Righteousnes by the which the gates of heauen are opened as it were with keyes sic saith he in singulis quibusque virtutibus and so also in all other vertues and to this purpose is Origens discourse in that homily 5. Now then who seeth not heere that he leaueth the litterall sense altogether in this and lyke a preacher followeth the Allegoricall and Morall thereby to induce his audience to vertue and withdraw them from vice and sinne And will M. Andrewes say that therefore Origens opinion was that Peter had nothing promised peculiarly to himselfe more then to euery perfect Christan So shall euery iust man and womaÌ„ for Origâ—n speaketh of all alyke haue as much Ecclesiasticall power and Iurisdiction as Peter had for I am sure M. Andrewes will not deny but that when Christ promised the keyes to Peter he promised to giue him Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction and power howsoeuer the same is to be vnderstood I meane whether as promised to himselfe alone for the whole Church as we vnderstand it or as promised also to the Apostles equally with him as M. Andrewes and his fellowes would haue it and therefore I say that taking this interpretatioÌ„ of Origen for the literall sense euery faithfull man or woman that is of the elect hath as much power to bynd loose excommunicate and exercise any other Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction as Peter and the rest of the Apostles had yea to be not only Pastors of Christs flock but also chiefe Pastours and to haue summaÌ„ rerum de pascendis ouibus the chiefe charge of feeding Christs sheepe 6. For whereas Origen sayth so of S. Peter in the place now in question M. Andrewes will haue the same to be vnderstood also according to this Interpretation of Origen which as you haue heard includeth not only all the Apostles but also euery other perfect Christian yf he be of the elect and excludeth all those that are not such so as amongst other consequents that follow thereof one may beâ— that it is vncertayne whether M. Andrewes himselfe be a Pastour or no for though he hold himselfe for a perfect Christian which neuertheles I hold to be very doubtfull or rather assure my selfe of the contrary yet it is very vncertayne whether he be one of the elect and if he be not of that number then according to this interpretatioÌ„ if it be literall he hath no pastorall CoÌ„missioÌ„ Besides it would follow that euery Priest should haue as much authority as his Bishop euery Bishop as much as his Metropolitan yea and euery predestinate man or woman that is a perfect Christian should haue as much as any of them or as they all seeing that all they can haue no more then summaÌ„ rerum de pascendis ouibus the chiefe charge and care of feeding Christs flockâ— which Origen saith was giuen to Peter Loe then what good doctrine M. Andrews teacheth heere by this Interpretation of Origen if he will haue it to be litterall ouerthrowing therby all subordination in the Church and coÌ„founding the Ecclesiastical with the secular the Laytie with the Clergy the head with the members I meane the spirituall Pastours or sheapheardes of Christs flock with their sheepe or subiects which truly he would not do if he were not as silly and single witted as a sheepe or at least if he were not more malicious then a sheepe of Christs flock ought to be 7. Therefore to conclude this point seeing that this Interpretation of Origen out of Origen serueth him to no better purpose then the other did before out of S. Augustine S. Ambrose and S. Cyril which only serued to bewray his malice and folly as I haue shewed amply in the first Chapter It is cleare that Origens testimony alleadged by the Cardinall concerning the chiefe Charge of feeding Christs sheepe giuen to Peter remayneth cleare and sound for the Catholiks to be taken in the litterall sense as the Cardinall alleadged it especially seeing it is most conforme to Origens doctrine in other places as in his homilyes vpon diuers Euangelists where he calleth S. Peter Summum Apostolorum verticem the chiefe or supreme head of the Apostles and therefore discoursing also afterwards in the same place of the particuler priuiledges of grace giuen by our Sauiour to S. Iohn the Apostle he preferreth neuertheles S. Peter before him in dignity saying Nemo nos existimet Petro Ioannem preferre c. Let no man thinke that I preferre Iohn before Peter Who would so do for which of the Apostles was hygher in dignity then he qui est dicitur Vertex eorum Who is called and is their head So he And I am sure M. Andrews can not imagine that Origen deduced the supreme dignity of Peter from any other ground or reason but because he had summam rerum de pascendis ouibus the chiefe charge of feeding Christs sheepe and was the foundation of the Church as Origen acknowledgeth in the place alleadged by the Cardinall and diuers others and this shall suffice for him 8. The second place which I am to debate with M. Andrewes is taken by the Cardinall out of S. Hylary in these words O in nuncupatione noui nominis felix Ecclesiae fundamentum c. O happie foundation of the Church in the nuncupation of a new name a rock worthie of the building thereof that is to say of the Church which Rock should dissolue or break the lawes of hell c. Thus far the Cardinall out of S. Hilary to proue that Peter was the foundation and consequently the head of the Church Whereto M. Andrewes answereth thus Ex Hylario felix Ecclesiae fundamentum Petrum out of Hilary the Cardinall obiected that Peter was the happie foundation of the Church Sed inter alia pariter fundamenta but amongst and togeather with other foundations So he Meaning that because all the Apostles are called in the Scriptures foundations of the Church therefore S. Peter was no otherwise the foundation therof then they Wherto I neede not to say any thing heere because I haue largely treated the same point in the third Chapter shewing how the Apostles were called fouÌ„dations of the Church without derogation eyther to Christ who is the first and chiefe foundation or to Peter who is the second immediatly grounded vpon Christ and therefore I remit my Reader thereto 9. And now to go forward with M. Andrewes his answere he addeth the rest of S. Hilaries words thus Dignam aedificatione Christi Petram a Rock worthie of the building of Christ which wordes of Hilary he glosseth thus sed fidei ratione c. but by reason or meanes of fayth sayth Hilary himselfe and not of his person that Peter may depend on the fayth and not the fayth vpon Peter Thus sayth M. Andrews seeking by the help of a lying glosse of his owne to make his Reader belieue that S. Hilary doth so admit S. Peters
the same is to be extended to the new law As well may he say that we are bound to obserue the whole law and so proue himselfe a Iew euacuate the law of Christ as Saynt Paul argueth against those that mayntained the vse of CircuÌ„cisioÌ„ togeather with the faith of Christ. 27. Neuertheles I say not this to exclude all manner of arguments or inferences drawne from the old law to the new that the same remayne within the limits of probability as from the figure to the verity which admitteth many limitations and exceptions but to exclude the obligation of all precepts eyther ceremoniall or Iudiciall which do not in any sort bynd vs now as I haue shewed in the first Chapter of this Adioynder And therefore whereas M. Andrews sayth heere cùm praeceptum acceperimus in lege disertis verbis c. seeing we haue receiued a precept in the law in expresse words c. I say to him that seeing this precept did vndoutedly belong to the ceremoniall law and concerned only the manner of worship to be done to God by Sacrifice he sheweth himselfe a flat Iew in saying that we Christians haue receiued this precept in the law 28. Furthermore he is to vnderstand that albeit we should grant that nothing can be practiced or taught in the new law without some precept or doctrine thereof deliuered by our Sauiour Christ vnto his Church yet he could gayne nothing thereby except he could also proue that all our Sauiours precepts and doctrine are expressely set downe in Scripture which neyther he nor any of his fellowes haue byn able yet to proue or euer shal be it being euident that our Sauiour neyther commanded any thing at all to be written but to be preached and taught saying praedicate euangelium c. preach the gospell to euery Creature and againe docete omnes gentes c. teach all Nations baptizing them c. neyther did the Apostles eyther write any thing of diuers yeares after Christ Ascension or when they wrote deliuer all Christs doctrine and their owne by writing but very many things by tradition in which respect the Apostle himselfe saith tenete traditiones quas accepistis siue per sermonem siue per. Epistolam nostram hold the traditions which you haue receiued eyther by word or by our Epistle by which words of the Apostle the ancient Fathers namely S. Chrysostome S. Epiphanius S. Basil S. Iohn Damascen Oecumenius Theophilactus and the 8. Generall Councell do proue the necessary vse of vnwritten traditions in the Church and amongst the rest S. Chrysostome saith hinc patet c. heereby it is mâ—nifest that the Apostles did not deliuer all things by Epistle but many things without writing eadem fide digna sunt tam illa quà m ista as well those things as these are worthy of the same credit 29. For this cause S. Augustine giueth this generall rule that whatsoeuer the whole Church retayneth whereof the beginning cannot be deduced eyther from the Scriptures or Generall Councells or some later institution the same was vndoutedly deliuered by the Apostles and this he vrgeth very often as a most assured ground and principle agaynst the Donatists and for the same reason not only he but also all other Fathers teach that the generall custome of the Church is an infallible and euident proofe of the truth in any controuersy in so much that he affirmeth it to be insolentissimae insaniae a poynt of most insolent madnes to dispute or doubt of it as I haue declared in the last Chapter which I wish M. Andrews well to obserue as also the other testimonyes of the ancient Fathers produced there concerning this poynt 30. Now then hereupon I conclude two things the one that M. Andrews who as he sayth dare do nothing without a written precept may lay away his scruple in matters that are generally practised by the Church the other that seeing it is euident by these testimonyes of so many holy and learned Fathers as haue byn heere alledged that the whole Church in their dayes practized prayer to Saynts as a thing most beneficiall to men and honorable to God and that they acknowledged the euident and miraculous benefits that grew to men thereby yea vrged the same agaynst the very Gentills and Paynims as inuincible arguments of the diuinity of Christ and of the verity of Christian religion and seeing also that this practice custome and beliefe was then generall when Christian religion most florished I meane in the tyme of the 4. first generall Councells and when the Church abounded most with famous Doctors Pastors and Fathers it must needs be graunted that the doctrine of prayer to Saynts is an irrefragable verity and that according to S. Augustines censure it is no lesse then insolent madnes in M. Andrewes to call it in question and much more to impugne it with such friuolous reasons as he doth and especially with a ceremoniall precept of the Mosaycall law as if he were a Iew and not a Christian seeing that he acknowledgeth himselfe to haue receiued a precept thereby disertis verbis in expresse words which I thinke no good Christian will say of any precept belonging to the ceremoniall or Iudiciall law 31. But M. Andrews goeth yet further and exacteth at least some example of it in the Scripture if there be no precept whereto S. Augustine answereth sufficiently when he sayth to a Donatist who made the lyke demaund about the rebaptization of such as were baptized by heretykes that seeing there is no example or expresse mention of it in Scripture and that Christ hath clearly and expresly recommended vnto vs the authority of his vniuersall Church dispersed thoughout the world the testimony and custome of that Church is to be admitted and imbraced and whosoeuer reiecteth or resisteth the same doth most perniciously resist our Sauiour himselfe against his owne saluation Thus sayth S. Augustine in substance though much more amply who also speaking elswhere of the same point giueth this notable and generall rule that for as much as the holy Scripture doth vndoubtedly recommend vnto vs the authority of the Church etiam in hac re à nobis tenetur Scripturarum veritas c. the veriâ—y of Scripture is retayned by vs in this point when we do that which hath already pleased the whole Church So he And so say I to M. Andrews in this our case to wit that seeing it is euident by the testimony of all antiquity that the inuocation of Saynts was generally admitted and practised by the Primitiue Church and from thence hath descended to our tyme there needeth no example of it in Scripture because the authority of the Church which the Scriptures do expressely recommend vnto vs sufficeth to warrant the same 32. And truly it may seeme strange that M. Andrews or any of his fellowes of the English Clergy do
deny this seeing that they do admit diuers traditions whereof there is neyther precept nor example in the Scripture as the baptisme of infants who do not actually belieue for although the same be very consonant to Scripture as also is prayer to Saynts and all other things which are practiced in the Catholike Church yet the vse and practice thereof is grounded vpon tradition and not vpon the Scriptures as Origen testifyeth saying Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditioneÌ„ accepit c. The Church receiued a tradition from the Apostles to giue baptisme to litle children So he And S. Augustin also to the same purpose saith more plainely thus Consuetudo mâ—tris Ecclesiae in baptizandis paruulis c. the custome of our Mother the Church in baptizing infants is not to be contemned or reputed as superfluous neyther were it to be belieued at all if it were not an Apostolicall tradition So he who also acknowledgeth the same in another place and saith further that if any man do demaund diuine authority for it quamquam quod vniuersa tenet Ecclesia c. albeit that which the vniuersall Church holdeth and hath not byn ordayned by Councells but hath alwayes been reteyned is most rightly belieued to haue byn deliuered by no other but by Apostolicall authority neuertheles we may truly coniecture by Circumcision in the old law what force the Sacrament of Baptisme hath in Infants Thus saith S. Augustine who to answere those that do demand diuine authority for the custome of the Church in baptizing Infants doth not proue or confirme it by any precept or example out of Scripture but only by a probable coniecture drawn from the figure of it in the old law relying principally vpon the tradition of the Church 33. But what need I seeke any other testimony for this matter seeing that Tho. Rogers in the 39. articles agreed vpon by the pretended Bishops and Clergy of England and analyzed into propositions glossed and set forth by him with their publyke approbation doth acknowledge that the baptisme of yong children is in any wyse to be retayned in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ although sayth he we be not commanded by expresse termes to baptize them So he whereupon it directly followeth that M. Andrews hath ouerlashed greatly in saying id tantùm audemus facere de quo praeceptum habemus we dare doe that only whereof we haue a precept Also what precept or example haue M. Andrews and his fellowes in Scripture for the vse of Godfathers and Godmothers and of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme allowed as well by their practice as by the late Queenes Iniunctions yea and by the Ecclesiasticall Canons of the Bishops and Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury made in their Synod held at London with his Maiestyes lycence in the yeare 1603. and published the yeare following by his Maiestyes authority vnder the great Seale of England in which Canons they do not only approue the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme but also professe to follow therein the primitiue Apostolicall Churches the true rules of doctrine coÌ„cerning things indifferent which are consonant to the word of God and the iudgement of all the ancient Fathers so that by their owne confession they retayne the vse of it without eyther precept or example in holy Scripture 34. And now because I haue had this occasion to speake of this constitution I can not omit to aduertise thee good Reader of a notable peece of trumpery and cosenage vsed by that graue Synod in this very Canon whereof we now speake wherein giuing the reason why they retayne the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme they say they do it because the same hath byn euer accompanyed among them with sufficient cautions exceptions agaynst all popish superstition and errour and forsooth that the world may vnderstand from what popish errour they haue freed the same they signify that the Church of England since the abolishing of Popery hath euer held and taught that the signe of the crosse vsed in Baptisme is no part of the substance of that Sacrament and that the infant Baptized is by vertue of Baptisme before it be signed with the signe of the crosse receiued into the congregation of Christs flock as a perfect member thereof and not by any power ascribed to the signe of the crosse c. whereupon they conclude that the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme being thus purged from all popish superstition and errour and reduced in the Church of England to the primary institution of it c. it is to be reuerently retayned and vsed Thus teach they in their foresayd Synod 35. But now we must demand of them where they haue euer read in any Catholyke Authour that the signe of the crosse as it is vsed in the administration of baptisme is any part of the substance of the Sacrament sure I am that all our schoolemen and Canonists and others that haue occasion to treat therof do expressely teach the contrary neyther did euer any learned Catholyke hold or suppose it to be any part eyther of the forme or of the matter of Baptisme which are the essentiall parts thereof but only an ancient and holy ceremony and this is euident euen by the practice of the Catholyke Church approuing the baptisme not only of the midwyfe in cases of necessity but also of any heretike if he haue the intention to do that which the Catholyke Church doth and vseth the true forme with conuenient matter without the signe of the crosse or any other ceremony in the world and albeit the Church vseth to suply the sayd ceremonyes afterwards in such as wanted the same yet it maketh no doubt at all but that they are baptized before and in state of saluation if they dye before the sayd ceremonyes be supplyed whereby it is manyfest that the Catholykes do not take the signe of the crosse to be of the substance or essence of the sacrament 36. But of this I shall not neede to produce any further proofe seeing that those pretended Bishops which were present at this Congregation and made this Canon haue giuen sufficient testimony of the truth in this poynt to no meaner a person then to his Maiesty himselfe as he did publikely testify in the CoÌ„ference at Hampton-court wherein the question concerning the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme being debated betwixt them and the Puritans his Maiesty sayd that he vnderstood by the Bishops yea and found it himselfe to be true that the Papists themselues did neuer ascribe any power or spirituall grace to the signe of the crosse in Baptisme whereupon it followeth that they do not nor euer did account to be any essentiall part of the Sacrament for if they did they should ascribe vnto it a spirituall grace and power as they doe to the essence of
