Now I will take a short suruey of that whiche M. Doctor alleadgeth to proue his offices of M. of faculties, Chauncellours &c. First he saith in the. 117. page out of the Ancyran councell, that there were vicares of Byshops, where although the name be not found of Chancellours. &c. yet there is (saith he) the office. What vicar S. Paules Byshop may haue and in what case, I haue shewed before, where I haue proued the necessary residence of euery Pastor in his flock. But I will note here how M. Doctor doth go about to abuse his Reader in these vicares. And firste where there were three editions, of which one only maketh mention of these vicares, he tooke that and left the other, which is to be obserued, for that this varietie of editions rose of the diuerse vn∣derstanding of the Greeke word (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) which may be taken eyther for him that is by∣shop for another and in his place, or for him that is Byshop in the countrie, that is in some towne which is no citie, so that Chorepiscopus, was opposed vnto the Byshop which was of some citie. And if it be so taken, then here is no proofe for the vicares of Byshops. But howsoeuer it be, it shall appeare that the names of Chauncellours, and Chorepiscopos do not so muche differ, as the offices and functions of them. For it appeareth in the same councell and Canon,(*) 1.1 that they were like the. 70. disciples, that they had also some care to prouide for the poore, and that they were such as did minister the sacraments. And in another councell they haue authoritie giuen them to make* 1.2 Subdeacons, exorcists, and readers. I know this was a corruption of the ministerie, but yet all men see, how M. Doctor looketh as it were a farre of vpon things, and therefore taketh a man for a 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉olehill, when he would make vs beleeue that these were Chancellours. &c.
My purpose is to proue that which the Admonition denyeth, that is, that Byshops had their substitutes, call them by what name you will: neyther do I speake eyther of the names, or office of Chauncellours in that place, but I reproue the Authours of the Admonition of ignorance, for saying that Byshops had then no substitutes.
You haue shewed nothing hitherto whiche proueth that Byshops may haue no substitutes, but you haue declared rather the contrary, as it is by me in that place noted.
How I abuse the reader in these vicares, and what choise I make of these thrée editi∣ons,* 1.3 let the Authours of the Centuries iudge: who speaking of the same matter Cent. 4. cap. 7. write thus: Episcoporum vicarios Canones conciliorum Ancyrani Neocaesariensis & Antiocheni (si quam fidem habent) Chorepiscopos nominant. &c. The canons of the coun∣cells of Ancyra, Neocaesarea, and Antioch (if they beare any credite) do call* 1.4 the vicares of Byshops Chorepiscopos, whiche worde also is extant in the. 54. epist. of Basile And Sozom. lib. 2. cap. 14. calleth one Maureandas Chorepis∣copum of Bicoris Byshop of the Persians. M Caluine in his Instit. cap. 8. Sect. 52. is of the same iudgement. Euery Colledge (saith he) onely for the preseruation of order* 1.5 & concord, was subiect to one Byshop, which did so excel the rest in dignitie, that notwith∣standing, he was subiect to the company of brethren. But if the circuite whiche was vnder his Byshopricke was larger, thā that he could sufficiently performe the office of a Byshop in