THE Catholic Triumph: Containing, A Reply to the pretenced Answer of B. C. (a masked jesuit,) lately published against the Trial of the New Religion. Wherein is evidently proved, that Popery and the Doctrine now professed in the Romish Church, is the New Religion: And that the Faith which the Church of England now maintaineth, is the ancient Roman Religion.  Psal. 22. v. 16. Dogs are come about me: and the council of the wicked, layeth siege against me. Psal. 120. v. 3. What reward shall be given to thee, thou false tongue? even mighty and sharp arrows, with hot burning coals. 
AT LONDON Printed for the company of Stationers. 1610.   

To the most reverend Father my very good Lord, TOBY, the L. Archbishop of York his Grace, Primate of England.  
Fifteen years (most reverend Father) are now fully expired, since I first began to write against the professed adversaries of the ancient Christian, Catholic, Apostolic, and old Roman religion; I mean the late Bishops of Rome, the Romish Cardinals, the Jesuits, jesuited Papists, and Gunpowder-popish-vassals: In which space of time, I have published so many Books in defence of the Catholic Faith, as are in number correspondent to the years. A very long time it was, (the argument in hand considered,) before I could any way extort any Answer to any of my Books. Howbeit, when the Jesuits after mature deliberation, had seriously pondered with themselves, that through their long silence, many Papists did utterly renounce Popery, and joyfully embrace the Catholic Faith, this day sincerely professed in our Church: then they became so ashamed of their silence in that behalf, that in the year 1605. they published a little Pamphlet, terming it, The forerunner of Bells downfall: 
Five Books were printed, but hid under a Pipkin, lest they should be seen, or burnt with the Sun.  wherein they avouched with brazen faces, that they had written five Books five years afore that time, against my Motives and my Survey of Popery. And lest it should be objected against them, that it cannot be so, seeing we can neither see them, nor hear of them; the Forerunner telleth us very gravely, (but to their endless shame,) that the Answer is suppressed, and upon just occasion stayed from the publication. Alas, alas, how are silly Papists bewitched, with the juggling and deceitful dealing of these seducers? They have been buzzing about the answering of my two first Books, 
My Book of Motyves, and Book of Survey.  (as they themselves tell us,) almost the space of six whole years: and when after their great pains and labours of so many years, they had framed the answer in the best manner they could devise; then they suppressed the same upon just occasion, as their Forerunner in their name telleth us. 
Forerunner, pag 15.  What, have they bestowed five years in writing five Books against two of my Books, and dare not to this day publish any one of them? 
To what end were they written, but to be published?  Out upon lying lips; Out upon traitorous Jesuits, and jesuitical deceivers of the world; The truth is, that there is no truth in these men: And it is an evident testimony, that they are not indeed able to answer; for otherwise, they would not for very shame have protested so much in print, and have performed nothing less. I am verily persuaded, that they will never during my life, (which they wish to be short, and therefore have they provided my Winding sheet, and other indirect means, to take away my life,) frame any full and direct Answer to the said Books; because in truth, all the Jesuits in the Christian world, are not able to perform it, the truth being so clear & forcible against them. After the Forerunner, a pretenced Answer, was published in the year 1606. against the Down fall of Popery. For refutation of which silly Pamphlet, I addressed my Book, entitled, The Jesuits Antepast; (which seemeth to their dainty mouths so untouthsome, that I deem, it will serve also for their Post-past,) as I had formerly published an other Reply, (entitled, The Pope's Funeral,) to the Forerunner of the Downfall. Now lately in the end of the year 1608. an other pretenced Answer (a silly thing God wot,) was published against my Book, entitled, The Trial of the new religion. This Pamphlet came to my hands in November last; at which time, I was very ill in body, and also distant above one hundred Miles from mine own Library▪ the want whereof, at that time, was far more grievous to me, than were all my painful infirmities of body; In the midst of which, whiles I am writing for the truth, I find no little comfort: The case so standing, albeit your Grace was then above forty Miles from me; yet did I presume to bemoan myself unto your Grace for the supply of my present want of Books; with whom my suit found such entertainment, as I neither did, nor ever could expect. Books indeed I expected▪ but that your Grace should also send them to me upon your own charges, most freely and Christianly offering to send me your whole Library, (which is indeed, a Library most excellent,) if I shouldst and in need thereof, it seemed to me such an honourable savour, as that I could not now in duty, omit to make this public acknowledgement thereof. The Jesuits and jesuited Gunpowder Papists, not able to endure the sound of my Trial, wherein Popery was termed and proved the New Religion; have suborned (as it seemeth) Robert Parsons that lewd companion and traitorous Friar, to publish that supposed Refutation, the sum and substance whereof, they had (no doubt) collected and framed to his hands. His name he dareth not disclose, lest the great disgrace, (which can not but ensue upon that silly Answer,) should eternally cleave unto him, as being one, who not able to defend Popery, by honest and Christianlike proceeding, bestirreth himself to effect the same, by continual forgery, by lying, by cozenage, and deceitful dealing; as in this Book I shall make apparent: Wherein, what myself have effected, or rather God in me, let the judicious and honest Reader judge; and for that which he findeth well done, give God the glory. Such as it is, I dedicate unto your Grace; as unto him, who hath deserved my uttermost service. The Almighty bless your Grace, with many happy years in this life; and with eternal glory, in the life to come. Amen. Junii 3. 1609.  
Your Grace's most bounden, Thomas Bell.   

Brief Instructions, for the better understanding of the Discourse following.  

Instruction 1.  
THE Pope, Cardinals, Jesuits, and all Papists generally, do bear the world in hand, that the Church of Rome this day keepeth inviolably that Faith and Religion, which S. Peter and S. Paul in their time, planted there. I hold and defend the negative; proving the same sound and evidently throughout this whole Discourse. We all agree in this; 
This Church of Rome hath foully corrupted the old Roman Religion, which our Church hath reform.  that the Church of Rome had once the true, ancient, Christian, catholic, and apostolic Faith, which she received from S. Peter and S. Paul: myself most willingly subscribing thereunto. I neither impugn the old Roman religion, nor reprove the ancient Bishops there: it is the Late up-start-religion of the Romish Church that now is, which I detest and write against in all my Books; as against that Church, which so aboundeth with Errors, Heresies, and Superstitions, as I know not when and where to find the like; no not among Ethnics, Publicans, Turks, jews, or Saracens.   

Instruction 2.  
There are many sects of Friars this day in the Church of Rome: 
A.D. 527.  the Benedictives began in the year 527-after Christ. 
A.D. 1084.  The Carthusians began, in the year 1084. after Christ. How this Sect had the first original, it is worthy the Reader should yield his due attention: this is the truth of the Story. While one Bruno was the reader of Philosophy at Paris, that famous City in France; a friend of his (being a man of good carriage & honest external conversation) departed out of this life: 
The Papists ascribe salvation to popish Monkry.  this friend lying dead upon the Coffin in the Church, soundeth out these words, in the ears of the said Bruno; I am damned by the just judgement of God. With this wonderment, the said Bruno was so terrified, that he knew no way how to be saved, but by inventing the sect of the Carthusians. Behold here, the subtlety of the Devil; who never wanteth means, how to set up Superstition and Idolatry: for if the Story be true (as it is most true, if many famous Popish Historiographers be not notorious liars) then doubles, the Devil was the author of the voice, as which brought forth the spirit of Pride, not the spirit of Humility. 
Bruno the author of a new popish sect.  I prove it, because this Bruno (who had vowed perpetual obedience to his superior) could not now be content to continue a Monk amongst the Benedictives, but he must be the Lord Abbot of a new Sect: For, since the Sect of the Benedictes was the ready way to Heaven, as late upstart Popery taught him; it followeth of necessity, that either he condemned his own Religion, and consequently his own, if not the devils invention: or else, my consequence perforce must be admitted. And here I note by the way, the formal deformity of all the Sects in Popery: to weet, that the Papists ascribe Merit and salvation to the same: 
Hence Popery is convinced, to be the new Religion.  and so Popery is the New religion.   

Instruction 3.  
The aforenamed Benedictive-monkes, in a short time began to be dissolute, and so to be divided into many new Sects. Some were called Cluniacenses: some, Camaldnenses: some, Vallisumbrenses: some, Montolivotenses: some, Grandimontenses: some, Cistertienses, some, Syluestrenses: All which, being most variable in life, manners, and observations; will for all that, be reputed right Benedictives. Even so forsooth, as our late Popes or Bishops of Rome, must needs be S. Peter's successors; though as like to him, as York is like foul Sutton. 
A.D. 1335.  This sect of the Benedictives, far altered from the first institution, was reform in the year 1335. for (as Polydorus that famous Popish writer reporteth) Monks do not long continue, in the due observation of their Monastical institution.   

Instruction 4.  

A.D. 1119.  The Sect called Pramonstratensis, began in the year 1119. the first Author thereof was one Norbertus by name: Who doubles either condemned the former Sects, at the least of imperfection; or else was puffed up with the spirit of Pride, as were his fraterculi before him.   

Instruction 5.  

A.D. 1170.  The Sect of the Carmelites began, in the year 1170. It was invented by one Almericus the Bishop of Antioch. 
A.D. 1198.  The Sect of the Dominicans began, in the year 1198. The sect of the Franciscans began, in the year 
A.D. 1206.  1206. 
A.D. 1371.  The Sect of the jesuates began, in the year 1371. 
A.D. 1540  The Sect of the Jesuits (that cursed crew) began in the year 1540 after Christ: 
Ignatius Loyola was the father of Jesuits, these proud & lordly Friars.  the Author of this Sect, was one Ignatius Loyola, a Soldier and a Spaniard borne. This Sect, as it was the last hatched, so doth it in pontifical Pride surpass all the rest. It is by themselves termed (Ordo sodalitatis jesu;) the very name expressing their proud and haughty minds. For, no name of so many Sects afore them, nor any other appellation could content them; unless they were termed, the Fellows and Companions of our Lord jesus. Their dear brethren the Secular Seminarie-Priestes tell them roundly, even in printed Books published to the view of the whole world, 
Behold the Jesuits lively purtrayed▪ in their best beseeming colours.  that they are notorious Liars, cruel Tyrants, arrant Traitors, merciless Murderers, right Machivels, Scribes and pharisees, Gypsees, Firebrands of sedition: that they ride (like Earls) in Coaches, with many Servants attending on them: that they must have their Chambers perfumed: that Gentlewomen must pull off their Boots: that they troll up and down, from good cheer to good cheer: that they are thieves: that they threaten a conquest of noble England: that they promise to restore men to their livings, that will take part with them against their natural Sovereign: in brief, that they are the wickedest men upon earth. 
Note well my Anatomy.  All which, & much other like stuff, the Reader may find at large, in the Anatomy of Popish tyranny.   

Instruction 6.  
The name (Pope) was common to all Bishops every where, for more than 528. years after Christ. The Bishops of Rome (Sozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus) more than 417. years after Christ, could allege no better grounds or reasons for their now falsely usurped Primacy; then that only which the Nicene Council had allotted to them. For which cause, the aforenamed Popes, falsified the Canons of that most famous Synod; as S. Augustine, 
The Fathers of the African Council, did stoutly control the Bishops of Rome, for their forgery of false Canons.  and hundreds of Bishops with him in the African Council assembled, freely and roundly told Pope Celestine, in their Epistle directed to him; exhorting him to surcease from such proud challenges, and calling his falsely pretended sovereignty, Fumosum typhum seculi, smokely stateliness of the world. The aforenamed Popes, feigned certain false Canons, to have been made by the Fathers of the famous Nicene Council: 
The Bishop of Rome's authority limited by the Council of Nice.  by the which (as they reported) a supereminent power and jurisdiction was granted to the Bishops of Rome, over and above all other Bishops in the Christian world. Whereas the true Canons of that holy Synod, did confine, allot, and limit, the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome; even as it did allot, limit, and confine, the jurisdiction of other Bishops else where. The Fathers of the African Council sent this way, that way, and every way, to search and find out the true copies of the Canons of the Council of Nice: yea, to the Churches of the East, to the Bishops of Antioch, & of Alexandria: 
Hence sprang the Bishop of Rome's falsely pretended Primacy.  But when all was done, that possibly they could perform, the Bishops of Rome could nowhere ground & 'stablish their fond imagined prerogatives; save only upon false and counterfeit Canons, untruly fathered upon the Nicene Synod.   

Instruction. 7.  
The Emperors successively following Constantine, worthily surnamed the Great, granted great privileges to the Church and Bishops of Rome; which excellency, privileges, & prerogatives, the Bishops of Rome cunningly procured, by a counterfeit and falsely forged donation of Constantine the great: 
The Emperors were deceived, and so gave away their royal prerogatives.  for, the late Emperors giving credit to the counterfeit donation, yielded up their lawful Segnories, royal Sovereignties, and regal Prerogatives, to the Bishops of Rome; supposing they had only restored to them, that which was wrongfully detained from them: For while they gave away their own, they unawares, and fond deemed, that they only restored that, which was not their own in deed.   

Instruction 8.  
The word (Pope) was not the proper and peculiar name to the Bishop of Rome, 
A.D. 528.  for the space of 528. years after Christ. 
Universal Bishop.  The Church of Rome was made the Head of all other Churches; and the Bishops there, the heads of all other Bishops, 
A.D. 607.  by the imperial constitution of Phocas 607. years after Christ. That the Pope could not err judicially, was not authentical in the Romish Church for 1500. years after Christ. That the Pope could unmarrie persons lawfully married by Christ's institution, was never heard of in the Christian world, 
A.D. 1550.  until the year 1550. after Christ; at which time Pope julius presumed to dissolve lawful Matrimony, by his unlawful Dispensation. It was never thought lawful for the natural Brother to marry his natural Sister, until the time of Pope Martin, who by the instigation of the Devil, 
A.D. 1418.  set the same abroach, in the year 1418. after Christ. Popish Venial sins, 
A.D. 1566.  were first hatched by Pope Pius 1566. years after Christ. That the Blood of popish Saints could work man's redemption, 
A.D. 1161.  was never heard of for the space of 1161. years after Christ. The like may be said of many other Popish Articles: for which I refer the Reader, to my Trial of the New Religion. I deem it enough for the present, to insinuate to the Christian Reader, that our Church hath only abolished Superstition, Errors, and Heresies, by little and little crept into the Church; and doth still keep all and every jot of the Old Roman Faith and Religion. The Capucheenes at Rome did the like, when they (even with the Pope's good liking) reform the dissolute Franciscans. Yea, Pope Pius himself of late days did the like, while he reform the popish deformed missals and breviaries, in his late Council gathered at Trent. If he that now is Bishop of Rome, would reform all the rest, by abolishing all Novelties by little and little brought into the Church, as we have done; he should find the remnant, to be the Old Roman religion in very deed. Mark well the whole Discourse following; where all this is sound proved, as more cannot be wished.    

The Contents of the Chapters.  

Chapter 1. Proving: THat the name and word (Pope) was in the primitive Church, common to all Bishops aswell of Rome as else where. That the Bishop of Rome neither is, nor aught to be; nor ever was called, The universal Bishop of the whole Church. That the name (Pope) was not peculiar to the Bishops of Rome, for more than 528. years after Christ. That the jesuit, volens nolens, is enforced to grant the same.  
Chapter 2. Proving: That the Pope may not be controulled, though he carry with him thousands upon thousands into Hell. That it is Sacrilege, to dispute of the Pope's power. That the Pope with his Pardons, can deliver all souls out of Purgatory-fire. That the Pope can dissolve that Matrimony, which is firm and stable by Christ's institution. That the Pope can dispense with the Brother, to marry his own natural Sister. That the Pope hath as great power, as Christ himself had on earth. That the Pope may do, whatsoever pleaseth him. That the Pope can make of nothing, something. That the counterfeit Donation of Constantine, was the original of all Popish superroyall power. That whatsoever the Emperors of latter time, gave to the Church of Rome, they were induced to do the same, by the cozening tricks of the Bishops of Rome. That the Popes (Sozimus, Bonefacius▪ and Celestine,) falsified the Canons of the Nicene Council, so to advance themselves above all other Bishops. That no Bishops nor Priests, aught to appeal to the Church of Rome. That the Council of Nice gave the primacy of honour to the Church of Rome, because it was the Seat of the Emperor, and Caput Mundi. That all Christians (even the Bishops of Rome) are subject to the Canons of the Nicene Council. That the Nicene Synod did confine and knit the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.  
Chapter. 3. Proving: That Marriage of Priests was ever lawful, during the time of the old Testament. That the Marriage of Priests is prohibited only by the law of Man, and not by any positive constitution either of Christ or his Apostles. That it was ever lawful for the Bishops and Priests of the East-church, to marry, and to beget children in time of their Priesthood. That the Marriage of Priests was ever lawful also in the Westchurch, until the time of Pope Siricius: and in Germany, for the space of 1074. years after Christ. That all secular Priests may Marry, notwithstanding the Popish solemn Vow annexed. That by Popish faith and doctrine, Marriage is of force after the single Vow of chastity. That the Vow single, is of one and the same nature with the Vow solemn. That the Marriage of Priests is lawful after the solemn Vow, so it be done by the Pope's Dispensation. That the forced and coacted Chastity of Priests, hath been so intolerable, as nothing hath brought more shame to Priesthood, more shame to Religion, more grief to godly men.  
Chapter. 4. Proving: 
Chap. 4. Of the Pope's Pardons.  That popish Pardons are neither found in the holy Scripture, nor in the ancient Fathers: That the popish Master of sentences, could find no mention of them, in the writings of the holy Fathers. That bishop Fisher granted the young age, of late popish Pardons. That the best learned Papists, are not able to defend the same.  
Chapter. 5. Proving. 
Chapt. 5. Of popish Purgatory.  That the Greek Church never believed Purgatory. That the Church of Rome believed it not, for the space of 250. years. That the Church of Rome believed it not all at once, but by little and little. That the invention of Purgatory was the birth of popish Pardons▪ That the primitive Church was never acquainted with the Pope's Pardons; nor yet with popish Purgatory.  
Chapter. 6. Proving: 
Chap. 6. Of Auricular confession.  That popish Auricular confession, cannot be proved out of the Old Testament. That the New Testament doth not impose an heavier yoke upon us, than did the Old. That popish Auricular confession, is not necessary for man's salvation. That it is neither commanded by Christ, nor yet by his Apostles. That it is established by the mere law of man, grounded only upon a falsely imagined Apostolical unwritten tradition. That it was not an Article of popish Faith for the space of 1215. years after Christ.  
Chapter. 7. Proving: 
Chap. 7. Of Venial sins  That every Sin is Mortal of it own nature. That five famous popish Writers (Roffensis, Almaynus, Bains, Durandus, Gersonus) do all confess the same. That the Jesuit S. R. granteth freely, that the Church of Rome had not defined some Sins to be Venial, until the days of Pius the fifth; which was not fifty years ago.  
Chapter. 8. Proving: 
Chap. 8. Of the Pope's faith.  That the Pope may err, both in Faith and Doctrine judicially. That many Popes have erred De facto: That great learned Papists did constantly confess so much.  
Chapter. 9 Proving: 
Chap. 9 Of the condign Merit of Works.  That true Merit, and condign Merit, is all one. That the regenerate do Good works, and receive reward above their deserts. That Good works do follow justification, but go not before the same. That the best Works of the regenerate, are stained with sin; and in rigour of justice, deserve eternal death. That Good works are so necessary to attain eternal life (as the way and means, by which God hath decreed to bring his chosen to it; but not as the cause thereof) as without them, it can not be had. That Good works are the effects of Predestination, depending upon it; not it upon them. That Good works in a godly sense, may be called Meritorious; that is, they so please God, that of mercy he rewardeth them. That without the mercy and promise of God, they do not merit Heaven. That Charity is not the form of Faith. That Faith as a worker, doth not justify; but respectively, as an instrument apprehending Christ's merits, and applying them unto us. That Good works, though they be neither the efficient, nor the formal, nor the final cause of justification (which ever goeth before them) yet are they the material cause, and cause, sine qua non, (as the Schools term it) the cause or condition, without which justification shall not have effect. That Good works must be done for three respects. That Gods Promise doth not make Good works, to be condignly worthy of the reward. That condign merit of Works, was not an Article of Popish faith, for more than 1540 years after Christ.  
Chapter. 10. Proving: 
Chap. 10. Of Transubstantiation.  That Transubstantiation is a Monster, lately begotten in Germany, and borne in Rome.  
Chapter. 11. Proving: 
Chap. 11. Of popish invocation of saints.  That popish Invocation, doth not only make Saints the mediators of Intercession, but also of Redemption. That it maketh saints joint purchasers of salvation with Christ's most sacred blood; so it be not in the same degree. That it was not hatched, for more than 1160, years after Christ.  
Chapter. 12. Of the popish Communion under one kind.  
Chapter. 13. Of popish private Mass.  
Chapter. 14. Of Pope Martin's Dispensation.  
Chapter. 15, Of worshipping of Images.  
Chapter. 16. Of church-service in the vulgar tongue.  
Chapter. 17. Of the pieces of popish Mass.  
Chapter. 18. Of the mysteries of the popish Mass.  
Chapter. 19 Of kissing the Pope's feet.  
Chapter. 20. Of praying upon Deeds.  
Chapter. 21. Of changing the Pope's name.  
Chapter. 22. Of the Paschal Torch.  
Chapter. 23. Of the popish Pax, and the mystery thereof.  
Chapter. 24. Of the Pope's Bulls.  
Chapter. 25. Of the popish Agnus-dei.  
Chapter. 26. Of Candelmas-day.  
Chapter. 27. Of the doleful Oath, which popish Bishops make to the Pope.  
Chapter. 28. Of the popish Lent-fast.  
Chapter. 29. Of the annulling of popish Wedlock.  
Chapter. 30. Of the Popes falsely pretended Superiority, over and above a general Council.  
Chapter. 31. Proving: That the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of England, is the old Roman Religion.    

The Jesuits poem.  

B. C.  
INtending to note the principal untruethes of Bells Pamphlet, I have thought good first to salute his Epistle, and see what wholesome stuff he presenteth in that, to his Patrons.   

T. B.  
I Answer: First, that If I should stand upon every falsehood, slander, and cozening trick, which the jesuit hath published; and handsomely paint him out in his best beseeming colours, time would sooner fail me, than matter whereof to speak: Howbeit, as I mean, for the most part, to let pass his slanders, his railing words, his fooleries, his absurdities, his contradictions, and his impertinent trifles; so will I (by God's holy assistance) confute all the parts and parcels of his foolish and ridiculous Pamphlet; not omitting any thing of any moment in the same. Secondly, that our jesuit hath passed over in deep silence, my principal and chiefest grounds, arguments, 
The jesuit only snatcheth at such pieces, as he thinketh he may best deal withal.  authorities, & reasons; as not able to say any thing against them: which the judicious and honest Reader, will soon perceive with all facility. Thirdly, that our Friar doth but snatch at pieces here & there, with the which he thought he might best deal, at the least, in some colourable show of words. But let us hearken (I pray you) to that attentively, which (he saith) he found in my dedicatory Epistle.   

B. C.  
The Minister falleth roundly to the matter, presenting his Patrons with a trick of his occupation, in his very first entrance: his words be these. 
B.C. pag. 2.  The visible Church (saith Bell) as writeth Egesippus, remained a Virgin free from all heresies and corruptions, during the life of the Apostles: 
〈…〉 apud 〈…〉 3 cap. 32.  that is to say, about one hundred years after Christ; to which time, S. john the Evangelist was living: but after the death of the Apostles (saith he) errors by little and little crept into the Church, as into a void and desert House. This Collection (which Bell hath made) is powdered with lies, and juggling tricks, thick and threefold. Bell belieth both Egesippus and also Eusebius, 
O the most monstrous lie in the world.  whom be quoteth in the third Book of his History, in the two and thirty Chapter; as the relator of those words of Egesippus: Read the place he that please, no such thing shall there be found, nor the name of Egesippus so much as once mentioned. The Minister both abuseth his Patrons and others, with a notorious untruth of his own; fathering that upon Eusebius, which is not there to be found. 
God of his mercy either convert or confound the liar.  Neither can this dealing of his proceed from other root, then mere malice; as whose brains are employed about nothing more, than the hammering of lies, cavils, and corruptions against the Catholic faith.   

T. B.  
I answer: First, that the Jesuits accusation, which here he maketh against me, is too too grievous, and more than intolerable unto godly ears: For, he chargeth me first, to have powdered mine assertion with lies and juggling tricks. Then, to have done the same thick and threefold. Thirdly, to have belied both Egesippus & Eusebius. Fourthly, he impudently affirmeth, that no such thing can possibly be found, as I have alleged out of Eusebius. Fiftly, that my position is so false and so far from the truth, that the name of Egesippus is not so much as once mentioned. Sixtly, that I have of mere malice, slandered Egesippus and Eusebius; being men of great learning.  
Secondly, that seeing the Devil is the Father of Liars, the Jesuit may very well be thought, 
Secundo principaliter.  to be his only Son. But how shall this be proved? All that shall read his book, must needs think he saith the truth, because he affirmeth it so impudently, (confidently I would say.) This text of Christ's holy Gospel, may well be verified in the Jesuits, & their accursed jesuited crew: 
Ioh 12. ver. 41.  They loved the pray●e of men, more than the glory of God. The truth is never ashamed; she will show herself to the confusion of the newly hatched sect of Jesuits, & of the late startup Romish faith and religion. These are the express words of Eusebius, as Ruffinus a very learned Father (who lived above 1200. years ago) hath translated them. 
Euseb. hist. lib. 3. cap. 32.  Post haec idem scriptor addidit etiam hoc, quod usque ad illa tempora virgo munda et immaculata permanset ecclesia: sequitur; Vt vero et apostolorum chorus et omnis illa aetas, quae a domino susceperat vivae 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 unto those days, the Church continued a pure & immaculate virgin: but after the death of the Apostles and all that age, which had heard our Lord speak in live voice unto them; false and erroneous doctrine began to intrude herself, as into a void house or desert place. Thus writeth Eusebius, in that very Book and Chapter: where our Jesuit impudently avoucheth, that no such thing can be found; no, not so much, as Egesippus once named: albeit, both the whole matter, and the words, be in very deed, as I have here truly put them down; yea, Egesippus is named in the very beginning of the said Chapter, as the relator of the Story; and in these words (the same writer) eftsoons insinuated to the reader. 
Upon my salvation, the jesuit hath most impudently belied me.  Is it now true (sir Friar Jesuit) that I have powdered mine assertion with lies? Is it true (sir liar) that I used juggling tricks therein? Is it true, that I have done the same thick and threefold? Have I belied 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 expressly, and twice virtually? If all this be true, as it is must true in deed; what shall I say, or what can I say, to this shameless and impudent Friar? Apagè, apagè, Out upon rotten Popery; out upon lying Jesuits; out upon the new Romish Religion; which can be defended by no better means, then by impudency, falsehood, and flat lying. What shall, or what can the Reader expect at the hands of this shameless, impudent, 
The jesuit is as honest, as he that hath no truth at all in him.  and lying Jesuit, in the rest of his Pamphlet, who entertaineth him in the very beginning, with such leasings, such juggling tricks, and such diabolical accusations? What hath this shameless and impudent Jesuit deserved? the Whetstone; nay rather with Chore, Dathan, and Abyram, to go down quick into Hell. 
Nomb. 16. vers. 24.30.  This doubtless, if nothing else should be said; were enough to prove Popery, to be the new Religion. I wonder, how the Jesuit durst publish such notorious slanders? but on the one side, being at a nonplus, and not able in truth to say any thing for the antiquity of Popery; and on the other side, choosing rather to consecrate his soul to the Devil, 
Out upon all lying & traitorous jesuits.  by lying, slandering, and deceitful dealing; then to grant Popery to be the new Religion: He thought to face out the matter, by imputing that to me, which most justly and properly pertaineth to himself. And withal, he very politicly considered (the master Devil of Hell suggesting it unto him) that his best course was, 
Popery can not in truth be defended; it is the new Religion.  to do the same in the beginning. These things thus standing, all wise Papists (I trow) will look more carefully into the matter; and from hence forth, not give credit to such lying Doctors, such false Teachers, & such notorious slanderers of the innocent. If all Jesuits in England, all Dominicans in Spain, all Franciscans in France, and all Cardinals in Rome, should conspire together, 
The jesuit beginneth, continueth, and endeth, with lying.  how to accuse the innocent▪ I know not (it is above my reach and capacity) how they could surpass this impudent lying Jesuit, in such kind of treachery. This one thing I will now say, which will appear before the end of this Discourse, that as he here beginneth, so he continueth unto the end. For; if his lies, slanders, cavils, cozening tricks, false dealing, & ridiculous sophistications be once taken away; very little, or rather nothing at all, will remain in this his pretenced answer, to the trial of the new Religion. It woundeth the Pope and his Jesuits, to hear Popery termed, the New Religion: they are not able to endure the sound thereof.    

The Jesuits first Chapter▪ of this name and word (Pope.)  

B. C.  
ALbeit the name (Pope) was attributed also to other bishops, yet was it in such special manner given to him, that it sufficiently declared his Supreme authority over all other.   

T. B.  
I answer: First, that S. Epiphanius called Athanasius Pope, in these express words. 
Epiphan. haer. 68 p. 213.  Eusebius praedictus Nicomedia episcopus erat totius ipsorum collectionis administrator, ac concinnator detrimenti in ecclesia, et adversus papam Athanasium. Eusebius the forenamed Bishop of Nicomedia, was the administrator of their whole collection, and the contriver of the detriment in the Church, and against Pope Athanasius. Secondly, that S. Hierome called S. Augustine Pope, in sundry Epistles written to him in these words. 
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 Thirdly, that S. Austyn called Aurelius Pope, 
Aug. ep. 76.  who was but his fellow-Byshop; & in many things far inferior to him. Fourthly, that not only S. Austyn, but Alipius also, called the same Aurelius Pope. Fiftly, 
Aug. ep. 77.  that S. Hierom call not only S. Austyn Pope, but also S. Epiphanius Pope in like manner. Sixtly, that the Priests Moses and Maximus, with the Deacons Nicostratus and Ruffinus, and sundry confessors did all with one uniform assent, 
Apud Cyprian. pag. 11.46.61.66.  call S. Cyprian most blessed Pope. Seventhly, that the Clergy of Rome, writing to the Clergy of Carthage, called the same Cyprian Pope. But doubtless, neither would, neither durst the Clergy of Rome, have called Cyprian the Bishop of Carthage Pope; if the name had then been proper, or any way peculiar to the Bishop of Rome. 
Valla. de don. Constant. ●ol. 34. B.  Eightly, that Laurentius Valla, a very learned and famous Writer, yea and a Roman borne, is Consonant to the Clergy of Rome; in that most excellent and learned Declamation, which he published against the counterfeit Donation of Constantine: these are the express words, of that great Learned Roman: Transeo, quod rasuram coronam vocas, et Papam pontificem Romanun, qui nondum peculiariter sic appellari erat captus. I let pass, that thou calls his shaving, a Crown; and the Bishop of Rome, Pope: who began not yet to have that name peculiarly. Lo, for more than 330. years, the Bishop of Rome did not begin to challenge that name.   

B. C.  
Which appeareth first, because when any was called Pope without further addition, it was understood only of the Bpshops of Rome; as is evident out of the Council of Chalcedon, where it is said; The most blessed and apostolic man the Pope, doth command us this thing. Secondly, because the Bishop of Rome was called Pope of the whole Church; 
Act. 16.  as we read in the same Council, where Leo is called Pope of the universal Church. 
In breviario. cap. ●1.  And Liberatus affirmeth, that there is no Pope over the Church of the whole world, but the Bishop of Rome. Thirdly, because he is called the Pope, or Father of general Counsels, and of the whole World; but he calleth not other bishops, Popes or Fathers; but his brethren or Sons: as is apparent out of an Epistle of Pope Damasus to the Eastern Bishops, recited by Theodoretus; and in the Epistle of the Council of Chalcedon to Pope Leo.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that as our Jesuit began with notorious lying, so he continueth here, and in every place to the end of his Pamphlet: For, the Council of Chalcedon saith not, as our Jesuit with lying lips avoucheth: no, no, not the Council; but Bonifacius a Priest of Rome (sent by Leo to the Council) a sworn vassal to the Pope; and such a one as durst not but say what the Pope had enjoined him, saith so: These are the express words. 
Act. 16. Pag. 10.  Bonifacius presbyter sedis apostolicae vicarius, dixit; beat●ssimus et apostolicus vir Papa, inter caetera hoc nobis mandavit: Bonifacius Priest the Pope's deputy said; the most blessed and apostolic man the Pope, among other things, gave us this commandment. Secondly, that our Jesuit saith truly (though meaning nothing less) when he telleth us, that it is said out of the Council: For, most true it it; that it is so out of the Council, that it never came into the same. The Pope's Vicar indeed would gladly have advanced the Pope; but the Council made no reckoning of his proud and arrogant words. Thirdly, that the jesuit still lieth, when he impudently avoucheth (as his wont manner is) that the Council called Leo, Pope of the whole Church: For the words, 
The jesuit is full of notorious lies. Act. 16. pag. 21●.  which our Friar fathereth upon the Council, are only the words of Lucentius the Pope's deputy; but not the words of the Council. The Fathers of the Council contemned the arrogant speeches of this Lucentius; as they did the other of Bonifacius afore. Fourthly, that our Jesuit impudently & most shamefully belieth Liberatus; as who hath no such lofty words in the behalf of Leo, but barely and nakedly calleth him Pope: and who is so far from terming him Pope over the Church of the whole world, that he flatly affirmeth the contrary in sundry other Chapters. In one place, he hath these words; Lectus est tomus papae Leonis ad memoratum flavianum, 
Liberatus, cap. 13. pag. 621. in Bre●iar.  contra dogma Eutychis directus: The Tomb of Pope Leo was read, which he directed to Flavianus 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 apostolic Sea fleeing from the Council, showed Pope Leo the wickedness 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 adversus ●os Imperatori justiniano: Severus of Antioch was condemned, and Anthinus of Constantinople, of Agapetus the Pope of Rome, and Menna of Constantinople; and Libels were presented to the Emperor justinian, against them. Many like places I could easily allege, out of the breviary of Liberatus; but one for many may suffice, which cutteth the Pope's head and neck from the shoulders. These are the express words: 
Cap. 12. Pag. 20.  Sed fortissimus Leo anciens legatorun svorum suggestionem, et Theodorit● quaerelas suscipiens, litteris suis Theodosium Imperatorem et Pulcheriam Augustam petit; ut fieret intra Itaham generale concilium, et aboleretur error fidei per violentiam dioscorj factus: But courageous Leo hearing the suggestion of his Messengers, and receiving the complaints of Theodoritus, directing his Letters to the Emperor Theodosius and Pulcheria the Empress, desireth them, that a general Council might be gathered within Italy, and the error of faith abolished, which Dioscorus by violence had set abroach. Thus writeth Liberatus, whom our Friar relieth upon, as one of his chiefest Patrons. Out of whole words, I observe first, that the Pope is termed plain Leo, without either welt or guard. Secondly, that the Pope could not gather a Council in Italy; but only requested the Emperor to do it. Thirdly, that the Emperor of the East had still the chief sovereignty of Rome & all Italy, even 457. years after Christ. 
A.D. 457.  And consequently, that the late Bishops of Rome, do most shamefully abuse the world, when they impudently avouch, that the Emperor Constantine the great, gave to Sylvester the Bishop of Rome, his golden Crown, dignity, title, and interest, both of Rome, Italy, & the whole Western parts. For the Council of Chalcedon was holden in the year 457. after Christ: 
A.D. 327.  which was about 130. years after the falsely pretended donation of Constantine, and his departure to Constantinople from the city of Rome. 
Quinto principaliter.  But hereof more at large, in the next Chapter now following. Fiftly, that the jesuit egregiously belieth both Damasus that good Bishop of Rome, and Theodoretus that grave and learned writer: for, no such thing can be found in Theodorete, in the place quoted by the Jesuit. 
Theod. hist. lib. 5. cap. 10.  These words are all that the Jesuit can truly father upon Theodorete; which how far they are from his notorious lie, let the indifferent Reader judge. Confessio catholicae fidej quam Papa Damasus misik Paulino episcopo Thessalonicae in Macedonia: The confession of the Catholic faith, which Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus the Bishop of Thessalonica in Macedonia. here is not one word, of any Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Nay, the same Theodorete, even in the Epistle next and immediately aforegoing, confoundeth the Jesuit, and striketh him stark dead: these are the express words. 
Theod. hist. lib. 5. cap. 9  Dominis reverendissimis et pijssimis fratribus ac collegis, Damaso, Ambrosio, Brittonj, Valeriano, Acholio, Auemi●, Basilio, et caeteris sanctis episcopis in magna urbe Roma coactis, synodus sancta episcoporum orthodoxorum qui convenere in magna urbe Constantinopolj, in domino salutem: To the most reverend Fathers, our most holy brethren and fellows, Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valerianus, Acholius, Auemius, Basi●ius, and to all the rest of the holy Bishops assembled in the great City of Rome, the holy Synod of Catholic bishops assembled in the great City of Constantinople, send greeting in our Lord. Thus writeth Theodoretus. 
A.D. 371.  Out of whose narration, I observe first; that a whole Synod of Catholic Bishops assembled in the famous City of Constantinople, wrote to an other Synod of holy Bishops assembled in the great city of Rome. Secondly, that the Bishops of Constantinople Synod, called the Bishops at Rome assembled, their Fellows; and did not ascribe any other name or title to Damasus, than the Bishop of Rome. Thirdly, that if any such sovereignty (as our Jesuit fond imagineth) had been due to the Bishop of Rome; then doubtless, so many, so learned, and so holy Fathers assembled at Constantinople, would have given the Bishop of Rome his due title, and not have called him barely their Fellow, 
Sixto principaliter.  as they did the rest. Sixtly, that the Epistle our Jesuit fathereth upon the Council of Chalcedon, 
Notetur cap. 2▪ in conclus▪ ●0. valde.  is cousin germane to the counterfeit Donation of Constantine: of which forgery, and more than ridiculous foolery, the Reader (God willing) shall find sound and large proofs in the next Chapter. The reason is evident; because six hundred and thirty learned and holy Bishops assembled in council at Chalcedon, 
Fuerunt 630. episcopi in Chalcedone, A.D. 457.  decreed the Bishop there, to be equal to the Bishop of Rome, in all Ecclesiastical affairs. I will allege the express words of that famous Synod: which our Jesuit useth not to do, lest it should discover his lies, falsehood, and coney catching tricks: These are the words of the Council. 
Act. 16. pag. 212.  Gloriosissimi judices dixerunt; ex his quae gesta sunt, perpendimus omnem quidem primatum et honorem praecipium secundum canon's, antiquae Romae deo amantissimo Archiepiscopo conseruari: oportere autem sanctissimum Archiepiscopum regiae Constantinopolis novae Romae, eisdem primatibus honoris et ipsum dignum esse, et potestatem habere, ordinare metropolitas in Asiana, et Pontica, et Thracia diacesibus. Sequitur: Reverendi Episcopi dixerunt; haec justa sententia, haec omnes dicimus, haec omnibus placent, hoc justum decretum. quae constituta sunt, valeant. haec justa sententia; omnia ordinatè decreta sunt. The most glorious judges said; We perceive by these things which are defined, that all Primacy and chief Honour according to the Canons, is reserved to the most holy Archbishop of old Rome: but the most holy Archbishop of the royal city of new Rome, must have the same primacy of Honour and power, to ordain Metropolitans in the Dioceses of Asia, and Pontus, and Thracia. The reverend bishops answered: This is a just sentence; this we all say; this pleaseth all; this is a just decree. The things which are decreed, let them be of force. This is a just sentence; all things are orderly decreed. Thus teacheth us this most famous Council of 630. Bishops, very learned and holy Fathers. Out of which Decree, I observe first, that the Primacy which the most ancient and best Counsels gave to the Bishop of Rome, was not of Power, but of Honour. Secondly, that this holy, learned, and famous Council, gave no other name or title to Leo, than Bishop of Rome, but Archbishop of old Rome. Thirdly, that the same Fathers gave the same title or name to Anatolius then Bishop of Constantinople, calling him Archbishop of new Rome. Fourthly, that this famous Council, made the Bishop of Constantinople equal with the Bishop of Rome in all things, the primacy of Honour only excepted: in which pre-eminence of Honour, the said 630. Fathers decreed constantly, that the bishop of Constantinople or new Rome, should be the next to the Bishop of old Rome. And this doubtless, is that very doctrine which I defend: For I willingly grant both in this, and in all my other Books, 
The Bishop of Rome the chiefest Patriarch, but yet under the Emperor, as other Bishops else where.  that the bishop of Rome is the principal and chiefest Patriarch, and aught according to the ancient Canons of the famous and holy Council of Nice, to have the chiefest place in all Ecclesiastical meetings, counsels, and Assemblies, before all other bishops in the Christian world. This assertion is yet more plainly confirmed, in an other place of this famous Council of Chalcedon: these are the express words. 
Act. 16. pag. 208.  Definitiones sanctorum patrum sequentes ubique et regulam, et quae nunc relecta sunt centum quinquaginta deo amantissimorum episcoporum, qui congregati sunt sub piae memoriae Imperatore maiore Theodosio, in regia civitate Constantinopoli nova Roma, cognoscentes et nos, eadem definivimus de privilegijs eiusdem sanctissimae Constantinopolitanae ecclesiae Romae novae▪ 
Concil. 1. Constant. A.D. 383. Celebratum.  etenim sedi senioris Romae propter imperium civitatis illius patres consequenter privilegia reddiderunt, et eadem intentione permoti centum quinquaginta deo amantissimi episcopi, aequa sanctissimae sedi novae Romae privilegia tribuerunt; rationabiliter iudicantes imperio et senatu urbem ornatam aequis senioris regiae Romae privilegijs frui, et in ecclesiasticis sicut illa, maiestatem habere negotijs, et secundam post illam existere: We following the definitions of the holy Fathers every where; and knowing the Canons and the Decrees of the 150. holy bishops, assembled under the Emperor Theodosius the elder of holy memory, in the royal city Constantinople new Rome; 
Mark this: The Bishop of Rome was made the chief patriarch, because Rome was the head of the Empire.  have defined the very same, touching the Privileges of the same most holy Church of Constantinople new Rome: For the Fathers gave Privileges consequently to the seat of old Rome, for the Empire and dominion of that City. And the 150. most holy Bishops having the same intention, gave equal Privileges to the most holy seat of new Rome; judging according to reason, that the City which was honoured with the Empire and the Senate, should enjoy equal Privileges with the old royal Rome, and excel in Ecclesiastical affairs, as it, and be the second after it. In these words of these 630. holy and learned Fathers, it is very clear and evident, that the Bishop of new Rome, was equal to the bishop of old Rome in all things, the primacy of Honour only excepted. Which illation is sound confirmed by the decree of the famous Council of Constantinople, in these express words. 
Concil. prim. Constantinop. Can. 5. et habetur dist. 22. cap. Constantinop. civitatis.  Constantinopolitana civitatis Episcopum habere oportet primatus honorem post Romanum Episcopum, propteria quod sit nova Roma: The Bishop of the city of Constantinople, must have the honour of Primacy, after the Bishop of Rom●, because it is new Rome. Lo, all that, wherein the Bishop of Rome excelleth the Bishop of Constantinople, 
Honoris primatum.  and consequently all other Bishops; is nothing else in deed, but the sole and only Primacy of honour. Which Primacy, we are so far from denying it, that we give the same to our Archishops and Metropolitans in the Church of England. To which I add (and it is very emphataicall) that the principal and chief cause of making the Bishop of Rome the chief Patriarch, 
Mark this point well.  and of giving him the Primacy of honour, was this, and no other: viz. because the city of Rome, was the Imperial seat of the Emperor. So affirm two most famous Counsels, of Constantinople and Chalcedon: 
Concil. primum Constantinop. A D. 383. celebratum.  And these Counsels are consonant to the most famous Council of all Counsels, since the death of the Apostles: to weet, the Council of Nice in Bithyni●; although that sacred Council did not produce the reason, for the aforenamed Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.   

B. C.  
To this may be added, that seeing (Pope) signifieth (Father,) as Bell according to the truth confesseth; it followeth that the Bishop of Rome was in old time reputed Superior to all, in that he was called the Father of Fathers. For Steven Bishop of Carthage, writing to Pope Damasus, 
Epist. ad Damasum.  in the name of three Councils celebrated in Africa, giveth him this title. To Pope Damasus our most blessed Lord, exalted with Apostolical dignity, the Father of Fathers.   

T. B.  
I answer, that while our Jesuit laboureth to 'stablish the Pope's falsesly pretended sovereignty, 
The jesuit proveth himself a noddy.  he proveth himself a very Noddy: for I have already granted, that the Bishop of Rome for the excellency of that City, is the chiefest Patriarch; and so may be called the Father of Fathers: that is, the chiefest Father or Bishop of all Fathers or Bishops in Christ's Church. It is one thing to call the Bishop of Rome, Father of Fathers; an other thing, to call him universal Bishop, or universal Father. The former, our Church of noble England, admitteth, while she approveth two Primates; th'one of England, th'other of all England. Even so do we repute our two Archbyshops, of Canterbury and York, to be the Bishops of Bishops, 
Every Archbishop is Bishop of Bishops, in a godly sense & meaning.  or Fathers of Fathers (which is all one;) for either of them, is Bishop of Bishops, within his province; that is, the Chiefest of all the rest. But this is nothing to that superroyall power, of which we are to entreat in the next Chapter: 
Mark well the next Chapter.  which I wish the reader to mark with such attention as appertaineth thereunto. But the latter, both we, and great learned Popish writers, do utterly disclaim. In the Pope's own decrees, I find these express words. 
Dist. 99 cap. primae sedis.  Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur princeps sacerdotum, vel summus sacerdos, aut aliquid huiusmodj, sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus. universalis autem, nec etiam Romanus pontifex appelletur. Let not the bishop of the chief Seat be called the Prince of Priests, or the High Priest, or have any such like name; but only, the Bishop of the first Seat. And Universal Bishop, none may be called, no not the Bishop of Rome himself. What? doth Gratianus that famous Champion of the Romish Church, tell us so? We have read the Pope's Decree, which was taken out of the African Council: the words of Gratianus have sounded in our ears. Nay, you shall hear a greater wonder. Pope Pelagius doth constantly deliver the self same doctrine, and defineth it for the truth, to be received and believed: these are his express words. 
Dist. 99 cap. Nullus.  Nullus Patriarcharum universalitatis vocabulo unquam utatur; quia si summus Patriarcha universalis dicit, Patriarcarum nomen caeteris derogatur. Sed absit hoc a fidelibus, hoc sibi velle quempiam arripere, unde honorem fratrum suorum imminuere, ex quantulaecunque part videatur. Quapropter, charitas vestra neminem unquam, etiam suis in epistolis universalem nominet; ne sibi debitum subtrahat, cum alteri honorem infert indebitum. Let no Patriarch ever use the word of Universality; 
Let these decrees of the Popes be never forgotten  because if the chiefest Patriarch be called Universal, the name of patriarchs is derogated from the rest. But be this far from the faithful; that any should willingly snatch that to himself, which may any way seem to diminish the honour of this brethren, though in never so small a degree: Wherefore, let not your charity in your Epistles, name any patriarch at any time, Universal; lest while ye give to an other, that honour which is not due, ye take from yourselves that which is due. To which I add this Epigram, set down as the contents of the Decree in the beginning thereof. Nec etiam Romanus pontifex vniuersa●is est appellandus: Neither may the bishop of Rome be called Universal. Pope Gregory is consonant to Pope Pelagius, in these express words. 
Gratian Dist 99 cap. ecce.  Ecce, in presatione Epistolae quam ad meipsum qui prohibui, direxistis; superbae appellationis verbum universalem me Papam dicens, imprimere curastis. Quod (peto) mihi dulcissima sanctitas vestra ultra non faciat; quia vobis subtrahitur, quod alteri plus quam ratio exigit, praebetur. Sequitur, sin me universalem Papam vestra sanctitas dicit, negat se hoc esse, quod me fatetur universum: sed absit hoc; recedant verba quae veritatem inflant, et charitatem vulnerant: Behold, in the Preface of your Epistle, which you addressed to me forbidding it; you laboured to impose upon me a word of proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope: which I pray your sweet holiness, not to do to me any more; because that is taken from you, which is given to an other, more than reason doth require: For, if your Holiness call me Universal Pope, you deny yourself to be so, seeing you call me Universal: But God forbid; 
Floruit Greg. A.D. 591.  away with words that puff up the truth, and wound charity. Thus writeth Gratianus, the compiler of the Decrees: thus, 
The Bishop of Rome is confounded.  Pope Pelagius: thus, Pope Gregorius. Out of those Positions thus constantly delivered, I observe sundry very profitable and necessary documents. First, that none, no not the Bishop of Rome, may be called, Universal Pope. Secondly, that the giving of (Universal) to one, taketh away that which is due to all the rest. Thirdly, that Gregory (who lived more than 590. years after Christ) utterly refused the name of Universal Bishop or Pope, calling it a proud name; and sharply reproved Enlagius the Patriarch of Alexandria, for ascribing the same unto him. Fourthly, that Pope Pelagius the predecessor of Gregory, 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 Bishop of Rome, for the space of 591. years after Christ. How impudent therefore is our Friar, when he avoucheth the Council of Chalcedon, 
Concil. Chalc. A. D 455. celebratum.  to have called Leo the Universal Pope; Liberatus to have termed him Pope, over the Church of the whole world? Pope Damasus and Theodoretus, to have done the same? All which, are mere lies, notorious slanders, and irksome falsifications; invented by the Father of lies, and his dear children the jesuitical crew, to defend late upstart Popery (if it were possible) from the imputation of the New religion,   

B. C.  
And this may be the reason, that albeit sometime in the primitive Church, the name was also given to other Bishops; yet seeing in foresaid manner it agreed peculiarly to the Bishop of Rome, as declaring his sone reign authority over others, the former custom ceased, and so it remained alone to him.   

T. B.  
Three things our Friar freely granteth in these words: all which (such is the force of truth) are altogether against himself. First, he confesseth the truth unawares; that the name (Pope) was given to other bishops in the primitive Church: and consequently, he must grant, volens nolens, that to challenge that name, as the Bishop of Rome this day doth, is a rotten rag of the New religion. Secondly, he saith, it peculiarly agreed to the Bishop of Rome, 
Our Friar slandereth the primitive Church.  as declaring his Sovereign authority over others. In which his assertion, a notable absurdity is implied; viz. that the name (Pope) was aralogon, and consequently was given to other Bishops; but improperly, analogically, and by way of similitude; as every mean Logician can tell, or Iesu●te. Thirdly, he granteth, that the name (Pope) did in process of time, 
Our Friar confuteth himself.  cease to be given to other Bishops, and so remained to the Bishop of Rome alone. Which doubtless is that very doctrine, which I in the trial do defend. To which I must needs add this one thing, though little to our friars liking: viz. that the name (Pope) was given to other Bishops, in the ancient Church; as I have proved in my Trial, even hundreds of years after the Primitive Church. To which addition, this (to cheer up our Friar) is consectary: to weet, that the Clergy of Rome, writing to the Clergy of Carthage, called S. Cyprian, 
See the trial, and mark it well.  the most blessed Pope: Which verily (as is already said) they neither would, nor yet durst have done, if the name in such a peculiar manner, as the Friar would make us believe, had been due to the Bishop of Rome. For if the said name had been peculiar to him, and his supposed sovereignty implied therein; other Bishops could never have enjoyed the same, in the purity of the Church. Nay, other Bishops would never have improperly accepted of that name and title; which none but the Bishop of Rome, could properly ascribe unto himself.   

B. C.  
With the former, he hath coupled an other; saying thus: And so in process of time, the bishops of Rome were solely and only called Popes; and of Late years, our Holy Father, and his Holiness, is his usual name. A gross untruth.   

T. B.  
This assertion hath two parts: The former, our Friar hath freely granted, in his immediately aforegoing words. The latter, he must likewise yield unto against his will; or else be condemned of the whole world: For, beside that the jesuitical Cardinal Bellarmine, and the popish Bishop josephus Angles, in their Books, of Late years dedicated to the bishops of Rome, have given them the title of Holiness even in the abstract; it is so evident, that his Holiness, is of Late years, the usual name of the Bishop of Rome; that if any man either in Rome or in J●ahe shall deny the same, he may justly be censured worthy of the Whetstone. That which he saith of Theodoretus, the Council of Chalcedon, S. Cyprian, and S. Austin, is very frivolous and nothing to the purpose. For first, I say, of Late years; and yet the youngest, of our Friar named, lived above a thousand years ago. Secondly, there is great disparity between a peculiar, and an usual name. A peculiar name pertaineth solely and only unto one: but that an usual name may agree to many at once, it cannot be denied. Thirdly, as our Friar hath confessed, that the name (Pope) was of old time given to many; and yet afterward remained to the Bishop of Rome alone: so must he volens nolens confess; of the name Holiness.   

B. C.  
Prosecuting his former matter, he saith: But this Emperor (that is, justinian) lived after Christ his birth, about 528. years: ergo, this point of popery, is a rotten rag of the New religion. 
It is new, for that it cometh short by more than 400. years, of the time of S. Peter's doctrine.  In which words, he venteth out an untruth. For be it, that it was then appropriated to the Pope, as he saith; yet how can it be New, which by his own confession was used xi. hundred years ago? That is, so many ages before the foundations of his Religion were laid, or the name of a Protestant heard of in the whole world.   

T. B.  
Our jesuit desiring to discharge the Pope and Popery, of Newness, would prove it by my grant: viz. because I confess the name (Pope) to have been appropriated to the Bishops of Rome, a thousand years ago. But our Friar in thus disputing, doth prove himself a very Daw. For he must learn to know, that the newness of a thing may be considered two ways; absolutely, and respectively. And consequently, 
The newness of Religion may be considered two ways.  that though the name (Pope) be Old, absolutely considered; yet it is New respectively, when it is compared with the time of the Apostles. Now so it is, that you Papists bear the world in hand, that your Popery is the Old religion, and that self-same Doctrine, which S. Peter and S. Paul delivered to the Church of Rome. This is the Doctrine which I oppugn, even in the beginning of this present Chapter. But our Friar is so besotted with malice, 
The word or name (Pope) is a rag of the new religion.  that he cannot discern the truth: my reason standeth thus. You Jesuits and jesuited Papists, affirm desperately and damnably, that your Late startup Popery, is the Old religion, delivered by S. Peter and S. Paul to the Church of Rome. But that is so far from being true, that the very name (Pope) is New; as wanting above 500 years of that age or time, whereof you brag and boast: ergo, 
The name was old, as common to all Bishops; but not as proper to one.  seeing the Apostolic and first Religion is only the Old religion; and that which cometh after (as Tertullian truly writeth) the false and New religion; it followeth of necessity, that the name (Pope) coming 500 years after the Old religion, is but a rotten Rag of the New. Where I wish the Reader to remember, that I speak of the name (Pope) in that sense, in which the bishops of Rome usurp the same That which our Jesuit addeth of Protestants, how absurd it is, shall (God willing) by and by appear.   

B. C.  

O Friar, great is thy malice against the truth.  I omit here, how many Ecclesiastical names have been brought into the Church, as Consubstantial against the Arrians, Incarnation against other Heretics, the better by a new name to declare an ancient article of Faith. Will Bell for all that, call these Words, rotten Rags of a New religion? He never dare offer it▪ and yet with no less reason may be do it, than he doth here the name of the Pope.   

T. B.  
Who seeth not to what shifts our jesuitical Friar is driven? He affirmeth desperately, that I may with no less reason, call the holy names appropriated to the son of God, rotten rags of a New religion, than the name of the Pope. But out upon such Rotten divinity: out upon such paltry Friars. The sacred names (Consubstantial, and Incarnation) are equivalently, 
joh. 10. v. 28.29.30. Mat. 9.6. joh. 1. v▪ 14.  according to the substance and true nature of the things signified by the same, set down in many places of the holy Scriptures: Which was made most apparent against the Arrians, by the Fathers of the first famous Council of Nice: but the name (Pope) as it is of Late years challenged by the Bishops of Rome, and here avouched by the impudent Friar, is so far from being either expressly or virtually contained in the holy Scriptures, that all sacred Writ utterly condemneth the same; as a Rotten rag of a New religion, invented at Rome above five hundred years after the death of S. Peter & S. Paul. Again, the Holy names of Consubstantial and Incarnation, were not first common to others, and afterward attributed to the son of God: 
B.C. pag. 12.  But the name (Pope,) as I have proved, 
Let the friars confession be well remembered. pag. 12.  and as the Friar hath plainly confessed, was first (and that more than 500-yeares) common to all Bishops, and in process of time, appropriated to the Bishops of Rome. Thirdly, the thing truly signified by the holy words (Consubstantial, and Incarnation) never could agree to any creature in the world: but the thing truly signified by the word (Pope,) did in the primitive and purest age of the Church, doth at this present; and may in time to come; truly agree to all true Bishops in Christ's Church. Now, touching the name of Protestant, I answer thus: viz. That about the year of our Lord God 1529. the Duke of Saxony with others, 
The protestation of the Duke of Saxony, and of the rest.  protested publicly and constantly, against the decree of Ferdinando the Emperor, that they could not with safe conscience, obey and yield unto the same. Whereupon the adversaries did ever since that time, maliciously call all reformed Catholics and sound Christians, by the name of Protestants. But (as I have proved in the Jesuits Antepast) we are the Legitimate and reformed Catholics; and the Papists are Bastards and deformed Catholics: and consequently, the thing truly implied in the name (Protestant) is as old, 
Read and mark well the antepast.  as the Religion delivered by S. Peter and S. Paul to the Church of Rome. Which mine Assertion shall by the power of God, be made most evident, 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 Book.    

The Second Chapter, of the Pope's Superroyall power.  

B. C.  
TO season the beginning of his Chapter with a little of his mendatious powder, be writeth thus. Bonifacious bishop of, etc.   

T. B.  
To this before, I answer in particular and plain terms, it shall not be amiss, to lay open to the indifferent Reader, the Popes falsely challenged Superroyall power: Which I hope in God, to perform most plenteously, by these Conclusions following.  

The first Conclusion.  
The Pope's own Decrees teach us, 
Gratian. Dist. 40. cap. si papa  that though he be most wicked, and carry with him thousands upon thousands to the chief Devil of Hell; yet may no mortal man reprove him, for his such detestable and cursed dealing. These are the express words of the Popes own Canon. 
The Pope may not be judged, though he carry many thousands of men into Hell fire.  Si Papa, etc. innumerabiles populos cateruatim secum ducit primo mancipio gehennae, cum ipso, plagis multis inaeternum vapulaturus; huius culpas istic redarguere praesumit mortalium nullus, quia cunctos ipse iudicaturus a nemine est indicandus, nisi deprehendatur a fide devius. These are the words of Pope Bonifacius, as Gratianus (who compiled the Book of Decrees) hath related them. I heartily wish the Reader, to ponder seriously what I write; protesting upon my salvation, that in all mine Assertions, Authorities, & Allegations, I deal faithfully, ever citing the express words, as I find them in mine Authors, their authorities, and reasons.   

The second Conclusion.  
The Pope's Power is so sacred, so eminent, and so surpassing great, as it is become flat Sacrilege to dispute of the same. Victoria a most famous and learned popish school-doctor (who was the first man that brought Scholastical doctrine into Spain,) delivereth this point of doctrine, in these express words. 
Vict. relect. 4. depotest. Papae aeaden propos. 16.  Non spectat ad subditos determinare aut examinare, quid possit Papa, aut quid non possit, et quomodo teneantur parere vel non; quia sacrilegium est disputare de potentia principis, et praecipuè Papae. It pertaineth not to popish vassals, to determine or examine what the Pope may do, or what he may not do; and how they are bound to obey, or not: because it is Sacrilege to dispute of the Power of the Prince; especially of the Pope. 
We may not dispute of the Pope's power.  Lo, we may not dispute of the Pope's Power; no, not to know and learn, how and wherein we ought to obey him. This is it indeed, that maketh so many silly Papists every where: For Papists must believe all things, but examine nothing that the Pope doth. And why, I pray you? Forsooth, lest his cozening tricks, and the newness of late Popery should be known, and so both the Pope and all his jesuited Popelings be utterly overthrown.   

The third Conclusion.  
The Pope can deliver (if he list) all men in this world, from the pain due to their sins in this world: 
The Pope can save others, but not himself.  and not this only, but also bring all souls out of Purgatory; if that be done for them which he requireth. Three very learned and famous Popish Doctors, Sylvester Pryeras, Bartholomaeus Fumus, and Vig●erius, do constantly & resolutely affirm this conclusion. Sylmester hath these express words. 
sylvest do indulg. par. 7.  Sicut potest (Papa) liberare a paena peccatorum debita in hoc mundo, omnes qui sunt in mundo; si faciant quod mandat, etiamsi essent millies plures quam sunt; itae liberare potest omnes qui sunt in purgatorio, si quis pro ets facial quod jubet: As the Pope can deliver all in this world, from pain due for sin in this world; if they do what he commandeth, though they were thousands more than they be: even so can he deliver all that are in Purgatory, if any do that for them, which he commandeth. And lest any man should think that impossible, which the Pope requireth to be done, 
sylvest ubi sop. par. 7.  the same learned Writer telleth us in an other place, that it is a thing very easily done: these be his words. 
The Pope can bring all the Souls out of Purgatory.  Indulgentiae simpliciter tantum valent, quantum praedicantur; modo ex part dantis sit authoritas, ex part recipientis charitas, et ex part causae piet as: Pardons are simply worth so much, as they are paid; so there be authority in the giver, charity in the receiver, and piety in the cause or motive. But so it is (no Papist dare or can deny the same) that the souls in Purgatory be in charity, by popish faith & doctrine; for otherwise, they could not be out of Hell. And doubtless, that the Pope hath authority to give Pardons, 
Sanders, Stukely, Parry, and others had such Pardons.  as also that he granteth them for good & godly causes; (viz. for saying Masses, Trentals, Diriges, for murdering of noble Princes, for blowing up with Gunpowder, towns, Cities, Commonweals, and the like,) I suppose no Papist will deny: If they do, my argument is the stronger; and myself shall very willingly agree thereunto. Bartholomaus Fumus hath these express words: 
Fumus de Papa, par. 11.  Papa posset liberare omnes animas purgatorij, etiamsi plures essent si quis faceret pro eyes, quod iuberet; peccaret tamen indiscretè concedendo: The Pope could set at liberty all the souls in Purgatory though never so many, if any would do that for them which he commandeth; marry he should sin, by his undiscreet pardoning. But Viguerius proceedeth further, and is bold to tell us; that it is neither inconvenient, nor against the justice of God: these are his express words. 
Viguerius de sacram. ordinis in fine.  Nec est inconueniens, quod Papa purgatorium posset evacuare; non enim per hoc aliquid detraheretur divinae justitiae: Neither is it inconvenient, that the Pope can harrow Hell; for that doth derogate nothing, from the justice of God. Antoninus that famous popish Archbishop, jumpeth with the rest, in these express words: 
Antonius' part. 1. tit. 10. cap. 3.  Quia Ecclesia hoc facit et servat, credencum est it a esse: Because the Church this doth and observeth, we must believe it to be so. 
Lo, we must believe the Pope and Church of Rome.  Now, to say that the Pope can deliver all souls out of Purgatory, but doth it not to keep himself from sin, is altogether vain & frivolous: For first, he should no more sin in delivering all, than he doth in setting one only at liberty; as it is already proved by Sylvester and Viguerius. Secondly, Plenary Pardons are so common at the hour of death, as none that either have friends or money, are or can be destitute thereof: which notwithstanding, is a more undiscreet point then the other. Thirdly, the three conditions required for the legitimation of Popish pardoning, 
The Pope is a merciless man.  concur as sweetly in delivering all together jointly, as in delivering one by one severally. The Pope's inordinate affection of lucre, is hereby convinced; in that, albeit he can with one only Pardon, set open the gates of Purgatory, and set all the prisoners there at liberty; yet will he not extend that compassion to them, but taketh this course with them; that they shall appoint Ptalegata by their last Wills and Testaments, 
Behold popish ptalegata.  for Masses, Diriges, and Trentals, to be said yearly, or rather perpetually (if their ability will extend so far:) with which Masses, Diriges, & Trentals, his Pardons shall concur, & so deliver them by policy & discretion. By reason of which covetously devised policy, we may this day behold in Spain, 
Great sums of Money given, for saying popish Masses  Rome, & Italy, so many altars erected, so many Churches sumptuously decked, so many Priests richly maintained; especially in S. Gregory's Church at Rome: for which Masses, Diriges, & Trentals, huge sums of money are given daily, yearly, perpetually; not for the Masses formally concedo, but yet formally for the priests panis, and materially for the Masses, constanter assero.   

The fourth Conclusion.  
The Pope hath often by his most wicked and execrable Dispensations, taken upon him to dissolve that Matrimony, which is firm & stable by Christ's own institution. The former part is proved, by the popish learned Canonist and great Divine Martinus Navarrus in these express words. 
Navar. in ench●r. cap. 22. par. 28.  Dividitur (Matrimonium) ante consummationem, per dispensationem Papae justa de causa sactam: Matrimony is dissolved before Consummation, by the Pope's Dispensation upon just cause granted. Now, to prove that the Pope may this do, Navarre taketh it for a good ground, that the same hath been often practised by the Pope. Thus doth he write: 
Navar. ubi super.  Quorum opinio adeo obseruatur, quod etiam ter vel quater ad petitiones meo consilio antequam in urbem venissem oblatas, Paulus 3. et Pius 4. per suas dispensationes dissoluerunt quaedam matrimonia omnino clandestina nondum consummata, in remedium animarum alioquin probabiliter periturarum. 
What cannot the Pope do?  Whose opinion (he speaketh of the canonists,) is so observed, that three or four times before my coming to Rome upon petitions made by mine advise, Paulus the third, and Pius the fourth, 
The Pope can save Souls.  with their Dispensations dissolved certain secret Matrimonies not yet consummate, for the safeguard of souls, which by likelihood would otherwise have perished. Covarrwias' an other very learned and most famous popist Canonist, 
Covar. to. 1. cap. 7. par. 4▪ N. 13. col. 1.  doth confirm the same, while he telleth us constantly, that Pope Paulus the fourth, and Pope Julius the third, dispensed in like manner. Now, for proof of the latter: viz. that holy Matrimony before consummation or copulation is firm and perfect, and cannot be dissolved by the power of man; our Saviour himself teacheth us, when he saith: 
Mat. 19.7.  Quod Deus coniunxit, homo non separet. That which God hath conjoined, let not man put asunder. Again in an other place, thus. 
Luke. 16. v. 18.  Omnis qui dimittit uxorem suam, et alteram ducit, maechatur: Every one that putteth away his Wife, and marrieth an other, committeth adultery. Yea, S. Paul saith plainly: 
1. Cor. 7. v. 10.  That if the Wife depart from her Husband, she must either remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to him again. But our holy Father the Pope in his Decretals, doth answer this matter very lustily (though nothing clerkly) in these words. 
Greg. lib. 1. tit. 7. cap. 3.  Non enim homo, sed Deus separat, quos Romanus pontifex (qui non puri hominis, sed veri Dei vicem gerit in terris) ecclesiarum necessitate vel utilitate pensata, non humana sed divina potius authoritate dissoluit: For, not man, but God, doth separate those, whom the Bishop of Rome (who beareth the person not of pure man, but of the true God here on earth,) dissolveth not by human, but rather divine authority; as the necessity, or utility of the Church requireth. The popish Saint and angelical Doctor Aquinas, proceedeth further, uttering these express words. 
Aquinas in supl. mento, q. 25. art. 1.  Christus poterat relaxare, ergo et Paulus potuit, ergo et Papa poorest; qui non est minoris potestatis in Ecclesia, qu●m Paulus suit: Christ could pardon (or dissolve Matrimony,) therefore Paul could pardon, 
The Pope hath as great authority, as S. Paul had.  therefore the Pope also can pardon; as who is of as great authority in the Church, as Paul himself was. So then, a primo ad ultimum, by Aquinas his doctrine, the Pope can do as much as Christ. He can no doubt, make the deaf to hear, the dumb to speak, the lame to walk, the blind to see, and the dead to rise again to life. But our holy Father must pardon me; if I believe not these things, before I see them done. And yet do these things follow by an inevitable and irrefragable consequence, of that Doctrine which the Pope and his angelical Doctor have taught us.   

The fifth Conclusion.  
The Pope can Dispense with a Monk already professed, that he may become a married man. Navarrus that famous popist Canonist, is, and may be a witness sufficient of this popish Theme: these are his express words. 
Navar. de judiciis, notab. 3  Papa potest dispensare cum Monacho iam professo, ut contrahat matrimonium; imo de facto multi Papae dispensarunt: The Pope can dispense with a Monk already professed, that he may be a married man: yea, many Popes have de facto dispensed so indeed. 
See the ●. chapter in the 11. proposition.  Hereof see more at large, in the 3. Chapter, and the eleventh Proposition.   

The sixth Conclusion.  
The Pope can Dispense with the full Brother, to marry his own natural and full Sister, of the same Father & the same Mother. This may seem very strange to the Christian reader: 
What will not the Pope do?  But I have proved it plentifully, in the Pope's Funeral. Pope Martin the fifth of that name, did Dispense (as is already said:) but for the better contentation of the Reader, let him ponder seriously, the 14. Chapter following: Where (God willing) Pope Martin's Dispensation, shallbe examined to the bottom.   

The Seventh Conclusion.  
The Pope may do, whatsoever pleaseth his Holiness; as whose bare will, is a sufficient warrant so to do. The Pope's own dear gloze upon his Decretals, telleth us peremptorily & without blushing, that this Conclusion is true: these are the express words. 
Gloss. lib. 1. decretal. tit. 7. cap. 3.  Quia in his qu● vult, et est pro ratione volunta●: For in those things which the Pope will do, his will is a reason sufficient. And it followeth in the same place: Nec est qui e● dicat, cur ita facis? Neither may any say to him, Why dost thou so? Pope Boniface in his Decrees, yieldeth the reason hereof; if we will believe him, pleading for himself: these are his words. 
Gratian. dist. 40. cap. si Papa.  Quia cunctos ipse iudicaturus, a nemine est iudicandus: For, the Pope is to judge all others: but none may judge him. God save our holy Father the Pope.   

The Eight Conclusion.  
The Pope hath Universal jurisdiction over all Kingdoms & Empires; and fullness of Power, in as ample and large manner as Christ himself had. The popish famous Friar Augustinus de Ancova, hath these express words: 
Aug. de Ancova in summa, P. 152.  (Papa) tanquam vicarius Dej filii caelestis Imperatoris, jurisdictionem habet universalem super omnia Regna et Imperia: The Pope, as he that is the Vicar of the Son of God the heavenly Emperor, hath universal jurisdiction over all Kingdoms and Empires. Pope Nicholas, after he hath told us many fables of the Church of Rome, 
Lo, the Pope is the universal Lord of the whole world.  doth at length tell us; that S. Peter, and the Bishops of Rome his successors, have all Power both earthly and heavenly: these are his words, in the Book of Popish decrees▪ 
Dist. 22. cap. omnes.  (Christus) Beato Petro aeternae vitae clau●gero, terreni simul et cae●estis imperij iura commisit: Christ committed to S. Peter the Porter of heaven gates, the rights both of earthly and heavenly regality. And the popish gloss annexed to this Decree of Pope Nicholas, delivereth the matter in more gallant terms: 
The Pope is an other God.  these are the words. Argumentum, quod Papa habet utrumque gladium; viz. spiritualem et temporalem: This is an argument, that the Pope hath both sword; to weet, the Spiritual, and the temporal. And in the Margin it confirmeth the same, in these plain terms: Papa habens utrumque gladium transtulit Imperi●m: The Pope having both the sword, translated the Empire. Yea, the Pope Boniface the eight, made a flat Decree for the confirmation of his pretended right to both Swords: as is to be seen in his extravagant, (unam sanctam de maioritate et obedientia,) set down in the sixth Book annexed to the Decretals. Appendix Fuldensis vnfouldeth this arrogant and brutish Decree, in these plain terms. 
Appendix Fuldensis.  Hic Papa (Bonifacius 8.) constitutionem fecerat, in qua se dominum spiritualem et temporalem in universo mundo asserebat. unde requisivit Philippum regem Franciae, ut a se regnum suum cognosceret, quod rex facere, contempsit: 
The Pope would be King of the whole world.  The Pope (he speaketh of Boniface the eight) made a constitution, in which he affirmed himself to be both spiritual and temporal Lord in the whole world: Whereupon he would have had Philip king of France, to have acknowledged his Kingdom from him: 
The Pope was well rewarded.  but the King laughed him to scorn for his pains. Johannes Gersonus, a very learned Papist, & sometime Chancellor of the famous University of Paris, affirmeth wonderful power to be ascribed to the Pope: thus doth he write. 
Gers. de potest. eccles. consid. 12. part. 3.  Sicut non est potestas, nisi a Deo; sic nec aliqua Temporalis vel Ecclesiastica, Imperialis vel Regalis, nisi a Papa; in cuius faemore scripsit Christus, Rex regum, Dominus Dominantium: Like as there is no Power, but of God; so is there neither any Temporal nor Ecclesiastical, 
Out upon filthy Popery  neither Imperial nor Regal, but of the Pope; in whose thigh Christ hath written, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords. Lo here (gentle Reader) two things are proper to God alone: the one, to be King of Kings and Lord of Lords; the other, to be the author of all Power: both which, the Papists ascribe unto their Pope. Thus writeth M. Gerson of the Pope's Superroyall power, which his flattering Parasites have with his good liking, given him; although the same Gerson being otherwise a very zealous Papist, did utterly dislike and deride the same. The Pope himself from his own pen (Gregory the ninth) delivereth us this doctrine. 
Greg. 9 libr. 1. decretal. tit. ●3. cap. 6.  Ad firmamentum caeli, hoc est, universalis Ecclesiae, fecit Deus duo magna Luminaria; id est, duas instituit dignitates, quae sunt pontificalis authoritas, et regalis potestas. Sequitur, ut quanta est inter Solem et Lunan, tanta inter Pontifices et Reges differentia cognoscatur: To the firmament of Heaven; that is, of the universal Church, God made two Lights; that is, Pontifical authority, and power Royal: that we may know, there is as much difference between Popes and Kings, as there is between the Sun and the Moon. 
Glossa ubi super.  The Pope's gloze upon this goodly Text, setteth down precisely, how far a King is inferior to a Pope; that is, to any Bishop of Rome, in these words. 
The Emperor not thought comparable to the Pope.  Restat, ut Pontificalis dignitas quadragesies septies sit maior regali dignitate: It remaineth, that the dignity of the Pope is forty times seven times greater, than is the power of the King. Thus writeth the gloze, disputing out of Ptolomaeus; that the Pope must be infinitely greater, than any King in the whole world. Well, let us hear the Clerkely sentence of Pope Gelasius, in his own behalf: these are his words. 
Dist. 96. cap. duo sunt.  Honour et sublimitas episcopalis, nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari. si regum fulgori compares, et principum diademati, long erit inferius, quam si plumbi metallum ad auri fulgorem compares: 
Mark this: The Emperor is compared to Led, and the Pope to Gold.  The honour & dignity of a Bishop, can not be equalized by any comparison: If it be compared to the excellency of Kings, and to the Diadems of Princes; it shall be found far more inferior, then if thou compare a piece of Lead with bright shining Gold. So then, the Popes own Decrees, make it clear and evident, that the Lordly and more than Royal titles ascribed to them, do sound well in their ears.   

The Ninth Conclusion.  
The Pope can by his supereminent excellency and fullness of Power, change the nature of things, apply the substantial parts of one thing to another, and of nothing make some thing. The Pope's dear gloze upon his Decretals, doth plainly deliver the truth of this Conclusion, in these most golden words. 
Libr. 1. decretal. tit. 7. Cap. ●. in glossa.  (Papa) naturam rerum immutat, substantialia unius rei applicando alij; et de nihilo potest aliquid facere: quia in his quae vult, ei est pro ratione voluntas; et plenitudinem obtinet potestatis. The Pope changeth the nature of things, by applying the substantial parts of one thing to another; and he can make of nothing, some thing: for, in those things which he hath a mind to do, his bare Will is to him a sufficient warrant; and he hath the fullness of Power. Antonius that famous popish Archbishop and canonised Saint, coming as Ambassador from the Pope, telleth us (if we may believe him) that the Pope is Christ's Vicar upon earth, and of equal power with God omnipotent: these are his express words. 
Antonius' 3. part. tit. 22. cap. 5. §. 8.  Cum autem vicarius Christi sit Papa, nullus potest seipsum subtrahere ab obedientia eius de iure, sicut nullus de iure potest se subtrahere ab obedientia Dei. 
Mark well for Christ's sake, and detest late startup Popery; for it is the new religion, as every child may see.  et sicut recepit Christus a patre ducatum et sceptrum ecclesiae gentium ex Israel egrediens, super omnem principatum et potestatem, et super omne quodcumque est, ut ei genua cuncta curuentur; sic ipse Petro et successoribus eius, plenissimam potestatem commisit: For seeing the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, none can lawfully withdraw himself from his obedience, as none can lawfully withdraw himself from God's obedience: And as Christ received of his Father, the Dukedom and Sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles, over all Principality and power, and above every thing that hath being, that to him every knee may bend: even so Christ hath committed most full Power, to Peter, and to his successors (the Bishops of Rome.) Out of these Popish authorities, I observe (to the confusion of the Pope, and Popery) these golden Lessons. First, that the Pope hath Fullness of power, even as largely as Christ himself hath it. Secondly, that the Pope may do whatsoever pleaseth him, his bare Will, being a law so to do. Thirdly, that he can change the nature of things. Fourthly, that he can apply the essential parts of one thing to another; and consequently, of a Pig make an Ox, of a Gosling a Lion, and so forth: yea, of a Piece of Bread, the Body of our Saviour, accidents remaining without subjects. Fiftly, (and this surpasseth all the rest,) that the Pope is above GOD himself. Which Collection or Observation, 
The Pope challengeth equality with God.  (though it be very strange and wonderful) is truly deduced out of these words: (Super omne quodcunque est, ut ei genua cunctae curuentur,) forasmuch as it must needs be granted even of the Pope himself, that God hath not only a being, but such a supereminent being, as of which all other beings depend, and from thence receive their beings. Sixtly, that the Pope can make of nothing, some thing; and so create new creatures in the world, as also new worlds to receive them. Which Observations being true (as they are most true) I can not but needs I must conclude, that the Pope at the least, is the forerunner of Antichrist: it can not with any reason be denied.   

The Tenth Conclusion.  
The first occasion, and Popish falsely pretended foundation of all the forenamed Arrogant, Lordly, Superroyal, and plain divine titles ascribed to the late bishops of Rome, was a counterfeit and falsely pretended Donation of the Emperor Constantinus surnamed the great, at his departure from the West into the East, about 327. years after Christ; that is, to Constantinople from the city of Rome. Behold the proof. The Pope's Decrees compiled and gathered together by his devoted vassal Gratianus, 
Gratianus, dist. 96. cap. Constantinus.  bear the world in hand, and tell the Readers, that the Emperor Constantine the great, gave great Power, royal Excellency, and imperial Majesty, even the royal Crown of pure Gold from off his head, 
This kind of cozenage advanced the Pope.  with all his title, right, prerogatives royal, authority, power, and dignity whatsoever, not only in Rome, but also in Italy, & in all the West parts, to the Bishop of Rome and his successors for ever. And the rather to persuade all people, that Constantine gave to the Bishops of Rome (as is already said:) the said popish Decree setteth down the worthy motive, by which the Emperor was induced to translate the Western Empire, with all his royal right there, and to bestow the same upon the bishops of Rome. These amongst many other long periods, do plainly intimate his motive. 
Mark the words well.  unde congruum perspeximus, nostrum imperium et regni potestatem orientalibus transferri regionibus et in Bizantiae provinciae optimo loco nomini nostro civitatem aedificari, et nostrum illi● imperium constitui: quoniam, ubi principatus Sacerdotum et Christianae religionis caput ab Imperatore caelesti constitutum est, justum non est, ut Imperator terrenus habeat potestatem: Whereupon we have thought it meet, that our Empire & power of our kingdom, should be removed to the Eastern regions; and that a City should be built for our name at B●zantium, 
This is a ridiculous motive.  a place most fit for us; and that our Empire should be appointed there. Because, where the Prince of Priesthood, and the head of christian religion, was appointed by the Heavenly Emperor; it is not meet, that an earthly Emperor should have power. Thus disputeth the Pope, 
The Pope's learned disputation.  for his Primacy and Golden Crown; insinuating himself (if we will believe his Antichristian pleading;) to be the Emperor of the western World. This falsely pretended Donation (of which I have written more at large in the Downfall of Popery,) the latter Popes did ever object, and violently obtrude it upon the Church; never ceasing with importunity to solicit the succeeding Emperors, to confirm the said supposed Donation, and to make Rome the head of all Churches; until such time as Pope Boniface the third of that name, did with much ado, obtain of the cruel and bloody tyrant Phocas, than the Emperor (who ravished many virtuous Matrons, and murdered the good Emperor Mauritius with his wife and children,) that Rome should be the Head of all Churches: This was effected, about 607. years after Christ. So then, the Majesty of the Bishops of Rome was not heard of in Christ's Church, 
A.D. 607.  for the space of 327. years after Christ: at which time, a counterfeit and false Donation was fetched from Hell, in the name of the Emperor Constantine the great. Neither could the Bishops of Rome persuade any one of the Emperors, for the space almost of three hundred years after that supposed Donation, either to confirm the same, or to make Rome the Head of all Churches. 
Phocas did not approve the donation.  One only Phocas (that wicked Emperor) gave some credit to it, and made Rome Head of all Churches. Of which subject, I have else where disputed more at large, both in the Downfall of Popery, and in my Survey. Now, that it is a counterfeit and falsely pretended Donation (albeit the Bishops of Rome have with many cozening tricks, made use thereof for their advancement,) I will evidently prove, and plainly convince, by the clear testimonies of many learned and famous Writers, who all are of high esteem in the Church of Rome. Nicolaus de Cusa, a famous and learned Cardinal, wrote to to the Council of Basill his opinion, concerning the falsely supposed Donation of Constantine: these are his express words. 
Cusanus de concord. cathol. lib. 3. cap. 2. add conc. Basil.  Sed in veritate super modum admiror, sires ita est, eo qu●d in autenticis libris et in historijs approbatis non invenitur. Relegi omnia quae potui gesta Imperial●a, ac Romanorum pontificum historias; sancti Hier onymj, qui ad cuncta colligendum diligentissimus fuit, Augustinj, Ambrosijs, ac aliorum opuscula peritissimorun. Revelui gesta sacrorum conciliorum, quae post Niconumfuere, et nullam invenio concordantiam ad ea, quae de illa donatione leguntur. Sanctus Damasus Papa, ad instantiam beati Hieronymj, actus et gesta praedecessorum dicitur annotasse: in cuius opere de Siluestro Papa non ea inveniuntur, quae vulgo dicuntur: But in truth I greatly admire, if it be so, seeing it can not be found in any authentical Books, and approved Histories: I have read all the Acts of the Emperors▪ and the Histories of the Bishops of Rome, which possibly I could find; the works of S. Hierome, who was a most diligent searcher out of Antiquities, 
Behold, how this learned popish Cardinal confoundeth the supposed majesty of the Pope.  of Augustine, of Ambrose, and of other most learned Writers. I have revolved the Acts of the sacred Counsels, which were after the council of Nice; and I find nothing agreeable to those things, which are read (in the Pope's Decrees) of that Donation. Holy Damasus the Pope, at the request of S. Hierome, gathered the Acts and doings of his predecessors; in whose work, those things can not be found, which commonly are fathered upon Pope Silvester. Thus writeth Cardinal Cusanus, affirming the supposed Donation of Constantine to be counterfeit. He addeth withal in the same place, many long Periodes to the same effect: viz. That Constantine gave neither the West Empire to the Pope, nor yet Ravennas; no, nor the City of Rome. Yea, he plainly avoucheth, that the Bishops of Rome acknowledged the Emperors for their Lords: that Pope Agatho granted the City of Rome to belong to the Emperor Constantine, who summoned the sixth general Synod, 
A.D. 681.  and lived more than 340. years after Constantine the great; who is falsely reported, to have given away Rome, Italy, and the whole Western Empire, to the Bishops of Rome. 
Vide dist. 96. cap. ecclesiae.  He also affirmeth constantly, that Pope Bonifacius acknowledged the City of Rome, to pertain to the Emperor Honorius. To be brief, Cardinal Cusanus addeth these express words: Et ut breviter dicam, nullibi contrarium legi; quin usque ad illa prefata Pipini tempora, Imperator remanserit in possessione locorum pretactorum: nec unquam legi aliquen Romanorum pontificum, usque ad tempora Stephani secundi, in illis locis nomine sancti Petri aliquid juris praesumpsisse habere. haec credo vera esse, non obstante famigera opinion de contrario quae Palea habetur. 
Dist. 96. cap. Constantinus.  quoniam absque dubio, si non fuisset illud dictamen apocryphum, Gratianus in veteribus codicibus, et Canonum collectionibus invenisset; et quia non invenit, non posuit: And to be brief, I have no where read the contrary, but that the Emperor was still in the possession of the aforenamed places, until the days of Pipinus: Neither did I ever read, 
The Pope is an usurper.  that any Bishop of Rome presumed to challenge any right in those places in the name of S. Peter▪ until the time of Pope Stephanus the second: This I believe is the truth, notwithstanding the opinion to the contrary in the Pope's Decrees. For without doubt, if that report were not apocryphal, Gratianus would have found it in the old Books and collections of Canons: but because he did not find it, 
Constantine's Donation is not in the old decrees.  he did not set down the same. Yea, the said Cardinal addeth yet further; that he found the same report of Constantine's Donation, in an other Book, in far larger manner, than it is set down in the Pope's Decrees: which when he examined diligently, he found by the very words thereof, many arguments of falsehood and deceitful dealing, too long to be rehearsed. Much more hath the said Cardinal touching this feigned Donation: which in regard of brevity, I omit.  
Antonius that famous Archbishop and popish canonised Saint, confirmeth the opinion of Cardinal de Cusa, in these words. 
Anton. p. 1. tit. 8. c. 2. §. 8.  Tertium dubium est de donatione facta ecclesiae a Constantino, de qua habetur in decretis dict. 96. Constantinus. Sed illud cap. non habetur in antiquis decretis: quid ergo et quantum donaverit, non est bene certum: The third doubt is, of the Donation which Constantine made to the Church; of which mention is made in the Decrees, in the 96. Distinction, 
Dist. 96. Constantinus.  and chapter Constantinus. But that Chapter can not this day be found, in the old Decrees. What therefore, and how much he gave, it is not very certain. But this is certain, by S. R. that learned Jesuits confession; that the Pope was never personally in any Council of the East; 
S. R. pag. 411. Mark this point well.  lest he being then the emperors temporal subject, should be placed under the Emperor. O humble Pope! Raphael Volateranus, a famous and grave Historiographer, jumpeth with Cardinal Cusanus and Antonius, in these words. 
Volateran. in vita Constantini magni.  De dono Constantini aut concessione, apud nullos extat authores, praeter quam in libro decretorum: Concerning the gift or grant of Constantine, it can be found no where in any Writer, save only in the book of Decrees.  

Cathalon. in practic. Cancellar. Apostolicae.  Paulus Cathalanus utriusque juris doctor, and Chamberlain to Pope Alexander the sixth (who was as likely as any, to know what possessions the Pope had and held) doth affirm the supposed Donation of Constantine, to be a forged, 
Lo no approved history maketh mention of Constantine's donation.  false, and counterfeit thing; of which, no approved Historiographer maketh any mention. Not Eusebius (saith he) who was a most diligent searcher out of Christian Antiquities. He addeth, that neither Hieronymus, nor Augustinus, nor Ambrose, nor Basilius, nor Chrysostomus, nor Ammianus, nor the tripartite History, nor yet Pope Damasus in his Chronicle, nor Beda, nor Orosius, have made any mention of the same. After which large, pithy, and constant Narration, he addeth these express words. 
Cathalan. ubi super.  Et constat, per plures quam tercentum annos post Constantinum, Imperatores tenuisse gubernacula urbis et Italiae, per duces, praesides et exarchos; et urbis Romanae, usque ad tempora Innocentij secundi: Sequitur, et in vita Phocae Imperatoris, legitur impetrasse Pantheon Bonifacium Papam ab eo: 
A. D 1130.  unde ergo habuerit terras Ecclesia, vide gesta Caroli magni, et Pipini, et Pium (Papan) in dicto dialogo: 
The Emperors kept Rome & Italy in their hands, for the space of more than 300. years after Constantine.  And it is evident (saith this great learned Writer, highly devoted to the Pope) that the Emperors for more than 300. years after Constantine, kept in their hands the government of the City, and of Italy, by their Chieftains, Presidents, and Exarchates; and of the City of Rome, until the time of Jnnocentius the second: And in the life of the Emperor Phocas, Pope Boniface, as we read, got Pantheon of him by request. From whence therefore the Church of Rome had her possessions, we must gather out of the Acts of Charles the great, and of Pippin, and of the Dialogue of Pope Pius. To which I add, 
Cathal. ubi super in marg.  that Pope Pius wrote a Dialogue against the pretenced Donation: For in the margin, I find these words. Papa Pius dialogum scripsit, contra donationem Constantini: 
Vbi super, in marg.  Pope Pius wrote a Dialogue, against Constantine's Donation. Again, an other Margin following, hath these words: 
Mark this wonderful narration.  Argumentum forte. Ca M. Et Pipinus, spoliatis veris Imperatoribus, ecclesiam Romanam ditarunt. Charles the great, and Pipine, spoiling the true Emperors, enriched the City of Rome. Mark well, this is wonderful. The Popes were enriched, by the robbery and spoil of the true Emperors: A thing incredible, if a Papist had not reported it. 
Laurentius valla era● patricius Romanus.  Laurentius Valla a very learned Writer, and Citizen of Rome; hath published a large Book in print; in which he only zealously and learnedly declameth, against the falsely pretended Donation of Constantine the great. His declamation touched the Pope so narrowly, that he did it not without the danger of his life. How be it, he choose rather to hazard his life for the good of Christ's Church, then with his silence, to bewray and betray the truth. The whole subject of his Book, & the argument which he there handleth, is nothing else but this in very deed: viz. to lay open to the eyes of all christian readers, 
Lying and Cozenage. the original of Popish royalty.  the false reports, miserable shifts, and plain cozening tricks, which the Bishops of Rome set abroach by false Books, and fabulous Decrees, to advance themselves above all Royal and Imperial power, and to be thought equal with Christ the Son of God. He sound confuteth every Period, Sentence, Clause, & Word, 
See and note well the christian dialogue, chapter, 4. page, 90.91.92.93.94.  of the fabulous and lying Decree, published under the name of Constantine the great. Yea, he proveth and plainly convinceth, out of the very words of the Decree; that it is nothing else but a false, lying, and counterfeit imagination, invented to advance the Bishops of Rome above the Emperors of Rome, and all Power upon Earth. To recite his large and manifold authority, proofs, arguments, and reasons; would both be tedious to the Reader, and needless in the thing itself. It may suffice to lay open to the gentle and thankful Reader, some special points contained in the said learned and worthy Declamation. The first point is this: 
The. 1. point. Fol. 19 A.  viz. That Melchiades, who was the next Bishop before Silvester, confuteth the said Donation falsely fathered upon Constantine the great: For, Melchiades affirmeth plainly (saith Laurentius Valla) two things of great consequence: Th'one, that Constantine was a very zealous Christian in his time, & gave licence throughout the whole world to all within his dominions, not only to become Christians, but also to build Churches every where: Th'other, that the Emperor Constantine, gave Melchiades the Palace of Lateran, and those Grounds, of which Gregory maketh often mention in his register. 
Valla in declamat. pag. 18. B.  And this great learned Roman, confirmeth the same in his words immediately aforegoing: which are these. Omnis ferè Historia, quae nomen Historiae meretur, Constantinum a pu●ro cum patre Constantio Christianum refert, multo etiam ante Pontificatum Siluestri: Every History almost (which is worthy the name of an History) telleth us, that Constantine of a child was a Christian with his father Constantius; 
De donat. et curate. Leprae Constantini, Lege R●num episc. Paduan. in hist. de vitis pontific.  even long before Silvester was the Bishop of Rome. This Valla affirmeth constantly, as we see. And consequently, the Donation pretended to be given to Silvester, and the curing of Constantine's supposed lepry, can not stand together with the same.  