haue amply proued in my supplement so as I conclude that the exception which M. Andrews taketh against the Fathers alledged by the Cardinall for being all of that 4. age is most vayne and friuolous seeing that the consent of the Doctors of any one age is sufficient to determin any matter in controuersy 65. And much more may we content our selues with the vniforme testimony and consent of those of the 4. and 5. age in the tyme of the 4. first generall Councells when the Church most florished and as I haue signified before was best furnished with learned and holy Pastors and Doctors of whome the Cardinall hath cyted no lesse then twelue to wit S. Basil S. Gregory Nyssen S. Ephraem S. Gregory Nazianzen Eusebius S. Chrisostome S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Hierome S. Cyril S. Paulinus and S. Maximus besyds the history of Ruffinus to whome I haue also added Theodoret not inferiour in learning to the rest all which were pillars lights and notable ornaments of the latin and Greeke Church in the 4. and 5. age and all of these being 14. in number alledged by the Cardinall and me 12. haue giuen as you haue heard vniforme and cleare testimony to the doctrine and custome of Prayer to Saynts eyther inuocating Saynts themselues or approuing the publike vse and practise of it in others and albeit the other two to wit S. Ciril and Eusebius do not so expresly speake of the inuocatioÌ„ of Saynts as the other fathers do yet the same is also sufficiently gathered out of their testimonyes as I haue shewed before in the 6. Chapter whereupon I conclude that this doctrine of prayer to Saynts beâ—ing approued practised by so many learned Fathers of the 4. and 5. age it must needs be admitted for an infallible truth 66. Yea but saith M. Andrews there is no vniforme coÌ„seÌ„t of Fathers in this poynt for alij saith he non pauci sunt c. there are not a few others who haue right of suffrage or voyce heerein omitted by the Cardinall So he wherein I doubt not good Reader but thou seest how absurdly he cauilleth and tryfleth for may not the verdict of a whole Iury of Fathers alledged by the Cardinall and not contradicted by any suffice to shew a generall and vniforme consent of the Church in their tyme and will not M. Andrews acknowledge an vniforme consent in the Fathers without a particuler testimony of euery one of them doth he suppose that euery one of them hath written of all poynts of religion and if they haue not whereof there is no doubt shall the sylence of some preiudice the cleare testimony of others so shall we proue litle or nothing at all by the Fathers for there are but very few poynts of religiâ—on whereof euery one of them hath had occasion to write 67. But will M. Andrews his fellowes be content that we exact the lyke of them when they alledge the Fathers as for example the Bishops in their Canon before mentioned concerning the vse of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme doe affirme that they follow therein the iudgement of all the Fathers of the primitiue Church but can they shew trow you that euery Father of the primitiue Church yea or the greatest part of them do particulerly speake of that ceremony sure I am they cannot show it for albeit diuers very ancient and holy Fathers do treat thereof and highly approue it yet many others are vtterly silent concerning the same neuertheles for as much as those that approue it are not contradicted by any of the rest their testimony may well be taken for the vniforme consent of all or truly otherwyse my Lord Bishops will not be able to iustify their assertion and proue that they follow the iudgement of all the Fathers in that poynt Therfore this exception of M. Andrewes is very ridiculous except he can shew that those Fathers whome the Cardinall omitted haue contradicted the testimonyes of the other but this you see he hath not byn able to doe though he hath done his best endeauour thereto with shame ynough to himselfe and his cause 68. S. Augustine writing against Iulian the Pelagian about originall sinne and the baptisme of Infants thought the testimony of 6. Fathers sufficient to conuince him though fyue of them were of the same tyme and age wherein he himselfe liued for whereas the Pelagian falsely pretended that S. Chrysostome made for him S. Augustine answered Absit vt Ioannes Constantinopolitanus c. God forbid that Iohn Bishop of Constantinople should resist so many and worthy Bishops his fellowes especially Innocentius Bishop of Rome Cyprian of Carthage Basil of Cappadocia Gregory of Nazianzen Hilary of France and Ambrose of Milan So he Therefore how much more may we rely vpon the authority of as many more Fathers whereof there were 4. euen of those whome S. Augustine named and he himselfe also one of the number and all of them florished aboue 1100. yeares agoe and haue not byn gaynsayd or impugned by any May we not I say boldly admit their testimonyes for a proofe of the vniforme consent of the Church in their tyme The Scripture teacheth and common practice approueth that 2. or 3. substantiall witnesses may suffice to proue any matter in question and therefore much more may these 12. most learned and holy Fathers suffice to shew what was the practice and beliefe of the Church in their dayes especially seeing that diuers of them speake of publike matters of fact which passed in their owne tyme and knowledge in which respect they cannot be thought to fayne and lye except we shall take them to be voyd both of conscience and common honesty 69. But M. Andrewes addeth further that it appeareth euen in Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe that the Fathers were not all of one mynd concerning prayer to Saynts and for proofe thereof he remitteth his Reader to the Cardinalls controuersyes and particulerly to the tract de beatitudine Sanctorum the first booke and 20. Chapter which truly I haue read diligently and cannot find any thing at all to that purpose except perhaps he meane that the Cardinall signifyeth there the different opinions of the Fathers concerning the manner how Saynts do vnderstand or heare our prayers whereupon it seemeth M. Andrewes inferreth that they differed also in opinion concerning the whole controuersy when neuertheles it appeareth euidently there that they made no doubt whether prayer to Saynts be lawfull neyther yet whether they know our actions but only in what manner they know them and how they heare or vnderstand our prayers touching which poynt and the absurd inference that M Andrewes maketh thereof denying the certaynty of the effect by the vncertainty of the cause or manner of it I haue so amply discoursed before that I shall not need to say any more thereof in this place 70. But that which I wish to be noted
to feed his Lambs and sheep he preferred him therin before all the rest of the Apostles Quia solus saith S. Ambrose profitetur ex omnibus omnibus antefertur The third is that wheras S. Ambrose obserueth three degrees of Christians to wit Lambs litle sheep and sheep all recommended to the Pastorall care of S. Peter he giueth to vnderstand that all sorts of Christians were committed to his charge and gouernment and not the weake only but the most holy also learned and perfect yea euen the Apostles themselues and therefore he saith vt perfectiores perfectior gubernaret 10. This then being S. Ambrose his sense and doctrine concerning the Pastorall cōmission giuen to S. Peter it is most euident that when he teacheth that all Pastours receaued their flocks with S. Peter he teacheth it in the same sense that S. Augustine doth to wit that because S. Peter being supreme Pastour represented the whole Church and receaued the Pastorall authority not for himselfe alone but also for all those who were eyther at that tyme or euer should be subordinate vnto him therefore all other Pastours receaued their authority not only in him as S. Augustine speaketh but also with him that is to say in and with their chiefe Pastour and head And therefore whereas D. Andrews to make a greater shew of parity or equality betwixt S. Peter and other Pastors hath added to S. Ambrose his text those words of his owne nobiscum eas accepit it may passe for a piece of coggery and well discouereth his skill to help the dyce when he is put to his shifts 11. Besids that his vanity and folly notably appeareth in that hauing gayned nothing but rather lost his cause by alledging these two places of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose yet he braggeth thereof afterwards as if he had got a great victory saying in the 214. page that although pasce oues was said in the singuler number and to one to wit S. Peter yet it passed to all and that clariùs id loquuntur Ambrosius Augustinus quà m vt obstrepere possint nouitij nostri Ambrose and Augustine do speake or affirme it more plainly then that our nouices can any way contradict it So he meaning by our nouices the Catholiks as I take it though I know not why he so calleth them neyther do I meane heere to discusse it but will remit to the indifferent Reader to iudge what cause he hath so to brag of these two Fathers and what fidelity he hath shewed in alledging them dissembling the cleare doctrine of the one and corrupting as well the text as the sense of the other and thus much for his first answere 12. In his second he seeketh to retort the Cardinals argument vpon him and to proue the Kings Supremacy by the word pasce which he saith he knoweth will touch the Cardinall to the quick quod scio saith he punget Cardinalem Let vs heare then this sharp argument which I thinke will proue a very blunt one Thus then he saith Negat Cardinalis Primatum Regis c. The Cardinall denieth the Kings Supremacy and yet God said to a King tu pasces populum meum Israel thou shalt feed my people Israel Where no man can deny but that a King was made the Pastor of all Israel yea of the Priests except he will deny them to be part of Israel Thus argueth this learned and sharp Doctor ouerthrowing his owne argument sufficiently by his owne conclusion graunting in effect that if the Priests were not a part of the people of Israel the King was not their Pastor 13. To this purpose then it is to be considered what I haue amply debated in the first Chapter of my Supplement concerning the exemption and sepation of the Priests and Leuits from the temporall and politike State by the expresse words of Almighty God who gaue the Leuits not to the temporall Prince but to Aaron and his children tradidi eos dono Aaron filijs eius de medio populi I haue giuen them saith Almighty God for a gift to Aaron and his children out of the midst of the people Besides that God ordayned expresly that the Tribe of Leui should not be numbred neither yet haue any part or inheritance with the rest of Israel because he had reserued the same for his owne seruice and therfore would himselfe be their possession portion and inheritance So that this being very cleare in the expresse words of the Law which as I also proued was neuer altered but rather confirmed at the institution of the Kings who were expresly bound to obserue the whole law and to obey the high Preist I may say to the Doctor as he said before to the Cardinall atque vel sic iacebit Doctori ratio sua 14. But put the case this were not so yea and that the Preists of the old law had byn subiect to the Kings in spirituall matters wherof I haue already proued the contrary will M. Andrews inferre theron that therfore Kings haue also the spirituall Supremacy in the new law without any new institution or ratification therof by our Sauiour Christ or his Apostles Doth not this great Doctor know that the Mosaycal law was abrogated by the law of grace and that wheras it was deuided into three parts to wit Iudiciall Cerimoniall and Morall the two former vtterly ceased and the third I meane the Morall part contayning the Commaundements remayneth only in force not because it was instituted then but because those Commaundments being grounded on the law of Nature are alwayes in force and therfore ordayned againe to be kept in the new Law In which respect the cōmandment cōcerning the Sabboth doth not now bynd Christians as it was then ordayned and practiced 15. And therfore M. Andrews might aswell introduce Poligamy practised in the old Law as the spirituall supremacy of Kings if we should graunt that they then had any such and with much more reason might he teach abstinence from puddings and other meates made of bloud seeing that we find some commaundements or ordinance therof in the Acts of Apostles wheras there is no one syllable in all the new Testament to proue that Kings haue any spirituall authority ouer the Church it being most euidēt that al those places of Scripture which he or any other doth or can alledge out of the new Testament to that purpose do concerne only temporall obedience to the pagan Emperours or Princes who were then Persecutors of the Church and therefore could not be spirituall heads or Gouernours thereof nor obayed by Christians in spirituall matters And this I say the rather because M. Andrews doth not only heere but also throughout his whole booke seeme to ground his doctrine of the Kings spirituall Primacy specially vpon the law of Moyses as I shall haue occasion to shew further hereafter which sufficiently bewrayeth the beggery and misery of his cause
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
testifyed in the same Epistle to Pope Leo that our Sauiour had committed to him the keeping of his vineyard that is to say of his Church whereto M. Andrews answereth that the vineyard was indeed committed to him but not to him alone sed cum alijs in vinâ—a operarijs but togeâ—ther with other workmen in the vineyard wherein he saith very truely for no man denyeth but that there were other Pastors in the Church besides Pope Lâ—o though we affirme that all other Pastors were inferiour and subordinate to him and I think no man doubteth but that when the charge or gouernment of a temporall Commonwelth is committed to a King or other soueraigne Prince he doth not exercyse it alone but togeather with other Magistrats subordinate and subiect to him and the like we say of the supreme Pastor of the Church that he is not the only Pastor though he be chiefe and supreme which point I haue debated in the former Chapter where I confuted the like answere of M. Andrewes to our obiection of the Pastorall commission giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter 45. Therefore I remit him and the Reader to what I haue discoursed there touching that poyntâ— and wil also ad further heere coÌ„cerning Pope Leo that wheras M. Andrewes granteth his Pastorall authority togeather with other Pastors meaning that he had no more nor other authority ouer the Church then other Bishops had he is easily conuinced by the circumstances of the same place which the Cardinall obiecteth and he pretendeth now to answere for there Dioscorus is accused of three things the first that he had taken vpon him to condemne and depose Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople and Eusebius Bishop of Doryleum against the Canons of the Church The second that whereas Pope Leo had depriued Eutyches the heretyk of his dignity in the Church of Constantinople where he was Abbot of a Monastery Dioscorus had restored him thereto and so irruens in vineam c. breaking into the vineyard which he found notably well planted he ouerthrew it c. The thyrd was that post haec omnia saith the Councell insuper contra ipsum c. And after all this he did moreouer extend his madnes against him to whom the charge or keeping of the vineyard was committed by our Sauiour id est contra tuam quoque Apostolicam Sanctitatem that is to say also against thy Apostolyke Holynes meaning Pope Leo for to him the Councell wrote this 46. Whereby it is euident that the Councell distinguisheth clearely betwixt the authority of Pope Leo and of the two other Bishops Flauianus and Eusebius seeing that all three of them being named as greatly iniured by Dioscorus the offence agaynst Pope Leo is exaggerated much more then the iniury done to the other two and held to proceed of meere madnes fury And albeit mention be made of the vineyard as broken downe and ouerthrowne by Dioscorus in the depositioÌ„ of those two Catholik Bishops yet only Pope Leo who is honoured with the title of Apostolicall Sanctity is acknowledged to haue had the charge of the vineyard committed to him by our Sauiour which had bene said very impertinently of him alone if those other two Bishops had as much charge of the vineyard as he Besids that the Councell testifieth in the same place that Pope Leo depriued Eutiches who was an Abbot in Constantinople of his dignity which he could not haue done out of his owne Diocesse in the Church of Constantinople if as well the Bishop of that Church as Eutiches had not been subiect to him whereto it may also be added that as Liberatê° testifieth this Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople for whose iniurious deposition Dioscorus is here accused by the Councell appealed for remedy to Pope Leo acknowledging thereby that Leo was his superiour and had also an vniuersall authority for otherwyse the appeale from the Greeke Church to him had byn in vayne So that M. Andrewes his glosse allowing to Pope Leo no more authority then to all other Pastors is very absurd and easily conuinced by the text it selfe 47. After this he idly carpeth at the Cardinall for saying that the Councell acknowledged Pope Leo to haue the charge totius vineae of the whole vineyard because totius is not in the text of the Councell Nec totius vineae dicitur saith M. Andrewes sed commoda vox totius Cardinali visum est adijcere neyther is it said of the whole vineyard but the Cardinall thought good to add totius because it is a commodious word for his purpose whereby it seemeth that he would haue some vnwary Reader to imagin that the Cardinall had corrupted the text by adding the word totius whereas there is no such matter for hauing alledged the words of the CouÌ„cell as they are to wit cui vineae custodia à Saluatore commissa est he doth afterwards in his owne discourse and for the explication therof adde totius saying vbi fatentur totius vineae custodiam c. where they to wit the Fathers of the Councell of Calcedon do confesse that the charge of all the vineyard was committed to the Pope Thus saith the Cardinall signifying that the Councell did meane that Leo had the charge of the whole Church which as I haue shewed is most euident euen by all the circumstances of the place 48. And therefore M. Andrewes supecting with great reason that this deuyse would serue him to litle purpose thought best to grant that totius vineae might be sayd in some sense Et vel si totius sayth he nihil iuuaret c. Yea and if it had bene sayd totius vineae it would help him nothing seeing that whatsoeuer doth eyther violate the vnity or trouble the peace of the whole Church ad curam omnium ex aequo pertinet non Leonis solùm doth belong to the care of all men equally and not of Leo only So he signifying that albeit Pope Leo might be sayd to haue had the Charge of the whole Church yet it were to be vnderstood that he had it no otherwyse then all other men haue And why Marry forsooth because all men are equally bound to haue care of the vnity and peace of the Church which truly may passe for a very strange paradoxe howsoeuer he vnderstandeth it I meane whether he extend the word omnium to all men in generall as he seemeth to do or limit it to all Pastors only 49. For if he meane that all men ought to haue care of the vnity and peace of the Church alyke or in equall degree he is most absurd confounding all order gouernment and subordination in the Church seeing that one speciall cause if not the chiefest why God ordayneth Pastors and Gouernours therin was to auoyd schismes and to conserue it in peace and vnity as I haue proued amply in my Supplement I haue also shewed that M. Barlow vrgeth the
