A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 4 · Chapter 3
The III. CHAPTER: Prouing that the Apostles themselues ordayned Bishops.
Serm. Sect. 5. pag. 65. But yet I proceede to a further degree, which is, to proue that the Apostles themselues ordayned BB. and committed the Churches to them, and therefore that the Episcopall function is without question of Apostolicall institution, &c. to 38. yeares, pag. 69.
His answere to the prepositionTHE refuter would faine hauehave me seeme to proue idem per idem, but that he could not but discerne that I argue from the ordination of the persons, to the institution of the function: against which consequence, though himselfe say, that without question it is good; yet I confesse he might hauehave taken more iust exception, then he hath hitherto against any, which was not of his owne making: so farre is it from concluding the same, by the same. For he might hauehave said, though they ordayned the persons, yet Christ instituted the function, and that is the iudgement of many of the Fathers, who holde that our Sauiour Christ in ordayning his twelue Apostles, and his seauentie two Disciples, both which sorts he sent to preach the Gospell; he instituted the two degrees of the ministerie BB. answering to the high Priest, and Presbyters answerable to the Priests. Againe, those Fathers who affirme the BB. to be the successors of the Apostles; doe by consequence affirme, that Christ when he ordayned Apostles, ordayned BB. and Cyprian cli. 3. Epist. 9.in plainetermes saith so much, that our Lord himselfe ordayned Apostles, that is to say, Bishops. For the Popish conceipt, that the Apostles were not made Priests till Christs last supper; nor BB. till after his resurrection, as it is sutable with other their opinions deuised to aduance the Popes supremacy; so it is repugnant to the iudgement of the ancients, & contrary to the truth. Seeing the very Disciples, who were inferiour to the Apostles, were authorized before Christs last supper, to preach & to baptise. 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 ordayned by Christ or instituted by the Apostles; Christ is the authour thereof, either immediatly, according to the former opinion; or mediatly, according to the latter. And those things are said to be of▪ Apostolicall institution, which Christ ordayned by the Apostles.
The antecedent of my argument,§ 2. That the Apostles ordayned Bishops. viz. that the Apostles ordayned BB. and committed the Churches to them: was in the Sermon explaned, and proued, by shewing the time when, the places where, the persons whom, the Apostles ordayned BB. As concerning the time;The time when in respect of the Church at Ierusalem. I said there was some difference betweene the Church of Ierusalem, and the rest in respect of their first Bishop. For there, because shortly after Christs passion a great number were conuerted to the faith (for we read of three thousand conuerted in one day) and because that was the mother Church, vntounto which the Christians from all parts were afterwards to hauehave recourse; the Apostles before their dispersion, statim post passionem Domini, straight wayes after the passion of our Lord, ordayned Iames the iust Bishop of Ierusalem, as dCatal. scrip.Ierome testifieth.
Here my refuter maketh me to argue thus; culling out one part of my argumentation from the rest; Iames was ordayned Bishop by the Apostles, therefore the Apostles ordayned Bishops. And then denieth the consequence, because though Iames being an Apostle had Episcopall power in respect of ordination and iurisdiction, yet it would not follow that the Apostles ordayned Diocesan Bishops in other Churches. But my argument is an induction, standing thus. The Apostles ordayned BB. at Ierusalem, and in other Churches, (which afterwards particularly I doe enumerate) therefore they ordayned BB. That they ordayned BB. at Ierusalem, I proue, because they ordayned Iames the Iust, and Simon the sonne of Cleophas, BB. of Ierusalem. That they ordayned Iames B. of Ierusalem, I proue in this section. That they ordained Simon the sonne of Cleophas B. of Ierusalem, and Bishops in other Churches, I proue afterwards, according to the order of time: Beginning here with Ierusalem because that Church had first a Bishop.
§ 3. That Iames was B. of Ierusalem.Now that Iames was by the Apostles made B. of Ierusalem, I proue by these testimonies, first, of Ierome eCatalog. scrip.; whose words are these, Iames who is called the brother of our Lord, & f…named the iust, straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was ordayned by the Apostles the Bishop of Ierusalem. This is that Ierome, on whose onelyonly authoritie almost the Disciplinarians in this cause relye; alledging out of him, that Bishops were not ordayned 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 generall fHist. l. 2. c. 1.that the histories gforeign.before his time did report, that to Iames the brother of our Lord, surnamed the iust, the throne of the Bishopricke of the Church in Ierusalem was first committed. Then particularly, he citeth Clemens hEx hypotypos. 6.Alexandrinus, testifying that Iames, Peter and Iohn, after the ascension of our Sauiour did choose Iames the iust Bishop of Ierusalem. Afterwards Hegesippus iEuseb. l. 2. c. 23. & Hieronym. Catalog. ex Hegesippi 5. hypomnem▪(who was nere the Apostles times as Ierome speaketh, being as Eusebius saith in the very first succession of the Apostles,) to the like purpose. Eusebius kAn. 33.himselfe in his Chronicle translated by Ierome, hath these words; Iames the brother of our Lord is by the Apostles made the first Bishop of Ierusalem. Againe, in his history llib. 3. c. 7.he not onelyonly saith, that Iames called the brother of our Lord was the first Bishop of Ierus…em; but also testifieth mlib. 7. c. 19. & 32.vponupon his knowledge, that the Episcopall throne or chaire, wherein Iames sate as Bishop of Ierusalem, and wherein all the BB. of that See succeeded him, was yet in his time to be seene, being preserued as foreign, as a worthy and sacred nVid. Ruff. transl. l. 7. c. 15.monument. And finally, both in his historie oEuseb. hist. l. 3. c. 11. l. 4. c. 5.22. l. 5. c. 11. l. 6. c. 10 &c. l. 7. c. 32.and Chronicle he setteth down the succession of the Bishops of Ierusalem from Iames vntounto Macarius, whom he noteth to hauehave been the thirtie ninth Bishop of Ierusalem, reckoning Iames the first, and Simon the second, and Iustus the third, Zacheus the fourth, &c.
