A refutation of sundry reprehensions, cauils, and false sleightes, by which M. Whitaker laboureth to deface the late English translation, and Catholike annotations of the new Testament, and the booke of Discouery of heretical corruptions. By William Rainolds, student of diuinitie in the English Colledge at Rhemes

CHAP. XVII Of certaine blasphemies con∣teined in the Anno∣tations.

As good orators according to the rules of their art, re∣serue some chief and prin∣cipal arguments vnto the end, of purpose at parting to leaue a deepe impression in the minde of their auditors: so doth M. VV. in this his inuectiue against vs. And increasing somewhat his accustomed style, de∣claimeth terribly and laieth to our charge, not errors, or ouersights, or meane corruptions, as are our leauing the latin and folowing the greeke, but horrible crimes, euen blsaphemies, & blasphemies intolerable. He presup∣poseth that wise men are somewhat moued by such reasons and perswasi∣ons

as he hath vsed hetherto, But it must needes be (saith he) that vvise men vvil be moued much more vvhen they con∣sider the intolerable blasphemie of certaine places. For answere whervnto, we craue no pardon of him, or the reader. But if he proue his accusatiō, let vs sustaine that iudgement, as by the law of God and man, to such Intolerable blasphemers is due. Only of the reader we request indifferent audience, and then we doubt not but this storme and tempest wil passe without any damage, as qui∣etly as the rest.

The first blasphemie is this. The Apostle compareth together Christs priest∣hod and the priesthod of Melchisedech in the epistle to the Hebrues, vvhere he maketh no mention at al of bread or vvine, in which notvvithstanding they vvill Christ chiefly to haue bene like to Melchisedech. Here these men vvrite flatly, that of al those things vvhich are proposed by the Apostle, it folow∣eth not that Christs priesthod is eternal, and therefore that properly Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedech, because he in∣stituted a sacrifice of his body to be conti∣nued for euer of his priests. But this vvhich vvas principal, the Apostle in that disputa∣tion omitted, and brought those things

vvhich proue not that vvhich he meant to proue. But vvherein Christ vvas principally like vnto Melchisedech, that must be learned not of the Apostle but of the Fathers, vvho haue vvritten far more aptly and properly of Christs eternal priesthod then did the A∣postle. Of this he concludeth. If they feare not to find some fault in the Ap••stle, and reprehend the holy ghost him selfe, is it marueile if our doctrine displease them? Thus M. VV. which if it be true, if we thus disgrace the Apostle, if we say he goeth about to proue a thing and pro∣ueth it not, if we refuse to be taught of him, and prefer the Fathers before him, finally if we controle him so singu∣lar an instrument of the holy Ghost, and reprehend the holy Ghost him selfe, I can not blame M. W. if he crie out Intolerable blasphemie. But if these things be so far of from al shevv of truth, that there is no colour or pre∣tence of so vnmeasurable lying, vvhat should a man say, but shame to the de∣uil and his ministers, vvho novv are grovvē to such a passing impudencie. that so they may haue licence to lye, th••y care not hovv grosly and palpa∣bly they lye, though they be takē with the maner, though it presently turne

to their ovvne shame, though the lyes which they inuent of others, be most e∣uidently, and in truth only verified of them selues. For vvho but they thus disgrace this Apostle, and that in this epistle? vvho but they find fault vvith the vvriter and reprehend the holy Ghost, bearing vs in hand that this vvriting much differeth from other scriptures, much from Christs prea∣ching and the other Apostles, & there∣fore is to be reckened Prostipulis, For stub¦ble, good for nothing els but for the fi∣er, for this vvould they signifie by that contemptible phrase. And do not our english translators them selues in their Testaments leaue out S. Paules name in this epistle, and plainly say It is not like that euer he was the author of it? But let this passe. vve vvil not vse this kinde of defence. our vvords and say∣ings defend them selues sufficiently. The vvords of vvhich he gathereth this Intolerable blasphemie, stand thus, Heb. 7. v. 17. A priest for euer. Christ is not called a Priest for euer, only for that his person is eternal, or for that he sitteth on the right hand of God, and perpetually praieth or maketh intercession for vs, or for that the effect of his death is euerlasting: for al this

