T. B.

I Answere: 1 First, that If I should stand vpon euery false­hood, slaunder, and coozening tricke, which the Iesuite hath published; and handsomely paint him out in his best beseeming colours, time would sooner fayle me, then mat­ter whereof to speake: Howbeit, as I meane, for the most part, to let passe his slaunders, his rayling wordes, his foo­leries, his absurdities, his contradictions, and his imperti­nent trifles; so will I (by Gods holy assistance) confute all the partes and parcels of his foolish and ridiculous Pamphlet; not omitting any thing of any moment in the same. 2 Secondly, that our Iesuite hath passed ouer in deepe silence, my principall and chiefest groundes, argumentes, The Iesuite only snatcheth at such peeces, as he thinketh he may best deale withal. authorities, & reasons; as not able to say any thing against them: which the iuditious and honest Reader, will soone perceiue with all facilitie. 3 Thirdly, that our Fryer doth but snatch at peeces heere & there, with the which he thought he might best deale, at the least, in some colourable shew of wordes. But let vs hearken (I pray you) to that atten­tiuely, which (he saith) he found in my dedicatorie Epistle.

T. B.

I answere: 1 First, that the Jesuites accusation, which here he maketh against mee, is too too grieuous, and more then intollerable vnto godly eares: For, he chargeth mee first, to haue powdred mine assertion with lyes and iugling trickes. Then, to haue done the same thicke and threefold. Thirdly, to haue belyed both Egesippus & Eusebius. Fourth­ly, he impudently affirmeth, that no such thing can pos­sibly be found, as I haue alleadged out of Eusebius. Fiftly, that my position is so false and so farre from the trueth, that the name of Egesippus is not so much as once mentio­ned. Sixtly, that I haue of meere malice, slaundered Ege­sippus and Eusebius; being men of great learning.

2 Secondly, that seeing the Diuell is the Father of Lyers, the Jesuite may very well be thought, Secundo prin­cipaliter. to be his only Sonne. But how shal this be prooued? All that shal read his booke, must needes thinke he sayth the trueth, because he affir­meth it so impudently, (confidently I would say.) This [Page 3] text of Christes holy Ghospell, may well be verified in the Jesuites, & their accursed Iesuited crew: Ioh 12. ver. 41. They loued the pray [...]e of men, more then the glory of God. The truth is neuer ashamed; she will shew her selfe to the confusion of the newly hat­ched sect of Jesuites, & of the late start-vp Romish fayth and religion. These are the expresse wordes of Eusebius, as Ruf­finus a very learned Father (who liued aboue 1200. yeares agoe) hath translated them. Euseb. hist. lib. 3. cap. 32. Post haec idem scriptor addidit etiam hoc, quod vs (que) ad illa tempora virgo munda et immaculata perman­set ecclesia: sequitur; Ʋt vero et apostolorum chorus et omnis illa aetas, quae a domino susceperat viuae vocis auditum, de hac luce dis­cessit; tum velut in vacuam domum, falsae doctrinae impius se error immersit. After these things, the same writer ( Egesippus) added this also, That vnto those dayes, the Church continued a pure & immaculate virgin: but after the death of the Apo­stles and all that age, which had heard our Lord speake in liue voyce vnto them; false and erronious doctrine began to intrude her selfe, as into a voyde house or desart place. Thus writeth Eusebius, in that very Booke and Chapter: where our Jesuite impudently auoucheth, that no such thing can be found; no, not so much, as Egesippus once named: albeit, both the whole matter, and the wordes, be in very deed, as I haue heere truely put them downe; yea, Egesippus is named in the very beginning of the sayd Chapter, as the relator of the Storie; and in these words (the same writer) eftsoones insinuated to the reader. Vpon my sal­uation, the Ie­suite hath most impudently belyed mee. Is it now true (sir Frier Jesuite) that I haue powdred mine assertion with lyes? Is it true (sir lyer) that I vsed Iugling trickes therein? Is it true, that I haue done the same thicke and threefold? Haue I be­lyed both Egesippus and Eusebius? Can no such thing be found in Eusebius? Is not Egesippus once named in that Chapter? Is he not once named expressely, and twise vir­tually? If all this be true, as it is must true in deed; what shall I say, or what can I say, to this shamelesse and impu­dent Fryer? Apagè, apagè, Out vpon rotten Poperie; out vpon lying Jesuites; out vpon the new Romish Religion; which can be defended by no better meanes, then by im­pudencie, [Page 4] falsehood, and flat lying. What shall, or what can the Reader expect at the handes of this shamlesse, impu­dent, The Iesuite is as honest, as he that hath no trueth at all in him. and lying Jesuite, in the rest of his Pamphlet, who in­tertayneth him in the very beginning, with such leasings, such iugling trickes, and such diabolicall accusations? What hath this shamelesse and impudent Jesuite deserued? the Whetstone; nay rather with Chore, Dathan, and Abyram, to goe downe quick into Hell. Nomb. 16. vers. 24.30. This doubtlesse, if nothing els should be said; were enough to proue Poperie, to be the new Religion. I woonder, how the Jesuite durst publish such notorious slaunders? but on the one side, being at a non-plus, and not able in truth to say any thing for the anti­quitie of Poperie; and on the other side, choosing rather to consecrate his soule to the Diuell, Out vpon all lying & tray­terous Iesuits. by lying, slaundering, and deceitfull dealing; then to graunt Poperie to be the new Religion: He thought to face out the matter, by im­puting that to mee, which most iustly and properly per­tayneth to him-selfe. And withall, he very politikely con­sidered (the maister Diuell of Hell suggesting it vnto him) that his best course was, Poperie can not in trueth be defended; it is the new Religion. to doe the same in the beginning. These thinges thus standing, all wise Papistes (I trow) will looke more carefully into the matter; and from hence foorth, not giue credite to such lying Doctors, such false Teachers, & such notorious slaunderers of the innocent. If all Jesuites in England, all Dominicans in Spaine, all Franciscans in France, and all Cardinals in Rome, should conspire to­geather, The Iesuite beginneth, continueth, and endeth, with lying. how to accuse the innocent▪ I know not (it is a­boue my reach and capacitie) how they could surpasse this impudent lying Jesuite, in such kind of treacherie. This one thing I will now say, which will appeare before the end of this Discourse, that as he here beginneth, so he continueth vnto the end. For; if his lyes, slaunders, cauils, coozening trickes, false dealing, & ridiculous sophistications be once taken away; very litle, or rather nothing at all, will re­maine in this his pretenced answere, to the triall of the new Religion. It woundeth the Pope and his Jesuites, to heare Poperie tearmed, the New Religion: they are not able to endure the sound thereof.

T. B.

I answere: 1 First, that S. Epiphanius called Athanasius Pope, in these expresse wordes. Epiphan. haer. 68. p. 213. Eusebius praedictus Nico­media episcopus erat totius ipsorū collectionis administrator, ac concinnator detrimenti in ecclesia, et aduersus papam Athanasiū. Eusebius the forenamed Byshop of Nicomedia, was the ad­ministrator of their whole collection, and the contriuer of the detriment in the Church, and against Pope Athanasius. 2 Secondly, that S. Hierome called S. Augustine Pope, in sun­dry Epistles written to him in these wordes. Apud Aug. epist. [...]1.13.14.17.18.25.30. Domino verê sancto et beatissimo Papae Augustino, Hieronimus in domino salu­tem: Hierom to the truly holy and most blessed Pope Au­gustyne, sendeth salutations in our Lord. 3 Thirdly, that S. Austyn called Aurelius Pope, Aug. ep. 76. who was but his fellow-By­shop; & in many things far inferiour to him. 4 Fourthly, that not onely S. Austyn, but Alipius also, called the same Aurelius Pope. 5 Fiftly, Aug. ep. 77. that S. Hierom callen not onely S. Austyn Pope, but also S. Epiphanius Pope in like manner. 6 Sixtly, that the Priestes Moses and Maximus, with the Deacons Nicostratus and Ruffinus, and sundry confessours did all with one vniforme assent, Apud Cypriā. pag. 11.46.61.66. call S. Cyprian most bles­sed Pope. 7 Seuenthly, that the Clergie of Rome, writing to the Clergie of Carthage, called the same Cyprian Pope. But doubtles, neither would, neither durst the Clergie of Rome, haue called Cyprian the Byshop of Carthage Pope; if [Page 6] the name had then been proper, or any way peculiar to the Byshop of Rome. Valla. de don. Constant. [...]ol. 34. B. Eightly, that Laurentius Valla, a very lear­ned and famous Writer, yea and a Romane borne, is Conso­nant to the Clergie of Rome; in that most excellent and learned Declamation, which hee published against the counterfeit Donation of Constantine: these are the expresse wordes, of that great Learned Roman: Transeo, quod rasuram coronam vocas, et Papam pontificem Romanū, qui nondū pecu­liariter sic appellari erat captus. I let passe, that thou calles his shauing, a Crowne; and the Byshop of Rome, Pope: who began not yet to haue that name peculiarly. Loe, for more then 330. yeares, the Byshop of Rome did not begin to chalenge that name.

T. B.

I answere: 1 first, that as our Jesuite began with notorious lying, so hee continueth heere, and in euery place to the end of his Pamphlet: For, the Councell of Chalcedon sayth not, as our Jesuite with lying lippes auoucheth: no, no, not the Councell; but Bonifacius a Priest of Rome (sent by Leo [Page 7] to the Councell) a sworne vassall to the Pope; and such a one as durst not but say what the Pope had enioyned him, sayth so: These are the expresse wordes. Act. 16. Pag. 10. Bonifacius presby­ter sedis apostolicae vicarius, dixit; beat [...]ssimus et apostolicus vir Papa, inter caetera hoc nobis mandauit: Bonifacius Priest the Popes deputie sayd; the most blessed and apostolicke man the Pope, among other things, gaue vs this commandement. 2 Secondly, that our Jesuite sayth truly (though meaning no­thing lesse) when he telleth vs, that it is sayd out of the Councell: For, most true it it; that it is so out of the Coun­cell, that it neuer came into the same. The Popes Vicar in­deed would gladly haue aduanced the Pope; but the Coun­cell made no reckoning of his proud and arrogant words. 3 Thirdly, that the Iesuite still lyeth, when hee impudently auoucheth (as his wonted manner is) that the Councell called Leo, Pope of the whole Church: For the wordes, The Iesuite is full of notori­ous lyes. Act. 16. pag. 21 [...]. which our Fryer fathereth vpon the Councell, are onely the wordes of Lucentius the Popes deputie; but not the wordes of the Councell. The Fathers of the Councell contemned the arrogant speaches of this Lucentius; as they did the other of Bonifacius afore. 4 Fourthly, that our Jesuite impudently & most shamefully belyeth Liberatus; as who hath no such loftie wordes in the behalfe of Leo, but barely and nakedly calleth him Pope: and who is so farre from tearming him Pope ouer the Church of the whole world, that hee flatly affirmeth the contrarie in sundry other Chapters. In one place, hee hath these wordes; Lectus est tomus papae Leonis ad memoratum flauianum, Liberatus, cap. 13. pag. 621. in Bre [...]iar. contra dogma Eu­tychis directus: The Tombe of Pope Leo was read, which he directed to Flauianus against the opinion of Eutyches. In an other place, thus: Legati sedis apostolicae ab ipso concilio fugientes, retulerunt Papae Leoni iniquitates Dioscori: Cap. 12. pag. 620. The Mes­sengers of the apostolicke Sea fleeing from the Councell, shewed Pope Leo the wickednesse of Dioscorus. In an o­ther place, thus: Cap. 23. pag. 630. Se [...]rus Antiochenus iam fuerat condemnatus, et Anthinus Constantinopolitanus, ab Agapeto Papa Romano, et Menna Constantinopolitano, et libellis datis aduersus [...]os Impe­ratori [Page 4] [...] [Page 5] [...] [Page 6] [...] [Page 7] [...] [Page 8] Iustiniano: Seuerus of Antioch was condemned, and Anthinus of Constantinople, of Agapetus the Pope of Rome, and Menna of Constantinople; and Libels were presented to the Emperour Iustinian, against them. Many like places I could easily alleadge, out of the Breuiarie of Liberatus; but one for many may suffice, which cutteth the Popes head and necke from the shoulders. These are the expresse wordes: Cap. 12. Pag. 20. Sed fortissimus Leo anciens legatorū suorū suggesti­onē, et Theodorit [...] quaerelas suscipiens, litteris suis Theodosiū Impe­ratorem et Pulcheriam Augustam petit; vt fieret intra Itaham generale conciliū, et aboleretur error fidei per violentiam dioscorj factus: But couragious Leo hearing the suggestion of his Messengers, and receiuing the complaintes of Theodoritus, directing his Letters to the Emperour Theodosius and Pul­cheria the Empresse, desireth them, that a generall Councell might be gathered within Italy, and the errour of fayth abolished, which Dioscorus by violence had set abroach. Thus writeth Liberatus, whom our Fryer relyeth vpon, as one of his chiefest Patrons. Out of whole wordes, I ob­serue 1 first, that the Pope is tearmed plaine Leo, without ey­ther welt or gard. 2 Secondly, that the Pope could not gather a Councell in Italy; but onely requested the Emperour to doe it. 3 Thirdly, that the Emperour of the East had still the chiefe soueraigntie of Rome & all Italy, euen 457. yeares af­ter Christ. A.D. 457. And consequently, that the late Byshops of Rome, do most shamefully abuse the world, when they im­pudently auouch, that the Emperour Constantine the great, gaue to Syluester the Byshop of Rome, his golden Crowne, dignitie, title, and interest, both of Rome, Italy, & the whole Western partes. For the Councell of Chalcedon was hol­den in the yeare 457. after Christ: A.D. 327. which was about 130. yeares after the falsely pretended donation of Constantine, and his departure to Constantinople from the citie of Rome. Quinto prin­cipaliter. But hereof more at large, in the next Chapter now follo­wing. 5 Fiftly, that the Iesuite egregiously belyeth both Damasus that good Byshop of Rome, and Theodoretus that graue and learned writer: for, no such thing can be found [Page 9] in Theodorete, in the place quoted by the Jesuite. Theod. hist. lib. 5. cap. 10. These wordes are all that the Jesuite can truly father vpon Theo­dorete; which how farre they are from his notorious lye, let the indifferent Reader iudge. Confessio catholicae fidej quā Papa Damasus misi [...] Paulino episcopo Thessalonicae in Macedonia: The confession of the Catholicke fayth, which Pope Da­masus sent to Paulinus the Byshop of Thessalonica in Mace­donia. Heere is not one word, of any Supremacie of the Byshop of Rome. Nay, the same Theodorete, euen in the Epistle next and immediately aforegoing, confoundeth the Jesuite, and striketh him starke dead: these are the ex­presse wordes. Theod. hist. lib. 5. cap. 9. Dominis reuerendissimis et pijssimis fratribus ac collegis, Damaso, Ambrosio, Brittonj, Valeriano, Acholio, Auemi [...], Basilio, et caeteris sanctis episcopis in magna vrbe Roma coactis, synodus sancta episcoporū orthodoxorū qui conuenere in magna vrbe Constantinopolj, in domino salutem: To the most reuerend Fathers, our most holy breathren and fellowes, Damasus, Ambrosius, Britto, Ʋalerianus, Acholius, Auemius, Basi [...]ius, and to all the rest of the holy Byshops assembled in the great Cittie of Rome, the holy Synode of Catholique Byshoppes assembled in the great Citie of Constantinople, send greeting in our Lord. Thus writeth Theodoretus. A.D. 371. Out of whose nar­ration, I obserue 1 first; that a whole Synode of Catholique Byshops assembled in the famous Cittie of Constantinople, wrote to an other Synode of holy Byshops assembled in the great citie of Rome. 2 Secondly, that the Byshops of Con­stantinople Synode, called the Byshops at Rome assembled, their Fellowes; and did not ascribe any other name or title to Damasus, then the Byshop of Rome. 3 Thirdly, that if any such soueraigntie (as our Jesuite fondly imagineth) had been due to the Byshop of Rome; then doubtles, so many, so learned, and so holy Fathers assembled at Constan­tinople, would haue giuen the Byshop of Rome his due title, and not haue called him barely their Fellow, Sixto princi­paliter. as they did the rest. 6 Sixtly, that the Epistle our Jesuite fathereth vpon the Councell of Chalcedon, Notetur cap. 2▪ in conclus▪ [...]0. valde. is cousen germaine to the coun­terfait Donation of Constantine: of which forgerie, and [Page 8] [...] [Page 9] [...] [Page 8] [...] [Page 9] [...] [Page 10] more then ridiculous foolerie, the Reader (God willing) shall finde sound and large proofes in the next Chapter. The reason is euident; because sixe hundred and thirtie learned and holy Byshops assembled in councell at Chal­cedon, Fuerunt 630. episcopi in Chalcedone, A.D. 457. decreed the Byshop there, to be equall to the Byshop of Rome, in all Ecclesiasticall affayres. I will alleadge the expresse words of that famous Synode: which our Jesuite vseth not to do, least it should discouer his lyes, falsehood, and cunny catching trickes: These are the wordes of the Councell. Act. 16. pag. 212. Gloriosissimi iudices dixerunt; ex his quae gesta sunt, perpendimus omnem quidem primatum et honorem praecipium secundum canones, antiquae Romae deo amantis­simo Archiepiscopo conseruari: oportere autem sanctissimū Archiepiscopū regiae Constantinopolis nouae Romae, eisdem primatibus honoris et ipsum dignū esse, et potestatē habere, ordinare metropolitas in Asiana, et Pontica, et Thracia diacesibus. Sequitur: Reuerendi Episcopi dixerunt; haec iusta sententia, haec omnes dicimus, haec omnibus placent, hoc iustū decretū. quae constituta sunt, valeant. haec iusta sententia; omnia ordinatè decreta sunt. The most glorious Iudges sayd; Wee perceiue by these thinges which are defined, that all Primacie and chiefe Honour according to the Canons, is reserued to the most holy Arch-byshop of old Rome: but the most holy Arch-byshop of the royall citie of new Rome, must haue the same primacie of Honour and power, to ordaine Metropolitans in the Dioceses of Asia, and Pontus, and Thracia. The reuerend Byshoppes answered: This is a iust sentence; this wee all say; this pleaseth all; this is a iust decree. The thinges which are decreed, let them be of force. This is a iust sentence; all thinges are orderly decreed. Thus teacheth vs this most famous Councell of 630. Byshops, very learned and holy Fathers. Out of which Decree, I obserue 1 first, that the Primacie which the most auncient and best Councels gaue to the Byshop of Rome, was not of Power, but of Honour. 2 Secondly, that this holy, learned, and famous Councell, [Page 11] gaue no other name or title to Leo, then Byshop of Rome, but Arch-byshop of old Rome. 3 Thirdly, that the same Fa­thers gaue the same title or name to Anatolius then Byshop of Constantinople, calling him Arch-byshop of new Rome. 4 Fourthly, that this famous Councell, made the Byshop of Constantinople equall with the Byshop of Rome in all things, the primacie of Honour onely excepted: in which pre­heminence of Honour, the sayd 630. Fathers decreed con­stantly, that the Byshoppe of Constantinople or new Rome, should be the next to the Byshop of old Rome. And this doubtles, is that very doctrine which I defend: For I wil­lingly graunt both in this, and in all my other Bookes, The Byshop of Rome the chiefest Patri­arke, but yet vnder the Em­perour, as o­ther Byshops else where. that the Byshoppe of Rome is the principall and chiefest Patri­arke, and ought according to the auncient Canons of the famous and holy Councell of Nice, to haue the chiefest place in all Ecclesiasticall meetinges, councels, and Assem­blies, before all other Byshoppes in the Christian world. This assertion is yet more plainely confirmed, in an other place of this famous Councell of Chalcedon: these are the expresse wordes. Act. 16. pag. 208. Definitiones sanctorū patrum sequentes vbi (que) et regulam, et quae nunc relecta sunt centum quin­quaginta deo amantissimorum episcoporum, qui congrega­ti sunt sub piae memoriae Imperatore maiore Theodosio, in regia ciuitate Constantinopoli noua Roma, cognoscentes et nos, eadem definiuimus de priuilegijs eiusdem sanctissi­mae Constantinopolitanae ecclesiae Romae nouae▪ Concil. 1. Constant. A.D. 383. Celebratum▪ etenim sedi senioris Romae propter imperium ciuitatis illius patres con­sequenter priuilegia reddiderunt, et eadem intentione per­moti centum quinquaginta deo amantissimi episcopi, aequa sanctissimae sedi nouae Romae priuilegia tribuerunt; rati­onabiliter iudicantes imperio et senatu vrbem ornatam aequis senioris regiae Romae priuilegijs frui, et in ecclesiasti­cis sicut illa, maiestatem habere negotijs, et secundam post illam existere: Wee following the definitions of the holy Fathers euery where; and knowing the Canons and the [Page 12] Decrees of the 150. holy Byshoppes, assembled vnder the Emperour Theodosius the elder of holy memorie, in the royall citie Constantinople new Rome; Marke this: The Byshop of Rome was made the chiefe Patri­arcke, because Rome was the head of the Empire. haue defined the very same, touching the Priuiledges of the same most holy Church of Constantinople new Rome: For the Fathers gaue Priuiledges consequently to the seate of old Rome, for the Empire and dominion of that Citie. And the 150. most holy Byshops hauing the same intention, gaue equall Pri­uiledges to the most holy seat of new Rome; iudging ac­cording to reason, that the Citie which was honored with the Empire and the Senate, should enioy equall Priuiled­ges with the old royall Rome, and excell in Ecclesiasticall affaires, as it, and be the second after it. In these wordes of these 630. holy and learned Fathers, it is very cleare and euident, that the Byshop of new Rome, was equall to the Byshoppe of old Rome in all thinges, the primacie of Ho­nour onely excepted. Which illation is soundly confir­med by the decree of the famous Councell of Constantino­ple, in these expresse wordes. Concil. prim. Constantinop. Can. 5. et ha­betur dist. 22. cap. Constan­tinop. ciuitatis. Constantinopolitana ciuitatis Episcopum habere oportet primatus honorē post Romanum Episcopum, propteria quod sit noua Roma: The Byshop of the citie of Constantinople, must haue the honour of Pri­macie, after the Byshop of Rom [...], because it is new Rome. Loe, all that, wherein the Byshop of Rome excelleth the Byshop of Constantinople, Honoris pri­matum. and consequently all other By­shops; is nothing else in deed, but the sole and onely Pri­macie of honour. Which Primacie, wee are so farre from denying it, that wee giue the same to our Arch-byshoppes and Metropolitans in the Church of England. To which I adde (and it is very emphataicall) that the principall and chiefe cause of making the Byshop of Rome the chiefe Pa­triarke, Marke this poynt well. and of giuing him the Primacie of honour, was this, and no other: viz. because the citie of Rome, was the Imperiall seate of the Emperour. So affirme two most fa­mous Councels, of Constantinople and Chalcedon: Concil. pri­mum Con­stantinop. A D. 383. celebratum. And these Councels are consonant to the most famous Councell of all Councels, since the death of the Apostles: to weet, the [Page 13] Councell of Nice in Bithyni [...]; although that sacred Coun­cell did not produce the reason, for the aforenamed Pri­macie of the Byshop of Rome.

