T. V.

IT séemes, at the first entrance of Master B. C. Memorandū, That he would wil­lingly extenuate the matter of my Booke, [Page 3] by tearming me A lay Gentleman: insinu­ating to his Popish dependants, That they should not so much weigh, what is spoken, as who speakes: though all men of iudgement, weigh rather the speech, then the speaker. And so (I hope) will not inquire so much what I am, as what I say. The generall scope and drift of my whole booke may bee thus deduced.

• That Religion which hath weake, and vncertaine grounds, cannot bee the true Religion:
• But Popish Religion hath weake and vncertaine grounds:
• Ergo, Popish Religion cannot bee the true Religion.

The Maior is euident, and the Minor is prooued throughout my whole booke, in the Refutation of euery particular grounde of Popery. Against my Booke Master B. C. reasoneth thus.

• That which is drawen from English Controuertists, cannot be sound:
• But Master Vdalles Booke is drawen from English Controuertists:
• Ergo, Master Vdalles Booke cannot be sound.

How Master. B. C. hath quit himselfe [Page 4] for the proofe either of his Maior, or Minor, I leaue to the censure of the learned. But I pray you let me aske you this question: May not truth bee drawen from English Controuertists? What will then become of Hardings workes, the Rhemes Testa­ment, Cardinall Allens, Parsons, Ray­nolds, Bristowes, and your owne, with many others: Surely if the feathers, you haue borrowed from Harding, Stapleton, and others, were pluckt from you; your whole booke would be as naked, as Esopes Crow. If I haue takē great heart of grace, for that I was not answered with that ex­pedition I expected: I may doe so still, for any answere I haue yet made you: neither doe I see any cause now to discou­rage me, since that after almost two yéeres (méeting with one so sharpe sighted, as your selfe) I find nothing answered to any pur­pose. For I truely protest, I sée not, (nei­ther I thinke doe you) What spirituall profite to my selfe, or what commoditie to other; or what common good to both; the short sample of such foule flawes, as you present me with, should procure either to other, or to me. But you mind hereafter (you say) to prosecute that [Page 5] subiect, with a more full hand: you had neede; for this is very barren, and emptie. And if your promises hereafter, prooue no better, then these supposed flawes, now pre­sented; you may well chaunge your opini­on: And say, you dispaire altogether of my conuersion.

T. V.

THat, which you call Poyson, is rather an Antidote against the infection of such poysoned spirits, as yours: But to the matter, it is true, that in the Preface of my booke I haue charged the Papists iust­ly with blasphemie. The force of my rea­son there may be thus deduced.

• Those, which haue published blasphe­mies in print against the sacred Scriptures, haue vttered open blasphemie:
• But the Papists haue published blasphe­mies in print against the sacred Scriptures:
• Ergo, the Papists haue vttered open blasphemie.

The Maior is euident, and the Minor is prooued by Cardinall Cusanus, Syluester Prierias, Boniface, the Arch-bishop of Mentz, Hosius, Eckius, and others. A­gainst which Master B. C. reasoneth thus.

• If Cardinall Cusanus neuer writ any such booke, then there is no such blasphe­mie:
• But Cardinall Cusanus neuer writ any such booke:
• Ergo, there is no such blasphemie.

I denie the consequence of the propositi­on, [Page 8] though Master B. C. would insinuate, by the question, and answere, That there had béene no other proofe, to iustifie my ac­cusation, but that of the Cardinals, saying: But where is this blasphemie conteined? In a Booke (as he telleth vs) of Cardinall Cusanus, which is intituled, De Authori­tate, &c. Of the Authoritie, &c. What? In that booke onely? And not also in diuers other places, and authors? Why are all those omitted? Why is this one singled out of the heard? Surely, because this seemed likely to admit some cauill; they were out of daunger. But is it a iust difference; whe­ther the blasphemie be in the Title of the Booke, or in the booke it selfe? For albeit, it were not in the title of the booke (as both Bishop Iewell, and Doctor Downam af­firme it is) yet it is in the booke of his Epi­stles, as I haue shewed in the Preface: And to conuince euidently this blasphemie of the Cardinals I will shew once againe. The Blasphemie mainteined is, that they were to receiue the Communion in both kindes, according to the Scriptures: a­gainst which the Cardinall, opposeth him­selfe, in diuers places of his Epistles, and for the iustifying of his assertion, he vrgeth [Page 9] these words, as I haue set them downe in the Preface. It is no maruaile (saith he) though the practise of the Church, Nicola. Cu­sa. ad Bo­hem. Epist. 7 ex­pound the Scriptures, at one time one way, and at another time another way; For the vnderstanding or sense of the Scriptures runneth with the practise, and that sense agreeing with the practise is the quickning spirit; And a litle after he concludes, And therefore the Scriptures follow the Church, but contrariwise the Church followeth not the Scriptures. Now that, which precedes in authoritie, is aboue that which followes: and so the Church, by their diuinity, is auouched to bee aboue the Scriptures. And if the Church follow not the Scriptures, it is euident (if God, and his word be both one) That he, that is not with the Scripture is against it. And so the matter of the Epistle is all one with that title of the authoritie of the Church and Councel, aboue and against the Scriptures, though the Epistle it selfe be not so intituled.

