the Cardinall with the shot of a Canon whereas not only the most important parts of that Councell but also the very Canon which he mangled and peruerted do euidently proue the Cardinalls intent to wit the primacy of the Roman Sea as I haue amply shewed in the second Chapter aforesaid so as it is hard to say whether he was more impudent in his corruption and falsity or in his vayne brags afterwards as if he had vsed all the sincerity in the world and got a great victorie 73. And in lyke sort dealt he with the Cardinall about the adoratioÌ„ of Reliques when he triumphed saying Tenetur hic Cardinalis vt elabi non possit Heere the Cardinall is catcht and held so fast that he cannot escape away neuertheles the testimony which he himselfe produced being layed downe whole with the circumstaÌ„ces doth coÌ„uince him both of folly fraud as hath bene manifestly shewed a litle before euen in this Chapter and therefore I forbeare to speake further thereof and will only add one other Instance in this kind of a matter which hath not beene touched hitherto 74. The Cardinall as well in his Matthaeus Tortus as also in his Apology auoweth that the Puritans in England do no lesse abhor the oath of supremacy then the Catholikes and in his Apology alleadgeth for the proofe thereof not only his Maiesties monitorie Preface and his BasilicoÌ„ Doron but also Caluins doctrine which the Puritanes professe and the testimony of M. Bancroft late pretended Bishop of Canterbury who plainely witnesseth the same as well concerning the profession and practice of the Puritans as also touching Caluins expressed doctrine in that behalfe and M. Andrews finding himselfe hardly pâ—est therewith and hauing no other remedy but to face out the matter calleth the Cardinall not only Mendacem a Lyâ—r but also Dâ—lirum a Dotard and why Marry because the Puritans saith M. Andrewes do dayly in their Sermons giue the tytle of supreme Gouernour to the King yea and do not stick to sweare somtymes to the Kinges supremacy in so much that facto saith he res tenetur the matter is cleare in fact and experience and afterward acknowledging that indeed M. Bancroft did twenty yeares agoe gather out of diuers Theses or positions of theirs some suspition that they were alienated from the Kinges supremacy yea and that perhaps it was so then he concludeth that now of late recognouerunt errores suos they haue acknowledged or recalled their errours 75. This is M. Andrews his discourse which how true it is notwithstanding his impudent asseueration thereof I do appeale to the consciences of the learneder sort of Puritans Precisians in England whether they haue of late tyme or at any tyme retracted and recanted Caluins doctrine and theirs in this point as an erour For albeit I make no doubt but that some of them may now in their sermons as others of the weaker sort of them did euen in M. Bancrofts tyme and alwayes before vse the ordinary style of his Maiesties tytle yea and that otherwyles some of them also do dispence with their coÌ„sciences and swallow the Oath to get some Benefice or Ecclesiasticall dignity yet I assure my selfe that the more zealous and precise Puritans and especially their whole CongregatioÌ„ will not acknowledge this fact of some of them for any definition or decree of theirs or for a recantation of their doctrine and beliefe in this poynt neyther is it sufficient for the recalling of an errour of a whole sect standing still on foote as this of the Puritans yet doth that some of them chang their opinion or for feare or promotion dissemble it when the same is not ratified by some publike testimony of their whole company 76. Therefore I must now vrge M. Andrews to shew vs in what printed booke or generall decree of their CongregatioÌ„s they haue recanted their opinioÌ„ and acknowledged it for an errour seeing that the same was published before to the world by themselues in such sort that M. Bancroft by M. Andrews his owne confession gathered it out of their owne bookes ita fortè tum fuit saith he and so perhaps it was then he meaneth 20. yeares agoe and yet you see he saith it with a perhaps as if the matter were in doubt and that perhaps it was not so But I dare say without all peraduenture that it was so not only 20. yeares agoe but also much later euen since his Maiesty came into England for I am sure there are ynough who know and remember that Burges a Puritan preacher was committed to Prison for that in a Sermon before his Maiesty he would not giue him his ordinary style and tytle of supreme Gouernour of the Church 77. But what if I produce a very substaÌ„tiall witnes of their continuance in that opinion some yeares after and such a one as M. Andrews hath great reason to admit for that he stil liueth yea ruleth in the English Clergy no lesse theÌ„ M. Andrews himselfe I meane the learned Doctor and worthy superintendent M. Barlow who in his Epistle to the Ministers of Scotland prefixed to the Sermon which he prated before his Maiesty against the Puritans the 21. of September in the yeare 1606. which is not past 6. yeares agoe coupleth the Puritans with the Papists for their opinion in that point saying that Papists and Puritans will haue the King to be but an honorable member not a chiefe gouernour in the Churches of his dominions Thus saith M. Barlow whome M. Andrews must needs allow for a man of credit except he will