T. B.

I answere, that while our Jesuite laboureth to stablish the Popes falsesly pretended soueraigntie, The Iesuite prooueth himselfe a noddy. he prooueth himselfe a very Noddie: for I haue already graunted, that the Byshop of Rome for the excellencie of that Citie, is the chiefest Patriarke; and so may be called the Father of Fa­thers: that is, the chiefest Father or Byshop of all Fathers or Byshops in Christes Church. It is one thing to call the Byshop of Rome, Father of Fathers; an other thing, to call him vniuersall Byshop, or vniuersall Father. The former, our Church of noble England, admitteth, while shee ap­prooueth two Primates; th'one of England, th'other of all England. Euen so doe wee repute our two Arch-byshops, of Canterbury and Yorke, to be the Byshops of Byshops, Euery Arch-byshop is By­shop of By­shops, in a godly sense & meaning. or Fathers of Fathers (which is all one;) for either of them, is Byshop of Byshops, within his prouince; that is, the Chiefest of all the rest. But this is nothing to that super­royall power, of which wee are to intreate in the next Chapter: Marke well the next Chapter. which I wish the reader to marke with such at­tention as apperteyneth thereunto. But the latter, both we, and great learned Popish writers, doe vtterly disclaime. In the Popes owne decrees, I finde these expresse wordes. Dist. 99. cap. primae sedis. Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur princeps sacerdotū, vel sūmus sacerdos, aut aliquid huiusmodj, sed tantū primae sedis Episcopus. [Page 14] Ʋniuersalis autē, nec etiā Romanus pontifex appelletur. Let not the Byshoppe of the chiefe Seate be called the Prince of Priestes, or the Hie Priest, or haue any such like name; but onely, the Byshop of the first Seate. And Vniuersall Byshop, none may be called, no not the Byshop of Rome himselfe. What? doth Gratianus that famous Champion of the Romish Church, tell vs soe? We haue read the Popes Decree, which was taken out of the Affrican Councell: the wordes of Gratianus haue sounded in our eares. Nay, you shall heare a greater wonder. Pope Pelagius doth con­stantly deliuer the selfe same doctrine, and defineth it for the trueth, to be receiued and beleeued: these are his ex­presse wordes. Dist. 99. cap. Nullus. Nullus Patriarcharum vniuersalitatis vo­cabulo vnquam vtatur; quia si summus Patriarcha vni­uersalis dicit, Patriarcarum nomen caeteris derogatur. Sed absit hoc a fidelibus, hoc sibi velle quēpiam arripere, vnde honorem fratrum suorum imminuere, ex quantulaecun (que) parte videatur. Quapropter, charitas vestra neminem vn­quam, etiam suis in epistolis vniuersalem nominet; ne sibi debitum subtrahat, cum alteri honorem infert indebitum. Let no Patriarke euer vse the word of Vniuersalitie; Let these de­crees of the Popes be ne­uer forgotten be­cause if the chiefest Patriarke be called Vniuersall, the name of Patriarkes is derogated from the rest. But be this farre from the faythfull; that any should willingly snatch that to himselfe, which may any way seeme to diminish the honour of this breathren, though in neuer so small a degree: Wherefore, let not your charitie in your Epistles, name any Patriarcke at any time, Vniuersall; least while ye giue to an other, that honour which is not due, yee take from your selues that which is due. To which I adde this Epigramme, set downe as the contentes of the Decree in the beginning thereof. Nec etiam Romanus pontifex vniuer­sa [...]is est appellandus: Neither may the Byshoppe of Rome be called Vniuersall. Pope Gregorie is consonant to Pope Pe­lagius, in these expresse wordes. Gratian Dist 99. cap. ecce. Ecce, in presatione Epi­stolae [Page 15] quam ad meipsum qui prohibui, direxistis; superbae ap­pellationis verbum vniuersalem me Papam dicens, impri­mere curastis. Quod (peto) mihi dulcissima sanctitas vestra vltra non faciat; quia vobis subtrahitur, quod alteri plus quam ratio exigit, praebetur. Sequitur, sin me vniuersalē Papā vestra sanctitas dicit, negat se hoc esse, quod me fate­tur vniuersum: sed absit hoc; recedant verba quae veritatē inflant, et charitatē vulnerant: Behold, in the Preface of your Epistle, which you addressed to mee forbidding it; you laboured to impose vpon me a word of proud appel­latiō, calling me Vniuersall Pope: which I pray your sweet holynesse, not to do to me any more; because that is taken from you, which is giuen to an other, more then reason doth require: For, if your Holynesse call mee Vniuersall Pope, you denie your selfe to be so, seeing you call mee Vniuersall: But God forbid; Floruit Greg. A.D. 591. away with wordes that puffe vp the trueth, and wound charitie. Thus writeth Gratianus, the compiler of the Decrees: thus, The Byshop of Rome is confounded. Pope Pela­gius: thus, Pope Gregorius. Out of those Positions thus constantly deliuered, I obserue sundry very profitable and necessarie documentes. 1 First, that none, no not the By­shop of Rome, may be called, Vniuersall Pope. 2 Secondly, that the giuing of (Vniuersall) to one, taketh away that which is due to all the rest. 3 Thirdly, that Gregorie (who lyued more then 590. yeares after Christ) vtterly refused the name of Vniuersall Byshop or Pope, calling it a proude name; and sharply reprooued Enlagius the Patriarke of Alexandria, for ascribing the same vnto him. 4 Fourthly, that Pope Pelagius the predecessour of Gregorie, detested and abhorred the same proud & arrogant name. So then, I may lawfully conclude, that the name ( Pope) in popish sense and meaning, was not proper and peculiar to any Byshop of Rome, for the space of 591. yeares after Christ. How impudent therfore is our Fryer, when he auoucheth the Councell of Chalcedon, Concil. Chalc. A.D 455. celebratum. to haue called Leo the Vniuersall Pope; Liberatus to haue tearmed him Pope, ouer the Church [Page 16] of the whole world? Pope Damasus and Theodoretus, to haue done the same? All which, are meere lyes, notorious slaunders, and irksome falsifications; inuented by the Fa­ther of lyes, and his deare children the Iesuiticall crew, to defend late vp-start Poperie (if it were possible) from the imputation of the New religion,

T. B.

Three things our Fryer freely graunteth in these words: all which (such is the force of trueth) are altogeather a­gainst him selfe. 1 First, he confesseth the trueth vnawares; that the name ( Pope) was giuen to other Byshoppes in the primitiue Church: and consequently, he must graunt, vo­lens nolens, that to chalenge that name, as the Byshop of Rome this day doth, is a rotten ragge of the New religion. 2 Secondly, he sayth, it peculiarly agreed to the Byshop of Rome, Our Fryer slaundreth the primitiue Church. as declaring his Soueraigne authoritie ouer others. In which his assertion, a notable absurdity is implyed; viz. that the name ( Pope) was aralogon, and consequently was giuen to other Byshops; but improperly, analogically, and by way of similitude; as euery meane Logician can tell, or Iesu [...]te. 3 Thirdly, he graunteth, that the name ( Pope) did in processe of time, Our Fryer confuteth himselfe. cease to be giuen to other Bishops, and so remayned to the Byshop of Rome alone. Which doubtlesse is that very doctrine, which I in the tryall doe defend. To which I must needes adde this one thing, though litle to our Fryers liking: viz. that the name ( Pope) was giuen to other Byshops, in the auncient Church; as I haue prooued in my Tryall, euen hundreds of yeares after the Primitiue Church. To which addition, this (to cheere [Page 17] vp our Fryer) is consectarie: to weet, that the Clergie of Rome, writing to the Clergie of Carthage, called S. Cyprian, See the tryall, and marke it well. the most blessed Pope: Which verily (as is already sayd) they neither would, nor yet durst haue done, if the name in such a peculiar manner, as the Fryer would make vs beleeue, had been due to the Byshop of Rome. For if the sayd name had been peculiar to him, and his supposed so­ueraignetie implied therein; other Byshops could neuer haue enioyed the same, in the puritie of the Church. Nay, other Byshops would neuer haue improperly accepted of that name and title; which none but the Byshop of Rome, could properly ascribe vnto himselfe.

T. B.

This assertion hath two partes: The former, our Fryer hath freely graunted, in his immediately aforegoing words. The latter, he must likewise yeeld vnto against his will; or else be condemned of the whole world: For, besides that the Iesuiticall Cardinall Bellarmine, and the popish By­shop Iosephus Angles, in their Books, of Late yeares dedica­ted to the Byshoppes of Rome, haue giuen them the title of Holinesse euen in the abstract; it is so euident, that his Holinesse, is of Late yeares, the vsuall name of the Byshop of Rome; that if any man either in Rome or in J [...]ahe shall de­ny the same, he may iustly be censured worthy of the Whetstone. That which he sayth of Theodoretus, the Coun­cell of Chalcedon, S. Cyprian, and S. Austin, is very friuolous and nothing to the purpose. For first, I say, of Late yeares; and yet the youngest, of our Fryer named, lyued aboue a thousand yeares agoe. Secondly, there is great disparitie [Page 18] betweene a peculiar, and an vsuall name. A peculiar name perteineth solely and onely vnto one: but that an vsuall name may agree to many at once, it cannot be denyed. Thirdly, as our Fryer hath confessed, that the name ( Pope) was of old time giuen to many; and yet afterward remay­ned to the Byshop of Rome alone: so must he volens nolens confesse; of the name Holynesse.

T. B.

Our Iesuite desiring to discharge the Pope and Poperie, of Newnesse, would prooue it by my graunt: viz. because I confesse the name ( Pope) to haue been appropriated to the Byshops of Rome, a thousand yeares agoe. But our Fryer in thus disputing, doth prooue him selfe a very Daw. For he must learne to know, that the newnesse of a thing may be considered two wayes; absolutely, and respectiuely. And consequently, The newnesse of Religion may be consi­dered two wayes. that though the name ( Pope) be Old, absolutely considered; yet it is New respectiuely, when it is compared with the time of the Apostles. Now so it is, that you Papistes beare the world in hand, that your Poperie is the Old religion, and that selfe-same Doctrine, which S. Peter and S. Paul deliuered to the Church of Rome. This is the Doctrine which I oppugne, euen in the begin­ning of this present Chapter. But our Fryer is so besotted with malice, The word or name (Pope) is a ragge of the new reli­gion. that he cannot discerne the trueth: my reason standeth thus. You Iesuites and Iesuited Papistes, affirme desperatly and damnably, that your Late start-vp Pope­rie, [Page 19] is the Old religion, deliuered by S. Peter and S. Paul to the Church of Rome. But that is so farre from being true, that the very name ( Pope) is New; as wanting aboue 500. yeares of that age or time, whereof you bragge and boast: ergo, The name was old, as cōmon to al Byshops; but not as pro­per to one. seeing the Apostolicke and first Religion is onely the Old religion; and that which commeth after (as Tertullian truly writeth) the false and New religion; it followeth of necessitie, that the name ( Pope) comming 500. yeares af­ter the Old religion, is but a rotten Ragge of the New. Where I wish the Reader to remember, that I speake of the name ( Pope) in that sense, in which the Byshoppes of Rome vsurpe the same That which our Jesuite addeth of Prote­stantes, how absurd it is, shall (God willing) by and by ap­peare.

T. B.

Who seeth not to what shiftes our Iesuiticall Fryer is driuen? He affirmeth desperately, that I may with no lesse reason, call the holy names appropriated to the sonne of God, rotten ragges of a New religion, then the name of the Pope. But out vpon such Rotten diuinitie: out vpon such paltry Fryers. The sacred names (Consubstantiall, and Incarnation) are equiualently, Ioh. 10. v. 28.29.30. Mat. 9.6. Ioh. 1. v▪ 14. according to the substance and true nature of the thinges signified by the same, set downe in many places of the holy Scriptures: Which was made most apparant against the Arrians, by the Fathers of the first famous Councell of Nice: but the name ( Pope) as it is of Late yeares challenged by the Byshops of Rome, and heere auouched by the impudent Fryer, is so farre from being either expressely or virtually conteyned in the holy [Page 20] Scriptures, that all sacred Writ vtterly condemneth the same; as a Rotten ragge of a New religion, inuented at Rome aboue fiue hundred yeares after the death of S. Peter & S. Paul. Againe, the Holy names of Consubstantiall and Incarnation, were not first common to others, and after­ward attributed to the sonne of God: B.C. pag. 12. But the name ( Pope,) as I haue prooued, Let the Fryers confession be well remem­bred. pag. 12. and as the Frier hath plainely confessed, was first (and that more then 500-yeares) common to all Byshops, and in processe of time, appropriated to the By­shops of Rome. Thirdly, the thing truly signified by the holy wordes (Consubstantiall, and Incarnation) neuer could agree to any creature in the world: but the thing truely signified by the word ( Pope,) did in the primatiue and purest age of the Church, doth at this present; and may in time to come; truely agree to all true Byshops in Christs Church. Now, touching the name of Protestant, I answere thus: viz. That about the yeare of our Lord God 1529. the Duke of Saxonie with others, The protesta­tion of the Duke of Sax­onie, and of the rest. protested publiquely and constantly, against the decree of Ferdinando the Emperour, that they could not with safe conscience, obey and yeeld vnto the same. Whereupon the aduersaries did euer since that time, malitiously call all reformed Catholikes and sound Christians, by the name of Protestants. But (as I haue prooued in the Jesuites Antepast) wee are the Legitimate and reformed Catholiques; and the Papistes are Bastardes and deformed Catholiques: and consequently, the thing truly implyed in the name ( Protestant) is as old, Read and marke well the antepast. as the Re­ligion deliuered by S. Peter and S. Paul to the Church of Rome. Which mine Assertion shall by the power of God, be made most euident, before the end of this Discourse. See and note well the end of the 16. Chapter, and the 17. Chapter with it: as also, the 29.30. and 31. Chapters, be­ing the three last of this present Booke.

T. B.

To this before, I answere in particular and plaine tearmes, it shal not be amisse, to lay open to the indifferent Reader, the Popes falsely challenged Superroyall power: Which I hope in God, to performe most plentiously, by these Conclusions following.

T. B.

I answere: 1 first, that is lying, slaundering, and false dealing, were once set apart, our Jesuites irkesome & fond disputation, would soone haue an end. For first, the fa­mous Councell of Chalcedon was conuented & holden by the commandement of Martianus the Emperour, and not of Pope Leo; as is euident and manifest to euery child, in the very beginning of the 7. Action quoted by our Jesuite. Againe, the Fathers of that famous Councell ac­knowledge them-selues to haue come thither, at the Em­perours commaundement; to make peace betweene Maximus byshop of Antioch, and Juuenalis Byshop of Hierusalem. These are the expresse wordes of the Iudges themselues. Chalc. concil. Act. 7. prope initiū. Gloriosissimj Iudices dixerunt; diuiniss et pijss. noster Dominus Jmperator, rogatus a Maximo et Juuenale sanctissimis Episcopis, praecopit nos agnoscere de motis inter eos capitulis: The most glorious Iudges said; The most holy and religious Emperour our Lord, being intreated of the most holy Byshops Maximus and Juuenalis, commaunded vs to examine the cōtrouersies betweene them. Thirdly, Loe, the Em­perour com­maunded the Byshoppes to examine the controuersies, and they cal­led him their Lord. it was the Councell, not Pope Leo, that confirmed Maxi­mus, and concluded a peaceable vnitie betweene him and Iuuenalis. Fourthly, no mention is made at all of Pope Leo, who is not so much as once named in the said action of the holy and famous Councell. Fiftly, Anatolius the most reuerend Arch-byshop of New Rome, confirmed [Page 52] by expresse wordes the aforenamed Vnitie. Thalassius the reuerend Byshoppe of Caesaria did the like, in these expresse wordes. His, quae per consensum ordinata sunt inter amantissim [...]s Episcopos Maximum et Iuuenal [...]m, et nos con­sentimus: To these thinges which are ordered by consent betweene the most beloued Byshops Maximus and Juue­nalis, wee also giue our consent. Diogenes the reuerend Byshop of Cyzice, did the like; in these expresse wordes. Consentio his, quae a Paetrebus factae sunt: I giue my consent to that, which the Fathers haue decreed. Sixtly, all the Fathers of the Councell did the same; these being their expresse wordes. Omnes reuerendissimj Episcopj clamaue­runt; nos ita dicimus, et consentimus his, quae a Patribus dicta sunt: All the most reuerend Byshoppes showted; Wee say so, and wee giue our consentes to those things, which the Fathers haue decreed. By these manifold testimo­nies, it is cleare and euident, that the Fathers, who were assembled in Councell at the Emperours commaund, decreed and confirmed peace betweene Maximus and Iuuenalis; as also, that they sought to the Emperour (not to the Pope) for the decision of their controuersies. Nei­ther is Pope Leo so much as once named, The Iesuite began with lying, and meaneth so to continue to the end. in that action of the holy Councell. What therefore shall wee, or what can wee say, to our lying Iesuite? but that as hee began with lying and deceitfull dealing, so he meaneth to con­tinue his falsehood, his lying, his falsifications, and his conny-catching trickes vnto the end.

Secundo prin­cipaliter.Secondly, that our Jesuite seemeth not to haue read S [...] ­zomenus himselfe, but to haue mistaken the Chapter by some note sent him from his best aduisors: for, to heare that Poperie is prooued the New religion, doth so gall and trouble them, that they can not sleepe quietly in their beddes, for thinking how to withstand the same. Many of their deepest heades, haue conspired against the trueth: and Robert Parsons that brazen-faced. Fryer, was put in trust to gather their instructions, and to pub­lish [Page 53] the same in the English tongue: Leonem ex vnguibus, I know the Lyon by his pawes. The Narration of Sozo­menus is in the eight, not in the seuenth Chapter. No, no, Sozomenus in the 7. Chapter cutteth the Popes throate, and striketh the Jesuite starke dead: these are the expresse wordes. Sozom. lib. 3. hist. cap. 7. Romanae vero Ecclesiae Episcopus, et sacerdotes per occidentem, haec in suā contumeliā vergere duxerunt, (etenim sententiā eorū qui Nicaeae conuenerant, quā inde ab initio per omnia approbabant, nec dum reliquerant, sed ad illius normā sentiebant,) et Athanasiū ad se veni­entem amicè susceperun [...], causam (que)illius ad se traxerunt: But the Byshop of the Church of Rome, and the Priestes throughout the West, iudged the things to tende to their reproch (for they had not yet forsaken their Sentence and Decree who were assembled at Nice, which from the beginning they approoued in all thinges, but follo­wed it in their iudgements as the rule,) and friendly re­ceiued Athanasius when he came to them, and tooke his cause into their handes. Thus writeth Sozomenus; by whose relation it is euident, that not the Pope alone, but all the Byshoppes assembled togeather in a lawfull Sy­node, effected that, which our lying Jesuite would deceit­fully father vpon the Pope. Athanasius of Alexandria, Paulus of Constantinople, and Marcellus of Ancyra, being vniustly molested by the Easterne Arrianizing Bishops, sought to Julius then Byshop of Rome, for his helpe and countenance, as to the chiefest Patriarch, who by reason of his place, was of great authority, and highly esteemed. Pope [...]ulius willing to afforde the sayd Byshops the best helpe he could, called together the Byshops of the West, and with their Decrees in a lawfull Synode, declared the Easterne Byshops to haue offended against the Councell of Nice; All Christians are subiect to the Canons of the Nicene Synode. whose Canons all the faythfull in the Christi­an world were bound to reuerence and obey. And thus the holy Byshoppes vniustly deposed from their seates, [Page 54] were againe restored to their places, by force in deed of the Nicene Canons. For, neither could the Pope alone, nor yet the whole Synode of Westerne Byshops haue restored them; but that their definitions were firmely grounded vpon the holy Nicene Canons. For, as we see by Sozomenus his Narration, the Byshoppe of Rome with the Byshoppes of the West, followed the Nicene Canons as their rule, in all their Decrees, resolutions, and procee­dinges whatsoeuer.

T. B.

Though it be the meere trueth, that the Romish fayth and doctrine this day taught, See and note well the 30. chapter of this Booke. For there, all now liuing Papists, are prooued flat Heretikes. beleeued, and violently with Fire & Faggot obtruded vpon many thousands of people, is the New religion; yet doth that trueth so gall, pierce, and wound the Pope and his Iesuited Popelings, that they can not endure the noyse or sound thereof. For which respect, our Jesuite turning himselfe this way, that way, and euery way but to the trueth; omitteth sixe truethes (by me briefely touched in my Triall, but proo­ued at large in my Suruay,) and beginneth to cauill, and scornefully to bicker with the seuenth; thinking by [Page 55] meanes of confusion and disordered proceeding, to co­uer and hide the nakednesse and newnesse of rotten Po­perie, and to dazell the eyes of his Readers, that they shall not behold and discerne the trueth. But it will in time preuaile, maugre the malice of the Pope, The maine point of the difficultie. of his Iesu­ited vassals, and of the greatest Diuell of Hell. Two thinges the Iesuite heere toucheth, in which the maine poynt and issue (euen prora et puppis of the controuersie of the Popes falsely pretended Soueraigntie) doth con­sist: Th'one, concerneth the Councell of Nice: th'other, the Councell of Chalcedon. For the exact examination of which difficulties, I put downe certaine Aphorismes, hoping (by Gods holy assistaunce) to hit the nayle on the head; and to make the heartes of the Pope and his Popish crew, as heauie as any Lead.