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
word mater is applyed to the Church by S. Cyprian therefore Caput cannot be applyed to S. Peter but to the Church Therfore to the end M. Andrews may vnderstand that S. Peter and not the Church it selfe is in this place worthily tearmed by S. Cyprian caput fons radix origo the head the fountayne the roote and the spring he shall do well to consider the ground and drift of all S. Cyprians discourse which the Cardinall in his Apology omitted for breuityes sake and therefore although I haue layd it downe in my Supplement to proue the necessity of a visible head in the Church yet I will take paynes to repeat it heere to ease the Reader of the labour to seeke it there 4. S. Cyprian meaning to shew the cause why the Church is troubled with heresyes and schismes and withall to giue the remedy saith thus Hoc eò fit c. This hapneth because men do not returne to the beginning of truth nor seeke the head nor obserue the doctrin of the heauenly Maister which if any man will well consider and examine he shall not need any longer treatise or arguments to proue it the proofe is easy to be belieued by the compendiousnes or breuity of the truth our Lord sayd to Peter I say vnto thee thou art Peter and vpon this rock I will buyld my Church and the gates of hell shall not ouercome it c. To him also he saith after his resurrection Feede my sheepe vpon him being one he buylt his Church and to him he recommended his sheep to be fed and although after his resurrection he gaue equal power to all his Apostles and sayd as my Father sent me so I send you receaue the holy Ghost c. neuertheles to manifest and shew a vnity he ordayned one chayre and by his authority disposed that the beginning of the same vnity should proceed from one Truely the rest of the Apostles were that which S. Peter was endued with lyke fellowship of honour and power but the beginning proceedeth from vnity the Primacy is giuen to Peter that one Church of Christ and one chayre may be shewed So he 5. And prosecuting still the same matter proueth notably the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head from whence all the vnity of the body is deriued which he sheweth by three excellent similituds of many branches of one tree springing from one roote many brookes of one water flowing from one fountayne and many beames of one light deriued from one sunne concluding his discourse that notwithstanding the amplitude of the Church by the propagation and numerosity of her children and the extension of her parts and members all ouer the world vnum tamen caput est sayth he origo vna c. yet the head is one and the origen or beginning one that is to say Peter vpon whome he sayd before as you haue heard that our Sauiour buylt his Church and to whom he recoÌ„mended his sheep to be fed yea gaue him Primatum the Primacy vt vna Christi Ecclesia vna cathedra monstretur to shew therby one Church of Christ and one chayre and this must needs be the true sense of S. Cyprian in that-place if we will make his conclusion conforme to his premisses and to the whole scope of his intention 6. So that M. Andrews making the Church it selfe to be the roote fountayne and head whereof S. Cyprian speaketh doth most absurdly confound the tree with the roote the riuers with the spring the body with the head and lameth all that most excellent discourse of S. Cyprian yea ouerthroweth the very foundation thereof denying all that which S. Cyprian layd for his ground to wit the Primacy and supreme authority of S. Peter from whence he expresly deryueth the vnity of the Church as he doth also most clearely els where saying in his Epistle to Iubaianus Nos Ecclesiae vnius caput radicem tenemus We haue or do hold the head and roote of one Church and after declaring what roote and head he meaneth he sayth nam Petro primùm Dominus super quem c. For our Lord gaue this power of binding and loosing to Peter vpon whome he buylt his Church vnde vnitatis origâ—nem instituit ostendit and from whence he ordayned and shewed the beginning of vnity And agayne after in the same Epistle Ecclesia quae vna est super vnum qui claues accepit voce Domini fundata est The Church which is one was by the speach of our Lord founded vpon one who receaued the keyes So he Whereby it euidently appeareth that his constant and manifest doctrine is that all the vnity of the Church proceedeth from the vnity of her head to wit S. Peter and his chayre and that the Cardinall affirming that S. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne roote of the Church gaue vs his true sense and M. Andrews making the Church it selfe to be the head fountayne and roote of it selfe is very absurd and wholy repugnant to S. Cyprians doctrine or meaning 7. And this will be more cleere if we examin a little better M. Andrews his glosse vpon the text of S. Cyprian whereby he laboureth to proue that the Church it selfe and not S. Peter is the head fountayne and roote whereof S. Cyprian speaketh For hauing layd downe S. Cyprians words to wit sic Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa c. so also the Church shyning with the light of our Lord reacheth forth her beames ouer the whole world he noteth that the Father sayth Ecclesia non Petrus the Church not Peter and no meruaile seeing he had no occasion then to name Peter but the Church only for although the Church being a visible body hath alwayes a visible head vnder Christ to wit Peter and his successors yet S. Cyprian doth speake of it heere as of a body considered a part not including the head meaning afterwards to speake of the head as he had in lyke manner done before declaring from whence the vnity of that body is deriued as it will appeare further heereafter 8. In the meane tyme let vs see how M. Andrews goeth on with the text Vnum tamen lumen est c. Yet it is one light which is euery where spread neyther is the vnity of the body separated heere now he asketh two questions the one whether Peter be the light and the other whether he be euery where dispersed whereto I answere that although he is not the light of the Church as he was a particuler man yet he may well be so called not only as he was an Apostle seeing that our Sauiour sayd to all the Apostles Vos estis lux mundi you are the light of the world but also much more as he is the Vicar and substitute of our Sauiour who being lux vera the true light imparteth vnto him his owne excellencyes so far
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
hath these wordes Petrus super queÌ„ Dominus fundauit Ecclesiam c. Peter vpon whome our Lord founded his Church and in another Epistle to Pope Damasus he affirmed the same not only of him but also of the chayre of Peter saying Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae id est Cathedrae Petri communione consocior super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio I following no first or chiefe but Christ do coÌ„municate with thy Beatitude that is to say with the chayre of Peter vpon that Rock I know the Church is buylt Finally in the selfe same booke against Iouinian where he answereth the former obiection he calleth S. Peter Petram Christi the Rock of Christ saying O vox digna Apostolo Petra Christi O speach worthy of an Apostle and the Rock of Christ signifying thereby that S. Peter was the Rock whereupon Christ buylt his Church 32. So as it cannot be denyed that S. Hierome both firmely belieued and expressely taught that our Sauiour buylt his Church vpon Peter wherein you haue already seene that he agreeth with S. Cyprian who wrote long before him and with the whole Councell of Calcedon which calleth S. Peter Petram crepidinem Ecclesiae the rock and top of the Church and rectae fidoi fundamentum the foundation of the true faith Besids that you may also see in Cardinall Bellarmins controuersyes that he agreed therin with Origen S. Athanasius S Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Epiphanius S. Chrysostome S. Cyril Tertullian S. Hilary S. Ambrose S. Maximus S. Leo S. Gregory the Great and other learned Fathers 33. Wherupon it followeth that Iouinian did not obiect the same as his owne singular opinion which he knew well would be litle esteemed and was to be proued and not obiected but as a matter generally acknowledged by Catholikes and that therefore he only sought to draw some consequence out of it as out of a knowne principle of the Catholike faith for the confirmation of his heresy as all heretykes do also seeke to do the like not only out of Catholike opinions but also out of the Scripture it selfe What then may we thinke of M. Andrews who is not ashamed to taxe the Cardinall as a follower of Iouinian for teaching that the Church was buylt vpon Peter Can we thinke that he hath any conscience or care of what he saith especially seeing that he himselfe is a true scholler and follower of Iouinian except he dissent not only from Luther Caluin and other Archsectaries his great Maisters but also from his brethren of the present English Church 34. For who knoweth not that they all hold and teach that marriage is of equal merit with virginity and viduall continency which is the proper heresy of Iouinian condemned for such in his owne tyme first by Pope Siricius and a Synode of Bishops held at Rome and afterwards by another Synode held at Milan where S. Ambrose was present Besides that the same is learnedly impugned and clearely confuted by S. Hierome in his bookes written purposely against him as also by S. Augustine in his treatises de Bono coniugali de Virginitate which he wrote expressely for the confutation of that heresy as he testifyeth himselfe in his Retractations where he calleth Iouinian a monster for teaching that doctrine and registreth him for an hereâ—tike in his Tract and Catalogue of heresyes as well for that opinion as for impugning the custome and vse of the Catholike Church in fasting and abstinence from certayne meates wherin also the forenamed sectaries of our dayes and the English Church at this present and consequently M. Andrews himselfe except he will disclayme from all his brethren do follow Iouinian Whereto I might add other heresyes of his taught by many Archsectaries of our tyme wherin it may be M. Andrewes hath his share amongst the rest as that merits and rewards of the lust are equal and that the corporall virginity and integrity of the Blessed Virgin Mary was corrupted and lost by the birth of our Sauiour 35. All which opinions being heresyes of Iouinian and registred for such by S. Augustine haue bene reuyued in these our dayes partly by Luther and Caluin and partly by the Magdeburgenses Bucer Molinaeus and others as Cardinall Bellarmine sheweth out of their owne workes in his controuersies Therefore I remit it now to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader who is the follower of Iouinian the Cardinall or M. Andrewes and his fellowes seeing that the Cardinall holdeth nothing els with Iouinian but only that Catholike doctrine which Iouinian held and professed togeather with S. Hierome and all other Fathers of his tyme as all heretikes haue alwayes agreed with Catholikes in some points and condemneth all those heresyes whâ—ch the Fathers aforesayd and the whole Church of their tyme condemned in him and his followers wheras M. Andrews and his fellowes expressely professe and teach those very heresyes for thâ— which Iouinian and his followers were by the ancient Fathers censured and condemned as monstrous heretikes as hath ben before declared so that I thinke of this there can be no further controuersy 36. Now then let vs proceed with the examination of what he saith further to the place of S. Hierome alledged by the Cardinall which is this Propterea inter duodecim c. Therefore amongst twelue one is chosenâ— that a head being appointed the occasion of schisme may be taken away whereto he answereth thus Inter duodecim vnum eligi c. that one be chosen amongst twelue or some number which some one man may be able to gouerne and prouyde for or els to take away schisme who doth forbid a head to be chosen or so much power to be giuen him as may suffice for the end or purpose for the which he was ordayned But the question is how far that power and that number extendeth lest the head become caput heteroclitum an extrauagant head or a head out of course and not so much the occasion of schisme taken away as an occasion giuen of tyranny So he all which I beseech thee good Reader well to note and particulerly that he granteth these points following The first that S. Peter was chosen head of the Apostles the second that a head is necessary for auoyding of schisme the third that the same head is to haue as much authority as is conuenient for the end for which he is ordayned and the fourth that of all this there is no question for that the question is saith he concerning the power of the head how far it extendeth and how great may be the number that he is to gouerne 37. But if M. Andrews consider well what he granteth he may consequently decyde the question or doubt that he maketh and shall see that he hath granted as much in effect as we teach or demand conâ—cerning the authority of
thereof though in the whole Church which was to be propagated by them ouer the world the danger of schisme was very great not only in their tyme but also much more afterwards as I haue signifyed before in which respect it was needefull to be preuented by the institution of one head ouer the whole Church and therefore when S. Hierome answering Iouinian saith that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles he meaneth that he was made head of the Church which was represented in them as in the Gouernours thereof for seeing that the obiection of Iouinian which S. Hierome answereth concerned the foundation of the Church vpon S. Peter his answere must needs also concerne the same to which purpose it is to be considered that he denyeth not Iouinians proposition as I haue proued before but explicateth what is tâ—e meaning of super Petrâ—m fundatur Ecclesia signifying that it meaneth nothing els in effect but that Peter was made head of the Apostles which is as much so say as that he was the foundation of the Church or that the Church was founded vpon him because as Cardinall Bellarmine saith very well the foundation in a buylding and the head in a politycall or mysticall body is all one so as S. Peter being made head of the Apostles who represented the Church as Gouernours thereof he was consequently made the head and foundation of the Church and this being so it appeareth that this place of S. Hierome is cleare for vs and directly proueth that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the vniuersall Church 48. And whereas M. Andrews in his glosse vpon S. Hieromes text noteâ—h with a parenthesis that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles not for the keyes saith he or for the foundation which are so much esteâ—med at Rome but to take away the occasion of schisme I know not wâ—at els he impugneth thereby but his owne idle conceipt for no man saith at Rome or any where els for ought I know that S. Peter was made head of the Church for the keyes or for the foundation other wayes then that in receiuing the keyes and being made the foundation of the Church he was made head thereof to take away the occasion of sâ—hisme And this is S. Hiâ—romes doctrine so euident that M. Andrews himselfe is forced thereby to confesse that Sâ— Peter was made head of the Apostles yea and that he had so much power and authority giuen him as was necessary for the preuention and remedy of schisme whereupon all our doâ—trine concerning the Popes authoâ—ity necessarily followeth as I haue shewed so that you see he still pleadeth for vs and well deserueth his fee if not for his good wil yet at least for his paynes in defending our cause against his will FOVRE OTHER PLACES OF THE FATHERS ARE DEBATED And M. Andrews his Answers thereto confuted With a Discouery of notable corruption and falsity in him and of three manifest lyes within litle more then three lynes AND By occasion thereof it is also proued that 8. Popes who liued in S. Augustines tyme had and exercysed an vniuersall and supreme Authority CHAP. IIII. THOV hast seene good Reader in the last Chapter how well M. Andrews hath satisfyed the Cardinalls obiectioÌ„ out of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome and now in this Chapter I will examine his Answers to diuers other places of the Fathers namely of S. Basil and S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine which albeit he pretendeth to answere togeather with the former yet I haue thought good to separate them because I haue alledged them separatly in my Supplement 2. First out of S. Basil the Cardinall an I obiect these words to proue the supremacy of S. Peter ouer the rest of the Apostles Ille beatus qui ceteris praelatus discipulis fuit cui claues regni caelestis commissae That happy