Of the consecration of the bishops in the Church of England with their succession, iurisdiction, and other things incident to their calling: as also of the ordination of priests and deacons. Fiue bookes: wherein they are cleared from the slanders and odious imputations of Bellarmine, Sanders, Bristow, Harding, Allen, Stapleton, Parsons, Kellison, Eudemon, Becanus, and other romanists: and iustified to containe nothing contrary to the Scriptures, councels, Fathers, or approued examples of primitiue antiquitie. By Francis Mason, Batchelour of Diuinitie, and sometimes fellow of Merton Colledge in Oxeford.

CHAP. II.

Of their argument drawne from Melchisedec.

PHIL.

THe Sacrifice of Melchisedec, was a type of that which Christ offered at his last Supper, with his owne hands, & shal offer by the hands of the Priests, vntil the end of the world. For the vnderstanding wher∣of, we must consider, that Melchisedec, was a type of Christ in a more excellent maner then Aaron, inso∣much that Christ is called a Priest, after the order of Melchisedec, and not after the order of Aaron. For betweene these two Priesthoods, there are two differences, e 1.1 the first consisteth in the externall forme of the Sacrifice; For the Sacrifices of Aaron were bloodie and represented the death of Christ, vnder the forme of liuing things, that were s••aine: The sacrifice of Melchisedec was vnbloody, and did figure the body and

blood of Christ vnder the forme of Bread and Wine. From which property of the order of Melchisedec we may draw this argument. If Melchisedec did offer an vnbloody sacrifice vnder the forme of Bread and Wine, then seeing Christ is a Priest, after the order of Melchisedec, he also must offer an vn∣bloody Sacrifice, vnder the formes and shapes of Bread and Wine: but the Sacrifice of the Crosse, was bloody: therefore he offered another Sacrifice besides the Sacrifice of the Crosse: and what can this be, but the Sacrifice of the Supper? But he commaded his Apostles, and in them vs, to doe as hee did, saying, a 1.2 doe this in remembrance of me: therfore Christ commanded that we should sacrifice him in an vnbloody manner, in the formes of Bread and Wine, & consequently the Ministers of the Gospel, are Sacrificers by Christs owne institution.

ORTH.

We graunt first, that Melchisedec was a type of Christ, because the Scripture saith, b 1.3 he was likened to the sonne of God: Secondly, that Christ was a Priest, not after the order of Aaron▪ but after the order of Melchisedec, because God hath not only said it, but sworne it: c 1.4 The Lord hath sworne and will not re∣pent, thou art a Priest for euer, after the order of Melchisedec: but wee deny that Melchisedec did offer any Bread and Wine, for a Sacrifice to God; wee deny that Christ euer offered any such, or euer gaue any such commission to his Apostles. Therefore this is so farre from prouing your pretended Priesthood, that it will quite ouerthrowe it.

PHIL.

THat Melchisedec Sacrificed Bread and Wine, is plaine* 1.5 in d 1.6 Genesis.

ORTHOD.

In Genesis? Why? there is no such thing: the wordes are these. And Melchisedec king of Salem, brought foorth Bread and Wine, and he was a Priest of the most high God; Where your owne vulgar translation rea∣deth proferens not offerens, hee brought forth Bread and Wine, and not hee offered it.

PHIL.

True he brought it forth: but the end why he brought it foorth was to Sacrifice vnto God.

ORTHOD.

That is more then you can gather out of the text. e 1.7 Iosephus sayth, that hee gaue intertainment to the Souldiers of Abraham, f 1.8 Tertullian saith, that he offered Bread and Wine to Abraham, returning from the battel. Saint g 1.9 Ambrose saith likewise, that Melchisedec did offer it vnto Abraham. Your owne h 1.10 Andradius saith▪ Ego cum illis sentiam, qui lassos Abrahae milites, & diuturna pug na fractos, Melchisedecum pane vinoque refecisse aiunt. That is, I will be of their opinion, which say that Melchisedec refreshed with Bread and Wine, the Souldiers of Abraham, being weary and tyred with a long battell. And Cardinall i 1.11 Caietan: Nihil scribitur hic de Sacrificio seu oblatione, sed de prolatione seu extractione, quam Iosephus dicit factam ad reficiendum victores, that is, heere is nothing (spoken) of the oblation or Sacrifice, but of the prolation and bringing it out, which Iosephus saith, was done to refresh the Conquerers.

