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
opertet magis obedire Deo quà m hominibus and to giue our liues rather then to offend God and our consciences in the deniall of such an important article of our faith to the euerlasting damnation of our soules But M. Andrews holding the Kings Supremacy to be no article of faith or beliefe but only a matter of perswasion which passeth not the boundes of probability hath no such cause and obligation to deny it as we haue and yet neuerthelesse vnder the colour and pretence to defend it he doth so extenuate and abase it that he maketh it nothing but an externall humaine and meere temporall authority and consequently as any Pagan Prince may exercise as well as a Christan 60. And therefore he dealeth therin no otherwise then one who being chosen by his friend to maintaine his quarrell draweth his sword with pretence to defend him and giueth him a deadly wound behind his backe or like to some preuaricating Aduocate who being hyred to defend a cause pleadeth for the aduerse party for so doth he who being specially chosen by his Maiesty to defend and maintaine his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy doth couertly and vnderhand betray him depriuing him of all the spirituall power that the Parliament hath giuen him and leauing him only the bare title without the effect which kind of dealing if it were but amongst frendes and equals were no lesse then treacherous and perfidious and therefore what it is in a subiect towardes his Prince especially in a man so much honored aduanced by his Maiesty as M. Andrewes hath bin I leaue it to the iudgement of any indifferent man but sure I am it caÌ„not be counted the part of a good subiect 61. Neither can he be thought to be a good Enlish Protestant for who knoweth not that the English Protestant differeth from all other Protestants of other Nations especially in holding and maintayning the Ecclesiasticall and spirituall Supremacy that our Parliament first gaue to King Henry the 8. which you see M. Andrews doth not who as I haue said hath so pared shaued and abridged it that he hath made it nothing in effect at least much lesse and of farre other conditioÌ„ then the Parliament ordayned it Wherby he is not only subiect to the penalties of the Parliamentall statutes as a Traytor but also incurreth the censure of excommunication imposed by a late Synodicall constitution of the Byshops and Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury vpon such as impeach in any part saith the Canon his Maiesties Regall supremacy in Ecclesiasticall causes restored to the Crowne by the Lawes of this Realme therin established and so strickt is the Canon against such persoÌ„s that it ordayneth further that they being excommunicated ipso facto shall not be restored but only by the Archbyshop after their repentance and publike reuocation of their wicked errour So as this Canon and all the rest made in that Conuocation being authorized by his Maiesty and published by his Regall authority vnder the great Seale of England I remit to the iudgment of all true English Protestantes whether M. Andrews hauing incurred the censure of this Canon and being consequently cut off from the vnion of their Congregation can be a member of their body or any other to them then an Ethnick or a Publican vntill he haue publikly reuoked his errour and be absolued and restored by the Archbishop 62. And no maruell seeing that he is as it seemeth so farre from being an English ProtestaÌ„t whatsoeuer he hath ben hertofore that he is now turned flat Puritan in this point allowing the King no more power ouer the Church then to mayntayne and defend it which is the very doctrine of the Puritans who therfore do willingly sweare obedience to their Princes for the defence and conseruation of the Church as it appeareth by the Oath of the Puritans in ScotlaÌ„d who sweare thus Quoniam percepimus Ecclesiae religionis nostrae tranquillitatem c. Forasmuch as we perceiue that the tranquillity stability of our Church and religion doth depend on the health and good gouernment of his Maiesty as of the comfortable instrument of gods mercy granted the Realm for the conseruation of the Church and the administration of iustice amongst vs we do couenant and promise with our hart vnder the same Oath subscription and penalties to defend his person authority and dignity with our goods bodies and liues for the defence of the Ghospell of Christ and the liberty of our Countrey 63. Thus sweare they and no more teacheth M. Andrewes in substance granting no other power to Kings ouer the Church then they do to wit that Kings are but as Foster-fathers defeÌ„ders of it Wherin neuerthelesse this difference may be noted betwixt the Puritans and him that they do belieue it as a matter of faith no lesse then we wheras M. Andrewes is only perswaded that it is true seing that he placeth therin the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy which he holdeth to be no matter of fayth and therfore if the said Supremacy consist only in the defence of the Church as it doth according to his doctrine then both we and the Puritans are better subiects then he because we belieue the same to be a matter of faith and consequently do think our selues bound in conscience to maintaine it though it be with losâ—e of our liues wheras he taking it to be but only a matter of perswasion will not by all liklyhood loose six pence to defend it 64. Furthermore to shew that he doth truly Puritanize in the point of the Supremacy it is to be vnderstood that whereas the Cardinall obiecteth out of the Basilicon Doron of his Maiesty that the Puritans do not admit the Kings Ecclesiasticall primacy because they introduce a certaine parity into the Church he answereth that albeit they maintayne a parity a mongst themselues reiecting the distinction of degrees of Byshops aboue Ministers or of one Minister aboue another yet they doe not hold that there is any parity betwixt the King and them but do admit and acknowledg his Supremacy ouer them thus teacheth M. Andrews and addeth presently after in the next paragraph that wheresoeuer the Religion is reformed the supreme temporall Magistrats haue this Power euen this selfe same which the King hath So he whereupon two things may be euidently gathered The one that the Puritans haue the same doctrine concerning the Ecclesiasticall primacy of temporall Princes that is taught in all the reformed Churches which indeed they also affirme of themselues The other is that the King hath no other Ecclesiasticall power but the self same that the Puritans and all the reformed Churches doe graunt to their temporall Magistrate 65. But what the Puritans teach concerning this point you heard in the last Chapter by the testimony of M. Rogers approued and warranted by all the Cleargy of England to wit that Princes must be seruants to the
depressing and punishing the pryde of the Bishops of Constantinople who had so oft maliciously impugned the same which may serue for a Caueat to other rebellious Children of the Church For although Almighty God is patiens redditor a slow paymaster yet he payeth home in the end and as Valerius saith tarditatem supplicij grauitate compensat he recompenseth the slownes of his punishment with the weyght or grieuousnes thereof This I haue thought good to touch here by the way vpon so good an occasion will now conclude concerning M. Andrewes his Canon alledged out of the Councell of Calcedon 24. Therfore I say that it being euident by all this discourse that the sayd Canon was neuer able to equal the Church of Constantinople with the Roman Sea to which end M. Andrews saith it was enacted he must needs coufesse that eyther there was no such Canon at all to the purpose that he mentioneth or els that the small force and authority therof may serue for an euident argument of the supreme power and authority of Pope Leo and his successors seeing that theyr only resistance and contradiction sufficed to ouerthrow it notwithstanding the great authority of the Councell of Calcedon which ordayned it Whereby it also appeareth how vainely and vntruely he saith that Pope Leo contradicted it in vayne yea and which is more absurd that he made suite and intercession in vayne Frustra saith he Romano ipso Pontifice apud Augustum Augustam Anatolium per litteras suas intercedente The Bishop of Rome himselfe making intercession or sueing in vayne by his letters to the Emperour the Empresse and Anatolius So that you see he maketh Pope Leo's case very desperate and his authority very feeble seeing that he was fayne to make such intercession and suite not only to the Emperour and Empresse but also to Anatolius himselfe 25. Therefore albeit I am not ignorant that intercedere hath dyuers senses and amongst the rest signifieth to withstand prohibite or hinder a thing proposed or intended and that some perhaps may say that M. Andrews vseth it heere in that sense yet because it signifieth also to make intercession and suite and is so vsed commonly in Ecclesiasticall Authors and will be so vnderstood in this place by euery common Reader yea and for that M. Andrewes himselfe so taketh and vseth it diuers tymes and would be loath no doubt to haue men thinke that Pope Leo did or durst oppose himselfe to the Emperour Empresse but rather that in this case he behaued himselfe towards them and Anatolius as an humble suppliant and yet all in vayne therefore I say I cannot let this poynt passe vnexamined to the end thou mayst see good Reader as well M. Andrewes his vanity as also what kind of suit intercession Pope Leo made vnto these whome he nameth what effect successe it had with them But first I think it not amisse to declare here how this Canon was made in that Councell and why it was contradicted by the Legats of Pope Leo afterwards disanulled by Leo himself 26. Therefore it is to be vnderstood that Anatolius then Bishop of Constantinople ambitiously thirsting after his owne promotion namely to be preferred before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch and considering that Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria was deposed by the Councell for heresy and the Bishop of Antioch much disgraced for hauing adhered to Dioscorus thought that a good opportunity was offered him to accomplish his desyre and therevpon practised with the Bishops in the Councell for the furtherance of his pretence and hauing gayned so many of them that it seemed to him their very number and authority might extort the consent of the rest yea of the Popes Legats themselues procured that when the last session of the Councell was ended and as well the Iudges or Senate as the Legats were departed all the Bishops of his faction eyther remayned behynd or els after their departure returned againe to the place of the assembly and there made the Canon whereof we now treate Whereupon the Legats hauing notice of it caused the whole Councell to be assembled againe the next day and finding Anatolius and his faction who were the far greater part of the Councell resolute in their determination protested their owne opposition contradiction to the Canon as well in respect that it was repugnant to the Councell of Nice as also for that the other Canon which was pretended to be made in the Councell of Constantinople to the same effect was not to be found amongst the Canons of the said Councell sent to Rome neyther had beene euer put in practise by the Bishops of Constantinople 27. Finally they reserued the determination of the matter to Pope Leo himselfe whom they called Apostolicum Virum Vniuersalis Ecclesiae Papam The Apostolicall man and Pope of the Vniuersall Church vt ipse say they aut de suae Sedis iniuria aut de Canonum euersione possit ferre sententiam That he may giue sentence eyther of the iniury done to his Sea by the abuse of his Legats or of the breach of the Canons Thus sayd the Legats signifying that it was in his hands and power to ratify or abrogate as well this Canon as all the other Canons of that Coūcell which also the whole Councell acknowledged sufficiently in a common letter written to him wherein they craued of him the ratification of this Canon most humbly and instantly as it will appeare heereafter which neuertheles he flatly denyed confirming only the condemnation and deposition of Dioscorus and the rest of their decrees cōcerning matters of faith for the which only he sayd the Councell was assembled and in fine he disanulled the Canon for diuers causes specifyed in his Epistles First because it had no other ground but the ambitious humour of Anatolius who inordinatly sought thereby to haue the precedence before the Patriarks of Alexandria and Antioch Secondly because it was not procured or made Canonically but by practise and surreption in the absence of his Legats◠Thirdly for that the other Canon of the Councell of Constantinople vpon the which this seemed to be grounded was of no validity hauing neuer been sent to the Sea Apostolike nor put in practise by the predecessors of Anatolius Lastly for that it was flatly repugnant to the Canons of the Councell of Nice 28. For these causes I say Pope Leo abrogated this Canon which neuertheles it is like he would haue admitted and confirmed if it had proceeded from any good ground and tended to any vtility of the Church and had beene withall orderly proposed and Canonically made for albeit the Councell of Nice had already ordayned the 〈◊〉 and iurisdiction of the Patriarchal Churches of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem with the consent of Pope Siluester who was the head of that Councell without whose ratification nothing could be of force that