The 2. point. fol. 26. B.  The Second point is this: viz. That the words of the Decree do plainly convince, that Constantine never gave any such gift to Silvester. These are his express words: 
The Pope's decree confuteth itself.  O furcifer: Ecclesiaene, id est, templa Roma erant Petro et Paulo dicatae? quis eas extruxerat? quis aedisicare ausus fuisset, quum nusquam foret, ut Historia ait, Christianis locus, nisi secreta et latebrae: O varlet! were Churches; that is, Temples dedicated to Peter and Paul at Rome? Who built them? Nay, who durst be so bold as to build them? seeing (as Histories do relate) there was no place for Christians any where, but Caves, Dens, & Groves, to hide them in.  
The third point is this: viz. that the Decree fathered upon Consta●tine, calleth the Bishop of Rome, Pope: 
The 3. point. fol. 34. B.  which name for all that, was not yet peculiarly ascribed to the bishops of Rome. These are Valla his express words. 
A very fond popish assertion, concerning Constantine.  O tuam singularem stultitiam Constantine! modo dicebas coronam super-caput Papae, ad honorem facere beati Petri; nunc ais non facere, quia Siluester illam recusat: et quum factum recusantis probes, tamen jubes eum aurea uti corona: et quod hic non debere se agere existimat, id tu ipsius successores dicis agere debere: transeo, quod rasuram coronam vocas, et Papam pontificem Romanum, qui nondum peculiariter sic appellari erat caeptus: O Constantine! great is thy folly; afore thou saidst, that the Crown (of Gold) upon the Pope's head, made for the honour of S. Peter; now thou says it doth nor, because Silvester refuseth it, and thou approving the fact of Silvester refusing it, dost for all that command to wear it: and what he thinks he may not do, that thou commands his successors for to do. I let pass, 
Mark this well, both for the name and the crown.  that thou calls his Shaving, a Crown; and the Bishop of Rome, Pope; who had not yet peculiarly gotten that name.  
The fourth point is this: viz. 
The 4. point fol. 34. B.  That the most Christian and worthy Emperor, became the Pope's Footman, and held his Stirroppe. These are the words: Tenentes fraenun equi pro reverentia beati Petri Apostoli, dextratoris officium illi exhibuimus: 
The Emperor must hold the Pope's Stirrup.  We held the Bridle of his Horse: and for the reverence of S. Peter the Apostle, we became his Footman, or waighter at his Stirroppe. Thus writeth Valla; and thus is the counterfeit Decree, which Valla very sharply reproveth, and learnedly confuteth. So that this counterfeit Donation with Constantine's departure, 
See the 8. steps of the Pope's ladder, in the downfall of Popery.  was the first step of the Pope's Ladder: of which I have disputed at large, in the Downfall of Popery.  

The 5. point. fol. 45.46.47. A.B.  The fifth point is this: viz. That what so ever the Emperors of latter time gave to the Bishops of Rome, concerning the Roman Empire, the dominion, and territories thereof; 
Mark for Christ's sake. This is wonderful.  they were induced to do the same, by the cozening tricks and deceitful reports of the Bishops of Rome, which they falsely fathered upon the most Christian and worthy Emperor Constantine the great. Let us hear attentively, 
Fol. 45. A.  what Laurentius Valla delivereth from his Penne.  
His first place (which I mean to stand upon, is this: Haec dicta sint, ut nemo miretur, si donationem Constantini commentitiam fuisse Papae multi non potuerunt deprehendere; tametsi ab aliquo eorum ortam esse hanc fallaciam reor: at dicitis; cur Imperatores, quorum detrimento res ista redebat, donationem Constantini non negant, sed fatentur, affirmant, conservant? Ingens argumentum, mirifica defensio: nam de quo tu loqueris Imperatore? Si de Graeco, qui verus fuit Imperator, negabo confessionem; fin de Latino, libenter etiam confitebor: etenim quis nescit Imperatorem Latinum gratis esse factum a summo Pontifice, ut opinor, Stephano; qui Graecum Imperatorem, quod auxilium non ferret Italiae privauit, latinumque fecit; ita ut plura Imperator a Papa, quam Papa ab Imperatore acciperet: These things are written to this end, that no man think it strange, if many Popes could not perceive Constantine's supposed Donation, 
The Pope useth cozening tricks.  to be counterfeit; although I think, that some of them invented this cozening trick. But ye will say; Why do not the Emperors, who sustained the loss, deny the gift of Constantine, but rather grant and support the same? A great argument, a marvelous defence. For, of what Emperor dost thou speak? If of the Greek, who was the true Emperor in deed; I deny the grant: If of the Latin, I willingly agree thereunto? For, 
See the downfall of popery, page, 13. and note it well.  who knoweth not, that the Latin Emperor came freely (though falsely) to the Empire by Pope stephan's gift; who deprived the Greek Emperor, for that he did not succour Italy; and placed a Latin in his stead: so as the Emperor received more of the Pope, than the Pope of the Emperor.  
His second place is comprised in these words: 
Fol. 46. A. Dist. 63. cap. ego Ludovicus. A.D. 817.  Ego Ludovicus Imperator Romanus, Augustus, statuo et concedo per hoc pactum confirmationis nostrae tibi beato Petro principi Apostolorum, 
Mark these words well.  et per te Vicario tuo domino paschali summo pontifici et successoribus eius in perpetuum; sicut a praedecessoribus nostris usque nunc in vestra potestate et ditione tenuistis, Romanan civitatem cum ducatu suo et suburbanis, atque viculis omnibus et territorijs eius, montaniss et maritimis, littoribus et portubus, seu cunctis Civitatibus, Castellis, Oppidis, ac Villis, in Tusciae partibus: tu ne Ludouice cum paschale pacisceris? si tua, id est, Imperij Romani sunt ista, cur alteri concedis? si ipsius, et ab ipso possidentur, quid attinet te illa confirmare? Sequitur, merito pactum appellas, quasi quandam collusionem: sed quid faciam, inquies? repetam armis, quae Papa occupat? at ipse iam factus est me potentio●: repetamiure? at ius meum tantum est, quantum ille volverit. Non enim haereditario nomine ad Imperium veni, sed pacto; ut si Imperator esse volo, haec et haec invicem Papae promittam. 
Fol. 47. B.  Sequitur, Sigismundus cum Romam verisset, ut pro Imperatore Romanorum coronaretur, non aliter a Papa coronari potuit, quam ut Constantini donationem ratam haberet, eademque omnia de integro donaret: quid magis centrarium, quam pro Imperatore coronari, qui Romae ipsi renunciasset? et coronari ab illo, quem et confitcatur, et quantum in se est, dominum Romani Imperij faciat? 
Lo, the people of Rome ought to crown the Emperor.  Acratam habere donationem, quae vera si sit, nihil Imperatori de imperio reliqui fiat? Quod ut arbitror, nec pucri fecissent: Quo minus mirum, si Papa sibi arrogat Caesaris coronationem, quae populi Romani esse deberet: si tu Papa, et potes Graecum Imperatorem privare Italia, provincijsque occidentis, et Latinum Imper: facis, cur pactionibus uteris? Cur bonae Caesaris partiris? Cur in te imperium transfers? Quare sciat, quisquis est Imperator Ro. me judice, se non esse, nec Augustum, nec Caesarem, nec Imperatorem, nisi Romae imperium teneat; et nisi operam det, ut vrbem Romam recuperet, plane esse periurun: nam Caesares illi priores, quorum primus fuit Constantinus, non adigebantur iusiurandum interponere, quo nunc Caesares obstringuntur; sed quantum humana ope praestari potest, nihil imminuturos esse de amplitudine imperij Romani, eamque sedulo adaucturos: I Lodowick, Emperor of Rome, Augustus, do decree & grant by this covenant of our Confirmation, to thee S. Peter Prince of the Apostles; and by thee to thy Vicar Lord Paschall the high Priest, and to his successors for ever; as you have holden them of our predecessors until this day in your power and dominion, the City of Rome, with her Dukedom Suburbs, Streets, Territories, Mountains, Marshes, Shores, Portes; and all Cities, Castles, Towns, and Villages in the coasts of Thus●a. Dost thou Lodowick, covenant with Paschall? If these things be thine; that is, pertain to the Empire, why dost thou give them to an other? If they be his, 
Lo the Pope's supe●●oyall power, is gotten by cozenage.  and he have them in possession, to what end must thou confirm the same? Thou truly calls it a Covenant, as it were a Collusion. But thou wilt say, What shall I do? Shall I by force require the things, which the Pope hath in possession? But he is now become stronger than myself. Shall I demand them▪ as my right? But my right is only that, which he will afford me: for, I came not to the Empire by right of inheritance, but by pact and covenant; so as I can not be Emperor, unless I will give the Pope what he desireth. 
Behold the folly of all follies in the world.  Sigismundus coming to Rome there to be crowned Emperor of the Romans, could not be crowned of the Pope but upon this condition; that he would confirm Constantine's Donation, and give all the same things anew. What is more contrary, then that he should be crowned Emperor, who had renounced Rome? nay be crowned of him, whom he both confesseth, and as much as in him lieth, maketh the Lord of the Roman Empire? And should in like manner confirm that Donation, which if it be true, no part of the Empire shall remain in the emperors hand? Which thing I think, children would not have done. Wherefore, 
Lo, the people of Rome, not the Pope, aught to crown the Emperor.  it is less to be admired, if the Pope challenge to himself the Crowning of Caesar, which of right pertaineth to the people of Rome. If thou be Pope, and canst deprive the Greek Emperor of Italy, and of the Western Provinces, and makest a Latin Emperor, why dost thou use covenants? Why dost thou divide Caesar's right? Why dost thou translate and give away the Empire from thyself? Wherefore, let him know, whosoever is the Roman Emperor, that if I be judge, he neither is Augustus, nor Caesar, nor Emperor, unless he hold & keep the Empire of Rome; as also that he is perjured, unless he employ his best endeavour, to recover the City of Rome again: For, the former Caesars, of whom Constantine was the chief, were not urged to take that Oath, which this day is imposed upon the Caesars; but no way to diminish the amplitude of the Roman Empire, and as much as man's power can effect, to enlarge the same.  
His third place is contained in these words: 
Fol. 48. A.  Vt quisque pessimus est summorum Pontificum, ita maximè defendendae huic Donationi incumbit: qualis Bonifacius octaws, qui Celestinum tubis parieti insertis decepit: hic et de donatione Constantini scribit, et regem Franciae privauit, regnunque ipsum, quasi donationem Constantini exequi vellet, Ecclesiae Rom. fuisse et esse subiectum indigavit. Quod statim successores eius, Benedictus et Clemens, ut improbum et iniustum revocarunt: Verum, quid sibi vult ista vestra Pontifices Rom. sollicitudo, quod a singulis Imperatoribus donationem Constantinj exigitis confirmari, nisi quod iurj diffiditis vestro? 

Lo, the Emperor cannot give away the Empire.  
O most holy Popes! O coozeners! O deceivers.   Sed laterem lavatis, ut dicitur, nam neque illa unquam fuit, et quodnon est, confirmarjs non potest; et quicquid denant Caesares, deceptj exemplo Constantinj faciunt, et donare Jmperium nequeunt: The more wicked every Pope is, the more he employeth himself to defend this Donation. Such was Bonifacius the eight; who deceived Celestine with Trumpets placed in the wall. This man writeth of the Donation of Constantine, and he deprived the King of France, and judged his Kingdom, as one that would execute Constantinet gift, both to have been, and this day to be subject to the Church of Rome: which his successors Benedict and Clement, 
One Pope is ashamed of that, which an other doth.  forthwith revoked, as a thing wicked and unjust. But what meaneth this your solicitude, O ye bishops of Rome! that ye do exact of every Emperor, to confirm Constantine's gift, if ye do not distrust your own right? But all in vain (as the proverb saith,) for it never was at any time; and what is not, can not be confirmed. Yea, whatsoever the Caesars do, they do the same, being deceived by Constantine's example (or supposed gift,) and they cannot give away the Empire.  
His fourth place, is comprised in these words. 
Fol. 51. B.  Praescipsit Romana ecclesia: O Imperiti! O divini juris ignari: nullus quantunuis annorum numerus, verum abolere titulum potest: 
Fol. 52. A.  Sequitur, parum ante me natum, (testor eorum memoriam, qui interfuerunt) per inauditum genus fraudis, Roma papale accepit Imperium, seu tyrannidem potius, cum diu libera fuisset. Is fuit Bonifacius nonus, octavo in fraud et nomine par; si modo Bonifacij dicendi sunt, qui pessime faciunt. 
Fol. 53. A.  Sequitur; sed quid plura opus est in re apertissima dicere? Ego non modo Constantinum non donasse tanta, non modo non potuisse Romanum Pontificem in eisdem praescribere, 
Fol. 54. A.  sed etiamsi utrumque esset, tamen utrumque ius sceleribus possessorum extinctum esse contendo; cum videamus totius Italiae; multarumque provinciarum cladem ac vastitatem ex hoc uno font fluxisse. 
Fol. 54. B.  Sequitur, Papa non modo remp: quod non Verres, non Catilina, non quispiam peculator auderet; sed etiam rem Ecclesiasticam et spiritum sanctum quaestui habet; quod Simon ille Magus detestatur: et cum horum admonetur, et a quibusdam bonis viris reprehenditur; non negat, sed palam fatetur, atque gloriatur, licere ei, quavis ratione patrimonium Ecclesiae a Constantino donatum, ab occupantibus extorquere. 
Fol. 55. A.  Sequitur: Nulla itaque unquam religio, nulla sanctitas, nullus Dei timor; et quod referens quoque horresco, omnium scelerum impij homines a Papa sumunt excusationem: in illo enim comitibusque eius, est omnis facinoris exemplum; ut cum Esaia et Paulo, in Papam et Papae proximos dicere possumus, Nomen Dei per vos, blasphematur inter Gentes: qui alios docetis, vosipsos non docetis: qui praedicatis non surandum, latrocinamini: qui abhominamini idola, sacrilegium facitis: qui in Lege et in Pontificatu gloriamini, per praevaricationem legis, Deum verum Pontificem inhonoratis. The Church of Rome pleadeth Prescription. O foolish men! O men that know not the law of God None, though never so great number of years, 
O wicked Bishops of Rome  can abolish the title of truth. Not long before my birth (I call to witness the memory of them that were present) by such fraud as was never heard of, Rome received the Papal Empire, or tyranny rather, when it had a long time remained free. Boniface the ninth was the man, equal to the eight, in fraud and name; if we may call them Bonifaces, who live most abominably. But what need more be said, in a matter most evident to all the world? I contend, not only, that Constantine gave not such great gifts; not only, that the Bishop of Rome could not prescribe in such things: but, although they both had been so, yet that the titles of both were extinct, with the wickedness of the possessors; when we may see, that the dectruction and desolation of all Italy, and many Provinces, sprang only out of this Fountain. The Pope selleth for gain, not only the Commonweal, which neither Verres, nor Catiline, nor any notorious robber, durst do; but also the Treasure of the Church and the holy Ghost; which Simon the Magician doth detest. And when he is admonished of these things, and good men reprove him for the same, he denieth not, but openly confesseth and glorieth therein; that he may extort, and by what means soever, 
The Pope boasteth of his naughty dealing.  take from the possessors, that Patrimony which Constantine gave to the Church: Therefore he had never any Religion, sanctimony, or fear of God. And (I tremble while I speak it) men polluted with sins of all sorts, allege the Pope for their excuse: For he, and his retinue, are the example of all kind of mischief; so, as we may justly exclaim with ●say and with Paul, against the Pope and his devoted Pope-lings. You are the cause, that God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles: You that teach others, do not teach yourselves: you that preach against Stealing, commit Robbery by the highway side: you that abhor Idolatry, practise Sacrilege: ye that glory in the Law, & boast of the Popedom; by transgression of the Law, dishonour the true Bishop, which is God. 
Mark well these Golden observations.  Out of these plain and evident testimonies of these famous, zealous, and great learned Papists (Gratianus, Victoria, Sylvester, Viguerius, Fumus, Navarrus, Covarrwias', Gregorius, Aquinas, Augustinus de Anchona, Glossator decretalium, Gersonus, Cardinalis Cusanus, Antoninus, Volateranus, Paulus Cathalanus, and Laurentius Valla,) I observe these manifold, Christian, golden, and worthy Lessons: First, that though the Pope be a most wicked man, 
Out upon the new Popish religion.  and carry thousands upon thousands to Hell; yet may no man reprove him, for such his detestable & cursed dealing. Secondly, that it is sacrilege, to dispute of the Pope's power and authority. Thirdly, that the Pope can not only pardon all punishment due to sins in this world, but also bring all souls out of popish Purgatory, at his good will and pleasure. Fourthly, that the Pope hath often taken upon him by his most wicked and execrable Dispensations, to dissolve Matrimony, against Christ's sacred Institution. Fiftly, that the Pope can dispense with a popish Monk already professed, that he may marry & use conjugal acts with his lawful Wife. Sixtly, that the Pope hath de facto, dispensed with the full Brother, to marry his natural and full Sister, of the same Father and the same Mother. Seventhly, that the Pope may do whatsoever pleaseth his majestical Holiness; 
O rare wonderment of the world.  his bare and only Will, being a sufficient warrant so to do. Eightly, that the Pope hath universal jurisdiction over all Kingdoms and Empires: and not that only, but also the Fullness of Power in as large and ample manner, as Christ himself had it Ninthly, that the Pope can by his supereminent excellency and fullness of Power, change the nature of things, apply the substantial parts of one thing to another, and of nothing make something; in so much as all knees must bow and bend unto him; and consequently, that he is not pure Man, but God also. Tenthly, that the first occasion and original of Popish Superroyall falsely pretended Primacy, was a counterfeit and falsely pretended Donation of the Emperor Constantinus, 
Constantinus.  surnamed the great. eleventhly, that the Late Bishop of Rome soliciting the Emperor Phocas with great importunity, to confirm the supposed Donation of Constantine; obtained with much a do, underpretence of the said Donation (not the confirmation of the pretended gift) but, 
A.D. 607.  that the Church of Rome should be the Head of all Churches. twelvely, that the bishops of Rome (now called Popes (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) neither did, 
Let all these observations be ever well remembered.  nor could persuade any one of the Emperors, for the space almost of three hundred years after that supposed Donation; either to confirm the same, or to make Rome the Head of all Churches. Thirteenthly, that neither S. Hierome, nor S. Augustine, nor S. Ambrose, nor any approved History, doth make any mention of the said Donation. Foureteenthly, that of right the People of Rome, not the Pope, should set the Crown upon the emperors head. Fifteenthly, that the Emperor had ever in his possession, both Rome, Italy, & the whole Western Empire until the days of King Pippine: as also, that Pope Boniface acknowledged the City of Rome, to pertain to the Emperor Honorius. Sixteenthly, that Cardinal Cusanus, a great learned man & a zealous Papist, avoucheth constantly, 
This Cardinal woundeth his Pope.  that he never read of any Bishop of Rome, until the time of Stephanus the second, who durst in the name of S. Peter, presume to challenge any right in the aforenamed places. Seaventeenthly, that the Decree, 
Vixit Stephanus A.D. 741.  upon which the Popes would ground their Superroyall pretended Prerogatives, is a false and counterfeit Narration, and can not be found in the old Decrees, 
Vixit Pipinus. A.D. 750.  Eighteenthly, that Charles and Pippine spoiled the true Emperors, & so enriched the City of Rome. Nineteenthly, that Melchiades (who was the next Bishop of Rome before Sylvester) doth roundly confute the said Donation; as a thing falsely fathered upon Constantine the great. Twentethly, that the Bishops of Rome were not peculiarly called Popes, for the space of many hundred years after Christ. 
Mark this point well.  Furthermore, that the Emperor is reported by the Pope's counterfeit Decree, to have holden the Bridle of his Horse, and to have waited at his Stirrup. Where I wish the Reader, to observe seriously with me, that the late bishops of Rome have used many cozening tricks (especially the false Donation of Constantine, 
The original cause of kissing the Pope's foot.  and his pretenced service to the Pope) so to advance their state and superroyall Pomp; and to cause Kings and Emperors to kiss their feet. Yet further, that what so ever the Emperors of latter time, gave to the Church and bishops of Rome, 
The Bishops of Rome deceived the Emperors.  that wholly proceeded from a sandy and rotten foundation, with which the said bishops and their flattering parasites seduced them: viz. from a counterfeit and falsely supposed Donation, of Constantinus surnamed the great. Lastly, that the late Popes or bishops of Rome, 
The Bishops of Rome, are the fyrebrands of all mischief.  with their devoted popelings, are the cause of all kind of mischief and naughtiness. To all which (so to cheer up the Pope and his popelings) I will add a fine and grave testimony, of the Pope's dear Friar & learned school-doctor Franciscus a Victoria: his words are these. 
Victor. de potest. Papae et council. relect. 4. pag. 139.  Et paulatim ad hanc intemperantiam dispensationun deventum est, et hunc talem statum, ubj nec mala nostra, nec remedia pati possumus; et ideo necesse est aliam rationem excogitare, ad conseruandas leges. Da mihi Clementes, Lines, Syluestros, et omnia permittem arburio eor●m: 
Out upon rotten popish dispensations. The Pope's own learned Doctors, can not endure them.  sea ut nihil gravius dicatur in recentiores Pont●fices, certè multis partibus sunt pris●is illis inferiores: By little and little we are brought to these inordinate Dispensations, and to this so miserable state; where we are neither able to endure our own griefs, nor the remedies assigned (by Popes) for the same: And therefore we must perforce invent some other way, for conservation of the Laws. Give me Clements, Lines, Syluesters, and I will commit all things to their charge: But to say nothing grievously against latter Popes; they are doubtless inferiors to the old bishops of Rome, and that by many degrees. Thus writeth this learned Friar; who (if he durst have spoken his mind freely) would have told us mirabilia. First, he exclaimeth against popish Dispensations. Secondly, he pitifully lamenteth the state of the Church. Thirdly, he crieth out, that the Popes do lay such intolerable burdens upon them, as they are no way able to endure the same. Lastly, he commendeth the old bishops of Rome; but utterly (so far forth as he dareth) condemneth the latter Popes or bishops of Rome. 
Lo, the late Bishops of Rome do degenerate from the old, & are very naughty men.  Whose assertion in very deed, jumpeth with the doctrine which I defend; and plainly convinceth late Romish faith and superstition, to be but a rotten Rag of the New religion. Now, let us hear what the jesuit is able to say for himself, for the safeguard of the life of late startup Popery.    

B. C.  
To season the beginning of his Chapter with a little of his mendatious powder, he writeth thus. Bonifacius Bishop of Rome, and third of that name, above six hundred years after Christ, obtained of Phocas then Emperor of Rome, that Rome should be the Head of all Churches: Before which time, no authentical Writer can be named; who ever ascribed the Headship & universal Government of all Churches, to the Church of Rome. This is a manifest untruth. In the Council of Chalcedon, Maximus Bishop of Antioch, was confirmed by Leo the first. 
Act. 7.  Pope julius the first, restored Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria, to his seat: Paulus Patriarch of Constantinople, and Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, deposed unjustly by an Eastern Synod, as writeth Sozomenus: whose words be these. 
Lib. 3 cap. 7.  For as much as the care of all did belong to him, for the dignity of his Seat; he restored to every of them their Church.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that is lying, slandering, and false dealing, were once set apart, our Jesuits irksome & fond disputation, would soon have an end. For first, the famous Council of Chalcedon was convented & holden by the commandment of Martianus the Emperor, and not of Pope Leo; as is evident and manifest to every child, in the very beginning of the 7. Action quoted by our Jesuit. Again, the Fathers of that famous Council acknowledge themselves to have come thither, at the emperors commandment; to make peace between Maximus bishop of Antioch, and Jwenalis' Bishop of Jerusalem. These are the express words of the judges themselves. 
Chalc. council. Act. 7. prope initium.  Gloriosissimj judices dixerunt; diviniss et pijss. noster Dominus Jmperator, rogatus a Maximo et Juuenale sanctissimis Episcopis, praecopit nos agnoscere de motis inter eos capitulis: The most glorious judges said; The most holy and religious Emperor our Lord, being entreated of the most holy Bishops Maximus and Jwenalis', commanded us to examine the controversies between them. Thirdly, 
Lo, the Emperor commanded the bishops to examine the controversies, and they called him their Lord.  it was the Council, not Pope Leo, that confirmed Maximus, and concluded a peaceable unity between him and Iwenalis'. 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 Council. Fiftly, Anatolius the most reverend Archbishop of New Rome, confirmed by express words the aforenamed Unity. Thalassius the reverend bishop of Caesaria did the like, in these express words. His, quae per consensum ordinata sunt inter amantissim●s Episcopos Maximum et Iuuenal●m, et nos consentimus: To these things which are ordered by consent between the most beloved Bishops Maximus and Jwenalis', we also give our consent. Diogenes the reverend Bishop of Cyzice, did the like; in these express words. Consentio his, quae a Paetrebus factae sunt: I give my consent to that, which the Fathers have decreed. Sixtly, all the Fathers of the Council did the same; these being their express words. Omnes reverendissimj Episcopj clamaverunt; nos ita dicimus, et consentimus his, quae a Patribus dicta sunt: All the most reverend bishops shouted; We say so, and we give our consents to those things, which the Fathers have decreed. By these manifold testimonies, it is clear and evident, that the Fathers, who were assembled in Council at the emperors command, decreed and confirmed peace between Maximus and Iwenalis'; as also, that they sought to the Emperor (not to the Pope) for the decision of their controversies. Neither is Pope Leo so much as once named, 
The jesuit began with lying, and meaneth so to continue to the end.  in that action of the holy Council. What therefore shall we, or what can we say, to our lying jesuit? but that as he began with lying and deceitful dealing, so he meaneth to continue his falsehood, his lying, his falsifications, and his coney-catching tricks unto the end.  

Secundo principaliter.  Secondly, that our Jesuit seemeth not to have read S●zomenus himself, but to have mistaken the Chapter by some note sent him from his best advisors: for, to hear that Popery is proved the New religion, doth so gall and trouble them, that they can not sleep quietly in their beds, for thinking how to withstand the same. Many of their deepest heads, have conspired against the truth: and Robert Parsons that brazenfaced. Friar, was put in trust to gather their instructions, and to publish the same in the English tongue: Leonem ex unguibus, I know the Lion by his paws. The Narration of Sozomenus is in the eight, not in the seventh Chapter. No, no, Sozomenus in the 7. Chapter cutteth the Pope's throat, and striketh the Jesuit stark dead: these are the express words. 
Sozom. lib. 3. hist. cap. 7.  Romanae vero Ecclesiae Episcopus, et sacerdotes per occidentem, haec in svam contumeliam vergere duxerunt, (etenim sententiam eorum qui Nicaeae convenerant, quam inde ab initio per omnia approbabant, nec dum reliquerant, sed ad illius norman sentiebant,) et Athanasium ad se venientem amicè susceperun●, causamqueillius ad se traxerunt: But the Bishop of the Church of Rome, and the Priests throughout the West, judged the things to tend to their reproach (for they had not yet forsaken their Sentence and Decree who were assembled at Nice, which from the beginning they approved in all things, but followed it in their judgements as the rule,) and friendly received Athanasius when he came to them, and took his cause into their hands. Thus writeth Sozomenus; by whose relation it is evident, that not the Pope alone, but all the bishops assembled together in a lawful Synod, effected that, which our lying Jesuit would deceitfully father upon the Pope. Athanasius of Alexandria, Paulus of Constantinople, and Marcellus of Ancyra, being unjustly molested by the Eastern Arrianizing Bishops, sought to Julius then Bishop of Rome, for his help and countenance, as to the chiefest Patriarch, who by reason of his place, was of great authority, and highly esteemed. Pope ●ulius willing to afford the said Bishops the best help he could, called together the Bishops of the West, and with their Decrees in a lawful Synod, declared the Eastern Bishops to have offended against the Council of Nice; 
All Christians are subject to the Canons of the Nicene Synod.  whose Canons all the faithful in the Christian world were bound to reverence and obey. And thus the holy bishops unjustly deposed from their seats, were again restored to their places, by force in deed of the Nicene Canons. For, neither could the Pope alone, nor yet the whole Synod of Western Bishops have restored them; but that their definitions were firmly grounded upon the holy Nicene Canons. For, as we see by Sozomenus his Narration, the bishop of Rome with the bishops of the West, followed the Nicene Canons as their rule, in all their Decrees, resolutions, and proceedings whatsoever.   

B. C.  
In his arguments against the Superiority of the Bishop of Rome, this is one. Seventhly, the famous Council of Chalcedon, gave the bishop of Constantinople, equal authority with the bishop of Rome in all Ecclesiastical affairs. In which words, is one untruth cunningly couched. For he calleth that here, the decree of the Council, which was by the ambition of Anatolius bishop of Constantinople, effected in the absence of the Roman Legates. If Bell can prove that this surreptitious Decree of the Eastern bishops, was ever confirmed; then were it some thing which he bringeth: But the bishop of Rome his Legates withstood that their indirect proceeding, pronouncing it to be contrary to the Decrees of the Nicene Council.   

T. B.  
Though it be the mere truth, that the Romish faith and doctrine this day taught, 
See and note well the 30. chapter of this Book. For there, all now living Papists, are proved flat Heretics.  believed, and violently with Fire & Faggot obtruded upon many thousands of people, is the New religion; yet doth that truth so gall, pierce, and wound the Pope and his jesuited Popelings, that they can not endure the noise or sound thereof. For which respect, our Jesuit turning himself this way, that way, and every way but to the truth; omitteth six truths (by me briefly touched in my Trial, but proved at large in my Survey,) and beginneth to cavil, and scornfully to bicker with the seventh; thinking by means of confusion and disordered proceeding, to cover and hide the nakedness and newness of rotten Popery, and to dazzle the eyes of his Readers, that they shall not behold and discern the truth. But it will in time prevail, maugre the malice of the Pope, 
The main point of the difficulty.  of his jesuited vassals, and of the greatest Devil of Hell. Two things the jesuit here toucheth, in which the main point and issue (even prora et puppis of the controversy of the Popes falsely pretended Sovereignty) doth consist: Th'one, concerneth the Council of Nice: th'other, the Council of Chalcedon. For the exact examination of which difficulties, I put down certain Aphorisms, hoping (by God's holy assistance) to hit the nail on the head; and to make the hearts of the Pope and his Popish crew, as heavy as any Lead.  

Aphorism first.  
The most famous general Council of Nice, 
The Bishop of Rome is confined.  did confine and limit the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, as well as of other bishops every where. Behold the proof, and mark it well. First, the Nicene Council in the first Canon, hath these express words. 
Conc. Nicen. can. 5.  De his qui communione privantur, seu ex clero, seu ex laico ordine, ab Episcopis per unamquamque Provinciam sententia regularis obtineat, ut hi qui abijciuntur, ab aliis non recipiantur: requiratur autem, ne pusillanimitate, aut contentione, aeut alio quolibet Episcopi vitio, videatur a congregatione seclusus: Vt hoc ergo decentius inquiratur, bene placuit, annis singulis, per unamquamque Provinciam bis in anno concilia celebrari; ut communiter simul omnibus Episcopis congregatis Provinciae, discutiantur huiusmodi quaestiones: et sic, qui suo peccaverunt Episcopo evidenter, excommunicati rationabiliter ab omnibus extimentur; usquequo, vel in communi, vel Episcopo placeat, humaniorem pro talibus ferre sententiam. Concilia vero celebrentur, unum quidem ante quadragesimam Paschae, ut omni dissensione sublata, munus offeratur Deo purissimum: Secundum vero, circa tempus Autumni: Concerning those who are put from the Communion, whether they be of the clerical or Laical order, let the sentence of bishops throughout every Province given according to the Canon, be of force, that they who are rejected, be not received of others. Let examination be had, lest any be secluded through pusillanimity, or contention, or other fault of the Bishop. That this therefore may be duly examined, it hath pleased the Council well, that yearly in every Province, Counsels should be kept twice in the year; that when all the Bishops of the Province shall meet together in one place, than such questions may be duly examined: And so, they that have offended their Bishop manifestly, may be judged by all, to be excommunicated not without a cause; until it please the Bishop of the place, or all in the Province, to show them favour. Let the Counsels be kept, one before Lent; that all dissension being taken away, a most pure Oblation may be presented unto God: The second, about Autumn. Thus this holy and most famous Council; out of whose definition, two things are cleared: th'one, that the Bishops of the Province should end and determine all appeals; 
No appeals to the Bishop of Rome.  no mention at all made, or any regard had, of or to the Bishop of Rome: Th'other, that the ancient Canon ought to be kept; which commandeth, that none should receive them to the Communion, who were excommunicated and condemned by others. 
Mark this well.  So then, the Council of Nice did curb the Pope, and kept him under in his former state. And withal, the holy Council provided a very Christian remedy, 
The remedy against unjust excommunications.  that none should be unjustly oppressed by his bishop. Which remedy was this: viz. That he who found himself grieved, might appeal from his Bishop; yet to the Bishops of the Province, but to none else. Secondly, the same Council ordained in an other Canon, 
Can. 4. Firm●tas eorum quae gerantur per unanquamque provinciam, Metropolitano tribuatur Episcopo.  that none should be created bishops, but by the bishops of their own Province: as also, that the Metropolitan of the Province, (not the Bishop of Rome) should have authority and power to confirm those, who were made bishops within the Province. Thirdly, that the bishop of Rome had no prerogative of power, but only within his own Diocese, is constantly avouched by the said Council, in the sixth Canon thereof: These are the words of the Council, 
Can. 6. Ruffin. hist. libr. 1. cap. 6.  as Ruffinus (an ancient and learned Writer about 1200. years ago, & so within eighty years of the time of the Nicene Council) hath interpreted the same. Et ut apud Alexandriam, et in Vrbe Romae vetusta consuetudo servetur, ut vel ille Aegypti, vel hic suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat: And that in Alexandria and in the city of Rome, the old custom be kept; that the one have the solicitude of Egypt, the other of the Churches adjoining and about Rome. Thus writeth Ruffinus, showing very plainly, that the Bishop of Alexandria had as great jurisdiction (or rather more) as the Bishop of Rome. Yea, Cusanus a popish Cardinal, 
Cusan. de concord. cath. lib. 2. c. 13.  understandeth the Canon after the same manner with Ruffinus. And it is confirmed by the fourth Canon of the same Council, as Ruffinus citeth it: these are the words. Absque quo, ordinationem irritam esse volverunt: 
Conc. Nicen. can▪ 4. apud Ruffin.  Without whose authority (he meaneth the Metropolitan) the Council decreed the ordination to be void and of none effect. 
Nota valde 30. cap. ●uius operis.  But this sacred Decree of a Council so holy and so famous, the Pope this day contemneth, and challengeth the right of all metropolitans to himself. Fourthly the famous Councils both of Constantinople and of Chalcedon, did make the Bishop of Constantinople equal with the bishop of Rome, in all Ecclesiastical affairs; excepting only the Primacy of honour; 
Super in hoc ip●o cap.  as we have already seen. See, and note well the 30. Chapter of this present Book.   

Aphorism second.  
The Canons of the holy Nicene Council, are but only twenty; though the Pope and his Jesuits, would have them to be fourscore. For first, only twenty are this day extant, in the common Volumes of Counsels. Secondly, no approved Council, did ever admit or receive any more. 
Concil. Aphric. cap. 105.  This is very clear and evident, by the testimony of the famous African Council; as by and by (God willing) I shall unfold. Thirdly, the famous Counsels, of Constantinople, and Chalcedon, have flatly decreed against the falsely pretended Primacy of the bishop of Rome; which Counsels for all that, did in every respect highly reverence the Decrees and Canons of the Nicene Council▪ and consequently, the said Counsels did not acknowledge any Canon of the Nicene Synod, which made for the pretended Primacy of the bishop of Rome. But this Aphorism shall be further proved by an evident demonstration, in the Aphorisms immediately following; and therefore there is no need, now to stand longer about the same.   

Aphorism third.  
The Council of Sardica is not a legitimate and lawful Synod, but a bastard and counterfeit conventicle: I prove it; first, because S. Augustine doth acknowledge no Council of Sardica, 
Aug. x Cr●scon. libr. 3. c. 34.  save one only, which was Heretical. Secondly, because Cardinal Cusanus (who was a great Champion of the Romish Church) is of the same opinion. 
De concor. cath. lib. 2. cap. 25.  Thirdly, because the Council of Sardica, is against the Council of Nice; concerning Appellations to the Pope. 
Can. 105. ad Caelest. urbin Romae episcopum. A.D. 425.  Fourthly, because the Fathers of the famous African Council, in their Epistle to Celestine then Bishop of Rome; do most constantly affirm with uniform assent, that the Council of Nice forbiddeth Appeals to the Church of Rome: these are their express words. Praefato itaque debitae salutationis officio, impendiò deprecamur; ut deinceps ad vestras aures hinc venientes, non facilius admittatis, nec a nobis excommunicatos, in communionem ultra velitis excipere: Quia hoc etiam Niceno Concilio definitum, facilè advertet venerabilitas tua. Nam etsi de inferioribus Clericis vel Laicis videtur ibi praecaveri, quanto magis hoc de Episcopis voluit observari; ne in sua provincia communione suspensi, a tua sanctitate, vel festinatò, vel praeproperè, vel indebitè videantur communioni restitui? Presbyterorum quoque et sequentium clericorum improba refugia (sicuti te dignum est) repellat sanctitas tua; quia et nulla patrum definitione hoc Ecclesiae derogatum est Aphricanae; et decreta Nicaena sive inferioris gradus Clericos, sive ipsos Episcopos, suis Metropolitanis apertissimè commiserunt. Prudentissimè. N. iustissimèque providerunt, quaecumque negocia in suis locis ubi orta sunt, finienda; nec unicuique Provinciae gratiam sancti spiritus defuturam, qua aequitas a Christi sacerdotibus et prudenter videatur, et constantissimè teneatur; maximè, quia unicuique concessum est, si judicio offensus fuerit cognitorum, ad concilia suae Provinciae, vel etiam universal provocare. Nisi forte quisquam est qui credat, unicuilibet posse Deum nostrum examinis inspirare justitiam, et innumerabilibus congregatis in concilium sacerdotibus denegare. 
Hic omnes Pontificij illoqueantur. Vide inferius 30. cap. ubi omnes Papistae planè probantur haeretici.  Aut quomodo ipsum transmarinun judicium ratum erit, ad quod testium necessariae personae, vel propter sexus, vel propter senectutis infirmitatem, vel multis aliis intercurrentibus impedimentis, adduci non poterunt? Name, ut aliqui, tanquam a tuae sanctitatis latere mittantur, nulla invenimus patrum Synodo constitutum. Quia illud quod pridem per eundem Coepiscopum nostrum Faustinum, tanquam ex part Niceni concilij ex inde transmisistis; in verioribus concilijs quae accipiuntur Nicena, a sancto Cyrillo Coepiscopo nostro Alexandrinae Ecclesiae, et a venerabili Attico Constantinopolitano antistite ex authentico missis, quae etiam ante hoc per Innocentium Presbyterem et Marcellum subdiaconum, per quos ad nos ab eis directa sunt, venerabilis memoriae Bonifacio Episcopo praedecessori vestro a nobis transmissa sunt, in quibus tale aliquid non potuimus reperire. Therefore due salutation premised, we heartily desire, that henceforth you do not easily receive those, that come from hence unto your ears; neither hereafter receive into your communion, such as be excommunicated by us: For this also is decreed by the Nicene Council, as your reverence will easily perceive. For, although it seem there to be decreed only of the Lay people, or Clerks of the inferior order; how much more doth the holy Council intent it, of the Bishops themselves? least such as be suspended in their own Province from the Communion, should hastily, abruptly, or unduly, be by you restored to the same. Let your holiness reject the impious refuges of Priests & other inferior Clerks, as it becometh you; because no Decree of the Fathers, doth spoil the Aphrican Church of this liberty; and the Decrees of the Nicene Council, have most plainly referred, 
Lo●, appeals must be to the metropolitans, not to the Pope.  not only Clerks of inferior degree, but also the Bishops themselves to their metropolitans: For they have most prudently, and most justly provided, that all businesses whatsoever, shall be there ended, where they began; neither the grace of the holy spirit to be wanting to every Province: by which equity among Christ's Priests, may both prudently be foreseen, and most constantly observed; especially, because every one hath freedom, if judgement given offend him, 
Mark well: not one word of appeals to the Pope.  to appeal either to a provincial or general Council: unless perhaps any be of this mind, that God will inspire the justice of examination to every one at his pleasure, and deny the same to a multitude of Priests assembled together in Council. Or how shall judgement beyond the Sea be approved, where meet and necessary witnesses can not be present, either by reason of the sex, or through the infirmity of old age; or by many other intercurring impediments? For, that any should be sent from your Holiness, 
These words wound the Pope to death.  we find it not defined by the Fathers, in any Synod at all: For, that which you lately sent by Faustinus our fellow-Byshop, as on the behalf of the Nicene Council; in the true Councils received from Nice, & sent authentically from S. Cyrill our fellow-Byshoppe of the Church of Alexandria, and from venerable Atticus the Prelate of Constantinople; which also we sent formerly to Bishop Boniface of venerable memory your predecessor, by Jnnocentius Priest, and Marcellus Subdeacon; by whom they were directed from them to us, we can not find any such thing. 
A.D. 425.  Thus wrote these learned, ancient, and holy Fathers, to Celestinus the Bishop of the city of Rome. Their narration and attestation (though very long and plentiful) I thought good to lay open to the Reader, in their express words at large: because they do so lively discover popish forgery, jesuitical treachery in the best beseeming colours, and declare so evidently Popery to be the New religion, as nothing can be more. Which most constant assertion, of so many, so ancient, so holy, so grave, so learned bishops, whosoever shall prudently and duly ponder, 
Episcopi fuerunt. 217.  that man doubtless can not but detest and abhor Popery, as a newly coined Faith and Religion. For first, these holy Fathers does not call Pope Celestine, The universal bishop, but simply and plainly, Vrbis Romae Episcopum; The Bishop of the city of Rome. Secondly, they tell him constantly, that he may not receive them, whom they do excommunicate; and they yield this reason: Because the Nicene Council hath so defined it. Thirdly, they affirm resolutely, that the Nicene Council committed both inferior Clerks and bishops themselves, to be censured and taxed by their metropolitans. Fourthly, they tell Celestine then Bishop of Rome, that the Nicene Fathers provided most prudently and most justly; that Dissensions & all Controversies whatsoever, should be decided & finished, where they began. Where I admonish the Reader, to observe seriously this word (justissimè, 
Mark well the word (justissimè)  most justly:) for doubtless, if justice require to finish and determine causes, where they began: then doth the Pope unjustly, when he seeketh to draw the hearing thereof to the Court of Rome. Fiftly, when any one findeth himself justly grieved, the Nicene Council (say they) giveth him this freedom, 
Note the cause & manner of appealing.  to appeal from his bishop, to the Metropolitan; and from the Metropolitan, unto a general Council: but never a word, of appealing to the Pope. Sixtly, they tell the Pope roundly, that it is a mere folly to think, that God will better inspire him with the examination of justice, than a multitude of Priests assembled for that end. Seventhly, they tell their brother Celestine (for so they term him, but not. Universal bishop,) that if his proud and greedy desire were put in execution, many mischiefs would ensue thereupon. Eightly, they constantly avouch with one consent; that no Fathers did ever decree in any Synod, that the Pope should send any Deputy or Messenger to their Counsels. This would be duly pondered, as a matter of great consequence: 
Mark well for Christ's sake.  For out of it do follow two necessary and inevitable Corollaries. corollary 1 The first Corollary is this: viz. That the Council of Sardica, is a falsely pretended and counterfeit Synod; as which hath decreed that in favour of the Pope, which these Fathers of the African Council deny any Synod to have done. corollary 2 The second Corollary is this: viz. That neither the Council of Nice, nor yet any other lawful Synod, did ever decree transmarine Appeals to the bishop of Rome: I say (transmarine,) because I willingly admit the Priests and bishops of Italy, to appeal unto him, as to the chief Patriarch and Metropolitan of the city of Rome; but not as to the Universal Bishop of the whole Christian world: For no such thing is decreed by any Synod, as these Fathers do affirm.   

Aphorism fourth.  
All that can be said for the Popes falsely pretended Primacy, is fetched and derived from the authority of man.. I prove it two ways. First, because the Bishop of Rome to advance himself above his brethren and fellow-Byshoppes, invented (by the help of his flattering Parasites) a forged and counterfeit Donation of Constantine that famous Emperor. Which certes, he would never have done, if he could by the holy Scriptures have exalted himself, 
Peruse the 10. Conclude. and mark it well.  or otherwise have magnified his estate. Of which counterfeit Donation, I have discoursed at large in the tenth Conclusion. Secondly, because whensoever his proud attempt, and falsely challenged Primacy was withstood, he never alleged holy writ for the proof thereof (for that he knew he could not so prevail,) but falsified the Canons of Nicene Council, thinking so in time, to attain his hearts desire; which in these last & worst days, came so to pass in deed. But the famous Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon, made no reckoning of such falsifications and proud attempts. And the Fathers of the African Synod, albeit for a time they answered very modestly; that they could find no such prerogative in the Nicene Canons, and yet were content to expect true Copies from the East; and in the interim for charity sake, to admit Appellations to Rome; 
Epist. ad Bonifac. cap. 101. Fumosum typhum seculi.  did for all that in the end, come roundly upon the Pope, and told him flatly; that no Synod had so decreed, and that they could no longer endure such smoky stateliness, and so forth: as in the third and second Aphorism, is already proved in the 30. Chapter of this Book, all now living Papists are proved flat Heretics.   

Aphorism fifth.  
The reasons which the Pope and his Pope-lings use, to prove that the Nicene Council made more Canons, in which the Popes falsely pretended Primacy is established; albeit they be with Papists reputed as invincible bulwark, will for all that, after due and full examination thereof, be found as strong as a Copwebbe, and as heavy as a Feather. objection 1 They say first, that Isidore being requested by 80. bishops, to gather the Nicene Canons together, 
Prefat. Isidor. Conc. to. 1.  found out many more; even fourscore in all. But I answer; first, that the variety found in Isidore, in the Epistle of the bishops of Egypt to Pope Marcus, and in the answer of Marcus to them; do evidently convince the same writings to be false, forged, and counterfeit. Jsidorus telleth us forsooth, that they are more; but how many, he knoweth not. Marry he addeth withal; that by the Decrees of Pope Julius, they must be seventy. Athanasius, and the rest of the bishops of Egypt, affirm constantly to Pope Marcus, that the Council of Nice had fourscore Canons. Yet Pope Marcus in his rescript to the said Bishops, clippeth off Ten from that number. Now, what Horse would not break his Halter, to come to this pleasant harmony? Secondly, that the very words of the Preface fathered upon Jsidorus, do prove it to be forged and counterfeit: 
Prefat. Isido. in fine.  for there I find mention made of the general Council of Constantinople, which was holden in the time of the Emperor Constantine and Pope Agatho, against Macarius, Stephanus, and other bishops. But so it is, 
A.D. 678.  that the said Council was celebrated six hundred, seventy, and eight years after Christ True it is likewise, that Isidorus died in the year 637. after Christ: 
637.  and consequently true it must be thirdly, that Jsidorus was dead, 
The Pope's forgeries can make dead men to live.  at the least 40. years before that general Council; and so he could not possibly tell those fourscore bishops of it; unless perhaps he rose again after he was dead. To which I must needs add, that though Jsidorus be feigned in that Preface, to have interlaced all the decretal Epistles of the Bishops of Rome, which he could any where find: viz. of Clemens, Anacletus, Evaristus, and the rest, unto Pope Silvester; yea, unto Pope Gregory the great: yet doth not Isidores authority (though he were an holy Bishop) win or bring any credit to the same Epistles. And why I pray you? Because forsooth, it is a bastard and counterfeit Preface, begotten in the Pope's forge of falsifications; 
The Pope's Decretal Epistles are forged.  even like to Constantine's Donation, and many other Popish cozening tricks: as is already proved.  
objection 2 They say secondly, that Athanasius and other Bishops of Egypt, did send to Pope Marcus, for the true Copies of the Nicene Canons; 
Recript. Marci. to. 1. council.  as also that the same Pope sent 70. Canons Nicene, to the said bishops of Egypt, But I answer; first, that though Pope Marcus affirmed them to be only seventy, yet did Athanasius and the other holy so supposed bishops, constantly avouch them to be fourscore. Secondly, that though the bishops of Rome boast and babble much of their Prerogatives and extraordinary Graces, yet can small credit be given unto them; seeing they have made away (by their own confessions) no less than 50. Canons of the holy Nicene Council, Thirdly, 
They were 70. say they, and now but twenty.  that the forgery is discovered, both by the writings of Marcus, and of Athanasius: for, Athanasius and the bishops of Egypt, sent not to Pope Marcus for the Copies, until the Arrians had burnt them at Alexandria. Yet so it is, that they were burnt in the time of Constantine the Emperor, as it doth and may appear to every indifferent reader, by the complaint of Athanasius, 
Epist. ad Ortho. in perseq. Hierony. in Chron. A.D. 335. et 342.  when he was driven from Alexandria into exile. And true it is likewise, that Pope Marcus was dead in the time of Constantine, many years before the Copies were burnt at Alexandria. And consequently, true it is thirdly; that both the rescript of Pope Marcus, and the Epistle of Athanasius, with the other Fathers of Egypt, are like to the forged Donation of Constantine; viz. false and counterfeit.  
objection 3 They say thirdly, that the Pope's Supremacy is proved by the Appeals of many Fathers; viz. of Athanasius of Alexandria, Paul of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, Marc●llus of Ancyra, 
Hist. trip. lib. 4. cap. 15. Soc●. lib. 2. cap. 15. Soz. lib. 3. cap. 8.  Lucina of Adrianople, and of many others; who all being driven out of their Churches by the Arians, were restored by Pope Julius to the same. But I answer, that the Dignity and Prerogative of the Sea of Rome in restoring them, was only of credit and honour, not of power and jurisdiction. This is already proved so sound and plentifully, as more can not be wished. Peruse the first, second, and third Aphorisms, and mark them well: 
Mark well the Aphorisms, & forget them not.  Which being truly performed, all that possibly can be said for Appeals to the Church of Rome, will be as light as a Feather, and pass away as Smoke from the fire. The jurisdiction, force, efficacy, and power of hearing, restoring, and judging the causes of the Appellantes; rested wholly in the Council, then at Rome assembled. 
Athanas. Apolog. 2.  This both Athanasius, and julius himself, do plainly testify. Athanasius discoursing thereof, doth most manifestly ascribe it to the Council. Julius, when the Arrians reproved him for overth warting that which they had done in their Council, answered roundly: that the doings in one Council, may lawfully be sifted, examined, and discussed in an other: that themselves had offered to have the cause debated so in just judgement, and for that end had requested a Council to be called: 
jul. in Ep. ad Episcop. Antioch. congregatos▪ et apud Athanas. apolog. 2.  that Athanasius and the rest, appeared at the Council, and that they who should also have appeared, made default: and that thereupon the Council finding their iniquity, relieved the parties wrongfully oppressed. In brief, that whatsoever he dealt or wrote therein, he did it not on his own head; but on the Counsels judgement and consent: For, these are the express words of Julius: 
Tom. 1. Concil. P. 391.  Visum est nobis, ac universo Conci●●●: It seemed good to us, and to the whole Council. So then, it was not the Pope, but the Council, that heard and determined the causes of bishops. Such power of jurisdiction neither did Julius claim, neither did Athanasius give it him. To which I add; that whatsoever Julius and the Council did, was by virtue and power derived from the Nicene Canons: 
Soz. lib. 3. cap. 8.  So doth Sozomenus write, on the behalf of Athanasius and the rest. I add likewise, that this Epistle of julius (as it is in the first Tome of Counsels) is a bastard imp, and a plain counterfeit. The legitimate Epistle is truly set down, in the works of Athanasius.  
objection 4 They say fourthly, that the Canons of the Nicene Council, command that no Decrees of Counsels be of force, without the consent of the bishop of Rome. But I answer: first, 
Socr. lib. 2. cap. 17. Sozom. li● 3. cap. 10.  that Socrates and Sozomenus have no other ground, whereupon to build that their Narration; but the bare testimony of Pope Julius himself, in that Epistle which he wrote to the Arrians: which Epistle is a counterfeit; as I have already proved. Secondly, 
Conc. Nic. can. 5.  that the Commandment of the Nicene Council was, that Counsels should be kept yearly twice in every Province. But doubtless, it were ridiculous to say or think, that the Pope must be called twice every year, into every Province in the Christian world. Nay, it is a thing impossible to be done.  
objection 5 They say five, that Flavianus Archbishop of Constantinople, appealed to Pope Leo, from the Council of Ephesus, deposing him unjustly. And that Theodorete bishop of Cyrus did likewise appeal to the same Leo, being unjustly vexed by the same Synod. But I answer; first, that Flavianus indeed appealed from the Council of Ephesus; yet not to Pope Leo, but to a greater and a more lawful Council. Secondly, that Theodoretes cause was judged & determined by the same Council of Chalcedon. The former is proved, by Leos own Epistle to the Emperor Augustus: in which Epistle he complaineth to the Emperor, 
Leo ad Theodos. August. Epist. 23.  of the fewnes and oppression of the bishops assembled at the second profane Synod in Ephesus; and withal, humbly beseecheth the Emperor, that seeing Plavianus had appealed, it would please his Majesty to have a Council kept in Italy: 
The Emperor calleth all Counsels.  These are the express words of Leo himself. Omnes partium nostrarum Ecclesiae, omnes mansuetudini vestrae cum gemitibus et lachrymis supplicant sacerdotes; ut quia et nostri fideliter reclamarunt, 
No● qui convenimus Episcopi ex diversis Provincijs in Sedensia Isauriae▪ ad mandatum pietatis pientissimi regis nostri Constantii, haec collocuti sumus juxta regiam voluntatem. Epiphan. haer. ●3. pag. 259,  et eisdem libellum appellationis Flavianus Episcopus dedit, generalem Synodum iubeatis intra Italiam celebrari; quae omnes offensiones ita aut repellat, aut mitiget, ne aliquid ultra sit vel in side dubium, vel in charitate divisum: All the Churches with us, all Priests with sighs and tears beseech your clemency; that seeing such as are ours, have faithfully disclaimed, and Flavianus bishop hath appealed, you would command a general Council to be called and kept within Italy; that so all contentions and offences may either be taken away, or at the least so mitigated, that henceforth nothing be either doubtful in faith, or divided in charity. Lo, the Emperor, not the Pope called Councils even within Italy; and that for more than 450. years after Christ. 
A.D. 456.   
objection 6 They say sixtly, that the Fathers of the Nic●ne Council sent their Epistle to Pope Silvester, beseeching him to confirm and ratify with his consent, the things which they at Nice had ordained. To which I answer: first, that the Epistle is forged and a plain counterfeit; as which is flatly against sundry Canons of the same Council, as is already proved. Again, because there were 318. bishops at the Council, and yet only two (Osius of Corduba in Spain, and Macarius of Constantinople, with Victor and Vincentius Priests of the city of Rome,) were the authors of that Epistle; as the tenor thereof doth specify. Thirdly, 
Alexander was Bishop of Constantinople, not Macarius. Nicephorus, lib. 8▪ cap. 7. Genebr. lib. 3. pag. 563. Niceph. lib▪ 8. cap. 15. Cassiodor. hist. ●rip. lib. 2. cap. 4.  because Macarius was not then the bishop of Constantinople, but Alexander: so writeth Nicephorus, a famous Historiographer, and a great friend of the Pope and Church of Rome: Yea, Genebrarde the Pope's own dear vassal, doth plainly confess the same. Fourthly, because that famous City had not then, the name of Constantinople, but was called Byzantium: so witnesseth the same Nicephorus, in these express words. Idem postea Alexandro Episcopo Constantinopolitano accidisse dicunt: vix dum post Synodum Constantinus Byzantium venerat: The like Miracle did Alexander bishop of Constantinople, when the Emperor Constantinus was scarce come from the Council to Byzantium. The former Miracle, of which Nicephorus speaketh, was wrought by Spiridion a very simple bishop; but an holy man. The latter, by Alexander of Constantinople, then called Byzantium: 
Two miracles were done by Spiridion & Alexander.  either of which twain, converted a great learned Philosopher, to the faith of Christ jesus miraculously. Fiftly, because the said Epistle seemeth to be made by some frantic or fond fellow. But how do I prove it? Forsooth, because it desireth the Pope, to call together all the bishops of his city of Rome: all which, could but be his own sweet self, seeing there was but at once one bishop of one City. Sixtly, because Julius, not Sylvester, was then Bishop of Rome: This to be so, Cassiodorus doth plainly testify in these words. 
Hist. trip. lib. 2. cap. 1. A.D. 327.  Communicabant igitur Nicaeno concilio, ex Apostolicis quidem sedibus Macarius Hierosolymitamos, Eustathius iam praesidens Antiochenae apud Orontem, et Alexander Alexandria, quae est apud stagnum Marinum: julius ante Romanus Episcopus propter senectutem defuit, erantque pro eo praesentes Vitus et Vincentius Presbyteri eiusdem Ecclesiae: There came therefore to the Council of Nice from the Apostolical seas Macarius of Jerusalem, Eustathius of Antioch Precedent, and Alexander of Alexandria: but Julius the bishop of Rome was absent, by reason of his old years; and Vitus and Vincentius Priests of the same Church, 
Nicephor. hist. l●b. 8. cap. 14.  were there in his room. Nicephorus is consonant to Cassiodorus, in these express words: ●taque Imperator, malum id ad summum excrescere cernens, decentatissimam illam in Bythinia Nicaenam Synodum promulgat; et literis locorum omnium Episcopos ad constitutam diem eò evocat: Sequitur, Hierosolymis Episcopatum gessit Macarius; Romae, julius; Constantinopoli, Alexander: et Romanus antistes propter aetatem decrepitam, Constantinopolitanus vero, propter multam imbecillitatem in sedibus suis remansere: Sed eorum nomine bini Presbyteri missi sunt; 
Mark well: Julius, not Sylvester, was Bishop of Rome in time of the Nicene Council.  a julio quidem, Vitus et Vincentius; ab Alexandro autem duo alij, et vita et eruditione plurimum excellentes: Therefore the Emperor perceiving that the evil did grow to an head, did proclaim the most famous Nicene Synod in Bythinia; and by his Letters, did call the bishops every where, to come thither at the day by him appointed: Macarius was then bishop at Jerusalem; julius at Rome, Alexander at Constanti●ople: The bishop of Rome by reason of his old age, and the bishop of Constantinople by reason of infirmity, did stay at home in their own Seas: But in their names, two Priests were sent from either of them: Vitus and Vincentius, from Julius: and from Alexander other two, very excellent both in learning and conversation. Sozomenus jumpeth with Nicephorus: yea, 
Soz. lib. 1. cap 17.  so do also P●atina in Agathone, and Beda in his Chronologie; as Genebrardus the Pope's dear darling freely granteth. Where I wish the Reader to observe seriously with me, 
Apud Genebr. lib. 3. p. 561.  that the Council of Nice was holden in Bythinia, in the twentieth year of the reign of Constantine the great, in the thirteenth year after his coming to Byzantium; 
Nicephor. lib. 8. cap. 26. Socrates. lib. 1. cap. 16▪ Geneb. p. 561.  and that it continued three years, and something more. This Observation is profitable to the Reader, for divers good respects. Seventhly, because if this Epistle were admitted for good, yet would it nothing help the Pope or his jesus ten popelings: the reason is at hand; because it requires not the Pope alone, but together withal, the bishops in his City, or (if ye will) in Italy, to confirm the decrees thereof: So then, this helpeth not to discharge Popery of the New religion.  
objection 7 They say Seventhly, that the Church of Rome in the Decrees of the Nicene Council, had not her pre-eminence and power limited, but was followed as a pattern in advancing others: for (as Pope Nicolas saith) the Nicene Council durst not make any Decree of that Church, as knowing that nothing could be given her above her desert. But I answer first; that seeing that Example is allowed therein, and made a pattern of the rest, it followeth by an inevitable consequence, that the Council did thereby decree, that the bishop of Rome should keep himself within those limits: For he must perforce confess, that as the bishop of Alexandria had but the pre-eminence of all thereabouts: even no more had the bishop of Rome. This is confirmed, because it followeth immediately in the same Canon; likewise also in Antioch, and in other Provinces, 
Nic. council. Can. 6.  let the Churches enjoy their Privileges and Prerogatives. For, the words of the Council being grounded upon the custom of the bishop of Rome, that as he had had pre-eminence of all the bishops about him; so Alexandria and Antioch, should have of all about them; and likewise other Churches each in their own Provinces; do evidently convince (mark well my words,) that the Pope neither had formerly pre-eminence of all through the world, neither this day ought to have the same. The old custom is it, 
Antiqua consuetudo servetur.  that the holy Council doth respect, not any prerogative of the Church of Rome. Secondly, because both Ruffinus and Cardinal Cusanus (as I have already proved) do confirm this mine exposition. Thirdly, because the words next following in the self-same Canon, 
Con. Nicen. can. 6.  
The Popes falsely pretended primacy, is quite overthrown.  do utterly overthrow, and as it were cut the throat of the Popes falsely pretended Primacy: These are the words. Illud autem generaliter clarum est, quod si quis praeter sententiam Metropolitani fuerit factus Episcopus, hunc magna definivit Episcopum esse non oportere: But that is generally clear, that if any be made bishop without the consent or judgement of the Metropolitan, the famous Synod hath decreed, that such a one ought not to be a bishop. Now sir Jesuit, if this be true, as it is most true, (for all the Christian world doth and must obey the Decrees of the holy and famous Council of Nice,) then doubtless your Pope's pretended Supremacy lieth in the dust, & is by virtue thereof, trodden under foot: For, he challengeth a prerogative over all christian Nations, to make Bishops every where at his own good pleasure; as also to discard & displace them, whosoever are made without his consent. 
Conc. Nicen. can. 7. Habet. dist▪ 65. cap. quoniam mos.  Fourthly, because the next Canon hath no regard of the Church of Rome, or of any prerogative of the Bishop thereof: these are the words. Quia consuetudo obtinuit et antiqua traditio, ut Aeliae Episcopus honoretur, habeat honoris consequentiam, salva Metrop●lis propria dignitate: Because Custom and old Tradition, hath obtained, that the bishop of Jerusalem or Elia be honoured, let him consequently have honour, the proper dignity of the Metropolitan city ever being safe. Out of these words, I observe first, that the pre-eminence and honour of particular Churches dependeth of an ancient Custom, and not of any Supreme power or Prerogative of the Church of Rome. Secondly, 
Every Bishop hath his proper dignity.  that the Canon plainly teacheth us, that every Metropolitan bishop hath a proper Dignity; and consequently, that such Dignity resteth not in the Pope, or Bishop of Rome. Thirdly, because the Fathers of the famous Council of Chalcedon, have (as is already proved) granted equal Privileges to the Bishop of Constantinople, with the Bishop of Rome, in all Ecclesiastical affairs.  
To which I add first, 
Addition first.  that the Council of Chalcedon decreed nothing, save that only which the three first and most famous Counsels of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, decreed before them. This to be so, Petrus the Metropolitan of Corinthus, Athanasius, Alexander, and many other bishops, in their joint-epistle to the Emperor Leo, constantly affirm in these express words. 
Epi. ad Leonem imperat. To. 2. council. P. 270.  unde verò dignata est nobis scribere vestra transquillitas, et apertè jussit nostram manifestare sententiam, haec, pietatis vestrae potentiae declaramus; quia ea quae a Chalcedonensi sancto et universali concilio definita sunt, tanquam sanctis Synodis praecedentibus consona et in nullo contraria, aut sanctorum trecentorum decem et octo patrum Niceno concilio, aut Constantinopolitano 150. aut Ephesio sub beatae memoriae Cyrillo celebrato, omnibus sententijs manner immutilata decrevimus: Whereas your tranquillity hath vouchsafed to write unto us, and withal hath commanded us plainly, to declare our sentence; this we signify to the power of your piety; that those things which the holy and universal Council of Chalcedon hath defined, as consonant and no way contrary to the holy precedent Synods; either to the Nicene Council of the 318. holy Fathers, or to the Council of Constantinople of 150. holy Fathers, or to the Council of Ephesus celebrated under Cyrill of blessed memory, we have decreed the same with all our sentences, so to continue without maim or diminution.  
I add secondly, that Gregory the great (who was bishop of Rome himself, 
Addition. 2.  and a good man in deed) did admit the four first general Counsels, of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Ch●lcedon; and did reverence the same, as the four Gospels. 
Gratian. dist▪ 15. cap. sicut.  These are his express words, as Gratianus hath related the same in the Pope's own Decrees. Sicut sancti evangelii quatuor libros, sic quatuor Concilia suscipere et venerarie me fateor: Nicenum scilicet, in quo perversum Arij dogma destruitur. Constantinopolitanum quoque in quo Eunomij et Macedonij error convincitur. Ephesinum etiam primum, in quo Nestorij impietas judicatur. Chalcedonense vero, in quo Euticetis et Dioscori pravitas est reprobata. Haec, tota devotione amplector, integerrima approbatione custodio: As I profess myself to receive and reverence the four Books of the holy Gospel; so also the four Counsels in like manner: to weet, the Council of Nice; in which the perverse opinion of Arius is confounded: the Council of Constantinople also; in which the error of Eunomius and Macedonius is convinced: the Council of Eph●sus also the first; in which the impiety of Nestorius was censured: the Council of Chalcedon in like manner; in which Eutiches & Dioscorus were condemned: These Counsels I embrace with great devotion, and keep them with most holy approbation.  
objection 8 They say eightly, that Pope Cornelius was bishop of the Catholic Church of the whole world; not of the City of Rome only: and they prove it by these words of Cornelius, in his Epistle to S. Cyprian. 
Corn. ad Cyprian. To. 1. council. pag. 226. Ep. 11. apud Cyprian.  Nec ignoramus unum D●um esse, et unum Christum esse Dominum quem confessj sumus, unum spiritum sanctum, unum Episcopum in Catholica Eccesia esse debere: We are not ignorant, that there is one God, one Christ, one holy Ghost: and that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholic Church. But I answer, that Cornelius meaneth the Catholic Church of the city of Rome, calling it rightly the Catholic Church; 
The Church of Rome how it is Catholic.  yet not as it signifieth Universal, but as it connotateth a Church constantly holding the Catholic Faith. I prove it, because Cornelius himself (in whose Epistle that is written) saith in an other Epistle directed to Fabius, 
Com. Epist. ad Fabium habetur To 1. council. pag. 222▪ circa med.  where he entreateth of the same matter; that there ought to be one bishop in that Catholic Church, wherein there are ●ixe and forty Elders, and seven Deacons, with seven Subdeacons, so forth: These are the express words. Ita igitur lepidum evangelii patronum Novatum omnino prae●erij●, scilicet unum solum Episcopum oportere esse in hac Eccesia catholica: 
Note well the 30. chapter following.  in qua tamen non ignorabat (quomodo enim poterat?) Presbyteros esse quadraginta sex, Diaconos septem, Subdiaconos septem, Acolythos quadraginta duos, Exorcistas et Lectores unacum ostiarijs quinquaginta duos; viduas, et alios morbo atque egestate afflictatoes, mill et quingentos: quos omnes Domini gratia et benignitas abunde sustentat: He therefore omitted altogether this pleasant defender of the Gospel Novatus, because there ought but to be one only Bishop in this Catholic Church: in which for all that, 
Mark the words, (in this.)  he was not ignorant (for how could that be?) that there was forty six Elders or Priests, seven Deacons, seven Subdeacons', forty two Acolythes, Exorcists and Readers together with Sextenes, fifty two; Widows and others needy and sick persons, a thousand and five hundred: All which, the grace and liberality of our Lord doth abundantly relieve. And towards the beginning of the Epistle, I find these words, as Eusebius relateth them. 
Euseb. hist. lib. 6. cap. 33. et To. 1. council. p. 221. ex Ruffino.  Epistolae quidem Cornelij Episcopi Romani scriptae ad Fabium Episcopum ecclesiae Antiochenae, ad nos pervenerunt; quae tum acta concilij Romae habiti, ab omnibus in Italia, in Africa, inque aliis in locis de eo errore decreta erant, evidenter declarant: The Epistles of Cornelius bishop of Rome, written to Fabius bishop of Antioch, came to our hands; which did evidently declare the things which were then decreed touching that error, in a Council then holden at Rome of all the bishops in Italy, Africa, and other places. This was the case: the Church being troubled at that time, with the Schisms and Heresies of Novatus; the Novatians refused the communion of the Catholics, & thereupon ordained new Bishops for their Schismatical conventicles: whereby it came to pass, that in one City, there were two bishops at once; a Catholic, and an Heretic. In Rome, 
Habetur To. 1. conc. p. 222. inter decreta Cornelij.  Cornelius and Novatianus: in Carthage, Cyprian and Fortunatus. Novatus being very desirous to be a bishop, joined to himself two desperate companions; and by that means, three bishops: who were very rude and simple men. These bishops he deceived with fair speeches, promises, and cozening tricks. He told them constantly, that they must go to Rome with all speed; that by their sentence and judgement, all controversies might be decided and fully ended. The Bishops giving credit to the report, by reason of their simplicity; came to Rome with all convenient speed. Novatus, with a company of odd companions like ununto himself, found means to get them into an odd corner, prepared for that end and purpose: where, so soon as the bishops were made merry with Wine and delicate cheer, 
Episcopi temulenti, et exaturati erant.  he violently compelled them to make him bishop, by a vain and imaginary imposition of hands: Which being effected, he challenged the Bishopric of Rome jointly with Cornelius. Cornelius being lawfully possessed thereof, and relying upon the Decree of the Nicene Council in that behalf, affirmed constantly, 
Conc. Nicen. can. 8. contra Novatians.  that there could be but one bishop in that Catholic Church (of Rome.) The Catholics therefore communicating in faith and Christian love with Cornelius, termed him the bishop of the Catholic Church.  
objection 9 They say ninthly, out of S. Cyprian, that all Heresies and Schisms, have sprung out of this only fountain, and no other: 
Cypr. Ep. 55. ad Cornel.  viz. that one Priest for the time in the Church, and one judge for the time in stead of Christ, is not regarded: To whom, if the whole brotherhood would be obedient, according to God's ordinance; no man would make any thing ado, against the company of God's Priests. Where, by one Priest, he meaneth one bishop; and by one bishop, Cornelius the Pope; to whom he writeth those things: and consequently, he argueth the Pope to be the bishop of the whole Church; and one judge for the time, in Christ's stead. But I answer; first, that this in effect is the same, 
Note well the tenth Objection, in the end thereof.  with the former of Cornelius: and consequently, it ought to admit the same answer: For, he speaketh it upon occasion of injury, which the Novatians offered himself in Carthage: for, the Novatians there, had ordained a new bishop against him; as their fellows did in Rome, against the good bishop Cornelius. Secondly, 
Notetur Genebr. lib. 3. in Chron. p. 528.  because the words both precedent and subsequent, do clearly insinuate, that he meaneth it of all Catholic bishops, each in his own charge; yea, that he applieth it to himself, not to Cornelius. Thirdly, because he speaketh of a bishop, who hath been approved in the Bishopric four years: Which circumstance, can by no means agree to Cornelius, 
Genebr. ubi supra, p. 527.  seeing he was not three years bishop there. Fourthly, because he writeth the same to an other, expressly of himself. Thence (saith he) have Heresies and Schisms sprung, and yet do spring; because the Bishop which is one and ruleth the Church, 
Cyprian. ad Florent. Ep. 69  is despised by the proud presumption of certain men.  
objection 10 They say tenthly, that S. Ambrose calleth Damasus the Ruler of the Catholic Church. 
Ambrose. in. 1. Tim. 3.  But I answer; first, that those Commentaries are falsely fathered upon S. Ambrose, that holy and famous bishop of Milan. The Divines of Lovan have well observed, 
Prefat. in lib. excus. Antuarp. a Plant.  and freely testified the same. Secondly, that these words (Cuius hody rector est Damasus) can infer or conclude no more; save this only, that Damasus was (not the Ruler, but) a Ruler of the Church. Damasus might rightly be called a Ruler of the Church, in that he was bishop of the Church of Rome, though not the Ruler of the Universal Church. The word (Rector) may fitly be englished a Ruler, 
Rector must be a Ruler, not the Ruler.  but not, the Ruler. Thirdly, that these words (at this day) have a semblance and relation to the days of Timothee: viz that as Timothee did govern the Church in S. Paul's time, so was Damasus in his time Ruler of the same: So then, this is the true sense and meaning thereof; to weet, that as Timothee was placed at Ephesus to set that Church in order, and to rule it; not to rule the whole: so was Damasus appointed to rule the Church of Rome; but not all other Churches in the world. 
Cyprian de unit. Eccles. prope initium. pag. 297. nota comment. ibid. p. 306.  For (as S. Cyprian truly saith) Episcopatus unus est, cuius in solidum a singulis pars tenetur: There is one Bishopric, part whereof every bishop holdeth wholly, in solidum. This word (in solidum,) must be well marked and faithfully remembered: For doubtless, if there be but one only Bishopric, whereof every bishop hath one part wholly to himself; it followeth by a necessary & an inevitable illation, 
This reason can never be truly answered.  that there can be, but one only part thereof remain to the bishop of Rome: For, he can not possibly have that whole, of which every other bishop hath a part wholly. Let this be well marked, and never forgotten: For if these Aphorisms, and the Conclusions aforegoing, be seriously pondered, & thoroughly understood: all that the jesuit here saith, or possibly can be said by the Jesuitical seditious crew, will soon appear very childish and of no force at all. Howbeit, for the better help of the simple Reader, I will answer in particular to all such points, as shall but seem to have any colour of the truth. Proceed therefore sir Friar, and plead courageously for the Pope.    

B. C.  
If Bell can prove, that this surreptitious Decree of the Eastern bishops was ever confirmed, then were it something which he bringeth: 
They spoke more boldly then wisely.  But the bishop of Rome his Legates withstood that their indirect proceeding, pronouncing it to be contrary to the Decrees of the Nicene Council. And Lucentius in particular spoke confidently, saying; That the Apostolic Sea ought not to be abased in their presence. And Pope Leo himself did bitterly inveigh against Anatolius, for this his presumption, and going against the Nicene Canons.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that the Popes (Sozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus) falsified and urged the Canons of the Nicene Council, for the falsely pretended Primacy of the Church and bishop of Rome. But the holy, learned, and famous bishops of the Aphrican Council (whereof S. Austin that rare light of the Christian world was one,) did roundly control that their forgery and naughty dealing; calling it Fumosum typhum seculi, the smoky stateliness of the world. 
Fumosum typhum seculi.  This is already proved very copiously, in all the precedent Aphorisms; especially in the third and fourth. Secondly, that no marvel it is, if the Pope's Messengers (to the uttermost of their power) pleaded ridiculously for their own gain: For so did Demetrius the Siluer-smith for the like end, plead for the Temple of the Goddess Diana. 
Act. 19 vers. 24 27.  Yea, so pleaded Pope Boniface the eight, about three hundred years ago, against Philippe the fair, 
A.D. 1294.  than King of France. The Pope challenging Superroyall power, would needs excommunicate Philippe the French King; but there was never excommunication which cost Pope so dear, as that did him: for his Messengers were committed prisoners, 
Lo, the whole Clergy with the King condemned the Pope.  his Bulls burnt; and Boniface himself being taken by Naveret Chancellor of France, presently after, died for very sorrow: Wherein King Philippe did nothing, but by the Council and consent of the whole Clergy of France. So Bennet the 13. otherwise called Petrus de Luna, interdicted Charles the sixth and his Realm: but the King sitting in his Throne of justice, in the Parliament or high Court of Paris the 21. of May, 
A.D. 1408.  1408. gave sentence openly, that the Bull should be rend in pieces, and that Gonsalue and Conseleux the bearers thereof, should be set upon a Pillory, and publicly notified and traduced in the Pulpit: Which Decree was accordingly put in execution in the month of August, with the greatest scorn that could be devised; the two Messengers having this inscription upon their Mitres: 
Lib. 3. c 17. fol. 182.  These men are disloyal to the Church, and to the King. These words are put down by the French Papists, in their Book called; The Jesuits Catechism; translated into English by the Secular Priests. Thirdly, that Pope Leo is a party, and so can not be a competent Witness in his own cause: For, as one of your own Popes truly said; 
4. Personae; accusator, reus, testes, index.  in every trial, there must be four distinct persons; the accuser, the accused, the witnesses, and the judge. Fourthly, that the holy, wise, and grave Fathers of that famous Council (which S. Gregory reverenced, as one of the four Gospels,) laughed the Pope's Messengers to scorn, and concluded with all their several subscriptions against the Pope: yea, they protested publicly and zealously, that no bishop was compelled to any thing, but that they all decreed as they believed. These are the express words of the Holy Synod: 
Conc. Chalced. Act. 16. pag. 211. col. 1.  Gloriosissimj judices 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 Bishops of Asia and Pontus, which have subscribed to the Articles openly read, declare unto the Council; whether they subscribed of their own free accord, or by compulsion of Anatolius or any other. The holy and most reverend Fathers answered severally; protesting before God, that they subscribed voluntarily according to their knowledge, and as they constantly believed: no one or other, 
There was no compulsion used, as the Pope's parasites falsely pretended.  any way constraining them thereunto. It would be a thing tedious to the Reader, and laborious to myself; otherwise I would set down the several subscriptions of the Bishops: For, though they be long, yet do they contain such Christian variety of words, as are able to touch the heart of every honest Reader. This may suffice to confound our jesuit, and to clear Anatolius that blessed Patriarch, of the immodest speeches of Pope Leo against him.   

B. C.  
The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, 
Relat. Synod. Act. 3. in fine.  made suit to the Pope to confirm their Decrees.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that this Epistle is like to the other of the Nicene Fathers: that is to say, a bastard and counterfeit. This is sound proved in the fifth Aphorism; 
Aphorism. 5.  in the first, sixth, and seventh Objections: Let them be well remembered. Secondly, 
In relatione Synodi Act. 3. in fine.  that the suit which the Fathers of the Council made to Pope Leo, did argue only a prerogative of Honour, not any sovereignty of Power. Which I prove by a triple mean. For first, these are the words of the request. Rogamus igitur, et tuis Decretis nostrum honera judicium: We therefore desire you, to honour our judgement with your Decrees. He was the chief Patriarch and Bishop of that City, which at that time, reigned and was reputed Caput mundj; and so his consent was of great authority, in that behalf. Secondly, his Messengers would not agree to that prerogative of honour, which the Council had confirmed to the bishop of Constantinople; and therefore they requested him to consent thereto, because the Emperor Theodosius had so commanded them. Thirdly, the Fathers say plainly, that the Emperor confirmed the Council: these are the words; Opportunum credidimus esse, honoris e●us confirmationem ab universalj Concilio celebrarjs: We thought it meet and convenient, that the whole Council should celebrate his Honour's confirmation. To which I add; that seeing the Fathers of this Chalcedon Council, did approve and confirm the Canons both of the Nicene and of the Constantinopolitan Synod (in which Synods this pretended Prerogative is condemned,) it must follow of necessity, that the said Epistle or relation is a counterfeit.   

B. C.  
It can not truly be called a Decree of the Council, which was not confirmed by the Head; no more than that, an Act of Parliament, which is not confirmed by the King.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, with the famous popish bishop Melchior Canus, 
Canus, lib. 5. c. 5 p. 164.  that it is not in these affairs, as in human assemblies: Which the holy Prophet doth plainly insinuate, 
Esa. cap. 55. v. 8.  while in the person of God, he uttereth these words. For my cogitations are not your cogitations, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. Secondly, that there is great disparity between the Pope and the King, concerning the subject now in hand. For first, the King hath a sacred sovereignty over all the people within his dominions, as over his natural Subjects and loyal Servants. 
Mark well, the precedent conclusions, and aphorisms, & this is very clear.  But the Pope hath no sovereignty over transmarine and foreign Christians; as I have already proved. Secondly, the King, though negatively he forbid Laws to be enacted; yet doth he not make any new Laws affirmatively to tie all his Subjects, without the consent of his Lords spiritual, Lords temporal, and the Commons of his Kingdoms. But the Pope challengeth Power (though most impudently and against sacred Canons) to make Laws, to tie all Christians in the whole world, no way subject to him. Thirdly, the King taketh not upon him solely of himself, to abrogate, cassiere, or disannul any act of Parliament, to which he formerly gave his consent. But the Pope taketh roundly (though fond) upon him solely of himself, to abrogate, cassiere, & disannul any Decree of Council, though formerly approved by himself. Fourthly, no text of holy Writ, no Canon of any ancient Council, no Father of approved antiquity, denieth to kings sacred sovereignty within their Kingdoms, Territories, and Dominions, over any persons whatsoever borne within the precincts thereof. But all the four first most famous general Councils (of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon; all which S. Gregory reverenced as the four Gospels,) deny the Popes falsely pretended Primacy, in all foreign and transmarine Kingdoms; and confine his jurisdiction to the City of Rome, and to the suburbican territories of the same. All which is sound and plentifully proved in the Conclusions and Aphorisms next aforegoing.   

B. C.  
But it may be, Bell will say, that the confirmation of the Council, belonged not to the Pope: It is not possible, that he dare offer it.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that seeing the Pope (as is already proved) taketh upon him to change the nature of things, by applying the substantial parts of one thing to an other; to make some thing of nothing, the proper action of God in creation; to depose Kings, to translate Empires, and to bestow the same at his good pleasure; to make it Sacrilege to dispute of his power; to terrify men so with Fire and Faggot, and with thunderbolts of cursing Excommunications, that though he carry thousands to Hell, yet may no man say; Why dost thou so? It may seem no marvel, 
Bell would gladly have the Pope's favour, if joined with the favour of God.  if Bell (poor soul) be afraid to anger his Holiness. Nevertheless, because the truth is never ashamed, but will in time prevail; Bell, post deosculationem pedum, and to prove our Jesuit in this, as in many other things, a most impudent and notorious liar; dare boldly tell the Pope, that the Confirmation of Counsels belongeth not unto him: 
Bell dare prove the jesuit a liar.  Yea, Bell will not barely say it, but he will produce such strong arguments, such weighty authorities, and such invincible reasons, as will make the Pope's ears to tingle, when he shall read or hear the same. Mark well this my Discourse, unto the end: I purpose in God, to proceed by way of Sections, for the better illustration of the business now in hand.  

The first Section, of reasons in general concerning the subject now in hand.  
I have already proved in my Book of Motives, that every Monarch hath supreme sovereignty over all Persons and causes within his Dominions: 
Lib. 2. cap. 6. concl. 1.2.3.  and consequently, that no Laws can be of force in his Kingdoms, without his royal assent, approbation, and confirmation of the same. King Josaphat appointed in Jerusalem, Levites, Priests, and Princes, of the families of Israel, that they should judge the judgement & cause of the Lord to the inhabitants thereof. And he commanded them, saying: Thus shall ye do in the fear of the Lord, faithfully and with a perfect heart. Yea, 
2 Par. 19 V. 8.9.  he distinguished & limited the offices and functions both of Zabadias' the civil Magistrate, and of Amarias' the High Priest; thereby insinuating evidently, that the chiefest power & jurisdiction rested in the King, not in Amarias' the High Priest. 
2. Par. 17. V. 7.8.9.  The same King, to gather the Church which was decayed, sent Preachers into sundry parts of his Kingdom; appointing Noblemen to accompany & assist them, to countenance their ministery, 
2. Par. 14 4. 2 Par. 15.13. Deut. 13.5. 2. Par. 34.33.  & to compel the people to hear them. K. Asa used his authority in commanding judah to seek the Lord, threatening them with death, that should refuse so to do. King Josias after he had abolished Idolatry, compelled all his Subjects to serve the true God, & to live in his fear. 
2. Par. 30. V. 1.2.5.  Ezechias commanded all Israel & Judah to come to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, there to keep the Passeover; which had been a long neglected, and not observed in such sort & perfect manner, as God had appointed. King David & King Solomon did in like manner show their supreme authority, both over all their Subjects, and in all manner of causes. For larger discourse whereof, 
See the Golden Balance, and mark it well.  I refer the Reader to my Golden Balance of Trial. Now if every King have within his Dominions, the chief Power & Sovereignty over all persons & causes; it must needs follow, it can not be denied; that the Confirmation of Counsels belongeth not to the Pope. Which consequence will appear most evidently, throughout the Sections following. To which I add; 
Super, ex Cypr. Object. 10  that seeing there is but one Bishopric, whereof every Bishop hath a part in solidum, as is already proved; the Confirmation of Counsels can belong no more to the Bishop of Rome, than it doth to other Bishops. For, with that whole, to which many have equal title and right, no one of them hath more to do then an other. This in general may suffice: I haste to the particulars.   

The second Section of the Council of Nice.  

A.D. 327. Episcopi erunt 318.  The first general Council of Nice of 318. Bishops, (in which Arius denying the consubstantiality of the Son of God, was condemned,) was celebrated in the year 327. after Christ; not by the appointment of the Pope, (who in those days was but reputed as other Bishops) but by the flat and express commandment of the Emperor Constantinus worthily surnamed the great. 
Socrat. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 9 et cap. 8. idem apertissime asseritur.  All the Fathers assembled in the sacred Council of Nice, wrote to the Church of Alexandria, and to the inhabitants of Egypt, Lybia, and Pentopolis, in these express words. Quoniam per gratiam Dei et pientissimum Imperatorem Constantinum, qui nos ex varijs civitatibus et Provincijs congregavit, magna ac sancta a Synodus Nicaeae collectae est, omnino necessarium visum est, ut ad vos quoque a sacro Synodo darentur literae, quo cognoscere possitis, cum quae mota et examinata, tum probata sint et obtenta: 
Euseb. de vita Const. lib. 3. prope initium. nota valde. quib. digestis, ad sua redire quemque permisit.  Because through the grace of God, and by the commandment of the most holy Emperor Constantine, who hath called us out of divers Cities and Provinces, the great and holy Council of Nice is assembled; it seemeth necessary, that the whole Council send Letters to you, by which ye may understand, as well those things that were called into question, as the things that are decided and decreed in the same. Out of these words of the famous Historiographer Socrates, I observe these memorable documents for the good of the Reader. First, that this testimony is of greatest credit, and without all exception; as which was not published by one or two, but by more than three hundred bishops (as writeth Nicephorus, 
Lib. 8. Hist. cap. 14. ) who were the most virtuous and learned Priests in the Christian world. Secondly, that these Fathers, so many, so holy, so learned, so wise, do not once name the Pope in their Letters; so far were they in those days, from ascribing the chief Prerogative in Counsels, to the Bishop of Rome. Thirdly, that the bishop of Rome himself was also commanded by the emperors Letters, even as other bishops were: Albeit both he, 
The Bishop of Rome commanded by the Emperor to be at the Council.  and the Bishop of Constantinople, by reason of infirmities, were excused, and their Messengers allowed in their absence: So writeth the famous Historiographer Nicephorus. This Observation would be marked, as which striketh the Pope stark dead: For, the Pope was so far from being the Commander of all, that himself was commanded, as the rest. Fourthly, that Pope Sylvester could not confirm the Nicene Council, as the Pope's flattering popelings tell us; because Julius (as Nicephorus, Nicephorus, 
Super, in 6. Obiectione.  and others do constantly affirm) was at that time, bishop of Rome. Fiftly, that all the Fathers of this most sacred and famous Synod, do plainly confess in their joint Letters; that the Emperor called the Council; assigned the day and the place, when and where it should be kept: and charged all bishops to be there present, at the day by him appointed. Sozomenus hath these words: 
Soz. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 17.  Verum cum institutum hoc Imperatoris conceptae spei non respondisset, nec conciliari contentiosi potuissent; et iam qui ad conciliandam Pacem missus fuerat, reversus esset; Synodum Nicaeae Bythiniae celebrandam convocavit, et omnibus ubique Ecclesiarum praesidibus, ut ad indictum diem adessent, scripsit: But after the matter succeeded otherwise then the Emperor expected, neither could the contentious persons be reconciled; but Hesius that was sent to make peace, was now returned; he caused a Synod to be kept at Nice in Bythinia, and wrote to all Bishops every where▪ to be present at the day appointed. Nicephorus hath these express words. 
Lib. 8. Hist. cap. 14.  Quapropter infectis rebus ad Impetatorem redijt, qui ad pacem componendam missus fuerat, Hosius: itaque Imperator decantatissimam illam in Bythinia Nicaenam Synodum promulgat, et literis locorum omnium Episcopos ad constitutam Diem eò evocat: 
Epiph. haeres. 69. rex de Ecclesia sollicitus, universalem convo cavit Synodum trecentorum decem et octo Episcoporum.  Wherefore Hosius, who went to make peace, returned to the Emperor not having accomplished the matter; the Emperor therefore doth publish the famous Synod of the world, to be celebrated at Nice in Bythinia; and with his Letters calleth thither the Bishops of all Countries and Provinces, to be present at the day appointed. 
Lib. 1. hist. cap. 7.  Theodoretus in his History Ecclesiastical, plainly testifieth the same truth. Thus we see evidently by the uniform testimony of four very grave Historiographers; whereof three lived more than a thousand and one hundred years ago; 
The Bishop of Rome was reputed as a common Pre●●e.  that the Bishop of Rome had no more to do in General Counsels, than other Bishops had. They tell us first, that the Emperor sent Hosius the bishop of Corduba in Spain, to make peace, & to bring the contentious to unity, if it could be. Secondly, that when he saw that would take no place, than he proclaimed a Council to be holden at Nice in Bythinia. Thirdly, that he commanded all Bishops, even the Bishop of Rome himself, to come to Nice at the day by him appointed.   

The third Section, of the Council of Constantinople.  
The second General Council holden at Constantinople, against Macedoneus & his complices, for denying the Divinity of the Holy Ghost; was called by the commandment of the Emperor Theodosius the great, about 384. years after Christ. Socrates hath these words. 
Socrates, lib. 5. ●ist. cap. 8. et cap. 7. in fine. A.D. 384.  Impeperator vero nihil cunctatus, Synodum suae fidej. Episcoporun ad hoc convocat, ut Nicanam fidem confirmantes, Constantinopolitanae Ecclesiae Episcopum ordinent: sperans autem futurum, ut illis et Macedoniani coadunarentur, etiam illius haeresis Episcopos convocat: The Emperor Theodosius with all expedition, calleth a Council of Bishops embracing the right Faith, that aswell the Faith of the Nicene Council might be confirmed, as that a Bishop might be appointed at Constantinople: and because he was in hope to make the Macedonians agree with the Bishops of the right Faith, he calleth also the Bishops that were of the Macedonian-sect. Sozomenus is consonant to Socrates in one place, and in an other place addeth these words. 
Soz▪ hist. lib. 7. cap. 7. et cap. 12.  Theodosius vero Imperator, Paululun post praecedentem Synodun, Episcopos earum haeresum convocavit: sequitur, cum autem convenissent, accersito ad se Nectario, Imperator cum eo de futura Synodo communicate; iubetque ut quaestiones ex quibus natae fuerant haereses, in disputationem proponat; quo una fieret in Christum credentium Ecclesia, et constitueretur dogma consonum, ad quam religio conformaretur: The Emperor not long after the precedent Synod, calleth the Bishops of those Heresies together: When they were assembled, the Emperor calleth Nectarius (the Bishop of Constantinople) to him, and consulteth with him concerning the future Synod; 
Vbi super cap. 9  and commandeth him to propound in disputation those questions, from whence the Heresies did spring, to the end that there might be one Church of the faithful, & a consonant rule of faith, which might be as a pattern of religion. Sig●bertus a famous Popish Monk, writeth in this manner. 
Sigeb. in chron. 386.  Secunda Synodus universalis 150. Patrun congregatur Constantinopoli, iubente Theodosio, et annuente Damaso Papa; quae Macedonium negantem spiritum sanctum Deum esse condemnans, consubstantialem patri et filio spiritum sanctum esse docuit: The second general Council of an hundred & fifty Bishops, is assembled at Constantinople, by the commandment of Theodosius, Damasus the Pope agreeing thereunto: in which Synod●, Macedonius, who denied the Holy Ghost to be God, was condemned; and the consubstantiabilitie of the Holy Ghost with the Father and the Son, was confirmed in the same. Theodoretus is consonant, 
Theod. hist. lib. 5. cap. 6.7.9.  and uttereth many worthy periods.   

