of the circumstances of the foresayd Canon The first place or authority which he vndertaketh to answere is that in many Epistles or rather supplications addressed to Pope Leo and the whole Councell he is named before the Councell with this tytle Sanctissimo Deo amantissimo vniuersali Archiepiscopo Patriarchae Magnae Romae Leoni Sanctae vniuersali Chalcedonensi Synodo quae voluntate Dei congregata est To the most holy and most beloued of God and vniuersall Archbishop and Patriarke of Great Rome Leo and to the holy and vniuersall Synode of Calcedon which is assembled by the will of God In which tytle it is to be obserued not only that the name of Pope Leo is set before the name of the Councell whereby he is acknowledged to be superiour to the Councell but also he is called Vniuersall Archbishop and Patriarke of Rome in respect of his vniuersall authority ouer the whole Church of God besides that it is to be noted heerin that the tytle of Vniuersall Bishop so much impugned now by the Sectaries of this tyme was vsualy giuen to the Bishops of Rome in the tyme of that Councell seeing it was in the Councell it selfe diuers tymes vsed and giuen to Pope Leo without the contradiction of any 39. Hereto M. Andrews answereth thus Cur huc illuc oberret quis c. why shall a man go vp and downe hither and thither throughout all the corners of the Acts of this Councell searching the deskes and looking on the backsyde of letters to find somewhere that whereof he readeth there the contrary in expresse words let him read not in any tytle or superscriptioÌ„ of a letter or memoriall wherin euery man knoweth how suiters are wont to extoll and magnify those to whome they sue but let him read the matter ventilated or debated in one whole action and renewed and confirmed in another and finally enacted by a Canon c. so he and then followeth that which I haue set downe out of him and confuted before concerning the contents of the Canon 40. Heere now thou seest good Reader that this answere of his contayneth 3. poynts the first that all this obiection is taken as it were out of the booke being grounded on nothing els but on the superscriptions of letters and memorials The second that the manner and style of the letters and memorialls of suppliants is alwayes to extoll and magnify those to whome they make suite The third that a Canon of the same Councell decreed the contrary to all this in expresse words giuing to the Bishop of Constantinople equal priuiledges in all things with the Bishop of Rome this being the whole substance of his answere and the last poynt concerning the Canon which most importeth being by me already fully confuted to his shame it will easily be seene how he tryfleth in the two former For as for the first what skilleth it whether those tytles were written on the insyde or outside of the supplications seeing that they were taken and set downe by the Notaries of the whole CouÌ„cell no lesse then the Canons and Actions themselues and not reproued or contradicted by any Is it not therefore cleare inough thereby that the tytle of vniuersall Bishop was in those dayes vsually giuen to the Bishop of Rome and seeing his name is set downe before the name of the Councell though he himselfe was not present but only his Legats was not he sufficiently acknowledged thereby to be the President and head of the Councell 41. But I would be glad to know of M. Andrews what reason those suppliants had to addresse and present their petitions rather to Pope Leo by name then to the Bishop of Constantinople or to other Grecian Bishops and Metropolitans of their owne country Let him tell me I say what other reason they could haue but because they held him not only to be the chiefe and vniuersall Pastor that is to say to haue vniuersall authority but also to be acknowledged by the whole Councell as their head For if the Councell had not so esteemed him those suppliants might be assured that by naming him alone and giuing him extraordinary tytles that were not due vnto him they should offend the Councell and consequently hurt their owne cause 42. Moreouer let M. Andrews tell vs if it please him why those suters should exceed in the tytle rather to Pope Leo then to the whole Councell seeing that they addressed their petitions to both Why did they not I say magnify and extoll the Councell with some excessiue tytle as well as the Pope For if it were needfull for them to vse excesse and flattery to eyther of both for the better successe of their petition it is like they would haue done it rather to the whole Councell then to him if they had not assured themselues that the grant of their petition depended principally on him as on the head of the Councell so that the supplications being directed indifferently to both and no excesse or flattery so much as imagined by M. Andrewes in that part of the tytle which concerneth the Councell he must eyther acknowledg the like of the other part that toucheth the Pope or els â—ell vs some reason of the difference whereof no other can be conceiued but only his greater authority then the Councells in respect that he was their head and the vniuersall Pastor of the Church And thus much touching his answere to the first place 43. The second place alledged by Cardinall Bellarmine out of that Councell is that in the Epistle of the whole Councell to Pope Leo he is acknowledged in expresse words to be the head of all the Bishops assembled there they his members for thus they wrote speaking of themselues Quibus tu sicut membris caput praeeras ouer whome thou wert President as head ouer the members in those which held thy place c. So they And what doth M. Andrews trow you answere to this Marry forsooth he saith that vtcumque tum praefuit sicut caput c. howsoeuer he then gouerned as head yet he could not hinder but that another head was made equall to this head So he meaning that the Canon whereof we haue hitherto treated made the Bishop of Constantinople equall with him in all things and so made two heads But how weake and idle this answere is thou mayst iudge good Reader by the weaknes of this Canon which I haue sufficiently shewed as well by the inualidity and nullity of it being abrogated by Pope Leo as also by the false sense that M. Andrews hath giuen vs of it so that the foundation of his answere I meane the Canon fayling him his answere must needs fall to the ground and be altogeather impertinent and the place alledged by the Cardinall remayne in full force 44. The third and last place which he vndertaketh to answere is that the whole Councell also
consequently that they held Pope Leo not only for S. Peters successor but also for head of the whole Church and this I trust cannot be sayd to be taken out of the bryars or corner of a period or fragment of a clause but out of one of the most principall and important Acts of all the Councell 78. Also it appeareth in the same Councell that Theodoretus Bishop of Cyrus who being deposed by Dioscorus appealed to Pope Leo was by his authority restored to his seat and admitted into the Councell Ingrediatur say the Fathers Reuerendissimus Episcopus Theodoretus c. Let also the most Reuerend Bishop Theodoretus enter that he may be partaker of our Synod because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored to him his Bishopricke So they whereby they gaue sufficient testimony of the soueraygnty of Pope Leo acknowledging his power to restore Bishops to their Bishopriks in the Greeke Church Finally if there were nothing els in that Councell to proue Pope Leo's supreme and vniuersall authority ouer the Church of God it might suffice for an euident proofe thereof that he was vndoubtedly the president and head of the Councell as you haue heard before and may be confirmed by the subscriptions of his Legats set before all other Bishops though one of them was but a Priest and no Byshop 79. For what reason can be imagined why Pope Leo should be president of a Councell in Greece so far from his owne seat as well he himselfe as his Legats being Romans and of the Latin Church but that it belonged to him to be head thereof in respect of his vniuersall authority Will M. Andrews absurdly say as Caluin doth that there was no Bishop in all Greece at that tyme held to be worthy of that Honour How then was Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople able to procure such a Canon as he did in his owne fauour Can any man belieue that he was as M. Andrews saith esteemed worthy to be made equal in dignity and all things els with the Bishop of Rome and yet not fit to be President of a Councell in his owne country yea lesse fit then a stranger who was held to be but his â—qual Besides that howsoeuer Pope Leo himselfe might be esteemed more worthy of that Charge then the Bishops of Greece in respect of his eminent learning wisdome and vertue yet there is no probability in the world that the Emperour and all the Bishops of that Councell which were aboue 600. had the like conceit of the sufficiency of his Legats or that they would all of them yield as well to them as to him one of them being but a Priest This I say is so improbable that M. Caluin and M. Andrews must eyther giue vs some other probable reason for it as they shall neuer be able to do or els confesse that Leo was President of that Councell by right of his soueraignty and supreme authority ouer Gods Church 80. Therefore now to conclude this matter thou seest good Reader what was the beliefe of the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon concerning the Popes supremacy and how far M. Andrews is from their faith and Religion yea and what a seared conscience he hath not only to deny such an euident truth as this but also to impugne it with so much fraud and impudency as he doth against his owne conscience no doubt for he could not possibly see in the Councell that which he himselfe alledgeth and the Cardinall obiecteth but he must needs see all this which I haue cyted out of it neyther could he alledge some part of the 28. Canon and vrge it as he doth laying downe the words euen of the Greeke text but he saw as well that which followeth immediatly and clearely conuinceth his fraud and forgery as that which went before and seemed to make for him whereby it is euident that he not only wittingly dissembled and concealed the whole drift of that Canon but also maliciously peruerted mangled and falsifyed it to the end to deceiue his Reader for the mayntenance of his miserable cause for so I may well tearme it seeing it dryueth him to such miserable and desperate shifts M. D. ANDREVVS HIS ANSVVERES TO three places of the Fathers are examined AND By the way the Cardinall is cleared from a false imputation of Iouinians heresy and M. Andrews truly charged therewith Finally all that which we teach concerning the Popes authority is necessarily deduced out of M. Andrews his owne doctrine and expresse words CHAP. III. HAVING occasion in my Supplement to proue the necessity of a visible head in Gods Church to coÌ„serue the same in vnity I alledged two places of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome which the Cardinall also cyteth in his Apology togeather with diuers other testimonies of the Fathers to proue the Primacy of S. Peter and for as much as M. Andrews his answere thereto if it haue any force at all maketh as much against me as against the Cardinall I will examine heere what force and pith it hath The Cardinall saith thus of S. Cyprian Fecit Cyprianus Petrum c. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne and roote of the Church and in his Epistle to Quintus Peter saith he whome our Lord first chose and vpon whome he buylt his Church c. Where S. Cyprian doth not only say that Peter was first chosen but also addeth that the Church was buylt vpon him and truely the foundation in a buylding the head in a body are all one Thus saith the Cardinall alledging as you see two places of S. Cyprian to both which M. Andrews meaneth to say somewhat 2. To the first he saith thus Fecit Cyprianus c. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne and roote of the Church not Peter of the Church but rather maketh the Church it selfe the fountayne from whence many brookes the light from whence many beames and the roote from whence many boughs are propagated Learne this euen of himselfe Sic Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa c. So the Church being wholy resplendent with the light of our Lord casteth forth her beames throughout the whole world loe he sayth the Church and not Peter yet the light is one and the selfe same which is spread euery where is this light Peter or is he euery where spread abroad and the vnity of the body is not separated The Church through the plenty of her fertility stretcheth forth her branches ouer the whole earth and doth amply spread abroad her aboundant flowing brookes yet the head is one the beginning one one mother copious with the prosperous successe of her fecundity or fruitfulnes Caligauit hic Cardinalis c the Cardinall was spurre-blynd or dimme sighted here for I thinke he will not say that Peter is the mother and therefore not the head 3. This is M. Andrews his graue discourse supposing as it seemeth that because the
Canon pretended to haue been made some 60. yeares before in the Councell of Constantinople could not serue his turne seeing that the same was neuer sent or intimated by any of his predecessors to the Roman Sea therfore he wished him to remember what Christ threatneth to them who scandalize any one of his litle ones and thereby to consider what he deserueth who feareth not to scandalize so many Churches and Priests Finally he exhorteth him to leaue his ambitious desires concluding with this sentence of the Apocalyps Tene quod habes ne alius accipiat coronam tuam hold that which thou hast lest another take thy Crowne for si inconcessa quaesieris c. if thou seeke saith he those things that are vnlawfull thou shalt depriue thy selfe of the peace and vnion of the vniuersall Church by thy owne work and iudgement So he And dost thou not see good Reader what an humble suppliant Pope Leo was to Anatolius If one should write a letter to M. Andrewes in this style and forme would he take it trow you for a supplication 34. But now let vs see what effect it had and whether it was in vayne or no as M. Andrews affirmeth of it This will be euident by the epistles of Pope Leo to Iulianus Bishop of Coa to the Emperour and to Anatolius himselfe To the Bishop he signifieth that the Emperour had written vnto him interueniens saith he pro Anatolio vt nostri illi animi gratia praebeatur quoniam correctionem eius promittit c. Requesting in the behalfe of Anatolius that we will bestow vpon him the grace or fauour of our affection because he promiseth his amendment c. So that you see now Iordanis conuersus est retrorsum for whereas Pope Leo according to M. Andrewes his assertions was a suiter both to the Emperour and to Anatolius the Emperour is now become a suiter to Pope Leo for Anatolius which will yet more cleerly appeare by another Epistle of Pope Leo to the Emperour himselfe wherein he promised that Anatolius should find in him sincerae gratiae animum an affection of sincere grace or fauour in case he followed sincerely the Emperours aduise and counsell and performed in hart that which he promised in words for that otherwyse he would resolutly proceed agaynst him to chastise him for his pryde wherby it is euident that the Emperour had written to Pope Leo in the behalfe of Anatolius and that Pope Leo would not otherwise promise him his grace and fauour but vpon condition of his harty repentance and sincere amendment 35. And will you now see all this confirmed by Pope Leo's letters to Anatolius himselfe Therfore wheras Anatolius had written a letter of submission to him not only acknowledging his fault in that attempt but also yielding him an account of the state of his Church of Constantinople Pope Leo answering the same first commended greatly certayne predecessors of Anatolius to wit Iohn Atticus Proclus and Flauianus exhorting him to imitate them and blaming him by the way for his scandalous attempts and hauing also signified how glad he was to vnderstand by his letters that he had reformed certayne abuses in the Church of Constantinople he gaue him order withall to make two priests called Andreas and Euphratas and to admit some others to Ecclesiasticall dignities vpon certayne conditions which he prescribed him and lastly comming to speake more particulerly of his presumptuous attempt he saith that whereas he layd the fault vpon the euill counsell and perswasions of the Clergy of Constantinople who vrged him vnto it he might haue giuen better satisfaction if he had also blamed his owne consent thereto and not haue layed the fault vpon others neuertheles saith he gratum mihi frater charissime est c. It is gratfull to me most deare brother that you professe now to be displeased with that which then also should not haue pleased you Your owne profession togeather with the attestation of the Christian Prince is sufficient for our reconciliation neyther doth your correction or amendement seeme to me to be ouerlate or out of season cui tam venerabilis assertor accessit who haue so venerable a surety 36. Thus wrote Pope Leo to Anatolius whereby it appeareth that M. Andrews saying that he did by his letters intercedere frustrà apud Augustum Augustam Anatolium hath in two words made two lyes the one in intercedere for that the Pope made no intercession or suite especially to Anatolius but was sued vnto by the Emperour in his behalfe The other in frustrà for though it should be granted that the Pope made suite yet it was not in vayne And therefore if M. Andrews should seeke to quit himselfe of one of the lyes by saying that he tooke intercedere for to make opposition and not intercession yet he cannot rid himselfe of the other lye which is a sound one seeing that Pope Leo's opposition was so far from being in vayne that it brought Anatolius as I may say vpon his knees and forced him to humble and submit himselfe to acknowledge his fault to promise amendment yea to procure the Emperour to be a suiter and intercessor for him and finally to receiue and execute Pope Leo's commandments lawes and ordinances in the Church of Constantinople as though he had bene some Italian Bishop within the Suburbs of Rome So that I hope thou seest good Reader that I haue now clearely proued 2. things The one that M. Andrews hath sought notoriously to delude thee in telling thee that Pope Lâ—o contradicted this Canon in vayne The other that the Emperour and the whole Christian world had at that tyme a firme beliefe of the supreme authority of Pope Leo ouer the Councell of Calcedon and the whole Church of God seeing that his only opposition to this Canon sufficed to ouerthrow it 37. Whereupon it also followeth that although it were true which M. Andrews most falsely and absurdly affirmeth to wit that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon meant by this Canon to make the Byshoprik of CoÌ„stantinople equal in all respects with the Apostolicall Sea of Rome yet it little importeth yea rather maketh for vs then for M. Andrews seeing that the Câ—non was as I haue shewed preseÌ„tly ouerthrowne and â—ade voyd by the authority of the Roman Séa and that â—ot only Anatolius himselfe who procured it acknowledged his errour therin but also as well he as other Catholike Bishops his successors liued in the vnion and subiection of the sayd Roman Church as I haue sufficiently shewed by the experience and practise euen of the Greeke Church vntill it was vtterly ruined by the Turks 38. Therefore it shall be now conuenient to see how well M. Andrews answereth and satisfyeth the places alledged by the Cardinall and my selfe out of the Councell of Calcedon whereby I shall also haue occasion to confute certayne reasons of his which he further vrgeth out
testifyed in the same Epistle to Pope Leo that our Sauiour had committed to him the keeping of his vineyard that is to say of his Church whereto M. Andrews answereth that the vineyard was indeed committed to him but not to him alone sed cum alijs in vinâ—a operarijs but togeâ—ther with other workmen in the vineyard wherein he saith very truely for no man denyeth but that there were other Pastors in the Church besides Pope Lâ—o though we affirme that all other Pastors were inferiour and subordinate to him and I think no man doubteth but that when the charge or gouernment of a temporall Commonwelth is committed to a King or other soueraigne Prince he doth not exercyse it alone but togeather with other Magistrats subordinate and subiect to him and the like we say of the supreme Pastor of the Church that he is not the only Pastor though he be chiefe and supreme which point I haue debated in the former Chapter where I confuted the like answere of M. Andrewes to our obiection of the Pastorall commission giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter 45. Therefore I remit him and the Reader to what I haue discoursed there touching that poyntâ— and wil also ad further heere coÌ„cerning Pope Leo that wheras M. Andrewes granteth his Pastorall authority togeather with other Pastors meaning that he had no more nor other authority ouer the Church then other Bishops had he is easily conuinced by the circumstances of the same place which the Cardinall obiecteth and he pretendeth now to answere for there Dioscorus is accused of three things the first that he had taken vpon him to condemne and depose Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople and Eusebius Bishop of Doryleum against the Canons of the Church The second that whereas Pope Leo had depriued Eutyches the heretyk of his dignity in the Church of Constantinople where he was Abbot of a Monastery Dioscorus had restored him thereto and so irruens in vineam c. breaking into the vineyard which he found notably well planted he ouerthrew it c. The thyrd was that post haec omnia saith the Councell insuper contra ipsum c. And after all this he did moreouer extend his madnes against him to whom the charge or keeping of the vineyard was committed by our Sauiour id est contra tuam quoque Apostolicam Sanctitatem that is to say also against thy Apostolyke Holynes meaning Pope Leo for to him the Councell wrote this 46. Whereby it is euident that the Councell distinguisheth clearely betwixt the authority of Pope Leo and of the two other Bishops Flauianus and Eusebius seeing that all three of them being named as greatly iniured by Dioscorus the offence agaynst Pope Leo is exaggerated much more then the iniury done to the other two and held to proceed of meere madnes fury And albeit mention be made of the vineyard as broken downe and ouerthrowne by Dioscorus in the depositioÌ„ of those two Catholik Bishops yet only Pope Leo who is honoured with the title of Apostolicall Sanctity is acknowledged to haue had the charge of the vineyard committed to him by our Sauiour which had bene said very impertinently of him alone if those other two Bishops had as much charge of the vineyard as he Besids that the Councell testifieth in the same place that Pope Leo depriued Eutiches who was an Abbot in Constantinople of his dignity which he could not haue done out of his owne Diocesse in the Church of Constantinople if as well the Bishop of that Church as Eutiches had not been subiect to him whereto it may also be added that as Liberatê° testifieth this Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople for whose iniurious deposition Dioscorus is here accused by the Councell appealed for remedy to Pope Leo acknowledging thereby that Leo was his superiour and had also an vniuersall authority for otherwyse the appeale from the Greeke Church to him had byn in vayne So that M. Andrewes his glosse allowing to Pope Leo no more authority then to all other Pastors is very absurd and easily conuinced by the text it selfe 47. After this he idly carpeth at the Cardinall for saying that the Councell acknowledged Pope Leo to haue the charge totius vineae of the whole vineyard because totius is not in the text of the Councell Nec totius vineae dicitur saith M. Andrewes sed commoda vox totius Cardinali visum est adijcere neyther is it said of the whole vineyard but the Cardinall thought good to add totius because it is a commodious word for his purpose whereby it seemeth that he would haue some vnwary Reader to imagin that the Cardinall had corrupted the text by adding the word totius whereas there is no such matter for hauing alledged the words of the CouÌ„cell as they are to wit cui vineae custodia à Saluatore commissa est he doth afterwards in his owne discourse and for the explication therof adde totius saying vbi fatentur totius vineae custodiam c. where they to wit the Fathers of the Councell of Calcedon do confesse that the charge of all the vineyard was committed to the Pope Thus saith the Cardinall signifying that the Councell did meane that Leo had the charge of the whole Church which as I haue shewed is most euident euen by all the circumstances of the place 48. And therefore M. Andrewes supecting with great reason that this deuyse would serue him to litle purpose thought best to grant that totius vineae might be sayd in some sense Et vel si totius sayth he nihil iuuaret c. Yea and if it had bene sayd totius vineae it would help him nothing seeing that whatsoeuer doth eyther violate the vnity or trouble the peace of the whole Church ad curam omnium ex aequo pertinet non Leonis solùm doth belong to the care of all men equally and not of Leo only So he signifying that albeit Pope Leo might be sayd to haue had the Charge of the whole Church yet it were to be vnderstood that he had it no otherwyse then all other men haue And why Marry forsooth because all men are equally bound to haue care of the vnity and peace of the Church which truly may passe for a very strange paradoxe howsoeuer he vnderstandeth it I meane whether he extend the word omnium to all men in generall as he seemeth to do or limit it to all Pastors only 49. For if he meane that all men ought to haue care of the vnity and peace of the Church alyke or in equall degree he is most absurd confounding all order gouernment and subordination in the Church seeing that one speciall cause if not the chiefest why God ordayneth Pastors and Gouernours therin was to auoyd schismes and to conserue it in peace and vnity as I haue proued amply in my Supplement I haue also shewed that M. Barlow vrgeth the
the keyes or feed my sheep No but because Rome was then the Seat of the Emperour and gouerned the rest So he and a litle after he concludeth thus Quod ergo habet Roma de Primatu c. Therefore that which Rome hath of the Primacy is not from Christ but from the Fathers and in respect of the Emperours Seat and not for the Sea of Peter 61. VVhereto I answere first that M. Andrews must learne to distinguish betwixt the Primacy of S. Peter and the priuiledges granted to the Sea of Rome for that the sayd Primacy could not be from any but from Christ himselfe whereas the Roman Church may haue and hath priuiledges from men that is to say not only from generall Councells but also from temporall Princes as from Constantine Pepin Charles the Great and other Catholike Princes and therefore M. Andrews argueth most absurdly from the Priuiledges to the Primacy denying that the Primacy was from Christ because the Priuiledges were from men and some of them giuen for humane respects wherin he sheweth himselfe as wyse as if he should deny the regalty and soueraignty of our Kings by reason of the prerogatiues and priuiledges granted to them by the Parliaments or as if he should say that the Church of Christ which is his Spouse was not instituted by him but by men because aswell temporall Princes as generall Councells haue giuen great priuiledges thereto 62. Secondly I say that M. Andrewes is very simple if he see not that the peÌ„ners of the Canon had great reason to auoyd therein all mention of the keyes and of the Pastorall commission giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter as also of the Priuiledges granted to the Roman Church in respect of S. Petâ—rs Sea seeing that the same could not any way further the pretence of the Bishop of Constantinople but rather hinder it For what could he demaund for any of those respects Would M. Andrews haue had him to say that because Christ gaue S. Peter the keyes and commission to feed his sheepe therefore it was conuenient that the Councell should also giue the lyke authority to the Bishop of Constantinople or prefer him before the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch which was in deed his demaund how would this conclusion follow of those premisses Whereas the other consequent was not so euill to wit that because the Roman Church had ben in tymes past priuiledged by reason of the Imperiall Seat it was conuenient that also the Church of Constantinople should haue like priuiledges for the same reason 63. Agayne what should the Bishop of Constantinople haue gayned by mentioning priuiledges granted to Peters Sea Should he not haue hindred his owne cause thereby and pleaded against himselfe for Alexandria and Antioch For who knoweth not that S. Peter was Bishop of Antioch some yeares before he came to Rome and that he made his disciple S. Marke Bishop of Alexandria in which respect those two Churches had alwayes the preheminence before all other next after the Roman seeing then the Bishop of Constantinoples pretence was no other but to be preferred before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch he had no lesse reason to forbeare all mention of Peters Sea and of the priuiledges granted thereto then M. Andrews had in setting downe the substance of the Canon to conceale and omit all that which would haue discouered his fraud and ouerthrowne his cause I meane that the second place after Rome was granted by that Canon to the Church of Constantinople and therefore he was not so simple to touch that string which would haue mard all his musick as it hath been partly signifyed before and will further appeare by that which followeth 64. For hauing sayd that which you haue heard before concerning priuiledges granted by the Fathers to the Roman Sea because Rome was then the Imperial Citty he addeth in sua autem iam potestate esse ex eadem ratione c. The Fathers of the Councell signifyed that it was now in their power for the same reason seeing that Constantinople did enioy both the Imperiall Seate and Senate to aduance it also to equal dignity and for as much as it was equall in all other things to make it equal also in Ecclesiasticall matters and to vse their owne words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say to be magnifyed as Rome was So he wherein he not only falsifieth the sense and meaning of the Canon in that he maketh it to giue an absolute equality to the Church of Constantinople with that of Rome but also craftily leaueth out all mention of the second place after Rome which was granted to the Church of Constantinople by that Canon doth immediatly follow the Greeke words which he alledgeth and ouerthrow all the equality that he pretendeth to be mentioned there for after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these words do follow immediatly in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in our Latin copyes is very well translated word for word secundam post illam existentem that is to say being the second after it whereby it is signifyed that the Church of Constantinople which had wont to haue an inferiour place to diuers other Churches should from thenceforth be the second after Rome And did not M. Andrews trow you see this in the Greeke and Latin And if he saw it with what conscience could he so deepely dissemble it as not only to leaue out all mention of it but also to make an equality and parity in dignity and in all things els betwixt the Churches of Rome and Constantinople Wheras the words which he concealed do make it cleare that the equality mentioned in the Canon must needs be vnderstood only according to distributiue iustice that is to say without impeachment or preiudice of the different degrees and dignityes of the two Churches as I haue amply declared before 65. And as for the Greeke words which he cyteth to fortify his forgery they do not extend so far as he would stretch them I meane to make a parity and equality in dignity for whereas the Greeke text saith that Constantinople should be magnifyed as Rome was the same may very well stand with the foresayd equality which distributiue Iustice ordayneth to wit with the reseruation of the different dignityes of the one and the other as when a Noble man and a meane man do concurre in one act or seruice to the Common welth and both of them are rewarded and aduanced according to their different qualityes it may truly be sayd that the meane man is aduanced as the Noble man is though not to the same degree for both of them are aduanced as well the one as the other and yet they are not made equal in dignity 66. But now if we take the Greeke wordes alleaged by M. Andrews or the Latin in our translation with the restriction that immediately followeth wherby the second place after Rome is assigned to Constantinople
in generall besides that being made with the Popes consent it was not any way preiudicall to the authority of the Sea Apostolike The third that M. Andrews iugleth notably with his Reader when he saith as out of S. Augustine Ad eum transmarinus nemo appellet c. To him that is to say to the Bishop of Rome let no man appeale from beyond the seas or if he appeale he is to be excommunicated by Augustine for neyther those words nor the sense thereof are to be found any where in S. Augustine who as you haue seene expressely taught and practised the contrary So that transmarinus nemo being set downe by M. Andrews in a different letter to be noted is indeed worth the noting for a notable falsity and a flat corruption of the Canon and abuse of S. Augustine and of all the Bishops in that Councell What then shall we say of this mans truth and fidelity who maketh no bones to bely the Fathers and corrupt whole Synods Can any man thinke that he hath any regard of conscience or shame Thus much for the second point 52. And now to say somewhat of the third he affirmeth as you haue heard that S. Augustine was far from acknowledging the Popes Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus for heads of the Church whereof you haue already seene the contrary in two of them to wit Bonifacius and Celestinus whose power and custome to admit and determyne Appeales from Africk S. Augustine clearely acknowledged and approued in the cause of Antony Bishop of Fussula as I haue amply shewed which power could not otherwise be due to Bonifacius and Celestinus but only in respect of their supreme and vniuersall authority ouer the whole Church And that S. Augustine had also the same opinion of Zosimus it appeareth sufficiently in an Epistle of his to Optatus to whome he writeth that he receaued his letters at Caesarea quò nos saith he iniuncta nobis à venerabili Papa Zosimo Apostolicae sedis Episcopo Ecclesiastica necessitas traxerat whither we were drawne by an Ecclesiasticall necessity inioyned or imposed vpon vs by the venerable Pope Zosimus Bishop of the Apostolicall seat So he which may also be confirmed out of Possidius who writeth that Litterae sedis Apostolicae compulerunt c. The letters of the Sea Apostolike compelled Augustine with other Bishops to go to Caesarea in Mauritania to consult and determyne of diuers necessityes of the Church 53. Whereby it is manifest that S. Augustine acknowledged in Pope Zosimus an Ecclesiasticall power and authority to impose vpon him and other Bishops a necessity to obay his commaundements in matters concerning the seruice of God and the Church which Zosimus could not do otherwise then as supreme and vniuersall Pastor or head of the Church for that the Church of Africk was not otherwise subiect to him then as all other Churches were But of Pope Zosimus and of S. Augustines opinion concerning his Primacy I shall haue occasion to speake further after a while and in the meane tyme this I hope may suffise to proue that S. Augustine was so far from impugning these three Popes that he acknowledged their supreme and vniuersall authority and consequently that they were heads of the vniuersall Church notwithstanding M. Andrews his peremptory assertion of the contrary which therefore may passe for another vntruth 54. Whereupon it also followeth that he forgot himselfe much more when he so confidently affirmed in the first poynt as you haue heard that the Bishops of Rome in S. Augustines tyme were but only heads of the Church of Rome which I noted before For the first of the 3. vntruthes though I remitted the particuler answere thereof vntill I had discouered the other two because they would not a litle help to the discouery of the first as you may haue already noted for it being cleare by all this former discourse that Appeales from Africk to Rome were vsuall frequent and neuer prohibited in S. Augustines tyme and againe that he acknowledged an authority and power in Pope Zosimus to lay iniunctions commaundements vpon him and other Bishops in Africk it must needs follow that the Bishops of Rome had a more ample authority in his dayes then ouer the particuler Church of Rome And to the end thou mayst yet haue good Reader a more aboundant satisfaction in this poynt I will say somewhat of all the Popes that liued in S. Augustines tyme who were 8. in all to wit Liberius in whose tyme he was borne Damasus Siricius Anastasius Innocentius Zosimus Bonifacius Celestinus And first of Liberius 55. We read in the Ecclesiasticall history that certayne Arian heretykes being excommunicated and deposed from their Bishopricks by the Catholike Bishops of the East Church sent their Legats to Pope Libâ—rius crauing to be restored by his authority and for as much as they craftily dissembled their heresy and faygning to be repentant made open profession of the Catholicke faith according to the beliefe and doctrin of the Councell of Nice they obtayned his letters for their restitution which they presented at their returne in a Synod held at Tyana and by vertue thereof were restored as S. Basil witnesseth saying that Eustathius Bishop of Sebasta who was the chiefe of that Legacy brought an Epistle from Liberius by the which he should be restored and when he had presented it to the Synod at Tyana in locum suum restitutus est he was restored to his place So he 56. Whereby it appeareth that the authority of Liberius extended further then to his owne Church of Rome seeing he could restore Bishops to their seats in the East Church as also his predecessor Pope Iulius had done not long before vpon the appeales of the famous Athanasius deposed by the Arians and of Paulus Bishop of Constantinople Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra Asclepa Bishop of Gaza and Lucian Bishop of Hadrianopolis all of them vniustly expelled from their seats vpon diuers pretences whose causes Iulius discussing saith the Story tamquam omnium curam gerens propter propriae Sedis dignitatem singulis reddidit suas Ecclesias as hauing a care of all for the dignity of his owne seat restored their Churches to euery one of them So saith Sozomâ—n in the tripartite history which I haue thought good to add to the former example of Liberius For although it fell not out in S. Augustines tyme whereof I now specially treate yet it was not aboue 14. yeares before him and therefore may well be applyed to his tyme as the Eue to the Feast Besides that doth demonstrate what was the beliefe of the Catholike Church at that tyme concerning the supreme dignity of the Roman Sea seeing that not only other Catholike Bishops but also Athanasius himselfe who was the mirrour of sanctity zeale and integrity in that age had recourse thereto as to the supreme tribunall on earth for the reparation of his wrongs but now to
proceed 57. After Liberius succeeded Damasus whose vniuersall authority is sufficiently testified euen by the African Bishops whome M. Andrewes maketh most opposit to the Roman Sea This may be veryfied by an Epistle of 3. Councells of Africk and the Archbishop Stephanus who wrote to Pope Damasus giuing him the title of most Blessed Lord raysed to the heyght of Apostolicall dignity holy Father of Fathers Damasus Pope and chiefe Bishop of Prelats and in the Epistle it selfe they do clearely acknowledge the supremacy of his sea coÌ„playning of certayne Bishops their neyghbours who without his consent or knowledge had presumed to depose Bishops which they said was against the decrees of all the Fathers and ancient rules and Canons of the Church by the which say they sancitum est vt quicquid horum vel in remotis c. it was decreed that whatsoeuer should be treated though in remote and far distant Prouinces concerning these matters that is to say the deposition of Bishops and other important affiayres of the Church the same should not be receiued nisi ad notitiam almae Sedis vestrae fuisset deductum c. except it were brought to the knowledge of your holy seat to the end that whatsoeuer should be resolued might be confirmed with the authority thereof thus wrot they and much more to the same purpose calling him also ipsum Apostolicum verticem Praesulum the very Apostolicall top or head of Prelats 58. And therefore no meruaile that another Father of the same tyme calleth him the gouernour of the Church of God expounding these words of the Apostle to Timothy Ecclesia est domus Dei viui c. whereupon he saith Ecclesia domus Dei dicitur cuius rector hodie est Damasus the Church is called the house of God the gouernour whereof at this day is Damasus So he wherto I may add a notable testimony of S Hierome who wryting also to Damasus to know of him with whome he might communicate in Syria and whether he might vse the word hypostasis affirmed that he held CoÌ„mâ—nion with his Beatitude that is to say saith he with Peters Chayre and that he knew the Church to be buylt vpon the rock inferring thereupon that whosoeuer did eate the Lambe out of that house he meaneth the communion of Damasus or of Peters Chayre he was a profane man and out of the Arck of Noe wherupon I infer that S. Hierome affirming the Church to be built vpon Damasus acknowledgeth him to be head thereof for the reason vrged before by me in the last chapter to wit because the head of a mysticall or politicall body and the foundation in a buylding are all one besyds that he also acknowledgeth the same by excluding all those from the vnity of the Church who did not hold communication with Damasus because the vnity of the body is deriued principally from the vnity of the head thereof according to the expresse doctrin of S. Cyprian which I haue also amply layd downe in the last Chapter 59. Finally S. Hierome demanding resolution from Damasus with whome he should coÌ„municate in Syria where was then a great Schisme and whether he might vse the word hypostasis sheweth that Damasus had authority to determyne and decyde controuersies and resolue doubts or difficult questions in matter of religion and therfore S. Hierome saith vnto him Discernite siplacet obsecro non timebo tres hypostases dicere si iubetis I beseech you iudge or determyne if it please you for I will not feare to say that there are three hypostases if you command me And againe afterwards Quamobrâ—m obtestor Beatitudinem tuam per crucifixum c. Therefore I beseech your Beatitud for Christs sake crucified and for the consubstantiall Trinity that authority may be giuen me by your letters eyther to vse or to forbeare the word hypostasis c. as also that you will signifie vnto me with whome I may communicate at Antioch for that the Campenses and the heretikes called Tharsenses being vnited togeather nihil aliud ambiunt quà m vt auctoritate communionis vestrae fulti c. do seeke nothing more or with greater ambition then that being vpheld with the authority of your communion they may vse the word hypostasis in the old sense So he 60. Wherin two thinges are to be noted the one that S. Hierome doth not aske counsaile or aduise of Pope Damasus but a definitiue sentence vt auctoritas detur that authority be giuen him that is to say that Damasus should by his letters determin and ordein what S. Hierome should doe in those cases The other is that not only the Catholikes in the East parts as S. Hierome and the Aegyptians whome he also called the collegues of Damasus but also the heretyks sought to fortifie themselues by the communion and authority of the Sea Apostolike Whereupon two things do also follow euidently the one that Damasus had power to decyde and determyne controuersies euen in the East Church and the other that his authority was not restreyned to his owne Church at Rome as M. Andrews seemeth to suppose but was vniuersall and therefore acknowledged as well in the East as in the West 61. This may be notably confirmed by the restitution of Peter Bishop of Alexandria to his seat who immediatly succeeded Athanasius and being oppressed by the Arians followed the example of his worthy predecessour and fled to Rome to Pope Damasus and returning with his letters which confirmed as well his creation as the Catholike faith was restored by the people qui illis confisus saith Socrates expollit Lucium Petrum in eius locum introducit who by the vertue of those letters expelled Lucius the Arrian Bishop and put Peter into his place 62. Also Vitalis an heretike in Antioch being accused to Pope Damasus of heresy was forced to come to Rome to purge himselfe and albeit after he had there professed himselfe to be a Catholike he was remitted by Pope Damasus to Paulinus Bishop of Antioch for his final absolution yet Damasus prescribed to Paulinus a forme of abiuration whereto Vitalis should subscribe which being done Paulinus absolued him Whereby it is euident that Damasus had a supreme authority as well in the East or Greeke Church as in the West for otherwise neyther would Peter Bishop of Alexandria who was a very holy man haue appealed vnto him nor the people haue receaued Peter by the vertue of his letters neither yet would Vitalis haue gone from Antioch to purge himselfe at Rome nor Paulinus Bishop of Antioch permitted that Damasus should intermeddle in matters pertayning to his charge 63. And this may yet further appeare by the earnest endeuours of S. Chrysostome then Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria to pacify Damasus towards Flauianus Bishop of Antioch who had committed periury and byn the cause of a great diuision and trouble in the Church for the remedy wherof
