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.

That the names of Metropolitane, Arch∣bishop, &c. be not Antichristian.

Chap. 2. the. 1. Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 65. Sect. 1.

Firste therefore I proue that the names of Metropolitane and* 1.1 Archbishop &c. be not Antichristian names, that is, names inuented by Antichrist, but most aūciēt: yea that they were in the Church, lōg before the Gospell was publiquely embraced by any Prince or in any kingdome. Polidore Virgil lib. 4. De inuentoribus rerum, Cap. 12. saith that Clement in his boke entituled Compēdiarium Christianae religionis, testifieth, that the A∣postle Peter did in euery Prouince appoynt one Archbyshop, whom all other Byshops of the same prouince shoulde obey. He sayth also that the same Archbishop was called Primas, Patriarcha, and Metropolitanus. Peter was not Antichrist, Ergo, the name of an Archbishop is no An∣tichristian name.

T. C. Pag. 66. Sect. 4. 5. 6. 7. & Pag. 67. Sect. 1. 2.

Now I will come to the examining of your witnesses, whereof some of them are so bored in the eares and branded in their foreheades, that no man neede to feare any credite they shall gette

before any iudge wheresoeuer, or before whom soeuer they come, but in the Romish courte, and the Papistes onely excepted. For to let go Polidore Uirgile bycause whatsoeuer he sayth he sayth of the credite of another, let vs come to Clement which is the author of this you speake. And what is he? Is there any so blind that knoweth not that this was nothing lesse than Clement, of whom S. Paule speaketh, and which some thinke was the first Bishop of Rome ordeined by Peter, and* 1.2 not rather a wicked helhounde into whome the Lorde had sent Satan to be a lying spirite in his mouth, to deceiue them for their vnthankful receyuing of the gospell? And he must witnesse for the Archbishop: a worthie witnesse. For as all that Popish Hierarchie came out of the bottomlesse pit of hell: so to vpholde the Archbishop the necke of it, wherevpon the Romish monster standeth, are raysed vp from hell bastards, Clemens and Anacletus, and indeede as it may appeare, the very na∣turall sonnes of Satan, and the sworne souldiours of Antichrist.

A man would haue thought that the Bishop of Salisburie, M. Iuel had so pulled of the pain∣ting of the face of this Clement, that all good men woulde haue had him in detestation: so farre of would they haue bene to haue alledged out of him to proue any thing that is in controuersie.

The Bishop alledgeth both Eusebius, and S. Hierome, to proue that none of those woorkes* 1.3 which go in his name are his: and although the proofes be strong which the Bishop vseth beeing the witnesse of vnsuspected witnesses: yet bicause the law, although it allow two witnesses, not∣withstanding doth like the better of three, I will set downe here also Ireneus which was a great while before them both, and followed hard after the time of the true and vncounterfeyte Clement,* 1.4 and therefore coulde best tell of him, and of his wrytings, and yet he maketh mention but of one Epistle, which vpō occasion amongst the Corinthians he wrote to them. Indeed in an other place of that booke he sheweth, that it is verie probable, that Clementalso eyther wrote or turned the Epistle to the Hebrues. Nowe if that Epistle to the Counthes were extant, we shoulde easily see by comparing those that are nowe in his name wyth that, what a misshapen thing this is.

And if so be that Ireneus coniecture be good, that Clement was the authour or interpreter of the Epstle to the Hebrues, then what horrible iniurie is done to the holy Ghost, while the same is supposed the wryter of thys booke to the Hebrues, which is the authour of suche beggerie as thys Clement brought into the worlde? And I pray you do you holde that it is the true Christian reli∣gion which that booke conteyneth? Could none of these considerations driue you from the testi∣monie of this Clement? It goeth verie harde with the Archbishop, when these Clements, and Anacletusses must be brought to vnderprop him.

But what if there be no such booke as this is, which you name, (when you say in his booke in∣tituled Compendiarium religionis Christianae) it is like you know not him, nor what he saith, when you cannot tell so much as his name. Onely bicause Polidore wryteth that Clement sayth this in a certaine short and summarie booke of christian religion, you haue set downe that he wryteth thus in a booke intituled Compendiarium Christianae religionis, where there is no such tytle neither in the Councels where his Epistles are, neyther yet in all other his workes.

Thought you to disguise him with this newe name of the booke, that he should not be knowne? or ment you to occupie your answerer in seeking of a booke which bicause he should neuer finde, he should neuer answere? The place which Polidore meaneth is in the first Epistle which he wry∣teth vnto Iames the brother of the Lord, which is as the rest are both ridiculous in the maner of writing, and in the matter oftner tymes wicked and blasphemous, which I speake to this ende, that the reader through the commendation that M. Doctor hath giuen to this Clement, in taking him as one of his witnesses in so great a matter be not abused.

Io. Whitgifte.

Here is much more labour spent than is necessarie. No man denyeth but that the Epistles attributed to Clement are Counterfeyte, neyther do I otherwise alledge him or Anacletus, or any such like, than both M. Caluine, M. Iewell, and many other learned men do, as it is euident in their writings. That testimonie whiche I vse is out of Polidore, and therefore haue I quoted both the booke and Chapter. Poli∣dore wryteth as other doe that intreate of such matters, and for as muche as he was learned, and of purpose gaue himselfe to the searching out of such things, his report is not lightly to be reiected. But (God be thanked) neyther the name nor the an∣thoritie of an Arfhbishop dependeth vpon these witnesses, neyther do I vse them as sure groundes, but as probable testimonies of the antiquitie of the name. You haue cited the Canons of the Apostles thrise at the least in this your booke, and Higinus likewise, and vsed them as proofes, and yet is there as great suspicion in the counterfeyting of them, as there is of this booke of Clements. I pray you therefore giue me that libertie in recyting Authours, that you take to your selfe, and that no man refuseth when they serue to his purpose. For I protest vnto you, that I haue as euil an opinion of many of them, and think as great corruption to be in them as any man doth, and that not only bicause I haue so red in other mens writings of them: but also for that I my self in reading of thē haue noted the same. But I am well assured

that Polidore ment that Clement which is supposed to be the first Bishop of Rome, how he was therein deceyued (béeing so learned a man) I leaue it to others to iudge.

It is not like that Polydore ment that Epistle, for hée knewe what difference there was betwixt an Epistle and a booke: neyther doth the length or the matter of that Epistle giue anie occasion that it shoulde so be called: wherefore it is like that Po∣lydore had it out of some booke attributed vnto Clement vnder that title, thoughe the same be not extant. For there be diuerse woorkes of auncient fathers, whiche bée not now ertant in print, and yet in some places to be had. But I will not stande longer in this matter. The wordes of Polydore be these. Sicut D. Clemens in suo Chri∣stianae religionis compendiario libello perhibet, &c.

Chap. 2. the second Deuision.

T. C. Pag. 67. Sect. 3.

For answere vnto him, although he be not worth the answering, I say first it may bee well sayd here of the office of the Archbishop, that the father of it was an Amorite, and mother an Hittite, that is that it commeth of verie infamous parentage, the beginning thereof beeing of the Idola∣trous nations.

Io. Whitgifte.

These be but wordes of pleasure: it will appeare in this discourse that the parents and authours both of the office, and of the name, be such as ought with greater reue∣rence to be spoken of, and with greater signification of duetie.

Chap. 2. the thirde Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 67. Sect. 4.

And whereas Clement maketh S. Peter the Apostle to make it as it were his adopted sonne, therby to wipe away the shame of his birth, it doth S. Peter shamefull iniurie. For besides that it was farre from S. Peter to take this authoritie to himself, not only of making Archbishops tho∣rowout euery Prouince but also instituting a new order or of fice, without the counsell of the rest of the Apostles, which none else of the Apostles did, and which is cōtrarie to the practise of S. Peter, both in the first and sixt of the Actes, contrarie also to the practise of the Apostles which after shall appeare. I say besydes this, is it like that S. Peter woulde graffe the noblest plant as it is sayd of the ministerie of the Gospell, in such a rotten stock of that which was most abhominable in all I∣dolatrie? For the greater they were in the seruice of the Idolles, the more detestable were they before God.

Io. Whitgifte.

I do not take vpon me the defense of Clements wordes in that Epistle, or of Po∣lydore in the booke and Chapter before recyted, in all things that they spake touching the matter. But I cannot suffer your vaine reasons to serue for an answere. For if Saint Peter did thus place Archbishoppes, yet did he not appoynt any newe order or office, as you haue bene oftentymes tolde. Of all Byshops there is one order or* 1.5 ministerie, but diuerse degrées. Betwéene an Archbyshop and a Bishop there is one∣ly a difference of degrée and dignitie, not of order or ministerie: as diuerse learned men giue vnto Peter, aboue the rest of the Apostles the preheminence of honour for orders sake, but not of power. Moreouer Peter in appoynting them without the con∣sent of the other Apostles, did no otherwise than the Apostle S. Paule whē he placed Timothie at Ephesus, and Titus at Creta. It may be also that in some places where there were before Archiflamines he placed such as were called Archbishops, &c. whiche might be done in respect of y^e city & place, and not in respect of the idolatrous priests.

For Archiflamines were but in great Cities, which being conuerted vnto Christ, might haue in the place of their Archiflamines, Godly and learned Archbishops, to ouersée and direct the rest of the Bishops and Preachers, that vnitie and order might be obserued. Thus Paule did at Ephesus and Creta. And why might not Peter do it in other places likewise?

Chap. 4. the fourth Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 67. Sect. 5. 6. 7. 8.

The Lorde when he woulde giue lawes of woorshipping to his people, in the things that were indifferent, of shauing and cutting, and apparell wearing, sayth to his people, that they should not do so, and so, bicause the Gentiles did so, yea euen in those things, the vse whereof was otherwise verie profitable, and incommodious to forbeare, he woulde haue them notwithstanding to absteyne from, as from swines flesh, Conies. &c. to the ende that he might haue them seuered as appeareth by S. Paule, by a great and high wall from other Nations.* 1.6

And therefore it is verie vnlike that S. Peter woulde frame the ministerie of the Gospel (which is no ceremonie but of the substance of the gospel.) by the example of the heathenish and ydolatrous functions.

If one had sayde that the Lorde had shapen this common wealth by the paterne of other com∣mon wealthes, although it had bene most vntrue (all other flourishing common wealthes of A∣thens, Lacedemon, and Rome, borowing their good lawes of the Lordes common wealth) yet had it beene more tollerable: but to say he framed the ministerie of the Gospell by the Priesthoode of Idolatrie, is to fet chastitie out of Sodome, and to seeke for heauen in hell.

And if so be that the Lord had delighted in this Hierarchie, he woulde rather haue taken of his owne, than borowed of others: of his owne Church, than of the Synagog of Satan. For vnder the law besydes the Leuites there were Priests and aboue them a high Priest.

Io. Whitgifte.

God gaue vnto the Israelites a king, though other Nations had so in like maner.* 1.7 And he ordeyned degrées of Priests among them, to offer vnto him Sacrifices though the Gentiles had the like: and what inconuenience could there come by placing Arch∣byshops (which shoulde faythfully preache the worde of God, and carefully gouerne the Church of Christ) euen in those places where there were Archiflamines, who did de∣face Christianitie, and persecute the Christians? For by these meanes there could no harme come vnto them, as there might haue done to the Israelites by vsing of such things of the Gentiles as he forbad vnto them, but the contrarie: For this was a meanes to plucke them from all their superstition and Idolatrie. Neither is this in any respect a framing of the ministerie of the Gospell by the examples of Idolatrous & heathnish functions. Except you will say also that bycause the Gentiles had Flamines, and the Christians had Bishops, therefore the Christian Bishops were framed according to the example of the Gentiles Flamines. If you cannot say so truely in Bishops, ney∣ther can you iustly affirme it of Archbishops: for the reason is all one. Do you thinke this to be a good collection: where in the Popes time there was a Massing priest, now is there placed a Minister of the Gospell, Ergo the ministerie of the Gospell is framed according to the example of Massing priests? And yet thus do you conclude, that by∣cause there are nowadays Archbishops where before there were Archiflamines, therfore the ministerie of the Gospell is framed according to the heathnish and ydolatrous functions.

Chap. 2. the. 5. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 68. Sect. 1.

And to say that Peter appoynted Archbishops and Bishops (*) by the example of Idolaters,* 1.8 * 1.9 is after a sort to make the law to come out of Egypt or Babilon, and not out of Sion or Ierusa∣lem, as the Prophete sayth.

Io. Whitgifte.

Neyther Clement in that Epistle, nor Polidore in that booke, nor Gratian dist. 80. sayth that Peter appoynted Archbyshops and byshops by the example of Idolaters, but this onely they say, that in those Cities where there were before Archiflamines there were placed Archbyshops, and where th〈1 line〉〈1 line〉re were Flamines, there byshops. There is greate difference betwixt their kinde of speach and yours. Howsoeuer the authors please you, or displease you, yet report their w〈1 line〉〈1 line〉rdes truly. M. Foxe Tom. 1. Pag. 14. is of this iudgement that where before there were Archiflamines, &c. there were placed Patriarches &c. His woordes be these: Thus it is made playne how the* 1.10 byshop of the firste seate, or firste byshop or Primate is none other, but he which then was called Patriarche, and belonged not onely to the Churche of Rome, but to all such cities and places, whereas before among the Gentiles were Primiflamines &c. Dist. 80. cap. 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉rbes & loca, & in illis. Hitherto M. Foxe.

Chap. 2. the. 6. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 68. Sect. 1. 2. 3.

You say after that Iames was an Archbyshop, if he were, he was the fyrst and placed ouer the Iewes.

And although S. Peter might, to gayne the Gent〈1 line〉〈1 line〉es, be c〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ntent to vse their 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉dolatrous fun∣ctions, with a little chaunge of their names, yet there is none so madde to thinke that he woulde translate any such function, from the Gentiles to the Iewes, which were neuer before accusto∣med with any such Flamines or Archiflamines. And this I dare generally and at once say, against* 1.11 you and your Element, that the Lorde translated diuerse things out of the Lawe into the Gospell as the Presbetery, or eldership, excommunication, and the office of Deacons (as it is thought) for that the Sadducees, of whom so often mention is made in the gospell, are thought to haue had that office to prouide for the poore, for those that knowe the Hebrue tong, do vnderstande that Tsadi∣〈1 line〉〈1 line〉im* 1.12 and Tsidkah, do not onely signifie Iustices and iuste menne, but also almes and almesmen: I say these and others more translated from the lawe vnto the gospell: but neyther you nor your Clement, shall euer be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉hew, that the Lord euer translated any thing from Gentelisme in∣to the gospell.

Wee reade in the Actes, that all the Gentiles were commaunded, to conforme themselues vn∣to* 1.13 the Iewes in the ab〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ayning from bloud and strangled meate for a tyme, but we can n〈1 line〉〈1 line〉er finde that the Iewes were commaunded to conforme themselues to the Gentiles in their 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the reason whereof is, bycause the one was sometyme the lawe of God, and therefore he that had conscience in it, was to be borne with, and the other came from menne and out of their forge which the L〈1 line〉〈1 line〉rd would neuer g〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ue so much honor vnto, as to make other men by any meanes sub∣iect vnto them.

Io. Whitgifte.

If you had not learned that poynt of Sophistrie which is called Petitio princip〈1 line〉〈1 line〉j, (whereof I haue so o〈1 line〉〈1 line〉tentimes told you) without doubt you had lacked much matter, and your booke would haue ben very thinne. For all this adoe in this place is nothing but discanting vpon a false playne song. The offices of an Archbishop and Byshop are no Idolatrous functions but Christian, and méete both for Iewe and Gentile con∣uerted vnto Christ: neyther are they translated from the Gentiles, but grounded vpō the woorde of God, practised in the Apostles time, approued by the best councells as is declared in the answere to the Admonition, and shall be more amplie hereafter, occa∣sion being offered. Wherefore all this that you haue here sayde, (the ground being taken away) serueth for no purpose.

Your coniecture of the Deaconship to be taken from the Iewes, is but a mere coniecture, if there had bene any such office in the law, it would haue bene specified in one place or other of the old Testament.

Touching your eldership wée shall sée what you haue to say for it in place. I will not trouble my selfe and the reader with bye matters not incident to this question.

And yet I would gladly learne of you in what portion of the lawe your presbyterie is commaunded or prescribed, for I tolde you before out of M. Caluine, that it was appoynted after the returne of the Iewes from the captiuitie of Babylon.

Your reason why there should be no orders or ceremonies taken from the Gen∣tiles is not sufficient: for it is a negatiue reason ab authoritate. But to speake of that matter is now from the purpose bycause I haue denied these offices to be taken from the Gentiles.

Chap. 2. the seuenth Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 68. Sect. 4.

