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.

Cap. 1. the. 1. Diuision.

Admonition.

They had no introite, for Celestinus a Pope brought it in, about the yere. 430. But we haue borrowed ap〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ce of one out of the Masse booke.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 94. Sect. 1. 2.

What you vnderstande heere by the Introite, certaynely I knowe* 1.1 not. The first thing that we say at the Communion is the Lordes prayer, which Celestinus did not inuent, but Christe. Matth. 6. nor* 1.2 first vse in the celebration of the Lordes Supper, but the Apostles, as we reade in good Chronicles: next vnto that is a very godly and necessary prayer, worthy to be sayde in the celebration of suche a my∣sterie, and therefore no matter at all who inuented it, or broughte it in: And yet Celestinus was a godly Bishop, and the Churche of

Rome, at that tyme had the substance of the sacraments, according to Gods word, neither was there any superstitiō mixed with them: notwithstanding I know not any Introite of Celestinus inuētion, that* 1.3 we haue in our order of the Communion: for the Introite that he appoin∣ted was one of the psalmes, as Volateranus, Gratianus, and Polydorus Vergili∣u〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 do testify. And we haue not any psalme in the celebratiō of the sup∣per: if we had, it were not to be reproued.

This I am sure of, that it is not euill, bycause it is in the Masse booke, except it be repugnāt to the word of God: for the Lords pray∣er* 1.4 some of the psalmes, the Gospells and Epistles, the Nicene creede &c. be in the Masse booke, and yet good, so is there some other good prayers in it also.

Admonition.

The second▪ They read no fragments of the Epistle and Gospell, we vse both.

Ansvvere Pag. 94. Sect. vlt. &. Pag. 95. Sect. 1.

And what fault can you find in that? is not the whole scripture, and euery peece of it profitable to edify? can the scripture at any time in the open congregation be read out of season, being in a knowen tongue? but I thinke your quarell is at reading, not against the E∣pistle and the Gospell.

Always in the Churche there hathe bin red the scriptures in the celebration of the mysteries, and I am sure, the Gospell was not wont to be read from the one ende to the other at one time. Well,* 1.5 it is but your opinion withoute reason, that the Epistle and Gospell oughte not to be read at that time: for you bring no proofe, and I thinke the contrary. Fyrst, bycause they be scripture, and tend to edi∣fy: secondly, bycause it hathe bin the manner of long tyme, euen since Alexanders time. Anno. 111.

Admonition.

The third. The Nicene creede was not read in their communion, we haue it in ours.

Ansvvere Pag. 95. Sect. 3.

The Nicene Creede and euery parte of it is grounded vppon the* 1.6 worde of God, it was collected by that famous Councell of Nice, to confounde that detestable heresie of the Arrians, and therefore meete to be reade in all Christian congregations, neyther can any mislyke it, but Arrians and suche lyke, of the whiche secte you gyue iust suspitions that you bee fautors. This Creede in thys forme was not framed in the Apostles tyme, bycause the heresie of Arrius was not then hatched. And therefore no good reason to say it was not read in the Apostles tyme at the communion: Ergo it ought not to be read now. But thys argumente is intollerable, the Nicene Creede is read at the communion, therefore the com∣munion is not sincerely ministred. All these three reasons be taken ab authoritate negatiuè: and therefore of no force, excepte wee wyll also graunte these to bee true, and suche lyke, scilicet,

Then they had no Christian Princes, and therefore we maye haue no Christian Princes. Then they had no ciuill or politike lawes, Ergo we ought to haue none. Then the Churche had no externall peace, but was vnder persecution, Ergo it should haue no peace now. Then Christians had proprietie in nothing, but all thinges were common: Ergo no man may haue any thing of his owne, but common to other: we do not reade expressely, that Children were then bap∣tised, therefore they ought not to be baptised now (for so do the Ana∣baptists reason) neyther do we reade that women did then receiue the supper, therefore they ought not to do it now: with infinite other as absurd as these.

T. C. Pag. 130. Sect. 1.

Unto the three next sections conteyned in the. 94. 95. and a peece of the. 96. pages, touching that which is called the Introite, and (*) 1.7 fragments of the Epistles and Gospels, and the rehear∣sall of the Nicene creede, I haue declared before the causes of our misliking, neyther meane I to stand to refute the slanderous surmises, which M. Doctor raiseth of the authors of the Admoni∣tion, whereby he would bring them into the suspition of Arrianisme, to whom all those that feare God beare witnesse, that they are moste farre from. He him selfe notwithstanding once agayne in the laste of these three sections. 96. pag. doth laye the manyfeste foundations of that part of Ana∣baptisme, which standeth in hauing all things common, saying directly against S. Peter, that in* 1.8 the time of the Apostles, Christians hadde proprietie in nothing. And further giuing great cause of triumph of the one syde to the Eatabaptists, and such as denie the baptisme of yong infants, in matching that with those things which the church may (although not without incommoditie, yet withoute impietie) bee withoute: and of the other syde vnto the Papistes, whylest he sayeth that wee reade not of any women which receyued the Lordes supper in the Apostles tyme. For this is that they alleage to proue their vnwritten verities, when as it is easyly answered bothe to the Papistes, and M. Doctor, that forsomuche as the Apostle dothe witnesse, that the Churches of Corinthe consisting of men and women did receyue, that therfore women also did receyue, and were partakers of the Lordes table. Thus it is manifest that M. Doctor onely to displease the authors of the Admonition, sticketh not to (*) 1.9 pleasure three notable heretikes, Anabaptists, Ca∣tabaptistes, and Papistes.

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* 1.10 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* 1.11 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

  The introite.
• * 1.2

  The Apo∣stles began the Lordes supper with the Lordes prayer,
• * 1.3

  Celestinus introite what it was.
• * 1.4

  The epistle and Gospell.
• * 1.5

  Reading of scriptures at the communi∣on. Anno. 111. Alexander.
• * 1.6

  The Nicene Creede.
• (*) 1.7

  You may as∣well call chap∣ters fragments, for they are but peeces of the gospells and epi∣stles, and were first so deuided by men.
• * 1.8

  5. Act.
• (*) 1.9

  He pleasu∣reth them in de∣claring the ab∣surdities of their arguments.
• * 1.10

  Zuinglius.
• * 1.11

  Caluine.