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.

The distinction of Apparell was appoynted for Ministers before the Popes tyrannie.

Chap. 4. the. 1. Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 55. Sect. 2. 3.

If you doubte whether a particular kinde of apparell differing from the lay men, were euer appoynted for Ministers in the Church before the Popes tyrannie, and whether in these dayes it maye be appoynted in reformed Churches, or no, heare the iudgement of master Bullinger, and master Gualter, in an Epistle written by thē to master N. and master M. Their words be these.

That in the auncient Churche there vvas a particular fashion of appa∣rell* 1.1 for Priests, it appeareth in the Ecclesiasticall historie of Theodoret. lib. 2. cap. 27. and of Socrates lib. 6. cap. 22. No man is ignorante, vvhich hath but lightly redde ouer the monumentes of the auncient fathers, but that the Ministers vsed a cloake in their seruice. And therefore I say de before, that the diuersitie of garmentes had not his originall of the Pope. Eusebius citeth out of the auncient vvryters, that sainct Iohn the Apostle vvare on his head a leafe or thinne plate lyke vnto a Bishops myter. Pon∣tius Diaconus vvitnesseth of sainct Cyprian the Martyr, that vvhen he offered his necke to the executioner, he first gaue him his cappe, and the Deacon his vpper garment, and so stode appareled in vvhite linnen. More∣ouer Chrysostome maketh mention of vvhyte apparell of Ministers. Hi∣therto Bullinger and Gualter.

T. C. Pag. 54. Sect. 3. 4.

The place of (a) 1.2 Theodoret cited by M. Bullinger, maketh mention of a golden Cope, and that vsed by Bishops of Hierusalem, and solde by Cyrill a good Bishop, whereby he declared sufficiently his misliking of suche garments in the ministerie of the Sacraments. In the place the whiche he citeth out of Socrates, there is one Sycinius an Nouatian Bishop is sayde to haue worne whyte apparell, and therefore is reprehended as for too muche exquisitenesse and fine∣nesse of apparell, and the Bishop of Durisine, in a letter he wrote, alleadgeth the same place a∣gaynst the surplice. A man would hardly beleeue that master Bullinger should vse these places to proue a distinction of apparel amongst the Ministers: We are not ignorant but that a cloake hath beene vsed of the Ministers in their seruice, but that was no seuerall apparell of the Ministers, but common to all Christians, which with chaunge of their religion, chaunged also their apparell, as appeareth manifestly in Tertullian de Pailio.

As for the Petalum that S. Iohn ware, I see not howe it can be proued, to be like a Bi∣shops 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉iter. For the cappe that S. Cyprian gaue the executioner, argueth rather that it was the common apparell, whiche was customably worne, for else it woulde not haue done him so muche good. As for his vpper garment, whiche he gaue to his Deacon, it was a token of his good wyll, which he would leaue with him, as the practise hath beene seene with vs, and proueth nothing that it was any seuerall apparell. As for the whytelinnen garment, whiche he suffered in, it can not seeme straunge vnto vs, which haue seene the holy martyrs of the Lorde executed in Smith∣fielde and other places. And it is not to be thoughte that S. Cyprian had so small iudgement, that liuing in the tyme of persecution, he would by wearing of some notable apparell from the rest, as it were betray him selfe into the handes of his ennemies, vnlesse all the Christians had done so too for clearer and more open profession of their faythe, and greater detestation of the contrarie Religion: as Tertullian and the Chrystians in hys tyme dyd, by the wea∣ring of a Cloake, whiche reason maye bee also alleadged of the Petalum of Saincte Iohn.* 1.3 It is true, Chrysostome maketh mention of a white garment, but not in commendation of it, but rather to the contrarie. For hee sheweth that the dignitie of their ministerie, their

sa〈1 line〉〈1 line〉tie and crowne was in taking heede, that none vnmeete were admitted to the Lordes supper, not in going about the Churche with a whyte garment. And it is easily to be seene by (* 1.4) Salo∣mon* 1.5 in his Ecclesiastes, that to weare a whyte garment was greatly esteemed in the East partes, and was ordinarie to those that were in any estimation, as the wearing of blacke with vs: and therefore was no seuerall apparell for the ministers, or for to execute their ministerie in.

Io. Whitgifte.

The wordes of Theodoret be these, But the tale, which they had raysed of Cyrillus,* 1.6 did chiefly displease the (* 1.7) Emperour. For wheras the most worthy king Constantine had for the honour of the Churche of Hierusalem giuen vnto Macarius Bishop in the same ci∣tie, a holy garment (precious and wrought with golde) which he should weare, when he ministred the holy Baptisme, they reported that Cyrill solde it. &c. Héere you sée that Theodoret counteth it but a fable, that Cyrill should make any suche sale, and those that say he solde it, declare that it was not for any disalowing of the vesture, but for* 1.8 necessitie of the poore in the time of famine, as Sozo. lib. 4. cap. 25. testifieth.