The fourth Section, of the Council of Ephesus.  
The third general Council, being the first Ephesive of two hundred bishops, was proclaimed by the commandment of the Emperor Theodosius the younger; against Nestorius' denying the virgin Mary to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and affirming Christ to have persons twain; proving that two natures did subsist in one only person of Christ J●sus, 
A.D. 433.  in the year of our Lord God 433. Euagrius hath these words. 
evagr. lib. 1. cap. 3.  Cum ista Cyrillus venerandae memoriae Alexandrinorum Episcopus literis suis reprehendisset, Nestorius vero reprehensioni illius restitisset, et neque illius, neque Celestini veteris Romae Episcopi monitis acquiavisset, sed temulentiam suam adversus universam Ecclesiam nihil veritus effudisset; haud praeter rationem a Theodosio iuniore Orientis Imperatore petijt, ut ipsius nutu Synodus colligeretur. Imperialibus itaque literis, cum ad ipsum Cyrillum, tum ad omnium ubique Ecclesiarum Episcopos missis, ad sacrum Penticostes diem, in quo venit ad nos spiritus S. conventus indicitur: When Cyrillus the venerable bishop of Alexandria had by his Letters reproved the wicked blasphemy of Nestorius, and Nestorius had withstood the same, neither yielding to his admonition, nor to Celestines the Bishop of old Rome, but still malepertly powered out his drunken conceits against the whole Church; then Cyrill not without cause, requested the Emperor Theodosius the younger, that by his authority a Synod might be called: by the Letters therefore of the Emperor, directed to Cyrill and to all other Bishops every where, the Synod is appointed upon the sacred day of Penticost, at what time the Holy Ghost came down upon us. Thus writeth this famous Historiographer. Out of whose words, I gather many worthy instructions. First, that neither Cy●illus the bishop of Alexandria, nor Celestinus the bishop of Rome, could by any means reclaim or dissuade N●storius from his cursed and blasphemous opinions. Secondly, that Cyrillus lamenting the harm that thereby did redound to the Church, sought to the Emperor for redress thereof; humbly requesting him, that a general Council might be gathered for the peace of the Church, and for the condemnation of the Heresy of Nestorius. Thirdly, that Cyrillus, that holy and learned bishop, (who was reputed a Saint in his lifetime) did not make suit to the bishop of Rome for calling of the Council; which doubtless he would have done, if the gathering of Counsels had belonged unto him. Fourthly, that S. Cyrill sought immediately to the Emperor, not once acquainting the Bishop of Rome therewith. Fiftly, that the bishop of Rome himself was commanded to come to the Synod, even in such sort as other bishops were. Which I prove by a double mean: First, because the Story saith, That the Emperor called omnium ubique Ecclesiarum Episcopos, the bishops of all Churches every where. Secondly, because Nicephorus saith, that Celestinus the bishop of Rome was absent, but appointed Cyrillus in his stead. These are the words. 
Nicephor. lib. 14 hist. cap. 34. et hab. 1. to▪ conc. pag. 600.  Celestinus autem Roma Episcopus propter navigationis pericula Synodo adesse detrectavit: ad Cyrillum tamen, ut locum suum ibj obtineret, scripsit: But Celestine the bishop of Rome was absent from the Synod, by reason of the danger of Navigation: yet he wrote to Cyrillus, that he might supply his place. Touching the Pope's absence from Councils, the jesuitical Cardinal Bellarmine, giveth better and sounder reasons (though unawares both against the Pope & himself,) which I willingly admit, 
evag. hist. lib. 1. cap. 10.  wishing the Reader to observe and mark them seriously with me; as which are both memorable, and of great consequence. This Cardinal yieldeth two reasons, 
Bellar. de conc. ib. 1. cap. 19  why the Pope was never present at Counsels in the East-churches, by himself, and in his own person; the one forsooth, because it was not convenient, that the Head should follow the members: the other, because the Emperor would ever sit in the highest place. 
The Emperor ever had the highest place in Counsels.  Out of whose words, I must needs note two important points by the way: The one, that in the ancient Church, the highest place in Counsels, was ever reserved to the Emperor: The other, that the East-churches did never acknowledge the Pope's Primacy, which he this day arrogantly challengeth over all Kingdoms and Regalities. To which twain, this pleasant adjunct must of necessity be annexed: viz. that our humble Father the Pope, (who hypocritically calleth himself servus servorum Dej,) would never come to Counsels in the East parts; because (forsooth) his charity was so great, 
Behold the Pope's humility  that he could not endure to see the Emperor sitting in the highest place. And it is not amiss for the benefit of the Reader, if I here adjoin the manner, how the Emperor Constantine sat in the Council of Nice. 
Sozom. hist. lib. 1. cap. 19  Sozomenus that grave Historiographer (who lived more than a thousand, one hundred, & seventy years ago) hath these words. Congregatis itaque in unum locum, per medium sacerdotum ad caput conventus transeundo, in throno quodam qui ipsi paratus erat, confedit, ac Synodus sedere jussa est. Erant. N. utrinque ad parietes Palatij multa posita subsellia; hic vero thronus maximus erat, et reliquas sedes excellebat: Therefore when the bishops were come together, the Emperor passing through the midst of them to the head of the assembly, sat down in a Throne prepared for him, and willed the Bishops to sit down. There were many Seats on both sides, to the walls of the Palace; but the Emperors was the chief, and surmounted all the rest. Cassiodorus hath these words. 
Cassiod. in hist. tripart. libr. 12. cap 5.  Non multo post tempore, iussio principis Episcopos undique Ephesum convenire praecepit: No long time after, the commandment of the Emperor charged the Bishops to come from every place to Ephesus. Nicephorus writeth thus. 
Nicephor. libr. 14. hist. cap. 34.  Theodosius Imperialibus literis, in metropoli Epheso locorum omnium Episcopos convenire jussit, sacram Pentecostes diem qua convenirent, constituens: Theodosius by virtue of his Imperial Letters, commanded the Bishops in all places to come to the Metropolitan Church of Ephesus, designing the holy Feast of Pentecost for the day. In which assertion, two things are to be marked. Th'one, that the Bishops come together at the emperors commandment: Th'other, that the Emperor appointed both the place and the time of their meeting. Sigebertus hath these words. 
Sigebert. in Chron. An. 433  Tertia Synodus universalis, Ephesina prima, ducentorum Episcoporum, jussu Theodosij iunioris Augusti aedita est: The third universal Synod of two hundred bishops, was celebrated at Ephesus by the commandment of the Emperor Theodosius the younger. Lo, every Historiographer relateth the emperors Commandment: but no mention is made of the Pope at all.   

The fifth Section, of the Council of Chalcedon.  
The fourth general Council of Chalcedon, of six hundred and thirty Bishops, against Eutyches, for denying two natures in Christ after his human assumption, (although he granted him to have had two Natures before the hypostatical union) was celebrated by the commandment of the Emperor Martianus; in the year 454 after Christ. 
A.D. 454.  Nuephorus hath these express words. 
Lib. 15. hist. cap. 2.  Earum rerum gratia, Imperatorum literis, locorum omnium Episcopis convocatis, Synodus Chalcedone est coacta; quae quidem primum Nicaeae convenerat, quo etiam Romanae urbis Episcopus Leo, per Pascasini, et Lucentij, et aliorum Ministerium, litter as miserat: sed ea Chalcedonem Bythyniae est translata, quod Imperator ipse Synodo ei adesse vellet, magnum Constantinum imitatus: In regard of these matters, a Council was gathered at Chal●edon, and all bishops sent for thither by force of the emperors Letters: which Synod at the first, was assembled at Nice; whither Leo the bishop of the City of Rome sent Letters by Pascasinus, Lucentius, and others: but it was removed thence, to Chalcedon in Bithyniae, that the Emperor might be present at the Synod, after the example of Constantine the great. Thus writeth Nicephorus; a man greatly devoted to the Pope. Out of whose words, I note these memorable points. First, that the Council was assembled, by the commandment of the Emperor. Secondly, that the Emperor appointed where the Synod should be kept. Thirdly, that the Emperor translated it to Chalcedon, at his own good pleasure. Fourthly, that Leo is barely termed, the Bishop of the City of Rome; neither the Universal Patriarch, nor bishop of the Whole World. Sigebertus is consonant to Nicephorus: his words are these. 
Sigebert. in Chron. et An. 452.  Instantia Leonis Papae iubente Jmperatore Martiano, congregata et habita est quarta universalis Synodus sexcentorum et triginta Episcoporum apud Chalcedonem: The fourth general Council of six hundredth and thirty bishops, was holden at Chalcedon by the commandment of the Emperor Martian, at the request of Pope Leo. Thus writeth Sigebertus the Pope's own dear Monk, who was willing every way to advance the Pope, so far as might stand with the truth. And yet he telleth us plainly, 
The Pope requested, but the Emperor commanded the thing to be done.  concerning the assemblies of bishops in Councils, that the Pope could only request; and that to command the same, was in the emperors power. Euagrius in his History in the second Chapter and second Book, teacheth the self same verity. To be brief, 
Leo Ep. 33. ad Theod.  Pope Leo in his Epistle to the Emperor Theodosius, together with the whole Synod, make humble suit unto him, to command a General Council within Italy: his words, and the whole Synods, are verbatim set down in the first Aphorism aforegoing. 
Vide Aphor. 5. in object. 5. et nota valde.  But doubtless, if the gathering and confirming of Counsels belonged to the bishop of Rome; neither would the Pope, nor the Romish Synod have made suit to the Emperor in that behalf; especially, for a Council to be kept in Italy, where the Popes now a days challenge all power both Ecclesiastical and Secular. To which I add, that the Emperors for the space of more than 450. years after Christ, confirmed the Counsels with their royal edicts. This is so lively set down before our eyes, in the most honourable fact of the Noble Spanish King Reccaredus; as it is able to penetrate the very heart, and thoroughly to persuade every one, that shall seriously ponder the same, and in the fear of God. 
Conc. Coact. A.D. 585. Episc. 72.  This religious King Reccaredus in the year of our Lord God 585. commanded all the bishops within his dominions of Spain and Gallicia, being 72. in all, to come together in his royal City of Toledo, there to confute and condemn the Arian heresy: When they were come thither, the King sat down in the midst of them, and declared the cause that moved him to send for them. After that, he enacted a public Edict, for the inviolable observation of all the Decrees of the Council; straightly charging as well the Clergy as the laity, to obey and keep the same. Lastly, he subscribed his own name; and that before all the bishops, who in their due places subscribed after the King: These are the express words of the kings subscription, set down in the end of the said Edict. 
Edict. regis, de confirmat. concilij: in 2. to. council. in concil. 3 toletano.  Flavius Reccaredus rex, hanc deliberationem quam cum sancta definivimus Synodo, confirmans, subscripsi: I Flamus Reccaredus the King, confirming this Consultation which we have defined with the holy Synod, have subscribed thereunto. The next that subscribed after the King, was Mausona the Metropolitan in the Province of Lusitania: after him subscribed Euphemius the Archbishop of Toledo: The residue followed in order; as in the second Tome of Counsels is to be seen. 
Conc. Tolet. 3. in 2. tom. council.  These particular subscriptions I note, as a matter of great moment against the Papists; who will grant no Prerogative or Royal place to Kings, in time of Ecclesiastical Synods. Out of the words contained in the kings subscription, I observe sundry golden Lessons. First, that the King confirmed the Council. Secondly, that the King subscribed to the decrees of the Council. Thirdly, that the King subscribed before all the Bishops. Fourthly, that the King decreed and defined the controversies and other necessary matters, together with the Bishops. Which last Observation is proved two ways: First, by these words of the Council, in the 18. Canon; 
Ex Concil. cap 18.  Ex decreto Domini nostri Reccaredi regis, simul cum Sacerdotali concilio: by the Decree of our sovereign Lord Reccaredus the King, together with the Council of the bishops. Secondly, by these words of the kings subscription; Quam cum sancta definivimus Synodo: Which we defined, with the holy Synod. To all which, I think it not amiss, to add these golden words of S. Augustine. 
Aug. Epist. 50. prope med. ad Bonifac.  Quomodo ergo Reges Domino serviunt in timore, nisi ea quae contra jussa Domini fiunt, religiosa severitate prohibendo atque plectendo? Aliter. N. seruit, quia homo est; aliter, quia etiam et rex est: Quia homo est, ei seruit vivendo fideliter; quia vero etiam Rex est, seruit leges justa praecipientes, et contraria prohibentes, convenienti vigore sanctiendo: sicut seruivit Ezechias, Lucos et Templa Idolorun, et illa excelsa, quae contra praecepta Dei fuerant constructa, destruendo: 
4. Reg. 18. 4. Reg. 12. jona. 3. Dan. 1●. Dan. 3.  sicut seruivit josias, talia et ipse faciendo: sicut seruivit rex Ninivitarum, universam Civitatem ad placandum Dominum compellendo: sicut seruivit Darius, Idolum frangendum in potestatem Danieli dando, et inimicos eius Leonibus ingerendo: sicut seruivit Nabuchodonosor, omnes in regno suo positos a blasphemando Deo, lege terribili prohibendo. In hoc ergo serviunt Domino Reges, in quantum sunt Keges; cum ea faciunt ad seruiendum illi, quae non possunt facere nisi Reges: How do Kings serve God in fear, but by punishing with religious severity, 
Neglecta disciplina, impunita saeui● nequitia.  such things as are against God's laws? For the King serveth God one way, as he is man; an other way, as he is King: As he is man, he serves God in living as becometh an honest Christian; as he is King, he serves God in making sharp Laws to the furtherance of Virtue, and to the suppressing of Vice: As Ezechias served God, while he destroyed the Groves and Temples of Idols, and those High places which were erected against God's laws: As Josias served God, while he performed the same, or like duties: As the King of the Ninivites served God, in compelling the whole City to serve God: As Nabuchodonosor served God, while he with very sharp Laws terrified all his subjects from blaspheming the everliving God: In this therefore Kings serve God, as they are Kings; when they do that for the service of God, which none but Kings can do. Thus writeth S. Austin, that ancient Father, that holy Writer, that learned Doctor, that strong Pillar, that worthy Champion of Christ's Church. Out of whose Discourse I observe many things, well worthy to be engraven in Marble with Golden letters; in perpetuam rei memoriam. First, that Kings serve God, when they religiously punish sin. Secondly, that Kings serve God, as they be men; when they live, as it becometh faithful and honest Christians. Thirdly, that Kings serve God, as they be Kings; when they make Godly laws to advance Virtue, and to suppress Vice. Fourthly, that it belongeth to the office, duty, and charge of Kings, to purge the Church and House of God, from Heresies, Errors, Superstition, and Idolatry. Fiftly, that it appertaineth to the charge and office of Kings, to punish Blasphemy; and to cause their Subjects to live religiously, and in the fear of God. Sixtly, that this holy Father and great learned Doctor, utterly condemneth the Pope's Faith and Doctrine; while he denieth all authority to Kings in Church causes, and Ecclesiastical affairs, and maketh them only executors of his Laws, Will, and good Pleasure. For which respect, the same holy Father soon after, addeth these express words. Quis mente sobrius, Regibus dicat? Nolite curare, in regno vestro a quo teneatur vel oppugnetur Ecclesia Domini vestri; non ad vos pertineat, in regno vestro quis velit esse sive religiosus sive sacrilegus: Who well in his Wits, will say thus to Kings? Have no regard, neither take any care, who within your Kingdom either protect or oppugn the Church of God: you have no charge, neither doth it pertain to your office, who in your Kingdom be Religious, or who be Sacrilegious. Seventhly, that Kings have charge not only of the bodies of their Subjects, 
kings have charge of men's Souls.  but much more of their souls. Which not only S. Austen faith, but the whole course of Scripture teacheth the same: For, the godly Kings as well in time of the Law of Moses, as in the time of the New Testament and law of Grace; did manage all matters, 
jos 18. Num. 27.17. 2. Par. 23. v. 11.  both of Church and Commonweal. For which cause, the Civil Magistrate was commanded to read the whole Book of the Law; as well of the first, as of the second Table; and to study the same night and day. For which cause, the Civil Magistrate was commanded to go out and in before the people, and to lead them out and in; that the congregation of the Lord, should not be as Sheep without a Shepherd. For which cause, the Book of the Law was delivered into the King's hands; at such time as he received the Crown, and was anointed King. Lastly, (and this striketh dead) that Kings as Kings serve God; when they do those things, which none but Kings can do. If this golden Period were sound understood, 
Mark well for Christ's sake.  and perfectly kept in memory; it alone, would be enough to trample Pope and Popery under foot. For, I pray you (sir Friar) did not Constantinus surnamed the great, Theodesius the elder, Theodosius the younger, and Martianus, gather the four first general Counsels (of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon,) which Pope Gregory did reverence as the four gospels? did they not call the same Synods, as they were Emperors, Kings, and monarchs? I wot they did: it is already proved; it can not be denied. What? Did not Reccaredus as King, command all the Bishops of Spain and Gallicia to assemble themselves before him at Toledo, there to decide and determine causes ecclesiastical? did he not tell them the cause, why he sent for them? did he not sit down among them? did he not define with them? did he not subscribe before all the Bishops? did he not confirm the Decrees and Canons of the Council, with his royal edict? we have already seen it; we have viewed the very words; it is proved most manifestly. Now, let us duly ponder, and thoroughly understand; what of necessity must be inferred hereupon. S. Austin affirmeth constantly; 
This assertion is wonderful; mark it well.  that when Kings serve God as Kings, then do they that which none but Kings can do. But so it is, that Reccaredus and the other Kings, both called & confirmed Counsels, as they were Kings; for it is already proved: ergo Kings, and none but Kings, can call and confirm holy Counsels and sacred Synods. The reason is S. Austin's, when he resolutely avoucheth; that while Kings serve God as Kings, they do that which none but Kings can do: for, if Kings as Kings, call and confirm Counsels; none doubtless which are no Kings, can do the same. And consequently, no Bishop, (no not the Pope of Rome) hath authority to gather Counsels, or to confirm the same. Two things only, the Pope may in show of words seem to object for himself. objection 1 Th'one, that Kings do not call or confirm Counsels, as they be Kings; but rather as the Servants, or Deputies of the Pope. objection 2 Th'other, that the Pope is not only a bishop, but a King also.  
To the former Objection, this is my answer. response 1 First, that Kings of late years, 
Mark well my words.  are in deed so brought into thraldom by the Pope, where Popery beareth the sway, as they may truly be said to do the office not of Kings as Kings, but rather of Servants and Slaves to the disholy Father the Pope of Rome, response 2 Secondly, that the Pope will not this day permit Kings to make Laws in Ecclesiastical causes; but only to execute those unchristian, execrable, & tyrannical Laws, which by Popes of late years, are with Fire and Faggot framed to their hands. To the latter I answer in this manner. First, that how and in what sort the Pope is King, it is plenteously proved in the tenth Conclusion of this present Chapter: To which place, I refer the Reader, for his full satisfaction in this behalf. Secondly, that by the Pope's own Law, whosoever is Possessor malae fidei in the beginning, can have no just title by prescription in the ending. Thirdly, that if we suppose and grant him to be the true and lawful King of Italy; yet can no more be rightly inferred thereupon, save only that he can call and confirm Counsels within Italy, and make Laws to his subjects of the same Kingdom. In which case, I for my part, will not contend with him; as who only deny his usurped authority, in other transmarine and foreign Kingdoms. Now let us hear the Friar once again, to recreate our spirits with his merry conceits.    

B. C.  
Surely it were me●re madness to think, that Anatolius would every way have had equal authority in all Ecclesiastical causes, as the Minister affirmeth; seeing then we must grant, that he desired Jurisdiction in Italy and Rome itself: Nay, what were it else, but to condemn Anatolius of gross foolery, in suing for that superextravagant grace of the Pope, to the injury of his own Sea and Dignity.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that our Jesuit here, unawares condemneth rather their famous Pope Gregory of mere foolery, than Anatolius to whom he imputeth it: For, if Gregory's report be true, the Council of Chalcedon offered him the name of Universal bishop? and yet did the same Gregory object the desire thereof against the Patriarch of Constantinople, as a proud name derogating from the right of all other bishops: Yea, your own sweet self (sir jesuit) do in this very Chapter, ascribe no less unto your Pope, and withal admit other bishops beside his Holiness. Secondly, that Anatolius might truly have had equal authority with the bishop of Rome in all Ecclesiastical causes, and for all that, not have desired jurisdiction in Italy and Rome itself. For our jesuit must know, that these three are intrinsically distinguished one from an other: viz. Identity, Equality, and Similitude. There is often Similitude, where Equality wanteth: and many times equality, where no Identity can be found. Thirdly, that the Council of Chalcedon approveth, whatsoever the Nicene Synod hath decreed: and consequently, it taketh not away from any bishop his proper dignity. Lastly, 
Peruse the Aphorisms, & mark them well.  that this which our Friar here objecteth, and whatsoever else where to the like effect, is sound confuted in the Aphorisms aforegoing; especially, in the third and fifth of the same. And for further proof, mark well my next Answer following.   

B. C.  
Nothing is determined in the Council of Nice touching the Church of Rome, but that is made the rule of other Churches; as Pope Nicholas the first, noteth: who also affirmeth, that the Authority of the Roman Church was not from Men, but from God.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that neither Pope Nicholas, nor any other Pope, is a sufficient witness in his own cause: as is already proved. Secondly, that if God had given such authority to the Church of Rome; six hundred and thirty holy and learned bishops in one Synod; 217. in an other; 
Let the Aphorisms be well marked.  200. in an other; 150. in an other; 318. in an other; (all which is already proved in the Aphorisms aforegoing) would never have limited, or once offered to alter the same. These express words of the Fathers of the Chalcedon Council, may for the present, be sufficient. 
Conc. Chalc. act. 16, pag. 208. Tom. 2.  Etenim sedi senioris Romae propter Imperium Civitatis illius, Patres consequenter privilegia reddiderunt: For the Fathers consequently gave Privileges to the Sea of old Rome, for the Empire of that City. Lo, Men (not God) gave Privileges to the Sea of Old Rome. And they yield this reason for the same: because (forsooth) the City of Rome was the Seat of the Empire, 
Note well the tenth Conclusion.  and reputed Caput Mundi, the Head of the World. Thirdly, that when Pope Nicholas saith, that they took example of the form of the Church of Rome, for that which they would give to the Church of Alexandria; he granteth in very deed that as the bishop of Alexandria had but the pre-eminence of all there about; no more had the Byshope of Rome. And so it followeth, that the Council thereby did decree; that the Bishop of Rome should keep himself within those limits. Cardinal Cusanus and Ruffinus, do so understand the Canon of the Nicene Council. 
Conc. Nicen. Can. 6.  Yea, other Canons of the same Council, do plainly insinuate the same sense; 
Can. 4.5.7.  as at large it is already proved. Fourthly, that if the bishop of Rome had universal sovereignty from God, as Pope Nicholas untruly avouched; then could no Bishop of Rome, nor yet the holy Council of Nice; have given or permitted such custom, to the bishop of Alexandria. The reason is evident; because whatsoever is De Jure Divino, no Mortal Man can dispense with the same. This is so clear and certain; as no learned Papist, either doth or can deny the same. Fiftly, that no Custom may be admitted, against the known Truth. The Pope's own Decrees out of S. Austen, do so teach us: these are the very words: 
Dist. 8. cap. quicontempta.  Qui contempta veritate, praesumit consuetudinem sequi, aut circa fratres invidus est et malignus, quibus veritas revelatur; aut circa Deum ingratus est, inspiratione cuius, Ecclesia eius instruitur: nam Dominus in evangelio, ego sum inquit, Veritas; non dixit, ego sum Consuetudo: itaque Veritate manifestata, cedat Consuetudo Veritati: He that contemneth Verity, 
joh. 14. ●.  and presumeth to follow Custom, is either envious and injurious toward his Brethren, to whom the truth is revealed; or else ungrateful to Godward, with whose inspiration his Church is instructed: for our Lord saith in his Gospel, I am the Truth; he said not, I am Custom: therefore when Truth is manifest, let Custom give place to the same. Again, 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 Truth must be preferred before Custom. The same Decrees out of S. Cyprian teach us the same: these are the words. 
Dist. 8. cap. si tolus.  Non debemus attendere, quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putaverit; sed quid prius qui ante omnes est Christus, prior fecerit: neque. N. hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem: We must not regard, what any before us thought should be done; but what Christ first did, who is more to be respected, than all others. Again, in an other place thus. 
Dist. 8. cap. consuetudo.  Nam Consuetudo sine Veritate, vetustas erroris est: propter quod, relicto errore, sequamur Veritatem: Custom without Truth, is the antiquity of Error: wherefore let us leave Error, and follow the Truth. Pope Gregory is consonant, and plainly avoucheth the same Truth: 
Dist 8. cap. si. consuetudinem.  Vsus qui Veritati est contrarius, est abolendus: Use contrary to Truth, must be abolished. Sixtly, that where there is Law, Custom can have no place. For Custom I find thus defined in the Pope's own Decrees. 
Dist. 1. cap. consuetudo. Nota Glossam.  Consuetudo est ius quoddam moribus institutum: Custom is a certain Law, instituted by the frequent actions of men. It followeth in the same Decrees: Quod pro L●ge suscipitur, cum deficit Lex: Which is received as Law, when Law can not be had. And in the Gloss, I find this exposition. Hic videtur, quod tunc demum recurrendum est ad Consuetudinem, cum Lex deficit: et sic est argumentum, quod nunquam secundum Consuetudinem est judicandum, si ius contrarium praecipiat: here it seemeth, that then we must have recourse unto Custom, when Law is wanting: and so we have an argument, that we must never judge according to Custom, if Law command the contrary. 
Nota valde Glossam.  Sequitur in Glossa. resp, quod non secundum consuetudin●m, sed secundum iura est judicandum. I answer, that judgement must not be given according to Custom, but according to Law. And consequently I conclude against Pope Nicholas, and against all J●suites, and jesuited Papists; that seeing the sacred Counsels of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Aphrican, yielded no prerogative to the bishops of Rome, save only in respect of Custom: and seeing withal, that Pope Sozimus, Celestinus, and Bonifacius, did challenge their falsely pretended Primacy and Prerogatives only by the Canons of the Nicene Council, (as I have already sound proved,) and for that end, Pope Sozimus falsified the same Canons, and the other Popes urged the same, for the furtherance of their falsely pretended Title, Primacy, and Prerogatives, but were therefore in the end, roundly controlled, and utterly rejected of the Fathers of the Aphrican Council; the Popes or bishops of Rome must hold themselves contented and satisfied, with that jurisdiction which the holy Synods have allotted them.   

B. C.  
The true meaning therefore of the Canon is, that the bishop of Rome before the definition of any Council, used to commit the government of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, to the bishop of Alexandria; as Pope Nicholas the first, doth expound.   

T. B.  
The jesuit should have named the Pope, that first gave such government to the bishop of Alexandria, and in what year it first began. Which doubtless he would have done, if possibly he had been able to perform the same. The truth therefore is, as I have proved evidently▪ and Pope Nicholas is like to Sozimus, and others of that ungodly 〈◊〉▪ They 〈◊〉 neither tell where, when, or by what Pope, such government was first committed to the bishop of Alexandria: and yet do they never cease, to demand the like of us: but (I hope) this Catholic Triumph, will stop all their mouths. 
Conc. Nicen. can. 4.7.  Yea, two other Canons of the Nicene Council, are flat contrary to Pope Nicholas his exposition: for, the seventh Canon giveth honour to the Bishop of Jerusalem; yet not by reason of any Commission from the Bishop of Rome, but for an old Custom & Tradition. The same seventh Canon in like manner, ascribeth a proper dignity to every Metropolitan. And the fourth Canon avoucheth constantly, that nothing done in any Province is of any force or strength, unless the same be confirmed by the Metropolitan. As for the Pope's Universal sovereignty, no Canon yet extant in rerum natura, (neither of the Council of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, or Aphrican,) maketh any mention thereof.   

B. C.  
The word (Superroyall) I suppose slily mocketh at that, which venerable antiquity confesseth. I will content myself with the testimony of S. Chrysostome, who speaking not only of bishops, but inferior Clergymen, instructeth them how to deal with secular Potentates coming unworthily to the Sacraments, in this manner. If a Duke (quoth he) if a Consul, if he that weareth a Crown, come unworthily, stop and hinder him; thou hast greater power than he. 
Hom. 83. in Matth.  And the Minister denieth, that the late Queen might preach the Gospel, or administer the Sacraments. Which functions notwithstanding, other of their Clergy might execute: whereof it ensueth, that in these Spiritual points, their power was above that of the Queens, and so truly in a good sense may be called Superroyall, which so much his superscoffing gravity seemeth to deride and taunt.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that the Superroyall counterfeit Power which I deride in your Pope; is, the deposing of Kings, the translating of Empires, the making of some thing, of nothing; the applying of the substantial parts of one thing to an other, the advancing of himself above every thing that hath being, and such like: whereof I have spoken and entreated very plentifully, in the Conclusions of this present Chapter. Secondly, that albeit in the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments, the chosen Minister hath only the charge and authority to execute them; yet hath God's anointed Prince, the supreme charge and sovereign authority, to command the execution thereof; as also to correct and to punish the Minister, for the neglect of his duty in that behalf: For though the execution pertain to the Ministers, yet the provision, direction, appointment, care, & oversight, (which is the Supreme government indeed) pertaineth only, 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 years, did for all that, in regard of his prerogative Royal & Supreme authority in causes Ecclesiastical, call the Priests & Levites, his Sons; charging them to hear him, and to follow his Commandment; for so are the words of the Text. Yea, Josias that famous King, did sundry times command the High Priest. But of this subject, I have entreated so copiously in other Books, 
4. Reg. 23. v. 1.2.3.4.  as it is here a thing needless, to stand longer upon the same. Thirdly, that I grant freely & willingly, that Ministers in the action of their Ecclesiastical function & Church-ministerie, are above all Christians, above Queens, Kings, and monarchs, representing the person of God, teaching, admonishing, & rebuking them, as others; following the godly example therein of S. john the Baptist. Yea, I further grant, that if the vices of Princes, Kings, and monarchs, be notorious & scandalous to the whole Church, than the Bishops may denounce such Potentates, to be enemies to the truth, adversaries to God, and no true members of the Church; but to be holden for forlorn people, and as Ethnics & Publicans, 
How wicked Kings, aught to be dealt withal.  until they give true signs of unfeigned repentance. But withal, this must ever be remembered and most loyalty observed, of all bishops in Christ's Church; viz. That the Prince (though full of manifest vices, & most notorious crimes in the world) may never be shunned, neither of the people, nor yet of the bishops. The reason is at hand; Because God hath appointed him to be their Governor. Much less may the people forsake their obedience, to his sacred prerogative Royal and supereminent Power: And lest of all (for it is most execrable, damnable, and plain diabolical) may either the people alone, or the bishop's alone, or both jointly together, depose their undoubted Sovereign; though a Tyrant, Heretic, or Apostatate: for even in that case, all loyal obedience and faithful service in all civil affairs, and whatsoever else is lawful, must of duty be yeeled unto them. He may be admonished by God's true Ministers in the pulpit & court of Conscience, if his vices be public & scandalous to the Church: but he may never be judged in the court of their Consistory, touching his power Royal and Princely prerogative. Their power is only to admonish and rebuke him, and to pray to God to amend what is amiss. He hath no judge that can punish him, but the great judge of all; even the God of Heaven. The popish Cardinal Hugo delivereth this most Christian doctrine, though to the utter 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 only (saith Cardinal Hugo,) because there is not any above me, but thyself alone, that hath power to punish me: for, I am a King; and so besides thee, there is none above me. And the popish Gloss doth give this sense & meaning, of the Prophet's words. 
Gloss. Ord. in Psa. 50.  Rex omnibus superior, tantum a Deo puniendus est: The King is above all, and he can be punished of none, but of God alone. But for a larger Discourse of this Subject, I refer the Reader to the Downfall of Popery. Thirdly, that no Minister may admit any impenitent Person known to be such. (no, not him that weareth the Golden Crown) unto the Holy mysteries: for otherwise, that Minister should sin damnably, as partaker of his sin: yea, the holy Canons of our English Church, do flatly prohibit the same. Fourthly, that our jesuit doth show himself to be a silly disputer, while he argueth the defect of power Royal, for that the King in some respect, is as it were subject to the Minister. For I pray your worship (good sir Friar,) doth not your Pope himself fall down prostrate, before the feet of a silly Minister or Priest, 
The Pope is subject to a silly Priest.  when he confesseth his sins unto him? Doth he not humbly submit himself unto the same silly Priest? Is not the silly priests power above the Popes, while he absolveth the Pope from his sins? Is not the silly priests Power above the Popes, while he enjoineth Penance to the Pope? I wot he is, though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and absolutely, yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in some respect or sort: If any Papist shall this deny; I can prove by his Popish denial, all their Popes to perish everlastingly.   

B. C.  
S. Cyprian opposing himself against the Pope, doth nothing prejudice the Authority of the Pope. For albeit the Pope commanded Rebaptisation not to be practised; yet did he not define the question, or pronounce any censure against Cyprian, or others of his opinion: much less was it condemned by a general Council, with reason, S. Augustine bringeth in his defence; 
Lib. 1. de Bap●. C. 18.  and so it was free for him without danger of Heresy, to persist in his own opinion.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that though Cornelius, than bishop of Rome, together with the whole national Synod of all the Bishops of Italy, had made a flat decree touching Rebaptisation: and though also Pope Stephanus had confirmed the same Decree, straightly commanding to observe the same: and though thirdly, our Papists of late days do obstinately affirm, that their Pope can not err when he defineth judicially; yet this notwithstanding, S. Cyprian teacheth and telleth us plainly, that in his days, 
Euseb. Libr▪ 7. Hist. cap. 2.3 4.  the bishop of Rome had no such Power or preheminent prerogatives, as he this day proudly and Antichristianly taketh upon him: For he roundly withstood the Decree of Pope Stephanus, who then was bishop of Rome; and both sharply reproved him, and contemned his falsely pretended Primacy. And for all that, S. Cyprian was ever reputed an Holy bishop in his life time, and a glorious Martyr, being dead. But if the bishop of Rome had been Christ's Vicar, and so privileged as our Papists bear the world in hand he is; then doubtless, S. Cyprian must needs have been an Heretic, and so reputed and esteemed in the Church of God. Yea, if any Christian shall this day do or affirm, as S. Cyprian did; or publicly deny the Popes falsely pretended Primacy, in any place, country, territories, or dominions, where Popery beareth the sway, then without all peradventure, he must be burnt at a Stake with Fire and Faggot for his pains. Of which Subject, the Reader may find a larger Discourse, in my Christian Dialogue. Secondly, that while S. Austen saith, that S. Cyprian would have yielded to the Decree of a general Council, albeit he made no reckoning of the Pope's Decree, even joined with the national Synod of all the Bishops of Italy; he giveth us to understand two memorable points of Doctrine, which I wish the Reader to observe attentively. 
This killeth the Pope.  Th'one, that the Definitive sentence of the bishop of Rome is not infallible, although he define jointly with an whole national Synod: And consequently, that his Definitive sentence may much more be false and erroneous, when he decreeth and defineth without a Council. For, if S. Augustine had been of that mind, that the bishop of Rome could not have erred in his judicial and Definitive sentence, either apart, or with a national Council; he neither would nor could have excused S. Cyprian, who scorned and constantly refused to yield to the same. Yea, S. Cyprian himself would for his great piety, have humbly yielded to the Pope's sentence; if he had known him to have received such a Privilege and Prerogative from Heaven: But neither did the bishop of Rome in those days, stand upon any such Prerogative of not erring; neither did any learned Father of that age, ever dream of any such extraordinary Privilege. No, no, 
For this point▪ read and note well my Christian dialogue.  the most that the bishops of Rome could say and allege for their falsely pretended Sovereignty, when S. Augustine and the other Fathers of the Aphrican Council, rejected and condemned appeals to Rome; was only this, and no other thing: viz. that the Fathers of the Nicene Council, had granted such Privilege & Primacy to the Church of Rome. And therefore did S. Austen both gravely and prudently excuse S. Cyprian, for that he would have yielded to a lawful general Council: As if he had said, S. Cyprian was no more bound to follow the Opinion and Decree of the bishop of Rome, than the bishop of Rome to follow his. Thirdly, that our jesuit saith truly, though unawares against himself; that it was free for S. Cyprian without the danger of Heresy, to persist in his own opinion: For, it was not in the power of the bishop of Rome, to make that Heresy, which was not Heresy afore.   

B. C.  
That it was lawful and usual before the time of this Council to appeal to Rome, is evident out of S. Cyprian, who reporteth how Fortunatus and Felix deposed by himself, appealed to Cornelius bishop of Rome. And one Basilides deposed in Spain, appealed to Pope Stephen; as the same Cyprian recounteth. 
Such as Martion are fittest for you & your Pope.  Not to speak of Martion that ancient Heretic, who excommunicated of his bishop in Pontus, came to Rome for absolution; as Epiphanius relateth: And therefore Pope Leo calleth it an ancient custom to appeal to Rome.   

T. B.  
I answer; First, that many distressed persons in their distressed and desperate causes, have many times indeed sought to Rome for help and succour. But, we must not so much regard and consider, what hath been done, especially by naughty and disobedient persons; as what ought of right to be done, and according to the Law of God. Persons driven to the brink of desperation, by reason of their bad and wicked dealing; will soon attempt any thing, which may any way seem to better their doleful and miserable estate. Even so men desirous of Honour, will easily hearken unto that, which seemeth any way to further their intended purpose. But that such Appeals were never approved, by the holy Fathers and ancient Counsels; I have copiously proved in the Aphorisms of this Chapter; and S. Cyprian's opposition against the bishop of Rome, 
Mark well the Aphorisms.  doth evidently confirm the same. What Pope Leo saith, is of no force.   

B. C.  
That many Canons are wanting in the Nicene Council is most certain: 
Const. Epist. Apud Euseb. Lib. 3. de vita Const. in initio. Haeres. 69. Ep. de Synod. Ari. et Selenc.  For one Canon of that Council was about the observation of Easter day, as testifieth Constantine in his Epistle, and also Epiphanius and Athanasius: but this Canon is in none of those twenty which be now extant, and of which only so many years since, Ruffinus maketh mention in his History.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that I will not deny, but some things might be decreed in the Nicene Council, which are not this day to be found in the Canons now extant. But withal I constantly avouch, that there is a great disparity between Canons and Decrees; as the late popish Synod of Trent plainly telleth us. And consequently, that there were but twenty Canons, howsoever some other things beside were decreed at that time. To which I add, that all Decrees are not always thought necessary to be put in print. Whereof we have an evident example, in our English Parliament-statutes: for it is often thought convenient, not to put them all in print. Secondly, that Epiphanius distinguisheth Canons from Decrees: these are his express words. 
Haeres. 69. pag. 217.  In eadem Synodo Canon's quosaan posuerunt Ecclesiasticos, simulque de paschate decreverunt unam unitatem ac consensum: In the same Synod they put down certain Canons Ecclesiastical, and withal they decreed one unity and consent, touching the Keeping of Easter. Lo, this ancient and holy Father maketh a clear difference, between the Canons of the Nicene Synod, and the Decrees thereof. Thirdly, that though we should grant some of the Nicene Canons to have perished, which we constantly deny; yet would it not follow thereupon, that such Canons contained the Popes falsely pretended Primacy: especially, seeing both the holy Fathers and most renowned Counsels, do stoutly impugn the same. This is proved at large, throughout the Aphorisms aforegoing. Fourthly, that 217. holy Fathers assembled in the Aphrican Council, told the Pope roundly; that they had used 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 parts of the East; howbeit, such Canons as the Pope pretended for his falsely challenged Sovereignty, none could any where be found. And therefore they advised him to surcease, and to give over his claim; for they could no longer endure such Fumosum typhum seculi: such smoky stateliness of the world. I use the very words of the holy Synod, as I have already proved. Fiftly, that Pope Julius swore solemnly, that he had locked them up in a Coffer of his Church. These are his express words: 
Conc. Aphric. Epist ad Celest. cap. 105. in fine.  Si quis autem de his ampliora atque abundantiora sc●re volverit, in sacro nostrae Ecclesiae sedis 〈◊〉, et ea quae prae●●ximus, invenire poterit: 
Rescript. julij 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 stuff, in the Holy Ark or Coffer of the seat of our Church. Thus writeth Pope Julius: nay rather, thus sweareth that holy Pope. For these words follow immediately: Verum me dixisse, testis est Divinitas: 
A strange and unusual manner of swearing.  The Divinity is a witness, that I have spoken the truth. here I wish the gentle and honest Reader, to ponder duly these points with me. First, that this Epistle of Julius is a counterfeit, as I have already proved: for, if the Pope had so laid them up, as here he sweareth solemnly; Sozimus and the other Popes, who made such ado with the bishops of Africa about those Canons, would roundly have showed the same: Yea, doubtless, if they had once had them in their Coffer under a Lock, they would rather have lost all the rest, then them. 
Popery aboundeth with tricks of legierdemain.  Secondly, that the world hath been too long abused with this kind of cozenage & tricks of legerdemain. Thirdly, that if the bishops of Rome can not keep those Canons, which make so much for the advancement of their stately Sovereignty, how can we safely credit them, in keeping pure and free from errors, such Books, Counsels, and Canons, as make greatly for us, and wholly against themselves? We can not do it. Fourthly, that if counterfeit Books, Histories, and Canons, were wholly, laid away; Popery (believe me,) would soon fall of itself: For, in this supposed rescript of Pope julius, directed to the bishops of the East; there is such abundance of matter for the Popes Super-lordly Sovereignty, as would certainly serve his turn, if it could so be admitted. But Gods holy name be blessed, the forgery is so palpable, as every one may with all facility discover the same. 
Conc. Aphric. Epis. ad Bonifacium, cap. 101.  Fiftly, that S. Augustine, Alipius, Possidius, Marinus, and all the other bishops, 217. in number, assembled in the famous African Synod, do plainly avouch, and constantly affirm; that the true Copies of the Canons of the Nicene Council, were at Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople; and that they were content for charitie-sake, to observe such proceedings touching Appeals, as the Pope's Messengers did allege out of their commonitorie from Rome, until true trial should be made thereof, out of the true Copies from the East, which were to come from Cyrillus Bishop of Alexandria, & Atticus Bishop of Constantinople: which trial being duly made, by the true Copies; the Pope's forgery was manifest, and the holy Fathers protested constantly, that they could no longer endure such arrogant and smoky stateliness. 
Fumosum typhum seculi.    

B. C.  
Bell also, both in his other Books, and in this Pamphlet in the next Chapter, objecteth out of Socrates; That a Canon was made in the Nicene Council by the suggestion of Paphnutius; which permitted Priests to remain with their former Wives. But this Canon is nowhere to be found, amongst those twenty.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that if a Penal Law were made to hang upon the Gallows, all falsaries and lying wretches; then ought this impudent & shameless jesuit to be hanged many times, where once would serve the turn: For, if we shall search from the East to the West, & from the North to the South; yet shall we never be able to find out a more shameless liar, or a more notorious falsary, then is this jesuit. Secondly, that if Popery were not the New Religion in very deed; such forgery, such lying, and such deceitful dealing, would not be used in defence thereof. Out upon lying Jesuits; fie upon rotten Popery; away with all such beggarly trumpery. Thirdly, that the Doctrine by me delivered, both in the next Chapter, and in my Survey, is so far from being as the lying Jesuit impudently avoucheth, (who seemeth to be composed intrinsically of lying) that it is flat against the same, and able to torment the Jesuits conscience (if he have any left) while breath is in his body. God for his mercy-sake, either sound convert such lying wretches, or else confound them everlastingly. The jesuit durst not deal with me, as I do with him, and others: that is, set down my express words: and that done, make application of the same. He began with lying, even in the highest degree: he continueth still in lying; and he hath no other means in the world, 
Mark well for Christ's sake.  but either to end with lying, or else to confess Popery to be the new Religion. This is such an undoubted truth, as I am not afraid to die in the same. My words in the next Chapter concerning this point, are in one place these: viz. For this respect did holy Paphuntius stand up in the Council of Nice, (at such time as the Fathers then & there assembled, thought to have severed married Priests and Bishops from their Wives,) and told them according to God's word, that to forbid marriage to Priests, was too severe a Law. In an other place of the self same Chapter, my words to the same effect are these. Thirdly, seeing priests marriage was holden for lawful in the famous Council of Nice; and that the holy bishop Paphuntius did pronounce openly in the same, that the conjugal acts of married Priests was true chastity: whose sentence was approved of the whole Council; 
Survey, Part. 3. cap. 3. Pag. 232.  and thereupon the matter was left as indifferent for every Priest either to marry, or not to marry, at his own free choice. In my Survey likewise, two places do manifestly convince our impudent lying Jesuit: In the former place, these are my express words. Thirdly, that although Socrates & Sozomenus ascribe it to the old tradition of the Church, for unmarried Priests so to continue; yet doth not Casio●orus make any mention thereof, in his Tripartite Collection. And howsoever Paphuntius alleged Tradition, to mitigate the severe Laws intended by the Council; yet is it very certain, that such Tradition was neither general nor divine. In the latter place, these are my very words. 
Vbi Super, Pag. 235.  I say fourthly, that the Tradition which Socrates and Sozomenus speak of, was by example, & not by doctrine; as both Gratianus & the Gloss expound them. These are my very words, in four several places; which do so condemn the jesuit in his own conscience, that he durst not for his Lugges, once name them, or truly set them down: For, I was so far from saying, That the Nicene Fathers made any Canon in this behalf; that my words now truly recounted, do plainly convince the flat contrary. But mark well the third place in my said Survey, where I have these express words: 
Vbi super, Pag. 233.  The Law which the Fathers then thought to have made, was a new Law never heard of before. I prove it: Because Socrates hath these words: 
Socr. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 8.  Visum erat Episcopis legem novam in Ecclesiam intraducere: The bishop's thought indeed, to have brought a new Law into the Church: But the Council was persuaded, with Paphuntius his oration, and referred the whole matter to every priests free election, making no Law in that behalf: 
Hist. Tripart. Libr. 2. cap. 14.  For Cassiodorus hath these express words. Synodusque laudavit sententiam eius, et nihil ex hac part sancivit, sed hoc in uniuscuiusꝙ voluntate, non in necessitate dimisit: And the Synod commended his opinion, and so decreed nothing in the matter; but left it in every man's election, to do what he thought good, without compulsion. I therefore conclude, 
Lo, the Council made no Law or Canon in this matter.  that albeit the Bishops in the Council of Nice assembled, would indeed have made a new and strange Law against the marriage of Priests; yet did the spirit of God speaking in Paphuntius, utterly dissuade them from that ungodly purpose. These are my words truly recounted, both out of my next Chapter, and out of my Survey: which being so, what reward ought our Jesuit to have? Even an Halter about his neck, and to be hanged up on the Gibbet, 
Our Friar belieth Bell.  for his horrible falsehood, and most notorious lying. Bell (saith our jesuit) objecteth out of Socrates, that a Canon was made in the Nicene Council, by the suggestion of Paphuntius. Bell (saith the true Bell indeed) truly affirmeth out of Socrates, that the Father's thought to have made a new Law; 
Mark well the words in my Survey.  but through the persuasion of holy Paphuntius, made none indeed. True Bell saith; that the spirit of God speaking in Paphuntius, did utterly dissuade the Fathers from that ungodly purpose. Bell saith; the Fathers intended to have made a Law, but made none indeed. Hold fast this truth. The Jesuit saith; Bell affirmeth, the Fathers to have made a Law. Remember this, shameless liar. To be short; Bell had rather want, 
A Mill-horse is one thing, a Horsmill an other thing.  both his Arms, both his Legs, and both his Eyes; then to use such lying, false-dealing, and cozening tricks, as our jesuit hath in common use and custom. For, it is one thing, to intend the making of the Law; an other thing, to make the Law indeed.   

B. C.  
These Canons of Appeal being found formally in the Council of Sardica, where Appellations to Rome are ratified and confirmed; both Pope Sozimus and others, call them by the name of the Nicene Canons, though they be found in the Council of Sardica: And the reason is, for that these two Counsels are accounted for all one; both because the same Fathers that were present at Nice, were also a great number of them at Sardica: and also for that no new thing touching Faith, was there enacted.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that if Pope Sozimus had understood and meant the Canons of Sardica, when he named the Canons of Nice, about which there was so much ado; as we have already seen: then doubtless, it had been his part to have named them; though for no other end, but only for unity, peace, and charitie-sake. Secondly, that I willingly agree to our Jesuit, 
Mark that Appeals to Rome are no matters of faith.  when he avoucheth no new thing touching Faith, to have been enacted in the supposed Synod of Sardica. And my reason is this; for that Appeals to the Church of Rome, are no matters of Faith indeed. thirdly, that it is a matter of Faith with the Papists, to believe that the Fathers of Nice could not err, either in defining matters of Faith or Manners. And consequently, seeing the Synod of Sardica in the fourth and seventh Canons, 
In the third Aphorism.  hath decreed flat contrary to the Synod of Nice in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Canons; it can not be deemed a legitimate and lawful Synod, but a bastard and plain counterfeit; as I have already proved, in the third Aphorism of this present Chapter: To which place I refer the Reader, as where he may find whatsoever his heart can desire. This only will I here say for the present; that not only the other first three general Counsels 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. bishops (of which S. Austen was one) assembled in the famous Council Aphrican, affirmed constantly with one uniform assent to Pope Celestine; 
Epist. Conc. Aphric. ad Celestina. Cap. 105. To. 1. Concil. Pag. 591.  that no Synod had made such Canons, as the bishops of Rome alleged for their own pomp and stateliness. These are the express words of the holy Synod. Name, ut aliqui tanquam a tuae sanctitatis latere mittantur, nulla invenimus patrum Synodo constitutum: For, that any should be sent from your Holiness, we find it not defined by the Fathers in any Synod. 
This Argument can never be truly answered.  Now, notwithstanding this uniform assertion of so many, so learned, so holy, and so ancient Fathers; yet is that falsely supposed prerogative of Appeals to Rome, plainly decreed in the fourth and seventh Canons of Sardica. And consequently, either the Synod of Sardice was a bastard and counterfeit Conventicle, or else the two hundred and seventeen Fathers of the Aphrican Council, avouched to the Pope a most notorious untruth. 
Lately Popery is mere foolery.  But doubtless, neither could so many holy Fathers for their great reading and learning, have been ignorant of the said Council, if any such lawful Synod had been extant: neither for their rare piety, would they have gainsaid or withstood the same. Fourthly, that the affirmance of the Nicene Fathers to have been also at Sardice; is like to the counterfeit Donation of Constantine, the rescript of Pope Julius, and such like: of which I have discoursed at large, in the conclusions and Aphorisms of this present Chapter. Fiftly, that it greatly stood the Popes in hand, (Sozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus, during whose times the controversy did continue) to have urged the Canons of Sardica, if any such lawful general Synod had been extant: And consequently, seeing they never once related them; it followeth, that in their days, there was no such Council extant in very deed. Sixtly, that Pope Gregory reverenced the four first general Counsels, 
Gratian. Dist. 15. cap. sicut.  as the four holy gospels: but for all that, he never made mention of the Synod of Sardica, which (if it had been extant & no counterfeit,) ought to have had the second place. Seventhly, that the fourth and seventh Canons of Sardice, are flat contrary to the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Canons of Nice. And yet without all peradventure, no Synod, especially coming within a few years after Nice, (which Council all the Christian world did highly reverence at all times,) either would or durst have decreed against the same. To that which is here and else where said of the Centuristes and M. Perkins, this may in general yield sufficient contentation to the honest Reader: viz. that albeit they do not in every point, jump precisely with Bell; yet do they not speak any thing in defence of Popery, nor any where plead for the supposed antiquity thereof. No, no, they utterly reject Popery, and every where condemn the same. To that of Policarpus, I answer; that his coming to Rome was not to insinuate any sovereignty of Anicetus over him, as the very end did declare; but to visit that famous imperial City, the Queen of the world, and Caput mundi, 
Matt. 12. v. 42.  and to see the old Monuments in that place; even as the Queen of the South came from far, to hear Salomon's Wisdom, and to behold his glory. To that of Jrenaeus, I have said sufficiently in many places of this Chapter; as also to that of Polycrates, and the other bishops of Asia: That which I have said of S. Cyprian, doth evidently confirm the same. And the testimony of Eusebius is consonant, while he writeth in this manner: 
Euseb. Hist. lib. 5. Cap. 24.  Sed hoc non omnibus placabat Episcopis; quin potius è contrario scribentes ei, iubebant, ut magis qua sunt pacis ageret, et concordia atque unanimitati studeret: denique extant etiam ipsorum literae, quibus asperius obiurgant Victorem: All bishops liked not his dealing, but by their Letters directed to him, they commanded (mark well the word) that he should rather do those things which belong to peace, and should endeavour himself to establish concord and unity: To be brief; their Letters are extant, in which they reprove Victor (the bishop of Rome) very sharply. Thus writeth the ancient and learned Father Eusebius; cleared two things unto us. Th'one, that Irenaeus and the other holy bishops, did chide and reprove the Pope. Th'other; that they did not only rebuke him, but (which is much more), freely in their Letters to him, command him. Mark well the word; (jubebant,) they commanded him. For (saith our Jesuit,) 
The Pope was both reproved and commanded.  the other Apostles sent not Peter by any authority of command, but only by request and petition; as Princes and Superiors without any touch of their high Office or Dignity, may be sent by their inferiors: their sending proceeding from petition, nothing impeacheth their high Sovereignty. But our sir Friar either desireth to deceive others, or knoweth not what he saith. For without all peradventure; in proper phrase of speech, whosoever is sent by an other or others (mark well my words,) the same person or persons, as they be sent, are inferiors: For this reduplication (sent as sent,) implieth intrinsically a duty and subjection; 
The Reduplication must be well marked.  even in him or them, who otherwise may be superiors. Whensoever one goeth to a place upon request, he is not properly sent thither by him that made the request, but freely taketh that journey in hand of his own accord: He doth it willingly, not by compulsion; of charity, not of duty. To which I add; that it is a disloyal speech of a Subject, to affirm that the King may be sent of his Subjects. Howbeit I will not deny, but the King in some matters of great consequence, may be persuaded by the advise of his grave councillors; that his corporal presence were necessary, and thereupon resolve with himself to go in proper person: Yet in such a case, it can neither truly, nor properly be said; That the King was sent of his Subjects, but that he took the journey in hand freely and of his own accord, though perhaps the rather by their advise. To that of our jesuit, where he saith; That S. Paul being inferior to S. Peter, reprehended him: and that Bell, if he were a bishop, would look as the Devil looked over Lincoln, and none might admonish him of any fault. I answer in this manner: First, that our Friar doth too much injury to S. Paul, while he maketh him inferior to S. Peter; and withal doth no little dishonour to his Popes, who in all their Pardons. Dispensations, and such like trumpery do ever rely upon the joint authority of S. Peter and S. Paul, grounding their power and sovereignty in them both. 
Galat. 1. v. 1.  For S. Paul received not his Authority from any mortal man, but from God himself immediately: Yea, himself saith of himself, that he had as great Power as Peter: th'one over the jews; th'other over the Gentiles. 
Galat. 2. v 8.  Secondly, that every Apostle received from Christ himself, equal Power over the whole World; 
Mat. 28. v. 19  every one of the eleven, having the same Commission that Peter had. Thirdly, that our Jesuit seemeth better acquainted with the Devil, than he is with God; as who beareth his Reader in hand, that he knoweth how the Devil looked over Lincoln. Fourthly, that not Bell, but the Pope is the man; who may carry thousands of souls into Hell, 
Dist. 40. cap. fi Papa.  and yet no man may say unto him; Why dost thou so? This is already proved, in the Conclusions aforegoing. here I deem it not amiss, for the complement of the Popes falsely pretended Sovereignty, to adjoin a testimony of one of his holy Martyrs, by way of digression.   

The Digression.  
THe Secular popish Priests aswell French as English, have published in print may Books; in which they have most lively portrayed and painted out the Jesuits in their best beseeming colours. They affirm constantly in their said Books, of the Jesuits in general; that they be Proud men, Tyrants, Coozeners, thieves, Gypsies, Murderours, and men of no Religion. Of Robert Parsons that traitorous and foul-mouthed Jesuit, in particular; that he is a Bastard, a notorious Drunkard, a Deceiver, a Traitor, a provoker of others to Treason, the Monster of mankind, a Farie-brat, begotten of some Incubus; and what not? All which, are plainly and truly related in my Book, entitled, The Anatomy of Popish tyranny: Which Book, he that hath not seen and read, may seem to be ignorant of the deepest points of jesuitical Theology. These Books do so gall & wound the Jesuits, at the very heart, as they know not in the world what to say or answer in that behalf. Clerk and Watson lately executed for their most notorious treasons, wrote sundry Books against the said Jesuits. This jesuit B. C. is so mightily assailed and turmoiled, with that which I cite out of Watson, that in one place, to weete, in his Epistle about the 27. page, he hath these words. The Author he allegeth is some Quodlibetarian Minister, though poor Watson beareth the name. But in an other place, to weete, in the eight Chapter of this present Pamphlet, he writeth thus. Bell showeth small conscience in belying the dead, and laying more faults upon him unjustly; when alas, he had otherwise too many. Again, Watson speaketh of matters of fact. In which twain, the jesuit flatly contradicteth himself: In the former, he would gladly find out an other Author. But in the latter, he unawares fathereth the Book upon Watson; telling Bell, that he belieth the dead. To which I add: that Watson upon his death, did acknowledge himself to be the Author. 

Robert Parsons begot two Bastards, Male & Female, upon the body of his own sister. Between his age of 17. & 23. he was an Heretic of the Family of Love, till he became a jesuit.  
See my Anatomy. P. 71.      

The Jesuits third Chapter, of the Marriage of Priests and Ministers of the Church.  
THe Jesuit greatly lamenting, that the prohibition of the Marriage of Priests can not be justified, & not daring to deal with my Survey, 
The marriage of Priests is sound handled, in the Survey of popery.  (where the same is most largely handled, & all Objections and difficulties which possibly can be imagined, distinctly & sound answered,) complaineth grievously; that I seek to deceive my reader, in not proving in my Trial what I say for the same, but referring the Reader to my Survey. The truth is this, that in the Trial I meant only to show to all simply seduced Papists; that, late Popish Faith and Doctrine was not the old, (as they ignorantly believe,) but the new Religion in very deed. And my purpose was, to effect the matter with such brevity; as every one might buy the Treatise for a small piece of money, 
The trial of the new Religion, is here sound defended.  and carry it in his Bosom about with him; and so be able to point as it were with his Finger, (against all such as boast of Popery as of the old Religion,) when and by whom every main point of late Papistry, first began. Our Jesuit seeing their Pope confounded, and their Faith and Doctrine proved to be the New religion; can not tell in the world what to do, say, or think, for and in the defence thereof. Let us hear his own words: thus doth he write. It serveth not the turn (saith he) to tell us, that he hath done it in his Survey. I therefore to content our Friar Jesuit, (if it will be,) am here resolved to set down such special kinds of proof, derived and taken out of my Survey, as are able to persuade all indifferent Readers, that the Marriage of Priests ever was, and this day is, both honest & lawful by God's law; and only prohibited by the wicked and cursed Laws of men; the Bishops of Rome I mean.  

The first Proposition.  

Only the Romish church forbiddeth priests marriage.  All Ministers which are not Papists, nor subject to the laws and rules of Popery, may lawfully Marry, even by the doctrine of the Church of Rome. I prove it; because all such Ministers are mere Lay-men, by the judgement of the Church of Rome; which Church for all that and none other, debarreth Priests and other Ministers of the Church, from the freedom of honourable Wedlock. This Assertion is plain and evident; it needeth no proof at all.   

The 2. Proposition.  
Marriage was ever lawful for all Priests and other Ministers of the Church, during all the time of the Old Testament. This Proposition is clear to all such, as shall duly revolve the holy Bibles. For the holy Prophet Jeremy was the son of Helkiah, who was one of the Priests that were at Anathoth: 
jer. 1. v. 1. 1. Sam. 1. v. 3. Exod. 18. v. 1. & 2. Luk. 1. v. 8.9.13 14.18.19 Leu. 21, v. 13.14.  Hophni and Phineha● were the sons of Helj the Priest: Sephora was the daughter of Jethro, the Priest of Midian; S. John the Baptist who was the precursor of our Lord jesus, was the son of Zacharias the Priest: Yea, the High Priest was appointed by God himself, to marry a Maid of his own people; so honourable was the marriage of Priests in his most holy sight.   

The 3. Proposition.  
Marriage is lawful for Priests and other Ministers of the Church, even now in the time of the New Testament. Where by the word (Priests) I understand all such as are admitted to preach God's word, and to administer the holy Sacraments. This Proposition is proved very copiously in my Survey of Popery; 
Survey, P. 220.  aswell by the Texts of holy writ, as by the flat testimony of S. Chrysostome, S. Clement, S. Eusebius, S. Theophilactus, and many others: To which place, for brevity, sake I refer the Reader; especially, because this truth will be proved again and again, in the Propositions following.   

The 4. Proposition.  
The Marriage of Priests is only by the law of man prohibited, and not by any positive constitution either of Christ, or his Apostles. I prove it many ways: First, by the Pope's own Decrees; where I find these express words: 
Con. 26. Q. 2. Cap. Sors. Neither Christ nor his Apostles, do forbid priests Marriage.  Copula namque Sacerdotalis vel consanguineorum, nec Legali, nec evangelica, vel Apostolica auctoritate prohibetur; Ecclesiastica tamen lege penitus interdicitur: For the Marriage of Priests is neither forbidden by the Law of Moses, nor by the Law of the Gospel, nor by the Law of the Apostles; yet is it altogether and wholly forbidden by the Law of the Church (of Rome.) Mark well these words (gentle Reader) for Christ's sake; for they are able to confound all Jesuits, & jesuited popelings in the world. Observe with me first, that Gratianus, who hath taught us out of the Popes own Decrees this godly and memorable lesson, was a very famous Popish Canonist, brother to Petrus Lombardus surnamed, The Master of Sentences, and of such renown in the Popish Church, that his Books are this day read publicly in their Divinitie-schooles. Secondly observe, that this Gratianus so learned and so famous in the Romish Church, lived with his brother Lombardus even then, when the Pope was in his greatest pomp and tyranny. Observe thirdly, that this Gratian so learned and so renowned amongst the Papists, did even in the altitude of Popery commit that to the open view of the world, which utterly overthroweth all Papistry, and turneth it upside down. Observe fourthly, that the Pope and his Popish vassals being justly infatuated for their sins, had no power to hinder and keep back from the print such Books, as do utterly disclose their tyranny, falsehood, and paltry dealing. 
Exod. 14.22. Heb. 1●. 29. Num. 22.28. Dan. 3.25. 4. Reg. 6.6. Act. 12.7.10.  For our Lord God, even that mighty God Jehovah, which caused the Red-sea to give place to the Israelites; who caused Balaams' Ass to speak; who caused the Fire to suspend it force in the burning Furnace; who caused Iron to swim upon the Water; who caused Yron-lockes and Brazen Gates to open voluntarily: that mighty God I say, enforced Gratian that learned, famous, and zealous Papist, to confess openly for the battering down of Popery; that the marriage of Priests, (which the Pope forbiddeth upon pain of eternal damnation) is neither forbidden by the Law of Moses, nor by Christ, or his Apostles.  
I prove it secondly, by the testimony of Caietanus that learned and famous Cardinal of Rome, whose words are these. 
Caiet. in Quod lib. ●ontr. Luth.  Nec ratione, nec authoritate probari potest, quod absolutè loquendo Sacerdos peccet, contrahendo matrimonium: nam nec ordo in quantum ordo, nec ordo in quantum sacer, est impeditiws matrimonij: siquidem Sacerdotium non dirimit matrimonium contractum, sive ante, sive post, seclusis omnibus Legibus Ecclesiasticis, stando tantum iis quae habemus a Christo et Apostolis: It can never be proved, neither by Authority, nor by Reason, if we speak absolutely, that a Priest sinneth by marrying a Wife: For neither the order (of Priesthood) in that it is order; neither order, as it is holy; is any hindrance unto Matrimony: For Priesthood breaketh not Marriage, 
This cutteth the Pope's throat, he can no longer live.  whether it be contracted before Priesthood, or afterward; if we set all Ecclesiastical Laws apart, and stand only to those things, which we have of Christ and his Apostles. Thus writeth this great learned man; whose testimony is so clear and evident, that no denial, no evasion, no trick of legerdemain, can have any place. For he saith first, that a Priest sinneth not in marrying a Wife. Secondly, that Priesthood doth not disannul Wedlock, whether a Priest be married before or after it: This is a point of great consequence; let it be well remembered. Thirdly, that priests Marriage is neither forbidden by Christ, nor by his Apostles. 
Survey, p. 269.  Panormitanus that famous Papist, teacheh the self same doctrine: his words are set down in the 12. Proposition: see them there. I prove it thirdly, by the verdict of the famous Papist Viguerius; as also of their Saint Antoninus, sometime Archbyshoppe of Florence: 
Viguer. de differ. vota, §. 5. ver. 14. Ant. p. 3. Tit. 1. C. 21. §. 1.  These are the express words of Antoninus▪ Episcopatus ex natura sua, non habet opponi ad matrimonium: The office of a bishop of it own nature, is not opposite or against Marriage. The case we see, is most clear and perspicuous to every child: viz. that the Marriage of Priests is very lawful, as which is neither forbidden by Christ, nor by his Apostles. No, no, the bishops of Rome only have prohibited it; as I have at large discoursed and proved in my Survey of Popery. Mark well the eleventh Proposition following, as which is a confirmation hereof.   

The 5. Proposition.  
It was ever lawful for the bishops, Priests, and Deacons of the East-church, to be Married, and to beget children in the time of their Priesthood. This Proposition is proved by the flat testimony of the sixth general Council holden at Constantinople, in the year of our Lord God 677. where 289. bishops were assembled. 
A.D. 677.  In the 13. Canon of this famous Council, three special things are decreed. First, that Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons, may have the lawful use of Wedlock, at such times as they do not execute the ministery. Secondly, this famous Council excommunicateth all those Priests and Deacons, that after their orders put away their former wives under pretence of Religion. Thirdly, it excommunicateth all such, 
There was small account of the Church of Rome.  as labour to separate Priests and Deacons, from the use and company of their Wives. And after all this, this great and learned Synod, addeth this worthy and memorable Observation: viz. that they have thus decreed, albeit they know the Laws of Rome to be otherwise. Where I note by the way, that so many learned bishops did 677. years after Christ, utterly contemn the falsely challenged Primacy of the Church of Rome.  
This Decree of the famous Council, is confirmed sundry ways: confirmation 1 First, by the flat Canon of Christ's blessed Apostles, in these express words. 
Can. 6. Apost.  Episcopus, aut Praesbyter, aut Diaconus, Vxorem su●m praetextu religionis non abijcito: si abijcit, segregator a communione; si perseverat, deponator: Let neither bishop, nor Priest, nor Deacon, put away his Wife under pretence of Religion: if he so do, let him be excommunicate: if he continue, let him be deposed. Out of these words, I observe these golden Lessons. First, that in the days of the Apostles, it was lawful for bishops, Priests, and Deacons, to have Wives. Secondly, that if either bishop, Priest, or Deacon, should put away his Wife under pretence of holiness; the bishop, Priest, or Deacon, for that his offence, should be excommunicate. Thirdly, that if any bishop, Priest, or Deacon, would not receive again his wife, whom he had put away under pretence of holiness or religion; then such a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, should be deprived of his living.  
confirmation 2 It is confirmed secondly, by the verdict of the Popes own Law, which is the flat opinion of Pope Vrban; as his devoted Champion Gratianus telleth us: These are his express words. Cum ergo ex Sacerdotibus nati, in summos pontifices supra legantur esse promoti; non sunt intelligendi 
Either the marriage of Priests is lawful, or many Popes have been Bastards.  de fornication, sed de legitimis coniugijs nati, quae Sacerdotibus ante prohibitionem ubique licita erant; et in orientali Ecclesia usque hody eis licere probantur: When therefore we read, that priests Sons are made Popes, we must not understand Bastards, but Sons borne in honest and lawful wedlock, which was every where lawful for Priests before the prohibition; and the same is this day lawful in the East Church. The popish famous Archbishop and canonised Saint Antoninus, singeth the self same song with Pope Vrban, and the Popish Canon Law: These are his words. 
Anton. P. 2. tit. 11. cap. 2. §. 9 vide Cassiod. lib. 9 cap. 38. idem planè asserit.  Quia Grae●i etiam in Sacerdotio coniugio utuntur. For the greeks, even in the time of their Priesthood, have the use of Wedlock. Out of these words of the Popish decrees, together with Antoninus his constant affirmation, I gather these memorable observations. First, that many priests Sons have been Popes. Secondly, that those priests Sons were not Bastards. Thirdly, that the Priests their Fathers begot them of their lawful Wives; even in the time of their Priesthood. This observation striketh dead: the Pope and his popelings, cannot this day endure the sound thereof. Let it never be forgotten; it is an invincible bulwark against the Papists. To which I add the Testimony of Socrates, whose express words are these. Cum omnes quj praeclarj sunt in oriente, abstineant; et Episcopj, non necessitate legis, sed si volverint, hoc faciunt; multj enim illorum Episcopatus tempore, etiam liberos ex legitimi● uxoribus sustulerunt: Seeing all of account in the East, abstain, and the bishops do the same; not by any necessity of Law, but upon their own free will and pleasure: for many of them even at that time, when they were bishops, did beget children of their lawful wives: 
6. Proposition  And Nicephorus in his History, doth constantly affirm the same. 
Niceph. lib. 12. Cap. 34.    

The 6. Proposition.  
The Marriage of Priests was ever lawful also in the West Church, until the cursed Prohibition of Pope Siricius; 
A.D. 389.  which was for the space almost of 400. years after Christ. I prove it, even out of Siricius his own words. 
In Epist ad Aphrican.  Quod dignum, et pudicum, et honestum est, suademus, ut sacerdotes et leuitae cum suis uxeribus non coeant: We council that, which is meet, chaste, and honest; that Priests and Deacons have no copulation with their Wives. 
Tom. 1. Concil.  His reason he addeth in these words: 
Rom. 8.8.  Qui autem in carne sunt, Deo placere non possunt: They that are in the flesh, they can not please God. Out of these words of our disholy Father Siricius, I collect these worthy documents. First, that when he came to his Popedom and Superroyall pontificality. 
Priests were married, both in the East, and in the West Church.  he found both Priests and Deacons married. Which I gather out of these words: (Cum suis Vxoribus, With their Wives.) For if they had not exercised conjugal acts with their Wives, in vain should Siricius either have inveighed against them, or dissuaded them from their Wives. Secondly, that for the space of three hundred eighty years and odd, bishops, Priests, and Deacons, used to marry, and have Wives. Thirdly, that with this fond (I would say learned) Pope, 
Heb. 13. v. 4.  Wedlock (which th'Apostle termeth Honourable) was such a carnal vice, as none could please God in the same. Mark well the next Proposition.   

The 7. Proposition.  
Siricius his Prohibition notwithstanding, Priests were still married in many places a long time: yea, in Germany the Marriage of Priests was used without restraint, 
Pope Hildbrand was reputed an Heretic, for denying the marriage of Priests.  for the space of a thousand seventy and four years after Christ: viz. until the days of the ungracious Pope Hildebrand, who termed himself Gregory the seventh. I prove it by the clear testimony of Lambertus Schafuaburgensis, a man whom their trusty friend Ar. Ponta●us Burdegalensis, affirmeth to have handled the Histories of his time, very exactly: I will neither add, change, or take any one jot from his words. Thus doth he write. 
Lamb. Schaf· in Chron. A.D. 1074.  Hildebrandus Papa cum Episcopis Italiae conveniens, iam frequentibus Synodis decreverat, ut secundum instituta antiquorum Canonum, Presbyteri uxores non habeant, habentes aut dimittant, aut deponantur; nec quisquam omnino ad Sacerdotium admittatur, qui non in perpetuum continentiam vitamque caelibem profiteatur. Sequitur; adversus hoc Decretum protinus vehementer infremuit tota factio clericorum, hominem plane haereticum et vesa●i dogmatis esse clamitans, qui oblitus sermonis Domini, quo ait, non omnes capiunt verbum hoc, qui potest capere, capiat. 
Mat. 19 V. 11.13. 1. Cor. 7. V. 9.10.  Et amplius; qui se non continet, nubat, melius est. N. nubere, quam uri; violenta exactione homines vivere cogeret ritu angelorum, et dum consuetum cursum naturae negaret, fornicationi et immunditiei fraena laxaret: Pope Hildebrand, together with the Bishops of Italy, decreed in frequent Synods, that after the ordinances of old Canons, Priests should not have Wives; and that such as had Wives, should either put them away, or be deprived of their livings: and that none should be admitted to the order of Priesthood, 
Priests made Votaries against their wills,  but he that would profess the perpetual Vow of single life. 
Lo the popish Priests tell us, that the Pope is an Heretic, & a mad man.  Against this Decree, the whole faction of the Clergy stormed wonderfully, crying out that (Pope Hildebrand) was mad, yea a flat Heretic, as who had forgotten the word of our Lord; who saith, that all can not live continent: And of the Apostle; who saith, He that cannot abstain, let him marry; for it is better to marry, then to be burnt: And would violently compel men to live like Angels: and while he denied the accustomed course of Nature, he opened the window to Fornication & uncleanness. Out of these words, I observe these documents. First, that this Lambertus was a Monk, and a great Patron of Popery: Secondly, that seeing he was a learned and zealous Papist, all must needs be of good credit, that he saith against the Papists, and against Popish doctrine. Thirdly, that Priests were married in Germany, above a thousand and seventy years after Christ; that is to say, until the days of Pope Hildebrand, who termed himself Gregory the seventh. Fourthly, that it was so strange a thing in those days (1074. years after Christ) to speak against the Marriage of Priests in Germany, 
A.D. 1074.  that the learned bishops, Priests, and others of the Clergy, reputed Pope Hildebrand an Heretic for withstanding the same. Fiftly, that the Popes so supposed Sovereignty over the whole Church, was in those days utterly condemned of the whole Church of Germany. For Lambertus telleth us freely and truly, that all the Clergy withstood the cursed Decree of the Pope, & proclaimed him an Heretic: and this they did, even by the flat testimony of Christ and his Apostles. Sixtly, that by the verdict of all the Learned in Germany, that great & goodly Country; the Pope did not only enforce them violently against their ancient Customs, but withal made the way to all filthy living. This my Doctrine is confirmed by a double argument: First, because Pope Pelagius the second of that name (who was Bishop 200. years after Siricius, 
Vixit Pelag. 2. A.D. 580. ) did willingly admit the bishop of Syracuse, albeit he were a married man, and had a Wife and Children; neither was that bishop then urged to forsake the use of holy Wedlock. 
Dist. 28. cap. de Syracus. vibis.  Gratianus, a man of great reputation among the Papists, doth in the forenamed Distinction refer out of Pope Pelagius his words, 
priests may lawfully marry, even by the judgement of learned Popish writers.  in this manner. Sive ergo Presbyter, sive Diaconus, sive Subdiaconus fuerit, quod praefa●is ordinibus constitutj licitè matrimonio utj possunt: Whether therefore he be Priest, Deacon, or subdeacon, it is evident, that such as are within the aforenamed Orders, may lawfully have the use of holy Wedlock. Out of these words of Gratianus that learned and zealous Papist, I infer against the Doctrine of the Pope; that Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons, may not only be Married, but withal, while they be Married, have the use of holy Wedlock. Secondly, because Pope Nicholas (who lived above three hundred years after Pelagius) was so far from disquieting Married Priests for their Marriages, 
Dist. 28. Cap. ult.  that when the Bulgarians complained of that fault so supposed, he persuaded them to be content, and not to dishonour their married Priests. This is that Doctrine, which the Popes own Canon-law affordeth us: we heartily thank him fo● it. Let us add hereunto, that the Constitution of Pelagius was not of force in Sicilia, 
Dist. 31. Cap. primo.  save only three years before the Popedom of Gregory the great: which doubtless was more than two hundred years after the Popedom of Siricius: For thus doth Pope Gregory write: Ante triennium, omnium Ecclesiarum Subdiaconi Siciliae prohibiti fuerunt, ut more Romanae Ecclesiae suis uxoribus nullatenus misceantur: Quod mihi durum atque incompetens videtur, ut qui usum continentiae non invenit, neque castitatem promisit, compellatur a suo Vxore separari: 
Pope Gregory confoundeth the late Popes of Rome.  Three years ago, all Subdeacons of Sicilia were charged to forbear the use of holy Wedlock, according to the custom of the Roman Church: Which seemeth to me a very hard and unconvenient thing; that he who neither hath the gift of Continency, neither yet hath vowed Chastity, should be forcibly secluded from his Wife. Out of these words I observe these Instructions. First, that the Laws of single life took only place in Sicilia, 
A.D. 588.  about three years before the time of Gregory the first. Secondly, that it is a diabolical thing to compel such to Marriage, as neither have the gift of Continency, neither yet have vowed Chastity. Thirdly, that the Marriage of all bishops and Ministers in our Churches, as also of all secular Popish Priests every where, is lawful and true Wedlock by the doctrine of Pope Gregory: the reason is at hand, because none of them are Votaries: For, to the Vow which they call Annexed, they are no more bound in the West Church, than they are in the East. Mark well the next Proposition.   

The 8. Proposition.  
All secular Priests are so free from the solemn Vow, which by the Church of Rome is annexed to Ecclesiastical orders; that their Marriages are true, perfect, and of force, the supposed dissolving impediment thereof not withstanding. I prove it, by a triple argument: First, because Scotus, Navarrus, josephus Angles, Durandus, and the rest, do all freely grant, that this Vow is only annexed by the ordinance of the Church, and by the power of man. Secondly, because if the secular Priests be Votaries, 
This Dilemma girdeth the Pope and his jesuited popelings.  their Vow must either be by the word spoken, or by the deed done. Not the former, because no such word can be proved. Neither the latter, because if the act itself in taking orders, should be the Vow annexed, or essentially include the same; it would follow thereupon necessarily, that the greeks likewise should become Votaries, seeing they do the self same thing: Who for all that, 
See the 4. Proposition, & mark it well.  were never Votaries, nor yet so reputed by the Learned Papists; as we have already seen in the fourth Proposition. Thirdly, because when two things are essentially and really distinguished; the grant of the one, doth not necessarily include the grant of the other: and yet is the solemn Vow of Chastity essentially and really distinct from sacred Orders, 
Navat, in Euch cap. 22. §. 18.  as Navarrus, josephus, Gratianus, Sectus, Durandus, Antoninus, and all learned Papists willingly do grant. Mark the next Proposition well.   

The 9 Proposition.  
Albeit by Popish faith and doctrine, all such as Marry after the single Vow of Continency, do sin mortally; yet doth their Marriage hold, and is of force. Thus teach all Learned popish Doctors with uniform assent, no exception can be made; Angelus, Rosella, Calderinus, Covarruvias, Paludanus, Maior, Silvester, Navarrus, Fumus, Scotus, Aquinas, and the rest, do constantly affirm it. It shall suffice to allege the words of Fumus, in the name of all the rest: Thus doth he write. 
Fumus de matrim. §. 55  Secundum impedimentum est votum simplex: nam qui vovet castitatem simpliciter, si contrahat, mortaliter peccat, violans fidem Deo datam; tamen tenet matrimonium: The second impediment is a single Vow: for he that voweth Chastity simply, if he afterward marry, committeth a mortal sin in breaking his promise made to God; but yet the Matrimony holdeth and is of force. Mark the next Proposition again and again.   

The 10. Proposition.  
The Vow single, is of one & the same nature with the Vow solemn, not distinguished by any essential, but mere accidental difference. I prove it by the plain affirmance of Josephus Angles, a very learned Friar and a famous popish bishop: these are his express words. 
Io. Angles in 4. s. q. de voto art. 6. diffic▪ 2.  Votum solemn et simplex ex part subiecti specie accidentali differunt, propterea quod voti simplicis subiectum est ad contrahendum matrimonium habile, licet contrahendo peccet: at vero subiectum voti solennis, est ad contractum matrimonialem inhabile: transgressiones voti simplicis et solennis eiusdem speciei sunt, etiamsi qui solenniter vovet, gravius peccet: ratio est, quia specifica differentia actuum est penes obiecta; et cum idem sit utriusque voti obiectum, nempe servare continentiam, erunt actus eiusdem speciei: erit tamen voti solennis transgressio gravior, ratione perfectioris status: 
Mark well, that the Vow single and solemn, are essentially one and the same.  The Vow solemn and single, differ accidentally in respect of the subject, because the subject of the single Vow is able to contract Matrimony, albeit he sin in so contracting: but the subject of a solemn Vow, is enabled to matrimonial contract: the transgressions of the Vow single and solemn, are of the same nature or kind, albeit he that maketh the solemn Vow, sinneth more grievously: The reason is, because the specifical difference of acts, resteth in the objects: and seeing there is one object of both the Vows; to weet, to keep chastity, the acts must be of the same nature or kind; howbeit the transgression of the solemn Vow shall be greater, by reason of the perfecter state. Thus disputeth Friar Josepth, after the opinion of other popish Doctors. And doubtless his Discourse is evident, because every specifical difference moral ariseth of the objects; and consequently, seeing the object of Vow single is one and the same with the Vow solemn, the difference between them can no way be essential; neither can the Vow solemn dissolve Matrimony contracted, forasmuch as the Vow single being intrinsically the same, can not do it. Mark well the next Proposition.   

The 11. Proposition.  

The Pope's dispensation doth make priests marriage lawful, ergo, God doth not forbid it.  Matrimony even after the solemn Vow of Religion, is with our Jesuits and jesuited Papists, very lawful and of force; so it be done by and with the Pope's Dispensation. This doctrine is taught by many learned Papists; Antoninus, Richardus, Hugo, Innocentius, Conarrunias, Navarius, and others. The same Doctrine is confirmed, even by the real and usual practice of sundry Popes. It may suffice in regard of brevity, to allege one, in the name of all. The Popish S. Antoninus, sometime the Archbishop of Florence, hath these words. 
Ant. p. 2. 〈◊〉 11, cap. 2 §. ●.  Papa dispensare potest in statuto Concilij umuersalis: de Voto solennj per pr●fessionem etiam patet, quod licet Papa non possist facere, quod professus non fuit professus, potest tamen facere, quod non sit obligatus relig●oni et ad votum religionis; quia in omni voto intelligitur, excepta authoritate Papae: Infra; et communiter Canonistae tenent, quod Papa potest dispensare in voto solenni religionis, non quidem tantum ut sit religiosus, et non servet vota, sed de religioso potest facere laicum; ex magna causa urgente: The Pope can dispense in the Decrees of a General Council. It is also clear, that he can dispense in a solemn Vow of profession: For, albeit the Pope can not make a professed person, not to have been professed; yet can he this do, that the professed person shall neither be bound to his Religion, nor to his Vow: because we must understand, that in every Vow, the Pope's authority is excepted: And the canonists do commonly hold, that the Pope can dispense in the solemn Vow of Religion; not only that one be still a Religious person and keep not his Vow; but he can also make of a Religious person, a mere Lay-man, upon an urgent cause. To this Popish canonised Saint and famous Archbyshoppe, let it not grieve our M. Friar, if I add the worthy testimony of their famous Popish Canonist and great Divine Martinus Navarrus; his words are these. 
Navar. de iudic. notab. 3. p. 275.  Papa dispensare potest cum Monacho iam professo, ut contrabat matrimonium; imo de facto multj Papae dispensarunt: 
Lo, the Pope can make the marriage of Friars, Iesuit●s, and nuns, to be very lawful.  Lo, the Pope when it pleaseth his Holiness, can make of Monks, mere Lay-men: he can also make Monks to continue Monks still, and for all that, not to keep their Vows. Yea, how soever his Jesuits and jesuited popelings cry out against the Marriage of Priests; yet can he make the Marriage of Monks (and a fortiorjs the Marriage of secular Priests) to be lawful Marriage, even with his bare word. I will say nothing of Covarruvias, Richardus, Paludanus, Scotus, Caietanus, Josephus Angles, and others; for of their verdictes, the Reader may find great plenty in my Survey of Popery: See and mark well the fourth Proposition aforegoing. Only here by the way, I would tell our holy Father (if it would please him to hear me) that seeing he can with his word make the Marriage of priests lawful; it were good he should do it, for that which he may read in the next Proposition.   

The 12. Proposition.  
The forced and coacted Chastity of Priests hath been such & so intolerable (even by the confession of the best learned Papists,) as nothing in the whole world hath brought more shame to Priesthood, more harm to Religion, more grief to godly men. The great & famous Popish Cardinal Panormitanus doth prove this Proposition so learnedly, and with such Christian gravity, as it being well marked, is able to confound all Papists in the world: these are his express words. 
Panorm. de Cleric. coniug. Cap. cum Olim.  Continentia non est in Clericis secularibus de substantia ordinis, nec de iure Divino; quia alias Graeci peccarent, nec excusaret eos consuetudo. Sequitur, et non solum credo potestatem messe Ecclesiae hoc condendi, sed credo pro bono et salute esset animarum, quod esset salubre statutum, ut volentes possint contrahere; quia experientia docente, contrarius prorsus effectus sequitur ex illa Lege continentiae, cum hody non vivant spiritualiter, nec sint mundi, sed maculantur illicito coitu cum eorum gravissimo peccato, ubi cum propria uxore esset castitas: 
Continency of secular Priests is neither of the substance of Priesthood, nor of the law divine.  Continency in secular Priests, is neither of the substance of their Orders, nor of the Law divine: For otherwise, the greeks should sin, and their Custom could not excuse them. And I do not only believe, that the Church can make such a Law, but also that such a Law were for the good and for the salvation of souls, that such as would, might marry; for experience teacheth, that a contrary effect followeth of that law of continency, seeing this day they live not spiritually: neither are they clean, but polluted in unlawful copulation with their most grievous sin, though they might live chastened with their own Wives. Thus writeth learned Panormitanus, the Pope's famous Canonist, his dear Abbot, his reverend Archbishop, his honourable Cardinal. 
Panormit. de cleric coniug. cap. cum ol●●.  
Lo, the Pope● learned Doctors, write against the Pope.  Let us now hear what Polydorus Virgilius a zealous & learned Papist saith: for he, seeing he was an Italian, knew best the Italian and Romish fashion. These are his express words; I will neither add to them nor take aught from them, but will deal synceerely and truly (though our Jesuit be far from it) not only in this Book, but in whatsoever else I shall write hereafter, even upon the peril of my soul. 
Polyd. lib. 5. cap. 4. in sine.  Illud tamen dixerim, tantum abfuisse, ut ista coacta castitas illam coniugalem vicerit; ut etiam nullius delicti crimen, maius ordini dedecus, plus mali religioni, plus doloris omnibus bonis impresserit, inusserit, attulerit, quam Sacerdotum libidinis labes: proinde forsitan tam e republica Christiana, quam ex ordinis usu esset, ut tandem aliquando ius publici matrimonij Sacerdotibus restitueretur; quod illi sine infamia sanctè potius colerent, quam se spurcissimè eiuscemodi naturae vitio turpificarent: Yet this I will say, that this forced & coacted Chastity (of Priests) was so far from excelling Chastity in Wedlock, as no crime whatsoever hath brought greater shame to Priesthood, more harm to Religion, more grief to all good men, than the unchaste life of Priests. 
Lo, priests marriage was once deemed very lawful.  Therefore, it were perhaps no less necessary for the public weal of Christendom, then for the order of Priesthood, that once again Priests might marry publicly, and so live honestly and without shame, and not pollute themselves so filthyly. This is the doctrine of Polydorus, well worthy to be written in Golden letters. Yea, the Marriage of Priests is so honourable and so lawful by God's law, and the prohibition thereof so dishonourable and doleful; that Pope Pius the second of that name (who afore his Popedom was named Aeneas Silvius, a very learned and famous writer) did deliver his mind & opinion concerning this subject, in this manner; as his own dear Platina hath published the same. 
Platina in vita P●j. 2. p. 342.  Indoctum Episcopum Asine comparandum; corpora malos medicos, animas imperitos sacerdotes occiacre: vagum Monachum diaboli esse mancipium: virtutes Clerum ditasse, vitia pauperem facere: Sacerdotibus magna ratione sublatas nuptias, maiori restituendas videri: 
Lo, one Pope condemneth an other.  Pope Pius used to say (as writeth his own devoted vassal Platina,) that a Bishop without learning, was like unto an Ass (& consequently, that there are many Asses in popish Churches:) that evil Physicians did kill men's bodies, and ignorant Priests their souls: that a vagrant Monk was the devils slave: that Virtues had enriched the Clergy (in times past;) but that Vices (of late days) do make it poor: that there was great reason to debar Priests of Marriage; but greater reason to restore Marriage again unto them. Thus writeth Platina of Pope Pius. Now, for the benefit of the Christian reader, I observe these godly & necessary Lessons, out of these three learned and famous Papists. First, that the coacted Chastity of Priests, is neither of the substance of the ministery, nor grounded upon the law of God. Secondly, that the annexed Vow so termed, is coacted, and not free: not voluntary, but compelled: And consequently, that secular Priests are not Votaries properly, but by a cursed and lawless Vow violently imposed upon them. Thirdly, that the Prohibition of the Marriage of Priests, is against their soul's health, and causeth them to sin damnably. Fourthly, that priests marriage would be honourable and honest chastity, if the law of man did not prohibit the same. Fiftly, that it was once lawful for Priests to Marry. Sixtly, that it is in man's power, to make their Marriages once lawful again. Seventhly, that it is expedient to restore Priests to their right again; that is to say, to refer Marriage to their free choice and election. Mark this point well for Christ's sake, gentle Reader. 
The jesuit is strooken dead.  Vt ius publicj matrimonij Sacerdotibus restitueretur: That the right of public Wedlock, might be restored to Priests again. O sweet jesus! how impudent are our Jesuits and jesuited Papists, who inveigh so bitterly against priests Marriage, which is their proper right? Nay, how tyrannical is the Pope, who violently debarreth and keepeth them from their right. 
The right of Priests, that is, their marriage, must be restored again.  Let these two words, never be forgotten: viz. (Ius) and (Restitueretur:) for the former word (Ius, right) doth argue priests Marriage to be their proper right: And the latter word (restitueretur, might be restored) doth argue the tyranny of the late Bishops of Rome. The reason is evident, because Restitution can never be truly exacted, but where injustice went before, and consequently, seeing by the joint testimony of these three famous popish Writers, that the Marriage of Priests ought to be restored to them; it followeth of necessity, that the taking away of Marriage from Priests, was savage, brutish, cruel, tyrannical, and odious to God and all godly men: For, it was flat injustice, and violently imposed upon them. Neither hath any good come to the Church of God thereby, but filthy life and uncleanness abounded every where. Which is not mine Assertion, but the flat and plain Accusation of three learned, zealous, and famous Papists, Pope Pius himself being one of the three.   

The 13. Proposition.  
When the Fathers of the first famous Council of Nice, intended and meant to have brought a New law into the Church, 
A.D. 327.  and to have abandoned the marriage of Priests; then our merciful Father the mighty God Johovah, (who never hath been, is, or will be wanting to his Church in necessary points of Faith and Doctrine,) raised up his faithful servant Paphuntius, a man very famous by manifold miracles in his life time, to withstand & gainsay that cursed and never enough detested Law, which the Fathers assembled at Nice were about to bring into the Church. This Paphuntius (the man of God) excited by the spirit of God, stood up in the midst of the Council, and constantly affirmed before them all, that to forbid Marriage to Priests, was too severe a Law, seeing by the testimony of Christ's blessed Apostle, Marriage was honourable in all sorts of men: 
Hebr. 13. V. 4.  whereupon, the Council made no Decree in that behalf. This Proposition is proved, by the uniform assent of three learned and famous Historiographers, Cassiodorus, Socrates, Sozom●nus. Socrates hath these express words. 
S●cra. lib. 1. ●ap. 8.  Visum erat Episcopis legem novam in Ecclesiam introducere: The Bishops meant and intended, to bring a new law into the Church. But Paphuntius so persuaded the Council, by the power of the Holy ghost, that they referred the whole matter to every priests free choice and election, making no Law in that behalf. For Cassiodorus hath these express words. 
Cassiodor. hist. tripar. libr. 2. cap. 14. Vide Gratian. dist. 31.  Synodusque lauda●it sententiam eius, et nihil ex hac part sancivit, sed hoc in uniuscuiusque voluntate, non in necessitate reliquit: And the Synod commended (Paphuntius) his opinion, and decreed nothing in the matter; but left it in every one's election, to do what he thought good without compulsion. Sozomenus is consonant, and confirmeth the same truth. 
Sozo. lib. 1. cap. 22.  The case is evident, it cannot be denied.   

The Corollary of these 13. Propositions.  
First therefore, seeing all Ministers which are not subject to the laws of Popery, may lawfully Marry, even by the doctrine of the Church of Rome; as is proved in the first Proposition. Secondly, seeing Marriage was ever lawful for all Priests, and other Ministers of the Church, during all the time of the old Testament; as is proved in the second Proposition. Thirdly, seeing Marriage is lawful for Priests, and other Ministers of the Church, even now in the time of the new Testament; as is proved in the third Proposition. Fourthly, seeing the Marriage of Priests is only prohibited by the law of Man, and not by any positive constitution either of Christ of his Apostles; as is proved in the fourth Proposition. Fiftly, seeing it was ever lawful for the bishops, Priests, and Deacons of the East Church, to take Wives, and to beget Children in the time of their Priesthood; as is proved in the fifth Proposition. Sixtly, seeing the Marriage of Priests was ever lawful also in the West Church, until the cursed and untimely invented Prohibition of Pope Siricius, almost 400. years after Christ; as is proved in the sixth Proposition. Seventhly, seeing Siricius his Prohibition notwithstanding, Priests were still Married in many places a long time; and in Germany above a thousand years after Christ, without restraint, even until the days of the ungracious Pope Hildebrand; as is proved in the 7. Proposition. 
A.D. 1074.  Eightly, seeing all secular Priests are so free from the Vow, which is annexed to Ecclesiastical orders by the Church of Rome, that the supposed dissolving impediment thereof notwithstanding, their Marriages are true, perfect, and of force. Ninthly, seeing that by Popish Faith and Doctrine, the single Vow of Chastity neither doth nor can dissolve Matrimony; as is proved in the ninth Proposition. Tenthly, seeing the Vow single is of one and the same nature with the Vow solemn, not distinguished by any essential, but mere accidental difference; as is proved in the tenth Proposition. eleventhly, seeing Matrimony of Monks, Friars, and nuns, even after their solemn Vow of Religion, is with the Pope, his Jesuits, and jesuited popelings, very lawful and of force, so it be done by, and with the Pope's Dispensation; as is proved in the eleventh Proposition. Twelfthly, seeing the forced and coacted Chastity of popish Priests hath been such and so intolerable, (even by the best learned Papists their free confessions,) as nothing in the whole world hath brought more shame to Priesthood, more harm to Religion, more grief to godly men, as is proved in the 12. Proposition. Thirteenthly, seeing the Fathers of the famous Council of Nice, thought it not agreeable to God's word, to make any Law against the Marriage of Priests; as is proved in the 13. Proposition. I can not, I may not, but must of necessity conclude, with this inevitable and irrefragable illation: ergo, the Prohibition of priests Marriage, is but a rotten rag of the new Religion.   

The Refutation of the Friars third Chapter.  
In these 13. Propositions (if due application be made thereof,) all the untruethes, lies, miserable shifts, and colourable evasions of our Friar Jesuit, will easily appear and vanish away, as doth the smoke of a Fire, especially, 
Read & mark well the Survey of Popery.  if my Discourse in the Survey of Popery, be duly pondered with these 13. Propositions. For, all that our Friar hath said in this Chapter, and whatsoever else any other jesuit or jesuited Papist in the world, is able to say against the Marriage of Priests, is very largely, distinctly, and sound resuted, in my Survey of Popery. The Jesuit full of nothing but Wind, Vanity, Railing, and lying, would dazzle the eyes of his Reader, with crying out against Untruths, when indeed, all untruethes proceed only from his own lying lips. Two things only may seem to the vulgar Reader, to carry some show or colour of truth: which both are sound confuted in my Survey. Howbeit for the better satisfaction of the indifferent Reader, especially of such as perhaps have not read my Survey; I am content once again to examine the same.  