they sent Embassadours to Rome to perswade Damasus that it was necessary for the good of the Church that he should pardon the offence of Flauianus for the concord and peace of the people which being graunted by Damasus communione saith Socrates Flauiano ad hunc modum reddita and Flauianus being by this meanes restored to the communion of the Church the people of Antioch were in tyme reduced to concord and vnion with him 64. Whereto Theodoretus addeth that the Emperour Theodosius in the tyme partly of Pope Damasus and partly of his successor Syricius and Anastasius laboured to procure the reconciliation of Flauianus with the sea Apostolick and commaunded him to goe to Rome to answere for himselfe which he promised to doe in the spring following though he did not performe it Finally the Emperour made his peace with the Pope in the end vpon condition that Flauianus should send his Embassadours to Rome which he did saith Theodoretus with a sollemne embassadge of Bishops Priests and Deacons vnder Acacius Bishop of Berroea who was at that tyme a man of great fame whereupon all the Bishops of Aegipt who vntill then would not communicat with him admitted him to their communion So that albeit the Historiographers do differ concerning the tyme when Flauianus was reconcyled with the Pope yet they all agree that he could neuer be fully restored to the peace and communion of the vniuersall Church vntill he had submitted himselfe to the Roman Sea which sheweth euidently that the Bishops of Rome had far greater and more ample authority then M. Andrewes doth affoard them Thus much concerning Damasus 65. And now to come to his successor Syricius it is euident euen in this cause of Flauianus by the testimony of S. Ambrose that his authority extended it selfe to the Greek and Eastern Church no lesse then to the Latin and West Church seeing that in a Synod held at Capua the hearing of Flauianus his cause was committed to Theophâ—lus Bishop of Alexandria and to the Bishop of Aegipt with this limitation as S. Ambrose witnesseth that the approbation and confirmation of their sentence should be reserued to the Roman Sea and the Bishop thereof who was then Syricius In like manner we fynd that his authority was admitted and acknowledged not only in Spayne and France but also in Africk as it may appeare by his Decretall Epistle writteÌ„ to Himerius or Himericus Bishop of Arragon in Spayne in answere of diuers demaunds of his in which epistle he ordayned that those his decrees should be sent by Himerius as well to Carthage in Africk as to Portugal and France and that they should be of no lesse force there and els where then in Arragon 66. To this will I add a testimony of an African Father that liued in the tyme of Siricius to wit of Optatus Bishop of Mileuis who clearely deduceth the primacy of Syricius from the primacy of S. Peter for writing against Parmenian the Donatist and vrging him that he could not deny but that Petrus omnium Apostolorum caput Peter the head of all the Apostles sate first in the Roman chayre wherof he also yieldeth these reasons viz. that in the said chaire vnity might be kept of all men that the rest of the Apostles should not euery one of them defend or callenge to himselfe a single chayre and that he might be held for a Schismatik and a wiked man who should set vp a chaire contra singularem Cathedram against the singular or principall chayre hauing I say vrged this he reckoneth all the Popes from S. Peter to his tyme ending with Syricius and concluding that because the Donatists held not communion with him therefore they could not haue the true Church 67. In this discourse it is manifest that as he acknowledgeth Peter for head of the Apostles and his chayre for the singular and principall chayre so he also acknowledged Syricius for head of all other Bishops and his chayre which was Peters for the principall chayre for otherwyse his argument against the Donatists grounded on Peters supreme authority had ben to no purpose Besids that he saith also a litle after prosecuting the same argument Legimus Principem nostrum c. We read that Peter our Prince receaued the wholsome keyes against the gates of hell c. Vnde est ergo c. How chanceth it then that you stryue to vsurpe to your selues the keyes of the Kingdome who with your audacious presumption do sacrilegiously make warre against the chayre of Peter So he 68. Therefore omitting heere how aptly this may be applyed to M. Andrews and his fellowes as well as to the Donatists that which I wish specially to be obserued is that Optatus being an African acknowledged the same soueraignty in Syricius which he affirmed to be in S. Peter for whereas he calleth him not only the head of the Apostles but also Principem nostrum our Prince it is cleare that the principality and soueraignty of Peter in the tyme of Optatus could not be otherwise vnderstood but in his successor Syricius who consequently was Prince and head of the Church as Peter was 69. The very same is taught also by S. Augustine concerning Pope Anastasius who succeeded Syricius for S. Augustine presseth the Donatists with the same argument that Optatus doth and naming all the Popes vntill his owne tyme he endeth with Anastasius hauing first deriued their lineall succession from S. Peter Cui saith he totius Ecclesiae figuram gerenti c. to whome bearing the figure of the whole Church our Lord sayd Vpon this rock I will buyld my Church wherein it is to be noted that S. Augustine acknowledging the primacy of S Peter in saying that the Church was built vpon him and that he bare the figure of the whole Church which he did not in any other respect but because he was head thereof as I haue proued in the first Chapter of this Adioynder he acknowledgeth the same in his successors and namely in Anastasius whome therefore he draweth by lyneall succession from S. Peter and to this purpose it may be also obserued that elswhere he ascribeth the great prerogatiue of S. Peter to wit his being the rock or foundation whereupon the Church was buylt to his chayre or seat and to the succession of Bishops deriued from him bidding the Donatists reckon the Priests that had succeeded one another in Peters seat and then concluding Ipsa est Petra c. that is the rock which the proud gates of hell doe not ouercome whereby it is euident that S. Augustine acknowledged Anastasius and all other successors of S. Peter for heads of the vniuersall Church seeing he affirmeth them to be the foundation thereof 70. This may be confirmed also by a Canon of an African Synod where it was decreed that letters should be sent to their brethren and fellow-Bishops abroad and especially to the Sea Apostolike to informe
Anastasius who then was Pope how necessary it was for the Church of Africk that such Donatists as being Clergy men should returne to the vnity of the Catholike Church might be receiued and admitted without preiudice to their former dignityes if the Catholike Bishops that should receiue them should thinke it conuenient notwithstanding a Decree made to the contrary before in another Synod held beyond the seas whereby it appeareth that notwithstanding the great need which the AfricaÌ„ Church had of this decree as they signifyed yet they would not ordayne it without his knowledge and consent or rather as it seemeth they expected his leaue and order to do it and no meruail seeing that in other Synods and namely in the next following in the tyme of his immediate successor Innocentius of whome I am now to treat the African Bishops craued confirmation of their decrees from the Sea Apostolike vt statutis say they nostrae mediocritatis etiam Apostolicae Sedis adhibeatur auctoritas c. That the authority of the Sea Apostolike may also be added to the statutes of our mediocrity to conserue the saluation of many and to correct the peruersity of some 71. Thus wrote they to Pope Innocentius giuing clearely to vnderstand not only that the validity of their decrees depended vpon his confirmation but also that the conseruation of the faithfull in the true faith and the correction of peruerse and obstinate heretiks did specially belong to his care and proceed from his authority This will further appeare by another Epistle written to the same Pope Innocentius by them in another Synod held at Mileuis as also by his answere to them Thus then they wrote Quia te Dominus gratiae suae praecipuo munere in Sede Apostolica collocauit c. Because our Lord hath by his speciall guift of his grace placed thee in the Apostolicall seat and ordayned thee to be such a one in these our tymes that we should rather coÌ„mit the fault of negligence if we should conceale from thy Reuerence those things that are to be suggested for the Church then that thou canst eyther disdayne them or contemne them therefore we beseech thee to vse and apply thy Pastorall diligence to the great dangers of the weaker members of Christ c. So they whereby they shewed sufficiently their opinion concerning as well the worthynes of his person as his Pastorall power and authority ouer all the members of Christ as it will more euidently appeare by his answere whicâ— was this 72. Diligenter congruè Apostolico consulitis honori c. You do diligently and conueniently prouyde for the Apostolicall honour I meane the honour of him who besides other intrinsecall things hath the sollicitude or care of all Churches to declare what sentence is to be held in doubtfull matters wherein truely you follow the rule that you know hath bene kept with me alwayes throughout the whole world c. So he and a litle after he saith further that as often as there is question of matter of faith all Bishops ought to referre all that which is for the generall good of the Church honourâ— giuing to vnderstand that all Episcopall honour and dignity and other Ecclesiasticall authority proceedeth immediatly from the visible head of the Church vnder Christ that is to say S. Peter and his successors and that therefore the coÌ„demnation of heresyes determination of all doubts in faith ought to be expected and required specially from them 73. And to the end that M. Andrews may know that Pope Innocentius did not in this vrge his owne Apostolicall authority more then S. Augustine and the other African Bishops approued I wish him to read an Epistle of S. Augustine and Alypius where hauing sayd that relations were sent ex duobus Concilijs Cathaginensi Mileuitano ad Apostolicam sadem from the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the Sea Apostolike they add afterwards concerning the answere of Pope Innocentius ad omnia illa rescripsit â—o modo quo fas erat atque oportebat Apostolicae sedis Antistitem he to wit Innocentius wrote backe or answered to all things in such sort as was conuenient and as the Bishop of the Apostolike Sea ought to do So they approuing as you see not only the substance and matter of his Epistle but also his Apostolicall manner of writing acknowledging it to be fit for a man of his Apostolicall dignity So that it appeareth as well by the Epistle of the African Bishops to Pope Innocentius as also by his answere to them and their approbation thereof that the Bishops of Rome in those dayes had and exercysed a supreme authority in the confirmation of Synods resolution of doubts and condemnation of heresyes and heretikes 74. Whereof there occurred at that tyme a notable example in the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy for although the African Bishops did particulerly condemne it in their prouinciall Synods which could not prescrybe lawes to the whole Church yet the generall and vniuersall condemnation thereof throughout the world proceeded from the authority of the Sea Apostolyke and the seuerall sentences of the two Popes Innocentius an Zosimus which they signifyed in their letters not only to the Bishops of Africk but also to all Bishops vniuersally in respect of the vniuersall care and authority they had ouer the whole Church And therefore S. Augustine saith that the heretikes Pelagius Celestius were toto Christiano orbe daÌ„nati condÌ„ened throughout all the Christian world by the vigilaÌ„cy of the Episcopall Synods of Africk etiaÌ„ à Venerabilibus Antistitibus Apostolicae sedis Papa Innocentio Papa Zosimo and by the venerable Bishops of the Apostolick Sea Pope Innocentius and Pope Zosimus 75. Thus saith S. Augustine which his great friend Possidius Bishop of Calama who wrote his life confirmeth and explicateth notably signifying that the 2. Popes InnoceÌ„tius and Zosimus did at the great instance of the Councell of Africk cut off the Pelagians from the members of the Church and by letters directed to the Churches as well of Africk as of the East and West iudge them to be held as accursed and to be auoyded of all Catholikes Et hoc tale saith he de illis Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae pronuntiatum iudicium etiam pijssimus Imperator Honorius audiens sequens c. and the most pious Emperour Honorius hearing and following this such a notable IudgmeÌ„t of the Catholike Church of God pronounced against them condemned them by his lawes and ordayned that they should be held for heretikes So he wherein three things are specially to be noted The first that the Pelagian heresy was condemned vniuersally by the authority of the Sea Apostolike to wit by the sentence of the Popes Innocentius and Zosimus signified by their letters not only to the Churches of Africk but also to all other Churches in which respect S. Augustine also in his foresaid Epistle to Optatus
aduertiseth him that he sent him the copies of such writings and letters of the Sea Apostolike as were come to his hands concerning those matters addressed eyther particulerly to the Bishops of Africk or vniuersally to all Bishops 76. Another thing to be noted in the testimony of Possidius is that he calleth the sentence of those two Popes Innocentius and Zosimus Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae iudicium the Iudgement of the Catholike Church of God which he could not haue done but in respect of their supreme power and authority to condemne heresyes as heads of the whole Catholike Church The third is that albeit the Emperour Honorius condemned also the Pelagians for heretikes by his temporall lawes yet he did it no otherwise but audiens sequens c. hearing and following the iudgment of the Catholike Church that is to say of those two Popes Innocentius and Zosimus for of them he speaketh expresly 77. And now to proceed if M. Andrews do yet desire any further proofe of this matter let him read S. Prosper S. Augustines disciple who sayth that a Synod of 217. Bishops being held at Carthage their Synodicall decrees were sent to Zosimus quibus probatis per totum mundum haeresis Pelagiana condemnata c. which being approued the Pelagian heresy was condemned thoughout the whole world And againe in another place he saith of Innocentius Tunc Pelagianorum machinae fractae sunt c. and then were the engines of the Pelagians broken when Innocentius of blessed memory stroke the heads of their wicked errour with his Apostolicall sword So he and a litle after he affirmeth the like of Pope Zosimus who added saith he the force of his sentence to the decrees of the African Councell and armed the right hands of Bishops with the sword of Peter ad detruncationem impiorum for the excommunication of the wicked So he giuing to vnderstand that not only the force of the African Synods against the Pelagians but also the general condemnation of them throughout the world proceeded from the authority of the Roman Sea wherupon it must needs follow that the said authority was vniuersall and that the Bishops of that Sea and namely Innocentius and Zosimus were more then Caput Ecclesiae suae Romanae heads of their Church of Rome 78. And albeit this might suffice cōcerning these two Popes yet I cannot omit the most famous and sollemne appeale of S. Chrysostome to one of them to wit to Innocentius to whome he sent 4. Bishops to complayne of his vniust banishment procured by Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and wrote also himselfe vnto him thus Obsecro vt scribat c. I beseech you write and decree by your authority that these thinges which were so vniustly done when I was absent aud did not refuse to be iudged may be of no force as indeed of their owne nature they are not and that those which haue done so vniustly may be subiect to the penalty of the Ecclesiasticall lawes c. Thus wrote S. Chrisostome with much more to the same purpose which he would not haue donne if he had thought that the authority of Innocentius had byn lymited within the particuler Church of Rome or rather if he had not knowne that his authority was vniuersall and sufficient to determyne his cause which also was euident by the progresse and issue of the matter for not only he as playntife appealed to Innocentius but also Theophilus as defendant sent a Priest of his called Peter with letters to iustifie his cause besids that all the Bishops of the East and Greek Church being in this controuersy deuided sent messingers or letters to Rome in fauour of the one or of the other as witnesseth Palladius Bishop of Helenopolis who was S. Christostomes disciple and went also to Rome to prosecute his cause and further testifyeth that Pope Innocentius gaue sentence for S. Chrysostome disanulling the act and iudgment of Theophilus 79. And whereas Atticus was made Bishop of Constantinople after the expulsion of S. Chrystostome Innocentius suspended him frō his Episcopall function vntill the causes should be fully heard and determined ordayning that in the meane tyme Proclus Bishop of Cyzicum should gouerne the Church of Constātinople And albeit Innocentius forbare for sometyme to proceed against Theophilus by way of censure yet after S. Chrysostomes death who dyed in banyshment within 3. yeares he excommunicated not only Theophilus and Atticus for the excesses cōmitted on their part but also Arcadius the Emperour and Eudoxia the Empresse for assisting them with their Imperiall authority as Georgius Alexandrinus Gennadius Glicas and Nicephorus do testify Finally although Theophilus remayned obstinate so long as he liued which was not past 5. yeares after S. Chrysostomes death yet he dyed repentant and Atticus after much suite and many Embassages sent as Theodoretus testifyeth was reconcyled to the Roman Church As also Arcadius the Emperour vpon his submission and humble petition of pardon was absolued by Pope Innocentius as appeareth by the letters of them both which are set downe in Glycas And thus passed this matter which alone may suffice to proue the supreme and vniuersall authority of Innocentius 80. And as for Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus who succeeded Innocentius and were the 3. last Popes of the 8. that liued in S. Augustins tyme I shall not need to say much seeing that I haue already spoken sufficiently of them as of Zosimus a litle before concerning the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy besides a former testimony of S. Augustine touching an assembly of himselfe and other African Bishops at Cesaraea by the inuention or commaundment of Pope Zosimus In like manner I haue shewed before that not only S. Augustine but also the Primate of Numidia in Africk acknowledged the primacy of the Popes Bonifacius and Celestinus by recommending to them the cause betwixt Antony Bishop of Fussula and the people of that Diocesse whereto neuertheles I thinke good to add concerning Bonifacius that it appeareth by his letters to the Bishops of 7. Prouinces in France that the Clergy of the Citty of Valentia sent to him a bill of complaynt with the testimony of the whole Prouince against Maximus an hereticall Bishop of the Manichaean sect accusing him of many haynous crymes and that thereupon Bonifacius did delegate the hearing of the cause to the said Bishops whereby it is euident that his power and authority was not confyned within the Church of Rome 81. And now to conclude with Celestinus who was the last of the 8. methinks M. Andrews should not be ignorant how far his authority and Iurisdiction extended seeing that it cannot be denyed that he was President and head of the generall Councell of Ephesus and that the famous S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria was but his substitute and Legate therein which is euident not only by the testimony of Historiographers but also by
did aske the Bishop with great reason whether he agreed with the Roman Church sciebat enim Episcopum tum Romae Catholicum for he knew that the Bishop of Rome then was a Catholike So he wherin he granteth consequently that the Pope is supreme and vniuersall Pastor of the whole Church for that must needes follow of his grant seeing it is euident that he who then was Bishop of Rome and whom he alloweth for Catholik had and exercised a supreme and vniuersall authority to which purpose it is to be considered who was Bishop of Rome at that time wherto M. Andrewes himselfe giueth vs no small light signifying presently after that Liberius was Bishop a litle before him and sure it is that Damasus succeeded Liberius and reygned many yeares who therefore must needes be the Catholike Bishop that M. Andrewes meaneth 30. Now then what authority Damasus had and exercised during his raigne it appeareth sufficiently by that which I signified before concerning him and his supremacy in the 4. Chapter where I shewed that the same was acknowledged not only in Affrick by the Byshops of 3. African Synods who in a commoÌ„ Epistle to him gaue cleare and euident testimony thereof but also in the East Church euen by the chief Patriarkes therof to wit by Peter the holy Bishop of Alexandria who immediately succeeded Athanasius and being expelled from his Church by the Arians fled to Pope Damasus and by the vertue and authority of his letters was restored to his seat as the Magdeburgians themselues do relate out of the Ecclesiasticall histories And in the Church of Antioch his authority was acknowledged by Paulinus Byshop therof receiuing instructions and orders from him for the absolution of Vitalis the Heritick Also afterwards Theopilus Byshop of Alexandria and S. Chrysostome Byshop of Constantinople were suters to him to obtain pardon for Flauianus Byshop of Antioch as may be seene more particulerly in the fourth Chapter of this Adioynder where I haue also set downe the cleer testimonies of some Fathers who liued at the same time and euidently acknowledged his supremacy 31. So that M. Andrewes granting that Pope Damasus was a Catholike Bishop and that the Church of Rome was in such integrity vnder him that S. Ambrose had reason to hold none for Catholickes but such as held vnion therewith It mâ—st needs follow that the supreme and vniuersall authority which Pope Damasus had and vsed was not vsurped but due to him his Sea and consequently to his successors And wheras M. Andrewes signifieth that the Roman Church and Bishops were not alwaies in the like integrity that they were at that time to wit neither a little before in the time of Liberius nor shortly after in the time of Honorius because both of them subscribed to heresy as he saith I will not now stand to debate that point with him both because I should digresse too much from the matter in hand hauing here vndertaken to shew what he granteth in fauour of Catholicks not to disproue what he denieth or affirmeth otherwise as also because he may see those old and stale obiections fully answered by the Cardinall himself in his CoÌ„trouersies not only concerning those two Popes but also touching all the rest whom our aduersaries were wont to calumniate in like manner and therfore I remit him therto 32. There followeth presently after a large and liberall grant of M. Andrews right worth the noting For wheras the Cardinall still prosecuteth the same matter touching the application of the name Catholicke to the Roman Church and hauing produced the precedent authority of S. Ambrose remitteth his Reader for further proofe therof to the last page of his former Booke which was his Answere to the Apology for the Oath it is to be vnderstood that in the said book and page he proueth by the authority of 3. Ancient Fathers to wit Pacianus S. Cyrill and S. Augustine that the name Catholike is a most true and proper note of the true Church and that it could neuer be vsurped by Hereticks yea and that our aduersaries themselues namely in the Apology for the Oath do so call vs and distinguish vs from themselues by that name and do consequently acknowledge vs to be members of the true Church whereto M. Andrews answereth thus Nam quae in extrema pagina c. For as for those things which the Cardinall wrote in the last page of his former booke and would gladly haue his Reader to see fatemur omnia we graunt and acknowledge them all So he Whereby he granteth that we being called Catholiks euen by our aduersaries themselues haue the true signe note of the true Church and are therefore true members thereof and that he and his fellowes who haue not the same note are Heretikes or Schismatiks For this is in effect the ArgumeÌ„t of the Cardinall grounded vpon the authority of the Fathers aforesayd which you see M. Andrews graunteth saying fatemur omnia 33. And albeit he seeketh presently an euasion by a distinction yet it helpeth him nothing for thus he saith Nec de nominis honore lis vlla sed vtri è re magis nomen habeant neyther is there any contention betwixt vs about the honour of the name but whether of both haue the name deriued from the thing So he allowing vs as you see the honor of the name for the which he saith they do not contend with vs and calling in question only to whome belongeth the thing signified by that name whereas neuertheles it is euident that according to the authorities alledged and vrged by the Cardinall out of the Fathers the name and the thing expressed by the name do alwaies so coÌ„cur that they are neuer separated for which cause those Fathers do hold and teach that the very name and word Catholyke is an euident note to distinguish the true Catholike faith and Church from the false doctrine and Congregation of Heretickes which they could not do if some might haue only the name Catholike and others the faith or Church which it signifieth 34. And therefore S. Augustine in the place alledged by the Cardinall saith that the very name Catholike held him in the Catholike Church quod saith he non sine causâ— inter tot haereses ista Ecclesia sola obtinuit which name this Church only hath obteyned amongst so many heresies not without cause So saith S. Augustine whereto the other Fathers which the Cardinall also cyteth do agree all teaching that heretikes or hereticall congregations neuer did or could vsurpe the name Catholike but that the same hath alwayes been and euer shall be peculiar to the true Church wherby they teach euidently that the name and the thing signified by the name do euer concur So as M. Andrews granting not only the Fathers doctrine in this poynt but also giuing vs freely the honour of the name alloweth vs to haue the
opertet magis obedire Deo quà m hominibus and to giue our liues rather then to offend God and our consciences in the deniall of such an important article of our faith to the euerlasting damnation of our soules But M. Andrews holding the Kings Supremacy to be no article of faith or beliefe but only a matter of perswasion which passeth not the boundes of probability hath no such cause and obligation to deny it as we haue and yet neuerthelesse vnder the colour and pretence to defend it he doth so extenuate and abase it that he maketh it nothing but an externall humaine and meere temporall authority and consequently as any Pagan Prince may exercise as well as a Christan 60. And therefore he dealeth therin no otherwise then one who being chosen by his friend to maintaine his quarrell draweth his sword with pretence to defend him and giueth him a deadly wound behind his backe or like to some preuaricating Aduocate who being hyred to defend a cause pleadeth for the aduerse party for so doth he who being specially chosen by his Maiesty to defend and maintaine his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy doth couertly and vnderhand betray him depriuing him of all the spirituall power that the Parliament hath giuen him and leauing him only the bare title without the effect which kind of dealing if it were but amongst frendes and equals were no lesse then treacherous and perfidious and therefore what it is in a subiect towardes his Prince especially in a man so much honored aduanced by his Maiesty as M. Andrewes hath bin I leaue it to the iudgement of any indifferent man but sure I am it caÌ„not be counted the part of a good subiect 61. Neither can he be thought to be a good Enlish Protestant for who knoweth not that the English Protestant differeth from all other Protestants of other Nations especially in holding and maintayning the Ecclesiasticall and spirituall Supremacy that our Parliament first gaue to King Henry the 8. which you see M. Andrews doth not who as I haue said hath so pared shaued and abridged it that he hath made it nothing in effect at least much lesse and of farre other conditioÌ„ then the Parliament ordayned it Wherby he is not only subiect to the penalties of the Parliamentall statutes as a Traytor but also incurreth the censure of excommunication imposed by a late Synodicall constitution of the Byshops and Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury vpon such as impeach in any part saith the Canon his Maiesties Regall supremacy in Ecclesiasticall causes restored to the Crowne by the Lawes of this Realme therin established and so strickt is the Canon against such persoÌ„s that it ordayneth further that they being excommunicated ipso facto shall not be restored but only by the Archbyshop after their repentance and publike reuocation of their wicked errour So as this Canon and all the rest made in that Conuocation being authorized by his Maiesty and published by his Regall authority vnder the great Seale of England I remit to the iudgment of all true English Protestantes whether M. Andrews hauing incurred the censure of this Canon and being consequently cut off from the vnion of their Congregation can be a member of their body or any other to them then an Ethnick or a Publican vntill he haue publikly reuoked his errour and be absolued and restored by the Archbishop 62. And no maruell seeing that he is as it seemeth so farre from being an English ProtestaÌ„t whatsoeuer he hath ben hertofore that he is now turned flat Puritan in this point allowing the King no more power ouer the Church then to mayntayne and defend it which is the very doctrine of the Puritans who therfore do willingly sweare obedience to their Princes for the defence and conseruation of the Church as it appeareth by the Oath of the Puritans in ScotlaÌ„d who sweare thus Quoniam percepimus Ecclesiae religionis nostrae tranquillitatem c. Forasmuch as we perceiue that the tranquillity stability of our Church and religion doth depend on the health and good gouernment of his Maiesty as of the comfortable instrument of gods mercy granted the Realm for the conseruation of the Church and the administration of iustice amongst vs we do couenant and promise with our hart vnder the same Oath subscription and penalties to defend his person authority and dignity with our goods bodies and liues for the defence of the Ghospell of Christ and the liberty of our Countrey 63. Thus sweare they and no more teacheth M. Andrewes in substance granting no other power to Kings ouer the Church then they do to wit that Kings are but as Foster-fathers defeÌ„ders of it Wherin neuerthelesse this difference may be noted betwixt the Puritans and him that they do belieue it as a matter of faith no lesse then we wheras M. Andrewes is only perswaded that it is true seing that he placeth therin the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy which he holdeth to be no matter of fayth and therfore if the said Supremacy consist only in the defence of the Church as it doth according to his doctrine then both we and the Puritans are better subiects then he because we belieue the same to be a matter of faith and consequently do think our selues bound in conscience to maintaine it though it be with losâ—e of our liues wheras he taking it to be but only a matter of perswasion will not by all liklyhood loose six pence to defend it 64. Furthermore to shew that he doth truly Puritanize in the point of the Supremacy it is to be vnderstood that whereas the Cardinall obiecteth out of the Basilicon Doron of his Maiesty that the Puritans do not admit the Kings Ecclesiasticall primacy because they introduce a certaine parity into the Church he answereth that albeit they maintayne a parity a mongst themselues reiecting the distinction of degrees of Byshops aboue Ministers or of one Minister aboue another yet they doe not hold that there is any parity betwixt the King and them but do admit and acknowledg his Supremacy ouer them thus teacheth M. Andrews and addeth presently after in the next paragraph that wheresoeuer the Religion is reformed the supreme temporall Magistrats haue this Power euen this selfe same which the King hath So he whereupon two things may be euidently gathered The one that the Puritans haue the same doctrine concerning the Ecclesiasticall primacy of temporall Princes that is taught in all the reformed Churches which indeed they also affirme of themselues The other is that the King hath no other Ecclesiasticall power but the self same that the Puritans and all the reformed Churches doe graunt to their temporall Magistrate 65. But what the Puritans teach concerning this point you heard in the last Chapter by the testimony of M. Rogers approued and warranted by all the Cleargy of England to wit that Princes must be seruants to the
c. So he Who also in his Counterblast against M. Horne the pretended Bishop of Winchester saith to him thus It is not the Princes only pleasure that maketh a Bishop but there must be both free election without eyther forcing the Clergy to a choyse or forcing the chosen to filthy brybery and also there must follow a due consecration which you and all your fellowes doe lack and therefore you are indeed by the way to conclude it no true Byshops neyther by the law of the Church neyther yet by the lawes of the Realme for want of due consecration expressely required by an act of Parliamēt renewed in this Queens dayes in suffragā Bishops much more in you Thus sayth M. Stapleton which I haue layd downe at large in his owne words togeather with the lyke out of D. Harding before to the end it may appeare how earnestly they pressed M. Iewell M. Horne who were two of the first pretended Byshops in Queene Elizabeths tyme to shew from whom and by whom they had their vocation and consecration 5. And what trow you was answered therto was there any Bishop named who had consecrated them were there any witnesses alledged of their consecration was M. Masons register or any other authenticall proof therof produced eyther by M. Iewell or M. Horne No truly for as for M. Horne he neuer replyed or any man for him for ought I euer heard And M. Iewell though he tooke vpon him to answere it yet did it so weakely coldly and ambiguously that he sufficiently fortified and iustified his aduersaries obiection 6. For whereas D. Harding had demanded of him how he could proue that he was a Bishop◠who had called him who had layd hands on him and who had consecrated him he answered that he was a Bishop by the free and accustomed Canonicall election of the whole Chapter of Salisbury but to the question how he was consecrated or by whome he answereth no otherwyse then thus Our Bishops are made saith he in forme and order as they haue byn euer by free election of the Chapter by consecration of the Archbishop and 3. other Bishops wherein you see he saith not I was made or wee were made by the consecration of the Archbishop and 3. other Bishops as he should haue said to answere directly to the question but our Bishops are made c. declaring directly and truly nothing els but the custome that then was receiued and vsed amongst them for the making of Bishops which was not denyed or doubted of by D◠Harding neyther was it any thing at all to the purpose because the same concerned not the institution and consecration of M. Iewell himselfe or the first pretended Bishops and much lesse did it concerne the ordination and consecration of their Archbishop which as M. Iewell could not but know most imported to be declared 7. For albeit it should be true that the Arch-Bishop and 3. others consecrated M. Iewell himselfe and the rest yet if the sayd Archbishop and those three others had themselues no consecration neyther they nor any other ordayned by them were Bishops and therefore this was the difficulty which M. Iewell should principally haue cleared as M. Doctor Harding afterwards in his detection told him roundly saying thus And how I pray you was your Archbishop himselfe consecrated what 3. Bishops in the realme were there to lay hands vpon him You haue now vttered a worse case for your selues then was by me before named for your Metropolitan who should giue authority to all your consecrations himselfe had no lawfull consecration Yf you had byn consecrated after the forme and order which hath euer byn vsed yee might haue had Bishops out of France to haue consecrated you in case there had lacked in England But now there were ancient Bishops ynough in England who eyther were not required or refused to consecrate you which is an euident signe that you sought not such a consecration as had byn euer vsed but such a one whereof all the former Bishops were ashamed Thus saith D. Harding 8. Now then good Reader I wish heere certaine thinges to be considered first that this controuersy betwixt D. Harding and M. Iewell was thus debated as you haue heard in the very beginning of the Queenes reygne not past 5. or 6. yeares after the institution of those first pretended Bishops as it may appeare by Doctor Hardings confutation of the Apology printed in the yeare of our Lord 1565. and by Doctor Stapletons Returne of vntruths printed the yeare following 9. Secondly I wish it well to be weyghed whether it be probable that these two learned men Doctor Harding and Doctor Stapleton would haue obiected to M. Iewell and M. Horne this defect of their consecration in printed bookes so confidently and resolutely as they did if they had not bin well assured of it especially thē whē their consecration would haue byn so fresh in memory if they had byn consecrated at all that the denyers of it might haue byn conuinced by multitudes of witnesses to their perpetuall shame 10. Thirdly let it be considered whether M. Iewell being expresly demanded and vrged to shew who consecrated him and his fellowes would haue answered so irresolutly ambiguously and indirectly as he did if he could haue proued theyr consecration eyther by witnesses or by Registers or any other authenticall proofe to which purpose it is also to be noted that he made no doubt at all to speake resolutly and clearely of his election because it was true and euident that he was chosen by the Chapter of Salisbury therfore for that point he boldly appealed to D. Hardings owne knowledg And would he not trow you haue spoken as resolutly clearely of his consecration if he could haue produced the lyke proof therof or any other probability at all especially seeing that it was the poynt which was thē chiefly in questiō nay would not he haue cried shame on D. Harding for denying or calling in questiō a matter that must needs haue bin most notorious at the sāe time if there had bin any such thing at all For besids that the cōsecratiō of Bishops is allwayes wōt to be don in publik who knoweth not that it greatly imported those new pretēded Bishops for the credit of their cause honour of all theyr future Clergy to haue bene consecrated with all the publicity and solemnity in the world if they could haue had any shew of lawfull consecration espicially by 4. Bishops as M. Masons register reporteth 11. Neither can it be imagned that M. D. Harding would haue bene so inconsiderate as to demand of M. Iewell expresly what three Byshops in the Realme were to lay hands vpon him meaning Protestant Bishops if there had bene 4. it being a thing whereof neither he nor any man els could haue bene ignorant at that tyme if there had bene so many the persons themselues being then all
only the Cardinall but also the ancient Fathers Councells and holy Scriptures and finally to face out matters impudently for lack of proofes CHAP. IX Pag. 361. That M. Andrews ouerthroweth his owne cause and fortifieth ours graunting many important points of Catholike Religion That he is turned Puritan in the point of the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy and betrayeth his Maiesties cause vnder-hand pretending to defend it and therfore is neither good English Protestant nor yet good Subiect Lastly what is the opinion of learned strangers concerning him and his booke with a good aduise for a friendly farewell CHAP. X. Pag. 329. An Appendix touching a Register alleaged by M. Franc. Mason for the lawfull Ordayning of Protestant Bishops in Q. Elizabeths Raigne THE AVTHORS INTENTION IS DECLARED AND M. D. Andrewes his interpretation of Pasce oues meas examined and confuted FVRTHERMORE It is shewed that he hath belyed S. Augustine corrupted S. Ambrose notably abused S. Cyril vainly carped at a law in the Code foolishly approued the vnlawfull proceeding of Iustinian the Emperour against two Popes CHAP. I. WHEN I had well-neere ended my Supplement and already sent away the greatest part of it to the print it was my chance to haue a sight of M. D. Andrewes his Answere to Cardinall Bellarmines Apology and considering that the subiect thereof was in effect the same that Father Persons and I had handled and debated with M. Barlow I easily perswaded my selfe that I should find many things treated by M. Andrewes which I had touched in my Supplement In which respect I determined to take a speedy Suruey of his worke and finding that he pretended now and then to answere some places authorities and arguments which had bene obiected as well by me as by the Cardinall I resolued to examine and confute his Answers in respect not only of my selfe but also of the most Worthy Cardinall not for that I thinke he needeth any defence who like an inexpugnable fortresse trenched on euery side and fortified with bulwarks of truth doth of himselfe sufficiently resist the assaults and daunt both the courage and force of his enemies but that in discharge of the obligation which all true Christians owe him for his singular merits towards the Church of Christ I may for my part out of my pouerty pay with the poore widdow my two mytes and therfore hauing offered one of them in my Supplement I thinke good now to add the other and the rather for that I hope by the same meanes to preuent the Cauills of my Aduersary M. Barlow who otherwise might perhaps in his reply if he be disposed to make any blame me for not taking notice of such a worthy work as that of M. Andrewes and eyther turne me ouer to him for satisfaction touching those points or els make vse of his answers himselfe which being esteemed as a precious fruite of the fine wit and curious pen of the greatest Rabbin in the English Synagogue are held no doubt by his friends and followers for no other then oracles of Apollo I meane both infallible and irrefragable for which cause I am the more willing to enter into the examination of them And therefore to the end thou mayst good Reader know how far I meane to proceed therin thou shalt vnderstād that seeing my Supplement is already vnder the presse and that I haue no more tyme to bestow on this Adioynder but vntill the said Supplement be printed I make account that I shall haue opportunity to handle but a few points in which respect I think good to make choyce of such only as concerne some of the most important matters cōtrouersed betwixt M. Barlow me not doubting but that the same shall suffice to shew ex vngue Leonem that is to giue the Reader an aboundant tast and tryall of M. Andrews his good spirit and sincerity in the defence of his cause 1. Well then to come to the matter For as much as one of the chiefest points debated in my Supplement by occasion of the new Oath is the question concerning the supreme and vniuersall Authority of the Apostolike Roman Sea which authority I deduced specially from the Pastorall commission giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter I thinke good to examine of what worth and weight M. Andrewes his Answeres are touching the same especially in his 16. 17. page where he laboureth seriously to proue three wayes against Cardinall Bellarmine that our Sauiours words to S. Peter Pasce oues meas alleaged and learnedly vrged by the Cardinall do make nothing for vs. 2. First he saith that S. Augustine affirmeth that S. Peter had no peculiar increase by the word Pasce and that S. Ambrose affirmeth the like of the words oues meas And to the end that this may appeare he pretendeth to lay downe the very words of those two Fathers Of S. Augustine thus Cùm Petro dicitur ad omnes dicitur Pasce oues meas when it is said to Peter it is said to all Feed my sheep Of S. Ambrose thus Eas oues non solùm Beatus suscepit Petrus sed nobiscum eas suscepit nos cum illo accepimus omnes Those sheep not only the blessed Peter receaued but also he receaued them with vs and we all receaued them with him And then M. Andrewes addeth Nempe dictum illi Pasce c. for it was said vnto him Feed as well in the person of others as in his owne atque vel sic iacebit Cardinali ratio sua and so shall the Cardinalls reason serue him to no purpose Thus argueth he 3. But to the end thou maist good Reader see and note with what fidelity and conscience this man alledgeth the Fathers I will lay downe the place of S. Augustine somewhat more amply then he hath done whereby thou shalt easily discouer his notable fraud S. Augustine in the place alledged by him saith thus Non enim sine causa inter omnes Apostolos c. For not without cause doth Peter sustayne the person of the Catholike Church amongst all the Apostles for to this Church the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen were giuen when they were giuen to Peter and when it is said to him Doest thou loue me Feed my sheep it is said to all and therefore the Catholick Church ought willingly to pardon her Children when they are corrected and strengthned in piety seeing we see that to Peter himselfe bearing the person of the Church pardon was granted both when he had doubted vpon the sea c. and when he had thrice denyed his Maister c. Thus saith S. Augustine declaring that Pasce oues which our Sauiour said to S. Peter was said to all the Church because S. Peter bare the person of the Church Which he did by reason of the supreme authority that he had ouer the Church 4. For else why should rather he then others of the Apostles be said to represent
