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
the whole Church but because he was Head or supreme Gouernour therof which we may learne euen in Cicero who saith that Est proprium munus Magistratus c. It is the proper office or duty of the Magistrate to vnderstand that he beareth the person of the Citty So he speaking of the chiefe or supreme Magistrate wherby it appeareth that whatsoeuer is giuen to the King as King and Head of the Common-wealth the same is giuen to the Common-wealth wherof he beareth and representeth the person and so in like manner what was giuen to S. Peter as Head of the Church the same was giuen to the Church which he representeth For which cause also S. Cyprian saith that Ecclesia est in Episcopo the Church is in the Bishop and the reason is because the Bishop is Head of the Church as this is true in euery particuler Bishop in respect of the particuler Church which he gouerneth So also is it most truly verified in the supreme and vniuersall Pastour in respect of the whole Church whereof he is Head 5. That this was S. Augustines meaning it is euident by his owne doctrine in other places where he sheweth plainly that S. Peter bare the person of figure of the Church in respect of his Primacy Cuius Ecclesia saith he Petrus Apostolus propter Apostolatus sui primatum gerebat figurata generalitate personam c. Of which Church Peter in respect of the primacy of his Apostleship did beare the person figuring or representing the generality therof For if we respect what did belong properly to himselfe he was by nature one man by grace one Christian and by a more aboundant grace vnus idemque primus Apostolus one he the chiefe Apostle but when it was said vnto him Tibi dabo claues I will giue thee the keyes c. he signified the vniuersall Church Thus saith S. Augustine teaching euidently that S. Peter bare the person of the Church by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship that is to say because he was the chiefe Apostle which the same holy Father signifieth also more plainly in another place saying Cuius Ecclesiae ille agnoscitur gessisse personaÌ„ propter Primatum quem in Discipulis habuit Of which Church he is acknowledged to haue borne the person for the Primacy which he had amoÌ„gst the Disciples And to the same purpose he saith also elswhere Petrus à petra cognominatus c. Peter taking his name from a Rock was happy bearing the figure of the Church hauing the principality of the Apostleship 6. Loe then for what cause S. Augustine said that when Christ gaue to S. Peter the keyes of heauen pastorall authority to feed his sheep he gaue the same to all the Church to wit because S. Peter hauing the principality or primacy of the Apostolicall dignity and being consequently chiefe Pastor and head of the Church did beare and represent the person or figure of the whole Church So that you see the place which M. Andrewes bringeth out of S. Augustine against the Primacy of S. Peter maketh notably for it if it be considered with the circumstances therof which he cunningly and craftily concealed But in the other place which he citeth out of S. Ambrose he is more fraudulent hauing plainly corrupted the text which as it is in S. Ambrose is very conforme to this doctrine of S. Augustine signifying nothing else but that all the lawfull Pastors in Gods Church receaued their Pastorall authority ouer their flocks with S. Peter and therfore he saith Quas oues quem gregem non solùm tunc Beatus Petrus suscepit sed cum illo eas nos suscepimus omnes Which sheep and which flock not only the Blessed Peter then receaued but as so we all receaued them with him Thus saith S. Ambrose which all Catholikes do graunt and teach in like maÌ„ner because as I haue said S. Peter representing the person of the whole Church wherof he was head receaued not that Pastorall authority for himselfe alone but also for the Church 7. In which respect S. Ambrose saith very well that all the Pastors of the Church receaued their authority with him though not in equall degree as M. Andrews would haue it who therfore bodgeth into S. Ambrose his text these words of his owne Et nobiscum eas suscepit and he that is to say S. Peter receaued those sheep with vs as if S. Ambrose should meane that S. Peter had no prerogatiue in that point but that he and other Pastors receaued them all alike he with them they with him for to that purpose doth M. Andrewes also alledge the words of S. Ambrose afterwards in a different letter thus Et ille nobisâ—um nos cum illo oues illas pascendas suscepimus which manner of speach doth indeed inforce a greater equality betwixt S. Peter and other Pastors then the true words of S. Ambrose do import or then he euer did imagine who taught expresly elswhere the Primacy of S. Peter not only aboue all other inferiour Pastors but also aboue the Apostles themselues saying that albeit Andrew was called before Peter yet Primatum non accepit Andraeas sed Petrus Andrew did not receaue the Primacy but Peter yea in another place he proueth it by these very words of our Sauiour which are now in question to wit Pâ—sce oues meas 8. For hauing said that our Sauiour asked Peter thrice whether he loued him not to learne saith he any thing of him but to teach him whom he meant to leaue to vs velut amoris sui Vicarium as the Vicar of his loue he alleageth our Sauiours words to S. Peter to wit Simon the sonne of Iohn doest thou loue me c. Pasce agnos meos feed my Lambes and then shortly after he inferreth thereupon thus Et ideo quia solus profitetur ex omnibus omnibus antefertur and therefore because he alone of all the rest professed his loue he is preferred before them all and after a whyle he concludeth that our Lord asked him the third tyme whether he loued him Et iam saith he non agnos vt primò quodam lacte pâ—scendos c. And now Peter is commaunded not to feed Lambs with a certayne milke as the first time nor to feed the little sheep as the second tyme but oues pascere iubetur perfectiores vt perfectior gubernaret he is commaunded to feed the sheep to the end that he being more perfect might gouerne the more perfect Thus saith S. Ambrose 9. Wherein it is to be noted that he teacheth 3. things The first that our Sauiour left S. Peter vnto vs as the Vicar or Substitute of his loue that is to say to succeed him in that fatherly loue care of his Church which he himselfe had the second that when our Sauiour gaue to S. Peter the Pastorall commission and authority
Canon pretended to haue been made some 60. yeares before in the Councell of Constantinople could not serue his turne seeing that the same was neuer sent or intimated by any of his predecessors to the Roman Sea therfore he wished him to remember what Christ threatneth to them who scandalize any one of his litle ones and thereby to consider what he deserueth who feareth not to scandalize so many Churches and Priests Finally he exhorteth him to leaue his ambitious desires concluding with this sentence of the Apocalyps Tene quod habes ne alius accipiat coronam tuam hold that which thou hast lest another take thy Crowne for si inconcessa quaesieris c. if thou seeke saith he those things that are vnlawfull thou shalt depriue thy selfe of the peace and vnion of the vniuersall Church by thy owne work and iudgement So he And dost thou not see good Reader what an humble suppliant Pope Leo was to Anatolius If one should write a letter to M. Andrewes in this style and forme would he take it trow you for a supplication 34. But now let vs see what effect it had and whether it was in vayne or no as M. Andrews affirmeth of it This will be euident by the epistles of Pope Leo to Iulianus Bishop of Coa to the Emperour and to Anatolius himselfe To the Bishop he signifieth that the Emperour had written vnto him interueniens saith he pro Anatolio vt nostri illi animi gratia praebeatur quoniam correctionem eius promittit c. Requesting in the behalfe of Anatolius that we will bestow vpon him the grace or fauour of our affection because he promiseth his amendment c. So that you see now Iordanis conuersus est retrorsum for whereas Pope Leo according to M. Andrewes his assertions was a suiter both to the Emperour and to Anatolius the Emperour is now become a suiter to Pope Leo for Anatolius which will yet more cleerly appeare by another Epistle of Pope Leo to the Emperour himselfe wherein he promised that Anatolius should find in him sincerae gratiae animum an affection of sincere grace or fauour in case he followed sincerely the Emperours aduise and counsell and performed in hart that which he promised in words for that otherwyse he would resolutly proceed agaynst him to chastise him for his pryde wherby it is euident that the Emperour had written to Pope Leo in the behalfe of Anatolius and that Pope Leo would not otherwise promise him his grace and fauour but vpon condition of his harty repentance and sincere amendment 35. And will you now see all this confirmed by Pope Leo's letters to Anatolius himselfe Therfore wheras Anatolius had written a letter of submission to him not only acknowledging his fault in that attempt but also yielding him an account of the state of his Church of Constantinople Pope Leo answering the same first commended greatly certayne predecessors of Anatolius to wit Iohn Atticus Proclus and Flauianus exhorting him to imitate them and blaming him by the way for his scandalous attempts and hauing also signified how glad he was to vnderstand by his letters that he had reformed certayne abuses in the Church of Constantinople he gaue him order withall to make two priests called Andreas and Euphratas and to admit some others to Ecclesiasticall dignities vpon certayne conditions which he prescribed him and lastly comming to speake more particulerly of his presumptuous attempt he saith that whereas he layd the fault vpon the euill counsell and perswasions of the Clergy of Constantinople who vrged him vnto it he might haue giuen better satisfaction if he had also blamed his owne consent thereto and not haue layed the fault vpon others neuertheles saith he gratum mihi frater charissime est c. It is gratfull to me most deare brother that you professe now to be displeased with that which then also should not haue pleased you Your owne profession togeather with the attestation of the Christian Prince is sufficient for our reconciliation neyther doth your correction or amendement seeme to me to be ouerlate or out of season cui tam venerabilis assertor accessit who haue so venerable a surety 36. Thus wrote Pope Leo to Anatolius whereby it appeareth that M. Andrews saying that he did by his letters intercedere frustrà apud Augustum Augustam Anatolium hath in two words made two lyes the one in intercedere for that the Pope made no intercession or suite especially to Anatolius but was sued vnto by the Emperour in his behalfe The other in frustrà for though it should be granted that the Pope made suite yet it was not in vayne And therefore if M. Andrews should seeke to quit himselfe of one of the lyes by saying that he tooke intercedere for to make opposition and not intercession yet he cannot rid himselfe of the other lye which is a sound one seeing that Pope Leo's opposition was so far from being in vayne that it brought Anatolius as I may say vpon his knees and forced him to humble and submit himselfe to acknowledge his fault to promise amendment yea to procure the Emperour to be a suiter and intercessor for him and finally to receiue and execute Pope Leo's commandments lawes and ordinances in the Church of Constantinople as though he had bene some Italian Bishop within the Suburbs of Rome So that I hope thou seest good Reader that I haue now clearely proued 2. things The one that M. Andrews hath sought notoriously to delude thee in telling thee that Pope Lâ—o contradicted this Canon in vayne The other that the Emperour and the whole Christian world had at that tyme a firme beliefe of the supreme authority of Pope Leo ouer the Councell of Calcedon and the whole Church of God seeing that his only opposition to this Canon sufficed to ouerthrow it 37. Whereupon it also followeth that although it were true which M. Andrews most falsely and absurdly affirmeth to wit that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon meant by this Canon to make the Byshoprik of CoÌ„stantinople equal in all respects with the Apostolicall Sea of Rome yet it little importeth yea rather maketh for vs then for M. Andrews seeing that the Câ—non was as I haue shewed preseÌ„tly ouerthrowne and â—ade voyd by the authority of the Roman Séa and that â—ot only Anatolius himselfe who procured it acknowledged his errour therin but also as well he as other Catholike Bishops his successors liued in the vnion and subiection of the sayd Roman Church as I haue sufficiently shewed by the experience and practise euen of the Greeke Church vntill it was vtterly ruined by the Turks 38. Therefore it shall be now conuenient to see how well M. Andrews answereth and satisfyeth the places alledged by the Cardinall and my selfe out of the Councell of Calcedon whereby I shall also haue occasion to confute certayne reasons of his which he further vrgeth out
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
M. Andrews his first question or doubt is sufficiently solued to wit How far the power of the head whereof S. Hierome speaketh doth extend that is to the direction gouernement yea and chastisment when occasion requyreth of all his inferiour members of what degree soeuer and consequently of Kings and Princes so far forth as shal be needfull for the coÌ„seruation of vnity in the Church and that therefore when only excommunication will not suffice to reduce them to vnity and obedience the head may extend his spirituall power to chastise them in their bodyes goods and states as far as shall be conuenient for the good of soules and the glory of God whereto all mens temporall states goods lands and lyues are principally ordayned 43. And now to come to his other question concerning the mumber which this head may gouerne to auoyd and remedy schisme let M. Andrews well ponder what he hath already granted and of this there will be no doubt at all For if Peter was head of the Apostles as S. Hierome teacheth and M. Andrews confesseth then consequently he was head of as many in number as were subiect to them which was no lesse then all the world whereof they had the spirituall charge and gouernement in which respect the Royall Prophet sayth of them and their successors pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filij c. For thy Fathers children are borne vnto thee thou shalt ordayne them to be Princes ouer all the earth So saith the Prophet of the Apostles of Bishops who succeed them in their charge and are therfore Princes Gouernours of the Church as S. Augustine S. Hierome and other Fathers expound this place which therefore is verified especially in the Apostles who being the Princes and Gouernours of the Church did not only plant but also propagate throughout the world in their owne tyme according to the commission and commaundment of our Sauiour who sayd vnto them Euntes in vniuersum mundum c. Going into the vniuersall world preach the Ghospell to euery creature which also the Royal Prophet fore-told of them saying In omnem terram exiuit sonus eorum c. The sound of them went forth into all the earth and their words into the bounds thereof 44. Seeing then the Apostles were Gouernours of the whole Church and yet subiect to S. Peter as to their head it must needs be granted that he was supreme head and gouernour of the whole Church propagated and dispersed throughout the world vnder their gouerment for which cause S. Chrysostome saith with great reason not only of all the Apostles in generall that they were to haue orbis terrarum curam the charge of all the world but also much more of S. Peter in particuler That Petro Apostolo orbis terrarum Ecclesiae the Churches of all the world and the multitudes of people were to be committed to Peter the Apostle and therefore euen in the former place where he saith that the Apostles were to receiue of Christ the charge of the world he acknowledgeth that S. Peter was Princeps Apostolorum vertex totius coetus the Prince of the Apostles and the top or head of all their congregation and that Christ committed vnto him curam fratrum the charge of his brethren that is to say of the Apostles and finally that Christ recommended vnto him orbis terrarum curam the charge of the whole world Finally comparing S. Iames the Apostle with S. Peter in the same place by the way of obiection demanding why then Iames was made Bishop of Hierusalem and not Peter he answereth Hunc totius orbis magistrum praeposuisse that our Sauiour preferred Peter to be the Maister of the whole world giuing to vnderstand that whereas S. Iames was only Bishop of Hierusalem and the Countries adioyning as also the other Apostles had euery one of them some part of the world allotted vnto him to gouerne S. Peter had the charge of the whole 45. By all which it is euident that albeit the Apostles had the gouerment of all the Church yet they were but subordinate to S. Peter who had a commission peculiar and singular to himselfe which was to haue the care charge and gouerment of them as well as of all others subiect to them So that his power and authority was wholy independant on them wheras theirs must needs depend of him as of their immediate head vnder our Sauiour whereby it may appeare what an idle head M. Andrews hath to exclude no lesse S. Peter then euery other particuler man from the gouerment of the whole Church for no better reason then lest he might become heterochtum cuput an extrauagant head or perhaps proue a Tyrant through the excesse eyther of power or of the number of subiects wherein he sheweth himselfe no lesse prophane then absurd attributing as it seemeth no force or effect to our Sauiours promise of his continuall assistance to his Apostles and Church for euer besides that he erreth grosâ—ely if he make the multitude of subiects a noticeâ— or cause of Tyranny it being euident that the greater the number of the subiects is the greater also is the difficulty to oppresse them by Tyranny and the greater the feare and danger to attempt it 46. And therefore we see more frequent tyranny in small States then in great Monarchies and when great Monarches are Tyrants they commonly exercyse their Tyranny vpon some part of their Dominions and not vpon the whole whereas a small State contayning a few subiects is easily Tyrannized vniuersally so that the multitude of subiects is not properly a motiue but rather a brydle to Tyranny though it is properly a cause of schisme when they are not gouerned by one head which M. Andrews acknowledgeth sufficiently when he confesseth that one head is necessary to take away the occasion of schisme amongst twelue or some other small number for if that be true then the greater the number is the greater is the danger of schisme if they haue many heads independant one of another whereupon it followeth that one supreme head is most necessary for the whole Church coÌ„sisting of an innumerable multitude of the faithfull dispersed throughout the whole world who being all visible members of one visible body could not possibly be conserued long in vnity if they had not one visible head whome they were all bound in conscience to obay as I haue shewed more at large in my Supplement euen by the testimony of M. Barlow himselfe 47. For which cause not only S. Cyprian as you haue heard before in this Chapter but also S. Hierome in this place teacheth with great reason that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles to auoyde and remedy the schismes which might grow not so much amongst them as in the whole Church for in them after they had receiued the holy Ghost there was no danger
fayth to be the foundation of the Church that he excludeth his person fidei ratione ait ipse Hilarius non personae sayth M. Andrewes Peter was a Rock by the meanes of his faith saith Hilary himselfe and not of his person So indeed saith M. Andrewes but so sayth not S. Hilary And therefore M. Andrewes thought best to quote no place of S. Hilary neither in the text nor in the margent and sure I am that in the place which the Cardinall alleadgeth S. Hilary speaketh expressely of S. Peters person and not of his faith except M. Andrewes can shew vs how faith was called by a new name so made the foundation of the Church as we can shew him how Symon was called Peter that is to say a Rock to signify by that new name that he should be felix Ecclesiae fundamentuÌ„ as S. Hilary sayth the happie foundation of the Church receiue the keyes of heauen In which respect S. Hilary addeth also in the same place O Beatus caeli ianitor O blessed porter of heauen Neuerthelesse I would not haue M. Andrews to think that in affirming with S. Hilary that Peter was the foundation of the Church I doe exclude his faith from his person as though S. Hilary should say or any Catholike man meane that the Church was built vpon Peters person and not vpon his faith but I do attribute the same so to his person that I acknowledge therein the presence concurrence and merit of his faith by the which he deserued to be made the foundation of the Church and the porter of heauen as S. Hilary calleth him 10. And therfore albeit S. Hilary in another place calleth the Rock of CoÌ„fession the fouÌ„datioÌ„ of the Church sayth also that fayth receiued the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome which by all likelyhood is the place that M. Andrews meaneth though he doth not quote it yet in the same place he addeth coÌ„cerning S. Peters persoÌ„ that supereminentem beatae fidei suae confessione gloriam promeruit he deserued a supereminent glorie by the confession of his blessed fayth and a litle after hinc regni caelorum habet claues c. hereby or in respect hereof that is to say of his faith or confession of Christ he hath the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen and his earthly iudgments are heauenly Thus sayth S. Hilary shewing euidently in what sense he sayth that fayth the confession of Christ was the foundation of the Church and that it receiued the keyes to wit because by the Merit thereof S. Peter deserued to haue the supereminent dignity or glorie to be the foundatioÌ„ of the Church and to haue the keyes which he also signifyeth more plainely before in the same Tract saying of Peters person post Sacramenti confessioneÌ„ beatus Simon aedificationi Ecclâ—siae subiaceÌ„s claues regni caelestis accipiens c. Blessed Simon after the coÌ„fessioÌ„ of the mystery lying vnder the building of the Church that is to say being made the fouÌ„datioÌ„ of the church receiuingâ—yâ— keyes of the heauenly Kingdome c. So he Where you see he ascribeth S. Peters being the foundation of the Church as also his hauing of the keyes to his person though to shew the reasoÌ„ cause therof he addeth post coÌ„fessioneÌ„ Sacramenti after the coÌ„fession of the mystery 11. So that S. Hilary saying in one place that Peter was the foundation of the Church and in another affirming the same of his fayth or Confession doth not in either of both vnderstand his person without his faith or yet his faith without his person I meane abstracting his faith from his person but considereth both ioyntly that is to say his person by the merit of his faith And therefore whereas M. Andrewes affirmeth as you haue heard that S. Hilary himselfe sayth that Peter was the foundation of the Church fidei ratione non personae by the meanes of his faith and not of his person he may put vp non personae in his pocket for S. Hilary hath no such word neither that meaning which M. Andrews would haue his Reader to gather thereof that is to say to exclude S. Peters person from the foundation of the Church So as this may passe for a petty fraud and a pretty cosening trick amongst many other of more importance whereof you haue seene diuers already and shall see more hereafter 12. There resteth now to be examined only one of the 3. places before mentioned which is alleadged by the Cardinall out of S. Maximus thus Quanti igitur meriti apud Deum suum Petrus c. Of how great merit do you thinke that Peter was with his God that after the rowing of a litle boat the gouerment of the whole Church was giuen him Thus far the Cardinall out of S. Maximus To this M. Andrews saith E Maximo si tamen Maximus is Taurinensis c. The Cardinall obiecteth out of Maximus if neuerthelesse this was Maximus of Turin and not some other later then he if also in the tyme of Maximus Sermons were purposely made of the Apostles as no doubt there were in the age after Petro totius Ecclesiae gubernacula tradita c. the gouerment of the whole Church was giuen to Peter But did euer any man thinke that the gouerment of any particuler Church was giuen him except you who gaue him the gouerment of the Roman Church as though the same were not part of the whole after you haue giuen him the gouerment of the whole So he very mystically as he is wont yet seeming to graunt for ought I see that Peter had the gouerment of the whole Church which is the same â—â—at the Cardinall teacheth and seeketh to proue by this place 13. But perhaps he will fly heere to his old shift to wit that though Peter had the gouerment of the whole Church yet he had it no otherwise then the rest of the Apostles had Concerning which point I haue treated so amply before that it were needles to repeat it heere especially seeing that he seeketh no such euasion in this place but seemeth to graunt as much as we demand and only carpeth at vs for giuing to Peter the gouerment of the particuler Church of Rome after we haue giuen him the gouerment of the whole For so he saith which truly is a fine conceipt and right worthy of M. Andrews enigmaticall and phantasticall braine who loueth to walk in mysts and cloudes to the end it may be vncertayne what he affirmeth or what he denyeth as for example he graunteth heere or at least seemeth to graunt the doctrine of S. Maximus which is that Christ gaue the gouerment of the whole Church to S. Peter and yet presently after he seemeth to call the same in question againe affirming that we haue giuen him the gouerment as well of the whole Church of God as of the particuler Church of Rome saying Romanae vestrae traditis