Epiphanius pEpiph. haer. 66.also testifieth, that Iames the Lords brother was qforeign.the first Bishop of Ierusalem, and setteth downe the same succession of the Bishops, from Iames vntounto Hilarion, noting the yeeres of the seuerall Emperours reigne, vntounto which they continued Bishops. The same concerning Iames is witnessed by Chrysostome rIn Act. homil. 3. & 33. in initio, by Ambrose sAmbr. in Gal. 1.19.on the Epistle to the Galathians; Paul saw Iames at Ierusalem, because there he had beene ordayned B. of the Apostles. By Dorotheus tDor. in synops., by Augustine uAug. contr. Crescon. l. 2. c. 37., and (to omit all other testimonies of particular men) by the generall Councill of Constantinople (w)In Trul. c. 32., affirming that Iames, who according to the flesh was brother of Christ our Lord foreign., was the first to whom the throne of the Church of Ierusalem was entrusted.
§ 4. These testimonies for a matter of story (me thinks) should suffice: let vsus then see, what the refuter obiecteth. First, that which he obiected against the consequence is more direct against the antecedent; The refuters exceptions.& that is, that if the Apostles ordayned Iames B. of Ierusalem, then they gaue him the Episcopal power; but they gaue him no power which the Lord had not before inuested in his person, as an Apostle; therefore they did not ordayne him B. I answere by distinction; the power of order (if I may so terme it) Iames had before, as those who are Bishops, sine titulo; but the power of iurisdiction was committed to him when he was designed Bishop of Ierusalem, and had the Church of Iewry in particular assigned to him. For though our Sauiour Christ bad the Apostles to goe into all the world; yet his meaning was not, that eueryevery one should trauerse the whole world: For if eueryevery one had been to trauell ouer all the world, great inconuenience, disorder, and confusion would hauehave followed thereof. Therefore the Apostles, who by our Sauiour were indefinitely appointed to goe into all the world, by the direction of the holy Ghost, before their dispersion from Ierusalem, deuided the world among themselues; in such sort, that one being assigned to one part, & another to another, eueryevery man walked vvithin his owne compasse, and according to his owne Canon y2 Cor. 10.13.15.16. vide Chryso. in 2 Cor. 10. & gloss. ordin.or rule, and did not vsually build vponupon the foundation of another, nor enter one into anothers labours. Now, as they were carefull to prouide for other parts of the world; so vvould they not all forsake Iewry and Ierusalem, but assigne 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 vnfitly be called, as he was indeed, the B. thereof. And hence it is, that although the Apostles vvere commanded to goe into all the world, yet Iames stayed at Ierusalem vntill his death. Secondly he taketh exception against the euidence which I brought; first, because it is not testified in the Acts of the Apostles, Ad pag. 132.that they made Iames B of Ierusalem. As though the Apostles did nothing, but what is recorded in the Actes; and as though vve should deny credit to the ancientest writers, and such as be of best credit, reporting vvith one consent a matter of fact not registred in the Acts. But though the act of making him B. be not set downe in the Acts; yet the story so speaketh of his continuance zAct. 15. & 21.at Ierusalem, of his assistance of Presbyters, of his presidency in that Councill vvhere Peter and Paul were present; that it may appeare their testimonie is true, and agreable to the scriptures, who hauehave reported him to be B. there.
The next exception is, that I produce none of the Apostles Disciples to testifie it. And what one of them, whose writings are extant could I alledge, vvhom, you vvould not reiect as counterfeit? Clemens aClem. Epist. 1.the Disciple of the Apostles, not only vvriteth an Epistle to Iames translated by Ruffinus, calling him the Bishop of Bishops gouerning the holy Church of the Hebrewes in Ierusalem, but also in his booke of recognitions bR…gn. lib. 1.translated likewise by the same Ruffinus, and dedicated to Iames the brother of our Lord, calleth him vsually the B. yea, the cheife of Bishops: which titles, how the Pope can disgest, I know not. But suppose, that none of the disciples of the Apostles in those few writings of theirs which be extant, had giuen testimony to this matter: were not the testimony of Hegesippus, and Clemens, who both liued in the very next age to the Apostles, sufficient? It is not to be doubted, but that Iames his being B. of Ierusalem was a thing as notorious, and as certainely knowne among Christians in those times; as there is no doubt made among vsus now, that D. Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterbury in King Henry the eights time.
In the third place he would seeke to descredit all Historyes in generall; because the most learned B. of Ely, in a Sermon preached when he was of Chichester, truely noteth, what might be obiected 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 cauill of his hath no place, that they spake of Bishops which had beene before, according to the condition of them in their times. For such was the estate of Ierusalem, and of the Iewes in their times; as that the condition of the Bishops there was rather impayred, then increased. Neither were they, nor any other, whom I cited, so simple, but that they knew as well as the refuter, that Iames was an Apostle; neither did they know any reason, which the refuter would seeme to know, why his being an Apostle should hinder his being the Apostle, or Angell of that Church. For so were the Bishops at the first called.