B〈1 line〉〈1 line〉t what if there were no such offices among the Gentiles and Paganes as Archiflamine〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 and Protoflamines? whereof before I shew the coniectures which I haue, I must giue the gen∣tle reader to vnderstand, that I am not ignorant that there are diuerse which say there were such offices among the Gentiles, and namely here in England: that there were. 25. Flamines and three Archiflamines, wherof were made three Archbishops of London, Canterbury, and Yorke, and. 25. Byshops as Platine hath in the chapter E〈1 line〉〈1 line〉eutherius. And Ga〈1 line〉〈1 line〉frydus Monemutensis in his se∣cond booke and first chapter. And 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉s I thinke Gildas also, and Lumbard in his fourth booke speaketh of it, as a generall thing that was in all places where Paganisme was. But if so be that the religion of other Paganes did follow, and was like vnto that of the Romaynes (which is ve∣ry probable) they being then the rulers of the whole worlde in a manner, vnto whose example all men do lightly conforme themselues euen without commaundement, then there is greate lykely∣hood, there were no such Archiflamines or Protoflamines out of Tullie, which sheweth that there were among the Romaines diuerse kindes of Priestes whereof some were called Flamines of a se∣uerall attire which they ware alwayes on there heads, other Pontifices, and a third sorte were cal∣led Salij, and the chiefe of those Flamines was called Flamen dialis, who was als〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 distinguished from the reste by a white hatte: but of any Archiflamines, or Protoflamines, he maketh no mention at al: and therefore it is lyke that there was neuer any such office amongst the Paganes.

Io. Whitgifte.

Whether there were such offices among the Gentiles or no, the matter is not great, nor woorthie of deciding. But that there were such it is manifest, if any credite is to be giuen to so many Histories and wryters bothe Eccles〈1 line〉〈1 line〉asticall and prophane,* 1.14 not onely those whom you haue reported, but Gratian, Polydore, and others. But as a sufficient confutation of all this that you haue here written, and as an argu∣ment of your vnskilfulnesse in stories, I will set downe the woordes of Master Foxe, Tom. 1. Pag. 146. which be these: Lette vs returne to Eleutherius the good byshop, who* 1.15 hearing the requeste of the King and gladde to see the godly towardnesse of his well dis∣posed minde, sendeth him certayne teachers and preachers: called Fugatius, or by some Fagamus, and Damianus or Dimianus, which conuerted first the King and people of Bri∣tayne, and baptised them with the baptisme and sacrament of Christes fayth. The Tem∣ples of Idolatrie and other monuments of Gentilitie they subuerted, conuerting the peo∣ple from their diuerse and many Goddes, to serue one liuing God. Thus true religion with sincere fayth increasing, superstition decayed with all rites of Idolatrie. There were then in Britayne. 28. head Priestes which they called Flamines, and three Archpriestes among them which were called Archiflamines hauing the ouersight of their manners, as iudges ouer the reste. These. 28. Flamines they turned to. 28. Bishops, and the three Archiflamines to three Archbyshops hauing then their 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉eates in three principall Cities of the realme: that is in London, in Yorke, and in Glamorgantia, videlicet in vrbe legionum, by VVales. Your coniecture therefore is but vayne, and cannot counteruayle so many witnesses.

Moreouer your argument is negatiue from humane authoritie: for you argue that there were no Archiflamines among the Paganes, bycause Tullie maketh no mention of them, and therefore of no credite. Besides why might not the Grecians

call those Archiflamines whom Tullie called Flamines diales. But the matter is not woorthie the labour, and therefore thus briefly to haue answered it shall suffice: o〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ly I would haue the Reader by the way to note the antiquitie of Archbishops here in England, euen from the first beginning of the publike profession of Christia∣ni〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e;* 1.16 which was Anno. 180. or there about.

Chap. 2. the. 8. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 68. Sect. 5.

And if there were, I haue shewed how wicked it is to say that Peter framed the ministerie of the Gospell by it. Now let it be seene of all men how strongly you haue concluded, that the names of Archbyshops are not Antichristian, when as it is most certayne that he was a piller of Anti∣christ, vpon whom your reason is grounded.

Io. Whitgifte.

Though it be certayne that Peter framed not the ministerie of the gospell by any custome of the Paganes, yet y〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ur arguments are of no force, to proue that he did not place ministers of the gospell, where there were before priests of the Paganes, call them by what other name you will〈1 line〉〈1 line〉or that in the chie〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 Cities he placed not such as might direct and gouerne the rest: seing it is the consent of all wryters that the Apostles when they had planted Churches, did place Bishops, and other ministers in the Churches which were planted.

Whether he were a piller or no of Antichrist by whom I haue hitherto proued the names of Archbyshops not to be Antichristian, I leaue it to the learned to iudge. 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉f you meane Clement of whom Polidore doth borrowe his report, it is euident that Po∣lidore meaneth that Clement that was one of the first Bishops of Rome, who was no piller of Antichrist but a godly Bishop. Yf you meane Polidore himselfe vpon whose credite I take the report, then surely h〈1 line〉〈1 line〉wsoeuer in diuerse poynts o〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 Papism〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 he erred, yet is he one that hath greatly detected and opened their supers〈1 line〉〈1 line〉itions, and whose authoritie neyther your selfe nor any other learned man in many things will ref〈1 line〉〈1 line〉se.

But if all this were true that you say, yet may we take reportes of antiquities* 1.17 euen from Turkes, Paganes, Papistes, or 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ls must we condemne the most parte of Histories.

Chap. 2 the ninth Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 65. Sect. 2.

Volusianus Bishop of Carthage, who liued Anno Do. 865. in one* 1.18 of his Epistles which he write to Nicholas the first in the defense of the marriage of Priests, sayth that Dionisius Areopagi〈1 line〉〈1 line〉a S. Paules scholler, was by S. Paule made Archbishop of Athens.

T. C. Pag. 68. Sect. vlt.

The times wherein Uolusianus liued declare sufficiently how littell credite is to be giuen to his testimonie, which were when the masse had place, if not so wicked as it was after, yet notwith∣standing farre differing from the simplicitie of the supper which was left by our Sauiour Christ. And Eusebius is of more credite in this than Uolusianus, which in the thirde booke and fourth chapter, & in the fourth booke and thre & twentie chapter, sayth of the report of Dionysius bishop of 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉orinth. That S. Paule 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ade Dionysius Arcopagita (*) 1.19 byshop of Athens: he sayth not Arch∣bis〈1 line〉〈1 line〉op but Bishop, although he spake twi〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e of it, & in the preface before his workes it is sayd that after his conuersion he went to Rome to Clement, and was sent with others of Clement into the weste partes, and that he came to Paris and was there executed, whether soeuer of these opinions is true that falleth which Uolusianus affirmeth. And if eyther Uolus〈1 line〉〈1 line〉anus or you, will haue vs beleeue that Dionysius Areopagita was Archbyshop of Athens you must shewe some better au∣thoritie than Eusebius, or Dionysius byshop of 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉orinth, and then your cause shall haue at the least some more colour of truth.

Io. Whitgifte.

Thus indéede may you easily wype away all authoritie of Histories, and Fa∣thers. But this shifte will not serue your turne with wyse and learned men. Uolu∣sianus was very well learned, and a very godly Bishop in his tyme, neyther is it to be thoughte that he woulde wryte any thing in suche a matter whiche he had not certaynely learned of worthy wryters. Your reason broughte out of Eusebius, to proue the contrarie, fayleth in two respectes. First, bicause it is negatiue from au∣thoritie and that of man: For thus you conclude: Eusebius did not call him Archbishop, Ergo, he was no Archebishop: whiche kinde of argument is neuer good in any res∣pecte, when it is taken from the authoritie of man. Secondly, your argument fay∣leth, bicause Histories be not so curious in cal〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ing men by their seuerall titles. They thinke it sufficient, if they vse the common and moste vsuall name, eu〈1 line〉〈1 line〉n as it is the common vse amongest vs, to call the Archbishops of Canterbury and Yorke ofte∣ner by the names of Bishops of Canterbury and Yorke, than by the names of Arch∣bishops. So that in déede your argument béeing denied, you are not able by any sounde reason to confirme it. If Eusebius or Dionisius had denied 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉him to be an Archbishop, your argument had bin good.

Chap. 2. the. 10. Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 65. Sect. 3.

Erasmus in his argument of the Epistle to Titus, saythe that Paule made Titus Archebishop of Creta, but Antichrist was not in Paules time, Ergo, the name of an Archbishop was not inuented by Antichrist.

T. C. Pag. 69. Sect. 1.

Erasmus followeth, which sayth Titus was Archbishop of Crete, whom I could answere with his owne words. For I am sure he will graunt me, that Titus and Timothie had one of∣fice, the one in Ephesus, y^e other in Crete, but it appeareth by Erasmus his own words that Ti∣mothie was but a Bishop of Ephesus, therfore Titus was but Bishop of Crete. (a) 1.20 For Eras∣〈1 line〉〈1 line〉us in his argument vpon the first Epistle of Timothie, sayth that S. Paule did informe Timo∣thie of the office of a Bishop, and of the discipline of the Churche. If eyther he had bin an archebi∣shop, or an Archbishop had bin so necessarie as it is made, he woulde haue instructed him in that also.

Io. Whitgifte.

This maketh wholly agaynst your selfe, for héereby it appeareth that the wry∣ters vse not any greate curiositie in obseruing proper titles, but they thinke it suf∣ficient, if that name of office be vsed that comprehendeth all. Where dothe Erasmus saye, that Timothie was but a Bishop? Will you not learne to deale playnely? But let vs heare your argument: Erasmus sayth, that S. Paule dyd informe Timothie of the of∣fice of a Bishop, and of the discipline of the Churche, Ergo, Erasmus sayth that Timothie was no Archbishop. Undoubtedly you had néede beare with other mens vnskilful∣nesse in Logike, if you vse suche reasons in good earnest. This argument also is ne∣gatiue ab bumana authoritate, Whatsoeuer is necessarie for a Bishop is necessarie for* 1.21 an Archebishop, and the office of a Bishop is the office of an Archebishop. There is no difference of Bishop and Archebishop, but onely this, that the Archebishop hathe authoritie ouer other Bishops, to call them togither when occasion serueth, to sée that they walke according to the lawes and rules prescribed to kéepe vnitie and concorde in the Churche, and suche lyke. There is no difference quantum ad ministe∣rium, in respecte of their ministerie and function, but onely quoad politiam & ordinem, in respect of pollicie and order, as I haue sayde before.

Chap. 2. the. 11. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 69. Sect. 2.

And I pray you tell me whether Erasmus or the greeke Scoliaste be more to be beleeued in this poynt, out of whome is taken that which is in the latter ende of the Epistles to Timothie and Titus, where they bothe are called the first elected Bishops that euer were, eyther of Ephesus or Creta: for my parte I thinke they were neyther Bishops nor Archbishops, but (*) 1.22 Euangelists, as shall appeare afterwards. But it may be sufficient to haue set agaynst Erasmus authoritie, the authoritie of the Scholiast. And heere if you will cauill, and say that the Scholiast which sayth he was Bishop, denieth not but that he also was an Archbishop, bicause an Archbishop is a Bishop, it may be answered easily, that the Scholiast did not speake nor write so vnproperly, as to cal them by the generall name of Bishop, whome he might as easily haue called (if the truthe woulde haue let him) by a more proper and particular name of Archbishop. And further in (a) 1.23 this diuision of the ministers, the Archbishop and the Bishop are members of one diuision, and therefore one of them can not be affirmed and sayde of an other, for that were contrarie to the nature of a true diuision.

Io. Whitgifte.

I tell you that Erasmus and the grecke Scholiaste, doe very well agrée, and the one dothe expounde the other. I tell you also that your negatiue argumentes are not worthe a rushe, vse them as ofte as you liste. What you thinke of Thimothie or Titus béeing Archebishops or Bishops, is not materiall, but of what force your reasons are shall be considered, when you vtter them. If Erasmus and the Gréeke Scholiaste were of diuers iudgements in this poynte (as they be not) yet were it an vnlearned answere to set the one agaynst the other.

He that calleth an Archbishop a Bishop, speaketh properly, for so he is in the res∣pecte of his ministerie, and substance of his office, the name of Archebishop he hathe onely in respecte of order and pollicie. Archbishop and Bishop are members of one diuision, as chiefe Iustice and Iustice is. Euery chiefe Iustice is a Iustice, but euery Iustice is not a chiefe Iustice: euen so euery Archbishop is a Bishop, but euery Bishop is not an Archbishop: neyther is this suche a straunge diuision as you thinke it to be. For Aristotle dyd in like maner deuide 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Regnum, Aristocratiam, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, that which is commonly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Chap. 2. the. 12. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 69. Sect. 3.

And yet I haue a further answere both to Erasmus and Uolusianus, and whatsoeuer other haue written after this sorte, that they spake and gaue titles to those men they wrote of, not accor∣ding to that which they were, but according to the custome & maner of that age wherin they wrote. And so we may reade that Uincentius and Nicephorus writing of Uictor, speake farre otherwise* 1.24 of him than Eusebius doth, which notwithstanding wrote of the same man whiche they did. The one calleth Uictor the Pope of Rome: (*) 1.25 and the other fayth, that in glorie he passed all the Bi∣shops before him, which Eusebius neuer maketh any word of. Euen so Uolusianus & Erasmus, liuing in the times when as they which were y^e most esteemed in the ministerie, were called archbi∣shops, call Titus and Dionisius Archebishops, vpon whome depended the chiefe care of those Churches which they gouerned.

Io. Whitgifte.

This is no answere at all, first bicause Erasmus woulde then haue giuen to Timo∣thie the same title also: secondly bicause Erasmus béeing a man of so singular know∣ledge and iudgement, woulde not otherwyse than truely report of any man, especially in suche a case, and handling matters of diuinitie. Thirdly, bicause when he wrote, there was neyther Bishop nor Archbishop at Creta, as there was at Rome, when Vincentius and Nicephorus writte. And if this were true that you saye, then shoulde Eusebius when he wrote of Victor, haue termed him a Patriarke or an Archbishop, or Metropolitane at the least. For these names were vsuall in Eusebius his time.

But why doe you vntruely reporte of Nicephorus? for in that booke and chapter he giueth vnto Victor no other name and title, than the same that Eusebius dothe, for he calleth him by the bare name of Victor, without any other title, neyther dothe he saye, that in glorie he passed all the Bishops before him, but this he sayth, that the other Bi∣shops which were with him, did diswade him from excommunicating the Bishops of Asia, and addeth: Et acrius seuerius{que}cum illo qui gloria eos anteiret egerunt: They delt more sharply and seuerely with him that excelled them in glorie. Therefore he saythe that he did excell in glorie those Bishops that were then, not those which were before him. But what is this to your purpose? If he had giuen vnto Victor any other title than was vsuall when he liued, dothe it therfore followe that Erasmus and Volusianus had done so in like maner? will you answere suche learned and notable mens autho∣ritie, with so vayne and childishe coniectures.

Chap. 2. the. 13. Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 65. Sect. 4. & Pag. 66. Sect. 1.

I omitte Anacletus a godly Bishop and Martyr, who liued Anno Domini. 85. whiche in his Epistle, Tom. 1. conci. diuers times maketh mention of Archbishops, Patriarkes, Primates, Metro∣politanes, and sayth, that S. Iames, which was called Iustus, was the first Archbishop of Ierusalem.

I omitte also Anicetus, who liued Anno Domini. 155. whiche likewyse in his Epistle maketh mention of Archebishops. Bicause these Epistles are not without iust cause suspected eyther to be none of theirs, or else in diuers poyntes corrupted.

T. C. Page. 69. Sect. 3.

There followeth Anacletus, an other of these witnesses which must depose that the name of an Archebishop is not Antichristian, of whom, as of Clement that went before, & Anicetus which followeth after, the common prouerbe may be verified: Aske my fell〈1 line〉〈1 line〉we it I be a theefe. And al∣thoughe the Answerer be ashamed of him, and sayth therfore, he will omit him: yet euen (a) 1.26 very neede driueth him, to bring him in, and to make him speake the vttermost he can. And this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 man sayth, that Iames was the first Archbishop of Ierusalem: but Eusebius sayth, Iames was* 1.27 Bishop, not Archbishop of Ierusalem, and appoynted by the Apostles. And in the thirde booke, (*) 1.28 22▪ chapter, he sayth, that the Apostles did appoynt after his death, Simeon the sonne of Cleo∣phas Bishop of Ierusalem. And Ireneus in his fourth booke. 63. chapter, saythe that the Apo∣stles in all places appoynted Bishops vnto the Churches, whereby it may appeare what an idle dreame it is of Clement, Uolusianus, and Anacletus, eyther that Peter dyd this by his owne au∣thoritie, or that the primitiue Church was euer stayned with these ambicious titles of Patriarke, primate, Metropolitane, or Archbishop: when as the stories make mention, that throughout euery Churche, not euery prouince, not by Peter or Paule, but by Apostles, a Bishop, not an Archbishop was appoynted.