or blessed Peter who was preferred before the rest of the disciples to whome the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome were committed c. Hereto M. Andrews answereth thus Ex Basilio ceteris discipulis praelatum Petrum sed an vt esset Monarcha c. The Cardinall obiecteth out of S. Basil that Peter was preferred before the rest of the Disciples but was it to the end that he should be a Monarch is there no other prelacy but of a Monarchy he was preferred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the testimony that was giuen him by Christ as Basil hath there and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blessednes add also if you will that he was preferred in order and place the King doth also attribute the same vnto him yea that he may be the Prince of Apostles yet without a Monarchy Thus saith M. Andrews to the first part of S. Basils place whereto I will say somewhat before I add the rest Heere then you see he graunteth that S. Peter was preferred before the rest of the Apostles in order and place yea and that he was the Prince of the Apostles and forsooth no Monarch 3. But if we consider what he hath graunted in the last Chapter we shall find that he must needs acknowledge him to be a Monarch how much soeuer he mislyke the word for if a Monarch do signify him that is one chiefe Prince and sâ—preme head or gouernour of others not for his owne particuler benefit but for the publike and generall good of those whome he gouerneth for so is a Monarch distinguished from a Tyrant he cannot with any reason deny S. Pâ—ter to be the Monarch that is to say the supreme Prince and head of the Church whome he acknowledgeth togeather with S. Hierome to haue been made by our Sauiour head of the Apostles to preuent and remedy schisme and to haue had not only the precedence of place and order as now he saith but also so much power as suffyced for the conseruation of Vnity in the Church whereupon followeth all that power and authority which we do attribute to S. Peter and his successors as I haue declared briefely in the last Chapter 4. For S. Peter hauing by this commission of our Sauiour authority to ordaine commaund and punish as far as was necessary for the good of the Church it must needs be graunted that he had the power and authority of a Monarch and although M. Andrews had not been forced by â—he euidence of S. Hieromes testimony to grant it yet this very place of S. Basil which he pretendeth heere to answere doth proue it sufficiently signifying as much in effect as S. Hierome teacheth seeing that S. Basil not only saith that Peter was preferred before the rest of the Disciples but also declareth wherein that is to say not in place and order only but in authority also and iurisdiction adding cui claues Regni caelestis commissae sunt to whome to wit Peter the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome were committed giuing to vnderstand that he had by this particuler
cōmission of the keyes a particuler Iurisdiction more then the rest in respect whereof he was Boatus happy or Blessed and preferred before the rest 5. Whereby it may appeare how vainly M. Andrews seeketh to elude the force of this place by that which he addeth saying Nam claues ei commissas quis dubitat c. for who doubteth that the keyes were committed to him but whether the same was done in his person or in the person of the Church Basil doth not declare heere but Augustine doth in many places So he as though S. Basil did not sufficiently explicate himselfe and shew that S. Peter had by the keyes a greater iurisdiction then the other Apostles for els to what purpose did he add that the keyes were committed to him but to shew how and wherein he was Blessed and preferred before the rest And whereas M. Andrews sayth that Augustine declareth in many places that the keyes were giuen him in the person of the Church and not in his owne I haue sufficiently shewed the vanity of this euasion in the first Chapter of this Adioynder where I haue euidently proued out of S. Augustine himselfe that S. Peter receaued the keyes and Pastorall authority for the Church no otherwyse but as the supreme head and Gouernour thereof in which respect he represented the person of the whole Church wherein consisteth his preheminence preferment before the rest wherof S. Basil speaketh So that you see M. Andrews hath said nothing to any purpose in answere of the place of S. Basil. 6. Now then let vs see what he saith to a place of S. Gregory Nazianzen obiected as well by the Cardinall as by me Vides sayth he quemadmodum c. Thou seest how amongst the Disciples of Christ all of them truely great and high and worthy to be chosen this to wit Peter is called a Rocke and hath the foundations of the Church committed to his charge c. Thus saith this ancient and holy Father whereto M. Andrews answereth thus Ex Nazianzeno Petrum Ioannem aliquo prae ceteris priuilegio donatos c. Out of Nazianzen he obiecteth that Peter and Iohn had some priuiledge more then the rest Peter that he had a new name taken from a Rock and that Iohn was beloued more then the rest and might layne vpon Christs brest and the rest of the Apostles did not take it ill what was there heere singular in Peter more then in Iohn and therefore there is eyther heere no Primacy or els a double Primacy So he 7. Wherein thou mayst easily see good Reader how he paltreth and iuggleth if thou notest well the obiection and how he answereth it partly dissembling those very words which most import and partly seeking to blynd the Readers eyes with the mention of a priuiledge giuen to S. Iohn which indeed is also related in that place by S. Gregory Nazianzen but nothing at all preiudiceth the far greater priuiledge of S. Peter I meane his supreme authority signifyed by S. Gregory in the words obiected by the Cardinall For when S. Gregory saith that Peter was called a Rock and had Ecclesiae fundamenta fidei suae credita the foundations of the Church committed to his charge what els doth he affirme therein but that the Church was buylt vpon Peter as vpon a Rock and that the charge or gouernment thereof was giuen more particulerly to him then to the rest For if M. Andrews will say heere as he is wont that they were all foundations and gouernours of the Church alike why was he called a Rock more then they or what was the priuiledge of Peter whereof Nazianzen speaketh heere according to M. Andrews his owne confession who graunteth that Nazianzen testifieth that Peter and Iohn were aliquo priuilegio prae ceteris donati priuiledged in some things aboue the rest 8. Therefore if M. Andrews will allow any particuler priuiledge to S. Iohns layning vpon Christs brest as he must needs do for I thinke he will not be so absurd to say that the same is also to be vnderstood of all the rest he must needs graunt that Peter had also a particuler priuiledge not only in the name of a Rock but also in that which was signifyed thereby that is to say in that the foundations of the Church were committed particulerly to his charge as Nazianzen speaketh by which Metaphore he signifyeth sufficiently that S. Peter was made supreme Gouernour of the Church as hath bene declared heretofore and therfore those words of Nazianzen atque Ecclesiae fundamenta fidei suae credita habeat wherein consisteth the force of the obiection seemed to M. Andrews as sore as a byle and not to be toucht in his answere though he set it downe in his margent togeather with the rest of the Cardinalls text 9. But what shall we say of his absurd inference or conclusion when he saith that because a priuiledge was giuen to Iohn as well as to Peter therefore there was eyther nullus or duplex primatus a double primacy or none at all Shall we thinke so great a Doctour as M. Andrews to be so simple as not to see how impertinently he try fleth therein For what coherence is there betwixt those two priuiledges wherby he should make that inference in them both especially seeing that he himselfe will I am sure deny one part thereof to wit the double primacy no lesse then we and the other part is also sufficiently contradicted not only by S. Hierome but also by himselfe as I haue shewed amply in the last Chapter where I haue declared how S. Hierome answered Iouinians obiection that the Church was founded vpon Peter and not vpon Iohn by occasion whereof S. Hierome teacheth that although Iohn was more fauoured and beloued of our Sauiour then the rest of the Apostles for his Virginity yet Peter was preferred before him in the primacy being made head of them all to take away the occasion of schisme and thereby ouerthroweth this his inference of a double primacy or none 10. For if Peter were head of the Apostles he was also head of the Church and consequently there was one primate or head and not two notwithstanding that Iohn layned vpon Christs brest and was more beloued of Christ then the rest so as M. Andrews doth notably contradict himselfe besides that he argueth as wisely as if he should say that when his Maiesty sheweth more particuler fauour and affection to any man then to my L. of Canterbury he maketh eyther two Primates of England or none at all Whereby thou mayst see good Reader what an absurd and as I may tearme it a sleeueles answere he hath made heere to the place of S. Gregory Nazianzen 11. After this there followeth another place of the Cardinall taken out of S. Chrysostome which I haue also obiected in my Supplement The words layd downe by the Cardinall are these Sanctus Ioannes Chrysostomus ho. 55. in
Matthaeum c. S. Iohn Chrysostome in his 55. homily vpon Matthew saith Christ made Peter Pastor of his future Church And a litle after God alone can graunt that the future Church shall remayne immouable notwithstanding so many and so great waues of persecution violently breâ—â— in vpon it of which Church a fisherman and of meane parentage is the Pastor and head c. Heere we read expressely that Peter was head of the Church Thus far the Cardinall 12. Heereto M. Andrews answereth thus Ex Chrysostomo Cuius Pastor caput homo piscator c. Out of Chrysostome he obiecteth thus Whereof the Pastour and head was a fisherman but these words whereof the pastor and head are crept into the text and added in the Latin in fauour of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he meaneth the Pope for they are not in the Greeke where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fisherman but the word head appeareth no where nor in that place so much as Pastor albeit no man will deny that Peter was pastor of the Church yea and a chiefe or principall pastor but yet a pastor togeather with other Pastors his fellow-Apostles and not alone without others c. So he wherein you see he taketh exception to the words cuius pastor caput which he saith are not in the Greeke Whereto I answere that put the case they be not now in the Greeke copies which M. Andrews hath seene yet it litle importeth seeing that the latin translatour found them as it is most probable in the Greeke copie which he followed and that S. Chrysostome saith as much in effect as well in the same homily as in other places 13. Whereby it is euident that it is conforme to his doctrine and not added in fauour of the Pope as M. Andrews would haue his Reader to suppose For S. Chrysostome saith in the same homily Petrus Apostolorum os vertex cùm omnes interrogati essent solus respondit c. Peter the mouth head of the Apostles wheÌ„ they were all asked answered alone c. In which words S. Chrysostome doth plainly acknowledge S. Peter to be head of the Church seeing that he called him head of the Apostles And in the same place alledged by the Cardinall hauing said that a poore fisherman by the power and vertue of Christs graunt surpasseth in strength aâ—d solidity the nature of the dyamond he preferreth him far before Hieromy the Prophet saying that whereas Almighty God made Hierâ—my like a pillar of yron and a brazen wall and gaue him power and authority ouer one Nation hunc autem vniuerso terrarum orbi Christus praeposuit Christ gaue him to wit Peter power and authority ouer the whole world So he 14. And because M. Andrews will be like heere to fly to his common place and to say that all the Apostles had power and authority ouer the whole world as well as S. Peter and that therefore this comparison of him with Hieremy proueth not that he had any more authority then the rest of the Apostles M. Andrews must consider that S. Chrysostome cannot heere meane that his authority ouer the whole world was no other then that which the other Apostles had seeing he hath taught before in the same homily that he was their head and I thinke M. Andrews will not be so absurd to say that the authority of the head and of the members is all one besides that S. Chrysostome teacheth most clearely els where that S. Peter was head not only of the Apostles but also of the whole Church as it may appeare by that which I haue alledged out of him to that purpose both in the first and also in the precedent Chapter of this Adioynder 15. Whereto I will now add a most cleare testimony thereof out of his learned Commentary vpon the Acts of the Apostles where discoursing vpon the election of Matthias the Apostle in the place of Iudas and particulerly vpon those words Et in diebus illis surgens Petrus he noteth not only the fauour of Peter but also his authority ouer the rest as ouer the flock committed to his charge Quà m est feruidus saith he quà m agnoscit creditum à Christo gregem c. How feruent is Peter how well doth he acknowledge the flock committed to him by Christ Loe how he is Prince in this company or congregation and euery where beginneth first to speake c. 16. And againe afterwards prosecuting the same matter he sayth Quid an non licebat ipsi eligere Licebat quidem maxime c. What and was it not lawfull for him to choose Matthias Yes truely it was most lawfull but he did it not because he would not seeme to gratify any Also againe after a while he saith thus Primus hic Doctorem constituit c. he to wit Peter did first heere make a Doctor he said not we are sufficient to teach c. quamquam autem habebat ius constituendi par omnibus tamen haec congruenter fiebant c. Albeit he had as much authority to appoynt him as they all yet this was done very conueniently So he giuing to vnderstand that notwithstanding Peters absolute power to choose Matthias himselfe alone yet out of prudence he determined rather to do it by the generall consent of all the Apostles which he also signifyed no lesse plainly afterwards in these words Meritò primus omnium c. he doth worthily first of all the rest vse or exercyse his authority in this busines as one that had all the rest in his hand or power for to him Christ sayd tu aliquando coÌ„uersus confirma fratres tuos and thou being sometyme conuerted confirme they brethren 17. All this saith S. Chrysostome concerning the the election of Matthias the Apostle whereby it appeareth playnly that he held S. Peter to be head of the Apostles and of the whole Church seeing he teacheth not only that he was the Prince in that Congregation but also that he had as much authority to make an Apostle as they all and might haue done it of himselfe if he had thought it fit and conuenient because he had them all in his hand So as it is cleare that when S. Chrysostome in the 55. homily vpon Matthew which the Cardinall alledgeth calleth S. Peter verticem Apostolorum the head of the Apostles and saith that Christ made him power of the Church and that he gaue him authority ouer the whole world he meaneth and teacheth manifestly that he was supreme head and Pastor of the vniuersall Church which is the same in substance and effect that those words Cuius pastor caput do signify 18. Therefore the doctrine being S. Chrysostomes as well in that homily alledged by the Cardinall as els where and the words also themselues which perhaps may be wanting in some Greeke copie being extant as they are cyted by the Cardinall in all our Latin translations it
how substantially he argueth inferring that the matter and substance of the oration is vncertayne because it is doubtfull of which Cyprian the oration was made whereas neuertheles he cannot with any reason deny but that the oration is S. Gregory Nazianzens whereupon it must needs follow that albeit Nazianzen should be deceiued and erre in the history or the persons of whome he speaketh yet the substance as well of the story as of the doctrine coÌ„tayned in that oration was true in his conceipt and therfore may serue for an assured testimony of his beliefe of the practise of the Church in his tyme which is the only poynt now in question and therefore seeing that he not only prayed to a Saynt himselfe but also signifyed that a holy Virgin did the lyke it is cleare that both he himâ—elfe and also the faythfull people in those dayes held it to be lawfull and practised it as occasion requyred 61. And whereas M. Andrewes addeth concerning the latter poynt to wit the prayer of the mayd that it was but a fact of a mayd and then asketh whether the fact of a mayd is a statute of the Church and whether a rule of fayth is to be grounded vpon a mayds act I haue sufficiently answered him already touching the statutes decrees of the Church concerning this point and now tell him agayne that there was neyther at that tyme any need of statutes for prayer to Saynts which then was euery where in practise neyther iâ— iâ— now in question what the Church decreed then touching the same but what was then generally practised and belieued which cannot be better and more clearely proued by any testimonyes of the Fathers then by such as witnesse not only their owne facts but also the practise of other Christians eyther in their dayes or els in former tymes as this was which S. Gregory affirmeth of that holy mayd 62. But will you now heare how well M. Andrewes concludeth all this matter forsooth he maketh an obiection against himselfe saying in a different letter as if the obiection were the Cardinalls sed factum non reprehenditur but this fact of the mayd is not reprehended by S. Gregory Nazianzen and then he addeth answering to his owne obiection Immò idem illud c. yea but Epiphanius sharpely reprehended the selfe same in the same age in the Collyridian heretykes when it was done by many of the same sexe Thus saith M. Andrews playing his part kindly as well in his obiection as in his answere For in his obiection wherein he would seeme to speake for the Cardinall or rather to lay downe his words he dissembleth altogether what the Cardinall saith to vrge and fortify that example of the mayde and therefore forbeareth purposely as it may be thought to set it downe in his margent with the rest of the Cardinalls textâ— who after the words of S. Gregory before related to wit Virginem Mariam rogauit c. She besought the Virgin Mary to succour a Virgin in danger addeth immediatly ac paulo pòst refert eam c. and a litle after Nazianzen declareth that her prayer was heard Vicit inquit virgo