PHIL.

These things are subordinate, and may stand together, for first, he offered the Bread and Wine to God for a Sacrifice, And then, inuited A∣braham and his armie: so this was not Ciuill but a Sacred banquet.

ORTHO.

How prooue you that?

PHIL.

Abraham sayde to the King of Sodome; k 1.12 I haue lift

vp my hand vnto the Lord the most high God, possessor of heauen and earth, that I will not take of all that is thine, so much as a thread or shooe latchet, lest thou shouldest say, I haue made Abraham rich, saue only that which the yong men haue eaten, & the parts of the men which went with mee, Aner, Eschol and Mamre, let them take their parts. Now to vse the words of Cardinall Bellarmine, a 1.13 Quid opus erat pane & vino ijs qui spolijs abundabant & paulo ante comederant & biberant? that is, What need had they of bread and wine which did abound with spoiles, and had eaten and drunken a little before?

ORTHOD.

That Paulo ante is a tricke of a Iesuite, to make the Reader imagine that they had new dined, which is more then can be proued out of the Text. For when Abraham who dwelt in the plaine of b 1.14 Mamre heard that Lot was taken prisoner, hee pursued the 4. Kings to c 1.15 Dan, about 124. English miles: then he and his seruants diuided themselues, and pursued them vnto d 1.16 Hobah about 80. miles, where he recouered the substance, and tooke the spoiles; Thence he returned to e 1.17 Sodom, about 180. miles, where Melchisedec met him. Wherefore, for ought that doeth appeare by the Text, the yong mens eating of the spoiles, might haue bene sundry dayes before Melchisedec met them. But if they had new dined, did Melchisedec know so much? Or if he did, doe you know how long he stayed with them, or what store of victu∣als they had remayning? And if there had remained great plentie, yet, may not a King giue entertainment to such as are otherwise prouided of victuals? Surely, this is a speech that doeth little become a Cardinall: if Bellarmine be of this opinion, his Cardinalship keepeth but a miserable house, and affor∣deth but slender hospitalitie. Hitherto we haue seene how weakely you haue disproued the ciuill banquet; Now let vs see how strongly you can proue the Sacred.

PHIL.

THat this bread and wine were brought out for sacrifice, may ap∣peare* 1.18 by the Text, which saith, Melchisedec Rex Salem proferens panem & vinum, erat enim Sacerdos Dei altissimi, &c. That is, f 1.19 Melchisedec King of Salem brought foorth bread and wine: for hee was a Priest of the most high God. Why did he bring foorth bread and wine? because he was a Priest of the most high God▪ Now the proper office of a Priest is to sacrifice; therefore the very connexion doeth teach vs, that he brought foorth bread and wine to sacrifice.

ORTHOD.

As it was the office of the Priest to sacrifice, so it was his of∣fice to blesse: as may appeare in the sixt of Numbers, g 1.20 Speake vnto Araon, and to his sonnes, saying, Thus shall you blesse the children of Israel, &c. Therefore the Spirit of God hauing said, that Melchisedec was a Priest of the most High God, addeth immediatly, that he blessed him.

PHIL.

The coniunction (for) doeth euidently shew the dependence. He brought foorth bread and wine, (for) he was a Priest of the most High God: there∣fore this bringing it forth, was a Priestly action, which must needs import, that it was referred to sacrifice.

ORTHOD.

