A15061:455
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.
In the first order were reckoned certain traditions,1 which having no ground in Gods word, nor much differing from mere fables, are in your Rhemish Annotations notwithstanding gloriously avouched, as behovefull for all Christians to believe. And first of the wise men that came from the East to visit our saviour Christ, three things are affirmed, first that they were kings, secondly that they were three,2 and lastly that their names were Gaspar, Melchior, and Belshazzar, as now commonly they are called. For the first, Master R. demandeth a reason, why I should think they were no kings, himself not able to show any, why he should say they were kings. But if reason may rule him, for which he calleth, as though he would yield unto it, if it were given him, three reasons will I propound, whereby I am moved not to believe that these men were kings.
In the first order were reckened certaine traditions,1 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,2 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 vnto it, if it were giuen him, three reasons will I propounde, wherebie I am mooued not to beleeue that these men were kings.
- 1pag. 484. &c.
- 2Popish traditions full of fables and vanities