vincitur daemon The Virgin saith he ouercame and the Diuel is ouercome Thus doth the Cardinall vrge this example which as you see is of much more force then to say only as M. Andrews saith that S. Gregory did not reprehend the fact 63. For albeit his silence in not reprehending it may serue for an argument that he did not mislyke it yet the other clearely proueth that not only he but also God himselfe did notably approue it seing he saith that she obtayned the effect of her prayer and ouercame the Diuel whereto I also add that when that holy Father beginneth to recount the history of the mayde he sayth thus Audite Virgines ac simul exultate c. Harken o ye Virgins and reioyce also yea all ye that esteeme chastity in matrimony and loue Virgins give eare for to both sorts this my narratio may serue for an ornament So he Whereby it appeareth playnely that he meant to recount that which he would wish to be approued and imitated by others whereupon it followeth that by this example he exhorted and encouraged all those whose chastity should be endangered to craue the help of the blessed Virgin as that holy mayd did who thereby togeather with her other deuotions of fasting and prayer to almighty God which S. Gregory relateth ouercame the Diuel and escaped the danger of his tentation And could this holy Father more euidently declare what his faith and beliefe was concerning prayer to Saynts then not only to relate this fact of a holy Virgin without reprehension of it but also to signify the happy euent and successe thereof yea and to incyte others to the approbation and imitation of it 64. But now sayth M. Andrewes although Nazianzen did not reprehend itâ— yet Epiphanius did sharply reproue idem illud euen the selfe same fact in the same age in other women If this be true M. Andrews doth indeed say somewhat to the purpose at least to proue that the Fathers of that age did not with vnanim consent allow prayers to Saynts but if it be false and that he flatly belyeth S. Epiphanius what shall we think of the mans conscience and cause The truth is S. Epiphanius sharply reprehendeth certayne women who vsed at a certaine tyme of the yeare to commit Idolatry to the Virgin Mary adoring her with diuine honour offring vnto her certayne cakes in sacrifice as though she had byn a God or a Goddesse and they her Priests whereupon he discourseth amply prouing first out of the old Testament that nusquam mulier sacrificauit aut Sacerdotio functa est women haue neuer sacrifyced anywhere or executed Priestly function And then he commeth to the new Testament where he sheweth also the same and addeth further that if women could euer haue byn admitted to Sacrifyce the Virgin Mary her selfe should haue done it rather then any other neuertheles she neuer did and finally he concludeth that the body of the blessed Virgin Mary was reuera sanctum sed non Deus truely holy but not God 65. By all which it appeareth that these women which Epiphanius reprehendeth did not only take vpon them the Priestly function but also coÌ„mitted flat Idolatry adoring the Virgin Mary with diuine honour offring sacrifice vnto her which is a worship due to God alone Now then could a man belieue that M. Andrewes or any man els that hath care of his reputatioÌ„ would be so shamelesse to say that this is idem illud that very selfe same thing which Nazianzen sayth that holy Virgin did who only craued help of the Virgin Mary Is there no difference betwixt praying and sacrifysing betwixt Idolatry and religious veneration due to Gods Saynts and seruants Or betwixt the vsurpation of Priestly function
Ambrose speaketh are speciall meanes to apply vnto vs the satisfaction of Christ and in that respect the Fathers say that they satisfy for vs wash away blot out and purge our sinnes to wit as secondary causes that haue their operation by the vertue and force of the first cause which is the merits of our Sauiours passion and therefore if a man should say that a Phisitian had saued his lyfe he could not with reason be thought to derogate any thing eyther from the operation of the medicine or from the prouidence or power of God who gaue force to the medicine and good successe to the Phisitian as neyther he that should say the medicine saued his life could be thought to do iniury eyther to God or to the Phisitian 23. For whereas many causes do commonly concurre to one effect euery cause may well be sayd to work the effect without denyall of the concurrence of other causes and especially of the first cause by vertue whereof all the rest haue their opperation So that M. Andrews sheweth himselfe eyther very ignorant or totoo malicious in saying that S. Ambrose maketh the bloud of Christ superfluous because he sayth that the Martyrs wash away their sinnes with their owne bloud as though he denyed the vertue of Christs passion by ascribing remission of sinne to Martyrdome which is an inferiour and secondary cause thereof as being an immediate meanes to apply the force and fruit of Christs passion vnto vs and therefore whereas he sayth it is no meruaile that S. Ambrose who so sayd did not also stick to say that we may pray to Saynts it is indeed no meruaile at all seeing that his speach is in both most conforme to reason Scriptures Fathers and to the doctrine of the whole Church But truly the wonder is that any modest Christian and especially one that pretends to be a Prelate in Gods Church should be so temerarious and audacious as to lay so foule an imputation as he doth here vpon one of the most holy and famous Fathers of Gods Church for speaking only in such sort as all other Fathers speake yea the Scriptures themselues as I haue already shewed 24. Yea but S. Ambrose changed his mynd sayth M. Andrewes in the later poynt to wit concerning prayer to Saynts for Ambrosio sayth he alibi alia mens prouecto iam meliùs edocto Ambrose was elswhere of another mynd when he waxed elder and was better learned So he and how doth he proue this Marry for sooth by two manyfest testimonyes of his as he saith for thus he goeth forward cuius nota sententia ad Deum suffragatore non est opus certe nec obsecratore whose knowne opinion or sentence is there is no need of a suffragator or helper to God nor yet of a beseecher illa tu solus Domine inuocandus es and that other thou only O Lord art to be inuocated Thus sayth he alledging as you see two places out of S. Ambrose and cyting for the former his Commentary vpon the Epistle to the Romans and for the latter his funerall Oration vpon Theodosius the Emperour But in the former you may note partly his euil hap and partly his folly in the latter his fraud and falshood His euil hap is manifest in the former because to shew that S. Ambrose recalled his doctrine which he had deliuered in an vndoubted worke of his M. Andrews bringeth a testimony calling it notam sententiam a knowne sentence or opinion of S. Ambrose albeit he take it out of a worke which in the opinion of diuers learned men was not written by S. Ambrose and so perhaps M. Andrews himselfe would tell vs if we should obiect against him out of that Commentary that Pope Damasus was head or gouernour of the whole Church because we read there cuius Ecclesiae hodie rector est Damasus of which Church Damasus is gouernour at this day 25. Neuertheles I say not this because I meane to reiect the authority of that Commentary hauing alledged it my selfe before against M. Andrewes as S. Ambrose his worke which I haue done partly because it is commonly cyted vnder his name being amongst his other workes and no other Author of it knowne and partly because M. Andrews himselfe approueth it so highly as you see in this place and therefore I made account that howsoeuer others may take exception to it and to my allegation of it yet he can take none but must needs admit it wherein also I wish this difference to be noted betwixt his allegation thereof and myne that I did not wholy rely vpon the authority of it but fortifyed it with a most pregnant place taken out of a knowne and assured worke of S. Ambrose for the satisfaction of such as might doubt of the former whereas he being driuen to such an exigent as you haue seene that is to say flatly to deny S. Ambrose his cleare doctrine and vndertaking to shew that he recalled it afterwards professeth to produce an vndoubted and knowne testimony of S. Ambrose cyting neuertheles a worke which diuers learned men as I haue said do hold to be none of his as it may be seene in Posseuinus Maldonatus Cardinall Bellarmine and others which I say I cannot but ascribe to some euil fortune that haunteth M. Andrews and forceth him to ground all his buildings vpon such weake and vnsure foundations that there is no true solidity in anything he sayth or produceth out of others 26. And put the case there were no doubt at all to be made of the Author of that Commentary but that he was vndoubtedly S. Ambrose yet M. Andrews sheweth himselfe not only vnfortunate but also most foolish and ridiculous in that the place which he alledgeth out of it against prayer to Saynts doth not concerne it at all nor impugne any thing els but Idolatry to the Sunne Moone Planets and Starres which S. Paul reproued in the Pagans in his Epistle to the Romans by the occasion whereof the Author of the Cōmentary sayth that those Idolatrous Paynims of whome the Apostle speaketh were wont to excuse their Idolatry by saying that by the inferiour Gods men did come to the highest and chiefe God as by Counts or Earles to the King then he addeth Numquid it a demens est aliquis c. Is any man so mad or so vnmindfull of his owne good that he giueth the Kings honour to the Count For if any be found that do but only treate of such a matter they are worthily condemned as Traytours and yet these Pagans do not thinke themselues guilty of treason when they giue the honour of the name of God to his creature and forsaking their Lord do adore their fellow-seruants as though any thing more can be reserued to God For men do therefore go to the King by his Tribunes or Counts because the King is but a man and knoweth not whome he may
alledgeth S. Augustine Lactantius and S. Bernard to proue that the soules of the iust are reserued in certayne receptacles and secret places where they haue not the perfect vision of God vntill the day of iudgement I shall not need to say any thing thereto as well because it would auayle him nothing as you see though S. Augustine and all the rest of the Fathers had ben of that opinion seeing that euen there I meane in those receptacles the Saynts might know our prayers by Angâ—es or by diuine reuelation according to S. Augustines doctrine as also because it is euident that not only S. Augustine but also all the Fathers both Greeke and Latin except 3. to wit Tertullian Lactantius and Victorinus do teach that the Saynts do already enioy the visioÌ„ of God though not in that perfection and consummation of their beatitude which they shall haue after the resurection and glorification of the bodyes as M. Andrews may see if it please him in the controuersy of Cardinall Bellarmine who alledgeth to this purpose 36. Fathers of the Greeke and Latin Church and answereth particulerly those very places which M. Andrews quoteth in his margent and all other places and authorityes which are commonly obiected against our Catholyke doctrine in this poynt So as in fine M. Andrewes proueth nothing at all agaynst vs by this obiection 48. And whereas he sayth also by the way that the Saynts ought not to be inuocated albeit they could heare vs because there is no precept of it I forbeare to giue any full satisfaction to that scruple in this place because he doth not heere yield any reason or produce any authority to proue that nothing is to be done wihout an expresse precept though in another place he alledgeth a text of Scripture to that end whereof I shall haue further occasion to speake after a whyle and therefore I remit the full answere thereof vntill then and only in the meane tyme I will say to him with S. Augustine that in his rebus de quibus nihil certi statuit Scriptura c. In these things whereof there is no certayne precept or determination in Scripture the custome of Gods people or the ordinances of our forefathers are to be held for a law 49. So he who also in another place speaking of certayne traditions of the Church sayth Si quid horum tota pâ—r orbem frequentat Ecclesia c. if the whole Church throughout the world do frequent or vse any of these things it is a most insolent madnes to dispute whether it be to be done or no. Thus saith S. Augustine coÌ„cluding M. Andrews to be a most insolent madde man who calleth in question a generall custome of the Church to which purpose S. Hierome also saith to the Luciferians that albeit there were no authority of Scripture for the matter in question betwyxt them yet totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret the conseÌ„t of the whole world in this behalfe were as much as a precept And the lyke sayth Tertullian Hanc si nulla sayth he Scriptura determinauit c. if no Scripture hath determined this yet truly custome which without doubt hath flowed from tradition hath corroborated and strengthned it 50. To these Fathers I might add many more to the same purpose if it were needefull but these may suffice for the present to shew that M. Andrews doth very idly exact a precept for prayer to Saynts when it is euident by the testimony of all the Fathers before cyted that the same was generally practised in the Church in their tyme no lesse then it is at this present whereupon I also conclude concerning the fact of Theodosius the Emperour that it cannot be with reason denyed but that when he lay prostrate before the tombes of the Martyrs crauing helpe agaynst Eugenius the Tyrant by their intercession he prayed also to them and not only to God especially considering the testimonyes produced by me before out of Sozomen concerning his particuler inuocation of S. Iohn Baptist vpon the same occasion and out of S. Chrysostome testifying the Emperours custome in those dayes to pray to the Martyrs at their monuments wherein also it may well be presumed that S. Chrysostome had a speciall relation euen to that fact of Theodosius whereof we now treate because the same was then very famous when he wrote his coÌ„mentary vpon S. Paules Epistles whence this testimony is taken for he wrote the same whyle he was Bishop as it may appeare by the tyme of his election and of a vision of S. Paul who was seene to assist him whiles he interpreted those Epistles being then Bishop which was but a few yeares after the ouerthrow of Eugenius and the death of Theodosius Thus much for the testimony of Ruffinus 51. Next after this followeth a place of S. Paulinus inuocating S. Clarus in these words Haec peccatorum c. Receiue these prayers of sinners who do beseech thee to be mindfull of Paulinus and Therasia And now because Paulinus wrote in verse M. Andrews will haue it to be vnderstood that he did but play or dally lyke a Poet. But to this I answere that if S. Paulinus was a Poet he was a Christian yea a holy Poet and therefore would not vse any Poeticall licence to the derogation of the Christian fayth or Religion or that might any way seeme iniurious to Christ as M. Andrews and his fellowes do account the inuocation of Saynts to be besides that it is manyfest that he did no otherwise in verse then the other Fathers afore mentioned did in prose and was warranted as you haue seene by the custome and practice of the whole Church at that tyme so that this is as vayne an euasion and as improbable as any of the former 52. Finally he concludeth his censure with S. Augustine whome the Cardinall alledgeth thus Habet Ecclesiastica disciplina c. The Ecclesiasticall discipline hath that which the faythfull know who make mention of Martyrs at the Altar of God not to pray for them there as for others that are dead for it is an iniury to pray for a Martyr to whose prayers we ought to be recommended Thus sayth S. Augustine To this M. Andrewes answereth that the Cardinall shall neuer be able to make Augustin on his side or not to be for the Protestants and that whatsoeuer is cyted ex aliquo riuulo Augustini out of some litle booke of Augustine the same is dryed vp with one only sentence as with the sunne and this sentence he saith is in opere suo palmari in his principall worke de Ciuitate Dei Well then let vs see the splendour of this radiant sentence and try what heate or force it hath to dry vp the other testimonyes cyted out of S. Augustine for prayer to Saynts 53. The words which M. Andrews alleadgeth out of S.
