the blood of the new testament and this blood is the new testament in my blood If it may be lawfull for you to alter and expound the words at your pleasure then can you help your selfes wel enough but your exposition must be squared according to the wordes not the words framed to your exposition Againe pag. 240. you say where Beza correcteth Saint Luke in the latter part of the sentence I raile at the first so that betweene Beza and me S. Luke hath neuer a word right wisely considered doubties The words are right your exposition is fond and wicked The cupp you make to be the blood of Christ whoe as yet was not crucified nor his blood shed If your doctrine be true Christes blood was shed alreadie and that reallie els it could not be in the cup reallie The papists teache that Christs blood was reallie in the cup before his passion But if Christs blood was shed sitting at the table whoe was he M.R. that shed it whoe made the wound whoe opened his side who thrust his weapon in his heart whoe pearced his hands and feete This must you tell if you maintaine that his blood was then reallie shed and powred forth into the cuppe But by the cuppe M.R. is ment the wine in the cuppe which is the newe testament that is a sacrament of the newe testament in Christs blood shed for vs on the crosse This is a true and plaine sense agreeable to all analogie of faith standing with the words themselues followed of the auncient fathers When at length will you make an end of this railing it is to vnseemelie to lothsome pag. 241. to odious Indeed M.R. it must needes appeare a great absurditie to all learned godly Christians whoe know rightlie esteeme the price of our redemption that to be shed for our sinnes which was in the cup. Christs blood was shed for our sinnes which neuer came in the cup but remained in his bodie vntil the time of his death And if Christs blood was in the cuppe when he gaue the cuppe to his Apostles then must it follow necessarilie that his bodie then was without blood it being shedde already and contained in the cup. In the cuppe was onelie wine a sacrament of his blood which he gaue in the same to his Apostles to drincke whereof he drancke him selfe and so the scriptures expressely call it wine If this were the thing that was shedde for your sinnes then was true and naturall wine the price of your redemption then are you saued by wine then haue you no part in Christs blood But the true Church beleeueth her sinnes to be washed away not by that which was really contained in the cuppe but by the true blood of Christ which issued out of his body nailed on the crosse and wounded with a speare Your absurditie therefore needeth not to be further discouered it is so openlie blasphemous against the blood of Iesus Christ which was shed once not in the cup but on the crosse for our redemption If you vrge S. Lukes words as they stand in grammaticall construction I answere that as the cup is called Christs blood Christs testament that is by a figure the sacrament of his blood and testament so is it also said to be shed for vs by a figure sacramentallie But all men of skill and iudgement maie soone see that in these wordes there is some change of grammaticall disposition vsuall in the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists Your discourse about Tautologies in the scriptures is altogether vaine and friuolous To S. Basils testimonie you aunswere much in words and nothing in matter pag. 244. For what cause haue you thus to reproch Beza for his translation of these words seing you cannot denie but S. Basil hath reported that text of S. Luke euen as Beza hath translated the same and you confesse that Saint Basil hath truelie deliuered the sense thereof so all that you haue said or can say spitefullie against Beza must appertaine to Saint Basil no lesse Basil in Ethic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whome yet you will not seeme to touch But the thing truelie and indifferentlie considered Beza is no more to be accused then S. Basil you tell vs of heretikes a long tale which is no better then waste paper Vse it your selfe or bestowe it at your pleasure Of such badde stuffe base account is to be made Whereas I spake a fewe words concerning figuratiue speaches pag. 251. which the aduersaries cannot abide to heare of in the sacrament I haue as it were opened at vnawares a flood-gate to M. Rainolds flowing vtterance Quâ data porta ruit The streame is so strong and runneth so violentlie carying all manner of baggage with it that vaine it were to resist it Let it therefore passe downe and doe what mischiefe it can great harme I trust it shall not doe Thus much you must confesse that in the sacrament figures are found and yet when we oppose against your monster of reall presence a most true and euident answere that the wordes were figuratiuelie spoken and must figuratiuelie be expounded you rage aboue all measure But quiet your selfe Master Rainolds and somewhat staie your intemperate affection neuer shall you prooue while papistrie hath a man liuing to speake in defense of it either by scripture or auncient writer that these words must figuratiuelie be vnderstoode This is my blood this cuppe is the new Testament in my blood more then these This cup is shed for you Leaue your babling Figuratiue speaches in the verie words of the supper by the Aduersaries confession and speake to purpose prooue this if you can Wherefore finding in the Euangelistes wordes such manifest figures what reason haue you to condemne vs for vsing the same being a moste common and familiar kinde of speach Because it standeth not with your reall presence Let your reall presence hardlie shift for it selfe we are not bound for cause and respect thereof to wrest the scriptures to forge monstrous interpretations to change the sacrament into a reall sacrifice of Christ which heathenish kinde of doctrine neuer anie but Antichrist and his ministers maintained The scriptures the olde fathers the auncient Church of Christ taught and beleeued otherwise as hath bene shewed and prooued inuinciblie to your faces Your pages following filled with rouing testimonies I pretermitt your contumelies being no lawfull arguments require no answere CHAP. 11. Concerning the translation of the English Bibles MAster Martins boke of Discouerie is aunswered long since from head to foote in euerie part pag. 262. you haue the answere amongst you saie to it what you can with truth and learning To bragge of your fellowes booke which being throughlie and soundlie disprooued you cannot with all your skill maintaine is a childish vanitie to acknowledge no Replie which you cannot but knowe or to make light account of it whereunto you cannot truelie reioine is wilfulnes and
