Answer to Reynolds Book, Chapter 16
CHAP. 16.
Of the faults found in the Annotations of the new teſtament.
FRom the tranſlation, which how vaine and childiſh it is hath bene declared, now let vsus proceed with you to the Annotations, which are meet handmaides for ſuch a maiſtres. But before you come to ſpeake of the particular faults, that were found therein, you diſcourſe of many matters according to your common cuſtome idlely, and railingly, whereunto it booteth not to make anſwere: and therefore paſſing ouer what you hauehave written of M. Iewell, M. Horne, &c. of Tower and Tiburne diſputation, of the Churches ſtabilitie, of M. Foxes monuments, of Luthers iudgement concerning the ſacramentaries, I will come to examine your defenſe of thoſe faults, that were noted, and that as brieflie as I can, reſerning theſe cauſes to the large confutation of thoſe Annotations, which in conuenient time through Gods goodnes wilbe (I hope) performed to Gods glorie, defenſe of the trueth, and diſproofe of popiſhlies and hereſies. Three kindes of faults were obſerued: the firſt of errours in matters hiſtoricall: the ſecond of falſe concluſions and arguments: the third of certaine blaſpemies againſt the holie Apoſtle.
In the firſt order were reckened certaine traditions,pag. 484. &c. which hauing no ground in Gods word, nor much differing from mere fables, are in your Rhemiſh Annotations notwithſtanding gloriouſlie auouched, as behouefull for all Chriſtians to beleeue. And firſt of the wiſemen that came from the Eaſt to viſite our ſauiour Chriſt, three things are affirmed, firſt that they were kings, ſecondlie that they were three,Popiſh traditions full of fables and vanities and laſtlie that their names were Gaſpar, Melchior, and Baltaſar, as now commonlie they are called. For the firſt, Maſter R. demaundeth a reaſon, why I ſhould thinke they were no kinges, himſelfe not hable to ſhew any, why he ſhould ſaie they were kings. But if reaſon may rule him, for which he calleth, as though he would yeelde vntounto it, if it were giuen him, three reaſons will I propounde, wherebie I am mooued not to beleeue that theſe men were kings.
Firſt, becauſe the Euangeliſt calleth them by noe ſuch names,The wiſe me, that came to worſhippe Chriſt, ſaid to be kinges againſt reaſon. which yet he would not hauehave omitted, if the truth had bene according to your tradition, conſidering how this would hauehave made for the honour of Chriſt, that ſo ſoone as he was borne, kings ſhould hauehave ſought him far, and done vntounto him homage and worſhip. And when you maintaine your opinion by this argument, for that it is honorable to the perſon of our ſauiour Chriſt that ſo we ſhould thinke of them, you charge therein the holy Euangeliſt for omitting ſomewhat, that might hauehave greatlie aduanced the honor of Chriſt, if he had truelie and fullie reported the ſame. Secondlie, it is not credible, that Herods would hauehave admitted into his kingdome and chiefe Citie three Kings with their troupes, eſpeciallie there being enemity betwixt him and the kinges of Perſia: neither could they hauehave ſo ſecretlie come to our ſauiour Chriſt, and eſcaped out of the countrie againe, but that being kings, and therefore no dout accompanied in ſome princelie ſorte, they muſte needs hauehave bene diſcried. Thirdlie if they had bene, as you imagine, kings, yea and Monarches, as great as the king of France and Spayne, or the great Sophie of Perſia, which you ſuppoſe might be, then would they not hauehave left our ſauiour Chriſt and his Mother in that poore eſtate, that ſhe was able to offer no more, but a paire of doues, according to the oblation of the pooreſt amongſt the people. If you can remooue the ground of theſe reaſons, I will confeſſe your opinion hath in it more probability then I thought, although to beleeue it, as you do, for a certaine truth, I cannot, becauſe thereof I know no ſure reaſon can be alleadged. The fathers I graunt ſome of them ſpeake of theſe wiſe men as of kings, taking that word in a larger ſenſe, for great and honorable perſonages, ſuch as may be thought that they were: but the ground of their opinion is a place of ſcripture miſunderſtoode, in the 72. Pſalme, concerning the kings of Tharſis, Arabia, and Sheba, that ſhould bring giftes, which cannot be applied to theſe, for ſo much as thoſe countries are not Eaſtward from Iudea, and the ſcripture plainly ſaith, that theſe wiſe men came out of the Eaſt. Therefore whatſoeuer any father hath written to this purpoſe, is lightlie to be regarded, hauing no better ground then a manifeſt wreſting of ſcripture and turning South into Eaſt.
