in which Councell also the Appeales of Bishops to Rome were expressely confirmed besides that the very Councell of Milâ—uis in which this Canon was made was receaued and confirmed by Pope Innocentius the first as it shall appeare further after a whyle So that this Canon which concerneth only the appeales of inferiour Clergy men and not of Bishops and was admitted by the Popes themselues did not any way preiudice the right of Appeales to Rome or the authority of the sea Apostolicke and this also may be clearely proued out of S. Augustine himselfe who writing to the Donatists and reprehending them for their temerarious presumption in excommunicating and condeÌ„ning Caecilianus the Catholike Bishop of Carthage aduertised them with all of their folly in that they considered not how vayne their attempt was therin and how litle cause Caecilianê° had to care for their senteÌ„ce seing it was free for him to reserue his cause to the iudgement of other Bishops beyond the seas and especially of the Apostolyke Church meaning there by especially the Apostolyke Sea of Rome which he alwayes called the Apostolyke seat or Apostolike Chayre per antonomasiam as it may be noted in diuers places of his workes whereof I haue alledged some already and shall haue occasion to alledge others hereafter insomuch that when he speaketh of the Apostolicke Church or Apostolicke seat or Apostolike chaire without naming any in particuler he speaketh vndoubtedly of the Roman Church 46. And therefore he saith in the same Epistle to the Donatists that Caecilianus might well contemne the multitude of his enemyes seeing that he held communion as well with the Roman Church in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit principatus wherein the principality or soueragnity of the Apoctolike chayre hath alwayes florished as with other Catholicke countryes from whence the Ghospell was brought to Africk c. Moreouer in the said Epistle he maketh playne distinction betwixt the Appeales of Bishops and Priests saying neque enim de Presbyteris c. Neyther was the question heere concerning Priests or Deacons or other Clergy men of the inferiour sort but concerning our collegues who may reserue their cause entyre and whole to the iudgement of other their collegues and especially of the Apostolicke Churches So he whereby it appeareth that albeit he signifieth that there was a restraynt of Appeales of Priests and inferiour Clergy men according to the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis yet he graunteth that Bishops had free liberty to appeale out of Africk to the Apostolike Churches and especially to the RomaÌ„ Church wherein as you haue heard him say before Apostolicae Cathedrae semper viguit principatus the soueraignty of the Apostolike chayre hath alwayes florished 47. And to the end it may appeare that neyther the Councell of Mileuis nor yet the petition of the African Synode to Pope Celestinus did hinder the course of appeales to Rome or the decision of them in Africk by the Popes authority I will conclude with some examples very notable for this purpose The first shal be of Lupicinus a Bishop of Mauritania in Africk restored to his seat shortly after S. Augustines tyme by the sentence of Pope Leo who also sent thither a Bishop called Potentius as his Legate and the Bishops of Africk admitted him albeit the African Synod had requested Pope Celestinus to send no more Legats thither 48. Another example may be of a comission sent by Pope Gregory the Great to an Agent or officer of his in Africk called Hilarius to assemble a Prouinciall Synod there for the examinatioÌ„ of a complaynt made to him by two deacons Felicissimus and Vincentius against Agentius their Bishop in which commission order was giuen to Hilarius punctually to execute the sentence of the Synod Also the same Pope hauing heard the complaints of certayne Priests in Africk against Paulinus their Bishop committed the hearing and decision of the cause to Victor the primate of Numidia and Columbus with other Bishops giuing them commission to heare and determyn it amongst themselues except they should thinke the assistance of his officer Hilarius needfull for the better determination of the cause In like manner a complaynt being exhibited to the said Pope by Donadeus a Deacon against Victor his Bishop he deputed the foresaid Columbus and other Bishops to examin the cause and to punish the Bishop if he were found in fault And the like commission he gaue also to a Synod of Bishops held at Bizacium in Africk for the tryall of the cause of Clementius their Primate 49. Now then in these examples two things are to be noted the one that the Popes vsed to decyde appeales and other controuersyes in diueres manners sometymes ordayning and disposing thereof by their Legats or other officers and sometymes giuing no other commission to their said Legats and officers but to assemble some Prouinciall Synode and to see the sentence thereof executed and sometymes againe giuing all power and authority to the Metropolitan Bishops of that country to decyde the causes which last way and manner of tryall was no way repugnant to the request of the African Synod in their letter to Pope Celestinus as I haue signifyed before 50. The other thinge to be noted is that the Popes vsed still iure suo their owne right notwithstanding the forsaid request of the African Synod yea and that the Bishops of Africk approued and acknowledged the same by their obedience knowing full well that the petitions of their predecessors to Celestinus rested wholy in his will and pleasure to be granted or denied as he should see cause whereof â—here fell out shortly after an euident example and proofe in the Councell of Calcedon for albeit the Fathers of that famous generall Councell not only made earnest sute to Pope Leo by a common letter to obteyne the second place after Rome for Constantinople but also ordayned and decreed it by a speciall Canon neuertheles Pope Leo denyed their sute disanulled their decree and forced the Authors thereof to acknowledge their errour as I haue amply proued in the second Chapter and therefore much more might Pope Celestinus deny the request of a Prouinciall Synode and might also haue disanulled their decrees if they had made any preiudiciall to the Roman Sea as they did not 51. And now to conclude vpon these premisses 3. things do euidently follow thereon The first that the Appeales of Bishops from Africk to Rome were neuer prohibited or so much as interrupted by any decrees or Canons and much lesse by the letters of the African Synode to Pope Celestinus The second that the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis which M. Andrewes seemeth to alledge as forbidding appeales to Rome vnder payne of excommunication did only concerne Priests and Deacons and other Clergy men of the inferiour sort and therefore did not prohibite the Appeales of Bishops and much lesse of all men
in generall besides that being made with the Popes consent it was not any way preiudicall to the authority of the Sea Apostolike The third that M. Andrews iugleth notably with his Reader when he saith as out of S. Augustine Ad eum transmarinus nemo appellet c. To him that is to say to the Bishop of Rome let no man appeale from beyond the seas or if he appeale he is to be excommunicated by Augustine for neyther those words nor the sense thereof are to be found any where in S. Augustine who as you haue seene expressely taught and practised the contrary So that transmarinus nemo being set downe by M. Andrews in a different letter to be noted is indeed worth the noting for a notable falsity and a flat corruption of the Canon and abuse of S. Augustine and of all the Bishops in that Councell What then shall we say of this mans truth and fidelity who maketh no bones to bely the Fathers and corrupt whole Synods Can any man thinke that he hath any regard of conscience or shame Thus much for the second point 52. And now to say somewhat of the third he affirmeth as you haue heard that S. Augustine was far from acknowledging the Popes Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus for heads of the Church whereof you haue already seene the contrary in two of them to wit Bonifacius and Celestinus whose power and custome to admit and determyne Appeales from Africk S. Augustine clearely acknowledged and approued in the cause of Antony Bishop of Fussula as I haue amply shewed which power could not otherwise be due to Bonifacius and Celestinus but only in respect of their supreme and vniuersall authority ouer the whole Church And that S. Augustine had also the same opinion of Zosimus it appeareth sufficiently in an Epistle of his to Optatus to whome he writeth that he receaued his letters at Caesarea quò nos saith he iniuncta nobis à venerabili Papa Zosimo Apostolicae sedis Episcopo Ecclesiastica necessitas traxerat whither we were drawne by an Ecclesiasticall necessity inioyned or imposed vpon vs by the venerable Pope Zosimus Bishop of the Apostolicall seat So he which may also be confirmed out of Possidius who writeth that Litterae sedis Apostolicae compulerunt c. The letters of the Sea Apostolike compelled Augustine with other Bishops to go to Caesarea in Mauritania to consult and determyne of diuers necessityes of the Church 53. Whereby it is manifest that S. Augustine acknowledged in Pope Zosimus an Ecclesiasticall power and authority to impose vpon him and other Bishops a necessity to obay his commaundements in matters concerning the seruice of God and the Church which Zosimus could not do otherwise then as supreme and vniuersall Pastor or head of the Church for that the Church of Africk was not otherwise subiect to him then as all other Churches were But of Pope Zosimus and of S. Augustines opinion concerning his Primacy I shall haue occasion to speake further after a while and in the meane tyme this I hope may suffise to proue that S. Augustine was so far from impugning these three Popes that he acknowledged their supreme and vniuersall authority and consequently that they were heads of the vniuersall Church notwithstanding M. Andrews his peremptory assertion of the contrary which therefore may passe for another vntruth 54. Whereupon it also followeth that he forgot himselfe much more when he so confidently affirmed in the first poynt as you haue heard that the Bishops of Rome in S. Augustines tyme were but only heads of the Church of Rome which I noted before For the first of the 3. vntruthes though I remitted the particuler answere thereof vntill I had discouered the other two because they would not a litle help to the discouery of the first as you may haue already noted for it being cleare by all this former discourse that Appeales from Africk to Rome were vsuall frequent and neuer prohibited in S. Augustines tyme and againe that he acknowledged an authority and power in Pope Zosimus to lay iniunctions commaundements vpon him and other Bishops in Africk it must needs follow that the Bishops of Rome had a more ample authority in his dayes then ouer the particuler Church of Rome And to the end thou mayst yet haue good Reader a more aboundant satisfaction in this poynt I will say somewhat of all the Popes that liued in S. Augustines tyme who were 8. in all to wit Liberius in whose tyme he was borne Damasus Siricius Anastasius Innocentius Zosimus Bonifacius Celestinus And first of Liberius 55. We read in the Ecclesiasticall history that certayne Arian heretykes being excommunicated and deposed from their Bishopricks by the Catholike Bishops of the East Church sent their Legats to Pope Libâ—rius crauing to be restored by his authority and for as much as they craftily dissembled their heresy and faygning to be repentant made open profession of the Catholicke faith according to the beliefe and doctrin of the Councell of Nice they obtayned his letters for their restitution which they presented at their returne in a Synod held at Tyana and by vertue thereof were restored as S. Basil witnesseth saying that Eustathius Bishop of Sebasta who was the chiefe of that Legacy brought an Epistle from Liberius by the which he should be restored and when he had presented it to the Synod at Tyana in locum suum restitutus est he was restored to his place So he 56. Whereby it appeareth that the authority of Liberius extended further then to his owne Church of Rome seeing he could restore Bishops to their seats in the East Church as also his predecessor Pope Iulius had done not long before vpon the appeales of the famous Athanasius deposed by the Arians and of Paulus Bishop of Constantinople Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra Asclepa Bishop of Gaza and Lucian Bishop of Hadrianopolis all of them vniustly expelled from their seats vpon diuers pretences whose causes Iulius discussing saith the Story tamquam omnium curam gerens propter propriae Sedis dignitatem singulis reddidit suas Ecclesias as hauing a care of all for the dignity of his owne seat restored their Churches to euery one of them So saith Sozomâ—n in the tripartite history which I haue thought good to add to the former example of Liberius For although it fell not out in S. Augustines tyme whereof I now specially treate yet it was not aboue 14. yeares before him and therefore may well be applyed to his tyme as the Eue to the Feast Besides that doth demonstrate what was the beliefe of the Catholike Church at that tyme concerning the supreme dignity of the Roman Sea seeing that not only other Catholike Bishops but also Athanasius himselfe who was the mirrour of sanctity zeale and integrity in that age had recourse thereto as to the supreme tribunall on earth for the reparation of his wrongs but now to