the verity of the Christian fayth saying Siâ—e Deus per seipsum miro modo c. whether God doth worke these things by himselfe in that meruailous manner whereby he worketh temporall things being himselfe eternall or whether he doth the selfe same things by his ministers or whether he doth some of them by the soules of the Martyrs as he doth by men whiles they are yet heere in body or all by Angels whome he commandeth inuisibly immutably and without a body in such sort that those things which are sayd to be done by the Martyrs be done only by their prayers and impetration not also by their operation or whether some things are done by these meanes some by others which cannot by any meanes be coÌ„prehended by mortall men ei profectò haec attestantur fidei c. all these truly do giue testimony to that fayth wherein the resurrection of the flesh is preached 16. Thus discourseth this holy Father acknowledging as you see the imbecillity of mans vnderstanding to comprehend the manner how Almighty God did worke these supernaturall effects although he doubted not of the effects of themselues and yet forsooth M. Andrews must eyther know how Saynts do heare vs or els he will deny that they heare vs notwithstanding the knowne and common experience that the Church of God hath alwayes had thereof to which purpose also it may be obserued that he confeâ—seth himselfe elswhere that God was wont miraculously to relieue those that prayed at the tombes of Martyrs and yet I am sure he knoweth not how the same was wrought I meane whether God did it by himselfe or by the 〈…〉 of the Martyrs 〈◊〉 by the ministery of Angels 〈…〉 and sometymes by 〈…〉 why then doth he deny heere that Sayntâ— heare vs because he is not sure how they heare vs So as thou seest good Reader what a wyse inference he hath made with his proinde when he saith proinde aâ—diant necnâ— therfore a man is not sure whether the Saynts heare him because he is vndertayne quâ— natione audiant compellantâ—â—â— by what â—eanes or in what manner they heare him when he calleth vpon them 17. Therefore wheras he saith that our doctrine concerning the glasse of the diuine Essence and the sight of all things therin is more subtill then solid and not ceare ynough to our selâ—es it would 〈◊〉 import though it 〈…〉 seeing that we do not thereon ground our doctrine that Saynts heare or know ouâ— prayers 〈…〉 the custome and practise of the whole Church of God which prayeth to Saynts 〈◊〉 therefore beleeue that they heare vs and partly vpon euident experience of the benefits that by Gods mercyfull prouidence and ordinance men do receiue by them and partly also vpon the conformity thereof to the holy Scripture which teacheth not only that the Angelâ— in heauen do reioyce at the repentance of sinners which they could not do if they did not kneeâ— it but also that the soules of the iust being glorified 〈◊〉 aequales Angelis equall to Angels and coÌ„sequently haue the lyke knowledge that they haue besids that it is euident in the holy Scriptures that the Prophets of God did see the harts and thoughts of men and know things farre distant from themâ— Samuel told vnto Saul all that he had in his hart and Elizâ—â—s being absent saw hiâ— seruant Gâ—â—zi take gifts of 〈◊〉 the Syrianâ— and discouered also all that which the King of Syria treated in his cabinet Also S. Steuen being on earth did see our Sauiour Iesus Christ on the right hand of his Father in heauen and therefore it were absurd to imagine that the glorified Saynts in heauen could not see or know what is done on earth especially such things as concerne themselues and the honour that is done vnto them for Gods greater glory and the prayers that are directed to them for the reliefe of Gods seruants Lastly S. Iohn in the Apocalyps signifyeth that the Saynts in heauen do offer vp the prayers of holy men on earth which they could not do if they did not vnderstand and know mens prayers 18. Furthermore this doctrine is also grounded vpon the cleare testimony of the Fathers who teach it expressely As S. Athanasius who sayth that the soules of Saynts post mortem in die Iudicij cognoscent omnia shall know all things both after their death and in the day of iudgment and nullus est sayth S. Basil ex hijs qui non singula vbique consideret there is none of these he speaketh of Angels and the soules of the iust who doth not consider euery thing euery where besides that he calleth the 40. Martyrs communes humani generis custodes the common guardians or keepers of humane kind S. Ambrose also saith that Martyrs are praeâ—ules spectatores actuum nostroruÌ„ the gouernourâ— and beholders of our actions 19. In lyke manner S. Hieromâ— teacheth that it is written of the soules of the iust in the holy Scripture si quuntur agnum quocumque ierit they follow the Lambe wheresoeuer he goethâ— and then he addeth Si agnuâ— vbique c. If the Lambe â—e euery were therefore it is to be belieued that those also who are with the Lambe are euery where and seeing that Diuels go all the world ouer and by reason of their exceeding great celerity are euery where present shall Martyrs after they haue shed their bloud for Christ be shut vp as it were in a coffer that they cannot get out So he Theodoret also giueth to Martyrs the title of Duces Principes propugnatores custodes hominum c. the Captayns the Princes the defenders and guardians of men by whome sayth he those mischiefs and miseryes which Diuels do inflict vpon vs are auerted from vs. S. Chrysostome calleth S. Peter and S. Paul and Patrons and Protectors of the Emperours Whereupon it must needs follow that those blessed Apostles and other Saynts did vnderstand the actions and necessityes of those whome they protected and defended 20. Moreouer S. Augustine discoursing how the Saynts shall see God in heauen after the resurrection and whether they shall see him with their corporall eyes teacheth by the way that they shall then see all things with the eyes of the spirit etiam vnde sunt corpore absentes euen whence they are absent in body and this he proueth amply by the example of Elizaeus who being absent from his seruant Giezi saw him take gifts of Naaman and therefore sayd vnto him Nonne cor meum in praesenti erat c. was not my hart present with thee when the man came from his Chariot to meete thee and thou tookest the money Whereupon S. Augustine sayth Corde suo ergo se dixit hoc vidisse Propheta c. therfore the Prophet sayd that he saw this with his hart being no doubt admirably helped by Almighty God but how much
more shall all men then abound in this gift when God shal be omnia in omnibus all in all Thus discourseth this learned Father to proue that the Saynts after their resurrection videbunt omnia shall see all things with their spirituall eye etiam vnde sunt corpore absentes euen whence they are absent in body 21. And this must needs be vnderstood in lyke manner of glorifyed soules before the resurrection for that the glorification of their bodyes although it shall increase their Ioy and glory yet shall not increase their vision of God or knowledge which they haue now as perfect as they shall haue after their resurrection Finally to omit many other Fathers which might be alledged S. Gregory sayth that it is not to be belieued that quae intus claritatem Dei vident c. the soules which see into the light or brightnes of God are ignorant of any thing that is abroad and againe in another place quia in illa aeterna haereditate c. for as much as in that eternall inheritance all men do see God with a coÌ„mon clarity or brightnes what is there which they cannot know who know him that knoweth all things Thus saith S. Gregory teaching as you see that the Saynts in heauen know all things in earth and yielding the selfe same reason thereof which you haue heard M. Andrews say was inaudita Patribus neuer heard of amongst the Fathers to wit that because they see and know God therefore they see and know all things in him in whome omnia constant sayth the Apostle all things do consist 22. So as howsoeuer the ancient Fathers may haue differed in opinion concerning the manner how the Saynts know things done on earth M. Andrews may see that they agree touching the effect which also is so conforme to reason that he cannot with reason deny it especially seeing he himselfe granteth that the Saynts do pray for vs of their charity loue towards vs. For if they loue vs so that as S. Cyprian saith de nostra salute sunt solliciti they are carefull for our saluation and as M. Andrews confesseth they do indeed pray for vs it must needs be granted that this their loue and care doth include a desire to know our necessityes whereupon it also followeth that they do know themâ— for if their desire should not be satisfyed they should not be so happy and blessed as the perfection of their beatitude doth requyre besides that seeing Almighty God doth glorify them not only in heauen with the visioÌ„ of his Deity but also in earth with many miracles done at their monuments as M. Andrews himselfe confesseth in his answere to a place of S. Basil it were absurd to thinke that they do not know as well the particuler fauours that God doth to men for their fakes as also the honour and glory that redoundeth thereof both to God and them without which knowledge their beatitude as I haue sayd should not be complete 23. Now then seeing that our doctrine that Saynts do heare or vnderstand our prayers is grounded vpon such sure foundations as heere I haue declared to wit the continuall custome and practice of the Church to pray to them the manifest experience of benefits receiued by them the conformity thereof to the holy Scriptures with the vniforme and expresse testimonyes of the Fathers lastly vpon reason it selfe how little reason hath M. Andrews to deny it vpon no better reason then because it is vncertayne in what manner they heare vs especially seeing I haue also euidently proued that the vncertainty of the manner meanes or cause of any thing can nothing derogate from the certaynty of the effect so as he must eyther bring some more solid arguments agaynst prayer to Saynts or els he shall but discouer both his owne imbecillity and the weakenes if his cause 24. And therefore he had reason to seeke some better reason which he doth seeming to put the case that it were true yea most manifest that Saynts do heare our prayers yet ne sic quidem sayth he audemus vota nostra ad illos precesque dirigere we dare not for all that direct our vowes and prayers vnto them and hereof he yieldeth this reason cùm praeceptum â—a de re nullum acceperimus praeceptum autem acceperimus in Lege disertis verbis Quod tibi praecepero hoc tantùm facies We dare not saith he pray vnto them because we haue receiued no precept concerning that poynt but haue receiued a precept in the law in expresse words What I shall command thee that only thou shalt doe So he and then concludeth id tantùm audemus facere c. We dare doe that only whereof we haue a precept Bring you a praecept and we will straight inuocate them with you Thus argueth he 25. And hath he not trow you very well proued now that nothing may be practiced in Gods Church without an expresse written precept Who would thinke that a Doctor of diuinity should haue so litle vnderstanding of the holy Scriptures as to inferre this conclusion vpon the place that he alledgeth which concerneth only the Sacrifyces that God required and commanded to be offred vnto him in the Mosaycall law as it is euident by the very circumstances of the place in the 12. Chapter of Deuteronomy from whence that precept is taken For when Almighty God had admonished the people to beware that they did not imitate the nations whose lands they should possesse in their abominable Sacrifyces saying for all the abhominations that our Lord doth abhorre haue they done to their Gods offering their sonnes and daughters and burning them with fire after this I say followeth immediatly what I command thee that only doe to our Lord neyther adde any thing nor diminish Thus sayd Almighty God as who would say whereas the gentills whose lands thou shalt possesse did worship their Gods with most abominable Sacrifyces and ceremonyes sacrificing their owne children by fire do not thou imitate them therein but offer thou to me in Sacrifice only that which I doe command thee to wit those things which are ordayned and prescrybed in the law to that end 26. And this no doubt is the cleare sense and meaning of those words for if they shal be vnderstood as M. Andrews taketh them to exclude the practice of all things whatsoeuer that were not expressely commanded in the letter of the law then the solmne feasts ordayned afterwards by Mardochaeus Iudith and the Machabees had byn vnlawfull which neuertheles are approued in the Scripture and the last of the 3. to wit the feast of the Dedication instituted by the Machabees was honoured by our Sauiour himself with his preseÌ„ce But let vs put the case that this commandment of Almighty God was generall touching the seruice and worship of God in the old law will M. Andrewes inferre thereupon that
the Sacrament which they all do vniformly teach to giue grace ex opere operato and therefore seeing that according to his Maiestyes testimony as well vpon his owne knowledge as by the relation of the Bishops to him the Catholykes did neuer ascribe any power or spirituall grace to the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme it is euident that the Bishops in their Synod belyed them egregiously charging them to hold it to be a part of the substance of the Sacrament yea and notably deluded the people in seeking to perswade them that the Catholykes had corrupted the vse thereof and that the English Clergy hath now reduced it to the primary institution 37. Who then could imagine that so many Ecclesiasticall men honorable for their ranke and dignity in the common welâ—h by profession Deuines by tytle Prelats and spirituall Pastors of the people could also vniformely agree to cozen the world in this manner and insteed of feeding their flock with holsome doctrine to infect and poyson them with such manifest lyes as this conuinced euen by their owne testimony to his Maiesty himselfe the very same yeare that they deuised it as it appeareth by the printed copyes of their Ecclesiastical constitutions of the coÌ„ference at Hampton-Court published in the yeare 1604. and therefore I leaue it to thee good Reader to consider in what a miserable state our poore country is where such men as these who as it seemeth haue no care eyther of their owne conscience or reputation haue neuertheles the care and charge of other mens soules 38. But to returne to M. Andrews who perhaps was one of that conuenticle though not as a Bishop yet as one of the Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury I would gladly know of him whether he and his Clergy in the Diocesse of Ely do vse the signe of the Crosse in the administration of Baptisme or not and if they do not let him tell vs how they obserue this Synodicall Canon made by his fellowes and authorized by his Maiesty and if they do obserue it let him shew vs some precept or example of it in Scripture seeing he resolutly affirmeth in the name of the whole English Church as it seemeth that they dare do that only whereof they haue a precept Therefore I say let him eyther shew vs some precept for it in Scripture or els confesse that he and his fellowes dare do more then is commanded therein 39. Finally if they may lawfully follow the primitiue and Apostolicall Churches and the iudgement of all the ancient fathers in matters though not commanded in Scripture yet consonant thereto as they professe to do in the foresayd Canon then they must also grant that it is in lyke manner lawfull for Catholykes to do the lyke for prayer to Saynts seeing that the same is conforme to the practice of the primitiue Church and to the beliefe of the ancient fathers and consequently to the holy Scriptures for otherwyse neyther would so many learned ancient and holy fathers haue approued it neyther yet the Church whose authority as S. Augustine sayth the Scripture recommendeth vnto vs would haue practised it I meane that visible Catholyke Church whereof S. Augustine did so constantly defend and mayntayne the authority agaynst the heretykes in his tyme that he pronounced them as you haue heard before to be most insolent mad men if they did but only doubt of any generall custome thereof 40. Whereupon I conclude that prayer to Saynts being generally approued and practised by the Church in S. Augustines tyme it must needs follow according to his rule that the vse and practice thereof is not only most lawfull and consonant to Scripture but also reuerently to be retayned and vsed by M. Andrews and his fellowes euen according to their owne profession in their Synodicall constitution seeing as I haue signified before they professe reuerently to retayne the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme though not commanded in Scripture because the same was vsed in the primitiue Church and is consonant to Scripture and to the Iudgement of all the ancient Fathers 41. And if he say that they professe in their Canon to follow the rules of doctrine concerning things that are at least indifferent that prayer to Saynts is neyther absolutly good nor yet indifferent but altogeather vnlawfull and consequently not to be vsed he is to vnderstand first that according to his owne rule and inference vpon the text of Deuteronomy he neyther doth nor can admit any thing that is not commanded in Scripture be it neuer so good For he sayth id tantúm audemus facere c. we dare do that only whereof we haue a precept and to that purpose he alledgeth also the text of Deuteronomy hoc tantùm facies quod tibi praecipio thou shalt do this only which I do command thee where you see the word tantùm as well in his assertion as in the text of Scripture excludeth all things whatsoeuer that are not commanded whereupon it followeth that the vse of the signe of the Crosse in baptisme is as well prohibited as prayer to Saynts if hee vnderstand that text of Deuteronomy aright and make a good inference thereon 42. Secondly it is not sufficient that he and his fellowes do hold the inuocation of Saynts to be vnlawfull but they must also proue it so to be or els they must grant the practice of it to be lawfull as of a thing at least indifferent vpon the same reason that they admit the â—igne of the Crosse in baptisme yea with farre greater reason seeing that as I haue already proued prayer to Saynts is not only good and lawfull but also most profitable and beneficiall to men whereas the Crosse in baptisme according to the doctrine of the foresayd Canon hath no vertue or power in it at all but is only an outward Ceremony and honorable badge of a Christian. So as M. Andrews cannot approue the vse thereof and exclude the practice of prayer to Saynts except he wil be so absurd to admit things indifferent and reiect a thing absolutly good and very necessary for euery Christian man for so I say he must needs confesse the inuocation of Saynts to be except he can ouerthrow the testimonies of all the ancient Fathers yea and the experience that the Church hath alwayes had of the soueraygne benefits that men reape thereby 43. Thirdly whereas he demandeth a precept in Scripture for prayer to Saynts he seemeth to grant it to be eyther good of it selfe or at least indifferent for if it were absolutly bad it were in vayne and absurd to demand a precept of it for that it could neuer be commanded so as eyther his demand in that behalfe is very idle and absurd or els he must acknowledge it at least to be indifferent and consequently that it is no lesse lawfull to vse it without a precept then the signe of the Crosse in
