A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath

The II. CHAPTER. Prouing the function of BB. to be of Apostolical institution, because it was used in those times without their dislike.

W Here I take this proposition for granted (namely of the adversaries) he saith,

which is the general opinion of the Disciplinarians, confessed in effect by himself, Pag. 130. Yea but I say afterward, in favor of the Disciplinarians (therein clawing a Churl, according to the homely proverb, as appeareth by this refuter) that though the government by BB. is the best; yet we doubt not but where this may not be had, others may be admitted, neither do we deny but that silver is good, though gold be better. whereto I answer: first, that I did not say simply, that other governments may be admitted besides that which was ordained by the Apostles, but where that cannot be had. But whiles the Apostles lived, that which they ordained might be had. Again, if any in the Apostles times should of their own heads have altered the form of government established by them, and consequently have set up a worse, it cannot be thought, that either the Apostles would have allowed it, or that all Churches would have retained that government, which they had not received from the Apostles. Besides, it is incredible, that in the Apostles times any form of government was used in the Apostolical Churches, but that which was ordained by the Apostles: and therefore the proposition is more then manifest.

Now followeth the assumption: whereof are two parts, the one, that the government by BB. was used even in the Apostles times, the other that it was not contradicted by them.

The former I prove by two arguments: the one because the seven Angels were in the Apostles times, and they were BB. for the substance of their calling such as ours be: and therefore such BB. were in the Apostles time.

Ere the refuter will answer to the matter of the assumption, he propoundeth two things

Did not I before observe in the Sermon, that there was but one Angel in each of the seven Churches; and doth not the text say, that the seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches? I have spoken of this point before, only let the refuter call to mind this argument among the rest.

The text saith the Stars were seven.

The text saith that the Angels be the Stars.

Therefore the text saith the Angels be seven.

The other is, that I

doth he not speak against the light of his own conscience, when he saith I avoid the name Diocesan, seeing in express terms I said, they were for the substance of their calling such as ours be? If I had only said Diocesan, he might have excepted in behalf of the learneder sort of Disciplinarians; that they doubted not but that the Angels were superintendents of the City and country adjoining; but all the question (would they say) is, of the superiority, whether they had a singular preeminence for term of life, a superiority in degree, a maiority of power in respect of ordination and jurisdiction: when as therefore I say, that for the substance of their calling they were such BB. as ours are, I do say, not only that they were Diocesan, but also that they were superior to other ministers in degree, &c.

But whence I pray you, hath the refuter this confidence so boldly to affirm, that their ruling Elders were called BB.? Calvin and M. Trauers, &c. confess that BB. signify only preaching Elders, and are your Lay-elders now become BB? the people may have joy of such guides that cease not to broach such fancies.

After he hath played a little with the assumption, he

if that were true, yet that nothing is more then the refuter will ever be able to disprove: and that is this, that the seven Angels were BB. all do confess: that they were such BB. as ours be for the substance of their calling, I proved in the first four points of the Sermon: yea but saith he, I answer first, that I had no reason to insist longer in this proof, unless I would have repeated the former part of the Sermon again: was it not sufficient to refer them to the former part where this point was professedly handled? neither is he ignorant, but that in demonstration of the latter part of the assumption▪ I bring other proofs out of the scripture. But fain he would disgrace our cause with the reader as though we had no proofs in scripture: which ill becometh him, that hath not one syllable in the scriptures, or other monuments of antiquity to prove their Presbiterian discipline.

But it is untrue, that I bring nothing to prove the assumption, but what was before answered. For I bring two other arguments, to prove that these seven Angels were such BB. The former, though this great analyser either did not, or would not see it: that two of these Angels were Polycarpus and Onesimus, Polycarpus the B. of Smyrna, and Onesimus the B. of Ephesus, and what is said of two, is to be understood of the rest. That Polycarp was in these times the B. of Smyrna, I proved by the testimony of the Church of Smyrna , testifying that he had been the B. of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. And of Bullinger , who noteth, that Polycarp had been B. of Smyrna thirteen years before the revelation was given, and so continued for many years after. Whereunto may be added those authentical testimonies which after are alleged, that he was made B. of Smyrna by S. John. That Onesimus was B. of Ephesus at this time▪ I prove by the testimony of Ignatius who lived at the same time, who in his Epistle to the Ephesians mentioneth their B. Onesimus.

The latter argument proving that these seven Angels were BB. is, because from them all a succession of BB. was continued in those seven Churches to the Council of Nice, and afterwards: for to omit, that the ancient BB. of these Churches are sometimes occasionally mentioned , as Polycrates of Ephesus, Thraseas of Smyrna, Melito of Sardes, &c. it is evident, that the Bishops of these Churches subscribed to diverse of the ancient Councils, as to the council of Nice, Menophantes B. of Ephesus, Eutychius of Smyrna, Artemidorus of Sardes, Thomasion of Philadelphia, Serras of Thyatira, Nunechius of Laodicea▪ to the Council of Chalcedon, Stephanus of Ephesus, Aethericus of Smyrna, Eutropius of Pergamos, Helladius of Thyatira, Florentius of Sardes, Megalus of Philadelphia, Nunechius of Laodicea. To this argument the Refuter answereth nothing in particular.

With these two arguments the refuter joineth that which I propounded Pag. 63. concerning the succession of Bishops in some Churches within the Apostles times, being indcede the second argument, whereby I proved the assumption, that in the Apostles times were BB.

To all these he answereth, first jointly, and then cavilleth with some of them severally. His joint answer to them all, I reserve until I come to that second argument. The Epistle of Smyrna, which himself heretofore alleged as authentical, being now alleged by me, so hard is my hap, is grown suspicious: and why I pray you? for the Refuter travailed of a point of learning, which he desired to be delivered of.

How many Epistles of Polycarpus this Refuter hath read I know not; for my part I have seen no more but his Epistle to the Philippians . Indeed Soudas , who noteth him to have been the Disciple of S. John, and the successor of Bucolus, who was the first B. of Smyrna, saith▪ he wrote an Epistle to Dionysius the Areopagite, and to other Churches; which Epistles, if the Refuter have, he should do well to communicate them; if not, how can he tell that the word Catholic was not used in them? But to the point, was not the Creed of the Apostles as ancient as this Epistle, which writeth of the martyrdom of Polycarp, who was put to death in the seventh of Aurelius Antonius, about the year one hundred sixty and nine? and yet that mentioneth the Catholic Church. Again, was not this a high point of learning, to suspect this Epistle to be counterfeit, because it useth a word which he confesseth, is used by Clemens Alexandrinus, who lived at the same time, though wrote not perhaps more then twenty years after?

Where I proved, that Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, or at least that testimony which I cited concerning Onesimus their Bishop, not to be counterfeit, because Eus • bius mentioneth that Epistle, and those words; he saith, this argument is none of the sufficientest : but I always thought, if Ignatius his Epistles were counterfaited, that this happened to them since Eusebius time. It sufficeth me, that the testimony which I alleged, was not in Eusebius his time, who lived within two hundred years after Ignatius, suspected as counterfeit. For if Eusebius, and those in his time, knew no cause to suspect that Epistle; I know no reason, besides his own suspiciousnesse, why the Refuter should suspect it.

The second argument, whereby I prove the former assumption is this, that it is with great consent testified by Authors , of best credit in the Church of God, that in the Apostles times, reckoning until the death of S. John, that is, to the year of our Lord one hundred and one, there were not only BB. but also a succession of BB. in diverse Churches: as at Rome, Linus, Anacletus, Clemens, Euaristus: at Jerusalem, James the just, and Simeon the son of Cleophas: at Antioch, Evodius and Ignatius : at Alexandria, S. Mark, Anianus, Abilius, Cerdo : hereto he saith, that

But this is one of his usual brags, uttered with what conscience I know not: for what one of these hath he or what one among all the ancient Writers can he bring to make good his assertion?

Now the answer, which he maketh to these arguments jointly, is,

If ever there had been within the compass of a Diocese more Bishops then one at once since the Apostles times, or if it could be truly alleged, that the circuit of the Bishops charge was enlarged from a Parish to a Diocese; then were there some color for this exception, but these conceits I have disproved heretofore, and therefore doubt not most confidently to conclude, that if the successors of these seven Bishops, or of the others whom I named, as having been Bishops in the Apostles times, were in the end of three hundred years Diocesan Bishops; then were their first antecessors such. Neither is his example of the Duke of Venice to the purpose; unless he could prove, that the latter Bishops within the first three hundred years had usurped or used, as they were Diocesans, a greater and larger authority then had belonged to their Predecessors.

The latter part of the assumption remaineth to be proved, where I said that the Bishops were not contradicted by the Apostles, but approved by them. He objecteth, that

, seeing the Bishops were such as he fancieth: but till he can disprove the former part of my Sermon, and of this Treatise; he must give the Reader leave to think they were such, as they have been manifestly proved to be: but this needless accusation, being commonly used by the Refuter against such passages of my Sermon as are most material; maketh me conceive there is somewhat in this point, that he could wish had been spared, or at least whereabout he meaneth to spare his answer. That this passage was not needless, but very material, appeareth hereby. For if I had only said, that BB. had been in the Apostles times, and therefore were of their institution, it might have been objected, that there were abuses crept into the Churches in the Apostles time, whereof notwithstanding the Apostles were not Authors: wherefore in this place I show that Bishops not only were in the Apostles times, but also were approved by them. That they were in respect of their function approved, I prove, by the examples of the 7. Angels approved by S. John, or rather by our Savior Christ; of Epaphroditus the Apostle or B. of the Philippians, (who therefore is not mentioned in the inscription of that Epistle, because the Epistle was sent by him) commended by S▪ Paul , as his compatner both in his function and in affliction, and the Philippians commanded to have in honor such. James the Just, B. of Jerusalem, approved of all. Archippus the B. of Colossa approved of Paul, Antipas who had been B. of Pergamos commended by the holy Ghost. Though that word doth not prove it, neither was it alleged to that end, but as one of the titles of commendation given to Epaphroditus ; yet the word Apostle, which I alleged, doth prove it; neither should the Refuter have balked that, to lay hold upon another, unless it were to deceive the simple. It is therefore to be noted▪ that as the twelve Patriarchs of Christ's Church, which were sent into the whole world, some going one way, some another, were called the Apostles of Christ, and not the Apostles of any Church in particular (excepting James, who was the Apostle of the Jews) so those Apostolical men, who were set over particular Churches as the Bishops thereof, were for a time called the Apostles of those Churches. So Paul calleth Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philippians, and therefore it was malepertly said by the Refuter, that he was not an Apostle. But of this more hereafter.

Before I ended this point, I thought it needful to meet with that objection which ordinarily is made out of Jerome, by them who understand him as if he had said, that Bishops were not ordained in the Apostles times. But I show both by the place it self which they allege, and by conference of other places in Jerome, that he plainly confesseth BB. to have been ordained in the Apostles times. Jerome therefore confesseth in the place which is usually objected, that when factions began to arise in the Church, some saying I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas (which was in the Apostles times, 1 Cor. 1.) it was decreed in the whole world, and therefore by the Apostles (for who should in the Apostles times make such a general decree but the Apostles? yea, and Jerome himself calleth the Episcopal function a tradition Apostolical) that one being chosen from among the Presbyters, should be set over the rest, unto whom the care of the whole Church should appertain. Whereunto I added his confession of the same truth in other places. For he confesseth that James the Just, shortly after the Passion of Christ was made Bishop of Jerusalem, and continued B. there thirty years, even until his death. In the same Catalogue it is confessed, that Simon succeeded the said James in the Bishopric, and that Timothy was B. of Eph • sus, and Titus of Crete, and Polycarp of Smyrna in S. John's time; that Linus , Anacletus and Clemens were BB. of Rome. He confesseth also, that at Alexandria ever since S. Mark there had been BB. chosen successively: that S. Mark was the first B. of the Church at Alexandria, and that Anianus succeeded him. After whom there were two more Abilius and Cerdo in the Apostles times. It is most plain therefore, that Jerome acknowledgeth BB. to have been in the Apostles time.

Now let us see, what trick the Refuter hath to avoid such plain evidence.

Whether they were called Lord's, or not, it is not greatly material; seeing they were called the Angels, and the Apostles of the Churches, which are titles of greater honor; neither doth it appertain to the substance of their calling; in regard whereof I defend the ancient Bishops to have been such as ours are. And such doth Jerome describe them in the place which the Refuter meaneth. For he plainly noteth the Bishop to have been but one in a whole Church or Diocese, to whom the care of the whole Church did belong; superior also to the Presbyters in degree, &c.

The Refuter having answered my second argument, in such sort as you have heard, taketh his turn to reply and that thus:

He should have done well to have cited these testimonies; so would it have appeared, that we spake according to the truth, but not according to his meaning, which is untrue.

But I answer to his assumption, and first to the former part of it, by distinction. If by Elders, he meaneth the only governing Elders, as well as Ministers (as he doth, or else he saith little for the pretended discipline) I answer, that the Church was never governed by the common Counsel of such Aldermen: neither did Cyprian and Jerome testify it, nor D. Bilson, D. Sutcliffe, or D. Downame confess it.

