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.

Yet you should here haue excused their ignorance, in certaine poynts and theyr absurd reasoning: but seeing you are content so lightly to passe all this ouer, and lea∣uing the defense of the Admonition, séeke to confute my collections, I am contente also that it stande vntouched, and will answere that whyche you onely séeme to misselyke.

I doe not otherwyse suspect them of Arrianisme, than they haue giuen iust occasi∣on, by dislyking the publike reading of that Creede, whiche was purposely made to ouerthrow Arrianisme. I trust there is a great number of suche as feare God in the Churche of Englande that knowe not them, but yet for their rashnesse in this point, haue them in some suspiition.

By these examples of negatiue argumentes from the Scriptures, I ouerthrow all the Anabaptistes reasons, that they do, or can vse in the defense of their errours, so do I lykewyse yours, vsed against this Church of England, neyther speake I any otherwyse of the baptisme of infantes, or of womens receyuing the Communion, than M Zuinglius doth in his Elench. against the Anabaptistes, and M. Caluine also in his booke written against them.

But this answere sore troubleth you, and therefore you onely replie against it with slaunderous wordes: but least you should by such meanes abuse the Reader, I will set〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e downe bothe Zuinglius and Caluines wordes. M. Zuinglius in his Elench. con∣tra* 1.1 Anabap. sayth thus: You can fynde no hole to escape at. For you foolyshly reason negatiuely from deedes and examples, naye from no deedes and no examples. For what doe you else when you saye, wee reade not that the Apostles didde baptize infantes, Ergo, infantes oughte not to be baptized? Dothe not all the force of youre reasons consyste herein? And again: VVherfore it is to be maruelled at, with what face they dare measure

the Baptisme of Infantes by the Scripture, or rather by not scripture, for they haue no∣thing in the Scripture whervnto they may truste, but they make onely the negatiue their foundation, when they saye: we reade not that the Apostles baptized infantes, therefore they ought not to bee baptized. &c. And in his booke de Baptismo: of the baptisme of in∣fantes and the first originall thereof neyther I, nor any other man can otherwise affirme (if we respect the expresse and euident worde of God) than that it is that true and onely bap∣tisme of Christe. For we may fynde many things of this sorte, whereof although there be no expresse and playne testimonie of God, yet they are not repugnant to his will, but ra∣ther agreeth with the same: of this sort is that, that we make women partakers of the Lords supper, when as notwithstandyng wee reade of none that sat downe in that Supper which Christe dyd institute. And M. Caluine in his booke aduersus Anabaptist. sayeth in lyke* 1.2 maner, They haue nothyng to saye agaynste the Baptisme of infantes, but that there is no where any mention made that the Apostles did vse it: to this I answere, that no more doe wee reade in any place, that they did at any tyme minister the Supper of our Lorde to any woman. And yet these two be neyther Anabaptistes▪ Catabaptistes, nor Papists, but valiant captaines against them all.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Zuinglius.
• * 1.2

  Caluine.