Jesus Christ and confirmed by the Word of God they went forth preaching that the kingdome of God was coming Preaching then through Countries and Cities they constituted the first-fruits of them overseers and ministers of those that should beleeve This he thus prosecutes p. 57. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And our Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife about the name of Bishop And for that cause perfectly foreknowing it they constituted the aforesaid and gave order for the future that when they should fall asleep other approved persons should succeed into their Ministery Those therefore that were constituted by them or afterwards by other approved persons we conceive to be unjustly put out of their Ministery The sense of these words is some what obscure by reason of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth here afterwards as in Acts XIII 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Gentiles besought that these things might be spoken to them the Sabbath after And so Cappellus de Dieu upon that Text of the Acts have observed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in the same signification by Iosephus But here the case is plain that it cannot be otherwise understood because of that which follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must needs be those that were made afterwards Now the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so far as I can learn is no where read in all the Greek tongue but here so that we must take the signification either from the originall or from the consequence of the discourse The originall bears the sense which I conceive in translating it an Order well enough being the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the consequence of the Discourse necessarily requires it For what reason doth he expresse why those whom he speaks of should be thought unjustly removed but because the Apostles had appointed that those whom they constituted should be succeeded by others I grant that he allegeth other considerations aggravating the fault of the Corinthians in putting out their Governours that is their Bishop and Presbyters for one or two of the Presbyters But he hath said nothing by all this which I have here produced unlesse we grant that it was not in their power to doe it meerly in this consideration because they succeeded such as were constituted by the Apostles For the Apostles had done nothing in appointing that others should succeed them whom they constituted if this succession could be voided by any Power but that which appointed it From the distinction advanced p. 276. between those things that are commanded every Christian and those things that are commanded the Body of the Church perhaps a resolution may be deduced what is absolutely necessary to salvation and what not And also what is absolutely necessary to salvation to be known and what not The Book de Cive maintains this Position that there is but one Article of the Faith necessary to salvation which is that our Lord Jesus is the Messias But the sufficience of it is further declared to imply the receiving of Christ for a Doctor sent by God in all things without exception to be beleeved and obeyed which manifestly infers the profession of all Christianity and the sincerity of the same And upon these terms I see no reason how to deny that upon this condition the thief upon the Crosse is promised life everlasting and the Eunuch of Aethiopia admitted to Baptism that is to remission of sins and the title to life everlasting According to that which is said here p. 16. that in danger of death or when there appeared an ardent zeal to Christianity men were admitted to Baptism without regular triall to wit upon the free and zealous profession of Christianity So Philip is ordered by the Spirit to give Baptism on the like terms as the Church used to doe But this makes no alteration in the necessity of those things that are to be known and undertook by those that regularly come to Baptism which continue no lesse necessary to salvation though the obligation of knowing and acknowledging them cannot take place either at all in them that die immediately or in them that are thus baptized before their Baptism It may then with a great deal of reason be said that all that and onely that which is contained in the Covenant of Baptism is necessary to salvation among which is the Unity of the Church and the obligation of every Christian to contribute towards the preservation of it But otherwise what this Covenant containeth this is not the place to dispute Some of the particulars remembred p. 289. that are in the Scriptures and yet oblige not the Church deserve to be considered more at large That the Apostle speaks not barely of the Sacrament of the Eucharist 1 Cor. XI but of the celebration thereof at their Feasts of Love beside that which hath been said upon divers occasions in this Discourse appears further by this Glosse which I finde in the written Copy lately alleged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lords Supper saith he is to dine in the Church Whereby it may appear that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is properly called the Sacrament of the Lords Supper but not properly the Supper of the Lord. There is nothing can be propounded in a more expresse form of Precept then the decree of forbearing things