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. 6. the. 3. Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition Pag. 198. Sect. 2.

You say that thereby prayer for the dead is mainteyned, as may partly be gathered out of some of the prayers, where we pray that we with this our brother, and other departed in the true faith of thy holy name▪ &c. You know full well what out doctrine* 1.1 is concerning prayer for the dead, and you ought not thus boldly to vtter a manifest vntruth, for in so doing you do but be wray your sini∣ster affection How proue you that a prescripte forme of seruice for burying the dead, and the minister only to bury them, doth mainteine prayer for the dead▪ when you haue shewed your reason, you shall hea〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e my answer.

In saying that these words gathered out of some of the prayers,* 1.2 that we with this our brother. &c. import prayer for the dead, you do but quarrell:* 1.3 when we say that we with Abraham, Isaac and Iacob may reygne in thy kingdome, do we pray for Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, or 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉a∣ther wish ourselues to be where they are?

In the like manner when we say, that we with this our brother, and all other departed in the true faith of thy holy name, may haue our perfect consummation, & blisse both in body and soule, we pray not for our brother, and other that be de∣parted in the true faith, but we pray for ourselues, that we may haue our perfect consummation and blisse, as we are sure those shall haue which die in the true fayth.

Now weigh this reason, there is a prescript forme of burying the dead, and it is madea portion of the ministers office, ther〈1 line〉〈1 line〉fore you will not subscribe to the communion booke.

T. C. Pag. 161. Sect. 1.

And first o〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 all as this almost is a generall fault in them all, that they mainteine in the myndes of the ignorant the opinion of praying for the dead: so is this also another generall faulte, that these ceremonies are taken vp without any example eyther of the churches vnder the law, or of the pu∣rest churches vnder the Gospell, that is of the churches in the Apostles tymes. For when the Scripture describeth the ceremonies or rites of buriall amongst the people of God so diligently, that it maketh mention of the smallest things, there is no doubt but the holy Ghost doth thereby shew vs a patterne, wherevnto we should also frame our burialls. And therefore for so muche as neyther the Church vnder the law nor vnder the Gospell, when it was in the greatest puritie, did euer vse any prescript forme of seruice in the buriall of their dead, it could not be but daungerous, to take vp any such custome, and in the time of the law it was not only not vsed, but vtterly for for bid∣den:* 1.4 for when the law did forbid that the priest should not be at the buriall, whiche ought to saye or conceiue the prayers there, it is cleare that the Iewes might n〈1 line〉〈1 line〉t haue any suche prescripte forme, and yet they had most neede of it, for the causes of obscure knowledge, and weaker fayth before al∣leadged. Agayne by this meanes a new charge is layd vpon the minister, and a taking him away from his necessary duties of feeding & gouerning the flocke, which being so greate as a maruellous dilig〈1 line〉〈1 line〉nce will scarsely ouercome, ought not to be made greater by this, being a thing so vnnecessa∣ry. The Admonition dothe not say that the prayers whiche are sayd are for the dead, but that they mainteyne an opinion of prayer for the dead in the heartes of the simple, and that they declare ma∣manifestly enough, when they say that it may be partly gathered. &c.

Io. Whitgifte.

Your first reason to proue that there ought to be no prescripte forme of seruice to bury the* 1.5 dead, and that the minister ought n〈1 line〉〈1 line〉t to execute that office, is this: It mainteyneth in the mindes of the ignorant, an opinion of praying for the dead, therefore there ought to be no prescripte forme of seruice to bury the dead, neyther must the minister execute that office. Un∣doubtedly this is a very ignorant argument, if a man denie your antecedent, howe will you proue it? do you thinke the people (whome you do so greatly in other places extoll) to be so rude, that they vnderstand not the English tongue? Are they not able to discerne what it is to pray for the dead? Surely I do not thinke any to be so sim∣ple, that hearing the manner and forme of burying our dead, can or will imagine that we pray for the dead. And I verily beléeue that the ignorantest person in a whole countrey, will deride the babishnesse of the argument. The prescripte forme that is now vsed and the minister pronouncing the same, wi〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ather perswade them to the contrary, for where as in times past, the minister vsed to say masse and dirige for the soules of the dead, and sundry times moue standers by to pray for the dead, at the time of buriall: now doth he reade most wholesome scriptures, declaring the my∣serie of the life of man, the shortnesse of his dayes, the happinesse of those that dye in the Lorde, and the certeintie of the resurrection. And who can hereof gather any prayer for the dead?

