Poul dide and ordeyned and bade to Tite [bade Tite, MS. (first hand).] and to Thymothie, in lijk maner the othere Apostilis diden, ordeyneden, and baden to othere persoones in her side and in her cuntre, it folewith that not oonli Seint Poul but also the othere Apostilis entendiden, meen|eden, ordeyneden, and baden that bischopis schulden be making to hem and vndir hem louȝer preestis.
Also this, that Tite and Thymothie weren bischopis aboue othere louȝer to hem preestis, is open ynouȝ bi the epistle which Dynys writith to Tite, and bi his book Of the Chirchis Ierarchie which he writith to Thymothie. Forwhi in the ve. chapiter of the now seid book Dynys declarith openli a bischop to be aboue othere louȝer preestis; ["…." Pseudo|Dionys. Areop. De Eccl. Hierarch. c. 5., (Op. tom. 1. p. 360. Ed. Cord.), where is much more to the same purpose.] and ferthermore in the same book, the firste chapiter in the eende, [Id. c. 1. pp. 235, 236.] and in othere of hise bookis also he clepith and seith Thymo|thie to be such a bischop as is now seid to be aboue othere preestis. And ȝit ferthermore in his epistle to Tite ["…." Pseudo-Dionys. Areop. Ep. ad Tit. (Op. tom. ii. p. 141).] he wole that Tyte receyue of Thymothie certein doctrine writun, which [in which, MS. (first hand).] Dynys in his book Of the Chirchis Ierarchie ["…." Id. Eccl. Hier. c. l. p. 236.] wole [he wole, MS.] be leerned and knowun in hise daies of bischopis oonli, and be priuey to hem oonli; and therfore ther yn he muste needis meene that Tite was such a bischop as was Thymothie.
Certis, to al this hool argument, with alle hise en|forcingis, it may be seid with sufficient colour and likelihode, that al what this argument concludith and