If by Elders, he mean only Ministers, as Jerome did, when he said, at the first the Churches before factions did arise, were governed by the common counsel of Elders, two things may be questioned: first, whether this government of theirs were vnsubordinate, according to the new discipline; and secondly, whether the Apostles did intend, that the Churches should be so governed still. Whereunto I answer, according to the evident light of truth, that the Presbyters governed the Churches, as under the Apostles, and that but for a time, until the Apostles substituted BB. or left them as their successors, committing the government of the several Churches unto them.

To the second part of his assumption I answer, that the Apostles contradicted that government (which he speaketh of, by common counsel of Elders ruling without a B.) not so much by words as by deeds: when ordaining BB. in several Churches, they committed the whole care thereof as Jerome speaketh, or at least, the chief care and authority, as Ignatius testifieth, to them. And so leaving the Refuter to roll the stone he speaketh of, I proceed to my third argument.

The III. CHAPTER: Prouing that the Apostles themselves ordained Bishops.

T HE refuter would fain have me seem to prove idem per idem, but that he could not but discern that I argue from the ordination of the persons, to the institution of the function: against which consequence, though himself say, that without question it is good ; yet I confess he might have taken more just exception, then he hath hitherto against any, which was not of his own making: so far is it from concluding the same, by the same. For he might have said, though they ordained the persons, yet Christ instituted the function, and that is the judgment of many of the Fathers, who hold that our Savior Christ in ordaining his twelve Apostles, and his seventy two Disciples, both which sorts he sent to preach the Gospel; he instituted the two degrees of the ministry BB. answering to the high Priest, and Presbyters answerable to the Priests. Again, those Fathers who affirm the BB. to be the successors of the Apostles; do by consequence affirm, that Christ when he ordained Apostles, ordained BB. and Cyprian in plainetermes saith so much, that our Lord himself ordained Apostles, that is to say, Bishops. For the Popish conceit, that the Apostles were not made Priests till Christ's last supper; nor BB. till after his resurrection, as it is suitable with other their opinions devised to advance the Popes supremacy; so it is repugnant to the judgment of the ancients, & contrary to the truth. Seeing the very Disciples, who were inferior to the Apostles, were authorized before Christ's last supper, to preach & to baptize. Neither had they, or needed they, any new ordination, whereby they might be qualified to administer the Sacrament. But of this matter I will not contend: for whether the function were first ordained by Christ or instituted by the Apostles; Christ is the author thereof, either immediately, according to the former opinion; or mediately, according to the latter. And those things are said to be of▪ Apostolical institution, which Christ ordained by the Apostles.

The antecedent of my argument, viz. that the Apostles ordained BB. and committed the Churches to them: was in the Sermon explained, and proved, by showing the time when, the places where, the persons whom, the Apostles ordained BB. As concerning the time; I said there was some difference between the Church of Jerusalem, and the rest in respect of their first Bishop. For there, because shortly after Christ's passion a great number were converted to the faith (for we read of three thousand converted in one day) and because that was the mother Church, unto which the Christians from all parts were afterwards to have recourse; the Apostles before their dispersion, statim post passionem Domini, straight ways after the passion of our Lord, ordained James the just Bishop of Jerusalem, as Jerome testifieth.

Here my refuter maketh me to argue thus; culling out one part of my argumentation from the rest;

But my argument is an induction, standing thus. The Apostles ordained BB. at Jerusalem, and in other Churches, (which afterwards particularly I do enumerate) therefore they ordained BB. That they ordained BB. at Jerusalem, I prove, because they ordained James the Just, and Simon the son of Cleophas, BB. of Jerusalem. That they ordained James B. of Jerusalem, I prove in this section. That they ordained Simon the son of Cleophas B. of Jerusalem, and Bishops in other Churches, I prove afterwards, according to the order of time: Beginning here with Jerusalem because that Church had first a Bishop.

Now that James was by the Apostles made B. of Jerusalem, I prove by these testimonies, first, of Jerome ; whose words are these, James who is called the brother of our Lord, & f •• named the just, straight ways after the passion of our Lord was ordained by the Apostles the Bishop of Jerusalem. This is that Jerome, on whose only authority almost the Disciplinarians in this cause rely; alleging out of him, that Bishops were not ordained till after the Apostles times.

Secondly, of Eusebius, and of the most ancient histories of the Church, whose testimonies he citeth to this purpose: first, therefore he saith in general that the histories before his time did report, that to James the brother of our Lord, surnamed the just, the throne of the Bishopric of the Church in Jerusalem was first committed. Then particularly, he citeth Clemens Alexandrinus, testifying that James, Peter and John, after the ascension of our Savior did choose James the just Bishop of Jerusalem. Afterwards Hegesippus (who was nere the Apostles times as Jerome speaketh, being as Eusebius saith in the very first succession of the Apostles,) to the like purpose. Eusebius himself in his Chronicle translated by Jerome, hath these words; James the brother of our Lord is by the Apostles made the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Again, in his history he not only saith, that James called the brother of our Lord was the first Bishop of Ierus •• em ; but also testifieth upon his knowledge, that the Episcopal throne or chair, wherein James sat as Bishop of Jerusalem, and wherein all the BB. of that See succeeded him, was yet in his time to be seen, being preserved as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as a worthy and sacred monument. And finally, both in his history and Chronicle he setteth down the succession of the Bishops of Jerusalem from James unto Macarius, whom he noteth to have been the thirty ninth Bishop of Jerusalem, reckoning James the first, and Simon the second, and Iustus the third, Zacchaeus the fourth, &c.

Epiphanius also testifieth, that James the Lord's brother was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and setteth down the same succession of the Bishops, from James unto Hilarion, noting the years of the several Emperors reign, unto which they continued Bishops. The same concerning James is witnessed by Chrysostom , by Ambrose on the Epistle to the Galatians; Paul saw James at Jerusalem, because there he had been ordained B. of the Apostles. By Dorotheus , by Augustine , and (to omit all other testimonies of particular men) by the general Council of Constantinople , affirming that James, who according to the flesh was brother of Christ our Lord , was the first to whom the throne of the Church of Jerusalem was entrusted.

§ 4. These testimonies for a matter of story (me thinks) should suffice: let us then see, what the refuter objecteth. First, that which he objected against the consequence is more direct against the antecedent; & that is, that

I answer by distinction; the power of order (if I may so term it) James had before, as those who are Bishops, sine titulo ; but the power of jurisdiction was committed to him when he was designed Bishop of Jerusalem, and had the Church of Jewry in particular assigned to him. For though our Savior Christ bad the Apostles to go into all the world; yet his meaning was not, that everyone should traverse the whole world: For if everyone had been to travel over all the world, great inconvenience, disorder, and confusion would have followed thereof. Therefore the Apostles, who by our Savior were indefinitely appointed to go into all the world, by the direction of the holy Ghost, before their dispersion from Jerusalem, divided the world among themselves; in such sort, that one being assigned to one part, & another to another, every man walked within his own compass, and according to his own Canon or rule, and did not usually build upon the foundation of another, nor enter one into another's labors. Now, as they were careful to provide for other parts of the world; so would they not all forsake Jewry and Jerusalem, but assign one of their company to take charge thereof. Who, though he wer an Apostle, yet being assigned to the peculiar Church of one nation, might not unfitly be called, as he was indeed, the B. thereof. And hence it is, that although the Apostles were commanded to go into all the world, yet James stayed at Jerusalem until his death. Secondly he taketh exception against the evidence which I brought; first, because As though the Apostles did nothing, but what is recorded in the Acts ; and as though we should deny credit to the ancientest writers, and such as be of best credit, reporting with one consent a matter of fact not registered in the Acts. But though the act of making him B. be not set down in the Acts ; yet the story so speaketh of his continuance at Jerusalem, of his assistance of Presbyters, of his presidency in that Council where Peter and Paul were present; that it may appear their testimony is true, and agreeable to the scriptures, who have reported him to be B. there.

And what one of them, whose writings are extant could I allege, whom, you would not reject as counterfeit? Clemens the Disciple of the Apostles, not only writeth an Epistle to James translated by Ruffinus, calling him the Bishop of Bishops governing the holy Church of the Hebrews in Jerusalem, but also in his book of recognitions translated likewise by the same Ruffinus, and dedicated to James the brother of our Lord, calleth him usually the B. yea, the chief of Bishops : which titles, how the Pope can digest, I know not. But suppose, that none of the disciples of the Apostles in those few writings of theirs which be extant, had given testimony to this matter: were not the testimony of Hegesippus, and Clemens, who both lived in the very next age to the Apostles, sufficient? It is not to be doubted, but that James his being B. of Jerusalem was a thing as notorious, and as certainly known among Christians in those times; as there is no doubt made among us now, that D. Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterbury in King Henry the eights time.

In the third place he would seek to descredit all Historyes in general; because the most learned B. of Eli, in a Sermon preached when he was of Chichester, truly noteth, what might be objected against historians of latter times. But Eusebius is free, as I suppose, from that imputation, and much more Hegesippus, and Clemens, in whom also that cavil of his hath no place, that they spake of Bishops which had been before, according to the condition of them in their times. For such was the estate of Jerusalem, and of the Jews in their times; as that the condition of the Bishops there was rather impaired, then increased. Neither were they, nor any other, whom I cited, so simple, but that they knew as well as the refuter, that James was an Apostle; neither did they know any reason, which the refuter would seem to know, why his being an Apostle should hinder his being the Apostle, or Angel of that Church. For so were the Bishops at the first called.

Fourthly and lastly, he giveth all my witnesses the lie: saying plainly,

But how is this proved? forsooth because two or three late writers (worthy men I confess, D. Whitaker's, Bishop Jewel, D. Reynolds ) do deny, that he was Bishop there. If they all had denied • t, as they did not; yet without any disparagement to them, the affirmation of so many ancient writers in a matter of fact, agreeable also with the scriptures, proved by the succession of the Bishops of Jerusalem, remaining yet in diverse good authors upon record, besides other evidence, may ouerweigh their denial. But what if they all did not deny it? to D. Reynolds I know not what to say, the refuter only maketh a show with his name, neither alleging his words, nor quoting the place. Indeed in the 300. page. of his reply unto Harding, in the fourth article; I find the first Epistle of Clement alleged, but Bishop Jewel misalledged and falsified. For having maintained against Harding, that he was not able to prove the Pope to have been called in ancient times the universal B. he showeth, that as much in effect, yea, and in express terms had been given to others; as to the B. of Alexandria, called by some the judge of the whole world; to the B. of Constantinople, called universal or ecumenical Patriarch; to James the B. of Jerusalem. Hear B. Jewels words, Clement unto James B. of Jerusalem writeth thus: Clemens Iacobo fratri Domini, Episcopo Episcoporum, regenti Hebraeorum sanctam Ecclesiam Hierosolymis, sed & omnes Ecclesias quae vbi{que} Dei prouidentia fundatae sunt. Clement unto James the brother of our Lord, the B. of BB. governing the holy Church of the Jews at Jerusalem, and besides all the Churches that be founded everywhere by God's providence. These be all his words, saving that he saith, if Harding had so good evidence for the B. of Rome, he would not thus have passed it over in silence. Which if you compare with the refuters allegation, you may well wonder at his dealing. Doth not B. Jewel himself in plain terms call James the B. of Jerusalem? and that which is said of his governing other Churches, is not his saying, but Clements, if it be truly printed in the copies which B. Jewel did follow. Neither would it follow of those words alleged, as they are, that he was no otherwise B. of Jerusalem then over all the other Churches. The B. of Constantinople, though he were called universal or ecumenical Patriarch; yet was he the Diocesan B. of the Church of Constantinople alone: and that was his peculiar Diocese. So if Clement had meant that James had been the governor of all Churches, yet the Church of Jerusalem was his Diocese, wherein Simon and the rest of the Bishops of Jerusalem did succeed him, and thereof he had his denomination. The Pope himself, though he claim to be universal Bishop, yet is he specially Bishop of Rome; and his cathedral Church is the Church of Lateran, of which he is Bishop. Howbeit, in the edition of that Epistle set forth by Sichardus, and printed at Basel together with his recognitions anno 1526. we read thus. Sed & ominibus Ecclesiis quae vbi{que} sunt. By which copy, if it be true, James is not signified to be the governor of all Churches; but Clements Epistle is directed not only to James, but to all Churches, &c.

But this also is untrue. For six of these eight, are such, as the refuter with all his sophistry cannot with any show of truth apply to St. James. For his third argument, taken from Peters long absence from Rome, after he was according to their opinion B. there cannot be, applied to James, who was resident at Jerusalem; as the Acts, besides other witnesses, testify. Nor the fourth, that if Peter were B. then had he two Bishoprics. For he had been by their own doctrine as well B. of Antioch, as of Rome. But no such thing can be objected against James. Nor the fifth that whiles Peter lived Linus was B. of Rome: so he was indeed by the appointment of Peter and Paul, as Irenaeus teacheth. But whiles James lived none was B. of Jerusalem, but he. But after he was dead, Simon was chosen to be his successor. Nor the sixth, that the authors which mention Peters going to Rome, note this to have been the end, not to be B. there, but to oppose Simon Magus. But the cause of James his staying and continuing at Jerusalem was to take charge of that Church, which, during his life, had no other B. Nor the seventh, that if Peter were B. of Rome then would he have professed himself the Apostle of the Gentiles, neither would he have conuenanted with Paul, that he and Barnabas should take care of the Gentiles, but himself, and James, and John, of the Circumcision. For James as he is said to have been B. of Jerusalem; so he professeth himself to have been the Apostle of the Jews. For besides, that he writeth his Epistle to the Jews; he, and Peter, and John, gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, that themselves would be for the Circumcision And for as much as Peter and John traveled to other parts, James always abiding at Jerusalem; it is more then probable, that the Church of Jewry was peculiarly assigned to him. Neither is it for nothing that both in the 15. of the Acts, he is noted as President, or chief in that Council, and in the 2. Chapter to the Galatians. Paul speaking of such Apostles, as were at Jerusalem, he giveth the precedence to James before Peter and John. Nor the eight, for they that say Peter was Bishop of Rome, say Paul was also, meaning that they were both founders of the Church, but Linus was the B. to whom they both committed the Church as Irenaeus saith. But they which say James was B. of Jerusalem, mention him alone. Neither was he founder of that Church: but Christ himself, who was the minister of Circumcision.

