;
but
called
The
King's
Book
,
because
Hen
VIII
recommended
it
to
the
People
by
Proclamation
,
added
to
it
by
way
of
Preface
,
and
assumed
to
himself
the
being
the
Author
of
it
.
Mr.
Strype
farther
acquaints
me
that
in
the
Year
1536.
had
been
published
a
Book
,
Entituled
The
Bishops
Book
,
because
framed
by
them
;
I
guess
it
the
same
with
that
I
first
spoke
of
,
and
that
it
was
written
by
the
Bishops
Anno
1636.
but
Printed
1637.
and
he
yet
tells
us
of
another
,
which
came
forth
in
the
Year
1633.
also
commonly
called
The
King's
Book
,
but
Entituled
,
The
Difference
between
the
Kingly
and
Ecclesiastical
Power
.
I
have
procured
a
sight
also
of
a
Latin
Book
,
going
under
this
Title
.
—
Christiani
Hominis
Institutio
Edit.
1544.
in
the
Preface
whereof
,
't
is
said
to
have
been
at
first
writ
in
English
,
and
then
Translated
into
Latin
,
by
whom
,
or
by
what
Authority
I
find
not
;
and
whether
this
be
the
same
with
Mr.
O's
,
I
know
not
;
but
this
is
sure
,
Mr.
O's
was
Printed
1537.
as
himfelf
confesses
;
mine
1544.
and
the
passage
cited
by
Mr.
O.
is
no
where
to
be
read
in
mine
.
And
since
nothing
like
it
is
to
be
met
with
in
any
of
the
other
Books
,
and
all
the
Controversy
in
those
times
was
between
the
Pope
and
the
English
Bishops
,
not
about
the
superiority
,
or
the
distinction
of
Bishops
and
Presbyters
in
the
same
Church
,
I
am
apt
to
fear
some
foul
play
.
But
concerning
the
Testimony
its
self
,
as
allowed
of
,
I
shall
speak
more
by
and
by
.
Mean
while
let
us
search
for
what
may
be
had
to
the
purpose
in
The
King's
Book
,
Entituled
A
necessary
Doctrine
and
Erudition
of
a
Christian
Man
.
If
it
shall
be
said
,
that
Mr.
O's
Deduction
before
spoken
of
,
was
borrowed
not
out
of
the
Kings's
Book
,
but
the
Bishops
Book
;
yet
I
hope
the
one
will
be
allowed
to
explain
the
other
.
Thus
then
I
read
in
the
King's
Book
.
—
That
the
Sacrament
of
Order
is
a
Gift
or
Grace
of
Bishops
Hands
.
That
this
Sacrament
was
conferred
,
and
given
at
the
beginning
by
the
Apostles
unto
Priests
and
Bishops
.
That
St.
Paul
Ordered
and
Consecrated
Timothy
Priest
:
That
the
Apostles
appointed
and
willed
the
other
Bishops
after
them
to
do
the
like
,
as
is
manifest
from
Tit.
1.
5.
1
Tim.
5.
22.
That
there
is
no
certain
Rule
prescribed
,
or
limited
by
the
Word
of
God
for
In
the
Christiani
hominis
Institutio
,
which
I
have
seen
,
there
is
some
disagreement
to
be
found
:
For
whereas
the
Necessary
Doctrine
and
Erudition
,
&c.
seems
to
speak
of
two
Orders
only
,
i.
e.
Priests
and
Deacons
,
the
Christiani
hominis
Institutio
,
expresseth
it
thus
—
de
his
tantum
Ordinationibus
Presbyterorum
&
Diaconorum
,
Scriptura
expresse
meminit
,
&c.
meaning
,
as
I
suppose
,
not
two
Ranks
and
Degrees
of
Church
Officers
,
but
two
Ordinations
or
Consecrations
of
Persons
appointed
to
the
Ministry
,
sc.
of
Presbyters
and
Deacons
:
That
is
,
the
Consecration
of
Presbyters
and
Deacons
,
is
only
expresly
mentioned
in
Scripture
,
and
that
Bishops
received
not
any
New
distinct
Imposition
of
Hands
:
And
so
Orders
in
the
necessary
Doctrine
,
&c.
is
to
be
understood
,
as
I
conceive
not
of
Persons
,
but
of
the
Ordination
of
them
as
't
is
often
used
unto
this
Day
.
It
is
not
then
affirm'd
in
either
,
that
there
was
in
the
Church
but
two
Ranks
or
Degrees
of
Ecclesiastical
Offices
,
that
is
Priests
and
Deacons
,
(
and
not
Bishops
)
according
to
the
Scripture
:
But
that
two
Consecrations
only
were
expresly
mentioned
there
,
nevertheless
a
superiour
Rank
might
be
found
in
the
Scripture
,
tho'
not
separated
thereto
by
a
new
Imposition
of
Hands
.
MrO's
quotation
seems
indeed
to
sound
quite
to
another
Sense
,
and
to
his
purpose
rather
,
sc.
that
in
the
New
Testament
no
mention
is
made
of
other
degrees
and
distinctions
(
in
Ordinibus
)
but
of
Deacons
(
or
Ministers
)
and
of
Presbyters
(
or
Bishops
)
How
Ministers
and
Bishops
crept
in
here
,
I
'll
not
say
:
But
they
are
capable
still
of
the
same
Sence
,
sc.
that
in
the
New
〈◊〉
there
is
no
mention
of
other
degrees
and
Distinctions
of
Persons
in
Orders
(
that
is
of
Persons
Ordained
by
Imposition
of
Hands
)
except
Deacons
and
Presbyters
:
For
Bishops
were
not
consecrated
again
by
any
express
appointment
in
Scripture
according
to
the
prevailing
opinion
of
those
times
.
'T
is
lastly
to
be
observed
,
that
in
the
necessary
doctrine
,
&c.
that
we
read
,
that
Patriarchs
,
Primates
Archbishops
and
Metropolitans
,
have
not
now
nor
ever
had
Power
,
Authority
and
Jurisdiction
over
other
Bishops
given
them
by
God
in
Scripture
,
't
is
in
the
Latin
Translation
added
cetrosque
Inferiores
Episcopos
aut
Presbyteros
,
which
makes
no
alteration
.
For
who
is
there
that
believes
not
,
that
the
Archbishop
of
York
has
no
Jurisdiction
over
the
Bishop
of
Chester
,
nor
over
the
Presbyters
of
this
Diocess
,
but
what
is
given
him
by
the
Ecclesiastical
and
Civil
Law
of
the
Land
,
for
Peace
and
Orders
sake
?
But
't
is
worthy
our
Notice
that
in
the
K's
Book
(
as
is
before
at
large
set
down
)
Orders
or
Ordination
is
taught
to
be
,
A
Divine
Gift
or
Grace
given
by
the
Imposition
of
the
Bishops
Hands
:
That
the
Apostles
gave
this
Grace
and
appointed
the
Bishops
after
them
to
do
the
like
:
What
need
we
any
more
?
Here
are
Bishops
having
the
Power
of
Ordaining
distinguished
from
the
Ordained
,
sc.
Priests
and
Deacons
.
But
when
all
is
said
,
and
whatever
Sense
any
Man
shall
think
fit
to
put
upon
these
passages
out
of
the
King
's
and
Bishop's
Book
I
make
little
account
of
.
At
best
they
express
the
Mind
and
Opinion
of
Hen.
8th
,
Cranmer
and
other
Bishops
,
who
were
all
still
ingag'd
and
held
fast
in
the
Toils
of
Popish
Errors
and
Superstitions
,
all
their
Design
hitherto
in
these
Books
being
only
to
cast
off
the
Power
and
Jurisdiction
of
the
Pope
.
For
the
Rest
,
they
continued
yet
Papists
all
over
.
Cranmer
himself
,
who
was
chiefly
imployed
in
drawing
up
these
Books
,
still
retained
his
old
Errors
and
Prejudices
suck'd
in
with
his
Milk
,
and
continued
Zealous
for
the
Corporal
Presence
even
to
the
last
Year
of
Hen.
〈◊〉
.
In
the
necessary
Doctrine
publish'd
1543.
't
was
taught
,
Ave
Mary
the
Blessed
Virgin
is
Honoured
and
Worshipped
,
that
the
reading
the
Old
and
New
Testament
is
not
so
necessary
,
as
of
Duty
the
People
ought
and
be
bound
to
read
it
,
but
as
the
Prince
and
Polity
of
the
Realm
shall
think
convenient
,
that
the
Publick
Law
of
the
Realm
had
so
restrained
it
.
The
seven
Sacraments
are
in
the
Book
its
self
asserted
and
explained
,
Prayers
for
the
dead
recommended
upon
the
Authority
of
the
Book
of
Maccabees
,
and
of
the
Ancient
Doctors
in
Masses
and
Exequies
.
