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.

You saye there is no function, but hath giftes apt and fitte to discharge it, annexed and giuen* 1.1 vnto it. If you meane that there is no function but there is giftes méete for it, which God hath in his power to bestowe, it is most true: But if your meaning be, that the giftes be so annexed to the function, that of necessitie whosoeuer is called to that function muste also haue those giftes, it is moste vntrue. For experience dothe teache that euery man hath not giftes according to his function, althoughe he bée lawfully there vnto called, touching his externall calling: for the in warde calling none knoweth but God himselfe, and a mans owne conscience. But you put mée in remembraunce of that whiche maister Bullinger writeth of the Anabaptistes lib. 5. cap. 1. wher he (confuting the reason they vse to proue that Christians ought not to haue magistrates, bicause Christians be so perfect of themselues that they can go∣uerne themselues, and therfore néede not to be subiect to any other superiour autho∣ritie saith thus: Solent autem Anabaptistae libenter ea imaginari & animo suo fingere quae nun∣quàm* 1.2 fueru〈1 line〉〈1 line〉t, ne{que} extant, aut posthaec futura sunt. The Anabaptistes willingly vse to imagine and conceyue those things in their myndes whiche neuer hath bene, nor are, nor hereafter shall bee. Euen so I say vnto you, that in imagining the giftes perteyning to euery func∣tion so to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vnto the function, that he whiche hath the one must of necessitie haue the other, you phansie that whiche neuer was, is, or shall be: and in so reasoning what do you else, than vse that argument against superioritie in the Ecclesiasticall estate, which the Anabaptists vse both against Ecclesiasticall & Ciuill magistrates? But I answere you as M. Bullinger answered them: Excepte you were blinded with pertinacie you might easily see in your selfe iuste cause why there shoulde bee magistrates* 1.3 and Superiours.

Moreouer God dothe not tie his giftes to any certayne and definite number of names or titles of offices, but bestoweth them as it pleaseth him, to the commoditie of his Church, vpon such as be méete to vse them, by what name or title soeuer they be called. Wherefore this assertion of yours is eyther vnaduisedly auouched, or else doth it conteyne some secrete poyson not yet vttered.

This being sayde, to the ground that you haue layde, thus I answere to your ar∣gument:* 1.4 it is in no mode, and in déede to bad for any boye to vse in his Sophismes. It is in forme the same with this: Those things onely are sufficient for saluation which are conteyned in the Scriptures, but al those things in the Aue Maria are con∣teyned in the Scriptures, therefore those things only which are in the Aue Maria are sufficient to saluation. Or this, those onely are men which are indued with reason,

but all the Cosrardmongers in London are indued with reason, therefore the Costard∣mongers of London onely are men. Besides this, the Maior is particular, which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 agaynst all forme of Syllogisme in the first or second figure: to be shorte, in your Maior you haue this woorde (onely) in your Medium and in the Minor is left out. And therefore your conclusion followeth not, except you had sayd in your Minor, that only these functions reckened of S. Paule to the Ephesians &c. haue all giftes needefull for the mini∣string of the woorde and sacraments and for the gouernment of the Church: And yet if it were so, your argument should be of no force, being ex solis particularibus. So that in your Syllogisme there is no manner of forme, and therefore not woorthie of any other an∣swere, vntill it be better framed. Although I could say vnto you that all those fun∣ctions haue giftes necessary for them: but not only those functions: bycause there be other not mencioned of you which haue giftes necessary also, and which the Apostle rehearseth. 1. Corinth. 12. So lykewise could I answere that moste of those functions (according to your owne opinion) be not perpetuall but for a time, and therfore your reason is no good reason. Likewise that the Apostle hath not made in eyther of these places any perfect diuision of offices which were euen at that time in the Churche. For in the first to the Corinthians the. 12. chap. he leaueth out Euangelistes, Pastors, Byshops, Deacons, widdowes: and in the fourth to the Ephesians: Deacons, wid∣dowes, workers of miracles, &c. So that he hath not lefte any perpetuall paterne of offices, or names in eyther of those twoo places. To conclude I could tell you that God hath lefte to his Church authoritie to appoynt both names and offices, as shall be for the same most conuenient and profitable, the which authoritie the Church hath also from the beginning vsed, as in appoynting Catechistes, Lectors, and such lyke, not superfluons but moste necessarie offices, and profitable for the Churche, in those times wherein they were.

Notes

• * 1.1

  In what sense euery function is sayde to haue giftes to dis∣charge it.
• * 1.2

  Bullinger. lib. 5. aduersus a∣nab. cap. 1.
• * 1.3

  Idem.
• * 1.4

  The deformed argument of T. C.