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.

Chap. 4. The first Diuision.

Admonition.

The ninth. As for matrimonie y^t also hath corruptions too many, it was wont to be counted a sacrament, and therfore they vse yet a sacramentall signe, to whiche they attribute the vertue of wedlock. I meane the wedding ring, which they fowlly abuse and dalli〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 withal, in takyng it vp & laying it down: In putting it on▪ they abuse the name of the Trinitie, they make y^e newe maried man according to the Popish forme, to make an idoll of his wyfe, saying, with this ryng I thee* 1.1 wed, with my bodie I thee worship. &c. And bicause in poperie no holie action, may be done with∣out a Masse, they enioyn the maried persons to receiue the communion, (as they do their Bishops and priests when they ar made.) &c. Other pettie things out of the booke we speak not of, as that women, contrarie (m) 1.2 to the rule of the Apostle, come, & are suffered to come bareheaded with bag∣pipes and fidlers before them, to disturbe the congregation, and that they must come in at the great dore of the churche, else all is marred.

Answere to the Admonition Pag. 194. Saect. 1.* 1.3

The fyrst thing you mislyke in matrimonie is the ryng, whiche you call a sacramentall signe, and vntruely saye, that we attribute the vertue of wed∣locke thervnto: I knowe it is not materiall whether the ring be vsed or no, for it is not of the substance of matrimonie: neither yet a sacra∣mentall signe, no more than sitting at Communion is, but only a Ce∣remonie of the which M. Bucer (writing his iudgemēt vpon the first* 1.4 cōmunion booke set out in the tyme of king Edwarde) sayth on this sort: Subijcitur alius ritus, vt ānulum. &c. There is an other rite and ceremonie vsed that the bridegrome should lay vpon the book the ring or any other signe or token of wedlock, be it gold or siluer, which he wil giue to his wife, & from thēce the minister takīg it, doth deliuer it to the bridegrom, & he deliuereth the same to the bride with a prescript forme of words cōteined in the booke: this ceremonie is verie profitable, if the people be made to vnderstand what is therby signified: as that the ring & other things first layd vpon the book▪ & afterwarde by the minister, giuen to the bridegrome to be deliuered to the bride, do signifie that we ought to offer al that we haue to god before we vse* 1.5 them, & to acknowledge that we do receiue them at his hād to be vsed to his glorie. The putting of the ring vpon the fourth finger of the womās left hād, to the which as it is sayd, there cōmeth a sinew of string from the heart, doth signifie that the heart of the wife oughte to be vnited to hir husbande, & the roundnesse of the ring doth signifie, that the wife ought to be ioyned to hir husbande with a perpetuall bande of loue, as the ring it selfe is vvithoute ende. Hitherto M. Bucer.

T. C. Pag. 159. Sect. vlt.

If it be M. Bucers iudgement which is alledged here for the ring, I see that somtimes Homer slepeth. For first of al I haue shewed that it is not lawfull to institute new signes & sacraments, & then it is daungerous to do it, especially in this which confirmeth the false and popish opinion of a sacramente, as is alleaged by the Admonition. And thirdly to make such fond allegories of the lay∣ing downe of the money, of the roundnesse of the ring, and of the mysterie of the fourth finger, is let me speake it with his good leaue) verie ridiculous and farre vnlike himselfe. And fourthly, that he

I doe not speake of the inconuenience that men are constrayn〈1 line〉〈1 line〉d with charges to bring theyr chil∣dren oftentymes halfe a score myles for that (whiche if it were needefull) myght be as well done at home in their owne parishes. The thirde is for that in the allegation of the seconde cause of the v〈1 line〉〈1 line〉yng of the confirmation, the booke 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ayeth, that by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of handes, and Prayer, the chyldren maye receyue strengthe and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 agaynste all temp〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ations, where 〈◊〉〈◊〉 there is no promise that by the laying on of handes vpon chyldren, any such gyft that be giuen, & it mayn∣teineth* 1.6 the popish distinction, that the spirit of God is giue at baptisme vnto y^e remission of sinnes, & in confirmation vnto strength, the whyche verye worde (strength) the booke alleageth, and all this M. Doctor con〈1 line〉〈1 line〉uteth, by calling of the authors of the Admonition pceuishe and arrogant.

Io. Whitgifte.