And that you may know this opinion or blasphemie, is not peculiar to the Cardi­nall, or to one Papist onely: Eckius in his Enchiridion of the authoritie of the [Page 10] Church, Answ. the third, hath set down, that this position: The Scripture is greater then the authoritie of the Church is to bee reputed amongst hereticall assertions, and that the contrary proposition is Catholique. And this blasphemie of theirs is so generall, that you shall find this sentence often inser­ted in the Common Law. The Church is aboue the Scriptures.

The other place of the Cardinals there noted, is this: This is the iudgement, (saith he) of all them that thinke rightly; that they found the authoritie, Ad Bohem. Epist. 2. and vnder­standing of the Scriptures in the allow­ance of the Church; and not contrariwise lay the foundation of the Church in the authoritie of the Scriptures. Now if this bee sound diuinitie; then may your proud Clergie, assume vnto themselues to bee Lords of the Scriptures. For how directly so euer the Scriptures be against them (as in this instance of the communion to be had in both kinds, it is most directly) they may giue it what sense they list: yea expound it to day, after one fashion; and to morrow af­ter another, as shall please the Pope, and his Clergie: which can no way agree with the spirit of God; who is alwayes one and [Page 11] the same. And if this conuince not the Car­dinals blasphemie: See the 3. Epistle of the same booke pag. 838. where hee saith, When the Church chaungeth her iudge­ment, God also chaungeth his.

But admit I had failed in this proofe: yet had the other testimonies bene sufficient, to approoue the truth of my accusation: if these and such like may iustly be tearmed blasphemiesSyluest. Prier, cont. Lutheri con­clusiones de potest. Pap. That indulgences are war­ranted vnto vs, not by the authoritie of the Scriptures, but by the authoritie of the Church, and Pope of Rome; which is greater. Dist. 40. C. Si Papa. That they rather desire the ancient institution of Christian Religion from the Pope, then from the holy Scrip­ture. Eckius de Eccles. That the Scripture is not au­thenticall, but by the authoritie of the Church: Henric. Ma­gist. Sacr Pa­ [...]atii Romae ad legat Bo­hem. sub Feli­ce pap. 1447. That the Pope may change the holy Gospell, &c. Vid. Kemp­nit. exam. part. 1. pag. 47. That the Scrip­ture, without the authority of the church, is of no better worth then Esopes Fables. And because I will bee as charitable to Master B. C. and as full of good wishes though I haue no hope of his conuersion) as he is to me: I could wish, that he would not imploy his time so badly, as to colour or iustifie such open, and palpable blasphemie. [Page 12] And surely, would such as read both Popish, and Protestants bookes, Trie the spirits, whether they be of God or no; would not the Popish Priests prohibite the reading of our bookes: would the Papists therin hold any indifferencie; it were not possible, that they could be so sedused with Popery.

T. V.

IT is true, that in the fourth page I haue shewed, how the Papists dissent from the Fathers both auncient and moderne. The reason there may thus be deduced.

• That Church, which dissents from the Fathers, both antient, and moderne; tou­ching the Canonicall, and Apocryphall Scriptures, cannot truely boast of their a­greement with them in all points:
• But the Popish Church dissents from the Fathers, both ancient, and moderne, touching the Canonicall, and Apocryphall Scriptures:
• Ergo, the Popish Church cannot truely boast of their agreement with them in all points.

The Maior is plaine in it selfe; and the [Page 14] Minor is proued by these testimonies,Hier. in prol. galea. & epist. ad Pau­li. et in praefa. lib. Reg. et in praefa. prolo. Salom. S. Hierom Ruf. in his expo. vpon the Creede. Rufinus, Cyril. of Hieru. in the 4. of his Catachis. Cyrill of Hierusa­lem, Athan. in Synop. Salu. Sempit. Athanasius, Nazianz. in carminib. Nazianzen, Epipha. de mensu. et pond. E­piphanius, Cypr. vpon the Creede. Cyprian, Damas. 49. Damascenus, Hugo. de Sanct. vict. de Sac. in prolog. lib. 1. cap. 7. Hugo de Sanct. victor. Radul. in Leuit. lib. 14. cap. 1. Radulphus Lyr. in pro. in lib. Apoc. Lyra, Hugo Car. in pr. Iosua. Hugo Cardinalis. And Arias in his Hebrewe Bible. Arias Montanus, Against which Ma­ster B. C. reasoneth thus.