But it will be said, the two first reasons of the eight do prove that James was not B. of Jerusalem. That cometh now to be tried. The first reason is this.

The assumption is to be distinguished according to the times. For when Christ gave them their indefinite commission , go into all the world, he assigned no Provinces, nor parts of the world to any. Notwithstanding, before they were to go abroad, he willeth them to stay at Jerusalem, till they had received the holy Ghost, who should direct them what to do; and we may be assured, that he did not direct them to go confusedly, but distinctly, some to one part of the world, some to another. Howbeit, when they ceased to travail in their old days, and rested in some chief City where they had labored; they were reputed Bishops of that place, where they rested: though some of them perhaps were not properly Bishops. And this is true of Peter, and of the most of the Apostles. But herein James differeth from the rest: for to him at the first, before their dispersion, the Church of Jerusalem was assigned. Neither did he travail, as the rest, from one Country to another, being not confined to any one Province; though in the end of their travels some of them made choice of some special place, where they rested, exercising (no doubt) a patriarchall authority, as it were, in that circuit, where they had travailed, and planted Churches. Thus John rested at Ephesus, and others in other places. That assumption therefore, which is true of the rest of the Apostles, is not true of James: and were to be denied if the Syllogism were thus framed. This assumption I have disproved. And therefore though that argument may seem to conclude sufficiently against Peters being B. of Rome; it concludeth not against James his being B. of Jerusalem. And besides, between James and the rest this difference may be noted; that whereas they having planted Churches, when they saw their time, committed the same to certain BB. (so Peter and others of the Apostles committed Antioch to Evodius; Peter and Paul committed Rome to Linus; Paul committed Ephesus to Timothy ; Crete to Titus; John committed Smyrna to Polycarpus, and diverse other Churches in Asia to other Bishops, as Eusebius reporteth; yet James abiding all his time at Jerusalem, committed that Church to no other; though when he was dead, the Apostles committed it to Simon, whom they ordained his successor.

Why I should not grant this consequence, I have shown sufficient reason in setting down the difference between James and the rest of the Apostles. Therefore that reason also, howsoever it may take place as touching Peter, in whom no such difference from the rest of the Apostles can be truly noted: yet it holdeth not against James his being B. of Jerusalem.

If the Refuter, or any other be not as yet persuaded of this point; to satisfy him in the main point, that the Apostles appointed and ordained Bishops; I will be content to suppose, that James was not B. of Jerusalem, because it might be supposed and granted, without any great prejudice to the cause: seeing it is manifest, that the same ancient Authors, who testify that the Apostles appointed James B. of Jerusalem, do also witness; that after his death, the Apostles who were then remaining, ordained Simon the son of Cleophas to be B. there, as hereafter shall be shown.

After I had proved that James was B. of Jerusalem, I endeavored to confute the opinion of the learneder sort of Disciplinarians, who do hold (as before hath been shown) that Bishops were not superior to other Ministers in degree, neither had superiority for term of life, but for a short time. And to this end objected the same conceits, that by this instance of James they might plainly be refuted. Hereunto the Refuter replieth, that

All this ado ariseth from the misprinting of one letter in the margent, (c) being put for (p.) For in the 23. page of that book, in the end of the third chapter, he hath this saying: though I grant that James the brother of our Lord was in order first in the Church of Jerusalem; yet it followeth not, that he was in degree superior either to the Apostles, or else to his fellow Ministers. Which saying, as it seemeth, I should not need to have confuted, if all the Disciplinarians were of our Refuters mind, who censureth that speech as untrue and irreverent. To return these tricks of fast and loose to such a shifting Sophister, as I have proved the Refuter to be; it is plain, that Beza speaketh simply of James, as the chief in the Church of Jerusalem, as well in respect of the Apostles, as the Presbyters there. And therefore considereth him as an Apostle, as well as a B. And if he had intended any such distinction as the Refuter imagineth, he should have conceived, that James his honor and degree by his Bishopric was impaired, and that the Apostles in choosing him to be B. of Jerusalem, should rather have depressed him, then done him honor. But they thought it a singular honor to be the Apostle or Bishop of that Church which Christ himself had founded. And therefore as Clement noteth, the chief of the Apostles, Peter, James, and John, though Christ had vouchsafed to them greater honor then the rest, yet would not arrogate to themselves that honor, but preferred James the just the brother of our Lord thereunto; and when it was void again by his death, they made choice of Simon the son of Cleophas for the same cause , because he also was the Lord's kinsman. The grave censure of the Refuter is, Thus is he able, as it were with a breath, to blow away these worthy Authors, Hegesippus, Clemens, and Eusebius ; they are not able to stand before him. But why when the Apostles were to be dispersed into diverse parts of the world, was it not a special honor for one amongst them, without that travail & wandering, whereto the rest were subject, to be set over the mother Church of Christendom, which Christ himself had founded, to be the Apostle of that people which had sundry perogatives above all other Nations, and in respect of that place to have a precedence before the other Apostles, as James had, Act. 15. Gal. 2? And why were not they bound in respect of that love and reverence which they did owe to our Savior Christ, to prefer his near kinsmen according to the flesh, being at the least equal with others? It is certain, that James for his admirable piety was wonderfully honored, not only among Christians, but also among the unbelieving Jews; as might easily be shown, in so much that Josephus imputeth the destruction of Jerusalem to his death, as to a principal cause.

That which had been arrogancy in them to have arrogated to themselves, was no arrogancy in him to undertake being imposed upon him. Yea, but because the Apostleship being the highest degree of the Ministry, this was the greatest honor to have a priority and precedence in that degree. As though the charge of Apostles is not by the holy Ghost called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is Bishopric; and as though James, who before was an Apostle absolutely, did not by this designment become the Apostle of the Jews. Neither was this , as it pleaseth the Refuter to speak, more then of the rest of the Apostles, when by mutual consent every man's Province as it were, circuit and charge was assigned to him. But I spake not without book, delivering mine own conceits as the Refuter everywhere doth: but what I said, I received from their own, and almost only Author Jerome, which he received also from Hegesippus. Hegesippus, saith he, who was near the Apostles times in the fifth book of his Commentaries speaking of James, saith, James the brother of our Lord surnamed the just, received the Church of Jerusalem, post Apostolos, after the Apostles.

As touching the other point, though the Refuter would scarcely vouchsafe to touch it as being impertinent; notwithstanding, it not only confuteth the conceit of those who hold Bishops were but for a short time, and not for term of life; but also proveth plainly that James was B. of Jerusalem. I therefore shown that he continued at Jerusalem, as the superintendent of that Church until his death, ruling the same by the space of thirty years, after that manner as his successor after him ruled it eight and thirty years. Yea, but

Neither was it so much alleged to that end, as to show the preeminence which he had was not (as Beza saith of all the ancient Bishops, which he acknowledgeth to be divine) for a short time, or by course; but for term of life. And yet it proveth the main point also, that he was B. and as the Geneva translators confess superintendent of that Church. For if he were not the Apostle of that Church, that is to say the B. why did not he after the example of other Apostles travail into other parts, but continued there ruling that Church by the space of thirty years, until his death? Forsooth Where, he saith, the Church might otherwise have been governed, it is nothing to the purpose, unless he can show, that it was otherwise governed. There is no doubt, but that Church had a Pastor assigned to them by the Apostles, who would not leave that mother Church as a flock without a shepherd. But what Pastor had it, if James who continued there, and ruled it for thirty years were not the Pastor thereof? There is no doubt to be made, but the cause and end of his staying there thirty years, was the same of his successor Simon's staying there thirty eight years, and of his successors everyone until their death. Wherefore was it not great pity that the Refuter did

The difference in respect of the time, which before I noted betwixt Jerusalem and other Churches, I do in this section explain; showing, that the Apostles did not at the first planting of them appoint Bishops to them, as presently after the ascension of Christ, they appointed a Bishop over the Church of Jerusalem: yielding these reasons, because as yet there was neither that choice, nor yet that use of them among a people which was to be converted, before it needed to be governed; and showing what course they did take, before they appointed Bishops, namely, that first they ordained Presbyters to labor the conversion of the people, to feed them being converted, and to attend them in common, governing them after a private manner, and as it were in foro conscientiae. And this is that, which Jerome saith, that the Churches at the first before Bishops were appointed over them, were governed by the common counsel of the Presbyters. But the Episcopal power which consisteth specially in the right of ordination, and in the sway of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction committed to one; I said the Apostles each of them retained in their own hands, as was manifest , whiles either they continued near them, or meant not to be long from them. All which while, Bishops were not so needful, the Apostles providing for the necessity of those Churches, either by their presence, or by their letters and messengers. And this I noted to be the cause, why in the writings of the Apostles, Bishops are so seldom (though not so seldom as some imagine) mentioned, and the name with Presbyter confounded. But when as they were to leave the Churches altogether, either by departure from them or by death (that the Churches should not be left fatherless, they fulfilled that in Psal. 45. according to Augustine's and Jerome's exposition, in steed of Fathers, that is, the Apostles, there shall be children borne unto thee, whom thou shall make Princes over all the earth, that is, Bishops succeeding the Apostles in the regiment of the Church) At their departure they left substitutes, and at their death appointed successors, to whom they committed the government of the Churches, furnishing them by a singularity of preeminence, both with the right of Ordination and with the power of Jurisdiction, as well over the Presbyters, as the people of each City with the Country adjoining. And these I said at the first were called, sometimes the Angels of the Churches, sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Praepositi, Rulers, Heb. 13.17. (which text in the ancient canons called the Apostles, and in the second Epistle of Ignatius , as also the name praepositi in Latin Fathers from thence is appropriated to BB.) sometimes the Apostles of the Churches, &c.

To all this the Refuter answereth by snatches, as he doth to the residue of the Sermon; for which cause I think it expedient to repeat the points delivered in the Sermon, that his dealing may the better appear.

Which words, as they contain a mere cavil at my words, not worth the answering; so a mere belying of that reverend B. who saith, that the Apostles could not loose that ( viz. the power of imposing hands and delivering unto Satan, which the Fathers call Episcopal power) unless they lost the Apostleship withal.

Here, in complaing of the want of proofs, he giveth sufficient proof of a bad conscience. In this section I did but in general (having noted the difference of the time) declare, what course the Apostles took, first in deferring the choice of Bishops; and afterwards in appointing them. The proofs do follow in the sections following, showing the places where, and the persons whom the Apostles ordained Bishops. That imputation of speaking Pythagoras like, he hath often laid upon me, and yet not so oft as unjustly, who have in this Sermon and in this Treatise delivered nothing almost without plentiful proof or sufficient authority.

Thirdly, he carpeth at the names, wherewith I said the first Bishops were called, asking

what a notorious caviller is this? may nothing be spoken but by way of proof? may nothing be said by declaration, or explanation, or prevention? I knew it was objected, that Bishops are not mentioned in the scriptures, the name Episcopus Bishop, being given to Prebyters: and therefore that is not like, they were ordained by the Apostles, of whom no mention is in the Scriptures. For prevention of this objection, or assoyling this doubt, I declared first, that the Bishops in the writings of the Apostles are called, sometimes the Angels of the Churches, sometimes their rulers, sometimes their Apostles. The former Sermon is of ministers in general, including the Bishops, and diverse things there spoken of ministers in general, do principally belong to Bishops. All Pastors are rulers or rectors of their several flocks, but the Bishops are rulers both of them and their flock. All ministers are called Angel • , but the Bishop alone is the Angel of each Church or Diocese, &c.