aduertiseth him that he sent him the copies of such writings and letters of the Sea Apostolike as were come to his hands concerning those matters addressed eyther particulerly to the Bishops of Africk or vniuersally to all Bishops 76. Another thing to be noted in the testimony of Possidius is that he calleth the sentence of those two Popes Innocentius and Zosimus Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae iudicium the Iudgement of the Catholike Church of God which he could not haue done but in respect of their supreme power and authority to condemne heresyes as heads of the whole Catholike Church The third is that albeit the Emperour Honorius condemned also the Pelagians for heretikes by his temporall lawes yet he did it no otherwise but audiens sequens c. hearing and following the iudgment of the Catholike Church that is to say of those two Popes Innocentius and Zosimus for of them he speaketh expresly 77. And now to proceed if M. Andrews do yet desire any further proofe of this matter let him read S. Prosper S. Augustines disciple who sayth that a Synod of 217. Bishops being held at Carthage their Synodicall decrees were sent to Zosimus quibus probatis per totum mundum haeresis Pelagiana condemnata c. which being approued the Pelagian heresy was condemned thoughout the whole world And againe in another place he saith of Innocentius Tunc Pelagianorum machinae fractae sunt c. and then were the engines of the Pelagians broken when Innocentius of blessed memory stroke the heads of their wicked errour with his Apostolicall sword So he and a litle after he affirmeth the like of Pope Zosimus who added saith he the force of his sentence to the decrees of the African Councell and armed the right hands of Bishops with the sword of Peter ad detruncationem impiorum for the excommunication of the wicked So he giuing to vnderstand that not only the force of the African Synods against the Pelagians but also the general condemnation of them throughout the world proceeded from the authority of the Roman Sea wherupon it must needs follow that the said authority was vniuersall and that the Bishops of that Sea and namely Innocentius and Zosimus were more then Caput Ecclesiae suae Romanae heads of their Church of Rome 78. And albeit this might suffice cōcerning these two Popes yet I cannot omit the most famous and sollemne appeale of S. Chrysostome to one of them to wit to Innocentius to whome he sent 4. Bishops to complayne of his vniust banishment procured by Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and wrote also himselfe vnto him thus Obsecro vt scribat c. I beseech you write and decree by your authority that these thinges which were so vniustly done when I was absent aud did not refuse to be iudged may be of no force as indeed of their owne nature they are not and that those which haue done so vniustly may be subiect to the penalty of the Ecclesiasticall lawes c. Thus wrote S. Chrisostome with much more to the same purpose which he would not haue donne if he had thought that the authority of Innocentius had byn lymited within the particuler Church of Rome or rather if he had not knowne that his authority was vniuersall and sufficient to determyne his cause which also was euident by the progresse and issue of the matter for not only he as playntife appealed to Innocentius but also Theophilus as defendant sent a Priest of his called Peter with letters to iustifie his cause besids that all the Bishops of the East and Greek Church being in this controuersy deuided sent messingers or letters to Rome in fauour of the one or of the other as witnesseth Palladius Bishop of Helenopolis who was S. Christostomes disciple and went also to Rome to prosecute his cause and further testifyeth that Pope Innocentius gaue sentence for S. Chrysostome disanulling the act and iudgment of Theophilus 79. And whereas Atticus was made Bishop of Constantinople after the expulsion of S. Chrystostome Innocentius suspended him frō his Episcopall function vntill the causes should be fully heard and determined ordayning that in the meane tyme Proclus Bishop of Cyzicum should gouerne the Church of Constātinople And albeit Innocentius forbare for sometyme to proceed against Theophilus by way of censure yet after S. Chrysostomes death who dyed in banyshment within 3. yeares he excommunicated not only Theophilus and Atticus for the excesses cōmitted on their part but also Arcadius the Emperour and Eudoxia the Empresse for assisting them with their Imperiall authority as Georgius Alexandrinus Gennadius Glicas and Nicephorus do testify Finally although Theophilus remayned obstinate so long as he liued which was not past 5. yeares after S. Chrysostomes death yet he dyed repentant and Atticus after much suite and many Embassages sent as Theodoretus testifyeth was reconcyled to the Roman Church As also Arcadius the Emperour vpon his submission and humble petition of pardon was absolued by Pope Innocentius as appeareth by the letters of them both which are set downe in Glycas And thus passed this matter which alone may suffice to proue the supreme and vniuersall authority of Innocentius 80. And as for Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus who succeeded Innocentius and were the 3. last Popes of the 8. that liued in S. Augustins tyme I shall not need to say much seeing that I haue already spoken sufficiently of them as of Zosimus a litle before concerning the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy besides a former testimony of S. Augustine touching an assembly of himselfe and other African Bishops at Cesaraea by the inuention or commaundment of Pope Zosimus In like manner I haue shewed before that not only S. Augustine but also the Primate of Numidia in Africk acknowledged the primacy of the Popes Bonifacius and Celestinus by recommending to them the cause betwixt Antony Bishop of Fussula and the people of that Diocesse whereto neuertheles I thinke good to add concerning Bonifacius that it appeareth by his letters to the Bishops of 7. Prouinces in France that the Clergy of the Citty of Valentia sent to him a bill of complaynt with the testimony of the whole Prouince against Maximus an hereticall Bishop of the Manichaean sect accusing him of many haynous crymes and that thereupon Bonifacius did delegate the hearing of the cause to the said Bishops whereby it is euident that his power and authority was not confyned within the Church of Rome 81. And now to conclude with Celestinus who was the last of the 8. methinks M. Andrews should not be ignorant how far his authority and Iurisdiction extended seeing that it cannot be denyed that he was President and head of the generall Councell of Ephesus and that the famous S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria was but his substitute and Legate therein which is euident not only by the testimony of Historiographers but also by
did aske the Bishop with great reason whether he agreed with the Roman Church sciebat enim Episcopum tum Romae Catholicum for he knew that the Bishop of Rome then was a Catholike So he wherin he granteth consequently that the Pope is supreme and vniuersall Pastor of the whole Church for that must needes follow of his grant seeing it is euident that he who then was Bishop of Rome and whom he alloweth for Catholik had and exercised a supreme and vniuersall authority to which purpose it is to be considered who was Bishop of Rome at that time wherto M. Andrewes himselfe giueth vs no small light signifying presently after that Liberius was Bishop a litle before him and sure it is that Damasus succeeded Liberius and reygned many yeares who therefore must needes be the Catholike Bishop that M. Andrewes meaneth 30. Now then what authority Damasus had and exercised during his raigne it appeareth sufficiently by that which I signified before concerning him and his supremacy in the 4. Chapter where I shewed that the same was acknowledged not only in Affrick by the Byshops of 3. African Synods who in a commoÌ„ Epistle to him gaue cleare and euident testimony thereof but also in the East Church euen by the chief Patriarkes therof to wit by Peter the holy Bishop of Alexandria who immediately succeeded Athanasius and being expelled from his Church by the Arians fled to Pope Damasus and by the vertue and authority of his letters was restored to his seat as the Magdeburgians themselues do relate out of the Ecclesiasticall histories And in the Church of Antioch his authority was acknowledged by Paulinus Byshop therof receiuing instructions and orders from him for the absolution of Vitalis the Heritick Also afterwards Theopilus Byshop of Alexandria and S. Chrysostome Byshop of Constantinople were suters to him to obtain pardon for Flauianus Byshop of Antioch as may be seene more particulerly in the fourth Chapter of this Adioynder where I haue also set downe the cleer testimonies of some Fathers who liued at the same time and euidently acknowledged his supremacy 31. So that M. Andrewes granting that Pope Damasus was a Catholike Bishop and that the Church of Rome was in such integrity vnder him that S. Ambrose had reason to hold none for Catholickes but such as held vnion therewith It mâ—st needs follow that the supreme and vniuersall authority which Pope Damasus had and vsed was not vsurped but due to him his Sea and consequently to his successors And wheras M. Andrewes signifieth that the Roman Church and Bishops were not alwaies in the like integrity that they were at that time to wit neither a little before in the time of Liberius nor shortly after in the time of Honorius because both of them subscribed to heresy as he saith I will not now stand to debate that point with him both because I should digresse too much from the matter in hand hauing here vndertaken to shew what he granteth in fauour of Catholicks not to disproue what he denieth or affirmeth otherwise as also because he may see those old and stale obiections fully answered by the Cardinall himself in his CoÌ„trouersies not only concerning those two Popes but also touching all the rest whom our aduersaries were wont to calumniate in like manner and therfore I remit him therto 32. There followeth presently after a large and liberall grant of M. Andrews right worth the noting For wheras the Cardinall still prosecuteth the same matter touching the application of the name Catholicke to the Roman Church and hauing produced the precedent authority of S. Ambrose remitteth his Reader for further proofe therof to the last page of his former Booke which was his Answere to the Apology for the Oath it is to be vnderstood that in the said book and page he proueth by the authority of 3. Ancient Fathers to wit Pacianus S. Cyrill and S. Augustine that the name Catholike is a most true and proper note of the true Church and that it could neuer be vsurped by Hereticks yea and that our aduersaries themselues namely in the Apology for the Oath do so call vs and distinguish vs from themselues by that name and do consequently acknowledge vs to be members of the true Church whereto M. Andrews answereth thus Nam quae in extrema pagina c. For as for those things which the Cardinall wrote in the last page of his former booke and would gladly haue his Reader to see fatemur omnia we graunt and acknowledge them all So he Whereby he granteth that we being called Catholiks euen by our aduersaries themselues haue the true signe note of the true Church and are therefore true members thereof and that he and his fellowes who haue not the same note are Heretikes or Schismatiks For this is in effect the ArgumeÌ„t of the Cardinall grounded vpon the authority of the Fathers aforesayd which you see M. Andrews graunteth saying fatemur omnia 33. And albeit he seeketh presently an euasion by a distinction yet it helpeth him nothing for thus he saith Nec de nominis honore lis vlla sed vtri è re magis nomen habeant neyther is there any contention betwixt vs about the honour of the name but whether of both haue the name deriued from the thing So he allowing vs as you see the honor of the name for the which he saith they do not contend with vs and calling in question only to whome belongeth the thing signified by that name whereas neuertheles it is euident that according to the authorities alledged and vrged by the Cardinall out of the Fathers the name and the thing expressed by the name do alwaies so coÌ„cur that they are neuer separated for which cause those Fathers do hold and teach that the very name and word Catholyke is an euident note to distinguish the true Catholike faith and Church from the false doctrine and Congregation of Heretickes which they could not do if some might haue only the name Catholike and others the faith or Church which it signifieth 34. And therefore S. Augustine in the place alledged by the Cardinall saith that the very name Catholike held him in the Catholike Church quod saith he non sine causâ— inter tot haereses ista Ecclesia sola obtinuit which name this Church only hath obteyned amongst so many heresies not without cause So saith S. Augustine whereto the other Fathers which the Cardinall also cyteth do agree all teaching that heretikes or hereticall congregations neuer did or could vsurpe the name Catholike but that the same hath alwayes been and euer shall be peculiar to the true Church wherby they teach euidently that the name and the thing signified by the name do euer concur So as M. Andrews granting not only the Fathers doctrine in this poynt but also giuing vs freely the honour of the name alloweth vs to haue the