T. B.

I answere; 1 first, that the Popes ( Sozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus) falsified and vrged the Canons of the Ni­cene Councell, for the falsely pretended Primacie of the Church and Byshoppe of Rome. But the holy, learned, and famous Byshoppes of the Aphrican Councell (where­of S. Austin that rare light of the Christian world was one,) did roundly controll that their forgerie and naugh­tie dealing; calling it Fumosum typhum seculi, the smoakie statelinesse of the world. Fumosum typhū seculi. This is already prooued very copiously, in all the precedent Aphorismes; especially in the third and fourth. 2 Secondly, that no maruell it is, if the Popes Messengers (to the vttermost of their power) pleaded ridiculously for their owne gaine: For so did Demetrius the Siluer-smith for the like end, plead for the [Page 80] Temple of the Goddesse Diana. Act. 19. vers. 24 27. Yea, so pleaded Pope Bo­niface the eight, about three hundred yeares agoe, against Philippe the faire, A.D. 1294. then King of France. The Pope chal­lenging Superroyall power, would needes excomunicate Philippe the French King; but there was neuer excomu­nication which cost Pope so deare, as that did him: for his Messengers were committed prisoners, Loe, the whole Clergie with the King con­demned the Pope. his Bulles burnt; and Boniface himselfe being taken by Naueret Chauncellour of France, presently after, dyed for very sorrow: Wherein King Philippe did nothing, but by the Councell and consent of the whole Clergie of France. So Bennet the 13. otherwise called Petrus de Luna, inter­dicted Charles the sixt and his Realme: but the King sit­ting in his Throne of Iustice, in the Parliament or high Court of Paris the 21. of May, A.D. 1408. 1408. gaue sentence open­ly, that the Bull should be rent in peeces, and that Gon­salue and Conseleux the bearers thereof, should be set vpon a Pillorie, and publikely notified and traduced in the Pulpit: Which Decree was accordingly put in executi­on in the moneth of August, with the greatest scorne that could be deuised; the two Messengers hauing this inscription vpon their Miters: Lib. 3. c 17. fol. 182. These men are disloyall to the Church, and to the King. These wordes are put downe by the French Papistes, in their Booke called; The Jesuites Catechisme; translated into English by the Secular Priestes. 3 Thirdly, that Pope Leo is a partie, and so can not be a competent Witnesse in his owne cause: For, as one of your owne Popes truely said; 4. Personae; accusator, reus, testes, index. in euery triall, there must be foure distinct persons; the accuser, the accused, the witnesses, and the Iudge. Fourthly, that the holy, wise, and graue Fathers of that famous Councell (which S. Gregorie reuerenced, as one of the foure Gospelles,) laughed the Popes Messengers to scorne, and concluded with all their seuerall subscriptions against the Pope: yea, they protested publikely and zealously, that no Byshoppe was compelled to any thing, but that they all [Page 81] decreed as they beleeued. These are the expresse wordes of the Holy Synode: Conc. Chal­ced. Act. 16. pag. 211. col. 1. Gloriosissimj Iudices dixerunt. Hj, quj relecto tomo subscripserunt Asianj et Pontj sanctiss. Epispopj, dicant, si voluntate propria, vel imposita sibj aliqua necessitate coactj subscripserunt: Let the most holy Byshops of Asia and Pontus, which haue subscribed to the Articles open­ly read, declare vnto the Councell; whether they sub­scribed of their owne free accord, or by compulsion of Anatolius or any other. The holy and most reuerende Fathers answered seuerally; protesting before God, that they subscribed voluntarily according to their know­ledge, and as they constantly beleeued: no one or other, There was no compulsion vsed, as the Popes para­sites falsely pretended. any way constrayning them therevnto. It would be a thing tedious to the Reader, and laborious to my selfe; o­therwise I would set downe the seuerall subscriptions of the Byshops: For, though they be long, yet do they con­teyne such Christian varietie of wordes, as are able to touch the heart of euery honest Reader. This may suf­fice to confound our Iesuite, and to cleare Anatolius that blessed Patriarch, of the immodest speaches of Pope Leo against him.

T. B.

I answere: first, that this Epistle is like to the other of the Nicene Fathers: that is to say, a bastard and counter­feite. This is soundly prooued in the fift Aphorisme; Aphorisme. 5. in the first, sixt, and seauenth Obiections: Let them be well remembred. Secondly, In relatione Synodi Act. 3. in fine. that the suite which the Fathers of the Councell made to Pope Leo, did argue onely a prerogatiue of Honour, not any soueraigntie of Power. Which I prooue by a triple meane. For first, these are the wordes of the request. Rogamus igitur, et tuis Decretis [Page 82] nostrum honera iudicium: We therefore desire you, to ho­nour our iudgement with your Decrees. Hee was the chiefe Patriarch and Byshop of that Citie, which at that time, raigned and was reputed Caput mundj; and so his consent was of great authoritie, in that behalfe. Second­ly, his Messengers would not agree to that prerogatiue of honour, which the Councell had confirmed to the Byshoppe of Constantinople; and therefore they requested him to consent thereto, because the Emperour Theodosius had so commaunded them. Thirdly, the Fathers say plainely, that the Emperour confirmed the Councell: these are the wordes; Opportunum credidimus esse, honoris e [...]us confirmationem ab vniuersalj Concilio celebrarj: Wee thought it meete and conuenient, that the whole Coun­cell should celebrate his Honours confirmation. To which I adde; that seeing the Fathers of this Chalcedon Councell, did approue and confirme the Canons both of the Nicene and of the Constantinopolitane Synode (in which Synodes this pretended Prerogatiue is condem­ned,) it must follow of necessitie, that the sayd Epistle or relation is a counterfeit.

T. B.

I answeere; first, with the famous popish Byshoppe Melchior Canus, Canus, lib. 5. c. 5 p. 164. that it is not in these affaires, as in hu­mane assemblies: Which the holy Prophet doth plaine­ly insinuate, Esa. cap. 55. v. 8. while in the person of God, he vttereth these wordes. For my cogitations are not your cogitations, neither are your wayes my wayes, sayth the Lord. Second­ly, that there is great disparitie betweene the Pope and the King, concerning the subiect now in hand. For 1 first, [Page 83] the King hath a sacred soueraigntie ouer all the people within his dominions, as ouer his naturall Subiectes and loyall Seruantes. Marke well, the precedent con­clusions, and aphorismes, & this is very cleere. But the Pope hath no soueraigntie ouer transmarine and forraigne Christians; as I haue already prooued. 2 Secondly, the King, though negatiuely he for­bid Lawes to be enacted; yet doth he not make any new Lawes affirmatiuely to tie all his Subiectes, without the consent of his Lordes spirituall, Lordes temporall, and the Commons of his Kingdomes. But the Pope chal­lengeth Power (though most impudently and against sacred Canons) to make Lawes, to tie all Christians in the whole world, no way subiect to him. 3 Thirdly, the King taketh not vpon him solely of himselfe, to abrogate, cas­siere, or disanull any act of Parliament, to which he for­merly gaue his consent. But the Pope taketh roundly (though fondly) vpon him solely of himselfe, to abro­gate, cassiere, & disanull any Decree of Councell, though formerly approoued by himselfe. 4 Fourthly, no text of holy Writ, no Canon of any auncient Councell, no Fa­ther of approoued antiquitie, denyeth to Kinges sacred soueraigntie within their Kingdomes, Territories, and Dominions, ouer any persons whatsoeuer borne within the precincts thereof. But all the foure first most fa­mous generall Councelles (of Nice, Constantinople, Ephe­sus, and Chalcedon; all which S. Gregorie reuerenced as the foure Gospels,) denie the Popes falsely pretended Primacie, in all forraigne and transmarine Kingdomes; and confine his iurisdiction to the Citie of Rome, and to the suburbican territories of the same. All which is soundly and plentifully prooued in the Conclusions and Aphorismes next aforegoing.

T. B.

I answere: first, that seeing the Pope (as is alreadie prooued) taketh vpon him to change the nature of thinges, by applying the substantiall partes of one thing to an other; to make some thing of nothing, the proper action of God in creation; to depose Kinges, to translate Empires, and to bestow the same at his good pleasure; to make it Sacriledge to dispute of his power; to terrifie men so with Fire and Faggot, and with thunderboltes of cursing Excomunications, that though hee carry thou­sandes to Hell, yet may no man say; Why doest thou so? It may seeme no maruell, Bell would gladly haue the Popes fa­uour, if ioy­ned with the fauour of God. if Bell (poore soule) be afrayde to anger his Holinesse. Neuerthelesse, because the trueth is neuer ashamed, but will in time preuayle; Bell, post deosculationem pedum, and to prooue our Jesuite in this, as in many other thinges, a most impudent and notorious lyer; dare boldly tell the Pope, that the Confirmation of Councels belongeth not vnto him: Bell dare prooue the Ie­suite a lyer. Yea, Bell will not barely say it, but he will produce such strong arguments, such waightie authorities, and such inuincible reasons, as will make the Popes eares to tingle, when hee shall read or heare the same. Marke well this my Discourse, vnto the end: I purpose in God, to proceed by way of Sections, for the better illustration of the businesse now in hand.

T. B.

I answere; first, that our Jesuite heere, vnawares con­demneth rather their famous Pope Gregorie of meere foo­lerie, then Anatolius to whom he imputeth it: For, if Gre­gories report be true, the Councell of Chalcedon offered him the name of Vniuersall Byshoppe? and yet did the same Gregorie obiect the desire thereof against the Patri­arch of Constantinople, as a proud name derogating from the right of all other Byshoppes: Yea, your owne sweete selfe (sir Iesuite) doe in this very Chapter, ascribe no lesse vnto your Pope, and withall admit other Byshoppes be­side his Holynesse. Secondly, that Anatolius might truly haue had equall authoritie with the Byshoppe of Rome in all Ecclesiasticall causes, and for all that, not haue desi­red iurisdiction in Jtaly and Rome it selfe. For our Iesuite must know, that these three are intrinsecally distingui­shed one from an other: viz. Identitie, Equalitie, and Similitude. There is often Similitude, where Equa­litie wanteth: and many times equalitie, where no Iden­titie can be found. Thirdly, that the Councell of Chalcedon approoueth, whatsoeuer the Nicene Synode hath de­creed: and consequently, it taketh not away from any Byshoppe his proper dignitie. Lastly, Peruse the Aphorismes, & marke them well. that this which our Fryer heere obiecteth, and whatsoeuer else where to the like effect, is soundly confuted in the Aphorismes aforegoing; especially, in the third and fift of the same. And for further proofe, marke well my next Answere folowing.

T. B.

I answere; 1 first, that neither Pope Nicholas, nor any other Pope, is a sufficient witnesse in his owne cause: as is already prooued. 2 Secondly, that if God had giuen such authoritie to the Church of Rome; sixe hundred and thir­tie holy and learned Byshoppes in one Synode; 217. in an other; Let the Apho­rismes be well marked. 200. in an other; 150. in an other; 318. in an other; (all which is already prooued in the Aphorismes aforegoing) would neuer haue limitted, or once offered to alter the same. These expresse words of the Fathers of the Chalcedon Councell, may for the present, be sufficient. Conc. Chalc. act. 16, pag. 208. Tom. 2. Etenim sedi senioris Romae propter Imperium Ciuitatis illius, Patres consequenter priuilegia reddiderunt: For the Fathers consequently gaue Priuiledges to the Sea of old Rome, for the Empire of that Citie. Loe, Men (not God) gaue Priuiledges to the Sea of Old Rome. And they yeeld this reason for the same: because (forsooth) the Citie of Rome was the Seate of the Empire, Note well the tenth Conclu­sion. and reputed Caput Mundi, the Head of the World. 3 Thirdly, that when Pope Nicholas sayth, that they tooke example of the forme of the Church of Rome, for that which they would giue to the Church of Alexandria; he graunteth in very deed that as the Bishope of Alexandria had but the preheminence of all there about; no more had the Byshope of Rome. And so it followeth, that the Councell thereby did decree; that the Byshop of Rome should keepe himselfe within those limittes. Cardinall Cusanus and Ruffinus, doe so vnderstand the Canon of the Nicene Councell. Conc. Nicen. Can. 6. Yea, other Canons of [Page 103] the same Councell, doe plainely insinuate the same sense; Can. 4.5.7. as at large it is alreadie prooued. 4 Fourthly, that if the By­shoppe of Rome had vniuersall soueraigntie from God, as Pope Nicholas vntruely auouched; then could no Byshop of Rome, nor yet the holy Councell of Nice; haue giuen or permitted such custome, to the Byshoppe of Alexandria. The reason is euident; because whatsoeuer is De Jure Di­uino, no Mortall Man can dispense with the same. This is so cleere and certaine; as no learned Papist, either doth or can denie the same. 5 Fiftly, that no Custome may be admitted, against the knowne Trueth. The Popes owne Decrees out of S. Austen, doe so teach vs: these are the very wordes: Dist. 8. cap. qui­contempta. Qui contempta veritate, praesumit consue­tudinem sequi, aut circa fratres inuidus est et malignus, quibus veritas revelatur; aut circa Deum ingratus est, inspiratione cuius, Ecclesia eius instruitur: nam Dominus in Euangelio, ego sum inquit, Veritas; non dixit, ego sum Consuetudo: ita (que) Veritate manifestata, cedat Con­suetudo Veritati: Hee that contemneth Veritie, Ioh. 14. [...]. and pre­sumeth to follow Custome, is either enuious and iniuri­ous toward his Brethren, to whom the trueth is reuealed; or else vngratefull to God-ward, with whose inspiration his Church is instructed: for our Lord saith in his Ghos­pell, I am the Trueth; he said not, I am Custome: therefore when Trueth is manifest, let Custome giue place to the same. Againe, in an other place thus. Dist. 8. cap. frustra. Hoc planè verum est, quia ratio et veritas consuetudini praeponenda sunt: This is true in deed, that Reason and Trueth must be preferred before Custome. The same Decrees out of S. Cyprian teach vs the same: these are the wordes. Dist. 8. cap. si tolus. Non debemus attendere, quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putauerit; sed quid prius qui ante omnes est Christus, prior fecerit: ne (que). N. hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem: Wee must not regard, what any before vs thought should be done; but what Christ first did, who is more to be respected, then [Page 104] all others. Againe, in an other place thus. Dist. 8. cap. con­suetudo. Nam Consue­tudo sine Veritate, vetustas erroris est: propter quod, relicto errore, sequamur Ʋeritatem: Custome without Trueth, is the an­tiquitie ef Errour: wherefore let vs leaue Errour, and fol­low the Trueth. Pope Gregorie is consonant, and plaine­ly auoucheth the same Trueth: Dist 8. cap. si. cōsuetudinem. Ʋsus qui Veritati est contra­rius, est abolendus: Vse contrary to Trueth, must be abo­lished. 6 Sixtly, that where there is Law, Custome can haue no place. For Custome I finde thus defined in the Popes owne Decrees. Dist. 1. cap. con­suetudo. Nota Glossam. Consuetudo est ius quoddam moribus institutū: Custome is a certaine Law, instituted by the frequent actions of men. It followeth in the same Decrees: Quod pro L [...]ge suscipitur, cum deficit Lex: Which is receiued as Law, when Law can not be had. And in the Glosse, I finde this exposition. Hic videtur, quod tunc demum re­currendum est ad Consuetudinem, cum Lex deficit: et sic est argumentum, quod nunquam secundum Consuetudinem est iudi­candum, si ius contrarium praecipiat: Heere it seemeth, that then we must haue recourse vnto Custome, when Law is wanting: and so we haue an argument, that we must neuer iudge according to Custome, if Law commaunde the contrary. Nota valde Glossam. Sequitur in Glossa. resp, quod non secundum consuetudin [...]m, sed secundum iura est iudicandum. I an­swere, that Iudgement must not be giuen according to Custome, but according to Law. And consequently I conclude against Pope Nicholas, and against all J [...]suites, and Iesuited Papistes; that seeing the sacred Councels of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Aphrican, yeelded no prerogatiue to the Byshoppes of Rome, saue onely in respect of Custome: and seeing withall, that Pope Sozimus, Celestinus, and Bonifacius, did challenge their falsely pretended Primacie and Prerogatiues onely by the Canons of the Nicene Councell, (as I haue alrea­die soundly prooued,) and for that end, Pope Sozimus falsified the same Canons, and the other Popes vrged the same, for the furtheraunce of their falsely pretended [Page 105] Title, Primacie, and Prerogatiues, but were therefore in the ende, roundly controlled, and vtterly reiected of the Fathers of the Aphrican Councell; the Popes or By­shoppes of Rome must hold them selues contented and satisfied, with that iurisdiction which the holy Synodes haue allotted them.

T. B.

The Iesuite should haue named the Pope, that first gaue such gouernment to the Byshoppe of Alexandria, and in what yeare it first beganne. Which doubtlesse hee would haue done, if possibly hee had been able to performe the same. The trueth therefore is, as I haue prooued euidently▪ and Pope Nicholas is like to Sozimus, and others of that vngodly [...] ▪ They [...] neither tell where, when, or by what Pope, such gouernement was first committed to the Byshoppe of Alexandria: and yet doe they neuer cease, to demaunde the like of vs: but (I hope) this Catholike Triumph, will stop all their mouthes. Conc. Nicen. can. 4.7.Yea, two other Canons of the Nicene Councell, are flatte contrary to Pope Nicholas his expositiō: for, the seuenth Canon giueth honour to the Byshop of Hierusalem; yet not by reason of any Commission from the Byshop of Rome, but for an old Custome & Tradition. The same se­uenth Canon in like maner, ascribeth a proper dignity to euery Metropolitane. And the fourth Canon auoucheth constantly, that nothing done in any Prouince is of any [Page 106] force or strength, vnlesse the same be confirmed by the Metropolitane. As for the Popes Vniuersall soueraign­tie, no Canon yet extant in rerum natura, (neither of the Councell of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, or Aphrican,) maketh any mention thereof.

T. B.

I answere: 1 first, that the Superroyall counterfeite Power which I deride in your Pope; is, the deposing of Kinges, the translating of Empires, the making of some thing, of nothing; the applying of the substantiall partes of one thing to an other, the aduauncing of himselfe a­boue euery thing that hath beeing, and such like: where­of I haue spoken and intreated very plentifully, in the Conclusions of this present Chapter. Secondly, that al­beit in the preaching of the Word and administration [Page 107] 2 of the Sacramentes, the chosen Minister hath onely the charge and authoritie to execute them; yet hath Gods annoynted Prince, the supreame charge and soueraigne authoritie, to commaunde the execution thereof; as also to correct and to punish the Minister, for the neglect of his duetie in that behalfe: For though the execution per­teyne to the Ministers, yet the prouision, direction, ap­poyntment, care, & ouersight, (which is the Supreme go­uernement indeed) perteyneth onely, solely, & wholly to the Prince. For which cause King Ezechias highly re­nowned in holy Writ, though he were but very, 2. Par. 29. v. 5.11.15. young in yeares, did for all that, in regard of his prerogatiue Royall & Supreame authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall, call the Priestes & Leuites, his Sonnes; charging them to heare him, and to follow his Commaundement; for so are the wordes of the Text. Yea, Josias that famous King, did sundry times commaund the Hie Priest. But of this sub­iect, I haue intreated so copiously in other Bookes, 4. Reg. 23. v. 1.2.3.4. as it is heere a thing needlesse, to stand longer vpon the same. 3 Thirdly, that I graunt freely & willingly, that Ministers in the action of their Ecclesiasticall function & Church-ministerie, are aboue all Christians, aboue Queenes, Kinges, and Monarches, representing the person of God, teaching, admonishing, & rebuking them, as others; fol­lowing the godly example therein of S. Iohn the Baptist. Yea, I further graunt, that if the vices of Princes, Kinges, and Monarches, be notorious & scandalous to the whole Church, then the Byshops may denounce such Poten­tates, to be enemies to the trueth, aduersaries to God, and no true members of the Church; but to be holden for for­lorne people, and as Ethnickes & Publicanes, How wicked Kings, ought to be dealt withall. vntill they giue true signes of vnfeyned repentance. But withall, this must euer be remembred and most loyalty obserued, of all Byshoppes in Christes Church; viz. That the Prince (though full of manifest vices, & most notorious crimes in the world) may neuer be shunned, neither of the [Page 108] people, nor yet of the Byshoppes. The reason is at hand; Because God hath appoynted him to be their Gouer­nour. Much lesse may the people forsake their obedi­ence, to his sacred prerogatiue Royall and supereminent Power: And least of all (for it is most execrable, damna­ble, and plaine diabolicall) may either the people alone, or the Byshoppes alone, or both ioyntly togeather, de­pose their vndoubted Soueraigne; though a Tyrant, Heretique, or Apostatate: for euen in that case, all loyall obedience and faythfull seruice in all ciuill affayres, and whatsoeuer else is lawfull, must of duetie be yeeled vn­to them. Hee may be admonished by Gods true Mini­sters in the pulpit & court of Conscience, if his vices be publike & scandalous to the Church: but he may neuer be iudged in the court of their Consistorie, touching his power Royall and Princely prerogatiue. Their power is onely to admonish and rebuke him, and to pray to God to amende what is amisse. Hee hath no Iudge that can punish him, but the great Iudge of all; euen the God of Heauen. The popish Cardinall Hugo deliuereth this most Christian doctrine, though to the vtter confusion of the Pope. Hugo Card. in Psa. 50. Tibi soli, quia non est super me alius quam tu, qui possit punire: ego. N. sum Rex, et non est aliquis preter te super me: To thee onely (sayth Cardinall Hugo,) because there is not any aboue mee, but thy selfe alone, that hath power to punish mee: for, I am a King; and so besides thee, there is none aboue mee. And the popish Glosse doth giue this sense & meaning, of the Prophets words. Gloss. Ord. in Psa. 50. Rex omnibus superior, tantum a Deo puniendus est: The King is aboue all, and he can be punished of none, but of God alone. But for a larger Discourse of this Subiect, I referre the Reader to the Downefall of Poperie. 3 Thirdly, that no Minister may admit any impenitent Person knowne to be such. (no, not him that weareth the Golden Crowne) vnto the Holy mysteries: for otherwise, that Minister should sinne damnably, as partaker of his sinne: yea, the [Page 109] holy Canons of our English Church, doe flatly prohibit the same. 4 Fourthly, that our Iesuite doth shew himselfe to be a sillie disputer, while he argueth the defect of power Royall, for that the King in some respect, is as it were subiect to the Minister. For I pray your worship (good sir Fryer,) doth not your Pope himselfe fall downe pro­strate, before the feete of a silly Minister or Priest, The Pope is subiect to a silly Priest. when he confesseth his sinnes vnto him? Doth he not humbly submitte himselfe vnto the same sillie Priest? Is not the sillie Priestes power aboue the Popes, while he absolueth the Pope from his sinnes? Is not the sillie Priestes Power aboue the Popes, while he inioyneth Penance to the Pope? I wote he is, though not [...] and absolutely, yet [...] and in some respect or sort: If any Papist shall this deny; I can prooue by his Popish denyall, all their Popes to perish euerlastingly.