For I know no man so foolish, as to appropriate it to the Bishops. This reason I rendered, why they be called the Apostles of the Churches; because they succeeded the Apostles in the government of the particular Churches: whereof I gave instance Phil. 2.25. where Epaphroditus, who was the B. or Pastor of Philippi, is therefore called their Apostle. Therefore? saith he. Calvin saith thus , The name of Apostle here, as in many other places, is taken generally for proquolibet Euangelista, for any Evangelist. But by their Evangelist, he understandeth their Pastor, and so calleth him diverse times, using that word upon that occasion six or seven times in that place. Paul sendeth to them Epaphroditus, ne Pastore carerent qui recte compositum statum tueretur, least they should want their Pastor who might maintain their well ordered state. On these words, verse 26. He had a longing desire towards you all, and was pensive, because you had heard that he was sick: Calvin noteth, a sign of a true Pastor, that when he was far distant from them, notwithstanding was affected with the care and desire of his flock; and when he understood that his sheep sorrowed for his sake, was pensive for their sorrow. In like manner the godly carefulness of the Philippians for their Pastor is noted on the 27. where Paul signifieth, what grief he should have conceived, if Epaphroditus had died; Paul saith he was moved with the loss of the Church which he saw would have been destituted optimo Pastore of a very good Pastor in so great want of good men. On the twenty eight he saith, Paul did the more carefully send him, because he was sory that for his occasion he had been withheld from the flock committed to him. On the twenty ninth he observeth how desirous Paul is, that good Pastors may be much esteemed, &c. let the reader therefore judge, whether Epaphroditus were not in Calvin's judgment the Pastor of the Philippians. By the Apostle saith Ambrose , he was made their Apostle, that is Bishop, as Ambrose expoundeth the word in other places, Apostoli Episcopy sunt, the Apostles are Bishops. But according to the refuters sense, he had been an Apostle, not of Paul's making, but of their own. Jerome writing on those words, my fellow Soldier and your Apostle, fellow Soldier saith he, by reason of his honor, because he also had received the office of being an Apostle among them. And on those words, have in honor such, not only him saith he, qui vester est Doctor, who is your Doctor, by which word in Jerome's time, Bishop most commonly was signified, &c.

Theodoret saith thus, he called him Apostle, because to him the charge of them was committed. Wherefore it is manifest, that those which in the beginning of the Epistle were called Bishops were under him, as having the place of Presbyters. And from this place, as afterwards I noted, Theodoret gathereth, that at the first, they, whom now we call Bishops were called Apostles. Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians. Thomas Aquinas ; he calleth him brother, saith he, by reason of his faith; fellow worker in the labor of preaching, fellow soldier, because they had suffered tribulation together, your Apostle, that is Doctor. Hic fuit Episcopus Philippensium, He was the Bishop of the Philippians. And so saith Bullinger , Philippensium Episcopus erat.

With what face therefore could the Refuter deny, that any one of these Authors did say, that he was therefore called the Apostle of the Philippians, because he was their Bishop and Pastor? And so are they to be understood, who expound the word Apostle by Teacher. As Chrysostom 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and those whom the Refuter nameth. For they did not, by Apostle understand every common Teacher, or teaching Presbyter, but specialem doctorem saith Anselm , instructorem praecipuum their chief instructor, saith Dionysius Carthusianus.

These authors, and more, as they do all give testimony with my exposition; so against that interpretation of the word Apostle, which the refuter bringeth: who would have him called

And Calvin acknowledgeth it to agree with the place. Primasius saith, that Epaphroditus had received gradum Apostolatus, the degree of Apostleshippe among them. Calvin doth indeed mention that interpretation▪ but so, as he preferreth the other; sed prior sensus meliùs (meo iudicio) conuenit: But the former sense in my judgment agreeth better. He could not think, that both senses, being so different, agreed to the text. I acknowledge, that Epaphroditus brought a gratuity from the Philippians to Paul to supply his necessity, being a prisoner in Rome. And the brethren likewise who accompanied Titus, were to receive the benevolence of the Corinthians; but it is unlikely; that either he, or they, were called the Apostles of the Churches in that regard. It appeareth by diverse of Ignatius his Epistles, that when the churches did send one upon a Christian Embassage, the B. commonly was entreated to take that Embassage upon him. In like manner the Philippians, being to send as it were upon Embassage to Paul, Epaphroditus their B. undertook that voyage He being therefore both their B. and their Ambassador, it is more likely, that he was called their Apostle because he was their Bishop; then for that he was their Ambassador. For it is unlikely, that the name of that sacred function of the Apostles of Christ, who also himself is the Apostle of our profession, should be used in the Scriptures to signify the messengers of men. Besides, in both places, the Apostle intendeth by this title highly to commend Epaphroditus, and the others; but this had been but a small commendation, that they were messengers of the Churches. Again, if they in 2 Cor. 8. were called the Apostles of the Churches, because they were their messengers; then those Churches should have sent them: but it is evident, that Paul himself sent them, for as it was required of him, Gal. 2: so had he undertaken, to procure a supply for the relief of the brethren in Judea, who were oppressed with famine. And to that end having before dealt with the Corinthians, sendeth Titus and two others, to receive their contribution.

Here the Refuter whiles he goeth about to discover my ignorance (as though I knew not the signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as well as he) bewrayeth his own. For it is evident, that in the Scriptures the word is used with reverence as well to the parties to whom, as to the party from whom, the Apostle is sent. Thus Paul calleth himself the Apostle of the Gentiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; and saith, that Peter had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Apostleship of Circumcision , meaning that he was the Apostle of the Jews, because to himself was committed the Gospel of uncircumcision, as to Peter of the circumcision. So Angels have relation, not only to the sender who is God, but to the parties to whom they are sent, and are called their Angels. And even as Angels absolutely spoken, is a title of all ministers who are sent of God, but used with reference to the Churches whereto they are sent (as the Angels of the seven Churches ) do signify the Bishops or Pastors of the same churches; so Apostoli, absolutely used is a title of all Ambassadors sent from God with authority Apostolical, though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , given to Paul and Barnabas and the twelve Apostles; but used with reference to particular Churches, doth signify their Bishops. And in that sense Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians. And howsoever the word may signify any messenger with relation to any sender; yet in the scriptures it is not used to signify messengers sent from men, neither is to be translated otherwise then Apostle. For though our Savior do seem to speak indefinitely John 13.16. of the Apostle and him that sendeth him ; yet it is evident, that he meaneth himself who sent, and the Apostles who were sent.

This is written, as the most of the book, to blear the eyes of the simple. For I cannot think he which would undertake this cause, was so void of judgment, as the refuter here would show himself to be, if he wrote sincerely. For I pray you, what was the point which here I had in hand? was it not to show, that the Bishops at the first in the Apostles times were called Apostles? and do I not prove it by this instance, that Epaphroditus being the Bishop of the Philippians, is therefore called their Apostle? That the Churches were Dioceses, and the Bishops Diocesan, like to ours for the substance of their office, I proved before in the former part: here, I am so far from inferring or proving it, that I presuppose it, as sufficiently proved before. But this is the poor shift, which the refuter usually flieth unto, when he hath nothing to answer. He persuaded himself (such was his judgment) that in the question of parishes and Dioceses he had the upper hand: and therefore, when he is foiled in any of the points following, he flieth to that as his refuge; But he and his consorts deceive the readers, when they would persuade them, that because in the Apostles writings and for some part of the Apostles time, the names Episcopus & Presbyter were confounded, namely until Bishops began to be chosen from among the Presbyters; that therefore the offices were confounded. For here I show, that when Presbyters were called Episcopy, those whoever since the Apostles times have been called Bishops, were then called the Agels, and the Apostles of the Churches, to whom, as I noted before out of Theodoret, those who were then called Episcopy, that is Presbyters, were subject.

For as I said in the Sermon, whiles the Episcopal power was in the Apostles and Apostolic men, those who had that power were called Apostles; and therefore Ambrose by Apostles in some places of Scripture, understandeth Bishops: and to the like purpose Cyprian: Apostolos, id est, Episcopos & praepositos dominus elegit, the Lord chose Apostles, that is Bishops and Governors. For as Theodoret hath well observed on 1 Tim. 3. In times past, saith he, they called the same men Presbyters and Bishops, and those who now are called Bishops they named Apostles. But in process of time, they left the name Apostle to those who are properly called Apostles, and the name of Bishop they gave to them who had been called Apostles. Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians, Titus of the Cretans, and Timothy of the Asians. Which testimony, if it be conferred with some before cited out of Jerome, the truth concerning this matter will appear to be this. Whiles the Bishops were Apostles and Apostolic men (for such were the first Bishops) the Angels of the Churches were also called the Apostles of the Churches, other Ministers being then called Presbyteri & Episcopy indifferently; but when the first Bishops being dead, their successors were to be chosen out of the Presbyters, (which Jerome noteth to have been done at Alexandria ever since the death of S. Mark, and was done in all other places where were no Evangelists, or Apostolical men remaining) then they left the name Apostle, and for difference sake called him the Bishop. Wherefore as I said in the Sermon, it was not long, that the name Episcopus was confounded with Presbyter. For Ignatius, (who was a B. above thirty years in the Apostles time, after that Evodius had been B. of Antioch above twenty years before him) appropriateth the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to a Bishop; and usually distinguisheth the three degrees of the Clergy, as the Church ever since the Apostles hath distinguished them, by these three names, Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon.

The process of time, whereof Theodoret speaketh, was as appeareth by conference of him with Jerome in the Apostles time. At the first, towards the beginning of the Apostles time, the Governors of the Churches were called Apostles; but in process of time, when the first Bishops who had been Apostles or Apostolical men were dead, and now were to be chosen out of the Presbyters, which was towards the latter end of the Apostles times; then they began to be called Episcopy, Bishops. And that this was so, appeareth not only by Ignatius, who continually useth the word as the first and highest degree of the Clergy, Presbyters as the second, and Deacons as the third: but also by other monuments of antiquity which I mentioned in the Sermon.

I have the longer insisted on this point, because it is of great consequence. For hereby it appeareth first that when the name Presbyter and Episcopus were confounded, yet the offices of Bishops and Presbyters were not confounded. Secondly, that Bishops being then called Apostoli, were superior to other Ministers who were called Presbyteri & Episcopy. And lastly, that such Bishops as were superior to other Ministers, were in the Apostles times, and mentioned in the Apostles writings.

The IIII. CHAPTER. Showing the Places where, and the Persons whom, the Apostles ordained BB: but chiefly, that Timothy was B. of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete.

I N this section and the two next following, I prove that Timothy and Titus were by S. Paul ordained Bishops: the one of Ephesus, the other of Crete, and maintain the same assertion against their objections. Afterwards, I show out of other the auncientest monuments of antiquity, that other BB. of other places, were ordained by the Apostles.

If this fail he is undone. As who should say, that all which hitherto hath been said, hath by him been very learnedly and sufficiently refuted. When as in truth he hath not been able to confute any one sentence or line of the Sermon hitherto, with soundness of reason, or evidence of truth. And the like assurance I have of that which followeth.

Now that Timothy and Titus were by the Apostle ordained Bishops: I prove by a twofold reason, which I joined together, & is thus to be dissolved: the former standing thus.

That the antecedent is true I prove by this reason; because it is presupposed in the Epistles, that the Apostle had committed to them Episcopal authority, both in respect of Ordination, and Jurisdiction, to be exercised in those Churches. Against which consequence this only thing can be objected, that the Episcopal authority might be committed to them not as ordinary Bishops or Pastors of those Churches, but as extraordinary governors or Evangelists, which afterwards is answered.

To this argument the Refuter answereth not. The second he frameth thus:

First, he taketh exception against the proposition, saying,

Whose confutation either he thinketh to be insufficient, or else he doth but kill a dead man in seeking with a new on-set to disprove the consequence. First, for the consequence it self, I avouch thus much; that from that antecedent, I might not only have inferred that particular, that therefore these two to whom the Epistles were written were Bishops: but in general, that the function of Bishops; whose authority and office is described, and the manner of the execution thereof prescribed in the directions given to Timothy and Titus in these Epistles, hath warrant in the word of God: and when they can make as good an argument for their lay-elders, out of the Scriptures, I will subscribe to their Presbyterian discipline.

Of T. C. answer to that consequence, I have taken special notice heretofore; and did greatly wonder, that he could satisfy himself with such a frivolous answer. And I do no less wonder at the Refuters either lack of judgment, who took that answer for good payment, or want of consideration and care of T. C. credit in referring us to so sleight and frivolous an evasion.

Not to argue with T. C. but to let him rest in peace; can the Refuter be so ignorant, or without judgment, as to think, that D. Whitgift when he spoke of the whole course and tenure of the Epistles, did mean only the description of a B. or Minister set down in the beginning of the third chapter of the former Epistle? if that had been his argument, he had argued thus: Paul directeth Timothy what manner of men to ordain Bishops or Ministers, and likewise Deacons. Therefore Timothy himself was a B. or Minister, or likewise a Deacon. Is it not plain, that by the whole course he understandeth all those directions, which are given to Timothy throughout the Epistles for the discharge of his office, either in respect of the Ministry common to all Ministers, or of his Episcopal function, chiefly in regard either of Ordination or Jurisdiction, unto which heads the precepts & directions in those Epistles are to be referred? for when he speaketh of the duties of men and women, old and young, he directeth Timothy, and in like manner Titus what to preach. When he describeth the qualities of Ministers, and Deacons, and Widows; he directeth him what manner of Ministers and Deacons to ordain, and Widows to admit. And whereas D. Whitgift having said, that in those Epistles diverse precepts pertain peculiarly to the Episcopal function: T.C. challengeth him to show him any one precept in those Epistles which is proper to a B: It is not hard to show him more then one, as, lay thy hands hastily on no man. Against a Presbyter or Minister receive not an accusation but under two or three witnesses, &c. These are perpetual directions, which were not common, either to other Christians, or other Ministers: therefore peculiar to BB. And this was T. C. confutation of the Proposition: Now let us hear what the Refuter can say.

Alas good man, you know not what the Hypothesis or Supposition of an Hipotheticall Proposition is: this which you suppose to be the Supposition of the Proposition, is plainly the Assumption of the Syllogism, which yourself framed.

