A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 3 · Chapter 2

A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath · Book 3 · Chapter 2

p. 23CHAP. II. That Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree.

(Serm. sect. 2. pag. 29. That Bishoppes were superiour to other Ministers in degree, all antiquitie with one consent, if you except Aërius, &c. to the end of pag. 31.)

MY reason hee frameth thus:Ad pag. 85. If all antiquitie (except Aërius, who for dissenting in this point, was counted an heretike by Epiphanius and Augustine) with one consent doe acknowledge, that Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree: then Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree. But the former is true; therefore the latter. First hee cauilleth with the consequence, (which no man bearing the face of a Diuine, I had almost said of a Christian, would doe) calling it, sore, poore, feeble, and insufficient, vnlesse the consent of the Apostles and Euangelists be added. Where let the Reader consider, what is the question which is here concluded, viz. That the Bishops of the primitiue Church were superiour to other Ministers in degree. This question plainly is de facto, of what was: for de iure, that is, of the quality & lawfulnes, I intreat in the second assertion. Now for a man to deny credit to all antiquitie in a matter of fact not gainsaid by scripture, it is a plain euidence that he is addicted to nouelty and singularity, rather then the truth. Doth all antiquity testifie with one consent, that the Bishops in the primitiue Church were superior to other Ministers in degree; and hath any of vsus the forehead to deny it? p. 24Neither is the consent of the Apostles wanting, as … proue in the sermon both in the particulars of the superiority in respect of the fact, as also in respect of the right, in the demonstration of the second assertion. Where I doe with such euidence demonstrate, that the Bishops, described in the first assertion, are of Apostolicall institution; as I am well assured that this Refuter, with all his partakers, will neuer be able soundly and substantially to confute. For there is nothing written with such euidence of truth, but that captious persons may easily cauill with it. And although it had been sufficient for the demonstration of the first assertion, to hauehave produced such euidence as doth testifie onelyonly de facto; yet many of the allegations which I bring, doe also giuegive testimony to the right. Thus much of the authoritie of antiquitie, whereon the consequence is grounded.

§ 2. The first argument, prouing that BB. were superior in degree, because Aërius was counted an hertike for denying it. Epiph. haer. 75. Aug. haer. 53.Now to the thing testified, which is the assumption: which I proue by fiue arguments. The first:

If Epiphanius and Augustine doe reckon Aërius among the heretikes, condemned by the antient Catholike Church, for denying the superiority of Bishops: then the antient Church doth giuegive testimony to the superiority of Bishops, not onelyonly de facto, but also de iure.

But the first is true; therefore the second.

Against the argument it selfe he hath nothing to say: but where I said all antiquity, besides Aërius, did acknowledge the superiority of Bishops: against this he obiecteth, that either Ierome is against Bishops as well as Aërius, or Aërius is brought in by me to no purpose. For de facto Aërius denied the superiority of Bishops, no more then Ierome did. And de iure Ierome denies it as well as he. For that which he addeth of diuers others consenting in iudgement, is a vaine flourish: let him name but one other in the first six hundred yeeres (I thinke I might say 1000.) and I wil yeeld the cause. And those latter Writers which consent with him, vse his words, & build vponupon his authority: so that the whole weight of this cause lieth on Ieroms shoulders, whō if I can disburdē p. 25thereof, there can nothing at all be produced out of antiquitie against the superioritie of Bishops. First, then I say, that they abuse Ierome, who match him with Aërius: for besides that Aërius was a damned hereticke, being a most perfect Arian (as Epiphanius saith, who liued at the same time) liuing in a Church of Arians,foreign. Epiph. in foreign. haer. 75. Aug. haer. 53. Epiph. standing in election for the Bishopricke against Eustathius, who also was an Arrian; out of a discontented humor (the common sourse of Schisme and heresie) broached this heresie (as Epiphanius & Augustine censure it) Presbyterum ab Episcope nulla differentia debere discerni: foreign: denying the Superiority of Bishops, both de Iure, as Augustine reporteth his opinion; and de facto, as Epiphanius; alledging that there is no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter. For there is one order (saith he) of both, one honor, and one dignitie. The Bishop imposeth hands, so doth the Presbyter: the B. giueth the lauer (of Baptisme) so doth the Presbyter: the B. doth administer Gods worship, so doth the Presbyter: the B. sitteth on the throne, so also doth the Presbyter. But Ierome was not so mad (to vse the refuters words of Aërius, who indeed, as Epiphanius saith, was foreign, a franticke fellow) as to deny the Superioritie of BB. de facto, which oftentimes he doth auouch; neither doth he deny it de Iure. And therfore the refuter here hath deliuered two vntruthes: the one, that (he saith) Aërius did not deny the Superioritie of BB. de facto : which most manifestly he did, and did it no doubt with this mind, that though he missed of the Bishopricke, which ambitiously he had desired; yet he would be thought as good a man as a Bishop. The other, that he saith, Ierome denied the Superiority of BB. de Iure . For it is most euident by many testimonies alledged in the Sermon, that Ierome held the Superiority of Bishops to be lawfull and necessary. For though somewheres he saith that Bishops are greater then Presbyters rather by the custome of the Church, then by the truth of Diuine disposition; yet he acknowledgeth that custome to be aaAd Euagr.an Apostolicall tradition; and therefore either he may be vnderstood as p. 26holding the superioritie of BB. to be not Diuini, but Apostolici iuris: or he may be interpreted as speaking of the names, prouing by diuers testimonies of the Scripture, that Presbyters are called Bishops. But heereof wee may not conclude, that therefore Presbyters and Bishops are all one; for not onelyonly Bishops, but also Apostles bb1. Pet 5.1. 2. Iohn 1. and 3. Iohn 1.1 Pet 5:12 John 13 John 1, are called Presbyters, and the Apostleship ccAct. 1.20.Acts 1:20is called Bishopricke.

For howsoeuer all Presbyters are in the Scriptures called Angels and Bishops; yet that one among many, who had singular preheminence aboue the rest, is by the warrant of the holy Ghost, called the Angell of the Church; and by the same warrant, may be called the Bishop. Now whereas Aërius for denying the superiority of Bishops, was by Epiphanius and Augustine iudged and heretike, hereby it appeareth that this alleagation not onelyonly proueth the superiority de facto, but de iure: for seeing there is no heresie which is not repugnant to Gods word, it is euident that they who iudged this opinion of Aerius to be an heresie, did also iudge it contrarie to Gods word. Neither did Epiphanius and Augustine alone condemne Aërius for an heretike; but as Epiphanius ddHeres. 75.reporteth, all Churches both in City and Countrey did so detest him and his followers, that being abandoned of all, they were forced to liue in the open fields, and in wods.

