to Baptize such as should submit to the Gospel And so to judge whether each man did so or not which they that were trusted with the Gospel were by consequence trusted to judge The effect of this trust is seen in the many Orders and Canons of the Primitive Church by which those that desired to be admitted into the Church by Baptisme are limited to the triall of severall years to examine their profession whether sincere or not And such as gained their living by such Trades as Christianity allowed not rejected untill they renounced them Not that my intent is to say that these Canons were limited by the Apostles But because it is an argument that always to judge who shall be admitted to Baptisme and who not is another manner of power then to baptize being the power of them that were able to settle such Canons Though it is plain by the Scriptures that those Rules had their beginning from the Apostles themselves For when S. Peter saith 1 Pet. III. 21. that the Baptisme which saveth us is not the laying down the filth of the flesh but the examination of a good conscience to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sheweth that the Interrogatories which the ancient Church used to propound to them that were to be baptized were then in use and established by the Apostles as the condition of a contract between the Church and them obliging themselves to live according to the Gospel as Disciples And the Apostle Heb. VI. 2. speaking of the foundation of repentance from dead works the doctrine of Baptisms and imposition of Hands manifestly shews the succeeding custome of the Church that they which sued for Baptisme should be catechized in the Doctrine of the Gospel and contract with the Church to forsake such courses of the world as stood not with it to be brought in by the Apostles This is it which is here called the doctrine of Baptisms in the plurall number not for that frantick reason which the distemper of this time hath brought forth because there are two Baptismes one of John by water another of Christ by the Spirit but because it was severally taught severall persons before they were admitted to their several Baptisms And therefore called also the Doctrine of Imposition of Hands because we understand by Clemens Alexandrinus Paedag. III. 11. and by the Apostolicall Constitutions VII 40. that when they came to the Church to be catechized and were catechized they were then dismissed by him that catechized them with Imposition of Hands that is with prayer for them that they might in due time become good Christians All visible marks of the power of the Church in judging whether a man were fit for Baptisme or not To which I will adde onely that of Eusebius De vitâ Constant IV. where speaking of the Baptisme of Constantine he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that confessing his sinnes hee was admitted to prayer with Imposition of hands If it be said that there were added to the Church three thousand in a day Acts II. 41. which could not be thus catechized and tried my answer is that two cases were always excepted from the Rule The first was in danger of death The second when by the eagernesse of those that desired Baptism the hand of God appeared extraordinary in the work of their conversion to Christianity Besides it is not said that they were baptized that day but that they were added to the Church that day Which is true though they onely professed themselves Disciples for the present passing neverthelesse their examination and instruction as the case required If therefore there be a power setled in the Church by God to judge who is fit to be admitted into it then is the same power inabled to refuse him that shall appear unfit then by the same reason to exclude him that proves himself unfit after he is admitted This is the next argument which I will ground upon the Discipline of Penance as it was anciently practised in the Church Which is opened by the observation advanced in the 127 p. of this little Discourse that those who contrary to this contract with the Church fell into sins destructive to Christianity were fain to sue to be admitted to Penance Which supposeth that till they had given satisfaction of their sincerity in Christianity they remained strangers to the Communion of the Church For it appeareth by the most ancient of Church Writers that for divers ages the greatest Sinners as Apostates Murtherers Adulterers were wholly excluded from Penance For though Tertullian was a Montanist when he cried out upon Zephyrinus Bishop of Rome for admitting Adulterers to Penance in his Book De Pudicitiâ yet it is manifest by his case that it had formerly been refused in the Church because the granting of it makes him a Montanist And S. Cyprian Epist ad Antonianum testifieth that divers African Bishops afore him had refused it maintaining communion neverthelesse with those that granted it Irenaeus also I. 9. saith of a certain woman that had been seduced and defiled by Marcus the Heretick that after she was brought to the sight of her sin by some Christians she spent all her days in bewalling it Therefore without recovering the communion of the Church again And he that shall but look upon the Canons of the Eliberitane Councell shall easily see many kindes of sins censured some of them not to be admitted to communion till the point others not at the point of death In this case and in this estate these onely who were excluded from being admitted to Penance were properly excommunicate neither could those that were admitted to Penance be absolutely counted so because in danger of death they were to receive the Communion though