of the Land 3. That the Civil Powers have left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity and therefore we are guilty of no Disobedience to them The first Position concerning the Identity of Power in Bishops and Presbyters has been often and warmly debated and we can scarce touch it so gently but it will be resented as an high affront it is accounted a Plea to their Jurisdiction which in all Courts has an ungrateful sound and must expect to be over-ruled if powerful Interest and loud Menaces can do it and yet it seems so clear in it self both from Scripture Fathers and Protestant Divines our own Reformers not excepted that were it not for the sake of the Silver Shrines we cannot suppose it would have been a Controversie at this day in any of the Reformed Churches For Scripture Proof the Point being Negative the Evidence that is but Negative must be allowed sufficient The Word of God no where asserts that Bishops are a Superior Order to Presbyters therefore they are not so by that Law Those that say they are must produce that Rule which makes them so If no such Rule appears the matter is fully concluded against them This being a Question concerning a very great Power extending to a great number of Persons and producing great Effects a matter of great distinction and dependencies ought to have clear and positive Warrant and Commission from the Word of God Meer Names and Titles Suppositions and fine Probabilities will not all make a Foundation strong enough to bear the weight of a Structure so high and towering as our English Prelacy It is far short of Demonstration to say the Bishops are the Apostles Successors and therefore a higher Order than Presbyters For if they mean that they have the same Power that the Apostles had and in the same degree it will distort their own Scheme of Government and will not only give them power over Presbyters but over Bishops too for such power the Apostles had and it will give every Bishop an Universal Power over all the Churches in the World If it be said they are only the Apostles Successors in some part of their power the answer is obvious so are Presbyters too and we must enquire in what parts and degrees of power do they succeed them And why do not Presbyters succeed them in the same powers And where shall we find any chapter or verse in our Bibles that thus divide the power and give some men the power of Doctrine and others that of Displine and Orders where is the discrimination We find it very plain in Dr. Cosins's Table â—ot so in those of the Apostles Nor is it any more to our satisfaction to say that Timothy and Titus were Bishops of Ephesus and Crete for the Question is not whether there were Bishops in Scripture times but whether those Bishops had any power that the Presbyters had not and if they had whether it belongs to them as Bishops or on some other account St. Peter was a Presbyter and had Authority over Bishops must we therefore argue that Presbyters had power over Bishops Timothy had Authority to command Bishops too and joined with Paul in Writing a Canonical Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons of Philippi will it therefore follow that one Bishop has Authority over another And what did Timothy and Titus that Presbyters might not do if they had the same qualifications They ordained Elders and how does it appear that they did not do it as being Elders themselves and that they had not the assistance of others And may not Presbyters do so too Perhaps it will be said no for they have not the Episcopal Power but that is the very thing in question and must be proved and not taken for granted if God has laid no injunction upon them to the contrary men cannot do it 'T is an odd way of reasoning Titus was left to ordain Elders in Crete therefore he was a Bishop for none but Bishops can Ordain how do you prove that Why because Titus was a Bishop and he alone did Ordain if this be not a Circular Precarious and Trifling way of arguing nothing in the World deserves that name But indeed the many removes which Timothy and Titus made is argument enough that they were not the fixed Pastors of particular Churches no question wherever they came they were employed in the same work which they did at Ephesus and why Titus by being sent into Dalmatia did not become the Bishop of the Churches there as well as by being lest in Creet the Bishop of the Cretians I see no reason he was sent to the one he was left in the other and doubtless in both his work was to set in order the things that were wanting and this was his business every where and would as well entitle him the Bishop of any other place as of Creet The argument from the Angels of the Churches is as dark and inconclusive as the former those messages sent to the Churches were delivered by Vision and in the style and phrase of Vision a singular term is often to be understood collectively as by the false Prophet A. B. Usher understands the Roman Clergy and there are many words in those Epistles that favour this Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and there is not one word in all that Book intimating that those Angels were single persons much less such as had any power above Presbyters And those that grant them to be single persons will tell us the most that can be inferr'd is a President or Moderator of a Presbytery which is allowed by those that are wholly dissatisfied with Diocesan Prelacy The Gentleman pas ses very lightly over all these difficulties and in a strain of carelessness and confidence natural to him tells us It is