deny this seeing that they do admit diuers traditions whereof there is neyther precept nor example in the Scripture as the baptisme of infants who do not actually belieue for although the same be very consonant to Scripture as also is prayer to Saynts and all other things which are practiced in the Catholike Church yet the vse and practice thereof is grounded vpon tradition and not vpon the Scriptures as Origen testifyeth saying Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditioneÌ„ accepit c. The Church receiued a tradition from the Apostles to giue baptisme to litle children So he And S. Augustin also to the same purpose saith more plainely thus Consuetudo mâ—tris Ecclesiae in baptizandis paruulis c. the custome of our Mother the Church in baptizing infants is not to be contemned or reputed as superfluous neyther were it to be belieued at all if it were not an Apostolicall tradition So he who also acknowledgeth the same in another place and saith further that if any man do demaund diuine authority for it quamquam quod vniuersa tenet Ecclesia c. albeit that which the vniuersall Church holdeth and hath not byn ordayned by Councells but hath alwayes been reteyned is most rightly belieued to haue byn deliuered by no other but by Apostolicall authority neuertheles we may truly coniecture by Circumcision in the old law what force the Sacrament of Baptisme hath in Infants Thus saith S. Augustine who to answere those that do demand diuine authority for the custome of the Church in baptizing Infants doth not proue or confirme it by any precept or example out of Scripture but only by a probable coniecture drawn from the figure of it in the old law relying principally vpon the tradition of the Church 33. But what need I seeke any other testimony for this matter seeing that Tho. Rogers in the 39. articles agreed vpon by the pretended Bishops and Clergy of England and analyzed into propositions glossed and set forth by him with their publyke approbation doth acknowledge that the baptisme of yong children is in any wyse to be retayned in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ although sayth he we be not commanded by expresse termes to baptize them So he whereupon it directly followeth that M. Andrews hath ouerlashed greatly in saying id tantùm audemus facere de quo praeceptum habemus we dare doe that only whereof we haue a precept Also what precept or example haue M. Andrews and his fellowes in Scripture for the vse of Godfathers and Godmothers and of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme allowed as well by their practice as by the late Queenes Iniunctions yea and by the Ecclesiasticall Canons of the Bishops and Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury made in their Synod held at London with his Maiestyes lycence in the yeare 1603. and published the yeare following by his Maiestyes authority vnder the great Seale of England in which Canons they do not only approue the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme but also professe to follow therein the primitiue Apostolicall Churches the true rules of doctrine coÌ„cerning things indifferent which are consonant to the word of God and the iudgement of all the ancient Fathers so that by their owne confession they retayne the vse of it without eyther precept or example in holy Scripture 34. And now because I haue had this occasion to speake of this constitution I can not omit to aduertise thee good Reader of a notable peece of trumpery and cosenage vsed by that graue Synod in this very Canon whereof we now speake wherein giuing the reason why they retayne the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme they say they do it because the same hath byn euer accompanyed among them with sufficient cautions exceptions agaynst all popish superstition and errour and forsooth that the world may vnderstand from what popish errour they haue freed the same they signify that the Church of England since the abolishing of Popery hath euer held and taught that the signe of the crosse vsed in Baptisme is no part of the substance of that Sacrament and that the infant Baptized is by vertue of Baptisme before it be signed with the signe of the crosse receiued into the congregation of Christs flock as a perfect member thereof and not by any power ascribed to the signe of the crosse c. whereupon they conclude that the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme being thus purged from all popish superstition and errour and reduced in the Church of England to the primary institution of it c. it is to be reuerently retayned and vsed Thus teach they in their foresayd Synod 35. But now we must demand of them where they haue euer read in any Catholyke Authour that the signe of the crosse as it is vsed in the administration of baptisme is any part of the substance of the Sacrament sure I am that all our schoolemen and Canonists and others that haue occasion to treat therof do expressely teach the contrary neyther did euer any learned Catholyke hold or suppose it to be any part eyther of the forme or of the matter of Baptisme which are the essentiall parts thereof but only an ancient and holy ceremony and this is euident euen by the practice of the Catholyke Church approuing the baptisme not only of the midwyfe in cases of necessity but also of any heretike if he haue the intention to do that which the Catholyke Church doth and vseth the true forme with conuenient matter without the signe of the crosse or any other ceremony in the world and albeit the Church vseth to suply the sayd ceremonyes afterwards in such as wanted the same yet it maketh no doubt at all but that they are baptized before and in state of saluation if they dye before the sayd ceremonyes be supplyed whereby it is manyfest that the Catholykes do not take the signe of the crosse to be of the substance or essence of the sacrament 36. But of this I shall not neede to produce any further proofe seeing that those pretended Bishops which were present at this Congregation and made this Canon haue giuen sufficient testimony of the truth in this poynt to no meaner a person then to his Maiesty himselfe as he did publikely testify in the CoÌ„ference at Hampton-court wherein the question concerning the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme being debated betwixt them and the Puritans his Maiesty sayd that he vnderstood by the Bishops yea and found it himselfe to be true that the Papists themselues did neuer ascribe any power or spirituall grace to the signe of the crosse in Baptisme whereupon it followeth that they do not nor euer did account to be any essentiall part of the Sacrament for if they did they should ascribe vnto it a spirituall grace and power as they doe to the essence of
Miracles were done in the Church of God for 4. hundreth yeares and we can proue the continuance thereof in our Church vntill this day either he must shew vs in what age they ceassed after S. Augustines time and why then rather then before yea and proue also that all the miracles done in the Catholike Church euer since haue bene diabolicall illusions or els he must confesse that the Protestants Church is not the true Church seeing that they haue not hitherto had so much as a lame or sickd og healed in all their Congregations by the vertue of any of their profession dead or aliue notwithstanding their liuely and strong faith whereof they are wont so much to vaunt And this I say the rather because I find that M. Andrewes is verie silent about this point euen when the Cardinall giueth him sufficient cause to speake thereof who answering an obiection of the Apology for the Oath concerning witchcraft imputed to Catholikes because they quench fire with Agnus Deis sayth Respondeo miracula diuina c. I answere that diuine Miracles are seene only amongst the Catholikes and M. Andrewes comming to answere that paragraph which beginneth with those words left them out wholly and setteth downe the next wordes following for the beginning of the Cardinalls text in that place perhaps he lakt paper and place for them or tooke them for words quae abesse poterant which might well be spared for such as you may remember he sayd he would leaue out sometimes 19. But to conclude concerning holy Reliques it appeareth sufficiently hereby that M. Andrewes graunteth as much concerning them as we desire to wit that they are to be decked and adorned layd vp with honour and solemnitie reserued and kept in honourable and holy places and finally that they are to be honored yea and that God doth somtimes worke Miracles by theÌ„ which he cannot deny to be a notable and diuine confirmation of the honour that is done vnto them and therefore for as much as the honour that he graunteth to be due vnto them is neither diuine honour which both he and we conclude in this case nor ciuill honour seeing it is not done for any temporall or ciuill respect but proceedeth out of deuotion and tendeth directly to the honour of God he must needs graunt it to be a religious honour and that the same may be exhibited with much more externall worship and reuerence then the ciuill honour or worship which is due to any Prince yea so much more as respect of deuotion and Religion surpasseth and excelleth temporall and ciuil respects so that if ciuill honour do require corporall reuereÌ„ce with cap and knee bowing and prostrating of the body much more doth the Religious honour due to Saints and their Reliques require the same Thus much for this point 20. Whereas the Cardinall hauing occasion to speak of Monks and Religious women he saith that their Institute cannot be reprehended except we reprehend all the Fathers of the first 500. yeares M. Andrews graÌ„teth it to be true for he saith that his Maiesty meaÌ„t not to reprehend the Institute of Monks but the Monkes theÌ„selues because they haue long since gone froÌ„ their Instituts or rule being degenerated into Locusts apud quos saith he desidia nimium verè nimium saepe in luxuriam despumauit whose Idlenes or sloath hath too truly and too oft turned to a very foame or froath of luxurious and licentious life So he and then he addeth that because their Institute was not of the diuine law but only of the positiue and now gone in merum abusum into a meere abuse therfore it is worthily antiquated or abolished amoÌ„gst the Protestants wherin that which I wish especially to be noted is that he approueth the first Institute of Monks and consequently must needs approue diuers important pointes of Catholike doctrine and vtterly condemne his owne Religion 21. For it is most euident that the first Institut and discipline of Religious life consisted principally as still it doth in the obseruation of the Euangelicall Counsells of our Sauiour to wit of voluntary pouety Chastity and obedience abnegation of a mans selfe and Chastisment of his flesh by fasting Pennance wearing of hairecloath disciplines diuers other MortificatioÌ„s as it is manifest partly in the Monasterial discipline obserued by the first Monkes in the Apostles time and related by Philo the Iew as Eusebus S. Hiâ—rome Epiphanius S. Bede Sozomen and Nicephorus do testify and partly in the Monasticall constitutions which are to be seene expresly set downe in S. Basill and often touched and mentioned by Cassianus Palladius Theodoretus IoaÌ„nes Climacus Seuerus Suspitius S. Augustine S. Hierome and other Fathers of the first 400. yeares to omit S. Benets Rules yet extant which were made in the age following So that M. Andrewes approuing the Institutes of the old Monks alloweth the practise of all that Catholicke doctrine before mentioned which other Sectaries of this time haue hitherto condemned derided and abhorred as repugnant to the liberty of their Ghospell and their owne sensuality 22. Besides that he also approueth thereby workes of supererogation such I mean as are not commanded but counselled and left to our owne free choice and consequently he granteth the difference betwixt a Counsell a Precept contrary to the doctrin of Luther Caluin and other Sectaries Finally he alloweth vowes of Pouertie Chastity and Obedience which are and alwaies haue bene as it were the link and band of Monasticall and Religious profession as it appeareth euidently in the ancient Fathers as in Dionysius S. Paules disciple who testifieth that those who were made Monkes in his time which was the tyme of the Apostles made a solemne promise and couenant before the Altar to renounce the world and imbrace the Monasticall lyfe And S. Basil writing to a Monke that was fallen putteth him in mynd of his couenant made with God and prâ—fessed coram multis testibus before many witnesses and in his Monasticall rules signifieth that he which hath vowed himself to God in this Religious profession and passeth afterward to another state of life sacrilegij se scelere obstringit is guilty of Sacriledg because he hath saith he as it were stolne himselfe from God to whome he had dedicated and consecrated himselfe 23. Also S. Augustine saith to the same purpose Nemo potiùs in Monasterio frater dicat c. Let no brother or religious man that is in a monasterie say I will leaue and forsake it or that it is not to be thought that only those shall be saued who liue in Monasteries or that others which liue abroad do not pertaine to god for to him that should say so it is to be answered illi non vouerunt tu vouisti They haue not vowed but thou hast vowed So he Finally Ioannes Cassianus who liued
did aske the Bishop with great reason whether he agreed with the Roman Church sciebat enim Episcopum tum Romae Catholicum for he knew that the Bishop of Rome then was a Catholike So he wherin he granteth consequently that the Pope is supreme and vniuersall Pastor of the whole Church for that must needes follow of his grant seeing it is euident that he who then was Bishop of Rome and whom he alloweth for Catholik had and exercised a supreme and vniuersall authority to which purpose it is to be considered who was Bishop of Rome at that time wherto M. Andrewes himselfe giueth vs no small light signifying presently after that Liberius was Bishop a litle before him and sure it is that Damasus succeeded Liberius and reygned many yeares who therefore must needes be the Catholike Bishop that M. Andrewes meaneth 30. Now then what authority Damasus had and exercised during his raigne it appeareth sufficiently by that which I signified before concerning him and his supremacy in the 4. Chapter where I shewed that the same was acknowledged not only in Affrick by the Byshops of 3. African Synods who in a commoÌ„ Epistle to him gaue cleare and euident testimony thereof but also in the East Church euen by the chief Patriarkes therof to wit by Peter the holy Bishop of Alexandria who immediately succeeded Athanasius and being expelled from his Church by the Arians fled to Pope Damasus and by the vertue and authority of his letters was restored to his seat as the Magdeburgians themselues do relate out of the Ecclesiasticall histories And in the Church of Antioch his authority was acknowledged by Paulinus Byshop therof receiuing instructions and orders from him for the absolution of Vitalis the Heritick Also afterwards Theopilus Byshop of Alexandria and S. Chrysostome Byshop of Constantinople were suters to him to obtain pardon for Flauianus Byshop of Antioch as may be seene more particulerly in the fourth Chapter of this Adioynder where I haue also set downe the cleer testimonies of some Fathers who liued at the same time and euidently acknowledged his supremacy 31. So that M. Andrewes granting that Pope Damasus was a Catholike Bishop and that the Church of Rome was in such integrity vnder him that S. Ambrose had reason to hold none for Catholickes but such as held vnion therewith It mâ—st needs follow that the supreme and vniuersall authority which Pope Damasus had and vsed was not vsurped but due to him his Sea and consequently to his successors And wheras M. Andrewes signifieth that the Roman Church and Bishops were not alwaies in the like integrity that they were at that time to wit neither a little before in the time of Liberius nor shortly after in the time of Honorius because both of them subscribed to heresy as he saith I will not now stand to debate that point with him both because I should digresse too much from the matter in hand hauing here vndertaken to shew what he granteth in fauour of Catholicks not to disproue what he denieth or affirmeth otherwise as also because he may see those old and stale obiections fully answered by the Cardinall himself in his CoÌ„trouersies not only concerning those two Popes but also touching all the rest whom our aduersaries were wont to calumniate in like manner and therfore I remit him therto 32. There followeth presently after a large and liberall grant of M. Andrews right worth the noting For wheras the Cardinall still prosecuteth the same matter touching the application of the name Catholicke to the Roman Church and hauing produced the precedent authority of S. Ambrose remitteth his Reader for further proofe therof to the last page of his former Booke which was his Answere to the Apology for the Oath it is to be vnderstood that in the said book and page he proueth by the authority of 3. Ancient Fathers to wit Pacianus S. Cyrill and S. Augustine that the name Catholike is a most true and proper note of the true Church and that it could neuer be vsurped by Hereticks yea and that our aduersaries themselues namely in the Apology for the Oath do so call vs and distinguish vs from themselues by that name and do consequently acknowledge vs to be members of the true Church whereto M. Andrews answereth thus Nam quae in extrema pagina c. For as for those things which the Cardinall wrote in the last page of his former booke and would gladly haue his Reader to see fatemur omnia we graunt and acknowledge them all So he Whereby he granteth that we being called Catholiks euen by our aduersaries themselues haue the true signe note of the true Church and are therefore true members thereof and that he and his fellowes who haue not the same note are Heretikes or Schismatiks For this is in effect the ArgumeÌ„t of the Cardinall grounded vpon the authority of the Fathers aforesayd which you see M. Andrews graunteth saying fatemur omnia 33. And albeit he seeketh presently an euasion by a distinction yet it helpeth him nothing for thus he saith Nec de nominis honore lis vlla sed vtri è re magis nomen habeant neyther is there any contention betwixt vs about the honour of the name but whether of both haue the name deriued from the thing So he allowing vs as you see the honor of the name for the which he saith they do not contend with vs and calling in question only to whome belongeth the thing signified by that name whereas neuertheles it is euident that according to the authorities alledged and vrged by the Cardinall out of the Fathers the name and the thing expressed by the name do alwaies so coÌ„cur that they are neuer separated for which cause those Fathers do hold and teach that the very name and word Catholyke is an euident note to distinguish the true Catholike faith and Church from the false doctrine and Congregation of Heretickes which they could not do if some might haue only the name Catholike and others the faith or Church which it signifieth 34. And therefore S. Augustine in the place alledged by the Cardinall saith that the very name Catholike held him in the Catholike Church quod saith he non sine causâ— inter tot haereses ista Ecclesia sola obtinuit which name this Church only hath obteyned amongst so many heresies not without cause So saith S. Augustine whereto the other Fathers which the Cardinall also cyteth do agree all teaching that heretikes or hereticall congregations neuer did or could vsurpe the name Catholike but that the same hath alwayes been and euer shall be peculiar to the true Church wherby they teach euidently that the name and the thing signified by the name do euer concur So as M. Andrews granting not only the Fathers doctrine in this poynt but also giuing vs freely the honour of the name alloweth vs to haue the
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
charge or gouernment of them no lesse then of all inferiour Pastours in Gods Church was coÌ„mitted to him which S. Leo also testifyeth expressely saying that the charge of feeding the sheep of Christ was more specially committed to Peter And in another place that Peter was chosen out of the whole world to haue the chiefe charge of the vocation of the Gentills of all the Apostles and of all the Fathers of the Church vt quamuis in populo multi sunt sacerdotes c. that albeit there are many Priests amongst the people and many Pastors yet Peter may properly gouerne them all quos principalitâ—r regit Christus whome Christ doth also principally gouerne 33. So 〈◊〉 saith this famous holy and ancient Father of whose great authority in Gods Church I haue spoken amply before in answere of M. Barlows blasphemous speaches and exceptions against him and now to conclude though I might add to these Fathers the cleare testimonies of Eusebius Emissenus Theophilactus S. Bernard and diuers others concerning S. Peters prerogatiue in his Pastorall commission aboue the rest of the Apostles yet I will content my selfe with these already cyted not doubting but that they may suffice for answere to M. Andrews his idle cauills where with he meant 〈◊〉 pricke the Cardinall imagining himselfe belike to be the mighty man that shooteth the sharpe arrowes whereof the Psalmist saith Sagittae potentis acutae but you see his sharp shafts do proue to be no better then sagittae paruulorum the shuttlecocks of litle children or rather to say truely to be that fooles bolt which as the Prouerb saith is soone shot wherof Salomon saith sagitta in feâ—ore canis sic verbum in corde stulti as an arrow in the thygh of a dog who neuer can rest vntill it be out so is a word in a fooles hart which truely I would haue forborne to haue said of M. D. Andrews were his folly far more exorbitant then it is if he did not shew so much virulency and malice towards the worthy Cardinall as he doth euery where treating him most iniuriously with such opprobrious and contumelious tearmes that he deserueth to be answered as the Wyseman aduyseth secundum stultitiam suam c. according to his owne folly lest he may thinke himselfe to be wise 34. But let vs now passe to some other matter which shall be a law in the Code beginning inter Claras which law is an Epistle of Pope Iohn the second to Iustinian the Emperour and another of Iustinian to him wherin the Pope is acknowledged to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches This law is cited by me in my Supplement to proue the dutifull respect and obedience of the ancient Emperours shewed to the Apostolicke Roman Sea and to the same purpose it is also alledged by Cardinall Bellarmine in his Apology to whom M. Andrews answereth thus Poterat Cardinalis abstinere à lege inter Claras citanda c. The Cardinall might well haue forborne to cyte the law inter Claras which he knoweth not to be cyted inter Claras leges amongst the cleare lawes but amongst the obscure and counterfait he might also haue abstayned from mentioning Iustinian the Emperour who shewed himselfe to be Superiour to the Pope aliqua ex parte in some part first in Siluerius the Pope and after in Vigilius of whome he banished the former and imprisoned the later So he wherein you see two things affirmed the one that the Cardinall knoweth the law of Iustinian which beginneth inter Claras to be cyted amongst the obscure and counterfait lawes and the other that Iustinian shewed himselfe to be in some part superiour to Popes because he banished Pope Syluerius and imprisoned Vigilius I will briefly examine both these points 35. As for the first truly I cannot but wonder at M. Andrews his confidence and boldnes or rather his impudence so boldly and confidently to affirme as he doth without any proofe in the world that the Cardinall knoweth the foresaid law to be cyted amongst the obscure yea counterfait Lawes wheras the Cardinall knoweth it to be held esteemed not only inter Claras but also inter clarissimas leges amongst the most cleare lawes for so the most famous Lawyer Baldus tearmeth it who vpon this very law maketh this Glosse Clarissima est lex in qua Dominus Imperator c. This is a most cleare law wherin the Emperour writeth to the Pope coÌ„cerning the faith which he professeth So he And this may be confirmed with the authority of Accursius who glosseth it no lesse then all the other Lawes in the Code without making the least doubt or scruple in the world of any obscurity or defect therin 36. But perhaps M. Andrewes will say that it cannot be denyed but that some haue doubted of it and impugned it Whereto I answere that true it is that some heretikes of these latter ages haue either ignorantly or maliciously called it in question of whome the learned and eloquent Lawyer Alciat saith thus Sunt qui suspectam habent Ioannis Pontificis epistolam c. There are some who do suspect Pope Iohns Epistle which is in Iustinians Code vnder the Title De Trinitate and say that it is not found in some books which as I thinke they do in fauour of those who depresse the Popes authority as also I haue found other Authors corrupted by them to the same end to wit the Chronicles of Otho Frisingensis and certaine verses of Ligurinus the Poet. But I do know it to be extant in very many old copyes and that it caÌ„not with any suspicion be impeached and if one or two books haue it not it is to be ascribed to the negligence of the Wryters who somtymes omitted it because they thought that it doth not much concerne the Science of the Law neuerthelesse it is not to be doubted quin genuinus germanusque Ioannis sit foetus but that it is the proper true worke of Pope Iohn Thus saith Alciat who not only testifieth as you see that he had himselfe seene it in very many old copyes but also yieldeth a probable reason why in some other copyes it might be left out 37. I could confirme this also by the testimony of the learned Lawier Cuiacius others if it were needfull as it is not seeing that Pope Nicolas the first of that name who liued aboue 800. years agoe cyteth the Epistle of Iustinian the Emperour to Pope Iohn beginning Reddentes honorem which he saith Iustinian himselfe inserted into his Lawes layeth downe some part of it word for word as it is yet to be seene in the law inter Claras wherof we now treate which law is as I haue already declared an Epistle of Pope Iohn to Iustinian wherin that other of Iustinian cyted by Pope Nicolas is inserted wherby it is
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
with the Church of Rome addeth presently for the explication thereof vt Ponticae Asâ—anae Thraciae Dioecesis Metropolitani c. That the Metropolitans of Pontus Asia Thracia and also the Bishopps of the same Diocesse amongst the Barbarous so were all called that were no Graecians should be ordayned by the Bishops of Constantinople 8. So sayth the Canon giuing to vnderstand that whereas the Church of Constantinople had bene in times past but a priuate Bishoprick subiect to Heraclea it should hereafter be not only a Metropolitan but also a Patriarchall Sea and haue Metropolitans vnder it yea and that as the Church of Rome was the chiefe Church of the West so also the Church of Constantinople being now made the second after Rome should be the chief Church of the East preferred before the Patriarchall Seas of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem yet with this euident exception and reseruation that neuerthelesse it should be still inferiour to the Roman Sea being the second after it that is to say it should haue the same place and priuiledge that the Church of Alexandria had in former times which though it was the chief Church of the East the secoÌ„d after Rome yet was alwayes inferiour subiect thereto as it is euident by the appeale of the famous Athanasius Bishop of that Sea to Pope Iulius the first of that name aboue an huÌ„dreth yeares before the CouÌ„cel of CalcedoÌ„ 9. Therfore the preheminence which the Church of CoÌ„stantinople was to haue by this Canon was to be preferred before the Churches of Alexandria Antioch and the equality that it was to haue with Rome was no other but to be a Patriarchall Sea and head of all the Patriarchall and Metropolitan Churches of the East as Rome was in the West yet with reseruatioÌ„ of the right of Primacy due to the Roman Sea Besides that it is to be noted that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in our latin Copies is translated aequalis doth signify also similis lyke not only in prophane Authors as euery maÌ„ may see in the Thesaurus of Henricê° Stephanê° but also in diuers places of holy Scripture both in the old new TestameÌ„t And he that list to see more to this purpose may read the Paralel of Tortus his Tortor writteÌ„ against M. D. Andrews by the ReuereÌ„d Learned Father Androas Eudaemon-Ioannes who hath sufficiently handled and explicated this point and hath also produced a cleare testimony out of Theodorus Balsamon a very learned Grecian and Patriarch of Antioch to proue that the mention of paria priuilegia equall priuiledges graÌ„ted to the Church of CoÌ„stantinople in the CouÌ„cell of CalcedoÌ„ doth not any way derogate from the supreme dignity of the RomaÌ„ Sea 10. Whereto I also add that the word aequalis in the Scripture doth not alwayes signify a true and iust Equality in all respects but somtymes also an Equality in a certayne proportion as in the Apostle to the Corinthians who exhorteth them to supply the temporall wants and necessityes of the poore with their store and aboundance vt fiat aequalitas sayth he that there may be an equality meaning an equality in a certayne similitude and proportion as it appeareth by that which he addeth for the further explication therof saying sicut scriptum est qui muliùm non abundauit qui modicum non minorauit as it is written he which gathered much had no more then was necessary for him and he that gathered litle had no less So sayth the Apostle alluding to the history in Exodus of those who gathered Manna in different quantity and yet found that they had it in a kind of equality because euery one had so much as was needfull for him and no more so that equality doth not signify heere an Arithmeticall equality as the Philosophers and Schoolemen tearme it which is equall in euery respect and is vsed in commutatiue Iustice that is to say in buying and selling and the lyke wherein the iust and true valew of euery thing is equally considered but a Geometricall equality keeping only a certayne proportion according to distributiue Iustice which as Aristotle and the Schoolemen do teach doth alwayes respect equality in the distribution of honours priuiledges and rewards yet so as due proportion be obserued correspondent to the different dignity and quality of euery one And therfore when two persons of different quality and degree as the Captayne and his souldiar are to be rewarded for some one seruice to the common wealth their rewards or priuiledges are truly equall when they are priuiledged and rewarded in a due proportion to their degrees without impeachment to the difference that is betwixt them And so a subiect may be said to haue equall priuiledges with his King and yet be his subiect still and in this maÌ„ner the words equall and equality are to be vnderstood in the CouÌ„cell of CalcedoÌ„ as is euident by the CanoÌ„ it self wherin you see it was ordayned that the Bishop of Constantinople should haue equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome and yet haue the secoÌ„d place after him 11. But now to deale somewhat more liberally with M. Andrews in this point let vs put the case that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon did meane to giue to the Church of Constantinople that equality with the Roman sea which he affirmeth should he trow you gayne any thing thereby Or could he any way preiudice the vniuersall and supreme authority either of Pope Leo at that tyme or of the other Popes his Successors euer since Truly no but rather should notably confirme theyr primacy and vtterly ouerthrow his owne cause seeing that it is most euident that the authority of Pope Leo was such that his only opposition to that Canon and his abrogation therof sufficed to ouerthrow disanull it which I will take a litle paynes to proue by the whole course and practise of the Church euen from that Councell vntill the ruine of the Greeke Church and Empyre which though it be needlesse in respect of the learned yet I hope it will not be altogeather fruitles to the more ignorant and vnlearned and may serue for an aboundant conuiction of M. Andrews his impudency and malice who is not ashamed to auouch such a manifest falsehood and impugne such a knowne truth as he doth 12. To this purpose I wish it to be noted what Gelasius who liued at the same tyme and was Pope about 30. yeares after Leo wrote to the Bishops of Dardania concerning a schisme raysed by Acatius Bishop of Constantinople in the tyme of Pope Felix his Predecessor in which Epistle he signifyeth 4. things specially to be noted for this purpose First that the Emperour Martian though he had made great instance to Pope Leo for the aduancement of the Church of Constantinople yet did highly prayse and commend the said