hath these wordes Petrus super queÌ„ Dominus fundauit Ecclesiam c. Peter vpon whome our Lord founded his Church and in another Epistle to Pope Damasus he affirmed the same not only of him but also of the chayre of Peter saying Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae id est Cathedrae Petri communione consocior super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio I following no first or chiefe but Christ do coÌ„municate with thy Beatitude that is to say with the chayre of Peter vpon that Rock I know the Church is buylt Finally in the selfe same booke against Iouinian where he answereth the former obiection he calleth S. Peter Petram Christi the Rock of Christ saying O vox digna Apostolo Petra Christi O speach worthy of an Apostle and the Rock of Christ signifying thereby that S. Peter was the Rock whereupon Christ buylt his Church 32. So as it cannot be denyed that S. Hierome both firmely belieued and expressely taught that our Sauiour buylt his Church vpon Peter wherein you haue already seene that he agreeth with S. Cyprian who wrote long before him and with the whole Councell of Calcedon which calleth S. Peter Petram crepidinem Ecclesiae the rock and top of the Church and rectae fidoi fundamentum the foundation of the true faith Besids that you may also see in Cardinall Bellarmins controuersyes that he agreed therin with Origen S. Athanasius S Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Epiphanius S. Chrysostome S. Cyril Tertullian S. Hilary S. Ambrose S. Maximus S. Leo S. Gregory the Great and other learned Fathers 33. Wherupon it followeth that Iouinian did not obiect the same as his owne singular opinion which he knew well would be litle esteemed and was to be proued and not obiected but as a matter generally acknowledged by Catholikes and that therefore he only sought to draw some consequence out of it as out of a knowne principle of the Catholike faith for the confirmation of his heresy as all heretykes do also seeke to do the like not only out of Catholike opinions but also out of the Scripture it selfe What then may we thinke of M. Andrews who is not ashamed to taxe the Cardinall as a follower of Iouinian for teaching that the Church was buylt vpon Peter Can we thinke that he hath any conscience or care of what he saith especially seeing that he himselfe is a true scholler and follower of Iouinian except he dissent not only from Luther Caluin and other Archsectaries his great Maisters but also from his brethren of the present English Church 34. For who knoweth not that they all hold and teach that marriage is of equal merit with virginity and viduall continency which is the proper heresy of Iouinian condemned for such in his owne tyme first by Pope Siricius and a Synode of Bishops held at Rome and afterwards by another Synode held at Milan where S. Ambrose was present Besides that the same is learnedly impugned and clearely confuted by S. Hierome in his bookes written purposely against him as also by S. Augustine in his treatises de Bono coniugali de Virginitate which he wrote expressely for the confutation of that heresy as he testifyeth himselfe in his Retractations where he calleth Iouinian a monster for teaching that doctrine and registreth him for an hereâ—tike in his Tract and Catalogue of heresyes as well for that opinion as for impugning the custome and vse of the Catholike Church in fasting and abstinence from certayne meates wherin also the forenamed sectaries of our dayes and the English Church at this present and consequently M. Andrews himselfe except he will disclayme from all his brethren do follow Iouinian Whereto I might add other heresyes of his taught by many Archsectaries of our tyme wherin it may be M. Andrewes hath his share amongst the rest as that merits and rewards of the lust are equal and that the corporall virginity and integrity of the Blessed Virgin Mary was corrupted and lost by the birth of our Sauiour 35. All which opinions being heresyes of Iouinian and registred for such by S. Augustine haue bene reuyued in these our dayes partly by Luther and Caluin and partly by the Magdeburgenses Bucer Molinaeus and others as Cardinall Bellarmine sheweth out of their owne workes in his controuersies Therefore I remit it now to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader who is the follower of Iouinian the Cardinall or M. Andrewes and his fellowes seeing that the Cardinall holdeth nothing els with Iouinian but only that Catholike doctrine which Iouinian held and professed togeather with S. Hierome and all other Fathers of his tyme as all heretikes haue alwayes agreed with Catholikes in some points and condemneth all those heresyes whâ—ch the Fathers aforesayd and the whole Church of their tyme condemned in him and his followers wheras M. Andrews and his fellowes expressely professe and teach those very heresyes for thâ— which Iouinian and his followers were by the ancient Fathers censured and condemned as monstrous heretikes as hath ben before declared so that I thinke of this there can be no further controuersy 36. Now then let vs proceed with the examination of what he saith further to the place of S. Hierome alledged by the Cardinall which is this Propterea inter duodecim c. Therefore amongst twelue one is chosenâ— that a head being appointed the occasion of schisme may be taken away whereto he answereth thus Inter duodecim vnum eligi c. that one be chosen amongst twelue or some number which some one man may be able to gouerne and prouyde for or els to take away schisme who doth forbid a head to be chosen or so much power to be giuen him as may suffice for the end or purpose for the which he was ordayned But the question is how far that power and that number extendeth lest the head become caput heteroclitum an extrauagant head or a head out of course and not so much the occasion of schisme taken away as an occasion giuen of tyranny So he all which I beseech thee good Reader well to note and particulerly that he granteth these points following The first that S. Peter was chosen head of the Apostles the second that a head is necessary for auoyding of schisme the third that the same head is to haue as much authority as is conuenient for the end for which he is ordayned and the fourth that of all this there is no question for that the question is saith he concerning the power of the head how far it extendeth and how great may be the number that he is to gouerne 37. But if M. Andrews consider well what he granteth he may consequently decyde the question or doubt that he maketh and shall see that he hath granted as much in effect as we teach or demand conâ—cerning the authority of
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
nothing is to be belieued or practiced in the Church whereof there is no cōmandment or example in Scripture which you haue heard already confuted as well by the authority of Scripture and Fathers as also by our aduersaryes owne doctrine approuing the practice of things not cōmanded any where in Scripture as the baptisme of infants the vse of the signe of the Crosse Godfathers and Godmothers in baptisme whereto I may add the tradition of keeping Sunday holy day in memory of the Resurrection of our Sauiour with abstinence from seruile works Also the obseruation of Easter Pentecost and such feasts and diuers other things consisting in matters of practice 56. If then they approue and practice these things although they be not commanded or ordeyned in Scripture what reason haue they to reiect prayer to Saynts because there is no commandement or example of it in Scripture when neuertheles it is most conforme thereto and deduced from it as I haue partly shewed already by an inafallible rule of S. Augustine seeing it is approued by that Church which the Scripture commandeth vs to heare belieue and obay besydes that it being euident in Scripture that Charity which moueth and obligeth men to pray one for another in this lyfe nunquam excidit as the Apostle teacheth neuer decayeth but is more perfect in the next lyfe it followeth not only that the Saynts do pray for vs which M. Andrews granteth but also that we may craue their prayers for it were most absurd to thinke that we may not request them to do that which is most correspondent to their Charity and they will most willingly performe 57. Furthermore seeing that the Scripture doth teach vs to craue the prayers and help of our brethren liuing there can be no reason imagined why we should not also do the same when they are glorifyed in heauen but eyther because they do not heare or vnderstand our prayers or because they are not willing or not able to helpe vs but that they heare vs I haue sufficiently proued already and haue also answered M. Andrews his cauils concerning the same and he neyther denyeth nor seemeth to doubt eyther that they are willing to succour vs considering the perfection of their Charity or yet that they are able to do it seeing he granteth they do pray for vs if he should deny it or that their prayers may auayle vs as Vigilantius his followers did in tymes past and Zuinglius with other sectaries haue done in these our dayes he might easily be conuinced by the holy Scriptures which witnesse that God granteth the petitions of his seruants euen when they are heere subiect to sinne and misery and hath mercy on sinners for the merits of the iust as well dead as liuing and therefore the Prophet prayed ne auferas misericordiam tuam c. do not take away thy mercy from vs O Lord for thy beloued Abraham and thy seruant Isaac and thy holy Israell And we read in the booke of Kings that for Dauids sake God did mitigate his wrath towards Salomon and saued also the Kingdome of Iuda from destruction in the reygne of Ioram and Ezechias 58. In lyke manner God pardoned Iobs friends for his sake and directed them vnto him to craue his prayers for them Also for the prayers of Moyses he had mercy on the people and the lyke we read in the new testament Whereupon S. Hierome sayd to Vigilantius thus Si Apostoli Martyres c. If the Apostles and Martyrs beeing heere in body could pray for others whiles they ought to be carefull for themselues how much more may they do it after their crounes victoryes and tryumphs one Moyses obtayned of God pardon for six hundred thousand armed men and Steuen the follower of his Lord and first Martyr in Christ craued pardon for his persecutours and shall they now be able to doe lesse when they are with Christ Paul the Apostle sayth that 276. mens liues were giuen him in the ship and therefore now when he is dissolued and with Christ will he hold his peace and shall he not be able so much as to open his mouth for those which haue belieued by his preaching throughout the world and shall Vigilantius a liuing dog be better then a dead lyon Thus argueth S. Hierome by an argument a fortiori grounded on the Scripture to shew the extreame absurdity of Vigilantius the heretike who denyed that the Saynts in heauen do pray for vs and are able to helpe vs. 59. And this ability of Saynts to helpe men is to be ascribed not only to the effect of their prayers but also to their power authority and dignity seeing that Christ who is the King of Kings Lord of Lords hath all power in heauen and earth giuen him by his Father doth in the Apocalips promise to his Saynts a communication and participation of his owne Kingdome dominion and power ouer men qui vicerit sayth he dabo sedere mecum c. he that shall ouercome I will giue vnto him to sit with me in my throne as I also haue ouercome and sitten with my father in his throne dabo ei potestatem super gentes c. I will giue him power ouer nations and he shall rule them c. and according to this promise of our Sauiour the Saynts also sayd to him in the Apocalips Redimisti nos Deo in sanguine tuo c. thou hast redeemed vs to God in thy blood and hast made vs to our God a Kingdome and Priests and we shall reygne vpon the earth and this may be confirmed out of the booke of wisdome which sayth that the iust when they shal be glorified iudicabunt Nationes dominabuntur populis c. shall iudge Nations and shall haue dominion ouer people and in like manner the Psalmist saith speaking of the glory of Gods Saynts exultabunt Sancti in gloria c. the Saynts shall exult and reioyce in glory c. they shall haue two edged swoords in their hands to take reuenge vpon nations and to chastise people to tye their Kings in fetters and their noble men in iron manicles c. Thus saith the royall Prophet 60. And albeit this shal be specially and most manifestly fulfilled at the day of Iudgement when the Saynts of God shall assist our Sauiour in the Iudgment and condemnation of the wicked yet it cannot be denyed but that also in the meane tyme it is verifyed in the power and dominion that God imparteth to his Saynts giuing them the protection of Cittyes Countryes and men as it appeareth euidently by innumerable examples which might be alledged of Kingdomes and Cytties defended Gods seruants relieued and his enemies destroyed by them for which cause the ancient Fathers do worthily call them the keepers of human kind gouernours of
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
Church subiect to the Church submit their Scepters to the Church and throw downe their Crownes before the Church and that as Beza testifieth they cannot be exempted from this diuine domination of the presbitery whereupon I gather two things the one that the Supremacy which as M. Andrews saith the Puritans do acknowledg in the King is to be vnderstood only in temporall matters wherein they doe indeed admit him to be theyr supreme head and Gouernour though as you see in M. Rogers they hold him in spirituall matters to be wholly subiect to the Presbitery The other is that all the reformed Churches are also of the same mynd seeing that they professe the same doctrine concerning the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy that the Puritans doe as M. Andrews himselfe confesseth◠whereupon it also followeth that the Kings Maiestie hath no spirituall power or authority at all ouer the English Church seeing that by M. Andrewes his owne confessiō he hath no other power but that which the Puritans and the reformed Churches doe admit in their temporall Princes 66. Besides that albeit we should grant that the Puritans and reformed Churches do allow the tēporall Magistrat to haue some power and authority in Ecclesiasticall matters yet it is euident that they do not allow them that spirituall Iurisdiction and authority which our Parliaments haue granted to our Kinges to wit that all the spirituall power of the Church shall reside principally in them and is to be deduced from them to the Church as from the head to the body that they may giue Dispensations Licences and Faculties in matters of Conscience make Ecclesiasticall Lawes giue Commissions to consecrate Bishops to excōmunicat interdict suspend cēsure to visit correct all Ecclesiasticall Persons and to reforme all heresyes and abuses this I say being a meere spirituall power and exercised by our Kings in England according to the grant of the Parliament is not admitted and much lesse practized in any of the reformed Churches as all those know who know any thing of their doctrine and practise 67. Therfore wheras M. Andrews saith that aswell the reformed Churches as the Puritans do grant the self same authority to the temporall Prince which our King hath and exerciseth in England he sheweth euidently that in his opinion his Maiesty hath no such spirituall iurisdiction and authority as hath bin granted him by our Parliament for that as I haue said the Puritans reformed Churches whose doctrine in this point he approueth do not acknowledg any such spirituall authority in temporall Princes but only a temporall power and obligation to mayntayne and defend the Church so farre forth as the same hath need of externall and humane helpe assistance or defēce which is indeed the self same all that M. Andrewes as you haue heard before alloweth to the Kings Maiesty when he saith that he is no otherwise ouer the Church but as a foster-father a tutor to nourish and defend it and that the question of the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy concerneth only the externall gouernment of the Church so farre forth as it requireth and admitteth humane help and authority So that you see M. Andrews is not in this point an English Protestant but rather a flat Puritan 68. And if this be now the common opinion of the Protestants in England as M. Andrewes would haue vs to suppose we may more truly say of them then he said of the Puritans dies diem docuit ex eo facti aequiores recognouerunt errorem suum time hath taught them more wit and so now they haue recanted their errour And no meruaile seing that their former doctrine is of it selfe so absurd hath bin so canuassed battered by Catholicks that they are worthely ashamed of it especially such of thē as haue any learning or shame at all for some no doubt there are of the ministry that will not stick to defend it or any thing els how absurd soeuer it be amongst whom M. Barlow may go for one who in his Preambler Epistle to the ministers of Scotlād which I haue mentioned before vpon another occasion is not ashamed to make the Pagan and Infidell Emperours supreme heades of the Church in the time of the Apostles saying that S. Paul appealed to Caesars iudgment as the supreme wheras Papists and Puritans will haue the King to be but an honorable member not a chief gouernour in the Churches of his dominions So he 69. Wherein two things are to be noted the one that he doth ridiculously make the Pagan Emperours the chief members that is to say the heads or gouernours of the Church who neuertheles being Idolatours could not be so much as the meanest members thereof The other that he seemeth to make the Kings Maiesty no other wise chief gouernour in the Church then they were albeit I think he will not be so absurd as to acknowledge any spirituall authority in thē seing they were altogeather vncapable therof being as I haue sayd Idolatours enemies and violent persecutors of the Church and faith of Christ. So as herby it appeareth that he also concurreth with M. Andrews to depriue his Maiesty of all the spirituall iurisdiction and authority which the Parliaments haue grāted to our Kings and that consequently they are both of them in one predicament of disloyalty towards his Maiesty and defection from the wonted Protestātisme of England in the point of the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy 70. Now then to conclude concerning them both all the premises thou hast seene good Reader how well these two Prelats of the English Church do simbolize agree not only in seeking to delude their Readers with dyuers lyes fraudulent shifts and deuises but also in betraying their owne cause and fortifying ours which is so euident in them both that they may well be accounted the most harmles or rather the most propitious enemies that euer the Catholikes had and therfore may in some sort be compared to the Scorpion which being a most venemous Serpent yieldeth a sufficient remedy against his owne poison and so do they for albeit they are replenished with venom and malignity yea and sting somtimes most maliciously not with solid arguments but with spitefull gibes and contumelious iests yet their malice doth commonly carry with it the remedy of it selfe being for the most part so manifest and accompanyed with such apparant falshood and euident folly that no man of learning and consideration can receiue any harme thereby but rather great benefit by the discouery of their imbecility the weakenes of their cause◠Seing they cannot otherwyse defend it then by such contumelious and malicious proceedings 71. Insomuch that the learned strangers who read M. Andrewes his booke in latin and do consider withall the speciall choyce that the English Clergy hath made of him to mayntayne the combat against Cardinall Bellarmine in the eye and view of the Christian world do
