Page 310
Chap. 1. the. 19. Diuision.
But how commeth it to passe that S. Paule neyther in the one place, neyther in the other nor else where maketh mention of the Archbyshop, which is said to be the chefest piller and vnderset∣ter of the Church? Now I heare what is said to this, that vnder the Pastor is conteyned byshop, he is not conteyned but is the same that byshop. How then? Forsooth say they an Archbyshop is byshop? well then of byshops some are Archbyshops some are what? Here I see that they (*) 1.1 are hanged in the bush, but I will help them, of by shops some are Archbyshops, some are by the com∣mō name byshops. For if they answer not thus, what haue they to say? But what an absurd thing were that to say that S. Paule comprehended an Archbyshop vnder a Pastor or byshop, whych neyther was at that time nor certaine hundred yeares after? this were not to deinde but to pro∣phecie. And how is it that they neuer marked that S. Paule speaketh of those functions whiche were in the Church, and not of those which should be afterward? and of those that God had giuen, and not of those which he would giue▪ For the words are and he hath giuen.
No man can denie, but a bishop may aptly be comprehended vnder this name Pastor, and Archbyshop vnder the name of a Byshop: and it may as well be saide that of byshops some be called Archbyshops, and some by the name of byshops, as it may be saide of kings some be called Emperours, some by the common name of kings: of Dukes, some Archdukes some by the common name of Dukes: of Iustices, some chiefe Iustices, some by the common name of Iustices.
What if the name of an Archbyshop were not in S. Paules time? Doth it there∣fore* 1.2 follow that the thing signifyed by the name was not in his time? This worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was not in S. Paules time, but afterward inuented in the councel of Nice. Yet was the thing thereby signifyed in S. Paules time, and from the beginning. Other names there be also whiche were inuented since the Apostles time, and yet both lawfully and necessarily vsed. The authoritie and thing whereof the Archby∣shop hath his name, was in Paules time and therefore the name lawfull: and if it hád not bin in S. Paules time, yet were both the name and the office lawfull by∣cause it perteyneth to the externall policie and regiment of the Church, which is va∣riable according to the place, time, person, and other circumstances. Shall not the authoritie that Christian Princes haue in matters ecclesiasticall be thought law∣full, bycause there were no such Princes in S. Paules time? Dr shall not they haue the chiefe authoritie in ruling and gouerning the Church in exteruall policie and re∣giment bycause there is no suche expresse mention of them in those two places of S. Paule?
But you shall answer yourselfe, for you say that in those places S. Paule speaketh of such functions as were then in the church, not of such as should be afterward, whiche is true. And therefore I conclude that as all those offices (by your owne confession before) are not necessary for all times in the Church: so are they not only, for all times of the Church, but other may be brought in méete for the gouernment of the same. I know your meaning is nothing lesse, yet this is my collection which I thinke you will ve∣ry hardly answer.
How many hundred yeares the name of Archbyshop was after the Apostles time, shall appeare in another place.