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
depressing and punishing the pryde of the Bishops of Constantinople who had so oft maliciously impugned the same which may serue for a Caueat to other rebellious Children of the Church For although Almighty God is patiens redditor a slow paymaster yet he payeth home in the end and as Valerius saith tarditatem supplicij grauitate compensat he recompenseth the slownes of his punishment with the weyght or grieuousnes thereof This I haue thought good to touch here by the way vpon so good an occasion will now conclude concerning M. Andrewes his Canon alledged out of the Councell of Calcedon 24. Therfore I say that it being euident by all this discourse that the sayd Canon was neuer able to equal the Church of Constantinople with the Roman Sea to which end M. Andrews saith it was enacted he must needs coufesse that eyther there was no such Canon at all to the purpose that he mentioneth or els that the small force and authority therof may serue for an euident argument of the supreme power and authority of Pope Leo and his successors seeing that theyr only resistance and contradiction sufficed to ouerthrow it notwithstanding the great authority of the Councell of Calcedon which ordayned it Whereby it also appeareth how vainely and vntruely he saith that Pope Leo contradicted it in vayne yea and which is more absurd that he made suite and intercession in vayne Frustra saith he Romano ipso Pontifice apud Augustum Augustam Anatolium per litteras suas intercedente The Bishop of Rome himselfe making intercession or sueing in vayne by his letters to the Emperour the Empresse and Anatolius So that you see he maketh Pope Leo's case very desperate and his authority very feeble seeing that he was fayne to make such intercession and suite not only to the Emperour and Empresse but also to Anatolius himselfe 25. Therefore albeit I am not ignorant that intercedere hath dyuers senses and amongst the rest signifieth to withstand prohibite or hinder a thing proposed or intended and that some perhaps may say that M. Andrews vseth it heere in that sense yet because it signifieth also to make intercession and suite and is so vsed commonly in Ecclesiasticall Authors and will be so vnderstood in this place by euery common Reader yea and for that M. Andrewes himselfe so taketh and vseth it diuers tymes and would be loath no doubt to haue men thinke that Pope Leo did or durst oppose himselfe to the Emperour Empresse but rather that in this case he behaued himselfe towards them and Anatolius as an humble suppliant and yet all in vayne therefore I say I cannot let this poynt passe vnexamined to the end thou mayst see good Reader as well M. Andrewes his vanity as also what kind of suit intercession Pope Leo made vnto these whome he nameth what effect successe it had with them But first I think it not amisse to declare here how this Canon was made in that Councell and why it was contradicted by the Legats of Pope Leo afterwards disanulled by Leo himself 26. Therefore it is to be vnderstood that Anatolius then Bishop of Constantinople ambitiously thirsting after his owne promotion namely to be preferred before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch and considering that Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria was deposed by the Councell for heresy and the Bishop of Antioch much disgraced for hauing adhered to Dioscorus thought that a good opportunity was offered him to accomplish his desyre and therevpon practised with the Bishops in the Councell for the furtherance of his pretence and hauing gayned so many of them that it seemed to him their very number and authority might extort the consent of the rest yea of the Popes Legats themselues procured that when the last session of the Councell was ended and as well the Iudges or Senate as the Legats were departed all the Bishops of his faction eyther remayned behynd or els after their departure returned againe to the place of the assembly and there made the Canon whereof we now treate Whereupon the Legats hauing notice of it caused the whole Councell to be assembled againe the next day and finding Anatolius and his faction who were the far greater part of the Councell resolute in their determination protested their owne opposition contradiction to the Canon as well in respect that it was repugnant to the Councell of Nice as also for that the other Canon which was pretended to be made in the Councell of Constantinople to the same effect was not to be found amongst the Canons of the said Councell sent to Rome neyther had beene euer put in practise by the Bishops of Constantinople 27. Finally they reserued the determination of the matter to Pope Leo himselfe whom they called Apostolicum Virum Vniuersalis Ecclesiae Papam The Apostolicall man and Pope of the Vniuersall Church vt ipse say they aut de suae Sedis iniuria aut de Canonum euersione possit ferre sententiam That he may giue sentence eyther of the iniury done to his Sea by the abuse of his Legats or of the breach of the Canons Thus sayd the Legats signifying that it was in his hands and power to ratify or abrogate as well this Canon as all the other Canons of that Coūcell which also the whole Councell acknowledged sufficiently in a common letter written to him wherein they craued of him the ratification of this Canon most humbly and instantly as it will appeare heereafter which neuertheles he flatly denyed confirming only the condemnation and deposition of Dioscorus and the rest of their decrees cōcerning matters of faith for the which only he sayd the Councell was assembled and in fine he disanulled the Canon for diuers causes specifyed in his Epistles First because it had no other ground but the ambitious humour of Anatolius who inordinatly sought thereby to haue the precedence before the Patriarks of Alexandria and Antioch Secondly because it was not procured or made Canonically but by practise and surreption in the absence of his Legats◠Thirdly for that the other Canon of the Councell of Constantinople vpon the which this seemed to be grounded was of no validity hauing neuer been sent to the Sea Apostolike nor put in practise by the predecessors of Anatolius Lastly for that it was flatly repugnant to the Canons of the Councell of Nice 28. For these causes I say Pope Leo abrogated this Canon which neuertheles it is like he would haue admitted and confirmed if it had proceeded from any good ground and tended to any vtility of the Church and had beene withall orderly proposed and Canonically made for albeit the Councell of Nice had already ordayned the 〈◊〉 and iurisdiction of the Patriarchal Churches of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem with the consent of Pope Siluester who was the head of that Councell without whose ratification nothing could be of force that
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
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
in S. Peter was his Primacy and Soueraignty in Gods Church and the renouation thereof was a confirmation or rather an increase of it as of a thing which he had neuer lost and being then renewed was made more eminent then before But perhaps some will say that M. Andrews doth not here plainly affirme as his owne opinion that S. Peter fell from the Apostleship but relateth the doctrine of S. Augustine and S. Cyril who seemed to him so to say Therfore let vs heare what he saith himselfe in another place concerning the same 28. Pasce oues saith he expressè faternur vni dictum c. we confesse expresly that pasce oues was said to one yea thryce said to one because he had thrice denied atque ea voce muneri restitutum c and that he to wit Peter was by that word or speach restored to his charge and not constituted or appoynted in a charge aboue others So he shewing euidently that his opinion is that S. Peter lost his office and authority by his fall and that he was restored thereto by those words of our Sauiour which as I haue said sauoureth greatly of that damnable and pernicious heresy whereof I haue spoken before except he can tell vs which he shall neuer be able to do how and why S. Peter rather then all other men lost his place and office by his fall which though it was most grieuous yet proceeded not of any infidelity heresy or malice but as S. Cyril well noteth and no man I thinke doubteth of it contigit humana infirmitate hapned by humane frailty so that if he lost his dignity thereby the like must needs be thought of others in like fraylties and much more in cases of more greiuous and malicious sinnes which would be an euident confirmation of Wickliffs Heresy 29. But howsoeuer M. Andrews shall be able to purge himselfe of this suspition it cannot be denied but that he hath most impudently abused and belyed both S. Augustine and S. Cyril in making them affirme that S. Peter fell from his Apostleship by his denyall of Christ whereof the contrary is clearely gathered out of S. Cyrils owne words and expressely taught by S. Augustine as you haue heard before which may also be confirmed by the testimony of the other S. Cyril Bishop of Hierusalem and of Optatus Mileâ—itanus who do both of them not only teach in expresse words that S. Peter did not loose his Apostleship by his fall but do withall acknowledg his preeminent authority ouer the rest of the Apostles S. Cyril saith thus Petrus princeps Apostolorum excellentissimus c. Peter the most excellent prince of the Apostles did not only receiue pardon of his denyall of Christ verùm etiam dignitatem Apostolicam non ablatam retinuit but also retayned his Apostolicall dignity not taken from him So he And Optatus hauing signified that B. Petrus praeferri omnibus Apostolis meruit Blessed Peter deserued to be preferred before all the Apostles yea and that solus accepit claues ceteris communicandas he only receaued the keyes to be coÌ„municated to the rest which was done bono vnitatis saith he for the good of vnity in which respect he also calleth him a litle after caput Apostolorum the head of the Apostles he concludeth after a while that albeit Peter did alone deny Christ yet bono vnitatis de numero Apostolorum separari non meruit for the good of vnity he did not deserue to be separated from the number of the Apostles Thus saith Optatus to shew the benefite necessity of Vnity in Gods Church And this I hope may suffice for this point 30. Now then to draw to the Conclusion of the premisses it appeareth plainly therby that our Catholike doctrine and arguments grounded vpon the wordes of our Sauiour to S. Peter Pasce oues meas do remayne good and sound notwithstanding M. Andrewes false glosse therupon yea and that they are much confirmed by these very places of S. Augustine S. Ambrose S Cyril which he hath produced against vs. For wheras all his drift is to proue out of those Fathers that S. Peter had nothing more by that Pastorall commission then the rest of the Apostles you haue