92. Satisfaction for sinnes wrought onely by the sacrifice of Christs death is grounded vpon the rock that neuer can be shaken euen the word of god that abideth for euer For as the redemption of mankinde is to be ascribed onelie to the sacrifice of Christes death and cannot without singular blasphemie be assigned to anie other thing so likewise is the satisfaction for sinne appropriated to the same sacrifice of Christ cannot without like blasphemie be giuen to any workes of man how excellent soeuer You make it a small matter to satisfie for sinne that teach it is in the power of man by his owne paines and penance to appease the wrath of God wherby it plainly appeareth you neither know the grieuousnes of sinne nor the iustice of god that requireth a greater punishment for sin then any man is able to suffer yea you charge the Lord himself with iniustice in that hauing laid the guiltines of our sins vpon his sonne and punished them al in him is not content with that punishment satisfaction If we do satisfie for our sinnes then hath not Christ satisfied for them but exacteth of vs a further paiment and satisfaction for the sinnes for which Christ hath once sufficientlie satisfied alreadie The prophet saith He is punished for our transgressions Esai 53.5 he is bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace is layde vpon him by his stripes are we healed And immediatlie againe he repeateth the same and sayth The Lord maketh the punishment of vs al to light vpon him Veâ— 7. 1. Ioh. 1.7 The Apostle Iohn saith The blood of Iesus Christ doth purge you from all sâ—â—ne Apoc. 1.5 And in his reuelation he saieth that Christ hath washed vs from our sins in his blood Thus are we taught in the scriptures of God to beleeue that our sinnes are forgiuen and we reconciled to God not for anie thing that we can worke or suffer but onelie for the death blood-sheading of Christ So all your satisfactions are hanged vpon the hedge and serue for nothing els but to plunge you deeper into the pitte of condemnation which you shall neuer escape so long as you trust to anie satisfaction but onelie of Christ As for your Tridentine councell which you alleadge it is but a bable A childe may soone espie the vanitie and falshood of this diuinitie that you deliuer vs here by warrant of that Councell Concil Trident sess 14. ca. 8. This it is The satisfaction which we vndertake for our sinnes is ours but yet by Christ Iesus which in effect is all one as if they had said that Christ him selfe hath not satisfied for our sinnes at all but onelie hath purchased to vs a facultie and habilitie euerie man to satisie for his owne sinnes The scriptures teach that Christ himselfe hath satiâ—fied for our sinnes 1. Pet 2.24 This is the mysterie of your satisfactions a mysterie of great impietie For the scriptures teach the cleane contrarie S. Peter saith that Christ hath borne our sins in his bodie vpon the crosse And how hath he borne them if he hath not satisfied for them did he take them vpon himselfe to returne them back to vs againe or did he not perhaps fullie satisfie for them Tell vs then how farre Christ hath satisfied and how much remaineth for vs to satisfie that we maie know how to deuide aright the satisfaction betweene Christ and vs. But accursed for euer be they that deny the satisfaction of Christe to be most perfecte and will supplie it by their owne diligence and labour Christ hath perfectlie redeemed vs therefore Christ hath perfectlie satisfied for vs. The work of Christs redemption is our satisfaction For this redemption consisteth in fully satisfying the warth of God against sinne Neither is it possible for any to satisfie for sinne but a redeemer onely For this cause was the name of Iesus giuen to our Redeemer because he saueth vs from our sinnes Matth. 1.21 And how is this saluation wrought 2. Cor. 5.21 In that he became man for vs that is our sinnes were imputed to him Heb. 10.14 and he made a sacrifice for them and by this one oblation hath consecrated for euer those that are sanctified Then is there left to vs no parte of satisfaction but when soeuer we repent of our sinnes and beleeue in the satisfaction of Iesus Christ we are clerelie acquitted of all our offenses for the merit of that perfect sacrifice which Christ offered for vs. If you denie this thinke of your selfe as you liste you haue no more parte in Iesus Christ then hath an Infidel That you rehearse out of Brentius pag. 93.9.4 and Andreas Fricius is idle and serueth onely for stuffing Brentius saith truelie we must not onelie take awaie nothing from Christ that belongeth vnto him but not giue him more then the scriptures haue taught to be due vnto him For he is iniuried and dishonoured both waies neuertheles this that you will seeme to giue him more then we is by no means to be accepted for so much as it taketh from him a thousand times more then it can pretend to bestowe vpon him For in ascribing that vertue to the sacrifice of Christ to make our workes of force to satisfie for our selues you pull awaie from it violentlie that full and perfect power of satisfying once for all of it selfe which doth truelie and properlie belong vnto it so herein you may well be compared to those wicked Iewes that made cursie to our Sauiour Christ and yet did buffet him on the face with their fists Andreas Fricius if he haue anie priuat opinion of his owne let him take it to him selfe he may not obtrude it vpon the Church without warrant of Gods word And yet out of his wordes by you rehearsed what can you gather seruing for proofe of mans merits or satisfactions What your opinion and iudgement is Pag 95 c. M. Rainolds of my learning and writings I trust you thinke I make no great account Verilie among the wholl rable of popish proctors there is none that I haue read of lesse wit and learning then your selfe What account your fellowes make of you I cannot report but if they esteeme you for one of their worthies you are more beholding to them then you haue deserued of them For alas what haue you brought thâ— in truth is worthie answere what haue you said wherein appeereth any learning more then moste common what cause haue you thus to bragge in your selfe thus to contemne others God giue you grace to see to know to examine your selfe that you maie perceiue your owne weakenes and pouertie If I should boaste of my selfe mine owne tongue would condemne me this childish profane manner I leaue to you and your companions who hunte so greedelie for the praise of learning that you despise the simplicitie of Gods trueth and Gospell Yet there is none of vs how
is not of the same length with your conclusion that therefore he offered sacrifice in bread and wine But that you saie is a reason of his priesthood which I denie and it is the thing in controuersie should by you haue bene prooued not barely affirmed For though as you report the words of Moses it may seeme that the reason of Melchisedechs bringing forth bread and wine was for that he was the Lords priest yet Moses in in his owne language saieth not so but thus And he was a priest of the most high God as it is also translated by Pagnine and Vatablus and Arias Montanus according to the originall veritie And though sometime it may so be taken yet how can you prooue that so it must of necessitie here be taken And if it be your sacrifice for al that will not here of follow as you maie learne by Andradius your greatest Doctor Li. 4. Defen Trid. whoe maketh that a reason whie Melchisedech being a Cananean and ioined perhaps in blood or frendship with some of the Kings that Abraham slue notwithstanding was so farr of from seeking to be reuenged of Abraham that he met him frendlie and presented him with gifts because the bonds of country and kindred are not so strong as of godlines religion popish arguments confuted and reiected by papists them selues So the reason is not as you imagine He offered sacrifice in bread wine therefore he was a Priest but by Andradius iudgement he was the Lordes Priest and therefore he refreshed Abraham a true worshipper of the Lord. But what if all this were graunted without resistance that Melchisedech offered a sacrifice in bread and wine it must be cast in a strange mould before the sacrifice of your Masse can anie waies be framed hereof For first this sacrifice might be a figure of Christes bodie and blood represented and offered vnto vs in bread wine with out anie such vnholie sacrifice