You deale with M. Bullinger as you doe with me, that is, you peruert his meaning and alleage that out of Socrates, that he ment not, & keepe that in silence, which ma∣keth* 1.9 directly for this purpose. Socrates there sheweth howe Sycinius béeing a No∣uatian, did weare white apparel, & when he was for the same reproued, he answered that it was no where written that Priests shoulde weare blacke apparell, and bad them proue by scripture, that priests ought to weare blacke apparell. Whereby it is playne, that ministers in those days did weare black apparel, & were therby knowne, and that Sycinius béeing an heretike refused so to do, vsing the same arguments that you do, scilicet, that it is no where commaunded that Priests should weare suche kinde of vesture. Wherfore the story is aptly alleadged by master Bullinger, to proue a seue∣rall kinde of apparell, and it insinuateth what manner of men those be, that con∣temne the common order in suche matters, and loue to be singular like vnto Sycinius the Nouatian heretike.

As for S. Iohn his Petalum, you heare what these learned men saye, who no doubte haue good grounde of their iudgement. Neyther woulde Eusebius haue made any mention of it, if it had not bin a kinde of apparell, whereby S. John was knowne.* 1.10 The wordes of Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 31. be these: Iohn whiche leaned vpon the brest of the Lorde, beeing a Priest wore a leafe or thinne plate. Whereby it is euident, that this ap∣parell was peculiar to S. Iohn in the respecte that he was a Priest. That Cyprian his apparell was not vsuall and common for other men to weare, it may appeare by this, that the names of his apparell be expressed, for that whiche he gaue to the exe∣cutioner is called Birrus, that is, a thi〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ne plate, and that which he gaue to the Deacon was called Dalmatica, a garment with long sléeues: as for the white linnen, it is not there mentioned as any distinct kinde of apparell.

The wordes of Chrysostome doe manyfestly declare that then suche kinde of gar∣ment was vsed in the administration of the Sacramentes: neyther doe his wordes tende any thing at all to the disalowing of it, for they be spoken by the way of compa∣rison, and negatiues by comparison are not simple negatiues (as I tolde you before) but by the way of comparison: and therefore when Chrysostome sayth, that the dig∣nitie of their ministerie. &c. was in taking heede, that none vnmeete were admitted to the Lords supper, not in going about the Churche with a white garment, he dothe not disal∣lowe going about the Churche in a white garment, but he sayth, that it is not in comparison of the other, so greatly to be regarded.

If Salomon in that place ment any suche matter, yet is it no profe at al for this that* 1.11 you alle〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e it for: there was a great nūber of yeres betwixt Salomon his time, and Chrysostomes, and all kinde of customes much altered, & therfore I maruell what you meane to bring in Salomon to proue that the white apparel vsed by ministers of the church in the administration of the sacraments in the time of Chrysostome, was not s〈1 line〉〈1 line〉uerall, but common and vsuall apparel. But that the Reader may vnderstande your

carelesnesse in alleaging the scriptures, I will set downe the wordes of Salomon in that. 9. chapter and. 8. verse. At all times let thy garments be white, and let not oyle be lac∣king vpon thine head. In the which sentence, by the white garment is ment eyther in∣nocencie of life, as Pellicane doth interprete it, or ioy & mirth, as some other thinke:* 1.12 but there can be nothing lesse gathered thereof, than that there was at that time any suche vsuall kinde of apparell. And to what purpose should he haue so sayde, if it had bin so? The Metaphores & figuratiue kinde of spéeches that Salomon vseth in these bookes, can not be vnknowne to any. You do not trouble me with many quotations, but those that be, are passing straunge. And surely I can not but maruell howe you dare be so bolde, as thus to abuse the scriptures.

Be it that this is the saying of belly gods (according to the note of the Geneua Bi∣ble, whervpon I thinke you grounde your assertion) to moue vnto mirth & pastime, dothe it therefore followe, that this was an vsuall kinde of Apparell in Salomon his time? Or if it were then, must it be also in Chrysostome his time? Or if it were so in his time, might it not also be vsed of the ministers in the administration of the sa∣craments, as a comely and decent vesture, and differing from the rest? If I had the gifte of iesting, that you are so excellent in, what sporte could I make with this, and a number suche like places?

Chap. 4. the. 2. Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 56. Sect. 1.

Peter Martyr likewise in an Epistle written to master Hoper,* 1.13 sayth on this sorte: I vvill not graunte that these diuersities of vestures haue their beginninges of the Pope, for so muche as I reade in the ecclesia∣sticall historie, hovve that Iohn the Apostle vvore at Ephesus, vvhere he* 1.14 dvvelled, a Bishops apparell, tearming it Petalum, seu lamina Pontificalis. As tou∣ching Sainct Cyprian the holy martyr, Pontius the Deacon vvriteth, that a little before he shoulde be beheaded, he gaue vnto him that vvas appoyn∣ted to behead him, his vesture called Birrus, after he had put it off, and to the Deacons he gaue his other vesture called Dalmatica, and so stoode in linnen. Chrysostome maketh mention of the vvhite vesture of the mini∣sters of the Churche. Haec ille.