heard out of S. Augustine that in receiuing that coÌ„mission he represented the person and figure of the whole Church by reason of his Primacy amongst the Apostles and out of S. Ambrose that he was therby preferred before all the Apostles and lastly out of S. Cyril that he was Prince and Head of the Apostles and that the same dignity for he speaketh of that which he acknowledgeth to haue bene in him before his fall was renewed by that commission Wherto may be added the testimony of S. Chrysostome who in his booke de Sacerdotio treating of those words Pasce oues meas saith that our Sauiour would haue S. Peter to be auctoritate praeditum ac reliquis item Apostolis longè praecellere indued with authority and also far to excell the rest of the Apostles 31. And again in his Homilyes vpon S. Iohns Ghospell and the same words of our Sauiour he saith that Christ asked S. Peter whether he loued him because he to wit Peter was the mouth of the Apostles and Prince Head of the Congregation and further teacheth that by those words Christ committed vnto him curam Fratrum the charge of his Brethren for so he explicateth Pasce oues meas Neque negationis meminit saith he neque exprobrat tantùm dicit si amas me fratrum curam susciptas that is to say neyther doth Christ remember Peters denyall neyther doth he vpbrayd him with it but only saith if thou louest me take the charge of thy Brethren So he and that by S. Peters Brethren our Sauiour meant the Apostles it appeareth euidently afterwards in the same Homily where S. Chrysostome note 〈◊〉 that albeit at Christs last Supper S. Peter did not presume to aske our Sauiour a question but willed S. Iohn to do it yet now after this commission was giuen him commissa sibi fratrum cura saith he vicem suam altâ—ri non mandat sed ipse Magistrum interrogat the charge of his brethren being committed vnto him he doth not now delegate any other but himselfe asketh their Maister Thus saith S. Chrysostome giuing plainly to vnderstand that S. Peter hauing by this commission receaued the charge of his brethren the Apostles was more confident then before and would not vse the interuention of any of them because they were vnder his charge but himselfe asked our Sauiour as the mouth Prince and Head of the Apostolicall Congregation for so you haue also heard S. Chrysostome tearme him before in the same Homily 32. So that you see this holy Father teacheth the same that the others before mentioned do to wit that S. Peter had by this commission a preheminence and prerogatiue aboue all the Apostles yea and that the
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
to affirme that the Popes Supremacy is manifestly gathered out of that Councel addeth further that the Cardinals authority is not yet so great in the world as to make men belieue that the Popes Primacy is established by that which they know doth specially ouerthrow it So saith M. Andrewes therefore this poynt seemeth to me right worthy to be discussed 2. Thus then he saith Legat actione vna totaventilatum c. Let a man read the matter debated in one whole action of the Councel and renewed and confirmed in another finally decreed by a Canon that the priuiledges of the Bishop of Constantinople shal be ne maiora sed aequalia per omnia not greater but equal in all things with the priuiledges of the Bishop of Rome the Roman Legats crying in vayne against it and the Bishop of Rome himself sâ—ying also afterwards by his letters in vayne to the Emperour Empresse and Anatolius Thus saith M. Andrewes wherein two things specially are to be noted for the present for afterwards I will ad a thyrd one is that the Councel granted by that Canon to the Bishop of Constantinople equal priuiledges per omnia in all respects with the Bishop of Rome The other that Pope Leo and his Legats resisted and contradicted it in vayne 3. For the first whereas he saith that the Councell of Calcedon did by that Canon giue to the Bishop of Constantinople ne maiora sed aequalia per omnia priuilegia not greater priuiledges but equal in all things with the Bishop of Rome as though the Councell had exempted the Church and Bishop of Constantinople from subiection to the Roman Sea for par in parem non habet potestatem an equal hath no authority or power ouer his equal truly I must needs say that if M. Andrews had any care what he saith or sparke of shame he would not haue affirmed this so resolutly as he hath done seeing that the very words and text of the Canon it selfe do euince the contrary In which respect he thought good to giue vs only some patches pieces thereof with his corrupt sense and vnderstanding of it and not to lay downe the Canon it selfe whereof the drift and whole scope is no other but to giue to the Bishop of Constantinople the second place after Rome before the Bishops of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem which Churches in former tymes had alwayes had the precedence before the Church of Constantinople 4. The words of the Canon are these Sanctorum Patrum decreta vbique sequentes c. Following euery where the decrees of the holy Fathers and acknowledging the Canon of an hundreth and 50. Bishops which was lately read we do also decree and determine the same concerning the priuiledges of the Church of Constantinople which is new Rome For the Fathers did worthily giue priuiledges to the Throne of old Rome because that Citty did raygne or had the Empyre and the 150. Bishops most beloued of God being moued with the same consideration gaue equall priuiledges to the most holy Throne of new Rome iudging rightly that the Citty which is honored as well with the Empyre as with the Senate and doth enioy equal priuiledges with the most ancient Queene Rome should be also extolled and magnifyed as she is euen in Ecclesiasticall things secundam post illam existentem being the second after her c. 5. Thus saith the Canon adding also certayne priuiledges which were in particuler granted to the Church of Constantinople whereof I shall haue occasion to speake after a whyle when I shall first haue explicated this that I haue layed downe already which as you hane seene hath no other sense or meaning then to renew or confirme a former Canon pretended to be made by 150. Bishops in the Councel of Constantinople some 60. yeares before which Canon was a confirmation of the Decrees of the Councel of Nice not only concerning matters of faith but also touching the limites and iurisdiction of certaine Metropolitan Churches yet with this exception in fauour of the Church of Constantinople that it should haue Primatus honorâ—m post Romanum Episcopum propterea quòd sit noua Roma the honour of Primacy after the Bishop of Rome because it is new Rome 6. This then being the effect of that Canon of the councel of Constantinople it is cleare that this other of the Councell of Calcedon which renewed and confirmed it was also to the same purpose to wit to giue to the Church of Constantinople the second place after the Roman that is to say the preheminence before the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch which according to the Canons of the Councel of Nice had the second and third place after the Church of Rome and this I say is euident in the Canon it selfe alledged by M. Andrewes where it is sayd expresly of the Church of Constantinople that it should be magnified and extolled as old Rome was secundam post illam existentem being the se-second after her which clause was yet more clearely expressed in the same Canon as it was related in the Councell the day after it was made in these words Et in Ecclesiasticis sicut illa maiestatem habere negotijs secundam post illam existere that is to say we iudged it conuenient that the Citty of Constantinople should haue a Maiesty in Ecclesiasticall affayres as Rome hath and be the second after her besides that the relation which the whole Councell of Calcedon made to Pope Leo of the substance and effect of this Canon may put the matter out of all doubt declaring it thus Confirmauimus autem centum quinquaginta sanctorum PatruÌ„ regulam c. We haue also confirmed the rule or CanoÌ„ of the 150. holy Fathers which were assembled in Constantinople vnder Theodosius the elder of pious memory whereby it was ordayned that after that most holy and Apostolicall Seat the Church of Constantinople should haue the honour which is ordayned to be the secoÌ„d c. Thus wrot the whole Councell of Calcedon to Pope Leo. 7. Now then can any thing be more cleare then that the drift and meaning of that Canon is no other then to giue the second place to the Church of Constantinople after the Sea Apostolike Why then doth M. Andrewes affirme so confidently that this CanoÌ„ made theÌ„ equall in all things For although it giueth to the Bishop of ConstaÌ„tinople equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome yet it neither saith nor meaneth that their priuiledges should be equall in all things or in all respects as M. Andrews corruptly frauduleÌ„tly affirmeth in a differeÌ„t Letter as though he laid down the very words of the CanoÌ„ Besides that the equality meÌ„tioned in the Canon is sufficiently explicated by the Canon it self which hauing signified that the Fathers in that Councell thought good to grant the second place vnto the Church of Constantinople and to giue it equall priuiledges
