For that which is in the. 105. page / and concerneth the surplice / I have answered before. There followeth the interrogatories or demands ministered unto the infants in baptism / for the proof whereof is brought / in the first place Dionysius Areopagita, a worthy cover for such a cup. For to let pas / that M. doctor allegeth the celestial hierarchy / in stead that he should have cited the ecclesiastical hierarchy / this testimony being found in the one / and not in the other: dare M. Doctor be so bold / as to delude the world in so great light / with such babbles as this? doth he think that the author of these books of hierarchies / being so full of subtle speculations / vain and idle fancies / wicked blasphemies / making one order of popes / an other of prelates / the third of sacrificers / and then of monks (some of which orders came not many hundred years after that time / wherein Denis the Areopagite lived) which mentioneth many foolish ceremonies and corruptions (that no other author neither Greek nor Latin stories / nor others divers hundred years after doth make any mention of besides him) I say doth he think to abuse men / and to give them such dross in stead of silver / such chaff in stead of corn / as to make us believe that he that wrote these books of hierarchy / was s. Pauls scholar? for the better blazing of this Denis arms / I will send the (reader) unto that which Erasmus writeth of this Denis of M. Doctors / upon the. 17. of the Acts of the Apostles / where he also showeth together with his own judgement / the judgement of Laurentius Valla. I am 1not ignorant what Nicephorus a fabulous historiographer / and of no credit in such matters (and in those matters especially / which might like or mislike those times wherein he wrote) sayeth of S. Pauls communicating with Denis / and another / concerning the heavenly and Ecclesiastical hierarchy. But because I think M. Doctor be now ashamed of his Denis / I will follow it no further.
FOr that whych is in the. 105. page / and concerneth the surplice / I haue answeared before. There foloweth the interrogatories or demaundes ministred vnto the infants in baptisme / for the profe wherof is brought / in the first place Dionisius Areopagita, a worthy couer for such a cup. For to let pas / that M. doctor alledgeth the celestiall hierarchie / in stead that he should haue cited the ecclesiasticall hierarchie / thys testimony being founde in the one / and not in the other: dare M. Doctor be so bold / as to delude the worlde in so great light / wyth suche bables as thys? doth he thinke that the author of these bokes of hierarchies / being so full of subtile speculations / vain and idle fansies / wicked blasphemies / making one order of popes / an other of prelates / the third of sacrificers / and then of monkes (some of whych orders came not many hundreth yeares after that time / wherin Denis the Arcopagite liued) which mentioneth many folish ceremonies and corruptions (that no other author neyther Greeke nor Latine stories / nor others diuers hundreth yeares after dothe make any mention of besydes hym) I say doth he thynke to abuse men / and to geue them such drosse in steade of siluer / such chaffe in stead of corne / as to make vs beleue that he that wrote these bokes of hierarchie / was s. Paules scholer? for the better blasing of this Denis armes / I will send the (reader) vnto that whych Erasmus wryteth of thys Denis of M. Doctors / vpon the. 17. of the Actes of the Apostles / where he also sheweth togither wyth hys owne iudgement / the iudgement of Laurentius Valla. I am 1not ignorant what Nicephorus a fabulous historiographer / and of no credite in such matters (and in those matters especially / whych myght lyke or mislike those times wherin he wrote) sayeth of S. Paules communicating wyth Denis / and another / concerning the heauenly and Ecclesiasticall hierarchie. But because I thynke M. Doctor be now ashamed of hys Denis / I wil folow it no further.
- 11. Lib. 20. cap.
