ii 240 Mr. N E A L 'S lid VOL of the mina, fed Ojiciorum. See more in his Epift. ad Evagrium, & Corn. in Galet. 1. 19. Neal, ibid. Saint Chryfoftom and Theophy- lad affrm-, that while the 1lpofiles lived, and fame Ages after, theNames of B/hops and Presbyters were not clUtinguilhed. Saint Chrfe/tom fays, [Principio Homil. 1. 1 Tim. To. 4. Op. Edit. Savil. p. 289.] ' That the Reafon why the Apoftle having delivered Rules for the Behaviour of Bithops, immediately pro- ' ceeds to Deacons, without mentioning the inter- ' mediate Order of Prefbyters, was this : That there is not a great Difference between ' Bifhops and Presbyters; for even Presbyters are entrufted to teach and prefide over the Church : fo that the fame Rules which are preferibed for Bifhops, may alfo ferve for Presbyters ; there be- ' ing fcarce any Aft of the epifcopal Office, which may not be exercifed by them, but Inpojition of Hands.' See Homil. 16. in 1 Tim. p.317. Theophylaa [in Argument. in Epift. ad Titum, p. 387. Op. Londini, 1636.] the Tranflation as follows : ' That Titus was the moft approved of any that attended upon Saint Paul, and on that ' account was made Bifhop of-the Great Iila of Crete ; and that he had not only the Superinten- dency over all Crete, but the Ordination of the Bifhops thereof was committed ro his Care.' Neal, p. 406. The Chcrepfcopus, who was but a Presby ter, had power to impo/e Hands, and to ordain within his Precincts, with the Bifhop's Licence. Bifhop Hall obferves upon this as follows, [De- fence, p. 72.] ' You difcover not too much Skill ' in not diftinguiíhirg of the Chorepifcopi, fore whereofhad both the Nature and Power of Epif- ' copacy to all purpofes ; and therefore might weil, with the Bithop's Licence, in his own Charge, impofe Hands, and others nor. Bifhop ' Stilling
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=