Bels trial examined that is a refutation of his late treatise, intituled. The triall of the nevve religion By B.C. student in diuinitie. VVherein his many & grosse vntruthes, with diuers contradictions are discouered: together with an examination of the principal partes of that vaine pamphlet: and the antiquitie & veritie of sundry Catholike articles, which he calleth rotten ragges of the newe religion, are defended against the newe ragmaster of rascal. In the preface likewise, a short viewe of one Thomas Rogers vntruthes is sett downe, taken out of his booke called. The faith doctrine and religion, professed and protected in the realme of England, &c. with a short memorandum for T.V. otherwise called Th. Vdal.

An answere to Bels arguments against the supreame spirituall iurisdiction of the Pope.

FIrst then (quoth he) S. Polycarpus would not yelde to Anicetus Bishoppe of Rome in the controuersy abou••

Easter, which for all that he would and must haue done, yf the Bishoppe of Rome had had any true prerogatiue ouer him.

THE ANSWERE.

IT more argueth the Bishoppe of Rome his su∣periority that S. Polycarpus, the scholler of the Apostles, in his old yeeres vndertooke so longe a iorney to Rome, to conferr with S. Anicetus, then it proueth that he was not his superiour because S. Polycarpus retayned still his former opinion: for why should he more haue trauailed to Rome then S. Anicetus haue gone to him to Smyrna, being a man reuerent for his gray hayres, and venerable for his acquaintance and conuersation with the Apostles, had it not bene, that he acknowledged superiority to Anicetus, as being the successour of S. Peter. But the reason why Polycarpus might still keepe his former custome of celebrating Easter, and also performe due obedience to Anicetus was, because Anicetus would not for so smal a contro∣uersi•• or variety breake peace, but was content to tolerate the same, and therfore false it is, that Bell sayth, to witt that Polycarpus would and must haue yelded to Anicetus, if he had acknowledged him for his superiour, seing no such thinge was commaunded him, but the matter left to his owne election.

Bels II. obiection.

SEcondly Ireneus, and other holy and learned Bishopps of Fraunce ioyning with him, reproued Victor then

Bishoppe of Rome very sharply and roundly, as one that had not due respect to the peace and vnity of the church: which doubtelesse those holy and learned Bishops would not haue done, if the Bishoppe of Rome had had in those dayes the supreame soueraignty ouer them.

THE ANSWERE.

HAd Bell recounted the cause why those Bishopps reprehended so roundly (as he speaketh) Pope Victor, with other necessary circum∣stances, he had marred all his market, and proued the Popes superiority by that argument, by which as he perfidiously handleth the matter, he would ouerthrowe it. The blessed martyr Ireneus, with other reprehended Victor, not for any wrong opi∣nion about the keeping of Easter (him selfe, & they being of the Popes minde, as also the Prorestantes now be) but for that he excommunicated the Bishops of Asia, refusing to conforme them selues to the Church of Rome: neyther did S. Ireneus this vppon conceipt, that the Pope exceeded the limits of his power, for no such thing appeareth in Eusebius from whom this story is fetched, but for that he did vse it out of due season, to the great trouble of the Church, and for a small matter, as he and they thought: which sheweth playnely, that they made no doubt of his authority, otherwise many misliking his fact, would easyly haue contemned his censure, and iustly haue ob∣iected presumption, in vsurping that authoritye which belonged not to him, where of no men∣tion is made.