nothing is to be belieued or practiced in the Church whereof there is no cōmandment or example in Scripture which you haue heard already confuted as well by the authority of Scripture and Fathers as also by our aduersaryes owne doctrine approuing the practice of things not cōmanded any where in Scripture as the baptisme of infants the vse of the signe of the Crosse Godfathers and Godmothers in baptisme whereto I may add the tradition of keeping Sunday holy day in memory of the Resurrection of our Sauiour with abstinence from seruile works Also the obseruation of Easter Pentecost and such feasts and diuers other things consisting in matters of practice 56. If then they approue and practice these things although they be not commanded or ordeyned in Scripture what reason haue they to reiect prayer to Saynts because there is no commandement or example of it in Scripture when neuertheles it is most conforme thereto and deduced from it as I haue partly shewed already by an inafallible rule of S. Augustine seeing it is approued by that Church which the Scripture commandeth vs to heare belieue and obay besydes that it being euident in Scripture that Charity which moueth and obligeth men to pray one for another in this lyfe nunquam excidit as the Apostle teacheth neuer decayeth but is more perfect in the next lyfe it followeth not only that the Saynts do pray for vs which M. Andrews granteth but also that we may craue their prayers for it were most absurd to thinke that we may not request them to do that which is most correspondent to their Charity and they will most willingly performe 57. Furthermore seeing that the Scripture doth teach vs to craue the prayers and help of our brethren liuing there can be no reason imagined why we should not also do the same when they are glorifyed in heauen but eyther because they do not heare or vnderstand our prayers or because they are not willing or not able to helpe vs but that they heare vs I haue sufficiently proued already and haue also answered M. Andrews his cauils concerning the same and he neyther denyeth nor seemeth to doubt eyther that they are willing to succour vs considering the perfection of their Charity or yet that they are able to do it seeing he granteth they do pray for vs if he should deny it or that their prayers may auayle vs as Vigilantius his followers did in tymes past and Zuinglius with other sectaries haue done in these our dayes he might easily be conuinced by the holy Scriptures which witnesse that God granteth the petitions of his seruants euen when they are heere subiect to sinne and misery and hath mercy on sinners for the merits of the iust as well dead as liuing and therefore the Prophet prayed ne auferas misericordiam tuam c. do not take away thy mercy from vs O Lord for thy beloued Abraham and thy seruant Isaac and thy holy Israell And we read in the booke of Kings that for Dauids sake God did mitigate his wrath towards Salomon and saued also the Kingdome of Iuda from destruction in the reygne of Ioram and Ezechias 58. In lyke manner God pardoned Iobs friends for his sake and directed them vnto him to craue his prayers for them Also for the prayers of Moyses he had mercy on the people and the lyke we read in the new testament Whereupon S. Hierome sayd to Vigilantius thus Si Apostoli Martyres c. If the Apostles and Martyrs beeing heere in body could pray for others whiles they ought to be carefull for themselues how much more may they do it after their crounes victoryes and tryumphs one Moyses obtayned of God pardon for six hundred thousand armed men and Steuen the follower of his Lord and first Martyr in Christ craued pardon for his persecutours and shall they now be able to doe lesse when they are with Christ Paul the Apostle sayth that 276. mens liues were giuen him in the ship and therefore now when he is dissolued and with Christ will he hold his peace and shall he not be able so much as to open his mouth for those which haue belieued by his preaching throughout the world and shall Vigilantius a liuing dog be better then a dead lyon Thus argueth S. Hierome by an argument a fortiori grounded on the Scripture to shew the extreame absurdity of Vigilantius the heretike who denyed that the Saynts in heauen do pray for vs and are able to helpe vs. 59. And this ability of Saynts to helpe men is to be ascribed not only to the effect of their prayers but also to their power authority and dignity seeing that Christ who is the King of Kings Lord of Lords hath all power in heauen and earth giuen him by his Father doth in the Apocalips promise to his Saynts a communication and participation of his owne Kingdome dominion and power ouer men qui vicerit sayth he dabo sedere mecum c. he that shall ouercome I will giue vnto him to sit with me in my throne as I also haue ouercome and sitten with my father in his throne dabo ei potestatem super gentes c. I will giue him power ouer nations and he shall rule them c. and according to this promise of our Sauiour the Saynts also sayd to him in the Apocalips Redimisti nos Deo in sanguine tuo c. thou hast redeemed vs to God in thy blood and hast made vs to our God a Kingdome and Priests and we shall reygne vpon the earth and this may be confirmed out of the booke of wisdome which sayth that the iust when they shal be glorified iudicabunt Nationes dominabuntur populis c. shall iudge Nations and shall haue dominion ouer people and in like manner the Psalmist saith speaking of the glory of Gods Saynts exultabunt Sancti in gloria c. the Saynts shall exult and reioyce in glory c. they shall haue two edged swoords in their hands to take reuenge vpon nations and to chastise people to tye their Kings in fetters and their noble men in iron manicles c. Thus saith the royall Prophet 60. And albeit this shal be specially and most manifestly fulfilled at the day of Iudgement when the Saynts of God shall assist our Sauiour in the Iudgment and condemnation of the wicked yet it cannot be denyed but that also in the meane tyme it is verifyed in the power and dominion that God imparteth to his Saynts giuing them the protection of Cittyes Countryes and men as it appeareth euidently by innumerable examples which might be alledged of Kingdomes and Cytties defended Gods seruants relieued and his enemies destroyed by them for which cause the ancient Fathers do worthily call them the keepers of human kind gouernours of
our actions the Capteyns Princes propugnators patrons and protectors of men as I haue more particulerly declared before in this Chapter and therefore also all Christian Countryes and Cittyes are accustomed to haue some Saynt or other for their particular patron by whose helpe they haue often receiued reliefe in their necessityes and victory agaynst their enemyes wherof diuers notable examples testified by very graue authours may be seene in a treatise of Policy and Religion published a few yeares a goe wherto I remit my Reader for breuityes sake and will now inferre vpon these premisses that seeing the glorified Saynts of God do not only vnderstād know our prayers but also are most willing able to helpe vs as S. Iohn testifyeth in the Apocalips do offer vp our prayers to God yea and as M. Andrews himselfe granteth do pray for vs and finally seeing that experience also teacheth that they do diuers wayes assist relieue vs which I haue euidently proued by the testimony of the ancient Fathers it were most absurd to think that the holy Scriptures should allow vs to craue the prayers and helpe of men and disallow prayers to Saynts therfore I conclude that for as much as prayer to Saynts is most consonant both to Scripture and reason and most profitable and beneficiall to men and was admitted practised by all the primitue Church and ratified and approued by the vniforme consent of the ancient Fathers as I haue shewed sufficiently before it cannot be reiected by M. Andrews and his fellowes though there should be no cōmandment nor example of it in Scripture seeing they professe to admit without a precept such things as are indifferent when they are conforme to the holy Scriptures the practise of the primitiue Church and iudgement of all the ancient Fathers 61. But what starting hole trow you will M. Andrews find heere or what exceptions will he take to this my conclusion mary forsooth he will cauill at least about the authority of the Fathers alledged by the Cardinall against whome he taketh two mayne exceptions the one concerning the age and tyme when they lyued and the other touching their vniforme consent of the former he sayth that they were all of them after 300. yeares to wit in the 4. age whereas in quadringentis annis sayth he rex expectat the King expecteth the resolution of the Fathers of 400. yeares as who would say that the Cardinall hath proued nothing to the purpose at least to his Maiesties intention because he hath not alledged any of the Fathers of the first 3. hundred yeares wherein no doubt he doth his Maiesty great wrong Fathering his owne foolish and absurd conceipt vpon his Maiesty whose great wisdome being considered it cannot be imagined that in admitting the Fathers of the first 500. yeares for so he doth in the English Apology his meaning was to reiect their vniforme consent in any one of those centuries especially seeing that his Maiesty professeth in the same place to reuerence the ancient Fathers more then euer the Iesuits did which truly he should not do if his meaning were such as M. Andrews maketh it heere 62. For I am well assured that the Iesuits neuer tooke any exception agaynst all the Fathers of any one age from Christs tyme to this and much lesse to those of the 4. and 5. age who were of such eminent learning and sanctity that their vniforme consent concerning any question of religion must needs be held for an euident testimony of the truth seeing that God of his infinit mercy did then propagate his Church and fayth ouer the world and establish the same vnder Christian Emperours to wit Constantin the Great and his successors by meanes whereof the Church was euery where prouided and furnished with notable Pastours who being freed from the former persecutions had opportunity to write those ample volumes and worthy monuments which by Gods great prouidence they left to their posterity for the confirmation of the Christian Catholyke fayth whereas in the former ages I meane the first 3. Centenaryes the persecution was so great vnder the pagan Emperours that neyther the Christian faith could so much extend it selfe as it did in the 4. and 5. age Neyther could there be so many able men to write neyther those that were could haue such opportunity to do it as the others had in the peace and tranquility of the Church 63. And this is euident by the workes of the one and the other seeing that in the first 300. yeares there were not past 7. or 8. Fathers at most that wrote at least whose bookes we now haue and of those also the most wrote very little in so much that the workes of some one of the Fathers of the 4. and 5. age do in volume and quantity exceed all the workes that are now extant of all the Fathers of the 3. former ages and therefore it cannot be expected that they should treate or touch all matters which are now in controuersy especially such as were not then any way called in question Besides that in the 4. and 5. age were held the 4. first Generall Councells which not only his Maiesty but also M. Andrews himselfe admitteth In which respect the Fathers of that tyme must needs be taken for assured and vncontrollable witnesses of the truth for those Councells which were no other but assemblyes of the Fathers then liuing could not be of such vndoubted authority as they are if the Fathers of those ages had vniformely taught or belieued any erroneous doctrine for if they were all deceiued in one point they might also be deceiued and erre in the rest and so should the whole Church wherof they were the Pastors Doctors be drawne into errour by them which is not possible seeing that Christ hath not only promised his owne assistance to his Church for euer and that hell gates shall not preuayle against it but also hath placed in it Pastors and Doctors saith the Apostle to the consummation of the Saynts vnto the worke of the ministery vntill we meete all in the vnity of faith vt iam non simus paruuli fluctuantes c. to the end we now be not wauering Children carryed away with euery blast of doctrine so saith the Apostle 64. Whereby it is euident that God of his singular prouidence hath giuen Doctors and Pastors to the Church yea and ordayned that they shall remayne there vnto the worlds end to preserue the same from errour whereupon it followeth that all the Doctors and Pastors of the Church cannot erre at any tyme for if they could then were not the remedy effectuall and certayne which God hath ordayned in his Church to preserue it from errour by them therefore if they haue all erred in the 4. age or any other then hath the prouidence ordinance yea and the promise of God fayled which is impossible as I
conclude this Chapter and matter not doubtingâ— good Reader but thou hast noted throughout the whole that he hath neyther sufficieÌ„tly answered any one place of the Fathers alledged by the Cardinall or any argument of his neyther yet hath obiected any thing himselfe to any purpose but hath eyther notably tryfled and paltred in his answeres and obiections or egregiously peruerted corupted or falsifyed such Fathers and authors as he hath had occasion to alledge 76. So as I hope I haue now performed that which I vndertooke in these 3. Chapters which was to defend the Cardinall and to proue M. Andrews to be a true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an egregious wrangler iangler iuggler and tryfler in the hyghest degree and by the same occasion I haue also fully debated with him an important point of Catholike religion concerning the inuocation of Saynts which I haue euidently proued to be most consonant to holy Scripture practised by the primitiue Church approued by the vniforme consent of the ancieÌ„t Fathers most acceptable to God honorable to him and his Saynts and finally very behouefull and beneficiall to man Whereby it may appeare that M. Andrews and his fellowes who so eagerly impugne it are no other then the instruments and proctors of the Diuell who out of his extreme malice and enuy to Angels Saynts and all mankind seeketh by all the meanes he may to depriue the Angels and Saynts of their honour and man of the inestimable benefits that he may reape both spiritually and temporally by their intercession to which purpose he hath retayned and feyed M. Andrews as it seemeth by his diligent and eloquent pleading the cause and will I feare me one day pay him his fee in other money then he wil be willing to receaue except he open his eyes in tyme to see his danger which I beseech God of his infinit mercy to giue him grace to do THE CONCLVSION OF THIS ADIOYNDER DEVIDED INTO TWO CHAPTERS IN THIS are detected diuers fraudes and shifts common to M. Andrews with M. Barlow as to change the state of the question to dissemble that which most importeth in the Cardinalls text and arguments to abuse wrest bely and falsefy not only the Cardinall but also the ancient Fathers Councells and holy Scriptures and finally to face out matters impudeÌ„tly for lack of proofs CHAP. IX THERE remaine good Reader diuers other thinges in M. Andrews to be examined which I haue touched in my Supplement but being now called on by my printer to furnish his presse I am forced not only to send away that which I haue already written but also to interrupt my designement in the prosecution of the rest and therefore for as much as I am now to draw to an end I think good for the conclusion of the whole to lay before thee sundrie sorts of shifts cosenages corruptions frauds which he hath vsed throughout his whole worke and to the end I may performe it with more breuity and better method I will follow the same course that I held with M. Barlow That is draw them to certaine â—eades and giue thee some few examples of euery one which being added to those that haue already occurred in this Adioynder may suffice I hope to shew â—hee with what kind of stuffe he hath patched vp his Latin volume what a miserable cause he and his fellowes haue to defend seing it driueth them to such shamefull shifts as thou hast partly seene already and shalt further see by that which ensueth 2. The first point which I reproued in M. Barlow was his coÌ„mon custome to change the state of the question and so to answere nothing to the purpose which is no lesse frequent and ordinarie in M. Andrews as for example whereas the true state of the controuersy betwixt vs and them concerning the primacy of the Pope is Whether he be supreme head of the Church in all spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes and may in some cases extend his power to temporall thinges that is to say Whether being the supreme spirituall Pastor he may for the publik benefit of the Church and the good of soules punish his disobedient children namely temporall Princes in their temporall states which I haue shewed in my Supplement to be a necessary consequent of his supreme spirituall power M. Andrews will needes make vs hould and teach that the Popes primacy is a temporall primacy in which respect he calleth our doctrine and beliefe touching that point illustrem fidei articulum de Primatu Petri temporali The notable Article of Faith concerning the temporall Primacy of Peter and as you heard before distinguishing the name of Peters primacy which he granteth from the thing signified by that name which he denyeth he tearmeth it terrestrem Monarchiam an earthly Monarchy and therefore he vrgeth the Cardinall to proue this temporall primacy and earthly Monarchy and so impugneth no opinion of ours nor any thing els but his owne fond fiction as I haue shewed before and more amply in the first Chapter of this Adioynder and therfore I shall not need to stand any longer vpon this point heere but will passe to another 3. Amongst other questions much controuersed concerning good works one is whether there be any works of supererogation which the Catholyks vnderstand to be such as being lawfull and good of their owne nature are not commanded by any precept as for example the Euangelicall Councells in which sense Cardinall Bellarmine and all other Catholikes do vse the word supererogation as signifying a work done supra praeceptum that is to say more then the precept coÌ„mandeth But M. Andrewes impugneth it in another sense and so changeth the state of the question For he will needs haue workes of Supererogation to be such good works only as are done after or besids the full accomplishment of the Commandment so that before a man can do a worke of supererogation he must fullfill and fully obserue all the precepts whereupon he also inferreth that no man can do any such works no not the Apostles themselues because they could not fullfill the Commandments hauing allwayes occasion to to say Dimitte nobis debita nostra forgiue vs Lord our offences 4. Wherein M. Andrews expressely impugneth not so much the Cardinall and other Catholiks as S. Augustine and other ancient Fathers from whome they take both the terme and the sense thereof For whereas our Sauiour saith in the Ghospell that the good Samaritan brought the wounded man into the Inne and leauing two pence with the Host told him quodcumque supererogaueris reddam tibi whatsoeuer thou shalt lay out more I will render it vnto thee S. Augustine alluding to the same place and words of our Sauiour teacheth euidently that those things which are lawfull id est sayth he nullo praecepto Domini prohibentur that is to say which are not forbidden by any precept of our Lord