Your second reason is this, these ceremonies (that is a prescript forme of burying the dead. &c) are taken vp without any example eyther of the Churches vnder the law, or of the chur∣ches in the Apostles time. &c. therefore there may be no prescripte forme of seruice for burying the dead, and the minister may not make it a péece of his office to bury them. I denie this argument: for it is negatiue from authoritie, bycause you haue neyther warrant to say that there was no such order in the Apostles time, neither if you had any such warrant, doth it follow that it may not be so in our time, séeing that in ce∣remonies and diuers other orders and externall thinges, we are not bounde to the forme and manner of the Apostolicall Church. And yet if I should say that in the A∣postles time, the minister vsed to bury the dead, and ground my reason vpō the place of S. Augustine before alleadged, quod vniuersa tenet ecclesia. &c. I know not what you would be able by any reason to say to the contrary.

Another argument you conclude thus: It was forbidden in the lawe that the prieste should be at the buriall of the dead, therefore the Iewes had no suche prescript forme. Be* 1.6 it so: but will you driue vs to conforme our selues to the Iewes ceremonies? do you thinke that touching the dead, or being at burialls will now make the minister vn∣cleane? I vnderstand not to what end you should alleadge any such proofes, vnlesse you would haue vs to retourne againe to Iudaisme. This kind of reasoning from the ceremoniall law is not only of no force, but also very dangerous, as though Christi∣ans were bound to behaue themselues according to that law. Surely it should séeme that you could rather consent to the bringing in of Iudaisme, than to the Christian orders now appointed in the Church. There might be and so there was a prescripte forme of burying the dead among the Iewes, although the Priest was absent: ther∣fore, if this kinde of reasoning from the examples of the Iewes were of any force, yet cannot this your argument proue that there ought to be no prescripte forme to bury the dead.

In the fourth place you reason thus: A new charge may not belayd vpon the minister, nor* 1.7 he maye not be taken from his necessary duties of feeding and gouerning his flocke. &c. but by burying the dead, a new charge is layd vpon him, and he is taken from his necessa∣ry duties. &c. therefore the minister may not bury the dead. Your Minor is false, for it is no new charge, laide vpon him: is it not his duty to reade the scriptures, to gyue thanks, to pray and to exhort in the publike congregation? doth he not féede, when he so doth? nay when is there a more apt time of féeding? will you giue him time to be* 1.8 absent from his flocke vpon his owne businesse, as before you haue done, and shal he haue no time to bury their dead? Surely I cannot conceiue how this function of bu∣rying the dead, should one iote hinder the minister f〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ō any one part of his dutie. And I thinke these reasons of yours too weake to allure any man into your opinion, or to plucke downe any thing that is already builded. If you séeke for alteration, you must vse pro〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ound and inuincible proofes, for no wise man will be moued to a change, without vrgent and especiall cause. I passe ouer this and such like matters the more lightly, bycause I take the lightnesse of your arguments to be such, as of themselues they be a sufficient discredite to your cause, and adde (with such a〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 be learned, and not led by affection) a greater strength and confirmation both to the doctrine, and also to the gouernment of this Church of England.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Prayer for the dead not, mainteyned.
• * 1.2

  Pag. 199. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 1. 2. 3.
• * 1.3

  E〈1 line〉〈1 line〉position of a prayer at Buriall.
• * 1.4

  Leuit. 21.
• * 1.5

  The prescript forme of ser∣uice maintey∣neth not pr〈1 line〉〈1 line〉y∣er for the dea〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 but 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.6

  The replyer had rather conforme him selfe to the Iewes than 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉o this church
• * 1.7

  The duetie of ministers not hindred by burying the dead.
• * 1.8

  Pa. 49. Se. vlt