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
Matthaeum c. S. Iohn Chrysostome in his 55. homily vpon Matthew saith Christ made Peter Pastor of his future Church And a litle after God alone can graunt that the future Church shall remayne immouable notwithstanding so many and so great waues of persecution violently breâ—â— in vpon it of which Church a fisherman and of meane parentage is the Pastor and head c. Heere we read expressely that Peter was head of the Church Thus far the Cardinall 12. Heereto M. Andrews answereth thus Ex Chrysostomo Cuius Pastor caput homo piscator c. Out of Chrysostome he obiecteth thus Whereof the Pastour and head was a fisherman but these words whereof the pastor and head are crept into the text and added in the Latin in fauour of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he meaneth the Pope for they are not in the Greeke where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fisherman but the word head appeareth no where nor in that place so much as Pastor albeit no man will deny that Peter was pastor of the Church yea and a chiefe or principall pastor but yet a pastor togeather with other Pastors his fellow-Apostles and not alone without others c. So he wherein you see he taketh exception to the words cuius pastor caput which he saith are not in the Greeke Whereto I answere that put the case they be not now in the Greeke copies which M. Andrews hath seene yet it litle importeth seeing that the latin translatour found them as it is most probable in the Greeke copie which he followed and that S. Chrysostome saith as much in effect as well in the same homily as in other places 13. Whereby it is euident that it is conforme to his doctrine and not added in fauour of the Pope as M. Andrews would haue his Reader to suppose For S. Chrysostome saith in the same homily Petrus Apostolorum os vertex cùm omnes interrogati essent solus respondit c. Peter the mouth head of the Apostles wheÌ„ they were all asked answered alone c. In which words S. Chrysostome doth plainly acknowledge S. Peter to be head of the Church seeing that he called him head of the Apostles And in the same place alledged by the Cardinall hauing said that a poore fisherman by the power and vertue of Christs graunt surpasseth in strength aâ—d solidity the nature of the dyamond he preferreth him far before Hieromy the Prophet saying that whereas Almighty God made Hierâ—my like a pillar of yron and a brazen wall and gaue him power and authority ouer one Nation hunc autem vniuerso terrarum orbi Christus praeposuit Christ gaue him to wit Peter power and authority ouer the whole world So he 14. And because M. Andrews will be like heere to fly to his common place and to say that all the Apostles had power and authority ouer the whole world as well as S. Peter and that therefore this comparison of him with Hieremy proueth not that he had any more authority then the rest of the Apostles M. Andrews must consider that S. Chrysostome cannot heere meane that his authority ouer the whole world was no other then that which the other Apostles had seeing he hath taught before in the same homily that he was their head and I thinke M. Andrews will not be so absurd to say that the authority of the head and of the members is all one besides that S. Chrysostome teacheth most clearely els where that S. Peter was head not only of the Apostles but also of the whole Church as it may appeare by that which I haue alledged out of him to that purpose both in the first and also in the precedent Chapter of this Adioynder 15. Whereto I will now add a most cleare testimony thereof out of his learned Commentary vpon the Acts of the Apostles where discoursing vpon the election of Matthias the Apostle in the place of Iudas and particulerly vpon those words Et in diebus illis surgens Petrus he noteth not only the fauour of Peter but also his authority ouer the rest as ouer the flock committed to his charge Quà m est feruidus saith he quà m agnoscit creditum à Christo gregem c. How feruent is Peter how well doth he acknowledge the flock committed to him by Christ Loe how he is Prince in this company or congregation and euery where beginneth first to speake c. 16. And againe afterwards prosecuting the same matter he sayth Quid an non licebat ipsi eligere Licebat quidem maxime c. What and was it not lawfull for him to choose Matthias Yes truely it was most lawfull but he did it not because he would not seeme to gratify any Also againe after a while he saith thus Primus hic Doctorem constituit c. he to wit Peter did first heere make a Doctor he said not we are sufficient to teach c. quamquam autem habebat ius constituendi par omnibus tamen haec congruenter fiebant c. Albeit he had as much authority to appoynt him as they all yet this was done very conueniently So he giuing to vnderstand that notwithstanding Peters absolute power to choose Matthias himselfe alone yet out of prudence he determined rather to do it by the generall consent of all the Apostles which he also signifyed no lesse plainly afterwards in these words Meritò primus omnium c. he doth worthily first of all the rest vse or exercyse his authority in this busines as one that had all the rest in his hand or power for to him Christ sayd tu aliquando coÌ„uersus confirma fratres tuos and thou being sometyme conuerted confirme they brethren 17. All this saith S. Chrysostome concerning the the election of Matthias the Apostle whereby it appeareth playnly that he held S. Peter to be head of the Apostles and of the whole Church seeing he teacheth not only that he was the Prince in that Congregation but also that he had as much authority to make an Apostle as they all and might haue done it of himselfe if he had thought it fit and conuenient because he had them all in his hand So as it is cleare that when S. Chrysostome in the 55. homily vpon Matthew which the Cardinall alledgeth calleth S. Peter verticem Apostolorum the head of the Apostles and saith that Christ made him power of the Church and that he gaue him authority ouer the whole world he meaneth and teacheth manifestly that he was supreme head and Pastor of the vniuersall Church which is the same in substance and effect that those words Cuius pastor caput do signify 18. Therefore the doctrine being S. Chrysostomes as well in that homily alledged by the Cardinall as els where and the words also themselues which perhaps may be wanting in some Greeke copie being extant as they are cyted by the Cardinall in all our Latin translations it
alledgeth S. Augustine Lactantius and S. Bernard to proue that the soules of the iust are reserued in certayne receptacles and secret places where they haue not the perfect vision of God vntill the day of iudgement I shall not need to say any thing thereto as well because it would auayle him nothing as you see though S. Augustine and all the rest of the Fathers had ben of that opinion seeing that euen there I meane in those receptacles the Saynts might know our prayers by Angâ—es or by diuine reuelation according to S. Augustines doctrine as also because it is euident that not only S. Augustine but also all the Fathers both Greeke and Latin except 3. to wit Tertullian Lactantius and Victorinus do teach that the Saynts do already enioy the visioÌ„ of God though not in that perfection and consummation of their beatitude which they shall haue after the resurection and glorification of the bodyes as M. Andrews may see if it please him in the controuersy of Cardinall Bellarmine who alledgeth to this purpose 36. Fathers of the Greeke and Latin Church and answereth particulerly those very places which M. Andrews quoteth in his margent and all other places and authorityes which are commonly obiected against our Catholyke doctrine in this poynt So as in fine M. Andrewes proueth nothing at all agaynst vs by this obiection 48. And whereas he sayth also by the way that the Saynts ought not to be inuocated albeit they could heare vs because there is no precept of it I forbeare to giue any full satisfaction to that scruple in this place because he doth not heere yield any reason or produce any authority to proue that nothing is to be done wihout an expresse precept though in another place he alledgeth a text of Scripture to that end whereof I shall haue further occasion to speake after a whyle and therefore I remit the full answere thereof vntill then and only in the meane tyme I will say to him with S. Augustine that in his rebus de quibus nihil certi statuit Scriptura c. In these things whereof there is no certayne precept or determination in Scripture the custome of Gods people or the ordinances of our forefathers are to be held for a law 49. So he who also in another place speaking of certayne traditions of the Church sayth Si quid horum tota pâ—r orbem frequentat Ecclesia c. if the whole Church throughout the world do frequent or vse any of these things it is a most insolent madnes to dispute whether it be to be done or no. Thus saith S. Augustine coÌ„cluding M. Andrews to be a most insolent madde man who calleth in question a generall custome of the Church to which purpose S. Hierome also saith to the Luciferians that albeit there were no authority of Scripture for the matter in question betwyxt them yet totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret the conseÌ„t of the whole world in this behalfe were as much as a precept And the lyke sayth Tertullian Hanc si nulla sayth he Scriptura determinauit c. if no Scripture hath determined this yet truly custome which without doubt hath flowed from tradition hath corroborated and strengthned it 50. To these Fathers I might add many more to the same purpose if it were needefull but these may suffice for the present to shew that M. Andrews doth very idly exact a precept for prayer to Saynts when it is euident by the testimony of all the Fathers before cyted that the same was generally practised in the Church in their tyme no lesse then it is at this present whereupon I also conclude concerning the fact of Theodosius the Emperour that it cannot be with reason denyed but that when he lay prostrate before the tombes of the Martyrs crauing helpe agaynst Eugenius the Tyrant by their intercession he prayed also to them and not only to God especially considering the testimonyes produced by me before out of Sozomen concerning his particuler inuocation of S. Iohn Baptist vpon the same occasion and out of S. Chrysostome testifying the Emperours custome in those dayes to pray to the Martyrs at their monuments wherein also it may well be presumed that S. Chrysostome had a speciall relation euen to that fact of Theodosius whereof we now treate because the same was then very famous when he wrote his coÌ„mentary vpon S. Paules Epistles whence this testimony is taken for he wrote the same whyle he was Bishop as it may appeare by the tyme of his election and of a vision of S. Paul who was seene to assist him whiles he interpreted those Epistles being then Bishop which was but a few yeares after the ouerthrow of Eugenius and the death of Theodosius Thus much for the testimony of Ruffinus 51. Next after this followeth a place of S. Paulinus inuocating S. Clarus in these words Haec peccatorum c. Receiue these prayers of sinners who do beseech thee to be mindfull of Paulinus and Therasia And now because Paulinus wrote in verse M. Andrews will haue it to be vnderstood that he did but play or dally lyke a Poet. But to this I answere that if S. Paulinus was a Poet he was a Christian yea a holy Poet and therefore would not vse any Poeticall licence to the derogation of the Christian fayth or Religion or that might any way seeme iniurious to Christ as M. Andrews and his fellowes do account the inuocation of Saynts to be besides that it is manyfest that he did no otherwise in verse then the other Fathers afore mentioned did in prose and was warranted as you haue seene by the custome and practice of the whole Church at that tyme so that this is as vayne an euasion and as improbable as any of the former 52. Finally he concludeth his censure with S. Augustine whome the Cardinall alledgeth thus Habet Ecclesiastica disciplina c. The Ecclesiasticall discipline hath that which the faythfull know who make mention of Martyrs at the Altar of God not to pray for them there as for others that are dead for it is an iniury to pray for a Martyr to whose prayers we ought to be recommended Thus sayth S. Augustine To this M. Andrewes answereth that the Cardinall shall neuer be able to make Augustin on his side or not to be for the Protestants and that whatsoeuer is cyted ex aliquo riuulo Augustini out of some litle booke of Augustine the same is dryed vp with one only sentence as with the sunne and this sentence he saith is in opere suo palmari in his principall worke de Ciuitate Dei Well then let vs see the splendour of this radiant sentence and try what heate or force it hath to dry vp the other testimonyes cyted out of S. Augustine for prayer to Saynts 53. The words which M. Andrews alleadgeth out of S.
