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.

T. C. Pag. 96. Sect. 2.

And they might with as good reason hinder the sunne from shining in all places, and the raine 〈◊〉〈◊〉 falling vpon al grounds, for feare they should not be set by, being common, as to bring in such

a wicked decree, whereby vnder pretēce of deliuering the Byshop from contempt, they sought no∣thing else but an ambitious and stately Lordship ouer those, whiche had not that title of Byshop that they had, although they did the office of a Byshop better than they did. And what intollerable presumptiō is this, to chaunge the institution of God, as though he (*) which ordeyned not one on∣ly, but some number more or lesse of Byshops in euery Church, did not sufficiently foresee, that the multitude and plentie of Byshops could breede no contempt of the office. And it may be as well or∣deyned that the children of poore men shoulde not call them that begar them, fathers and mothers, but only the children of the rich, and of the noble, least that if euery man that hath children, shoulde be called a father, fathers should be set nothing by.

Io. Whitgifte.

It is a maruellous matter that you delight to runne so fast vpon a false string: I tell you once agayne, that you neuer red that Epistle, neyther yet those canons that it speaketh of. If you had red them, you would neuer haue affirmed (if there be any modestie left in you) that the multitude of Byshops is alledged there as a cause of contempte, no such thing being mentioned. The canons haue a very good consideration, and be not wicked, but wise and godly. This superioritie of Byshops is Gods owne institu∣tion, and it hath a necessary vse in the Church of God, as is shewed before. It hathe bin, and may be abused: and it is, and may be well vsed. All these glorious words of yours, are but very wordes, and therefore as words, I will committe them to the winde.

This one thing I cannot let passe that you say, God ordeyned not one onely, but some number moe or lesse of Byshops in euery Church. What scripture haue you to proue that there should be more Byshops than one in one Church? What one example in al the primitiue Church haue you to warrant this your assertion? Nay you haue the whole practise of the Church to the contrary, euen from the beginning. Iames alone was Byshop of Ierusalem, Timothie of Ephesus, Titus of Creta, Clemens of Rome. &c. and it hath bin always compted as monstrous to haue two Byshops of one citie, as to haue two heads of one body But such bolde assertions without proofe, are méete principles for such a ruinous and totering platforme, as you dreame of.

Notes

• (*)

  When, or where did God ordeyne this?
• But one Bi∣shop in a citie