proueth not that in proper signification his Priesthod is perpetual: but according to the iudgment of al the fathers grounded vpō this deepe and diuine discourse of S. Paule, and vpon the very nature, definition, and propri∣etie of Priesthod, and the excellent act & or∣der of Melchisedec, and the state of the nevv lavv, he is a Priest for euer according to Melchisedecks order, specially in respect of the sacrifice of his holy body and bloud, insti∣tuted at his last supper, and executed by his commission, commaundement, and perpetual concurrence vvith his priests, in the formes of bread and vvine, in vvhich things only the sayd high Priest Melchesedec did sacri∣fice. For though S. Paule make no expresse mention hereof because of the depth of the mysterie, and their incredulitie or feeblenesse to vvhom he vvrote: yet it is euident in the iudgment of al the learned fathers (vvith∣out exception) that euer vvrote either vpon this epistle, or vpon the 14 of Genesis, or the psalme 109, or by occasion haue treated of the sacrifice of the altar, that the eternitie and proper act of Christs priesthod, and conse∣quently the immutability of the nevv lavv, consisteth in the perpetual offering of Christes body and bloud in the Church.

VVhich thing is so vvel knovven to the ad∣uersaries of Christs Church & Priesthod, &

so graunted, that they be forced impudently to cauill vpon certaine Hebrevv particles, that Melchisedec did not offer in bread and vvine: yea and vvhen that vvill not serue, plainely to deny him to haue bene a priest: vvhich is to giue checkemate to the Apostle, and to ouerthrovv al his discourse. Thus vvhiles these vvicked men pretend to de∣fend Christes only priesthod, they in deede a∣bolish as much as in them lieth, the vvhole order, office, and state of his eternal lavv & priesthod.

Arnobius saith, By the mysterie of bread and vvine he vvas made a Priest for euer. And againe, The eternal memorie, by vvhich he gaue the soode of his body to them that feare him. in psal. 109.110. Lactan∣tius, In the Church he must needes haue his eternal priesthod according to the order of Melchisedec. Li. 14. Institut. S. Hierom ep. 126. to Euagrius, Aarons priesthod had an end, but Melchisedecks, that is, Christes & the Churches is perpetual, both for the time past and to come. S. Chrysostom therefore cal∣leth the Churches sacrifice, Hostiam incon∣sumptibilem, An host or sacrifice that can not be consumed. ho. 17 in 9 Hebr. S. Cypri∣an, Hostiam qua sublata, nulla esset futura religio, An host vvhich being taken avvay, there could bene religion. de coena Domini

nu. 2. Emissenus, Perpetuam oblationem & perpetuò currentem redemptionem, A per∣petual oblation and a redemption that run∣neth or continueth euerlastingly. ho. 5 de Pasch. And our Sauiour expresseth so much in the very institution of the B. Sacra∣ment of his body and bloud: specially vvhē he calleth the later kind, The nevv Testa∣ment in his bloud, signifying that as the old lavv vvas established in the bloud of bea∣stes, so the nevv (vvhich is his eternal Te∣stament) should be dedicated and perpetual in his ovvne bloud: not only as it vvas shed on the Crosse, but as geuen in the chalice. And therefore into this sacrifice of the altar (saith S. Augustine li. de Ciuit. 17. c. 20. S. Leo ser. 8 de Passione, and the rest) vvere the old sacrifices to be translated. See S. Cy∣prian ep. 63 ad Cecil. nu. 2. S. Ambrose de Sacram. li. 5. c. 4. S. Augustine in psal. 33 Conc. 2. and li. 17. de Ciuit. c. 17. S. Hie∣rom ep. 17. c. 2. & ep. 126. Epiph. haer. 55. Theodoret. in psalm. 109. Damascene li. 4. c. 14.