• If Arius Montanus be corrupted by M. Vdall, or some other, from whom hee had them, by foysting in words of their owne, vpon which the force of the charge depen­deth, then is Master Vdall, or some other, from whence he had them, proued to be cor­rupters, and those Scriptures, which wee defend to be Canonicall, are not conuinced to be Apocryphall.
• But the Antecedent is true.
• Ergo, the Consequent.

I denie the consequence of the propositi­on, because if this place had bene misalleaged; yet had that, which I intended, bene suffici­ently [Page 15] conuinced by the testimonies of the o­ther fathers and writers, which I alleaged. And is not this a substantiall argument, for such a disputant as Master B. C. would bee presumed to bee, by his many, and seuerall Coniurings, Adiurings, Prefat. Sect. 18. of his booke. and exorcismes of M. Bell to disputation? But, if heerein the vntruth, and corruption be iustly retur­ned vpon himselfe; with what countenance will hee looke vpon his followers, when it may happily come to their knowledge, That he, that is the Counter challenger, & common taxer of others, shall be found guil­tie of that crime, which he obiects to others. Would God that lay Papists would make tryall of their teachers sinceritie, whereof they brag so much, by accusing others. But to cleare my selfe from this corruption; let the Reader see the same Hebrewe Bible which is noted by Master B. C. 1584. and he shall find the words as I haue alleaged them, truely deliuered; which for his better satisfaction, I will set downe in Latin, least hee except against the translation. The words be these, Accesserunt, & huic aeditioni, libri Graecè Scripti, quos Ecclesia orthodoxa, Hebraeorum Canonem secuta, inter Apocry­phos recenset. There are added (saith hee) [Page 16] to this edition the bookes written in Greeke, which the Catholike Church, following the Canon of the Hebrewes, receiueth amongst the Apocrypha. Thus you see I haue proued that, whereon you confesse the force of my charge depen­deth; and therefore, by your owne confessi­on those Scriptures, which the Protestants reiect, are approued to be Apocrypha. But for that I am a lay Gentleman, and Master B. C. A student in Diuinitie, I may not v­surpe that speech of his, and tell him; That if he looked into the originals, hee could not retaile the vntrueth of such grosse Merchants.

T. V.

IT is true that in the fift page, I haue al­leaged the Councell of Laodicea allow­ed by a generall Councell of Constantino­ple in Trullo, for the proofe of that Canon of the Scriptures, which is in question [Page 18] betweene the Papists and vs; The force of my reason there, may be thus deduced.

• The Canon of the Scriptures, which is set downe by a particular Councell, allowed by a generall Councell, is to be held as good and sufficient:
• But the Canon of the Scriptures ap­prooued by the Church of England, is set downe by a particular Councell, allowed by a generall Councell:
• Ergo, the Canon of the Scriptures ap­proued by the Church of England, is to bee held as good and sufficient.

The Maior is prooued by all those Pa­pists, that preferre the Councell before the Pope; for till late dayes there was no con­trouersie hereof.

The Minor is proued by the words of the Councell set downe by me, as M. B.C. re­lates them: Wherin many things of note (as he saith) are comprised against mee, which notes of his I will handle particu­larly.

The force of his reason in this Section, lies thus.

• If the Councell of Laodicea, and the ge­nerall Councell of Constantinople in Trullo doe hold diuers thinges as Chrysme, [Page 19] and that Priestes should not marry after ordination, &c. which Master Vdal dislikes: then is it but a coppie of Master Vdals countenance to delude the ignorant, to séeme to reuerence those Councels by pressing vs with their authoritie.
• But the antecedent is true.
• Ergo, the consequent.