in case they recovered they stood bound to compleat their Penance And from hence afterwards also those that had once been admitted to Penance if they fell into the like sins again were not to be admitted to Penance the second time Concil Tolet. X. Can. XI Eliber Can. III. VII Ambros de Poenit. II. 10 11. Innoc. I. Ep. I. August Epist L. LIV. It is an easie thing to say that this Rigor was an infirmity in the Church of those times not understanding aright free Justification by Faith But as it is manifest that this rigor of discipline abated more and more age by age till that now it is come to nothing So if we goe upwards and compare the writings of the Apostles with the Originall practice of the Church it will appear that the rigor of it was brought in by them because it abated by degrees from age to age till at length it is almost quite lost that the Reformation of the Church consists in retaining it that we shall doe so much prejudice to Christianity as we shall by undue interpretation make Justification by Faith inconsistent with it And in fine it will appear that all Penance presupposeth Excommunication being onely some abatement of it There
which no publick thing could passe I do here willingly mention Ignatius because of the injustice of that exception that is made against him Surely had we none but the old Copy which for my part is freely confessed to be interpolated and mixed with passages of a later hand I would confidently appeal to the common sense of any man not fascinated with prejudice how that can be imagined to be always foisted in which is the perpetuall subject of all his Epistles Dwelling onely upon the avoiding of Heresy and Schism and the avoiding of Schism every where inculcated to consist in this that without the Bishop nothing be done and all with advice of the Presbyters But it seems to me a speciall act of Providence that the true Copy of these Epistles free from all such mixture is published during this dispute among us Which the L. Primate of Ireland having first smelt out by the Latine Translation which he published Isaak Vossius according as he presumed hath now found and published out of the Library at Florence farre enough from suspition of partiality in this cause Nor is the learned Blondell to be regarded presuming to stigmatize so clear a Record for forged It seemes that his Book was written before he saw this Copy and had he not condemned it in his Preface he must have suppressed and condemned his own work But when it appears that this Record is admitted as true and native of all that are able to judge of letters it must appear by consequence that he hath given sentence against his own Book In the mean time it is to be lamented that by the force of prejudice so learned a man had rather that the advantage of so many pregnant authorities of a companion of the Apostles against the Socinians should be lost to the Church then part with his own whether opinion or interesse condemned by the same evidence Certainly those weak exceptions from the style of Ignatius have more in them of will then of reason to all that have relished that simplicity of language which called by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be seen in the writings of Apostolicall persons Irenaeus Justine Clemens Romanus and after them Epiphanius and the Apostolicall Constitutions And he was very forward to finde exceptions that could imagine that Ignatius calleth the Order of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he so qualifieth the Ordination of Damas Bishop of the Magnesians being a young man when he was ordained Bishop As for the mention of the Valentinians Heresie in them he hath been fully told again and again that the seeds of it are extant before Ignatius in the writings of the Apostles But as to my present purpose he that considers of what consequence the Unity of the Church is to the advancement of Christianity and of what consequence not only Ignatius but S. Cyprian S. Hierome and all men of judgement professe the Power of Bishops to be to the preservation of Unity in the Church will not begge the question with Blondell by condemning Ignatius his Epistles because the one half of the subject of them is this one Rule nothing to be done without the Bishop all things to be done by advice of the Presbyters That to the Philadelphians is remarkable above the rest where he affirmeth that having no intelligence from any man of the divisions that were among them the Holy Ghost revealing it to him said within him for the means of composing them Without the Bishop let nothing be done If it be said that this Rule is ineffectuall hindring rather then expediting the course of businesse The answer is that it is enough that thus much is determined by the Apostles the rest remaining to be further limited by humane right as the state of the Church shall require According to this Rule it is justly said that Baptism is not given but by a Bishop as it is given only by those whom the Order of any Church which was never put in force without the Bishop inableth to give it A thing manifestly seen by Confirmation What reason can we imagine that Philip the Deacon being inabled to doe miracles for the conversion of the Samaritanes was not inabled to give the Holy Ghost but the Apostles must come down to do it Was it not to shew that all graces of that kinde were subject to the graces of the Apostles in the Visible Church whereof they were then Chief Governours So that as then those that received the Holy Ghost were thereby demonstrated to be members of the Visible Church in which God evidenced his presence by that grace So was it