Finally if any of the fathers, or al the fa∣thers, had either vvisedom, grace, or intel∣ligence of Gods vvord and mysteries, this is the truth. If nothing vvil serue our aduer∣sares, Christ Iesus confound them, and de∣fend his eternal Priesthod, and state of his

nevv Testament established in the same. In vvhich vvords of ours if thou marke wel, and conferre them with his, thou shalt find that in this short paragraph he hath povvred out together, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a fovvle and stinking heape of lyes, errors, ignorances, and con∣tradictions to him selfe and his bre∣thren.

[ 1] For first, vvhere say vve that Of al those things vvhich are proposed by the A∣postle, it folovveth not that Christs priesthod is eternal? say vve not the cleane con∣trarie, when vve auouch that Al the fa∣thers gather, not of them selues or their ovvne vvittes, but of this deepe and di∣uine discourse of the Apostle the eternitie of his priesthod? Is this to vvrite flatly, that of al the things proposed by the Apostle it fo∣lovveth not that Christs priesthod is eternal, when we write flatly, that not one or other but al the fathers teach that eternitie, groū∣ding them selues vpon this discourse of S. Paule? and hovv could they ground them selues vpon S. Paules discourse, if no such thing vvere to be foūd there? This perhaps he might haue gathered, and vve vvould haue graunted, that this deduction can hardly or neuer be perceaued of a Luther, of a Beza, of a

Stancarus, or such other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, damned in their owne iudgement, vvhom for punishment of their Apo∣stasie from Christ & his Church, God hath geuen vp into a reprobate sense, Vt videntes non videant, et audientes non intelligant, sed credant mendacio, That seing, they see not, and hearing vnderstand not, but beleeue lyes, because they would not beleeue & hold fast the truth when they had it. but to a S. Ambrose, to a S. Chry¦sostom, S. Primasius, S. Beda, or any other directed by the spirit of God, these things which are proposed by the Apostle ministred sufficient mat∣ter to find out the eternitie of Christs priesthod, as by their commentaries vpon these very places we learne. For albeit expresse mention of the Sacrifice of the Church be not here made, for reason geuen in the annotation, and by the Apostle him selfe, cap. 5. v. 11. yet the truth there of is inuincibly con¦cluded out of this very disputation, and that so pregnantly, that vvho so∣euer denieth the Churches Sacrifice he consequently denieth al the Apo∣stles drift & argument, he denieth the vvhole state of the old and nevv Tes∣tamēt. This therefore is the first maine

and capital lye, and in vvhich he inuei∣gheth not against vs alone, but also a∣gainst al the Fathers without excepti∣on, Arnobius, Lactantius, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, S. Austin, and the rest named in the annotation.

From this lye he draweth out 4 o∣ther, as that we say, The Apostle pro∣ueth not that vvhich he meant. that we prefer the Fathers before the Apostle, that we find fault vvith him, and finally reprehēd the holy Ghost. Al which is nothing els but lye vpon lye, no one of which, is or euer was, in word or sense vttered, or in thought or cogitation cōceaued of vs. [ 2] No saith M. VVhitaker? make you not the oblation of bread and wine a principal part of Christs eter∣nal priesthod? we do so, with al the Fathers of Christs Church. Yet the Apostle maketh no expresse mention thereof. VVe graunt. Then he pro∣ueth not that which he intended. This is a lying and ignorant conclusion. ly∣ing, because the Apostle proueth most abundantly his purpose, by sundry o∣ther meanes though he vrge not that point: ignorant, because you knovv not what the Apostle would conclude or wherevnto he applieth his argumēt,