Superiours, yea and the Pope him selfe, may with due respect be admonished and reprehended, especially by Bishoppes, yf any great scandall or trouble of the Church be feared. S. Paul resisted S. Peter in face because he was reprehensible: * 1.1 wherof our Protestants absurdly gather, that S. Peter had no sup riority ouer the Apostles: a col∣lection not known to an iquitye, when as the matter was then so famous and certaine, that wicked Porphiry that Paganicall philosopher, re∣proueth S. Paul of sawcines, for that he presumed * 1.2 to reprehend Peter the Prince of the Apostles, as S. Hierom reporteth. S. Cyprian highly commendeth the humil••ty of S. Peter, that tooke so quietly the reprehension of S. Paul being his inferiour. For neyther Peter (sayth S. Cyprian) whom our Lord chose the first, and vppon whom he built the church, when Paul dispu∣ted with him about circumcision, arrogantly tooke any thinge to him self, saying that he had the primacy, and therfore * 1.3 the latter disciples ought rather to obey him. S. Augustin sheweth excellently by this example, that S. Cyprian erring about rebaptization could not nor would not haue bene offended, to haue bene admonished by others his followers or inferiours, much lesse by * 1.4 a Councell. VVe haue learned (sayth he) that Peter the Apostle, in whom the Primacy of the Apostles by excellent grace is so praeeminent, when he did otherwise concerning circumcision, then the truth required, was corrected of Paule the later Apostle. I thincke (without any reproach vnto him) Cyprian the Bishoppe may be compared to Peter the Apostle, howbeit I ought rather to seare least I be iniu∣rious to Peter, sor who knoweth not, that the principalitye of Apostleshipp, is to be perferred before any dignity of Bishoppe

whatsoeuer: but yf the grace of the chaires differ, yet the glory of the martyrs is one.

These authorities shew two things: the first is, that S. Peter was reputed with the auncient fathers, head and prince of the Apostles, and also that the very Pagans were not ignorant of that thinge, which I suppose will not greatly content Bell, for certayne deductions that may be drawne from thence. The second (which is the cause why I haue alledged this of S. Peter and S. Paul) is, that dislike or reprehension of an other mans action, doth not argue the man reproued not to be the others superior, how soeuer Bell would inferr that: when as hath bene sayd, S. Paul inferiour to S. Peter, reprehended him. And therefor the most that can deduced out of the ministers idle di∣scourse is, that if him selfe wer a Bishoppe he would looke as the deuill (God blesse vs) is sayd to haue looked ouer Lincolne: and none might without incurring of is mortall indignation admonish him of any fault or scandalous demeanure. Great pitty surely it is, that one qualified as he is, and endowed with such an humble spirite, should not be pre∣ferred to an Episcopale or (to vse his owne phrase) some ouerseing dignitye, Thus by dismol destiny, Bels argument hath rather hurt him, then giuen him any help at all.

But one necessary adiunct belonged to this con∣trouersie, which he thought good not to touch, for scalding of his fingers, to witt that S. Victor excommunicated the Bishopps of Asia as I noted before: for seing Bell confesseth, that the old * 1.5 Bishopps of Rome, were very godly men and taught

the same doctrine which S. Peter had done afore them: and most certayne that S. Victor was one of those holy Martyrs, it followeth that he vsurped no authority, but exercised that which lawfully he might, neyther that he taught any doctrine, but that which S. Peter had done before him: Out of which and the precedent discourse three or foure memorable notes may be inferred against Bell. The first and principall is, that the Primacye of the Bishoppe of Rome, began not six hundred yeares after Christ, as befor he mayntayned, hauing bene practised four hundred yeares before by S. Victor, and descended to him from S. Peter. The second is, that Bels argumēt against the supreame authority of the Bishoppe of Rome, being duly and truly exa∣mined, proueth the cleane contrary. The third is, that the minister cunningly cōcealed the cause why S. Ireneus reproued S. Victor, as nothing fitting his purpose. The fourth may be, that most perfi∣diously he inferreth out of the reprehension of S. Ireneus, that he contemned the Bishoppe of Rome his decrees, and supposed supremacy as before hath bene noted.

I add lastly, that whatsoeuer S. Ireneus and others thought, yet blessed Pope Victor proceded most prudently, for as much as he perceiued how that obseruation (which in the time of Anicetus was only variety of rite, without preiudice of religion) be∣gan now to corrupt the soundnes of the Catholike fayth, one Blastus (who liued in Victors time, as * 1.6 Eusebius sayth) vnder colour of that, cunningly la∣bouring to bring in Iudaisme, as Tertulliā recordeth. And this sentēce of Victor was afterward approued

in the Councell of Nice, as is manifest out of Euse∣bius, * 1.7 and afterward those that held the Asian error, wer accounted heretikes as appeareth in S. Augustin and S. Epiphanius.

