The Catholique triumph conteyning, a reply to the pretensed answere of B.C. (a masked Iesuite,) lately published against the Tryall of the New Religion. Wherein is euidently prooued, that Poperie and the doctrine now professed in the Romish church, is the new religion: and that the fayth which the Church of England now mayntaineth, is the ancient Romane religion.

T. B.

I answere: [ 1] first, that if Pope Sozimus had vnderstood and meant the Canons of Sardica, when he named the Canons of Nice, about which there was so much adoe; as we haue already seene: then doubtlesse, it had been his part to haue named them; though for no other end, but onely for vnitie, peace, and charitie-sake. [ 2] Secondly, that I willingly agree to our Jesuite,* 1.1 when he auoucheth no new thing touching Fayth, to haue been enacted in the supposed Synode of Sardica. And my reason is this; for that Appeales to the Church of Rome, are no matters of Fayth indeed. [ 3] thirdly, that it is a matter of Fayth with the Papistes, to beleeue that the Fathers of Nice could not erre, either in defining matters of Fayth or Manners. And consequently, seeing the Synode of Sardica in the fourth and seuenth Canons,* 1.2 hath decreed flat contrary to the Synode of Nice in the fourth, fift, sixt, and seuenth Canons; it can not be deemed a legittimate and lawfull Synode, but a bastard and plaine counterfeite; as I haue already prooued, in the third Aphorisme of this present Chapter: To which place I referre the Reader, as where he may find whatsoeuer his heart can desire. This onely will I heere say for the present; that not onely the other first three generall Councels after Nice, (viz. of Constan∣tinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon,) being all three after it, de∣creed contrary to it; but (which is more to be admired,) 217. Byshoppes (of which S. Austen was one) assem∣bled in the famous Councell Aphrican, affirmed con∣stantly with one vniforme assent to Pope Celestine;* 1.3 that no Synode had made such Canons, as the Byshoppes of Rome alleadged for their owne pompe and statelynesse. These are the expresse words of the holy Synode. Nam, vt aliqui tanquam a tuae sanctitatis latere mittantur, nulla inue∣nimus patrum Synodo constitutum: For, that any should be sent from your Holynesse, we find it not defined by the

Fathers in any Synode.* 1.4 Now, notwithstanding this vniforme assertion of so many, so learned, so holy, and so auncient Fathers; yet is that falsely supposed prero∣gatiue of Appeales to Rome, plainely decreed in the fourth and seuenth Canons of Sardica. And conse∣quently, either the Synode of Sardice was a bastard and counterfeite Conuenticle, or else the two hundred and seuenteene Fathers of the Aphrican Councell, auouched to the Pope a most notorious vntrueth.* 1.5 But doubtlesse, neither could so many holy Fathers for their great rea∣ding and learning, haue been ignoraunt of the sayd Councell, if any such lawfull Synode had been extant: neither for their rare pietie, would they haue gainesayd or withstood the same. [ 4] Fourthly, that the affirmance of the Nicene Fathers to haue been also at Sardice; is like to the counterfeite Donation of Constantine, the rescript of Pope Julius, and such like: of which I haue discoursed at large, in the conclusions and Aphorismes of this present Chapter. [ 5] Fiftly, that it greatly stood the Popes in hand, (Sozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus, during whose times the controuersie did continue) to haue vrged the Canons of Sardica, if any such lawfull generall Synode had been extant: And consequently, seeing they neuer once re∣lated them; it followeth, that in their dayes, there was no such Councell extant in very deed. [ 6] Sixtly, that Pope Gregorie reuerenced the foure first generall Councels,* 1.6 as the foure holy Ghospels: but for all that, he neuer made mention of the Synode of Sardica, which (if it had been extant & no counterfeite,) ought to haue had the second place. [ 7] Seuenthly, that the fourth and seuenth Canons of Sardice, are flat contrary to the fourth, fifth, sixth, and se∣uenth Canons of Nice. And yet without all peraduen∣ture, no Synode, especially comming within a few yeares after Nice, (which Councell all the Christian world did highly reuerence at all times,) either would or durst haue decreed against the same. To that which is here

