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.

T. C. Pag. 80. Sect. 1.

At Antioch there rose a great & daūgerous heresie, that had in a maner infected al the Churches which shaked the very foūdation of the saluation of gods childē, that was, whether faith were suf∣ficient to iustifie without circūcision. The matter was disputed of both sides, it could not be agreed of. What do they now? Do they ordein some Archbishop, Archprophet, Archapostle, or any one chief to whō they will referre the coutrouersie, or vpon whō they wil depend? Nothing lesse. And if they would haue had the controuersies ended by one, what deuine was there euer, or shall there be more fitter for that purpose than S. Paule, which was amongst them? Why do they send abrode for re∣medie, when they had it at home? Why with great charges and long iourneyes, which they might haue had without charges, or one foote set out of the doore? what do they then? They sende Paule and Barnabas to Ierusalem, as if the lesser townes should send to the Churches of the Uniuersi∣ties, & of London, to desire their help in the determining of the controuersie. And what is Paule & Barnabas ambassage, is it to desire the iudgement or mind of some one? It must needes be answe∣red with S. Luke, that they came to know the resolution of the Church, and yet there were the A∣postles, whereof euerie one was better able both sharpely to see, and to iudge incorruptly without affection, than any Archbishop that euer was. If therefore in so great aboundance and ouerflowing of the giftes of God, and in that tyme when as controuersyes might haue beene referred without daunger of error vnto one onely, this ministerie of one aboue all, was not thought good: now when the giftes are lesse, and the daunger of error more; to make an Archbishop for the deciding of contro∣uersyes, and auoyding of schismes, is a thing so straunge, that I am not able to see the reason of it. For to which soeuer of the Apostles the controuersie had bene referred, it is certaine that he would haue giuen a true sentence of it.

Io. Whitgifte.

It was tolde you before, that an Archbishop of himselfe alone doth not take vpon* 1.1

him to determin matters of doctrine in controuersie: But if any such contention arise, either he determineth the matter according to the law, & rule alreadie by the Church established, or else with the consent of the Prince doth he set an order in the same by a prouinciall and lawfull Synode: in the which he is the chiefe, as some one of the Apostles were in such like assemblies, according to that which I haue before declared: & therfore all this speach might well haue bene spared. Your argument also is faultie in two respectes: first it is Ab authoritate negatiuè, or à non facto ad non ius, which is good Neque in diuinis ne{que} in humanis, neyther in diuine nor in humane matters: Secondly, you go about to conclude an vniuersall doctrine of one particular and singular example: which at no time, nor in any matter is tollerable.

Moreouer it rather iustifyeth my assertion, for it euidently proueth that euerie* 1.2 Parish within it selfe, hath not absolute authoritie to ende controuersies, but that it behoueth them in such weightie matters, to resort to the chiefe Church, as they now did to Ierusalem. This example therefore, if you well consider it, is directly against you: neither doth it in any respect proue, that there was then no chiefe gouernour or guide of the rest, to supplie that place and office which now the Archbishop hath.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Supr. diui. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.2

  The example of T. C. is rather against him, than for him.