Apocalypsis A brief and learned commentary upon the revelation of Saint John the apostle…Apocalypsis A briefe and learned commentarie vpon the reuelation of Saint Iohn the apostle…

As for Catus (what man so ever he was) he is easily to be refuted even by Dionysius his words in the third book of the Ecclesiastical history. As for Eusebius I make no account of him, for there are none learned, but find want of judgement in him. Now let us come to the other argument. Hierome writeth (saith he) that certain very well learned men found great fault and spake sharply against the whole matter of this book, as though there were nothing in it worthy the gravity of an Apostle, but only a common history of things shadowed with certain dark figures and hard kind of speeches. And moreover that in the very sentences them selves there was nothing that become the gravity of an Apostle. Which I answer in this sort: What learned men so ever these were, they are greatly to be blamed, in that they durst be so bold to speak evil of that book, which no doubt is very short, if those things be excepted, which are translated word for word out of the Prophets. Basil, Gregory, Cyril, Epiphanius, Irene, Hippolite, as Aretas witnesseth, were not of this judgement, which thought not only as Dionysius of Alexandria did, that some godly man wrote this book, but also plainly vouched it to be John the Apostle, which no doubt they would never have done, if they had found no resemblance ⟨image 9⟩of the gravity of an Apostle in it. And whether of these shall J count for the better learned? whether these men, which have given record both of their singular godliness, and excellent learning by publishing many works, or those men rather, whose only names are scarcely heard of: and the reasons they use, give sufficient proof how learned they were? They say there appeared no gravity in this writer, and yet he hath taken every what almost word for word out of the Prophets: they say he hath put down a common history. But how can that be, seeing (a few things only except) he maketh no relation of things past, but foretelleth things to come? And therefore they do not only not speak that, that is trueth, but not so much as any piece or resemblance of trueth.

As for Catus (what man so euer hee was) hee is easily to be refuted euen by Dionysius his wordes in the third booke of the Ecclesiasticall historie. As for Eusebius I make no account of him, for there are none learned, but finde want of iudgement in him. Nowe let vs come to the other argument. Hierome writeth (sayth he) that certaine very well learned men found great fault and spake sharply against the whole matter of this booke, as though there were nothing in it worthie the grauitie of an Apostle, but onely a common historie of things shadowed with certaine darke figures and hard kinde of speaches. And moreouer that in the very sentences them selues there was nothing that becommed the grauitie of an Apostle. Which I answere in this sort: What learned men so euer these were, they are greatly to be blamed, in that they durst be so bolde to speake euill of that booke, which no doubt is very short, if those things be excepted, which are translated worde for worde out of the Prophetes. Basil, Gregorie, Cyril, Epiphanius, Irene, Hippolite, as Aretas witnesseth, were not of this iudgement, which thought not onely as Dionysius of Alexandria did, that some godly man wrote this booke, but also plainely vouched it to be Iohn the Apostle, which no doubt they would neuer haue done, if they had found no resemblance