euident that the said Law was as it is now in the Code 800. yeares agoe and held for a cleare Law of Iustinian wherof there are also other most pregnant and conuincing testimonies for Liberatus who liued in Iustinians tyme witnesseth that he was himselfe at Rome when Hypatius and Demetrius came thither sent from Iustinian the Emperour to consult with the Sea Apostolike against the messengers of certaine Nestorian and Eutychian Bishops concerning two or three points then in controuersie betwixt the Catholicks in the East parts and them which points also Liberatus setteth downe addeth that Pope Iohn did write to the Emperour Et epistola sua firmauit quid confitendum and confirmed by his Epistle what was to be professed or belieued touching the same and this was done saith Liberatus nobis ibi positis whylest we were there 38. So that it is euident inough that the Epistle of Pope Iohn whereof Liberatus speaketh is the same that is now in question as well because the contents are the same that Liberatus testifyeth as also for that Hypatius and Demetrius are mentioned therin to be the Embassadours of Iustinian who brought it to the Pope besides that Iustinian himselfe writing to Agapetus the Pope maketh mention of his owne Epistle to Pope Iohn and of Pope Iohns to him as also Pope Iohn doth the like in his Epistle to diuers Senatours finally Iustinian in a constitution of his directed to Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople and set downe in the Code in Greeke relateth the substance of his Epistle to Pope Iohn to the effect abouesaid shewing also the great care he had to conserue the vnity of all the Churches in the East parts Cum ipso saith he Sanctissimo Papa veteris Romae ad quem similia hisc◠perscripsimus with the most holy Pope himselfe of old Rome to whome we haue written the like to these So he And then addeth further thus Nec enim patimur c. For we do not suffer that any of those things which belong to the state of the Church be not related to his Beatitude as being the head of all the most holy Priests of God and specially because as often as there hath risen any Heretikes in these parts they haue bene corrected by the sentence and Iudgement of that venerable Seat Thus saith Iustinian in that cōstitution 39. Wherein first he testifyeth that he had written to the Pope of Rome who was then Iohn the second as it is euident secondly he signifyeth that the substance of his letters to the Pope was the same in effect that he wrote to Epiphanius and this is so cleare by the contents of both the Epistles that the one to wit that to Epiphanius is set downe in the Code in Greeke without any translation because the other to Pope Iohn which followeth in Latin is the same in effect in which respect the former in Greeke needed not to be translated as the glosse witnesseth Thirdly Iustinian in this Constitution to Epiphanius not only acknowledgeth the Pope to be head of all the holy Priests of God as he did in like manner in his Epistle to the Pope but also giueth another most notable testimony as well of the Vniuersall authority as of the perpetuall intergrity of the Roman Sea seeing he confesseth that all the heresies which euer sprong in the East or Greeke Church had been condemned by the Iudiciall sentence of that venerable Seat 40. Therefore can any man desire eyther more cleare proofes then these that the law inter Claras is a cleare and no obscure or counterfait law or more pregnant testimonies of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome by the Ciuill or Imperiall law in the daies of Iustinian Or yet a more euident demonstration of M. Andrews vanity and folly in seeking to obscure the perspicuous and cleare light of this ancient law with such a friuolous and vayne exception so clearly conuinced as you haue seene Whereby he also worthily incurreth the malediction of the Prophet Vae qui dicitis c. VVo be to you who call good bad and bad good and make light darknesse and darknesse light And thus much for this point 41. The other point which now resteth to be discussed is that M. Andrews saith that the Cardinall might also haue abstayned from mentioning Iustinian because he shewed himself to be Superiour some way to the Pope first in banishing Siluerius after in imprisoning Vigilius wheras the Cardinall had also produced the testimony of the Bishop of Patera who vpon the banishment of Pope Siluerius came to Iustinian and protested Gods iudgment against him saying that though there were many Kings yet there was not one alone as he who was expelled from his Seat was Pope ouer the Church of the whole world meaning that there was not one King alone ouer the whole world as there is one Pope or vniuersall Pastour ouer the whole Church M. Andrews answereth thereto Non tam curandum c. It is not to be so much regarded what the Bishop said as what Iustinian did And againe presently after Facta cùm videamus verba quid audiamus vel Paterensis vel Cardinalis seeing we see the facts of Iustinian why should we harken to the words eyther of the Bishop of Patera or of the Cardinall 42. So he arguing as you see far more simply absurdly then it could haue bene belieued or imagined of D. Andrews if he had not himselfe published this in print For if this kind of argument may passe for good what hath there euer bene in the world so wickedly done that may not be iustifyed For howsoeuer it hath byn or may be reprehended by holy graue or learned men those that list to maintayne the fact may say with this Doctor facta cùm videamus verba quid audiamus And when our Sauiour Christ said to the Iewes of those who sate vpon the Chayre of Moyses Quae dicunt facite c. Do what they say but not what they do might not some haue answered according to this Doctors rule facta cùm videamus verba quid audiamus But to the end that his absurdity may the better appeare let vs consider a little the manner quality of these facts of Iustinian Thus then passed the matter 43. Agapetus the Pope Predecessour to Syluerius being at Constantinople and hauing in the presence of the Emperour Iustinian conuinced the hereticall Bishop of that Citty called Anthymus deposed him and ordayned Mennas Bishop in his place wherwith the hereticall and wicked Empresse Theodora wife to Iustinian and speciall Patronesse of Anthymus was so highly offended that she neuer rested to seeke the restitution of Anthymus and the expulsion of Mennas and to that end Agapetus being shortly after deceased she made great instance to Siluerius his Successour to obtaine it of him and being flatly denyed she practised his ouerthrow and caused him to
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
Pope for that he would not by any meanes suffer the rules of the Canons to be violated in that point Secondly that Anatolius the Bishop of Constantinople in whose fauour that Canon was made being most seuerely reprehended by Pope Leo for his ambitious attempt excused himself laying the fault vpon the Clergy of Constantinople and affirming in Apostolici Praesulis totum positum potestate that all the matter was in the power of the Apostolicall Prelate that is to say of Pope Leo. Thirdly that the Emperour Leo who succeeded Martian before Pope Leo dyed attempting within a few yeares after to obtayne the same priuiledges for the Church of CoÌ„staÌ„tinople in the tyme of Pope Simplicius was flatly denyed them and that it was declared vnto him by Probus Bishop of Canusium the Popes Legat nullatenus posse tentari that it might by no meanes be attempted 13. Finally Gelasius also signifyeth that Acatius Bishop of Constantinople who raysed the Schisme wherof he writeth and was therefore excommunicated by Pope Felix was himself so subiect obedient to the Roman Sea before he fell into that schisme that he procured the Pope to censure and depriue the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch yea and was himself executor of the Popes sentence against them and that therefore falling also himself afterwards into the fellowship of the condemned Bishops vpon whome he had executed the Popes sentence of condemnatioÌ„ he deserued no lesse to be condemned then they All this witnesseth Gelasius whereby it appeareth euidently that from the tyme of the Councel of Calcedon to his raigne which was about 40. yeares the Canon whereupon M. Andrewes relyeth was not held to be of any waight for the exemption of the Church of Constantinople from the subiection of the Church to the Roman Sea For if the Canon had then had any such force neyther would the Emperour Martian haue hyghly commended Pope Leo for resisting it nor Anatolius in whose fauour it was made would haue excused himself for procuring it and acknowledged the matter to depend wholy vpon Pope Leo's determination neyther should Leo the Emperour haue needed to haue renewed that suit to Pope Simplicius neyther yet would Acatius haue yielded as he did for a tyme to obay the Pope and to execute his sentence vpon other Grecian Bishops 14. Furthermore albeit this schisme raysed by Acatius continued in the Church of Constantinople some yeares after his death during the raigne of two Hereticall Emperours to wit Zeno and Anastasius which was about 40. yeares yet diuers Grecian and Orientall Bishops which were partakers of the sayd schisme made earnest and humble suit in the meane tyme to Pope Symmachus in a generall and coÌ„mon letter with the tytle or superscription of Ecclesia Orientalis c. to be restored to the vnion of the Roman Sea acknowledging Symmachus not only to be the true Successor of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles but also to feede Christs sheep committed to his charge per totum habitabilem mundum throughout the whole habitable world And as soone as the wicked Emperour Anastasius was dead who was stroken by Gods iust iudgement with a thunderbolt and the worthy and Catholike Emperour Iustinus chosen in his place as well Iustinus himself as also a Synod of Bishops assembled in Constantinople togeather with Iohn Bishop of that Sea demanded of Pope Hormisdas who succeeded Symmachus to be reconciled to the Sea Apostolik and afterwards the sayd Bishop of Constantinople sent a profession of his faith to Hormisdas acknowledging that the Catholike Religion is alwayes kept inuiolable and sincere in the Apostolicall and Roman Sea by reason of Christs promise to S. Peter when he said Tu es Petrus super hanc petram c. 15. Moreouer he further protested that he would during his life admit and follow all the doctrine and decrees of that Sea and remayne in the communion thereof In qua saith he est integra Christianae Religionis perfecta soliditas wherein there is sincereâ— and perfect solidity of the Christian Religion Finally hauing promised to raze the name and memory of Acatius who had byn cause of the former schisme out of the holy Tables that is to say out of the number and Catalogue of the Bishops of Constantinople which was wont to be read in the tyme of the diuine Mysteries he concluded that if he should at any tyme vary from this his profession he vnderstood