discredit his owne occupation and ministry 78. Besides that I will adde to M. Barlow another authenticall witnes who wrote the yeare after and representeth the authority of all the Clergy of England I meane M. Thomas Rogers in his booke intytled The faith doctrine and religion professed and protected in the realme of England c. wherein he setteth downe 39. Articles agreed vpon by the whole Clergy and analised by him into propositions with a discouery and confutation as he pretendeth of all those that haue at any tyme contradicted the said articles and all this he saith was perused and by the lawfull authority of the Church of England allowed to be publike So that this is a witnes of sufficient credit if ther be any credit to be giuen to the Church and Clergy of England yea to M. Andrewes himselfe who is a principall member thereof and therefore by all lykelyhood gaue his suffrage to the approbation of M. Rogers his booke 79. This man hauing set downe the 37. Article and the second propositioÌ„ which concerneth his Maiesties Ecclesiasticall Supremacy produceth only two sorts of aduersaries to that Article to wit the Papists and the Puritans and sayth of the later thus False it is which the Puritans do hold namely that Princes must be seruants to the Church be subiect to the Church
deny this seeing that they do admit diuers traditions whereof there is neyther precept nor example in the Scripture as the baptisme of infants who do not actually belieue for although the same be very consonant to Scripture as also is prayer to Saynts and all other things which are practiced in the Catholike Church yet the vse and practice thereof is grounded vpon tradition and not vpon the Scriptures as Origen testifyeth saying Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditioneÌ„ accepit c. The Church receiued a tradition from the Apostles to giue baptisme to litle children So he And S. Augustin also to the same purpose saith more plainely thus Consuetudo mâ—tris Ecclesiae in baptizandis paruulis c. the custome of our Mother the Church in baptizing infants is not to be contemned or reputed as superfluous neyther were it to be belieued at all if it were not an Apostolicall tradition So he who also acknowledgeth the same in another place and saith further that if any man do demaund diuine authority for it quamquam quod vniuersa tenet Ecclesia c. albeit that which the vniuersall Church holdeth and hath not byn ordayned by Councells but hath alwayes been reteyned is most rightly belieued to haue byn deliuered by no other but by Apostolicall authority neuertheles we may truly coniecture by Circumcision in the old law what force the Sacrament of Baptisme hath in Infants Thus saith S. Augustine who to answere those that do demand diuine authority for the custome of the Church in baptizing Infants doth not proue or confirme it by any precept or example out of Scripture but only by a probable coniecture drawn from the figure of it in the old law relying principally vpon the tradition of the Church 33. But what need I seeke any other testimony for this matter seeing that Tho. Rogers in the 39. articles agreed vpon by the pretended Bishops and Clergy of England and analyzed into propositions glossed and set forth by him with their publyke approbation doth acknowledge that the baptisme of yong children is in any wyse to be retayned in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ although sayth he we be not commanded by expresse termes to baptize them So he whereupon it directly followeth that M. Andrews hath ouerlashed greatly in saying id tantùm audemus facere de quo praeceptum habemus we dare doe that only whereof we haue a precept Also what precept or example haue M. Andrews and his fellowes in Scripture for the vse of Godfathers and Godmothers and of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme allowed as well by their practice as by the late Queenes Iniunctions yea and by the Ecclesiasticall Canons of the Bishops and Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury made in their Synod held at London with his Maiestyes lycence in the yeare 1603. and published the yeare following by his Maiestyes authority vnder the great Seale of England in which Canons they do not only approue the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme but also professe to follow therein the primitiue Apostolicall Churches the true rules of doctrine coÌ„cerning things indifferent which are consonant to the word of God and the iudgement of all the ancient Fathers so that by their owne confession they retayne the vse of it without eyther precept or example in holy Scripture 34. And now because I haue had this occasion to speake of this constitution I can not omit to aduertise thee good Reader of a notable peece of trumpery and cosenage vsed by that graue Synod in this very Canon whereof we now speake wherein giuing the reason why they retayne the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme they say they do it because the same hath byn euer accompanyed among them with sufficient cautions exceptions agaynst all popish superstition and errour and forsooth that the world may vnderstand from what popish errour they haue freed the same they signify that the Church of England since the abolishing of Popery hath euer held and taught that the signe of the crosse vsed in Baptisme is no part of