Bels III. obiection.

THirdly S. Policrates, and many Bishopps of Asia did stoutly withstand the same Victor then Bishoppe of Rome in his presumpteous procedings touching Easter.

THE ANSWERE.

ANd how many Emperours and Kings, as we reade partly in scriptures, partly in pro∣phane histories, haue bene resisted, most disgra∣ciusly entreated, and abused by their subiects: were they not for all that their superiours? yea Iesus Christ him selfe suffered many indignities at the Iewes handes, was he not for all that their Creator, king, and Sauiour? His cānonization of Polycrates rather sheweth his malitious cunninge then any wayes bettereth his cause, wherof I haue spoken before, and here can not but adioyne as a matter of note, that the letters of Polycrates and other to S. Victor in defence of them selues, make more for his ecclesia∣sticall superiority, then their disobedient resistance sheweth that he had not authority ouer them, when as many haue withstood their lawfull Pa∣stors. For why should they haue neded any such Apologeticall letters more to him, then to any other Patriarch or Bishop, had it not bene for the dignitye of his sea: or can it sincke into any mans

head, that the Asian Bishopps would not haue re∣prehended his vsurped authoritye (had they bene of Bels minde) for censuring them, that were not subiect to his iurisdiction. His terminge S. Victors proceedinges presumpteous, sheweth his inueterat malice to that blessed Pope and martyr: and beside declareth his folly in condemning him so depelie, whom els where he commendeth so highely.

Bels IIII. obiection.

SAint Cyprian roundly opposed himselfe against Stephanus then Bishoppe of Rome, contemning his decree and deri∣dinge his reasons.

THE AVNSWERE.

VVEre not Bell one of Chams cōfraterni∣ty, he would neuer mention that which turneth to the disgrace of that blessed martyr, and nothing toucheth the authoritie of the Pope at all. For that S. Cyprian was in an error I dare say Bell will not deny, and therfore the more roundly he wrott to the Pope, the more is his fault encreased. Far was blessed S. Austen from the spirit of this mi∣nister, who wholy to take away, or at least to di∣minish * 1.8 this stayne of S. Cyprian, sayth, that eyther those writings be none of his, in which these things be found, as som then saide, or else that after∣ward he repented him of his errour, & chaunged his opinion, though the retractation be not found. As for the authoritye of the Pope it doth nothing preiudice that at all, for albeit the Pope cōmanded that rebaptization should not be practised (the

pointe of controuersie betwixt them two) yet did he not define that questiō, nor pronounce any cen∣sure against Cyprian or others of his opinion, much lesse was it cōdemned by a generall Coūcell, which reason also S. Augustin bringeth in his defence, and * 1.9 so it was free for him without daūger of heresie to persist in his owne opinion especially seing he had on his side a prouincial Councell of fowerscore Bishops, & as he thought much probability for his part. Many good men no question both haue, and hereafter may be carried awaye with ignorant zeale to defende an erroneous opinion, yet with all subiection to the Pope, remayning all wayes with ready minde (when they shall see ther error ouerthrown by Apostolicall definition) to submitt them selues with all obedience.

Bels V. obiection.

FIftly the Apostles at Ierusalem, sent Peter and Iohn to confirme the faythfull in Samaria, and consequently if the Pope be not aboue Peter, but his supposed successour, he may be sent of Bishopps his bretheren as S. Peter was. But who is that Bishoppe, and where dwelleth he, that at this day dareth do the now Pope such supposed villanie.

THE ANSWERE.