sacrificed to Idols by the Councell at Jerusalem And yet it is manifest that it was but locall For if it had obliged the Church of Rome S. Paul could not have given them another Rule not to condemne one another Jews and Gentiles for eating or not eating For that this case is comprised within that Rule it appeareth because S. Paul is afraid that Jewish Christians should fall away from Christianity as enjoyning to renounce the Law and by consequence the Author of it which was manifestly the scandall of those at Ierusalem But if it had obliged the Church of Corinth much lesse could S. Paul have given leave to eate things sacrificed to Idols materially as Gods creatures which you have seen that he doth That under the Apostles Baptism was drenching of all the body under water appears by S. Pauls Discourse Rom. VI. 3 4 5. for how should the death and Resurrection of our Lord Christ be represented by Baptism otherwise And so the exception that is taken against the Baptism of Novatianus is that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 43. Had water poured about him in bed because of his sicknesse So the solemnity of drenching was due though I shewed afore that the substance of the exception is grounded upon the weaknesse of his resolution to Christianity who would not undertake to professe it while persecution appeared For if that had not been the solemnity would not have been avoided The Vail of women in the Church which the Apostle requires 1 Cor. XI that it was to cover their faces though laid upon the head I
alloweth of them which as it was alwayes the right of the Church to doe as I shall observe in another place so it appeareth so to be in that mariage was never celebrated among Christians without the Prayers of the Church And this observation I insist upon the more chearfully because it much strengtheneth the argument which the Church maketh for the Baptism of Infants from the Act of our Saviour in the Gospel when he blessed the Infants with Imposition of Hands For if all Imposition of Hands be an act of the publique Power of the Church allowing that which is done with it then can this Imposition of Hands signifie no lesse then that those to whom our Lord granteth it belong to his Kingdome of the Visible Church One little objection there lies against this from the incestuous person at Corinth whom S. Paul in his second Epistle seems to readmit to communion his crime being as deep as Adultery which we say the rigor of Apostolicall Discipline admitted not to Penance To which I have divers things to answer That this cannot be objected but by him that acknowledges that he was excommunicate by the former Epistle That Tertullian in his Book de Pudicitiâ disputes at large that it is not the same case which is spoken of in both Epistles That the crime here specified perhaps is not of the number of those which from the beginning were excluded from Penance But waving all this as I excepted two cases in which men were baptized without regular triall so supposing the Rule to take hold in this case it is no inconvenience to grant that S. Paul might wave the rigor of Discipline so setled as supposing there might be cause to wave it If this opinion seem new my purpose requires but these two Points that the Penance practised by the ancient Church supposed Excommunication which it only abateth and that it was instituted by the Apostles and for that there is enough said I suppose even to them that beleeve not that the Apostles excluded any kinde of crimes from Penance Besides that of S. Paul blaming the Corinthians that they were puffed up and had not rather lamented that he that had done the evil might be put from among them 1 Cor. V. 2. And again fearing that when he returned he should be forced to lament many 2 Cor. XII 21. Which if we compare with the Primitive solemnity of Excommunication which by the constitutions of the Apostles II. 16. and other ways we understand was to put the person out of the Church doors with mourning it will appear that Epiphanius is in the right in expounding this later Text to this purpose Haer. LIX num 5. The power of Excommunication then by all this is no more then the necessary consequence of the Power of admitting to Communion by Baptism Which if it imply a contract with the Church to live according to the rule of Christianity then it is forfeit to him that evidently does that which cannot stand with that rule and the Church not tied to restore it but as the person can give satisfaction to observe it for the future Now I will make short work with Erastus his long labour to prove that there is no Excommunication commanded by the Law I yeeld it And make a consequence which will be thought a strange one But I have it from the speculation of Origen in Levit Hom. XI and others why the Church should onely be inabled to Excommunicate whereas the Synagogue was inabled to put to death From the observation of S. Augustine Quaest in Deuteronom V. 38. de Fide Operibus cap. VI. and others that Excommunication in the Church is the same that the power of life and death in the Synagogue My argument is then that the Church is to have the power of Excommunication because the Synagogue had the power of life and death And the reason of the consequence this Because as the Law being the condition of the Covenant by which the benefit of the Commonwealth of Israel was due inabled to put to death