§ 3. Obiections for Aërius answered.And whereas some obiect against Epiphanius and Augustine in defence of Aerius, that his opinion is not heresie, because Epiphanius did not sufficiently answer one of Aërius his allegations out of Scripture, where Presbyters seeme to be called Bishops; and that Augustine followed Epiphanius, himselfe not vnderstanding how farre the name of an heretike is to be extended: these are very slender exceptions to be taken by so learned eeEpist. ad. ….K.a man. For be it, that Epiphanius did not sufficiently answere some one of Aërius his allegations: is that sufficient to excuse Aërius from being an heretike; seeing that testimony ffPhil. 1.1.Phil 1:1may be sufficiently answered, as J hauehave shewed; and seeing eueryevery testimony p. 27alleaged by each heretike, hath not alwaies beene sufficiently answered by eueryevery one that hath written against them? The Allegation which Aërius bringeth out of Phil. 1.1. doth onelyonly proue, that the Presbyters were called Bishops at what time, he which was the Bishop of Philippi, namely Epaphroditus ggPhil. 2.25. Vide Theodor. … Phil. 2.25.Phil 2:25, was called their Apostle. And it is confessed by many hhChrysost. Hieronym. Ambros. Theodor. Oecum. &c.of the Fathers, that howsoeuer there were many in Philippi, which in a generall signification were called Bishops: yet there was but one, nay, that there could be but one, which properly was called the Bishop of Philippi.

And as touching Augustine; I maruell, that learned men could derogate so much from him, as that he, at that time especially, would write vponupon the authoritie of others, what himselfe vnderstood not: For Augustine was no youngling or nouice at that time; but hee wrote that booke in his elder age, euen after hee had written iiIn Epist ad Qu…dvul…de ū.his bookes of Retractations, at what time hee had written 230. bookes, besides his Epistles and Homilies. Neither doth Augustine write any thing in his preface of that booke, whereby it might bee gathered, that hee was in doubt, whether any of those particulars which he noteth, were to be judged heresies; onelyonly he saith, that what maketh an Heretike, can in his judgement hardly, if at all, be set downe in an accurate definition. Notwithstanding, he distributeth his intended Trea…ise into two parts: The first, of the heresies which after Christs ascension had been contrarie to his doctrine, and which he could come to the knowledge of: among which, the heresies of Aërius hauehave the 53. place: in the latter, hee promiseth to dispute what maketh an Heretike. But though he came not to that, or if he did, what he wrote of that point is not come to our hands; yet in the conclusion of his Treatise, which is extant, he saith thus kkAugust de haeres in fine.; What the Catholike Church holdeth against these (meaning all the 88. heresies which before he had recited) it is but a superfluous question: seeing it is sufficient in this behalfe to know, Eam p. 28contra ist… sentire, nec aliquid horum in fidem quenquam d…bere recipere, that the iudgement of the Church is contrary to these, and that no man ought to receiue any of these into his beleefe. And again; Omnis ita que Christianus Catholicus ist… non debet credere, &c. wherefore it is the duty of eueryevery Catholicke Christian to beleeue none of these.

But it will be said; doe you then hold eueryevery one to be an heretique, who is of Aërius iudgement in this point? Whereunto I answeare: first, that although I hold them to be in an error, yet I doe not judge them to be heretiques, who do not with pertinacy defend their error. And secondly, I make great difference betweene errors in the articles of faith, and fundamentall points of Religion (such as was the error of Aërius as he was an Arrian, and such as is the error of those who deny our iustification by Christs righteousnes) and in matters of Discipline: for these though they be dangerous, yet they are not damnable errors; and it is no great disparagement to men, otherwise learned and orthodoxall, to hauehave been ouerseene in matters of Church gouernment; so that they doe not for the same leaue the Church and make separation: for such also be counted heretikes by the Councels, 1. Constant. ca. 6. As for the refuter; it is at his choice whether he will be accounted an heretike, or not. In my iudgement he were best to say, Errare possum, I may erre (as in this controuersie hitherto to hath done) sed h…reticus esse nolo, but I will …e no heretike, by obstinate defending of that, wherein his conscience is conuicted.

§ 4. Other obiections answered.Now to helpe the Refuter, because I desire to giuegive the Reader satisfaction, I will not conceale, that somewheres I finde besides Ierome, the testimonies of Chrysostome, Augustine, and Ambrose obiected as fauouring the opinion of Aërius: but vnworthily. Chrysostome llIn 1. Tim 3. hom. 9. & 10.1 Tim 3is alleadged, as if he should say, There is in a manner no difference betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter. Indeed Chrysostome vnderstanding by Episcapus, 1. Tim. 3. him that is properly called a Bishop, asketh why Paul speaking of Bishops, and Deacons, maketh p. 29no mention there of Presbyters. Whereunto he maketh answeare, foreign, because there is no great difference: for they also hauehave receiued doctrine and gouernment mmforeign.of the Church; and those things which Paul said concerning Bishops, agree to them. But doth it hence follow, that in Chrysostomes judgement, there was no difference betwixt a Bishop, and a Presbyter? doth not Chrysostome in the next words acknowledge, that the Bishops are superiour to Presbyters in respect of ordination? And as touching singularitie of preheminence; doth not he teach, that in onennIn Phil. 1.Phil 1 Citie, or Church, (where are many Pre…byters) there ought to be one Bishop? and so he …old Sisi…ius the Nouatian ooSocrat. l. 6. c. 22.Bishop at Constantinople, foreign. And though he ascribe gouernment of the Church to the Presbyters vnderunder the Bishop; doth he not ppHomil. 20. ad pop. Antioch. in initio.acknowledge the Bishop to be the gouernor of the Presbyters? and when he was Bishop himselfe did he not exercise qqTheod. l. 5. ca. 28.great authority ouer them?

But what saith Augustine? Quid est Episcopus, nisi primus Presbyter? what is a Bishop but the first Presbyter? doth he not expound himselfe? primus Presbyter, rrAug. quast. noui & vet. test. 101. t. 4.h. e. … Sacerdos, the first Presbyter, that is, the high Priest? such a one therefore in Augustines judgement, is the Bishop to Presbyters, as the high priest was to the other priests: for in the same place also he compareth the Deacons to the Leuits, and the Presbyters to the Priests.

Yea, but Ambrose saith, Of a Bishop and a Presbyter, there is one order, for either of … a Priest; but the Bishop is the first. The words are not in his booke de dignitate Sacerdotali, as it is quoted; for there I find the contrarie: for, Ambrose saith ssAmbr. de dignit. Sacerd. cap. 3., There is one thing which God requireth of a Bishop, another of a Presbyter, another of a Deacon. And againe, he signifieth ttCap. 5., that as Bishops do ordaine Presbyters, and consecrate Deacons; so the Archbishop ordaineth the Bishop. But they are found in his commentarie on the first to Timothe cap. 3. uuAmbr. in 1. Tim. 3.1 Tim 3Where asking the same question with Chrysostome, why after the mention of the Bishop, he presently p. 30addeth the ordination, or order of Deacon? because, saith he, of a Bishop, and Presbyter, there is one ordination, or order: for either of them is a Priest: but the Bishop is the first: so that eueryevery Bishop is a Presbyter, but not eueryevery Presbyter a Bishop: for among the Presbyters, the Bishop is the first. Now what he meaneth by the first Presbyter, may else where be shewed in his writings. In the Bishop, saith he xxIn …ph 4., are all orders, because he is primus Sacer…s, hoc est, Princeps est Sacerd…tum, the first Priest, that is, the Prince of the Priests: and in the place alleaged, he signifieth yyIn 1. Tim. 3.1 Tim 3that Timothe the Bishop, was the first Presbyter at Ephesus. And such presbyters I doe confesse our BB. to be.