and else where sayd of the Centuristes and M. Perkins, this may in generall yeeld sufficient contentation to the honest Reader: viz. that albeit they doe not in euery poynt, iumpe precisely with Bell; yet doe they not speake any thing in defence of Poperie, nor any where plead for the supposed antiquitie thereof. No, no, they vtterly reiect Poperie, and euery where condemne the same. To that of Policarpus, I answere; that his comming to Rome was not to insinuate any soueraigntie of Anicetus ouer him, as the very end did declare; but to visit that famous imperiall Citie, the Queene of the world, and Caput mundi,* 1.7 and to see the old Monumentes in that place; euen as the Queene of the South came from farre, to heare Salomons Wisedome, and to beholde his glory. To that of Jrenaeus, I haue said sufficiently in many places of this Chapter; as also to that of Policrates, and the other Byshoppes of Asia: That which I haue sayd of S. Cy∣prian, doth euidently confirme the same. And the testi∣monie of Eusebius is consonant, while he writeth in this maner:* 1.8 Sed hoc non omnibus placabat Episcopis; quin potius è contrario scribentes ei, iubebant, vt magis qua sunt pacis ageret, et concordia at{que} vnanimitati studeret: deni{que} extant etiam ip∣sorum literae, quibus asperius obiurgant Victorem: All By∣shoppes liked not his dealing, but by their Letters di∣rected to him, they commaunded (marke well the word) that he should rather doe those thinges which belong to peace, and should indeuour himselfe to establish concord and vnitie: To be briefe; their Letters are extant, in which they reprooue Ʋictor (the Byshoppe of Rome) very sharpely. Thus writeth the auntient and learned Father Eusebius; cleering two thinges vnto vs. Th'one, that Irenaeus and the other holy Byshoppes, did chide and reproue the Pope. Th'other; that they did not onely rebuke him, but (which is much more), freely in their Letters to him, commaund him. Marke well the word; (Iubebant,) they commaunded him. For (sayth our Jesuite,)

* 1.9the other Apostles sent not Peter by any authoritie of com∣maund, but onely by request and petition; as Princes and Superiours without any touch of their high Office or Dignitie, may be sent by their inferiours: their sending proceeding from petition, nothing empeacheth their high Soueraigntie. But our sir Fryer either desireth to deceiue others, or knoweth not what he sayth. For without all peraduenture; in proper phrase of speach, whosoeuer is sent by an other or others (marke well my wordes,) the same person or persons, as they be sent, are inferiours: For this reduplication (sent as sent,) implyeth intrinse∣cally a duetie and subiection;* 1.10 euen in him or them, who otherwise may be superiours. Whensoeuer one goeth to a place vpon request, he is not properly sent thyther by him that made the request, but freely taketh that iourney in hand of his owne accord: Hee doth it wil∣lingly, not by compulsion; of charitie, not of duetie. To which I adde; that it is a disloyall speach of a Sub∣iect, to affirme that the King may be sent of his Sub∣iectes. Howbeit I will not deny, but the King in some matters of great consequence, may be perswaded by the aduise of his graue Councellours; that his corporall pre∣sence were necessarie, and therevpon resolue with him∣selfe to goe in proper person: Yet in such a case, it can neither truly, nor properly be sayd; That the King was sent of his Subiectes, but that hee tooke the iourney in hand freely and of his owne accord, though perhappes the rather by their aduise. To that of our Iesuite, where he sayth; That S. Paul being inferiour to S. Peter, repre∣hended him: and that Bell, if he were a Byshoppe, would looke as the Diuell looked ouer Lincolne, and none might admonish him of any fault. I answere in this manner: First, that our Fryer doth too much iniurie to S. Paul, while he maketh him inferiour to S. Peter; and withall doth no little dishonour to his Popes, who in all their Pardons. Dispensations, and such like trumperie doe

euer rely vpon the ioynt authoritie of S. Peter and S. Paul, grounding their power and soueraigntie in them both.* 1.11 For S. Paul receiued not his Authoritie from any mor∣tall man, but from God himselfe immediately: Yea, him∣selfe sayth of himselfe, that hee had as great Power as Peter: th'one ouer the Iewes; th'other ouer the Gentiles.* 1.12 Secondly, that euery Apostle receiued from Christ him∣selfe, equall Power ouer the whole World;* 1.13 euery one of the eleuen, hauing the same Commission that Peter had. Thirdly, that our Jesuite seemeth better acquainted with the Diuell, then he is with God; as who beareth his Rea∣der in hand, that he knoweth how the Diuell looked ouer Lincolne. Fourthly, that not Bell, but the Pope is the man; who may carry thousandes of soules into Hell,* 1.14 and yet no man may say vnto him; Why doest thou so? This is alreadie prooued, in the Conclusions aforegoing. Heere I deeme it not amisse, for the complement of the Popes falsely pretended Soueraigntie, to adioyne a te∣stimonie of one of his holy Martyrs, by way of digres∣sion.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Marke that Appeales to Rome are no matters of faith.
• * 1.2

  In the third Aphorisme.
• * 1.3

  Epist. Conc. Aphric. ad Ce∣lest. Cap. 105. To. 1. Concil. Pag. 591.
• * 1.4

  This Argument can neuer be truly answered.
• * 1.5

  Lately Pope∣rie is meere foolerie.
• * 1.6

  Gratian. Dist. 15. cap. sicut.
• * 1.7

  Matt. 12. v. 42.
• * 1.8

  Euseb. Hist. lib. 5. Cap. 24.
• * 1.9

  The Pope was both reproued and comman∣ded.
• * 1.10

  The Redupli∣cation must be well marked.
• * 1.11

  Galat. 1. v. 1.
• * 1.12

  Galat. 2. v 8.
• * 1.13

  Mat. 28. v. 19.
• * 1.14

  Dist. 40. cap. fi Papa.