ones the Fathers and other Antient Ecclesiastical Writers and the practice of the most Flourishing Catholick Churches of old unto the 5th Century or thereabouts and to examine whether my Adversary has 〈◊〉 any one good Testimony for himself and Brethren out of these Monuments of Antiquity If he has not as I hope will be made appear there is an end of his Plea I suppose especially when such a Cloud of Witnesses which of necessity fall in our way as we Travel through the History of those times will rise up against him within the Compass of the 4 or 5 first Ages aforesaid Before I make an end of this Preface I thought it needful to prepare the Reader with a short account of my whole Hypothesis which if kept in Memory as he goes will be some ease and advantage to him He must remember then that all Authors I know of except haply the Rhemists who so far as I see spoke but at Random writing upon the Present Subject or commenting upon the first Epistle to Timothy have asserted or at least taken for granted till very lately that the time of St. Paul's beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia is somewhere to be search'd for in the Acts of the Apostles before St. Paul had the Ephesian Elders Farewel in Acts 20. v. 17. from whence our Dissenters conclude that the supreme Government of the Church of Ephesus was not in that Epistle committed unto Timothy For that the Apostle could not have so wholly overlook'd their Bishop in that Farewel Sermon and applied himself only to the Elders to whom he commended the care and oversight of that Church On the other hand I have shew'd that the first Epistle to Timothy was wrote long after Paul's said Farewel Sermon even after his enlargement out of his former Imprisonment at Rome and by consequence that he besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus when he went unto Macedonia at another time than what has hitherto been believ'd and assigned And so that Objection just now mentioned quite vanishes Thus then my Hypothesis lies After that Schism at Corinth had been in some measure though not intirely allay'd by St. Paul he with all hast made towards Jerusalem taking Miletus in his way where he bad the Ephesian Elders Farewel At Jerusalem he was Imprisoned and thence sent to Rome in Bonds Here he continued two years and upwards writing Epistles to the several Churches of Ephesus of Philippi of Coloss of Judea and to Philemon Being at length set at Liberty and in his way as he went back Eastward to visit the foresaid Churches he laid the Foundation of a Church in Crete leaving Titus behind to finish and to govern it Thence as I suppose he prosecuted his Journey to Judea Heb. 13. 23. and thence as it were back again through Syria to Asâ—a Being at Troas 2. Tim. 4. 13. about to sail unto Macedonia he besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus shortly after when in Macedonia haply or Greece or somewhere thereabouts he wrote this first Epistle to Timothy giving him the necessary Orders how he was to behave himself in the Charge lately committed to him and not long after from Nicopolis that Epistle to Titus upon the same Subject Hence forward we hear no more of him in Scripture saving that being once again got to Rome he thence wrote his second Epistle to Timothy as is undeniably evinc'd in these Papers The Corinthian Schism like the Leprosy seemed incurable and spread its self unto other Churches also particularly Ephesus as may be gathered from the Epistle to the Ephesians and the first to Timothy And the like I reckon to have happened in other places also Wherefore Paul in his Visitation of the Eastern Churches before spoken of his Principal design I presume was to compose the Contentions already risen and to prevent them for the future To which end he committed the Government of the Churches to single Persons of Crete to Titus of Ephesus to Timothy The like being to be believed of the Rest of the Apostles and Churches throughout the World For how else could there have been Bishops every â—where as Ignatius writes to the Ephesians and not one Church at that time governed by a Presbytery of Elders only without an Apostle or Bishop presiding over them that we can find in Ecclesiastical History Nor are we to imagin this a perfectly new device taken up by Paul and the other Apostles meerly upon the Occasion of the Schisms at Corinth and elsewhere For as I make account they came to this Resolution among themselves even at the beginning viz. to commit the Government of the Churches unto 〈◊〉 Persons Not that they immediately did so assoon as they had made the Decree For every Apostle 't is likely kept the Government and Care of the Churches by him founded in his own Hands so long as he thought fit and was able to manage them himself So that every Church was 〈◊〉 cast into this Platform nor furnish'd with a Bishop distinct from the Apostles at the same instant but 't was done paulatim as Jerom speaks in his Commentary on Titus James was Bishop of Jerusalem before the Corinthian Schism Titus of Crete at that Church's first Plantation though Timothy was not so of Ephesus till many Years after the Ephesian Church had been formed But at length because Schisms began now to increase and prevail the Apostles taking the Alarm 〈◊〉 to put their former Decree into Execution and more especially because at this time believers were multiplyed Churches were increased business grew on their Hands and they forced to be long Absent and unable to inspect all Churches As also because the time of their Departure now drew on apace 't was therefore high time and necessary to provide for the Peace and future Government of the Church as they had in the beginning contrived Whereas then I have frequently express'd my self as if the Church Government had been alter'd from what it was in the Infancy of Christianity and lest this should be taken for a rash and dangerous Concession to the Adversaries in prejudice of Episcopacy I thus explain my self 1. This was not a Change of the first Principle and Rule of Government but only a bringing it by Degrees to that Model and Frame which the Apostles as I said first pitched upon and afterward as Occasion required by degrees brought to perfection So that with respect to the Original design and Scheme of Government there was indeed no change or Innovation at all But then 2. If we consider matter of Fact there was an Alteration of Government in as much as the Apostles having left it for a while unto the Presbyters to discharge the Ordinary affairs of the Churches in their Absence but still reserving to themselves the Power of Ordination and other matters of greatest Moment at length constituted Bishops over them pursuant to their Prime Resolution and in Conformity to their own way of