So much of Aër…us: concerning whom, I hauehave often maruelled, what some learned men doe mean, to go about to salue the credit of such a frantique fellow, as Epiphanius describeth him, being also an absolute Arian, and schismaticke or Separatist from the true Churches.

Now, saith the refuter, let vsus take a view of his great army of antiquity; the whole number of them is but fiue, and 4. of them almost 200. yeares vnderunder age. Marke here, either the skill, or conscience of this great Analyser. The first argument, which indeed is vnanswerable, that he swalloweth. And in stead of analysing and answearing the rest, he cauils at the number, and at their age. I will therefore propound my arguments and withall answere his cauils. And first, for their number; besides the fiue he speaketh of, I produced the testimonies of Epiphanius and Augustine, deliuering not only their own opinions, but the iudgement of the Church; Epiphanius reporting, that all Churches did reject and condemne Aërius; and Augustine testifying, that the Catholike Church did hold the contrary to Aërius his assertion; that as I said, was my first argument.

The 2. argument. Antiquitie acknowledgeth 3. degrees of Ministers▪My second argument is this: Antiquity did distinguish the ministers of the Church into 3. degrees; viz, Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, answerable to the high Priest, the Priests and L…ites vnderunder the Law:

Therefore it giueth testimony to the superiority of BB. ouer p. 31other ministers in degree.

The antecedent I proue by the the testimony of the Councill of Sardica, of Optatus, of Ignatius, and generally by the testimony of Fathers in Councils; in which, as I said, nothing is more vsuall then the distinction of Ministers into these 3. degrees. That clause, if it had pleased the refuter to hauehave taken notice of, it might hauehave preuented his cauill concerning either the number, or the age of my witnesses. But he (such is his conscience) passing by it, b…aggeth (wi…h what face I know not) that I hauehave no antiquitie, which distinguisheth the ministrie into 3. degrees. Here therefore 3. things are to be shewen, which are so many arguments. 1. That antiquity distinguisheth the Clergy into 3. degrees. 2. That it termeth them foreign, degrees. 3. That they compare them to the high Priest, Priests and Leuits.

As touching the first: this distinction of Ministers is so frequent in the ancient Canons, that if a man do but open the booke at all aduentures, he shall not often light vponupon such a place, where this distinction is not to be found. Jn the ancient Canons, called the Apostles, it is mentioned 20. times at the least in the Council of Nice, 3. or 4. times; in the Councill of Ancyra, and Antioch often, and so in the rest.

Which of the ancient Fathers doth not acknowledge this distinction of Ministers? Ignatius, as we shall heare, giueth plentifull testimony to it. Clement aaEpist. 1.in his Epistle to Iames translated by Ruffi…, testifieth this to hauehave been the Doctrine of Peter according to the institution of Christ, that Presbyters should be obedient to their Bishops in all things. And again, bbEpist. 3.that Presbyters and Deacons and others of the Clergy must take heed, that they doe nothing without the licence of the Bishop.

Dionysius ccEccl. Hierarch. c. 5.an ancient and learned writer (if not the Areopagite) propoundeth the same distinction vnderunder the names foreign

Tertullian ddDe fuge in persecut. & de Baptismo.acknowledgeth it. Orogen eeHomil. 7. in Ieremlikewise, terming the Bishop him q…totim Ecclesia a…cemobtinet. So doth Cyprian, and Cornelim, and almost who not?

p. 32§. 6. Adpag B6. B7. B8.Yes, saith the Refuter, Anacletus and Damas… ffEpist. 2. vivisuque., afform… there were but two degrees, Bishops and Priests; and Ignatius ggAd Phil. & Trall.diuideth the offices of the Church into Bishops and Deacons. But hauing thus (as he thinketh) set them and others of the Fathers togither by the eares, he will not go about to part them. Let them (saith he) agree about the matter as they can. Howbeit, the reconciliation is easily made. For Anacletus (if that were his Epistle) speaketh only of hhEpist. 3. Sacerdotum (fratres) ordo bipartitus est.Priests, and of two orders of them, ordained by Christ: but Deacons were not called Sacerdotes, as Bishops and Presbyters were: Sacerdotes being vsually distinguished into maiores, which be Bishops; and minores, which be Presbyters. Neither were Deacons ordained by Christ himselfe, but by the Apostles. And with this distinction of Anacletus those vnsuspected iiCyprian. Ambrose. Ierome. Augustine.fathers agree, who hold, that these two degrees of ministers were ordained by Christ, when he appointed twelue Apostles (whose successours are the Bishops) and the three score and twelue Disciples, whom the Presbyters succeed. Now, if the Bishops succeed the Apostles, and the Presbyters succeed the 72. Disciples, as diuers of the ancient approued Fathers do teach; then it cannot be denied, but that the calling of Bishops, and their superioritie, as also the inferior degree of Presbyters, is of Christs owne institution. The like is to be said of Damasus kkEpist., 4., who acknowledgeth but two Orders among the Disciples in Christs time, the twelue Apostles, and the 70. disciples; and by that reason rejecteth the Ch…r…piscopi, because they neither were Bishops, as he proueth; nor Presbyters, as themselues pretended. Among the Disciples of Christ, saith he, we know but two Orders, that is, of the twelue Apostles, and so…mentie disciples. Whence this third order is … we know not.

