An answer to a certain book, writtenAn answere to a certeine booke, written

was it not sufficient to declare that he was a Priest, unless it were also added, what manner of sacrifice he offered? will you not believe the scriptures testifying that Melchizedek was a Priest, unless you understand what sacrifice he made? How many Priests doth the scripture speak of, and yet omitteth their kind and manner of sacrifice? Can you then reason, they were no Priests, because it is not expressly noted, in what things they offered their sacrifice?

was it not sufficient to declare that he was a Priest, vnlesse it were also added, what manner of sacrifice he offered? will you not beleeue the scriptures testifying that Melchisedech was a Priest, vnlesse you vnderstand what sacrifice he made? How manie Priests doth the scripture speake of, and yet omitteth their kinde and manner of sacrifice? Can you then reason, they were no Priests, because it is not expresslie noted, in what things they offered their sacrifice?

Furthermore, was not Melchizedek a King also? and yet we read not any where in scriptures what Kingly duties were performed by him, unless you will acknowledge this to be a token of his royal dignity, that he relieved Abraham and his men with provision: which though it be no proper mark of a King, seeing it may be done ⟨p. 62⟩by others also that be no kings, yet doth it rather show unto us a Kingly estate in him (as it is alleged by learned men) then a priestly. For to bring forth bread and wine, that is, meat & drink for the sustenance of a multitude, must rather be thought a princely magnificence, then a priestly sacrifice. Seeing then it is as necessary for us to believe that Melchizedek was a King, as that he was a priest, because he was a figure of Christ, not only concerning his priesthood, but also his Kingdom:¹ then must you as well note unto us what princely act of his the scripture reporteth, as you demand of us what sacrifice he offered. For if this proveth not he was a King, then to use your own words, there is no syllable in the scriptures of any kingly deed, that ever he did: and so by your profound and invincible reason, as you call it, we must be forced contrary to plain scriptures to deny he was a king. For that he was a priest, besides he is so called in the scriptures, may also further appear unto us by his doings, in that he blessed Abraham, which duty belonged to the priest, as well as to offer sacrifice. Thus your goodly argument, whereof you brag so much, if it be of such