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. 1. the first Diuision.

Admonition.

SEing that nothing in thys mortall lyfe is more diligently to bee soughte for, and carefully to bee, looked vnto (a 1.1) than the restitution of true religion and reformation of Gods Churche: it shall bee your partes (dearely beloued) in this present Parliamente assembled, as muche as in you lyeth to promote the same, and to employe your whole laboure and studie, not onely in abandoning all Popishe remnauntes bothe in ceremonies and regimente, but also in bringing in and placing in Gods Churche those thinges onely, whiche the Lorde him selfe (b 1.2) in hys worde commandeth. Bicause it is not mought to take paynes in taking away euill, (c 1.3) but also to be occupied in placing good in the steade thereof. Nowe bicause many men see not all thinges, and the (d 1.4) worlde in thys respecte is maruellously blinded, it hathe beene thoughte good to profer to your godly consyderations a true platforme of a Churche reformed, to the ende that it beeing layde before your eyes, to beholde the greate vnlykenesse betweene it and thys our Englishe Churche: you maye learne, eyther with perfecte (e 1.5) hatred to deteste the one, and with singular loue to embrace, and carefull endeuour to plante the other: or else to be with∣out excuse before (f 1.6) the maiestie of our God, who (for the discharge of our conscience, & manife∣station of his truthe) hathe by vs reuealed vnto you at this presente, the sinceritie and simpli∣citie of his Gospel. Not that you should either (g 1.7) wilfully withstand, or vngraciously tread (h 1.8) the same vnder yourfeete, for God doth not disclose his wil to any such ende, but that you should yet nowe at the length with all your mayne and mighte, endeuour that Christe (whose (i 1.9) easie yoke and light burthen we haue of long tyme cast of from vs) might rule and reigne in hys Churche by the scepter of his worde onely.

¶ Answere to the Admonition. Pag. 20. Sect. 1. &. 2.

I Will not answere wordes, but matter, nor bare affir∣mations or negations, but reasons: and therefore in as fewe words as I can, I will comprehende many lines.

But before I enter into their reasons, I thinke it not amisse to examine that assertion which is the chiefe and* 1.10 principall grounde (so farre as I can gather) of their booke, that is, that those things only are to be placed in the church, which the Lord himselfe in his worde commaundeth. As though they shoulde saye, nothing is to be tollerated in the Churche of Christ, touching either doctrine, order, ceremonies, discipline, or gouernment, except it be ex∣pressed in the word of God. And therfore the most of their argumēts in this booke be taken ab authoritate negatiuè, whiche by the rules of Logike proue nothing at all.

T. C. Pag. 13. Sect. 2.

YOu giue occasion of suspicion, that your ende will be scarse good, whiche haue made so euill a beginning. For wheras you had gathered out of the Admonition, that nothing shuld be placed in the Churche, but that God hath in his worde commaunded, as though the words were not playne mough, you will giue them some light by your exposition. And what is that? you answere that it is as muche as though they would say, nothing is to be tollerated in the Church of Christ, touching either doctrine, order, ceremonies, discipline, or gouernment, excepte it be expressed in the word of God. Is this to interprete? is it all one to say, (a) 1.11 nothing muste be placed in the Church, and nothing muste bee tollerated in the Churche? he hathe but small iudgemente, that can not tell, that certayne thinges maye be tollerated, and borne with for a tyme. Which if they were to be set in and placed, could not be done without the great faulte of them that should place

them. Agayne, are these of like waighte, excepte it be commaunded in the worde of God, and ex∣cepte it be expressed in the worde of God? Many thinges are bothe commaunded and forbidden, of whiche there is no expresse mention in the worde, whiche are as (b) 1.12 necessarily to bee followed or auoyded, as those whereof expresse mention is made. Therefore vnlesse your weightes be truer, if I coulde let it, you shoulde waighe none of my wordes. Heerevpon you conclude, that their argumentes taken ab authoritate negatiue, proue nothing. When the question is of the autho∣ritie of a man, in deede it neither holdeth (c) 1.13 affirmatiuely nor negatiuely. For as it is no good argument to saye, it is not true bicause Aristotle or Plato sayde it not: so is it not to saye, it is true bicause they sayde so. The reason whereof is, bicause the infirmitie of man can neither at∣tayne to the perfection of any thing, whereby he mighte speake all things that are to be spoken of it, neither yet bee free from errour in those thinges, whiche hee speaketh or giueth oute, and therefore this argument neither affirmatiuely, nor negatiuely compelleth the heare〈1 line〉〈1 line〉: but onely in∣duceth him to some lyking or mislyking of that, for whiche it is broughte, and is rather for an O∣ratour to persuade the simpler sorte, than for a disputer to inforce him that is learned. But for so muche as the Lorde God, determining to set before our eyes a perfecte forme of his Churche, is bothe able to doe it, and hathe done it, a man maye reason bothe wayes necessarily. The Lorde hathe commaunded it shoulde be in his Churche: therefore it muste. And of the other side, he hath not commaunded: therefore it muste not be. And it is not harde to shewe, that the Prophetes haue so reasoned negatiuely. As when in the person of the Lorde the Prophet saythe, whereof I haue not spoken, and whiche neuer entred into my heart: and as where he condemneth them,* 1.14 *bicause they haue not asked counsell at the mouth of the Lorde.

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* 1.15 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* 1.16 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,* 1.17 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* 1.18 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* 1.19 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* 1.20 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.* 1.21 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.* 1.22 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* 1.23 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

• a 1.1

  2. Reg. 23. 3. Chro. 17. 2. Chro. 29. 30. 31. Psal. 132. 2. 3. 4. Mat. 21. 12. Ioh. 2. 15.
• b 1.2

  Deut. 4. 2. Deut. 12. 32.
• c 1.3

  Psal. 37. 27. Rom. 12. 9.
• d 1.4

  1. Cor. 2. 14
• e 1.5

  Psal. 31. 6. Psal. 139. 22.
• f 1.6

  Iohn. 15. 21.
• g 1.7

  1. Tim. 3. 8.
• h 1.8

  Math. 7. 6.
• i 1.9

  Mat. 11. 3〈1 line〉〈1 line〉
• * 1.10

  The grounde of the Admo∣nition.
• (a) 1.11

  But their quarell is in tol∣lerating, not in placing.
• (b) 1.12

  A Papisticall assertion.
• (c) 1.13

  Vntrue.
• * 1.14

  Ierem. 7. ver. 31. 32. Esay. 30. V. 2
• * 1.15

  An vnaduised assertion of T. C. tending to Papistrie.
• * 1.16

  What is sayd to be expressed in the Scrip∣ture.
• * 1.17

  Argumentes ab authoritate negatiue.
• * 1.18

  An arg〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ent ab authoritate holdeth affir∣matiuely.
• * 1.19

  1. Top. Cap. 8.
• * 1.20

  Zuinglius in Elench.
• * 1.21

  The places which T. C. quoteth, proue not his pur∣pose.
• * 1.22

  Iere. 7. ver. 31.
• * 1.23

  Esa. 30. ver. 2.