If I would trifle as Master B. C. doth, I could tell him, that it followeth in the same 6. Canon, that if those, which will he of the Clergie, will marry before ordinati­on they may. And in the 13. Canon, that they may not bee separated from their wiues, nor depriued of the vse of them: and that those, which vnder pretext of pietie, expell their wiues, are to be excommunica­ted: all which I am sure pleaseth not Ma­ster B. C. chaste eares. But could any man, that professeth himselfe a student in Diuinitie, reason thus impertinently; if hee were not perswaded, that any thing would passe for currant amongst the seduced Papists: and can any man be ignorant, that hath read my booke; that the whole scope, and drift thereof, tends to shew the weake­nesse of the Grounds of Poperie: of which, that of Councels, is helde a chiefe one [Page 20] with them. For howsoeuer the controuersie amongst themselues; Whether the Pope be aboue the Councell, or the Councell aboue the Pope: Or whether Councels should be confirmed by the Pope, or not confirmed; be not yet determined: yet we professe to reuerence Councels no farther, then their doctrine is consonant, and agrée­able to the Scriptures: according to the opinion of that famous clarke Saint Austin; who writing against Maximinus long be­fore this new Popery was hatched, saith thus:Cont. Max. lib. 3. ca. 14. But neither ought I to produce the Councell of Nice, nor you the Councell of Ariminum for a preiudice; for neither am I tyed to the authoritie of this, nor you to the authoritie of that; but let matter with matter, cause with cause, rea­son with reason; contend by the autho­ritie of the Scriptures, not proper to any, but indifferent witnesses to both partes. You sée heare, and may in diuers other pla­ces of my booke, what opinion S. Austin had of Councels, that would not haue his aduersary tied, to the authoritie of the great Councell of Nice; comparable to which no Councell was euer yet, since the Apostles. But if I had failed in this proofe, yet was [Page 21] the matter there intended sufficiently proued by other testimonies; which you acknow­ledge to bee your owne grounds.Greg. Tom. 3. pag. 291. Neither was it vrged to delude the ignorant, as you either ignorantly or maliciously affirme but rather to shew, how you varie both from Fathers and Councels, when they make against you.

T. V.

IN this fift Section, Master B. C. hath shewed great store of smal knowledge; by telling how many things of note, Are com­prised in these few lines against me: For if these notes, conuince him of much weak­nesse to handle controuersies; then may his Popish dependants wish: that he had answe­red with silence, as Doctor Norris did before him: least his too much haste further his [Page 23] owne disgrace: if I may returne his owne words. But let vs examine the particulars.

In the first note, the reason lies thus.

• All Councels, that are of authoritie, must haue the Pope, or his Legates pre­sent:
• But this Councell had neither the Pope nor his Legates present:
• Ergo, this Councell is of no authoritie.

I denie the Maior, for I hope Master B. C. being so great a disputant, will not still begge the question. And we may well hold this position, A noueltie of Poperie: vnlesse Master B. C. can shew vs (which neuer any yet did) some testimonies of the ancient Fathers, that are not counterfeit; that euer wrote or taught this doctrine. Besides master B. C. cannot be ignorant:Sciendū est quod in vniuersali­bus octo concilijs, vbi imperatores interfuerunt, & non Papa, semper inuenio imperatores & iudices suos, cum senatu, primatum habuisse, & officium praesidentiae per interlocutiones, & ex consensu Synodi, conclusiones & iudicium fecisse, & non inuenitur instantia in octo concilijs, preterquam in tertia actione concilij Chalcedonensis. Cusan. lib. 3. cap. 16. de concord. Ca­thol. Cap. 19. That the auncient and first Councels, were neither called by the Pope: nor hee, either by himselfe, or his Legates, President therein. And in the second generall Coun­cell [Page 24] holden at Constantinople, Bellarmine confesseth, that the Pope was neither there in person, nor by his Legates; and also hee saith,De cont. li. 2. ca. 14. that Petrus de Aliaco, and Cusanus, both Cardinals, Gerson, Almain, Antoni­nus, Tostatus, and many others held, That the Councell is aboue the Pope. And the same hath aso beene decreed in the thrée ge­nerall Councels of Pisa, Constance, and Basill; and as yet the contrary was neuer decreed: as Doctor Whittaker sheweth in the fift question of his Tract of Councels, and as Bellarmine confesseth, the question remaineth amongst the Catholiques to this day. With what Schollership or consci­ence then can Master B. C. conclude the Councell to be of no authoritie, because nei­ther the Pope, nor his Legates were pre­sent. And if Master B. C. be so well read in controuersies, as it should seeme: then can he not chuse but speake against his owne knowledge: for he cannot be ignorant, that many Popes haue cited these Canons, since it appeares euen by our aduersaries; that these Canons were in times past held for the Canons of the sixt Synode: And Grati­ane often cites thē in his decrees, & alwayes cals them Canons of the sixt Synode. And [Page 25] in Gratian dist. 16. cap. 6. Adrian the Pope saith, Sextam Synodum sanctam cum omnibus suis Canonibus recipio, I receiue the sixt holy Synode with all the Ca­nons thereof. And though Canus say, That this Councell made no Canons, yet the same is openly refuted in Gratian. And Innocent in his Tract of the age, and qua­litie of those to be ordered, citeth one of these Canons, & cals it a Canon of the 6. Synode. And the same also Gratian citeth dist. 3 2. cap. Si quis. And Pope Adrian the first in the Epistle to Tarasius, which is extant in the second action of the seuenth Synode o­penly confirmes it. And though Bellar­mine answere, that Adrian onely reciteth the sentence of Tarasius, and refels it not, because it was profitable to the question then handled; yet doth Pope Adrian vse these words, In sextae Sinodi Diuine, & le­galiter praedicatis Canonibus. In the Ca­nons of the sixt Synode, holily and lawfully pub­lished. And the Popes Legates demanded of the sacred Synode, whether they re­ceiued the letters of the most holy Pope or no? The sacred Synode answered, we folow, receiue & approue them. And what other thing is this but to confirme the Ca­nons [Page 26] of the sixt Synode? Neither is it any strange matter for one Pope and a Coun­cell to condemne the decrees of another Pope and Councell; As I haue shewed in my booke, pag. 58. 59. Of Pope Stephan and Pope Iohn.

