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.

This my interpretation of their wordes is grounded vpon the whole discourse and drifte of their booke, as it may euidently appeare to be true to any that hathe eyes to sée, and eares to heare: and shewe you if you can any one place in their booke, whiche dothe ouerthrowe this my interpretation of their wordes. I knowe it is one thing to saye, that nothing muste be placed in the Churche, and an other thing to saye, that nothing muste be tolerated, but I sée that they make no difference betwéene them neither in their writing, nor yet in their practise. And I thinke also that there is some difference betwixte these two manner of spéeches, excepte it be commaunded in the worde of God, and excepte it be expressed in the worde of God. For I knowe sundrie thinges to be expressed in the worde of God, whiche are not commaunded: as Christ his fasting fortie dayes, and his other myracles, and therefore by that interpreta∣tion I haue giuen vnto them a larger scope than they them selues require, whiche if it be an iniurie, it is to my selfe, and not to them.

But I thinke you were not well aduised, when you sayde, that many things are both* 1.1 commaunded and forbidden, of whiche there is no expresse mention in the word of God, whiche are as necessarilie to be followed or auoyded, as those whereof expresse mention is made. If you meane that many things are commaunded or forbidden in the worde; which are not expres∣sed in the worde, in my opinion you speake contraries: For howe can it be com∣maunded or forbidden in the worde, excepte it be also expressed in the same? If you meane, that many thinges are commaunded or forbidden to bée doone, necessarie vnto sal∣uation, whiche notwithstanding are not expressed in the worde of God, then I sée not howe you differ from that opinion, whiche is the grounde of all Papistrie, that is, that all things necessary vnto saluation are not expressed in the scriptures. How soeuer you meane it, it can not be true: for there is nothing necessarie to eternall life, which* 1.2 is not bothe commaunded and expressed in the Scripture. I counte it expressed, when it is either in manyfest wordes contayned in Scripture, or therof gathered by necessary collection. If I had to doe with a Papist, I coulde proue this to be true by the many∣fest testimonies of the Scripture it selfe, and also by sundrie other, bothe auncient and late wryters, but bicause I thinke it hathe but ouerslipped you, and that vpon better aduise you will reforme it, therfore I will cease to deale further in it, vntill I vnderstande more of your meaning.

My conclusion touching Argumentes negatiue ab authoritate, (as I vnderstande it,* 1.3 and haue expounded it, in the wordes following) is very true, and muste of necessitie be so. You saye, that when the question is of the authoritie of a man, it holdeth neither affirma∣tiuely, nor negatiuely. Wherein you shewe your selfe not to be so skilfull in that, the

ignorance whereof you do so often in your booke obiecte vnto me: for not in Aristotle* 1.4 onely, lib. 3. Top. and lib. 2. Rhet. ad Theod. but in euery halfe penie Logike, (as you terme them) the place ab authoritate is expressed, and the argumentes taken oute of the same, sayde to holde affirmatiuely, and not otherwyse: the rule whereof is thys, Vnicui{que} in sua arte perito credendum est. It is a good argument to saye, that it is true bi∣cause* 1.5 Aristotle or Plato sayde it, if it be of any thing pertayning to that Arte, where∣in Aristotle or Plato were cunning and expert.

Whether all things pertayning to the outwarde forme of the Churche be parti∣cularly expressed, or commaunded in the Scripture, or no, is the question that we haue nowe in controuersie: that God coulde doo it, and therefore hathe done it, is no good reason, no more than it is for the reall presence in the Sacrament.

Affirmatiuely the argument is alwayes good of the authoritie of the Scripture: as God hathe there commaunded it to be done, therefore it muste be done. Or the Scripture affirmeth it to be so, Ergo, it is so. But negatiuely it holdeth not, excepte in matters of saluation and damnation, whiche is not my opinion onely, but the opinion of the best interpreters. Zuinglius in Elencho contra Catabaptist. reproueth them* 1.6 for reasoning on this sorte, his wordes be these: You shall finde no way to escape, for fondly you reason à factis & exemplis negatiuely: yea à non factis & non exemplis: for what other reason vse you than this: we reade not that the Apostles baptized infants, Ergo they are not to be baptized.

The examples that you vse in the. 7. of Ierem. verse. 31. 32. and. 30. of Esay. ver. 2.* 1.7 to proue that in externall and indifferent matters, we may reason negatiuely of the authoritie of the Scriptures, are farre fetched, and nothing to your purpose. For that whiche the Prophet Ieremie speaketh of, is a matter of great importance, euen moste horrible and cruell sacrifices, wherein they burnte their sonnes, and daugh∣ters.* 1.8 Whiche they were not only not commaunded to doo, but expressely forbidden, as it appeareth in the. 18. of Leuiti. verse. 21. and the. 20. of Leuiti. verse. 3. and the. 18. of Deutero. verse. 10. Nowe to reason thus, God hathe commaunded that you shall not giue your children to be offered to Moloche, and he hathe not giuen you any commaundement to the contrarie, therefore you oughte not to haue offered them: is affirmatiue, not negatiue: althoughe in this case, béeing a matter of substance, and of saluation or damnation (for to kill and murther is of that nature) a negatiue argument is very strong. The Prophet Esay reproueth the Iewes for vsing their* 1.9 owne aduise, séeking helpe of the Egyptians, in the time of their aduersitie, and not of the Lorde. Whiche they dyd bothe contrarie to their owne promise, and also contrarie to the commaundement of God, Deutero. 17. verse. 16. But what is this to proue that we may reason negatiuely of the authoritie of the Scriptures, in mat∣ters of rites and ceremonies, and other indifferent things? You accuse me for not alleadging of Scriptures, better it were to alleadge none, than thus to alleage them to no purpose, or rather to abuse them.

Notes

• * 1.1

  An vnaduised assertion of T. C. tending to Papistrie.
• * 1.2

  What is sayd to be expressed in the Scrip∣ture.
• * 1.3

  Argumentes ab authoritate negatiue.
• * 1.4

  An arg〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ent ab authoritate holdeth affir∣matiuely.
• * 1.5

  1. Top. Cap. 8.
• * 1.6

  Zuinglius in Elench.
• * 1.7

  The places which T. C. quoteth, proue not his pur∣pose.
• * 1.8

  Iere. 7. ver. 31.
• * 1.9

  Esa. 30. ver. 2.