Pope for that he would not by any meanes suffer the rules of the Canons to be violated in that point Secondly that Anatolius the Bishop of Constantinople in whose fauour that Canon was made being most seuerely reprehended by Pope Leo for his ambitious attempt excused himself laying the fault vpon the Clergy of Constantinople and affirming in Apostolici Praesulis totum positum potestate that all the matter was in the power of the Apostolicall Prelate that is to say of Pope Leo. Thirdly that the Emperour Leo who succeeded Martian before Pope Leo dyed attempting within a few yeares after to obtayne the same priuiledges for the Church of CoÌ„staÌ„tinople in the tyme of Pope Simplicius was flatly denyed them and that it was declared vnto him by Probus Bishop of Canusium the Popes Legat nullatenus posse tentari that it might by no meanes be attempted 13. Finally Gelasius also signifyeth that Acatius Bishop of Constantinople who raysed the Schisme wherof he writeth and was therefore excommunicated by Pope Felix was himself so subiect obedient to the Roman Sea before he fell into that schisme that he procured the Pope to censure and depriue the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch yea and was himself executor of the Popes sentence against them and that therefore falling also himself afterwards into the fellowship of the condemned Bishops vpon whome he had executed the Popes sentence of condemnatioÌ„ he deserued no lesse to be condemned then they All this witnesseth Gelasius whereby it appeareth euidently that from the tyme of the Councel of Calcedon to his raigne which was about 40. yeares the Canon whereupon M. Andrewes relyeth was not held to be of any waight for the exemption of the Church of Constantinople from the subiection of the Church to the Roman Sea For if the Canon had then had any such force neyther would the Emperour Martian haue hyghly commended Pope Leo for resisting it nor Anatolius in whose fauour it was made would haue excused himself for procuring it and acknowledged the matter to depend wholy vpon Pope Leo's determination neyther should Leo the Emperour haue needed to haue renewed that suit to Pope Simplicius neyther yet would Acatius haue yielded as he did for a tyme to obay the Pope and to execute his sentence vpon other Grecian Bishops 14. Furthermore albeit this schisme raysed by Acatius continued in the Church of Constantinople some yeares after his death during the raigne of two Hereticall Emperours to wit Zeno and Anastasius which was about 40. yeares yet diuers Grecian and Orientall Bishops which were partakers of the sayd schisme made earnest and humble suit in the meane tyme to Pope Symmachus in a generall and coÌ„mon letter with the tytle or superscription of Ecclesia Orientalis c. to be restored to the vnion of the Roman Sea acknowledging Symmachus not only to be the true Successor of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles but also to feede Christs sheep committed to his charge per totum habitabilem mundum throughout the whole habitable world And as soone as the wicked Emperour Anastasius was dead who was stroken by Gods iust iudgement with a thunderbolt and the worthy and Catholike Emperour Iustinus chosen in his place as well Iustinus himself as also a Synod of Bishops assembled in Constantinople togeather with Iohn Bishop of that Sea demanded of Pope Hormisdas who succeeded Symmachus to be reconciled to the Sea Apostolik and afterwards the sayd Bishop of Constantinople sent a profession of his faith to Hormisdas acknowledging that the Catholike Religion is alwayes kept inuiolable and sincere in the Apostolicall and Roman Sea by reason of Christs promise to S. Peter when he said Tu es Petrus super hanc petram c. 15. Moreouer he further protested that he would during his life admit and follow all the doctrine and decrees of that Sea and remayne in the communion thereof In qua saith he est integra Christianae Religionis perfecta soliditas wherein there is sincereâ— and perfect solidity of the Christian Religion Finally hauing promised to raze the name and memory of Acatius who had byn cause of the former schisme out of the holy Tables that is to say out of the number and Catalogue of the Bishops of Constantinople which was wont to be read in the tyme of the diuine Mysteries he concluded that if he should at any tyme vary from this his profession he vnderstood himselfe to be comprehended in the number of those whome he had anathematizâ—d and condemned This I haue layd downe the more largely to the end we may consider heere whether this Bishop of Constantinople and the other Grecian and Orientall Bishops that is to say all the Greeke Church togeather with the most Catholike Emperour Iustinus all which so earnestly sought to be reconcylâ—d to the vnion and obedience of Pope Hormisdas whether they I say had not more regard to the Primacy of the Apostolicall Roman Sea grounded as themselues confessed vpon the expresse words and commission of our Sauiour to S. Peter then to the pretended and supposed equality of priuiledges which M. Andrews saith were granted to the Church of Constantinople by that Canon of the Councell of Calcedon 16. The like may be sayd and clearely verifyed in the ensuing ages for otherwise why would Iustinian the Emperour who as it is euident in the histories in his owne decrees fauoured exceedingly the Bishops and Church of Constantinople suffer Pope Agapetus to depose Anthymus Bishop of that Sea as I haue signified before Why did not either he or the hereticall Empresse Theodora his wyfe or at least Anthymus himselfe stand vpon the equality granted by the Councell of Calcedon Or how can it be imagined that Theodora would afterward labour by all meanes possible as she did perfas nefas to induce the two Popes Siluerius and Vigilius to the restitution of Anthymus if she had thought that they had no iurisdiction ouer him by reason of that Canon Moreouer Mennas Bishop of Constantinople being excommunicated together with Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia by Pope Vigilius pretended not this Canon or the equality supposed by M. Andrewes but submitted himself as also Theodorus did to the authority of the Roman Sea crauing absolution and restitution to the communion thereof 17. Also Eutychias who succeeded Mennas claimed so litle priuiledge for himself or his Sea by this Canon that when the fifth Generall Councell was to be assembled and held there he wrote to Vigilius the Pope requesting him that there might be an Assemblyâ— and conference had praesidente nobil saith he vestra Beâ—atitudine your Beatitude being our president And although some yeares afterwards Iohn Bishop of Constantinople made a new schismeâ— and opposed himself to the Roman Sea taking vpon him the title of Vniuersall Bishop which schisme lasted only during his lyfe yet it is euident by the Epistle of Pope Pelagiâ—s written to him and to
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
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
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
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
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
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
like had byn also vsed in former occasions the people of Fussula were so exasperated therewith that they were like to fall to tumult and conceiued no small indignation against S. Augustine himselfe complayning of him to the Pope because he had made Antony their Bishop wherewith he was so afflicted that he wrote a most pittifull letter to Celestinus successor to Bonifacius lameÌ„ting greatly his owne mishap in that he had made such an vnworthy Bishop and recommended the decision of the case to his wife and charitable consideration saying thus amongst diuers other things Collabora nobiscum pietate venerabilis Domine beatissime debita charitate suscipiende sancte Papa c. Most blessed Lord venerable for thy piety and holy Pope to be receaued with due charity labour togeather with vs and commaund that all those things which are sent be read or related vnto thee So he 41. And whereas Antony being depriued of the Bishoprick and remayning still with the tytle had greatly vrged that seeing he had still the tytle of Bishop of Fussula he ought also to haue the Bishoprick S. Augustine made instance on the other side that the sentence giuen against Antony might stand for that it was conforme euen to former sentences giuen in like cases by the Sea Apostolike and therefore he saith Existat exemplo ipsa Sede Apostolica iudicante vel aliorum iudicata firmante c. Let it serue for an example the Sea Apostolike either iudging so it selfe or els confirming the iudgments or sentences of others So he and then addeth diuers examples of Bishops who being depriued of their Bishoprikes retayned still their tytle and sayth moreouer thus Ego Fussulenses Catholicos filios in Christo meos c. I doe recommend to the benignity of the charity of your Holynes as well the Catholike people of Fussula my children in Christ as Antony the Bishop my sonne also in Christ for that I loue them both c. Let both of them deserue your mercy they that they may suffer no ill he that he may do no ill they lest they may hate the very name of Catholike if they receiue no help from Catholike Bishops especially from the Sea Apostolike against a Catholike Bishop and he lest he may commit so great a wickednes as to alienate those from Christ whome he seeketh to make his owne against their wills c. Finally S. Augustine concludeth thus Si autem membra Christi quae in illa regione sunt c. If you do relieue the members of Christ which are in that quarter he meaneth Fussula from the deadly feare and sorrow wherein they liue and do comfort my old age with this mercifull iustice he will reward you as well in this present life as in the future who doth by you succour vs in this our trouble and hath placed you in that seat 42. Thus wrote S. Augustine to Celestinus the Pope and much more to the same purpose intreating most earnestly for the people of Fussula especially that there mâ—ght be no violence vsed to restore Antony and therefore hauing signified what was reported and feared in that behalfe he said non sinas ista fieri per Christi sanguinem c. suffer not these things to be donne for the bloud of Christ and for the memory of Peter who admonished the gouernours of Christian people not to exercise a violent dominion amongst their brethren So he giuing a necessary aduise to Pope Celestinus though with all humility as you see to preuent the inconueniences that were feared and had hapned before by the indiscreet and violent proceeding of some of the Popes Legats in like cases And so far was he from any meaning to oppose himselfe to the Popes authority or to the restitution of Antony in case the Pope should haue ordayned it that he resolued for his part as he signified that if he could not obtayne his sute of Celestinus he would renounce his Bishoprick and retyre himselfe to a priuate life to do penance for hauing bene partly the cause of so great a scandall in making Antony Bishop 43. By all which it appeareth how far S. Augustine and other Bishops of Africk were from denying the Popes authority to admit Appeales seeing that the primate of Numidia himselfe assisted Antony in his Appeale to Pope Bonifacius and S. Augustine wrote also to Celestinus concerning the same with such submission as you haue heard not threatning to excommunicate Antony for his Appeale to Rome as M. Andrewes would haue vs to suppose saying si appellet ab Augustino excommunicandus if any man appeale he is to be excommunicated by Augustine but most humbly crauing mercifull iustice and moderation in the decision of the cause So as we must needs say that eyther S. Augustine contradicteth himselfe and his owne actions which is not credible or els that M. Andrewes hath belyed him in this poynt as indeed he hath and therefore he had reason not so much as to quote in his margent any place of S. Augustine for the proofe or confirmation of his assertion 44. Neuertheles for as much as he mentioneth an excommunication threatned by S. Augustine to all such as should appeale from Africk to Rome he seemeth to ayme at a Canon of a CouÌ„cell held at Mileuis where S. Augustin was present in which Synod it was indeed ordayned vnder payne of excommunication that no Priests or Deacons or other Clergy men of the inferiour sort should appeale from their owne Bishops and Memetropolitans in Africk to Bishops beyond the seas And to the end M. Andrewes his cosenage may the better appeare I will set downe the Canon it selfe which is this Placuit vt Presbyteri Diaconi vel inferiores Clerici c. we haue ordayned that Priests deacons and other inferiour Clergymen if in the causes which they shall haue they complaine of the iudgments of their Bishops they may be heard by the Bishops their neyghbours c. And if they shall thinke it necessary to appeale from them that they appeale not to any but to the Councells of Africk or to the Primats of their owne Prouinces Ad transmarina autem qui putauerit appellandum c. and he that shall thinke it conuenient to appeale to the parts beyond the seas shall not be admitted to the communion of any within Africke Thus saith that Canon And who seeth not that those words qui putauerit appellandum c. he which thinketh conuenient to appeale are to be referred only to those of whome the Canon expressely speaketh immediatly before to wit Priests and Deacons and other inferiour Clergymen and therefore do not any way concerne Bishops and much lesse exclude all Appeales as M. Andrewes doth with his transmarinus nemo 45. To which purpose it is to be considered that this Canon is conforme to another made many yeares before in the great generall Councell of Sardica approued by Pope Iulius the first