himselfe to be comprehended in the number of those whome he had anathematizâ—d and condemned This I haue layd downe the more largely to the end we may consider heere whether this Bishop of Constantinople and the other Grecian and Orientall Bishops that is to say all the Greeke Church togeather with the most Catholike Emperour Iustinus all which so earnestly sought to be reconcylâ—d to the vnion and obedience of Pope Hormisdas whether they I say had not more regard to the Primacy of the Apostolicall Roman Sea grounded as themselues confessed vpon the expresse words and commission of our Sauiour to S. Peter then to the pretended and supposed equality of priuiledges which M. Andrews saith were granted to the Church of Constantinople by that Canon of the Councell of Calcedon 16. The like may be sayd and clearely verifyed in the ensuing ages for otherwise why would Iustinian the Emperour who as it is euident in the histories in his owne decrees fauoured exceedingly the Bishops and Church of Constantinople suffer Pope Agapetus to depose Anthymus Bishop of that Sea as I haue signified before Why did not either he or the hereticall Empresse Theodora his wyfe or at least Anthymus himselfe stand vpon the equality granted by the Councell of Calcedon Or how can it be imagined that Theodora would afterward labour by all meanes possible as she did perfas nefas to induce the two Popes Siluerius and Vigilius to the restitution of Anthymus if she had thought that they had no iurisdiction ouer him by reason of that Canon Moreouer Mennas Bishop of Constantinople being excommunicated together with Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia by Pope Vigilius pretended not this Canon or the equality supposed by M. Andrewes but submitted himself as also Theodorus did to the authority of the Roman Sea crauing absolution and restitution to the communion thereof 17. Also Eutychias who succeeded Mennas claimed so litle priuiledge for himself or his Sea by this Canon that when the fifth Generall Councell was to be assembled and held there he wrote to Vigilius the Pope requesting him that there might be an Assemblyâ— and conference had praesidente nobil saith he vestra Beâ—atitudine your Beatitude being our president And although some yeares afterwards Iohn Bishop of Constantinople made a new schismeâ— and opposed himself to the Roman Sea taking vpon him the title of Vniuersall Bishop which schisme lasted only during his lyfe yet it is euident by the Epistle of Pope Pelagiâ—s written to him and to
the Schismaticall Synod gathered by him that as well he himself as his predecessor non semel sed saepissim◠not once but very oft had written to the Sea Apostolike protesting that if they had at any time presumed to do any thing against the authority of the sayd Sea they acknowledged themselues to be anathematized or accursed by theyr owne sentence 18. And after the death of the sayd Iohn S. Gregory the great in an Epistle of his to a Sicilian Bishop testifieth that the Bishop of Constantinople in his time being accused of a great delict acknowledged himself to be subiect to the censure or chastisment of the Sea Apostolik in case he were guilty whereupon S. Gregory saith Nam quòd se dicit Sedi Apostolicae subijci siqua culpa in Episcopis inuenitur c. For wheras he saith that he is subiect to the Sea Apostolik if any fault be found in the Bishops I know not who is not subiect vnto it And in another epistle to the same Bishop he saith Quis dubitet eam Sedi Apostolicae subiectam c. Who doubteth but that the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the Sea Apostolyke which as well the most pious Emperour as Eusebius Bishop therof do continually professe So he wherein it is to be noted that these Bishops of Constantinople professed this their obedience to the Roman Sea at such tyme as the Church of Rome was most miserably oppressed by the tyranny of the Gothes and Longobards in such sort that it would haue beene vtterly contemned especially by the Greeke Church if it had vsurped a greater authority then was generally belieued to be due vnto it and to haue byn giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter and his Successors 19. To this may be added the excommunication and deposition of many Bishops of Constantinople by Bishops of Rome as it appeareth in an Epistle of Pope Nicolas the first to the Emperour Michael wherein he nameth 8. Bishops of that Sea deposed by his predecessors and afterwards he himself also gaue sentence of excommunication deposition against Photius Bishop of the same Sea which sentence Basilius the Emperour executed for feare of incurring the censures of the Sea Apostolike as he himself testified in the 8. generall Councell And when Photius was afterwards by his owne subtile practise restored to his Sea he was agayne deposed by Pope Stephanus and such was the reuerence and respect that the Clergy and Nobility of Constantinople bare to the Sea Apostolike that they would not admit one of the bloud Royall called Stephanus to succeed Photius vntill they had written to the Pope to haue his confirmation thereof Moreouer three generall Councels to wit the 6.7 and 8. being after S. Gregoryes tyme assembled and held in Greece and two of them in Constantinople it self the Popes Legats and not the Bishop of Constantinople were Presidents therof which neyther the Greeke Emperours nor those Bishops would haue permitted if they had byn perswaded that the Councell of Chalcedon had exempted the Church of Constantinople from the Popes Iurisdiction or made the same equal with the Roman Church 20. And albeit after S. Gregories time diuers hereticall Emperours and the Bishops of Constantinople during their raigne caused diuers schismes and separated them selues from the vnion of the Roman Sea yet when Catholike Emperours and Bishops succeeded they returned to the vnion and obedience thereof in so much that not only the Embassadours of the Emperour Petrus Altisiodorensis but also the two Patriarkes of Constantinople and Hierusalem with the Delegates of the two other Patriarks of Alexandria and Antioch came to the great Councell of Lateran held at Rome in the yeare of our Lord 1215. and subscrybed to the Catholike doctrine concerning the Vniuersall Authority and Primacy of the Sea Apostolike 21. And againe 200. yeares after in the yeare 1459. the Greeke Emperour Ioannes Paleologus and Ioseph Bishop of Constantinople togeather with the Legates of the other 3. Patriarkes of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem besids many Grecian Bishops Abbots and other learned Prelats came to a Generall Councell held by Pope Eugenius at Florence and there hauing first maturely debated amongst themselues the questiō of the Popes Supremacy according to the testimonies not only of the holy Scriptures but also of the ancient Greeke Fathers they receiued and with their hands and seales confirmed the Catholike doctrine as well concerning that point as all other wherein they had in the tyme of the former Schismes dissented from the Roman Church as I haue signified more at large in the first Chapter of my Supplement where I proposed also to be considered that presently after their reuolt from this solemne vnion made at Florence God punished the Empyre and Church of Constantinople with that lamentable and miserable captiuity wherein it hath euer since remayned 22. And thereto I will now also add for the conclusion of this point what S. Antoninus obserueth in his history concerning the iust Iudgements of God vpon the Church of Constantinople before the fall of the Greeke Empyre to wit that whereas the Bishops of that Sea had dyuers tymes most ambitiously and proudly impugned the authority of the Roman Church by the fauour and help of the hereticall Emperours God so disposed that in the end the said Emperours became the instruments of his iustice to punish their pryde especially from the tyme of the Emperour Constantin called Monomachus who though in despyte and hatred of the Roman Church he graced the Bishop of Constantinople called Michaël not only with extraordinary priuiledges and ensygnes of honour which he granted as well to his person and successors as to his Sea but also with the tytle of Vniuersall Patriarke of the whole world and all Papal authority leading also his horse by the brydle to his pallace because he had vnderstood that the Emperours of the West had done the like honour and seruice to some Popes neuertheles perceauing afterwards that the people did by this occasion beare such reuerence and respect to Michaël that the Imperiall state might be endangered as he conceiued in case any controuersy should fall out betwixt the Church and the Empyre he publikely degraded and disgraced him depriuing him of all those ensignes tytles and priuiledges wherewith eyther he or any other of the Emperours his predecessors had endowed the Church or Bishops of Constantinople 23. And from that tyme forward as S. Antoninus testifieth the Patriarks of that Sea became very slaues to the hereticall Emperours and were put out and in by them at their pleasure whyles in the meane tyme the Roman Church ouercomming all her enemies tryumphed ouer the malice and tyranny of her oppressors enioying the stability security and maiesty which she still possesseth wherein the prouidence and iustice of Almighty God is euidently seene as well in conseruing the Sea Apostolike according to his promise to S. Peter as also in
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
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
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
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
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-fellow-Bishops abroad and especially to the Sea Apostolike to informe
Anastasius who then was Pope how necessary it was for the Church of Africk that such Donatists as being Clergy men should returne to the vnity of the Catholike Church might be receiued and admitted without preiudice to their former dignityes if the Catholike Bishops that should receiue them should thinke it conuenient notwithstanding a Decree made to the contrary before in another Synod held beyond the seas whereby it appeareth that notwithstanding the great need which the AfricaÌ„ Church had of this decree as they signifyed yet they would not ordayne it without his knowledge and consent or rather as it seemeth they expected his leaue and order to do it and no meruail seeing that in other Synods and namely in the next following in the tyme of his immediate successor Innocentius of whome I am now to treat the African Bishops craued confirmation of their decrees from the Sea Apostolike vt statutis say they nostrae mediocritatis etiam Apostolicae Sedis adhibeatur auctoritas c. That the authority of the Sea Apostolike may also be added to the statutes of our mediocrity to conserue the saluation of many and to correct the peruersity of some 71. Thus wrote they to Pope Innocentius giuing clearely to vnderstand not only that the validity of their decrees depended vpon his confirmation but also that the conseruation of the faithfull in the true faith and the correction of peruerse and obstinate heretiks did specially belong to his care and proceed from his authority This will further appeare by another Epistle written to the same Pope Innocentius by them in another Synod held at Mileuis as also by his answere to them Thus then they wrote Quia te Dominus gratiae suae praecipuo munere in Sede Apostolica collocauit c. Because our Lord hath by his speciall guift of his grace placed thee in the Apostolicall seat and ordayned thee to be such a one in these our tymes that we should rather coÌ„mit the fault of negligence if we should conceale from thy Reuerence those things that are to be suggested for the Church then that thou canst eyther disdayne them or contemne them therefore we beseech thee to vse and apply thy Pastorall diligence to the great dangers of the weaker members of Christ c. So they whereby they shewed sufficiently their opinion concerning as well the worthynes of his person as his Pastorall power and authority ouer all the members of Christ as it will more euidently appeare by his answere whicâ— was this 72. Diligenter congruè Apostolico consulitis honori c. You do diligently and conueniently prouyde for the Apostolicall honour I meane the honour of him who besides other intrinsecall things hath the sollicitude or care of all Churches to declare what sentence is to be held in doubtfull matters wherein truely you follow the rule that you know hath bene kept with me alwayes throughout the whole world c. So he and a litle after he saith further that as often as there is question of matter of faith all Bishops ought to referre all that