T. C. Pag. 55. Sect. 1.

The reasons that M. Peter Martyr vseth, are the same before, and howe he hath also con∣demned them, it shall appeare, with M. Bucers iudgement of these thinges in the ends of the booke.

Io. Whitgifte.

In the meane time you sée howe these notable learned men agrée in one truthe a∣gaynst you: neyther are you able to shewe any contrarietie in this poynt vttered by him, or M. Bucer, as I trust shall then appeare.

Chap. 4. the. 3. Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 56. Sect. 2. 3.

Socrates also in the seconde booke of his Ecclesiasticall historie* 1.15 sayth, that the father of Eustathius beeing Bishop of Cesarea, did depriue the sayde Eustathius his sonne beeing a priest, of his place* 1.16 and dignitie, because he wore apparell not comely for a Priest to weare, nor agreable to his order.

Therefore it is certaine that Ministers euen from the Apostles tyme haue had a distincte and seuerall kynde of apparell from other men.

T. C. Page. 55. Sect. 2.

As for Eustathius his depriuation, bycause he dyd not were apparell meete for a Minister, it maketh not to this purpose one whit. For I haue shewed that if any minister goe like a ruffian or swashe buckler, or in the brauerie of a courtier, that it is meete he should be punished according to the quantitie of the fault. And that it is so to be vnderstanded it appeareth manifestly by the coun∣sell of Gangris, which did therfore confirme the same deposing, bycause he ware a straunger appa∣rell, and the habite of a Philosopher, and caused all his fellowes to doe so. Therefore I maruaple what you meane to alleage this place. It is also alleaged of (*) Nicephorus, in (a) 1.17 neither of the* 1.18 places there is any Eustathius the sonne of Eustathius, but of Eulabius, or as Nicephorus rea∣deth Eulalius. And therefore your conclusion is both vntrue and vncertaine, that since the Apo∣stles times there hath bene a distinct and seuerall apparell of the ministers from the rest.

Io. Whitgifte.

The wordes of Socrates Lib. 2. chap. 43. be these: Eustathius the Bishop of Sebastia in* 1.19 Armenia was not admitted to make his defense, bycause he was deposed before of his fa∣ther Byshop of Cesarea in Capadocia, for that he wore an vndecent garment. The canon of the Councell of Gangris: If any man thinketh it to auaile vnto his holye purpose (to* 1.20 wete of continencie) that he weare a cloake, as if thereby he should atteine vnto righteous∣nesse, and reprehendeth, or condemneth them which weare the ornament called Byrrhus and the other common and vsuall garment, let him be accursed. Dist. 30. Both by Socrates and also by this Canon of the Councell it doth appeare that Eustathius and his adhe∣rentes were condemned for vsing a newe and singular kinde of apparell, from that which then was commonly and customably vsed of all Bishops. That in the conclu∣sion of this Councell which is spoken of modest, simple, and decent apparell, agaynst that which is lose and dissolute, hath no collour of prouing any thing against Eusta∣thius his contempt and singularitie, neither doth it in any one word signifie, that he was not depriued for refusing to weare the ordinarie and accustomed apparell to Priestes.

You saye, that in neither of the places, there is any Eustathius the sonne of Eustathius,* 1.21 but of Eulabius. &c. Gladly woulde you haue some thing to dally with, if possibly you could tell how. Are you not ashamed thus to deale? where doe I say that Eustathius was the sonne of Eustathius? had you not my booke before you? be not these my words: Socrates in the second booke of his Ecclesiasticall historie saith, that the father of Eustathius being Bishoppe of Caesarea, did depriue the sayd Eustathius his sonne beyng a priest. &c. I neither name him Eusta∣thius, nor Eulabius, nor Eulalius: Therfore my conclusion is both true and certain, and you doe but séeke occasion of quareling.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Bullinger & Gualter.
• (a) 1.2

  The place of Theodoret fal∣〈1 line〉〈1 line〉fied▪
• * 1.3

  Hom. 6. ad pop. Antio∣ch〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.
• * 1.4

  Scripture fond∣ly alleaged.
• * 1.5

  Eccle. 9.
• * 1.6

  T〈1 line〉〈1 line〉eod. lib. 2. cap. 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉7.
• * 1.7

  〈◊〉〈◊〉▪
• * 1.8

  Sozo. lib. 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 cap. 25.
• * 1.9

  Lib. 6. cap. 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪
• * 1.10

  Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 31.
• * 1.11

  T. C. doth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉eage the 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 fundly 〈◊〉〈◊〉 carelesly.
• * 1.12

  Ecclesi. 9.
• * 1.13

  P. Martyr.
• * 1.14

  Iohns appa∣rell.
• * 1.15

  Socrates.
• * 1.16

  Eustathius.
• (a) 1.17

  〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.
• * 1.18

  Lib. 9. cap. 45.
• * 1.19

  Socra. lib. 2. cap. 43.
• * 1.20

  Distinc. 3〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.
• * 1.21

  T. C. taketh aduantage where none is giuen.