of the circumstances of the foresayd Canon The first place or authority which he vndertaketh to answere is that in many Epistles or rather supplications addressed to Pope Leo and the whole Councell he is named before the Councell with this tytle Sanctissimo Deo amantissimo vniuersali Archiepiscopo Patriarchae Magnae Romae Leoni Sanctae vniuersali Chalcedonensi Synodo quae voluntate Dei congregata est To the most holy and most beloued of God and vniuersall Archbishop and Patriarke of Great Rome Leo and to the holy and vniuersall Synode of Calcedon which is assembled by the will of God In which tytle it is to be obserued not only that the name of Pope Leo is set before the name of the Councell whereby he is acknowledged to be superiour to the Councell but also he is called Vniuersall Archbishop and Patriarke of Rome in respect of his vniuersall authority ouer the whole Church of God besides that it is to be noted heerin that the tytle of Vniuersall Bishop so much impugned now by the Sectaries of this tyme was vsualy giuen to the Bishops of Rome in the tyme of that Councell seeing it was in the Councell it selfe diuers tymes vsed and giuen to Pope Leo without the contradiction of any 39. Hereto M. Andrews answereth thus Cur huc illuc oberret quis c. why shall a man go vp and downe hither and thither throughout all the corners of the Acts of this Councell searching the deskes and looking on the backsyde of letters to find somewhere that whereof he readeth there the contrary in expresse words let him read not in any tytle or superscriptioÌ„ of a letter or memoriall wherin euery man knoweth how suiters are wont to extoll and magnify those to whome they sue but let him read the matter ventilated or debated in one whole action and renewed and confirmed in another and finally enacted by a Canon c. so he and then followeth that which I haue set downe out of him and confuted before concerning the contents of the Canon 40. Heere now thou seest good Reader that this answere of his contayneth 3. poynts the first that all this obiection is taken as it were out of the booke being grounded on nothing els but on the superscriptions of letters and memorials The second that the manner and style of the letters and memorialls of suppliants is alwayes to extoll and magnify those to whome they make suite The third that a Canon of the same Councell decreed the contrary to all this in expresse words giuing to the Bishop of Constantinople equal priuiledges in all things with the Bishop of Rome this being the whole substance of his answere and the last poynt concerning the Canon which most importeth being by me already fully confuted to his shame it will easily be seene how he tryfleth in the two former For as for the first what skilleth it whether those tytles were written on the insyde or outside of the supplications seeing that they were taken and set downe by the Notaries of the whole CouÌ„cell no lesse then the Canons and Actions themselues and not reproued or contradicted by any Is it not therefore cleare inough thereby that the tytle of vniuersall Bishop was in those dayes vsually giuen to the Bishop of Rome and seeing his name is set downe before the name of the Councell though he himselfe was not present but only his Legats was not he sufficiently acknowledged thereby to be the President and head of the Councell 41. But I would be glad to know of M. Andrews what reason those suppliants had to addresse and present their petitions rather to Pope Leo by name then to the Bishop of Constantinople or to other Grecian Bishops and Metropolitans of their owne country Let him tell me I say what other reason they could haue but because they held him not only to be the chiefe and vniuersall Pastor that is to say to haue vniuersall authority but also to be acknowledged by the whole Councell as their head For if the Councell had not so esteemed him those suppliants might be assured that by naming him alone and giuing him extraordinary tytles that were not due vnto him they should offend the Councell and consequently hurt their owne cause 42. Moreouer let M. Andrews tell vs if it please him why those suters should exceed in the tytle rather to Pope Leo then to the whole Councell seeing that they addressed their petitions to both Why did they not I say magnify and extoll the Councell with some excessiue tytle as well as the Pope For if it were needfull for them to vse excesse and flattery to eyther of both for the better successe of their petition it is like they would haue done it rather to the whole Councell then to him if they had not assured themselues that the grant of their petition depended principally on him as on the head of the Councell so that the supplications being directed indifferently to both and no excesse or flattery so much as imagined by M. Andrewes in that part of the tytle which concerneth the Councell he must eyther acknowledg the like of the other part that toucheth the Pope or els â—ell vs some reason of the difference whereof no other can be conceiued but only his greater authority then the Councells in respect that he was their head and the vniuersall Pastor of the Church And thus much touching his answere to the first place 43. The second place alledged by Cardinall Bellarmine out of that Councell is that in the Epistle of the whole Councell to Pope Leo he is acknowledged in expresse words to be the head of all the Bishops assembled there they his members for thus they wrote speaking of themselues Quibus tu sicut membris caput praeeras ouer whome thou wert President as head ouer the members in those which held thy place c. So they And what doth M. Andrews trow you answere to this Marry forsooth he saith that vtcumque tum praefuit sicut caput c. howsoeuer he then gouerned as head yet he could not hinder but that another head was made equall to this head So he meaning that the Canon whereof we haue hitherto treated made the Bishop of Constantinople equall with him in all things and so made two heads But how weake and idle this answere is thou mayst iudge good Reader by the weaknes of this Canon which I haue sufficiently shewed as well by the inualidity and nullity of it being abrogated by Pope Leo as also by the false sense that M. Andrews hath giuen vs of it so that the foundation of his answere I meane the Canon fayling him his answere must needs fall to the ground and be altogeather impertinent and the place alledged by the Cardinall remayne in full force 44. The third and last place which he vndertaketh to answere is that the whole Councell also
testifyed in the same Epistle to Pope Leo that our Sauiour had committed to him the keeping of his vineyard that is to say of his Church whereto M. Andrews answereth that the vineyard was indeed committed to him but not to him alone sed cum alijs in vinâ—a operarijs but togeâ—ther with other workmen in the vineyard wherein he saith very truely for no man denyeth but that there were other Pastors in the Church besides Pope Lâ—o though we affirme that all other Pastors were inferiour and subordinate to him and I think no man doubteth but that when the charge or gouernment of a temporall Commonwelth is committed to a King or other soueraigne Prince he doth not exercyse it alone but togeather with other Magistrats subordinate and subiect to him and the like we say of the supreme Pastor of the Church that he is not the only Pastor though he be chiefe and supreme which point I haue debated in the former Chapter where I confuted the like answere of M. Andrewes to our obiection of the Pastorall commission giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter 45. Therefore I remit him and the Reader to what I haue discoursed there touching that poyntâ— and wil also ad further heere coÌ„cerning Pope Leo that wheras M. Andrewes granteth his Pastorall authority togeather with other Pastors meaning that he had no more nor other authority ouer the Church then other Bishops had he is easily conuinced by the circumstances of the same place which the Cardinall obiecteth and he pretendeth now to answere for there Dioscorus is accused of three things the first that he had taken vpon him to condemne and depose Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople and Eusebius Bishop of Doryleum against the Canons of the Church The second that whereas Pope Leo had depriued Eutyches the heretyk of his dignity in the Church of Constantinople where he was Abbot of a Monastery Dioscorus had restored him thereto and so irruens in vineam c. breaking into the vineyard which he found notably well planted he ouerthrew it c. The thyrd was that post haec omnia saith the Councell insuper contra ipsum c. And after all this he did moreouer extend his madnes against him to whom the charge or keeping of the vineyard was committed by our Sauiour id est contra tuam quoque Apostolicam Sanctitatem that is to say also against thy Apostolyke Holynes meaning Pope Leo for to him the Councell wrote this 46. Whereby it is euident that the Councell distinguisheth clearely betwixt the authority of Pope Leo and of the two other Bishops Flauianus and Eusebius seeing that all three of them being named as greatly iniured by Dioscorus the offence agaynst Pope Leo is exaggerated much more then the iniury done to the other two and held to proceed of meere madnes fury And albeit mention be made of the vineyard as broken downe and ouerthrowne by Dioscorus in the depositioÌ„ of those two Catholik Bishops yet only Pope Leo who is honoured with the title of Apostolicall Sanctity is acknowledged to haue had the charge of the vineyard committed to him by our Sauiour which had bene said very impertinently of him alone if those other two Bishops had as much charge of the vineyard as he Besids that the Councell testifieth in the same place that Pope Leo depriued Eutiches who was an Abbot in Constantinople of his dignity which he could not haue done out of his owne Diocesse in the Church of Constantinople if as well the Bishop of that Church as Eutiches had not been subiect to him whereto it may also be added that as Liberatê° testifieth this Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople for whose iniurious deposition Dioscorus is here accused by the Councell appealed for remedy to Pope Leo acknowledging thereby that Leo was his superiour and had also an vniuersall authority for otherwyse the appeale from the Greeke Church to him had byn in vayne So that M. Andrewes his glosse allowing to Pope Leo no more authority then to all other Pastors is very absurd and easily conuinced by the text it selfe 47. After this he idly carpeth at the Cardinall for saying that the Councell acknowledged Pope Leo to haue the charge totius vineae of the whole vineyard because totius is not in the text of the Councell Nec totius vineae dicitur saith M. Andrewes sed commoda vox totius Cardinali visum est adijcere neyther is it said of the whole vineyard but the Cardinall thought good to add totius because it is a commodious word for his purpose whereby it seemeth that he would haue some vnwary Reader to imagin that the Cardinall had corrupted the text by adding the word totius whereas there is no such matter for hauing alledged the words of the CouÌ„cell as they are to wit cui vineae custodia à Saluatore commissa est he doth afterwards in his owne discourse and for the explication therof adde totius saying vbi fatentur totius vineae custodiam c. where they to wit the Fathers of the Councell of Calcedon do confesse that the charge of all the vineyard was committed to the Pope Thus saith the Cardinall signifying that the Councell did meane that Leo had the charge of the whole Church which as I haue shewed is most euident euen by all the circumstances of the place 48. And therefore M. Andrewes supecting with great reason that this deuyse would serue him to litle purpose thought best to grant that totius vineae might be sayd in some sense Et vel si totius sayth he nihil iuuaret c. Yea and if it had bene sayd totius vineae it would help him nothing seeing that whatsoeuer doth eyther violate the vnity or trouble the peace of the whole Church ad curam omnium ex aequo pertinet non Leonis solùm doth belong to the care of all men equally and not of Leo only So he signifying that albeit Pope Leo might be sayd to haue had the Charge of the whole Church yet it were to be vnderstood that he had it no otherwyse then all other men haue And why Marry forsooth because all men are equally bound to haue care of the vnity and peace of the Church which truly may passe for a very strange paradoxe howsoeuer he vnderstandeth it I meane whether he extend the word omnium to all men in generall as he seemeth to do or limit it to all Pastors only 49. For if he meane that all men ought to haue care of the vnity and peace of the Church alyke or in equall degree he is most absurd confounding all order gouernment and subordination in the Church seeing that one speciall cause if not the chiefest why God ordayneth Pastors and Gouernours therin was to auoyd schismes and to conserue it in peace and vnity as I haue proued amply in my Supplement I haue also shewed that M. Barlow vrgeth the
it is most cleare that they cannot possibly signify as he would haue them parificare ad parem dignitatem euehere ad paris magnitudinis instar efferre which words and manner of speach do exclude all that diffeâ—rence of degree and dignity which is expresly reserued in the Canon giuing the second place to Constantinople so that you see he is in all this matter most fraudulent and hath notably corrupted the Canon aswell by concealing that which most imported to shew the full drift therof as also by peruerting both the words and the sense of it 67. It resteth now that I say somewhat more to his conclusion which is this Quod habet ergo Roma de primatu c. therfore that which Rome hath of the primacy it hath not from Christ but from the Fathers and in respect of the seat of the Emperour and not for the seat of Peter and forasmuch as the Fathers in aduancing new Rome to equall greatnes exercised the same power which they vsed in honouring old Rome therfore he is farre from the faith who affirmeth that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is according to the faith and religion of the Councell of Chalcedon So he concluding as you see two things the one concerning the primacy of the Roman Sea which he saith was not giuen by Christ but by the Fathers and not in respect of Peters Seat but for the seat of the Emperour wherto I haue said inough in effect already hauing taught him to distinguish betwixt the Primacy of the Roman Sea granted by Christ to S. Peter and the priuiledges which the Fathers or temporall Princes haue giuen therto for of the former to wit the Primacy of S. Peters Sea the Canon speaketh not at all because the mention of it would haue bene nothing to the purpose of the Canon but rather against it as I haue sufficiently declared and therfore this part of the conclusion is cleane from the matter and cannot possibly be drawne from the Canon wherupon he groundeth all his arguments 68. The other part is also no lesse friuolous then the former for whereas he concludeth that the Fathers of the Councell of Calcedon held not the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome for a matter of faith or Religion because they made the Church of Constantinople equal with the Roman Sea you see that all the equality wherupon he buyldeth is but his owne fiction and repugnant to that very Canon which he layeth for his foundation and yet forsooth he is not ashamed to triumph and insult against the Cardinall exacting of him some Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon for the Popes Primacy as though he himselfe had knockt him downe with a Canon for thus he saith for an vpshot and final conclusion of all this matter 69. Nec alieunde igitur tamquam è vepreculis extrahat nescio quid arrodat c. Therefore let not the Cardinall draw I know not what out of some place as it were out of the bryers and gnaw vpon it let him giue vs a Canon for the Canons are the voyce of the Councell not out of the superscription of an Epistle or some corner of a period or perhaps some peece of a tytle or fragment of a little clause So he wherein thou seest good Reader how he bestirreth himselfe with his diminitiues or to vse a phrase of M. Barlows with his Hypocoristicall alleuiations extenuating all that the Cardinall hath obiected as meere tryfles and calling for a Canon because the Canons are the very voyce of the Councell and so he would haue vs to suppose of his counterfait Canon I say counterfait in respect that he hath abused mangled and peruerted it as you haue seene which therefore is so far from being the voyce of the Councell that it is nothing els but a loud and lewd lye of his owne 70. For the Canon it selfe being taken as it is in the Councell vtterly ouerthroweth his cause seeing that it giueth the second place to Constantinople after Rome and therefore acknowledgeth the Primacy of the Roman Sea besids that although it had ben such as M Andrews would haue it to be yet Pope Leo's authority sufficed to disanul it euen in the Iudgment of Anatolius himselfe who hauing been the cause and authour of it acknowledged his errour therein and craued pardon for the same as I haue amply declared before And although after the earnest endeuours of diuers as well Catholike as Hereticall Emperours to aduance the Church of Constantinople and some schismes also raysed for that cause the Popes permitted the second place to the Bishops of that Sea whithout further opposition especially from the tyme of Iustinian the Emperour which was about a 100. yeares after the Councell of Calcedon yea and afterwards also Pope Innocentius the third ratifyed and confirmed it by a Canon in the great Councell of Lateran yet the supreme authority of the Sea Apostolike was no way preiudiced thereby as it appeareth euidently by the relation which I haue made before of the subiection and obedience of the Catholike Emperours and Bishops of Constantinople to the Sea of Rome from tyme to tyme vntill the Greeke Empyre was vtterly ruyned by the Turkes So that it is euery way manifest that the Canon of the Councell of Calcedon alledged by M. Andrewes hath serued him to no other purpose but to bewray his impudency fraud and folly 71. And wheras he demaundeth of the Cardinall some Canon of that Councell for the proof of the Popes Supremacy he sheweth himselfe very idle to exact a Canon for a matter that was not then in question but professed by the whole Councell as it euidently appeareth by their Epistle to Pope Leo wherin they acknowledge that he being ordayned to be the interpeter of the voyce of Blessed Peter to all men had conserued and kept the true faith which had bene deduced from Christs tyme to theirs and that vnder his conduct as being the author of so great a good they published the truth to the children of the Church that Christ had prepared for them that spirituall banquet meaning their Synod by his Letters that he by his Legates had gouerned them in that Councell as the Head gouerneth the members that the keeping of the Vineyard was committed to him by our Sauiour and that he had depriued Eutyches the heretike of his dignity in ConstaÌ„tinople which as I haue declared before he could not haue done if his authority had not bene vniuersall 72. And then comming to speake of the Canon which they had made in fauour of the Church of Constantinople they signified the trust and confidence they had that as he was wont by his carefull gouernment to cast forth the beames of his Apostolicall light euen to the Church of Constantinople so he would now condescend to confirme that which they had ordayned concerning the said Church for the auoyding of confusion and
consequently that they held Pope Leo not only for S. Peters successor but also for head of the whole Church and this I trust cannot be sayd to be taken out of the bryars or corner of a period or fragment of a clause but out of one of the most principall and important Acts of all the Councell 78. Also it appeareth in the same Councell that Theodoretus Bishop of Cyrus who being deposed by Dioscorus appealed to Pope Leo was by his authority restored to his seat and admitted into the Councell Ingrediatur say the Fathers Reuerendissimus Episcopus Theodoretus c. Let also the most Reuerend Bishop Theodoretus enter that he may be partaker of our Synod because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored to him his Bishopricke So they whereby they gaue sufficient testimony of the soueraygnty of Pope Leo acknowledging his power to restore Bishops to their Bishopriks in the Greeke Church Finally if there were nothing els in that Councell to proue Pope Leo's supreme and vniuersall authority ouer the Church of God it might suffice for an euident proofe thereof that he was vndoubtedly the president and head of the Councell as you haue heard before and may be confirmed by the subscriptions of his Legats set before all other Bishops though one of them was but a Priest and no Byshop 79. For what reason can be imagined why Pope Leo should be president of a Councell in Greece so far from his owne seat as well he himselfe as his Legats being Romans and of the Latin Church but that it belonged to him to be head thereof in respect of his vniuersall authority Will M. Andrews absurdly say as Caluin doth that there was no Bishop in all Greece at that tyme held to be worthy of that Honour How then was Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople able to procure such a Canon as he did in his owne fauour Can any man belieue that he was as M. Andrews saith esteemed worthy to be made equal in dignity and all things els with the Bishop of Rome and yet not fit to be President of a Councell in his owne country yea lesse fit then a stranger who was held to be but his â—qual Besides that howsoeuer Pope Leo himselfe might be esteemed more worthy of that Charge then the Bishops of Greece in respect of his eminent learning wisdome and vertue yet there is no probability in the world that the Emperour and all the Bishops of that Councell which were aboue 600. had the like conceit of the sufficiency of his Legats or that they would all of them yield as well to them as to him one of them being but a Priest This I say is so improbable that M. Caluin and M. Andrews must eyther giue vs some other probable reason for it as they shall neuer be able to do or els confesse that Leo was President of that Councell by right of his soueraignty and supreme authority ouer Gods Church 80. Therefore now to conclude this matter thou seest good Reader what was the beliefe of the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon concerning the Popes supremacy and how far M. Andrews is from their faith and Religion yea and what a seared conscience he hath not only to deny such an euident truth as this but also to impugne it with so much fraud and impudency as he doth against his owne conscience no doubt for he could not possibly see in the Councell that which he himselfe alledgeth and the Cardinall obiecteth but he must needs see all this which I haue cyted out of it neyther could he alledge some part of the 28. Canon and vrge it as he doth laying downe the words euen of the Greeke text but he saw as well that which followeth immediatly and clearely conuinceth his fraud and forgery as that which went before and seemed to make for him whereby it is euident that he not only wittingly dissembled and concealed the whole drift of that Canon but also maliciously peruerted mangled and falsifyed it to the end to deceiue his Reader for the mayntenance of his miserable cause for so I may well tearme it seeing it dryueth him to such miserable and desperate shifts M. D. ANDREVVS HIS ANSVVERES TO three places of the Fathers are examined AND By the way the Cardinall is cleared from a false imputation of Iouinians heresy and M. Andrews truly charged therewith Finally all that which we teach concerning the Popes authority is necessarily deduced out of M. Andrews his owne doctrine and expresse words CHAP. III. HAVING occasion in my Supplement to proue the necessity of a visible head in Gods Church to coÌ„serue the same in vnity I alledged two places of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome which the Cardinall also cyteth in his Apology togeather with diuers other testimonies of the Fathers to proue the Primacy of S. Peter and for as much as M. Andrews his answere thereto if it haue any force at all maketh as much against me as against the Cardinall I will examine heere what force and pith it hath The Cardinall saith thus of S. Cyprian Fecit Cyprianus Petrum c. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne and roote of the Church and in his Epistle to Quintus Peter saith he whome our Lord first chose and vpon whome he buylt his Church c. Where S. Cyprian doth not only say that Peter was first chosen but also addeth that the Church was buylt vpon him and truely the foundation in a buylding the head in a body are all one Thus saith the Cardinall alledging as you see two places of S. Cyprian to both which M. Andrews meaneth to say somewhat 2. To the first he saith thus Fecit Cyprianus c. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne and roote of the Church not Peter of the Church but rather maketh the Church it selfe the fountayne from whence many brookes the light from whence many beames and the roote from whence many boughs are propagated Learne this euen of himselfe Sic Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa c. So the Church being wholy resplendent with the light of our Lord casteth forth her beames throughout the whole world loe he sayth the Church and not Peter yet the light is one and the selfe same which is spread euery where is this light Peter or is he euery where spread abroad and the vnity of the body is not separated The Church through the plenty of her fertility stretcheth forth her branches ouer the whole earth and doth amply spread abroad her aboundant flowing brookes yet the head is one the beginning one one mother copious with the prosperous successe of her fecundity or fruitfulnes Caligauit hic Cardinalis c the Cardinall was spurre-blynd or dimme sighted here for I thinke he will not say that Peter is the mother and therefore not the head 3. This is M. Andrews his graue discourse supposing as it seemeth that because the