The Vulgar Translation which you follow, is erronious: for according to the Hebrew it is not, Erat enim Sacerdos: for he was a Priest; but & erat Sacerdos: and he was a Priest, as Arias h 1.21 Montanus translateth it; and i 1.22 Bellarmine confesseth. So the clauses are not ioyned together with a coniun∣ction

causall, but with a copulatiue: therefore your argument drawne from the causall vanisheth away.

PHIL.

The copulatiue coniunction is much vsed for a causall: as in the Prophet a 1.23 Esay, where it is according to the Hebrew, Behold thou art angry, and we haue sinned; which your selues translate, Behold thou art angry, for we haue sinned. The like is to be said of the Greeke particle, answering to the Hebrew; As for example, in the words of the Angel, it is according to the Greeke, b 1.24 Bles∣sed art thou among women, and the fruit of thy wombe is blessed. Vpon which place, c 1.25 Beza proueth very well, that the copulatiue is put for a causall: and your selues translate it accordingly, Because the fruit of thy wombe is blessed. Likewise in this present place, the copulatiue must be expounded by the causall: as may appeare euen by the Hebrew, which your selues so aduance and magnifie. d 1.26 For after these words, And he was a Priest of the most High God. There is an accent called Soph pasuk, to signifie that the period is ended. Therefore though wee should reade, And he was a Priest of the most High God: yet because there is a full point, the very words thus pointed according to the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greeke and Latine, would proclaime, that he brought forth bread and wine, as a Priest to sacrifice.

ORTHOD.

In the diuision of the Chapters into verses, there was re∣spect had, not onely of Musicall harmonie, but also of some equalitie or indif∣ferencie in the length of the Verses. So it commeth to passe▪ that sometimes a long sentence extendeth it selfe, and is e 1.27 continued in diuers verses, before the sense be perfectly concluded. Wherefore though euery Verse haue his Soph pasuk, yet euery Verse is not a full period. As for example, In the 23. of Ge∣nesis, after the 17. Verse, there is the same point and accent, which is here; and yet in your owne vulgar Bibles, set out by Sixtus 5. and Clemens octauus, there is but a comma: and that no marueile, seeing sometimes there is onely a com∣ma betweene Chapter and Chapter, As for example, Betweene the 21. and 22. of the Acts, both in the Greeke and in the Latine. Now for this present place of Genesis, In Pagnins translation set out by Vatablus, as also in f 1.28 Delrio, yea in the authenticall Edition of Sixtus quintus, and Clemens octauus, the Soph pasuk you vrge, is expressed onely by a comma, and in some of the Vulgar, there is not so much as a comma. Wherefore this doeth rather argue a rela∣tion to that which followeth, then to that which went before, and conse∣quently, these words, He was a Priest of the most High God, cannot be referred to the bringing foorth of the bread and wine, but rather to the blessing. And that it is so, may appeare by the Epistle to the Hebrewes, where the Type of Melchisedec is vnfolded: and yet there is no mention at all of sacrificing, but on∣ly of blessing▪ But if we should suppose, that it were to be translated by the cau∣sall, (for) and that these words, For he was a Priest of the most High God, had re∣lation to that which went before, concerning the bringing out of bread and wine, what should you gaine by it?

PHIL.

The very point in question. For the latter part shall yeeld a rea∣son of the former. Did Melchisedec bring foorth bread and wine to Abra∣ham? What moued him so to doe? The reason is rendered, because he was a Priest of the most High God; Therefore this was a Priestly action.

ORTHOD.