vt coÌ„mig Beethlem S. Dionys. Eccles. Hierar ca. 10. S. Basil. Ep. 1. ad Monach. lapsum in fine in ep ad Virgin laps Idem reg 14. fusius explic S. Aug. in psal 75. ante finem Ioan Cass. de Iustit renuÌ„ti li 4. c. 13. See supl. c. 7. nu 59. 60. M. Andrews approuing the first institute of monks approueth many important points of Catholke Religion See Card. Bellar. l. de monachis c. 42 43. seq (b) See Supplem Chap 7. n. 58 59.60 (a) Luther in colloqu Germa c. de matrimo (b) Idem to 8. de matrimo fol. 119. (c) Idem de Bigamia Episcop proposit 62. IteÌ„ Ochinus dialog l. 2. dial 21. See Caluinoturcis l. 2. cap. 11. (d) Bucer in cap. 1. 19. Mat. (e) 1. Tim. â— (f) Tertul. lib. de monogam c. 13. S. Epiphanius lib. 2. haeres 61. in fine S. Chrysost. hom 19. in 1. Cor. 7. in 1. Tim. 8. hom 15. S. Aug. in Psal. 75. IteÌ„ Concil Carthag 4. can 104. (g) S. Basil. de vera virginitate The first Euangelists of the Protestants Ghospell were the true Locusts that destroyed religiouâ— profession and perfection That the name Catholike belongeth only to the Apostolike Roman Church to the children thereof Andr. c. 5. pag. 125. §. Quod affert (a) See Chap. 4. nu 57.58 sequent (b) Ibid. nu 61. Magdeb. cent 4. c. 10. Socrat. l. 4. c. 30. (c) Cap. 4. nu 62. (d) Ibid. nu 63. (e) Ibid. nu 58. 59. Bellar. dâ— Pont. RoÌ„ l. 4. ca. 8. 11. (a) Idem Resp. ad Apolog. p. vlt. (b) Paâ—id Ep. ad Sympronian (c) S. Ciril Hier. c. 18. (d) Aug. in lib coÌ„tra ep FuÌ„dameÌ„ cap. â—â— Andr. c. 5. p. 125. Nam quae Andr. vbi supra M. Andr. his distinction helpeth him nothing Aug. vbi supra Item de vera religione c. 7. Luc. c. 19. Andr. c. 7. pa. 168. §. Nam de nostr (b) Barl. Ser. an 1606. 21. Septemb. (c) See before chap. 6. nu 77. (d) See Suppl Chap. 4. nu 54.55 seq (f) Suppl ca. 5. nu 2.3.4 5. What a beggarly Church Clergy the Sectaries haue in England See Supl. vbi supra nu 5. See Supl. vbi supra nu 6. S. Hieron aduers. Lucifer Iohn 10. (c) See before nu 35. also Suppl chap. 4 nu 54.55 seq Luc. 19. (b) Chap. 6â— nu 81â— (d) Chap. 3. nu 37. sequent What a poore coÌ„ceipt M. Andrews hath of the Kings ecclesiasticall supremacy Andr. c. 1. pag 21. §. Neque tamâ— Ibidem Ibid. p. 29. §. Aâ— recepta The Ecclesiastical Supremacy of temporall Princes may be in M. Andrews his Pater noster but is not in his Creed The oath of the supremacy vnlawful if the supremacy be no matter of faith Aureol in 3. dist 39â— Ang. verb. periurium See Nauar. manuale c. 12. nu 3. Suarez de relig Tom. 2. li. 3. ca. 4. nu 7. Card. c. 1. pag. 7. Andr. c. 1. p. 22. §. Sed. nec M. Andrews his grosse ignorance S. Aug. Quaest. in Leuit. li. 3. quaest 23. Num. 2â— M. Andrew his notorious malice in the abuse of holy Scripture Deut. 17. See c. 6. nu 68.69.70 See Suppl c. 1. nu 10. seq (g) Ibid. nu â—4 seq (h) Ibid. nu 3â— seq (i) nu 44. (k) nu 45. 50. (l) nu 49. seq (m) nu 3â— seq (n) nu 28. seq (o) nu 53.54.55 56. (p) See sup Chap. 1. nu 83. 84. It cannot be shewed how Kings afâ—ter they were Christened came to haue the gouernment of the Church The Ecclesiasticall supremacy of temporall Princes excluded by a rule of M. Andrewesâ— Andr. c. 1. pag. 37. §. Verùm M. Andrewes doth not allow any spirituall authority to the King Andr. ci 14. pâ— 323. lin 33. (d) nu 37. Ibid. c. 1. p. 21. §. nequâ— tamen What manner of Ecclesiasticall power M. Andreweâ— acknowledgeth in temporall Princes A Pagan Prince hath as much authoritie ouer the Church as M Andrewes alloweth to his Maiestie An. 26. Hen. 8. â— 1. The Parliament Statutes giue spirituall authority to the Kings Queens of England Ibidem The Lord Cromwel Vicar General to K. Henry the 8. for thâ— exercise of his spirituall Iurisdictioâ—â— An. 1. Elizab. c. 1. Spirituall Iurisdiction graÌ„ted to Q. Elizabeth by the Parliament An. 1. Elizab. c. 1. An. 1. Edward 6. c. 2. All the Spirituall Iurisdiction and authoritie of the Clergy of England declared by a statute to be deryued from the Prince M. Andrewes depriueth the Kings Maiesty of all the spirituall authority that the Parliaments haue giuen him (a) See before chap. â— nu 13. (b) suppl c. 1. nu 18.19 seq (c) Num. â— (d) Deut. 10. 18. (e) Numer 8. (f) Suppl c. 1. from nu 10. to 53. (g) Ibid. nu 51.52 K. Saul had no authority ouer the hygh Priest S. Aug. in psal 51. Andr. Tort. Torti p. 151. An. 26. Hen. 8. c. 1. an 1. Eliz ca. 1. The King might according to the statut excoÌ„municate an heretyke as well as any Bishop (d) Supra nu 53. The King could not giue the power of censure to other if he had it not in himfelse See suppl c. 6â— nu 61. M. Andrews neyther good Subiect nor good English Protestant A great difference to be noted betwixt M. Andrews his deniall of the Kings supremacy and ours Act. 5. M. Andrews hath no such obligation to deny the Kings supremacy as we haue M. Andrews lyke to a treacherous frend or a preuaricating aduocate M. Andrews doth vnderhand betray the Kings cause Why M. Andrewes is no good English Protestant See coÌ„stitut and Canons Ecclesiasticall printed by Rob. Barker Anno. 1604. Can. 2. M. Andrewes seemeth to be turned Puritan in the point of the K. Supremacy The Oath of the Puritans of Scotland set forth in the yeare 1584. What difference may be noted betwixt M. Andrews and the Puritans Both Catholikes Puritans are better Subiects then M. Andrews (a) Card. Apol. ca. 1. pag. 10 (b) Andr. c. 1. p. 30. §. Postremo (c) Ibid §. Nec habet See c. 6. n. 78.79 The Puritans doctrine coÌ„cerning the Kings subiectioÌ„ to their Presbytery The pretended reformed churches do not allow in teÌ„porall Princes any such spirituall authority as our ParlameÌ„ts haue graÌ„ted to our Kings M. Andrews professing the doctrine of the Puritans and reformed Churches concerning the Kings supremacy denieth it to be spirituall (b) suprâ— nu 47. (c) nu 37. M. Andrews no English Protestant but a flat Puritan The learned English ProtestaÌ„ts ashamed oâ— their woÌ„ted doctrine coÌ„cerning the Ecclesiasticall supremacy of teÌ„porall Princes See beforâ— nu 35. â— chap. 6. nu 77. M. Barl. seemeth to make the King head of the Church no otherwyse theÌ„ as the Pagan Emperours were M. Barlow and M. Andrews like to the Scorpion and why The opinion of the learned strangers concerning M. Andrewes his bookes against Cardinall Bellarmine M. Andrews gerally disliked for his obscurityâ— M. Andrewes compared for his obscurity to a fish called a Cuttle Plyn l. 9. ca. 29. A good aduise for a frendly farewell to M. Andrews (b) Se sup ca. 8. nu 100. seq (c) Ibid. nu 103. 104. (d) Ibid. nu 105. seq (f) Mat. 16. Mar. 8. Touching the cause and subiect of this Appendix See Suppl p. 208. nu 3 Adioyâ—d ca. 10. nu 35. The exception taken by Catholikâ— to the first Protestant Bishopes in Q. Elizabethâ— dayes iâ— no new quarrell D. Hard. confut of the Apolog par 2. fol. 59. printed an Dom. 1565. D. Hardings chaleng to M. Iewell coÌ„cerning the consecration of the first Protestant Bishops D. Staplet return of vntru fol. 130. lin 26. D. Stapletons chalenge to M. Iewell and M. Horne touching their coÌ„secration Idem counterblast fol. 301. An. 1. Elizab ca. 1. M. Horne answered nothing coÌ„cerning his consecration Iewell defence of the Apology pag. 130. M. Iewels ambiguous and weak answere touching his lawfull consecration How much it imported M. Iewell to haue proued the consecration of their Archbishop Doct. Har. detect fol. 234. p. 2. Touching M. Iewels irresolute ambiguous indirect answere How much it imported the first Protestant Bishops to haue had a publick most solemne Consecration How improbably M. Mason affirmeth out of his Registers that 4. Bishops consecrated M. Parker the first Archbishop How litle credit M. Masons new-found Register deserueth Andr. Resp. ad Apol. p. 41. §. proximi Barl. answâ— to a name Catholike p. 283. With how great reason exception is to be takeÌ„ to M. MasoÌ„s Register vntill he shew it to Catholiks who may giue testimony of it What is to be considered in M. MasoÌ„s Register to make it auteÌ„ticall An offer to shew any manuscript in Rome to English ProtestaÌ„ts
only the Cardinall but also the ancient Fathers Councells and holy Scriptures and finally to face out matters impudently for lack of proofes CHAP. IX Pag. 361. That M. Andrews ouerthroweth his owne cause and fortifieth ours graunting many important points of Catholike Religion That he is turned Puritan in the point of the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy and betrayeth his Maiesties cause vnder-hand pretending to defend it and therfore is neither good English Protestant nor yet good Subiect Lastly what is the opinion of learned strangers concerning him and his booke with a good aduise for a friendly farewell CHAP. X. Pag. 329. An Appendix touching a Register alleaged by M. Franc. Mason for the lawfull Ordayning of Protestant Bishops in Q. Elizabeths Raigne THE AVTHORS INTENTION IS DECLARED AND M. D. Andrewes his interpretation of Pasce oues meas examined and confuted FVRTHERMORE It is shewed that he hath belyed S. Augustine corrupted S. Ambrose notably abused S. Cyril vainly carped at a law in the Code foolishly approued the vnlawfull proceeding of Iustinian the Emperour against two Popes CHAP. I. WHEN I had well-neere ended my Supplement and already sent away the greatest part of it to the print it was my chance to haue a sight of M. D. Andrewes his Answere to Cardinall Bellarmines Apology and considering that the subiect thereof was in effect the same that Father Persons and I had handled and debated with M. Barlow I easily perswaded my selfe that I should find many things treated by M. Andrewes which I had touched in my Supplement In which respect I determined to take a speedy Suruey of his worke and finding that he pretended now and then to answere some places authorities and arguments which had bene obiected as well by me as by the Cardinall I resolued to examine and confute his Answers in respect not only of my selfe but also of the most Worthy Cardinall not for that I thinke he needeth any defence who like an inexpugnable fortresse trenched on euery side and fortified with bulwarks of truth doth of himselfe sufficiently resist the assaults and daunt both the courage and force of his enemies but that in discharge of the obligation which all true Christians owe him for his singular merits towards the Church of Christ I may for my part out of my pouerty pay with the poore widdow my two mytes and therfore hauing offered one of them in my Supplement I thinke good now to add the other and the rather for that I hope by the same meanes to preuent the Cauills of my Aduersary M. Barlow who otherwise might perhaps in his reply if he be disposed to make any blame me for not taking notice of such a worthy work as that of M. Andrewes and eyther turne me ouer to him for satisfaction touching those points or els make vse of his answers himselfe which being esteemed as a precious fruite of the fine wit and curious pen of the greatest Rabbin in the English Synagogue are held no doubt by his friends and followers for no other then oracles of Apollo I meane both infallible and irrefragable for which cause I am the more willing to enter into the examination of them And therefore to the end thou mayst good Reader know how far I meane to proceed therin thou shalt vnderstād that seeing my Supplement is already vnder the presse and that I haue no more tyme to bestow on this Adioynder but vntill the said Supplement be printed I make account that I shall haue opportunity to handle but a few points in which respect I think good to make choyce of such only as concerne some of the most important matters cōtrouersed betwixt M. Barlow me not doubting but that the same shall suffice to shew ex vngue Leonem that is to giue the Reader an aboundant tast and tryall of M. Andrews his good spirit and sincerity in the defence of his cause 1. Well then to come to the matter For as much as one of the chiefest points debated in my Supplement by occasion of the new Oath is the question concerning the supreme and vniuersall Authority of the Apostolike Roman Sea which authority I deduced specially from the Pastorall commission giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter I thinke good to examine of what worth and weight M. Andrewes his Answeres are touching the same especially in his 16. 17. page where he laboureth seriously to proue three wayes against Cardinall Bellarmine that our Sauiours words to S. Peter Pasce oues meas alleaged and learnedly vrged by the Cardinall do make nothing for vs. 2. First he saith that S. Augustine affirmeth that S. Peter had no peculiar increase by the word Pasce and that S. Ambrose affirmeth the like of the words oues meas And to the end that this may appeare he pretendeth to lay downe the very words of those two Fathers Of S. Augustine thus Cùm Petro dicitur ad omnes dicitur Pasce oues meas when it is said to Peter it is said to all Feed my sheep Of S. Ambrose thus Eas oues non solùm Beatus suscepit Petrus sed nobiscum eas suscepit nos cum illo accepimus omnes Those sheep not only the blessed Peter receaued but also he receaued them with vs and we all receaued them with him And then M. Andrewes addeth Nempe dictum illi Pasce c. for it was said vnto him Feed as well in the person of others as in his owne atque vel sic iacebit Cardinali ratio sua and so shall the Cardinalls reason serue him to no purpose Thus argueth he 3. But to the end thou maist good Reader see and note with what fidelity and conscience this man alledgeth the Fathers I will lay downe the place of S. Augustine somewhat more amply then he hath done whereby thou shalt easily discouer his notable fraud S. Augustine in the place alledged by him saith thus Non enim sine causa inter omnes Apostolos c. For not without cause doth Peter sustayne the person of the Catholike Church amongst all the Apostles for to this Church the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen were giuen when they were giuen to Peter and when it is said to him Doest thou loue me Feed my sheep it is said to all and therefore the Catholick Church ought willingly to pardon her Children when they are corrected and strengthned in piety seeing we see that to Peter himselfe bearing the person of the Church pardon was granted both when he had doubted vpon the sea c. and when he had thrice denyed his Maister c. Thus saith S. Augustine declaring that Pasce oues which our Sauiour said to S. Peter was said to all the Church because S. Peter bare the person of the Church Which he did by reason of the supreme authority that he had ouer the Church 4. For else why should rather he then others of the Apostles be said to represent