as is imagined in your Masse And so did the auncient fathers meane when they applied this historie of Melchisedech to the sacrament of Christes supper How the fathers applie Melchisedechs fact to the sacrameÌ„t of Christs supper Wherfore when you haue digged as depe as you wil yet shal you not finde the mine or spring of your sacrifice here Againe what resemblance is there betwene Melchisedechs bread and wine and your Masse wherein you teach is neither bread nor wine remaining at all That you bring out of Musculus and Caluin concerning referring those wordes and he was a Priest to that which followeth and he blessed him you are not hable to confute and therefore you do well and wiselie to note it but shew no reason against it and so likewise you set before your reader an other place of Caluin wherein he writeth that their opinion is confuted who seake out the cheife resemblance betweene Christ and Melchisedech in offering of bread and wine seing the Apostle who standeth vppon other points not so notable and principall as that speaketh not so much as once therof This was to hott for you to beare therfore you let it fal to the ground couering it with the naked names of Hierome Gregory Nazianzene Out of Caluins words by you repeted you will the reader to note two things Pag. 62. which being noted neuer so much make nothing for your profit The first is that Caluin and the Caluinistes as it pleaseth you to speak finde nothing wherin Melchisedech sacrificed and so by sacrificing prefigured the sacrifice and Priesthood of Christ whereunto I haue alreadie answered and further adde now that we finde in Melchisedech as much as the Apostle hath found We expound and vnderstand the figâ—re of Melc in such sort as the Apostle hath taught vs the Apostle hath found as much as truly can be found vnles you wil say the holy ghost was grosly fouly ouerseene in omitting the chiefest thing wherin Melchisedech represented our sauiour Christ We thinke it no shame to finde no more then the cleare light and wisdome of Gods spirite could finde wherwith the Apostle examining searching throughlie the wholl historie of Melchisedech hath not giuen the least inkling of your surmised sacrifice He sheweth diuerse properties in which Melchisedech was a figure of Christ comparing not anie sacrifice of Melchisedech with the sacrifice made by Christ but the person of Melchisedech with the person of Christ So you haue found such a propertie betwenee them two as he neuer saw and therefore must needes account your selues wiser then he which we by your leaues cannot acknowledge and therfore refuse your inuention The second is that the auncient fathers acknowledge Melchisedech to haue sacrificed in bread and wine and so to haue foreshewed Christes sacrificing in like manner What is to be answered to the fathers comparing Melchisedeches bread and wine to the Lords supper To this an easie answere maie serue First that whatsoeuer the fathers teach without warrant of Gods word must be iudged no better then stubble and straw which hath no vse in the building vp of gods spiritual Temple but serueth onelie to be burnt Secondlie that the fathers not one of them all applie this of Melchisedech to the Popish masse which was not hatched in the daies of the ancient fathers but is a latter birde of Antichrists brood Thirdly that none of the ancient fathers do prooue by this any real sacrifice of the Church wherein Christ is to be offered continuallie as the Papists doe most wickedlie and horriblie maintaine Lastlie the fathers onely meant to commend the excellency of the Lords supper which Christ instituted in bread and wine by this fact of Melchisedech that brought forth bread and wine as it were in these signes shadowing and figuring Christ vnto vs who long after appointed the same to be sacraments of his body and blood This was the cause why they so often alledge this example of Melchisedech as you may perceiue by Cyprian who saith In sacerdote Melchisedech sacrifice Dominici sacramentum praefiguratum videmus that is Cypr. ep 63. In Melchisedech the Priest we see the sacrament of the Lords sacrifice prefigured Thus Cyprian writeth in the same epistle that you alledge here by whose wordes you maie learne to what purpose the fathers applied that of Melchisedech farre otherwise then you doe And in that Cyprian calleth bread and wine his bodie and blood therein is no difficultie meaning sacraments of his bodie and blood As for the new oblation that Irenaeus speaketh of Iren. li. 4. c. 32. it is the praiers and almes of the faithfull which they offer vnto God in the celebration of the Lords supper which is so far from your sacrifice that you maie as soone make the north and south pole meete togeather as this testimonie of Irenaeus with your idoll of the Masse In that you beare your reader in hand I haue dissented from Caluin and the Protestants that argueth
a weakenes of your braine which causeth you to vtter such idle talke All Protestants not onelie I confesse that Melchisedech was a Priest that he offered sacrifice doth it follow therefore M. R. that the sacrifice was in bread wine as you pretend whome then do I forsake with whome doe I ioyne what fantasie is this that troubleth your head so much In this taking you beginne to throw out arguments Pag 63. which must needs be full simplie and miserably made Howbeit sooner may you deuise manie formall syllogismes for your facrifice then make one sound reason in diuinity for confirmation thereof Thus you haue framed your argument with your owne hands A Sillogisme of M. R. examined answered That Christ did and appointed to be done that may ought to be done But Christ at his last supper offered sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech and appointed the Apostles and priests to doe the same Ergo the Apostles priests may ought to offer sacrifice This syllogisme seemeth to be terriblye compounded and to prooue inuincibly the sacrifice of the Masse doutlesse Master Rainolds is persuaded he shall herewith fray vs all away But be not dismaied good Reader the light driueth darkenesse before it and trueth cannot be vanquished with an armie of false arguments be they neuer so cunningly framed much lesse with such slender sophismes as these Your Assumption hath two partes they both are false whereof the conclusion following cannot be hable to looke the trueth in the face For where you say I haue acknowledged the former part I acknowledge no such thing nor euer did Two graund and capitall vntrueths in the assumption of M. R. Syllogisme Christ at his last supper offered no sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech Christ appointed not the Apostles nor any els to offer the same Neither of these parts shall you prooue whilst you liue though you liue the last on the earth For what sacrifice offered Christ at his supper and what was the effect thereof was this a sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech then was it not the same he offered on the Crosse for that was not of Melchisedechs order being not in bread and wine as you will haue it but the verie bodie of Iesus Christ But your Church maintaineth that the sacrifice which Christ offered at his supper was the same that he offered on the Crosse Thus handsomelie your dreames hang togeather Againe if Christ at his supper offered such a sacrifice as was prefigured by Melchisedech which you affirme then must it followe that Christ fulfilled that figure perfectlie and so the same sacrifice nead no more to be offered whereof ensueth the desolation of your masmōgers whose occupation onelie