And vpon the. 3. leafe, where he giueth instance in the Apocalips of the word (Priest) to be taken otherwise, than for the Leuitical priesthood, and priesthood of our sauiour Christ. M. D. cannot be ignorant that the Admonition speaketh of those which be priests in deed, & properly, and not by those which are priests by a inctaphore and borowed speach. And wheras he desireth to learne where the worde, priest, is taken in euill part in all the new testament. Although all men see how he asketh this question of no mind to learne, yet if he will learne (as he sayth) he shall find that in (*) 1.1 the Acts of the Apostles it is taken diuers times in euill part. For seing that the office & function of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, of priests was (after our sauiour christs ascētion) naught & vngodly: the name wherby they were called, which did exercise that vngodly function, cannot be otherwise takē than in the euil part.
And what say you to the places of S. Peter, is not this worde (priest) taken in good part there also? I desired to haue one place in all the new Testamēt named vnto me, where this word priest is taken in euil part, & you send me ouer to the Acts of the Apostles naming neither text nor chapter: & yet that satisfieth not my request, for the Authors of the Admonition in their corrections, except the Leuitical priesthood, and the priesthood of Christ, whereof onely there is mention made in the Actes of the Apostles, except it be in the. 14. of the Acts, where Luke speaketh of heathnish priests, as of the priest of Jupiter: so that my question is as yet vnanswered by you.