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 upon the third leaf / where he giveth instance in the Apocalypse of the word (priest) to be taken otherwise / then for the Levitical priesthood / and priesthood of our saviour Christ. Master D. can not be ignorant / that the admonition speaketh of those which be priests in deed / & properly / and not by those which are priests by a Metaphor and borrowed speech. And whereas he desireth to learn where the word (priest) is taken in evil part in all the new Testament. Although all men see how he asketh this question of no mind to learn: yet if he will learn (as he sayeth) he shall find that in the acts of the apostles / it is taken divers tunes in evil part. For seeing that the office and function of run jereon, that is / of priests / was (after our saviour Christs ascension) naught and ungodly: The name whereby they were called / which did exercise that ungodly function / can not be otherwise taken / then in the evil part.

And vpon the thirde leafe / where he geueth instance in the Apocalypse of the worde (priest) to be taken otherwyse / then for the Leuiticall priesthode / and priesthode of our sauioure Christe. Maister D. can not be ignorant / that the admonition speaketh of those which be priests in deede / & properly / and not by those whych are priests by a Metaphore and borowed speache. And whereas he desyreth to learne where the word (priest) is taken in euill parte in all the new Testament. Although all men see how he asketh thys question of no minde to learne: yet if he will learne (as he sayeth) he shall finde that in the actes of the apostles / it is taken diuers tunes in euill parte. For seeing that the office and function of ron iereon, that is / of priests / was (after our sauyor Christes ascencion) naught and vngodly: The name wherby they were called / whych dyd exercise that vngodly function / can not be otherwyse taken / then in the euill parte.

M. Doctor upon the. 5. leaf / citeth M. Calvins authority / to prove that the laying on of the hands upon young children / and the Confirmation which is here used / is good. In the which place / although he allow of a kind of Confirmation / yet he doth not commend that which we have. For he doth plainly reprove Jerome / for saying that it came from the apostles / which notwithstanding the Confirmation with us doth affirm. Besides that / there are other abuses which I have noted there / which M. Calvin doth not by any word allow. He alloweth in deed of a putting on of hands of the children / when they come out of their childhood / or begin to be young men / but as well as he doth allow of it / he was one of those which did thrust it out of the church / where he was pastor. And so he alloweth of it / that he bringeth (in the sixth section of the same chapter) a strong reason to abolish it. Where he asketh / what the imposition of hands should do now / seeing that the giving of the gifts of the holy ghost by that ceremony is ceased. Therefore / seeing that we have M. Calvins reason against this imposition of hands / his name ought not to be prejudicial unto us: especially / seeing that we have experience of great inconveniences which come by it / which M. Calvin could not have / that thing being not in use in that church where he lived. Which inconvenience in things which are not necessary / ought to be a just cause of abolishing of them. And this is not my judgement only / but the judgement of the churches of Helvetia / Berne / Tigurine / Geneva / Scotland / and divers others / as appeareth in the. 19. chapter of their confession.