Fourthly and lastly,§ 5. His fourth obiection that Iames could not be B. of Ierusalem. he giueth all my witnesses the lye: saying playnely, that Iames was not Bishop of Ierusalem, neither could be, so that their testimonie is not onelyonly false, but impossible. But how is this proued? forsooth because two or three late writers (worthy men I confesse, D. Whitakers, Bishop Iewell, D. Raynolds) doe deny, that he was Bishop there. If they all had denyed …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, proued by the succession of the Bishops of Ierusalem, remayning yet in diuers good authors vponupon record, besides other euidence, may ouerweigh their denyall. But what if they all did not deny it? to D. Raynolds I know not what to say, the refuter onelyonly maketh a shew with his name, neither alledging his words, nor quoting the place. He citeth Bishop Iewels defence of the Apology, pag 300. telling Harding out of Clemens Epist. 1. that Iames was no otherwise B. of Ierusalem, then ouer all the other Churches; where is no such matter. Indeed in the 300. page. of his reply vntounto Harding, B. Iewel doth not deny Iames to hauehave been B. of Ierusalem.in the fourth article; I find the first Epistle of Clement alledged, but Bishop Iewel misalledged and falsified. For hauing maintayned against Harding, that he was not able to proue the Pope to hauehave beene called in ancient times the vniuersall B. he sheweth, that as much in effect, yea, and in expresse termes had been giuen to others; as to the B. of Alexandria, called by some the iudge of the whole world; to the B. of Constantinople, called vniuersall or oecumenicall Patriarch; to Iames the B. of Ierusalem. Heare B. Iewels words, Clement vntounto Iames B. of Ierusalem writeth thus: Clemens Iacobo fratri Domini, Episcopo Episcoporum, regenti Hebraeorum sanctam Ecclesiam Hierosolymis, sed & omnes Ecclesias quae vbi que Dei prouidentia fundatae sunt. Clement vntounto Iames the brother of our Lord, the B. of BB. gouerning the holy Church of the Iewes at Ierusalem, and besides all the Churches that be founded eueryevery where by Gods prouidence. These be all his words, sauing that hee saith, if Harding had so good euidence for the B. of Rome, he would not thus hauehave passed it ouer in silence. Which if you compare with the refuters allegation, you may well wonder at his dealing. Doth not B. Iewel himselfe in plaine termes call Iames the B. of Ierusalem? and that which is said of his gouerning other Churches, is not his saying, but Clements, if it be truely printed in the copies dTom. 1. Concil. per Cragg. Merlinum Iouerium.which B. Iewel did follow. Neither would it follow of those words alledged, as they are, that he was no otherwise B. of Ierusalem then ouer all the other Churches. The B. of Constantinople, though he were called vniuersall or oecumenicall 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 Iames had beene the gouernour of all Churches, yet the Church of Ierusalem was his Diocese, wherein Simon and the rest of the Bishops of Ierusalem did succeed him, and thereof he had his denomination. The Pope himselfe, though he claime to be vniuersall Bishop, yet is he specially Bishop of Rome; and his cathedrall Church is the Church of Laterane, of which he is Bishop. Howbeit, in the edition of that Epistle set forth by Sichardus, and printed at Basill together with his recognitions anno 1526. we read thus. Sed & ominibus Ecclesiis quae vbi que sunt. By which copy, if it be true, Iames is not signified to be the gouernour of all Churches; but Clements Epistle is directed not onelyonly to Iames, but to all Churches, &c.
Yea but D. Whitakers by eight arguments doth proue, § 6. Whether D. Whitak. doth proue by 8. arguments that Iames neither was, nor could be B. of Ierusalem not the 6. latterthat he neither was, nor might be B. of Ierusalem. I promise you, this maketh a faire shew, if it be true. But this also is a manifest vntruth. For the arguments that he vseth, are to proue, that Peter was not Bishop of Rome. Yea but the same are as effectuall to proue that Iames might not be Bishop of Ierusalem: and therefore to these eight arguments he doth referre ede Pont. q. 3. s. 9. c. 3. Rme. But this also is vntrue. For six of these eight, are such, as the refuter with all his sophistry cannot with any shew of truth applie to St. Iames. For his third argument, taken from Peters long absence from Rome, after he was according to their opinion B. there cannot be, applyed to Iames, who was resident at Ierusalem; as the Actes, besides other witnesses, testifie. Nor the fourth, that if Peter were B. then had he two Bishopricks. For he had beene by their owne doctrine as well B. of Antioch, as of Rome. But no such thing can be obiected against Iames. Nor the fift that whiles Peter liued Linus was B. of Rome: so he was indeed by the appointment of Peter and Paul, as Irenaeus teacheth. But whiles Iames liued none was B. of Ierusalem, but he. But after he was dead, Simon was chosen to be his successor. Nor the sixt, that the authors which mention Peters going to Rome, note this to hauehave beene the end, not to be B. there, but to oppose Simon Magus. But the cause of Iames his staying and continuing at Ierusalem was to take charge of that Church, which, during his life, had no other B. Nor the seauenth, that if Peter were B. of Rome then would he hauehave professed himselfe the Apostle of the Gentiles, neither would he hauehave conuenanted with Paul, that he and Barnabas should take care of the Gentiles, but himselfe, and Iames, and Iohn, of the Circumcision. For Iames as he is said to hauehave beene B. of Ierusalem; so hee professeth himselfe to hauehave beene the Apostle of the Iewes. For besides, that he writeth his Epistle fErasm. argum. in Epist. Iacobi. Iacobus quum erat Hierosolymitarum Episcopus scribit & caeteris Iudaeis &c.to the Iewes; he, and Peter, and Iohn, gaue the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, that themselues would be for the Circumcision And for as much as Peter and Iohn trauelled to other parts, Iames alwayes abiding at Ierusalem; it is more then probable, that the Church of Iewry was peculiarly assigned to him. Neither is it for nothing that both in the 15. of the Acts, he is noted as President, or chiefe in that Councill, and in the 2. Chapter to the Galathians. Paul speaking of such Apostles, as were at Ierusalem, he giueth the precedence to Iames before Peter and Iohn. 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 glib. 3. c. 3.Irenaeus saith. But they which say Iames was B. of Ierusalem, mention him alone. Neither was he founder of that Church: but Christ himselfe, who was the minister of Circumcision.
§ 7. That the 2. first reasons doe not conclude that Iames was not B. of Ierusalem.But it will be said, the two first reasons of the eight doe proue that Iames was not B. of Ierusalem. That commeth now to be tryed. The first reason is this.
Bishops hauehave certaine Churches assigned to them.
The Apostles had not certain churches assigned to them.
Therefore the Apostles were not Bishops.