But because the Refuter hath confounded himself with his own hypothetical or connexiue Proposition, I will propound my Argument in another form.

This Proposition, because I know not what can be objected against it. T. C. and the Refuter having assailed it in vain, I will once again take for granted.

The assumption I prove by those particulars, wherein the Episcopal authority doth chiefly consist, both in respect of Ordination, Tit. 1.5. 1 Tim. 5.22. and also of Jurisdiction, they being the censurers of other Ministers doctrine. 1 Tim. 1.3. 2 Tim. 2.16. Tit. 1.10.11. and 3.9. and judges of their persons and conversation, 1 Tim. 5.19.20.21. Tit. 3.10. to which proofs he answereth nothing. Wherevnto might be added the authority of Gregory Nazianzen , of Chrysostom , of Oecumenius , and Gregory , testifying that these Epistles do teach Bishops how to behave themselves in the Church of God.

Now because the Refuters supposition is the same in ef • ect with his assumption, I will examine first what he objecteth against the assumption under the name of that supposition, and so proceed to his answer which he directed against the assumption.

Whereto I answer, that they were to be done by a power which was to continue in the Church until the end; and therefore not by a higher power then Episcopal. And secondly, that the power Episcopal, whereby Bishops do these things which Timothy and Titus had in commission, is so much of the Apostolical power as was to continue in the Church unto the end.

He said even now that Timothy and Titus did those things which BB. do by a higher power, & now he saith he Apostle dreamed not of any such sovereignty, as the BB. have. Where he saith these instructions were not given to BB. but particularly to these Evangelists to perform them in all Churches and Regions where he should place them, and generally to Presbyters, &c. both parts are false. For these directions Paul gave to Timothy and Titus to be observed of them as they were particularly assigned governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Crete, and are such as are to be observed to the end. Neither are these instructions given in general to Presbyters, neither doth the charge of these affairs belong to them. And that these things belong to the BB. I have sufficiently proved before .

To make the matter plain, he bringeth in an example, which is worth the hearing.

Which comparison I desire may be well considered, especially by the vnlearneder sort; for hereby they shall discern, what manner of guides they have desired to follow. For, not to contend with him about his political proposition, not well agreeing with the rules of policy, wherein we are taught, that the appointment of chief Officers being reckoned inter iura maiestatis, doth always belong to them who have the sovereignty; in the whole comparison, but especially, in the reddition, we may behold the trim Idea of discipline, which the fancy of our Refuter and his fellow-challengers hath forged. For he conceiveth, as if he were a Brownist, or an Anabaptist, that the ancient state of the Church was Democratical; that the right of Ordination and Jurisdiction, was in the whole congregation of every Parish, which by their Presbyteries (consisting for the greatest part of the laity) had the menaging of all Church-business; that the laws and Canons for Church-government set down in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, were first provided for this popular state of the Church. Howbeit, by the usurpation of the B. and his Clergy, the popular state was turned into an Aristocraty, the B. and his Presbyterie of Ministers only menaging the Church affairs. Lastly, in process of time, this Aristocraty was turned into a Monarchy, the B. like a Monarch having got the reins into his own hands. Now the laws concerning Ordination and jurisdiction are still in force; yet were they not patterns neither for the Monarchical government of the B. alone, nor for the Aristocratical government of the Bishop and his Presbytery of ministers, but for the popular and golden state of every Parish which within it self had authority immediately derived from Christ sufficient for the government of it self in all causes Ecclesiastical. This form is propounded also in the modest and Christian offer of disputation. Have not our forwarder sort of people been well advised think you, to dote upon such leaders as these, who broach such a sort of dreams and dotages, for which they have not so much as the show of any sound proof? Our refuter hath often times objected against me, though most unjustly, that Pythagoras -like, I look to be creditted upon my bare word; but what proofs I pray you doth he bring for these schismatical novelties?

First, it is here presupposed, that every Church endued with power of Ecclesiastical government, was a Parish, & all Church officers Parishonal. Which dotage I have before refuted. Secondly, that the form of Church-government was Democratical, or popular, the chief authority being in the people. Which hath authority (to be exercised partly by themselves, & partly by their Presbytery) to elect, ordain, deprive & depose their Pastor or B. for the proof whereof the chief burden must lie upon Mat. 18. dic Ecclesiae, which hath been before examined. Beza, making mention of one Morellius, who pleaded in like manner for the popular government, giveth him this style , Democraticus quidam fanaticus, showing that these who plead that cause, are lead with a fantastical & fanatical spirit. For is it not a phrensy to urge the people's supremacy in Church-government? is there any show in scripture, or in reason, that the sheep should rule their Shepherd, or the flock their Pastor?

But for the confutation of them, I refer them to other Disciplinarians, from whom they had their first grounds; seeing by this fancy they seek to overturn, as well those Churches where the Geneva discipline is established as ours.

The third dream is, that the laws of Church-government prescribed in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, were provided for the democratical state of the Church. So that when Paul saith lay not thou hands on no man hastily, you must understand the speech directed not to Timothy, to whom the Epistle was written, but to the people, that they should not suffer their Lay-elders when their minister is dead, to be hasty in laying hands on a new. And when he saith do not thou receive an accusation, &c. it must be understood of the people and Presbyterie. After two or three admonitions do thou avoid an heretic or excommunicate him, that is, thou people. What of Crete? belike the whole Island of Crete was a Parish too.

The next fancy is, that the popular state of the several Churches did first degenerate into an Aristocraty, and after into a Monarchy. But it is as clear as the light, that the several Churches were at the first governed by the Apostles or Apostolical men severally, and that either perpetually, as by James, Mark, &c. or but for a time, as by Peter, Paul, &c. and that when the Apostles left the Churches, they committed them to other Apostolical men, such as Timothy, Titus, Evodius, Simon the son of Cleophas, Linus, Clemens, &c. communicating unto them the same authority both for the work of the ministry, and for the power of ordination and jurisdiction which themselves had in those several Churches: and what authority each of them had, their successors in the several Churches had the same. Neither have our BB. at this day, greater authority in menaging Church causes, then Timothy and Titus and other the first Bishops had. Who was to ordain ministers in Crete and to govern that Church? did not Paul commit these things to Titus, without mentioning, either of Presbytery, or people? are not all his precepts for ordination and Church-government directed only to Titus for Crete, & to Timothy for Ephesus? and doth not this evidently show, that howsoever they might use either the presence, and consent of the people, or the Counsel and advise of the Presbyters in causes of greatest moment, as Princes also do in common-wealths: yet the sway of the Ecclesiastical government was in them?

It is therefore most plain, that in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, it is presupposed, that they had Episcopal authority: and that the rules and directions given to them are precedents for Bishops and patterns unto them for the exercise of their Episcopal function.

And this I prove again in my Sermon by another argument, which the refuter hath framed thus:

The assumption (for with that the refuter beginneth) I proved by testimony, and by reason. And first, by the testimony of Paul , straightly charging Timothy, that the commandments and directions, which he gave him, should be kept inviolable until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; & therefore by such, as should have the like authority to the end. Hereof Calvin, saith thus, nomine mandati significat quae hactenus de officio Timothy disseruit. Under the name of the commandment he signifieth those things whereof hitherto he had discoursed concerning the office of Timothy. And again, omnino cerie ad ministerium Timothy refero, I do wholly refer it to the ministry of Timothy. For Paul wrote to this end, to give direction to Timothy, how he should behave himself in the Church, which is the house of the living God. Which directions he chargeth him Chap. 6. to observe inviolable until the coming of Christ: which could not be performed in the person of Timothy, who was not to continue to the end, but in a succession of them, who should have the like authority until the end. T. C. and other Disciplinarians, having fancied that the Apostles had given direction in that Epistle for only-governing Elders: hereupon conclude , that they are to be continued until the coming of Christ, So that they can conclude upon that charge the continuance of an office not once mentioned in that Epistle: but they cannot, or will not see, how the continuance of that office, which Timothy did bear, for the execution whereof all these directions are given, is concluded upon the same ground.

The second testimony was of Ambrose , writing on those words of Paul, saying, that Paul is so circumspect; not because he doubted of Timothy his care, but in regard of his successors, that they after the example of Timothy, might continue the well ordering of the Church.

The reason whereby I proved, that Paul giveth direction not to Timothy and Titus only as to extraordinary persons, but to them and their successors until the end of the world, was, because the authority which was committed to them, for the execution whereof the Apostle giveth his directions, is perpetually necessary; without the which the Church neither can be governed (as without jurisdiction) neither yet continued (as without ordination) & therefore not peculiar to extraordinary persons; but by an ordinary derivation to be continued in those, who are the successors of Timothy and Titus.

The effect of the refuters answer is, that he could be content to grant this assumption, were it not that he is resolved to deny the conclusion, which followeth thereupon. For first, he granteth

It is sufficient for the truth of the assumption, which the refuter granteth; that what Paul did write to Timothy & Titus, he wrote not to them alone as extraordinary persons, whose authority should die with them, but to those also which should succeed them in the like authority until the end.

But whether the Bishops were to be their successors, or the whole congregation, or the Presbyterie, belongeth not to the assumption: but rather to the proposition. Howbeit, that which he saith, either in denying the Bishops to be the successors of Timothy and Titus, or affirming the congregation and Presbyterie to have succeeded them in the power of ordination and jurisdiction, is spoken altogether, as against the truth, so without proof.

I will therefore return to the proposition, which is grounded on this Hypothesis; that Diocesan Bishops were the successors of Timothy and Titus. For if that be true, then is the proposition necessary, though the refuter

. Thus therefore I reason:

Here the refuter, thinking he had as good reason to deny the one part of this syllogism, as the other, denieth both. The consequence of the proposition is feeble saith he, unless it were certain, that the Bishops both de facto were, & de iure ought to have been their successors. That the Bishops were de facto their successors, & of all other Apostolical men in the government of the Churches, I have already proved, and there upon have inferred, that de iure also they were. Because what government was not only generally received in the 300. years after the Apostles, but also was in use in the Apostles times, in the Apostolical Churches, that without doubt was of Apostolical institution.

Therefore the Bishops were their successors.

These reasons the refuter saw not: only he taketh upon him to answer the proofs of this last assumption. And first, for Timothy his successors in Ephesus, it is apparent that not only the Angel of the Church of Ephesus. Apoc. 2.1. whether it were Onesimus, or any other, was one of his successors, and Policrates the Bishop of Ephesus another: But also that from Timothy until the Council of Chalcedon there was a continued succession of Bishops. For whereas in the Council of Chalcedon, Stephanus the Bishop of Ephesus being deposed, some question did arise, whether the new Bishop who was to succeed were to be chosen and ordained by the Council, or by the Provincial Synod of Aisa; Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia in the Province of Asia, alleged that from St. Timothy to that time there had been twenty seven Bishops of Ephesus, all ordained there.

To this he answereth nothing, but that which before hath been refuted; that

. For it is certain, that both the latter and the former were not only Diocesan, but also Metropolitan Bishops. And where I number the Angel of Ephesus in this rank, he saith, that I tediously beg the question. But I appeal to the refuter himself, first, whether this Angel was not the B. and governor of the Church of Ephesus, secondly whether he did not succeed Timothy in the government of that Church, thirdly, whether he was not one of those twenty seven Bishops mentioned by Leontius in the Council of Chalcedon. And the like may be said of Polycrates, who had been the eight Bishop of his own kindred, saving that concerning him there is more evidence, that he being Bishop of Ephesus was the Metropolitan or primate of Asia. For Eusebius saith, that he 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he was the ruler or chief of the Bishops of Asia ; who by his authority did assemble a Provincial Synod to discuss the question concerning Easter.

As touching Crete, because there is not the like evidence, the refuter taketh upon him to deliver diverse things without book; as

Whereto I answer, first, though such Archbishops, as were also called Patriarchs, were not from the Apostles times: yet such as are Metropolitans, were. And again, if Provincial Bishops may be proved to have been from the Apostles times, much more may Diocesan. For every Metropolitan is a Diocesan, but not contrariwise. And although I do not remember, that I have anywhere read of the next successor to Titus, yet I read of Gortyna the mother City of Crete, and the Metropolitan Bishops thereof, who were Arch-bishops of Crete, and successors of Titus ; though not his immediate successors. For Dionysius of Corinth, who flourished at the same time with Hegesippus , writing an Epistle to the Church of Gortyna, together with the rest of the Churches of Crete, he commendeth Philippe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , their Bishop, for his renowned virtue. And although he called him the Bishop of the Churches in Crete: yet the Diocesan Churches had their Bishops too, as the Church of Gnossus a City of Crete, had Pinytus at the same time her Bishop, which proveth the other to have been an Arch-bishop. Theodorus Balsamo saith ^f , antiquius Nomocanonum versaui, &c. I have perused the ancient Code of Councils, and by the subscriptions I find, that in this Council held in Trullo, Basil the Bishop of Gortyna (which is the Metropolis of Crete) was present. And where he saith, that I confess it is true, but he must remember, that even in the Apostles times there were Diocesan Bishops. And in the very next age after them, Philippe was Archbishop of Crete. But though there were no direct proof, that Diocesan or Provincial Bishops were the successors of Timothy and Titus ; yet it might easily be gathered by other Churches, from whose form of government Ephesus and Crete did not vary. It cannot be denied, but what authority Timothy and Titus had, the one in Ephesus, the other in Crete, the same had Mark at Alexandria, Evodius at Antioch, Linus at Rome, &c. Neither may it be doubted, but that each of these had Bishops to their successors, even in the Apostles times, as before hath been shown: and therefore the refuter should not make it so strange, that Bishops were the successors of Timothy and Titus.