word mater is applyed to the Church by S. Cyprian therefore Caput cannot be applyed to S. Peter but to the Church Therfore to the end M. Andrews may vnderstand that S. Peter and not the Church it selfe is in this place worthily tearmed by S. Cyprian caput fons radix origo the head the fountayne the roote and the spring he shall do well to consider the ground and drift of all S. Cyprians discourse which the Cardinall in his Apology omitted for breuityes sake and therefore although I haue layd it downe in my Supplement to proue the necessity of a visible head in the Church yet I will take paynes to repeat it heere to ease the Reader of the labour to seeke it there 4. S. Cyprian meaning to shew the cause why the Church is troubled with heresyes and schismes and withall to giue the remedy saith thus Hoc eò fit c. This hapneth because men do not returne to the beginning of truth nor seeke the head nor obserue the doctrin of the heauenly Maister which if any man will well consider and examine he shall not need any longer treatise or arguments to proue it the proofe is easy to be belieued by the compendiousnes or breuity of the truth our Lord sayd to Peter I say vnto thee thou art Peter and vpon this rock I will buyld my Church and the gates of hell shall not ouercome it c. To him also he saith after his resurrection Feede my sheepe vpon him being one he buylt his Church and to him he recommended his sheep to be fed and although after his resurrection he gaue equal power to all his Apostles and sayd as my Father sent me so I send you receaue the holy Ghost c. neuertheles to manifest and shew a vnity he ordayned one chayre and by his authority disposed that the beginning of the same vnity should proceed from one Truely the rest of the Apostles were that which S. Peter was endued with lyke fellowship of honour and power but the beginning proceedeth from vnity the Primacy is giuen to Peter that one Church of Christ and one chayre may be shewed So he 5. And prosecuting still the same matter proueth notably the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head from whence all the vnity of the body is deriued which he sheweth by three excellent similituds of many branches of one tree springing from one roote many brookes of one water flowing from one fountayne and many beames of one light deriued from one sunne concluding his discourse that notwithstanding the amplitude of the Church by the propagation and numerosity of her children and the extension of her parts and members all ouer the world vnum tamen caput est sayth he origo vna c. yet the head is one and the origen or beginning one that is to say Peter vpon whome he sayd before as you haue heard that our Sauiour buylt his Church and to whom he recoÌ„mended his sheep to be fed yea gaue him Primatum the Primacy vt vna Christi Ecclesia vna cathedra monstretur to shew therby one Church of Christ and one chayre and this must needs be the true sense of S. Cyprian in that-place if we will make his conclusion conforme to his premisses and to the whole scope of his intention 6. So that M. Andrews making the Church it selfe to be the roote fountayne and head whereof S. Cyprian speaketh doth most absurdly confound the tree with the roote the riuers with the spring the body with the head and lameth all that most excellent discourse of S. Cyprian yea ouerthroweth the very foundation thereof denying all that which S. Cyprian layd for his ground to wit the Primacy and supreme authority of S. Peter from whence he expresly deryueth the vnity of the Church as he doth also most clearely els where saying in his Epistle to Iubaianus Nos Ecclesiae vnius caput radicem tenemus We haue or do hold the head and roote of one Church and after declaring what roote and head he meaneth he sayth nam Petro primùm Dominus super quem c. For our Lord gaue this power of binding and loosing to Peter vpon whome he buylt his Church vnde vnitatis origâ—nem instituit ostendit and from whence he ordayned and shewed the beginning of vnity And agayne after in the same Epistle Ecclesia quae vna est super vnum qui claues accepit voce Domini fundata est The Church which is one was by the speach of our Lord founded vpon one who receaued the keyes So he Whereby it euidently appeareth that his constant and manifest doctrine is that all the vnity of the Church proceedeth from the vnity of her head to wit S. Peter and his chayre and that the Cardinall affirming that S. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne roote of the Church gaue vs his true sense and M. Andrews making the Church it selfe to be the head fountayne and roote of it selfe is very absurd and wholy repugnant to S. Cyprians doctrine or meaning 7. And this will be more cleere if we examin a little better M. Andrews his glosse vpon the text of S. Cyprian whereby he laboureth to proue that the Church it selfe and not S. Peter is the head fountayne and roote whereof S. Cyprian speaketh For hauing layd downe S. Cyprians words to wit sic Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa c. so also the Church shyning with the light of our Lord reacheth forth her beames ouer the whole world he noteth that the Father sayth Ecclesia non Petrus the Church not Peter and no meruaile seeing he had no occasion then to name Peter but the Church only for although the Church being a visible body hath alwayes a visible head vnder Christ to wit Peter and his successors yet S. Cyprian doth speake of it heere as of a body considered a part not including the head meaning afterwards to speake of the head as he had in lyke manner done before declaring from whence the vnity of that body is deriued as it will appeare further heereafter 8. In the meane tyme let vs see how M. Andrews goeth on with the text Vnum tamen lumen est c. Yet it is one light which is euery where spread neyther is the vnity of the body separated heere now he asketh two questions the one whether Peter be the light and the other whether he be euery where dispersed whereto I answere that although he is not the light of the Church as he was a particuler man yet he may well be so called not only as he was an Apostle seeing that our Sauiour sayd to all the Apostles Vos estis lux mundi you are the light of the world but also much more as he is the Vicar and substitute of our Sauiour who being lux vera the true light imparteth vnto him his owne excellencyes so far
forth as is necessary for the gouernement of his Church which he hath committed to his charge in which respect it may truely be sayd that the light of the Church proceedeth not only from Christ but also from him as from the head thereof vnder Christ and that by his authority it is spread euery where throughout the Church 9. And this is sufficiēt to make good the similitude according to the intention of S. Cyprian who only speaketh here of the Church as of a body receiuing all the vnity of her seueral many parts from the head as the light which is spread thoughout the world receaueth vnity from the sunne therfore he argueth thus in substance As the light of the sunne dispersed ouer the earth though it haue many beames yet is but one light by reason that it proceedeth from one sunne so also the body of the Church dispersed by many members ouer the whole world is but one body because it proceedeth from one head which reason he giueth yet more expressely in the two other similituds that immediatly follow of a tree spreading forth many boughes and of many brookes flowing from one fountayne for of the former he saith that though the boughes are many and spread far abroad Robur tamen vnum tenaci radice firmatum yet the strengeth is one fastned in the strong and stiffe roote and of the later he saith in like manner that notwithstanding the aboundant and copious plenty of water dispersed by many brookes yet it is but one water because vnitas saith he seruatur in origine the vnity is conserued in the spring Who then seeth not that to apply this similitude to the Church we must needs say that albeit the sayd Church hath very many members and parts spread ouer the whole world yet it is but one body because it hath but one head wherein the vnity of all the parts is conserued 10. And to this is also conforme the rest of S. Cyprians text which M. Andrews proceedeth to lay downe thus Ramos suos Ecclesia c. The Church through her aboundant fertility stretcheth forth her branches ouer the whole earth and largely spreadeth abroad her copious riuers or brookes yet the head is one the origen or beginning one and one mother c. So sayth S. Cyprian teaching as you see nothing els in effect but that the Church being a body dispersed ouer the whole world in her members is vnited in one head and therefore he saith vnum tamen caput origo vna yet the head is one and the origen or beginning one and so hauing spoken as well of the head of the Church as of the body and declared from whence the vnity of the whole is deryued he had great reason to adde vna mater one mother giuing to vnderstand that as the Church hath one head so she is one mother one in respect of her vnity deryued from her head and mother because she is the spouse of Christ and hath children dispersed throughout the world 11. And thus may M. Andrews see that albeit S. Peter is not called in S. Cyprian a Mother yet he is acknowledged to be the head from whence the vnity of the whole Church our mother is communicated to vs her children which would haue bene as cleare as the sunne if he had layd downe the similituds themselues as well as he gaue vs only the application of them out of S. Cyprian beginning his allegation with Sic Ecclesia so also the Church c. for he knew full well that his false glosse would haue bene easily discouered if he had set downe the similituds as they are deliuered and vrged by the Father himselfe Therefore now let the Reader Iudge Quis caligauit hic who was blind heere the Cardinall or M. Andrewes Thus much concerning the first place of S. Cyprian 12. The other place is Petrus super quem Dominus fundauit Ecclesiam Peter vpon whom our Lord did found his Church whereupon the Cardinall infereth that S. Cyprian teacheth that the Church is buylt vpon S. Peter and that therfore he is the foundation of the Church and consequently the head therof because the foundation in a buylding and the head in a body is all one whereto M. Andrewes answereth thus Alter verò illi ex Cypriano locus praecidendus erat c. He thought it necessary to cut of the other place of Cyprian where it seemed little to fauour the Primacy for thus it is nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit c. For neyther did Peter whome our Lord chose the first challenge any thing insolently to himselfe nor take vpon him arrogantly to say that he had the Primacy or that he ought to be obayed of those that were yonger and later then he Wherein the mynd or sense of Cyprian seemeth to be that if Peter had sayd that he had the Primacy he had insolently challenged somewhat to himselfe and therfore the Cardinall suppressed this part of the text warily because it made litle for the Primacy and rather tooke hold of the former part where Cyprian saith that the Church was buylt vpon Peter c. 13. Thus sayth M. Andrews with somewhat more which I will also lay downe after a whyle when I shall first haue examined this wherein you see he would fayne make the Reader belieue that the Cardinall had vsed some art or fraud in leauing it vncyted as not fauorable but rather preiudiciall to S. Peters Primacy wheras in truth it doth notably proue it and no way impayre or infringe it as he may see in the Cardinals controuersyes where amongst very many other places alledged for the Primacy of S. Peter he vrgeth this fortifying it notably with the authority of S. Augustine who also cyteth those words of S. Cyprian though vpon another occasion Therefore I will set downe the Cardinalls owne words to the end that he may answere for himselfe who hauing brought the testimonyes of a whole Iury as I may say of Greeke Fathers to wit Origen Eusebius S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Epiphanius the two S. Cyrils S. Chrysostome Euthymius Theophilact Occumenius and Hugo Etherianus all of them expressely acknowledging the supremacy of S. Peter aboue all the other Apostles addeth as many more of the Latin Fathers and beginneth with S. Cyprian thus 14. Ex latinis S. Cyprianus in Ep. ad Quintum c. Of the latin Fathers S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Quintus sayth that Peter when he was reprehended by Paul would not say that he had the primacy and that he ought to be obayed whereby he signifyeth that Peter had the primacy and might command all others And lest perhaps our aduersaries may say that Cyprian meaneth that Peter did not say he had the Primacy because he should therein haue affirmed that which was false let vs heare Augustine expounding this place of Cyprian lib. 2. de Baptismo cap. 1.
c. Thus saith the Cardinall and after hauing layd downe S. Cyprians words alledged by S. Augustine being the same that you haue heard before he addeth the words of S. Augustine which are these Ecce vbi commemorat Cyprianus c. Behold how Cyprian doth shew that Peter the Apostle in whom the primacy of the Apostles is preeminent with such an excellent grace corrected by Paul a later Apostle when he dealt concerning Circumcision otherwayse then truth required So sayth S. Augustin whereby it euidently appeareth how he vnderstandeth S. Cyprian in this place to wit that albeit Peter was preeminent and far excelled the Apostles by reason of his Primacy yet when he erred he patiently suffered himselfe to be corrected by Paul and did not insolently and arrogantly defend his errour standing vpon the authority of his Primacy and challenging obedience of S. Paul and others 15. This then being so and the Cardinalls opinion concerning the meaning of S. Cyprian in this place being so â—ell fortified as you haue now heard by S. Augustines construction and iudgement thereof what reason hath any man to thinke that the Cardinall did as M. Andrews chargeth him purposely and craftily suppresse those words of S. Cyprian as not making for Peters Primacy whereas you see he taketh them to make much for it and doth vrge them notably to proue it Therefore can any reasonable man imagine any fraud in the Cardinall Or any other cause why he did not eyte them in his Apology but partly for breuityes sake which euery may seeth how much he affecteth in all his workes and partly because he thought he had alledged sufficient already out of that Father to proue his intent 16. So that whereas M. Andrews sayth Ea Cypriani mens videtur c. The mynd or sense of Cyprian seemeth to be that if Peter had said he had the Primacy he had insolently challenged somewhat to himselfe that is to say more then was due vnto him he did very well to say videtur it seemeth for if he had absolutly affirmed it he had ouerlashed very far Besides that he may learne if it please him to make a great difference betwixt insolenter and â—also insolently and falsely for a man may take vpon him a true authority and speake of it insolently that is to say without iust cause or in defence of some euill act and yet not falsely because it is true that he hath the authority which he pretendeth And therefore I say that if S. Peter should haue stood vpon his Primacy in defence of his erroneous act and sayd that S. Paul ought to follow and obay him therin because he was the Primate and head of the Apostlesâ— he had both sayd and done insolently which neuertheles in defence of a truth or vpon some other iust occasion he might both say and do without all note of insolency yea iustly and necessarily because he had indeed the Primacy and therefore was to be obayed and followed in all good and iust actions 17. But now M. Andrews goeth forward and whereas the Cardinall concluded that Peter being the foundation of the Church was therefore the head of it M. Andrews granteth that S. Peter was fundamentum quidem vnum sed non vnicum one but not the only foundation esse enim illiusce aedificij duodecem fundamenta for that there are twelue foundations of that building But M. Andrews is heere short of his account for he should rather haue sayd that there are thirteene except he will exclude Christ of whome the Apostle sayth Fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere c. no man can lay any other foundation then that which is already layed Iesus Christ of whome also the Prophet sayth Ecce ego ponam in fundamentis Sion lapidem c. Behold I will lay a stone in the foundation of Sion an approued stone a corner and precious stone founded in the foundation c. 18. And this I am sure M. Andrews will not deny seeing that it is one of the most speciall arguments whereby his fellowes are wont to exclude S. Peter from being the foundation of the Church to wit because Christ is the foundation of it if therefore M. Andrews will admit twelue foundations of the Church without preiudice to Christ he may also admit eleuen without preiudice to Peter For albeit the twelue Apostles are all founded vpon Christ who is the first and principall stone yet Peter may haue the first place in the foundation next after Christ being immediatly founded on him as head and ordinary Pastor of the Church and the rest vpon Peter as extraordinary and subordinate to him Besides that Peter and the rest of the Apostles are called foundations in different manner as I will declare more particulerly in the discussion of M. Andrews his answere to the place of S. Hierome 19. And now to conclude concerning S. Cyprian whereas the Cardinall argueth vpon his words that because S. Peter was the foundation of the Church he was therefore the head thereof in respect that the head in a body and the foundation in a buylding is all one M. Andrews answereth thus Vix illuc vsquequaque c. That is scantly true euery way for I do shew the Cardinall a buylding whereof there are twelue foundations but hardly can the Cardinall shew me one body wherof there are twelue heads So he very well to the purpose I assure you ouerthrowing himselfe with his owne answere for if that buylding which he sayth hath twelue foundations be the Church as indeed it is and so it appeareth by his quotation of the 24. Chapter of the Apocalyps then may the Cardinall very easily shew him also a body that hath twelue heads euen according to the doctrine and opinion of M. Andrews himselfe who can not deny but that the Church is a body I meane such a body as heere we treate of to wit not a naturall but a mysticall body neyther can he deny that the Apostles were heads of that body seeing all of them had as M. Andrews still telleth vs the charge and gouernement of the Church alike and therefore being twelue gouernours they were also twelue heads 20. Is it then so hard a matter for the Cardinall to shew him a body with twelue heads Nay which is more and toucheth more our case doth not M. Andrews thinke it possible that such a body may haue a hundreth heads and all of them subordinate to one head What will he say of the state of Venice Will he deny that the Senators who are many hundreths are heads thereof or that they are subordinat to one Doge or Duke So that it is to be vnderstood that in respect of the rest of the Common welth the Senators are all heads though in respect of the Doge they are but members subordinate to him And so in this spirituall buylding of the Church or mysticall body of Christ though the
were heads gouernours and Pastors of the vniuersall Church but not in the same manner that Peter was for they had a chiefe and most ample power as Apostles or Legats but Peter had it as ordinary Pastor besides that they had their full power in such sort that neuerthelesse Peter was their head and they depended of him and not he of them and this is that which was promised to Peter Matth. 16. when it was sayd vnto him in presence of the rest Vpon this rock I will buyld my Church which besides the other Fathers before cyted S. Hierome teacheth in his first booke against Iouinian where explicating what is the meaning of buylding the Church vpon Peter he sayth thus Licèt super omnes Apostolos c. Although the strength of the Church be established equally vpon all the Apostles yet therefore one was chosen amongst the twelue to the end that a head being made the occasion of schisme might be taken away 27. Thus far the Cardinall which I hope may suffice to teach M. Andrews how the Church was founded equally vpon the Apostles to wit the two first waye whereof the Cardinall speaketh as mentioned in the Apocalyps and the Epistle to the Ephesians where not only the Apostles but also the Prophets are called foundations of the Church which may well stand with the Primacy of S. Peter and S. Hieromes doctrine concerning the same whereas M. Andrews making S. Hierome impugne S. Peters Primacy by the equality that he mentioneth maketh him contradict himselfe and ouerthrow his owne doctrine in the very next words after wherein he expoundeth as the Cardinall noteth very well what is meant by the buylding of the Church vpon S. Peter signifying that it is to be vnderstood thereby that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles as I will shew further hereafter by M. Andrews his owne confession So that it is cleare inough that the Cardinal left not those words of S. Hierome vncyted as preiudiciall to Peters primacy but only for breuityes sake and that therefore M. Andrews hath notably calumniated him as well in this place as in the former seeking to cast vpon him some suspition of fraudulent dealing in the cytation of Authors which is indeed the proper talent of M. Barlow and M. Andrews as you haue hitherto seene sufficiently proued in them both and shall see further exemplyfied heereafter in M. Andrews to his confusion 28. The second point which I wished to be obserued in his Glosse vpon S. Hieromes text is that he sayth the Cardinall followeth Iouinian in affirming that the Church was founded vpon S. Peter as if the Cardinall did teach therein soâ—e heresy of Iouiniâ—n and not S. Hieromes doctrine but this surpasseth all impudency For no doubt he speaketh against his owne conscience and knowledge seeing he cannot be ignorant of the contrary if he haue read and examined that very place in S. Hierome which he obiecteth where it is euident that the matter then in controuersy betwixt S. Hierome and Iouinian was about the merit of Virginity because Iouinian equalled marâ—ryage with it which heresy S. Hierome in that place laboured to confuteâ— and for as much as the heretyke had obiected the marriage of the Apostles inferring thereupon that if Virginity were to be preferred before marriage Christ would not haue chosen marryed men but Virgins to be his Apostles and the Princes and Captains of Christian disciplin therefore S. Hierome answereth that it appeareth not in the Scriptures that any of them had a wyfe except Saint Peter and that he being married whiles he was vnder the law liued continent from his wyfe after his vocation to the Apostleship and that if any of the rest had wyues before their vocation they abstayned from them euer after and that S. Iohn Euangelist being chosen a Virgin was singularly beloued and specially fauoured of our Sauiour aboue the rest for his Virginity 29. And whereas Iouinian also vrged the supreme dignity of S. Peter as that the Church was founded vpon him being a married man and not vpon S. Iohn who was a Virgin wherein it is euident that Iouinian sought to fortify his heresy by an argument drawne from a point of knowne Catholike doctrine S. Hierome was so far from denying the Church to be founded on Peter that he notably confirmed it declaring that Peter was made thereby head of the Apostles for hauing taught that the Church was also founded equally vpon all the Apostles in the sense that I haue declared he gaue a reason not only why S. Peter was made head of the rest to wit to take away the occasion of schisme but also why he being a married man was endowed with that power and dignity rather then S. Iohn who was a Virgin whereof he yielded this probable reason that respect was had to the age of them both because Peter was a man of yeares and Iohn very yong and therefore to auoyd murmuration against Iohn himselfe which would haue hapned in case he being the yongest of them all should haue bene made their head Peter was worthily preferred before him This is briefely the substance of S. Hieromes discourse in that place Whereby it is euident that he notably confirmeth our Catholike doctrine concerning the Supremacy of S. Peter acknowledging him to be made the head as well of S. Iohn as of all the rest 30. And to the end that M. Andrews may euidently see that S. Hierome did not impugne or disallow this proposition the Church is founded vpon Peter but reiected only the false consequent that Iouinian drew thereon against the merit of Virginity I wish him to read S. Hieromes Commentary vpon the 16. Chapter of S. Matthew and particulerly vpon these words of our Sauiour super hanc petrâ—m aedifiâ—abo Ecclesiam meam c. vpon this rock will I buyld my Church c. where he shall see that the proposition which Iouinian obiected is also the cleare and expresse doctrine of S. Hierome who sayth thus in the person of our Sauiour to S. Peter Because thou Simon hast sayd to me thou art Christ the Sonne of God I also say to thee not with a vayne or idle speach that hath no operation or effect sed quia meum dixisse fecisse est but because my saying is a doing or making therefore I say vnto thee thou art Peter or a Rock and vpon this rock I will buyld my Church As Christ being himselfe the light granted to his disciples that they should be called the light of the world so to Simon who belieued in Christ the Rock he gaue the name of Peter that is to say a Rock and according to the metaphor of a Rock it is truly sayd to him I will buyld my Church vpon thee 31. Thus far S Hierome teaching expressely that Christ buylt his Church vpon Peter which also he teacheth in diuers other places as in an Epistle to Marcella where he
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
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
manner diuers homilies in S. Chrysostom of the fifth feria in Passion week and of the Resurection and Ascension of our Sauiour and of Pentecost besids diuers others of particuler Saints as S. Fulgentius Sâ— Augustines schooler and others So that this exception of M. Andrews to the authority of this place of S. Augustin is tooto cold and friuolous and far vnworthy of a man that professeth to haue read the ancient Fathers and therefore truely he had reason to seeke out another answere that might be of some more weight which he frameth in these words Sed nec si tempori cedamus hic tamen testis satis in tempore venit c. But though we should yield to tyme he meaneth that albeit we should graunt that Sermons were made de tempore in those daies yet this witnes commeth out of tyme or season very vnluckily who doth not tell vs of any other head but of a sickly head nor of any other crowne of a head but a crazed or crackt crowne which therefore might very well haue been passed with silence 24. Thus raueth M. Andrews hauing his head so crazed with the frenzy of heresy that he vttereth such braynsick and idle stuffe as this which truely no man that were well in his wits would vtter to the purpose he doth that is to say to proue that S. Peter was not head of the Church For els why doth he say it seeing that the Cardinall cyteth this place to no other end but to proue that S. Peter was head of the Church and therefore M. Andrews giuing this for his second answere hauing as you haue seene great reason to mistrust the former must needs conclude thereupon that S. Peter was not head of the Church But how doth it follow that because S. Peter by fraylty denyed our Sauiour Ergo he was not head of the Church Do those that hold and teach his primacy deny his fall Or teach that his successours cannot also erre in matter of fact as he did though not in definition of matters of faith 25. Truly if M. Andrews eyther had a sound brayne or els were guyded by the same spirit that S. Augustine and other fathers were he would haue made another manner of construction of this place then he doth and rather haue sought to confirme S. Peters Primacy by his fall then to impugne it thereby for so doth S. Augustine in this place shewing that it was conuenient that almighty God should suffer him to fall because he was to be the gouernour and head of the Church which S. Augustine teacheth expressely in these words 26. Ideo B. Petrum paululum Dominus subdeseruit c. Our Lord did therefore forsake blessed Peter for a while to the end that all humane kind might know in him that without the grace of God it could do nothing and thereby a rule might be giuen also to him who was to be gouernour of the Church to pardon sinners for the keyes of the Church were to be committed to Peter the Apostle yea the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen were recommended vnto him as also in like manner there was to be committed to his charge an innumerable multitude of people which in respect of the vyces and passions of their nature were wrapped in sinnes and offences And againe after a while Idcirco saith he diuinae prouidentiae secretum c. Therefore did the secret of Gods prouidence so dispose and permit that he to wit Peter should himselfe first fayle and fall into sinne that by the consideration of his owne fall he might temper the rigour of his sentence towards sinners Quantum igitur diuini inuneris c. Therefore note what great bounty and goodnes and how much care and sollicitude God sheweth heerin towards the saluation of man he câ—reth the disease of the whole body in the head of the Church and compoundeth the health of all the members in the very crowne of the head in the very top of the coÌ„fession of Christ in the very fouÌ„datioÌ„ of an immoueable faith that is to say in that Peter who said although I should dye with thee yet I will not deny thee 27. All this saith S Augustine and much more to the same purpose which I omit for breuityes sake for that this may suffice to teach M. Andrews that S. Peters Primacy was so far from being preiudyced by his fall that it may rather be in some sort confirmed thereby seeing it appeareth that it was conuenient in respect of his Primacy that he should fall for the benefit that should ensue thereof as well to himselfe as to the Church which is also the expresse doctrine of S. Chrysostome who hauing said that Orbis terrarum Ecclesiae c. the Churches of the whole world and the multituds of people were to be committed to his charge And hauing also called him Apostolorum verticem the head of the Apostles the immouable foundation the steedfast rock the pillar of Churches and mayster of the whole world he addeth Peccare permissus est c. he was suffered to sinne for this cause chiefly because the multitude of people was to be committed vnto him lest he being seuere and innocent might be vnwilling to pardon the offences of his brethren So he to whome I may also adde S. Gregory the Great who maketh the same construction of S. Peters fall that these two other Fathers do affirming that God suffered him to fayle quem praeferre cunctae Ecclesiae disposuerat whome he had determined to make gouernour of all the Church that he might learne by his owne fraylty to haue compassion of other sinners 28. And to the end M. Andrewes may see that S. Augustine doth also else where plainly acknowledg the Primacy of S. Peter notwithstanding his fall he shall do well to read a place alleadged by himselfe in his first chapter to proue that S. Peter had nothing peculiar to himself by his pastorall commission which place if he had layd downe at large as he curtolled and maymed it after his manner it might haue sufficed to conuince him as well in the matter for the which he produced it as also in this For there S. Augustin hauing taught that S. Peter receauing the keyes the coÌ„mission of Pastor represented the person of the Church inferreth that the Church ought to pardon repentant sinners seeing that Peter bearing the person of the Church was pardoned wheÌ„ he had denyed his maister 29. Wherein S. Augustine not only deduceth a pious document out of S. Peters offence as you see he doth in the other place but also acknowledgeth sufficiently his supreme Dignity teaching that he bare the person of the Church which he did no otherwise but as he was supreme head and Gouernour thereof as I haue declared at large in the first Chapter of this Adioynder where I haue layd downe the words of S. Augustine and discouered M.