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
to feed his Lambs and sheep he preferred him therin before all the rest of the Apostles Quia solus saith S. Ambrose profitetur ex omnibus omnibus antefertur The third is that wheras S. Ambrose obserueth three degrees of Christians to wit Lambs litle sheep and sheep all recommended to the Pastorall care of S. Peter he giueth to vnderstand that all sorts of Christians were committed to his charge and gouernment and not the weake only but the most holy also learned and perfect yea euen the Apostles themselues and therefore he saith vt perfectiores perfectior gubernaret 10. This then being S. Ambrose his sense and doctrine concerning the Pastorall cōmission giuen to S. Peter it is most euident that when he teacheth that all Pastours receaued their flocks with S. Peter he teacheth it in the same sense that S. Augustine doth to wit that because S. Peter being supreme Pastour represented the whole Church and receaued the Pastorall authority not for himselfe alone but also for all those who were eyther at that tyme or euer should be subordinate vnto him therefore all other Pastours receaued their authority not only in him as S. Augustine speaketh but also with him that is to say in and with their chiefe Pastour and head And therefore whereas D. Andrews to make a greater shew of parity or equality betwixt S. Peter and other Pastors hath added to S. Ambrose his text those words of his owne nobiscum eas accepit it may passe for a piece of coggery and well discouereth his skill to help the dyce when he is put to his shifts 11. Besids that his vanity and folly notably appeareth in that hauing gayned nothing but rather lost his cause by alledging these two places of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose yet he braggeth thereof afterwards as if he had got a great victory saying in the 214. page that although pasce oues was said in the singuler number and to one to wit S. Peter yet it passed to all and that clariùs id loquuntur Ambrosius Augustinus quà m vt obstrepere possint nouitij nostri Ambrose and Augustine do speake or affirme it more plainly then that our nouices can any way contradict it So he meaning by our nouices the Catholiks as I take it though I know not why he so calleth them neyther do I meane heere to discusse it but will remit to the indifferent Reader to iudge what cause he hath so to brag of these two Fathers and what fidelity he hath shewed in alledging them dissembling the cleare doctrine of the one and corrupting as well the text as the sense of the other and thus much for his first answere 12. In his second he seeketh to retort the Cardinals argument vpon him and to proue the Kings Supremacy by the word pasce which he saith he knoweth will touch the Cardinall to the quick quod scio saith he punget Cardinalem Let vs heare then this sharp argument which I thinke will proue a very blunt one Thus then he saith Negat Cardinalis Primatum Regis c. The Cardinall denieth the Kings Supremacy and yet God said to a King tu pasces populum meum Israel thou shalt feed my people Israel Where no man can deny but that a King was made the Pastor of all Israel yea of the Priests except he will deny them to be part of Israel Thus argueth this learned and sharp Doctor ouerthrowing his owne argument sufficiently by his owne conclusion graunting in effect that if the Priests were not a part of the people of Israel the King was not their Pastor 13. To this purpose then it is to be considered what I haue amply debated in the first Chapter of my Supplement concerning the exemption and sepation of the Priests and Leuits from the temporall and politike State by the expresse words of Almighty God who gaue the Leuits not to the temporall Prince but to Aaron and his children tradidi eos dono Aaron filijs eius de medio populi I haue giuen them saith Almighty God for a gift to Aaron and his children out of the midst of the people Besides that God ordayned expresly that the Tribe of Leui should not be numbred neither yet haue any part or inheritance with the rest of Israel because he had reserued the same for his owne seruice and therfore would himselfe be their possession portion and inheritance So that this being very cleare in the expresse words of the Law which as I also proued was neuer altered but rather confirmed at the institution of the Kings who were expresly bound to obserue the whole law and to obey the high Preist I may say to the Doctor as he said before to the Cardinall atque vel sic iacebit Doctori ratio sua 14. But put the case this were not so yea and that the Preists of the old law had byn subiect to the Kings in spirituall matters wherof I haue already proued the contrary will M. Andrews inferre theron that therfore Kings haue also the spirituall Supremacy in the new law without any new institution or ratification therof by our Sauiour Christ or his Apostles Doth not this great Doctor know that the Mosaycal law was abrogated by the law of grace and that wheras it was deuided into three parts to wit Iudiciall Cerimoniall and Morall the two former vtterly ceased and the third I meane the Morall part contayning the Commaundements remayneth only in force not because it was instituted then but because those Commaundments being grounded on the law of Nature are alwayes in force and therfore ordayned againe to be kept in the new Law In which respect the cōmandment cōcerning the Sabboth doth not now bynd Christians as it was then ordayned and practiced 15. And therfore M. Andrews might aswell introduce Poligamy practised in the old Law as the spirituall supremacy of Kings if we should graunt that they then had any such and with much more reason might he teach abstinence from puddings and other meates made of bloud seeing that we find some commaundements or ordinance therof in the Acts of Apostles wheras there is no one syllable in all the new Testament to proue that Kings haue any spirituall authority ouer the Church it being most euidēt that al those places of Scripture which he or any other doth or can alledge out of the new Testament to that purpose do concerne only temporall obedience to the pagan Emperours or Princes who were then Persecutors of the Church and therefore could not be spirituall heads or Gouernours thereof nor obayed by Christians in spirituall matters And this I say the rather because M. Andrews doth not only heere but also throughout his whole booke seeme to ground his doctrine of the Kings spirituall Primacy specially vpon the law of Moyses as I shall haue occasion to shew further hereafter which sufficiently bewrayeth the beggery and misery of his cause
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
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
mayntenance of Ecclesiasticall Discipline which Discourse they end with this most humble and submissiue petition Haec sicut propria amica ad decorem conuenientissima dignare complecti Sanctissime Beatissime Pater most holy and blessed Father vouchsafe to imbrace these things as your owne and friendly and most conuenient or fit for good order 73. And afterwards hauing declared that the three Legats of Pope Leo did contradict this Canon they yield this reason thereof Proculdubio say they à vestra Prouidentia inchoari hoc bonum volentes desyring without all doubt that this good should also proceed from your Prouidence vt sicut fidei it a bonae ordinationis vobis deputetur effectus to the end that the effect as well of good order or Ecclesiasticall discipline as of faith may be ascrybed to you In which words it is to be noted that the Councell ascrybed the effect and forcâ— of their determinations not only concerning matters of discipline but also touching matters of faith to the authority especially of Pope Leo to which purpose they also added further that for as much as the Emperour Senate and all the Imperiall Citty desired it and that it seemed also conuenient to the whole Councell yea and that whatsoeuer is well done by the children doth redound to their fathers who account and make the same their owne therefore Rogamus say they tuis decrâ—tis nostrum â—onorâ— iudicium we beseech thee honour also our iudgement with thy decrees sicut nâ—â— capiti in bonis adiecimus consonantiam sic Summitas tua filijs quod decet adimpleat and as we haue yielded conformity on our parts to you our head so let your Highnes fulfill or accomplish to vs your children that which is conuenient Sic enim pij Principes complacebunt c. For so shall the pyousâ— Princes receiue contentment or satisfaction who haue ratified the iudgment of your holynes as a law Sedes Constantinopolitana suscipiâ—t praemiuÌ„ and the Church of Constantinople shall receiue a reward or benefit which Church hath alwayes performed all endeauour towards you to the cause of piety and conioyned it selfe with you to the conseruation of concord and vnity with the same zâ—ale Thus wrote the whole Councell to Pope Leo. 74. And now I report me to M. Andrews himselfâ— though I take him for very partiall in this cause whether any thing could be written in this kind more effectually to shew the beliefe and faith of the whole Councell touching the supreme authority of Pope Leo seeing that they do not only expressely call him their head and themselues his members him their Father and themselues his children but also do aâ—knowledge that he was accustomed to cast forth the light of his Apostolicall beames to the Church of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consuetè soliciti say those Fathâ—rs speaking of him in the plurall number for the reuerend respect they bare him and signifying that his wonted care and authority was so generall that it extended it selfe to the Greeke Church and particulerly to the Church of Constantinople furthermore they testify that the effect of their decrees both in matters of faith and of discipline depended principally on him and therefore do as I may say begge at his hands the confirmation of their Canon in fauour of the Church of Constantinople as a speciall grace benefit and reward foâ— the merits of the sayd Sea towards the Sea Apostolike and this in such earnest and humble manner that it is euident they acknowledged the whole matter to depend on his will to be granted or denyed ratifyed or disanulled by him which also the issue thereof made most manifest seeing that his owne denyall and opposition was sufficient to ouerthrow it as hath bene declared 75. And now I hope M. Andrâ—ws will not say that this is taken out of some corner of a period or some peece of a tytle or fragment of a little clause seeing that this is as he sayd of his Canon the very voyce of the whole Councell being the substance of their publike and generall letter to Pope Leo himselfe which may also be confirmed with their other publike testimonies of their beliefe concerning his authority as that they acknowledged not only that he was successor to S. Peter saying in their generall acclamation to an Epistle of his Petrus per Leonem locutus estâ— Peter hath spoken by Leo but also that he had Peters authority yea and that S. Peter was petra crepido Ecclesiae the rock and toppe of the Church and rectae fidei fundamentum the foundation of the true faith 76. To which purpose it is to be considered that one of the chiefe causes of the assembly of that Councell was to depose Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria which done by the sentence of Pope Leo pronounced by his Legates in these words Sanctissimus Beatissimus Archiepiscopus magnae senioris Romae Leo per nos per presentem sanctam Synodum vnà cum ter beatissimo omni laude digno beato Petro Apostolo qui est petra crepido Ecclesiae ille qui est rectae fidei fundamentum nudauit eum tam Episcopatus dignitate quà m etiam ab omni Sacerdotali alienauit ministerio The most holy and most blessed Archbishop of the elder and great Rome Leo hath depriued him to wit Dioscorus as well of all Episcopall dignity as priestly ministery by vs and this holy Synod togeather with the thrice most blessed and prayse-worthy Peter the Apostle who is the rock and top of the Church and he which is the foundation of the true faith This was the sentence giuen by the Popes Legats against Dioscorus which sentence euery Bishop in the Councell not only approued particulerly with his suffrage or voyce but also confirmed with his subscription as it appeareth in the 3. Action of the sayd Councell 77. Wherein it is to be obserued First that Pope Leo deposed Dioscorus by the Synod whereupon it followeth that he was president and head thereof and that the sayd Synod was but as it were his instrument in that deposition Secondly that he deposed him by the authority which he had as successor to S. Peter in which respect it is sayd here that he did it togeather with the most blessed Apostle Peter Thyrdly that for as much as S. Peter is heere acknowledged to be the head of the Church as being the rock and top thereof and the foundation of the faith the like must needs be granted of Pope Leo who was his successor and exercysed his authority Lastly seeing that this sentence of deposition giuen against Dioscorus in this manner and with these circumstances was receiued particulerly and subscrybed by euery one in that CouÌ„cell without any contradiction or exception taken to any part thereof it is euident that the whole was conforme to the faith and beliefe of the Councell and
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