The former colour of truth pretended by our Friar, is this in very deed: viz. 
The former difficulty.  That Saint Paphuntius in the Council of Nice, persuaded the Father's only unto this; to weete, That they which were called to the Priesthood being Married, should not be separated from their Wives which they had: for, it was the old Tradition of the Church (saith our Friar:) That those which were made Priests being not yet Married, should not afterward marry Wives. Thus pleadeth our Jesuit, out of Sozomenus and Socrates. Mark now my Answer to the same.  

The Answer.  
I answer; first, that the Marriage of Priests, is only prohibited by the Law of man, and not by any positive Constitution either of Christ or his Apostles. 
4. Proposition  This I have proved in the 4. Proposition, by the flat testimony of many famous Popish Writers: yea, out of the Popes own Decrees: Read the Proposition to the end, and mark it seriously. Secondly, that it was ever lawful for Priests in the East Church to be Married, and to beget children in time of their Priesthood. 
5. Proposition  This truth is cleared in the fifth Proposition, even out of the Popes own Decrees. Thirdly, that it was lawful in the West Church for Priests to be Married, for the space of one thousand years after Christ: 
6. Proposition  This is made evident, in the sixth and seventh Propositions. Fourthly, that Secular Priests are not Votaries; and that therefore their Marriage is lawful: 
8. & 9 Propos.  This truth is sound proved in the 8. and 9 Propositions: Let them be well marked. Fiftly, that the Marriage of Priests is their own proper right; and that therefore restitution must be made for taking the same away: 
12. Propos.  This truth is proved in the 12. Proposition, and it striketh dead. Now, seeing first, that no positive Constitution against priests Marriage, can truly be derived either from Christ or his Apostles: seeing secondly, that it was ever lawful for Priests in the East Church, to be Married: seeing thirdly, that it was lawful for Priests even in the West Church, to Marry every where, for the space almost of 400. years; and in Germany above a thousand years after Christ: seeing fourthly, that Secular Priests are no Votaries: seeing five, that the Pope is bound to Restitution for taking away of priests Marriage; I must perforce conclude against our jesuit, that the Tradition which Socrates and Sozomenus speak of, was neither General, nor Divine; howsoever Paphuntius alleged it, so to mitigate the rigorous and severe Laws intended by the Council. I prove it by a double argument: First, because if there had been any such Tradition general or divine; the greeks could not be excused, who never yielded thereunto. Secondly, because so many Learned Papists do constantly affirm and teach; that neither Christ nor his Apostles, made any Law against priests Marriage. To which I must needs add, that if there had been any such Tradition received either from Christ or his Apostles, neither would holy Paphuntius have pleaded against it, neither yet the famous Council have yielded to him in that behalf. But the Council of Carthage (will some say,) maketh mention of Apostolical tradition to the same effect. I answer with the Popes own dear Gloss upon his Decrees, in these express words. 
Gloss. dist. 84. Cap. in Preterito.  Ergo Apostoli d●cuerunt exemplo et admonitione, non institutione vel constitutione: Therefore the Apostles taught it by example and admonition, and not by any Law or Constitution. But how by Admonition and Example, 
Polydorus saith plainly, that S. Paul was married. Lib▪ 5. Cap. 4. Lege Locum.  did the Apostles teach the single life of Priests? S. Paul, albeit he were some time a marryed-man (as S. Clement very probably deduceth out of the holy Scriptures;) yet did he after that, live a single life; and withal, exhorted others (that had the gift) to live as he did. 
1. Cor. 7. v. 7, 8, 9. 10.32.3●.  But here three things must seriously be observed. First, that th' Apostle wished Lay-men, aswell as he did Ecclesiastical persons, to live a single life. Secondly, that he wished of both sorts and sexes (men and women) those only to abstain, who had the gift. Thirdly, that he made no Law for single life, but left it free to every one's choice and election; professing constantly, that he had no commandment from God, concerning Virgins. And doubtless, 
1. Cor. 7. v. 25.  if S. Paul had no warrant to enjoin Single life; much less had the Council of Nice such a warrant: and lest of all, had the late bishops of Rome (men of dissolute life, and scandalous behaviour,) such power and authority.    

The second colour of truth pretended by our Friar jesuit, is of S. Epiphanius, S. Hierome, Eusebius, 
The Second Difficulty.  and Pope Zacharie: Let us therefore hear his own words, and his scholastical dispute.  

B. C.  
The holy Priesthood (saith Epiphanius) is for the most part, of Virgins or Unmarried folk, 
Pag. 52.  or if those be not sufficient for the ministery, of those which contain themselves from their own Wikes. And in an other place: But the Church (quoth be) doth not admit the Husband of one Wife, yet living and begetting Children.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that Epiphanius speaketh not of any Law, that was made in his time, against priests Marriage; but of a voluntary usage of some few in some few places. Which mine answer, is virtually implied in these words, (for the most part.) Secondly, that I have proved in the fifth Proposition very plentifully, 
See the 5. Proposition.  even by the Pope's own Decrees, besides many other weighty & important proofs; that it was ever lawful for Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, of the East Church, to have Wives and to beget Children as others did. To which I now add for the complement thereof, this lively testimony of the Council of Agatha, in these express words; Presbyterj, Dinconj, Subdiaconj, vel deinceps, quibus ducendi uxores licentia modo non est, etiam aliarum nuptiarum evitent convivia: 
Lo, Priests in old time might marry every where.  Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons', and the rest who now have not Licence to Marry, must not be present at the Feasts of other Marriages. Out of these words of this Council, I observe first, that this Council was celebrated, about 439. years after Christ. Secondly, that it plainly convinceth against all cursed Jesuits and Antichristian bishops of Rome, that it was sometime lawful for Priests to Marry. Thirdly, that this Council alludeth to the time of Siricius, which was about 51. years before it. For, when the Council saith, (who are now debarred from Marriage) it implicitly affirmeth, 
Mark this point well for Christ's sake.  that before they might freely have Married. If therefore Epiphanius mean not, as is already said; his bare word may not be admitted against the Canon of th'Apostles, 
Epiphanius Heres. 59 A.D. 439.  against the famous general Council of Constantinople, against the Council of Agatha, & against the Pope's own Decrees. Yea, S. Epiphanius granteth, that some Priests were Married in his time. And Polydorus saith, that S. Paul called his Wife, Sister; and rejecteth S. Hierom●● exposition. 
Lib. 5. Cap. 4.  See, and note well the fifth Proposition.   

B. C.  
S. Hierome likewise writing against Vigilantius, saith; What shall the Church of the East do? What the Church of Egypt, and the Apostolic Sea, which take Virgins for their Clerks or Continent; or if they be Married, give over to be Husbands? Will Bell for all this, tell us, that Priests were ever Married in the East-Church; and without all respect, give S. Epiphanius and S. Hirome, the word of disgrace?   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that this Testimony being the same in substance with the former, may with all congruity receive the same answer: For, it doth not relate any Law, Decree, or Constitution, made against priests Marriage; but barely and only insinuateth that zeal and fervour, which was wonderful in the primitive and ancient Church. Howbeit, thereupon will it never follow in true form of argument; that because some having the gift of Continency, abstained from Marriage, (so to avoid the encumbrances of which th'Apostle speaketh) therefore all others must be compelled, 
1. Cor. 7. v. 32.33.  Lege lata to do the same. For, as the unmarried bishops and other inferior Ministers, 
Many worthy Ministers live unmarried in our Church of England.  in our Church of noble England, do not make a Law to the rest whose Marriages they honour and approve: so neither did the single life of some few, make a general Law for the rest in the primitive and ancient Church. We honour, reverence, and highly commend the Single life of our Clerks, who have the gift of Continency: we only and solely condemn that coacted and forced Chastity, which brought such filth, shame, and confusion to the Church, that three most famous, zealous, and learned Papists, (Polydorus, Panormitanus, and Pope Pius,) were moved, 
See the 12. proposition, where this is proved.  and as it were enforced with zeal unto the truth, to write as sharply against the same, as myself have done. Secondly, that if this answer be not according to S. Hieromes true meaning, than not Bell (good M. Friar) but holy Paphuntius, but the Apostolic Canon▪ but the Council of Constantinople, 
All this is sound proved already.  but the Council of Agatha, but Sozom●nus, but Socrates, but Gratianus, but the Popish canonised Saint Antoninus, and the Popes own Decrees, do give to Epiphanius & Hierome the word of disgrace. Mark well the ●. 4.7. and 13. Propositions. Thirdly, that though the Council of Agatha approve the Decree of Siri●ius, (to which it alludeth) by adding an other absurd constitution to the same; yet doth it freely and plainly tell us, that Priests were lawfully Married before that time: 
The Pope's law is flat tyranny.  Which is a testimony so clear and apparent for priests Marriage, as all the world may justly abhor man's Law made against the same. Let the words of the Council of Agatha never be forgotten, because they strike the matter dead: For, in that the Council saith (which are now debarred from Marriage) it plainly giveth us to understand (it may not for shame be denied,) that it was sometime lawful for Priests to Marry: that is (as I have already proved,) until the time of Siritius. To which I must needs add that, which I have sound concluded in the eleventh Proposition: 
Mark well the 11. Proposition.  viz. that the Pope (by popish Faith and Doctrine) can make lawful the Marriage not only of Secular Priests, but also of Friars, Monks, Jesuits, and Nuns: And consequently, that God never did prohibit or forbid the same. But what an absurd Decree is that, which the Council of Agatha added to Pope Siritius his cursed and execrable Law? this is it: The Council of Agatha chargeth all unmarried Priests, that they be not present at the Banckets and Feasts of other Marriages. Is not this absurd? Our Lord jesus himself, vouchsafed to honour Marriage with his sacred presence. 
john. 2. v▪ 2, 8.  He and his Disciples were together at a Wedding in Cana of Galilee; where he wrought his first Miracle, in changing Water into Wine: and yet (I trow) our Papists will not say, that Christ and his Disciples were Married men. Whether the Pope be Antichrist, or Noah, viderint ipsi. But that these, and the like Decrees be pregnant conjectures, and more than probable signs, that he is the forerunner of Antichrist; I constantly here affirm, and am ready to gauge my life for the trial of the same. 
Pag. 54.    

B. C.  
Notwithstanding it is meet, that they should refrain themselves from the company of their Wives, who are consecrated and busied in the ministery & service of God.   

T. B.  
This Testimony with the other already answered, do tickle the Minister and fetch blood; as our Friar Jesuit prateth, to the comfort of his devoted popelings. I answer; first, that the first word (veruntamen, notwithstanding or but) hath relation to that which went before▪ and so rather maketh against the Friar then for himself. Secondly, that Eusebius the Author by him alleged, saith not, that any Law made either by God or man, did prohibit the marriage of Priests, but only that in his judgement, it is convenient for Priests to refrain from the company of their Wives. Thirdly, that if Eusebius were living in these our backsliding days, and should behold the filth and execrable fruits of coacted Single life in the Popish Clergy; 
Note well the 12. proposition.  he would doubtless change his opinion, with the famous, learned, and zealous Papists (Polydorus, Panormitanus, and Pope P●us,) and cry out aloud; that coacted and forced Chastity in the Romish Clergy, was so far from excelling chastity in Wedlock; as no crime whatsoever hath brought greater shame to Priesthood, more harm to Religion; more grief to Good Men, than the unchaste & filthy life of the unmarried Romish Priests. 
Out upon Romish unmarried Priests.  And that therefore it were meet & expedient, to restore to Priests the free use of Marriage, as it was in the beginning and primitive age of the Church. Now how this Assertion of Eusebius doth tickle me, and fetch blood from me, let the Reader judge.   

B. C.  
Pope Zacharie writing to Bonifacius our worthy Countryman, than Bishop and the Apostle of Germany, hath these words (speaking of Priests: 
P. 58. ) From the day of taking Priesthood, they are to be forbidding, yea even from their own Wives. Of this Decree the Magdeburgians make mention. True it is, that they score it up for one of his errors: But it giveth us a sufficient warrant, to score up that also for a notorious untruth, which Bell speaketh of the long lawful liberty of Ecclesiastical Wiving in Germany.   

T. B.  
I answer: First, that this Pope Zacharie absolved the French men from their loyal obedience to Childerich their Sovereign, and confirmed Pipine the traitor, in his room and Kingdom: Whereof more at large is to be seen in The Downfall of Popery. 
See the Downfall Pag. 10.  Secondly, that I desire to know who gave the Bishops of Rome authority to make Apostles; and that I may see their Commission, before I be urged to believe the same. Thirdly, that the bare word of Pope Zacharie to his Apostle Boniface, is not sufficient to debar Husbands from their Wives. Fourthly, that notwithstanding the wicked command of Pope Zacharie, Priests were still Married in Germany for the space of three hundred years, and Pope Zacharies' charge contemned, as a most wicked and unlawful thing. For, Pope Hildebrand found them Married in his time, in the year of our Lord God 1074. who labouring to separate Priests from their Wives, was for his pains, reputed a mad man, and an Heretic; as I have proved at large in the Seventh Proposition: which I wish the Reader to ponder seriously. Fiftly, that in every legal trial, 
Mark well the seventh Proposition.  four distinct persons must concur; as every learned Divine, every skilful Canonist, every approved Summonist, and every mean Legist, will confess: viz. the Person accused, the Accuser, the Witness, and the judge. And consequently, 
Reus, accusator, testis, judex.  the bishops of Rome can not be judges, when and where they are the parties accused. This is a point of great consequence, which the Reader must ever have in remembrance. I end with the testimony of Nicephorus; that in the East Churches, bishops did beget children of their lawful Wives, 
Nicephor. Lib. 12. Cap. 34.  even in the time of their Episcopal charge and dignity.      

The Jesuits fourth Chapter, of the Popish execrable Pardons.  

B. C.  
THis Chapter, though it be but short, 
P. 61.  yet it lacketh not the seal of his occupation: for his conclusion is adorned with this notable untruth. The Pope's Pardon (quoth he) is a rotten Rag of the New Religion, brought into the Church after a 1300. years, by Bonifacius the eight. This tale he hath told us divers times before; and therefore the more reason I have to challenge it for a rotten Lie of the Ragge-maister of Rascal.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that though this Chapter be short in words, yet is it so full of weighty and unanswerable matter, that where it containeth forty lines save one, our Friar jesuit for fear of burning, durst scarcely touch three of the same. Secondly, that in his shortness, he hath heaped lie upon lie. 
The first Lie.  His first lie is this: viz. That I have told this tale of the Pope's Pardon (that it is a rotten Rag of the New Religion) divers times before. For I told not this tale at all, save only in this present Chapter: let the Reader peruse all three Chapters aforegoing, and if he do not find this tale once told (as in truth he can not,) then in charity let him bestow the Whetstone upon our Friar, as upon the man who hath the best deserved it. His second lie is this: viz. That my saying is a rotten lie. For I have proved it to be the mere truth even in this Chapter, as it will better appear (God willing) by this my present Answer. His third lie is this: viz. That I am the Rag-maister of Rascal. For, albeit both in the very Title of his Book, and in sundry other places, 
The jesuit is at a non plus.  he terms me in that scornful manner; yet is it so far from the truth, that the name of the Town where I was borne, is not Rascal (as he would have it) but Raskell, with k and e, not with c and a, as his lying lips affirm it. But what if the name were, as the Jesuit scornfully affirmeth; must I be a Rascal, because I was borne in a Town so called? Is every Pope Holy, because his name is Holiness? 
Pope Hog-snoute.  Was Pope Sergius an Hog, because his name was Hog-snoute? Is an humble man proud, 
Raskell is a goodly Country Town, and hath ever had in it many tall fellows, very faithful to the Crown.  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 Rascal, because I was borne in a Town called not Rascal, but Raskell; where I never continued, save only during my minority and nonage. Doth not every child see & perceive, that our Friar wanteth matter; and that he is at a non plus? If he were able to defend Popery, with Truth, Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, or good Arguments; he would never use such miserable shifts, and silly evasions. His third lie is this: viz. That he hath proved mine assertion to be a Lie. For, I have with invincible reasons and authorities, proved the contrary to be the known Truth. He nameth an unknown Book, (The doleful Knell,) where he would seem to have proved the matter: Yet such a Book I never saw to this day, neither can I learn that any other hath seen the same: But more hereof to speak, fitter occasion will be offered hereafter: 
In the ninth Chapter following.  And if I live to see such a Book extant, it shall not (God willing) be long unanswered. Thirdly, that I proved it in the Trial, (even in this very Chapter) to be a very rotten Rag of the New religion: 
Read the Trial, and mark well the 4. Chapter.  And this I did perform in that place, many ways: First, by the express words of Sylvester Pryeras, (a man so profound and learned, that he was by the Papists surnamed, Absolutus Theologus,) who constantly affirmeth, that the Pope's Pardons were never known to us, neither by the Scriptures, nor yet by the ancient Fathers; but only by the late Writers. Lo, 
Sylvester de indulg.  the Pope's Pardons are so new, that neither the Holy Scriptures, nor yet the old Fathers knew them; but the late Writers only▪ Ergo, they must needs be Rags of a New Religion. How can the Friar deny this, withoutblushing? His own conscience accuseth him. He can not tell doubtless, what in the world to say or think. He seeth evidently, that Popery is proved the New Religion. He perceiveth right well, that he is not able with all the help of his best friends, to defend the Pope from utter shame. Secondly, by the flat testimony of the Popish canonised Saint Antoninus, sometime Archbishop of the famous City of Florence; who delivereth the self same Doctrine, that Sylvester did. Thirdly, 
P. ●. Tit. 10. Cap. 3.  by the Doctrine of Petrus Lombardus, their famous Master of Sentences; 
A.D. 1149.  who (though he with great diligence collected into one Volume all the worthy Sentences of the old Fathers) could never for all that, 
The old church knew not late Popish Pardons.  find the Pope's Pardons, or any mention thereof, in any of their writings. For, (as Sylvester and Antoninus truly write) the Old Writers were not acquainted with any such thing. Fourthly, by the free confession of M. Fisher that famous Popish so supposed Martyr, sometime Bishop of Rochester in noble England; 
Cont. art. Lutheri, art. 18.  who in his Answer to M. Luther's Articles, was enforced to admit the Newness of the Pope's Pardons. To all which, and much more plainly set down in the Trial, our jesuit saith not one word. He was so frighted forsooth with the Conclusion, that he durst not once touch the Premises; but passing them over in deep silence, 
Our Jesuits manner is, to answer my chiefest grounds with deep silence.  he cur●alleth the Ergo, and severeth it from the Consequent; because it did connotate & plainly lay open to the Reader, that the Premises went before. I wish the Reader to peruse the Trial, that so he may see the cozening tricks of the proud Friar. Mark the Complement following.   

The Complement of this Chapter.  
FOr the better instruction of the Christian Reader, and the utter confusion of our Friar, and of all other Friars, Jesuits, and jesuited popelings, let us seriously ponder and constantly remember, that there be two kinds of Pardons: 
These two kinds of Pardons, must be well remembered & distinguished.  Th'one, De pamtentijs iniunctis: th'other, D●remissione peccatorum. Concerning the former kind, (which were only relaxations or mitigations of Discipline and Canonical Penance enjoined by the Church) I grant very willingly, that in the primitive and ancient succeeding Churches, they were very frequent and usual: For, in those days and ages, such as were notorious offenders, and had given public scandal to the Church, were enjoined by the Church, to do public penance for their public faults, before they could be admitted into the Church again. Which godly Discipline is this day observed (God be thanked for it) in all particular Churches throughout this Realm of noble England. Yea, in the ancient Churches many years of penance (or public exercises of humiliation) were ordained for every public grievous Offence. Whereupon it came, that when many penitent persons gave evident signs of true internal remorse, for their former scandalous conversation; then the Church thought good to give to such penitent persons, 
The ancient Counsels did give one kind of Pardons, but never late Popish Pardons.  some relaxation of their so enjoined public penance. Which kind of Pardons, the famous Council of Nice, of Arles, of Ancyra, and others, did usually give to penitent persons. Of which manner of pardoning, the ancient Fathers, Tertullianus, Cyprianus, Jrenaeus, Eusebius, Sozomenus, and others, do often make relation. But concerning the latter kind of late Popish Pardons; that is, of applying to whom they list, and when they list; aswell to the living, as to the dead, the Merits of Christ and of his Saints, as condign satisfaction for their Sins; no Scripture, no Council, no Father, no ancient approved Historiographer, maketh any mention at all. Which truth I have so plainly proved in my Book of Motives, 
Libr. 2. Cap. 2.  as no Papist in Europe is able to answer the same: The Book hath been extant in print, now 15. whole years; 
The jesuits promise answers, but perform none truly.  and to this day no answer (though often promised) will appear. But let our jesuit proceed, in his wont manner.   

B. C.  
I will add one testimony more of our Enemies the Waldenses, who appeared to the world about the year 1270. as testifieth Claudius Cussordius and Guido: one of whose Heresies was against the Pope's Pardons, as is most certain; and Kemnitius confesseth: which argueth, that Par●ons were long in use before the year 1300. And therefore be it known to Bell, that he hath rung out a notorious untruth.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that Waldenses appeared to the world, one hundred years before the time our Friar nameth: viz. about the year 1169. and so hath he in this point, rung one notorious untruth, though but a very small one, in respect of his other manifold and most impudent lies. Secondly, that Chemnitius doth not confess, as our Friar impudently affirmeth. But wisemen may and will believe him at leisure, seeing he referreth them for the proof, to his invisible Book (The doleful Knell:) For I protest to all the world, that I can neither see it, nor find out any man, who hath seen that same Book: And therefore I have great reason to think, that no such Book is extant in deed; especially, because the Jesuits have long sithence, and many times affirmed, both in words and writings, that my Motives and Survey, were answered: which for all that, was such a notorious lie, as the said Books remain to this day unanswered; insomuch, 
Yea sundry have utterly renounced Popery.  as some of their dearest and most devoted vassals, are ashamed of their silence in that behalf, and begin to stagger and to doubt of the Popish Faith and Religion. My Motives were printed in the year 1593. And my Survey of Popery, in the year 1596. So as the Jesuits have had the former in their hands, now 15. years fully complete: and the latter, 12. years▪ with the vantage of a large assisse. 
Mark the▪ ●. Chapter well.  But more of this subject, in the 9 Chapter following (God willing) toward the end of the same. Thirdly, that our Friars two Witnesses (Guide and Cussordius) are in honesty and credit comparable to himself; base fellows, men of no reputation, Knights of the Post, who will say or swear any thing for the Pope's pleasure. Fourthly, that where our Friar saith without proof, that it is most certain, that one of the Heresies of the Waldenses, was against the Pope's Pardons; let him know from me, that therein he is a fowl mouthed lying Friar: For, Platina their dear friend the Pope's Abbreviator Apostol●●us, hath these express words. 
Platina in Bonif. 8. in med.  jubilaeum idem retulit anno millesimo trecentesimo, quo plenam delictorum omnium remissionem his praestabat, qui limina Apostolorum visitassent, ad exemplum veteris testamentj: Pope Boniface brought again the jubilee after 1300. years, and gave full Pardon of all sins, to such as did visit S. Peter's Church and S. Paul's, (in Vaticano at Rome) after the example of the old Law. Out of these words, I observe these golden Lessons. First, that the old jubilee was never heard of in Christ's Church, till the time of Boniface the jewish Pope. I prove it by the word (retulit, he brought again) from the jews. Secondly, that the Church was free from Popish Pardons 1300. years. Thirdly, that this Pope pardoned not only the pain, but even the sin itself; yea, all sins whatsoever. Fourthly, that this Pope brought again the jewish ceremonial Law. Fiftly, that the remission of the old Law (which our Papists pretend apishly to imitate,) was not of Sins, but of Debts, Lands, Bondage, and such like; which the Pope useth not to pardon: and yet forsooth, he would be thought to bring the jubilee again. 
Leu. 25. v. 11.12. Survey, part. 1. book▪ ●. chap. 5.  Of this jubilee, see wonderful Popish cozening tricks, lively discovered in their colours, in my Survey of Popery.   

The Perioch of the Chapter.  
First therefore, seeing the Pope's Pardons can not be found in the Holy Scriptures; Secondly, seeing the holy Fathers in old time, were not acquainted with them; Thirdly, seeing they depend intrinsically upon Purgatory, which the Greek Fathers never believed, as (God willing) shall be made evident in the next Chapter; Fourthly, seeing Pope Boniface was the first that gave general Pardons for all Sins, 
A.D. 1300.  in the year 1300. after Christ; I must perforce conclude against the Pope and Popery, that the Popish Pardons are a Rotten Rag, (not of the Old, but) of the New Religion. 
The next Chapter must be joined with this.  This Chapter connotateth an intrinsical order to the next following, and so must be coupled together with the same.    

The Jesuits 5. Chapter: of Popish Purgatory.  

B. C.  
IN this Chapter, after he hath disputed against Purgatory with the authority of Roffensis, he cometh to his recapitulation, and saith: Secondly, that the Church of Rome believed it not, for the space of 250. years: after which time, it increased by little and little.   

T. B.  
Whosoever shall but with an indifferent judgement peruse my Trial of the new Religion, together with this Answer of the Jesuit, (which is not of one man alone, but of many together; as will appear before the end of this my Reply, God willing,) that man doubtless can not but see as clearly as the noon day, that Popery is the New Religion. 
Popery is the new Religion, it can not be denied.  This is mine Answer; let it be well marked: For my life and soul I dare gage, that the Jesuits Answer showeth evidently to all judicious and indifferent Readers, that it is the truth which I defend; and that all the Papists in the world, are not able in truth to confute the same. His miserable shifts, his silly evasions, and cozening tricks, do every where, and in every Chapter declare; that the Jesuit is at a Non plus, and knoweth not for his life, how to defend the Pope. For, first, he never setteth down my words truly. Secondly, he doth but snatch at some of them, which seem to be of the least force and strength: which for all that, have more force in them, than he is able to deal withal. His first cozening trick in this present Chapter, is this: viz. That he not daring to allege all mine Assertion, 
His 1. cozening trick.  which truly containeth the true meaning of their famous Martyr so supposed, late Bishop of Rochester, as which are his own words in deed; he at the first, leapeth over 40. lines almost, in which the force of my Disputation resteth; and only toucheth my Recapitulation. This cozening trick being after his manner performed, he combineth an other with it, 
His 2. cozening trick.  implying a greater cozening by many degrees. This cozenage is contained in these words; (Secondly, that the Church of Rome.) I prove it first, because every Child knoweth that the first, goeth before the second. Secondly, because the first, 
The Jesuits use many cozening tricks.  which the Friar would not (because he durst not) touch at all, containeth (nay proveth) the main point in this controversy: the point is this. This Bishop was a Learned man, a great Papist, and said for Popery, what possibly he could; yet doth he grant many things, (of such force is the truth) which quite overthrow Popery, and turn it upside-down. First, we see by his free assertion, that the Greek Church never believed Purgatory to his days; and so it was to them unknown 1517. years: All this, the jesuit passeth over in deep silence, and beginneth at (Secondly.) Lo M. Fisher, that Learned bishop (for so I grant he was) telleth us plainly and resolutely, that the Holy Fathers and Learned men of the Greek Church, never believed Purgatory, until his time; that is, for the space of 1517. years after Christ. But our jesuit is so blind, that he could not see these words: Nay, rather he durst not acknowledge them, because he can not frame any colourable answer to them. This is the truth in very deed. His third cozening trick is in the omission and not speaking of these words; 
His 3. co●zening trick.  (Thirdly, that the Church of Rome did not believe Purgatory all at once, but by little and little.) These words our Friar J●suite durst not once name, lest they should have given him a mortal wound: For in deed to speak the truth, they strike dead. They show plainly, that as the holy Fathers of the Greek Church never believed Purgatory: so neither did the Fathers of the Latin Church believe it, all and wholly at one and the same time, but by little and little. Ah poor Purgatory! thy birth by piece-meal, maketh thee the New Religion. Thou art a Monster, among the jesuited Papists. Thou wast neither begotten, nor borne at once; but by little and little. O silly Popery! O new Religion! His fourth cozening trick is implied in omitting these words: 
His 4. cozening trick.  (Fourthly, that the invention of Purgatory, was the birth ●f Popish Pardons; as which could have no place, till Purgatory was found out by feigned revelations.) Mark how gallantly our Jesuit confuteth Bell. 
What truth is in Popery: we see, that our Friar feareth once to touch my grounds. He doth but snatch at odd parts of my Disputation. not able to say aught to the r●st.  You see, he is not able to endure the sound of the Bell: Of five points of great consequence, he durst name only two; the Second forsooth, and the fifth. Of the five, three seemed every way unanswerable. To the second and the fifth, he thought he could say something, in show of words; albeit very nothing, in the truth of the matter: Which (God willing) shall soon appear, after the due examination of his words. But first, (because the controversy is a main point of Popish Religion, and the ground of Popish Pardons,) I will take the pains to lay open to the Reader, the express words of the Bishop their glorious Martyr. Thus doth he write▪ I will not alter, add, or take away one word, upon my salvation▪ to answer it. Sed et Graecis ad hunc usque diem non est creditum Purgatorium esse. Legat qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios, et nullum quantum opinor, aut quam rarissimum de Purgatorio sermonem inveniet. 
Roffens. Cont. art. Luth. art. 18.  Sed neque Latini simul omnes, at sensim huius rei veritatem conceperunt. Et Paulo post; non absque maxima sancti spiritus dispensatione factum est, quod post tot annorum curricula Purgatorij fines et Indulgentiarum usus ab orthodoxi● generatim sit receptus. Quamdiu nulla fuerat de Purgatorio cura, nemo quaesivit 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 revelationibus, partim ex Scripturis fuisse creditum, atque ita tandem generatim eius fidem ab orthodoxa Ecclesia fuisse receptissimam, facillime rationem aliquam Indulgentiarum intelligimus. Quum itaque Purgatorium tam sero cognitum ac receptum Ecclesiae fuerit universae, quis iam de Indulgentijs mirari potest, quod in principio nascentis Ecclesiae nullus fuerat earum usus? Caeperunt igitur Indulgentiae, postquam ad Purgatorij cruciatus aliquandiu trepidatum erat:  
The greeks to this day, do not believe there is a Purgatory. Read who will the Commentaries of the ancient Greek Writers, 
A.D. 15●7.  and he shall either find very seldom mention of Purgatory, or none at all. 
If thou mark well this Doctrine, proceeding from the pen of such a famous & learned Papist; thou canst no● but abhor the Pope and late startup Popery.  But neither did the Latin Church conceive the verity of this matter all at one time, but by little and little: Neither was it done without the wonderful dispensation of the Holy Ghost; that after so many pluralities of years, Catholics both believed Purgatory, and received the use of Pardons generally. So long as there was no care of Purgatory, no man sought for Pardons: for of it dependeth all the estimation, that we have of Pardons. If thou take away Purgatory, to what end shall we need Pardons? For, if there be no Purgatory, we shall need no Pardons, Considering therefore how long Purgatory was unknown; then, that it was believed of some by little and little, partly by Revelations and partly by Scriptures, and so at the last, believed generally of the whole Church; we do easily understand the cause of Pardons. Since therefore Purgatory was so lately known and received of the Universal Church, Who can now admire Pardons, that there was no use of them in the primitive Church? Pardons therefore began, after the people stood in some fear of Purgatory. These are the words of M. Fisher sometime our bishop 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 Popery, (to which he was wonderfully addicted,) spared not so say and to plead what possibly he could invent, for the free passage and credit of the same: Whose best pleading, (which he possibly was able to afford the Pope and Popery) doth roundly and clearly turn it upside down. I desire the Reader right heartily, even in the bowels of our Lord jesus, to mark attentively, and then to judge and give his censure Christianly, 
I wonder, how any can read such Popish Doctrine, and be a Papist still.  between the Jesuit and myself. Which if he shall indeed perform, (all partiality set apart) he can not but evidently perceive (my life I gage for the trial) that Popery is the New Religion. He can not but see, that the truth is that which I defend. He can not but behold as clearly as the noon day, that the Friar is condemned in his own conscience, and can not tell what to say. For first, their most Learned bishop and glorious Martyr telleth us constantly and plainly, that the famous Fathers and Writers of the Greek Church, 
S. Basill, S. Gregory, S. Chrysostome and the rest.  never believed Purgatory. And who were those Greek Writers? S. Basill, for his great skill, surnamed the great; S. Gregory Nazianzen, for his surpassing knowledge in Divinity, surnamed Theologus; S. Chrysostome, for his Learning and Eloquence surnamed, the Golden mouth: to say nothing of all the rest: If these ancient Fathers, these Holy men, these so learned and so famous Writers, with all the rest of the Greek Church, 
Late Popish Pardons, prove Popery to be the new Religion.  did not believe there was a Popish Purgatory for the space of 1517. years; for so long after Christ, was this bishop living; who for all that (as we have seen) affirmeth unawares against himself, the Pope, and Popery; that they believed it not in his time: What noddies, what fools, how void of all feeling, of all sense, of all reason, may they justly be censured? Who to the eternal peril of their souls and salvation, will needs believe such erroneous, heretical, and most execrable Doctrine, such diabolical Faith, and plain Heathenish Religion. Secondly, that the Latin Church (and consequently the Church of Rome) did not believe the aforenamed Purgatory, for many hundreds of years after S. Peter's death; whose successor the Pope boasteth himself to be. Thirdly, that this Purgatory was not believed of the Latin Church at one and the same time, but by little and little. Fourthly, that Purgatory was believed in the latter age, by special Revelation of the Holy Ghost. Fiftly, that Pardons came not up, until Purgatory was found out; as which without Purgatory, can have no use. Sixtly, that Purgatory was a long time unknown. Seuently, that Purgatory could not be found in the Scriptures, of a long time. Eightly, that it was not wholly found out by the Scriptures, but partly by Revelations. Ninthly, that Pardons were not heard of or known to the primitive Church. Tenthly, that then Pardons began, when men began to fear the pains of Purgatory.  
Behold here (gentle Reader) what a worthy Fisher was my Popish Lord of Rochester: he hath caught with his Net at one draft, ten goodly Fishes; that is to say, ten golden and worthy Lessons for Christian edification. Which effect will appear more evidently, before the end of this Chapter.   

B. C.  
Secondly, that the Church of Rome believed it not (that is Purgatory) for the space of 250. years: after which time, it increased by little and little. This either he meaneth is gathered out of the testimony of Roffensis; and that is not true: for nothing doth Roffensis speak of 250. years, or deny that Purgatory was always believed in the Church; although he confesseth, that the Doctrine thereof was not so well known, as now it is; which is far different from this Proposition: Purgatory was not believed of the Church of Rome, for the space of 250. years after Christ. Or else he affirmeth of himself, that Purgatory was not believed until that time: and then must I be so bold to tell him, that it is also a manifest untruth.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that as our Friar is bold, untruly to charge me with untruethes: so I must be bold to return the same untruethes unto himself; and for his just demerits, reward him with the Whetstone. Secondly, that while our Friar Jesuit would very gladly impose upon me two untruethes, so to hide the nakedness of Popery; he hath committed no fewer than three notorious Lies. First, he saith roundly, though untruly, that Roffensis (the bishop of Rochester) speaketh nothing of 250. years. 
His first notorious lie.  This is his first notorious lie. I prove it sundry ways: First, because he telleth us resolutely, that the Greek Fathers believed not Purgatory, for the space of 1517. years; & consequently, not for the space of 250. years. Secondly, that after many pluralities of years, Purgatory and Pardons were received. Thirdly, that Purgatory was a long time unknown. Fourthly, that afterward some believed it by little and little. How sayest thou now, sir Friar, doth your Popish bishop say nothing, of 250. years? Are not 250. contained in 1517. years? Do not many pluralities of years, something touch 250. years? Dost not thou o Friar, 
Argumentum ad hominem. Pag. 65.  extend the age of the primitive Church (how truly shortly will be seen) unto 250. years? And yet doth the bishop tell thee, that both Pardons and Purgatory, were unknown to the primitive Church: Ergo, I must score this up, for a flat and known lie. Secondly, he saith impudently, that the Bishop doth not deny, that Purgatory was always believed in the Church. 
His second notorious lie.  This is his second notorious and shameless Lie: I prove it by a threefold argument: For first, the Bishop saith plainly in express words, that the Greek Fathers (S. Chrysostome, S. Basill, S. Gregory, S. Epiphanius, and the rest of those great Learned men, and stout Champions of the Church,) believed not Purgatory, for the space of 1517. years. Secondly, that the Fathers of the Latin Church believed it not for many years. Thirdly, that afterward some believed it by little and little. Where I wish the Reader to observe seriously, this word (deinde, 
Mark well the word (deinde.)  afterward;) for it striketh dead, confoundeth the jesuit, and proveth manifestly, that Popery is the New Religion. The case is so clear and evident, as every Child may easily perceive the same: For, that which was believed afterward, must perforce be unbelieved at the first. Again, that which was sometime unknown, must needs be sometime unbelieved; or else our Friar must needs say (which for his Lugs he dareth not say) that the Pope forsooth and his jesuited popelings, believed they know not what. His third notorious Lie is this: 
His third notorious lie.  viz. that I untruly charge their bishop of Rochester, in fathering upon him, that the Church of Rome believed not Purgatory, for the space of 250. years after Christ. For, I have evidently and irrefragably, deduced out of the bishop's express words; 
The Church of Rome believed not Purgatory for the space of 1000 & odd.  that the Church of Rome believed not Purgatory, for more than 250. years thrice told: yea, not for the space of more than one thousand years. I prove it once again, to the Jesuits and the Pope's everlasting shame. Mark well my Discourse for Christ's sake, gentle Reader: for in so doing, thou canst not but abhor and detest Popery, as a fond and new Religion. I protest upon my salvation, that I believe as I write; as also, that the late Bishop of Rochester (whom our Friar nameth Roffensis, 
john Fisher, the Bishop of Rochester.  which word only connotateth the place where he was bishop, but is not his name,) proveth the same effectually: this is the proof. First, the bishop telleth us constantly, that the Greek Church never believed Purgatory. Secondly, that the Latin Church did not believe it of a long time. Thirdly, that afterward some few believed it by little and little. Fourthly, that it was generally believed not but of late years. Fiftly, that Pardons began to be sought for, and to be granted, when the people stood a while in fear of Purgatory pains. To which I add; that Pardons began not until Bonifacius the eight, 
A.D. 1300.  1300. years after Christ; as I have already proved out of Platina, the Pope's devoted vassal, and sometime his Abbreviator Apostolicus. And consequently, that seeing such Pardons as I speak of in this place, were not known for the space of 1300. years after Christ: and seeing withal, that they were in use shortly after Purgatory began to be feared; 
Mark well this Discourse: for it striketh dead.  it followeth by a necessary and inevitable illation, that Purgatory was not known and believed, for the space of 1200. years at the least: And so I trow; nay am well assured, not for the space of 250. years after Christ; even by the flat testimony of their great learned Popish Bishop, my late Lord of Rochester.   

B. C.  
As I have proved against him in the doleful Knell, out of S. Denis S. Paul's scholar, and Tertullian; yea, and to his utter confusion, convinced out of himself.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that when our Friar is at a non plus, then would he be thought to have done that else where, which he is not able to perform in deed: and therefore doth he many times send me, to this invisible Book; of which more at large (God willing) before the end of this Discourse. Secondly, that if ever I can see the Book (as I hope to do, if any such Book be extant in rerum natura,) I shall with speed convenient, frame mine answer to the same; not doubting, but the Confusion will be his own, after due examination of the same: And in the interim, let him this know by the way, and before hand, that his Book is a silly and doleful thing indeed; 
O brave defender of Popery.  as which by his own confession here, hath no better Authors to rely upon, than a counterfeit Denis, and a Montanizing Tertullian. Thirdly, that what he can possibly gather out of all my Books, the same hath he in this present pretenced Refutation set down at large; whether to his own shame and confusion, or to mine, let the indifferent Reader judge.   

B. C.  
In this place I will add the Testimony of his brother Perkins, who in his Problem confesseth, That Purgatory was first received by Tertullian the Montanist: wherein is one open untruth; to weet, that He was the first; for he only affirmeth it, but proveth it not; and no marvel, when he can not, seeing most certain it is, that it came from the Apostles. 
It is a most certain Lie, and a shameless untruth.  Non temerè. etc. Not without cause (saith S. Chrisostome) these things were ordained of the Apostles, that in the dreadful mysteries, commemoration should be made of the dead; for they know that thereby much gain doth come unto them, & much profit.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that our Friar in one place, calleth M. Perkins, 
Pag. 62. Pag. 391.  The Puritan of England; and in an other place, objecteth my Book penned against them: Howbeit here, he must needs be my Brother, and I oppressed with his Authority. Secondly, that our Friar hath no sooner objected M. Perkins against me, but forthwith he oppugneth his Assertion. Thirdly, that he affirmeth it for a most certain truth, that Purgatory came from the Apostles. Which more bold than wise affirmance, I return unto our Friar, for a most certain and shameless Lie, for a most notorious Slander, and for an intolerable Blasphemy against the blessed Apostles of our Lord jesus. I prove it sundry ways. First, because S. Chrysostome was one of the chiefest and best Learned Fathers of the Greek Church; 
Perhaps S. Chrysostome and the other holy Greek Fathers feeling Purgatorie-fire, believed it when they were dead.  who, (as my Lord of Rochester hath told us very plainly and resolutely,) never believed there was any Popish Purgatory, while they were living here on earth; and consequently, that Purgatory can never be truly fathered, upon that great learned & holy man. Secondly, because those Homilies▪ from whence our Friar would gladly fetch Purgatorie-fire, are counterfeit & not S. Chrysostom's indeed. Whereof this is an argument insoluble, that the Greek Fathers did never believe Purgatory. For, if S. Chrysostome had taught Purgatory in his Books, bishop Fisher that glorious so supposed Popish Martyr, could not truly have written, and constantly avouched to the whole world, as he did, that the greeks never believed Purgatory. Thirdly, that if the Apostles had taught Purgatory, then could not so many, so Learned, so holy Fathers of the Greek Church, have been so long time, even till their death, ignorant thereof. Nay, if the Latin Church in their days, had received Purgatory, as a tradition Apostolical, they would never have withstood it; but most reverently have admitted, and most Christianly believed the same. Fourthly, that if we suppose and grant our Friar thus much, to cheer up his spirits a while: viz. that they are S. Chrysostom's words, which he citeth in his name; yet will it not serve his turn, to build Popish Purgatory thereupon: For, the words do only prove this, and no more; to weet, that th'Apostles taught Commemoration of the dead. Which myself am so far from disliking, that I have many years ago approved it in my Survey of Popery. Yea, 
Part. 3. Chap. 6. Pag. 308.  the Papists in their public Prayers, make frequent and usual Commemoration of their Martyrs; whom they for all that, deny to be in Purgatorie-fire, and freely grant to be in Heaven: And so they can not infer Purgatory, out of the Commemoration of the dead. To this I add; that Prayer for the dead (which is more than Commemoration) may in a godly sort be used: as I have showed at large, first in my Motives, and afterward in my Survey. More than which, the jesuit can not infer out of his Author, as his Marginal note doth declare. I therefore conclude, that our jesuit hath rung out a notorious untruth, when he telleth his Reader, that Purgatory came from the Apostles.   

B. C.  
here the judicious Reader may also note, how the Minister contradicteth himself. In his Survey, entreating of Purgatory, he saith: Thus by little and little it increased, till the late bishops of Rome made it an Article of Popish Faith. Where in the Margin, he noteth the time, thus. In the year of our Lord 250. here he saith, that the Church of Rome believed it not, for the space of 250. years: After which (as he telleth us) it increased by little and little. And so in this place, he maketh the seed of Purgatory not to have been sown before the year 250. and afterward to have increased till it came to perfection. 
These are most notorious and impudent lies: the Devil of Hell hath his part therein.  There he affirmeth, that the seed was sown before, and increased by little and little, until it became ripe and perfect Popery; which was in the year 250. And so Purgatory was sown and not sown; grown, and not grown: an article of Faith, and not an article of Faith, in the same one year 250. I will not deny but the Minister hath some skill in botching together of old ends of Divinity, gathered out of the Rag market of Calvin, and such like Geneva-merchants; yet I fear me, it will be hard for him so to cobble the sayings together, that the flaw of a contradiction appear not.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that where our Friar pretendeth some fear that I can not defend by any cobbling, my contradiction by him so supposed; I am so free from it, that I ween his heart will pant, so soon as he shall peruse my answer to the same: For so God help me, I wonder he is not ashamed so to write. O tempora! O mores! I would not have imagined, that the Master Devil of Hell had so possessed him, as to make him the instrument of such notorious, 
Out upon the impudent lying of Jesuits  execrable, and plain diabolical Lies. Never did any man hear, know, or read, such shameless, palpable, and gross untruethes. Who will not exclaim and cry out of Popery, that shall read this Friars Answer, and this my Reply joined with my Trial and my Survey; in which he would seem to ground his devilish and abominable Lies? Fie, fie; how can he think, that any of wit and iudgemet, will believe him? He perceiveth right well, that the truth published in my Books, can never be truly answered: and therefore silly Papists, (who dare not for fear of Popish tyrannical censures, read my Books) must perforce receive and believe his most execrable Lies, for the truth. Oh, that they would once read my Books! nay but this one Reply, with a single eye and indifferent judgement, all partiality set apart, He knoweth, that he falsely accuseth me: his own conscience (though never so bad) can not but condemn him. Every child may easily discern, that the truth is on my side. The case is so clear, my words so plain, and the truth thereof so apparent, as every judicious and honest Reader must needs think him worthy to have a Whetstone tied at his Girdle, 
O holy Friar! O worthy councillor of the Pope's O noddy! Folly hath begotten thee.  a Foxtail in his neck, and a Fooles-bable in his hand. If Popery through mortal wounds received, were not past recovery; if the truth published in my Books, were not unanswereable; if the jesuit were not at a Non plus, not able to defend the Pope and his late startup Romish Faith, he would never thus delude the world, with his most notorious Lies and deceitful dealing. 
Mark well for Christ's sake.  In my Survey (mark well for Christ's sake) these are my express words, in the third part and sixth Chapter. Afterward, Origen being too much addicted to his allegorical speculation, feigned many odd things touching Purgatory; 
See Survey, part. 3. chap. 6. and mark it well. A.D. 250.  as the Ethnic Plato (whom he much imitateth) had done before him. After Origen, others began to call the matter into question, others rashly to believe it, others to add many things to Origens' conceit. Thus by little and little it increased, till the late Bishops of Rome made it an Article of Popish Faith. In my Book, 
See the Trial, chap. 5. and mark it well.  entitled (The Trial of the new Religion) these are my express words. First, we see that the Greek Church never believed Purgatory to his days, (I speak there of john Fisher late bishop of Rochester,) and so it was unkowen to them 1517. years. 
O brave Purgatory! the Greek Church never believed thee.  Secondly, that the Church of Rome believed it not, for the space of 250. years: after which time, it increased by little and little. These are my very words in both my Books (The Survey, and The Trial, I mean,) out of which our Friar Jesuit (who may seem to be begotten of some Fairy Bratte, as the Secular popish Priests write of the jesuit Robert Parsons, the Author of this scurrilous, shameless, impudent, and lying Libel,) would seem to conclude and find out against me, a strange Contradiction: viz. that in the one Book I make the seed of Purgatory not to have been sown, before the year 250. And afterward, to have increased till it came to perfection. 
The jesuit hath as many lies, as words.  And that this notwithstanding, in my other Book, I make the seed sown before, and to have increased by little and little, until it became ripe and perfect Popery, which was in the year 250. And thereupon he inferreth, that Purgatory was sown, and not sown; grown, and not grown; an Article of Faith, and not an Article of Faith, in one and the same year.  

For this, see the Anatomy of Popish Tyranny.  Now to this lusty Gallant, a poor begging Friar by profession (though as the Secular Priests their brethren in Popery, tell them, they shame with that occupation, as who must have their Chambers Perfumed, Gentlewomen to pull off their Boots, & themselves to troll up and down from good cheer to good cheer, at their own good pleasures;) I return this Answer, which (if nothing else would) is able to strike him dead. First, that he hath uttered as many Lies, as he hath done lines. His first Lie is this: 
His first lie.  viz. That I say in my Survey of Popery, that the seed of Purgatory was sown before the year 250. 
His second lie.  His second Lie is this: viz. That I affirm in my said Survey, that Popery was ripe and perfect in the year 250. 
His third lie.  His third Lie is this: viz. That I make Popery sown, and not sown, in one and the same year. 
His fourth lie.  His fourth Lie is this: viz. That I make Purgatory grown, and not grown, in one & the same year. His fifth Lie is this: viz. That I make Popery an Article of Faith, 
His fifth lie.  and not an Article of Faith, in one and the same year: that is to say, in the 250. year after Christ. Secondly, that albeit he charge me with sundry untruethes, 
No untruth, but what proceeds from the Iesui●es pen.  and more than a little please himself therewith; yet is there no untruth at all, but those false accusations, which proceed from his own lying lips. No other proof need be made thereof, but the bare recital of my words: For doubtless, the Jesuit either speaketh against his own knowledge; or else he is so besotted & blinded with malice, that he can not see Wood for Trees. Thirdly, that our Friar showeth himself to be a right jesuit: that is to say, a shameless and impudent Liar: For, the Letters and Figures in the Margin (A.D. 250.) do not connotate the words following, 
A.D. 250.  but the words immediately aforegoing: Which no man of judgement and reason, can for shame deny. For first, I say plainly, that Origen feigned many odd things touching Purgatory. Again, I say expressly, that after Origen, others began to call it into question. Where I wish the indifferent Reader, to observe seriously these two points with me. First, that Purgatory could not be ripe and perfect, when it began but to be called into question. Then, that this calling into question was after Origen; who was living about 250. years after Christ: And consequently, that the 250. years must needs have relation to the time of Origen and his immediate followers; as who (all approved Chronographers testifying the same) lived about that time. And this is confirmed, because I do not speak of the bishops of Rome barely and absolutely, 
I speak of the late Bishops of Rome.  but with a restriction implied in this word (late.) I in all my Books, do ever repute S. Austen, S. Chrysostome, and others, that lived 400. years after Christ; not late Writers, but old and ancient Fathers: which is an evident argument, that I applied my Marginal note to the time of Origen & of his immediate followers, and not to the late bishops of Rome; whom I contend to be men, not of the Old, but of the late and New Religion. So as every child may see, 
O sweet jesus, who seeth not Popery to be the new Religion.  that our jesuit not able to defend Popery, nor to withstand the truth; and yet unwilling to yield to the truth and to condemn Popery, in which, and by which he liveth in wealth, pomp, and glory; employeth himself and his wits with might and main, heaping Lies upon Lies, furnished with notorious cozening tricks every where, so to dazzle the eyes of his Reader lest he behold the truth, and so condemn the rotten Rags of Popery for the New Religion. He is at a non plus, his Back is at the Wall; all his pleading for late startup Popery, is fraughted with nothing else, but cozening tricks, notorious cavils, impudent calumnies, and false dealing.   

B. C.  
In the same place he writeth thus: Fiftly, that the primitive Church was never acquainted with the Pope's Pardons, nor yet with his counterfeit and forged Purgatory. A notable untruth; for not to speak of Pardons, but of Purgatory; was it not the primitive Church which believed Purgatory, when as himself confesseth, that it was made an Article of Popish Faith in the year 250. at what time, all the Popes were martyred for Christ; and in his Funeral, he acknowledgeth the first thirty for godly men, saying, that both they and divers others, taught the same doctrine which S. Peter had done before them; and most certain that one of these thirty, lived in the year 250. and so I trow, they were of the primitive Church? The Minister is full of distinctions, & his brain a shop of solutions, having many, Isayes, for the answer of any Objection: 
It is already proved, that the Friar is a most impudent liar.  Yet it is to be feared, that no devise will free him from a gross untruth; affirming here. that the primitive Church was not acquainted with Purgatory, and yet teaching in his Survey, that Purgatory was made an Article of Faith by the late Popes of Rome, in the year 250.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that our Friar is willing here, as afore, to pass over in deep silence the Pope's Pardons, as a thing not possible to be defended. Secondly, that our Jesuit seemeth more impudent, than Impudency itself; as who is not ashamed again and again to iterate, most gross, palpable, and shameless Lies. 
The jesuit snatcheth at this piece & that piece, but toucheth not the principal.  I have already refuted him plentifully, and honestly discharged myself of that untruth, which he would gladly impose upon me, concerning the making of Purgatory an Article of Popish Faith. Thirdly, that I do not in any one of all my Books, impute the invention of Purgatory, to any one of the first thirty Bishops of Rome; as whom all I honour in mine heart, & have ever spoken and written reverently of them. Fourthly, that I do not only trow, but am well assured, that our Jesuits trowing, is a mere leasing; while he avoucheth 250. years, to be within the compass of the primitive Church. I prove it, because all Christ's Apostles (who were the primitive Church,) were dead long before that time, of which our Friar speaketh. Fiftly, that our friars fear is a flat Lie, and so not able to kill a Fly; albeit it be more than Crambè bis posita, and most irksome tautology, or rather plain and mere foollerie.   

B. C.  
I let pass, how Purgatory must by his own confession, be Apostolical doctrine, when it was taught by those Popes which he granteth to have holden the Faith of S. Peter; as I have proved against him in the doleful Knell. I omit also how falsely and ridiculously he calleth the Pope's that lived 1450. years ago, the late Popes of Rome. Verily it should seem by his writing, that he little careth what passeth from his Pen, so it be walking against the Pope and Popish doctrine.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that by my confession, as also by my evident and plentiful demonstration, our Jesuit is a most shameless, impudent, and lying Friar; from whose answer if we shall once take away his notorious calumnies, his miserable cavils, his cozening tricks, and his deceitful dealing, little or rather nothing at all, will remain to the Reader, Secondly, that not only this Jesuit himself (if he had not a face of Brass,) but all other Jesuits & his Jesuited brethren, would blush to publish so often and so falsely, the same assertions so often confuted and turned upside down. Thirdly, that for want of matter, our Friar doth often refer his Reader, to an unknown and invisible Book, (of which more hereafter,) called by him, The doleful Knell. Fourthly, that I have so sound confuted his false & ridiculous Cuckow-song, and most irksome tautology, concerning the late bishops of Rome, as I must needs say, he is maliciously bend against the truth. Fiftly, that it is apparent to all the world; that our Jesuits will publish any thing though never so ridiculously, if it may any way but seem to save the life of rotten Popery. Peruse and mark well the Chapter aforegoing, because popish Purgatory is the Mother of popish Pardons.    

The Jesuits sixth Chapter, of Popish Auricular Confession.  
OF this Subject, albeit I have disputed sufficiently in my Motives, & more at large in my Survey; yet that the Christian reader may the better be assured, that Popery is the New Religion, I will in this place summarily prove the same, by such invincible and irrefragable arguments, as every Child with all facility may perceive, that Popish Auricular Confession, is but a rotten Rag of the New Religion. Which being performed, the friars words shall be examined, and refuted to his confusion.  

The first Conclusion.  
Whatsoever Christ commanded in the New Testament, the same is comprised and contained in the Old. I prove it sundry ways: First, because S. Paul saith plainly in one place, 
Act. 20. V. 27.  That he uttered the whole counsel of God. And because withal he saith as plainly in an other place; 
Act▪ 26. V. 22.  That he taught nothing at all, save those things only, which the Prophets and Moses did say should come to pass. And here if any admire, how S. Paul could show unto men, all the Counsel of God; Nicolaus Lyranus, and Dionysius Carthusianus, 
Lyr. in 20. cap. Act. Apost. Carthus. ibid.  two Learned and famous Papists, teach us thus to answer: That th'Apostle meaneth not simply, of All the Counsel of God; 
joh. 5. V. 47.  but of All the Counsel of God so far forth as appertaineth to man's salvation. Secondly, because Christ himself telleth the Jews, That if they had believed Moses, they would also have believed him. But for that they would not give credit to the writings of Moses, neither would they believe his Words: Which illation of our Lord jesus, should be frivolous and of no force at all, if the New testament were not contained in the old. Thirdly, because S. Augustine affirmeth constantly; 
Aug. contra Adriantum, cap. tom. ●. pag. 121.  that the new Testament is so largely comprised in the Old, as no precepts can be found in the New, which are wanting in the Old: these are his express words. In eo tanta praedicatio et praenuntiatio novi testamenti est, ut nulla in evangelica atque Apostolica disciplina reperiantur, quamuis ardua et divina praecepta et promissa, qu● illis etiam libris veteribus desint: In the Old Testament, the New is so largely preached and foreshowed, that nothing can be found in the discipline or Doctrine of the Gospel and of Th'apostles, although they be hard and Divine Precepts and promises, which are wanting in those old Books. Thus we see out of this holy Father, that the New-testament is largely contained in the old.   

The Second Conclusion.  
Popish auricular confession, is not contained in the old Testament. It is enough for the proof hereof, that no learned Papist ever did, doth, or can deny the same. Yet will I here add the express words, of a zealous and learned Papist, whose name is Polydorus. 
Polydor. libr. 6. cap. 1.  Ante Christs Aduentum, s●t ●rat mente fateri Deo Commissa. 
The jesuit B.C. p. 67. granteth, that Scotus is of the same opinion.  Before the Aduent and coming of Christ, it was enough in mind, to confess our sins to God. Thus writeth Polydorus, and it is the General Doctrine of all learned Papists: And doubtless, the holy Gospel (which is the law of Christian liberty,) doth not impose upon us, an heavier Yoke, than did the old Law, which was the Law of bondage.   

The Third Conclusion.  
All things necessary for Man's salvation, are perfectly and plainly contained in the Holy Scripture. This Conclusion I have plentifully proved, in the Downfall of Popery. But here I will prove the same, to the admiration of many, 
S. R. pag. 284.  by the express words of a known adversary; even of the Jesuit S. R. in his pretended answer to the said Downefal. First therefore, the Jesuit hath these words. All such points of Christian faith, as are necessary to be actually believed of every one, that hath use of reason, though he be never so simple, are actually contained in Scripture, either clearly or obscurely. Thus writeth our Jesuit, affirming the same to be the doctrine of their Cardinal Bellarmine. 
S.R. pag. 285.  Secondly, the Jesuit hath these express words. For surely, the Prophets & Evangelists writing their Doctrine for our better remembrance, would omit no one point, which was necessary to be actually known of every one, especially, seeing they have written many things which are not so necessary. And this Conclusion teacheth S. Austin, 
S. Austin. tract. 49. in johan. to. 9  when he saith: That those things are written, which seemed sufficient for the salvation of the Faithful. Thus writeth our jesuit, affirming the Doctrine to be the flat opinion of S. Augustine, that holy Father and stout Champion of Christ's Church. 
S.R. pag 286.  Thirdly, the Jesuit hath these express words: Me thinks S. Augustine plainly avoucheth, that God hath procured every thing to be clearly written, 
S. Cyril, lib. 11. in joan. cap. 68  which to know is necessary to every man's salvation. The same teacheth S. Cyrill, saying: Not all things which our Lord did, are written; but what the writers deemed sufficient, as well for Manners as for Doctrine; that by right Faith and Works, 
Chrysosto. 2. These. ho. 3.  we may attain to the Kingdom of Heaven. And S. Chrysostome; What things soever are necessary, are manifest out of Scripture. Thus writeth our Jesuit, in his pretenced Answer to the Downfall of Popery. Which Doctrine to be so plainly delivered by our Adversaries, may seem a wonderment to the Christian world: For it clearly turneth upside-down, the chiefest bulwark of Popish unwritten Traditions; and in effect, all Popish Faith and Religion. The common good which cometh to the Church of God, by writing against the Adversaries of his Truth, is hence apparent to all the World. For, after the swaggering jesuit S.R. with the advise of Bellarmine and others, had bickered so long with the Downfall of Popery, that the fall had almost broken their necks; then overcome with the dint of Arguments and force of the Truth, he was as it were violently compelled to write as we here see, in defence & behalf of the Truth. To which (for the better manifestation of this truth so necessary to be known, 
Epiphan. Haeres. 65. nos ●quidem vnius●uiusque quaestionis inventionem, non ex proprijs ratiocinationibus dicere po●●imus, sed ex scripturarum consequentia. ) I will add yet an other Testimony of our Jesuit, in these words: Truly said S. Epiphanius, that we may tell the invention of every question, out of the consequence of Scripture. He said not, Out of the Scripture: For all cannot be taken thence; as himself writeth: but of the consequence of them. Because all questions are resolved out of the Scriptures, or out of that which followeth of them, as the effect of the cause. Thus the jesuit approveth unawares, the self same Doctrine, which I in the Downfall do defend. And consequently, the very weapons which our Adversaries put into our hands, are sufficient (God be blessed for it) to defend us and our cause against them.   

The Fourth Conclusion.  
Popish Auricular Confession, is not necessary for man's salvation. For first, seeing all things necessary for salvation, are contained in the holy Scriptures, as in the third Conclusion: Secondly, seeing all Precepts and Promises of God in the New, are contained in the Old Testament; as in the first Conclusion: Thirdly, seeing Popish Auricular Confession is not contained in the Old Testament, as in the second Conclusion: it followeth by a necessary and inevitable consecution, that Popish Auricular Confession is not necessary for man's salvation. This truth will yet better appear, in the Conclusions following.   

The fifth Conclusion.  

Popish confession is neither commanded by Christ, nor by his Apostles.  Popish Auricular Confession is neither commanded by Christ, nor yet by his Apostles. I prove it; because it is not contained in the Old Testament; as in the second Conclusion: Which Testament for all that, containeth all the Precepts of the New; as may & doth appear to the indifferent reader, in the first Conclusion.   

The sixth Conclusion.  
Popish Auricular Confession was instituted and established by the mere Law of man, grounded only upon a falsely imagined Apostolical unwritten Tradition. I prove it many ways. First, because the Pope's own Decrees refer the matter, to the judgement of the Reader: viz. Whether one be bound to Confession Auricular, by God's law, or by Man's law. 
Ex Leone Papa, de penitent. dist. 1. cap. quamuis.  These are the express words, as Gratianus hath published the same: Quibus authoritatibus vel quibus rationum firmamentis utraque sententia satisfactionis, et confessionis nitatur, in medium breviter exposuimus: Cuj autem harum potius adhaerendum sit, lectoris judicio reseruatur. Viraque. N. fautores habet sapientes et religiosos viros: 
Lo, wise and religious Papists hold, that Confession was ordained by the law of man.  Upon what Authorities or foundations of Reasons either opinion is grounded, I have briefly showed: But to whether of them it is better to adhere, that I leave to the judgement of the Reader: for either opinion hath Wise and Religious men, for the Patrons of the same. Behold here (gentle Reader) that not only the Pope's Doctors, but his own Canon-law, and the Commenters upon the same, do all confess; that Confession after Popish manner, is only & solely grounded upon Man's law. Yea, the Popish Gloss addeth; That both Wise and Religious men do so think, though some others hold the contrary. Secondly, because the great Thomist (who for his rare skill in Theology, was surnamed Absolutus Theologus) Sylvester Prieras, doth deliver his opinion in these words. 
sylvest de Confes. secundò, part. 4.  Quarto, utrum ad confessionem teneamur divino iure vel humano? Et dic●, quod Canonistae videntur tenere, quod sit de iure positivo. Et ad hoc est Glossa de paenit. Dist. 5. In summa, quae vult quod instituta sit a quadam universali traditione Ecclesiae. Ideo infert, quam confiteri non tenentur infideles, nec similiter Graeci; ex quo non acceptaverunt huiusmodi constitutionem, sicut nec vot●● castitatis: It is demanded fourthly (saith the great Learned Papist Sylvester) whether we be bound to Popish Confession by the law of God, or by the positive Law of man? And I say the canonists hold, that we are bound by the Law of man. And of this opinion is the Gloss, which is of this mind, that Confession was instituted by a certain universal tradition of the Church. Whereupon the said Gloss inferreth, that Infidels are not bound to Confession, neither the greeks in like manner, seeing they did never approve such Constitution, as neither the vow of Chastity. Thirdly, because the highly renowned Papist Martinus Navarrus, confesseth constantly and plainly, that their solemn Gloss commonly received and approved of all canonists, holdeth Confession to be commanded by the Church. Fourthly, because the famous Canonist, most reverend Archbishop, and honourable Cardinal Panormitanus, 
Covarruv. ●om. 1. par. 1. pag. 155.  was of the same opinion with the Gloss. For Couarruv●as a very learned Popish Archbyshoppe delivereth his mind in these words: Quam ex nostris plerique secuti sunt, maximè Panormitanus; ex ea asserentes, confessionem sacramentalem quae Sacerdotibus fit, iure humano institutam esse: Which Gloss, many of our canonists have followed, especially Panormitanus, affirming out of that Gloss, that Sacramental confession made to Priests, was ordained by the law of man.. Fiftly, because Scotus the Popish subtle school Doctor, surnamed for his great skill (Doctor subtilis,) after he had largely disputed pro et contra of Popish Auricular confession, concludeth in these words: 
Scotus in 4. libr. sent. dist. 17. q. 1.  Apparet ergo, istud non esse de iure divino promulgato per scripturam Apostolicam. Vel ergo tenendum est primum membrum, scilicet quod sit de iure divino promulgato per evangelium; vel si illud non sufficiat, dicendum est tertium; scilicet quod est de iure divino positivo promulgato a Christo Apostolis, sed Ecclesiae promulgato per Apostolos absque omni scriptura: It therefore appeareth, that it is not of the law of God published by Apostolical Scripture. We must therefore either hold the first member, to wee●e, that it is of the law of God published by the Gospel; or if that will not suffice, we must say the third: that is to say, that it cometh from the positive law of God published by Christ to his Apostles, but published by the Apostles to the Church without all Scripture. Thus writeth the Popish Doctor subtilis; 
Lo, Popish Confession is either one thing, or other: this or that, they can not tell what.  who with all his subtlety can not tell in the world what to say, in defence of their Popish Auricular confession. For, after he hath discoursed to the uttermost of his wits, and employed his whole care, industry, and diligence, to see what help might be had in that behalf; his best resolution is to say, with the old doting man of Carlton. That it is either one thing or other. For first, he freely confesseth, that it is not in the Old law. Secondly, that it is not in the Scripture of th'Apostles. Thirdly, that we must either hold this or that; but he can not tell whether. Fourthly, that how soever we think or say of this Popish Auricular confession, this perforce we must resolve to be the truth: 
The Papists cannot endure the written testimony of God's truth.  viz. that it is grounded upon Unwritten tradition, without all manner of Scripture. This is it, which our Papists must ever fly unto, as to their best and last trump. For which respect, their learned and canonised Martyr the late bishop of Rochester confessed plainly, that the holy Scriptures will not serve their turn: these are his express words. 
Roffensis art. 37. ad●. Luth. Pag. 11.  Contendentibus itaque nobiscum Hareticis, nos also subsidio nostram oportet tueri causam, quam scriptura sacra. Therefore when Heretics contend with us, we must defend our cause by other means, then by the holy Scripture. Thus writeth bishop Fisher the Pope's canonised Saint and glorious Martyr; a Learned man indeed: who (as we see) for all his Learning, was not able to defend Popery by God's word; and therefore he fled from the holy Scriptures, to unwritten Traditions; as Scotus did afore him. And for the same respect, Covarrwias' a famous Popish Bishop and a great learned man, confessed and published to the whole world; that howsoever the truth was, that which their Pope did, must of necessity be defended. These are his express words. 
Covar. to. 1. part. 2. Cap. 7. Par. 4.11.14. in med.  Nec m●latet, etc. Neither am I ignorant, that S. Thomas affirmeth after great deliberation, that the bishop of Rome can not with his Dispensation, take away from Monks their solemn Vow of Chastity. 
what the Pope holdeth, that must be defended.  This notwithstanding, we must defend the first opinion; lest those things which are practised every where, be utterly overthrown. Behold here (gentle Reader) that howsoever the Pope's opinion be (whether true or false, that skilleth not,) the same we must defend of necissitie. And why I pray you, must this be done? Because forsooth (saith Covarruutas,) otherwise Popery will be turned upside down. 
Caietan. cap. 20. in johan.  Sixtly, because their famous Cardinal Caietanus affirmeth roundly, that Auricular and Secret confession, is against Christ's institution; as also the Precept that urgeth us to the same: For, albeit he approve Confession, as instituted by Christ; yet doth he add a double restriction: First, that it was Voluntary: then, 
Ponder well the next Conclusion.  that it was neither Secret, nor of All sins. Which twain for all that, the late bishops of Rome affirm and urge, as necessary to Salvation. Mark well the next Conclusion, out of the Popes own Decrees.   

The Seventh Conclusion.  

A.D. 1215. Ab Innocentio 3 et. ●●is. Angles in. 4. S. pa●●. 1. pag. 255.  Popish Auricular Confession was not an Article of Popish Faith, for the space of 1215. years. I prove it, because their famous Friar and reverend Popish Bishop josephus Angles, affirmeth peremptorily and without all Ands or Ifs; that none were Heretics for the denial of the necessity of Popish confession, until the Decree of their late Council of Latheran, which was holden 1215. years after Christ. And the Friar bishop yieldeth this reason for the same: viz. Quia nondum erat ab Ecclesia declaratum: Because the Church (of Rome) had not before that time, declared it to be so. To which I add, for the complement of this controversy; that the Holy & Ancient Fathers (those stout Champions and mighty Pillars of Christ's Church, 
Popish auricular confession was not heard of in old time. ) were never acquainted with Popish Auricular confession. I prove this, by a double argument. First, by the fact of the holy Bishop Nectarius: then, by the joint-testimonies of Nicephorus and Rhenanus. Concerning Nectarius that holy and worthy bishop of Constantinople, he abolished the Law made for Confession, so to avoid the great Vices which ensued thereupon. Where the Reader must observe two things with me: th'one, that in the Ancient church, Public Penance was enjoined to those, who publicly denied the Faith in time of Persecution. And that some were so zealous, and so highly esteemed the sacred ministery, that although they did not deny the Faith publicly, yet for that they had some doubts therein, and were troubled in their minds, they voluntarily disclosed their secret griefs to God's Ministers, humbly desired their Godly advise, 
Nicephor. lib. 12. cap. 28. f.  & submitted themselves to do what was thought expedient by those Ministers, whom the Church had placed to enjoin Penance for public sins. Th'other, that notwithstanding the whoredom of the Deacon and other vices, neither would that holy Bishop Nectarius ever have attempted to abolish Confession (if it had been God's ordinance,) neither would so many famous Bishops have imitated his fact. And yet is it most certain, (as shallbe seen by and by,) that all for the most part Easterne-Byshops did follow his opinion. Yea, even S. Chrysostome, who succeeded Nectarius at Constantinople, that goodly patriarchal seat of the World. Concerning Nicephorus and Rhenanus, their own express words shall here be laid open to the Reader. Nicephorus, after he hath told us what Nectarius did, immediately addeth these words: 
Nicepho. lib. 12. cap. 28.  Quem etiam ferè Orientales Episcopi omnes secuti sunt: Whom almost all the bishops of the East did follow and imitate. Again, he addeth toward the end of that Chapter these words. 
Auricular Confession is not necessary.  Itaque de quorundam, maximè vero Eudaemonis Ecclesiae eius Presbyteri, patria Alexandrini Consilio, ne postea in Ecclesia Presbyter paenitentiarius esset, Nectarius statuit; suadentibus illis, ut cuique permitteretur pro conscientia et fiducia sua communicare, et de immaculatis mysterijs participare: Therefore Nectarius being advised by sundry, especially by Eudaemon an Elder of that Church, borne in Alexandria, made a Decree through their persuasion, that from that day, no Priest should hear the Confessions of the penitentes, but that every one should be permitted to communicate and to be partaker of the holy Mysteries, as his own Conscience and Faith did move him. 
Rhenan. in annot. in lib. Tertul. de pae.  Beatus Rhenanus, after he had discoursed at large, how the Ancient Church appointed Priests over the penitent, that they might give them counsel how to make satisfaction according to the Canons which themselves did not understand: and withal had proved out of S. Cyprian, S. Chrysostome, S. Basill, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Bede, Tertullian, Hesychius, Theodulphus, Theodorus, Bertramus, Rabanus, and Nectarius, (all which he alleged for his opinion,) he delivered his own judgement in these words: Non aliam ob causam complurimi hic testimonijs usi s●mus, quam ne quis admiretur Tertullianum de clancularia illa admissorum confessione nihil locutum; quae quantum coijcimus, penitus id temporis ignorabatur: For no other cause have I here used the testimonies of so many Writers, but least any should marvel, that Tertullian spoke nothing of that secret Confession, which (as I think) was utterly unknown at that time. 
Lo, Auricular Confession not heard of in the ancient Church  Lo, Tertullian spoke not one word of Auricular confession, as the great learned Papist Rhenanus telleth us: And he yieldeth this reason thereof; viz. because Auricular or Secret Confession, was wholly unknown in those days. I further add for the accomplishment of this Conclusion, that which the said Rhenanus citeth out of a famous and learned Papist Geilerius; These are the words: 
Popish Confession is unpossible, even by the confession of Papists.  Thomas Aquinas et Scotus, homines nimium arguti, confessionem hody talem reddiderunt, ut johannes ille Geilerius gravis ac sanctus Theologus, qui tot annis argentorati concionatus est, apud amicos suos saepe testatus sit, juxta eorum denteroseis impossibile esse confiteri: But Tho. Aquinas and Scotus, men too much delighted with subtleties, have brought Confession this day to such a pass, that johannes Geilerius, a grave and reverend Divine, and a Preacher a long time at Argent●ratū, said many a time unto his friends; that it was impossible for a man to make his Confession, according to their Traditions. Out of these words, I note first; 
Mark well for God's sake.  that the vain curious distinctions of the Schooledoctors, have brought much mischief into the Church of God. Which if a Papist had not spoken it, would seem incredible to the world. Secondly, that it is impossible for a Papist to make his Confession, according to the Popish Law. And consequently, 
Who will not be at defiance with Popery, that deeply pondereth these things.  that all Papists by Popish Doctrine, must perish everlastingly. Mark well my words (gentle Reader,) as thou art careful of thine own salvation. The Papists teach us to hold for an Article of our Belief, that we are bound to make our Confessions as the Pope's Law prescribeth: that is, as Aquinas (whose Doctrine two Popes have confirmed for Authentical) and Scotus (the Pope's Doctor subtilis) have set down the same. And for all that, Geilertus a Papist himself & a great learned man, complained often to his friends; that none could possibly perform the same. Now then, since on the one side Popish Confession must be made, and that under pain of damnation: and since on the other side, none possibly can make the same, as it is commanded; it followeth of necessity, 
Out upon Popery, it is flat Heresy.  by Popish doctrine; that Papists must be damned eternally. Thirdly, that many living among the Papists, do externally seem to obey the Pope's Law; who in their hearts, detest a great part of their late hatched Romish Religion. This is evident, by the secret complaint of the learned Papist Geilerius; who told that to his trusty friends, which he durst not disclose to others. Yea, God hath even among the Papists in Italy and Rome, many thousands, which have not, or do not this day, bow their knee to Baal. Read my Survey, 
Survey, part. 3. cap. 12. pag. 504.  and it will satisfy thee in this behalf. Let us now hear our Jesuit, and confute his fond cavils and ridiculous sophistications.   

B. C.  
Scotus inquireth by what Law a man is bound to Confession, and determineth first in general, that the precept must grow from one of these Laws; either from the Law of Nature, or the Law positive of God, or the Law of the Church: And descending to particulars, he resolveth first, that we are not bound by the Law of Nature. Nextly, he disputeth, whether it groweth from the precept of the Church; and not liking that opinion, he proceedeth to the next member, and saith: To be short, it seemeth more reasonable to hold the second member; that Confession falleth under the positive Precept of God. But then we must consider (saith Scotus) whether it be found explicitly in the Gospel immediately from Christ, 
Scotus can not tell what to say of their Popish Confession.  because it is manifest (quoth he) that it is not in the old Law; or whether it be from him expressly in some of the Apostles doctrine: or if neither so nor so; whether then it was given of Christ by word only, & published to the Church by the Apostles? And having made this triple Division, how Confession might come by the Precept of God: that is, either first commanded by him in the Gospel; or else secondly, to be found in some of the Apostles writings; or lastly, instituted of Christ by word of mouth only. And having disputed of the first two members, with dislike of the second, he concludeth, that we must either hold the first member; to weet, that it cometh from the Law of God published by the Gospel: or if that be not sufficient, we must say the third, that it is of the positive Law of God, published by Christ to the Apostles; but published by the Apostles to the Church, without all Scripture.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that albeit our Jesuit useth much babbling, 
Lay away unwritten Traditions, and Popery is at an end.  turning himself this way, that way, and every way, to annoyed and cassire (if it were possible,) the verdict & censure of their subtle Doctor Scotus; yet is all that he saith in this Chapter, as also all that any other jesuit or Papist in the world is able to say in the same subject, sound and most evidently refuted, in the sixth Conclusion aforegoing. For the last and best Resolution that Scotus could invent, (after he had disputed the Question pro et contra, so profoundly as his wits could conceive,) was even this and no other; viz. that Popish Auricular Confession is not grounded upon Christ's Gospel or Apostolical writing, but only and solely upon unwritten Tradition; which is an huge and deep Gulf, without any bottom. If the sixth Conclusion be duly pondered, and understood aright, the Jesuits back is at the wall. Yet I will add thereto one other Confirmation, which is deduced and plainly related in the Pope's own Decrees: these are the express words. 
De Paenit. Distinct. 1. cap. quamuis.  Quidam Deo solummodo confiteri debere peccata dicunt, ut Graeci. Quidam vero Sacerdotibus confitenda esse percensent, ut tota ferè Ecclesia sancta. Quod utrumque non sine magno fructu intra sanctam fit Ecclesiam; ita dumtaxat, ut Deo qui remissor est peccatorum peccata nostra confiteamur: Some say, we must Confess our sins only to God, as the greeks do. Other some say, we must Confess them unto Priests, as doth almost the whole Church. Either of which is done with great good, within the holy Church; so only, that we Confess our sins to God, who is the forgiver of sins. Thus are we taught, by the Pope's own sweet dear Decrees, published in print, to the view of the whole world. Out of which Decree, I observe these memorable documents for the help of the Reader. First, that the Greek Church never confessed their sins unto Priests, but unto God alone: Of which Church for all that, the Presidents & Governors were most holy & learned Fathers; viz. S. Epiphanius, S. Chrysostome, S. Basill surnamed the great, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Damascene, and many other most excellent and holy bishops. Secondly, that others hold the contrary, saying, that we must Confess our sins to Priests. Thirdly, that both these opinions are profitably practised in the Church, so we Confess our sins to God. Fourthly, that Popish Auricular confession (even by the Pope's own Decrees,) is not necessary to salvation, (as the Papists this day teach, and with Fire and Faggot violently urge the same,) but is a thing in deed indifferent. For, if it had been necessary unto man's salvation, all the holy and learned Fathers of the Greek Church, should have perished everlastingly. But some will here demand, how that can be proved? To whom I answer; that the same is plainly and expressly proved, in the Pope's own Decrees: Which is such a testimony against the Pope and his Popelings, as none greater can be had. The express words of the Popish Decrees, have already sounded in our ears. 
De paenit. dist. 1. cap. quamuis.  This mine Observation is confirmed, by the plain words of the same Decrees; where it is freely confessed, that that opinion, which holdeth sins only to be confessed unto God of necessity, is true, lawful, and honest. Let the words of the Decree be well marked, because it showeth all the holy Fathers of the Greek Church, to confound the Pope, and all his Jesuited Popelings. But let us hear the verdict of a famous popish Cardinal of Rome. Cardinal Caietanus (as we have seen already,) avoucheth constantly, that Auricular and Secret confession, is against Christ's holy Institution; as is also the Precept, that compelleth us to frequent the same. For the better explication of this famous Cardinal's Assertion, (because the Pope and his Jesuits can not endure to hear the same) I will here lay open before the eyes of the indifferent Reader, the best answer that the Papists have, or can invent against the same. josephus Angles that famous Popish bishop, (not well pleased with the Popish Cardinal, as it may seem) writeth of his Doctrine, in this manner. 
jos. Angl. in. 4. S. part. 1. pag. ●54.  Hinc intelliges cavendum esse Caietanum super joan. cap. 20. ubi duos errores affirmavit; unum est, institutam fuisse ● Christo Confessionem voluntariam, cum sit ab Ecclesia definitum necessariam esse ad salutem. Nam quod est voluntarium, ut 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 understand, that we ought to take heed of Cajetan upon the 20. of John, where he affirmeth two errors: the one is, that Christ instituted Confession voluntary, albeit the Church defined the same, to be necessary to salvation: The other is, that Christ did not institute Confession Auricular, which is made in the priests ear. And in the next page, the same Angles telleth us, 
jos. Angles ubi supra, pag. 255.  that the Council of Trent did of purpose condemn Caietans' opinion. By the doctrine of this great Learned Papist, (who was a Cardinal of Rome and a Friar Dominican,) we see clearly these three points: First, that the best learned Popish Doctors condemn Popery, and justify the doctrine of the Church of England. Secondly, that Auricular Confession was voluntary in the days of Cardinal Cajetan, 
The best learned Papists, do utterly condemn Popery for the New religion.  who lived above a thousand years after Christ. Thirdly, that this Cardinal gave such a deadly wound to Popish Confession, (a Rag of the New religion,) that the Council of Trent could find no better remedy, but to condemn his Opinion as Heretical. Wisely therefore doth the Popish bishop Angles exhort his Readers, to beware of Cajetan, Bonaventure, Hugo, Panormitane, and the Popish Gloss; because they all with the Pope's dear canonists tell us constantly, that Popish Confession hath no better ground, then pure Man's invention. And consequently, all such may justly be deemed as blind as Beetles; that do not see Popish Auricular Confession, to be a rotten Rag of the New religion.    

The Jesuits Seventh Chapter, Of Popish Venial sins.  
COncerning Popish Venial sins, I will first set down and lay open to the Reader, the state and truth of the Controversy now in hand: and that done, refute & refel the Jesuits counterfeit and pretenced Answer to the same.  

The 1. Conclusion.  
Every Sin is mortal of it own nature. I prove it sundry ways: First, because the Prophet in the spirit of God, pronounceth Death to be due to every Sin; 
Ezech. cap. 18. vers. 4.  Anima quae peccaverit, ipsa morietur: The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Secondly, because S. Paul teacheth us, that, The reward of sin, is death. 
Rom. 6.23.  Thirdly, because S. john affirmeth every Sin, to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that is to say, The transgression of God's Law: for so doth Ben. Arias Montanus that famous Popish Linguist, 
Ar. Mont. in 1. joh. 3.  translate the Greek word; and therefore, no denial can be made thereof. Fourthly, because the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the Scripture for Sin, and signifying, a declining or swerving from the right way, doth emphatically and plainly confirm the same. Fiftly, because S. Bede, Dionysius Carthusianus, and Nicolaus Lyranus, do all three with uniform assent, expound S. John of Mortal sin. S. Bede (who for his Learning and Virtue, was renowned throughout the Christian world, and thereupon surnamed Venerabilis) hath these express words: 
Beda in 1. joh. 3.  Virtus huius sententiae facilius in lingua Graecorum, qua edita est Epistola, compraehenditur. Siquidem apud eos iniquitas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocatur, quod significat quasi contra legem vel sine lege factum. Siquidem lex graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellatur. Sequitur; sed et Latinum nomen eidem rationi congruit, quod iniquitas quasi aequitati adversa nuncupatur. Quia quicunque peccat, contrarius nimirum aequitati divinae legis peccando existit: The force and efficacy of this sentence, is more easily perceived in the Greek tongue, in which the Epistle was written: for, Iniquity with them, is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth, As done against Law, or without Law: for the Law is called in Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Latin word also agreeth to the same reason, because it is called Iniquity, as being against Equity: For every one that sinneth, is by reason of sin, contrary to the equity of Gods Law. Dionysius Carthusianus a famous and learned Papist, hath these express words. 
Carthus. in. 1. john. 3.  Lex autem divina est aequitas ipsa; sicque mortale peccatum est iniquitas; id est, non aequitas, utpote violatio aequitatis: The Law of God is Equity itself; and consequently, Iniquity, that is, not Equity, as the transgression of Equity, is a mortal sin. Lyranus an other famous Popish Writer, hath these words. 
Lyr. in. 1. john. 3.  Peccatum est transgressio legis divinae. Lex autem divina est ipsa aequitas; et ideo in omni peccato mortali est aequitatis corruptio, et per consequens, iniquitas: Sin is the transgression of God's Law; and the Law of God is Equity itself: And therefore in every mortal sin, there is corruption of Equity; and consequently, there is Iniquity. Sixtly, because holy Moses pronounceth every one accursed, 
Deut. 27.25. Gal. 3.10.  that keepeth not the whole Law. Seventhly, because five famous and great learned Papists, (jacobus Alma●nus, Durandus, Jo. Gersonus, Michael Baius, and Bishop Fisher,) not able to answer the reasons against Venial sins, do freely and constantly affirm without all Ands or ●ffes, that every Sin is mortal of it own nature. Our reverend bishop Roffensis hath these express words. 
Roffensis art. 32 advers. Luther. p. 32●.  Quod peccatum Veniale solum ex Dei miseri o●dia Ventale sit, in hoc tecum sentio: That a Venial sin is only Venial through the mercy of God, (not of it own nature,) therein do I agree unto you. Lo, the Popish glorious Martyr my Lord of Rochester, (who was as learned as any bishop or Pope of Rome), confesseth honestly and truly, that every Sin is mortal of it own nature. The famous and great learned man joannes Gersonus (otherwise a great Papist) can not deny this verity: for these are his words. 
Gers. de vit. spi●. lect. 1. pag. ●.  Nulla offensa Dei est Venialis de se, nisi tantummodo per respectum ad Divinam misericordiam, qui non vult de facto quamlibet offensan imputare ad mortem, cum illud posset iustissime. Et ita concluditur, quod peccatum mortale et veniale in esse tali non distinguuntur intrinsece et essentialiter, sed solum per respectum ad Divinam gratiam, quae peccatum istud imputat ad paenam mortis, et aliud non: No offence of God is Venial of it own nature, but only in respect of God's mercy, who will not de facto impute every offence to death, although he might most justly do it. And so I conclude, that Mortal and Venial sins as such, 
Popish mortal & Venial sins, are not distinguished essentially.  are not distinguished intrinsically and essentially; but only in respect of God's grace, which imputeth this sin to the pain of death, and not the other. Many other like sentences the same Learned man hath; but these may suffice to content any reasonable mind. Jacobus Almaynus, Durandus, and Michael Baius teach the very same Doctrine, as our Jesuit in this Chapter doth freely grant, not able to gainsay the truth therein. Now, out of the Doctrine of this great Learned man, (who was of high esteem in the Council of Constance,) I observe these golden Documents. First, that every Sin is Mortal of it own nature. Secondly, that no Sin is Venial, save only in respect of God's mercy. Thirdly, that God may most justly condemn us, for the least Sin we do▪ Note seriously gentle Reader, this word (iustissimè, most justly,) for it confoundeth our Jesuited Papists, and striketh dead. Fourthly, that Mortal and Venial sins, are the very same intrinsically and essentially, and do but differ accidentally: 
Mark this point well; for it is of great consequence.  that is to say, they differ in accident, but not in essence and nature; in quantity, but not in quality; in mercy, but not in deformity; in the subject, but not in the object; in imputation, but not in enormity; save only, that the one is a greater Mortal sin, then is the other: For, (as M. Gerson avoucheth learnedly,) God may most justly condemn us, for the least sin we do, howsoever our Jesuits and jesuited Papists do flatter themselves, in their cursed deformed Venials.   

The Second Conclusion.  
Every Sin is against the Law of God; and not only besides the Law, as the Popish Thomists & Jesuits would have it. I prove it by many arguments. First, because we must give an account of every idle word, 
Mat. 12. v. 36.  at the general doom; as our Lord jesus telleth us: which doubtless we should not be bound to do, if the least idle word were not against Gods Law. For, how can God a most just judge, condemn us justly for that sin, which of it own nature is Venial? He can not do it, for his justice sake. The Jesuit S. R. in his pretenced Answer to the Downfall of Popery, is bold with God in that behalf: These are his express words. 
S.R. Pag. 268.  He is no wise person, who will fall out, and be offended for ever with his friend for every trifle; as the taking up of a Straw: nor he is a just Prince, who should inflict death for stealing a Pin. And I believe Bell would think himself unjustly handled, if he were so dealt withal: Wherefore, if God should do this, we should neither account him a wise Friend, nor a just Prince. 
O saucy Friar! thy impudency is intolerable.  These are the words of S. R. that shameless Jesuit, whom B. C. our Friar his brother, calleth a Learned man. Secondly, because S. Austin defineth Sin thus: Peccatum est transgressio Legis: 
Aug. de cons. evang. lib. 2. C. 4. cont. faust. lib. 22. cap. 27.  Sin is a transgression of the Law. The same holy Father in an other place, defineth Sin in this manner: Peccatum est dictum, velfactum, vel concupitum aliquid, contra Legem aeternam: Sin is a word, deed, or thought against the eternal Law (of God.) And what the eternal Law is, he showeth in the words next following, which are these. Lex aeterna est ratio Divina vel voluntas Dei, ordinem naturalem conseruari iubens, perturbari vetans: The eternal Law is the reason or will of God, which commandeth the order of Nature to be kept, and forbiddeth it to be broken. Thirdly, because S. Ambrose defineth Sin after the same manner, in these express words. 
Ambros. de parad. C. 8.  Quid est. N. peccatum, nisi prevaricatio Legis divinae, et caelestium inobedientia praeceptorum? For what is Sin, but the transgression of God's law, and disobedience to his heavenly precepts? Lo, Sin (saith S. Ambrose) is nothing else, but the Transgression of God's law: that is to say, nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as S. John termeth it; and as Arias Montanus doth interpreat it. Fourthly, because Josephus Angles that famous Popish Friar and bishop, teacheth the same doctrine, even in that Book which he dedicated to the Pope himself: these are his express words. 
josephus Angles in 4 S.P. 215.  Omne peccatum veniale est alicuius Legis transgressio. Patet, quia omne veniale est contra rectam rationem; et agere contra rationem, est agere contra Legem naturalem, praecipientem, non esse a regula rectae rationis deviandum. Every Venial sin, is the transgression of some Law. This is evident, because every Venial sin is against right reason: and to do against right reason, is to do against the law of Nature; which commandeth us not to decline or serve from the rule of right reason. The same religious Friar and learned Popish bishop, hath in an other place, these words. 
jose. Angles in 2. sent. pag. 249.  Regula qua bonitas nostrarum actionum mensuratur, vel est temporalis, et est recta ratio nostri intellectus; vel est aeterna, quae est voluntas divina, cui subordinatur temporalis. Ideo. N. aliquid est contra rectam rationemque est contra voluntatem Dei, quae est regula aeterna. Et defectus istarum regularum, est universa malitia nostrarum operationum: The rule with which the goodness of our actions is measured, is either temporal; 
Mark well this Popish Doctrine, for it confoundeth the Pope.  and it is the right reason of our understanding: or else it is eternal; which is the will of God, to which the temporal is subordinate. For therefore is any thing against right-reason, because it is against the will of God, which is the eternal rule: And the defect of these rules, is the whole malice of our actions. This is the constant and plain Doctrine of the Popish bishop, which he was bold to present to the Pope's Holiness; where it found kind acceptation, and therefore is, and must be authentical, though it give our Holy Father a deadly blow. Out of which learned Discourse, I observe these worthy Lessons. First, that every Venial sin, is against right reason. Secondly, that every Venial sin, is the transgression of some Law. Thirdly, that to do any thing against right reason, is to do against the law of Nature. Fourthly, that the law of Nature commandeth not to decline from the rule of right reason. Fiftly, that the temporal rule with which the goodness of our actions is measured, is the right reason of our understanding, which is given to every one in his creation, birth, or nativity. Sixtly, that the eternal rule, with which the goodness of our actions ought to be measured, is the Will of God. Seventhly, that therefore our thoughts, words, and works, are against right reason, because they are against the Will of God; which is the law Eternal. Which Observations, if they be duly pondered, do evidently prove and plainly convince, that every Sin is Mortal of it own nature. Fiftly, because every one is accursed, which keepeth not every jot of the Law. 
Deut. 27.25. Gal. 3. v 10. jacobi. 2. v. 10.  Sixtly, because Christ's blessed Apostle S. james telleth us plainly, That whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and but offend in any one precept, is guilty of all. Seventhly, because God will destroy all manner of Liars, and all workers of Iniquity. Odisti omnes qui operantur iniquitatem, perdes omnes qui loquuntur Mendacium: Thou hatest all workers of Iniquity; thou wilt destroy every one that is a Liar. Thus saith the holy Prophet of God, in the spirit and person of God. Out of which words, I observe two points of great consequence. First, that where all are comprised, 
This Argument striketh dead.  there not one among all, is excepted: and consequently, the sacred Text is to be understood, even of every least Sinner, and of every least Liar. Secondly, that where Destruction is for Punishment inflicted, there God's Law doubtless is transgressed: and so is every Popish Venial sin, against the Law. Eightly, because Christ himself teacheth us; That besides the Law, & against the Law, is all one in rei veritate, & in the truth of the matter. Qui non est mecum, contram● est; et qui non congregat mecum, spargit: 
Mat. 12. v. 30.  He (saith our Master Christ) that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. Ninthly, because Durandus a famous and learned Popish Writer, confuteth the fond invented distinction, of their Popish Canonised Saint Aquinas; which the Pope and his Jesuits hold, for the maintenance of late startup Popery: to weet, that Venial sins are praeter Legem, non contra: Besides the Law, but not against the Law. These are the express words of Durandus: 
Durand. in 2. sent. Dist. 42. q. 6.  Ad argumentum dicendum, quod omne peccatum est contra Legem Dei, naturalem, vel inspiratam, vel ab eis derivatam: To the Argument answer must be made; that every Sin, is against the Law of God, either natural, or inspired; or derived from them. And this opinion of M. Durand, is this day commonly defended in the Schools. So doth Friar joseph tell our holy Father the Pope: these are his words: 
jos. Angles, in 2. sent. pag 275.  D. Thomas et eius sectatores tenent, peccatum Veniale non tem esse contra Legem, quam praeter Legem. Sequitur: Durandus tamen et alij permulti hanc sententiam impugnant, affirmantes peccata venialia esse contra mandata. Et haec opinio modo in scholis videtur communion: S. Thomas and his followers hold, that a Venial sin is not so much against the Law, as besides the Law. But Durand and very many others impugn this opinion, avouching Venial sins, to be against the commandments. And this opinion seemeth now adays to be more common in the Schools. 
The Romish religion changeth often.  here I wish the reader to note by the way, out of the word (modo, now adays,) the mutability of late startup Romish religion; as also the dissension of popish Schooledoctors in the mysteries of their faith and Doctrine. 
See and note well the Jesuits Antepast, P. 109. et. pag. 119.  For in that their bishop the Friar saith▪ (modo, now adays,) he giveth us to understand, that their Romish Doctrine is now otherwise, than it was of old time, and in former ages. And, in that he telleth us of the great dissension, amongst their Doctors; he very emphatically layeth open to the Reader the uncertainty of Romish faith and Religion. For doubtless, if their tyrannical Inquisition, and the daily fear of Fire and Faggot, were taken out of the way, the Pope's ridiculous and plain Heathenish Excommunications, with his Decrees and Definitions in matters of Faith, would be of small account, and trodden under foot. This is a most worthy Note, and must be well remembered. For the Old Roman religion was Catholic, pure, 
I highly reverence the old Roman Religion.  and found; and with it, do not I contend. I only impugn the late startup Romish Faith and Doctrine, which the Pope and his Romish Schoolmen have brought into the Church. Tenthly, because Vega a great Learned Papist, very famous in the Church of Rome, doth not only teach every Venial sin to be against the Law; but withal he constantly affirmeth, that therefore none living, 
Away with Popish works of Supererogation.  can possibly keep the whole Law at once. For, albeit he hold, that every part of the Law may be kept at some time; yet doth he constantly deny that the whole 〈◊〉 kept at once: 
Vide Bellarm. tom. 3. ●0 l. 1216.  because one parti●●●●● broken with Popish Venials against the Law, while an other is kept.   