NOt any supposed, but the true and reale folly of the minister appeareth in this argument: for he would inferr, because S. Peter was sent of the Apostles that therefore he was not the cheife and Prince of the Apostles: but yf his illation be of any force to bereaue him of his superiority,

which Bell vrgeth, it hath the like strength to make him their inferiour (which I thinke he will not graunte) for commonly they be such that be sent of others. Wherfore I answeare that althoughe it be no vsuall thinge, yet sometyme in greate and important affaires, superiours are sent of their inferiours, not by power and autho∣ritie: but by request and entreatie, to which they may yelde yf they thinke it expedient for the common goode, or refuse it yf they lyke not to vndergoe that charge. A greate question arising at Antioch about circumcision and other legall cere∣monies, Paul and Barnabas were sent by the faith∣full * 1.10 there to Ierusalem, to conferr aboute that pointe with the Apostles: Will Bell therfore inferr, that Paul and Barnabas were their infe∣riours. Iosephus also reporteth, how the Iewes * 1.11 hauing a controuersie against Agrippa their kinge, and Festus their President, sent vnto Nero the Em∣perour, tenne legates of the principall Iewes, and with them Ismaell the highe Priest, and Chelcias the Treasurer, who semed next to him in dignitie. For as much therfore as the conuersion of the Samaritans was a matter of greate moment, they being reputed in as bad case yf not worse, then the Gentils, For which cause our Sauiour saide: Into the waye of the Gentils goe ye not, and * 1.12 into the cities of the Samaritanes enter ye not S. Peter and S. Iohne were sent as most mete for that busines: S. Peter being the cheife and to whom the managing and disposing of fuch matters appertayned: but not by any authoritye or commande, but only by request and petition as

hath bene saide, in which manner both in former tymes, and hereafter in like cases of the common goode, Princes and superiours without any touch of their highe office or dignitie, may be sent by their inferiours: their sending proceding from pe∣tition, nothing empeacheth their highe soueraign∣tie, and their willing vndertaking such a charge for the common goode, proclayminge their greate loue to God and their countrie.

Bels VI. obiection.

SIxtly the fathers of the famous African councell, in which S. Austen, that holy father and most stoute champion of Christs Church was present to the great ho∣nour and credit thereof, woulde in no wise yelde to Ce∣lestine then Bishoppe of Rome, in the controuersy of Appeales concerning Appiarius. And when Pope Celestine alleadged for himselfe and his supposed soueraygnty, that the auncient and famous councell of Nice gaue liberty to appeale to Rome, the Fathers of the Councell answered roundly, that the true copies of the decree were otherwise: where I wish the reader to obserue with me these two points seriously: Frist that the Pope coulde not, and therefore did not, alleadge any better reason sor his vsurped and falsely pretended supremacy, then the authority and decree of that famous Councell of Nice. Secondly that the Pope Celestine falsified the canon and decree of the Councell, so to gayne credit and authority to himselfe if it might be.

THE ANSWERE.

TO the first of these two points I answere; that there was no question betwixt them,

whether the Popes iurisdiction did extende into Afsrike or no: or whether appeals in rigor might not be made to Rome: but whether it were a thinge cō∣uenient: for on the one side, not to allowe appea∣les, seemeth to giue occasion to Metropolitanes and Bishops, to oppresse their subiects: and on to the cōtrary to allowe appeales, seemeth the next way to make endlesse quarells, & often to vexe Bishop∣pes without all cause: of which inconuenience and great trouble of the church, holy men haue com∣plained. This doubtfull pointe then was defined by the Councell of Nice, or Sardica, which declared that it was expedient for Priestes, to appeale from their Bishoppes vnto a prouinciall Councell: and for Bishoppes to appeale vnto Rome: For that it was lawfull and vsuall before the tyme of this Councel to appeale vnto Rome, is euident out of S. Cyprian, who reporteth how Fortunatus and Felix deposed by himselfe, appealed vnto Cornelius Bishope of Rome. * 1.13 And one Basilides deposed in Spaine, appealed to Pope Stephen, as the same S. Ciprian recounteth. Not to speake of Marcion that auncient heretike, * 1.14 who excōmunicated of his Bishope in Pontus, came to Rome for absolution, as Epiphanius relateth: and * 1.15 therefore Pope Leo calleth it an auncient custome to appeale vnto Rome. This was the cause why * 1.16 the Bishoppe of Rome vrged especially the decree of the Nicene councell, to shewe that it was not only lawfull, but also very expediēt: sor albeit the Affri∣cane Bishoppes desired, that Appeales might not easily be admitted, for the great iniury to iustice, & vaine protraction of sutes, which they dayly per∣ceiued to followe thereof: yet knowing full well,