in which Councell also the Appeales of Bishops to Rome were expressely confirmed besides that the very Councell of Milâ—uis in which this Canon was made was receaued and confirmed by Pope Innocentius the first as it shall appeare further after a whyle So that this Canon which concerneth only the appeales of inferiour Clergy men and not of Bishops and was admitted by the Popes themselues did not any way preiudice the right of Appeales to Rome or the authority of the sea Apostolicke and this also may be clearely proued out of S. Augustine himselfe who writing to the Donatists and reprehending them for their temerarious presumption in excommunicating and condeÌ„ning Caecilianus the Catholike Bishop of Carthage aduertised them with all of their folly in that they considered not how vayne their attempt was therin and how litle cause Caecilianê° had to care for their senteÌ„ce seing it was free for him to reserue his cause to the iudgement of other Bishops beyond the seas and especially of the Apostolyke Church meaning there by especially the Apostolyke Sea of Rome which he alwayes called the Apostolyke seat or Apostolike Chayre per antonomasiam as it may be noted in diuers places of his workes whereof I haue alledged some already and shall haue occasion to alledge others hereafter insomuch that when he speaketh of the Apostolicke Church or Apostolicke seat or Apostolike chaire without naming any in particuler he speaketh vndoubtedly of the Roman Church 46. And therefore he saith in the same Epistle to the Donatists that Caecilianus might well contemne the multitude of his enemyes seeing that he held communion as well with the Roman Church in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit principatus wherein the principality or soueragnity of the Apoctolike chayre hath alwayes florished as with other Catholicke countryes from whence the Ghospell was brought to Africk c. Moreouer in the said Epistle he maketh playne distinction betwixt the Appeales of Bishops and Priests saying neque enim de Presbyteris c. Neyther was the question heere concerning Priests or Deacons or other Clergy men of the inferiour sort but concerning our collegues who may reserue their cause entyre and whole to the iudgement of other their collegues and especially of the Apostolicke Churches So he whereby it appeareth that albeit he signifieth that there was a restraynt of Appeales of Priests and inferiour Clergy men according to the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis yet he graunteth that Bishops had free liberty to appeale out of Africk to the Apostolike Churches and especially to the RomaÌ„ Church wherein as you haue heard him say before Apostolicae Cathedrae semper viguit principatus the soueraignty of the Apostolike chayre hath alwayes florished 47. And to the end it may appeare that neyther the Councell of Mileuis nor yet the petition of the African Synode to Pope Celestinus did hinder the course of appeales to Rome or the decision of them in Africk by the Popes authority I will conclude with some examples very notable for this purpose The first shal be of Lupicinus a Bishop of Mauritania in Africk restored to his seat shortly after S. Augustines tyme by the sentence of Pope Leo who also sent thither a Bishop called Potentius as his Legate and the Bishops of Africk admitted him albeit the African Synod had requested Pope Celestinus to send no more Legats thither 48. Another example may be of a comission sent by Pope Gregory the Great to an Agent or officer of his in Africk called Hilarius to assemble a Prouinciall Synod there for the examinatioÌ„ of a complaynt made to him by two deacons Felicissimus and Vincentius against Agentius their Bishop in which commission order was giuen to Hilarius punctually to execute the sentence of the Synod Also the same Pope hauing heard the complaints of certayne Priests in Africk against Paulinus their Bishop committed the hearing and decision of the cause to Victor the primate of Numidia and Columbus with other Bishops giuing them commission to heare and determyn it amongst themselues except they should thinke the assistance of his officer Hilarius needfull for the better determination of the cause In like manner a complaynt being exhibited to the said Pope by Donadeus a Deacon against Victor his Bishop he deputed the foresaid Columbus and other Bishops to examin the cause and to punish the Bishop if he were found in fault And the like commission he gaue also to a Synod of Bishops held at Bizacium in Africk for the tryall of the cause of Clementius their Primate 49. Now then in these examples two things are to be noted the one that the Popes vsed to decyde appeales and other controuersyes in diueres manners sometymes ordayning and disposing thereof by their Legats or other officers and sometymes giuing no other commission to their said Legats and officers but to assemble some Prouinciall Synode and to see the sentence thereof executed and sometymes againe giuing all power and authority to the Metropolitan Bishops of that country to decyde the causes which last way and manner of tryall was no way repugnant to the request of the African Synod in their letter to Pope Celestinus as I haue signifyed before 50. The other thinge to be noted is that the Popes vsed still iure suo their owne right notwithstanding the forsaid request of the African Synod yea and that the Bishops of Africk approued and acknowledged the same by their obedience knowing full well that the petitions of their predecessors to Celestinus rested wholy in his will and pleasure to be granted or denied as he should see cause whereof â—here fell out shortly after an euident example and proofe in the Councell of Calcedon for albeit the Fathers of that famous generall Councell not only made earnest sute to Pope Leo by a common letter to obteyne the second place after Rome for Constantinople but also ordayned and decreed it by a speciall Canon neuertheles Pope Leo denyed their sute disanulled their decree and forced the Authors thereof to acknowledge their errour as I haue amply proued in the second Chapter and therefore much more might Pope Celestinus deny the request of a Prouinciall Synode and might also haue disanulled their decrees if they had made any preiudiciall to the Roman Sea as they did not 51. And now to conclude vpon these premisses 3. things do euidently follow thereon The first that the Appeales of Bishops from Africk to Rome were neuer prohibited or so much as interrupted by any decrees or Canons and much lesse by the letters of the African Synode to Pope Celestinus The second that the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis which M. Andrewes seemeth to alledge as forbidding appeales to Rome vnder payne of excommunication did only concerne Priests and Deacons and other Clergy men of the inferiour sort and therefore did not prohibite the Appeales of Bishops and much lesse of all men
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
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
nothing is to be belieued or practiced in the Church whereof there is no cōmandment or example in Scripture which you haue heard already confuted as well by the authority of Scripture and Fathers as also by our aduersaryes owne doctrine approuing the practice of things not cōmanded any where in Scripture as the baptisme of infants the vse of the signe of the Crosse Godfathers and Godmothers in baptisme whereto I may add the tradition of keeping Sunday holy day in memory of the Resurrection of our Sauiour with abstinence from seruile works Also the obseruation of Easter Pentecost and such feasts and diuers other things consisting in matters of practice 56. If then they approue and practice these things although they be not commanded or ordeyned in Scripture what reason haue they to reiect prayer to Saynts because there is no commandement or example of it in Scripture when neuertheles it is most conforme thereto and deduced from it as I haue partly shewed already by an inafallible rule of S. Augustine seeing it is approued by that Church which the Scripture commandeth vs to heare belieue and obay besydes that it being euident in Scripture that Charity which moueth and obligeth men to pray one for another in this lyfe nunquam excidit as the Apostle teacheth neuer decayeth but is more perfect in the next lyfe it followeth not only that the Saynts do pray for vs which M. Andrews granteth but also that we may craue their prayers for it were most absurd to thinke that we may not request them to do that which is most correspondent to their Charity and they will most willingly performe 57. Furthermore seeing that the Scripture doth teach vs to craue the prayers and help of our brethren liuing there can be no reason imagined why we should not also do the same when they are glorifyed in heauen but eyther because they do not heare or vnderstand our prayers or because they are not willing or not able to helpe vs but that they heare vs I haue sufficiently proued already and haue also answered M. Andrews his cauils concerning the same and he neyther denyeth nor seemeth to doubt eyther that they are willing to succour vs considering the perfection of their Charity or yet that they are able to do it seeing he granteth they do pray for vs if he should deny it or that their prayers may auayle vs as Vigilantius his followers did in tymes past and Zuinglius with other sectaries haue done in these our dayes he might easily be conuinced by the holy Scriptures which witnesse that God granteth the petitions of his seruants euen when they are heere subiect to sinne and misery and hath mercy on sinners