is but a vayne shift of M. Andrews to say that they are thrust into the Latin in fauour of the Pope it being more probable as I haue sayd that they were in the old Greeke copies which the Latin translatours followed and that eyther the Grecians themselues in the time of their schisme from the Roman Church or perhaps some of our late heretikes who haue taken vpon them to print the Greeke in these dayes haue purposely left out the same in hatred of the supreme authority of S. Peter and his successors But howsoeuer it is you see the doctrine of S. Chrysostome is cleare to the purpose that those words which M. Andrewes saith are not in the Greek do import and this suffiseth to proue by the testimony of S. Chrysostome that S. Peter was supreme Pastor and head of the vniuersall Church 19. And as for M. Andrews his stale and tryfling deuyse to call the Pope 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alluding to the name of the beast in the Apocalyps according to the interpretation of Irenaeus as he would haue his Reader to suppose albeit he vse it far otherwise then Irenaeus meant it who applyed it only to the temporall Empyre and not to the Roman Sea I willingly omit it as not pertayning to the place of S. Chrysostome wherof I now specially treat and therefore do remit him for his satisfaction in that point to Cardinall Bellarmines controuersies where the same is so sufficiently answered that he and his fellowes may be ashamed still to repeat it and not to impugne the manifold and solid reasons which the Cardinall produceth to confute their ridiculous and absurd application of that name to the Pope 20. And now to end concerning the testimony of S. Chrysostome whereas M. Andrews for conclusion of his answere thereto saith that no man will deny that Peter was Pastor of the Church yea and a principall pastor sed cum alijs pastorem coapostolis suis non solum sine alijs but Pastour togeather with other his fellow Apostles and not alone without others I thinke he was in a dreame when he wrotâ— it impugning no man therein for ought I know For I neuer heard tell of any man yet who taught that S. Peter was Pastor of the Church alone or that the other Apostles were not Pastors as well as he albeit we teach with S. Chrysostome and others as you haue heard that they were subordinate to him as to the supreme pastor and their head which also M. Andrews himselfe doth acknowledge sufficiently as I haue shewed amply in the last Chapter And this I hope may suffice concerning S. Chrysostome 21. There remayneth now only S. Augustin of the 4. Fathers alledged by the Cardinall and my selfe for the proofe of S. Peters Primacy his words are these Totius corporis morbum in ipso capite curat Ecclesiae c. he to wit Christ cureth the disease of the whole body in the very head of the Church coÌ„poundeth the health of all the members in ipso vertice that is to say in the very crowne or top of the head Thus saith S. Augustin whereupon the Cardinall saith Sanctus Augustinus apertè vocat S. Petrum caput corporis Ecclesiae S. Augustine doth planily call S. Peter head of the body of the Church To this M. Andrewes saith thus ConcludÃt testes suos cum Augustino non Augustino cuius tempore non fiebant Sermones de tempore He to wit the Cardinall concludeth his witnesses with an Augustine who is not Augustin in whose tyme there were not made any Sermons de tempore So he taking exceptions to the authority of this allegation because in S. Augustins tyme as he would haue vs suppose there was no such custome in the Church to make Sermons de tempore that is to say of the ordinary feasts that do occur thoughout the course of the yeare and that therefore the Authour of those Sermons de tempore out of the which the Cardinall taketh this place could not be S. Augustins but of some other later wryter who set them out in S. Augustins name 22. But now if you aske how M. Andrews proueth that there were no Sermons de tempore in S. Augustins tyme you must take his bare word for a proofe for you neyther haue nor are like to heare any other of him But for the tryall of this matter I must remit thee good Reader to some better and more authenticall witnesses then M. Andrewes namely to Possidius a learned Bishop who being a familiar friend of S. Augustin forty yeares togeather as he signifieth himselfe wrote his life and making a Catalogue of his workes doth mention amongst the rest diuers Sermons or Treatises of his made of some of the principall feasts of the yeare as of Christmas Ascension Pentecost Lent and 23. Tracts or Sermons per Vigilias Paschae in the Eues of Easter whereof by all likelyhood this very Sermon was one being made on the Wednesday before Easter whereto may be added also diuers other particuler feasts of Saints mentioned in like manner by Possidius as namely the Natiuity of S. Iohn Baptist of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul of S. Laurence S. Cyprian S. Perpetua and Felicitas S. Saluius S. Vincent and some others which I omit for that these I trow may suffice to conuince M. Andrews of great ignorance or malice in that he denyeth that there were any Sermons de tempore in S. Augustins tyme. 23. For although it is like inough that neyther S. Augustin nor any other Father of that age wrote any work vnder the title of Sermones de tempore but that such sermons being made at diuers tymes and dispersed in diuers parts of their workes haue bene since their daies gathered into one volume and set out vnder that tytle for the ease and commodity of the Readers yet no man that hath byn conuersant in the Fathers can be ignorant that such were vsually made both in the Latin and in the Greeke Church in S. Augustins tyme which may euidently appeare besids the testimony of Possidius aforesaid by the works of S. Ambrose wherin there are Sermons vpon almost all the great feasts from Aduent to Pentecost and in the same tyme liued also S. Maximus Bishop of Turin who wrote diuers homilies vpon the principall feasts of the yeare as testifyeth Gennadius a famous writer of that age whereof I shall haue occasion to speake further hereafter Besids that it cannot be denyed that the like custome was also in the Greeke Church in those daies seeing that we fynd in S. Gregory Nissen who was S. Basils brother diuers Orations made vpon the feasts of the Natiuity of our Sauiour S. Stephen Easter and the Ascension And others also in S. Gregory Nazianzen vpon the feasts of Easter Pentecost the Natiuity of Christ the Epiphany which amongst the Greekes was called Sancta Lumina In like
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
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
needed no Councells to be assembled or Synodicall decrees to be made for the condemnation thereof and much lesse for the confirmation of prayer to Saynts which he did not expressely deny So as M. Andrews sheweth himselfe very impertinent still to demaund statutes and decrees for the inuocation of Saynts within the first 400. yeares at what tyme it was as I haue sayd so publike and generall throughout the whole Church that it was needles to confirme it by Canons or decrees as it will still further appeare the further we debate this matter 28. In the meane tyme to returne to S. Basil and to conclude concerning him I appeale to the iudgment of any indifferent man whether he could declare eyther his owne beliefe or the faith of the Church touching this point more clearely then he hath done heere shewing the vse and custome of Catholike people in his tyme not only approued and highly commended by him as it is euident by that which I haue layd downe before but also confirmed and ratifyed by Almighty God with miraculous effects and the grant of pious petitions made by deuout people to the holy Martyrs and Saynts at their Monuments and els where All which I say being witnessed by S. Basil is truly a far greater testimony for vs then if he should haue only declared his owne opinion So as a man may wonder with what face M. Andrewes can admit the authority of the Fathers and yet reiect their testimony of such facts as these whereby they shew not only their owne beliefe but also the beliefe and practice of the Church in their dayes And thus much concerning S. Basil. 29. The next place which M. Andrewes vndertaketh to answere is taken out of Eusebius and cyted by the Cardinall thus Haec nos quotidie factitamus c. These things we Christians vse to do daily who honoring the true Souldiars of piety as the friends of God do also go to their tombes and pray vnto them by whose intercession to Almighty God we do acknowledge that we receiue great help Thus far the Cardinall cyteth the words of Eusebius according to the Latin translation which he layeth downe sincerely albeit M. Andrewes chargeth him with fraud in peruerting the Greeke text because the words in the Greeke are somewhat otherwise signifying that the custome of the Christians was to pray at the tombes of the Martyrs and maketh no expresse mention of praying to them whereto I answere as to the former charge that the Latin translatour whose words the Cardinall cyteth followeth the sense of Eusâ—bius gathering the same out of the circumstance of the place For Eusebius shewing there the conformity of Plato's doctrine to our Christian Religion layeth downe Plato's words wherein he sayth that those which were vertuous and valiant men and dyed for the defence of their Country became after their death Semidei halfe Godes and deliuered men from many euils and were serued and worshipped as Gods their monuments and tombes adored 30. Wherupon Eusebius to shew the lyke practice of ChristiaÌ„s sayth that it was vsuall ordinary amongst Christians to goe to the tombes of Martyrs and there to pray and to honour their blessed soules for so hath the Greeke which being considered together with the doctrine of Plato before related concerning the honour and worship done to the Semidei and the conformity thereof with Christian religion vrged by Eusebius as also that the coÌ„mon custome of Christians was at that tyme to pray to Martyrs by name as I haue shewed a litle before by the authority of S. Basil and will shew further after a whyle All this I say being considered the Translatour had reason to vnderstand that the prayers which Eusebius sayth the Christians made at the tombes of Martyrs were directed to them and not to God only especially seeing that all the prayers honour and seruice exhibited to Martyrs eyther at theyr tombes or els where redoundeth to the honour and seruice of God to whome the same are finally directed and addressed and for whose sake principally the holy Martyrs and Saynts are honored and serued Therefore seeing the Latin translatioÌ„ which the Cardinall cyteth is not only free from errour in doctrine but also conforme to the circumstances of the place and to the practice of the Church at that tyme it may well be admitted though it be not altogeather litterall but howsoeuer it is the Cardinall following and alledging it as it is generally receiued amongst learned men could not iustly be charged with fraud though the same should be erroneous whereas M. Andrews sheweth himselfe both fraudulent and malicious in charging the Cardinal to peruert the Greeke text when he cyteth the Latin translatioÌ„ with all sincerity And thus much for this poynt 31. Furthermore M. Andrewes addeth to the two former places another out of S. Chrysostome which the Cardinall cyteth thus Saepius illos inuisamus tumulos adoremus c. let vs often visit these Martyrs to wit S. Iuuentinus and S. Maximus let vs adore their tombes let vs with great faith touch their reliques to the end we may obtayne some benediction thereby Thus farre the Cardinall out of S. Chrysostome to proue that the ancient Fathers of the first 400. yeares and namely S. Chrysostome approued the veneration of holy reliques Wherin M. Andrewes pretendeth to haue found two fraudes the one in the translation of the Greeke and the other in the allegation of the Latin Of the former he sayth thus Nam graecè c. For in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to touch the shryne but to touch the shrine I thinke is not to adore it Our Sauiour did not adore the sonne of the widdow of Naim when he touched the coffin wherein his body lay So he 32. Wherein I beseech thee good Reader to note how substantially he answereth this place saying nothing at all to the substance and whole drift thereof but cauilling only about a word or two as if all the wayght and force of the place consisted therein whereas the place would directly proâ—e all that which the Cardinall intendeth though we should grant that which M. Andrewes affirmeth concerning the difference betwixt the Greeke and the Latin For seeing that S. Chrysostome exhorteth the people not only to visit the Martyrs by repayring to their tombes but also to touch yea and with faith to imbrace their reliques for so hath the Greeke to the end to haue thereby some benediction doth he not plainely teach therein that holy reliques are to be reuerently kept visited and worshipped 33. For how can it be imagined that a man can come to visit holy reliques and with fayth touch and imbrace them to the end heere declared to wit to receiue thereby some blessing from Almighty God but that he doth it with deuotion and an exteriour demonstration of the internall reuerence that he beareth therto I meane with a reuerent and
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
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
inter ep August Ibid. ep 92. Ibid. ep 93. August ep 106. ad Bonifac. Marke this consequence The Pelagian heresy condemned by Zozsimus and Innocentius Aug. ep 157. Possid in vita August ca. 18. 3. things to be noted in the precedent testimony of Possidius Aug. vbi supra Prosper in Chron. Idem contra collat ca. 41. The famous appeale of S. Iohn Chrysostome to Innocentius Chrysost. ep ad Inno. To. 5. Palladius in vita Chrysost. Zosom li. 8. ca. 26. Georg. Alexand. in vita Chrysost. Idem ibid. Nicep l. 13. ca. 34. Glycas Annal. part 4. Gennadius Patriar Constant. Exposit. pro Concil Florent ca. 5. Sect. 7. Theodoreti histor Eccle. li. 5. c. 34. Glycas part 4. Annal. (a) Supra nu 74. (b) Supra nu 52. 53. (c) Supra nu â—8 seq To. 1. Concil ep 2. Bonif. P. Celestinus head of the generall CouÌ„cell of Ephesus (a) Euagr. lib. 1. c. 4. Prosper in chron Liberat. c. 5 Photin de 7. Synod To. 2 ca. 17. Concil Ephesc ibid. To. 1. ca. 14 (b) Concil Ephes. To. 1. cap. 16. 17. (c) Ibid. To. 1. cap. 14. (d) Ibid. To. 2. ca. 1â— Euag. lib. 1. ca. 4. Nicepho l. 14. cap. 34. (f) To. 4. cap 17. Concil Ephes. (g) Niceph. li. 14. ca. 34 An euideÌ„t argumeÌ„t that Celestinus was vniuersall and supreme Pastor of the Church (d) See cap. 2. per. â—otum M. Andrews facility in â—ing August contra duas ep Pelag lib. 1â— cap. 1. S. Augustins dutifull respect vnto Pope Banifacius (a) See before nu 38. seq To. 1. Concil ep 1. Celest. S. Prosper contra Collator cap. 42. Vincent lirinens cap. vlt. M. Andrewes his Father a Father of lyes Orig. in cap. 6. ad Rom. A place of Origen is discussed Andr cap. 2. paâ— 217. §. ex Origene Orig. in Matth. 16. Tract 1. See cap. 1. nu 3.6.23 26. Matth. 