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* 1.1 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* 1.2 (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, yt this con∣firmation* 1.3 is ver〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e auncient in the Churche, & well lyketh & alloweth ye 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* 1.4 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* 1.5 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.