for the merits of the iust as well dead as liuing and therefore the Prophet prayed ne auferas misericordiam tuam c. do not take away thy mercy from vs O Lord for thy beloued Abraham and thy seruant Isaac and thy holy Israell And we read in the booke of Kings that for Dauids sake God did mitigate his wrath towards Salomon and saued also the Kingdome of Iuda from destruction in the reygne of Ioram and Ezechias 58. In lyke manner God pardoned Iobs friends for his sake and directed them vnto him to craue his prayers for them Also for the prayers of Moyses he had mercy on the people and the lyke we read in the new testament Whereupon S. Hierome sayd to Vigilantius thus Si Apostoli Martyres c. If the Apostles and Martyrs beeing heere in body could pray for others whiles they ought to be carefull for themselues how much more may they do it after their crounes victoryes and tryumphs one Moyses obtayned of God pardon for six hundred thousand armed men and Steuen the follower of his Lord and first Martyr in Christ craued pardon for his persecutours and shall they now be able to doe lesse when they are with Christ Paul the Apostle sayth that 276. mens liues were giuen him in the ship and therefore now when he is dissolued and with Christ will he hold his peace and shall he not be able so much as to open his mouth for those which haue belieued by his preaching throughout the world and shall Vigilantius a liuing dog be better then a dead lyon Thus argueth S. Hierome by an argument a fortiori grounded on the Scripture to shew the extreame absurdity of Vigilantius the heretike who denyed that the Saynts in heauen do pray for vs and are able to helpe vs. 59. And this ability of Saynts to helpe men is to be ascribed not only to the effect of their prayers but also to their power authority and dignity seeing that Christ who is the King of Kings Lord of Lords hath all power in heauen and earth giuen him by his Father doth in the Apocalips promise to his Saynts a communication and participation of his owne Kingdome dominion and power ouer men qui vicerit sayth he dabo sedere mecum c. he that shall ouercome I will giue vnto him to sit with me in my throne as I also haue ouercome and sitten with my father in his throne dabo ei potestatem super gentes c. I will giue him power ouer nations and he shall rule them c. and according to this promise of our Sauiour the Saynts also sayd to him in the Apocalips Redimisti nos Deo in sanguine tuo c. thou hast redeemed vs to God in thy blood and hast made vs to our God a Kingdome and Priests and we shall reygne vpon the earth and this may be confirmed out of the booke of wisdome which sayth that the iust when they shal be glorified iudicabunt Nationes dominabuntur populis c. shall iudge Nations and shall haue dominion ouer people and in like manner the Psalmist saith speaking of the glory of Gods Saynts exultabunt Sancti in gloria c. the Saynts shall exult and reioyce in glory c. they shall haue two edged swoords in their hands to take reuenge vpon nations and to chastise people to tye their Kings in fetters and their noble men in iron manicles c. Thus saith the royall Prophet 60. And albeit this shal be specially and most manifestly fulfilled at the day of Iudgement when the Saynts of God shall assist our Sauiour in the Iudgment and condemnation of the wicked yet it cannot be denyed but that also in the meane tyme it is verifyed in the power and dominion that God imparteth to his Saynts giuing them the protection of Cittyes Countryes and men as it appeareth euidently by innumerable examples which might be alledged of Kingdomes and Cytties defended Gods seruants relieued and his enemies destroyed by them for which cause the ancient Fathers do worthily call them the keepers of human kind gouernours of
haue amply proued in my supplement so as I conclude that the exception which M. Andrews taketh against the Fathers alledged by the Cardinall for being all of that 4. age is most vayne and friuolous seeing that the consent of the Doctors of any one age is sufficient to determin any matter in controuersy 65. And much more may we content our selues with the vniforme testimony and consent of those of the 4. and 5. age in the tyme of the 4. first generall Councells when the Church most florished and as I haue signified before was best furnished with learned and holy Pastors and Doctors of whome the Cardinall hath cyted no lesse then twelue to wit S. Basil S. Gregory Nyssen S. Ephraem S. Gregory Nazianzen Eusebius S. Chrisostome S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Hierome S. Cyril S. Paulinus and S. Maximus besyds the history of Ruffinus to whome I haue also added Theodoret not inferiour in learning to the rest all which were pillars lights and notable ornaments of the latin and Greeke Church in the 4. and 5. age and all of these being 14. in number alledged by the Cardinall and me 12. haue giuen as you haue heard vniforme and cleare testimony to the doctrine and custome of Prayer to Saynts eyther inuocating Saynts themselues or approuing the publike vse and practise of it in others and albeit the other two to wit S. Ciril and Eusebius do not so expresly speake of the inuocatioÌ„ of Saynts as the other fathers do yet the same is also sufficiently gathered out of their testimonyes as I haue shewed before in the 6. Chapter whereupon I conclude that this doctrine of prayer to Saynts beâ—ing approued practised by so many learned Fathers of the 4. and 5. age it must needs be admitted for an infallible truth 66. Yea but saith M. Andrews there is no vniforme coÌ„seÌ„t of Fathers in this poynt for alij saith he non pauci sunt c. there are not a few others who haue right of suffrage or voyce heerein omitted by the Cardinall So he wherein I doubt not good Reader but thou seest how absurdly he cauilleth and tryfleth for may not the verdict of a whole Iury of Fathers alledged by the Cardinall and not contradicted by any suffice to shew a generall and vniforme consent of the Church in their tyme and will not M. Andrews acknowledge an vniforme consent in the Fathers without a particuler testimony of euery one of them doth he suppose that euery one of them hath written of all poynts of religion and if they haue not whereof there is no doubt shall the sylence of some preiudice the cleare testimony of others so shall we proue litle or nothing at all by the Fathers for there are but very few poynts of religiâ—on whereof euery one of them hath had occasion to write 67. But will M. Andrews his fellowes be content that we exact the lyke of them when they alledge the Fathers as for example the Bishops in their Canon before mentioned concerning the vse of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme doe affirme that they follow therein the iudgement of all the Fathers of the primitiue Church but can they shew trow you that euery Father of the primitiue Church yea or the greatest part of them do particulerly speake of that ceremony sure I am they cannot show it for albeit diuers very ancient and holy Fathers do treat thereof and highly approue it yet many others are vtterly silent concerning the same neuertheles for as much as those that approue it are not contradicted by any of the rest their testimony may well be taken for the vniforme consent of all or truly otherwyse my Lord Bishops will not be able to iustify their assertion and proue that they follow the iudgement of all the Fathers in that poynt Therfore this exception of M. Andrewes is very ridiculous except he can shew that those Fathers whome the Cardinall omitted haue contradicted the testimonyes of the other but this you see he hath not byn able to doe though he hath done his best endeauour thereto with shame ynough to himselfe and his cause 68. S. Augustine writing against Iulian the Pelagian about originall sinne and the baptisme of Infants thought the testimony of 6. Fathers sufficient to conuince him though fyue of them were of the same tyme and age wherein he himselfe liued for whereas the Pelagian falsely pretended that S. Chrysostome made for him S. Augustine answered Absit vt Ioannes Constantinopolitanus c. God forbid that Iohn Bishop of Constantinople should resist so many and worthy Bishops his fellowes especially Innocentius Bishop of Rome Cyprian of Carthage Basil of Cappadocia Gregory of Nazianzen Hilary of France and Ambrose of Milan So he Therefore how much more may we rely vpon the authority of as many more Fathers whereof there were 4. euen of those whome S. Augustine named and he himselfe also one of the number and all of them florished aboue 1100. yeares agoe and haue not byn gaynsayd or impugned by any May we not I say boldly admit their testimonyes for a proofe of the vniforme consent of the Church in their tyme The Scripture teacheth and common practice approueth that 2. or 3. substantiall witnesses may suffice to proue any matter in question and therefore much more may these 12. most learned and holy Fathers suffice to shew what was the practice and beliefe of the Church in their dayes especially seeing that diuers of them speake of publike matters of fact which passed in their owne tyme and knowledge in which respect they cannot be thought to fayne and lye except we shall take them to be voyd both of conscience and common honesty 69. But M. Andrewes addeth further that it appeareth euen in Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe that the Fathers were not all of one mynd concerning prayer to Saynts and for proofe thereof he remitteth his Reader to the Cardinalls controuersyes and particulerly to the tract de beatitudine Sanctorum the first booke and 20. Chapter which truly I haue read diligently and cannot find any thing at all to that purpose except perhaps he meane that the Cardinall signifyeth there the different opinions of the Fathers concerning the manner how Saynts do vnderstand or heare our prayers whereupon it seemeth M. Andrewes inferreth that they differed also in opinion concerning the whole controuersy when neuertheles it appeareth euidently there that they made no doubt whether prayer to Saynts be lawfull neyther yet whether they know our actions but only in what manner they know them and how they heare or vnderstand our prayers touching which poynt and the absurd inference that M Andrewes maketh thereof denying the certaynty of the effect by the vncertainty of the cause or manner of it I haue so amply discoursed before that I shall not need to say any more thereof in this place 70. But that which I wish to be noted