If that be a sufficient reason to abolishe it, bycause it hath〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 bene horribly abused, then what shall you reteyne eyther in the churche, or in the common lyfe of man. But* 1.7 I haue before in talking of apparell declared the vanitie of this reason, and yet the confirmation that is nowe vsed was neuer abused by the Papistes, for they had it not, neyther any similitude of it, but onely the name whiche can not contaminate the thyng.

It commes not from the Popes decretall Epistles, except you will say, that these E∣pistles were connted authenticall befor Ieromes tyme: for he maketh mention of this confirmation, and alloweth of it, in his booke aduersus Luciferianos. I denye not* 1.8 (sayeth he) this to be the custome of the churches, that the Bishop at the in〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ocation of the holye spirite, goe to laye his hande vpon those whyche haue bene baptised as farre off in lesser cities, by priestes and deacons.

M. Bucer likewise writing vpon the fourth to the Ephesians testifieth, y^t this con∣firmation* 1.9 is ver〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e auncient in the Churche, & well lyketh & alloweth y^e same. Wher∣fore except you will giue too muche authoritie to the Popes decretall Epistles, you can not say, that the confirming of children after baptisme, had the originall in them.

The first steppe of poperie in thys Confirmation, (as you say) is laying on of handes. &c. and yet you sée by the testimonie of Ierome and Bucer, that laying on of handes hath long before Ieromes tyme bene vsed in confirming of children. Neyther can you say, that it confirmeth the opinion of it, that it is a sacrament, more than imposition of handes doth confirme the opinion of ordeyning ministers that it is also a Sacra∣mente: for I thinke that you will not denie but that imposition of handes may be vsed in ordeyning of ministers.

You saye, it is an vntruthe, that the confirmyng of chyldren by the imposi∣tion of handes came from the Apostles: but you only saye it, you proue it not. Shew the first institution of it since the Apostles, & then you say something, else the words of the booke will beare with them better credite, than yours can do.

To your second point, the authors before named, doe sufficiently answere in the places that I haue before named. The words of Ierome be t〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ese. If you demaund in* 1.10 this place, wherfore he that is baptised in the Church doth not receiue the holy Ghost but by the imposition of the hands of the Byshop: seing we all affirme that the holy Ghost is gi∣uen in true baptisme. Learne this obseruation to come from this authoritie, that after the ascention of our Lord, the holy Ghost came downe vpon the Apostles. And in many places we find the same thing to be done, rather for the honour of priesthoode than necessitie of the law For if the holy Ghost shoulde come only at the prayer of the Byshop, those were to be lamented, which in prison, or in castels, or in farre places being baptised by priestes and Deacons die before the Byshop can visite them. The words of M. Bucer be these. The* 1.11 signe of imposition of hands, Byshops only did giue, and that not without reason: for whe∣ther the couenant of the Lord is to be confirmed to those that are baptised, or whether they are to be reconciled that haue greeuously offended, or whether the ministers of the Church are to be ordeyned: all these ministeries do best become those to whome the chief care of the Church is committed.

Your obiection of mens charges in bringing their children to be confirmed, is childish.

It cannot be denied but that by harty and earnest prayers God doth worke these eff〈1 line〉〈1 line〉cts in thos〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 children that be his: and hereof imposition of handes is a signe. The ground of this is that promise wherevpon all our prayers do depend, that is, that we shall obteine whatsoeuer we aske the father in Christes name: neyther can you more iust∣ly cauill in this respect, at the imposition of handes at the confirmation of children, than you can do at the same in the ordeining of ministers.

The Authours of the Admonition séeme to allow of confirmation, but not as it is now vsed, for the which, bycause they shew no reason, it is a confutation most méete for them, to say that they be both arrogant and péeuish.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Abuses acci∣dentall.
• (m) 1.2

  1. Cor. II. 5
• * 1.3

  The ring in matrimonie.
• * 1.4

  Bucers opi∣nion of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ring in ma∣riage.
• * 1.5

  The fourth fynger.
• * 1.6

  Lom. lib. 4 diuis. 7.
• * 1.7

  Tract. 7. ca. 5. t〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e. 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉. diuiss. &c.
• * 1.8

  Ierom. aduers. Luciferian〈1 line〉〈1 line〉s.
• * 1.9

  Bucer.
• * 1.10

  Hiero aduers. Lucifer. 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉om. 2
• * 1.11

  Bucer. in. 4. Ephes.