As for Ignatius, his testimonie is falsified. In his Epistle ad Tralli…os llIgnat. ad Trall., he wisheth them. To … without their Bishop, to be subiect to their Presbyters, and to please their Deacons, as being the ministers of the mysteries of Christ. Againe, He that doth any thing without the Bishop, and the p. 33Presbyters, and the Deacons, such a one is without: For what is the Bishop; but he that hath power aboue all? &c. What the Presbyterie, but a sacred companie, counsellors, and coassessors of the Bishop? What the Deacons, but imitators of the Angegelicall powers? &c. he that disobeyeth these, reiecteth Christ, and impeacheth his ordinance. And in the end: Farewell in the Lord Iesus being subiect to your Bishop, and likewise to the Presbyters, and Deacons. His other Epistle ad Phil. is so wisely quoted, that I know not whether he mean the Philippians, or Philadelphians. But it is no great matter, whether he meane: for as neither of both doth testify that, for which he quoteth them: so both of them doth mention the distinction of ministers into Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. In the Epistle to the Philippians mmIgn. ad Philipp.he exhorteth them to be subiect to the Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons. And towards the end, he saluteth Vitalius their Bishop, the sacred colledge of Presbyters, and his fellow ministers, the Deacons. The Epistle to the Philadelphians nnIgn. ad Philadelph.he directeth especially to them, who were one with the Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons. In the Epistle it selfe, that al who be Christs, are on the Bishops side. And besides that testimony alledged in the Sermon, he saith, attend to the Bishop, the Presbyters, and Deacons. To conclude, in these 3. Epistles Ignatius giueth testimonie to this distinction into 3. degrees, noting their callings, 9. times, and not once letteth any thing fal, which may seeme to insinuate any such thing as the refuter alledgeth; and therefore with what conscience he citeth authors let the reader iudge.§. 7. The three orders of ministers called foreign degrees.

Now that these three orders were called foreign degrees, it should not seeme strange, seeing the Apostle vseth that word in that sense 1. Tim. 3.13. noting the Deaconship to be a degree to the Presbytery,1. Tim. 3.13.1 Tim 3:13 as it is with vsus.

Cyprian ooLi. 4. Epist. 2. Ad sacerdotij sublime fastigium cunctis religionis gradibus ascendit.saith of Cornelius, that he came to the Bishopricke not suddainly, but hauing been promoted through all the Ecclesiasticall offices, he ascended to the height of Priesthood by all the degrees of Religion.

In the Councill of Sardica ppSard. c. 10. lat 13., it is decreed, That if any rich p. 34man o… Rhetorician qqforeign, Rhetoricae vacans. Balsā., be from the court desired to be Bishop, he shall not be ordained, vntill he hauehave performed the ministry of a reader, Deacon and Presbyter, that so through euerie rrforeign.degree of he be thought worthy he may by way of promotion ascend vntounto the height ssforeign.of Bishopricke, and the degree of eueryevery order shall hauehave a good time, &c. and he being thought worthy of the diu…es: Priesthood, shalbe made partaker of the ttforeign.greatest honor. The same Councill uuTheodor. l. 5. c. 8.in their Synodicall Epistle report of the Arians, that they had not only receiued thos… who had bin expulsed for Arianisme, but also preferred them to a foreign.greater degree, as from Deacons, to be Presbyters, and from Presbyters, to be Bishops. The Councils of yyConc. Ephes. c. 1.2.6.Eph 1:2Eph 1:6Ephesus and zzChal…. c. 2 & 12.Chalcedon, diuers times for a penaltie threaten Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, with the losss of their degree. And most plainly the Council of Carthage aaCon…. Carth. Gra…. c. 3. Siue Carthag. 2. c. 2.mentioneth foreign, these three degrees, … Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. And againe, bbCon…. Carth. Grae. …. Carth. 6. c. ….all the degrees of Clerkes from the hiest to the lowest.

The like testimonie to that which Cyprian gaue to Cornelius, doth Nazianzen ccIn Encomio Athanas….giuegive both to Athanasius, that he foreign, hauing gaue through all the degrees in order, and hauing been in eueryevery of them, as Theodoret ddL. 1. c. 26.saith, foreign eeAdmirable., was chosen Bishop; and also to ffIn vita Basil.Basil, that he ascended to his Bishoprick, by the order and law of the spirituall ascent; and Socrates ggL. 7. c. 41.to Pr…clus, that he was first a Reader, then by A…ticus preferred to the Deacon-ship, afterwards, when he was Presbyter, he was by the same Attic…, made Bishop of Cyzicum. Op…a…us hhContr. Parme…. lib. 1., as I alleaged in the Sermon, assigneth to Deacons, the third ministerie, to Presbyters, the second, to BB whom he calleth principes omnui… ̄, the first.

Burchardus iiDecret. l. …. c. …5.citeth this saying of Augustine being a Bishop: You Presbyters know ye, that your degree is the second, and next to ours: for euen as Bishops hauehave the place of the Apostles in the Church; euen so the Presbyters of the other disciples: the former, hauehave the degree of Aaron, the high Priest; the latter, of his sonnes.

In which words the third point also is testified. Whereunto p. 35Ierome kkAd E…agr. in fine. Ad Nepoti. Epist. 2. Quod Aaron & falios eius, hoc Episcopum & Presbyteros esse nouimus.himself in more places then one giueth testimony, affirming that in the Church, the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons are answerable to the high Priest, Priests, and Leuits.

Now to reject these testimonies, as being vnderunder age, as though they did historically relate only what was in their own times, and not dogmatically set downe the orders, and degrees of the ministerie, perpetually obserued in the Church of Christ; is a verie vnlearned shift. If any one of these, as namely Ierome, shal but seeme to fauor any of their assertions, though in their sense he contradict himself, and gainsay all others, both Councils, & fathers; against such a testimonie no exception, either of minoritie of age, or singularitie of opinion will be admitted; but that authoritie must ouerweigh all, that himself, and others say to the contrarie. It is a world to see how Ierome in this case is magnified, and preferred before all antiquitie: Who can tell better then Ierome? who better acquainted with the historie of the Church then Ierome? &c. But when most pregnant & plain testimonies are produced out of Ierome, prouing the superioritie of Bishops, agreeable with al antiquity, then Ierome is a youngling, and vnderunder age.

But where I said in the judgement of antiquitie,§ 8. BB. Presbyters, Deacons, answerable to the high Priest, Priests, and Leuites. Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, are answereable to the high Priest, Priests and Leuits, he saith, This gay reason Cardinall Turr…cremata, & Bellarmine out of him, bring to proue, that there must be one Pope ouer the whole church, as there was one high Priest among the Iewes: and it proueth that as substantially, as it doth this. The which is wickedly spoken, and desperately, as many things of late hauehave been vttered by that faction; as that the Papists arguments for the Popes Supremacie, were as good as ours, for the superioritie of Bishops. But of these blasphemous speeches, whereby they match the ordinance of Christ by his Apostles, with the height of Antichrists pride; I hope this Refuter, & his consorts will one day hauehave the grace to repent. I confesse it is ordinary with the Papists, to alledge out of the Fathers for the Popes supremacy, what they testified for the superioritie p. 36of Bishops. But will any be so desperate, as to say, the same testimonies abused and detorted by Papists, do as substantially prooue that for which they are alleaged besides the true meaning of the fathers; as that, for which they are truely and faithfully alleaged? Good reason therefore had Caluin, and the rest to refute that argument, because, as Caluin kkInst. l. 4 c. 6. s. 2.saith. There is not the like reason betweene one small people, and the whole world. The whole Church hath no head, or vniuersall Bishop, but Christ: But each seuerall. Church may hauehave their head, and seuerall Bishop, answerable to the high Priest of the Iewes, as diuers of the Fathers hauehave taught: Therfore Ignatius requireth the Smyrneans to honor the Bishop foreign as the high Priest: and it is an vsual thing with the Fathers, not only to apply those things which were spoken of the high Priest to Bishops, but also to call the Bishop foreign, po…tificem, Sacerdotem summum &c. and Bishoprick, foreign.