Now
this
is
an
hopeful
Book
to
establish
Protestant
Doctrines
by
,
and
thence
to
affirm
,
the
Protestant
Church
of
England
was
of
the
Mind
there
were
no
more
Officers
in
the
Church
,
than
Bishops
(
or
Presbyters
)
and
Stripes
Men.
l.
2.
c.
1.
Cranmer
himself
was
Anno
1540
,
and
even
in
the
first
of
Edward
the
6
th
,
or
pretended
to
be
.
In
short
,
this
Character
Dr.
Burnet
gives
of
the
Archbishop
,
that
his
greatest
weakness
Burn.
Abri
.
B.
1.
p.
250.
and
p.
4.
5.
b.
2.
p.
22.
was
his
over
Obsequiousness
to
Hen.
VIII
.
There
is
then
no
Colour
to
ascribe
any
thing
we
meet
with
in
these
Books
,
as
the
free
and
settled
Judgment
of
Cranmer
,
much
less
as
the
the
Doctrine
of
the
English
Protestant
Church
.
And
if
any
Man
shall
pretend
by
these
Testimonies
to
overthrow
the
Divine
Right
of
Bishops
,
he
will
be
oblig'd
to
lay
aside
the
Divine
Right
of
Presbyters
also
,
who
were
at
the
same
time
and
in
the
same
manner
subjected
to
the
Will
of
the
King
and
to
the
Laws
of
the
Land
,
as
any
intent
Reader
may
observe
from
the
aforesaid
Passages
out
of
the
Kings
and
Bishops
Books
.
And
so
much
of
this
matter
.
The
Third
Testimony
objected
against
us
is
the
Celebrated
That
Cranmer
and
other
Bishops
set
forth
this
to
be
their
judgments
,
that
Bishops
and
Priests
were
one
Office
in
the
Beginning
of
Christ's
Religion
alledging
Jerom
in
Confirmation
.
Ans.
I
have
said
enough
of
Jerom
already
,
and
need
not
repeat
or
apply
it
here
.
I
chuse
1.
to
present
the
Reader
with
some
particular
account
of
that
MS.
before
I
directly
reply
to
the
Objection
.
The
King
called
a
Select
Convention
of
Bishops
and
Learned
Doctors
at
Windsor
Castle
,
who
were
to
give
their
Resolutions
of
several
Questions
relating
to
Religion
every
one
under
his
own
Hand
.
They
did
so
,
and
Cranmer's
are
particularly
〈◊〉
in
the
said
MS.
Those
which
belong
to
Our
present
purpose
are
.
Quest.
9.
Whether
the
Apostles
lacking
an
higher
Power
,
as
not
having
a
Christian
King
among
them
,
made
Bishops
by
necessity
or
by
Authority
given
them
of
God
.
Ans.
Cranmer
.
All
Christian
Princes
have
committed
to
them
immediatly
of
God
the
Whole
care
of
all
their
Subjects
concerning
the
Administration
of
God's
Word
for
the
care
of
Souls
.
That
the
Prince
has
sundry
Ministers
under
him
as
Bishops
,
Parsons
,
Vicars
and
other
Priests
,
who
are
appointed
by
his
Highness
unto
that
Ministration
:
That
the
said
Officers
and
Ministers
,
as
well
of
one
sort
as
of
the
other
be
appointed
,
assigned
and
elected
in
every
place
by
the
Laws
and
Orders
of
Kings
and
Princes
:
That
in
the
Apostle's
time
,
when
there
were
no
Christian
Princes
,
the
Ministers
of
Gods
Word
were
appointed
by
the
consent
of
the
Christian
Multitude
among
themselves
.
That
sometimes
the
Apostles
sent
and
appointed
Ministers
of
God's
Word
,
sometimes
the
People
did
chuse
them
,
and
those
sent
and
appointed
by
the
Apostles
,
the
People
of
their
own
will
accepted
,
not
for
the
Supremacy
or
Dominion
that
the
Apostles
had
over
them
to
Command
as
their
Princes
and
Masters
,
but
as
good
People
ready
to
obey
the
advice
of
good
Consellors
,
Quest.
10.
Whether
Bishops
or
Priests
were
first
:
If
Priest
,
then
the
Priest
made
the
Bishop
.
Cr.
Ans.
The
Bishops
and
Priests
were
at
one
time
,
and
were
not
two
things
,
but
both
one
Office
in
the
beginning
of
Christs
Religion
.
Quest.
11.
Whether
a
Bishop
has
Authority
to
make
a
Priest
by
the
Scripture
or
no
:
And
whether
any
other
,
but
only
a
Bishop
may
make
a
Priest
.
Cr.
Ans.
A
Bishop
may
make
a
Priest
by
the
Scripture
,
so
may
Princes
and
Governours
,
and
the
People
also
by
Election
:
The
People
did
commonly
elect
their
Bishops
and
Priests
.
Quest.
12.
Whether
in
the
New
Testament
be
required
any
Consecration
of
a
Bishop
and
a
Priest
,
or
only
appointing
to
the
Office
be
sufficient
.
Cr.
Ans.
In
the
New
Testament
,
he
that
is
appointed
to
be
a
Bishop
or
a
Priest
needeth
no
Consecration
by
the
Scripture
:
For
Election
and
appointing
thereunto
is
sufficient
.
I
have
somewhat
contracted
the
Archbishops
Answers
,
but
so
as
to
preserve
the
Sense
full
and
intire
,
and
somethings
I
have
omitted
not
Material
(
as
I
Judge
)
here
to
be
set
down
.
These
Questions
and
Answers
in
the
MS.
were
subscrib'd
T.
Cant.
and
this
is
mine
Opinion
and
Sentence
,
which
I
do
not
temerariously
define
,
but
remit
the
Judgment
wholly
to
your
Majesty
.
To
all
which
I
reply
1.
That
though
these
were
the
Opinions
of
〈◊〉
yet
other
Bishops
,
unto
whom
the
same
〈◊〉
were
put
were
otherwise
perswaded
.
Mr.
Strype
,
has
furnished
us
with
To
the
9th
Question
.
The
Calling
,
Naming
,
Appointment
,
and
preferment
of
one
before
another
to
be
a
Bishop
or
Priest
had
a
necessity
to
be
done
in
that
sort
,
a
Prince
being
wanting
:
The
Ordering
(
Ordination
)
appeareth
taught
by
the
Holy
Ghost
in
the
Scripture
per
manuum
Impositionem
cum
Oratione
.
This
I
doubt
not
will
be
own'd
a
truer
and
more
Scriptural
Resolution
of
the
Question
then
Cr's
was
.
To
Question
10th
.
Bishops
(
were
first
)
or
not
after
:
These
learned
Men
spake
here
cautiously
;
Cranmer
rashly
and
roundly
pronounces
.
To
Quest.
11.
Scripture
warranteth
a
Bishop
obeying
the
〈◊〉
to
Order
a
Priest
per
Manuum
Impositionem
cum
Oratione
,
and
so
it
hath
been
from
the
beginning
.
They
do
not
boldly
define
that
Priest
and
Bishop
were
one
Office
in
the
beginning
of
Christ's
Religion
,
as
Cranmer
did
.
To
Quest.
12
—
Manuum
Impositio
cum
Oratione
,
is
required
unto
the
making
of
a
Bishop
or
Priest
:
So
as
only
appointing
it
is
not
sufficient
.
There
is
yet
the
Judgment
of
other
Learned
Men
to
be
seen
in
Mr.
Strype
,
which
I
will
add
unto
the
former
.
To
Quest.
9th
—
Making
Bishops
has
two
parts
,
Appointment
and
Ordination
.
Appointment
,
which
by
necessity
the
Apostles
made
by
Common
Election
,
and
sometime
by
their
own
Assignment
,
could
not
be
done
by
Christian
Princes
,
because
there
were
none
;
yet
now
appertaineth
to
them
:
But
in
Ordering
wherein
Grace
is
conferred
,
the
Apostles
followed
the
Rule
taught
by
the
Holy
Ghost
,
per
Manuum
Impositionem
cum
Oratione
&
Jejunio
.
A
more
solid
and
Judicious
Answer
then
Cranmer's
.
To
Quest.
10
—
Christ
made
the
Apostles
first
both
Priests
and
Bishops
,
but
whether
at
one
time
some
doubt
.
After
that
the
Apostles
made
both
Bishops
and
Priests
,
the
names
whereof
in
the
Scripture
be
confounded
.
They
manifestly
imply
a
real
distinction
between
them
,
in
the
beginning
,
though
they
were
one
in
Name
,
or
rather
though
both
were
called
by
both
Names
indifferently
.
To
Quest.