He gaue entertainment to Abraham, and was thereunto mo∣ued

by consideration of his owne Office, euen because hee was not onely a professour of the true Religion, but also a Priest: for as it becommeth all that imbrace Religion, to loue one another, and reioyce at their good; so this duetie especially belongeth to the Priest. And your learned Iesuite a 1.29 An∣dradius hence obserueth the great lincke of Religion, saying, Who would not wonder that a man tyed by no lincks of acquaintance with Abraham, but to those whom Abraham conquered▪ tyed by the lincke of neighbour-hood, and peraduenture of alliance also, (for I hold it very probable, that Melchisedec was a Canaanite) should prosecute Abraham with presents, and other kind offices, and for the victory gotten ouer his owne country men, should congratulate Abraham, not without procuring to himselfe great enuie from his neighbours? but seeing there are no lincks to bee compared with the linkes of religion (Moyses) saith that he performed these offices to Abraham because he was a Priest of the most high God: that all men might vnderstand that hee was coupled with greater lincks of loue with Abraham, who excelled for singular commendation of Pietie and religion, then with them to whom he was tied by the Law of nature and country: therefore there is no necessity, to say, that he sacrificed bread and wine, for the text euen read and pointed as you would haue it, may in the iudgement of some of your learned Diuines, admit an excellent sence without any sacrifice.

BVt let vs imagine that hee did sacrifice bread and wine, what is this to* 1.30 the purpose?

PHIL.

Yes, it proueth our Priest hood directly and strongly. For must not the truth answere to the Type?

ORTHOD.

You make the type consist in this, that Melchisedec sacrificed bread and wine; but stay a little; did Christ sacrifice bread and wine? where find you that?

PHIL.

A Type consisteth in representation; and representation de∣pendeth rather vpon the outward accidents, then the inward substance, ther∣fore whereas Melchisedec sacrificed bread and wine, the truth of that Type must consist in the outward accidents: that is, in the formes of bread & wine: and the Type was fulfilled in that Christ offered himselfe in the formes of bread and wine.

ORTH.

Was the sacrifice of Melchisedec bread and wine in substance? or was it the body and blood of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine? if you say the first, then our communion doth better answere to the sacrifice of Melchisedec then your Masse: and consequently our ministery doth better resemble his then your Priesthood: but if you say that he offered the very bo∣die and blood of Christ in the formes of bread and wine; that would fit your turne well, for then Melchisedec should be a Masse Priest; but it is so absurde that you dare not auouch it. For then the very bodie and blood of Christ should haue beene actually and substantially existent, before it was concei∣ued in the wombe of the Virgin Mary. Thus say what you can, you are quite ouerthrowne.

PHIL.

If Melchisedec sacrificed bread and wine, then surely hee offred an vnbloody sacrifice; and seeing Christ being a Priest after the order of Melchi∣sedec must needs haue the essentiall properties of that Order; therefore Christ offered also an vnbloody sacrifice.

ORTHOD.

Or rather thus, seeing Christ is a Priest after the Order of Melchisedec, hee must haue all the essentiall properties belonging to that Or∣der: but his sacrifice was bloodie and not vnbloody, for, With his owne a 1.31 blood hath he entred into the most Holy, and hath purchased an eternall redemption for vs: therefore to offer an vnbloody sacrifice, is no essential propertie of the Order of Melchisedec: wherfore if he did so, it followeth not that Christ should do so.

PHIL.

It was both bloody and vnbloodie, bloody vpon the Crosse, vn∣bloodie in the Eucharist.

ORTHOD.

Doe you not teach that Christ offered his owne body, and blood in the Eucharist? if hee sacrificed his owne blood, how can that sacri∣fice be vnbloodie?

PHIL.

His blood was shed and sacrificed in the Eucharist in an vn∣bloudie manner; that is, in the forme of bread and wine.

ORTHO.

The Scripture saith that Christ was Once offered, and that with b 1.32 once offering he hath Consecrated for euer them that are sanctified: and this offe∣ring is called the blood of the c 1.33 Crosse, not the blood of the Eucharist, but the blood of the Crosse.

PHIL.

Will you deny the blood and sacrifice of the Eucharist?

ORTHOD.

Christ saith, d 1.34 Doe this in remembrance of mee; therefore in the Eucharist there is a memoriall of Christ, euen of his bodie and blood, which were sacrificed for vs vpon the Crosse once for all, as hath been alreadie proo∣ued. Therefore the blood was shed and sacrificed vpon the Crosse, pro∣perly and substantially: in the Eucharist improperly and in a mystery, by way of commemoration an representation, as shall appeare more amply, when we come to the point.