§ 9. The Testimonies of Ignatius.There remaine yet the testimonies of Ignatius to be discussed, which I produced in this 2. argumēt. The authoritie wherof the refuter first calleth in question. Wherin he may seeme to preiudice his own cause: for T.C.W.T.D.F.H.I. and others of that alphabet, hauehave oft times dragged some testimonies out of him: yea this refuter himselfe oft times doth cite him; and once I remember llPag. 51.he threatned to prooue his lay Presbyters out of Ignatius, when he should come, to answere my allegations out of him: which how it will be performed, the reader is now to expect. In the meane time, little reason had he so much to cleuate the authority of those godly and learned epistles: for his own confession, that they are recorded in Eusebius, is a good proofe they are not counterfeits.

But he is pleased to heare him speak. And whereas Ignatius mmAd Smyrn.teacheth, that the lay … must be subiect to the Deacōs, they to the Presbyters▪ & the Presbyters to the Bishop: the refuter denieth the Presbyterie, and Deaconship to hauehave been degrees of the ministery, but vnderstandeth such Deacons as were only imployed in looking to the poore, and such Presbyters p. 37as were only gouerning elders. The vanity of which conceipt J hauehave sufficiently declared before, if anything will suffice. And I am ashamed for the refuter, that he should be either so ignorant, as not to know; or so vnconscionable, as not to acknowledge, that these three, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, hauehave alwaies since the Apostles times been esteemed three degrees of Ministers, by the vniuersall and perpetual consent of all Christendome vntill our age.

Notwithstanding, his arguments, such as they are, must be answered. And first for Deacons (he saith) they were no Ministers of the word, That Deacons were in a degree of the ministrie.but imployed only in looking to the poore: and that he proueth, by the confession of D. Bilson. What maner of men the Deacons were, of whom Ignatius speaketh, Ignatius himselfe sufficiently declareth, in his Epistles to the Trallians nnforeign., where he calleth the Deacons, the ministers of the mysteries of Christ; and to the Smyrneans ooforeign., Deacons of Christ vntounto the word of God; to the Philadelphians ppforeign., ministring to the Bishop in the word; to the Antiochians qqforeign., the sacred Deacons. Neither doth D. Bilson deny it. Only he maketh question of the 7. which were elected Act. 6. whether they were such, as properly were called Deacons, and are the third degree of the ministry, or such as were chosen onelyonly to be ouerseers of the poore: to which purpose he citeth the generall Councill held in Trullo rrConc. Const. in Trullo ca. 16., correcting the Canon of the Council held at Neocaesaria ssConc. Neocaes. cap. 15., which appointeth that in eueryevery Church there should be 7. Deacons, in imitation of the act ttAct. 6.Acts 6of the Apostles, in ordaining 7. But (say they) we comparing the sense of the Fathers, with the speech of the Apostles, do finde, that they spake not of men uuforeign.seruing at the mysteries (such as properly be called Deacons) but at tables; alledging Chrysostome, who enquiring what the office of these 7. was, plainely denieth, that they were Deacons: whereupon they denounce (as D. Bilson hath alledged) that the foresaid 7. Deacons, must not be taken for those that serued at the mysteries, but for such as were trusted with the dispensation of the common necessities of those that were assembled togither. And verily to me it seemeth more then probable, that these 7. were not p. 38such as S. Paul speaketh of 1. Tim. 3. & were in vse in the primitiue church, being a degree inferior to Presbyters: for these 7 or the most of them, were, as xxHave s. 20. mis…t etiam alios 72. ad praedicand…m, foreign.E…phaenius, & others do testifie, chosen out of the 70. Disciples, & were (no doubt) principall men among them, full of the holy Ghost & wisdom, being before this ministers of Gods word. For as the Apostles, the chiefe and principal ministers, thought it to appertain to their duty to take care of the poore; so whē the Apostles were disburdned therof, that care was committed to 7▪ others, who were chief men among the disciples. Neither may it be doubted, but that as Steuen was a worthy preacher; so the rest (whē their tēporary function at Ierusalē was ended by the dispersion of the faithful vpō the death of Steuen) gaue thēselues to the preaching of the word, as appeareth in Philip yyAct. 8.5 & 21.8.Acts 8:5Acts 21:8, who was one of the 7. And wheras the Refuter saith, that D. Bilson zzCap. 15.cō fesseth the Deacons to hauehave bin only imploied in looking to the poor; the cōtrary is euidēt: for speaking euē of those 7. he collecteth by S. Pauls precepts cōcerning Deacōs, that their office was not only a charge to looke to the poore, but also to attend the sacred assemblies & seruice of the Church, & euen a step to the ministery of the word, meaning, as I suppose, to the Presbytery.

§. 10.As for those who properly are called Deacons; it is most euident by innumerable testimonies, that they were the third degree of the ministery, whose office was a sacred ministery aaforeign, themselues foreign, their dutie foreign. Ignat. ad Trall. Can. Apost. 15. Conc. An…yr. cap. 2., helping the Bishop or the Presbyter in the diuine seruice, offering the bread and the cup, & performing as it were the office of a cryer in the Church, (which is foreign) in dismissing those which were to depart, in commanding silence, and exciting the people to deuotion, and attention. In the Council of Nice bbCap. 18., fault is found with Deacons, who in some Cities did giuegive the Eucharist to the Presbyters: but they are commaunded to containe themselues within their bounds, knowing that they be the Bishops ministers, & are inferior to the Presbyters, and to receiue the Communion after the Presbyters, at the hands either of the Bishop, or the Presbyters.

Iustine Martyr ccApol. 2., speaking of the Eucharist, saith, after the president hath giuen thanks, and the people hath blessed, they, who with vsus are called Deacons, do giuegive and communicate to eueryevery one p. 39that is present, of the bread & wine, and doe carie it to those which are absent. And hauing repeated the same againe, he speaketh of the collections for the poore: shewing that what was collected, was cōmitted (not to the Deacon, but) foreign the President, by him to be distributed. Tertullian ddTertull. de Bapt.saith, The chiefe Priest, which is the Bishop, hath the right of giuing Baptisme, then the Presbyters, & the Deacons, but yet not without the authority of the Bishop. eeCypr. passim.Cyprian eueryevery where speaketh of thē, as being of the sacred ministerie. The ancient Councill of Eliberis hath this canon ffConc. Elib. ca. 77., If any Deacon, ruling, or hauing the charge of a people, without either Bishop or Presbyter baptize any, those the Bishop by his blessing must accomplish. The council of Carthage ggCarth. Gr…c. ca. 25. siue Carth 5. ca. 3. foreign., speaking of BB. & other inferior orders, which do handle the sacred mysteries, reckoneth Subdeacons, Deacons, & Presbyters. Ierome hath these words hhAduers. Lucifer., If at the prayer of the Bishop alone the holy Ghost descendeth, they are to be lamented, who in villages, and townes, & other remote places, being baptized by Presbyters, and Deacons, do sleep, or depart this life, before they be visited of the Bishop. The safetie of the Church dependeth vponupon the dignitie of the chiefe Priest (meaning the Bishop.) To whom, if a power peerelesse, and eminent aboue all be not giuen, there will be as many schismes in the Church, as Priests. Hence it is, that without the Chrisme, (which the Presbyters & Deacons were wontiiConc. Carth. 4. ca. 36. to receiue from their own Bishop) and commandement of the Bishop, neither Presbyter nor Deacon hath right to baptize.