The first objection is thus framed by the Refuter.

I answer by distinction. For if by continuing, they understand (as the words seem to import) a perpetual residence without removing or traveling thence upon any occasion; then I deny the consequence, or proposition, which is understood. For by no law, either of God, or man, are Bishops or other Pastors so affixed to their cures, but that upon special and extraordinary occasion, they may, either for their own necessity, or for the greater, or more public good of the Church, travail or remove to other places. It is sufficient that they be ordinarily resident upon their charge. If by continuing be meant ordinary residence, then I deny the antecedent; and do contrariwise affirm, that although upon special and extraordinary occasions they were by the Apostle called to other places, as his or the Churches necessity required: yet these were the places of their ordinary residence. And that I prove, because they both lived and died there. That they continued, or had their ordinary abode there in their life time, I prove by testimony of Scripture, and other evidence. For if Paul required Timothy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to continue or abide still in Ephesus, and appointed Titus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to continue to redress what was wanting in Crete, then were they to continue, or have their ordinary residence there.

But the antecedent is true in both the parts thereof:

which needeth not, seeing ordinary residence, which is meant by that term, & which is required in BB. & ordinary Pastors, may be without such perpetual abiding. But it sufficeth, that it signifieth to continue in redressing, as the Geneva translation also readeth. For thereby is meant, as I said, that he was not left there for a brunt, but that he should, as things were defective, or wanting, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , continue to redress them, and still keep that Church in reparation. For though the Church were new (as the Refuter objecteth to signify that it should not need any reparation) yet were the Bishops and Presbyters subject to death, and the places of them which died were to be supplied, and the Church subject to personal corruptions, both for doctrine, discipline & manners, which would need reformation.

And whereas their opinion, who imagine that Timothy was required to stay at Ephesus but for a short time, when Paul went into Macedony, Act. 20. is contrary to that former testimony concerning Timothy : I show, that in all the journeys of Paul into Macedony, mentioned in the Acts, Timothy did accompany him. And therefore, that this voyage of Paul was after his first being at Rome, with which the Acts of the Apostles end, not mentioning any of his travels, and other occurrence, which afterwards happened for the space of nine or ten years. The Acts of which time cannot otherwise be known, but by such of his Epistles as were written in that time, and other monuments of antiquity. The which passage, though the Refuter hath passed by in silence, I thought good to put the Reader in mind of, that he may acknowledge many things to have been done by the Apostles, which are registered in other records of anitquity, though they be not mentioned in the history of the Acts of the Apostles, which endeth with those things which happened above forty years before the death of S. John. Now the Acts of the Apostles, which were performed after S. Luke's history thereof, were in part recorded by Hegesippus, and Clemens, and other ancient Authors, which testify that Paul ordained Timothy B. of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete; and that he, and other Apostles appointed other Bishops in other places. Whose testimonies whosoever do refuse to believe, do themselves deserve no credit.

To those allegations therefore out of Paul, I added the credible testimony of diverse Authors, viz. Dorotheus in synopsi. Hieron. sieve Sophron. in Catalogo in Tito. Isidorus de vita & morte sanctorum. Num. 87. & 88. Vincent. lib. 10. c. 38. Antonius ex Policrate part. 1. tit. 6. c. 28. Niceph. l. 10. c. 11. Who report, that Timothy and Titus, as they lived, so also died, the one at Ephesus, the other in Crete.

Indeed, if I had argued thus, as the Refuter would have the Reader think, Timothy and Titus died, the one at Ephesus, the other in Crete: Therefore they were BB. there; it had been a loose consequence. But he wrangleth besides the pupose. It was objected, that Timothy and Titus were not Bishops of those places, because they did not continue there. I prove, that they held their ordinary residence there, not only because S. Paul required them both, to continue there; but other Authors also testified, that they both lived and died there. The Refuter answereth, and would have the Reader content himself with this answer, that howsoever indeed it is true that they continued there, yet hereof it followeth not that they were Diocesan Bishops of those places.

Then I should have granted both the antecedent of the Enthymeme, (which he said before that I denied) and also the consequence. But indeed I denied the consequence, in that sense which the Refuter conceiveth, and yet granted, that though they were sometimes removed; yet they kept ordinary residence, the one at Ephesus, the other in Crete. And therefore their traveling, or removing upon extraordinary occasions, doth not hinder their being BB. But neither are all his proofs good, neither is his inference sound. He would prove that As if he had said, whether Paul sent Tychicus, there Timothy was not. Belike there was some such Antipathy between them, that one place could-not hold them both. Secondly, As though Timothy might not as well come from Ephesus to Rome as from some other place, and as though his bidding him to bring the things left at Troas, did not argue, that he was at Ephesus, which is in the same peninsula, rather then else where. But that he was at Ephesus, may be gathered hereby: because the Apostle willeth him, to salute Aquila and Priscilla (whom he left at Ephesus, Act. 18.19.) & the household of Onesiphorus, which also was there. 2 Tim. 4.19. with 1.16. Sedulius understandeth Paul, bidding Timothy 2 Tim. 4.9 to come to him quickly, as requiring him to come from Ephesus to Rome.

These are goodly inferences to oppose to the evidence gathered out of the Epistles, and to the general consent of antiquity, which testifieth that they were Bishops. Whereas therefore he asketh, I say, it is intolerable boldness, and arrogancy, to avouch the contrary.And such is that presumptuous speech, For, so long as ordinarily they were resident, their absence at sometimes upon urgent and weighty occasions, was neither of ill report, nor bad example. Besides, when the Apostle sent Tychicus to Ephesus, and sent for Timothy from Ephesus, he sent the one to supply the absence of the other, as Calvin also hath observed.

The second objection saith the Refuter, lieth thus,

This consequence I denied, because their being Evangelists did not hinder, but that when they were assigned to certain Churches, and furnished with Episcopal power, they became Bishops. Against which answer the Refuter objecteth two things.

These are nice points, which none of the Fathers did ever understand: neither did they conceive, but that Evangelists might, without any disparagement to them, be assigned to several Churches, and so become Bishops. For if they held, that the Apostles themselves being assigned to certain Churches, as James was to Jerusalem, were BB. much more Evangelists.

But for as much as the whole force of this argument dependeth upon the Euangelisticall function which Timothy and Titus are supposed to have had, we will briefly consider, what that Euangelisticall function was, and whether it could hinder them from being Bishops. An Evangelist therefore was he, which taught the Evangel or Gospel of Christ, whether by preaching, or also by writing. In the latter sense, there are four only called Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John: who though they all preached, yet for the penning of the Gospel are peculiarly called Evangelists. In the former sense the word is taken, either generally, to signify any one that doth euangelize or preach the Gospel, or specially, signifying the extraordinary function of those in the primitive Church, who went up and down preaching the Gospel, being not affixed to any certain place. And these seem to have been of two sorts: For either they were immediately called of Christ, and by him sent to preach the Gospel, as the 72. Disciples; or they were assumed by the Apostles, to be their companions in their journeys, and assistants in the Ministry. Of the former sort was Philippe, who after he had performed that temporary office at Jerusalem, whereunto he and the other six were chosen Act. 6. he returned to his Euangelisticall function, Act. 8. and is expressly called an Evangelist. Act. 21.8. Of the latter sort were Timothy and Titus, while they accompanied the Apostle Paul in his travails, and were not assigned to any certain place. That which the Fathers say of the 7 • . Disciples, that they had but the degree of the Presbytery, may of this latter sort much more be verified, who were ordained Ministers of the Gospel by imposition of hands. Neither did they differ from other Presbyters but in this, that they accompanied the Apostles as their helpers, being not tied to any one place. For neither had they the power of ordination, neither as Zanchi saith did they govern the Churches, now one, then another, as the other Evangelists and Prophets did.

We see what the office of Evangelists was. Now let us see, whether it hindered men from being Bishops. For had Timothy and Titus been such Evangelists, as the four were which preached and wrote the Gospel, or as the 72. who were called and sent by Christ: yet might they, when they ended their travails, and betook them to certain Churches, have been Bishops thereof. For Mark the Evangelist, after he had preached in Egypt and had set up his rest at Alexandria, became B. thereof: in which Episcopal function Antanus succeeded him, and after him Abilius and Cerdo in the Apostles times; much less doth their being of the latter sort. For though the Apostle di • distinctly reckon the functions of the Church 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4: yet in the former place he doth not so much as mention the office of Evangelists; and in the latter he speaketh of those, who 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were called Evangelists as the four Evangelists, and perhaps also the 72; whose functions notwithstanding were not so disjoined, but that as Apostles might be also Evangelists, as we see in Matthew and John ; so Evangelists might be Bishops, as we see in Mark. But as for Timothy & Titus, the Greek Writers expounding that place, plainly say, they were not Evangelists, but Pastors or Bishops. For they, after they were placed, the one in Ephesus, the other in Crete, did not travail up and down as in former times, when they accompanied the Apostle; but ordinarily remained with their flocks. The Greek Scholiast saith thus. Evangelists • that is, those which did write the Gospel: Pastors • 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he meaneth such as had the Churches committed to them, such as Timothy was, such as Titus. And to the same purpose, both Chrysostom, and Theophylact, do mention them by name.

Neither was it a debasing of Timothy and Titus, when they were made Bishops, but an advancement. Forwhereas before, they were but Presbyters (though called Evangelists in a large sense:) they were now made the Apostles of those Churches, and by imposition of hands ordained Bishops.

In the second place he taketh exception against those words,

If they received no new authority, why did Timothy receive a new ordination by imposition of hands, whereof the Apostle speaketh in two places, and which the Fathers understand of his ordination to be Bishop? were men admitted to the extraordinary function of Evangelists, by the ordinary means of imposing hands? or may we think, that any but the Apostles (being not assigned as Bishops to several Churches) had that authority wheresoever they came, which Timothy had at Ephesus, and Titus in Crete? verily Philippe the Evangelist though he converted diverse in Samaria, and baptized them: yet had not authority to impose hands, whereby men might be furnished with graces for the Ministry; but the Apostles Peter and John were sent thither, to that purpose. And whereas Paul willeth Timothy to do the work of an Evangelist, what is that, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to preach the Gospel diligently, and to fulfill his Ministry, or to make it fully known, the word Evangelist being there taken in the general sense? Now what his Ministry was Jerome & Sedulius declare. Ministerium tuum imple, Episcopatus scilicet, Fulfill thy Ministry, that is to say, as thou art a Bishop.

Now that their being Evangelists did not hinder them from being Bishops, when ceasing from their travailing about, they were assigned to these particular Churches, I proved by the testimony of Zwingli : who saith, that Philip the Evangelist, who had been one of the Deacons, was afterwards Bishop of Cesarea, James the Apostle was Bishop of Jerusalem, and diverse of the Apostles (which may much more be verified of the Evangelists) when they ceased from their peregrinations, became Bishops of certain Churches, as by the ancient histories is manifest. Whereto the refuter answereth two things, first, that

therefore say I, according to the truth. Or else we must think that none of the Fathers, or ancient historiographers knew whom to call Bishops and whom not. But the refuter, and his fellows only, have this knowledge. Yea but a certain learned man saith, that For Peter I grant, but of James there is another reason, as I have shown before. And although it were true, that Apostles could not properly be called Bishops: yet what is that to Timothy, and Titus, whom I have proved notwithstanding their supposed Euangelisticall function, to have been particularly assigned by Paul to the Churches of Ephesus and Crete; where also they lived and died?

His other answer is, that howsoever Zwingli speak of their being Bishops, it is manifest by his writings, he neither thought they were (and so belike spake otherwise then he thought) nor any other might be a Diocesan B. as by a testimony hereafter alleged, appeareth, where he saith no such thing. I will therefore add another testimony of Zwingli in the same book: when Paul said to Timothy do the work of an Evangelist, Timothy was a Bishop, wherefore it is certain according to Paul's opinion, the office of an Evangelist and of a Bishop is all one.

After I had thus answered these two objections, I brought a new supply of arguments, to prove Timothy and Titus to have been Bishops of Ephesus and Crete. And first, by occasion of his second objection I argue thus:

Here the refuter would make his reder believe, that

But I do not deny they were Evangelists, howsoever I do not conceive their Euangelisticall function to have been such, and so great, as the refuter and other Disciplinarians suppose, and therefore I call it their supposed Evangelical function. Now, that I did not intend to deny, or disprove that antecedent, but to bring a new supply of arguments, taking occasion by the last objection; appeareth by those words, which I premised, as it were an introduction to this argument, hereof we may conclude thus. But let us hear what he answereth. for that I do assume but conclude; yet hath he nothing to disprove it, but a mere begging of the question, and denial of the conclusion, rather then the assumption; , which doth not touch the assumption: no more then that which followeth. which if he would deny, and make this denial good, he should have said, and proved it, that the function and authority which they exercised in Ephesus and Crete, was to end with their persons, and admitted no succession, or was not to be continued in their successors. But he roues, and raues, as men use to do, which being at a non-plus, would fain seem to answer somewhat. And that which he answereth, besides that it is impertinent, is partly also untrue. First, he would insinuate, that Bishops do; as though herein there were some difference between Bishops and them; when as indeed, neither Bishops, nor they, do take that authority from the Church; but they, and all other first BB. received their authority from the Apostles, and derived the same to their lawful successors. Secondly, he saith, that the which is not true of any particular congregation, but in case of necessity; wherein both the succession of their own clergy failing, and the help of others wanting, the right is devolved to the whole body of the Church. But let this go among other his Brownisticall, or rather Anabaptistiall novelties.