such as destroyed it So the Gospel being the condition of the Covenant that makes men denizons of the spirituall Jerusalem must inable to put them from the society thereof that forfeited it It is not my intent hereby to say that there was no Excommunication under the Law For I doe beleeve that we have mention of it in Ezra X. 8. grounded if I mistake not upon the Commission of the King of Persia recorded Ezr. VII 26. for that which is here called rooting out seems to be the same that is called in the other place dividing from the Synagogue of the Captives Being indeed a kinde of temporall Outlawry to which is joined confiscation of Goods For so saith Luther truly that the greater Excommunication among Christians is every where a temporall punishment to wit in regard of some temporall punishment attending it in Christian States which in Christianity is accidentall by Act of those States in Judaisme essentiall so long as those temporall advantages which were the essentiall condition of the Law were not forfeited And this without doubt is the same punishment which the Gospels call putting out of the Synagogue Though I cannot say so peremptory for the temporall effects of it Which severall Soveraigns could easily limit to severall terms For the right that Ezra might have to introduce this penalty is clear by the Law of Deut. XVII 12. which inabling to put them to death that obeyed not the Synagogue inabled to Excommunicate to Banish to Outlaw them much more But as we see the Romanes allowed them not the power of life and death which the Persians granted them so I am not to grant that putting out of the Synagogue in the Gospel implieth the extinguishing of the civill being of any Jew The Talmud Doctors say that those that were under the greater Excommunication were to dwell in a cotage alone and to have meat and drink brought them till they died Arba Turim or Shulchan Auroh in Jore Dea Hilcoth Niddui Voherem A speculation sutable to their condition in their dispersions which no man is bound to beleeve how far it was in force and practice But suppose the Synagogue in the same condition with the Church afore Constantine injoying no privilege but to serve God according to the Law as the Church according to the Gospel And then as the Synagogue must always have power to excommunicate which had power to put to death so I say is the Church inabled by our Lord to doe what I have shewed the Apostles did doe by Mat. XVIII 18. I yeeld that the terms of binding and loosing are used by the Jews to signifie the declaring of what is prohibited and permitted by the Law But I yeeld not that it can be so understood here because the ground of this declaration ceaseth under the Gospel being derived from the sixe hundreth and thirteen Precepts of the Law and from the power
rank of the XII Apostles which afterwards he shews us was acknowledged by the XII themselves at Jerusalem Gal. II. 8 9. to wit when he went to Jerusalem with Barnabas about this question Acts XV. 1. for I can see no reason to doubt that all that he speaks of there passed during the time of this journey And in the mean time it was easie for those that stood for the Law to pretend Revelation from God and authority from the Apostles in matter of Christianity as well as Paul and Barnabas What possible way was there then to end this difference but that of the Apostle 1 Cor. XIV 32 33. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets for God is not the God of unquietnesse but of peace as in all Churches of the Saints Whereupon vindicating his authority and challenging obedience to his Order even from Prophets which might be lifted up with Revelations to oppose he addeth Came the word of God from you or came it to you alone If any man think himself a Prophet or spirituall let him acknowledge the things that I write you to be the Commandements of God That is that Apostles being trusted to convey the Gospel to the world were to be obeyed even by Prophets themselves as the last resolution of the Church in the will of God granting his Revelations with that temper that as one Prophet might see more in the sense effect and consequence of Revelations granted to another then himself could doe in which regard the spirits of the Prophets were to be subject to the Prophets so for the publick order of the Church all were to have recourse to the Apostles whom he had trusted with it If then the Church of Antiochia in which were many Prophets and among them such as Paul and Barnabas indowed with the immediate Revelations of the Holy Ghost Acts XIII 1. must resort to Jerusalem the seat of the Apostles to be resolved in matters concerning the state of the Church how much more are we to beleeve that God hath ordained that dependence of Churches without which the Unity of no other humane Society can be preserved when he governeth them not but by humane discretion of reasonable persons Besides we are here to take notice that the Church of Antiochia being once resolved the Churches of Syria and Cilicia are resolved by the same Decree Acts XVI 4. Because being planted from thence they were to depend upon it for the Rule and practice of Christianity Therefore it is both truly and pertinently observed that the Decree made at Jerusalem was locall and not universall which had it been made for the whole Church there could not have been that controversie which we finde was at Corinth