Andrews his fraud more particulerly and produced also a cleare testimony of S. Cyril concerning the Primacy of S. Peter whome he calleth Principem Caput Apostolorum the Prince head of the Apostles though he do there grant his fall which he saith hapned by humane infirmity whereof M. Andrews cannot be ignorant seeing he cyteth also that place of S. Cyril no lesse then the other of S. Augustin though with greater fraud as I haue also shewed in the first Chapter 30. Finally I may add to these those other testimonies which I haue now lastly examined and debated with M. Andrewes out of S Cyril S. Hierome S Basil and S. Chrysostome as also the rest of that grand Iury of 24. Fathers Greeks and Latins alledged by Cardinall Bellarmine in his controuersies to proue the supreme authority of S. Peter ouer the Apostles all which most learned and ancient Fathers being the lights of the Church knew as well as M. Andrews that S. Peter had denyed our Sauiour and yet neuertheles did not take the same to be any preiudice to his Supremacy Whereupon I conclude that if their heads were sound then M. Andrews his head must needs be very sick and crazed seeing his sense and iudgment is so far different from theirs as to seek to ouerthrow or disproue S. Peters Primacy by his fall and to speake of him so contemptibly and opprobriously as he doth 31. But will you heare how well he mendeth the matter Marke him well I pray you and you shall see that as his head hath ben hitherto somewhat crackt so now he is become wholy distract talking as idly as if he were more fit for Bedlam then for a Bishoprick For hauing sayd as you haue heard before that this testimony of S. Augustine was vnluckily produced by the Cardinall because it giueth vs notice of no other head but of a sickly head to wit S. Peter and that therfore it might very well haue bin pretermitted he goeth forward thus Praesertim cùm eùmdem morbum in capite vestro notarint diu iam medicorum filij et si omnes non ego id est plus ego quà m omnes especially seeing that the Phisitians children haue now a long tyme noted the same disease in your head although all not I that is to say I more then all Thus saith he so mystically I assure you that he seemeth to propound a riddle and therefore may do well to explicate his meaning and let vs know who were those Phisitians and their children that haue noted the same disease in our head 32. Neuertheles for as much as it may be presumed that by the children he meaneth Luther Caluin Beza and himselfe with other Sectaries of this age we may also make a reasonable coniecture who were the Phisitians seeing that we are not ignorant that the true progenitours of all the Sectaries aforenamed were dyuers old heretykes whose herefies they haue reuyued namely the Donatists whose doctrine they professe concerning the fall of the visible Church Aerius whome they follow in denying Sacrifyce for the dead Vigilantius with whome they impugne the reuerend vse of reliques Iouinian who taught diuers points of their beliefe touched particulerly in the last Chapter and other Arch-heretikes condemned by the Church in ancient tyme who as S. Augustine witnesseth vsed also to barke though in vayne against the Sea Apostolike no lesse then these their children do 33. But although we may ghesse who were the Phisitians and their children yet it will not be so easy to coniecture what he meaneth by etsi omnes non ego id est plus ego quà m omnes although all not I that is to say I more then all for truely I haue shewed it to diuers and haue not found two that agree in the interpretation of it but the most probable seemeth to be the one of two one is that he alludeth to the words of S. Peter when he sayd etsi omnes scandalizati fuerint sed non ego Although all shall be scandalized yet not I who neuerthelesse was scandalized more then they all because he alone denyed his mayster which sense hath great difficulty because it neyther hath connexion with that which goeth immediatly before nor is truly applicable to the Pope of whome M. Andrews seemeth there to treate but is only contumelious to S Peter being a taunting kind of exprobration of his fall and therefore me thinkes M. Andrews should not admit it to be his meaning as sauouring too much of impiety 34. The other sense is that it should be referred to M. Andrews himselfe and that there is some litle fault in the print I mean in the points though not in the words which therefore should be pointed this si omnes non ego and if all not I that is to say if all haue noted this disease in your head why should not I note it Giuing to vnderstand that he will not yield to any of his brethren for zeale skill in noting the faults of Popes but rather plus ego quà m omnes that is to say therein will I go beyond them all which sense hath at least some good coherence with the precedent clause and well befitteth M. Andrews his zeale to the Ghospell and hatred to the Pope and so may passe for his meaning But whatsoeuer his meaning is I cannot forbeare to tell him that seeing his brayn is so intoxicated that he cannot write intelligibly and yet will take vpon him to play the Physitian and to cure the Popes diseases I will say to him with our Sauiour Medice cura teipsum and wish him to purge his owne head with some good quantity of a drug called Catholicon and a litle Helleborum to restore him againe to his right wits before he presume to be the Popes Physitian and to iudge of the diseases of the head of the Church 35. And whereas he goeth forward to shew vs a difference in the cure of Peters disease and of the diseases of his Successors let vs follow him a while and you shall see him runne as well out of his honesty as out of his wit For thus he saith Sed ab eo morbo sanatum hoc caput c. But this head to wit S. Peter was healed of this disease but your head he meaneth the Pope neyther will be healed nor yet is curable yet if he euer be healed let him be the head of the Church of Rome as he was in Augustines tyme but let no man appeale to him from beyond the sea or if any appeale he is to be excommunicated by Augustine who was far from acknowledging Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus for heads of the Church in whome neuertheles he cured the same disease So he which I beseech thee good Reader well to note and thou shalt see his conscience no lesse crackt then his brayne ioyning extreme falsity with folly abusing the authority not
only of S. Augustine but also of the whole Councell of African Bishops though he name S. Augustin only and none of the other and finally vttering 3. notable lyes in litle more then 3. lynes The first is that the Pope had no further authority but ouer his Church of Rome in S. Augustines tyme. The second that no man might in those daies appeale to the Sea Apostolicke out of Africk The third that S. Augustine was far from acknowledging those three Popes Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus to be heads of the Church yea and that he cured S. Peters disease in them Of these 3. points the first wil be fully cleared by the discussion of the second and the third 36. First then concerning the second whereas M. Andrews affirmeth that all Appeales from Africk to Rome were forbidden by S. Augustin vnder payne of excommunication wee shall neede no other witnesse to conuince him but S. Augustine himselfe who teacheth the flat contrary not only in expresse words but also by practise as it will euidently appeare after a whyle for albeit there was a controuersy betwixt the Church of Africk and the Roman Sea in S. Augustins tyme partly about appeales to Rome and partly about the Canons of the Nicen Councell for that a Canon related by the Popes Legate as out of the said Councell was not found in the Copies that were then in Africk whereof the causes may be seene at large as well in Cardinall Bellarmins Controuersies as in the history of Cardinall Baronius who doe fully answere all our aduersaryes cauills concerning the same albeit I say this controuersy continued some 4. or 5. yeares and grew in great part by reason of abuses cōmitted by some of the Popes legates in the rigorous and violent execution of the Popes sentences which may suffice to proue the comon vse of Appeales from Africk to Rome in those daies neuertheles it is euident that during the tyme of this controuersy there was no prohibition of the appeales of Bishops from Africk to Rome for that all the African Bishops agreed to continue the wonted course of Appeales without innouation vntill they should haue answere out of Greece concerning the Canons of the Nicen Councell 37. And when they had receaued the same they were so far from excommunicating such as should appeale to Rome or from prohibiting the same by a Synodicall Decree that they only wrote a common letter to Pope Celestinus wherein they did not impugne the right of Appeales to Rome but shewed their dislike of the manner and meanes that had ben vsed in the prosecutiō thereof And whereas there were 3. wayes vsed by the Sea Apostolyke in the prosecution and decision of appeales the first by calling the parties and witnesses to Rome the second by sending Legates to the place from whence the appeales came with commission to heare and determin them sometymes with the assistance of the Bishops of that prouince and sometymes without them and the third to remit the matter wholy to the determination of the Metropolitan or of some Prouinciall Synod of the same country as S. Gregory the great did in Africk dyuers tymes whereof I shall haue occasiō to lay downe some examples heereafter of these 3. wayes I say the African Bishops held the two former to be very inconuenient for them but tooke no exception at all to the third way which was to remit the causes to be tried at home by the Metropolitans or by Prouinciall Synods therfore the reasōs which they vrged tended especially to proue that it was most conuenient conforme to the Councell of Nice that causes should be decyded by the Metropolitans and Synods of the same Country where the controuersy should ryse and this the Pope might haue graunted if he had thought it conuenient and yet haue reserued to himselfe the right of appellation and haue decyded Appeales also by his commission as it shall further appeare after a while by the practise of S. Gregory 38 But put the case that S. Augustine and the Bishops of Africk had required of Pope Celestinus to be quite rid of Appeales what will M. Andrewes infer thereon Will he say that therefore they decreed vt transmarinus nemo appellet si appellet excommunicandus that no man appeale out of Africk and that if he doe he shall be excommunicated Will he infer this vpon their demaund or petition I say their petition for that when they come to treate of that matter in their Epistle they begin it thus Praefato debitae salutationis officio impendiò deprecamur vt c. The office or duty of due salutations premised we do most earnestly beseech you that you will not ouer easily giue eare to such as come from hence c. Will then M. Andrewes make no difference betwixt demaunds and decrees petitions and prohibitions must he not rather confesse that the African Bishops acknowledged that Pope Celestinus had power to dispose appeales For otherwyse why did they rather seeke satisfaction by letters to him then resolue by some Synodicall decree to exclude his authority and to debar him from further medling in those affaires as it is like they would haue done had they had byn perswaded that his authority in that behalfe was vsurped But let M. Andrewes take the request of the African Bishops in what sense he list I meane eyther for the exclusion of Appeales or for moderation in the prosecution of them yet he can neuer make good his forgery of transmarinus nemo appellet c. it beeing most euident that neyther these petitions of theirs nor any Canon of the African Synods nor yet any one word in S. Augustin did euer prohibite all Appellation from Africk to Rome or yet cause any surcease or interruption thereof nor yet hinder the moderate and conuenient prosecution of appeales for the proofe whereof I shall not need as I haue said to produce any other witnes then S. Augustine himselfe and his owne practise not past 5. or 6. yeares before his death in the cause of a Bishop called Antony whome he had made Bishop of Fussula 39. It is therefore to be vnderstood that this Antony being depriued of his Bishoprick by a Synodicall sentence of African Bishops for his outragious misdemeanours appealed to Rome to Pope Bonifacius wherupon the Pope being moued partly with the Primats letters and partly with such other testimony as Antony had cunningly produced for his purgation resolued to returne him to his Bishopricke yet with this expresse condition as S. Augustine witnesseth if the information which he had giuen were found to be true but before it could be executed it chanced that Pope Bonifacius dyed and Celestinus succeeded him 40. And for as much as many rumours were spred in fauour of Antony that he should be restored by the Popes sentence and the same executed by violence with the help of secular power if need were as the
in generall besides that being made with the Popes consent it was not any way preiudicall to the authority of the Sea Apostolike The third that M. Andrews iugleth notably with his Reader when he saith as out of S. Augustine Ad eum transmarinus nemo appellet c. To him that is to say to the Bishop of Rome let no man appeale from beyond the seas or if he appeale he is to be excommunicated by Augustine for neyther those words nor the sense thereof are to be found any where in S. Augustine who as you haue seene expressely taught and practised the contrary So that transmarinus nemo being set downe by M. Andrews in a different letter to be noted is indeed worth the noting for a notable falsity and a flat corruption of the Canon and abuse of S. Augustine and of all the Bishops in that Councell What then shall we say of this mans truth and fidelity who maketh no bones to bely the Fathers and corrupt whole Synods Can any man thinke that he hath any regard of conscience or shame Thus much for the second point 52. And now to say somewhat of the third he affirmeth as you haue heard that S. Augustine was far from acknowledging the Popes Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus for heads of the Church whereof you haue already seene the contrary in two of them to wit Bonifacius and Celestinus whose power and custome to admit and determyne Appeales from Africk S. Augustine clearely acknowledged and approued in the cause of Antony Bishop of Fussula as I haue amply shewed which power could not otherwise be due to Bonifacius and Celestinus but only in respect of their supreme and vniuersall authority ouer the whole Church And that S. Augustine had also the same opinion of Zosimus it appeareth sufficiently in an Epistle of his to Optatus to whome he writeth that he receaued his letters at Caesarea quò nos saith he iniuncta nobis à venerabili Papa Zosimo Apostolicae sedis Episcopo Ecclesiastica necessitas traxerat whither we were drawne by an Ecclesiasticall necessity inioyned or imposed vpon vs by the venerable Pope Zosimus Bishop of the Apostolicall seat So he which may also be confirmed out of Possidius who writeth that Litterae sedis Apostolicae compulerunt c. The letters of the Sea Apostolike compelled Augustine with other Bishops to go to Caesarea in Mauritania to consult and determyne of diuers necessityes of the Church 53. Whereby it is manifest that S. Augustine acknowledged in Pope Zosimus an Ecclesiasticall power and authority to impose vpon him and other Bishops a necessity to obay his commaundements in matters concerning the seruice of God and the Church which Zosimus could not do otherwise then as supreme and vniuersall Pastor or head of the Church for that the Church of Africk was not otherwise subiect to him then as all other Churches were But of Pope Zosimus and of S. Augustines opinion concerning his Primacy I shall haue occasion to speake further after a while and in the meane tyme this I hope may suffise to proue that S. Augustine was so far from impugning these three Popes that he acknowledged their supreme and vniuersall authority and consequently that they were heads of the vniuersall Church notwithstanding M. Andrews his peremptory assertion of the contrary which therefore may passe for another vntruth 54. Whereupon it also followeth that he forgot himselfe much more when he so confidently affirmed in the first poynt as you haue heard that the Bishops of Rome in S. Augustines tyme were but only heads of the Church of Rome which I noted before For the first of the 3. vntruthes though I remitted the particuler answere thereof vntill I had discouered the other two because they would not a litle help to the discouery of the first as you may haue already noted for it being cleare by all this former discourse that Appeales from Africk to Rome were vsuall frequent and neuer prohibited in S. Augustines tyme and againe that he acknowledged an authority and power in Pope Zosimus to lay iniunctions commaundements vpon him and other Bishops in Africk it must needs follow that the Bishops of Rome had a more ample authority in his dayes then ouer the particuler Church of Rome And to the end thou mayst yet haue good Reader a more aboundant satisfaction in this poynt I will say somewhat of all the Popes that liued in S. Augustines tyme who were 8. in all to wit Liberius in whose tyme he was borne Damasus Siricius Anastasius Innocentius Zosimus Bonifacius Celestinus And first of Liberius 55. We read in the Ecclesiasticall history that certayne Arian heretykes being excommunicated and deposed from their Bishopricks by the Catholike Bishops of the East Church sent their Legats to Pope Libâ—rius crauing to be restored by his authority and for as much as they craftily dissembled their heresy and faygning to be repentant made open profession of the Catholicke faith according to the beliefe and doctrin of the Councell of Nice they obtayned his letters for their restitution which they presented at their returne in a Synod held at Tyana and by vertue thereof were restored as S. Basil witnesseth saying that Eustathius Bishop of Sebasta who was the chiefe of that Legacy brought an Epistle from Liberius by the which he should be restored and when he had presented it to the Synod at Tyana in locum suum restitutus est he was restored to his place So he 56. Whereby it appeareth that the authority of Liberius extended further then to his owne Church of Rome seeing he could restore Bishops to their seats in the East Church as also his predecessor Pope Iulius had done not long before vpon the appeales of the famous Athanasius deposed by the Arians and of Paulus Bishop of Constantinople Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra Asclepa Bishop of Gaza and Lucian Bishop of Hadrianopolis all of them vniustly expelled from their seats vpon diuers pretences whose causes Iulius discussing saith the Story tamquam omnium curam gerens propter propriae Sedis dignitatem singulis reddidit suas Ecclesias as hauing a care of all for the dignity of his owne seat restored their Churches to euery one of them So saith Sozomâ—n in the tripartite history which I haue thought good to add to the former example of Liberius For although it fell not out in S. Augustines tyme whereof I now specially treate yet it was not aboue 14. yeares before him and therefore may well be applyed to his tyme as the Eue to the Feast Besides that doth demonstrate what was the beliefe of the Catholike Church at that tyme concerning the supreme dignity of the Roman Sea seeing that not only other Catholike Bishops but also Athanasius himselfe who was the mirrour of sanctity zeale and integrity in that age had recourse thereto as to the supreme tribunall on earth for the reparation of his wrongs but now to
proceed 57. After Liberius succeeded Damasus whose vniuersall authority is sufficiently testified euen by the African Bishops whome M. Andrewes maketh most opposit to the Roman Sea This may be veryfied by an Epistle of 3. Councells of Africk and the Archbishop Stephanus who wrote to Pope Damasus giuing him the title of most Blessed Lord raysed to the heyght of Apostolicall dignity holy Father of Fathers Damasus Pope and chiefe Bishop of Prelats and in the Epistle it selfe they do clearely acknowledge the supremacy of his sea coÌ„playning of certayne Bishops their neyghbours who without his consent or knowledge had presumed to depose Bishops which they said was against the decrees of all the Fathers and ancient rules and Canons of the Church by the which say they sancitum est vt quicquid horum vel in remotis c. it was decreed that whatsoeuer should be treated though in remote and far distant Prouinces concerning these matters that is to say the deposition of Bishops and other important affiayres of the Church the same should not be receiued nisi ad notitiam almae Sedis vestrae fuisset deductum c. except it were brought to the knowledge of your holy seat to the end that whatsoeuer should be resolued might be confirmed with the authority thereof thus wrot they and much more to the same purpose calling him also ipsum Apostolicum verticem Praesulum the very Apostolicall top or head of Prelats 58. And therefore no meruaile that another Father of the same tyme calleth him the gouernour of the Church of God expounding these words of the Apostle to Timothy Ecclesia est domus Dei viui c. whereupon he saith Ecclesia domus Dei dicitur cuius rector hodie est Damasus the Church is called the house of God the gouernour whereof at this day is Damasus So he wherto I may add a notable testimony of S Hierome who wryting also to Damasus to know of him with whome he might communicate in Syria and whether he might vse the word hypostasis affirmed that he held CoÌ„mâ—nion with his Beatitude that is to say saith he with Peters Chayre and that he knew the Church to be buylt vpon the rock inferring thereupon that whosoeuer did eate the Lambe out of that house he meaneth the communion of Damasus or of Peters Chayre he was a profane man and out of the Arck of Noe wherupon I infer that S. Hierome affirming the Church to be built vpon Damasus acknowledgeth him to be head thereof for the reason vrged before by me in the last chapter to wit because the head of a mysticall or politicall body and the foundation in a buylding are all one besyds that he also acknowledgeth the same by excluding all those from the vnity of the Church who did not hold communication with Damasus because the vnity of the body is deriued principally from the vnity of the head thereof according to the expresse doctrin of S. Cyprian which I haue also amply layd downe in the last Chapter 59. Finally S. Hierome demanding resolution from Damasus with whome he should coÌ„municate in Syria where was then a great Schisme and whether he might vse the word hypostasis sheweth that Damasus had authority to determyne and decyde controuersies and resolue doubts or difficult questions in matter of religion and therfore S. Hierome saith vnto him Discernite siplacet obsecro non timebo tres hypostases dicere si iubetis I beseech you iudge or determyne if it please you for I will not feare to say that there are three hypostases if you command me And againe afterwards Quamobrâ—m obtestor Beatitudinem tuam per crucifixum c. Therefore I beseech your Beatitud for Christs sake crucified and for the consubstantiall Trinity that authority may be giuen me by your letters eyther to vse or to forbeare the word hypostasis c. as also that you will signifie vnto me with whome I may communicate at Antioch for that the Campenses and the heretikes called Tharsenses being vnited togeather nihil aliud ambiunt quà m vt auctoritate communionis vestrae fulti c. do seeke nothing more or with greater ambition then that being vpheld with the authority of your communion they may vse the word hypostasis in the old sense So he 60. Wherin two thinges are to be noted the one that S. Hierome doth not aske counsaile or aduise of Pope Damasus but a definitiue sentence vt auctoritas detur that authority be giuen him that is to say that Damasus should by his letters determin and ordein what S. Hierome should doe in those cases The other is that not only the Catholikes in the East parts as S. Hierome and the Aegyptians whome he also called the collegues of Damasus but also the heretyks sought to fortifie themselues by the communion and authority of the Sea Apostolike Whereupon two things do also follow euidently the one that Damasus had power to decyde and determyne controuersies euen in the East Church and the other that his authority was not restreyned to his owne Church at Rome as M. Andrews seemeth to suppose but was vniuersall and therefore acknowledged as well in the East as in the West 61. This may be notably confirmed by the restitution of Peter Bishop of Alexandria to his seat who immediatly succeeded Athanasius and being oppressed by the Arians followed the example of his worthy predecessour and fled to Rome to Pope Damasus and returning with his letters which confirmed as well his creation as the Catholike faith was restored by the people qui illis confisus saith Socrates expollit Lucium Petrum in eius locum introducit who by the vertue of those letters expelled Lucius the Arrian Bishop and put Peter into his place 62. Also Vitalis an heretike in Antioch being accused to Pope Damasus of heresy was forced to come to Rome to purge himselfe and albeit after he had there professed himselfe to be a Catholike he was remitted by Pope Damasus to Paulinus Bishop of Antioch for his final absolution yet Damasus prescribed to Paulinus a forme of abiuration whereto Vitalis should subscribe which being done Paulinus absolued him Whereby it is euident that Damasus had a supreme authority as well in the East or Greeke Church as in the West for otherwise neyther would Peter Bishop of Alexandria who was a very holy man haue appealed vnto him nor the people haue receaued Peter by the vertue of his letters neither yet would Vitalis haue gone from Antioch to purge himselfe at Rome nor Paulinus Bishop of Antioch permitted that Damasus should intermeddle in matters pertayning to his charge 63. And this may yet further appeare by the earnest endeuours of S. Chrysostome then Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria to pacify Damasus towards Flauianus Bishop of Antioch who had committed periury and byn the cause of a great diuision and trouble in the Church for the remedy wherof