The third Conclusion.  
Albeit every Sin be Mortal of it own nature; yet are not all sins equal and alike, but one greater than an other. 
Mat. 5. V. 22.  I prove it first, because our Lord jesus doth distinguish the degrees of Sins, while he affirmeth him that is angry with his brother, to be guilty of judgement; him that saith to his brother (Raca,) to be guilty of a Council; him that calleth his brother Fool, to be guilty of hell-fire. Secondly, because the holy Gospel telleth us, 
Mat. 10. V. 15. There is great nequalitie in mortal sins.  that the Sins of the Sodomites and of the Gomorrhaeans, shallbe punished more remissly in the day of judgement, than the sins of those Citizens, who would not receive the Apostles, nor hearken to their preaching. Thirdly, because Tyrus and Sidon shall be more remissly dealt withal in judgement, than Corozain and Bethsaida. The case is clear, 
Luk. 10. V. 14. Note Chap. 28.  I need not stand about it: For, every Child can tell us, that it is a greater Mortal sin to steal a goodly Gelding, or a great fat Ox, than it is to steal a fat Calf, or a fat Hog: Yea, a greater sin to kill a Man, then to eat an Egg in Lent; though Popish inflicted punishment, doth not ever so insinuate. But hereof more at large, when I come to speak of Popish Lent.   

The fourth Conclusion.  
Venial sins of their own nature, are against Charity, and do break friendship and amity with God. I prove this Conclusion, against the Pope, his Jesuits, and all Jesuited popelings (whether in England, at Rome, or wheresoever else▪) by manifold and most important arguments, authorities, and reasons. First, because Gods holy Prophet affirmeth constantly, 
Esa. 59 V. 2.  that our sins have made a separation between God and us. Secondly, because th'Apostle teacheth us, that Light hath no fellowship with Darkness; 
2. Cor 6. V. 15.  Righteousness with Iniquity; Christ with Belial. Thirdly, because his will that committeth Venial sin, is opposite to Gods will, that ha●eth the same. And therefore the Pope and his Jesuits, must either deny that Christ hateth Venial sins, which they dare not do: 
Psal. 5. V. 4.7.  or else that Venial sins break friendship with him. For doubtless, that which a man hateth, he neither loveth, nor is in friendship with it. Yet the jesuit S. R. (whom his brother B. C. calleth, a Learned man,) is bold thus to write. 
S. R. pag. 270. pag. 271.  Venial sin destroyeth not Charity, nor breaketh Friendship with God▪ which is the end for which the Law was made. Again, in an other place thus: 
S.R. pag. 271.  For Venial sins whencesoever they come to be such, break not Friendship with God. Fourthly, because the breach of God's Commandments, standeth not with his friendship and love: For, our Saviour himself saith plainly; That if any love him, 
joh. 14. V. 23.  he will keep his Word. Again he saith; That none can be his Friends, nor abide in his Love, unless they do keep his Commandments. Again; 
joh. 15. V. 10.14.  The mark and badge of those that are in God's Favour, is the keeping of his Precepts. For, He that hath my Commandments, saith Christ, and keepeth them; 
Ioh, 14 V. 21.  he it is that loveth me. And yet (as we have seen in the Second Conclusion) every Lest sin that can be named, is a breach and transgression of Gods Law. Fiftly, because every Least sin that can be named, wanteth conformity to God's Law: and consequently, it breaketh Friendship with God: For, God's Friends are they, 
S.R. pag. 27●.  that do his Will, and conform themselves to his Law. 
joh. 15. V. 14.  Vos amici mei estis, si feceritis quae ego praecipio vobis: You (saith our Master Christ) are my Friends, if you shall do the things which I command you. Sixtly, because every one is accursed, that keepeth not the whole Law. 
Deu. 27. V. 25. Gal. 3. V. 10.  And consequently, every Popish Venialist (even he who committeth the Least sin of all,) breaketh Friendship and Amity with God: unless perhaps our Jesuits will say, (which I trow they neither will nor dare say) that one may be of God accursed, & still abide in God's friendship, love, & favour. Seventhly, because every Least sin must of necessity be confessed; 
Mat. 12. V. 36.  and consequently, every Least sin breaketh Friendship with God. Hence ariseth an Argument insoluble, which striketh all Papists dead: This is it, mark it well. All Sins, which must of necessity be confessed, break the friendship and favour of God: but all Popish so supposed Venials, must of necessity be confessed; Ergo, all Popish Venials, break the friendship and favour of God. The consequence is in form syllogistical & therefore it may not in any case be denied. It is in the first of the three Figures, and in the Mode, 
In prima Figura, et modo (Barbara.)  which the Logicians call (Barbara.) The Proposition is proved, because no reason can be alleged, or in truth be pretended, why any man should be urged to acknowledge Gods disfavour, who is and continueth in his favour. For which respect (as it seemeth) Martinus Navarrus (a famous Popish Canonist, and a man very skilful in Theology, 
Navar. in Euchirid. Cap. 21. Nu. 34. ) telleth us roundly without blushing, that Popish Venials must not be confessed of necessity: these are his express words. Quibus consequens est, posse quem si velit, confesso uno peccato venials, alterum tacere: Upon which it followeth, 
No sin so small, which breaketh not God's favour. For we must neither turn to the right hand, nor to the left. Deut. 5.32.  that one may if he list, confess one Venial sin, and conceal an other. In which Assertion, he unawares destroyeth Popish Auricular Confession: For, the Scripture commandeth the Confession of all sins alike: and consequently, if Popish Venial sins be not subject to their Auricular confession, neither are their Mortal sins subject to the same. No text of the holy Scripture (neither in the Old, nor in the New Testament) can truly be alleged, which urgeth the confession of the one, more than it doth of the other. For which cause, 
Caiet. in 20. cap. johan.  Caietanus that famous Popish Cardinal, affirmeth Popish Confession to be voluntary, and referred by Christ himself, to the free election of every one. Josephus Angles and others, are of the same opinion with Navarre. The Assumption I prove out of Christ's own words, which are these. 
Mat. 12. V. 36.  But I say to you, that men shall give an account in the day of judgement, of every idle word they speak. Now every Child knoweth, that to give an account of our Sins, is to acknowledge and confess the same. I prove it out of the Jesuit S. R. his words, whom the jesuit B. C. will needs have a great Learned man. This jesuit fore frighted with the fall he got, while he was bickering with the Downfall of Popery, answereth in these terms. 
S.R. pag. 271.  I answer (quoth he,) that we must give an account for every idle word; not because they be against Law, but because they be beside it. And Bell (saith he) will beat his Horse, not only when he turneth back, but also when he starteth out of the way. Thus answereth our poor begging Friar, 
God will beat● our Jesuits, for starting out of the way of his Commandments.  being at his wits end what to say. He confoundeth himself, and perceiveth it not. True it is, that Bell will beat his Horse, when he starteth out of the way. And true it is in like manner, that God will beat our Jesuits for their cursed Venials, when they in committing them, start out of the way of his Commandments: and he will withal tell them, that he hateth all workers of Iniquity; 
Psal. 5. v. ●.  and so them with their deformed Venials. He will also tell them, that he doth not acknowledge them for his Friends; seeing they do not his will, nor walk in his ways. Eightly, 
joh. 15. v. 14.  because every Least sin of it own nature, averreth from God, and can not possibly be referred to him: 
Nullum om●ino peccatum potest in Deum referri.  and consequently, it neither doth nor can enjoy the friendship and favour of God. And our Jesuits blaspheme the name of God, when they most unreverently and very brutishly affirm; that God should be unjust and unwise, if he should be offended with them for their so supposed Venials. The jesuit S.R. hath these express words. 
S.R. Pag. 268.  He is no wise person, who will fall out and be offended for ever with his Friend for every trifle, as the taking of a Straw: nor he is a just Prince, who should inflict death for stealing a Pin: 
O horrible Blasphemy! what will not jesuits write?  And I believe Bell would think himself unjustly handled, if he were so dealt withal: Wherefore, if God should do this, we should neither account him a wise Friend, nor a just Prince. Thus doth our Friar in the name of all the cursed jesuitical crew, take upon him roundly to censure God Almighty. To which horrible and blaspheamous Assertion of our presumptuous Jesuit, I answer to his everlasting confusion (unless he repentin time, 
Mark well my words. ) in this manner. First, that Man's doings can not fitly be compared with Gods most Holy, most Wise, and most Pure Decrees. For which respect, God telleth us by the mouth of his Prophet, that his ways are not as ours. 
Esa. 55. v. 8. Rom. 9 v. 20.21.22. Rom. 11. v. 33. ●4. 55.  For, My thoughts (saith Esay,) are not your thoughts; neither are your ways, my ways, saith the Lord. God's Will, is the Rule, by which all man's thoughts, words, and works, must be measured: But Man's Will, is no Rule or Law to measure God's actions, or to direct his most Just, most Holy, and most Pure Purposes, Ordinances, and Decrees. Secondly, Man can but punish the body temporally; but God can punish both body and soul, eternally. Man can but punish the outward actions of man; 
Mat. 10. v. 28.  but God can punish both the outward acts, and the inward thoughts. Man can but punish the temporal injury done to man; but God can punish both that, and the eternal injury done to his most sacred Majesty, surpassing Omnipotency, and ineffable Deity. Offence done to Man, is finite and limited; but offence done to God, is infinite and illimited. Thirdly, Sins which are but small in respect of man, are exceeding great in respect of God. For example sake; a reproachful word spoken against a Mean private person, is respectively a small offence; the same word spoken against a Great parsonage, of high place in Church or Commonweal, is a far greater Offence: the same spoken against our Sovereign Lord the King, is the greatest of all three. And consequently, when we offend God, whose person is of infinite Worthiness, of infinite Majesty, of infinite Power; our offence obiectively must needs be infinite, howsoever our Jesuits and Jesuited Papists flatter themselves in their Venials. Fourthly, the things which are trifles, in our Jesuits judgement, are great and heinous Sins, in the tribunal of our Lord jesus. 
Genes. 3. v. 6. Gen. 19.26. Limbus Pu●rorum pontifi●ius.  Adam's eating of the Apple, was one of our Jesuits trifles. The looking back of Lot's wife, was an other. The sin of Infants in their nativity, was an other: For which respect, sundry of their best learned Doctors have invented a third place beside Heaven and Hell, for those Infants which die without Baptism. Superfluous idle Words, an other. All which for all that, 
Every sin is of infinite deformity▪ haltom obiective.  are heinous and grievous Sins with God. And no marvel, seeing the Least sin that can be named, is against the infinite Majesty of God: and consequently, of infinite deformity. And our jesuit S. R. showeth himself to be a very noddy, while he publisheth these words. 
S. R. Pag. 277.  For who will say, that a little superfluous Laughter, breaketh the order of Nature. 
Every Child of God will say it, seeing it is against gods Law.  Mark well gentle Reader, and thou shalt see Popery stricken dead. When our Jesuit S. R. was not able to answer the Authorities of the holy Fathers, laid open by T. B. in the Downfall of Popery; which did evidently convince, that the Breaking of the order of Nature, was against the eternal Law and Will of God; he was enforced to say, (as there is to be seen in the Page noted in this Margin, 
S. R. pag. 276.277. ) that the Fathers (S. Austen and S. Ambrose) defined such Sin, as breaketh the order of Nature; which also is Mortal Sin, not Venial. In which words, he unawares confoundeth himself: For, 
The jesuit confoundeth himself, while he granteth every sin against the order of nature, to be mortal.  he truly saith against himself; That the Sin which is against the Order of Nature, is a Mortal sin indeed. But withal he saith untruly, That a little superfluous Laughter, breaketh not the order of Nature. For if it be true, (as it is most true,) which Christ himself hath told us: viz. That every idle and superfluous word, breaketh the order of Nature, in that it is against the Law eternal: 
Mat. 12. V. 36.  it followeth by a necessary consequence, that every superfluous and idle Laughter, breaketh the order of Nature; in that it is against the Law eternal, to which the Law and Order of Nature is subordinate. To which I add to second my former proof, that the order of Nature as Nature, (to weet, 
The order of Nature before Adam's fall.  of Nature afore, not after Adam's fall,) was pure, free, and void of every spot, bleamish, excess, defect, or other fault whatsoever; and consequently, of every vain, idle, and superfluous Laughter. But perhaps our Friar will say, that idle and superfluous Laughter, is beside the order of Nature, not against the same; as he before affirmed his Venials to be besides the Law, but not against the Law of God. If he so do, the confutation is at hand. First, because Christ saith plainly, 
Mat. 12▪ V. 30.  that, He is against h●m, whosoever is not with h●m. 
Every sin is against Gods Law.  Again, because Vega, Durandus, Almaynus, Baius, Gersorus, and all the Popish Schooledoctors of best esteem, do avouch plainly and resolutely; That every Sin, even the least that can be named, is against the Law. Whereupon, Vega that great Learned Papist, (a man of high esteem in the late Council of ●rent▪) concluded egregiously and learnedly, 
Away therefore with Popish works of supererogation.  That the whole Law is impossible to be kept at once. For, albeit he grant, that every part of the Law may be kept; yet doth he withal confess, that while we keep one part thereof, we can not but break an other. Ninthly, 
No no prin●ipaliter. S. R. pag. 186.  because our Friar S. R. that Learned man, (as his brother Jesuit B. C. styleth him,) confesseth lustily (though unawares against himself,) that involuntary Concupiscence is nought, evil, & disorderly; because it is against the rule of Reason: and much more doubtless is superfluous voluntary Laughter, against the order of Nature, & rule of Reason: and consequently, it breaketh friendship with God, as being quite opposite to the eternal Law, which is his divine Will and Reason. Tenthly, because the same Jesuit freely confesseth in an other place, 
S. R. pag. 278.  That the Least Sins want equity and conformity to God's Law: and consequently, he must volens nolens confess withal; That his falsely supposed Venials, are truly Mortals, against God's friendship and his eternal Law. Now let us hear our Jesuit speak, for the honour of the Pope.   

B. C.  
The common opinion most received, and most sound, is, that some Sins of their own nature be small, or Venial; others great and Mortal. bishop Fisher, 
Lo, the jesuit unawares granteth the truth, against his Pope and himself.  and some four other, alleged by Bell, think that all Sins of their own nature, be Mortal; and that it proceedeth from the Mercy of God, that some be Venial; because he would not upon divers smaller Sins, impose so great a punishment: But notwithstanding this small difference, neither B. Fisher, nor any of the others, deny Venial Sins, as Bell and his consorts doth.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that the Papists themselves do not agree, in their Popish Faith and Doctrine; as the Jesuit here confesseth, to their confusion: 
Five great learned Papists are of Bells opinion.  For he freely granteth, that the great Learned Papists whom I named, (viz. Jacobus Almaynus, Durandus, Gersonus, Michael Baius, and bishop Fisher,) do all five constantly hold and defend, that all Sins are Mortal of their own nature. And withal he telleth us, that the Pope and Church of Rome hold the contrary opinion. Secondly, that Small sins, and Venial sins, are all one; as our jesuit here teacheth us. And myself will not deny, that some sins respectively are small of their own nature; 
Note well, that the Fathers call small sins Venial respectively.  as it is already proved, in the third Conclusion. To which I add, that the holy Fathers when they speak of Venial sins, do ever understand Small sins respectively. In which sense, myself do willingly admit Venial sins; as also, sins Venial by the mercy of God: But withal, I wish the Reader ever to remember, what Gersonus, Almaynus, Baius, Durandus, and Roffensis teach us: viz. that every least Sin is Mortal of it own nature; which is the flat Doctrine I here defend. Thirdly, that the difference amongst the Learned Popish Doctors concerning Venial sins, is a matter of small importance; which I exhort the Christian reader in the bowels of our sweet Redeemer, never to forget: For it doth plainly convince, (if nothing else could be said in that behalf,) that Popery is the New religion. What? is Popish faith a matter of Small moment? Is it not necessary to salvation? If the Pope will say it, I am ready to confirm it. Roffensis, Baius, Almaynus, Durandus, and Gersonus, (all being both learned and zealous Papists,) affirm constantly, the force of truth compelling them, that every Sin is Mortal of it own nature. chose, the Pope, his Jesuits, and Jesuited vassals, affirm, teach, and believe, as an Article of Popish Faith; that many Sins are Venial, even of their own nature. This notwithstanding, our Jesuit telleth us roundly, 
See Chap. 2. Conclus. 7.  (though nothing Clerkly,) that the difference is but small. So then, Articles of Popish faith are small, or great, as it pleaseth the Pope: His bare Will (as we have heard and seen,) is a warrant sufficient in every thing; as who can change the nature of things, (if we will believe him,) and of nothing, make some thing. Fourthly, that myself hold no Opinion, teach no Article of Faith, defend no Position; but such Opinions, Positions, and Articles, as the best learned Papists have holden, 
The Pope's Faith is confuted by Popish Doctors.  taught, and defended, before me: For my wonted manner ever hath been, is, and shall be, to wound the Papists with their own Weapons, and to con●ound the Pope with his best Learned Proctors.   

B. C.  
This being so, let us consider, what a notable untruth the Minister offereth to the view of his Readers, when he saith; Almaynus, Durandus, Gerson, Baius, and other famous Papists, not able to answer the reasons against Venial sins, confess the truth with the Bishop; that every Sin is Mortal: He doth cunningly abuse them in leaving out those words (of it own nature,) which ought to be added after their opinion: and himself likewise doth add, in citing of Roffensis immediately before.   

T. B.  
I answer: first, that the untruth our Friar speaketh of, proceedeth from his own lying lips; as by and by it will appear. Secondly, that our Friar doth falsely, peevishly, unchristianly, and impudently abuse both his Reader and me; 
Popery without lying, can not be defended.  when he chargeth me to abuse my Authors, in leaving out their words. What words sir Friar, have I left out? These words forsooth, (of it own nature) saith our jesuitical Friar. O malicious Jesuit! Where is thine Honesty? where is thy Christianity? 
O lying Friar! there is no truth in rotten newly invented Popery.  where is thy Faith? where is thy Conscience? Art thou become a flat Atheist? art thou at defiance with true dealing? Thou seems to make thy soul saleable for the Pope's pleasure. Doth not thine own Pen condemn thee, when thou grants that I added the same words, in citing of Roffensis immediately before? Let the indifferent Reader, be an indifferent judge between us. I added the words immediately before, as our Friar truly saith; it therefore had been an irksome tautology, to cite them again in the next words following; especially, seeing I affirm the Popish Doctors (Almaynus, Durandus, Gersonus, and Baius,) to hold and defend the self same opinion, 
The main point of the Controversy.  that bishop Fisher affirmeth to be the truth. Again, the Controversy consisteth precisely in this special point. viz. Whether every sin be Mortal of it own nature, or no. I defend the affirmative; the jesuit, the negative. And consequently, I must perforce speak of Sins, as they are in their own nature. O worthy defender, of late startup Popery! Thou perceivest right well, that Popery is the New religion indeed; and not able to withstand the truth, nor to answer mine invincible reasons and grounds: Thou fleest from that which is in question, to impertinent, extravagant, and frivolous cavils; so to dazzle the eyes of thy Readers, lest they behold the newness of late Romish Religion. Out upon such beggarly Religion, 
Popery is a beggarly Religion.  as which can not be defended, but by cavils, cozenage, lying, and deceitful dealing.   

B. C.  
After this untruth, immediately followeth another: Yea, the Jesuit S. R. (quoth he) with the advice of his best Learned friends, in his answer to the Downfall of Popery, confesseth plainly and blusheth not thereat, that the Church of Rome had not defined some sins to be Venial, until the days of Pius the fifth, and Gregory the 13. which was not fifty years ago. In which words he blusheth never a whit to slander that Learned man, and wholly to corrupt his meaning: He saith not, that the Church of Rome had not defined some sins to be Venial, until the days of Pius the fifth, and Gregory the 13. as this licentious castaway corruptly fathereth upon him. For he knew well, that to believe Venial sins, was an Article long received before the times of those Popes. But he affirmeth only, that to hold Venial sins only to be such by the mercy of God, was censured and condemned by those Popes. 
O most impudent jesuit.  Why did Sir Thomas his sincerity cut away these words (by the mercy of God?) Forsooth, because that without lying and corruption, he can object nothing against Catholic doctrine.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that our impudent Friar lieth egregiously, 
The Author's Protestation.  when he chargeth me to slander S. R. his learned Brother: For, upon my salvation I aver it, I deal christianly, honestly, and sincerely. I never change, add, or take away any one jot, of that which I find in mine Authors. Would to God, our Jesuits did so deal with me. Secondly, our Friar lieth impudently, when he uttereth these words: (He saith not, that the Church of Rome had not defined some sins to be Venial, until the days of Pius the fifth, and Gregory the thirteenth.) For these are S. R. his express words; 
S. R. Pag. 281.  True it is, that bishop Fisher and Gerson were in that error; but that was both before it was condemned in the Church, as it was since by Pius the fifth, and Gregory the thirteenth. In which words, the Jesuit S. R. telleth us two memorable points of Doctrine: Th'one, 
Mark the falsely supposed error.  that Fisher and Gerson were in an Error: Th'other, that the Error was before the Church had condemned it. So it only remaineth, duly to examine what the supposed Error was. The jesuit B. C. here telleth us plainly, if we may believe him; that the Popes (Pius and Gregorius) condemned that opinion only, which holdeth Venial sins to be only such by the mercy of God. I admit the Assertion; 
Sins only Venial by mercy, are mortal of their own nature.  I like the Narration: I only reject the Pope's frivolous, unchristian, and plain heretical condemnation. For I pray you sir Friar, are not those sins Mortal of their own nature, which are only Venial by mercy and favour▪ Doth not Venial only by Mercy, exclude Venial by all other ways and means; For doubtless, whatsoever is Venial of it own nature, can not be Venial only by Mercy. Only our fond jesuitical Friar, not able to defend Popery from being the New religion, is forced for want of matter, to say it. 
Nature and Mercy are far differens.  The nature of every thing is intrinsical and essential to the thing, and can not be taken away from the thing, without the utter destruction of the same. But every mean Logician, every young Grammarian, every witty Ploughman, and every Boy of discretion, is able to teach and tell our Jesuit; that Mercy is extrinsical and mere accidental 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, whatsoever is Venial not any other way but by the Mercy of God only, is undoubtedly Mortal of it own nature. And consequently, seeing all Sins were Mortal of their own nature, until the days of Pius and Gregorius, as our Jesuits freely grant; it followeth by a necessary and inevitable illation, that Venial sins of their own nature, were never known to the Church of God, until the irreligious and plain heretical Decrees of Pius the fifth, and Gregory the thirteenth: 
Vixit Pius, A.D. 1565. Vixit Gregor. A.D. 1572.  that is to say, for the space of one thousand, five hundred, threescore, and five years after Christ. For, the supposed error of Roffensis, Gersonus, Almaynus, Baius, and Durandus, (who all were very learned Papists; and for all that, taught and defended every Sin to be Mortal of it own nature,) was not condemned, (as we see and hear it freely confessed by our Adversaries,) until the time of Pius the fifth of that name. The truth therefore is this; viz. that the Church for the space of 1565. years after Christ, believed every Sin to be Mortal of it own nature. For, (as we have seen already in the first Conclusion of this Chapter, 
Concl. 1. huius cap. ex Gersono, et aliis. ) God may most justly condemn every least Sin to eternal Death and Hell fire. Yea, as M. Gerson learnedly writeth: he that holdeth the contrary, must perforce hold withal, that in some case Sin may be done lawfully, and be no Sin at all. And it is but a very childish and frivolous cavil, to say at our Friar here doth: viz. that it was an Article of Popish Faith long before Pius the Pope, 
The Romish Church believeth, it can not tell what.  to believe Venial sins. For, such Venialles were of necessity such, either of their own nature, or else of mercy only. If our Jesuit grant the latter, I have my desire: it is the truth which I defend. If the former, a double refutation is at hand. First. because the opinion of Almaynus, Roffensis, Baius, Durandus, and Gersonus, was very currant in the Romish Church, until the days of Pius and Gregorius, as our jesuit S. R. affirmeth, 
S. R. pag. 281.  and the Friar B. C. his dear Brother willingly admitteth. Again, 
Venial by Mercy, can not be Venial of it own nature.  because to be Venial both by Mercy & by Nature, implieth contradiction. The reason is evident; both for that sins Venial of their own Nature, stand not in need of any Mercy: and also for that Mercy mitigateth that punishment, which by the Nature of the subject might justly be inflicted. O miserable Popery! What silly shifts and childish cavils are invented, to defend thee from being the New Religion. If any shall henceforth call or think thee the Old Religion, (that shall hear thine age truly discovered,) I shall think him so wise, as not to know when to come out of the rain. Thirdly, 
Tertiò Principaliter.  that our jesuit showeth himself more impudent, than Impudency itself; while he beareth his Readers in hand, that I have cut away these words of mine Author, the jesuit his Learned brother, (By the Mercy of God.) For, I refer myself to the express words of the jesuit, 
S. R. pag. 281.  in his pretenced Answer to the Downfall of Popery; which I have truly recited in the Trial of the New religion, as I will answer at the dreadful day of doom. 
Out upon rotten Popery, it consisteth of lying, and forgery.  But our Jesuit not able to defend Popery from being the New Religion, addicteth himself wholly to forgery, falsehood, and lying: for otherwise, both he and all his Jesuited crew, are at a Nonplus, and have nothing at all to say.   

B. C.  
The same Catholic writer, noted him in the place cited by himself, of two untruths: The one, for calling bishop Fisher the Pope's Canonised Martyr: the other, for styling Gerson a bishop. Neither of which be true: but he skely passeth over them, 
See and note the trial.  as not knowing (poor wretch) what to say in his own defence: into such straits doth this domineering Doctor drive himself, by his talon of overlashing.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that the Pope may have a cold heart, when he seeth Popery bleeding unto death, and no Popish Doctor able to staunch the same. Our controversy is of the Nature and Essence of Sins; 
The jesuit truly is at a Non plus.  whether every Sin be Mortal of it own nature, or no? Our Jesuit being confounded, and not able to prove any sin to be Venial of it own nature, answereth me thus: That neither Fisher is a Popish canonised Martyr, nor yet Gerson a Popish bishop. O worthy defender of the Pope, and of the late Romish Religion. I demand of our Friar jesuit, how far it is to London? He forsooth answereth: a Pokefull of Plumbs. I ask him, What he saith to his learned Popish Doctors, (Almaynus, Baius, Roffensis, Durandus and Gersonus,) who all with uniform assent affirm resolutely, as the Friar hath confessed, that every Sin is Mortal, 
A Poke full of Plumbs, is the defence of Popery.  of it own nature? The Friar almost frighted out of his wits, telleth me roundly, and blusheth not thereat; That neither Gerson is a Bishop, nor Fisher a Canonised Martyr. Is not this a Learned and Clerkly answer, trow ye? Hath not the Jesuit much to say for the antiquity of Popery, when he fleeth to such miserable shifts, pitiful digressions, silly cavils, and ridiculous evasions? What if bishop Fisher were not a Popish canonised Martyr? What if M. Gerson the famous Chancellor of Paris, were not a bishop? ye know the Proverb; Cucullus non facit Monachum. Yourselves can not deny, that both Fisher and Gerson were very learned Popish Writers: and so it skilleth not, whether the one was a bishop, and the other a canonised Martyr, or no. Secondly, that our Jesuit belieth me here, as his wont manner is else where; I refer the censure hereof, to mine Answer in the Downfall itself. Thirdly, that M. Gerson was in his old days the Bishop of Paris; as a little Treatise published by the Doctors of Paris, and sometime printed or bound in one volume with the Master of Sentences, plainly avoucheth to the Reader. fourthly, that Fisher was Canonised privately at the least; 
Egomet tum eram testis oculatus.  as Alphonsus the rector of the English College at Rome; did Canonize Campian in my time, with a White Surplice on his back; himself then singing a collect of Martyrs, and causing the M. of the Music to sound the Organges, and all the Students to sing (Te Deum;) as also, the Archpriest, the Provincial, the Jesuits, and Jesuited Papists every where, do after their best manner canonize Sherewin, Nelson, Ballard, and the Gunpowder jesuited popelings; 
Their Blood, Bones, Hair, and Apparel, are reserved & honoured, as the Relics of God's Martyrs.  by praying unto them, and by reserving their Blood, Bones, Hair, and whatsoever once touched them, as the Relics of Gods holy Martyrs. Other like impertinent Vanities he useth in this Chapter: but he ever fleeth from my Reasons, and slyly passeth over the chiefest matters. I have sound refuted the Friars Answer, not omitting any thing of moment. See, and note well the Trial.    

The Eight Chapter: Of the Pope's Faith.  
I Have discoursed of this Subject so largely, 
See and mark well the 29. and the. 30 Chapters.  both in my Golden Balance, in the Anatomy of Popish tyranny, in the Jesuits Antepast; and lastly, in my Christian Dialogue, as more can not be wished, for the full decision of the truth in that behalf. Howbeit, for the better contentation of the Christian Reader, I am willing to answer every point of any moment, through out the whole Chapter.  

B. C.  
Bell collecteth out of watson's Books, in this formal manner. First therefore, if we mean to wring any truth out of the Pope's Nose, we must have recourse to his Holiness, at such time as he is sober, and not when he is furious, lest he become stark mad, and forget the knowledge of the truth. As though Watson had said, that the Pope is sometime sober, and sometime furious. He doth much wrong him; for his words reported by Bell himself in this very Chapter, contain no such thing: Only he saith; That as the prudent Greek appealed from Alexander furious, to Alexander sober: so may the Seculars, notwithstanding any Decree set down by his Holiness by wrong information, appeal even from the Pope, as Clemens, unto his Holiness, as Peter. He speaketh of Alexander Furious and Sober; and not of the Pope.   

T. B.  

The appeal of the Priests, is compared to the appeal of Alexander.  Bells Collection, is truly deducted of watson's words: For, Watson compareth the appealing of the prudent Greek from Alexander furious, to the appealing of the Seculars from Pope Clemens. Neither can it be thought strange, if Warson deemed the Popes to be sometimes furious. For first, Pope john was rather furious then sober, when he kept Women openly to the notorious scandal of the Church; insomuch, as some of the Cardinals writ to Otto then King of the Saxons, to come and besiege Rome, so to afflict him for his sins. 
Martinus Polonus, in Chronicho.  The same Pope was rather furious, then sober, when he caused the Cardinal's Nose to be cut off, that gave the counsel; and his hand, that wrote the Letter. Pope Silvester the second, was furious rather then sober, I ween; 
Polonus, ubi supra.  when by covenant he did homage to the Devil, to be preferred to the Popedom. Pope Formosus was not sober, when wittingly and willingly he committed flat Perjury. Pope Martin was not sober, when he absolved Formosus of his Oath. Pope Stephanus the 6. was not very sober, when he caused the dead body of Pope Formosus to be brought forth into his Consistory, the ornaments Papal to be taken away, two fingers of his right hand to be cut off, a Laical habit to be put on the dead corpse; and all this being solemnly done, the body to be put into the Grave again. 
Platina.  Pope Sergius the 3. was not very sober, trow I, 
Carranza.  when he commanded Pope Formosus (who now had been dead almost ten years) to be taken out of his Tomb, and to be set in a Chair with pontifical Attire upon his back, and then his head to be cut off, and cast into Tiber. Pope Vrbanus the second, was not sober doubtless, 
Sigeberius.  when he absolved Subjects from allegiance due unto their Sovereigns; condemning those that obeyed the King, and absolving such as took part against the King, from the crime of Perjury and injustice. Pope Boniface the eight, was nothing sober, 
Nanclerus.  when he challenged the right of both sword; when he deprived Philippe the French King, and gave his Kingdom to him that could get it. But what need many words? this point is most plentifully handled in my Christian Dialogue, lately published: to which I refer the reader for his full satisfaction, concerning the Pope's double person. Read more of Watson in the end of the Second Chapter, and ponder the same seriously.   

B. C.  
His rustical immodesty, and childish scoffing at the Pope's Nose, little becometh the gravity of his Ministershippe: but he that is led up and down by the Nose like a Buffalo, 
Mark well the answer.  by the Prince of this world, must to gratify his Master, employ his railing talon, according to his black inspiration.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that our Friars black inspiration, may better beseem Pope Benedict the eight; 
Petr. Dam. Mar. Polonus.  who (as Petrus Damascenus affirmeth) was seen riding corporally after his death, upon a black Horse (the Devil,) and who freely confessed, that aforetime he was much addicted to robbery and extortion. It may also better be bestowed on Pope Silvester the second; who (as we have seen) did homage to the black Devil, and so aspired to the Popedom. Secondly, that the declamation our Friar maketh against the leading up and down by the nose like a Buffal, will little content either our Jesuits, or their Pope, after the due recital of the same. This is a true Narration, of the cruel, 
The Buffalo are Beasts, as terrible as Lions.  furious, and raging Buffalo. Myself being student in the English College at Rome; not long afore my arrival in this Kingdom, and on a time walking abroad to take the air, with many others of the same College; when we came without one of the Postern gates of the City, we espied certain Buffalo with their keeper at the River side: Which spectacle (as unpleasant to the eyes, so also most terrible to the heart,) my fellows and dear Countrymen no sooner beheld, but they betook themselves to their best speed. Myself more bold therein then wise, (for the trust I reposed in the Keeper) would not at that time amend my pace, and so remained behind alone. Suddenly the furious, raging, and cruel Buffalo, broke from their Keeper, and with great violence came upon me. My Countrymen standing a far off upon the top of an high Mountain, durst not for their lives approach, to offer me any comfort, help, or succour: they neither did, nor could expect any other thing, save only present and most cruel death. 
Many yet living, know this to be most true.  Howbeit, the wild, cruel, raging, and most furious Buffaloes, (a thing very strange, rare, and wonderful; if a miracle, let the prudent and Christian Reader judge,) did no hurt to me at all; but as it were sported with me, even as one child playeth with another: after awhile, the furious and raging Buffalo left me, and in peaceable manner departed from me; at the length, my fellows beholding the departure of the Buffalo, and persuading themselves that I was most pitifully and cruelly slain, came with convenient speed to visit my dead corpse; but finding me alive, yea, as livelike as I was afore every whit, (God make me this day and ever thankful for it, and for all other his manifold mercies and favours towards me) we all returned to the College, with great joy and speed. The Rector of the College could no way be persuaded, 
The jesuit Alphonsus, was then the Master of the English College.  but that I had received some secret and inward mortal wound; albeit neither myself felt any, neither could their eyes or wits discern any hurt at all; save only that my face was something bloody, by reason of the fall I got; while perceiving the imminent danger, (which afore I feared not,) I made haste to have escaped from the same: for it had never been known or heard in Rome, 
A thing never heard nor known before.  that any man, woman, or child, ever escaped with life, being once in that kind of danger; to wit, in the courtesy of the furious and raging Buffalo. Many gave their censures, concerning the wonderful fact and rare event: the general resolution was this; Viz. That I might fight with Buffalo in England, and have the upper hand. Myself did deem their censure to be probable; and this day (me thinketh) the same is brought to pass; though (Gods name be blessed for it,) in the far different sense and meaning, from that which either they or myself did then imagine. 
john. 4 v. 24. 1. john. 5. v. 14.  I sought God then, but found him not; because I sought him not in truth, and according to his holy will. I thought then (being blinded with late startup Popery,) that I should fight against the true professors of Christ's Gospel, whom I then reputed Heretics and spiritual Buffalo. 
Sap. 8.1. Ephes. 1. v. 4.11. Rom. 9 v. 11.15.16. etc. Ephes. 6.12. Act. 9 v. 1.2.3. etc. Act. 8. v. 1.3.  But our most merciful God (whose wisdom reacheth from end to end mightily, and disposeth all things sweetly) ordained me in his eternal purpose, (a vosteriori hoc fa ●lè infertur,) to a far more honourable and sacred Warfare; viz. to encounter the traitorous Jesu●tes and ●esuited Gunpowder popelings, & valiantly to fight the battle of Christ's Church, against those most furious, brainless, & cruel Buffalo of men's souls: Whose legerdemain, cozenage, perjury, pride, malice, theft, murders, fraud, feigned miracles, and infinite coney-catching tricks, the gentle Reader may find at large, sound proved out of the Books which the Semin●rie-priestes have published to the World, in my Book entitled, 
See the Anatomy for this point, and note it well.  The Anatomy of Popish tyranny: Which Book whosoever shall with judgement and a single eye peruse, can not but perceive the Jesuits to be Firebrands of all mischief, and most ugly monsters of the World.   

B. C.  
Not long after, he hath these words: For first, it is a constant Maxim (quoth he,) that the Pope, and none but the Pope, must judge in all Controversies of faith and doctrine. Nay, it is rather a most constant Maxim, that Bell seldom writeth any thing that is true. 
Lo, the Friar confoundeth both himself and his Pope.  False it is, that the Pope and none but the Pope, is the judge in all matters of Faith and Doctrine. For a general Council also is judge: yea, and by the opinion of many learned Divines, the Pope judging alone without a general Council, may err.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that the jesuit not able to answer the truth, by me sound defended, seeketh to get the victory, by crying out against the truth. This is clear, to every judicious Reader. Secondly, that our Friar saith truly; That by the judgement of many learned Papists, the Pope may err without a general Council. To this Doctrine I willingly subscribe, as which is the very truth that I defend. For, mine usual manner ever is in all my Books, to confound Popery with the best learned Popish Writers. I hold and defend no point of doctrine, but such only, as great learned Papists hold and defend with me. This my joy, this is my credit, 
The Author with the Church of England, defendeth every jot of the old Roman Religion.  this the honour of the cause in hand, that I constantly hold with the now Church of England every Article of the old Roman Religion; only condemning and rejecting erroneous, superstitious, childish, and ridiculous additamentes, of late years by little and little crept into the Church. Thirdly, that I have proved so largely in the Downfall of Popery▪ that the Pope only is the judge of all controversies in Religion; as to say more in that behalf, may be thought actum agere, and a thing altogether needless. Three things only will I now point at, 
Three very Memorable points.  referring the indifferent Reader for the proof, to the Downfall of Popery. The first is this; viz, that the Pope staying at home himself, sendeth his Legates to the Counsels to supply his place; to whom, for all that, (O monstrum horrendum,) he can not commit his Authority. The second is this; viz. that no bishop in these our days, can have voices in Counsels, 
See the oath, Infra, Cap. 27.  but such as will swear obedience to the Pope before their admittance, and promise to defend his Canon Law. The third is this; viz. that it is not in Popish Counsels, as in humane affairs and assemblies, where more voices ever do prevail. But all the force, power, strength, and authority of Counsels, do and must depend upon the Pope's will and pleasure: For, after the Fathers there have fasted long, prayed much, consulted gravely, deliberated maturely, decreed constantly, 
All must be as the Pope will.  commanded strictly, and accursed severely; neither can others, nor yet themselves tell, what shall be of force therein: For, all must be, as shall best content the Pope's humour, sitting right stately in his pontifical Chair at Rome. 
See the Oath which Bishops make to the Pope, infra Cap. 27.  To which I add, that the Pope abuseth the World shamefully, when he taketh upon him to call together all bishops in the Christian world, to decide and determine controversies in Religion; and for all that, will approve nothing that they decree; unless the same be agreeable to that, which himself decreeth alone in his pontifical Chair at home. As also, in that he condemneth and rejecteth all Counsels, which do not consent in all points to his Legates; who for all that, 
The Pope's pretended prerogatives, must ever be defended.  must not yield to any thing, which swerveth from their Charge and Commission received from the Pope's mouth. In which Charge, this is ever the principal and main point; that they suffer not the Pope's Superroyall power, and falsely pretended Prerogatives of the Church of Rome, to be any way abased or gainsaid. 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 jesuit. The Rhemistes tell us roundly, & blush never a whit thereat; that general Counsels are not needful, save only for the better contentation of the weak people: and their only ground which they stand upon, is this; viz. that the Pope is so divinely privileadged and assisted by the Holy Ghost, 
The Pope can not err.  as he can never err judicially in any matter of Faith. 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 Counsels in very deed. 
The Pope in the Church, say the Jesuits.  The jesuitical Friar S. R. (Robert Parsons is the man) telleth us peremptorily, that the Pope's Sentence, is the Decree of the Catholic Church. These are his express words: 
S. R. pag. 281. mark this well.  True it is, that B. Fisher and Gerson, were in that error: but that was both before it was condemned in the Church, as it was since by Pius the fifth, and Gregorius the thirteenth. Lo, our Jesuit in the name of all Papists, (for all Papists must so believe,) blusheth not to publish to the World in print, in perpetuam rei memoriam, that Pope Pius was the Church in his time; Pope Gregory, in his time: and consequently, every Pope in his time. For, what he affirmeth of those two, in this kind of subject; 
When Papists speak of the Church, they ever mean the pope.  the same perforce he must approve, in all other Popes successively. So then, this is a constant maxim in the Church of Rome; that whensoever our Papists say or write, That the Church can not err; or, The Church hath thus and thus defined; they ever mean of the Pope, and Church of Rome. I therefore cannot but conclude, with this inevitable illation; viz. that in true Popish sense and meaning, the Pope is the only judge in all controversies of Religion.   

B. C.  
That their Popes (saith Bell) can not err in Faith judicially, is this day with Papists, an Article of their Faith. 
The jesuit cuts the Pope's throat. Mark well the answer.  An untruth I say, it is: for though the more common and better opinion be, That the Pope in his judicial and definitive sentence can not err in Faith; yet false it is, that this is an Article of Faith, when as many Divines both have and do hold the contrary.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that I willingly acknowledge one truth, here unawares uttered by our jesuit; viz. that there is great dissension amongst the Popish Doctors, concerning matters of Faith and Doctrine. 
See my Book of Motives. Cap. 8.  Of which dissension, I have discoursed at large in my Motives. Secondly, that the best opinion in the Romish Church, doth not make an Article of Romish Faith. Thirdly, that he might be deemed a right wise man, that could sound discover the Articles of Popish faith. 
The Popish Church holdeth no points of faith.  For the Friar here telleth us lustily; that which is the common and better opinion, even the opinion of the Pope himself, (for his doubtless is the best,) proveth not an Article of Popish faith. Fourthly, that our Jesuit doth here give us a general rule▪ how to discern the Articles of Popish faith: For thus disputeth our Learned Friar; 
Mark well for Christ's sake, this point of doctrine.  Although it be the more common and better opinion, yet seeing many Divines hold the contrary; it can not be an Article of Popish faith. This is a golden and most excellent Rule in deed: for which I thank our Jesuit with all my heart. For no stronger reasons and proofs can be had in controversies, than the plain confession of the adverse part. Hence are fitly deduced, sundry golden and very memorable Corollaries. 
The first Corollary.  The first whereof is this; viz. that the Papists this day, have either very few, or flat none at all, Articles of their Faith. The second Corollary is this; viz. that it is not against Popish faith to believe and defend, 
The second Corollary.  that the Pope may err. judicially; that Christ's natural body is not in the holy Eucharist really; that the Marriage of Priests is lawful; that the Pope is a Tyrant, and Heretic, a Firebrand of all mischief; that a great number of zealous and faithful Martyrs of jesus Christ, were burnt in Queen Mary's days, by force of the Pope's tyrannical Law; who for all that, held no Article against Popish faith. Out upon late hatched Popery! Every child may see, that it is the New religion. The Jesuit with the help of his best Learned brethren, (for to defend Popery from the note & suspicion of the New religion, the most Learned Jesuits put to their helping hands, & gave their best advise,) is not able in truth to say any thing, for the antiquity of the same. How be it, rather than his proud heart shall yield to the truth, & retract his former ignorance & malice, he wholly consecrates himself to very childish shifts, and most foolish & ridiculous cavils.   

B. C.  
He runneth upon the Doctrine taught by Soto, and generally holden of Catholics; viz. that the Pope can not err in Faith; and confidently avoucheth, that it was never heard of, till of late days: his words be these. This only will I say, that this Popist Article (the Pope can not err in Faith,) was never heard of in Christ's Church, for the space of a thousand and five hundred years. A gallant untruth, worthy of the reformed Minister. 
All this is mere folly.  Thomas Waldensis was long before that time, as also Turrecremata; who both hold, that the Pope can not err in Faith. And not only late Writers, but the ancient Fathers have taught the same Doctrine, relying themselves upon the Promise of Christ in the Gospel. 
Praecedunt ista in B.C. page, 86. Mark this confession.  The words of Soto prove very well, that the Pope as Pope, can not err: which the most and best Divines do also maintain. But no word hath he or syllable, that this is an Article of Faith; which was the point that Bell should have proved, and for which he pretended to cite his words.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that one Popish truth here unawares confessed by our Friar Jesuit, doth comfort my heart more than a little: viz. that the Pope as Pope, can not err. 
The Pope as Pope by Popish grant, can not err.  For, albeit it be most absurd and false in rei veritato, (as I have plentifully proved in my Christian Dialogue,) yet is it a Popish truth, or a flat lie, (which is the same,) and turneth Popery upside down. Secondly, that though the Pope with his most and best Divines do hold, that the Pope as Pope, can not err: yet is it not an Article of Popish Faith. This Confession I likewise approve; and out of this double Grant, I infer a double Corollary. corollary 1 First, that seeing it is no Article of Popish Faith, to believe that the Pope can not err▪ a shame of all shames it is to the Pope, and his devoted Vassals, to hold, affirm, and believe, that the Counsels can not err which the Pope confirmeth; 
Understand this point well, for Christ's sake.  nor those Counsels decree a truth, which he rejecteth and condemneth. For most absurd and execrable it is, to burn with Fire and Faggot zealous Men and zealous Women; because forsooth they will not believe that, 
See and note well my Christian Dialogue. Chap. 2. Pag 14.  which the Pope himself doth not believe. O tempora! O mores! The Pope himself doth not believe, that he can not err; as this sweet Doctrine, of our sweet Sir Friar teacheth us. And yet must all be burnt with Fire and Faggot, that say he may err in decreeing matters of Faith. corollary 2 Secondly, that all the late Popes and Papists are flat Heretics. The reason is evident; 
Argumentum ad hominem.  because they believe not Christ's promise made to Peter and the Bishops of Rome his successors; as both the Pope and all his devoted Vassals do believe. For which respect, the Friar in this very place telleth us peremptorily, and blusheth never a whit thereat; that not only Wal●ensis and Cardinal Turrecremata, but Late Writers and the ancient Fathers also have taught the same Doctrine. For which respect, the Jesuits and all jesuited Papists have ever in their mouths, 
See and note well the 29. & the 30. Chapters.  and continually object as an argument unanswerable; that Christ prayed for the Faith of S. Peter and his successors, that it should never fail; that Helgates should never prevail against it. Yet here (God be thanked for it,) their pride is somewhat abated; 
Christ never prayed, that the Pope should not err.  Christ is now either disinherited of them, (which they dare not say,) or at least suspected not to have promised to the Bishops of Rome, that their Faith should not fail. For, if they believe not that Christ is faithful in all his Promises, they are flat Heretics. If they believe him to perform, what he hath promised; then it must perforce either be with them an Article of popish Faith, that the Pope as Pope can not err: 
This Dilemma is insoluble.  or else doubtless, that Christ made no such Promise to the Bishops of Rome. Vtrum ●orum manis, accipe, good sir Friar; for the better of them is able, to give the Pope his dinner. For which respect, S. R. that learned jesuit, (as his dear brother B. C. calleth him,) telleth us roundly; 
S.R. Pag 315. Pag. 417.  that false Faith can have no access to S. Peter's Chair. For which respect, the same Jesuit telleth us in an other place; 
Lo▪ we must believe his doctrine, that is an Heretic  That we must obey what he decreeth or defineth judicially, as sitting in S. Peter's Chair; though in heart he were an Heretic. For which respect, the same jesuit telleth us in his words following; That Bishops must not examine the Doctrine, which the Pope delivereth judicially out of S. Peter's Chair, as supreme Pastor of God's Church; but only that, wherein he uttereth his own private opinion. 
See and note my Reply to the 29. Chapt.  Thus writeth S. R. that great Learned Jesuit, truly telling us the Popish Faith. Which Doctrine if any but a Papist had delivered it, few or none would have given credit thereunto. O sweet jesus! I wonder how any Papist hearing such Doctrine published in print, by the Jesuits so dear and so near to the Pope himself, and duly pondering the vanity thereof, and the blasphemy therein contained; can still be a Papist and not defy the Pope and his damnable Doctrine. What shall we do with the holy Scripture? Is it the infallible rule of Faith. 
S. R. in the name of the Pope, proclaimeth the Pope's faith and doctrine.  Is it superior to the Pope's judicial sentence? Must the Papists depend upon it, rather than upon the Pope's Decree? No, no; if the Pope define against it, his Decree must be obeyed; neither may any Bishop (as our Friar here teacheth us,) much less may every Private 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 Bishops make to the Pope. Thirdly, that when I say, this Popish Article of Faith was never heard of in the Church, for the space of a thousand and five hundred years; I mean not of bare vocal hearing, but of hearing with approbation: of which hearing, this Text of the holy Gospel is emphatical: 
joh. 9. 3●.  Scimus, quia peccatores Deus non audit; We know, that God heareth not sinners: that is, approveth not sinners, in granting their requests: For God knoweth, seeth, 
1. joh. 5. v. 14.  and heareth all Petitions vocally; but theirs only with approbation, 
Psal. 18. v. 41.  Which ask according to his will. The Psalmograph useth the like phrase, in these words; They shall cry, but there shall be none to help them: yea, even unto the Lord shall they cry, but he shall not hear them. The Prophet Micheas doth second the Psalmograph, 
Mich. 3.4.  in these words: Then shall they cry unto the Lord, and he shall not hear them. The Prophet Zacharie is consonant in these words: 
Zach. 7. v. 13.  Sic clamabunt et non exaudiam, dicit Dominus exercituum: So shall they cry, and I will not hear them, saith the Lord of Hostes. All which places, and the like, must perforce be understood, not of bare vocal hearing; but of hearing with approbation. Which kind of hearing, myself did plainly insinuate to the Reader, when in my words following, I excepted the Jesuits and jesuited Papists: For, if I had meant of bare vocal hearing, I neither would, nor truly could have excepted the Jesuits, whom I grant to have heard it both vocally & with approbation. Fourthly when our Friar objecteth ridiculously, that Aquinas, Antoninus, Waldensis, and Turrecremata, taught the same Doctrine within 1500. years, I answer thus: first, that Canus denieth Waldensis to hold that opinion. Secondly, that the use of holy Writ, is to speak of many, as all: and of few, as none. Which synecdochical speech very frequent in the holy Scriptures, were sufficient (if need required, as it doth not,) to justify my manner of speaking in this behalf. Thirdly, that if I should admit so much, as our sir Friar desireth; yet would it follow of necessity, that Popery is the New Religion. For, we see here as clearly, as the Sun shining at noon day; that this Popish Article (the Pope as Pope can not err,) was hatched a thousand, two hundred, and forty years after Christ. For the most ancient Father thereof, 
Popery is the new religion.  which our jesuit possibly is able to name, is Aquinas, (as we have seen;) who for all that, 
Vixit Aquinas, A.D. 1243.  lived more than 1240. years after Christ. To which I add, that the Church (as the famous Papists Panormitanus, and Gersonus teach us,) is either the Congregation of the faithful, or a general Council sufficiently representing the same. This being so, and my reasons duly pondered, it is very clear and evident; that this Popish Article of Faith, was never heard of in the Church, (that is, approved of the Church, 
For the space of, 1240. ) for the space of 1240. years after Christ. For doubtless, the approbation of Aquinas, Antoninus, and Turrecremata (the Pope's flattering Parasites,) can not establish the Religion and Faith of the Church of Rome. 
The Friar dare not do it for his lugges.  If our jesuit dare say it; let him publish it in print, and then expect my Commentary upon 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.   

B. C.  
One main Lie, with a pretty trick of liegerdemaine: For he is to prove out of Alphonsus, that the Pope might err in Faith judicially: for that is the question, as appeareth in the Premises; and that this Article was never heard of 1500. years: and yet in the foresaid words of Alphonsus, no such thing is contained, seeing he speaketh in them not of his judicial Decrees, but of private Errors, 
Lo the Pope as Pope by Popish doctrine, can not err.  which may befall him in the exposition of the Scriptures; and that Alphonsus must needs mean of his private opinions in writing or otherwise, and not of his definitive sentence, is certain: For otherwise there be and were in his time, that held the Pope could not be an Heretic judicially, or err as Pope: Much less doth Alphonsus say, that it was never heard of for the space of 1500. years, that the Pope could not err in Faith judicially; for of this point, he hath not one word or syllable.   

T. B.  
I answer thus: first, that I believe our Jesuit; viz. while he telleth us, 
The jesuit how he is believed.  that his Pope may err in expounding the holy Scriptures. But withal I must needs tell him, that his Pope may as truly err in his judicial sentence: The reason is evident, because Christ's Prayer freed S. Peter from both. 
Luke 22. vers. 32.  And consequently, if Christ's Prayer were as effectual and powerable for the bishops of Rome, as it was for Peter, (which the late bishops of Rome, Jesuits, and Iesuite● Papists, would enforce us to believe, 
Alas, alas, Popery is wounded unto death. ) they could no more err in the one, then in the other: no more in their private opinions published to the world, then in their definitive sentences and judicial Decrees: Nay, it is in the Pope's own power, to be as free from the one, as from the other. For, when he expoundeth the Scriptures, when he writeth Letters, when he uttereth his opinion any way; if he do the same sitting in Peter's Chair, he can not err, it is the undoubted truth. 
S. R. pag. 417.  Again, whatsoever he say or write (as we have heard already,) when he sitteth in Peter's Chair; that we must obey and believe, 
Out upon Popery, who is able to endure it?  though in heart he be an Heretic: For, no bishop or bishops in the Christian world, (how wise, virtuous, or learned soever they be,) may take upon them to examine that, which the Pope delivereth out of Peter's Chair. Thus S. R. that great learned Jesuit constantly avoucheth, as we have already seen: Who doubtless could not be permitted to publish such Doctrine, 
S. R. pag. 417.  if it were not the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of Rome. Yea, if any deny it, where Popery beareth the sway, that person must feel the smart of Fire and Faggot, for his reward. He may be thought to know nothing, who living in Rome or Spawn, knoweth not this to be so. Secondly, that Alphonsus that famous and learned Friar, 
The jesuit is shameless and impudent.  spoke not of the Pope's private opinions, as our Jesuit B. C. more impudently then Clerkly avoucheth; who chooseth rather to say any thing, then to grant Popery to be the New religion No, no, Alphonsus utterly detested that Popish Article, as a most profane, sottish, and ridiculous Position; though this day of Faith with the Pope, and with all his Jesuits, and their Jesuited crew, I prove it by sundry testimonies, laid open to the Readers, by Alphonsus his own pen. First therefore, these in one place are his express words. 
Alphons. lib▪ 3. advers. haereses, prope finem.  Novissimè fertur de johann 22. quod publicè docuit, declaravit, et ab omnibus teneri mandavit, quod animae purgata ante finale indicium non habent stolam, quae est clara et fa●ialis v●sio Det; et universitatem 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 he publicly taught, declared, and commanded all Divines to hold, that the souls of the just before the day of judgement, have not the stole, which is the clear and facial vision of God: And he is reported, to have induced the University of Paris to this; that none should take degree in theology there, but he that did first swear to defend this Error, and to adhere to it for ever. Thus writeth Adrianus, who himself was bishop of Rome. And Alphonsus (a man of high esteem in the Church of Rome▪) after he had reckoned up five Heresies, setteth down this for the sixth, (that the souls of the just do not see God, till the day of Doom;) ascribing the said Heresy to the Armenians, as to the authors thereof; 
This is wonderful.  and to the greeks together with Pope john, as to the patrons and defenders of the same. Where the gentle Reader must observe with me seriously, lest he be seduced with the colourable gloss of the Jesuitical Cardinal Bellarminus; 
Bellarmine speaketh against his own knowledge.  who seeing the force of this Testimony, and well perceiving that it was able to overthrow the highest point in Popery, bestirreth himself mightily in defence thereof: He telleth us forsooth, (we may believe him, if we lift,) that Pope john erred indeed; as Adrian and Alphonsus write. But he did that as a private man (saith our Jesuit) not as Pope of Rome. 
O childish vanity.  This is that never enough detested Popish fallacy, of the Pope's double person; wherewith the Pope, his Jesuits, and jesuited popelings, have a long time seduced us; even since that cursed Sect was first hatched, 
A.D. 1538.  and brought into the world; the Sect of Friars, called Jesuits I mean. But it is a most frivolous, childish, and ridiculous cavil; a very filly shift, so sottish and so absurd, 
Mark well for Christ's sake, if thou love thine own soul.  as the Pope and all his popelings may be ashamed thereof: The reason is evident, even to every child. First, because it is said, (Docuit, He taught.) Secondly, because it is said, (Publicè, Publicly.) Thirdly, because it is said, (Mandavit, He commanded all Divines to hold it. (Fourthly, because none could be made Graduates in the Schools of Theology, which held not this opinion. Fiftly, because every Graduate was sworn to defend it, and to stick to it for ever, perpetuò. So then, the Pope may err, and, dè facto hath erred; and that not only in his private opinion, as a private man; but even in his judicial and public sentence, as a public person and Pope of Rome. This argument is insoluble; it will never be truly answered, while the world stands. This is enough doubtless, 
Alphons. lib. 1. cap. 4. adverse. haeres.  to every indifferent Reader: yet in way of congratulation to our jesuit, I am content to say a little more. These in an other place, are Alphonsus his express words. Celestinum Papam errasse circa matrimonium fidelium, quor●m alter labitur in haeresim, res est omnibus manifesta: neque hic Celestini error talis fuit, qui soli negligentiae imputari debuit; ita ut illum errasse dicamus, velut privatam personam, et non ut 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 Matrimony of the faithful, whereof the one falleth into heresy, it is a thing so manifest, as all men know the same. Neither was this error of Pope Celestine such, as it may be imputed to sole negligence; so as we may think him to have erred as a private man, and not as Pope, 
Mark well, this point striketh dead.  who ought in the decree of every serious matter, to ask counsel of Learned men. For that Definition and Decree of Celestine, was in the old Decretals, in the Chapter Laudabilem; which I myself have seen and read. Out of these Golden words, of the famous and great learned Friar Alphonsus, I observe many very worthy lessons, for the great good of the thankful Reader. First, that Pope Celestine erred. Secondly, that he erred not as a private man; but even as Pope and public person. Mark (gentle Reader) for Christ's sake I desire thee, and for the salvation of thine own soul: For doubtless, if thou ponder seriously this only Testimony of this great learned Papist, all affection and partiality set aside, thou canst not but perforce abhor and detest Popery, as a New Religion by little & little crept into the Church. The Jesuits like Gypsies, 
The Jesuits are Gypsies.  have invented a trick of fast and loose, assigning to their Pope a double person; Private, and Public. As a Private man, they grant he may both be deceived himself, and also deceive others: But that he can err as a public person, or as Pope of Rome; they utterly deny. For if they should once grant this point, (which is a manifest and known truth,) Popery would soon be turned upside down. Howbeit, (my salvation I gauge for the trial,) Friar Alphonsus decideth the controversy so plainly, as all the Jesuits and Jesuited Papists in the world, are not in truth able to withstand or gainsay the same. Alphonsus saith constantly and plainly, without all Ands and Ifs; 
Lo, the Pope is wounded at the heart, he can no longer live.  that Pope Celestine erred not as a Private man; but even as Pope and public person. O sweet jesus! o merciful God o most loving Father! how great is the malice and blasphemy of Jesuits and Jesuited Papists, against thine everlasting Truth and holy Name? With what face can the jesuitical Cardinal Bellarmine tell us, that Pope Celestine erred only as a Private man, and not as Pope or Public person? When the Papists like the Pope's Decrees, than they say, he defined as Pope and Public person; and that none may withstand his definitive Sentence, or once examine the same; as is already proved, to their everlasting shame. But, when their Pope is convinced to have erred so grossly, that they know not possibly how to defend him; then they are not ashamed to say, that he erred but as a Private man. Thirdly, that the Pope erred in a point of great consequence; even in a matter of Popish Faith: viz. that Matrimony was so dissolved by reason of Heresy, that the faithful man or woman might marry again, the Heretical party living. Which thing (saith Alphonsus,) was manifest to every one, to be an Heresy: and their late Council of Trent, hath defined it to be so. Fourthly, that this Decree and Definition of Pope Celestine, was in those days enroled in the Pope's Decretals. Fiftly, that Alphonsus saw and read the same. Sixtly, that the said Decree can not this day be found, amongst the Pope's Decretal Epistles. 
A note worthy the remembrance.  Where I note by the way, and heartily wish the Reader to observe the same; that the decrees of our holy Fathers the Popes, have been such, & so much against lately hatched Popery; 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 up some learned Papists, otherwise devoted to the Pope, who have boldly used their Pens and Wits (such is the force of truth,) to discover and lay open to the view of the world, the deceit, cozenage, liegerdemayne, and coney-catching tricks of wicked Popes, Jesuits, & all jesuited Papists; so far forth I ever mean, as is necessary for the common good of his Church. Now, whether our Jesuit, be a most notorious liar, or Noah, let the Reader judge: For, if Alphonsus say, that the Pope can not err, as Pope and Public person; I am content to be the liar: But if he constantly hold and defend the contrary, as the undoubted truth; then judge and censure our Friar in this, as in many other things, for a shameless and impudent liar, 
The jesuit hath deserved the whetstone.  best worthy of the Whetstone. I wish he may have it, & wear it about his neck, as a testimony of his condign deserts.    

The 9 Chapter: Of the condign so supposed merit of Good works.  
FOR the clearer manifestation and illustration of the truth of this Controversy, I think it not amiss, to proceed therein by way of Conclusions: Which being sound effected, I purpose in God, to answer and confute (a thing very easy to be done,) the childish cavils, ridiculous evasions, and coney-catching tricks, which our Friar useth in pleading for the life of their New Religion.  

The first Conclusion.  
The Regenerate do Good works; which are acceptable in God's sight, and receive reward far above their Condign deserts. This Conclusion is proved by many texts of holy Writ. 
job. 1.8.  job is enroled among the Godly and those that feared God, even by the testimony of God himself. Abel was slain of his brother Cain, 
1. joh. 3. v. 12. Gen. 6· v. 9  because he feared God, and did Good works. The Scripture saith, that No was a just man and perfect: who therefore with his Family, found favour in God's sight, in time of the general Deluge. The Angel of God saluting the blessed virgin Marie, 
Luke. 1.28. Luke. 1.6.  pronounced her holy above all Women. Zacharias and Elizabeth his wife were both just, & walked in all the Commandments of God. Abraham, Moses, David, Gedeon, Samson, Samuel, 
Heb. 11.  and many others, did Works acceptable in God's sight. 
Act. 10. v. 2.  Cornelius is highly commended in holy Writ, for the Good works he did. Thus much for the former part. And for the latter part, the Scripture is likewise plentiful. Christ himself promiseth to reward Good works so liberally; 
Mat. 10. v. 42.  that he will not suffer so much as a Cup of cold Water given in his name, to pass without reward. For which cause, 
Heb. 11. v. 27. Rom. 8. v. 18.  Moses is said to have had respect unto reward. And S. Paul teacheth us; that the passions of this life, are not worthy of the glory to come. In brief, the Popish Friar john de Combis, 
Io. de Comb. lib. 5. Theol. ver. cap. 11.  (a very learned Papist,) in his Theological Abridgement, affirmeth it to be a maxim with God; ever to reward us above our well doings; and to punish us less than our evil demerits: These are his express words. Et hoc pates, quod Deus semper remunerat supra meritum, sicut punit citra condign●m: And this is evident, because God ever rewardeth above our merits; and punisheth us less, than we be worthy. Where I may not pass over in silence, the blasphemy of the Rhemistes against the effect of Christ's Passion; 
Rhem. Rom. 8. v. 17. in annotae.  while they affirm Christ not to have so fully satisfied for our sins, but that we are still bound to satisfy, each man in particular for his own sins. For most true it is, (as I have proved in sundry places of this Discourse,) that Christ hath so sufficiently satisfied for all his Elect, and so answered the justice of God for punishment of their sins, as they are freely discharged thereof: Yet must they willingly suffer, to be made conformable to Christ in Suffering, as they look to be like him in Glory. Their sufferings are indeed a condition required to their Glorification; but neither a Cause thereof, nor any Satisfaction for their sins. The case is clear, the Scriptures do every where insinuate the same. They are only, Conditio sine qua non, of our Glorification, and the necessary and infallible effects of our Predestination; which they ever follow, as Fruits do the Tree: for the afflictions of God's children, though they be a cause working eternal Glory (in the sense afore touched,) as they be the way by which God hath appointed them to pass to Glory; yet neither are they, neither any way can they, be worthy, condign, or truly Meritorious of eternal Glory. But as the troublesome way, by which a man passeth to possess the inheritance which his father hath freely given him, may be said to work and procure the actual possession of the Inheritance, not condignly or worthily to deserve the same; even so may our sufferings be said to work and procure our Glorification, as a condition required at our hands, or the way by which we must pass to it; but never to be condign, worthy, or meritorious of the same. The reward is freely given by the Grace of our Adoption: but that Grace maketh not our Works meritorious and worthy of Heaven, which they neither do, nor ever can deserve.   

The 2. Conclusion.  
Good Works follow justification, but they neither do, nor can go before the same. The latter part is evident, because, Without Faith we can not please God. Neither, 
Heb. 11.6.  Can an evil tree (as our master Christ telleth us,) bring forth good fruit. To which I add with Christ's Apostle; 
Mat. 7. v. 18.  that Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin. 
Rom. 14. v. 23.  The former part is clearly deduced, out of these words of our Lord jesus; Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit. 
Mat. 7.17.  S. Austin pithily proveth both the parts, in these sweet, short, and golden words. 
Aug. de fide ex operib. cap. 14. tom. 4.  Opera sequuntur justificatum, non prec●dunt iustificandum: Works follow him that is already justified; but they go not before him that is to be justified.   

The 3. Conclusion.  
The best Works which the regenerate do, are unperfect, polluted with sin, and in rigour of justice, (Mercy set apart,) deserve eternal Death. I prove it first, because the Prophet of God telleth us, that all our righteousness is as filthy clouts, 
Esa. 64.6.  (spotted and stained with sin.) Upon which words, holy Bernard yieldeth this most excellent and Christian Commentary. 
Bernard. de verb. Esa. Serm. 5. p. 405.  Nostra enim (siqua est) humilis justitia, recta forsitan, sed non pura; nisi fortè meliores nos esse credimus, quam patres nostr●s, qui non minus veraciter quam humiliter ai●bant; omnes justitiae nostrae, tanquam pannus menstruatae mulieri●: For our base justice (if we have any,) is perchance right, but not pure or perfect; unless perhaps we believe, that we are holier than our Fathers were; who said as truly, as humbly; All our Righteousness is as filthy Clouts. Thus writeth the Popish Abbot, an excellent Learned man. Out of whose words, I observe first, that the best Works we do, are impure and unperfect. Secondly, that our forefathers were as holy and perfect, as we are; who for all that confessed, not only of humility, but most truly: that our best Works are unperfect, and stained with sin. Secondly, 
Phil. 3.12.  because S. Paul denied himself to be perfect: Not (saith he) as though I had already attained to it, either were already perfect. 
1. Cor. 1.30.  But Christ is our justice, our sanctification, our redemption: in him we are perfect and consummate. Thirdly, because the same Bernard hath these golden words: 
Bernard. ubi super. D.  Quomodo enim pura justitia, ubi adhuc non potest culpa deesse: recta quidem interim videri potest justitia hominum, si tamen peccato non consentiant, ut non regnet in eorum mortali corpore: For, how can their justice be pure, who can not be without sin? Yet may the justice of men be right, if they consent not to sin, nor suffer it to reign in their mortal bodies. In which respect S. john saith, That the faithful sin not; because they suffer not sin to reign in them. 
2. joh. 3.9.  Fourthly, because▪ The reward of sin is death: 
Rom. 6.23.  and yet do the best livers offend in many things. 
jac. 3.2.  Fiftly, because the same Bernarde saith in an other place, 
Bernard. de great. et lib. Arb. p. 1189.  thus: Omne quod natum est ex Deo, non peccat; sed hoc dictum est de predestinatis ad vitam; non quod omnino non peccent, sed quod peccatum ipsis non imputetur: All that is borne of God, sinneth not: but this is spoken of the Predestinate to life, not because they sin not at all, but for that sin is not imputed to them. Fiftly, because S. Austen declareth this so plainly, as none that ponder his words seriously, can longer stand in doubt thereof: these are his express words. 
Aug. in Ps. 11●. con. 2. in fine.  Ecce, quemadmodum qui ambulant in vijs Domini, non operantur peccatum, et tamen non sunt sine peccato; quia iam non ipsi operantur iniquitatem, sed quod habitat in eyes peccatum: Behold, how they that walk in the ways of the Lord, do not sin, and yet are they not without sin; because now they themselves do not work iniquity, but the sin that dwelleth in them. This Golden assertion of S Augustine, Bernardus that learned & religious Abbot, confirmeth in these words. 
Bernar. de advent. Dom. Serm. ●. To. 1. See my Survey, pag. 389.  Cupi●bat dissolui, et cum Christo esse, sciens quod peccatum separans inter nos et Deum, penitus auferri non poterit, donec liberemur a corpore: Th'apostle desired to be dissolved, and to be with Christ; knowing that sin which maketh a division between God and us, cannot wholly be taken away, while we remain in this body. Out of these Testimonies of these great learned Doctors, I observe these memorable documents. First, that the Children of God walk in his ways. Secondly, that such their walking is unperfect, and polluted with sin. Thirdly, that they are not without sin. Fourthly, that this their sin is not actual and voluntary, but involuntary and original. Fiftly, that this original sin which still remaineth in the regenerate, is such a sin as maketh a separation between them and their God. Sixtly, because our Reconciliation with God, doth not wholly purge us from all sin really; but only imputeth not the sin remaining in us unto our charge or condemnation. 
2. Cor. 5. v. 19  I will allege the very words of the Latin vulgar edition, to which all Papists are tied by their late council of Trent. Thus writeth the holy Apostle: 
Vulga●a editio.  Quoniam quidem Deus erat in Christo, mundum reconcilians sibi; non reputans illis delicta ipsorum: Because God was in Christ, when he reconciled the world to himself; not imputing their sins unto them. Thus discourseth S. Paul; out of whose words I note two Lessons: viz. the thing that was done, and the manner of doing the same. The thing done, was the reconciling of the world unto God. 
Mark this point well.  The manner thereof was, in not imputing their sins unto them; not in taking away their sins from them. Sixtly, this Conclusion is proved at large, both in the Chapter of Venial sins, in this present Triumph; and in the Antepast, in the Chapter of Original Concupiscence. 
Note the Seventh Conclusion.  See and note well the 7. Conclusion.   

The 4. Conclusion.  
Good Works are so necessary to attain eternal life, as the usual, ordinary, and undoubted way and means, by which God in his great mercy and love decreed from eternity, to bring his Elect to salvation; as without the same, none ever were, are, or shallbe saved, world without end; when possibility, time, and place, be correspondent thereunto. I prove it first, because Christ himself saith; 
Mat. 7.19.  That every Tree which bringeth not forth Good fruit, shallbe cut down, and cast into the fire. Secondly, because Christ saith in an other place; 
joh. 14. v. 23.  That whosoever love him, will keep his Commandments. Thirdly, because S. Paul telleth us in one place; 
Ephes. cap. 1. v. 4. et cap. 2. v. 10.  That God chose us in Christ, before the world was made, that we should be holy in his sight. And in an other place; That we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which he hath prepared, that we may walk in them.   

The 5. Conclusion.  
Good works are the effects of Predestination, depending upon it; not it upon them. S. Paul proveth it in these plain, golden, and pithy words. 
Rom. ●. v. 30.  Whom he hath Predestinate, them hath he Called; and whom he hath Called, them hath he justified; and whom he hath justified, those hath he also Glorified. By this golden Chain, we may evidently perceive, that Glorification, justification, Vocation, and consequently, Good works, are the effects of Predestination; especially, if we join this, with the other Conclusions afore going. For, if it be true, as it is most true, (else th'Apostle should be a liar,) that we were elected to be Holy, and to do Good works; it is also true, 
Esa. 59.2. Ephes. 2. .v. 3.5  (it can not be denied,) that Holy life and Good works, are the effects of our Election and Predestination in Christ jesus. For this cause saith that famous Papist Nicholaus de Lyra, in this manner: 
Lyr. in Cap. 6 Matt.  Dicendum, quod predestinatio divina est preparatio gratiae in presenti, et gloriae in futuro. Et ideo, cum sit aeterna, sicut ab aeterno predestinavit aliquem ad beatitudinem; ita praeordinavit modum, quo daret sibi illam beatitudinem: I answer (saith this great learned Popish Doctor, 
See the Conclusion, and note it. ) that God's Predestination is the preparation of Grace in this world, and of Glory in the world to come. And therefore, seeing it is Eternal; as he hath predestinated any one, from eternity to endless Bliss or Beatitude; 
Lo, Good work● are the way, which lead us to heaven.  so hath he also foreordained the mean, by which he would bring him to the same. For this cause, saith the Popish Angelical Doctor Aquinas, (whose doctrine sundry Popes have confirmed for Authentical,) that Predestination includeth God's will, of bestowing both Grace and Glory. And this Doctor so famous and authentical, addeth these words: 
Aquin. p. 1. q. 23. art. 3. ad. 2.  Nam predestinatio est causa, et eius quod expectatur in futura vita a predestinatis, (scz. gloriae,) et eius quod percipitur in presenti, (scz. gratiae:) For Predestination is the cause, both of that which is expected in the life to come, (that is to say of Glory;) and also of that, which the predestinate receive in this life; (that is to say, of Grace.) For this cause saith our Jesuitical Cardinal Bellarminus; that Good works follow Predestination, 
Bellar. To. 3. col. 627. et col. 628.  as effects follow their causes. These are his express words: Itaque sunt opera bona, effectus Predestinationis: Therefore Good works are the effect of Predestination. Again in other place the same Jesuit hath these words: Itaque illa propositio, (Deus ab aeterno predestinavit hominibus dare regnum per opera bona praevisa,) potest et vera esse, et falsa. Nam si illud (per opera praevisa,) referatur ad verbum (predestinavit,) falsa erit. Significabit enim Deum predestinasse homines, quia opera illorum bona praeviderat; si referatur ad verbum (dare) vera erit. Quia significabit executionem futuram esse per opera bona, sive quod est idem, glorificationem effectum esse iustificationis et operum bonorum; sicut ipsa justificatio effectus est vocationis, et vocatio praedestinationis: Therefore that proposition (God foreordained from eternity, to give to men the Kingdom of heaven, by their foreseen Works,) may both be true, and false: For, if those words (by their works foreseen) be referred to the word (Predestinau●t, he predestinated or foreordained,) the sense and meaning is false: For, it will signify▪ 
The foresight of works, no cause of predestination.  God to have Predestinated Men, because he foresaw their Good works; but if the same words be referred to the word (Dare, to give and bestow,) the sense and meaning will be true: For it will signify, that the execution must be done by Good works; or (which is all one) that Glorification is the effect of justification and Good works; even as justification is the effect of Vocation, and Vocation the effect of Predestination. Again, 
Bellarm. To. 3. Col. 628.  in an othor place, he hath these words: Non ideo pendet praedestinatio ab operibus, sed opera a praedestinatione: Therefore Predestination doth not depend of Works, but Works depend of Predestination. Again, in an other place he saith thus: 
Bellarm. To. 3. Col 626. et Col. 628.  Alia ratio est pradestinationis, alia executionis. Constituit N. in praedestinatione, regnum caelorum dare certis hominihus, quos absque ulla operum praeuisione dilexit; tamen simul constituit, ut quo ad executionem via perveniendi ad regnum essent bona opera: There is one reason of Predestination, an other of Execution: For, in Predestination God decreed to give the Kingdom of Heaven to certain men whom he loved, without any foresight of Works; howbeit he decreed withal, that in respect of the execution, 
Works are not the cause of salvation, yet the way by which we must come unto it.  Good works should be the way to come unto the same. For this cause do our R●emistes tell us; that our first justification is of God's Grace, and not of our deservings: because none of all our actions that were before our justification, could merit or justly procure the Grace of justification. Thus discourse these famous and great learned Popish Writers: to whose Doctrine I subscribe with all my heart. For (as I have often said else where,) I highly reverence the Old Roman religion; and to the uttermost of my small talon & skill, I both have done, do, and will defend the same. 
I defend the old Roman religion.  Yea, and justify the Doctrine of the Church of England, to be the Old Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic religion, which S Peter and S. Paul delivered to the ancient and first Church of Rome. Out of the Doctrine here delivered by these famous Papists (Lyranus, Aquinas, and Bellarminus,) I gather many excellent Notes. First, that the Grace, faith, and Good works, which we have in this world; and the Glory, which we expect in the world to come, do all wholly proceed from God's Predestination, even without all deserts of man.. Secondly that as God prepared the Kingdom of heaven for his Elect, 
God in his eternal purpose, prepared both eternal glory for his elect, and the way, or means to attain the same.  even before they were borne, or had done any Good works; so did he also prepare the way and means, by which he would bring them to the same. Thirdly, that no Works done, or foreseen to be done, did move God to predestinate any man to the joys of Heaven. Fourthly that Good works are not the Cause, but the Effect of Predestination. Fiftly, that Good works are the way and means, which God ordained for the execution of Predestination and for the accomplishment of Glorification. Sixtly, that not only Predestination, but also justification, proceeds of God's mere favour, grace, and good pleasure, without all deserts of man.. Seventhly, that our Vocation, our justification, and our Glorification, are the effects of Predestination. I therefore conclude; that Good works are not the cause, why Gods children possess Heaven as their inheritance, seeing it is the effect of Predestination: yet that they are the ordinary way and means, by which God decreed in his eternal purpose, to bring his Elect to Heaven. For, as he ordained the end; that is to say, the Kingdom of Heaven or Eternal life; so also ordained he the way and means to attain the same; that is to say, Vocation, justification, Faith, and Good works. Yea, even among Men; whosoever intendeth the End, intendeth also the Means.   

The 6. Conclusion.  
Good works in a godly sense very usual & frequent in the holy Fathers, may truly be said to be meritorious: that is to say; they please God, and are so acceptable in God's sight, that of mercy he rewardeth them far above their deserts. This Conclusion is sufficiently proved, by the reasons alleged in the first Conclusion. I will here only annex the testimony of Bernard, that famous and learned Popish Abbot. 
Bern. super Cant. Ser. 68  In one place he hath these words: Sic non est quod iam quaeras, quibus meritis speremus bona; praesertim, cum audias apud Prophetam; non propter vos, sed propter me ego faciam, dicit Dominus: sufficit ad meritum, scire quod non sufficiant merita: So there is no cause, that thou shouldest now ask, by what merits we hope for Glory; 
Lo, the confession of our unworthiness, is our best merit.  especially, since thou hearest the Prophet say; I will do it, saith the Lord, not for your sake, but for mine own self. It is enough to merit, to know that our merits are not sufficient. Again in an other place, the same Bernard hath these words: 
Bern, in Can●● ser. 67.  Dost gratiae, quicquid meritis deputas. No●● meritum, quod gratiam excludat. Horreo quicquid de meo est, ut sim meus; nisi quod illud magis sorsitan meum est, quod me meum facit. Gratia reddit me mihi justificatum gratis, et sic liberatum a servitute peccati: It degenerateth from Grace, whatsoever thou ascribest to Merit. I will no Merit, that excludeth Grace. I abhor whatsoever is of mine own, that I may be mine own; unless perhaps that is more mine own, which maketh me mine own. Grace justifieth me freely to myself, and so delivereth me from the bondage of sin. In an other place, the same Bernard hath these words; 
Bern. ser. 1. in Annun●. B.M.U.  jam vero de vita aeterna scimus, quia non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam, nec si unus omnes sustineat. Neque N. talia sunt hominum merita, ut propter ea, vita aeterna debeatur ex iure; aut Deus iniuriam aliquam faceret, nisi came donaret. Nam ut taceam, quod merita omnia Dei dona sunt, 
This testimony is wonderful: Mark it well.  et ita homo magis propter ipsa Deo debitor est, quam Deus homini; quid sunt merita omnia, ad tantam gloriam? denique quis melior est Propheta, cui Dominus ipse tam ensign testimonium perhibet, dicens; Virum inveni secundum cor meum? Veruntamen et ipse necesse habuit dicere Deo; non intres in judicium cum servo tuo Domine. Now touching eternal life; we know that the sufferings of this time, are not worthy of the glory to come; no, not if one endure all. For, the Merits of men are not such, that for them, eternal life is due by right; 
The Popish Abbot woundeth the Pope at the very heart.  or that God should do some injury, if he gave it not. For to let pass, that all Merits are the gifts of God, and so man is rather debtor to God for them, than God to man: What are all Merits, to so great Glory? In fine, who is better than the Prophet, to whom our Lord giveth so worthy a testimony, saying: I have found a man according to my heart? howbeit, he had need to say to God, Enter not into judgement with thy servant, O Lord. Thus writeth the devote and religious Abbot Bernard: 
Vixit Bernardus. A.D. 1110.  who though he lived in the greatest mist of Popery, and so was carried away with some errors of his time; yet did he teach most Christian doctrine, almost in all his works. And because he was reputed a great Papist, and of high esteem in the Church of Rome, his testimony is ever most forcible against Papists, the Pope, and Church of Rome. Out of this his most learned and Christian Discourse, I observe many godly & memorable Lessons. First, that our best works do merit nothing. Secondly, that our greatest and best merit is this: viz. to know, that our supposed merits are not sufficient. Thirdly, that how much soever (be it more, be it less,) We ascribe to Merits, so much do we derogate from God's grace. 
Mark this well.  And consequently, seeing we may not derogate from the Grace of God in any respect; it followeth of necessity, that we cannot challenge any thing of Merit. Fourthly, that Grace doth justify us freely; and consequently, that our Works do not justify at all. Fiftly, that though one man could suffer as much, as all men do; yet could not that man condignly Merit heaven. Sixtly, that eternal life is not due to man's Merits, 
Note this ex iure.  Ex iure; that is to say, Condignly and of right. Seuently, that God should do no man wrong if he gave it not. But doubtless, if Good works did merit Heaven, God should do wrong to many a man, in not giving it. 
This reason can not be answered.  For, to withhold and keep a man's right from him, is a notorious and known wrong. Eightly, that a Man is more indebted to God, than God to man.. And this reason my L. Abbot Bernard, yieldeth for the same; viz. Because Heaven, or Eternal life, is the free gift of God.   