PHIL.

ANother difference betweene Aaron and Melchisedec, is thus set* 1.35 down by e 1.36 Bellarmine: Estetiā alia differentia inter Sacerdotium Mel∣chisedechi & Aaronis, quòd illud fuit vnius tantū hominis qui non successit alteri, & cui non successit alter: istud autem fuit multorum, qui per mortem sibi inuicem suc∣cedebant, i. There is an other difference betweene the Priesthood of Melchisedec, and of Aaron; that the former was onely of one man who succeeded not an other, and to whom no man succeeded, but the latter was of many men which succeeded one ano∣ther by death, where we may obserue two properties of the Priesthood of Mel∣chisedec, vnity and eternity.

ORTH.

The first propertie belongeth most aptly to Christ, who alone hath offered himselfe a sweete smelling sacrifice to God for vs; but to your Popish Priests it cannot agree; because they are many: for if the Priests should be many, then this vnity of the Priest could not bee a property of the Priest∣hood: therefore this vnitie is directly against you: Now let vs see what you can conclude from the eternity.

PHIL.

If Christ haue an euerlasting Priesthood, then hee must haue an euerlasting sacrifice: for euery Priest must haue a sacrifice, or else the Priesthood should be idle: but the sacrifice of the Crosse was not euerlasting, for it was but once offered, therefore there must needs be another sacrifice of the New Testament, that is, the sacrifice of the Masse wherein the sacrifice of Christ is continued for euer, and so our Priest-hood is proued.

ORTHOD.

Proued? how is it proued? the scripture saith that Christ, be∣cause

he a 1.37 indureth for euer hath an euerlasting Priesthood: he indureth for euer; he euen he, in his owne person: and therefore hath no neede of you to continue his Sacrifice. For Christ is a Priest for euer. First in respect of his owne Sacri∣fice vpon the Crosse. Secondly, in respect of his intercession. In respect of the Sacrifice, which though it were but once offered, yet it is an euerlasting Sa∣crifice, because the vertue of it is euerlasting, and continueth effectuall for e∣uer, for as he is the b 1.38 lambe slaine from the beginning of the world, so hee is Iesus Christ c 1.39 yesterday, to day, and the same for euer; d 1.40 neither by the blood of goates and calues, but by his owne blood entred he once into the holy place, and hath obtained an eternall redemption for vs.

PHIL.

As hee is a Priest properly for euer, so hee must for euer offer a Sacrifice; But he hath no more Sacrifice to offer in his owne person: there∣fore he must offer it by another.

ORTH.

Your owne e 1.41 Rhemists affirme that Christ was a Priest from the first moment of his conception. Now what if one should reason thus with you? if he be a Priest, he must offer a Sacrifice: but in the Virgins wombe he offered no Sacrifice, therefore then he was no Priest. Or thus; till he was thirty three yeeres olde he offered no Sacrifice, therefore all that while hee was no Priest, what would you answere?

PHIL.

I would say that Christ was truely then a Priest, in respect of that Sacrifice of his body and blood which he offered in due time.

ORTHOD.