and whollie standeth in renewing the sacrifice of the masse Then would I demaund what vertue and effect that sacrifice had which you teach to haue bene offered by Christ at his supper Did Christ thereby fullie appease the wrath of his father Did he fullie redeme mankinde Or did he these things but yet so slenderly insufficiently that there needed another sacrifice after namelie his owne death vpon the Crosse Answere plainlie as becommeth a diuine yea a Christian yea a reasonable man A true Syllogisme opposed against M. Ram. false hereticall Syllogisme And because you framed an argument for me as you say I will doe as much for you and thus I frame you another If Christ offered are all externall sacrifice of him selfe at his supper in bread wine then did Christ fully redeeme mankinde by a sacrifice made in bread and wine But Christ redeemed not the world by a sacrifice made in bread wine but by the sacrifice of his owne bodie vpon the crosse Ergo Christ offered no such sacrifice in bread and wine at his supper The partes are plaine need no further proofe And where you say that seeing Christ was prefigured by Aaron Melchisedech therefore he offered a sacrifice both in bloody maner as Aaron did and in vnbloodie as did Melchisedech I see you labour to put life into the dead carcase of your argument but all in vaine For it cannot be shewed either by scriptures or els by anie ancient fathers of the Church that Christ offered any reall sacrifice but onelie in bloody maner Heb. 10.14 Wherefore the Apostle so often repeateth the word Once excluding thereby all other maners of offering this sacrifice but one By one oblation saith the Apostle hath he made perfect for euer those that are sanctified Tell vs what maner of oblation that was bloody or vnbloodie bloodie I trust you will confesse and therefore no vnbloodie was necessary which neither could haue holpen seeing without shedding of blood there is not anie remission of sinnes Heb. 9.22 Whereby also may appeare that though the sacrifice of the masse be gainfull to such Popish Priests as M. R. his companions are yet in trueth being vnbloodie it is vtterlie vnfitte and vnhable to purchase remission of sins Such marchandize is lightlie to be valued as it deserueth But to answere a litle further concerning Melchisedech the similitude between him and Christ consisteth not in offering vnbloodie sacrifice In what respects Melchisedech was a figure of Christ as you vntruelie and wickedlie imagine but as the Apostle teacheth in that Melchisedech was both a king and a priest and is sette forth vnto vs in the scripture as eternall and more excellent then Abraham and the Leuitical priests In these respects was he a figure of Christ the eternal king and priest farre excelling al the priests of the Leuiticall order Because these thinges make nothing for your sacrifice you deuise a matter that was not to prooue a thing that is not and so build one lie vpon another the vnbloody sacrifice of Christ vpon the vnbloodie sacrifice of Melchisedech But this is the iust iudgement of the Lord vpon you that seing you haue troden vnder your feet the blood of the euerlasting Testament you should be giuē ouer to effectual illusions to embrace an vnbloodie sacrifice which is the deuise of your owne braine for the true glorius sacrifice of Christ vpō the crosse This former argument of M.R. hath begotten another like to it selfe Pag. 64. or rather more monstrous Thus it standeth An other Syllogisme of M. Rain like to the former answered They whoe may ought to offer sacrifice as did first Melch. afterward Christ are truely properlie sacerdotes But priests of the new Testament may ought to offer sacrifice in such sort ergo they are truly properly sacerdotes priests The Minor is the same with the conclusiō of your other argument as euidently false as the word of god is clearlie vndoutedlie true For if your priests offer sacrifice as Melchisedech and Christ did then are they priests of Melch. order not priests onely but kings For so was he the figure so is
the Lord continuallie raised vp and prouided for his Church such pastors and doctors as were necessarie for the gathering of the saincts togeather Further answere in this place is not needfull As for Augustine the monke Pag. 68. and Laurentius and the rest whome you call the first Apostles and conuerters of our nation I neither acknowledge them for Apostles nor Priests yea sure I am if they were true Apostles then were they no Priests and if they were Priests their Apostleship was of a wrong stampe And though Beda so call them yet it followeth not that they were popish priests seing he vsed but the phrase of common speach by which the preachers and Ministers of the word and sacraments were so called in which respect my selfe also called S. Ierome a priest of the Romane Church But this though an vsual yet is it an improper kinde of speach What wanteth in reasoning you supply in rayling pag. 69. Iohn Bale you call a sincke of iniquitie Caluin you saie is more execrable then the rest of such flowers Master Rainolds garden good reader hath aboundance as lightlie thou shalt finde anie where Those seruants of Christ of whome you speake your pleasure haue noted the fathers for their declining from the puritie of the gospel that may they in some things worthelie doe euen as Paul did Peter And touching this matter we haue in hand there were amongst them some superstitious offerings The fathers acknowledge not the Popish sacrifice which euen the papists themselues haue abandoned but that the fathers were priests in our meaning or thought they had anie reall sacrifice of Christes bodie and bloode you haue not shewed nor can Tertul. ad Scapul The fathers denie that any such sacrifice remaineth Tertullian saith we sacrifice for the safetie of the Emperour but to our God and his but as God hath commaunded with pure praier Tertullian knoweth not of any externall sacrifice amonge the Christians for then would they haue offered that also for the Emperour Iustin in dial cum Tryphone And Iustinus Martyr before him saieth that Christians haue learned to offer the sacrifice of supplications and thanksgiuing onelie Which he would not haue sayde if Christians had learned to offer the sacrifice of the masse S. Chrysost saith Chrys in epist Hebr. hom 13. If Christ be perfect neuer sinneth alwaie liueth why shoulde he offer for vs many sacrifices And againe There is no other sacrifice one hath purged vs. After that remaineth fire and hell S August saith Christ onelie is our preist our sacrifice our Temple August de fide ad Pet. Di◠c. 2. I omit many moe by these testimonies the Godly reader may vnderstand that in the primitiue Church was no such sacrifice nor priesthood as the Popish is pretended to be And therefore I see no cause why I should be affraid to stand in maintenance of M. Iuell that godly and learned Bishops chalenge in this behalfe which hath not hetherto nor cannot be disprooued And though you as also many of your fellowes are still pinching at it yet you are all content to let it rest as Doctor Harding left it which was full greatlie to your discredit And as for the Doctors that Caluin alledgeth although they force the scriptures as he saieth manifestlie to a wrong purpose in applying Melchisedechs example to the matter of the sacrament yet none of them prooueth that sacrifice that Master Iewell denieth and therefore you doe but idlelie and triflinglie spend your time and trouble your reader with your follies But you would I dare saie better intertaine him if you had anie better prouision Caluin de vera