T. B.

I answere: 1 first, that though Cornelius, then Byshoppe of Rome, togeather with the whole nationall Synode of all the Byshops of Jtaly, had made a flatte decree touch­ing Rebaptization: and though also Pope Stephanus had confirmed the same Decree, straightly commaunding to obserue the same: and though thirdly, our Papistes of late dayes doe obstinately affirme, that their Pope can [Page 110] not erre when he defineth iudicially; yet this notwith­standing, S. Cyprian teacheth and telleth vs plainely, that in his dayes, Euseb. Libr▪ 7. Hist. cap. 2.3 4. the Byshoppe of Rome had no such Power or preheminent prerogatiues, as hee this day proudly and Antichristianly taketh vpon him: For hee roundly withstood the Decree of Pope Stephanus, who then was Byshoppe of Rome; and both sharply reprooued him, and contemned his falsely pretended Primacie. And for all that, S. Cyprian was euer reputed an Holy Byshoppe in his life time, and a glorious Martir, being dead. But if the Byshoppe of Rome had been Christes Vicar, and so priuiledged as our Papistes beare the world in hand hee is; then doubtlesse, S. Cyprian must needes haue been an Heretike, and so reputed and esteemed in the Church of God. Yea, if any Christian shall this day doe or affirme, as S. Cyprian did; or publikely deny the Popes falsely pretended Primacie, in any place, countrey, territories, or dominions, where Poperie beareth the sway, then without all peraduenture, hee must be burnt at a Stake with Fire and Faggot for his paines. Of which Subiect, the Reader may find a larger Discourse, in my Christian Dialogue. 2 Secondly, that while S. Austen sayth, that S. Cyprian would haue yeelded to the Decree of a generall Councell, albeit he made no reckoning of the Popes De­cree, euen ioyned with the nationall Synode of all the Bi­shoppes of Jtaly; hee giueth vs to vnderstande two me­morable poyntes of Doctrine, which I wish the Reader to obserue attentiuely. This killeth the Pope. Th'one, that the Definitiue sen­tence of the Byshoppe of Rome is not infallible, although he define ioyntly with an whole nationall Synode: And consequently, that his Definitiue sentence may much more be false and erroneous, when he decreeth and defi­neth without a Councell. For, if S. Augustine had been of that minde, that the Byshoppe of Rome could not haue erred in his Iudiciall and Definitiue sentence, either a­part, or with a nationall Councell; hee neither would [Page 111] nor could haue excused S. Cyprian, who scorned and con­stantly refused to yeeld to the same. Yea, S. Cyprian him­selfe would for his great pietie, haue humbly yeelded to the Popes sentence; if he had knowne him to haue re­ceiued such a Priuiledge and Prerogatiue from Heauen: But neither did the Byshoppe of Rome in those dayes, stand vpon any such Prerogatiue of not erring; neither did any learned Father of that age, euer dreame of any such extraordinarie Priuiledge. No, no, For this point▪ reade and note well my Chri­stian dialogue. the most that the Byshoppes of Rome could say and alleadge for their falsely pretended Soueraigntie, when S. Augustine and the other Fathers of the Aphrican Councell, reiected and condemned appeales to Rome; was onely this, and no o­ther thing: viz. that the Fathers of the Nicene Councell, had graunted such Priuiledge & Primacie to the Church of Rome. And therefore did S. Austen both grauely and prudently excuse S. Cyprian, for that he would haue yeel­ded to a lawfull generall Councell: As if he had sayd, S. Cyprian was no more bound to follow the Opinion and Decree of the Byshoppe of Rome, then the Byshoppe of Rome to follow his. 3 Thirdly, that our Iesuite saith truly, though vnawares against himselfe; that it was free for S. Cyprian without the danger of Heresie, to persist in his owne opinion: For, it was not in the power of the By­shoppe of Rome, to make that Heresie, which was not Heresie afore.

T. B.

I answere; First, that many distressed persons in their distressed and desperate causes, haue many times indeede sought to Rome for helpe and succour. But, wee must not so much regard and consider, what hath beene done, es­pecially by naughty and disobedient persons; as what ought of right to be done, and according to the Law of God. Persons driuen to the brincke of desperation, by reason of their bad and wicked dealing; will soone at­tempt any thing, which may any way seeme to better their dolefull and miserable estate. Euen so men desirous of Honour, will easily hearken vnto that, which seemeth any way to further their intended purpose. But that such Appeales were neuer approued, by the holy Fa­thers and auncient Councels; I haue copiously prooued in the Aphorismes of this Chapter; and S. Ciprians oppo­sition against the Byshoppe of Rome, Marke well the Aphorismes. doth euidently confirme the same. What Pope Leo sayth, is of no force.

T. B.

I answere: 1 first, that I will not deny, but some thinges might be decreed in the Nicene Councell, which are not [Page 113] this day to be found in the Canons now extant. But withall I constantly auouch, that there is a great dispa­ritie betweene Canons and Decrees; as the late popysh Synode of Trent playnely telleth vs. And consequently, that there were but twentie Canons, howsoeuer some other things besides were decreed at that time. To which I adde, that all Decrees are not alwayes thought neces­sarie to be put in print. Whereof we haue an euident ex­ample, in our English Parliament-statutes: for it is often thought conuenient, not to put them all in print. 2 Second­ly, that Epiphanius distinguisheth Canons from Decrees: these are his expresse wordes. Haeres. 69. pag. 217. In eadem Synodo Canones quosaā posuerunt Ecclesiasticos, simul (que) de paschate decreuerunt vnam vnitatem ac consensum: In the same Synode they put downe certaine Canons Ecclesiasticall, and withall they decreed one vnitie and consent, touching the Keeping of Easter. Loe, this auncient and holy Father maketh a cleere difference, betweene the Canons of the Nicene Sy­node, and the Decrees thereof. 3 Thirdly, that though wee should graunt some of the Nicene Canons to haue peri­shed, which we constantly deny; yet would it not fol­low thereupon, that such Canons conteyned the Popes falsely pretended Primacie: especially, seeing both the holy Fathers and most renowned Councels, doe stoutly impugne the same. This is prooued at large, throughout the Aphorismes aforegoing. 4 Fourthly, that 217. holy Fathers assembled in the Aphrican Councell, told the Pope roundly; that they had vsed all exquisite diligence to find out the true Copies, True Copies were sent from Alexandria, & Constantino­ple. and to that end had sent Mes­sengers into sundry partes of the East; howbeit, such Ca­nons as the Pope pretended for his falsely challenged Soueraigntie, none could any where be found. And therefore they aduised him to surcease, and to giue ouer his claime; for they could no longer endure such Fumo­sum typhum seculi: such smoakie statelinesse of the world. I vse the very wordes of the holy Synode, as I haue al­ready [Page 114] prooued. 5 Fiftly, that Pope Julius swore solemnely, that he had locked them vp in a Coffer of his Church. These are his expresse words: Conc. Aphric. Epist ad Celest. cap. 105. in fine. Si quis autē de his ampliora at (que) abundantiora sc [...]re voluerit, in sacro nostrae Ecclesiae sedis [...], et ea quae prae [...]ximus, inuenire poterit: Rescript. Iulij ad orient. pag. 393. cap. 29. to. 1. conc. If any shall de­sire a larger Discourse hereof, he may find these Canons, & much more like stuffe, in the Holy Arke or Coffer of the seate of our Church. Thus writeth Pope Julius: nay rather, thus sweareth that holy Pope. For these wordes follow immediatly: Ʋerum me dixisse, testis est Diuinitas: A straunge and vnvsuall maner of swearing. The Diuinitie is a witnesse, that I haue spoken the truth. Heere I wish the gentle and honest Reader, to ponder duely these poyntes with mee. First, that this Epistle of Julius is a counterfeite, as I haue already prooued: for, if the Pope had so layde them vp, as heere hee sweareth so­lemnely; Sozimus and the other Popes, who made such adoe with the Byshoppes of Africke about those Ca­nons, would roundly haue shewed the same: Yea, doubt­lesse, if they had once had them in their Coffer vnder a Locke, they would rather haue lost all the rest, then them. Poperie a­boundeth with trickes of legierdemain.Secondly, that the world hath been too long abused with this kind of coozenage & trickes of legierdemaine. Thirdly, that if the Byshoppes of Rome can not keepe those Canons, which make so much for the aduaunce­ment of their stately Soueraigntie, how can we safely credite them, in keeping pure and free from errours, such Bookes, Councels, and Canons, as make greatly for vs, and wholly against them selues? Wee can not doe it. Fourthly, that if counterfeite Bookes, Histories, and Ca­nons, were wholly, layde away; Poperie (beleeue mee,) would soone fall of it selfe: For, in this supposed rescript of Pope Iulius, directed to the Byshoppes of the East; there is such aboundance of matter for the Popes Super­lordly Soueraigntie, as would certainly serue his turne, if it could so be admitted. But Gods holy name be bles­sed, the forgerie is so palpable, as euery one may with [Page 115] all facilitie discouer the same. Conc. Aphric. Epis. ad Boni­facium, cap. 101. Fiftly, that S. Augustine, Alipius, Possidius, Marinus, and all the other Byshoppes, 217. in number, assembled in the famous Aphricane Sy­node, doe plainely auouch, and constantly affirme; that the true Copies of the Canons of the Nicene Councell, were at Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople; and that they were content for charitie-sake, to obserue such pro­ceedinges touching Appeales, as the Popes Messengers did alleadge out of their commonitorie from Rome, vntill true triall should be made thereof, out of the true Copies from the East, which were to come from Cyrillus Byshop of Alexandria, & Atticus Byshop of Constantinople: which tryall being duely made, by the true Copies; the Popes forgerie was manifest, and the holy Fathers protested constantly, that they could no longer endure such arro­gant and smoakie statelinesse. Fumosum ty­phum seculi.

T. B.

I answere: 1 first, that if a Penall Law were made to hang vpon the Gallowes, all falsaries and lying wret­ches; then ought this impudent & shamelesse Iesuite to be hanged many times, where once would serue the turne: For, if we shall search frō the East to the West, & from the North to the South; yet shall we neuer be able to find out a more shamelesse lyar, or a more notorious falsary, then is this Iesuite. 2 Secondly, that if Popery were not the New Religion in verie deed; such forgerie, such lying, and such deceitfull dealing, would not be vsed in defence [Page 116] thereof. Out vpon lying Jesuites; fie vpon rotten Popery; away with all such beggerly trumperie. 3 Thirdly, that the Doctrine by me deliuered, both in the next Chapter, and in my Suruay, is so farre from being as the lying Jesuite impudently auoucheth, (who seemeth to be composed intrinsecally of lying) that it is flatte against the same, and able to torment the Jesuites conscience (if he haue any left) while breath is in his body. God for his mercy-sake, either soundly conuert such lying wretches, or else confound them euerlastingly. The Iesuite durst not deale with mee, as I do with him, and others: that is, set downe my expresse wordes: and that done, make application of the same. Hee began with lying, euen in the highest degree: hee continueth still in lying; and hee hath no other meanes in the world, Marke well for Christs sake. but either to end with lying, or else to confesse Poperie to be the new Religion. This is such an vndoubted trueth, as I am not afrayde to die in the same. My words in the next Chapter concerning this poynt, are in one place these: viz. For this respect did holy Paphuntius stand vp in the Councell of Nice, (at such time as the Fathers then & there assembled, thought to haue seuered married Priestes and Byshops from their Wiues,) and told them according to Gods word, that to forbid marriage to Priestes, was too seuere a Law. In an other place of the selfe same Chapter, my wordes to the same effect are these. Thirdly, seeing Priestes marriage was holden for lawfull in the famous Councell of Nice; and that the holy Byshoppe Paphuntius did pronounce openly in the same, that the coniugall actes of married Priestes was true chastitie: whose sentence was appro­ued of the whole Councell; Suruey, Part. 3. cap. 3. Pag. 232. and therevpon the matter was left as indifferent for euery Priest either to marry, or not to marry, at his owne free choyce. In my Suruay likewise, two places doe manifestly conuince our impu­dent lying Jesuite: In the former place, these are my ex­presse wordes. Thirdly, that although Socrates & Sozo­menus [Page 117] ascribe it to the old traditiō of the Church, for vn­married Priestes so to continue; yet doth not Casio [...]orus make any mention thereof, in his Tripartite Collection. And howsoeuer Paphuntius alleadged Tradition, to miti­gate the seuere Lawes intended by the Councell; yet is it very certaine, that such Tradition was neither generall nor diuine. In the latter place, these are my very wordes. Vbi Super, Pag. 235. I say fourthly, that the Tradition which Socrates and So­zomenus speake of, was by example, & not by doctrine; as both Gratianus & the Glosse expounde them. These are my very wordes, in foure seuerall places; which doe so condemne the Iesuite in his owne conscience, that hee durst not for his Lugges, once name them, or truely set them downe: For, I was so farre from saying, That the Nicene Fathers made any Canon in this behalfe; that my wordes now truely recounted, do plainely conuince the flat contrary. But marke well the third place in my said Suruay, where I haue these expresse wordes: Vbi super, Pag. 233. The Law which the Fathers thē thought to haue made, was a new Law neuer heard of before. I prooue it: Because Socrates hath these words: Socr. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 8. Visum erat Episcopis legem nouā in Ecclesiā intraducere: The Byshoppes thought indeede, to haue brought a new Law into the Church: But the Councell was perswaded, with Paphuntius his oration, and referred the whole matter to euery Priestes free election, making no Law in that behalfe: Hist. Tripart. Libr. 2. cap. 14. For Cassiodorus hath these ex­presse wordes. Synodus (que) laudauit sententiam eius, et nihil ex hac parte sanciuit, sed hoc in vniuscuiusꝙ voluntate, non in ne­cessitate dimisit: And the Synode commended his opini­on, and so decreed nothing in the matter; but left it in euery mans election, to doe what hee thought good, without compulsion. I therefore conclude, Loe, the Coun­cell made no Law or Canon in this matter. that albeit the Byshops in the Councell of Nice assembled, would indeed haue made a new and strange Law against the marriage of Priestes; yet did the spirit of God speaking in Paphuntius, vtterly disswade them from that vngodly [Page 118] purpose. These are my wordes truely recounted, both out of my next Chapter, and out of my Suruay: which being so, what reward ought our Jesuite to haue? Euen an Halter about his necke, and to be hanged vp on the Gibbet, Our Fryer be­lyeth Bell. for his horrible falsehood, and most notorious lying. Bell (sayth our Iesuite) obiecteth out of Socrates, that a Canon was made in the Nicene Councell, by the suggestion of Paphuntius. Bell (saith the true Bell indeed) truly affirmeth out of Socrates, that the Fathers thought to haue made a new Law; Marke well the wordes in my Suruey. but through the perswasion of holy Paphuntius, made none indeed. True Bell saith; that the spirit of God speaking in Paphuntius, did vtterly diswade the Fathers from that vngodly purpose. Bell saith; the Fathers intended to haue made a Law, but made none indeed. Hold fast this trueth. The Jesuite saith; Bell affirmeth, the Fathers to haue made a Law. Remember this, shamelesse lyer. To be short; Bell had rather want, A Mil-horse is one thing, a Hors-mill an other thing. both his Armes, both his Legges, and both his Eyes; then to vse such lying, false-dealing, and coo­zening trickes, as our Iesuite hath in common vse and custome. For, it is one thing, to intend the making of the Law; an other thing, to make the Law indeed.

T. B.

I answere: 1 first, that if Pope Sozimus had vnderstood and meant the Canons of Sardica, when he named the Canons of Nice, about which there was so much adoe; as we haue already seene: then doubtlesse, it had been his part to haue named them; though for no other end, but onely for vnitie, peace, and charitie-sake. 2 Secondly, that I willingly agree to our Jesuite, Marke that Appeales to Rome are no matters of faith. when he auoucheth no new thing touching Fayth, to haue been enacted in the supposed Synode of Sardica. And my reason is this; for that Appeales to the Church of Rome, are no matters of Fayth indeed. 3 thirdly, that it is a matter of Fayth with the Papistes, to beleeue that the Fathers of Nice could not erre, either in defining matters of Fayth or Manners. And consequently, seeing the Synode of Sardica in the fourth and seuenth Canons, In the third Aphorisme. hath decreed flat contrary to the Synode of Nice in the fourth, fift, sixt, and seuenth Canons; it can not be deemed a legittimate and lawfull Synode, but a bastard and plaine counterfeite; as I haue already prooued, in the third Aphorisme of this present Chapter: To which place I referre the Reader, as where he may find whatsoeuer his heart can desire. This onely will I heere say for the present; that not onely the other first three generall Councels after Nice, ( viz. of Constan­tinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon,) being all three after it, de­creed contrary to it; but (which is more to be admired,) 217. Byshoppes (of which S. Austen was one) assem­bled in the famous Councell Aphrican, affirmed con­stantly with one vniforme assent to Pope Celestine; Epist. Conc. Aphric. ad Ce­lest. Cap. 105. To. 1. Concil. Pag. 591. that no Synode had made such Canons, as the Byshoppes of Rome alleadged for their owne pompe and statelynesse. These are the expresse words of the holy Synode. Nam, vt aliqui tanquam a tuae sanctitatis latere mittantur, nulla inue­nimus patrum Synodo constitutum: For, that any should be sent from your Holynesse, we find it not defined by the [Page 120] Fathers in any Synode. This Argument can neuer be truly answered. Now, notwithstanding this vniforme assertion of so many, so learned, so holy, and so auncient Fathers; yet is that falsely supposed prero­gatiue of Appeales to Rome, plainely decreed in the fourth and seuenth Canons of Sardica. And conse­quently, either the Synode of Sardice was a bastard and counterfeite Conuenticle, or else the two hundred and seuenteene Fathers of the Aphrican Councell, auouched to the Pope a most notorious vntrueth. Lately Pope­rie is meere foolerie. But doubtlesse, neither could so many holy Fathers for their great rea­ding and learning, haue been ignoraunt of the sayd Councell, if any such lawfull Synode had been extant: neither for their rare pietie, would they haue gainesayd or withstood the same. 4 Fourthly, that the affirmance of the Nicene Fathers to haue been also at Sardice; is like to the counterfeite Donation of Constantine, the rescript of Pope Julius, and such like: of which I haue discoursed at large, in the conclusions and Aphorismes of this present Chapter. 5 Fiftly, that it greatly stood the Popes in hand, ( Sozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus, during whose times the controuersie did continue) to haue vrged the Canons of Sardica, if any such lawfull generall Synode had been extant: And consequently, seeing they neuer once re­lated them; it followeth, that in their dayes, there was no such Councell extant in very deed. 6 Sixtly, that Pope Gregorie reuerenced the foure first generall Councels, Gratian. Dist. 15. cap. sicut. as the foure holy Ghospels: but for all that, he neuer made mention of the Synode of Sardica, which (if it had been extant & no counterfeite,) ought to haue had the second place. 7 Seuenthly, that the fourth and seuenth Canons of Sardice, are flat contrary to the fourth, fifth, sixth, and se­uenth Canons of Nice. And yet without all peraduen­ture, no Synode, especially comming within a few yeares after Nice, (which Councell all the Christian world did highly reuerence at all times,) either would or durst haue decreed against the same. To that which is here [Page 121] and else where sayd of the Centuristes and M. Perkins, this may in generall yeeld sufficient contentation to the honest Reader: viz. that albeit they doe not in euery poynt, iumpe precisely with Bell; yet doe they not speake any thing in defence of Poperie, nor any where plead for the supposed antiquitie thereof. No, no, they vtterly reiect Poperie, and euery where condemne the same. To that of Policarpus, I answere; that his comming to Rome was not to insinuate any soueraigntie of Anicetus ouer him, as the very end did declare; but to visit that famous imperiall Citie, the Queene of the world, and Caput mundi, Matt. 12. v. 42. and to see the old Monumentes in that place; euen as the Queene of the South came from farre, to heare Salomons Wisedome, and to beholde his glory. To that of Jrenaeus, I haue said sufficiently in many places of this Chapter; as also to that of Policrates, and the other Byshoppes of Asia: That which I haue sayd of S. Cy­prian, doth euidently confirme the same. And the testi­monie of Eusebius is consonant, while he writeth in this maner: Euseb. Hist. lib. 5. Cap. 24. Sed hoc non omnibus placabat Episcopis; quin potius è contrario scribentes ei, iubebant, vt magis qua sunt pacis ageret, et concordia at (que) vnanimitati studeret: deni (que) extant etiam ip­sorum literae, quibus asperius obiurgant Victorem: All By­shoppes liked not his dealing, but by their Letters di­rected to him, they commaunded (marke well the word) that he should rather doe those thinges which belong to peace, and should indeuour himselfe to establish concord and vnitie: To be briefe; their Letters are extant, in which they reprooue Ʋictor (the Byshoppe of Rome) very sharpely. Thus writeth the auntient and learned Father Eusebius; cleering two thinges vnto vs. Th'one, that Irenaeus and the other holy Byshoppes, did chide and reproue the Pope. Th'other; that they did not onely rebuke him, but (which is much more), freely in their Letters to him, commaund him. Marke well the word; ( Iubebant,) they commaunded him. For (sayth our Jesuite,) [Page 122] The Pope was both reproued and comman­ded. the other Apostles sent not Peter by any authoritie of com­maund, but onely by request and petition; as Princes and Superiours without any touch of their high Office or Dignitie, may be sent by their inferiours: their sending proceeding from petition, nothing empeacheth their high Soueraigntie. But our sir Fryer either desireth to deceiue others, or knoweth not what he sayth. For without all peraduenture; in proper phrase of speach, whosoeuer is sent by an other or others (marke well my wordes,) the same person or persons, as they be sent, are inferiours: For this reduplication (sent as sent,) implyeth intrinse­cally a duetie and subiection; The Redupli­cation must be well marked. euen in him or them, who otherwise may be superiours. Whensoeuer one goeth to a place vpon request, he is not properly sent thyther by him that made the request, but freely taketh that iourney in hand of his owne accord: Hee doth it wil­lingly, not by compulsion; of charitie, not of duetie. To which I adde; that it is a disloyall speach of a Sub­iect, to affirme that the King may be sent of his Sub­iectes. Howbeit I will not deny, but the King in some matters of great consequence, may be perswaded by the aduise of his graue Councellours; that his corporall pre­sence were necessarie, and therevpon resolue with him­selfe to goe in proper person: Yet in such a case, it can neither truly, nor properly be sayd; That the King was sent of his Subiectes, but that hee tooke the iourney in hand freely and of his owne accord, though perhappes the rather by their aduise. To that of our Iesuite, where he sayth; That S. Paul being inferiour to S. Peter, repre­hended him: and that Bell, if he were a Byshoppe, would looke as the Diuell looked ouer Lincolne, and none might admonish him of any fault. I answere in this manner: First, that our Fryer doth too much iniurie to S. Paul, while he maketh him inferiour to S. Peter; and withall doth no little dishonour to his Popes, who in all their Pardons. Dispensations, and such like trumperie doe [Page 123] euer rely vpon the ioynt authoritie of S. Peter and S. Paul, grounding their power and soueraigntie in them both. Galat. 1. v. 1. For S. Paul receiued not his Authoritie from any mor­tall man, but from God himselfe immediately: Yea, him­selfe sayth of himselfe, that hee had as great Power as Peter: th'one ouer the Iewes; th'other ouer the Gentiles. Galat. 2. v 8. Secondly, that euery Apostle receiued from Christ him­selfe, equall Power ouer the whole World; Mat. 28. v. 19. euery one of the eleuen, hauing the same Commission that Peter had. Thirdly, that our Jesuite seemeth better acquainted with the Diuell, then he is with God; as who beareth his Rea­der in hand, that he knoweth how the Diuell looked ouer Lincolne. Fourthly, that not Bell, but the Pope is the man; who may carry thousandes of soules into Hell, Dist. 40. cap. fi Papa. and yet no man may say vnto him; Why doest thou so? This is alreadie prooued, in the Conclusions aforegoing. Heere I deeme it not amisse, for the complement of the Popes falsely pretended Soueraigntie, to adioyne a te­stimonie of one of his holy Martyrs, by way of digres­sion.