the whole Church but because he was Head or supreme Gouernour therof which we may learne euen in Cicero who saith that Est proprium munus Magistratus c. It is the proper office or duty of the Magistrate to vnderstand that he beareth the person of the Citty So he speaking of the chiefe or supreme Magistrate wherby it appeareth that whatsoeuer is giuen to the King as King and Head of the Common-wealth the same is giuen to the Common-wealth wherof he beareth and representeth the person and so in like manner what was giuen to S. Peter as Head of the Church the same was giuen to the Church which he representeth For which cause also S. Cyprian saith that Ecclesia est in Episcopo the Church is in the Bishop and the reason is because the Bishop is Head of the Church as this is true in euery particuler Bishop in respect of the particuler Church which he gouerneth So also is it most truly verified in the supreme and vniuersall Pastour in respect of the whole Church whereof he is Head 5. That this was S. Augustines meaning it is euident by his owne doctrine in other places where he sheweth plainly that S. Peter bare the person of figure of the Church in respect of his Primacy Cuius Ecclesia saith he Petrus Apostolus propter Apostolatus sui primatum gerebat figurata generalitate personam c. Of which Church Peter in respect of the primacy of his Apostleship did beare the person figuring or representing the generality therof For if we respect what did belong properly to himselfe he was by nature one man by grace one Christian and by a more aboundant grace vnus idemque primus Apostolus one he the chiefe Apostle but when it was said vnto him Tibi dabo claues I will giue thee the keyes c. he signified the vniuersall Church Thus saith S. Augustine teaching euidently that S. Peter bare the person of the Church by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship that is to say because he was the chiefe Apostle which the same holy Father signifieth also more plainly in another place saying Cuius Ecclesiae ille agnoscitur gessisse personaÌ„ propter Primatum quem in Discipulis habuit Of which Church he is acknowledged to haue borne the person for the Primacy which he had amoÌ„gst the Disciples And to the same purpose he saith also elswhere Petrus à petra cognominatus c. Peter taking his name from a Rock was happy bearing the figure of the Church hauing the principality of the Apostleship 6. Loe then for what cause S. Augustine said that when Christ gaue to S. Peter the keyes of heauen pastorall authority to feed his sheep he gaue the same to all the Church to wit because S. Peter hauing the principality or primacy of the Apostolicall dignity and being consequently chiefe Pastor and head of the Church did beare and represent the person or figure of the whole Church So that you see the place which M. Andrewes bringeth out of S. Augustine against the Primacy of S. Peter maketh notably for it if it be considered with the circumstances therof which he cunningly and craftily concealed But in the other place which he citeth out of S. Ambrose he is more fraudulent hauing plainly corrupted the text which as it is in S. Ambrose is very conforme to this doctrine of S. Augustine signifying nothing else but that all the lawfull Pastors in Gods Church receaued their Pastorall authority ouer their flocks with S. Peter and therfore he saith Quas oues quem gregem non solùm tunc Beatus Petrus suscepit sed cum illo eas nos suscepimus omnes Which sheep and which flock not only the Blessed Peter then receaued but as so we all receaued them with him Thus saith S. Ambrose which all Catholikes do graunt and teach in like maÌ„ner because as I haue said S. Peter representing the person of the whole Church wherof he was head receaued not that Pastorall authority for himselfe alone but also for the Church 7. In which respect S. Ambrose saith very well that all the Pastors of the Church receaued their authority with him though not in equall degree as M. Andrews would haue it who therfore bodgeth into S. Ambrose his text these words of his owne Et nobiscum eas suscepit and he that is to say S. Peter receaued those sheep with vs as if S. Ambrose should meane that S. Peter had no prerogatiue in that point but that he and other Pastors receaued them all alike he with them they with him for to that purpose doth M. Andrewes also alledge the words of S. Ambrose afterwards in a different letter thus Et ille nobisâ—um nos cum illo oues illas pascendas suscepimus which manner of speach doth indeed inforce a greater equality betwixt S. Peter and other Pastors then the true words of S. Ambrose do import or then he euer did imagine who taught expresly elswhere the Primacy of S. Peter not only aboue all other inferiour Pastors but also aboue the Apostles themselues saying that albeit Andrew was called before Peter yet Primatum non accepit Andraeas sed Petrus Andrew did not receaue the Primacy but Peter yea in another place he proueth it by these very words of our Sauiour which are now in question to wit Pâ—sce oues meas 8. For hauing said that our Sauiour asked Peter thrice whether he loued him not to learne saith he any thing of him but to teach him whom he meant to leaue to vs velut amoris sui Vicarium as the Vicar of his loue he alleageth our Sauiours words to S. Peter to wit Simon the sonne of Iohn doest thou loue me c. Pasce agnos meos feed my Lambes and then shortly after he inferreth thereupon thus Et ideo quia solus profitetur ex omnibus omnibus antefertur and therefore because he alone of all the rest professed his loue he is preferred before them all and after a whyle he concludeth that our Lord asked him the third tyme whether he loued him Et iam saith he non agnos vt primò quodam lacte pâ—scendos c. And now Peter is commaunded not to feed Lambs with a certayne milke as the first time nor to feed the little sheep as the second tyme but oues pascere iubetur perfectiores vt perfectior gubernaret he is commaunded to feed the sheep to the end that he being more perfect might gouerne the more perfect Thus saith S. Ambrose 9. Wherein it is to be noted that he teacheth 3. things The first that our Sauiour left S. Peter vnto vs as the Vicar or Substitute of his loue that is to say to succeed him in that fatherly loue care of his Church which he himselfe had the second that when our Sauiour gaue to S. Peter the Pastorall commission and authority
to feed his Lambs and sheep he preferred him therin before all the rest of the Apostles Quia solus saith S. Ambrose profitetur ex omnibus omnibus antefertur The third is that wheras S. Ambrose obserueth three degrees of Christians to wit Lambs litle sheep and sheep all recommended to the Pastorall care of S. Peter he giueth to vnderstand that all sorts of Christians were committed to his charge and gouernment and not the weake only but the most holy also learned and perfect yea euen the Apostles themselues and therefore he saith vt perfectiores perfectior gubernaret 10. This then being S. Ambrose his sense and doctrine concerning the Pastorall cōmission giuen to S. Peter it is most euident that when he teacheth that all Pastours receaued their flocks with S. Peter he teacheth it in the same sense that S. Augustine doth to wit that because S. Peter being supreme Pastour represented the whole Church and receaued the Pastorall authority not for himselfe alone but also for all those who were eyther at that tyme or euer should be subordinate vnto him therefore all other Pastours receaued their authority not only in him as S. Augustine speaketh but also with him that is to say in and with their chiefe Pastour and head And therefore whereas D. Andrews to make a greater shew of parity or equality betwixt S. Peter and other Pastors hath added to S. Ambrose his text those words of his owne nobiscum eas accepit it may passe for a piece of coggery and well discouereth his skill to help the dyce when he is put to his shifts 11. Besids that his vanity and folly notably appeareth in that hauing gayned nothing but rather lost his cause by alledging these two places of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose yet he braggeth thereof afterwards as if he had got a great victory saying in the 214. page that although pasce oues was said in the singuler number and to one to wit S. Peter yet it passed to all and that clariùs id loquuntur Ambrosius Augustinus quà m vt obstrepere possint nouitij nostri Ambrose and Augustine do speake or affirme it more plainly then that our nouices can any way contradict it So he meaning by our nouices the Catholiks as I take it though I know not why he so calleth them neyther do I meane heere to discusse it but will remit to the indifferent Reader to iudge what cause he hath so to brag of these two Fathers and what fidelity he hath shewed in alledging them dissembling the cleare doctrine of the one and corrupting as well the text as the sense of the other and thus much for his first answere 12. In his second he seeketh to retort the Cardinals argument vpon him and to proue the Kings Supremacy by the word pasce which he saith he knoweth will touch the Cardinall to the quick quod scio saith he punget Cardinalem Let vs heare then this sharp argument which I thinke will proue a very blunt one Thus then he saith Negat Cardinalis Primatum Regis c. The Cardinall denieth the Kings Supremacy and yet God said to a King tu pasces populum meum Israel thou shalt feed my people Israel Where no man can deny but that a King was made the Pastor of all Israel yea of the Priests except he will deny them to be part of Israel Thus argueth this learned and sharp Doctor ouerthrowing his owne argument sufficiently by his owne conclusion graunting in effect that if the Priests were not a part of the people of Israel the King was not their Pastor 13. To this purpose then it is to be considered what I haue amply debated in the first Chapter of my Supplement concerning the exemption and sepation of the Priests and Leuits from the temporall and politike State by the expresse words of Almighty God who gaue the Leuits not to the temporall Prince but to Aaron and his children tradidi eos dono Aaron filijs eius de medio populi I haue giuen them saith Almighty God for a gift to Aaron and his children out of the midst of the people Besides that God ordayned expresly that the Tribe of Leui should not be numbred neither yet haue any part or inheritance with the rest of Israel because he had reserued the same for his owne seruice and therfore would himselfe be their possession portion and inheritance So that this being very cleare in the expresse words of the Law which as I also proued was neuer altered but rather confirmed at the institution of the Kings who were expresly bound to obserue the whole law and to obey the high Preist I may say to the Doctor as he said before to the Cardinall atque vel sic iacebit Doctori ratio sua 14. But put the case this were not so yea and that the Preists of the old law had byn subiect to the Kings in spirituall matters wherof I haue already proued the contrary will M. Andrews inferre theron that therfore Kings haue also the spirituall Supremacy in the new law without any new institution or ratification therof by our Sauiour Christ or his Apostles Doth not this great Doctor know that the Mosaycal law was abrogated by the law of grace and that wheras it was deuided into three parts to wit Iudiciall Cerimoniall and Morall the two former vtterly ceased and the third I meane the Morall part contayning the Commaundements remayneth only in force not because it was instituted then but because those Commaundments being grounded on the law of Nature are alwayes in force and therfore ordayned againe to be kept in the new Law In which respect the cōmandment cōcerning the Sabboth doth not now bynd Christians as it was then ordayned and practiced 15. And therfore M. Andrews might aswell introduce Poligamy practised in the old Law as the spirituall supremacy of Kings if we should graunt that they then had any such and with much more reason might he teach abstinence from puddings and other meates made of bloud seeing that we find some commaundements or ordinance therof in the Acts of Apostles wheras there is no one syllable in all the new Testament to proue that Kings haue any spirituall authority ouer the Church it being most euidēt that al those places of Scripture which he or any other doth or can alledge out of the new Testament to that purpose do concerne only temporall obedience to the pagan Emperours or Princes who were then Persecutors of the Church and therefore could not be spirituall heads or Gouernours thereof nor obayed by Christians in spirituall matters And this I say the rather because M. Andrews doth not only heere but also throughout his whole booke seeme to ground his doctrine of the Kings spirituall Primacy specially vpon the law of Moyses as I shall haue occasion to shew further hereafter which sufficiently bewrayeth the beggery and misery of his cause
and his want of proofes for the same by the law of Christ. 16. And although as well the ancient Fathers as we do ordinarily produce testimonies of the old Testament not only for matters in controuersy but also for instruction in matters of morality yet neyther they nor we euer do it to other end but to confirme things instituted and taught in the new law by the ordinance and commaundment eyther of Christ or of his spouse the Church and this we do only in respect of the conformity that is in many things betwixt the figure and the Verity I meane betwixt the old law and the new Moyses and our Sauiour Christ the Synagogue and the Church and not to the end to proue any thing to be necessary now because it was ordayned or practised then which were rather a point of Iudaisme then of Christianisme And therefore this and other arguments of M. Andrews grounded only vpon the Iudicial lawes of Moyses may shew him to be rather a Iew then a Christian except he can bring some other ground for the same out of the new Testament or some Apostolicall or Ecclesiasticall Canon or Tradition which he neyther doth nor euer shall be able to do 17. But who seeth not how he tryfleth in this point as cōmonly he doth in all For how doth it follow that if it be true which we teach to wit that Christ made S. Peter supreme Pastour of the Church by cōmaunding him to feed his sheep then he gaue the same spirituall authority to Dauid when he bad him feed his people of Israel Is it not manifest that although the word pasce feed as it was spoken to them both doth signifie to gouerne yet it is Equiuocall being to be vnderstood of a different manner of gouernment in them both that is to say in the one spirituall and in the other temporall what consequence then can he draw from the one to the other except it be this that as when God bad Dauid who as a temporall man to feed his people of Israell which was a temporall people he gaue him temporall authority making him head of a temporall Kingdome So when he bad S. Peter who was a spirituall man a Priest an Apostle and Prince of the Apostles feed his sheep that is to say all the faithfull conteyned within his Sheepfold which is a spirituall congregation he gaue him a spirituall authority and made him supreme Pastor and head of a spirituall Kingdome that is to say of his Church And this no doubt is the most direct inference that can be made of the word Pasce when it is applied in the old Testament eyther to Dauid if we respect him as he was a King and not a Prophet or else to any other temporall Prince 18. And therfore whereas M. Andrewes saith Narro autem Cardinali c. I declare to the Cardinall that the tytle of Pastor was giuen in the holy Scriptures to Princes long before it was giuen to the Bishop and much more often as to Iosue before and more often euery where in the holy-history and in the Prophets This his narration I say is very idle and impertinent seeing it proueth not any thing which we deny but that which we willingly graunt to wit that the words Pascere and Pastor are often applyed in the old Testament to temporall Princes but that they signify spirituall gouernment in them as Kings M. Andrews will not proue in hast and the contrary is manifest inough in Cyrus a Pagan and Idolatrous King whome God called Pastormeus and no man I thinke will be so absurd to imagine that he had any Ecclesiasticall authority or was Head and chiefe member of Gods Church wherof he was no member at all besides that the example which he giueth vs of Iosue out of the booke of Numbers doth not any way help his cause but flatly confound him 19. For albeit in the Chapter which he quoteth to wit the 27 it is declared that God commaunded Moyses to assigne and ordaine Iosue for his Successour in the gouernmēt of the people least they should be like to oues sine Pastore sheep without a Sheepheard yet it is euident there that he was not to haue any authority ouer the High Priest but rather the cleane contrary to wit that he should depend wholy vpon the High Priests direction and therfore wheras Moyses was commaunded there by almighty God to giue part of his glory to Iosue Theodoretus doth very well obserue as I haue noted before in the Supplement that Moyses did distribute his dignity and authority which was both spirituall and temporall betwixt Iosue and Eleazar the High Priest yet in such sort that Iosue should be directed in al his affaires by Eleazar Pro hoc saith the Scripture si quid agendum erit c. For him that is to say Iosue if any thing be to be done Eleazar shall consult the Lord and at his word he to wit Iosue shall go out and in and all the children of Israel with him and all the rest of the multitude Thus saith the holy Scripture wherby it appeareth that albeit Iosue was Pastor populi yet he was but a temporall Pastor or Gouernour and to be directed euen in temporall affaires by the spirituall Pastor Eleazar whome Almighty God did illuminate and instruct in his consultations for the direction of Iosue Now then doth this example prick Cardinal Bellarmine trow you or M. Andrews Truely though he meant to prick the Cardinall yet you see he hath wounded none but himselfe Thus much to his second answere 20. His third is in substance that albeit S. Augustine and S. Cyril haue amply cōmented vpon the Ghospell of S. Iohn and vpon those very words of our Sauiour to S. Peter Pasce oues meas yet neyther of them saith he saw illustrem hunc fidei articulum de primatu Petri temporali this notable article of faith concerning the temporall primacy of Peter c. So he As if the Cardinal did teach or affirme that S. Peters primacy is a temporall primacy which is a meere fiction of M. Andrews to frame matter for himselfe to impugne for seeing the spirituall primacy of S Peter is so euident in the holy Scriptures that he is now then forced to graūt it in some sort yea somtimes as far forth in effect as we demaūd though at at other times he laboureth vtterly to ouerthrow it as I shall haue occasiō to declare more largly her after he wil now needs presuppose that we teach the Popes Primacy to be a temporall primacy why forsooth Marry because the Cardinal as also all the Catholiks do teach that the spirituall authority which our Sauiour gaue S. Peter and his Successors may and doth in some cases extend it selfe to temporall things so far forth as it is or may be necessary for the execution of their spirituall power and for
charge or gouernment of them no lesse then of all inferiour Pastours in Gods Church was coÌ„mitted to him which S. Leo also testifyeth expressely saying that the charge of feeding the sheep of Christ was more specially committed to Peter And in another place that Peter was chosen out of the whole world to haue the chiefe charge of the vocation of the Gentills of all the Apostles and of all the Fathers of the Church vt quamuis in populo multi sunt sacerdotes c. that albeit there are many Priests amongst the people and many Pastors yet Peter may properly gouerne them all quos principalitâ—r regit Christus whome Christ doth also principally gouerne 33. So 〈◊〉 saith this famous holy and ancient Father of whose great authority in Gods Church I haue spoken amply before in answere of M. Barlows blasphemous speaches and exceptions against him and now to conclude though I might add to these Fathers the cleare testimonies of Eusebius Emissenus Theophilactus S. Bernard and diuers others concerning S. Peters prerogatiue in his Pastorall commission aboue the rest of the Apostles yet I will content my selfe with these already cyted not doubting but that they may suffice for answere to M. Andrews his idle cauills where with he meant 〈◊〉 pricke the Cardinall imagining himselfe belike to be the mighty man that shooteth the sharpe arrowes whereof the Psalmist saith Sagittae potentis acutae but you see his sharp shafts do proue to be no better then sagittae paruulorum the shuttlecocks of litle children or rather to say truely to be that fooles bolt which as the Prouerb saith is soone shot wherof Salomon saith sagitta in feâ—ore canis sic verbum in corde stulti as an arrow in the thygh of a dog who neuer can rest vntill it be out so is a word in a fooles hart which truely I would haue forborne to haue said of M. D. Andrews were his folly far more exorbitant then it is if he did not shew so much virulency and malice towards the worthy Cardinall as he doth euery where treating him most iniuriously with such opprobrious and contumelious tearmes that he deserueth to be answered as the Wyseman aduyseth secundum stultitiam suam c. according to his owne folly lest he may thinke himselfe to be wise 34. But let vs now passe to some other matter which shall be a law in the Code beginning inter Claras which law is an Epistle of Pope Iohn the second to Iustinian the Emperour and another of Iustinian to him wherin the Pope is acknowledged to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches This law is cited by me in my Supplement to proue the dutifull respect and obedience of the ancient Emperours shewed to the Apostolicke Roman Sea and to the same purpose it is also alledged by Cardinall Bellarmine in his Apology to whom M. Andrews answereth thus Poterat Cardinalis abstinere à lege inter Claras citanda c. The Cardinall might well haue forborne to cyte the law inter Claras which he knoweth not to be cyted inter Claras leges amongst the cleare lawes but amongst the obscure and counterfait he might also haue abstayned from mentioning Iustinian the Emperour who shewed himselfe to be Superiour to the Pope aliqua ex parte in some part first in Siluerius the Pope and after in Vigilius of whome he banished the former and imprisoned the later So he wherein you see two things affirmed the one that the Cardinall knoweth the law of Iustinian which beginneth inter Claras to be cyted amongst the obscure and counterfait lawes and the other that Iustinian shewed himselfe to be in some part superiour to Popes because he banished Pope Syluerius and imprisoned Vigilius I will briefly examine both these points 35. As for the first truly I cannot but wonder at M. Andrews his confidence and boldnes or rather his impudence so boldly and confidently to affirme as he doth without any proofe in the world that the Cardinall knoweth the foresaid law to be cyted amongst the obscure yea counterfait Lawes wheras the Cardinall knoweth it to be held esteemed not only inter Claras but also inter clarissimas leges amongst the most cleare lawes for so the most famous Lawyer Baldus tearmeth it who vpon this very law maketh this Glosse Clarissima est lex in qua Dominus Imperator c. This is a most cleare law wherin the Emperour writeth to the Pope coÌ„cerning the faith which he professeth So he And this may be confirmed with the authority of Accursius who glosseth it no lesse then all the other Lawes in the Code without making the least doubt or scruple in the world of any obscurity or defect therin 36. But perhaps M. Andrewes will say that it cannot be denyed but that some haue doubted of it and impugned it Whereto I answere that true it is that some heretikes of these latter ages haue either ignorantly or maliciously called it in question of whome the learned and eloquent Lawyer Alciat saith thus Sunt qui suspectam habent Ioannis Pontificis epistolam c. There are some who do suspect Pope Iohns Epistle which is in Iustinians Code vnder the Title De Trinitate and say that it is not found in some books which as I thinke they do in fauour of those who depresse the Popes authority as also I haue found other Authors corrupted by them to the same end to wit the Chronicles of Otho Frisingensis and certaine verses of Ligurinus the Poet. But I do know it to be extant in very many old copyes and that it caÌ„not with any suspicion be impeached and if one or two books haue it not it is to be ascribed to the negligence of the Wryters who somtymes omitted it because they thought that it doth not much concerne the Science of the Law neuerthelesse it is not to be doubted quin genuinus germanusque Ioannis sit foetus but that it is the proper true worke of Pope Iohn Thus saith Alciat who not only testifieth as you see that he had himselfe seene it in very many old copyes but also yieldeth a probable reason why in some other copyes it might be left out 37. I could confirme this also by the testimony of the learned Lawier Cuiacius others if it were needfull as it is not seeing that Pope Nicolas the first of that name who liued aboue 800. years agoe cyteth the Epistle of Iustinian the Emperour to Pope Iohn beginning Reddentes honorem which he saith Iustinian himselfe inserted into his Lawes layeth downe some part of it word for word as it is yet to be seene in the law inter Claras wherof we now treate which law is as I haue already declared an Epistle of Pope Iohn to Iustinian wherin that other of Iustinian cyted by Pope Nicolas is inserted wherby it is
euident that the said Law was as it is now in the Code 800. yeares agoe and held for a cleare Law of Iustinian wherof there are also other most pregnant and conuincing testimonies for Liberatus who liued in Iustinians tyme witnesseth that he was himselfe at Rome when Hypatius and Demetrius came thither sent from Iustinian the Emperour to consult with the Sea Apostolike against the messengers of certaine Nestorian and Eutychian Bishops concerning two or three points then in controuersie betwixt the Catholicks in the East parts and them which points also Liberatus setteth downe addeth that Pope Iohn did write to the Emperour Et epistola sua firmauit quid confitendum and confirmed by his Epistle what was to be professed or belieued touching the same and this was done saith Liberatus nobis ibi positis whylest we were there 38. So that it is euident inough that the Epistle of Pope Iohn whereof Liberatus speaketh is the same that is now in question as well because the contents are the same that Liberatus testifyeth as also for that Hypatius and Demetrius are mentioned therin to be the Embassadours of Iustinian who brought it to the Pope besides that Iustinian himselfe writing to Agapetus the Pope maketh mention of his owne Epistle to Pope Iohn and of Pope Iohns to him as also Pope Iohn doth the like in his Epistle to diuers Senatours finally Iustinian in a constitution of his directed to Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople and set downe in the Code in Greeke relateth the substance of his Epistle to Pope Iohn to the effect abouesaid shewing also the great care he had to conserue the vnity of all the Churches in the East parts Cum ipso saith he Sanctissimo Papa veteris Romae ad quem similia hisc◠perscripsimus with the most holy Pope himselfe of old Rome to whome we haue written the like to these So he And then addeth further thus Nec enim patimur c. For we do not suffer that any of those things which belong to the state of the Church be not related to his Beatitude as being the head of all the most holy Priests of God and specially because as often as there hath risen any Heretikes in these parts they haue bene corrected by the sentence and Iudgement of that venerable Seat Thus saith Iustinian in that cōstitution 39. Wherein first he testifyeth that he had written to the Pope of Rome who was then Iohn the second as it is euident secondly he signifyeth that the substance of his letters to the Pope was the same in effect that he wrote to Epiphanius and this is so cleare by the contents of both the Epistles that the one to wit that to Epiphanius is set downe in the Code in Greeke without any translation because the other to Pope Iohn which followeth in Latin is the same in effect in which respect the former in Greeke needed not to be translated as the glosse witnesseth Thirdly Iustinian in this Constitution to Epiphanius not only acknowledgeth the Pope to be head of all the holy Priests of God as he did in like manner in his Epistle to the Pope but also giueth another most notable testimony as well of the Vniuersall authority as of the perpetuall intergrity of the Roman Sea seeing he confesseth that all the heresies which euer sprong in the East or Greeke Church had been condemned by the Iudiciall sentence of that venerable Seat 40. Therefore can any man desire eyther more cleare proofes then these that the law inter Claras is a cleare and no obscure or counterfait law or more pregnant testimonies of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome by the Ciuill or Imperiall law in the daies of Iustinian Or yet a more euident demonstration of M. Andrews vanity and folly in seeking to obscure the perspicuous and cleare light of this ancient law with such a friuolous and vayne exception so clearly conuinced as you haue seene Whereby he also worthily incurreth the malediction of the Prophet Vae qui dicitis c. VVo be to you who call good bad and bad good and make light darknesse and darknesse light And thus much for this point 41. The other point which now resteth to be discussed is that M. Andrews saith that the Cardinall might also haue abstayned from mentioning Iustinian because he shewed himself to be Superiour some way to the Pope first in banishing Siluerius after in imprisoning Vigilius wheras the Cardinall had also produced the testimony of the Bishop of Patera who vpon the banishment of Pope Siluerius came to Iustinian and protested Gods iudgment against him saying that though there were many Kings yet there was not one alone as he who was expelled from his Seat was Pope ouer the Church of the whole world meaning that there was not one King alone ouer the whole world as there is one Pope or vniuersall Pastour ouer the whole Church M. Andrews answereth thereto Non tam curandum c. It is not to be so much regarded what the Bishop said as what Iustinian did And againe presently after Facta cùm videamus verba quid audiamus vel Paterensis vel Cardinalis seeing we see the facts of Iustinian why should we harken to the words eyther of the Bishop of Patera or of the Cardinall 42. So he arguing as you see far more simply absurdly then it could haue bene belieued or imagined of D. Andrews if he had not himselfe published this in print For if this kind of argument may passe for good what hath there euer bene in the world so wickedly done that may not be iustifyed For howsoeuer it hath byn or may be reprehended by holy graue or learned men those that list to maintayne the fact may say with this Doctor facta cùm videamus verba quid audiamus And when our Sauiour Christ said to the Iewes of those who sate vpon the Chayre of Moyses Quae dicunt facite c. Do what they say but not what they do might not some haue answered according to this Doctors rule facta cùm videamus verba quid audiamus But to the end that his absurdity may the better appeare let vs consider a little the manner quality of these facts of Iustinian Thus then passed the matter 43. Agapetus the Pope Predecessour to Syluerius being at Constantinople and hauing in the presence of the Emperour Iustinian conuinced the hereticall Bishop of that Citty called Anthymus deposed him and ordayned Mennas Bishop in his place wherwith the hereticall and wicked Empresse Theodora wife to Iustinian and speciall Patronesse of Anthymus was so highly offended that she neuer rested to seeke the restitution of Anthymus and the expulsion of Mennas and to that end Agapetus being shortly after deceased she made great instance to Siluerius his Successour to obtaine it of him and being flatly denyed she practised his ouerthrow and caused him to
Reader the rather to reflect vpon the propheticall zeale spirit of this holy Bishop the importance of his graue serious reprehension of the Emperour 49. But whether he did it of negligence or malice I leaue it to God his owne conscience to iudge and will only say of him that preferring as he doth the inconsiderate act of the ignorant and vnlearned Emperour misled by heretikes before the zealous graue speach cesuâ—e of a Catholik learned Bishop he sufficiently discouereth his owne heretical spirit especially seing that he could not but see in Liberaâ—us of what moment weight the Bishops words were which appeareth by the notable effect that they wrought in the Emperour himself who was moued therby to recall his factâ— as Liberatus testifieth in these words Quem audiens Imperatoâ—â— reuocari Roman Siluâ—rium 〈◊〉 c. The Emperour hearing the Bishop of Paterâ— commaunded Siluerius to be called back to Rome and the matter to be examined and tryed conceâ—ning his letters meaning the letters wherof he had bene falsely accused visi apprâ—â—â—â—â—tur ab ipso fuisse scriptuâ—â— in quacumque Cauitate Episcop degeret c. to the end that if it were proued that he had written them he might liueâ— or remaine Bishop in any other Citty and if they were found to be false then he might be restored to his seat Thus saith Liberatus wherin it is to be noted that although the Emperour vpon the Bishops admonition commaunded that the matters whereof Siluerius was accused should be better examined yet he did not presume to ordayne that in case he should be found guilty he should be depriued of his Dignity but only that for the security of the Citty of Rome he should liue in any other Citty and there exercise his function and charge 50. And Liberatus doth also further declare that as Siluerius was returning to Rome according to the Emperours order Bellisarius caused him at the instance of Vigilius who then vsurped his Seat to be deliuered into the hands of two of Vigilius his seruants in whose custody he perished shortly after with famine misery in an Iland called Palmaria wherby it appeareth how the Emperours reuocation of his fact was frustrated to wit not by his owne fault but by the sinister practise of his officers ministers who by the help of the wicked Empresse Theodora easily deluded him So that M. Andrews might learne by this relatioÌ„ of Liberatê° how potent were the Bishops words which he so litle esteemeth and the reader may note as well M. Andrews his folly as his bad conscience his folly in that he maketh more accompt of the temerarious and erroneous act of the Emperour which he himself acknowledged for such recalled then of the Bishops admonition which made him see and repent his errour his bad conscience in that he dissembled all this though he could not but see it in Liberatusâ— for no man can imagine that he would be so negligent as to answere to this obiection of Cardinall Bellarmine and not to search the Authour alledged by the Cardinall to see whether there were any corruption in the allegation therfore thou maist see good Reader with what sincerity he vseth to treat matters of Religion though the same import no lesse then the eternall saluation or damnatioÌ„ of mens soules not caring what he saith or dissembleth so that he may shift of the matter for the tyme with some shew of probability whereof we shall see much more experience hereafter in him as we haue already seene the like in M. Barlow For truely it is hard to say whether of them is more fraudulent and absurd in this kind 51. In the meane time two things are euident by this which hath been heere debated the one how weakely M. Andrewes argueth when he saith that the Emperour Iustinian shewed himself in these two acts to be superiour to the Pope aliqua exparte for it may well be graunted in some sense he gaine nothing by it seing the like may be said of Nero who put to death S. Peter and S. Paul of Herod who killed S. Iohn Baptist and of Pilate who gaue senteÌ„ce of death against Christ for they and all other persecutors of Gods Church yea Iustinian also himself in the end of his raigne when he declared himself an heretick and expelled Catholick Bishops from their seats because they would not subscribe to his heresies they all I say shewed themselues to be Superiours aliqua ex parte ouer those whom they killed banished and persecuted hauing by Gods permission power ouer them and exercysing the same power vpon them neuertheles I hope no good Christian man will say that because they did this ergo it was lawfully done which must eyther be the conclusion of M. Andrewes his argument à facto or els he concludeth nothing to the purpose 52. The other thing which I say is cleare by the premisses is that as well the testimony of the Bishop of Patera produced by the Cardinall as also the other grounded vpon the law inter Claras alledged both by the Cardinall and by me are good and solid proofes for the Popes Vniuersall authority ouer the Church of God notwithstanding the idle exceptions of M. Andrewes against the same and therefore he must now deuyse some other answere therto or seek some other shift seeing this hath fayled him and serued to no other purpose but to shew his conformity of spirit rather with the hereticks who deceaued and seduced Iustinian in the banishment of two Popes then with such Catholicke and holy Bishops as the Bishop of Patera or those others whose aduise he vsed in making his Catholike lawes in fauour and honour of the Sea Apostolike Finally thou seest good Reader that it may be iustly sayd of him as he said of the Cardinall to wit that he might haue abstayned from mentioning Iustinian and the law inter Claras seeing that he hath gayned thereby nothing els but to manifest his owne folly to bewray the weaknes of his cause to fortify ours THE ANSVVERS OF M. ANDREWS TO Certayne places of the Councell of Calcedon are examined and confuted His notable fraud in diuers things and especially in the allegation of a Canon of that Councell is discouered and the supreme authority of the Sea Apostolike clearely proued out of the same Councell and Canon CHAP. II. IN the second Chapter of my Supplement I haue produced certayne cleare testimonies out of the Councell of Calcedon for the Popes Vniuersall and Supreme authority ouer the Church of God and Cardinall Bellarmin also in his Apology hath alleaged the same whereto M. Andrewes hath framed an Answere such a one as it is so perhaps may seeme to some to haue answered vs both In which respect I think good to examin what he saith concerning that matter the rather because he holdeth it for a paradoxe in the Cardinall
with the Church of Rome addeth presently for the explication thereof vt Ponticae Asâ—anae Thraciae Dioecesis Metropolitani c. That the Metropolitans of Pontus Asia Thracia and also the Bishopps of the same Diocesse amongst the Barbarous so were all called that were no Graecians should be ordayned by the Bishops of Constantinople 8. So sayth the Canon giuing to vnderstand that whereas the Church of Constantinople had bene in times past but a priuate Bishoprick subiect to Heraclea it should hereafter be not only a Metropolitan but also a Patriarchall Sea and haue Metropolitans vnder it yea and that as the Church of Rome was the chiefe Church of the West so also the Church of Constantinople being now made the second after Rome should be the chief Church of the East preferred before the Patriarchall Seas of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem yet with this euident exception and reseruation that neuerthelesse it should be still inferiour to the Roman Sea being the second after it that is to say it should haue the same place and priuiledge that the Church of Alexandria had in former times which though it was the chief Church of the East the secoÌ„d after Rome yet was alwayes inferiour subiect thereto as it is euident by the appeale of the famous Athanasius Bishop of that Sea to Pope Iulius the first of that name aboue an huÌ„dreth yeares before the CouÌ„cel of CalcedoÌ„ 9. Therfore the preheminence which the Church of CoÌ„stantinople was to haue by this Canon was to be preferred before the Churches of Alexandria Antioch and the equality that it was to haue with Rome was no other but to be a Patriarchall Sea and head of all the Patriarchall and Metropolitan Churches of the East as Rome was in the West yet with reseruatioÌ„ of the right of Primacy due to the Roman Sea Besides that it is to be noted that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in our latin Copies is translated aequalis doth signify also similis lyke not only in prophane Authors as euery maÌ„ may see in the Thesaurus of Henricê° Stephanê° but also in diuers places of holy Scripture both in the old new TestameÌ„t And he that list to see more to this purpose may read the Paralel of Tortus his Tortor writteÌ„ against M. D. Andrews by the ReuereÌ„d Learned Father Androas Eudaemon-Ioannes who hath sufficiently handled and explicated this point and hath also produced a cleare testimony out of Theodorus Balsamon a very learned Grecian and Patriarch of Antioch to proue that the mention of paria priuilegia equall priuiledges graÌ„ted to the Church of CoÌ„stantinople in the CouÌ„cell of CalcedoÌ„ doth not any way derogate from the supreme dignity of the RomaÌ„ Sea 10. Whereto I also add that the word aequalis in the Scripture doth not alwayes signify a true and iust Equality in all respects but somtymes also an Equality in a certayne proportion as in the Apostle to the Corinthians who exhorteth them to supply the temporall wants and necessityes of the poore with their store and aboundance vt fiat aequalitas sayth he that there may be an equality meaning an equality in a certayne similitude and proportion as it appeareth by that which he addeth for the further explication therof saying sicut scriptum est qui muliùm non abundauit qui modicum non minorauit as it is written he which gathered much had no more then was necessary for him and he that gathered litle had no less So sayth the Apostle alluding to the history in Exodus of those who gathered Manna in different quantity and yet found that they had it in a kind of equality because euery one had so much as was needfull for him and no more so that equality doth not signify heere an Arithmeticall equality as the Philosophers and Schoolemen tearme it which is equall in euery respect and is vsed in commutatiue Iustice that is to say in buying and selling and the lyke wherein the iust and true valew of euery thing is equally considered but a Geometricall equality keeping only a certayne proportion according to distributiue Iustice which as Aristotle and the Schoolemen do teach doth alwayes respect equality in the distribution of honours priuiledges and rewards yet so as due proportion be obserued correspondent to the different dignity and quality of euery one And therfore when two persons of different quality and degree as the Captayne and his souldiar are to be rewarded for some one seruice to the common wealth their rewards or priuiledges are truly equall when they are priuiledged and rewarded in a due proportion to their degrees without impeachment to the difference that is betwixt them And so a subiect may be said to haue equall priuiledges with his King and yet be his subiect still and in this maÌ„ner the words equall and equality are to be vnderstood in the CouÌ„cell of CalcedoÌ„ as is euident by the CanoÌ„ it self wherin you see it was ordayned that the Bishop of Constantinople should haue equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome and yet haue the secoÌ„d place after him 11. But now to deale somewhat more liberally with M. Andrews in this point let vs put the case that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon did meane to giue to the Church of Constantinople that equality with the Roman sea which he affirmeth should he trow you gayne any thing thereby Or could he any way preiudice the vniuersall and supreme authority either of Pope Leo at that tyme or of the other Popes his Successors euer since Truly no but rather should notably confirme theyr primacy and vtterly ouerthrow his owne cause seeing that it is most euident that the authority of Pope Leo was such that his only opposition to that Canon and his abrogation therof sufficed to ouerthrow disanull it which I will take a litle paynes to proue by the whole course and practise of the Church euen from that Councell vntill the ruine of the Greeke Church and Empyre which though it be needlesse in respect of the learned yet I hope it will not be altogeather fruitles to the more ignorant and vnlearned and may serue for an aboundant conuiction of M. Andrews his impudency and malice who is not ashamed to auouch such a manifest falsehood and impugne such a knowne truth as he doth 12. To this purpose I wish it to be noted what Gelasius who liued at the same tyme and was Pope about 30. yeares after Leo wrote to the Bishops of Dardania concerning a schisme raysed by Acatius Bishop of Constantinople in the tyme of Pope Felix his Predecessor in which Epistle he signifyeth 4. things specially to be noted for this purpose First that the Emperour Martian though he had made great instance to Pope Leo for the aduancement of the Church of Constantinople yet did highly prayse and commend the said
the Schismaticall Synod gathered by him that as well he himself as his predecessor non semel sed saepissim◠not once but very oft had written to the Sea Apostolike protesting that if they had at any time presumed to do any thing against the authority of the sayd Sea they acknowledged themselues to be anathematized or accursed by theyr owne sentence 18. And after the death of the sayd Iohn S. Gregory the great in an Epistle of his to a Sicilian Bishop testifieth that the Bishop of Constantinople in his time being accused of a great delict acknowledged himself to be subiect to the censure or chastisment of the Sea Apostolik in case he were guilty whereupon S. Gregory saith Nam quòd se dicit Sedi Apostolicae subijci siqua culpa in Episcopis inuenitur c. For wheras he saith that he is subiect to the Sea Apostolik if any fault be found in the Bishops I know not who is not subiect vnto it And in another epistle to the same Bishop he saith Quis dubitet eam Sedi Apostolicae subiectam c. Who doubteth but that the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the Sea Apostolyke which as well the most pious Emperour as Eusebius Bishop therof do continually professe So he wherein it is to be noted that these Bishops of Constantinople professed this their obedience to the Roman Sea at such tyme as the Church of Rome was most miserably oppressed by the tyranny of the Gothes and Longobards in such sort that it would haue beene vtterly contemned especially by the Greeke Church if it had vsurped a greater authority then was generally belieued to be due vnto it and to haue byn giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter and his Successors 19. To this may be added the excommunication and deposition of many Bishops of Constantinople by Bishops of Rome as it appeareth in an Epistle of Pope Nicolas the first to the Emperour Michael wherein he nameth 8. Bishops of that Sea deposed by his predecessors and afterwards he himself also gaue sentence of excommunication deposition against Photius Bishop of the same Sea which sentence Basilius the Emperour executed for feare of incurring the censures of the Sea Apostolike as he himself testified in the 8. generall Councell And when Photius was afterwards by his owne subtile practise restored to his Sea he was agayne deposed by Pope Stephanus and such was the reuerence and respect that the Clergy and Nobility of Constantinople bare to the Sea Apostolike that they would not admit one of the bloud Royall called Stephanus to succeed Photius vntill they had written to the Pope to haue his confirmation thereof Moreouer three generall Councels to wit the 6.7 and 8. being after S. Gregoryes tyme assembled and held in Greece and two of them in Constantinople it self the Popes Legats and not the Bishop of Constantinople were Presidents therof which neyther the Greeke Emperours nor those Bishops would haue permitted if they had byn perswaded that the Councell of Chalcedon had exempted the Church of Constantinople from the Popes Iurisdiction or made the same equal with the Roman Church 20. And albeit after S. Gregories time diuers hereticall Emperours and the Bishops of Constantinople during their raigne caused diuers schismes and separated them selues from the vnion of the Roman Sea yet when Catholike Emperours and Bishops succeeded they returned to the vnion and obedience thereof in so much that not only the Embassadours of the Emperour Petrus Altisiodorensis but also the two Patriarkes of Constantinople and Hierusalem with the Delegates of the two other Patriarks of Alexandria and Antioch came to the great Councell of Lateran held at Rome in the yeare of our Lord 1215. and subscrybed to the Catholike doctrine concerning the Vniuersall Authority and Primacy of the Sea Apostolike 21. And againe 200. yeares after in the yeare 1459. the Greeke Emperour Ioannes Paleologus and Ioseph Bishop of Constantinople togeather with the Legates of the other 3. Patriarkes of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem besids many Grecian Bishops Abbots and other learned Prelats came to a Generall Councell held by Pope Eugenius at Florence and there hauing first maturely debated amongst themselues the questiō of the Popes Supremacy according to the testimonies not only of the holy Scriptures but also of the ancient Greeke Fathers they receiued and with their hands and seales confirmed the Catholike doctrine as well concerning that point as all other wherein they had in the tyme of the former Schismes dissented from the Roman Church as I haue signified more at large in the first Chapter of my Supplement where I proposed also to be considered that presently after their reuolt from this solemne vnion made at Florence God punished the Empyre and Church of Constantinople with that lamentable and miserable captiuity wherein it hath euer since remayned 22. And thereto I will now also add for the conclusion of this point what S. Antoninus obserueth in his history concerning the iust Iudgements of God vpon the Church of Constantinople before the fall of the Greeke Empyre to wit that whereas the Bishops of that Sea had dyuers tymes most ambitiously and proudly impugned the authority of the Roman Church by the fauour and help of the hereticall Emperours God so disposed that in the end the said Emperours became the instruments of his iustice to punish their pryde especially from the tyme of the Emperour Constantin called Monomachus who though in despyte and hatred of the Roman Church he graced the Bishop of Constantinople called Michaël not only with extraordinary priuiledges and ensygnes of honour which he granted as well to his person and successors as to his Sea but also with the tytle of Vniuersall Patriarke of the whole world and all Papal authority leading also his horse by the brydle to his pallace because he had vnderstood that the Emperours of the West had done the like honour and seruice to some Popes neuertheles perceauing afterwards that the people did by this occasion beare such reuerence and respect to Michaël that the Imperiall state might be endangered as he conceiued in case any controuersy should fall out betwixt the Church and the Empyre he publikely degraded and disgraced him depriuing him of all those ensignes tytles and priuiledges wherewith eyther he or any other of the Emperours his predecessors had endowed the Church or Bishops of Constantinople 23. And from that tyme forward as S. Antoninus testifieth the Patriarks of that Sea became very slaues to the hereticall Emperours and were put out and in by them at their pleasure whyles in the meane tyme the Roman Church ouercomming all her enemies tryumphed ouer the malice and tyranny of her oppressors enioying the stability security and maiesty which she still possesseth wherein the prouidence and iustice of Almighty God is euidently seene as well in conseruing the Sea Apostolike according to his promise to S. Peter as also in