And thus much for the first note.

The reason of his second note lies thus.

• If Venerable Bede saith, that the Pope did disanull that erraticall Synode: then cannot Master Vdall with conscience call it a generall Councell, and vrge the autho­ritie thereof as authenticall:
• But the antecedent is true:
• Ergo, the consequent.

I denie the consequence, and demaund of Master B. C. why I may not with as good a conscience as Bellarmine, and diuers Popes and Papists before alleaged, call it a generall Councell: for Bellarmine recko­neth this Councell amongst those generall Councels, which are partly approued, part­ly reproued.

And Caranza that gathered the summe of the Councels, sheweth immediatly before the Canons, that nine Canons, of the same Synode were reiected as bastards, and that these 102. Canons were not as yet for­saken [Page 27] and cast off. And though many hold that this Councell made no Canons, yet a Councell made them with credit of a gene­rall Councell.Prefat. Sy­nod. Trul. ad Iustini. And the next generall Councell did confirme them. Conc. Nic. 2. cap. 1. And Caranza sheweth that the Ca­nons were made in supplie of the other two Councels that wanted, and therefore it was not numbred as the sixt, but called Quini Sexta; because it supplied that which was wanting to the fift and sixt. And yet hee cals it a generall Councell. Now could a­ny man of M. B. C. learning vpon Bedes authoritie, vrge such consequents against all these proofes before alleaged.

And for my vrging it as Authent'call, I haue shewed before how farre we receiue the authority of generall Councels; and the reason why I vrged it. But I pray you master B.C. is this a Maxime in your Di­uinitie: That whatsoeuer any ancient Fa­ther hath said, is to be beleeued? Surely, Saint Austin was of another mind. For he challengeth to himselfe a libertie to iudge, In quorumlibet hominum scriptis, De natur. & gra. contr. pelag. ca. 61. Ibidem. In the writings of all men whatsoeuer, And addeth this reason, because I doe consent with­out any stay to the Canonicall Scrip­tures [Page 28]onely, Cont. Faust lib. 11. ca. 5. The rest must be read as hee teacheth, Non cum credendi necessitate, sed cum iudicandi libertate, Not with a ne­cessitie to beleeue them, but with a libertie to iudge them. Epist. 48. de Peccat. Merit. & Re­miss. l. 1. c. 22 And must bee distinguished from the authoritie of the Canon, For that the authoritie of the sacred Scrip­tures can neither deceiue nor be decei­ued. Cont. Cres­con. lib. 2. cap. 3. And by those bookes we may freely iudge of other writings, both of Christi­ans and Infidels. And thus much for the second note.

The reason of the third note lies thus.

• If the Reuelation of Saint Iohn be o­mitted by the Councell of Laodicea, then doth not the Councell set downe the same Canon of the Scriptures, which the Church of England alloweth:
• But the antecedent is true:
• Ergo, the consequent.

Master B. C. would faine finde a knot in a rush, so much doth it please his cauelling, & carping spirit. For if he had obserued in the third page of my Booke, that the aunswere which I there set downe, in the name of the Protestant toucheth onely the bookes, which are in question beeweene vs, hee might haue found, that the proofe I there [Page 29] brought, was touching the Hebrew Ca­non of the old Testament. Whereof I might truely say, that this Councell setteth downe the same Canon of the Scriptures, which both the old Church had, and our Church doth hold: for reproofe whereof, the omitting of the Reuelation by the Councell of Laodicea (which was not in question) was impertinently alleaged by you. And thus much for the third note.

The reason of his fourth note lies thus.

• If the Councell forbid the reading of o­ther bookes not there expressed: then Ma­ster Vdall can hardly show, how the Church of England, reading the history of Iudith and Tobie in their publique assemblies, a­greeth with the decree of that Councell:
• But the antecedent is true:
• Ergo, the consequent.