16. By M. Andrews â—ad glosse euery good man and woman shall haue as much authority as S. Peter A great doubt whether M. Andrews be a Pastor or not if he vnderstand Origen aright M. Andrews by his interpretation of Origen ouerthroweth all subordination in the Church Chap. 1. vbi supra Other plaine places of Origen to proue S. Peters primacy Origen in diuers Euangel hom 2. Card. Apol. capâ— 8. pag. 125. S. Hyl. in 16. cap. Matth. A place of S. Hilary for S. Peters authority defended Andr. cap. 8. pag. 218. §. ex Hylario See chap. â— nuâ— 18.24.25 2â— M. Andrewes his shifting glosse S. Peters fayth not separated from his person in the sense and meaning of S. Hilary S. Hilarâ— li. 6. de Trinitate Ibidem One of M. Andrews his petty â—rauds Card. cap. 8. p. 125. Maxim ho. 3. de Apost Peâ—ro Paulo Andr. vbi supra pag. 219. §. E. Maximo M. Andrews his phantasticall conceit M. Andrews dull head more to be confouÌ„ded by blowes then persuaded by argumeÌ„ts Arist. Topic. li. 1â— cap. 9. See cap. 4 nu 23. S. Maximê° of Turyn did wryte homilyes or SermoÌ„s of Saints Genadius in Catal. Illustrium viror Gennadius vbi supra See before chap. 4. nu 21. M. Andrews hath not giuen any probable answere to any one of ten places obiected by the Cardinall Andr. vbi supra pag. 217. §. Inspiciamus M. Andrews his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Andrewes troubled greatly with litle wordes M. Andrewes fighteth in the aire and peruerteth the state of the Question (d) See cap. 1. nu 20. (e) nu 20. 21. (f) See Supplem chap. 1. nu 61. seq vsque ad 69. S. Hilar. l. 6. de Trinit Act. 5. Ibid. ca. 13. 1. Cor. 5. Ibid. ca. 6. M. Andrews a pecuniary Pastour a wrangler in the highest degree (g) See before chap. 1. nu 21. Card. Apol. cap. 1. pag. 12. M. Andrews his meer trifling cauill Andr. cap. 1. p. 35. §. Porrò Andr. pa. 37. §. VeruÌ„ Rom. 10. An ignorant collection Rom. 10. Ioel. 2. The true meaning of S. Paul about the inuocatioÌ„ of him in whome we belieue Ep. ad Philem. S. Hieron To. 6. in ep ad Philem 1. Tim. 1. Rom. 2. Gen. 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Aug. li. locution in Gen. nu 200. Andr. p. 45. §. Locus autem M. Andrews coÌ„tradicteth himselfe Cardinall Bellarmine vnder the name of Intercession of Saints comprizeth as well our prayers to them as their praiers for vs. Andr. pa. 39. §. Patrum M. Andrews his triple diuision not worth three chipps S. Basil. ho. in 40. Martyres M. Andrews wrangleth when he he cannot answere Andr. pag. 40. §. Non verè The substance of S. Basils discourse about praying vnto Saints M. Andrews very grosse and foolish M. Andrews coÌ„futeth himselfe Card. Apol. pag. 13. Andr. p. 47. §. Pari autem See Apol. Card. p. 13. Another cauill of M. Andrews against Cardinall Bellarmine Andr. p. 47. §. Pâ—râ—â— The latin translatioÌ„ of S Basil defended A plaine place out of S. Basil for the inuocation of Martyrs S. Basil. orat in S. Mammantem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Andrewes very hardly posed Diuers miraculous effects of the Inuocation of Martyrs specifyed by S. Basil the Latin translatioÌ„ of S. Basil defended Andr. p. 40. §. Non verè Another answere of M. Andrewes refuted M. Andr. vrging stil to haue some decrees of the Fathers concerning prayers to Saynts flieth froÌ„ the authority of the Fathers to CouÌ„cells Why Councellâ— are assembled Why the InuocatioÌ„ of Saynts was not confirmed by some Synodicall decree in the primitiue Church Concil Gangren in proamio ca. 20. S. Hieron aduer Vigilant The heresy of Vigilantius denying the Saints pray for vs quikly repressed by S. Hierome The conclusion coÌ„cerning the place of S. Basil. nu 19. 20. Apol. Card. p. 14â— Euseb. de praep Euangel lib. 13. c. 7. M. Andrews his cauill against the place cyted out of Eusebius See before nu 20. infra nu â—â— 48 5â—.57.60 seq Item cap. 7. 8. per. totum M. Andrews his exception against the testimony cited by Bellarmine out of S. Chrysostome Andr. vbi supra §. Sed neque M. Andrews sayth nothing to the whole substance of the place but cauilleth only about some words (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Andrews a meere wrangler M. Andrews hath fouÌ„d out a new Logik to inferre quidlibet ex quolibeâ— M. Andrews his trifling toy of tumulos tangere answered See after chap. 9. from nu 10. to nu 31. (b) Andr. ca. 1. pa. 49. §. Necesse Plut. in Othone vide Crispin in Dictionario ex Budaeo Homer Iliad â—â— Eurip. Hecub act 1. Arsen. Comment in Eurip. Martialis li. 8. epig. 65 Tacit. li. 10. anual Idem li. 1. histor Sueton. in Claudio Plin. li. 11. cap. 48. Ouidius Lucret. li. â— de nat rerum 1. Seneca iâ— Medea S. Greg. Nyssen orat in S. Theod. S. Basil in Psal. 115. S. Greg. Nazianz. orat 1. in Iulian. 4. Reg. 13. S. Aug. li. 22. de
AN ADIOYNDER TO THE SVPPLEMENT OF FATHER ROBERT PERSONS HIS DISCVSSION of M. Doctor Barlowes Ansvvere c. CONTAYNING A Discouery and Confutation of very many foule Absurdityes Falsities and Lyes in M. D. Andrewes his Latin Booke intituled Responsio ad Apologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini c. An answere to the Apology of Card. Bellarmine WRITTEN By F. T. Authour of the Supplement to iustify certaine places and authorities alleaged as well by him in the said Supplement as by the Cardinall in his Apology and pretended to be answered by M. D. Andrewes ALSO An Appendix touching a Register alleaged by M. Franc. Mason for the lawfull Ordayning of Protestant Bishops in Q. Elizabeths Raigne Mentita est iniquitas sibi Psal. 26. Iniquity hath lyed to it selfe Imprinted with Licence M. DC XIII THE PRINTER to the Reader GENTLE READER Albeit the Authour of this Worke designed the same to be printed and published togeather with his Supplement to Fa. Persons his Discussion of M. Barlowes Answere c. by reason of the relation that the one hath to the other in which respect also this is intituled an Adioynder neuertheles for as much as afterwards when this came to my hands I vnderstood that M. Barlowes credit was already quyte crushed with the Disscussion of Fa. Persons and euery where so decried that most men were fully satisfyed concerning his ignorance absurdity and folly and therefore might be more desirous to see this Adioynder in Answere of M. Doctour Andrews as well in respect of his farre greater reputation as for that he hath not yet byn answered by any in our tongue And considering also that this Adioynder is growne to a farre greater volume then the Author at the first intended and that therefore many may desyre to haue it a part both for the better coÌ„modity of carryage and also for other good respects yea and that the separation thereof from the Supplement cannot hinder but that such as desyre to haue them both may easely be satisfyed and cause them to be bound eyther togeather or a sunder as they shall best lyke I therfore resolued with the good leaue of the Authour to print publish them both in seuerall volumes For although this Adioynder hath indeed a great connexion with the Supplement and in some sort dependeth thereon as being written only to iustifie the same and specially concerning matters incident thereto yet the points treated therein are so clearly handled and discussed that the truth of the Catholyke cause and M. Andrewes his notable fraudes and cauils may sufficiently appeare thereby without the helpe of the Supplement notwithstanding the frequent references thereto I shall not need to say any thing concerning the intention and drift of the Authour for that the same may fully be seene partly by the titles of the Chapters which follow immediatly and partly in the 3. first paragraphs of the first Chapter and therefore all that I thinke good to aduertise thee good Reader is that albeit this Authour hath not had eyther the occasion or the intention to answere all M. Andrewes his Booke but such points only as are some way incideÌ„t to the foresaid Supplement neuertheles this Adioynder may serue for a sufficient answere to the whole seeing it conteineth a confutation of at least an hundred Positions Assertions Paradoxes Answeres and Obiections of M. Andrewes in all which he is proued to be eyther most Idle and Impertinent or egregiously fraudulent and false or els to argue directly for the Catholikes against the common doctrine of his owne fellows whereby thou maist easily iudge of the rest of his Worke and what a number of like frauds and follies might be discouered therin if the whole were as throughlie sifted and examined as these points haue bene which haue occurred to this Authour by the occasion of his Supplement And so vvishing thee aboundance of Gods grace for the discouery of Falshood and knovvledge of the Truth to the euerlasting good of thy ovvne soule I take my leaue THE TABLE OF CHAPTERS THE Authours intention is declared and M. D. Andrews his interpretation of Pasce oues meas examined and confuted Furthermore it is shewed that he hath belyed S. Augustine corrupted S. Ambrose notably abused S. Cyril vainely carped at a Law in the Code and foolishly approued the vnlawfull proceeding of Iustinian the Emperour against the Pope CHAP. I. Pag. 1. The Answeres of M. Andrewes to certaine places of the Councell of Calcedon are examined and conâ—uted 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. Pag. 39. M. D. Andrewes his answeres to three places of the Fathers are examined And by the way the Cardinall is cleared from a false imputation of Iouinians heresieâ— and M. Andrewes truly charged therwith Finally all that which we teach concerning the Popes authority is necessarily deduced out of M. Andrewes his owne doctrine and expresse wordes CHAP. III. Pag. 98. Foure other places of the Fathers are debated and M. Andrewes his Answeres therto confuted VVith a Discouery of notable corruption falsity in him and of three manifest lyes within little more then three lines And by occasion therof it is also proued that 8. Popes who liued in S. Augustines time had and excercised an vniuersall and supreme Authority CHAP. IIII. Pag. 133. M. Andrewes his answeres to three other places alleadged by the Cardinall out of the Fathers are examined and confuted and diuers absurdities discouered therin And finally he is proued to be a wrangler in the highest degree CHAP. V. pag. 193. A further manifestation of M. Andrewes his trifling wrangling and fraudulent humour by his Answeres to other places of the Fathers concerning Prayer to Saintes which he deuideth into three ranks wherof the two first are examined in this Chapter CHAP. VI. Pag. 218. The Answeres of M. Andrewes to the Fathers of the third ranke are examined and sound to be either impertinent fraudulent or most iniurious to them namely to S. Ambrose whom he most egregiously abuseth Also it is euidently shewed that the Inuocation of Saints was generally practised approued aswell by the ancient Fathers as by all other faithfull Christians in the Primitiue Church CHAP. VII Pag. 258. Certaine obiections of M. Andrewes against Prayers to Saints are answered and by the way an imposture of the pretended Bishops and Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury in a Synodicall Canon of theirs is discouered And finally M. Andrews is proued to haue notably wrangled iugled and trifled throughout this whole Controuersy CHAP. VIII Pag. 306. The Conclusion of this Adioynder deuided into two Chapters In this are detected diuers srauds and shifts common to M. Andrewes with M. Barlow as to change the state of the question dissemble that which most importeth in the Cardinalls text and argument to abuse wrest bely and falsisy not
and his want of proofes for the same by the law of Christ. 16. And although as well the ancient Fathers as we do ordinarily produce testimonies of the old Testament not only for matters in controuersy but also for instruction in matters of morality yet neyther they nor we euer do it to other end but to confirme things instituted and taught in the new law by the ordinance and commaundment eyther of Christ or of his spouse the Church and this we do only in respect of the conformity that is in many things betwixt the figure and the Verity I meane betwixt the old law and the new Moyses and our Sauiour Christ the Synagogue and the Church and not to the end to proue any thing to be necessary now because it was ordayned or practised then which were rather a point of Iudaisme then of Christianisme And therefore this and other arguments of M. Andrews grounded only vpon the Iudicial lawes of Moyses may shew him to be rather a Iew then a Christian except he can bring some other ground for the same out of the new Testament or some Apostolicall or Ecclesiasticall Canon or Tradition which he neyther doth nor euer shall be able to do 17. But who seeth not how he tryfleth in this point as cōmonly he doth in all For how doth it follow that if it be true which we teach to wit that Christ made S. Peter supreme Pastour of the Church by cōmaunding him to feed his sheep then he gaue the same spirituall authority to Dauid when he bad him feed his people of Israel Is it not manifest that although the word pasce feed as it was spoken to them both doth signifie to gouerne yet it is Equiuocall being to be vnderstood of a different manner of gouernment in them both that is to say in the one spirituall and in the other temporall what consequence then can he draw from the one to the other except it be this that as when God bad Dauid who as a temporall man to feed his people of Israell which was a temporall people he gaue him temporall authority making him head of a temporall Kingdome So when he bad S. Peter who was a spirituall man a Priest an Apostle and Prince of the Apostles feed his sheep that is to say all the faithfull conteyned within his Sheepfold which is a spirituall congregation he gaue him a spirituall authority and made him supreme Pastor and head of a spirituall Kingdome that is to say of his Church And this no doubt is the most direct inference that can be made of the word Pasce when it is applied in the old Testament eyther to Dauid if we respect him as he was a King and not a Prophet or else to any other temporall Prince 18. And therfore whereas M. Andrewes saith Narro autem Cardinali c. I declare to the Cardinall that the tytle of Pastor was giuen in the holy Scriptures to Princes long before it was giuen to the Bishop and much more often as to Iosue before and more often euery where in the holy-history and in the Prophets This his narration I say is very idle and impertinent seeing it proueth not any thing which we deny but that which we willingly graunt to wit that the words Pascere and Pastor are often applyed in the old Testament to temporall Princes but that they signify spirituall gouernment in them as Kings M. Andrews will not proue in hast and the contrary is manifest inough in Cyrus a Pagan and Idolatrous King whome God called Pastormeus and no man I thinke will be so absurd to imagine that he had any Ecclesiasticall authority or was Head and chiefe member of Gods Church wherof he was no member at all besides that the example which he giueth vs of Iosue out of the booke of Numbers doth not any way help his cause but flatly confound him 19. For