11
—
The
Bishop
having
Authority
from
his
Prince
to
give
Orders
,
may
by
his
Ministry
given
to
him
of
God
in
Scripture
Ordain
a
Priest
,
and
we
read
not
that
any
other
not
being
a
N.
B.
To
Quest.
12
—
Only
Appointment
is
not
sufficient
,
but
Consecration
,
that
is
to
say
,
Imposition
of
Hands
with
〈◊〉
,
and
prayer
is
also
required
.
For
so
the
Apostles
used
to
Order
them
that
were
appointed
,
and
so
has
been
used
continually
,
and
we
have
not
read
the
contrary
.
From
the
whole
it
appears
,
that
what
ever
was
Cranmer's
Opinion
,
yet
others
were
of
a
contrary
Mind
:
It
cannot
then
be
truly
affirm'd
,
that
Cranmer's
was
the
Judgment
of
the
Church
of
England
,
as
farther
may
be
confirmed
by
what
Dr.
Leighton
reply'd
at
the
same
time
unto
the
Queries
.
1.
I
suppose
,
that
a
Bishop
has
according
to
the
Scripture
Power
from
God
as
being
his
Minister
to
create
the
Presbyter
,
although
he
ought
not
to
promote
any
one
unto
the
Office
of
a
Presbyter
or
admit
him
to
any
Ecclesiastical
Ministry
,
unless
the
Princes
leave
be
first
obtained
in
a
Christian
Common-Wealth
.
But
that
any
other
Person
has
according
to
the
Scripture
Power
to
create
the
Presbyter
,
I
have
not
read
nor
learned
from
any
Instance
.
2.
I
suppose
Consecration
by
laying
on
of
Hands
is
necessary
:
For
so
we
are
taught
by
the
Examples
of
the
Apostles
.
Thus
much
Dr.
Durel
,
who
read
the
whole
MS.
by
the
permission
of
Mr.
St.
reports
out
of
it
Durel
.
Vinc.
Eccl.
An.
c.
28.
p.
328.
in
his
Vindiciae
Ecclesiae
Angli
.
The
Judgment
then
of
Cranmer
set
forth
in
that
MS.
cannot
with
any
Truth
be
ascribed
to
the
Church
of
England
;
it
was
the
Opinion
but
of
some
Persons
,
from
which
their
Contemporaries
we
see
differed
much
.
But
,
2.
the
Argument
grounded
on
the
MS.
belongs
not
to
the
time
when
the
Church
of
England
was
Protestant
.
So
that
the
Resolution
of
those
Queries
were
rather
of
the
Popish
Church
of
England
.
For
the
Questions
were
not
put
by
Edw.
VI.
as
was
at
first
surmized
,
but
by
Hen.
VIII
.
To
make
out
which
note
.
1.
The
Manuscript
has
no
date
,
nor
any
King
named
in
it
,
that
called
the
Assembly
at
Windsor
.
One
may
then
ascribe
it
to
the
Father
Henry
,
as
well
as
to
the
Son
Edward
.
2.
Cranmer
submits
himself
and
his
Sentence
unto
the
Judgment
of
the
King
.
But
Edward
VI.
was
a
Child
too
young
,
and
unexperienced
to
ask
these
Questions
,
or
to
have
the
final
decision
of
them
referred
to
him
.
3.
Lee
,
Archbishop
of
York
,
who
subscribed
the
Answers
in
the
MS.
died
in
the
Year
1544.
[
*
](A42789-e101690-b)
*
Goodw.
de
Pres.
Eccl.
Anglicanae
.
some
Years
before
Edward
was
King
,
by
which
Argument
(
Dr.
Durel
says
)
he
convinced
Mr.
Still
.
that
the
Convention
was
held
at
Windsor
in
the
Reign
of
Hen.
VIII
.
not
of
Edward
VI.
4.
In
Mr.
Strype's
Memor.
the
King
makes
his
Animadversions
upon
the
Bishops
Answers
,
which
cannot
be
thought
the
5.
The
matter
of
the
Questions
,
and
of
the
Answers
of
Cranmer
sufficiently
prove
that
Hen.
VIII
.
convened
that
Assembly
at
Windsor
.
They
both
resemble
the
foresaid
King's
and
Bishops
Books
,
and
one
Animadversion
of
the
King
in
Mr.
Strype
(
which
is
,
since
they
confess
appointing
Bishops
belongeth
now
to
Princes
,
how
can
you
prove
that
Ordering
is
only
committed
unto
you
Bishops
?
)
bewrays
King
Henry's
aspiring
to
be
invested
with
all
the
Spiritual
and
Ecclesiasticall
Power
,
even
of
Ordination
it self
.
Of
which
,
see
more
in
his
Memorials
.
P.
16
,
17.
Append.
N.
7.
It.
Mem.
141.
Briefly
as
in
his
elder
Brothers
life
time
,
he
was
bred
up
in
Learning
,
that
he
might
be
Alterius
Orbis
Papa
,
or
Archbishop
of
Canterbury
;
so
after
he
was
King
,
the
Ambition
still
prevailed
in
him
,
and
was
not
,
we
see
,
easily
removed
.
6.
Early
in
the
Reign
of
Edw.
VI.
and
when
the
Reformation
was
going
on
prosperously
,
Cranmer
and
the
Protestant
Bishops
understanding
matters
better
,
and
having
freedom
to
speak
their
Minds
,
delivered
themselves
more
clearly
in
the
point
,
as
may
be
inferred
from
sundry
Observations
belonging
to
that
Time
,
and
upon
Record
.
As
-
1.
It
is
declared
in
the
Preface
before
the
Form
of
Ordination
drawn
up
and
agreed
upon
in
Edw.
VI's
Reign
.
That
it
is
〈◊〉
unto
all
Men
,
diligently
reading
the
Holy
Scriptures
,
and
ancient
Authors
,
that
from
the
Apostles
time
there
have
been
these
Orders
of
Ministers
in
Christ's
Church
,
Bishops
,
Priests
and
Deacons
,
by
publick
Prayer
,
and
with
Imposition
of
Hands
approved
and
admitted
thereunto
.
Cranmer
it
seems
was
now
come
over
to
Dr.
Leighton's
Opinion
,
declared
in
the
days
of
Hen.
VIII
.
-
2.
Cranmer
set
forth
a
Catechism
in
the
first
Year
of
Edw.
VI.
Anno
1548.
wherein
the
three
Orders
are
taught
as
of
It
appears
that
he
had
changed
the
Opinion
he
formerly
held
against
the
Divine
Institution
of
those
Ecclesiastical
Orders
.
-
3
In
the
Days
of
Edward
VI.
Cranmer
suspended
Heath
Bishop
of
Worcester
,
for
refusing
to
subscribe
the
fore-mentioned
Form
of
Ordination
.
-
4.
In
the
same
Reign
John
Alasco
,
a
Noble
Polonian
,
was
by
Cranmer's
means
made
a
Superintendant
over
all
the
Churches
of
Germans
,
Italians
,
and
the
French
.
—
And
Superintendant
is
but
another
Word
for
Bishop
.
Whoever
therefore
will
impartially
weigh
the
darkness
of
the
times
in
Henry
VIII's
Reign
,
where
the
above
mentioned
King's
and
Bishop's
Books
were
written
,
and
the
Answers
made
unto
the
King's
Questions
by
Cranmer
,
and
some
others
,
the
stifness
of
that
Prince
,
his
fondness
of
being
Head
of
the
Church
,
and
the
awe
which
the
Archbishop
and
his
Associates
in
the
Reformation
stood
in
towards
him
,
the
earnest
desire
they
had
at
any
Rate
,
and
on
any
Terms
to
be
rid
of
the
Pope's
Tyranny
,
the
falseness
,
uncertainty
,
and
absurdity
of
many
Opinions
delivered
by
the
Bishops
,
and
their
repugnancy
to
each
other
,
he
will
be
forc'd
to
confess
that
no
stress
can
be
laid
upon
any
of
their
Conclusions
,
much
less
that
they
were
the
first
and
steady
Sentiments
of
the
Protestant
Church
of
England
:
For
even
the
Popish
Clergy
also
generally
subscribed
them
.
But
the
sudden
alteration
of
the
Bishops
minds
as
to
this
present
Point
in
debate
in
Edward
VI's
days
:
puts
it
out
of
all
question
,
that
the
MS.
of
my
late
Lord
of
Worcester
,
belongs
to
King
Henry
VIII's
days
;
and
that
our
first
Reformers
their
mature
and
setled
Judgment
was
,
that
there
were
from
the
beginning
of
the
Christian
Church
three
Orders
of
Ecclesiastical
Ministers
by
Divine
Right
,
Bishops
,
Priests
and
Deacons
:
Let
us
hear
the
Reflections
Hist.
Reflect
.
l.