The assumption is to be distinguished according to the times. For when Christ gaue them their indefinite commission hMar. 16.15., goe into all the world, hee assigned no Prouinces, nor parts of the world to any. Notwithstanding, before they were to goe abroad, he willeth them to stay at Ierusalem, till they had receiued the holy Ghost, who should direct them what to doe; and we may be assured, that he did not direct them to goe confusedly, but distinctly, some to one part of the world, some to another. Howbeit, when they ceased to trauaile in their olde dayes, and rested in some chiefe Citie where they had laboured; 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 Iames differeth from the rest: for to him at the first, before their dispersion, the Church of Ierusalem was assigned. Neither did he trauaile, as the rest, from one Country to another, being not confined to any one Prouince; though in the end of their trauels some of them made choise of some speciall place, where they rested, exercising (no doubt) a patriarchall authority, as it were, in that circuit, where they had trauailed, and planted Churches. Thus Iohn rested at Ephesus, and others in other places. That assumption therefore, which is true of the rest of the Apostles, is not true of Iames: and were to be denied if the Syllogisme were thus framed.
BB. had certaine Churches assigned to them:
Iames had not a certaine Church assigned to him:
Therefore he was not B.
This assumption I hauehave disproued. And therefore though that argument may seeme to conclude sufficiently against Peters being B. of Rome; it concludeth not against Iames his being B. of Ierusalem. And besides, betweene Iames and the rest this difference may be noted; that whereas they hauing planted Churches, when they saw their time, committed the same to certaine BB. (so Peter and others of the Apostles committed Antioch to Evodius; Peter and Paul committed Rome to Linus; Paul committed Ephesus to Timothie; Creet to Titus; Iohn committed Smyrna to Polycarpus, and diuers other Churches in Asia to other Bishops, as Eusebius iLib. 3. c. 23.reporteth; yet Iames abiding all his time at Ierusalem, committed that Church to no other; though when he was dead, the Apostles committed it to Simon, whom they ordayned his successour.
The second reason applied to Iames.
If Iames were B. then by the same reason other of the Apostles were BB.
But the other Apostles were not Bishops properly; Therefore not Iames.
Why I should not grant this consequence, I hauehave shewed sufficient reason in setting downe the difference betweene Iames and the rest of the Apostles. Therefore that reason also, howsoeuer 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 Iames his being B. of Ierusalem.
If the Refuter, or any other be not as yet perswaded of this point; to satisfie him in the maine point, that the Apostles appointed and ordained Bishops; I will be content to suppose, that Iames was not B. of Ierusalem, because it might be supposed and granted, without any great preiudice to the cause: seeing it is manifest, that the same ancient Authors, who testifie that the Apostles appointed Iames B. of Ierusalem, doe also witnesse; that after his death, the Apostles who were then remayning, ordayned Simon the sonne of Cleophas to be B. there, as hereafter kCap. 4. §. 20.shall be shewed.
§ 8. By this instance of Iames, BB. proued to be superiour to other Ministers in degree.After I had proued that Iames was B. of Ierusalem, I endeuoured to confute the opinion of the learneder sort of Disciplinarians, who doe hold (as before hath been shewed) that Bishops were not superiour to other Ministers in degree, neither had superioritie for terme of life, but for a short time. And to this end obiected the same conceipts, that by this instance of Iames they might plainly be refuted. Hereunto the Refuter replyeth,Ad pag. 133. that I deuise lHe museth, as he vseth.those obiections to make my selfe worke: when as indeed they be the two maine points wherein Beza differeth from vsus. But, saith he, who euer conceiued any such thought of the Apostle Iames? I am sure there is not a syllable, nor a letter of him at all in the place he quoteth out of Beza: the more wrong he doth him, &c. All this adoe ariseth from the misprinting of one letter in the margent, (c) being put for (p.) For in the mDegrad. minist. c. 3. pag. 23.23. page of that book, in the end of the third chapter, he hath this saying: though I grant that Iames the brother of our Lord was in order first in the Church of Ierusalem; yet it followeth not, that he was in degree superiour either to the Apostles, or else to his fellow Ministers. Which saying, as it seemeth, I should not neede to hauehave confuted, if all the Disciplinarians were of our Refuters minde, who censureth that speech as vntrue and vnreuerent. But yet, that he might let his Reader see, that he is able to defend any thing against me; he saith, if a man would speake so vntruly and vnreuerently, he might easily maintayne it against the answere that M. D. bringeth. They must remember, saith he, that he was an Apostle, and his honour and degree by his Bishopricke not impaired. As if the question were not of him, as a B. not as an Apostle. His superiority in degree proceeded from his Apostleship, and yet as a B. he might be superiour in order onelyonly. This tricke of fast and loose was not worth the shewing, vnlesse it could hauehave beene done more cleanely. To returne these trickes of fast and loose to such a shifting Sophister, as I hauehave proued the Refuter to be; it is plaine, that Beza speaketh simply of Iames, as the chiefe in the Church of Ierusalem, as wel 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, hee should hauehave conceiued, that Iames his honour and degree by his Bishopricke was impaired, and that the Apostles in choosing him to be B. of Ierusalem, should rather hauehave depressed him, then done him honour. But they thought it a singular honour to be the Apostle or Bishop of that Church which Christ himselfe had founded. And therefore as Clement noteth, the chiefe of the Apostles, Peter, Iames, and Iohn, though Christ had vouchsafed to them greater honour then the rest, yet would not arrogate nEuseb. l. 2. c. 1.to themselues that honour, but preferred Iames the iust the brother of our Lord thereunto; and when it was void againe by his death, they made choise of Simon the sonne of Cleophas for the same cause oEuseb. l. 3. c. 11. & l. 4 c. 22. ex Hegesippo., because he also was the Lords kinsman. The graue censure of the Refuter is, that Clements speech is vnsauourie, and the respect carnall which Hegesippus and Eusebius alledge. Thus is hee able, as it were with a breath, to blowe away these worthy Authors, Hegesippus, Clemens, and Eusebius; they are not able to stand before him. But why vnsauourie? when the Apostles were to be dispersed into diuers parts of the world, was it not a speciall honour for one amongst them, without that trauaile & wandring, wherto the rest were subiect, to be set ouer the mother Church of Christendome, which Christ himselfe had founded, to be the Apostle of that people which had sundry prerogatiues aboue all other Nations, and in respect of that place to hauehave a precedence before the other Apostles,Ad pag. 134. as Iames had, Act. 15. Gal. 2? And why carnall? were not they bound in respect of that louelove and reuerence which they did owe to our Sauiour Christ, to preferre his neere kinsmen according to the flesh, being at the least equall with others? It is certaine, that Iames pHier. Catal. in Iacobo. in Epist. ad Gal. c. 1. & Euseb. l. 2. c. 23. ex Hegesippo.for his admirable piety was wonderfully honoured, not onelyonly among Christians, but also among the vnbeleeuing Iewes; as might easily be shewed, in so much that Iosephus qOrig. contr. Celsum l. 1. Euseb. l. 2. c. 23. Hier. catal. in Iacobo.imputeth the destruction of Ierusalem to his death, as to a principall cause.