they sent Embassadours to Rome to perswade Damasus that it was necessary for the good of the Church that he should pardon the offence of Flauianus for the concord and peace of the people which being graunted by Damasus communione saith Socrates Flauiano ad hunc modum reddita and Flauianus being by this meanes restored to the communion of the Church the people of Antioch were in tyme reduced to concord and vnion with him 64. Whereto Theodoretus addeth that the Emperour Theodosius in the tyme partly of Pope Damasus and partly of his successor Syricius and Anastasius laboured to procure the reconciliation of Flauianus with the sea Apostolick and commaunded him to goe to Rome to answere for himselfe which he promised to doe in the spring following though he did not performe it Finally the Emperour made his peace with the Pope in the end vpon condition that Flauianus should send his Embassadours to Rome which he did saith Theodoretus with a sollemne embassadge of Bishops Priests and Deacons vnder Acacius Bishop of Berroea who was at that tyme a man of great fame whereupon all the Bishops of Aegipt who vntill then would not communicat with him admitted him to their communion So that albeit the Historiographers do differ concerning the tyme when Flauianus was reconcyled with the Pope yet they all agree that he could neuer be fully restored to the peace and communion of the vniuersall Church vntill he had submitted himselfe to the Roman Sea which sheweth euidently that the Bishops of Rome had far greater and more ample authority then M. Andrewes doth affoard them Thus much concerning Damasus 65. And now to come to his successor Syricius it is euident euen in this cause of Flauianus by the testimony of S. Ambrose that his authority extended it selfe to the Greek and Eastern Church no lesse then to the Latin and West Church seeing that in a Synod held at Capua the hearing of Flauianus his cause was committed to Theophâ—lus Bishop of Alexandria and to the Bishop of Aegipt with this limitation as S. Ambrose witnesseth that the approbation and confirmation of their sentence should be reserued to the Roman Sea and the Bishop thereof who was then Syricius In like manner we fynd that his authority was admitted and acknowledged not only in Spayne and France but also in Africk as it may appeare by his Decretall Epistle writteÌ„ to Himerius or Himericus Bishop of Arragon in Spayne in answere of diuers demaunds of his in which epistle he ordayned that those his decrees should be sent by Himerius as well to Carthage in Africk as to Portugal and France and that they should be of no lesse force there and els where then in Arragon 66. To this will I add a testimony of an African Father that liued in the tyme of Siricius to wit of Optatus Bishop of Mileuis who clearely deduceth the primacy of Syricius from the primacy of S. Peter for writing against Parmenian the Donatist and vrging him that he could not deny but that Petrus omnium Apostolorum caput Peter the head of all the Apostles sate first in the Roman chayre wherof he also yieldeth these reasons viz. that in the said chaire vnity might be kept of all men that the rest of the Apostles should not euery one of them defend or callenge to himselfe a single chayre and that he might be held for a Schismatik and a wiked man who should set vp a chaire contra singularem Cathedram against the singular or principall chayre hauing I say vrged this he reckoneth all the Popes from S. Peter to his tyme ending with Syricius and concluding that because the Donatists held not communion with him therefore they could not haue the true Church 67. In this discourse it is manifest that as he acknowledgeth Peter for head of the Apostles and his chayre for the singular and principall chayre so he also acknowledged Syricius for head of all other Bishops and his chayre which was Peters for the principall chayre for otherwyse his argument against the Donatists grounded on Peters supreme authority had ben to no purpose Besids that he saith also a litle after prosecuting the same argument Legimus Principem nostrum c. We read that Peter our Prince receaued the wholsome keyes against the gates of hell c. Vnde est ergo c. How chanceth it then that you stryue to vsurpe to your selues the keyes of the Kingdome who with your audacious presumption do sacrilegiously make warre against the chayre of Peter So he 68. Therefore omitting heere how aptly this may be applyed to M. Andrews and his fellowes as well as to the Donatists that which I wish specially to be obserued is that Optatus being an African acknowledged the same soueraignty in Syricius which he affirmed to be in S. Peter for whereas he calleth him not only the head of the Apostles but also Principem nostrum our Prince it is cleare that the principality and soueraignty of Peter in the tyme of Optatus could not be otherwise vnderstood but in his successor Syricius who consequently was Prince and head of the Church as Peter was 69. The very same is taught also by S. Augustine concerning Pope Anastasius who succeeded Syricius for S. Augustine presseth the Donatists with the same argument that Optatus doth and naming all the Popes vntill his owne tyme he endeth with Anastasius hauing first deriued their lineall succession from S. Peter Cui saith he totius Ecclesiae figuram gerenti c. to whome bearing the figure of the whole Church our Lord sayd Vpon this rock I will buyld my Church wherein it is to be noted that S. Augustine acknowledging the primacy of S Peter in saying that the Church was built vpon him and that he bare the figure of the whole Church which he did not in any other respect but because he was head thereof as I haue proued in the first Chapter of this Adioynder he acknowledgeth the same in his successors and namely in Anastasius whome therefore he draweth by lyneall succession from S. Peter and to this purpose it may be also obserued that elswhere he ascribeth the great prerogatiue of S. Peter to wit his being the rock or foundation whereupon the Church was buylt to his chayre or seat and to the succession of Bishops deriued from him bidding the Donatists reckon the Priests that had succeeded one another in Peters seat and then concluding Ipsa est Petra c. that is the rock which the proud gates of hell doe not ouercome whereby it is euident that S. Augustine acknowledged Anastasius and all other successors of S. Peter for heads of the vniuersall Church seeing he affirmeth them to be the foundation thereof 70. This may be confirmed also by a Canon of an African Synod where it was decreed that letters should be sent to their brethren and fellow-Bishops abroad and especially to the Sea Apostolike to informe
the letters of Celestinus to Cyrillus to whome he wrote thus Adiuncta tibi nostrae sedis auctoritate ipse qui vice nostra potestateque fungeris c. Thou which holdest our place and power the authority of our seat concurring with thee shalt with all euerity pronounce this sentence against Nestorius that if within 10. daies after this admonition he do not detest and renounce his wicked doctrine c. Thou shalt prouide his Church of a Pastor and he shall vnderstand that he is excluded from our communion c. 82. Thus wrote Celestinus to Cyril who therefore in his letters to Nestorius signifyed vnto him that if he did not recant and reforme his errours within the tyme limited and prescrybed by Pope Celestinus he should be excommunicated and depriued And the whole Councell also pronouncing sentence of condemnation against Nestorius affirmed that they were compelled to vse that seuerity not only by the Canons of the Church but also by the letters of Pope Celestinus and in their Epistle to the said Pope they signifyed that they reserued and remitted the cause of Iohn the Patriarch of Antioch who was a fauourer of Nestorius to his iudgment and sentence Besides that Nicephorus testifieth that the common fame was in his time that certayne priuiledges were graunted to S. Cyril which also his successours enioyed by reason of his Legacy and substitution to Pope Celestinus in that Councell and amongst other things that he had the title of Iudex vniuersi orbis Iudge of the whole world 83. Now then I report me to thee good Reader whether Celestinus was no more then the head of his Church of Rome as M. Andrews maketh him For is it likely that eyther S. Cyrill who was Bishop of Alexandria and consequently the first and chiefe Patriarke of the East would haue stouped to be his substitute and Legate and to receiue commissions and orders from him or yet that the whole Councell beeing most of them also of the Greeke and East Church would haue acknowledged themselues to be compelled by his letters to condemne Nestorius yea and remitted the cause of the second Patriarke of the Greeke Church to his finall determination if they had not taken him for the vniuersall and supreme Pastour of the whole Church As I shewed also the like before in the second Chapter of this Adioynder concerning the authority of Pope Leo in the great Councell of Chalcedon which was held in the same age not past 20. yeares after this other of Ephesus So that M. Andrewes cānot by any meanes excuse himselfe from a manifest lye in this no more then in other two poynts before mentioned 84. Whereby it appeareth euidently that he hath made 3. notable lyes as I may say with one breath that is to say within litle more then 3. lynes Besyds an egregious corruption of the Canon of the African Synod with his transmarinus nemo and a foule abuse as well of S. Augustine in making him say that which he neyther sayd nor meant as also of his Reader in seeking to perswade him that S. Augustine excommunicated all those that would appeale to Rome out of Africk yea and cured Peters-diseases in the 3. last Popes for so he also saith in quibus tamen eumdem morbum curauit in whome to wit Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus Augustine cured the same diseases that is to say the diseases of Peter meaning as I take it eyther Peters presumptiō of his owne strength or els his denyall of Christ which neuertheles I cannot see how he can apply to them and much lesse pretend that S. Augustine cured the same diseases in them 85. Therefore whereas his drift was no other in all this as it seemeth but to perswade thee good Reader that S. Augustine was at daggers drawing with these 3. Popes thou hast partly seene already by that which hath bene said concerning two of them to wit Zosimus Celestinus how much he hath sought to abuse thee therin the like will also euidently appeare concerning Pope Bonifacius if thou consider with what affection reuerend respect and submission S. Augustine dedicated vnto him his 4. bookes against two Epistles of the Pelagians writing to him thus 86. Noueram te quidem fama celeberrima praedicante c. I knew thee truely before by the most famous report of thy renoumne and vnderstood by many most frequent and true relations how aboundantly thou art replenished with Gods grace most blessed and venerable Pope Boniface but after that my brother Alipius had seene thee and been receiued by thee with all benignity and sincerity c. I had so much more notice of thy Holinesse by how much more certeyne is our amity for thou who takest no gust or delight in high things though thou art in a higher degree then others dost not disdayne to be a friend to the meane and inferiour sort So he and afterwards hauing signifyed that he had vndertaken to write against 2. epistles of the Pelagians he concludeth Haec ergo quae duabus Epistolis c. These things therefore which I doe answere in this disputation to two Epistles of the Pelagians I haue determyned to direct specially to thy Holynes not as things needfull to be learned by you but to be examined and amended if any thing do chance to dislyke you Thus wrote S. Augustine to Pope Bonifacius being so far from hauing any auersion or alienation from him and much more from presumyng to cure any diseases in him that is to say to correct any errours in his person or gouernment that he shewed all dutifull loue and reuerend affection towards him giuing notable testimony to his rare vertue sanctity and not only acknowledging the dignity of his seat but also submitting himselfe and his workes to his censure and Iudgment to be examined corrected and amended by him as he should see cause whereby it appeareth that S. Augustine liued in perfect vnion with Pope Bonifacius 87. And in what tearmes he stood with Pope Celestinus though we may gather it sufficiently by his owne letter before mentioned concerning the Bishop of Fussula yet it shall not be amisse to vnderstand it also by the testimony of Celestinus himselfe It is therefore to be vnderstood that S. Augustine dying in the tyme of Pope Celestinus and his workes especially those against the Pelagians being by their practise much impugned and defamed in France S. Prosper who had been a disciple as I haue sayd before of S. Augustine and was then Bishop of Aquitane went purposely to Rome togeather with Hilarlus Bishop of Arles to complayne thereof to procure the letters of Pope Celestinus in iustifycation of him and his workes Whereupon Celestinus wrote a generall letter to all the Bishops of France as well in defence of S. Augustine as in condemnation of the Pelagians and amongst other things sayth of S. Augustine thus Augustinum
adoration but with a Religious worship due to holy men or holy things for the honor and loue of God in which point it seemeth M. Andrews agreeth fully with vs confessing that the dead bodyes and reliques of holy Martyrs and Saynts which are truely knowne to be such are to be honoured and kept with reuerence and therefore answering to a place of S. Gregory Nyssen alledged by the Cardinall he alloweth that the body of a Martyr si veri Martyris verum corpus if it be the true body of a true Martyr is to be adorned and decked with honour in Augusto Sacratoque loco poni and to be placed in a Maiesticall and Sacred place yea and he confirmeth it with the authoritie of his Maiesty saying Idem hoc vult Rex honorifico loco solemniter inferri The King also will haue the same to be solemnly carried into an honorable place 14. And afterwards answering to a place of S. Ambrose which the Cardinall obiecteth he saith that wheras Ambrose will haue vs to honor the body of the dead Martyr and the seed of eternity in him Facimus saith he non illibeÌ„ter wee doe it willingly then addeth Quid porrò quaerit sed pallium breue est honâ—s non pertingit ad adorationem What doth he desire more but the cloake is too short honour doth not reach to adoratioÌ„ So he Meaning by adoratioÌ„ diuine honor which we grauÌ„t him for we say also that the honor due to Reliques doth not extend it selfe to a diuine adoration therefore we desire no more of him then that he do a religious honor and worship therto for such is the honour wherof S. Ambrose speaketh because it is due and exhibited to Saynts for the honour and loue of God whose seruants they are quin seruorum honos saith S. Hierome redundat ad Dominum the honor of the seruants redoundeth to their Lord. In which respect the same holy Father signifieth that all the adoration which was done to the Reliques of the Prophet Samuel when they were transported with great solemnity and honour from Palestine to Constantinople was not done so much to Samuel as to Christ whose Leuite Prophet Samuel was as I haue signified more at large in the last Chapter 15. Whereby it appeareth that the honor done to the seruants of Christ for Christs sake only and not for any ciuil and temporall respect must needes be a religious honour such I meane as I haue declared in the last Chapter to haue bin often exhibited in the holy Scripture to Angells and holy men with the terme of adoration and with the exhibition of a Corporall reuerence which may be more or lesse according to the deuotion of the exhibitours thereof so that it be in their mind and intention distinguished from diuine honour due to God alone in which intention consisteth the true difference and distinction of diuine religious and ciuil adoration as I haue also declared before in the last Chapter So as M. Andrews confessing an honor to be due to holy Reliques cannot with reason exclude from the same any Corporall reuerence so that the intention be to doe only a religious and not diuine worship As he must needs also acknowledge the lyke in ciuil adoration and honor done to Princes and great personages 16. For whereas the same is diuersly performed somtymes by putting of the cap sometymes by bowing the body and somtymes by kneeling and other whiles also by prostration vpon the ground which maner of ciuill adoration is often mentioned in the old testament and was vsed in tymes past amongst the Persians to their Kinges there is no doubt but that as all these may lawfully be vsed wheÌ„ the intention is no other but to do a Ciuill honor thereby so also the least of them were vnlawfull yea Idolatry if the intention of the doer were to giue thereby a diuine honor to any man and the lyke I say must needes be graunted concerning the externe honor due to the holy Reliques of Saints which how great it was in the tyme of S. Ambrose S. Hierome and S. Augustine we may vnderstand by the custome then vsuall to kisse them for deuotion sake and to carry them about in procession as we now terme it with great solemnity and reuerence which appeareth not only in S. Hierome who seuerely reprehended Vigilantius for carping at the same as I haue signified in the last Chapter but also by the testimony of S. Augustine who recounteth diuerse Miracles done by reliques while they were so carried by Bishops as namely that Lucillus the Bishop was himselfe cured of a fistula carrying a certaine relique of S. Stephen populo praecedente sequente the people going before him and following him and that a blind woman being brought to the Bishop Proiectus as he carried Sacra pignora so termeth he the holy Reliques of S. Stephen was restored to her sight by applying to her eyes certayne flowers which had touched them 17. Such was the honour that Catholike people bare to holy Reliques in those dayes that they sought either to touch them or to haue some thing that had touched them or bene neere about them whereby diuers great Miracles were done yea dead men reuiued as S. Augustine testifieth in the same place by diuers examples which he relateth and therefore I leaue it to the Iudgment of any reasonable man how great the deuotion and the religious honour was which then was vsuall in the Church and allowed by these Fathers to be done to the reliques of Saints especially seeing that the same was also approued and confirmed from heauen by innumerable Miracles which M. Andrewes himselfe granteth saying Augustino assentimur c. we grant with Augustin that the body of the Protomartyr was conueniently or duely to be honored after that it pleased god to worke certaine Miracles thereat So he wherein besides the graunt of due honour to be done to holy reliques whereof now I speake I wish also to be noted that he graunteth that Miracles were done in Gods Church in S. Augustins tyme which most of the Sectaries of these daies haue hitherto denyed affirming that Miracles ceassed after the tyme of the Apostles which they are forced to say because we exact of them to shew Miracles in their Church as an vndoubted signe of the true Church shewing on our part the continuance thereof in our Church from the Apostles to this day whereof sufficient experience hath bene seene in euery age and euen now lately by innumerable cures of all sorts of diseases at Sichem in Flanders at Minich in Bauiere in diuerse partes of Italy and at this present at Valentia in Spaine at the body of a holy Preist who dyed in April last all so publick and so sufficiently testified to the world that impudencie it selfe cannot deny the truth thereof 18. So that seeing M. Andrewes graunteth that