Now that they were alſo three,pag. 489. how may it be prooued? forſooth here is a myſterie of the bleſſed Trinitie, whereunto Saint Auguſtine moſt ſweetl…e alludeth. At this moſt heauenlie myſterie, Maſter Rainolds, none will be grieued, ſaue onelie moſt wicked and deteſtable heretikes indeed. But how appeareth it, that theſe wiſe men did repreſent and ſignifie that myſterie? Saint Auguſtine and Leo ſaie ſo: and therefore we muſt beleeue it is ſo. Which argument I will admit if becauſe their oblations were of three thinges, therefore it follow neceſſarilie, that them-ſelues, whoe offered, were three. Yet Maſter Rainolds hath a better reaſon then this, if it will be accepted. The Euangeliſt (ſaith he) ſpeaketh of them in the duall number, and therefore they were moe then two: but we neede not to beleeue that they were moe then three. Neither need we to beleeue that they were iuſte three: for the Euangeliſt ſpeaking of them indefinitlie, as he doth, we may as well thinke they were moe then three, as well as three, and ſo alſo indeede ſome fathers hauehave thought. So that this hangeth vponupon a ſlender threede of mans coniecture, which cannot be warranted by myſticall expoſitions. And if herein were conteined ſo ſweete and excellent myſteries, much maie we maruell, why the Euangeliſtes would not plainelie write, for better vnderſtanding of this myſterie, that they were neither fewer, nor moe, then iuſt three.
Laſtlie, touching their names,pag 490. Maſter R. asketh, ſeeing they were not nameles, why their names were not Gaſpar, Melchior, Baltaſar, rather then William, Iohn, and Thomas. I graunt as well maie we thinke the one as the other: but reaſon is there none to thinke either. That their names might hauehave bene continued in the Church, I denie not as well as thoſe forcerers names were, of whome S. Paule maketh mention. And ſo ſtandeth your argument, Their names might be ſuch, therefore they were ſuch: they might be three, therefore they were three: they might be Kings, therefore they were Kings. And thus in Popiſh traditions the argument holdeth well a poſſe ad eſſe, contrarie to the rules of all Logique in the world. But enough of theſe three counterfaite Kinges, of Colen.
That Iohn the Baptiſt was an Eremite,pag. 482. and patrone of Eremiticall life, is as likelie as the other. Firſt, ſcripture hauehave you none for this Tradition of yours: for then it were not a right tradition, if you could bring ſomething out of ſcripture for confirmation thereof. The Euangeliſts ſaie not, that he liued alone from companie of men in the wildernes, as your Eremites did, but that he liued in that countrie of Iudea, which in reſpect of other parts therof more populous,Hier…. in vis a Pa…li. was called the deſert of Iudea. Then whatſoeuer you alledge out of fathers, may in a worde by another father be diſprooued, who denieth that Elias and Iohn were Monckes, and ſaith that Antonius and Paulus were thought to be the firſt fathers of Eremites.
Concerning the ſtone that hitt S. Pag. 493.Stephen on the elbowe, and nowe is kept at Ancona in Italie, Maſter Rainolds will not ſtand greatlie in maintenance of this fable, but referreth vsus to Saint Auguſtine in a counterfaite ſermon. Yet that ſuch a thing might be, he prooueth by example of Aharons rod and the Manna, which were by Gods ſpeciall commaundement preſerued in the Arke. But was there anie like commandement, or cauſe to keepe the ſtone, that rebounded from Saint Stephens body? ſhew vsus ſome, and then we ſay no more.