But, saith he, if it had beene arrogancie in them, why not in him?That which had beene arrogancie in them to hauehave arrogated to themselues, was no arrogancie in him to vndertake being imposed vponupon him. Yea, but if it were so great a priuiledge, why might it not hauehave aduanced him to a higher degree aboue the rest of the Apostles? because the Apostleship being the highest degree of the Ministerie, this was the greatest honour to hauehave a priority and precedence in that degree. Yea, but I denie him to hauehave beene B. when I say, that whereas before the Apostles had ioyntly gouerned the Church of Ierusalem, that charge which before they had in cōmon, they being now to depart cōmitted to him in particular; but their charge was of Apostles, not of Bishops. As though the charge of Apostles is not by the holy Ghost called rAct. 1.20.foreign, that is Bishopricke; and as though Iames, who before was an Apostle absolutely, did not by this designement become the Apostle of the Iewes. Neither was this a clipping of his wings , as it pleaseth the Refuter to speake, more then of the rest of the Apostles, when by mutual consent eueryevery mans Prouince as it were, circuit and charge was assigned to him. But I spake not without booke, deliuering mine owne conceipts as the Refuter eueryevery where doth: but what I said, I receiued from their owne, and almost onelyonly Author Ierome, which he receiued also from sCatal. script. in Iacobo.Hegesippus. Hegesippus, saith he, who was neare the Apostles times in the fift booke of his Commentaries speaking of Iames, saith, Iames the brother of our Lord sirnamed the iust, receiued the Church of Ierusalem, post Apostolos, after the Apostles.
As touching the other point,§ 9. By this instance of Iames BB. proued to hauehave had their singular preheminence for terme of life. though the Refuter would scarsely vouchsafe to touch it as being impertinent; notwithstanding, it not onelyonly confuteth the conceipt of those who hold Bishops were but for a short time, and not for terme of life; but also proueth plainly that Iames was B. of Ierusalem. I therefore shewed that he continued at Ierusalem, tAct. 15. & 21. Gal. 1. & 2. Hieron, Catal. Euseb. hist. & Chron.as the superintendent of that Church vntil his death, ruling the same by the space of thirtie yeares, after that manner as his successor after him ruled it eight and thirty yeares. Yea, but this doth not proue that he was B. Neither was it so much alledged to that end, as to shew the preheminence which he had was not (as Beza saith of all the ancient Bishops, which hee acknowledgeth to be diuine) for a short time, or by course; but for terme of life. And yet it proueth the maine point also, that he was B. and as the Geneua translators confesse uIn Act. 21.18.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 trauaile into other parts, but continued there ruling that Church by the space of thirty yeares, vntill his death? Forsooth hee did not stay so much to rule that Church, for that might hauehave beene otherwise performed, as to conuert the multitudes of Iewes which should resort thither. Where, hee saith, the Church might otherwise hauehave beene gouerned, it is nothing to the purpose, vnlesse he can shew, that it was otherwise gouerned. There is no doubt, but that Church had a Pastor assigned to them by the Apostles, who would not leaue that mother Church as a flocke without a shepheard. But what Pastor had it, if Iames who continued there, and ruled it for thirtie yeares were not the Pastor thereof? There is no doubt to be made, but the cause and end of his staying there thirtie yeares, was the same of his successour Simons staying there thirtie eight yeares, and of his successours eueryevery one vntill their death. Wherefore was it not great pitie that the Refuter did forget himselfe to spend so much time in things that were so impertinent?
§ 10. When the Apostles ordayned BB. in other Churches.Serm. Sect. 6. pag. 69. As touching other Churches, wee are to obserue, that the Apostles did not at the very first planting of them appoint BB. vntounto them, &c. to pag. 72. li. 17.
The difference in respect of the time, which before I noted betwixt Ierusalem and other Churches, I doe in this section explane; shewing, 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 ouer the Church of Ierusalem: yeelding these reasons, because as yet there was neither that choise, nor yet that vse of them among a people which was to be conuerted, before it needed to be gouerned; and shewing what course they did take, before they appointed Bishops, namely, that first they ordayned Presbyters vvAct. 14.23. &c.to labour the conuersion of the people, to feed them being conuerted, and to attend them in common, gouerning them after a priuate manner, and as it were in foro conscientiae. And this is that, which Ierome xIn Tit. 1.saith, that the Churches at the first before Bishops were appointed ouer them, were gouerned by the common counsell of the Presbyters. But the Episcopall power which consisteth specially in the right of ordination, and in the sway of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction committed to one; I said the Apostles each of them retayned in their owne hands, as was manifest y2 Thess. 3.14. 1 Cor. 5., whiles eyther they continued neare them, or meant not to be long from them. All which while, Bishops were not so needfull, the Apostles prouiding for the necessitie 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 seldome (though not so seldome as some imagine) mentioned, and the name with Presbyter confounded. But when as they were to leaue the Churches altogether, either by departure from them or by death (that the Churches should not be left fatherlesse, they fulfilled that in Psal. 45. according to Augustines and Ieromes exposition, in steed of Fathers, that is, the Apostles, there shall be children borne vntounto thee, whom thou shall make Princes ouer 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 successours, to whom they committed the gouernment of the Churches, furnishing them by a singularitie of preheminence, both with the right of Ordination and with the power of Iurisdiction, as vvell ouer the Presbyters, as the people of each Citie with the Countrey adioyning. And these I saide at the first vvere called, sometimes the aApoc. 1.2.3.Angels of the Churches, sometimes foreign bHeb. 13.17., Praepositi, Rulers, Heb. 13.17. (vvhichwhich text in the auncient cCan. 39.canons called the Apostles, and in the second Epistle of Ignatius dAd Trall., as also the name praepositi in Latine Fathers from thence is appropriated to BB.) sometimes the Apostles of the Churches, &c.