which is for the generall good of the Church honourâ— giuing to vnderstand that all Episcopall honour and dignity and other Ecclesiasticall authority proceedeth immediatly from the visible head of the Church vnder Christ that is to say S. Peter and his successors and that therefore the coÌ„demnation of heresyes determination of all doubts in faith ought to be expected and required specially from them 73. And to the end that M. Andrews may know that Pope Innocentius did not in this vrge his owne Apostolicall authority more then S. Augustine and the other African Bishops approued I wish him to read an Epistle of S. Augustine and Alypius where hauing sayd that relations were sent ex duobus Concilijs Cathaginensi Mileuitano ad Apostolicam sadem from the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the Sea Apostolike they add afterwards concerning the answere of Pope Innocentius ad omnia illa rescripsit â—o modo quo fas erat atque oportebat Apostolicae sedis Antistitem he to wit Innocentius wrote backe or answered to all things in such sort as was conuenient and as the Bishop of the Apostolike Sea ought to do So they approuing as you see not only the substance and matter of his Epistle but also his Apostolicall manner of writing acknowledging it to be fit for a man of his Apostolicall dignity So that it appeareth as well by the Epistle of the African Bishops to Pope Innocentius as also by his answere to them and their approbation thereof that the Bishops of Rome in those dayes had and exercysed a supreme authority in the confirmation of Synods resolution of doubts and condemnation of heresyes and heretikes 74. Whereof there occurred at that tyme a notable example in the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy for although the African Bishops did particulerly condemne it in their prouinciall Synods which could not prescrybe lawes to the whole Church yet the generall and vniuersall condemnation thereof throughout the world proceeded from the authority of the Sea Apostolyke and the seuerall sentences of the two Popes Innocentius an Zosimus which they signifyed in their letters not only to the Bishops of Africk but also to all Bishops vniuersally in respect of the vniuersall care and authority they had ouer the whole Church And therefore S. Augustine saith that the heretikes Pelagius Celestius were toto Christiano orbe daÌ„nati condÌ„ened throughout all the Christian world by the vigilaÌ„cy of the Episcopall Synods of Africk etiaÌ„ à Venerabilibus Antistitibus Apostolicae sedis Papa Innocentio Papa Zosimo and by the venerable Bishops of the Apostolick Sea Pope Innocentius and Pope Zosimus 75. Thus saith S. Augustine which his great friend Possidius Bishop of Calama who wrote his life confirmeth and explicateth notably signifying that the 2. Popes InnoceÌ„tius and Zosimus did at the great instance of the Councell of Africk cut off the Pelagians from the members of the Church and by letters directed to the Churches as well of Africk as of the East and West iudge them to be held as accursed and to be auoyded of all Catholikes Et hoc tale saith he de illis Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae pronuntiatum iudicium etiam pijssimus Imperator Honorius audiens sequens c. and the most pious Emperour Honorius hearing and following this such a notable IudgmeÌ„t of the Catholike Church of God pronounced against them condemned them by his lawes and ordayned that they should be held for heretikes So he wherein three things are specially to be noted The first that the Pelagian heresy was condemned vniuersally by the authority of the Sea Apostolike to wit by the sentence of the Popes Innocentius and Zosimus signified by their letters not only to the Churches of Africk but also to all other Churches in which respect S. Augustine also in his foresaid Epistle to Optatus
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
c. postquam ei totius gubernacula tradidistis You giue him the gouerment of the particuler Church of Rome after you haue giuen him the gouernement of the whole 14. So that he suposeth here that not Christ but we haue giuen him both the one and the other to wit the particuler after the generall whereby he seemeth also to affirme that S. Peter was not Bishop of Rome otherwise then in our conceit and by our gift adding withall a strange parenthesis quasi ea totius pars non esset as though the same particuâ—â—e Church of Rome were not a part of the whole as who would say that S. Peter could not be gouernor both of the whole Church and of a particuler Church wherein he argueth as wisely as if he should say that a Bishop of Ely could not be Gouernor of the particuler Church of Ely and of the whole Diocesse or that a Bishop of Canterbury could not be Gouernour of that Bishoprick and Prymate of England or that a generall of an Army could not gouerne a particuler Company and be Generall of the whole Army 15. But will M. Andrewes trow you be so absurd to say in good earnest that S. Peter was not gouernor of a particuler Church or that we only meaning the Catholikes of this age haue made him so Truly if he affirme this and will stand to it he is not to be confuted by arguments but confounded by blowes as a mad man that had need to be beaten into his witts hauing as Aristotle sayth of some as much need of punishment as he should haue of sense that should deny the snow to be white for I thinke there was neuer any thing more clearly testified by all the Fathers of the Church Councells Historiographers Ecclesiasticall and prophane vndoubted monuments of Antiquity and all manner of Testimony then that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome especially seeing that the continuall succession of Bishops in the Roman Sea from him euen to the present Pope Paulus Quintus doth demonstrate and as I may say proclayme the euidence thereof And therefore I must needes imagine that M. Andrews hath some other meaning then his wordes import but whatsoeuer it is he sheweth by his obscure doubtfull and impertinent manner of wryting that he hath caput morbidum and verticem malè sanum as you heard him say of S. Peter in the last Chapter 16. And this might suffice for answere to his glose vpon the place of S. Maximus but that I cannot omit to say something to the two doubts he maketh to wit whether this Maximê° was he that was Bishop of Turin whether there were SermoÌ„s made purposely of the Apostles in his tyme both which doubts the ancient Gennadiê° who wrote in the same age may wel resolue seeing that in his booke de viris illustribus he writeth that Maximus Bishop of Turin wrote certayne Tracts in prayse of the Apostles which are these verie Homilies whence this testimony is taken hauing mentioned diuers other Tracts and Homilies vpon the Natiuitie of S. Iohn Baptist S. Eusebius of Versels and S. Cypriâ—n also of the passion of Christ and the fast of Lent of the Crosse Sepulcher and Resurection of our Lord which are also to be seene in his works vnder the tytle of homylies he concludeth Scripsit etiam homilias multas c. He to wit Maximus wrote also many Homilyes of the Natiuity of the Theophany which we call the Epiphany of Easter and of Pentecost c. besides diuers others which I haue read and do not remember So he 17. Wherein it is to be noted for the resolution of M. Andrews his doubts that S. Maximus who was Bishop of Turin wrote homilyes in prayse not only of the Apostles but also of diuers other Saints and vpon diuers feasts which M. Andrews may belieue because it is testified by one that might know it well for that he wrote about the yeare of our Lord 490. which was the same age wherein S. Maximus liued who died as Gennadius also witnesseth in the yeare 420. about ten yeares before the decease of S. Augustin which I note by the way to put M. Andrews in mynd of a notable scape ouersight not to call it a flatly in his former answere to a place of S. Augustine wherof I treated in the last Chapter where you may remember he affirmed very confidently that tempore Augustini non fiebant Sermones de tempore In S. Augustins tyme there were no sermons made de Tempore So that you see he is found to be minus habens and taken tardy in euery thing and not able to giue any reasonable satisfaction or answere to any one place of ten alleadged by the Cardinall in one Chapter 18. And yet forsooth in the preamble to his answere of those places he maketh so light of them as though he could blow them away all with a blast for thus he saith Vnum hoc peccant omnia c. they haue all this one fault that they bring nothing which may not straight be graunted except perhaps some litle word about the which I do not meane 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contend in words So he But if this be true how chanceth it that the poore man hath bene so puzled in the answere of these places that he hath bene faine so to trifle wrangle cogg and lye as you haue heard Hath some litle word trow you that hath occurred now and then and could not be graunted driuen him to so hard an exigent But let vs hear what he saith may be graunted and what denied in those places Nam nec primatum saith he negamus Petri c. For we do not deny the Primacy of Peter nor the names which do signify it but we demand the thing or matter it selfe now in question that is to say his earthly Monarchy Thus saith he seeming out of his bountifull liberality to graunt that which he seeketh to ouerthrow as much as in him lyeth yea denying that in effect which he graunteth in words and reducing all his dispute to a playne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say a word-warre or a contention about words which neuertheles he professeth to auoyd 19. You see he graunteth the primacy of Peter yet when it is vrged against him out of the Fathers in the places aboue mentioned he laboureth to ouerthrow the ground from whence they deduce it For whereas they teach that Peter had the primacy because he was the foundation of the Church and had a speciall Commission giuen him to feede Christs sheepe he goeth about to proue that Peter was no more the foundation of the Church then the rest of the Apostles nor otherwise Pastor thereof then they whereupon it must needs follow that he was not their primate nor had any more gouernement ouer the Church then they Wherein then consisteth his primacy which the Fathers teach and deduce from the
pag â—09 A pecuniary Pastour 210. Confuteth himself 220. A meere wrangler pag. 222.268 His inference of Quidlibet ex Quolibet pag. 233. His Cripticall Cauill against S. Ephrem 23â— His Goggery pag. 241. His abuse of Sâ— Epiphanius 254. Of S. Ambrose 269. His euill fortune 274. His clipping paring of Fathers authorities when they make against him 278. His confusion of the Priest with the people Masse with Mattines c. 298. His abuse of Theodoret 307. his scrupulosity in alleaging of Authorityes 323. Pressed with his owne Argument 324. Proueth himselfe a Iew 325. His transgressioÌ„ of the Synodicall Canons of England 333. His silly discourse about prayer to Saints 337. Prodigall of his Rhetorickâ— 343. Wrongeth his Maiesty 349. His erring of malice â—56 His trifling obiections 357.358.359 His changing the state of the Question about the Popes Primacy 362. CoÌ„cerning holy reliques 368. His poore conceipt of S. Iohn the EuaÌ„gelist 370. A iest of his spoyled 374. Triumpheth when he looseth 377. His Dissimulation of matters that most import to be explicated 386.388 His want of paper in text margent to set downe the truth 394. His Lucidum interuallum 405. His abuse of S. Gregory 407. his bad conscience 412. His outfacing of matters when he cannot answere 418. His abuse of the Iesuits 425.426 He triâ—th how neere he can go to the Catholike Religion misse it 430.431 his poore conceyt of the K. Ecclesiasticall Supremacy 459. How it may be in his Pater noster but not in his Creed 460. Excluded by M. Andrews 467. from his Maiesty 471. How he is turned Puritan pag. 477.480 Angell in the Apocalyps for bad S. Iohn to adore him why pag. 370. Appeales to Rome pag. 155. by Anthony Byshop of Fussula 160. allowed by the Primate of Numidia 164. testified by S. Augustine and others pag. 165. by S. Iohn Chrysostome 184. S. Augustine abused by M. Andr. pâ— 4.5.6 his acknowledgment respect of S. Peters Supremacy p. 17. p. 150.159.167.189 his approuing of prayers to Saints 296.297.298 Authority of the Sea of Rome in all ages p. 169.170.173.180.181.188 proued by all the ancient Fathers passim by Origen 198. by S. Hilary 189.200 Authors reason and intention of this Booke p. 2.3 what question handled therin ibid. pag. 4. B M. BARLOW and M. Andrewes disagree about our English Clergies gouernement 422. S. Basils discourse of prayer to Saints 218. of Inuocation of Martyrs 223. Beggary of the Church Clergy of England 457. Ca. Bellarmine abused by M. Andrewes cleared pag. 108.221 355. his meaning about our prayers to Saints and their praying for vs explicated 215. Bishops of the East-church deposed by the Pope pagâ— 53. C CHRIST our Mediatour Aduocate 339. S. Chrisostome proueth S. Peters Supremacy pag. 22. 