to affirme that the Popes Supremacy is manifestly gathered out of that Councel addeth further that the Cardinals authority is not yet so great in the world as to make men belieue that the Popes Primacy is established by that which they know doth specially ouerthrow it So saith M. Andrewes therefore this poynt seemeth to me right worthy to be discussed 2. Thus then he saith Legat actione vna totaventilatum c. Let a man read the matter debated in one whole action of the Councel and renewed and confirmed in another finally decreed by a Canon that the priuiledges of the Bishop of Constantinople shal be ne maiora sed aequalia per omnia not greater but equal in all things with the priuiledges of the Bishop of Rome the Roman Legats crying in vayne against it and the Bishop of Rome himself sâ—ying also afterwards by his letters in vayne to the Emperour Empresse and Anatolius Thus saith M. Andrewes wherein two things specially are to be noted for the present for afterwards I will ad a thyrd one is that the Councel granted by that Canon to the Bishop of Constantinople equal priuiledges per omnia in all respects with the Bishop of Rome The other that Pope Leo and his Legats resisted and contradicted it in vayne 3. For the first whereas he saith that the Councell of Calcedon did by that Canon giue to the Bishop of Constantinople ne maiora sed aequalia per omnia priuilegia not greater priuiledges but equal in all things with the Bishop of Rome as though the Councell had exempted the Church and Bishop of Constantinople from subiection to the Roman Sea for par in parem non habet potestatem an equal hath no authority or power ouer his equal truly I must needs say that if M. Andrews had any care what he saith or sparke of shame he would not haue affirmed this so resolutly as he hath done seeing that the very words and text of the Canon it selfe do euince the contrary In which respect he thought good to giue vs only some patches pieces thereof with his corrupt sense and vnderstanding of it and not to lay downe the Canon it selfe whereof the drift and whole scope is no other but to giue to the Bishop of Constantinople the second place after Rome before the Bishops of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem which Churches in former tymes had alwayes had the precedence before the Church of Constantinople 4. The words of the Canon are these Sanctorum Patrum decreta vbique sequentes c. Following euery where the decrees of the holy Fathers and acknowledging the Canon of an hundreth and 50. Bishops which was lately read we do also decree and determine the same concerning the priuiledges of the Church of Constantinople which is new Rome For the Fathers did worthily giue priuiledges to the Throne of old Rome because that Citty did raygne or had the Empyre and the 150. Bishops most beloued of God being moued with the same consideration gaue equall priuiledges to the most holy Throne of new Rome iudging rightly that the Citty which is honored as well with the Empyre as with the Senate and doth enioy equal priuiledges with the most ancient Queene Rome should be also extolled and magnifyed as she is euen in Ecclesiasticall things secundam post illam existentem being the second after her c. 5. Thus saith the Canon adding also certayne priuiledges which were in particuler granted to the Church of Constantinople whereof I shall haue occasion to speake after a whyle when I shall first haue explicated this that I haue layed downe already which as you hane seene hath no other sense or meaning then to renew or confirme a former Canon pretended to be made by 150. Bishops in the Councel of Constantinople some 60. yeares before which Canon was a confirmation of the Decrees of the Councel of Nice not only concerning matters of faith but also touching the limites and iurisdiction of certaine Metropolitan Churches yet with this exception in fauour of the Church of Constantinople that it should haue Primatus honorâ—m post Romanum Episcopum propterea quòd sit noua Roma the honour of Primacy after the Bishop of Rome because it is new Rome 6. This then being the effect of that Canon of the councel of Constantinople it is cleare that this other of the Councell of Calcedon which renewed and confirmed it was also to the same purpose to wit to giue to the Church of Constantinople the second place after the Roman that is to say the preheminence before the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch which according to the Canons of the Councel of Nice had the second and third place after the Church of Rome and this I say is euident in the Canon it selfe alledged by M. Andrewes where it is sayd expresly of the Church of Constantinople that it should be magnified and extolled as old Rome was secundam post illam existentem being the se-second after her which clause was yet more clearely expressed in the same Canon as it was related in the Councell the day after it was made in these words Et in Ecclesiasticis sicut illa maiestatem habere negotijs secundam post illam existere that is to say we iudged it conuenient that the Citty of Constantinople should haue a Maiesty in Ecclesiasticall affayres as Rome hath and be the second after her besides that the relation which the whole Councell of Calcedon made to Pope Leo of the substance and effect of this Canon may put the matter out of all doubt declaring it thus Confirmauimus autem centum quinquaginta sanctorum PatruÌ„ regulam c. We haue also confirmed the rule or CanoÌ„ of the 150. holy Fathers which were assembled in Constantinople vnder Theodosius the elder of pious memory whereby it was ordayned that after that most holy and Apostolicall Seat the Church of Constantinople should haue the honour which is ordayned to be the secoÌ„d c. Thus wrot the whole Councell of Calcedon to Pope Leo. 7. Now then can any thing be more cleare then that the drift and meaning of that Canon is no other then to giue the second place to the Church of Constantinople after the Sea Apostolike Why then doth M. Andrewes affirme so confidently that this CanoÌ„ made theÌ„ equall in all things For although it giueth to the Bishop of ConstaÌ„tinople equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome yet it neither saith nor meaneth that their priuiledges should be equall in all things or in all respects as M. Andrews corruptly frauduleÌ„tly affirmeth in a differeÌ„t Letter as though he laid down the very words of the CanoÌ„ Besides that the equality meÌ„tioned in the Canon is sufficiently explicated by the Canon it self which hauing signified that the Fathers in that Councell thought good to grant the second place vnto the Church of Constantinople and to giue it equall priuiledges
with the Church of Rome addeth presently for the explication thereof vt Ponticae Asâ—anae Thraciae Dioecesis Metropolitani c. That the Metropolitans of Pontus Asia Thracia and also the Bishopps of the same Diocesse amongst the Barbarous so were all called that were no Graecians should be ordayned by the Bishops of Constantinople 8. So sayth the Canon giuing to vnderstand that whereas the Church of Constantinople had bene in times past but a priuate Bishoprick subiect to Heraclea it should hereafter be not only a Metropolitan but also a Patriarchall Sea and haue Metropolitans vnder it yea and that as the Church of Rome was the chiefe Church of the West so also the Church of Constantinople being now made the second after Rome should be the chief Church of the East preferred before the Patriarchall Seas of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem yet with this euident exception and reseruation that neuerthelesse it should be still inferiour to the Roman Sea being the second after it that is to say it should haue the same place and priuiledge that the Church of Alexandria had in former times which though it was the chief Church of the East the secoÌ„d after Rome yet was alwayes inferiour subiect thereto as it is euident by the appeale of the famous Athanasius Bishop of that Sea to Pope Iulius the first of that name aboue an huÌ„dreth yeares before the CouÌ„cel of CalcedoÌ„ 9. Therfore the preheminence which the Church of CoÌ„stantinople was to haue by this Canon was to be preferred before the Churches of Alexandria Antioch and the equality that it was to haue with Rome was no other but to be a Patriarchall Sea and head of all the Patriarchall and Metropolitan Churches of the East as Rome was in the West yet with reseruatioÌ„ of the right of Primacy due to the Roman Sea Besides that it is to be noted that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in our latin Copies is translated aequalis doth signify also similis lyke not only in prophane Authors as euery maÌ„ may see in the Thesaurus of Henricê° Stephanê° but also in diuers places of holy Scripture both in the old new TestameÌ„t And he that list to see more to this purpose may read the Paralel of Tortus his Tortor writteÌ„ against M. D. Andrews by the ReuereÌ„d Learned Father Androas Eudaemon-Ioannes who hath sufficiently handled and explicated this point and hath also produced a cleare testimony out of Theodorus Balsamon a very learned Grecian and Patriarch of Antioch to proue that the mention of paria priuilegia equall priuiledges graÌ„ted to the Church of CoÌ„stantinople in the CouÌ„cell of CalcedoÌ„ doth not any way derogate from the supreme dignity of the RomaÌ„ Sea 10. Whereto I also add that the word aequalis in the Scripture doth not alwayes signify a true and iust Equality in all respects but somtymes also an Equality in a certayne proportion as in the Apostle to the Corinthians who exhorteth them to supply the temporall wants and necessityes of the poore with their store and aboundance vt fiat aequalitas sayth he that there may be an equality meaning an equality in a certayne similitude and proportion as it appeareth by that which he addeth for the further explication therof saying sicut scriptum est qui muliùm non abundauit qui modicum non minorauit as it is written he which gathered much had no more then was necessary for him and he that gathered litle had no less So sayth the Apostle alluding to the history in Exodus of those who gathered Manna in different quantity and yet found that they had it in a kind of equality because euery one had so much as was needfull for him and no more so that equality doth not signify heere an Arithmeticall equality as the Philosophers and Schoolemen tearme it which is equall in euery respect and is vsed in commutatiue Iustice that is to say in buying and selling and the lyke wherein the iust and true valew of euery thing is equally considered but a Geometricall equality keeping only a certayne proportion according to distributiue Iustice which as Aristotle and the Schoolemen do teach doth alwayes respect equality in the distribution of honours priuiledges and rewards yet so as due proportion be obserued correspondent to the different dignity and quality of euery one And therfore when two persons of different quality and degree as the Captayne and his souldiar are to be rewarded for some one seruice to the common wealth their rewards or priuiledges are truly equall when they are priuiledged and rewarded in a due proportion to their degrees without impeachment to the difference that is betwixt them And so a subiect may be said to haue equall priuiledges with his King and yet be his subiect still and in this maÌ„ner the words equall and equality are to be vnderstood in the CouÌ„cell of CalcedoÌ„ as is euident by the CanoÌ„ it self wherin you see it was ordayned that the Bishop of Constantinople should haue equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome and yet haue the secoÌ„d place after him 11. But now to deale somewhat more liberally with M. Andrews in this point let vs put the case that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon did meane to giue to the Church of Constantinople that equality with the Roman sea which he affirmeth should he trow you gayne any thing thereby Or could he any way preiudice the vniuersall and supreme authority either of Pope Leo at that tyme or of the other Popes his Successors euer since Truly no but rather should notably confirme theyr primacy and vtterly ouerthrow his owne cause seeing that it is most euident that the authority of Pope Leo was such that his only opposition to that Canon and his abrogation therof sufficed to ouerthrow disanull it which I will take a litle paynes to proue by the whole course and practise of the Church euen from that Councell vntill the ruine of the Greeke Church and Empyre which though it be needlesse in respect of the learned yet I hope it will not be altogeather fruitles to the more ignorant and vnlearned and may serue for an aboundant conuiction of M. Andrews his impudency and malice who is not ashamed to auouch such a manifest falsehood and impugne such a knowne truth as he doth 12. To this purpose I wish it to be noted what Gelasius who liued at the same tyme and was Pope about 30. yeares after Leo wrote to the Bishops of Dardania concerning a schisme raysed by Acatius Bishop of Constantinople in the tyme of Pope Felix his Predecessor in which Epistle he signifyeth 4. things specially to be noted for this purpose First that the Emperour Martian though he had made great instance to Pope Leo for the aduancement of the Church of Constantinople yet did highly prayse and commend the said
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
Pope for that he would not by any meanes suffer the rules of the Canons to be violated in that point Secondly that Anatolius the Bishop of Constantinople in whose fauour that Canon was made being most seuerely reprehended by Pope Leo for his ambitious attempt excused himself laying the fault vpon the Clergy of Constantinople and affirming in Apostolici Praesulis totum positum potestate that all the matter was in the power of the Apostolicall Prelate that is to say of Pope Leo. Thirdly that the Emperour Leo who succeeded Martian before Pope Leo dyed attempting within a few yeares after to obtayne the same priuiledges for the Church of CoÌ„staÌ„tinople in the tyme of Pope Simplicius was flatly denyed them and that it was declared vnto him by Probus Bishop of Canusium the Popes Legat nullatenus posse tentari that it might by no meanes be attempted 13. Finally Gelasius also signifyeth that Acatius Bishop of Constantinople who raysed the Schisme wherof he writeth and was therefore excommunicated by Pope Felix was himself so subiect obedient to the Roman Sea before he fell into that schisme that he procured the Pope to censure and depriue the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch yea and was himself executor of the Popes sentence against them and that therefore falling also himself afterwards into the fellowship of the condemned Bishops vpon whome he had executed the Popes sentence of condemnatioÌ„ he deserued no lesse to be condemned then they All this witnesseth Gelasius whereby it appeareth euidently that from the tyme of the Councel of Calcedon to his raigne which was about 40. yeares the Canon whereupon M. Andrewes relyeth was not held to be of any waight for the exemption of the Church of Constantinople from the subiection of the Church to the Roman Sea For if the Canon had then had any such force neyther would the Emperour Martian haue hyghly commended Pope Leo for resisting it nor Anatolius in whose fauour it was made would haue excused himself for procuring it and acknowledged the matter to depend wholy vpon Pope Leo's determination neyther should Leo the Emperour haue needed to haue renewed that suit to Pope Simplicius neyther yet would Acatius haue yielded as he did for a tyme to obay the Pope and to execute his sentence vpon other Grecian Bishops 14. Furthermore albeit this schisme raysed by Acatius continued in the Church of Constantinople some yeares after his death during the raigne of two Hereticall Emperours to wit Zeno and Anastasius which was about 40. yeares yet diuers Grecian and Orientall Bishops which were partakers of the sayd schisme made earnest and humble suit in the meane tyme to Pope Symmachus in a generall and coÌ„mon letter with the tytle or superscription of Ecclesia Orientalis c. to be restored to the vnion of the Roman Sea acknowledging Symmachus not only to be the true Successor of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles but also to feede Christs sheep committed to his charge per totum habitabilem mundum throughout the whole habitable world And as soone as the wicked Emperour Anastasius was dead who was stroken by Gods iust iudgement with a thunderbolt and the worthy and Catholike Emperour Iustinus chosen in his place as well Iustinus himself as also a Synod of Bishops assembled in Constantinople togeather with Iohn Bishop of that Sea demanded of Pope Hormisdas who succeeded Symmachus to be reconciled to the Sea Apostolik and afterwards the sayd Bishop of Constantinople sent a profession of his faith to Hormisdas acknowledging that the Catholike Religion is alwayes kept inuiolable and sincere in the Apostolicall and Roman Sea by reason of Christs promise to S. Peter when he said Tu es Petrus super hanc petram c. 15. Moreouer he further protested that he would during his life admit and follow all the doctrine and decrees of that Sea and remayne in the communion thereof In qua saith he est integra Christianae Religionis perfecta soliditas wherein there is sincereâ— and perfect solidity of the Christian Religion Finally hauing promised to raze the name and memory of Acatius who had byn cause of the former schisme out of the holy Tables that is to say out of the number and Catalogue of the Bishops of Constantinople which was wont to be read in the tyme of the diuine Mysteries he concluded that if he should at any tyme vary from this his profession he vnderstood himselfe to be comprehended in the number of those whome he had anathematizâ—d and condemned This I haue layd downe the more largely to the end we may consider heere whether this Bishop of Constantinople and the other Grecian and Orientall Bishops that is to say all the Greeke Church togeather with the most Catholike Emperour Iustinus all which so earnestly sought to be reconcylâ—d to the vnion and obedience of Pope Hormisdas whether they I say had not more regard to the Primacy of the Apostolicall Roman Sea grounded as themselues confessed vpon the expresse words and commission of our Sauiour to S. Peter then to the pretended and supposed equality of priuiledges which M. Andrews saith were granted to the Church of Constantinople by that Canon of the Councell of Calcedon 16. The like may be sayd and clearely verifyed in the ensuing ages for otherwise why would Iustinian the Emperour who as it is euident in the histories in his owne decrees fauoured exceedingly the Bishops and Church of Constantinople suffer Pope Agapetus to depose Anthymus Bishop of that Sea as I haue signified before Why did not either he or the hereticall Empresse Theodora his wyfe or at least Anthymus himselfe stand vpon the equality granted by the Councell of Calcedon Or how can it be imagined that Theodora would afterward labour by all meanes possible as she did perfas nefas to induce the two Popes Siluerius and Vigilius to the restitution of Anthymus if she had thought that they had no iurisdiction ouer him by reason of that Canon Moreouer Mennas Bishop of Constantinople being excommunicated together with Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia by Pope Vigilius pretended not this Canon or the equality supposed by M. Andrewes but submitted himself as also Theodorus did to the authority of the Roman Sea crauing absolution and restitution to the communion thereof 17. Also Eutychias who succeeded Mennas claimed so litle priuiledge for himself or his Sea by this Canon that when the fifth Generall Councell was to be assembled and held there he wrote to Vigilius the Pope requesting him that there might be an Assemblyâ— and conference had praesidente nobil saith he vestra Beâ—atitudine your Beatitude being our president And although some yeares afterwards Iohn Bishop of Constantinople made a new schismeâ— and opposed himself to the Roman Sea taking vpon him the title of Vniuersall Bishop which schisme lasted only during his lyfe yet it is euident by the Epistle of Pope Pelagiâ—s written to him and to
the Schismaticall Synod gathered by him that as well he himself as his predecessor non semel sed saepissim◠not once but very oft had written to the Sea Apostolike protesting that if they had at any time presumed to do any thing against the authority of the sayd Sea they acknowledged themselues to be anathematized or accursed by theyr owne sentence 18. And after the death of the sayd Iohn S. Gregory the great in an Epistle of his to a Sicilian Bishop testifieth that the Bishop of Constantinople in his time being accused of a great delict acknowledged himself to be subiect to the censure or chastisment of the Sea Apostolik in case he were guilty whereupon S. Gregory saith Nam quòd se dicit Sedi Apostolicae subijci siqua culpa in Episcopis inuenitur c. For wheras he saith that he is subiect to the Sea Apostolik if any fault be found in the Bishops I know not who is not subiect vnto it And in another epistle to the same Bishop he saith Quis dubitet eam Sedi Apostolicae subiectam c. Who doubteth but that the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the Sea Apostolyke which as well the most pious Emperour as Eusebius Bishop therof do continually professe So he wherein it is to be noted that these Bishops of Constantinople professed this their obedience to the Roman Sea at such tyme as the Church of Rome was most miserably oppressed by the tyranny of the Gothes and Longobards in such sort that it would haue beene vtterly contemned especially by the Greeke Church if it had vsurped a greater authority then was generally belieued to be due vnto it and to haue byn giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter and his Successors 19. To this may be added the excommunication and deposition of many Bishops of Constantinople by Bishops of Rome as it appeareth in an Epistle of Pope Nicolas the first to the Emperour Michael wherein he nameth 8. Bishops of that Sea deposed by his predecessors and afterwards he himself also gaue sentence of excommunication deposition against Photius Bishop of the same Sea which sentence Basilius the Emperour executed for feare of incurring the censures of the Sea Apostolike as he himself testified in the 8. generall Councell And when Photius was afterwards by his owne subtile practise restored to his Sea he was agayne deposed by Pope Stephanus and such was the reuerence and respect that the Clergy and Nobility of Constantinople bare to the Sea Apostolike that they would not admit one of the bloud Royall called Stephanus to succeed Photius vntill they had written to the Pope to haue his confirmation thereof Moreouer three generall Councels to wit the 6.7 and 8. being after S. Gregoryes tyme assembled and held in Greece and two of them in Constantinople it self the Popes Legats and not the Bishop of Constantinople were Presidents therof which neyther the Greeke Emperours nor those Bishops would haue permitted if they had byn perswaded that the Councell of Chalcedon had exempted the Church of Constantinople from the Popes Iurisdiction or made the same equal with the Roman Church 20. And albeit after S. Gregories time diuers hereticall Emperours and the Bishops of Constantinople during their raigne caused diuers schismes and separated them selues from the vnion of the Roman Sea yet when Catholike Emperours and Bishops succeeded they returned to the vnion and obedience thereof in so much that not only the Embassadours of the Emperour Petrus Altisiodorensis but also the two Patriarkes of Constantinople and Hierusalem with the Delegates of the two other Patriarks of Alexandria and Antioch came to the great Councell of Lateran held at Rome in the yeare of our Lord 1215. and subscrybed to the Catholike doctrine concerning the Vniuersall Authority and Primacy of the Sea Apostolike 21. And againe 200. yeares after in the yeare 1459. the Greeke Emperour Ioannes Paleologus and Ioseph Bishop of Constantinople togeather with the Legates of the other 3. Patriarkes of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem besids many Grecian Bishops Abbots and other learned Prelats came to a Generall Councell held by Pope Eugenius at Florence and there hauing first maturely debated amongst themselues the questiō of the Popes Supremacy according to the testimonies not only of the holy Scriptures but also of the ancient Greeke Fathers they receiued and with their hands and seales confirmed the Catholike doctrine as well concerning that point as all other wherein they had in the tyme of the former Schismes dissented from the Roman Church as I haue signified more at large in the first Chapter of my Supplement where I proposed also to be considered that presently after their reuolt from this solemne vnion made at Florence God punished the Empyre and Church of Constantinople with that lamentable and miserable captiuity wherein it hath euer since remayned 22. And thereto I will now also add for the conclusion of this point what S. Antoninus obserueth in his history concerning the iust Iudgements of God vpon the Church of Constantinople before the fall of the Greeke Empyre to wit that whereas the Bishops of that Sea had dyuers tymes most ambitiously and proudly impugned the authority of the Roman Church by the fauour and help of the hereticall Emperours God so disposed that in the end the said Emperours became the instruments of his iustice to punish their pryde especially from the tyme of the Emperour Constantin called Monomachus who though in despyte and hatred of the Roman Church he graced the Bishop of Constantinople called Michaël not only with extraordinary priuiledges and ensygnes of honour which he granted as well to his person and successors as to his Sea but also with the tytle of Vniuersall Patriarke of the whole world and all Papal authority leading also his horse by the brydle to his pallace because he had vnderstood that the Emperours of the West had done the like honour and seruice to some Popes neuertheles perceauing afterwards that the people did by this occasion beare such reuerence and respect to Michaël that the Imperiall state might be endangered as he conceiued in case any controuersy should fall out betwixt the Church and the Empyre he publikely degraded and disgraced him depriuing him of all those ensignes tytles and priuiledges wherewith eyther he or any other of the Emperours his predecessors had endowed the Church or Bishops of Constantinople 23. And from that tyme forward as S. Antoninus testifieth the Patriarks of that Sea became very slaues to the hereticall Emperours and were put out and in by them at their pleasure whyles in the meane tyme the Roman Church ouercomming all her enemies tryumphed ouer the malice and tyranny of her oppressors enioying the stability security and maiesty which she still possesseth wherein the prouidence and iustice of Almighty God is euidently seene as well in conseruing the Sea Apostolike according to his promise to S. Peter as also in
was decreed therein no more then our Acts of Parliamēt without the Kings approbation neuertheles for as much as the Canons of the Nicen Councell touching those Churches and this Canon also whereof we now specially treate did not ordayne or concerne any thing which was de iure diuino but only the priuiledges and iurisdiction of Churches pertayning to Ecclesiasticall Lawes it is euident that Pope Leo being the head of the whole Church might dispose of them as he should see iust cause yea and it is not to be doubted but that he would haue ratified this Canon had he not seene such sufficient cause to the cōtrary as hath beene declared therfore the Popes his successors being moued with such other occasions and vrgent reasons as change of tyme produced not only permitted the Bishops of Constantinople to haue the second place after them but ordayned it also by a Canon as I shall haue occasion to shew heereafter In the meane tyme I conclude concerning this poynt that although Thedorus Balsamon and Zonaras and some other Grecian collectors of the Councells do set downe this Canon in fauour of the Churches of Constantinople yet it is not to be found eyther in the Collections of Dionysius and Isidorus gathered out of the Greeke aboue a thousand yeares agoe or yet in the old Greek manuscripts or the ancient Latin copies of the Councells which we haue in these parts and thus much for the making and abrogation of this Canon 29. And now to come to the assertion of M. Andrewes concerning Pope Leo's intercession made as he saith in vayne to the Emperour Empresse and Anatolius true it is that Pope Leo wrote to them all three but whether as a suiter or suppliant or yet in vayne let the Reader iudge and accordingly giue credit to M. Andrews hereafter First then he wrote to the Emperour that whereas he I meane Pope Leo might haue called Anatolius to account long before for being consecrated Bishop by an heretike he had borne with him at the Emperours request and that by the Emperours help and by his I meane Pope Leo's fauourable consent Anatolius had obtayned that great Bishoprick and that therefore he might haue contented himselfe with those fauours and not haue presumed thereupon the rather to encroach vpon the dignities of other Bishops Also he signifyed to the Emperour that Anatolius should neuer be able to make his Sea an Apostolicall Sea or yet to increase it by the iniury and offence of others that the priuiledges of Churches being instituted by the Canons and Decrees of the venerable Councell of Nice could not be impeached or changed by any impious attempts of his that it pertayned to him I meane to Pope Leo in respect of his office and charge to looke to the obseruation of the Canons and not to preferre one mans will before the common benefit of the whole Church finally presuming as he saith of the Emperours pious disposition to conserue the peace and vnity of the Church he besought him to represse the ambition and wicked attempt of Anatolius if he persisted therein and to make him obay the Canons of the Councell of Nice for other wyse the issue would be that Anatolius should but worke his owne separation from the communion of the Vniuersall Church 30. To this effect wrote Pope Leo to the Emperour crauing indeed with great reason his help and assistance for the correction and amendment of Anatolius yet with great grauity and authority as you see and not in vayne as M. Andrewes would haue vs to suppose for albeit the Emperour had fauoured greatly the pretence of Anatolius to prefer the Church of Constantinople before Alexandria and Antioch neuertheles vpon Pope Leo's letters to him he not only yielded therein but also greatly approued it in the sayd Pope that he defended the Canons of the Councell of Nice with such constancy and resolution as he did which is manifest by another letter of Pope Leo to the Emperour wherein he signified the contentment and ioy that he receaued when he vnderstood by the Emperours letters that he not only approued his defence of the Canons but was also himselfe determined to defend them and to conserue the priuiledges of the Churches according to the decrees of the Nicen Councell So that I hope M. Andrews cannot now say that Pope Leo's intercessiō to the Emperour was in vayne Let vs then see what manner of suite he made to the Empresse 31. He wrote also to her diuers Epistles and in one of them hauing first taxed Anatolius of immoderate pryde for seeking to passe the limits of his owne dignity to the preiudice of other Metropolitās signfying withall that he might haue contented himself to haue byn aduanced to the Bishoprike of Constantinople as well by his fauourable consent and approbation as by her and the Emperours grant he addeth touching the Canon now in question Consensiones saith he Episcoporum Canonum apud Nicaeam conditorum regulis repugnantes vnita nobiscum vestrae fidei Pietate in irritum mittimus per auctoritatem B. Petri Apostoli generali prorsus definitione cassamus The piety of your faith being vnited with vs we do vtterly make voyde and by the authority of the Blessed Apostle Peter do with a generall definition wholy disanull the consents that is to say the Decrees of the Bishops which were repugnant to the rules of the Canons made in the Councell of Nice So he speaking as you see not like a suppliant sed tamquam potestatem habens like a man that had power and Apostolicall authority to disanull and abrogate this Canon as he did 32. Now it resteth that we see what manner of petition or supplication he presented to Anatolius which truly was such that it made him stoupe as stout and proud as he was First then Pope Leo blameth him for taking the occasion he did to seeke not only to preferre himselfe before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch as though their Churches had lost their priuiledges by the fall of their Pastors but also to subiect them and all other Metropolitans of the Greeke Church to his iurisdiction which he tearmeth inauditum numquam antea tentatum excessum an excesse neuer heard of nor attempted by any man before And further signifyeth that this attempt being quite contrary to the most holy Canons of the Councell of Nice was too wicked and impious that his haughty pryde tended to the trouble of the whole Church that he had abused his brethren the Bishops in the Councell who being assembled only for the definition and decision of matters of faith had been drawne by him partly by corruption and partly by feare to fauour and further his ambitious desires that he accused himselfe sufficiently when he acknowledged that the Legats of the Sea Apostolyke whome he ought to haue obayed publikly contradicted and resisted him in the Councell 33. Moreouer he aduertiseth him that the