ancient and venerable vse of holy Reliques and the miraculous assistance and helpe that God giueth to his faithfull people thereby and by the praiers and Reliques of his holy Martyrs and Saints So that truly a man may wonder at the impudency and seared Conscience of M. Andrews who seeketh to delude his Reader with such a fraudulent and inexcusable abuse of this holy Father 68. But no wonder that he is so bould with the Fathers seeing that the Sacred authority of the holy Scriptures cānot suffice to free them from his fraud Wherein it seemeth he hath conspired with M. Barlow with whome he concurreth in the corruption and abuse of one and the selfe same place To which purpose I must desire the good Reader to call to mind what I debated with M. Barlow concerning this point in the sixt Chapter of my Supplement where I shewed euidently how he abused the holy Scripture in saying that God in his word appointed Kinges to be guardians of both the tables to command and prohibit in matters of Religion for which he quoted in his margēt the 17. of Deuteronomy and 18. verse where no such thing is to be found but rather the cleane contrary is to be inferred thereon as I amply declared in the foresaid Chapter and now M. Andrews hauing occasion to treat of the antiquitie of the spiritual primacy of temporall Kings draweth it partly from the same place deducing it euen from Moyses who when he deliuered saith he the Copie of the law to the King cum eo sic tradito summam religionis quae prima summaque legis pars est custodiendae custodiri faciendae potestatem tradidit gaue togeather with it the chief power to keepe Religion and cause it to be kept which Religion is the first and chiefe parte of the lawe Thus saith M. Andrews though he quot no place yet he must eyther ground this his assertion vpon the same place of Deuteronomy which M. Barlow alleadgeth or els he shall finde it no where for it was ordeyned only there no where els that the King should haue a Copie of the lawe 69. Wherein neuerthelesse that is to be noted by the way that Moyses did not there or any where els giue a Copie of the lawe to any King for there were no Kinges of the people of Israell for 4. hundred yeares after Moyses but God ordeyned by Moyses in 17. of Deuteronomy that the future King should take a Copie of the law from the Priest of the Tribe of Leui and haue the same with him and read it all the daies of his lyfe But what Will M. Andrews say that the King was made hereby supreame head or gouernor of the Church in Ecclesiasticall causes or to vse his owne manner of speach that the Cheif or supreame power to keepe Religion and cause it to be kept was giuen him hereby Truly the wordes immediatly following do shew another reason why the King should haue the Copy of the law to wit vt discat c. to the end he may learne to feare his Lord God and keepe his word and ceremonies commanded in the law That is to say he should haue it for his owne priuat vse and instruction that he might punctually obserue it all the dayes of his lyfe to which purpose I am sure M. Andrews will allow euery man and woman to haue a Copy of it as well as the King How then was sūma potestas the supreme power wherof he speaketh giuen hereby to the King more then to any other man or woman 70. But if wee cōsider what was expressely ordeyned a litle before in the same Chapter touching the supreme authority of the high Priest and that the future King was presētly after cōmanded to keepe exactly the whole law of God wherof the ordinance touching the obediēce to the high Priest was a principall part yea to take a Copie of the law of the Priests who kept the originall therefor as I argued against M. Barlow were the true Gardiās of the law not the King who had but the Copy if wee weigh withall that he was to learne of them also the sense interpretation of the law because they only not the King had authority to teach interpret it and to resolue all doubts difficulties which should occurre therein as I proued clearly out of the Scriptures in the first Chapter of my Supplement if all this I say be well considered it may be wondred with what face M. Barlow and M. Andrews could inferre any spirituall supremacy of the King vpon this place which doth in truth proue their subiection in matters of Religion to Priests and specially to the high Priest So as it is euident that M. Andrews hath no lesse shamefully abused the holy Scriptures in this point then M. Barlow in so much that it is hard to say whether of them is more shameles especially seeing that they both do also exceed in a prodigious kind of impudency wherin I thought no man could haue matched M. Barlow vntill I had read M. Andrews I meane in facing and bragging out a bad matter when arguments and proofs are to weake whereof I gaue some Instances in M. Barlow and will now do the lyke in M. Andrews 71. Thou maist remember good Reader what poore stuffe he produced to proue that S. Peter had nothing peculiar to himselfe by his pastorall Cōmission and how he triumphed in two or three paragraphes as though he had trodden the Cardinall vnder his feet yea and bragged also afterwardes in another place saying Clariùs id loquuntur Ambrosius Augustinus quà m vt obstrepere possint nostri nouitij Ambrose and Augustine do speake or affirme it more clearly then that our nouices meaning the Catholiks are able any way to contradict it When neuerthelesse to make good his idle cōceipt he was faine to vse great fraud and corruption in the allegation of those two Fathers corrupting the text of S. Ambrose dissembling the circumstances of the place in S. Augustine which clearely proueth the Primacy of S. Peter as I haue amply declared in the first Chapter of this Adioynder so that his braggs and vaunts had no other ground but his owne vanity corruption and falsity 72. The lyke may be noted also in his vayne insultations against the Cardinall about the Councell of Chalcedon For when he himselfe had shamefully abused peruerted and mangled the 28. Canon as I haue clearly shewed in the second Chapter of this Adioinder he admonisheth the Cardinall seriously not to produce his proofes tamquam è vepreculis as it were out of the bryers not out of the superscriptions of letters or of some corner of a period or perhaps some peece of a tytle or fragment of a litle clause but to bring out some Canon for that the Canons are the voyce of the Councells As though forsooth he had beaten downe
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
adoration but with a Religious worship due to holy men or holy things for the honor and loue of God in which point it seemeth M. Andrews agreeth fully with vs confessing that the dead bodyes and reliques of holy Martyrs and Saynts which are truely knowne to be such are to be honoured and kept with reuerence and therefore answering to a place of S. Gregory Nyssen alledged by the Cardinall he alloweth that the body of a Martyr si veri Martyris verum corpus if it be the true body of a true Martyr is to be adorned and decked with honour in Augusto Sacratoque loco poni and to be placed in a Maiesticall and Sacred place yea and he confirmeth it with the authoritie of his Maiesty saying Idem hoc vult Rex honorifico loco solemniter inferri The King also will haue the same to be solemnly carried into an honorable place 14. And afterwards answering to a place of S. Ambrose which the Cardinall obiecteth he saith that wheras Ambrose will haue vs to honor the body of the dead Martyr and the seed of eternity in him Facimus saith he non illibeÌ„ter wee doe it willingly then addeth Quid porrò quaerit sed pallium breue est honâ—s non pertingit ad adorationem What doth he desire more but the cloake is too short honour doth not reach to adoratioÌ„ So he Meaning by adoratioÌ„ diuine honor which we grauÌ„t him for we say also that the honor due to Reliques doth not extend it selfe to a diuine adoration therefore we desire no more of him then that he do a religious honor and worship therto for such is the honour wherof S. Ambrose speaketh because it is due and exhibited to Saynts for the honour and loue of God whose seruants they are quin seruorum honos saith S. Hierome redundat ad Dominum the honor of the seruants redoundeth to their Lord. In which respect the same holy Father signifieth that all the adoration which was done to the Reliques of the Prophet Samuel when they were transported with great solemnity and honour from Palestine to Constantinople was not done so much to Samuel as to Christ whose Leuite Prophet Samuel was as I haue signified more at large in the last Chapter 15. Whereby it appeareth that the honor done to the seruants of Christ for Christs sake only and not for any ciuil and temporall respect must needes be a religious honour such I meane as I haue declared in the last Chapter to haue bin often exhibited in the holy Scripture to Angells and holy men with the terme of adoration and with the exhibition of a Corporall reuerence which may be more or lesse according to the deuotion of the exhibitours thereof so that it be in their mind and intention distinguished from diuine honour due to God alone in which intention consisteth the true difference and distinction of diuine religious and ciuil adoration as I haue also declared before in the last Chapter So as M. Andrews confessing an honor to be due to holy Reliques cannot with reason exclude from the same any Corporall reuerence so that the intention be to doe only a religious and not diuine worship As he must needs also acknowledge the lyke in ciuil adoration and honor done to Princes and great personages 16. For whereas the same is diuersly performed somtymes by putting of the cap sometymes by bowing the body and somtymes by kneeling and other whiles also by prostration vpon the ground which maner of ciuill adoration is often mentioned in the old testament and was vsed in tymes past amongst the Persians to their Kinges there is no doubt but that as all these may lawfully be vsed wheÌ„ the intention is no other but to do a Ciuill honor thereby so also the least of them were vnlawfull yea Idolatry if the intention of the doer were to giue thereby a diuine honor to any man and the lyke I say must needes be graunted concerning the externe honor due to the holy Reliques of Saints which how great it was in the tyme of S. Ambrose S. Hierome and S. Augustine we may vnderstand by the custome then vsuall to kisse them for deuotion sake and to carry them about in procession as we now terme it with great solemnity and reuerence which appeareth not only in S. Hierome who seuerely reprehended Vigilantius for carping at the same as I haue signified in the last Chapter but also by the testimony of S. Augustine who recounteth diuerse Miracles done by reliques while they were so carried by Bishops as namely that Lucillus the Bishop was himselfe cured of a fistula carrying a certaine relique of S. Stephen populo praecedente sequente the people going before him and following him and that a blind woman being brought to the Bishop Proiectus as he carried Sacra pignora so termeth he the holy Reliques of S. Stephen was restored to her sight by applying to her eyes certayne flowers which had touched them 17. Such was the honour that Catholike people bare to holy Reliques in those dayes that they sought either to touch them or to haue some thing that had touched