A15061:486
An answer to a certain book, writtenAn answere to a certeine booke, written
An answer to a certain book, written by Master William Rainolds student of divinity in the English college at Rhemes, and entitled, A refutation of sundry reprehensions, cavils, etc. by William Whitaker ...An answere to a certeine booke, written by Maister William Rainolds student of diuinitie in the English colledge at Rhemes, and entituled, A refutation of sundrie reprehensions, cauils, etc. by William Whitaker ...
Printed at London : For Thomas Chard, 1585
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Secondly it is confessed by Master Rainolds that the Apostle maketh not any express mention of that oblation of bread and wine.1 But what reason was there, why the Apostle entreating of Christs eternal priesthood, omitted the principal part thereof? Consider good reader, into what miserable straits these men are driven, and what absurd devises they are enforced to forge. For their best excuse is that because the Jews believed not the first, singular, and sovereign sacrifice of the cross, therefore he would not urge them with this secondary and dependent sacrifice of the Church. Which in trueth is nothing else, but a silly shift to salve a desperate sore. For first it is evident the Apostle writ to those that were not ignorant of Christian religion, seeing they had learned already the ⟨p. 409⟩principles thereof, and are exhorted by the Apostle to proceed to perfection therein.2 Secondly whereas the Apostle hath discoursed so plentifully of the principal and sovereign sacrifice, what reason was there to keep silence of the secondary sacrifice, as you call it? Might they hear of the greater, and not of the less? Might the Apostle urge so earnestly unto them the sacrifice of the cross, and might he not in a word mention the sacrifice of the Altar? Could the one be more offensive unto them then the other? Let all men judge what trueth there is in this devise.
Secondlie it is confessed by Master Rainolds that the Apostle maketh not anie expresse mention of that oblation of bread and wine.1 But what reason was there, why the Apostle entreating of Christes eternall preisthood, omitted the principall part thereof? Consider good reader, into what miserable straites these men are driuen, and what absurde deuises they are enforced to forge. For their best excuse is that because the Iewes beleeued not the first, singular, and soueraigne sacrifice of the crosse, therefore he would not vrge them with this secondarie and dependente sacrifice of the Church. Which in trueth is nothing els, but a seelie shift to salue a desperate sore. For first it is euident the Apostle writ to those that were not ignorant of Christian religion, seeing they had learned alreadie the