Io. Whitgifte.

If they be the A〈1 line〉〈1 line〉acletus, or Clemens, or Anicetus that commonly they are taken for, and these writings were theirs vncorrupted, then were their witnesse sufficient, althoughe they were Bishops of Rome. But I neyther will defende their writings, neyther doe I thinke them to be worthy any defense, onely I require but that libertie of vsing them, that no learned man refuseth when they serue his turne. Master Caluine doth alleage this Anacletus his authoritie to proue that the peoples consent* 1.29 was required in y^e appoynting of ministers. Instit. cap. 8. Sect. 61. So doth M. Foxe tom. 1. pag. 12. who writeth thus: VVherfore as we must needes graunt the Bishop of Rome to be called a Metropolitane, or an Archbishop by the Councell of Nice: so we will not greatly sticke in this also, to haue him numbred with Patriarkes or Primates: whiche ti∣tle seemed in olde tyme to be common to moe Cities than to Rome, both by the Epi∣stle of Anacletus, of Pope Stephanus, and Pope Iulius, and Leo. &c.

Master Iewell also himselfe dothe vse his authoritie in that sorte that I doe. But what néede you be so curious, who haue so often alleaged the Canons of the Apostles: and in your. 95. page you vse the authoritie of Higinus or Pelagius, as greate a coun∣terfeite as this Anacletus is. I speake not this to winne any credite to Anacletus his* 1.30 Epistles or decrées, but to auoyde your cauils, and to shewe that in citing him in this manner and forme that I doe, I doe no otherwyse than other godly and learned men haue done. You shal vnderstande ere I come to an ende, that I haue not allead∣ged him for any néede.

Your argument to proue that Iames was no Archebishop, bicause Eusebius and other doe call him Bishop and not Archebishop, is of the same nature that your other arguments be, that is, ab authoritate negatiuè: and therefore must be sent away with the same answere.

Whether the Apostles placed Iames and Simeon at Ierusalem, or no, is not the que∣stion. But you are something deceyued in your quotation, for you should in the place of the. 22. chapter of Eusebius, haue noted the. 11. chapter.

The place of Ireneus, thoughe it make not agaynst any thing that I haue spoken, if it were as you doe alleage it, yet muste I tell you, that it is by you not truely vn∣derstoode. For Ireneu〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 dothe not saye that the Apostles dyd togither in euery place* 1.31 appoynte Bishops, but he sayth, Secundum successiones Episcoporum, quibus illi eam, quae in vnoque{que} loco est ecclesiam tradiderunt. According to the succession of Bishops, to whome they committed the Churche that was in euery place. Meaning that euery one of the Apostles dyd appoynt Bishops in those Churches, whiche they had planted, as S. Paule did at Ephesus and Creta. And notwithstanding that in some Churches the Apostles togither dyd place Bishops, yet that in other Churches whiche they plan∣ted,* 1.32 they dyd the same seuerally, it is manyfest, not onely by these examples of Ti∣mothie and Titus, but of sundry other, whereof we maye reade in ecclesiasticall histories, and namely of * Policarpus made Bishop of Smirna, by S. Iohn. And you your selfe testifie the same of S. Iohn out of Eusebius, euen in the nexte section. Moreouer, it can not be gathered, eyther out of the wordes of Ireneus, or any other ecclesiasticall historie, that the Apostles dyd place Bishops any where, but in the chiefe and principall Townes and Cities, committing vnto them the gouernment of other Uillages and Townes, and the appoynting of seuerall Pastors for them, as it is also euident in the foresayde examples of Timothie and Titus, and the wordes of Ireneus importe the same. But if they had in euery Hamlet placed Pa∣stors, yet dothe it not followe, but that there mighte be some one in a Dioces or Prouince, by whome these Pastors shoulde be directed: As Timothie at Ephesus, Titus at Crete.

Chap. 2. the. 14. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 69. Sect. vlt.

And heere you put me in remembrance of an other argument agaynst the Archbishop, which I will frame after this sorte. (a) 1.33 If there should be any Archbishop in any place, the same shoulde be eyther in respect of the person or minister, and his excellencie, or in respect of the magnificence of the place: but the most excellent ministers that euer were, in the most famous places, were no Arche∣bishops, but Bishops onely, therefore there is no cause why there shoulde be any Archebishop: For if there were euer minister of a congregation worthy, that was Iames. If there were euer any Citie that ought to haue this honor, as that the minister of it shoulde haue a more honorable title than the ministers of other cities and townes, that was Ierusalem, where the sonne of God preached, and from whence the Gospell issued out into all places. And afterwarde that Ierusalem decayed and the Churche there, Antioche was a place where the notablest men were, that euer haue bin since, whiche also deserued great honour, for that there the Disciples were first called Christians, but neyther was that called the first and chiefest Churche, neyther the ministers of it called the Arche or principall Bishops.

Io. Whitgifte.

It is a straunge matter that you should so grossely erre in making arguments, sée∣ing you haue taken vpon you so great skill in that Arte. But I will not be occupied in examining the forme of it. Your maior is not true, for suche offices maye be ap∣poynted rather in the respecte of the time, and of the persons that are to be gouerned,* 1.34 than of the worthynesse of the minister, or the dignitie of the plate: and therefore your maior doth not conteyne a perfect and sufficient distribution. Agayne the worthinesse of the person, and the dignitie of the place, be not at all the causes why suche offices shoulde be appoynted in the Churche, but the suppression of sectes, the peace of the Churche, and the good gouernment of the same. The worthinesse of the person may make him méete for suche an office, and the place may be conuenient for suche offi∣cers to remayne in: but neyther of them bothe can be a sufficient cause why suche of∣fices should be appoynted. I knowe the worthiest cities haue had the preheminence in suche matters, but it was bicause they were the most méetest places for that pur∣pose, and the place dothe onely adde one péece of title to the office, but it is not the cause of the office. Lastly, you haue not yet proued that there was no Archbishops in those places, or that Iames had not that office.

Chap. 2. the. 15. Diuision.

T. C. Page. 70. Lin. 9.* 1.35

And Eusebius to declare that this order was firme and durable, sheweth in the thirde booke 13. chapter, that Sainct Iohn the Apostle, whiche ouerliued the residue of the Apostles, ordeined Bishops in euery Citie.

Io. Whitgifte.

This is no reason at all: S. Iohn ordeyned Bishops in euery Churche, therfore there was no one Bishop superiour vnto them to gouerne and directe them in matters of* 1.36 discipline, order a〈1 line〉〈1 line〉d doctrine, if occasion serued: I thinke that S. Iohn him selfe was directer and gouernour of them all, and in effecte their Archebishop. And that dothe manifestly appeare in that thirde booke and. 23. chapter of Eusebius. For thus he sayth: In those dayes Iohn the Apostle and Euangelist, whome the Lorde loued, lyued* 1.37 as yet in Asia, whiche did gouerne the Churches there, after he was returned out of the Isle, from banishement, after the death of Domitian. And a little after he saythe, That he went beeing desired, ad vicina Gentium loca, vt partim constitueret Episcopos, partim tota〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 ecclesias componeret, partim clerum ex his quos spiritus sanctus iudicasset sorte deligeret: Vnto the places of the Gentiles adioyning, partly that he mighte appoynte Bishops, partly that he might establishe whole Churches, partly that he mighte by lotte choose suche into the Cleargie, as the holy Ghost shoulde assygne. So that whether he had the name of Arch∣bishop, or no, certayne it is, that he had the gouernment and direction of the rest, and that he appoynted Bishops and other Ministers. Eusebius dothe not saye that he or∣deyned Bishops in euery Churche, for his wordes be as I haue reported them. But if he had so sayde, it had not made any thing to your purpose, but agaynst you. For he appoynted them, not all the Apostles, nor the people, and he gouerned and directed them as their Archbishop.

Chap. 2. the. 16. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 70. Sect. 1. 2.

These two Anacletus and Anicetus you say are (*) 1.38 suspected, why do you say suspected, when as they haue bin conuinced and condemned, and stande vpon the pillorie with the cause of forgerie

written in great letters, that he whiche runneth maye reade. Some of the Papistes them selues haue suspected them, but those whiche maynteyne the truthe, haue condemned them as full of po∣perie, full of blasphemie, and as those in whome was the very spirite of contradiction to the Apo∣stles and their doctrine.

And doe you marke what you saye, when you saye that these are but suspected? Thus muche you say that it is suspected or in doubte, whether the whole body of Poperie and Antichristianitie were in the Apostles time, or soone after, or no. For Clement was in the Apostles time, and their scholer▪ and so you leaue it in doubte whether the Apostles appoynted and were the authors of po∣perie or no. I thinke if euer you had read the Epistles, you would neuer haue cited their autho∣rities, nor haue spoken so fauourably of them as you doe.

Io. Whitgifte.

I say that they are not without iust cause suspected, whiche you haue left out, and therefore it appeareth that you haue layde aside sinceritie. I haue alleadged them with as little credite vnto them, as eyther master Caluine, or any other dothe. You your selfe haue sundrie times in this Replie vsed (as I haue sayde) as forged authors as these be, with lesse defacing of them. Turpe est doctori. &c. I can shew good proofe that I haue read their Epistles: but I am not disposed eyther to boast of my own reading, or to deface other mens: I leaue that to you.

Chap. 2. the. 17. Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 66. Lin. 5. & Sect. 1. 2. 3.

But that notable and famous Councell of Nice, muste be, and is of all wyse and learned men nexte vnto the scriptures themselues reuerenced, esteemed, and imbraced. That Councell celebrated Anno Domini. 330. (when as the Bishops of Rome were as yet learned* 1.39 and godly men) doth not onely allow of the name, but also of the of∣fice of Metropolitane, Archbishop, Archdeacon. &c.

In the sixte Canon of that Councell it is thus written: This* 1.40 Councell dothe determine him to be no Bishop, vvhich is made vvithout the consent Metropolitani Episcopi, of the Metropolitane.

In the. 13. Canon mention is made of a Patriarche, and of an* 1.41 Archedeacon diuers times, and his office there in diuers poyntes declared, as it is also in the seuenth Canon of the same Councel. In the. 25. Canon is named bothe Patriarche and Archebishop, and* 1.42 declared what authoritie they had in their Prouinces, and in admit∣ting of Bishops. So is it likewise in the. 26. and. 27. Canons of the same Councell.

T. C. Pag. 70. Sect. 3.

You come after to the Councel of Nice, wherin I wil not sticke with you that you say it was holden the. 330. yere of the Lord, when it may appeare by Eusebius his computation, that it was holden Anno Domini. 320.

Io. Whitgifte.

I know that there is some varietie among the writers, for the time of this Coun∣cell.* 1.43 Musculus in his common places sayth, that it was celebrated Anno Domini. 313 the writers of the Magd. Historie, centu. 4. cap. 9. affirme (as they say) out of Eusebius that it was Anno Dom. 320. Master Foxe Tom. 1. fol. 12 thinketh that it was Anno Dom. 340. and so dothe Illyricus him selfe in his defense of the Magd. Historie, thoughe he séeme to be of a contrarie iudgement in the Historie it selfe. Pantaleon in his Crono∣graphie placeth it Anno Do. 330. Some there be that say it was. 324. &c. So that to dif∣fer in the yere is no suche matter as deserueth any suche nippe. But if all circum∣stances

be well considered. It will fall oute that Eusebius himselfe confirmeth that which I haue set downe, touching the time of that Councell. For Constantine began his raigne according to Eusebius his Cronicle. Anno. 311. and this is noted also Cent. 4. fol. 62. But the Nicene Councell according to the sayde Centurie fol. 617. was holden Anno. 17. Constantini. So that it must néedes be by their owne collection Anno. 328. or very neare. But if we admitte Eusebius Cronicle for the beginning of Constantines raigne videlicet Anno. 311. it will fall out by Eusebius himselfe vpon the time which I haue appointed, for Lib. 4. de vita Constantini, he sayth that the Nicene Councell was holden Anno vicesimo imperij Const. So that it must néedes be Anno. 330. or in the begin∣ning. 331. at the vttermost, but vnder it cannot be.

Chap. 2. the. 18. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 70. Sect. 3.

And here you take so great a leape, that it is enough to breake the Archbyshops necke, to skippe at once. 300. yeares without anye testimonye of anye, eyther father or storie of faythe and credite which maketh once mention of an Archbyshop.

Io. Whitgifte.

This leape shall not hurt him one whit. For if there were no other testimonie but* 1.44 that Councell, it were of sufficient credite, and habilitie both to saue his necke, and his body from all kinde of harme. For séeing it is thus written in the sixth Canon of that Councell Antiqua consuetudo seruetur per Aegyptū, Libyam & Pentapolim, vt A∣lexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem, quia & vrbis Romae Episcopo parilis mos. est. &c. Let the auncient custome be kepte throughout Aegipt Libia and Pentapolis that the Byshop of Alexādria haue the gouernmēt of all these, for the Byshop of the citie of Rome hath the same order. Lykewise in Antioche and other Prouinces, let euery Churche reteine hir priuileges. But this is generally plaine that if any be made Byshop without the consent of his Metropolitane, the great Synod hath decreed that he ought to be no Byshop. And in the seuenth Canon, Quia consuetudo obtinuit & antiqua traditio, vt Aeliae* 1.45 Episcopus honoretur, habeat honoris consequentiam salua metropolis dignitate. For as muche as custome & auncient tradition hath bene such, that the Byshop of Ierusalem be ho∣noured, let him haue honour accordingly, not impairing the dignitie of the Metropolitane citie. It is plaine that Archbyshops and their office were long before the Councell of Nice, for else why should the Canon say, Let the olde custome be obserued. &c. And M. Foxe tom. 1. Pag. 12. reporting these two Canons sayth thus. First in the Councell of* 1.46 Nice which was the yeare of our Lorde. 340. and in the sixt Canon of the sayde Councell we finde it is so decreed that in euery Prouince, or Precinct some one Church & Byshop of the same was appoynted & set vp to haue the inspection & regiment of other Churches a∣bout him, Secundum morem antiquum, that is, after the auncient custome, as the wordes of the Councell do purport. So that the Byshop of Alexandria shoulde haue power of Libia, and Pentapolis in Egipt, for as much as the Byshop of the Citie of Rome hath the like or same manner. Nowe if I might as safely alleage the Canons of the A∣postles as you doe, then coulde I tell you that in the. 33. Canon (which Canon is allea∣ged as good authoritie against the supremacie of the Byshop of Rome) you shall finde Archbyshops. For that Canon setting an order among Bishops willeth the Byshops of euery nation to knowe their first or chiefe Byshop, and him to be taken for the head of them. The wordes of the Canon be these. Cuius{que} gentis Episcopos oportet sc〈1 line〉〈1 line〉re, quisnam* 1.47 inter ipsos primus sit, habere{que} ipsum quodammodo pro capite, neque sine illius voluntate quicquam agere insolitum. The Bishops of euery countrie must knowe who is chiefe among them, and must take him as it were for their head, neyther muste they doe any vnaccustomed thing without his will, and euery one must doe those things alone by him selfe which belong to his parishe and to the places that be vnder him: But neither must he do any thing without

the will of all them, for so shall concorde be kept, and God shall be glorified through our Lord in the holy Ghost. Now I pray you tell me what difference there is betwixt the first or chiefe Byshop, or head of the reste and Archbyshop: And least you shoulde thinke this Canon to be of small force (as suspected) you shall heare it almost verbatim repea∣ted and confirmed by the Councell of Antioche, In euery countrey it is conuenient that* 1.48 the Byshops should knowe that their Metropolitane Byshop beareth the care of the whole Prouince. VVherefore let all those that haue any businesse repaire to the Metropolitane ci∣tie. And for this cause it is thought good that he both shoulde excell in honour, and that the other Bishops do no vnaccustomed thing without him, according to the auncient rule appointed of our fathers, sauing those things onely which belong to their owne Dio∣cesse and to the places that are vnder them. For euery Byshop hath power ouer his owne pa∣rishe to rule them according to reuerence meete for euerye one, and to prouide for all the countrey that are vnder his citie, so that he ordeyne both Priests and Deacons and conteine all things with his iudgement. But further let him attempt nothing without the Metropoli∣tane, neither let the Metropolitane do any thing without the aduise of the other. You haue now the Canon of the Apostles confirming Archbyshops, and the Councell of Nyce & Antioche alleaging olde custome for them, and confirming them also. And a little be∣fore* 1.49 I declared vnto you out of M. Foxe that there were Archbyshops here in England Anno. 180. So that their fall cannot be very great.

Chap. 2. the. 19. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 70. Sect. 3.

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 y^e 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.

Io. Whitgifte.

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.

Chap. 2. the. 20. Diuision.

