A key for Catholics, to open the juggling of the Jesuits, and satisfy all…A key for Catholicks, to open the jugling of the Jesuits, and satisfie all…

4. What succession of Episcopal Consecration was there in the Church of Alexandria, when Hierom (Epist. ad Evagrium) tells us that [At Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist even till Heraclus and Dionysius their Bishops, the Presbyters did always name one man that Bishop whom they chose from among themselves, and placed in a higher degree. Even as if an Army make an Emperor, or the Deacons choose one of themselves, whom they know to be industrious, and call him the chief Deacon.] Thus Hierom shows that Bishops were then made by mere Presbyters. And in the same Epistle he proves from Scripture, that Presbyters and Bishops were then all one. And if so, there were no Prelatical Ordinations then at all. And your Medina accusing Hierom of error in this, saith, that Ambrose, Austin, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophilact, were in the same heresy, as Bellarmine himself reporteth him. So that Presbyters now may either ordain, or make themselves Bishops as those of Alexandria did, to do it. And as Hierom there saith, [All are the successors of the Apostles,] and our Bishops or Presbyters are such, as much, at least, as yours: yet Apostles as Apostles have no Successors at all, as Bellarmine ⟨p. 209⟩well teacheth, lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 25. saying, [Bishops do not properly succeed the Apostles, because the Apostles were not ordinary, but extraordinary, and as it were, delegate Pastors, who have no Successors. Bishops have no part of the true Apostolic Authority. Apostles could preach in the whole world, and found Churches, but so cannot Bishops. The Apostles could write Canonical Books, but so cannot Bishops. Apostles had the gifts of tongues and miracles, but so have not Bishops. The Apostles had Jurisdiction over the whole Church, but so have not Bishops. And there is no Succession, but to a Predecessor: but Apostles and Bishops were in the Church both at once, as appeareth by Timothy, Titus, Evodius, and many more. If therefore Bishops succeed Apostles, to what Apostle did Titus succeed? and whom did Timothy succeed? To conclude, Bishops succeed Apostles, but in the same manner as Presbyters succeed the seventy two Disciples—But its manifest that Presbyters do not properly succeed the seventy two Disciples, but only by similitude. For those seventy two Disciples were not Presbyters, nor did they receive any Order of Jurisdiction from Christ.

4. What succession of Episcopal Consecration was there in the Church of Alexandria, when Hierom (Epist. ad Evagrium) tells us that [At Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist even till Heraclus and Dionysius their Bishops, the Presbyters did alwayes name one man that Bishop whom they chose from among themselves, and placed in a higher degree. Even as if an Army make an Emperour, or the Deacons choose one of themselves, whom they know to be industrious, and call him the chief Deacon.] Thus Hierom shews that Bishops were then made by meer Presbyters. And in the same Epistle he proves from Scripture, that Presbyters and Bishops were then all one. And if so, there were no Prelatical Ordinations then at all. And your Medina accusing Hierom of error in this, saith, that Ambrose, Austin, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophilact, were in the same heresie, as Bellarmine himself reporteth him. So that Presbyters now may either ordain, or make themselves Bishops as those of Alexandria did, to do it. And as Hierom there saith, [All are the successors of the Apostles,] and our Bishops or Presbyters are such, as much, at least, as yours: yet Apostles as Apostles have no Successors at all, as Bellarmine