them or bene neere about them whereby diuers great Miracles were done yea dead men reuiued as S. Augustine testifieth in the same place by diuers examples which he relateth and therefore I leaue it to the Iudgment of any reasonable man how great the deuotion and the religious honour was which then was vsuall in the Church and allowed by these Fathers to be done to the reliques of Saints especially seeing that the same was also approued and confirmed from heauen by innumerable Miracles which M. Andrewes himselfe granteth saying Augustino assentimur c. we grant with Augustin that the body of the Protomartyr was conueniently or duely to be honored after that it pleased god to worke certaine Miracles thereat So he wherein besides the graunt of due honour to be done to holy reliques whereof now I speake I wish also to be noted that he graunteth that Miracles were done in Gods Church in S. Augustins tyme which most of the Sectaries of these daies haue hitherto denyed affirming that Miracles ceassed after the tyme of the Apostles which they are forced to say because we exact of them to shew Miracles in their Church as an vndoubted signe of the true Church shewing on our part the continuance thereof in our Church from the Apostles to this day whereof sufficient experience hath bene seene in euery age and euen now lately by innumerable cures of all sorts of diseases at Sichem in Flanders at Minich in Bauiere in diuerse partes of Italy and at this present at Valentia in Spaine at the body of a holy Preist who dyed in April last all so publick and so sufficiently testified to the world that impudencie it selfe cannot deny the truth thereof 18. So that seeing M. Andrewes graunteth that
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
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
the last Chapter where I also charged as wel M. Andrews as M. Barlow with the euident abuse of this place of holy Scripture in diuers respects and therfore I beseech thee good Reader take paines to reuiew what I haue said there if thou dost not well remember it So as I may now conclude vpon these two reasons of M. Andrews that he is both an ignorant and a corrupt Doctor ignorant in affirming that Moyses laid a way his Priesthood and corrupt in notably abusing the holy Scriptures 43. And whereas he very ofâ— recurreth for the profe of this point to the examples of the Kings in the old Testament I haue sufficiently answered therto in my Supplement where I haue proued first that the law of Moyses did expressely and manifestly giue to the high Preist the supreme authoritie not only in matters of religion but also euen in temporall affaires forasmuch as concerned the decision of doubts and difficult questions Secondly that the Kinges were not at their institution exempt from this law but rather commanded to obserue it Thirdly that the particuler examples which he and others are wont to alledg of Iosua Dauid Salomon Ezechtas and Iosias doe make nothing for their purpose that diuers other examples do clearly proue the contrary And lastly that although it were true that Kings were superiour to Preists in the old law yet it doth not follow theron that they are so now also in the new law as well because the law of Moyses at least the iudiciall and ceremoniall part thereof was wholly abrogated by the law of Christ as also because our Sauiour ordained a new and farr more excellent Preisthood manner of gouernment in his Church which beginning in the Apostles and spirituall Pastors was continued also most euidently in them for 300 yeares without interruption to wit during the paganisme of the Emperours and no new coÌ„mission euer since that tyme knowne to be giuen by Christ to Kings whereby they were authorized to take vpon them the gouerment of the Church 44. So that I am to demaund of M. Andrews as I also did of M. Barlow in my Supplement how and by what Commission the supreme authority in Ecclesiasticall affayres was transferred from the Apostles and their Successors to Kings after they were Christened seeing that they can neyther claime any succession therin from the Kinges of the old law which as I haue said was quite abrogated by Christ nor pretend any new authority giuen theÌ„ in the new lawe it being most manifest that all the texts of Scripture which M. Andrewes or other of our aduersaries doe or can alleage for the spirituall Supremacy of temporall Kinges out of the new Testament do ordeyne obedience to the Pagan Princes that the raigned no lesse then to others which therfore cannot be vnderstood to concerne spirituall matters and much lesse to make them heades of the Church except M. Andrewes will be so absurd to say that the most wicked Emperours Tyberius Caius Claudius and Nero were heades or supreme Gouernours of the Church and that they could commaund and ought to be obeyed in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affayres 45. Now then seeing M. Andrewes neither bringeth nor is able to bring any other proofes then these out of the old or new Testament for the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of Kinges I may well conclude that as he hath great reason to hould it for no matter of faith and therfore not to admit it into his Creed as being neither expressely taught in Scripture nor necessarily deduced from it so I may with no lesse reason aduise him also to put it out of his Pater noster if it be gotten so farre into his bookes seeing it is not so much as probably gathered out of Scripture in which respect also I am to put him in mind of a rule giuen by himselfe in another question to witt that nothing is to be admitted and practised in the Church whereof some precept is not to be shewed in holy Scriptures for so doth he tell vs concerning prayer to Saints saying non audemus vota nostra c. We dare not direct our prayers to Saints because we haue no precept thereof hauing a precept in expresse wordes Quod tibi praecepero hoc tantum facies Thou shalt only do this which I shall command thee wherevpon we dare only doe that whereof we haue a precept 46. Thus sayth he and therefore according to this his owne rule I must now exact of him to shew vs some precept whereby the Kinges spirituall Supremacie is coÌ„maunded or ordeyned in Scripture but this he acknowledgeth sufficiently he cannot do seing he teacheth that we are not bouÌ„d to belieue it as an article of faith but to be perswaded only that it is a truth which he neither could nor as I thinke would say if he could shew any precept or commaundement of it in Scripture And this being so how then dare he and his fellowes admit it into their Church seeing he sayth Id tantùm audemus facere â— we dare only doe that whereof we haue a precept And how can he approue that men should be compelled to sweare it as an vndoubted truth when neuertheles it is no matter of faith by his owne confession nor hath any ground in Scripture as I haue shewed and much lesse is ordeyned and commaunded in Scripture and therefore according to his owne rule not to be admitted practised in the Church and consequently not to be ratified by a solemne Oath for an infallible verity as if it were one of the most important Articles of our Creed 47. But yet let vs examine the matter a litle further sound the depth of M. Andrewes his doctrine coÌ„cerning the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy I doubt not but we shall find that he is neither good English Protestant nor yet a good subiect for if it fall out that his doctrine agreeeth not with the moderne Lawes and Statuts of the Realme he is neither of both seing that according to the doctrine of English Protestants none can be accounted to be of their congregation neither yet a good subiect who belieueth not the Kings Supremacy as it is taught and ordeyned by the Statutes of King Henry the 8. King Edward the 6. and â—he late Queene Elizabeth but this M. Andrewes doth not for he doth not allowe the King any spirituall power at all â—eaching expresly that the King himselfe acknowledgeth non se aliter esse supra Ecclesiam quà m vtâ— nutritius â—utor That he is not otherwise ouer the Church but as a foster-father and defender Which he also explicateth adding vt eam scilicet nutriat tuâ—atur that is to say to the end that he may nouâ—â—sh and defend it to which purpose he also sayd before as you haue heard that the Kings Supremacy is no matter or article of faith becaus it concerneth only externall gouermeÌ„t so
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
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
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
exceedingly wonder as well at the penury of learned Deuines in England as at their want of iudgment in venturing the credit of their cause vpoÌ„ so weake a Champion whose valour consisteth in nothing els but in certayne Thrasonicall braggs Satyricall scoffes and a vayne presumption of his latin stile which neuertheles seemeth to learned men more fit for a Comicall or Satyriall Poet theÌ„ for a Doctor of Diuinity wherein also they obserue such obsurdityâ— that they hold it for no lesse vicious in a Deuine writing of matters in controuersy then it would be in an Orator or Aduocat pleading a cause in whome nothing is more requisit then perspicuity and therefore Quintilian greatly reprehendeth such as affecting an extraordinary breuity necessaria subtrahunt verba c. do leaue out saith he necessary words And as if it were sufficient that they know their owne meaning care not whether others vnderstand them or no. So sayth Quintilian 72. And truly the same is so well verifyed in M. Andrewes that he may iustly say with the Poet dum breuis esse laboro obscurus fio whyles I labour to be briefe I become obseure in so much that he is farre more easy to be confuted then vnderstood seeming somtymes rather to propound riddles then to argue or discourse which he doth perhaps of purpose to the end that being obscure and ambiguous he may alwayes haue some starting hole or other when he is pressed by his aduersary not vnlike to a fish called in latin sepia in English a Cuttle which when she is in danger to be taken casteth out a kind of black licour lyke inke wherwith she obscureth and troubleth the water in such sort that she cannot be seene and so the more easily escapeth 73. Neuertheles M. Andrews reapeth not the like benefit by his obscurity being discouered wheresoeuer he lurketh and taken tardy at euery turne whereof sufficient experience hath bene seene in these few points of his booke which I haue had occasion to handle being only such as are incident to matters treated in my Supplement besydes dyuers others of the same sort which I am forced for lack of time to omit wherein I might much more amply haue displayed his insufficiency falsity and folly and therfore I leaue it to thee good Reader to imagin what a number of absurdityes lyes frauds and corruptions his whole worke would affoard if it were well examined 