Eccl. reform Yet you might haue seene that Caluin in that place censureth those fathers with these wordes by you alledged for an other place of scripture wrongly strangely applied not for defending the vnbloody sacrifice as you affirme Then you come to lift at my argument pag. 74. which I gathered out of the Apostle against your sacrificing Priests but your strength faileth you much in this enterprise The Apostle saieth that Christ hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an euerlasting Priesthoode Heb. 7.24 Here you rehearse diuerse interpretations of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostle vseth although there are none but meanlie seene in that tongue that need your helpe therein For that properlie is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that passeth not away from one to an other And herein the Apostle compareth our sauiour Christ with the Priests of Aarons order sheweth a manifest difference that the Leuitical Priesthood rested not in one man but went from man to man by reason of death which suffered not one the same Priest continuallie to enioie his office but Christ liueth for euer and therefore his Priesthood abideth with him onelie The Apostles reason excludeth the Popish priests no les then the Leuitical and is not in execution enlarged to anie other And this reason of the Apostle debarreth as wel the popish as the Aaronical priests For the Priests of the popish order are no more exempted from necessitie of dying then were those priests of Aarons stocke so that they are no lesse opposed vnto Christ then the other Herein therefore lieth the force of the Apostles argument that the Priesthood of the new Testament belongeth onely vnto him that is immortal for otherwise he had not put anie necessarie difference betwene that and the other whereof it doth inuinciblie and necessarielie ensue that the onelie priest of the new Testament is Iesus Christ This Chrysostome concludeth out of the Apostles words moste plainly Chrys in Hebr. 7. homil 13. S Chrisost plainlie condemneth all popish priests As there were saieth he manie priests because they were mortall so there is but one because he is immortall For can they answere for them selues that though they die yet Christ liueth whose partners herein they recken them selues to be might not the Iewish priests likewise haue said as much seeing it cannot be denied but their priesthood also was referred vnto Christ But as those Priests togeather with their Priesthood expired when our sauiour Christ the true Priest and sacrifice was exhibited so their was no place left for other Priests nor other sacrifice all figures being in Christ moste fullie and perfectlie accomplished Yet as though Christ had bene either a mortall priest like to Aaron and his children or his sacrifice had not at once satisfied the wrath of God they substitute to Christ an infinite multitude of priestes far moe then were euer the Leuitical priests take vpon them blasphemously to offer againe daily the same sacrifice that Christ once offered which is impossible for any to offer but onely the sonne of God himselfe O that Christian people would consider the horrible dongeon of iniquitie that lieth hid vnder the abhominable sacrifice of the popish masse then which the sunne did neuer beholde a thing more lothsome
from a cloake so the difference is cleare but your argument is blinde How Christ left his flesh I haue said alreadie The second Christ left his flesh with vs yet caried the same with him into heauen Elias leauing his cloake lost it And how gather you hereof an argument for reall presence Christ caried with him into heauen his flesh in the naturall substance thereof Christ left with vs his flesh in a sacrament of his flesh If you still vrge that Christes flesh is there and Christes flesh is here let Chrysostome declare his owne meaning whose wordes you seeke moste shamefully to abuse For that Saint Chrysostome spake thus not of the carnall and naturall substance of Christs flesh but of the spirituall presence thereof S. Chrysostome in his 〈◊〉 ordes driâ—eâ—h awaie all nâ—â—â—es of popish Reall presence we maie perceaue by his wordes a little before of Elias Afterwards saith S. Chrysostome Elias was double there was an Elias aboue and there was an Elias beneath Elias touching his naturall substance of bodie and soule was onely aboue though in some kinde of presence true also it is that Elias was beneath Euen so our sauiour Christ in carnall presence of his bodie is aboue but in an other manner namelie in spiritual presence of the same he is beneath This is Saint Chrysostomes plaine meaning which God wot maketh full meanlie for proofe of real presence The third difference Elias shed not his blood for his people but Christ shed his blood and imparted the same vnto vs. And would you haue vs thinke that because Christ imparteth vnto vs his blood therefore we drinke it reallie what should one answere such vnworthie and senseles arguments Leaue your geasses and speake to the purpose Here you talke pag. 209. as wel becommeth a man of your profession falslie vilelie blasphemouslie against the true doctrine of Christs sacrament I am vnwilling to answere such profane speaches of an opprobrious slaunderous enemie So much onely wil I speake as shall serue to stoppe the mouth of this railer Doe we thinke no otherwise of our communion then as of common breade and wine without all grace vertue and sanctification M. R. reporteth falslie of our doctrâ—ne touching the sacrament doe we make it a bare figure of Christ absent Haue we as good figures at our common breakefast dinâ—ers and suppers Thus you say but all the world knoweth you say moste vntrulie Common bread common wine We denie â—hrists boâ—y to be Really present in the supper Ergo we make the supper a bare figure of Christ Thus our papistes vnlearnedlie reason bare figure was neuer any part of our doctrine this is your vnlearned collection of that we deny the reall presence For had you but halfe an eye you might see how this slaunder is easilie disprooued In baptisme a sacrament of Christs owne ordinaunce there is not anie reall presence of Christs blood or body as your selues confesse Now if one had as hereticall a iudgement of this sacrament as you haue of the other he might charge you as iustlie for denying Christs reall presence in the sacrament of baptisme as you doe vs for denying his reall presence in the sacrament of the supper For if you reason with anie trueth against vs that we make it common bread common wine a bare figure without grace vertue or sanctifying power because we affirme that Christ is not present carnally grosselie therein then must it as truelie and necessarilie follow that the water of baptisme is common water The popish argument maketh the sacrament of Baptisme no better then a bare element is a bare figure is void of all spirituall effect because in baptisme there is no reall presence And surelie by this your kinde of argument it plainlie appeareth you haue no other opinion thereof then as you haue said of common water wherein is neither grace nor vertue nor sanctification and of a bare figure such as you may haue enough whensoeuer you wash your hands Certaine sentences of Zuinglius you snatch to prooue we thinke as bâ—sely contemptiblie of the sacrament as you report of vs. Zuinglius saieth it is nothing but a commemoration Zuinglius meaneth not that the sacrament is onelie a bare remembrance of Christs death he teacheth and protesteth the contrarie in a thousand places His meaning is no other but to shewe that Christ is