always found requisite that Christians be acknowledged members of the Visible Church by the Prayers and Blessing of their Successors Which Order as it serves to demonstrate this Succession to all that are void of prejudice so had it been improved to this Apostolicall intent what time as all Christians began to be baptized in infancy renuing the contract of Christianity that is the promise of Baptism and the Chief Pastors acknowledgement of them for members of the Church upon that contract by blessing them with Imposition of Hands without doubt it had been and were the most effectuall mean to retain and retrive the ancient Discipline of Church When men might see themselves by their own solemne profession obliged to forfeit the communion of the Church by forfeiting the terms on which they were admitted to it If it can thus be said that Baptism is not given without the Bishop much more will the same be said of other acts of the Power of the Keys whereof that is the first Presbyters have an interesse in it limitable by Canonicall Right but as to the Visible Church that any man be excommunicate without a Bishop is against this Rule of the Apostles About Ordinations divers matters of fact are in vain alleged by Blondell and others from the ancient Records of the Church tending to degrade Bishops into the rank of Presbyters If the Gothes from the time of Valeriane to the Councell of Nice for some LXX years as he conjectureth out of Philostorgius II. 5. if the Scots before Palladius as Fordone III. 8. and John Maire II. 2. relate retained Christianity under Presbyters alone without Bishops they had not in that estate the power of governing their own Churches in themselves but depended on their neighbours that ordained them those Presbyters and the Government of the Church among them then must be as now among the Abassines where their one Bishop does nothing but Ordain them Presbyters as Godignus ubi supra relates And as the Catholick Christians of Antiochia lived for some XXXIV years after the banishment of Eustathius Theodoret Eccles Hist I. 21. But if the Gothes had Bishops before Vlfitas at the Councell of Nice as he shews out of the Ecclesiasticall Histories is any man so mad as to grant him who never endeavours to prove it that they were made by their own Presbyters
the Apostles were at first their own Deacons before the Church allowed them some to wait on them and yet their whole function was then holy though some parts of it nearer to the end of the souls health So when Deacons were made reason inforces that they should attend on the meanest part of the Office of the Apostles but always on holy duties For the Tables which the Apostles saw first furnished themselves but were attended by the Deacons in doing it when they were made were the same which S. Paul speaks of 1 Cor. XI 20 which the Eucharist was celebrated at as the custome was daily to doe at Jerusalem Acts II. 42 46. and therefore their office by this was the same then as always it hath been since to wait upon the celebration of the Eucharist Secondly I have shewed afore that even the Apostles and their followers the Evangelists were also Deacons with as much difference as there is between the persons whom they served that is between our Lord and his Apostles on one side and the Bishop and Presbyters of a Church on the other Whereupon the Ministers of Bishops and Presbyters are called Deacons absolutely and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any addition signifies to execute a Deacons Office 1 Tim. III 10. But the Apostles and Evangelists are called Deacons with additions signifying whose Ministers or to what speciall purpose as hath been said Thirdly when S. Paul says They that doe the office of a Deacon well purchase themselves a good step 1 Tim. II. 13. Clemens Alexandrinus and the practice of the Church interprets this step to be the rank of Presbyters Therefore they were in the next degree to it afore Fourthly it hath been shewed that they sate not but stood in the Church as attending the Bishop and Presbyters sitting and yet were imploied in the Offices of Preaching and Baptizing And accordingly in the Primitive Church a great part of the Service reading Lessons singing Psalms and some part of the Prayers were ministred by them as I have shewed in the Apostolicall form of Divine Service cap. X. Which held correspondently in the Synagogue For the Ministers and Apparitors of their Consistories were also their Deacons and ministred Divien Service in the Synagogue Whereby it appears to be the Ordinance of the Apostles that the younger sort of those that dedicated themselves to the service of the Church should be trained up in the service of the Bishop and Presbyters as well to the understanding of Christianity as to the right exercise of Ecclesiasticall Offices that in their time such as proved capable might come to govern in the Church themselves That which remains concerning the Interesse of the People in the Church will be easily discharged if we remember that it must be such as may not prejudice either the dependence of Churches or the Chief Power of the Bishop with the Presbyters in each particular Church The Law of the XII Tables Salus populi suprema lex esto though it were made for a popular State not for a Kingdome yet admits a difference between populus and plebs and requires the chief Rule to be the good both of Senate and Commons not of one part alone So likewise that which is said in the Scriptures to have been done by the Church must not therefore be imagined to be done by the People Because the Church consists of two parts called by Tertullian