3.
p
,
289.
of
the
Learned
Prelate
,
the
now
Lord
Bishop
of
Salisbury
.
—
[
*
](A42789-e102380-b)
*
Abr.
b.
1.
p.
250.
In
Cranmer's
Papers
some
singular
Opinions
of
his
about
the
nature
of
〈◊〉
Offices
will
be
found
;
but
as
they
are
delivered
by
him
with
all
possible
Modesty
,
so
they
were
not
established
as
the
Doctrine
of
the
Church
,
but
laid
aside
as
particular
Conceits
of
his
own
.
And
it
seems
,
that
afterwards
he
changed
his
Opinion
;
for
he
subscribed
the
Book
that
was
soon
after
set
forth
,
which
is
directly
contrary
to
those
Opinions
set
down
in
this
Paper
,
viz.
Mr.
Stillingfleet's
MS.
In
the
next
Reign
't
is
no
matter
to
us
what
became
of
the
Divine
Right
of
Episcopacy
.
The
Protestant
Church
of
England
suffered
an
Eclipse
in
Queen
Mary's
days
,
but
soon
recovering
it self
under
the
Auspicious
Government
of
Queen
Elizabeth
shin'd
so
much
the
brighter
,
and
in
a
short
time
came
to
that
Settlement
which
it
enjoys
to
this
day
,
without
any
considerable
Alteration
:
And
to
our
present
point
,
〈◊〉
,
-
1.
That
the
Form
of
Ordination
of
Deacons
,
Priests
and
Bishops
,
with
the
Preface
before
spoken
of
,
were
confirmed
in
the
4th
of
Eliz.
1562.
and
again
in
her
13th
Year
Anno
1571.
and
which
to
make
short
work
of
it
,
continues
in
force
unto
this
Day
.
-
2.
In
the
general
Apology
of
the
Protestants
,
the
5th
Article
of
the
English
Confession
is
inserted
,
and
was
drawn
up
in
that
Queen's
time
,
Anno
1562.
and
runs
in
the
words
following
,
—
Farthermore
,
we
believe
that
there
be
divers
Degrees
of
Ministers
in
the
Church
,
Deacons
,
Priests
and
Bishops
,
to
whom
is
committed
the
Office
to
instruct
the
People
,
and
setting
forth
of
Religion
.
But
Mr.
O.
Objects
unto
us
the
13th
of
Eliz.
c.
12.
pretending
to
prove
thereby
,
that
Ordination
by
Presbyters
was
then
allowed
All
Persons
under
Bishops
,
who
pretend
to
be
Priests
,
or
Ministers
of
God's
Holy
Word
and
Sacraments
,
by
reason
of
any
other
Form
of
Institution
,
or
Consecration
,
or
Ordering
,
than
the
Form
set
forth
by
Parliament
in
Edw.
VI.
or
now
used
,
shall
in
the
presence
of
the
Bishop
declare
their
Assent
,
and
subscribe
to
all
the
〈◊〉
of
Religion
,
which
only
concern
the
Confession
of
the
true
Christian
Faith
,
and
the
Doctrine
of
the
Sacraments
comprized
in
a
Book
,
Entituled
,
Articles
agreed
to
by
the
Archbishops
and
Bishops
of
both
Provinces
,
and
the
whole
Clergy
,
in
Convocation
Anno
1562.
for
avoiding
diversities
of
Opinions
,
&c
,
—
and
〈◊〉
,
&c.
From
hence
Mr.
O.
infers
,
That
the
Statute
respects
not
Popish
Ordinations
,
only
,
if
at
all
,
but
gave
Indulgence
to
those
that
were
not
satisfied
to
subscribe
all
the
Articles
absolutely
,
among
which
was
the
Book
of
Consecration
;
and
that
the
Statute
requires
Subscription
only
to
the
Doctrine
of
true
Christian
Faith
,
and
of
the
Sacraments
,
which
he
would
prove
in
that
the
Statute
speaks
of
Ministers
of
God's
Holy
Word
and
Sacraments
,
and
the
Title
of
Ministers
is
rarely
used
among
the
Papists
,
and
is
common
among
the
Reformed
Churches
;
the
Ministry
among
the
Papists
being
a
real
Priest-hood
,
and
therefore
they
call
their
Presbyters
,
Priests
.
Ans.
The
Statute
,
doubtless
,
speaks
of
all
Priests
and
Ministers
,
whether
Papists
,
or
Dissenters
:
All
were
to
Assent
and
Subscribe
,
in
case
they
would
continue
in
,
or
be
let
into
any
Ecclesiastical
Promotion
:
But
chiefly
the
Papists
.
〈◊〉
first
,
I
assert
this
upon
Mr.
O's
own
words
.
—
The
Ministry
of
the
Papists
(
says
he
)
was
a
real
Priest
hood
,
and
therefore
they
call
their
Presbyters
,
Priests
.
On
the
contrary
,
I
do
not
remember
that
Dissenting
Ministers
have
ever
been
stiled
Priests
in
any
publick
Instrument
of
Church
or
State
.
Now
as
for
the
word
Ministers
,
even
that
also
(
it
may
be
)
points
at
the
Popish
Priests
;
for
it
had
lately
been
used
among
the
Papists
.
I
meet
with
it
in
Smith's
Recantation
[
†
](A42789-e102780-b)
†
Memor.
p.
171.
;
in
the
necessary
Doctrine
,
and
other
publick
Records
,
But
chiefly
,
I
consider
that
at
the
time
of
this
Act
of
Parliament
the
Popish
Priests
herded
themselves
among
the
〈◊〉
,
and
went
by
the
name
,
and
under
the
disguise
of
Dissenting
Ministers
.
For
the
more
effectual
discovery
of
these
Foxes
,
and
to
unkennel
them
for
the
security
of
the
Flock
,
as
well
as
to
curb
the
Dissenters
themselves
,
Ministers
was
thought
a
fit
Word
to
be
added
unto
the
Act
,
to
the
end
none
might
escape
subscribing
.
Mr.
O's
〈◊〉
here
turns
upon
himself
,
whilst
he
distinguishes
,
where
the
Law
does
not
,
contrary
to
that
wise
rule
of
Interpreting
Laws
.
Besides
,
these
Words
in
the
Statute
—
Who
pretend
to
be
Priests
or
Ministers
by
reason
of
any
other
form
of
Institution
or
Consecration
or
ordering
than
the
English
then
in
force
do
in
my
Opinion
,
plainly
and
more
openly
strike
at
the
Popish
Ordinations
,
the
Great
Design
of
that
Reign
,
especially
in
the
beginning
,
being
to
extirpate
the
Romish
Priests
.
It
may
be
urg'd
—
That
the
Dissenting
Ministers
by
subscribing
those
Articles
,
which
only
belong
unto
the
Confession
of
the
true
Christian
Faith
,
were
to
be
admited
or
continued
in
their
Benefices
,
and
by
consequence
their
Ordinations
allowed
,
though
they
did
not
declare
their
Assent
unto
the
Ceremonies
and
Traditions
,
nor
to
the
20th
and
36th
Article
of
Religion
.
Ans.
This
cannot
be
:
For
I
shall
shew
anon
that
they
were
oblig'd
to
subscribe
those
two
Articles
,
which
if
they
did
ex
animo
,
they
must
of
necessity
forth
with
enter
into
Episcopal
Orders
,
and
approve
of
and
use
Church
Ceremonies
,
which
was
what
the
Statute
aim'd
at
.
Nor
(
as
Mr.
O.
argues
)
does
the
subscription
seem
to
intend
those
only
,
who
scrupled
Traditions
and
Ceremonies
,
and
not
the
other
Doctrines
in
the
39
,
Articles
,
which
was
the
case
of
the
Dissenters
alone
.
For
the
Papists
scruple
,
many
other
of
the
39
,
Articles
,
which
also
were
to
be
assented
unto
,
but
were
not
scrupled
by
the
Presbyterian
Dissenters
(
though
other
Dissenting
Ministers
haply
did
)
;
and
though
the
Papists
scruple
not
Ceremonies
and
Traditions
in
General
,
yet
they
scruple
ours
in
particular
:
By
consequence
were
intended
in
the
Act
,
as
much
and
more
then
the
Dissenters
.
Mr.
O.
Because
the
Assent
and
Subscription
was
only
to
the
Articles
of
Religion
concerning
the
Confession
of
the
true
Christian
Faith
,
and
Doctrine
of
the
Sacraments
,
therefore
an
Indulgence
was
intended
the
Dissenting
Ministers
,
who
scrupled
nothing
else
but
Ceremonies
and
the
Book
of
Consecration
which
belonging
not
to
the
Christian
Faith
,
are
not
required
to
be
subscribed
and
assented
to
,
and
by
consequence
Ordination
by
Presbyters
was
here
allowed
.
