The second reply of Thomas CartwrightThe second replie of Thomas Cartwright

And albeit the D. be not able by thes words of Jerome / nor by any other which he hath brought / to prove that the bishop had any further reach / then unto one only church: yet (forsomuche as it is not here question off the victory / but off truth: nor what the Ans. is able to prove / but what may be proved) I will not deny but in Jeromes times / the bishops upon occasions before off me alleged / had enlarged their bounds in such sort / that there were certain congregations which belonged to their oversight / and whereof they were called bishops. But I appeal first to the institution off God / and use of the purer times after the Apostles: and then I answer / that a diocese was not the twentieth part of that which they have now. As appeareth by that alleged before out of the Councils / and by that Jerome saith / that their elders under them governed in common with them: which they could not have done onles they being hard by / had made one body with them. For nether could the bishop do any thing in his congregation / without the elders: nor they in theirs / without him / but they made one Senate amongest them. The practise whereof is yet to be seen in certain reformed churches▪ where the elders off certain small parishes round about / make one body off Senate with the elders off the principal town / meeting together once at the least every week. Saving that they have altogether abolished that evil custom / which wrong the ⟨p. DXCVII⟩name of bishop from all the rest unto one / and granted the ordination to him alone: there being one amongest them which hath only this above the rest / when they assemble together to propound matters / gather the voices / giveth exhortations / and that also for a time / and not during his ministry. I have showed that the argument / wherewith the Ans. would off a bishop conclude an archbishop / and off one over a diocese one over a whole Province is too bad: and it is not here to be repeated. This place requireth to show / that albeit the Metropolitan was now received in the East parts: yet ether he was not in the most parts off the west / where Jerome was: or Jerome did not acknowledge him. Wherein I will first propound my arguments / and after answer to his objections.

And albeit the D. be not hable by thes wordes of Ierome / nor by any other which he hathe browght / to proue that the bishop had any further reache / then vnto one onely churche: yet (forsomuche as yt is not here question off the victorie / but off trwth: nor what the Ans. is hable to proue / but what maye be proued) I will not denie but in Ieromes times / the bishops vpon occasions before off me alledged / had enlarged their boundes in suche sorte / that there were certen congregacions which belonged to their ouersight / and wherof they were called bishops. But I appele first to the institution off God / and vse of the purer times after the Apostles: and then I answer / that a dioces was not the twentith part of that which they haue now. As appeareth by that alledged before owt of the Councels / and by that Ierome saith / that their elders vnder them gouerned in commen vvith them: which they coulde not haue doon onles they being hard by / had made one bodie with them. For nether could the bishop doo any thing in his congregation / withowt the elders: nor they in theirs / withowt him / but they made one Senate amongest them. The practise wherof is yet to be seen in certein reformed churches where the elders off certein small parishes round abowt / make one bodie off Senate with the elders off the principall towne / meeting together once at the least euery week. Sauing that they haue altogether abolished that euill coustome / which wrong the