Page 375
I contend not that the name of the Archbishop was in the Apostles tyme, but you haue not yet proued that the office was not then, or that there was then no superio∣ritie among the Cleargie, which you notwithstanding denie. Your negatiue rea∣son proueth nothing, as you haue bene oftentymes tolde.
The place in the. 1. Cor. 14. is farre fetched, it speaketh not of gournment, and* 1.1 discipline, or externall pollicie of the Church, but of expounding the Scriptures. And what a reason cal you this S. Paule, saith. 1. Cor. 14. Prophet〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 duo aut tres loquantur, caete〈1 line〉〈1 line〉i dijudicent: Let two or three Prophets speake, and let the other iudge, Ergo he speaketh a∣gaynst an Archbishop? Surely if the Authours of the Admonition had not bene de∣tected of their vnskilfull allegations of Scriptures, I shoulde haue had as much a doe with you in that poynt: for euen of these fewe which you haue vsed, there is not al∣most one rightly and truely applied. S. Paule in that place to the Corinthians shew∣eth, that the hearers must iudge of the doctrine of the Prophets, whether it be accor∣ding to the worde of God or no, as those did whiche are commended in the. 17. of the Actes: but what is this to an Archbishop?