The 7. Conclusion.  
Good works (even by Popish doctrine, 
See and note well the 11. Conclusion, ) without the mercy and promise of God in his Son and our only saviour Christ jesus, do not condignly merit Heaven. This is sound proved, by all the reasons of the third Conclusion. But I will prove it, by other evident means. S. Augustine hath these express words: Vae e●iam laudabili vitae homi●●m si remotu misericordia ●iscautias ●am: Woe even to the best livers on earth, 
Aug. lib. 9 Confess. cap. 13.  if thou extend not thy Mercy to them. For this cause doth the holy Prophet desire God, Not to enter into judgement with him: And he addeth this reason; 
Psal. 143. v. 2.  Because 〈◊〉 m●n living, can 〈◊〉 justified in his sight. Again, the same Prophet confesseth in an other place; 
Psal. 130. v. 3.  That if God deal extremely in punishing what is done amiss, none living▪ (no, not the best of all,) i● able to endure his justice. Abbot Bernard hath these express words: 
Bern. de adu. dom. serm. 6. tom. 1.  Peccatum separans inter nos et Deum penitus auferri non poterit, donec liberemur a corpore: The sin that separateth us from God, can not wholly be taken away, while we remain in this world. He speaketh of Concupiscence & evil desires. Lo, original Concupiscence, which remaineth in us till the hour of death, excludeth us from God, and prepareth Hell for us. The same Bernard in an other place, hath these words: 
Bernard in annue. B.U. serm. 1.  Necesse est primò omnium credere: quod remissionem peccatorum habere non possis, nisi per indulgentiam Dei. Deinde, quod nihil prorsus habere que as operis boni, nisi et hoc dederit ipse. Postremò, quod aternam vitam nullis p●t●s operibus promereri, nisi gratis detur et illa. First of all, thou must believe of necessity; that thou canst not have remission of thy sins, unless God will give thee a pardon for the same. Then, thou must believe, that thou canst not have any Good work at all, unless thou receive it at God's hand. Last of all, thou must believe▪ that thou canst not merit eternal life by any Works, 
No Works can merit Glory.  unless it be freely given (of Mercy.) The famous Papist and great learned School doctor Durandus, disputeth this difficulty so sound and plainly, as every Child may with all facility perceive the truth thereof. These are his express words: 
Durand. in 2, sent. dist. 27. q 2. in medio.  Tale Meritum de condigno invenitur inter homines, sed non est hominis ad Deum. Quod patet, quia, quod redditur potius ex liberalitate dantis, quam ex debito operis, non cadit sub merito de condigno strictè et propriè accepto. Sequitur, quod si quis dicat, quod quamuis Deus non constituatur nobis debitor ex aliquo nostro opere, constituitur tamen debitor ex sua promissione, quam exprimit scriptura; non valet propter duo: Primum est, quod promissio divina in scriptures sanctis, non sonat in aliquam obligationem, sed insinuat meram dispositionem liberalitatis divinae. Secundun est, quod quod redditur, non redditur ex debito operis, sed ex promissione praecedente; non quod redditur ex merito operis de condigno, sed solum vel principaliter ex promissu. Et ita non est illud debitum, de quo loquimur: Et sic patet, quod meritum de condigno strictè et propriè sumptum, viz. pro actione voluntaria, propter quam operanti debetur merces ex justitia, sic quod si non reddatur, ille ad quem pertinet reddere, iniustè facit, et est simpliciter et proprièiniustus, non est hominis ad Deum. Et ideo propter tale meritum, cum sit homini simpliciter impossibile, non est necesse in nobis ponere gratiam, vel charitatem habitualem: Such condign Merit is found among men, but is not between God and man. Which hereby is clear, because that which is rendered rather of the liberality of the giver, then of debt due to the work, falleth not under condign Merit properly so called. If any say; that though God become not our debtor by reason of our Work, yet is he made our debtor by reason of his Promise, whereof the Scripture maketh mention; that answer is of no force, for two respects. First, because Gods Promise in the holy Scriptures doth not sound to any Bond, but insinuateth the mere disposition of God's liberality. Secondly, because that which is given, is not given for the debt arising of the Work, but of promise that went before; not that it is rendered for the condign Merit of the work, but only or principally for his Promise sake: And so there is not that debt, of which we speak. And so it is clear, that condign Merit properly so called, viz. for a voluntary action, for which reward is due of justice to the worker, so that if it be not rendered, he to whom it appertaineth to give it, doth unjustly, and is simply and properly unjust, is not between God and man. And therefore for such a Merit, seeing it is simply impossible to man, there is no need to put in us grace or charity habitual. Thus disputeth M. Durand: out of whose golden periods, I gather many memorable Observations. First, that condign Merit can not be between God and man. Secondly, that eternal life is the free gift of God's liberality, not proceeding of any debt or duty due to the best Works which we do. Thirdly, that God rewardeth us principally for his Promise sake, and not for any thing we either have done, or possibly can do. 
Condign merit is so far above man's capacity, as no man possibly can have it.  Fourthly, that condign Merit is so far above man's capacity and reach, that no man can by any possibility have it. And consequently, that late Popish condign Merit of Works is ridiculous, absurd, and impossible. Gregorius Ariminensis, Thomas Waldensis, Paulus Burgensis, Marsilius, and Etkins, five most zealous Papists, do all with one assent affirm very constantly; that man's Works are not meritorious of eternal life, how holy soever the man be. All this is proved at large, in my Survey of Popery. Dominicus Soto, 
Survey, part 3. cap. 9  a zealous Monk and famous Popish writer, telleth the Papists roundly, and peremptorily, and teacheth them gravely, that no pure man is able to make condign satisfaction for his sins: and so, a foe tiori, against his will and meaning, that no man can by condign Merit attain eternal life. These are his express words: 
Soro de nat. et gr. lib. 3. cap. 6. pag. 138.  Perfect● satisfactio est ●lla, cuius v●●●r es pratium totum emanat a debitore, nulla vel prae ●●niente, vel interueniente gratia creditoris; taliter ut sit redditio aequiu●lentis alias indebi●a voluntarly: Perfect satisfaction is that, whose value and price proceedeth wholly from the debtor, without either preventing or interuenting grace of the creditor; so as the voluntary reddition be of that which is equivalent, and not otherwise due. Thus writeth the Pope's zealous and learned Friar Sot●: whose Doctrine I admit for the truth, and willingly subscribe thereunto. He teach●th us four things. First, that the satisfaction must proceed wholly from the debtor. Secondly▪ that there must be no preventing nor interuenting Grace of the creditor. 
Popish satisfaction is impossible.  Thirdly, that there must be equivalent restitution. Fourthly▪ that that equivalent reddition must be a work, which otherwise is not due. These four conditions, (which our Popish M. Soto the Dominican Friar requireth in every Satisfaction,) when any Papist can find in any one of their Merits or Satisfactions, I will be his bondman, neither shall the Pope's holiness be excepted. But to come to this Bondage upon this Covenant, I am in no fear at all: For the Ethnic Philosopher Aristotle, 
Arist. in. 8. Ethic. cap. 7.  perceived by the natural discourse of right Reason, that no man can ever make condign Satisfaction to God, and his natural Parents. For which respect, Christ himself teacheth us, 
Luke, 17. v. 20.  to acknowledge ourselves unprofitable servants; even when we have done the best we can. 
jac 3 v. 2.  For which respect, S. ●amos assureth us, that the best livers offend in many things. For which respect, 
Aquin. 1.2. q. 114. ar. 1. in corp.  the Popish angelical and chiefest Doctor Aquinas, (whose Doctrine two several Popes have confirmed for Authentical,) telleth both the Pope and us very constantly; that God is not simply and truly said to be debtor to us, but to himself and his own Promise, which he freely without all our deserts, made unto us. These are his express words: Manifestum est autem, quod inter Deum et hominem est maxima inaequalitas, (in infinitum. N. distant;) totum quod est hominis bonum, est a Deo. unde non potest hominis a Deo esse justitia secundum absolutam aequalitatem, sed secundum proportionem quandam; in quantum, scz. uterque operatur secundum modum suum. Modus autem et mensura humanae virtutis homini est a Deo, et ideo meritum hominis apud Deum esse non potest, nisi secundum praesuppositionem divinae ordinationis; ita, scz. ut id homo consequatur a Deo per suam operationem, quasi mercedem; ad quod Deus ei vertutem operandi destinavit: It is manifest, that between God and man, there is exceeding great inequality, (for they differ infinitely:) All the good that man hath, is of God. Wherefore man's justice received of God, can not be according to perfect and absolute equality, but after a certain proportion; to weet, in as much as either worketh according to his condition. Now, man hath the measure and condition of his Virtue from God; 
Lo, man can not merit any thing condignly, or properly.  and therefore man's Merit can not be with God, save only according to the supposal of God's holy ordinance: so to weet, that man may attain that at God's hand by his working, as reward; to which God hath appointed his power of working. Thus disputeth the grand Papist Aquinas; whose Discourse doth utterly overthrow all Popish Merit, as the late Popish Council of Trent hath defined the same. For first (mark well my words,) Aquinas teacheth us the truth: viz. that where there is no perfect equality, there can be no Merit properly. Secondly, he granteth, that there is infinite inequality between God and man. 
There is no proper merit in man.  Thirdly, he confesseth freely, that man's justice is not absolute, but imperfect. Fourthly, he acknowledgeth as truly as constantly, that man doth merit nothing in God's sight, save only by way of his free acceptation. 
Mark & understand this point aright.  Mark well, and forget not these words; (Nisi secundum praesupposuionem divinae ordinationis: Save only according to the supposal of God's ordinance.) Fiftly, he plainly avoucheth, that eternal life is not hire properly, but as it were hire. Mark the words (Quasi mercedem, as hire;) for they are emphatical, and wholly opposite to condign Merit of man's Works. These arguments do plainly convince; and yet to gratify our jesuit, (whose favour I greatly desire in Christ,) I will add for a supplement, a double testimony of two very learned Friars; th'one is Josephus Angles, 
Angles, in 2. sent. pag. 103.  a Popish Bishop and Franciscan Friar: th'other is Robertus Bellarminus, a Jesuitical Friar and Romish Cardinal. Angles hath these express words: Eodem etiam modo considerantes omnes alij doctores sancti, naturalem solummodo bonorum operum valorem, et illum, a valour et justa vitae aeternae astimatione longissime distare perpendentes; prudenter dixerunt, opera nostra non esse meritoria, aut digna vitae aeternae. Ex lege tamen sive conventione, siue promissione facta nobiscum, opera bona hominis cum adiutorio gratiae Dei fiunt aeternae vitae digna, et illi aequalia; quae, seclusa illa Dei promissione (quae passim in sacris literis reperitur,) fuissent tanto premio prorsus indigna: All other holy Doctors also, considering after the same manner the natural value only of Good works, and perceiving that it is exceeding far distant from the value and just estimation of eternal life, said wisely; that our works are not Meritorious, nor worthy of eternal life: Yet for the Covenant and Promise made to us, the Good works of man with the help of God's grace, are worthy of eternal life, and equal to it: which for all that, the Promise of God (which is frequent in the holy Scripture) set apart, were altogether unworthy of so great reward. Thus discourseth our Popish Bishop, our holy Friar, even to the Pope himself, after the humble kissing of his holy feet, to use his own words: Who though he bestir himself more than a little, to establish the condign Merit of man's works; yet doth he in his own kind of dispute, utterly confute and confound himself. For first, he freely granteth, that S. Chrysostome, and all the rest of the holy Doctors with him, affirm constantly, and uniformly with one voice and assent, (a testimony almost incredible, to proceed from the mouth of a Papist, so near and so dear to the Pope,) that Good works neither are meritorious, nor worthy of eternal life. Secondly, he granteth freely, that the best Works, considered in their own nature and kind, are unworthy of eternal life. Thirdly, he granteth willingly, and telleth the Pope roundly, (but after the kissing of his holy feet,) that Good works, even as they proceed of grace and assistance of the holy Ghost, are altogether unworthy of eternal life, if Gods Promise and free acceptation be set apart. 
Lo, the Papists grant as much as we desire.  Which three points doubtless, are all that we desire to be granted, concerning the Doctrine of Good works. And consequently, though the Papists never cease to impeach, accuse, slander, and condemn us in this behalf; yet do we indeed defend nothing herein, (as is evident to the indifferent Reader,) but that very doctrine, which their best Doctors in their printed Books have taught us; yea, in those self-same Books, which are dedicated to the Pope himself. The conceits which the Friar bishop allegeth, to make good the late decreed condign Merit of Works, are very childish, too too gross, and frivolous. For first, where he affirmeth the Fathers and Doctors, to speak of Good works only in respect of their natural value, as he termeth it: I answer, that that silly Gloss & Exposition, is only invented by him and his fellows; 
Philip. 3.9. Rom. 10.4. Tit. 3.5. 1. Cor. 1.30. 2. Cor. 5.19. Rom. 8. v. 1, 2.3.4. Rom. 5. v. 14. Reu. 7. v. 14. Reu. 3. v. 4.  so to salve their beggarly doctrine, if it possibly could be. For, not only the holy Scripture every where contradicteth it, but the Doctors also teach the flat contrary. For first, Durandus saith plainly, that Meritum de condigno, is properly of the worthy, to which that is simply due, which is equal by virtue of the work. Yea, he addeth; that God giveth not eternal life, of justice; but of mere liberality, in that he freely accepteth our works. Secondly, Aquinas affirmeth constantly, that man can not possibly have any Merit with God, save only according to the supposal of his holy Ordinance. He saith further; that Eternal life is not properly a Reward, but as it were a Reward. Thirdly, Abbot Bernard avoucheth Christianly; 
All this is already proved.  that God may justly deny eternal life to the best Works of all, and yet do no injury to any man; no not to the holiest liver upon earth. Fourthly, Friar Bellarmine lately made Cardinal for his stout and learned defence of Popery, doth not only quite overthrow the frivolous distinction of Friar Angles, but also unawares, turneth Popery upside down: For, he approveth the sentence and opinion of Durand, and teacheth plainly; That the best livers, can not absolutely and condignly require any thing at God's hand, seeing all goodness proceedeth only from God; save only in respect of his Promise freely made to man, without all deserts of man. These are the express words of the Cardinal: 
Mark the Cardinal's words well, & understand them sound.  Quod vero attinet ad rem ipsam, Durandi sententia: si nihil aliud vellet, nisi merita nostra non esse ex condigno, sive ex justitia absolutè, sed tantum ex hypothesi, id est, posita liberali Dei promissione, non esset reprobanda. 
Bellar. de justif. 3. col. 1296. ct col. 1298.  Sequitur: respondeo, absolutè non posse hominem a Deo aliquid exigere, cum omnia sint ipsius; tamen posita eius voluntate et pacto, quo non vult exigere a nobis opera nostra gratis, sed mercedem reddere juxta proportionem operum, verè possumus ab eo mercedem exigere; quomodo servus non potest absolutè a Domino suo ullum premium postulare, cum omnia qua servus acquierit, Domino suo acquirat; tamen si Domino placeat donare illi opera sua, et pro eijsdem tanquam sibi non debitis mercedem promittere, iure mercedem pro suis operibus postulabit: Touching the matter itself, Durands opinion: if he had no other meaning, but that our Merits are not absolutely just & condign, 
All the good deeds we can possibly do, are Gods own; and so we can merit nothing of God with them.  but only hypothetically in respect of Gods liberal Promise, could not be rejected. Sequitur. I answer; that man can not absolutely exact any thing of God, seeing all things are Gods own; howbeit, his Will and Covenant being made, that he will not exact our works of us freely, but will reward them according to their proportion; we may truly require higher of him; like as a Bondman can not absolutely require any reward of his Lord, seeing every thing which the Bondman gaineth, is gotten and gained to his Master: yet for all that, if it shall please his Lord and Master to bestow his works on him, and to promise reward for the same, as if they were not due unto him; then may the Bondman justly demand reward for his works. Thus disputeth Friar Cardinal Bellarmine: and consequently, 
Mark well for Christ's sake for Popery bleedeth unto death.  this is all that all Papists say, or possibly can say, for the life of their Pope and Popish doctrine. And yet it is evident to every judicious Reader, that the Cardinal hath unawares quite overthrown Popery, and turned it upside down: For, out of his Doctrine, these points are deduced most manifestly. First, that Durandus his opinion, hath put him to his best Trump. Secondly, that Durandus his opinion (as is already proved,) is this: viz. That the Merit of Works in the best liver on earth, can not truly and properly be called, Meritum ex condigno, Condign Merit; but only in way of God's free acceptation, and in respect of his Promise freely made to man▪ without all deserts. Thirdly, that the Cardinal plainly overcome with the force of Durands' reasons, (for the truth will in time ever prevail,) granteth his opinion in this sense afore touched. For he saith plainly; If Durand admit Merit in respect of Gods Promise, his opinion can not be reproved. Fourthly, that our jesuit Friar Cardinal maketh good that Doctrine, which myself do here defend; as which is the self same, that Durand holds. And consequently, if Bellarmine and his fellows, with their Popish followers, would stand constantly to their own Doctrine, which they publish in printed Books; we and they should soon agree, and these great Controversies would have an end. Fiftly, that man can not exact any thing absolutely at God's hands, because all things are Gods own. Sixtly, that in respect of Gods good pleasure and covenant freely made to man, man may truly require reward at God's hands. Yea▪ myself grant, that we may not only truly, but also justly require reward at God's hands, in regard of his Promise freely made unto us. But withal I ever deny, that any reward is due to our best Works, for any condign Merit or Desert of or in our Works, Gods free Acceptation, Mercy, and Promise set apart. For as S. Austen saith gravely; 
Aug. lib. 9 Confess. cap. 13.  Vae etiam laudabils vitae hominum, si remota misericordia discutias eam: Woe even to the best liue● upon earth; if thou examine his life, thy Mercy set apart: Now here I would admonish the gentle Reader by the way, to distinguish these two words aright with me; viz. justly, and Condignly. For although the children of God may in respect of his merciful Promise, require even of justice, 
Mark this well.  reward for their Good works; yet can they not any way, Condignly require the same. The disparity consisteth in this; viz. that albeit Gods Promise be enough to make the reward justly given, yet it is not sufficient to make our Works Condignly worthy of the same. The reason is evident: because justice here spoken of, is not absolute, but respective, connotating the free Promise of God: but Condignity is absolute, connotating intrinsically the perfection and worthiness of the work.  
Secondly, 
Secundò principaliter.  after Friar Angles had disputed this question, pro et contra, both affirmatively and negatively; in the end he plainly confesseth (though unawares) the self-same Doctrine, which I now contend to prove. 
Angles in 2. sent. pag. 107.  He telleth us forsooth, that the price of every thing may be equal to the value and worth of the same thing, two ways: First (saith he) of the Nature of the thing: Secondly, of the Pact, Covenant and Promise of him, that doth promise the same thing. For (saith our Friar bishop,) if one Penny be the full value answerable to the work; yet if a greater reward be promised, which far exceedeth the worth & value of the work wrought; then, that reward is also due by covenant. and hereupon, this great learned Fry●r bishop concludeth rounly, (I had almost said, learnedly; 
The bishop confuteth himself, he needeth no adversary. ) that though our Good works come far short of eternal life, if we respect the worthiness thereof; yet do they condignly merit the joys of Heaven, if we respect the free Promise of Christ jesus. And this condignity of Works, our Friar calleth equality of Promise only. But here our bishop Fryeo, (by his favour I speak it, 
A very fond distinction, invented without rhyme or reason. ) showeth himself a very noddy: For doubtless, Promise, albeit it doth truly infer justice, in respect of him that promiseth; yet can it never infer Equality, between the work and the reward. For example sake; If our Friar should wish me to lend him my Cloak to defend him from a shower of rain, and withal should promise, 
Tit. 1. v. 2. Heb. 6.10. 2. Tim. 4.8. jac. 1.12. jac. 2.5. Psal. 130.3 Psal. 143.2.  to give me an hundred pounds for the loan; then doubtless were it true to say, that after such loan, an hundred pounds were of justice due unto me; yet withal it would be most true also, that such loan of my Cloak were not the condign Merit of that hundred pounds? I willingly grant; that eternal life is due to the works of Gods elect, and that it is as well the crown of justice, as of Mercy: But withal I constantly avouch, that God bestoweth it on his Elect freely for his own names sake, & not for any merit, worthiness, or condignity of their Works. 
S. R. pag. 257.  And the friars answer is childish and frivolous; when he denieth the loan of the Cloak, to have such virtual and proportionate equality to an Hundred pounds, as man's Merits have to Glory. For first, the Promise is equal, and holdeth in both alike. Secondly, the Promise doth not add any Worthiness to the work: and consequently, there is still as great inequality after the Promise, as was before the same. Thirdly, there is infinite distance between God and Man; the Work, and the Reward: as their Angelical Doctor hath well observed. But the distance and inequality between the Loane of the Cloak, and the Hundred pounds, is finite and limited in them both. Thus much for this Conclusion. 
Note well the eleventh Conclusion following.  If any desire a larger Discourse; he may peruse my Survey, and the Downfall of Popery; where he shall find sound answered, what possibly can be objected against the same. Note well the eleventh Conclusion following.   

The 8. Conclusion.  
The doctrine of the Popish Schooledoctors, in which they affirm Charity to be the form of Faith, is frivolous, ridiculous, false, erroneous, and absurd. I prove it, first; because in things distinguished intrinsically, one can not be the form of another. If our Friar deny this, he will prove himself an Ass; Si non actu, at saltem in potentia: For an Ass by this grant, may be his form, and so give him the denomination of that worthy Beast. Now, that Faith and Charity are distinct Theological virtues; 
1. Cor. 13. v. 13.  S. Paul affirmeth it so plainly, as no denial can be made thereof. Secondly, because of things in perfect essence and nature, the latter can not possibly be the form of the former; and consequently, seeing Faith goeth before Charity, Charity cannot possibly be the form thereof. The antecedent is evident; because whatsoever cometh to a thing after the essential constitution thereof, is merely extrinsical & accidental to the same. The consequent is likewise evident; because we can neither please God, nor yet come to God, 
Heb. 11. v. 6.  but by Faith in him. It is the flat and constant Doctrine, of the chosen vessel of our Lord jesus. Thirdly, because Charity is the effect and work of Faith S. Augustine proveth it, in these golden words: 
Aug. in Epist. johan. tract. 10. in initio.  O●us autem fidej i●sa dilectinest: But Charity itself is the work of Faith. This testimony striketh dead; it plainly convinceth; it is unanswerable.   

The 9 Conclusion.  
Faith though it be a work, 
Ioh 6. v. 29.  as the Papists truly object; yet doth it not justify as a work or quality, neither yet for any worthiness or condignity in the same. 
Rom. 3 28. Rom. 5.1. Rom. 10. v. 3.4. Act. 13.39. Phil. 3 9  Explico. When we teach, hold, and defend, according to the uniform consent of the holy Fathers, and constant doctrine of the Apostle, That man is justified by Faith only, without Works; we neither deny Faith to be a work; nor yet affirm it to justify as a work. For, faith being taken two ways; properly, 
Fides sumitur dupliciter, propriè et sinapliciter, seu figuratè et re. latiuè.  according to the nature of Faith; and respectively, as it apprehendeth his object: it is said to justify the latter way, not the former; not as it is an habit in us, but as it apprehendeth Christ without us. We neither make Faith a part, nor yet a cause of our justification, either efficient, or formal, or final; albeit I willingly grant, hold, 
By Faith, Christ's obedience & merits are applied to us.  defend and believe, that it is the material cause; that is, (as the Schools term it,) Causa sine qua non, the cause without which justification shall not have effect. Which our saviour Christ showeth evidently, 
By Faith, Christ's obedience & merits, are applied to us. joh. 3. v. 17. Mar. 16 v.. 7. H●b. 11. v. 7  when he telleth us; That God so loved the World, that he gave his only Son, that none believing in him, should perish, but have eternal life. And in an other place; That whosoever believe not, shallbe condemned. To which the holy Apostle is consonant, when he affirmeth it, impossible to please God without Faith. I grant yet further; that when there be many gradual effects of one and the same cause, than the former may fitly be termed the Material cause of the latter: and consequently, although Good works can not be any cause of justification, 
Bona opera sunt medium sine quo non salutis.  which goeth before them, yet may they be the Material cause, and causa sine qua non, of Salvation, which followeth them: For Good works are in sort necessary to Salvation; 
Sup●rius, concl. 4.  as is already proved, in the fourth Conclusion. For, as Vocation, justification, Regeneration, and Glorification, are the effects of Predestination; even so by God's holy ordinance, 
See the 5. Conclusion. and note it.  being Predestinate, we are called by the hearing of his Word, unto Faith: which apprehending the righteousness of Christ jesus, is the cause of our justification. After we be justified, of our justification proceeds Regeneration; as who having remission of our sins, 
Rom. 5.1. 1. Cor. 1.3. 2. Cor. 4.16. Gal. 6.15. Mat. 7.17.  and being engraffed in Christ by Faith, are endued with more abundant Grace of his holy spirit: through which we are daily more and more Regenerate, and made new creatures in Christ. After we be Regenerate, out of our Regeneration, spring Good works both internal and external; as who being made Good trees, begin to bring forth Good fruits; and so continuing, are brought at the length of God's free Mercy, to the perpetual possession of Eternal life. For the proof of justification by Faith without Works, I refer the Reader to my Survey: which Book, if he once peruse and ponder it seriously, he can not but be fully satisfied in this behalf.   

The 10. Conclusion.  
Good works, though they neither be parts nor causes of justification, nor merit eternal Glory condignly, (as is already proved;) yet must we do them, for these three respects: Gods, Ours, & our Neighbours. In respect of God, for these three ends: First, because God hath so commanded us; This is my Commandment, that ye love one an other, as I have loved you. Again in these words; If ye love me, keep my commandements. 
joh. 15.12. joh. 14. v. 1●.  Again thus; Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance: Every Tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shallbe cut down & cast into the fire. Again thus; 
Mat. 3. v. 8.10.  Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, 
Mat. 22. v. 37.  with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Again in these words; Be ye therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Again thus; He chose us in Christ, 
Mat. 5.48.  that we should be holy in his sight. Again thus; We are his workmanship, 
Ephes. 1.4. Ephes. 2.10.  created in Christ jesus unto good works, which he hath prepared for us to walk in. Secondly, for the Glory of God: Let your Light so shine before men, 
Mat. 5.16.  that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in Heaven. Thirdly, to show our gratitude and thankfulness to God: for which respect, 
Rom. 12. ●.  S▪ Paul exhorteth the Romans, To offer up their bodies a lively, holy, and acceptable Sacrifice unto God. Yea the Scriptures teach us every where, to show our thankfulness unto God by our holy and godly lives. In respect of ourselves for sundry ends; First, to assure us of our Election & Salvation: For thus is the Latin vulgar text, extolled & preferred before all other by the Popish Council of Trent: 
2. Pet. 1. v▪ 10.  Quapropter fr●tres magis satagite, ut per bona opera c●r●ā vestram vocationem et electionem fac●utis. Again thus; Whom he hath Predestinate, those hath he Called; 
Rom. ●. 30.  and whom he hath Called, those hath he justified, and whom he hath justified, those hath he glorified. Secondly, to avoid torments, which are due to all evil works: For as th'Apostle teacheth us; 
Rom. 6. v. 23.  Death is the stipend of sin: And our M. Christ telleth us; That every evil Tree, which bringeth not forth good fruit, 
Mat. 22. v. 13.  shallbe cut down and cast into the Fire. Yea, that he which had not on a Wedding garment, was bound hand & foot, and so cast into utter darkness. Thirdly, to attain corporal and eternal reward; So saith holy Writ; Come ye blessed of my Father, 
Mat 25. v. 34.  possess the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world: for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me to drink. For which respect; Moses is said to have had regard unto reward. 
Heb. 11. v. 26.  And even so is reward promised to him that giveth but a cup of cold Water in God's name. 
Mat. 10. v. 42.  In respect of our Neighbours, for divers considerations: First, to put away scandal; Woe to that man, by whom scandal cometh: 
Mat. 18.7.  you are the cause, that God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles. 
Rom. 2.24.  Secondly, that we may profit our Neighbours, by our good examples; Let your Light so shine before men, 
Mat. 5.16.  that they may see your Good works, and glorify your Father which is in Heaven.  
Now because our late Popes, our newly hatched Jesuits, and Jesuite● Papists, 
The sect of the Jesuits began, A.D. 1540  are so full of Good works, (at least in their own corrupt persuasions,) that they are able with the same, to merit Heaven and eternal Glory; I am content to employ my Pen, in speaking a little thereof, that the world may understand the same, for edification sake. I will say nothing of the outrageous behaviour of the Romish Papists, in time of Carn●uàle at Rome; when and where for many days (or rather weeks together,) men and women gad up and down in the streets, and into houses; some on Horseback, & some on foot; transformed under Vizardes', men into woman's apparel, and women into man's apparel: and so to the great scandal of all good people that see or hear thereof, work wickedness (as the same goeth, intolerable and audible to God and all good men. Two kinds of notorious works, I will only touch for the present; the Stews, & the Hospital De sancto spiritu. The Romans forsooth, are so mortified and so holy; partly by the Pope for the time being, who (if he be truly named) is not only Holy, but Holiness itself in the abstract; 
The Pope is now called, Holiness.  partly, by the preachings and other instructions of Jesuits and jesuited popelings, that the Pope forsooth, must perforce permit them to have common Brothelhouses or Stews, so to satisfy their beastly & inordinate carnal lusts. I mean not here to dispute, whether sin in some cases may be tolerated, or no; 
In the regiment of the Church.  I have written of that subject, else where at large. But this I mean for the good of the Reader, and edification-sake; to make it evident to the world, that the Romish Papists, (who glory in their meritorious works,) are the worst livers upon earth. The Stews are not sufficient, to bridle the outrage of the inordinate carnal lust of the Saints at Rome: but they must further have a second Toleration or Dispensation, for an Hospital of Charity forsooth; 
The Hospital of the Holy Ghost.  called for the surpassing virtue thereof, by the name of the holy Ghost. The end of this Hospital is this, to keep Whores and Whoremasters, from villainous and most cruel Murders. Every night, one of that holy Hospital whatcheth diligently; and turning about a Wheel made for the purpose, receiveth new borne Bastards into their costodie. The Wheel is so artificially contrived, that they can not know or see who bringeth the said Infant-bastardes. The Children are courteously received, & have usage and education as if they were legitimate. The Hospital is very rich, and well able to maintain all that are brought thither: It findeth more, and more able friends, than any other Hospital: More Lands and Goods are given to it, then to any other. And no marvel; seeing all that the Romish Saints do give to it, is given for the maintenance and education of their beloved Bastards. When these Bastards come to years of discretion, either sooner or latter, as it seemeth good to the Fathers; then they come to visit the said Hospital, and to see their own Bastards; and for a work of Charity, they make choice of those whom they love and like the best. Will not such Holy works of mercy, merit Heaven condignly? by Popish Faith and Divinity, it is approved with great solemnity. But how (will some say) do the Fathers know their own Bastards? I answer, that it is a thing very easy to be done: For, the Fathers and Mothers, (or some by their procurement,) do hang about the necks of their Bastards, special Tokens or jewels, by which they may know them an other day: Which Tokens, the Governors of the Hospital by the Laws thereof, (which they are sworn to obey, observe, and perform,) must carefully from time to time keep, and see that they never be taken from their Necks, during their abode in the said Hospital. This Story, I have for this end here inserted, that the world may know the meritorious works of the Pope, Jesuits, and other Romish Papists. The censure whereof, I leave to the judicious and honest Reader.   

The 11. Conclusion.  
As it is true, by the constant Doctrine of best Learned Popish Writers; that the best Workers are not condignly meritorious of Eternal life, without the Promise of God made to reward them. So it is in like manner true also; that albeit by reason of God's Promise, the Reward be justly both given and expected; 
Tit. 1. v. 2. 2. Tim. 4. v. 8. jacobi. cap. 1. v. 12. Heb. 6.10.  yet neither doth nor can the said Promise (in re● veritate and true estimation of the Work and the Reward,) make the work condignly meritorious of the same Reward; Eternal glory I ever understand. This Conclusion consisteth of two parts; the former whereof is copiously proved, in the seventh Conclusion aforegoing. 
See and note well the 7. Conclusion.  The latter I prove, by many means and invincible reasons. First, because a Promise, (although it make the thing promised, to be justly a kind of debt, and so of justice both required and expected,) neither doth nor can change the nature of the Work, or attribute any condignity or worthiness to the same. Secondly, because the Promise is freely made, and far exceedeth the worthiness of the work.. So saith the popish Friar John de Combis, 
Io de Combis in compend. theol. verit.  in these very words: Deus nes punit citra condignum, remunerat ultra condignum: God punisheth us less than we be worthy, and rewardeth us far above our deserts. So saith Abbot Bernard, in these express words: 
Bern. ser. 1. in annunciat. B.M.U.  Aeternam vitam nullis potes operibus promereri, nisi gratis detur et illa: (Thou must believe) that thou canst not merit eternal life with any Works, unless it be freely given (of mercy.) 
See the 6. Conclusion, & note it well.  See the same Bernard more at large, in the sixth Conclusion. So faith S. Austen, in these most golden words: 
Aug. Ep. 105. Tom. ●.  Nec misericordia impedit veritatem, qua plectitur dignus; nec veritas misericordiam, qua liberatur indignus. Qua igitur sua merita iactaturus est liberatus, cui si digna suis meritis redderentur, non esset nisi damnatus? Neither doth Mercy hinder the Truth, with which he is punished that so deserveth; neither doth Truth hinder Mercy, which delivereth him that is unworthy of it. How therefore can he boast of his Merits, which is delivered; who, if he were dealt withal according to his Merits, should of necessity be damned? Thirdly, because our best so supposed Merits, are the free Gifts of God, of his mere Mercy bestowed on us. So saith th'Apostle; What hast thou, 
1. Cor. 4. v. 7.  which thou hast not received? and if thou have received it, why boastest thou of it, as if thou hadst not received it? Again, the same Apostle proveth our holy Father Abraham, to have been justified by Grace, not of Works. 
Rom. 4. v. 2.3.4  If Abraham (saith he) be justified by Works, he hath Glory, but not with God. For what saith the Scripture? 
Gen. 1 v. 6. Gal. 3.6. jac. 2.23.  Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him for righteousness. But to him that worketh, wages is not imputed according to Grace, but according to debt. Yet to him that worketh not, but believeth on him which justifieth the wicked, his Faith is reputed to him for righteousness, according to the purpose of the Grace of God. Again in an other place, the same Apostle hath these words: By Grace you are saved through Faith, and that not of yourselves, 
Ephes. 2. v. 8.  for it is the Gift of God; not of Works, lest any man should boast. Again thus: Not of the Works of justice which we have done, 
Tit. 3.5.  but according to his Mercy hath he saved us. That is it, that S. Austen saith in these most excellent words: 
Aug. Ep. 105.  Cum Deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud coronat quam munera sua: When God crowneth our Merits, he crowneth no other thing than his own gifts. Again, in these words: 
Vbi supra.  Cui debetur vita aeterna, vera justitia est; si autem vera justitia est, ex●e non est; desursu●n est descendens a patre luminum, ut haberes eam: Eternal life is true justice to him, to whom it is due: But if it be true justice, it is not of thyself; it is from above, descending from the Father of light, that thou might have the same. Fourthly, because our Saviour himself telleth us; That when we have done all the Good deeds, 
Luk. 17.10.  which possibly she can do; then have we done nothing in deed, save only that which we were of duty bound to do. Upon which words, the religious and learned Friar Ferus giveth this commentary: 
Ferus in Mat. lib. 2. cap. 12. p. 232. job. 9  Quantacunque N. bona feceris, semper tamen ma●ora, vel saltem plura committis mala, ut verissimè dicere possis te se ruum inutilem. Hoc sanctus ille Iob inter flagella Dei agnoscens, deplorat; si inquit, justum me d●xero, os meum condemnabit me: How good so ever works thou shalt do, yet thou always committest either greater, or at least more evils; so as thou mayest truly say, thou art an unprofitable servant. This holy Job lamenteth, in time of his afflictions: If, saith he, I say I am just, my mouth shall condemn me. Again, the same Friar Ferus hath these express words; 
Ferus, ubi supra. fol. 231. B.  Non planè interijt Adam ille vetus; unde fit, ut cum gratia sua Christus ad bona opera extimulat; ipse Adam, hoc est, perversa natura, adijcit vel aliquid propriae complacentiae, vel proprij commodi. etc. Quo fit, ut opus ipsum nunquam sit perfectum, quamuis ex misericordia Dei non imput●tur pijs: Old Adam is not yet wholly extinct; whence it cometh, that as Christ by his Grace provoketh to Good works; so old Adam, that is, corrupt Nature, either addeth some part of proper complacence, or private commodity, & the like. Whereupon it cometh, that the Work is never perfect, although of God's Mercy it be not imputed to the godly. The same Friar Ferus in an other place, hath these express words; 
Ferus, ubi supra, lib. 3. cap. 16. fol. 290. B.  Ob id Christus toties passionem suam praedixit, ut penitus cordibus discipulorum infigeret, unde et ipsorum et nostra falus pendeat; nempe, in solo merito Christi, non in operibus nostris. Nos. N. etiamsi omnia et faceremus, aut pateremur, ne pro uno quidem illoque minimo peccato satisfaceremus. E Christi igitur merito salus nostra pendet; huc igitur nunquam non respiciendum: For that end did Christ so often foretell his Passion, that he might deeply engraff in the hearts of his Disciples, from whence both theirs and our Salvation cometh; to weet, from and in the only Merit of Christ, not in our own Works: For we, although we should do or suffer all things; yet could we not satisfy for any one Sin, no not for the least of all: Our Salvation therefore dependeth upon the Merit of Christ; to which we must ever have an eye. Again in an other place, the same learned Friar hath these words; 
Ferus in Mat. lib. 1. cap. 4 in initio.  Quod nostra opera minus habent, id supplent opera Christi. Imò sola opera Christi, merita nostra. Omnes. N. justitiae nostrae, pannus menstruatae, etc. What our works want, that Christ's works do supply: Yea, only Christ's works are our Merits: For, all our Works of righteousness, are filthy Clouts. Fiftly, S. Augustine avoucheth most constantly; That without God's mercy, the best liver on earth shall perish everlastingly. These are that holy, ancient, and great learned Father's words; 
Aug. lib. 9 confess. c. 13.  Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum, si remota misericordia discutias eam: Woe even to the laudable life of man, if without Mercy thou examine the same. Sixtly, because devout Bernard saith; That the Sin which maketh a division between God and us, 
Bern. de adu. dom. ser. 6.  can not be wholly taken away in this life. Seventhly, because the grand Papist Aquinas, (whose Doctrine sundry Popes have made Authentical, 
Aquin. 12. q. 114. ar. 1. ) affirmeth resolutely; That all the Good which man hath, is of God: and that therefore man can have no Merit in God's sight, save only according to the presupposal of his holy Ordinance. Eightly, because the famous and learned Popish schoolman  Durandus, 
Durand. in ●. sent. d. 27. q. 2. in med.  avoucheth peremptorily; That condign Merit properly, can not possibly be in any man. Ninthly, because the Popish Friar and bishop Angles, even in that his Book which he dedicated to the Pope himself, 
josep. Angles, in 2. sentent. d. 27. p. 103.  delivereth this position for wholesome and sound Doctrine. viz. That man's Merits are altogether unworthy of eternal Glory, if Gods Promise be set apart. Tenthly, because Cardinal Bellarmine (whose Doctrine to the Papists, is as Oraculum Apollonis,) telleth us without stammering; That man can not for his best Works or Merits, challenge any thing of God absolutely; seeing all the goodness he hath, cometh from God: Wherefore he requireth God's Promise to be added to man's Merit, as Aquinas, Durandus, and Angles, had done before him. In one place, he hath these express words: 
Bellarm. tom. 3. col. 1285.  At ut bono operi debeatur merces ex justitia, conventio vel promissio necessaria est. Non enim tenetur unus alterius obsequium acceptare, nisi conventio interuenerit. Deus autem non promisit mercedem vitae aeternae, nisi per Christi gratiam regeneratis et adoptatis: But that reward be due of justice to good Works, a covenant or promise is necessary. For one is not bound to accept the service of another; unless there be a covenant: But God promised not the reward of eternal life, save only to the regenerate through the grace of God. In an other place; he hath these words. 
Bellarm. tom. 3. col. 13●3.  Sed facilis est responsio. Nam dicitur Deus reddere debita nulli debens, quia nihil ulli debet absolutè, sed solum ex promissione & dono suo. Pari ratione dicimus Deo, read, quia promisisti; non dicimus, red, quia accepisti; quoniam fundamentum primum debiti divini, non in opere nostro, sed in eius promissione consistit. But the answer is easy. For God is said to pay debts, though he be debtor to none; because he oweth nothing to any absolutely, but only in respect of his promise and free gift. In like manner, we say to God; give because thou hast promised. We say not give because thou hast received. Because the chief foundation of God's debt, doth not consist in our work, but in his Promise freely made unto us. In an other place, he hath these words. 
Bellarm. tom. 3. col. 1300.  Primum igitur, opera justorum, remoto pacto vel promissione, non esse meritoria vitae aeternae ex condigno sive ex justitia, ita ut non possit Deus sine iniustitia talem negare mercedem, satis probatum est. scriptura siquidem & patres, ubicunque dicunt Deum fidelem esse & justum in reddendo praemio, semper aut ferè semper mentionem faciunt promissionis. First, it is proved sufficiently, that the works of the just, God's covenant and promise set apart, are not meritorious of eternal life condignly and justly, so as God can not deny such reward without injustice. For the Scripture and the fathers, whensoever they say, God is faithful and just in rendering reward, do ever or almost ever, make mention of his promise. Thus writeth Cardinal Bellarmine, that famous jesuited Friar. Out of whose doctrine I observe many worthy Lessons, to the confusion of the Pope and all his Popish vassals. First, that God's promise is so necessary to attain reward, that without it no reward can justly be required. Secondly, that no reward is due to any, but only to the regenerate. Thirdly, that the reward is not promised for any merit in man's work, but for Christ's sake and merit. Fourthly, that man can require nothing of God absolutely, but only for his covenant and promise sake. Fiftly, that God is no man's debtor absolutely, but only by reason of his free gift and promise made to man. Sixtly, that the chief foundation of God's debt, consisteth in God's free gift and promise made to man. Seventhly, that the works of the best livers do not merit eternal life justly and condignly, but only by reason of God's covenant and promise. Eightly, that both the Scripture and the Fathers, do either ever or almost ever make mention of gods promise, wheresoever they tell us, that God is faithful and just in rewarding man's works. Much more I could say out of Bellarmine, but this is sufficient to every indifferent Reader.   

The 12. Conclusion.  
Condign merit of Works was not an Article of popish faith, for more than a thousand, five hundred, and forty years after Christ. And consequently it must needs be a rotten rag of the new Religion; as which was hatched so long after, the old Roman, Catholic & Apostolic religion. The proof of this Conclusion is at hand; 
An. D. 1547.  because the late popish Council of Trent, made it an Article of popish Faith, accursing & condemning to hell, all such as deny or not believe the condign merit of man's works. 
S. R. p. 224. & p. 231.  The jesuit S. R. in his pretenced answer to the Downfall of Popery, had no other shift in the world to save the credit of their Council, and as it were to hide the nakedness of that unchristian and plain diabolical course; but to deny the council to have decreed condign merit, to be an Article of Popish faith. For (saith he, 
True merit and condign merit, is all one. ) the Council hath no word of condign merit, but only of true merit. And after he hath cited the words of the Council, he addeth these of his own. Here are good works defined to be true merit of Glory, without determining whether they be condign merit thereof, or no. Thus saith our jesuit; showing himself to be either too too malicious, or else a very noddy. For to merit truly and condignly, is all one. Otherwise, our jesuit must tell us, (which is unpossible to be done;) how one can merit a thing truly, and for all that not worthily and condignly deserve the same. Well, we have it freely granted, because it can not be denied; that the Council of Trent defined true merit, but not condign merit of works, to be an Article of popish faith. And consequently, the jesuit must volens nolens confess; that the Council defined condign merit, under the name of true merit. For better confirmation whereof I will add a testimony, that woundeth the jesuit at the heart, and is indeed incurable. 
S. R. pag. 224. Note this Prosopopeia.  It is the Jesuits own sword, which he hath put into my hands to kill him, as one weary of his life, because Popery is proved the new Religion. These are his own express words; I neither add, nor take any word, syllable, or jot away, as I desire to be saved. Because as I think, (saith our jesuit) only condign merit is true merit. O sweet jesus? O heaven, O earth? O all Saints in heaven, and all creatures on earth? be ye this day judges, between the Jesuits and me. The jesuit denieth the Council to define condign merit, but granteth it to define true merit. This done, (O wonderment of the world,) the same jesuit within two leaves next following, (as a mad man bereaved of his wits and senses) constantly affirmeth, only condign merit to be true merit: but doubtless; 
Mark this point well.  if only condign merit (mark well my words for Christ's sake) be true merit, as the jesuit truly writeth against himself, his Pope, and Council; 
An Argument unanswerable.  and withal, if the Council defined true merit, as the jesuit likewise truly granteth, and myself affirm; it followeth of necessity, that the same Council defined condign merit equivalently, and Popery to be the new Religion. The truth (God's name be blessed for it) must needs in time prevail, now (sir Friar) let us hear your goodly sermon.   

B. C.  
Bell denieth the Fathers to have ascribed any Merit to Good works proceeding from Grace, for any dignity or worthiness in the works themselves, but only from Gods Promise, and Merits of his Son. This I challenge for a manifest untruth, when as plentiful testimonies want not, to prove, that Works proceeding of Grace, are Meritorious, not only for his Promise or Acceptation, but also for the dignity of the Works: Yea, the Scriptures are evident in this point.   

T. B.  
I answer; that I have sound confuted in the Conclusions aforegoing, much more than the Friar doth here, or is ever able to object: Nevertheless, I am content to answer in particular, to whatsoever seemeth to carry any colour of truth, though none in very deed.   

B. C.  

Mat. 20. v. 8.  Call the Workmen, and pay them their hire; where Reward is given to the Works: Whereof it followeth, that Works deserved it.   

T. B.  
I answer; First, that the Pope may be ashamed, to have no better defenders of his Popery: For, if the truth were in their side, better reasons would be given in defence of the same. Secondly, that all Workmen do not always deserve their hire: For many (as experience teacheth,) are such idle loiterers and work so slowly, that their Masters give them over, not thinking them worth half their hire. Thirdly, that they who came but at the eleventh hour, and in the end of the day; received as much hire, as they that came at the ninth, sixth, or third hour: which plainly argueth, that the hire was not given for the worthiness or condignity of the work.. Fourthly, that they, who do nothing but which otherwise they are bound to do, do not worthily deserve hire for doing of the same. Fiftly, that Johannes Ferus a learned Popish Friar, in his Commentaries upon this text, yieldeth the same sense and meaning: these are his words. 
Ferus in 20. cap. Mat. v. 8,  Docet haec Parabola, primò gratiam esse, non debitum, quicquid a Deo nobis datur. Omnes. N. justitiae nostrae tanquam pannus menstruatae. Imò, nè ipsae passiones quidem huius temporis sunt condignae ad futuram gloriam. Quodsi aliquando mercedem audis polliceri, scias non ob aliud esse debitum, quam ex promissione divina. Gratis promisit, gratis reddit. Si igitur Dei gratiam et favorem conseruare cupis, nullam meritorum tuorum mentionem fac: This Parable teacheth us, that it is Grace, not Debt, whatsoever God giveth us. For all our righteousness, is as filthy Clouts: Yea, the very afflictions which we endure in this life, are unworthy of eternal life. If then thou hear Reward sometime promised, know that it is no otherwise debt, save only for the Promise which God hath made. Freely he promised, and freely he payeth the same. If therefore thou wilt keep God's favour & grace, make no mention of thy Merits. Thus discourseth this learned Friar, out of whose words I observe these worthy Lessons. First, that our works deserve nothing condignly at God's hands. Secondly, that whensoever we hear Reward promised, we must then know, that it freely proceeds of Mercy, not of any worthiness in our Works. Thirdly, that God both without our Deserts promiseth, and without our Deserts performeth the same. Fourthly, that we can not continue in God's favour, if we do but make mention of our Merits. But doubtless, if the mention of our Merits barely made, be of force to take away God's favour from us; much more is the relying upon our Merits, and the challenging of Merit for the same; able and of force to produce the same effect. Again in an other place, the same Ferus hath these express words. 
Ferus in cap. 9 Mat. v. 4. Esa. 43.  Non attendebant quod per Prophetam dicitur; Ego deleo peccata tua propter me; propter me, inquit, non propter merita tua. Solus Christus remittit peccata, et quidem gratis; nihil ad hoc faciunt merita nostra. Non quod intermittenda sunt opera, sed soli Deo gloria danda, juxta illud; si seceritis omnia quae praecepta sunt vobis, dicite▪ servi inutiles sumus: They regarded not what the Prophet saith; 
Luc. 17. v. 10. Psal. 113.  I put away thy sins, for mine own sake: He saith, for mine own sake, not for thy Merits. One and sole Christ doth forgive sins, and that freely: our Merits help nothing thereunto. Yet Good works may not be omitted; but the glory must be given to God alone, according to that saying: If ye shall do all that is commanded you, yet say; We are unprofitable servants.   

B. C.  
Likewise, our Saviour saith; Come ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you, from the foundation of the world: For, I was an hungered, and you gave me to eat. 
Mat. 25. v. 34.  Where our Saviour signifieth, that Heaven was given to Good works: for in more usual significant words it can not be spoken, that Heaven is given as a Reward to the works of mercy.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that the word (For) is not here taken causaliter, 
Non causaliter, sed consecutiuè.  but consequatiuè, to speak as the Schooledoctors do; that is to say, it doth not connotate the cause, but the event: so as the sense is not, that they did merit Heaven for giving Meat to Christ; but that by doing such charitable Works, (which are the effects of a true justifying Faith,) they showed themselves to be the Children of God, and the heirs of his Kingdom. And this sense is clearly deduced out of the very text itself. For, seeing the kingdom of Heaven (as Christ here avoucheth) was prepared for them before the foundation of the world; and consequently, before they were borne, and so before they could do any Good works; it followeth of necessity, that their Works could not merit Heaven; but only intimate to the world, that the inheritance of Heaven was due unto them, as to the children of God the heirs of the same. For (as the Apostle saith,) If we be Sons, then are we also Heirs; 
Rom. 8. v, 17.  Heirs of God, and joint-heyres with Christ. Yea, (as the same Apostle saith in an other place, 
Ephes. 1. v. 4. ) As he chose us in him before the foundation of the World, that we should be holy, & immaculate in his sight through love. Again, in an other place, thus teacheth us our Saviour himself, 
joh. 15. v. 16.  Non vos me elegistis, sed ego e●egi vos, et positi vos, ut ●atis, et fructum afferatis. You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you; I have put you that ye may go and bring forth fruit. In another place, the Apostle hath these words: Whom he did predestinate, them also he called; 
Rom. 8. v. 30.  & whom he called them also he justified; & whom he justified them also he glorified▪ Johannes Ferus, that learned popish Friar writeth in this manner. 
Ferus in johan 15. cap. fol. 384 B.  Ego (inquit) elegi vos; potest autem verbum hoc intelligi, vel de electione ad Apostolatum, vel de electione aeterna ad salutem. Vtrobique N. gratia est, non meritum, & utrumque per Christum fit. In ipso siquidem et per ipsum el●git nos Deus, ante mun●i constitutionem. Sequitur; Ego (inquit) qui Deus sum, ●c propterea nullius in●igens; ego qui punire et damnare popoteram, non simpliciter assumpsi, sed elegi vos, multis aliis neglectis, ex massa corruptionis. Sequitur; docet igitur Christus hoc verbo, quod ipse sit author nostrae salutis. Deinde, quod gratia est quicquid habemus, sive sint dona illa iustificantia, Fides, Spes, Charitas, Spiritus sanctus etc. Sive externa illa dona, quae alio nomine dicuntur gratiae gratis datae. I (saith he) have chosen you. This Text may be understood, either of Election to the Apostleship, or of eternal Election to Salvation. For in both there is grace▪ but no merit; and both are wrought by Christ: for, in him and through him did God chose us, even before the world was made. I (saith he) who am God, and therefore stand in need of nothing, I who can punish and condemn, have not simply taken you; but rejecting many others▪ have chosen you out of the mass of corruption. Christ therefore doth by these words teach us, that he is the author of our salvation. Then, that whatsoever we have, the same is grace; whether they be those justifying gifts, faith, hope, charity, the holy Spirit, & the like; or other external gifts which by another name are called graces freely given That which our Saviour saith of Marie Magdalene, that many sins were forgiven her, 
Luke 7.47.  because she loved much; doth serve well to illustrate that▪ which is here objected of the kingdom of heaven. For Christ's Argument is not drawn from the cause but from the effect; as if Christ had said, we may know by her great love, that great gifts are bestowed on her, that many sins are forgiven her: for, that not remission of her sins proceeded from her love, but her love from the forgiveness of her sins; the similitude of the debtors doth plainly insinuate the same unto us. 
Luke 7 41.  Christ told Peter of two debtor, whereof the one owed five hundred pence, the other fifty; and that when they had not wherewith to pay, the creditor forgave them both: he therefore demanded of Peter, whether of the debtors loved the creditor more? Peter answered, that he to whom more was forgiven: Christ approved Peter's answer, and concluded thereupon; 
Mark this discourse well.  that seeing Marie Magdalene loved more, he might know that she had more forgiven her Because saith Christ, to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little: neither is it possible, to draw any other meaning out of Christ's words; The reason is evident, because Christ saith plainly; that the debts were freely forgiven the debtor, who were not able to pay the debts. For otherwise, Mary's forgiveness could have no coherence, with the similitude of the debtor. Out of this discourse, these points are evidently deduced. First, that we are the sons of God, 
Ephes. 2. v. 4.  not by nature, (for so we are his enemies, and the children of wrath but by grace and adoption in jesus Christ. Secondly, that God chose us to be his children, before we were borne. Thirdly, that he chose us, not because we were holy but that we might be holy and immaculate in his sight. Fourthly, that he predestinated us to be his children by adoption; not for any good works which we either had done, or could do, but for his own good pleasure to the glory of his grace: for, as to do any works at all before we be borne, 
Psal. 51 v. 7. Ephes. 2. v. 4.  is altogether impossible; so to do good works when we are borne, (seeing we are conceived in sin, borne in sin, and by nature the children of warth,) is impossible in like manner. Fiftly, that all our good Works, are the effects and fruits of our predestination. For if it be true, as it is most true, (else the Apostle were a liar,) that we were elected to be holy and to do good Works; it is also true, 
Ephes. 2. v. 3. 5. Esa. 50.2. Psal. 51.5.  (it can never be denied,) that holy life and good Works, are the effects of our Election and Predestination in Christ jesus. For this cause (saith the Apostle that Predestination proceeds freely of God's eternal purpose; 
Rom. 8. v. 30. Ephes. 1. v. 5.  justification, of Predestination; and Glorification, of justification: For first, he chooseth us in Christ; then he justifieth us in Christ; thirdly and lastly, he glorifieth us for his own Names sake.   

B. C.  
And beside in the same place, Damnation is given to had Works. 
Matt. 25. v. 34.  Get ye away from me ye cursed (saith Christ,) into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was an hungry, and you gave me not to eat. Seeing then the Scripture declareth plainly, that bad works deserve damnation, and he the cause thereof; as plainly doth it also signify, that good Works merit heaven, and be the cause thereof.   

T. B.  
I answer, that there is great disparity between salvation & damnation; & therefore that good works can not merit salvation, though evil works be enough for damnation. The reason hereof is evident, both in Philosophy and Divinity; because as S. Dionysius Areopagita saith, (and the popish angelical doctor Aquinas approveth the same,) 
Areopag. 2. de divinis nomin. cap. 4. p. 267. Aquin. 12. q. 18. a●t. 4.  Bonum ex integra causa existet, malum ex quolibet defectu, Good is of an entire and whole cause, but evil comes of every defect. Yea, that more is required to good then to evil, daily experience teacheth us; for one may soon do that hurt to his neighbour, which can not without great cost and long time be cured again: For every child can tell our jesuit, that one stroke is able to kill a man; but twenty potions, and twenty chirurgical actions, can not restore him to life again: So one leap is enough, to cast one into the bottom of a pit or deep gulf; but twenty hops, skips, or leaps, will not bring him up again. This Saint Austen well observed, 
Aug. tract. 72. in joh. t●m 9 p. 262.  when he left in Writing to all posterity; That it is a greater thing to justify the Wicked man then to make Heaven and Earth. Free-will of itself, is able to do evil in the highest degree; but of itself it hath no power at all, either to do well, or to will well: For, it is God that worketh in you, (saith the Apostle,) both the will & the deed, even of his good pleasure. 
Philip, 2. v. 1●.  Again, in an other place thus: To will is present with me; but I find no means to perform that which is good. 
Rom. 7.18.  Again, in an other place thus: No man can say that jesus is the Lord, but by the holy Ghost. Again, 
1. Cor. 2. v. 3.  in an other place thus; we are not sufficient of ourselves, 
2. Cor. 3. v. 5.  to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God. All which, and much more, our sweet Saviour compriseth in these few, pethy, and most golden words: For, without me ye can do nothing. 
joh. 15. v. 5.  Much more I could say to the same effect: but I refrain for two respects. First, because I have regard to brevity. Secondly, for that this matter is disputed at large, and sound proved in the Conclusions aforegoing; especially, in the first, sixth, and seventh.   

B. C.  
We find also in Scripture, that men are said worthy of Reward; That you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which also ye suffer. 
2. Thes. 1. v. 5.    

T. B.  
I answer; that it is one thing, to be counted or reputed worthy; an other thing, to be worthy in very deed. For, God chose us before the world was made in his son jesus; 
Ephes. 1.4. Ephos. 2.3.  not because we were worthy (as is already proved,) but that we might be reputed worthy, for the merits of our Lord jesus. 
2. Cor. 5. v. 19  For God (saith th'Apostle) was in Christ, and reconciled the world to himself, not imputing their sins unto them. And this is confirmed in the words following; which are these: 
2. Cor. 5. v. 21.  For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. But more hereof, in mine answer to the Jesuits next Objection: which I wish the Reader to join with this, and to ponder them both seriously.   

B. C.  

Apoc. 3.4.  They shall walk with me in whites, because they are worthy.   

T. B.  
I answer, that they are worthy in deed; yet not for any proper worthiness in themselves, but for the worthiness of Christ jesus; which sense and meaning I have already proved, and S john himself in another place, yieldeth the self same interpretation, in these words; These are they that came from great tribulation, 
Apoc. 7. v. ●4.  & have washed their robes, & made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Lo as before he called them worthy, so now he termeth them white; as having no spot or blemish in them, but as white, pure, and free from all sin: but doubtless they were not free from sin, and pure or white in themselves; 
jac. 3.2. 2. Cor. 5.  (seeing S. james teacheth us, that the best of all, sin many ways) but they were white and pure in Christ jesus, whose blood and condign merits were imputed to them, as if they had been their own: for as our sins were truly and indeed imputed to Christ; so is his righteousness and his merits, truly and in deed imputed to us: which the Prophet well considered, 
Psal. 32.1. Rom. 4.8. Philip. 3.9. Rom. 4.3. & 23.24, 25.  when he said; Blessed is the man to whom God shall not impute sin. Which the Apostle well considered, when he told us, that Abraham's Faith was imputed to him for righteousness; and that the same was not written only for him, but for us also that believe in Christ; who died for us, and rose again for our justification: 
August. libr. 9 confess. cap. 13.  Which Saint Augustine well considered, when he pronounced woe to the best liver upon earth, if God's mercy were set apart: all which S. Pau● knitteth up, in these pithy and golden words. Christum pro nobis peccatum fecit Deus, evi reconciliandi sumus; hoc est, sacrificium pro peccatis, per quod reconciliari valeremus, ipse ergo peccatum, ut nos justitia; nec nostra, sed Dei; nec in nobis, sed in ipso; sicut ipse peccatum non suum; 
Aust. in Euchrist. cap. 41. tom. 3. p. 118.  sed nostrum, nec in se, sed in nobis constitutum; similitudine carnis peccati, in qua crucifixus est, demonstravit. God made Christ sin for us, to whom we are to be reconciled; that is, a Sacrifice for sins, by which we might be reconciled. He therefore was made sin, that we might be made justice; not our justice, but God's justice, neither in us but in him: as he declared sin not be his, but ours; not placed in him, but in us, by the semblance of sinful flesh, in which he was crucified. here I admonish the Reader, to remember well these words of S. Augustine, Jpse ergo pec●atum, ut nos justitia, etc., He was made sin, that we might be made justice; not our justice, but God's justice: neither in us but in him. To remember well (I say) these words, because they are of great consequence; for they prove evidently, that our formal justice is not inherent in ourselves, but in God. Which testimony of S. Austen, a Father so ancient, so grave, so holy, so learned, so renowned, both in the Romish Church, and throughout the Christian world, can not but perforce, it must confound the Papists and strike them stark dead: for it convinceth man's inherent justice to be imperfect and the popish supposed condign merit of Works, to be plain hypocritical. 
justitia nostra formalis est duplex, subiectiva, et relativa: haec perfecta, illa imperfecta.  I wish the Reader likewise to remember well, that man's formal justice is of two sorts; subiective, & relative. This distinction may not be forgotten: Our formal justice subiective, is imperfect; our relative, most perfect. Our subiective and imperfect, is inherent in ourselves; our relative and perfect is in Christ jesus, not in ourselves. This distinction though subtle, yet most excellent and necessary, is clearly deduced out of S. Austin's words; not formally, I grant, but virtually I constantly affirm; it serveth to many uses, and therefore ought it to be well remembered. Yea, it is Jmplici●è and virtually comprised in the Doctrine of Saint ●aul, in very many places of his Epistles. First, he telleth us that he who knew no sin, was made sin for us; 
2. Cor. 5. v. 21.  that we might be the righteousness of God in him. Secondly, he plainly anoucheth; that as by the disobedience of Adam, many became sinners; 
Rom. 5.19.  so by the obedience of Christ, many shallbe made righteous. Thirdly, he constantly affirmeth; that God's children have not their own righteousness, but the righteousness of God through Faith in Christ jesus. 
Philip 3. v. 9  Fourthly, 
Rom. 10.3.  that such as sought to 'stablish their own righteousness, could not attain the righteousness of God. Fiftly, he boldly proclaimeth, that Christ is made to us Wisdom, 
1. Cor. 1.30.  justice, Sanctification, and Redemption. In all which places, (if due application be made thereof to the subject now in hand,) the distinction deducted out of S. Austen will easily appear. For larger discourse whereof, 
See the Antepast, in the last Chapter.  I refer the Reader to my Book, entitled, The Jesuits Antepast.   

B. C.  
S. Hierom not inferior to Bell, in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, translateth thus: That we may fight against Gabaa, Benjamin, and render unto it for the works it deserveth. 
judic. 20. v. 10.  And yet the formal word (Deserveth,) is neither in the Greek or Hebrew, but thus: According to all the foolishness, which they have done in Israel.   

T. B.  
I answer, that S. Hierome respected the true sense and meaning, rather than the formal words. Neither skilleth it, that the word (Deserveth) is not formally expressed, seeing it is virtually implied. I have already proved, that more is required to Good, then to Evil. In evil facts, condign desert is never wanting; as which hath it perfection, of every defect whatsoever. But in supernatural and divine effects or acts, it is far otherwise. If the wicked should not condignly demerit Hell, God were unjust in condemning them thereunto. Yet if he should deny Heaven to the best liver on earth, (as Bernard truly writeth, and is already proved;) he should thereby do no wrong to any: For, to punish one more than he deserveth, is cruelty; but to reward one above his deserts, is mercy. This our Saviour himself did plainly demonstrate, 
Mat. 20. v. 8.9.12.13.14.15.  in the Parable of the Workmen sent into his Vineyard. Friend, (saith Christ) I do thee no wrong; diddest not thou agree with me, for a Penny? take thine own, and go thy way: Is it not lawful for me, to do as I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? I will give to this last, as much as to thee.   

B. C.  
S. Austen saith, 
August epist. 105. ad Sixth.  As Death is rendered to the Merit of sin, as a stipend; so Eternal life to the Merit of justice, is rendered as a stipend.   

T. B.  
I answer; that our Jesuit is a shameless, impudent, and deceitful dealer: he both wrongeth S. Augustine, and more than a little abuseth his reader. He clippeth S. Austin's words that go afore, and cutteth away his words that follow; and that done, he triumpheth before his Reader, as if the victory were his own: But, when I shall have truly related S. Austin's words, as well precedent, as subsequent; the Friar may return to the Pope with a broken head and bloody face, and truly tell his Holiness, that Popery is overthrown. In one place, S. Austen hath these words. 
August. epist. 105. pag. 530.  Misericordia et veritas obuiaverunt sibi; ut nec misericordia impediat veritatem, qua plectitur dignus; nec veritas misericordiam, qua liberatur indignus. Quae igitur sua merita iactaturus est liberatus, cui si digna suis meritis redderentur, non esset nisi damnatus? Sequitur: 
Vbi super, pag. 535.  Quod est ergo meritum hominis ante gratiam, quo merito percipiat gratiam, cum omne bonum meritum nostrum non in nobis faciat nisi gratia; et cum Deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud coronat quam munera sua? Sicut. N. ab initio fidei misericordiam consecuti sumus, non quia fideles eramus, sed ut essemus; sic in fine quod erit in vita aeterna coronabit nos, sicut scriptum est, in miseratione et misericordia. Non itaque frustra Deo cantatur; et mifericordia eius praeveniet me; et misericordiae eius subsequetur me. unde et ipsa vita aeterna quae utique in fine sine fine habebitur, et ideo meritis pracedentibus redditur: tamen quia eadem merita quibus redditur, non a nobis parata sunt per nostram sufficientiam, sed in nobis facta per gratiam, etiam ipsa gratia nuncupatur, non ob aliud nisi quia gratis datur; nec ideo quia meritis non datur, sed quia data sunt et ipsa merita quibus datur. Mercy and Verity have met together; so as neither Mercy hindereth Verity, in which he is punished that is worthy; neither Verity is hindrance to Mercy, which delivereth the unworthy. What Merits therefore hath he to boast of in his delivery, who could not but be damned, if he had as his merits do deserve? What merit therefore hath man before Grace, with which he may receive Grace, seeing all the good Merits we have, do only proceed of Grace: and seeing God when he crowneth our Merits, crowneth nothing else but his own gifts? Like as from the beginning of Faith, we attained Mercy, not because we were faithful, but that we might be faithful: even so in the end, that is, in eternal life, he will crown us, in mercy and compassion. The Prophet therefore saith not to God in vain: His Mercy shall both go before, and also follow me. Whereupon eternal life, which in the end, shallbe possessed without end, 
Note well the sixth Conclusion, concerning Merit.  is rendered to precedent Merits; howbeit, because the same Merits to which it is given, proceed not from any sufficiency in ourselves, but are wrought in us by Grace, it is called Grace for no other end, but for that it is freely given; not for that it is not given to Merits, but because the Merits themselves are given to which it is given. All these golden sentences go before that, which our Friar Jesuit citeth for his best ground. Out of which learned Discourse, I observe these most worthy Lessons. First that all men are sinners, and stand in great need of mercy. Secondly, that the best liver on earth should be damned eternally, if he found not more favour than his best merits do deserve. Thirdly, that all our goodness and best merits proceed of mere grace. Fourthly, that when God rewardeth our merits, then doth he reward nothing else but his own gifts. Fiftly, that as in the beginning▪ in mercy we attained faith; so also in the end, in mercy we shall possess eternal glory. Sixtly, that albeit eternal life be rendered to our merits, yet doth it proceed wholly of Grace; seeing our merits to which it is rendered are freely given us, and issue only out of mercy and mere grace. Now let us see what followeth the words, which our Friar bringeth out of S. Austen: in an other place he hath these words: 
Aug. ubi super▪ pag. 536.  Et haec, ne praeter mediatorem aliqua a●ia via quaereretur, adiecet; in Christo jesu Domino nostro: tanquam dicero▪ aud●to, quod stipendium peccati sit mors, quid ●e desponis e●tollere, & contrariam mort● vitam aeternam tanquam debitum stipendium flagitare? cui debetur vita aeterna, vera justitia est. Si antem vera justitia est, ex te non est; desursum est descendens a patre luminum, ut haberes eam: si tamen habes eam, profecto accepisti: 
1. Cor. 4.7.  quid N. habes, quod non accepisti? quapropter ô homo, si accepturus es vitam aetornam, iustit●ae quidem stipendium est; sed tibi grati est, cui grat●● est ipsa iusti●●ae, tibi N. tanqu●m debita redderetur; si ex t● tibi esset iusti●●●, cui debetur▪ Nunc ergo de plenitudine eius accepimus, non solum gratiam, qui nunc justè in laboribus v●que in finem vinimus▪ sed etiam gratiam pro hac grati●, ut in requie postea sine fine vinamus. And lest Eternal life should be sought for by some other way, then by the Mediator: he added, in Christ jesus our Lord: as if he should say; hearing that death is the stipend of sin. Why dost thou extol thyself and desirest as a due stipend, Eternal life, which is contrary unto death? Eternal life is true justice to him, to whom it is due. But if it be true justice, it is not of thyself, it descendeth from above from the Father of Light, that thou mayest have it: yet if thou hast ●t, thou hast undoubtedly received it; For what hast thou, which thou hast not received? Wherefore, O man, if thou shalt receive eternal life, it is the stipend of justice, but to thee it is Grace, 
Mark well these words, and the victory is our own.  to whom justice itself is Grace: for it should be given to thee, as due unto thee, if thou hadst of thyself that justice to which it is due. Now therefore we have received of his fullness, not Grace only, with which we now live justly in travel unto the end; but Grace also for this grace, that we may afterward live in rest world without end. In an other place, Saint Austen hath these express and golden Words. 
Aug. ubi. super pag. 538.  Humana quip superbi● tanquam praesumens de viribus liberi arbitrij excusatam se putat, quando ignorantiae, non voluntatis, videtur esse quod peccat. Secundum hanc excusationem, inexcusabiles dicet Scriptura divina quoscunque sciences peccare convincit; 
Rom. 2.12. Caus. 1. q. 4. cap. ecclesia. et cap. sequent (turbatur▪) Et dist. 38. cap. ignorantia.  Dei tamen justum judicium, nec illis parcit, qui non audierunt: quicunque. N. sine lege peccaverunt, sine lege peribunt. Et quamuis se ipsi excusare videantur, non admittit hanc excusationem qui scit se fecisse hominem rectum, eique obedientiae dedisse praeceptum, nec nisi eius quo malè usus est, libero voluntatis arbitrio, etiam quod transiret in posteros, manasse peccatum. Neque. N. damnantur, qui non peccaverunt, quandoquidem illud ex uno in omnes pertransijt, in quo an●e propria in singulis quibusque peccata omnes communiter peccaverunt. Ac per hoc inexcusabilis est omnis peccator, vel reatu originis, vel additamento etiam propria voluntatis, sive qui novit, sive qui ignorat, sive qui judicat, sive qui non judicat: quia et ipsa ignorantia, in eyes qui intelligere noluerunt, sine dubitatione peccatum est; in eyes autem qui non potuerunt, poena peccati: Ergo in utrisque non est justa excusatio, sed justa damnatio. For the pride of man presuming of the force of Free Will, doth think himself excused; when that wherein he sinneth, seemeth to proceed of ignorance rather than of Will. According to this excuse, holy Writ pronounceth all those inexcusable that sin willingly. Howbeit, the just judgement of God spareth not those, which never heard the truth: For, whosoever have sinned without Law, shall perish without Law. And although they seem to excuse themselves, yet he admitteth not this excuse, who knoweth that he made man right, and commanded him to be obedient; as also that that sin which infected all posterities, came no otherwise but by his Free Will, who used it amiss: for they are not damned that sinned not; seeing that sin passed from one to all, in which, all commonly have sinned, before they had every one severally any proper sins of their own, and hence cometh it, that every sinner is without excuse, either through original guilt, or else by the act of his own proper Will added thereunto; Whether he hath known, or is ignorant; Whether it be he that judgeth, or he that judgeth not; because in those that would not understand, ignorance is sin without all peradventure: but in those that could not, it is the punishment of sin, therefore in them both there is just damnation, but no just excusation. Again, the same S. Augustine in an other place, hath these express words. 
August. in epist. 106. pag. 550. ubi super pag. 552. 1. Cor. 2.12.  Qui vero suis meritis praemia tanquam debita expectant, nec ipsa merita Dei gratiae tribuunt, sed viribus propriae voluntatis: sequitur, nos inquit, non spiritum huius mundi accepimus, sed Spiritum qui ex Deo est, ut sciamus quae a Deo donata sunt nobis, ac per hoc et ipsum hominis meritum Donum est gratuitum, nec a Patre luminum, a quo descendit omne datum optimum, boni aliquid accipere quisquam meretur, nisi accipiendo quod non meretur. They that expect rewards, as due to their merits; do not ascribe their merits to the grace of God, but to the strength of their own will. We (saith the Apostle) have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we may know what God hath given us; and so, that the merit of man is the Free gift of God: neither can any man receive any good from the Father of Light, (from whom descendeth every good gift,) by way of merit; unless he first receive that, which he doth not merit. Thus discourseth S. Augustine: 
Vide super Concl. 6. et nota valde.  out of whose Words, I observe these memorable Doctrines. First, that whosoever expecteth reward as due to his merits, do greatly derogate from the grace of God. Secondly, that man's merit (unproperly so called,) is the Free gift of God. Thirdly, that no man can merit any reward at all; unless he first receive that freely of mere mercy, which he can no way merit. To which I add for further explication sake, 
S. Austen utterly d●nyeth condign merit, though he admit merit unproperly so called.  that S. Augustine speaketh of merit unproperly, (as Abbot Bernard and other Fathers do,) in that sense and meaning, which is plainly insinuated and clearly proved in the sixth Conclusion, in which sense myself willingly grant, that every good Work is meritorious: but withal I constantly affirm; that the best good Work of the most Holy man on earth, neither is, nor can be properly and condignly meritorious of Eternal glory. This is sound and clearly proved, in the seventh Conclusion of this present Chapter. I prove the same in like manner, out of S. Augustine's express Words afore going. For first he calleth it arrogant pride, to challenge Eternal life as due to the merits of any man. Secondly, he flatly denieth the best Liver on earth to have that justice, to which Eternal life is due. Thirdly, he plainly avoucheth, that they derogate more than a little from God's grace, who do but expect reward as due unto their merits. Fourthly, that all the merit of man, is God's mere and Free gift. Fiftly, that when God rewardeth man's merits, then doth he only reward his own free gifts; and consequently, that when S. Austen speaketh of man's merit, he ever understandeth merit unproperly so called, as also Abbot Bernard, and other Fathers do: 
Conclusiones praecedentes praesertim sept. hoc planò demonstrant.  yea, Gregorius Ariminensis, Thomas Waldensis, Paulus Burgensis, Eckius Do●●inicus, Soto, Thomas Aquinas, Durandus, and josephus Angles; do all with one uniform assent, speak of merit in the same sense and meaning with S. Austen, and other holy Fathers. Mark well the seventh Conclusion with the rest, and this truth will soon appear.   

B. C.  
In this Paragraph he citeth josephus Angles, who saith, That good Works proceeding of grace without the promise of God, are wholly unworthy of Eternal life. Thus he allegeth, as though it were mo●●●all doctrine to us: whereas, if himself were this day at Rome, and clear in all other things, never would he be called in question about that point.   

T. B.  
I answer, First, that if myself were this day at Rome, (as our Friar seemeth here to desire and wish;) it is very probable, or rather most certain & sure, that the Pope & his Jesuits with their accursed jesuited crew, would deal with me, as the Philistims did with Samson, 
judg. 16. v. 21.25.  if happily they would afford me so much favour. Secondly, that our jesuit giveth himself a mortal wound, in that he approveth that Doctrine, which josephus Angles hath published to the view of the world. For, whatsoever is wholly & altogether unworthy, that doubtless can be no way worthy. The case is clear, but let us hear and seriously ponder Angles, his own words: 
jos. Angles in 2. sent. page. 103.  Eodem itiam modo considerantes omnes alij Doctores sancti, naturalem solummodo bonorum operum valorem, et illum a valour et justa ulta ●●erna ●stimatione longissime distare perpendente●, prudent●r dixerunt, opera nostra non esse meritoria aut digna vita aeterna. Ex legetamen, sive conventione, siue promissione facta nobiscum, opera ●ona hominis 〈…〉 gra●ia Deo siunt aeternae vita digna, e● illi aequalia; quae, seclusa illa De● prom●ssione, qua p●ss●m in sa●●is literis reperitur fuissent tanto praem●● prorsus indigna. All other holy Doctors also, considering after the same manner the natural value only of good Works, and perceiving that it is exceeding far distant from the value and just estimation of eternal life, said wisely, that our works are not meritorious nor worthy of eternal life: yet for the covenant and promise made unto us, the good works of man with the help of God's grace, are worthy of Eternal life, and equal with it, which for all that, the promise of God which is very frequent in the Scripture, set aside, were altogether unworthy of so great Reward. Thus disputeth our popish Bishop, our holy Friar, even to the Pope himself, sitting in his pontifical Chair. Who, though he bestir himself more than a little▪ to establish the condign merit of man's Works; yet doth he in his own kind of dispute, utterly confute and confound himself. For first, he granteth, that not only Saint Chrisostome, but all the rest of the holy Fathers with him, affirm constantly & uniformly with one voice & assent; that good Works neither are meritorious properly, nor worthy of Eternal life▪ Secondly, that the best Works considered in their own nature and kind, are unworthy of Eternal life. Thirdly, that good Works proceeding of Grace and joined with the promise of God, are worthy of Eternal life. Fourthly, and lastly, that if God's promise and free acceptation be set apart, the best Works of all, are altogether unworthy of Eternal glory. Which Doctrine doubtless, I most willingly embrace: And consequently, though the Papists never cease to impeach, accuse, slander, and condemn us in this behalf, ye● do we defend nothing herein, (as i● evident to the indifferent Reader,) but even that, which their own best Doctors in their printed Books do teach us. Yea, in those very Books; which are dedicated to the Pope himself. The conceits which Bishop Friar Joseph hath coined, to make good his fond imagined condign merit of Works, are very childish and too too frivolous. For first, where he saith, the Fathers speak of Good works, only in respect of their natural value; as he termeth it. I answer, that that silly Gloss is only invented by himself & his complices: so to save the life of their rotten and beggarly Popery, if any way it might serve their turn: For no such thing can be found, in any of their Books. S. Augustine (as we have even now seen,) doth plainly, condemn their foolish exposition. Nay our Friar bishop unawares confuteth himself (of such force is the truth,) while he very honestly granteth; That Good works done in Grace, are utterly unworthy of Heaven, 
Mark well this doctrine.  if Gods Promise be set apart. Where I wish the Reader to observe seriously with me this word (prorsus, wholly, utterly, and all together;) which is in deed his own, and most emphatical against himself. For doubtless, whatsoever is wholly unworthy, the same can never be condignly worthy. No man in his right wits, will ever deny this most manifest truth. But say on sir Friar; let us hear some more of this pleasant melody.   

B. C.  
Bell having produced josephus, to show that Works proceeding from Grace, are not Meritorious of eternal life without the Promise of God, but wholly unworthy, inferreth thus. Then doubtless the best Works of all, can no way be Meritorious: which is a false Conclusion, gathered out of the premises. For it should have been thus; Then doubtless the best Works of all, can no way be Meritorious, without the Promise of God. Why did he perfidiously curtal away these words, and make josephus absolutely to conclude against the Merits of works, 
Observe well mine answer  when as in that very place, he teacheth the Merits of works proceeding of Grace together with the Promise of God.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that our jesuit poureth out lies every where in such large measure, that I am very loath to be tedious to the Reader with the recital thereof. Puder N. me pigetque, bonas horas nugis conterere. O impudent Friar! do I curtal Josephus his words? It is thy property, (O shameless Jesuit! it is not mine, to cut or take away any one word or syllable from mine Author. These are my express words in my Trial, 
Out upon lying Jesuits.  so God me help. True it is thirdly, that the religious Friar and popish Bishop josephus Angles, telleth the Pope roundly; that it is the constant and uniform faith of all the holy Doctors, that the best and holiest man's Works upon earth, neither are, nor possibly can be meritorious or worthy of eternal life; if Gods holy and free Promise be set aside. Without the which, (saith Angles in the name of all the rest,) the best Works of all, are altogether unworthy of so great reward: His express words are these; (prorsus ind●gna, wholly unworthy.) Where I wish the Reader to observe seriously with me, this word (prorsus, which signifieth wholly:) for if our best Works be wholly unworthy of the Reward or Glory, (as josephus Angles in the name of all the holy Fathers and Doctors, telleth the Pope both gravely and constantly;) then doubtless the best Works of all, are no way worthy, save only by, with, and in respect of Gods Promise freely made unto us. 
Mark well this discourse.  Mark well (gentle Reader) for Christ's sake, and for the salvation of thine own soul: For either Popery is hereby proved the New religion, or doubtless my wits are not at home. Josephus Angles affirmeth disstantly, and the Pope's Holiness hath approved the same; that Good works without the Promise of God, are wholly unworthy of eternal life. Ergo, say I, (and my life I gage for the trial thereof,) Good works without Gods Promise, are no way worthy of the same: For, without all peradventure, that which is wholly and altogether unworthy, without the Promise of God, can no way be worthy, but by and with the Promise of God. The Friar saith not, that Good works are some way, and in some sort unworthy; but prorsus, wholly, 
The Friar is at a non plus.  altogether, and in every respect. If they were any way worthy, without God's Promise; then doubtless could they not be wholly and prorsus unworthy, without the same. It is a thing unpossible, none but madmen will affirm it. Secondly, that our Jesuits illation (a falsely supposed corrective of mine,) is fond, childish, and ridiculous. Thus the Jesuit disputeth. 
The jesuit promiseth much, but can perform nothing at all.  For (saith he) it should have been thus; Then doubtless, the best Works of all, can no way be Meritorious, without the Promise of God. What a thing is this? Hath our jesuit lost his wit, because Popery is proved the New religion? So it seemeth doubtless: For my illation is the very same in deed, with that which the jesuit maketh. I grant, that Good works with the Promise of God, are Meritorious: the jesuit granteth the same. I grant, that Good works without the Promise of God, are altogether and wholly unworthy of eternal life: josephus Angles granteth the same: yea the Jesuit himself granteth the very same, even while he desireth to impugn the same. I say, 
judge indifferently, between the jesuit & me: for the victory is on my side.  that Good works are only one way Meritorious, and no way else; that is, as they are joined to and with the Promise of God: Josephus, and the Jesuit, say the very same with me. I say, that Good works are not properly & of themselves Meritorious; seeing they be Meritorious only for the Promise of God: josephus saith the same. I say, that Good works of themselves, do not merit Heaven properly; as whose Merit dependeth wholly of the Promise of God: josephus freely granteth the same. I say, that Good works of themselves, are unworthy of eternal life; as which are wholly unworthy thereof, without the free Promise of our merciful God: Josephus willingly saith the very same▪ Mark ever these words, (prorsus indigna, wholly and altogether unworthy.) They cut the Jesuits throat, 
Note well, prors●s indigna.  the Pope's throat, and the throats of all Jesuits and jesuited Papists in the world: For, that can not have any Merit properly & of itself, whose Merit dependeth only, solely, and wholly, of an other. And consequently, seeing Good works have no Merit at all, save only of, from, through, and for the Promise of God, as both josephus and our jesuit freely grant; it followeth of necessity, that they neither do, nor properly can condignly Merit eternal life.   

B. C.  
The Minister mistaketh the matter; the Monster he speaketh of, 
Our Friar doth cut the Pope's throat  was borne at Trent in Germany, and not at Rome in Italy, as the beginning of his words do testify. Besides, it was not in the year, one thousand, five hundred, and forty; but, one thousand, five hundred, forty and seven; as appeareth out of the sixth Session of that Council.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that our Jesuit not able in truth, to defend Popery from being the New religion; fleeth to impertinent digressions, ridiculous cavils, and most silly evasions, as a frantic man that hath lost his wits. Secondly, that the Monster which both myself and the Friar speak of, is the nonage of late hatched Popery. The jesuit useth two reasons, 
O brave defender of Popery.  in defence of Popery: but alas, the Pope's cares will tingle, when he heareth them. His former supposed gallant reason, is this; viz. That the Monster was borne at Trent, not at Rome. I answer, that this reason pleaseth me well, as which granteth Popery to be a Monster, borne out of time. Concerning the place; I answer, that I do not mistake the ma●ter, as our Friar dreameth: For, 
The begetting goeth before the birth.  although the Monster was begotten at Trent in Germany, yet borne was it at Rome in I●aly. The reason hereof is evident; because the decreeing of the matter at Trent, was of no force or effect until the Pope had confirmed the same at Rome. His latter and second reason, is every way as strong as his former. I keeping myself within my bounds, and speaking sparingly and favourably of the newness of Popery; 
Our jesuit confoundeth himself.  affirmed the Condign merit of Works not to have been an Article of Popish faith, for the space of one thousand, five hundred, and forty years after Christ. Our jesuit unawares, helpeth me against his will; by adding seven years more to the number.   

B. C.  
Before, he came upon the Council of Trent, for accursing all such as did deny or not believe the Condign merits of man's works, and inveighed against that doctrine, as a Monster lately borne at Rome: and yet now, the same doctrine is against the Pope, and the jesuit S. R. and it evidently proveth as much as he desireth. And so that Doctrine which before was false and monstrous, is now become sound and heavenly. Was there ever such an other changeable Chameleon, that as it were with one breath, denieth and affirmeth one and the self-same thing? Certainly the poor man hath more need of a cunning Surgeon to put his brains in joint, then of Ink and Paper to write such lunatical Pamphlets.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that our jesuit seemeth to have lost both his brains, his wit, and his honesty and that in such sort, as no Surgeon is able to remedy the same. Secondly, that I can not reprove the Council of Trent; unless I also condemn the Pope the chief Author of the same; as is already proved. Thirdly, that whatsoever maketh against the Council, must perforce make also against the Jesuits, and all others that approve the same. Fourthly, that the doctrine which afore was false & monstrous, is still as false, bad, & monstrous, as ever it was; if not rather more. Fiftly, that the change which the Jesuit speaketh of, is in himself, but not in Bell: For, Bell doth not affirm that Doctrine to be found & heavenly, which afore he termed false and monstrous; but he only & plainly showeth, that the Jesuit striving against the truth, doth by the force of truth, unawares confess the truth against himself. And consequently, that he unwittingly & unwillingly granteth the truth against himself: which is as much as I desire. I prove it briefly and sound; because the jesuit having in his second Conclusion, affirmed Good works done in God's grace, to be condignly Meritorious of eternal life: by and by addeth in the third Conclusion, this restriction; viz. that the condign Merit he speaketh of, is not absolute, but supposeth the condition of Gods Promise made to reward it. Which doubtless, is the flat Doctrine that I defend: For if God's Promise must be supposed, there is no condign Merit without the same. Let the indifferent Reader be an indifferent judge, between the jesuit and me. I willingly admit his third Conclusion; and so make an end of this Chapter. For, all that is here said, or possibly can be said, in defence of Condign merit of Works; is clearly and fondly refuted in the Conclusions of this present Chapter, if due application be made thereof. And consequently, this Article of Popish faith; never known for the space of more than 1540 years after Christ; 
A.D. 1547.  must of necessity and without all peradventure, be a rotten rag of the New religion.    

The Tenth Chapter: of Transubstantiation in Popish Mass.  
ALL that the jesuit saith in this Chapter, is pithyly refuted both in the Downfall of Popery, and in the Jesuits Antepast: And consequently, I have no need to stand here, upon the same. The Friar freely granteth; that Transubstantiation touching the name, was not hatched till their Lateran Council, which was holden 1215. years after Christ. But he saith withal; that the point of Doctrine itself, that is, 
A.D. 1215.  the changing of the substance of Bread, into the Body of Christ, by the words of Consecration; was taught by the ancient Fathers, and came from Christ himself, & his blessed Apostles. My answer is this: First, that I have very sound and copiously refuted, in my Survey of Popery, whatsoever can possibly be alleged or produced out of the holy Fathers, concerning this Subject now in hand. 
See the Survey, part. 3. cap. 10. § 1.2.3.4.5.  To this Book, in the third part and tenth Chapter, I refer the Reader for his full satisfaction in this behalf. Secondly, that aswell the thing itself, as the name, was first hatched in the Council of Lateran. For, no Text in the Law of Moses, no Sentence in the Prophets, no Word in the Psalms, no Affirmation out of the Gospel, no Testimony out of the Epistles of the Apostles, no Verdict out of the holy Fathers, no specialty out of the ancient Counsels, can now, or ever be found extant; which once maketh mention either of Transubstantiation, or of accidents without subjects. Thirdly, that this Popish fond imagined Transubstantiation, is far different from that Real presence; with which the Pope and his Romish Synod most cruelly assailed Berengarius. That Real presence (though most absurd, as I have proved demonstratively in the Jesuits Antepast,) may well stand with Consubstantiation, 
Mark well gentle reader, and thou shalt see the Friars back at the wall.  and nothing at all change the substance of Bread: For it is a Popish foundation, (though foolish and ridiculous, as is proved in my Survey,) that two Bodies may be in one place at once. This Transubstantiation sendeth the substance of Bread, neither myself, nor yet the Papists can tell whither. That Real presence altereth not Christ's Body; but this Transubstantiation changeth the substance of Bread, into Christ's Body. That Real presence causeth not accidents without subjects; but this Transubstantiation inferreth Miracles upon Miracles, above ten thousand times a day. Popish Real presence is one thing; of which I dispute not in my Trial: Popish Transubstantiation is an other thing; which is the subject now in hand. Fourthly, that the Papists themselves do not know, what to think or say of their lately invented Transubstantiation. Durand (as I have proved in the Downfall of Popery,) affirmeth constantly; that only the form of Bread is changed, and that the matter of Bread remaineth still in the Eucharist. Rupertus the Popish Abbot holdeth; that the Bread is united Hypostatically to the Son of God. Cardinal Caietanus, Henricus, and Capreolus, are of an other different opinion. johannes Parisionsis held also, that the Bread was assumpted; 
See and note well, the Trial.  but in a different manner from the opinion of Rupertus. another opinion yet remaineth, which affirmeth the Annihilation of the Bread. Yet Cardinal Bellarmine holdeth with the Council of Trent, (for he that at Rome holdeth otherwise, must be burnt;) that the Bread is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ. What Child in the fire, would not come forth to hear this harmony? Will ye hear what the learned Friar S.R. saith to this discordant melody? these are his express words, in his pretenced Answer to the Downfall of Popery: 
S.R. pag. 140.  The first Contradiction, which this contradictions fellow findeth in the Mass, is, that Durand, Caietan, and four Catholics more, before the Council of Trent did otherwise explicate the manner of Christ's Real presence in the Eucharist, than was truth, and since the Church hath defined and explicated in the said Council. Thus answereth S.R. that Learned man, as B.C. his brother calleth him. By whose learned Assertion, we are given to understand; that Transubstantiation was not an Article of Popish saith undoubtedly, until the late Popish Council of Trent: 
A.D. 1547.  that is, 1547. years after Christ.   

The Eleventh Chapter: of Popish Invocation of Saints.  

B. C.  
TV per Thomae sanguinem, etc. By the blood of Thomas which he for thee did spend, bring us thither, o Christ, whither Thomas did ascend. I utterly deny, that any of these words, or altogether, make Thomas a Mediator of Redemption; or do prove that we invocate him, as the Son of the living God, and the only Saviour of the World.   

T. B.  
I answer; that this Popish manner of Praying, proveth evidently, that Thomas Becket is to the Papists, a Mediator not only of Intercession, but also of Redemption. I prove it by sundry means and irrefragable reasons. First, because there is no Salvation in any, but in jesus Christ: neither any other Name under Heaven, 
Act. 4. v. 12.1. Tim. 3. v. 5.  whereby we must be saved. Secondly, for that the ancient Catholic Church hath ever desired Remission of sins of God the Father, for and through jesus Christ his only Son, and our only Saviour. Thirdly, because only the Blood of jesus Christ, 
joh. 1.29.  not the Blood of any other, is able to bring us to Heaven. Fourthly, because jesus Christ with his own Blood, 
Heb. 10. v. 14.  (not the Blood of others,) hath perfectly accomplished the salvation of his Elect; 
Mat. 1. v. 21.  and that hath he done once for all. Fiftly, because an Angel came down from Heaven, 
Deut. 32. v. 4.  and imposed the name jesus upon the Son of God; yielding this reason thereof, for that he should save God's people from their sins. Sixtly, because all the works of God are perfect: Which for all that could not be so, if Beckets' Blood be a cause of our going to Heaven. Seventhly, because all God's Children are rewarded far above their condign deserts; as I have fondly and plentifully proved, in the Conclusions of the ninth Chapter immediately aforegoing. 
Aug. lib. 9 Confess. cap. 13.  Eightly, because S. Austen affirmeth constantly, that the best liver upon earth, shall perish everlastingly, if he find not Mercy far above his Deserts. But doubtless, he that is rewarded above his Deserts, and standeth in need of Mercy for his own Sins; that man's Blood is not a fit cause or mean, to bring others unto Heaven.   

B. C.  
The Pope, and many thousands more, use the Roman breviary & Missal; 
Mark for Christ's sake.  in neither of which, any such Prayer is contained: and as I suppose, it is not found but in those of Sarum use, which be now antiquated and out of date.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that our Jesuit now beginneth to tell us wonders, even the mutability of Romish Faith and Religion; of which I disputed in the Chapter of Venial sins. Secondly, that as the Pope hath reform the Romish Faith and Religion, in this and some other points; even so hath our English Church abolished all Popish errors and superstition, whereby we are the true Reformed Catholics in very deed: For, as your Capuchones are the true reformed Franciscanes at Rome; so are we the true reformed Catholics in England.   

B. C.  
An untruth it is, that saints merits are joint purchasers of salvation with Christ's blood, if he mean that the Merits of Christ and his Saints do alike avail to salvation.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that our Jesuit not able to defend Popery, nor to answer the reasons by me produced, doth highly blaspheme Christ, and the sacred Merits of his most precious Blood. For (as we see,) he absurdly and most impiously avoucheth; that the Merits of Saints may be joint purchasers of salvation with Christ's most sacred Blood, so it be not in the same degree. 
The jesuit blasphemeth Christ jesus.  Let his words be well marked, for they import as much, as I do say▪ O monstrum horrendum! What blasphemy, what impiety, what cruelty, what infidelity, is diabolically implied in rotten Popery? You were not (saith S. Peter) Redeemed with corruptible things, as Silver and Gold; 
1. Pet. 1. v. 18.19  but with the precious Blood of Christ, as of a Lamb undefiled and without spot. 
joh. 1.29.  S. john the Baptist speaking of Christ, admonisheth us, to behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world. S. Paul proclaimeth; 
Act. 20. v. 28.  that Christ hath Redeemed his Church with his own Blood, not with the Blood of Thomes Becket, or of any other. 
Heb. 9 v. 12.  The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, avoucheth constantly; that Christ entered in once unto the Holy place, and obtained eternal Redemption for his Elect. And S. Peter boldly affirmeth to Annas, Caiaphas, john, Alexander, 
Act. 4. v. 12.  and the rest; that there is Salvation in no other, save only in jesus Christ. Secondly, that both Becket, and other Popish supposed Saints, are not Mediators of Salvation in some lower and inferior degree; but even in the highest, & in the self-same with our Lord jesus. Of Thom●s Becket, besides that which we have heard of his Blood, 
In portifo. Sarun, in festo Tho. Cant.  I find in an other Prayer made to him, these express words. Moors, actus, et vitam corrige; et in pacis nos viam dirige. S●lue gregis tutor egregie, saelua tuae gaudentes gloriae: Correct our manners, deeds, and life; guide us into the way of peace. Hail noble Patron of the flock, save them that rejoice in thine honour. Of S. Paul, I find this Prayer. 
Orat. ad S. Paul. doct. gentium.  O beat Paul Apostole, te deprecor, ut ab Angelo sathanae me eripias, et a ventura ira liberes, et in caelum introducas: O blessed Apostle Paul, I pray thee, that thou wilt deliver me from the Angel of Satan, and free me from wrath to come, and bring me into Heaven. Of S. James, this: 
Orat. ad S. jacobum.  O faelix Apostole, magna martyr jacobe; to colentes adiwa, peregrinos undique tuos clemens protege, ducens ad caelestia: O happy Apostle and mighty Martyr james, help them that worship thee; defend courteously thy Pilgrims on every side, and bring them to Heavenly joys. 
In transl. S. Martini.  To S. Martin they pray thus: Caecis das viam, mutisque loquelam; tu nos adiwa, mundans immunda; qui fug●● daemonia, nos hic libera: O Martin! thou causest the blind to see, and the dumb to speak; help us, and cleanse the unclean: thou that castest out Devils, deliver us here. The Papists pray in this manner, to the blessed Virgin: 
In Antiph. B. virgin.  O Maria gloriosa, in delitijs delitiosa, praepara nobis gloriam: O Marry glorious, in dainties delicious, prepare thou glory for us. Again in an other place thus: 
In Concept. B. virg.  Maria matter gratiae, matter misericordiae, tu nos ab host besiege, et hora mortis suscipe: O Marry the mother of Grace, the mother of Mercy, defend thou us from our (ghostly) enemy, and receive us at the hour of death. Again in an other place thus 
In Visitat. B. virg. . Veni Regina Gentium, deal flammas reatuum, deal quodcunque devium, da vitam innocentium: Come o Queen of the Gentiles, extinguish the fiery heat of our sins; blot out whatsoever is amiss, and make us lead an innocent life. Again, in their old Latin Primers, the people are thus taught to pray. 
Devotiss. orat. ad B. virg. M, fol. 118.  In extremi● diebus meis esto auxiliatrix et saluatrix, et animam meam, et animam patris mei, et matris meae, fratrum, sororum parentum, amicorum, benefactorum meorum, et omnium fidelium defunctorum ac vivorum, ab aeterna mortis caligine libera; ipso auxiliante, quem portasti Domino nostro jesu Christo filio tuo: O glorious Virgin Mary, be thou my helper and saviour in my last days, and deliver from the mist of eternal death, both mine own soul, and my Father's soul, and the souls of my Mother, Brethren, Sisters, Parents, Friends, Benefactors, and of all the Faithful living and dead; by his help whom thou diddest bear, our Lord jesus Christ thy Son. Again, after two or three leaves in this manner. 
Ibid. fol. 173.  Vt in tuo sancto, tremendo, ac terribili judicio, in conspectu unigeniti filii tui, cui pater dedit omne judicium, me liberes et protegas a paenis inferni, et participem me facias caelestium gaudiorun: I beseech thee most merciful and chaste Virgin Mary, that in thine holy, fearful, and terrible judgement, in the sight of thine only Son▪ thou wilt deliver and defend me from the pains of Hell, and make me partaker of Heavenly joys. These Prayers (if they be well marked,) will be found to contain in them, every jot of Power, Right, Majesty, Glory & Sovereignty, whatsoever either is, or aught to be yielded to our Lord jesus Christ. Yea, these two last prayers make the blessed virgin Mary, not only equal with Christ, but far above him. For first, the Virgin Mary is desired to defend us from the tortures and pains of Hell. Secondly, to bring us to the joys of Heaven. Thirdly, the last judgement, is called her judgement. Fourthly, she is called, Our saviour. Fiftly, she is requested to save father, mother, brother, sister, friends, benefactors, the quick and the dead: and all this must be done, even by the help of Christ her Son. Now, by the former Prayers, she is made equal with jesus Christ; and by the last, far above him: For, she is the Saviour, and he the Intercessor: which I gather out of these words, (ipso auxiliante, etc. by the help of our Lord jesus Christ) For by these words, and the rest aforegoing, the Virgin Mary doth save us, and Christ is but the instrument that helpeth her, in the work of our Salvation. Which how intolerable Blasphemy it is, let the indifferent and judicious Reader judge; dixi.   

B. C.  
The Merits of Christ and his Saints, may avail us for the obtaining of spiritual gifts: the merits of Christ, as the principal cause; the Merits of Saints, as dependent of his and the secondary cause.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that Popish Saints by Popish doctrine, are not the Secondary, but even the Chief and primary causes of man's Salvation. This is already proved. Secondly, that it is intolerable Blasphemy against the Son of God, to make his Creatures either principal, or secondary causes of man's Salvation. This is likewise already proved. Yea, the blessed Virgin Mary, (the most holy pure Creature, that ever was on Earth, or is in Heaven,) was so far from challenging to herself, to be either the Principal or Secondary cause of Salvation; that she in the spirit of true humility, proclaimed the flat contrary to the world, in these most Christian & golden words: My Soul doth magnify the Lord, and my Spirit rejoiceth in God my Saviour. 
Luk. ●. v. 47.    