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
Reader the rather to reflect vpon the propheticall zeale spirit of this holy Bishop the importance of his graue serious reprehension of the Emperour 49. But whether he did it of negligence or malice I leaue it to God his owne conscience to iudge and will only say of him that preferring as he doth the inconsiderate act of the ignorant and vnlearned Emperour misled by heretikes before the zealous graue speach cesuâ—e of a Catholik learned Bishop he sufficiently discouereth his owne heretical spirit especially seing that he could not but see in Liberaâ—us of what moment weight the Bishops words were which appeareth by the notable effect that they wrought in the Emperour himself who was moued therby to recall his factâ— as Liberatus testifieth in these words Quem audiens Imperatoâ—â— reuocari Roman Siluâ—rium 〈◊〉 c. The Emperour hearing the Bishop of Paterâ— commaunded Siluerius to be called back to Rome and the matter to be examined and tryed conceâ—ning his letters meaning the letters wherof he had bene falsely accused visi apprâ—â—â—â—â—tur ab ipso fuisse scriptuâ—â— in quacumque Cauitate Episcop degeret c. to the end that if it were proued that he had written them he might liueâ— or remaine Bishop in any other Citty and if they were found to be false then he might be restored to his seat Thus saith Liberatus wherin it is to be noted that although the Emperour vpon the Bishops admonition commaunded that the matters whereof Siluerius was accused should be better examined yet he did not presume to ordayne that in case he should be found guilty he should be depriued of his Dignity but only that for the security of the Citty of Rome he should liue in any other Citty and there exercise his function and charge 50. And Liberatus doth also further declare that as Siluerius was returning to Rome according to the Emperours order Bellisarius caused him at the instance of Vigilius who then vsurped his Seat to be deliuered into the hands of two of Vigilius his seruants in whose custody he perished shortly after with famine misery in an Iland called Palmaria wherby it appeareth how the Emperours reuocation of his fact was frustrated to wit not by his owne fault but by the sinister practise of his officers ministers who by the help of the wicked Empresse Theodora easily deluded him So that M. Andrews might learne by this relatioÌ„ of Liberatê° how potent were the Bishops words which he so litle esteemeth and the reader may note as well M. Andrews his folly as his bad conscience his folly in that he maketh more accompt of the temerarious and erroneous act of the Emperour which he himself acknowledged for such recalled then of the Bishops admonition which made him see and repent his errour his bad conscience in that he dissembled all this though he could not but see it in Liberatusâ— for no man can imagine that he would be so negligent as to answere to this obiection of Cardinall Bellarmine and not to search the Authour alledged by the Cardinall to see whether there were any corruption in the allegation therfore thou maist see good Reader with what sincerity he vseth to treat matters of Religion though the same import no lesse then the eternall saluation or damnatioÌ„ of mens soules not caring what he saith or dissembleth so that he may shift of the matter for the tyme with some shew of probability whereof we shall see much more experience hereafter in him as we haue already seene the like in M. Barlow For truely it is hard to say whether of them is more fraudulent and absurd in this kind 51. In the meane time two things are euident by this which hath been heere debated the one how weakely M. Andrewes argueth when he saith that the Emperour Iustinian shewed himself in these two acts to be superiour to the Pope aliqua exparte for it may well be graunted in some sense he gaine nothing by it seing the like may be said of Nero who put to death S. Peter and S. Paul of Herod who killed S. Iohn Baptist and of Pilate who gaue senteÌ„ce of death against Christ for they and all other persecutors of Gods Church yea Iustinian also himself in the end of his raigne when he declared himself an heretick and expelled Catholick Bishops from their seats because they would not subscribe to his heresies they all I say shewed themselues to be Superiours aliqua ex parte ouer those whom they killed banished and persecuted hauing by Gods permission power ouer them and exercysing the same power vpon them neuertheles I hope no good Christian man will say that because they did this ergo it was lawfully done which must eyther be the conclusion of M. Andrewes his argument à facto or els he concludeth nothing to the purpose 52. The other thing which I say is cleare by the premisses is that as well the testimony of the Bishop of Patera produced by the Cardinall as also the other grounded vpon the law inter Claras alledged both by the Cardinall and by me are good and solid proofes for the Popes Vniuersall authority ouer the Church of God notwithstanding the idle exceptions of M. Andrewes against the same and therefore he must now deuyse some other answere therto or seek some other shift seeing this hath fayled him and serued to no other purpose but to shew his conformity of spirit rather with the hereticks who deceaued and seduced Iustinian in the banishment of two Popes then with such Catholicke and holy Bishops as the Bishop of Patera or those others whose aduise he vsed in making his Catholike lawes in fauour and honour of the Sea Apostolike Finally thou seest good Reader that it may be iustly sayd of him as he said of the Cardinall to wit that he might haue abstayned from mentioning Iustinian and the law inter Claras seeing that he hath gayned thereby nothing els but to manifest his owne folly to bewray the weaknes of his cause to fortify ours THE ANSVVERS OF M. ANDREWS TO Certayne places of the Councell of Calcedon are examined and confuted His notable fraud in diuers things and especially in the allegation of a Canon of that Councell is discouered and the supreme authority of the Sea Apostolike clearely proued out of the same Councell and Canon CHAP. II. IN the second Chapter of my Supplement I haue produced certayne cleare testimonies out of the Councell of Calcedon for the Popes Vniuersall and Supreme authority ouer the Church of God and Cardinall Bellarmin also in his Apology hath alleaged the same whereto M. Andrewes hath framed an Answere such a one as it is so perhaps may seeme to some to haue answered vs both In which respect I think good to examin what he saith concerning that matter the rather because he holdeth it for a paradoxe in the Cardinall
to affirme that the Popes Supremacy is manifestly gathered out of that Councel addeth further that the Cardinals authority is not yet so great in the world as to make men belieue that the Popes Primacy is established by that which they know doth specially ouerthrow it So saith M. Andrewes therefore this poynt seemeth to me right worthy to be discussed 2. Thus then he saith Legat actione vna totaventilatum c. Let a man read the matter debated in one whole action of the Councel and renewed and confirmed in another finally decreed by a Canon that the priuiledges of the Bishop of Constantinople shal be ne maiora sed aequalia per omnia not greater but equal in all things with the priuiledges of the Bishop of Rome the Roman Legats crying in vayne against it and the Bishop of Rome himself sâ—ying also afterwards by his letters in vayne to the Emperour Empresse and Anatolius Thus saith M. Andrewes wherein two things specially are to be noted for the present for afterwards I will ad a thyrd one is that the Councel granted by that Canon to the Bishop of Constantinople equal priuiledges per omnia in all respects with the Bishop of Rome The other that Pope Leo and his Legats resisted and contradicted it in vayne 3. For the first whereas he saith that the Councell of Calcedon did by that Canon giue to the Bishop of Constantinople ne maiora sed aequalia per omnia priuilegia not greater priuiledges but equal in all things with the Bishop of Rome as though the Councell had exempted the Church and Bishop of Constantinople from subiection to the Roman Sea for par in parem non habet potestatem an equal hath no authority or power ouer his equal truly I must needs say that if M. Andrews had any care what he saith or sparke of shame he would not haue affirmed this so resolutly as he hath done seeing that the very words and text of the Canon it selfe do euince the contrary In which respect he thought good to giue vs only some patches pieces thereof with his corrupt sense and vnderstanding of it and not to lay downe the Canon it selfe whereof the drift and whole scope is no other but to giue to the Bishop of Constantinople the second place after Rome before the Bishops of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem which Churches in former tymes had alwayes had the precedence before the Church of Constantinople 4. The words of the Canon are these Sanctorum Patrum decreta vbique sequentes c. Following euery where the decrees of the holy Fathers and acknowledging the Canon of an hundreth and 50. Bishops which was lately read we do also decree and determine the same concerning the priuiledges of the Church of Constantinople which is new Rome For the Fathers did worthily giue priuiledges to the Throne of old Rome because that Citty did raygne or had the Empyre and the 150. Bishops most beloued of God being moued with the same consideration gaue equall priuiledges to the most holy Throne of new Rome iudging rightly that the Citty which is honored as well with the Empyre as with the Senate and doth enioy equal priuiledges with the most ancient Queene Rome should be also extolled and magnifyed as she is euen in Ecclesiasticall things secundam post illam existentem being the second after her c. 5. Thus saith the Canon adding also certayne priuiledges which were in particuler granted to the Church of Constantinople whereof I shall haue occasion to speake after a whyle when I shall first haue explicated this that I haue layed downe already which as you hane seene hath no other sense or meaning then to renew or confirme a former Canon pretended to be made by 150. Bishops in the Councel of Constantinople some 60. yeares before which Canon was a confirmation of the Decrees of the Councel of Nice not only concerning matters of faith but also touching the limites and iurisdiction of certaine Metropolitan Churches yet with this exception in fauour of the Church of Constantinople that it should haue Primatus honorâ—m post Romanum Episcopum propterea quòd sit noua Roma the honour of Primacy after the Bishop of Rome because it is new Rome 6. This then being the effect of that Canon of the councel of Constantinople it is cleare that this other of the Councell of Calcedon which renewed and confirmed it was also to the same purpose to wit to giue to the Church of Constantinople the second place after the Roman that is to say the preheminence before the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch which according to the Canons of the Councel of Nice had the second and third place after the Church of Rome and this I say is euident in the Canon it selfe alledged by M. Andrewes where it is sayd expresly of the Church of Constantinople that it should be magnified and extolled as old Rome was secundam post illam existentem being the se-second after her which clause was yet more clearely expressed in the same Canon as it was related in the Councell the day after it was made in these words Et in Ecclesiasticis sicut illa maiestatem habere negotijs secundam post illam existere that is to say we iudged it conuenient that the Citty of Constantinople should haue a Maiesty in Ecclesiasticall affayres as Rome hath and be the second after her besides that the relation which the whole Councell of Calcedon made to Pope Leo of the substance and effect of this Canon may put the matter out of all doubt declaring it thus Confirmauimus autem centum quinquaginta sanctorum PatruÌ„ regulam c. We haue also confirmed the rule or CanoÌ„ of the 150. holy Fathers which were assembled in Constantinople vnder Theodosius the elder of pious memory whereby it was ordayned that after that most holy and Apostolicall Seat the Church of Constantinople should haue the honour which is ordayned to be the secoÌ„d c. Thus wrot the whole Councell of Calcedon to Pope Leo. 7. Now then can any thing be more cleare then that the drift and meaning of that Canon is no other then to giue the second place to the Church of Constantinople after the Sea Apostolike Why then doth M. Andrewes affirme so confidently that this CanoÌ„ made theÌ„ equall in all things For although it giueth to the Bishop of ConstaÌ„tinople equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome yet it neither saith nor meaneth that their priuiledges should be equall in all things or in all respects as M. Andrews corruptly frauduleÌ„tly affirmeth in a differeÌ„t Letter as though he laid down the very words of the CanoÌ„ Besides that the equality meÌ„tioned in the Canon is sufficiently explicated by the Canon it self which hauing signified that the Fathers in that Councell thought good to grant the second place vnto the Church of Constantinople and to giue it equall priuiledges
generally imbraced in England what other fruit could be expected thereof but confusion tumult and sedition whyles euery gyddy-headed fellow perswading himselfe that he were as much bound to care for the publike good of the Church as the Pastors thereof yea as the supreme head or Gouernour himselfe might intrude himselfe to intermeddle in Ecclesiasticall affayres for the discharge of his conscience and obligation For if his band in that behalfe were equal with the band of Pastors he could not with reason be denyed equality with them in charge and commission seeing that equality of obligation requireth equality and parity of power to performe it for when power of performance wanteth the obligation ceaseth So that a greater power and dignity induceth an obligation of greater care and therefore let M. Andrews consider what a wise and learned proposition he hath made and published to the world and what a good and vigilant Pastour he is who teacheth such dangerous and seditious doctrine 56. And albeit to auoyde this absurdity he should restrayne his generall propositiō to Pastors only and say that whatsoeuer violateth the vnity of the whole Church doth belong equally to the care of all Pastors yet he were no lesse ridiculous then before seeing that he must needs acknowledge an inequality of obligation and care euen amongst them according to their different degrees For if a Patriarke haue iurisdiction ouer Metropolitans and they ouer Bishops and Bishops ouer Priests it is cleare that as their charge and degree is vnequal so also is the obligation of euery one of them different and conforme to his dignity degree and authority And therefore although the office and duty of euery Pastour is as I haue sayd to haue special care of the vnity and peace of the Church yet his obligation in that behalfe must needs be so much the greater by how much his power and authority is greater and he more able to performe it then others his inferiours to which purpose the Prophet saith of a Prince or supreme Pastor Princeps ea quae sunt digna Principe cogitabit ipse super Duces stabit The Prince shall thinke those things which are worthy of a Prince and he shall be ouer Dukes or captaynes So saith Isay of our Sauiour as some expound it or as others say of Iosias King of Iuda 57. But of whom soeuer it is to be vnderstood it is manifest inough that the forme of a good Pastor or Gouernour is prescrybed therein shewing that the Prince being