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.

Io. Whitgifte.

Except it were to set fóorth your owne knowledge, & to leaue a publike testimonie of your great humilitie and modestie, you would not so immodestly accuse M. Doctor of ignorance, though you had cōuinced him of it, as you neyther haue done, nor are able to do〈1 line〉〈1 line〉, in that that he professeth. Likewise except your selfe vsed prompters, & patched your booke with other mēs collectiōs, you wold neuer so oftē charge me with y^e same.

I did not say, as I told you before, that bicause there was no Seniors in Ambrose time, therfore there was none vnder a christiā Prince, but this I say, that y^e Seniors which Ambrose speaketh of, were extinguished before Ambrose time, and were not in the time of christian Princes.

To what purpose do you accoūt y^• time betwixt Philip & Ambrose, or Cōstantine and Ambrose? you should rather proue that this kind of gouernment by Seniors was in Philips dominiō, if he were christened (which may be doubted) or vnder Constantinus.

You say, if I had euer read the ecclesiasticall stories, I myght haue found easily the Eldership most florishing in Constantinus time, and other times, when as the peace of the Christians was greatest. You haue read the Ecclesiasticall stories, how chaunce that you shew it not. It is your parte to proue: you holde the affirmatiue. Bring foorth one Ecclesiastical historie that affirmeth this kind of gouernment to haue bin vnder Constantinus. You might at the least haue quoted the Author (with the booke and chapter) that so sayth, though you had disdayned to set downe his wordes. I denie not but it might be so in some time, and in some place vnder a christian Prince (and yet I know not how you will be able to proue it) but that is not the question. For our contention is, whether this kind of gouernment ought of necessitie to be vnder a christian Prince, or not, and whether it be conuenient so to be, though it be not necessarie, and not whether it hathe bin (which notwithstanding can not be proued) or may be.