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
it is most cleare that they cannot possibly signify as he would haue them parificare ad parem dignitatem euehere ad paris magnitudinis instar efferre which words and manner of speach do exclude all that diffeâ—rence of degree and dignity which is expresly reserued in the Canon giuing the second place to Constantinople so that you see he is in all this matter most fraudulent and hath notably corrupted the Canon aswell by concealing that which most imported to shew the full drift therof as also by peruerting both the words and the sense of it 67. It resteth now that I say somewhat more to his conclusion which is this Quod habet ergo Roma de primatu c. therfore that which Rome hath of the primacy it hath not from Christ but from the Fathers and in respect of the seat of the Emperour and not for the seat of Peter and forasmuch as the Fathers in aduancing new Rome to equall greatnes exercised the same power which they vsed in honouring old Rome therfore he is farre from the faith who affirmeth that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is according to the faith and religion of the Councell of Chalcedon So he concluding as you see two things the one concerning the primacy of the Roman Sea which he saith was not giuen by Christ but by the Fathers and not in respect of Peters Seat but for the seat of the Emperour wherto I haue said inough in effect already hauing taught him to distinguish betwixt the Primacy of the Roman Sea granted by Christ to S. Peter and the priuiledges which the Fathers or temporall Princes haue giuen therto for of the former to wit the Primacy of S. Peters Sea the Canon speaketh not at all because the mention of it would haue bene nothing to the purpose of the Canon but rather against it as I haue sufficiently declared and therfore this part of the conclusion is cleane from the matter and cannot possibly be drawne from the Canon wherupon he groundeth all his arguments 68. The other part is also no lesse friuolous then the former for whereas he concludeth that the Fathers of the Councell of Calcedon held not the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome for a matter of faith or Religion because they made the Church of Constantinople equal with the Roman Sea you see that all the equality wherupon he buyldeth is but his owne fiction and repugnant to that very Canon which he layeth for his foundation and yet forsooth he is not ashamed to triumph and insult against the Cardinall exacting of him some Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon for the Popes Primacy as though he himselfe had knockt him downe with a Canon for thus he saith for an vpshot and final conclusion of all this matter 69. Nec alieunde igitur tamquam è vepreculis extrahat nescio quid arrodat c. Therefore let not the Cardinall draw I know not what out of some place as it were out of the bryers and gnaw vpon it let him giue vs a Canon for the Canons are the voyce of the Councell not out of the superscription of an Epistle or some corner of a period or perhaps some peece of a tytle or fragment of a little clause So he wherein thou seest good Reader how he bestirreth himselfe with his diminitiues or to vse a phrase of M. Barlows with his Hypocoristicall alleuiations extenuating all that the Cardinall hath obiected as meere tryfles and calling for a Canon because the Canons are the very voyce of the Councell and so he would haue vs to suppose of his counterfait Canon I say counterfait in respect that he hath abused mangled and peruerted it as you haue seene which therefore is so far from being the voyce of the Councell that it is nothing els but a loud and lewd lye of his owne 70. For the Canon it selfe being taken as it is in the Councell vtterly ouerthroweth his cause seeing that it giueth the second place to Constantinople after Rome and therefore acknowledgeth the Primacy of the Roman Sea besids that although it had ben such as M Andrews would haue it to be yet Pope Leo's authority sufficed to disanul it euen in the Iudgment of Anatolius himselfe who hauing been the cause and authour of it acknowledged his errour therein and craued pardon for the same as I haue amply declared before And although after the earnest endeuours of diuers as well Catholike as Hereticall Emperours to aduance the Church of Constantinople and some schismes also raysed for that cause the Popes permitted the second place to the Bishops of that Sea whithout further opposition especially from the tyme of Iustinian the Emperour which was about a 100. yeares after the Councell of Calcedon yea and afterwards also Pope Innocentius the third ratifyed and confirmed it by a Canon in the great Councell of Lateran yet the supreme authority of the Sea Apostolike was no way preiudiced thereby as it appeareth euidently by the relation which I haue made before of the subiection and obedience of the Catholike Emperours and Bishops of Constantinople to the Sea of Rome from tyme to tyme vntill the Greeke Empyre was vtterly ruyned by the Turkes So that it is euery way manifest that the Canon of the Councell of Calcedon alledged by M. Andrewes hath serued him to no other purpose but to bewray his impudency fraud and folly 71. And wheras he demaundeth of the Cardinall some Canon of that Councell for the proof of the Popes Supremacy he sheweth himselfe very idle to exact a Canon for a matter that was not then in question but professed by the whole Councell as it euidently appeareth by their Epistle to Pope Leo wherin they acknowledge that he being ordayned to be the interpeter of the voyce of Blessed Peter to all men had conserued and kept the true faith which had bene deduced from Christs tyme to theirs and that vnder his conduct as being the author of so great a good they published the truth to the children of the Church that Christ had prepared for them that spirituall banquet meaning their Synod by his Letters that he by his Legates had gouerned them in that Councell as the Head gouerneth the members that the keeping of the Vineyard was committed to him by our Sauiour and that he had depriued Eutyches the heretike of his dignity in ConstaÌ„tinople which as I haue declared before he could not haue done if his authority had not bene vniuersall 72. And then comming to speake of the Canon which they had made in fauour of the Church of Constantinople they signified the trust and confidence they had that as he was wont by his carefull gouernment to cast forth the beames of his Apostolicall light euen to the Church of Constantinople so he would now condescend to confirme that which they had ordayned concerning the said Church for the auoyding of confusion and
consequently that they held Pope Leo not only for S. Peters successor but also for head of the whole Church and this I trust cannot be sayd to be taken out of the bryars or corner of a period or fragment of a clause but out of one of the most principall and important Acts of all the Councell 78. Also it appeareth in the same Councell that Theodoretus Bishop of Cyrus who being deposed by Dioscorus appealed to Pope Leo was by his authority restored to his seat and admitted into the Councell Ingrediatur say the Fathers Reuerendissimus Episcopus Theodoretus c. Let also the most Reuerend Bishop Theodoretus enter that he may be partaker of our Synod because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored to him his Bishopricke So they whereby they gaue sufficient testimony of the soueraygnty of Pope Leo acknowledging his power to restore Bishops to their Bishopriks in the Greeke Church Finally if there were nothing els in that Councell to proue Pope Leo's supreme and vniuersall authority ouer the Church of God it might suffice for an euident proofe thereof that he was vndoubtedly the president and head of the Councell as you haue heard before and may be confirmed by the subscriptions of his Legats set before all other Bishops though one of them was but a Priest and no Byshop 79. For what reason can be imagined why Pope Leo should be president of a Councell in Greece so far from his owne seat as well he himselfe as his Legats being Romans and of the Latin Church but that it belonged to him to be head thereof in respect of his vniuersall authority Will M. Andrews absurdly say as Caluin doth that there was no Bishop in all Greece at that tyme held to be worthy of that Honour How then was Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople able to procure such a Canon as he did in his owne fauour Can any man belieue that he was as M. Andrews saith esteemed worthy to be made equal in dignity and all things els with the Bishop of Rome and yet not fit to be President of a Councell in his owne country yea lesse fit then a stranger who was held to be but his â—qual Besides that howsoeuer Pope Leo himselfe might be esteemed more worthy of that Charge then the Bishops of Greece in respect of his eminent learning wisdome and vertue yet there is no probability in the world that the Emperour and all the Bishops of that Councell which were aboue 600. had the like conceit of the sufficiency of his Legats or that they would all of them yield as well to them as to him one of them being but a Priest This I say is so improbable that M. Caluin and M. Andrews must eyther giue vs some other probable reason for it as they shall neuer be able to do or els confesse that Leo was President of that Councell by right of his soueraignty and supreme authority ouer Gods Church 80. Therefore now to conclude this matter thou seest good Reader what was the beliefe of the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon concerning the Popes supremacy and how far M. Andrews is from their faith and Religion yea and what a seared conscience he hath not only to deny such an euident truth as this but also to impugne it with so much fraud and impudency as he doth against his owne conscience no doubt for he could not possibly see in the Councell that which he himselfe alledgeth and the Cardinall obiecteth but he must needs see all this which I haue cyted out of it neyther could he alledge some part of the 28. Canon and vrge it as he doth laying downe the words euen of the Greeke text but he saw as well that which followeth immediatly and clearely conuinceth his fraud and forgery as that which went before and seemed to make for him whereby it is euident that he not only wittingly dissembled and concealed the whole drift of that Canon but also maliciously peruerted mangled and falsifyed it to the end to deceiue his Reader for the mayntenance of his miserable cause for so I may well tearme it seeing it dryueth him to such miserable and desperate shifts M. D. ANDREVVS HIS ANSVVERES TO three places of the Fathers are examined AND By the way the Cardinall is cleared from a false imputation of Iouinians heresy and M. Andrews truly charged therewith Finally all that which we teach concerning the Popes authority is necessarily deduced out of M. Andrews his owne doctrine and expresse words CHAP. III. HAVING occasion in my Supplement to proue the necessity of a visible head in Gods Church to coÌ„serue the same in vnity I alledged two places of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome which the Cardinall also cyteth in his Apology togeather with diuers other testimonies of the Fathers to proue the Primacy of S. Peter and for as much as M. Andrews his answere thereto if it haue any force at all maketh as much against me as against the Cardinall I will examine heere what force and pith it hath The Cardinall saith thus of S. Cyprian Fecit Cyprianus Petrum c. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne and roote of the Church and in his Epistle to Quintus Peter saith he whome our Lord first chose and vpon whome he buylt his Church c. Where S. Cyprian doth not only say that Peter was first chosen but also addeth that the Church was buylt vpon him and truely the foundation in a buylding the head in a body are all one Thus saith the Cardinall alledging as you see two places of S. Cyprian to both which M. Andrews meaneth to say somewhat 2. To the first he saith thus Fecit Cyprianus c. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne and roote of the Church not Peter of the Church but rather maketh the Church it selfe the fountayne from whence many brookes the light from whence many beames and the roote from whence many boughs are propagated Learne this euen of himselfe Sic Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa c. So the Church being wholy resplendent with the light of our Lord casteth forth her beames throughout the whole world loe he sayth the Church and not Peter yet the light is one and the selfe same which is spread euery where is this light Peter or is he euery where spread abroad and the vnity of the body is not separated The Church through the plenty of her fertility stretcheth forth her branches ouer the whole earth and doth amply spread abroad her aboundant flowing brookes yet the head is one the beginning one one mother copious with the prosperous successe of her fecundity or fruitfulnes Caligauit hic Cardinalis c the Cardinall was spurre-blynd or dimme sighted here for I thinke he will not say that Peter is the mother and therefore not the head 3. This is M. Andrews his graue discourse supposing as it seemeth that because the
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
is but a vayne shift of M. Andrews to say that they are thrust into the Latin in fauour of the Pope it being more probable as I haue sayd that they were in the old Greeke copies which the Latin translatours followed and that eyther the Grecians themselues in the time of their schisme from the Roman Church or perhaps some of our late heretikes who haue taken vpon them to print the Greeke in these dayes haue purposely left out the same in hatred of the supreme authority of S. Peter and his successors But howsoeuer it is you see the doctrine of S. Chrysostome is cleare to the purpose that those words which M. Andrewes saith are not in the Greek do import and this suffiseth to proue by the testimony of S. Chrysostome that S. Peter was supreme Pastor and head of the vniuersall Church 19. And as for M. Andrews his stale and tryfling deuyse to call the Pope 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alluding to the name of the beast in the Apocalyps according to the interpretation of Irenaeus as he would haue his Reader to suppose albeit he vse it far otherwise then Irenaeus meant it who applyed it only to the temporall Empyre and not to the Roman Sea I willingly omit it as not pertayning to the place of S. Chrysostome wherof I now specially treat and therefore do remit him for his satisfaction in that point to Cardinall Bellarmines controuersies where the same is so sufficiently answered that he and his fellowes may be ashamed still to repeat it and not to impugne the manifold and solid reasons which the Cardinall produceth to confute their ridiculous and absurd application of that name to the Pope 20. And now to end concerning the testimony of S. Chrysostome whereas M. Andrews for conclusion of his answere thereto saith that no man will deny that Peter was Pastor of the Church yea and a principall pastor sed cum alijs pastorem coapostolis suis non solum sine alijs but Pastour togeather with other his fellow Apostles and not alone without others I thinke he was in a dreame when he wrotâ— it impugning no man therein for ought I know For I neuer heard tell of any man yet who taught that S. Peter was Pastor of the Church alone or that the other Apostles were not Pastors as well as he albeit we teach with S. Chrysostome and others as you haue heard that they were subordinate to him as to the supreme pastor and their head which also M. Andrews himselfe doth acknowledge sufficiently as I haue shewed amply in the last Chapter And this I hope may suffice concerning S. Chrysostome 21. There remayneth now only S. Augustin of the 4. Fathers alledged by the Cardinall and my selfe for the proofe of S. Peters Primacy his words are these Totius corporis morbum in ipso capite curat Ecclesiae c. he to wit Christ cureth the disease of the whole body in the very head of the Church coÌ„poundeth the health of all the members in ipso vertice that is to say in the very crowne or top of the head Thus saith S. Augustin whereupon the Cardinall saith Sanctus Augustinus apertè vocat S. Petrum caput corporis Ecclesiae S. Augustine doth planily call S. Peter head of the body of the Church To this M. Andrewes saith thus ConcludÃt testes suos cum Augustino non Augustino cuius tempore non fiebant Sermones de tempore He to wit the Cardinall concludeth his witnesses with an Augustine who is not Augustin in whose tyme there were not made any Sermons de tempore So he taking exceptions to the authority of this allegation because in S. Augustins tyme as he would haue vs suppose there was no such custome in the Church to make Sermons de tempore that is to say of the ordinary feasts that do occur thoughout the course of the yeare and that therefore the Authour of those Sermons de tempore out of the which the Cardinall taketh this place could not be S. Augustins but of some other later wryter who set them out in S. Augustins name 22. But now if you aske how M. Andrews proueth that there were no Sermons de tempore in S. Augustins tyme you must take his bare word for a proofe for you neyther haue nor are like to heare any other of him But for the tryall of this matter I must remit thee good Reader to some better and more authenticall witnesses then M. Andrewes namely to Possidius a learned Bishop who being a familiar friend of S. Augustin forty yeares togeather as he signifieth himselfe wrote his life and making a Catalogue of his workes doth mention amongst the rest diuers Sermons or Treatises of his made of some of the principall feasts of the yeare as of Christmas Ascension Pentecost Lent and 23. Tracts or Sermons per Vigilias Paschae in the Eues of Easter whereof by all likelyhood this very Sermon was one being made on the Wednesday before Easter whereto may be added also diuers other particuler feasts of Saints mentioned in like manner by Possidius as namely the Natiuity of S. Iohn Baptist of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul of S. Laurence S. Cyprian S. Perpetua and Felicitas S. Saluius S. Vincent and some others which I omit for that these I trow may suffice to conuince M. Andrews of great ignorance or malice in that he denyeth that there were any Sermons de tempore in S. Augustins tyme. 23. For although it is like inough that neyther S. Augustin nor any other Father of that age wrote any work vnder the title of Sermones de tempore but that such sermons being made at diuers tymes and dispersed in diuers parts of their workes haue bene since their daies gathered into one volume and set out vnder that tytle for the ease and commodity of the Readers yet no man that hath byn conuersant in the Fathers can be ignorant that such were vsually made both in the Latin and in the Greeke Church in S. Augustins tyme which may euidently appeare besids the testimony of Possidius aforesaid by the works of S. Ambrose wherin there are Sermons vpon almost all the great feasts from Aduent to Pentecost and in the same tyme liued also S. Maximus Bishop of Turin who wrote diuers homilies vpon the principall feasts of the yeare as testifyeth Gennadius a famous writer of that age whereof I shall haue occasion to speake further hereafter Besids that it cannot be denyed that the like custome was also in the Greeke Church in those daies seeing that we fynd in S. Gregory Nissen who was S. Basils brother diuers Orations made vpon the feasts of the Natiuity of our Sauiour S. Stephen Easter and the Ascension And others also in S. Gregory Nazianzen vpon the feasts of Easter Pentecost the Natiuity of Christ the Epiphany which amongst the Greekes was called Sancta Lumina In like
in generall besides that being made with the Popes consent it was not any way preiudicall to the authority of the Sea Apostolike The third that M. Andrews iugleth notably with his Reader when he saith as out of S. Augustine Ad eum transmarinus nemo appellet c. To him that is to say to the Bishop of Rome let no man appeale from beyond the seas or if he appeale he is to be excommunicated by Augustine for neyther those words nor the sense thereof are to be found any where in S. Augustine who as you haue seene expressely taught and practised the contrary So that transmarinus nemo being set downe by M. Andrews in a different letter to be noted is indeed worth the noting for a notable falsity and a flat corruption of the Canon and abuse of S. Augustine and of all the Bishops in that Councell What then shall we say of this mans truth and fidelity who maketh no bones to bely the Fathers and corrupt whole Synods Can any man thinke that he hath any regard of conscience or shame Thus much for the second point 52. And now to say somewhat of the third he affirmeth as you haue heard that S. Augustine was far from acknowledging the Popes Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus for heads of the Church whereof you haue already seene the contrary in two of them to wit Bonifacius and Celestinus whose power and custome to admit and determyne Appeales from Africk S. Augustine clearely acknowledged and approued in the cause of Antony Bishop of Fussula as I haue amply shewed which power could not otherwise be due to Bonifacius and Celestinus but only in respect of their supreme and vniuersall authority ouer the whole Church And that S. Augustine had also the same opinion of Zosimus it appeareth sufficiently in an Epistle of his to Optatus to whome he writeth that he receaued his letters at Caesarea quò nos saith he iniuncta nobis à venerabili Papa Zosimo Apostolicae sedis Episcopo Ecclesiastica necessitas traxerat whither we were drawne by an Ecclesiasticall necessity inioyned or imposed vpon vs by the venerable Pope Zosimus Bishop of the Apostolicall seat So he which may also be confirmed out of Possidius who writeth that Litterae sedis Apostolicae compulerunt c. The letters of the Sea Apostolike compelled Augustine with other Bishops to go to Caesarea in Mauritania to consult and determyne of diuers necessityes of the Church 53. Whereby it is manifest that S. Augustine acknowledged in Pope Zosimus an Ecclesiasticall power and authority to impose vpon him and other Bishops a necessity to obay his commaundements in matters concerning the seruice of God and the Church which Zosimus could not do otherwise then as supreme and vniuersall Pastor or head of the Church for that the Church of Africk was not otherwise subiect to him then as all other Churches were But of Pope Zosimus and of S. Augustines opinion concerning his Primacy I shall haue occasion to speake further after a while and in the meane tyme this I hope may suffise to proue that S. Augustine was so far from impugning these three Popes that he acknowledged their supreme and vniuersall authority and consequently that they were heads of the vniuersall Church notwithstanding M. Andrews his peremptory assertion of the contrary which therefore may passe for another vntruth 54. Whereupon it also followeth that he forgot himselfe much more when he so confidently affirmed in the first poynt as you haue heard that the Bishops of Rome in S. Augustines tyme were but only heads of the Church of Rome which I noted before For the first of the 3. vntruthes though I remitted the particuler answere thereof vntill I had discouered the other two because they would not a litle help to the discouery of the first as you may haue already noted for it being cleare by all this former discourse that Appeales from Africk to Rome were vsuall frequent and neuer prohibited in S. Augustines tyme and againe that he acknowledged an authority and power in Pope Zosimus to lay iniunctions commaundements vpon him and other Bishops in Africk it must needs follow that the Bishops of Rome had a more ample authority in his dayes then ouer the particuler Church of Rome And to the end thou mayst yet haue good Reader a more aboundant satisfaction in this poynt I will say somewhat of all the Popes that liued in S. Augustines tyme who were 8. in all to wit Liberius in whose tyme he was borne Damasus Siricius Anastasius Innocentius Zosimus Bonifacius Celestinus And first of Liberius 55. We read in the Ecclesiasticall history that certayne Arian heretykes being excommunicated and deposed from their Bishopricks by the Catholike Bishops of the East Church sent their Legats to Pope Libâ—rius crauing to be restored by his authority and for as much as they craftily dissembled their heresy and faygning to be repentant made open profession of the Catholicke faith according to the beliefe and doctrin of the Councell of Nice they obtayned his letters for their restitution which they presented at their returne in a Synod held at Tyana and by vertue thereof were restored as S. Basil witnesseth saying that Eustathius Bishop of Sebasta who was the chiefe of that Legacy brought an Epistle from Liberius by the which he should be restored and when he had presented it to the Synod at Tyana in locum suum restitutus est he was restored to his place So he 56. Whereby it appeareth that the authority of Liberius extended further then to his owne Church of Rome seeing he could restore Bishops to their seats in the East Church as also his predecessor Pope Iulius had done not long before vpon the appeales of the famous Athanasius deposed by the Arians and of Paulus Bishop of Constantinople Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra Asclepa Bishop of Gaza and Lucian Bishop of Hadrianopolis all of them vniustly expelled from their seats vpon diuers pretences whose causes Iulius discussing saith the Story tamquam omnium curam gerens propter propriae Sedis dignitatem singulis reddidit suas Ecclesias as hauing a care of all for the dignity of his owne seat restored their Churches to euery one of them So saith Sozomâ—n in the tripartite history which I haue thought good to add to the former example of Liberius For although it fell not out in S. Augustines tyme whereof I now specially treate yet it was not aboue 14. yeares before him and therefore may well be applyed to his tyme as the Eue to the Feast Besides that doth demonstrate what was the beliefe of the Catholike Church at that tyme concerning the supreme dignity of the Roman Sea seeing that not only other Catholike Bishops but also Athanasius himselfe who was the mirrour of sanctity zeale and integrity in that age had recourse thereto as to the supreme tribunall on earth for the reparation of his wrongs but now to
proceed 57. After Liberius succeeded Damasus whose vniuersall authority is sufficiently testified euen by the African Bishops whome M. Andrewes maketh most opposit to the Roman Sea This may be veryfied by an Epistle of 3. Councells of Africk and the Archbishop Stephanus who wrote to Pope Damasus giuing him the title of most Blessed Lord raysed to the heyght of Apostolicall dignity holy Father of Fathers Damasus Pope and chiefe Bishop of Prelats and in the Epistle it selfe they do clearely acknowledge the supremacy of his sea coÌ„playning of certayne Bishops their neyghbours who without his consent or knowledge had presumed to depose Bishops which they said was against the decrees of all the Fathers and ancient rules and Canons of the Church by the which say they sancitum est vt quicquid horum vel in remotis c. it was decreed that whatsoeuer should be treated though in remote and far distant Prouinces concerning these matters that is to say the deposition of Bishops and other important affiayres of the Church the same should not be receiued nisi ad notitiam almae Sedis vestrae fuisset deductum c. except it were brought to the knowledge of your holy seat to the end that whatsoeuer should be resolued might be confirmed with the authority thereof thus wrot they and much more to the same purpose calling him also ipsum Apostolicum verticem Praesulum the very Apostolicall top or head of Prelats 58. And therefore no meruaile that another Father of the same tyme calleth him the gouernour of the Church of God expounding these words of the Apostle to Timothy Ecclesia est domus Dei viui c. whereupon he saith Ecclesia domus Dei dicitur cuius rector hodie est Damasus the Church is called the house of God the gouernour whereof at this day is Damasus So he wherto I may add a notable testimony of S Hierome who wryting also to Damasus to know of him with whome he might communicate in Syria and whether he might vse the word hypostasis affirmed that he held CoÌ„mâ—nion with his Beatitude that is to say saith he with Peters Chayre and that he knew the Church to be buylt vpon the rock inferring thereupon that whosoeuer did eate the Lambe out of that house he meaneth the communion of Damasus or of Peters Chayre he was a profane man and out of the Arck of Noe wherupon I infer that S. Hierome affirming the Church to be built vpon Damasus acknowledgeth him to be head thereof for the reason vrged before by me in the last chapter to wit because the head of a mysticall or politicall body and the foundation in a buylding are all one besyds that he also acknowledgeth the same by excluding all those from the vnity of the Church who did not hold communication with Damasus because the vnity of the body is deriued principally from the vnity of the head thereof according to the expresse doctrin of S. Cyprian which I haue also amply layd downe in the last Chapter 59. Finally S. Hierome demanding resolution from Damasus with whome he should coÌ„municate in Syria where was then a great Schisme and whether he might vse the word hypostasis sheweth that Damasus had authority to determyne and decyde controuersies and resolue doubts or difficult questions in matter of religion and therfore S. Hierome saith vnto him Discernite siplacet obsecro non timebo tres hypostases dicere si iubetis I beseech you iudge or determyne if it please you for I will not feare to say that there are three hypostases if you command me And againe afterwards Quamobrâ—m obtestor Beatitudinem tuam per crucifixum c. Therefore I beseech your Beatitud for Christs sake crucified and for the consubstantiall Trinity that authority may be giuen me by your letters eyther to vse or to forbeare the word hypostasis c. as also that you will signifie vnto me with whome I may communicate at Antioch for that the Campenses and the heretikes called Tharsenses being vnited togeather nihil aliud ambiunt quà m vt auctoritate communionis vestrae fulti c. do seeke nothing more or with greater ambition then that being vpheld with the authority of your communion they may vse the word hypostasis in the old sense So he 60. Wherin two thinges are to be noted the one that S. Hierome doth not aske counsaile or aduise of Pope Damasus but a definitiue sentence vt auctoritas detur that authority be giuen him that is to say that Damasus should by his letters determin and ordein what S. Hierome should doe in those cases The other is that not only the Catholikes in the East parts as S. Hierome and the Aegyptians whome he also called the collegues of Damasus but also the heretyks sought to fortifie themselues by the communion and authority of the Sea Apostolike Whereupon two things do also follow euidently the one that Damasus had power to decyde and determyne controuersies euen in the East Church and the other that his authority was not restreyned to his owne Church at Rome as M. Andrews seemeth to suppose but was vniuersall and therefore acknowledged as well in the East as in the West 61. This may be notably confirmed by the restitution of Peter Bishop of Alexandria to his seat who immediatly succeeded Athanasius and being oppressed by the Arians followed the example of his worthy predecessour and fled to Rome to Pope Damasus and returning with his letters which confirmed as well his creation as the Catholike faith was restored by the people qui illis confisus saith Socrates expollit Lucium Petrum in eius locum introducit who by the vertue of those letters expelled Lucius the Arrian Bishop and put Peter into his place 62. Also Vitalis an heretike in Antioch being accused to Pope Damasus of heresy was forced to come to Rome to purge himselfe and albeit after he had there professed himselfe to be a Catholike he was remitted by Pope Damasus to Paulinus Bishop of Antioch for his final absolution yet Damasus prescribed to Paulinus a forme of abiuration whereto Vitalis should subscribe which being done Paulinus absolued him Whereby it is euident that Damasus had a supreme authority as well in the East or Greeke Church as in the West for otherwise neyther would Peter Bishop of Alexandria who was a very holy man haue appealed vnto him nor the people haue receaued Peter by the vertue of his letters neither yet would Vitalis haue gone from Antioch to purge himselfe at Rome nor Paulinus Bishop of Antioch permitted that Damasus should intermeddle in matters pertayning to his charge 63. And this may yet further appeare by the earnest endeuours of S. Chrysostome then Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria to pacify Damasus towards Flauianus Bishop of Antioch who had committed periury and byn the cause of a great diuision and trouble in the Church for the remedy wherof