If he were a Priest in the wombe of the Virgin, in respect of that Sacrifice which was then to come; why may hee not bee called a Priest till the end of the world, in respect of the same Sacrifice alreadie offered? and as he is a Priest for euer in respect of his Sacrifice, so he is a Priest for euer in regard of his intercession. For his Priesthood hath two parts, Redemption, and Intercession. It behoued our high Priest first to purchase our redemption by his blood, secondly to applie his precious merits vnto vs by his intercessi∣on, and both these are set downe by Saint Iohn: if any man sinne, f 1.42 wee haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust, and he is the Propitiation for our sinnes. Who is our aduocate? euen hee that hath sacrificed his blood a propitiati∣on for our sinnes, hee is our aduocate, and g 1.43 appeareth in heauen to make intercession for vs. h 1.44 Who shall now lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen? it is God that iustifieth, who shall condemne vs? It is Christ which is dead, yea rather which is risen againe, who is also at the right hand of God, and maketh intercession for vs, And seeing we haue a i 1.45 high Priest made higher then the heauens, who euer liueth to make intercession for vs, In this respect he may well be saide to bee a Priest for euer, and needeth not your Massemongers to continue his Sacrifice. Where∣fore it is euident that your sacrificing priestood cannot bee grounded vpon the type of Melchisedec. Which may yet appeare more fully, because the A∣postle to the k 1.46 Hebrewes speaking very particularly of this Type saith not one word cōcerning his Sacrifice, but vnfouldeth it in these branches following. First, Melchisedec signifieth King of righteousnesse, therein being a type of Christ Iesus, who is l 1.47 the Lord our righteousnesse. Secondly, Melchisedec was King of Salem, that is, king of peace: So m 1.48 Christ Iesus is the Prince of peace: n 1.49 for he is our peace which hath made of both one, and hath broken the stop of the partition wall, in abrogating through his flesh the hatred, that is, the lawe of commandements which

standeth in ordinances, for to make of twaine one new man in himselfe, so making peace. And that hee might reconcile both vnto God in one body by his Crosse, and slay hatred thereby, and came and Preached peace to you which were a farre off, and to them that were neere. Thirdly, Melchisedec was both King and Priest: so was Christ Iesus. Fourthly, Melchisedec blessed Abraham: and the blessing of God commeth through Christ Iesus vpon all the sonnes of Abraham, that is vpon all beleeuers. For we ought all to say with the Apostle, a 1.50 Blessed bee God, euen the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, which hath blessed vs with all spirituall blessing in heauenly things in Christ. Fifthly, Melchisedec receiued tithes of Abraham, and consequētly, euen Leui being as yet in the loines of Abraham payed tithes to Melchi∣sedec; Whereby was signified that the Priesthood of Christ who was after the order of Melchisedec, was farre more excellent then the Priesthood of Aa∣ron. Sixtly, Melchisedec was without father, without mother, without kindred, not simply, but is said to be so, in respect of the silence of the Scripture which bringeth him in sodenly, making no mention at all of father, mother, or kin∣red, thereby representing Christ Iesus, who as he was man, had no father; as he was God had no mother nor kinred. Seuenthly, Melchisedec had neither be∣ginning of dayes, nor end of life: That is, the Scripture doth not mention the one nor the other, that therein hee might bee a representation of the eternitie of Christ Iesus, who as hee is God, is from euerlasting to euerlasting. Thus the Scripture vnfoldeth the type of Melchisedec, plentifully and particularly, and yet saith not one word concerning his sacrificing, which is an euident ar∣gument that it is a meere deuise and imagination of mans braine.

PHIL.

The Apostles silence is no sufficient argument against it. For hee renders a reason why hee was inforced to omit diuers deepe points concer∣ning Melchisedec. A high Priest, according to the order of Melchisedec, b 1.51 of whom we haue great speech, and inexplicable to vtter: because you are become weake to heare? c 1.52 Among which no doubt (say the Rhemists) the mysterie of the Sacrament, & Sacrifice of the Altar called Masse was a principall and pertinent matter; And indeede it was not reasonable to talke much to them of that Sacrifice which was the resemblance of Christs death, when they thought not right of Christs death it selfe.

ORTHOD.

We doe not ground vpon the silence of the Apostle onely, but of the silence of all the Apostles and Prophets. There is not a word in the whole Bible to declare that Melchisedec was a type of Christ in offering such an vnbloodie Sacrifice in the formes of Bread and Wine, and this very silence is like the voice of a Trumpet proclaiming vnto the world, that Popery is the meer inuention of man, & shall wither in the root from whence it sprung. For euery plant which our heauenly father hath not planted shall be rooted out.