was decreed therein no more then our Acts of Parliamēt without the Kings approbation neuertheles for as much as the Canons of the Nicen Councell touching those Churches and this Canon also whereof we now specially treate did not ordayne or concerne any thing which was de iure diuino but only the priuiledges and iurisdiction of Churches pertayning to Ecclesiasticall Lawes it is euident that Pope Leo being the head of the whole Church might dispose of them as he should see iust cause yea and it is not to be doubted but that he would haue ratified this Canon had he not seene such sufficient cause to the cōtrary as hath beene declared therfore the Popes his successors being moued with such other occasions and vrgent reasons as change of tyme produced not only permitted the Bishops of Constantinople to haue the second place after them but ordayned it also by a Canon as I shall haue occasion to shew heereafter In the meane tyme I conclude concerning this poynt that although Thedorus Balsamon and Zonaras and some other Grecian collectors of the Councells do set downe this Canon in fauour of the Churches of Constantinople yet it is not to be found eyther in the Collections of Dionysius and Isidorus gathered out of the Greeke aboue a thousand yeares agoe or yet in the old Greek manuscripts or the ancient Latin copies of the Councells which we haue in these parts and thus much for the making and abrogation of this Canon 29. And now to come to the assertion of M. Andrewes concerning Pope Leo's intercession made as he saith in vayne to the Emperour Empresse and Anatolius true it is that Pope Leo wrote to them all three but whether as a suiter or suppliant or yet in vayne let the Reader iudge and accordingly giue credit to M. Andrews hereafter First then he wrote to the Emperour that whereas he I meane Pope Leo might haue called Anatolius to account long before for being consecrated Bishop by an heretike he had borne with him at the Emperours request and that by the Emperours help and by his I meane Pope Leo's fauourable consent Anatolius had obtayned that great Bishoprick and that therefore he might haue contented himselfe with those fauours and not haue presumed thereupon the rather to encroach vpon the dignities of other Bishops Also he signifyed to the Emperour that Anatolius should neuer be able to make his Sea an Apostolicall Sea or yet to increase it by the iniury and offence of others that the priuiledges of Churches being instituted by the Canons and Decrees of the venerable Councell of Nice could not be impeached or changed by any impious attempts of his that it pertayned to him I meane to Pope Leo in respect of his office and charge to looke to the obseruation of the Canons and not to preferre one mans will before the common benefit of the whole Church finally presuming as he saith of the Emperours pious disposition to conserue the peace and vnity of the Church he besought him to represse the ambition and wicked attempt of Anatolius if he persisted therein and to make him obay the Canons of the Councell of Nice for other wyse the issue would be that Anatolius should but worke his owne separation from the communion of the Vniuersall Church 30. To this effect wrote Pope Leo to the Emperour crauing indeed with great reason his help and assistance for the correction and amendment of Anatolius yet with great grauity and authority as you see and not in vayne as M. Andrewes would haue vs to suppose for albeit the Emperour had fauoured greatly the pretence of Anatolius to prefer the Church of Constantinople before Alexandria and Antioch neuertheles vpon Pope Leo's letters to him he not only yielded therein but also greatly approued it in the sayd Pope that he defended the Canons of the Councell of Nice with such constancy and resolution as he did which is manifest by another letter of Pope Leo to the Emperour wherein he signified the contentment and ioy that he receaued when he vnderstood by the Emperours letters that he not only approued his defence of the Canons but was also himselfe determined to defend them and to conserue the priuiledges of the Churches according to the decrees of the Nicen Councell So that I hope M. Andrews cannot now say that Pope Leo's intercessiō to the Emperour was in vayne Let vs then see what manner of suite he made to the Empresse 31. He wrote also to her diuers Epistles and in one of them hauing first taxed Anatolius of immoderate pryde for seeking to passe the limits of his owne dignity to the preiudice of other Metropolitās signfying withall that he might haue contented himself to haue byn aduanced to the Bishoprike of Constantinople as well by his fauourable consent and approbation as by her and the Emperours grant he addeth touching the Canon now in question Consensiones saith he Episcoporum Canonum apud Nicaeam conditorum regulis repugnantes vnita nobiscum vestrae fidei Pietate in irritum mittimus per auctoritatem B. Petri Apostoli generali prorsus definitione cassamus The piety of your faith being vnited with vs we do vtterly make voyde and by the authority of the Blessed Apostle Peter do with a generall definition wholy disanull the consents that is to say the Decrees of the Bishops which were repugnant to the rules of the Canons made in the Councell of Nice So he speaking as you see not like a suppliant sed tamquam potestatem habens like a man that had power and Apostolicall authority to disanull and abrogate this Canon as he did 32. Now it resteth that we see what manner of petition or supplication he presented to Anatolius which truly was such that it made him stoupe as stout and proud as he was First then Pope Leo blameth him for taking the occasion he did to seeke not only to preferre himselfe before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch as though their Churches had lost their priuiledges by the fall of their Pastors but also to subiect them and all other Metropolitans of the Greeke Church to his iurisdiction which he tearmeth inauditum numquam antea tentatum excessum an excesse neuer heard of nor attempted by any man before And further signifyeth that this attempt being quite contrary to the most holy Canons of the Councell of Nice was too wicked and impious that his haughty pryde tended to the trouble of the whole Church that he had abused his brethren the Bishops in the Councell who being assembled only for the definition and decision of matters of faith had been drawne by him partly by corruption and partly by feare to fauour and further his ambitious desires that he accused himselfe sufficiently when he acknowledged that the Legats of the Sea Apostolyke whome he ought to haue obayed publikly contradicted and resisted him in the Councell 33. Moreouer he aduertiseth him that the
same in defence of his pretended Episcopall authority against the Puritans wherto I may add that M. Andrewes himself also approueth it els where granting that S. Peter was appoynted head of the Apostles by our Sauiour vt schismatis tollatur occasio as S. Hierome saith that the occasion of schisme may be taken away yea and confesseth moreouer that S. Peter had so much authority giuen him as was necessary for auoyding of schisme and for the maintenance of peace and vnity of which poynt I shall haue somewhat to say vnto him here after 50. If then Pastors or gouernours are by his owne confession instituted in the Church to conserue the same in vnity haue speciall authority giuen them to that end he must needs confesse also that they ought to haue more care thereof then those who haue not any speciall institution or authority to the same end and therefore I would be glad to know how he agreeth with himself in this poynt teaching heere as he doth that the care of the peace of the whole Church doth belong to all men alyke For if he say that Pastors are more bound then theyr subiects to care for the vnity of theyr owne particuler Diocesses but not of the whole Church he is too to ridiculous seeing that euery Pastor ought to haue not only as much care of the whole Church as euery other man but also much more then others by reason of his function office which doth extend it selfe to the whole Church it being euident that what authority soeuer any man hath in any part of the Church it is giuen him for the good of the whole and finally tendeth therto 51â— And who knoweth not that all heresies and schismes which violate the vnity of the whole Church do first spring in some part thereof and are to be suppressed not in respect of that part only but much more in regard of the whole Church As in like manner we see in our bodyes that the care of the health and conseruation of euery member tendeth more to the good of the whole then of the part it selfe that is or may be particulerly interessed therefore euery part doth willingly expose it selfe to danger for the conseruation of the whole Whereupon I inferre that if Pastors haue more obligation then lay-men to haue care of a part of the Church they are consequently more bound to haue care of the whole whereto as I haue sayd the care of euery part is specially to be referred 52. Moreouer whosoeuer is Pastour in any one part of the Church is capable of Pastorall iurisdiction in any other though he be restrayned and limited to a certayne part to auoyd confusion in which respect the Priests in euery Diocesse are Priests throughout the whole Church and may minister Sacraments any where in cases of necessity and a Bishop in any place is euerywhere a Bishop and one of the Magistrats and Pastors of the Church and therefore hath a voyce and right of suffrage in all Generall Councells though they be held out of his Diocesse whereas none of the Laity hath any voyce or suffrage therein at all as it is manifest by the testimony of Theodosius the Emperour in his Epistle to the Councell of Ephesus saying Nefas est c. It is not lawfull that he who is not one of the number of the most holy Bishops should meddle in Ecclesiasâ—icall consultations and affayres So he And the like sayd Basilius the Emperour in the 8. Generall Councell with a notable aduertisement to lay-men of what degree soeuer not to presume to deale in Ecclesiastical matters as I haue shewed at large in my Supplement Besides that we read in the Councell of Calcedon that Concilium Episcoporum est a Councell consisteth of Biâ—â—ops whereupon it followeth euidently that all men haue not equal obligation to care for the peace and vnity of the whole Church for if they had then might euery Cobler and Tinker challeng as much right of suffrage as any Bishop in a Generall Councell assembled for the suppression of heresy and schisme which I thinke M. Andrews will be ashamed to say 53. Therefore he must confesse that albeit euery member of the mysticall body of Christ be bound to haue a speciall care of the vnity of the whole vt not sit schisma in corpore sed in idipsum pro inuicem sollicita sint membra That there be no schisme or diuision in the body but that the members togeather be carefull one of another yet this obligation extendeth no further then the condition quality and degree of euery one requyreth which we may learne by the Apostles doctrine to the Romans who hauing signified that we haue many members in one body and that all the members haue not the same action addeth ita multi vnum corpus sumus in Christo c. So we being many are one body in Christ ech one anothers members hauing gifts according to the grace that is giuen vs different eyther Prophesy according to the rule of faith or ministery in ministring or he that teacheth in doctrine he that exhorteth in exhorting he that giueth in simplicity he that ruleth in carfulnes he that sheweth mercy in cheerfulnes 54. Thus far the Apostle who exemplifying heere as you see the different gifts and graces that God bestoweth vpon sundry members of his mysticall body and ascribing to euery one of them the proper talent which is requisit thereto requyreth specially in the Gouernour Solicitude and Carefulnes giuing plainely to vnderstand that although euery member of Christs Church ought to be sollicitous and carefull for the publike good thereof yet a Pastor or Gouernour is most bound thereto as to that which most properly pertayneth to his charge vocation As for example in the tyme of the Apostles the heresy of the Nicolaits did violate the vnion and trouble the peace of the whole Church and albeit there were in the Church of Pergamus as well Prophets Doctors Preachers and Priests as other faithfull people who were all bound to haue care of the vnity of the whole Church as all Christians are neuertheles we see in the Apocalyps that none of them but the Bishop only was reprehended for negligence and want of due care to find and cast out the Nicolaits from amongst them because the sollicitude and care of the vnity and publike good of the Church did specially belong to the Pastour or Bishop in which respect he alone was seuerely reproued and commanded to do pennance 55. So that whereas M. Andrews imposeth an equal obligation of the same care vpon euery member what doth he els but make as I may say a gally-maufrey or hotch-potch of the different members of Christs mysticall body confounding their seuerall functions and making them all eyes or heads requyring the obligation of a Pastor or Gouernor in euery particuler man And truly if this doctrine were
generally imbraced in England what other fruit could be expected thereof but confusion tumult and sedition whyles euery gyddy-headed fellow perswading himselfe that he were as much bound to care for the publike good of the Church as the Pastors thereof yea as the supreme head or Gouernour himselfe might intrude himselfe to intermeddle in Ecclesiasticall affayres for the discharge of his conscience and obligation For if his band in that behalfe were equal with the band of Pastors he could not with reason be denyed equality with them in charge and commission seeing that equality of obligation requireth equality and parity of power to performe it for when power of performance wanteth the obligation ceaseth So that a greater power and dignity induceth an obligation of greater care and therefore let M. Andrews consider what a wise and learned proposition he hath made and published to the world and what a good and vigilant Pastour he is who teacheth such dangerous and seditious doctrine 56. And albeit to auoyde this absurdity he should restrayne his generall propositiō to Pastors only and say that whatsoeuer violateth the vnity of the whole Church doth belong equally to the care of all Pastors yet he were no lesse ridiculous then before seeing that he must needs acknowledge an inequality of obligation and care euen amongst them according to their different degrees For if a Patriarke haue iurisdiction ouer Metropolitans and they ouer Bishops and Bishops ouer Priests it is cleare that as their charge and degree is vnequal so also is the obligation of euery one of them different and conforme to his dignity degree and authority And therefore although the office and duty of euery Pastour is as I haue sayd to haue special care of the vnity and peace of the Church yet his obligation in that behalfe must needs be so much the greater by how much his power and authority is greater and he more able to performe it then others his inferiours to which purpose the Prophet saith of a Prince or supreme Pastor Princeps ea quae sunt digna Principe cogitabit ipse super Duces stabit The Prince shall thinke those things which are worthy of a Prince and he shall be ouer Dukes or captaynes So saith Isay of our Sauiour as some expound it or as others say of Iosias King of Iuda 57. But of whom soeuer it is to be vnderstood it is manifest inough that the forme of a good Pastor or Gouernour is prescrybed therein shewing that the Prince being the supreme Gouernour is to imbrace cogitations and thoughtes fit for his estate and as much excelling the cogitations of his Dukes or Captaynes that is to say of his inferiour or subordinate Magistrats as he excelleth them in degree and what thought is so worthy of a Prince as the care of the vnity and peace of his estate wherein consisteth the publyke and generall good of euery Common welth And the like is to be sayd of Pastors and especially of the supreme Pastor of the Church who ought according to the Prophet to haue cogitations worthy of his soueraignty that is to say as much to surpasse other inferiour Pastors in the care of the publike good of the Church as he surpasseth them in power and dignity Well then to conclude if M. Andrews his position may go for currant he may shake hands with the Puritans and lay away his tytle of Lord Bishop become follow Minister with his Ministers in the Diocesse of Ely seeing that there is no reason why he should haue a greater degree and dignity in the Church then they if they be bound to haue as great a care of the Church as he 58. But let vs see how he proceedeth to fortify his assertion in hope vtterly to ouerthrow the Popes Primacy Thus then he saith Quòd enim totius vineae id est Ecclesiae custodiam ab ipso Christo ait Pontifici commissam id est Primatum c. For whereas the Cardinall saith that the charge of all the vineyard that is to say of the Primacy of the Church was committed by Christ himselfe to the Bishop see how it contradicteth the Councell and the sentence of all the Fathers that were there present who with one voyce sayd Siqua essent Romanae Sedis priuilegia ea illi non à Christo nesciebant hoc Chalcedonenses quin à Patribus concessa esse c. If the Roman Sea had any priuiledges the same were granted vnto it not by Christ for they in the Councell of Calcedon knew not that but by the Fathers c. So he grounding still as you see all the force and weyght of his arguments vpon no better foundation then his owne fraud I meane his fraudulent allegation and exposition of that Canon of the Councell wherof I haue amply treated before and now he secondeth his former fraud with a new corruption of the text setting this downe in a different letter for the very words of the Councell siqua essent Romanae sedis priuilegia ea illi à Patribus concessa esse if there were any priuiledges of the Roman Sea they were granted to it by the Fathers whereas neyther those words nor yet the sense thereof are to be found in the 28. Canon which he alledgeth no nor in all the Councell of Calcedon 59. For in these generall words of his are included all the priuiledges that the Sea of Rome had any way eyther by diuyne or human law for any respect or cause whatsoeuer but the Canon speaketh with great restriction to wit of priuiledges granted vpon one consideration only for thus it saith Etenim antiquae Romae throno quòd Vrbs illa imperaret iure Patres priuilegia tribuere For the Fathers did worthily giue priuiledges to the throne of old Rome because that Citty did gouerne Thus saith the Canon far otherwyse then M. Andrews affirmeth who with his siqua comprehendeth all priuiledges whatsoeuer whereas you see the Canon speaketh only of priuiledges giuen to the Roman Church in respect of the Imperiall Seat so that other priuiledges might be giuen thereto for other respects for ought we see in this Canon and the reason is cleare why that consideration of the Imperial Seat was only mentioned and no other to wit because those that penned the Canon saw well inough that the Church of Constantinople could pretend no other reason to demand extraordinary priuiledges but only because the Imperiall Seat which was wont to be at Rome was then remoued to Constantinople 60. Therefore I beseech thee good Reader consider a little M. Andrews his silly discourse concerning this point who hauing sayd as you haue heard that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon knew not any priuiledges granted to the Roman Sea by Christ addeth Quare autem concessa c And why were they granted Was it because Christ sayd to Peter Tibi dabo claues aut Pasce oues meas I will giue thee
it is most cleare that they cannot possibly signify as he would haue them parificare ad parem dignitatem euehere ad paris magnitudinis instar efferre which words and manner of speach do exclude all that diffeâ—rence of degree and dignity which is expresly reserued in the Canon giuing the second place to Constantinople so that you see he is in all this matter most fraudulent and hath notably corrupted the Canon aswell by concealing that which most imported to shew the full drift therof as also by peruerting both the words and the sense of it 67. It resteth now that I say somewhat more to his conclusion which is this Quod habet ergo Roma de primatu c. therfore that which Rome hath of the primacy it hath not from Christ but from the Fathers and in respect of the seat of the Emperour and not for the seat of Peter and forasmuch as the Fathers in aduancing new Rome to equall greatnes exercised the same power which they vsed in honouring old Rome therfore he is farre from the faith who affirmeth that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is according to the faith and religion of the Councell of Chalcedon So he concluding as you see two things the one concerning the primacy of the Roman Sea which he saith was not giuen by Christ but by the Fathers and not in respect of Peters Seat but for the seat of the Emperour wherto I haue said inough in effect already hauing taught him to distinguish betwixt the Primacy of the Roman Sea granted by Christ to S. Peter and the priuiledges which the Fathers or temporall Princes haue giuen therto for of the former to wit the Primacy of S. Peters Sea the Canon speaketh not at all because the mention of it would haue bene nothing to the purpose of the Canon but rather against it as I haue sufficiently declared and therfore this part of the conclusion is cleane from the matter and cannot possibly be drawne from the Canon wherupon he groundeth all his arguments 68. The other part is also no lesse friuolous then the former for whereas he concludeth that the Fathers of the Councell of Calcedon held not the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome for a matter of faith or Religion because they made the Church of Constantinople equal with the Roman Sea you see that all the equality wherupon he buyldeth is but his owne fiction and repugnant to that very Canon which he layeth for his foundation and yet forsooth he is not ashamed to triumph and insult against the Cardinall exacting of him some Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon for the Popes Primacy as though he himselfe had knockt him downe with a Canon for thus he saith for an vpshot and final conclusion of all this matter 69. Nec alieunde igitur tamquam è vepreculis extrahat nescio quid arrodat c. Therefore let not the Cardinall draw I know not what out of some place as it were out of the bryers and gnaw vpon it let him giue vs a Canon for the Canons are the voyce of the Councell not out of the superscription of an Epistle or some corner of a period or perhaps some peece of a tytle or fragment of a little clause So he wherein thou seest good Reader how he bestirreth himselfe with his diminitiues or to vse a phrase of M. Barlows with his Hypocoristicall alleuiations extenuating all that the Cardinall hath obiected as meere tryfles and calling for a Canon because the Canons are the very voyce of the Councell and so he would haue vs to suppose of his counterfait Canon I say counterfait in respect that he hath abused mangled and peruerted it as you haue seene which therefore is so far from being the voyce of the Councell that it is nothing els but a loud and lewd lye of his owne 70. For the Canon it selfe being taken as it is in the Councell vtterly ouerthroweth his cause seeing that it giueth the second place to Constantinople after Rome and therefore acknowledgeth the Primacy of the Roman Sea besids that although it had ben such as M Andrews would haue it to be yet Pope Leo's authority sufficed to disanul it euen in the Iudgment of Anatolius himselfe who hauing been the cause and authour of it acknowledged his errour therein and craued pardon for the same as I haue amply declared before And although after the earnest endeuours of diuers as well Catholike as Hereticall Emperours to aduance the Church of Constantinople and some schismes also raysed for that cause the Popes permitted the second place to the Bishops of that Sea whithout further opposition especially from the tyme of Iustinian the Emperour which was about a 100. yeares after the Councell of Calcedon yea and afterwards also Pope Innocentius the third ratifyed and confirmed it by a Canon in the great Councell of Lateran yet the supreme authority of the Sea Apostolike was no way preiudiced thereby as it appeareth euidently by the relation which I haue made before of the subiection and obedience of the Catholike Emperours and Bishops of Constantinople to the Sea of Rome from tyme to tyme vntill the Greeke Empyre was vtterly ruyned by the Turkes So that it is euery way manifest that the Canon of the Councell of Calcedon alledged by M. Andrewes hath serued him to no other purpose but to bewray his impudency fraud and folly 71. And wheras he demaundeth of the Cardinall some Canon of that Councell for the proof of the Popes Supremacy he sheweth himselfe very idle to exact a Canon for a matter that was not then in question but professed by the whole Councell as it euidently appeareth by their Epistle to Pope Leo wherin they acknowledge that he being ordayned to be the interpeter of the voyce of Blessed Peter to all men had conserued and kept the true faith which had bene deduced from Christs tyme to theirs and that vnder his conduct as being the author of so great a good they published the truth to the children of the Church that Christ had prepared for them that spirituall banquet meaning their Synod by his Letters that he by his Legates had gouerned them in that Councell as the Head gouerneth the members that the keeping of the Vineyard was committed to him by our Sauiour and that he had depriued Eutyches the heretike of his dignity in ConstaÌ„tinople which as I haue declared before he could not haue done if his authority had not bene vniuersall 72. And then comming to speake of the Canon which they had made in fauour of the Church of Constantinople they signified the trust and confidence they had that as he was wont by his carefull gouernment to cast forth the beames of his Apostolicall light euen to the Church of Constantinople so he would now condescend to confirme that which they had ordayned concerning the said Church for the auoyding of confusion and
mayntenance of Ecclesiasticall Discipline which Discourse they end with this most humble and submissiue petition Haec sicut propria amica ad decorem conuenientissima dignare complecti Sanctissime Beatissime Pater most holy and blessed Father vouchsafe to imbrace these things as your owne and friendly and most conuenient or fit for good order 73. And afterwards hauing declared that the three Legats of Pope Leo did contradict this Canon they yield this reason thereof Proculdubio say they à vestra Prouidentia inchoari hoc bonum volentes desyring without all doubt that this good should also proceed from your Prouidence vt sicut fidei it a bonae ordinationis vobis deputetur effectus to the end that the effect as well of good order or Ecclesiasticall discipline as of faith may be ascrybed to you In which words it is to be noted that the Councell ascrybed the effect and forcâ— of their determinations not only concerning matters of discipline but also touching matters of faith to the authority especially of Pope Leo to which purpose they also added further that for as much as the Emperour Senate and all the Imperiall Citty desired it and that it seemed also conuenient to the whole Councell yea and that whatsoeuer is well done by the children doth redound to their fathers who account and make the same their owne therefore Rogamus say they tuis decrâ—tis nostrum â—onorâ— iudicium we beseech thee honour also our iudgement with thy decrees sicut nâ—â— capiti in bonis adiecimus consonantiam sic Summitas tua filijs quod decet adimpleat and as we haue yielded conformity on our parts to you our head so let your Highnes fulfill or accomplish to vs your children that which is conuenient Sic enim pij Principes complacebunt c. For so shall the pyousâ— Princes receiue contentment or satisfaction who haue ratified the iudgment of your holynes as a law Sedes Constantinopolitana suscipiâ—t praemiuÌ„ and the Church of Constantinople shall receiue a reward or benefit which Church hath alwayes performed all endeauour towards you to the cause of piety and conioyned it selfe with you to the conseruation of concord and vnity with the same zâ—ale Thus wrote the whole Councell to Pope Leo. 74. And now I report me to M. Andrews himselfâ— though I take him for very partiall in this cause whether any thing could be written in this kind more effectually to shew the beliefe and faith of the whole Councell touching the supreme authority of Pope Leo seeing that they do not only expressely call him their head and themselues his members him their Father and themselues his children but also do aâ—knowledge that he was accustomed to cast forth the light of his Apostolicall beames to the Church of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consuetè soliciti say those Fathâ—rs speaking of him in the plurall number for the reuerend respect they bare him and signifying that his wonted care and authority was so generall that it extended it selfe to the Greeke Church and particulerly to the Church of Constantinople furthermore they testify that the effect of their decrees both in matters of faith and of discipline depended principally on him and therefore do as I may say begge at his hands the confirmation of their Canon in fauour of the Church of Constantinople as a speciall grace benefit and reward foâ— the merits of the sayd Sea towards the Sea Apostolike and this in such earnest and humble manner that it is euident they acknowledged the whole matter to depend on his will to be granted or denyed ratifyed or disanulled by him which also the issue thereof made most manifest seeing that his owne denyall and opposition was sufficient to ouerthrow it as hath bene declared 75. And now I hope M. Andrâ—ws will not say that this is taken out of some corner of a period or some peece of a tytle or fragment of a little clause seeing that this is as he sayd of his Canon the very voyce of the whole Councell being the substance of their publike and generall letter to Pope Leo himselfe which may also be confirmed with their other publike testimonies of their beliefe concerning his authority as that they acknowledged not only that he was successor to S. Peter saying in their generall acclamation to an Epistle of his Petrus per Leonem locutus estâ— Peter hath spoken by Leo but also that he had Peters authority yea and that S. Peter was petra crepido Ecclesiae the rock and toppe of the Church and rectae fidei fundamentum the foundation of the true faith 76. To which purpose it is to be considered that one of the chiefe causes of the assembly of that Councell was to depose Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria which done by the sentence of Pope Leo pronounced by his Legates in these words Sanctissimus Beatissimus Archiepiscopus magnae senioris Romae Leo per nos per presentem sanctam Synodum vnà cum ter beatissimo omni laude digno beato Petro Apostolo qui est petra crepido Ecclesiae ille qui est rectae fidei fundamentum nudauit eum tam Episcopatus dignitate quà m etiam ab omni Sacerdotali alienauit ministerio The most holy and most blessed Archbishop of the elder and great Rome Leo hath depriued him to wit Dioscorus as well of all Episcopall dignity as priestly ministery by vs and this holy Synod togeather with the thrice most blessed and prayse-worthy Peter the Apostle who is the rock and top of the Church and he which is the foundation of the true faith This was the sentence giuen by the Popes Legats against Dioscorus which sentence euery Bishop in the Councell not only approued particulerly with his suffrage or voyce but also confirmed with his subscription as it appeareth in the 3. Action of the sayd Councell 77. Wherein it is to be obserued First that Pope Leo deposed Dioscorus by the Synod whereupon it followeth that he was president and head thereof and that the sayd Synod was but as it were his instrument in that deposition Secondly that he deposed him by the authority which he had as successor to S. Peter in which respect it is sayd here that he did it togeather with the most blessed Apostle Peter Thyrdly that for as much as S. Peter is heere acknowledged to be the head of the Church as being the rock and top thereof and the foundation of the faith the like must needs be granted of Pope Leo who was his successor and exercysed his authority Lastly seeing that this sentence of deposition giuen against Dioscorus in this manner and with these circumstances was receiued particulerly and subscrybed by euery one in that CouÌ„cell without any contradiction or exception taken to any part thereof it is euident that the whole was conforme to the faith and beliefe of the Councell and
word mater is applyed to the Church by S. Cyprian therefore Caput cannot be applyed to S. Peter but to the Church Therfore to the end M. Andrews may vnderstand that S. Peter and not the Church it selfe is in this place worthily tearmed by S. Cyprian caput fons radix origo the head the fountayne the roote and the spring he shall do well to consider the ground and drift of all S. Cyprians discourse which the Cardinall in his Apology omitted for breuityes sake and therefore although I haue layd it downe in my Supplement to proue the necessity of a visible head in the Church yet I will take paynes to repeat it heere to ease the Reader of the labour to seeke it there 4. S. Cyprian meaning to shew the cause why the Church is troubled with heresyes and schismes and withall to giue the remedy saith thus Hoc eò fit c. This hapneth because men do not returne to the beginning of truth nor seeke the head nor obserue the doctrin of the heauenly Maister which if any man will well consider and examine he shall not need any longer treatise or arguments to proue it the proofe is easy to be belieued by the compendiousnes or breuity of the truth our Lord sayd to Peter I say vnto thee thou art Peter and vpon this rock I will buyld my Church and the gates of hell shall not ouercome it c. To him also he saith after his resurrection Feede my sheepe vpon him being one he buylt his Church and to him he recommended his sheep to be fed and although after his resurrection he gaue equal power to all his Apostles and sayd as my Father sent me so I send you receaue the holy Ghost c. neuertheles to manifest and shew a vnity he ordayned one chayre and by his authority disposed that the beginning of the same vnity should proceed from one Truely the rest of the Apostles were that which S. Peter was endued with lyke fellowship of honour and power but the beginning proceedeth from vnity the Primacy is giuen to Peter that one Church of Christ and one chayre may be shewed So he 5. And prosecuting still the same matter proueth notably the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head from whence all the vnity of the body is deriued which he sheweth by three excellent similituds of many branches of one tree springing from one roote many brookes of one water flowing from one fountayne and many beames of one light deriued from one sunne concluding his discourse that notwithstanding the amplitude of the Church by the propagation and numerosity of her children and the extension of her parts and members all ouer the world vnum tamen caput est sayth he origo vna c. yet the head is one and the origen or beginning one that is to say Peter vpon whome he sayd before as you haue heard that our Sauiour buylt his Church and to whom he recoÌ„mended his sheep to be fed yea gaue him Primatum the Primacy vt vna Christi Ecclesia vna cathedra monstretur to shew therby one Church of Christ and one chayre and this must needs be the true sense of S. Cyprian in that-place if we will make his conclusion conforme to his premisses and to the whole scope of his intention 6. So that M. Andrews making the Church it selfe to be the roote fountayne and head whereof S. Cyprian speaketh doth most absurdly confound the tree with the roote the riuers with the spring the body with the head and lameth all that most excellent discourse of S. Cyprian yea ouerthroweth the very foundation thereof denying all that which S. Cyprian layd for his ground to wit the Primacy and supreme authority of S. Peter from whence he expresly deryueth the vnity of the Church as he doth also most clearely els where saying in his Epistle to Iubaianus Nos Ecclesiae vnius caput radicem tenemus We haue or do hold the head and roote of one Church and after declaring what roote and head he meaneth he sayth nam Petro primùm Dominus super quem c. For our Lord gaue this power of binding and loosing to Peter vpon whome he buylt his Church vnde vnitatis origâ—nem instituit ostendit and from whence he ordayned and shewed the beginning of vnity And agayne after in the same Epistle Ecclesia quae vna est super vnum qui claues accepit voce Domini fundata est The Church which is one was by the speach of our Lord founded vpon one who receaued the keyes So he Whereby it euidently appeareth that his constant and manifest doctrine is that all the vnity of the Church proceedeth from the vnity of her head to wit S. Peter and his chayre and that the Cardinall affirming that S. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne roote of the Church gaue vs his true sense and M. Andrews making the Church it selfe to be the head fountayne and roote of it selfe is very absurd and wholy repugnant to S. Cyprians doctrine or meaning 7. And this will be more cleere if we examin a little better M. Andrews his glosse vpon the text of S. Cyprian whereby he laboureth to proue that the Church it selfe and not S. Peter is the head fountayne and roote whereof S. Cyprian speaketh For hauing layd downe S. Cyprians words to wit sic Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa c. so also the Church shyning with the light of our Lord reacheth forth her beames ouer the whole world he noteth that the Father sayth Ecclesia non Petrus the Church not Peter and no meruaile seeing he had no occasion then to name Peter but the Church only for although the Church being a visible body hath alwayes a visible head vnder Christ to wit Peter and his successors yet S. Cyprian doth speake of it heere as of a body considered a part not including the head meaning afterwards to speake of the head as he had in lyke manner done before declaring from whence the vnity of that body is deriued as it will appeare further heereafter 8. In the meane tyme let vs see how M. Andrews goeth on with the text Vnum tamen lumen est c. Yet it is one light which is euery where spread neyther is the vnity of the body separated heere now he asketh two questions the one whether Peter be the light and the other whether he be euery where dispersed whereto I answere that although he is not the light of the Church as he was a particuler man yet he may well be so called not only as he was an Apostle seeing that our Sauiour sayd to all the Apostles Vos estis lux mundi you are the light of the world but also much more as he is the Vicar and substitute of our Sauiour who being lux vera the true light imparteth vnto him his owne excellencyes so far
forth as is necessary for the gouernement of his Church which he hath committed to his charge in which respect it may truely be sayd that the light of the Church proceedeth not only from Christ but also from him as from the head thereof vnder Christ and that by his authority it is spread euery where throughout the Church 9. And this is sufficiēt to make good the similitude according to the intention of S. Cyprian who only speaketh here of the Church as of a body receiuing all the vnity of her seueral many parts from the head as the light which is spread thoughout the world receaueth vnity from the sunne therfore he argueth thus in substance As the light of the sunne dispersed ouer the earth though it haue many beames yet is but one light by reason that it proceedeth from one sunne so also the body of the Church dispersed by many members ouer the whole world is but one body because it proceedeth from one head which reason he giueth yet more expressely in the two other similituds that immediatly follow of a tree spreading forth many boughes and of many brookes flowing from one fountayne for of the former he saith that though the boughes are many and spread far abroad Robur tamen vnum tenaci radice firmatum yet the strengeth is one fastned in the strong and stiffe roote and of the later he saith in like manner that notwithstanding the aboundant and copious plenty of water dispersed by many brookes yet it is but one water because vnitas saith he seruatur in origine the vnity is conserued in the spring Who then seeth not that to apply this similitude to the Church we must needs say that albeit the sayd Church hath very many members and parts spread ouer the whole world yet it is but one body because it hath but one head wherein the vnity of all the parts is conserued 10. And to this is also conforme the rest of S. Cyprians text which M. Andrews proceedeth to lay downe thus Ramos suos Ecclesia c. The Church through her aboundant fertility stretcheth forth her branches ouer the whole earth and largely spreadeth abroad her copious riuers or brookes yet the head is one the origen or beginning one and one mother c. So sayth S. Cyprian teaching as you see nothing els in effect but that the Church being a body dispersed ouer the whole world in her members is vnited in one head and therefore he saith vnum tamen caput origo vna yet the head is one and the origen or beginning one and so hauing spoken as well of the head of the Church as of the body and declared from whence the vnity of the whole is deryued he had great reason to adde vna mater one mother giuing to vnderstand that as the Church hath one head so she is one mother one in respect of her vnity deryued from her head and mother because she is the spouse of Christ and hath children dispersed throughout the world 11. And thus may M. Andrews see that albeit S. Peter is not called in S. Cyprian a Mother yet he is acknowledged to be the head from whence the vnity of the whole Church our mother is communicated to vs her children which would haue bene as cleare as the sunne if he had layd downe the similituds themselues as well as he gaue vs only the application of them out of S. Cyprian beginning his allegation with Sic Ecclesia so also the Church c. for he knew full well that his false glosse would haue bene easily discouered if he had set downe the similituds as they are deliuered and vrged by the Father himselfe Therefore now let the Reader Iudge Quis caligauit hic who was blind heere the Cardinall or M. Andrewes Thus much concerning the first place of S. Cyprian 12. The other place is Petrus super quem Dominus fundauit Ecclesiam Peter vpon whom our Lord did found his Church whereupon the Cardinall infereth that S. Cyprian teacheth that the Church is buylt vpon S. Peter and that therfore he is the foundation of the Church and consequently the head therof because the foundation in a buylding and the head in a body is all one whereto M. Andrewes answereth thus Alter verò illi ex Cypriano locus praecidendus erat c. He thought it necessary to cut of the other place of Cyprian where it seemed little to fauour the Primacy for thus it is nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit c. For neyther did Peter whome our Lord chose the first challenge any thing insolently to himselfe nor take vpon him arrogantly to say that he had the Primacy or that he ought to be obayed of those that were yonger and later then he Wherein the mynd or sense of Cyprian seemeth to be that if Peter had sayd that he had the Primacy he had insolently challenged somewhat to himselfe and therfore the Cardinall suppressed this part of the text warily because it made litle for the Primacy and rather tooke hold of the former part where Cyprian saith that the Church was buylt vpon Peter c. 13. Thus sayth M. Andrews with somewhat more which I will also lay downe after a whyle when I shall first haue examined this wherein you see he would fayne make the Reader belieue that the Cardinall had vsed some art or fraud in leauing it vncyted as not fauorable but rather preiudiciall to S. Peters Primacy wheras in truth it doth notably proue it and no way impayre or infringe it as he may see in the Cardinals controuersyes where amongst very many other places alledged for the Primacy of S. Peter he vrgeth this fortifying it notably with the authority of S. Augustine who also cyteth those words of S. Cyprian though vpon another occasion Therefore I will set downe the Cardinalls owne words to the end that he may answere for himselfe who hauing brought the testimonyes of a whole Iury as I may say of Greeke Fathers to wit Origen Eusebius S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Epiphanius the two S. Cyrils S. Chrysostome Euthymius Theophilact Occumenius and Hugo Etherianus all of them expressely acknowledging the supremacy of S. Peter aboue all the other Apostles addeth as many more of the Latin Fathers and beginneth with S. Cyprian thus 14. Ex latinis S. Cyprianus in Ep. ad Quintum c. Of the latin Fathers S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Quintus sayth that Peter when he was reprehended by Paul would not say that he had the primacy and that he ought to be obayed whereby he signifyeth that Peter had the primacy and might command all others And lest perhaps our aduersaries may say that Cyprian meaneth that Peter did not say he had the Primacy because he should therein haue affirmed that which was false let vs heare Augustine expounding this place of Cyprian lib. 2. de Baptismo cap. 1.