that they coulde not forbid such appeales of them selues, they humbly made petition to the Pope, for more moderation therein. In their epistle which they wrote to Pope Celestinus, these be their wor∣des. The office of dutifull salutation premised, wee earnestly beseech you that hereafter you woulde not easily giue audience to such as come from hence. Had they bene of Bels minde, they woulde neuer haue vsed any depreca∣tory petition, but haue roundly and readily told him, that he had no authority to admit any ap∣peales, neither was his iurisdiction ouer them, and therefore that they did owe him no obedience or subiection.

But farre were they from any such conceipt, as being not ignorant of his iurisdiction ouer them, according to which beliefe they proceeded in like manner, For which cause the same verie Bishops of Affrica, when this matter of Appeales and the Nicene councell, was one foote, and Pope Sozi∣mus had sent vnto their councell three legates, wrote vnto Bope Bonifacius the Successour of Sozimus in this maner. Because it hath pleased our Lord concerning such thinges as our holy hrethren haue handled with vs, Faustinus our fellow Bishop, and Philippe, and Asellus, our fellowe Priests, that our humilitye can not write vnto Sozimus a Bishop of bles∣sed memory, from whom they brought both precepts and letters, but to your veneration, who by Gods ordinance, are succeded in his place, we ought briesely to insinuate those thinges, which by the agreement of both parts were determined, in which we stayed indeede without breach of charity, but not without great altercation: in which wordes making relation of their Acts to

Pope Bonifacius, and testifinge that they had recei∣ued precepts or commandements from his prede∣cessor Pope Sozimus, what do they els, but acknow∣ledge their obedience and subiection to the Apo∣stolicke sea. Beside, not longe after this Councell * 1.17 Pope Leo writinge to the Bishops of Mauritania in Affrike, saith that he restored the communion to Bishop Lupicinus, because he appealed to him out of Affrike: and likewise that he sent vnto them for his legate, Bishop Potentius who shoulde in his steade, haue care of the affaires of Affrike. All which abun∣dantly testify, both the authority of the Bishop of Rome in Affrica, and that appeales were made to him, and also that the Affricane fathers denied not this, though for the reason before alleadged, they desired more moderation therein to be vsed.

And albeit S. Augustine was one of these Bishops, and so his voyce passed in the common letters with others, yet because Bell doth here so magnify him, as though he had bene a mighty enemy to the Popes supremacy, I will in particular shewe out of that venerable and learned father, what re∣uerence, subiection, and dutifull respect, he carried to the Pope, contenting my selfe only with that, which hee writeth of this very pointe, or of the three Popes in whose tymes this matter of appea∣les was handled, and some of which, the minister very bodly, yf not some-what saucily, but out of all question most falsly, pronounceth to haue cor∣rupted the Nicene canons. This holy father wri∣tinge most plainly, how him selfe and other Bi∣shops came to Cesarea, by the commaundement of Sozimus, what doth he but clerely proclaime his

primacy ouer Affrica. The same Augustine was most * 1.18 subiect and deare to Pope Bonifacius as we learne out of the beginninge of his first booke, against the two epistles of the Pelagians, directed to the same Bonifacius. The same Augustine writing to Pope Celestinus, referreth the cause of a certayne Africane * 1.19 Bishop to him after this manner. O holy Pope, most blessed Lorde, venerable for piety, and with dutifull charity to be receiued: labour together with vs, and commaunde all thin∣ges which are sent, to be recited vnto thee: and on the con∣trary Pope Celestinus doth highly commende S. Au∣gustine * 1.20 as one that had alwayes remayned in the communion of the Romaine church and had bene reputed alwayes of him selfe, & his predecessours, for a great Doctor.