not offered really in the sacrament but that therein is set forth vnto vs a remembrance of his sacrifice he opposeth commemoration not to the spirituall presence and participation of Christ but to the imagined reall and substantial presence of Christs body So when he speaketh of onely figures nothing but breade he excludeth not the spirituall but carnall presence and that with the breade is not ioyned any materiall thing besides Also that he compareth the sacrament to a Kings banner which is a token of his presence serueth onely to shew that Christ is not bodely but spirituallie present And therefore for ought you haue alledged Beza hath truelie sayd that there is no coatrarietie betweene the doctrine of these most excellent men Zuinglius OEcolampadius Caluine Bez. in epist 1. touching the sacramentes For they taught both soundly in trueth and moste consonantlie among them selues Thus all your notes following of difference betweene Saint Chrysostomes text and my answere is discharged and whatsoeuer els you bable in this place to no purpose in the world but to shew your ignorance The cloake you say was a more liuelie figure of Elias then your bread and wine is of Christ Now this toucheth neither Zuinglius nor Caluine but Christ himselfe whoe appointed these to be figures and signes of his bodie If you raile at Christ no maruell though you raile at his ministers By it Elizeus you saie receiued great grace and strength that your bread shoulâ— giue grace is against your wholl doctrine Indeed we say that with the bread is not mingled grace for then both godlie and wicked should be partakers of Christs grace but in the right vse of the sacrament to the faithful person is giuen moste plentifull and excellent grace The cloake you say had a vertue surmounting the habilitie of man Yet I trust you will not saie this vertue and grace was in the cloake reallie as you teach that Christ is in the sacrament That you saie our bread is nothing but a signe or banner as it were a maipole or token of a tauerne such wordes doe well be seeme your spirit Master Rainolds The time will come when the mouth of blasphemie shall be stopped The other place of Saint Chrysostome hath lesse force for proofe of Reall presence pag. 214. c. although Master Rainolds decke garnish it all he can as if he would make saie thereof The moste that Saint Chrysostome saith is that Christ sitting with his father aboue at the same moment is handled with all mens hands Chrysost de sacerdot
l. 3. wherein first of all priuate masse vsed in the Popish synagogues â—eceaueth a blowe For Chrâ—sostome saith Christ is handled witâ— all mâ—ns hands 〈◊〉 the Popish masse the priest onelie hâ— adlâ—h all that is handled 〈◊〉 whoe is so â—imple not to see 〈◊〉 mâ—â—niâ—g of that godlie and eloquent father in this kinde of speach Doe all men handle Christ with their handes indeed doth Saint Chrysostome meane a reall handling as a man handleth bread The papistes will have Christs flesh â—andled Really do yourselues thinke thus groslie â—r els for a shew pretend you to maintaine the same That Christ may thus be handled taken vp laid downe broken eaten swallowed remoued from place to place tossed to and fro and all this as you speake really is monstrous and lothsome doctrine in the eares and harts of all godlie and reasonable men This S. Chrisostome once to haue imagined neuer shall you shew in this world Chrisostome meaneth the sacrament of Christ which we handle indeede and which in some sense in called Christ himselfe This to be moste true is plaine by Chrysostome in the same place S. Chrysostome expouâ—deth his owne meaning For he saith We see the Lord sacrificed and the people are sprinkled and made red with his blood and this done plainly without deceit in the sight of all men If Chrysostome may be allowed to expound himselfe your glosse of real handling Christ in the sacrament must giue place For if he meant as you meane that Christ is handled indeed then meant he also that Christ is sacrificed indeede in our sight that the people are dyed and embrued with blood indeed that all men see the same indeed For these speaches are all of one stampe all after one sorte to be vnderstood as one parte is true so is another Then tel vs M.R. if Christ be sacrificed indeede if the people be embrued with his blood indeede if this be euident to all men indede you maie not vrge vs so extreamlie in one and giue vs the slip in all the rest Let vs then consider what replie you make to this answere which to be true and sufficient you can not denie pag. 220.217 The papistes saie they see Christ Really sacrificed in their Church First you saie I am ignorant of the catholike faith For in the Church catholike we see Christ offered Then you maintaine that S. Chrysostome in saying we see Christ sacrificed speaketh properlie for this you saie is seene in the catholike Church The godly I graunt see in spirit this sacrifice of Christ thus the oblation of Christ is seene in the catholike Church But we speake of a real sacrifice of Christ which no man seeth nor euer shal see For a reall sacrifice prooueth a real death so Christ when he was sacrificed reallie died also reallie But no man seeth Christ dying who died but once now liueth for euer And they that really sacrificed our sauiour Christ did in that acte really wickedly murther him so your Priests if they be reall sacrificers of Christ are in the same action also reall murtherers of Christ Take both or refuse both if you take vppon you the one you must not nor cannot denie the other Murtherers of Christ you wil not be accounted yet you professe your selues to be sacrificers of Christ that openly which is al one as if the Iewes should confesse that they crucified Christ but yet they murthered him not wherefore it is in a word an heresie blasphemie to saie Christ is sacrificed in the Church otherwise then in a sacrament remembrance of that one sacrifice as both Chrysostome the fathers write commonlie in which manner and no other he is seene to be sacrificed in the Church That you adde of seeing god is poore diuinitie being admitted that we see Christ in the Catholik Church how followeth your reason therefore we see him sacrificed if you haue either wit or religion your selfe may see you speake without al wit and religion Secondlie you answere 〈…〉 that I am ignorant of the Lutheranes doctrine and then as you are wont you rehearse certaine places out of Luther wherunto I haue no nede to answere How cunning you your selfe are of that doctrine let others iudge when you saie Vntruthes boldlie set downe by M. Rainolds they acknowledge bread to be the bodie of Christ Doth Luther or anie Lutheran teach that bread is the bodie of Christ Do they adore it as you also affirme This to be false whoe knoweth not They neither acknowledge the bread to be God nor giue any godlie honour to it And that might Kemuitius haue taught you in the same place that your selfe alledge He saith we adore in spirit truth Kemnit exam pars 2. de Euchar cap. 6. not the bread but Christ in the action of the Lordes supper And so doe we also acknowledge teach that Christ in the supper is to be worshipped adored in spirit truth of all Christians That you alledge out of Master Caluine for your third answere pag. 223. as it is of vs entirelie allowed so it notably detecteth the falshood of your slaunder when you write and beare your reader in hand that we make the sacrament a bare signe and figure For we teach and euer did Caluin de coena Domini as Caluine doth in this place that it is ioyned to his truth and substance and not onelie