§ 11. The Refuter answereth by snatches.To all this the Refuter answereth by snatches, as he doth to the residue of the Sermon; for which cause I thinke it expedient to repeate the points deliuered in the Sermon, that his dealing may the better appeare.
And first hee snatcheth at those wordes where I said, that vntill the Apostles were to leaue the Churches altogether, Bishops were not so needfull, as after their departure and death, Ad pag. 135.which is most manifest. Belike, saith he, they were needfull before, but the Apostles would put off the matter till there was no remedie, and I cannot much blame them if it be true which D. Bilson eCap. 12. pag. 224.saith that they were to keepe the power of imposition of hands to themselues, vnlesse they would loose their Apostleship. It is more meruaile therefore that they would ordaine any Bishops at all, as long as they liued, then that they would deferre the doing of it so long as they could. Which words, as they contayne a meere cauill at my words, not worth the answering; so a meere belying of that reuerend B. who saith, that the Apostles could not loose that (viz. the power of imposing hands and deliuering vntounto Sathan, which the Fathers call Episcopall power) vnlesse they lost the Apostleship withall.
Secondly, hee obiecteth want of proofes. What proofe bringeth he that the Apostles ordayned such Bishops in other Churches? neither one text of Scripture, nor any testimonie out of the ancient Writers, onelyonly authoritate praetoria, hee telleth vsus Pythagoras like, they did so, &c. Here, in complayning of the want of proofes, he giueth sufficient proofe of a bad conscience. In this section I did but in generall (hauing noted the difference of the time) declare, what course the Apostles tooke, first in deferring the choise of Bishops; and afterwards in appointing them. The proofes doe follow in the sections following, shewing the places where, and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned Bishops. That imputation of speaking Pythagoras like, hee hath often layd vponupon me, and yet not so oft as vniustly, who hauehave in this Sermon and in this Treatise deliuered nothing almost without plentifull proofe or sufficient authority.
Thirdly, hee carpeth at the names, wherewith I said the first Bishoppes were called, asking what is all this to the matter. Would he prooue they were Diocesan Bishops, because they were called by these names? what a notorious cauiller is this? may nothing be spoken but by way of proofe? may nothing be said by declaration, or explanation, or preuention? I knew it was obiected, that Bishops are not mentioned in the scriptures, the name Episcopus Bishop, being giuen to Prebyters: and therefore that is not like, they were ordayned by the Apostles, of vvhom no mention is in the Scriptures. For preuention of this obiection, 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. Yea, but in my former Sermon I gaue all these names saue onelyonly the name of Apostles to all ministers. The former Sermon is of ministers in generall, including the Bishops, and diuers things there spoken of ministers in generall, doe principally belong to Bishops. All Pastors are rulers or rectors of their seuerall flockes, but the Bishops are rulers both of them and their flocke. All ministers are called Angel…, but the Bishop alone is the Angell of each Church or Diocese, &c.
But by what authority saith he,§ 12. Whether Bishops are called the Apostles of the Churches. is the title of Apostle appropriated to BB? he would hauehave said, communicated to them with the twelue. For I know no man so foolish, as to appropriate it to the Bishops. This reason I rendred, why they be called the Apostles of the Churches; because they succeeded the Apostles in the gouernment of the particular Churches: whereof I gaue instance Phil. 2.25. where Epaphroditus, who was the B. or Pastor of Philippi, is therefore called their Apostle. Therefore? saith he. Who saith so? Ambrose, Ierome, Theodoret, Caluin, Thomas Aquinas, if we will beleiue D. D. but if we will looke vponupon the bookes themselues, not one of them saith so. Caluin, Aquinas, and some other indeed, as Lyra, interlineall glosse, Lombard, Anselme, &c. are of minde that Apostle there signifieth teacher and no more. Caluin saith thus gCaluin▪ in Phil. 2.25., The name of Apostle here, as in many other places, is taken generally for proquolibet Euangelista, for any Euangelist. But by their Euangelist, he vnderstandeth their Pastor, and so calleth him diuers times, vsing that word vponupon that occasion sixe or seauen 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 maintaine their well ordered state. On these words, verse 26. He had a longing desire towards you all, and was pensiue, because you had heard that he was sicke: Caluin noteth, a signe of a true Pastor, that when he was farre distant from them, notwithstanding was affected with the care and desire of his flocke; and when he vnderstood that his sheepe sorrowed for his sake, was pensiue for their sorrow. In like manner the godly carefulnesse of the Philippians for their Pastor is noted on the 27. where Paul signifieth, what griefe he should hauehave conceiued, if Epaphroditus had died; Paul saith he was mooued with the losse of the Church which he saw would hauehave beene 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 beene withheld from the flocke committed to him. On the twenty nineth he obserueth how desirous Paul is, that good Pastors may be much esteemed, &c. let the reader therefore iudge, whether Epaphroditus were not in Caluins iudgement the Pastor of the Philippians. By the Apostle saith Ambrose hAmbr. in Phil. 2., he was made their Apostle, that is Bishop, as Ambrose iAmbr in Eph. 4.11. & 1. Cor. 12.28.expoundeth the word in other places, Apostoli Episcopi sunt, the Apostles are Bishops. But according to the refuters sence, he had beene an Apostle, not of Pauls making, but of their owne. Ierome kHier. in Phil. 2.writing on those words, my fellow Souldiour and your Apostle, fellow Souldiour saith he, by reason of his honour, because he also had receiued the office of being an Apostle among them. And on those words, hauehave in honour such, not onelyonly him saith hee, qui vester est Doctor, who is your Doctor, by vvhichwhich vvord in Ieromes time, Bishop most commonly was signified, &c.