In the 4. Councill of Carthage, which is so oft alleaged by the Disciplinarians, ther is direction giuē for the ordination kkConc. Carth. 4. c. 2.3.4.of the Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, & other of the Clergie. The Deacon llCa. 37.is taught to acknowledge himself to be the minister aswell of the Presbyter, as of the Bishop. The Deacon mmCa. 38.is authorized euen in the presēce of a Presbyter, if ther be necessity, & he be cōmāded, to deliuer the Eucharist of Christs body to the people, & to wear nnCa. 41.an Albe only in time of oblation, or reading. To conclude, Cyprian, and other of the fathers, when they terme the Deacons Leuits, & make them answerable to the Leuits, as they do the Presbyters to the Priests, do euidētly declare, what they thought cōcerning the office of Deacons.

That the Presbyters were not ministers of the word,§. 11. the p. 40refuter proueth thus.

The Refuter denieth Presbyters to hauehave bin minsters of the word.They who might not preach, nor baptize, nor doe any pastorall duty without the Bishops licence were not ministers. The Presbyters might not preach, nor baptize, nor do any pastorall dutie without the Bishops licence:

Therefore they were not Ministers.

The proposition is proued by 2. reasons. First, because it were a mockery of a ministerie to deny Ministers power to execute their office.

Secondly, because eueryevery popish Priest had potestatem ordinis, that is, power to do all things that belong to his order.

First, to the proposition it selfe, I say it is very false, and that the contradictorie in all the parts of it is true: viz that they who might, yea ought to preach, baptize, administer the Lords supper, and performe any other pastorall dutie, being therto licensed of the Bishop, were ministers. From which we may assume and conclude thus: But the ancient Presbyters might, yea ought to preach, baptize, administer the Lords supper, and performe any other pastorall duties, being therto authorized by the Bishop: Therefore they were ministers.

And that the proposition is false, it may appeare by the practise of our owne Church, and of all the antient Churches, whose Presbyters are, and were Ministers (as I hauehave sufficiently prooued before, for the conuiction, I doubt not, of the refuters conscience) and yet neither may, nor might preach, baptize, administer the Lords Supper, and performe other ministeriall functions, but by leaue or authority from the Bishop. Neither yet is the ministery of our clergy now, nor of the Presbyters in times past, a mockery, because it agreeth not with his fancy: but his fancy is a meere nouelty, disagreeing from the generall practise of the most antient Churches. For howsoeuer afterwards he malepertly chargeth mee with not vnderstanding the distinction of ecclesiasticall power, in potestatem ordinis et iurisdictionis; into the power of order and iurisdiction: yet doth he both here and there bewray himself not to vnderstand it. For though eueryevery Minister, as hee is a Presbyter hath potestatem p. 41ordinis; yet it doth not follow, that hee may at his owne pleasure exercise that power. We must therfore take knowledge of two distinctions: the one, of the power of order and of iurisdiction: for eueryevery minister hath the power of order as hee is a Presbyter simply; but the power of iurisdiction, as he is praelatus, or pastor. The former he hath giuen him in his ordination; the latter, in his institution. By the former, hee is qualified and authorized to preach and administer the sacraments, and to doe other …spirituall actions peculiar to his order, which another man, who is not of that order, neither can doe, nor may hauehave leaue to doe. But hee may not performe these duties which belong to the power of his order to any congregation, as the Pastor therof, vnlesse that flocke be assigned and committed to him by the Bishop, who hath the charge of the whole diocesse. A presbyter therefore though he hauehave potestatem ordinis, may not perform pastoral duties to any congregation, which are part of the Bishops charge, vnlesse hee be authorized therto by the Bishop; from whom hee receiueth potestatem iurisdictionis, curamque animarum et regimen ecclesia parochialis, in his institution.

Againe, we must distinguish betweene the power it selfe and the exercise & execution of it. For although eueryevery minister hath thesame power of order which is common to them with Bishops in respect of preaching the worde and administring Baptisme and the Lords Supper, yet the exercise of their power is, and alwaies hath been subiected to the authority of the Bishop, to be permitted, directed, restrained and suspended by him. This subordination and subiection of the presbyters to the Bishop, for the exercise of their power, which euer hath beene practised in the Church, doth not make either their function to be a mockery of the ministery, as the refuter malepertly speaketh, nor themselues to be no ministers. But plainly proueth the contrary, as I hauehave shewed.