T. C. Page. 70. Sect. 3. 4.

But let vs heare what the Councell of Nyce hath for these titles.

In the sixth Canon mention is made of a Metropolitane Byshop, what is that to the Me∣tropolitane which nowe is? eyther to the name or to the office. Of the office it shall appeare after∣wardes. In the name I thinke there is a great difference betwene a Metropolitane Byshop, and Metropolitane of England or of all England. A Metropolitane Byshop was nothing else but a Byshop of that place, which it pleased the Emperor or Magistrate, to make the chiefe citie of the Diocesse or shire, aad as for this name, (*) 1.50 it maketh no more difference betwene Byshop and By∣shop, than when I say a Minister of London and a Minister of Nuington. There is no man that is well aduised, which will gather of this saying, that there is as great difference in preheminence betwene those two Ministers as is betwene London and Nuington. For his office and prehemi∣nence we shall see hereafter.

Io. Whitgifte.

For the full answering of this it shall be sufficient to set downe the iudgement of certaine of the learned writers of our time, touching the true meaning of that Canon* 1.51 of the Councell of Nyce, as the practise of the Church before that time, at that tyme, and since that time, haue expounded it.

M. Caluine in his Institutions Chap. 8. Sect 54. sayth thus. That euery prouince had among their Byshops an Archbyshop, And that the Councel of Nice did appoynt Patriarkes which should be in order and dignitie aboue Archbyshops: it was for the preseruation of discipline. M. Caluine sayth the Councell of Nyce did appoint Patriarkes which shoulde be in order and dignitie aboue Archbyshops. He sayth also that euery Prouince had a∣mong their Byshops an Archbyshop.

Il〈1 line〉〈1 line〉yricus in his cataloge testium veritatis speaking of this Councel sayth thus: Consti∣tuit* 1.52 quo{que} haec Synodus, vt singularum prouinciarum Metropolitani, potestatem habeant in suos E∣piscopos, sacerdotes & ecclesias, Alexandrinus in Aegypto, Antiochenus in Syria. &c. This Synode also appoynted that the Metropolitanes of euery prouince shoulde haue authoritie ouer their Byshops, Priestes, and Churches: The Byshop of Alexandria in Egypt, and the By∣shop of Antioche in Syria. &c. And in his booke that he entituleth a refutation of the in∣nectiue of Brunus against the Centuries, he doth interprete this Canon on this man∣ner. Here we see plainely that the Nicene Councell first in this Canon doth giue a primacie to the Metropolitane in euery Prouince, and doth make subiecte vnto him all the Byshops and Priestes of his prouince. Moreouer, that it maketh all the Metropolitane Byshops, as of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioche, and of other Prouinces altogether of equall authoritie a∣mongst them selues. And last, that the subiectes (if that I may so say) of an other, may not ap∣peale to any other Metropolitane, and after this manner the sixth Councell of Carthage doth vnderstande, alleage, and vrge the foresaid Canon in the former Epistle.

M. Foxe who hath very diligently, and faithfully laboured in this matter, and sear∣ched out the truth of it as learnedly, as I knowe any man to haue done, in his firste Tom. Pag. 11. writeth thus. Then followed the Councell of Nyce wherein it was decreed* 1.53 that throughout the vniuersitie of Christes Churche which was nowe farre spred ouer the world, certeine Prouinces and Precinctes to the number of foure were appoynted euery one to haue his head Churche and chiefe Byshop, called them Metropolitanes or Patriarkes to haue the ouersight of such Churches as did lye about him: and Pag. 12. he speaketh to the same effecte as it may appeare in his wordes which I haue before recited. And in the same Page he saith: VVherefore as we must needes graunt the Byshop of Rome to be called a Metropolitane or an Archbyshop by the Councell of Nyce: so we will not greatly sticke in this also, to haue him numbred with Patriarkes or Primates. &c.

But the very wordes of the Canon it selfe doth condemne you of a great ouersight,* 1.54 For this is the Canon, antiqua consuetudo seruetur per Aegyptū Libyam & Pentapolim: ita vt Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem &c. Let the auncient custome be kept throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, that the Byshop of Alexandria haue the go∣uernment of all these. &c. as is said before.

How say you nowe? is not this for the name and for the office also of our Metropoli∣tanes and Archbyshops? had not they iurisdiction of whole Prouinces, as ours haue?* 1.55 were not all other Byshops and Ministers of the Church subiect to them, as they be to ours? were not they Metropolitanes of Prouinces and countreys as ours be? And is this no more to differ, than a Minister of London and a Minister of Nuington? Truely I maruaile that you can be caryed vnto so manifest vntruthes, and palpable errors. But for the further declaration of the authoritie of a Metropolitane Byshop, though this which I haue said be sufficient, it may please you to take paines to peruse, in the* 1.56 Councell of Antioche the. 9. Canon. Per singulas prouincias Episcopos conuenit nosse Metropo∣litanum Episcopum, solicitudinem totius prouinciae gerere. In euerye prouince it is conuenient that Byshops should know, that the Metropolitane Byshop hath the caryng for of the vvhole prouince. &c. as is mentioned before, in the first Canon of the

Councell of Ephesus. It is also euident that the Metropolitane of the Prouince (for so is he there called) had authoritie ouer all the Bishops in the same prouince. But to make short bycause I shall haue other occasion to speake of this matter, M. Foxe in the trea∣tise before recited concludeth thus, VVhereby it is to be concluded, that to be false that Clement and Anacletus and Anicetus be reported (but falsly) to put a difference betwene Primates or Patriarkes, Metropolitanes, or Archbyshops, whereas by sufficient authoritie 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is to be proued, that in the olde Churche both Primates, first Byshops, Byshops of the firste seate, Patriarkes, Metropolitanes, Byshops of the mother Citie, and Archbyshops, were all one. First that Primates and Metropolitanes were both one, is before declared in the Ca∣nons of the Apostles, and by the Councel of Antioche aforesayd. The same doth Vilierius* 1.57 affirme in his booke de statu primitiuae ecclesiae. Fol. 26. and proueth it out of Socrates verye manifestly: that is, that Metropolitanes and Patriarkes were all one at the first. I am not ignorant but there is some controuersie among both the Ciuilians and Cano∣nistes whether a Metropolitane or an Archbyshop be all one or no, but in the ende this is the opinion of the most, so farre as I can reade or learne, that they be idem re, the same in déede, but differ nomine in name. For he is called an Archbyshop in respect of the other Byshops of whom he is the chiefe. But he is called Metropolitane in respecte of the Cities that be within his Prouince. But of Archbyshops and Metropolitanes more must be spoken hereafter.

Chap. 2. the. 20. Diuision.

T. C. Page. 70. Sect. vlt.

There are alleaged to proue the names of Archbishops, Patriarkes, Archdeacons, the. 13. 25. 26. and. 27. Canons of the Councell of Nice. For the. 25. 26. and. 27. there are no suche Canons of that Councell, and although there be a thirtenth Canon, there is no worde of Patriarke or Arch∣deacon there conteined. And I maruaile with what shame you can thrust vpon vs these (*) 1.58 coun∣terfeite Canons, which come out of the Popes mint: yea and which are not to 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e founde. Theodo∣rete saith, that there are but twentie Canons of the Councell of Nyce, and those twentie are in the 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ome of the Councels, and in those there is no mention of any Patriarke, Archbyshop, Archdeacon.* 1.59 Ruffine also remembreth. 22. Canons, very little differing from those other twentie, but in length, & in none of those are founde any of these names of Archbishop, Archdeacon, or Patriarke, and it is as (a) 1.60 lawfull for M. Harding to allcage the. 44. Canon of the Councell of Nyce to proue the Su∣premacie of the Pope of Rome, as it is for M. Doctor Whitgifte to alleage the. 25. 26. 27. to proue the name of Archbyshop, Archdeacon, Patriarke: for they are all of one stampe and haue lyke au∣thoritie.

Io. Whitgifte.

I will not greatly sticke in the defense of those Canons, the fixth & the seuenth Canō do sufficiently verifie all that I haue alleaged out of the other, as is declared not onely* 1.61 by the words of the Canons, but by the iudgement of those, whose learning & Religion was neuer as yet stained. I know that there is no small controuersie about the num∣ber of the Canons of that Synode. In the booke of the Coūcels there are only twentie, in Ruffine. 22. Athanasius in an Epistle that he (as some thinke) with the other By∣shops of Egypt writte to Marcus Byshop of Rome (if any credite is to be giuen vnto* 1.62 that Epistle) writeth that there were first. 80. and afterwards the same brought into 70. Canons. Isodorus in his preface to the Councell, sayth that in the decrées of Pope Iulius, there is mention made of. 70. Canons, so that for the number of the Canons there is great difference in the writers.

Concilium Arelatense the second, Canon the. 24. doth recite a Canon of the Councell of Nice, touching infamous libels, which is not to be founde among the. 20.

Hierome in his preface vpon the booke of Iudith sayth that the Councell of Nice did* 1.63 recken that booke in the number of the holy scriptures, and yet there is no such thing to be founde among those. 20. Canons.

Ambrose Lib. 10. the Epistle. 82. attributeth another Canon to the Councell of Nice* 1.64 concerning second Mariages in clarkes, I could recite more Canons alledged by good writers out of that Councell, which are not to be founde in those. 20. or. 22. but it shall not néede.

Wherefore though I haue alleaged moe Canons than are to be founde in the vo∣lume of Councels: yet I haue done nothing which is straunge, neither haue I allea∣ged any Canon that is not agréeable to the sixth and seuenth, wherof there is no doubt: and according to the true meaning of those two Canons, as they be interpreted by the* 1.65 best learned. And in very déede, the. 25. 26. 27. Canons by me alleaged are the verye same with the. 6. &. 7. differing onely in number, wherin I followed the author that so placed them. And in the. 13. Canon the name of Archbyshop is added, wherof more shal be spoken hereafter (God willing).

M. Hardings. 44. Canon is plaine repugnant to the sixth Canon, and therefore with∣out all doubt a counterfeite. But the Canons that I haue alleaged agrée both with the sixth and seuenth, and therefore not vnlike to be truely attributed to that Councell, in these poyntes wherein I haue alleaged them.

Chap. 2. the. 21. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 71. Sect. 1.

I feare greatly some craftie dissembling Papist had his hand in this booke, who hauing a great deale of rotten stuffe, which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 could not vtter vnder his owne name, being already 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉oste, brought it vnto the author hereof (*) 1.66 which hath vpon his credit wythout further examination set it to sale. Peraduenture you will thinke scorne to be censured and reprehended of a poore minister of the countrey, and therefore I will turne you ouer for your lesson in this behalfe vnto the Byshop of Salisburie in his replie against M. Harding touching the article of the Supremacie.

Io. Whitgifte.

Feare not I warrant you, I haue alleaged nothing which I am not hable by suffi∣cient testimonie to proue, that I haue read my selfe. And therefore your surmise is but grounded vpon your owne practise.

Whatsoeuer the Byshop of Salisbury sayth in his reply against Harding touchyng the Canon alleaged by him is most true, and I doe most willingly acknowlenge it so to be, neither doe I take any Canon of that Councell as vndoubtedly tru〈1 line〉〈1 line〉, but these, 20. specified in the first Tome of Councels, the other I haue onely mentioned as 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉∣ble, bicause they agrée with them, and yet all the Canons that I haue alleaged, be 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉∣tant in print and the booke is commonly to be solde, and therefore I haue not receiued them of any other.

Chap. 2. the. 22. Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 66. Sect. 3.

Ambrose also that olde and learned father, both alloweth the name* 1.67 and office of an Archbyshop, Lib. de dignitate Sacerdotum. cap. 5.

T. C. Pag. 71. Sect. 2.

If (*) 1.68 all shoulde be allowed of that S. Ambrose alloweth of, then besydes other thyngs which he holdeth corruptly, the mariage of the Ministers should go very hard: but it is worthy to be ob∣serued wyth what wordes Ambrose doth allowe of the Archbyshop, that all men may vnderstande,* 1.69 howe lowe it goeth wyth M. Doctor, for his defence of the Archbyshop: and how the Archbyshop is so out of credit, that there cannot be gotten any to be suertie for his honestie. Ambrose complay∣ning of the Ministers or Byshops in those dayes sayth, if a man aske them who preferred them to be Priests, answere is made by and by that the (a) 1.70 Archbyshop for an hundred shillings ordeined me Byshop, to whome I gaue an hundred shillings that I myghte get the fauour to be Byshop, whych if I had not giuen I had not bene Byshop: and afterwarde he saythe that this greeued him, that the Archbyshop ordeyned Byshops carnally or for some carnall respect, and this is all the allowance that Ambrose sheweth of an Archbyshop. Your Archbyshop taketh all things in good part, so that his very dispraise he expoundeth to his commendation.

Io. Whitgifte.

I know no man whose writings and workes are so perfect (the writers of the Ca∣nonical scriptures excepted) that all things in their bookes are to be allowed. But God forbyd that we should therefore reiect that which they haue well and truely spoken: you will doe little for Ambrose if you will not allowe him for an historicall witnesse of that which was in his tyme, this is therefore a shifting answere, but nothing com∣mendable. It euidently appeareth by that place, that in his tyme there were Archby∣shops, for what though he reproue the abuse of some Archbyshops in ordeyning By∣shops & Ministers for monie, doth he therefore disalowe, either the name or the office? Nay this is rather to be concluded, that there were Archbyshops in Ambroses tyme, which had authoritie to ordeine Bishops, bycause Ambrose doth reproue suche Arch∣byshops as for carnall respects ordeined Byshops.

Your vndutifull and arrogant frumpes and scoffes I passe ouer. It séemeth by your so oft vsing them, that you are afraide, least you should be taken for a modest Chri∣stian.

Chap. 2. the. 23. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 71. Sect. 3.

And there is great (*) 1.71 likelyhoode, that the Archbyshop which Ambrose maketh mention of was no other than he which for the time ruled the action wherin Byshops were ordeyned, and after the action ended, had no more authoritie than the rest.

Io. Whitgifte.

If you had read any auncient storie or father: yea if you had but perused M. Cal∣uines Institutions the. 8. Chapter, or any writer intreating of this matter, you would neuer haue vttered this vaine coniecture, nor shewed so manifest a token of greate ignorance, and no reading. For it shall appeare by sufficient testimonie, that neyther the name nor office of an Archbyshop was any thing at all straimge in this time. And the authors of the Centuries: Cent. 4. can tell you that Ambrose himselfe was Metro∣politanus* 1.72 plurium coniunctarum ecclesiarum administratione fungens, A Metropolitane gouer∣ning many Churches adioyning together.

Your coniecture that this Archbishop should be no other, than he which for the time ruled the action, wherin Byshops were ordeined and after the action ended, had no more authoritie than the rest, is a méere phansie of your owne, contrarie to all authoritie, and withoute any grounde or similitude of reason, and yet you often repeate it, and make it the foundati∣on of this your building. But let vs heare your coniectures.

Chap. 2. the. 24. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 71. Sect. 4.

And I am moued so to thinke, First bicause it is not like, that one onely ordeyned Byshops, be∣ing contrarie to the olde Canons of the best Councels: but that there were other, and that this whō Ambrose calleth Archbyshop, did gather the voyces. &c.

Io. Whitgifte.

I haue shewed before, that it was not so strange at this time for the Byshop alone to ordeine Ministers. And yet Ambrose in this place signifieth that the people had* 1.73 somewhat to doe in this matter, for he calleth them populum nugacem & indoctum, qui talem sibi asciuerunt sacerdotem: a people that trifeleth and is vnlearned, that hath gotten vn∣to them such a priest. But I pray you where is now your distinction betwixt election & ordination? For Ambrose speaketh in this place of ordeyning and not of electing. If

you wyll néedes so distinguishe them that they maye not bée at any tyme, nor in any place confounded, then haue you answered youre selfe here, and wyth one coniecture ouerthrowne an other. But howesoeuer it is, coniectures can not pre∣uayle agaynst so manyfest a truthe, being so silly coniectures. For tell mée where you euer redde that he was called an Archbishop that did only gather the voyces, or that this name was attributed to any during the action only, and no longer. This is ve∣rie newe Diuinitie vnhearde of in any good Authour that I haue readde, or can heare of.

Chap. 2. the. 25. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 71. Sect. 5.

Secondly, bycause it was verie vnlyke that there was any absolutely aboue S. Ambrose in those partes where he complayneth of euill bishops or ministers made.

Io. Whitgifte.