the last Chapter where I also charged as wel M. Andrews as M. Barlow with the euident abuse of this place of holy Scripture in diuers respects and therfore I beseech thee good Reader take paines to reuiew what I haue said there if thou dost not well remember it So as I may now conclude vpon these two reasons of M. Andrews that he is both an ignorant and a corrupt Doctor ignorant in affirming that Moyses laid a way his Priesthood and corrupt in notably abusing the holy Scriptures 43. And whereas he very ofâ— recurreth for the profe of this point to the examples of the Kings in the old Testament I haue sufficiently answered therto in my Supplement where I haue proued first that the law of Moyses did expressely and manifestly giue to the high Preist the supreme authoritie not only in matters of religion but also euen in temporall affaires forasmuch as concerned the decision of doubts and difficult questions Secondly that the Kinges were not at their institution exempt from this law but rather commanded to obserue it Thirdly that the particuler examples which he and others are wont to alledg of Iosua Dauid Salomon Ezechtas and Iosias doe make nothing for their purpose that diuers other examples do clearly proue the contrary And lastly that although it were true that Kings were superiour to Preists in the old law yet it doth not follow theron that they are so now also in the new law as well because the law of Moyses at least the iudiciall and ceremoniall part thereof was wholly abrogated by the law of Christ as also because our Sauiour ordained a new and farr more excellent Preisthood manner of gouernment in his Church which beginning in the Apostles and spirituall Pastors was continued also most euidently in them for 300 yeares without interruption to wit during the paganisme of the Emperours and no new coÌ„mission euer since that tyme knowne to be giuen by Christ to Kings whereby they were authorized to take vpon them the gouerment of the Church 44. So that I am to demaund of M. Andrews as I also did of M. Barlow in my Supplement how and by what Commission the supreme authority in Ecclesiasticall affayres was transferred from the Apostles and their Successors to Kings after they were Christened seeing that they can neyther claime any succession therin from the Kinges of the old law which as I haue said was quite abrogated by Christ nor pretend any new authority giuen theÌ„ in the new lawe it being most manifest that all the texts of Scripture which M. Andrewes or other of our aduersaries doe or can alleage for the spirituall Supremacy of temporall Kinges out of the new Testament do ordeyne obedience to the Pagan Princes that the raigned no lesse then to others which therfore cannot be vnderstood to concerne spirituall matters and much lesse to make them heades of the Church except M. Andrewes will be so absurd to say that the most wicked Emperours Tyberius Caius Claudius and Nero were heades or supreme Gouernours of the Church and that they could commaund and ought to be obeyed in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affayres 45. Now then seeing M. Andrewes neither bringeth nor is able to bring any other proofes then these out of the old or new Testament for the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of Kinges I may well conclude that as he hath great reason to hould it for no matter of faith and therfore not to admit it into his Creed as being neither expressely taught in Scripture nor necessarily deduced from it so I may with no lesse reason aduise him also to put it out of his Pater noster if it be gotten so farre into his bookes seeing it is not so much as probably gathered out of Scripture in which respect also I am to put him in mind of a rule giuen by himselfe in another question to witt that nothing is to be admitted and practised in the Church whereof some precept is not to be shewed in holy Scriptures for so doth he tell vs concerning prayer to Saints saying non audemus vota nostra c. We dare not direct our prayers to Saints because we haue no precept thereof hauing a precept in expresse wordes Quod tibi praecepero hoc tantum facies Thou shalt only do this which I shall command thee wherevpon we dare only doe that whereof we haue a precept 46. Thus sayth he and therefore according to this his owne rule I must now exact of him to shew vs some precept whereby the Kinges spirituall Supremacie is coÌ„maunded or ordeyned in Scripture but this he acknowledgeth sufficiently he cannot do seing he teacheth that we are not bouÌ„d to belieue it as an article of faith but to be perswaded only that it is a truth which he neither could nor as I thinke would say if he could shew any precept or commaundement of it in Scripture And this being so how then dare he and his fellowes admit it into their Church seeing he sayth Id tantùm audemus facere â— we dare only doe that whereof we haue a precept And how can he approue that men should be compelled to sweare it as an vndoubted truth when neuertheles it is no matter of faith by his owne confession nor hath any ground in Scripture as I haue shewed and much lesse is ordeyned and commaunded in Scripture and therefore according to his owne rule not to be admitted practised in the Church and consequently not to be ratified by a solemne Oath for an infallible verity as if it were one of the most important Articles of our Creed 47. But yet let vs examine the matter a litle further sound the depth of M. Andrewes his doctrine coÌ„cerning the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy I doubt not but we shall find that he is neither good English Protestant nor yet a good subiect for if it fall out that his doctrine agreeeth not with the moderne Lawes and Statuts of the Realme he is neither of both seing that according to the doctrine of English Protestants none can be accounted to be of their congregation neither yet a good subiect who belieueth not the Kings Supremacy as it is taught and ordeyned by the Statutes of King Henry the 8. King Edward the 6. and â—he late Queene Elizabeth but this M. Andrewes doth not for he doth not allowe the King any spirituall power at all â—eaching expresly that the King himselfe acknowledgeth non se aliter esse supra Ecclesiam quà m vtâ— nutritius â—utor That he is not otherwise ouer the Church but as a foster-father and defender Which he also explicateth adding vt eam scilicet nutriat tuâ—atur that is to say to the end that he may nouâ—â—sh and defend it to which purpose he also sayd before as you haue heard that the Kings Supremacy is no matter or article of faith becaus it concerneth only externall gouermeÌ„t so
the Cath. Church done at the Reliques of Saints 443. at Valentia in Spaine ibid. None wrought in the ProtestaÌ„ts Church why ibid. Monks of the Primitiue Church their discipline .449 their first Institute approued by M. Andrews 448. N NAME Catholike belongeth only to the Roman Church 451. S. Greg. Nazianz. his approbation of prayer to Saintes pag. 253. to our B. Ladie ibid. S. Greg. Nissen his approbation of holy reliques in the Church 264. of prayer to Saints ibid. His prayer to S. Theodor the Martyr 267. O OATH of Supremacy why it is vnlawfull 461. Origen his proof of S. Peters Primacy 198. P PASTORS their obligation of care of their Churches pag. 76.78 Prayer to Saintes approued by S. Basil 218. Impugned by Protestants 336.337 conform to Scripture deduced from it 344. Power ouer the soule implyeth power ouer the body pag. 126. Priuiledges graÌ„ted to the Church of Constantinople pag. 44.45.46 Abrogated by Pope Leo pa. 47. Puritans their Doctrine concerning the Kinges Supremacy 419. How some of them take the Oath of Supremacy 420. S. Peter how he bare the person of the Church when he receaued the Keyes pag. 5. His Supremacy grounded vpoÌ„ the wordes Pasce oues meas pag. 8. acknowledged by S. Augustine pag. 17. By S Cyril ibid. by S. Hierome pag. 119. by Origen 198. by S. Hilary 199. How he was called the light of the Church pag. 103. How he was reprehended by S. Paul pag. 107. how he is the foundation of the Church pag. 109. preferred before S. Iohn why pag. 118 How he may be called a Monarch pag. 134. His fall no preiudice to his Primacy pag. 148. Q QVEENE Elizabeth her spirituall Gouernment giuen vnto her by the Parliament 476. R RELIQVES of Saints vsed in the Church 284. approued by S. Gregory Nissen ibid. M. Rogers against M. Andrews concerning our English Clergy 422 423. Roman Church neuer fayled in Faith by Gods prouidence pag. 124. S SAINTS praied vnto in all ages passim how they heare our prayers and help vs pag. 288. how they know our praiers and actions 291.318.319 practised in the primitiue Church 334. impugned by Protestants out of Scripture 336.337 How they helpe vs by the participation of Christs power 347. Protectors of Citties Countries ibid. Schisme whence it commonly ariseth pag. 125. Signe of the Crosse in Baptisme 334.336 Sermons de tempore in Latin and Greeke in S. Augustines tyme pag. 146. by S. Maximus Bishop of Turin 205. Siluerius the Pope his vsage by Theodora and Iustinian pag. 32.33 defended by the Bishop of Patera 24.35.36 Speaches conditionall do not alwayes suppose a doubt in the Speaker 261. Supremacy of S. Peter grounded vpon the words Pasce oues meas pag. 8. proued by S. Chrisostome 142. Supremacy Ecclesiasticall of the King of England and M. Andrews conceit thereof .459 excluded by a Rule of M. Andrewes 465. T THEODOSIVS the Emperour inuocated Saints pag. 286. particulerly S. Iohn Baptist. ibid. Theodoretus restored to his Bishoprike by Pope Leo pag. 59. Abused by Maister Andrewes 307. Theodora the Empresse her practise against Pope Siluerius pag. 31. Tyranny more frequent in smal States then in great Monarchies pag. 130. V VIGILANTIVS his heresy against prayer to Saints pag. 228. resisted by S. Hierome ibid. 377.378.379 M. Andrews his progenitour 377. Vniuersall Bishop the title giuen to the Pope by the CouÌ„cell of Calcedon pag. 68. Votiue represeÌ„tations of haÌ„ds feet eyes c. hung vp in Churches in the Primitiue Church 2â—0 W VVORKSâ— good Works how the are said to saue vs. 272. Wryters of diuers partes of Scripture vncertayne pag 250. FINIS The reason that moued the Author to adde this Adioynder to the former SuplemeÌ„t The Authors intention in this Adioynder What question is specially handled in this Adioynder SupplemeÌ„t chap. 1. nu 58.59 seq D. Andr. Respons ad Apolog. ca. 1. pag. 16. Aug. de Agon Christ. c. 30. Ambros. de sacerd dignitate cap. 20. S. Augustine lamely and frauduleÌ„tly alledged by M. Andrews August vbi supra Cic. offic l. 1. How S. Peter did beare the person of the Church when he receaued the keyes S. Augustines meaning declared out of his owne doctrine Tract vlt. in Ioan. Idem in Ps. 108. Idem ser. 13. de verb. Dom. M. Andrewes fraud against the intention of S. Augustine S. Ambr. de Sacerd. dignit c 1. The meaning of S. Ambrose declared Andr. ca. 3. pag. 74. § Verum Ambr. in 2. Cor. 12. IdeÌ„ lib. 10. coÌ„ment in cap. 24. EuaÌ„g Luc. S. Ambrose proueth S. Peters Supremacy out of the wordes Pasce oues meas Three things taught by S. Ambrose D. Andrews can help the dyce wheÌ„ he is put to his shifts A vayne brag of D. Andrews Andr. cap. 8. pag. 214. 215. The secoÌ„d argument answer of M. Andrews which he taketh to be so sharp that it will prick the Cardinall Andr. c. 1. pag. 16. §. VeruÌ„ vim videamê° See Suppl Chap. 1. n. 18.19 sequ Num. c. 8. Num. 1. Deut. 10. 18. Supplem c. 1. n. 22.23 24. Suppl cap. 1. vbi supr In what case ChristiaÌ„s may ground vpon the law of Moyses M. Andrews his beggarly proofe for a temporal princes spirituall Supremacy See infra cap. 6. M. Andrews proofes of the temporall Princes supremacy sauour of Iudaisme 2. Reg. 5. D. Andrews doth equiuocate egregiously Andr. vbi supra D. Andrews argueth impertinently Isa. 44. Num. 27. D. Andrews coÌ„founded by an instance of his owne Theodor. quast 48. in Num. See Suppl nu 21. Num. 27. M. Andrews pricking argument doth wound none but himselfe The third answere of D. Andrews examined Andr. vbi supra pag. 17. lin 4. (a) See after c. 3. n. 36.37 seq (b) Cap. 5. n. 18.19.20 (c) Supplement cap. 1. nu 59. sequent If the Popes primacy be a temporall Primacy M. Andrews is a pecuniary Pastour S. Augustine acknowledgeth S. Peters supremacy in the place alleadged by M. Andrews S. August Tract 124. in Euang. Ioan. Idem in psal 108. S. Cyril coÌ„ment in Cap. vlt. Ioan. S. Cyril also acknowledgeth S. Peters supremacy in the place which M. Andrews alleadgeth Andr. vbi supra M. Andrews maketh S. Augustin S. Cyril fauour a pernicious heresy S. Augustine belyed by D. Andrews Aug. Ep. 50. S. Cyril notably abused by M. Andrews Cyril vbi supra Andr. pag 215. §. Noâ— vero M. Andrews worthily suspected to hold that Magistrats fall from their dignity by mortal sinnes S. Cyril Hierosol Cathech Mystag 2. Optat. l. 7. de Schismate DonatistaruÌ„â— The plaâ—ces of 3. Fathers alledged by M. Andrews do confute him S. Chrysostome for S. Peters Supremacy Chrysost. de Sacerd. l. 2. Ibidem Ibid. S. Leo. ep 89. Idem ser. 3. de assumpt sua ad Pontif. Supplem cap. 5. nu 25.26 27. Euseb. Emis ho. de natiuit Ioan. Euan. Theophil in cap. vlt. Ioan. S. Ber. l. 2. de consider Psal. 1.19 Psal. 63. M. Andrews his
sharpe arrowes do proue but shuttlecocks or fools bolts Eccl. 19. Prou. 16. Concerning a law in the Code of Iustinian Supplem Chap. 1. nu 99. Apol. Car. Bellar. c. 3. pag. 17. Andr. Resp. ad Apolog. cap. 3. pag. 81. The law Inter Claras proued to be a most true cleare Law though M. Andrews hold it for obscure and counterfait The testimony of Baldus see the Code l. 1. tit de suÌ„m Trin. Accurfius The testimony of Alciat Alciat l. 4. ParergoÌ„ cap. 25. Pope Nicolas the first cyted this law aboue 800. years agoe Nicol. ep ad Michael Imperat. The same coÌ„firmed out of Liberatus who liued in Iustinians dayes Liberat. in breuiar c. 20. Tom. 2. Concil ep Iustin. ad AgapetuÌ„ vide BiÌ„niuÌ„ Ibidem ep 2. Ioan. 2. ad Senatores L. 6. Tit. de sum Trinit (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See the Code vbâ— supra A cleare testimony of the vniuersall authority perpetualâ— integrity of the Roman Sea Esa. 5. Two facts of IustiniaÌ„ the Emp. against 2. Popes examined reproued Liberat. in Breuiar c. 22. Andr. vbi supra pag 81. §. Vt nobis A most absurd argument of M. Andrews Matth. 23. Anast. in Agapeto Hist. miscel Paul Diac. l. 16. Liberat. in Breuiar c. 22. Platina Blond dec â— lib. 3. Niceph. l. 17. cap. 18. Naucler Gener. 18. anno 510. The wicked practise of the hereticall Empresse Theodora against Pope Syluerius Liberat. iâ— Breu. c. 22. Paul Diacon in Iusâ—iniano Amoyn de reb gest Franc. l. 2. cap. 2. Marian. Scotus Platina in Vigilio Blond dec â— l. 6. Petrus de Natal l. 6. c. 12. S. Greg. l. 2. ep 36. Baron an 547. pag. 357. Idem An. 538. Liberat in Breniar c. 24. (c) Suplem cap. 1. nu 108. Iustinian the Emperour was so ignorant that he could neyther wryte nor read and therefore easily deceaued by subtil heretiks Suydas in Iustiniano Euagr. l. 4. cap. 40. Idem lib. 5. cap. 1. The Iudgment of Euagri concerning Iustinians death and the state of his soule (d) See supplem cap. 1 nu 90. seq Anastas in Agapeto Blond dec 1. l. 3. Naucler Gen. 18. an 510. Anastasâ— in Agaâ—eto Naucle vbi supra Nouel 42. The two facts of Iustiniana aâ—gainst two Popes ouerwayd with maâ—ny other of his owne in honour fauour of the Sea Apostolik The importance of the Bishop of Patera his reprehension of Iustinians fact against Pope Syluerius Liberat. in breuiarâ— ca. 22. The Bishop of Patera Protested Gods Iudgment against Iustinian Idemâ— ibidâ— See Card. Apol. pag. 27. M. Andrews discouereth an hereticall spirit in his Iudgment of Iustinians fact Liberat. vbi supra Iustinian reuoked his senteÌ„ce against Pope Siluerius vpon the reprehensiâ— giuen him by the Bishop of Patera Idem ibidem M. Andrews hiâ— folly in approuing an act which the author of it did after disallow and repent The bad conscience of M. Andrews in dissembling the truth which he could not but see in Liberatus A weake foolish argument of M. Andrews to proue Iustinian superiour to 2. Popes M. Andrews must deuyse new answeres to the Cardinal concerning the law inter Claras the Bishop of Patera his reprehension of Iustinian M. Andrews his words of the Cardinall iustly retorted vpon himselfe Supplem cap. 2. nuâ— 15 16. Apolog. Car Bellow pag. 92. cap. 7. Whether the Popes authority be established or ouerthrowne by the councell of Calcedon Andr. pag. 170. cap. 7. §. Quod ibi Ibidem M. Andrews his shameles dealing Concil Chalced. Act. 15. Can. 28. Concil CoÌ„stant Can. â— The sense and meaning of the Canon of the Councell of Cal. alleadged by M. Andrews Can. 28. Concil Calced Act. 16. Relatio Synodi ad Leon. in fine Còcil M. Andrews corrupteth the text of the Canon adding vnto it per omnia What maÌ„ner of Equality the Church of CoÌ„stantinople should haue with the RomaÌ„ Church Sozom. hist. l. 3. cap. 7. What preheminence the Church of CoÌ„staÌ„tinople sought to haue in the CouÌ„cell of Calcedon See Paral. Torti ac Tort. cap. 4. p. 157. edit Colon 1611. How Equality is vnderstood somtimes in the Scriptures 2. Cor. 8. Exod. 18. See S. Tho. in ep 2. ad Cor. cap. 8. Item Ioan. Gagnaeus in hunc locum Two kinds of equality correspoÌ„ding to two kinds of Iustice. Aristot. Ethic. 5. S. Thom. 2.2 q. 16. The Canon which graunted the priuiledges to the Church of ConstaÌ„tinople abrogated by Pope Leo. Foure things to be noted in an Epistle of Pope Gelasius for the inualidity of the CanoÌ„ The East Church acknowledged to be subiect to the Sea of Rome Ep. orient Episcop ad SymmachuÌ„ To. 2. Concil Exemplar libelli Ioan. Ep. CoÌ„stantin To. 2. Concil Vide etiam Ep. Iustini Imperat. ad Hormisdam â— P. To. 20. Concil The Primacy of the RomaÌ„ Sea acknowledged by the Greeke Church to be grounded vpon the expresse words of Christ. Libeâ—at in Breuâ—ario c. 22. Nicephor li. 17. c. 9. Anastas in Agapeto Paul Diacon l. 16. Nicepho li. 17. c. 26. vide etiam Constit. Vigilij apud Binium to 2. Concil p. 5â—2 Baron An. 551.552 553. Ep. Eutychij ad Vigilium To. 2. Concil in Concil 5. Generali collat 2. â—p 8. Pelag To. 2. Concil S. Greg. lib. 7â— â—p 65â— Idem ibid. ep 64. Many Bishops of Constantinople deposed by the Popes of Rome Ep. Nicolai 1. ad Michael Imperat To. 4. concil in 8. Synodo gener in appendice ex Act. 6. S. Antonin Tit. â—9 cap. 1. §. 6. Naucler gener 41. Bloud lib. 6. dec 2. in fine Platina in vita Innocen 3. To. 3. Concil in Concilio Lateran See Suplem cap. 2. nâ— 1. 2. S. Antoninus Tit. 22. cap. 13. §. 1.2 seq Item Concil Florentin sess vlt. See Suplem cap. 1. nu 114. 115. The iust IudgmeÌ„ts of God vpon the Church of Constantinople Matth. 16. Eccli 5. Valer. Maxim l. 1. cap. 1. Andr. cap. 7. p. 170. Bad dealing of M. Andrews (d) p. 177. p. 35. §. de Inuocatione p. 45. §◠Locus Liberat. in Breuiar cap 13. Ep. Leo. 53.54.55.59.70.71 How the Canon for the B. of Constantinoples priuiledgs was made Concil Calced act 16. (d) Concerning the inualidity of this Canon see Baron To. 4. pag. 4â—3 an 381. edit Romae an 1593. Relat. Synodi ad Leo. in fine Concil Leo. ep 61. ad Episcop in Synodo Chal. congreg Item ep 55.70 71. (d) See more concerning this Canon in Binius To. 1. CoÌ„cil pag. 517. edit Coloniae an 1606. Leo ep 53. ad Anatolium Idem ep 55. ad Pulcher. Concil Nicen. Can. 6. (c) See after in the end of this Chapter What maner of intercessioÌ„ Pope Leo made to Martian the Emperour against Anatolius Leo. ep 54. ad MartiaÌ„ Relatio Synod Chalced. ad Martian in fine Concil Leo. ep 59. ad MartiaÌ„ Leo ep 55. ad Pulcheriam What intercession Pope Leo made to Anatolius Leo. ep 53. ad Anatol. Apoc. 3. What
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
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
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