albeit in the Chapter which he quoteth to wit the 27 it is declared that God commaunded Moyses to assigne and ordaine Iosue for his Successour in the gouernmēt of the people least they should be like to oues sine Pastore sheep without a Sheepheard yet it is euident there that he was not to haue any authority ouer the High Priest but rather the cleane contrary to wit that he should depend wholy vpon the High Priests direction and therfore wheras Moyses was commaunded there by almighty God to giue part of his glory to Iosue Theodoretus doth very well obserue as I haue noted before in the Supplement that Moyses did distribute his dignity and authority which was both spirituall and temporall betwixt Iosue and Eleazar the High Priest yet in such sort that Iosue should be directed in al his affaires by Eleazar Pro hoc saith the Scripture si quid agendum erit c. For him that is to say Iosue if any thing be to be done Eleazar shall consult the Lord and at his word he to wit Iosue shall go out and in and all the children of Israel with him and all the rest of the multitude Thus saith the holy Scripture wherby it appeareth that albeit Iosue was Pastor populi yet he was but a temporall Pastor or Gouernour and to be directed euen in temporall affaires by the spirituall Pastor Eleazar whome Almighty God did illuminate and instruct in his consultations for the direction of Iosue Now then doth this example prick Cardinal Bellarmine trow you or M. Andrews Truely though he meant to prick the Cardinall yet you see he hath wounded none but himselfe Thus much to his second answere 20. His third is in substance that albeit S. Augustine and S. Cyril haue amply cōmented vpon the Ghospell of S. Iohn and vpon those very words of our Sauiour to S. Peter Pasce oues meas yet neyther of them saith he saw illustrem hunc fidei articulum de primatu Petri temporali this notable article of faith concerning the temporall primacy of Peter c. So he As if the Cardinal did teach or affirme that S. Peters primacy is a temporall primacy which is a meere fiction of M. Andrews to frame matter for himselfe to impugne for seeing the spirituall primacy of S Peter is so euident in the holy Scriptures that he is now then forced to graūt it in some sort yea somtimes as far forth in effect as we demaūd though at at other times he laboureth vtterly to ouerthrow it as I shall haue occasiō to declare more largly her after he wil now needs presuppose that we teach the Popes Primacy to be a temporall primacy why forsooth Marry because the Cardinal as also all the Catholiks do teach that the spirituall authority which our Sauiour gaue S. Peter and his Successors may and doth in some cases extend it selfe to temporall things so far forth as it is or may be necessary for the execution of their spirituall power and for
the benefit of soules the publike good of the Church and gods glory wherof I haue giuen sufficient reason in the first Chapter of my Supplement 21. Therefore I will only say for the present that if the Popes spirituall Primacy may for this cause be called a temporall primacy then may M. Andrews who taketh himselfe to be a Bishop and a spirituall Pastour be iustly called and nicknamed a corporall Bishop and a pecuniary Pastour because he doth punish men sometymes in his spirituall court not only in their bodyes but also in their purses and if he would thinke him absurd who should so style and intytle him he is no lesse absurd himselfe in calling the Popes Primacy for the like reason a temporall Primacy And although neither S. Augustine nor S. Cyril do in the places cyted by M. Andrews speake of any such extension of spirituall power to temporall matters whereof they had no occasion to treate yet it sufficeth that they do not deny it yea and that they do both of them sufficiently teach there the spirituall Primacy of S. Peter wherof the other is a necessary consequent 22. S. Augustine in that very Treatise wherto M. Andrews appealeth I meane vpon the Ghospell of S. Iohn and the last Chapter hath that expresse doctrine and those very words which I cyted a little before concerning the person and figure of the whole Church represented in S. Peter propter Apostolatus sui Primatum by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship or as he saith els where propter Primatum quem in discipulis habuit for the Primacy which he had amongst the Disciples For which cause he called him also twice in the same place primum Apostolorum the chiefe Apostle and saith that the Church receaued the keyes in him which as I haue shewed doth euidently proue him to be head and supreme Pastour of the Church whereof only he and no other of the Apostles is said to represent the person and figure so that S. Augustine sufficiently acknowledgeth S. Peters spirituall Supremacy in the place alledged by M. Andrewes 23. The like doth S. Cyril also in his coÌ„mentary vpon S. Iohns Ghospell and in the same place which M. Andrewes cyteth for there he calleth S. Peter expressely Prince and head of the Apostles saying Vt Princeps Caputque ceterorum primus exclamauit Tu es Christus filius Dei viui Peter as Prince and head of the rest first exclaymed Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God So he wherby he teacheth euidently that S. Peter was head and supreme Pastour of the Church in that he acknowledgeth him to be Prince and head of the Apostles who were the chiefe Magistrates and Pastors therof and therefore it is to be considered how this agreeth with that which followeth presently after in M. Andrews his text who hauing affirmed as you haue heard that neyther of these Fathers saw the article touching Peters temporall Primacy addeth Id tantum vident nec praeterea quid quia c. They see this only and nothing els that because Peter had denyed his Lord not once but thrice he was asked concerning loue not once but thrice and so when he had abolished his triple negation with his triple confession he was restored to the place or degree of Apostleship from the which he was fallen for touching the Primacy they are altogeather silent Thus saith M. Andrews 24. Wherin it is to be noted that wheras he saith that these Fathers saw only this which he heere setteth downe nec praeterea quid and nothing else it is euidently false for two respects the one for that they saw more then he mentioneth yea more then he listed to see to wit the Primacy of S. Peter as I haue shewed out of them both the other is because they saw not that which he affirmeth in their behalfe I meane that S. Peter was by those wordes of our Sauiour restored to his place in the Apostleship which he had lost for if they should haue said so they should seeme to hould or fauour at least the pernicious heresy of Wycliffe that Magistrates loose their dignity and authority by mortall sinne which pestiferous opinion those holy Fathers no doubt would haue abhorred if it had bene set abroach or taught by any in their tyme seeing that it shaketh the very foundation of all obedience eyther to Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall Magistrates because it doth not only make all obedience vncertaine for no man knoweth who is in the state of Grace but also giueth occasion to Subiects vpon euery offence of their Prince to call his authority in question 25. Therfore to the end thou maist good Reader know as wel the integrity of these Fathers in this point as M. Andrews his fraud and bad conscience in alledging them thou shalt vnderstand that S. Augustine saith nothing at all that may be so much as wrested to any such sense in that place and doth elswhere expressely teach the contrary as when he saith Apostleâ— againe a little after when Peter the Apostle denied our Sauiour and wept and remayned still an Apostle he had not yet receaued the holy Ghost Thus saith S. Augustine and could he teach a doctrine more contrary to that which M. Andrews fatâ—ereth vpon him 26. Let vs now see how he handleth S. Cyril vpoÌ„ whome it may be he principally relyeth for this matter for indeed that holy Father saith somewhat concerning the same though far otherwise then M. Andrews would make his Reader belieue for thus saith S. Cyril Dixit pasce agnos meos Apostolatus sibi renouaÌ„s dignitatem ne propter negationem quae humana infirmitate accidit labefactata videretur He to wit our Sauiour said to Peter feed my Lambs renewing to him his dignity of the Apostleship least it might seeme to haue bene decayed by his denyall which happened by humane infirmity Thus far S. Cyril who you see neyther saith nor meaneth that S. Peter fell from his Apostleship by his denyall of Christ but rather signifieth the contrary to wit that Christ would not haue it so much as to seeme or be supposed that he had lost his dignity by his fall and therefore renewed it by that new and expresse commission ne labefactata videretur lest it should seeme to haue bene decayed or lost 27. Wherin also it is to be obserued that the dignity wherof S. Cyril speaketh was not the bare office or degree of an Apostle but that which was peculiar and proper to S. Peter and so acknowledged by S. Cyril himselfe a little before in the same Chapter when he tearmed him Principem Caput ceterorum the Prince and head of the rest of the Apostles as also S. Augustine as you haue heard calleth it Primatum principatum Apostolatus the Primacy and principality of the Apostleship and therefore I say the Dignity which according to S. Cyrils doctrine our Sauiour renewed
c. Thus saith the Cardinall and after hauing layd downe S. Cyprians words alledged by S. Augustine being the same that you haue heard before he addeth the words of S. Augustine which are these Ecce vbi commemorat Cyprianus c. Behold how Cyprian doth shew that Peter the Apostle in whom the primacy of the Apostles is preeminent with such an excellent grace corrected by Paul a later Apostle when he dealt concerning Circumcision otherwayse then truth required So sayth S. Augustin whereby it euidently appeareth how he vnderstandeth S. Cyprian in this place to wit that albeit Peter was preeminent and far excelled the Apostles by reason of his Primacy yet when he erred he patiently suffered himselfe to be corrected by Paul and did not insolently and arrogantly defend his errour standing vpon the authority of his Primacy and challenging obedience of S. Paul and others 15. This then being so and the Cardinalls opinion concerning the meaning of S. Cyprian in this place being so â—ell fortified as you haue now heard by S. Augustines construction and iudgement thereof what reason hath any man to thinke that the Cardinall did as M. Andrews chargeth him purposely and craftily suppresse those words of S. Cyprian as not making for Peters Primacy whereas you see he taketh them to make much for it and doth vrge them notably to proue it Therefore can any reasonable man imagine any fraud in the Cardinall Or any other cause why he did not eyte them in his Apology but partly for breuityes sake which euery may seeth how much he affecteth in all his workes and partly because he thought he had alledged sufficient already out of that Father to proue his intent 16. So that whereas M. Andrews sayth Ea Cypriani mens videtur c. The mynd or sense of Cyprian seemeth to be that if Peter had said he had the Primacy he had insolently challenged somewhat to himselfe that is to say more then was due vnto him he did very well to say videtur it seemeth for if he had absolutly affirmed it he had ouerlashed very far Besides that he may learne if it please him to make a great difference betwixt insolenter and â—also insolently and falsely for a man may take vpon him a true authority and speake of it insolently that is to say without iust cause or in defence of some euill act and yet not falsely because it is true that he hath the authority which he pretendeth And therefore I say that if S. Peter should haue stood vpon his Primacy in defence of his erroneous act and sayd that S. Paul ought to follow and obay him therin because he was the Primate and head of the Apostlesâ— he had both sayd and done insolently which neuertheles in defence of a truth or vpon some other iust occasion he might both say and do without all note of insolency yea iustly and necessarily because he had indeed the Primacy and therefore was to be obayed and followed in all good and iust actions 17. But now M. Andrews goeth forward and whereas the Cardinall concluded that Peter being the foundation of the Church was therefore the head of it M. Andrews granteth that S. Peter was fundamentum quidem vnum sed non vnicum one but not the only foundation esse enim illiusce aedificij duodecem fundamenta for that there are twelue foundations of that building But M. Andrews is heere short of his account for he should rather haue sayd that there are thirteene except he will exclude Christ of whome the Apostle sayth Fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere c. no man can lay any other foundation then that which is already layed Iesus Christ of whome also the Prophet sayth Ecce ego ponam in fundamentis Sion lapidem c. Behold I will lay a stone in the foundation of Sion an approued stone a corner and precious stone founded in the foundation c. 18. And this I am sure M. Andrews will not deny seeing that it is one of the most speciall arguments whereby his fellowes are wont to exclude S. Peter from being the foundation of the Church to wit because Christ is the foundation of it if therefore M. Andrews will admit twelue foundations of the Church without preiudice to Christ he may also admit eleuen without preiudice to Peter For albeit the twelue Apostles are all founded vpon Christ who is the first and principall stone yet Peter may haue the first place in the foundation next after Christ being immediatly founded on him as head and ordinary Pastor of the Church and the rest vpon Peter as extraordinary and subordinate to him Besides that Peter and the rest of the Apostles are called foundations in different manner as I will declare more particulerly in the discussion of M. Andrews his answere to the place of S. Hierome 19. And now to conclude concerning S. Cyprian whereas the Cardinall argueth vpon his words that because S. Peter was the foundation of the Church he was therefore the head thereof in respect that the head in a body and the foundation in a buylding is all one M. Andrews answereth thus Vix illuc vsquequaque c. That is scantly true euery way for I do shew the Cardinall a buylding whereof there are twelue foundations but hardly can the Cardinall shew me one body wherof there are twelue heads So he very well to the purpose I assure you ouerthrowing himselfe with his owne answere for if that buylding which he sayth hath twelue foundations be the Church as indeed it is and so it appeareth by his quotation of the 24. Chapter of the Apocalyps then may the Cardinall very easily shew him also a body that hath twelue heads euen according to the doctrine and opinion of M. Andrews himselfe who can not deny but that the Church is a body I meane such a body as heere we treate of to wit not a naturall but a mysticall body neyther can he deny that the Apostles were heads of that body seeing all of them had as M. Andrews still telleth vs the charge and gouernement of the Church alike and therefore being twelue gouernours they were also twelue heads 20. Is it then so hard a matter for the Cardinall to shew him a body with twelue heads Nay which is more and toucheth more our case doth not M. Andrews thinke it possible that such a body may haue a hundreth heads and all of them subordinate to one head What will he say of the state of Venice Will he deny that the Senators who are many hundreths are heads thereof or that they are subordinat to one Doge or Duke So that it is to be vnderstood that in respect of the rest of the Common welth the Senators are all heads though in respect of the Doge they are but members subordinate to him And so in this spirituall buylding of the Church or mysticall body of Christ though the
