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

What other thing is it then but plain blasphemy for maintenance of an idolatrous sacrifice to charge the Apostle that he hath not proved Christs priesthood to be perpetual, which yet he hath by most necessary and substantial arguments proved? For as the Apostle reasoneth, if Christs person be perpetual, as it is; and if he make for us perpetual intercession, as he doth; and if by his one sacrifice offered once he hath wrought a full and perfect redemption, as he hath; then is it hereof in proper signification proved, that Christs priesthood also is perpetual, and then have these malapert papists blasphemed in denying the Apostles arguments to be good in proper signification, which is in effect to take from them all credit and authority. Let Master Rainolds devise what cunning shift he can, yet in truth never shall he be ⟨p. 406⟩able to wipe out this blot of blasphemy: when the Apostle hath of purpose laboured to prove Christs eternal priesthood, and proved it indeed most invincibly, for these Collegiates of Rhemes to come in with their censure upon the Apostle, and to set down in plain terms that all this proveth not the matter in proper signification, and that the Apostle hath omitted the chief and proper proof thereof. This is a blasphemy against Christ, and against the holy spirit of God, by which the Apostle in writing was directed.

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 prooued? For as the Apostle reasoneth, if Christes person be perpetuall, as it is; and if he make for vs perpetuall intercession, as he doth; and if by his one sacrifice offered once he hath wrought a full and perfect redemption, as he hath; then is it hereof in proper signification prooued, that Christs priesthood also is perpetuall, and then haue these malapert papists blasphemed in denying the Apostles arguments to be good in proper signification, which is in effect to take from them all credit and authoritie. Let Master Rainolds deuise what cunning shift he can, yet in truth neuer shall he be ⟨p. 406⟩hable to wipe out this blot of blasphemie: when the Apostle hath of purpose laboured to prooue Christs eternall priesthood, and prooued it indeede most inuinciblie, for these Collegiates of Rhemes to come in with their censure vpon the Apostle, and to set downe in plaine termes that all this prooueth not the matter in proper signification, and that the Apostle hath omitted the chiefe and proper proofe thereof. This is a blasphemie against Christ, and against the holy spirit of God, by which the Apostle in writing was directed.