I proceed to the proof of my assumption, which he hath laid forth thus:

The assumption is thus to be explained; the function which Timothy, and Titus had, as being assigned to certain Churches, was ordinary; and the authority, which they did exercise, consisting chiefly in the power of ordination and jurisdiction, was perpetually necessary. This assumption the refuter would seem to deny, and yet granteth,

So that of the two points in the assumption, the latter he granteth, that the authority which they exercised was perpetually necessary ; the other, that the function which they had being assigned to those Churches was ordinary, he toucheth not: but denieth that, which I did not affirm, to wit, that it was necessary there should be an Evangelist always in every Church to exercise the power of ordination, and jurisdiction: Did I affirm this? or rather did I not teach the contrary, when I said that the function whereby they did exercise that power of ordination, and jurisdiction, was not an extraordinary function, as the Euangelisticall; but ordinary, as the Episcopal? Now that the function which Timothy and Titus had, being assigned to Ephesus and Crete, was an ordinary function, & the very same which the Bishops that succeeded them, and all other BB. both in, and since the Apostles times have exercised; it is most certain, for though in them, who chiefly are called Evangelists, there were diverse things extraordinary, besides their limitation to no certain place, as their immediate calling from Christ, their extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, as of revelation, and of working miracles, as appeareth by Stephen and Philippe: yet in Timothy, and Titus, and others who were called Evangelists, because they were the companions of the Apostles in their journeys, and assistants in their work of the ministry, there was nothing extraordinary, but their not limitation to any certain Churches. For their calling to the ministry was ordinary, and their gifts, though great, yet attained and increased by ordinary means. When as therefore they were assigned to certain Churches, as the Pastors and governors thereof, whereunto they were ordained by imposition of hands, and by that ordination were furnished with power of ordination and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction; their function was the same ordinary function, which their successors, and all other Bishops did exercise.

But as the refuter said, it was not necessary, that there should always be an Evangelist in every Church to exercise the power of ordination, and jurisdiction; so perhaps, some more judicious will allege, that though the power of ordination and jurisdiction be perpetually necessary: yet it is not necessary, that this power should always be wholly in someone in every Church, as it was in Timothy, or Titus. Neither did I say it was, but that the power or authority which they exercised, was perpetually necessary; and the function, whereby they did exercise it, was ordinary, being the very same function, which other Bishops, both then, and ever since, have administered. And therefore the refuter doth greatly wrong me, when he saith,

For the clearing therefore of the whole controversy, and plain manifestation of that which I hold therein; we will make use of a distinction, which the learned use concerning matters of government. In all governments therefore there are these things to be considered: pot • stas, ordo, formae vel modus, titulus, sieve applicatio potestatis ad personam, & vsus. First the power to be exercised in government; then the order, whereby the inferiors both to be governed & governing are subordinate to the superiors: after, the form and the manner of government, as, whether it be a Monarchy, where the power is in one, or an Aristocraty, where it is in few, or a Democraty, where it is in the multitude: and how each government is ordered: the title, as whether the governors are put in and entitled to their power and authority, by succession, or by election or institution; and after, how they use and exercise their authority, &c. Of these, the two first, that there should be power of government, and order therein, & in the people governed are essential & perpetual, as the immutable ordinances of God. The other, many ways are accidental & variable. But yet, if question be made, what form of government in the commonwealth is the best, & hath the best warrant; I would say the Monarchy, as having divine, both institution, and approbation. But yet so, as where this cannot so well be had, the other forms of government be lawful. Even so in the Church of every country, that there should be a power of Ecclesiastical government to be exercised, & an order or eutaxy, it is the perpetual & immutable ordinance of God, the Church being by his appointment a well ordered society, & as the wise man saith, tanquam acies ordinata. But whether the sway of spiritual authority should be in one alone of every Church, or in more, it seemeth not to be so essential; though I must confess, that both in the Church of the Jews by the appointment of God it was in one, namely the high Priest, and likewise in the primitive Churches, as hath been shown. And as touching the title, that seemeth also to be variable. For the governors in the Church of the Jews came to their places by succession and lineal descent; but in the Churches of Christ, by free election, after God's first immediate calling.

Now if we shall inquire, what form of Church-government hath the best warrant; hereby we may be resolved. For it is manifest, that our Savior Christ committed the power of Ecclesiastical government chiefly to his Apostles, and that they being severed into diverse parts of the world did govern the particular Churches, which they had collected, severally. And howsoever there were diverse things extraordinary in the Apostles, and peculiar to their persons; as their immediate calling from Christ; their unlimited function, having authority to exercise their Apostolical power wheresoever they came; their admirable, & extraordinary gifts, of wisdom, of languages, of miracles; their infallible inspiration, & direction of the holy Ghost preserving them from error: notwithstanding, there were other things in them, which being perpetually necessary for the being, and well being of the Church, were from them to be communicated, or derived to others; as the power to preach the Gospel, and to administer the Sacraments; and public prayer or liturgy: the power to ordain ministers, and Pastors; the power of the keys for government, and exercise of Ecclesiastical censures. Now the power of preaching the word, and administering the Sacraments, was not from the Apostles communicated to every Christian, but to such as they ordained ministers, and by the imposition of their hands communicated that power to them. The power of ordination, and public jurisdiction, was not committed by the Apostles, neither to other Christians, nor yet to all ministers whom they ordained; but after the ordination of Presbyters in each Church, they reserved the power of ordination, and public jurisdiction in their own hands; which after a time they communicated to those whom they set over the several Churches to that very purpose: viz. to ordain Presbyters, and to exercise public jurisdiction; which manifestly appeareth by the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. Thus was Timothy set over the Church of Ephesus, Titus of Crete, Linus of Rome, Evodius of Antioch, Simon of Jerusalem, Mark of Alexandria, &c. and what authority was from the Apostles communicated to them, was from them derived to their successors, not only since, but even in the Apostles times. For what authority Evodius had at Antioch, the same after him had Ignatius ; and what Linus had at Rome, the same had Anacletus, Clemens, Euaristus ; what Mark had at Alexandria, the same after him had Anianus, Abilius and Cerdo, and all these in the Apostles times: and what Timothy had at Ephesus, the same had Gaius, who (if Dorotheus is to be creditted) was his next successor, Onesimus after him, and Polycrates, and everyone of those twenty seven, mentioned in the Council of Chalcedon, which from Timothy to that time, had been successively the Bishops of Ephesus. These, to my understanding, are plain evidences to warrant the Episcopal function, and to show the derivation of their authority from the Apostles; and to persuade Christians to prefer that form of government before others. For as I added, and will now repeat a reason, which the refuter might more easily elude with a male pert speech, calling it wauing and craving, then to answer with soundness of reason, and evidence of truth.

All which notwithstanding, I do not deny, but that where the government by Bishops cannot be had, another form may be used; because the modus, or form of being in the B. alone, doth not seem so to be of divine ordinance, but that it may upon necessity be altered. But if any shall reply, that howsoever in civil government the form is variable, yet for Church government we are to keep us close to the word of God, and what hath warrant there we are to hold perpetual and unchangeable by men, as some of our Disciplinarians use to argue: I wish them to look to this inference. For if they do not leave that hold, they must needs grant, that the Episcopal function having that warrant in the Scriptures which I have shown, is to be holden iure divine.

And whereas to confute me, or rather to fight with his own shadow, he saith,

I confess they have, and I wish they may continue to the end in the sincere profession of the truth. But where he saith, that for that we may thank him, and other unquiet spirits, who have troubled the peace of Israel, with urging and obtruding their own fancies for the ordinances of God.

To these reasons I added the testimonies of antiquity, which with a general consent beareth witness to this truth, that Timothy was B. of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete.

Why, the testimony of someone of the Fathers affirming it, ought to be of more weight with us, then the denial of the same by all the Disciplinarians in the world. But let us come to the particulars. First, I alleged the subscriptions annexed to the end of the Epistle to Titus, and second to Timothy : wherein the one is said to have been ordained the first B. of the Church of the Ephesians, and the other the first B. of the Church of the Cretans. This is something plain. But he asketh me, I answer, that I did not sever them, but join them in a copulative speech; and if I had been of opinion, that they were of the Canon, I would not have said as I did, it appeareth not only by the subscriptions, but also by the general consent of the Fathers : but contrariwise, not only by the general consent of the Fathers, but also by the subscriptions annexed by the Apostle himself. But though it were not likely (as he hath alleged out of T. C. ) that they were subscribed by the Apostle himself; yet is it certain, that they are of great antiquity, and of better credit, then the Refuter and some other Disciplinarians would make them. Indeed, if any other learned man, that were not a party in this cause, had censured these subscriptions; I would have respected their censures; but the cavillations of Disciplinarians against them (who being parties in this cause, are so plainly confuted by them) are to be rejected. Let us therefore hear, what the Refuter objecteth against them. So saith this great Criticke. But if you will consider with me, that Paul being, as usually he was, in peregrination; Titus could not well tell where he was, neither had Paul signified in the Epistle where he then was, therefore wrote being at Nicopolis, as any discreet man would in the like case, come to me to Nicopolis, for I mean to winter there: whereas if he had written, as the Refuter would have had him, if he were at Nicopolis; come hither, for I mean to winter here, or come to Nicopolis, for I mean to winter here : might not Titus have said, where Paul ; as being uncertain where Paul was, and whether himself was to go. This therefore is too seely a censure, though received from T. B. himself, to overthrow the authority of so ancient a subscription, in which besides the ancient Greek copies, it is also testified in the Syriac, that this Epistle was written from Nicopolis, Athanasius speaking of that Epistle to Titus, saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He wrote this Epistle from Nicopolis, for there he wintered. Oecumenius testifieth the same in his argument on that Epistle to Titus. Sedulius likewise, this Epistle he wrote from Nicopolis, and Theophylact. argument. in Epist. ad Tit ; the Authors of the Centuryes, cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. in Tito.

To the subscriptions I added the testimonies of these Fathers.

First, Eusebius reporteth out of the Ecclesiastical Histories which were before his time, that Timothy had first the Bishopric of the Church at Ephesus, and Titus of the Churches in Crete.

Secondly, the ancient Author of the book de diuinis nominibus dedicating the same to Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, if it be Dionysius Areopagita himself, who lived at the same time with Timothy, doth bear an undeniable witness to this truth: or if it be another using his name, yet he plainly signifieth, that in his time it was a thing generally received, that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus.

Thirdly, Dorotheus saith, that Timothy was by Paul ordained the B. of the Ephesians, & he calleth Titus the B. of the Cretans.

Fourthly, Ambrose testifieth the same, Paul instructeth Timothy being already created a B. how he ought to order the Church. And again, he entreateth Timothy his fellow Bishop, &c. Again, Timothy was a B. Hence it is, that Paul directeth him, how he should ordain a B. Likewise of Titus he testifieth, that the Apostle consecrated him B.

Fifthly, Jerome noteth, that Timothy received the grace, which Paul exhorteth him not to neglect, when he was ordained B. And where Paul willeth him to fulfill his Ministry , Jerome understandeth it of his Bishopric. And in the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers which is in his first Tome, it is testified , that Timothy was ordained of blessed Paul the B. of the Ephesians, and that Titus was B. of Crete.

Sixthly Chrysostom , writing on those words Phil. 1. Bishops and Deacon • , saith, what meaneth this? were there many Bishops of one City? in no wise; but so he called the Presbyters. For then were the names common, and a Bishop was also called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Deacon or minister. For which cause writing to Timothy being a Bishop, fulfill 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , thy ministry. For that he was a Bishop, he saith, do not hastily impose thy hands upon any man, & again, with the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery] but Presbyters did not ordain a Bishop, & in another place , he giveth this reason, why Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus, and not to Syluanus, or Silas, or Clemens, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because he had already committed the Churches to them, but the others he still carried about with him. And on the fourth to the Ephesians , he giveth instance in Timothy and Titus as being Pastors assigned to certain places.

Seventhly Epiphanius , saith, that Paul 1 Tim. 4. writeth to a Bishop, and that a Presbyter cannot be the same with a Bishop: the divine speech of the Apostle teacheth who is a Bishop and who a Presbyter, when he saith to Timothy being a Bishop, receive not hastily an accusation against a Presbyter, &c.

Eighthly Primasius saith, Timothy was a Bishop and Paul's Disciple. That grace was the blessing, which Timothy when he was made Bishop, received by imposition of hands.

Ninthly Theodoret , saith, that Titus was the Apostle, that is, Bishop of the Cretans, and Timothy of the Asians. And out of him Oecumenius citeth these words: Titus was an admirable Disciple of Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and he was by Paul ordained Bishop of Crete. And in another place , why did Paul having other Disciples, as Silas, and Luke, and others, write only to Timothy and Titus? We answer. Because to these he had committed Churches, but the others he had still with him.