thereof though in the whole Church which was to be propagated by them ouer the world the danger of schisme was very great not only in their tyme but also much more afterwards as I haue signifyed before in which respect it was needefull to be preuented by the institution of one head ouer the whole Church and therefore when S. Hierome answering Iouinian saith that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles he meaneth that he was made head of the Church which was represented in them as in the Gouernours thereof for seeing that the obiection of Iouinian which S. Hierome answereth concerned the foundation of the Church vpon S. Peter his answere must needs also concerne the same to which purpose it is to be considered that he denyeth not Iouinians proposition as I haue proued before but explicateth what is tâ—e meaning of super Petrâ—m fundatur Ecclesia signifying that it meaneth nothing els in effect but that Peter was made head of the Apostles which is as much so say as that he was the foundation of the Church or that the Church was founded vpon him because as Cardinall Bellarmine saith very well the foundation in a buylding and the head in a politycall or mysticall body is all one so as S. Peter being made head of the Apostles who represented the Church as Gouernours thereof he was consequently made the head and foundation of the Church and this being so it appeareth that this place of S. Hierome is cleare for vs and directly proueth that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the vniuersall Church 48. And whereas M. Andrews in his glosse vpon S. Hieromes text noteâ—h with a parenthesis that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles not for the keyes saith he or for the foundation which are so much esteâ—med at Rome but to take away the occasion of schisme I know not wâ—at els he impugneth thereby but his owne idle conceipt for no man saith at Rome or any where els for ought I know that S. Peter was made head of the Church for the keyes or for the foundation other wayes then that in receiuing the keyes and being made the foundation of the Church he was made head thereof to take away the occasion of sâ—hisme And this is S. Hiâ—romes doctrine so euident that M. Andrews himselfe is forced thereby to confesse that Sâ— Peter was made head of the Apostles yea and that he had so much power and authority giuen him as was necessary for the preuention and remedy of schisme whereupon all our doâ—trine concerning the Popes authoâ—ity necessarily followeth as I haue shewed so that you see he still pleadeth for vs and well deserueth his fee if not for his good wil yet at least for his paynes in defending our cause against his will FOVRE OTHER PLACES OF THE FATHERS ARE DEBATED And M. Andrews his Answers thereto confuted With a Discouery of notable corruption and falsity in him and of three manifest lyes within litle more then three lynes AND By occasion thereof it is also proued that 8. Popes who liued in S. Augustines tyme had and exercysed an vniuersall and supreme Authority CHAP. IIII. THOV hast seene good Reader in the last Chapter how well M. Andrews hath satisfyed the Cardinalls obiectioÌ„ out of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome and now in this Chapter I will examine his Answers to diuers other places of the Fathers namely of S. Basil and S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine which albeit he pretendeth to answere togeather with the former yet I haue thought good to separate them because I haue alledged them separatly in my Supplement 2. First out of S. Basil the Cardinall an I obiect these words to proue the supremacy of S. Peter ouer the rest of the Apostles Ille beatus qui ceteris praelatus discipulis fuit cui claues regni caelestis commissae That happy or blessed Peter who was preferred before the rest of the disciples to whome the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome were committed c. Hereto M. Andrews answereth thus Ex Basilio ceteris discipulis praelatum Petrum sed an vt esset Monarcha c. The Cardinall obiecteth out of S. Basil that Peter was preferred before the rest of the Disciples but was it to the end that he should be a Monarch is there no other prelacy but of a Monarchy he was preferred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the testimony that was giuen him by Christ as Basil hath there and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blessednes add also if you will that he was preferred in order and place the King doth also attribute the same vnto him yea that he may be the Prince of Apostles yet without a Monarchy Thus saith M. Andrews to the first part of S. Basils place whereto I will say somewhat before I add the rest Heere then you see he graunteth that S. Peter was preferred before the rest of the Apostles in order and place yea and that he was the Prince of the Apostles and forsooth no Monarch 3. But if we consider what he hath graunted in the last Chapter we shall find that he must needs acknowledge him to be a Monarch how much soeuer he mislyke the word for if a Monarch do signify him that is one chiefe Prince and sâ—preme head or gouernour of others not for his owne particuler benefit but for the publike and generall good of those whome he gouerneth for so is a Monarch distinguished from a Tyrant he cannot with any reason deny S. Pâ—ter to be the Monarch that is to say the supreme Prince and head of the Church whome he acknowledgeth togeather with S. Hierome to haue been made by our Sauiour head of the Apostles to preuent and remedy schisme and to haue had not only the precedence of place and order as now he saith but also so much power as suffyced for the conseruation of Vnity in the Church whereupon followeth all that power and authority which we do attribute to S. Peter and his successors as I haue declared briefely in the last Chapter 4. For S. Peter hauing by this commission of our Sauiour authority to ordaine commaund and punish as far as was necessary for the good of the Church it must needs be graunted that he had the power and authority of a Monarch and although M. Andrews had not been forced by â—he euidence of S. Hieromes testimony to grant it yet this very place of S. Basil which he pretendeth heere to answere doth proue it sufficiently signifying as much in effect as S. Hierome teacheth seeing that S. Basil not only saith that Peter was preferred before the rest of the Disciples but also declareth wherein that is to say not in place and order only but in authority also and iurisdiction adding cui claues Regni caelestis commissae sunt to whome to wit Peter the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome were committed giuing to vnderstand that he had by this particuler
manner diuers homilies in S. Chrysostom of the fifth feria in Passion week and of the Resurection and Ascension of our Sauiour and of Pentecost besids diuers others of particuler Saints as S. Fulgentius Sâ— Augustines schooler and others So that this exception of M. Andrews to the authority of this place of S. Augustin is tooto cold and friuolous and far vnworthy of a man that professeth to haue read the ancient Fathers and therefore truely he had reason to seeke out another answere that might be of some more weight which he frameth in these words Sed nec si tempori cedamus hic tamen testis satis in tempore venit c. But though we should yield to tyme he meaneth that albeit we should graunt that Sermons were made de tempore in those daies yet this witnes commeth out of tyme or season very vnluckily who doth not tell vs of any other head but of a sickly head nor of any other crowne of a head but a crazed or crackt crowne which therefore might very well haue been passed with silence 24. Thus raueth M. Andrews hauing his head so crazed with the frenzy of heresy that he vttereth such braynsick and idle stuffe as this which truely no man that were well in his wits would vtter to the purpose he doth that is to say to proue that S. Peter was not head of the Church For els why doth he say it seeing that the Cardinall cyteth this place to no other end but to proue that S. Peter was head of the Church and therefore M. Andrews giuing this for his second answere hauing as you haue seene great reason to mistrust the former must needs conclude thereupon that S. Peter was not head of the Church But how doth it follow that because S. Peter by fraylty denyed our Sauiour Ergo he was not head of the Church Do those that hold and teach his primacy deny his fall Or teach that his successours cannot also erre in matter of fact as he did though not in definition of matters of faith 25. Truly if M. Andrews eyther had a sound brayne or els were guyded by the same spirit that S. Augustine and other fathers were he would haue made another manner of construction of this place then he doth and rather haue sought to confirme S. Peters Primacy by his fall then to impugne it thereby for so doth S. Augustine in this place shewing that it was conuenient that almighty God should suffer him to fall because he was to be the gouernour and head of the Church which S. Augustine teacheth expressely in these words 26. Ideo B. Petrum paululum Dominus subdeseruit c. Our Lord did therefore forsake blessed Peter for a while to the end that all humane kind might know in him that without the grace of God it could do nothing and thereby a rule might be giuen also to him who was to be gouernour of the Church to pardon sinners for the keyes of the Church were to be committed to Peter the Apostle yea the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen were recommended vnto him as also in like manner there was to be committed to his charge an innumerable multitude of people which in respect of the vyces and passions of their nature were wrapped in sinnes and offences And againe after a while Idcirco saith he diuinae prouidentiae secretum c. Therefore did the secret of Gods prouidence so dispose and permit that he to wit Peter should himselfe first fayle and fall into sinne that by the consideration of his owne fall he might temper the rigour of his sentence towards sinners Quantum igitur diuini inuneris c. Therefore note what great bounty and goodnes and how much care and sollicitude God sheweth heerin towards the saluation of man he câ—reth the disease of the whole body in the head of the Church and compoundeth the health of all the members in the very crowne of the head in the very top of the coÌ„fession of Christ in the very fouÌ„datioÌ„ of an immoueable faith that is to say in that Peter who said although I should dye with thee yet I will not deny thee 27. All this saith S Augustine and much more to the same purpose which I omit for breuityes sake for that this may suffice to teach M. Andrews that S. Peters Primacy was so far from being preiudyced by his fall that it may rather be in some sort confirmed thereby seeing it appeareth that it was conuenient in respect of his Primacy that he should fall for the benefit that should ensue thereof as well to himselfe as to the Church which is also the expresse doctrine of S. Chrysostome who hauing said that Orbis terrarum Ecclesiae c. the Churches of the whole world and the multituds of people were to be committed to his charge And hauing also called him Apostolorum verticem the head of the Apostles the immouable foundation the steedfast rock the pillar of Churches and mayster of the whole world he addeth Peccare permissus est c. he was suffered to sinne for this cause chiefly because the multitude of people was to be committed vnto him lest he being seuere and innocent might be vnwilling to pardon the offences of his brethren So he to whome I may also adde S. Gregory the Great who maketh the same construction of S. Peters fall that these two other Fathers do affirming that God suffered him to fayle quem praeferre cunctae Ecclesiae disposuerat whome he had determined to make gouernour of all the Church that he might learne by his owne fraylty to haue compassion of other sinners 28. And to the end M. Andrewes may see that S. Augustine doth also else where plainly acknowledg the Primacy of S. Peter notwithstanding his fall he shall do well to read a place alleadged by himselfe in his first chapter to proue that S. Peter had nothing peculiar to himself by his pastorall commission which place if he had layd downe at large as he curtolled and maymed it after his manner it might haue sufficed to conuince him as well in the matter for the which he produced it as also in this For there S. Augustin hauing taught that S. Peter receauing the keyes the coÌ„mission of Pastor represented the person of the Church inferreth that the Church ought to pardon repentant sinners seeing that Peter bearing the person of the Church was pardoned wheÌ„ he had denyed his maister 29. Wherein S. Augustine not only deduceth a pious document out of S. Peters offence as you see he doth in the other place but also acknowledgeth sufficiently his supreme Dignity teaching that he bare the person of the Church which he did no otherwise but as he was supreme head and Gouernour thereof as I haue declared at large in the first Chapter of this Adioynder where I haue layd downe the words of S. Augustine and discouered M.