For Elias comming before the laſt iudgement are alledged ſundrie Doctors.pag. 494 So then belike all is ſafe on their ſide, if they can approoue their opinions and expoſitions by Teſtimonies of ſome Doctors. But this will not ſerue, vnles the Doctors ſaying be warranted by Gods worde, as we hauehave a thouſande times tolde them. Now this imagination of Elias comming is by the wordes of our ſauiour Chriſt plainlie confuted, whoe teacheth that Elias, Mat. 17.13.according to the prophecie of Melachie, was come alreadie: and the Apoſtles vnderſtood that he meant of Iohn the Baptiſt, whoe was Elias, not in perſon, but in ſpirite and power. Then the prophecie of Elias comming being fulfilled in Iohn Baptiſt, as our ſauiour himſelfe hath taught, vaine is it to dreame of an other comming then that, wherof no worde can be found in all the ſcriptures of God. Wherefore as you compare the fathers with vsus, to make your cauſe ſeeme the more probable, ſo will I compare the ſcriptures with the fathers, whoſe authoritie is much more incomparablie aboue theirs, then theirs is aboue ours, by how much God is more aboue man, then one man is aboue another.
Your faults in framing arguments out of the text of ſcripture;pag. 497. are moſt incredible & monſtrous, ſuch as I gathered ſome out of your Annotations vponupon the new teſtament, as your ſelues had deliuered them vntounto vsus. You cannot otherwiſe doe, but take vponupon you ſome ſeelie defenſe of your fellowes Collections, whether with greater ignorance, or boldnes, I can not tell. Chriſt and Peter walked on the waters,Matt. 14.26. therefore it is euident, that Chriſts bodie may be in compaſſe of a litle bread. This to be a moſt falſe argument, not onelie in true Diuinitie, but alſo in naturall reaſon, is manifeſt. For had Chriſt or Peter a bodie, that both walked on the water, and walked not on the water at one time? Doe the ſcriptures ſo teach, or is there no ſuch thing to be found in them? If not, then is not this like to you imagined preſence of Chriſts bodie in the ſacrament: which being graunted according to your doctrine of tranſſubſtantiation, inferreth moſte neceſſarilie, that Chriſts bodie at once is both compaſſed in a litle bread, which is contrarie to the nature of a mans true bodie: and alſo is not compaſſed therein, as ſitting in heauen, and hauing the naturall properties of a true bodie, which cannot be brought within ſo narrowe a compaſſe as is your wafer cake. This is repugnant to ſcripture, to reaſon, to Gods ordinaunce, and therefore a moſte abſurde and impoſſible thing is it, that Chriſts bodie ſhould remaine a true naturall bodie, and yet at once be contained in ſo ſmall a compaſſe, as you teach. In that Chriſt and Peter walked on the water, no ſuch inconuenience nor abſurditie can be found, whether the waters were made by miracle firme as the ground, or the bodies were ſuſtained by Gods power, that they ſuncke not. Chriſt might beare vp him-ſelfe and Peter from ſincking downe, by his diuine power, and chaunge no naturall propertie of his or Peters bodie: but Chriſts bodie can not be brought into that ſlender compaſſe of your mathematicall cake, without deſtruction of all properties incident vntounto a natural body. So then betweene theſe two is no likenes at all, as any man not blinded with Popiſh folly, and not wilfullie ſhutting his eyes againſt the cleare light may manifeſtlie perceiue. Wherefore diſtruſting this argument, you proteſt that your note conſiſteth not ſo much thereupon, as in the authoritie of Epiphanius, whoe hath not anie worde at all to this purpoſe. For tell vsus, Maſter Rainolds, doth Epiphanius drawe an argumente from Chriſts walking on the water, to prooue his bodie reallie preſent in the ſacramentall bread? No ſuch matter can you finde in Epiphanius, or any auncient father of Chriſts Church. That which Chriſt hath ſaid, he that beleeueth not to be true, is fallen from grace and ſaluation, as Epiphanius writeth: but Chriſt hath neuer ſaid, that his bodie ſhould be in the compaſſe of a litle bread. Howbeit what talke you of a litle bread? when you teach no bread at all remaineth, but onelie ſignes and ſhadowes of bread. Falſe is your doctrine, and fooliſh is your argument: but bad reaſons are good enoughe for ſuch a bad religion.
