The defense of the aunsvvere to the Admonition against the replie of T.C. By Iohn VVhitgift Doctor of Diuinitie. In the beginning are added these. 4. tables. 1 Of dangerous doctrines in the replie. 2 Of falsifications and vntruthes. 3 Of matters handled at large. 4 A table generall.

Chap. 4. the. 12. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 93. Line 13.

Moreouer these orders and pollicies touching the distribution of the offices of the Leuites and priests, and touching the appoin〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ment of their gouernours, were done of Dauid by the (*) aduise of the Prophets, Gad and Nathan, which receiued of the Lord by commaundement; that whyche they deliuered vnto Dauid. And if so be that it can be shewed, that Archbishops and Archdeacons came into the church by any commaundement of the Lord, then this allegation hath some force, but now being not only not 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but also (as I haue shewed) forbydden, euery man doth see that this reason hath no place, but serueth to the vtter ouerthrow of the Archbyshop and Archdea∣con. For if Dauid beyng suche a notable personage, and as it were an Angell of God, durste not take vpon him to bring into the Church, any orders or pollicies, not onely not againste the worde

of God, but not without a precise word and commaundement of God, who shal dare be so bold as to take vpon him the institution of the chiefe office of the Church, and to alter the pollicie that God hath appointed by his seruantes the Apostles?

Io. Whitgifte.

You runne away with the matter, as though all were cleare when as it is not so. You affirme, y^t Dauid did apoint these orders & pollicies touching y^e distribution of the offices of the leuites & Priests. &c. by the eduise of Gad, and Nathan the prophets of God. And for proof hereof you quote in the margent. 2. Chron. 19. where there is not one word for your purpose, or signifying any suche thing. In déed in the 2. chro. 29. there is affirmed the lyke thing. But my L. of Sarisburie hath answered you, that such negatiue reasons are very weake. And if you wil denie it to be a negatiue reason from authoritie, yet can you not denie but that it is as féeble an argument as almost can be. For what if Dauid did appoynt these orders touching the distribution of the offices of the leuites & priests &c. doth it therfore follow that the church at no tyme may appointe suche offices as shall be thought méete for the gouernment of it, according to the tyme, places, and per∣sons? where haue you learned of a singular example to make a generall rule, or to frame an argumente ex solis particularibus?

In the. 2. Chro. 19. which you haue quoted in the margent, there is a not able place against you: for there expresse mention is made that Iehosaphat set in Ierusalem of the Leuites, and of the Priests. &c. for the iudgemente and cause of the Lorde, and made Amariah the Priest chiefe ouer them: neyther were they Iudges for the citie of Ierusalem onely, but for the whole countrey. And yet we reade not of any com∣maundement that Iehosaphat had, so to do.

Notes

• 2. Chro. 19.
• Scripture al∣leaged against himselfe.
• 2. Chron. 19.
• vers. 8.