An answer to a certain book, writtenAn answere to a certeine booke, written

Now that they were also three,¹ how may it be proved? forsooth here is a mystery ⟨p. 382⟩of the blessed Trinity, whereunto Saint Augustine most sweetly alludeth. At this most heavenly mystery, Master Rainolds, none will be grieved, save only most wicked and detestable heretics indeed. But how appeareth it, that these wise men did represent and signify that mystery? Saint Augustine and Leo say so: and therefore we must believe it is so. Which argument I will admit if because their oblations were of three things, therefore it follow necessarily, that them-selves, who offered, were three. Yet Master Rainolds hath a better reason then this, if it will be accepted. The Evangelist (saith he) speaketh of them in the dual number, and therefore they were moe then two: but we need not to believe that they were moe then three. Neither need we to believe that they were just three: for the Evangelist speaking of them indefinitely, as he doth, we may as well think they were moe then three, as well as three, and so also indeed some fathers have thought. So that this hangeth upon a slender thread of mans conjecture, which cannot be warranted by mystical expositions. And if herein were ⟨p. 383⟩contained so sweet and excellent mysteries, much may we marvel, why the Evangelists would not plainly write, for better understanding of this mystery, that they were neither fewer, nor moe, then just three.

Now that they were also three,¹ how may it be prooued? forsooth here is a mysterie ⟨p. 382⟩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 haue thought. So that this hangeth vpon a slender threede of mans coniecture, which cannot be warranted by mysticall expositions. And if herein were