Of Peters walking on the water,pag. 498 is gathered an other argument of like qualitie, to prooue the Popes ſupreme authoritie: which argument was firſt inuented and deuiſed by Saint Bernarde in his ſecond booke and eight Chapter to Eugenius a Pope. Manie waters are many people: Peter walked on the waters, therefore Peter and his ſucceſſors are rulers ouer manie people, ſaith good Saint Bernarde: to whome your Pope is greatlie bound for deuiſing ſuch a fine argument, which no auncient Doctor was able to finde. But muſt we now receiue Bernards phantaſies, for ſubſtantiall proofes of the papall ſupremacie? No Maſter Rainolds, Saint Bernarde hath no warrant to make allegories at his pleaſure for confirmation of that Antichriſtian tiranny, which in thoſe daies was eſtabliſhed. Your compariſon of this argument with that of Chriſts about the braſen ſerpent, and of Pauls concerning Iſaac and Iſmael, is no better then blaſphemous. Might Saint Bernarde with like authoritie reaſon thus, Peter walked on the waters, therefore he and his ſucceſſors are ſupreme gouernours of the vniuerſall Church, as Chriſt did ſhew the manner of his death by the lifting vp of the braſen ſerpent in the deſert? or as Saint Paul did prooue the haued and perſecution of falſe brethren againſt the true Chriſtians by example of Iſmael, and Iſaac? Had Bernard the fullnes of wiſdome and trueth, that was in Chriſt? was Bernard alwaies directed with that ſpirit, wherewith Saint Paul expounded the ſcriptures of God? Here we may ſee how baſelie you thinke of Gods word, to match therewith mens ſeelie expoſitions and applications, ſuch as Saint Bernards often times were, and this moſte notablie is.
An argument is gathered for workes of ſupererogation, pag. 499.out of the Samaritanes wordes, whatſoeuer thou ſhalt beſtow more, or as it is by them tranſlated,Luc. 10.35. whatſoeuer thou ſhalt ſupererogate. This argument (ſaith Maſter Rainolds) followeth wel enough, and is Saint Auguſtins concluſion, to prooue that Saint Paul did ſupererogate, when he might hauehave receiued all duties for preaching the Goſpell, but would not. That men may remit ſome part of their due, and doe more towardes men outwardlie, then they can of neceſſitie be vrged to doe, no man will denie: and thus may one man be ſaid to ſupererogate towards another: but what maketh this for workes of ſupererogation towards God, whoe requireth both inward and outward obedience of vsus in moſte abſolute manner?
For reall preſence a like argument to the firſt is gathered of Chriſts transfiguration,Pag. 499. whereof yet Master Rainolds being aſhamed, ſaith it is not their argument,Matt. 17.… but onelie a deduction, that Chriſt maie giuegive vsus his bodie in forme of bread and wine. A proper deduction no doubt, of a glorious bodie to prooue no bodie.
That Saints can heare and helpe vsus euerie where,pag. 500. becauſe they are like to Angels is a verie bad argument,Mat. 22.30. conſidering that neither Angels can ſo do, for then were they of equall power with God: and though Saints are like to Angels, as in other things, ſo in this, that they marrie not, yet it followeth not that therefore they are equall to Angels. You are glad of ſuch arguments, hauing no other; but if ye had better, ye would not eſteeme ſuch.