they sent Embassadours to Rome to perswade Damasus that it was necessary for the good of the Church that he should pardon the offence of Flauianus for the concord and peace of the people which being graunted by Damasus communione saith Socrates Flauiano ad hunc modum reddita and Flauianus being by this meanes restored to the communion of the Church the people of Antioch were in tyme reduced to concord and vnion with him 64. Whereto Theodoretus addeth that the Emperour Theodosius in the tyme partly of Pope Damasus and partly of his successor Syricius and Anastasius laboured to procure the reconciliation of Flauianus with the sea Apostolick and commaunded him to goe to Rome to answere for himselfe which he promised to doe in the spring following though he did not performe it Finally the Emperour made his peace with the Pope in the end vpon condition that Flauianus should send his Embassadours to Rome which he did saith Theodoretus with a sollemne embassadge of Bishops Priests and Deacons vnder Acacius Bishop of Berroea who was at that tyme a man of great fame whereupon all the Bishops of Aegipt who vntill then would not communicat with him admitted him to their communion So that albeit the Historiographers do differ concerning the tyme when Flauianus was reconcyled with the Pope yet they all agree that he could neuer be fully restored to the peace and communion of the vniuersall Church vntill he had submitted himselfe to the Roman Sea which sheweth euidently that the Bishops of Rome had far greater and more ample authority then M. Andrewes doth affoard them Thus much concerning Damasus 65. And now to come to his successor Syricius it is euident euen in this cause of Flauianus by the testimony of S. Ambrose that his authority extended it selfe to the Greek and Eastern Church no lesse then to the Latin and West Church seeing that in a Synod held at Capua the hearing of Flauianus his cause was committed to Theophâ—lus Bishop of Alexandria and to the Bishop of Aegipt with this limitation as S. Ambrose witnesseth that the approbation and confirmation of their sentence should be reserued to the Roman Sea and the Bishop thereof who was then Syricius In like manner we fynd that his authority was admitted and acknowledged not only in Spayne and France but also in Africk as it may appeare by his Decretall Epistle writteÌ„ to Himerius or Himericus Bishop of Arragon in Spayne in answere of diuers demaunds of his in which epistle he ordayned that those his decrees should be sent by Himerius as well to Carthage in Africk as to Portugal and France and that they should be of no lesse force there and els where then in Arragon 66. To this will I add a testimony of an African Father that liued in the tyme of Siricius to wit of Optatus Bishop of Mileuis who clearely deduceth the primacy of Syricius from the primacy of S. Peter for writing against Parmenian the Donatist and vrging him that he could not deny but that Petrus omnium Apostolorum caput Peter the head of all the Apostles sate first in the Roman chayre wherof he also yieldeth these reasons viz. that in the said chaire vnity might be kept of all men that the rest of the Apostles should not euery one of them defend or callenge to himselfe a single chayre and that he might be held for a Schismatik and a wiked man who should set vp a chaire contra singularem Cathedram against the singular or principall chayre hauing I say vrged this he reckoneth all the Popes from S. Peter to his tyme ending with Syricius and concluding that because the Donatists held not communion with him therefore they could not haue the true Church 67. In this discourse it is manifest that as he acknowledgeth Peter for head of the Apostles and his chayre for the singular and principall chayre so he also acknowledged Syricius for head of all other Bishops and his chayre which was Peters for the principall chayre for otherwyse his argument against the Donatists grounded on Peters supreme authority had ben to no purpose Besids that he saith also a litle after prosecuting the same argument Legimus Principem nostrum c. We read that Peter our Prince receaued the wholsome keyes against the gates of hell c. Vnde est ergo c. How chanceth it then that you stryue to vsurpe to your selues the keyes of the Kingdome who with your audacious presumption do sacrilegiously make warre against the chayre of Peter So he 68. Therefore omitting heere how aptly this may be applyed to M. Andrews and his fellowes as well as to the Donatists that which I wish specially to be obserued is that Optatus being an African acknowledged the same soueraignty in Syricius which he affirmed to be in S. Peter for whereas he calleth him not only the head of the Apostles but also Principem nostrum our Prince it is cleare that the principality and soueraignty of Peter in the tyme of Optatus could not be otherwise vnderstood but in his successor Syricius who consequently was Prince and head of the Church as Peter was 69. The very same is taught also by S. Augustine concerning Pope Anastasius who succeeded Syricius for S. Augustine presseth the Donatists with the same argument that Optatus doth and naming all the Popes vntill his owne tyme he endeth with Anastasius hauing first deriued their lineall succession from S. Peter Cui saith he totius Ecclesiae figuram gerenti c. to whome bearing the figure of the whole Church our Lord sayd Vpon this rock I will buyld my Church wherein it is to be noted that S. Augustine acknowledging the primacy of S Peter in saying that the Church was built vpon him and that he bare the figure of the whole Church which he did not in any other respect but because he was head thereof as I haue proued in the first Chapter of this Adioynder he acknowledgeth the same in his successors and namely in Anastasius whome therefore he draweth by lyneall succession from S. Peter and to this purpose it may be also obserued that elswhere he ascribeth the great prerogatiue of S. Peter to wit his being the rock or foundation whereupon the Church was buylt to his chayre or seat and to the succession of Bishops deriued from him bidding the Donatists reckon the Priests that had succeeded one another in Peters seat and then concluding Ipsa est Petra c. that is the rock which the proud gates of hell doe not ouercome whereby it is euident that S. Augustine acknowledged Anastasius and all other successors of S. Peter for heads of the vniuersall Church seeing he affirmeth them to be the foundation thereof 70. This may be confirmed also by a Canon of an African Synod where it was decreed that letters should be sent to their brethren and fellow-Bishops abroad and especially to the Sea Apostolike to informe
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
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
be falsly accused by counterfait letters to haue intelligence with the Gothes against the Roman Empyre and to betray vnto them the Citty of Rome Vpon which pretence he was by her order taken by Bellisarius and sent into banishment Loe then one of the two facts which M. Andrews iustifieth with his rule or maxime of facta cùm videamus verba quid audiamus But can there any thing be more shamefull or more shamefully defended And so I may likewise say of the other fact which passed in this manner 44. Syluerius the Pope being banished the wicked Empresse intruded Vigilius into his Seat vpon assured promise on his part to satisfy her desire And although Vigilius as some write began to publish Decrees in fauour of her heresy during the life of Siluerius that is to say whyles he himselfe was an Intruder and no true Pope yet such was Gods mercifull prouidence for the preseruation of S. Peters Seat in the integrity of the Catholike faith that Siluerius deceasing shortly after and Vigilius being by the meanes of Bellisarius canonically chosen whereby he became of an Vsurper to be true Pope and successour to S. Peter he vtterly changed his mind and former course not only refused to performe his promise to the Empresse in the restitution of Anthymus but also coÌ„ming afterwards to Constantinople where the Emperour receiued him with great honour he excommunicated her and other her adherents as S. Gregory witnesseth who liued at the same tyme. 45. And albeit some write that she procured his banishment yet others affirme with more probability that the same hapned after her death and was procured by the instigation of Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia who was a very fire-brand of Schisme and sedition and a peruerse hereticke though he cunningly cloked it a long tyme being secretly an Origenist and one of the Sect called Acephali who impugned the Councell of Chalcedon were Eutychians finally he was the man who in the end wholy seduced the Emperour and made him a flat heretike as I haue signified before So that it is no meruail that the Emperour being himselfe so ignorant and vnlearned as he was not hauing so much skill as either to writ or read being as Suydas testifieth Analphabetus one that neuer learned his Christ-crosse and therfore easy to be abused by the practise of subtle Heritiks it is I say no meruail that he transgressed the bounds and limitts of his Imperiall authority as well in these two Acts concerning these two Popes as also in diuers others In which respect Euagrius a famous Historiographer who wrote his history at the same tyme hauing signified that God strooke him with suddayne death for punishment of his wickednes made no doubt to conclude concerning him in these words Iustinianus cùm omnia omnino turba atque tumultu compleuisset c. When Iustinian had filled all the world with trouble and tumult and receaued in the end a due reward for the same he passed from this life to endure the penalty therof in hell according to Gods iust iudgement 46. Now then these being the facts of Iustinian the Emperour towards these two Popes let vs ponder a litle what reason M. Andrews hath to prefer the same before the Bishop of Patera's censure thereof which he vtterly reiecteth as not meriting any consideration It is therefore to be considered that these facts of the Emperour were no lesse repugnant to all the Catholicke Emperours his predecessours of whome I haue treated amply before then to his owne course and procedings from the beginning of his Empire vntill the tyme of Siluerius the Pope as it doth euidently appeare not only by his publike Decrees and letters written to the Popes Iohn the second and Agapetus and to Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople wherof I haue spoken sufficiently already but also by the great honour he did and the reuerent respect which he bare to Agapetus the next predecessour to Siluerius whom as the Historiographers do testifie he receaued into Constantinople cum summa veneratione with exceeding great veneration 47 And when Agapetus had conuinced confounded the Eutichian Bishop Anthymus he I meane the Emperour not only renounced the Eutichian heresy wherewith he had bene before somewhat infected but alsoâ— humiliauit se saith Anastasius Sedi Apostolicae ac Beatissimum Agapetum adorauit humbled himselfe to the Sea Apostolike and adored the most blessed Agapetus yea and approued his deposition of the hereticall Bishop Anthymus and willed him to ordayne consecrate Mennas in his place which he also did as I haue signified before Therefore I say if Iustinians fact against Siluerius and Vigilius be so much to be esteemed in M. Andrews his iudgement as to be preferred before the words and iudgement of a learned Bishop of the same ages why shall not all these former facts of his I meane his publike Decrees letters and most humble submission to Agapetus all which were conforme to the beliefe and practise of the whole Church at that tyme why shall they not I say ouerweygh M. Andrews his words and approbation of only two facts done in fauour of Heretykes and by their instigation who notably abused Iustinian and circumâ—ented him as it is euident in the histories May not we therefore with much more reason say of this Doctor then he said of the Bishop facta cùm videamus verba Doctoris quid audiamus 48. But now if we weigh the words of the Bishop of Patera of what weyght they ought to be yea and were indeed with Iustinian we shall easily see how vaine and idle this Doctors words and conceipts are who so litle esteemeth them as you haue heard It is therfore to be vnderstood that this Bishop was a Grecian by birth and habitation and not bound to Siluerius the Pope by any temporall obligation of country kindred benefit or former acquayntance seeing that for ought that is knowne to the contrary they neuer saw one another before Siluer came to Patera which was the place assigned for his banishment whereupon it followeth that nothing els but meere conscience and the regard of his duty to God and to the Roman Sea euen by the instinct of that holy spirit which inspired the prophets in like cases did mooue this Bishop to go to the Emperour and so freely and sharpely to reprehend him for his fact as he did with protestation of Gods Iudgements against him for so saith Liberatus who then liued and wrote the story Iudicium Dei saith he contestatus est de tantae Sedis Episcopi expulsione The Bishop of Patera called to witnes or rather protested Gods Iudgement against him for expelling the Bishop of so great a Seat which words beeing also related by the Cardinall out of Liberatus M. Andrews thought good to nipp out of the Cardinals text belike because he thought that those words might make the
same in defence of his pretended Episcopall authority against the Puritans wherto I may add that M. Andrewes himself also approueth it els where granting that S. Peter was appoynted head of the Apostles by our Sauiour vt schismatis tollatur occasio as S. Hierome saith that the occasion of schisme may be taken away yea and confesseth moreouer that S. Peter had so much authority giuen him as was necessary for auoyding of schisme and for the maintenance of peace and vnity of which poynt I shall haue somewhat to say vnto him here after 50. If then Pastors or gouernours are by his owne confession instituted in the Church to conserue the same in vnity haue speciall authority giuen them to that end he must needs confesse also that they ought to haue more care thereof then those who haue not any speciall institution or authority to the same end and therefore I would be glad to know how he agreeth with himself in this poynt teaching heere as he doth that the care of the peace of the whole Church doth belong to all men alyke For if he say that Pastors are more bound then theyr subiects to care for the vnity of theyr owne particuler Diocesses but not of the whole Church he is too to ridiculous seeing that euery Pastor ought to haue not only as much care of the whole Church as euery other man but also much more then others by reason of his function office which doth extend it selfe to the whole Church it being euident that what authority soeuer any man hath in any part of the Church it is giuen him for the good of the whole and finally tendeth therto 51â— And who knoweth not that all heresies and schismes which violate the vnity of the whole Church do first spring in some part thereof and are to be suppressed not in respect of that part only but much more in regard of the whole Church As in like manner we see in our bodyes that the care of the health and conseruation of euery member tendeth more to the good of the whole then of the part it selfe that is or may be particulerly interessed therefore euery part doth willingly expose it selfe to danger for the conseruation of the whole Whereupon I inferre that if Pastors haue more obligation then lay-men to haue care of a part of the Church they are consequently more bound to haue care of the whole whereto as I haue sayd the care of euery part is specially to be referred 52. Moreouer whosoeuer is Pastour in any one part of the Church is capable of Pastorall iurisdiction in any other though he be restrayned and limited to a certayne part to auoyd confusion in which respect the Priests in euery Diocesse are Priests throughout the whole Church and may minister Sacraments any where in cases of necessity and a Bishop in any place is euerywhere a Bishop and one of the Magistrats and Pastors of the Church and therefore hath a voyce and right of suffrage in all Generall Councells though they be held out of his Diocesse whereas none of the Laity hath any voyce or suffrage therein at all as it is manifest by the testimony of Theodosius the Emperour in his Epistle to the Councell of Ephesus saying Nefas est c. It is not lawfull that he who is not one of the number of the most holy Bishops should meddle in Ecclesiasâ—icall consultations and affayres So he And the like sayd Basilius the Emperour in the 8. Generall Councell with a notable aduertisement to lay-men of what degree soeuer not to presume to deale in Ecclesiastical matters as I haue shewed at large in my Supplement Besides that we read in the Councell of Calcedon that Concilium Episcoporum est a Councell consisteth of Biâ—â—ops whereupon it followeth euidently that all men haue not equal obligation to care for the peace and vnity of the whole Church for if they had then might euery Cobler and Tinker challeng as much right of suffrage as any Bishop in a Generall Councell assembled for the suppression of heresy and schisme which I thinke M. Andrews will be ashamed to say 53. Therefore he must confesse that albeit euery member of the mysticall body of Christ be bound to haue a speciall care of the vnity of the whole vt not sit schisma in corpore sed in idipsum pro inuicem sollicita sint membra That there be no schisme or diuision in the body but that the members togeather be carefull one of another yet this obligation extendeth no further then the condition quality and degree of euery one requyreth which we may learne by the Apostles doctrine to the Romans who hauing signified that we haue many members in one body and that all the members haue not the same action addeth ita multi vnum corpus sumus in Christo c. So we being many are one body in Christ ech one anothers members hauing gifts according to the grace that is giuen vs different eyther Prophesy according to the rule of faith or ministery in ministring or he that teacheth in doctrine he that exhorteth in exhorting he that giueth in simplicity he that ruleth in carfulnes he that sheweth mercy in cheerfulnes 54. Thus far the Apostle who exemplifying heere as you see the different gifts and graces that God bestoweth vpon sundry members of his mysticall body and ascribing to euery one of them the proper talent which is requisit thereto requyreth specially in the Gouernour Solicitude and Carefulnes giuing plainely to vnderstand that although euery member of Christs Church ought to be sollicitous and carefull for the publike good thereof yet a Pastor or Gouernour is most bound thereto as to that which most properly pertayneth to his charge vocation As for example in the tyme of the Apostles the heresy of the Nicolaits did violate the vnion and trouble the peace of the whole Church and albeit there were in the Church of Pergamus as well Prophets Doctors Preachers and Priests as other faithfull people who were all bound to haue care of the vnity of the whole Church as all Christians are neuertheles we see in the Apocalyps that none of them but the Bishop only was reprehended for negligence and want of due care to find and cast out the Nicolaits from amongst them because the sollicitude and care of the vnity and publike good of the Church did specially belong to the Pastour or Bishop in which respect he alone was seuerely reproued and commanded to do pennance 55. So that whereas M. Andrews imposeth an equal obligation of the same care vpon euery member what doth he els but make as I may say a gally-maufrey or hotch-potch of the different members of Christs mysticall body confounding their seuerall functions and making them all eyes or heads requyring the obligation of a Pastor or Gouernor in euery particuler man And truly if this doctrine were
S. Peter and his successors For if S. Peter were made head of all the Apostles to whome Christ left the gouernment of his Church it cannot be denied but that he was made head of the Church for who is head of any common welth but he that is head of all those that haue the administration charge and gouernement of it And if the reason why he was ordayned head of the Apostles was to auoyde and preuent the danger of schisme it must needs be granted that so long as the same cause and reason I meane the danger of schisme continueth in the Church so long also the remedy is to continue therin and that the greater the danger is the more necessary also is the remedy whereupon it followeth that seeing the danger of schisme doth and euer shall continue in the Church the remedy also of one head is euer to continue And for as much as the danger of schisme in the Apostles tyme was not so great they being all of them most holy men and particulerly guyded by the holy Ghost as it is andâ— alwayes hath bene euer since Therefore the remedy of one head which our Sauiour ordayned for the same is more necessary now then it was in their dayes yea and was more specially intended by his diuyne prouidence for all ensuing ages after the Apostles tyme then only during their liâ—es 38. Moreouer it being euident in the holy Scriptures that our Sauiour planted his Church to stand to the worlds end it were absurd to say that he ordayned that forme of gouernement vnder one head to last only during the Apostles tyme as though he had lesse care of the vnity of his Church in future ages then in the beginning when as I haue sayd the danger of schisme should be far lesse then it would be afterwards Therfore I conclude that seeing S. Peter was made head of the Apostles and consequently of the whole Church to auoyd schisme M. Andrews can not deny the same authority to S. Peters successors for the same reason especially seeing that our Sauiours prouidence therein is euident to the very eye of euery man that list not to be willfully blynd in that he hath permitted the succession of all the Apostles to fayle in all the Churches where they gouerned excepting only the succession of S. Peter in the Roman Church which he hath miraculously conserued to make it manifest to the world that S. Peter and his chayre as you haue heard out of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome is the Rock whereupon he promised to buyld his Church and that as S. Augustine sayth Ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae that is the Rock which the proud gates of hell do not ouercome 39. Furthermore whereas M. Andrews granteth also that a head appoynted in the Church for the remedy of schisme is to haue so much power as is necessary for that end he must needs consequently grant all that power which we requyre and acknowledge it in S. Peter and his successors to the same end I meane not only a power authority to define decyde coÌ„trouersies without the which no schisme or diuision concerning matter of doctrine can be conueniently compounded but also power and iurisdiction to punish such as do obstinatly infringe and violate the vniâ—ty and peace of the Church for how can the head sufficiently remedy schisme if he cannot punish those which do cause and mayntayne it and if M. Andrews will say that Christ hath therfore left authority to his Church to punish only by excommunication and spirituall censures I must demand of him what remedy the head of the Church can giue thereby when his censures are contemned and specially by an absolute Prince shall he haue then no further power to remedy the inconuenience how then is his power such as M. Andrews himselfe granteth it to be to wit quanta rei satis siâ— cui constitutus est as much as may be sufficient for the thing for the which he was made head that is to say to remedy and take away schisme 40. And who seeth not that the greatest harme that groweth to the Church by schisme commonly is when secular Princes do eyther rayse it themselues or mayntayne it in others Shall not then the head of the Church haue sufficient power to remedy this greatest danger and mischiefe that can hap to the Church Or shall he not haue meanes as well to correct his greatest and most powerfull subiects as the least and meanest Then as I haue sayd in my Supplement the power of the Church should be no better then a cobweb that holdeth the little flyes and letteth go the great ones and consequently the prouidence of Almighty God should be very defectiue in ordayning a head to conserue his Church in vnity and not giuing him sufficient power to performe it which no wyse temporall Prince would do if he should make a Lieutenant to gouerne in any part of his dominions Wherto it may be added that the Lawyers teach that he which granteth iurisdiction is presumed to grant all things necessary for the execution of it which is also conforme to the Philosophers Maxime to wit Qui dat esse dat consequentia ad esse he which giueth a being giueth togeather with it all those things which are consequents thereof or necessarily requyred thereto as I haue amply proued in my Supplement where I haue deduced the necessity of this consequent from the very Law of nature and light of reason 41. Besides that I haue also declared there that he which hath power ouer the soule for the benefit thereof must needs haue also power ouer the body and goods which by the very Law of nature are subiect to the soule and ordayned to serue it and therefore to be disposed by the spirituall Gouernour or Pastor so far forth as is necessary for the saluation of the soule in which respect the Church hath alwayes vsed and still doth to impose not only fasting and other bodily pennance but also imprisonments and pecuniary mulcts vpon her disobedient children when the benefit of their soules and the publick good of the Church doth requyre it which is also vsed by our Aduersaries themselues in their Ecclesiasticall discipline who in their spirituall Tribunals and Courts do punish the disobedient as well by pecâ—niary penalties as by corporall imprisonements Whereupon it followeth that when Princes who are members of the Church do violate the vnion thereof and are incorrigible by excommunication they may be chastised by their supreme head or spirituall Pastor euen in their temporall states so far as shall be necessary for the good of their soules and the benefit of the whole Church for otherwyse the head of the Church should not haue that sufficient power to remedy schismes and other inconueniences which M. Andrews himselfe granteth and it cannot indeed be denied 42. This then being so
M. Andrews his first question or doubt is sufficiently solued to wit How far the power of the head whereof S. Hierome speaketh doth extend that is to the direction gouernement yea and chastisment when occasion requyreth of all his inferiour members of what degree soeuer and consequently of Kings and Princes so far forth as shal be needfull for the coÌ„seruation of vnity in the Church and that therefore when only excommunication will not suffice to reduce them to vnity and obedience the head may extend his spirituall power to chastise them in their bodyes goods and states as far as shall be conuenient for the good of soules and the glory of God whereto all mens temporall states goods lands and lyues are principally ordayned 43. And now to come to his other question concerning the mumber which this head may gouerne to auoyd and remedy schisme let M. Andrews well ponder what he hath already granted and of this there will be no doubt at all For if Peter was head of the Apostles as S. Hierome teacheth and M. Andrews confesseth then consequently he was head of as many in number as were subiect to them which was no lesse then all the world whereof they had the spirituall charge and gouernement in which respect the Royall Prophet sayth of them and their successors pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filij c. For thy Fathers children are borne vnto thee thou shalt ordayne them to be Princes ouer all the earth So saith the Prophet of the Apostles of Bishops who succeed them in their charge and are therfore Princes Gouernours of the Church as S. Augustine S. Hierome and other Fathers expound this place which therefore is verified especially in the Apostles who being the Princes and Gouernours of the Church did not only plant but also propagate throughout the world in their owne tyme according to the commission and commaundment of our Sauiour who sayd vnto them Euntes in vniuersum mundum c. Going into the vniuersall world preach the Ghospell to euery creature which also the Royal Prophet fore-told of them saying In omnem terram exiuit sonus eorum c. The sound of them went forth into all the earth and their words into the bounds thereof 44. Seeing then the Apostles were Gouernours of the whole Church and yet subiect to S. Peter as to their head it must needs be granted that he was supreme head and gouernour of the whole Church propagated and dispersed throughout the world vnder their gouerment for which cause S. Chrysostome saith with great reason not only of all the Apostles in generall that they were to haue orbis terrarum curam the charge of all the world but also much more of S. Peter in particuler That Petro Apostolo orbis terrarum Ecclesiae the Churches of all the world and the multitudes of people were to be committed to Peter the Apostle and therefore euen in the former place where he saith that the Apostles were to receiue of Christ the charge of the world he acknowledgeth that S. Peter was Princeps Apostolorum vertex totius coetus the Prince of the Apostles and the top or head of all their congregation and that Christ committed vnto him curam fratrum the charge of his brethren that is to say of the Apostles and finally that Christ recommended vnto him orbis terrarum curam the charge of the whole world Finally comparing S. Iames the Apostle with S. Peter in the same place by the way of obiection demanding why then Iames was made Bishop of Hierusalem and not Peter he answereth Hunc totius orbis magistrum praeposuisse that our Sauiour preferred Peter to be the Maister of the whole world giuing to vnderstand that whereas S. Iames was only Bishop of Hierusalem and the Countries adioyning as also the other Apostles had euery one of them some part of the world allotted vnto him to gouerne S. Peter had the charge of the whole 45. By all which it is euident that albeit the Apostles had the gouerment of all the Church yet they were but subordinate to S. Peter who had a commission peculiar and singular to himselfe which was to haue the care charge and gouerment of them as well as of all others subiect to them So that his power and authority was wholy independant on them wheras theirs must needs depend of him as of their immediate head vnder our Sauiour whereby it may appeare what an idle head M. Andrews hath to exclude no lesse S. Peter then euery other particuler man from the gouerment of the whole Church for no better reason then lest he might become heterochtum cuput an extrauagant head or perhaps proue a Tyrant through the excesse eyther of power or of the number of subiects wherein he sheweth himselfe no lesse prophane then absurd attributing as it seemeth no force or effect to our Sauiours promise of his continuall assistance to his Apostles and Church for euer besides that he erreth grosâ—ely if he make the multitude of subiects a noticeâ— or cause of Tyranny it being euident that the greater the number of the subiects is the greater also is the difficulty to oppresse them by Tyranny and the greater the feare and danger to attempt it 46. And therefore we see more frequent tyranny in small States then in great Monarchies and when great Monarches are Tyrants they commonly exercyse their Tyranny vpon some part of their Dominions and not vpon the whole whereas a small State contayning a few subiects is easily Tyrannized vniuersally so that the multitude of subiects is not properly a motiue but rather a brydle to Tyranny though it is properly a cause of schisme when they are not gouerned by one head which M. Andrews acknowledgeth sufficiently when he confesseth that one head is necessary to take away the occasion of schisme amongst twelue or some other small number for if that be true then the greater the number is the greater is the danger of schisme if they haue many heads independant one of another whereupon it followeth that one supreme head is most necessary for the whole Church coÌ„sisting of an innumerable multitude of the faithfull dispersed throughout the whole world who being all visible members of one visible body could not possibly be conserued long in vnity if they had not one visible head whome they were all bound in conscience to obay as I haue shewed more at large in my Supplement euen by the testimony of M. Barlow himselfe 47. For which cause not only S. Cyprian as you haue heard before in this Chapter but also S. Hierome in this place teacheth with great reason that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles to auoyde and remedy the schismes which might grow not so much amongst them as in the whole Church for in them after they had receiued the holy Ghost there was no danger