Ans.
All
I
have
to
do
is
to
prove
that
the
20th
and
36th
Articles
among
the
39
,
were
by
this
Statute
required
to
be
subscribed
and
assented
to
.
And
thus
I
prove
it
.
'T
is
manifest
that
the
39
Articles
are
meant
in
this
Statute
,
viz.
from
these
Words
in
the
Act
—
—
Articles
agreed
to
by
the
Archbishops
and
〈◊〉
of
both
Provinces
,
and
the
Whole
Clergy
in
Convocation
Anno
1562.
for
avoiding
diversities
of
Opinions
in
Religion
.
Oh!
but
(
cries
Mr.
O.
)
't
is
meant
of
such
Articles
only
,
as
concerned
the
Confession
of
the
true
Christian
Faith
,
which
the
two
aforesaid
Articles
did
not
,
all
the
rest
being
opposed
(
it
seems
)
unto
the
20th
and
36th
Articles
.
Ans.
It
is
very
absur'd
in
my
Judgment
to
Interpret
Acts
of
Parliament
in
so
loose
a
manner
,
which
are
wont
to
speak
more
correctly
,
and
with
greater
exactness
;
and
if
this
had
been
intended
the
Statute
would
certainly
have
excepted
the
two
Articles
.
I
rather
believe
the
Articles
of
Religion
here
mentioned
,
are
opposed
to
other
Articles
of
the
Queen's
setting
forth
in
the
6th
of
her
Raign
,
Anno
1564.
and
to
be
seen
in
the
Collection
of
Dr.
Sparrow
[
*
](A42789-e103080-b)
*
Sp.
Coll.
p.
123.
124.
125.
&c.
called
,
Articles
〈◊〉
Doctrine
and
Preaching
,
for
Administration
of
Prayer
and
〈◊〉
,
for
certain
Orders
in
Ecclesiastical
Politie
,
Apparel
or
Persons
Ecclesiastical
,
and
Sundry
other
Protestations
.
All
which
were
injoined
by
the
Queens
Letters
and
Authority
only
,
unto
which
this
Statute
did
not
direct
an
Assent
and
Subscription
,
but
to
the
39
only
.
which
for
Distinctions
sake
are
entituled
Articles
of
Religion
,
and
in
Allusion
thereto
are
so
called
in
the
Statute
.
To
all
these
39
Articles
called
〈◊〉
of
Religion
,
all
Priests
and
Ministers
were
to
subscribe
:
And
this
was
enacted
as
well
for
the
avoiding
diversity
of
Opinions
,
as
establishing
of
Consent
touching
true
Religion
.
Moreover
by
Ceremonies
we
commonly
understand
things
of
meer
Humane
or
Ecclesiastical
Institution
:
These
indeed
considered
every
one
singly
by
it self
belong
not
to
the
true
Christian
Faith
.
Right
!
But
the
20th
Article
,
which
in
general
defines
and
declares
it
to
be
in
the
Power
of
the
Church
to
appoint
some
decent
Ceremonies
〈◊〉
a
Principle
or
Proposition
,
which
belongs
unto
the
true
Christian
Faith
,
as
being
founded
on
the
Word
of
God
,
and
therefore
with
the
rest
was
to
be
subscrib'd
.
The
Book
of
Consecration
confirmed
in
the
36th
Article
,
contains
the
Scripture
Rule
of
Ordination
by
Bishops
,
and
so
concerns
the
true
Christian
Faith
:
It
was
then
to
be
assented
unto
.
Finally
,
that
I
have
not
mistaken
the
Sense
of
the
Statute
or
the
Lawgivers
Intendment
,
I
will
support
my
Interpretation
by
the
Judgment
of
the
great
Oracle
of
the
Law
,
and
other
Reverend
Judges
before
him
.
Subscription
required
of
the
Tit.
of
Subscription
.
Clergy
is
twofold
:
One
by
force
of
an
Act
of
Parliament
confirming
,
and
Establishing
the
39
Articles
of
Religion
,
agreed
upon
at
a
Convocation
of
the
Church
of
England
,
and
ratify'd
by
Queen
Eliz.
c.
12.
referring
to
Canons
made
by
the
Clergy
of
England
,
at
a
Convocation
holden
at
London
,
1562.
containing
39
Articles
of
Religion
,
and
ratify'd
as
aforesaid
—
He
adds
,
that
in
Smith's
Case
,
who
subscribed
the
39
Articles
of
Religion
with
this
Addition
—
So
far
forth
as
the
same
were
agreeable
to
the
Word
of
God
,
it
was
resolved
by
Wray
Chief
Justice
,
and
all
the
Judges
of
England
,
that
this
subscription
was
not
according
to
the
Statute
of
the
13
Eliz.
because
the
Statute
required
an
absolute
subscription
;
that
this
Statute
was
made
for
avoiding
Diversity
of
Opinions
,
which
was
the
scope
of
the
Act
,
but
by
this
Addition
,
the
Party
might
by
his
own
private
Opinion
,
take
some
of
them
to
be
against
the
Word
of
God
.
Contrary
to
the
design
of
the
Statute
,
and
the
39
Articles
themselves
:
Belike
Smith
intended
to
decline
,
subscribing
unto
the
20th
and
36th
Articles
.
Hereby
then
't
is
apparent
,
that
this
Act
intended
no
indulgence
unto
the
Dissenters
,
nor
allowance
of
Presbyterian
Orders
.
In
King
James
the
first
's
Reign
,
was
publish'd
a
Book
entituled
Tractatus
de
Politia
Ecclesiae
Anglicanae
,
by
Dr.
Mocket
the
then
Archbishop's
Chaplain
,
whereunto
the
Author
annex'd
Jewels
Apology
,
the
greater
and
less
Catechisms
,
the
Publick
Liturgy
,
the
39
Articles
of
Religion
and
the
Homilies
.
Now
because
Blondel
builds
upon
these
,
I
ought
at
least
to
examine
the
Treatise
and
the
Catechisms
.
The
latter
,
I
cannot
get
a
sight
of
,
and
shall
at
present
only
look
into
the
former
,
from
whence
it
may
be
Collected
—
That
the
Office
of
a
Bishop
is
twofold
.
The
first
has
respect
unto
all
the
Faithful
of
the
Whole
Flock
:
The
second
unto
the
Ministers
of
the
Church
.
As
to
the
former
it
is
acknowledged
that
Bishop
and
Presbyter
are
the
same
Degree
of
Office
or
Order
,
or
call
it
what
you
please
.
For
the
Presbyters
Minister
unto
the
People
as
effectually
,
as
the
Bishops
in
all
the
Offices
and
Conveyances
of
Divine
Grace
:
And
on
this
account
are
the
Successors
of
the
Apostles
,
as
much
as
the
Bishops
are
.
The
Presbyters
Administer
the
Sacraments
,
Preach
the
Word
,
interpret
Scripture
,
reprove
,
exhort
,
incourage
,
and
comfort
,
publish
and
declare
Authoritatively
,
and
Ministerially
the
promise
of
the
Remission
of
Sin
,
and
Eternal
Life
by
Jesus
Christ
,
not
only
in
the
Sermons
,
but
after
Solemn
Confession
of
Sin
,
and
in
the
Visitation
of
the
Sick
,
and
of
such
as
have
been
troubled
in
Mind
and
Conscience
.
In
short
,
to
them
in
the
〈◊〉
Administrations
,
appertains
that
Principal
Gift
and
Commission
—
Receive
the
Holy
Ghost
:
Whose
Sins
ye
remit
they
are
remitted
,
&c.
Thus
far
Bishops
and
Presbyters
are
the
same
,
or
,
as
St.
Jerom
has
it
,
pene
Idem
gradus
.
This
is
not
to
be
doubted
of
:
For
so
they
the
Presbyters
are
the
same
with
the
Apostles
.
But
the
peculiar
and
distinguishing
Character
,
and
Office
of
the
Bishop
is
to
inspect
,
Govern
and
Ordain
Presbyters
and
succeeding
Bishops
.
On
this
account
the
Presbyter
(
as
Jerom
also
speaks
)
is
secundus
gradus
.
Thus
much
we
own
and
freely
confess
,
let
our
Adversaries
make
the
best
of
it
they
can
.
I
do
suppose
the
difference
and
Preeminence
,
and
Superiority
of
Bishops
from
and
over
Prebyters
,
and
their
Ordaining
Power
is
sufficiently
cleared
to
have
been
the
Doctrine
of
the
reformed
Church
of
England
from
the
beginning
,
though
Blondel
would
pick
out
of
this
Treatise
something
to
the
Contrary
,
which
is
not
my
business
here
to
take
to
task
.
Lastly
,
I
shall
only
produce
the
Testimony
of
the
English
Vid.
Acta
.