74 But now to end in no lesse charitable manner with him then I did with M. Barlow I will only wish him well to consider those few aduyses which I gaue to M. Barlow in the 8. last paragraphs of my Supplement and to take them also as meant and giuen to himselfe to the end he may seriously reflect vpon them specially vpon his vayne endeauours and lost labour in impugning the Apostolike Roman Sea weyghing withall in what a dangerous and miserable state he standeth so long as he is separated from the vnion therof which I haue there euidently shewed by the testimony of the most ancient and holy Fathers Almighty God of his infinit mercy open his eyes that he may see it and duly ponder our Sauiours most important aduyse golden lesson Quid prodest homini c. What doth it profit a man if he gayne all the world and loose his owne soule FINIS AN APPENDIX TOVCHING A Register alleadged by M. Francis Mason to proue THAT The first Protestant Byshops in the reigne of Queene Elizabeth had a lawfull Consecration THIS Adioynder being printed and some copyes ready to be diuulged it was my chance to vnderstand by a Letter written to a frend of myne that one M. Mason hath lately published a Book wherin he preteÌ„deth to answere the Preface to Fa. Persons his Discussion especially concerning one point treated therin to wit the Consecration of the first Protestant Bishops in the raigne of Queene Elizabeth further that he indeauoureth to proue their consecration by a Register testifying that 4. Bishops consecrated M. Parker the first Archbishop of Canterbury in the said Queenes dayes wherupon if it be true it must needes follow that all other Bishops consecrated after him and his successors euen vntill this day haue some more shew of lawfull consecration and succession then the Catholickes haue hitherto known or imagined 2. And therfore for as much as not only the Authour of the Preface to Fa. Persons his Discussion but also my selfe in my Supplement and in this Adioynder haue constantly denyed that they had any such consecration I thought good to stay the publication of this Adioynder vntill I had added therto this briefe Appendix concerning M. Masons pretended Register left otherwise M. Barlow and M. Andrewes may hold me to be sufficiently answered by M. Mason and remit me to his Register for that point Thou shalt therfore vnderstand Good Reader that this our exception touching the lawfull vocation and Consecration of the first Protestant Bishops in the late Queenes dayes is not a new quarrell now lately raised by vs two only I meane the Authour of the foresaid Preface and my self but vehemently vrged dyuers tymes heretofore by many other Catholykes many yeares ago yea in the very beginning of the late Queenes reygne as namely to omit others by the two learned Doctors Harding and Stapleton in theyr bookes against the Apology of the Châ—rch of England M. Iewell and M. Horne whome they pressed mightily with the defect of due vocation and consecration vrging them to proue the same and to shew how and by whome they were made Priests and Bishops 3. To which purpose M. D. Harding in his confutation of the Apology speaking to M. Iewell the pretended Bishop of Salisbury and hauing already proued that he had no succession in his Episcopall function from the Apostles sayth thus Therefore to goe from your succession to your vocation how say you Syr You beare your selfe as though you were a Bishop of Salisbury but how can you proue your vocation By what authority vsurp you the administration of doctrine and Sacraments What can you alledg for the right proof of your ministry Who hath called you Who hath layd hands on you By what example hath he done it how and by whome are you consecrated Who hath sent you c. So he 4. In lyke manner M. Doctor Stapleton in his answere to M. Iewells booke intituled A reply c. saith thus How chanced then M. Iewell that you and your fellowes bearing your selues for Bishops haue not so much as this congruity and consent I will not say of the Pope but of any Christian Bishop at all throughout all Christendome neyther are lyked and allowed of any one of them all but haue taken vpon you that office without any imposition of hands without all Ecclesiasticall authority without all order of Canons and right I aske not who gaue you Bishoprikes but who made you Bishops
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
sharpe arrowes do proue but shuttlecocks or fools bolts Eccl. 19. Prou. 16. Concerning a law in the Code of Iustinian Supplem Chap. 1. nu 99. Apol. Car. Bellar. c. 3. pag. 17. Andr. Resp. ad Apolog. cap. 3. pag. 81. The law Inter Claras proued to be a most true cleare Law though M. Andrews hold it for obscure and counterfait The testimony of Baldus see the Code l. 1. tit de suÌ„m Trin. Accurfius The testimony of Alciat Alciat l. 4. ParergoÌ„ cap. 25. Pope Nicolas the first cyted this law aboue 800. years agoe Nicol. ep ad Michael Imperat. The same coÌ„firmed out of Liberatus who liued in Iustinians dayes Liberat. in breuiar c. 20. Tom. 2. Concil ep Iustin. ad AgapetuÌ„ vide BiÌ„niuÌ„ Ibidem ep 2. Ioan. 2. ad Senatores L. 6. Tit. de sum Trinit (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See the Code vbâ— supra A cleare testimony of the vniuersall authority perpetualâ— integrity of the Roman Sea Esa. 5. Two facts of IustiniaÌ„ the Emp. against 2. Popes examined reproued Liberat. in Breuiar c. 22. Andr. vbi supra pag 81. §. Vt nobis A most absurd argument of M. Andrews Matth. 23. Anast. in Agapeto Hist. miscel Paul Diac. l. 16. Liberat. in Breuiar c. 22. Platina Blond dec â— lib. 3. Niceph. l. 17. cap. 18. Naucler Gener. 18. anno 510. The wicked practise of the hereticall Empresse Theodora against Pope Syluerius Liberat. iâ— Breu. c. 22. Paul Diacon in Iusâ—iniano Amoyn de reb gest Franc. l. 2. cap. 2. Marian. Scotus Platina in Vigilio Blond dec â— l. 6. Petrus de Natal l. 6. c. 12. S. Greg. l. 2. ep 36. Baron an 547. pag. 357. Idem An. 538. Liberat in Breniar c. 24. (c) Suplem cap. 1. nu 108. Iustinian the Emperour was so ignorant that he could neyther wryte nor read and therefore easily deceaued by subtil heretiks Suydas in Iustiniano Euagr. l. 4. cap. 40. Idem lib. 5. cap. 1. The Iudgment of Euagri concerning Iustinians death and the state of his soule (d) See supplem cap. 1 nu 90. seq Anastas in Agapeto Blond dec 1. l. 3. Naucler Gen. 18. an 510. Anastasâ— in Agaâ—eto Naucle vbi supra Nouel 42. The two facts of Iustiniana aâ—gainst two Popes ouerwayd with maâ—ny other of his owne in honour fauour of the Sea Apostolik The importance of the Bishop of Patera his reprehension of Iustinians fact against Pope Syluerius Liberat. in breuiarâ— ca. 22. The Bishop of Patera Protested Gods Iudgment against Iustinian Idemâ— ibidâ— See Card. Apol. pag. 27. M. Andrews discouereth an hereticall spirit in his Iudgment of Iustinians fact Liberat. vbi supra Iustinian reuoked his senteÌ„ce against Pope Siluerius vpon the reprehensiâ— giuen him by the Bishop of Patera Idem ibidem M. Andrews hiâ— folly in approuing an act which the author of it did after disallow and repent The bad conscience of M. Andrews in dissembling the truth which he could not but see in Liberatus A weake foolish argument of M. Andrews to proue Iustinian superiour to 2. Popes M. Andrews must deuyse new answeres to the Cardinal concerning the law inter Claras the Bishop of Patera his reprehension of Iustinian M. Andrews his words of the Cardinall iustly retorted vpon himselfe Supplem cap. 2. nuâ— 15 16. Apolog. Car Bellow pag. 92. cap. 7. Whether the Popes authority be established or ouerthrowne by the councell of Calcedon Andr. pag. 170. cap. 7. §. Quod ibi Ibidem M. Andrews his shameles dealing Concil Chalced. Act. 15. Can. 28. Concil CoÌ„stant Can. â— The sense and meaning of the Canon of the Councell of Cal. alleadged by M. Andrews Can. 28. Concil Calced Act. 16. Relatio Synodi ad Leon. in fine Còcil M. Andrews corrupteth the text of the Canon adding vnto it per omnia What maÌ„ner of Equality the Church of CoÌ„stantinople should haue with the RomaÌ„ Church Sozom. hist. l. 3. cap. 7. What preheminence the Church of CoÌ„staÌ„tinople sought to haue in the CouÌ„cell of Calcedon See Paral. Torti ac Tort. cap. 4. p. 157. edit Colon 1611. How Equality is vnderstood somtimes in the Scriptures 2. Cor. 8. Exod. 18. See S. Tho. in ep 2. ad Cor. cap. 8. Item Ioan. Gagnaeus in hunc locum Two kinds of equality correspoÌ„ding to two kinds of Iustice. Aristot. Ethic. 5. S. Thom. 2.2 q. 16. The Canon which graunted the priuiledges to the Church of ConstaÌ„tinople abrogated by Pope Leo. Foure things to be noted in an Epistle of Pope Gelasius for the inualidity of the CanoÌ„ The East Church acknowledged to be subiect to the Sea of Rome Ep. orient Episcop ad SymmachuÌ„ To. 2. Concil Exemplar libelli Ioan. Ep. CoÌ„stantin To. 2. Concil Vide etiam Ep. Iustini Imperat. ad Hormisdam â— P. To. 20. Concil The Primacy of the RomaÌ„ Sea acknowledged by the Greeke Church to be grounded vpon the expresse words of Christ. Libeâ—at in Breuâ—ario c. 22. Nicephor li. 17. c. 9. Anastas in Agapeto Paul Diacon l. 16. Nicepho li. 17. c. 26. vide etiam Constit. Vigilij apud Binium to 2. Concil p. 5â—2 Baron An. 551.552 553. Ep. Eutychij ad Vigilium To. 2. Concil in Concil 5. Generali collat 2. â—p 8. Pelag To. 2. Concil S. Greg. lib. 7â— â—p 65â— Idem ibid. ep 64. Many Bishops of Constantinople deposed by the Popes of Rome Ep. Nicolai 1. ad Michael Imperat To. 4. concil in 8. Synodo gener in appendice ex Act. 6. S. Antonin Tit. â—9 cap. 1. §. 6. Naucler gener 41. Bloud lib. 6. dec 2. in fine Platina in vita Innocen 3. To. 3. Concil in Concilio Lateran See Suplem cap. 2. nâ— 1. 2. S. Antoninus Tit. 22. cap. 13. §. 1.2 seq Item Concil Florentin sess vlt. See Suplem cap. 1. nu 114. 115. The iust IudgmeÌ„ts of God vpon the Church of Constantinople Matth. 16. Eccli 5. Valer. Maxim l. 1. cap. 1. Andr. cap. 7. p. 170. Bad dealing of M. Andrews (d) p. 177. p. 35. §. de Inuocatione p. 45. §◠Locus Liberat. in Breuiar cap 13. Ep. Leo. 53.54.55.59.70.71 How the Canon for the B. of Constantinoples priuiledgs was made Concil Calced act 16. (d) Concerning the inualidity of this Canon see Baron To. 4. pag. 4â—3 an 381. edit Romae an 1593. Relat. Synodi ad Leo. in fine Concil Leo. ep 61. ad Episcop in Synodo Chal. congreg Item ep 55.70 71. (d) See more concerning this Canon in Binius To. 1. CoÌ„cil pag. 517. edit Coloniae an 1606. Leo ep 53. ad Anatolium Idem ep 55. ad Pulcher. Concil Nicen. Can. 6. (c) See after in the end of this Chapter What maner of intercessioÌ„ Pope Leo made to Martian the Emperour against Anatolius Leo. ep 54. ad MartiaÌ„ Relatio Synod Chalced. ad Martian in fine Concil Leo. ep 59. ad MartiaÌ„ Leo ep 55. ad Pulcheriam What intercession Pope Leo made to Anatolius Leo. ep 53. ad Anatol. Apoc. 3. What
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
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