Why, to whom or for whom did Ambrose write this booke? for his owne pro∣uince or Diocesse only? therein are you deceyued, that you thinke Ambrose to haue written this booke for his owne Prouince onely, when he writte it to profite the whole Churche, as it may appeare in the fyrst Chapter of that Booke. Neither doth he complaine of suche euill Bishoppes or ministers as were vnder him (for then should he haue complayned of himselfe, béeyng theyr Metropolitane) but of suche he complayneth, as were in other places and Prouinces, as may be séene by these wordes of his. Ita vt videas in Ecclesia passim, quos non merita sed pecuniae ad Epis∣copatus* 1.74 ordinem prouexerunt, So that a man maye see euery where in the Churche suche as are promoted to the order of a Bishop, not by desertes but by money, and therefore this coniecture is soone answered.

Chap. 2. the. 26. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 71. Sect. 6.

Thirdly, for that Ambrose in an other place (which you after cite) deuidyng all the Church in∣to the cleargie and laytie, dothe subdeuide the cleargie into Byshoppes, Elders, and Deacons, and therefore it is not lyke, that there was any which had any continuall function of archebyshoppe: But as he was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or leader of the daunce which commeth fyrst, and after commyng in agayne in the seconde or thyrde place, is no more so called, so that bishop was called Arche∣bishop, which for the time present did gather the voyces of the rest of the bishops, which he by and by layde downe, with the dissoluyng of the meetyng. And that thys is not my coniecture only, that there was no ordinarye or absolute Archebishop (*) 1.75 let the Centuries be seene (a) 1.76 whych alledge that place of Ambrose to proue that the office of an archebishop was not then come into the Churche, which was foure hundred yeares after Christ, and more also.

Io. Whitgifte.

This is a dauncing deuise in déede, withoute any shadow of truthe, as it maye appeare by that whiche already is alleadged, and shall do more and more by that which followeth. You are maruellous circumspect in your quotations least you shoulde be tripped, and therefore you saye let the Centuries be seene, but you tell not where. Surely you doe verie vntruely reporte the Centuries, for I haue redde them where they doe alleadge that place of Ambrose, and there is not to be founde any suche matter, but the cleane contrarie, as is to be séene in that place* 1.77 by you alleadged of the fourth Cent. the wordes be these: Episcopi & Metropolitani dicebantur à praecipuis seu primarijs ciuitatibus, sicut Basilium Metropolitanū Capadocū, Zozome∣nus vocat lib. 3. cap. 16. Et Archiepiscopi, qualem Seleuciae fuisse Simeonem, idem retulit lib. 2. cap. 8. Patriarcha, totius alicuius prouinciae diceba〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ur Episcopus, vt Socrates indica〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 Lib. 5. cap. 8.

Bishoppes and Metropolianes were named of the chiefe and princip〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ll Cities, as Zozo∣menus calleth Basile the Metropolitane of Cappadocia, lib. 3. cap. 16. and Archebishoppes, suche as he reporteth that Simeon was of Seleucia lib. 2. cap. 8. Patriarke of some whole prouince was called a Bishop, as Socrates sheweth lib. 5. cap. 8. Wherefore it is too much boldnesse in you to auouche so manyfest vntruths. Neyther is it any maruel though you quote not the places, for forgerie séeketh corners.* 1.78

And although that whiche hath bin hytherto alleadged out of the Councells of Nice, and Antioche, with the iudgemente of so manie learned men interpretyng the same, might serue to perswade any reasonable man, that the office and name of Archebishoppe and Metropolitane is bothe of greate antiquitie and not for one action onely, or a dauncyng office (as you woulde haue it) but fixed and permanent: yet bycause I haue to doe wyth quarellers, before I goe any further in confuting, I will 〈◊〉〈◊〉 downe the iudgement of other aunciente and famous wryters also, who allowe bothe of these names and offices: And fyrste I will recite suche as haue the names expressed with the offices, then suche as speake of the very thyng it sel〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e withoute the names. I will begin with Councels.

The Councell of Nice, as you haue hearde, hath the name of Metropolitane,* 1.79 and dothe limitte vnto 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ym certaine Prouinces, to gouerne and take the care of. It hathe bin declared that bothe M. Caluine, Illyricus, M. Foxe, and others doe ac∣knowledge the names and office of Patriarkes and Archbishoppes. &c. in the same Canon to be conteyned. Neyther doe they, nor any other learned wryter denie these names and offices to haue bene in the primitiue Churche, and that fixed to certayne places and persons, not mouable by actions, nor practised by course. Lykewyse you haue hearde, howe that Councell by this clause Secundùm morem antiquum, according to the auncient custome, doth signifie that these names and offices haue bene in the Churche of long tyme, or else it woulde not haue bin saide to be an olde custome.

Moreouer, the nynthe Canon of the Councell of Antioche before alledged is* 1.80 most playne and euident, both for the name and the thing, together with the long continuance of them in the Churche.

The. 20. Canon of the same Councell of Antioche sayeth directly, that no Bi∣shoppes* 1.81 may call a seuerall Councell withoute the consente of theyr Metropo∣litanes.

In the sixth and. 37. Canons Concilij Arelatensis, mention is made of the Me∣tropolitane,* 1.82 of his authoritie in ordering of bishoppes, and of the authoritie of his Synode.

The lyke bothe for the name and the matter also, touchyng ordeynyng of* 1.83 Byshoppes is in the twelsth Canon of the Councell of Laodicea.

In the seconde Councell of Carthage in the twelfthe Canon it is euident, that there was a Primate in euerye Prouince, and that withoute his commaunde∣ment it was not lawfull for any to bée ordeyned Bishop.

In the. 13. and. 17. and diuers other Canons of the general Councell of Carchage* 1.84 as it is in the Gréeke copie the authoritie of the Primate is also expressed.

In the Councell of Chalcedon the name of Archebishoppe is sundrye tymes v∣sed: Flauianus is there called Archebishop of Constantinople, Dioscorus Archebishop of Alexandria and one Atticus bishoppe of Nicopolis, dothe call the saide Dioscorus Archi〈1 line〉〈1 line〉piscopum nostrum, our Archebishop. Leo is called Archebishop of Rome. &c.

Of the Councels that folowed there is no doubte, and it were but superflu∣ous for mee to stande in reciting of them, and therfore thys shall suffise for the Councels, to shew that bothe the name of Metropolitane or Archbishop, and also the authoritie is not vnhearde of in the Churche of Christ, or a flitting or slyding office.* 1.85

Nowe to the fathers and stories. Epiphanius Lib. 2. tom. 2. haeri. 68. calleth one Peter Archebishoppe of Alexandria. And that it maye fully appeare, that it was bothe a continuall office and of greate authoritie and iurisdiction, I will sette towne his woordes.

Et Meletius quidem in carcere detentus erat vnà cum praedictis Martyribus, ac Petro Alexan∣driae Arc〈1 line〉〈1 line〉iepiscopo. &c. And Meletius truely was kepte in pryson togyther with the forena∣med Martyrs, and Peter the Archbishop of Alexandria: and Meletius seemed to excell the other bishops of Aegypt, for he had the seconde place after Peter in his Archbishoprike, as being vnder him to helpe him, and looking to Ecclesiasticall matters vnder him: For this is the custome, that the Byshoppe of Alexandria hathe the Ecclesiasticall gouernmente of all Aegypte, Thebais, and Mareota, and Libya, and Ammonica, and Mareotis, and Penta∣polis.

In the same leafe he calleth this Peter Archbyshop thrée times. This Peter ly∣ued in the yeare of our Lorde thrée hundred and foure, twentie yeres at the least be∣fore* 1.86 the Councell of Nice.

The same Epiphanius in the same Booke and Tome baere. 69. writeth thus: Quotquot enim Ecclesiae in Alexandria catholicae Ecclesiae sunt, sub vno Archiepiscopo sunt. All the Churches that are Catholike Churches in Alexandria, are vnder one Archeby∣shoppe. And a little after he calleth Meletius Archebyshoppe of Aegypte, but yet sub∣iecte to Alexander the Archebyshoppe of Alexandria, and all this was before the Coun∣cell ot Nice.

What can be spoken more aptely, and more playnely to my purpose? And if T. C. will cauill at the authoritie of the authour (whyche is the poorest shifte that can bée, especially when the authour is so generally allowed) then for breui∣ties sake, I doe referre hym to the Epistle of Ianus Cornarius prefixed before this Booke, and to that whiche after warde I haue alledged in his defense out of the Centuries.

Athanasius was called Archebyshoppe of Alexandria: and that it may appeare that it was not a bare title, but an office of Gouernment, you shall finde these wordes in his second Apologie:

Iscbaras quidam, vt nequaquam clericus, ita moribus improbissimus conatus est sui pagi insu∣las decipere, iactans sese clericum esse. Id vbi resciuisset eius loci Presbyter, mibi tum Eccle∣sias* 1.87 perlustranti renunciauit: ego igitur. &c. A certaine man named Ischaras, as hee was no Clearke, so was hee most wicked in manners, who wente aboute to deceyue the yles of his precincte, boasting that hee was a Clarke: when the Prieste of that place vnderstoode thereof, hee tolde it vnto mee, when I was visiting my Churches, so I sente the same man togyther wyth Macharius the Prieste to fetche vnto mee Ischaras, whome when they founde sicke in his chamber, they commaunded hys father to warne hys sonne, that hee attempted no suche thing as was reported of him. And after in the same place followeth Ischaras Letters of submission to Athanasius. In the same Apologie there are Letters of submission written by Arsennius Byshoppe of Hipsell, and the Ministers and Deacons of the same Diecesse to Athanasius: the begin∣ning of the Letters is this: Et nos quoque diligentes pacem & vnanimitatem cum ecclesia ca∣tholica, cui tu per Dei gratiam praefectus es, volensque ecclesiastico Canoni, pro veteri instituto, subijci, scribimus tibi (Papa dilecte) promittimusque in nomine Domini nos deinceps non commu∣nicaturos cum schismaticis. &c. And we also louing peace, and concord with the Catholike Churche ouer whiche thou arte by the grace of God appoynted, and willing accordyng to the olde custome to be subiecte to the Ecclesiasticall Canon, write to thee (louing father) and in the name of the Lorde promise, that wee hences orth will not communicate with the Schismatikes.

By this it is playne that Athanasius had great iurisdiction ouer many Byshops, and other Ministers, and ecclesiasticall persons. Againe in the same Apologie men∣tion is made of an Archbyshop.

In the same Booke the Priestes and Deacons of the Churches of Mareo∣ta, in an Epistle that they writte to the Synode, besydes that they call A∣thanasius, Episcopum nostrum, oure Byshoppe, they shewe that hée vsed to visite the Churche solemnlye accompanyed. Theyr wordes are woorthe the no∣tyng, and bée these folowyng: Vtpote qui non longis finibus ab Episcopo diste∣mus,

& comites in lustranda Marioteei cohasimus, nunquam enim ille solus visitandi causa iti∣nera obire solet: sed comites secum trabere, Presbyteros & Diaconos & non paucos ex plebe. Bicause we dwell not farre from the Byshoppe, and we accompanied him whilest he visited Mario∣tes, for he is neuer wont alone to take iourneyes in visitations, but to take companions with him, Priestes and Deacons, and many of the people. And his own wordes a little before that Epistle speaking of these Priestes, and Deacons, be these: Et mecum Prouincias lustrabant, And they visited the Prouinces with me. Whereby also it is euident, that he had a large iurisdiction, and that he did visite his Prouinces. The same Athanasius in that. Apologie, declaring what this place called Mariotes is, sayth: Mariotes ager est in Alexandria, quo in loco nunquam fuit Episcopus: imo ne Chorepiscopus quidem, sed vniuer sae e∣ius loci Ecclesiae Episcopo Alexandrino subiacent: tamen vt singuli pagi, suos presbyteros habeant. Mariotes is a territorie of Alexandria, where there was neuer Byshop, no not so muche as a Byshops deputie, but all the Churches of that place are vnder the Byshop of Alexandria, yet so that euery village haue their Priestes.

In his Epistle Ad solitariam vitam degentes, he calleth Lucius Metropolitane of Sardi∣nia, and Dionysius Metropolitane of Mediolane.

Socrates Lib. 5. cap. 8. sayth, that in the Councell of Constantinople, They confirmed* 1.88 the faythe of the Nicene Councell, and appointed Patriarkes, assigning their Prouinces, that the Byshoppes of one Dioces shoulde not intermedle in other Churches (for this before was indifferently vsed by reason of persecution) And to Nectarius was allotted Megalopo∣lis, and Thracia. &c.

The same is to be séene in the Canons of that Councell of Constantinople.* 1.89

I omitte Iustinian the Emperoure, who so often mentioneth these names and offices in his Constitutions. I also omitte that Illyricus calleth Cyprian Metropo∣litane of Carthage: and the fourthe Centurie, where Ambrose is called Metropoli∣tane, hauyng gouernmente of many Churches. Neyther shall I néede to repeate the places of Caluine, M. Foxe, M. Beza Lib. conf. cap. 5. or other late wryters iudge∣mentes, who directely confesse, that these names were vsuall in the Primitiue Churche, and that the office was permanente: for this that is spoken, maye suafice.

I will come to those Authours and places, where the office and iurisdiction is* 1.90 spoken of, though the name be not expressed.

Cyprian Lib. 4. Epist. 8. sayeth, that he hadde a large Prouince, Habet enim Nu∣midiam & Mauritaniam sibi cobaerentes, for it hathe Numidia and Mauritania annexed vnto it. And Gregorie Nazianzene in the Oration that he made in the commen∣dation of Cyprian sayeth, that he didde rule and gouerne not onely the Chur∣ches of Carthage or Affrike, sed & Hesperiae vniuersae: imò Orienti ferè ipsi ad finem vs∣que meridiei & Septentrionis: but of all Spayne, and almoste of the whole Easte, vnto the ende of the Southe and the Northe. And what was this else, but to bée an Arche∣byshop?

Eusebius Lib. 6. cap. 1. sayeth, that Demetrius was Byshop of the Parishes of Alex∣andria,* 1.91 and of Egypt, and this Demetrius liued Anno Domini. 191. Eusebius testifyeth there likewise that one Iulianus was before him in the same roume.

Athanasius in an Epistle that he writte De sentētia Dionysij Episcopi Alexand. contra Arri∣anos,* 1.92 affirmeth, ad Dionysium Alexandria▪ Episcopum curam etiam Ecclesiarum in Pentapoli su∣perioris Libyae pertinuisse, that vnto Dionysius Bishoppe of Alexandria the care of the Chur∣ches in Pentapolis of the higher Libya perteyned. And it is manyfeste in the same Epistle, that these Churches had their Byshoppe besydes. For Eusebius Lib. 7. cap. 26.* 1.93 writeth, that Basilides was Byshoppe of the parishes of Pentapolis while Dionysius lyued: so that it is euident that Dionyfius was an Archebyshoppe. And this is that Diony∣sius that is called Alexandrinus, whose workes be extante, and is one of the most an∣cient writers. The same Eusebius sayth, that Gregorie did gouerne the Churches throughout Pontus.

Sozomen. Lib. 7. cap. 19. sayth, that though there be many cities in Sythia; yet they* 1.94

haue but one bishoppe.

Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 11. testifyeth, that Amphilochius to whome the Metropolitane citie of Licaonia was committed to be gouerned, did also gouerne that whole countreye, and did driue from thence the heresie of the Messalians: And in the same Chapter we* 1.95 reade that Letoius gouernour of the Churches of Militia, burned Monasteries infec∣ted with that heresie: whiche declareth that Bishops had then greate authoritie in gouernment.

Aurelius Bishop of Carthage in the Councell of Affrike sayd, that he had the o∣uersyght and care of many Churches.

But what néede I labour so muche in a matter that can not be vnknowne to* 1.96 any that is of any reading, this therfore shall suffice bothe for the name and office of an Archebishop & Metropolitane. &c. against the vnlearned distinction that you haue vsed in answering S. Ambrose.

Chap. 2. the. 26. Diuision.

Auswere to the Admonition. Pag. 66. Sect. 5.

Sozomenus lykewyse Lib. 2. of his Ecclesiasticall historie cap. 8. calleth Symeon Archbishop of Seleucia, and Basile the greate Metro∣politane of Cappadocia. Lib. 3. cap. 16.

T. C. Page. 71. Sect. vlt.

Basill you saye, the great Metropolitane of Cappadocia. I haue shewed what the woorde Metropolitane signifyeth, and howe there was not then, suche a Metropolitane as wee haue now, and as the Admonition speaketh agaynst. You playe as he whithe is noted, as none of the wysest among the marchauntes, whyche thought that euery shippe that approched the hauen was his ship. For so you thinke that wheresoeuer you reade Metropolitane or Archebishoppe▪ foorthwith you thinke, there is your Metropolitane, or your Archebishop, where as it shall ap∣peare, that besydes the name, they are no more lyke, than a bishop with vs is lyke a minister.

Io. Whitgifte.

