The defense of the aunsvvere to the Admonition against the replie of T.C. By Iohn VVhitgift Doctor of Diuinitie. In the beginning are added these. 4. tables. 1 Of dangerous doctrines in the replie. 2 Of falsifications and vntruthes. 3 Of matters handled at large. 4 A table generall.

Io. Whitgifte.

I haue not heard any probable reason alleaged of any, why these bookes of Epi∣phanius* 1.1 should be suspected, whether they be his or no, seeyng they be both learned and very auncient, mentioned also of sundry olde writers. But to omitte all other proofes I wyll onely vse the iudgement (at this tyme) of the authors of the Centuries who are to be credited in suche matters, bycause they haue diligently and carefully laboured in them: their opinion of these bookes of Epiphanius, Cent. 4 cap. 10. is thys, Nunc de scriptis. &c. Nowe we wyll speake of hys bookes: of the which that worke against* 1.2 the foure score heresyes is most noble: which booke he hymselfe in his Epistle to Acacius, and Paulus Ministers, And in his booke called Anacephaleosis, calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c. Of the which writing Augustine in his booke ad quod-vult-deum, maketh this mention. Our Epi∣phanius Byshop of Cyrus (sayth he) which dyed not long since, speaking of foure score he∣resies, wrote also himselfe sixe Bookes making mention of all things after an Historicall maner, & disputing nothing either against the falsehood, or with the truthe: They be but short bookes, and if they were all made in one, yet were it not to be compared to ours, or to diuerse other mens bookes in length. Out of the which words it is euident, that Augustine neither had, nor at any time dyd see that worke which Epiphanius intituled Panarium, for Epiphanius is very long in recountyng the historie, as concerning the beginning, the ende∣uour & countrey of the heretikes, the occasiō of the heresie, the successe, increase, and suche

lyke throughout euery heresie. Then is he very long in confuting and condemning the heresies by true Scriptures, and the interpretation of them: wherfore it should seeme that Augustine had belyke onely the arguments prefixed before the Tomes of bookes of Epi∣phanius, whiche he dothe therefore call shorte bookes, or at the least, had his booke called Anacephaleosis, (which is the summe of his worke called Panarium) Cornarius that wri∣teth* 1.3 the Preface before this booke of Epiphanius, is of the same iudgement, and addeth these wordes: VVherefore eyther Augustine dyd not see this worke of Epiphanius, or the right worke of Augustine is not extant, but loste, or else Augustine dyd not in deede performe that whiche he promised. I can reade of none that doubteth whether these bookes were Epiphanius his, or no. And certaynely this kinde of answering is nexte the worst, especially when it is vsed agaynst suche approued authors.

And bicause all men may vnderstande, what Epiphanius wordes and reasons be* 1.4 (whiche in déede pinche you very néere, for he calleth you heretikes) I will declare them as I haue there founde them. First he setteth downe the heresie of Aērius in these words: His talke was more outrageous than becōmed a man: and he sayd, what is a Bishop to a Priest? he nothing differeth from him: for there is but one order, and the same honor and dignitie. The Bishop layeth on his handes, and so dothe the Priest: the Bishop ministreth baptisme, and so dothe the priest: the Bishop sayth diuine seruice, and so doth the Priest: the Bishop sitteth in his throne, and so dothe the Priest. In this he hathe decey∣ued many, and they vse him for their captayne. Then dothe he a little after confute this heresie with Aerius reasons, on this sorte: To saye that a Bishop and a Priest is e∣quall, howe can it be possible? for the order of Bishops, is the begetter of fathers, for it in∣gendreth fathers to the Churche: the order of Priests not beeing able to beget fathers, dothe beget sonnes to the Churche, by the sacrament of Baptisme, but not fathers or tea∣chers: and howe is it possible for him to ordeyne a Priest, not hauing imposition of hands to electe, or to saye that he is equall with a Bishop? but phantasticalnesse and emulation deceyued the foresayde Aërius: he proueth his errour, aud the errour of those that heare him by this, that the Apostle writte to Priests and Deacons, and dyd not write to By∣shops. And to the Bishop he sayth: neglect not the gifte that is in thee, whiche thou hast receyued by the handes of the Presbyterie. And agayne in another place he writeth to Bi∣shops and Deacons: wherefore (sayth he) a Bishop and a Priest is all one: and he kno∣weth not, whiche is ignorante of the sequele of the truthe, and hathe not read profounde stories, that when the preaching was but newely begonne, the holy Apostle writte accor∣ding to the state of things as they were then: for where there were Bishops appoynted he writte to Bishops and Deacons: for the Apostle coulde not by and by at the first appoynte all things: for there was neede of Priests and Deacons, bicause by those two, ecclesiasti∣call matters maye be complete. And where there was not any founde worthy a Bishop∣ricke, there the place remayned without a Bishop, but where there was neede, and wor∣thy men to be Bishops, there were Bishops appoynted. And when there was not so many that there coulde be founde amongst them meete to be Priests, they were content with one Bishop in an appoynted place, but it is vnpossible for a Bishop to be without a Dea∣con, and the holy Apostle had a care that Deacons shoulde be where the Bishop was, for the ministerie. So dyd the Churche receyue the fulnesse of dispensation, suche was then the state and condition of the places. For euery thing had not the perfection from the be∣ginning, but in processe of time those things whiche were necessarie to perfection were added. &c. The Apostle teacheth who is a Bishop, and who is a Priest, when he sayth to Timothie that was a Bishop, chide not a Priest, but exhorte him as a father: what should a Bishop haue to doe, not to chide a Priest, if he had not authoritie aboue a Priest. As he also sayth agayne, agaynst a Priest admitte no accusation sodenly, without two or three witnesses, and he sayde not to any Priest, admit no accusation agaynst a Bishop: neyther did he write to any Priest, that he shoulde not rebuke a Bishop. Thus mayest thou sée good Reader, that it is not for nought, that T. C. so stormes agaynst Epiphanius, and so vnreuerently vseth him.

But I wyll giue him as muche cause to deale in like maner with Augustine, who* 1.5 in this matter fully ioyneth with Epiphanius: and in that booke of his, de haeresibus

ad quod-vult-deum (quoted by T. C. in his margent) attributeth this also as heresie to the sayde Acrius, adding that the cause of this and other of his heresies was, bicause he himselfe was not made Bishop.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The writings of Epiphanius contra. 80. hae∣reses, not coun∣terfeite.
• * 1.2

  Cent. 4. cap. 10.
• * 1.3

  Cornarius.
• * 1.4

  Aerius here sie in denying the difference betwixt a Be shop & priell▪ Epi. li. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 haeres. 75▪
• * 1.5

  August. ad Quod-vult.