Theodoret lTheodor. in Phil. 2.saith thus, hee 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 vnderunder him, as hauing the place of Presbyters. And from this place, as afterwards I noted, Theodoret mTheod. in 1 Tim. 3.gathereth, that at the first, they, whom now wee call Bishops were called Apostles. Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians. Thomas Aquinas nTh. Aquin. in Phil. 2.; hee calleth him brother, saith he, by reason of his faith; fellow worker in the labour of preaching, fellow souldier, because they had suffered tribulation together, your Apostle, that is Doctor. Hic fuit Episcopus Philippensium, Hee was the Bishop of the Philippians. And so saith Bullinger oIn Phil. 2., Philippensium Episcopus erat.
With what face therefore could the Refuter denie, that any one of these Authors did say, that hee was therefore called the Apostle of the Philippians, because hee vvas their Bishop and Pastor? And so are they to be vnderstood, vvho expound the vvord Apostle by Teacher. As Chrysostome pChrysost. in Phil. 2.foreign, and those vvhom the Refuter nameth. For they did not, by Apostle vnderstand eueryevery common Teacher, or teaching Presbyter, but specialem doctorem saith Anselme qIn Phil. 2., instructorem praecipuum their chiefe instructor, sayeth Dionysius Carthusianus.
These authors,§ 13. The exposition, that they vver called Apostles because they vvere the messengers of the churches, refuted, vvith the reasons thereof. and more, as they doe all giuegive testimony with my exposition; so against that interpretation of the word Apostle, which the refuter bringeth: who would hauehave him called Apostle, not in respect of any sacred function, which he performed towards them, but because he was their Messenger to the Apostle. And of this iudgement, he saith, are Primasius, Haymo, Caietan, and two others, which be as much partyes in this cause as himselfe, Beza, and Piscator. And Caluin acknowledgeth it to agree with the place. Primasius rIn Phil. 2.25.saith, that Epaphroditus had receiued gradum Apostolatus, the degree of Apostleshippe among them. Caluin doth indeed mention that interpretation▪ but so, as he preferreth the other; sed prior sensus meliùs (meo iudicio) conuenit: But the former sence in my iudgement agreeth better. He could not thinke, that both sences, being so different, agreed to the text. Yea but he hath two reasons to proue his to be the more likely sence. First, as the words following in the same Verse and Chapt. 4.18. doe shew, how he ministred to him; so the same phrase is vsed to the like purpose, 2 Cor. 8.23. where the brethren sent with Titus to receiue the Corinthians beneuolence, are called Apostles, that is, messengers of the Churches. 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 accompanyed Titus, were to receiue the beneuolence of the Corinthians; but it is vnlikely; that either he, or they, were called the Apostles of the Churches in that regard. It appeareth by diuers of Ignatius his Epistles, that when the churches did send one vponupon a Christian Embassage, the B. commonly was entreated to take that Embassage vponupon him. In like manner the Philippians, being to send as it were vponupon Embassage to Paul, Epaphroditus their B. vndertooke that voyage He being therfore both their B. and their Embassadour, it is more likely, that he was called their Apostle because he was their Bishop; then for that hee was their Embassadour. For it is vnlikely, that the name of that sacred function of the Apostles of Christ, who also himselfe is the Apostle of our profession, should be vsed in the Scriptures to signifie the messengers of men. Besides, in both places, the Apostle intendeth by this title highly to commend Epaphroditus, and the others; but this had beene but a small commendation, that they were messengers of the Churches. Againe, if they in 2 Cor. 8. were called the Apostles of the Churches, because they were their messengers; then those Churches should hauehave sent them: but it is euident, that Paul himselfe sent them, for as it was required of him, Gal. 2: so had hee vndertaken, to procure a supply for the reliefe of the brethren in Iudaea, who were oppressed vvith famine. And to that end hauing before dealt with the Corinthians, sendeth Titus and two others, to receiue their contribution.
His second reason is, § 14. The second reason answered.that it standeth not so well with the properties of the word foreign, which signifieth a messenger, to entitle any man (in regard of his ministeriall function) their Apostle to whom, as his from whom hee is sent. And therefore among all the titles Paul taketh to himselfe to magnifie his office,Ad pag. 136. he neuer calleth himselfe their or your Apostle, but an Apostle of Christ, and an Apostle to them. Wee may therefore say of M. D. as Iunius doth of Theodoret, the clearest witnesse he alledgeth, he is deceiued by the aequiuocation of the word Apostolos, which sometimes in a common and generall sence is giuen to any one that is sent as a messenger, and sometimes more specially ascribed to those that were imployed (as the Apostles) in an extraordinarie and high Embassage from Christ.
Here the Refuter whiles he goeth about to discouer my ignorance (as though I knew not the signification of the word foreign as well as he) bewrayeth his owne. For it is euident, that in the Scriptures the vvord is vsed with reuerence as vvell to the parties to vvhom, as to the party from vvhom, the Apostle is sent. Thus Paul calleth himselfe the Apostle of the Gentiles sRom. 11.13.foreign; and saith, that Peter had foreign, the Apostleship of Circumcision tGal. 2.7.8., meaning that he was the Apostle of the Iewes, because to himselfe was committed the Gospel of vncircumcision, as to Peter of the circumcision. So Angels hauehave relation, not only to the sender who is God, but to the parties to whom they are sent, and are called their uMat. 18.10.Angels. And euen as Angels absolutely spoken, is a title of all ministers who are sent of God, but vsed with reference to the Churches whereto they are sent (as the Angels of the seauen Churches) doe signifie the Bishops or Pastors of the same churches; so Apostoli, absolutely vsed is a title of all Embassadours (vv)Ro. 16.7.sent from God with authority Apostolicall, though foreign, giuen to Paul xAct. 14.14.and Barnabas and the twelue Apostles; but vsed with reference to particular Churches, doth signifie their Bishops. And in that sence Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians. And howsoeuer the word may signifie any messenger with relation to any sender; yet in the scriptures it is not vsed to signifie messengers sent from men, neither is to be translated otherwise then Apostle. For though our Sauiour doe seeme to speake indefinitly yIohn 13.16.Iohn 13.16. of the Apostle and him that sendeth him; yet it is euident, that he meaneth himselfe who sent, and the Apostles who were sent.
