A18080:1059
The second reply of Thomas CartwrightThe second replie of Thomas Cartwright
The second reply of Thomas Cartwright: against Master Doctor Whitgiftes second answer, touching the Church disciplineThe second replie of Thomas Cartwright: agaynst Maister Doctor Whitgiftes second answer, touching the Churche discipline
Heidelberg: printed by Michael Schirat, 1575
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Likewise writing jointly to Alexander bishop / and Arius Elder off Alexandria / amongest other things he saith: it was not meet they should rule so great a people, being divided among them selves. Where it is to be observed / that howsoever thes words so great a people be taken / whether for the church off Alexandria / or for all Egypt / &c. the Bishop governed not alone / but by consent / and advise of the Elders of that church. Then if the Ans. will refer this government to the whole countries off Egypt / Libya / &c. and take it in that signification he doth / for bearing dominion, and commanding the rest: not the bishop only / but every Elder off Alexandria / had commandment not only over the Elders / but over the bishops them selves off other churches. Which if it be absurd: that whereof it followeth / must be likewise. This is all that I find the Nicene Council giveth to the Metropolitan above the rest: how little it is / and how small a part off that the Answ. presumeth / let the reader judge. That he ought to be no bishop, which is made without consent off his Metropolitan, is a very silly prerogative: seeing it was the order of the church in those times / that all the bishops off the Province / should be at the 1making off a Bishop. And as the election off the people was void / if the Metropolitan were not at it: so was it also if there were not three bishops at the least present. Let us see now whether the practise of the Metropolitanship / will fall out any more favourable for this pretended jurisdiction.
Likewise writing ioyntly to Alexander bishop / and Arius Elder off Alexandria / amongeste other thinges he saith: it vvas not meet they should rule so great a people, being deuided amōge them selues. Where it is to be obserued / that howsoeuer thes wordes so great a people be taken / whether for the churche off Alexandria / or for all Agipt / &c. the Bishop gouerned not alone / but by cōsent / and aduise of the Elders of that church. Then if the Ans. will refer this gouernement to the whole countreis off Aegypt / Lybia / &c. and take it in that signification he doth / for bearing dominion, and commaunding the rest: not the bishop onely / but euery Elder off Alexandria / had commaundement not onely ouer the Elders / but ouer the bishops them selues off other churches. Which if it be absurd: that whereoff it followeth / must be likewise. This is all that I finde the Nicene Councell gyueth to the Metropolitan aboue the rest: how litle it is / and how small a part off that the Answ. presumeth / let the reader iudge. That he owght to be no bishop, which is made withowt consent off his Metropolitan, is a very seely prerogatiue: seing yt was the order of the church in those times / that all the bishops off the Prouince / shoulde be at the