S. Peter and his successors For if S. Peter were made head of all the Apostles to whome Christ left the gouernment of his Church it cannot be denied but that he was made head of the Church for who is head of any common welth but he that is head of all those that haue the administration charge and gouernement of it And if the reason why he was ordayned head of the Apostles was to auoyde and preuent the danger of schisme it must needs be granted that so long as the same cause and reason I meane the danger of schisme continueth in the Church so long also the remedy is to continue therin and that the greater the danger is the more necessary also is the remedy whereupon it followeth that seeing the danger of schisme doth and euer shall continue in the Church the remedy also of one head is euer to continue And for as much as the danger of schisme in the Apostles tyme was not so great they being all of them most holy men and particulerly guyded by the holy Ghost as it is andâ— alwayes hath bene euer since Therefore the remedy of one head which our Sauiour ordayned for the same is more necessary now then it was in their dayes yea and was more specially intended by his diuyne prouidence for all ensuing ages after the Apostles tyme then only during their liâ—es 38. Moreouer it being euident in the holy Scriptures that our Sauiour planted his Church to stand to the worlds end it were absurd to say that he ordayned that forme of gouernement vnder one head to last only during the Apostles tyme as though he had lesse care of the vnity of his Church in future ages then in the beginning when as I haue sayd the danger of schisme should be far lesse then it would be afterwards Therfore I conclude that seeing S. Peter was made head of the Apostles and consequently of the whole Church to auoyd schisme M. Andrews can not deny the same authority to S. Peters successors for the same reason especially seeing that our Sauiours prouidence therein is euident to the very eye of euery man that list not to be willfully blynd in that he hath permitted the succession of all the Apostles to fayle in all the Churches where they gouerned excepting only the succession of S. Peter in the Roman Church which he hath miraculously conserued to make it manifest to the world that S. Peter and his chayre as you haue heard out of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome is the Rock whereupon he promised to buyld his Church and that as S. Augustine sayth Ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae that is the Rock which the proud gates of hell do not ouercome 39. Furthermore whereas M. Andrews granteth also that a head appoynted in the Church for the remedy of schisme is to haue so much power as is necessary for that end he must needs consequently grant all that power which we requyre and acknowledge it in S. Peter and his successors to the same end I meane not only a power authority to define decyde coÌ„trouersies without the which no schisme or diuision concerning matter of doctrine can be conueniently compounded but also power and iurisdiction to punish such as do obstinatly infringe and violate the vniâ—ty and peace of the Church for how can the head sufficiently remedy schisme if he cannot punish those which do cause and mayntayne it and if M. Andrews will say that Christ hath therfore left authority to his Church to punish only by excommunication and spirituall censures I must demand of him what remedy the head of the Church can giue thereby when his censures are contemned and specially by an absolute Prince shall he haue then no further power to remedy the inconuenience how then is his power such as M. Andrews himselfe granteth it to be to wit quanta rei satis siâ— cui constitutus est as much as may be sufficient for the thing for the which he was made head that is to say to remedy and take away schisme 40. And who seeth not that the greatest harme that groweth to the Church by schisme commonly is when secular Princes do eyther rayse it themselues or mayntayne it in others Shall not then the head of the Church haue sufficient power to remedy this greatest danger and mischiefe that can hap to the Church Or shall he not haue meanes as well to correct his greatest and most powerfull subiects as the least and meanest Then as I haue sayd in my Supplement the power of the Church should be no better then a cobweb that holdeth the little flyes and letteth go the great ones and consequently the prouidence of Almighty God should be very defectiue in ordayning a head to conserue his Church in vnity and not giuing him sufficient power to performe it which no wyse temporall Prince would do if he should make a Lieutenant to gouerne in any part of his dominions Wherto it may be added that the Lawyers teach that he which granteth iurisdiction is presumed to grant all things necessary for the execution of it which is also conforme to the Philosophers Maxime to wit Qui dat esse dat consequentia ad esse he which giueth a being giueth togeather with it all those things which are consequents thereof or necessarily requyred thereto as I haue amply proued in my Supplement where I haue deduced the necessity of this consequent from the very Law of nature and light of reason 41. Besides that I haue also declared there that he which hath power ouer the soule for the benefit thereof must needs haue also power ouer the body and goods which by the very Law of nature are subiect to the soule and ordayned to serue it and therefore to be disposed by the spirituall Gouernour or Pastor so far forth as is necessary for the saluation of the soule in which respect the Church hath alwayes vsed and still doth to impose not only fasting and other bodily pennance but also imprisonments and pecuniary mulcts vpon her disobedient children when the benefit of their soules and the publick good of the Church doth requyre it which is also vsed by our Aduersaries themselues in their Ecclesiasticall discipline who in their spirituall Tribunals and Courts do punish the disobedient as well by pecâ—niary penalties as by corporall imprisonements Whereupon it followeth that when Princes who are members of the Church do violate the vnion thereof and are incorrigible by excommunication they may be chastised by their supreme head or spirituall Pastor euen in their temporall states so far as shall be necessary for the good of their soules and the benefit of the whole Church for otherwyse the head of the Church should not haue that sufficient power to remedy schismes and other inconueniences which M. Andrews himselfe granteth and it cannot indeed be denied 42. This then being so
M. Andrews his first question or doubt is sufficiently solued to wit How far the power of the head whereof S. Hierome speaketh doth extend that is to the direction gouernement yea and chastisment when occasion requyreth of all his inferiour members of what degree soeuer and consequently of Kings and Princes so far forth as shal be needfull for the coÌ„seruation of vnity in the Church and that therefore when only excommunication will not suffice to reduce them to vnity and obedience the head may extend his spirituall power to chastise them in their bodyes goods and states as far as shall be conuenient for the good of soules and the glory of God whereto all mens temporall states goods lands and lyues are principally ordayned 43. And now to come to his other question concerning the mumber which this head may gouerne to auoyd and remedy schisme let M. Andrews well ponder what he hath already granted and of this there will be no doubt at all For if Peter was head of the Apostles as S. Hierome teacheth and M. Andrews confesseth then consequently he was head of as many in number as were subiect to them which was no lesse then all the world whereof they had the spirituall charge and gouernement in which respect the Royall Prophet sayth of them and their successors pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filij c. For thy Fathers children are borne vnto thee thou shalt ordayne them to be Princes ouer all the earth So saith the Prophet of the Apostles of Bishops who succeed them in their charge and are therfore Princes Gouernours of the Church as S. Augustine S. Hierome and other Fathers expound this place which therefore is verified especially in the Apostles who being the Princes and Gouernours of the Church did not only plant but also propagate throughout the world in their owne tyme according to the commission and commaundment of our Sauiour who sayd vnto them Euntes in vniuersum mundum c. Going into the vniuersall world preach the Ghospell to euery creature which also the Royal Prophet fore-told of them saying In omnem terram exiuit sonus eorum c. The sound of them went forth into all the earth and their words into the bounds thereof 44. Seeing then the Apostles were Gouernours of the whole Church and yet subiect to S. Peter as to their head it must needs be granted that he was supreme head and gouernour of the whole Church propagated and dispersed throughout the world vnder their gouerment for which cause S. Chrysostome saith with great reason not only of all the Apostles in generall that they were to haue orbis terrarum curam the charge of all the world but also much more of S. Peter in particuler That Petro Apostolo orbis terrarum Ecclesiae the Churches of all the world and the multitudes of people were to be committed to Peter the Apostle and therefore euen in the former place where he saith that the Apostles were to receiue of Christ the charge of the world he acknowledgeth that S. Peter was Princeps Apostolorum vertex totius coetus the Prince of the Apostles and the top or head of all their congregation and that Christ committed vnto him curam fratrum the charge of his brethren that is to say of the Apostles and finally that Christ recommended vnto him orbis terrarum curam the charge of the whole world Finally comparing S. Iames the Apostle with S. Peter in the same place by the way of obiection demanding why then Iames was made Bishop of Hierusalem and not Peter he answereth Hunc totius orbis magistrum praeposuisse that our Sauiour preferred Peter to be the Maister of the whole world giuing to vnderstand that whereas S. Iames was only Bishop of Hierusalem and the Countries adioyning as also the other Apostles had euery one of them some part of the world allotted vnto him to gouerne S. Peter had the charge of the whole 45. By all which it is euident that albeit the Apostles had the gouerment of all the Church yet they were but subordinate to S. Peter who had a commission peculiar and singular to himselfe which was to haue the care charge and gouerment of them as well as of all others subiect to them So that his power and authority was wholy independant on them wheras theirs must needs depend of him as of their immediate head vnder our Sauiour whereby it may appeare what an idle head M. Andrews hath to exclude no lesse S. Peter then euery other particuler man from the gouerment of the whole Church for no better reason then lest he might become heterochtum cuput an extrauagant head or perhaps proue a Tyrant through the excesse eyther of power or of the number of subiects wherein he sheweth himselfe no lesse prophane then absurd attributing as it seemeth no force or effect to our Sauiours promise of his continuall assistance to his Apostles and Church for euer besides that he erreth grosâ—ely if he make the multitude of subiects a noticeâ— or cause of Tyranny it being euident that the greater the number of the subiects is the greater also is the difficulty to oppresse them by Tyranny and the greater the feare and danger to attempt it 46. And therefore we see more frequent tyranny in small States then in great Monarchies and when great Monarches are Tyrants they commonly exercyse their Tyranny vpon some part of their Dominions and not vpon the whole whereas a small State contayning a few subiects is easily Tyrannized vniuersally so that the multitude of subiects is not properly a motiue but rather a brydle to Tyranny though it is properly a cause of schisme when they are not gouerned by one head which M. Andrews acknowledgeth sufficiently when he confesseth that one head is necessary to take away the occasion of schisme amongst twelue or some other small number for if that be true then the greater the number is the greater is the danger of schisme if they haue many heads independant one of another whereupon it followeth that one supreme head is most necessary for the whole Church coÌ„sisting of an innumerable multitude of the faithfull dispersed throughout the whole world who being all visible members of one visible body could not possibly be conserued long in vnity if they had not one visible head whome they were all bound in conscience to obay as I haue shewed more at large in my Supplement euen by the testimony of M. Barlow himselfe 47. For which cause not only S. Cyprian as you haue heard before in this Chapter but also S. Hierome in this place teacheth with great reason that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles to auoyde and remedy the schismes which might grow not so much amongst them as in the whole Church for in them after they had receiued the holy Ghost there was no danger
thereof though in the whole Church which was to be propagated by them ouer the world the danger of schisme was very great not only in their tyme but also much more afterwards as I haue signifyed before in which respect it was needefull to be preuented by the institution of one head ouer the whole Church and therefore when S. Hierome answering Iouinian saith that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles he meaneth that he was made head of the Church which was represented in them as in the Gouernours thereof for seeing that the obiection of Iouinian which S. Hierome answereth concerned the foundation of the Church vpon S. Peter his answere must needs also concerne the same to which purpose it is to be considered that he denyeth not Iouinians proposition as I haue proued before but explicateth what is tâ—e meaning of super Petrâ—m fundatur Ecclesia signifying that it meaneth nothing els in effect but that Peter was made head of the Apostles which is as much so say as that he was the foundation of the Church or that the Church was founded vpon him because as Cardinall Bellarmine saith very well the foundation in a buylding and the head in a politycall or mysticall body is all one so as S. Peter being made head of the Apostles who represented the Church as Gouernours thereof he was consequently made the head and foundation of the Church and this being so it appeareth that this place of S. Hierome is cleare for vs and directly proueth that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the vniuersall Church 48. And whereas M. Andrews in his glosse vpon S. Hieromes text noteâ—h with a parenthesis that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles not for the keyes saith he or for the foundation which are so much esteâ—med at Rome but to take away the occasion of schisme I know not wâ—at els he impugneth thereby but his owne idle conceipt for no man saith at Rome or any where els for ought I know that S. Peter was made head of the Church for the keyes or for the foundation other wayes then that in receiuing the keyes and being made the foundation of the Church he was made head thereof to take away the occasion of sâ—hisme And this is S. Hiâ—romes doctrine so euident that M. Andrews himselfe is forced thereby to confesse that Sâ— Peter was made head of the Apostles yea and that he had so much power and authority giuen him as was necessary for the preuention and remedy of schisme whereupon all our doâ—trine concerning the Popes authoâ—ity necessarily followeth as I haue shewed so that you see he still pleadeth for vs and well deserueth his fee if not for his good wil yet at least for his paynes in defending our cause against his will FOVRE OTHER PLACES OF THE FATHERS ARE DEBATED And M. Andrews his Answers thereto confuted With a Discouery of notable corruption and falsity in him and of three manifest lyes within litle more then three lynes AND By occasion thereof it is also proued that 8. Popes who liued in S. Augustines tyme had and exercysed an vniuersall and supreme Authority CHAP. IIII. THOV hast seene good Reader in the last Chapter how well M. Andrews hath satisfyed the Cardinalls obiectioÌ„ out of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome and now in this Chapter I will examine his Answers to diuers other places of the Fathers namely of S. Basil and S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine which albeit he pretendeth to answere togeather with the former yet I haue thought good to separate them because I haue alledged them separatly in my Supplement 2. First out of S. Basil the Cardinall an I obiect these words to proue the supremacy of S. Peter ouer the rest of the Apostles Ille beatus qui ceteris praelatus discipulis fuit cui claues regni caelestis commissae That happy or blessed Peter who was preferred before the rest of the disciples to whome the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome were committed c. Hereto M. Andrews answereth thus Ex Basilio ceteris discipulis praelatum Petrum sed an vt esset Monarcha c. The Cardinall obiecteth out of S. Basil that Peter was preferred before the rest of the Disciples but was it to the end that he should be a Monarch is there no other prelacy but of a Monarchy he was preferred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the testimony that was giuen him by Christ as Basil hath there and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blessednes add also if you will that he was preferred in order and place the King doth also attribute the same vnto him yea that he may be the Prince of Apostles yet without a Monarchy Thus saith M. Andrews to the first part of S. Basils place whereto I will say somewhat before I add the rest Heere then you see he graunteth that S. Peter was preferred before the rest of the Apostles in order and place yea and that he was the Prince of the Apostles and forsooth no Monarch 3. But if we consider what he hath graunted in the last Chapter we shall find that he must needs acknowledge him to be a Monarch how much soeuer he mislyke the word for if a Monarch do signify him that is one chiefe Prince and sâ—preme head or gouernour of others not for his owne particuler benefit but for the publike and generall good of those whome he gouerneth for so is a Monarch distinguished from a Tyrant he cannot with any reason deny S. Pâ—ter to be the Monarch that is to say the supreme Prince and head of the Church whome he acknowledgeth togeather with S. Hierome to haue been made by our Sauiour head of the Apostles to preuent and remedy schisme and to haue had not only the precedence of place and order as now he saith but also so much power as suffyced for the conseruation of Vnity in the Church whereupon followeth all that power and authority which we do attribute to S. Peter and his successors as I haue declared briefely in the last Chapter 4. For S. Peter hauing by this commission of our Sauiour authority to ordaine commaund and punish as far as was necessary for the good of the Church it must needs be graunted that he had the power and authority of a Monarch and although M. Andrews had not been forced by â—he euidence of S. Hieromes testimony to grant it yet this very place of S. Basil which he pretendeth heere to answere doth proue it sufficiently signifying as much in effect as S. Hierome teacheth seeing that S. Basil not only saith that Peter was preferred before the rest of the Disciples but also declareth wherein that is to say not in place and order only but in authority also and iurisdiction adding cui claues Regni caelestis commissae sunt to whome to wit Peter the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome were committed giuing to vnderstand that he had by this particuler
cōmission of the keyes a particuler Iurisdiction more then the rest in respect whereof he was Boatus happy or Blessed and preferred before the rest 5. Whereby it may appeare how vainly M. Andrews seeketh to elude the force of this place by that which he addeth saying Nam claues ei commissas quis dubitat c. for who doubteth that the keyes were committed to him but whether the same was done in his person or in the person of the Church Basil doth not declare heere but Augustine doth in many places So he as though S. Basil did not sufficiently explicate himselfe and shew that S. Peter had by the keyes a greater iurisdiction then the other Apostles for els to what purpose did he add that the keyes were committed to him but to shew how and wherein he was Blessed and preferred before the rest And whereas M. Andrews sayth that Augustine declareth in many places that the keyes were giuen him in the person of the Church and not in his owne I haue sufficiently shewed the vanity of this euasion in the first Chapter of this Adioynder where I haue euidently proued out of S. Augustine himselfe that S. Peter receaued the keyes and Pastorall authority for the Church no otherwyse but as the supreme head and Gouernour thereof in which respect he represented the person of the whole Church wherein consisteth his preheminence preferment before the rest wherof S. Basil speaketh So that you see M. Andrews hath said nothing to any purpose in answere of the place of S. Basil. 6. Now then let vs see what he saith to a place of S. Gregory Nazianzen obiected as well by the Cardinall as by me Vides sayth he quemadmodum c. Thou seest how amongst the Disciples of Christ all of them truely great and high and worthy to be chosen this to wit Peter is called a Rocke and hath the foundations of the Church committed to his charge c. Thus saith this ancient and holy Father whereto M. Andrews answereth thus Ex Nazianzeno Petrum Ioannem aliquo prae ceteris priuilegio donatos c. Out of Nazianzen he obiecteth that Peter and Iohn had some priuiledge more then the rest Peter that he had a new name taken from a Rock and that Iohn was beloued more then the rest and might layne vpon Christs brest and the rest of the Apostles did not take it ill what was there heere singular in Peter more then in Iohn and therefore there is eyther heere no Primacy or els a double Primacy So he 7. Wherein thou mayst easily see good Reader how he paltreth and iuggleth if thou notest well the obiection and how he answereth it partly dissembling those very words which most import and partly seeking to blynd the Readers eyes with the mention of a priuiledge giuen to S. Iohn which indeed is also related in that place by S. Gregory Nazianzen but nothing at all preiudiceth the far greater priuiledge of S. Peter I meane his supreme authority signifyed by S. Gregory in the words obiected by the Cardinall For when S. Gregory saith that Peter was called a Rock and had Ecclesiae fundamenta fidei suae credita the foundations of the Church committed to his charge what els doth he affirme therein but that the Church was buylt vpon Peter as vpon a Rock and that the charge or gouernment thereof was giuen more particulerly to him then to the rest For if M. Andrews will say heere as he is wont that they were all foundations and gouernours of the Church alike why was he called a Rock more then they or what was the priuiledge of Peter whereof Nazianzen speaketh heere according to M. Andrews his owne confession who graunteth that Nazianzen testifieth that Peter and Iohn were aliquo priuilegio prae ceteris donati priuiledged in some things aboue the rest 8. Therefore if M. Andrews will allow any particuler priuiledge to S. Iohns layning vpon Christs brest as he must needs do for I thinke he will not be so absurd to say that the same is also to be vnderstood of all the rest he must needs graunt that Peter had also a particuler priuiledge not only in the name of a Rock but also in that which was signifyed thereby that is to say in that the foundations of the Church were committed particulerly to his charge as Nazianzen speaketh by which Metaphore he signifyeth sufficiently that S. Peter was made supreme Gouernour of the Church as hath bene declared heretofore and therfore those words of Nazianzen atque Ecclesiae fundamenta fidei suae credita habeat wherein consisteth the force of the obiection seemed to M. Andrews as sore as a byle and not to be toucht in his answere though he set it downe in his margent togeather with the rest of the Cardinalls text 9. But what shall we say of his absurd inference or conclusion when he saith that because a priuiledge was giuen to Iohn as well as to Peter therefore there was eyther nullus or duplex primatus a double primacy or none at all Shall we thinke so great a Doctour as M. Andrews to be so simple as not to see how impertinently he try fleth therein For what coherence is there betwixt those two priuiledges wherby he should make that inference in them both especially seeing that he himselfe will I am sure deny one part thereof to wit the double primacy no lesse then we and the other part is also sufficiently contradicted not only by S. Hierome but also by himselfe as I haue shewed amply in the last Chapter where I haue declared how S. Hierome answered Iouinians obiection that the Church was founded vpon Peter and not vpon Iohn by occasion whereof S. Hierome teacheth that although Iohn was more fauoured and beloued of our Sauiour then the rest of the Apostles for his Virginity yet Peter was preferred before him in the primacy being made head of them all to take away the occasion of schisme and thereby ouerthroweth this his inference of a double primacy or none 10. For if Peter were head of the Apostles he was also head of the Church and consequently there was one primate or head and not two notwithstanding that Iohn layned vpon Christs brest and was more beloued of Christ then the rest so as M. Andrews doth notably contradict himselfe besides that he argueth as wisely as if he should say that when his Maiesty sheweth more particuler fauour and affection to any man then to my L. of Canterbury he maketh eyther two Primates of England or none at all Whereby thou mayst see good Reader what an absurd and as I may tearme it a sleeueles answere he hath made heere to the place of S. Gregory Nazianzen 11. After this there followeth another place of the Cardinall taken out of S. Chrysostome which I haue also obiected in my Supplement The words layd downe by the Cardinall are these Sanctus Ioannes Chrysostomus ho. 55. in
Matthaeum c. S. Iohn Chrysostome in his 55. homily vpon Matthew saith Christ made Peter Pastor of his future Church And a litle after God alone can graunt that the future Church shall remayne immouable notwithstanding so many and so great waues of persecution violently breâ—â— in vpon it of which Church a fisherman and of meane parentage is the Pastor and head c. Heere we read expressely that Peter was head of the Church Thus far the Cardinall 12. Heereto M. Andrews answereth thus Ex Chrysostomo Cuius Pastor caput homo piscator c. Out of Chrysostome he obiecteth thus Whereof the Pastour and head was a fisherman but these words whereof the pastor and head are crept into the text and added in the Latin in fauour of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he meaneth the Pope for they are not in the Greeke where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fisherman but the word head appeareth no where nor in that place so much as Pastor albeit no man will deny that Peter was pastor of the Church yea and a chiefe or principall pastor but yet a pastor togeather with other Pastors his fellow-Apostles and not alone without others c. So he wherein you see he taketh exception to the words cuius pastor caput which he saith are not in the Greeke Whereto I answere that put the case they be not now in the Greeke copies which M. Andrews hath seene yet it litle importeth seeing that the latin translatour found them as it is most probable in the Greeke copie which he followed and that S. Chrysostome saith as much in effect as well in the same homily as in other places 13. Whereby it is euident that it is conforme to his doctrine and not added in fauour of the Pope as M. Andrews would haue his Reader to suppose For S. Chrysostome saith in the same homily Petrus Apostolorum os vertex cùm omnes interrogati essent solus respondit c. Peter the mouth head of the Apostles wheÌ„ they were all asked answered alone c. In which words S. Chrysostome doth plainly acknowledge S. Peter to be head of the Church seeing that he called him head of the Apostles And in the same place alledged by the Cardinall hauing said that a poore fisherman by the power and vertue of Christs graunt surpasseth in strength aâ—d solidity the nature of the dyamond he preferreth him far before Hieromy the Prophet saying that whereas Almighty God made Hierâ—my like a pillar of yron and a brazen wall and gaue him power and authority ouer one Nation hunc autem vniuerso terrarum orbi Christus praeposuit Christ gaue him to wit Peter power and authority ouer the whole world So he 14. And because M. Andrews will be like heere to fly to his common place and to say that all the Apostles had power and authority ouer the whole world as well as S. Peter and that therefore this comparison of him with Hieremy proueth not that he had any more authority then the rest of the Apostles M. Andrews must consider that S. Chrysostome cannot heere meane that his authority ouer the whole world was no other then that which the other Apostles had seeing he hath taught before in the same homily that he was their head and I thinke M. Andrews will not be so absurd to say that the authority of the head and of the members is all one besides that S. Chrysostome teacheth most clearely els where that S. Peter was head not only of the Apostles but also of the whole Church as it may appeare by that which I haue alledged out of him to that purpose both in the first and also in the precedent Chapter of this Adioynder 15. Whereto I will now add a most cleare testimony thereof out of his learned Commentary vpon the Acts of the Apostles where discoursing vpon the election of Matthias the Apostle in the place of Iudas and particulerly vpon those words Et in diebus illis surgens Petrus he noteth not only the fauour of Peter but also his authority ouer the rest as ouer the flock committed to his charge Quà m est feruidus saith he quà m agnoscit creditum à Christo gregem c. How feruent is Peter how well doth he acknowledge the flock committed to him by Christ Loe how he is Prince in this company or congregation and euery where beginneth first to speake c. 16. And againe afterwards prosecuting the same matter he sayth Quid an non licebat ipsi eligere Licebat quidem maxime c. What and was it not lawfull for him to choose Matthias Yes truely it was most lawfull but he did it not because he would not seeme to gratify any Also againe after a while he saith thus Primus hic Doctorem constituit c. he to wit Peter did first heere make a Doctor he said not we are sufficient to teach c. quamquam autem habebat ius constituendi par omnibus tamen haec congruenter fiebant c. Albeit he had as much authority to appoynt him as they all yet this was done very conueniently So he giuing to vnderstand that notwithstanding Peters absolute power to choose Matthias himselfe alone yet out of prudence he determined rather to do it by the generall consent of all the Apostles which he also signifyed no lesse plainly afterwards in these words Meritò primus omnium c. he doth worthily first of all the rest vse or exercyse his authority in this busines as one that had all the rest in his hand or power for to him Christ sayd tu aliquando coÌ„uersus confirma fratres tuos and thou being sometyme conuerted confirme they brethren 17. All this saith S. Chrysostome concerning the the election of Matthias the Apostle whereby it appeareth playnly that he held S. Peter to be head of the Apostles and of the whole Church seeing he teacheth not only that he was the Prince in that Congregation but also that he had as much authority to make an Apostle as they all and might haue done it of himselfe if he had thought it fit and conuenient because he had them all in his hand So as it is cleare that when S. Chrysostome in the 55. homily vpon Matthew which the Cardinall alledgeth calleth S. Peter verticem Apostolorum the head of the Apostles and saith that Christ made him power of the Church and that he gaue him authority ouer the whole world he meaneth and teacheth manifestly that he was supreme head and Pastor of the vniuersall Church which is the same in substance and effect that those words Cuius pastor caput do signify 18. Therefore the doctrine being S. Chrysostomes as well in that homily alledged by the Cardinall as els where and the words also themselues which perhaps may be wanting in some Greeke copie being extant as they are cyted by the Cardinall in all our Latin translations it
is but a vayne shift of M. Andrews to say that they are thrust into the Latin in fauour of the Pope it being more probable as I haue sayd that they were in the old Greeke copies which the Latin translatours followed and that eyther the Grecians themselues in the time of their schisme from the Roman Church or perhaps some of our late heretikes who haue taken vpon them to print the Greeke in these dayes haue purposely left out the same in hatred of the supreme authority of S. Peter and his successors But howsoeuer it is you see the doctrine of S. Chrysostome is cleare to the purpose that those words which M. Andrewes saith are not in the Greek do import and this suffiseth to proue by the testimony of S. Chrysostome that S. Peter was supreme Pastor and head of the vniuersall Church 19. And as for M. Andrews his stale and tryfling deuyse to call the Pope 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alluding to the name of the beast in the Apocalyps according to the interpretation of Irenaeus as he would haue his Reader to suppose albeit he vse it far otherwise then Irenaeus meant it who applyed it only to the temporall Empyre and not to the Roman Sea I willingly omit it as not pertayning to the place of S. Chrysostome wherof I now specially treat and therefore do remit him for his satisfaction in that point to Cardinall Bellarmines controuersies where the same is so sufficiently answered that he and his fellowes may be ashamed still to repeat it and not to impugne the manifold and solid reasons which the Cardinall produceth to confute their ridiculous and absurd application of that name to the Pope 20. And now to end concerning the testimony of S. Chrysostome whereas M. Andrews for conclusion of his answere thereto saith that no man will deny that Peter was Pastor of the Church yea and a principall pastor sed cum alijs pastorem coapostolis suis non solum sine alijs but Pastour togeather with other his fellow Apostles and not alone without others I thinke he was in a dreame when he wrotâ— it impugning no man therein for ought I know For I neuer heard tell of any man yet who taught that S. Peter was Pastor of the Church alone or that the other Apostles were not Pastors as well as he albeit we teach with S. Chrysostome and others as you haue heard that they were subordinate to him as to the supreme pastor and their head which also M. Andrews himselfe doth acknowledge sufficiently as I haue shewed amply in the last Chapter And this I hope may suffice concerning S. Chrysostome 21. There remayneth now only S. Augustin of the 4. Fathers alledged by the Cardinall and my selfe for the proofe of S. Peters Primacy his words are these Totius corporis morbum in ipso capite curat Ecclesiae c. he to wit Christ cureth the disease of the whole body in the very head of the Church coÌ„poundeth the health of all the members in ipso vertice that is to say in the very crowne or top of the head Thus saith S. Augustin whereupon the Cardinall saith Sanctus Augustinus apertè vocat S. Petrum caput corporis Ecclesiae S. Augustine doth planily call S. Peter head of the body of the Church To this M. Andrewes saith thus ConcludÃt testes suos cum Augustino non Augustino cuius tempore non fiebant Sermones de tempore He to wit the Cardinall concludeth his witnesses with an Augustine who is not Augustin in whose tyme there were not made any Sermons de tempore So he taking exceptions to the authority of this allegation because in S. Augustins tyme as he would haue vs suppose there was no such custome in the Church to make Sermons de tempore that is to say of the ordinary feasts that do occur thoughout the course of the yeare and that therefore the Authour of those Sermons de tempore out of the which the Cardinall taketh this place could not be S. Augustins but of some other later wryter who set them out in S. Augustins name 22. But now if you aske how M. Andrews proueth that there were no Sermons de tempore in S. Augustins tyme you must take his bare word for a proofe for you neyther haue nor are like to heare any other of him But for the tryall of this matter I must remit thee good Reader to some better and more authenticall witnesses then M. Andrewes namely to Possidius a learned Bishop who being a familiar friend of S. Augustin forty yeares togeather as he signifieth himselfe wrote his life and making a Catalogue of his workes doth mention amongst the rest diuers Sermons or Treatises of his made of some of the principall feasts of the yeare as of Christmas Ascension Pentecost Lent and 23. Tracts or Sermons per Vigilias Paschae in the Eues of Easter whereof by all likelyhood this very Sermon was one being made on the Wednesday before Easter whereto may be added also diuers other particuler feasts of Saints mentioned in like manner by Possidius as namely the Natiuity of S. Iohn Baptist of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul of S. Laurence S. Cyprian S. Perpetua and Felicitas S. Saluius S. Vincent and some others which I omit for that these I trow may suffice to conuince M. Andrews of great ignorance or malice in that he denyeth that there were any Sermons de tempore in S. Augustins tyme. 23. For although it is like inough that neyther S. Augustin nor any other Father of that age wrote any work vnder the title of Sermones de tempore but that such sermons being made at diuers tymes and dispersed in diuers parts of their workes haue bene since their daies gathered into one volume and set out vnder that tytle for the ease and commodity of the Readers yet no man that hath byn conuersant in the Fathers can be ignorant that such were vsually made both in the Latin and in the Greeke Church in S. Augustins tyme which may euidently appeare besids the testimony of Possidius aforesaid by the works of S. Ambrose wherin there are Sermons vpon almost all the great feasts from Aduent to Pentecost and in the same tyme liued also S. Maximus Bishop of Turin who wrote diuers homilies vpon the principall feasts of the yeare as testifyeth Gennadius a famous writer of that age whereof I shall haue occasion to speake further hereafter Besids that it cannot be denyed that the like custome was also in the Greeke Church in those daies seeing that we fynd in S. Gregory Nissen who was S. Basils brother diuers Orations made vpon the feasts of the Natiuity of our Sauiour S. Stephen Easter and the Ascension And others also in S. Gregory Nazianzen vpon the feasts of Easter Pentecost the Natiuity of Christ the Epiphany which amongst the Greekes was called Sancta Lumina In like
Andrews his fraud more particulerly and produced also a cleare testimony of S. Cyril concerning the Primacy of S. Peter whome he calleth Principem Caput Apostolorum the Prince head of the Apostles though he do there grant his fall which he saith hapned by humane infirmity whereof M. Andrews cannot be ignorant seeing he cyteth also that place of S. Cyril no lesse then the other of S. Augustin though with greater fraud as I haue also shewed in the first Chapter 30. Finally I may add to these those other testimonies which I haue now lastly examined and debated with M. Andrewes out of S Cyril S. Hierome S Basil and S. Chrysostome as also the rest of that grand Iury of 24. Fathers Greeks and Latins alledged by Cardinall Bellarmine in his controuersies to proue the supreme authority of S. Peter ouer the Apostles all which most learned and ancient Fathers being the lights of the Church knew as well as M. Andrews that S. Peter had denyed our Sauiour and yet neuertheles did not take the same to be any preiudice to his Supremacy Whereupon I conclude that if their heads were sound then M. Andrews his head must needs be very sick and crazed seeing his sense and iudgment is so far different from theirs as to seek to ouerthrow or disproue S. Peters Primacy by his fall and to speake of him so contemptibly and opprobriously as he doth 31. But will you heare how well he mendeth the matter Marke him well I pray you and you shall see that as his head hath ben hitherto somewhat crackt so now he is become wholy distract talking as idly as if he were more fit for Bedlam then for a Bishoprick For hauing sayd as you haue heard before that this testimony of S. Augustine was vnluckily produced by the Cardinall because it giueth vs notice of no other head but of a sickly head to wit S. Peter and that therfore it might very well haue bin pretermitted he goeth forward thus Praesertim cùm eùmdem morbum in capite vestro notarint diu iam medicorum filij et si omnes non ego id est plus ego quà m omnes especially seeing that the Phisitians children haue now a long tyme noted the same disease in your head although all not I that is to say I more then all Thus saith he so mystically I assure you that he seemeth to propound a riddle and therefore may do well to explicate his meaning and let vs know who were those Phisitians and their children that haue noted the same disease in our head 32. Neuertheles for as much as it may be presumed that by the children he meaneth Luther Caluin Beza and himselfe with other Sectaries of this age we may also make a reasonable coniecture who were the Phisitians seeing that we are not ignorant that the true progenitours of all the Sectaries aforenamed were dyuers old heretykes whose herefies they haue reuyued namely the Donatists whose doctrine they professe concerning the fall of the visible Church Aerius whome they follow in denying Sacrifyce for the dead Vigilantius with whome they impugne the reuerend vse of reliques Iouinian who taught diuers points of their beliefe touched particulerly in the last Chapter and other Arch-heretikes condemned by the Church in ancient tyme who as S. Augustine witnesseth vsed also to barke though in vayne against the Sea Apostolike no lesse then these their children do 33. But although we may ghesse who were the Phisitians and their children yet it will not be so easy to coniecture what he meaneth by etsi omnes non ego id est plus ego quà m omnes although all not I that is to say I more then all for truely I haue shewed it to diuers and haue not found two that agree in the interpretation of it but the most probable seemeth to be the one of two one is that he alludeth to the words of S. Peter when he sayd etsi omnes scandalizati fuerint sed non ego Although all shall be scandalized yet not I who neuerthelesse was scandalized more then they all because he alone denyed his mayster which sense hath great difficulty because it neyther hath connexion with that which goeth immediatly before nor is truly applicable to the Pope of whome M. Andrews seemeth there to treate but is only contumelious to S Peter being a taunting kind of exprobration of his fall and therefore me thinkes M. Andrews should not admit it to be his meaning as sauouring too much of impiety 34. The other sense is that it should be referred to M. Andrews himselfe and that there is some litle fault in the print I mean in the points though not in the words which therefore should be pointed this si omnes non ego and if all not I that is to say if all haue noted this disease in your head why should not I note it Giuing to vnderstand that he will not yield to any of his brethren for zeale skill in noting the faults of Popes but rather plus ego quà m omnes that is to say therein will I go beyond them all which sense hath at least some good coherence with the precedent clause and well befitteth M. Andrews his zeale to the Ghospell and hatred to the Pope and so may passe for his meaning But whatsoeuer his meaning is I cannot forbeare to tell him that seeing his brayn is so intoxicated that he cannot write intelligibly and yet will take vpon him to play the Physitian and to cure the Popes diseases I will say to him with our Sauiour Medice cura teipsum and wish him to purge his owne head with some good quantity of a drug called Catholicon and a litle Helleborum to restore him againe to his right wits before he presume to be the Popes Physitian and to iudge of the diseases of the head of the Church 35. And whereas he goeth forward to shew vs a difference in the cure of Peters disease and of the diseases of his Successors let vs follow him a while and you shall see him runne as well out of his honesty as out of his wit For thus he saith Sed ab eo morbo sanatum hoc caput c. But this head to wit S. Peter was healed of this disease but your head he meaneth the Pope neyther will be healed nor yet is curable yet if he euer be healed let him be the head of the Church of Rome as he was in Augustines tyme but let no man appeale to him from beyond the sea or if any appeale he is to be excommunicated by Augustine who was far from acknowledging Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus for heads of the Church in whome neuertheles he cured the same disease So he which I beseech thee good Reader well to note and thou shalt see his conscience no lesse crackt then his brayne ioyning extreme falsity with folly abusing the authority not