Ambrose speaketh are speciall meanes to apply vnto vs the satisfaction of Christ and in that respect the Fathers say that they satisfy for vs wash away blot out and purge our sinnes to wit as secondary causes that haue their operation by the vertue and force of the first cause which is the merits of our Sauiours passion and therefore if a man should say that a Phisitian had saued his lyfe he could not with reason be thought to derogate any thing eyther from the operation of the medicine or from the prouidence or power of God who gaue force to the medicine and good successe to the Phisitian as neyther he that should say the medicine saued his life could be thought to do iniury eyther to God or to the Phisitian 23. For whereas many causes do commonly concurre to one effect euery cause may well be sayd to work the effect without denyall of the concurrence of other causes and especially of the first cause by vertue whereof all the rest haue their opperation So that M. Andrews sheweth himselfe eyther very ignorant or totoo malicious in saying that S. Ambrose maketh the bloud of Christ superfluous because he sayth that the Martyrs wash away their sinnes with their owne bloud as though he denyed the vertue of Christs passion by ascribing remission of sinne to Martyrdome which is an inferiour and secondary cause thereof as being an immediate meanes to apply the force and fruit of Christs passion vnto vs and therefore whereas he sayth it is no meruaile that S. Ambrose who so sayd did not also stick to say that we may pray to Saynts it is indeed no meruaile at all seeing that his speach is in both most conforme to reason Scriptures Fathers and to the doctrine of the whole Church But truly the wonder is that any modest Christian and especially one that pretends to be a Prelate in Gods Church should be so temerarious and audacious as to lay so foule an imputation as he doth here vpon one of the most holy and famous Fathers of Gods Church for speaking only in such sort as all other Fathers speake yea the Scriptures themselues as I haue already shewed 24. Yea but S. Ambrose changed his mynd sayth M. Andrewes in the later poynt to wit concerning prayer to Saynts for Ambrosio sayth he alibi alia mens prouecto iam meliùs edocto Ambrose was elswhere of another mynd when he waxed elder and was better learned So he and how doth he proue this Marry for sooth by two manyfest testimonyes of his as he saith for thus he goeth forward cuius nota sententia ad Deum suffragatore non est opus certe nec obsecratore whose knowne opinion or sentence is there is no need of a suffragator or helper to God nor yet of a beseecher illa tu solus Domine inuocandus es and that other thou only O Lord art to be inuocated Thus sayth he alledging as you see two places out of S. Ambrose and cyting for the former his Commentary vpon the Epistle to the Romans and for the latter his funerall Oration vpon Theodosius the Emperour But in the former you may note partly his euil hap and partly his folly in the latter his fraud and falshood His euil hap is manifest in the former because to shew that S. Ambrose recalled his doctrine which he had deliuered in an vndoubted worke of his M. Andrews bringeth a testimony calling it notam sententiam a knowne sentence or opinion of S. Ambrose albeit he take it out of a worke which in the opinion of diuers learned men was not written by S. Ambrose and so perhaps M. Andrews himselfe would tell vs if we should obiect against him out of that Commentary that Pope Damasus was head or gouernour of the whole Church because we read there cuius Ecclesiae hodie rector est Damasus of which Church Damasus is gouernour at this day 25. Neuertheles I say not this because I meane to reiect the authority of that Commentary hauing alledged it my selfe before against M. Andrewes as S. Ambrose his worke which I haue done partly because it is commonly cyted vnder his name being amongst his other workes and no other Author of it knowne and partly because M. Andrews himselfe approueth it so highly as you see in this place and therefore I made account that howsoeuer others may take exception to it and to my allegation of it yet he can take none but must needs admit it wherein also I wish this difference to be noted betwixt his allegation thereof and myne that I did not wholy rely vpon the authority of it but fortifyed it with a most pregnant place taken out of a knowne and assured worke of S. Ambrose for the satisfaction of such as might doubt of the former whereas he being driuen to such an exigent as you haue seene that is to say flatly to deny S. Ambrose his cleare doctrine and vndertaking to shew that he recalled it afterwards professeth to produce an vndoubted and knowne testimony of S. Ambrose cyting neuertheles a worke which diuers learned men as I haue said do hold to be none of his as it may be seene in Posseuinus Maldonatus Cardinall Bellarmine and others which I say I cannot but ascribe to some euil fortune that haunteth M. Andrews and forceth him to ground all his buildings vpon such weake and vnsure foundations that there is no true solidity in anything he sayth or produceth out of others 26. And put the case there were no doubt at all to be made of the Author of that Commentary but that he was vndoubtedly S. Ambrose yet M. Andrews sheweth himselfe not only vnfortunate but also most foolish and ridiculous in that the place which he alledgeth out of it against prayer to Saynts doth not concerne it at all nor impugne any thing els but Idolatry to the Sunne Moone Planets and Starres which S. Paul reproued in the Pagans in his Epistle to the Romans by the occasion whereof the Author of the Cōmentary sayth that those Idolatrous Paynims of whome the Apostle speaketh were wont to excuse their Idolatry by saying that by the inferiour Gods men did come to the highest and chiefe God as by Counts or Earles to the King then he addeth Numquid it a demens est aliquis c. Is any man so mad or so vnmindfull of his owne good that he giueth the Kings honour to the Count For if any be found that do but only treate of such a matter they are worthily condemned as Traytours and yet these Pagans do not thinke themselues guilty of treason when they giue the honour of the name of God to his creature and forsaking their Lord do adore their fellow-seruants as though any thing more can be reserued to God For men do therefore go to the King by his Tribunes or Counts because the King is but a man and knoweth not whome he may
he tooke Arcadius the Emperour who caused this to be done and all the Bishops which caried these reliques and all the multitude of people which accompanied them for sacrilegious persons and fooles and finally concludeth deryding his folly Videlicet saith he adorabant Samuelem non Christum cuius Samuel Leuita Propheta fuit Belike they adored Samuel and not Christ whose Leuite and Prophet Samuel was This saith S. Hierome shewing the absurdity of Vigilantius who did thinke that Christ was not adored in all this but only Samuel Whereas all the reuerence honor adoration vsed by those Bishops and people to the Reliques of Samuel was indeed done to Christ because as S. Hierome said before seruorum honos redundat ad Dominum The honor of the seruants redoundeth to their Lord. 26. So that S. Hierome doth not deny that holy reliques may be adored in any other sense then as M. Andrewes following his progenitor Vigilantius will needs vnderstand the word adoration that is for a diuine Cult and worship in which sense neyther S. Hierome nor the Catholiks in his tyme nor we now do vse or take it when it is applied to holy things but only for a deuout and religious veneration as S. Hierome himselfe doth also vse it not only in the place before cited by the Cardinall touching the adoratioÌ„ of the ashes of S. Iohn and other Prophets but also when he said of himselfe Praesepe Domini incunabula adoraui I adored the manger and cradle of Christ and againe expounding that verse of the Psalme adorate scabellum pedum eius adore the Foot-stole of his Feet he taketh the Foot-stoole to be the Crosse giuing thereby to vnderstand that the Crosse is to be adored And therefore I leaue it to thee good Reader to iudge what a vaine vaunt it was of M. Andrews to say vpon the former place of S. Hierome Tenetur hic Cardinalis vt elabi non possit hecre the Cardinall is taken and held so fast that he cannot slip away Whereas you see that the whole place and the circumstances being laied downe with the state of the question betwixt Vigilantius and S. Hierome all which he craftily concealed he is caught himselfe lyke a mouse in a trappe in such sort that he shall neuer be able to get out with his credit 27. But yet there remaineth a word or two more to be said of this matter to a place of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose which he also obiecteth to the same purpose For whereas those two Fathers interpreting the wordes of the psalme adorate scabellum pedum eius Adore yee the Foot-stoole of his Feete do expound the foot-stoole to be the body of our Sauiour in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist teaching that the same is there to be adored M. Andrews saith that if adorare might be taken properly to adore holy thinges they would neuer haue troubled themselues so much to find out how the Footstool of God might be adored neyther would they haue determined that it could not be adored but in the body of Christ Whereto I answere firstâ— that they do not expound the same litterally but mystically for scabellum Dei the Foot-stoole of God in that place is litterally to be vnderstood of the Arke of the TestameÌ„t as the Cardinal hath proued by many notable reasoÌ„â— authorityâ— in his CoÌ„trouersys wherto I remit M. Andrews because I will not detayne my reader too long vpon this point 28. Secondly I say that albeit they vnderstood adoration in that place for diuine honour yet they do not deny but that it is and well may be taken in other places for a religious worship done to holy men for S. Augustine himselfe teacheth expressely in his booke de Ciuitate Dei that there is no one word in Latin that so properly signifieth diuine honor or worship but it is and may be applied to creatures except Latria which is borrowed of the Greeks and applyed eyther alwayes sayth S. Augustine or almost allwayes to the seruice of God rather by custome and vse then by the nature of the word properly signifying seruitus seruice For which cause hauing in his questions vpon Genesis demanded how Abraham could lawfully adore the Children of Heth seeing the Scripture sayth Dominum Deum tuum adorabis illi soli seruies Thou shalt adore thy Lord God and serue him alone he answereth that it is not said there Deum solum adorabis Thou shalt adore God alone but illi soli seruies thou shalt serue him alone and noteth also that for the word seruies in Latine the Greeke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence is deriued Latria So that it is euident by S. Augustine himselfe that neyther adorare nor any other Latine word doth properly signify to worship God only and that adoratio when it is not taken for cultus Latriae as he taketh it in the exposition of Adorate scabellum c. may be applyed to creatures and therefore he himsefe not only vnderstandeth adoratioÌ„ for ciuil worship in the foresaid example of Abraham but also vseth it els where for religious worship due to holy men saying of S. Peter Beaâ—issimum Petrum piscatorom c. The multitude of faithfull people doth now adore the most Blessed Peter the Fisherâ— genibus prouolutis vpon their knees 29. S. Ambrose also made no doubt to apply it to the veneration and worship of holy things who speaking of the Nayle of Christs Crosse which Queene Helen caused to be set in the Diadem of the Emperour Constantin her sonne sayd that she did wysely therein vt Crux Christi adoretur in regibus that the Crosse of Christ may be adored in Kings and to shew that he spake of religious worship adoration not of ciuill honour due to kings he addeth immediatly non insolentia ista sed pietas est cùm defertur sacrae redemptioni This is not insolency but piety when 〈◊〉 it is referred to our holy Redemption wherein I wish it â—o be noted by the way that M. Andrewes may learne hereby how impertinently he answereth els where to this place alledged by Cardinall Bellarmine for whereas the Cardinall to proue the religious adoration of reliques and images obiecteth out of S. Ambrose this very place to wit that Queene Helen did well and wisely cause the Crosse to be set vpon the head of Kings to the end that the Crosse of Christ may be adored in Kings M. Andrews answereth that if the Crosse be adored in Kings noÌ„ aliter adoratur c. it is not otherwyse adored then the Kings themsâ—lues is autem ciuilis honos est non religiosus but this is a ciuil and not religious honour So he but you see heere that the adoration whereof S. Ambrose speaketh is not due or giuen to the Kings themselues but referred to our redemption that is to say to the Passion of Christ and therefore
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