evident that the Government of the Church by Episcopacy was of Apostolical Institution for that Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creet as is plain by St. Pauls Epistles to them both that the seven Churches of Asia which received the Christian Faith had each a Bishop is evident by the Title St. John gives them in his Letters to them This is the Gentlemans proof of the Divine right of our English Prelacy this is that mighty evidence and demonstration he so often refers to in his Pamphlet saying I have proved I have shewed c. But if it was so plain from St. Pauls Epistles that Timothy and Titus were Bishops why did he not tell us what words those are which make it so very plain Indeed the Postscripts to those Epistles expresly call them Bishops of Ephesus and Creet but does he need to be told that the Postscripts are no part of Canonical Scripture nor joined with the Epistles for several hundred years after Christ Theodoret being the first that mentions them only as part of his own Commentary and yet he has not the word Bishop in them Nor any body else till
the Primitive Church liable to the same Exceptions But I hope we are not to be blamed for the dullness of his understanding The Expression is Plain and Pertinent He knows very well what Exceptions we make against the Power of our English Prelates c. Now if he can prove that the same Objections lye against the Primitive Episcopacy he shews thereby that they are frivolous and unjust and throws them out of doors as militating against Scripture Bishops as well as ours one would have thought the meanest Citizen in Chester might have understood this but it will never be better when men take upon them to be Authors in spight of Nature and Education He condemns the Vindicator as having no regard to Ecclesiastical Antiquity for speaking of Scripture Rules before they were written this lets us see What Mercy we may expect from him when we stand in need of it We will endeavour therefore to be as little beholden to him as we can and as to this matter a few Words will evince that his Reflection is very unjust In his former Paper Arch-Rebel p. 2. speaking of the Progress of the Gospel and planting the seven Asian Churches in St. Johns time he adds Though there was a Multiplication of Churches yet no Variation here the Vindicator enquired What does he mean in saying there was no Variation Was there no variety at all in any Circumstance of Worshop that 's gratis dictum if he means there was no Variation from Scripture Rules though we are afraid that will scarce hold yet we wish it had been so still Now it seems the Vindicators Errour was he spoke of Scripture Rules in the Apostolical Age and they were not then written No That 's something strange were not the Gospels and Epistles writ by Evangelists and Apostles during the time of their Lives No Legend that ever I heard of tells us of their rising from the dead and writing to the Churches And if they writ their Epistles containing Rules for Divine Worship why may not those be called Scripture Rules What if they were not Collected as soon as they were writ were they not therefore both Scripture and Authoritative And yet very Learned Men think the Canon of Scripture was collected in St. Johns time and that this awful Sanction If any shall add to these things God will add unto him the Plagues that are written in this Book c. Refers not only to the Apocalypse but to the whole Canon and stands like the Cherub with a flaming Sword to Guard the Tree of Life and if this Gentleman be for Scripture Rules that were not written in the Time of the Apostles I despair of ever coming to an agreement with him And it is certain there is a very material difference betwixt us about the Rule and Standard of Controversie which must be first adjusted before we can well proceed any further for if we take different Measures we shall certainly give a very different account Mr. H. desirous to find out the true Notion of Schism takes for his Rule all those places in the New Testament where that Word is found This the Gentleman is offended at and tells him If he had enquired into the ninth Article of the Apostles Creed then he had found out the true Standard of this Controversie And the Vindicator thought there was more Reason to be offended with him for declining the sufficiency of the Scripture as the standard of Faith and Practice this he censured as an affront to Scripture and common Sense too for when the Authority of that Creed depends solely upon its agreement with Scripture how senceless a thing is it to make that a truer Standard than Scripture whose Truth and meaning is to be derived purely from it What defence now will the Citizen make As good as he can afford no doubt He charges the Vindicator with saying that an Article of Faith is an affront to Scripture and Common Sence which is as false as any thing in the World we appeal to the Readers Eyes and desire no other favour but that he Read true To bring himself off he acknowledges That the Scripture indeed is the truest touch-stone of Sin and Duty but he adds whoever he be that expounds the Holy Scripture in Contradiction to an Article of the Creed must needs err and we are assured of the Errour by that Article it contradicts Should we grant this to be good Sence and Divinity yet it will not serve his turn for then he should not have accused Mr. H. of taking a wrong Standard but have proved that he made an Erroneous Application of the true One to his Case which are two different things a man may take a true measure and yet