only of S. Augustine but also of the whole Councell of African Bishops though he name S. Augustin only and none of the other and finally vttering 3. notable lyes in litle more then 3. lynes The first is that the Pope had no further authority but ouer his Church of Rome in S. Augustines tyme. The second that no man might in those daies appeale to the Sea Apostolicke out of Africk The third that S. Augustine was far from acknowledging those three Popes Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus to be heads of the Church yea and that he cured S. Peters disease in them Of these 3. points the first wil be fully cleared by the discussion of the second and the third 36. First then concerning the second whereas M. Andrews affirmeth that all Appeales from Africk to Rome were forbidden by S. Augustin vnder payne of excommunication wee shall neede no other witnesse to conuince him but S. Augustine himselfe who teacheth the flat contrary not only in expresse words but also by practise as it will euidently appeare after a whyle for albeit there was a controuersy betwixt the Church of Africk and the Roman Sea in S. Augustins tyme partly about appeales to Rome and partly about the Canons of the Nicen Councell for that a Canon related by the Popes Legate as out of the said Councell was not found in the Copies that were then in Africk whereof the causes may be seene at large as well in Cardinall Bellarmins Controuersies as in the history of Cardinall Baronius who doe fully answere all our aduersaryes cauills concerning the same albeit I say this controuersy continued some 4. or 5. yeares and grew in great part by reason of abuses cōmitted by some of the Popes legates in the rigorous and violent execution of the Popes sentences which may suffice to proue the comon vse of Appeales from Africk to Rome in those daies neuertheles it is euident that during the tyme of this controuersy there was no prohibition of the appeales of Bishops from Africk to Rome for that all the African Bishops agreed to continue the wonted course of Appeales without innouation vntill they should haue answere out of Greece concerning the Canons of the Nicen Councell 37. And when they had receaued the same they were so far from excommunicating such as should appeale to Rome or from prohibiting the same by a Synodicall Decree that they only wrote a common letter to Pope Celestinus wherein they did not impugne the right of Appeales to Rome but shewed their dislike of the manner and meanes that had ben vsed in the prosecutiō thereof And whereas there were 3. wayes vsed by the Sea Apostolyke in the prosecution and decision of appeales the first by calling the parties and witnesses to Rome the second by sending Legates to the place from whence the appeales came with commission to heare and determin them sometymes with the assistance of the Bishops of that prouince and sometymes without them and the third to remit the matter wholy to the determination of the Metropolitan or of some Prouinciall Synod of the same country as S. Gregory the great did in Africk dyuers tymes whereof I shall haue occasiō to lay downe some examples heereafter of these 3. wayes I say the African Bishops held the two former to be very inconuenient for them but tooke no exception at all to the third way which was to remit the causes to be tried at home by the Metropolitans or by Prouinciall Synods therfore the reasōs which they vrged tended especially to proue that it was most conuenient conforme to the Councell of Nice that causes should be decyded by the Metropolitans and Synods of the same Country where the controuersy should ryse and this the Pope might haue graunted if he had thought it conuenient and yet haue reserued to himselfe the right of appellation and haue decyded Appeales also by his commission as it shall further appeare after a while by the practise of S. Gregory 38 But put the case that S. Augustine and the Bishops of Africk had required of Pope Celestinus to be quite rid of Appeales what will M. Andrewes infer thereon Will he say that therefore they decreed vt transmarinus nemo appellet si appellet excommunicandus that no man appeale out of Africk and that if he doe he shall be excommunicated Will he infer this vpon their demaund or petition I say their petition for that when they come to treate of that matter in their Epistle they begin it thus Praefato debitae salutationis officio impendiò deprecamur vt c. The office or duty of due salutations premised we do most earnestly beseech you that you will not ouer easily giue eare to such as come from hence c. Will then M. Andrewes make no difference betwixt demaunds and decrees petitions and prohibitions must he not rather confesse that the African Bishops acknowledged that Pope Celestinus had power to dispose appeales For otherwyse why did they rather seeke satisfaction by letters to him then resolue by some Synodicall decree to exclude his authority and to debar him from further medling in those affaires as it is like they would haue done had they had byn perswaded that his authority in that behalfe was vsurped But let M. Andrewes take the request of the African Bishops in what sense he list I meane eyther for the exclusion of Appeales or for moderation in the prosecution of them yet he can neuer make good his forgery of transmarinus nemo appellet c. it beeing most euident that neyther these petitions of theirs nor any Canon of the African Synods nor yet any one word in S. Augustin did euer prohibite all Appellation from Africk to Rome or yet cause any surcease or interruption thereof nor yet hinder the moderate and conuenient prosecution of appeales for the proofe whereof I shall not need as I haue said to produce any other witnes then S. Augustine himselfe and his owne practise not past 5. or 6. yeares before his death in the cause of a Bishop called Antony whome he had made Bishop of Fussula 39. It is therefore to be vnderstood that this Antony being depriued of his Bishoprick by a Synodicall sentence of African Bishops for his outragious misdemeanours appealed to Rome to Pope Bonifacius wherupon the Pope being moued partly with the Primats letters and partly with such other testimony as Antony had cunningly produced for his purgation resolued to returne him to his Bishopricke yet with this expresse condition as S. Augustine witnesseth if the information which he had giuen were found to be true but before it could be executed it chanced that Pope Bonifacius dyed and Celestinus succeeded him 40. And for as much as many rumours were spred in fauour of Antony that he should be restored by the Popes sentence and the same executed by violence with the help of secular power if need were as the
the letters of Celestinus to Cyrillus to whome he wrote thus Adiuncta tibi nostrae sedis auctoritate ipse qui vice nostra potestateque fungeris c. Thou which holdest our place and power the authority of our seat concurring with thee shalt with all euerity pronounce this sentence against Nestorius that if within 10. daies after this admonition he do not detest and renounce his wicked doctrine c. Thou shalt prouide his Church of a Pastor and he shall vnderstand that he is excluded from our communion c. 82. Thus wrote Celestinus to Cyril who therefore in his letters to Nestorius signifyed vnto him that if he did not recant and reforme his errours within the tyme limited and prescrybed by Pope Celestinus he should be excommunicated and depriued And the whole Councell also pronouncing sentence of condemnation against Nestorius affirmed that they were compelled to vse that seuerity not only by the Canons of the Church but also by the letters of Pope Celestinus and in their Epistle to the said Pope they signifyed that they reserued and remitted the cause of Iohn the Patriarch of Antioch who was a fauourer of Nestorius to his iudgment and sentence Besides that Nicephorus testifieth that the common fame was in his time that certayne priuiledges were graunted to S. Cyril which also his successours enioyed by reason of his Legacy and substitution to Pope Celestinus in that Councell and amongst other things that he had the title of Iudex vniuersi orbis Iudge of the whole world 83. Now then I report me to thee good Reader whether Celestinus was no more then the head of his Church of Rome as M. Andrews maketh him For is it likely that eyther S. Cyrill who was Bishop of Alexandria and consequently the first and chiefe Patriarke of the East would haue stouped to be his substitute and Legate and to receiue commissions and orders from him or yet that the whole Councell beeing most of them also of the Greeke and East Church would haue acknowledged themselues to be compelled by his letters to condemne Nestorius yea and remitted the cause of the second Patriarke of the Greeke Church to his finall determination if they had not taken him for the vniuersall and supreme Pastour of the whole Church As I shewed also the like before in the second Chapter of this Adioynder concerning the authority of Pope Leo in the great Councell of Chalcedon which was held in the same age not past 20. yeares after this other of Ephesus So that M. Andrewes cānot by any meanes excuse himselfe from a manifest lye in this no more then in other two poynts before mentioned 84. Whereby it appeareth euidently that he hath made 3. notable lyes as I may say with one breath that is to say within litle more then 3. lynes Besyds an egregious corruption of the Canon of the African Synod with his transmarinus nemo and a foule abuse as well of S. Augustine in making him say that which he neyther sayd nor meant as also of his Reader in seeking to perswade him that S. Augustine excommunicated all those that would appeale to Rome out of Africk yea and cured Peters-diseases in the 3. last Popes for so he also saith in quibus tamen eumdem morbum curauit in whome to wit Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus Augustine cured the same diseases that is to say the diseases of Peter meaning as I take it eyther Peters presumptiō of his owne strength or els his denyall of Christ which neuertheles I cannot see how he can apply to them and much lesse pretend that S. Augustine cured the same diseases in them 85. Therefore whereas his drift was no other in all this as it seemeth but to perswade thee good Reader that S. Augustine was at daggers drawing with these 3. Popes thou hast partly seene already by that which hath bene said concerning two of them to wit Zosimus Celestinus how much he hath sought to abuse thee therin the like will also euidently appeare concerning Pope Bonifacius if thou consider with what affection reuerend respect and submission S. Augustine dedicated vnto him his 4. bookes against two Epistles of the Pelagians writing to him thus 86. Noueram te quidem fama celeberrima praedicante c. I knew thee truely before by the most famous report of thy renoumne and vnderstood by many most frequent and true relations how aboundantly thou art replenished with Gods grace most blessed and venerable Pope Boniface but after that my brother Alipius had seene thee and been receiued by thee with all benignity and sincerity c. I had so much more notice of thy Holinesse by how much more certeyne is our amity for thou who takest no gust or delight in high things though thou art in a higher degree then others dost not disdayne to be a friend to the meane and inferiour sort So he and afterwards hauing signifyed that he had vndertaken to write against 2. epistles of the Pelagians he concludeth Haec ergo quae duabus Epistolis c. These things therefore which I doe answere in this disputation to two Epistles of the Pelagians I haue determyned to direct specially to thy Holynes not as things needfull to be learned by you but to be examined and amended if any thing do chance to dislyke you Thus wrote S. Augustine to Pope Bonifacius being so far from hauing any auersion or alienation from him and much more from presumyng to cure any diseases in him that is to say to correct any errours in his person or gouernment that he shewed all dutifull loue and reuerend affection towards him giuing notable testimony to his rare vertue sanctity and not only acknowledging the dignity of his seat but also submitting himselfe and his workes to his censure and Iudgment to be examined corrected and amended by him as he should see cause whereby it appeareth that S. Augustine liued in perfect vnion with Pope Bonifacius 87. And in what tearmes he stood with Pope Celestinus though we may gather it sufficiently by his owne letter before mentioned concerning the Bishop of Fussula yet it shall not be amisse to vnderstand it also by the testimony of Celestinus himselfe It is therefore to be vnderstood that S. Augustine dying in the tyme of Pope Celestinus and his workes especially those against the Pelagians being by their practise much impugned and defamed in France S. Prosper who had been a disciple as I haue sayd before of S. Augustine and was then Bishop of Aquitane went purposely to Rome togeather with Hilarlus Bishop of Arles to complayne thereof to procure the letters of Pope Celestinus in iustifycation of him and his workes Whereupon Celestinus wrote a generall letter to all the Bishops of France as well in defence of S. Augustine as in condemnation of the Pelagians and amongst other things sayth of S. Augustine thus Augustinum
needed no Councells to be assembled or Synodicall decrees to be made for the condemnation thereof and much lesse for the confirmation of prayer to Saynts which he did not expressely deny So as M. Andrews sheweth himselfe very impertinent still to demaund statutes and decrees for the inuocation of Saynts within the first 400. yeares at what tyme it was as I haue sayd so publike and generall throughout the whole Church that it was needles to confirme it by Canons or decrees as it will still further appeare the further we debate this matter 28. In the meane tyme to returne to S. Basil and to conclude concerning him I appeale to the iudgment of any indifferent man whether he could declare eyther his owne beliefe or the faith of the Church touching this point more clearely then he hath done heere shewing the vse and custome of Catholike people in his tyme not only approued and highly commended by him as it is euident by that which I haue layd downe before but also confirmed and ratifyed by Almighty God with miraculous effects and the grant of pious petitions made by deuout people to the holy Martyrs and Saynts at their Monuments and els where All which I say being witnessed by S. Basil is truly a far greater testimony for vs then if he should haue only declared his owne opinion So as a man may wonder with what face M. Andrewes can admit the authority of the Fathers and yet reiect their testimony of such facts as these whereby they shew not only their owne beliefe but also the beliefe and practice of the Church in their dayes And thus much concerning S. Basil. 29. The next place which M. Andrewes vndertaketh to answere is taken out of Eusebius and cyted by the Cardinall thus Haec nos quotidie factitamus c. These things we Christians vse to do daily who honoring the true Souldiars of piety as the friends of God do also go to their tombes and pray vnto them by whose intercession to Almighty God we do acknowledge that we receiue great help Thus far the Cardinall cyteth the words of Eusebius according to the Latin translation which he layeth downe sincerely albeit M. Andrewes chargeth him with fraud in peruerting the Greeke text because the words in the Greeke are somewhat otherwise signifying that the custome of the Christians was to pray at the tombes of the Martyrs and maketh no expresse mention of praying to them whereto I answere as to the former charge that the Latin translatour whose words the Cardinall cyteth followeth the sense of Eusâ—bius gathering the same out of the circumstance of the place For Eusebius shewing there the conformity of Plato's doctrine to our Christian Religion layeth downe Plato's words wherein he sayth that those which were vertuous and valiant men and dyed for the defence of their Country became after their death Semidei halfe Godes and deliuered men from many euils and were serued and worshipped as Gods their monuments and tombes adored 30. Wherupon Eusebius to shew the lyke practice of ChristiaÌ„s sayth that it was vsuall ordinary amongst Christians to goe to the tombes of Martyrs and there to pray and to honour their blessed soules for so hath the Greeke which being considered together with the doctrine of Plato before related concerning the honour and worship done to the Semidei and the conformity thereof with Christian religion vrged by Eusebius as also that the coÌ„mon custome of Christians was at that tyme to pray to Martyrs by name as I haue shewed a litle before by the authority of S. Basil and will shew further after a whyle All this I say being considered the Translatour had reason to vnderstand that the prayers which Eusebius sayth the Christians made at the tombes of Martyrs were directed to them and not to God only especially seeing that all the prayers honour and seruice exhibited to Martyrs eyther at theyr tombes or els where redoundeth to the honour and seruice of God to whome the same are finally directed and addressed and for whose sake principally the holy Martyrs and Saynts are honored and serued Therefore seeing the Latin translatioÌ„ which the Cardinall cyteth is not only free from errour in doctrine but also conforme to the circumstances of the place and to the practice of the Church at that tyme it may well be admitted though it be not altogeather litterall but howsoeuer it is the Cardinall following and alledging it as it is generally receiued amongst learned men could not iustly be charged with fraud though the same should be erroneous whereas M. Andrews sheweth himselfe both fraudulent and malicious in charging the Cardinal to peruert the Greeke text when he cyteth the Latin translatioÌ„ with all sincerity And thus much for this poynt 31. Furthermore M. Andrewes addeth to the two former places another out of S. Chrysostome which the Cardinall cyteth thus Saepius illos inuisamus tumulos adoremus c. let vs often visit these Martyrs to wit S. Iuuentinus and S. Maximus let vs adore their tombes let vs with great faith touch their reliques to the end we may obtayne some benediction thereby Thus farre the Cardinall out of S. Chrysostome to proue that the ancient Fathers of the first 400. yeares and namely S. Chrysostome approued the veneration of holy reliques Wherin M. Andrewes pretendeth to haue found two fraudes the one in the translation of the Greeke and the other in the allegation of the Latin Of the former he sayth thus Nam graecè c. For in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to touch the shryne but to touch the shrine I thinke is not to adore it Our Sauiour did not adore the sonne of the widdow of Naim when he touched the coffin wherein his body lay So he 32. Wherein I beseech thee good Reader to note how substantially he answereth this place saying nothing at all to the substance and whole drift thereof but cauilling only about a word or two as if all the wayght and force of the place consisted therein whereas the place would directly proâ—e all that which the Cardinall intendeth though we should grant that which M. Andrewes affirmeth concerning the difference betwixt the Greeke and the Latin For seeing that S. Chrysostome exhorteth the people not only to visit the Martyrs by repayring to their tombes but also to touch yea and with faith to imbrace their reliques for so hath the Greeke to the end to haue thereby some benediction doth he not plainely teach therein that holy reliques are to be reuerently kept visited and worshipped 33. For how can it be imagined that a man can come to visit holy reliques and with fayth touch and imbrace them to the end heere declared to wit to receiue thereby some blessing from Almighty God but that he doth it with deuotion and an exteriour demonstration of the internall reuerence that he beareth therto I meane with a reuerent and
that M. Andrews hath not only reiected S. Ambrose his expresse testimony concerning the inuocation of Saynts but also charged him with a most blasphemous doctrine which neuer any man els I dare say except perhaps some other Sectary of this age euer so much as suspected or imagined in that holy Father Secondly promising to proue by a knowne sentence of S. Ambrose that he changed his mynd afterwards in that poynt he alledgeth a worke which in the opinion of diuers learned men was not written by S. Ambrose besydes that the place which he produceth is nothing at all to the purpose for the which he alledgeth it Thirdly laying downe the true words of another place in a true worke of S. Ambrose he hath fraudulently dissembled concealed that which immediatly followeth and not only discouereth but also ouerthroweth his false construction thereof and lastly he hath coyned a new worke of S. Ambrose neuer heard of by any but by himselfe whereby also he could gayne nothing if there were any such So as now I report me to thee good Reader whether he hath not quit himselfe well in the answere of the Cardinalls obiection out of S. Ambrose Let vs then passe to another 39. The next place which he laboureth to answere is taken out of the history of Ruffinus who saith of Theodosius the Emperour thus Circuibat omnia orationum loca c. he went about to all places of prayer and lay prostrate in hearcloth and craued help for himselfe by the faithfull intercession of Saynts So he declaring what meanes Theodosius vsed to obtayne the admirable victory which almighty God afterwards gaue him against Eugenius the Tyrant To this M. Andrews answereth thus Theodosius ibi sanctorum inuocator non est c. Theodosius is not there an inuocatour of Saynts for it is one thing to craue help of Saynts which is properly to inuocate them and another to craue help of God by the intercession of Saynts So he giuing to vnderstand that Theodosius did not pray to Saynts but to God to heare him by the intercession of Saynts which he signifieth afterwards more playnely saying Rogare autem Deum c. To beseech God to fauour vs at the request of Saynts is not to pray to them or to inuocate them but God hoc autem nec praeterea quid fecit ibi Theodosius this and nothing els did Theodosius there Thus sayth M. Andrewes who as you see granteth that Theodosius prayed at the tombes of Martyrs yea that he craued help of almighty God by the intercession of Saynts but not that he prayed to the Saynts themselues 40. Neuertheles he may easily be cōuinced heerein if we consider what hath byn already proued by the testimonyes of those holy Fathers which haue hytherto byn produced by the which it is euident that the common custome of Christians was at that tyme to pray to Saynts and Martyrs at their tombes and monuments and amongst the rest S. Chrysostome testifyeth expressely as you haue heard that the very Emperours themselues of whome one was Theodosius vsed to come to the monuments of Martyrs and there to pray to them to the end that they might pray to God for them and therefore I remit it to the iudgment of any indifferent man whether it be credible that Theodosius being to craue Gods fauour and assistance against the Tyrant Eugenius at the tombes of Martyrs and by their intercession did not also particulerly pray to them as not only all Christians at that tyme but also he and other Emperours were wont to do in their necessityes is it likely that he would do it at other tymes and not then when he had most need 41. This is so improbable that M. Andrews had need to bring some more pregnant reasons to proue it then he doth especially seeing it was commonly reported as Zozomen witnesseth that Theodosius going to encounter Eugenius passed by a Church which he had buylt in the honour of S. Iohn Baptist and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say he inuocated the Baptist to be his Assistant in the battayle whereby it euidently appeareth that Theodosius was held at that tyme to be an inuocatour of Saynts and namely of S. Iohn Baptist and that the same was generally approued in him seeing it was reported amongst the people and related by Sozomen as one speciall meanes which he vsed to obtayne the famous victory that God gaue him presently after against his enemy and therefore there is no doubt but that when he craued help against the same enemy by the intercession of Martyrs at their tombes as Ruffinus testifyeth in the place alledged by the Cardinall he inuocated the Martyrs themselues for I thinke no reason can be giuen why he should pray particulerly to S. Iohn Baptist and not also to those Martyrs seeing that the selfe same occasion and oportunity of tyme place and necessity vrged him to both alyke◠42. But perhaps you will imagine that some potent reasons moued M. Andrewes to thinke that Theodosius did not inuocate the Martyrs yea that it was not lawfull for him to do it But truly his reason is no other but because we neyther are sure that the Saynts heare vs nor haue any precept in Scripture to pray to them Vtcumque sayth he illi pro nobis intercedant c. Howsoeuer the Saynts pray for vs yet except we may be sure that they heare vs yea and though the same were manifest yet except we haue some commandment of God for it they are not to be inuocated by vs albeit they pray for vs of their owne accord So he opposing this his friuolous conceipt against the sacred authority as wel of the publike custome and practise of the primitue Church as of the beliefe of the ancient Fathers testifying and approuing the same which might suffise to perswade any reasonable man both that Saynts do heare vs and also that they may be inuocated For would the whole Church of God euen then when it was notably furnished with learned and holy pastors which our aduersaries cannot deny haue practised or yet permitted the inuocation of Saynts if eyther it were vnlawfull or els that the Saynts do not heare vs So should the spouse of Christ and the pillar of truth whereto our Sauiour promised his owne continuall assistance so should she I say haue erred most perniciously if it were not lawfull to pray to Saynts and foolishly if they did not heare vs and therefore if there were no other argumēt or proofe thereof but the practise of the whole Church as well in those dayes as euer since yet the same might suffice to conuince M. Andrews and his fellowes in this poynt 43. But what will he say to the vndoubted experience that men haue had in all tymes and ages and yet haue of the admirable and most miraculous effects of petitions made to Saynts do not the same most
the same is to be extended to the new law As well may he say that we are bound to obserue the whole law and so proue himselfe a Iew euacuate the law of Christ as Saynt Paul argueth against those that mayntained the vse of CircuÌ„cisioÌ„ togeather with the faith of Christ. 27. Neuertheles I say not this to exclude all manner of arguments or inferences drawne from the old law to the new that the same remayne within the limits of probability as from the figure to the verity which admitteth many limitations and exceptions but to exclude the obligation of all precepts eyther ceremoniall or Iudiciall which do not in any sort bynd vs now as I haue shewed in the first Chapter of this Adioynder And therefore whereas M. Andrews sayth heere cùm praeceptum acceperimus in lege disertis verbis c. seeing we haue receiued a precept in the law in expresse words c. I say to him that seeing this precept did vndoutedly belong to the ceremoniall law and concerned only the manner of worship to be done to God by Sacrifice he sheweth himselfe a flat Iew in saying that we Christians haue receiued this precept in the law 28. Furthermore he is to vnderstand that albeit we should grant that nothing can be practiced or taught in the new law without some precept or doctrine thereof deliuered by our Sauiour Christ vnto his Church yet he could gayne nothing thereby except he could also proue that all our Sauiours precepts and doctrine are expressely set downe in Scripture which neyther he nor any of his fellowes haue byn able yet to proue or euer shal be it being euident that our Sauiour neyther commanded any thing at all to be written but to be preached and taught saying praedicate euangelium c. preach the gospell to euery Creature and againe docete omnes gentes c. teach all Nations baptizing them c. neyther did the Apostles eyther write any thing of diuers yeares after Christ Ascension or when they wrote deliuer all Christs doctrine and their owne by writing but very many things by tradition in which respect the Apostle himselfe saith tenete traditiones quas accepistis siue per sermonem siue per. Epistolam nostram hold the traditions which you haue receiued eyther by word or by our Epistle by which words of the Apostle the ancient Fathers namely S. Chrysostome S. Epiphanius S. Basil S. Iohn Damascen Oecumenius Theophilactus and the 8. Generall Councell do proue the necessary vse of vnwritten traditions in the Church and amongst the rest S. Chrysostome saith hinc patet c. heereby it is mâ—nifest that the Apostles did not deliuer all things by Epistle but many things without writing eadem fide digna sunt tam illa quà m ista as well those things as these are worthy of the same credit 29. For this cause S. Augustine giueth this generall rule that whatsoeuer the whole Church retayneth whereof the beginning cannot be deduced eyther from the Scriptures or Generall Councells or some later institution the same was vndoutedly deliuered by the Apostles and this he vrgeth very often as a most assured ground and principle agaynst the Donatists and for the same reason not only he but also all other Fathers teach that the generall custome of the Church is an infallible and euident proofe of the truth in any controuersy in so much that he affirmeth it to be insolentissimae insaniae a poynt of most insolent madnes to dispute or doubt of it as I haue declared in the last Chapter which I wish M. Andrews well to obserue as also the other testimonyes of the ancient Fathers produced there concerning this poynt 30. Now then hereupon I conclude two things the one that M. Andrews who as he sayth dare do nothing without a written precept may lay away his scruple in matters that are generally practised by the Church the other that seeing it is euident by these testimonyes of so many holy and learned Fathers as haue byn heere alledged that the whole Church in their dayes practized prayer to Saynts as a thing most beneficiall to men and honorable to God and that they acknowledged the euident and miraculous benefits that grew to men thereby yea vrged the same agaynst the very Gentills and Paynims as inuincible arguments of the diuinity of Christ and of the verity of Christian religion and seeing also that this practice custome and beliefe was then generall when Christian religion most florished I meane in the tyme of the 4. first generall Councells and when the Church abounded most with famous Doctors Pastors and Fathers it must needs be graunted that the doctrine of prayer to Saynts is an irrefragable verity and that according to S. Augustines censure it is no lesse then insolent madnes in M. Andrewes to call it in question and much more to impugne it with such friuolous reasons as he doth and especially with a ceremoniall precept of the Mosaycall law as if he were a Iew and not a Christian seeing that he acknowledgeth himselfe to haue receiued a precept thereby disertis verbis in expresse words which I thinke no good Christian will say of any precept belonging to the ceremoniall or Iudiciall law 31. But M. Andrews goeth yet further and exacteth at least some example of it in the Scripture if there be no precept whereto S. Augustine answereth sufficiently when he sayth to a Donatist who made the lyke demaund about the rebaptization of such as were baptized by heretykes that seeing there is no example or expresse mention of it in Scripture and that Christ hath clearly and expresly recommended vnto vs the authority of his vniuersall Church dispersed thoughout the world the testimony and custome of that Church is to be admitted and imbraced and whosoeuer reiecteth or resisteth the same doth most perniciously resist our Sauiour himselfe against his owne saluation Thus sayth S. Augustine in substance though much more amply who also speaking elswhere of the same point giueth this notable and generall rule that for as much as the holy Scripture doth vndoubtedly recommend vnto vs the authority of the Church etiam in hac re à nobis tenetur Scripturarum veritas c. the veriâ—y of Scripture is retayned by vs in this point when we do that which hath already pleased the whole Church So he And so say I to M. Andrews in this our case to wit that seeing it is euident by the testimony of all antiquity that the inuocation of Saynts was generally admitted and practised by the Primitiue Church and from thence hath descended to our tyme there needeth no example of it in Scripture because the authority of the Church which the Scriptures do expressely recommend vnto vs sufficeth to warrant the same 32. And truly it may seeme strange that M. Andrews or any of his fellowes of the English Clergy do
deny this seeing that they do admit diuers traditions whereof there is neyther precept nor example in the Scripture as the baptisme of infants who do not actually belieue for although the same be very consonant to Scripture as also is prayer to Saynts and all other things which are practiced in the Catholike Church yet the vse and practice thereof is grounded vpon tradition and not vpon the Scriptures as Origen testifyeth saying Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditioneÌ„ accepit c. The Church receiued a tradition from the Apostles to giue baptisme to litle children So he And S. Augustin also to the same purpose saith more plainely thus Consuetudo mâ—tris Ecclesiae in baptizandis paruulis c. the custome of our Mother the Church in baptizing infants is not to be contemned or reputed as superfluous neyther were it to be belieued at all if it were not an Apostolicall tradition So he who also acknowledgeth the same in another place and saith further that if any man do demaund diuine authority for it quamquam quod vniuersa tenet Ecclesia c. albeit that which the vniuersall Church holdeth and hath not byn ordayned by Councells but hath alwayes been reteyned is most rightly belieued to haue byn deliuered by no other but by Apostolicall authority neuertheles we may truly coniecture by Circumcision in the old law what force the Sacrament of Baptisme hath in Infants Thus saith S. Augustine who to answere those that do demand diuine authority for the custome of the Church in baptizing Infants doth not proue or confirme it by any precept or example out of Scripture but only by a probable coniecture drawn from the figure of it in the old law relying principally vpon the tradition of the Church 33. But what need I seeke any other testimony for this matter seeing that Tho. Rogers in the 39. articles agreed vpon by the pretended Bishops and Clergy of England and analyzed into propositions glossed and set forth by him with their publyke approbation doth acknowledge that the baptisme of yong children is in any wyse to be retayned in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ although sayth he we be not commanded by expresse termes to baptize them So he whereupon it directly followeth that M. Andrews hath ouerlashed greatly in saying id tantùm audemus facere de quo praeceptum habemus we dare doe that only whereof we haue a precept Also what precept or example haue M. Andrews and his fellowes in Scripture for the vse of Godfathers and Godmothers and of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme allowed as well by their practice as by the late Queenes Iniunctions yea and by the Ecclesiasticall Canons of the Bishops and Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury made in their Synod held at London with his Maiestyes lycence in the yeare 1603. and published the yeare following by his Maiestyes authority vnder the great Seale of England in which Canons they do not only approue the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme but also professe to follow therein the primitiue Apostolicall Churches the true rules of doctrine coÌ„cerning things indifferent which are consonant to the word of God and the iudgement of all the ancient Fathers so that by their owne confession they retayne the vse of it without eyther precept or example in holy Scripture 34. And now because I haue had this occasion to speake of this constitution I can not omit to aduertise thee good Reader of a notable peece of trumpery and cosenage vsed by that graue Synod in this very Canon whereof we now speake wherein giuing the reason why they retayne the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme they say they do it because the same hath byn euer accompanyed among them with sufficient cautions exceptions agaynst all popish superstition and errour and forsooth that the world may vnderstand from what popish errour they haue freed the same they signify that the Church of England since the abolishing of Popery hath euer held and taught that the signe of the crosse vsed in Baptisme is no part of the substance of that Sacrament and that the infant Baptized is by vertue of Baptisme before it be signed with the signe of the crosse receiued into the congregation of Christs flock as a perfect member thereof and not by any power ascribed to the signe of the crosse c. whereupon they conclude that the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme being thus purged from all popish superstition and errour and reduced in the Church of England to the primary institution of it c. it is to be reuerently retayned and vsed Thus teach they in their foresayd Synod 35. But now we must demand of them where they haue euer read in any Catholyke Authour that the signe of the crosse as it is vsed in the administration of baptisme is any part of the substance of the Sacrament sure I am that all our schoolemen and Canonists and others that haue occasion to treat therof do expressely teach the contrary neyther did euer any learned Catholyke hold or suppose it to be any part eyther of the forme or of the matter of Baptisme which are the essentiall parts thereof but only an ancient and holy ceremony and this is euident euen by the practice of the Catholyke Church approuing the baptisme not only of the midwyfe in cases of necessity but also of any heretike if he haue the intention to do that which the Catholyke Church doth and vseth the true forme with conuenient matter without the signe of the crosse or any other ceremony in the world and albeit the Church vseth to suply the sayd ceremonyes afterwards in such as wanted the same yet it maketh no doubt at all but that they are baptized before and in state of saluation if they dye before the sayd ceremonyes be supplyed whereby it is manyfest that the Catholykes do not take the signe of the crosse to be of the substance or essence of the sacrament 36. But of this I shall not neede to produce any further proofe seeing that those pretended Bishops which were present at this Congregation and made this Canon haue giuen sufficient testimony of the truth in this poynt to no meaner a person then to his Maiesty himselfe as he did publikely testify in the CoÌ„ference at Hampton-court wherein the question concerning the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme being debated betwixt them and the Puritans his Maiesty sayd that he vnderstood by the Bishops yea and found it himselfe to be true that the Papists themselues did neuer ascribe any power or spirituall grace to the signe of the crosse in Baptisme whereupon it followeth that they do not nor euer did account to be any essentiall part of the Sacrament for if they did they should ascribe vnto it a spirituall grace and power as they doe to the essence of
the Sacrament which they all do vniformly teach to giue grace ex opere operato and therefore seeing that according to his Maiestyes testimony as well vpon his owne knowledge as by the relation of the Bishops to him the Catholykes did neuer ascribe any power or spirituall grace to the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme it is euident that the Bishops in their Synod belyed them egregiously charging them to hold it to be a part of the substance of the Sacrament yea and notably deluded the people in seeking to perswade them that the Catholykes had corrupted the vse thereof and that the English Clergy hath now reduced it to the primary institution 37. Who then could imagine that so many Ecclesiasticall men honorable for their ranke and dignity in the common welâ—h by profession Deuines by tytle Prelats and spirituall Pastors of the people could also vniformely agree to cozen the world in this manner and insteed of feeding their flock with holsome doctrine to infect and poyson them with such manifest lyes as this conuinced euen by their owne testimony to his Maiesty himselfe the very same yeare that they deuised it as it appeareth by the printed copyes of their Ecclesiastical constitutions of the coÌ„ference at Hampton-Court published in the yeare 1604. and therefore I leaue it to thee good Reader to consider in what a miserable state our poore country is where such men as these who as it seemeth haue no care eyther of their owne conscience or reputation haue neuertheles the care and charge of other mens soules 38. But to returne to M. Andrews who perhaps was one of that conuenticle though not as a Bishop yet as one of the Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury I would gladly know of him whether he and his Clergy in the Diocesse of Ely do vse the signe of the Crosse in the administration of Baptisme or not and if they do not let him tell vs how they obserue this Synodicall Canon made by his fellowes and authorized by his Maiesty and if they do obserue it let him shew vs some precept or example of it in Scripture seeing he resolutly affirmeth in the name of the whole English Church as it seemeth that they dare do that only whereof they haue a precept Therefore I say let him eyther shew vs some precept for it in Scripture or els confesse that he and his fellowes dare do more then is commanded therein 39. Finally if they may lawfully follow the primitiue and Apostolicall Churches and the iudgement of all the ancient fathers in matters though not commanded in Scripture yet consonant thereto as they professe to do in the foresayd Canon then they must also grant that it is in lyke manner lawfull for Catholykes to do the lyke for prayer to Saynts seeing that the same is conforme to the practice of the primitiue Church and to the beliefe of the ancient fathers and consequently to the holy Scriptures for otherwyse neyther would so many learned ancient and holy fathers haue approued it neyther yet the Church whose authority as S. Augustine sayth the Scripture recommendeth vnto vs would haue practised it I meane that visible Catholyke Church whereof S. Augustine did so constantly defend and mayntayne the authority agaynst the heretykes in his tyme that he pronounced them as you haue heard before to be most insolent mad men if they did but only doubt of any generall custome thereof 40. Whereupon I conclude that prayer to Saynts being generally approued and practised by the Church in S. Augustines tyme it must needs follow according to his rule that the vse and practice thereof is not only most lawfull and consonant to Scripture but also reuerently to be retayned and vsed by M. Andrews and his fellowes euen according to their owne profession in their Synodicall constitution seeing as I haue signified before they professe reuerently to retayne the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme though not commanded in Scripture because the same was vsed in the primitiue Church and is consonant to Scripture and to the Iudgement of all the ancient Fathers 41. And if he say that they professe in their Canon to follow the rules of doctrine concerning things that are at least indifferent that prayer to Saynts is neyther absolutly good nor yet indifferent but altogeather vnlawfull and consequently not to be vsed he is to vnderstand first that according to his owne rule and inference vpon the text of Deuteronomy he neyther doth nor can admit any thing that is not commanded in Scripture be it neuer so good For he sayth id tantúm audemus facere c. we dare do that only whereof we haue a precept and to that purpose he alledgeth also the text of Deuteronomy hoc tantùm facies quod tibi praecipio thou shalt do this only which I do command thee where you see the word tantùm as well in his assertion as in the text of Scripture excludeth all things whatsoeuer that are not commanded whereupon it followeth that the vse of the signe of the Crosse in baptisme is as well prohibited as prayer to Saynts if hee vnderstand that text of Deuteronomy aright and make a good inference thereon 42. Secondly it is not sufficient that he and his fellowes do hold the inuocation of Saynts to be vnlawfull but they must also proue it so to be or els they must grant the practice of it to be lawfull as of a thing at least indifferent vpon the same reason that they admit the â—igne of the Crosse in baptisme yea with farre greater reason seeing that as I haue already proued prayer to Saynts is not only good and lawfull but also most profitable and beneficiall to men whereas the Crosse in baptisme according to the doctrine of the foresayd Canon hath no vertue or power in it at all but is only an outward Ceremony and honorable badge of a Christian. So as M. Andrews cannot approue the vse thereof and exclude the practice of prayer to Saynts except he wil be so absurd to admit things indifferent and reiect a thing absolutly good and very necessary for euery Christian man for so I say he must needs confesse the inuocation of Saynts to be except he can ouerthrow the testimonies of all the ancient Fathers yea and the experience that the Church hath alwayes had of the soueraygne benefits that men reape thereby 43. Thirdly whereas he demandeth a precept in Scripture for prayer to Saynts he seemeth to grant it to be eyther good of it selfe or at least indifferent for if it were absolutly bad it were in vayne and absurd to demand a precept of it for that it could neuer be commanded so as eyther his demand in that behalfe is very idle and absurd or els he must acknowledge it at least to be indifferent and consequently that it is no lesse lawfull to vse it without a precept then the signe of the Crosse in
our actions the Capteyns Princes propugnators patrons and protectors of men as I haue more particulerly declared before in this Chapter and therefore also all Christian Countryes and Cittyes are accustomed to haue some Saynt or other for their particular patron by whose helpe they haue often receiued reliefe in their necessityes and victory agaynst their enemyes wherof diuers notable examples testified by very graue authours may be seene in a treatise of Policy and Religion published a few yeares a goe wherto I remit my Reader for breuityes sake and will now inferre vpon these premisses that seeing the glorified Saynts of God do not only vnderstād know our prayers but also are most willing able to helpe vs as S. Iohn testifyeth in the Apocalips do offer vp our prayers to God yea and as M. Andrews himselfe granteth do pray for vs and finally seeing that experience also teacheth that they do diuers wayes assist relieue vs which I haue euidently proued by the testimony of the ancient Fathers it were most absurd to think that the holy Scriptures should allow vs to craue the prayers and helpe of men and disallow prayers to Saynts therfore I conclude that for as much as prayer to Saynts is most consonant both to Scripture and reason and most profitable and beneficiall to men and was admitted practised by all the primitue Church and ratified and approued by the vniforme consent of the ancient Fathers as I haue shewed sufficiently before it cannot be reiected by M. Andrews and his fellowes though there should be no cōmandment nor example of it in Scripture seeing they professe to admit without a precept such things as are indifferent when they are conforme to the holy Scriptures the practise of the primitiue Church and iudgement of all the ancient Fathers 61. But what starting hole trow you will M. Andrews find heere or what exceptions will he take to this my conclusion mary forsooth he will cauill at least about the authority of the Fathers alledged by the Cardinall against whome he taketh two mayne exceptions the one concerning the age and tyme when they lyued and the other touching their vniforme consent of the former he sayth that they were all of them after 300. yeares to wit in the 4. age whereas in quadringentis annis sayth he rex expectat the King expecteth the resolution of the Fathers of 400. yeares as who would say that the Cardinall hath proued nothing to the purpose at least to his Maiesties intention because he hath not alledged any of the Fathers of the first 3. hundred yeares wherein no doubt he doth his Maiesty great wrong Fathering his owne foolish and absurd conceipt vpon his Maiesty whose great wisdome being considered it cannot be imagined that in admitting the Fathers of the first 500. yeares for so he doth in the English Apology his meaning was to reiect their vniforme consent in any one of those centuries especially seeing that his Maiesty professeth in the same place to reuerence the ancient Fathers more then euer the Iesuits did which truly he should not do if his meaning were such as M. Andrews maketh it heere 62. For I am well assured that the Iesuits neuer tooke any exception agaynst all the Fathers of any one age from Christs tyme to this and much lesse to those of the 4. and 5. age who were of such eminent learning and sanctity that their vniforme consent concerning any question of religion must needs be held for an euident testimony of the truth seeing that God of his infinit mercy did then propagate his Church and fayth ouer the world and establish the same vnder Christian Emperours to wit Constantin the Great and his successors by meanes whereof the Church was euery where prouided and furnished with notable Pastours who being freed from the former persecutions had opportunity to write those ample volumes and worthy monuments which by Gods great prouidence they left to their posterity for the confirmation of the Christian Catholyke fayth whereas in the former ages I meane the first 3. Centenaryes the persecution was so great vnder the pagan Emperours that neyther the Christian faith could so much extend it selfe as it did in the 4. and 5. age Neyther could there be so many able men to write neyther those that were could haue such opportunity to do it as the others had in the peace and tranquility of the Church 63. And this is euident by the workes of the one and the other seeing that in the first 300. yeares there were not past 7. or 8. Fathers at most that wrote at least whose bookes we now haue and of those also the most wrote very little in so much that the workes of some one of the Fathers of the 4. and 5. age do in volume and quantity exceed all the workes that are now extant of all the Fathers of the 3. former ages and therefore it cannot be expected that they should treate or touch all matters which are now in controuersy especially such as were not then any way called in question Besides that in the 4. and 5. age were held the 4. first Generall Councells which not only his Maiesty but also M. Andrews himselfe admitteth In which respect the Fathers of that tyme must needs be taken for assured and vncontrollable witnesses of the truth for those Councells which were no other but assemblyes of the Fathers then liuing could not be of such vndoubted authority as they are if the Fathers of those ages had vniformely taught or belieued any erroneous doctrine for if they were all deceiued in one point they might also be deceiued and erre in the rest and so should the whole Church wherof they were the Pastors Doctors be drawne into errour by them which is not possible seeing that Christ hath not only promised his owne assistance to his Church for euer and that hell gates shall not preuayle against it but also hath placed in it Pastors and Doctors saith the Apostle to the consummation of the Saynts vnto the worke of the ministery vntill we meete all in the vnity of faith vt iam non simus paruuli fluctuantes c. to the end we now be not wauering Children carryed away with euery blast of doctrine so saith the Apostle 64. Whereby it is euident that God of his singular prouidence hath giuen Doctors and Pastors to the Church yea and ordayned that they shall remayne there vnto the worlds end to preserue the same from errour whereupon it followeth that all the Doctors and Pastors of the Church cannot erre at any tyme for if they could then were not the remedy effectuall and certayne which God hath ordayned in his Church to preserue it from errour by them therefore if they haue all erred in the 4. age or any other then hath the prouidence ordinance yea and the promise of God fayled which is impossible as I