thereof though in the whole Church which was to be propagated by them ouer the world the danger of schisme was very great not only in their tyme but also much more afterwards as I haue signifyed before in which respect it was needefull to be preuented by the institution of one head ouer the whole Church and therefore when S. Hierome answering Iouinian saith that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles he meaneth that he was made head of the Church which was represented in them as in the Gouernours thereof for seeing that the obiection of Iouinian which S. Hierome answereth concerned the foundation of the Church vpon S. Peter his answere must needs also concerne the same to which purpose it is to be considered that he denyeth not Iouinians proposition as I haue proued before but explicateth what is tâ—e meaning of super Petrâ—m fundatur Ecclesia signifying that it meaneth nothing els in effect but that Peter was made head of the Apostles which is as much so say as that he was the foundation of the Church or that the Church was founded vpon him because as Cardinall Bellarmine saith very well the foundation in a buylding and the head in a politycall or mysticall body is all one so as S. Peter being made head of the Apostles who represented the Church as Gouernours thereof he was consequently made the head and foundation of the Church and this being so it appeareth that this place of S. Hierome is cleare for vs and directly proueth that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the vniuersall Church 48. And whereas M. Andrews in his glosse vpon S. Hieromes text noteâ—h with a parenthesis that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles not for the keyes saith he or for the foundation which are so much esteâ—med at Rome but to take away the occasion of schisme I know not wâ—at els he impugneth thereby but his owne idle conceipt for no man saith at Rome or any where els for ought I know that S. Peter was made head of the Church for the keyes or for the foundation other wayes then that in receiuing the keyes and being made the foundation of the Church he was made head thereof to take away the occasion of sâ—hisme And this is S. Hiâ—romes doctrine so euident that M. Andrews himselfe is forced thereby to confesse that Sâ— Peter was made head of the Apostles yea and that he had so much power and authority giuen him as was necessary for the preuention and remedy of schisme whereupon all our doâ—trine concerning the Popes authoâ—ity necessarily followeth as I haue shewed so that you see he still pleadeth for vs and well deserueth his fee if not for his good wil yet at least for his paynes in defending our cause against his will FOVRE OTHER PLACES OF THE FATHERS ARE DEBATED And M. Andrews his Answers thereto confuted With a Discouery of notable corruption and falsity in him and of three manifest lyes within litle more then three lynes AND By occasion thereof it is also proued that 8. Popes who liued in S. Augustines tyme had and exercysed an vniuersall and supreme Authority CHAP. IIII. THOV hast seene good Reader in the last Chapter how well M. Andrews hath satisfyed the Cardinalls obiectioÌ„ out of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome and now in this Chapter I will examine his Answers to diuers other places of the Fathers namely of S. Basil and S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine which albeit he pretendeth to answere togeather with the former yet I haue thought good to separate them because I haue alledged them separatly in my Supplement 2. First out of S. Basil the Cardinall an I obiect these words to proue the supremacy of S. Peter ouer the rest of the Apostles Ille beatus qui ceteris praelatus discipulis fuit cui claues regni caelestis commissae That happy or blessed Peter who was preferred before the rest of the disciples to whome the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome were committed c. Hereto M. Andrews answereth thus Ex Basilio ceteris discipulis praelatum Petrum sed an vt esset Monarcha c. The Cardinall obiecteth out of S. Basil that Peter was preferred before the rest of the Disciples but was it to the end that he should be a Monarch is there no other prelacy but of a Monarchy he was preferred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the testimony that was giuen him by Christ as Basil hath there and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blessednes add also if you will that he was preferred in order and place the King doth also attribute the same vnto him yea that he may be the Prince of Apostles yet without a Monarchy Thus saith M. Andrews to the first part of S. Basils place whereto I will say somewhat before I add the rest Heere then you see he graunteth that S. Peter was preferred before the rest of the Apostles in order and place yea and that he was the Prince of the Apostles and forsooth no Monarch 3. But if we consider what he hath graunted in the last Chapter we shall find that he must needs acknowledge him to be a Monarch how much soeuer he mislyke the word for if a Monarch do signify him that is one chiefe Prince and sâ—preme head or gouernour of others not for his owne particuler benefit but for the publike and generall good of those whome he gouerneth for so is a Monarch distinguished from a Tyrant he cannot with any reason deny S. Pâ—ter to be the Monarch that is to say the supreme Prince and head of the Church whome he acknowledgeth togeather with S. Hierome to haue been made by our Sauiour head of the Apostles to preuent and remedy schisme and to haue had not only the precedence of place and order as now he saith but also so much power as suffyced for the conseruation of Vnity in the Church whereupon followeth all that power and authority which we do attribute to S. Peter and his successors as I haue declared briefely in the last Chapter 4. For S. Peter hauing by this commission of our Sauiour authority to ordaine commaund and punish as far as was necessary for the good of the Church it must needs be graunted that he had the power and authority of a Monarch and although M. Andrews had not been forced by â—he euidence of S. Hieromes testimony to grant it yet this very place of S. Basil which he pretendeth heere to answere doth proue it sufficiently signifying as much in effect as S. Hierome teacheth seeing that S. Basil not only saith that Peter was preferred before the rest of the Disciples but also declareth wherein that is to say not in place and order only but in authority also and iurisdiction adding cui claues Regni caelestis commissae sunt to whome to wit Peter the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome were committed giuing to vnderstand that he had by this particuler
Andrews his fraud more particulerly and produced also a cleare testimony of S. Cyril concerning the Primacy of S. Peter whome he calleth Principem Caput Apostolorum the Prince head of the Apostles though he do there grant his fall which he saith hapned by humane infirmity whereof M. Andrews cannot be ignorant seeing he cyteth also that place of S. Cyril no lesse then the other of S. Augustin though with greater fraud as I haue also shewed in the first Chapter 30. Finally I may add to these those other testimonies which I haue now lastly examined and debated with M. Andrewes out of S Cyril S. Hierome S Basil and S. Chrysostome as also the rest of that grand Iury of 24. Fathers Greeks and Latins alledged by Cardinall Bellarmine in his controuersies to proue the supreme authority of S. Peter ouer the Apostles all which most learned and ancient Fathers being the lights of the Church knew as well as M. Andrews that S. Peter had denyed our Sauiour and yet neuertheles did not take the same to be any preiudice to his Supremacy Whereupon I conclude that if their heads were sound then M. Andrews his head must needs be very sick and crazed seeing his sense and iudgment is so far different from theirs as to seek to ouerthrow or disproue S. Peters Primacy by his fall and to speake of him so contemptibly and opprobriously as he doth 31. But will you heare how well he mendeth the matter Marke him well I pray you and you shall see that as his head hath ben hitherto somewhat crackt so now he is become wholy distract talking as idly as if he were more fit for Bedlam then for a Bishoprick For hauing sayd as you haue heard before that this testimony of S. Augustine was vnluckily produced by the Cardinall because it giueth vs notice of no other head but of a sickly head to wit S. Peter and that therfore it might very well haue bin pretermitted he goeth forward thus Praesertim cùm eùmdem morbum in capite vestro notarint diu iam medicorum filij et si omnes non ego id est plus ego quà m omnes especially seeing that the Phisitians children haue now a long tyme noted the same disease in your head although all not I that is to say I more then all Thus saith he so mystically I assure you that he seemeth to propound a riddle and therefore may do well to explicate his meaning and let vs know who were those Phisitians and their children that haue noted the same disease in our head 32. Neuertheles for as much as it may be presumed that by the children he meaneth Luther Caluin Beza and himselfe with other Sectaries of this age we may also make a reasonable coniecture who were the Phisitians seeing that we are not ignorant that the true progenitours of all the Sectaries aforenamed were dyuers old heretykes whose herefies they haue reuyued namely the Donatists whose doctrine they professe concerning the fall of the visible Church Aerius whome they follow in denying Sacrifyce for the dead Vigilantius with whome they impugne the reuerend vse of reliques Iouinian who taught diuers points of their beliefe touched particulerly in the last Chapter and other Arch-heretikes condemned by the Church in ancient tyme who as S. Augustine witnesseth vsed also to barke though in vayne against the Sea Apostolike no lesse then these their children do 33. But although we may ghesse who were the Phisitians and their children yet it will not be so easy to coniecture what he meaneth by etsi omnes non ego id est plus ego quà m omnes although all not I that is to say I more then all for truely I haue shewed it to diuers and haue not found two that agree in the interpretation of it but the most probable seemeth to be the one of two one is that he alludeth to the words of S. Peter when he sayd etsi omnes scandalizati fuerint sed non ego Although all shall be scandalized yet not I who neuerthelesse was scandalized more then they all because he alone denyed his mayster which sense hath great difficulty because it neyther hath connexion with that which goeth immediatly before nor is truly applicable to the Pope of whome M. Andrews seemeth there to treate but is only contumelious to S Peter being a taunting kind of exprobration of his fall and therefore me thinkes M. Andrews should not admit it to be his meaning as sauouring too much of impiety 34. The other sense is that it should be referred to M. Andrews himselfe and that there is some litle fault in the print I mean in the points though not in the words which therefore should be pointed this si omnes non ego and if all not I that is to say if all haue noted this disease in your head why should not I note it Giuing to vnderstand that he will not yield to any of his brethren for zeale skill in noting the faults of Popes but rather plus ego quà m omnes that is to say therein will I go beyond them all which sense hath at least some good coherence with the precedent clause and well befitteth M. Andrews his zeale to the Ghospell and hatred to the Pope and so may passe for his meaning But whatsoeuer his meaning is I cannot forbeare to tell him that seeing his brayn is so intoxicated that he cannot write intelligibly and yet will take vpon him to play the Physitian and to cure the Popes diseases I will say to him with our Sauiour Medice cura teipsum and wish him to purge his owne head with some good quantity of a drug called Catholicon and a litle Helleborum to restore him againe to his right wits before he presume to be the Popes Physitian and to iudge of the diseases of the head of the Church 35. And whereas he goeth forward to shew vs a difference in the cure of Peters disease and of the diseases of his Successors let vs follow him a while and you shall see him runne as well out of his honesty as out of his wit For thus he saith Sed ab eo morbo sanatum hoc caput c. But this head to wit S. Peter was healed of this disease but your head he meaneth the Pope neyther will be healed nor yet is curable yet if he euer be healed let him be the head of the Church of Rome as he was in Augustines tyme but let no man appeale to him from beyond the sea or if any appeale he is to be excommunicated by Augustine who was far from acknowledging Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus for heads of the Church in whome neuertheles he cured the same disease So he which I beseech thee good Reader well to note and thou shalt see his conscience no lesse crackt then his brayne ioyning extreme falsity with folly abusing the authority not
only of S. Augustine but also of the whole Councell of African Bishops though he name S. Augustin only and none of the other and finally vttering 3. notable lyes in litle more then 3. lynes The first is that the Pope had no further authority but ouer his Church of Rome in S. Augustines tyme. The second that no man might in those daies appeale to the Sea Apostolicke out of Africk The third that S. Augustine was far from acknowledging those three Popes Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus to be heads of the Church yea and that he cured S. Peters disease in them Of these 3. points the first wil be fully cleared by the discussion of the second and the third 36. First then concerning the second whereas M. Andrews affirmeth that all Appeales from Africk to Rome were forbidden by S. Augustin vnder payne of excommunication wee shall neede no other witnesse to conuince him but S. Augustine himselfe who teacheth the flat contrary not only in expresse words but also by practise as it will euidently appeare after a whyle for albeit there was a controuersy betwixt the Church of Africk and the Roman Sea in S. Augustins tyme partly about appeales to Rome and partly about the Canons of the Nicen Councell for that a Canon related by the Popes Legate as out of the said Councell was not found in the Copies that were then in Africk whereof the causes may be seene at large as well in Cardinall Bellarmins Controuersies as in the history of Cardinall Baronius who doe fully answere all our aduersaryes cauills concerning the same albeit I say this controuersy continued some 4. or 5. yeares and grew in great part by reason of abuses cōmitted by some of the Popes legates in the rigorous and violent execution of the Popes sentences which may suffice to proue the comon vse of Appeales from Africk to Rome in those daies neuertheles it is euident that during the tyme of this controuersy there was no prohibition of the appeales of Bishops from Africk to Rome for that all the African Bishops agreed to continue the wonted course of Appeales without innouation vntill they should haue answere out of Greece concerning the Canons of the Nicen Councell 37. And when they had receaued the same they were so far from excommunicating such as should appeale to Rome or from prohibiting the same by a Synodicall Decree that they only wrote a common letter to Pope Celestinus wherein they did not impugne the right of Appeales to Rome but shewed their dislike of the manner and meanes that had ben vsed in the prosecutiō thereof And whereas there were 3. wayes vsed by the Sea Apostolyke in the prosecution and decision of appeales the first by calling the parties and witnesses to Rome the second by sending Legates to the place from whence the appeales came with commission to heare and determin them sometymes with the assistance of the Bishops of that prouince and sometymes without them and the third to remit the matter wholy to the determination of the Metropolitan or of some Prouinciall Synod of the same country as S. Gregory the great did in Africk dyuers tymes whereof I shall haue occasiō to lay downe some examples heereafter of these 3. wayes I say the African Bishops held the two former to be very inconuenient for them but tooke no exception at all to the third way which was to remit the causes to be tried at home by the Metropolitans or by Prouinciall Synods therfore the reasōs which they vrged tended especially to proue that it was most conuenient conforme to the Councell of Nice that causes should be decyded by the Metropolitans and Synods of the same Country where the controuersy should ryse and this the Pope might haue graunted if he had thought it conuenient and yet haue reserued to himselfe the right of appellation and haue decyded Appeales also by his commission as it shall further appeare after a while by the practise of S. Gregory 38 But put the case that S. Augustine and the Bishops of Africk had required of Pope Celestinus to be quite rid of Appeales what will M. Andrewes infer thereon Will he say that therefore they decreed vt transmarinus nemo appellet si appellet excommunicandus that no man appeale out of Africk and that if he doe he shall be excommunicated Will he infer this vpon their demaund or petition I say their petition for that when they come to treate of that matter in their Epistle they begin it thus Praefato debitae salutationis officio impendiò deprecamur vt c. The office or duty of due salutations premised we do most earnestly beseech you that you will not ouer easily giue eare to such as come from hence c. Will then M. Andrewes make no difference betwixt demaunds and decrees petitions and prohibitions must he not rather confesse that the African Bishops acknowledged that Pope Celestinus had power to dispose appeales For otherwyse why did they rather seeke satisfaction by letters to him then resolue by some Synodicall decree to exclude his authority and to debar him from further medling in those affaires as it is like they would haue done had they had byn perswaded that his authority in that behalfe was vsurped But let M. Andrewes take the request of the African Bishops in what sense he list I meane eyther for the exclusion of Appeales or for moderation in the prosecution of them yet he can neuer make good his forgery of transmarinus nemo appellet c. it beeing most euident that neyther these petitions of theirs nor any Canon of the African Synods nor yet any one word in S. Augustin did euer prohibite all Appellation from Africk to Rome or yet cause any surcease or interruption thereof nor yet hinder the moderate and conuenient prosecution of appeales for the proofe whereof I shall not need as I haue said to produce any other witnes then S. Augustine himselfe and his owne practise not past 5. or 6. yeares before his death in the cause of a Bishop called Antony whome he had made Bishop of Fussula 39. It is therefore to be vnderstood that this Antony being depriued of his Bishoprick by a Synodicall sentence of African Bishops for his outragious misdemeanours appealed to Rome to Pope Bonifacius wherupon the Pope being moued partly with the Primats letters and partly with such other testimony as Antony had cunningly produced for his purgation resolued to returne him to his Bishopricke yet with this expresse condition as S. Augustine witnesseth if the information which he had giuen were found to be true but before it could be executed it chanced that Pope Bonifacius dyed and Celestinus succeeded him 40. And for as much as many rumours were spred in fauour of Antony that he should be restored by the Popes sentence and the same executed by violence with the help of secular power if need were as the
Anastasius who then was Pope how necessary it was for the Church of Africk that such Donatists as being Clergy men should returne to the vnity of the Catholike Church might be receiued and admitted without preiudice to their former dignityes if the Catholike Bishops that should receiue them should thinke it conuenient notwithstanding a Decree made to the contrary before in another Synod held beyond the seas whereby it appeareth that notwithstanding the great need which the AfricaÌ„ Church had of this decree as they signifyed yet they would not ordayne it without his knowledge and consent or rather as it seemeth they expected his leaue and order to do it and no meruail seeing that in other Synods and namely in the next following in the tyme of his immediate successor Innocentius of whome I am now to treat the African Bishops craued confirmation of their decrees from the Sea Apostolike vt statutis say they nostrae mediocritatis etiam Apostolicae Sedis adhibeatur auctoritas c. That the authority of the Sea Apostolike may also be added to the statutes of our mediocrity to conserue the saluation of many and to correct the peruersity of some 71. Thus wrote they to Pope Innocentius giuing clearely to vnderstand not only that the validity of their decrees depended vpon his confirmation but also that the conseruation of the faithfull in the true faith and the correction of peruerse and obstinate heretiks did specially belong to his care and proceed from his authority This will further appeare by another Epistle written to the same Pope Innocentius by them in another Synod held at Mileuis as also by his answere to them Thus then they wrote Quia te Dominus gratiae suae praecipuo munere in Sede Apostolica collocauit c. Because our Lord hath by his speciall guift of his grace placed thee in the Apostolicall seat and ordayned thee to be such a one in these our tymes that we should rather coÌ„mit the fault of negligence if we should conceale from thy Reuerence those things that are to be suggested for the Church then that thou canst eyther disdayne them or contemne them therefore we beseech thee to vse and apply thy Pastorall diligence to the great dangers of the weaker members of Christ c. So they whereby they shewed sufficiently their opinion concerning as well the worthynes of his person as his Pastorall power and authority ouer all the members of Christ as it will more euidently appeare by his answere whicâ— was this 72. Diligenter congruè Apostolico consulitis honori c. You do diligently and conueniently prouyde for the Apostolicall honour I meane the honour of him who besides other intrinsecall things hath the sollicitude or care of all Churches to declare what sentence is to be held in doubtfull matters wherein truely you follow the rule that you know hath bene kept with me alwayes throughout the whole world c. So he and a litle after he saith further that as often as there is question of matter of faith all Bishops ought to referre all that which is for the generall good of the Church honourâ— giuing to vnderstand that all Episcopall honour and dignity and other Ecclesiasticall authority proceedeth immediatly from the visible head of the Church vnder Christ that is to say S. Peter and his successors and that therefore the coÌ„demnation of heresyes determination of all doubts in faith ought to be expected and required specially from them 73. And to the end that M. Andrews may know that Pope Innocentius did not in this vrge his owne Apostolicall authority more then S. Augustine and the other African Bishops approued I wish him to read an Epistle of S. Augustine and Alypius where hauing sayd that relations were sent ex duobus Concilijs Cathaginensi Mileuitano ad Apostolicam sadem from the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the Sea Apostolike they add afterwards concerning the answere of Pope Innocentius ad omnia illa rescripsit â—o modo quo fas erat atque oportebat Apostolicae sedis Antistitem he to wit Innocentius wrote backe or answered to all things in such sort as was conuenient and as the Bishop of the Apostolike Sea ought to do So they approuing as you see not only the substance and matter of his Epistle but also his Apostolicall manner of writing acknowledging it to be fit for a man of his Apostolicall dignity So that it appeareth as well by the Epistle of the African Bishops to Pope Innocentius as also by his answere to them and their approbation thereof that the Bishops of Rome in those dayes had and exercysed a supreme authority in the confirmation of Synods resolution of doubts and condemnation of heresyes and heretikes 74. Whereof there occurred at that tyme a notable example in the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy for although the African Bishops did particulerly condemne it in their prouinciall Synods which could not prescrybe lawes to the whole Church yet the generall and vniuersall condemnation thereof throughout the world proceeded from the authority of the Sea Apostolyke and the seuerall sentences of the two Popes Innocentius an Zosimus which they signifyed in their letters not only to the Bishops of Africk but also to all Bishops vniuersally in respect of the vniuersall care and authority they had ouer the whole Church And therefore S. Augustine saith that the heretikes Pelagius Celestius were toto Christiano orbe daÌ„nati condÌ„ened throughout all the Christian world by the vigilaÌ„cy of the Episcopall Synods of Africk etiaÌ„ à Venerabilibus Antistitibus Apostolicae sedis Papa Innocentio Papa Zosimo and by the venerable Bishops of the Apostolick Sea Pope Innocentius and Pope Zosimus 75. Thus saith S. Augustine which his great friend Possidius Bishop of Calama who wrote his life confirmeth and explicateth notably signifying that the 2. Popes InnoceÌ„tius and Zosimus did at the great instance of the Councell of Africk cut off the Pelagians from the members of the Church and by letters directed to the Churches as well of Africk as of the East and West iudge them to be held as accursed and to be auoyded of all Catholikes Et hoc tale saith he de illis Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae pronuntiatum iudicium etiam pijssimus Imperator Honorius audiens sequens c. and the most pious Emperour Honorius hearing and following this such a notable IudgmeÌ„t of the Catholike Church of God pronounced against them condemned them by his lawes and ordayned that they should be held for heretikes So he wherein three things are specially to be noted The first that the Pelagian heresy was condemned vniuersally by the authority of the Sea Apostolike to wit by the sentence of the Popes Innocentius and Zosimus signified by their letters not only to the Churches of Africk but also to all other Churches in which respect S. Augustine also in his foresaid Epistle to Optatus
the letters of Celestinus to Cyrillus to whome he wrote thus Adiuncta tibi nostrae sedis auctoritate ipse qui vice nostra potestateque fungeris c. Thou which holdest our place and power the authority of our seat concurring with thee shalt with all euerity pronounce this sentence against Nestorius that if within 10. daies after this admonition he do not detest and renounce his wicked doctrine c. Thou shalt prouide his Church of a Pastor and he shall vnderstand that he is excluded from our communion c. 82. Thus wrote Celestinus to Cyril who therefore in his letters to Nestorius signifyed vnto him that if he did not recant and reforme his errours within the tyme limited and prescrybed by Pope Celestinus he should be excommunicated and depriued And the whole Councell also pronouncing sentence of condemnation against Nestorius affirmed that they were compelled to vse that seuerity not only by the Canons of the Church but also by the letters of Pope Celestinus and in their Epistle to the said Pope they signifyed that they reserued and remitted the cause of Iohn the Patriarch of Antioch who was a fauourer of Nestorius to his iudgment and sentence Besides that Nicephorus testifieth that the common fame was in his time that certayne priuiledges were graunted to S. Cyril which also his successours enioyed by reason of his Legacy and substitution to Pope Celestinus in that Councell and amongst other things that he had the title of Iudex vniuersi orbis Iudge of the whole world 83. Now then I report me to thee good Reader whether Celestinus was no more then the head of his Church of Rome as M. Andrews maketh him For is it likely that eyther S. Cyrill who was Bishop of Alexandria and consequently the first and chiefe Patriarke of the East would haue stouped to be his substitute and Legate and to receiue commissions and orders from him or yet that the whole Councell beeing most of them also of the Greeke and East Church would haue acknowledged themselues to be compelled by his letters to condemne Nestorius yea and remitted the cause of the second Patriarke of the Greeke Church to his finall determination if they had not taken him for the vniuersall and supreme Pastour of the whole Church As I shewed also the like before in the second Chapter of this Adioynder concerning the authority of Pope Leo in the great Councell of Chalcedon which was held in the same age not past 20. yeares after this other of Ephesus So that M. Andrewes cānot by any meanes excuse himselfe from a manifest lye in this no more then in other two poynts before mentioned 84. Whereby it appeareth euidently that he hath made 3. notable lyes as I may say with one breath that is to say within litle more then 3. lynes Besyds an egregious corruption of the Canon of the African Synod with his transmarinus nemo and a foule abuse as well of S. Augustine in making him say that which he neyther sayd nor meant as also of his Reader in seeking to perswade him that S. Augustine excommunicated all those that would appeale to Rome out of Africk yea and cured Peters-diseases in the 3. last Popes for so he also saith in quibus tamen eumdem morbum curauit in whome to wit Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus Augustine cured the same diseases that is to say the diseases of Peter meaning as I take it eyther Peters presumptiō of his owne strength or els his denyall of Christ which neuertheles I cannot see how he can apply to them and much lesse pretend that S. Augustine cured the same diseases in them 85. Therefore whereas his drift was no other in all this as it seemeth but to perswade thee good Reader that S. Augustine was at daggers drawing with these 3. Popes thou hast partly seene already by that which hath bene said concerning two of them to wit Zosimus Celestinus how much he hath sought to abuse thee therin the like will also euidently appeare concerning Pope Bonifacius if thou consider with what affection reuerend respect and submission S. Augustine dedicated vnto him his 4. bookes against two Epistles of the Pelagians writing to him thus 86. Noueram te quidem fama celeberrima praedicante c. I knew thee truely before by the most famous report of thy renoumne and vnderstood by many most frequent and true relations how aboundantly thou art replenished with Gods grace most blessed and venerable Pope Boniface but after that my brother Alipius had seene thee and been receiued by thee with all benignity and sincerity c. I had so much more notice of thy Holinesse by how much more certeyne is our amity for thou who takest no gust or delight in high things though thou art in a higher degree then others dost not disdayne to be a friend to the meane and inferiour sort So he and afterwards hauing signifyed that he had vndertaken to write against 2. epistles of the Pelagians he concludeth Haec ergo quae duabus Epistolis c. These things therefore which I doe answere in this disputation to two Epistles of the Pelagians I haue determyned to direct specially to thy Holynes not as things needfull to be learned by you but to be examined and amended if any thing do chance to dislyke you Thus wrote S. Augustine to Pope Bonifacius being so far from hauing any auersion or alienation from him and much more from presumyng to cure any diseases in him that is to say to correct any errours in his person or gouernment that he shewed all dutifull loue and reuerend affection towards him giuing notable testimony to his rare vertue sanctity and not only acknowledging the dignity of his seat but also submitting himselfe and his workes to his censure and Iudgment to be examined corrected and amended by him as he should see cause whereby it appeareth that S. Augustine liued in perfect vnion with Pope Bonifacius 87. And in what tearmes he stood with Pope Celestinus though we may gather it sufficiently by his owne letter before mentioned concerning the Bishop of Fussula yet it shall not be amisse to vnderstand it also by the testimony of Celestinus himselfe It is therefore to be vnderstood that S. Augustine dying in the tyme of Pope Celestinus and his workes especially those against the Pelagians being by their practise much impugned and defamed in France S. Prosper who had been a disciple as I haue sayd before of S. Augustine and was then Bishop of Aquitane went purposely to Rome togeather with Hilarlus Bishop of Arles to complayne thereof to procure the letters of Pope Celestinus in iustifycation of him and his workes Whereupon Celestinus wrote a generall letter to all the Bishops of France as well in defence of S. Augustine as in condemnation of the Pelagians and amongst other things sayth of S. Augustine thus Augustinum