B. C.  
That God and his Creatures may in this manner without any injury to his name, be joined together, we learn out of sacred Scripture. jacob desired God & his Angel, to bless his Children. The Israelites cried out; 
Genes. 4●. v. 15.16. judg. 7.20. Exod. 14.31. 1. Tim. 5. ●●.  The Sword of our Lord, and Gideon. In Exodus we read thus. They believed our Lord, and Moses his servant. Saint Paul testified before Christ jesus, and the elect Angels. And the Apostles doubted not to say; 
Act. 15.28.  It hath se●med good to the holy Ghost, and to us. If in these, and such like speeches, God and his Creatures be joined together, without being made joint purchasers, but as the Creator, and the secondary cause: in like manner may the Merits of Christ and his Saints, be conjoined; as hath been said.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that the more our silly jesuit striveth against the truth, the more he still woundeth rotten Popery. Five examples he here produceth, and never one to the purpose; as by & by (God willing) shall appear. 
Popery lieth a bleeding unto death.  Secondly, that if Popery were not the New religion in very deed, such paltry and beggarly shifts would never be used in defence thereof. Thirdly, that the question is not of those acts, which Gods Saints do alone and of themselves; but of those effects, in producing whereof, Gods Saints are said to concur, and to be joined with Christ our Saviour. And therefore of the five Examples, three are altogether impertinent; viz. the first, the third, & the fourth. For, in the first place, the Angel doth not connotate a Creature, but God himself: which I prove, by a double argument. First, because the Text speaketh of that Angel, which delivered Israel or Jacob from all evil; which effect can not possibly be ascribed to any Creature, but, To God alone, 
joh. 15.5. jac. 1.17. 1. Cor 3.8. 2. Cor. 3.4.  the fountain of all Grace, and giver of every good gift. And it is confirmed; because the same God, which in the 15 verse is said, To have fed Israel all his life long; is likewise said in the verse following, To have delivered him from all evil. Secondly, because two other places of Scripture, do interpret the Angel to be God himself; 
Gen. 31. v. 13. Gen. 18. v. 15.19.14.  The God of Bethel, & the God that did keep Jsrael whither soever he went. In the third place, as also in the fourth, the acts are only ascribed to the Israelites, and to S. Paul: but neither the Apostle nor the Jsraelites, are said to concur with Christ in producing the same effect. Let the words be well marked and the case is clear. The second, and fifth or last Examples do prove indeed, that God's Saints are joined with Christ in producing the same effects; but for all that, are as far from concluding the Jesuits purpose, as Rome is distant from Rouen, or the East from the West. For, albeit I willingly grant, that God's Saints may concur and be conjoined with Christ, in producing all those effects to which they are deputed of God, as instruments, means, and inferior causes under him having to that end received of him active power in some measure; yet do I constantly deny, 
Mark well this my discourse.  and utterly defy, that most unchristian, blasphemous, and heretical Popish assertion; which brutishly and more than cruelly avoucheth, that Beckets' Blood and Christ's most precious Blood, concur in working man's Salvation. For, as the Israelites truly said, that the Sword of God and Gideon destroyed their enemies; 
judg. 7. v. 20.  so may it truly be said in like manner; that God and the Physician cure inward sores: 
When God appointeth his creatures to be causes inferior under him, then may they be joined with him, not otherwise.  God and the Surgeon, external wounds: that God and Masons build Churches: God and Tailors make Garments: God and Meat nourish men, and so forth. But we can never truly say, that Christ's Blood and Beckets' Blood, do work man's Salvation. The Sword of Gideon, Masons, Surgeons, Physicians, Meat, and Tailors, have a certain active power inherent in them to produce such effects: but man's Salvation is such a divine, supernatural, & supereminent effect, 
joh. 14.6. joh. 17.17.  as Beckets' Blood hath no active power at all, neither more nor less, to produce the same. For this respect, 
Aug. ep. 105.  gravely writeth S. Augustine, That if the best liver on earth should be rewarded according to his best deserts, yet could he not but perish everlastingly. For this respect, wisely saith the learned and religious Friar Ferus. 
Ferus, in Mat. lib. 3. cap. 16. fol. 290. B.  That our Salvation consisteth only and solely in the Merit of Christ, not in our own Works. He addeth the reason: because we are not able to make satisfaction; no not for the least sin we commit. For this respect, saith Abbot Bernard; That the sin which maketh division between God and us, 
Bern. de. adu. dom. ser. 6.  can not be wholly taken away in this life. This Subject is handled at large in the ninth Chapter aforegoing, 
Cap. 9 Conclus. 11.  in the eleventh Conclusion: to which place, I refer the Reader, for his better satisfaction herein.   

B. C.  
Bell elsewhere telleth us, 
Survey. pag. 338.  That popish Invocation and Adoration, was not known, until the year three hundred and seventy: Yet is it no thing comparable to th●s here uttered, making that Article a thousand years younger than in his former Book.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that in my Survey I have disputed at large, how Invocation of Saints increased by degrees. For the better cleared of which difficulty, I there put down many Canons and Conclusions. In one Canon, I affirmed the Church of God, to have lived unacquainted with the Merits & Intercession of the Saints in heaven, 
A.D. 230.  for the space of two hundred & thirty years after Christ. In an other Canon, I proved sound; that the first seed of Popish invocation of saints began not to besowen, 
A D. 233.  till about the year 233. after Christ. In an other Canon, 
A.D. 250.  that about the year 250. after Christ, some of the Fathers held constantly, that the Saints in heaven did pray for the living upon earth. In an other Canon, 
A.D. 350,  that some of the Fathers about the year 350. after Christ, did by Rhetorical Apostrophes apply their Orations to the dead▪ Many other things concerning the Invocation of saints, I disputed in that Book at large. To which Book, though published about thirteen years ago; neither this Jesuit, nor any other, ever had any courage to this day, to frame any answer at all. In my Trial of the new Religion, (which this Jesuit hath taken in hand to confute,) I constantly affirm, that to Pray to be saved by the Blood of Thomas Becket, is flat blasphemy against the Son of God. And as I affirmed afore in my Survey, 
Survey, part. 3. cap. 7.  that Popery sprang up by degrees in such and such years; so now I constantly avouch, that to be saved by the Blood of Becket was unknown to the Church for the space of a thousand years and odd. 
The fault escaped in the printing, is all the comfort our silly jesuit can find.  In the Margin, the Printer hath negligently set down 1407 for 1047. years after Christ. I would that were the least, of many schores of faults, which have escaped in my Books, partly of ignorance, and partly through the negligence of careless Printers. Now, where I assign divers times and years precisely and distinctly, 
Myself am far off from the Press, & so my Books are not printed as I wish. I want the Jesuits purse.  to the birth of several degrees of Popery; our jesuit being at a flat nonplus what to answer, fleeth maliciously to ridiculous cavils, and most foolish and false imputations. Yea, the Friar jesuit B.C. (bloody cut-throat, if his name so be,) doth bewray his own malice unawares. For, these are his express words. Let him be urged with that which he teacheth else where, and then his refuge will be; that he speaketh not of the Invocation of Saints in general, but of the particular manner of praying by their Merits; or by the Blood of Thomas. Thus writeth the jesuit, unawares confirming my doctrine against his will. Magna est veritas, et praevalet. 
A.D. 1161.  Thomas Becket was put to death, about the year 1161. after Christ. And so I conclude with this inevitable illation; Ergo, Popish Invocation to be saved by the Blood of Becket, Champion, Ballard, Sherwin, Watson, and such like, is but a rotten rag of the New religion.    

The 12. Chapter: of the Communion under one kind.  
THE jesuit prosecuting his accustomed manner of lying, according to his beginning, spendeth almost the whole Chapter, in heaping only upon an other. Nevertheless, I will answer to each thing of any moment, for better explication-sake.  

B. C.  
S. Paul (saith Bell) urging Chistes Institution to the Corinthians, telleth them plainly and regiously, that they must receive the Holy Eucharist under both kinds. Which last words, he printeth in a distinct letter, to show that they be the Apostles words; 
1. Cor. 11. v. ●7.  and quoteth accordingly in the margin, the particular place: But view it he that will, if he find S. Paul to have those words, we will yield him the victory; if not, let his favourites consider how they venture their souls with such a Minister, that offereth violence to the very word of God; which he would seem so much to reverence.   

T. B.  
I answer, that our Friar (overlying Jesuit) hath in these few words committed no fewer, than three most palpable and notorious Lies. The first Lie is this; viz. that I have printed the Last words, in a distinct letter: for his own conscience telleth him, that I am no Printer: Again, I was almost 200. miles from the Press, when my said Book was printed. His second Lie is this; viz. that I printed the words so, to show that they were the Apostles words: Yet the truth is, so God save my soul, that I had no such purpose as the malicious and lying Friar would enforce upon me: And I prove the same by two reasons, which plainly convince and confound the Friar. First, for that I was so far from intending any such thing, either by word or writing; that I was offended thereat, so soon as I read the same: Secondly, because my usual custom ever hath been, (as all my Books will declare and prove,) to say, These are the express words, when soever I cite any Author. His third Lie is this; viz. that I have offered violence to God's word. I prove it two ways: First, because S. Paul's true meaning is, as I affirm; whereof none can stand in doubt, that shall duly peruse my Survey: Again, because the Jesuit granteth as much; as by and by will appear.   

B. C.  
The most that can be gathered out of S. Paul's words truly cited, is; that in his time, the Eucharist was ministered to Lay people, under both kinds; which we deny not: but they prove not, that it neither was, nor might be given under one kind.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that our Friar confoundeth himself, while he granteth the Eucharist to have been ministered to the Lay people, in both kinds in S. Paul's time: For, he consequently must grant, that they minister the holy Eucharist, contrary to Christ's sacred Institution. Secondly, that the Papists must perforce confess; that either Christ's Institution or else their practice implieth a notorious imperfection. Not the former, because, All God's works are perfect. 
Deut 32. v. 4.  Ergo the latter, and consequently their Popish administration hath so much of imperfection, as it wanteth of Christ's holy Institution. Thirdly, that S. Paul doth plainly teach the Corinthians, 
Rom. 15.4. Rom. 4.23.  and us in them, that they ought to receive the holy Eucharist under both kinds: For, in the very beginning of the Chapter, before he come to the Institution, he giveth them this commandment; Be ye the followers of me, even as I am of Christ. 
1. Cor. 11.1.  This done, he telleth them; that he received both the kinds of Christ, and for that end delivered both unto them. And consequently, seeing they must imitate him, as he did Christ: and seeing withal, that he received both kinds of Christ and delivered both kinds; to them; it followeth by an inevitable consequence, that the unpriested and Layicall Corinthians, aught to receive the holy Eucharist under both kinds. And our Jesuitical Friar showeth himself, not only to be malicious, but also too too ridiculous; when after he hath granted the Lay people to have received under both kinds; he laboureth to prove that one kind may suffice, in these words. But they prove not, that it neither was, nor might be given under one kind. For first, the jesuit freely granteth, because it can not be denied; that in S. Paul's time, the Lay people communicated under both kinds. Secondly, that Christ delivered both kinds to S. Paul. Thirdly, that he gave both kinds to the Laycall Corinthians. Fourthly, that no power upon Earth, may alter Christ's Institution; as all learned Papists most willingly grant. And consequently, that the Friar affirming the contrary, is blasphemous against the Son of God.   

B. C.  
Prosecuting still the same matter of Communicating under both kinds, he saith: This was the practice of the ancient Church, for the space of one thousand, two hundred, and thirty years after Christ: About which time, they began in some odd Churches, to leave off the Cup, and to minister the Sacrament in Bread only: But this was done, as Aquinas confesseth, in some few places only. An untruth it is that the Communion under one kind was not in use, till the year one thousand, two hundred, & thirty, as more boldly then truly be affirmeth. Sozomenus & Nicephorus report, how a certain woman infected with the heresy of Macedonius, 
Out upon lying Jesuits, & rotten Popery  the better to conceal her Religion, came to the Church, and received the Sacrament from the hand of S. Chrysostome, as it were with a mind strait ways to eat it: But she cunningly gave it to her Maid, and received of her other Bread brought from home: Which when she went about to eat, she found it strait turned into a Stone. This fact showeth, that all than received not the Chalice; for then this Woman could not have dissembled, both because the Chalice was not given into her own hands, (as the consecrated Host than was,) and though it had, no such evasion is imaginable.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that our jesuit is so accustomed with lying, that he cannot leave it upon the sudden: He began with lying, he continueth in lying, and with lying will he end, for aught that can be said. To contradict and deny the Time by me assigned, he hath no other means in the world; but here, as else where to gain (if he can) by lying, that which he is never able to effect with true dealing. In this his present lie, he slandereth two excellent and famous Historiographers; Nicephorus, & Sozomenus. He falsely fathereth upon them both, these words, (The better to conceal her religion. 
The cause of the Friars lying. ) Not one of which words, can be found in either of the said Authors. This egregious and notorious lie, the Friar set abroach, so to maintain (if it were possible, the falsely pretended Antiquity of rotten Popery. The Friar durst not cite the words of his Authors, (though myself never fail therein,) lest his cogging, forgery, and false dealing, should have been discovered by that means. These are the express words of Sezomenus. 
Sozom. hist. lib. 8. cap. 5.  Vir quidam è Macedoniana haeresi, uxorem eiusdem opinionis habebat: Hic cum Johannem quomodo de Deo sentiendum esset, docentem andisset; dogma illius laudabat, et uxorem quoque ut secum sentiret, hortabatur. Cum vero illa magis nobilium mulierum sermonibus, quam illius consuetudini obtemperaret, et post frequentes admonitiones vir illius nihil effecisset; nisi (inquit) in divinis mihi consors fueris, neque in vitae communione posthac eris. Mulier hoc audito et consensum pollicita, rem eam famulae cuidam communicate, quam sibi fidam esse iudicabat, illiusque opera ad fallendum virum utitur. Circa tempus autem mysteriorum, illa quod accepit continens quasi oratura procumbit; famula astans clauculum illi dat, quod secum in manu attulerat. Hoc cum dentibus admoveretur, in lapidem congelascit: A certain man infected with the Heresy of Macedonius, had a wife of the same opinion: he hearing the doctrine of S. john Chrysostome, how he ought to think and believe of God; commended his Doctrine, and exhorted his wife to believe as he did: But when she harkened rather to the Tales of Noble women, then to his admonition, so as her husband prevailed nothing by his exhortations; unless (saith he) thou wilt join with me in matters divine, I will not henceforth join with thee in secular affairs. His wife hearing this, and promising her consent, 
The wife receiveth the Eucharist, so to deceive her husband.  imparteth the matter to one of her Maids, in whom she reposed great confidence, and useth her help to defraud her Husband. While the mysteries were in hand, she keeping that which she had received, looketh down as if she would pray: Her Maid standing by, giveth her privily, that which she brought with her in her hand. Which when she began to eat, it was changed into a Stone. Nicephorus reciteth the same Story, in the self same manner: I have cited the words at large, that the indifferent Reader may behold the false dealing of the Friar, and be an indifferent judge between him and me. Sozomenus and Nicephorus do both jointly and constantly affirm, that the Woman received the Sacramental bread, which she did not eat, so to defraud and deceive her Husband. The Jesuit impudently avoucheth; that she being a Macedonian Heretic, did so, the better to conceal her Religion. Which notorious lying of the shameless Jesuit, not only the History itself doth confute, but also the due consideration of the Heresy which the woman held: For, neither the eating, neither the not eating of the Sacramental bread, did either further or hinder the Macedonian Heresy. If she had been an Arian, the friars assertion might have had some colour of truth; but seeing she was a Macedonian, it is too too foolish and ridiculous: For, the Heresy of Macedonius consisted in this, that the Holy Ghost was not God. Secondly, that neither Sozomenus, nor Nicephorus saith, as the Jesuit beareth his Readers in hand; viz. that the Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood, was then ministered under one kind, but only this and nothing else; viz. that the Woman deceived her Husband, in taking the Bread which she did not eat. Thirdly, that our jesuit falsely saith, that the Cup was not then given into the hands of the Communicantes; his Authors affirm nothing less. Fourthly, that whatsoever our Friar saith, & howsoever he imagine, that the Woman could not have had the same evasion in taking the Cup, which she had in taking the Bread; yet do I constantly affirm, and experience will prove the same; that she might have seemed to drink of the Cup, & yet have tasted no Wine at all. Fiftly, that Pope Gelasius doth contest with me, that the Lay people did in his time, 
A.D. 492.  (which was 492. years after Christ at the least) receive the holy Eucharist under both the kinds: 
Geneb. lib. 3. pag. 618.  yea he affirmeth it to be Sacrilege, to receive but the one kind alone: These are his express words. 
De consecr. dist. 2. cap. comperimus.  Comperimus autem quod quidam sumpta tantummodo corporis sacriportione, a Ca●ice sacrati●ruoris abstineant. Qui procul dubio (quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi,) aut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur. Quia divisio unius eiusdemque mysterij, sine grandi sacrilegio non potest pervenire: 
Lo, the Pope granteth, that it is flat Sacrilege, to receive the holy Bread without the Cup.  We understand, that some receive only the portion of the sacred Body, and abstain from the Cup of the holy Blood. Who, (for that we know not how they are taught to be superstitious,) shall either receive the whole Sacraments, or else be excluded from the whole. Thus writeth Pope Ge●asius the first, (whom Genebrard truly calleth, the most learned Pope) That some odd persons in his time, did not receive the Eucharist in both kinds: whom he therefore condemneth of flat Sacrilege, because the one kind may not be taken without the other. But I will yet touch and tickle our Jesuit more strictly, and tell him that which will make his ears to tingle. Gabriel Biel, a very learned school-doctor, and a religious Popish Friar, 
Biel in can. Miss. ●ect. 84. fol. 214. D.  in his Commentaries upon the Canon of popish Mass, telleth us very constantly; that it was a right generally used in the primitive Church, to receive the holy Eucharist under both kinds: But withal he affirmeth very resolutely; that the Church of Rome in process of time, brought into the Church an other Custom of receiving, in one kind only. In the end, he determineth & decideth the controversy, in these express words. Olim quaestio illa poterat esse dubia; sed nunc post determinationem concilij Constantiensis veritatem catholica determinantis, dicere communionem sub utraque specie esse de necessitate salutis omni fideli, est haeresis ibidem publice condemnata: In former times, it was lawful to doubt of that Question: But in these latter days after the Council of Constance, which hath determined the Catholic verity therein; to say, that all the faithful must upon necessity of salvation, Communicate under both kinds, is a flat Heresy publicly condemned in the said Council. Thus disputeth this great Learned Papist: out of whose words, I gather these worthy observations. First, that the Church of Rome can make Heresies, at her good will and pleasure. I prove it, because that which was Catholic doctrine in the primitive Church, is now made a flat Heresy by Popish constitution. Secondly, that the Laical Communion under one kind, was consonant to the Catholic faith until the late Council of Constance; 
A.D. 1414.  that is to say, for the space of one thousand, four hundred, and fourteen years: For, so long was that Council holden after Christ. Thirdly, that no mortal man, no pure creature, no Angel in heaven, or Saint upon earth, hath any power at any time, to alter or change the least jot of the Catholic faith. This Observation, all learned Papists willingly embrace, 
Biel, ubi supra.  acknowledging the same for an undoubted truth. And Biel, my Doctor now in hand, approveth the same in these express words. Quaedam sunt de necessitate sacramentorum, et de iure divino; sic quod nulla authoritate vel consuetudine, oppositum induci possit: Some things are of the necessity of Sacraments, and of the Law divine; so that whatsoever is opposite or repugnant to the same, can never be established by any Custom or Authority. To which I add fourthly; that the Church hath no new revelations in matters of Faith: So writeth the famous bishop and great learned popish Doctor Melchior Canus, in these express words. 
Canus de Locis, lib. 3. cap. 4. pag. 101.  Nec ullas in fide novas revelationes Ecclesia habet: The Church hath no new Revelations, in matters of Faith. This is true Catholic doctrine in very deed; no denial may be made thereof: For, once a matter of Faith, is and must ever be a matter of Faith. And in like manner; once no Article of Faith, neither is nor ever can be an Article of true Faith indeed.   

B. C.  
S. Thomas of Aquine, doth not say; That this was in some few places only, as Bell maketh him to speak; but that in some Churches it was so observed; which might be very many, as well as some few.   

T. B.  
I Answer; that in my Survey of Popery, I set down Aquinas his express words, as mine accustomed manner ever hath been, though our jesuit dare not perform so much. In my Trial, I only gave the true sense and meaning for brevity sake: His words are these. 
Aquin. p 3. q. 80. art. 12. in corp.  Ex part quidem ipsius sacramenti convenit, quod utramque sumatur; sez. et corpus et sanguis, quia in utroque consistit perfectio sacramenti. Sequitur, ideo providè in quibusdam ecclesijs obseruatur, ut populo sanguis sumendus non detur, sed solum a sacerdote sumatur: On the behalf of the Sacrament, it is meet and convenient, that both be received: to weet, both the Body & the Blood; because in both, consisteth the perfection of the Sacrament: Therefore it is providently observed in some Churches, that the Blood be not given to the Lay people, but be only received of the Priest. Thus writeth Aquinas; 
A.D. 1240.  out of whose words, I note two special Documents. Th●one, that the perfection of the Sacrament consisteth in both kinds; and consequently, that the Communion of the Lay people, 
Lo, the Sacrament in one kind i● unperfect.  is this day unperfect in the Church of Rome. This is a note of great consequence; let it be well remembered. Th'other, that both kinds were usually received, even of the Lay people in the days of Aquinas, both in the Church of Rome, and in all other Churches, some few excepted. 
A.D. 1240.  For, if Aquinas should mean (by some Churches,) very many Churches, as our Friar would persuade his readers; he should not have said, in some Churches, but in very many, or in all Churches for the most part: For, two (which are a few, not very many) may determine some Churches very sufficiently. But to extend some Churches to very many, is to offer no small violence to the Text. For example sake; If our Jesuit should promise to give me some Money for my pains, as I think he will not; if then I did challenge very much Money upon his Promise, he perperhaps would deny the same; and myself for any help the words would afford me, should by Law recover the great sum ad Calend●● Graeta●. In my Survey, this Lay call Communion under both kinds, 
Survey, part. 3. cap. 10.  is proved at large; out of Origen, S. Cyprian, S. Hierome, S. Chrysostome, S. Jgnatius, S. Justinus, S. Ambrose, S. Austen, S. Gregory, and Haymo; It shall now suffice, to cite the testimonies of justinus and Haymo: justinus hath these express words. 
justin. in. 2 Apolog. 2. pag. 76.  Qui apud nos vocantur Diaconi atque Ministri, distribuunt unicuique praesentium, ut participet eum in quo gratiae actae sunt, Panem, Vinum, et Aquam. Sequitur: Nam Apostoli in commentarijs a se scriptis quae evangelia vocantur, ita tradiderunt praecepisse sibi jesum: They that we call Deacons and Ministers, do distribute to every one that is present, the sanctified Bread, Wine, & Water, to be made partaker thereof: For the Apostles in their Commentaries; that is, in the gospels, have taught us, that jesus so commanded them (to minister the holy Communion.) Haymo an ancient Father and learned bishop hath these express words. 
Haymo in 1. Cor. 11.  Ego. N. accepi ● Domino, quod et tradidi vobis; id est, mysterium corporis et sanguinis Domini, quomodo debeatis sumere: sicut mihi revelavit, ita tradidi vobis: For I have received of the Lord, that which I delivered to you; that is, the mystery of our Lord's Body & Blood, in what manner ye ought to receive it: Even as he revealed it to me, so have I delivered it to you. Thus write these holy, ancient & learned Fathers; very resolutely and plainly teaching us, that Christ commanded all sorts of people to Communicate under both kinds. I therefore must conclude, with this inevitable illation: 
A.D. 1414.  That seeing the Communion under one kind, was not an Article of popish Faith for the space of 1414. years after Christ, as is already proved; it both is, and must perforce be so reputed, a very rotten rag of the New religion.    

The .13. Chapter: of Popish private Mass.  

B. C.  
THE Minister speaketh of the dreadful Mysteries, as homely, as though he were talking of the English Communion; which is had in such high reverence, that the fragments remaining, are appointed for the Ministers private uses, and leave given him to feed with them his Chickens, or to sop his Pottage.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that our cogging jesuit is as unreverent in speaking, as he is impudent and shameless in lying. Secondly, that all wise, discreet, and zealous Christians in our Churches, do come with more true reverence to our holy Communion, (which we acknowledge to be sacramentally Christ's true Body and precious Blood▪) then Papists do in the Romish Church, to their transubstantiated Breadgod. Thirdly, that the Papists give leave to Dogs, Mice, and Rats, to eat the remainder of their Bread-gods; in so much, that Petrus Lombardus their reverend Master of Sentences, 
Lomb. 4. s. dist. 3. B.  not able to express what the Mouse doth eat, answereth to the great mystical difficulty, in these words; Deus no●u: God knoweth what the Mouse doth eat. Fourthly, that God by the mouth of holy Moses, pronounced to the Is●●e●u●, that the remnant of the Meat-offering, should be Aaron▪ and his Sons: 
Leuit. 2. v. 3.  And the reason is added immediately in these express words; For it is most Holy of the lords Offerings made by Fire, Again in an other place thus. 
Leuit. 7. v. 8. 9·10.  The Priest that offereth any man's Burnt offering, shall have the Skin of the Burnt offering which he hath offered. And all the Meat offering that is baken in the Oven, and that is dressed in the Pan, and in the frying Pan, shall be the Priests that offereth it. And every Meat offering mingled with Oil, and that is dry, shall pertain to all the sons of Aaron, to all alike.   

B. C.  
To the matter: An untruth it is, that private Masses were not before the time he mentioneth. The twelft Council of Toledo, almost nine hundred years ago, reprehendeth those Priests, 
C●nc. Tolet. 12. can. 5. A.D. 686.  which offering Sacrifice did not communicate. Quale illud Sacrificium, etc. What manner of Sacrifice is that (saith the Council,) of which neither he that sacrificeth, is known to be partaker? Which words do show, that none was present to communicate, and yet the Council requireth only, that the Priest himself do Communicate. S. Austen also recordeth, how a Priest offered Sacrifice in a private form, for the freeing of that place from the molestation of wicked spirits. In so particular and extraordinary a place, and for so particular a business, no probability that there were any other Communicantes.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that it is high time for our Jesuitical Friar, to come once to the matter, whose custom is seldom or never, to be occupied in that honest kind of dealing. Secondly, that the Council doth not so much as once name Private Mass; much less doth it approve the same. Thirdly, that if private Mass had then been used in some odd Churches, yet would not that serve the friars turn: The reason is at hand; because that which cometh almost 700. years after Christ, must needs be the New religion. To that of S. Austen, the same answer is correspondent; and our jesuit showeth himself a very silly and ridiculous disputer, while he seeketh to 'stablish an Article of Faith, upon iciune and barren probabilities. Fourthly, that all approved antiquity, condemneth our jesuit with his private Mass. In the Canons of the Apostles, I find these express words. 
Can. 9 et Can. 10. et Grat. d. 16. Cap. placuit.  Si quis Episcopus, Presbyter, vel Diaconus, vel ex Sacerdotali catalogo, facta Oblatione non communicaverit, causam dicat; et si probabilis fuerit, veniam consequatur; sin verò minus, segregetur; ut qui populo ●ffensionis causa sit, et suspicion's dedetit adversus eum qui obtulit, tanquam non dign● obtulerit: If any Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, or other of the Clergy, shall not Communicate in time of the Oblation let him show the cause▪ or if it be found reasonable, let him be pardoned: but if otherwise, let him be excommunicate, as one that hath given scandal, and brought him into suspicion which offered, as if he had done amiss. The Pope's own Decrees are so clear and manifest, at nothing can be more. One Canon commandeth all such to be put out of the Church, as do not receive the holy Communion: these are the express words. 
De consecr. dist. 2. cap. peracta.  Paracta Consecratione, omnes comunicent qui noluerint Ecclesia●tici● c●re●●liminibus. Sir N. Apostoli slatuerum, et suncta Roma●● tinet Ecclesia: Wh●●● Consecration is accomplished, ●●t all that will not Communicate, be put out of the Church: For so the Apostles have ordained, and so the holy Roman Church observeth. another Canon hath these words. 
De 〈◊〉 dist. 2. ca●. si qu●●  Si quis 〈◊〉 Ecclesiam Dei, 〈…〉 sua avertit se a Communione sacramenti, et in obseruandis ministerijs declinat constitutam regulam disciplinae, istum talem proijciendum de Ecclesia Catholica esse decernimus, donec panitentiam agate: If any come into God's Church, and hear the holy Scriptures, and superstitiously avert himself from the Communion of the Sacrament, and in observing the ministries, 
Obseru● gloss.  serve from the set Rule of discipline, we decree such a one to be excommunicate, until he repent. another Canon hath these words. 
De consecr. Distinct. 1. cap. omnes.  Omnes fideles qui conveniunt in solennitatibus sacris ad Ecclesiam, et scripturas Apostolorum et evangelium audiant. Qui autem non perseverant in oratione usque dum missa peragatur, nec sanctam Communionem percipiunt, velut inquietudines Ecclesiae commovenies convenit communione privari. All the faithful which come to the Church, in the time of sacred Solemnities, must hear the Scriptures of the Apostles and the Gospel: But they that do not continue in Prayer until Mass be done, nor receive the holy Communion, aught to be excommunicate, as disquieters of the congregation. S. Chrysostome is so far from approving private Mass, that he calleth them impudent and wicked, that being present, do not communicate: these are his words. 
Chrysost. hom. ●. ad Ephes.  Ista videlicet et nunc ad omnes nos dicit, qui impudenter hic et improbè astamus. Quisquis. N●mysteriorum cons●rs non est, impudens et improbus astat: These things verily he now saith to us all, which stand by impudently and wickedly: For whosoever standeth by, and doth not communicate, is impudent and wicked. 
See and note well the Pope's funeral, where this point is sound disputed, Survey, part. 3. cap. 10. concls. 2  Oh, what would this holy Father say, if he were this day in Rome, and should see many hundreds standing by gazing, and the Priest only devowring all? He would doubtless term them, most impudent and ungracious people. This Subject is plentifully disputed in my Survey; to which place I refer the Reader.    

The 14. Chapter: of Pope Martin's Dispensation, for the Brother to marry his natural Sister.  
ALL that our Jesuit saith in defence of Pope Martin's Dispensation, is plain silence in very deed. For albeit I sound confuted the forerunner in my Book, entitled, The Pope's Funeral, there answering to every sentence, word, and syllable, which B.C. in his forerunner possibly could devise; yet S. R▪ that Learned jesuit, in his pretenced Answer to the Downfall of Popery, not able to withstand or gainsay the dint of my Authorities, Arguments, and Reasons, passed over all the same, (being many, and of great consequence,) in deep silence. In like manner, this Jesuit fearing to suffer shipwreck upon the same Rock, is afraid now, either to reply upon mine Answer in the Funeral, or to answer my Authors plainly named in the Trial. I proved the Question sound and clearly in the Pope's Funeral, by the Authorities and plain Testimonies of Silvester Prieras, sometime Master of the Pope's sacred Palace, and a Friar so learned, that he was surnamed, Absolutus Theologus; of Bartholomaeus Fumus, a religious dominican Friar, a famous Popish summist, 
The Pope's Dispensations are abominable.  and a man of great Authority in the Holy house of popish Inquisition; of Angelus de Clavasio, a Papist of great learning and reputation, as who was Vicar general of the Cismontani-Minors; of Cardinal Caietain, the most learned Papist of that crew; and of Martinus Navarrus, a singular Writer, and a most famous popish Canonist. This notwithstanding, all the answer that can any way be extorted from the Jesuits Pen, is this, and no other; viz. that he hath answered me in the doleful Knell. 
Popery can not be defen●ded, but by notorious lying.  Which answer, if it be pondered seriously with all the circumstances thereto appertaining, is able of itself, (if nothing else could be said,) to overthrow Popery, & to turn it upside down. Mark therefore (gentle Reader) very attentively, what I shall here truly relate, as I will answer for it at the dreadful day of Doom▪ the jesuit B.C. in his Forerunner, hath these express words. 
Forerunner, pag. 17.  He may very well live to see it, and ye● die much sooner than he would. Let him not be dismayed, for I can assure him of mine own knowledge, that our consciences do not condemn us; 
This is a tale of Robin Hood & Little john.  neither do we know, that we are not able to perform as great a matter as that. To give the more credit to my words, and somewhat to revive his dead spirits, I will here give him a note of the number of the Books, and their particular contents: they be in all five, written against his Motives and Survey, five years ago. Thus writeth the Jesuit B. C. in his Forerunner. 
In his Detection, published Anno. 1602.  To which let us truly add that, which the Jesuit E.O. writeth in his Detection against M. D. Sutcl●ffe, and M. Willet: These are his express words. But I altered my purpose, partly upon other considerations; but especially, because the Confutation of his worthy Works is already undertaken, and to be published, if it shall be thought necessary. Thus writeth E. O. that Learned man, as B. C. his brother Jesuit termeth him.  
Now sir, (mark well for Christ's sake,) the detector E. O. That cozening jesuit telleth us mordicùs, that the Confutation of my Books, was but undertaken by his fellows; 
This is a great wonderment of the world: let it be remembered.  when he published his Detection; that is to say, it was then concluded amongst his brethren, that my Books should be answered. Hence cometh it, (it can not be denied,) that the supposed Answer to my Books, was in the year 1602. (for at that time was the Detection published) at the most but in fieri, not in facto esst; to speak as the Schools do: viz. the Answer was then but in hand, or in doing at the most; not done, or finished in very deed: Nay, it was but then resolved amongst them, (as I proved in my Counterblast out of the provincial Garnets' Letter,) that some Answer should be made unto my Books. And therefore saith the detector, that he was once determined to have said something against my Books, but hearing that his fellows were about the same matter, he altered his purpose. here is a most cozening legierdemain: here the Jesuits play their parts, and show themselves not only egregious liars and most cursed deceivers; but also (as the secular Priests write of them,) the most wicked men that live upon the earth, It was not without great cause, that the learned Papists in France, published a Book against them, 
Lib. 2. cap. 17.  which they termed, The Jesuits Catechism. In which Book, they show at large, that the further a Jesuit goes the louder he lies. another Book called, The frank Discourse, 
The Frank Discourse, pag. 98.  affirmeth resolutely; that the Jesuits never harboured in their hearts any other project, but the subversion of States, disauthorizing of Magistrates, and seducing of Subjects from their natural allegiance. In brief, thus the case standeth. S. R. that learned jesuit, affirmeth constantly, that at the publication of his Detection, 
A.D. 1602.  (which was in the year 1602.) my Books were not answered, but at the most in fieri, as is already said. B.C. that famous Jesuit singeth an other song, and avoucheth peremptorily; 
Mark, how the Jesuits confute themselves.  that my Books (my Motives and my Survey) were answered, five years before he published his forerunner: That is in plain English, four years before that time, in which his brother Jesuite●elleth ●elleth us, that his fellows were but above to answer them. And lest it should be objected against B. C. that bloody cutthroat, (for so may his name be, till he more plainly disclose it,) that his brother Jesuit S. R. accuseth him of a most notorious Lie therein: he to prevent that Objection, telleth us, that the Answer is suppressed, and upon just occasion stayed and not published. 
Forerunner, page. 15. cap. 3.  These are his express words, in the Contents of his third Chapter. That Bells Books have long since received their answer, & though upon just occasion it hath hitherto been suppressed; yet shortly by God's grace to be set forth. Thus discourseth the Friar, for the honour and life of his Pope; which he manageth so gallantly, as if his reward should be a Rope. These Jesuits their several asseverations, 
judic. 15. v. 4.  are much like to Samson Foxes: their Tails are fast tied together, but their Heads are far asunder. So then; this must needs be the conclusion, though it imply a flat and plain contradiction; viz. that my Motives and Survey were answered about ten years ago at the least; and yet unanswered to this day. This in my conceit is not only a Riddle, 
A Jesuits Miracle.  but a plain Jesuitical Miracle. Yet such a Miracle ever understand, as the Jesuits wrought upon Sebastian the late King of Portugal. 
See my Anatomy.  Well, all the world may see by this their dealing, that they are at their wits end, what to say or write; turning themselves this way, that way, and every way, by cozening, lying, juggling, & by what other means they possibly can devise; so to stay the outcries of the people and their Popish vassals, for being so long silent touching the answer of my Books. Alas, alas; Who seeth not the nakedness of late hatched Romish religion, to what impudent, desperate, & most damnable shifts, are the Papists driven for the defence thereof? How dare they confess to the whole world, that they have been buzzing about the Answer of my Motives and Survey, for the space of six whole years or more; and that when they had framed their Answer after their best manner, they have suppressed the same for the space of five years? The truth is, that their falsely pretended Answer (which should consist of five Books) can not to this day befound extant in rerum natura. When the Jesuits and Semina●ie-Priestes consulted with Garnet their Provincial, what course was best to be taken in hand for the Answer of my Books; because their silence in that behalf, was very dangerous to their Pope and Popery: the Father Jesuit having on his cap of Consideration, answered very peremptorily, though neither clerkly nor honestly; That they must either not meddle with the matter at all, or else deal rather with my Person, then with my Doctrine. Yet he addeth very gravely these words; 
Lo, a great number, even of the best, have consulted to answer my Books.  Nevertheless, for this matter, as ye shall all agree: for I doubt not, but so many, and such, will see what is best. Where we have to observe by the way, in perpetuam rei memoriam▪ that not one only jesuit or Seminarie-priest writeth against me, but even the whole brood, tag and rag, have bend their Bows to shoot their Arrows at me. For, though one odd Companion be singled out to take the quarrel in hand, and to pen the Answer; 
See my Counterblast, for Garnetes Letter.  yet is the same fellow guarded and assisted, with the joint counsel, advise, judgement, and help of all the rest. But to what end is this my digression? Doubtless, to insinuate to the Reader; that seeing I can neither see, nor yet learn who hath seen this doleful Knell, 
Lo, the Jesuits write many Books against Bell, which they dare not publish.  to which I must resort for Answer; I can not but think, that it is hid under a Pipkin, so to be kept from sunburning; even as the other Five Books are, prepared so many years ago. Howbeit, if either it, or any other Book shall happen to come to my hands (while God shall of his great mercy grant me life, health, and sight, the two last whereof, do in an high degree begin to fail me,) it shall (God willing) receive a speedy Answer. Let this Jesuit and all the rest, so persuade themselves; as also, that God giveth me comfort more than a little, in all my conflicts against them.   

The 15. Chapter: of Popish worshipping of Images.  

B. C.  
SAint Gregory (saith Bell) sharply reproved the Worship done to Images. True it is: But what kind of Worship was it: The Minister would have the Reader to think, that it was the same, which the Catholic Church alloweth and teacheth; which is nothing so: For it was passing far different, for as much as S. Gregory allowed convenient Adoration, as shall strait be said.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that I approve our Jesuits Answer, while he confesseth truly; that Gregory sharply reproved the Worship done to Images. Secondly, that I can not but withal condemn his fond interpretation of S. Gregory's words: For, it is most clear and evident, that Gregory never approved religious Worship given to Images. Thirdly, that our Friar falsely imagineth, the Church of Rome to be the Catholic Church. Of which Subject, I have disputed at large, in my Christian Dialogue.   

B. C.  
Cardinal Bellarmine thinketh, that this erroneous Worship was given by certain new Christians▪ 〈◊〉 surely such were most likely to fall into that gross sin; of whom it is not so much to be marveled, if accustomed before to Idols, they behaved themselves in like manner towards sacred Images, and adored them for Gods, as in Pagain sin they were taught and practised.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that woe is to those silly and simply seduced Christians, who are enforced to believe and receive as Catholic Doctrine, whatsoever Bellarmine and his jesuited complices shall conjecture & imagine to be the truth: Yet is is true, that all must be burnt with Fire and Faggot, in Rome, Spain, and Portugal, that will not believe, as the Pope and his Cardinals teach them. Secondly, that the Worship which the Papists this day give to Images, is of like nature, quality, semblance, and condition in every respect, with that which was given to Idols even in the time of Paganism. I prove it out of your popish Reformed Portesse or breviary, where I find this Prayer made to the Crosse. 
In Breviar. Rom. hebd▪ 4. quadr. in sabb.  O Crux, ave spe unica, hoc passionis tempore; auge pijs justitiam, reisque dona veniam: All hail o Cross, our only hope, in this time of the Passion; increase justice to the Godly, and eke to sinners Pardon give. To which I add the manner of Worship which the Papists do to the Cross on Good-fry day; to say nothing of other times. Upon that day the Cross is covered; and in time of popish Prayers, the Priest by degrees doth uncover the same: first, on the right side, with low reverence done unto it. Then on the left side, with the like reverence exhibited. Lastly, the whole Cross is revealed▪ and made manifest to the people. And the like superstitious dotage is used, in the Song made to the Crosse. For, in every of the three degrees, the tune is elevated and made higher than afore. Which being thus done, the Priest putteth off his Shoes, and prostrate upon the ground adoreth and kisseth the Crosse. 
Nadis pedibus adoratur crux.  After the Priest, follow the rest, aswell of the Temporalty, as of the Clergy; every one, in his order and degree. And because none may come empty to the lords House, many rich Oblations are made even with the good liking of the Priest. But if any refuse to adore and worship the Cross, he shall be burnt as an Heretic. If any desire to know the mysteries of Popish worship done to the Wooden Cross, with the profound significations thereof, 
Durand. in rationale diui●. office libr. 6. cap. 77.  he may find the same in bishop Durand, who hath bestowed great labour in that behalf. But say on sir Friar, it is not yet time to go to dinner?   

B. C.  
Bell quoteth Biel; where nothing is handled of any such Subject. A small fault, especially in Bell, being one of such known truth, that he never useth any such sleights, unless it be for the better passage of the Gospel. To let that pass; Why hath he not cited his Words? He may pretend what reason he please: but he must give me leave to think, that there is none other, save only, that he knew not truly where to find them.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that our jesuit is so addicted to lying, as the Devil may seem to have begotten him. If I should stand to examine and refute all the Lies which our jesuit poureth out in his Pamphlets, time doubtless would sooner fail me, than matter whereof to speak. Secondly, that our Jesuit is condemned in his own Conscience, as who accuseth me of that which is proper to himself, and whereof he knoweth me to be innocent. Is this possible to be proved? It is not only possible, but so easy a thing for me to prove it, that if I fail herein, I will desire no credit to be given me in other matters. For the manifestation of the truth herein, I desire the honest and indifferent Reader, to observe two things with me. Th'one, that the jesuit hath seen, read, and taken note or notes, out of my little Book, entitled, The woeful cry of Rome. 
In the Preface to the Reader, pag. 7.  For, so much himself confesseth in his Preface to the Reader. Th'other, that in the self-same Woeful cry, I have both truly quoted the place, and sincerely cited the express words of Biel: there I write in this manner. Yea, Gabriel Biel a religious Popish Friar, and a very learned school-doctor, who lived long after Gregory and Serenus, even one thousand, four hundred, eighty, and four years after Christ, doth sharply inveigh and reprove the Worship given to Images. He hath a large Discourse of this Subject, in which the Reader may find these express words. 
Biel in Can. miss. lect. 49. in fine.  Quod vero Christiana religio Imagines sustinet in Ecclesia et oratorijs, non permittit eo fine, ut ipsae adorentur. Sequitur: Neque adoro Imaginem Christi, quia lignum, nec quia Imago; sed adoro Christum, coram imagine Christi; quia scilicet imago Christi excitat me ad amandum Christum: Whereas Christian religion tolerateth Images in the Church, and in Oratories; it doth not permit them for this end, that they may be adored: Neither do I adore the Image of Christ, because it is Wood, neither for that it is an Image: but I adore Christ, before the Image of Christ; because the Image of Christ, doth allure me to love Christ. Thus much, and plentiful other matter against popish Worship of Images, the Reader may find in that Book. And therefore I must not give the Friar that leave, which he would enforce me to give; howsoever he think to deceive others, with his palpable and gross lying. True it is, that through the negligence of the Printer, Compositor, or Corrector, (whom in this kind of business, I repute as one man,) the place out of Biel is quoted amiss: Whereat the Friar for want of other better matter, thought it his best course to wrangle and cavil; albeit he knew right well (as is already proved,) that in The woeful cry of Rome, the words are sincerely cited, and the place truly quoted: Which is an insoluble argument, that our jesuit hath a cauterized Conscience, and is in semblance much like to Knights of the Post.   

B. C.  
another thing here accurreth worth the noting; Bell citeth in the Pamphlet of his Woeful cry, as Gabriels' words, those which be not his, but rather Holcots, though alleged by Gabriel; which also he doth interpret to a good sense, as before was said.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that as the words are Holcots by invention, so are they Gabriels' by approbation: And consequently, that Holcot an other learned Papist, doth oppose himself against the Worship done to Images. Secondly, that Gabriel hath affirmed very resolutely, that Images are neither to be worshipped as Wood, nor yet as they be Images: that is, no way at all; as we have already heard. 
Gabriel. Biel, in can. miss. ●ect. 49. prope finem.  A little after, that same Gabriel propoundeth the Question; if that act by which one is carried to the Image ought to be called Adoration. To which he answereth, in these words. Dicitur, quod est adoratio analogicè et impropriè, non autem propriè; quoniam est respectu creaturae: I answer, that it is called Adoration analogically and improperly, but not properly; because it is in respect of a creature. And certes, seeing he will have all proper and true Worship, to pertain to God alone; he consequently avoucheth, that no true Worship is or can be given to any Image whatsoever. Thirdly, that Gabriel citeth Damascenus, for the same end and purpose: These are his express words. Quia non omnes noscunt literas, neque lectioni vacant; patres excogitaverunt velut quosdam triumphos, in imaginibus hoc describere ad velocem memoriam. Quapropter multoties non secundum montem habentes Domini passionem, imaginem crucifixtionis Christi videntes, et in salutaris passionis memoriam venientes, procidentes adoramus Christum. Ecce, dicit Christum adorari, ad inspectionem imaginum ducentium in notitiam rememoratinam Christi: Because all can not read, neither have all leisure to read; the Fathers have invented as it were certain triumphs, to describe this in Images for the speedy help of Memory: Wherefore, not having often times in mind our lords Passion, when we behold the Image of Christ crucified, remembering his healthful Passion, we falling prostrate, do adore Christ. Behold, Damascene saith; that we adore Christ, when we behold his Image bringing him to our remembrance. Thus writeth Biel out of Damascene. So then, albeit the best learned Papists, do not deny Christ to be adored before his Image; yet will they by no means grant or allow, the Image itself to be adored.   

B. C.  
What hath Bell got by vouching the authority of S. Gregory? About the retaining of Images in Churches, he is directly against him; as he can not deny. Concerning their Adoration also, he nothing helpeth him, but teacheth that, which nothing pleaseth his reformed spirit; and therefore true it is not, that he reproved the Worship done to Images, as Bell affirmeth.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that notorious lying is our Jesuits usual occupation: For, I am so far from condemning simply and absolutely the making and retaining of Images for civil use, that I have plainly & expressly written in defence thereof; constantly affirming the same, not to be prohibited by the word of God. He that shall duly peruse my Survey of Popery, 
Survey, part. 2. lib. r. 1. cap. 6. concl. 2.  can not stand in doubt thereof: And consequently, our Friar knowing that Book right well, to his grief and sorrow; proveth himself to have deserved the Whetstone, to be hanged about his neck for lying. Secondly, that our Friar belieth both S. Gregory and myself, while he impudently denieth, that Gregory reproved the Worshipping of Images: These are his express words. 
Gregor. Sereno episcopo, lib. 7. ep. 109. cap. 109.  Et quidem zelum v●s, ne quid manu factum adorari possit, habuisse laudavimus; sed frangere casdem Imagines non debuisse iudicamus. Sequitur: tua ergo fraternitas et illas scruare, et ab earum cultu populum prohibere debuit: We truly commend you, as having had zeal therein; lest any thing made with hands, should be adored; yet do I judge, that you should not have broken the same Images: Therefore your brotherhood should both have kept them whole, and also have forbidden the people to adore them. Thus discourseth Pope Gregory. Out of whose words, I observe these golden Lessons. First, that Images may not be worshipped. Secondly, that it is the duty of bishops to forbid the people to worship them. Thirdly, that Gregory commended the zeal of the good bishop Serenus, who breaketh Images in pieces, which the people worshipped. Fourthly, that though Images were in those days permitted for instruction sake; yet were the people never permitted to Worship them, but ever sharply reproved in that behalf. This is the truth, concerning Gregory and Serenus. Serenus thought it time, to break the Images, when the people began to adore them. Gregory thought, they might still remain in the Church; so the people were instructed how to use them; and prohibited to Worship them. And of his opinion, are some reformed Churches in this age, who still retain Images in their Temples. I neither dare condemn those, who still keep them in their Churches or Temples; nor yet those, who have abolished the same. But this I boldly avouch; that Serenus had for his example, both the fact of the good King Ezechias, 
2. Reg. 18. v. 4.  who broke in pieces the Brazen Serpent, when the people began to adore it, albeit God himself had commanded to set it up: and also the practice of S. Epiphanius, 
Epiphan. ep. ad lo. Hierosol. in fine.  who seeing the Image of a Saint hanging in the Church, tore the same asunder, and advised the Wardens to bury some poor body with the vail, and to see that thenceforth no such Veils should be hanged up in the Church. These are the express words of S. Epiphanius, translated by S. Hierome out of Greek into the Latin tongue. inveni ibi velum pendens in foribus ciusdem Ecclesia tinctum atque depictum, et habens Imaginem quasi Christi, vel sancti cuiusdam. Non. N. satis memini, cuius Imago fuerit. Cum ergo hoc vidissem in Ecclesia Christi contra authoritatem scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem scidi illud, et magis dedi consilium custodibus eiusdem loci, ut pauperem mortuum eo obuoluerent et efferrent. Sequitur: Et precor deinceps praecipere, in Ecclesia Christi istiusmodi vela, quae contra religionem nostram veniunt, non appendi: I found there a vail hanging in the Doors of the same Church died and painted, which had the Image as it were of Christ, or some Saint; for I do not well remember whose Image it was: Therefore, when I saw in the Church of Christ a man's Image against the authority of the Scriptures, I tore it in pieces; 
In villa Anablatha.  and advised the Keepers of that place, (of the Church in Anablatha) to bury some poor body with it. I pray you command; that henceforth such Veils which make against our Religion, be not hanged up in the Church of Christ. The same Epiphanius in an other place, hath these express words. 
Epiphan. haeres. 79. pag. 313.  Re vera sanctum erat corpus Mariae, non tamen Deus. Re vera virgo erat ipsa virgo et honorata, sed non ad adorationem nobis data; sed ipsa ador●ns eum qui ex ipsa carne genitus est, de caelis vero ex finibus paternis accessit. Sequitur. Neque Helias adorandus est, etiamst in vivis sit. Neque lohannes adorandus, neque Thecla, neque quisquam Sanctus adoratur. Non. N. dominabitur nobis antiquus error, ut relinquamus viventem, et adoremus ea quae ab ipso sacta sunt. Sequitur. Sat in honore Maria: Pater, et Filius, ei Spiritus sanctus adoretur. Muriam nemo adoret, non dico mulierem, imò neque virum; Deo debetur hoc mysterium. Neque Angeli capiunt talem glorificationem. Sequitur. Etsi pulcherrima est Maria, et sancta, et honorata, a non ad adorationem: The body of Mary was holy indeed; but she was not God. The Virgin was a Virgin indeed and honourable; but not given to us to be adored: But she adoreth him, who being borne of her according to the flesh, came down from Heaven, even from his Father's Throne. Helias ought not to be Worshipped, if he were this day living amongst us. Neither is John to be Adored, neither Thecla, neither any other Saint: For, the old Error may not so far overrule us, that we forsake the living God, and Adore the Workmanship of his hands. Let Mary be had in honour: let the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be Adored: Let none Adore Mary, I say not the Woman, but neither the Man; this mystery is due to GOD alone. The Angels are not capable, of such glorification. Though Mary be most beautiful, and holy, and honourable; yet is she not to be Adored. Thus discourseth S. Epiphanius, affirming resolutely; that only GOD ought to be Worshipped and Adored, not any Saints in Heaven, or on Earth; much less their Images.    

The 16. Chapter: of Church service in the Vulgar tongue.  

B. C.  
TO prove that the Public Service of the Church ought to be in the Vulgar tongue, he citeth the names of many Authors, without ever setting down their Sentences, thinking it sufcient to refer the Reader 〈◊〉 his Survey; where he hath laid out their words at large.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that our Jesuit is so troubled, with my Books, as he seemeth to have lost his wits: For, 
The jesuit knoweth not in the world, how or what to write.  in his Preface of this present Pamphlet, he objecteth against me as a fault; that I iterate some things in one Book, which I have published in an other. Nevertheless, here he chargeth me of insufficiency; for that I refer the Reader to my Survey, where I have handled the controversy at large. What a fellow is this Jesuitical Friar? If I iterate that, which afore I uttered in an other Book; he is like a mad man, and crieth out; that I trouble him with often repetitions. If I refer him to that, which I have written else where; he accuseth me as in this place, that it is not sufficient so to deal. Secondly, that himself in the .14 Chapter of this Pamphlet, yieldeth no other Answer touching Pope M●rtins Dispensation, 
See the .14. Chapter aforegoing.  save only, that he referreth me to an unknown, and as yet invisible Book; which he calleth, The doleful Knell.   

B. C.  
This proveth not, that the Public Service of the Church was in any other Language, then in the sacred Tongues of the Greek, Latin, etc. For the Grecians might understand the Priest, though their Service were in Greek, because that Tongue was to them the vulgar and common.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that our jesuit confesseth plainly, that his purpose is not to examine my whole Trial, and I believe him in this point, albeit this Chapter consisteth only of sixteen lines. But those few lines, contain such sound and pithy Doctrine, as all the Jesuitees in Christendom, are not able truly to answer the same. Secondly, that I am here content to iterate part of that, which I have else where set down at large: and yet I can hardly think, that the same will be to our friars contentation; Howbeit, volens, nolens, he must put it up; seeing he hath provoked me thereunto. Theodoretus a great Learned man, and a very famous Historiographer, (who lived almost one thousand and two hundred years ago,) 
A.D. 414.  affirmeth constantly; that in his time, the Scriptures were translated into all manner of Languages; and that they were not only understood of Doctors and Masters of the Church, but even of the Lay people and common Artificers also: These are his express words. 
Theodor. de Graecar. affect. curate. lib. 5. pag. 521. to .2.  Hebraici verò Libri non modo in Graecum idioma conversi sunt, sed in Romanam quoque linguam, Aegyptiam, Persicam, Indicam, Armenicamque et Scythicam, atque adeo Sanromaticam; semelque ut dicam, in linguas omnes, quibus ad hanc diem nationes utuntur. Sequitur. Fossoresque adeo ac bubuleos invenias, plantarumque consitores, de divina Trinitate, rerumque omnium creatione discertantes: The Hebrew Books are turned not only into the Greek tongue, but also into the Roman language, into the Egyptian, Persian, Indian, Armenian, and Scythian, as also into the sanromatical tongue; and to speak all in a word, into all tongues, which this day are in use amongst Nations. We may find Ditchers, Deluers, Neatheards, and gardiner's, disputing even of the blessed Trinity, and of the Creation of all things. Thus discourseth this ancient Father and great learned Writer, showing most clearly unto his Readers; that in the ancient Church and old time, every Nation had the holy Scriptures in their Vulgar language: and that in those days, all Christians did read the holy Scriptures so seriously, that both men and women of all trades and conditions, were able to dispute of the holy Trinity, and of the Creation of the world: Which two points for all that, are the most difficult, obscure, hard, and intricate Articles, in the whole course of theology. S. Ambrose hath these express words. 
Amb. lib. 3. hexam. cap. 5. tom. 4.  In oratione totius plebis, tanquam undis refluentibus stridet; tum responsorijs Psalmorum, cantu virorum, mulierum, Virginum, parvulorum, censonus undarum sragor resultat: When all the people pray together, there is a noise, as if the Waves of the Sea did beat one against an other; then with the answering of Psalms, with the singing together of men, women, maids, and little children; the consonant sound reboundeth, as it were an echo with the surges of the Sea. justinus Martyr hath these words. 
justin. apol. 2. prope ●●nom.  Sub haec consurgimus communiter omnes, et praecationes profundimus, et sicuti retulimus, praecibus peractis, panis offertur, et vinum, et aqua. Et praepositus itidem quantum pro virili sua potest, praeces et gratiarum actiones fundit, et populus faustè acclamat dicens, Amen: These things being done, we all arise together and make our Prayers; and after our Prayers, the Bread is offered with Wine and Water; and the Minister as he is able, prayeth and giveth thanks, and the people with joyful acclamation say, Amen. Philo, a very ancient and learned Writer awong the jews, showeth this old practice of our Christian Church, in these words. 
Apud Euseb. libr. 2. hist. cap. 17.  Quae omnia supra dictus vir eo ordine, eademque consequentia, qua apud nos geruntur, expressit. Et ut unus ex omnibus consurgens in medio, Psalmun honestis modulis concinat, utque praecinenti ei unum versiculum omnis multitudo respondeat: All which, the aforenamed man (he speaketh of Philo the Jew,) related in the same order and consequence, in which ourselves do them. And that one among all rising up in the midst, sing a Psalm with tunable voice; and that so soon as he hath sung one Verse, all the people answer him. 
Chrysost. in. 2. Cor. hom. 18. in morab.  S. Chrysostome speaketh so plainly of the people's praying together with the Priest, & that even in the time of the Liturgis or Mass; as none doubtless that either read or hear his words, can stand any longer in doubt thereof: These are his express words. In eisdem iterum horrendis mysterijs bene precatur Sacerdos populo, et bene precatur populus Sacerdoti: Nam (cum spiritu tuo) nihil aliud est, quam hoc: Ea quae sunt Eucharistiae, id est. gratiarum actionis, communiae sunt omnia; neque ille solus gratias agit, sed etiam omnis populus: prius. N. accepta illorum voce, deinde congregatis illis ut dignè et justè hoc faciat, incipit Eucharistian. Et quid miraris, si populus cum Sacerdote loquitur? 
What can be more plainly told? What more evident to the reader? nothing in the whole world.  In these dreadful mysteries, the Priest wisheth well to the people, and the people desire God's mercy to the Priest: For these words, (with thy spirit) have no other meaning. The things that pertain to the Eucharist; that is, to the giving of thanks, are common to them all; for he only giveth not thanks, but all the people also with him: For, he first receiveth their voice; after that, they being gathered together that he may do this reverently and well, he beginneth the Communion. And what marvel is it to thee, if the people pray with the Priest? S. Cyprian testifieth the same practice, to have been usual in his time; alleging the very words, that the common people answered to the Priest: Thus doth he write, in express terms. 
Cyprian. in orat. dom. pag. 316.  Ideo et Sacerdos ante orationem, praefatione praemissa, parat fratrum mentes, dicendo, sursum corda; ut dum respondet plebs, (habemus ad Dominum,) admoneatur nihil aliud se quam Dominum cogitare debere: Therefore the Priest after the Preface before the Prayer, 
Vide Origen cont. Celsu. lib. 8.9.13.  prepareth the minds of the brethren, saying; Lift up your hearts: that while the common people answer, (we lift them up unto the Lord,) they may be instructed, to think upon no other thing but the Lord. What need is there, to stand upon this point any longer? Sozomenus showeth plainly in his History; 
Sozom. hist. trip. lib. 4. cap. 35.  that in his time, (which was more than 400. years after Christ,) 
A.D. 424.  the people and the Clergy did sing Psalms in the Church together. So S. Hierome testifieth of the Church of Rome; that in his time, 
Hier. in prefat. lib. 2. in ep. ad Galat.  the people sounded out (Amen) with such an echo, as if it had been with an heavenly Thunder. Nicolaus Lyranus, that great learned popish Doctor, 
Liar. in. 1. cor. cap. 14.  in his Commentaries upon S. Paul to the Corinthians, affirmeth to his Readers very constantly; that in the primitive Church, both the Prayers, and all other things, were in the Vulgar tongue. Yea, S. Basil saith; 
Basil. ep, ad cler.  that in his time, all the people sang Psalms together in the Church. And he addeth thereunto; 
Neocaesar▪ epist. 6 a.  that it was the custom of all Churches so to do. By these Testimonies it is clear and evident, that in the primitive Church, and many years after, the Church service was everywhere in the Vulgar tongue. S. Gregory sometime bishop of Rome himself, reporteth the usual practice of the Greek Church, (which he approveth,) to have been as we have already heard out of S. Chrysostome, and other famous Greek Writers. And that which our Friar saith of the same Gregory, is too too childish & ridiculous; as it is evident by that which is already said, & shall (God willing) be yet more evident, before the end of this discourse.  
Our jesuit here by way of a digression more than extravagant, giveth a very short, but too too sweet an admonition: In which he pleaseth himself more than a little, with his old doting foolery, and rusty rotten Popery. He telleth his Readers, (whom he would gladly persuade to give credit to his words,) that our Ceremonies are piled patches of Protestanisme, & rusty rags of the Reformed Congregation: and withal forsooth, that our Communion Book itself, was never heard of in the whole world, till the late days of King Edward the sixth. My answer to this extravagant and foolish admonition, I purpose in God, to set down in the last Chapter of this Discourse. 
See my answer to this, in the last Chapter of this Book.  My reason hereof is this. My scope, intent, and purpose, in this present Book, is bipartite or two fold. viz. to prove sound, and plainly to lay open, to all judicious, honest, and indifferent Readers; that the Religion, Faith, and Doctrine, of the late bishops & Church of Rome, is indeed the New religion, by little and little crept into the Church: and distinctly to name the time when, and the Authors by whom, every material point & Article of the new Romish Faith and Religion, did first begin; as also to prove sound and clearly, that the Faith and Doctrine this day established in the Church of England, is Catholic, Apostolical, and the Old Roman religion. For which respect, I have thought it meet and convenient; first, to accomplish and finish the former member, in proving Popery the New Religion: And that done, to prove the Doctrine and Faith of our English Church, to be the Old Religion. Which to perform as is said, I have steadfast confidence in my merciful GOD all sufficient; who wonderfully preserving me from many dangers almost ineffable, seemeth to have reserved me to that end and purpose. God make me thankful, and ever to refer all that I well do, to his most holy name. 
Psal. 115.1.  Non nobis Domine, non nobis: sed nomini tuo da gloriam. Thou o God, who hast chosen the foolish things of this world, to confound the wise; and the weak things, to confound the mighty things: 
1. Cor. 1.27.  thou, who by the mouth of babes and sucklings, hast made perfect thy praise: thou, who hast chosen Peter the Fisher, 
Mat. 21.16.  Matthew the Publican, and Paul the Persecutor, 
Mat. 4.18. Mat. 9.9. Act. 8.3. act. 9.1. 1. tim 1, v. 13. Rom. 11.33. 1. Sam. 17. v. 4.10.  to be thine Apostles: thou, thou (o God) in thine unsearchable judgements, hast ordained me the meanest and unworthiest among many thousands, to bicker with the mighty Goliath, and to fight the Battle of thy Church against him, (the Bishop of Rome I mean;) who would thrust our Lord jesus thy dear Son, out of his throne.    

The 17. Chapter: of the Antiquity of Popish Mass, and the parts thereof.  

B. C.  
He falsely and blasphemously concludeth every piece of the Mass, to be rotten Rags. For, are the words of Consecration, the most essential part thereof, which came not from any man, but from the institution of Christ himself; as also the Pater noster, rotten Rags? Who durst say it, but Sir Thomas?   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that one of the words of our supposed Consecration (which is, enim,) is no essential part thereof; as your own best learned Doctors tell us. Secondly, that in your supposed Consecration of the Chalice, sundry words (as Aquinas and other learned Papists grant,) are not of the Essence thereof. For the larger discourse of which Subject, I refer the Reader to my Survey. Thirdly, that the Holy words (This is my body,) came not from Christ, 
Note well the word, (as.)  as they are a part of the late Romish Mass. I prove it sound, for that our Saviour Christ did not utter them, until he had blessed and consecrated the Bread. And consequently, they neither are, 
Mat. 26. v▪ 27.  nor can be any part of Popish Mass, as Christ ordained them: For, in Christ's Consecration, 
Mark well the word. (as.)  many things went before. First, he took the Bread: secondly, he blessed it: thirdly, he broke it: fourthly, he gave it to his Disciples: five, he said; Take and eat, this is my Body. Whereupon I conclude, with this inevitable illation; that either the words of popish Conseceation, do not work Transubstantiation; or else that that which Christ's Apostles received at Christ's hands, was not Christ's body under accidents without subjects. For the larger discourse whereof, I refer the Reader to the Downfall of Popery, and to the Jesuits Antepast. The rest of this Chapter (God willing,) shallbe answered sound and plainly, in the last Chapter of this Discourse: at which time (I hope in God,) I shall triumph over Pope and Popery, and give them both their deadly wounds.    

The 18. Chapter: of the profound mysteries of popish Mass.  

T. B.  
IN this Chapter, our jesuit being at a nonplus, (as many times afore,) doth only charge, mock, and mow, at our Communion Book & the parts thereof. For his answer, I reserve the last Chapter. His 19 and 20. Chapters require no answer at all. He can say plain nothing▪ neither for the Kissing of the Pope's Feet, nor for Praying upon Beads. He freely granteth even the novelty and nonage of them both.    

The 21. Chapter: of changing the Pope's name.  

B. C.  
IF our saviour Christ constituting Simon Head of the Church, changed his name, and called him Peter; what inconvenience or absurdity is it, that the Pope, assumpted to that dignity, should imitate the same, and make choice of some of his predecessors names, thereby to be stirred up to follow his virtue and solicitude in governing the Church of Christ?   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that what dignity the Pope hath in the Church, it is sufficiently disputed in the second Chapter. Secondly, that latter Popes have been so stirred up to Virtue, by the example and names of the former, as they have better deserved to be reputed Devils incarnate, then holy Saints, or Godly men on earth. Thirdly, that our Jesuit giving power to the Pope, to do what Christ hath done before him; confirmeth what I have said of the Pope, in the second Chapter; That he can change the nature of things, make of nothing something, and such like. Fourthly, that the Iesuit● belieth our Lord jesus egregiously, while he affirmeth him to have changed Simons name: For, Christ changed no name in his Apostle; but added a new name, for the perfection of the former. I prove it, because Christ even after his resurrection, called him three several times, Simon the son of Jona; and once, Simon Peter. 
joh. 21. v. 15.  But with our lying and impudent Friar, an Horse-mill, or a Mill-horse, is all one: Yet with honest and wise men, it is one thing, to change a man's name; an other thing, to add perfection to the same. Fiftly, that (as I said in my Trial.) it is no marvel, if Popes be ashamed of Christ's Religion, seeing they are ashamed of their names given them in their Baptism. To this our Friar is mute, because he could not answer it. Sixtly, that our Friar else where, reproveth scornfully; 
Cap. 13. of private Mass.  that the Bread remaining after our Communion, is allotted to the use of the Minister. But here he will have it no irreverence, to change the name given in holy Baptism; by which for all that, he was dedicated unto God. Seventhly, that not the desire of Virtue, but the sting of Pride, caused Pope Hog-snoute, to change his name into Sergius: which novelty was brought into the Church, 840. years after Christ.    

The 22. Chapter: of The paschal Torch.  

T. B.  
THIS Paschal Torch invented by Sozimus, 400. years after Christ, was very superstitiously used; as I showed in my Trial. But both the newness and the superstition, our Friar swalloweth up; and his mouth is so full therewith, that he is become mute.    

The 23. Chapter: of the Popish Pax, and the mysteries thereof.  

B. C.  
THe souls in Purgatory are in mutual peace and charity one with an other, and without all fear of falling from that happy state; and this signifieth the withholding of the Pax, or kiss of Peace, in a Mass for the dead.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that late Popery, is mere foolery: For, seeing the withholding of the Pax, signifieth mutual Peace & Charity one with an other; it were expedient to keep the Pax, as well from the living as from the dead; especially, from the Popes and popish massing Priests: For they receiving the Pax, (if this great mystery be true,) do thereby insinuate to the world, that they are not in peace and charity one with an other; no not in the time of their holy so supposed Mass. For the rest, see the Trial, and it is enough. Secondly, that our Papists usually grant; that the fire of Hell, and of popish Purgatory, is all one; save that Purgatory fire shall once have an end: And yet our Friar here, calleth them happy, that are boiling and burning there. Let such happiness (for me) befall him and his cursed crew.    

The 24. 25. and 26. Chapters.  

T. B.  
FOr these three Chapters, I wish the Readers to observe with me, the jesuits free confession uttered in these express terms. The principal cause of our Salvation is our saviour Christ, and his Merits. Secondary and instrumental are many things; as the Sacraments, and Men that cooperate unto our Salvation. Yea, other Consecrated things, as Holy Water, Agnus Dei, etc. 
Out upon rotten Popery.  though nothing comparable to Sacraments, may also in a good sense be said to help us to obtain Salvation by the Merits of Christ; for as much as all Holy things, have force to produce supernatural effects; as namely, to chase away wicked Spirits, & to extinguish the fiery Darts of the Enemy. Thus prattleth the jesuitical Friar: the recital of whose words, being naked without all proofs, is a sufficient confutation of the same. The holy Apostle of our Lord jesus, teacheth us plainly; that it is, The Shield of Faith, wherewith we may quench all the Fiery Darts of the wicked: 
Ephes. 6. v. 16.  He willeth us not to take Holy water, Holy bread, Crosses, Medales, Agnus This, the Bones of Champion, Sherwin, Ballard, Watson, and such like popish trumpery. No Scripture of the old or new Testament; no holy Father, no approved Council, no authentical History can be named, which exhorteth us to put any confidence, in such beggarly dotage of late Popish foolery. For the rest, peruse the Trial, and it is enough.    

The 27. Chapter: of the doleful Oath, which popish Bishops make to the Pope.  

B. C.  
AS for the Oaths of Bishops made to the Pope, the lawfulness thereof appeareth, because it is made with all Catholic Prince's consent, and meant only in just and lawful things, which are according to God's Law and holy Canons; and it hath been used above a thousand years ago, as it is evident by the like Oath made by a bishop unto S. Gregory the great, and S. Boniface the Apostle of Germany, and worthiest man that ever England bred, did swear when he was consecrated Bishop, to concur with the Pope and commodities of his Church.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that all this which the Friar B. C. here telleth us, was objected afore by S. R. in his pretenced Answer to the Downfall of Popery. Secondly, that I have confuted the same so sound in the Jesuits Antepast, as whosoever shall with indifferency peruse the same, can not but see the jesuit wounded unto death.  
here by the way, I must tell our Friar, that the words of S. R. are by him quoted in the thirtieth Article and the fourteenth Chapter: and yet are they in the seventh Article. This I deem to be the Printers fault, and therefore do not use to reprove him for the like escapes; howbeit, he (for want of better matter,) raileth and brawleth like a mad man; if he find never so little amiss in my Books, through the Printers fault; who usually am almost 2●0. miles from the Press, when any one of my Books is a printing. All the rest of this Chapter is sound refuted, in the Jesuits Antepast, & Downfall of Popery.    

The 28. Chapter: of the popish Fast of forty days, commonly called Lent.  

B. C.  
MAny mad gambols doth the Minister fetch in this Chapter; and among other, he will needs prove, that the Lenten-fast is hurtful both to the soul and body; and disputeth out of Hypocrates like a pretty Pettifogger in Physic, to show, 
Mark well the Trial of the new Religion, for this present case.  That it is hurtful to our health. This, albeit I do not doubt, but it is a notorious untruth; yet because it is not my profession to argue of any such Subject, I leave him to the mercy of the Physicians; who (I think) upon the feeling of his Pulse, are like enough for the curing of such an extravagant conceit, to condemn him to Hippocrates bands.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that our Friar by his own confession, reproveth that as a notorious untruth, wherein he hath no skill; and withal, taketh upon him to censure my condemnation, upon the feeling of my Pulse: which to judge, is a very hard point in the noble art of Physic. Secondly, that it is the Jesuits profession, to show himself a notorious liar: which is proved again and again, throughout this whole discourse. Thirdly, that if my Disputation were not truly grounded upon the art of Physic, the Jesuit could not have wanted help, to have confuted the same. Peruse the Trial, and mark it well: for, it woundeth the Friar, even unto death.   

B. C.  
Omitting this, let us see what followeth. The Fast of the ancient Church (quoth he,) was free, voluntary, and not commanded by any Law. An untruth: for it was a Tradition of the Apostles to Fast in Lent; and so not free. We (saith S. Hierome,) 
Epist. ad Marcellam.  in the whole year, do Fast one Lent, according to the tradition of the Apostles. And S. Austen saith, It is sin to break Lent-fast.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that I grant the Jesuits antecedent; and yet do I deny both his consequent, 
Primo principaliter.  & his consequence. His consequent, because Lent was free, voluntary, and not commanded by any Law; as I shall by & by (God willing) prove by an evident demonstration. His consequence, 
Argmentum ad hominem.  because Lent may be an apostical Tradition, and withal remain free and voluntary still: I prove it by the Jesuits own free grant, and his best manner of disputing: 
Supra cap. 12.  For, when I in the 12. Chapter of my Trial, had proved by Apostolical and plain Divine tradition, even expressed in the holy Scripture; that the Lay people ought to receive the holy Communion under both kinds; the holy Apostle affirming, that he delivered what he received from our Lord jesus: 
1. Cor. 11. v. 23.  the Jesuit answered roundly, in these express words. 
The jesuit woundeth himself with his own weapon.  The most that can be gathered out of S. Paul's words is this; That in his time, the Eucharist was ministered to Lay-people under both kinds; which we deny not: but they prove not, that it neither was, nor might be given under one kind. Thus disputeth our jesuit, affirming resolutely, that the tradition received from Christ, and delivered by S. Paul, may be altered & changed; & consequently, that it is free, voluntary, and not commanded by any Law. For doubtless, no power upon earth, may alter or change Christ's holy precept. This is already proved, and is also manifest of itself. For, an inferior hath no power, to change the Law of his superior: which the popish Saint Antoninus, sometime archbishop of Florence, doth very plainly teach us in these express words. 
Antoninus de potest. Papae, part. 4. tit. 22. cap. 3. part. 1.  Quantum verò ad illa quae sunt de iure naturali vel divino, iurisdictio seu potestas Papalis non se extendit; sic verò, quod ista possit mutare, vel etiam dare eyes vim obligandi: Et ratio est, quia inferior non potest mutare leges superioris; Deus autem superior est ad Papam: Concerning those things, which are of the law of Nature, or of the law Divine, the Pope's jurisdiction or Power doth not extend itself unto them; so to weet, that the Pope can either change them, or give power obligatory unto them: And the reason thereof is, because an inferior can not change the Laws of his superior. Franciscus a victoria, that famous Popish school-doctor, who first brought Scholastical Theology into Spain, is consonant to Antoninus that famous popish Saint, in these express words. 
Victor relect. 4. de poorest. papae, propos. 1. Pag. 126.  In hoc genere Decretorum aut Canonum, Papa nihil potest immutare dispensando, et multo minus abrogando: Conclusio est omnium Theologorum, absque controversia; et potest breviter probari, quia ius naturale est immutabile; et (ut legitur in decretis,) naturale ius semper permanet: In this kind of Decrees or Canons, the Pope can change nothing by Dispensation, and much less by Abrogation. It is the conclusion of all Divines, without all controversy: and it may be proved briefly, because the law of Nature is immutable; & (as we read in the decrees) the law of Nature is ever permanent. Thomas Aquinas, that popish Angelical Doctor and canonised Saint, (whose writings are to the Papists, as the holy gospels,) confirmeth the Doctrine of Antoninus and Victoria, in these express words. 
Aquin. in lib. 3. sentent. dist. 37. art. 4.  Sed praecepta Decalogi, sunt de iure naturali; ideo nec in eyes nec in aliis, prout vim eorum continent, licet alicui homini dispensare: But the precepts of the Decalogue, are of the law of Nature; & therefore no man can dispense, either with them, or with others, that contain and have like force with them. Thus much for the Consequence. Now to his Consequent, in God's holy name.  

The answer to the Jesuits consequent.  That Lent-fast was in the primitive, as also in the ancient Church, (which twain our jesuit doth many times fond confound,) free, voluntary, and not commanded by any Law, I prove many ways. First, because the same time was not regarded or observed a like in every place. Eusebius Caesariensis, a very ancient and most learned Father, and famous Historiographer, hath these express words. 
Euseb. hist. lib. 5. cap. 26.  Neque de die tantum disceptatio est, sed et de ipsa specie ieiunij: Siquidem alij unum sibi ieiunandum diem esse putant; alij, duos; alij, plures; alij, quadraginta, horas diurnas et nocturnas computantes diem suum statuunt: The difference is not only about the Day, but also concerning the Kind of Fast: For, some think, that they must Fast one day; others, that they must fast two; others, that they ought to fast more days; others appoint forty days, reckoning both the hours of the day and of the night for one day. Nicephorus is consonant to Eusebius, in these express words. 
Nicephor. ecclesi. hist. lib. 12. cap. 34.  Romani tres continuas habdomadas, sabbathiss et dominicis diebus exceptis, ietunarunt: Illyrici autem et cuncta Graecia, Alexandria, et Libya omnis, Aegyptus et Palestina, sex hebdomadibus ante festum Paschae jeiunium continuarunt, quaedragesimam tempus id nominantes. Alij rursus ante septem hebdomades ieiunare incaeperunt, sicuti Constantinopoli et circum circa ad Phaeniciam usque, tribus tantum hebdomadibus quinos dies ex interuallo, binis septamanis intermissis, a cibis se abstinentes, itidem quadragesimam tempus tale vocarunt. Montanistae vero, duabus: quos mihi demirari in mentem venit, quomodo omnes isti in dierum numero sic variantes, quadragesimam tamen ieiunij tempus vocent. The Romans fast three whole weeks; the Saturdays and Sundays excepted. But the Illyrians and all Greece, Alexandria and all Lybia, Egypt and Palestine, continue their Fast six weeks before the Feast of Easter, naming that time Quadragesima, or, the Fast of Forty days. Others began to Fast before Seven weeks; as at Constantinople, and other places thereabout until Phoenicia, 
They fast fifteen days by interval.  fasting only Fifteen days in three weeks by interval, with omission of the rest; and yet giving their Fast the same name. Cassiodorus in the Tripartite History, and Sozomenus in his History, 
Trip. hist. lib. 9 cap. 38. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 19  do relate the same variety in the self same manner. Our latter Papists perceiving a gross error in the reckoning or supputation of Lent, invented a new, no fortified Bulwark: For, 
Pope Gregory corrected the popish Lent-fast.  Pope Gregory added Four days in the beginning, (which they commonly call, Cleansing days,) to supply the want. And yet have they not the number; as they do desire: For, if the Sundays be not in their computation, (as they neither are, nor can be in very deed,) then have they but a mingle mangle Lent: If they be reckoned, they surpass their number by six days; and consequently, their number no way falleth jump. These are the Pope's express words, as they are set down in his own Decrees. 
De Consecra. dist. 5. cap. quadragesima  Quadragesima summa observatione est obseruanda, ut jeiunium in ea (praeter dies Dominicos qui de abstinentia subtracti sunt) nisi quem infirmitas impedierit, nullatenus soluatur; quia ipsi dies decimae sunt anni. A prima ergo Dominica quadragesimae usque in Pascha Domini, sex hebdomadae c●mputantur; quarum, viz. quadraginta dies et duo sunt, ex quibus dum sex Dominici dies abstinentiae subtrahuntur, non plus in abstinentia quam triginta sex dies remanent. Verbi gratia: Si per 365. dies annus voluitur; deinde per triginta et sex dies aflligimur, quasi anni Deo decimas damus. Sed ut sacer numerus quadraginta dierum adimpleatur, quem salvator noster sacro suo jeiunio consecraverat; quatuor dies prioris Hebdomadae, ad supplementum quadraginta dierum tollantur: Id est, quarta feria, quae caput ieiunij subnotatur, et quinta feria sequens, sexta feria, et sabbatum: Nisi istos dies quatuor superioribus triginta sex adiunxerimus, quadraginta dies in abstinentia non haberemus: jubemur autem et ab omnipotenti Deo, omnium bonorum nostrorum decimas dare: Lent must be kept with very great observation, so as by no means the Fast in it be broken (besides the Sundays, which are no part of the Abstinence,) unless ones infirmity hinder the same; because the days thereof, are the tenths of the year: Therefore, from the first Sunday of Lent until Easter, there are by computation, Six weeks; in which there are Forty days and two; from which while six Sundays of abstinence are subtracted, there remain no more in abstinence but six and thirty. 
36. days in Lent, besides the Sundays.  For example sake, If 365. days make a year, and we afflict ourselves six and thirty days; we then give to God, as it were the Tenth of the year. But that the sacred number of Forty days, which our Saviour consecrated with his sacred Fast, may be complete; Four days of the week aforegoing, are added for the supplement of the Forty days: That is to say, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday: For, if we joined not these Four days to the other Six & thirty, we could not have a Fast of Forty days: But we are commanded of God omnipotent, to give Tithes of all our Goods. Thus discourseth Pope Gregory. Socrates in his Ecclesiastical History, doth lively lay open to the Readers, the variety of Lent-fast: These are the express words. 
Socrates, hist. lib. 5. cap. 22.  jejunia ante Pascha invenire est aliter ab aliis custodiri: Romani namque tres ante Pascha septimanas, praeter sabbathum et dominicam, continuas ieiunant. Illyrici, et tota Hellada, et Alexandrini, ante sex septimanas jeiunium ante Pascha ieiunant, illudque quadragesimam vocant: Reliquorum autem praeterea alij ante septem hebdomadas festi huius jeiunium ordiuntur, ac solos quindecim dies per interstitia ieiunantes, nihilominus et ipsi tempus hoc quadragesimam vocant: The Romans fast three whole weeks before Easter, besides the Sabbath and Sunday. The slavonians and all Greece, and the Alexandrians do keep their Fast six weeks before Easter, and call it Quadragesima. But among others, some begin their Fast of Lent, before seven weeks, and fast only fifteen days by intermission; and nevertheless call this Fast Quadragesima, or the Fast of Forty days. S. Epiphanius expresseth plainly and distinctly the aforenamed variety of Lent-fast: these are his express words. 
Epiphan. haeres. 80. libr. 3. in fine.  Porrò, Quadragesimam ante septem dies sancti Paschatis similiter servare solet eadem Ecclesia in ieiunijs perseverans, dominicis vero non omnino, neque in ipsa Quadragesima: Furthermore, the same (Catholic) Church continuing in Fasting, accustometh in like manner, to keep the quadragesimal time (or Lent) Seven days before the Feast of Easter: But she never fasteth on the Sundays, no not in Lent. Secondly, because the same manner of fasting, was not regarded or bserued a like in every place. Socrates an ancient and famous Historiographer, hath these express words, 
Socrat. hist. lib. 5. cap. 22.  
A.D. 427.  Nam alij omnino animatis abstinent, alij vero ex animatis solos Pisces comedunt. Nonnulli cum Piscibus etiam volatilibus vescuntur, et illa, secundum Mosen, ex aquis provenisse dicentes. Alij et Baccis et Ouis abstinent, Aliqui solum aridum Panem mandacant; nonnulli, ne hunc quidem: sunt qui ad nonam horam usque ieiunantes varijs cibis utantur: For some abstain from living things wholly; othersome, of living things eat Fishes only: others with Fishes eat also Birds, affirming that they are engendered and live of the Sea: 
That is, usque ad nonam.  others neither eat Berries, nor Eggs: Some eat dry Bread only; others, no Bread at all: and some fast until three a clock in the after noon, and then eat sundry kinds of Meat. Cassiodorus in the Tripartite History, 
Hist. trip. lib. 9 cap. 38. Niceph. lib. 12. cap. 34.  and Nicephorus in his History, do both testify the same variety of Lentonmeates. Epiphanius that ancient, holy, and learned Father, (who lived within 400. years of Christ,) 
A.D. 373.  maketh mention of such a Lent-fast, as our jesuit and the Pope himself would be loath to observe and keep, though it abridge the time more than a little: these are his express words. 
Epiphan. haeres. 80. lib. 3. in fine.  Caeterum, per sex dies ipsius Paschatis, omnes populi in siccorum esu perseverant; pane inquam, et sale, et aqua tunc utentes ad vesperam: But, six whole days before Easter, all the people continue in eating dry things; using nothing until the Evening, but Bread, Salt, and Water. Thirdly, because many ancient, famous, learned, and approved Writers, do plainly, distinctly, 
This reason can never be truly answered.  and constantly avouch; that no Law was made neither by Christ, nor yet by his Apostles, for the keeping of the Fast of Quadragesima (which we call Lent-fast.) This argument may be rightly termed, (Noli me tangere.) Cassiodorus in the Tripartite History, hath these words. 
Hist. tripart. libr. 9 cap. 38.  Et quia lectio nulla ex hoc invenitur antiqua, puto Apostolos singulorum hoc reliquisse sententiae; ut unusquisque operetur non timore, non necessitate, quod bonum est: And because no ancient Writer recordeth this, jiudge, that the Apostles referred the matter, to every one's liberty & free election; that every one might do what good is, without fear or necessity. Nicephorus hath these express words. 
Nicephor. lib. 12, cap. 34.  Diversum etiam est cibi capiendi tempus: aliqui namque hora nona, aliqui post occasum solis, quidam post diem unam, sequenti die cibum capiunt: nonnulli vero ad tres, ad quatuor, ad quinque et ad septem usque dies, dapibus abstinentes procedunt; pro eo atque quisque cibo carere vel vult, vel potest. Et alia apud alias gentes et populos fiunt, apud quos rerum talium innumerae extant causae; de quibus omnibus nullum praeceptum quod in scriptum relatum sit, ostendi potest. Vt satis constat, primos illos verbi ministros ab initio obseruationes eiusmodi arbitrio quorumque reliquisse, ut quisque non metu aut necessitate quapiam adductus, quod bonum est, deligere et sequiposset: 
The ninth hour with us, is three a clock in the after noon.  The time also of eating, is various: for, some take meat at the ninth hour, some after sun-setting; some, continue their Fast until three, four, five, or seven days; as every one is willing, or able to abstain. Other nations and people have their customs, having many causes so to do: concerning all which, they are not able to show any Precept or Law, extant in any History any where. Whereupon it is evident, that the Ministers in the primitive Church, referred all such Observations to every ones free choice & election; that every one without fear or necessity, might choose and follow what is good. Socrates affirmeth very constantly; that it is not possible to show any Written law, concerning the Fasts used in the Church: these are his express words. 
Socrates, hist. libr. 5. cap. 22.  Et quoniam hac de re nemo seriptum aliquod mandatum ostendere potest, liquet, quod et illam Apostoli cuiusque sententiae ac voluntati liberam reliquerint, ne metu quisquam vel ex necessitate quod bonum est operetur. Talis per Ecclesias est ieiuniorum dissonantia: And because no man can show any written Commandment, it is clear, that the apostles left the matter, to every ones free choice and election; that every one without fear or necessity, might do what good is. 
S. Austen turneth Popish Lent upside▪ down.  S. Augustine that ancient Father, that holy and Learned writer, that worthy Champion of Christ's Church, who for his rare Virtues and Learning, was highly reverenced throughout the Christian world; is so clear and resolute in this Controversy, that he woundeth the Pope & all his jesuited Popelings, unto death: these are his express words. 
August. ad Catulanum, epist. 86.  Ego in Euangelicis et Apostolicis literis, totoque instrumento quod appellatur Testamentum novum, animo id revoluens, video praeceptum esse jeiunium: quibus autem diebus non oporteat ●eiunare, et quibus oporteat, praecepto Domini vel Apostolorun, non invenio definitum: I revolving & pondering in my mind the gospels and writings of the Apostles, 
The Apostles made no Law for fasting Lent.  with all the new Testament, do find, that we are commanded to Fast: But, upon what days we must Fast, or not Fast, I find it not decreed or defined, neither by any commandment of Christ, nor yet of his Apostles. Thus discourseth this holy and learned Father, constantly affirming with other ancient and learned Writers; that the quadragesimal fast (which we call Lent) was free and voluntary in the time of the Apostles, no Law being then made for keeping the same. 
Euseb. hist. lib. 5. cap. 18. ex Apollonio.  Yea, Montanus the Heretic (as Eusebius testifieth out of Apollonius,) was the first that prescribed Laws of Fasting. I answer secondly; that the Lent-fast is not any Apostolical tradition at all. 
Secundo principaliter.  I prove it first, because in the Canons of the Apostles, (which Pope Zepherinus and Pope Leo the ninth have approved,) no mention is made of Lent. 
Gratian. dist. 16. cap. Apostolorum.  Secondly, because S. Clement (whom S. Peter a little before his death, chose to be his successor at Rome, if Popish writings be true,) publishing eight whole Books of Apostolical Constitutions, doth not in any place, so much as once make any mention of the quadragesimal fast, or Lent; as it is & hath been kept in Rome, of the late Bishops there, and their Popish vassals. 
Apostolor. Con. 8. const. Apostol. lib. 5. cap. 16. e●. cap. 21. lib. 7. cap. 24.  Thirdly, because the first four ancient and approved general Counsels, do not once name the said quadragesimal fast. Fourthly, because th'Apostles setting down a law how to keep Easter, say nothing at all of keeping the Lenton-fast. Fiftly, because the Apostles have made a flat Law against the Fast of every Saturday, one only excepted, which was the day of Christ's sacred Funeral. These are the words of S. Clement so supposed. Sabbathum et Dominicum diem Festum agite; quoniam illud naturae conditae est Monumentum, hic resurrectionis. unum autem Sabbathum seruandum vobis est in toto anno, quod pertinet ad Sepulturam Domini; in quo iciunare oportet, non festum agere: 
Clemens, lib. 7. c. 24. const. Apost.  Keep as a holy Festival day, the Saturday and the Sunday; because the one is the Monument of the Creation, th'other of the Resurrection. But one Saturday only ye must keep, in the whole year, which pertaineth to our lords Funeral; in which we must Fast, and not keep it Holiday.  
I answer thirdly, 
Tertiò principaliter.  that the Popish Lent-fast is very Superstitious, plain Heretical, and too injurious to the sacred blood of Christ jesus. I prove it first, because they superstitiously abstain from Flesh, as did the Heretics condemned by S. Paul. 
1. Tim. 4. v. 3.  The Papists Mordicus and impudently deny this; but their own Durand, their trusty and faithful bishop shall confound them: these are his express words. 
Dur. in rat. dium. office lib. 6. cap. 7. prope finem.  Tempore ieiuniorum praetiosae vestes deponuntur, et humiles assumuntur et carnes tam solidae quam liquidae dimittuntur. Sed cum Pisces sint Caro, quare hoc tempore comeduntur? Responsio. Deus non maledixit Aquis, quoniam per Aquam baptismi futura crat remissio peccatorum. Hoc enim elementum dignissimum est, quod sordes abluit, et super quod spiritus Domini ante mundi constitutionem ferebatur. Terrae verò maledixit in operibus hominis. Ind est, quod omne genus carnis quod in terra versatur, tam quadrupedia quam Aves, in ieiunijs non licet comedere: While we Fast, costly Garments are laid away, and base Attire assumed, and Flesh aswell solid as liquid is dismissed: But seeing Fish is Flesh, 
1. Cor. 15. v. 39 Lo, Fish is Flesh.  wherefore is Fish eaten in Lent? I answer, that God cursed not the Waters, because by the Water of Baptism, we were to receive remission of our sins: for this Element is most worthy, as which washeth away our filth, and upon which the Spirit of our Lord was carried before the World was made: But God cursed the Land, in the works of man.. Hence cometh it, that every kind of Flesh living on the land, aswell four footed Beasts, as Birds, may not be eaten in time of our Lent-fast. Thus disputeth our popish Bishop Durand; avouching plainly, that we may not eat Flesh in Lent, because God accursed the fruits of the Earth. Which assertion is very Superstitious, and plain Heretical. For, aswell may our Jesuit conclude against Bread and Wine in the holy Eucharist, unless he deny them to be the fruits of the Earth. Secondly, because in their holy Lent-fast, (saith their so supposed S. Clement,) they must pray for the damned; which doubtless is a damnable Heresy: These are his express words. 
Constit. Apost. lib. 5. cap. 13. in fine.  jeiunantes in ea omnes cum timore et tremore, crantes per eos dies pro iis qui pereunt: All fast Lent with fear and trembling, praying all those days for them that perish. This hath a strong taste of the Original Heresy, that the Devils shallbe saved at the latter day. Thirdly, because the Papists believe & teach, that their popish Lent-fast doth merit remission of sins, increase of grace, and eternal glory: this is plainly and sound proved, in my Survey of Popery. Yea, the Popish bishop Durand resolutely affirmeth the very same in these express words. 
Durandus, lib. 6. cap. 7. in initio, et nota cap. 6.  Est autem jeiunium communis omnium membrorum satisfactio; ut scibect membra satisfaciant, secundum peccatum quod commiserunt vel gesserunt: ut si gula peccavit, ●e●unet, et sufficit: Fasting is the common satisfaction of all our members; so to weet, as our members may make satisfaction, according to the sin which they have done. As if any have sinned in Gluttony, let him fast, and it is sufficient. Which is confirmed by that Popish Fast, which they call, the Fast of Compassion. Thus the same Durandus doth deliver it. 
Dur. lib. 6. cap. 7.9.10.  jeiunium compassionis est; ut si Sacerdos alicui dicat; pro hoc peccato fac cantare duas missas, et ieiuna, et ego pro te cantabo, et tres dies ieiunabo: Propter hoc tamen debet aliquid recipere, quia Sacerdos debet compati proximo suo, et orare pro eo: There is a (Popish) Fast of compassion, as if the Priest say to one, cause some Priest to sing two Masses for this sin, and fast; and I myself shall sing for thee; and I shall also fast three days for thee: Marry, for this compassion, the Priest must have some thing, because he must have compassion on his Neighbour, and pray for him. here is a merriment, 
O wonderful compassion! O wily Popish faction.  of merry Popery in very deed. The Priest so taketh compassion on his penitent, that he maketh him relieve his need. This compassion is cousin german to the Jesuits Exercise (of which I have written at large in my Anatomy of popish Tyranny, 
See Anatomy. Book, 3. Advise. 9 ) by which while they pretend to send their supplyantes to heaven, they get all their Lands, Goods, and Money, to themselves. john Gerard caused Henry Drury to enter into their jesuitical Exercise, and thereby got him to sell the Manor of Lozel in Suffolk, and other Lands, to the value of 3500. pounds, and got all the money himself. 
3500. Pounds.  The same Gerard by the same Exercise, got from Anthony Rowse, above a thousand pounds: from Edward Walpoole, 
1000 Pounds.  (whom he caused to sell the Manor of Tuddenham,) about one 1000 Marks: from james Linacre, 400. pounds: from Edward Huddlestones, above 1000 pounds. 
1000 Pounds.  Much more like stuff the Reader may find in mine Anatomy; which I pass over for brevity sake. This Jesuitical Exercise hath no small semblance, with the silver Temples of Diana; which being made by Demetrius, 
Act. 19 v. 24.  brought great gains to the craftsmen there.  
I answer fourthly, 
Quarto Principaliter.  that to make choice of Meats for Merit or Religion, is the badge of an Infidel. I prove it first, because by means hereof, many have believed false doctrine, to be the word of God; & not only so, but they have also judged and condemned themselves for transgressing man's Traditions, as if they were the very words of God. 
Rom. 10.3.  Wherein while they sought to 'stablish their own Righteousness, they fell from the Righteousness of God: for, 
Mat. 15.9.  to put Religion or Merit in keeping men's Traditions, is flatly to abandon the worship of the living God. Yea, by reason of these Fasts, their souls were very often in a most dangerous and damnable state: for they persuaded themselves, that they were aswell bound to keep the Pope's Laws therein, as if they had been the flat Laws of God; and consequently, so often as they broke them, (which was no rare thing,) so often did they commit damnable sin, 
Rom. 14. v. 23. Hebr. 11.6.  because their acts were not of faith. Secondly, because Popish choice of Meats, taketh away Christian liberty, & maketh Christian's slaves to man's Traditions: 
Tit. 1. v. 15. Rom. 14. v. 5.14.17.20. 1. Cor. 8. v. 8. Gal. 1. v. 10. Mar. 7. v. 15.  for, To the pure, all things are pure, by the liberty of Christ's Gospel. I am persuaded, saith the Apostle, that no meat is unclean. Yea, he yieldeth the reason thereof, because, the kingdom of God is neither Meat nor drink. Wherefore (saith he) we ought not to destroy the work of God, for meats sake. He saith again in an other place; 
Deut. 12.8. 1. Cor. 10.31. Rom. 14.23. Hebr. 11.6.  That if he should please men, he could not be the servant of Christ. To please men is good and godly, so long as their pleasure is measured with the holy Will of God: whose Will, aught to be the rule and squire of all our thoughts, words, and works. But when men would spoil us of our Christian liberty; then must we fight against their wicked pleasures. So doth the same Apostle expound himself, in these words. 
Gal. 2. v. 4 5. Cor. 7.23,  The false brethren (saith he) crept in privily, to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus; that they bring us into bondage: to whom we gave no place by subjection for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you. For which respect S. Paul circumcised Timothy, 
Act. 16.3. Gal. 2. v. 3.4.5.  but would in no case circumcise Titus; although they both were Gricians. This is a most notable Testimony, which ought to be to us as a general Rule, and invincible Bulwark; so often as the Pope and his popelings urge us to receive things otherwise indifferent▪ as necessary and meritorious of eternal life. And doubtless if things indifferent of their own nature (as the forbearance of Flesh in Lent, 
A general rule against the Papists. ) must of necessity be withstood, when they are superstitiously obtruded, and profanely imposed upon us; much more ought we to resist, and with Christian courage fight against those Popish execrable Decrees, Constitutions, and Laws, which are flatly opposite to Christ's holy Will, revealed in his sacred Word. Which Article, by the power of God, shall yet be made more clear and evident, when I come to speak of S. Spiridion, that most holy bishop, how he kept the fast of Lent.  
I answer five; 
Quintò Principaliter.  that the true Christian and perfect Fast, is this; viz. To abstain from sin, and carnal pleasures of this world. So are we taught by the Pope's own Decrees; which are in this point correspondent, not only to God's holy word, but also to the uniform consent of the ancient Fathers. Yea, my Popish Lord bishop Durandus affirmeth so much; who therefore shall be the foreman of the jury: these are his own words. 
Durand. lib. 6. cap. 10. §. 3.  unde si ieiunas a cibis corporis, oportet ut ieiunes a cibis daemonis, et comedas cibos mentis: qui autem sic ieiunat, non nocebit ei ignis tribulationis, nec ignis mundanus; sicut nec tribus pueris nocuit ignis fornacis Babylonis: Wherefore, if thou Fast from meats of the Body, thou must also Fast from the meat of the Devil, and eat the meat of the Mind: for he that so Fasteth, shall neither be hurt by the fire of Tribulation, nor by the fire of this World; as neither the fire of the hot burning Furnace of Babylon, did hurt the three Godly Hebrews. Again, in an other place, the same Durand hath these words. 
Durand. lib. 6. cap. 30. §. 1.  Ostenditur quale jeiunium placet Deo; scilicet, Spirituale, non Carnale. unde Epistola agit de hoc; clama, ne cesses. Esa. 58. et post. Quare ieiunavimus, et non aspexisti? Et Dominus respondet; Nunquid tale est jeiunium, quod elegi? contorquere quasi circulum caput, etc. Quasi diceret; non placet mihi tale jeiunium, quod aliquis se cruciet tantum, sed quod dissoluat faciculos impietatis; id est, ab omni peccato abstineat, quod fit per charitatem: There is declared, what a Fast pleaseth God; to weet, a Spiritual, not a Carnal fast. Whereupon the Epistle entreateth of this; Cry and cease not. 
Esa. 58.5.  Wherefore did we Fast, and thou hast not regarded us? And our Lord answereth. Is it such a Fast, which I have chosen; that a man should afflict his Soul for a day, and wryth his Head about. & c? As if he should say; I am not pleased with such a Fast, that a man should so afflict himself; but that he lose the bands of wickedness and impiety: that is, that he abstain from all manner of sin, which is done through charity. Thus writeth Bishop Durand: and an other learned Papist, johannes Belethus by name a famous Doctor of Paris, doth confirm his Doctrine in these words. 
Beleth. in. ration. diu. office cap. 8.  unde plenius profecto Augustinus super johannem, jeiunium definit hoc modo. 
Tit. 2.12.  Magnum et generale est jeiunium, ab iniquitatibus et a carnalibus voluptatibus abstinere. Hoc enim jeiunium, omnibus numeris est perfestum et absolutum. Cui non absimile est, quod Paulus ait; sobriè, et piè, et justè vivamus, in hoc seculo. Nam quod ut sobriè vivamus, inquit, ad nos planè pertinet; quod pie, ad Dominum; quod justè, ad proximum. Hinc pietas est cultus Deo exhibitus, cum quo velut ex adverso pugnat impietas sive Idololatria: Wherefore Austen upon john, defineth Fasting more fully, in this manner. The great and general Fast is this; to abstain from Iniquity, and Carnal pleasures: for this Fast is every way perfect, and absolute. To which that is not unlike, which the Apostle saith; That we may live godly, soberly, & justly, in this world: For in that he saith, that we live Soberly, it pertaineth to ourselves; that we live Godly, to our Lord; that we live justly, to our Neighbour. Hence Piety is that worship, which we give to God: 
Pietas est cultus Deo exhibitus.  to which, Impiety or Idolatry, is wholly opposite. But that which I find in the Pope's own Decrees, is most excellent, and far surpasseth all the rest. These words I find in one place, taken out of S. Hierome. 
De consecrat. dist. 5. cap. non dico.  Non dico hebdomadas, non dico jejunia duplicata; sed saltem singulos dies absque ciborum luxuria transigamus: sint tibi quotidiana jejunia, et refectio satietatem fugiens. Nihil enim prodest tibi biduo vel triduo transmisso vacuum portare ventrem, si post pariter obstruatur: I bid not to Fast weeks, nor to double Fasts; but at the least, let us keep every day without excessive eating. Use daily abstinence, & refection without gluttony or excess: for it profiteth thee nothing to have an empty Belly two or three days, and after to fill the paunch while it may hold. Thus the Popes own Decrees teach us, and it is to be well observed: For doubtless, Popish Fasts have this effect most usually; the richer sort, stuff their bellies and fill their paunches at Dinner, with great variety of Wines, and delicate Meats: Yea, at all times they drink Wines, and eat Pears, Apples, Rasinges, Figs, and Simnels; especially in their Collations at night, they eat conserves of Quinces, Cherries, Wardens, and like dainties; which far exceed the best Dinners of the poorer sort. And this I protest, (for edification-sake, I here disclose the same,) that myself heard one Recusant once say at dinner; that he did eat the more at dinner on the Fasting day, that so he might put away Hunger until the next day. What I have heard touching this Subject, if I should here relate the same, would seem strange to many a one: I speak of things heard by report; the other I speak of my own hearing, this by the report of others. another Decree of Pope Pius, doth yield us this instruction: These are the words. 
De consecrat. dist. 5. cap. nihil.  Nihil enim prodest homini ieiunare et orare, et alia religionis bona agere; nisi mens ab iniquitate, et ab obtrectationibus lingua cohibeatur: To Fast and Pray doth not profit a man any thing, neither yet to do other duties of Religion; unless he keep his Mind from iniquity, & his Tongue from evil speaking. another Decree borrowed from S. Austen, hath these words. 
De consecrat. dist. 5. cap. jeiunium.  jeiunium autem magnum et generale est, abstinere ab iniquitatibus, et ab illicitis voluptatibus seculi, quod est perfectum jeiunium in hoc seculo. Quasi Quadragesiman S. abstinentiae celebramus, cum bene vivimus; cum ab iniquitatibus et ab illicitis voluptatibus abstinemus: The great and general Fast, is to abstain from iniquity, and unlawful pleasures of this world; and this is the perfect Fast in this world. We keep as it were a Quadragesima or Lent of abstinence, while we live well and Christianly; while we abstain from sin, and from unlawful pleasures. But an other Decree borrowed of S. Hierome, shall be the upshot of this game: These are the very words. 
De consecrat. dist. ●. cap. non mediocriter.  Audiant itaque qui ea quae necessaria sunt corpori subtrahunt, illud quod per Prophetam Dominus loquitur. Ego Dominus, odio habens rapinam holocanstorum: De rapina vero holocanstum offered, qui temporalium bonorum sive ciborum nimia egestate, vel manducandi vel somni penuria corpus suum immoderatè affligit: Let them therefore who withhold or take from the body things necessary for it, hear what our Lord saith by his Prophet; 
Esa. 61.8.  I the Lord hate the robbery of burnt Offerings: Now, he offereth burnt Offerings of Rapine or Roberie, who afflicteth his body immoderately, either with too much want of temporal good things, or of Meats, or with the penury of eating, or of sleep. This Discourse (if my Trial be annexed to it,) is enough concerning this Subject. To S. Hierome, this in brief is my answer; viz. That the Epistle fathered on him, is a counterfeit; as which agreeth not with the true Hieroms Doctrine else where, as is already proved. To which I add, (which I have also proved,) that if we suppose and admit it to be a Tradition of the Apostles; yet doth mine assertion stand firm and untouched; viz. That notwithstanding that Tradition, yet was Lent-fast free, voluntary, and not commanded by any Law. To S. Austen, I answer first, that the Sermon which our Jesuit citeth, is not his, but a counterfeit. My reason is at hand; because S. Austen (as is already proved, 
Aug. ad Casulan. epist. 86. ) affirmeth constantly; that the Apostles made no Law for Fasting: This is already proved. Secondly, that in things indifferent, (such as I have proved Lent to be,) every one is bound to obey the Law of that Church, 
The Church may appoint Fasts, for special causes, which Aerius denied.  in which he liveth: And so, he that keepeth not Lent-fast, may truly be said to sin. Thirdly, that S. Epiphanius and S. Austen did not reprove Aerius, for denying popish Lent-fast, which was at that time unhatched; but for denying the Church's Authority, in appointing Fasting-days upon what cause soever. Which myself do constantly avouch, to be an Heresy indeed. 
The Church may appoint Fasting days.  For when the Church upon special causes appointeth Fasting days; then all (that for infirmity may,) ought to abstain, and not to contemn those Fasts, as Aerius taught. Howbeit I say withal, that the ancient Church condemned it for an Heresy in Montanus, 
Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 8.  to appoint ordinary times of necessary and Religious Fasting, when there was no special cause so to do.   