the supreme Gouernour is to imbrace cogitations and thoughtes fit for his estate and as much excelling the cogitations of his Dukes or Captaynes that is to say of his inferiour or subordinate Magistrats as he excelleth them in degree and what thought is so worthy of a Prince as the care of the vnity and peace of his estate wherein consisteth the publyke and generall good of euery Common welth And the like is to be sayd of Pastors and especially of the supreme Pastor of the Church who ought according to the Prophet to haue cogitations worthy of his soueraignty that is to say as much to surpasse other inferiour Pastors in the care of the publike good of the Church as he surpasseth them in power and dignity Well then to conclude if M. Andrews his position may go for currant he may shake hands with the Puritans and lay away his tytle of Lord Bishop become follow Minister with his Ministers in the Diocesse of Ely seeing that there is no reason why he should haue a greater degree and dignity in the Church then they if they be bound to haue as great a care of the Church as he 58. But let vs see how he proceedeth to fortify his assertion in hope vtterly to ouerthrow the Popes Primacy Thus then he saith Quòd enim totius vineae id est Ecclesiae custodiam ab ipso Christo ait Pontifici commissam id est Primatum c. For whereas the Cardinall saith that the charge of all the vineyard that is to say of the Primacy of the Church was committed by Christ himselfe to the Bishop see how it contradicteth the Councell and the sentence of all the Fathers that were there present who with one voyce sayd Siqua essent Romanae Sedis priuilegia ea illi non à Christo nesciebant hoc Chalcedonenses quin à Patribus concessa esse c. If the Roman Sea had any priuiledges the same were granted vnto it not by Christ for they in the Councell of Calcedon knew not that but by the Fathers c. So he grounding still as you see all the force and weyght of his arguments vpon no better foundation then his owne fraud I meane his fraudulent allegation and exposition of that Canon of the Councell wherof I haue amply treated before and now he secondeth his former fraud with a new corruption of the text setting this downe in a different letter for the very words of the Councell siqua essent Romanae sedis priuilegia ea illi à Patribus concessa esse if there were any priuiledges of the Roman Sea they were granted to it by the Fathers whereas neyther those words nor yet the sense thereof are to be found in the 28. Canon which he alledgeth no nor in all the Councell of Calcedon 59. For in these generall words of his are included all the priuiledges that the Sea of Rome had any way eyther by diuyne or human law for any respect or cause whatsoeuer but the Canon speaketh with great restriction to wit of priuiledges granted vpon one consideration only for thus it saith Etenim antiquae Romae throno quòd Vrbs illa imperaret iure Patres priuilegia tribuere For the Fathers did worthily giue priuiledges to the throne of old Rome because that Citty did gouerne Thus saith the Canon far otherwyse then M. Andrews affirmeth who with his siqua comprehendeth all priuiledges whatsoeuer whereas you see the Canon speaketh only of priuiledges giuen to the Roman Church in respect of the Imperiall Seat so that other priuiledges might be giuen thereto for other respects for ought we see in this Canon and the reason is cleare why that consideration of the Imperial Seat was only mentioned and no other to wit because those that penned the Canon saw well inough that the Church of Constantinople could pretend no other reason to demand extraordinary priuiledges but only because the Imperiall Seat which was wont to be at Rome was then remoued to Constantinople 60. Therefore I beseech thee good Reader consider a little M. Andrews his silly discourse concerning this point who hauing sayd as you haue heard that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon knew not any priuiledges granted to the Roman Sea by Christ addeth Quare autem concessa c And why were they granted Was it because Christ sayd to Peter Tibi dabo claues aut Pasce oues meas I will giue thee
mayntenance of Ecclesiasticall Discipline which Discourse they end with this most humble and submissiue petition Haec sicut propria amica ad decorem conuenientissima dignare complecti Sanctissime Beatissime Pater most holy and blessed Father vouchsafe to imbrace these things as your owne and friendly and most conuenient or fit for good order 73. And afterwards hauing declared that the three Legats of Pope Leo did contradict this Canon they yield this reason thereof Proculdubio say they à vestra Prouidentia inchoari hoc bonum volentes desyring without all doubt that this good should also proceed from your Prouidence vt sicut fidei it a bonae ordinationis vobis deputetur effectus to the end that the effect as well of good order or Ecclesiasticall discipline as of faith may be ascrybed to you In which words it is to be noted that the Councell ascrybed the effect and forcâ— of their determinations not only concerning matters of discipline but also touching matters of faith to the authority especially of Pope Leo to which purpose they also added further that for as much as the Emperour Senate and all the Imperiall Citty desired it and that it seemed also conuenient to the whole Councell yea and that whatsoeuer is well done by the children doth redound to their fathers who account and make the same their owne therefore Rogamus say they tuis decrâ—tis nostrum â—onorâ— iudicium we beseech thee honour also our iudgement with thy decrees sicut nâ—â— capiti in bonis adiecimus consonantiam sic Summitas tua filijs quod decet adimpleat and as we haue yielded conformity on our parts to you our head so let your Highnes fulfill or accomplish to vs your children that which is conuenient Sic enim pij Principes complacebunt c. For so shall the pyousâ— Princes receiue contentment or satisfaction who haue ratified the iudgment of your holynes as a law Sedes Constantinopolitana suscipiâ—t praemiuÌ„ and the Church of Constantinople shall receiue a reward or benefit which Church hath alwayes performed all endeauour towards you to the cause of piety and conioyned it selfe with you to the conseruation of concord and vnity with the same zâ—ale Thus wrote the whole Councell to Pope Leo. 74. And now I report me to M. Andrews himselfâ— though I take him for very partiall in this cause whether any thing could be written in this kind more effectually to shew the beliefe and faith of the whole Councell touching the supreme authority of Pope Leo seeing that they do not only expressely call him their head and themselues his members him their Father and themselues his children but also do aâ—knowledge that he was accustomed to cast forth the light of his Apostolicall beames to the Church of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consuetè soliciti say those Fathâ—rs speaking of him in the plurall number for the reuerend respect they bare him and signifying that his wonted care and authority was so generall that it extended it selfe to the Greeke Church and particulerly to the Church of Constantinople furthermore they testify that the effect of their decrees both in matters of faith and of discipline depended principally on him and therefore do as I may say begge at his hands the confirmation of their Canon in fauour of the Church of Constantinople as a speciall grace benefit and reward foâ— the merits of the sayd Sea towards the Sea Apostolike and this in such earnest and humble manner that it is euident they acknowledged the whole matter to depend on his will to be granted or denyed ratifyed or disanulled by him which also the issue thereof made most manifest seeing that his owne denyall and opposition was sufficient to ouerthrow it as hath bene declared 75. And now I hope M. Andrâ—ws will not say that this is taken out of some corner of a period or some peece of a tytle or fragment of a little clause seeing that this is as he sayd of his Canon the very voyce of the whole Councell being the substance of their publike and generall letter to Pope Leo himselfe which may also be confirmed with their other publike testimonies of their beliefe concerning his authority as that they acknowledged not only that he was successor to S. Peter saying in their generall acclamation to an Epistle of his Petrus per Leonem locutus estâ— Peter hath spoken by Leo but also that he had Peters authority yea and that S. Peter was petra crepido Ecclesiae the rock and toppe of the Church and rectae fidei fundamentum the foundation of the true faith 76. To which purpose it is to be considered that one of the chiefe causes of the assembly of that Councell was to depose Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria which done by the sentence of Pope Leo pronounced by his Legates in these words Sanctissimus Beatissimus Archiepiscopus magnae senioris Romae Leo per nos per presentem sanctam Synodum vnà cum ter beatissimo omni laude digno beato Petro Apostolo qui est petra crepido Ecclesiae ille qui est rectae fidei fundamentum nudauit eum tam Episcopatus dignitate quà m etiam ab omni Sacerdotali alienauit ministerio The most holy and most blessed Archbishop of the elder and great Rome Leo hath depriued him to wit Dioscorus as well of all Episcopall dignity as priestly ministery by vs and this holy Synod togeather with the thrice most blessed and prayse-worthy Peter the Apostle who is the rock and top of the Church and he which is the foundation of the true faith This was the sentence giuen by the Popes Legats against Dioscorus which sentence euery Bishop in the Councell not only approued particulerly with his suffrage or voyce but also confirmed with his subscription as it appeareth in the 3. Action of the sayd Councell 77. Wherein it is to be obserued First that Pope Leo deposed Dioscorus by the Synod whereupon it followeth that he was president and head thereof and that the sayd Synod was but as it were his instrument in that deposition Secondly that he deposed him by the authority which he had as successor to S. Peter in which respect it is sayd here that he did it togeather with the most blessed Apostle Peter Thyrdly that for as much as S. Peter is heere acknowledged to be the head of the Church as being the rock and top thereof and the foundation of the faith the like must needs be granted of Pope Leo who was his successor and exercysed his authority Lastly seeing that this sentence of deposition giuen against Dioscorus in this manner and with these circumstances was receiued particulerly and subscrybed by euery one in that CouÌ„cell without any contradiction or exception taken to any part thereof it is euident that the whole was conforme to the faith and beliefe of the Councell and
word mater is applyed to the Church by S. Cyprian therefore Caput cannot be applyed to S. Peter but to the Church Therfore to the end M. Andrews may vnderstand that S. Peter and not the Church it selfe is in this place worthily tearmed by S. Cyprian caput fons radix origo the head the fountayne the roote and the spring he shall do well to consider the ground and drift of all S. Cyprians discourse which the Cardinall in his Apology omitted for breuityes sake and therefore although I haue layd it downe in my Supplement to proue the necessity of a visible head in the Church yet I will take paynes to repeat it heere to ease the Reader of the labour to seeke it there 4. S. Cyprian meaning to shew the cause why the Church is troubled with heresyes and schismes and withall to giue the remedy saith thus Hoc eò fit c. This hapneth because men do not returne to the beginning of truth nor seeke the head nor obserue the doctrin of the heauenly Maister which if any man will well consider and examine he shall not need any longer treatise or arguments to proue it the proofe is easy to be belieued by the compendiousnes or breuity of the truth our Lord sayd to Peter I say vnto thee thou art Peter and vpon this rock I will buyld my Church and the gates of hell shall not ouercome it c. To him also he saith after his resurrection Feede my sheepe vpon him being one he buylt his Church and to him he recommended his sheep to be fed and although after his resurrection he gaue equal power to all his Apostles and sayd as my Father sent me so I send you receaue the holy Ghost c. neuertheles to manifest and shew a vnity he ordayned one chayre and by his authority disposed that the beginning of the same vnity should proceed from one Truely the rest of the Apostles were that which S. Peter was endued with lyke fellowship of honour and power but the beginning proceedeth from vnity the Primacy is giuen to Peter that one Church of Christ and one chayre may be shewed So he 5. And prosecuting still the same matter proueth notably the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head from whence all the vnity of the body is deriued which he sheweth by three excellent similituds of many branches of one tree springing from one roote many brookes of one water flowing from one fountayne and many beames of one light deriued from one sunne concluding his discourse that notwithstanding the amplitude of the Church by the propagation and numerosity of her children and the extension of her parts and members all ouer the world vnum tamen caput est sayth he origo vna c. yet the head is one and the origen or beginning one that is to say Peter vpon whome he sayd before as you haue heard that our Sauiour buylt his Church and to whom he recoÌ„mended his sheep to be fed yea gaue him Primatum the Primacy vt vna Christi Ecclesia vna cathedra monstretur to shew therby one Church of Christ and one chayre and this must needs be the true sense of S. Cyprian in that-place if we will make his conclusion conforme to his premisses and to the whole scope of his intention 6. So that M. Andrews making the Church it selfe to be the roote fountayne and head whereof S. Cyprian speaketh doth most absurdly confound the tree with the roote the riuers with the spring the body with the head and lameth all that most excellent discourse of S. Cyprian yea ouerthroweth the very foundation thereof denying all that which S. Cyprian layd for his ground to wit the Primacy and supreme authority of S. Peter from whence he expresly deryueth the vnity of the Church as he doth also most clearely els where saying in his Epistle to Iubaianus Nos Ecclesiae vnius caput radicem tenemus We haue or do hold the head and roote of one Church and after declaring what roote and head he meaneth he sayth nam Petro primùm Dominus super quem c. For our Lord gaue this power of binding and loosing to Peter vpon whome he buylt his Church vnde vnitatis origâ—nem instituit ostendit and from whence he ordayned and shewed the beginning of vnity And agayne after in the same Epistle Ecclesia quae vna est super vnum qui claues accepit voce Domini fundata est The Church which is one was by the speach of our Lord founded vpon one who receaued the keyes So he Whereby it euidently appeareth that his constant and manifest doctrine is that all the vnity of the Church proceedeth from the vnity of her head to wit S. Peter and his chayre and that the Cardinall affirming that S. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne roote of the Church gaue vs his true sense and M. Andrews making the Church it selfe to be the head fountayne and roote of it selfe is very absurd and wholy repugnant to S. Cyprians doctrine or meaning 7. And this will be more cleere if we examin a little better M. Andrews his glosse vpon the text of S. Cyprian whereby he laboureth to proue that the Church it selfe and not S. Peter is the head fountayne and roote whereof S. Cyprian speaketh For hauing layd downe S. Cyprians words to wit sic Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa c. so also the Church shyning with the light of our Lord reacheth forth her beames ouer the whole world he noteth that the Father sayth Ecclesia non Petrus the Church not Peter and no meruaile seeing he had no occasion then to name Peter but the Church only for although the Church being a visible body hath alwayes a visible head vnder Christ to wit Peter and his successors yet S. Cyprian doth speake of it heere as of a body considered a part not including the head meaning afterwards to speake of the head as he had in lyke manner done before declaring from whence the vnity of that body is deriued as it will appeare further heereafter 8. In the meane tyme let vs see how M. Andrews goeth on with the text Vnum tamen lumen est c. Yet it is one light which is euery where spread neyther is the vnity of the body separated heere now he asketh two questions the one whether Peter be the light and the other whether he be euery where dispersed whereto I answere that although he is not the light of the Church as he was a particuler man yet he may well be so called not only as he was an Apostle seeing that our Sauiour sayd to all the Apostles Vos estis lux mundi you are the light of the world but also much more as he is the Vicar and substitute of our Sauiour who being lux vera the true light imparteth vnto him his owne excellencyes so far