thing expressed by the name and so in conclusion with his fatemur omnia he acknowledgeth vs for true Catholiks and himselfe and his fellowes for heretikes and therefore I may well say vnto him with our Sauiour in the Ghospell ex ore tuo te iudico serue nequam 35. And the lyke I may also say concerning his grant in another matter to wit that our Bishops are true Bishops and that the Protestant Bishops of EnglaÌ„d had their ordination from ours yea from 3. of ours for so he giueth to vnderstand whereupon he also inferreth that he and his fellow SuperinteÌ„dents haue a true ordination and succession from the Catholike Church whereas the quite contrary followeth vpon his grant for if our Bishops be true Bishops as hauing a true successioÌ„ from the Apostles and that the protestant Bishops haue no other lawfull ordinatioÌ„ but from ours two consequents do directly follow thereon the one that we haue the true Church and doctrine if M. Andrewes his fellow and friend M. Barlow say true who in his famous sermon mentioned by me els where affirmeth the Successiue propagation of Bishops from the Apostles to be the mayne roote of Christian Society according to S. Augustine and the mayne proofe of Christian doctrine according to Tertullian as I haue shewed amply in my Suplement and proued thereby that M. Barlow and his fellowes are e heretykes and Schismatikes The other consequent is that if the English Protestant Bishops had no other lawfull ordination then from the Catholikes they had none at all for that at the chaÌ„ge of religion in Queen Elizabeths tyme they were not ordayned by any one Catholyke Bishop and much lesse by three as M. Andrews saith they were but by themselues and by the authority of the Parliament as I haue also declared at large in my Supplement Where neuertheles I am to aduertise thee good Reader of an errour not corrected amongst the faults escaped in the Print For whereas it is said there they had almost seduced an Irish Archbishop and perswaded him to consecrate some of them Byshops there want certaine wordes to wit a Welsh Bishop hauing in vaine sollicited which words are to be inserted thus they had almost seduced a Welsh Bishop hauing in vaine solicited an Irish Archbishop and perswaded him to consecrate some of them Bishops after the Catholike manner c. And agayne a litle after whereas it is said thus seeing the Irish Bishop would not performe his promise they resolued to ordaine themselues c. there want also these words consâ—â—t nor the Welsh Bishop which words are to be added thusâ— seeing the Irish Bishop would not coÌ„sent nor the Welsh Bishop performe his promise they resolued to ordayne themselues Thus I say it should be corrected 36. Whereby it may euidently appeare what a beggarly Church and Clergy they then had and still haue for hauing then not so much as any pretended Archbishop or Bishop of their owne profession they were forced to begg their consecration euen of the Catholikes their aduersaries and hauing solicited an Archbishop in vaine and being out of hope to haue the consent of a Metropolitan to their ordination much more to be consecrated by 2. or 3. Bishops according to the ancient Canons of the Church they determined as I may say to play small game rather then to sit forth being desirous to haue some kind of ordination from any one Catholik though inferiour Bishop yea and in fyne they sought to haue it from such a one as was held to be the simplest man that then was or perhaps euer had bene of the English Clergy for so indeed was esteemed the Bishop of Landâ—â—â— whome they had almost inueygled and induced 〈◊〉 their turne But Almighty God out of his infinite prouidence so disposed for the eternall shame of their pretended Prelacy and Clergy that he also in the end refused to do it vpon a sharp message which he receaued from Bishop â—onner then Prisoner who being Bishop of London and consequeÌ„tly chiefe Bishop in the prouince of Canterbury by the death of Cardinall Pole Archbishop thereof sent one M. Cosen his Chaplen to the sayd Bishop of Landaff to threaten him with excommunication in case he did consecrate any of them whereupon he defisted from his purpose and they resolued to ordayne and consecrate one another and so they did as I haue signified in my Supplement vpon the testimony of one that was an eye-witnes of what passed amongst them at their ordination to wit M.I Thomas Nâ—ale a graueman well knowne no doubt to many yet liuing in Oxford where he was many yeares after Reader of the Hebrew Lecture 37. Whereupon I inferre two things the one that they haue no Clergy nor Church for haâ—ing no Bishops they haue no Priests because none can make Priests but Bishops and hauing neither Bishops nor Priests they haue no Clergy and consequently no Church as I haue shewed in my Supplement out of S. Hierome The other is that M. Andrewes and his fellowes are neyther true Bishops nor haue any succession from the Catholike Church as he sayth they haue noâ— yet any lawfull mission or vocationâ— and that therefore they are not those good shepheards which as our Sauiour saith enter into the fold by the dore but fures 〈◊〉 theeues and robbersâ— who clymbe vp another way or breake into it by intrusion and force vt mactent â—â—â—â—rdant to kill and destroy the flocke and so they are rotten bought broken of from the may nâ— root of Christian society and consequently heretikes and schismatikes as well by M. Barlowes ground before mentioned as according to M. Andrewes his owne graunt els let him name vnto vs those 3. Catholike Bishops who as he saith consecrated their first Bishops at the change of religion in Queene Elizabeths tyme which I know he cannot doe and therefore I conclude of him in this point as I did in the last ex ore tuo te iudico 38. And this truly might suffice to shew how he fortifieth our cause and ouerthroweth his owne but that besides diuers other points which I might handle to this purpose and am forced to omit for lack of tyme there is one whereof I promised in the last Chapter to say somewhat to wit his doctrine touching the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacie which in verie truth he abaseth disgraceth and vtterly supplanteth whiles he seeketh or at least pretendeth to confirme and establish it as hath partly appeared already by his graunt that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles to take away all occasion of Schisme yea and that he gaue him as much authority as was necessary to that end whereupon I inferred necessarily that not only S. Peter but also his successours haue all that power and authority which we attribute vnto them as may be seene in the third Chapter of this Adioynder and vpon this it followeth also
directly that no temporall Prince is Supreme head of the Church But his opinion concerning the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy will be much more manifest if we consider what a poore conceipt he hath of it and how he abaseth it being so farre from graunting it to be a principall article of faith as we hold the Popes Primacy to be that he saith it is ne articulus quidem not so much as an Article vtpote de exteriori modo regimine c. as of a thing which concerneth only the externall gouâ—rment of the Church so far forth as it requireth and admitteth humane help and authority And therefore hâ— placeth it not amongst points which are to be belieued but amongst matters of perswasion such I meane as we are perswaded to be true and therfore he saith nec sic singula trahimus ad fidem c. we do not so draw all things to faith it sufficeth for some heads or points of religion to belieue them with the Apostle and of some others to be perswaded only quae tameÌ„ infra fideÌ„ subsistant which neuertheles are beneath or vnder matters of faith Therefore it is inough if it be without the compasse of faith so that it may haue place only amongst orthodox or true doctrine So he and to the same purpose he also saith in another place that it is a truth but extra symbolum out of the creed so that it may perhaps be come into his Pater noster but is not yet into Creed Whereupon diuers things might be inferred worth the noting but I will touch only two or three 39. If the Kings Supremacy be not a matter of Faith then is it neither expressely taught in Scripture nor necessarily deduced from it for if it were then must it needes be a matter of Faith and therevpon it followeth that although M. Andrews doe alleage Scripture to proue it yet he himselfe is of opinion that it is but only probably gathered out of Scripture and consequently that a man may without daunger of damnation choose whether he will belieue it or no. For of thinges which are in Controuersy and not defined but only probably gathered out of Scripture a man may without daunger of his soule adhere to eyther parte which truly may serue for a great Motiue to all Protestants to make small account of the Kinges Ecclesiasticall Suâ—remacy otherwise then in respect of the temporall Lawes especially seeing that so great a Doctor as M. Andrewes who pretendeth expresly to maintaine and defend it teacheth that it is no matter of faith Besides that I cannot see how he can approue the Oath of the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy to be lawfully teÌ„dred or taken as of an vndoubted truth if it be no matter of faith For he that sweareth a thing to be simply true which he doth not certainly belieue but only is probably perswaded that it is true sinneth in the opinion of the Diuines Canonistsâ— Wherupon it followeth that M. Andrews who holdeth the Kings Supremacy to be no matter of faith but only a probable truth can neither lawfully take the Oath of the said Supremacy nor iustly approue it to be exacted of any and this will be as cleere as the Sun if we consider by what Scriptures he laboureth to proue the Kings Supremacy wherby we shall easily see that the same is not so much as probably gathered out of Scripture and therfore not to be held for an vndoubted truth and much lesse to be sworne for such 40. For wheras the Cardinall obiecteth that it is a new doctrine taught first in the time of King Henry the 8. who first tooke vpon him the title of supreme head of the Church M. Andrews denieth it saying tantum abest c. It is so farre from being so new as the Cardinall saith to wit a thousand fiue hundred yeares after Christ that it was a thousand fiue hundred yeares before Christ was borne Neither was Henry the 8. the Authour of that in our age but Moyses in his who hauing put off or laid away his Priesthood was neuerthelesse aboue Aaron and when he gaue to the King the Law he gaue him withall the chiefe power to keepe Religion which is the first and chiefest part of the Law and to cause it to be kept So he Wherein he giueth two reasons or groundes out of the old Law for the spirituall Supremacy of temporall Princes The one because Moyses laid aside his Priesthood and being therfore but a temporall man was superiour to Aaron And the other because he gaue to Kings the chief power and charge of Religion when he gaue them the copy of the Law 41. In the former point of the two he notably bewrayeth his owne ignorance in saying that Moyses laid aside his Priesthood or ceased to be Priest after he was once Priest as if Moyses his Priesthood had bin like to the Ministry of the Protestants which may be put of and on like a Ierkin or a Cloake when they list whereas his Priesthood was so permanent and inseparably annexed to his person that albeit he might cease from the execution of the function yet he could neuer put off the power of his Priesthood during his life Besides that he was so farre from putting off his Priesthood that he was not only still Priest after Aaron was consecrated but also as S. Augustine teacheth expresly chief Priest either togeather with Aaron or els aboue him Ambo saith he tunc summi Sacerdotes erant both Moyses and Aaron were theÌ„ high Priests or rather was not Moyses high Priest and Aaron vnder him Thus saith S. Augustine wherby you see how weake and seelly is M. Andrews his first reason grounded vpon his own ignorant conceipt that Moyses left off his Priesthood and that neuertheles he was still superiour to Aaron being a meere temporall Prince for if he meant not so his argument for the temporall Princes supremacy is not worth a rush but you haue heard out of S. Augustine that Moyses was not only a Priest after the Consecration of Aaron but also chief Priest I meane aboue Aaron in which respect it may be thought that God commaunded Moyses not Aaron to cloath Eleazar Aaron Sonneâ— with Aarons vestments in the preâ—â—nce of Aaron himself to succeed him in the office of high Priest 42. In his second reason concerning the chiefe power and charge of Religion giuen to Kings by Moyses togeather with the copy of the Law he sheweth most euident and notorious malice in the manifest abuse corruption of Scripture no such thing but rather the cleane contrary being to be gathered out of that place of Deuteronomy where Moyses ordayned that the copy of the Law should be giuen by the Priestes to the future Kings I say future for that there was no King ouer Gods people in the time of Moyses nor of 400. years after as I haue signified in
the last Chapter where I also charged as wel M. Andrews as M. Barlow with the euident abuse of this place of holy Scripture in diuers respects and therfore I beseech thee good Reader take paines to reuiew what I haue said there if thou dost not well remember it So as I may now conclude vpon these two reasons of M. Andrews that he is both an ignorant and a corrupt Doctor ignorant in affirming that Moyses laid a way his Priesthood and corrupt in notably abusing the holy Scriptures 43. And whereas he very ofâ— recurreth for the profe of this point to the examples of the Kings in the old Testament I haue sufficiently answered therto in my Supplement where I haue proued first that the law of Moyses did expressely and manifestly giue to the high Preist the supreme authoritie not only in matters of religion but also euen in temporall affaires forasmuch as concerned the decision of doubts and difficult questions Secondly that the Kinges were not at their institution exempt from this law but rather commanded to obserue it Thirdly that the particuler examples which he and others are wont to alledg of Iosua Dauid Salomon Ezechtas and Iosias doe make nothing for their purpose that diuers other examples do clearly proue the contrary And lastly that although it were true that Kings were superiour to Preists in the old law yet it doth not follow theron that they are so now also in the new law as well because the law of Moyses at least the iudiciall and ceremoniall part thereof was wholly abrogated by the law of Christ as also because our Sauiour ordained a new and farr more excellent Preisthood manner of gouernment in his Church which beginning in the Apostles and spirituall Pastors was continued also most euidently in them for 300 yeares without interruption to wit during the paganisme of the Emperours and no new coÌ„mission euer since that tyme knowne to be giuen by Christ to Kings whereby they were authorized to take vpon them the gouerment of the Church 44. So that I am to demaund of M. Andrews as I also did of M. Barlow in my Supplement how and by what Commission the supreme authority in Ecclesiasticall affayres was transferred from the Apostles and their Successors to Kings after they were Christened seeing that they can neyther claime any succession therin from the Kinges of the old law which as I haue said was quite abrogated by Christ nor pretend any new authority giuen theÌ„ in the new lawe it being most manifest that all the texts of Scripture which M. Andrewes or other of our aduersaries doe or can alleage for the spirituall Supremacy of temporall Kinges out of the new Testament do ordeyne obedience to the Pagan Princes that the raigned no lesse then to others which therfore cannot be vnderstood to concerne spirituall matters and much lesse to make them heades of the Church except M. Andrewes will be so absurd to say that the most wicked Emperours Tyberius Caius Claudius and Nero were heades or supreme Gouernours of the Church and that they could commaund and ought to be obeyed in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affayres 45. Now then seeing M. Andrewes neither bringeth nor is able to bring any other proofes then these out of the old or new Testament for the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of Kinges I may well conclude that as he hath great reason to hould it for no matter of faith and therfore not to admit it into his Creed as being neither expressely taught in Scripture nor necessarily deduced from it so I may with no lesse reason aduise him also to put it out of his Pater noster if it be gotten so farre into his bookes seeing it is not so much as probably gathered out of Scripture in which respect also I am to put him in mind of a rule giuen by himselfe in another question to witt that nothing is to be admitted and practised in the Church whereof some precept is not to be shewed in holy Scriptures for so doth he tell vs concerning prayer to Saints saying non audemus vota nostra c. We dare not direct our prayers to Saints because we haue no precept thereof hauing a precept in expresse wordes Quod tibi praecepero hoc tantum facies Thou shalt only do this which I shall command thee wherevpon we dare only doe that whereof we haue a precept 46. Thus sayth he and therefore according to this his owne rule I must now exact of him to shew vs some precept whereby the Kinges spirituall Supremacie is coÌ„maunded or ordeyned in Scripture but this he acknowledgeth sufficiently he cannot do seing he teacheth that we are not bouÌ„d to belieue it as an article of faith but to be perswaded only that it is a truth which he neither could nor as I thinke would say if he could shew any precept or commaundement of it in Scripture And this being so how then dare he and his fellowes admit it into their Church seeing he sayth Id tantùm audemus facere â— we dare only doe that whereof we haue a precept And how can he approue that men should be compelled to sweare it as an vndoubted truth when neuertheles it is no matter of faith by his owne confession nor hath any ground in Scripture as I haue shewed and much lesse is ordeyned and commaunded in Scripture and therefore according to his owne rule not to be admitted practised in the Church and consequently not to be ratified by a solemne Oath for an infallible verity as if it were one of the most important Articles of our Creed 47. But yet let vs examine the matter a litle further sound the depth of M. Andrewes his doctrine coÌ„cerning the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy I doubt not but we shall find that he is neither good English Protestant nor yet a good subiect for if it fall out that his doctrine agreeeth not with the moderne Lawes and Statuts of the Realme he is neither of both seing that according to the doctrine of English Protestants none can be accounted to be of their congregation neither yet a good subiect who belieueth not the Kings Supremacy as it is taught and ordeyned by the Statutes of King Henry the 8. King Edward the 6. and â—he late Queene Elizabeth but this M. Andrewes doth not for he doth not allowe the King any spirituall power at all â—eaching expresly that the King himselfe acknowledgeth non se aliter esse supra Ecclesiam quà m vtâ— nutritius â—utor That he is not otherwise ouer the Church but as a foster-father and defender Which he also explicateth adding vt eam scilicet nutriat tuâ—atur that is to say to the end that he may nouâ—â—sh and defend it to which purpose he also sayd before as you haue heard that the Kings Supremacy is no matter or article of faith becaus it concerneth only externall gouermeÌ„t so
farre forth as the Church requireth admitteth humane help authority 48. Therefore whereas in the gouerment of the Church two things are specially conâ—idered the one internall and diuine and the other externall and humane the former which is a spirituall heauenly power communicated by almighty God to man he excludeth from the Kings Supremacy and admitteth only the latter which is a meere externall and humane power and the same also non aliter no othâ—rwise then for the nourishment and defence of the Church so as you see he acknowledgeth therby no other power ouer the Church but only externall humane and temporall whereto I make no doubt but all the Puritans in England and Scotland will subscribe neither do the Catholiks deny but affirme and teach that Kings are bound to nourish the Church with their purses and defend it with their power and authority as all or most Christian Kinges at their Coronation are sworne to doe And not only Christian Kings haue this power but also any Pagan Prince hath and may exercise the same as the Kings of Chinae and Persia the one a PagaÌ„ and the other a Mahumetan doe at this day 49. For the King of China nourisheth and defendeth the Church of Christ in the Colledges and Residences of the Fathers of the Society not only in his principall Citty called Pachyn where he keepeth his Court but also in diuers other partes of his Dominions giuing them mayntenance immunities and priuiledges and shewing them many other particuler fauours As also the King of Pâ—rsia doth the lyke to the Carmelitan Fathers in his Country though I think no man will say that these Kinges haue any spirituall power ouer the Church of Christ as our late Statutes haue giuen to our Kinges which may appeare by a Statute of King Henry the 8. whereby it was ordayned in these wordes Be it enacted c. that the King our Soueraigne Lord his heires and successors Kinges of his Realme shall be taken accepted and reputed the only supreme head of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia and shall haue and enioy annexed and vnited to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme as well the Title and stile thereof as all Honours Dignities Preheminences Iurisdictions Priuiledges Authorities Immunities profits and commodities to the said Dignitie of supreme head of the same Church belonging So saith the Statute which must needes be vnderstood to giue spirituall authority when it giueth all that Power Dignity and Iurisdiction which belongeth to the head of the Church 50. For seing that the Church is a spirituall Ecclesiasticall body it must needes bee gouerned by a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power residing in the head thereof And therfore it was also enacted by our Parliaments that King Hâ—nry mighâ— not only visit all Ecclesiasticall Persons reforme all kind of errours heresies and abuses in the Church of England but also assigne 32. persons to examine all manner of Canons conâ—â—itutions and ordinances Prouinâ—iall and synodicall And further to set in order and establish all such Lawes Ecclesiasticall as should be thought by him and them conuenient to be vsed and set forth within his Realme and Dominions in all spirituall Courts and Conuentions and that such Lawes and Ordinances Ecclâ—siasticall as should be deuised and made by the Kings Maiestie and these 32. persons and declared by his Maiesties Proclamation vnder his great Seale should be only taken reputed and vsed as the Kings Lawes Ecclesiasticall c. 51. Furthermore King Henry made the L. CroÌ„mwell his Vicar generall for the exercise of his spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction by vertue whereof the said L. Cromwell ordayned Ecclesiasticall Lawes or iniunctions and published them vnder the Seale of his Vicariat directing them to all Archbishops Abbots and the rest of the Clergyâ— And albeit Queene Elizabâ—th did not vse in her stilâ— and Tiâ—le the name of supreme head as K. Henry and K. Edward did but of Supreme Gouernesse yet it is euident that she did hould the same and all the authoritie belonging thereto to be no lesse due to her then to her Father seing that in her first Parliament she reuiued her Fathes Lawes concerning the same ordayning that all and euery branch word and sentence of the sayd seuerall acts and euery of them should be iudged deemed and taken to extend to her Highnes her heires and successours as fully and largely as euery of the â—ame act or any of them did extend to the said K. Henry the 8. her Highnes Father Whereby it appeareth that as well the Title of Supâ—â—me head as all the spirituall preheminences prerogatiues authoritie and Iurisdiction graunted by the Parliament to King Henry and exercised by him belonged in like manner to the Queene his daughter her heyres and successors and consequently to his Maiesty that now is 52. Besides that the Parliament granted also expresly to the Queene spirituall authority ordayning that such Iurisdiction Priuiledges Superiorities Preheminences spirituall or ecclesiasticall as by any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power or authority hath heretofore bin or may lawfully be exercised or vsed for the visitation of the ecclesiasticall state or persons for the reformation order and correction of the same and of all manner of errours heresies schismes abuses offences contempts and enormities shal be for euer vnited and annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme Thus farre the Statute which you see annexeth to the Crowne all such spirituall and ecclesiasticall power or Iurisdiction as may lawfully be exercised in the visitation of Ecclesiasticall persons and the reformation of heresies c. 53. Moreouer it was also granted to our Kings that they should haue power not only to giue licence by their Letters Patents to consecrate Bishops but also to grant Commissions in certaine cases to giue all manner of such Licences Dispensations Compositions Faculties Grantes c. For causes not being contrary to the Scripture and Lawes of God as heretofore hath bin vsed and accustomed to be had and obtayned at the Sea of Rome all which power must needs be granted to be meere spirituall besides that it was declared by a statute of King Edâ— the 6. Thâ—â— all â—â—thaâ—â—y of Iurisdiction spirituall and temporall is deriued and deduced from the Kings Maiesty as supreme head of the Churches and Realmes of England and Ireland and so iustly acknowledged by the Clergy of the said Realmes Whereby it appeareth euidently that the King according to these Lawes and statutes yea and by the confession and acknowledgement of all the English Clergy not only hath spirituall authority power and iurisdiction but also is the very fountaine and spring from whence it floweth to all Bishops and Clergy in his dominionsâ— Whereupon it followeth that if there be any spirituall iurisdiction and power in the Churchâ— and Clergy of England the same is much more in the King then in them seeing it is deduced and deriued from
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