Out of that which hath bene saide, the ministers first doubt is solued, why the Pope rather alleadged the decrees of the Nicene Councel, then any other prooffe out of the Gospell, because as I said the question was not about his supremacy in generall, as Bell cuningly or malitiously maketh it, but of Appeales, which though it be a thinge consectary to his supreame iurisdiction, yet for the reasons be∣fore mentioned, som doubt might be made about the exercise thereof: for the satisfying of which, no better resolution coulde be deuised then of a gene∣rall Councell. The good reader also can not but sufficiently gather out of the premises, an answere to the second question, to witt, that neither Cele∣stinus the Pope, nor any of his predecessors forged any canons, as Bell and such like with lying lippes affirme, (who measure others according to them selues) both for that, they appealed to Rome, out of

Affrike, before the tyme of the Nicene councell, and so litle needed they (had they bene so wicked) to forge any thinge to proue that which was pra∣ctised before: and for that straight after appeales were likewise admitted, and also for that the Bi∣shop of Rome, had his Legate there resident a∣mongst them, for the dispatch of ecclesiasticall busines, as out of Pope Leo hath bene declared. The same thinge also appeareth, in that neither the Affricane Bishops nor S. Austen euer obiected any such crime of forgery to any of those Popes, as the ministeriall fraternity of forgers doe, but contrariwise behaued them selues in most dutifull manner, giuing them very reuerent & honourable titles, protestinge also their obedience and subie∣ction to them as hath bene saide: and so they be far vnlike to our Protestāt professours, that persecute them with scrrilous and odius termes. As there∣fore the vnseemely carriage, and bitter accusation of our Gospellers doth manifestly argue their spighte to these Popes, and that they condemne them as guilty of forgery, so their dutifull and obedient deportment towardes those holy Popes, giue the worlde to vnderstande that they were far from any such malitious conceipt: and therefore albeit I might content my selfe with that which hath bene saide, yet more to cleare them from the venim of Bels aspish lippes, and to free them wholy from the malitious imputation of the minister, and that in the iudgement of any in∣different reader.

I say further that these canons of the Nicen•• councell allowing appeales to Rome, might be in

that Councell though nowe not founde there, nor yet extant then in those copies sent from the East to the Bishops of Affrike: for as much as most certayne it is, that there were diuers canons more, then be nowe founde, or were sent to Affrike, many being perished either by the malice of the Ar∣rians, whose power ouerswaied the Easterne churches, and were most mortall enemies to that Councell, which is very probable: els by some other dismoll accident of fire or otherwise. How soeuer it be, that many canons be wantinge is most certayne, for one of the canons of that Coun∣cell, was about the obseruation of Easter day, as testifieth Constantine in his epistle, and also Epi∣phanius * 1.21 and Athanasius: but this canon is in none of those twenty which be nowe extant, and of which only so many yeares since Ruffinus maketh mention in his history. It was prohibited also in the same Councell, that there shoulde be two Bishops in one place, as S. Austen affir∣meth: but no such canon or decree now appea∣reth. And to omitt diuers other particulars: not only other Protestants, but Bell also both in his other bookes, and in this pamphlet in the next cha∣pter, obiecteth out of Socrates that a canon was ma∣de in the Nicene councell by the suggestion of Pa∣phnutius, which permitted Priests to remayne with their former wiues. but this Canon is no where to be founde amongst amongst those twenty. Where∣fore yf Pope Celestinus must be condemned for a falsary, because he cited a canon which is not now extant, nor mentioned by Ruffinus: by the same reason, must Constantinus, Athanasius, Epiphanius,

Augustinus, Socrates, yea and not other Protestants only, but Bell him selfe be sentenced of forgery, for citinge of that canon which is not now extant amongst those twenty.