B. C.  
That which he bringeth concerning S. Spiridion his eating of Flesh in Lent, all circumstances considered, hurteth not us, but maketh against himself: For we deny not, but that in some cases, Flesh may be eaten without violation of that Fast.   

T. B.  
I answer; First, that S. Spiridions eating of Flesh (all circumstances duly considered,) maketh so much against Popish Lent fast; as will make both the Jesuits and the Pope's heart to pant, when they shall seriously ponder my answer in that behalf. Secondly, that our Jesuit truly granteth, that Papists may in some cases, eat Flesh in the●● holy Lent. For first, seeing the Pope can bring all Souls out of Popish Purgatory. Secondly, seeing he can dissolve that Matrimony, which Christ himself instituted. Thirdly, seeing he can make a vowed Popish Monk, to become a truly married man. Fourthly, seeing he can authorize the Brother, to marry his own full and natural Sister. Fiftly, seeing his own will is a reason sufficient, to do whatsoever pleaseth him. Sixly, seeing he may judge all, but none judge him. Seventhly, seeing he can do as much, as Christ himself could do. Eightly, Seeing none may say unto him, Why dost thou so? Although he carry many thousands of Souls to Hell. Nynthly, seeing he hath the right of both Swords, the Spiritual, and the Temporal, and by virtue thereof, deposeth Kings, and translateth their Kingdoms. Tenthly, seeing he can by the fullness of his power, 
Plenitidine potestatis. Super, cap. 2. pe● omnes conclusiones.  change the nature of things, and of nothing, make something, (all which is already proved;) it followeth by an inevitable illation, that by the Pope's Dispensation, all Papists may eat Flesh, aswell in the time of Lent, as at other times of the year. 
See my Anatomy, in the preamble.  This is confirmed, by the usual practice, aswell of Seminary Priests, as of Jesuits & jesuited Papists within this Land. For, a famous Jesuit made offer to a Gentleman; that if he would become a Papist, he should have Licence to eat Flesh in Lent among Lollards; that by so doing, he might live without suspicion, and escape danger of the Laws. Now, let us duly examine the circumstances of S. Spiridions eating of Flesh in Lent. Cassiodorus in the Tripartite History, hath these express words. 
Hist Tripart. libr. 1. cap. 10.  Instant iam Quadragesima, quidam ex itinere venit ad eum, quibus diebus consuever at cum suis continuare jejunia, et die certo comedore, medios dies sine cibo consistens. 
Vide Eseb. hist. libr. 5. cap. 24.  Videns itaque peregrinum valde defectum, perge inquit suae filiae, lava peregrini pedes, et cibos appone. Cumque virgo dixisset nec panem esse, nec 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (quarum rerum solebat nihil habere reconditum propter jeiunium,) orans primum veniamque petens, filiae jussit, ut porcinas carnes quas domi salitas habebat, coqueret. Quibus coctis, sedens cum peregrino, positis carnibus comedebat, et rogabat, ut una cum eo ederet peregrinus. Quo resutante, Christianumque se profitente, propterea magis inquit, resutare non debes. Omnia enim munda mundis, sicut sermo divinus edocuit: A certain friend of S. Spiridion came to him in time of Lent; at what time, he with his family were wont to continue their Fast, and to eat at a day appointed, abstaining all the mean days, from the first day of their Fast to the last, not eating any meat at all. 
Mark this Story well, & never forget the same: for it proveth Lent fast to have been free and voluntary in the ancient Church.  He therefore perceiving the Stranger to be very weary, willed his Daughter to wash his Feet, and to set meat on the Table: And when the Virgin answered, that they wanted both Bred and Meal, (which things they used not to keep in time of their Fast,) he first prayed, and then commanded his Daughter to boil the Swine's flesh or salt Bacon, which she had in the house: which being made ready, and set on the Table, S. Spiridion sat down with the Stranger; and eating thereof, desired the Stranger to eat and take part with him. When the Stranger refused, saying, he was a Christian: S. Spiridion answered that therefore he ought not to refuse to eat with him, because he was a Christian; adding this reason, that God's word taught, all things to be pure to the pure. Nicephorus, a famous Historiographer, & of high esteem in the Church of Rome, reporteth the same History in the same sense and meaning; using more plain and evident words in the last periods; which are these. 
Nicephor. lib. 8. cap. 42.  Ex amicis quidam ad eum ex itinere longinquo venit, et quidem eo tempore quo ipse ieiunaret. Certis enim quibusdam diebus a cibo omni abstinens, postea vescebatur: A ceraine friend came from far, even at that time when he kept this Fast: For he abstained some certain days from all manner of Meat, and after his Fast, did eat. Thus writeth Cassiodorus; thus, Nicephorus: Out of whose Narrations, I observe these very memorable instructions. First, that after these grave Historiographers had made mention of Lent-fast, 
Popish Lent-fast, is both superstitious & ridiculous.  they by and by added these words; (At which time, S. Spiridions custom was to Fast.) Whereby they give us to understand, that he Fasted of his own free accord, not by compulsion of any settled Law: For, if Lent-fast had been under commandment, and not left free to every one's arbitrement, in vain should these grave Writers have made mention of S. Spiridions custom in that behalf. But (as I have already proved,) some fasted a longer time; some, a shorter: some after one manner; some after an other. And for that end is it, that these famous Historiographers do so distinctly relate both the time and the manner, of S. Spiridions Fasting. Secondly, that these Writers affirm S. Spiridion to have fasted but some certain days: 
Certis quibusdam diebus.  as if they had said; the Stranger came not only in Lent, but even at that time of Lent, when S. Spiridion kept his Fast. For, though the time of every one's abstinence, 
Note this point well, for it is emphatical.  were termed Lent; yet was there such difference therein, that some ended, when others began the same: in so much, that Nicephorus, and other grave Writers, do more than a little admire, how they all in such and so great variety, could call their abstinence, Lenton-fast. Thirdly, that S. Spiridion with his whole Family, (mark the words, 
Cum suis.  Cum suis) abstain from all kind of Meat, during the whole time of their Fast: And consequently, 
S. Spiridion destroyeth popish Lent.  that S. Spiridions Lent, was not the Fast of forty days: For, neither himself, (and much less his whole family, some being of young and tender years,) was able to endure so many days, without all kind of Meat: Mark well these words, 
A cibo omni abstinens.  (A cibo omni abstinens.) This is so clear and evident, by usual Popish practice; that whereas in former times, the Papists did not dine in Lent, until the ninth hour, (which is with us, three a clock in the after noon, 
Vsque ad horam nonan, that is, until three a clock in the after noon. ) they are this day dispensed withal, to shuffle up their Prayers, & so to dine at noon. And why, I pray you, must this be done? Because, forsooth, their bodies are not able to endure one days fast, until three a clock in the after noon. Ergo, S. Spiridions Lent, continued not the space of forty days: Our Friar jesuit, volens, nolens, must this confess. Fourthly, that neither S. Spiridion, nor any one of his family, did eat any Meat until the end of the Fast: And consequently, that Popish Lent-fast is nothing correspondent to that Lent-fast, which S. Spiridion used in his time. Fiftly, that seeing S. Spiridion did not entertain the Stanger without Bread, 
S. Spiridion was the bishop of Cyprus.  albeit he had none in his own house, (for doubtless he had Bread to his Flesh;) it followeth of necessity, that he got Bread of some of his Neighbours; and consequently, that all his Neighbours did not keep Lent, after his manner, and at his time: Which yet they ought and would have done, if Lent had been commanded by any settled Law. Sixtly, that S. Spiridion broke off his Fast, that he might eat and be merry with the Stranger. Whereby we may learn, that his Fast was voluntary, not by compulsion of any Law. Seventhly, that S. Spiridion urged the Stranger, even to eat Flesh in Lent; who doubtless would never have once moved him, to transgress any Apostolical Law. Ergo, Lent-fast was voluntary, not commanded by any Law. Eightly, that S. Spiridion, (when he urged the Stranger to eat flesh in Lent,) did not allege necessity or want of Meat; but taught him plainly out of God's word, that all Meats (as well Flesh as Fish,) were pure unto the pure. Lastly, that S. Spiridion told the Stranger plainly and constantly; that he ought rather to eat Flesh in Lent, then to refuse it, because he was a Christian. As if he had said; It is the badge of an Infidel (not of a Christian,) to think he may rather eat Fish, than Flesh. For the complement of doctrine, concerning Lent-fast, let us hear attentively (I pray you) what josephus Angles that famous popish Bishop and Friar telleth us. Two memorable Doctrines doth he teach us: Th'one, that Lent-fast is satisfactory for our sins. Th'other, that Christ did not institute Lent-fast, as the Romish Church observeth it. In one place, he hath these express words. 
jos. Angl. in. 4. S. part. 1. pag. 379.  Tale jeiunium est propriè, et realiter, et sacramentaliter satisfactorium. Ratio est, quoniam est pars satisfactionis; aliter enim Ecclesia deciperet paenitenies: 
The Church of Rome, hath indeed deceived many a man.  Such a Fast (he speaketh of the Fasts which Priests enjoin,) is sacramentally, really, and properly satisfactory. The reason is; because it is a part of satisfaction: for otherwise, the Church should deceive the Penitentes. In an other place, the same josephus Angles hath these express words. 
jos. Angl. ubi supra, pag. 382.  jeiunium quadragesimale eo modo quo ab Ecclesia servatur, nes suit a Christo institutum, neque ab eo iussum, sed ab hominibus; atque ita non est de iure divino, sed humano duntaxat. Christus enim nec tempus talis ieiunij, nec modum, neque cibos instituit. 
Mark that popish Lent-fast 〈◊〉 but an Apish imitation of Christ's fast.  Statim enim post Baptismum in desertum secessit, et illic ieiunavit. Christus nullum diem a jeiunio excepit, in illo quadragenario numero; Ecclesia vero dies dominicos excipit. Christus tunc semel nec pluries commedit, neque bibit. In Ecclesia vero una refectio tantum est concessa, et in potatione nulla est limitatio. Quare cum nec verbo, neque facto hoc jeiunium instituerit, ab Ecclesia institutum erit: The Lent-fast, as the Church observeth it, was neither instituted of Christ, nor of him commanded, but of men; so as it is not established by God's Law, but by man's only: for Christ neither instituted the time of such a Fast, nor the manner, nor the Meats: for, so soon as he was baptized, he went into the Desert, and fasted there. Christ excepted no day from fasting, in his Fast of Forty days: but the (Romish) Church excepteth the Sundays. Christ neither eat nor drank more than once; 
One may keep the Popish Lent, and be drunk every day. Forget not this point. jos. Angl. ubi supra. pag. 394.  but the Church granteth Meat once a day; and for drinking maketh no restraint. Wherefore seeing Christ neither appointed Lent-fast by word, nor by deed, it must be ordained of the Church. Where I may not forget to add, that the same bishop Angles telleth us in an other place; that albeit the Apostles ordained Lent-fast, yet may the Pope free & deliver whom he will, from the keeping thereof. And he yieldeth this reason for the same; Because, forsooth, 
The Pope is equal to the Apostles.  the Pope hath as great Power in the government of the Church, as the Apostles had. Thus disputeth our Popish Bishop; telling us plainly, that Christ did not ordain Lent-fast; which he proveth by many reasons. As also, that none are bound to Fast in Lent, who have gotten the Pope's Dispensation to free them from it; no, not if the Apostles appointed it. Thirdly, he granteth freely, that the Papists Fast, to satisfy God for their sins. I therefore must perforce conclude; that the Popish Lent-fast, is a rotten rag of the New religion.    

The 29. Chapter: of the annulling of Popish Wedlock.  

B. C.  
Whatsoever (saith Bell) the bishop of Rome holdeth and defineth, that must every Papist hold, believe, and maintain, as an Article of his Faith. Though generally all Catholics do hold the Pope's Definitions to be infallible, and the contrary opinion to be erroneous; ye is it not an Article of Faith.   

T. B.  
Whosoever shall seriously peruse my Trial, this Answer of the Jesuit to the same; and this my Reply in defence of my Trial, can not but understand, that Popery is mere foolery, and flatly opposite to the sacred Word of God. This in brief, is my Answer: First, that albeit this Chapter being the 29. of my Trial, (arguing against the annulling of Popish Wedlock,) contain not fully 26. lines; 
The jesuit fleeth from the matter.  yet is the Jesuit so afraid, with the plentiful matter sound handled therein, & yet in brief manner; as he dareth not once touch or name the same, for fear of burning him. For proof whereof, I wish the indifferent Reader, to peruse my Trial of the New religion. Secondly, that it is most true, that what the Pope defineth, that must every Papist hold and believe, as an Article of his Faith. I prove it by many invincible reasons. Covarrunias, a very famous popish Bishop and renowned Canonist, hath these express words. 
Covarru. to. 1. cap. 20. par. 11. in med. col. 1.  Nec me later, D. Thomam praevia maxima deliberatione asserere; Rom. Pontificem non posse propria dispensatione continentiae solemn Monactiorum votum tollere. Et Paulo Post. oportet tamen primam opinionem defendere; ne quae passim fiant, evertantur omnino: 
Mark this point well.  Neither am I ignorant, that S. Thomas (the popish Angelical Doctor, whose Doctrine sundry Popes have confirmed,) affirmeth after great deliberation; that the Bishop of Rome can not with his Dispensation, take away from Monks their solemn Vow of Chastity. 
For the marriage of Priests and Monks▪ see my Survey  This notwithstanding, we must defend the first opinion, lest those things which are practised every where, be utterly overthrowë. The Popish canonised Saint Antoninus, and Sylvester Prieras, 
Anton. par. 1. tit. 10. cap. 3. Sylu. de indulg.  (some time master of the Pope's sacred Palace, and for his great Learning, surnamed, Absolutus Theologus,) tell us plainly and constantly; that whatsoever the Pope doth, whether we can prove the same or no●▪ yet must we believe it to be so. And, (which passeth all the rest, yea, which is wonderful, if not incredible to proceed from a Papists mouth, 
S. R. pag. 417. ) S. R. that Learned man, (as our Friar B. C. termeth him,) hath these express words, in his pretenced Answer to the Downfall of Popery. 
See & mark the eight Chapter.  Because bishops must not examine the Doctrine, which the Pope delivereth judicially out of S. Peter's Chair, as supreme Pastor of God's Churth; but only that, wherein he uttereth his own private opinion. Aquinas himself, shall give the upshot of this game: these are his express words. 
Aquinas in supplem. quaest. 25. art. 1.  Christus poterat relaxare; ergo et Paulus potuit; ergo et Papa potest; qui non est minoris potestatis in Ecclesia, quam Paulus fuit: Christ could pardon; therefore Paul could pardon; therefore the Pope also can pardon; as who is of no less or meaner Authority in the Church, than Paul himself was. Thirdly, that seeing our Friar granteth all Papists generally, to hold the Pope's Definitions to be infallible, 
See the Christian Dialogue, pag. 17.19.  and the contrary Opinion to be erroneous; he showeth himself to be a very noddy, and at a flat nonplus, in denying the same to be an Article of Popish faith. I prove it, (mark well my words) by a triple Argument. First, because the Pope, his Cardinals, Jesuits, and all popish Divines, can not but abound with falsehood, deceit, cozenage, and fraudulent tricks of legerdemain; if they teach the people to hold and receive that as true Doctrine, which themselves believe not to be so. Secondly, because the Pope, his Cardinals, Jesuits, and all Papists generally, 
joh. 14.6. joh. 17.17.  are bound to believe every truth agreeable to God's word. And consequently, that either all Papists believe the Pope's Definitions to be infallible, and the contrary opinion to be erroneous; or else, that the same is not a truth agreeable to God's word. Thirdly, that Popery must perforce be a most miserable, dangerous, wretched, 
See and note well the Rhemists, upon the New Testament. Mat. 16.17. Luk. 22.31.  & damnable Religion; if all Papists generally hold that for an undoubted Doctrine, which is no part of their Faith and Religion: For all Jesuits and jesuited Papists hold, that the Church is built upon Peter and his successors, and that their faith can not fail.   

B. C.  
What followeth. What, but that Bell hath abused the good Reader with an untruth?   

T. B.  
I answer; that this in very deed followeth, and that of mere necessity; that our jesuitical Friar, is a most impudent and shameless liar. Which thing I have proved again & again, in every Chapter most evidently: I therefore must perforce conclude; that seeing the late Bishops of Rome, (Pius, Paulus, & julius,) 
A.D. 1540  have taken in hand roundly and most Antichristianly, (as I have proved in my Trial, and more at large in the Downfall of Popery,) to dissolve that Matrimony, which the true Church of God durst never dissolve, 
Note well the next Chapter, touching the infallibility of the Pope's faith.  for the space of more than fifteen hundred years after Christ: the same can be nothing else, but a very filthy rotten Rag of the New Religion.    

The 30. Chapter: of the Pope's pretended Superiority, over and above a general Council.  

B. C.  
BELL beginning with false asseveration, to tell us of the late opinion of the Pope's Superiority over a General Council, interlaceth also an other shameless untruth against the Rhemists.   

T. B.  
I answer; that our Friar still continueth one and the self-same man: that is to say, an impudent and shameless liar, as he first began: For within four lines, he compriseth and coucheth two most notorious Lies. The former is touching the late Opinion of the Pope's Superiority over a general Council. I affirm, that the Popish opinion, which holdeth the Pope to be above a general Council, is a late upstart Faith and Doctrine; never known to the Church of God, for the space of more than fourteen hundred years after Christ. 
A.D. 1415·  This our Friar calleth a False asseveration: but proveth it not at all. He is an honest man; we may (if we will) believe his bare word. But I by the power of God, shall prove the contrary to be the truth; and that out of hand. The latter, is concerning the Rhemistes; which shall be cleared (God willing) by and by.   

B. C.  
The Rhemists (quoth he) that jesuited brood, tell us plainly, (if we will believe them,) that there is no necessity of a General or Provincial Council, save only for the better contentation of the people. Thus he chargeth them; yet not noting any particular place: But I will help him; it is in their Annotations upon the Acts.   

T. B.  
I answer; that our Friar showeth himself what he is, aswell here, as else where. He is so full of Charity forsooth, that he will needs help me for his own intended gain, though he be thereby proved a lying swain: for in the next Page following, he hath these express words. This untruth the Minister had set abroach once afore in his Downfall, and quoteth the place very orderly in this manner. Rheims test. in Act. 15. Lo, in one page our Friar chargeth me of purpose, to have omitted the quotation, so to delude and deceive the Reader. In an other page, he granteth freely, that I have set it down very orderly. Behold this changeable Chameleon, who both accuseth and acquitteth me with one breath. Concerning the slandering of the Rhemists, wherewith he chargeth me, this is mine answer; that in very deed the slander fitly agreeth to himself, which he would untruly impose upon me. I prove it; First, Because the Rhemists plainly declare their meaning, in this brief Marginal note. 
Rhem. test. in Act. 15. v. 28. in marg.  Though the Sea Apostolic itself (say the Rhemists,) have the same assistance, yet Counsels be also necessary for many causes. In which words, they grant as much in effect, as I either affirm, or require. Secondly, because the causes which our Rhemists' name, may easily be reduced to that one of mine; viz. For the better contentation of the people: for the controversy is this; Whether the Pope's judgement be infallible in itself, without a General Council, or no. The Rhemists' answer, that Papists hold the affirmative; viz. That the Pope's judgement is infallible, and is assisted of God even as a general Council. Thirdly that if the Papists will stand to the deny all of mine Assertion, then must they perforce grant against themselves, (which willingly they would not,) that they have no infallible truth in their Church, save only the Determination of a general Council: I hear it, I receive it, I like it, I willingly subscribe unto it. Let the Papists therefore defend this Doctrine; That the Pope's judgement without a general Council, is fallible; that he may judicially err and be deceived; and let a lawful general Council determine all controversies, 
But if this be done, then must Popery be overthrown. See and note well the Rhem. annot. upon Mat. 16.17. and Luke. 22. v. 31.  and no doubt all Christians in the world, will yield thereunto. But (Sir Friar,) Hic labour, hoc opus est: For, in these last, and worst days of ours, the Pope will stay at home; and whatsoever or howsoever the Councils shall decree, yet must nothing be of force, save that only, which the Pope liketh to confirm, as he sitteth in his Chair at Rome. This I have proved at large in the Downfall of Popery, and in my Christian Dialogue, by evident demonstrations.   

B. C.  
What can Bell fetch from Alphonsus, to justify his injurious charge of the Rhemists. Alphonsus was one of those Divines, 
Lo, not the judgement of the Pope, but of a general Council, is infallible.  that think the infallibility of judgement to be in a Council, and not in the Pope alone: And he bringeth this reason; Because otherwise it were in vain, with so great labour to assemble so many Bishops together. This informeth us very well, what Alphonsus his opinion was: But where doth he say; that the Rhemistes teach, that the Determination of a general Council is needless, save only for the better contentation of the people, because the Pope's judgement is infallible? He speaketh not one word of the Rhemists: and no marvel; for he could not, being dead many a fair day, before the Rheims Testament was published.   

T. B.  
I answer; that I can fetch so much from the famous and learned Papist Alphonsus, as is able to kill the Pope, with all his Jesuits and jesuited popelings. For first, the Pope with his Jesuits and Jesuited popelings avouch most impudently, 
So say the Rhemistes: note the places, Math. 16.17. Luk. 22.31.  and would enforce all Christians to believe the same; that Christ built his Church upon S. Peter, and upon his successors the Bishops of Rome: and also, that Christ prayed for Peter and for the Bishops of Rome, that their Faith should never fail. But Alphonsus condemneth that opinion for Heretical; while he affirmeth the infallibility of Faith to rest in a general Council, not in the Pope alone. Secondly, Alphonsus confuteth the Rhemists most sound & evidently, while he affirmeth general Counsels to be gathered in vain, if the Pope's Determination and judgement were infallible. Thirdly, Alpho●sus is one of those Learned popish Writers, (even by the Jesuits free confession in this place, which I wish the Reader never to forget,) who defend the truth with us, against the Pope, his Jesuits, and all his Iesuite● popelings. For, I do not hold or defend any Article or point of Doctrine, (as I have often said, and here our Friar unawares granteth the same: such is the force of truth, 
The learned Papists hold all points of doctrine, which I defend: which is and willbe my comfort, to the worlds end. ) but the best Learned popish Writers hold and defend the same with me: Which is to me such a comfort, as neither the Pope, nor all his Jesuits and jesuited popelings, are ever able to discomfort me; how soever they now, or hereafter, revile and rail against me. But our Jesuit is bold, and peremptorily avoucheth; that Alphonsus could not speak one word of the Rhemistes, seeing he was dead many a fair day before the Rhem●s Testament was published. To which I answer; that a living man in his life time, may confute their opinion who are borne after his death; and that in a double manner. One way formally, 
A formal and material confutation.  in respect of their persons and inseparable adjuncts. another way materially, in respect of the subject and matter called into question. And consequently, albeit Alphonsus could not confute or censure the Rhemistes the former way, save only by special revelation; yet might he, and did he confute them the latter way, before the Rheims Testament was published to the world. Yea, 
See the Christian Dialogue, pag. 17.19.  Alphonsus speaketh more against the Rhemists the latter way, than I myself have done: for he affirmeth, (as our Friar jesuit granteth,) That in vain were so great labour taken for the gathering of a Council, if the Pope's judgement were infallible. Lo Alphonsus avoucheth a general Council to be altogether needless, if the Pope's judgement be infallible. Which is far more than that, wherewith I charged the Rhemists; he absolutely rejecteth all respects, I made one exception; viz. For the better contentation of the people. So then, that which to our Jesuit is impossible, is become evident & easy to the Reader: and the silly Friar is mightily confounded in his own best manner of pleading.   

B. C.  
See the dexterity of this Minister in disputing. He pretended to prove out of the Council of Constance; That the Superiority of the Pope was never known till that time: and he proveth the clean contrary. The Council defined (quoth he) 
A.D. 1415.  that a Council is above the Pope. What is this to the Superiority of the Pope above a Council, 
The Friar killeth himself, with his own sword. Note well the answer.  which he undertook to justify out of the Council? And not only that, but also that it was never before. Verily had Bell that care of his credit, which he ought, never would he suffer his Discourse to pass abroad, with such absurd and fantastical connexion.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that our Jesuit may well be compared to notorious thieves and bloody Traitors, who continually cry out against theft & treason, 
This is verified, in the Gunpowder jesuited vassals.  that so they may the better avoid the suspicion, and free themselves from the imputation of those heinous crimes: For, himself being full of nothing but lying, cozenage; and deceitful dealing; he busieth and bestirreth himself to charge me therewith, so to free himself (if that were possible,) from the same. Secondly, that while our Friar chargeth me, not to justify out of the Council what I did undertake; he plainly showeth himself to be bereaved of his wits, to be given up into a reprobate mind, and impudently to defend one notorious lie with an other. For doubtless, while I proved the Council of Constance to have defined, that a Council is above the Pope; I proved evidently, that the Pope is not above a Council. For example: If I prove most noble King JAMES, being the Sovereign, 
Mark well this answer.  to be above Robert Parsons, being the Subject, and indeed a nototious Traitor; I do therewith evidently conclude, that the traitorous varlet Parsons (the author of this Libel,) is not above our most noble King. If this example content not our Friar, I am willing (for charity sake) to afford him this other. 
See my Anatomy, where this is plainly proved.  If any man shall prove a notorious Horse-stealer, to be more honest than Robert Parsons, which the secular popish Priests have proved most evidently; the same man shall perforce conclude, that Parsons is not above or better than an Horse-stealer, in the way of honesty. Thirdly, that the Pope's pretended Authority above a general Council, was never known to the Church, until the Council of Constance; that is to say, for the space of one thousand, four hundred, and fifteen years after Christ, 
A.D. 1415.  it shall (God willing) be proved out of hand.   

B. C.  
Cardinalis Cameracensis, (quoth he,) Abbess Panormitanus, Nicholaus Cusanus, Adrianus Papa, Cardinalis Florentinus, johannes Gersonus, Jacobus Almaynus, Abulensis, & other learned Papists generally, (the Jesuits & their Jesuited crew excepted,) do all constantly defend as an undoubted truth, that a general Council is above the Pope. In which words for a parting blow, he clappeth two untruethes together. The first is, that the Doctrine of the Pope's authority above a Council, is no older than the Jesuits. The second is; that none teach it, but the Jesuits and their jesuited crew.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that our Jesuit here confesseth so much, as is enough to prove Popery to be the new Religion. For, he can but name two Papists, and one Council, that held his opinion; viz. Antoninus, Turrecrema●a, and the Lateran Council under Leo the tenth. 
O new borne Popery! where is thy mother? where is thy Godfather? where is thy christianity? None ever heard of thee for the space of 1414. years after Christ.  Alas, alas, who (though a Papist before,) would not now defy and detest Popery, seeing the jesuit can not deny it to be the new Religion. He can not possibly name one Writer in the whole world, for the space of one thousand, four hundred, and fifteen years after Christ; who affirmeth the Pope or bishop of Rome to be above a general Council: For, Antoninus and Turrecremata, were but yesterday men respectively; as who were unborn many a fair day after the Council of Constance, and so children for Antiquity, and wholly against the credit of late startup Popery. And the Popish Lateran Council under Pope Leo the tenth, was after the Council of Constance more than fourscore and eight years: and consequently after Christ, fifteen hundred years and odd. O Popery! fond and foolish are those simple and silly Papists, who call thee the old Religion. For, (my life I gage for the trial,) thou art no older; then I have said. Secondly, that Antoninus, Turrecrema●a, and the Laterne Synod, were Jesuited materially; that is, qualified like Knights of the Post; men that would say or swear any thing, for the Pope's pleasure, and their own gain.   

B. C.  
Bell, when he saith, That this Doctrine was not known to the Church, until the time of the Council of Constance, granteth, that then it began at least to be taught; and so neither proceeded from Jesuits or jesuited persons, as being of longer standing, by his own grant.   

T. B.  
I answer; first that the more the jesuit striveth to defend Popery, the more he unawares overthroweth the same. He is driven to such a miserable shift, that he seeketh (for want of other grounds,) to relieve Popery with those reasons, which myself have made against the same. Secondly, that the motive which the Fathers of Constance had, to define the power of a general Council to be above the Pope, was this, & no other; viz. the great Schism, which john the 23. Gregory the 12. and Benedict the 13. brought into the Church; while every one of them sought with might and main, 
A general Council is above the Pope  to be the Pope of Rome: For the Council lamenting the Schism, and greatly desiring to 'stablish unity & peace in the Church, used the chiefest and last remedy in that behalf: that is, they deposed the three contentious Popes, (john, Gregory, and Benedict;) and choosing Martin, made him Pope by their supereminent power. And to take away all Schism, dissensions, difficulties, doubts, suspicions, and future garboils, which might perhaps have ensued thereupon, the Council decreed and constantly defined; that a general Council in causes Ecclesiastical, had the greatest power upon earth; and consequently, power and authority over the Pope, even to cite him, to excommunicate him, and to depose him: And therefore De facto, they deposed the three aforenamed Popes, and placed Martin in their stead. Master Doctor Gerson, (a famous and great learned Papist,) maketh this case so plain in many places of his works; as none, that with judgement and indifferency, shall peruse the same, can stagger or stand in doubt thereof: these are his express words. 
Gers. in Serm. coram council. Const. V prim. part.  Ecclesia, vel generale Concilium eam reprasentans, est regula a spiritu sancto directa, tradita a Christo: ut quilibet cuiuscunque status etiam Papalis existat, came audire ac eidem obedire teneatur, alioquin habendus est ut Ethnicus et Publicanus: The Church, or general Council representing it, is a rule directed of the holy Ghost, and given us of Christ; that every one of what state soever, even Papal, must hear and obey the same; or else, be reputed as an Ethnic and Publican. Again, in another place, the same Doctor hath these words. 
Gers. prim. part. in tract. de appellat. a Papa circa med.  johannes (Papa) non est accusatus vel convictus de Heretica pravitate; et tamen concilium vocavit et iudicavit ipsum, tanquam suum subditum. unde et in toto processu usque post sententiam definitivam suae depositionis, reputatus est ab eodem concilio verus Papa: Pope John was neither accused nor convicted of Heresy; and for all that, the Council both called and judged him, as their Subject. Whereupon the Council reputed him the true Pope, in all the time of their proceeding against him; until after the definitive sentence of his Deposition. In an other place, the same Learned Writer hath these words. 
Gers. ubi. supr. in 2. propos.  In causis fidei non habetur in terra Index infallibilis, vel qui non sit deviabilis a fide de lege communi; praeter ipsum Ecclesiam universalem, vel Concilium generale eam sufficienter repraesentans: In matters of Faith, there is no infallible judge upon earth, or which can not serve from the Faith by the common course of Gods proceeding; saving the Church universal, or a general Council representing the same sufficiently. In an other place, he hath these words. 
Gers. in serm. coram Concil. Const. K. prim. part.  Ecclesia vel generale Concilium potuit et potest congregari sine expresso consensu vel mandato Papae, etiam ritè electi et viventis, in multis c●sibus:  
The Church, or a general Council, both might and may be called together, without the express consent or mandate of the Pope; even when the Pope is lawfully elected, & living. Thus disputeth this famous Papist, and great learned Doctor. Out of whose words, I gather many very excellent documents, well worthy to be written in Golden letters. First, that the Pope is subject to a general Council, and may be controlled by the same. Secondly, that the Pope may err both privately and publicly in resolutions of Faith, aswell as other bishops and Ministers of the Church. Thirdly, that a general Council is above the Pope, and hath power to depose the Pope, for any notorious Crime whatsoever. Fourthly, that the contrary opinion is flat Heresy, condemned in the Council of Constance. Fiftly, that a general Council hath full power to compel a Pope lawfully elected to renounce and forsake the Popedom, and to give place to him, whom the Council shall appoint and choose. Sixtly, that if the Pope shall withstand the Council, and refuse to obey the Decrees and Constitutions thereof; he ought and must be excommunicated, and reputed as an Ethnic and Publican. Seventhly, that a general Council may be summoned and kept, without the consent of the Pope; even of that Pope, who is both lawfully chosen, and at time living. Eightly, that all people are subject to a lawful general Council, even by Christ's own rule and designment. Ninthly, that neither the Pope nor any one man upon earth, is or can be an infallible judge in matters of Faith. Tenthly, that the judgement which we must finally rest upon, in all controversies of Faith and Religion; 
To this doctrine I willingly agree.  is either the judgement of the universal Church, or else of a general Council sufficiently representing the same. This is found and very Catholic doctrine, though proceeding from the Pen of a great Papist. Which Doctrine, as the Council of Constience first, and after it the Council of Basill, did approve by their flat decrees; so do I reverently embrace the same with all my heart, humbly thanking God, that by the mighty power of his truth, our adversaries are compelled to confess the truth against themselves. This Doctrine is confirmed more at large, both in my Anatomy, 
See my Anatomy, pag. 137.  and in my Golden Balance; to say nothing of my Christian Dialogue, which woundeth the Pope at the very heart. From hence proceedeth that, which will seem to many, a wonderment of the world. But what is that, will some say? This forsooth; that all Papists this day living, 
All Papists are Heretics.  are flat Heretics. Is it so, in deed? Is that possible to be proved? It is so possible, that I have even now proved the same most evidently. And thus the most simple Reader in the world, shall easily perceive the same. The general Council of Constance decreed plainly, that the Pope's judgement is fallible; & that the Pope is subject to a general Synod, and by the authority thereof may be deprived of the Popedom: as also that the contrary opinion is flat Heresy. This is already proved. Now, so it is, that all Papists this day living upon earth, do hold the Pope's judgement to be infallible, and himself to be above a general Council: So say the Rhemistes; 
Rhem. in 16. Mat. 22. Luk. 15. Act. 18.  so saith our jesuit, even in the end of his Chapter next aforegoing, being the 29. in number. Ergo, seeing all Jesuits and jesuited Papists, do this day hold and defend that opinion, which a general Council hath defined to be flat Heresy; it followeth by a most necessary consequence, and inevitable illation, that they all are flat Heretics, it can not be denied. 
All Papists are Heretics.  Deo gratias: dixi.   

B. C.  
And before we proved, how Pope Leo irritated and made of no force, a Decree enacted in the Council of Chalcedon; which argueth his Superiority over the Council.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that this assertion and opinion of our Friar, is a flat Heresy; as it is even now proved, and that most evidently. Secondly, that this sottish allegation is confuted again and again, in the second Chapter of this present Volume. To this let us add a most notable testimony of our Rhemistes, which is comprised in these very words. 
Rhem. in. 15. Act. v. 28. ex Aug. libr. 2. de baptis. cap. 4.  Notorious is the saying of S. Augustine concerning S. Cyprian, who being a blessed Catholic Bishop and Martyr; yet erred about the rebaptizing of such, as were christened by Heretics. If he had lived (saith S. Augustine,) to have seen the determination of a plenary Council, which he saw not in his life time; he would for his great humility and charity, strait way have yielded, & preferred the general Council before his own judgement and his fellow Bishops, in a provincial Council only. Thus dispute our Rhemistes, confounding themselves and their Pope, unawares: For first they tell us, (mark well my words,) that S. Cyprian was a blessed Bishop and Martyr, and therefore would have yielded to the Decree of a general Council. They tell us secondly, that S. Augustine was of the same opinion. In which double Narration, the Rhemistes confound themselves, with their Pope and all his devoted popelings: For, they give us to understand very plainly; that neither the Pope is above a general Council, neither yet his judgement infallible. But how prove I that? This forsooth, is a plain demonstration thereof. 
Florint. Cypriau●●, A.D. 250. Aug. A.D. 419.  S. Cyprian and S. Augustine being both of them, very Holy & very Learned Fathers, could not but know right well for their great Learning, what Authority, Power, Privileges, and Prerogatives, Christ had given to the Bishops of Rome. And without all question it is, it can not be denied; that for their great piety and humility, they would humbly have acknowledged and highly reverenced, all Power given them by our Lord jesus: Yet true it is, (sir Friar, mark well my words,) that Pope Cornelius, together with a national Synod of the bishops of Italy, had made a flat decree concerning Rebaptisation. True it is likewise, that Pope Stephanus had confirmed the same Decree, and commanded it to be observed. True it is thirdly, that all Papists of late days, do obstinately affirm, (as our Rhemistes in the name of all Papists, tell us;) that the Pope is above a general Council; that the Pope can not err judicially; that the Pope's judgement is infallible. Now, this Decree made by Pope Cornelius, and confirmed by Pope Stephanus; S. Cyprian knew right well, neither was S. Austen ignorant thereof: Howbeit this notwithstanding, S. Cyprian roundly withstood the Decree of Pope Stephanus, and both sharply reproved him, and utterly contemned his falsely pretended Authority. S. Austen in like manner held the same opinion with S. Cyprian, concerning the Popes falsely pretended Prerogatives & infallibility of judgement; never excusing any such thing in S. Cyprian as a fault, neither once saying, that the Pope was Christ's Vicar, 
Mark well this point.  or that Christ had prayed that his Faith should not fail: but constantly telling the Reader for his full satisfaction on S. Cyprians behalf; that he would humbly have yielded to the Decree of a plenary Council, if any such had been in his time. In which words, S. Austen giveth the Reader to understand, that though S. Cyprian did contemn both the definitive Sentence of the Pope, and the Decree of his provincial Council, because neither of their judgements was infallible; yet would he have yielded to the Decree of a plenary Council, as which he acknowledged to be infallible, and to have the assistannce of the holy Ghost. Let us add further, that the two hundred & seventeen Fathers in the Aphrican Council, (whereof S. Augustine was one,) were so far from acknowledging the Bishop of Rome to be Christ's Vicar general upon earth, to be above a plenary Council, and his judgement to be infallible; that they all with one assent refused utterly to grant any such Prerogative or Privilege unto him; constantly affirming, that he was bound as well as they, to obey the Decrees of the Nicene Council. For which cause, neither would the said Fathers grant greater Power and Prerogatives to the bishops of Rome; neither did the bishops of Rome themselves challenge greater Power than the Canons of the Nicene Synod would afford them. Of which point I have disputed at large, in the second Chapter aforegoing: Whosoever shall seriously peruse that whole Chapter, 
Supr. cap. 2. prope finem.  from the beginning to the end thereof, will undoubtedly rest satisfied, in this behalf. join this with my Trial, and Popery will prove itself the New religion.    

The 31. Chapter, containing (according to my promise,) an Answer to the Jesuits short admonition, in the 16. Chapter aforegoing; as also to some other patches, elsewhere dispersed to the same effect.  

T. B.  
Having evidently proved, and plainly convinced (by the power of God, and the assistance of his holy Spirit,) that Popery is the New religion; it followeth consequently, that I prove the Faith & Doctrine this day professed, and by Authority established in the Church of England, to be the Old Religion. I therefore heartily crave the gentle Readers attentive hearing, unto the end of my Discourse. I have not hitherto in any of my former Books, oppugned the Old Roman Religion; 
The old Roman religion, was the true Catholic Church.  which S. Peter and S. Paul delivered to the Church of Rome, while they lived here on earth: Neither do I at this present, or ever intent hereafter, in any future work to oppugn the same. It is the late Faith, and late Romish Doctrine, which I contend to be the New Religion: every main point whereof I have clearly convinced, when and by whom it first began. Our Church of noble England, constantly retaineth every Article and jot of the old Roman Religion; only rejecting and abolishing of the essential parts of late Romish Faith and Doctrine, so much as was Heretical, erroneous, or superstitious and repugnant, to the eternal truth of Gods most sacred word. And concerning late Romish ceremonies, such & so many, as were either superstitious, 
The Papists are the deformed, and we the reformed Catholics in very deed.  or ridiculous or unprofitable to the Church of God. So that we are this day, the true reformed Catholics; even as the Friars at Rome commonly called Capucho●nes, are indeed the true reformed Franciscans. The Church of England doth not this day, hold any Article of Faith or Doctrine, or use any Ceremony; save such only as we are able to justify, either by the express words of the holy Scripture, and by the approbation of best approved Antiquity; or else to deduce the same from thence, by a necessary & inevitable consequence. Let us now in God's name hear attentively, what our jesuit in the name of all Papists, is able to object, against the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of England.   

B. C.  
COncerning Ceremonies, and such like, 
B.C. pag. 136. All this is true, but nothing to the purpose.  Bell in his Regiment of the Church, granteth freely; that the Church hath Authority to ordain and abrogate, to make or repeal Laws, as shall seem most meet for the honour of God, and the edification of Christian people.   

T. B.  
Bell admitteth all this. Say on good Friar, if happily thou have any better Bread in thy Bag, seeing this is not worth a silly Rag: Howbeit our Friar for want of matter, hath bestowed almost one whole Leaf of Paper, in the recital of my words. Transeat, It is impertinent.   

B. C.  
If he infer against our Ceremonies, as he doth, 
B.C. page. 138.  because they were instituted since Christ, though very ancient, That they be rotten rags of the New religion; What shall become of their Ceremonies, which either be borrowed from us, or of far latter date? What can they be else, but pil● patches of Protestanisme, & rusty Rags of the Reformed congregation? 
The jesuit is full of vanity and lying. Mark well the answer.  Nay, what must their Communion Book itself be; never heard of in the whole world, till the late days of King Edward the sixth, and drawn from our Portesse and mass-books; as the thing itself speaketh, and their Geneva Ghospellers often cast in their teeth?   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that our Jesuit unawares giveth Popery a deadly wound, while he maketh popish Mass, and the Oath which popish bishops make to the Pope, to be no weighty points of Religion: For, they are within the compass of the eleven Chapters, of which he writeth in this manner. 
B·C. page. 136.  These Chapters I shall soon dispatch, seeing they concern not any weighty points of Religion; but Ceremonies, and such like. Secondly, that seeing by Popish free grant, neither popish Mass, nor the popish Oath, be matters of any weight, (to which I for my part, willingly agree;) it followeth of necessity, that the Pope is a most cruel Tyrant; while he suffereth no bishops to have voices in Counsels, but such as take that woeful Oath: As also, while he burneth with Fire and Faggot, all such as will not adore the popish Breadgod, in the Idolatrous popish Mass. Thirdly, that our Friar Jesuit is still like himself, that is, a most notorious liar; while he chargeth me to term all Ceremonies instituted since Christ, though very ancient, to be rotten Rags of the New religion: For, I am so far and so free from this false and plain Diabolical accusation; as I approve all Ceremonies consonant to God's word, at what time soever the Church did institute the same. 
See the Regiment, cap. 14. page, 183▪ 184.185.187▪ 170.166.200▪ 128.125.155.119.  None that shall duly peruse my Regiment of the Church, can be ignorant hereof. Nay, I say further; that the Jesuit is not able to bring any one sentence out of any one of all my Books, which denieth Authority to the Church, to institute new Ceremonies at any time; so the same be consonant to God's word, and profitable for the circumstances of time, place, and persons. Yea, the jesuit confesseth within twenty lines before this false and heinous slander, that this is the very doctrine which I teach. But his wit is so besotted, in fight and bickering against the manifest truth, that he forgetteth what he writeth, so soon as a new reason pricketh him: for he had rather heap lies upon lies, and slanders upon slanders, then forsake and condemn their gainful Popery; which is to him and his fellows, as was the Temple of Diana to Demetrius and the other craftsmen. Fourthly, 
Act. 19 v. 24.25.  that we use no Ceremonies in our English Church, but such as are both agreeable to the holy Scriptures, and of far greater antiquity, 
Mark well this point.  than the time of Popery, which I oppugn. Albeit I do not absolutely condemn all Ceremonies this day used in the Romish Church; but respectively, 
The right end is edification. 1. Cor. 14 v. 14. v. 26.16.  as they are superstitiously used, and too unlawful; or at least ridiculous, or unprofitable ends: For, I willingly grant, that sundry Ceremonies now used in the Romish Church, are things indifferent of their own nature; and that the same were not to be condemned, if the superstitious abuse and wicked intentes, for which they are done, were wholly removed from them. Where I wish the Reader, to mark attentively these my words; (Absolutely, 
See and note my Regiment, pag. 183.185.200.198.199.  & Respectively.) Fiftly, that in our Communion Book, two things must distinctly be observed, and Christianly distinguished; viz. the Essential, and the Accidental parts thereof. Touching the parts Essential, they are all and every of them as old, as is the written Word of God itself: The Adversaries are not able, to give any true instance against the same. Touching the parts Accidental; they are all in like manner old in the thing itself, though of later date in the modification of the thing. Thus in plainer terms: All the accidental parts of our English Communion book, if we respect the matter itself contained therein, are as old as the holy Scripture itself; though of far latter date, if we respect the order and disposition of the same. This my Answer, is grounded upon this doctrine of S. Paul. 
1. Cor. 14. v. 27.40.  Omnia ad aedificationem fiant: Omnia honestè et secundum ordinem fiant in vobis: Let all things be done to edifying: Let all things be done decently, and according to order. Sixtly, that our Communion book is drawn from the holy Scriptures, (as is already proved,) and from the old Roman Missals or Communion-bookes, in the Purer age of the Church; long before the time of idolatrous and superstitious Popery; 
Mark well gentle reader.  which I in all my Books oppugn.   

B. C.  
More than four hundred years before the time of S. Gregory, 
B.C. pag. 135.  the ancient Britons received the same manner of serving God, from the blessed Pope and Martyr S. Eleutherius, that is, in the Latin tongue: Which appeareth first, 
Beda lib. 2. hist. cap. 2.  because venerable Bede reporteth, that there was not any material difference betwixt S. Austen sent by S. Gregory, and the Britain Bishops, save only in Baptism, and the observation of Easter. Secondly, for that certain it is, that they had also since S. Austin's time, the Mass in the Latin tongue. But to think, that if they had been once in possession of the service in their own vulgar Language, that they could have been brought from that without infinite garboils; especially, the opposition betwixt them and the English Saxons in ancient time considered: or, that if any such contention had fallen out, that it could have been omitted by the curious Pens of our Historiographers, it were great simplicity once to surmise. Wherefore what followeth, but that they received that custom at their first conversion; which was within less than two hundred years after Christ? And consequently, that by Bells allowance, and the common Computation of others; it is sound, Catholic, and Apostolical, and not any Rotten rag of a New religion, as this Ragge-maister gableth. And that on the contrary, to have the public Service in the vulgar tongue, is a New patch of Protestanisme, fetched from Wittenberg, or that Mart of Martinistes, the holy City of Geneva.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that I have proved already in the sixteen Chapter aforegoing; 
Super, cap. 16. note the chapter well.  that in the primitive and ancient Church, the public Prayers and divine Service, were every where in the vulgar Tongue. Secondly, that the Latin tongue was then vulgar, to all the Nations of Italy, Spain, Germany, France, Africa, and other Countries of the West: For in those days, the Latin tongue was commonly spoken and understood, wheresoever the divine Service was in Latin: Which is plain and evident by S. Austin's Doctrine, in many places of his works. Thirdly, that if the Britons did at their conversion receive the Latin Service, 
Aug. confess. lib. 1▪ cap. 14. de doctr. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 13. de Catechi. rud. cap. 9 et. in Psal. 123.128.  first by Eleutherius about the year 179. after Christ; and again by Gregory, about the 596. year: yet can no more be truly inferred thereupon, (if we grant the Latin tongue to have been then decayed in Britain;) same only, that the Romans delivered their church-service in the Latin tongue, (which then was their vulgar Language,) being altogether ignorant of the Britain tongue: 
Foolish zeal doth much hurt to the Church.  and that the Britain, for the love they bore to the public Prayers and church-service, which they received at their conversion to the Christian faith; did ever after use and retain the same in the Latin tongue, in which they first received it. Fourthly, that seeing by Christ's commandment delivered by his Apostle, 
1. Cor. 14. v. 26  All things in the Church, aught to be done to edification; it followeth of necessity, that the Latin usage of the Britons in divine Service, was a Rag of a New religion; as which was about 179. years younger than the old, and repugnant to Apostolical doctrine: For, S. Paul spendeth no less than one whole Chapter, 
1. Cor. 14. per totum.  & that only to prove; that every Nation ought to have their church-service, in their vulgar known tongue. 
V. 8.  If the Trumpet (saith he) give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the War? 
V. 9  So likewise you, except ye utter by the tongue manifest speech, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak in the air. Again thus. 
V. 11.  If I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh, an Alien; and he that speaketh, shall be an Alien to me. Again thus: 
V. 13.  Wherefore, let him that speaketh with the tongue, pray, that he may interpret: 
V. 14.  For, if I pray with the tongue, my spirit prayeth; but my understanding is without fruit. Where I wish the Reader to observe with me; that the Spirit in this place, is taken for the spiritual gift of Tongues, as S. Chrysostome upon this place, 
Chrysost. in 1. Cor. hom. 35. Theodoretus, in 1. Cor. 14. Pho●ius, ibidem.  doth witness. S. ●heophilact, is consonant to S. Chrysostome. He calleth the Gift, the Spirit; saith Theodorus, My Spirit prayeth, that is, my spiritual Gift to speak with Tongues, saith Pho●us. Again thus: 
V. 16.  If thou bless with the Spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned, say, Amen, at the giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayeth? Again thus: 
V. 19  I had rather speak five words with my understanding in the Church, that I may instruct others, than ten thousand words in (an unknown) tongue. Again thus: 
V. 26.  Let all things be done to edification. Fourthly, that our Jesuit gableth as a lying prattler, while he impudently avoucheth; that by Bells allowance, the Latin use in church-service, (where the people understand it not,) is found, Catholic, and Apostolical. For, Bell hath plainly proved it, to be unsound, Profane, and Diabolical; as also, that the use of public Service in the vulgar Tongue, came neither from Wittenberg, nor Geneva; But from, the Primitive, Apostolical, and succeeding Churches, for many hundred years together. Whosoever shall with a single eye, and sound judgement, peruse the Sixteen chapter aforegoing, 
Survey part. 3. cap. 10. pag. 477.  and join my Survey with it, can not but clearly behold as in a Glass of Crystal, the truth to be as I have written. 
Lyran. in. 1. Cor. 14.  Lyranus a famous and great learned Papist, in his learned Commentaries upon S. Paul's Epistles, doth so plainly & so constantly affirm; that in the primitive Church, the public Prayers and all other things, were in the vulgar Tongue; as none that shall read him seriously, can possibly stand in doubt thereof. Yea, S. Basil avoucheth expressly, that the Egyptians, 
Basill. in ep. ad cler. Neocaesar ep. 62.  the Lybians, the Thebans, the Palestines, the Arabians, the Phaenicians the Syrians, and generally all Christian Nations, of what Language soever they were, had their common Prayers and Service, in their vulgar Tongue. But our Rhemishes object S. Paul's words against S. Paul, in this manner. 
Rhem. in 1 Cor. 14. v. 14.  Also when a man prayeth in a strange Tongue, which himself understandeth not, it is not so fruitful for instruction to him, as it be kn●w particularly what he prayed: Nevertheless, the Apostle forbiddeth not such praying neither; confessing that his spirit, heart, and affection, prayeth well towards God, though his mind and understanding be not profited to instruction, as otherwise it might have been, if he understood the words: Neither yet doth he appoint such a one, to get his strange Prayers translated into his vulgar Tongue; to obtain thereby the aforesaid instruction. To this I answer; first, that I have already proved out of S. Chrysostome, and other Fathers, 
Mark well this answer.  (Theodoretus, Theophilactus, and Photius,) that S. Paul doth not understand by the word (Spirit) the Heart and Affection; but the Spiritual gift to speak with Tongues. Secondly, that it is clear by many texts of the Apostle, that the word (Spirit) doth so signify, as I have said. Thirdly, that if we should grant the Spirit to signify Heart and Affection, as the Rhemistes absurdly expound it, yet could not that serve their turn; because S. Paul willeth to pray not only with Spirit, but also, with mind and understanding. 
V. 15.  As also, for that S. Paul in an other text commandeth expressly, That all things ●e done in the Church, to edifying. Which is no other Doctrine indeed, then Christ himself teacheth in his holy Gospel: 
Mat. 15. v. 8.  This people (saith he) draweth near unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with the lips; but their heart is far from me. Fourthly, that the Apostle commandeth him, 
V. 13. et V. 28.  that hath the gift of Tongues, to pray that he may interpret his strange tongue himself, or that some other should interpret it, or else to keep silence in the Church. For this cause doth S. Chrysostome constantly affirm; 
Chrysost. in 1. Cor. hem. 35.  that Prayers not understood of him that uttereth them, are altogether unprofitable. 
Lo, S. Chrysostome doth very sharply reprove them, that have the divine Service in a tongue unknown.  Thou seest, (saith he) how by little and little he is come to this point, that he declareth him to be unprofitable, not only to others, but also to himself, seeing the mind of such a man is void of fruit: For, if a man speak only in the Persians Language, or in any other strange Tongue, and do not understand those things which he speaketh, he shall be to himself, as he that understandeth not the meaning of the voice. This, and much more to the like effect, saith S. Chrysostome, of those that had the gifts of Tongues, and understood not what they spoke.  
What think you (sir Friar) would he have said, if he had heard the unlearned Papists, babbling on their Beads and Primers, what they did not understand? Nay, if he had heard that, which now adays is very frequent among the unlearned Papists, both men and women; how they chop and change, clip and mangle the words; so as they either have a contrary or ridiculous sense, or else plain none at all; but stand as Ciphers and Voces non significativae: For this is a truth so well known, as it can not without blushing be denied; that many popish Priests have been so ignorant, that they neither understood their Portesses, nor their Missals, nor their Absolutions; no, nor yet the words of Baptism. Hence sprang this curious question, even among the Popish Schoolmen; viz. If the Child were truly baptized, when the ignorant Baptizer did utter the words in this manner. Ego to baptizo, in nomine Patria, et Filia, et Spiritui Sancta: In brief, the Popish Council of Lateran under Pope Innocentius the third, 
Conc. Later. sub Innoc. 3. cap 9 A.D. 1215.  decreed flatly, & strictly commanded all bishops, who within their jurisdictions had Nations of divers Tongues, Rites, and Manners under one Faith, to provide meet men to celebrate divine Service unto them, according to the diversity of their Rites and Languages. By which Popish Decree, it is clear and evident, that four hundred years are not yet expired, since the Pope approved public Service in all vulgar Languages.   

B. C.  
The Minister very profoundly scoffeth both at other parts of the Mass, and also at these following; writing thus. Gregory added the Kyrie eleyson; Telesphorus, Gloria in excelsis Deo; Gelasius, the collects; Hieronymus, the Epistle and Gospel: The Creed was received of the Nicene Council: Pope Sergius, the Agnus Dei. After this, he concludeth both of these and others, which he there mentioneth; as the Introite, Halleluia, the Commemoration of the Dead, Incense, and the Pax, in this manner. This being so, I can not but conclude; that every patch & piece of the Romish Faith, is but a Rotten rag of the New religion. So earnest he is, to make every piece of the Mass a Rotten rag, that he hath also made many parts of their own Communion-booke Patches and Pieces, and Rotten rags: In which, Kyrie eleyson, Gloria in excelsis, the collects, Epistle and Gospel, Nicene Creed, and Agnus Dei, be found no less, then in our mass-books.   

T. B.  
I answer; first that some of the Patches of the Popish Mass heese recited, are Heretical, some Superstitious, 
See Survey, et supra, cap. 23.  some Ridiculous, as I have elsewhere proved at large. Secondly, that the Kyrie eleyson, the Epistle and Gholpell, Gloria in excelsis, Nicene Creed, Agnus Dei, and the Collects which our Church useth, are all wholly contained in the holy Scriptures; and consequently, they are damnable in the Popish Church, though commendable in ours: For, we finding them in holy writ, use them according to S. Paul's rule, 
1. Cor. 14. v. 26.40.  in that behalf: But the Papists profane them many ways. First, because they prohibit their use in all vulgar Tongues. Secondly, because they teach the people erroneous Doctrine, labouring to persuade them every where, 
Things good in their own nature, are profaned in the popish Mass.  that they may not have their public Prayers and Service, in their known vulgar Tongues. Thirdly, because they abuse them superstitiously many ways: For they must say the Epistle in one corner of the Altar; the Gospel, in the other; the Creed, in the midst; and so forth. The rest, they may learn of bishop Durand, the Patron of all Popish Superstition. To which I add for a superstitious merriment; That neither the Layicall people, 
None but popish Priests may say, Dominus vobiscum.  nor yet their Popish Deacons in their devout Prayers, may for ten thousand pounds once say and pronounce these words, (Dominus vobiscum:) The words do signify, The Lord be with you: And for all that, 
Popish Deacons may not say, The Lord be with you.  the Pope being as Superstitious as Superstition itself, doth strictly forbid all Deacons to pronounce the said words, until they be made popish Priests.  
This in brief is my answer; viz. that Kyrie eleyson, Gloria in excelsis, Agnus Dei, the Epistles and gospels, with the Nicene Creed and collects, are all lawfully used in our Church: but most shamefully abused in the Popish Church. They are most Christian and commendable, as they are in themselves absolutely considered; but yet most damnable, while they are superstitiously abused, and against God's Commandment by his Apostle given us; 
1. Cor. 14. v. 16.40.  which strictly requireth all things in the church-service, to be done to the people's edification.   

B. C.  
I omit here, 
B.C. page. 140.  how falsely and blaspheamously he concludeth every piece of the Mass, to be Rotten rags: For, are the words of Consecration, the most essential part thereof; which came not from any man, but from the institution of Christ himself; as also the Pater noster, Rotten rags: Who durst say it, but sir Thomas.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that I have already concluded, not falsely, but truly; not blaspheamously, but Christianly; that every patch and piece of Popish Mass, as Popish Mass, 
Mark well this reduplication.  (mark well this reduplication,) is a Rotten rag of the New Religion. Secondly, that the words of Popish Consecration, are but only five in number; one of which for all that, came from pure Man, or rather from the impure Devil of Hell: For, who but the Devil himself, durst insert among Christ's most sacred words, 
Mat. 26.27. Mar. 14.22. Luke. 22.19. 1. Cor. 11.24.  a word of his own invention; especially, in a matter of so great weight & consequence? It is a common maxiome received of all Divines generally, aswell of Papists as of others; that no inferior hath power over the Law of his superior: And consequently, that the Pope hath no power to add, diminish, chop, or change, any word of Christ's sacred Institution; unless he either be God, or at least equal with him. Thirdly, that the holy words (This is my body,) came not from Christ, as they are a part of the late Romish Mass. I prove it sound; Because our Saviour Christ did not utter them, until he had blessed and consecrated the Bread: For doubtless, if it be true, as it is most true, because the Truth itself hath spoken it; that Christ had blessed and consecrated the Bread, 
Math. 26.27. Luk. 22.19.  before he uttered the same words; it followeth of necessity, it cannot be denied; that they are not the words of Consecration, as the Papists grossly and fond do imagine: For in Christ's holy Institution, many things went before the words of Popish supposed Consecration. First, he took the Bread: Secondly, he blessed it: Thirdly, he broke it: Fourthly, he gave it to his Disciples: Fiftly, he commanded them to take and to eat it: All which being done in order, he uttered the Popish so supposed Consecration words. 
Mass and Communion are all one, in the true sense and meaning.  So then, seeing in that Mass which Christ instituted, (for I receive aswell the word (Mass) with the Latin Fathers, as the word (Liturgy) with the Greek Doctors, in their true sense and meaning, these words (Hoc est corpus meum) were not the words of Consecration; it followeth by a consequence inevitable, that the popish Mass, in which they are made the words of Consecration, is a false forged Mass, and the New religion in very deed.  

Confirmatio prima.  This Doctrine thus delivered, may be confirmed many ways: First, because the best learned Papists are at their wits end, and put to their best & last trump; what they shall think, say, or write of the effective words of popish Consecration: For, the famous popish Bishop and great learned Doctor Josephus Angles, even in that Book which he dedicated to the Pope himself; relateth four several popish opinions, concerning this present Subject: These are his words, borrowed of Alexander and Aquinas. 
joseph. Angles, in 4. sentent. part. 1 p. 102.  Prima est Innocentij, asserentis per potestatem excellentiae, quam Christus alligatam sacramentis minimè habebat, panem in suum corpus convertisse; deinde verò dedisse illud Apostolis, dicendo, hoc est, etc. Secunda opinio affirmat consecrasse quibusdam verbis nobis ignotis, quando benedixit panem, et non quando dixit, hoc est. etc. Tertia opinio tuetur illa forma Christum consecrasse, verum occultè, scilicet, quando benedixit panem, deinde publicè illa usum fuisse, ut alios formam consecrandi doceret. Quarta opinio tenet, quando verba haec, hoc est, etc. protulit, simulque factam fuisse benedictionem: Pope Innocentius holdeth the first opinion, that Christ by the power of excellency, (which in him was not tied to the Sacraments,) converted the Bread into his body; and then gave it to his Apostles, saying; This is my Body. etc. The second Opinion holdeth, that Christ Consecrated the Bread with certain words to us unknown, when he blessed the Bread, not when he said. This is my Body. The third Opinion affirmeth; that Christ did Consecrate with that form of Words, but secretly, when he blessed the Bread, and after used the same form of words to instruct others. 
Mark the uncertainty of popish Consecration.  The fourth Opinion holdeth, that Christ did Consecrate, when he spoke these words, (This is my Body,) and that the blessing was done at the same time▪ Behold here the mystery of profound Popish divinity. I would not pity his case, who being in the midst of a great Fire, would not come out to hear it: But I pity the case of silly ignorant Papists; who hazard & adventure their salvation, in believing such a fond and uncertain Religion.  
Secondly, because by popish Religion, 
Confirm. 2.  when the Priest holdeth the Host over his head, than the silly Papists must adore the same as the everliving God. And for all that, even by popish Faith and Doctrine, the popish so termed Host, may only be a piece of mere Baker's bread. I prove it sundry ways: First, because Sotus that great learned popish Schoolman, 
Sot. apud Angels in 4. s. p. 102.  (surnamed for his deep Learning, Doctor Subtilis,) holdeth, and constantly defendeth; that it is uncertain, whether the Bread be transubstantiated into Christ's body, or no, by these words of popish Consecration, (This is my Body. 
jos. Angl. in 4. s. p. 103. ) Secondly, because by popish Faith, the Bread is not made Christ's body, unless the Priest have intention so to make it: But doubtless, sundry cases and causes may fall out to take away the priests intention; and so the silly people shall commit Idolatry, while they adore a piece of Bread for the living God. Thirdly, because Caietanus that famous Cardinal and learned popish school-doctor, 
Apud 10. Angl. in 4. s. p. 144.  affirmeth resolutely and boldly; that no Text in the whole Gospel proveth effectually, that these words (This is my Body,) must be understood properly. But doubtless, if this be true, which the learned Cardinal of Rome avoucheth to be most true; the silly Papists must perforce be Idolaters, while they adore the popish Host in the popish Mass. And therefore doth the popish Bishop Angles, 
josep. Angles ubi supra.  give his Reader this grave advise; Caut● legendum esse Caietanum: Cajetan must be read warily. For indeed by caietan's opinion, the adoring of the popish Breadgod, 
Angl. ubi supra. p. 105.  is flat Idolatry. Fourthly, because in the consecration of the Wine, the Priest (as Josephus Angles telleth us,) may have Perue●sam intentionem, a perverse intention, and so not consecrate at all. For, the Papists agree about their Real presence in their popish Mass, like dogs girning and fight for a Bone; albeit it be the most essential part of their Mass, and consequently of all popish Religion. Fiftly, because they have added one word of their own forge and invention, to the words of Christ's sacred Institution; to weet, the word (enim) which signifieth, for. S. Matthew, S. Mark, 
Mat. 26.27. Mar. 14.22. Luk. 22.19. 1. Cor. 11.24.  S. Luke, and S. Paul, have all four delivered the express words of Christ's sacred Institution; and for all that, not one of them doth so much as once name the word (enim.)  

Quartò prin●ipaliter.  Fourthly, that albeit there be some apparent colour of truth, in that which our jesuit saith of the Pater noster; yet will the same after due examination thereof, tend wholly to the confusion of the Pope, and all his popish Vassals. I therefore answer, that though the Pater noster in itself, and according to Christ's Institution, be most holy, pure, and religious; yet is the same by superstitious abuse in popish Mass, become morally; profane, impure, and irreligious: I prove it by three several and irrefragable reasons. First, because in the popish Mass it is mangled, maimed, and bereaved of a chief part of the integrity thereof. For, as he that clippeth the kings Coin, is thereby a Traitor to an earthly King: even so he that clippeth or curtalleth Gods sacred Word, is thereby a Traitor to God the King of Heaven. And consequently, seeing the Pope in his idolatrous Mass, hath curtalled the Pater noster, 
Deut. 4.2. Deut. 5.32. Deut. 12.32. Revel. 22.18.  taking from God his Kingdom, his Power, and his Glory, (which three are plainly comprised in that original Pater noster, which Christ did institute;) it followeth by an inevitable illation and necessary consequence; that the Pater noster, as it is profaned in the popish Mass, is become a Rag of the New religion. Secondly, because in the popish Mass, it is used in a Tongue to the people unknown, 
1. Cor. 14. v. 27.  contrary to Apostolical doctrine. Thirdly, because the Pater noster in the popish Mass, (mark well my words,) is made as it were a slave to Satan, and to serve Idolatry; even against the everliving God, to wait and attend upon the popish Bread-God: And so the Pater noster, which afore was pure and evangelical; is now by popish Superstition, become impure and Diabolical. But some will here demand, how the Pater noster doth serve Idolatry? To whom I answer, that every thing in popish Mass, is mere accidental, (as the Jesuit hath freely granted,) the popish Real presence only excepted; to weet, the popish so supposed Dagon or Breadgod. 
1. Sam. 5.2.  And consequently, all the rest in popish Mass, must perforce be designed, for the furtherance, honour, and service, of the said popish Dagon or Breadgod. Which service, 
See my Survey, the Downfall, & the Jesuits Antepast.  I have elsewhere sound proved, and plainly convinced, to be very flat Idolatry. Neither ought this to seem strange to the Reader: for, as holy Words in Conjurations, Thefts, Robberies, Treasons, and the like, are by the abuse profaned, and morally become unholy: even so the holy words of the Pater noster, are in the popish Mass profaned and become unholy. They are referred to a wicked and idolatrous end: 
1. Cor. 10.31. Rom. 16.27. jer. 9.24. Psal. 115.1. Gal. 1.5. Ephes. 1.12.  from whence all moral acts receive their specification; as all learned Papists grant. But the everliving God is, and aught to be the end of all: and consequently, whatsoever is referred to any other end, the same is thereby profaned ipso facto.   

B. C.  
The Protestants object, how we make the Mass the Sacrifice of the New testament, 
B.C. pag. 140.  to have been ordained by Christ himself; when as Durandus and others, note at what time, and who they were, that composed the parts thereof: When as neither Durandus, nor any other make the essential and very substantial part of the Mass; that is, the words of Consecration, to have come from any other, than the Son of God. But they speak of the accidental parts thereof; to weet, either devout Prayers, or Ceremonies; which we willingly grant to proceed from the institution of Christ's Church.   

T. B.  
I answer; first, that our Friar giveth both the Pope and Popery, a deadly wound, while he telleth us, that Durandus and others, note at what time, and who they were, that composed the parts of their popish Mass. Secondly, that while our Friar jesuit maketh one only essential part of their popish Mass; 
Accidens potest adesse et abbess, citra subiecti interitum.  that is, the words of Consecration; he granteth that all the rest be Accidental, and so may be taken away from the same. To which Doctrine, I very willingly subscribe; assuring the jesuit, that they and we shall soon agree, if the Pope will thus reform their Mass, in abolishing all the accidental parts here so named, from the same Thirdly, that I have already proved, the word (enim) in the consecration of the Bread, to be either of Man's institution, or else the Devils▪ Fourthly that S. Thomas of ●●quine, 
Apud joseph. Angles, in. 4 ●. part. 1. pag. 151.  Dur●n●, and other learned Papists, do constantly affirm; that God can not by his divine power, 
Act. 3.11.  cause one & the same body to be in divers places at once. And consequently, 
Chistes be dy● flesh, blood, & bones, in the popish Mass.  that our Jesuits must either deny Christ's body to be in Heaven, contrary to the express words of holy Scripture; or else, that Christ's body, his flesh, blood, and bones, can not be in their popish Mass; or thirdly, that the words of Popish Consecration, came from some greater power than is in God: which for all that, no Papist dareth to avouch. Fiftly, that the words, which are used in the popish Consecration of Wine, came not from the Son of God: I prove it by the testimony of josephus Angles, that famous popish bishop and learned school-doctor, whose express words are these. 
jos. Angl. in 4. s. part. 1. pag. 104. concls▪ 1.  Forma consecrationis Calicis, qua Romana utitur Ecclesia, est sufficiens; traditur enim ab Euangelistis: et verba qua ab Ecclesia interpo●untur, scilic●t nou● et a●erni testaments, misterium fidei, forma qua Christus consecravit▪ sensum handmutan●: The form of the Consecration of the Chalice or Cup, which the Church of Rome useth, is sufficient; for it is delivered by the Evangelist: and the words which the Church interlaceth; to weet, of the new and eternal Testament, the mystery of Faith, do not change the sense of the form, in which Christ did consecrate. Thus writeth Bishop Angles, plainly insinuating to his Readers; that the Church of Rome useth an other form of Consecration, than Christ himself did use: And consequently, 
Lo, Popish Mass is the New religion  that the words of Consecration used in the Romish Church, came not from the Son of God: Ergo, the Romish form of Consecration, is a Rag of the New religion. Sixtly, that the Papists can not tell indeed, 
jos. Angles, ubi supra, pag. 104.  which be the precise words of their popish Consecration, although that be the most principal and the very essential part of popish Mass; and consequently of all popish Faith and Religion. I prove it most evidently, because bishop Angles rehearseth four several opinions, concerning this precise Article of popish Faith: these are his express words. 
jos. Angles, ubisupra, pag. 104.  Quatuor sunt opiniones: Prima S. Thomae, qui omnia praedicta verba dicit esse de essentiaformae: Secunda opinio est Alexandri, D. Bonaventurae, et Durand●, qui affirmant de necessitate consecrationis Calicis esse haec sola verba; scilicet, hic est sanguis meus: Tertia opinio dicit haec verba, scilicet, hic est sanguis meus, qui pro ●ultis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum, esse de necessitate consecrationis, praetermissis aliis verbis, quae ab Ecclesia Romana adduntur; qua forma uturtur Graeci: Quarta opinio est Scoti, qui ait de haec quastione nihil certitudinalitor esse nobis traditum. There be four opinions: S. Thomas holdeth the first, who avoucheth all the aforenamed words to be of the essence of the form: The second opinion is Alexander's, Bonaventures', and Durandus; who affirm, that these only words, are of the necessity of the consecration of the Chalice or Cup; to weet, This is my blood: The third opinion affirmeth these words▪ (This is my blood, which shallbe shed for many for remission of sins) to be of the necessity of Consecration; not the other words, which the Church of Rome addeth to them. Scotus the popish Doctor Subtilis, holdeth the fourth opinion; avouching, that they know not certainly, what to hold or think of this matter. This is the best popish Divinity, for the most essential part of all Popery; that the best learned Papists, are able to afford us; so as every child is well able to discern, that the now Romish Faith, is the New religion.   

B. C.  

B.C. pag. 141.  What doth Bell, and such like Ministers, that deride the Ceremonies and parts of the Mass, but mock and mow at their own Communion-booke and parts thereof, being borrowed from us, or in what they differ, can show no greater antiquity, than the late days of Edward the sixth: at what time, divers Ministers did hammer them, in the forge of their own invention.   

T. B.  

Our Church was stained with many errors, until the time of King Edward; when it was restored to the ancient purity of Faith and Doctrine.  This is that, which the Pope and his devoted Vassals, never cease to instill into the hearts and ears of silly Papists, that so they may falsely persuade them, that the Popish Faith is the Old, and ours the New Religion. Wherefore, albeit I have again and again proved most evidently, that the Faith and Doctrine which the Romish Church this day holdeth and teacheth, is the New Religion: nevertheless, seeing these words here objected, do in some sort as it were insinuate to the Reader, the most principal and main point of the whole controversy; I am very willing to undergo the pains how great soever, for the better contentment and full satisfaction of all such as desire to know the truth. I answer thus; first, that the Church of Rome received the true Catholic & Apostolic Faith, in the days of S. Peter and S. Paul; which S. Paul himself testified, 
Rom. 1.8.  while he affirmed their Faith to he renowned in the whole world. Secondly, that the Church of England received the same Catholic and Apostolic Faith, from the good bishops of Rome, at their first conversion unto the Faith of Christ jesus. Explico. Brutani, now called England, first received the Christian Faith, by Faganus and Deruvianus sent from Elutherius the good bishop of Rome, at the earnest request of Lucius then King of Brutani; which was in the year 179. after Christ. 
A.D. 179.  After that, Ethelbert the first Christian King of the Saxons, was converted to the Faith of Christ, by Augustine, Melitus, Justus, and others; sent from Gregory, an other good bishop of Rome, in the year 596. after Christ. Thirdly, 
Tertio principaliter,  that from that time until these our days, the bishops of England (now so called,) have had and kept a continual and uninterrupted succession of bishops successively; so sound, firm, and inviolable, as the Church of Rome is not able to show the like. This succession is so clearly proved in my Christian Dialogue, 
See the Christian Dialogue, chap. 4. pag. 66  as none with right reason can deny the same. Fourthly, that the Church of England (now so called,) hath ever since the time of King Ethelbert, constantly kept all and every Article of the old Roman Religion, which she received from the ancient and purer Church of Rome. No Papist living, is able to give any true instance, against this irrefragable assertion. Fiftly, that as in process of time, many superstitious, gross, and palpable errors, yea flat Heresies, have by little and little crept into the Church of Rome: even so hath our Church of England through the sway of the time, been deeply stained & polluted with the same. Sixtly, that our Church in the time of King Henry the eight, began to be reform in some Articles of Faith and Doctrine; 
The Papists can name no ●ote of the old Roman religion, which is not still kept in our Church of England.  but the reformation was not perfect, until the reign of King Edward the sixth: In which Reformation, no New Article of Faith or Religion, is added to the former; but the former Faith and Religion is only refined, purged, & purified; and such Superstition, Errors, and Heresies abolished, as were by little and little brought into the Church. All and every jot of the old Roman Religion remaineth still in our Church permanent and inviolable. 
See & mark well my Dialogue chapter, 4. pag. 92.  But some perhaps will here demand of me, how the Church of Rome did so degenerate from the ancient Faith, and so foully corrupt the old Roman Religion? To whom I answer in this manner. First, with Egesippus that ancient and learned Father, 
Apud Euseb. hist. lib. 3. cap. 32.  that during the life of Christ's blessed Apostles, the visible Church remained a Virgin, free from all Heresies and corruptions: but after their death, Errors by little and little crept into the Church, as into a void and desert House. Secondly, with Franciscus a Victoria, that famous popish Friar and great learned schoolman ; 
Victor de potest. Papae et conc. rel. 4. pag. 151. et paula●●m. etc.  that by little & little, the Papists were in his time brought to such inordinate dispensations, and to so miserable a state, that they were neither able to endure their own griefs, nor remydies assigned by the Pope for the same. That Clemens, L●nus, and Sylvester, were very good bishops of Rome: but that the latter bishops coming after them successively, were wicked men, and nothing comparable to the old bishops there. Thirdly, with josephus Angles, that famous Popish bishop, 
Io. Angles, in 2. sent. pag. 275. part. 2.  even in that Book which he dedicated to the Pope himself; that the Romish Religion changeth every day. Fourthly, with the five famous Popish Doctors, johannes Roffensis, Jacobus Alma●nus, Gersonus, Durandus and Michael Baius, that every sin is mortal of it own nature; and that the old Roman Church did so believe, until the time of Pope Pius the fifth▪ that is, 
See S. R. pag. 281. et B.C. pag. 76.  about 1560 years after Christ: at which time. Venial sins wer● hatched in the Church of Rome. This is such a constant known truth, as neither the Jesuit S. R. nor yet the jesuit B. C. his dear brother, can tell in the world what answer to frame to the same. Fourthly, with Polidorus Virgilius, that famous Popish Writer; 
Polyd. lib. 4. cap. 9 pag. 39  that the Popish Legistes and canonists of latter days, have so wrested the holy Scriptures to their own sense and liking, as Cobblers do gnaw with their teeth, and stretch out their filthy skins. Fiftly, with Platina the Pope's dear Vassal and trusty Friend; that in his days, the Popedom was brought to that pass, that who so could go before others in Bribes and Ambition, he only should have the place. Sixtly, with Covarrwias' that worthy popish Archbyshoppe and learned Canonist; 
Coua●ruu. to. 1. c. 20. part. 11. in med. col. 1.  that in these days, either the Pope's opinion must be defended, or else Popery can not stand. Lastly, with josephus Angles, writing to the Pope's dear Holiness; that albeit the old Church of Rome did by the commandment of the Apostles, 
Angl. in. 4. s. p. 1. pag. 133. Conc. Later.  excommunicate all non communicants in the time of the Mass or Liturgy; yet hath the late Church decreed, that it shall be lawful for all Lay persons to receive the Eucharist only at Easter. Much more I might and could say, 
Sic enim Apostoli statuerunt, et sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia.  if I thought not this sufficient. So then, the Faith and Doctrine this day professed and authorized in this our Church of England, is indeed the old Roman religion; purged, refined, and restored to the primitive and most ancient purity, in King Edward's days; in whose happy reign, was the perfect and complete Reformation: But the Faith and Religion itself, came from S. Peter and S. Paul; yea, even from Christ himself, their Jesus and our Jesus, world without end. To whom, with the Father, and the holy Ghost; three in the distinction of persons, and one in the unity of divine essence, be all Honour, Majesty, Power, Glory, and Dominion, now and evermore. Amen.    

A Caveat to the Christian Reader.  
THE masked Jesuit in his Preface to the Reader, 
Preface, pag. 15.  laboureth with might and main to persuade his Readers, that I dare not perform that challenge, which I made to the Forerunner: his words are these. I the meanest of many millions, do accept of his Challenge, and do undertake to defend, not only these two poynes of josephus Doctrine, and Pope Martin's Dispensation, which he hath singled out as matters important; but also all the rest, so it may be with that equity and favour, which was granted to the Protestants in France: 
Challenges do occupy no place: they are adjectives, which can not stand without subjects.  And upon the same conditions do provoke him with a counterchallenge, to the defence of his Books. And a little after, he telleth his Reader, That he sends me as many Challenges, as will stand between Charing-cross & Chester; and as many Dares, as will reach from Derby to Darington. To which I answer in this manner. First, that the Jesuits are accused and charged by their dear brethren the popish Secular Priests, with Pride, Ambition, Covetousness, Cozenage, Theft, Cruelty, Murder, Treason, and all wickedness that can be named: Yea, of Friar Parsons that traitorous jesuit, they give this testimony in particular; viz. by Parson's platforms, Secular Priests must depend upon Blackwell, and Blackwell upon Garnet, and Garnet upon Parsons, and Parsons the priests Bastard upon the Devil. Peruse my Anatomy of popish Tyranny, and there thou shalt find this truth, with great variety of like matter. Secondly, that in all my Challenges, I require but one only Condition; which the jesuit passeth over in silence, because he meaneth not to perform the same: The Condition is this; viz. That the jesuit which shall accept the Challenge, 
The Author still so protesteth that he will perform his promise.  must put down his name with his addition in print, and send it to me. Which if it be once performed during my life, I promised upon my salvation, to do what in me lieth, to procure a false conduct, for the safe coming, safe abiding, and safe departure of him (whosoever he be) that shall accept and undertake the true performance of the Challenge in manner aforesaid. Thirdly, that the Jesuit not daring indeed to accept the Challenge, and to encounter me, seeketh by fond cavils and shameless evasions, to instill into the ears and hearts of their silly devoted Vassals, that I will not, because I dare not, perform my promise. And for the better effecting of their purpose, they require of me, that which I never promised; yea, that whereof myself am altogether ignorant, and no way able to perform. For, 
The jesuit dareth not dispute, and therefore requireth new conditions.  how can I perform that, which I do not know? I must forsooth procure him a safe conduct, to dispute with that equity and favour, which was granted to the Protestants in France. Mark for Christ's sake, how feared our jesuit is, to accept the Challenge. First, he dareth not put down in print, his name and addition: A trick of jesuitical or rather Diabolical policy. I must procure a safe conduct for B. C. Some bloody cut-throat I think he be. Yet I must not know whether he be a Man or a Monster; whether Pope john the Woman, or some Devil incarnate of a Popish Nun. Besides this; I must accept of such sly conditions, as he addeth to my Challenge; so as he may be at liberty, to slip the Halter when, and as he list: Whereby, who seeth not, that by all means he avoideth to dispute or bicker with me. Fourthly, that the jesuit and his Jesuited complices, have a long time intended, and still labour by ungodly and indirect means, to take away my life from me; and so to stop me from further writing against their rotten Popery. 
Preface, pag. 18.  Yea, in his Preface he protesteth lustily, that he hath provided a Winding-sheete for the shrouding of my Carcase; and that he will with all speed, make ready my black Funeral. And it seemeth so in very deed: For upon the 13. of june instant 1609. even immediately after I had finished this Catholic Triumph; there came a friendly Letter (but without name) unto my hands, and a Packet with Silver in it, which the man nameless, pretended he had borrowed of me, etc. The circumstances were such, (quae nunc non est narrandi locus,) that neither myself, nor others, durst open the Packet; as having apparent inducementes to suspect Poison, Pestilence, or other like infection Diabolical.  
Thus much I thought good in brief to insinuate to the Readers; that they may thereby see and perceive, how unable the Papists are, to defend their late upstart Popery: as who know no better means, but by seeking most cruelly to murder all such as stand in their way. God make me firm and constant in the truth; and God defend me, and all professors of his holy truth, from Popish savage cruelty: and in the end, bring us to endless felicity, Amen, Amen.  
FINIS.