Is not this substantiall stuffe, and wor­thy of Master B. C. learning? What if I could not shew this? What inconuenience were it to the Church of England; or what aduantageth it my aduersary? Doth any of vs acknowledge, that the Church of Eng­land, is bound to follow the decrees of coun­cels in all things? Blush then for shame is reason thus idely: yet wee say with S. Hie­rom. [Page 30] That the Church readeth those bookes, See the 4. page of my booke. Hierom. prae­fa. in lib. So­lom. Rufin. in expos. Symb. apud Cyprian but receiueth them not amongst the Canonicall Scriptures: And that they are read for instruction of manners, but not alleaged for confirmation of do­ctrine. But it seemes Master B. C. was much pressed by some of his followers to an­swere my booke: And therfore to giue them some satisfaction, he would say somewhat, though it were to little purpose.

And thus much for the fourth note.

The reason of his fift note lieth thus.

• If these words (And receiued into au­thoritie) be not to be found in that Councel: then M. Vdall hath corrupted the Councell by adding some thing of his owne:
• But the Antecedent is true:
• Ergo, the consequent.

• To this I answere, that those words are found in the Councell; and therefore Master Vdall is slaunderously charged by Master B. C. The words are these, Quae autem oporteat legi, & in authoritatē recipi, hec sunt. Those Bookes which must be read and receiued into authoritie, are these. From which thus I dispute, those bookes, which are to bee receiued into authoritie, are those set downe by the Councell:
• [Page 31]But the bookes we call Apocrypha, are not there set downe by the Councell:
• Ergo, those bookes, which we call Apo­crypha, are not to be receiued into authori­tie.

Now, that I may pay M B. C. in his owne coine, how many of these his wor­thie notes, may be returned him; for hauing neither truth, nor Schollership; as the v­sing that silly shift of wrangling Sophisters; to take that for graunted, which hee should haue proued: The weakenesse of his con­sequence: the charging me to vse the testi­monie of the Councell, for the Canon of the New Testament, which he knew I applied to the old Testament: the vrging of imperti­nent reasons without end, or purpose: and the charging me with corrupting the Coun­cell, when the same wordes are there found? would any man haue thought, that he, that takes vpon him to be a Censurer of others, should haue bene iustly conuinced, of so ma­ny grosse ouersights before alleaged?

T. V.

IN the same page, (from whence you take this exception) my wordes are these, I omitte many seuerall con­tradictions, in all or moste of the bookes, which we reiect, and they allow, wherby they may be conuinced, not to be written by the spirit of God, which is alwayes one, and the same. See the 4. of Esdras 10.20. and 2. Maccab. 2.4. and 1. Mac. 1.6. and 8. touching Antiochus. My reason here may be thus deduced.

• Those bookes, which imply contradi­ction in themselues, cannot come from the spirit of God, who is alwayes one and the same:
• But all, or most of the bookes, which we reiect, and they allow, implie contradiction in themselues:
• Ergo, all or most of the bookes, which we reiect, and they allow, cannot come from the spirit of God, who is alwayes one and the same.

The Maior is euident, and the Minor is, [Page 33] in part thus proued: and may more largely hereafter, if occasion be offered. Antiochus is said, in the first booke of Maccabees ca. 6. to die in Babylon for griefe of the good successe of the Iewes: and in the 2. booke cap. 1. Antiochus was, with the rest of the Souldiers, slaine in the Temple of Nanea, and his head cut off, and throwne foorth. And in the ninth chapter, That hee died a miserable death in a strange Country amongst the mountaines, against which Master B. C. reasoneth thus.

• He that makes vs to allow and disallow one and the same booke, speakes vntruly con­trary to his knowledge:
• But T. V. in his fift page, makes vs al­low the fourth booke of Esdras, which in the second page, hee confesseth, wee disal­low:
• Ergo, T.V. speakes vntruly, contrarie to his owne knowledge.

You here charge me with the right na­ture of a lie, though you pretend, you would not haue the quarrell of God prosecuted like the quarrels of the world: but you haue in­vred your tongue to such immodest tearmes; that you cannot much taxe me, if I haue beene more sharpe, then I purposed.

But I denie your Minor, and if you can, withall your Schollershippe (out of my wordes, which I haue set downe of purpose) conuince me either of vntruth, or contradi­ction: I will acknowledge you to haue more learning, then you haue yet shewed in your booke. All, that I might haue bene char­ged with, was the misquoting of the Chap­ters, and the bidding you see the fourth of Esdras: which being receiued by both, can­not fit your cauelling spirit to imply any contradiction or vntruth in my words: but you are fitter to cauell, then to answere the reason there brought: and yet this place must make vp the number; but I pittie your necessitie.

T. V.

IN the 51. page, my reason lies thus.

• If Papists reiect generall Councels, we may reiect them:
• But Papists reiect generall Councels:
• Ergo, we may reiect them.

The Minor is prooued in the 50. 51. page, &c. by Andradius, Bellarmine, Pig­hius, and Pope Leo. Against which Ma­ster B. C. reasoneth thus.