What this worde Metropolitane signifyeth, what office and iurisdiction he had, is before sufficiently declared, and may more at large appeare in the con∣stitutions of Iustinian. Lykewyse whether our Metropolitans in office any thing at all differ from them. Surely he that shall well consider your vnapte answeres and your vtopicall iestes, may thinke that you weare the liuerie of those marchantes you talke of, and may verie wel sayle in their ships.

Chap. 2. the. 27. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 72. Sect. 1.

I can not tel whether you would abuse your reader here with the fallation of the accent, by∣cause this worde great is so placed betwene Basile and Metropolitane, that it may be as well re∣ferred to the Metropolitane, as to Basill, and so you hauing put no comma, it seemeth you had as lieue haue your reader, reade great Metropolitane as great Basil. But that the simpler sort be not deceyued therby, it is not out of the way to let the reader vnderstande what a great Metropolitane this was, whiche appeareth, for that when he was threatned by the magistrate confiscation, of his* 1.97 goods, answered, that he was not afrayde of the threatnings, and that all his goodes were a very fewe bookes, and an olde gowne: suche were then those Metropolitanes, vnder whose shadowes M. Doctor goeth about to shroude all this pompe and princely magnificence of Archbishops.

Io. Whitgifte.

You search verie narowly when you misse not a comma, but you knowe what nugator signifieth. All men of learning can tell that Basile is in common speach called Basile the great. And yet if he were called great Metropolitan, the title might verie well agrée vnto him: for he had large and ample iurisdiction, being

bishoppe of Cappadocia, as Athanasius dothe also witnesse in his Epistle written to Palladius.

The contention is for the name and the office, not for the ryches, al〈1 line〉〈1 line〉houghe I thynke that there both are and haue bene Bishops in Englande as poore as Basile if they had 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉en taken so soone after they were placed in theyr bishoprikes, as Basile was nowe at this tyme.

Chap. 2. the. 28. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 72. Sect 2. 3. 4.

As for Symeon Archbishop of Sele〈1 line〉〈1 line〉cia, I will not denie, but at that time was the name of Archbishops. For then (*) 1.98 Satan had made thorough the titles of Archbishops, Pr〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ates, and Patriarches, as it were three staires, wherby Antichrist might clyme vp into his cursed seate, not∣withstanding there wanted not good decrees of godlie councelles which did strike at these proude names, and went aboute to keepe them downe. But the swelling waters of the ambition of dy∣uers, coulde not by any bankes be kept in, which hauing once broken out in certaine places, af∣terwardes couered almost the face of the whole earth.

This 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉deuour of godly men may appeare in the Councell of Carthage, which decreed, that the* 1.99 bishop of the fyrst seat shold not be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, eyther the chiefe of the priestes, or the hyghe priest, or any suche thing, by whiche woordes (any such thing) he shutteth out the name of Archbishop, and all such hau〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e titles.

The same decree also was made in the Africane councell, and if you saye that it was made a∣gainst* 1.100 the Pope of Rome, or to forbidde that any man should be called Archbishoppe, shewe me where ther was eyther bishop of Rome, or any other that euer made any such title or chal〈1 line〉〈1 line〉nge to be the generall Bishop of all at that tyme, when this councell of Carthage was holden, when as the first of those which did make any su〈1 line〉〈1 line〉h chalenge, was the bishop of Constantinople, which not∣withstanding (a) 1.101 chalenged not the preheminence first ouer all, but that he might ordeyne bishops of Asia, Pontus, Thracia, whiche were before appointed by theyr Synodes, and this was in the councell of Chalcedon, which was long after that councell of Carthage before remembred.

Io. Whitgifte.

It is before sufficiently declared, that these names and offices were allowed and confirmed by the Councell of Nice, and therefore not brought in by Satan. Moreouer this Symeon Archbishop of Seleucia, liued as it may appeare by most Chro∣nicles aboute the tyme of the Councell of Nice, and was martyred by Sapores the king of Persia.

Which peraduenture if you had vnderstoode, you woulde not haue burste oute into this heate of woordes, for then might you haue made the same answere to Am∣brose his authoritie which was long after him, & so kept secret your owne fond deuise.

The Councell of Carthage and also of Affrike was at that tyme, wherein the Bishop of Rome by his Legates didde clayme the right of hearyng of appeales, from whome soeuer they were made, and for his purpose alleaged a counterfait Canon of the Councell of Nice. Wherefore it is moste certayne, that then th〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 Bishop of Rome beganne at the leaste to clayme the super〈1 line〉〈1 line〉oritie ouer all Chur∣ches, and to take vpon hym as it were the name of vniuersall Byshoppe: and ther∣fore this canon is made against him.

And that thys is true, the Epistle of the Councell of Affrike written to Cele∣stinus, then Bishoppe of Rome declareth. For after that they haue 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉esyred hym that he woulde admit no suche appeales, nor absolue such as they should excom∣inunicate, bycause that was to doe agaynst the decrées of the Councell of Nice, and to abridge them of their iurisdiction and libertie: they adde and saye:

Both bicause this priuiledge hath bin taken from the Church of Aphrike by no consti∣tution of the fathers, and also the decrees of the councell of Nice hath committed bothe the inferiour Clearkes and the Bishops themselues vnto their Metropolitanes: for it was di∣scretely and rightly consydered, that all matters are to bee determined in the places, where they began. and that no prouince can lacke the grace of the holie ghost, wherby the prieste of Christe may be hable, both wisely to see, and also constantly to mainteyn the right: espe∣cially

for that it is lawfull, for euery man that shall mislike the discretion of the iudges, to appeale either to particular councels within the same prouince, or else to an vniuersal coun∣cell: vnlesse perchaunce some man will thinke, that God is able to inspire the triall of iu∣stice into one man alone, and will not inspire the same into a greate number of priests meeting togyther in Councell. And how may such beyond sea iudgemente be thoughte good, wherevnto the persons of the witnesses which in triall of truth are thought necessary either for that they be women, or for the infirmitie of their age, or for many other incident letts, cannot be brought. Now that any should be sent abroade as it were from your ho∣linesse side, we find it not decreed in any Councell. And a little after, And send you not any your Clerks hither to execute iustice at any mans request, least we seeme to bring the smokie puffe of the world into the Church of Christ. &c.

Whereby it is plaine, that they only prohibite that title of vniuersalitie and of generall iurisdiction, that the Byshop of Rome now claymed and at that time began to claime ouer all Churches, and not the names of superioritie due vnto any in their owne prouince. For that perogatiue of iurisdiction ouer. Byshops and other mini∣sters they acknowledge to be due to the Metropolitane, as it is euident in the words of that same epistle, which I haue recited.

Moreouer it is manifest that this name Archbishop was then vsed, and after that* 1.102 time continued and not disalowed by any, as it may appeare by that which hath bin hitherto written. And this name Primate (whiche is as hautie as the name of Arch∣byshop) is allowed euen in that councell of Carthage, as may appeare in the. 13. 17. and. 23. canons, as it is in the Gréeke copye. Wherfore in my opinion M. Foxe doth aptly decide this controuersie, in that learned treatise of his firste tome, where he speaking of this same Councell and of this Canon which you haue recited, (for I sup∣pose you did borrow it there) signifyeth in effect that neyther the name of Primate, Archbyshop or Metropolitane, is by that Canon prohibited, but rather these ambitious titles of uniuersall Byshop, prince of all priests, head of all priests, and suche like. Whiche names séeme to derogate authoritie both of iurisdiction and office from all other prie∣stes, and therfore alittle after he saith. Thus then these titles aboue recited, as Byshop, Metropolitane, Byshop of the first seate, Primate, Patriarke, Archbyshop, that is to meane, chiefe byshop or headbishop 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉o other byshops of his prouince, we denie not but were then in old time applyed and might be applyed to the Byshop of Rome, like as the same also were applyed to other Patriarks in other chiefe cities and prouinces. And in the same place, af∣ter he 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉athe declared this title (summus orbis Pontifex) as it is now vsed in Rome to be vnhard of in the primitiue time of the Churche, that is fiue hundred yeares after Christ. He saith the like is to be affirmed also of other presumptuous titles of like ambiti∣on, as the head of the vniuersall Church, the vicar of Christ in earth, Prince of priests, with such like, which be all new found termes. &c. so that it is plaine, that these general titles of vniuersall iurisdiction ouer all, and not the particular names of superioritie ouer seuerall Churches, is by this Councell forbidden.

Thys farther appeareth in the fyfth Councell of Constantinople where Iohn not* 1.103 being content with the name of Patriarke of Constantinople would néedes haue it ratifyed by the councell that he should be called Oecumenicus Patriarcha, that is vniuer∣sall Patriarch. Against which title not of Patriach but of vniuersall Patriarch, both Pela∣gius and Gregory at that time byshops of Rome, the one succéeding the other, did ear∣nestly write, and this is the true meaning of that Canon.

Ignatius immediatly after the Apostles time calleth a Byshop principem sacerdo∣tum,* 1.104 the Prince of priests, or chiefe Priest: and so doth Ambrose in the fourth ad Ephe∣sios. But this they do not attribute to any one as hauing vniuersall authoritie ouer all, but to euery byshop in respect of such as be vnder him.

Touching the byshop of Constantinople, your are deceyued very muche, and de∣clare in hym the same vnskilfulnesse that you haue done in the other. For it is euident that he required thys name and title of vniuersall Patriarch ambitiously as béeing desirous to be superiour to all the Patriarchs in the worlde. This to be true* 1.105 is manifest by the decrée of Pellagius Distinct. 99. Canon Nullus. And by the Epistles of

Gregory written purposely of that m̄atter. Neyther do I reade in any approued author to the contrary.

Agayne you are deceiued greatly in the Councell. For though the Byshoppe of Constantinople did chalenge in the Councell of Chalcedon the righte of ordering Metropolitanes in those places, yet doth he not in that Councell chalenge the title of vniuersall Patriarch, whiche notwithstanding was offered to the Byshoppe of Rome in that Councell of Chalcedon, but first giuen to the Patriarch of Constanti∣nople, in the seconde Councell of Constantinople: or as it is termed in the booke of* 1.106 Councels, the fifte, bycause it was the fiftegenerall Councell, as it may appeare in the same councell. Moreouer whereas you say, that the Byshop of Constantinople re∣quired that he might ordeyne Byshops in Asia. &c. if you marke the words diligently, you shall perceiue that he re quired therin nothing but according to the sixth Canon of the Councell of Nice, whiche is also there alledged for that purpose: but I haue shewed before how the Byshop of Rome made this chalenge of vniuersalitie in ef∣fect, and indéede, euen in that Councell of Carthage, where this Canon by you al∣leadged is, and therefore I néede not stand any longer vpon this poynt.

Chap. 2. the. 29. Diuision.

Ansvver to the Admonition Page. 66. Sect. 6. 7. 8. &. Page. 67. Sect. 1. 2.

Damasus calleth Stephen an Archdeacon.* 1.107

Hierome in his epistle ad Euagrium hath this name Archdeacon.

Sextus in his decrees saithe that Laurence the Martyr was an Archdeacon.

Sozomenus lib. 7. cap. 19. maketh mention of an Archdeacon reading the scriptures.

Socrates in the seuenth booke of his ecclesiasticall historie speaketh of one Timothie an Archdeacon.

T. C. Pag. 72. Sect. 5. 6. 7.

For to proue y^e lawfulnesse of the name of an Archdeacon, the antiquitie, the necessitie of it, the testimonies of (a) foure are brought, which neyther speake of their lawfulnes nor of their necessitie,* 1.108 and they say not indeede so much as god saue them, and two of these witnesses are Popes, whereof the first and best, ordayned that if the Metropolitane did not fetch his pall at the Apostolike see of Rome within three moneths after he be consecrated, that then he should lose his dignitie, as (b) 1.109 Gratian witnesseth in the decrees that he ascribeth vnto Damasus.

I doubt not therefore that this is but a forger vpon whome you would father the Archdeacon: For that Damasus in whose place you put this forger liued Anno. 387. at what time the see of Rome had no such tyrannie as this and other things which are fathered of him do pretend. And if this be inough to proue Archdeacons I can with better witnesse proue subdeacons, Acoluthes, exorcists, lectors, ostiarios, these doth Ensebius make mention of, an (c) 1.110 auncienter writer than any you bring: and out of Ruffine, Theodorete, Sozomene, Socrates. &c. monkes almost in euery page, and herevpon it is more lawfull for me to conclude, that monkes, subdeacons, exorcists, aco∣luthes, ostiarij, lectores, are necessary ecclesiasticall orders in the Churche, as you conclude the ne∣cessitie of the Archdeacon.

I perceiue you care not whether the Archdeacon fal or no, that you bestow so little cost of him, and leaue him so nakedly. And if I would be but halfe so bold in (d) 1.111 comectures and diuinations as you are, I could say that this sleight handling of the Archdeacon, and sweating so much aboute the Archbyshop, is there vpon, that you would be loth to come from being Deane to be an Archdea∣con, and you liue in some hope of being Archbyshop: but I will not enter so farre: and surely for any thing that I see, you mighte haue trussed vp the Archbyshop as shorte as you do the Archdeacon, for they stād vpon one pinne, and those reasons which establish the one establish the other. Wher∣vpon also commeth to passe that all those reasons which were before alledged against the Archby∣shop, may be drawen against the Archdeacon.

Io. Whitgifte.* 1.112

My purpose in that place is (as you mighte haue séene if you woulde) to proue that the names of Archbyshops Archdeacon. &c. be not Antichristian

names, that is, names inuented by Antichriste, but most auncient, for those be my very words, & as I haue proued that to be most true in Metrapolitanes and Archbyshops, by shewing that they were in the Churche, before the Pope was Antichrist, so I do the like of Archdeacons. And where I haue brought in fiue wit∣nesses, you say I haue brought in fower. Damasus, Hierome, Sixtus, Sozomene and So∣crates be in number fiue, and of these fiue you haue answered only two, and that after your vsuall manner, by reiecting the Authors. What is falsely attributed to Dama∣sus in other matters is no answer to this, that he reporteth of Archdeacons, whiche also the third Centurie alledgeth as true. And though he were Byshop of Rome, yet was he a vertuous, learned, and godly Byshop. So was Sixtus in like manner, who liued Byshop of Rome Anno. 265. So that Damasus was neyther the first nor the best. For Sixtus was martyred for the Gospell, so was not Damasus. They speake as much for Archdeacons as I require, that is that their names were not inuen∣ted by Antichrist: and if there were then no such tyrannie in the Churche of Rome, as you here mislike, and yet this name in that Church, it is not like to be a tyrannicall name.

But I maruaile you will deale so barely in this matter, knewing that Hierome, who liued in Damasus his time, hathe this name Archdeacon oftner than twise or thrise. Without doubt you do not well consider what you write.

This Answer of yours was neuer as yet approued of any learned mā. For what if Eusebius make mention of Subdeacons, Acoluthes. &c. which were peraduenture profi∣table offices in the Church at that time, doth it therefore follow that it is vnlawfull to haue Archdeacons? I conclude no necessitie of the Archdeacon, but I conclude hys antiquitie, and bycause you cannot answer that, you fall to scoffing and vnséemely iesting as your manner is, and so do you shift off thrée of my witnesses.

Chap. 2. the. 30. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 72. lin. 2. &. Sect. 1.

Hauing therefore before proued the vnlawfulnesse of them, I will here set downe the differēce betweene those Archdeacons that were in times past, and those whiche are nowe, whereby it may appeare they are nothing like but in name.

They were no ministers as appeareth in (*) 1.113 Sozomene, ours are.

Io. Whitgifte.

What one reason haue you vsed to proue the vnlawfulnesse of them. If you meane such reasons as you haue against Archbyshops, they be fully answered.

Not one word is there in the seuenth booke and nineteenth Chapter of Sozome∣ne to proue that Archdeacons eyther then were not, or now may not be ministers. For all that he speaketh in that chapter is this. And this also is a strange thing in the Church of Alexandria, whiles the Gospells are a reading, the Byshop doth not rise vp, which I haue hard of others. This holy booke a Monke that is an Archdeacon readeth there, in other pla∣ces Deacons: in many Churches the priests only: but in principall feasts Byshops. Howe you can conclude that Archdeacons were not then ministers by any thing here spo∣ken, surely I know not, for if you meane, bycause he saith that in some churches only Priests did reade, you can no more thereof conclude that Archdeacons were then no Priests, than you may that they were no Deacons, or that Byshops be no Priestes, neyther is it necessary that they shoulde be nowe ministers, it is sufficiente if they be Deacons: yet may they be ministers and méete it is that they should so be, and you cannot proue the contrary.

Chap. 2. the. 31. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 73. Sect. 2.

They were tyed to a certaine Church, and were called Archdeacon of such a congregation or* 1.114 Church, ours are tyed to none, but are called Archdeacons of such a shire.

Io. Whitgifte.