S. Peter and his successors For if S. Peter were made head of all the Apostles to whome Christ left the gouernment of his Church it cannot be denied but that he was made head of the Church for who is head of any common welth but he that is head of all those that haue the administration charge and gouernement of it And if the reason why he was ordayned head of the Apostles was to auoyde and preuent the danger of schisme it must needs be granted that so long as the same cause and reason I meane the danger of schisme continueth in the Church so long also the remedy is to continue therin and that the greater the danger is the more necessary also is the remedy whereupon it followeth that seeing the danger of schisme doth and euer shall continue in the Church the remedy also of one head is euer to continue And for as much as the danger of schisme in the Apostles tyme was not so great they being all of them most holy men and particulerly guyded by the holy Ghost as it is andâ— alwayes hath bene euer since Therefore the remedy of one head which our Sauiour ordayned for the same is more necessary now then it was in their dayes yea and was more specially intended by his diuyne prouidence for all ensuing ages after the Apostles tyme then only during their liâ—es 38. Moreouer it being euident in the holy Scriptures that our Sauiour planted his Church to stand to the worlds end it were absurd to say that he ordayned that forme of gouernement vnder one head to last only during the Apostles tyme as though he had lesse care of the vnity of his Church in future ages then in the beginning when as I haue sayd the danger of schisme should be far lesse then it would be afterwards Therfore I conclude that seeing S. Peter was made head of the Apostles and consequently of the whole Church to auoyd schisme M. Andrews can not deny the same authority to S. Peters successors for the same reason especially seeing that our Sauiours prouidence therein is euident to the very eye of euery man that list not to be willfully blynd in that he hath permitted the succession of all the Apostles to fayle in all the Churches where they gouerned excepting only the succession of S. Peter in the Roman Church which he hath miraculously conserued to make it manifest to the world that S. Peter and his chayre as you haue heard out of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome is the Rock whereupon he promised to buyld his Church and that as S. Augustine sayth Ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae that is the Rock which the proud gates of hell do not ouercome 39. Furthermore whereas M. Andrews granteth also that a head appoynted in the Church for the remedy of schisme is to haue so much power as is necessary for that end he must needs consequently grant all that power which we requyre and acknowledge it in S. Peter and his successors to the same end I meane not only a power authority to define decyde coÌ„trouersies without the which no schisme or diuision concerning matter of doctrine can be conueniently compounded but also power and iurisdiction to punish such as do obstinatly infringe and violate the vniâ—ty and peace of the Church for how can the head sufficiently remedy schisme if he cannot punish those which do cause and mayntayne it and if M. Andrews will say that Christ hath therfore left authority to his Church to punish only by excommunication and spirituall censures I must demand of him what remedy the head of the Church can giue thereby when his censures are contemned and specially by an absolute Prince shall he haue then no further power to remedy the inconuenience how then is his power such as M. Andrews himselfe granteth it to be to wit quanta rei satis siâ— cui constitutus est as much as may be sufficient for the thing for the which he was made head that is to say to remedy and take away schisme 40. And who seeth not that the greatest harme that groweth to the Church by schisme commonly is when secular Princes do eyther rayse it themselues or mayntayne it in others Shall not then the head of the Church haue sufficient power to remedy this greatest danger and mischiefe that can hap to the Church Or shall he not haue meanes as well to correct his greatest and most powerfull subiects as the least and meanest Then as I haue sayd in my Supplement the power of the Church should be no better then a cobweb that holdeth the little flyes and letteth go the great ones and consequently the prouidence of Almighty God should be very defectiue in ordayning a head to conserue his Church in vnity and not giuing him sufficient power to performe it which no wyse temporall Prince would do if he should make a Lieutenant to gouerne in any part of his dominions Wherto it may be added that the Lawyers teach that he which granteth iurisdiction is presumed to grant all things necessary for the execution of it which is also conforme to the Philosophers Maxime to wit Qui dat esse dat consequentia ad esse he which giueth a being giueth togeather with it all those things which are consequents thereof or necessarily requyred thereto as I haue amply proued in my Supplement where I haue deduced the necessity of this consequent from the very Law of nature and light of reason 41. Besides that I haue also declared there that he which hath power ouer the soule for the benefit thereof must needs haue also power ouer the body and goods which by the very Law of nature are subiect to the soule and ordayned to serue it and therefore to be disposed by the spirituall Gouernour or Pastor so far forth as is necessary for the saluation of the soule in which respect the Church hath alwayes vsed and still doth to impose not only fasting and other bodily pennance but also imprisonments and pecuniary mulcts vpon her disobedient children when the benefit of their soules and the publick good of the Church doth requyre it which is also vsed by our Aduersaries themselues in their Ecclesiasticall discipline who in their spirituall Tribunals and Courts do punish the disobedient as well by pecâ—niary penalties as by corporall imprisonements Whereupon it followeth that when Princes who are members of the Church do violate the vnion thereof and are incorrigible by excommunication they may be chastised by their supreme head or spirituall Pastor euen in their temporall states so far as shall be necessary for the good of their soules and the benefit of the whole Church for otherwyse the head of the Church should not haue that sufficient power to remedy schismes and other inconueniences which M. Andrews himselfe granteth and it cannot indeed be denied 42. This then being so
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
Andrews his fraud more particulerly and produced also a cleare testimony of S. Cyril concerning the Primacy of S. Peter whome he calleth Principem Caput Apostolorum the Prince head of the Apostles though he do there grant his fall which he saith hapned by humane infirmity whereof M. Andrews cannot be ignorant seeing he cyteth also that place of S. Cyril no lesse then the other of S. Augustin though with greater fraud as I haue also shewed in the first Chapter 30. Finally I may add to these those other testimonies which I haue now lastly examined and debated with M. Andrewes out of S Cyril S. Hierome S Basil and S. Chrysostome as also the rest of that grand Iury of 24. Fathers Greeks and Latins alledged by Cardinall Bellarmine in his controuersies to proue the supreme authority of S. Peter ouer the Apostles all which most learned and ancient Fathers being the lights of the Church knew as well as M. Andrews that S. Peter had denyed our Sauiour and yet neuertheles did not take the same to be any preiudice to his Supremacy Whereupon I conclude that if their heads were sound then M. Andrews his head must needs be very sick and crazed seeing his sense and iudgment is so far different from theirs as to seek to ouerthrow or disproue S. Peters Primacy by his fall and to speake of him so contemptibly and opprobriously as he doth 31. But will you heare how well he mendeth the matter Marke him well I pray you and you shall see that as his head hath ben hitherto somewhat crackt so now he is become wholy distract talking as idly as if he were more fit for Bedlam then for a Bishoprick For hauing sayd as you haue heard before that this testimony of S. Augustine was vnluckily produced by the Cardinall because it giueth vs notice of no other head but of a sickly head to wit S. Peter and that therfore it might very well haue bin pretermitted he goeth forward thus Praesertim cùm eùmdem morbum in capite vestro notarint diu iam medicorum filij et si omnes non ego id est plus ego quà m omnes especially seeing that the Phisitians children haue now a long tyme noted the same disease in your head although all not I that is to say I more then all Thus saith he so mystically I assure you that he seemeth to propound a riddle and therefore may do well to explicate his meaning and let vs know who were those Phisitians and their children that haue noted the same disease in our head 32. Neuertheles for as much as it may be presumed that by the children he meaneth Luther Caluin Beza and himselfe with other Sectaries of this age we may also make a reasonable coniecture who were the Phisitians seeing that we are not ignorant that the true progenitours of all the Sectaries aforenamed were dyuers old heretykes whose herefies they haue reuyued namely the Donatists whose doctrine they professe concerning the fall of the visible Church Aerius whome they follow in denying Sacrifyce for the dead Vigilantius with whome they impugne the reuerend vse of reliques Iouinian who taught diuers points of their beliefe touched particulerly in the last Chapter and other Arch-heretikes condemned by the Church in ancient tyme who as S. Augustine witnesseth vsed also to barke though in vayne against the Sea Apostolike no lesse then these their children do 33. But although we may ghesse who were the Phisitians and their children yet it will not be so easy to coniecture what he meaneth by etsi omnes non ego id est plus ego quà m omnes although all not I that is to say I more then all for truely I haue shewed it to diuers and haue not found two that agree in the interpretation of it but the most probable seemeth to be the one of two one is that he alludeth to the words of S. Peter when he sayd etsi omnes scandalizati fuerint sed non ego Although all shall be scandalized yet not I who neuerthelesse was scandalized more then they all because he alone denyed his mayster which sense hath great difficulty because it neyther hath connexion with that which goeth immediatly before nor is truly applicable to the Pope of whome M. Andrews seemeth there to treate but is only contumelious to S Peter being a taunting kind of exprobration of his fall and therefore me thinkes M. Andrews should not admit it to be his meaning as sauouring too much of impiety 34. The other sense is that it should be referred to M. Andrews himselfe and that there is some litle fault in the print I mean in the points though not in the words which therefore should be pointed this si omnes non ego and if all not I that is to say if all haue noted this disease in your head why should not I note it Giuing to vnderstand that he will not yield to any of his brethren for zeale skill in noting the faults of Popes but rather plus ego quà m omnes that is to say therein will I go beyond them all which sense hath at least some good coherence with the precedent clause and well befitteth M. Andrews his zeale to the Ghospell and hatred to the Pope and so may passe for his meaning But whatsoeuer his meaning is I cannot forbeare to tell him that seeing his brayn is so intoxicated that he cannot write intelligibly and yet will take vpon him to play the Physitian and to cure the Popes diseases I will say to him with our Sauiour Medice cura teipsum and wish him to purge his owne head with some good quantity of a drug called Catholicon and a litle Helleborum to restore him againe to his right wits before he presume to be the Popes Physitian and to iudge of the diseases of the head of the Church 35. And whereas he goeth forward to shew vs a difference in the cure of Peters disease and of the diseases of his Successors let vs follow him a while and you shall see him runne as well out of his honesty as out of his wit For thus he saith Sed ab eo morbo sanatum hoc caput c. But this head to wit S. Peter was healed of this disease but your head he meaneth the Pope neyther will be healed nor yet is curable yet if he euer be healed let him be the head of the Church of Rome as he was in Augustines tyme but let no man appeale to him from beyond the sea or if any appeale he is to be excommunicated by Augustine who was far from acknowledging Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus for heads of the Church in whome neuertheles he cured the same disease So he which I beseech thee good Reader well to note and thou shalt see his conscience no lesse crackt then his brayne ioyning extreme falsity with folly abusing the authority not