For whereas he obiecteth out of Tertullian aaDe baptismo.,§. 12. that any lay man might baptize by the Bishops … he falsifies his p. 42testimony. His words be these: Dandi baptismum ius …ab…t summus sacerdos qui est episcopus, &c. The cheif Preist, which is the Bishop, hath the right to giuegive baptisme. Then the presbyters and deacons; but not without the authority of the Bishop for the honor of the Church; which being safe, peace is safe bb…lioquin etiam laicis ius est.. Otherwise euen laymen hauehave right. Where Tertullian sheweth, that the ordinary right of baptizing appertaineth to Bishops, Presbyters, deacons, as belonging to the power of their order; though for the honour and peace of the Church, the Bishop bee superiour in the exercise of that power, which the Presbyters and Deacons are not to exercise without his authority: otherwise, that is, extraordinarily, and in case of necessity, the lay man, euen without the Bishops leaue, hath right (in Tertullians iudgement) to baptize. Where he saith, That in Tertullians time, who was himselfe a Presbyter, Presbyters and Deacons were not ministers, and much lesse in Ignatius time; I hope he wil r…call this foule error, proceeding from extreme ignorance, when he hath read what before hath been alledged to the contrary. And whereas the last testimony, which I alledged out ofccAd Philadelph. Ignatius for these three degrees of the ministery, plainely excludeth their lay Presbyters and lay Deacons, reckening Presbyters and Deacons as degrees of the clergy; he answereth two things; the first, That the Epistle strongly sauoureth of corrupter times, Of the word Clerus, or Clergy.then those Ignatius loued in, by that very word clergy appr…priated therein to the ministers, which is of a far latter breed. He should hauehave done well to hauehave shewed, how late the breed is. For I am well assured thatddCypr. passim. Cyprian vseth the word clerus for the clergy ordinarily, who was little more then a hundred yeares after Ignatius. And Origen, eeIn Ierem. hom. 7.before him, mentioneth this distinction of the clergy and laity. Tertullian, who liued in the same century with Ignatius, distinguisheth each company of Christians, as sometimes ffDe fuga in persecut. Quam ipsi authores. i. ipsi …, & presbyteri & episcopi fugiunt, quomodo Laicus, &c. Cum duces fugiunt quis de gregario numero, &c. Cùm ecclesia distituitur à clero., into gregem & duces, the flocke and the guides; ecclesi… ordinem & laicos, the order of the Church, meaning those which were in orders, and the lay people: so sometimes in ecclesiā & clerū, the assembly and the clergy. The clergy p. 43also or guides, he distinguisheth into these three degrees, Deacons, Presbyters, Bishops. The antient Canons, called the Apostles ggCan. Apost. 2.11. & 12. &c., often mention those of the clergy, as opposed to the laity. But if I should say, that S. Peter vseth the word foreign in the same sense, when writing to Bishops, whom he calleth Presbyters, & himself their Compresbyter, he willeth them, foreign, not exercise lordship ouer the clergy, I should deliuer that which is agreeable to the interpretation of the antient hhOecum. foreign.Writers, and as I am perswaded to the truth. Neither doe I doubt but the vse of the word clerus, was first taken from that place of Peter, who therein followed the phrase of the old Testament, wherein it is oft said, that the Lord was foreign, the portion or the inheritance of the Priests and Leuites. For therefore are they called Clerici, saith Ierome iiAd Nepotianum., vel quia de sorte sunt Domini, vel quia ipse Dominus sors. i. pars clericorū est: Either because they are the Lords portion, (which notatiō some late writers do mislike, not without cause, the people also being Gods inheritance) or because the Lord is their portion: which is agreeable with y^e scriptures.

His other answer is,§. 13. Presbyters and Deacon… in our Refuters conceit, of the Clergy, but not of the ministery. that though the Presbyters and Deacons were of the clergy, yet they were not Ministers: for there were many of the clergy which were not Ministers. Let him therefore tell me whether there were any Ministers in the clergy adioined to the Bishop or not: if he say no, hee is worthy to be hissed at: if yea, who were these Ministers, if the Presbyters and Deacons were not? Besides, it is plaine, that the Clergy of the antient Churches consisted wholly of schollers, which were trained vp in learning: the Clergie belonging to each Bishoppe, being the seminary of the whole diocesse: out of which, not only eueryevery parish, both in the Citie and Country, was to be furnished with Ministers, but also the Bishop himselfe, in the vacancie of the See, was to be chosen. Moreouer, ordinarily those of the clergy ascended by degrees from the lower to the higher, the Bishop being chosen out of the Presbyters & Deacons, (for euen Ignatius his successor was his deacon, Her…:) the Presbyters & deacons out of the inferior orders, as of sub deacons, or readers, p. 44&c. Wherby it is most euidēt, that presbyters & deacōs were not such, as the lay-elders and lay-deacons which are now adaies in some reformed Churches; but men brought vp in learning and seruice of the Church, hauing attained degrees of the sacred Ministery, such as Presbyters and Deacons are with vsus. And so much of my second argument.

The testimonie of the Councell of Chalcedon.The third is taken from the testimony of the great Councell of Chalcedon, and may thus briefly be framed: It is sacriledge to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter.

Therefore BB. were superior to Presbyters in degree, not onelyonly de facto, kkPag. 77.but also de iure. But what is this, saith he, to the Apostles times, and the age following? Indeed, if the Councell had testified the superiority of Bishops de facto onelyonly, there had been some colour for this exception, especially if he could hauehave proued an alteration in the state of Bishops, and the aduancement of them to a higher degree, to hauehave begun after the first two hundred yeeres. But seeing no such matter can truly be alleaged, and seeing also that famous Councell giueth testimony to the superiority of Bishops, not only de facto, but also de iure, and that in such sort, as it deemeth it sacrilege to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter; it cannot therefore bee denied, but that this is a most pregnant testimony, if it bee rightly alleged. Let vsus therefore cōsider the occasion of those words, which in the copie whereon Th. Balsamo doth comment, and in some manuscript Greeke copies, is the twenty nine canon of that Councell. When Eustathius Bishop of Berytum (for so I find him termed diuers times in the Acts llActs 4.5.6.9.Acts 4:5Acts 4:6Acts 4:9of that Councell, in Euagr…m mmEuagr. hist. lib. 2. cap. 2., in Photius nnPh. N…m… can. tit. 9. c 11., and Balsamo ooBalsam. in Conc. Chalc. c. 29.) and not of Tyre, (as in Tilius his Greeke edition it is corruptly printed) when Eustathius J say, had withdrawne diuers Bishopricks from the Metropolitan Church of Tyrus, deposing the Bishops, whom Photius the Bishop of Tyrus had ordained, and bringing them downe to the degree of Presbyters: complaint was made to the great Councell of Chalcedon, and the matter therein in propounded by the Princes, in these words ppAct. Concil. Chalced. de Photio & Eustathis episcopis.: Concerning the Bishops ordained by Photius, and degraded by Eustathius, p. 45and after they had been Bishops, commanded to be Presbyters, what is the sentēce of this holy Synod? Whereto Paschasinus and Lucentiu… Bishops, and Bonifaciu… Presbyter, vicegerents of the Church of Rome, answered qqforeign.: To reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter, it is sacrilege: if any iust cause depose them from their Bishopricke, neither ought they to retaine the place of Presbyters. But if without any crime they hauehave beene remoued from their honour, they shall returne againe to their episcopall dignity. Ana…olius the Archbishop of Constantinople said, These Bishops who are said to hauehave descended from the episcopall dignity vntounto the order of Presbyters, if for iust cause they are condemned, neither are they worthy of the honour of Presbyters. But if without any reasonable cause they hauehave been deiected to a lesse rrforeign.degree, they are worthy, if they be blamelesse, to ssforeign.recouer againe the dignity and priesthood of their Bishopricke. If you thinke that these were but the priuate opinions of these men, heare the censure of the whole Councell: All the reuerend Bishoppes cried; ttforeign.Righteous is the iudgement of the Fathers, wee all say the same things; the Fathers hauehave decreed iustly, let the sentence of the Archbishops hold.