There is no other words in that booke and chap. of Sozomene touching Archdea∣cons, than these whiche I haue before recited: what they make for your purpose let the reader iudge. Your Vrbanum Concilium is very obscure, for there is none such to be found in all the volumes of Councels. But to put you out of doubt, we haue no Arch∣deacons, but such as be tyed to one Church, though they haue the names sometimes of the Shire, wherein their iurisdiction lyeth.

Chap. 2. the. 32. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 73. Sect. 3.* 1.115

They were chosen by all the deacons of the Church where they be Archdeacons, ours are ap∣pointed by one man, and which is no Deacon.

Io. Whitgifte.

There can be no such custome gathered of Hieroms words in that place, only he vsing an example to declare what the manner of choosing their Byshop was in the Church of Alexandria saith, that they elected one from among themselues whome they placing in an higher roome called him a Byshop, as if the souldiers should choose their cap∣tayne, or Deacons should choose one of them whome they know to be painfull, and name him archdeacon. You can no more hereof conclude, that it was then vsuall for deacons to choose their Archdeacon, than you may that it was also vsual for souldiers to choose their captaine: neyther can you here by proue that our Archdeacons are not like vnto theirs (if this were true) no more than you can, that our Captaines are not like vnto theirs, bycause the Souldiers do not choose them. But what create matter is it, if they were then chosen by Deacons and be not so now? and doth not the Byshop ap∣poynt them and is not the Byshop more than a Deacon?

Chap. 2. the. 33. Diuision.* 1.116

T. C. Pag. 73. Sect. 4.

They were subiect to the minister of the word, ours are aboue them, and rule ouer them.

Io. Whitgifte.

There is not one word of Archdeacons in the fourtaenth Canon of the Councell of Nice, nor in the 20. after Ruffine, and therefore you do but abuse the reader. That which is in that place is spoken of Deacons onely, and is at this day obserued in this Church.

Chap. 2. the. 34. Diuision.* 1.117

T. C. Pag. 73. Sect. 5.* 1.118

It was counted to them great arrogancie if they preferred themselues to any minister or elder

of the Churche: ours will not take the best ministers of the Church as their equals. If therefore Archdeacons will haue any benefite by the Archdeacons of old time, it is meete they shoulde con∣tent themselues with that place which they were in.

Io. Whitgifte.

No such thing is in that epistle of Hierome: only he speaketh of deacons, touching that matter, whome he also she weth in the Church of Rome to haue bin in certaine points preferred before ministers, neyther is there one word of Archdeacons in that booke of Augustines, but only of Deacons. You must learne to make a distinction be∣twixt an Archdeacon and a Deacon, and not to make the reader beléeue that the au∣thors you quote in the margente, speake of Archdeacons, when they onely speake of Deacons. My witnesses how few so euer they be, are sufficiente to withstand thys cowardly assault of yours, wherein there is neyther strength nor truth.

Chap. 2. the. 35. Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 67. Sect. 3.

Augustine in his first booke de moribus ecclesiae Catholicae, maketh mention of* 1.119 Deanes, and their offices.

T. C. Pag. 73. Sect. 6.

As for the office of a deane, as it is vsed with vs it is therefore (*) 1.120 vnlawfull, for that he being minister, hath (*) 1.121 noseuerall charge or Congregation appointed wherein he may exercise his mini∣sterie, and (*) 1.122 for that he is ruler and as it were master of diuers other ministers in his Colledge, which likewise haue no seuerall charges of congregatiōs, and for that (which is most intollerable) both he himselfe oftentimes hauing a seuerall Church or benefice (as they call it,) is vnder the co∣loure of his deaneship absent from his Church, and suffereth also those that are vnderneath him, to be likewise absent from their Churches. And whereas M. Doctor alledgeth S. Augustine to proue this office to be auncient: indeede the name is there found, but besides the name, not one pro∣pertie of that deane which we haue. For Augustine speaking of the monks of those dayes, saythe that the money which they gate with the labor of their hands, they gaue to their deane, which did prouide them meate and drinke and cloth and all things necessary for them: So that their monkes shoulde not be drawen away from their studies and meditations, through the care of worldly things: So that this Deane which he speaketh of, was seruaunte and stewarde and cater to the Monks, and therefore only called Deane, bycause he was steward and cater to ten Monks. Now let it be seene what Augustines deane maketh for the deane which is theirs, and what faith and trust M. Doctor vseth, in reciting of the old fathers.

Io. Whitgifte.

All thys is but your owne sansies taken for principles and groundes. For fyrste it is vntrue that euery Minister muste of necessitie haue some seuerall* 1.123 charge, as I haue declared before. Secondly it is as vntrue, that a Deane hathe no seuerall charge or congregation, wherein to exercise his ministerie. For there is no Cathe∣drall Churche withoute a congregation and charge. The third that followeth, is buil∣ded of the same groundes that these two fyrste be, and may as well be spoken a∣gaynste the masterships of suche Colledges in the vniuersities, wherein any prea∣chers or ministers bée maynteyned. Whyche argueth that you meane the same to Colledges that you doe to Cathedrall Churches, and that you woulde haue ministers frée from subiection. Last of all, that whyche you say is most intel∣lerable, you speake withoute any tolerable reason: For Master Deane and hys Prebendaries do more good both in the Churche of Englande generally, and in

their seuerall Churches particularly, and take more paines in one moneth, than you and your companions (whereof some notwithstanding are contente with∣out doing any dutie at all, to enioy prebendes more than one) in one whole yeare. And if eyther Master Deane or the Prebendaries neglect their dueties, there be superiours and lawes to reforme them.

The place of Augustine proueth the name of a Deane: it proueth a College and societie, whereof he is Deane: it argueth a superioritie and gouernmente, for he saith they be called Decani, ideò quòd sint denis praepositi, Deanes, bycause they are set ouer tenne: it sheweth an office to care and prouide for them, and sée that they haue all thynges necessary: it declareth dayly exercise of praying and teaching: for he addeth thus. Conueniunt autem diei tempore extremo de suis quisque habitaculis, dum ad∣huc ieiuni sunt, ad audiendum illum patrem, & conueniunt ad singulos patres terna ad mini∣mum hominum milia: Nam etiam multò numerosiores sub vno agunt. They come togyther at night euery man from his lodging whilest yet they are fasting, to heare that father: and they* 1.124 come togyther to euery father, three thousand men at the least, for a greate meanie moe liue vnder one. &c.

Now sir if God of his singular goodnesse hathe to the greate and vnspeake∣able benefyte of his Churche, moued the harts of princes and men of wealth, so to indue suche places with possessions and reuenewes, that they hauing thynges necessary prouided for them, may bestow that tyme in studying, praying, prea∣ching, and other godly exercises, whiche these that Sainct Augustine speaketh of, did in labouring with their handes, is Master Deanes name or office euer the woorse? howsoeuer it pleaseth you to terme these companies, that Sainct Augu∣stine héere speaketh of: Yet were they Godly societies, and do very aptly set foorth the vtilitie, and the antiquitie of Churches and Colledges: the Deanes and Masters whereof, haue indéede the chiefe and speciall care of all externall things perteyning to them, whether it be landes, prouisions, or any thing else that is neces∣sary: And therefore the liker to Sainct Augustines Deane, and the place more aptly alledged to proue the antiquitie of this name and office. If Master Doctor should vse no more faith in reciting the Doctors than you do, I woulde he were whipped at the crosse in Cheape.

Chap. 2. the. 36. Diuision.

Ansvver to the Admonition. Pag 67. Sect. 4.

Nytherto Antichrist had not inuaded the Church of Rome. But what shoulde I trouble you with any more authorities? those that be learned may easily vnderstand that these names Metropolitane, Archbyshop, Archdeacon, Primate, Patriarke, and suche lyke, be most auncient and approued of the eldest, best, and worthyest Coun∣cells, fathers, and writers.

T. C. Pag. 73. Sect. 7.

And vnto the end that these testimonies might be more autenticall, and haue some waighte in them, Master Doctor addeth, that hitherto Antichrist had not inuaded the seate of Rome. You shall haue much a do to proue that Antichrist had not inuaded the sce of Rome, when your Cle∣ment Anaclete, Anicete, and Damasus wrote: nay it is most certayne, that then he had possessed it: but what is that to the purpose, although there was no one singular head appeared or lifted vp, yet corruptiō of doctrine & of the sacraments, hurtful ceremonies, dominion & pompe of y^e Cleargie, new orders, & functions of y^e ministerie, which were the hāds that pulled him, y^e feete which brought

him, the shoulders that lifted and heaued hym vp into that seat, were in the Church. Neither while you do thus speake, do you seeme to remember, that this monster needed not nine monethes, but al∣most nine hundred yeares, to be framed and fashioned, or euer he could with all his parts be brought to light. And althoughe the louer of this Antichristian building were not set vp: yet the foundati∣ons thereof being secretly and vnder the grounde laid in the Apostles time: you might easily know that in those times that you spake of, y^e building was wonderfully aduaunced & growen very high, and being a very daungerous thing to ground any order or pollicie of the Churche vpon men at all, which in deede ought to haue their standing vpon the doctrine and orders of the Apostles, I wyll shew, what great iniurie M. Doctor doth, to send vs for our examples and patterns of gouernment to these times which he doth dicette vs vnto.

Io. Whitgifte.

These be but wordes, the same mighte be also spoken of the Apostles times. For* 1.125 enen then Paul speaking of Antichrist sayd, Nam mysterium nuncagit iniquitatis, for the mysterie of iniquitie doth already worke: And S. Iohn sayd that there then began to be many Antichristes: but doth this detract any thing from the truth taught in that time? or shall we therfore refuse to take such examples of it, as is conuenient for our time? There is no man of learning and modestie which will without manifest proofe con∣demne any order, especially touching the gouernment of the Churche, that was vsed and allowed during the time of the primitiue Church, which was the next. 500. yéeres after Christ, within the which time, most of my authorities are conteined. Neyther was there any functiō or office brought into the Church during al that time, allowed by any generall Councel or credible writer, which was not most meete for that time, and allowable by the word of God.

I graunt that Antichrist was working all this time, and grewe more and more, for else could there neuer haue bene so many sectes and heresies from time to tyme spred in the Church, which was the cause of so many singular and notable Councels, so many profitable and necessary bookes, written by such learned and godly Doctors, as did with might and maine striue against them. Out of the which Councels and fa∣thers, and best witnesses what was done in those times, I haue fetched my proofes: euen out of them (I say) that did with might and maine labour to kepe out Antichrist from the possession of the Church, and therefore not to be suspected to consent to An∣tichrist.

I knowe that those sectes and heresies gaue strength vnto Antichriste, and at the length were one speciall meanes of placing him in his throne, euen as I am also per∣swaded* 1.126 that he worketh as effectually at this daye by your styrres and contentions, wherby he hath and will more preuaile against this Church of England, than by any other meanes whatsoeuer. Therefore it behoueth you to take héede, how you deuide the armie of Christ, which should vnanimiter fight against that Antichrist. As for vs we must follow the examples of those good fathers, and labour, accordingly to restore vnitie, and to preserue it.

Chap. 2. the. 37. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 73. Sect. vlt.

Eusebius out of Egesippus writeth, y^e as long as the Apostles lyued, y^e Church remained a pure virgin, for that if there were any that went about to corrupt the holy rule that was preached, they* 1.127 did it in the darke, and as it were digging vnderneath the earth. But after the death of the Apo∣stles, and that generation was paste, whiche God vouchsaued to heare the diuine wisedome with their owne eares, then the placing of wicked error began to come into the Church.

Io. Whitgifte.

It is euident in diuerse places of the Scripture, namely in the first Epistle to the* 1.128 Corinthians, and the Epistle to the Galath, that there were many grosse and greate corruptions openly professed in the Churche, by diuerse, not onely in maners, but al∣so

in doctrine, euen in the Apostles tyme, and Eusebius hymselfe declareth that there* 1.129 was one Simon mencioned Acts. 8. whom he calleth the author of all heresie, Lib. 2. Cap. 13. Likewyse he sheweth Lib. 3. that Ebion, Cerinthus, and the Nicholaites, all horri∣ble heretikes were in the Apostles time. Wherefore if this be a good reason, then is it not safe for vs to follow, no not the Apostles time.

Chap. 2. the. 38. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 74. Sect. 1.

Element also in a certayne place, to confirme that there was corruption of doctrine immediately* 1.130 after the Apostles time, alleageth the prouerb that there are fewe sonnes like their fathers.

Io. Whitgifte.

I can finde no such thing in Clement, but the matter is not great whether he saye so or no. The argument is starke noughte: for if this followe, that we may take no example, paterne, or testimonie of gouernment, out of that time, bycause it was corrupte, then by the same reason muste we not take examples of any tyme, no not out of the Apostles time, bicause that was also corrupte as I haue saide. Your argumentes be passing strong, surely I maruaile with what boldnesse you write them.

Chap. 2. the. 39. Diuision.

T. C. Page. 74. Sect. 2.

And Socrates sayth of the Church of Rome and Alexandria, which were the most famous* 1.131 Churches in the Apostles tymes, that aboute the yeare. 430. the Romane and Alexandrian By∣shops (*) 1.132 leauyng the sacred function were degenerate to a secular rule or dominion, wherevpon we see, that it is safe for vs to goe to the Scriptures, and to the Apostles tymes, for to fetche our gouernment and order: and that it is very daungerous to drawe from those ryuers the fountaynes wherof, are troubled and corrupted, especially when as the wayes whereby they runne are muddier and more fennie, than is the head itselfe.

Io. Whitgifte.

You falsifie the wordes of Socrates, for thus be sayth, For euen till that tyme the Nouatians florished maruellously at Rome, and had manye Churches and had gathered* 1.133 muche people. But enuie tooke holde of them, when as the Byshopprike of Rome and of Alexandria nowe a good whyle was passed beyonde the Limites of Priesthoode to an out∣warde Dominion. He sayth not leauing the sacred function, were degenerate to a se∣cular rule and dominion, as you translate it.

But why doth Socrates burste out into thys reprehension of them, euen bycause* 1.134 they expelled the Nouatian heretikes, of whome Socrates was a fautor, as it may ap∣peare in Nicephorus, wherefore he dothein that place affectionately, and vniustly re∣proue both the Byshop of Rome, and Alexandria, for stoutly resisting those heretikes and expelling them from their Churches, especially they nowe increasing to so great a multitude, as it may séeme by Socrates wordes they dyd. And althoughe the words of Socrates whiche I haue alreadie recyted iustifie this to be true, yet doth his words followyng declare the same more euidently. For he commendeth the Byshop of Con∣stantinople bycause he friendly interteyned the Nouatians, & suffered them quietly to remayne wythin the Citie, and yet it is certayne, that the Byshop of Constanti∣nople, had as large authoritie as the Byshop of Alexandria, wherefore Socrates in thys poynt is no more to be beléeued against those Byshops, than you are against the* 1.135 Byshoppes in thys Churche, whose authoritie you maligne vpon the lyke occa∣sion.

Chap. 2. the. 40. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 74. Sect. 3. 4.

And (a) 1.136 although M. Doctor hath brought neither Scripture nor reason, nor Councell where∣in there is either name of Archbyshop, or Archdeacon, or proued that there may be: And althoughe he shew not so much as the name of them foure hundred yeares after our saniour Christ. And al∣though where he sheweth them, they be either by counterfeit authors, or without any worde (b) 1.137 of approbation of good authors: yet as though he had shewed all and proued all, hauing shewed no∣thing nor proued nothing, he clappeth the hands to himself, and putteth the crowne vpon his owne head, saying, that those that be learned maye easily vnderstande, that the names Archbyshop, Arch∣deacon, Primate, Patriarke, be most auncient, and approued of the eldest, best, worthiest Councels, fathers, writers: and a little afterward, that they are vnlearned and ignorant which saye other∣wyse.

Here is (c) 1.138 a victorye blowen with a great and sounding trumpet, that myghtè haue bene piped with an o〈1 line〉〈1 line〉en straw, and if it shoulde be replyed againe, that M. Doctor hath declared in this little learning little reading, and lesse iudgement, there mighte growe controuersies without all fruite.

Io. Whitgifte.

If I were not acquainted with this spirit, it would make me muse at such euident and manifest vntruthes, ioyned with so prophane iestes and tauntes. If I had allea∣ged no moe authorities but onely the Councell of Nice, it had bene sufficient to haue disproued this so bolde assertion of yours. But séeyng I haue alleaged other testimo∣nies also, which euidently proue my purpose, I muste néedes thinke you not to be a man that greatly careth for your owne credit, but if you thinke they are few, & there∣fore accompt them for none, I haue now I trust in this Chapter. 25. Diuision supply∣ed their want, and made vp the number.

What Scriptures I haue appeareth afterwards. It is sufficient if I finde there the office of an Archbishop, as I doubte not but I shall, and therefore I say againe, that to doubt of the antiquitie of these names and offices, argueth great penurie of reading the auncient writers.