by S. Paul 1 Cor. VIII 1. about eating things offered to Idols Neither could the Apostle give leave to the Corinthians to eat them materially as Gods creatures not formally as things offered to Idols as he does 1 Cor. VIII 7. had the Body of the Apostles at Jerusalem absolutely forbid the eating of them to Gentile Christians for avoiding the scandall of the Jewish Christians But because the Decree concerned onely the Church of Antiochia and so by consequence the Churches depending upon it therefore among those that depended not upon it for whom the Rule was not intended it was not to be in force There is yet one reason behinde which is the ground of all from the Originall constitution of the Synagogue Moses by the advice of Jethro ordained the Captains of Thousands Hundreds Fifties and Tens to judge the Causes of the people under himself Ex. XVIII 24 25. To himself God joyned afterwards LXX persons for his assistance Num. XI 16. But these Captains were to be in place but during the pilgrimage of the wildernesse For when they came to be setled in the land of Promise the Law provideth that Judges and Ministers be ordained in every City Deut. XVI 18. Who if there fell any difference about the Law were to repair to Jerusalem to the successors of Moses and his Consistory for resolution in it Deut. XVII 12. by which Law wheresoever the Ark should be this Consistory was to sit as inferiour Consistories in all inferiour Cities Most men will marvell what this is to my purpose because most men have a prejudice that the power of the Church is to be derived from the Rights and Privileges of the Priests and Levites during the Law though there be no reason for it For these Rights and Privileges were not onely temporary to vanish when the Gospel was published but also while the Law stood but locall and personall not extending beyond the Temple or land of Promise over any but their own Tribe But it is very well known that from the time of the Greekish Empire and partly afore it Judaisme subsisted in all parts wheresoever the Jews were dispersed and that wheresoever it subsisted there were the people to be governed and regulated in the observation of the Law and the publique worship of God according to the same frequented also all over the land of Promise whereas the Temple stood but in one place It is also manifest that this Law which gave the Consistory power of life and death to preserve the Body of that people in Unity and to prevent Schisms upon different Interpretations of the Law was found requisite to be put in practice in their Dispersions to wit as to the determining of all differences arising out of the Law not as to the power of life and death to inforce such sentences this power being seldome granted them by their Soveraigns For at Alexandria we understand by Philo in his Book de Legatione ad Caium that there was such a Consistory as also in Babylonia there was the like as the Jews writings tell us for the little Chronicle which they call Seder Olam Zuta gives us the names of the Heads thereof for many ages And after the destruction of the Temple it is manifest not onely by their writings as Semach David Sepher Juchasin and the like but by Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Ebionites and the Constitutions of the Emperors remaining in the Codes Tit. de Judaeis Coelicolis that there continued a Consistory at Tiberias for many ages the Heads whereof were of the family of David as Epiphanius agreeing with the Jews informeth us in the place aforenamed And as by the story of Saul in the Acts it appears that the Jews of Damascus were subject to the Government at Jerusalem so by Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Ebionites it appears that the Synagogues of Syria and Cilicia were subject to the Consistory at Tiberias as I have shewed out of Benjamins Itinerary in the Discourse of the Apostolicall form of Divine Service p. 67. that the Synagogues of the parts of Assyria and Media were to that in Bagdat and without doubt that great Body of Jews dispersed through Aegypt was to that at Alexandria As for the Law
the Pharisee Luc. XVIII 12. that the Mundays and Thursdays were then and before then observed by the Jews as since they have been And as you see the like done in the Feast of Lots ordained in Esthers time and that of the Dedication in Judas Maccabcus his And in the same Prophet Zac. XII 12 13 14. you have a manifest allusion to the Jews ceremonies at their Funerals recorded by Maimont in the title of Mourners cap. IX clearly shewing that they were in force in that Prophets time As it is manifest that they began before the Law it self not only by that which we reade of the Funerals of Jacob in Genesis but chiefly because it required an expresse Law of God to derogate from it as to the Priests in the case of Aarons sons Levit. X. 6. XXI 1 10 11 12. Many more there are to be observed in the Old Testament if these were not enough to evidence that which cannot be denied that it appears indeed by Scripture that there were such Laws in force but that they were commanded by revelations from God is quite another thing Though men of learning sometimes make themselves ridiculous by mistaking as if all that is recorded in the Scriptures were commanded by God when all that comes from God is the record of them as true not the authority of them as divine The case is not much otherwise in the