A15061:252
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.
The argument that is grounded only upon reason, in matters of Religion and faith, we grant most unfeignedly to be no lawful weapon in the Lords warfare. And therefore whatsoever they have said against Philosophy and reason,1 when it disagreeth from the faith, which in the scriptures we learn, all that we allow with all our hearts, and never used thus any argument taken from natural reason against either you, or Luther. For reason ⟨p. 188⟩must submit it self to faith we know, faith must not be restrained or stretched according to reason. But when reason in not controlled of faith, then I think you will not say, but an argument builded upon reason maketh a necessary proof. Now in this matter faith and reason are not contrary: no faith teacheth that Christs body is without the properties of a true body: all reason proveth, that if Christ have a true body, as he hath, then his body is endued with natural qualities and properties of a body. Reasoning against this sound & immutable reason, you plainly show your selves to be void of reason.
The argument that is grounded onelie vpon reason, in matters of Religion and faith, we graunt moste vnfainedlie to be no lawfull weapon in the Lords warfare. And therefore whatsoeuer they haue said against Philosophie and reason,1 when it disagreeth from the faith, which in the scritures we learne, all that we allow with all our heartes, and neuer vsed thus anie argument taken from naturall reason against either you, or Luther. For reason ⟨p. 188⟩must submit it selfe to faith we know, faith must not be restrained or stretched according to reason. But when reason in not controlled of faith, then I thinke you will not say, but an argument builded vpon reason maketh a necessary proofe. Now in this matter faith and reason are not contrary: no faith teacheth that Christs body is without the properties of a true body: al reason prooueth, that if Christ haue a true body, as he hath, then his body is indued with natural qualities and properties of a body. Reasoning against this sound & immutable reason, you plainely shew your selues to be void of reason.