Iesuit who confessed it yea and procure him also to giue publyke testimony of it which by all lykelyhood would haue byn done long ere this if any secular Priest Iesuit or other Catholyke man of any credit or reputation amongst Catholykes had confessed and acknowledged any such matter especially in such manner as he hath declared 85. Besydes that it is not vnknowne what Iesuits haue bin in prison of late yeares or were when he wrote whereby also it may easily be iudged by such as know them how vnlykely it is that any of them would vpon pretence to discharge his conscience charge and stayne it with such a horrible forgery as this is Neyther are we ignorant of the common practise of M. Andrews and his fellow-ministers to calumniate and slaunder such Catholike Priests and Iesuits as they haue vnder lock and key in close prison whereof sufficient experience was seene when F. Garnet was in the tower of whome a hundreth false bruits were spread not only ouer all England but also in forrein countries yea ouer all christendome And albeit he sufficiently purged and cleared himselfe at his death of all the slanderous imputatious yet M. Andrews is not ashamed still to auow some of them as that he acknowledged by writing dyuers tymes vnder his owne hand and thryse publykly at his death that he had vnderstood of the powder-treason out of confession whereas he publykely protested the contrary for being greately vrged to confesse and acknowledge that he heard it out of confession he flatly denyed it repeating thryse neuer neuer neuer and wheareas he was charged to haue already acknowledged it vnder his hand he also denyed it bidding his accusers shew it if they could and of all this I am well assured by the relation of credible persons who were there present and especially of an honorable Gentleman who stood so nere him that he heard euery word he sayd and hath vpon his credit and conscience affirmed it vnto me In so much that I dare boldly appeale for the truth of this matter to the consciences and knowledge of all those that were within the hearing of him whome I also beseech to consider what credit is to be giuen to M. Andrews his report of the other thing touching the Iesuit in prison which passed in secret seeing he is so shameles to lye concerning a publyk matter wherein he may be disproued by some hundreths of witnesses 86. But it is not to be wondered that he speaketh his pleasure of F. Garnet and other Iesuits whome he professeth to hate seeing he vseth as you haue heard to bely the ancient Fathers whom he pretendeth to loue and honour for he that belieth those whome he supposeth to be his friends will care litle what he saith of such as he holdeth for enemies And this shall suffice for this matter and Chapter wherein I doubt not but it euidently appeareth that M. Andrews will not yield a iote to M. Barlow for all kind of cosenages lyes and fraudulent deuises to couer the nakednes and pouerty of his cause THAT Mr. ANDREVVS OVERTHROWETH HIS owne cause and fortifieth ours granting many important points of Catholike Religion THAT he is turned Puritan in the point of the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy and betrayeth his Maiesties cause vnder hād pretēding to defend it therfore is neyther good English Protestāt nor yet good Subiect LASTLY what is the opinion of learned Strangers concerning him and his Booke with a good aduise for a friendly farewell CHAP. X. NOvv ther resteth only one point to be handled which is of farre differēt quality from the former For thou mayst remember good Reader that amongst many things which I censured and reproued in M. Barlow I greatly allowed and approued one which is ordinary in him to wit that he doth very often ouerthrow his owne cause and fortifie ours which truly is no lesse but rather more ordinarie in M. Andrews as it may appeare by many examples which partly haue already occurred in this Adioynder and partly may be noted throughout his whole worke In the first Chapter I shewed how he confirmed though against his will the Catholick doctrine concerning the Primacy of the Pope by the allegation of certaine places of S. Augustin and S. Cyril and of a place of Deuteronomy concerninge Iosue as also of a fact of Iustinian the Emperour against Syluerius the Pope 2. In the second Chapter the same is also euident in his allegation of the 28 Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon which he seriously and mightily vrgeth against the supremacie of the Romane Sea though it doth clearly proue the same In the third Chapter the lyke occurreth in certaine places of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome by occasion whereof he is forced to graunt as much in effect as we teach concerning the supreme authority of the Pope In the fourth Chapter the discouery of certaine notable lyes and corruptions of his doth euidently proue the cleane contrary to that which he falsely auoweth concerning the Roman Sea And lastly in the last Chapter you may remember a place of S. Hierome concerning the Adoration of Reliques which being truely layd downe with the circumstances doth soundly confirme the Catholike doctrine which he sought to impugne therby wherof as also of all the former examples I forbeare to lay downe the perticulars because thou mayst good Reader eyther call them to mind or at least easily find them out by the quotations of the Chapters and numbers in the margent whereto I remit thee and will now add thereto some other examples in the same kinde 3. Whereby it will appeare that howsoeuer M. Barlow may in other poynts before mentioned goe beyond M. Andrews yet in this he cōmeth farre behynd him For you are to consider that M. Andrews seeinge euidently that the Protestants religion cannot be defended with any probabilitie in the rigour of the first groundes thereof layed by Luther Caluin and others taketh a new course which is to see how neere he can goe to the Catholyke Religion and misse it perswading himselfe that he shall be the more able in that manner to answere our obiections and find alwaies some occasion or other which how litle soeuer it be seemeth to him sufficient for he maketh account that he shall allwayes be a Protestant good enough if he be not a Catholike wherein neuertheles it befalleth him as it doth to the fly that playeth with the flame comming now and then so nere it that she burneth her winges and falleth into it whereof you shall see sufficient experience in this Chapter 4. It appeareth before that he admitteth the adoration not only of our Sauiour Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist but also of the Sacrament togeather with Christ for as he denieth with vs the adoration of the bare Sacrament that is to say the exteriour formes of bread and wyne without the presence of our Sauiour
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
ciuit Deica 8. S. Ambros li. 7. ep 54. ad Marcellin See cap. 9. nu 14. 15. Andr. paâ— 4. lin 7. S. Ephr. Ser. de laud. SS Mart Card. Apol p. 15. Andr. ca. 1. p. 41. §. Proximi M. Andrews his crypticall cauill against the testimony alleadged out of S. Ephrem Andr. vbi supr M. Andrews his câ—ggery Psal. 50. In what sense it is sayd that we pray to God alone Ro. 15. Ephes. 6. Thes. 3. Col. 4. Heb. 13. S. Chrys. Hom. 66. ad Pop. Antioch Caâ—d Apol p. 14. Andr. pa. 41 §. lamdudum S. Chryso Ho 26. in 2 ep ad Corâ— A further testimony of Sâ— Chrysostome touching the inuoâ—cation of Saynts Andr. vbi supra This is nothing els but to cast shaddowes before the light to obscure not to seek out the truth Supra nu 26. 27. Supra nu 19. 20. The custome of prayer to Saynts vniuersall in S Chrysostomes tyme. M. Andrews impugning the custome of prayer to Saynts impugneth an argument of Christs diuinity M. Andrews tryfleth notably in vrging the Cardinall to proue that prayer to Saynts is of necessity to saluation Apol. Card. p. 11. §. Sequituâ— Ibid p. â—2 §. Accipiam How the beliefe of prayer to Saynts is of necessity to saluation Matth. 18. Folly to neglect omit prayer to Saynts impiety to contemnâ— it heresy to coÌ„demne it Card. Apol p. 17â— S. Max. in ser. de laud. S. Agnet Andr. pâ— 42. §. Maxmi See chap. 4. nu 22.23 24. See chap. 5. nu 16. 17. S. Ambro de Virgin li. 4. epâ— 33. (b) Vide Bellar. de verbo Dei cap. 20. The writers of diuers parts of holy Scripture vncertayne (c) Euseb. li. 3. hist. c. 3. S. Hier. de viris Illust. (d) Sixt. Senens l. 7. Biblioth Sanct. (f) Luth. in prolo ep ad Hebr. (g) Mag. cent 1. li. 2. c. 4. col 55. (h) Kem. in exam â— sâ—ss Concil Trident. (k) in Confess VVittemb cap. de sacra Scriptura (l) Caluinus inst ca. 10. § â—â— c. 16. §. 25. S. Greg. Naz. in laud. S. Cypri Card. Apol. p. 14 A cauill against a place cited out of S. Greg. Nazianzen Andr. vâ—i supra â— Hieron comment in cap. 23. Matth. See before nu â—â— 19 â—7 Iâ—em nuâ— 5â— Andr. vbi supra A notable collusion of M. Andrews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Gregory Nazianzen highly approueth prayer to our Blessed Lady S. Greg. Nazian vbi supra S. Epiphâ— shamefully abused by M Andrewes The heresy of the Collyridâ—anâ— S. Epipha haer 79. de Collyriâ— dianis M. Andrews careâ—lesse of hiâ— reputatioÌ„ Mâ— Andrews seeking to discredit a place of Nazianzen hath discredited himselfe Apol. Card. pa. â—5 Cyril Hieros catech 5. S Greg. Nissen orat in S. Theodor. Card. Apol p. 13. Andr. p. 42. §. Venio seq Ambros. in Luc. 10. cap. 12. Euseb. in vita Constant Nazian orat in pascha M. Andrews would make the ancient Fathers better Orators theÌ„ Christianâ— M. Andrews adâ—uertised of 4. things Matth. 5. Conditionall speaches do not alwayes suppose a doubt in the speaker Ep. 〈◊〉 hilemâ— Ibid. M. Andrews maketh the ancient Fathers very vnchristian and wicked Oratours Melanch in antith Verae doctri Pontif. Magdeb. cent 1. l. 2. c. 4. colum 340. Brent in Apol. Confes. VVittemb Beza in Respons ad Nicolaum Seluec Andr. cap. 8. p. 150. liu 45. S. Greg. Nyssen orat in Theodor. Mart. Pictures of Martyrs vsed in Churches and highly approued by S. Gregory Nyssen The great deuotion of Chrians in the reuereut touching of holy reliques approued by S Gregory Nyssen The Inuocation of holy Martyrs expresly mentioned and allowed by S Gregory Nyssen (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Greg. Nyssen vbi supra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M Andrews remitted to the Greek text wherto he ordinarily appealeth A shifting euasion of M. Andrews refuted Andr. pag 44. lin 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Andrews his doubt retorted vpon him selfe Ioan. 14. What S. Gregory Nyssen meant when he sayd to S. Theodore Wheresoeuer thou art Nyssen vbi supra M. Andrews a wrangler in the highest degree Ambrosâ— l. de viduis Card. in Apol. p. 15. S. Ambrose shamefully calumniated by M. Andrews Andr. p. 45. §. Potâ—rat S. Ambrose cleared from M. Andrews his slaunderous imputation by the vniforme doctrine of holy Scriptures and Fathers Nazian orat 1. in Iulian. Cypr. li. 4. ep 2. Idem li. 1â— ep 3. li. 3. ep 14. in ser. de opere eleemos Origen bo 6. in exod Tertul. li. 2. de poeniten ca. 7. Ibid. ca. 6. Iren. li. 4. c. 26. in sine S. Aug. in enchiridio ca. 71. S. Hylar in psalm 118. in fine S. Chrys. orat 5. aduers Iud. S. Greg. li. 6. in 2. Reg. 15â— ca. 2. Dan. 4. Prou. 16. Rom. 8. Tit. 3. Philip. 2. The reason why baptisme pennance good works Martyrdome and such lyke are sayd to saue vs without derogatioÌ„ to the Passion of Christ. M. Andrews shewed to bâ— eyther very ignorant or exceeding malicious Andr. p. 45. § Poterat S. Ambros in cap. 1. ad Rom. Idem oration de obitu Theodos M. Andrews vnfortunate foolish frauduleÌ„t and first touching his euil fortune Coment in ca. 3. ep â— ad Tim. See chap. 1. nu 7. Ibidem Posseuin in Appar Maldonat in cap. 17. Matt. Bellar de amiss gra lib. 4. c. 9. §. Sed facilis M Andrews his folly in alledging a place against prayer to Saynts which doth nothing concerne it Rom. 1. Ambros. in cap. 1. ad Rom. What the authours scope and drift was in the place alledged by M. Andrews M. Andrews clippeth the Fathers authorities that they may not speake against him The mediation as well of Christ himselfe as of Saynts men for vs is ouerthrowne by the place alledged by M. Andrews if he vnderstand it aright The trick of heretiks to seeke to ouerthrow plaine places by obscure Another place of S. Ambr. very fraudulently cited by M. Andrews and ridiculously applied to his purpose See Chap. 6 nu 2. 3. S. Ambr. de obitu Theod. M. Andr. applyeth that to all things in generall which S. Ambrose speaketh of a particuler matter Only God is to be inuocated prayed vnto as the giuer of grace though the prayers of Saynts men may be craued to obteine it of him The weaknes of M Andrews his cause is further discouered by another shift and cozenage of his Andr. p. 45. §. Poterat A booke forged fathered vpon S. Ambrose which he neuer wrote S. Ambros. lib 1 de sacram cap. 3.4 5. Idem lib. 5. cap. 4. M. Andrews hardly vrged by his owne argument Andr. p. 45. § Poterat M. Andrews hiâ— absurd argument ab authoritatâ— negatiua retorted against himselfe How many wayes M. Andrews hath abused S. Ambrose M. Andrews answere to a place of Ruffinus examined and confuted Ruffin lib. 2. Hist. c. 33. Card. Apol p. 10. Andr. p.