needed no Councells to be assembled or Synodicall decrees to be made for the condemnation thereof and much lesse for the confirmation of prayer to Saynts which he did not expressely deny So as M. Andrews sheweth himselfe very impertinent still to demaund statutes and decrees for the inuocation of Saynts within the first 400. yeares at what tyme it was as I haue sayd so publike and generall throughout the whole Church that it was needles to confirme it by Canons or decrees as it will still further appeare the further we debate this matter 28. In the meane tyme to returne to S. Basil and to conclude concerning him I appeale to the iudgment of any indifferent man whether he could declare eyther his owne beliefe or the faith of the Church touching this point more clearely then he hath done heere shewing the vse and custome of Catholike people in his tyme not only approued and highly commended by him as it is euident by that which I haue layd downe before but also confirmed and ratifyed by Almighty God with miraculous effects and the grant of pious petitions made by deuout people to the holy Martyrs and Saynts at their Monuments and els where All which I say being witnessed by S. Basil is truly a far greater testimony for vs then if he should haue only declared his owne opinion So as a man may wonder with what face M. Andrewes can admit the authority of the Fathers and yet reiect their testimony of such facts as these whereby they shew not only their owne beliefe but also the beliefe and practice of the Church in their dayes And thus much concerning S. Basil. 29. The next place which M. Andrewes vndertaketh to answere is taken out of Eusebius and cyted by the Cardinall thus Haec nos quotidie factitamus c. These things we Christians vse to do daily who honoring the true Souldiars of piety as the friends of God do also go to their tombes and pray vnto them by whose intercession to Almighty God we do acknowledge that we receiue great help Thus far the Cardinall cyteth the words of Eusebius according to the Latin translation which he layeth downe sincerely albeit M. Andrewes chargeth him with fraud in peruerting the Greeke text because the words in the Greeke are somewhat otherwise signifying that the custome of the Christians was to pray at the tombes of the Martyrs and maketh no expresse mention of praying to them whereto I answere as to the former charge that the Latin translatour whose words the Cardinall cyteth followeth the sense of Eusâ—bius gathering the same out of the circumstance of the place For Eusebius shewing there the conformity of Plato's doctrine to our Christian Religion layeth downe Plato's words wherein he sayth that those which were vertuous and valiant men and dyed for the defence of their Country became after their death Semidei halfe Godes and deliuered men from many euils and were serued and worshipped as Gods their monuments and tombes adored 30. Wherupon Eusebius to shew the lyke practice of ChristiaÌ„s sayth that it was vsuall ordinary amongst Christians to goe to the tombes of Martyrs and there to pray and to honour their blessed soules for so hath the Greeke which being considered together with the doctrine of Plato before related concerning the honour and worship done to the Semidei and the conformity thereof with Christian religion vrged by Eusebius as also that the coÌ„mon custome of Christians was at that tyme to pray to Martyrs by name as I haue shewed a litle before by the authority of S. Basil and will shew further after a whyle All this I say being considered the Translatour had reason to vnderstand that the prayers which Eusebius sayth the Christians made at the tombes of Martyrs were directed to them and not to God only especially seeing that all the prayers honour and seruice exhibited to Martyrs eyther at theyr tombes or els where redoundeth to the honour and seruice of God to whome the same are finally directed and addressed and for whose sake principally the holy Martyrs and Saynts are honored and serued Therefore seeing the Latin translatioÌ„ which the Cardinall cyteth is not only free from errour in doctrine but also conforme to the circumstances of the place and to the practice of the Church at that tyme it may well be admitted though it be not altogeather litterall but howsoeuer it is the Cardinall following and alledging it as it is generally receiued amongst learned men could not iustly be charged with fraud though the same should be erroneous whereas M. Andrews sheweth himselfe both fraudulent and malicious in charging the Cardinal to peruert the Greeke text when he cyteth the Latin translatioÌ„ with all sincerity And thus much for this poynt 31. Furthermore M. Andrewes addeth to the two former places another out of S. Chrysostome which the Cardinall cyteth thus Saepius illos inuisamus tumulos adoremus c. let vs often visit these Martyrs to wit S. Iuuentinus and S. Maximus let vs adore their tombes let vs with great faith touch their reliques to the end we may obtayne some benediction thereby Thus farre the Cardinall out of S. Chrysostome to proue that the ancient Fathers of the first 400. yeares and namely S. Chrysostome approued the veneration of holy reliques Wherin M. Andrewes pretendeth to haue found two fraudes the one in the translation of the Greeke and the other in the allegation of the Latin Of the former he sayth thus Nam graecè c. For in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to touch the shryne but to touch the shrine I thinke is not to adore it Our Sauiour did not adore the sonne of the widdow of Naim when he touched the coffin wherein his body lay So he 32. Wherein I beseech thee good Reader to note how substantially he answereth this place saying nothing at all to the substance and whole drift thereof but cauilling only about a word or two as if all the wayght and force of the place consisted therein whereas the place would directly proâ—e all that which the Cardinall intendeth though we should grant that which M. Andrewes affirmeth concerning the difference betwixt the Greeke and the Latin For seeing that S. Chrysostome exhorteth the people not only to visit the Martyrs by repayring to their tombes but also to touch yea and with faith to imbrace their reliques for so hath the Greeke to the end to haue thereby some benediction doth he not plainely teach therein that holy reliques are to be reuerently kept visited and worshipped 33. For how can it be imagined that a man can come to visit holy reliques and with fayth touch and imbrace them to the end heere declared to wit to receiue thereby some blessing from Almighty God but that he doth it with deuotion and an exteriour demonstration of the internall reuerence that he beareth therto I meane with a reuerent and
acknowledged by all men to be S. Chrysostomes works So that there is no doubt but that the words alledged by the Cardinall are S. Chrysostomes and do correspond to the Greeke text word for word in which respect the testimony caÌ„not be auoyded and shifted of by M. Andrews as eyther corrupt or counterfait 50. And this as it seemeth he knew well inough and therefore deuysed another shift seeming to admit that S. Chrysostome doth say so and yet denying that it maketh for vs. For non quid fecerit sayth he tum aliquis sed quid ex Patrum statuto fecerit c The King demandeth not what some man did then but what he did according to the decree of the Fathers and what at that tyme the Fathers decreed concerning this poynt Where an act or deed only is declared no decree related is a voluntary act as of a matter of free deuotion and not as of a thing necessary to saluation which neuertheles the Cardinall vndertooke to proue Thus farre M. Andrewes turning and wynding as you see to fynd some starting hole if it were possible though he be catcht so fast that he cannot escape away For wheras he flyeth to his former shift of demanding some decree of the Fathers and reiecting their testimony of facts he notably discouereth the weakenes of his cause 51. For as I signifyed before vpon the occasion of the selfe same answere which he made to a place of S. Basil there was not any sufficient occasion why the Fathers of the Greek Church should make any Synodicall decree at that tyme concerning prayer to Saynts seeing that there was no question of it among them but a generall custome and practise thereof euery where as I partly shewed by the testimony of S. Basil the same may be clearly euinced euen by this place of S. Chrysostome especially if we consider what followeth immediatly the words alledged by the Cardinall and me For S. Chrysostome hauing sayd as you haue heard that he which was clad with purple meaning the Emperour stood praying to the Saynts at their tombes that he which weareth the diâ—deme doth pray to the tent-maker and the fisher as his Patrons and protectours addeth Therefore darest thou be so bold to say that their Lord or Mayster is dead whose seruants euen when they are dead are the protâ—ctors of the Kings of the world And this is not only seene at Rome but also at Constantinople for euen here the Sonne of Constantine the Great thought his father to be much honoured if his body were layd before the Gates of the Fisher. Thus sayth S. Chrysostome with much more to the same purpose which I omit 52. For by this it appeareth sufficiently first that the custome and practise of prayer to Saynts was vniuersall I meane both in the Latin and in the Greeke Church in the tyme of S. Chrysostome which he signifyeth expressely by naming the two principall Cittyes and Imperiall Seates to wit Rome and Constantinople where the same was in vre Secondly it appeareth that it was not practised only by some obscure person as M. Andrews seemeth to insinuate when he sayth that the question is not quid aliquis tum fecerit what some man did then but that it was the custome of most worthy and remarkable persons to wit the most Christian and Catholyke Emperours themselues Thirdly it is euident by this place that S. Chrysostome hyghly approued this custome and belieued it to be most necessary and conforme to the Christian and Catholyke verity seing he doth notably vrge and exaggerate the same for the instruction and edificatioÌ„ of the people to shew vnto them not only the great dignity and glory of Gods seruants and Saynts but also the Omnipotent power and diuinity of our Sauiour Christ. 53. Whereupon it also followeth that M. Andrewes and others who deny this article of Catholike religion do deny a notable argument of Christs Diuinity And therefore whereas he contemneth such a fact as this of most Christian worthy Emperours so testifyed approued and vrged by S. Chrysostome as you haue heard to proue that Christ is God it is cleare that he coÌ„demneth the practise beliefe of the Catholyke Church of that age yea and if by the decrees of the Fathers which he demandeth he meaneth their expresse and cleare doctrine deliuered in their workes he condemneth also the decree of S. Chrysostome touching the same And whereas he addeth for the conclusion of this poynt that this fact related by S. Chrysostome was but an act of voluntary deuotion and not of a thing necessary to saluation which he sayth the Cardinall vndertooke to proue he tryfleth notably for neyther doth the Cardinall vndertake to proue any such thing neyther is it materiall for the question in hand whether it be of necessity to saluation or no. 54. The Cardinall vndertooke only to proue that the doctrine of the Protestans reiecting prayer to Saynts is not the faith of the old primitiue Church which he promiseth to proue by the testimony of the Fathers of the first 400. or 500. yeares as it appeareth expressely by his owne words Soquitur saith he vt ostendamus fidem c. It followeth that we shew the faith which the King defends not to be the faith of the old and primitiue Church c. And agayne a litle after hauing signifyed that his Maiesty in his preface admitteth the 3. Creeds the 4. first Generall Councells and the vniforme doctrine of the Fathers of the first 400. or as it is in the English copy 500. yeares he declareth that amongst other poynts of Catholike religion his Maiesty condemneth Prayer to Saynts and the veneration of Reliques as superstitious Whereupon the Cardinall sayth Accipiam Intercessionem Sanctorum c. I will take in hand the intercession of Saynts with the veneration of reliques which if I can shew to be approued by an vnanime consent of the Fathers of the first 400. or 500. yeares I shall withall proue that the King of Englands fayth is not the fayth of the old primitiue Church but the deuyses heresies of late innouatours Thus saith the Cardinall without touching any way the question whether prayer to Saynts be necessary to saluation which as I haue sayd litle importeth for the decision of the controuersy whether the primitiue Church held it to be lawfull or no. 55. For there is no doubt but that many things are and may be lawfull yea very coÌ„mendable and behoouefull to saluation though they are not of such necessity but that a man may in some cases be saued without them as for example the Euangelicall Counsayles and many workes of supererogation as almes fasting and such lyke which consist in acts of voluntary deuotion are conuenient and notable helps though not absolutly necessary to euery mans saluatioÌ„ And therefore albeit his Maiesty seemeth not to bynd himselfe further to admit the vniforme consent of
the Fathers then in matters necessary to saluation yet for as much as the question concerning Prayer to Saynts which the Cardinall vndertook to handle is only whether the primitiue Church held it to be superstitious as his Maiesty affirmeth it to be the Cardinall needed not to debate and discusse whether it be of necessity to saluation and therefore he forebare to speake thereof as needles and impertinent to the question in hand neuertheles this occasion being now offered I cannot omit to say that if M. Andrwees do speake heere not of the act or practise of praying to Saynts but of the beliefe of the doctrine demanding whether it be of necessity to saluation to belieue that prayer to Saints is lawfull I must needes tell him that it is so necessary that if he or any man els do obstinatly deny and impugne it he is an heretike and consequently cannot be saued and the reason is because he impugneth the beliefe and practice of the vniuersall Catholike Church which our Sauiour hath commaunded vs to heare and obey vnder payne to be held as Ethnicks and Publicans 56. Besides that considering the inestimable benefits that we may receiue both spiritually and temporally by prayers to Saynts whereof the whole Church hath had sufficient and publyke experience in all ages as it is most euideÌ„t by the testimonyes of these fathers for the tymes when they liued it cannot be denyed but that to omit the practice of it were extreme folly and to contemne it were impiety So as M. Andrews may now choose whether he will belieue and practise this doctrine with the whole Catholyke Church or els shew himselfe a foole in neglecting it impyous in contemning it or an heretyke in condemning and impugning it And thus much for his censure vpon the place of S. Chrysostome 57. The next place which he censureth is of Saynt Maximus Bishop of Turin alledged by the Cardinall thus S. Maximus in sermone c. S. Maximus in his sermon made in the prayse of S. Agnes sayth O spleÌ„dida virgo c. O worthy Virgin c. we beseech thee with as feruent prayers as we may that thou vouchsafe to remember vs. To this M. Andrewes answereth that the homilyes of Maximus and almost all the rest which goe vnder the tytle of Sermones de tempore and are of Saynts are not very much to be esteemed that this very homily which the Cardinall cyteth as of Maximus was a long tyme held to be of Ambrose and that now we haue made it to be the homily of Maximus that we are wont to attribute these homilyes sometymes to one and sometymes to another as it pleaseth vs to make tytles and finally that nec fides certa vbi author incertus there is no sure credit to be giuen to a worke wherof the author is vncertayne So he But how much this his censure is to be esteemed you may partly ghesse by his lyke censure vpon an homily of S. Augustine de tempore whereof I treated amply in the 4. Chapter and touched also againe in the last Chapter by occasion of an homily of S. Maximus made in the prayse of the Apostles which I proued to be his as also that he wâ—ote diuers other homilyes as well de tempore as of particuler Saynts whereto I remit thee good Reader to auoyd a needles repetition thereof 58. And whereas M. Andrewes sayth heere that this homily in the prayse of S. Agnes was a long tyme held for an homily of S. Ambrose he might haue done well to haue told vs where he findeth the same True it is that S. Ambrose in his booke de Virginibus wryteth a notable encomium or prayse of S. Agnes and in his Epistles he wrote an elegant discourse of her life martyrdome and miracles but that he was euer thought to be author of this homily it is but a conceipt or inuention of M. Andrews for ought I haue yet seene and put the case that that there hath byn some doubt or question whether of them was the author of it will he conclude as heere he doth that therefore there is no credit to be giuen vnto it If he will iustify that consequence he must reiect diuers parts of the holy Scripture which neuerthelesse I hope he will acknowledge to be of sound credit as in the old Testament the booke of the Iudges Ruth and Iob of which the author is eyther wholy vnknowne or vncertayne and to omit other in the new Testament there is euen at this day amongst the sectaryes as there was also in the primitiue Church great doubt who was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews some ascrybing it as S. Hierome testifyeth to S. Clement who was after Pope some to S. Barnabas and others to S. Luke and some as Sixtus Senensis witnesseth to Tertullian besids that Luther the Magdeburgenses Kemnitius and Brentius with dyuers other Ghospellers do deny it to be S. Paules or any of the Apostles or yet Canonicall Scripture And albeit Caluin and diuers of his followers admit it for Scripture yet they doubt greatly who was the author of it 59. So as if M. Andrewes will stand to his owne inference he must needs conclude that the Epistle to the Hebrews is of no sound credit which I thinke he will be loath to say seeing that all the English Clergy doth at this preseÌ„t acknowledge it for Canonical Scripture Besides that although it should be true which he sayth to wit that it hath byn doubted whether S. Ambrose or S. Maximus were author of that homily yet that can be no sufficient reason to reiect the doctrine of it but rather an argument to fortify and approue it as both very sound and very acient seeing that it hath byn alwayes ascrybed to one of those two ancient learned and holy Fathers and therefore to conclude you see that M. Andrews hath sayd nothing to the purpose against this testimony produced by the Cardinall out of S. Maximus 60. There followeth another out of S. Gregory Nazianzen his oration in the prayse of S. Cyprian to whome he prayeth thus Tu è supernis nos respice populum hunc sanctum dirige Behold vs from aboue and direct this holy people And agayne in the same Oration the same Father testifyeth that a holy Virgin called Iustina did pray vnto the Virgin Mary to deliuer her from danger To these two poynts M. Andrews answereth seuerally to the first he sayth that the oration is not liquidae fideâ— of cleare credit and his reason is because it is vncertayne who that Cyprian was of whome the oratioÌ„ was made as whether he was Cyprian Bishop of Carthage or another Cyprian of Antioch and then he concludeth Ita fluctuat res tota ita perplexa omnia So vncertayne is the whole matter so perplexe or doubtfull are all things in that oration So he Wherein you see
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
signifieth the Greeke word receiueth what gifts soeuer he will Thus saith this ancient and holy Father and then concludeth ex hijs omnibus ô popule pie discite c. O pious or godly people learne by all this that the death of Gods Saynts is honourable and precious in his sight 10. All this I haue thought good to lay downe at large first to confirme all that which hath hitherto byn treated concerning the custome of the Church at that tyme not only in the veneration of holy reliques but also in the expresse Inuocation of Sayntsâ— secondly that this holy Father making all this discourse in the solemnity of that Martyrs feast to styrre vp the people as well to deuotion towards God and the Martyr as to the imitation of the Martyrs vertues for so he himselfe professeth did highly approue all that which he hath heere related and consequently when afterwards in the conclusion of the Oration he himselfe inuocated the Martyr he did it of pure deuotion and not of vayne ostentation of his eloquence not as a flanting Rhetorician or Oratour but as a religious Deuine and deuout Christan a pious Pastour and teacher of his flock to whome he preached for whome he prayed and whome he sought to moue by his owne example to concurre with him in the Inuocation of the Martyr 11. Wherein also M. Andrews may if it please him note the word Inuocation vsed by this Father for prayer to the Martyr of whome he sayth that the people prayed vnto him and called vpon him as the Mynister of God and as one that receiued or obtayned of God what gifts he would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is say being inuocated for I thinke M. Andrewes will not deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke doth properly signify inuocare in Latin and in English to inuocate And therefore because he is so curious to runne to the Greeke in all occasions to examin our cytations of the Greeke Fathers I remit him heere to the Greeke for that I haue byn in this no lesse if not more curious then he hauing searched the old manuscripts of the Vatican where I haue seene two written copyes of S. Gregory Nyssen both of them very ancient and in them both haue found the Greeke words as heere I haue layd them downe in the margent with all the rest very conforme to the Latin translation and therefore I hope he can take no iust exceptions thereto 12. And how then do you thinke he will seeke to elude this euident testimony of this ancient Father Marry forsooth because he findeth that he sayth to the Martyr vbicumque tamdem fueris wheresoeuer thou art he inferreth thereupon that the Father calleth vpon him doubtfully and that fluctuant hic omnia fides nulla de hijs securum nihil all things are heere vncertayne no faith or beliefe is to be had of these things nothing at all secure So he And shall then all this serious discourse of this holy Father directed especially to the glory of God and the honoâ—r of his Martyr in the solemnity of his feast in a publike assembly of the people and for their instruction and edification wherin he testifyed and highly commended their deuotion to the Martyr the honour they did vnto him yea to his very reliques and their expresse Inuocation of him with teares of deuotion and affection for so saith the Greeke shall all this I say be vncertayne voyde of faith and beliefe voyde of security only because M. Andrewes hath found therein vbicumque fueris Can any man imagin that S. Gregory Nyssen would publikely bely the people euen to their faces or yet approue their deuotion to the Martyr and their inuocation of him if he did not belieue it to be acceptable to God and no way repugnant to the Catholike faith 13. And agayne on the other side if all that he sayd was true and highly approued by him as it is euident it was can we desire a more cleare testimony of the beliefe of this holy Father and the Church in his tyme concerning the inuocation of Saynts And what then if he should haue doubted where the soule of the Martyr was acknowledging neuertheles that wheresoeuer he were he was highly in Gods fauour would it follow thereon that all his former discourse was eyther false or impertinent Or that he doubted whether the Martyr could heare or help them that did inuocate him Nay might not M. Andrewes rather gather directly thereof that S. Gregory Nissen and the people belieued that the Martyr heard their prayers saw their deuotion and vnderstood their actions yea could and would help them wheresoeuer he were seeing that they craued his help not knowing where he was Of this truly there can be no doubt 14. But for M. Andrewes his better satisfaction in this poynt I must needs desire him to call to mynd what our Sauiour himselfe teacheth concerning the many mansions in his Fathers house signifying thereby that as there be many mansions so also there are different degrees of glory which God imparteth to his Saynts whereby M. Andrews may also vnderstand if it please him that S. Gregory Nissen alluding thereto had reason to speake doubtfully of the mansion or place where the Martyr was and degree of glory wherewith God had blessed him because no mortall man can know it without speciall reuelation neyther yet is it knowne to vs in what sort the glorified soules are imploied in the seruice and prayse of God in those heauenly mansions in which respect the Father spake also doubtfully thereof beseeching the Martyr that wheresoeuer he was or howsoeuer he was imployed in Gods seruice he would vouchsafe as an inuisible friend to come to visit the assembly of those that honoured him and to prayse and thank God togeather with them euen for the rewards that God had bestowed vpon him for shedding his bloud in the confession of his faith 15. This then beeing so I leaue it to thee good Reader to iudge whether M. Andrews be not a true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a Wrangler in the highest degree seeing that he not only dissembleth the whole drift and scope of this ancient Father and all the substance of his discourse but also impugneth the same with some of the Fathers owne words or his manner of speach ill vnderstood and wrested from the Fathers meaningâ— besides that it also appeareth what a friuolous and vayne euasion he hath sought heere to auoyd the force of diuers pregnant and vnswerable places alledged by the Cardinall I meane not only this of S. Gregory Nissen but also the others before mentioned to wit of S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Hierome and S. Maximus inuocating expressely S. Cyprian the holy widdow Paula and S. Agnes all which as also all other places to the same purpose he laboureth to frustrate as you haue heard with a deuise of an Apostrophe and a prosoâ—opaeia whereas
no man can doubt but that those Fathers did therein exercise acts of pure deuotion as you see S. Gregory Nyssen did according to the beliefe and practice of the whole Church at that tyme which is euident by the testimonyes that you haue heard already and wil be much more manifest by those that yet rest to be examined And this shall suffice for this poynt 16. The next place that he taketh in hand to answere is one of S. Ambrose in these words Obsecrandi sunt Angeli c. The Angels which are giuen vs for Guardians and defenders are to be prayed vnto and the Martyrs in lyke manner whose protection we seeme to challenge by hauing their bodyes in pledge they may pray for our sinnes who with their owne bloud haue washed away their owne sinnes if they had any 〈◊〉 saith S. Ambrose Whereto M. Andrewes answereth that the Cardinall might very well haue forborne to produce this place and not haue cyted it so greedily as he hath donne but that he litle careth saith he as it seemeth that the bloud of Christ should be held for superfluous rather then he would not pray to Saynts for superfluus certè sanguis Christi c. truly the bloud of Christ is superfluous if Martyrs can wash away their sinnes with their owne bloud So he 17. Wherevpon he also inferreth that the Reader may preceiue heereby that Ambrose wrote this when he was but a Nouice in Chistian religion and that it is no meruaile if he sayd that Martyrs are to be prayed vnto seeing he teachethâ— that they haue washt their sinnes with their owne bloud Wherein appeareth the modesty of M. Andrews and his good spirit who rather then he will acknowledge his owne errour which is euidently conuinced by this place chargeth this holy Father with the most execrable and blasphemous doctrine that can be imagined as to teach that the bloud of Christ is superfluous which any Christian hart would abbore to heare and much more to hold and teach seeing that it must needs follow thereupon that all Christian religion and beliefe is in vayne being all grounded vpon the merits of Christs Passion and his precious bloud shed for vs. 18. And truly if S. Ambrose may be charged with this blasphemous opinion for the cause which M. Andrewes alledgeth then all the Fathers of Gods Church yea the Apostles themselues may in lyke manner be charged therewith For all of them say as much in effect as S. Ambrose doth which also may by some peruerse and hereticall â—rayne be wrested to the same peruerse sense albeit to those who do consider the grounds of their doctrine and beliefe the contrary is euident For who knoweth not if malice do not blynd-fold and wholy peruert his vnderstanding that when in the holy Scriptures and Fathers any merit sufficiency or cooperatioÌ„ to saluation is attributed to a man or to his fayth works or any endeauour of his the same is vnderstood to proceed principally from the merits of Christs Passion which is the cause ground and foundation of all grace goodnes and merit in man and therefore is alwayes supposed and necessarily vnderstood in all such manner of speach as this of S. Ambrose though it be not expressed 19. As when we read in S. Gregory Nazianzen that certayne Christian souldiars hauing committed Idolatry exhorted one another vt Christo satisfacerent sanguine suo to satisfy Christ with their bloud and in S. Cyprian omnia peccata passione purgare to purge all sinnes by passion or suffering And agayne in another place redimere peccata c. to redeeme sinnes with iust sorrow and satisfaction and to wassh the wounds of sinne with teares Also in the same Father Deo precibus operibus satisfaccre to satisfy God with prayers and workes and sordes eleemosynis abluere to wash away the filth of sinne with almes And in Origen Poenitendo flendo satisfaciendo delere quod admissum est to abolish or blot out that which hath byn committed with repentance weeping and satisfaction Also in Tertullian that the sinner hath cui satisfaciat to whome he may giue satisfaction and that God doth offer vs impunitatem poenitentiae compensatione redimendam impunity or remission of punishment to be redeemed with the recompence of pennance 20. We read also in Irenaeus that our goods or substance being giuen to the poore solutionem faciunt praeteritae cupiditatis do cause solution or remission of our former couetousnes Also in S. Augustine that for daily and light sinnes quotidiana oratio fidelium satisfacit the daily prayer of the faythfull doth satisfy And in S. Hilary that Dauid facti veteris crimen lacrymis abluit Dauid washt away the fault of his old deed with teares In S. Chrysostome that S. Peter adeo abluit negationem c. did so wash away his denyall of Christ with his teares or repentance that he was made the chiefe Apostle And agayne in the same Oration Vna anima quam lucrati fuerimus c. One soule which we haue gayned may abolish the wayght of innumerable sinnes animaeque redimendâ— fieri precium in illo die and become a price to redeeme our soule in the day of iudgement Finally to omit innumerable other places of the rest of the Fathers S. Gregory the great teacheth that peccata delenda sunt austeritate poenitentiae sinnes are to be blotted out with the austerity of peÌ„nance and the possunt satisfactione purgari they may be purged with satisfaction Thus say these holy Fathers 21. And now will M. Andrews charge them all to teach that the bloud of Christ is superfluous because they speake of mens satisfaction for sinne by washing the same with teares and by purging and redeeming them with almes peÌ„nance and Martyrdome without mention of Christs satisfaction for vs May he not take the lyke exception also to diuers speaches in the holy Scripture as peccatuÌ„ tuum eleemosynis redime redeeme thy sinne with almes misericordia veritate redimitur iniquitas iniquity is redeemed with mercy verityâ— spesalui facti sumus we are saued by hope baptisma vos saluos facit baptisme saueth you saluos nos fecit per lauachrum regenerationis he hath saued vs by the water of regeneratioÌ„ operamini salutem work your saluation and the lyke in diuers other places may he not I say cauill as well agaynst these speaches as agaynst the other in S. Ambrose Yes truly 22. For the reason is all one in both it being euident that the merit of Christs precious blood and death is presupposed and necessarily vnderstood as well in the one as in the other and as Baptisme and Hope are speciall meanes to apply vnto vs the merits of Christs passion in which respect they are sayd in the Scripture to saue vs so also teares of repentance pennance almes good workes and Martyrdome wherof S.