Tenthly, Sedulius , this Timothy was B. in Ephesus, as it is said in the book of histories. And on these words▪ stir up the grace which was given thee by the imposition of hands , that is, iuxta ordinationem tuam in Episcopatum, by thy ordination into the Bishopric.

11. Gregory the great; hence it is, that Paul admonisheth his Disciple, praelatum gregi, being the Prelate of a flock, saying attend reading until I come.

12. Isidor saith , that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus.

13. Polycrates saith, that Timothy travailing with Paul to Ephesus, was made the first B. there by him in the reign of Nero.

14. Theophylact understandeth by Pastors, and Doctors, Eph. 4. those to whose care the Church was committed, that is to say, BB. such as Timothy and Titus. And for that cause he saith that Paul wrote to them two. Again , Titus being ordained Bishop is set over the great Island Crete.

15. Oecumenius , on those words, I requested thee to remain in Ephesus, saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , here he had ordained him B. And again, in Tim. 5. he speaketh of ordinations, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for he wrote to a B. And of Titus he saith, that Paul left him to ordain BB. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , having first made him a B. And of both, on those words, Pastors and Doctors he saith, Paul meaneth such, as to whose trust the Churches were committed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 BB. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , such as Timothy and Titus.

16. Nicephorus saith, that after Paul was first dismissed from Rome, he wrote his former Epistle to Timothy, whom he had ordained before B. of Ephesus. And another Epistle he wrote unto Titus, whom, having before ordained B. of Crete, he had left there.

To these I might add the testimonies of diverse new writers, but I will mention only a few, whose judgments the Disciplinarians will not easily reject. First therefore Calvin in diverse places on the Epistles to Timothy, doth note that he was the Pastor of the Church at Ephesus.

The authors of the Centuryes say, it is evident, that Paul appointed Timothy the Pastor to the Church of Ephesus.

D. Fulke saith, among the Clergy, for order and seemly government, there was always one principal, to whom by long use of the Church the name of B. or superintendent hath been applied; which room Titus exercised in Creta, Timothy in Ephesus, and others in other places, &c.

Finally Beza himself noteth, that Timothy was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Justin calleth him, that is, Antistes or President in the Presbytery at Ephesus, that is to say according to Beza's language, a Bishop.

To the testimonies which I produced, the refuter answereth three things, first, in effect this, that

Secondly,

And for proof thereof he referreth us to T.C. whose words are these , all ancient writers are not of that judgment, for not to speak of Ambrose, which calleth Timothy a Deacon, where he opposeth a Deacon to a Bishop: Ignatius an ancient writer saith, that he was a Deacon: & that where dividing the ministries of the Church into Bishops and Deacons, &c. doth openly oppose a Deacon to a Bishop. little reason had T.C. to speak of Ambrose, and therefore might well say, not to speak of him. For these are Ambrose his words: ( with the BB. and Deacons ) that is, with Paul and Timothy qui vti{que} Episcopy erant, who verily were Bishops, he also signified the Deacons which ministered unto him. For he writeth unto the people. For if he had written to the Bishops and Deacons, he would have written to their persons: and it had been fit, that he should have written to the Bishop of the place, not to two or three, as he did to Titus, and to Timothy. Ignatius his words be these: What be the Deacons but the imitators of the Evangelical powers ministering unto him (that is, the Bishop, as the Angels do to God) a pure and blameless ministry, as holy Stephen to James the blessed, and Timothy and Linus to Paul, Anacletus and Clemens to Peter. Distinguish the times, and the answer is easy. Timothy was such an Evangelist, as first ministered to Paul as a Deacon, afterwards was ordained Presbyter, as Ambrose saith, and lastly a Bishop; which is as the same Ambrose saith, primus Presbyter. But doth his serving under Paul as a Deacon, prove that afterwards he was not a Bishop? nay, rather his being a Deacon, and afterwards a Presbyter doth prove he was not such an Evangelist, as the Refuter imagineth. And by as good reason he might prove that neither Linus, nor Anacletus, nor Clemens were Bishops of Rome, because they had served under Peter and Paul, as Deacons. Here is all, that our Refuter can, either by himself, or with T. C. help, object out of antiquity against Timothy his being a Bishop.

I hope therefore I may be bold with the Readers consent to conclude, that Timothy and Titus were ordained BB. by the Apostle Paul ; the one, of Ephesus; the other, of Crete.

In this section I brought diverse most plain and pregnant evidences to prove, that the Apostles ordained BB: noting the Places where, and the Persons whom they ordained. The which, because the Refuter passeth over, as it were in silence, I will briefly recite; that it may appear to the Reader, that the Refuter had cause to be silent, because the evidence of truth did put him to silence.

First, I shown out of Eusebius, that about the year forty five Euodius was made Bishop of Antioch, by the Apostles Peter and Paul, as Ignatius who succeeded him in the Apostles times, doth witness.

Secondly, that Peter and Paul ordained Linus Bishop of Rome, about the year 56, whom Anacletus succeeded, and after him Clemens : testified by Irenaeus and Eusebius.

Thirdly, that by the appointment of Peter, Mark was the first B. of Alexandria, whom Anianus succeeded in that Bishopric, after him Abilius, and then Cerdo, all in the Apostles times: testified by Nicephorus, Gregory, Eusebius, Jerome and Dorotheus.

Fourthly, that after the death of James the just, Simon the son of Cleophas was by the Apostles which then were remaining, made Bishop of Jerusalem: testified by Hegesippus, and Eusebius.

Fifthly, that John the Apostle ordained Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna: testified by Irenaeus, Eusebius, Tertullian and Jerome.

Sixthly, that John after his return from exile, ordained BB. in diverse places: testified by Clemens Alexandrinus, and Eusebius.

Finally, that the Apostles committed the Church, which is in every place, to Bishops whom they ordained, leaving them their successors: testified by Irenaeus, and Tertullian, who saith, that as Smyrna had Polycarp from S. John, and Rome Clement by the appointment of Peter ; so the rest of the Churches can show quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostoli • i seminis traduces habent; what Bishops they have ordained by the Apostles, the deriuers of the Apostolical seed.

To all this he hath nothing to answer, but that which heretofore hath been fully refuted: that

But not only Irenaeus, and Tertullian have avouched so much, but diverse others of the Fathers, as Cyprian, Jerome and Augustine. Cyprian saith, praepositi, that is Bishops, Apostolis vicaria ordination succedunt, succeed the Apostles as being ordained in their steed. And Jerome saith, omnes Episcopy Apostolorum successores sunt, all Bishops are the successors of the Apostles. And again he saith , Episcop • s Apostolis succedere. And Theodoret , calleth the government of Bishops 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And likewise Basel , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the presidency of Apostles, who have delivered to Bishops, as Irenaeus saith, their own place of government in the several Churches. And this is that, which both Jerome , and Augustine expounding those words of the 45. Psalm pro patribus nati tibi sunt filij, have delivered; that instead of the Apostles, Bishops were ordained governors of the Church in all parts of the world. Which point is duly to be considered. For hereby it is manifest, that the Bishops have received and derived their authority from the Apostles, whose successors they are, not only in respect of doctrine (as all other true ministers) but also in the government of the several Churches. And when the Disciplinarians can show the like warrant for their Presbyteryes, especially of Lay-elders; or our refuter, and his good friends the Brownists, for the chief authority of the people, we will hearken to them. Once, it is evident, that Christ committed the authority and government of his Church to his Apostles, who were to derive the same to others. Wherefore who have any ordinary right, they have received the same from the Apostles. So Timothy and Titus received their authority from Paul, Linus from Peter and Paul, Polycarpus from John, &c. And all other the first Bishops from the Apostles, from whom by a perpetual succession it hath been derived to the Bishops which are at this day. But where is any evidence of the like derivation from the Apostles of authority to the people of Lay-elders, I know not.

Thus have I made good my former proofs, that the Episcopal function is of Apostolical institution.

The V. CHAPTER. Answering the allegations out of Jerome.

Which speech, if it be duly examined, just exception may be taken against every branch thereof. For first he would insinuate, that nothing hath been brought to justify the calling of Bishops besides the testimonies of men; when besides the testimonies of men, I have brought good evidence of sound reason, and besides that, better proof out of the scriptures to warrant the Episcopal function, then ever was, or will be brought for the Presbyterian discipline. Again, it were fitter, and to better purpose, against the testimonies of men (if I had produced no other proof) to have brought either testimonies of scripture, or sound reasons; or for want of them, the testimony of so many, and so approved authors, to counterpoise the weight of their authorities, who have been alleged on the contrary part. But scriptures failing, reasons wanting, testimonies of other Fathers being to seek, Jerome alone must be fain to bear the whole burden of this cause. For though some latter writers may be alleged to the like purpose; yet all is but Jerome. Whose not only judgment they follow, but retain his words. Neither doth Jerome so oft dispute this question, or determine the contrary, as the refuter in his shallow conceit imagineth. Or if any wheres he doth determine the contrary, against that which was commonly avouched both by himself and others; his determination delivered in heat of disputation ought not to be of so great weight, as what he hath delivered, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in heat of contention but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , dogmatically or historically. For Jerome was but a Presbyter; and there were two things in his time, which might provoke him by way of contention to say more in the behalf of his degree, then doth exactly agree with the truth. The one was, that the Bishops of those times did too much depress the Presbyters. For they might not only in their presence not preach, nor baptize, nor administer the Communion, but also in some places they might not preach at all, nor anywhere baptize, unless they fetched their Chrism from the Bishop, against which practices of the Bishops Jerome in some places of his works doth inveigh.

But that which troubled him most was, that the Deacons in his time, especially at Rome, because they had more wealth (as the fashion of the world is) thought themselves better men then the Presbyters. For the confutation of whom, he seeketh to advance the Presbyters above the Deacons as much as he can; and may seem to match them, more then truth would permit, with the Bishops. For which, the only ground which he hath is this, because the name Bishop and Presbyter were for a while in the Apostles times confounded. Which (God knoweth) is a weak ground, and easily out of his own writings overturned.

But let us examine the particulars. First it is alleged out of Jerome, that until factions did arise in the Church, some saying I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, &c. the Churches were governed by the common counsel of the Presbyters: but when they began to draw Disciples after them, namely such as themselves had baptized, it was agreed in the whole world, that one being chosen from among the Presbyters, should be set over the rest, to whom the whole care of the Church should belong, and that the seed of schisms might be taken away.

Whereunto I answered, first, that this speech in respect of the Church of Jerusalem is untrue, which was first governed by the Apostles in common, and after committed to James in particular, before we read of any Presbyters there ordained.

Which exception of his is of no force, because there were no Presbyters ordained in that Church, when it was governed by the common counsel of the Apostles; and I added, which he should have disproved, if he would have said anything to the purpose • , that James was assigned Bishop to that Church, before we read of any Presbyters ordained in, or to that Church. For if James were Bishop of that Church before it had Presbyters, then was not that Church ruled by the common counsel of Presbyters, before they had a Bishop. James indeed after he was Bishop, ordained Presbyters, whose counsel and assistance he did use in the government and instruction of that Church (as other Bishops used to do in the like case) as we read Act. 15. and 21.

Yea but the whole multitude saith he, as appeareth by Act. 6.2.5. had the choice of Church-officers. What then? therefore the Church was not governed by the common counsel of the Apostles, or was governed by the common counsel of Presbyters? Because the Greekish Jews (which had their Liturgy and scriptures in the Greek tongue) were discontented with the Apostles distribution of the Churches stock, the Apostles therefore to avoid contention and scandal, and to give everyone contentment, departed from their right, and willed the whole multitude to choose seven, whom we (say the Apostles) may appoint to this business. Surely, if where the Presbyters are erected, the people, who do contribute to the relief of the poor, are permitted to make choice of overseers & collectors for the poor; it wer but a simple consequence to infer hereupon, that therefore the Churches are not governed by the common counsel of Presbyters.

And to as little purpose, or rather less, is that which followeth.

And so Jerome still spake untruly, in respect of the Church of Jerusalem. I do confess, this was peculiar to the Church of Jerusalem, and differing from the order of other Churches: that the Church of Jerusalem had a Bishop before it had Presbyters of her own. And therefore though I did not deny his speech to be untrue in respect of other Churches; yet I proved it to be untrue, in respect of Jerusalem, by his own testimony. But before I come to the sifting thereof, there are two other things to be noted in this speech of the refuter. For that which he pratleth of James his sole power exercised in the Church of Jerusalem, , is altogether impertinent: seeing Jerome, of whom the question is, confesseth, that he was Bishop, and ruled that Church as the Bishop thereof thirty years. Neither is it true, that the ordinary Pastors of that Church had not the like power therein, which James had. For there is no question, but what authority James had in the government of that particular Church of Jerusalem, Simon his successor had the same, and all the Bishops of Jerusalem after him.

Now, that Jerome's speech was untrue in respect of Jerusalem, I proved by Jerome's own testimony; affirming, that James straight ways after the passion of our Lord was by the Apostles ordained Bishop of Jerusalem. Here the refuter hath found out a quirke, which if it were true, would not yet serve his turn. The quirke is, that

Among many other proofs of his learning & judgment, the refuter giveth this for one. For first, this subtility he received from Junius