which being deliuered most eui∣dently in sundrie places of the 7. 9 & 10. chapter, and repeated againe and againe, I wil not h••re make a new t••ea∣tise thereof. Thus much the reader that knoweth a litle diuinitie may cō¦sider of him selfe, that whereas the Apostle dealeth against the Iewes who could not be content that their leuitical priesthod, and sacrifices of beastes should yeld to Chr••sts priest∣hod & sacrifice of the Crosse, for S. Paule discoursing of the infinite ver∣tue, power & excellēcie of this aboue the former, to haue vndertaken to handle the priesthod and sacrifice of the Church, besides that it was very hard to explicate, besides that the He∣brewes were very dul to conceaue, both which reasons he geueth in the 5. chapter, besides that the other matter was of it selfe large inough, besides al this, I say, to haue vrged the Iewes with this secondary and dependēt sacrifice of the Church, who as it beleeued not the first, singular, and soueraine sacri∣fice of the Crosse, had bene as fond a part, as if a man would teach a childe to rūne before he can go, or teach him to reade before he can speake, or set

on the roofe of the house, before there be ether wal built or founda∣tion laide.

[ 3] At least (wil M.VV. say) you pre∣fer the fathers before S. Paule, and ac∣knowledge them to write more pro∣perly and aptly of Christs priesthod then doth the Apostle. This is a lye. For we are not so wicked, nether learne we to make any such odious cōparisons betwene diuers instrumēts of the holy Ghost. For the consent of the vniuersal church and al fathers, we gladly professe to be the voice of the holy Ghost. And if al the fathers had bene ioyned in one, in S. Paules case and hauing to do with such ad∣uersaries, at such time, place, and o∣ther circumstances, they would not nether could haue written more aptly and properly then did S. Paule, al∣though afterwards they did more cle∣arely and manifestly open that, which S. Paule insinuated more closely and couertly, and so would S. Paule haue done, had he liued in their times.

So in like sort S. Peter in his sermon made to the Iewes touching Christs glory and resurrection, calleth him A man approued of God, by diuers vvonders

and miracles. He calleth him not God of God equal to his father. Our Saui∣our in his long exhortation made to his disciples before his passion, spea∣king of his vnitie with his father, ex∣presseth not his cōsubstantialitie with the father, or diuinitie of the holy Ghost, so clearely as did afterwardes S. Athanasius and the fathers in the Councel of Nice and Constantinople against the Arians and Macedonians. nether for al that prefer we S. Atha∣nasius and those Councels before S. Peter and our Sauiour, nether say we that they spake more properly and aptly thereof then ether Christ or his principal Apostle, or such like gue∣gawes as this man ignorantly and ma∣liciously obiecteth vnto vs. Christ spake most properly, perfectly, and ab∣solutely, according as his diuine wise∣dome knevv vvas most conuenient for that time and audience. so did S. Peter, so did S. Paule. And yet this barreth not but the holy Ghost may, & so hath by the Church aftervvarde declared the same more euidently, without any derogation to Christ or his Apostles.

Yet one scrupule more M. W. mo∣ueth. At least this can not be denied,

[ 4] but the Fathers talke much of the obla¦tion of bread and wine which S. Paule omitteth, [ 5] and so we can not shift our hands, but some ouersight we must im∣pute to S. Paule and the holy Ghost. Nothing lesse. Or how soeuer by his profound subtilitie he thinketh to driue vs vnto this absurditie hereaf∣ter, hitherto sure I am, we haue vtte∣red no word or sillable so vnchristiā. And therefore he belieth vs in sayng that we haue done the one or the other. And the whole matter is answere suf∣ficiently already. Yet for more ful satisfaction I wil answere M. VV. by him selfe. I aske him therefore whe∣ther Melchisedec did not sacrifice, and by sacrificing foreshewed our Sa∣uiours priesthod according to the ar∣der of Melchisedec? he can not de∣ny, for he hath graunted it in plaine termes in this very booke. And yet S. Paule here maketh no expresse men∣tion thereof. Then by M. VV. iudge∣ment S. Paule omitteth some principal part of Melchisedecs priesthod ap∣perteyning to Christ, and therefore if this be to find fault vvith S. Paule, & re∣prehend the holy Ghost, then M.VV. findeth fault vvith S. Paule, M. VV. reprehendeth

the holy Ghost.