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 was intended the Resident Governour of the Church of 〈◊〉 the Minister denies it upon the Authority of Mat. 15. 32. Mark 8. 2. 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 same Powers at 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 Evangelists depends describes them thus 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 were not Supreme Governours because the Apostles were above'em And yet that Timothy and Titus were Supreme Governours though the Apostles were above them also Either the Elders were Supreme Governours or Timothy and Titus were not 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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 them it is not easy to say 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 Office was succeeded to why was the name of the Office altered The discontinuance
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 Ordinary Presbyters did suspend at all how dare they the Episcopal-Clergy do it for a Fortnight If Presbyters may by Scripture suspend how dares the Rector condemn the Dissenting Ministers for suspending 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 not Supreme Authority in the Churches at least not after Paul's return from Italy in the East the Minister inferrs that 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.
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 to plant the Gospel there or to confirm the Churches What became of him afterward cannot be known from Scripture the Divine History of the Church of Crete reaching no further But if we will hearken as in Reason we ought unto what is delivered in the Church-History we must acknowledge that Titus returned into Crete For there he died and was buried And I hope Mr. O. who seems to have a due 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 that were unfixt Officers of the Church of which more hereafter believes it 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 to have been rendered appoint or constitute and settle or place them pre-supposing at the same time their 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 4 th 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 But may signify a short stay Act. 17. 14 15. by Consequence he was not the fixt Bishop Ruler of Ephesus 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 Witness that he was Martyr'd at Ephesus and Photius acquaints us with the time and Occasion viz. At the detestable Festival called the Catagogium which Timothy would have had abrogated Lastly supposing Timothy never returned back to Ephesus it 's no consequence that he was not by Paul constituted resident Bishop Ruler of Ephesus as will afterwards in these Papers appear Mr. O. Objects against the time assign'd in T. N. of Paul's going into 〈◊〉 after his Release from his first Imprisonment at Rome that is after the History of the Acts of the Apostles wherein no mention is made of this Voyage as I assert against this I say Mr. O. Objects 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 constitui Paul saw Macedonia but thrice as
Timothy to come to him before Winter 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 is because he 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 pains in 〈◊〉 this how well let others judge I am not concerned 〈◊〉 does my-Argument require me to Justify that Gloss. Only it may be worth the while to remember that though Paul says 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
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 Bede 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 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 the Bishop and not thus frivolously repeated the bare Objection about Easter without Vindicating it against the Bishop But he seems to read Books on purpose to furnish himself with little Objections not with a disposition to hearken unto Reason but to Spin out and continue disputes for Ever Besides the North Britain here so called by Mr. O. is by Bede in his History described to be the most Southern part of the now Scotland adjoyning vnto England and called Galloway or Annandale on this side Edenburgh But what is this to the Northern 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
About 1556. a Synod was held in the middle of Moravia where were present more than 200 of the Clergy Then were fifteen Ministers Ordain'd two Bishops and six Conseniors The two Bishops were 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 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 Bishop of the Fratres in Bohemia And lastly Johannes Adam Comenius a Moravian and another a Polonian their Elect Bishops Annno 1632. 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 for Holy Orders and to present them to the Bishops diligently to observe how the Pastors discharged themselves in their Office to reprove their smaller Offences and to acquaint the Bishop with their more Scandalous ones I do not find they had power to Ordain and 〈◊〉 in his Annotations says That in minoribus negotiis Episcopi vices obirent as the ancient Chorepiscopi did If they be chosen Seniors they are new Ordained with Imposition of Hands as Pastors or Ministers are 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 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