• If those Councels reiected by Bellar­mine, [Page 36] were the vnlawfull conuenticles of the Arians, and no other: and such as the Protestants hold for vnlawfull and wicked Councels; Then is that learned Prelate iniuriously delt with by Master Vdall, to eneruate the force of generall Councels: which is not to seeke the trueth with an vp­right heart:
• But the Antecedent is true:
• Ergo, the Consequent.

I denie the Minor, for Bellarmine in the same Section reiectes the Councell of Con­stantinople and Chalcedon, as (no doubt) be doth diuers other Councels, that haue resisted the Bishop of Rome. But doe not I charge Bellarmine truly with the reiecti­on of seuen generall Councels? But you will say these were no lawfull Councels: Why so? you must now runne to your old shift, and say, because they were not confirmed by the Pope. Damasus in pontificuli. vide Fulk. Rhem. Test. Act. 15. Sect 7. And yet Liberius the Pope subscribing to the heresie of the Arians (as S. Hierom saith) no doubt confirmed some of them. But you wil say, These were wic­ked, and detestable Conuenticles: so say the Protestants. But what makes them detestable? not the want of confirmation (for then this doctrine was not dreampt of) [Page 37] but their corruption in doctrine. For many Councels lawfully called, and lawfull and generall Councels, and such as Popes haue confirmed; haue broached many vnsound doctrines, as I haue giuen some particular instances in my booke and shall giue more, as occasion shall be offered. Which yet I will confirme by a learned Papist, (equall with Master B. C. in learning, and iudge­ment) as I haue cited him in my booke. Pighius saith, It is certaine, that not one­ly these Councels of Constance and Basill, Pighius Hierar. Ec­cle. lib. 6. ca. 4. & 5. &. 13. which we now disprooue, haue shame­fully and absurdly erred, but also many others. And againe, we find, that gene­rall Councels, euen of holy Fathers, haue erred in decrees of faith: for example of generall Councels, The Councell of Ari­minum, vniuersall no doubt; and also the Councell of Ephesus, and that like­wise vniuersall: these I say are witnesses, that euen generall Councels and those lawfully gathered, may erre. You see Ma­ster B. C. That Pighius, no partiall wit­nesse for vs, calles some of those Councels lawfull, and generall, which Bellarmine re­iects: and likewise he reiects the Councels of Constance and Basill: wherein (no [Page 38] doubt) Bellarmine agrées with him, in that point, where those Councels preferre the Councell before the Pope.

And yet Pope Martin the fift, in the last Sessiō of the Councell of Constance appro­ueth in his Bul all those decrees, which were made by this Councell in matters of faith, & prayseth and confirmeth them. And for the Councell of Basill, The Diuines of Paris prayse and defend the authoritie thereof a­gainst Leo the tenth, and their commenda­tion and defence thereof is extant in print.

And if Master B. C. sinceritie were such, as he pretends, he could not be ignorant, that Papists haue reiected those Councels, which cannot be denied to be both lawfull, and generall. And if the vntruths, you haue obiected against Master Bell, and Master Rogers, be no better proued, you haue blot­ted much paper, to little purpose. For what are these exceptions against my booke, but a ridiculous biting at the héele, when you are wounded at the heart?