Againe, let him recal to memorie his founder in diuinitie M. Iewel, in that booke which M. VV. him selfe hath translated into latin. Saith not he, that Melchisedech by his bread and vvine signified the Sacrifice of the holy (English) communion (M. VV. translateth it, sa∣crificium sacrosanctae Communio∣nis) vvhere the vvhole people lifte vp their hands and harts vnto heauen, and pray & sacrifice together? And where find you this sacrifice of the holy Communion in al S. Paules discourse? ergo by the same reason, M. Iewel also doth carp at S. Paule and reprehend the holy Ghost, who omitte The sacrifice of your holy Communion, prefigured by Melchisedech three thousand yeres at lest before ether Patriarch or Apostle, or doctor, or any good mā, euer heard, or thought, or dreamed of it.

Againe, Illyricus a Lutherā writeth vpon this very chapter somewhat more probably then ether M. VV. or M. Iewel, that Melchisedech fore∣shewed his Communion after the Lu∣therish faith, and that As Melchisedech by bread and vvine refreshed Abraham, so Christ the true heauenly bread refresheth

vs to life eternal. His flesh is true nourishe∣ment, and his bloud is true and healthful drinke. Ioan. 6. Luc. 22. Thus he. so that the Zuinglians can fetch out of Mel∣chisedecs sacrifice, by their owne pri∣uate authoritie without warrant of any ether doctor or father, the sacrifice of their Communion, and the Lutherans can find that theirs was prefigured likewise: and though S. Paule mention nether of them, that is not material, so long as you hold your self within cō∣passe of the Communion booke Lu∣therish or Zuinglian: only when we say the same of the Communion and sacrifice of the Church, and proue it by the authoritie of Damascene, of Theodoretus, of S. Hierom, S. Ambr. S. Epiphanius, S. Austin, S. Leo, S. Cy∣prian, S. Chrysostom, Eusebius Emis∣senus, Lactantius, Arnobius, by al an∣tiquitie, by al fathers, by al Councels, by the vniuersal cōsent of Christendō since the Apostles time, we poore sou∣les set S. Paule to schole, we prefer the fathers before him, we find fault with him, we reprehend the holy Ghost, we cōmit intolerable blasphemie. I know not whether a mā may rather laugh at their peeuish pride, who knowing no∣thing,

take vpon them to controle al fathers, or wonder at their incredible partialitie, which hath so be reaft them of common witte and iudgement, that they can perceaue a mote (in deede no mote) in our eye, and can not feele a beame in their owne, or rather lament their Pharisaical hardnes of hart & ig∣norance whereto heresie hath brought them, so grosse, that nether they know the veritie of Catholike religion, nor wel vnderstand the state of their owne phantastical gospel.

One more blasphemie he obiecteth and so maketh an end. His wordes are. The like boldenes they vtter in that most goodly place of S. Paule vvhere thus he vvri∣teth to the Romanes, Stipendia peccati mors, donum autem Dei vita aeterna. The stipend of sinne, death, but life eternal is the gift of God. Here the Sorbonists of Rhemes haue no∣ted, that the sequele of speach required, that as he sayd, the stipend of sinne is death, so on the contrarie part he should haue sayd, the stipend of iustice is life eternal. And this to be true they plainely affirme, vvhereas it is manifest that S. Paule spake in this sorte that he might leaue no place to merites, and he vseth such a vvorde as vtterly excludeth al respect of stipend for that vvhich is a free

gift, can in no case be a stipend, and repa•• to merites. To answere this as al the rest, there needeth nothing els but to com∣pare our wordes with his. Thus we say Rom. 6. vers 23. The sequele of speach re∣quired, that as he said, death or damnation is the stipend of sinne, so life euerlasting is the stipend of iustice, and so it is, and in the same sense he spake in the last chapter: That as sinne reigneth to death, so grace reigneth by iustice to life euerlasting, But here he chaūged the sentence somevvhat, calling life euerlasting, Grace, rather then, Re∣vvard: because the merites by vvhich vve attaine vnto life, be al of Gods gift and grace. Augustin. epis. 105. ad Sixtum.