New Testament where it is manifest that many Constitutions Ordinances or Traditions as the Apostle sometimes calls them 1 Cor. XI 2. are recorded which no man can say that they obliged not the Church and yet this force of binding the Church comes not from the mention of them which we finde in severall places of Scripture For they must needs be in force before they could be mentioned as such in the Scriptures but from that Power which God had appointed to order and determine such things in his Church This difference indeed there is between the Old and New Testament that this being all written in the Apostles time can mention nothing of that nature but that which comming from the Apostles might come by immediate revelation from God Which of the Old cannot be said For though there were Prophets in all ages of it and those Prophets endowed with such trust that if they commanded to dispense with any of Gods own positive Laws they were to be obeyed as appears by Elias commanding to Sacrifice in Mount Carmell contrary to the Law of Levit. XVII 4. and this by virtue of the Law Deut. XVIII 18 19. because he that gave the Law by Moses might by another as well dispense with it yet it is manifestly certain that neverthelesse they had not the power of making those Constitutions which were to bind the people in the exercise of their Religion according to the Law For when the Law makes them subject to be judged by the Consistory whether true Prophets or not whereupon we see that they were many times persecuted and our Lord at last put to death by them that would not acknowledge them because they had not the grace to obey them as you saw afore it cannot be imagined that they were enabled to any such act of government as giving those Laws to the Synagogue Especially seeing by the Law of Deut. XVII 8-12 this power and this right is manifestly setled upon the Consistory For seeing that by the Law all questions arising about the Law are remitted to the place of Gods worship where the Consistory sate in all ages and the determination of a case doubtfull in Law to be obeyed under pain of death is manifestly a Law which all are obliged to live by of necessity therefore those who have power to determine what the written Law had not determined doe give Law to the people And this right our Lord himself who as a Prophet had right to reprove even the publick government where it was amisse establishes as ready to maintain them in it had they submitted to the Gospel when he says Mat. XXIII 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chair all therefore that they teach you observe and doe The Scribes and Pharisees being either limbs and members or appendences of the Consistory who under pain of death were not to teach any thing to determine any thing that the Law had not determined contrary to that which the Consistory had first agreed Whereby it is manifest that all these Laws and Ordinances aforenamed and all others of like nature which all common sense must allow to have been more then the Scripture any where mentions are the productions of this Right and Power placed by God in the Consistory on purpose to avoid Schism and keep the body of the people in Unity by shewing them what to stand to when the Law had not determined So that this is nothing contrary to the Law of Deut. IV. 2. XII 32. which forbiddeth to adde to or take from Gods Law the Law remaining intire when it is supplied by the Power which it self appointeth And he that will see the truth of this with his eys let him look upon the Jews Constitutions compiled into the Body of their Talmud Which though they are now written and in our Saviours time were taught from hand to hand though by succession of time and change in the State of that People they cannot continue in all points the same as they were in our Saviours time yet it is manifest that the substance of them was then in force because whatsoever the Gospel mentions of them is found to agree with that which they have now in writing And are all manifestly the effect of the lawfull power of the Consistory Nor let any man object that they are the Doctrines of the Pharisees which they pretended that Moses received from God in Mount Sinai and delivered by word of mouth to his Successors and that the Sadduces were of another opinion who never acknowledged any such unwritten Law but tied themselves to the letter as doth at this day one part of the Jews which renounce the Talmud and rest in the letter of the Law who are therefore called Karaim that is Scripturaries For though all this be true yet neither Pharisees nor Sadduces then neither Talmudists nor Scripturaries now did or do make question of acknowledging such Laws and Constitutions as are necessary to determine that which grows questionable in the practice of the Law but are both in the wrong when as to gain credit to those Orders and Constitutions which both bodies respectively acknowledge the one will have them delivered by God to Moses the other will needs draw them by consequence out of the letter of the Scripture And so entitle them to God otherwise then he appointed which is only as the results and productions of that power which he ordained to end all matter of difference by limiting that which the Law had not The same reason necessarily takes place under the New Testament saving the difference
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