which I have spoken were established and received in the Church with the unanimous consent of all Christendom? And who am I that I should disapprove of what the whole Church Catholic has approved, and which even the learned men of our own times have not all dared to condemn, well knowing that the Church had this power, and that these things were all instituted and established piously, and for the best of ends ; namely, for the edification of the elect? I have also had occasion to notice those Churches, which, having embraced the Gospel, have yet their Bishops both in reality. and in name. Nay, in the Churches of the Protestants themselves, there are in reality Bishops and Archbishops, though the good old Greek names have been badly altered to the Latin titles of Superintendants and Superintendants General. And even where neither the Greek nor these Latin names are used, even there some are chiefs with almost absolute authority. Why should there then be a controversy about names?

If they agree in the thing, why dispute about the term? Meanwhile, as I have not found fault with the Fathers in this matter, so I cannot but love the zeal of those men of our times who abhor those titles from fear, lest with them should return the ambition and tyranny of former times, and these be succeeded by the downfal of the Church."

So writes that venerable old man, Zanchy. I might, if it were necessary, confirm my point, by adducing many other testimonies from writers of our times, who either hold exactly the same opinion with myself, or at least adopt the contrary notion with the greatest caution: for the present, however, lest this tract should extend to too great a length, Zanchy shall stand in the stead of the numbers who are agreed with me hereon.

CHAP. XXIV.

OF ONE BISHOP IN ONE DIOCESE.

HAVING shewn that that form of Ecclesiastical government has God for its Author, in which Pastors are subject to Pastors, and Presbyters inferior to Bishops; it now remains for us to enquire, whether a single Church or Diocese may or may not have two or more Bishops of equal rank and power.

It is said, the Church at Jerusalem had as Bishops the twelve Apostles and the seventytwo Evangelists, with the Prophets also; and many instances may be adduced in which one Church had two Bishops. Epiphanius too,

when writing against the Arian heresy, and speaking of the Church of Alexandria, seems to intimate, that it was then the custom of many Churches to have two Bishops, since he denies that such was the custom of the Church in question. To this I reply, that the twelve Apostles and the seventy-two Evangelists, with the rest who abode for a while at Jerusalem, were the appointed Teachers and Bishops, not of that one city, but of the whole earth. As to the cases in which one Church had two Bishops at the same time, the election of St. Augustine to be Bishop of Hippo whilst Valerius the Bishop of that See was still living, may serve to shew us under what circumstances such cases occurred, and how rare and extraordinary they were; for the election of St. Augustine was contrary to the decrees of the Council of Nice. There is no law so general but admits of an exception, when there is good reason for it it is not a sin for one and the same Church to have several Pastors of equal authority, but experience will shew whether