that M. Andrews hath not only reiected S. Ambrose his expresse testimony concerning the inuocation of Saynts but also charged him with a most blasphemous doctrine which neuer any man els I dare say except perhaps some other Sectary of this age euer so much as suspected or imagined in that holy Father Secondly promising to proue by a knowne sentence of S. Ambrose that he changed his mynd afterwards in that poynt he alledgeth a worke which in the opinion of diuers learned men was not written by S. Ambrose besydes that the place which he produceth is nothing at all to the purpose for the which he alledgeth it Thirdly laying downe the true words of another place in a true worke of S. Ambrose he hath fraudulently dissembled concealed that which immediatly followeth and not only discouereth but also ouerthroweth his false construction thereof and lastly he hath coyned a new worke of S. Ambrose neuer heard of by any but by himselfe whereby also he could gayne nothing if there were any such So as now I report me to thee good Reader whether he hath not quit himselfe well in the answere of the Cardinalls obiection out of S. Ambrose Let vs then passe to another 39. The next place which he laboureth to answere is taken out of the history of Ruffinus who saith of Theodosius the Emperour thus Circuibat omnia orationum loca c. he went about to all places of prayer and lay prostrate in hearcloth and craued help for himselfe by the faithfull intercession of Saynts So he declaring what meanes Theodosius vsed to obtayne the admirable victory which almighty God afterwards gaue him against Eugenius the Tyrant To this M. Andrews answereth thus Theodosius ibi sanctorum inuocator non est c. Theodosius is not there an inuocatour of Saynts for it is one thing to craue help of Saynts which is properly to inuocate them and another to craue help of God by the intercession of Saynts So he giuing to vnderstand that Theodosius did not pray to Saynts but to God to heare him by the intercession of Saynts which he signifieth afterwards more playnely saying Rogare autem Deum c. To beseech God to fauour vs at the request of Saynts is not to pray to them or to inuocate them but God hoc autem nec praeterea quid fecit ibi Theodosius this and nothing els did Theodosius there Thus sayth M. Andrewes who as you see granteth that Theodosius prayed at the tombes of Martyrs yea that he craued help of almighty God by the intercession of Saynts but not that he prayed to the Saynts themselues 40. Neuertheles he may easily be cōuinced heerein if we consider what hath byn already proued by the testimonyes of those holy Fathers which haue hytherto byn produced by the which it is euident that the common custome of Christians was at that tyme to pray to Saynts and Martyrs at their tombes and monuments and amongst the rest S. Chrysostome testifyeth expressely as you haue heard that the very Emperours themselues of whome one was Theodosius vsed to come to the monuments of Martyrs and there to pray to them to the end that they might pray to God for them and therefore I remit it to the iudgment of any indifferent man whether it be credible that Theodosius being to craue Gods fauour and assistance against the Tyrant Eugenius at the tombes of Martyrs and by their intercession did not also particulerly pray to them as not only all Christians at that tyme but also he and other Emperours were wont to do in their necessityes is it likely that he would do it at other tymes and not then when he had most need 41. This is so improbable that M. Andrews had need to bring some more pregnant reasons to proue it then he doth especially seeing it was commonly reported as Zozomen witnesseth that Theodosius going to encounter Eugenius passed by a Church which he had buylt in the honour of S. Iohn Baptist and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say he inuocated the Baptist to be his Assistant in the battayle whereby it euidently appeareth that Theodosius was held at that tyme to be an inuocatour of Saynts and namely of S. Iohn Baptist and that the same was generally approued in him seeing it was reported amongst the people and related by Sozomen as one speciall meanes which he vsed to obtayne the famous victory that God gaue him presently after against his enemy and therefore there is no doubt but that when he craued help against the same enemy by the intercession of Martyrs at their tombes as Ruffinus testifyeth in the place alledged by the Cardinall he inuocated the Martyrs themselues for I thinke no reason can be giuen why he should pray particulerly to S. Iohn Baptist and not also to those Martyrs seeing that the selfe same occasion and oportunity of tyme place and necessity vrged him to both alyke◠42. But perhaps you will imagine that some potent reasons moued M. Andrewes to thinke that Theodosius did not inuocate the Martyrs yea that it was not lawfull for him to do it But truly his reason is no other but because we neyther are sure that the Saynts heare vs nor haue any precept in Scripture to pray to them Vtcumque sayth he illi pro nobis intercedant c. Howsoeuer the Saynts pray for vs yet except we may be sure that they heare vs yea and though the same were manifest yet except we haue some commandment of God for it they are not to be inuocated by vs albeit they pray for vs of their owne accord So he opposing this his friuolous conceipt against the sacred authority as wel of the publike custome and practise of the primitue Church as of the beliefe of the ancient Fathers testifying and approuing the same which might suffise to perswade any reasonable man both that Saynts do heare vs and also that they may be inuocated For would the whole Church of God euen then when it was notably furnished with learned and holy pastors which our aduersaries cannot deny haue practised or yet permitted the inuocation of Saynts if eyther it were vnlawfull or els that the Saynts do not heare vs So should the spouse of Christ and the pillar of truth whereto our Sauiour promised his owne continuall assistance so should she I say haue erred most perniciously if it were not lawfull to pray to Saynts and foolishly if they did not heare vs and therefore if there were no other argumēt or proofe thereof but the practise of the whole Church as well in those dayes as euer since yet the same might suffice to conuince M. Andrews and his fellowes in this poynt 43. But what will he say to the vndoubted experience that men haue had in all tymes and ages and yet haue of the admirable and most miraculous effects of petitions made to Saynts do not the same most
euidently proue both that the Saynts do heare vs and that God himselfe approueth the vse and custome of praying to them I haue shewed this experience already in the age whereof we now speake by the testimonyes of Saynt Basil and Saynt Gregory Nazianzen witnessing the notable effects of prayers to the 40◠Martyrs Saynt Mammas and the blessed Virgine Mary whereto I might add diuers others of the same age and all other ages ensuing vntill this day but to auoyde prolixity and because I hold it needeles to multiply witnesses in a matter so manifest as this I will content my selfe with only one euident testimony of Theodoret who liued in the same age that diuers of those other fathers did whome the Cardinall alledgeth for he was Bishop of Sirus in S. Augustines tyme before the third Generall Councell of Ephesus though he was yonger then any of the rest liued many yeares after them to wit vntill the 4. Generall Coūcell where he was present◠So as two of the 4. first Generall Coūcells were held in his dayes and whyles he was Bishop 44. This ancient Father writing against the Gentils of his tyme and prouing by many euident arguments that Christ is God vrgeth notably the great honour generally exhibited in those dayes to Martyrs in the sumptuous and magnificent Churches that were then dedicated vnto them whereof he sayth thus Neque verò ad haec per annum semel aut bis c. We do not vse to come to these only once or twyce or fiue tymes in the yeare but we do often celebrate festiuall dayes in them we do often euery day sing hymnes and prayses to the Lord of those Martyrs and men that are in health do pray to be conserued in it and those that are sicke do craue health also barren women and men do desire to haue children and those that are already Fathers do seeke to haue their Children conserued also trauaylers do craue the Martyrs to be their companions in their way and guydes of their iourney and those that are safely returned giue thankes confessing the benefit receiued not comming to them as to Gods but praying to them as to diuine men and beseeching them to be intercessors for them and that they do obtayne those things which they piously and faithfully craue it is testifyed by the gifts that are offered by such as haue made vowes which are manifest tokens that they haue obtayned their desired health for some do hang vp figures or representations of eyes some of feete some of hands all made of siluer or gould and their Lord doth gratfully accept what gift soeuer is giuen and disdayneth none though neuer so small and meane measuring them according to the ability of the giuer Therefore those gifts being set forth to the publike view of all men are most euident signes and testimonyes that those which giue them are freed from their diseases and haue recouered their health These I say do shew what is the vertue or power of the Martyrs and the power and vertue of the Martyrs doth declare that he whome they haue worshipped and serued is true God Thus sayth Theodoret 45. And can any man desire more cleare and manifest testimony eyther that the generall custome of the Church was to pray to Saynts in his tyme or that God approued it with miraculous effects Yea and that the same was held for a speciall argument to proue that Christ was God Wherein also it is to be obserued that the vse was in that age aboue eleuen hundred yeares agoe to hang vp votiue Images and representations of hands feete eyes and such like to testify the miraculous recouery of bodily health by the intercession of Saynts which therefore is no moderne custome of these later ages as our aduersaryes falsely affirme it to be but an ancient practice of the primitiue Church Whereupon it also followeth not only that prayer to Saynts is most lawfull and honorable to almighty God and profitable to men but also that Saynts heare the prayers that are made vnto them seeing that they obtayne the grant thereof and giue succour to their suppliants What account then is to be made of the cauilling and trifling doubt that M. Andrews maketh whether they heare vs or no Especially seeing he groundeth the same vpon no better reason then partly because some of the ancient Fathers were of opinion that the Saynts shall not haue the perfect vision of God before the day of Iudgment and consequently that they do not see in him what is done on earth and partly also for that S. Augustine teacheth that the dead are not present at the affayres of men Whereupon he concludeth Quòd sinec ipsi intersint vt Augustinus c. if the Saynts are neyther present heere themselues as Augustin affirmeth neyther yet do see any thing in the glasse he meaneth the Essence of God as almost all the other Fathers affirme they cannot know our desires for how should they know them seeing that they neyther can see things in the glasse nor yet in themselues So he arguing more simply then I could haue imagined of so great a Doctor if I had not seene it 46. For put the case that all this which he saith were infallibly true I meane that the Saynts neyther haue as yet the full visiō of God neyther are at any time present heere amongst men is there no otherway for them to know our actions or vnderstand our petitiōs how did Elizaeus the Prophet know that his seruant Giezi tooke gifts of Naman Syrus when neuertheles he neyther had the vision of God nor yet was present with Giezi when he receiued the gifts And how do Prophets vnderstand things to come or done in remote places Will M. Andrews say that they haue no knowledge thereof because they neyther see God nor are present at the actions nor in the places whereof they speake This I thinke he wil be ashamed to say therefore he must needs confesse that his inference is very vayne idle when he argueth that the Saynts do not vnderstand our prayers because they do not see God nor are present with vs. And this he might haue learned of S. Augustine euen in that place which he cyteth to proue that the dead are not present at our affayres 47. For euen there I meane in his booke de cura pro mortuis he declareth that albeit the dead do not naturally know what passeth in earth neyther are ordinarily conuersant with vs yet they may know our actions as well by the relation of Angels as by diuine reuelation yea and that they may be present with vs and helpe vs per diuinam potentiam by diuine power as shall further appeare in the ninth Chapter where I shall haue somewhat more to say to M. Andrewes concerning his grosse and shamefull abuse both of the Cardinall and S. Augustine touching this place Therfore whereas he also
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.
Christ and exalted Angels that he held Christ to be but pure man and the sonne of Ioseph and that Angels made the world and gaue the law to the Iewes yea that an Angell was the God of the Iewes or finally of some such other heretykes as eyther attributed diuinity to Angels or made them mediatours for man in such sort as those Phrygian heretykes did of whome Theodoret speaketh which was to exclude the mediation of Christ as it appeareth euidently by that which the Apostle addeth saying non tenens Caput ex quo c. and not holding the head whereof the whole body is by ioynts bands compacted c. signifying that he spake of such as forsook the head to wit Christ and made Angels the chiefe mediatours of their reconciliation to God 10. Therefore S. Chrysostome saith vpon that place of S. Paul Sunt nonnulli c. there are some which do say that we must not come to God the Father and be reconciled to him by Christ but by Angels and so doth also Oecumenius and Theophilactus expound the same place And the authour of the Commentary vpon S. Pauls Epistles amongst the workes of S. Ambrose saith that the Apostle taxed there such as adored the starres quas sayth he Angelos vocat he calleth Angels and finally to omit others S. Hierome and Haymo do vnderstand that the Apostle speaketh of such as vsed to offer Sacrifice to Angels whereupon also the Councell of Laodicea might haue iust occasion to make their decree agaynst some such abominable Idolatry done secretly to Angels in their dayes 11. So as it is euident by all this that neyther the Apostle in his Epistle to the Colâ—ssâ—nsesâ— noâ— Theâ—doret in his Commentary vpon the same nor then Galnon of the Laodicean Councell mentioned by Theodoret and obiected by M. Andrews do any way impugne the custome of the Catholyke Church in praying to Angels as mediatours to Christ for â—s And to conclude concerning Theodoret is whereas M. Andrewes would by this place make the world belieuâ— that he did not approue prayer to Sayntsâ— I remit thee good Reader to that most perspicuous and pregâ—antâ— testimony which I haue before produced 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 to proue the publike practiced and custome of the whole Church to pray to Saynts in his tyme together with the admirable effects and miraculous benefitsâ— that deuout people receiued thereby and his owne euident and cleare approbation thereof seeing that he vrgeth it to the confusion of the Paynims inferâ—ing thereupon a manifess argument of Christs diuinity besides that in his historia religiosa wherein wryting the lyues of diuers religious persons he craueth in the end of euery particuler Saynts life Gods fauour and diuine assistance by his intercessionâ— and in the conclusion of the last he desireth them all whose lyues he had written to pray for him So that I hope this may suffice in answere of M. Andrewes his obiection taken out of him 12. I haue before touched another obiection of M. Andrews grounded vpon an absurd conceipt of his that it is vncertayne whether Saynts do heare vs and how they see or know our actions and albeit that which I sayd there touching the common and vniuersall experience that the Church hath had in all ages of the helpe and assistance of Saynts to such as inuocate them might suffice for his confutatioÌ„ in this poynt yet because he vrgeth the same diuers tymes and especially in his preamble to his censure â—pon the Fathers I will and heere somewhat more to shew his absurd manner of arguing in this matter Thus then he saith Vt hoc detur c. although this should be granted that Saynts do pray for vs yet it is not â—â—â—fest how they he are vs praying heere on earth and those your positions touching the glasse of the diuine essence and the shyning therein of all things that are done on earth are more subtil then solid and not cleare inough to your selues and altogeather vnheard of amongst the Fathers and no man doth willingly call vpon those of whome he is not certayne by what meanes they heare him proâ—â—de andeant necne c. and therefore vnsure whether they heare him or no. So he 13. Wherein you see he argueth in effect no otherwyse then thus that because we know not certaynely how the Saynts do heare vs therefore we are not sure that they heare vs at all which truly is a strange inference for albeit we be not sure how and in what manner they heare vs yet we may be sure that they heare vs seeing that the certaynty of any effect doth noâ— depend vpon the knowledge eyther of the cause or of the manner or meanes how it is wrought as it is euident by infinite effects which we certaynely know and see though we neyther know the assured cause thereof nor in what manner they are performed As for exampleâ— it is certayne that the sea â—bbeth and floweth that â—eâ—eâ—s haue theyr accesses and crises◠〈…〉 stone draweth 〈◊〉 and loketh alwayes towards the Northâ— and yet neuertheles we neyther cerâ—aynly 〈…〉 these â—ffects proceed nor how they are effected and who can assuredly tell how the sound of a voyce is framed and how the eye seeth whether by intromission or extramission as the Philosophers speake when neuertheles thâ— effects are euident 14. And this being so in naturall and earthly matters subiect to our senses what shall we thinke of heauenly thinges or of matters belonging to religion and fayth which do farre more exceed mans weake capacity must we eyther know how they are wrought or els deny the effects Let M. Andrews tell me how Angels and Saynts in heauen do pray to God for vs which he granteth they do or how they vnderstand one another or yet how the humanity of Christ heareth our prayers and knoweth our actions I meane whether he seeth them in his diuinity or knoweth them by reuelation and if he dare not determine the matter let him according to his owne inference doubt whether Christ heareth our prayers or not yea let him not willingly pray vnto him seeing he sayth that no man doth willingly call vpon those of whome he is vncertayne by what meanes they heare him and if he will take vpon him to determine it let him tell me why the glorified soules of Saynts which see God may not heare our prayers and know our actions in the same manner 15. But to omit infinite other instances which might be giuen let vs heare what S. Augustine sayth euen in a matter pertayning to this question whereof we now treate For albeit he maketh great doubt how Almighty God did work those stupendious miracles which as he testifieth vpon his owne knowledge were done at the memoryes and relyques of S. Steuen and other Martyrs yet he made so litle doubt of the effect that he vrged the same notably against the Paynims to proue
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
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
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
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
who are said in the Scriptures to haue adored Angells and men their case I say is hardâ— if there be no way to saue them from Idolatry but by an absurd Catachresis neuer dream't of by any but by Andrewsâ— For I think no man would be so absurd to imagin a Catachresis where there is no want of proper words especially so often as adoration is vsed for the worship of Angells men not only in the Fathers but also in the holy Scriptures Where I â—are vndertake to shew it in that sense aboue 40. tymes for I haue taken paynes to search it which I hope may suffice to teach Mâ— Andrews that it doth not signify diuine honor only that the ancient Fathersâ— we who vse it sometymes in other sense haue sufficient warrant for it from the Scripture it selfe and finally that there is no other Catachresis I meane no other abuse in all this matter but in M. Andrews his corrupt Conscience who maketh no scruple to abuse and delude his Reader with such shifts and deuises to bolster out his bad cause Thus much for his first reason 21. His second reason why adorare is taken figuratiuely in that place of S. Hierome is thisâ— Vbi vero saith he propriè ei loquendum erat c. For when S. Hierome was to speake properly to wit to Vigilantius his aduersary who pressed him strictly and would not suffer him to speake at large then he denyeth it earnestly saying Nos autem non dico Martyrum reliquias c. We do not worship and adore I do not say the Reliques of Martyrs but neyther the Sunne nor the Moone nor the Angells nor the Cherubim nor the Seraphim Thus saith M. Andrews out of S. Hierome ending his citation there because that which followeth would marre all his market as you shall see after a while and in the meane tyme he concludeth thus What I pray you will the Cardinall say here seeing that the old Fathers of the Church do crie out we do not adore the reliques of Martyrs heere the Cardinall is held so fast that he cannot slip away Thus triumpheth M. Andrews before the victory or rather hauing lost the victory being himselfe a Captiue and hauing no other remedy left him but to brag and face out the matter 22. For thou shalt vnderstand good Reader that S. Hierome here speaketh as the Logicians say ad hominem that is to say according to the sense and meaning of his aduersary Vigilantius one of M. Andrews his worthy progenitours who impugning the adoration of reliques in the same sense that M. Andrews doth held it for no other then Idolatry as S. Hierome testifieth in the same Epistle to Riparius which M. Andrews alledgeth Ais saith S. Hierome Vigilantius c. you say that Vigilantius as we may say M. Andews openeth againe his stinking mouth and casteth forth a most filthy sauour against the Reliques of holy Martyrs and calleth vs who reuerence them and worship the bones of the dead Cinerarios Idololatras worshipers of Ashes Idolators So he And in his tract against Vigilantius himselfe he setteth downe Vigilantius his owne words thus Quid nâ—cesse est c. What need hast thou not only to honour with so greate honour but also to adore that I knowe not what which thou worshipest carrying it in a litle vessell from place to place and why doest thou kisse and adore dust lapt in a linnen cloth And againe a litle after We see you according to the custome of the Gentils c. euery where kisse and adore I knowe not what litle dust carried in a litle vssell and lapt in a precious linnen cloth Thus wrote Vigilantius 23. Whereby you see how he charged the Catholicks of those daies with flat Idolatry for worshipping or adoring the Reliques of Saynts taking adoration for worship due to God alone in which respect he calleth the Catholicks Idolators And therefore S. Hierome answering him in the same sense saith that which M. Andrews alleadgeth to wit non adoramus reliquias Martyrum c. We do not adore the reliques of Martyrs that is to say we do not giue diuine honor to the reliques of Martyrs committing Idolatry as Vigilantius chargeth vs But honoramus saith he presently afterwards reliquias Martyrum vt eum cuius sunt Martyris adoremus c. We honor the Reliques of Martyrs that we may adore or yield diuine honor to him whose Martyres they are Honoramus serous c. We honour the seruants to the end that their honor may redound to the honour of their Lord who said he which receiueth you receiueth me Thus saith S. Hierome which M. Andrews thought good to dissemble as if he had not seeme it for that it fully explicateth the state of the questioÌ„ betwixt S. Hierome Vigilantius as also betwixt M. Andrews vs cleareth all the matter For who seeth not heere that albeit S. Hierome denyeth the adoration of Reliques in the sense that Vigilantius obicted it as we also do to wit as signifying a diuine honor yet he approueth and teacheth it in the sense of Catholiks that is as adoration signifieth a veneration and worship done to Saynts for the honor of God who is honored glorified thereby 24. To which purpose two things are to be noted in this matter the one that whereas Vigilantius chargeth the Catholicks to adore and kisse euery where the Râ—liques of Martyrs he shewed sufficiently that the custome of the faithfull was at that tyme to do corporall reuerence thereto not only by kissing them but also by inclyning or bowing downe the body which the word adoration signifieth and S. Hierome denyeth not though he denyeth the inference of Idolatry that Vigilantius made thereon 25. The other is that as Vigilantius did not herein reproue the particuler custome of some particuler men but the practice of the whole Church at that tyme so also S. Hierome did not impugne him only with priuate reasons and arguments of his owne but also with publick examples as of the publick translation of the holy Reliques of S. Andrew S. Luke and S. Timothy to Constantinople by Constantin the Emperour apud quas saith he Daemones rugiunt c. at which reliques Diuells do rore and the inhabitors and prossessors of Vigilantius do confesse that they feele their presence So he And then produceth also another example that had passed not long before of a most solemne translation of the Reliques of Samuel the Prophet from Iudaea to Chalcedon in Thracia which were sumptuously and triumphantly carried by Bishops in a goulden vessell and met receiued and accompanied by the people of all the Churches by the way in so much that there were saith S. Hierome continuall swarmes of people euen from Palestina to Chalcedon sounding forth the praise of Christ with one voice all a long as they went whereupon he asketh Vigilantius whether