the Cardinall with the shot of a Canon whereas not only the most important parts of that Councell but also the very Canon which he mangled and peruerted do euidently proue the Cardinalls intent to wit the primacy of the Roman Sea as I haue amply shewed in the second Chapter aforesaid so as it is hard to say whether he was more impudent in his corruption and falsity or in his vayne brags afterwards as if he had vsed all the sincerity in the world and got a great victorie 73. And in lyke sort dealt he with the Cardinall about the adoratioÌ„ of Reliques when he triumphed saying Tenetur hic Cardinalis vt elabi non possit Heere the Cardinall is catcht and held so fast that he cannot escape away neuertheles the testimony which he himselfe produced being layed downe whole with the circumstaÌ„ces doth coÌ„uince him both of folly fraud as hath bene manifestly shewed a litle before euen in this Chapter and therefore I forbeare to speake further thereof and will only add one other Instance in this kind of a matter which hath not beene touched hitherto 74. The Cardinall as well in his Matthaeus Tortus as also in his Apology auoweth that the Puritans in England do no lesse abhor the oath of supremacy then the Catholikes and in his Apology alleadgeth for the proofe thereof not only his Maiesties monitorie Preface and his BasilicoÌ„ Doron but also Caluins doctrine which the Puritanes professe and the testimony of M. Bancroft late pretended Bishop of Canterbury who plainely witnesseth the same as well concerning the profession and practice of the Puritans as also touching Caluins expressed doctrine in that behalfe and M. Andrews finding himselfe hardly pâ—est therewith and hauing no other remedy but to face out the matter calleth the Cardinall not only Mendacem a Lyâ—r but also Dâ—lirum a Dotard and why Marry because the Puritans saith M. Andrewes do dayly in their Sermons giue the tytle of supreme Gouernour to the King yea and do not stick to sweare somtymes to the Kinges supremacy in so much that facto saith he res tenetur the matter is cleare in fact and experience and afterward acknowledging that indeed M. Bancroft did twenty yeares agoe gather out of diuers Theses or positions of theirs some suspition that they were alienated from the Kinges supremacy yea and that perhaps it was so then he concludeth that now of late recognouerunt errores suos they haue acknowledged or recalled their errours 75. This is M. Andrews his discourse which how true it is notwithstanding his impudent asseueration thereof I do appeale to the consciences of the learneder sort of Puritans Precisians in England whether they haue of late tyme or at any tyme retracted and recanted Caluins doctrine and theirs in this point as an erour For albeit I make no doubt but that some of them may now in their sermons as others of the weaker sort of them did euen in M. Bancrofts tyme and alwayes before vse the ordinary style of his Maiesties tytle yea and that otherwyles some of them also do dispence with their coÌ„sciences and swallow the Oath to get some Benefice or Ecclesiasticall dignity yet I assure my selfe that the more zealous and precise Puritans and especially their whole CongregatioÌ„ will not acknowledge this fact of some of them for any definition or decree of theirs or for a recantation of their doctrine and beliefe in this poynt neyther is it sufficient for the recalling of an errour of a whole sect standing still on foote as this of the Puritans yet doth that some of them chang their opinion or for feare or promotion dissemble it when the same is not ratified by some publike testimony of their whole company 76. Therefore I must now vrge M. Andrews to shew vs in what printed booke or generall decree of their CongregatioÌ„s they haue recanted their opinioÌ„ and acknowledged it for an errour seeing that the same was published before to the world by themselues in such sort that M. Bancroft by M. Andrews his owne confession gathered it out of their owne bookes ita fortè tum fuit saith he and so perhaps it was then he meaneth 20. yeares agoe and yet you see he saith it with a perhaps as if the matter were in doubt and that perhaps it was not so But I dare say without all peraduenture that it was so not only 20. yeares agoe but also much later euen since his Maiesty came into England for I am sure there are ynough who know and remember that Burges a Puritan preacher was committed to Prison for that in a Sermon before his Maiesty he would not giue him his ordinary style and tytle of supreme Gouernour of the Church 77. But what if I produce a very substaÌ„tiall witnes of their continuance in that opinion some yeares after and such a one as M. Andrews hath great reason to admit for that he stil liueth yea ruleth in the English Clergy no lesse theÌ„ M. Andrews himselfe I meane the learned Doctor and worthy superintendent M. Barlow who in his Epistle to the Ministers of Scotland prefixed to the Sermon which he prated before his Maiesty against the Puritans the 21. of September in the yeare 1606. which is not past 6. yeares agoe coupleth the Puritans with the Papists for their opinion in that point saying that Papists and Puritans will haue the King to be but an honorable member not a chiefe gouernour in the Churches of his dominions Thus saith M. Barlow whome M. Andrews must needs allow for a man of credit except he will discredit his owne occupation and ministry 78. Besides that I will adde to M. Barlow another authenticall witnes who wrote the yeare after and representeth the authority of all the Clergy of England I meane M. Thomas Rogers in his booke intytled The faith doctrine and religion professed and protected in the realme of England c. wherein he setteth downe 39. Articles agreed vpon by the whole Clergy and analised by him into propositions with a discouery and confutation as he pretendeth of all those that haue at any tyme contradicted the said articles and all this he saith was perused and by the lawfull authority of the Church of England allowed to be publike So that this is a witnes of sufficient credit if ther be any credit to be giuen to the Church and Clergy of England yea to M. Andrewes himselfe who is a principall member thereof and therefore by all lykelyhood gaue his suffrage to the approbation of M. Rogers his booke 79. This man hauing set downe the 37. Article and the second propositioÌ„ which concerneth his Maiesties Ecclesiasticall Supremacy produceth only two sorts of aduersaries to that Article to wit the Papists and the Puritans and sayth of the later thus False it is which the Puritans do hold namely that Princes must be seruants to the Church be subiect to the Church
submit themselues to the Church throw downe their Crowns before the Church That Magistrats as well as other men must submit them selues and be obedient to the iust lawfull authority of the Church that is of the Presbitery Quis tandem Reges Principes who can exempt euen Kings and Princes from this non humana sed diuina dominatione not humane but diuine domination meaning the Presbitery saith Beza which presbitery they would haue to be in euery parish quotquot Ecclesiae Christi as many as be members of Christ and of the Church they must subiect themselues to the consistorian discipline non hic excipitur Episcopus aut Imperator neyther Bishop or Emperour is excepted heere Thus sayth M. Rogers concerning the doctrine of the Puritans and addeth further also in the next leafe that if the King be not included in the number of Pastors Elders Deacons and Widdowes he cannot possibly haue any thing to doe in Church-affaires in these mens opinions meaning the Puritans 80. All this wrote M. Thomas Rogers touching the doctrine of the Puritans not past fiue yeares agoe for his booke was printed in Cābridge by Iohn Legat in the yeare of our Lord 1607. If then the Puritans were so lately as fiue yeares agoe of the opinion that M. Barlow and M. Rogers report which is the same that the Cardinall affirmeth eyther let M. Andrews tell vs precisely in what bookes or sermons since that tyme they haue recalled this errour or els if he will needs say that they did it before I will turne him to these two for answere not doubting but they are able to giue him full satisfaction therein especially M. Rogers who hath pawned the credit of all the English Clergy for the truth of his testimony And in the meane tyme I will desire thee good Reader to consider whether M. Andrews could haue any iust cause or pretence to reuile the Cardinall and call him lyar and dotard as he doth for affirming a matter belonging to our Country which he findeth expressely testified by the greatest superintendent of our English Clergy besids other sufficient reasons mouing him thereto 81. For put the case it were true as it is most false that the Puritans haue of late recanted their errour as M. Andrews tearmeth it yet the same hauing neuer byn hitherto so published that strangers can take notice thereof hath M. Andrew◠any reason in the world to reprehend and reuyle any stranger for not acknowledging it being but a matter of fact which he neyther knoweth nor is bound to know Truly albeit M. Andrews be of a most intemperate tongue and malignant disposition towards Catholykes as hath appeared diuers wayes yet I verily think that if the weakenes of his cause had not forced him to braue and face it out with rayling for lack of reason to defend it he would not in this case haue byn so immoderate in contumelies and reproaches towards the Cardinall as he hath byn without any cause giuen of his part But heerin he concurreth so well with his companion M. Barlow that it appeareth euidently they are both guided by one spirit To conclude this point concerning the Puritans wheras M. Andrews saith that they haue of late acknowledged their error touching the Kings supremacy I will in the next Chapter make it euident that not they but hee if he be an English Protestant may be sayd to haue acknowledged his error and that he is turned Puritan in that point admitting the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy no otherwise but so as they may safely grant it without change of opinion yea subscribe or sweare to it in the same sense that he teacheth it and so perhaps such of them do as take the Oath of supremacy and this I say I make no doubt to proue clearely in the next Chapter quod scio punget Doctorem as he sayd once of the Cardinall 82. To these examples of his egregious impudency in this kind I may well adde one or two other examples of his impudent assertion of notable lyes without allegation of authour or witnesse as when he chargeth certayne Iesuits to haue affirmed or as it seemeth to haue written that they cōmitted no sinne abannis saith he nescio quot I know not for how many yeares togeather which I dare boldly affirme to be a monstrous lye I meane that any Iesuit hath so written or sayd eyther of himselfe or any other man for although I make no doubt but that many Iesuits and other good men both Religious and secular by the help of Gods grace doe liue free from all mortall sinnes that is to say such sinnes as do vtterly depriue men of Gods fauour grace and deserue eternall damnatiō yet I am well assured that no Catholyke will say that any man liueth free from all sinnes such I meane as are called veniall which could not be sayd of the Apostles themselues as S. Iohn testifieth saying si dixerimus quod peccatum non habemus c. Yf we say that we haue no sinne we seduce our selues and truth is not in vs and to the same purpose also the Scripture sayth els where Septies in die cadet iustus c. The iust mā shall fall seauen tymes a day and shall ryse againe 83. And this is so knowne and firmely belieued of all Catholykes that it is incredible that any one who professeth the Catholyke Religiō should affirme of any man and much lesse be so vayne to say of him selfe that he committed no sinne for some yeares therefore M. Andrewes must not thinke it strange if we take this for an egregious lye vntill he produce some other authour or witnes then himselfe as I doubt not but he would haue dōe if he had any worth the naming or els had not perhaps forgot his name as well as the number of yeares in which those Iesuits committed no sinne for so it appeareth by his ab annis nescio quot whereby we may see what substātiall tales he telleth vs seeing he writeth eyther he knoweth not or at least he careth not what 84. The lyke I say also of another matter auowed by him with more particularities and circumstances to wit that a Iesuit being in Prison at the same tyme when he wrote cōfessed vpon his owne accord without all compulsion feare or examination moued merely with remorse of conscience that the Popesent to England 3. Buls of excommunication to be kept in readines and published in three seuerall parts of the realme vpon the execution of the powder-plot wherevpon he inferreth that the Pope must needs be priuy vnto the sayd plot But for as much as I assure my selfe and know right well that no such Buls as he mentioneth were euer made I do not only deny the inference of the Popes knowledge of the powder-plot but also may iustly charge M. Andrews to haue faygned the whole matter himselfe vntill he name the
also in the same tyme treating of the perfection of Religious men and hauing said that inestimable glory in heauen is promised them yf they keep their Rules and most grieuous paines prepared for them if they neglect them concludeth Meliusest enim c. For it is better according to the sentence of the Scripture not to vow then to vow and not to performe it Thus saith Cassianus to whome I might add many other witnesses but that it is needlesse seing these may suffice to shew M. Andrews allowing as he doth the Instituts of the Monks of the primitiue Church must needes admit allow religious vowes of Pouerty Chastity Obedience whereto all Religious men are and euer haue bene bound by their Institutes 24. So as it is cleare by all this that in this one point he hath graunted diuers important points of Catholike religion yea and vtterly condemned his owne which denyeth and impugneth all those things practised in Monasticall lyfe according to the first Institutes thereof Besides that it also followeth theroÌ„ that his religion is vtterly voyd of all christian perfection which specially consisteth in the true imitation of Christs lyfe by the obseruation of the Euangelicall Counsells professed and practised in Religious discipline for which cause all the Ancient Fathers placed the highest perfection of christian Religion therein as I haue euidently shewed in any Supplement by the clear testimonies of S. Dionysius Areopagita Eusebius S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Basil S. Chrisostome S. Hierome S. Augustin Sozomenus S. Bernard 25. Therefore it litle importeth for the matter in hand what he iangleth against Monkes for put the case it were true that they were all degenerated from their first institute as it is most false and affirmed by him without any proofe and therfore to be answered with a bare deniall yet it suffiseth for the proofe of that which I haue heere vndertaken that the sayd institut consisted in the practise of many notable and important points of Catholike religion and that he hath by an euident consequent granted and approued the said points together with the institut against the curreÌ„t of the doctrine and profession of all his fellowes in which respect I shall not need to trouble thee good Reader with any answere to the rest of his impertineÌ„t discourse and namely to his friuolous stale obiection concerning the idlenes of Monkes answered fully long since by dyuers Catholiks and namely by Cardinall Bellarmine in his Controuersies whereto I remit him because I am forced to hast to an end for otherwise truly I would not only say somewhat therto but also I would examine and debate with him 2. or 3. other points which he toucheth and especially what was the true cause why monasticall profession was first abrogated amongst the Protestants and why they pretending to reforme the Church in these our dayes did rather quite abolish the institute of Monks theÌ„ seeke to restore it to the first integrity if it were good at the first and only fallen to decay and corruption as he signifieth 26. For whereas he seemeth to giue two causes thereof the one that Monkes were growne to be idle and the other that their idlenes was turned to licentiousnes if that were true those reformers should rather haue sought to redresse the abuse and to reduce the Monkes to their first rules then to antiquate the whole Institute which being grounded vpon the holy Scriptures the expresse Counsels of our Sauiour and the example of his lyfe was ordeyned by the Apostles as I haue shewed in my Supplement and doth conteyn in it all true Christian perfection according to the opinion of all the Fathers in which respect it could not by any humane authority be lawfully abrogated and taken quite out of the Church Besides that it is euident that the Ringleaders in that pretended reformation I meane Luther Oecolâ—mpadius Bucer Peter Martyr Ochinus Michonius Menius Musculus Pelicanus Pomeranus and Munsterus being all of them Votaries that is to say Monkes Fryars and religious men abolished the Institutes of monasticall lyfe only because they themselues were so transported with the fury of lust and sensuality that they could no longer indure the restraint therof in religious discipline 27. And therefore they resolued not only to teach most beastly and fleshly doctrine tending to all liberty of the flesh as that it is no more possible to liue chast then to liue without meate That if the wyfe will not come let the maid come That Poligamy or the hauing of many wiues at once is not forbidden in the new law Yea and that it is not lawfull for a man to pray for the guift of Chastity except he surely know that God will giue it him They resolued I say not only to teach this beastly and Mahometicall doctrine but also to incite men therto by their examples euen with the damnable breach of their owne vowes habentes damnationem quia primam fidem irritam fecerunt hauing damnation because they broke their first faith as S. Paul said of the yong widdowes who after their vowes of chastity had but only a wil and desire to marry wheras these deformers hauing bound themselues both to Chastity and Monasticall lyfe by solemne vowe abandoned both the one and the other and as S. Basil saith of such did seek to couer stupri scelus honesto coÌ„iugij nomine the wickednes of whordome with the honest name of Marriage most of them taking harlots vnder the name of wiues 28. So as M. Andrewes may see who were indeed those Locusts whose slothfull idlenes turning to a froath of licencious lyfe destroyed monasticall perfection and profession amongst the Prostestants to wit the very first Apostles and Euangelists of their Ghospell I meane the votaries aboue named and other such of their humour and crew who being weary of the seuerity of Monasticall discipline became Apostata's and renegats and the better to cloake and excuse their owne Apostasy not only sought to abrogate all monasticall discipline but did also set abroach the new doctrine which M. Andrewes and all other Protestants now professe and therefore it is easie to iudg what good fruit such bad trees could yield and consequently from what spirit as well the abrogation of monasticall profession amongst the Protestants as their whole doctrine proceedeth And thus much for this point 29. The Cardinall to proue that the name Catholike doth most properly belong to them that liue in the vnitie and obedience of the Roman Church alleageth S. Ambrose who hauing declared that his brother Satyrus being by shipwrack cast vpon a coast where there were many Schismatiks called LuciferiaÌ„s asked the Bishop of the place whether he did agree with the Catholike Bishops and explicated the same presently saying id est an cum Romana Ecclesia consentiret that is to say whether he agreed with the Roman Church whereto M. Andrewes answereth that Ambrose
farre forth as the Church requireth admitteth humane help authority 48. Therefore whereas in the gouerment of the Church two things are specially conâ—idered the one internall and diuine and the other externall and humane the former which is a spirituall heauenly power communicated by almighty God to man he excludeth from the Kings Supremacy and admitteth only the latter which is a meere externall and humane power and the same also non aliter no othâ—rwise then for the nourishment and defence of the Church so as you see he acknowledgeth therby no other power ouer the Church but only externall humane and temporall whereto I make no doubt but all the Puritans in England and Scotland will subscribe neither do the Catholiks deny but affirme and teach that Kings are bound to nourish the Church with their purses and defend it with their power and authority as all or most Christian Kinges at their Coronation are sworne to doe And not only Christian Kings haue this power but also any Pagan Prince hath and may exercise the same as the Kings of Chinae and Persia the one a PagaÌ„ and the other a Mahumetan doe at this day 49. For the King of China nourisheth and defendeth the Church of Christ in the Colledges and Residences of the Fathers of the Society not only in his principall Citty called Pachyn where he keepeth his Court but also in diuers other partes of his Dominions giuing them mayntenance immunities and priuiledges and shewing them many other particuler fauours As also the King of Pâ—rsia doth the lyke to the Carmelitan Fathers in his Country though I think no man will say that these Kinges haue any spirituall power ouer the Church of Christ as our late Statutes haue giuen to our Kinges which may appeare by a Statute of King Henry the 8. whereby it was ordayned in these wordes Be it enacted c. that the King our Soueraigne Lord his heires and successors Kinges of his Realme shall be taken accepted and reputed the only supreme head of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia and shall haue and enioy annexed and vnited to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme as well the Title and stile thereof as all Honours Dignities Preheminences Iurisdictions Priuiledges Authorities Immunities profits and commodities to the said Dignitie of supreme head of the same Church belonging So saith the Statute which must needes be vnderstood to giue spirituall authority when it giueth all that Power Dignity and Iurisdiction which belongeth to the head of the Church 50. For seing that the Church is a spirituall Ecclesiasticall body it must needes bee gouerned by a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power residing in the head thereof And therfore it was also enacted by our Parliaments that King Hâ—nry mighâ— not only visit all Ecclesiasticall Persons reforme all kind of errours heresies and abuses in the Church of England but also assigne 32. persons to examine all manner of Canons conâ—â—itutions and ordinances Prouinâ—iall and synodicall And further to set in order and establish all such Lawes Ecclesiasticall as should be thought by him and them conuenient to be vsed and set forth within his Realme and Dominions in all spirituall Courts and Conuentions and that such Lawes and Ordinances Ecclâ—siasticall as should be deuised and made by the Kings Maiestie and these 32. persons and declared by his Maiesties Proclamation vnder his great Seale should be only taken reputed and vsed as the Kings Lawes Ecclesiasticall c. 51. Furthermore King Henry made the L. CroÌ„mwell his Vicar generall for the exercise of his spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction by vertue whereof the said L. Cromwell ordayned Ecclesiasticall Lawes or iniunctions and published them vnder the Seale of his Vicariat directing them to all Archbishops Abbots and the rest of the Clergyâ— And albeit Queene Elizabâ—th did not vse in her stilâ— and Tiâ—le the name of supreme head as K. Henry and K. Edward did but of Supreme Gouernesse yet it is euident that she did hould the same and all the authoritie belonging thereto to be no lesse due to her then to her Father seing that in her first Parliament she reuiued her Fathes Lawes concerning the same ordayning that all and euery branch word and sentence of the sayd seuerall acts and euery of them should be iudged deemed and taken to extend to her Highnes her heires and successours as fully and largely as euery of the â—ame act or any of them did extend to the said K. Henry the 8. her Highnes Father Whereby it appeareth that as well the Title of Supâ—â—me head as all the spirituall preheminences prerogatiues authoritie and Iurisdiction graunted by the Parliament to King Henry and exercised by him belonged in like manner to the Queene his daughter her heyres and successors and consequently to his Maiesty that now is 52. Besides that the Parliament granted also expresly to the Queene spirituall authority ordayning that such Iurisdiction Priuiledges Superiorities Preheminences spirituall or ecclesiasticall as by any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power or authority hath heretofore bin or may lawfully be exercised or vsed for the visitation of the ecclesiasticall state or persons for the reformation order and correction of the same and of all manner of errours heresies schismes abuses offences contempts and enormities shal be for euer vnited and annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme Thus farre the Statute which you see annexeth to the Crowne all such spirituall and ecclesiasticall power or Iurisdiction as may lawfully be exercised in the visitation of Ecclesiasticall persons and the reformation of heresies c. 53. Moreouer it was also granted to our Kings that they should haue power not only to giue licence by their Letters Patents to consecrate Bishops but also to grant Commissions in certaine cases to giue all manner of such Licences Dispensations Compositions Faculties Grantes c. For causes not being contrary to the Scripture and Lawes of God as heretofore hath bin vsed and accustomed to be had and obtayned at the Sea of Rome all which power must needs be granted to be meere spirituall besides that it was declared by a statute of King Edâ— the 6. Thâ—â— all â—â—thaâ—â—y of Iurisdiction spirituall and temporall is deriued and deduced from the Kings Maiesty as supreme head of the Churches and Realmes of England and Ireland and so iustly acknowledged by the Clergy of the said Realmes Whereby it appeareth euidently that the King according to these Lawes and statutes yea and by the confession and acknowledgement of all the English Clergy not only hath spirituall authority power and iurisdiction but also is the very fountaine and spring from whence it floweth to all Bishops and Clergy in his dominionsâ— Whereupon it followeth that if there be any spirituall iurisdiction and power in the Churchâ— and Clergy of England the same is much more in the King then in them seeing it is deduced and deriued from
him to the Church as from the head to the body 54. Now then this being most euident how doth M. Andrewes his doctrine agree with this seeing he teacheth that the King is no otherwise ouer the Church that is to say he hath no power or authority ouer it but as a foster-father and a tutorâ— vt eam nutriat et defeÌ„dat that he may nourish and defend it which as I haue said all Catholike Princes do and Pagan Princes may do without any spirituall power at all So that you see M. Andrewes depriueth his Maiesty of all the spirituall authority and iurisdiction which the Parliament hath giuen him And the like he doth also in other places where he ouerthroweth the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy in other manner for wheras the Cardinall obiecteth Caluins doctrine that no man ought to be called Head of the Church M. Andrews saith that Caluin indeed did not like it quo sâ—nsu Papa c. in the sense that the Pope is called the Ministeriall head but I know saith he it would not dislike Caluin in the sense that Saul was head of the Tribes of Israel and so also the head of the Tribe of Leui so he Giuing to vnderstand that Kings are heades of the Church in no other sense then as Saul was head of the Tribe of Leui. 55. Whereupon iâ— followeth that Kings are neither heads of the Church nor yet haue any authoritie at all ouer it for that Saul had none ouer the tribe of Leui which as I haue shewed in the first Chapter of this adioynder and much more amply in my supplement was by the expresse commaundement of God exempted from the temporall and politicall state in such sort that the Lâ—uits were not somuch as to be numbred amongst the people being Gods owne portion part and inheritance and giuen by him for a guift saith the Scripture to Aaron and his children so as the temporall Magistrate had nothing to doe with them And although it should be graunted that Saul was head of the Tribe of Leui as well as of the rest it would not follow that he was their spirituall head it being manifest that all the spirituall authority and iurisdiction in the lawe of Moyses resyded in the Preists and especially in the high Priest as I haue proued at large in my supplement where I haue also shewed that King Saul had no lawfull power and authority either spirituall or temporall ouer the person of the high Priest as it appeared in that his owne naturall subiects who knew the law of God refused to obey him when he commaunded them to kill Achimelech the high Priest which therefore he caused to be done by Doeg the Idumean who being a stranger and not knowing the law of God or contemning it and representing as S. Augustine testifieth the Earthly Kingdome and societie of wicked men executed his tyranicall and sacrilegious commaundement 56. Therefore whereas M. Andrewes signifieth that our Kings are Heades of the Church of God in England as Saul was head of the tribe of Leui he alloweth them no authority at all ouer the Church neither spirituall nor temporall for that as I haue sayd the Leuiticall tribe was wholy exempt from the temporall state and subiect only to the high Preist and albeit Saul was truly head of all the other tribes yet he was only their temporall head and had no other but temporall power ouer them And therefore M. Andrewes doth also by this example depriue his Maiestie if not of all authority at least of all the spirituall power and iurisdiction which our Parliaments haue graunted him 57. To this may be added also his doctrine in his Tortura Torti where he saith facimusâ— we doe not graunt the power of censure to the Prince whereby he taketh from the King all that ample authority aboue meÌ„tioned which is aÌ„nexed to the Crowne by the statutes aforesayd to wit all such IurisdictioÌ„s priuiledges superiorityes and preheminences spirituall Ecclesiasticall as by any Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power hath heretofore byn or may lawfully be exercised or vsed for the visitation of Ecclesiasticall persons the reformation and correction of errors heresies and abuses c. In which wordes being the wordes of the Statute no man can deny but that all manner of Censures are coÌ„preheÌ„dedâ— without the which heresies abuses can neuer be sufficieÌ„tly corrected reformed therfore if the Prince thought good to excoÌ„municate any obstinat heretike he might according to this Statute do it as well or better then any Bishop in his Realme seeing that no Bishop can doe it otherwise then by the authority and iurisdiction which he hath from the Prince as I haue declared before out of the Statuts neither could the Prince giue it to any other if he had it not truly and properly in himselfe in whose person the same must needes principally reside seeing that by the expresse words of the Statute it is vnited and annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of England for what right Power of Iurisdiction soeuer is in the Crowne the same must needes be vnderstood to be principally and most properly in the Prince 58. Whereby it is manifest that the Kinges of England may according to this Statute not only giue all manner of Iurisdiction wherein all kind of Censures are included but also exercise the same themselues if it please them as in lyke case they might yf they thought it conuenient do and exercise the acts of all the ciuill offices in the common wealth as well as the officers themselues who haue their Power and Iurisdiction from them as I haue signified more at large in my Supplement vpon the lyke occasion ministred by M. Barlow and therefore M. Andrewes denying the Power of Censures to the King denyeth him the Royall prerogatiue and supreme spirituall authority wherewith our Parliaments haue indued him whereupon it followeth directly that he is neither good subiect nor good English Protestant For seeing he abridgeth his Maiesties authority denying his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy in the sense and maÌ„ner that our late Parliaments haue ordayned the same he caÌ„not be accounted a good subiect 59. And if he say that by this argument I confesse that we our selues are no good Subiects because we deny the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy he is to vnderstand that the case betwixt him and vs is farre different for we deny it only of meere conscience because we hold our selues bound to belieue as a matter of faith that S. Peter and his successors are supreme heades of the Church being a doctrine deduced from our Sauiours expresse words and commission giuen to S. Peter acknowledged by the vniforme consent of the ancient Fathers and confirmed by the continuall practise of the Church euen from S. Peters time to these our daies as I haue proued sufficiently throughout this Treatise in which respect we haue great reason to say with the Apostles
Church subiect to the Church submit their Scepters to the Church and throw downe their Crownes before the Church and that as Beza testifieth they cannot be exempted from this diuine domination of the presbitery whereupon I gather two things the one that the Supremacy which as M. Andrews saith the Puritans do acknowledg in the King is to be vnderstood only in temporall matters wherein they doe indeed admit him to be theyr supreme head and Gouernour though as you see in M. Rogers they hold him in spirituall matters to be wholly subiect to the Presbitery The other is that all the reformed Churches are also of the same mynd seeing that they professe the same doctrine concerning the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy that the Puritans doe as M. Andrews himselfe confesseth◠whereupon it also followeth that the Kings Maiestie hath no spirituall power or authority at all ouer the English Church seeing that by M. Andrewes his owne confessiō he hath no other power but that which the Puritans and the reformed Churches doe admit in their temporall Princes 66. Besides that albeit we should grant that the Puritans and reformed Churches do allow the tēporall Magistrat to haue some power and authority in Ecclesiasticall matters yet it is euident that they do not allow them that spirituall Iurisdiction and authority which our Parliaments haue granted to our Kinges to wit that all the spirituall power of the Church shall reside principally in them and is to be deduced from them to the Church as from the head to the body that they may giue Dispensations Licences and Faculties in matters of Conscience make Ecclesiasticall Lawes giue Commissions to consecrate Bishops to excōmunicat interdict suspend cēsure to visit correct all Ecclesiasticall Persons and to reforme all heresyes and abuses this I say being a meere spirituall power and exercised by our Kings in England according to the grant of the Parliament is not admitted and much lesse practized in any of the reformed Churches as all those know who know any thing of their doctrine and practise 67. Therfore wheras M. Andrews saith that aswell the reformed Churches as the Puritans do grant the self same authority to the temporall Prince which our King hath and exerciseth in England he sheweth euidently that in his opinion his Maiesty hath no such spirituall iurisdiction and authority as hath bin granted him by our Parliament for that as I haue said the Puritans reformed Churches whose doctrine in this point he approueth do not acknowledg any such spirituall authority in temporall Princes but only a temporall power and obligation to mayntayne and defend the Church so farre forth as the same hath need of externall and humane helpe assistance or defēce which is indeed the self same all that M. Andrewes as you haue heard before alloweth to the Kings Maiesty when he saith that he is no otherwise ouer the Church but as a foster-father a tutor to nourish and defend it and that the question of the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy concerneth only the externall gouernment of the Church so farre forth as it requireth and admitteth humane help and authority So that you see M. Andrews is not in this point an English Protestant but rather a flat Puritan 68. And if this be now the common opinion of the Protestants in England as M. Andrewes would haue vs to suppose we may more truly say of them then he said of the Puritans dies diem docuit ex eo facti aequiores recognouerunt errorem suum time hath taught them more wit and so now they haue recanted their errour And no meruaile seing that their former doctrine is of it selfe so absurd hath bin so canuassed battered by Catholicks that they are worthely ashamed of it especially such of thē as haue any learning or shame at all for some no doubt there are of the ministry that will not stick to defend it or any thing els how absurd soeuer it be amongst whom M. Barlow may go for one who in his Preambler Epistle to the ministers of Scotlād which I haue mentioned before vpon another occasion is not ashamed to make the Pagan and Infidell Emperours supreme heades of the Church in the time of the Apostles saying that S. Paul appealed to Caesars iudgment as the supreme wheras Papists and Puritans will haue the King to be but an honorable member not a chief gouernour in the Churches of his dominions So he 69. Wherein two things are to be noted the one that he doth ridiculously make the Pagan Emperours the chief members that is to say the heads or gouernours of the Church who neuertheles being Idolatours could not be so much as the meanest members thereof The other that he seemeth to make the Kings Maiesty no other wise chief gouernour in the Church then they were albeit I think he will not be so absurd as to acknowledge any spirituall authority in thē seing they were altogeather vncapable therof being as I haue sayd Idolatours enemies and violent persecutors of the Church and faith of Christ. So as herby it appeareth that he also concurreth with M. Andrews to depriue his Maiesty of all the spirituall iurisdiction and authority which the Parliaments haue grāted to our Kings and that consequently they are both of them in one predicament of disloyalty towards his Maiesty and defection from the wonted Protestātisme of England in the point of the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy 70. Now then to conclude concerning them both all the premises thou hast seene good Reader how well these two Prelats of the English Church do simbolize agree not only in seeking to delude their Readers with dyuers lyes fraudulent shifts and deuises but also in betraying their owne cause and fortifying ours which is so euident in them both that they may well be accounted the most harmles or rather the most propitious enemies that euer the Catholikes had and therfore may in some sort be compared to the Scorpion which being a most venemous Serpent yieldeth a sufficient remedy against his owne poison and so do they for albeit they are replenished with venom and malignity yea and sting somtimes most maliciously not with solid arguments but with spitefull gibes and contumelious iests yet their malice doth commonly carry with it the remedy of it selfe being for the most part so manifest and accompanyed with such apparant falshood and euident folly that no man of learning and consideration can receiue any harme thereby but rather great benefit by the discouery of their imbecility the weakenes of their cause◠Seing they cannot otherwyse defend it then by such contumelious and malicious proceedings 71. Insomuch that the learned strangers who read M. Andrewes his booke in latin and do consider withall the speciall choyce that the English Clergy hath made of him to mayntayne the combat against Cardinall Bellarmine in the eye and view of the Christian world do
effect Pope Leo's intercession had Leo. ep 68. The Emperour made suite to Pope Leo for Anatolius Idem ep 70. ad Martian Leo. ep 71. ad Anatol. Anatolius his submission to Pope Leo A manifest and sound lye of M. Andrews Pope Leo his supreme authority proued by the ouerthrow of the Canon alledged by M. Andrews Apol. Bellar. pag. 92. Concil Calced Act. 3. The name of Vniuersall Bishop giuen to the Pope by the generall Councell of Calcedon Andr. pag. 170. §. Quod ibi M. Andrews his tryfling answers M. Andrews hardly vrged Bellar. Apol. vbi supra Relat. Synodi ad Leon. in fine CoÌ„cilij Andr. vbi supra A weake and idle answere of M. Andrews Card. Apolog vbi supra Relat. Synodi ad Leon. Andr. vbi supra See cap. 1. nu 3.4.5 sequent Relat. Synodi ad Leon. A cleere testimony for Pope Leo's supremacy Liberat. in Breuiar cap. 12. Andr. vbi supra p. 171. Andr. vbi supra Apolog. C. Bellar. pag. 92. Andr. vbi supra A strange paradoxe of M. Andrews (b) See Supplem c. 4. nu 3.4.5 6. (c) Ibid. nu 7.8 Andr. cap. 8. pag. 219. Hieron li. 1. cont Iouin (d) Chap. 3. nu 37. seq Pastors are more bound to haue care of the Church then priuate men Ep. Theodoâ—â—j ad Synod Ephesin To. 1. Concil To. 4. Concil in 8. Concil general ex act 6. Suppl cap. 1. nu 112. 113. Act. â—â— 1. Cor. 12. Rom. 12. Pastours bound more then other men to haue care of the Church according to the doctrine of the Apostle Apoc. 2. M. Andrews galli-maufrey or hotch-potch M. Andrews teacheth seditious doctrine Equality of obligation requireth equality of care Isa. 32. If M. Andrews his position be true he must lay away his tytle of Lord Bishop Andr. cap. 7. pag. 171. M. Andrews corrupteth the text of the Councel of Calcedon M Andrews groundeth his arguments vpon his owne fraud Act. 15. caâ— 28. A silly collection of M. Andrews A difference to be noted betwixt the primacy of S. Peter and the priuiledgs granted to the Roman Sea Why those which penned the CanoÌ„ alledged by M. Andrews made no mention of the keys and Pastorall commissioÌ„ giuen to S. Peter M. Andrews his fraud in alledging the Canon Andr. vbi supra Can. 28. M. Andrews streyneth the Greek text to make it serue his turne Andr. pag. 171. A very false and foolish conclusioÌ„ of M. Andrews Andr. vbi supra Wisely forsooth The CanoÌ„ alledged by M. Andrews ouerthroweth his causeâ— Concil Lateran sub Innocent 3. cap. 5. See before from num 1â— to nu 24. Relatio Synod ad Leo. The CouÌ„â—ell of Calcedon acknowledged Pope Leo's supreâ—acy See before nu 45. 4â— Ibidem The CouÌ„cell ascrybed their determination of matters of fayth to the authority of Pope Leo (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How effectually clearly the Councell of Calcedon acknowledged Pope Leo's supremacy in their generall letter to him (d) See bâ—fore from nu 29. to nu 39. Other proofes that Popâ— Leo's supremacy was acknowledged by the CouÌ„cel of Calcedoâ—â— Act. 2â— Acâ— â— Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria deposed by Pope Leo. Three things to be noted in the depositioÌ„ of Dioscorus prouing Pope Leo's supremacy Concilâ— Calced Act. â— Ep. Theodor ad Leonem Theodoretus restored to his Bishoprike by Pope Lâ—o. Pope Leo was vndoubtedly the head and president of the CouÌ„cell Caluin confuted coÌ„cerning the cause why Pope Leo was president of the Councell Pope Leo head of the CouÌ„cel of CalcedoÌ„ in respect of his supreme authority ouer the whole Church What a seared coÌ„science M. Andrewâ— hath Suppl cap. 4. nu 3. 4. Apol. Card. Bel. cap. 8. p. 125. CypriaÌ„ de vnit Eccles. Idem ep ad Quintum Andr. Resp. cap. 8. pag. 217. â—in penult M. Andrews graue discourse in answere to the Cardinall The drift and meaning of S. Cyprian Cyprian vbi supra Matth. 1.6 Ioan. 21. Ibid. 20. S. CypriaÌ„ proueth the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head thereof Idem ep ad Iubaian Ibid. A foolish glosse of M. Andrews vpon the text of S. Cyprian Andr. vbi supra pag. 218. lin 2. How S. Peter might be called the light of the Church Matth. 5. Ioan. 11. The vinity of the Church notably proued and deduced by S. Cyprian from the vnity of the Head Why the Church is called one Mother M. Andrews fraudulent in his lame allegation of S. Cyprian S. Cypr. ep ad Quint. Card. Bellar Apolo c. 8. p. 125. Andr. cap. 8. pag. 218. A shifting answere of M. Andrews falsely charging the Cardinall with fraud The Primacy of S. Peter is notably proued by those words of S. CypriaÌ„ which M. Andrews sayth the Cardinall frauduleÌ„tly left out Bellar. dâ— Romano Pout l. â— cap. 25. S. CypriaÌ„ cleerly explicated by the Card. out of S. Augustine S. Peter being head of the Apostles suffered himselfe to be reprehended by S. Paul Bellarmine cleared from M. Andrews imputatioâ— How a man may speake of his owne authority insolently and yet truly Andr. vâ—â— supr How S. Peter is tearmed the foundation of the Church by S. Cyprian 1. Cor. 3. Isa. 28. (c) See after nu 24.25 2â— A bad inference of M. Andrews about twelue heads Apoc. 24. A politicall or mysticall body may haue many heads subordinat to one head M. Andrews so wryteth as he doth much help his Aduersaryes cause Card. Bellar Apol. c. 8. pag. 126 Hierom. l. â— aduers. Iouinian Touching the place of S. Hierome Supple c. 4. nu 3. Andr. vbi supra pag. 219. §. Hieronymus M. Andrews bad glosse vpoÌ„ S. Hieroms text Supra nu 15. The Cardinal falsely charged by M. Andrewâ— with fraâ—d in the citaâ—ion of S. Hierome Psal. 86. Apocal. 21. Ephes. â— Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 11. How the Church according to Cardinal Bellarmine is buylt equally vpoÌ„ all the Apostles See after nu â—6 sequ M. Andrewes calumniateth Bellarmine M. Andrews second charge against the Cardinall touching Iouinianisme refuted and retortedâ— S Hier. li. 1. contra Iouinian Why S. Peter was preferred by our Sauiour to the supremacy before S. Ioâ—n S. Hier. in 16. cap. Matth. S. Peterâ— supremacy acknowledged by S. Hierome and grouÌ„ded vpon our Sauiours ownâ— wordâ— Idem ep aâ— Marcellaâ—â— ep 54. Ibid. ep 5â— Li. 1. contra Iouiâ— (d) See before nu 4.5 sequeÌ„t See before cap. 2. nu 76. Bellar. de Rom. Pontif l. 1. c. 10. How shameles M. Andrews is to charge the Cardinall with Iouinianisme which he himselfe professeth except he dissent froÌ„ his fellows of the English clergy Ambros. ep li. 1. ep 6. 7. Hieronym contra Iouinian Aug. li. de bono coniug de virginit Idem Retract lib. 42. cap. 22. 23. Idem de haeres ad Quoduulâ— haer 82. Aug. vbi sup Ser. 191. de temp Idem de haeres haer 82. Bellar de notis Eccles l. 4. cap. 9.