142. His appeale to Pope Innocentius 184. His testimony for inuocatioÌ„ of Saints 244. Church of the East subiect to the West pag. 49. Church why it is called one Mother pag. 105. built equally vpon the Apostles pag. 144. how it only challengeth the name Catholick 451. Church of England beggarly 457. Collyridians their heresy 255. Constantinople subiect to the Church of Rome pag. 50. Gods Iudgement vpon that Church for her schisme pag. 54. Constitutions of the pretended Bishops of England pag. 330. conuinced of fraud by his Maiesty 332. Conference at Hampton-Court before his Maiesty 332. L. Cromwell Vicar Generall to K. Henry 8. in spiritualibus 469. Councell of Calcedon approued the Popes Supremacy pag. 39.40 Councell of Ephesus head therof 187. Councels why assembled pag 227. Councell of Loadicea forbiddeth Idolatry to Angels 308. Customes Ecclesiasticall of what force validity pag. 293. S. Cyprian proueth the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head thereof 101.104 also the Primacy of S. Peter pag. 106. S. Cyril acknowledged S. Peters Supremacy pag. 17. abused by M. Andrewes pag. 19. D DAMASVS Pope what authority attributed to him by S. Hierome pag. 173. Difference betweene the Primacy of S. Peter and the priuiledges graunted to the Roman Sea 83. Dignity of Gods grace increaseth the value of merit 437. Dioscorus Patriark of Constantinople depriued by Pope Leo. p. 94. E S. EPHREM calumniated by Mâ— Andrews 239. S. Epiphanius abused by M. Andrewes 254. Equality how it is sometimes to be vnderstood pag. 45.46 Equality of obligation requireth equality of care pag. 80. F FATHERS of the Church abused misconstrued belyed and falsified by M Andrewes pag. 5.6.7.18.19.415 passim Father of Lyes M. Andrewes his Father 192. Fall of S. Peter no preiudice to his Primacy pag. 148.149.150 Francis vide Mason G F. GARNET impudently belyed by M. Andrewes 247. Grace of Christ worketh a true inherent Iustification in vs. pag. 391. H HERETICKS the later follow the elder pag. 152. Heresy to condemne prayer to Saints 249. Heresy of the Collyridians 255. Heretikes their tricks to ouerthrow playne places by obscure 279. S. Hierome abused by M. Andrewes pag. 113. how he acknowledgeth S. Peters Supremacy pag. 119. His contradiction of Vigilantius for denying prayer to Saints p. 228. S. Hilaryes proof for S. Peters Primacy pag. 199.200 I IDOLATRY of the Phrygians done to Angells 310. Iesuits belyed by M. Andrewes for not synning 425. Images of Saints vsed in the Church 264. approued by S. Gregor Nissen ibid. Inuocation of him in whome we belieue how it is meant by S. Paul pag. 213. Inuocation of Martyrs â—23 miraculous effects thereby 225. not confirmed by any decree in the primitiue Church why p. 227. warranted by S. Chrisostome pag. 244. Vniuersall in his tyme 245. How the belief thereof is necessary to saluation 248. approued by S. Gregorie Nazianz. 253. by Nissen 264. practised by Theodosius the Emperour 286. defended by S. Paulinus 295. by S. Augustine 296. impugned by Protestants 336.337 Justinian the Emperour his law for the Popes Supremacy pag. 25. His facts against two Popes examined reproued pag. 30. His ignorance pag. 32. His death and repentance pag. 33.36.37 K KEYES and Pastorall Commission giuen to S. Peter not mentioned in the CanoÌ„ of the CouÌ„cell of Constantinople pag. 84. Kings neuer came to the Gouernement of the Church 464. Excluded by a Rule of M. Andrewes 465. King of England taketh his power Eâ—clesiasticall from the Parliament 468. L LAW of Moyses how Christians may ground theron p. 11. P. Leo his controuersy with Martian the Emperour and Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople pag. 62.63.64.70.72.73 His primacy acknowledg by the Councell of Calcedon pag. 90.92 93.94 Locusts that destroy Religious profession perfection are Protestants 450. M Mr. MASON his Register for the Consecration of the first Protestant Bishops confuted In appendice per totum Martian the Emperour his controuersy with Pope Leo pag. 61. Martyrs inuocated 223. miraculous effects therby 225. S. Maximus B. of Turin his homiles of Saints pag. 205. Merits of Christ how we are saued by them 342. Merit of good works granted by M. Andrewes 434.436 Miracles in
generally imbraced in England what other fruit could be expected thereof but confusion tumult and sedition whyles euery gyddy-headed fellow perswading himselfe that he were as much bound to care for the publike good of the Church as the Pastors thereof yea as the supreme head or Gouernour himselfe might intrude himselfe to intermeddle in Ecclesiasticall affayres for the discharge of his conscience and obligation For if his band in that behalfe were equal with the band of Pastors he could not with reason be denyed equality with them in charge and commission seeing that equality of obligation requireth equality and parity of power to performe it for when power of performance wanteth the obligation ceaseth So that a greater power and dignity induceth an obligation of greater care and therefore let M. Andrews consider what a wise and learned proposition he hath made and published to the world and what a good and vigilant Pastour he is who teacheth such dangerous and seditious doctrine 56. And albeit to auoyde this absurdity he should restrayne his generall propositiō to Pastors only and say that whatsoeuer violateth the vnity of the whole Church doth belong equally to the care of all Pastors yet he were no lesse ridiculous then before seeing that he must needs acknowledge an inequality of obligation and care euen amongst them according to their different degrees For if a Patriarke haue iurisdiction ouer Metropolitans and they ouer Bishops and Bishops ouer Priests it is cleare that as their charge and degree is vnequal so also is the obligation of euery one of them different and conforme to his dignity degree and authority And therefore although the office and duty of euery Pastour is as I haue sayd to haue special care of the vnity and peace of the Church yet his obligation in that behalfe must needs be so much the greater by how much his power and authority is greater and he more able to performe it then others his inferiours to which purpose the Prophet saith of a Prince or supreme Pastor Princeps ea quae sunt digna Principe cogitabit ipse super Duces stabit The Prince shall thinke those things which are worthy of a Prince and he shall be ouer Dukes or captaynes So saith Isay of our Sauiour as some expound it or as others say of Iosias King of Iuda 57. But of whom soeuer it is to be vnderstood it is manifest inough that the forme of a good Pastor or Gouernour is prescrybed therein shewing that the Prince being the supreme Gouernour is to imbrace cogitations and thoughtes fit for his estate and as much excelling the cogitations of his Dukes or Captaynes that is to say of his inferiour or subordinate Magistrats as he excelleth them in degree and what thought is so worthy of a Prince as the care of the vnity and peace of his estate wherein consisteth the publyke and generall good of euery Common welth And the like is to be sayd of Pastors and especially of the supreme Pastor of the Church who ought according to the Prophet to haue cogitations worthy of his soueraignty that is to say as much to surpasse other inferiour Pastors in the care of the publike good of the Church as he surpasseth them in power and dignity Well then to conclude if M. Andrews his position may go for currant he may shake hands with the Puritans and lay away his tytle of Lord Bishop become follow Minister with his Ministers in the Diocesse of Ely seeing that there is no reason why he should haue a greater degree and dignity in the Church then they if they be bound to haue as great a care of the Church as he 58. But let vs see how he proceedeth to fortify his assertion in hope vtterly to ouerthrow the Popes Primacy Thus then he saith Quòd enim totius vineae id est Ecclesiae custodiam ab ipso Christo ait Pontifici commissam id est Primatum c. For whereas the Cardinall saith that the charge of all the vineyard that is to say of the Primacy of the Church was committed by Christ himselfe to the Bishop see how it contradicteth the Councell and the sentence of all the Fathers that were there present who with one voyce sayd Siqua essent Romanae Sedis priuilegia ea illi non à Christo nesciebant hoc Chalcedonenses quin à Patribus concessa esse c. If the Roman Sea had any priuiledges the same were granted vnto it not by Christ for they in the Councell of Calcedon knew not that but by the Fathers c. So he grounding still as you see all the force and weyght of his arguments vpon no better foundation then his owne fraud I meane his fraudulent allegation and exposition of that Canon of the Councell wherof I haue amply treated before and now he secondeth his former fraud with a new corruption of the text setting this downe in a different letter for the very words of the Councell siqua essent Romanae sedis priuilegia ea illi à Patribus concessa esse if there were any priuiledges of the Roman Sea they were granted to it by the Fathers whereas neyther those words nor yet the sense thereof are to be found in the 28. Canon which he alledgeth no nor in all the Councell of Calcedon 59. For in these generall words of his are included all the priuiledges that the Sea of Rome had any way eyther by diuyne or human law for any respect or cause whatsoeuer but the Canon speaketh with great restriction to wit of priuiledges granted vpon one consideration only for thus it saith Etenim antiquae Romae throno quòd Vrbs illa imperaret iure Patres priuilegia tribuere For the Fathers did worthily giue priuiledges to the throne of old Rome because that Citty did gouerne Thus saith the Canon far otherwyse then M. Andrews affirmeth who with his siqua comprehendeth all priuiledges whatsoeuer whereas you see the Canon speaketh only of priuiledges giuen to the Roman Church in respect of the Imperiall Seat so that other priuiledges might be giuen thereto for other respects for ought we see in this Canon and the reason is cleare why that consideration of the Imperial Seat was only mentioned and no other to wit because those that penned the Canon saw well inough that the Church of Constantinople could pretend no other reason to demand extraordinary priuiledges but only because the Imperiall Seat which was wont to be at Rome was then remoued to Constantinople 60. Therefore I beseech thee good Reader consider a little M. Andrews his silly discourse concerning this point who hauing sayd as you haue heard that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon knew not any priuiledges granted to the Roman Sea by Christ addeth Quare autem concessa c And why were they granted Was it because Christ sayd to Peter Tibi dabo claues aut Pasce oues meas I will giue thee