the Cath. Church done at the Reliques of Saints 443. at Valentia in Spaine ibid. None wrought in the ProtestaÌ„ts Church why ibid. Monks of the Primitiue Church their discipline .449 their first Institute approued by M. Andrews 448. N NAME Catholike belongeth only to the Roman Church 451. S. Greg. Nazianz. his approbation of prayer to Saintes pag. 253. to our B. Ladie ibid. S. Greg. Nissen his approbation of holy reliques in the Church 264. of prayer to Saints ibid. His prayer to S. Theodor the Martyr 267. O OATH of Supremacy why it is vnlawfull 461. Origen his proof of S. Peters Primacy 198. P PASTORS their obligation of care of their Churches pag. 76.78 Prayer to Saintes approued by S. Basil 218. Impugned by Protestants 336.337 conform to Scripture deduced from it 344. Power ouer the soule implyeth power ouer the body pag. 126. Priuiledges graÌ„ted to the Church of Constantinople pag. 44.45.46 Abrogated by Pope Leo pa. 47. Puritans their Doctrine concerning the Kinges Supremacy 419. How some of them take the Oath of Supremacy 420. S. Peter how he bare the person of the Church when he receaued the Keyes pag. 5. His Supremacy grounded vpoÌ„ the wordes Pasce oues meas pag. 8. acknowledged by S. Augustine pag. 17. By S Cyril ibid. by S. Hierome pag. 119. by Origen 198. by S. Hilary 199. How he was called the light of the Church pag. 103. How he was reprehended by S. Paul pag. 107. how he is the foundation of the Church pag. 109. preferred before S. Iohn why pag. 118 How he may be called a Monarch pag. 134. His fall no preiudice to his Primacy pag. 148. Q QVEENE Elizabeth her spirituall Gouernment giuen vnto her by the Parliament 476. R RELIQVES of Saints vsed in the Church 284. approued by S. Gregory Nissen ibid. M. Rogers against M. Andrews concerning our English Clergy 422 423. Roman Church neuer fayled in Faith by Gods prouidence pag. 124. S SAINTS praied vnto in all ages passim how they heare our prayers and help vs pag. 288. how they know our praiers and actions 291.318.319 practised in the primitiue Church 334. impugned by Protestants out of Scripture 336.337 How they helpe vs by the participation of Christs power 347. Protectors of Citties Countries ibid. Schisme whence it commonly ariseth pag. 125. Signe of the Crosse in Baptisme 334.336 Sermons de tempore in Latin and Greeke in S. Augustines tyme pag. 146. by S. Maximus Bishop of Turin 205. Siluerius the Pope his vsage by Theodora and Iustinian pag. 32.33 defended by the Bishop of Patera 24.35.36 Speaches conditionall do not alwayes suppose a doubt in the Speaker 261. Supremacy of S. Peter grounded vpon the words Pasce oues meas pag. 8. proued by S. Chrisostome 142. Supremacy Ecclesiasticall of the King of England and M. Andrews conceit thereof .459 excluded by a Rule of M. Andrewes 465. T THEODOSIVS the Emperour inuocated Saints pag. 286. particulerly S. Iohn Baptist. ibid. Theodoretus restored to his Bishoprike by Pope Leo pag. 59. Abused by Maister Andrewes 307. Theodora the Empresse her practise against Pope Siluerius pag. 31. Tyranny more frequent in smal States then in great Monarchies pag. 130. V VIGILANTIVS his heresy against prayer to Saints pag. 228. resisted by S. Hierome ibid. 377.378.379 M. Andrews his progenitour 377. Vniuersall Bishop the title giuen to the Pope by the CouÌ„cell of Calcedon pag. 68. Votiue represeÌ„tations of haÌ„ds feet eyes c. hung vp in Churches in the Primitiue Church 2â—0 W VVORKSâ— good Works how the are said to saue vs. 272. Wryters of diuers partes of Scripture vncertayne pag 250. FINIS The reason that moued the Author to adde this Adioynder to the former SuplemeÌ„t The Authors intention in this Adioynder What question is specially handled in this Adioynder SupplemeÌ„t chap. 1. nu 58.59 seq D. Andr. Respons ad Apolog. ca. 1. pag. 16. Aug. de Agon Christ. c. 30. Ambros. de sacerd dignitate cap. 20. S. Augustine lamely and frauduleÌ„tly alledged by M. Andrews August vbi supra Cic. offic l. 1. How S. Peter did beare the person of the Church when he receaued the keyes S. Augustines meaning declared out of his owne doctrine Tract vlt. in Ioan. Idem in Ps. 108. Idem ser. 13. de verb. Dom. M. Andrewes fraud against the intention of S. Augustine S. Ambr. de Sacerd. dignit c 1. The meaning of S. Ambrose declared Andr. ca. 3. pag. 74. § Verum Ambr. in 2. Cor. 12. IdeÌ„ lib. 10. coÌ„ment in cap. 24. EuaÌ„g Luc. S. Ambrose proueth S. Peters Supremacy out of the wordes Pasce oues meas Three things taught by S. Ambrose D. Andrews can help the dyce wheÌ„ he is put to his shifts A vayne brag of D. Andrews Andr. cap. 8. pag. 214. 215. The secoÌ„d argument answer of M. Andrews which he taketh to be so sharp that it will prick the Cardinall Andr. c. 1. pag. 16. §. VeruÌ„ vim videamê° See Suppl Chap. 1. n. 18.19 sequ Num. c. 8. Num. 1. Deut. 10. 18. Supplem c. 1. n. 22.23 24. Suppl cap. 1. vbi supr In what case ChristiaÌ„s may ground vpon the law of Moyses M. Andrews his beggarly proofe for a temporal princes spirituall Supremacy See infra cap. 6. M. Andrews proofes of the temporall Princes supremacy sauour of Iudaisme 2. Reg. 5. D. Andrews doth equiuocate egregiously Andr. vbi supra D. Andrews argueth impertinently Isa. 44. Num. 27. D. Andrews coÌ„founded by an instance of his owne Theodor. quast 48. in Num. See Suppl nu 21. Num. 27. M. Andrews pricking argument doth wound none but himselfe The third answere of D. Andrews examined Andr. vbi supra pag. 17. lin 4. (a) See after c. 3. n. 36.37 seq (b) Cap. 5. n. 18.19.20 (c) Supplement cap. 1. nu 59. sequent If the Popes primacy be a temporall Primacy M. Andrews is a pecuniary Pastour S. Augustine acknowledgeth S. Peters supremacy in the place alleadged by M. Andrews S. August Tract 124. in Euang. Ioan. Idem in psal 108. S. Cyril coÌ„ment in Cap. vlt. Ioan. S. Cyril also acknowledgeth S. Peters supremacy in the place which M. Andrews alleadgeth Andr. vbi supra M. Andrews maketh S. Augustin S. Cyril fauour a pernicious heresy S. Augustine belyed by D. Andrews Aug. Ep. 50. S. Cyril notably abused by M. Andrews Cyril vbi supra Andr. pag 215. §. Noâ— vero M. Andrews worthily suspected to hold that Magistrats fall from their dignity by mortal sinnes S. Cyril Hierosol Cathech Mystag 2. Optat. l. 7. de Schismate DonatistaruÌ„â— The plaâ—ces of 3. Fathers alledged by M. Andrews do confute him S. Chrysostome for S. Peters Supremacy Chrysost. de Sacerd. l. 2. Ibidem Ibid. S. Leo. ep 89. Idem ser. 3. de assumpt sua ad Pontif. Supplem cap. 5. nu 25.26 27. Euseb. Emis ho. de natiuit Ioan. Euan. Theophil in cap. vlt. Ioan. S. Ber. l. 2. de consider Psal. 1.19 Psal. 63. M. Andrews his
sharpe arrowes do proue but shuttlecocks or fools bolts Eccl. 19. Prou. 16. Concerning a law in the Code of Iustinian Supplem Chap. 1. nu 99. Apol. Car. Bellar. c. 3. pag. 17. Andr. Resp. ad Apolog. cap. 3. pag. 81. The law Inter Claras proued to be a most true cleare Law though M. Andrews hold it for obscure and counterfait The testimony of Baldus see the Code l. 1. tit de suÌ„m Trin. Accurfius The testimony of Alciat Alciat l. 4. ParergoÌ„ cap. 25. Pope Nicolas the first cyted this law aboue 800. years agoe Nicol. ep ad Michael Imperat. The same coÌ„firmed out of Liberatus who liued in Iustinians dayes Liberat. in breuiar c. 20. Tom. 2. Concil ep Iustin. ad AgapetuÌ„ vide BiÌ„niuÌ„ Ibidem ep 2. Ioan. 2. ad Senatores L. 6. Tit. de sum Trinit (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See the Code vbâ— supra A cleare testimony of the vniuersall authority perpetualâ— integrity of the Roman Sea Esa. 5. Two facts of IustiniaÌ„ the Emp. against 2. Popes examined reproued Liberat. in Breuiar c. 22. Andr. vbi supra pag 81. §. Vt nobis A most absurd argument of M. Andrews Matth. 23. Anast. in Agapeto Hist. miscel Paul Diac. l. 16. Liberat. in Breuiar c. 22. Platina Blond dec â— lib. 3. Niceph. l. 17. cap. 18. Naucler Gener. 18. anno 510. The wicked practise of the hereticall Empresse Theodora against Pope Syluerius Liberat. iâ— Breu. c. 22. Paul Diacon in Iusâ—iniano Amoyn de reb gest Franc. l. 2. cap. 2. Marian. Scotus Platina in Vigilio Blond dec â— l. 6. Petrus de Natal l. 6. c. 12. S. Greg. l. 2. ep 36. Baron an 547. pag. 357. Idem An. 538. Liberat in Breniar c. 24. (c) Suplem cap. 1. nu 108. Iustinian the Emperour was so ignorant that he could neyther wryte nor read and therefore easily deceaued by subtil heretiks Suydas in Iustiniano Euagr. l. 4. cap. 40. Idem lib. 5. cap. 1. The Iudgment of Euagri concerning Iustinians death and the state of his soule (d) See supplem cap. 1 nu 90. seq Anastas in Agapeto Blond dec 1. l. 3. Naucler Gen. 18. an 510. Anastasâ— in Agaâ—eto Naucle vbi supra Nouel 42. The two facts of Iustiniana aâ—gainst two Popes ouerwayd with maâ—ny other of his owne in honour fauour of the Sea Apostolik The importance of the Bishop of Patera his reprehension of Iustinians fact against Pope Syluerius Liberat. in breuiarâ— ca. 22. The Bishop of Patera Protested Gods Iudgment against Iustinian Idemâ— ibidâ— See Card. Apol. pag. 27. M. Andrews discouereth an hereticall spirit in his Iudgment of Iustinians fact Liberat. vbi supra Iustinian reuoked his senteÌ„ce against Pope Siluerius vpon the reprehensiâ— giuen him by the Bishop of Patera Idem ibidem M. Andrews hiâ— folly in approuing an act which the author of it did after disallow and repent The bad conscience of M. Andrews in dissembling the truth which he could not but see in Liberatus A weake foolish argument of M. Andrews to proue Iustinian superiour to 2. Popes M. Andrews must deuyse new answeres to the Cardinal concerning the law inter Claras the Bishop of Patera his reprehension of Iustinian M. Andrews his words of the Cardinall iustly retorted vpon himselfe Supplem cap. 2. nuâ— 15 16. Apolog. Car Bellow pag. 92. cap. 7. Whether the Popes authority be established or ouerthrowne by the councell of Calcedon Andr. pag. 170. cap. 7. §. Quod ibi Ibidem M. Andrews his shameles dealing Concil Chalced. Act. 15. Can. 28. Concil CoÌ„stant Can. â— The sense and meaning of the Canon of the Councell of Cal. alleadged by M. Andrews Can. 28. Concil Calced Act. 16. Relatio Synodi ad Leon. in fine Còcil M. Andrews corrupteth the text of the Canon adding vnto it per omnia What maÌ„ner of Equality the Church of CoÌ„stantinople should haue with the RomaÌ„ Church Sozom. hist. l. 3. cap. 7. What preheminence the Church of CoÌ„staÌ„tinople sought to haue in the CouÌ„cell of Calcedon See Paral. Torti ac Tort. cap. 4. p. 157. edit Colon 1611. How Equality is vnderstood somtimes in the Scriptures 2. Cor. 8. Exod. 18. See S. Tho. in ep 2. ad Cor. cap. 8. Item Ioan. Gagnaeus in hunc locum Two kinds of equality correspoÌ„ding to two kinds of Iustice. Aristot. Ethic. 5. S. Thom. 2.2 q. 16. The Canon which graunted the priuiledges to the Church of ConstaÌ„tinople abrogated by Pope Leo. Foure things to be noted in an Epistle of Pope Gelasius for the inualidity of the CanoÌ„ The East Church acknowledged to be subiect to the Sea of Rome Ep. orient Episcop ad SymmachuÌ„ To. 2. Concil Exemplar libelli Ioan. Ep. CoÌ„stantin To. 2. Concil Vide etiam Ep. Iustini Imperat. ad Hormisdam â— P. To. 20. Concil The Primacy of the RomaÌ„ Sea acknowledged by the Greeke Church to be grounded vpon the expresse words of Christ. Libeâ—at in Breuâ—ario c. 22. Nicephor li. 17. c. 9. Anastas in Agapeto Paul Diacon l. 16. Nicepho li. 17. c. 26. vide etiam Constit. Vigilij apud Binium to 2. Concil p. 5â—2 Baron An. 551.552 553. Ep. Eutychij ad Vigilium To. 2. Concil in Concil 5. Generali collat 2. â—p 8. Pelag To. 2. Concil S. Greg. lib. 7â— â—p 65â— Idem ibid. ep 64. Many Bishops of Constantinople deposed by the Popes of Rome Ep. Nicolai 1. ad Michael Imperat To. 4. concil in 8. Synodo gener in appendice ex Act. 6. S. Antonin Tit. â—9 cap. 1. §. 6. Naucler gener 41. Bloud lib. 6. dec 2. in fine Platina in vita Innocen 3. To. 3. Concil in Concilio Lateran See Suplem cap. 2. nâ— 1. 2. S. Antoninus Tit. 22. cap. 13. §. 1.2 seq Item Concil Florentin sess vlt. See Suplem cap. 1. nu 114. 115. The iust IudgmeÌ„ts of God vpon the Church of Constantinople Matth. 16. Eccli 5. Valer. Maxim l. 1. cap. 1. Andr. cap. 7. p. 170. Bad dealing of M. Andrews (d) p. 177. p. 35. §. de Inuocatione p. 45. §◠Locus Liberat. in Breuiar cap 13. Ep. Leo. 53.54.55.59.70.71 How the Canon for the B. of Constantinoples priuiledgs was made Concil Calced act 16. (d) Concerning the inualidity of this Canon see Baron To. 4. pag. 4â—3 an 381. edit Romae an 1593. Relat. Synodi ad Leo. in fine Concil Leo. ep 61. ad Episcop in Synodo Chal. congreg Item ep 55.70 71. (d) See more concerning this Canon in Binius To. 1. CoÌ„cil pag. 517. edit Coloniae an 1606. Leo ep 53. ad Anatolium Idem ep 55. ad Pulcher. Concil Nicen. Can. 6. (c) See after in the end of this Chapter What maner of intercessioÌ„ Pope Leo made to Martian the Emperour against Anatolius Leo. ep 54. ad MartiaÌ„ Relatio Synod Chalced. ad Martian in fine Concil Leo. ep 59. ad MartiaÌ„ Leo ep 55. ad Pulcheriam What intercession Pope Leo made to Anatolius Leo. ep 53. ad Anatol. Apoc. 3. What
effect Pope Leo's intercession had Leo. ep 68. The Emperour made suite to Pope Leo for Anatolius Idem ep 70. ad Martian Leo. ep 71. ad Anatol. Anatolius his submission to Pope Leo A manifest and sound lye of M. Andrews Pope Leo his supreme authority proued by the ouerthrow of the Canon alledged by M. Andrews Apol. Bellar. pag. 92. Concil Calced Act. 3. The name of Vniuersall Bishop giuen to the Pope by the generall Councell of Calcedon Andr. pag. 170. §. Quod ibi M. Andrews his tryfling answers M. Andrews hardly vrged Bellar. Apol. vbi supra Relat. Synodi ad Leon. in fine CoÌ„cilij Andr. vbi supra A weake and idle answere of M. Andrews Card. Apolog vbi supra Relat. Synodi ad Leon. Andr. vbi supra See cap. 1. nu 3.4.5 sequent Relat. Synodi ad Leon. A cleere testimony for Pope Leo's supremacy Liberat. in Breuiar cap. 12. Andr. vbi supra p. 171. Andr. vbi supra Apolog. C. Bellar. pag. 92. Andr. vbi supra A strange paradoxe of M. Andrews (b) See Supplem c. 4. nu 3.4.5 6. (c) Ibid. nu 7.8 Andr. cap. 8. pag. 219. Hieron li. 1. cont Iouin (d) Chap. 3. nu 37. seq Pastors are more bound to haue care of the Church then priuate men Ep. Theodoâ—â—j ad Synod Ephesin To. 1. Concil To. 4. Concil in 8. Concil general ex act 6. Suppl cap. 1. nu 112. 113. Act. â—â— 1. Cor. 12. Rom. 12. Pastours bound more then other men to haue care of the Church according to the doctrine of the Apostle Apoc. 2. M. Andrews galli-maufrey or hotch-potch M. Andrews teacheth seditious doctrine Equality of obligation requireth equality of care Isa. 32. If M. Andrews his position be true he must lay away his tytle of Lord Bishop Andr. cap. 7. pag. 171. M. Andrews corrupteth the text of the Councel of Calcedon M Andrews groundeth his arguments vpon his owne fraud Act. 15. caâ— 28. A silly collection of M. Andrews A difference to be noted betwixt the primacy of S. Peter and the priuiledgs granted to the Roman Sea Why those which penned the CanoÌ„ alledged by M. Andrews made no mention of the keys and Pastorall commissioÌ„ giuen to S. Peter M. Andrews his fraud in alledging the Canon Andr. vbi supra Can. 28. M. Andrews streyneth the Greek text to make it serue his turne Andr. pag. 171. A very false and foolish conclusioÌ„ of M. Andrews Andr. vbi supra Wisely forsooth The CanoÌ„ alledged by M. Andrews ouerthroweth his causeâ— Concil Lateran sub Innocent 3. cap. 5. See before from num 1â— to nu 24. Relatio Synod ad Leo. The CouÌ„â—ell of Calcedon acknowledged Pope Leo's supreâ—acy See before nu 45. 4â— Ibidem The CouÌ„cell ascrybed their determination of matters of fayth to the authority of Pope Leo (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How effectually clearly the Councell of Calcedon acknowledged Pope Leo's supremacy in their generall letter to him (d) See bâ—fore from nu 29. to nu 39. Other proofes that Popâ— Leo's supremacy was acknowledged by the CouÌ„cel of Calcedoâ—â— Act. 2â— Acâ— â— Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria deposed by Pope Leo. Three things to be noted in the depositioÌ„ of Dioscorus prouing Pope Leo's supremacy Concilâ— Calced Act. â— Ep. Theodor ad Leonem Theodoretus restored to his Bishoprike by Pope Lâ—o. Pope Leo was vndoubtedly the head and president of the CouÌ„cell Caluin confuted coÌ„cerning the cause why Pope Leo was president of the Councell Pope Leo head of the CouÌ„cel of CalcedoÌ„ in respect of his supreme authority ouer the whole Church What a seared coÌ„science M. Andrewâ— hath Suppl cap. 4. nu 3. 4. Apol. Card. Bel. cap. 8. p. 125. CypriaÌ„ de vnit Eccles. Idem ep ad Quintum Andr. Resp. cap. 8. pag. 217. â—in penult M. Andrews graue discourse in answere to the Cardinall The drift and meaning of S. Cyprian Cyprian vbi supra Matth. 1.6 Ioan. 21. Ibid. 20. S. CypriaÌ„ proueth the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head thereof Idem ep ad Iubaian Ibid. A foolish glosse of M. Andrews vpon the text of S. Cyprian Andr. vbi supra pag. 218. lin 2. How S. Peter might be called the light of the Church Matth. 5. Ioan. 11. The vinity of the Church notably proued and deduced by S. Cyprian from the vnity of the Head Why the Church is called one Mother M. Andrews fraudulent in his lame allegation of S. Cyprian S. Cypr. ep ad Quint. Card. Bellar Apolo c. 8. p. 125. Andr. cap. 8. pag. 218. A shifting answere of M. Andrews falsely charging the Cardinall with fraud The Primacy of S. Peter is notably proued by those words of S. CypriaÌ„ which M. Andrews sayth the Cardinall frauduleÌ„tly left out Bellar. dâ— Romano Pout l. â— cap. 25. S. CypriaÌ„ cleerly explicated by the Card. out of S. Augustine S. Peter being head of the Apostles suffered himselfe to be reprehended by S. Paul Bellarmine cleared from M. Andrews imputatioâ— How a man may speake of his owne authority insolently and yet truly Andr. vâ—â— supr How S. Peter is tearmed the foundation of the Church by S. Cyprian 1. Cor. 3. Isa. 28. (c) See after nu 24.25 2â— A bad inference of M. Andrews about twelue heads Apoc. 24. A politicall or mysticall body may haue many heads subordinat to one head M. Andrews so wryteth as he doth much help his Aduersaryes cause Card. Bellar Apol. c. 8. pag. 126 Hierom. l. â— aduers. Iouinian Touching the place of S. Hierome Supple c. 4. nu 3. Andr. vbi supra pag. 219. §. Hieronymus M. Andrews bad glosse vpoÌ„ S. Hieroms text Supra nu 15. The Cardinal falsely charged by M. Andrewâ— with fraâ—d in the citaâ—ion of S. Hierome Psal. 86. Apocal. 21. Ephes. â— Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 11. How the Church according to Cardinal Bellarmine is buylt equally vpoÌ„ all the Apostles See after nu â—6 sequ M. Andrewes calumniateth Bellarmine M. Andrews second charge against the Cardinall touching Iouinianisme refuted and retortedâ— S Hier. li. 1. contra Iouinian Why S. Peter was preferred by our Sauiour to the supremacy before S. Ioâ—n S. Hier. in 16. cap. Matth. S. Peterâ— supremacy acknowledged by S. Hierome and grouÌ„ded vpon our Sauiours ownâ— wordâ— Idem ep aâ— Marcellaâ—â— ep 54. Ibid. ep 5â— Li. 1. contra Iouiâ— (d) See before nu 4.5 sequeÌ„t See before cap. 2. nu 76. Bellar. de Rom. Pontif l. 1. c. 10. How shameles M. Andrews is to charge the Cardinall with Iouinianisme which he himselfe professeth except he dissent froÌ„ his fellows of the English clergy Ambros. ep li. 1. ep 6. 7. Hieronym contra Iouinian Aug. li. de bono coniug de virginit Idem Retract lib. 42. cap. 22. 23. Idem de haeres ad Quoduulâ— haer 82. Aug. vbi sup Ser. 191. de temp Idem de haeres haer 82. Bellar de notis Eccles l. 4. cap. 9.
The answere of M. Andrews to the place of S. Hierome examined Andr cap. 8. pag. 219. § Hieronymus Foure things to be noted in M Andrews his answere M. Andrews large graunt coÌ„cerning the primacy of S. Peter What followeth of M. Andrews hiâ— graâ—nt One â—ead more necessary now in the Church then in the Apostles time and why Psal. â—7 8â— Isa. 61. Mattâ—â— 16. vlt. Luc. 1. Ephes. 4. Our Sauiours prouidence in the conseruation of the RomaÌ„ Church when all other Apostlicall Churches haue fayled â— Aug. in Psal. coÌ„tra part Donati Power to punish to define necessary in the head of the Church to remedy schismes Whence the greatest danger of schisme commonly aryseth See Supplem cap. 1. nu 61.62 (b) Ibidem à nu 60. ad nu 67. (c) Ibid. nu 67. sâ—qu (d) Ibid. nu 63. 64. Power ouer the soule necessarily implieth some power ouer the body A doubt of M. Andrews sufficiently solued Touching the number committed to S. Peters charge Psal. 44. In Psal. 44. Mar. vlt. Psal. 18. M. Andrews granting S. Peter to be head of the Apostles granteth that he was head of the whole Church Idem ho. 5. in Petris Apost Eliant Idem ho. 87. in Ioan. M. Andrews head very idle Matth. 16. vlt. A paradox of M. Andrews Tyranny more frequent in small stats then great Monarchies M. Andrews acknowledgeth by a necessary coÌ„sequent that one head is necessary for the whole Church (d) See suppl cap. 1. nu 81. cap. 4. à nu 3. ad nu 18. (e) Ibid. nu 7.8 9. (f) num 2.3.4 sequent (g) nu 37. The conclusion coÌ„cerning the place of S. Hierome (h) nu 29. sâ—qu Andr. vbi supra M. Andrews hath granted by coÌ„sequent as mâ—ch as we demand coÌ„câ—rning the sâ—preme authority of S. Peterâ— (d) See befoâ—e nuâ— 17â— 38. sequent Card. Bellar Apolo c. 8. pag. 125 Suppl cap. 4 nu 15. S. Basil. in serm de iudicio Dei Andr. cap. 8. p. 218. §. Ex Basilio How S. Peter may be sayd to be a Monarch Chap. 3. nu 39.40 41. Andr. vbi supra A vaine cauill of M. Andrews (c) Cap. 1. nu 3.4 5. (a) Card. Bellar. Apolog. vbi supra (b) Suppl cap. 4. nu 10. S. Greg. Nazianzen orat de moderat c. Andr. vbi supra A place of S. Gregory Nazian explicated and vrged M. Andrews impertinent trifling Suppl cap. 4. nu 15. Card. Apol. vbi supra S. Chrysostâ— ho. 55. in Matth. Andr. cap. 8. pag. 219. Chrysost. vbi supra Idem ibid. Idem ho. 3. in Acta Apost A notable discourse of S. Chrysostome prouing S. Peters Supremacy A stale trifeling conceyt touching the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 againe brought in by M. Andrews Bellar. de Rom. Pon. lib. 3. cap. 10. §. Secunda opinio A dreaming fancy of M. Andrews Chap. 3. nâ— 39.40 41. Card. Bell. Apolog. vbi supra Supple chap. 4. Aug. Ser. 124. feriaeâ— 4. post Domin Palma Andr. vbi sup M. Andrewes bold assertion without all proofe Possidius in vita Augustin Indic Possid cap. 9. 10. Ibidem Sermons were made de tempore both in the Latinâ— and in the Greeke Church in S. Augustins tyme. Ambros. To. 5. Serm de tempore S. Maximus Gennadius de viris Illustrib Gregor Nyssen Gregor Nazian Chrysost. To. 3. Andr. vbi supra M. Andrews rauing fit Sâ— Peters fall no preiudice to his Primacy S. Aug. ser. 124. de temp S. Augustine teacheth that S. Peter was permitted to fall because he was to be supreme head of the Church The same also taught by S. Chrysostome S. Chrysost. hom in S. Petrum Eliam S. Greg. ho. 21. in Euangel Another place of S. Augustine acknowledging S. Peters supremacy notwithstanding his fall See Andr. cap. 1. pag. 16. lin 17. Aug. de agone Christ. cap. 30. See before Chap. 1. nu 3.4 5. Cyril in cap. vlt. Ioan. Vbi supra nu 23. 24. Bellar. de Rom. Pont li. 1. c. 25. O caput elleboro dignum The later hereticks do follow the old (b) Aug. de Vnit. Eâ—cl ca. 12. (c) EpiphaÌ„ haer 75. (d) Hieron aduers. Vigilant (f) Idem contra Iouin (g) See before chap. 3. nu 34. 35. Aug. de vtilitate credendi cap. 17. Marc. 14. Matth. 26. M Andrews zeale greater then his wit A good recipe for M. Andrews Three notorious lyes Concerning the prohibition of appeals from Afrike to Rome obiected by M. Andrews Bellar. de Rom. Pont l. 2. c. 25. Baron an 419. A controuersy betwixt the Bishops of Africk the Sea of Rome coÌ„cerning the prosecution of Appeals Three wayes vsed in the prosecution decision of appeales (d) infra nu 47.48 49. Ibid. To. 1. Concil in Concil Africano ca. 10â— M. Andrews his forgery S. Aug. ep 261. The case of Antony Bishop of Fussula appealing to Rome Ibid. S. Augustine his dutifull respect to Pope Celestinus Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. The primate of Numidia in Africk approued the Appeale of Antony to Rome Concil Mileu Can. 12. M. Andrewes Transmarinus nemo Concil Sard. ca. 17. S. Aug. ep 92. 93. â— Aug. ep 1.62 S. Augustine testifyeth that appeales to Rome were allowed to the Bishops of Africk though prohibited to the inferour Clergy Examples of Appeales from Africk to to Rome S. Leo ep 87. ad Epis. Maurit S. Greg. Regist. lib. 1. ep 82. Idem ibid. lib. 10. ep 31. 32. Ibid. lib. 10. ep 8. Ibid. ep 35. Supra nu 36. The request of the African Bishops to Pope Celestinus concerning appeals neyther did nor could preiudice the right of the sea Apostolick (h) See cap. 2. nu 24. seq vsque ad nu 28. M. Andrews maketh no bones to falsify whole Synods and bely the Fathers It is proued S. Augustine acknowledged the Popes Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus for heads of the Church (c) See before nu 38.39 seq S. Aug. ep 157. ad Optat. Posidius in vita Augustini 8 Popes who liued in S. Augustins tyme exercysed a supreme vniuersall authority Pope Liberius â— Basil ep 74. 82. Tripartit hist. lib. 4. ca. 15. P. Damasus Concil To. 1. inter ep Damas. S. Ambros in ca. 3. ep 1. ad Timoth. S. Hier. ep â—7 To. 2. (c) Chap. 3. nu 17.18.19 20. (d) nu 4.5.6 â— sequent What authority S. Hierome did attribute vnto Damasus Socrat. lib. 4. ca. 30. Elias Cretens in ep 2. ad CledoÌ„ Greg. Nazian Baron an 373. To. 1. Concil ep 1. Damas. Sozom. li. 8. cap. 3. Socrat. li. 5. c. 15. Theodor. lib. 5. cap. 23. P. Syricius â— Ambrose ep 78. See Binius To. 1. Concil Baron an 389. To. 1. Concil inter Siricij ep decret Optat. li. â— contra Parmen The argument of Optatus Mileuitanus Anastasius Aug. ep 165. Idem in psal contra part Donati Concil African can 35. vide â—innium pag. 637. edit Colon. 1606. P. Innocentius Ep. 90.
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