Ioſeph wrapped Chriſts bodie in ſindon, pag. 501.Therefore Chriſts bodie on the altar muſt be laid in pure linnen.Mat. 27.59. In this argument Maſter Rainolds cannot tell what I miſlike, whether the reall preſence, or the linnen vſed at the altar, as it was in the ſepulcher, or the relation from one to the other. I anſwere in a worde, I miſlike all, there being no trueth in anie of all.
The women came to beholde the ſepulcher,pag. 502. Ergo we muſt goe to the holie ſepulcher in pilgrimage:Matt 28.1. This argument Maſter Rainolds confeſſeth cannot indeede prooue that we muſt, but that we maie goe in pilgrimage, by example of thoſe godlie and zealous women: which yet is a falſe and fond deduction, ſeing there is no ſuch like cauſe for vsus to goe, as was for them.
That Chriſt appeered to the twoe diſciples in another forme,pag. 504. cannot prooue that he is in the ſacrament in forme of bread,Mark. 16.12. for ſomuch as in Chriſts bodie noe alteration at this time was wrought, but onelie the diſciples eies were helde, that they know him not, as Saint Luke expreſlie noteth.Luk. 34.16.
For your exorciſme in baptiſme, argument you ſaie you made none of Chriſtes ſaying to the dombe and deaſe Ephpheta. Mat. 7.34.If no argument, no proofe,if no proofe, then no cauſe to vſe by example of Chriſt ſuch exorciſme in you baptiſmes.pag. 505.Luk. 1.3.
Saint Lukes preface before his goſpell cannot by anie meanes excuſe the ſecond booke of Machabees from being Apocryphall, wherein the Author craueth pardon for his ſo ſlender writing of that hiſtorie. There is no likenes of compariſon at all betweene the Euangeliſts endeauour to learne and write the certaine truth, and that authors confeſſion of his infirmitie and imperfection in writing his booke. One thing it is to enquire the truth with all diligence, and ſo hauing found the ſame to ſet it forth in writing moſte exactlie: an other hauing written a booke, to deſire the readers fauour and forgiuenes, in reſpect of the writers ſimplicitie and vnskillfulnes. The firſt detracteth nothing from the wiſdome & maieſty of Gods ſpirit, to ſearch the tru…h by all ſuch meanes, as by which the ſame maie be learned: the other argueth a conſcience & acknowledgement of wants in writing, which cannot be applied to the holie Ghoſt, whoe whatſoeuer he taketh in hand, moſte wiſelie and excellentlie performeth the ſame. Doth Saint Luke anie where excuſe his want of vtterance, his rude, ſlender, and vnlearned manner of writing? Nothing leſſe: nay he proteſteth in the ſame preface that he hath attained to the exacte knowledge of euerie thing, and that he writeth a moſte certaine and vndoubted trueth: ſo farre of is he from crauing pardon of anie man, which the ſimple writer of that booke of Machabees, in regard of his owne weaknes and vnhabilitie, thought it expedient for him to doe. Your places out of the Apoſtle are friuolous, bewraying your groſſe ignorance. S. Paul ſaith, that in ſome part he had written boldelie to the Romanes. … 15.What then? did he therefore craue pardon for his ſo bolde writing vntounto them? Doth he not ſhew immediatlie the cauſe of this boldnes to be, for that he was a miniſter of Ieſus Chriſt among the gentiles? That he faith he was conuerſant among the Corinthians in weakenes, in feare, and trembling, 1. Cor. 2.3.what concerneth this the writings that he publiſhed to the Church? The greatnes of the Lords worke in hand made him to tremble, but for his writings he feared not the iudgement of man, nor euer ſubmitted them to mans diſcretion. That he deſireth them to beare with his follie, &c. 2. Co. 11.1.17he ſpeaketh not to excuſe anie follie in him ſelfe, who had alwaies moſte wiſelie and grauelie behaued himſelfe towards the Corinthians, but to reprooue rather the ſingular arrogancie and follie of the falſe Apoſtles, whoe being in no reſpecte comparable to the Apoſtle, yet bragged immoderatlie and preferred themſelues before him. This is another caſe, Maſter Rainolds, vnlike to that whereof we ſpake.