Oâ—do and Plebs in the terms of latter times the Clergy and People but preserving the respective Interests of Clergy and People In the choice of Matthias it is said They set two Acts I. 23. what they but the Church in which the People were then better Christians then to abridge the Apostles but proportionably they are always to respect the Bishop and Presbyters if they will obey the Apostles that command it 1 Thess V. 12 13. Heb. XIII 7 17. So when S. Paul says Doe not ye judge those that are within 1 Cor. V. 12. speaks he to the People or to the Church that is to the Bench of Presbyters and the People in their severall interests and that not without dependence upon the Apostles The words of our Lord Dic Ecclesiae Mat. XVIII 18. make much noise At the end of my Book of the Apostolicall form of Divine Service p. 428 you have a passage of S. Augustine Cont. Epist Parmen III. 2. that Excommunication is the sentence of the Church And yet I suppose no man hath the confidence to dispute that in S. Augustines time it was the sentence of the People So the Excommunication of Andronicus in Synesius his seven and fiftieth Epistle is intitled to the Church yet no man imagines that the People then did excommunicate Is not the case the same in the Synagogue Moses is commanded to speak to the Congregation of the children of Israel and he speaks to the Elders Exod. XII 2 25. does Moses disobey God in so doing or does he understand the command of God better then this opinion would have him in speaking to the Elders who he knew were to act on behalf of the People The Law commands the Congregation to offer for ignorance Lev. IV. 13 14. Num. XV. 22 24. how shall all the Congregation offer Maimoni answers in the Title of Errors cap. XII XIII that the great Consistory offers as often as they occasion the breach of the Law by Teaching that is interpreting it erroneously In the Law of the Cities of Refuge it is said The Congregation shall judge and the Congregation shall deliver the manslayer Num. XXXV 35 36. The Elders of the City of Refuge were to judge in presence and in behalf of the People whether the manslayer was capable of the privilege of the City of Refuge or not as you reade Joshua XX. 4 6. seeing then that these things being done by the Elders are said to be done by the Synagogue or Assembly of the People in behalf of whom they are done is it a wrong to the Scriptures when we say that which they report to be done by the Church was acted by the chief power of the Apostles and Presbyters with consent of the People For it is manifest in the Scriptures that in the Apostles times all publique Acts of the Church were passed at the publique Assemblies of the same as Ordinations Acts I. 23. VI. 3 6. Excommunications Mat. XVIII 18 19 20. 1 Cor. V. 4. 2 Cor. II. 10. Councels Acts XV. 4 27. Other Acts 2 Cor. VIII 19. And herewith agrees the Primitive custome of the Church for divers ages to be seen in a little Discourse of the Learned Blondell Of the Right of the People in the Church published of late And can this be thought to no purpose unlesse it dissolve the Unity of the Church or that obedience to the Clergy which God commandeth Is it nothing to give satisfaction to the People of the integrity of the proceedings of the Church and by the same mean
will seek no other argument but Tertullian though it were possible to finde more For he in his Book De Velandis Virginibus proveth that the Virgins were not exempted from wearing the like because at Corinth whither S. Paul directed this charge they were not And this the property of the Greek seemeth to argue when the Apostle calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. XI 4 7. which differs something from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this signifying that which is onely upon the head and so was the Vaile and therefore the woman is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 10. the other that which is so upon the head that it comes down from the head as to the purpose before the face Neither doe I see any reason why we may not understand the Apostle when he says that the women ought to have power on their head because of the Angels to have respect unto the Legend reported in the Book of Enoch which we see was read in the Church in the Apostles time by the II Epistle of S. Peter and that of S. Jude of those Angels that are reported there to have been seduced by the beauty of women out of Gen. VI. 2. Not as if the Apostle did suppose that report to be true or did intend to give credit to the Book but that by alluding to a passage commonly known he may very well be thought to intimate that a like inconvenience to it not disputing whether true or not for the present might fall out in the Church For so when he saith that the Fathers drunk of the rock that followed them in the Wildernesse 1 Cor. X. 4. it is not I suppose his intent to affirm the truth of that which the Jews still tell and therefore without doubt did tell before S. Pauls time that the water followed the Fathers over mountains and valleys in their journey to the Land of Promise but that the Fathers drank of that water which the Jews say followed them For of the Jews themselves the learned Buxtorfe in his Preface to the Great Lexicon is of opinion that they doe not relate such fables as stories but as Parables and I conceive I have met with some things in their writings that seem to make it probable So again when S. Peter and S. Iude cite the Book of Enoch it is not their intent to credit it or tie us to beleeve that which they cite out of it but to argue thus from it that if those that reade it cannot but