A reply to an answer made of M. Doctor Whitgifte Against the admonition to…A replye to an ansvvere made of M. Doctor VVhitgifte Against the admonition to…

And although they have all these properties which you recite / yet if they be not to edifying / if not to God his glory / if not comely and agreeable to the simplicity of the gospel of Christ crucified / they may not be established. Concerning your distinction / whereby you lessen the idolatry of the papists / I have showed the vanity thereof.

And althoughe they haue all these properties whych you recite / yet if they be not to edifying / if not to God hys glorye / if not comely and agreeable to the simplicitie of the gospell of Christe crucified / they may not be established. Concerning your distinction / wherby you lesten the idolatrie of the papistes / I haue shewed the vanitie thereof.

But of this matter you say you will speak again. In deed so you do / and again / wherein you confound the memory and understanding of the reader / and declare your self not only ignorant of Aristotle's rule of katholou proton (which is to speak of one thing generally and once for all) but even to be void of that order which men have commonly by the natural logic of reason. Neither can you excuse your self in saying that the Admonition giveth you so often times occasion to speak of them / and so to lay the fault upon it / for that it being written by divers persons of the same matters / whereof one knew not of an others doing / can not be blamed for the repetition of one thing twice / when as you can not escape blame which might have gathered easily into one place / y• which is said of them in divers. Which thing / although it be not so easy for me to do in your book / as it was for you to do in theirs / yet I will assay to do it both in this and in all other points that follow / not thinking thereby to bring this treatise of yours to any good order (for that were to cast it new again / and then you would complain of your mind perverted) but that I might remedy this so great disorder as far as may be done without changing any thing of that which you have set down.

But of thys matter you say you will speake againe. In deede so you doe / and againe / wherin you confound the memorie and vnderstanding of the reader / and declare your selfe not onlye ignorante of Aristotles rule of katholou proton (whych is to speake of one thyng generally and once for all) but euen to be voide of that order whych men haue commonly by the naturall logicke of reason. Neither can you excuse your selfe in saying that the Admonition geueth you so often times occasion to speake of them / and so to lay the faulte vpon it / for that it being wrytten by diuers persons of the same matters / whereof one knewe not of an others doing / can not be blamed for the repetition of one thing twise / when as you can not escape blame whych might haue gathered easely into one place / y which is sayd of them in diuers. Whych thing / although it be not so easy for me to doe in your booke / as it was for you to doe in theirs / yet I will assay to doe it bothe in thys and in all other poyntes that folowe / not thincking thereby to bring thys treatise of youres to any good order (for that were to cast it new againe / and then you would complaine of your minde peruerted) but that I might remedy this so great disorder as farre as maye be done wythoute chaunging any thyng of that whych you haue set downe.