Men of good will, pag. 505.Luc. 2.14.to whome the Angell wiſheth well, are by our newe diuines of Rhemes expounded for men indued with free will. And thus ſaith Maſter Rainolds was it taught in the old goſpell. But what goſpell he meaneth, it were a good thing to vnderſtand. For S. Lukes goſpell teacheth no ſuch thing, which yet ſure I am is the olde and true goſpell of Chriſt. E' foreign, which worde S. Luke in that place hath vſed, neuer ſignifieth free will, but fauour and good wil, which one beareth towards another: S. Auguſtine was by ignorance of the Greeke tongue deceiued: and anie man maie ſoone perceiue that the Angell ſpeaketh of Gods louelove towards mankind, which then moſte notablie appeered, when the Sonne of God was borne of a woman. For our papiſts to gather hereof mans free will, is too childiſh and abſurde abuſe of holie ſcripture.
Chriſt preached out of Peters ſhippe: Luc. 5.3.and therefore our Rhemiſts make an argument that the wholl Church is Peters ſhipp. If ſuch allegories may goe for ſound proofes, then will it be eaſie not onlie for the Pope to prooue his primacie, but for all other heretikes that euer were, to iuſtifie their deteſtable opinions what-ſoeuer. That by Peters ſhip the fathers hauehave taught the Church of Chriſt to be reſembled, no man denieth: but they conclude not, nor applie their allegorie ſo far as you doe, to prooue that as Peter was owner of that ſhip, ſo he and his ſucceſſors are gouernours of the wholl Church. Such allegories as this of yours may pleaſe fooles in their merie conceits, but wiſe men will eſteeme them no better then they deſerue.
Barnabas laid downe the price of his land at the Apoſtles feete: pag. 510.Act 4.37.where upon our Rhemiſts make a long annotation of reuerence due to ſacred perſons, either Prophets, Apoſtles, or Popes. Whoe can otherwiſe thinke but that hereof they meant to make an argumente for kiſſing of the Popes feet, leaſt anie thing concerning the Pope ſhould want due confirmation? yet Maſter Rainolds calleth this and the reſt merie concluſions, and complaineth of mockers. Indeed ſuch merie concluſions hauehave you deuiſed manie in your Annotations, fitter a great deal to bring your wholl Religion into deriſion, then to edifie in true faith. Thus hauehave you long, and yet ſtill would you mocke the world, but your mockeries are well eſpied, the Lord be praiſed for it.
The Queenes Eunuch of Aethiopia came to Ieruſalem to worſhipp: ergo pilgremages to holie places are acceptable to God. pag. 512.Act. 8.27.This reaſon why it ſhould not be allowed, Master R. ſaieth he cannot geſſe, and deſiereth me if I hauehave anie hid imagination, to impart it vntounto him: which I am verie well content to doe. The cauſe that mooued this noble man of Aethiopia to trauaile ſo farre, was for that in Iudea onelie was the viſible Church of God, and in Ieruſalem ſtood the Temple, wherein onelie ſacrifices might be offered to God. Which being ſo, neceſſarie was it for him to repaire thither, for the exerciſe of his religion in the Church of God, and place particularlie thereunto appointed by the Lord. This can you not applie to Rome or Ieruſalem now, or anie other place in the world, and therefore manifeſt diſſimilitude and inequality is there betweene this Eunuches iourneying to Ieruſalem, for ſo godlie and neceſſarie cauſes, and popiſh pilgremages to places abroade for noe cauſe, but onelie for idle and wandering ſuperſtition.