representeth but also exhibiteth vnto vs the bodie of Christ Now then this being our doctrine touching the sacrament as your selfe may see in these wordes of Caluine plainly declared cease for shame hereafter contrary to your owne knowledge and conscience to charge vs for making the sacrament a naked and onelie figure But now Master Rainolds draw these things to the point and match them with your conclusion and then see what agreement there is betweene them Can you gather of that Caluine saith we see the body of Christ in a sacrament that therefore we see Christ visiblie sacrificed in the Church such reasons are too lamentable as here and euerie where you bring vs. Then Master Rainolds admitting this to be indeede a phrase of speach pag. 224. asketh whether it follow that therefore it is a phrase of speach also to say that Christs body is there at all I answere expounding Chrysostome by Chrysostome and that in the same place and words as Christ is handled with all mens hands S. Chrysostome rightly expounded so is he visiblie sacrificed and so are the people made red with his blood that is by way of a sacrament Therefore set your heart at rest M. R. out of this place shall you neuer prooue your reall presence That you adde of figuratiue expositions is superfluous Of Saint Chrysostomes vehemencie in amplifications pag. 226. knowen to all that knowe Chrysostome this place hath a liuely example peruse it your selfe Master Rainolds compare one speach with an
your other argument our of Luke 7. v. 47. of the woman to whom many sinnes were remitted it hath bene answered so fullie and truelie by sundry learned writers that I might whollie passe it ouer A chieâ—â— place of the papistes for merite of workes answere and expounded Onelie this in briefe I saie to stoppe your rayling mouth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because is often times vsed for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore that so in this place it must be of necessitie expounded may appeere by an inuincible reason which your selues cannot denie For that woman being so deeplie drowned in deadly sinne how could her loue deserue the grace of God and remission of her sins doth your scholasticall Theologie maintaine that a sinnefull creature lying in state of condemnation can by loue merit pardon of his sins Tel vs plainly if this be your doctrine your religion your diuinity If then this be moste false and impossible confesse that the loue of that sinnfull and miserable woman was not be cause of forgiuenes of her sinnes but the effecte following and not going before the same This doctrine is true and Catholike the contrarie wicked and hereticall and therefore no cause had you to raile so mightely at Beza and vs for translating expounding this word as we do as the proportion of faith circumstance of the place moste vndoubtedlie and necessarilie requireth For our sauiour Christ sheweth the cause of hir so great loue to be the forgiuenes of the great and manie sinnes They to whome litle is forgiuen loue a litle they to whome much is forgiuen loue much She had much forgiuen therefore she loued much And this the Fathers also acknowledge to be the true and naturall seuse of the place although you abuse their names to the contrarie S. Gregorie as he is also by Thomas alledged Grâ—g 〈◊〉 83. â—â— Luangell writeth thus The debt being forgiuen to both the Pharisie is demaunded who should more loue him that forgaue the debt You see that Gregorie expoundeth this of the loue that followed the forgiuenes of the dâ—bt And so likewise Saint Ambrose vpon this place Ambros is Luc. 7. Because saith he there is nothing which we can worthelie render vnto God woe be vnto me if I loue not I dare saie Peter rendered not and therefore he loued more c. Let vs therefore render loue for debt charitie for reward thankes for the prise of his bloode Thus Saint Ambrose planlie she weth that this loue in that woman did spring from remission of her sinnes Câ—nus l. 12. c. 12. as it must in vs also proceed from the same fountaine I could also put you in minde what Canus a schooleman of yours hath written of this place cleane ouerthrowing your opinion as if he had of purpose deuised a shift for you Notwithstanding that the fathers sometime write our sinnes are washed a waie by teares of repentaunce I graunte wherebie they meane no other thing but that by our earnest sorowe and repentance we receiue a sure testimonie to our soules of the remission of our sinnes Your discourse about Musculus exposition I pretermit with al your monstrous reproches blaspemies of Lucianical onely faith c. except the deuil him selfe stood by them and suggested to them such construction c. fitter for you to vtter then me to rehearse or answere pag. 428. This wholl matter againe M.R. laieth out in particular distinctions wherunto hath bene answered enough alreadle and more then nedd but onelie in respect of that intolerable and outragious Importunity which this cauiller hath vsed If this be an vnlawfull shift in expounding of scripture to trie and correct the translation according to the Hebrew and Greeke fountaines then haue all the auncient fathers of the Church exercized continuallie wicked shifts whoe both appeall them selues to the authenticall fountaines and counsell all others to doe the same far otherwise then your fathers of Treâ— haue done or will suffer others to doe whotie their faith wholly to a bare translation and giue no creditt to the Canonicall fountaines wherin they haue not only vse de damnable and miserable shift but at once haue rased out the wholl scriptures from beginning toending Grat. dist 9. vt veter S. Augustine saith the bookes of the olde Testament must be examined by the Hebrew and the new by the Greeke veritie Saint Ambrose saith Ambrosade incarn cap. 8. The authoritie of the Greeke bookes of the new Testament is greater S. Ierome is euery where of the same minde In the new Testament saith he if there arise anie question among the Latines Hier. ad sonn Fret and there be difference in the copies we repaire to the fountaines of the Greeke tongue wherein the new Testament was written and so likewise in the olde In his preface vpon the fiue bokes of Moses he esteemeth it an absurde and impossible thing that the latine copies should be purer then the Greeke and the Greeke then the Hebrew Againe in a nother place he saith if trueth is to be sought in a Euang. ad Damas whie reiurne we not to the Greeke orignal speaking of the new Testament And such sayings hath he manie alwaies preferring the Hebrew Greeke before al translations in the world But all this by M.R. simple verdite was but a shift in him and al the auncient learned godlie fathers For it is the high waie to Atheisme in his opinion to do as they did and as they haue also taught vs to doe Zuinglius exposition of loue for faith pag. 429. I will not maintaine It may seeme more curious then necessarie In the text is no difficultie if the simplicitie of truth maie be receiued As for Tertullians complaint of certaine heretickes that either refused or mangled or corrupted the scriptures it toucheth vs no whit at al who acknoweledge the wholl bodie of scriptures and are so far of from wilfull corruption thereof that of purpose we would not alter one letter in the Bible to winne the wholl worlde Therefore we litle regard your furious and senseles railing against vs where with you haue stuffed all partes of your booke that neuer was scorpion fuller of poison then it is of venemous and stinging reproches Leauing the Greek you returne againe to the Hebrew Pag. 431. against which you haue deuised pretie reasons to prooue there is no holde in it against contentious heretikes The blasphemie of which assertion M. Rain saith that in the Hebrew text of scripture there is no holde I dout not euerie reasonable man at the first will espie and abhorre For seeing it pleased the Lord of all tongues of men vnder heauen to chuse that tongue wherein to write his word oracles that his Church might haue a most perfecte and certaine rule of religion shall this Papist come and controll the wisdome of God for so doing and say that of the Hebrew litle holde can be
