A18078:959
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…
A reply to an answer made of M. Doctor Whitgifte Against the admonition to the Parliament. By T.C.A replye to an ansvvere made of M. Doctor VVhitgifte Against the admonition to the Parliament. By T.C.
printed by John Stroud?, 1573
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
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.
M. Doctor vpon the. 5. leafe / citeth M. Caluins authority / to proue that the laying on of the handes vpon yong children / and the Confirmation whych is heere vsed / is good. In the whych place / although he allow of a kinde of Confirmation / yet he doth not commende that whych we haue. For he dothe plainly reproue Ierom / for saying that it came from the apostles / whych notwythstanding the Confirmation wyth vs dothe affirme. Besydes that / there are other abuses whych I haue noted there / whych M. Caluin doth not by any word allow. He alloweth in deede of a putting on of handes of the children / when they come oute of their childehode / or begin to be yong men / but as well as he doth allow of it / he was one of those whych did thruste it oute of the churche / where he was pastor. And so he alloweth of it / that he bryngeth (in the sixt section of the same chapter) a strong reason to abolyshe it. Where he asketh / what the imposition of handes should do now / seeing that the geuing of the giftes of the holy ghost by that ceremony is ceased. Therfore / seeing that we haue M. Caluins reason against thys imposition of hands / hys name ought not to be preiudiciall vnto vs: especially / seing that we haue experience of great inconuenyences whych come by it / whych M. Caluin coulde not haue / that thyng being not in vse in that church where he lyued. Whych inconuenience in thyngs whych are not necessary / oughte to be a iust cause of abolyshing of them. And thys is not my iudgement only / but the iudgement of the churches of Heluetia / Berne / Tigurine / Geneua / Scotlande / and diuers others / as appeareth in the. 19. chapter of their confession.