as I declared amply in the 2. Chapter 57. I doubt not also but that you remember his egregious abuse of S. Augustine and of an Affrican Synod concerning appeales from Africk to Rome with 3. notable lyes within little more then 3. lynesâ— and of S. Epiphanius flatly belyed touching prayer to our Blessed Lady Also of S. Ambrose not only shamefully calumniated but also very fraudulently alleaged And lastly his notable abuse and deceiptfull allegation of Theodâ—ret concerning prayer to Angells all which I haue amply clearely discouered in the 4.6.7 and 8. Chapters Whereto I will now add some other examples of his frauduleÌ„t dealing in this kind and first touching a point which I had occasion to touch in my Suplement to wit the authority of generall Councells 58. Therefore whereas the Apologie for the Oath seemeth only to admit and approue the 4. first generall Councells the Cardinall demandeth why those only should be admitted and receiued and not also the 5.6.7.8 and the rest Whereto M. Andrewes answereth thusâ— Cur quâ—tuor taÌ„tùm prima Câ—nâ—ilia veneratur Rexâ— Quaere id à Gregorio c. Why doth the King reuerence only the fowre first Councells Aske that of Gregory who allbeit he was after the fifth yet he bare this honour only to the 4. first He spake magnificently of the first fower de quinto silijt he was silent or said nothing of the fift and the reason which moued him not to giue lyke honor to the fift as to the other moued also the King not to beare the lyke respect to the rest of the Councells which followed the fift So he Wherein you see he affirmeth that S. Gregory spake magnificently or very honorably of the 4. first Councells and de quinto siluit said nothing of the fift though the same had bene held before his tyme. 59. But how truly he saith this it shall appeare by Saint Gregories owne words who wryting to Iohn Byshop of Constantinople and hauing said of the 4. first Councells that he did imbrace them tota deuotione vt quatuor Euangelia with all deuotion as the 4. Ghospels because saith he the building of the holy faith is raised vpon them as vpon a fowre squared stone c. he addeth concerning the fiâ—â—t quintum quoque pariter veneror c. I reuerence also together with them the fifth Councell wherin the Epistle of Iba is reiected as full of error and Theodorus separating the person of our mediatour in two substances is conuinced to haue fallen into perfidious impietie Also the writinges of Theodoret reprouing the faith of Cyril are refuted there for their temerarious madnes and therefore all the persons which the said venerable Councels reiect I do also reiect and those which they admit and reuerence I doe imbrace for seeing they were ordeyned by an vniuersall consent whosoeuer presumeth to loose that which they binde or to binde that which they loose doth destroy himselfe and not them Quisquis ergo aliud sapit Anathema sit c. Therefore whosoeuer thinketh or vnderstandeth otherwise let him be accursed and whosoeuer holdeth the faith of the foresaid Synods peace be to him from God the Father by Iesus Christ his Sonne Thus saith S. Gregorie as well of the 5. Synod as of the other fowre 60. And now good Reader I remit it to thy iudgement whether it be truth which M. Andrews saith to wit that S. Gregory Siluit de quinto said nothing to the fift Councell yea and whether he admitted and honored only the fowre first Councells doth he not say quintum quoque pariter venâ—ror I doe also togeather with the other reuerence the fift Councell and doth he not acknowledg the infallible verity thereof as well as of the other holding him for accursed who doth reiect anything determined by any of the fiue whether it concerne matter of faith or the CondeÌ„nation of any mans person and what other reason doth he alledg but because they were all fiue held by generall consent giuing euidently to vnderstand that a generall Councell lawfully assembled representeth the whole Church of God and is infallibly guided by the holy Ghost 61. And whereas he seemeth to speake more magnificiently as M. Andrews termeth it of the fowre former then of the fift saying that he reuerenceth them with all deuotion as the 4. Ghospells the reason thereof is euident to wit because the most important points of our Christian faith concerning the Blessed Trinity the Godhead of the holy Ghost and the Diuinity Humanity Nature and Person of our Sauiour Christ were resolued and decreed therin whereas in the 5. there was not any new matter of faith determined but only certaine persons and their writinges coÌ„demned which had caused a great controuersy and schisme in the Church at that tyme neuertheles we see that albeit S. Gregory doth not say in expresse wordes that he reuerenceth the 5. Councell as the 4. Ghospells as he said of the other fowre yet he saith as much in effect seeing that he professeth to hould all those for accursed who do reiect or contradict it So that M. Andrews hath shamefully abused and belied S. Gregory herein and must seeke some other Patron to iustifie and defend him for admitting only the 4. first generall Councells but let vs see some more of his fraudes in this kind 62. Vpon occasion of certaine places of the Fathers alledged by the Cardinall to shew the Custome of praying to Saints in the primatiue Church M. Andrews goeth about to proue that Saynts do not know what wee do here on earth eyther by seeing the same in God or by being themselues present amongst vs and hauing alleadged 3. or 4. authorities for the former point which he may see sufficiently answered in Cardinall Bellarmines Controuersies he saith for the letter mortuos autem rebus nostris non interuenire sensit Augustinus Augustine was of opinion that the dead are not present at our affaires for the which he quoteth no place of S. Augustine but addeth quis hoc refert Cardinalis Who relateth or affirmeth this the Cardinall and for this M. Andrews citeth in his margent the Cardinalls treatise of the beatitude of Saynts in his bookes of Controuersies where indeed the Cardinall handling that question and laying downe the obiection of hereticks hath amongst the rest a place of S. Augustine in his books de cura pro mortuis where he affirmeth that the dead are not present at mens affaires neyther yet do know what is done vpon earth neuertheles afterwards the Cardinall answering the same obiection in the same Chapter proueth out of the very same treatise of S. Augustine from whence the obiection is taken that albeit the dead are not vsually preseÌ„t at mens affaires nor do naturally know what is done vpon earth yet they may know it not only by Angells but also supernaturally to wit by diuine reuelation yea and that the holy Martyrs
adoration but with a Religious worship due to holy men or holy things for the honor and loue of God in which point it seemeth M. Andrews agreeth fully with vs confessing that the dead bodyes and reliques of holy Martyrs and Saynts which are truely knowne to be such are to be honoured and kept with reuerence and therefore answering to a place of S. Gregory Nyssen alledged by the Cardinall he alloweth that the body of a Martyr si veri Martyris verum corpus if it be the true body of a true Martyr is to be adorned and decked with honour in Augusto Sacratoque loco poni and to be placed in a Maiesticall and Sacred place yea and he confirmeth it with the authoritie of his Maiesty saying Idem hoc vult Rex honorifico loco solemniter inferri The King also will haue the same to be solemnly carried into an honorable place 14. And afterwards answering to a place of S. Ambrose which the Cardinall obiecteth he saith that wheras Ambrose will haue vs to honor the body of the dead Martyr and the seed of eternity in him Facimus saith he non illibeÌ„ter wee doe it willingly then addeth Quid porrò quaerit sed pallium breue est honâ—s non pertingit ad adorationem What doth he desire more but the cloake is too short honour doth not reach to adoratioÌ„ So he Meaning by adoratioÌ„ diuine honor which we grauÌ„t him for we say also that the honor due to Reliques doth not extend it selfe to a diuine adoration therefore we desire no more of him then that he do a religious honor and worship therto for such is the honour wherof S. Ambrose speaketh because it is due and exhibited to Saynts for the honour and loue of God whose seruants they are quin seruorum honos saith S. Hierome redundat ad Dominum the honor of the seruants redoundeth to their Lord. In which respect the same holy Father signifieth that all the adoration which was done to the Reliques of the Prophet Samuel when they were transported with great solemnity and honour from Palestine to Constantinople was not done so much to Samuel as to Christ whose Leuite Prophet Samuel was as I haue signified more at large in the last Chapter 15. Whereby it appeareth that the honor done to the seruants of Christ for Christs sake only and not for any ciuil and temporall respect must needes be a religious honour such I meane as I haue declared in the last Chapter to haue bin often exhibited in the holy Scripture to Angells and holy men with the terme of adoration and with the exhibition of a Corporall reuerence which may be more or lesse according to the deuotion of the exhibitours thereof so that it be in their mind and intention distinguished from diuine honour due to God alone in which intention consisteth the true difference and distinction of diuine religious and ciuil adoration as I haue also declared before in the last Chapter So as M. Andrews confessing an honor to be due to holy Reliques cannot with reason exclude from the same any Corporall reuerence so that the intention be to doe only a religious and not diuine worship As he must needs also acknowledge the lyke in ciuil adoration and honor done to Princes and great personages 16. For whereas the same is diuersly performed somtymes by putting of the cap sometymes by bowing the body and somtymes by kneeling and other whiles also by prostration vpon the ground which maner of ciuill adoration is often mentioned in the old testament and was vsed in tymes past amongst the Persians to their Kinges there is no doubt but that as all these may lawfully be vsed wheÌ„ the intention is no other but to do a Ciuill honor thereby so also the least of them were vnlawfull yea Idolatry if the intention of the doer were to giue thereby a diuine honor to any man and the lyke I say must needes be graunted concerning the externe honor due to the holy Reliques of Saints which how great it was in the tyme of S. Ambrose S. Hierome and S. Augustine we may vnderstand by the custome then vsuall to kisse them for deuotion sake and to carry them about in procession as we now terme it with great solemnity and reuerence which appeareth not only in S. Hierome who seuerely reprehended Vigilantius for carping at the same as I haue signified in the last Chapter but also by the testimony of S. Augustine who recounteth diuerse Miracles done by reliques while they were so carried by Bishops as namely that Lucillus the Bishop was himselfe cured of a fistula carrying a certaine relique of S. Stephen populo praecedente sequente the people going before him and following him and that a blind woman being brought to the Bishop Proiectus as he carried Sacra pignora so termeth he the holy Reliques of S. Stephen was restored to her sight by applying to her eyes certayne flowers which had touched them 17. Such was the honour that Catholike people bare to holy Reliques in those dayes that they sought either to touch them or to haue some thing that had touched them or bene neere about them whereby diuers great Miracles were done yea dead men reuiued as S. Augustine testifieth in the same place by diuers examples which he relateth and therefore I leaue it to the Iudgment of any reasonable man how great the deuotion and the religious honour was which then was vsuall in the Church and allowed by these Fathers to be done to the reliques of Saints especially seeing that the same was also approued and confirmed from heauen by innumerable Miracles which M. Andrewes himselfe granteth saying Augustino assentimur c. we grant with Augustin that the body of the Protomartyr was conueniently or duely to be honored after that it pleased god to worke certaine Miracles thereat So he wherein besides the graunt of due honour to be done to holy reliques whereof now I speake I wish also to be noted that he graunteth that Miracles were done in Gods Church in S. Augustins tyme which most of the Sectaries of these daies haue hitherto denyed affirming that Miracles ceassed after the tyme of the Apostles which they are forced to say because we exact of them to shew Miracles in their Church as an vndoubted signe of the true Church shewing on our part the continuance thereof in our Church from the Apostles to this day whereof sufficient experience hath bene seene in euery age and euen now lately by innumerable cures of all sorts of diseases at Sichem in Flanders at Minich in Bauiere in diuerse partes of Italy and at this present at Valentia in Spaine at the body of a holy Preist who dyed in April last all so publick and so sufficiently testified to the world that impudencie it selfe cannot deny the truth thereof 18. So that seeing M. Andrewes graunteth that
Miracles were done in the Church of God for 4. hundreth yeares and we can proue the continuance thereof in our Church vntill this day either he must shew vs in what age they ceassed after S. Augustines time and why then rather then before yea and proue also that all the miracles done in the Catholike Church euer since haue bene diabolicall illusions or els he must confesse that the Protestants Church is not the true Church seeing that they haue not hitherto had so much as a lame or sickd og healed in all their Congregations by the vertue of any of their profession dead or aliue notwithstanding their liuely and strong faith whereof they are wont so much to vaunt And this I say the rather because I find that M. Andrewes is verie silent about this point euen when the Cardinall giueth him sufficient cause to speake thereof who answering an obiection of the Apology for the Oath concerning witchcraft imputed to Catholikes because they quench fire with Agnus Deis sayth Respondeo miracula diuina c. I answere that diuine Miracles are seene only amongst the Catholikes and M. Andrewes comming to answere that paragraph which beginneth with those words left them out wholly and setteth downe the next wordes following for the beginning of the Cardinalls text in that place perhaps he lakt paper and place for them or tooke them for words quae abesse poterant which might well be spared for such as you may remember he sayd he would leaue out sometimes 19. But to conclude concerning holy Reliques it appeareth sufficiently hereby that M. Andrewes graunteth as much concerning them as we desire to wit that they are to be decked and adorned layd vp with honour and solemnitie reserued and kept in honourable and holy places and finally that they are to be honored yea and that God doth somtimes worke Miracles by theÌ„ which he cannot deny to be a notable and diuine confirmation of the honour that is done vnto them and therefore for as much as the honour that he graunteth to be due vnto them is neither diuine honour which both he and we conclude in this case nor ciuill honour seeing it is not done for any temporall or ciuill respect but proceedeth out of deuotion and tendeth directly to the honour of God he must needs graunt it to be a religious honour and that the same may be exhibited with much more externall worship and reuerence then the ciuill honour or worship which is due to any Prince yea so much more as respect of deuotion and Religion surpasseth and excelleth temporall and ciuil respects so that if ciuill honour do require corporall reuereÌ„ce with cap and knee bowing and prostrating of the body much more doth the Religious honour due to Saints and their Reliques require the same Thus much for this point 20. Whereas the Cardinall hauing occasion to speak of Monks and Religious women he saith that their Institute cannot be reprehended except we reprehend all the Fathers of the first 500. yeares M. Andrews graÌ„teth it to be true for he saith that his Maiesty meaÌ„t not to reprehend the Institute of Monks but the Monkes theÌ„selues because they haue long since gone froÌ„ their Instituts or rule being degenerated into Locusts apud quos saith he desidia nimium verè nimium saepe in luxuriam despumauit whose Idlenes or sloath hath too truly and too oft turned to a very foame or froath of luxurious and licentious life So he and then he addeth that because their Institute was not of the diuine law but only of the positiue and now gone in merum abusum into a meere abuse therfore it is worthily antiquated or abolished amoÌ„gst the Protestants wherin that which I wish especially to be noted is that he approueth the first Institute of Monks and consequently must needs approue diuers important pointes of Catholike doctrine and vtterly condemne his owne Religion 21. For it is most euident that the first Institut and discipline of Religious life consisted principally as still it doth in the obseruation of the Euangelicall Counsells of our Sauiour to wit of voluntary pouety Chastity and obedience abnegation of a mans selfe and Chastisment of his flesh by fasting Pennance wearing of hairecloath disciplines diuers other MortificatioÌ„s as it is manifest partly in the Monasterial discipline obserued by the first Monkes in the Apostles time and related by Philo the Iew as Eusebus S. Hiâ—rome Epiphanius S. Bede Sozomen and Nicephorus do testify and partly in the Monasticall constitutions which are to be seene expresly set downe in S. Basill and often touched and mentioned by Cassianus Palladius Theodoretus IoaÌ„nes Climacus Seuerus Suspitius S. Augustine S. Hierome and other Fathers of the first 400. yeares to omit S. Benets Rules yet extant which were made in the age following So that M. Andrewes approuing the Institutes of the old Monks alloweth the practise of all that Catholicke doctrine before mentioned which other Sectaries of this time haue hitherto condemned derided and abhorred as repugnant to the liberty of their Ghospell and their owne sensuality 22. Besides that he also approueth thereby workes of supererogation such I mean as are not commanded but counselled and left to our owne free choice and consequently he granteth the difference betwixt a Counsell a Precept contrary to the doctrin of Luther Caluin and other Sectaries Finally he alloweth vowes of Pouertie Chastity and Obedience which are and alwaies haue bene as it were the link and band of Monasticall and Religious profession as it appeareth euidently in the ancient Fathers as in Dionysius S. Paules disciple who testifieth that those who were made Monkes in his time which was the tyme of the Apostles made a solemne promise and couenant before the Altar to renounce the world and imbrace the Monasticall lyfe And S. Basil writing to a Monke that was fallen putteth him in mynd of his couenant made with God and prâ—fessed coram multis testibus before many witnesses and in his Monasticall rules signifieth that he which hath vowed himself to God in this Religious profession and passeth afterward to another state of life sacrilegij se scelere obstringit is guilty of Sacriledg because he hath saith he as it were stolne himselfe from God to whome he had dedicated and consecrated himselfe 23. Also S. Augustine saith to the same purpose Nemo potiùs in Monasterio frater dicat c. Let no brother or religious man that is in a monasterie say I will leaue and forsake it or that it is not to be thought that only those shall be saued who liue in Monasteries or that others which liue abroad do not pertaine to god for to him that should say so it is to be answered illi non vouerunt tu vouisti They haue not vowed but thou hast vowed So he Finally Ioannes Cassianus who liued
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
him to the Church as from the head to the body 54. Now then this being most euident how doth M. Andrewes his doctrine agree with this seeing he teacheth that the King is no otherwise ouer the Church that is to say he hath no power or authority ouer it but as a foster-father and a tutorâ— vt eam nutriat et defeÌ„dat that he may nourish and defend it which as I haue said all Catholike Princes do and Pagan Princes may do without any spirituall power at all So that you see M. Andrewes depriueth his Maiesty of all the spirituall authority and iurisdiction which the Parliament hath giuen him And the like he doth also in other places where he ouerthroweth the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy in other manner for wheras the Cardinall obiecteth Caluins doctrine that no man ought to be called Head of the Church M. Andrews saith that Caluin indeed did not like it quo sâ—nsu Papa c. in the sense that the Pope is called the Ministeriall head but I know saith he it would not dislike Caluin in the sense that Saul was head of the Tribes of Israel and so also the head of the Tribe of Leui so he Giuing to vnderstand that Kings are heades of the Church in no other sense then as Saul was head of the Tribe of Leui. 55. Whereupon iâ— followeth that Kings are neither heads of the Church nor yet haue any authoritie at all ouer it for that Saul had none ouer the tribe of Leui which as I haue shewed in the first Chapter of this adioynder and much more amply in my supplement was by the expresse commaundement of God exempted from the temporall and politicall state in such sort that the Lâ—uits were not somuch as to be numbred amongst the people being Gods owne portion part and inheritance and giuen by him for a guift saith the Scripture to Aaron and his children so as the temporall Magistrate had nothing to doe with them And although it should be graunted that Saul was head of the Tribe of Leui as well as of the rest it would not follow that he was their spirituall head it being manifest that all the spirituall authority and iurisdiction in the lawe of Moyses resyded in the Preists and especially in the high Priest as I haue proued at large in my supplement where I haue also shewed that King Saul had no lawfull power and authority either spirituall or temporall ouer the person of the high Priest as it appeared in that his owne naturall subiects who knew the law of God refused to obey him when he commaunded them to kill Achimelech the high Priest which therefore he caused to be done by Doeg the Idumean who being a stranger and not knowing the law of God or contemning it and representing as S. Augustine testifieth the Earthly Kingdome and societie of wicked men executed his tyranicall and sacrilegious commaundement 56. Therefore whereas M. Andrewes signifieth that our Kings are Heades of the Church of God in England as Saul was head of the tribe of Leui he alloweth them no authority at all ouer the Church neither spirituall nor temporall for that as I haue sayd the Leuiticall tribe was wholy exempt from the temporall state and subiect only to the high Preist and albeit Saul was truly head of all the other tribes yet he was only their temporall head and had no other but temporall power ouer them And therefore M. Andrewes doth also by this example depriue his Maiestie if not of all authority at least of all the spirituall power and iurisdiction which our Parliaments haue graunted him 57. To this may be added also his doctrine in his Tortura Torti where he saith facimusâ— we doe not graunt the power of censure to the Prince whereby he taketh from the King all that ample authority aboue meÌ„tioned which is aÌ„nexed to the Crowne by the statutes aforesayd to wit all such IurisdictioÌ„s priuiledges superiorityes and preheminences spirituall Ecclesiasticall as by any Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power hath heretofore byn or may lawfully be exercised or vsed for the visitation of Ecclesiasticall persons the reformation and correction of errors heresies and abuses c. In which wordes being the wordes of the Statute no man can deny but that all manner of Censures are coÌ„preheÌ„dedâ— without the which heresies abuses can neuer be sufficieÌ„tly corrected reformed therfore if the Prince thought good to excoÌ„municate any obstinat heretike he might according to this Statute do it as well or better then any Bishop in his Realme seeing that no Bishop can doe it otherwise then by the authority and iurisdiction which he hath from the Prince as I haue declared before out of the Statuts neither could the Prince giue it to any other if he had it not truly and properly in himselfe in whose person the same must needes principally reside seeing that by the expresse words of the Statute it is vnited and annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of England for what right Power of Iurisdiction soeuer is in the Crowne the same must needes be vnderstood to be principally and most properly in the Prince 58. Whereby it is manifest that the Kinges of England may according to this Statute not only giue all manner of Iurisdiction wherein all kind of Censures are included but also exercise the same themselues if it please them as in lyke case they might yf they thought it conuenient do and exercise the acts of all the ciuill offices in the common wealth as well as the officers themselues who haue their Power and Iurisdiction from them as I haue signified more at large in my Supplement vpon the lyke occasion ministred by M. Barlow and therefore M. Andrewes denying the Power of Censures to the King denyeth him the Royall prerogatiue and supreme spirituall authority wherewith our Parliaments haue indued him whereupon it followeth directly that he is neither good subiect nor good English Protestant For seeing he abridgeth his Maiesties authority denying his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy in the sense and maÌ„ner that our late Parliaments haue ordayned the same he caÌ„not be accounted a good subiect 59. And if he say that by this argument I confesse that we our selues are no good Subiects because we deny the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy he is to vnderstand that the case betwixt him and vs is farre different for we deny it only of meere conscience because we hold our selues bound to belieue as a matter of faith that S. Peter and his successors are supreme heades of the Church being a doctrine deduced from our Sauiours expresse words and commission giuen to S. Peter acknowledged by the vniforme consent of the ancient Fathers and confirmed by the continuall practise of the Church euen from S. Peters time to these our daies as I haue proued sufficiently throughout this Treatise in which respect we haue great reason to say with the Apostles
Church subiect to the Church submit their Scepters to the Church and throw downe their Crownes before the Church and that as Beza testifieth they cannot be exempted from this diuine domination of the presbitery whereupon I gather two things the one that the Supremacy which as M. Andrews saith the Puritans do acknowledg in the King is to be vnderstood only in temporall matters wherein they doe indeed admit him to be theyr supreme head and Gouernour though as you see in M. Rogers they hold him in spirituall matters to be wholly subiect to the Presbitery The other is that all the reformed Churches are also of the same mynd seeing that they professe the same doctrine concerning the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy that the Puritans doe as M. Andrews himselfe confesseth◠whereupon it also followeth that the Kings Maiestie hath no spirituall power or authority at all ouer the English Church seeing that by M. Andrewes his owne confessiō he hath no other power but that which the Puritans and the reformed Churches doe admit in their temporall Princes 66. Besides that albeit we should grant that the Puritans and reformed Churches do allow the tēporall Magistrat to haue some power and authority in Ecclesiasticall matters yet it is euident that they do not allow them that spirituall Iurisdiction and authority which our Parliaments haue granted to our Kinges to wit that all the spirituall power of the Church shall reside principally in them and is to be deduced from them to the Church as from the head to the body that they may giue Dispensations Licences and Faculties in matters of Conscience make Ecclesiasticall Lawes giue Commissions to consecrate Bishops to excōmunicat interdict suspend cēsure to visit correct all Ecclesiasticall Persons and to reforme all heresyes and abuses this I say being a meere spirituall power and exercised by our Kings in England according to the grant of the Parliament is not admitted and much lesse practized in any of the reformed Churches as all those know who know any thing of their doctrine and practise 67. Therfore wheras M. Andrews saith that aswell the reformed Churches as the Puritans do grant the self same authority to the temporall Prince which our King hath and exerciseth in England he sheweth euidently that in his opinion his Maiesty hath no such spirituall iurisdiction and authority as hath bin granted him by our Parliament for that as I haue said the Puritans reformed Churches whose doctrine in this point he approueth do not acknowledg any such spirituall authority in temporall Princes but only a temporall power and obligation to mayntayne and defend the Church so farre forth as the same hath need of externall and humane helpe assistance or defēce which is indeed the self same all that M. Andrewes as you haue heard before alloweth to the Kings Maiesty when he saith that he is no otherwise ouer the Church but as a foster-father a tutor to nourish and defend it and that the question of the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy concerneth only the externall gouernment of the Church so farre forth as it requireth and admitteth humane help and authority So that you see M. Andrews is not in this point an English Protestant but rather a flat Puritan 68. And if this be now the common opinion of the Protestants in England as M. Andrewes would haue vs to suppose we may more truly say of them then he said of the Puritans dies diem docuit ex eo facti aequiores recognouerunt errorem suum time hath taught them more wit and so now they haue recanted their errour And no meruaile seing that their former doctrine is of it selfe so absurd hath bin so canuassed battered by Catholicks that they are worthely ashamed of it especially such of thē as haue any learning or shame at all for some no doubt there are of the ministry that will not stick to defend it or any thing els how absurd soeuer it be amongst whom M. Barlow may go for one who in his Preambler Epistle to the ministers of Scotlād which I haue mentioned before vpon another occasion is not ashamed to make the Pagan and Infidell Emperours supreme heades of the Church in the time of the Apostles saying that S. Paul appealed to Caesars iudgment as the supreme wheras Papists and Puritans will haue the King to be but an honorable member not a chief gouernour in the Churches of his dominions So he 69. Wherein two things are to be noted the one that he doth ridiculously make the Pagan Emperours the chief members that is to say the heads or gouernours of the Church who neuertheles being Idolatours could not be so much as the meanest members thereof The other that he seemeth to make the Kings Maiesty no other wise chief gouernour in the Church then they were albeit I think he will not be so absurd as to acknowledge any spirituall authority in thē seing they were altogeather vncapable therof being as I haue sayd Idolatours enemies and violent persecutors of the Church and faith of Christ. So as herby it appeareth that he also concurreth with M. Andrews to depriue his Maiesty of all the spirituall iurisdiction and authority which the Parliaments haue grāted to our Kings and that consequently they are both of them in one predicament of disloyalty towards his Maiesty and defection from the wonted Protestātisme of England in the point of the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy 70. Now then to conclude concerning them both all the premises thou hast seene good Reader how well these two Prelats of the English Church do simbolize agree not only in seeking to delude their Readers with dyuers lyes fraudulent shifts and deuises but also in betraying their owne cause and fortifying ours which is so euident in them both that they may well be accounted the most harmles or rather the most propitious enemies that euer the Catholikes had and therfore may in some sort be compared to the Scorpion which being a most venemous Serpent yieldeth a sufficient remedy against his owne poison and so do they for albeit they are replenished with venom and malignity yea and sting somtimes most maliciously not with solid arguments but with spitefull gibes and contumelious iests yet their malice doth commonly carry with it the remedy of it selfe being for the most part so manifest and accompanyed with such apparant falshood and euident folly that no man of learning and consideration can receiue any harme thereby but rather great benefit by the discouery of their imbecility the weakenes of their cause◠Seing they cannot otherwyse defend it then by such contumelious and malicious proceedings 71. Insomuch that the learned strangers who read M. Andrewes his booke in latin and do consider withall the speciall choyce that the English Clergy hath made of him to mayntayne the combat against Cardinall Bellarmine in the eye and view of the Christian world do