T. V.

YOu see M. B. C. that I haue iustified and freed my selfe, from all those vniust imputations, wherewith you charged me. And therefore since you ingage your selfe, by this your promise; To lay open the mani­fold maladies of my former Treatise: and to shew with what weake engines (as you phrase them) I labour to vnder­mine the impregnable grounds of the Ca­tholique Church: I hope you will take warning by this little, that hath bene shew­ed you; to deale more sincerely in that which is to come: wherein it shall be much for your owne credit, and the reputation of the Catholique cause, whereof you so much boast, to be so impregnable: that you answer not by patches and peeces, picked heere and there for your most aduantage (as your Cō ­mon custome is) but that you set downe my words verbatim: with the same equity that I haue shewed in this, for if you deale other­wise, I shall scarce iudge you worthy of any further answer. And in the meane time I dare promise, That your designemēts shal no way bee crost with the newes of my conuersion: though I protest, I will weigh the reasons, that shall be deliuered by [Page 42] you hereafter, with all indifferencie and good conscience. Albeit, I thinke it no such bold­nesse, as you censure it, To launch into the depth of these mysticall matters: since I hold it the dutie of euery Christian, to know the grounds of his Religion to be infallible; before he build his faith theron. And for the relying vpon any man. I neither haue, nor wil, further then truth shal warrant, as nere as God shall mable me to iudge; so y^t if I be deceiued (which I see no cause yet to distrust) it is error in my iudgment, not euil affection in my will. And whereas you wish me to read your Authors: I may truly say, I ne­uer refused to read any of thē: nor conference with any, how learned so euer: Or how much so euer I might thereby haue disad­uantaged my selfe: and yet I was still more and more confirmed in the opinion I now hold; and wherein I hope to die: vnlesse Master B.C. will, for the merite of winning soules, make knowne some more certainty in the grounds of Poperie, then I euer yet read, or heard of. You tell me, That Bellar­mine hath answered most of my obiecti­ons, as the Catholique Author of that letter (inserted by me) hath truely infor­med me, to which (you say) my answere [Page 43] giueth no satifaction. And which yet is straunge, you confesse my aunswere to bee this: That Bellarmines reasons are by the learned of our side, sufficiently handled and replied too. Against which (very ab­surdly in my poore opinion (you reiterate the same speech againe; and say, That the most of the arguments in my booke, be answered by Bellarmine; and that you find nothing brought by mee to infringe his solutions: Insinuating, with more skill, then sinceritie, That you had vrged some particular instances therof; whereto I had said nothing. But if you had truely layd downe my answere in my letter; it would much haue blemished the reputation, both of your selfe, and that Catholique Author; That being so much vrged by me, neither of you both could, or would bring any such instance. And how should I giue a solution to that, which neitherof you both euer in­stanced, though I much vrged it in my let­ter, as these words there testifie, viz. And whereas you referre me in the conclusi­on of your letter, to Bellarmine de Pont. & de Consiliis, where you say, I shall finde most of my obiections of the errors of Popes, and Councels refuted: so can I, [Page 44] when soeuer you shall instance any such particular refutation (which may ease you of some paines if it be so sufficiently performed) referre you to some of the Authors, of our side; where the same rea­sons, haue beene with no lesse sufficiency handled, and replied too: assuring my selfe, that neither any of you haue or can, make any obiection against the doctrine we professe, that hath not bene alreadie obiected, and likewise by vs aunswered. And if any can shew me the contrary, I will be beholding to him; neither will I shut mine eyes against the truth. May you not now blush M. B. C. to affirme, that this my answere giues no satisfaction? And hauing read this, to auouch, That you finde nothing brought by M. Vdall to infringe his solutions: When neither the Author of that Catholike letter then, (as I haue said) nor your self now, durst, as it may be presumed, instance an answere out of Bellarmine, to any one particular obiection of mine? And yet, if you had done this; it had bene but expence, and losse both of la­bour and time. For as oft as you produce a­ny aunswere, of the writers of your side a­gainst vs: so oft must I bring the replie of [Page 45] the learned of our side, in discharge thereof: and so according to the fashion of this age, fill the world full of bookes, touching these controuersies, which haue bene alreadie handled, with much more sufficiency, then either of vs can: for I am very confident, that neither you, nor I, can bring any thing touching this subiect; that hath not bene al­ready sayd: howsoeuer we may giue it a new glosse, thereby to make it seeme to bee our owne. And since you wish me, if I be willing to proceede; (whereto I am both ready and willing) to absteine from all by­ting, and bitter words; that the quarrell of God may not be prosecuted, like the quarrels of this world: I must likewise wish, for my own Apology, that you had ob­serued this your owne rule to me & others: for then had I not failed in satisfying this so good a desire. And for the better effecting thereof hereafter, and for the sounder tryall of those impregnable grounds, whereof you are so confident: I earnestly request, and coniure you by the loue of truth; that wee may both appeare, at the iudiciall seat of a true Syllogisme (which we may doe with­out any safe conduct) where the substance of [Page 46] the plea, betweene vs shall be: whether there be any certaintie in the grounds of Poperie. And for that it seemeth by your facilitie in aunswering three bookes at once (for so no doubt your Popish followers will conceiue of it) That you are so conuersant in controuersies, That a man cannot faile to receiue satisfaction at your hands: I be­seech you, that this my request may be per­formed Logically by Syllogismes, & Theo­logically, by Scripture proofe. So shall we auoide all impertinent discoursing and trifling; all gibing, and reproching, and so charitably without bitternesse, or indeuor to disgrace each other; finish this combate to Gods glorie, and to the satisfaction of many: for if your grounds can be iustified; all controuersies, will quickely bee ended. But I haue no great hope to draw you to this course; for you know too wel, That the grounds of your Religion cannot abide the touchstone of this triall: though it would hee great glorie to you, but to vndertake that, which none of the learned of your side, could euer yet be drawen too: though I am perswaded, your Popish dependants will assure themselues, you will not refuse so [Page 47] sure, and learned a triall. But to conclude with the same charitie to you, which you seeme to shew to me; I will pray vnto my God, that he will enlighten your heart and vnderstanding, with the spirit of his wise­dome and grace: that you may dis­cerne the truth of Christian Re­ligion, to the glory of God and your owne Sal­uation.