in generall besides that being made with the Popes consent it was not any way preiudicall to the authority of the Sea Apostolike The third that M. Andrews iugleth notably with his Reader when he saith as out of S. Augustine Ad eum transmarinus nemo appellet c. To him that is to say to the Bishop of Rome let no man appeale from beyond the seas or if he appeale he is to be excommunicated by Augustine for neyther those words nor the sense thereof are to be found any where in S. Augustine who as you haue seene expressely taught and practised the contrary So that transmarinus nemo being set downe by M. Andrews in a different letter to be noted is indeed worth the noting for a notable falsity and a flat corruption of the Canon and abuse of S. Augustine and of all the Bishops in that Councell What then shall we say of this mans truth and fidelity who maketh no bones to bely the Fathers and corrupt whole Synods Can any man thinke that he hath any regard of conscience or shame Thus much for the second point 52. And now to say somewhat of the third he affirmeth as you haue heard that S. Augustine was far from acknowledging the Popes Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus for heads of the Church whereof you haue already seene the contrary in two of them to wit Bonifacius and Celestinus whose power and custome to admit and determyne Appeales from Africk S. Augustine clearely acknowledged and approued in the cause of Antony Bishop of Fussula as I haue amply shewed which power could not otherwise be due to Bonifacius and Celestinus but only in respect of their supreme and vniuersall authority ouer the whole Church And that S. Augustine had also the same opinion of Zosimus it appeareth sufficiently in an Epistle of his to Optatus to whome he writeth that he receaued his letters at Caesarea quò nos saith he iniuncta nobis à venerabili Papa Zosimo Apostolicae sedis Episcopo Ecclesiastica necessitas traxerat whither we were drawne by an Ecclesiasticall necessity inioyned or imposed vpon vs by the venerable Pope Zosimus Bishop of the Apostolicall seat So he which may also be confirmed out of Possidius who writeth that Litterae sedis Apostolicae compulerunt c. The letters of the Sea Apostolike compelled Augustine with other Bishops to go to Caesarea in Mauritania to consult and determyne of diuers necessityes of the Church 53. Whereby it is manifest that S. Augustine acknowledged in Pope Zosimus an Ecclesiasticall power and authority to impose vpon him and other Bishops a necessity to obay his commaundements in matters concerning the seruice of God and the Church which Zosimus could not do otherwise then as supreme and vniuersall Pastor or head of the Church for that the Church of Africk was not otherwise subiect to him then as all other Churches were But of Pope Zosimus and of S. Augustines opinion concerning his Primacy I shall haue occasion to speake further after a while and in the meane tyme this I hope may suffise to proue that S. Augustine was so far from impugning these three Popes that he acknowledged their supreme and vniuersall authority and consequently that they were heads of the vniuersall Church notwithstanding M. Andrews his peremptory assertion of the contrary which therefore may passe for another vntruth 54. Whereupon it also followeth that he forgot himselfe much more when he so confidently affirmed in the first poynt as you haue heard that the Bishops of Rome in S. Augustines tyme were but only heads of the Church of Rome which I noted before For the first of the 3. vntruthes though I remitted the particuler answere thereof vntill I had discouered the other two because they would not a litle help to the discouery of the first as you may haue already noted for it being cleare by all this former discourse that Appeales from Africk to Rome were vsuall frequent and neuer prohibited in S. Augustines tyme and againe that he acknowledged an authority and power in Pope Zosimus to lay iniunctions commaundements vpon him and other Bishops in Africk it must needs follow that the Bishops of Rome had a more ample authority in his dayes then ouer the particuler Church of Rome And to the end thou mayst yet haue good Reader a more aboundant satisfaction in this poynt I will say somewhat of all the Popes that liued in S. Augustines tyme who were 8. in all to wit Liberius in whose tyme he was borne Damasus Siricius Anastasius Innocentius Zosimus Bonifacius Celestinus And first of Liberius 55. We read in the Ecclesiasticall history that certayne Arian heretykes being excommunicated and deposed from their Bishopricks by the Catholike Bishops of the East Church sent their Legats to Pope Libâ—rius crauing to be restored by his authority and for as much as they craftily dissembled their heresy and faygning to be repentant made open profession of the Catholicke faith according to the beliefe and doctrin of the Councell of Nice they obtayned his letters for their restitution which they presented at their returne in a Synod held at Tyana and by vertue thereof were restored as S. Basil witnesseth saying that Eustathius Bishop of Sebasta who was the chiefe of that Legacy brought an Epistle from Liberius by the which he should be restored and when he had presented it to the Synod at Tyana in locum suum restitutus est he was restored to his place So he 56. Whereby it appeareth that the authority of Liberius extended further then to his owne Church of Rome seeing he could restore Bishops to their seats in the East Church as also his predecessor Pope Iulius had done not long before vpon the appeales of the famous Athanasius deposed by the Arians and of Paulus Bishop of Constantinople Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra Asclepa Bishop of Gaza and Lucian Bishop of Hadrianopolis all of them vniustly expelled from their seats vpon diuers pretences whose causes Iulius discussing saith the Story tamquam omnium curam gerens propter propriae Sedis dignitatem singulis reddidit suas Ecclesias as hauing a care of all for the dignity of his owne seat restored their Churches to euery one of them So saith Sozomâ—n in the tripartite history which I haue thought good to add to the former example of Liberius For although it fell not out in S. Augustines tyme whereof I now specially treate yet it was not aboue 14. yeares before him and therefore may well be applyed to his tyme as the Eue to the Feast Besides that doth demonstrate what was the beliefe of the Catholike Church at that tyme concerning the supreme dignity of the Roman Sea seeing that not only other Catholike Bishops but also Athanasius himselfe who was the mirrour of sanctity zeale and integrity in that age had recourse thereto as to the supreme tribunall on earth for the reparation of his wrongs but now to
proceed 57. After Liberius succeeded Damasus whose vniuersall authority is sufficiently testified euen by the African Bishops whome M. Andrewes maketh most opposit to the Roman Sea This may be veryfied by an Epistle of 3. Councells of Africk and the Archbishop Stephanus who wrote to Pope Damasus giuing him the title of most Blessed Lord raysed to the heyght of Apostolicall dignity holy Father of Fathers Damasus Pope and chiefe Bishop of Prelats and in the Epistle it selfe they do clearely acknowledge the supremacy of his sea coÌ„playning of certayne Bishops their neyghbours who without his consent or knowledge had presumed to depose Bishops which they said was against the decrees of all the Fathers and ancient rules and Canons of the Church by the which say they sancitum est vt quicquid horum vel in remotis c. it was decreed that whatsoeuer should be treated though in remote and far distant Prouinces concerning these matters that is to say the deposition of Bishops and other important affiayres of the Church the same should not be receiued nisi ad notitiam almae Sedis vestrae fuisset deductum c. except it were brought to the knowledge of your holy seat to the end that whatsoeuer should be resolued might be confirmed with the authority thereof thus wrot they and much more to the same purpose calling him also ipsum Apostolicum verticem Praesulum the very Apostolicall top or head of Prelats 58. And therefore no meruaile that another Father of the same tyme calleth him the gouernour of the Church of God expounding these words of the Apostle to Timothy Ecclesia est domus Dei viui c. whereupon he saith Ecclesia domus Dei dicitur cuius rector hodie est Damasus the Church is called the house of God the gouernour whereof at this day is Damasus So he wherto I may add a notable testimony of S Hierome who wryting also to Damasus to know of him with whome he might communicate in Syria and whether he might vse the word hypostasis affirmed that he held CoÌ„mâ—nion with his Beatitude that is to say saith he with Peters Chayre and that he knew the Church to be buylt vpon the rock inferring thereupon that whosoeuer did eate the Lambe out of that house he meaneth the communion of Damasus or of Peters Chayre he was a profane man and out of the Arck of Noe wherupon I infer that S. Hierome affirming the Church to be built vpon Damasus acknowledgeth him to be head thereof for the reason vrged before by me in the last chapter to wit because the head of a mysticall or politicall body and the foundation in a buylding are all one besyds that he also acknowledgeth the same by excluding all those from the vnity of the Church who did not hold communication with Damasus because the vnity of the body is deriued principally from the vnity of the head thereof according to the expresse doctrin of S. Cyprian which I haue also amply layd downe in the last Chapter 59. Finally S. Hierome demanding resolution from Damasus with whome he should coÌ„municate in Syria where was then a great Schisme and whether he might vse the word hypostasis sheweth that Damasus had authority to determyne and decyde controuersies and resolue doubts or difficult questions in matter of religion and therfore S. Hierome saith vnto him Discernite siplacet obsecro non timebo tres hypostases dicere si iubetis I beseech you iudge or determyne if it please you for I will not feare to say that there are three hypostases if you command me And againe afterwards Quamobrâ—m obtestor Beatitudinem tuam per crucifixum c. Therefore I beseech your Beatitud for Christs sake crucified and for the consubstantiall Trinity that authority may be giuen me by your letters eyther to vse or to forbeare the word hypostasis c. as also that you will signifie vnto me with whome I may communicate at Antioch for that the Campenses and the heretikes called Tharsenses being vnited togeather nihil aliud ambiunt quà m vt auctoritate communionis vestrae fulti c. do seeke nothing more or with greater ambition then that being vpheld with the authority of your communion they may vse the word hypostasis in the old sense So he 60. Wherin two thinges are to be noted the one that S. Hierome doth not aske counsaile or aduise of Pope Damasus but a definitiue sentence vt auctoritas detur that authority be giuen him that is to say that Damasus should by his letters determin and ordein what S. Hierome should doe in those cases The other is that not only the Catholikes in the East parts as S. Hierome and the Aegyptians whome he also called the collegues of Damasus but also the heretyks sought to fortifie themselues by the communion and authority of the Sea Apostolike Whereupon two things do also follow euidently the one that Damasus had power to decyde and determyne controuersies euen in the East Church and the other that his authority was not restreyned to his owne Church at Rome as M. Andrews seemeth to suppose but was vniuersall and therefore acknowledged as well in the East as in the West 61. This may be notably confirmed by the restitution of Peter Bishop of Alexandria to his seat who immediatly succeeded Athanasius and being oppressed by the Arians followed the example of his worthy predecessour and fled to Rome to Pope Damasus and returning with his letters which confirmed as well his creation as the Catholike faith was restored by the people qui illis confisus saith Socrates expollit Lucium Petrum in eius locum introducit who by the vertue of those letters expelled Lucius the Arrian Bishop and put Peter into his place 62. Also Vitalis an heretike in Antioch being accused to Pope Damasus of heresy was forced to come to Rome to purge himselfe and albeit after he had there professed himselfe to be a Catholike he was remitted by Pope Damasus to Paulinus Bishop of Antioch for his final absolution yet Damasus prescribed to Paulinus a forme of abiuration whereto Vitalis should subscribe which being done Paulinus absolued him Whereby it is euident that Damasus had a supreme authority as well in the East or Greeke Church as in the West for otherwise neyther would Peter Bishop of Alexandria who was a very holy man haue appealed vnto him nor the people haue receaued Peter by the vertue of his letters neither yet would Vitalis haue gone from Antioch to purge himselfe at Rome nor Paulinus Bishop of Antioch permitted that Damasus should intermeddle in matters pertayning to his charge 63. And this may yet further appeare by the earnest endeuours of S. Chrysostome then Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria to pacify Damasus towards Flauianus Bishop of Antioch who had committed periury and byn the cause of a great diuision and trouble in the Church for the remedy wherof
Anastasius who then was Pope how necessary it was for the Church of Africk that such Donatists as being Clergy men should returne to the vnity of the Catholike Church might be receiued and admitted without preiudice to their former dignityes if the Catholike Bishops that should receiue them should thinke it conuenient notwithstanding a Decree made to the contrary before in another Synod held beyond the seas whereby it appeareth that notwithstanding the great need which the AfricaÌ„ Church had of this decree as they signifyed yet they would not ordayne it without his knowledge and consent or rather as it seemeth they expected his leaue and order to do it and no meruail seeing that in other Synods and namely in the next following in the tyme of his immediate successor Innocentius of whome I am now to treat the African Bishops craued confirmation of their decrees from the Sea Apostolike vt statutis say they nostrae mediocritatis etiam Apostolicae Sedis adhibeatur auctoritas c. That the authority of the Sea Apostolike may also be added to the statutes of our mediocrity to conserue the saluation of many and to correct the peruersity of some 71. Thus wrote they to Pope Innocentius giuing clearely to vnderstand not only that the validity of their decrees depended vpon his confirmation but also that the conseruation of the faithfull in the true faith and the correction of peruerse and obstinate heretiks did specially belong to his care and proceed from his authority This will further appeare by another Epistle written to the same Pope Innocentius by them in another Synod held at Mileuis as also by his answere to them Thus then they wrote Quia te Dominus gratiae suae praecipuo munere in Sede Apostolica collocauit c. Because our Lord hath by his speciall guift of his grace placed thee in the Apostolicall seat and ordayned thee to be such a one in these our tymes that we should rather coÌ„mit the fault of negligence if we should conceale from thy Reuerence those things that are to be suggested for the Church then that thou canst eyther disdayne them or contemne them therefore we beseech thee to vse and apply thy Pastorall diligence to the great dangers of the weaker members of Christ c. So they whereby they shewed sufficiently their opinion concerning as well the worthynes of his person as his Pastorall power and authority ouer all the members of Christ as it will more euidently appeare by his answere whicâ— was this 72. Diligenter congruè Apostolico consulitis honori c. You do diligently and conueniently prouyde for the Apostolicall honour I meane the honour of him who besides other intrinsecall things hath the sollicitude or care of all Churches to declare what sentence is to be held in doubtfull matters wherein truely you follow the rule that you know hath bene kept with me alwayes throughout the whole world c. So he and a litle after he saith further that as often as there is question of matter of faith all Bishops ought to referre all that which is for the generall good of the Church honourâ— giuing to vnderstand that all Episcopall honour and dignity and other Ecclesiasticall authority proceedeth immediatly from the visible head of the Church vnder Christ that is to say S. Peter and his successors and that therefore the coÌ„demnation of heresyes determination of all doubts in faith ought to be expected and required specially from them 73. And to the end that M. Andrews may know that Pope Innocentius did not in this vrge his owne Apostolicall authority more then S. Augustine and the other African Bishops approued I wish him to read an Epistle of S. Augustine and Alypius where hauing sayd that relations were sent ex duobus Concilijs Cathaginensi Mileuitano ad Apostolicam sadem from the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the Sea Apostolike they add afterwards concerning the answere of Pope Innocentius ad omnia illa rescripsit â—o modo quo fas erat atque oportebat Apostolicae sedis Antistitem he to wit Innocentius wrote backe or answered to all things in such sort as was conuenient and as the Bishop of the Apostolike Sea ought to do So they approuing as you see not only the substance and matter of his Epistle but also his Apostolicall manner of writing acknowledging it to be fit for a man of his Apostolicall dignity So that it appeareth as well by the