mistake in measuring a thing by it but to tell him in the former Paper of not finding out the true standard and to think to come off in this by blaming his Exposition of it is a very sorry shift which his Ignorance or Inadvertency has forced him upon And yet we must not let him go without further Examination about this matter for it is certain he is fallen into a most dangerous Errour making the Compilers of the Apostolical and Nicene Creeds the Infallible Interpreters of Scripture for so he tells us Reply p. 11. We come to be infallibly assured that the Socinian Interpretation of Scripture against the Divinity of Christ is False because it contradicts that Article I believe in Jesus the onely begotten Son of God and that in the Nicene Creed God of God very God of very God being of one Substance with the Father This is an Opinion which his own Spiritual Guides are obliged to chastize him for being so contrary to the avowed Principles of all Protestant Churches and to what our Learned Doctors have worthily asserted in their late Writings against the Papists to which I refer him for his better Information amongst others let him consult the Ingenious Dr. Sherlock in his Preservative against Popery where having declared that the Protestants abide by that Part 1st P. 49. which they see plainly proved out of Scripture bids us put this Question How shall we know what is the true sense of Scriptures and proposes three ways either by an Infallible Interpreter or the unanimous Consent of the Fathers or by such humane means as are used to find out the sense of other Books He rejects the Pretensions of an Infallible Interpreter and disapproves of the Rule of Expounding Scripture by the Consent of the Fathers and concludes there is no way left but to expound it as we do other Writings by considering the Signification and Propriety of Words and Phrases the Scope and Context of the Place the Reason of things the Analogy between the Old and New Testament and the like Our Citizen has found out that Infallible Interpreter which the Learned Doctor was ignorant of He is infallibly assured of the Divinity of Christ because the Compilers of the Apostolical and
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop Usher renders it Ordinem those that translate it a List would have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But let them contend about words as long as they please the true import of the place is plain enough to those that consider it with the foregoing Paragraph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p. 100. for there we find the Jewish Contests about the Priesthood and those of the Christians about the Episcopacy are compared together the case may be thus contracted Moses knowing that the Tribes would contend about the glorious Title of the Priesthood ordered them to bring their Rods each inscribed with the Name of its Tribe and he laid them up in the Tabernacle telling them That the Tribe whose Rod should blossom God had approved and chosen for the Priesthood Even so the Apostles c. That is as the Sacerdotal Tribe was chosen and approved of God so none must take upon them the office of Episcopacy but Men well approved this seems to me the true sence of the place and the only one that it is capable of And what is here to prove that Bishops are a distinct Order from Presbyters not one word but rather to the contrary for here it is said the Apostles constituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 98. the aforesaid go a few lines backward and you have the word again and there you will find it refers to Bishops and Deacons which the Apostles ordained for those that should believe Now if they only appointed these two sorts of Officers what is become of subordinate Presbyters the Apostles we see appointed none such the distinction betwixt Bishops and Presbyters according to Clemens is not by Divine or Apostolical institution and it is observable that in this very Paragraph he makes them the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It will be no small Sin in us to reject those that have discharged the Duties of their Episcopal Function in an holy and unblameable manner happy are those Presbyters who have finished their course They fear not being turned out of their present Settlement It is strange these Gentlemen should threaten us with Clement who as he writ next to the Apostles so he is next to them most friendly to our Cause and this was so evident to the learned Grotius That he gives it as a reason why he thinks this Epistle to be Genuine Quod nusquam meminit exortis Epist 182. ad Bignon c. because he no where mentions that extravagant Authority of Bishops which by the Custom of the Church began to be introduced at Alexandria but plainly shews as the Apostle does that Churches were governed by the Common Council of Presbyters who were also Bishops His next Author is Ignatius and it must be confess'd he puts a distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter and bids them all be observant of the Bishop and do nothing without the consent of the Bishop but still here is not a word to prove a Superiority of Office by divine right we grant that in his time the Name of Bishop began to be appropriated to the Senior Presbyter who was as Pastor and the rest his Curats or Assistants but this will make little for the Diocesan Prelate That Ignatius's Bishop was no more than the Pastor of a particular Church his own words abundantly manifest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Philad There is to every Church