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 Minor is proued by these testimonies (a) Hier. in prol galea epist ad Pauli et in praefa lib. Reg. et in praefa prolo Salom. S. Hierom (b) Ruf. in his expo vpon the Creede Rufinus (c) Cyril of Hieru in the 4. of his Catachis Cyrill of Hierusalem (d) Athan. in Synop. Salu. Sempit Athanasius (e) Nazianz. in carminib Nazianzen (f) Epipha de mensu et pond Epiphanius (g) Cypr. vpon the Creede Cyprian (h) Damas 49. Damascenus (i) Hugo de Sanct. vict de Sac. in prolog lib. 1. cap. 7. Hugo de Sanct. victor (k) Radul in Leuit. lib. 14. cap. 1. Radulphus (l) Lyr. in pro. in lib. Apoc. Lyra (m) Hugo Car. in pr. Iosua Hugo Cardinalis And (n) 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 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 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 B. C. Sect. 4. IN the fift page he writeth thus The Councell of Laodicea assured by a generall Councell of Trullo did set downe the same Canon of the Scriptures which both the old Church had Can. 59. our Church holdeth and commaundeth Ne aliqui c. That none besides bee read and receiued into authoritie How many things of note are comprised in these fewe lines against Master Vdall First he seemeth greatly to reuerence these two Councels which yet is but a coppy of his countenance to delude the ignorant Reader for I doe not thinke that hee will stand either to the one or other though content he is to presse vs with their authoritie For example the Councell of Laodicea Can. 48. Can. 50. commandeth Crisme to bee receiued after Baptisme and that the fast of lent be obserued neither of which I am sure pleaseth Master Vdall Likewise the Councell of Constantinople holden in Trullo alloweth of images and their veneration when it calleth them imagines venerabiles venerable images which I make no doubt nothing pleaseth his tast Can. 82. Can 6. Can. 58. The same Councell forbiddeth Bishops Priests Deacons and Subdeacons to marry wiues after taking of Orders and commaundeth Bishops not to dwell with their wiues which they married before they entred into the higher Orders of the Clergy which seueritie of theirs must vtterly dislike him as being in his opinion contrary to the word of God 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 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 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 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 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 B. C. Sect. 5. SEcondly this Councell of Constantinople in Trullo is of no authoritie as in which the Pope neither by himselfe nor by his Legates was present Lib. de sex aet atibus In Iustiniano and Pope Sergius who then liued did disanull that erraticall Synode as venerable Bede writeth with what conscience then can Master Vdall call that a generall Councell and vrge the authoritie therof as authenticall when as not onely we but also the Protestants vtterly reiect it albeit in this point we for our parts see no cause to refuse it Thirdly true it is not that the Councell of Laodicea setteth downe the same Canon of the Scriptures which the Church of England alloweth for the Apocalypse or Reuelation of Saint Iohn is omitted Fourthly this Councell forbiddeth the reading of others not there expressed yet the Church of England readeth the histories of Iudith and Tobie in their publike assemblies which Master Vdall I suppose will hardly shew how it agreeth with the decree of that Councel Fiftly he hath corrupted be Councell by adding somewhat of his owne for these words and receiued into authoritie bee not there found Would any euer haue thought that so many things could haue bene noted against him in so small a sentence If Master Vdall hath viewed the originall hardly can he bee excused from malice if hee hath not let him beshrew their fingers vpon whose credite hee committed them to writing 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 blasphemies a Syluest 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 b Dist 40. C. Si Papa That they rather desire the ancient institution of Christian Religion from the Pope then from the holy Scripture c Eckius de Eccles That the Scripture is not authenticall but by the authoritie of the Church d Henric. Magist Sacr Paâ—atii Romae ad legat Bohem sub Felice pap 1447. That the Pope may change the holy Gospell c. e 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 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 B. C. Sect. 3. IN his fourth page thus he writeth Yea Arias Montanus a chiefe Papist in his Hebrew Bible writeth in the forefront and principall leafe of the booke There are addded saith he in this edition the bookes written in Greeke which the Catholike Church following the Canon of the Hebrews reckneth amongst the Apocrypha The true sense of Arias Montanus words is corrupted either by Master Vdall or some other from whom he had them by foysting in diuers of their owne That learned man in the edition of the Hebrew Bible Arituerplae ex officinâ— Christoph Plaut 1584. with the Latin interlineall interpretation in the Title page saith There are adioyned to this edition the bookes written in Greeke which are called Apocrypha Hee saith not they bee Apocrypha but that they are so called by some that is the Iewes who exclude them from their Hebrew Canon which he had there set foorth That other addition viz. which the Catholike Church following the Canon of the Hebrewes reckoneth amongst the Apocrypha vpon which the force of his charge dependeth are not in Arias Montanus where Master Vdall had them himselfe best knoweth 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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