PHIL.

Doe not the Fathers make this a type of the Eucharist? And wherein can it consist, but in an oblation or sacrifice?

ORTHOD.

First, some of the Fathers say not that Melchisedec offered this Bread and wine to God but to Abraham. Secondly, those which say it was offered vnto God as a Sacrifice▪ may meane an Eucharisticall Sacrifice, and not a propitiatorie. Thirdly, if any of the Fathers say that hee offered a propitiatorie Sacrifice, yet it followeth not that because they make the obla∣tion of Melchisedec a Type of the Eucharist, that therefore in the Eucharist there is a propitiatorie Sacrifice: for those which hold so, must make a double

oblation of this Bread and Wine, by Melchisedec: the first to God, by way of Sacrifice: the second to Abraham, and the armie in the manner of a banquet: the first might haue relation to Christ vpon the Crosse: the second to the Eu∣charist. Fourthly, your Popish massing Sacrifice, presupposeth transubstan∣tiation, which is contrary to Christs institutiō of the Eucharist, as in due place shall be declared: Wherefore those fathers which vnderstand the Eucharist, according to Christs institution, cannot referre the type of Melchisedec to any transubstantiate Sacrifice.

Notes

• e 1.1

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Missa ••. ••. c. ••. Porro.
• a 1.2

  Luke. 22. 19.
• b 1.3

  Heb. 7. 3.
• c 1.4

  Psal. 110 4.
• * 1.5

  2
• d 1.6

  Gen. 14. 18.
• e 1.7

  Antiq l. 1. cap 11.
• f 1.8

  Tertul. con. Iud. 14.
• g 1.9

  Am••. l. 4. de Sacram. c. 3.
• h 1.10

  And de vulg: lat. Edit. l. 4. Defens. p. 636.
• i 1.11

  In Genes▪ c. 14.
• k 1.12

  Gen. 14. 22
• a 1.13

  Bell. de Missa ••. ••. c. 6.
• b 1.14

  Gene. 14. 13.
• c 1.15

  Verse 14.
• d 1.16

  Verse 15.
• e 1.17

  Verse 17.
• * 1.18

  3.
• f 1.19

  Verse 18.
• g 1.20

  Verse 23.
• h 1.21

  In 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in∣ter. line▪ ••ribus.
• i 1.22

  Bell. de Missa. l. 1. c. 6.
• a 1.23

  Esay 64. 2.
• b 1.24

  Luke 1. 42.
• c 1.25

  In annotat. in vers. suam.
• d 1.26

  Bel. quo supr.
• e 1.27

  Buxtorf. thesaur gram. l. 2. c. 23.
• f 1.28

  Gloss. liter. in Genes.
• a 1.29

  And▪ desens▪ de vulg. Edit. p. 637. Colon. 1580.
• * 1.30

  5
• a 1.31

  Heb. 9. 12.
• b 1.32

  Heb. 10. 14
• c 1.33

  Colos. 1. 20
• d 1.34

  Luk. 22. 19
• * 1.35

  6
• e 1.36

  Bell▪ quo supra.
• a 1.37

  Heb. 7. 24.
• b 1.38

  Reuel. 13. 8.
• c 1.39

  Heb. 13. 8.
• d 1.40

  Heb. 9. 12.
• e 1.41

  Anglor. in Heb. 5. 6.
• f 1.42

  1. Ioh. 2. 1. 2.
• g 1.43

  Heb. 9. 24.
• h 1.44

  Rom. 8. 33.
• i 1.45

  Heb. 7. 26.
• k 1.46

  Chap. 7.
• l 1.47

  Ierem. 23. 6.
• m 1.48

  Isa 9 6.
• n 1.49

  Ephes. 2. 14.
• a 1.50

  Ephes. 1. 3.
• b 1.51

  Heb. 5. 11.
• c 1.52

  Anglor. in Heb. 5. 11.