Because the sense and summe of the annotatiō is takē out of S. Austin, I wil set downe his owne wordes although they be somevvhat long, because they may help the reader both to vnderstād the truth of this point, & vvithal dis∣couer M.W. notorious ignorāce. Thus vvriteth S. Austin in the place quoted. Eternal life vvhich in fine vve shal obteyne for euer, is repayed to merites going before. & yet because those merites vnto vvhich it is re∣payed, are not gotten of vs by our ovvne abi∣litie, but vvrought in vs by grace, therefore life eternall is called grace, for no other rea∣son,

but because it is geuen gratis, not be∣cause it is not geuen to merites, but because those merites are geuen, to vvhich life is ge∣uen. That eternal life is called Grace, vve find in S. Paule Rom. 6. The stipend of sinne is death. life eternal is the grace of God. See hovv vvarely he put these vvordes. For vvhen he had sayd, The stipend of sinne is death, vvho vvould not haue thought he should haue sayd most aptly and conuenient∣ly, The stipend of iustice is life eternall. And true it is. For as to the merite of sinne death is rēdered as the stipēd, so to the merite of iustice Life eternal (is rendered) as the stipend. Vnde & merces appellatur plurimis sanctarū scrip∣turarum locis. Quod est autem merces ope∣ranti, hoc est militanti stipendium. Sed Apo∣stolus aduersus elationem &c. And so it is termed, merces, vvages, in very many places of scriptures. For that vvhich is called, Sti∣pendium, Stipend, to a souldiar, that is cal∣led, merces, vvages, to a labourer. But the Apostle vsed that vvord against the pride of men, &c.

Thus far S. Austin. of vvhose vvor∣des our note is only a short sūme & ab∣bridgment, and so vvhatsoeuer sport M. VV. maketh to him self of the Sor∣bonists of Rhemes, it nothing toucheth vs, but good S. Austin the Sorbonist of

Hippo. And yet not to rest there, S. Au∣stin quitteth him selfe vvel inough frō that drye iest, vvhen he affirmeth the same to be taught, Plurimis sanctarum scripturarum locis, In very many places of holy scriptures. For if they be Sorbonists that say, Vita aelerna est stipendium iusti∣tiae, or vvhich is the selfe same, Vita ae∣terna est merces bonorum operum, then not only S. Austin is a Sorbonist, vvhich to say perhaps you streine not greatly (for in this place so you cal vs in word, S. Austin in deede) but long before him the Prophetes were egregious Sorbo∣nists, in whom both in sense and word, this proposition is cōmonly founde. a Salomon was a Sorbonist, b Dauid a Sorbonist, c Esay a Sorbonist, d Ieremie a Sorbonist, e S. Peter a Sorbonist, f S. Iohn a Sorbonist, g S. Paule a notable Sorbonist, who hath it more oft then the rest, h that I name not our Sauiour for honors sake, who notwithstanding in the gospel, many times teacheth his Christians, this Sorbonical conclusiō. But as for M.W. if he continue in this simplicitie or rather stupiditie, that he suppose eternal life not to be the sti∣pēd of iustice or good workes, because it is the grace or gift of God, I wil geue

him a quittance for euer deseruing the name of a Sorbonist. For I thinke there is scant any boy frequenting the Sorbone schole, that is so dul and ig∣norant as to doubte, but that heauen is the gift and grace of God, though he trust to atteine it by his good workes, I meane, that knoweth not how to re∣concile these two propositions toge∣ther, heauen is the stipend of good workes, and heauen is the gift of God: which in deede to euery lad wel cate∣chised, is no harder, then it is to beleeue that the father is God, the sonne God, and the holy Ghost God, & yet there is but one God: Christ is God, and yet Christ is man, our Lady was a mother, and yet a Virgin, our bodies are cor∣ruptible, and yet shal liue for euer, and almost any other article of our religi∣on. But hereof I haue spoken more at large before, to which place I refer the the reader. And this is the last intolera∣ble blasphemie vvhich M. W. hath found in the Annotations, common to vs vvith Christ him self, and euery pro∣phet, Apostle, Euangelist, Father, and good man, that since Christs time li∣ued in the vnitie of his Church.