one Altar and one Bishop with the Presbytery and the Deacons my Fellow-Servants here we have the principle of Individuation in Churches not that all the Members of the Church must be no more than can always meet together in one place there be many things that may make that difficult but they must all have One Altar that is One Communion-Table Many Tricks and Salvo's have been invented to evade this instance some say by One Table is meant specifically One but so are all in the World Others One Supream Altar to which the rest were Subordinate but why then may we not say by One Bishop is meant One Supream Prelate with other Bishops under him There is no reason assignable why the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken Numerically and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 otherwise That by One Altar is meant One Consistory as Dr. Morrice would suggest is very improbable when in the same Sentence we read of One Bishop with his Presbytery which sure must signifie the Consistory if any thing that Sentence does and is much more likely to do so than One Altar This is so apparent that Mr. Mede confesses Proof of Churches in the second Cent. p. 29. It should seem that in those first times before Diocesan were divided into lesser and subordinate Churches we now call Parishes and Presbyters assigned to them they had not only one Altar in one Church or Dominicum but one Altar to a Church taking a Church for the Company or Corporation of the faithful united under one Bishop and that was in the City and place where the Bishop had his Residence Dr. Morrice would disable this Evidence because Mr. Mede expresses it with Caution and Modesty it should seem But such modesty makes it more valuable being the humor and way of that learned man he had made as strict researches into these things as he could and upon the whole it seemed thus to him but if there was a more than ordinary Caution observed in the Words some will be apt to think it was not for want of evidence that the case was really so but rather because he knew the Notion would not be very agreeable to the Governours of that Church of which he was an Excellent Member The Author of a late Treatise called a Defence of Pluralities supposed to be Mr. Wharton notwithstanding the heights of his Zeal for the Hierarchy which appear sufficiently throughout the Book yet ingenuously acknowledges That at the beginning Page 59. the Bishop and his Presbyters lived altogether in one common place and were maintain'd by the free Oblations of the People which were brought to the Cathedral and deposited upon the Altar or Communion Table when the number of Christians encreased they began to build more Churches than one in a City these new Churches were but as Chappels of Ease annexed to and depending upon the Cathedral Church where the Holy Eucharist was Consecrated This may suffice to shew what kind of Diocess Ignatius's Bishop had and what he means by one Altar Enquiry into the Constitut Discip Vnity c. Of the Primitive Churches Chap. 2. and a late Author has said a great deal to prove out of Ignatius himself that the several Bishopricks of Smyrna Ephesus Magnesia Philadelphia and Trallium were but so many single Congregations governed by a Bishop as Pastor and his Presbyters as Assistants and this he makes the true distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter in those times But whether that be so or no is not so material as that our
reprove them for Envying and Strife and Division in saying I am of Paul and I of Apollos c. And adds Who is Paul and who is Apollos but Ministers by whom ye believed I have planted Apollos hath watered and God gave the increase What sence can any man put upon this but that the fault here censured lay in their glorying too much in Instruments some in one some in another and therefore he adds Let no man glory in man for all things are yours whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas all are yours and ye are Christs and Christ is Gods Would all this have been true of the Gnostick Hereticks or would this have been a proper way of dealing with them for their recovery 6. Clemens Romanus in the passage this Gentleman cited would have undeceiv'd him P. 110. if it had been considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Take into your hands the Epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul which he wrote unto you in the beginning of his Gospel for he being divinely inspired admonished you that there were sidings and factions amongst you concerning Himself and Cephas and Apollos But there was less Sin in that siding than in your present Contentions for there you sided with the Apostles c. Now I would fain know were these Corinthians Gnosticks too to whom Clemens here writes If the other were these must be so to for he says the Apostle admonished you that there were sidings among you Clemens here tells us that the Contending Corinthians whom St. Paul reproved sided with the Apostles which he mentions as a thing which did extenuate their Crime did the Gnostick Hereticks do so Can we think that by siding with the Apostles he means fathering their damnable Heresies upon the Apostles surely that would rather have aggravated than lessened the fault this Gentleman tells us the Gnostick Hereticks here reproved opposed their Orthodox Governours which agrees but very sorrily with what Clemens says of the Corinthian Schismaticks siding with the Apostles That Schism which Clemens reprehends he says was worse than that censured by the Apostle Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the former Schism they sinned less than in the latter but what could be worse than the Gnostick Heresie and fathering it upon God himself If those to whom Clemens writes were worse than the Gnosticks 't is strange we should not hear him taxing them with monstrous Errors and horrid Crimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p. 108. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p. 106. but that on the contrary he should tell them they had one God and one Christ and one Spirit poured out upon them and one calling in Christ and he aggravates their Sin in casting off their Faithful Elders because it was done by the Godly and says It was without President that the just should be rejected by Godly Men and nothing is more evident by the whole Series of that Epistle than that the Schism there reproved was not any Heresie or Apostacy from the Faith but that for the sake of a few factious Persons they had slighted and cast off their faithful Presbyters by whom not by any one single Person that Church was governed and the great fault is laid upon the want of Charity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his great Encomiums upon Charity P. 114. and his earnest pressing of them to it shews that he look'd upon Uncharitableness to be the very Soul of their Schism whereby it was informed and acted which agrees so well with Mr. H's account that this Gentleman should have called it any thing rather than new but if this was the latter Corinthian Schism and if the former was not so criminal as this surely it could not be that damnable Blasphemous Gnostick Heresie which this Gentleman speaks of 7. If I thought what has been said were not sufficient I could add that the account which Jerom and many after him give of this Corinthian Schism will by no means quadrate with the Gnostick Heresie the Passage is very Trite and Common Antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione fierent Comment in Tlt. 1. diceretur in Populis Ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse non Christi toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur Now though I can by no means grant that upon this very Schism Episcopacy was instituted for the Reasons already given yet it is sufficient for the present purpose that it was upon a Schism of the same kind and therefore the Nature of Schism may be understood hereby it consisted in contending about their Ministers that governed them in Common and instead of paying a due and equal respect to them all some cried up this another that probably every one would magnifie him by whom he had been Converted and Baptized and at length it seems it infected the Ministers themselves and they begun to challenge a special Propriety in those they had Baptized as if by Baptism men had been united to them not to Christ for the Prevention whereof one was chosen from amongst the rest and the Government of the whole principally committed to him and by this means they endeavoured to prevent such contests about the Preheminence for the future Let the Gentleman apply this to the Gnostick Heresie and he will find it to be the most unapt and discordant thing in the World were those Hereticks under the Common Government of the Presbyters of Corinth No he says they opposed their Orthodox Governours and puts the grossest abuse upon the Apostles making them Haeresiarcha's and what would it have signified to such men as those to have one of their despised Presbyters made a Bishop How would this have put an end to the Heresie What tendency could it have to make them change their Minds and renounce those Opinions for which they pretended Apostolical Authority Would they think that as soon as the Presbyter was advanced to the Quality of a Bishop he presently commenc'd infallible and therefore they must necessarily speak and think as he dictated to them The World has not found Episcopacy to be such a Soveraign Cure of Heresie the Arians had their Bishops and so have the Papists and prodigious great ones too but they are generally the greatest promoters of Heresie of all others I would now willingly consider any thing that has the least colour of reason to prove that the Corinthian Schism was the Gnostick Heresie and I have searched as diligently as I could those three or four pages which the Gentleman has writ upon this Point but I must needs say his whole discourse upon it is the most confused Jargon that ever I read from a man pretending so high as he does The thing which he
same over all Churches and this Surveyor says The Bishops succeed them in the same Authority only the exercise thereof is limited by humane Agreements and asks the Vindicator whether a Bishop be not as truly a Bishop and a Presbyter as truly a Presbyter in any other Man's Diocese or Parish as in his own But here he puts things together that should be kept distinct a Bishop in the received and ordinary sence of the word is a Relative term and always connotes a Bishoprick either in Possession or Title as his Charge and Cure and therefore though he be Bishop in another Man's Diocese he is not Bishop of that Diocese indeed as a Minister of the Gospel he may Preach and Administer the Sacraments any where that Providence casts him and gives him an opportunity of so doing and if this be all the Episcopal Power they pretend to we will allow it to be as Universal as they please but the Power of Jurisdiction over Ministers and People which they call the Apostolical Power they have not any where but in their own Dioceses and