inter ep August Ibid. ep 92. Ibid. ep 93. August ep 106. ad Bonifac. Marke this consequence The Pelagian heresy condemned by Zozsimus and Innocentius Aug. ep 157. Possid in vita August ca. 18. 3. things to be noted in the precedent testimony of Possidius Aug. vbi supra Prosper in Chron. Idem contra collat ca. 41. The famous appeale of S. Iohn Chrysostome to Innocentius Chrysost. ep ad Inno. To. 5. Palladius in vita Chrysost. Zosom li. 8. ca. 26. Georg. Alexand. in vita Chrysost. Idem ibid. Nicep l. 13. ca. 34. Glycas Annal. part 4. Gennadius Patriar Constant. Exposit. pro Concil Florent ca. 5. Sect. 7. Theodoreti histor Eccle. li. 5. c. 34. Glycas part 4. Annal. (a) Supra nu 74. (b) Supra nu 52. 53. (c) Supra nu â—8 seq To. 1. Concil ep 2. Bonif. P. Celestinus head of the generall CouÌ„cell of Ephesus (a) Euagr. lib. 1. c. 4. Prosper in chron Liberat. c. 5 Photin de 7. Synod To. 2 ca. 17. Concil Ephesc ibid. To. 1. ca. 14 (b) Concil Ephes. To. 1. cap. 16. 17. (c) Ibid. To. 1. cap. 14. (d) Ibid. To. 2. ca. 1â— Euag. lib. 1. ca. 4. Nicepho l. 14. cap. 34. (f) To. 4. cap 17. Concil Ephes. (g) Niceph. li. 14. ca. 34 An euideÌ„t argumeÌ„t that Celestinus was vniuersall and supreme Pastor of the Church (d) See cap. 2. per. â—otum M. Andrews facility in â—ing August contra duas ep Pelag lib. 1â— cap. 1. S. Augustins dutifull respect vnto Pope Banifacius (a) See before nu 38. seq To. 1. Concil ep 1. Celest. S. Prosper contra Collator cap. 42. Vincent lirinens cap. vlt. M. Andrewes his Father a Father of lyes Orig. in cap. 6. ad Rom. A place of Origen is discussed Andr cap. 2. paâ— 217. §. ex Origene Orig. in Matth. 16. Tract 1. See cap. 1. nu 3.6.23 26. Matth. 16. By M. Andrews â—ad glosse euery good man and woman shall haue as much authority as S. Peter A great doubt whether M. Andrews be a Pastor or not if he vnderstand Origen aright M. Andrews by his interpretation of Origen ouerthroweth all subordination in the Church Chap. 1. vbi supra Other plaine places of Origen to proue S. Peters primacy Origen in diuers Euangel hom 2. Card. Apol. capâ— 8. pag. 125. S. Hyl. in 16. cap. Matth. A place of S. Hilary for S. Peters authority defended Andr. cap. 8. pag. 218. §. ex Hylario See chap. â— nuâ— 18.24.25 2â— M. Andrewes his shifting glosse S. Peters fayth not separated from his person in the sense and meaning of S. Hilary S. Hilarâ— li. 6. de Trinitate Ibidem One of M. Andrews his petty â—rauds Card. cap. 8. p. 125. Maxim ho. 3. de Apost Peâ—ro Paulo Andr. vbi supra pag. 219. §. E. Maximo M. Andrews his phantasticall conceit M. Andrews dull head more to be confouÌ„ded by blowes then persuaded by argumeÌ„ts Arist. Topic. li. 1â— cap. 9. See cap. 4 nu 23. S. Maximê° of Turyn did wryte homilyes or SermoÌ„s of Saints Genadius in Catal. Illustrium viror Gennadius vbi supra See before chap. 4. nu 21. M. Andrews hath not giuen any probable answere to any one of ten places obiected by the Cardinall Andr. vbi supra pag. 217. §. Inspiciamus M. Andrews his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Andrewes troubled greatly with litle wordes M. Andrewes fighteth in the aire and peruerteth the state of the Question (d) See cap. 1. nu 20. (e) nu 20. 21. (f) See Supplem chap. 1. nu 61. seq vsque ad 69. S. Hilar. l. 6. de Trinit Act. 5. Ibid. ca. 13. 1. Cor. 5. Ibid. ca. 6. M. Andrews a pecuniary Pastour a wrangler in the highest degree (g) See before chap. 1. nu 21. Card. Apol. cap. 1. pag. 12. M. Andrews his meer trifling cauill Andr. cap. 1. p. 35. §. Porrò Andr. pa. 37. §. VeruÌ„ Rom. 10. An ignorant collection Rom. 10. Ioel. 2. The true meaning of S. Paul about the inuocatioÌ„ of him in whome we belieue Ep. ad Philem. S. Hieron To. 6. in ep ad Philem 1. Tim. 1. Rom. 2. Gen. 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Aug. li. locution in Gen. nu 200. Andr. p. 45. §. Locus autem M. Andrews coÌ„tradicteth himselfe Cardinall Bellarmine vnder the name of Intercession of Saints comprizeth as well our prayers to them as their praiers for vs. Andr. pa. 39. §. Patrum M. Andrews his triple diuision not worth three chipps S. Basil. ho. in 40. Martyres M. Andrews wrangleth when he he cannot answere Andr. pag. 40. §. Non verè The substance of S. Basils discourse about praying vnto Saints M. Andrews very grosse and foolish M. Andrews coÌ„futeth himselfe Card. Apol. pag. 13. Andr. p. 47. §. Pari autem See Apol. Card. p. 13. Another cauill of M. Andrews against Cardinall Bellarmine Andr. p. 47. §. Pâ—râ—â— The latin translatioÌ„ of S Basil defended A plaine place out of S. Basil for the inuocation of Martyrs S. Basil. orat in S. Mammantem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Andrewes very hardly posed Diuers miraculous effects of the Inuocation of Martyrs specifyed by S. Basil the Latin translatioÌ„ of S. Basil defended Andr. p. 40. §. Non verè Another answere of M. Andrewes refuted M. Andr. vrging stil to haue some decrees of the Fathers concerning prayers to Saynts flieth froÌ„ the authority of the Fathers to CouÌ„cells Why Councellâ— are assembled Why the InuocatioÌ„ of Saynts was not confirmed by some Synodicall decree in the primitiue Church Concil Gangren in proamio ca. 20. S. Hieron aduer Vigilant The heresy of Vigilantius denying the Saints pray for vs quikly repressed by S. Hierome The conclusion coÌ„cerning the place of S. Basil. nu 19. 20. Apol. Card. p. 14â— Euseb. de praep Euangel lib. 13. c. 7. M. Andrews his cauill against the place cyted out of Eusebius See before nu 20. infra nu â—â— 48 5â—.57.60 seq Item cap. 7. 8. per. totum M. Andrews his exception against the testimony cited by Bellarmine out of S. Chrysostome Andr. vbi supra §. Sed neque M. Andrews sayth nothing to the whole substance of the place but cauilleth only about some words (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Andrews a meere wrangler M. Andrews hath fouÌ„d out a new Logik to inferre quidlibet ex quolibeâ— M. Andrews his trifling toy of tumulos tangere answered See after chap. 9. from nu 10. to nu 31. (b) Andr. ca. 1. pa. 49. §. Necesse Plut. in Othone vide Crispin in Dictionario ex Budaeo Homer Iliad â—â— Eurip. Hecub act 1. Arsen. Comment in Eurip. Martialis li. 8. epig. 65 Tacit. li. 10. anual Idem li. 1. histor Sueton. in Claudio Plin. li. 11. cap. 48. Ouidius Lucret. li. â— de nat rerum 1. Seneca iâ— Medea S. Greg. Nyssen orat in S. Theod. S. Basil in Psal. 115. S. Greg. Nazianz. orat 1. in Iulian. 4. Reg. 13. S. Aug. li. 22. de
vt coÌ„mig Beethlem S. Dionys. Eccles. Hierar ca. 10. S. Basil. Ep. 1. ad Monach. lapsum in fine in ep ad Virgin laps Idem reg 14. fusius explic S. Aug. in psal 75. ante finem Ioan Cass. de Iustit renuÌ„ti li 4. c. 13. See supl. c. 7. nu 59. 60. M. Andrews approuing the first institute of monks approueth many important points of Catholke Religion See Card. Bellar. l. de monachis c. 42 43. seq (b) See Supplem Chap 7. n. 58 59.60 (a) Luther in colloqu Germa c. de matrimo (b) Idem to 8. de matrimo fol. 119. (c) Idem de Bigamia Episcop proposit 62. IteÌ„ Ochinus dialog l. 2. dial 21. See Caluinoturcis l. 2. cap. 11. (d) Bucer in cap. 1. 19. Mat. (e) 1. Tim. â— (f) Tertul. lib. de monogam c. 13. S. Epiphanius lib. 2. haeres 61. in fine S. Chrysost. hom 19. in 1. Cor. 7. in 1. Tim. 8. hom 15. S. Aug. in Psal. 75. IteÌ„ Concil Carthag 4. can 104. (g) S. Basil. de vera virginitate The first Euangelists of the Protestants Ghospell were the true Locusts that destroyed religiouâ— profession and perfection That the name Catholike belongeth only to the Apostolike Roman Church to the children thereof Andr. c. 5. pag. 125. §. Quod affert (a) See Chap. 4. nu 57.58 sequent (b) Ibid. nu 61. Magdeb. cent 4. c. 10. Socrat. l. 4. c. 30. (c) Cap. 4. nu 62. (d) Ibid. nu 63. (e) Ibid. nu 58. 59. Bellar. dâ— Pont. RoÌ„ l. 4. ca. 8. 11. (a) Idem Resp. ad Apolog. p. vlt. (b) Paâ—id Ep. ad Sympronian (c) S. Ciril Hier. c. 18. (d) Aug. in lib coÌ„tra ep FuÌ„dameÌ„ cap. â—â— Andr. c. 5. p. 125. Nam quae Andr. vbi supra M. Andr. his distinction helpeth him nothing Aug. vbi supra Item de vera religione c. 7. Luc. c. 19. Andr. c. 7. pa. 168. §. Nam de nostr (b) Barl. Ser. an 1606. 21. Septemb. (c) See before chap. 6. nu 77. (d) See Suppl Chap. 4. nu 54.55 seq (f) Suppl ca. 5. nu 2.3.4 5. What a beggarly Church Clergy the Sectaries haue in England See Supl. vbi supra nu 5. See Supl. vbi supra nu 6. S. Hieron aduers. Lucifer Iohn 10. (c) See before nu 35. also Suppl chap. 4 nu 54.55 seq Luc. 19. (b) Chap. 6â— nu 81â— (d) Chap. 3. nu 37. sequent What a poore coÌ„ceipt M. Andrews hath of the Kings ecclesiasticall supremacy Andr. c. 1. pag 21. §. Neque tamâ— Ibidem Ibid. p. 29. §. Aâ— recepta The Ecclesiastical Supremacy of temporall Princes may be in M. Andrews his Pater noster but is not in his Creed The oath of the supremacy vnlawful if the supremacy be no matter of faith Aureol in 3. dist 39â— Ang. verb. periurium See Nauar. manuale c. 12. nu 3. Suarez de relig Tom. 2. li. 3. ca. 4. nu 7. Card. c. 1. pag. 7. Andr. c. 1. p. 22. §. Sed. nec M. Andrews his grosse ignorance S. Aug. Quaest. in Leuit. li. 3. quaest 23. Num. 2â— M. Andrew his notorious malice in the abuse of holy Scripture Deut. 17. See c. 6. nu 68.69.70 See Suppl c. 1. nu 10. seq (g) Ibid. nu â—4 seq (h) Ibid. nu 3â— seq (i) nu 44. (k) nu 45. 50. (l) nu 49. seq (m) nu 3â— seq (n) nu 28. seq (o) nu 53.54.55 56. (p) See sup Chap. 1. nu 83. 84. It cannot be shewed how Kings afâ—ter they were Christened came to haue the gouernment of the Church The Ecclesiasticall supremacy of temporall Princes excluded by a rule of M. Andrewesâ— Andr. c. 1. pag. 37. §. Verùm M. Andrewes doth not allow any spirituall authority to the King Andr. ci 14. pâ— 323. lin 33. (d) nu 37. Ibid. c. 1. p. 21. §. nequâ— tamen What manner of Ecclesiasticall power M. Andreweâ— acknowledgeth in temporall Princes A Pagan Prince hath as much authoritie ouer the Church as M Andrewes alloweth to his Maiestie An. 26. Hen. 8. â— 1. The Parliament Statutes giue spirituall authority to the Kings Queens of England Ibidem The Lord Cromwel Vicar General to K. Henry the 8. for thâ— exercise of his spirituall Iurisdictioâ—â— An. 1. Elizab. c. 1. Spirituall Iurisdiction graÌ„ted to Q. Elizabeth by the Parliament An. 1. Elizab. c. 1. An. 1. Edward 6. c. 2. All the Spirituall Iurisdiction and authoritie of the Clergy of England declared by a statute to be deryued from the Prince M. Andrewes depriueth the Kings Maiesty of all the spirituall authority that the Parliaments haue giuen him (a) See before chap. â— nu 13. (b) suppl c. 1. nu 18.19 seq (c) Num. â— (d) Deut. 10. 18. (e) Numer 8. (f) Suppl c. 1. from nu 10. to 53. (g) Ibid. nu 51.52 K. Saul had no authority ouer the hygh Priest S. Aug. in psal 51. Andr. Tort. Torti p. 151. An. 26. Hen. 8. c. 1. an 1. Eliz ca. 1. The King might according to the statut excoÌ„municate an heretyke as well as any Bishop (d) Supra nu 53. The King could not giue the power of censure to other if he had it not in himfelse See suppl c. 6â— nu 61. M. Andrews neyther good Subiect nor good English Protestant A great difference to be noted betwixt M. Andrews his deniall of the Kings supremacy and ours Act. 5. M. Andrews hath no such obligation to deny the Kings supremacy as we haue M. Andrews lyke to a treacherous frend or a preuaricating aduocate M. Andrews doth vnderhand betray the Kings cause Why M. Andrewes is no good English Protestant See coÌ„stitut and Canons Ecclesiasticall printed by Rob. Barker Anno. 1604. Can. 2. M. Andrewes seemeth to be turned Puritan in the point of the K. Supremacy The Oath of the Puritans of Scotland set forth in the yeare 1584. What difference may be noted betwixt M. Andrews and the Puritans Both Catholikes Puritans are better Subiects then M. Andrews (a) Card. Apol. ca. 1. pag. 10 (b) Andr. c. 1. p. 30. §. Postremo (c) Ibid §. Nec habet See c. 6. n. 78.79 The Puritans doctrine coÌ„cerning the Kings subiectioÌ„ to their Presbytery The pretended reformed churches do not allow in teÌ„porall Princes any such spirituall authority as our ParlameÌ„ts haue graÌ„ted to our Kings M. Andrews professing the doctrine of the Puritans and reformed Churches concerning the Kings supremacy denieth it to be spirituall (b) suprâ— nu 47. (c) nu 37. M. Andrews no English Protestant but a flat Puritan The learned English ProtestaÌ„ts ashamed oâ— their woÌ„ted doctrine coÌ„cerning the Ecclesiasticall supremacy of teÌ„porall Princes See beforâ— nu 35. â— chap. 6. nu 77. M. Barl. seemeth to make the King head of the Church no otherwyse theÌ„ as the Pagan Emperours were M. Barlow and M. Andrews like to the Scorpion and why The opinion of the learned strangers concerning M. Andrewes his bookes against Cardinall Bellarmine M. Andrews gerally disliked for his obscurityâ— M. Andrewes compared for his obscurity to a fish called a Cuttle Plyn l. 9. ca. 29. A good aduise for a frendly farewell to M. Andrews (b) Se sup ca. 8. nu 100. seq (c) Ibid. nu 103. 104. (d) Ibid. nu 105. seq (f) Mat. 16. Mar. 8. Touching the cause and subiect of this Appendix See Suppl p. 208. nu 3 Adioyâ—d ca. 10. nu 35. The exception taken by Catholikâ— to the first Protestant Bishopes in Q. Elizabethâ— dayes iâ— no new quarrell D. Hard. confut of the Apolog par 2. fol. 59. printed an Dom. 1565. D. Hardings chaleng to M. Iewell coÌ„cerning the consecration of the first Protestant Bishops D. Staplet return of vntru fol. 130. lin 26. D. Stapletons chalenge to M. Iewell and M. Horne touching their coÌ„secration Idem counterblast fol. 301. An. 1. Elizab ca. 1. M. Horne answered nothing coÌ„cerning his consecration Iewell defence of the Apology pag. 130. M. Iewels ambiguous and weak answere touching his lawfull consecration How much it imported M. Iewell to haue proued the consecration of their Archbishop Doct. Har. detect fol. 234. p. 2. Touching M. Iewels irresolute ambiguous indirect answere How much it imported the first Protestant Bishops to haue had a publick most solemne Consecration How improbably M. Mason affirmeth out of his Registers that 4. Bishops consecrated M. Parker the first Archbishop How litle credit M. Masons new-found Register deserueth Andr. Resp. ad Apol. p. 41. §. proximi Barl. answâ— to a name Catholike p. 283. With how great reason exception is to be takeÌ„ to M. MasoÌ„s Register vntill he shew it to Catholiks who may giue testimony of it What is to be considered in M. MasoÌ„s Register to make it auteÌ„ticall An offer to shew any manuscript in Rome to English ProtestaÌ„ts
the benefit of soules the publike good of the Church and gods glory wherof I haue giuen sufficient reason in the first Chapter of my Supplement 21. Therefore I will only say for the present that if the Popes spirituall Primacy may for this cause be called a temporall primacy then may M. Andrews who taketh himselfe to be a Bishop and a spirituall Pastour be iustly called and nicknamed a corporall Bishop and a pecuniary Pastour because he doth punish men sometymes in his spirituall court not only in their bodyes but also in their purses and if he would thinke him absurd who should so style and intytle him he is no lesse absurd himselfe in calling the Popes Primacy for the like reason a temporall Primacy And although neither S. Augustine nor S. Cyril do in the places cyted by M. Andrews speake of any such extension of spirituall power to temporall matters whereof they had no occasion to treate yet it sufficeth that they do not deny it yea and that they do both of them sufficiently teach there the spirituall Primacy of S. Peter wherof the other is a necessary consequent 22. S. Augustine in that very Treatise wherto M. Andrews appealeth I meane vpon the Ghospell of S. Iohn and the last Chapter hath that expresse doctrine and those very words which I cyted a little before concerning the person and figure of the whole Church represented in S. Peter propter Apostolatus sui Primatum by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship or as he saith els where propter Primatum quem in discipulis habuit for the Primacy which he had amongst the Disciples For which cause he called him also twice in the same place primum Apostolorum the chiefe Apostle and saith that the Church receaued the keyes in him which as I haue shewed doth euidently proue him to be head and supreme Pastour of the Church whereof only he and no other of the Apostles is said to represent the person and figure so that S. Augustine sufficiently acknowledgeth S. Peters spirituall Supremacy in the place alledged by M. Andrewes 23. The like doth S. Cyril also in his coÌ„mentary vpon S. Iohns Ghospell and in the same place which M. Andrewes cyteth for there he calleth S. Peter expressely Prince and head of the Apostles saying Vt Princeps Caputque ceterorum primus exclamauit Tu es Christus filius Dei viui Peter as Prince and head of the rest first exclaymed Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God So he wherby he teacheth euidently that S. Peter was head and supreme Pastour of the Church in that he acknowledgeth him to be Prince and head of the Apostles who were the chiefe Magistrates and Pastors therof and therefore it is to be considered how this agreeth with that which followeth presently after in M. Andrews his text who hauing affirmed as you haue heard that neyther of these Fathers saw the article touching Peters temporall Primacy addeth Id tantum vident nec praeterea quid quia c. They see this only and nothing els that because Peter had denyed his Lord not once but thrice he was asked concerning loue not once but thrice and so when he had abolished his triple negation with his triple confession he was restored to the place or degree of Apostleship from the which he was fallen for touching the Primacy they are altogeather silent Thus saith M. Andrews 24. Wherin it is to be noted that wheras he saith that these Fathers saw only this which he heere setteth downe nec praeterea quid and nothing else it is euidently false for two respects the one for that they saw more then he mentioneth yea more then he listed to see to wit the Primacy of S. Peter as I haue shewed out of them both the other is because they saw not that which he affirmeth in their behalfe I meane that S. Peter was by those wordes of our Sauiour restored to his place in the Apostleship which he had lost for if they should haue said so they should seeme to hould or fauour at least the pernicious heresy of Wycliffe that Magistrates loose their dignity and authority by mortall sinne which pestiferous opinion those holy Fathers no doubt would haue abhorred if it had bene set abroach or taught by any in their tyme seeing that it shaketh the very foundation of all obedience eyther to Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall Magistrates because it doth not only make all obedience vncertaine for no man knoweth who is in the state of Grace but also giueth occasion to Subiects vpon euery offence of their Prince to call his authority in question 25. Therfore to the end thou maist good Reader know as wel the integrity of these Fathers in this point as M. Andrews his fraud and bad conscience in alledging them thou shalt vnderstand that S. Augustine saith nothing at all that may be so much as wrested to any such sense in that place and doth elswhere expressely teach the contrary as when he saith Apostleâ— againe a little after when Peter the Apostle denied our Sauiour and wept and remayned still an Apostle he had not yet receaued the holy Ghost Thus saith S. Augustine and could he teach a doctrine more contrary to that which M. Andrews fatâ—ereth vpon him 26. Let vs now see how he handleth S. Cyril vpoÌ„ whome it may be he principally relyeth for this matter for indeed that holy Father saith somewhat concerning the same though far otherwise then M. Andrews would make his Reader belieue for thus saith S. Cyril Dixit pasce agnos meos Apostolatus sibi renouaÌ„s dignitatem ne propter negationem quae humana infirmitate accidit labefactata videretur He to wit our Sauiour said to Peter feed my Lambs renewing to him his dignity of the Apostleship least it might seeme to haue bene decayed by his denyall which happened by humane infirmity Thus far S. Cyril who you see neyther saith nor meaneth that S. Peter fell from his Apostleship by his denyall of Christ but rather signifieth the contrary to wit that Christ would not haue it so much as to seeme or be supposed that he had lost his dignity by his fall and therefore renewed it by that new and expresse commission ne labefactata videretur lest it should seeme to haue bene decayed or lost 27. Wherin also it is to be obserued that the dignity wherof S. Cyril speaketh was not the bare office or degree of an Apostle but that which was peculiar and proper to S. Peter and so acknowledged by S. Cyril himselfe a little before in the same Chapter when he tearmed him Principem Caput ceterorum the Prince and head of the rest of the Apostles as also S. Augustine as you haue heard calleth it Primatum principatum Apostolatus the Primacy and principality of the Apostleship and therefore I say the Dignity which according to S. Cyrils doctrine our Sauiour renewed
hath these wordes Petrus super queÌ„ Dominus fundauit Ecclesiam c. Peter vpon whome our Lord founded his Church and in another Epistle to Pope Damasus he affirmed the same not only of him but also of the chayre of Peter saying Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae id est Cathedrae Petri communione consocior super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio I following no first or chiefe but Christ do coÌ„municate with thy Beatitude that is to say with the chayre of Peter vpon that Rock I know the Church is buylt Finally in the selfe same booke against Iouinian where he answereth the former obiection he calleth S. Peter Petram Christi the Rock of Christ saying O vox digna Apostolo Petra Christi O speach worthy of an Apostle and the Rock of Christ signifying thereby that S. Peter was the Rock whereupon Christ buylt his Church 32. So as it cannot be denyed that S. Hierome both firmely belieued and expressely taught that our Sauiour buylt his Church vpon Peter wherein you haue already seene that he agreeth with S. Cyprian who wrote long before him and with the whole Councell of Calcedon which calleth S. Peter Petram crepidinem Ecclesiae the rock and top of the Church and rectae fidoi fundamentum the foundation of the true faith Besids that you may also see in Cardinall Bellarmins controuersyes that he agreed therin with Origen S. Athanasius S Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Epiphanius S. Chrysostome S. Cyril Tertullian S. Hilary S. Ambrose S. Maximus S. Leo S. Gregory the Great and other learned Fathers 33. Wherupon it followeth that Iouinian did not obiect the same as his owne singular opinion which he knew well would be litle esteemed and was to be proued and not obiected but as a matter generally acknowledged by Catholikes and that therefore he only sought to draw some consequence out of it as out of a knowne principle of the Catholike faith for the confirmation of his heresy as all heretykes do also seeke to do the like not only out of Catholike opinions but also out of the Scripture it selfe What then may we thinke of M. Andrews who is not ashamed to taxe the Cardinall as a follower of Iouinian for teaching that the Church was buylt vpon Peter Can we thinke that he hath any conscience or care of what he saith especially seeing that he himselfe is a true scholler and follower of Iouinian except he dissent not only from Luther Caluin and other Archsectaries his great Maisters but also from his brethren of the present English Church 34. For who knoweth not that they all hold and teach that marriage is of equal merit with virginity and viduall continency which is the proper heresy of Iouinian condemned for such in his owne tyme first by Pope Siricius and a Synode of Bishops held at Rome and afterwards by another Synode held at Milan where S. Ambrose was present Besides that the same is learnedly impugned and clearely confuted by S. Hierome in his bookes written purposely against him as also by S. Augustine in his treatises de Bono coniugali de Virginitate which he wrote expressely for the confutation of that heresy as he testifyeth himselfe in his Retractations where he calleth Iouinian a monster for teaching that doctrine and registreth him for an hereâ—tike in his Tract and Catalogue of heresyes as well for that opinion as for impugning the custome and vse of the Catholike Church in fasting and abstinence from certayne meates wherin also the forenamed sectaries of our dayes and the English Church at this present and consequently M. Andrews himselfe except he will disclayme from all his brethren do follow Iouinian Whereto I might add other heresyes of his taught by many Archsectaries of our tyme wherin it may be M. Andrewes hath his share amongst the rest as that merits and rewards of the lust are equal and that the corporall virginity and integrity of the Blessed Virgin Mary was corrupted and lost by the birth of our Sauiour 35. All which opinions being heresyes of Iouinian and registred for such by S. Augustine haue bene reuyued in these our dayes partly by Luther and Caluin and partly by the Magdeburgenses Bucer Molinaeus and others as Cardinall Bellarmine sheweth out of their owne workes in his controuersies Therefore I remit it now to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader who is the follower of Iouinian the Cardinall or M. Andrewes and his fellowes seeing that the Cardinall holdeth nothing els with Iouinian but only that Catholike doctrine which Iouinian held and professed togeather with S. Hierome and all other Fathers of his tyme as all heretikes haue alwayes agreed with Catholikes in some points and condemneth all those heresyes whâ—ch the Fathers aforesayd and the whole Church of their tyme condemned in him and his followers wheras M. Andrews and his fellowes expressely professe and teach those very heresyes for thâ— which Iouinian and his followers were by the ancient Fathers censured and condemned as monstrous heretikes as hath ben before declared so that I thinke of this there can be no further controuersy 36. Now then let vs proceed with the examination of what he saith further to the place of S. Hierome alledged by the Cardinall which is this Propterea inter duodecim c. Therefore amongst twelue one is chosenâ— that a head being appointed the occasion of schisme may be taken away whereto he answereth thus Inter duodecim vnum eligi c. that one be chosen amongst twelue or some number which some one man may be able to gouerne and prouyde for or els to take away schisme who doth forbid a head to be chosen or so much power to be giuen him as may suffice for the end or purpose for the which he was ordayned But the question is how far that power and that number extendeth lest the head become caput heteroclitum an extrauagant head or a head out of course and not so much the occasion of schisme taken away as an occasion giuen of tyranny So he all which I beseech thee good Reader well to note and particulerly that he granteth these points following The first that S. Peter was chosen head of the Apostles the second that a head is necessary for auoyding of schisme the third that the same head is to haue as much authority as is conuenient for the end for which he is ordayned and the fourth that of all this there is no question for that the question is saith he concerning the power of the head how far it extendeth and how great may be the number that he is to gouerne 37. But if M. Andrews consider well what he granteth he may consequently decyde the question or doubt that he maketh and shall see that he hath granted as much in effect as we teach or demand conâ—cerning the authority of
thing expressed by the name and so in conclusion with his fatemur omnia he acknowledgeth vs for true Catholiks and himselfe and his fellowes for heretikes and therefore I may well say vnto him with our Sauiour in the Ghospell ex ore tuo te iudico serue nequam 35. And the lyke I may also say concerning his grant in another matter to wit that our Bishops are true Bishops and that the Protestant Bishops of EnglaÌ„d had their ordination from ours yea from 3. of ours for so he giueth to vnderstand whereupon he also inferreth that he and his fellow SuperinteÌ„dents haue a true ordination and succession from the Catholike Church whereas the quite contrary followeth vpon his grant for if our Bishops be true Bishops as hauing a true successioÌ„ from the Apostles and that the protestant Bishops haue no other lawfull ordinatioÌ„ but from ours two consequents do directly follow thereon the one that we haue the true Church and doctrine if M. Andrewes his fellow and friend M. Barlow say true who in his famous sermon mentioned by me els where affirmeth the Successiue propagation of Bishops from the Apostles to be the mayne roote of Christian Society according to S. Augustine and the mayne proofe of Christian doctrine according to Tertullian as I haue shewed amply in my Suplement and proued thereby that M. Barlow and his fellowes are e heretykes and Schismatikes The other consequent is that if the English Protestant Bishops had no other lawfull ordination then from the Catholikes they had none at all for that at the chaÌ„ge of religion in Queen Elizabeths tyme they were not ordayned by any one Catholyke Bishop and much lesse by three as M. Andrews saith they were but by themselues and by the authority of the Parliament as I haue also declared at large in my Supplement Where neuertheles I am to aduertise thee good Reader of an errour not corrected amongst the faults escaped in the Print For whereas it is said there they had almost seduced an Irish Archbishop and perswaded him to consecrate some of them Byshops there want certaine wordes to wit a Welsh Bishop hauing in vaine sollicited which words are to be inserted thus they had almost seduced a Welsh Bishop hauing in vaine solicited an Irish Archbishop and perswaded him to consecrate some of them Bishops after the Catholike manner c. And agayne a litle after whereas it is said thus seeing the Irish Bishop would not performe his promise they resolued to ordaine themselues c. there want also these words consâ—â—t nor the Welsh Bishop which words are to be added thusâ— seeing the Irish Bishop would not coÌ„sent nor the Welsh Bishop performe his promise they resolued to ordayne themselues Thus I say it should be corrected 36. Whereby it may euidently appeare what a beggarly Church and Clergy they then had and still haue for hauing then not so much as any pretended Archbishop or Bishop of their owne profession they were forced to begg their consecration euen of the Catholikes their aduersaries and hauing solicited an Archbishop in vaine and being out of hope to haue the consent of a Metropolitan to their ordination much more to be consecrated by 2. or 3. Bishops according to the ancient Canons of the Church they determined as I may say to play small game rather then to sit forth being desirous to haue some kind of ordination from any one Catholik though inferiour Bishop yea and in fyne they sought to haue it from such a one as was held to be the simplest man that then was or perhaps euer had bene of the English Clergy for so indeed was esteemed the Bishop of Landâ—â—â— whome they had almost inueygled and induced 〈◊〉 their turne But Almighty God out of his infinite prouidence so disposed for the eternall shame of their pretended Prelacy and Clergy that he also in the end refused to do it vpon a sharp message which he receaued from Bishop â—onner then Prisoner who being Bishop of London and consequeÌ„tly chiefe Bishop in the prouince of Canterbury by the death of Cardinall Pole Archbishop thereof sent one M. Cosen his Chaplen to the sayd Bishop of Landaff to threaten him with excommunication in case he did consecrate any of them whereupon he defisted from his purpose and they resolued to ordayne and consecrate one another and so they did as I haue signified in my Supplement vpon the testimony of one that was an eye-witnes of what passed amongst them at their ordination to wit M.I Thomas Nâ—ale a graueman well knowne no doubt to many yet liuing in Oxford where he was many yeares after Reader of the Hebrew Lecture 37. Whereupon I inferre two things the one that they haue no Clergy nor Church for haâ—ing no Bishops they haue no Priests because none can make Priests but Bishops and hauing neither Bishops nor Priests they haue no Clergy and consequently no Church as I haue shewed in my Supplement out of S. Hierome The other is that M. Andrewes and his fellowes are neyther true Bishops nor haue any succession from the Catholike Church as he sayth they haue noâ— yet any lawfull mission or vocationâ— and that therefore they are not those good shepheards which as our Sauiour saith enter into the fold by the dore but fures 〈◊〉 theeues and robbersâ— who clymbe vp another way or breake into it by intrusion and force vt mactent â—â—â—â—rdant to kill and destroy the flocke and so they are rotten bought broken of from the may nâ— root of Christian society and consequently heretikes and schismatikes as well by M. Barlowes ground before mentioned as according to M. Andrewes his owne graunt els let him name vnto vs those 3. Catholike Bishops who as he saith consecrated their first Bishops at the change of religion in Queene Elizabeths tyme which I know he cannot doe and therefore I conclude of him in this point as I did in the last ex ore tuo te iudico 38. And this truly might suffice to shew how he fortifieth our cause and ouerthroweth his owne but that besides diuers other points which I might handle to this purpose and am forced to omit for lack of tyme there is one whereof I promised in the last Chapter to say somewhat to wit his doctrine touching the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacie which in verie truth he abaseth disgraceth and vtterly supplanteth whiles he seeketh or at least pretendeth to confirme and establish it as hath partly appeared already by his graunt that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles to take away all occasion of Schisme yea and that he gaue him as much authority as was necessary to that end whereupon I inferred necessarily that not only S. Peter but also his successours haue all that power and authority which we attribute vnto them as may be seene in the third Chapter of this Adioynder and vpon this it followeth also
directly that no temporall Prince is Supreme head of the Church But his opinion concerning the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy will be much more manifest if we consider what a poore conceipt he hath of it and how he abaseth it being so farre from graunting it to be a principall article of faith as we hold the Popes Primacy to be that he saith it is ne articulus quidem not so much as an Article vtpote de exteriori modo regimine c. as of a thing which concerneth only the externall gouâ—rment of the Church so far forth as it requireth and admitteth humane help and authority And therefore hâ— placeth it not amongst points which are to be belieued but amongst matters of perswasion such I meane as we are perswaded to be true and therfore he saith nec sic singula trahimus ad fidem c. we do not so draw all things to faith it sufficeth for some heads or points of religion to belieue them with the Apostle and of some others to be perswaded only quae tameÌ„ infra fideÌ„ subsistant which neuertheles are beneath or vnder matters of faith Therefore it is inough if it be without the compasse of faith so that it may haue place only amongst orthodox or true doctrine So he and to the same purpose he also saith in another place that it is a truth but extra symbolum out of the creed so that it may perhaps be come into his Pater noster but is not yet into Creed Whereupon diuers things might be inferred worth the noting but I will touch only two or three 39. If the Kings Supremacy be not a matter of Faith then is it neither expressely taught in Scripture nor necessarily deduced from it for if it were then must it needes be a matter of Faith and therevpon it followeth that although M. Andrews doe alleage Scripture to proue it yet he himselfe is of opinion that it is but only probably gathered out of Scripture and consequently that a man may without daunger of damnation choose whether he will belieue it or no. For of thinges which are in Controuersy and not defined but only probably gathered out of Scripture a man may without daunger of his soule adhere to eyther parte which truly may serue for a great Motiue to all Protestants to make small account of the Kinges Ecclesiasticall Suâ—remacy otherwise then in respect of the temporall Lawes especially seeing that so great a Doctor as M. Andrewes who pretendeth expresly to maintaine and defend it teacheth that it is no matter of faith Besides that I cannot see how he can approue the Oath of the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy to be lawfully teÌ„dred or taken as of an vndoubted truth if it be no matter of faith For he that sweareth a thing to be simply true which he doth not certainly belieue but only is probably perswaded that it is true sinneth in the opinion of the Diuines Canonistsâ— Wherupon it followeth that M. Andrews who holdeth the Kings Supremacy to be no matter of faith but only a probable truth can neither lawfully take the Oath of the said Supremacy nor iustly approue it to be exacted of any and this will be as cleere as the Sun if we consider by what Scriptures he laboureth to proue the Kings Supremacy wherby we shall easily see that the same is not so much as probably gathered out of Scripture and therfore not to be held for an vndoubted truth and much lesse to be sworne for such 40. For wheras the Cardinall obiecteth that it is a new doctrine taught first in the time of King Henry the 8. who first tooke vpon him the title of supreme head of the Church M. Andrews denieth it saying tantum abest c. It is so farre from being so new as the Cardinall saith to wit a thousand fiue hundred yeares after Christ that it was a thousand fiue hundred yeares before Christ was borne Neither was Henry the 8. the Authour of that in our age but Moyses in his who hauing put off or laid away his Priesthood was neuerthelesse aboue Aaron and when he gaue to the King the Law he gaue him withall the chiefe power to keepe Religion which is the first and chiefest part of the Law and to cause it to be kept So he Wherein he giueth two reasons or groundes out of the old Law for the spirituall Supremacy of temporall Princes The one because Moyses laid aside his Priesthood and being therfore but a temporall man was superiour to Aaron And the other because he gaue to Kings the chief power and charge of Religion when he gaue them the copy of the Law 41. In the former point of the two he notably bewrayeth his owne ignorance in saying that Moyses laid aside his Priesthood or ceased to be Priest after he was once Priest as if Moyses his Priesthood had bin like to the Ministry of the Protestants which may be put of and on like a Ierkin or a Cloake when they list whereas his Priesthood was so permanent and inseparably annexed to his person that albeit he might cease from the execution of the function yet he could neuer put off the power of his Priesthood during his life Besides that he was so farre from putting off his Priesthood that he was not only still Priest after Aaron was consecrated but also as S. Augustine teacheth expresly chief Priest either togeather with Aaron or els aboue him Ambo saith he tunc summi Sacerdotes erant both Moyses and Aaron were theÌ„ high Priests or rather was not Moyses high Priest and Aaron vnder him Thus saith S. Augustine wherby you see how weake and seelly is M. Andrews his first reason grounded vpon his own ignorant conceipt that Moyses left off his Priesthood and that neuertheles he was still superiour to Aaron being a meere temporall Prince for if he meant not so his argument for the temporall Princes supremacy is not worth a rush but you haue heard out of S. Augustine that Moyses was not only a Priest after the Consecration of Aaron but also chief Priest I meane aboue Aaron in which respect it may be thought that God commaunded Moyses not Aaron to cloath Eleazar Aaron Sonneâ— with Aarons vestments in the preâ—â—nce of Aaron himself to succeed him in the office of high Priest 42. In his second reason concerning the chiefe power and charge of Religion giuen to Kings by Moyses togeather with the copy of the Law he sheweth most euident and notorious malice in the manifest abuse corruption of Scripture no such thing but rather the cleane contrary being to be gathered out of that place of Deuteronomy where Moyses ordayned that the copy of the Law should be giuen by the Priestes to the future Kings I say future for that there was no King ouer Gods people in the time of Moyses nor of 400. years after as I haue signified in