Syn.
Dor.
in
the
Rem
.
of
Mr.
Jo.
Hales
of
Eaton
.
Divines
in
the
Synod
of
Dort
held
1618.
1619.
The
Bishop
of
Landaff
,
Joseph
Hall
(
afterwards
Bishop
of
Norwich
)
John
Davenant
,
and
Samuel
Ward
,
having
approv'd
all
the
Doctrines
in
the
Belgick
confession
except
Three
Heads
concerning
Ecclesiastical
Orders
protested
—
That
the
Government
of
the
English
Churches
by
Bishops
,
Priests
and
Deacons
,
was
of
Apostolical
Institution
.
Particularly
Landaff
in
a
Speech
ran
through
the
three
Heads
or
Chapters
,
and
then
entred
this
Protestation
,
that
there
was
not
in
the
Apostles
Times
nor
ever
had
been
in
the
Church
an
Equality
of
Ministers
.
From
the
whole
I
gather
1.
That
it
has
ever
been
the
Judgment
of
the
Protestant
Church
of
England
from
the
Reformation
,
that
there
was
by
the
Scripture
and
ought
to
be
an
inequality
of
Ministers
,
and
that
Bishops
are
distinct
from
and
Superiour
to
Presbyters
.
2.
That
the
Presbyterians
and
Particularly
Mr.
O.
do
a
great
injury
unto
the
Memory
of
that
Great
Man
Archbishop
Laud
,
and
through
his
sides
unjustly
Wound
all
that
defend
and
assert
Divine
right
of
Episcopacy
,
impeaching
them
of
Novelty
and
altering
the
Doctrine
of
the
Church
.
That
Renowned
Prelate
came
into
Play
,
and
became
a
Leader
in
this
Church
not
till
after
all
the
Instances
,
which
I
have
alledged
in
proof
of
the
Divine
Right
of
Bishops
:
Even
the
Bishop
of
Landaff
and
his
English
Collegues
at
the
Synod
of
Dort
were
not
Inferior
to
him
;
nor
was
it
in
Laud's
Power
to
Influence
their
Opinions
.
He
was
not
Archbishop
of
Canterbury
till
the
Year
1633.
not
of
St.
Davids
,
till
1621.
two
Years
after
the
Synod
was
broken
up
.
It
cannot
therefore
with
Reason
〈◊〉
thought
,
that
these
excellent
Persons
,
who
assisted
at
that
Assembly
,
were
led
by
the
Nose
,
or
aw'd
by
the
Authority
of
Dr.
Laud.
Nor
do
I
find
that
he
was
any
ways
interested
in
their
Deliberations
,
or
that
he
sent
to
them
any
Letters
,
or
Dispatches
upon
that
,
or
indeed
any
other
subject
.
It
can
hardly
be
believed
,
since
so
many
of
the
Calvinistical
Points
were
then
established
,
doubtless
,
to
the
regret
of
this
Prelate
.
Besides
,
Dr.
Andrews
had
before
Laud
,
written
a
Book
to
prove
the
Divine
Right
of
Bishops
,
surely
not
sway'd
thereto
by
Laud
,
who
was
,
or
had
been
his
Chaplain
.
But
to
remove
all
the
invidious
Calumnies
and
Reproaches
,
that
have
been
falsly
laid
upon
that
unfortunate
Prelate
,
and
the
rest
,
who
before
,
and
after
him
,
have
maintained
the
Divine
Right
of
Bishops
,
it
were
sufficient
to
call
to
remembrance
,
that
it
was
the
Doctrine
of
Ignatius
,
whose
Testimonies
't
is
needless
to
repeat
any
more
:
also
of
St.
Cyprian
,
Jâm
pridem
per
omnes
Provincias
&
Urbes
Ordinati
sunt
(
Episcopi
)
and
what
he
Cyp.
Ep.
55.
means
by
his
jam
pridem
,
he
explains
elsewhere
,
Sciam
Episcopos
plurimos
Ecclesiis
Dominicis
in
toto
Mundo
Divina
dignatione
praepositos
.
Evagrius
.
,
which
have
been
remembred
before
.
Now
if
some
of
Laud's
immediate
Predecessors
,
or
Contemporaries
,
can
be
produced
(
granting
this
)
as
being
of
another
Mind
,
not
seeing
,
or
not
openly
confessing
and
contesting
the
Truth
,
't
was
surely
for
want
of
Understanding
,
Courage
,
or
Integrity
.
But
why
these
failings
and
defects
should
be
laid
in
the
balance
with
the
undoubted
Testimonies
of
the
Fathers
,
or
prejudice
the
Wisdom
and
Faithfulness
of
others
,
yea
the
Publick
and
Authoritative
Declarations
of
our
Church
too
,
is
beyond
my
Capacity
to
comprehend
.
This
is
out
of
question
(
I
judge
)
that
Presbyterian
Ordination
,
the
Identity
and
Parity
of
Bishops
and
Presbyters
,
has
never
yet
been
pronounced
lawful
,
much
less
of
Divine
Right
,
by
any
Publick
and
AuthentickSentence
of
the
Church
of
England
,
since
the
Reformation
except
haply
by
that
pack't
Assembly
of
Divines
,
not
one
of
whom
were
Legally
chose
to
sit
at
Westminster
.
Some
private
Writers
may
haply
be
found
inclining
to
the
Opinion
,
whereby
Presbyters
are
equal'd
unto
Bishops
,
and
thought
to
be
of
the
same
Degree
;
but
I
make
no
reckoning
of
such
private
Authorities
,
though
they
were
otherwise
Persons
of
singular
Learning
,
Wisdom
and
Piety
:
And
some
Passages
favouring
the
Presbyterian
Pretences
may
possibly
be
found
in
the
publick
Deliberations
and
Conclusions
,
whilst
Hen.
VIII
.
was
Vindicating
this
Church
from
the
Tyranny
of
the
Pope
,
and
in
his
stead
assuming
it
to
himself
.
Thus
far
we
chang'd
our
Rider
,
not
our
Burthen
;
but
it
ought
to
be
considered
,
that
as
in
those
difficult
times
the
Episcopal
Power
was
subjected
to
the
will
of
the
Prince
,
and
to
the
Law
of
the
Land
,
and
so
may
be
thought
not
by
Divine
Right
,
but
Humane
Constitution
;
even
so
was
the
Power
and
Office
of
Parsons
,
Vicars
and
Priests
,
or
Presbyters
,
and
from
thence
also
it
〈◊〉
with
equal
Force
,
that
these
also
are
but
by
Humane
Law
,
and
thence
derive
their
Authority
.
Let
us
for
example
but
look
back
unto
Cranmer's
Answer
to
the
King
's
9th
Query
,
and
we
may
be
convinced
hereof
.
The
substance
of
it
is
—
That
the
whole
care
of
the
Church
is
immediately
committed
to
the
Prince
.
That
Parsons
,
Vicars
,
and
other
Priests
,
were
to
be
appointed
by
His
Highness
to
their
Ministrations
.
To
the
10
th
Query
,
that
the
Prince
may
make
a
Priest
.
He
that
will
infer
hence
,
that
according
to
the
Doctrine
of
the
Church
of
England
at
that
time
,
Bishops
were
not
Jure
Divino
,
but
by
the
Law
of
the
Land
,
must
be
also
forced
to
conclude
,
that
Priests
and
Ministers
hold
by
the
same
Tenure
and
no
other
:
And
from
the
whole
it
will
follow
that
Mr.
Hobbs
was
in
the
right
,
when
he
affirms
the
Will
and
Laws
of
the
Prince
to
be
the
Standard
of
the
Peoples
Religion
.
Furthermore
,
we
are
often
confronted
with
the
Doctrine
and
Practice
of
the
〈◊〉
Protestant
Churches
,
and
called
upon
to
have
a
more
favourable
,
charitable
,
and
just
Opinion
of
them
,
and
their
Ministry
.
Hereunto
it
will
suffice
me
only
to
answer
with
St.
Paul
,
What
have
I
to
do
to
judge
them
that
are
without
?
But
I
farther
consider
with
what
Difficulties
they
at
first
struggled
,
and
still
labour
under
,
and
am
apt
to
think
that
the
same
good
God
that
would
have
Mercy
,
and
not
Sacrifice
,
and
so
dispensed
with
his
own
appointed
Sabbath
,
may
(
and
I
hope
)
will
accept
their
Sacrifices
,
though
they
be
not
prepared
according
to
the
purification
of
the
sanctuary
.
I
also
consider
that
the
Foreign
Protestants
are
by
this
time
,
(
many
of
them
,
even
the
most
Learned
)
quite
Captivated
by
a
long
Prejudice
,
which
the
continuance
of
the
Presbyterian
Government
among
them
for
so
many
Years
,
since
the
Reformation
has
now
perhaps
,
rendred
unconquerable
,
and
that
therefore
God
may
(
and
I
hope
does
)
wink
at
this
Ignorance
;
for
such
I
reckon
an
inveterate
Prejudice
to
be
.