T. B.

I answere: 1 first, that though this Chapter be short in wordes, yet is it so full of waightie and vnanswerable matter, that where it conteyneth fourtie lynes saue one, our Fryer Iesuite for feare of burning, durst scarcely touch three of the same. 2 Secondly, that in his shortnesse, hee hath heaped lye vpon lye. The first Lie.His first lye is this: viz. That I haue told this tale of the Popes Pardon (that it is a rot­ten Ragge of the New Religion) diuers times before. For I told not this tale at all, saue onely in this present Chap­ter: let the Reader peruse all three Chapters aforegoing, and if he doe not finde this tale once told (as in trueth he can not,) then in charitie let him bestow the Whetstone vpon our Fryer, as vpon the man who hath the best de­serued it. His second lye is this: viz. That my saying is a rotten lye. For I haue prooued it to be the meere trueth euen in this Chapter, as it will better appeare (God wil­ling) by this my present Answere. His third lye is this: viz. That I am the Rag-maister of Rascall. For, albeit both in the very Title of his Booke, and in sundry other places, The Iesuite is at a non plus. he tearmes mee in that scornefull manner; yet is it so farre from the trueth, that the name of the Towne where I was borne, is not Rascall (as hee would haue it) but Raskell, with k and e, not with c and a, as his lying lippes affirme it. But what if the name were, as the Jesuite scornefully affirmeth; must I be a Rascall, because I was borne in a Towne so called? Is euery Pope Holy, be­cause his name is Holinesse? Pope Hog­snoute.Was Pope Sergius an Hogge, because his name was Hog-snoute? Is an humble man proud, Raskell is a goodly Coun­trie Towne, and hath euer had in it many tall fellowes, very faithfull to the Crowne. because his name is Proud? Is a valiant man a Coward, because his name is so? Is a man all good, be­cause his name is so? no wise man will say so: Yet must I forsooth, be a Rascall, because I was borne in a Towne called not Rascall, but Raskell; where I neuer continued, saue onely during my minoritie and non-age. Doth not [Page 157] euery child see & perceiue, that our Frier wanteth matter; and that he is at a non plus? If he were able to defend Po­perie, with Trueth, Scriptures, Councels, Fathers, or good Argumentes; hee would neuer vse such miserable shiftes, and silly euasions. His third lye is this: viz. That he hath prooued mine assertion to be a Lie. For, I haue with inuincible reasons and authorities, prooued the contrarie to be the knowne Trueth. Hee nameth an vn­knowne Booke, ( The dolefull Knell,) where hee would seeme to haue prooued the matter: Yet such a Booke I neuer saw to this day, neither can I learne that any other hath seene the same: But more hereof to speake, fitter occasion will be offered hereafter: In the ninth Chapter fol­lowing. And if I liue to see such a Booke extant, it shall not (God willing) be long vnanswered. 3 Thirdly, that I prooued it in the Tryall, (euen in this very Chapter) to be a very rotten Ragge of the New religion: Reade the Tryall, and marke well the 4. Chapter. And this I did performe in that place, many wayes: First, by the expresse wordes of Syl­uester Pryeras, (a man so profound and learned, that hee was by the Papistes surnamed, Absolutus Theologus,) who constantly affirmeth, that the Popes Pardons were neuer knowne to vs, neither by the Scriptures, nor yet by the auncient Fathers; but onely by the late Writers. Loe, Syluester de indulg. the Popes Pardons are so new, that neither the Holy Scriptures, nor yet the old Fathers knew them; but the late Writers onely▪ Ergo, they must needes be Ragges of a New Religion. How can the Fryer denie this, with­outblushing? His owne conscience accuseth him. Hee can not tell doubtles, what in the world to say or thinke. Hee seeth euidently, that Poperie is prooued the New Religion. Hee perceiueth right well, that hee is not able with all the helpe of his best friendes, to defend the Pope from vtter shame. Secondly, by the flat testimonie of the Popish canonized Saint Antoninus, sometime Arch­byshop of the famous Citie of Florence; who deliuereth the selfe same Doctrine, that Syluester did. Thirdly, P. [...]. Tit. 10. Cap. 3. by [Page 158] the Doctrine of Petrus Lombardus, their famous Maister of Sentences; A.D. 1149. who (though he with great diligence col­lected into one Volume all the worthy Sentences of the old Fathers) could neuer for all that, The old church knew not late Popish Pardōs. find the Popes Par­dons, or any mention thereof, in any of their Writinges. For, (as Syluester and Antoninus truely write) the Old Writers were not acquainted with any such thing. Fourthly, by the free confession of M. Fisher that famous Popish so supposed Martir, sometime Byshop of Roche­ster in noble England; Cont. art. Lu­theri, art. 18. who in his Answere to M. Luthers Articles, was enforced to admit the Newnes of the Popes Pardons. To all which, and much more plainely set downe in the Tryall, our Iesuite sayth not one word. Hee was so frighted forsooth with the Conclusion, that hee durst not once touch the Premisses; but passing them ouer in deepe silence, Our Iesuites maner is, to an­swere my chie­fest groundes with deepe si­lence. hee cur [...]alleth the Ergo, and seuereth it from the Consequent; because it did connotate & plaine­ly lay open to the Reader, that the Premisses went be­fore. I wish the Reader to peruse the Tryall, that so hee may see the coozening trickes of the proud Fryer. Marke the Complement following.

T. B.

I answeare: 1 first, that Waldenses appeared to the world, one hundred yeares before the time our Fryer nameth: viz. about the yeare 1169. and so hath hee in this poynt, runge one notorious vntrueth, though but a very small one, in respect of his other manifold and most impudent lyes. 2 Secondly, that Chemnitius doth not confesse, as our Fryer impudently affirmeth. But wisemen may and will beleeue him at leasure, seeing hee referreth them for the proofe, to his inuisible Booke ( The dolefull Knell:) For I protest to all the world, that I can neither see it, nor find out any man, who hath seene that same Booke: And therefore I haue great reason to thinke, that no such Booke is extant in deed; especially, because the Iesuites haue long sithence, and many times affirmed, both in wordes and writinges, that my Motiues and Suruay, were answered: which for all that, was such a notorious lye, as the sayd Bookes remayne to this day vnanswered; insomuch, Yea sundry haue vtterly renounced Poperie. as some of their dearest and most deuoted vas­sals, are ashamed of their sylence in that behalfe, and be­ginne to stagger and to doubt of the Popish Fayth and Religion. My Motiues were printed in the yeare 1593. And my Suruay of Poperie, in the yeare 1596. So as the Je­suites haue had the former in their handes, now 15. yeares fully compleate: and the latter, 12. yeares▪ with the van­tage of a large assisse. Marke the▪ [...]. Chapter well. But more of this subiect, in the 9. Chapter following (God willing) toward the end of the same. 3 Thirdly, that our Fryers two Witnesses ( Guide and Cussordius) are in honestie and credite comparable to himselfe; base fellowes, men of no reputation, Knightes of the Post, who will say or sweare any thing for the Popes pleasure. 4 Fourthly, that where our Fryer sayth [Page 161] without proofe, that it is most certaine, that one of the Heresies of the Waldenses, was against the Popes Par­dons; let him know from mee, that therein he is a fowle mouthed lying Fryer: For, Platina their deare friend the Popes Abbreuiator Apostol [...]us, hath these expresse words. Platina in Bonif. 8. in med. Iubilaeum idem retulit anno millesimo trecentesimo, quo plenam delictorum omnium remissionem his praestabat, qui limina Apo­stolorum visitassent, ad exemplum veteris testamentj: Pope Boniface brought againe the Iubilee after 1300. yeares, and gaue full Pardon of all sinnes, to such as did visite S. Peters Church and S. Pauls, ( in Vaticano at Rome) after the example of the old Law. Out of these wordes, I obserue these golden Lessons. 1 First, that the old Iubilee was ne­uer heard of in Christes Church, till the time of Boniface the Iewish Pope. I prooue it by the word ( retulit, hee brought againe) from the Iewes. 2 Secondly, that the Church was free from Popish Pardons 1300. yeares. 3 Thirdly, that this Pope pardoned not onely the paine, but euen the sinne it selfe; yea, all sinnes whatsoeuer. 4 Fourthly, that this Pope brought againe the Iewish cere­moniall Law. 5 Fiftly, that the remission of the old Law (which our Papistes pretend apishly to imitate,) was not of Sinnes, but of Debts, Landes, Bondage, and such like; which the Pope vseth not to pardon: and yet forsooth, hee would be thought to bring the Iubilee againe. Leu. 25. v. 11.12. Suruay, part. 1. book▪ [...]. chap. 5. Of this Iubilee, see woonderfull Popish coozening trickes, liuely discouered in their colours, in my Suruay of Popery.

T. B.

Whosoeuer shall but with an indifferent iudgement peruse my Tryall of the new Religion, togeather with this Answere of the Jesuite, (which is not of one man alone, but of many togeather; as will appeare before the end of this my Reply, God willing,) that man doubtles can not but see as clearely as the noone day, that Poperie is the New Religion. Poperie is the new Religion, it can not be denyed.This is mine Answere; let it be well mar­ked: For my life and soule I dare gage, that the Iesuites Answere sheweth euidently to all iudicious and indiffe­rent Readers, that it is the trueth which I defend; and that all the Papistes in the world, are not able in trueth to confute the same. His miserable shiftes, his silly euasions, and coozening trickes, doe euery where, and in euery Chapter declare; that the Jesuite is at a Non plus, and [Page 163] knoweth not for his life, how to defend the Pope. For, 1 first, he neuer setteth downe my wordes truely. 2 Second­ly, he doth but snatch at some of them, which seeme to be of the least force and strength: which for all that, haue more force in them, then he is able to deale withall. His first coozening tricke in this present Chapter, is this: viz. That hee not daring to alleadge all mine Assertion, His 1. cooze­ning tricke. which truly containeth the true meaning of their famous Martyr so supposed, late Byshop of Rochester, as which are his owne wordes in deed; hee at the first, leapeth ouer 40. lynes almost, in which the force of my Disputation resteth; and onely toucheth my Recapitulation. This coozening tricke being after his maner performed, hee combineth an other with it, His 2. cooze­ning tricke. implying a greater cooze­ning by many degrees. This coozenage is contayned in these wordes; ( Secondly, that the Church of Rome.) I prooue it first, because euery Child knoweth that the first, goeth before the second. Secondly, because the first, The Iesuites vse many coo­zening tricks. which the Fryer would not (because he durst not) touch at all, contayneth (nay prooueth) the maine poynt in this controuersie: the poynt is this. This Byshop was a Learned man, a great Papist, and said for Poperie, what possibly he could; yet doth he graunt many thinges, (of such force is the trueth) which quite ouerthrow Poperie, and turne it vpside-downe. First, wee see by his free as­sertion, that the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgato­rie to his dayes; and so it was to them vnknowne 1517. yeares: All this, the Iesuite passeth ouer in deepe silence, and beginneth at ( Secondly.) Loe M. Fisher, that Lear­ned Byshoppe (for so I graunt hee was) telleth vs plaine­ly and resolutely, that the Holy Fathers and Learned men of the Greeke Church, neuer beleeued Purgatorie, vntill his time; that is, for the space of 1517. yeares after Christ. But our Iesuite is so blind, that hee could not see these wordes: Nay, rather hee durst not acknowledge them, because hee can not frame any colourable answere [Page 164] to them. This is the trueth in very deed. His third cooze­ning tricke is in the omission and not speaking of these wordes; His 3. co [...]ze­ning tricke. ( Thirdly, that the Church of Rome did not be­leeue Purgatorie all at once, but by litle and litle.) These wordes our Fryer J [...]suite durst not once name, least they should haue giuen him a mortall wound: For in deed to speake the trueth, they strike dead. They shew plainely, that as the holy Fathers of the Greeke Church neuer be­leeued Purgatorie: so neither did the Fathers of the La­tine Church beleeue it, all and wholly at one and the same time, but by litle and litle. Ah poore Purgatorie! thy birth by peece-meale, maketh thee the New Religion. Thou art a Monster, among the Iesuited Papistes. Thou wast neither begotten, nor borne at once; but by litle and litle. O sillie Poperie! O new Religion! His fourth coozening tricke is implyed in omitting these wordes: His 4. cooze­ning tricke. ( Fourthly, that the inuention of Purgatorie, was the birth [...]f Popish Pardons; as which could haue no place, till Purgatorie was found out by feigned reuelations.) Marke how gallantly our Jesuite confuteth Bell. What trueth is in Poperie: we see, that our Fryer fea­reth once to touch my groundes. He doth but snatch at odde partes of my Disputation. not able to say ought to the r [...]st. You see, hee is not able to endure the sound of the Bell: Of fiue poyntes of great consequence, he durst name onely two; the Se­cond forsooth, and the Fift. Of the fiue, three seemed euery way vnanswerable. To the second and the fift, he thought he could say something, in shew of wordes; al­beit very nothing, in the trueth of the matter: Which (God willing) shall soone appeare, after the due exami­nation of his wordes. But first, (because the controuer­sie is a maine poynt of Popish Religion, and the ground of Popish Pardons,) I will take the paines to lay open to the Reader, the expresse wordes of the Byshop their glorious Martyr. Thus doth hee write▪ I will not alter, adde, or take away one word, vpon my saluation▪ to an­swere it. Sed et Graecis ad hunc vs (que) diem non est credi­tum Purgatorium esse. Legat qui velit Graecorum vete­rum commentarios, et nullum quantum opinor, aut quam [Page 165] rarissimum de Purgatorio sermonem inueniet. Roffens. Cont. art. Luth. art. 18. Sed ne (que) Latini simul omnes, at sensim huius rei veritatem con­ceperunt. Et Paulo post; non abs (que) maxima sancti spiritus dispensatione factum est, quod post tot annorum curricula Purgatorij fines et Indulgentiarum vsus ab orthodoxi [...] generatim sit receptus. Quamdiu nulla fuerat de Purga­torio cura, nemo quaesiuit Indulgentias: nam ex illo pendet omnis Indulgentiarum existimatio. Si tollas Purgato­rium, quorsum Indulgentijs opus erit? His. N. si nullum fuerit Purgatorium, nihil Indigebimus. Contemplantes igitur aliquandiu Purgatorium incognitum fuisse, deinde quibusdam pedetentim, partim ex reuelationibus, partim ex Scripturis fuisse creditum, at (que) ita tandem generatim eius fidem ab orthodoxa Ecclesia fuisse receptissimam, facillime rationem aliquam Indulgentiarum intelligi­mus. Quum ita (que) Purgatorium tam sero cognitum ac re­ceptum Ecclesiae fuerit vniversae, quis iam de Indulgen­tijs mirari potest, quod in principio nascentis Ecclesiae nullus fuerat earum vsus? Caeperunt igitur Indulgentiae, postquam ad Purgatorij cruciatus aliquandiu trepidatum erat:

The Greekes to this day, doe not beleeue there is a Pur­gatorie. Read who will the Commentaries of the aunci­ent Greeke Writers, A.D. 15 [...]7. and he shall either find very seldome mention of Purgatorie, or none at all. If thou marke well this Doct­rine, procee­ding from the penne of such a famous & lear­ned Papist; thou canst no [...] but abhorre the Pope and late start-vp Poperie. But neither did the Latine Church conceiue the veritie of this matter all at one time, but by litle and litle: Neither was it done with­out the woonderfull dispensation of the Holy Ghost; that after so many pluralities of yeares, Catholikes both beleeued Purgatorie, and receiued the vse of Pardons generally. So long as there was no care of Purgatorie, no man sought for Pardons: for of it dependeth all the estimation, that wee haue of Pardons. If thou take away [Page 166] Purgatorie, to what end shall wee need Pardons? For, if there be no Purgatorie, wee shall neede no Pardons, Considering therefore how long Purgatorie was vn­knowne; then, that it was beleeued of some by litle and litle, partly by Reuelations and partly by Scriptures, and so at the last, beleeued generally of the whole Church; wee doe easily vnderstand the cause of Pardons. Since therefore Purgatorie was so lately knowne and receiued of the Vniuersall Church, Who can now admire Par­dons, that there was no vse of them in the primatiue Church? Pardons therefore began, after the people stood in some feare of Purgatorie. These are the wordes of M. Fisher sometime our Byshoppe of Rochester; a Popish so supposed glorious Martyr, and a man for his great Lear­ning, renowned throughout the Christian world: who writing against M. Luther in defence of Poperie, (to which he was woonderfully addicted,) spared not so say and to plead what possibly he could inuent, for the free passage and credite of the same: Whose best pleading, (which hee possibly was able to affoorde the Pope and Poperie) doth roundly and clearely turne it vp-side downe. I desire the Reader right heartily, euen in the bowels of our Lord Iesus, to marke attentiuely, and then to iudge and giue his censure Christianly, I wonder, how any can reade such Popish Doctrine, and be a Papist still. betweene the Jesuite and my selfe. Which if he shall indeed performe, (all partialitie set apart) hee can not but euidently per­ceiue (my life I gage for the tryall) that Poperie is the New Religion. He can not but see, that the trueth is that which I defend. He can not but behold as clearely as the noone day, that the Fryer is condemned in his owne con­science, and can not tell what to say. For 1 first, their most Learned Byshoppe and glorious Martyr telleth vs con­stantly and plainely, that the famous Fathers and Wri­ters of the Greeke Church, S. Basill, S. Gregorie, S. Chrysostome and the rest. neuer beleeued Purgatorie. And who were those Greeke Writers? S. Basill, for his great skill, surnamed the great; S. Gregorie Nazianzene, [Page 167] for his surpassing knowledge in Diuinitie, surnamed Theologus; S. Chrysostome, for his Learning and Eloquence surnamed, the Golden mouth: to say nothing of all the rest: If these auncient Fathers, these Holy men, these so learned and so famous Writers, with all the rest of the Greeke Church, Late Pop [...]sh Pardons, prooue Pope­rie to be the new Religion▪ did not beleeue there was a Popish Pur­gatorie for the space of 1517. yeares; for so long after Christ, was this Byshoppe lyuing; who for all that (as we haue seene) affirmeth vnawares against himselfe, the Pope, and Poperie; that they beleeued it not in his time: What noddies, what fooles, how voyd of all feeling, of all sense, of all reason, may they iustly be censured? Who to the eternall perill of their soules and saluation, will needs beleeue such erroneous, hereticall, and most execrable Doctrine, such diabolicall Fayth, and plaine Heathenish Religion. 2 Secondly, that the Latine Church (and conse­quently the Church of Rome) did not beleeue the afore­named Purgatorie, for many hundreds of yeares after S. Peters death; whose successor the Pope boasteth him­selfe to be. 3 Thirdly, that this Purgatorie was not belee­ued of the Latine Church at one and the same time, but by litle and litle. 4 Fourthly, that Purgatorie was beleeued in the latter age, by speciall Reuelation of the Holy Ghost. 5 Fiftly, that Pardons came not vp, vntill Purga­torie was found out; as which without Purgatorie, can haue no vse. 6 Sixtly, that Purgatorie was a long time vn­knowne. 7 Seuently, that Purgatorie could not be found in the Scriptures, of a long time. 8 Eightly, that it was not wholly found out by the Scriptures, but partly by Reue­lations. 9 Ninthly, that Pardons were not heard of or knowne to the primatiue Church. 10 Tenthly, that then Pardons began, when men began to feare the paines of Purgatorie.

Behold heere (gentle Reader) what a worthy Fisher was my Popish Lord of Rochester: hee hath caught with his Net at one draught, tenne goodly Fishes; that is to [Page 168] say, tenne golden and worthy Lessons for Christian edi­fication. Which effect will appeare more euidently, be­fore the end of this Chapter.

T. B.

I answere: 1 first, that as our Fryer is bold, vntruely to charge me with vntruethes: so I must be bold to returne the same vntruethes vnto himselfe; and for his iust de­merites, reward him with the Whetstone. 2 Secondly, that while our Fryer Jesuite would very gladly impose vpon me two vntruethes, so to hide the nakednesse of Poperie; he hath committed no fewer then three noto­rious Lyes. First, he saith roundly, though vntruely, that Roffensis (the Byshoppe of Rochester) speaketh nothing of 250. yeares. His first noto­rious Lye. This is his first notorious Lye. I prooue it sundry wayes: First, because he telleth vs resolutely, that the Greeke Fathers beleeued not Purgatorie, for the space of 1517. yeares; & consequently, not for the space of 250. yeares. Secondly, that after many pluralities of yeares, Purgatorie and Pardons were receiued. Thirdly, that Purgatorie was a long time vnknowen. Fourthly, that [Page 169] afterward some beleeued it by litle and litle. How sayest thou now, sir Fryer, doth your Popish Byshoppe say no­thing, of 250. yeares? Are not 250. contayned in 1517. yeares? Doe not many pluralities of yeares, something touch 250. yeares? Doest not thou ô Fryer, Argumentum ad hominem. Pag. 65. extend the age of the Primatiue Church (how truely shortly will be seene) vnto 250. yeares? And yet doth the Byshoppe tell thee, that both Pardons and Purgatorie, were vn­knowne to the primatiue Church: Ergo, I must score this vp, for a flatte and knowne Lye. Secondly, he sayth impudently, that the Byshop doth not denie, that Pur­gatorie was alwayes beleeued in the Church. His second notorious lye. This is his second notorious and shamelesse Lye: I prooue it by a three-fold argument: For first, the Byshop sayth plaine­ly in expresse wordes, that the Greeke Fathers ( S. Chryso­stome, S. Basill, S. Gregorie, S. Epiphanius, and the rest of those great Learned men, and stout Champions of the Church,) beleeued not Purgatorie, for the space of 1517. yeares. Secondly, that the Fathers of the Latine Church beleeued it not for many yeares. Thirdly, that afterward some beleeued it by litle and litle. Where I wish the Reader to obserue seriously, this word ( deinde, Marke well the word (deinde.) after­ward;) for it striketh dead, confoundeth the Iesuite, and prooueth manifestly, that Poperie is the New Religion. The case is so cleare and euident, as euery Child may ea­sily perceiue the same: For, that which was beleeued afterward, must perforce be vnbeleeued at the first. Againe, that which was sometime vnknowne, must needes be sometime vnbeleeued; or else our Fryer must needs say (which for his Lugs he dareth not say) that the Pope forsooth and his Iesuited Popelinges, beleeued they know not what. His third notorious Lye is this: His third no­torious lye. viz. that I vntruely charge their Byshoppe of Rochester, in fa­thering vpon him, that the Church of Rome beleeued not Purgatorie, for the space of 250. yeares after Christ. For, I haue euidently and irrefragably, deduced out of the [Page 170] Byshoppes expresse wordes; The Church of Rome be­leeued not Purgatorie for the space of 1000. & odde. that the Church of Rome beleeued not Purgatorie, for more then 250. yeares thrise told: yea, not for the space of more then one thousand yeares. I prooue it once againe, to the Iesuites and the Popes euerlasting shame. Marke well my Discourse for Christes sake, gentle Reader: for in so doing, thou canst not but abhorre and detest Poperie, as a fond and new Religion. I protest vpon my saluation, that I beleeue as I write; as also, that the late Bishoppe of Rochester (whom our Fryer nameth Roffensis, Iohn Fisher, the Byshop of Rochester. which word onely connota­teth the place where he was Byshoppe, but is not his name,) prooueth the same effectually: this is the proofe. 1 First, the Byshoppe telleth vs constantly, that the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie. 2 Secondly, that the Latine Church did not beleeue it of a long time. 3 Thirdly, that afterward some few beleeued it by litle and litle. 4 Fourthly, that it was generally beleeued not but of late yeares. 5 Fiftly, that Pardons began to be sought for, and to be graunted, when the people stood a while in feare of Purgatorie paines. To which I adde; that Pardons be­ganne not vntill Bonifacius the eight, A.D. 1300. 1300. yeares after Christ; as I haue alreadie prooued out of Platina, the Popes deuoted vassall, and sometime his Abbreuiator Apostolicus. And consequently, that seeing such Pardons as I speake of in this place, were not knowen for the space of 1300. yeares after Christ: and seeing withall, that they were in vse shortly after Purgatorie began to be feared; Marke well this Discourse: for it striketh dead. it followeth by a necessarie and ineuitable il­lation, that Purgatorie was not knowen and beleeued, for the space of 1200. yeares at the least: And so I trow; nay am well assured, not for the space of 250. yeares af­ter Christ; euen by the flatte testimonie of their great learned Popish Byshop, my late Lord of Rochester.