this your fashion Then let me conclude against you as you haue done against me that you are by your owne argument very Atheists such as make no account of God himselfe For otherwise this conclusion of yours that I am such a one for not honouring the name of Iesus in such sort is falssie though moste maliciouslie deuised That Iewes and Infidels haue abhorred the name of Iesus I graunt but no more the name of Iesus then the name of Christ seeing Iesus is Christ and Christ hath as much deserued to be hated of them as Iesus Christes name may a thousand times be heard amongst you and noe man mooueth capp or knee Iesus is noe sooner sounded but euerie man by and by putteth of his capp and scrapeth on the ground with his foot and yet not alwaies and in all places but in the Church and speciallie at reading of the Gospell This may breede a more dangerous opinion then it can remooue anie that Iesus is better then is Christ and more worthie of reuerence which is wicked to imagine Now Master Rainolds hauing in particular made some seelie defense pag. 516. 〈◊〉 as you haue heard for certaine of their annotations vpon the new Testament noted as notorious absurd and ridiculous conclusions because he knoweth the matter is not yet sufficienly answered addeth in the and a further proofe and confirmation of the arguments by example of the scripture it selfe wherein diuerse reasons may be found and namelie touching the resurrection which if they be examined according to philosophy and humane wisdome will followe no better then theirs haue done but may be thought as improbable weake as any that they haue made This discourse doth Master Rainolds in manie wordes prosecute with great superfluitie of speach and many opprobrious termes after his olde manner But when he hath talked his pleasure at full an answere in one word shall ouerthrow all that he hath builded and as it were cutt in sunder the threed of all that he hath sewed thus loselie together Whatsoeuer is affirmed or denied in scripture although it be moste contrarie to mans reason yet is it true and certaine and must without contradiction be beleeued because the Lord whose word is truth hath said it The resurrection of the flesh cannot I graunt be prooued by philosophicall reasons and arguments but Gods word hath set down this for a principle of our faith that our bodies shall rise againe and whatsoeuer reason iudgeth thereof faith maketh no doubte but so it shall be But now Master Rainolds what maketh this for your former collections because we must beleeue Christ and his Apostles in all that they teach though naturall reason will not so easilie yeald must we therefore allowe whatsoeuer our nouices of Rhemes haue fondlie without authoritie of Gods worde concluded in their Annotations for maintenance of Popish heresie This forsooth is your argument if you ment to make any argument at all if you thought not to driue your speach to this conclusion then haue you ranged at randon all this while and spoken neuer a word to that purpose to the which you shoulde haue directed your talke CHAP. 17. Of certaine blasphemies contained in the Annotations HEtherto hath appeered with what conscience and spirit you haue translated and expounded sundrie places of the new Testament wresting writhing moste violently the text of holie scripture to confirmation of your Popish errours and absurdities pag. 52◠Wherein I doubt not but whosoeuer shall consider with himselfe aduisedlie your manner of collection your argument your application of scripture and shall examine a litle how your conclusion followeth vpon your proofes with out all coherence or consequence of reason must needes greatlie mislike your wholl Religion that is builded vpon so weake so tickle so ruinous a foundation For vnles it be graunted that of euery thing may be concluded any thing and that the word of God may be made appliable to all purposes opinions and doctrines it is impossible that these and such like arguments of yours as you haue in your annotations gathered vpon the wordes of scripture should haue in them such strength and trueth as Diuinitie and religion requireth But further when your blasphemous audacitie in controlling the word of God shall be perceaued it must of necessitie breede in all such as feare God and reuerence his worde a far greater alienation of minde from you and from all your damnable doctrine Examples of such blasphemies some I alledged whereof now Master Rainolds in his last Chapter intreateth and with his accustomed boldnes of defending anie thing laboureth to iustifie the same The Apostle in his epistle to the Hebrewes intreating at large of Christes priesthood pag. 529. Sec. compareth Christ with Melchisedech and by this argument prooueth that Christ is a priest for euer because he is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech which he confirmeth by testimonie of Moses and Dauid In all which treatise the Apostle although he fullie sheweth what resemblance was betwene Melchisedech and Christ yet he maketh not anie mention of the masse nor of the vnbloodie sacrifice of Christes bodie and blood in bread and wine nor of anie such matter as by the papists hath beene imagined Which because our Rhemists vnderstoode to be greatlie preiudiciall to their sacrifice of the Masse they haue moste shamefullie and blasphemouslie behaued themselues in handling this scripture as to anie that compareth their annotations with the text it selfe maie easily apperee For they haue plainlie written in their annotations that all that the Apostle hath alledged concerning the eternitie of Christes person and his perpetuall intercession for vs and euerlasting effect of his death prooueth not that in proper signification his priesthood is perpetuall Hebr. 7.17 Whereof what other thing can possiblie be collected but that the Apostle hath not by sufficient reasons prooued that thing which he tooke in hand to prooue that Iesus Christ is a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech For these men boldelie affirme that all this prooueth not that in proper signification Christs priesthood is perpetuall then the Apostle in proper signification hath prooued nothing lesse then that which he went about to prooue concerning Christes euerlasting priesthood wherein all our saluation consisteth hath but vsed a sleight to make men beleeue a thing which either he coulde not prooue or at lest hath not effectuallie prooued Our papists wil haue the principall respect of resemblance betweene Christ and Melchisedech to stand in offering bread and wine whereof forsooth must arise a perpetuall sacrifice to be continued in the Church Nowe hereof the Apostle hath not spoken so much as one word nor giuen the least signification of such a matter What other thing is it then but plaine blasphemie for maintenance of an idolatrous sacrifice to charge the Apostle that he hath not prooued Christs priesthood to be perpetual which yet he hath by moste necessarie and substantiall arguments