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

Of that which followeth concerning this matter, nothing deserveth answer,¹ save only that Master Rainolds asketh of me, whether Melchizedek did not sacrifice? I say, no doubt Melchizedek did sacrifice: for otherwise he had not been a priest. But Saint Paul (saith he) maketh no express mention thereof. What then, I pray you? Forsooth by Master Whittakers judgement Saint Paul omitteth some principal part of Melchisedechs priesthood. Who ever heard a more foolish collection? it was sufficient for the Apostle that Melchizedek was a priest, which is confirmed by plain ⟨p. 410⟩testimony of scripture: to rehearse any special kind of sacrifice by him offered was nothing necessary to the purpose in hand. And therefore the Apostle hath not omitted any principal part of Melchisedechs priesthood, unless you will say it cannot be proved necessarily, that one hath been a priest, except every particular sacrifice that ever was offered by him, be recorded and avouched. This being most absurd, see how vain a conceit of yours this was, that the Apostle hath omitted some principal part of Melchisedechs priesthood, because he hath not declared expressly what special sacrifice Melchizedek offered.

Of that which followeth concerning this matter, nothing deserueth answere,¹ saue onelie that Master Rainolds asketh of me, whether Melchisedech did not sacrifice? I saie, no doubt Melchisedech did sacrifice: for otherwise he had not bene a priest. But Saint Paul (saith he) maketh no expresse mention thereof. What then, I praie you? Forsooth by Master Whittakers iudgement Saint Paul omitteth some principall part of Melchisedechs priesthood. Whoe euer heard a more foolish collection? it was sufficient for the Apostle that Melchisedech was a priest, which is confirmed by plaine ⟨p. 410⟩testimonie of scripture: to rehearse anie speciall kinde of sacrifice by him offered was nothing necessarie to the purpose in hand. And therefore the Apostle hath not omitted any principall part of Melchisedechs priesthood, vnles you will say it cannot be prooued necessarilie, that one hath bene a priest, except euerie particular sacrifice that euer was offered by him, be recorded and auouched. This being moste absurd, see how vaine a conceite of yours this was, that the Apostle hath omitted some principall parte of Melchisedechs priesthood, because he hath not declared expresselie what speciall sacrifice Melchisedech offered.