T. B.

I answere: 1 first, that when our Fryer is at a non plus, then would hee be thought to haue done that els where, which he is not able to performe in deed: and therefore doth he many times send me, to this inuisible Booke; of which more at large (God willing) before the end of this Discourse. 2 Secondly, that if euer I can see the Booke (as I hope to doe, if any such Booke be extant in rerū natura,) I shall with speed conuenient, frame mine answere to the same; not doubting, but the Confusion will be his owne, after due examination of the same: And in the interim, let him this know by the way, and before hand, that his Booke is a sillie and dolefull thing indeed; O braue de­fender of Po­perie. as which by his owne confession heere, hath no better Authors to re­lie vpon, then a counterfeite Denis, and a Montanizing Tertullian. 3 Thirdly, that what hee can possibly gather out of all my Bookes, the same hath hee in this present pretensed Refutation set downe at large; whether to his owne shame and confusion, or to mine, let the indifferent Reader iudge.

T. B.

I answere: 1 first, that our Fryer in one place, calleth M. Perkins, Pag. 62. Pag. 391. The Puritane of England; and in an other place, obiecteth my Booke penned against them: Howbeit heere, hee must needes be my Brother, and I oppressed with his Authoritie. 2 Secondly, that our Fryer hath no sooner obiected M. Perkins against mee, but foorthwith hee oppugneth his Assertion. 3 Thirdly, that he affirmeth it for a most certaine trueth, that Purgatorie came from the Apostles. Which more bold then wise affirmance, I returne vnto our Fryer, for a most certaine and shame­lesse Lye, for a most notorious Slaunder, and for an intol­lerable Blasphemie against the blessed Apostles of our Lord Iesus. I prooue it sundry wayes. 1 First, because S. Chrysostome was one of the chiefest and best Learned Fa­thers of the Greeke Church; Perhaps S. Chrysostome and the other holy Greeke Fathers feeling Purgatorie-fire, beleeued it when they were dead. who, (as my Lord of Roche­ster hath told vs very plainely and resolutely,) neuer be­leeued there was any Popish Purgatorie, while they were lyuing heere on earth; and consequently, that Pur­gatorie can neuer be truely fathered, vpon that great learned & holy man. 2 Secondly, because those Homilies▪ from whence our Fryer would gladly fetch Purgatorie-fire, are counterfeite & not S. Chrysostomes indeed. Where­of this is an argument insoluble, that the Greeke Fathers did neuer beleeue Purgatorie. For, if S. Chrysostome had taught Purgatorie in his Bookes, Byshoppe Fisher that glorious so supposed Popish Martyr, could not truely haue written, and constantly auouched to the whole world, as he did, that the Greekes neuer beleeued Purga­torie. 3 Thirdly, that if the Apostles had taught Purgato­rie, then could not so many, so Learned, so holy Fathers of the Greeke Church, haue been so long time, euen till their death, ignoraunt thereof. Nay, if the Latine Church in their dayes, had receiued Purgatorie, as a tradition [Page 173] Apostolicall, they would neuer haue withstood it; but most reuerently haue admitted, and most Christianly be­leeued the same. 4 Fourthly, that if we suppose and graunt our Fryer thus much, to cheare vp his spirits a while: viz. that they are S. Chrysostomes wordes, which he citeth in his name; yet will it not serue his turne, to build Popish Purgatorie therevpon: For, the words do onely prooue this, and no more; to weete, that th'Apostles taught Commemoration of the dead. Which my selfe am so farre from disliking, that I haue many yeares agoe ap­prooued it in my Suruay of Poperie. Yea, Part. 3. Chap. 6. Pag. 308. the Papistes in their publike Prayers, make frequent and vsuall Com­memoration of their Martyrs; whom they for all that, deny to be in Purgatorie-fire, and freely graunt to be in Heauen: And so they can not inferre Purgatorie, out of the Commemoration of the dead. To this I adde; that Prayer for the dead (which is more then Commemora­tion) may in a godly sort be vsed: as I haue shewed at large, first in my Motiues, and afterward in my Suruay. More then which, the Iesuite can not inferre out of his Author, as his Marginall note doth declare. I therefore conclude, that our [...]esuite hath runge out a notorious vn­trueth, when he telleth his Reader, that Purgatorie came from the Apostles.

T. B.

I answere: 1 first, that where our Fryer pretendeth some feare that I can not defend by any cobling, my contra­diction by him so supposed; I am so free from it, that I weene his heart will pant, so soone as he shal peruse my answere to the same: For so God helpe me, I woonder he is not ashamed so to write. O tempora! O mores! I would not haue imagined, that the Maister Deuill of Hell had so possessed him, as to make him the instrument of such notorious, Out vpon the impudent ly­ing of Iesuites execrable, and plaine diabolicall Lyes. Neuer did any man heare, know, or read, such shamelesse, pal­pable, and grosse vntruethes. Who will not exclaime and cry out of Poperie, that shall read this Fryers Answere, and this my Reply ioyned with my Tryall and my Suruay; in which hee would seeme to ground his deuillish and abhominable Lyes? Fie, fie; how can he thinke, that any of witte and iudgemet, will beleeue him? Hee perceiueth right well, that the trueth published in my Bookes, can neuer be truly answered: and therefore sillie Papistes, (who dare not for feare of Popish tyrannicall censures, read my Bookes) must perforce receiue and beleeue his most execrable Lyes, for the trueth. Oh, that they would once read my Bookes! nay but this one Reply, with a [Page 175] single eye and indifferent iudgement, all parcialitie set a­part, Hee knoweth, that hee falsely accuseth mee: his owne conscience (though neuer so badde) can not but condemne him. Euery child may easily discerne, that the trueth is on my side. The case is so cleare, my wordes so plaine, and the trueth thereof so apparant, as euery iudi­cious and honest Reader must needes thinke him wor­thy to haue a Whetstone tyed at his Girdle, O holy Frier! O worthy councellour of the Popes O noddy! Folly hath begotten thee. a Foxe-tayle in his necke, and a Fooles-bable in his hand. If Poperie through mortall wounds receiued, were not past reco­uerie; if the trueth published in my Bookes, were not vn­answereable; if the Iesuite were not at a Non plus, not able to defend the Pope and his late start-vp Romish Fayth, he would neuer thus delude the world, with his most noto­rious Lyes and deceitfull dealing. Marke well for Christes sake. In my Suruay (marke wel for Christs sake) these are my expresse words, in the third part and sixt Chapter. Afterward, Origen being too much addicted to his allegoricall speculation, fayned many odde things touching Purgatorie; See Suruay, part. 3. chap. 6. and marke it well. A.D. 250. as the Ethnicke Plato (whom he much imitateth) had done before him. After Origen, others began to call the matter into questi­on, others rashly to beleeue it, others to adde many thinges to Origens conceit. Thus by litle and litle it in­creased, till the late Byshops of Rome made it an Article of Popish Fayth. In my Booke, See the Tryall, chap. 5. and marke it well. intituled ( The Tryall of the new Religion) these are my expresse words. First, we see that the Greeke Church neuer beleeued Purgatorie to his dayes, (I speake there of Iohn Fisher late Byshoppe of Rochester,) and so it was vnkowen to them 1517. yeares. O braue Pur­gatorie! the Greeke Church neuer beleeued thee. Secondly, that the Church of Rome beleeued it not, for the space of 250. yeares: after which time, it increased by litle and litle. These are my very wordes in both my Bookes ( The Suruay, and The Tryall, I meane,) out of which our Fryer Jesuite (who may seeme to be begotten of some Fayrie Bratte, as the Secular popish Priestes write of the Iesuite Robert Parsons, the Author of this scurrilous, [Page 176] shamelesse, impudent, and lying Libell,) would seeme to conclude and finde out against mee, a strange Contra­diction: viz. that in the one Booke I make the seede of Purgatory not to haue been sowen, before the yeare 250. And afterward, to haue increased till it came to perfecti­on. The Iesuite hath as many lyes, as words. And that this notwithstanding, in my other Booke, I make the seede sowen before, and to haue increased by litle and litle, vntill it became ripe and perfect Poperie, which was in the yeare 250. And therevpon he inferreth, that Purgatorie was sowen, and not sowen; growen, and not growen; an Article of Fayth, and not an Article of Fayth, in one and the same yeare.

For this, see the Anatomie of Popish Ty­rannie.Now to this lusty Gallant, a poore begging Fryer by profession (though as the Secular Priestes their brethren in Poperie, tell them, they shame with that occupation, as who must haue their Chambers Perfumed, Gentle­women to pull off their Bootes, & them-selues to trowle vp and downe from good cheare to good cheare, at their owne good pleasures;) I returne this Answere, which (if nothing else would) is able to strike him dead. 1 First, that hee hath vttered as many Lyes, as hee hath done lines. His first Lye is this: His first lye. viz. That I say in my Suruay of Po­perie, that the seed of Purgatorie was sowen before the yeare 250. His second lye. His second Lye is this: viz. That I affirme in my sayd Suruay, that Poperie was ripe and perfect in the yeare 250. His third lye. His third Lye is this: viz. That I make Poperie sowen, and not sowen, in one and the same yeare. His fourth lye. His fourth Lye is this: viz. That I make Purga­torie growen, and not growen, in one & the same yeare. His fift Lye is this: viz. That I make Poperie an Article of Fayth, His fift lye. and not an Article of Fayth, in one and the same yeare: that is to say, in the 250. yeare after Christ. 2 Secondly, that albeit hee charge mee with sundry vn­truethes, No vntrueth, but what pro­ceedes frō the Iesui [...]es penne. and more then a litle please himselfe therewith; yet is there no vntrueth at all, but those false accusations, which proceed from his owne lying lippes. No other [Page 177] proofe need be made thereof, but the bare recitall of my wordes: For doubtles, the Jesuite either speaketh against his owne knowledge; or else he is so besotted & blinded with malice, that he can not see Wood for Trees. 3 Third­ly, that our Fryer sheweth himselfe to be a right Iesuite: that is to say, a shamelesse and impudent Lyer: For, the Letters and Figures in the Margent ( A.D. 250.) doe not connotate the wordes following, A.D. 250. but the wordes imme­diatly afore-going: Which no man of iudgement and reason, can for shame denie. For first, I say plainely, that Origen fayned many odde thinges touching Purga­torie. Againe, I say expressely, that after Origen, others began to call it into question. Where I wish the indiffe­rent Reader, to obserue seriously these two poyntes with mee. 1 First, that Purgatorie could not be ripe and perfect, when it began but to be called into question. 2 Then, that this calling into question was after Origen; who was lyuing about 250. yeares after Christ: And consequent­ly, that the 250. yeares must needes haue relation to the time of Origen and his immediate followers; as who (all approoued Chronographers testifying the same) lyued about that time. And this is confirmed, because I do not speake of the Byshoppes of Rome barely and absolutely, I speake of the late By­shops of Rome. but with a restriction implyed in this word (late.) I in all my Bookes, doe euer repute S. Austen, S. Chrysostome, and others, that lyued 400. yeares after Christ; not late Writers, but old and auncient Fathers: which is an eui­dent argument, that I applyed my Marginall note to the time of Origen & of his immediate followers, and not to the late Byshoppes of Rome; whom I contend to be men, not of the Old, but of the late and New Religion. So as euery child may see, O sweete Ie­sus, who seeth not Popery to be the new Religion. that our Iesuite not able to de­fend Poperie, nor to withstand the trueth; and yet vn­willing to yeeld to the trueth and to condemne Poperie, in which, and by which he liueth in wealth, pompe, and glorie; imployeth himselfe and his wittes with might [Page 178] and maine, heaping Lyes vpon Lyes, furnished with no­torious coozening trickes euery where, so to dazell the eyes of his Reader least he behold the trueth, and so con­demne the rotten Ragges of Poperie for the New Reli­gion. He is at a non plus, his Backe is at the Wall; all his pleading for late start-vp Poperie, is fraughted with nothing else, but coozening trickes, notorious cauils, impudent calumnies, and false dealing.

T. B.

I answere: 1 first, that our Fryer is willing heere, as a­fore, to passe ouer in deepe silence the Popes Pardons, as a thing not possible to be defended. 2 Secondly, that our Jesuite seemeth more impudent, then Impudencie it selfe; [Page 179] as who is not ashamed againe and againe to iterate, most grosse, palpable, and shamelesse Lyes. The Iesuite snatcheth at this peece & that peece, but toucheth not the principall. I haue already re­futed him plentifully, and honestly discharged my selfe of that vntrueth, which he would gladly impose vpon mee, concerning the making of Purgatorie an Article of Popish Fayth. 3 Thirdly, that I doe not in any one of all my Bookes, impute the inuention of Purgatorie, to any one of the first thirtie Byshops of Rome; as whom all I honour in mine heart, & haue euer spoken and written reuerently of them. 4 Fourthly, that I doe not onely trow, but am well assured, that our Iesuites trowing, is a meere leasing; while he auoucheth 250. yeares, to be within the compasse of the primatiue Church. I prooue it, be­cause all Christes Apostles (who were the primatiue Church,) were dead long before that time, of which our Fryer speaketh. 5 Fiftly, that our Fryers feare is a flatte Lye, and so not able to kill a Flie; albeit it be more then Crambè bis posita, and most irkesome Tantologie, or rather plaine and meere foollerie.

T. B.

I answere: 1 first, that by my confession, as also by my euident and plentifull demonstration, our Jesuite is a most shamelesse, impudent, and lying Fryer; from whose an­swere if wee shall once take away his notorious calum­nies, his miserable cauils, his coozening trickes, and his deceitfull dealing, litle or rather nothing at all, will re­maine [Page 180] to the Reader, 2 Secondly, that not onely this Je­suite himselfe (if he had not a face of Brasse,) but all other Iesuites & his Jesuited breathren, would blush to publish so often and so falsely, the same assertions so often confu­ted and turned vpside downe. 3 Thirdly, that for want of matter, our Fryer doth often referre his Reader, to an vn­knowen and inuisible Booke, (of which more hereafter,) called by him, The Dolefull Knell. 4 Fourthly, that I haue so soundly confuted his false & ridiculous Cuckow-song, and most irkesome Tantologie, concerning the late By­shoppes of Rome, as I must needes say, hee is maliciously bent against the trueth. 5 Fiftly, that it is apparent to all the world; that our Iesuites will publish any thing though neuer so ridiculously, if it may any way but seeme to saue the life of rotten Poperie. Peruse and marke well the Chapter aforegoing, because popish Purgatorie is the Mother of popish Pardons.

T. B.

I answere: first, that albeit our Jesuite vseth much bab­ling, Lay away vn­written Tra­ditions, and Poperie is at an end. turning himselfe this way, that way, and euery way, to anoyde and cassire (if it were possible,) the verdict & censure of their subtile Doctor Scotus; yet is all that hee sayth in this Chapter, as also all that any other Iesuite or [Page 193] Papist in the world is able to say in the same subiect, soundly and most euidently refuted, in the sixt Conclu­sion aforegoing. For the last and best Resolution that Scotus could inuent, (after he had disputed the Question pro et contra, so profoundly as his wittes could conceiue,) was euen this and no other; viz. that Popish Auricular Confession is not grounded vpon Christes Ghospell or Apostolicall writing, but onely and solely vpon vn­written Tradition; which is an huge and deepe Gulfe, without any bottome. If the sixt Conclusion be duely pondered, and vnderstood aright, the Jesuites backe is at the wall. Yet I will adde thereto one other Confirma­tion, which is deduced and plainely related in the Popes owne Decrees: these are the expresse wordes. De Paenit. Distinct. 1. cap. quamuis. Quidam Deo solummodo confiteri debere peccata dicunt, vt Graeci. Quidam vero Sacerdotibus confitenda esse percensent, vt tota ferè Ecclesia sancta. Quod vtrum (que) non sine magno fructu intra sanctam fit Ecclesiam; ita dumtaxat, vt Deo qui remissor est peccatorū peccata nostra confiteamur: Some say, we must Confesse our sinnes onely to God, as the Greekes doe. Other some say, wee must Confesse them vnto Priests, as doth almost the whole Church. Either of which is done with great good, within the holy Church; so onely, that we Confesse our sinnes to God, who is the forgiuer of sinnes. Thus are wee taught, by the Popes owne sweete deare Decrees, published in print, to the view of the whole world. Out of which Decree, I ob­serue these memorable documentes for the helpe of the Reader. 1 First, that the Greeke Church neuer confessed their sinnes vnto Priests, but vnto God alone: Of which Church for all that, the Presidentes & Gouernours were most holy & learned Fathers; viz. S. Epiphanius, S. Chryso­stome, S. Basill surnamed the great, S. Gregorie Nazianzene, S. Damascene, and many other most excellent and holy Byshoppes. 2 Secondly, that others hold the contrarie, [Page 194] saying, that wee must Confesse our sinnes to Priestes. 3 Thirdly, that both these opinions are profitably practi­sed in the Church, so wee Confesse our sinnes to God. 4 Fourthly, that Popish Auricular confession (euen by the Popes owne Decrees,) is not necessarie to saluation, (as the Papistes this day teach, and with Fire and Faggot violently vrge the same,) but is a thing in deed indiffe­rent. For, if it had been necessarie vnto mans saluation, all the holy and learned Fathers of the Greeke Church, should haue perished euerlastingly. But some will here demaund, how that can be prooued? To whom I an­swere; that the same is plainely and expressely prooued, in the Popes owne Decrees: Which is such a testimonie against the Pope and his Popelings, as none greater can be had. The expresse wordes of the Popish Decrees, haue already sounded in our eares. De paenit. dist. 1. cap. quamuis. This mine Obserua­tion is confirmed, by the plaine wordes of the same De­crees; where it is freely confessed, that that opinion, which holdeth sinnes onely to be confessed vnto God of necessitie, is true, lawfull, and honest. Let the wordes of the Decree be well marked, because it sheweth all the ho­ly Fathers of the Greeke Church, to confound the Pope, and all his Jesuited Popelings. But let vs heare the verdict of a famous popish Cardinall of Rome. Cardinall Caieta­nus (as we haue seene already,) auoucheth constantly, that Auricular and Secret confession, is against Christes holy Institution; as is also the Precept, that compelleth vs to frequent the same. For the better explication of this famous Cardinals Assertion, (because the Pope and his Jesuites can not endure to heare the same) I will heere lay open before the eyes of the indifferent Reader, the best answere that the Papistes haue, or can inuent a­gainst the same. Iosephus Angles that famous Popish By­shoppe, (not well pleased with the Popish Cardinall, as it may seeme) writeth of his Doctrine, in this manner. Ios. Angl. in. 4. S. part. 1. pag. [...]54. Hinc intelliges cauendum esse Caietanum super Ioan. cap. 20. [Page 195] vbi duos errores affirmauit; vnum est, institutam fuisse [...] Christo Confessionem voluntariam, cum sit ab Ecclesia definitum necessa­riam esse ad salutem. Nam quod est voluntarium, vt religionis ingressus, non est ad salutem necessarium. Alterum, scilicet, mo­dum confitendi ad aurem non esse a Christo institutum. Et hic error est in Conc. Trident. damnatus: Hence mayest thou vnderstand, that wee ought to take heede of Caietane vpon the 20. of John, where hee affirmeth two errours: the one is, that Christ instituted Confession voluntary, albeit the Church defined the same, to be necessarie to saluation: The other is, that Christ did not institute Con­fession Auricular, which is made in the Priestes eare. And in the next page, the same Angles telleth vs, Ios. Angles vbi supra, pag. 255. that the Councell of Trent did of purpose condemne Caietans opi­nion. By the doctrine of this great Learned Papist, (who was a Cardinall of Rome and a Frier Dominican,) we see clearely these three poyntes: First, that the best lear­ned Popish Doctors condemne Poperie, and iustifie the doctrine of the Church of England. Secondly, that Auricular Confession was voluntarie in the dayes of Cardinall Caietane, The best lear­ned Papistes, doe vtterly condemne Popery for the New religion. who liued aboue a thousand yeares after Christ. Thirdly, that this Cardinall gaue such a deadly wound to Popish Confession, (a Ragge of the New religion,) that the Councell of Trent could find no better remedie, but to condemne his Opinion as Here­ticall. Wisely therefore doth the Popish Byshoppe An­gles exhort his Readers, to beware of Caietane, Bonauen­ture, Hugo, Panormitane, and the Popish Glosse; because they all with the Popes deare Canonistes tell vs con­stantly, that Popish Confession hath no better ground, then pure Mans inuention. And consequently, all such may iustly be deemed as blind as Beetles; that do not see Popish Auricular Confession, to be a rotten Ragge of the New religion.

T. B.

I answere; 1 first, that the Papistes themselues doe not agree, in their Popish Fayth and Doctrine; as the Jesuite heere confesseth, to their confusion: Fiue great learned Pa­pistes are of Bels opinion. For he freely graun­teth, that the great Learned Papistes whom I named, ( viz. Jacobus Almaynus, Durandus, Gersonus, Michael Baius, and Byshoppe Fisher,) doe all fiue constantly hold and defend, that all Sinnes are Mortall of their owne nature. And withall he telleth vs, that the Pope and Church of Rome hold the contrary opinion. 2 Secondly, that Small sinnes, and Veniall sinnes, are all one; as our Iesuite heere teacheth vs. And my selfe will not deny, that some sinnes respectiuely are small of their owne nature; Note well, that the Fa­thers call small sinnes Veniall respectiuely. as it is alrea­die prooued, in the third Conclusion. To which I adde, that the holy Fathers when they speake of Venial sinnes, doe euer vnderstand Small sinnes respectiuely. In which [Page 212] sense, my selfe do willingly admit Veniall sinnes; as also, sinnes Veniall by the mercie of God: But withall, I wish the Reader euer to remember, what Gersonus, Almaynus, Baius, Durandus, and Roffensis teach vs: viz. that euery least Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature; which is the flat Doctrine I heere defend. 3 Thirdly, that the difference amongst the Learned Popish Doctors concerning Ve­niall sinnes, is a matter of small importance; which I ex­hort the Christian reader in the bowels of our sweete Re­deemer, neuer to forget: For it doth plainely conuince, (if nothing else could be sayd in that behalfe,) that Po­perie is the New religion. What? is Popish fayth a mat­ter of Small moment? Is it not necessarie to saluation? If the Pope will say it, I am ready to confirme it. Roffensis, Baius, Almaynus, Durandus, and Gersonus, (all being both learned and zealous Papistes,) affirme constantly, the force of trueth compelling them, that euery Sinne is Mortall of it owne nature. Contrariwise, the Pope, his Jesuites, and Jesuited vassals, affirme, teach, and beleeue, as an Article of Popish Fayth; that many Sinnes are Veni­all, euen of their owne nature. This notwithstanding, our Jesuite telleth vs roundly, See Chap. 2. Conclus. 7. (though nothing Clerkly,) that the difference is but small. So then, Articles of Po­pish fayth are small, or great, as it pleaseth the Pope: His bare Will (as we haue heard and seene,) is a warrant sufficient in euery thing; as who can change the nature of thinges, (if we will beleeue him,) and of nothing, make some thing. Fourthly, that my selfe hold no Opinion, teach no Article of Fayth, defend no Position; but such Opinions, Positions, and Articles, as the best learned Pa­pistes haue holden, The Popes Fayth is con­futed by Po­pish Doctors. taught, and defended, before mee: For my woonted maner euer hath been, is, and shall be, to wound the Papistes with their owne Weapons, and to con [...]ound the Pope with his best Learned Proctors.