yet even that Power the Apostles had all the World over and could not be limited in it by any Humane Agreements whatsoever By this Notion our Gentleman has advanced the Bishop of Chester has no more Authority in Cheshire than the Bishop of Rome Review p. 40. but what is founded on Humane Agreements and what thanks his Diocesan will give him for such a Doctrine I cannot tell for he afterwards acknowledges that the Bishop of Rome has no Authority at all in England which makes the whole Power of our Bishops to depend upon Humane Agreements without which he that has none at all would have as much as they Or perhaps it is liable to a worse Consequence than that for if every Bishop has Universal Power in all Dioceses by the Grant of Christ and is only restrained in the Exercise thereof by Humane Agreements then may the Bishop of Rome with Apostolical Authority make Canons for all England and Excommunicate us all if we receive them not for Christ gave him Universal Power only it was limited by Humane Agreements which he never agreed to and if he had that could not render his Act unauthoritative but only irregular Only the best on 't is any Bishop in England may make Canons for Rome too and Damn them all Pope and Cardinals and all if they will not obey I would gladly understand this Doctrine a little better and therefore I beg the favour of this Gentleman to tell me what Agreements these are of which he speaks where and when made and by whom Are they only made by the Bishops amongst themselves or had the People a hand therein or does he mean the Laws of the Land If Bishops can by mutual Agreement so restrain the Exercise of their Power why may they not by the like Agreements constitute one to be Head over them all I wish this Gentleman would go to School to a learned Doctor of his own Church though he was not in Communion with him in these Notions yet I hope no Schismatick for all that Treat of Supremacy p. 120 121. 't is the worthy Dr. Isaac Barrow whose words are The Offices of an Apostle and Bishop are not in their own Nature well consistent for the Apostleship is an extraordinary Office charged with the Instruction and Government of the whole World and calling for an answerable Care the Apostles being Rulers as St. Chrysostom saith ordained by God Rulers not taking several Nations and Cities but all of them in common intrusted with the whole World but Episcopacy is an ordinary standing charge affixed to One place and requiring a special Attendance there who as St. Chrysostom saith do sit and are employed in one place Now he that hath such a General Care can hardly discharge such a particular Office and he that is fixed to so particular an Attendance can hardly look well after so General a Charge I need not repeat what has been said about the Powers of Timothy and Titus what the Gentleman here alledges is anticipated and answered He must prove that Presbyters may not do what Timothy and Titus did that they may not ordain that they may not reprove one another for their Faults as they have occasion He says These are the Powers that Bishops have exercised all along and so have Presbyters too and if exercise proves the Title they must therefore be Bishops also He adds The Congregational Invention allows of no such Officers the most ordinary Pastors being all Independent without ever a Timothy or Titus to Govern them and therefore by Scripture stands condemned and if it be so I am sure Episcopacy is involved in the same Condemnation for the Bishops are by their own Party accounted the only Pastors and the Inferiour Clergy are but their Curates and yet these Pastors have none to supervise them but are as Independent as can be there 's no Paul to govern these Timothies and Titus's and therefore their Churches are to use his own words plainly contrary to the Apostolical Pattern And Dr. Morrice has told us That it is not essential to a Bishop to have many Congregations under him Bishops may be Pastors of single Congregations yea they may not have one Presbyter under them Review p. 60. and yet be Bishops still for Milles the Martyr was a Bishop and yet had no Christian in his Diocese and yet I think there are few Pastors of our Congregational Churches but what have Presbyters under them so that Episcopacy and Independency may very well comport together for Episcopacy is Independent and may be Congregational and if the one be condemned by Scripture the other must fall with it He says It is an idle fancy to suppose that the Office of Timothy and Titus was itinerant for then says he they were out of their Office when they were at home the one in Ephesus and the other in Crete If by calling those places their Homes he would insinuate that they were their proper Diocesan Sees where they were to reside 't is a begging of the Question and every Body knows that's the way of Idle Persons it is as certain as our Bibles can make it that Timothy was only to abide at Ephesus for a Season till Paul's return out of Macedonia 1 Tim. 3.14 after which he accompanied Paul into Asia Chap. 4.13 from thence to Italy Heb. 13.23 thence Paul declares he would send him to Philippi Chap. 2.19 and we find him at Rome again Col. 1.1 And Titus was so far from being resident at Crete Gal. 2.1 3. 2 Cor. 2.12 7. 13. 12.8 2 Tim. 4.10 that he was commanded away to Nicopolis before Winter Chap. 3.12 he was sent to Corinth and Dalmatia and went up to Jerusalem with Paul and came to him during his Imprisonment at Rome These Removes our Gent. would have us to think were their Episcopal Visitations but that would