My fourth argument is drawne from the testimony of Ierome:§. 15. The testimony of Ierome. whose authority in this cause ought to be of greatest weight, because he is the onelyonly man almost among the fathers, whom the Disciplinarians can alledge against the superiority of Bishops. Ierome therefore saith, uuAd Euagriū.that at Alexandria from Marke the Euangelist, vntounto Heraclas and Dionysius Bishops, euermore the presbyters hauing chosen one from among themselues, and placed him in exce…siori gradu, in an higher degree, called him Bishop▪ euen as an armie chooseth a Generall. This testimony the Refuter eleuateth in two respects. The first, because Ierome is vnderunder age. Which is a very simple euasion. For Ierome doth not onelyonly testify what was in his time, but also giueth plaine euidence, that in the first two hundred yeeres, euen from S. Marke vntill Heraclas, Bishops were placed in a superior degree aboue Presbyters.

p. 46Secondly, because Bëllarmine alleageth the s…me testimony to the same purpose, whose allegation is answered by Ch…mier: whose answer if I like not, he bids me try what I can say in defence of Bellarmine against it. To omit how odiously this is set downe, I doe professe, that I may with better credit agree with Bellarmine, wherein he consenteth with all antiquity, then the Refuter and his consorts can agree with Aërius; wherein he dissenting from all antiquity, was by Epiphanius, Philaster, Augustine, and all the Catholike Church in his time, condemned for an heretike. But let vsus heare his answers. First, that Ierome proueth by the practise of the Church of Alexandria, that which before he had demonstrated out of the Scriptures, to wit, that a Presbyter and a Bishop differ not. Neither doth he call Marke a Bishop, but an Euangelist.

This answere might become our refuter better then Chamier. For first it is vntrue, that Ierome in these words proueth that a Bishop and a Presbyter differ not. For doth hee not plainly say that the Bishop was placed in a higher degree? and doth hee not compare him in respect of the Presbyters which chose him, to the Chieftaine or Generall, chosen of the Army?

Secondly, he faileth in setting downe Ieromes purpose; which was not to prooue there was no difference betwixt Bishoppes and Presbyters; but to prooue, that Presbyters were superior to Deacons. That he proueth by many arguments. First, because the name Episcopus, Bishop, in the Scriptures is giuen to Presbyters. Secondly, because the Apostles and Bishops are in the Scriptures called Presbyters: to which purpose he alleageth 1. Tim. 4.13. 1. Pet. 5.1. 2. Iohn 1. and 3. Iohn 1.2. Iohn 1. 3. Iohn 1.2 John 13 John 1 And thirdly, whereas it might be obiected, the Bishops were set ouer Presbyters; he confesseth it was done for auoiding of schisme; but yet so, as by the Presbyters the Bishop was chosen out of the Presbyters, euer since S. Marks time, vntill Heracla… and D…ysius, as a Generall by the Army, or the Arch-deacon by the Deacons, out of their owne company. Whereby he would also insinuate, that a Presbyter p. 47is so much better then a Deacon, as a Bishop is superior to an Arch deacon. Thirdly, where he saith, that Ierome doth not call Marke a Bishop, but an Euangelist, and saith else where, that he planted that Church: It is plaine, that in another place **Prooem. in Matthaeum.he confesseth Marke to hauehave been the first Bishop of Alexandria. If Marke therefore were superiour in degree to the Presbyters at Alexandra, as no man wil deny; then must the same be confessed of Anianus, and the rest of his successors, as Ierome plainely testifieth.

Secondly he answeareth, That the order by which the Presbyters chose a Bishop from among themselues, continued to Heraclas and Dionysius time, whom he therefore calleth Bishops, to the end he might signifie, that in their daies after one hundred and forty yeers were expired from Marks comming to Alexandria, that order was changed. Then at the soonest, saith the refuter, began M. D. superiority of Bishops to creep in, &c. Which answere, if his meaning be as our refuter conceiteth, is vnsound. For first where he saith the order was changed in Heraclas and Dionysius, that is spoken but by ghesse, because Ierome nameth them. VponUpon which coniecture, T. C. and H. I. as you hauehave heard, did build their two diuers fancies. For Ieromes meaning was not to signifie that the superioritie of Bishops was altered: but as I hauehave shewed, that vntill Heraclas and Dionysius, who were not Presbyters, but Teachers of the schoole in Alexandria, the Presbyters euer since S. Marks time, did chuse one out of their owne number. That which the Refuter addeth, is absurd, and against Ieromes plaine words: Then at the soonest began M. D. superiority of Bishops to creepe in: for the superiority I spake of, is superiority in degree. And Ierome saith, that euer from Saint Marke, and therefore euen in the Apostles times, the BB. had been placed in a higher degree.

My fift argument is also from the authority of aaAd Euagriū.Ierome, §. 16. Another testimony of Ierome.which yeeldeth a double proofe; the former, that the superiority of Bishops ouer Presbyters, and Presbyters aboue Deacons, is an ordinance or tradition apostolicall.

p. 48Secondly, that as the high Preist was in degree superiour to the other Preists, and they to the Leuits: so by an apostolicall ordinance the Bishop is superiour to the Presbyters, and the Presbyters to the Deacons. That wee may know, saith he, the apostolicall traditions are taken out of the old testament, looke what Aaron The like he hath ad Nepotian. Quod Aaron & filios eius, h…c episcopum & Presbyteros esse nouerimus., and his sonnes and the Leuits were in the Temple; the same let the Bishops, Preists and Deacons challenge in the Church. To this testimony containing two impregnable proofs for the superiority of BB. not onelyonly de facto, but also de iure; the refuter thought it his wisest course to say nothing.

To these arguments this may be added: That as the new ordination of a Deacon, when he was made a Presbyter, doth proue that he was aduanced to a higher degree of the ministery: euen so when a Presbyter was chosen to be Bishop, he was by a new ordination promo…ed to the Bishopricke, as to a higher degree. The two first canons, among those which are called the Apostles, appoint Can. Apost. 1. & 2., that a Bishop should be ordained of two or three Bishops: but let a Presbyter, say they, be ordayned of one Bishop, and likewise a Deacon, and the rest of the clergy. Valeriu… the Bishop dealth with the Primate, the Bishop of Carthage, by letters intreating him that Augustine (who then was Presbyter) might be ordained Bishop of Hippo: which being obtained ddPossidon. in vita Augustini., Augustine tooke vponupon him the care of the Bishopricke, & maioris loci …, and ordination of a greater place. The councell of Sardica eeCon. Sard. c. 10., taketh order, that before a man may be a Bishop he must first performe the ministery of a Reader, then of a Deacon, then of a Presbyter, that so foreign, by eueryevery degree, if hee be worthy, he may arise foreign, vntounto the height of the Bishopricke. Theadoret ffLib. 4. c 18.testifieth, that Iohn (Chrysostome) hauing been the chiefe of the Presbyters at Antioch a long time, oft times might hauehave been chosen to the Bishopricke (which he calleth foreign, the Apostolicall presidency) but alwaies did flie foreign, that principality. So that though he were foreign, the chiefe of the Presbyters; yet he was no Bishop, neither p. 49durst he for a long time take vponupon him that degree of principality. So much of the superiority of Bishops in generall.