the keyes or feed my sheep No but because Rome was then the Seat of the Emperour and gouerned the rest So he and a litle after he concludeth thus Quod ergo habet Roma de Primatu c. Therefore that which Rome hath of the Primacy is not from Christ but from the Fathers and in respect of the Emperours Seat and not for the Sea of Peter 61. VVhereto I answere first that M. Andrews must learne to distinguish betwixt the Primacy of S. Peter and the priuiledges granted to the Sea of Rome for that the sayd Primacy could not be from any but from Christ himselfe whereas the Roman Church may haue and hath priuiledges from men that is to say not only from generall Councells but also from temporall Princes as from Constantine Pepin Charles the Great and other Catholike Princes and therefore M. Andrews argueth most absurdly from the Priuiledges to the Primacy denying that the Primacy was from Christ because the Priuiledges were from men and some of them giuen for humane respects wherin he sheweth himselfe as wyse as if he should deny the regalty and soueraignty of our Kings by reason of the prerogatiues and priuiledges granted to them by the Parliaments or as if he should say that the Church of Christ which is his Spouse was not instituted by him but by men because aswell temporall Princes as generall Councells haue giuen great priuiledges thereto 62. Secondly I say that M. Andrewes is very simple if he see not that the peÌ„ners of the Canon had great reason to auoyd therein all mention of the keyes and of the Pastorall commission giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter as also of the Priuiledges granted to the Roman Church in respect of S. Petâ—rs Sea seeing that the same could not any way further the pretence of the Bishop of Constantinople but rather hinder it For what could he demaund for any of those respects Would M. Andrews haue had him to say that because Christ gaue S. Peter the keyes and commission to feed his sheepe therefore it was conuenient that the Councell should also giue the lyke authority to the Bishop of Constantinople or prefer him before the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch which was in deed his demaund how would this conclusion follow of those premisses Whereas the other consequent was not so euill to wit that because the Roman Church had ben in tymes past priuiledged by reason of the Imperiall Seat it was conuenient that also the Church of Constantinople should haue like priuiledges for the same reason 63. Agayne what should the Bishop of Constantinople haue gayned by mentioning priuiledges granted to Peters Sea Should he not haue hindred his owne cause thereby and pleaded against himselfe for Alexandria and Antioch For who knoweth not that S. Peter was Bishop of Antioch some yeares before he came to Rome and that he made his disciple S. Marke Bishop of Alexandria in which respect those two Churches had alwayes the preheminence before all other next after the Roman seeing then the Bishop of Constantinoples pretence was no other but to be preferred before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch he had no lesse reason to forbeare all mention of Peters Sea and of the priuiledges granted thereto then M. Andrews had in setting downe the substance of the Canon to conceale and omit all that which would haue discouered his fraud and ouerthrowne his cause I meane that the second place after Rome was granted by that Canon to the Church of Constantinople and therefore he was not so simple to touch that string which would haue mard all his musick as it hath been partly signifyed before and will further appeare by that which followeth 64. For hauing sayd that which you haue heard before concerning priuiledges granted by the Fathers to the Roman Sea because Rome was then the Imperial Citty he addeth in sua autem iam potestate esse ex eadem ratione c. The Fathers of the Councell signifyed that it was now in their power for the same reason seeing that Constantinople did enioy both the Imperiall Seate and Senate to aduance it also to equal dignity and for as much as it was equall in all other things to make it equal also in Ecclesiasticall matters and to vse their owne words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say to be magnifyed as Rome was So he wherein he not only falsifieth the sense and meaning of the Canon in that he maketh it to giue an absolute equality to the Church of Constantinople with that of Rome but also craftily leaueth out all mention of the second place after Rome which was granted to the Church of Constantinople by that Canon doth immediatly follow the Greeke words which he alledgeth and ouerthrow all the equality that he pretendeth to be mentioned there for after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these words do follow immediatly in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in our Latin copyes is very well translated word for word secundam post illam existentem that is to say being the second after it whereby it is signifyed that the Church of Constantinople which had wont to haue an inferiour place to diuers other Churches should from thenceforth be the second after Rome And did not M. Andrews trow you see this in the Greeke and Latin And if he saw it with what conscience could he so deepely dissemble it as not only to leaue out all mention of it but also to make an equality and parity in dignity and in all things els betwixt the Churches of Rome and Constantinople Wheras the words which he concealed do make it cleare that the equality mentioned in the Canon must needs be vnderstood only according to distributiue iustice that is to say without impeachment or preiudice of the different degrees and dignityes of the two Churches as I haue amply declared before 65. And as for the Greeke words which he cyteth to fortify his forgery they do not extend so far as he would stretch them I meane to make a parity and equality in dignity for whereas the Greeke text saith that Constantinople should be magnifyed as Rome was the same may very well stand with the foresayd equality which distributiue Iustice ordayneth to wit with the reseruation of the different dignityes of the one and the other as when a Noble man and a meane man do concurre in one act or seruice to the Common welth and both of them are rewarded and aduanced according to their different qualityes it may truly be sayd that the meane man is aduanced as the Noble man is though not to the same degree for both of them are aduanced as well the one as the other and yet they are not made equal in dignity 66. But now if we take the Greeke wordes alleaged by M. Andrews or the Latin in our translation with the restriction that immediately followeth wherby the second place after Rome is assigned to Constantinople
twelue Apostles were twelue foundations and consequently twelue heads yet as all the twelue were subordinate to Christ so were eleuen of them subordinate to Peter whome Christ made their Primacy or Head which as you haue heard is the expresse doctrine of S. Cyprian teaching that albeit the Apostles had equal power yet Primatus sayth he Petro datur vt vna Ecclesia Christi vna Cathedra monstretur The Primacy is giuen to Peter that one Church of Christ and one chayre may be shewed Whereby he giueth to vnderstand that although the Apostles were all of equal poweâ— in respect of all other Christians who were subiect to them yet they were not equal in respect of Peter to whome our Sauiour himselfe gaue the Primacy to conserue vnity amongst them and in his whole Church And this I hope may suffise for answere to M. Andrews his glosse vpoÌ„ the 2. places of S. Cyprian only I cannot omit to thanke him for the paynes he taketh still to corroborate our cause with his answers obiections for truly if he write many bookes in this vayne we shall not need any other champion to fight for vs but himselfe as it will also further appeare by his answere to the place of S. Hierome whereof I am now to treate 21. The Cardinall cyteth out of S. Hierome these words Inter duodecem vnus eligitur vt capite constitutâ— schismatis tollatur occasio one is chosen amongst twelue to the end that a head being made the occasion of schisme may be taken away by which words of S. Hierome spoken expressely of S. Peter it is cleare that according to S. Hieromes doctrine our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles and consequently of the whole Church of God to which purpose I haue also vrged the same in my Supplement 22. Now then M. Andrews answereth the Cardinall thus Hicronymus idem hic à Cardinale patitur c. Hierome suffreth heere at the Cardinals hands the same iniury that Cyprian suffred before both their places or texts are lamely cyted for Hiâ—rome saith thus At dices tu scilicet Iouiniane super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia c. But thou to wit Iouinian wilt say the Church is founded vpon Peter which the Cardinall doth now so oft and earnestly inculcate vnto vs well following Iouinian therein but what sayth Hierome Although sayth he the same is in another place done vpon all the Apostles and all of them receiue the keyes and the strength of the Church is equal consolidated or established vpon them all yet neyther in respect of the keyes nor of the foundation which are so much esteemed at Rome but for this cause one is chosen amongst twelue that a head being made the occasion of schisme may be taken away Thus far doth M. Andrews alledge the words of S. Hierome and glosse them as you see wherein two things are specially to be obserued for the present the one that he taxeth the Cardinall for wronging S. Hierome now no lesse then he wronged S. Cyprian before in the lame and corrupt citation of their places The other that he would make the Reader belieue that to hold the Church to be buylt vpon Peter was one of Iouinians heresyes and not S. Hieromes doctrine and that therefore the Cardinall teaching and oft inculcating the same doth follow Iouinian of these two points I must needs say somwhat before I passe further for truely they deserue to be well examined and the good conscyence of M. Andrews to be layed open to the world 23. In the first point I must needs say he hath some reason to wit in saying that S. Hierome is as much wronged by the Cardinall as S. Cyprian was before which is most true for neyther of them both receiue any wrong at all by the Cardinall as you haue already seene in the place of S. Cyprian and will easily see also in this place of S. Hierome if you conferre that which the Cardinall left vncyted and is layd downe by M. Andrews with that which followeth and is cyted by the Cardinall for albeit S. Hierome do teach in the words which M. Andrews cyteth that the Church was equally buylt vpon all the Apostles yet it is euident by that which the Cardinall alledgeth that the same is so to be vnderstood that it doth not any way preiudice the Primacy of S. Peter seeing that S. Hierome affirmeth expressely notwithstanding the equality whereof he speaketh that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles and therefore it is manifest that M. Aâ—drews doth vnderstand this equality in other manner then S. Hierome doth who indeed sayth with great reason as also diuers other Fathers do and no Catholike will deny it that the Church was buylt vpon all the Apostles ex aequo equally but in what sense the same is to be vnderstood I would wish Mr. Andrews to learne of Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in his controuersyes where he declareth the same very learnedly perspicuously and briefely as he is wont 24. Thus then he sayth answering to this very place of S. Hierome and certayne others taken out of the Scriptures and obiected by Luther Respondeo tribus modis Apostolos omnes fuisse Ecclesiae fundamenta c. I answere that all the Apostles were three wayes the foundations of the Church yet without any preiudice to Peter The first is because they were the first that did found Churches euery where for Peter did not himselfe alone conuert the whole world vnto the fayth of Christ but some Nations were conuerted by him others by Iames and others by the rest And therefore S. Paul Rom. 15. saith Sic praedicaui c. I haue so preached this Ghospell where Christ was not named least I should buyld vpon other mens foundation And 1. Cor. 3. vt sapiens architectus c. I haue layd the foundation lyke a wyse Architect and another buyldeth thereupon And in this manner all Apostles are foundations alyke which I thinke is meant in the 21. Chapter of the Apocalyps 25. The Apostles and Prophets are also sayd another way to be foundations of the Church to wit because all Christian doctrine was reuealed vnto them seeing that the fayth of the Church is grounded vpon the reuelation which the Apostles Prophets had from God for new articles of fayth are not alwayes reuealed to the Church But the Church resteth and continueth in that doctrine which the Apostles and Prophets learned of our Lord and deliuered to their posterity by preaching and writing and by this meanes we are as the Apostle sayth Ephes. 2. buylt vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets and according to these two wayes Peter is no greater then the rest But as Hierome sayth the strength of the Church is equally established vpon them all 26. The Apostles also are sayd a third way to be foundations of the Church to wit in respect of their gouernement for all of them
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
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
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