T. B.

I answere: 1 first, that the vntrueth our Fryer speaketh of, proceedeth from his owne lying lippes; as by and by it will appeare. 2 Secondly, that our Fryer doth falsely, peeuishly, vnchristianly, and impudently abuse both his Reader and mee; Poperi [...] with­out lying, can not be defen­ded. when he chargeth me to abuse my Au­thors, in leauing out their wordes. What wordes sir Fryer, haue I left out? These wordes forsooth, ( of it owne nature) sayth our Iesuiticall Fryer. O malitious Jesuite! Where is thine Honestie? where is thy Christianitie? O lying Frier! there is no trueth in rot­ten newly in­uented Po­perie. where is thy Fayth? where is thy Conscience? Art thou become a flat Atheist? art thou at defiance with true dea­ling? Thou seemes to make thy soule saleable for the Popes pleasure. Doth not thine owne Penne condemne thee, when thou grauntes that I added the same wordes, in citing of Roffensis immediatly before? Let the indiffe­rent Reader, be an indifferent Iudge betweene vs. I ad­ded the wordes immediatly before, as our Fryer truely sayth; it therefore had been an irkesome tantologie, to cite them againe in the next wordes following; especi­ally, seeing I affirme the Popish Doctors ( Almaynus, Du­randus, Gersonus, and Baius,) to hold and defend the selfe same opinion, The maine poynt of the Controuersie. that Byshoppe Fisher affirmeth to be the trueth. Againe, the Controuersie consisteth precisely in [Page 214] this speciall poynt. viz. Whether euery sinne be Mortall of it owne nature, or no. I defende the affirmatiue; the Iesuite, the negatiue. And consequently, I must perforce speake of Sinnes, as they are in their owne nature. O worthy defender, of late start-vp Poperie! Thou percei­uest right well, that Poperie is the New religion indeed; and not able to withstand the truth, nor to answere mine inuincible reasons and groundes: Thou fleest from that which is in question, to impertinent, extrauagant, and friuolous cauils; so to dazell the eyes of thy Readers, least they behold the newnesse of late Romish Religion. Out vpon such beggerly Religion, Poperie is a beggerly Religion. as which can not be de­fended, but by cauils, coozenage, lying, and deceitfull dealing.

T. B.

I answere; 1 first, that our impudent Fryer lyeth egre­giously, The Authors Protestation. when he chargeth mee to slaunder S. R. his lear­ned Brother: For, vpon my saluation I auerre it, I deale christianly, honestly, and sincerely. I neuer change, adde, or take away any one iote, of that which I finde in mine Authors. Would to God, our Iesuites did so deale with mee. 2 Secondly, our Fryer lyeth impudently, when he vttereth these wordes: ( Hee sayth not, that the Church of Rome had not defined some sinnes to be Veniall, vntill the dayes of Pius the fift, and Gregorie the thirteenth.) For these are S. R. his expresse wordes; S. R. Pag. 281. True it is, that Byshoppe Fisher and Gerson were in that errour; but that was both before it was condemned in the Church, as it was since by Pius the fift, and Gregorie the thirteenth. In which wordes, the Jesuite S. R. telleth vs two memorable poyntes of Doctrine: Th'one, Marke the falsely suppo­sed errour. that Fisher and Gerson were in an Errour: Th'other, that the Errour was before the Church had condemned it. So it onely remaineth, duely to examine what the supposed Errour was. The Iesuite B. C. heere telleth vs plainely, if wee may beleeue him; that the Popes ( Pius and Gregorius) condemned that opi­nion onely, which holdeth Venial sinnes to be onely such by the mercie of God. I admit the Assertion; Sinnes onely Veniall by mercie, are mortall of their owne nature. I like the Narration: I onely reiect the Popes friuolous, vnchristi­an, and plaine hereticall condemnation. For I pray you sir Fryer, are not those sinnes Mortall of their owne na­ture, which are onely Veniall by mercie and fauour▪ Doth not Veniall onely by Mercie, exclude Veniall by all other wayes and meanes; For doubtles, whatsoeuer is Veniall of it owne nature, can not be Veniall onely by Mercie. Onely our fond Iesuiticall Fryer, not able to de­fend Poperie from being the New religion, is forced for want of matter, to say it. Nature and Mercie are farre differens. The nature of euerie thing is intrinsecall and essentiall to the thing, and can not be ta­ken [Page 216] away from the thing, without the vtter destruction of the same. But euerie meane Logitian, euerie young Gramarian, euerie wittie Ploughman, and euerie Boy of discretion, is able to teach and tell our Jesuite; that Mercie is extrinsecall and meere accidentall to the thing, and may be added or taken away from the thing, without the destruction of the same. This Ergo, girdeth the Pope. Ergo, whatsoeuer is Veniall not any other way but by the Mercie of God onely, is vndoubtedly Mortall of it owne nature. And conse­quently, seeing all Sinnes were Mortall of their owne nature, vntill the dayes of Pius and Gregorius, as our Jesuites freely graunt; it followeth by a necessarie and ineuitable illation, that Veniall sinnes of their owne nature, were neuer knowne to the Church of God, vntill the irreligi­ous and plaine hereticall Decrees of Pius the fift, and Gre­gorie the thirteenth: Vixit Pius, A.D. 1565. Vixit Gregor. A.D. 1572. that is to say, for the space of one thousand, fiue hundred, threescore, and fiue yeares after Christ. For, the supposed errour of Roffensis, Gersonus, Almaynus, Baius, and Durandus, (who all were verie lear­ned Papistes; and for all that, taught and defended euery Sinne to be Mortall of it owne nature,) was not condem­ned, (as we see and heare it freely confessed by our Ad­uersaries,) vntill the time of Pius the fift of that name. The trueth therefore is this; viz. that the Church for the space of 1565. yeares after Christ, beleeued euerie Sinne to be Mortall of it owne nature. For, (as we haue seene alreadie in the first Conclusion of this Chapter, Concl. 1. huius cap. ex Gersono, et alijs.) God may most iustly condemne euerie least Sinne to eternall Death and Hell fire. Yea, as M. Gerson learnedly wri­teth: he that holdeth the contrarie, must perforce hold withall, that in some case Sinne may be done lawful­ly, and be no Sinne at all. And it is but a very childish and friuolous cauill, to say at our Fryer heere doth: viz. that it was an Article of Popish Faith long before Pius the Pope, The Romish Church belee­ueth, it can not tell what. to beleeue Veniall sinnes. For, such Venialles were of necessitie such, either of their owne nature, or [Page 217] else of mercie onely. If our Jesuite graunt the latter, I haue my desire: it is the trueth which I defende. If the former, a double refutation is at hand. First. because the opinion of Almaynus, Roffensis, Baius, Durandus, and Ger­sonus, was verie currant in the Romish Church, vntill the dayes of Pius and Gregorius, as our Iesuite S. R. affirmeth, S. R. pag. 281. and the Fryer B. C. his deare Brother willingly admit­teth. Againe, Veniall by Mercie, can not be Veniall of it owne na­ture. because to be Veniall both by Mercie & by Nature, implieth contradiction. The reason is euident; both for that sinnes Veniall of their owne Nature, stand not in need of any Mercie: and also for that Mercie mit­tigateth that punishment, which by the Nature of the subiect might iustly be inflicted. O miserable Poperie! What sillie shiftes and childish cauils are inuented, to defend thee from being the New Religion. If any shall hencefoorth call or thinke thee the Old Religion, (that shall heare thine age truely discouered,) I shall thinke him so wise, as not to know when to come out of the raine. Thirdly, Tertiò Prin­cipaliter. that our Iesuite sheweth himselfe more impudent, then Impudencie it selfe; while he beareth his Readers in hand, that I haue cut away these wordes of mine Author, the Iesuite his Learned brother, ( By the Mercie of God.) For, I referre my selfe to the expresse wordes of the Iesuite, S. R. pag. 281. in his pretensed Answere to the Downe-fall of Poperie; which I haue truely recited in the Tryall of the New religion, as I will answere at the dreadfull day of doome. Out vpon rot­ten Poperie, it consisteth of lying, and forgerie. But our Jesuite not able to defend Pope­rie from being the New Religion, addicteth himselfe wholly to forgerie, falsehood, and lying: for otherwise, both hee and all his Jesuited crew, are at a Non-plus, and haue nothing at all to say.

T. B.

I answere; 1 first, that the Pope may haue a cold heart, when he seeth Poperie bleeding vnto death, and no Po­pish Doctor able to stanch the same. Our controuersie is of the Nature and Essence of Sinnes; The Iesuite truely is at a Non plus. whether euerie Sinne be Mortall of it owne nature, or no? Our Jesuite be­ing confounded, and not able to prooue any sinne to be Veniall of it owne nature, answereth me thus: That nei­ther Fisher is a Popish canonized Martir, nor yet Gerson a Popish Byshoppe. O worthie defender of the Pope, and of the late Romish Religion. I demaunde of our Fryer Iesuite, how farre it is to London? Hee forsooth an­swereth: a Pokefull of Plumbes. I aske him, What hee saith to his learned Popish Doctors, ( Almaynus, Baius, Roffensis, Durandus and Gersonus,) who all with vniforme assent affirme resolutely, as the Fryer hath confessed, that euerie Sinne is Mortall, A Poke full of Plumbes, is the defence of Poperie. of it owne nature? The Fryer al­most frighted out of his wittes, telleth mee roundly, and blusheth not thereat; That neither Gerson is a Byshop, nor Fisher a Canonized Martyr. Is not this a Learned and Clerkly answere, trow yee? Hath not the Jesuite much to say for the antiquitie of Poperie, when he fleeth to such miserable shiftes, pitifull digressions, sillie cauils, and ri­diculous euasions? What if Byshoppe Fisher were not a Popish canonized Martir? What if M. Gerson the famous Chauncellour of Paris, were not a Byshoppe? yee know [Page 219] the Prouerbe; Cucullus non facit Monachum. Your selues can not denie, that both Fisher and Gerson were verie lear­ned Popish Writers: and so it skilleth not, whether the one was a Byshoppe, and the other a canonized Martir, or no. 2 Secondly, that our Jesuite belieth mee heere, as his wonted manner is else where; I referre the censure here­of, to mine Answere in the Downe-fall it selfe. 3 Thirdly, that M. Gerson was in his old dayes the Byshop of Paris; as a litle Treatise published by the Doctors of Paris, and sometime printed or bound in one volume with the Mai­ster of Sentences, plainely auoucheth to the Reader. 4 Fourth­lie, that Fisher was Canonized priuately at the least; Egomet tum eram testis oculatus. as Alphonsus the rector of the English Colledge at Rome; did Canonize Campian in my time, with a White Surplesse on his backe; himselfe then singing a collect of Mar­tirs, and causing the M. of the Musicke to sound the Or­ganges, and all the Studentes to singe ( Te Deum;) as al­so, the Arch-priest, the Prouinciall, the Jesuites, and Jesui­ted Papistes euerie where, doe after their best manner canonize Sherewin, Nelson, Ballard, and the Gun-powder Iesuited Popelinges; Their Blood, Bones, Haire, and Apparell, are reserued & honoured, as the Reliques of Gods Mar­tirs.by praying vnto them, and by re­seruing their Blood, Bones, Haire, and whatsoeuer once touched them, as the Reliques of Gods holy Martirs. Other like impertinent Vanities he vseth in this Chap­ter: but he euer fleeth from my Reasons, and slylie pas­seth ouer the chiefest matters. I haue soundly refuted the Fryers Answere, not omitting any thing of moment. See, and note well the Triall.

T. B.

The appeale of the Priestes, is compared to the appeale of Alexander. Bels Collection, is truely deducted of Watsons wordes: For, Watson compareth the appealing of the prudent Greeke from Alexander furious, to the appealing of the Seculars from Pope Clemens. Neither can it be thought [Page 221] strange, if Warson deemed the Popes to be sometimes furi­ous. For first, Pope Iohn was rather furious then sober, when he kept Women openly to the notorious scandall of the Church; insomuch, as some of the Cardinals writte to Otto then King of the Saxons, to come and besiedge Rome, so to afflict him for his sinnes. Martinus Po­lonus, in Chronicho. The same Pope was rather furious, then sober, when he caused the Cardinals Nose to be cut off, that gaue the counsell; and his hand, that wrote the Letter. Pope Siluester the second, was fu­rious rather then sober, I weene; Polonus, vbi supra. when by couenant he did homage to the Deuill, to be preferred to the Pope­dome. Pope Formosus was not sober, when wittingly and willingly he committed flat Periurie. Pope Martin was not sober, when he absolued Formosus of his Oath. Pope Stephanus the 6. was not very sober, when he caused the dead body of Pope Formosus to be brought foorth into his Consistorie, the ornaments Papall to be taken away, two fingers of his right hand to be cut off, a Laicall habit to be put on the dead corps; and all this being solemne­ly done, the body to be put into the Graue againe. Platina. Pope Sergius the 3. was not very sober, trow I, Carranza. when he com­maunded Pope Formosus (who now had bin dead almost tenne yeares) to be taken out of his Tombe, and to be set in a Chaire with pontificall Attyre vpon his backe, and then his head to be cut off, and cast into Tyber. Pope Ʋrbanus the second, was not sober doubtlesse, Sigeberius. when he absolued Subiectes from alleageance due vnto their So­ueraignes; condemning those that obeyed the King, and absoluing such as tooke part against the King, from the crime of Periurie and iniustice. Pope Boniface the eight, was nothing sober, Nanclerus. when he challenged the right of both Swordes; when he depriued Philippe the French King, and gaue his Kingdome to him that could get it. But what need many wordes? this poynt is most plentifully hand­led in my Christian Dialogue, lately published: to which I referre the reader for his full satisfaction, concerning the [Page 222] Popes double person. Read more of Watson in the end of the Second Chapter, and ponder the same seriously.

T. B.

I answere; 1 first, that our Fryers blacke inspiration, may better beseeme Pope Benedict the eight; Petr. Dam. Mar. Polonus. who (as Petrus Damascenus affirmeth) was seene riding corporally after his death, vpon a blacke Horse (the Deuil,) and who free­ly confessed, that afore-time hee was much addicted to robberie and extortion. It may also better be bestowed on Pope Siluester the second; who (as we haue seene) did homage to the blacke Deuill, and so aspired to the Pope­dome. 2 Secondly, that the declamation our Fryer maketh against the leading vp and downe by the nose like a Buf­fal, will litle content either our Jesuites, or their Pope, after the due recitall of the same. This is a true Narration, of the cruell, The Buffaloes are Beastes, as terrible as Lyons. furious, and raging Buffaloes. My selfe being student in the English Colledge at Rome; not long afore my arriuall in this Kingdome, and on a time walking a­broad to take the ayre, with many others of the same Colledge; when we came without one of the Posterne gates of the Citie, we espied certaine Buffaloes with their keeper at the Riuer side: Which spectacle (as vnpleasant to the eyes, so also most terrible to the heart,) my fellowes and deare Countrey-men no sooner beheld, but they be­tooke them selues to their best speed. My selfe more bold therein then wise, (for the trust I reposed in the Keeper) would not at that time amende my pace, and so remained behind alone. Sodainely the furious, raging, and cruell [Page 223] Buffaloes, brake from their Keeper, and with great vio­lence came vpon me. My Countrey-men standing a farre off vpon the toppe of an high Mountaine, durst not for their liues aproach, to offer me any comfort, helpe, or suc­cour: they neither did, nor could expect any other thing, saue onely present and most cruell death. Many yet li­uing, know this to be most true. How­beit, the wilde, cruell, raging, and most furious Buffaloes, (a thing very strange, rare, and wonderfull; if a miracle, let the prudent and Christian Reader iudge,) did no hurt to me at all; but as it were sported with mee, euen as one childe playeth with another: after awhile, the furious and raging Buffaloes left me, and in peaceable maner departed from me; at the length, my fellowes beholding the de­parture of the Buffaloes, and perswading themselues that I was most pitifully and cruelly slaine, came with conue­nient speed to visite my dead corps; but finding mee a­liue, yea, as liue-like as I was afore euery whit, (God make mee this day and euer thankefull for it, and for all other his manifold mercies and fauours towards me) we all returned to the Colledge, with great ioy and speed. The Rector of the Colledge could no way be perswaded, The Iesuit Alphonsus, was then the Maister of the English Col­ledge. but that I had receiued some secret and inward mortall wound; albeit neither my self felt any, neither could their eyes or wits discerne any hurt at all; saue onely that my face was something bloody, by reason of the fall I got; while perceiuing the imminent danger, (which afore I feared not,) I made haste to haue escaped from the same: for it had neuer bin knowne or heard in Rome, A thing ne­uer heard nor knowne before. that any man, woman, or child, euer escaped with life, being once in that kinde of danger; to wit, in the curtesie of the furi­ous and raging Buffaloes. Many gaue their censures, con­cerning the wonderfull fact and rare euent: the generall resolution was this; Ʋiz. That J might fight with Buffaloes in England, and haue the vpper hand. My selfe did deeme their censure to be probable; and this day (me thinketh) the same is brought to passe; though (Gods name bee [Page 224] blessed for it,) in the farre different sense and meaning, from that which either they or my selfe did then ima­gine. Iohn. 4 v. 24. 1. Iohn. 5. v. 14. I sought God then, but found him not; because I sought him not in trueth, and according to his holy will. I thought then (being blinded with late start-vp Pope­rie,) that I should fight against the true professours of Christes Ghospell, whom I then reputed Heretiques and spirituall Buffaloes. Sap. 8.1. Ephes. 1. v. 4.11. Rom. 9. v. 11.15.16. &c. Ephes. 6.12. Act. 9. v. 1.2.3. &c. Act. 8. v. 1.3. But our most mercifull God (whose wisedome reacheth from end to end mightily, and dis­poseth all thinges sweetly) ordayned me in his eternall purpose, ( a vosteriori hoc fa [...]lè infertur,) to a farre more ho­norable and sacred Warfare; viz. to encounter the tray­terous Jesu [...]tes and [...]esuited Gunpowder Popelinges, & va­liantly to fight the battaile of Christes Church, against those most furious, brainelesse, & cruell Buffaloes of mens soules: Whose legierdemaine, coozenage, periurie, pride, malice, theft, murders, fraud, feigned miracles, and infinite cunnicatching trickes, the gentle Reader may finde at large, soundly prooued out of the Bookes which the Se­min [...]rie-priestes haue published to the World, in my Booke intituled, See the Ana­tomie for this point, and note it well. The Anatomie of Popish tyrannie: Which Booke whosoeuer shall with iudgement and a single eye peruse, can not but perceiue the Jesuites to be Firebrands of all mischiefe, and most vgly monsters of the World.

T. B.

I answere; 1 first, that the Iesuite not able to answere the trueth, by me soundly defended, seeketh to get the victo­rie, by crying out against the trueth. This is cleare, to euery iudicious Reader. 2 Secondly, that our Fryer sayth truely; That by the iudgement of many learned Papistes, the Pope may erre without a generall Councell. To this Doctrine I willingly subscribe, as which is the very trueth that I defend. For, mine vsuall manner euer is in all my Bookes, to confound Poperie with the best Ler­ned Popish Writers. I hold and defende no point of doctrine, but such onely, as great learned Papistes hold and defend with me. This my ioy, this is my credite, The Author with the Church of England, de­fendeth euery iote of the old Romane Reli­gion. this the honour of the cause in hand, that I constantly hold with the now Church of England euery Article of the old Romane Religion; onely condemning and reiecting er­roneous, superstitious, childish, and ridiculous addita­mentes, of late yeares by litle and litle crept into the Church. 3 Thirdly, that I haue prooued so largely in the Downe-fall of Poperie ▪ that the Pope onely is the Iudge of all controuersies in Religion; as to say more in that be­halfe, may be thought actum agere, and a thing altogether needlesse. Three thinges onely will I now poynt at, Three very Memorable pointes. re­ferring the indifferent Reader for the proofe, to the Downe-fall of Poperie. 1 The first is this; viz, that the Pope staying at home himselfe, sendeth his Legates to the Councels to supply his place; to whom, for all that, ( O monstrum horrendum,) he can not commit his Authoritie. 2 The second is this; viz. that no Byshoppe in these our dayes, can haue voyces in Councels, See the oath, Infra, Cap. 27. but such as will sweare obedience to the Pope before their admittaunce, and promise to defend his Canon Law. 3 The third is this; viz. that it is not in Popish Councels, as in humaine af­fayres and assemblies, where moe voyces euer doe pre­uaile. But all the force, power, strength, and authoritie [Page 226] of Councels, doe and must depend vpon the Popes will and pleasure: For, after the Fathers there haue fasted long, prayed much, consulted grauely, deliberated maturely, decreed constantly, All must be as the Pope will. commaunded strictly, and accursed seuerely; neither can others, nor yet them selues tell, what shall be of force therein: For, all must be, as shall best content the Popes humour, sitting right stately in his pontificall Chaire at Rome. See the Oath which Bishops make to the Pope, infra Cap. 27. To which I adde, that the Pope abuseth the World shamefully, when he taketh vpon him to call togeather all Byshoppes in the Christi­an world, to decide and determine controuersies in Re­ligion; and for all that, will approue nothing that they decree; vnlesse the same be agreeable to that, which him­selfe decreeth alone in his pontificall Chaire at home. As also, in that he condemneth and reiecteth all Councels, which doe not consent in all poyntes to his Legates; who for all that, The Popes pretended prerogatiues, must euer be defended. must not yeeld to any thing, which swarueth from their Charge and Commission receiued from the Popes mouth. In which Charge, this is euer the princi­pall and maine poynt; that they suffer not the Popes Superroyall power, and falsely pretended Prerogatiues of the Church of Rome, to be any way abased or gaine­sayd. This Addition, hath a double Confirmation at hand: Rhemistes, in Act. 15. th'one, from the Rhemistes: th'other, from S. R. that great learned Iesuite. The Rhemistes tell vs roundly, & blush neuer a whit thereat; that generall Councels are not needfull, saue onely for the better contentation of the weake people: and their onely ground which they stand vpon, is this; viz. that the Pope is so diuinely priuileadg­ed and assisted by the Holy Ghost, The Pope can not erre. as he can neuer erre iudicially in any matter of Fayth. Which assertion if it were true, as it is most false, (for which, let the Christian reader duly peruse my Christian Dialogue,) there were no great need of Councels in very deed. The Pope in the Church, say the Ie­suites. The Iesuiticall Fryer S. R. ( Robert Parsons is the man) telleth vs peremptorily, that the Popes Sentence, is the Decree of the Catholique [Page 227] Church. These are his expresse wordes: S. R. pag. 281. marke this well. True it is, that B. Fisher and Gerson, were in that errour: but that was both before it was condemned in the Church, as it was since by Pius the fift, and Gregorius the thirteenth. Loe, our Jesuite in the name of all Papistes, (for all Papistes must so beleeue,) blusheth not to publish to the World in print, in perpetuam rei memoriam, that Pope Pius was the Church in his time; Pope Gregorie, in his time: and con­sequently, euery Pope in his time. For, what he affirmeth of those two, in this kind of subiect; When Papists speake of the Church, they euer meane the pope. the same perforce he must approue, in all other Popes successiuely. So then, this is a constant maxime in the Church of Rome; that whensoeuer our Papistes say or write, That the Church can not erre; or, The Church hath thus and thus defined; they euer meane of the Pope, and Church of Rome. I therefore cannot but conclude, with this ineuitable illation; viz. that in true Popish sense and meaning, the Pope is the onely Iudge in all controuersies of Religion.