Epistle of the African Bishops to Pope Innocentius as also by his answere to them and their approbation thereof that the Bishops of Rome in those dayes had and exercysed a supreme authority in the confirmation of Synods resolution of doubts and condemnation of heresyes and heretikes 74. Whereof there occurred at that tyme a notable example in the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy for although the African Bishops did particulerly condemne it in their prouinciall Synods which could not prescrybe lawes to the whole Church yet the generall and vniuersall condemnation thereof throughout the world proceeded from the authority of the Sea Apostolyke and the seuerall sentences of the two Popes Innocentius an Zosimus which they signifyed in their letters not only to the Bishops of Africk but also to all Bishops vniuersally in respect of the vniuersall care and authority they had ouer the whole Church And therefore S. Augustine saith that the heretikes Pelagius Celestius were toto Christiano orbe daÌ„nati condÌ„ened throughout all the Christian world by the vigilaÌ„cy of the Episcopall Synods of Africk etiaÌ„ à Venerabilibus Antistitibus Apostolicae sedis Papa Innocentio Papa Zosimo and by the venerable Bishops of the Apostolick Sea Pope Innocentius and Pope Zosimus 75. Thus saith S. Augustine which his great friend Possidius Bishop of Calama who wrote his life confirmeth and explicateth notably signifying that the 2. Popes InnoceÌ„tius and Zosimus did at the great instance of the Councell of Africk cut off the Pelagians from the members of the Church and by letters directed to the Churches as well of Africk as of the East and West iudge them to be held as accursed and to be auoyded of all Catholikes Et hoc tale saith he de illis Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae pronuntiatum iudicium etiam pijssimus Imperator Honorius audiens sequens c. and the most pious Emperour Honorius hearing and following this such a notable IudgmeÌ„t of the Catholike Church of God pronounced against them condemned them by his lawes and ordayned that they should be held for heretikes So he wherein three things are specially to be noted The first that the Pelagian heresy was condemned vniuersally by the authority of the Sea Apostolike to wit by the sentence of the Popes Innocentius and Zosimus signified by their letters not only to the Churches of Africk but also to all other Churches in which respect S. Augustine also in his foresaid Epistle to Optatus
power giuen him by the keyes and by his Pastorall commission which doe import authority power Iurisdiction and gouernment 20. Therefore M. Andrews denying S. Peters preeminēce in authority and gouernment denyeth the primacy that the Fathers teach and reduceth it only to a bare name without effect and so doth nothing els indeed but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea and if we well consider what he saith we shall find that he graunteth not so much as the very word or name of primacy or at least if he do he cōtradicteth himselfe for what are trow you those voculae which he excepteth frō his graunt when he sayth that there is nothing in these places of the Fathers which may not presently be graunted nisi voculam fortè habent c. except some litle word perhaps What litle word I say is that which cannot be graunted Is it not Primatus Caput and some such other words as signifie Primacy Yes truely for no other voculae or voces in those places of the Fathers do so much molest him Neuertheles he hath no sooner excepted them from his grant but he granteth thē presētly saying Non negamus Primatum Petri c. Wee doe not deny the primacy of Peter nor those names which signify Primacy which is a strange kinde of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he wrangleth with himselfe contradicting himselfe notably within the space of two lynes first signifying that those wordes and names are not to be graunted and presently after granting them as no way preiudiciall to his doctrine 21. And to the end wee may vnderstand that he granteth vs nothing but words and names he distinguisheth the same from the thing it selfe which he meaneth to deny and yet so handleth the matter that he doth still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reducing also his denyall to a meer quarrell of words deuised by himselfe and neyther vsed nor meant by vs eyther in wordes or sense for he calleth rem ipsam the thing it selfe which is signified by our primacy terrestrem monarchiam an earthly Monarchy and in another place he also tearmeth it temporalem Primatum a temporall Primacie and this forsooth is that which he denyeth heere and so denyeth no part of our doctrine but a foolish cōceipt of his owne for although we hold and teach that the gouernment of the Church is a Monarchie and that the power thereof doth extend it selfe to temporall thinges in such sort and for such reasons as I haue touched in the first chapter of this Adioynder and handled at large in my Supplemēt yet it neyther is nor can be called temporall or earthly otherwise then as S. Hilary calleth S. Peters iudiciall sentences terrena iudicia when he sayth terrena eius iudicia sunt caelestia his earthly Iudgements that is to say his sentences giuen on earth are heauenly 22. And so I say that albeit the gouernment of the Church may in this sense be called earthly to wit because it is exercised vpon earth yet it is not earthly or temporall but spirituall and heauenly both because it is a spirituall and heauenly power and also because it is guided and directed from heauen by the spirit of God And therefore whereas M. Andrews doth call or rather nickname the Popes Supremacy a Temporall Primacy and his Monarchy an earthly Monarchy because he punisheth his spirituall subiects in their temporall goodes or states he may by the same reason say that S. Peter and S. Pauls power was not spirituall but corporall and temporall because the one of them punished Ananias Sapphira with corporall death and the other strook Elimas the Magician blind deliuered the incestuous Corinthian to Sathan in interitum carnis to the destruction of the flesh and finally extended his power to secular and politicall matters commaunding the Corinthians to appoint temporall Iudges amongst themselues rather then to haue recourse to the tribunalls and Iudgements of Infidells yea M. Andrewes must acknowledge himselfe to be but a meere temporall yea a pecuniary Pastour because in his spirituall Courtes he vseth pecuniary mulcts and other temporall punishments as I haue shewed before in the first Chapter By all this it appeareth that M. Andrews denying not the spirituall but as he tearmeth it the earthly Monarchy and temporall primacy of Peter denyeth nothing els but his owne vayne and idle manner of speach expressing only a foolish fancie of his and a very Chymera that hath no being in rerum natura and so he doth still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is therefore truely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say a wrangler in the highest degree 23. And to the end this may yet appeare more manifestly I will examine his answers obiections touching another point in controuersy betwixt him and vs whereby we shall also see how notably he wrangleth cauilleth iuggleth and tryfleth and because the matter and his manner of answering will requyre some long discourse I will make it the subiect of the three next Chapters A FVRTHER MANIFESTATION OF MAISTER ANDREWS HIS Tryfling wrangling and fraudulent humour by his Answers to other places of the Fathers concerning Prayer to Saints which he deuydeth into three rankes whereof the two first are examined in this Chapter CHAP. VI. WHEREAS the Cardinall vndertaketh in his Apology to treate of prayer to Saynts because the Apology for the Oath condemneth the vse and practise of it in the Catholike Church M. Andrewes taketh exception to the Cardinall for changing the state of the question and sayth that he fighteth with his owne shaddow because he promiseth to treate de intercessione Sanctorum of the intercession of Saynts wheras that which the King condemneth saith M. Andrewes is the inuocation of Saynts wherin he also noteth this difference that the intercession of Saynts is their worke and the inuocation of them is ours and that the King denieth not that which the Cardinall proueth to wit that the Saynts do pray for vs but that they are to be inuocated or prayed vnto which saith M. Andrews the Cardinall proueth not 2. And he pleaseth himselfe so much with this deuise that he doth often inculcate the same vrging the Cardinall to proue that Saynts may be inuocated yea producing a text of Scripture to proue that none can be inuocated but God for terret nos Apostolus saith he vtcumque vos hominem habetis pro leui c. The Apostle doth terrify vs how light soeuer you make of the man when he asketh this question quomodo inuocabunt eum in quem non crediderunt how shall they inuocate him in whome they belieue not for you perhaps haue found a way how a man may inuocate those in whome you your selues say you do not belieue whereas he to wit the Apostle seemed then to haue found no way Thus saith M. Andrews wherein it is to be noted that one speciall reason why he rejecteth our
thing expressed by the name and so in conclusion with his fatemur omnia he acknowledgeth vs for true Catholiks and himselfe and his fellowes for heretikes and therefore I may well say vnto him with our Sauiour in the Ghospell ex ore tuo te iudico serue nequam 35. And the lyke I may also say concerning his grant in another matter to wit that our Bishops are true Bishops and that the Protestant Bishops of EnglaÌ„d had their ordination from ours yea from 3. of ours for so he giueth to vnderstand whereupon he also inferreth that he and his fellow SuperinteÌ„dents haue a true ordination and succession from the Catholike Church whereas the quite contrary followeth vpon his grant for if our Bishops be true Bishops as hauing a true successioÌ„ from the Apostles and that the protestant Bishops haue no other lawfull ordinatioÌ„ but from ours two consequents do directly follow thereon the one that we haue the true Church and doctrine if M. Andrewes his fellow and friend M. Barlow say true who in his famous sermon mentioned by me els where affirmeth the Successiue propagation of Bishops from the Apostles to be the mayne roote of Christian Society according to S. Augustine and the mayne proofe of Christian doctrine according to Tertullian as I haue shewed amply in my Suplement and proued thereby that M. Barlow and his fellowes are e heretykes and Schismatikes The other consequent is that if the English Protestant Bishops had no other lawfull ordination then from the Catholikes they had none at all for that at the chaÌ„ge of religion in Queen Elizabeths tyme they were not ordayned by any one Catholyke Bishop and much lesse by three as M. Andrews saith they were but by themselues and by the authority of the Parliament as I haue also declared at large in my Supplement Where neuertheles I am to aduertise thee good Reader of an errour not corrected amongst the faults escaped in the Print For whereas it is said there they had almost seduced an Irish Archbishop and perswaded him to consecrate some of them Byshops there want certaine wordes to wit a Welsh Bishop hauing in vaine sollicited which words are to be inserted thus they had almost seduced a Welsh Bishop hauing in vaine solicited an Irish Archbishop and perswaded him to consecrate some of them Bishops after the Catholike manner c. And agayne a litle after whereas it is said thus seeing the Irish Bishop would not performe his promise they resolued to ordaine themselues c. there want also these words consâ—â—t nor the Welsh Bishop which words are to be added thusâ— seeing the Irish Bishop would not coÌ„sent nor the Welsh Bishop performe his promise they resolued to ordayne themselues Thus I say it should be corrected 36. Whereby it may euidently appeare what a beggarly Church and Clergy they then had and still haue for hauing then not so much as any pretended Archbishop or Bishop of their owne profession they were forced to begg their consecration euen of the Catholikes their aduersaries and hauing solicited an Archbishop in vaine and being out of hope to haue the consent of a Metropolitan to their ordination much more to be consecrated by 2. or 3. Bishops according to the ancient Canons of the Church they determined as I may say to play small game rather then to sit forth being desirous to haue some kind of ordination from any one Catholik though inferiour Bishop yea and in fyne they sought to haue it from such a one as was held to be the simplest man that then was or perhaps euer had bene of the English Clergy for so indeed was esteemed the Bishop of Landâ—â—â— whome they had almost inueygled and induced 〈◊〉 their turne But Almighty God out of his infinite prouidence so disposed for the eternall shame of their pretended Prelacy and Clergy that he also in the end refused to do it vpon a sharp message which he receaued from Bishop â—onner then Prisoner who being Bishop of London and consequeÌ„tly chiefe Bishop in the prouince of Canterbury by the death of Cardinall Pole Archbishop thereof sent one M. Cosen his Chaplen to the sayd Bishop of Landaff to threaten him with excommunication in case he did consecrate any of them whereupon he defisted from his purpose and they resolued to ordayne and consecrate one another and so they did as I haue signified in my Supplement vpon the testimony of one that was an eye-witnes of what passed amongst them at their ordination to wit M.I Thomas Nâ—ale a graueman well knowne no doubt to many yet liuing in Oxford where he was many yeares after Reader of the Hebrew Lecture 37. Whereupon I inferre two things the one that they haue no Clergy nor Church for haâ—ing no Bishops they haue no Priests because none can make Priests but Bishops and hauing neither Bishops nor Priests they haue no Clergy and consequently no Church as I haue shewed in my Supplement out of S. Hierome The other is that M. Andrewes and his fellowes are neyther true Bishops nor haue any succession from the Catholike Church as he sayth they haue noâ— yet any lawfull mission or vocationâ— and that therefore they are not those good shepheards which as our Sauiour saith enter into the fold by the dore but fures 〈◊〉 theeues and robbersâ— who clymbe vp another way or breake into it by intrusion and force vt mactent â—â—â—â—rdant to kill and destroy the flocke and so they are rotten bought broken of from the may nâ— root of Christian society and consequently heretikes and schismatikes as well by M. Barlowes ground before mentioned as according to M. Andrewes his owne graunt els let him name vnto vs those 3. Catholike Bishops who as he saith consecrated their first Bishops at the change of religion in Queene Elizabeths tyme which I know he cannot doe and therefore I conclude of him in this point as I did in the last ex ore tuo te iudico 38. And this truly might suffice to shew how he fortifieth our cause and ouerthroweth his owne but that besides diuers other points which I might handle to this purpose and am forced to omit for lack of tyme there is one whereof I promised in the last Chapter to say somewhat to wit his doctrine touching the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacie which in verie truth he abaseth disgraceth and vtterly supplanteth whiles he seeketh or at least pretendeth to confirme and establish it as hath partly appeared already by his graunt that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles to take away all occasion of Schisme yea and that he gaue him as much authority as was necessary to that end whereupon I inferred necessarily that not only S. Peter but also his successours haue all that power and authority which we attribute vnto them as may be seene in the third Chapter of this Adioynder and vpon this it followeth also
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