Besides
,
though
many
of
the
Foreign
Protestant
Ministers
have
Zealously
defended
the
Presbyterian
Government
,
and
seem
not
at
all
willing
,
or
inclined
to
Model
themselves
into
the
Episcopal
Platform
,
though
it
were
in
their
power
,
and
opportunity
served
;
yet
others
of
them
have
been
contrary
minded
,
and
even
in
the
〈◊〉
of
that
darkness
,
wherein
they
lay
,
have
been
able
do
discover
the
Truth
,
which
shined
through
the
Clouds
of
their
Hardships
and
Prepossessions
.
I
will
not
here
mention
the
French
Letters
written
unto
the
present
Honourable
,
and
Right
Reverend
Bishop
of
London
.
Mr.
O.
has
most
maliciously
Suggested
as
if
the
Authors
were
Brib'd
,
or
by
some
indirect
means
induc'd
to
write
as
they
did
.
I
do
not
know
upon
what
Authority
he
has
published
this
scandalous
surmize
,
and
if
it
had
been
fit
to
take
up
Reports
by
Conjecture
,
or
uncertain
Fame
meerly
to
blast
the
Credit
of
a
Writer
,
I
could
have
told
him
〈◊〉
now
,
what
I
have
heard
(
from
one
who
was
no
stranger
to
the
Presbyterian
Intregues
in
1640.
and
so
on
,
and
may
be
presumed
to
speak
what
he
had
〈◊〉
to
know
,
sc.
)
that
Mounsieur
Blondel
came
into
England
,
with
hopes
to
be
preferred
in
our
Church
by
Archbishop
〈◊〉
,
but
it
seems
mist
his
aim
:
That
he
was
afterwards
hired
by
the
Presbyterians
to
write
for
them
against
Episcopacy
.
Thus
Revenge
and
the
Love
of
Money
were
the
Parents
of
that
Celebrated
Book
entituled
—
Apologia
pro
Hieronymi
Sententia
:
And
Lastly
,
that
even
in
the
Apology
its
self
some
things
were
intermixed
,
which
undid
and
overthrew
all
he
seemed
to
have
advanced
in
defence
of
Presbytery
:
Which
therefore
he
was
forced
to
expunge
before
he
recovered
the
Promised
Reward
of
his
Labour
.
But
after
this
let
us
now
hear
what
a
Learned
Protestant
,
a
Foreign
Divine
has
written
upon
this
Subject
,
I
mean
Peter
Du
Moulin
,
in
a
Letter
to
a
Scotch
Man
Anno
1640.
He
says
—
That
the
French
Protestant
Church
never
put
down
Bishops
(
p.
6.
)
nor
encouraged
others
to
do
it
:
That
necessity
not
Choice
keeps
'em
from
setting
up
Episcopal
Order
:
That
at
Geneva
,
where
Episcopacy
was
changed
into
the
Presbyterian
Form
,
necessity
bore
more
sway
than
Council
,
and
Policie
than
Divinity
:
That
the
Reformation
in
France
began
among
the
People
,
in
Scotland
(
and
England
)
at
Court
:
No
wonder
then
that
due
Regard
was
not
had
unto
the
Primitive
Government
in
the
one
as
well
as
the
other
,
that
the
French
Protestants
have
much
ado
to
maintain
their
Ministers
by
reason
of
their
Poverty
:
That
if
they
should
establish
Bishops
,
it
would
provoke
their
Adversaries
and
raise
them
to
Jealousy
,
and
〈◊〉
would
look
more
like
direct
Schism
,
two
Bishops
being
at
the
same
time
in
oneSee
:
That
they
are
a
Body
prepar'd
for
Bishops
,
when
Bishops
will
reform
:
He
gives
an
Instance
,
that
somewhere
the
Bishop
in
his
Cathedral
preach'd
the
pure
Word
of
God
,
and
the
Protestants
submitted
to
him
.
He
farther
Apologizes
,
that
their
King
will
not
suffer
them
to
have
Bishops
.
I
only
add
,
hereunto
Bishop
Hall's
Observation
,
how
that
,
when
our
Bishop
of
Landaff
at
Div.
Right
of
Episco
.
p.
9.
the
Synod
of
Dort
,
charg'd
the
Divisions
there
(
in
Holland
)
upon
their
want
of
Episcopacy
he
received
this
only
in
Answer
—
Domine
nos
non
sumus
adeo
faelices
.
Whether
this
was
spoken
by
way
of
Modest
excuse
,
and
a
tacit
approbation
of
Bishops
,
I
know
not
of
certaitny
;
but
believe
so
;
at
least
I
look
upon
it
as
a
shifting
off
the
Question
about
Episcopacy
the
President
not
caring
to
enter
into
the
Lists
with
the
Bishop
upon
that
Argument
.
But
if
he
intended
it
(
as
perhaps
Mr.
O.
will
think
)
for
a
Scoff
,
I
will
take
the
Liberty
to
say
,
that
as
the
High-Priest
prophesied
a
great
Truth
but
intended
it
not
,
neither
understood
it
;
so
might
the
President
too
stumble
upon
a
great
Truth
,
and
intimate
Episcopacy
to
be
the
Happiness
of
a
Church
,
tho'
at
the
same
time
he
was
otherwise
perswaded
or
did
not
discern
it
.
For
there
are
a
sort
of
Creatures
,
which
cannot
endure
the
Light
,
and
by
how
much
clearer
the
Sun
shines
see
so
much
the
worse
:
Like
Saul
going
to
Damascus
before
his
Conversion
,
are
struck
blind
with
the
Glory
and
Lustre
of
Truth
which
surrounds
them
.
This
we
are
assured
of
by
manifold
and
woful
Experience
,
and
therefore
need
not
wonder
at
it
.
The
Eyes
of
the
Understanding
labour
under
the
same
natural
Weakness
,
as
those
of
the
Body
do
.
When
we
have
continued
long
in
the
dark
or
have
shut
our
Eyes
for
somewhile
,
we
are
not
able
to
behold
the
Objects
of
Sense
,
though
placed
at
their
proper
distance
,
and
in
a
Medium
duly
fitted
for
their
Reception
.
Thus
when
Pride
,
〈◊〉
and
Prepossession
,
when
Passion
,
Sturdiness
and
Secular
Interest
,
when
contentiousness
Opposition
,
and
Hatred
have
for
some
time
drawn
a
veil
over
the
Understanding
,
it
is
not
easy
for
these
Men
to
admit
any
Notions
,
that
thwart
and
contradict
those
,
which
they
have
for
a
long
time
before
entertained
,
let
the
Evidence
brought
for
their
Conviction
be
never
so
bright
and
clear
.
For
instance
,
Mr.
O.
as
has
been
noted
in
the
former
Chapter
has
frankly
acknowledged
it
as
fit
and
warrantable
,
that
some
Grave
Divines
be
set
over
the
Churches
for
Peace
and
Order
sake
,
whilst
the
Younger
sort
are
for
the
present
to
be
excluded
or
suspended
from
the
exercise
of
their
Inherent
Power
.
Now
Mr.
O.
is
not
able
(
I
perceive
)
to
see
,
that
this
very
reasonable
Concession
of
his
,
if
rightly
pursu'd
and
improved
as
it
ought
;
puts
an
end
unto
the
Controvery
.
For
though
he
has
so
frequently
and
unreasonably
at
every
turn
declared
against
Ecclesiastical
Restraints
,
yet
here
he
allows
'em
,
and
supposes
it
in
the
Power
of
the
Church
to
restrain
some
from
the
exercise
of
their
Power
,
and
to
reserve
the
Cheif
care
and
Government
of
the
Church
,
to
a
few
of
the
most
Eminent
.
Here
I
say
,
then
the
Cudgels
are
in
effect
laid
down
,
and
Episcopacy
is
sufficiently
vindicated
and
approved
of
by
the
Adversary
himself
,
though
before
he
is
aware
.
No!
it
will
be
replyed
;
for
still
care
must
be
taken
,
that
it
be
not
however
admitted
,
as
of
Divine
Right
.
Well!
But
if
an
Ecclesiastical
Right
be
sufficient
to
oblige
us
unto
Obedience
to
our
Superiors
(
as
in
the
concession
its
self
he
must
suppose
)
then
have
our
Reverend
Bishops
a
good
Title
to
their
own
Power
,
and
to
our
subjection
to
'em
.
Besides
,
how
easy
is
it
to
improve
this
Concession
even
to
the
Vindication
of
the
Divine
Right
of
Bishops
?
For
if
Mr.