Notes

• Pag. 23.
• Hebr. 7. v, 17.
• The first blasphemy
• The an∣swere.
• Lye vpō lye
• S. Paules e∣pistle to the hebrewes reiected by the prote∣stants.
• Before pag. 414. 1. Cor. 3. v. 12
• Bible of the yere 1579. in the pre∣face of this epistle.
• How Christ is a priest for euer.
• Christs eter¦nal priest∣hod consis∣teth in the perpetual sacrifice of his body & bloud in the Church.
• The prote∣stants cauil∣ling vpon particles, a∣gainst Mel∣chisedecks sacrifice & priesthod, directly a∣gainst the Apostle.
• Christs eter¦nal priest∣hod and sa∣crifice in the Church is proued out of the fathers.
• Heretikes very blynd in the scrip∣ture, though they crake much of their deepe insight in them.
• Tit. 3. v. ••
• Rom. 1. v. 28 Luc. 8. v. 10. 2. Thess. 2. v 11.
• See the A¦notations in cap. 5. v. 11. & 7. v. 11.12 c. 9.12.15.25 c. 10. v. 2.
• Multiplica∣tion of lyes.
• 7. v. 4.11.23.9. v 12.15.10 v. 2.4.5.11
• No time to talke of the Sacri∣fice of the church, whē the Sacrifice of the crosse is not first beleeued.
• The aunci∣ent fathers speake more plainely of the church Sacrifice then doth S. Paule, without any derogation to S. Paule.
• Act. 2. v. 22.
• Ioan. c. 12.13▪ 14.15.16.17.
• The councel of Nice ex∣pressed the consubstan∣tialitie of Christ with his father more plaine¦ly then any Euangelist.
• M.W. last obiection.
• Answered.
• Answered by him self.
• before pag. 17.
• Answered by M. Iewel.
• Iewel in his Replie art. 1 ¶ 5. in M. W. translation pag. 9.
• Answered by Illyricus
• Illyric. ad Heb. c. 7. v. ••
• Who euer saw such foly, pride and partia∣litie?
• Mat. 7. v. 3.
• The second and last blasphemie pag. 24. Rom. 6. v. 23
• The princi∣pal of these Sorbonists (after S. Paule) is S. Austin.
• Life euer∣lasting a sti∣pend, and yet grace.
• Aug. epist. 105.
• How eter∣nal life is of grace & yet the re∣ward of iu∣stice.
• Let M W. marke this, True it is.
• Al the Pro∣phetes, E∣uangelists & Apostles were Sorbo∣nists by M. W. iudg∣ment.
• a

  Prou. 11. v. 18. c. 24. v. 12 Sap. 5.16. ca. 10.17. Ecclesia. 16.12. c. 51.38.
• b

  Psal. 61.12
• c

  Esa. 40.10. c. 62.11.
• d

  Ierem. 31.16.
• e

  1. Peter. 1.17.
• f

  2. Ioan. 8. Apoc. 2.23. c. 22.12.
• g

  Rom. 2.6. 1. Cor. 3.8. 2. Cor. 5.10. 2. Thess. 1. v. 6.7.
• h

  Mat. 5.12 c. 6.1 c. 10.41. c. 16.27. c. 20.8. c. 25.
• Sorbone a famous Col¦lege in Pa∣ris.
• Shameful ignorance.
• See before pag. 99.100. &c.