§ 15. Ob. Though Epaphroditus were B. yet no Diocesan.But admit saith the refuter, that Epaphroditus were Bishop or Pastor of Philippi where abouts I will not striue, how shall it be proued that Philippi was a Diocesan Church? &c. This is written, as the most of the booke, to bleare the eyes of the simple. For I cannot thinke he which would vndertake this cause, was so void of iudgement, as the refuter here would shew himselfe to be, if he wrote sincerely. For I pray you, what was the point which here I had in hand? was it not to shew, that the Bishops at the first in the Apostles times were called Apostles? and doe I not proue it by this instance, that Epaphroditus being the Bishop of the Philippians, is therefore called their Apostle? Admit it be so, saith the refuter, yet how shall it be proued, that Philippi was a Diocesan Church, and how weakely with that, doth M. D. inferre, that he was a Diocesan Bishop, like to ours for the substance of his office. All men see he deceiueth his reader with the like equiuocation in the word Bishop, which in the Apostles times by his owne confession was common to all Pastors, though afterwards appropriated to some speciall persons: as if he should hauehave said, I grant that which here you doe proue, but yet that followeth not hereon, which you intended not. That the Churches were Diocesses, and the Bishops Diocesan, like to ours for the substance of their office, I proued before in the former part: here, I am so farre from inferring or prouing it, that I presuppose it, as sufficiently proued before. But this is the poore shift, which the refuter vsually flyeth vntounto, when he hath nothing to answere. He perswaded himselfe (such was his iudgement) that in the question of parishes and Diocesses he had the vpper hand: and therefore, when he is foiled in any of the points following, he flyeth to that as his refuge; yea but though this be so as you say, yet the Church was not a Diocese, nor the Bishop a Diocesan. But how little reason he hath to imagine Philippi one of the aAct. 16.12. Sedul. in Phil. 1. Philippi Metropolis Macedoniae.cheife Cities of Macedonia, to hauehave beene a parish Church; may be gathered by that, which before hath beene said of the like Cities. Where he saith, I goe about to deceiue the reader with the like equiuocation of the word Bishop he doth me wrong. But he and his consorts deceiue the readers, when they would perswade them, that because in the Apostles writings and for some part of the Apostles time, the names Episcopus & Presbyter were confounded, namely vntill Bishops began to be chosen from among the Presbyters; that therefore the offices were confounded. For here I shew, that when Presbyters were called Episcopi, those who euer since the Apostles times hauehave beene called Bishops, were then called the Agels, and the Apostles of the Churches, to whom, as I noted before out of bin 2. Phil. 2.25.Theodoret, those who were then called Episcopi, that is Presbyters, were subiect.
For as I said in the Sermon,§ 16. When & how long BB. were called the Apostles of the Churches. whiles the Episcopall power was in the Apostles and Apostolicke men, those who had that power were called Apostles; and therefore Ambrose by Apostles in some places cEph. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.28.of Scripture, vnderstandeth Bishops: and to the like purpose Cyprian: dl. 3. Epist. 9.Apostolos, id est, Episcopos & praepositos dominus elegit, the Lord chose Apostles, that is Bishops and Gouernours. For as Theodoret eTheodor. in 1 Tim. 3.hath well obserued 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 processe of time, they left the name Apostle to those who are properly called Apostles, and the name of Bishop they gaue to them who had beene called Apostles. Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians, Titus of the Cretians, and Timothie of the Asians. Which testimony, if it be conferred with some before cited out of Ierome, the truth concerning this matter will appeare to be this. Whiles the Bishops were Apostles and Apostolicke 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 & Episcopi indifferently; but when the first Bishops being dead, their successours were to be chosen out of the Presbyters, (which Ierome noteth to hauehave been done at Alexandria euer since the death of S. Marke, and was done in all other places where were no Euangelists, or Apostolicall men remayning) 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. aboue thirtie yeares in the Apostles time, after that Evodius had beene B. of Antioch aboue twenty yeares before him) appropriateth the name foreign to a Bishop; and vsually distinguisheth the three degrees of the Clergie, as the Church euer since the Apostles hath distinguished them, by these three names, Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon.
Yea, but we may gather out of Theodorets testimonie, saith the Refuter, that the report which M. D. maketh of Ignatius his appropriating the name of Episcopus to a Diocesan Bishop, is without any sufficient warrant. For seeing Ignatius liued in the Apostles times, and died within sixe yeares after S. Iohn, and Theodoret saith, that in processe of time the name of B. was imposed; it is not likely Ignatius should be the imposer of it. No man includeth the processe of time within the compasse of sixe yeares any man will thinke. The processe of time, wherof Theodoret speaketh, was as appeareth by conference of him with Ierome in the Apostles time. At the first, towards the beginning of the Apostles time, the Gouernours of the Churches were called Apostles; but in processe of time, when the first Bishops who had beene Apostles or Apostolicall 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 Episcopi, Bishops. And that this was so, appeareth not onelyonly by Ignatius, who continually vseth the word as the first and highest degree of the Clergie, Presbyters as the second, and Deacons as the third: but also by other monuments of antiquity which I mentioned in the Sermon.
I hauehave 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 superiour to other Ministers who were called Presbyteri & Episcopi. And lastly, that such Bishops as were superiour to other Ministers, were in the Apostles times, and mentioned in the Apostles writings.