O.
(
who
,
when
he
suffers
himself
to
think
,
is
,
I
am
hereby
convinc'd
,
a
Wise
Man
,
and
sees
far
before
Him
)
will
but
turn
himself
about
and
look
the
other
way
,
that
is
behind
him
:
I
mean
,
will
but
admit
St.
Paul
and
the
Apostles
heretofore
to
have
been
as
wise
as
himself
is
now
,
it
would
be
no
hard
matter
(
one
would
imagine
)
to
convince
him
presently
of
the
Divine
,
that
is
,
Apostolical
Constitution
of
Bishops
.
If
it
is
now
,
it
was
also
in
the
Apostles
Days
fit
,
and
reasonable
to
commit
the
care
and
Government
of
the
Churches
unto
some
Grave
and
Worthy
Presbyters
:
And
if
so
,
can
we
possibly
believe
the
Apostles
did
not
appoint
what
their
own
Reason
and
Prudence
suggested
to
them
?
But
let
us
pass
to
another
Instance
.
Mr.
Stoddon
in
his
Pastoral
Charge
,
has
confessed
[
*
](A42789-e104450-b)
*
Past.
Charge
.
p.
105
,
108.
that
there
were
Rulers
in
the
Church
,
who
were
not
Teachers
,
as
appears
plainly
to
me
(
says
he
)
from
1
Tim.
5.
17.
although
I
suppose
the
power
of
Preaching
was
committed
to
them
.
Something
of
this
kind
I
have
in
the
precedent
Papers
offered
my self
,
and
could
farther
confirm
it
out
of
Mr.
Mede
,
if
it
were
worth
the
while
and
suited
my
Design
.
But
Mr.
Stoddon
again
distinguishes
between
what
is
primarily
,
and
what
is
secondarily
Anatkema
〈◊〉
.
ADDENDA
to
the
19
th
Chapter
.
THere
is
an
Objection
which
escaped
me
in
its
proper
place
,
and
therefore
must
here
be
considered
,
't
is
,
that
Presbyterian
Orders
have
been
allowed
here
in
England
,
that
Peter
Martyr
,
Bucer
,
P.
Fagius
,
&c.
were
suffered
to
exercise
their
Ministry
among
us
.
Ans.
1.
Allowances
against
an
Establish'd
Law
are
not
very
defensible
,
especially
when
that
Law
was
believed
to
be
of
Divine
Right
,
which
is
the
Case
here
before
us
of
Ordination
by
Bishops
,
let
this
then
be
put
among
the
Infirmities
and
mistakes
of
our
first
Reformers
.
2.
Our
first
Reformers
might
think
it
justifiable
in
Charity
to
Foreign
Protestant
Churches
,
which
had
not
the
opportunity
of
Episcopal
Ordination
;
the
present
necessities
and
Service
of
the
Church
required
it
:
The
Reformation
otherwise
would
have
received
some
stop
or
Prejudice
by
bringing
this
Point
into
Controversy
.
For
some
such
like
Reason
as
this
it
was
,
that
the
Church
of
England
in
the
Reign
of
K.
James
I.
sent
Delegates
unto
the
Synod
of
Dort
,
and
contented
her self
after
the
Conclusions
there
made
only
to
enter
her
Protestations
against
the
Parity
of
Ministers
.
3.
Our
first
Reformers
haply
went
upon
this
Principle
,
He
that
is
not
against
us
is
for
us
,
and
such
were
Peter
Martyr
,
Bucer
,
Fagius
,
&c.
But
our
Dissenters
were
always
against
us
,
making
it
their
whole
business
to
overturn
the
Ecclesiastical
Government
of
this
Nation
by
railing
,
and
reviling
and
representing
it
as
Popish
and
Anti-Christian
.
4.
The
Indulgence
spoken
of
had
in
it
perhaps
more
of
State
Policy
than
true
Divinity
,
and
is
to
be
reckon'd
as
the
Act
of
the
Civil
Government
rather
,
than
of
the
Church
.
Thus
the
〈◊〉
and
Huguenot
Ministers
have
ever
even
to
this
day
been
permitted
to
Officiate
in
Divine
Things
without
Episcopal
Orders
.
5.
All
these
Indulgences
〈◊〉
not
amount
to
the
destroying
the
Truth
of
that
Principle
concerning
the
Divine
Right
of
Episcopacy
.
Forasmuch
as
the
Relaxation
of
the
Execution
of
a
positive
Law
cannot
in
Reason
be
accounted
the
annulling
or
abolition
of
that
Law
,
as
we
see
at
this
Day
,
when
Liberty
is
given
to
the
very
Dregs
of
Enthusiastical
and
Fanatical
Sectaries
,
which
is
no
more
Prejudice
unto
Episcopacy
,
than
't
is
to
other
acknowledg'd
Truths
of
the
Gospel
.
6.
As
for
those
particular
Persons
allowed
to
exercise
their
Minstry
here
in
England
we
may
note
,
that
Peter
Martyr
was
in
Episcopal
Orders
,
and
it
may
be
others
of
them
were
also
.
But
there
is
a
story
which
I
am
obliged
to
take
notice
of
because
Mr.
B.
my
first
Adversary
objected
it
to
us
.
He
affirmed
,
the
Protestant
Bishops
of
England
formerly
approved
of
Presbyterian
Ordination
,
as
he
inferred
from
a
Passage
about
the
Ordination
of
Bishop
Spotswood
and
Others
.
The
Case
was
this
.
In
the
Year
1609
some
Scotchmen
were
to
be
Ordained
Bishops
,
Spots
.
Hist.
of
Sc.
p.
514.
3
d
Edit
.
and
a
Synod
was
held
by
our
English
Bishops
for
that
purpose
,
Dr.
Andrews
Bishop
of
Ely
said
,
that
they
ought
first
to
be
Ordained
Presbyters
as
having
not
been
Ordained
by
Bishops
but
by
Presbyters
only
.
Bancroft
Archbishop
of
C.
maintained
,
that
there
was
no
necessity
of
that
,
because
where
Bishops
could
not
be
had
Ordination
though
by
Presbyters
(
only
,
)
must
be
esteemed
lawful
,
else
it
might
be
doubted
,
whether
there
was
any
lawful
Vocation
in
most
of
the
Reformed
Churches
.
This
applauded
to
by
the
other
Bishops
,
Ely
acquiesc'd
.
From
hence
I
inferr
,
not
that
the
Protestant
Bishops
of
England
approved
of
Presbyterian
Ordination
,
but
that
in
the
Judgment
of
this
English
Synod
,
nothing
but
necessity
can
justify
it
;
now
what
Degree
of
necessity
is
requisite
,
I
'll
not
here
dispute
.
2.
That
where
Episcopal
Ordination
may
be
had
there
Presbyterian
Ordination
is
unlawful
.
3.
That
the
necessity
here
pleaded
in
Defence
of
Presbyterian
Orders
implies
,
that
Episcopal
Ordination
is
of
Divine
Right
:
otherwise
it
had
been
impertinent
to
excuse
Presbyterian
Ordination
,
only
from
the
necessity
of
it
.
But
I
crave
leave
to
interpose
my
own
Judgment
,
and
I
humbly
conceive
there
was
no
need
of
flying
unto
this
Refuge
of
necessity
,
for
still
the
Ordination
of
these
Scotch
Gentlemen
might
have
proceeded
,
Salvo
etiam
Episcopalis
Ordinationis
Jure
Divino
;
for
I
do
affirm
that
by
the
practice
of
the
Church
a
Lay-man
may
be
immediately
elevated
into
the
Throne
,
and
effectually
receive
the
Episcopal
Character
without
being
first
Ordained
Deacon
and
Priest
.
This
latter
is
indeed
more
safe
and
regular
in
Ordinary
:
Nevertheless
in
extraordinary
Cases
,
the
former
has
been
practised
.
Thus
the
Learned
Dr.
Cave
has
observed
,
that
Monks
were
wont
to
be
made
Bishops
Serapion
,
Apollos
,
Agathus
,
Ariston
,
&c.
mentioned
by
St.
Athan.
Tom.
1.
p.
957.
However
this
be
I
shall
produce
two
notable
and
unquestionable
instances
of
it
.
The
first
is
of
Nectarius
P.
C.
He
being
but
a
Catechumen
,
Soc.
E.
H.
l.
5.
c.
8.
p.
265.
i.
e.
an
unbaptized
Christian
(
if
I
may
so
say
)
one
of
the
Senatorian
Order
,
and
a
Praetor
was
nominated
and
Chosen
Bishop
of
Constantinople
,
when
Greg.
Nazianzen
had
abdicated
it
,
and
immediately
The
other
is
of
St.
Ambrose
Bishop
of
Milain
.
He
also
a
Catechumen
The
End
.