acknowledged by all men to be S. Chrysostomes works So that there is no doubt but that the words alledged by the Cardinall are S. Chrysostomes and do correspond to the Greeke text word for word in which respect the testimony caÌ„not be auoyded and shifted of by M. Andrews as eyther corrupt or counterfait 50. And this as it seemeth he knew well inough and therefore deuysed another shift seeming to admit that S. Chrysostome doth say so and yet denying that it maketh for vs. For non quid fecerit sayth he tum aliquis sed quid ex Patrum statuto fecerit c The King demandeth not what some man did then but what he did according to the decree of the Fathers and what at that tyme the Fathers decreed concerning this poynt Where an act or deed only is declared no decree related is a voluntary act as of a matter of free deuotion and not as of a thing necessary to saluation which neuertheles the Cardinall vndertooke to proue Thus farre M. Andrewes turning and wynding as you see to fynd some starting hole if it were possible though he be catcht so fast that he cannot escape away For wheras he flyeth to his former shift of demanding some decree of the Fathers and reiecting their testimony of facts he notably discouereth the weakenes of his cause 51. For as I signifyed before vpon the occasion of the selfe same answere which he made to a place of S. Basil there was not any sufficient occasion why the Fathers of the Greek Church should make any Synodicall decree at that tyme concerning prayer to Saynts seeing that there was no question of it among them but a generall custome and practise thereof euery where as I partly shewed by the testimony of S. Basil the same may be clearly euinced euen by this place of S. Chrysostome especially if we consider what followeth immediatly the words alledged by the Cardinall and me For S. Chrysostome hauing sayd as you haue heard that he which was clad with purple meaning the Emperour stood praying to the Saynts at their tombes that he which weareth the diâ—deme doth pray to the tent-maker and the fisher as his Patrons and protectours addeth Therefore darest thou be so bold to say that their Lord or Mayster is dead whose seruants euen when they are dead are the protâ—ctors of the Kings of the world And this is not only seene at Rome but also at Constantinople for euen here the Sonne of Constantine the Great thought his father to be much honoured if his body were layd before the Gates of the Fisher. Thus sayth S. Chrysostome with much more to the same purpose which I omit 52. For by this it appeareth sufficiently first that the custome and practise of prayer to Saynts was vniuersall I meane both in the Latin and in the Greeke Church in the tyme of S. Chrysostome which he signifyeth expressely by naming the two principall Cittyes and Imperiall Seates to wit Rome and Constantinople where the same was in vre Secondly it appeareth that it was not practised only by some obscure person as M. Andrews seemeth to insinuate when he sayth that the question is not quid aliquis tum fecerit what some man did then but that it was the custome of most worthy and remarkable persons to wit the most Christian and Catholyke Emperours themselues Thirdly it is euident by this place that S. Chrysostome hyghly approued this custome and belieued it to be most necessary and conforme to the Christian and Catholyke verity seing he doth notably vrge and exaggerate the same for the instruction and edificatioÌ„ of the people to shew vnto them not only the great dignity and glory of Gods seruants and Saynts but also the Omnipotent power and diuinity of our Sauiour Christ. 53. Whereupon it also followeth that M. Andrewes and others who deny this article of Catholike religion do deny a notable argument of Christs Diuinity And therefore whereas he contemneth such a fact as this of most Christian worthy Emperours so testifyed approued and vrged by S. Chrysostome as you haue heard to proue that Christ is God it is cleare that he coÌ„demneth the practise beliefe of the Catholyke Church of that age yea and if by the decrees of the Fathers which he demandeth he meaneth their expresse and cleare doctrine deliuered in their workes he condemneth also the decree of S. Chrysostome touching the same And whereas he addeth for the conclusion of this poynt that this fact related by S. Chrysostome was but an act of voluntary deuotion and not of a thing necessary to saluation which he sayth the Cardinall vndertooke to proue he tryfleth notably for neyther doth the Cardinall vndertake to proue any such thing neyther is it materiall for the question in hand whether it be of necessity to saluation or no. 54. The Cardinall vndertooke only to proue that the doctrine of the Protestans reiecting prayer to Saynts is not the faith of the old primitiue Church which he promiseth to proue by the testimony of the Fathers of the first 400. or 500. yeares as it appeareth expressely by his owne words Soquitur saith he vt ostendamus fidem c. It followeth that we shew the faith which the King defends not to be the faith of the old and primitiue Church c. And agayne a litle after hauing signifyed that his Maiesty in his preface admitteth the 3. Creeds the 4. first Generall Councells and the vniforme doctrine of the Fathers of the first 400. or as it is in the English copy 500. yeares he declareth that amongst other poynts of Catholike religion his Maiesty condemneth Prayer to Saynts and the veneration of Reliques as superstitious Whereupon the Cardinall sayth Accipiam Intercessionem Sanctorum c. I will take in hand the intercession of Saynts with the veneration of reliques which if I can shew to be approued by an vnanime consent of the Fathers of the first 400. or 500. yeares I shall withall proue that the King of Englands fayth is not the fayth of the old primitiue Church but the deuyses heresies of late innouatours Thus saith the Cardinall without touching any way the question whether prayer to Saynts be necessary to saluation which as I haue sayd litle importeth for the decision of the controuersy whether the primitiue Church held it to be lawfull or no. 55. For there is no doubt but that many things are and may be lawfull yea very coÌ„mendable and behoouefull to saluation though they are not of such necessity but that a man may in some cases be saued without them as for example the Euangelicall Counsayles and many workes of supererogation as almes fasting and such lyke which consist in acts of voluntary deuotion are conuenient and notable helps though not absolutly necessary to euery mans saluatioÌ„ And therefore albeit his Maiesty seemeth not to bynd himselfe further to admit the vniforme consent of
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
also in the same tyme treating of the perfection of Religious men and hauing said that inestimable glory in heauen is promised them yf they keep their Rules and most grieuous paines prepared for them if they neglect them concludeth Meliusest enim c. For it is better according to the sentence of the Scripture not to vow then to vow and not to performe it Thus saith Cassianus to whome I might add many other witnesses but that it is needlesse seing these may suffice to shew M. Andrews allowing as he doth the Instituts of the Monks of the primitiue Church must needes admit allow religious vowes of Pouerty Chastity Obedience whereto all Religious men are and euer haue bene bound by their Institutes 24. So as it is cleare by all this that in this one point he hath graunted diuers important points of Catholike religion yea and vtterly condemned his owne which denyeth and impugneth all those things practised in Monasticall lyfe according to the first Institutes thereof Besides that it also followeth theroÌ„ that his religion is vtterly voyd of all christian perfection which specially consisteth in the true imitation of Christs lyfe by the obseruation of the Euangelicall Counsells professed and practised in Religious discipline for which cause all the Ancient Fathers placed the highest perfection of christian Religion therein as I haue euidently shewed in any Supplement by the clear testimonies of S. Dionysius Areopagita Eusebius S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Basil S. Chrisostome S. Hierome S. Augustin Sozomenus S. Bernard 25. Therefore it litle importeth for the matter in hand what he iangleth against Monkes for put the case it were true that they were all degenerated from their first institute as it is most false and affirmed by him without any proofe and therfore to be answered with a bare deniall yet it suffiseth for the proofe of that which I haue heere vndertaken that the sayd institut consisted in the practise of many notable and important points of Catholike religion and that he hath by an euident consequent granted and approued the said points together with the institut against the curreÌ„t of the doctrine and profession of all his fellowes in which respect I shall not need to trouble thee good Reader with any answere to the rest of his impertineÌ„t discourse and namely to his friuolous stale obiection concerning the idlenes of Monkes answered fully long since by dyuers Catholiks and namely by Cardinall Bellarmine in his Controuersies whereto I remit him because I am forced to hast to an end for otherwise truly I would not only say somewhat therto but also I would examine and debate with him 2. or 3. other points which he toucheth and especially what was the true cause why monasticall profession was first abrogated amongst the Protestants and why they pretending to reforme the Church in these our dayes did rather quite abolish the institute of Monks theÌ„ seeke to restore it to the first integrity if it were good at the first and only fallen to decay and corruption as he signifieth 26. For whereas he seemeth to giue two causes thereof the one that Monkes were growne to be idle and the other that their idlenes was turned to licentiousnes if that were true those reformers should rather haue sought to redresse the abuse and to reduce the Monkes to their first rules then to antiquate the whole Institute which being grounded vpon the holy Scriptures the expresse Counsels of our Sauiour and the example of his lyfe was ordeyned by the Apostles as I haue shewed in my Supplement and doth conteyn in it all true Christian perfection according to the opinion of all the Fathers in which respect it could not by any humane authority be lawfully abrogated and taken quite out of the Church Besides that it is euident that the Ringleaders in that pretended reformation I meane Luther Oecolâ—mpadius Bucer Peter Martyr Ochinus Michonius Menius Musculus Pelicanus Pomeranus and Munsterus being all of them Votaries that is to say Monkes Fryars and religious men abolished the Institutes of monasticall lyfe only because they themselues were so transported with the fury of lust and sensuality that they could no longer indure the restraint therof in religious discipline 27. And therefore they resolued not only to teach most beastly and fleshly doctrine tending to all liberty of the flesh as that it is no more possible to liue chast then to liue without meate That if the wyfe will not come let the maid come That Poligamy or the hauing of many wiues at once is not forbidden in the new law Yea and that it is not lawfull for a man to pray for the guift of Chastity except he surely know that God will giue it him They resolued I say not only to teach this beastly and Mahometicall doctrine but also to incite men therto by their examples euen with the damnable breach of their owne vowes habentes damnationem quia primam fidem irritam fecerunt hauing damnation because they broke their first faith as S. Paul said of the yong widdowes who after their vowes of chastity had but only a wil and desire to marry wheras these deformers hauing bound themselues both to Chastity and Monasticall lyfe by solemne vowe abandoned both the one and the other and as S. Basil saith of such did seek to couer stupri scelus honesto coÌ„iugij nomine the wickednes of whordome with the honest name of Marriage most of them taking harlots vnder the name of wiues 28. So as M. Andrewes may see who were indeed those Locusts whose slothfull idlenes turning to a froath of licencious lyfe destroyed monasticall perfection and profession amongst the Prostestants to wit the very first Apostles and Euangelists of their Ghospell I meane the votaries aboue named and other such of their humour and crew who being weary of the seuerity of Monasticall discipline became Apostata's and renegats and the better to cloake and excuse their owne Apostasy not only sought to abrogate all monasticall discipline but did also set abroach the new doctrine which M. Andrewes and all other Protestants now professe and therefore it is easie to iudg what good fruit such bad trees could yield and consequently from what spirit as well the abrogation of monasticall profession amongst the Protestants as their whole doctrine proceedeth And thus much for this point 29. The Cardinall to proue that the name Catholike doth most properly belong to them that liue in the vnitie and obedience of the Roman Church alleageth S. Ambrose who hauing declared that his brother Satyrus being by shipwrack cast vpon a coast where there were many Schismatiks called LuciferiaÌ„s asked the Bishop of the place whether he did agree with the Catholike Bishops and explicated the same presently saying id est an cum Romana Ecclesia consentiret that is to say whether he agreed with the Roman Church whereto M. Andrewes answereth that Ambrose