Albeit that which hath bene saide, may giue full satisfaction to any man of moderation yet more to musle the mouth of the minister, I adde and say, that these canons of appeale being founde formally in the Councell of Sardica, where in most ample and playn words, both in the fourth & seuenth ca∣nons, * 1.22 appellations to Rome are ratified and confir∣med: both Pope Sozimus and others, call them by the name of the Nicene canons, though they be founde in the Councell of Sardica: and the reason is, for that these two Councels are accounted for all one: both because the same fathers that were pre∣sent at Nice, were also a great number of them at Sardica, and also for that no newe thinge touching faith was there enacted: whereas in other Coun∣cels, newe heresies were condemned: and this is the cause, why it maketh not any number, for being a generall and approued Councell, it should be the secōd in order, being celebrated an eleauene yeares after the death of Constantine the great, as the Magdeburgians them selues relate out of Socra∣tes, * 1.23 Theodoretus, and Sozomenus: for they solemnely report the whole councell together with these two canons of appellations to Rome, where Bell for his colde comfort may reade them, it shoulde I say be the second, being some yeares before that of Constantinople, but that for the reason alleadged, it is reputed all one with that of Nice, and so maketh not any number.

This also is confirmed, for that in the copie of one Dionisius, who a thousand yeares since, transla∣ted the Nicene Councell out of the Greeke ton∣gue, (yet extant in the Abbey of S. Vedastus at Arras, * 1.24 as Cardinall Bellarmine reporteth) all the canons of the Coucell of Sardica are founde adioyned with those of Nice, as of one Councell. What maruaile then yf Pope Sozimus or Bonifacius, cite the canons of the Councell of Sardica, for the canons of Nice, when as they were accounted for all one, and in all probabi∣lity founde them in their copies so ioyned to∣gether.

Bels great difficulty is dissolued, and the Pope discharged from all forgery, and false packing. Now to come vpon him, and to beate the ende of his owne weapon vpon his owne face: what saith he to the canons of the Councell of Sardica, or Ni∣ce, which graunt appeales to Rome, as the Legates of the Pope veryfyed to the Affricane Bishops? were they founde formally in the Nicene councel, Bell were ouerthrowne for euer: but they be in the Councell of Sardica, celebrated straight after, which is reputed one with this of Nice, and of so∣ueraigne authority: what starting hole will he fin∣de out to auoyde this blowe? O miserable minister whose carcase is still beaten like an anuile, with the hammers of his owne arguments. His other reasons out of the Councell of Chalcedon, and Nice, are answered before.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Galat. 2. v. 11.
• * 1.2

  Proaem. com. in Galatas. & epis. 11. ad Aug. inter epi∣stolas Au∣gustini.
• * 1.3

  Epist. 71. ad Quin.
• * 1.4

  Lib. 2. de Baptis. cap. 1.
• * 1.5

  In his F••∣neral. lib. 2. cap. 2.
• * 1.6

  Lib. 5. hist. cap. 15. De pro∣script. in fine.
• * 1.7

  Lib. 3. de vita Con∣stantini. cap. 13. Heres. 53. Heres. 75.
• * 1.8

  Epist. 48. ad Vincē∣••iam.
• * 1.9

  Lib. 1. do Baptism. cap. 18.
• * 1.10

  Act. 15.
• * 1.11

  Lib. 20. Antiq. cap. 7.
• * 1.12

  Math. 10.
• * 1.13

  Lib. 1. ep. 3.
• * 1.14

  Lib. 1. ep. 4.
• * 1.15

  Heres. 42.
• * 1.16

  Epist. 89.
• * 1.17

  ••pist. 87.
• * 1.18

  Epist. 157.
• * 1.19

  Epist. 221.
• * 1.20

  Epist. ad Gallos.
• * 1.21

  Apud Eu∣seb. lib. 3. de vita Constan∣tini. Heres. 69. Epist. do Synodis Arimin. & Seleu∣cien. Lib. 10. hist. cap. 6. Epist. 110. Lib. 1. cap. 8.
• * 1.22

  Can. 4. & 7.
• * 1.23

  Centur 4. col. 747.
• * 1.24

  Lib. 2. de Roman•• pontif. cap. 25.