applaud the decorum which it keeps making the good Angels so reverent that they would not curse or blaspheme Satan what are we to think of those whom they speak of that blasphemed either Secular Powers as it is commonly understood or which perhaps is more probable the good Angels And thus by the way you see how to answer the reason for which some stick to receive these Epistles for Canonicall Scripture though it hold also in divers of S. Pauls in which are many sayings alleged out of Apocryphall Scriptures And thus the Apostles expression will be most artificially modest supposing his meaning to be onely this that women ought to be vailed because of that which we reade in the Book of Enoch to have befallen the Angels Now in those Countries where the vail was not used at the receiving of Christianity it seems this precept of S. Paul was not held to oblige As for men covering or uncovering their head in Preaching it can be nothing to S. Pauls meaning because uncovering the head in sign of reverence was a custome unknown in his time Thus you see these particulars propounded in the form of precepts notwithstanding do not oblige the Church Those that scruple the superiority of Bishops as a step to bring in Antichrist are not onely to consider that which is said here p. 291. that the Socinians have the same scruple of the substance of Christianity but also that which some of the Sects of this time give out as you see in the beginning of this Review that the making of the Church a Society or Community was the beginning of Antichrist which I have shewed was the act of our Lord and his Apostles And also that which Erastus objecteth unto the Presbyteries that by the means of Excommunication the Papacy which is the Power of Antichrist was advanced Whereby he hath requited all their aspersions upon Episcopacy and shewed all the world that the imputation of Antichrist is a saddle for all Horses that it is argumentum galeatum a reason that will serve to discredit any adversary if it may have passe-port without shewing by the Scriptures wherein the being of Antichrist consisteth And herewith my purpose was to rest contented for the present thinking this enough for this particular cause to answer the objection of Antichrist with But I have considered since that the whole credit of the ancient Church and the benefit that might redound to the resolution of all differences and difficulties from the acknowledgement thereof but in the nature of Historicall truth is utterly lost to us by the means of this prejudice In particular that by the Papers which passed between his late Majesty of happy memory and Master Alexander Hinderson lately published it appears that the whole issue of that dispute ended in it Upon these considerations therefore I have thought fit further to answer by denying the truth of this interpretation of S. Paul and the Apocalypse and to justifie this deniall by propounding so probable a meaning of those Prophesies to another effect as all those that apply them to the Papacy doe shew they could never attain to because they are fain to Prophesie themselves for the meaning of part of them which they confesse is not fulfilled And this I doe here the rather because hereby I shall declare the utmost of that argument which I have used for the Interesse of Secular Powers in Church matters grounded upon the Prophesies of the calling of the Gentiles whereby God declaring his will of bringing States to Christianity declareth by consequence that he calleth them to the same Interesse in matters of Religion which we know was exercised by the Kings of his ancient people And hereof the Apocalypse will make full proof being nothing else but the complement of all the Prophesies of the Old Testament concerning the calling of the Gentiles and therefore fulfilled in the subduing of the Romane Empire to Christianity and the vengeance taken upon the persecutors thereof Which though it cannot be fully proved without expounding all and every part of it to this effect yet because by the main hinges upon which it turns reasonable men may perceive that it cannot nor ever will be expounded to any other purpose I will stop here a while to shew this that men for the future may advise before they act upon supposition of such uncertain conceits I begin with the opening of the first Seale Apoc. VI. 1 2.
to come within the age of men then living perhaps at the fall of Jerusalem as the Apostles also imagined when they asked our Lord when the destruction of Jerusalem should be and what the signs of his comming and the end of the world Mat. XXV 3. to prevent the ill consequences of this opinion S. Paul having the truth further revealed tels them this must not be till a departure come first and the man of sin the son of perdition be revealed that opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or worshipped so as to seat himself in the Temple of God declaring himself to be God Which can be truly said of none but the Romane Emperours who did indeed exalt themselves above all called God that is all their imaginary idol Gods in that they took upon them to make Gods whom they would and were themselves worshipped with divine honours so much more devoutly as they were able to doe more good or harm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here as 1 Cor. VIII 5. a term of abatement signifying those that are called Gods and are not in which sense onely the Apostle could say there be Gods many and Lords many For it is a mistake to think that Princes are called Gods in Scripture as I have shewed afore Now the Religion of the Gentiles was this that when the Statue of a God