Chap. 2. the. 41. Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 67. Sect. 4.

And for as much as the originall and beginning of these names Metropolitane, Archbyshop, Archdeacon, Primate, Patriarke, and such like (such is their antiquitie) cannot be found so farre as I haue reade, it is to be supposed they haue their originall from the Apostles themselues. For as I remember S. Augustine hath thys rule in hys* 1.139 118. Epist. ad Ianuar. Those things that be not expressed in the Scriptures and yet by tradition obserued of the vvhole Churche, come eyther from the A∣postles or from generall Councels, as the obseruing of Easter, the celebra∣ting of the day of the ascention, and of the comming of the holy Ghost, & suche like. Uery vnlearned therefore and ignorant be those which so boldly affirme that these names vsed in the purest time of the church, be Antichristian.

T. C. Page. 74. Sect. 4. 5.

And by and by in saying that the Archbyshops beginning is vnknowne, in steade of a (a) 1.140 bastard which some brought into the Church, that hid themselues bycause they were ashamed of y^• child, he will make vs beleue that we haue a newe Melchisedech, without father, without mother, & whose generation is not knowen, and so concludeth with the place of S. Augustine, as farre as he remem∣breth, in the. 118. Epistle to Ianuarie, that the original of them is from the Apostles themselues.

Here (b) 1.141 M. Doctor seemeth to seeke after some glory of a good memory, as thoughe he had net Augustine by him when he wrote thys sentence, and yet he maruellously forgetteth himselfe, for he vsed this place before in his. 23. Page, and cyteth it there precisely and absolutely, where also I

haue shewed, howe vnaduisedly that sentence of Augustine is approued: and howe that thereby a window is open to bryng in all Popery, & whatsoeuer other corrupt opinions. That the names of Lordes and honour as they are vsed in this Realme, are not meete to be giuen to the Ministers of the Gospell, there hath bene spoken before.

Io. Whitgifte.

This place of Augustine is of greater force and credite with those that be learned, than that it can be shifted off. I haue answered whatsoeuer you saye against it in that place, and shewed of what credite it is with some famous writers of our time, name∣ly with Master Zuinglius, Master Caluine, and Master Gualter. And surely I thinke no learned man doth dissent from them.

Your iestes are to vsuall and vnséemely for a Diuine, especially when you abuse the scripture to make sport withal. I might haue sayd also of you, y^t you sought after some glory of a good memorie, when as you vsed the like kinde of speach, in alleaging of Gil∣das and Lumbard, Pag. 68. but that I am not delighted with such kinde of eloquence.* 1.142

Chap. 2. the. 42. Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 65. Sect. 5.

Whether that the name of Prelate of the Garter, Earle, Coūtie Palatine, Honor, high commissioner, Iustice of peace and Quorum,* 1.143 being necessary offices in this common weale, partly for the honour of the Prince and Realme but especially for good gouernment of all estates and degrees of persons, be Antichristian, let those consider to whom God hath committed the sworde of gouernment: such insolent audacitie against states and lawfull regiment, is rather to be correc∣ted with due punishment, than confuted by argument.

T. C. Page. 74. Sect. 6. 7. 8.

As for Prelate of the Garter, if it be a needefull office, there are inowe to execute it besydes the Ministers, which for as much as they be appointed to watche ouer the soules of men, purcha∣sed with the bloude of Christ, all men vnderstand that it is not meete that they shoulde attend vpon the bodie, muche lesse vpon the legge, and least of al vpon the Garter. It is not vnlawfull for Prin∣ces to haue Ministers of their honor, but also it is not lawfull to take those that God hath appoyn∣ted for another ende, to vse to such purposes.

Thou seest here good reader that M. Doctor kepeth his olde wont, of (*) 1.144 manifest peruerting of the wordes and meanyng of the authors of the Admonition. For whereas they saye that the name of Erle, Countie Palatine, Iustice of peace and Quorum, Commissioner, are Antichristian, when they are giuen to the ministers of the Churche, whose calling wil not agree with such titles, he concludeth simply, that they saye they be altogether vnlawfull, and simply antichristian, as if I should reason, that it is not meete that the Queenes Maiestie should preache or minister the Sa∣cramentes, therefore it is not meete that there shoulde be any preachyng or Ministring of the Sa∣cramentes.

Nowe letting passe all your hard wordes and vnbrotherly speaches, with your vncharitable prognostications, and colde prophesies, I will come to examine, whether you haue any better hap in prouing the office, than you haue had in prouing the name.

Io. Whitgifte.

I sée no cause why he that is prelate of the garter, maye not also sufficiently discharge his duetie in watching ouer the soule, for I thinke the garter dothe not re∣quire such continuall or great attendance. Those that are appointed to watche ouer y^e soule are not exempted from bodily seruice to their Prince, excepte you will take from the Prince, not onely authoritie in Ecclesiasticall matters, as you haue done, but ouer Ecclesiasticall persons also, as by this and such other lyke assertions you séeme to doe▪

But here of more in place. I peruert not the wordes of the Admonition, as appeareth by their manifest wordes: what their meaning is God knoweth. But how little autho∣ritie these offices should haue, if your plat forme were framed, shall be declared when I come to your seigniorie: neyther the names nor offices that come from a Christian Prince, that detesteth Antichrist, can be called Antichristian, vpon whom soeuer they be bestowed. Wherevnto this your example tendeth of the Quéenes Maiestie, wise men may easily coniecture. It smelleth of that Papisticall cauillation, Scilicet that we giue to hir Maiestie authoritie to preach and to administer the sacramentes, bycause we acknowledge hir lawfull authoritie in Ecclesiasticall causes.

I pray God my prognostications be not to true: the more I consider of your booke, the more I am driuen to suspect it. My hard speaches be within the bondes of modestie, but yours may better beséeme the order you talke of, then a man of your profession.

Chap. 2. the. 43. Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 68. Sect. 1. 2.

Lordes Grace, Lordbishop, honor. &c. be names of reuerence, tea∣chyng vs to acknowledge our duetie towardes our superiours, and their authoritie ouer vs. And it is much more to be reprehended, not to giue honor to whom honor is due, then to receyue honor when it is due. You maye and you please in verye auncient Histories and in* 1.145 great learned fathers, see as honorable and reuerent titles giuen vnto Byshops as these be. And surely it is not Antichristian to be called by names and titles, not ambitiously soughte for, but orderly and lawfully giuen according to the condition and state of the place wherin a man is. But it is Antichristian, that is proude, presumptu∣ous, disdainfull, arrogant, and contemptuous, to refuse to giue to e∣uery one that name and title that by law, ciuilitie, and duetie of vs is required, and expresseth our reuerence, duetie, and obedience.

You would speake as much of names of honor and reuerence in o∣ther persons if you durste be so bolde wyth them, as you thinke you may be with some.

Io. Whitgifte.

Nothing is sayde to this.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The antiqui∣tie of Archbi∣shops.
• * 1.2

  Phil. 4. Tertul. de praescript. aduers. hae∣ret.
• * 1.3

  In the replie to M. Hard.
• * 1.4

  Li. 3. cap. 3.
• * 1.5

  One ministe∣rie of bishops, but diuerse degrees.
• * 1.6

  Eph. 2.
• * 1.7

  The Israe∣lites had some things like to the Gentiles.
• * 1.8

  〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 No man hat〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 sayde so.
• * 1.9

  Esay. 2.
• * 1.10

  M. Foxe, tom. 1. Pag. 14.
• * 1.11

  Math. 5. 10. 9.
• * 1.12

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.13

  Act. 15.
• * 1.14

  Archiflamin〈1 line〉〈1 line〉
• * 1.15

  M. Foxe, tom. 1. fol. 146.
• * 1.16

  Archbyshops in England, An. Do. 180.
• * 1.17

  Repor〈1 line〉〈1 line〉es of antiquitie may be taken from infi〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ls.
• * 1.18

  〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• (*) 1.19

  A notable 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• (a) 1.20

  A slender proofe.
• * 1.21

  The differēce betwixte an Archbishop & a Bishop.
• (*) 1.22

  This is often promised, but neuer per〈1 line〉〈1 line〉or∣med.
• (a) 1.23

  This diuision is not so strange as you make it.
• * 1.24

  Vinc. 10. li. cap. 124. Nicep. 4. li. cap. 38.
• (*) 1.25

  Nicephorus falsified.
• (a) 1.26

  This is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉s will appea〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 in the ende.
• * 1.27

  Ibi. 2. 23.
• (*) 1.28

  It is the▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 chapter.
• * 1.29

  Caluin. M. F〈1 line〉〈1 line〉xe.
• * 1.30

  M Iewell. Pag. 95. sec. 4
• * 1.31

  Irenaeu〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.
• * 1.32

  Sometime one Apostle did appoynt Bishops. Tertulli. de praescript.
• (a) 1.33

  The maior false.
• * 1.34

  Why these of∣fices are ap∣poynted.
• * 1.35

  This is contrar〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 to that whiche was immediatly affirmed before.
• * 1.36

  The office of an archbishop in S. Iohn.
• * 1.37

  Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 2〈1 line〉〈1 line〉▪
• (*) 1.38

  I say not only suspected, but that they are not without iuste cause suspected
• * 1.39

  Concil. Nice.
• * 1.40

  Metropoli∣tane.
• * 1.41

  Archdeacon.
• * 1.42

  Patriarke.
• * 1.43

  Uar〈1 line〉〈1 line〉tie con∣cerning the time of y^e Ni∣cen Councell.
• * 1.44

  Archbyshops & Metropoli∣tanes long be∣fore the Ni∣cene Councel. Concil. Nice∣ni. Can. 6.
• * 1.45

  Can. 7.
• * 1.46

  M. Foxe.
• * 1.47

  Cano. Apo. 33. alias. 35.
• * 1.48

  Concil. Anti∣oc〈1 line〉〈1 line〉. Can. 9.
• * 1.49

  In the. 7. Di∣uision before.
• (*) 1.50

  An vntruth contrarie to the manifest wordes of the Councell of Nice.
• * 1.51

  The iudge∣ment of lear∣ned writers of the. 6. can. con. N〈1 line〉〈1 line〉cem. Caluine.
• * 1.52

  Illyricus.
• * 1.53

  M. Foxe.
• * 1.54

  T. C. con∣demned of vn truth by the words of the Canon. Can. 6.
• * 1.55

  The authori∣tie of 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉∣tropo. 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ane.
• * 1.56

  Con. Antioc〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.
• * 1.57

  Vilierius.
• (*) 1.58

  These Canons differ onely in number, and not in matter from, those that are not counterfeit.
• * 1.59

  Li. 1. cap. 8. Li. 1. cap. 6.
• (a) 1.60

  Not so, for that is repug∣nant to the true Canon〈1 line〉〈1 line〉; & ther∣fore coūterfeit.
• * 1.61

  Controuersie about the nū∣ber of y^e Ca∣nons conci. Niceni.
• * 1.62

  Canons as∣cribed to the Nicene coun∣cell, not found in the number extant. Con. Arelat.
• * 1.63

  Hieronymus.
• * 1.64

  Ambrose.
• * 1.65

  The. 25. 26. 27. Canons differ onely in number, not in substance from the true Canons.
• (*) 1.66

  You 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 you vse.
• * 1.67

  Ambrose.
• (*) 1.68

  Ambrose i〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 little beholding to you, that can∣not be accepted for a wi〈1 line〉〈1 line〉nesse.
• * 1.69

  1. Lib. offi. cap. 50.
• (a) 1.70

  In those words Ambrose doth not dissa low the office, but the abuse of it by the person.
• (*) 1.71

  An vnlikely likelyhoode voyde of truth.
• * 1.72

  Ambrose a Metropoli∣tane. Cent. 4. cap. 10
• * 1.73

  Ambrose.
• * 1.74

  De dig. Sacer cap. 5.
• (*) 1.75

  Where, or which centurie〈1 line〉〈1 line〉
• (a) 1.76

  Vntruth.
• * 1.77

  Cent. 4 cap. 7.
• * 1.78

  Forgerie see∣keth corn〈1 line〉〈1 line〉rs.
• * 1.79

  Councels of the name and o〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ice of Me∣tropolitane an〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 Archbi∣shoppe. &c. Con. Ni〈1 line〉〈1 line〉en. Can. 4. 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉. 7.
• * 1.80

  Con. Antiocb. can. 9.
• * 1.81

  Can. 20.
• * 1.82

  Con. Arelat. cano. 6. &. 37.
• * 1.83

  Con. L〈1 line〉〈1 line〉odic. can. 12. Con Cartb. 2. Can 12.
• * 1.84

  Con. Carth. can. 13.▪ 17. &c Con. Chalcedo.
• * 1.85

  Fathers and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the name and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉t Arche∣bishop. E〈1 line〉〈1 line〉phanius.
• * 1.86

  Peter, Arch〈1 line〉〈1 line〉∣bishop of Ale∣xandria abou〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 twentie yeres before the Councell of Nice. Idem.
• * 1.87

  Atbanas. Apol. 2.
• * 1.88

  Socrates.
• * 1.89

  Iustinian. Illyricus. Cent. 4.
• * 1.90

  The office of Metropolitan & Archbishop without the name. Cyprian. Greg. Nazi.
• * 1.91

  Eusebius.
• * 1.92

  Atbanasius.
• * 1.93

  Euseb.
• * 1.94

  Sozom.
• * 1.95

  Theodoret.
• * 1.96

  Con. Afric. can. 55. in graeco.
• * 1.97

  Sozom. 6. l. e. 16.
• (*) 1.98

  An vnaduised answer.
• * 1.99

  Con. Car〈1 line〉〈1 line〉. cap. 39.
• * 1.100

  Con. tom. 1 cap. 6.
• (a) 1.101

  An vntruth.
• * 1.102

  The name of Primate al∣lowed in the Councell of Carthage. M. Foxe.
• * 1.103

  Con. Const〈1 line〉〈1 line〉n. 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 alias the. 2.
• * 1.104

  Ignatius epist. ad Smirn. Ambros. in. 4. Eph.
• * 1.105

  Distinct. 99.
• * 1.106

  Con. tom. 2.
• * 1.107

  Archdeacons
• * 1.108

  (*) T. C. f〈1 line〉〈1 line〉eth in his accompt, and telleth but fower, for fiue.
• (b) 1.109

  In what part of Gratian.
• (c) 1.110

  This is vn∣true, for Sixtu∣is more ancient.
• (d) 1.111

  What haue you else but cō∣iectures?
• * 1.112

  The vnto∣ward dealing of the replier, & his vnsuf∣ficiēt answer.
• (*) 1.113

  Vntruth, no such thing ap∣peareth.
• * 1.114

  Con. Vrbi∣num. Sozo. 7. lib. cap. 19.
• * 1.115

  Ierom. to Euagri.
• * 1.116

  Con. Nicen can. 14. and after Ruf. 20
• * 1.117

  Vntruthes, for neyther of them speaketh of Atchdeacons in those places al∣ledged to this purpose.
• * 1.118

  Ierom. ad Euag. Aug. quaest. noui & vet. teit. q. 101.
• * 1.119

  Deanes.
• (*) 1.120

  Vntruthes.
• (*) 1.121

  Vntruthes.
• (*) 1.122

  Vntruthes.
• * 1.123

  Tractat. 4.
• * 1.124

  Aug. de mori∣bus ecclesiae.
• * 1.125

  Antichrist be∣gan in the A∣postles tunes 2. Thess. 2. 1. Io. 2.
• * 1.126

  Antichrist worketh in England by contentious persons.
• * 1.127

  Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 32.
• * 1.128

  Corruptions in the churche in the Apo∣stles time▪
• * 1.129

  Euseb. lib. 2. Cap. 13. Idē. Lib. 3.
• * 1.130

  Li. stromat. somvvhat after the be ginning.
• * 1.131

  Li. 7. 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉. 11.
• (*) 1.132

  Socrates fal∣〈1 line〉〈1 line〉fied.
• * 1.133

  Socra. lib. 7. Cap. 11.
• * 1.134

  Socrates a fauourer of y^e Nouatians. Niceph. lib. 6. Cap. 37. &. lib. 9. 13.
• * 1.135

  Socrates do∣ings agreable to our time.
• (a) 1.136

  Where i〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 truth become.
• (b) 1.137

  Would you haue better 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 tha〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 decrees for th〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 authoritie, and continuall 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ise.
• (c) 1.138

  Vanitie.
• * 1.139

  August▪
• (a) 1.140

  Modestie.
• (b) 1.141

  This is fro〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 the matter.
• * 1.142

  Pag. 68. Sect. 4.
• * 1.143

  Ciuill offices giuē to eccle∣siasticall per∣sons.
• (*) 1.144

  Vntruthe.
• * 1.145

  Titles of dig nitie in mini∣sters not An∣tichristian.