What? no mention of him in Theophilus Bishop of Antioche, none in Ignatius, none in Cle∣mens Alexandrinus, none in Iustine Martyr, in Ireneus, in Tertullian, in Origine, in Cyprian, none in all those olde Historiographers, oute of the which Eusebius gathereth his storie? was it for his basenesse and smalnesse, that he coulde not be seene among the Byshops, Elders and Dea∣cons, beyng the chiefe and principall of them all? Can the Cedar of Libanon be hyd among ye Boxe trees? Aristotle in his Rhethoricke ad Theodecten sayth that it is a token of contempt to forget the name of an other. Belike therefore if there were any Archbyshop, he had no chaire in the Churche, but was as it seemeth digging at the metalles, for otherwyse they that haue filled their booke with the often mentioning of Byshops, would haue no doubt remembred him.
And what then? is not the Councell of Nice, and of Antioche of as good credite as all these? Shall not Athanasius, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Hierome, Chrysostome, Sozomene, &c. counteruaile them? and yet if you had read these authors, you might haue learned that in the most of them, the office of an Archbyshop is expressed, as my answere fol∣lowing declareth. But still you vse negatiue reasons ab authoritate, and that humane. Your tauntes and frumpes I let passe: they are confutation sufficient to them sel∣ues.