was seated in a Temple built to him thenceforth they thought his Deity dwelt in it and the Temple thereby consecrated In which sense S. Paul speaking of the succession of Romane Emperours as of one person as Dantel S. John use to call the body of Chaldean Persian Grecian or Romane Emperours a Beast saith that he should exalt himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as to seat himself in the Temple of God Which as it may be understood of any of them who had all Temples built them and their Statues placed in those Temples as the Deities of the same so it may be particularly understood of Caligula who would have placed his Statue in the Temple of the true God at Jerusalem though we suppose the Epistle written long after his death And so that insoluble difficulty ceases which Grotius his exposition of this passage suffers to wit that this second Epistle to the Thessalonians must be written before the death of Caligula which no man can easily beleeve there being between the Baptism of our Lord upon the XV of Tiberius according to the Gospel and the death of Caligula but a matter of XI years whatsoever passed between the Baptism of Christ and his death and between the death of Caligula and the writing of this Epistle This is then the first of the two Beasts that S. Iohn sees in the thirteenth of his Revelations blaspheming God and persecuting his Church even the succession of the Romane Emperours The second is the same whereof S. Paul prophesies in the next words 2 Thess II. 8 9. representing in one person as before the Succession of the Romane Emperours so now the Succession of Magicians and Heathen Philosophers the Priests and the Divines whom Satan imploied to disguise interpret and maintain Heathenism in opposition to Christianity Simon Magus may well be reckoned inprimis of the list together with much of the fry of his Gnosticks who though wearing the name of Christians yet practising manifest Idolatries with their Magick occasioned the persecution of true Christianity by compounding a false out of it and Heathenism But Apollonius Tyaneus must needs be accounted of this Body who did many strange things in S. Iohns time to support Heathenism and was therefore by the Pagans opposed to our Lord Christ as you may see by Vopiscus in the life of Tacitus and Hieracles his Book to that purpose refuted by Eusebius After him came all those Pythagorean or Platonick Philosophers who after S. Iohns time as they were the maintainers of Heathenism against Christianity were doubtlesse also Magicians as their Father Pythagoras seems to have been by his travels in the East and many passages of his life Such were Apuleius Plotinus Porphyry Iamblichus Maximus and with such the Histories shew that the persecuting Emperours Maxentius Maximiane Licinius and Julian conversed Who both by learned writings and by strange works done by familiarity with unclean spirits laboured to support the credit of their Idols Two instances I must not conceal in this place the one recorded by Dionysius Alexandrinus in an Epistle to Hermammron produced by Eusebius Eccles Hist VII 10. where he relateth of Valeriane how he cherished the Christians at the first insomuch that his Court was a kinde of Church Unto which he addeth as followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now he that perswaded him to be rid of them was his Doctor the Ruler of the Synagogue of Aegyptian Magicians Who commanded the pure to be slain and persecuted as opposites and hinderers of their abominable and detestable inchantments which he proceeds to declare what they were and how they became of no effect wheresoever the Christians came And perhaps if we had the Epistle at length it would appear that Dionysius had interpreted the Beast and the false Prophet as I doe For the words which Eusebius quotes begin thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Accordingly saith he is revelation made to S. John For he saith and there was given him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemy and it was granted him to continue two and forty moneths Proceeding to that which I reported afore of Valeriane in these terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We may well marvell at both in Valeriane and especially we may consider how he stood affected before him that is before the Magician whom he spoke of had accesse to him how gentle and kinde he was to the men of God For when he saith that Saint Johns Revelations were according to what he there relates he seems to make Valeriane the Beast the Magician the false Prophet whom he speaks of afterwards The other is out of an Edict of Constantine reported by Eusebius De Vitâ Constant II. 49 50. where the great Emperour declares to all the Empire that Apollo that gave answers at Delphi having answered out of the dark cave there that the just upon earth hindred him from speaking truth and that was the reason why his Oracles proved false Diocletian hereupon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Being deceived in the errour of his soule curiously inquired of those about him who were the just upon the earth And one of the Priests about him answered the Christians But he swallowing the answer like honey drew those swords that were found out against injustice against blamelesse piety And this he professes afore God that he heard himself being then a youth in the Emperours presence By these two particulars we may make an estimate how the rest of the Persecutions were moved and therefore that the Body of these Philosophers and Magicians the Priests and Interpreters of Heathenism is called in the Revelution the