Concerning putting of our cappes,pag. 515. Phil. 2.10.and making curteſie at the name of Ieſus, Master Rainolds is verie earneſt, and concludeth in the end that I am an Atheiſt, and make no account of Chriſt, for denying that, ſeeing we yeald this honour of capp and curteſie to the letters, name, ſeale, and ſeat of the Prince. If this be a true argument, Master Rainolds, as you in your vehemencie would hauehave it ſeeme, how commeth it to paſſe, that Gods name amongſt you is not honoured with like reuerence of capp and knee whenſoeuer it is heard? will you put of your capp when the Prince is named, and wil you make curteſie at the Popes name, at his triple crowne, or croſſe, and will you neuer once ſtirre your cappes, or bowe your knees, when God is named? Is this your Religion, is this your faſhion? Then let me conclude againſt you, as you hauehave done againſt me, that you are by your owne argument very Atheiſts, ſuch as make no account of God himſelfe. For otherwiſe this concluſion of yours, that I am ſuch a one for not honouring the name of Ieſus in ſuch ſort, is falſſie, though moſte maliciouſlie, deuiſed. That Iewes and Infidels hauehave abhorred the name of Ieſus, I graunt, but no more the name of Ieſus, then the name of Christ, ſeeing Ieſus is Christ, and Chriſt hath as much deſerued to be hated of them as Ieſus. Chriſtes name may a thouſand times be heard amongſt you, and noe man mooueth capp or knee: Ieſus is noe ſooner ſounded, but euerie man by and by putteth of his capp, and ſcrapeth on the ground with his foot, and yet not alwaies, and in all places, but in the Church, and ſpeciallie at reading of the Goſpell. This may breede a more dangerous opinion, then it can remooue anie, that Ieſus is better then is Chriſt, and more worthie of reuerence, which is wicked to imagine.
Now Maſter Rainolds hauing in particular made ſome ſeelie defenſe,pag. 516. … as you hauehave heard, for certaine of their annotations vponupon the new Teſtament, noted as notorious abſurd, and ridiculous concluſions, becauſe he knoweth the matter is not yet ſufficienly anſwered, addeth in the and a further proofe and confirmation of the arguments by example of the ſcripture it ſelfe, wherein diuerſe reaſons may be found, and namelie touching the reſurrection, which if they be examined according to philoſophy and humane wiſdome, will followe no better then theirs hauehave done, but may be thought as improbable & weake, as any that they hauehave made. This diſcourſe doth Maſter Rainolds in manie wordes proſecute, with great ſuperfluitie of ſpeach, and many opprobrious termes after his olde manner. But when he hath talked his pleaſure at full, an anſwere in one word ſhall ouerthrow all, that he hath builded, and as it were cutt in ſunder the threed of all that he hath ſewed thus loſelie together. Whatſoeuer is affirmed or denied in ſcripture, although it be moſte contrarie to mans reaſon, yet is it true and certaine, and muſt without contradiction be beleeued, becauſe the Lord, whoſe word is truth hath ſaid it. The reſurrection of the fleſh cannot (I graunt) be prooued by philoſophicall reaſons and arguments, but Gods word hath ſet down this for a principle of our faith, that our bodies ſhall riſe againe, and whatſoeuer reaſon iudgeth thereof, faith maketh no doubte but ſo it ſhall be. But now Master Rainolds, what maketh this for your former collections? becauſe we muſt beleeue Chriſt and his Apoſtles in all that they teach, though naturall reaſon will not ſo eaſilie yeald, muſt we therefore allowe whatſoeuer our nouices of Rhemes hauehave fondlie without authoritie of Gods worde concluded in their Annotations for maintenance of Popiſh hereſie? This forſooth is your argument, if you ment to make any argument at all: if you thought not to driue your ſpeach to this concluſion, then hauehave you ranged at randon all this while, and ſpoken neuer a word to that purpoſe, to the which you ſhoulde hauehave directed your talke.