pag â—09 A pecuniary Pastour 210. Confuteth himself 220. A meere wrangler pag. 222.268 His inference of Quidlibet ex Quolibet pag. 233. His Cripticall Cauill against S. Ephrem 23â— His Goggery pag. 241. His abuse of Sâ— Epiphanius 254. Of S. Ambrose 269. His euill fortune 274. His clipping paring of Fathers authorities when they make against him 278. His confusion of the Priest with the people Masse with Mattines c. 298. His abuse of Theodoret 307. his scrupulosity in alleaging of Authorityes 323. Pressed with his owne Argument 324. Proueth himselfe a Iew 325. His transgressioÌ„ of the Synodicall Canons of England 333. His silly discourse about prayer to Saints 337. Prodigall of his Rhetorickâ— 343. Wrongeth his Maiesty 349. His erring of malice â—56 His trifling obiections 357.358.359 His changing the state of the Question about the Popes Primacy 362. CoÌ„cerning holy reliques 368. His poore conceipt of S. Iohn the EuaÌ„gelist 370. A iest of his spoyled 374. Triumpheth when he looseth 377. His Dissimulation of matters that most import to be explicated 386.388 His want of paper in text margent to set downe the truth 394. His Lucidum interuallum 405. His abuse of S. Gregory 407. his bad conscience 412. His outfacing of matters when he cannot answere 418. His abuse of the Iesuits 425.426 He triâ—th how neere he can go to the Catholike Religion misse it 430.431 his poore conceyt of the K. Ecclesiasticall Supremacy 459. How it may be in his Pater noster but not in his Creed 460. Excluded by M. Andrews 467. from his Maiesty 471. How he is turned Puritan pag. 477.480 Angell in the Apocalyps for bad S. Iohn to adore him why pag. 370. Appeales to Rome pag. 155. by Anthony Byshop of Fussula 160. allowed by the Primate of Numidia 164. testified by S. Augustine and others pag. 165. by S. Iohn Chrysostome 184. S. Augustine abused by M. Andr. pâ— 4.5.6 his acknowledgment respect of S. Peters Supremacy p. 17. p. 150.159.167.189 his approuing of prayers to Saints 296.297.298 Authority of the Sea of Rome in all ages p. 169.170.173.180.181.188 proued by all the ancient Fathers passim by Origen 198. by S. Hilary 189.200 Authors reason and intention of this Booke p. 2.3 what question handled therin ibid. pag. 4. B M. BARLOW and M. Andrewes disagree about our English Clergies gouernement 422. S. Basils discourse of prayer to Saints 218. of Inuocation of Martyrs 223. Beggary of the Church Clergy of England 457. Ca. Bellarmine abused by M. Andrewes cleared pag. 108.221 355. his meaning about our prayers to Saints and their praying for vs explicated 215. Bishops of the East-church deposed by the Pope pagâ— 53. C CHRIST our Mediatour Aduocate 339. S. Chrisostome proueth S. Peters Supremacy pag. 22. 142. His appeale to Pope Innocentius 184. His testimony for inuocatioÌ„ of Saints 244. Church of the East subiect to the West pag. 49. Church why it is called one Mother pag. 105. built equally vpon the Apostles pag. 144. how it only challengeth the name Catholick 451. Church of England beggarly 457. Collyridians their heresy 255. Constantinople subiect to the Church of Rome pag. 50. Gods Iudgement vpon that Church for her schisme pag. 54. Constitutions of the pretended Bishops of England pag. 330. conuinced of fraud by his Maiesty 332. Conference at Hampton-Court before his Maiesty 332. L. Cromwell Vicar Generall to K. Henry 8. in spiritualibus 469. Councell of Calcedon approued the Popes Supremacy pag. 39.40 Councell of Ephesus head therof 187. Councels why assembled pag 227. Councell of Loadicea forbiddeth Idolatry to Angels 308. Customes Ecclesiasticall of what force validity pag. 293. S. Cyprian proueth the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head thereof 101.104 also the Primacy of S. Peter pag. 106. S. Cyril acknowledged S. Peters Supremacy pag. 17. abused by M. Andrewes pag. 19. D DAMASVS Pope what authority attributed to him by S. Hierome pag. 173. Difference betweene the Primacy of S. Peter and the priuiledges graunted to the Roman Sea 83. Dignity of Gods grace increaseth the value of merit 437. Dioscorus Patriark of Constantinople depriued by Pope Leo. p. 94. E S. EPHREM calumniated by Mâ— Andrews 239. S. Epiphanius abused by M. Andrewes 254. Equality how it is sometimes to be vnderstood pag. 45.46 Equality of obligation requireth equality of care pag. 80. F FATHERS of the Church abused misconstrued belyed and falsified by M Andrewes pag. 5.6.7.18.19.415 passim Father of Lyes M. Andrewes his Father 192. Fall of S. Peter no preiudice to his Primacy pag. 148.149.150 Francis vide Mason G F. GARNET impudently belyed by M. Andrewes 247. Grace of Christ worketh a true inherent Iustification in vs. pag. 391. H HERETICKS the later follow the elder pag. 152. Heresy to condemne prayer to Saints 249. Heresy of the Collyridians 255. Heretikes their tricks to ouerthrow playne places by obscure 279. S. Hierome abused by M. Andrewes pag. 113. how he acknowledgeth S. Peters Supremacy pag. 119. His contradiction of Vigilantius for denying prayer to Saints p. 228. S. Hilaryes proof for S. Peters Primacy pag. 199.200 I IDOLATRY of the Phrygians done to Angells 310. Iesuits belyed by M. Andrewes for not synning 425. Images of Saints vsed in the Church 264. approued by S. Gregor Nissen ibid. Inuocation of him in whome we belieue how it is meant by S. Paul pag. 213. Inuocation of Martyrs â—23 miraculous effects thereby 225. not confirmed by any decree in the primitiue Church why p. 227. warranted by S. Chrisostome pag. 244. Vniuersall in his tyme 245. How the belief thereof is necessary to saluation 248. approued by S. Gregorie Nazianz. 253. by Nissen 264. practised by Theodosius the Emperour 286. defended by S. Paulinus 295. by S. Augustine 296. impugned by Protestants 336.337 Justinian the Emperour his law for the Popes Supremacy pag. 25. His facts against two Popes examined reproued pag. 30. His ignorance pag. 32. His death and repentance pag. 33.36.37 K KEYES and Pastorall Commission giuen to S. Peter not mentioned in the CanoÌ„ of the CouÌ„cell of Constantinople pag. 84. Kings neuer came to the Gouernement of the Church 464. Excluded by a Rule of M. Andrewes 465. King of England taketh his power Eâ—clesiasticall from the Parliament 468. L LAW of Moyses how Christians may ground theron p. 11. P. Leo his controuersy with Martian the Emperour and Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople pag. 62.63.64.70.72.73 His primacy acknowledg by the Councell of Calcedon pag. 90.92 93.94 Locusts that destroy Religious profession perfection are Protestants 450. M Mr. MASON his Register for the Consecration of the first Protestant Bishops confuted In appendice per totum Martian the Emperour his controuersy with Pope Leo pag. 61. Martyrs inuocated 223. miraculous effects therby 225. S. Maximus B. of Turin his homiles of Saints pag. 205. Merits of Christ how we are saued by them 342. Merit of good works granted by M. Andrewes 434.436 Miracles in
The answere of M. Andrews to the place of S. Hierome examined Andr cap. 8. pag. 219. § Hieronymus Foure things to be noted in M Andrews his answere M. Andrews large graunt coÌ„cerning the primacy of S. Peter What followeth of M. Andrews hiâ— graâ—nt One â—ead more necessary now in the Church then in the Apostles time and why Psal. â—7 8â— Isa. 61. Mattâ—â— 16. vlt. Luc. 1. Ephes. 4. Our Sauiours prouidence in the conseruation of the RomaÌ„ Church when all other Apostlicall Churches haue fayled â— Aug. in Psal. coÌ„tra part Donati Power to punish to define necessary in the head of the Church to remedy schismes Whence the greatest danger of schisme commonly aryseth See Supplem cap. 1. nu 61.62 (b) Ibidem à nu 60. ad nu 67. (c) Ibid. nu 67. sâ—qu (d) Ibid. nu 63. 64. Power ouer the soule necessarily implieth some power ouer the body A doubt of M. Andrews sufficiently solued Touching the number committed to S. Peters charge Psal. 44. In Psal. 44. Mar. vlt. Psal. 18. M. Andrews granting S. Peter to be head of the Apostles granteth that he was head of the whole Church Idem ho. 5. in Petris Apost Eliant Idem ho. 87. in Ioan. M. Andrews head very idle Matth. 16. vlt. A paradox of M. Andrews Tyranny more frequent in small stats then great Monarchies M. Andrews acknowledgeth by a necessary coÌ„sequent that one head is necessary for the whole Church (d) See suppl cap. 1. nu 81. cap. 4. à nu 3. ad nu 18. (e) Ibid. nu 7.8 9. (f) num 2.3.4 sequent (g) nu 37. The conclusion coÌ„cerning the place of S. Hierome (h) nu 29. sâ—qu Andr. vbi supra M. Andrews hath granted by coÌ„sequent as mâ—ch as we demand coÌ„câ—rning the sâ—preme authority of S. Peterâ— (d) See befoâ—e nuâ— 17â— 38. sequent Card. Bellar Apolo c. 8. pag. 125 Suppl cap. 4 nu 15. S. Basil. in serm de iudicio Dei Andr. cap. 8. p. 218. §. Ex Basilio How S. Peter may be sayd to be a Monarch Chap. 3. nu 39.40 41. Andr. vbi supra A vaine cauill of M. Andrews (c) Cap. 1. nu 3.4 5. (a) Card. Bellar. Apolog. vbi supra (b) Suppl cap. 4. nu 10. S. Greg. Nazianzen orat de moderat c. Andr. vbi supra A place of S. Gregory Nazian explicated and vrged M. Andrews impertinent trifling Suppl cap. 4. nu 15. Card. Apol. vbi supra S. Chrysostâ— ho. 55. in Matth. Andr. cap. 8. pag. 219. Chrysost. vbi supra Idem ibid. Idem ho. 3. in Acta Apost A notable discourse of S. Chrysostome prouing S. Peters Supremacy A stale trifeling conceyt touching the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 againe brought in by M. Andrews Bellar. de Rom. Pon. lib. 3. cap. 10. §. Secunda opinio A dreaming fancy of M. Andrews Chap. 3. nâ— 39.40 41. Card. Bell. Apolog. vbi supra Supple chap. 4. Aug. Ser. 124. feriaeâ— 4. post Domin Palma Andr. vbi sup M. Andrewes bold assertion without all proofe Possidius in vita Augustin Indic Possid cap. 9. 10. Ibidem Sermons were made de tempore both in the Latinâ— and in the Greeke Church in S. Augustins tyme. Ambros. To. 5. Serm de tempore S. Maximus Gennadius de viris Illustrib Gregor Nyssen Gregor Nazian Chrysost. To. 3. Andr. vbi supra M. Andrews rauing fit Sâ— Peters fall no preiudice to his Primacy S. Aug. ser. 124. de temp S. Augustine teacheth that S. Peter was permitted to fall because he was to be supreme head of the Church The same also taught by S. Chrysostome S. Chrysost. hom in S. Petrum Eliam S. Greg. ho. 21. in Euangel Another place of S. Augustine acknowledging S. Peters supremacy notwithstanding his fall See Andr. cap. 1. pag. 16. lin 17. Aug. de agone Christ. cap. 30. See before Chap. 1. nu 3.4 5. Cyril in cap. vlt. Ioan. Vbi supra nu 23. 24. Bellar. de Rom. Pont li. 1. c. 25. O caput elleboro dignum The later hereticks do follow the old (b) Aug. de Vnit. Eâ—cl ca. 12. (c) EpiphaÌ„ haer 75. (d) Hieron aduers. Vigilant (f) Idem contra Iouin (g) See before chap. 3. nu 34. 35. Aug. de vtilitate credendi cap. 17. Marc. 14. Matth. 26. M Andrews zeale greater then his wit A good recipe for M. Andrews Three notorious lyes Concerning the prohibition of appeals from Afrike to Rome obiected by M. Andrews Bellar. de Rom. Pont l. 2. c. 25. Baron an 419. A controuersy betwixt the Bishops of Africk the Sea of Rome coÌ„cerning the prosecution of Appeals Three wayes vsed in the prosecution decision of appeales (d) infra nu 47.48 49. Ibid. To. 1. Concil in Concil Africano ca. 10â— M. Andrews his forgery S. Aug. ep 261. The case of Antony Bishop of Fussula appealing to Rome Ibid. S. Augustine his dutifull respect to Pope Celestinus Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. The primate of Numidia in Africk approued the Appeale of Antony to Rome Concil Mileu Can. 12. M. Andrewes Transmarinus nemo Concil Sard. ca. 17. S. Aug. ep 92. 93. â— Aug. ep 1.62 S. Augustine testifyeth that appeales to Rome were allowed to the Bishops of Africk though prohibited to the inferour Clergy Examples of Appeales from Africk to to Rome S. Leo ep 87. ad Epis. Maurit S. Greg. Regist. lib. 1. ep 82. Idem ibid. lib. 10. ep 31. 32. Ibid. lib. 10. ep 8. Ibid. ep 35. Supra nu 36. The request of the African Bishops to Pope Celestinus concerning appeals neyther did nor could preiudice the right of the sea Apostolick (h) See cap. 2. nu 24. seq vsque ad nu 28. M. Andrews maketh no bones to falsify whole Synods and bely the Fathers It is proued S. Augustine acknowledged the Popes Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus for heads of the Church (c) See before nu 38.39 seq S. Aug. ep 157. ad Optat. Posidius in vita Augustini 8 Popes who liued in S. Augustins tyme exercysed a supreme vniuersall authority Pope Liberius â— Basil ep 74. 82. Tripartit hist. lib. 4. ca. 15. P. Damasus Concil To. 1. inter ep Damas. S. Ambros in ca. 3. ep 1. ad Timoth. S. Hier. ep â—7 To. 2. (c) Chap. 3. nu 17.18.19 20. (d) nu 4.5.6 â— sequent What authority S. Hierome did attribute vnto Damasus Socrat. lib. 4. ca. 30. Elias Cretens in ep 2. ad CledoÌ„ Greg. Nazian Baron an 373. To. 1. Concil ep 1. Damas. Sozom. li. 8. cap. 3. Socrat. li. 5. c. 15. Theodor. lib. 5. cap. 23. P. Syricius â— Ambrose ep 78. See Binius To. 1. Concil Baron an 389. To. 1. Concil inter Siricij ep decret Optat. li. â— contra Parmen The argument of Optatus Mileuitanus Anastasius Aug. ep 165. Idem in psal contra part Donati Concil African can 35. vide â—innium pag. 637. edit Colon. 1606. P. Innocentius Ep. 90.
in 2. Thes. 2. (c) Haer. 61 (d) Lib. de Spiritu Sanct. cap. 29. (e) Lib. 4. de fide ca. 17 (f) in 2. Thes. 2. (g) Act. Vlt. can 1. S. Augustines golden rule (d) S. Aug. de Baptis contra Donat l. 2. ca. 7. li. 4. c. 6. Ibid cap. 24. li. 5. ca. 23. Idem ep 118. See chap. 7. nu 49. M. Andrews according to S. Augustins censure is an insolent mad man Andr. p. 38. §. Atque S. Aug li de vnit Eccl. ca. 22. vel 19. in some edâ—tions Idem contra Crescon lib. 1. cap. 33. M. Andrews and his fellowes do admit diuers traditions without any exâ—presse precept or example thereof in Scripture Origen lib. 5. in cap. 6. ad Rom. S. Aug. de Gen. ad lit li. 10. c. 23. Idem lib. 4. de Baptis conâ—ra Donatist cap. 24. See the faith doctrine c. printed an Do. 1607. by Iohn Legat in Cambridg pag. 1â—5 art 27. §. The Baptisme p. 168. §. Althoughâ— See constitutions Ecclesiast printed at London by Barker an 1604 can 30. A notable trumpery of the pretended Bishops in their Ecclesiastical Constitutions Ibidem D. Tho. 3. par q 66. Greg. de Valent. disput 4. q. 1. Nauar. in Manu cap. 22. nu 6. Bellar. de Sacra Baptis lib. 1. cap. 25. Nauar. in Manuall cap. 22 nu 6. The pretended Biâ—shops conuinced of fraud by his Maiestyes testimony See the SuÌ„me of the Conference pag. â—7 §. Thirdly printed an 1604. Conference of Hampton Court coÌ„trary to the Constitutions and the same Bishops to them selues The miserable state of England where such Pastors haue the charge of soules M. Andrews transgresseth eyther the Synodical Canon of the English Clergy or his owne rule See supra nu â—4 Andr. p. 37. §. VeruÌ„â— Prayer to Saynts no lesse conforme to the practice of the primitiue Church then the vse of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme S. Aug. li. de vnit Eccl. c. 1â— contra Crescon lib. 1. c. 31. Idem ep 118. M. Andrews still hardly pressed with his owne rule and inference vpoÌ„ the text of Deuteronomy Prayer to Saynts ought rather to be admitted then the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme according to the Synodicall Canon of the English Clergy M. Andrews eyther idly demandeth a precept in Scripture for prayer to Saynts or els he must grant it to be as lawfull as the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme 1. Tim. 2. 1. Ioan. 2. What places and how fit to the purpose the ProtestaÌ„ts alleadge out of the Scriptures agaynst praying to Saynts Matth. 11. The absurdity of our aduersaries arguments against the inuocatioÌ„ of Saynts Andr. cap. 8. pag. 179. lin 29. A very seely and simple discourse of M. Andrews against praying to Saynts S. Aug coÌ„â—â—ra ep Parmen lib. 2. cap. 8. M. Andrews serious in tryfling His argument and whole discourse reâ—torted vpoÌ„ himselfe impugâ—ning our mutuall prayers one for another M. Andrews his argumeÌ„ts do as directly-ouerthrow that which he himselfe approueth aâ— that which he impugneth How it iâ— to be vnderstood that Christ is our only mediatour and aduocat 1. Tim. â—â— 1. Ioan. 2. Hebr. 7. The meaning of S. Augustine peruerted by M. Andrews is truly explicated S. Aug. li. 2. coâ—tra ep Parmemanica 8â— 1. Ioan. 2. How S. Augustine denyeth that men may be mediators one for another Neyther men nor Saynts or Angels do obteyn any thing of God but by the mediation and meriâ—s of Iesus Christ. M. Andrews prodigall of his rhetorik An absurd shift and euasion of our aduersaries vrged against theÌ„ Iac. 5. The Scripture should coÌ„tradict it selfe if Christ were our only mediator in the sense that our aduersaries do take it (c) Supra â—u 25.26 seq (d) Supra nu 33. seq (e) S. Hieron aduers. Vigilant S. Aug. ep 119. lib. 22. de ciuit cap. 30. S. Greg. lib. 11. ep 3. How prayer to Saynts is conforme to Scripture and deduced from it (h) See chap. 7. nu 48. supra hoc cap nu 31. (k) Luc. 10â— Matth. 18. (l) 1. Cor. 1â— If our brethren on earth may pray for vs and we by warrant of the Scriptures coÌ„mend our selues to their prayers why may we not do the like vnto Saynts See suprad nu 12. ad nu 24. Vide coccium To. 1. lib 5. art 4. de Sanctis (c) See supra nu 22. Dan. 3. â— Reg. 11. 2. Paral. 21. 4. Reg 19. Iob. 42. Exod. 32. S. Hieron aduers. Vigilantium Exod. 32. Act. 7. Ibid. ca. 27. Apoc. 1â— Matth. 28. Saynts able to help vs by the participation of Christs power Apoc. 3. Ibid. 2. Ibid. 1. 5. Sap. 3â— Psal. 14â— Matth. 19. Luc. â—2 Saynts protectors of men Cittyes CouÌ„tryes See before nu 18. 19. The 1. part of the Treatise of Policy religion chap. 15. nu 12.13.14.15.16.17.18 27. Item 2 par chap. 24. nu 31. Apoc. 5. See sup nu â—2 Two foolish exceptions taken by M. Andrews to the Cardinalls allegation of the ancient Fathers Andr. pag 35. §. de qua dringentis M. Andrews wrongeth his Maiesty The vniforme consent of the Fathers of the 4. or 5. age must needs be taken for an euideÌ„t testimony of the truth Some one Father of the 4. and 5. age hath written more then all the Fathers of the 3. precedent ages It is not possible that all the Doctors Pastors of the Church can erre in any thing at any tyme and why Matth. 28. Ibid. 16. Ephes. 4. Pastors and Doctors ordayned by Christ in his Church to preserue it from errour vnto the worlds end If all the Doctors of the Church could erre at any tyme the remedy were not effectuall which God hath ordayned to preserue his Church from errour by them See sup chap. 4. nu 36.37.38 If these Fathers cannot be heard or credited what other Fathers will he desire See chap. â— nu 28. 66. Andr. pag. 6. §. Tum The vniforme coÌ„sent of a few Father 's not contradicted by the rest must needs be taken for a genrall consent of the Church iâ— their tyme. See supra nu 33. M. Andrwes confuted by an example of his owne fellowes S Augustine against Iulian the Pelagian contented himselfe with the testimoâ—nyes of six Fathers S. Aug. lib. 1. contra Iulian. cap. 2. Deut. 17. Andr. vbi supra Another vayn euasion of M. Andrews answered Bellar. de beatit Sanct. lib. 1. cap. 20. Cardinall Bellarmine abused by M. Andrews (c) See supra nu 12.13.14.15 16. M Andrews presumed to erre not of ignorance but of malice S. Aug. aduers. Iulian Pela lib. 2. in Epilogo Saynt Augustins words to a Pelagian heretike fitly applyed to M. Andrews Certayne trifeling obiections of M. Andrews out of Origen S. Cyril S. Athanasius (c) Nazianz oratio 1. in Iulian. (d) S. Aug. de ciuita Dei lib. 22. cap. 10. (e) Theodoret de Graecor affect curat cap. 8. (d) See chap. 7. nu 35.36
depressing and punishing the pryde of the Bishops of Constantinople who had so oft maliciously impugned the same which may serue for a Caueat to other rebellious Children of the Church For although Almighty God is patiens redditor a slow paymaster yet he payeth home in the end and as Valerius saith tarditatem supplicij grauitate compensat he recompenseth the slownes of his punishment with the weyght or grieuousnes thereof This I haue thought good to touch here by the way vpon so good an occasion will now conclude concerning M. Andrewes his Canon alledged out of the Councell of Calcedon 24. Therfore I say that it being euident by all this discourse that the sayd Canon was neuer able to equal the Church of Constantinople with the Roman Sea to which end M. Andrews saith it was enacted he must needs coufesse that eyther there was no such Canon at all to the purpose that he mentioneth or els that the small force and authority therof may serue for an euident argument of the supreme power and authority of Pope Leo and his successors seeing that theyr only resistance and contradiction sufficed to ouerthrow it notwithstanding the great authority of the Councell of Calcedon which ordayned it Whereby it also appeareth how vainely and vntruely he saith that Pope Leo contradicted it in vayne yea and which is more absurd that he made suite and intercession in vayne Frustra saith he Romano ipso Pontifice apud Augustum Augustam Anatolium per litteras suas intercedente The Bishop of Rome himselfe making intercession or sueing in vayne by his letters to the Emperour the Empresse and Anatolius So that you see he maketh Pope Leo's case very desperate and his authority very feeble seeing that he was fayne to make such intercession and suite not only to the Emperour and Empresse but also to Anatolius himselfe 25. Therefore albeit I am not ignorant that intercedere hath dyuers senses and amongst the rest signifieth to withstand prohibite or hinder a thing proposed or intended and that some perhaps may say that M. Andrews vseth it heere in that sense yet because it signifieth also to make intercession and suite and is so vsed commonly in Ecclesiasticall Authors and will be so vnderstood in this place by euery common Reader yea and for that M. Andrewes himselfe so taketh and vseth it diuers tymes and would be loath no doubt to haue men thinke that Pope Leo did or durst oppose himselfe to the Emperour Empresse but rather that in this case he behaued himselfe towards them and Anatolius as an humble suppliant and yet all in vayne therefore I say I cannot let this poynt passe vnexamined to the end thou mayst see good Reader as well M. Andrewes his vanity as also what kind of suit intercession Pope Leo made vnto these whome he nameth what effect successe it had with them But first I think it not amisse to declare here how this Canon was made in that Councell and why it was contradicted by the Legats of Pope Leo afterwards disanulled by Leo himself 26. Therefore it is to be vnderstood that Anatolius then Bishop of Constantinople ambitiously thirsting after his owne promotion namely to be preferred before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch and considering that Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria was deposed by the Councell for heresy and the Bishop of Antioch much disgraced for hauing adhered to Dioscorus thought that a good opportunity was offered him to accomplish his desyre and therevpon practised with the Bishops in the Councell for the furtherance of his pretence and hauing gayned so many of them that it seemed to him their very number and authority might extort the consent of the rest yea of the Popes Legats themselues procured that when the last session of the Councell was ended and as well the Iudges or Senate as the Legats were departed all the Bishops of his faction eyther remayned behynd or els after their departure returned againe to the place of the assembly and there made the Canon whereof we now treate Whereupon the Legats hauing notice of it caused the whole Councell to be assembled againe the next day and finding Anatolius and his faction who were the far greater part of the Councell resolute in their determination protested their owne opposition contradiction to the Canon as well in respect that it was repugnant to the Councell of Nice as also for that the other Canon which was pretended to be made in the Councell of Constantinople to the same effect was not to be found amongst the Canons of the said Councell sent to Rome neyther had beene euer put in practise by the Bishops of Constantinople 27. Finally they reserued the determination of the matter to Pope Leo himselfe whom they called Apostolicum Virum Vniuersalis Ecclesiae Papam The Apostolicall man and Pope of the Vniuersall Church vt ipse say they aut de suae Sedis iniuria aut de Canonum euersione possit ferre sententiam That he may giue sentence eyther of the iniury done to his Sea by the abuse of his Legats or of the breach of the Canons Thus sayd the Legats signifying that it was in his hands and power to ratify or abrogate as well this Canon as all the other Canons of that Coūcell which also the whole Councell acknowledged sufficiently in a common letter written to him wherein they craued of him the ratification of this Canon most humbly and instantly as it will appeare heereafter which neuertheles he flatly denyed confirming only the condemnation and deposition of Dioscorus and the rest of their decrees cōcerning matters of faith for the which only he sayd the Councell was assembled and in fine he disanulled the Canon for diuers causes specifyed in his Epistles First because it had no other ground but the ambitious humour of Anatolius who inordinatly sought thereby to haue the precedence before the Patriarks of Alexandria and Antioch Secondly because it was not procured or made Canonically but by practise and surreption in the absence of his Legats◠Thirdly for that the other Canon of the Councell of Constantinople vpon the which this seemed to be grounded was of no validity hauing neuer been sent to the Sea Apostolike nor put in practise by the predecessors of Anatolius Lastly for that it was flatly repugnant to the Canons of the Councell of Nice 28. For these causes I say Pope Leo abrogated this Canon which neuertheles it is like he would haue admitted and confirmed if it had proceeded from any good ground and tended to any vtility of the Church and had beene withall orderly proposed and Canonically made for albeit the Councell of Nice had already ordayned the 〈◊〉 and iurisdiction of the Patriarchal Churches of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem with the consent of Pope Siluester who was the head of that Councell without whose ratification nothing could be of force that