T. B.

I answere; 1 first, that I willingly acknowledge one trueth, here vnawares vttered by our Iesuite; viz. that there is great dissention amongest the Popish Doctors, concerning matters of Fayth and Doctrine. See my Booke of Motiues. Cap. 8. Of which dissention, I haue discoursed at large in my Motiues. 2 Secondly, that the best opinion in the Romish Church, doth not make an Article of Romish Fayth. 3 Thirdly, that [Page 228] he might be deemed a right wise man, that could soundly discouer the Articles of Popish fayth. The Popish Church hol­deth no poynts of fayth. For the Fryer heere telleth vs lustily; that which is the common and bet­ter opinion, euen the opinion of the Pope himselfe, (for his doubtlesse is the best,) prooueth not an Article of Popish fayth. 4 Fourthly, that our Jesuite doth heere giue vs a generall rule▪ how to discerne the Articles of Popish fayth: For thus disputeth our Learned Fryer; Marke well for Christes sake, this poynt of doctrine. Although it be the more common and better opinion, yet seeing many Diuines hold the contrarie; it can not be an Article of Po­pish fayth. This is a golden and most excellent Rule in deed: for which I thanke our Jesuite with all my heart. For no stronger reasons and proofes can be had in con­trouersies, then the plaine confession of the aduerse part. Hence are fitly deduced, sundry golden and very memo­rable Corollaries. The first Corollarie. The first whereof is this; viz. that the Papistes this day, haue either very few, or flat none at all, Articles of their Fayth. The second Corollarie is this; viz. that it is not against Popish fayth to beleeue and de­fend, The second Corollarie. that the Pope may erre. Iudicially; that Christes naturall body is not in the holy Eucharist really; that the Marriage of Priests is lawfull; that the Pope is a Tyrant, and Heretique, a Firebrand of all mischiefe; that a great number of zealous and faythfull Martirs of Iesus Christ, were burnt in Queene Maries daies, by force of the Popes tyrannicall Law; who for all that, held no Article against Popish fayth. Out vpon late hatched Poperie! Euerie child may see, that it is the New religion. The Jesuite with the helpe of his best Learned breathren, (for to defende Poperie frō the note & suspition of the New religion, the most Learned Iesuites put to their helping hands, & gaue their best aduise,) is not able in truth to say any thing, for the antiquitie of the same. How be it, rather thē his proud heart shall yeeld to the trueth, & retract his former igno­rance & malice, he wholly consecrates himselfe to very childish shiftes, and most foolish & ridiculous cauils.

T. B.

I answere; 1 first, that one Popish trueth here vnawares confessed by our Fryer Jesuite, doth comfort my heart more then a litle: viz. that the Pope as Pope, can not erre. The Pope as Pope by Po­pish graunt, can not erre. For, albeit it be most absurd and false in rei veritato, (as I haue plentifully prooued in my Christian Dialogue,) yet is it a Popish trueth, or a flat lye, (which is the same,) and turneth Poperie vpside downe. 2 Secondly, that though the Pope with his most and best Diuines doe hold, that the Pope as Pope, can not erre: yet is it not an Ar­ticle of Popish Fayth. This Confession I likewise ap­prooue; and out of this double Graunt, I inferre a double Corollarie. corollary 1 First, that seeing it is no Article of Popish Fayth, to beleeue that the Pope can not erre▪ a shame of all shames it is to the Pope, and his deuoted Vassals, to hold, affirme, and beleeue, that the Councels can not erre [Page 230] which the Pope confirmeth; Vnderstand this poynt well, for Christes sake. nor those Councels decree a trueth, which he reiecteth and condemneth. For most absurde and execrable it is, to burne with Fire and Fag­got zealous Men and zealous Women; because forsooth they will not beleeue that, See and note well my Chri­stiā Dialogue. Chap. 2. Pag 14. which the Pope himselfe doth not beleeue. O tempora! O mores! The Pope himselfe doth not beleeue, that hee can not erre; as this sweete Doctrine, of our sweete Sir Fryer teacheth vs. And yet must all be burnt with Fire and Fagot, that say hee may erre in decreeing matters of Fayth. corollary 2 Secondly, that all the late Popes and Papistes are flat Heretiques. The rea­son is euident; Argumentum ad hominem. because they beleeue not Christes promise made to Peter and the Byshops of Rome his successors; as both the Pope and all his deuoted Vassals do beleeue. For which respect, the Fryer in this very place telleth vs peremptorily, and blusheth neuer a whit thereat; that not onely Wal [...]ensis and Cardinall Turrecremata, but Late Writers and the auncient Fathers also haue taught the same Doctrine. For which respect, the Iesuites and all Ie­suited Papistes haue euer in their mouthes, See and note well the 29. & the 30. Chap­ters. and continu­ally obiect as an argument vnanswerable; that Christ prayed for the Fayth of S. Peter and his successours, that it should neuer fayle; that Hel-gates should neuer pre­uaile against it. Yet heere (God be thanked for it,) their pride is somewhat abated; Christ neuer prayed, that the Pope should not erre. Christ is now either distrusted of them, (which they dare not say,) or at least suspected not to haue promised to the Byshops of Rome, that their Fayth should not fayle. For, if they beleeue not that Christ is faythfull in all his Promises, they are flat Here­tiques. If they beleeue him to performe, what hee hath promised; then it must perforce either be with them an Article of popish Fayth, that the Pope as Pope can not erre: This Dilēma is insoluble. or else doubtlesse, that Christ made no such Promise to the Byshops of Rome. Vtrum [...]orum manis, accipe, good sir Fryer; for the better of them is able, to giue the Pope his dinner. For which respect, S. R. that learned Iesuite, [Page 231] (as his deare brother B. C. calleth him,) telleth vs roundly; S.R. Pag 315. Pag. 417. that false Fayth can haue no accesse to S. Peters Chaire. For which respect, the same Jesuite telleth vs in an other place; Loe▪ we must beleeue his doctrine, that is an Heretike That wee must obey what hee decreeth or defi­neth iudicially, as sitting in S. Peters Chaire; though in heart he were an Heretique. For which respect, the same Iesuite telleth vs in his wordes following; That Byshops must not examine the Doctrine, which the Pope deliue­reth iudicially out of S. Peters Chaire, as supreame Pa­stor of Gods Church; but onely that, wherein he vttereth his owne priuate opinion. See and note my Reply to the 29. Chapt. Thus writeth S. R. that great Learned Jesuite, truly telling vs the Popish Fayth. Which Doctrine if any but a Papist had deliuered it, few or none would haue giuen credite thereunto. O sweete Iesus! I woonder how any Papist hearing such Doctrine pub­lished in print, by the Jesuites so deare and so neare to the Pope himselfe, and duely pondering the vanitie thereof, and the blasphemie therein conteyned; can still be a Pa­pist and not defie the Pope and his damnable Doctrine. What shall we doe with the holy Scripture? Is it the in­fallible rule of Fayth. S. R. in the name of the Pope, proclai­meth the Popes fayth and doctrine. Is it superiour to the Popes Iudi­ciall sentence? Must the Papistes depend vpon it, rather then vpon the Popes Decree? No, no; if the Pope de­fine against it, his Decree must be obeyed; neither may any Byshop (as our Fryer heere teacheth vs,) much lesse may euery Priuate man examine the same, or once call it into question. Of which more at large, Inferius, Cap. 27. when I come to the Oath which Byshops make to the Pope. 3 Thirdly, that when I say, this Popish Article of Fayth was neuer heard of in the Church, for the space of a thousand and fiue hundred yeares; I meane not of bare vocall hearing, but of hearing with approbation: of which hearing, this Text of the holy Ghospell is emphaticall: Ioh. 9.3 [...]. Scimus, quia peccatores Deus non audit; Wee know, that God heareth not sinners: that is, Approoueth not sinners, in graun­ting their requestes: For God knoweth, seeth, 1. Ioh. 5. v. 14. and hea­reth [Page 232] all Petitions vocally; but theirs onely with appro­bation, Psal. 18. v. 41. Which aske according to his will. The Psalmograph vseth the like phrase, in these wordes; They shall cry, but there shall be none to helpe them: yea, euen vnto the Lord shall they cry, but he shall not heare them. The Prophet Micheas doth second the Psalmograph, Mich. 3.4. in these wordes: Then shall they cry vnto the Lord, and he shall not heare them. The Prophet Zacharie is consonant in these wordes: Zach. 7. v. 13. Sic clamabunt et non exaudiam, dicit Dominus exercituum: So shall they cry, and I will not heare them, sayth the Lord of Hostes. All which places, and the like, must perforce be vnder­stood, not of bare vocall hearing; but of hearing with approbation. Which kind of hearing, my selfe did plain­ly insinuate to the Reader, when in my words following, I excepted the Iesuites and Iesuited Papistes: For, if I had meant of bare vocall hearing, I neither would, nor truely could haue excepted the Iesuites, whom I graunt to haue heard it both vocally & with approbatiō. 4 Fourthly whē our Fryer obiecteth ridiculously, that Aquinas, Antoni­nus, Waldensis, and Turrecremata, taught the same Doctrine within 1500. yeares, I answere thus: 1 first, that Canus de­nieth Waldensis to hold that opinion. 2 Secondly, that the vse of holy Writ, is to speake of many, as all: and of few, as none. Which synecdochicall speach very frequent in the holy Scriptures, were sufficient (if need required, as it doth not,) to iustifie my manner of speaking in this behalfe. Thirdly, that if I should admit so much, as our sir Fryer desireth; yet would it follow of necessitie, that Poperie is the New Religion. For, we see heere as cleare­ly, as the Sunne shyning at noone day; that this Popish Article (the Pope as Pope can not erre,) was hatched a thousand, two hundred, and fourtie yeares after Christ. For the most auncient Father thereof, Poperie is the new religion. which our Iesuite possibly is able to name, is Aquinas, (as we haue seene;) who for al that, Vixit Aquinas, A.D. 1243. liued more then 1240. yeares after Christ. To which I adde, that the Church (as the famous Pa­pistes [Page 233] Panormitanus, and Gersonus teach vs,) is either the Congregation of the faythfull, or a generall Councell sufficiently representing the same. This being so, and my reasons duely pondered, it is very cleare and euident; that this Popish Article of Fayth, was neuer heard of in the Church, (that is, approoued of the Church, For the space of, 1240.) for the space of 1240. yeares after Christ. For doubtlesse, the approbation of Aquinas, Antoninus, and Turrecremata (the Popes flattering Parasites,) can not establish the Religi­on and Fayth of the Church of Rome. The Fryer dare not do it for his lugges. If our Iesuite dare say it; let him publish it in print, and then expect my Commentarie vpon the same. See and note well, the 29. and the 30. Chapters; as also the Christian Dialogue, page 24.27.30.38.41.60.63.65.

T. B.

I answere thus: 1 first, that I beleeue our Jesuite; viz. while he telleth vs, The Iesuite how he is be­leeued. that his Pope may erre in expounding the holy Scriptures. But withall I must needes tell him, [Page 234] that his Pope may as truely erre in his iudiciall sentence: The reason is euident, because Christes Prayer freed S. Peter from both. Luke 22. vers. 32. And consequently, if Christes Prayer were as effectuall and powerable for the Byshoppes of Rome, as it was for Peter, (which the late Byshoppes of Rome, Jesuites, and Iesuite [...] Papistes, would enforce vs to beleeue, Alas, alas, Po­perie is woun­ded vnto death.) they could no more erre in the one, then in the other: no more in their priuate opinions published to the world, then in their definitiue sentences and iudiciall Decrees: Nay, it is in the Popes owne power, to be as free from the one, as from the other. For, when he ex­poundeth the Scriptures, when he writeth Letters, when he vttereth his opinion any way; if he doe the same sit­ting in Peters Chaire, he can not erre, it is the vndoubted trueth. S. R. pag. 417. Againe, whatsoeuer he say or write (as wee haue heard alreadie,) when he sitteth in Peters Chaire; that we must obey and beleeue, Out vpon Po­perie, who is able to endure it? though in heart hee be an Here­tique: For, no Byshoppe or Byshoppes in the Christian world, (how wise, vertuous, or learned soeuer they be,) may take vpon them to examine that, which the Pope deliuereth out of Peters Chaire. Thus S. R. that great lear­ned Jesuite constantly auoucheth, as wee haue alreadie seene: Who doubtlesse could not be permitted to publish such Doctrine, S. R. pag. 417. if it were not the Fayth and Doctrine of the Church of Rome. Yea, if any denie it, where Poperie beareth the sway, that person must feele the smart of Fire and Fagot, for his reward. He may be thought to know nothing, who lyuing in Rome or Spa [...]ne, knoweth not this to be so. 2 Secondly, that Alphonsus that famous and lear­ned Fryer, The Iesuite is shameles and impudent. spake not of the Popes priuate opinions, as our Jesuite B. C. more impudently then Clerkly auouch­eth; who chooseth rather to say any thing, then to graunt Poperie to be the New religion No, no, Alphonsus vtterly detested that Popish Article, as a most prophane, sot­tish, and ridiculous Position; though this day of Fayth with the Pope, and with all his Iesuites, and their Jesuited [Page 235] crew, I prooue it by sundry testimonies, layde open to the Readers, by Alphonsus his owne penne. First therefore, these in one place are his expresse wordes. Alphons. lib▪ 3. aduers. haere­ses, prope finem. Nouissimè fertur de Iohanne 22. quod publicè docuit, declarauit, et ab omni­bus teneri mandauit, quod animae purgata ante finale indicium non habent stolam, quae est clara et fa [...]ialis v [...]sio Det; et vniuer­sitatem Parisiensem ad hoc induxisse di [...]itur, quod nemo in ea poterat gradum in theologia adipisci, nisi primitus hunc error [...]m iurasset se defensurum, et perpetiò e [...] adhaesurum: Last of all, it is reported of John the 22 of that name, that hee pub­liquely taught, declared, and commaunded all Diuines to hold, that the soules of the iust before the day of Iudge­ment, haue not the stole, which is the cleare and faciall vision of God: And hee is reported, to haue induced the Vniuersitie of Paris to this; that none should take degree in Theologie there, but he that did first sweare to defend this Errour, and to adhere to it for euer. Thus writeth Adrianus, who himselfe was Byshoppe of Rome. And Alphonsus (a man of high esteeme in the Church of Rome ▪) after he had reckoned vp fiue Heresies, setteth downe this for the sixt, (that the soules of the iust doe not see God, till the day of Doome;) ascribing the sayd Heresie to the Armenians, as to the authors thereof; This is won­derfull. and to the Greekes togeather with Pope Iohn, as to the patrons and defenders of the same. Where the gentle Reader must obserue with mee seriously, least he be seduced with the colourable glosse of the Jesuiticall Cardinall Bellarminus; Bellarmine speaketh a­gainst his owne know­ledge. who seeing the force of this Testimonie, and well percei­uing that it was able to ouerthrow the highest poynt in Poperie, bestirreth himselfe mightily in defence thereof: Hee telleth vs forsooth, (we may beleeue him, if we lift,) that Pope Iohn erred indeed; as Adrian and Alphonsus write. But he did that as a priuate man (sayth our Jesuite) not as Pope of Rome. O childish vanitie. This is that neuer enough detested Popish fallacie, of the Popes double person; wherewith the Pope, his Jesuites, and Iesuited Popelinges, haue a long [Page 236] time seduced vs; euen since that cursed Sect was first hat­ched, A.D. 1538. and brought into the world; the Sect of Fryers, cal­led Jesuites I meane. But it is a most friuolous, childish, and ridiculous cauill; a very fillie shift, so sottish and so absurde, Marke well for Christes sake, if thou loue thine owne soule. as the Pope and all his Popelinges may be asha­med thereof: The reason is euident, euen to euery childe. First, because it is sayd, ( Docuit, Hee taught.) Secondly, because it is sayd, ( Publicè, Publiquely.) Thirdly, because it is sayd, ( Mandauit, Hee commaunded all Diuines to hold it. (Fourthly, because none could be made Gradu­ates in the Schooles of Theologie, which held not this opinion. Fiftly, because euery Graduate was sworne to defend it, and to sticke to it for euer, perpetuò. So then, the Pope may erre, and, dè facto hath erred; and that not only in his priuate opinion, as a priuate man; but euen in his iudiciall and publique sentence, as a publique person and Pope of Rome. This argument is insoluble; it will neuer be truely answered, while the world standes. This is enough doubtles, Alphons. lib. 1. cap. 4. ad­uers. haeres. to euery indifferent Reader: yet in way of congratulation to our Iesuite, I am content to say a litle more. These in an other place, are Alphonsus his expresse wordes. Celestinum Papam errasse circa matrimonium fidelium, quor [...]m alter labitur in haeresim, res est omnibus manifesta: ne (que) hic Celestini error talis fuit, qui soli negligentiae imputari debuit; ita vt illum errasse dicamus, velut priuatam personam, et non vt Papam, qui in qualibet re seria definienda consulere debet viros dectos: Quoniam huiusmodi Celestini definitio habebatur in an­tiquis decretalibus, in cap. laudabilem, titulo de conuersione infi­delium; quam ego ipse vidi, et legi: That Pope Celestine erred about Matrimonie of the faythfull, whereof the one fal­leth into heresie, it is a thing so manifest, as all men know the same. Neither was this errour of Pope Celestine such, as it may be imputed to sole negligence; so as wee may thinke him to haue erred as a priuate man, and not as Pope, Marke well, this poynt striketh dead. who ought in the decree of euery serious matter, to aske counsell of Learned men. For that Definition and [Page 237] Decree of Celestine, was in the old Decretals, in the Chap­ter Laudabilem; which I my selfe haue seene and read. Out of these Golden words, of the famous and great lear­ned Fryer Alphonsus, I obserue many very worthy les­sons, for the great good of the thankfull Reader. 1 First, that Pope Celestine erred. 2 Secondly, that he erred not as a priuate man; but euen as Pope and publique person. Marke (gentle Reader) for Christes sake I desire thee, and for the saluation of thine owne soule: For doubtlesse, if thou ponder seriously this onely Testimonie of this great learned Papist, all affection and partialitie set aside, thou canst not but perforce abhorre and detest Poperie, as a New Religion by litle & litle crept into the Church. The Jesuites like Gypsies, The Iesuites are Gypsies. haue inuented a tricke of fast and loose, assigning to their Pope a double person; Priuate, and Publique. As a Priuate man, they graunt he may both be deceiued himselfe, and also deceiue others: But that he can erre as a publique person, or as Pope of Rome; they vtterly deny. For if they should once graunt this poynt, (which is a manifest and knowne truth,) Poperie would soone be turned vp-side downe. Howbeit, (my saluation I gage for the tryall,) Fryer Alphonsus decideth the controuersie so plainely, as all the Jesuites and Jesuited Papistes in the world, are not in trueth able to withstand or gainesay the same. Alphonsus sayth constantly and plainely, without all Ands and Ifs; Loe, the Pope is wounded at the heart, hee can no longer liue. that Pope Celestine er­red not as a Priuate man; but euen as Pope and publique person. O sweete Iesus! ô mercifull God! ô most lo­uing Father! how great is the malice and blasphemie of Iesuites and Jesuited Papistes, against thine euerlasting Trueth and holy Name? With what face can the Iesuiticall Cardinall Bellarmine tell vs, that Pope Celestine erred onely as a Priuate man, and not as Pope or Publique person? When the Papistes like the Popes Decrees, then they say, hee defined as Pope and Publique person; and that none may withstand his definitiue Sentence, or once examine [Page 238] the same; as is alreadie prooued, to their euerlasting shame. But, when their Pope is conuinced to haue erred so grossely, that they know not possibly how to defende him; then they are not ashamed to say, that hee erred but as a Priuate man. 3 Thirdly, that the Pope erred in a poynt of great consequence; euen in a matter of Popish Fayth: viz. that Matrimonie was so dissolued by reason of He­resie, that the faythfull man or woman might marrie a­gaine, the Hereticall partie lyuing. Which thing (sayth Alphonsus,) was manifest to euery one, to be an Heresie: and their late Councell of Trent, hath defined it to be so. 4 Fourthly, that this Decree and Definition of Pope Cele­stine, was in those dayes enrolled in the Popes Decretals. 5 Fiftly, that Alphonsus saw and read the same. 6 Sixtly, that the sayd Decree can not this day be found, amongst the Popes Decretall Epistles. A note wor­thy the re­membrance.Where I note by the way, and heartily wish the Reader to obserue the same; that the decrees of our holy Fathers the Popes, haue bin such, & so much against lately hatched Poperie; as they are this day ashamed, to bring the same to light. But, let this be our comfort herein; that God hath at all times stirred vp some learned Papistes, otherwise deuoted to the Pope, who haue boldly vsed their Pennes and Wittes (such is the force of trueth,) to discouer and lay open to the view of the world, the deceit, coozenage, liegerdemayne, and cunnicatching tricks of wicked Popes, Jesuites, & all Iesu­ited Papistes; so farre foorth I euer meane, as is necessarie for the common good of his Church. Now, whether our Jesuite, be a most notorious lyer, or noe, let the Reader iudge: For, if Alphonsus say, that the Pope can not erre, as Pope and Publique person; I am content to be the lyer: But if he constantly hold and defend the contrarie, as the vndoubted trueth; then iudge and censure our Fryer in this, as in many other thinges, for a shameles and impu­dent lyer, The Iesuite hath deserued the whetstone.best worthy of the Whetstone. I wish he may haue it, & weare it about his necke, as a testimonie of his condigne desertes.