The second reply of Thomas CartwrightThe second replie of Thomas Cartwright

The Answ. words carry no meaning with them / to conclude that which this cause requireth. For what meaneth this / one bishop ¹off a Province, had no authority over another, but were equal? what is this to my reason? which is, that forsomuche as the godly writers prove the equality off the bishop off Rome with other bishops, for that they called one another fellows, and brethren: the bishops off dioceses, and metropolitans calling one an other fellow bishop, fellow in office, brother, &c, do thereby declare that there was none which ruled over an other. For onles the reason be firm in the one: it is not good in the other. But he answereth further / Cyprian in calling the bishops off his Province fellow bishops, and brethren, declared thereby the function to be all one. So may the Papists answer / that the Bishop off Rome called the Bishops his fellows / and brethren / because they had the same function / and not in that for policy sake they were not subject unto him. But as that / so this is an absurd answer. The Godly writers use not this reason / to prove that other bishops exercised the same ministry off the word and Sacraments / with the bishop of Rome (which the Pope him self confesseth): but to prove that they were not under / but off the same authority with him / which he denieth. The next answer (Cyprian in calling them ⟨p. DXLIIII⟩[…] ⟨p. DXLV⟩[…] ⟨p. DXLVI⟩fellow bishops declareth his humble spirit) is I doubt not / although I can not presently note the place / another buckler off the Papists against this reason. As if true humility did hinder any / to take that honour which his lawful office ether in church / or common wealth doth put upon him.

The Answ. wordes carie no meaning with them / to cōclude that which this cawse requireth. For what meaneth this / one bishop ¹off a Prouince, had no autoritie ouer another, but were equall? what is this to my reason? which is, that forsomuche as the godly vvriters proue the equalitie off the bishop off Rome vvith other bishops, for that they called one another fellovves, and brethren: the bishops off dioceses, and metropolitanes calling one an other fellovv bishop, fellovv in office, brother, &c, doo therby declare that there vvas none vvhich ruled ouer an other. For onles the reason be firme in the one: yt is not good in the other. But he answereth further / Cyprian in calling the bishops off his Prouince fellow bishops, and brethren, declared therby the function to be all one. So may the Papistes answer / that the Bishop off Rome called the Bishops his fellowes / and brethren / becawse they had the same function / and not in that for pollicie sake they were not subiect vnto him. But as that / so this is an absurd answer. The Godly writers vse not this reason / to proue that other bishops exercised the same ministerie off the word and Sacramentes / with the bishop of Rome (which the Pope him self confesseth): but to proue that they were not vnder / but off the same autoritie with him / which he denieth. The next answer (Cyprian in calling them