the substance of that Sacrament and that the infant Baptized is by vertue of Baptisme before it be signed with the signe of the crosse receiued into the congregation of Christs flock as a perfect member thereof and not by any power ascribed to the signe of the crosse c. whereupon they conclude that the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme being thus purged from all popish superstition and errour and reduced in the Church of England to the primary institution of it c. it is to be reuerently retayned and vsed Thus teach they in their foresayd Synod 35. But now we must demand of them where they haue euer read in any Catholyke Authour that the signe of the crosse as it is vsed in the administration of baptisme is any part of the substance of the Sacrament sure I am that all our schoolemen and Canonists and others that haue occasion to treat therof do expressely teach the contrary neyther did euer any learned Catholyke hold or suppose it to be any part eyther of the forme or of the matter of Baptisme which are the essentiall parts thereof but only an ancient and holy ceremony and this is euident euen by the practice of the Catholyke Church approuing the baptisme not only of the midwyfe in cases of necessity but also of any heretike if he haue the intention to do that which the Catholyke Church doth and vseth the true forme with conuenient matter without the signe of the crosse or any other ceremony in the world and albeit the Church vseth to suply the sayd ceremonyes afterwards in such as wanted the same yet it maketh no doubt at all but that they are baptized before and in state of saluation if they dye before the sayd ceremonyes be supplyed whereby it is manyfest that the Catholykes do not take the signe of the crosse to be of the substance or essence of the sacrament 36. But of this I shall not neede to produce any further proofe seeing that those pretended Bishops which were present at this Congregation and made this Canon haue giuen sufficient testimony of the truth in this poynt to no meaner a person then to his Maiesty himselfe as he did publikely testify in the CoÌ„ference at Hampton-court wherein the question concerning the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme being debated betwixt them and the Puritans his Maiesty sayd that he vnderstood by the Bishops yea and found it himselfe to be true that the Papists themselues did neuer ascribe any power or spirituall grace to the signe of the crosse in Baptisme whereupon it followeth that they do not nor euer did account to be any essentiall part of the Sacrament for if they did they should ascribe vnto it a spirituall grace and power as they doe to the essence of
Christ whome he calleth and that very well rem Sacramenti the thing of the Sacrament so also he acknowledgeth that Christ is to be adored in cum Sacramento in and with the Sacrament as being there verè presens verè adorandus truly present and truly to be adored for so he saith and sheweth also afterward how the Sacrament may be adored togeather with Christ. For treating of the same matter he alleadgeth S. Augustine teaching how the humanitie of Christ may be adored and how not Ipsa humanitas saith he vt disputat Augustinus non nuda vel sola adoranda est c. The very humanitie of Christ is not to be adored naked or alone by it selfe but with the diuinity as the Kings Royall Robe not when it lyeth by it selfe but when the King is vested or clad with it So he 5. And then he addeth also further out of S. Augustine concerning the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament cùm vel illam adoras ait ne cogitatione remaneas in carne c. And when thou adorest that flesh doe not sayth Augustine rest with thy cogitation in the flesh wherby thou shalt not be quickned with the spirit for the spirit sayth he quickneth or giueth lyfe the flesh profiteth nothing thus saith M. Andrews out of S. Augustine explicating notably how the very SacrameÌ„t that is to say the exteriour formes of bread wyne may be adored to wit together with the persoÌ„ of Christ which it conteineth for as the humanity or flesh of Christ in the Sacrament may be adored because it is ioyned with the Diuinity so also the Sacrament conteyning Christ truely and really present may be adored togeather with him as the Kings royall Robe saith M. Andrews may be togeather with the Kings person though not without it so that in this point you see he teacheth the very same that we do concerning the adoration of the blessed Sacrament though Caluin all the SacrameÌ„taries with Melancthon Illyricus and diuers other Lutherans do hold it for Idolatry and so I am sure it hath bene coÌ„monly held by the Protestants of England heretofore as it appeareth in the 39. Articles agreed vpon by the whole English Clergy and set forth by M. Thomas Rogers in his booke intituled the Faith Doctrine and Religion professed and protected in the Realme of England c. Thus much for this point and now let vs passe to another 6. No man I thinke that vnderstandeth the matterâ— in controuersie betwixt our aduersaries and vs is ignorant what is their opinion concerning the reward of good workes as that Luther Caluin and most of their followers are so farre from houlding them to be meritorious of eternall reward that they teach the best workes of the iustest man to be mortall sinnes to deserue eternall damnatioÌ„ though they say they are reputed as iust for the merits of Câ—rist and those who seeme to haue the most fauorable opinion of good workes doe teach that howsoeuer they may haue some reward euen in the next lyfe yet they cannot merit eternall Saluation because the same is merited for vs by Christ and apprehended by only faith But M. Andrewes goeth much further coÌ„meth indeed so neere the Catholike doctrine that he acknowledgeth it For although he take some exceptions to merit yet he vnderstandeth it otherwise then we doe and so in effect doth not deny or impugne that which we teach concerning the same notwithstanding his vayne cauils and malicious interpretation of our doctrine whereof I haue already touched some particulers in the last Chapter 7. Therefore it is to be vnderstood that he granteth and teacheth expressely that eternall reward shall be giuen to good workes albeit he doe it with this restriction non ex pondere humani meriti sed ex vi promissi diuini not by the weight of mans merit but by the force of Gods promise whereof grace is the foundatioÌ„ by the which saith he our mercifull Sauiour hath promised mercedeÌ„ plenam operi non pleno mercedeÌ„ diariaÌ„ operi horario a full hire to a scant or vnperfect worke a daies wages to an howers worke So he alluding no doubt to the Parable of the Gospell of the workmeÌ„ who hauing laboured in the vineyard some a whole day and some but an houre had neuerthelesse all of them equall pay to wit the penny promised for the dayes work which penny the Fathers vnderstand to signify eternall Saluation promised for our labour in Gods seruice during our lyfe and so doth M. Andrews no doubt vnderstand it who proceedeth thus And that which he promised of his meâ—re grace and goodnes he rendreth by Iustice for he should not be iust except he should stand to his promise Wee may say to God with conuenieÌ„t humility giue me the reward which thou hast promised but I thinke wee cannot say giue me that which I haue deserued or that which thou owest me for my merit for setting aside the promise of God there is not any sufficient tytle for the which God ought to recoÌ„pence such a worke with eternall lyfe Thus saith M. Andrews 8. Wherein although he exclude all consideratioÌ„ of merit from the reward of works neuertheles graÌ„ting as he doth the reward to be due by the force of Gods promise he granteth in effect as much as we desire To which purpose I wish two thinges to be noted in this his discourse the one that he speaketh clearly of eternall reward and lyfe euerlasting acknowledging the same to be due to good workes by the force of Christs promise the other that the merit which he impugneth is only such as excludeth the consideration of Gods promise as it appeareth by the reason which he giueth out of Gregory de Valentia to wit because setting aside the promise of God there is not any sufficieÌ„t tytle or cause why God is bound to reward good workes with lyfe euerlasting This then being the reason why he excludeth merit it is cleare that he doth not exclude the merit whereof we speake nor conclude any thing against vs but rather argueth for vs for we are so farre from reiecting the consideration of Gods promise from our merit that we graunt the merit of euerlasting lyfe especially thereupon 9. For albeit we teach that the grace of God doth giue a great dignity and valour to the worke and therefore coÌ„curreth to the merit thereof yet we teach withall that the same were not sufficient for the merit of eternall saluation if God had not promised it for the merits of our Sauiours passioÌ„ which is the ground of all mans merit therfore almighty God hauing couenanted and bargayned with vs to giue such a reward for such a worke yea assisting vs with his grace to doe the worke hath not only made himselfe our debter if we doe it but also maketh vs able to merit the reward promised
c. postquam ei totius gubernacula tradidistis You giue him the gouerment of the particuler Church of Rome after you haue giuen him the gouernement of the whole 14. So that he suposeth here that not Christ but we haue giuen him both the one and the other to wit the particuler after the generall whereby he seemeth also to affirme that S. Peter was not Bishop of Rome otherwise then in our conceit and by our gift adding withall a strange parenthesis quasi ea totius pars non esset as though the same particuâ—â—e Church of Rome were not a part of the whole as who would say that S. Peter could not be gouernor both of the whole Church and of a particuler Church wherein he argueth as wisely as if he should say that a Bishop of Ely could not be Gouernor of the particuler Church of Ely and of the whole Diocesse or that a Bishop of Canterbury could not be Gouernour of that Bishoprick and Prymate of England or that a generall of an Army could not gouerne a particuler Company and be Generall of the whole Army 15. But will M. Andrewes trow you be so absurd to say in good earnest that S. Peter was not gouernor of a particuler Church or that we only meaning the Catholikes of this age haue made him so Truly if he affirme this and will stand to it he is not to be confuted by arguments but confounded by blowes as a mad man that had need to be beaten into his witts hauing as Aristotle sayth of some as much need of punishment as he should haue of sense that should deny the snow to be white for I thinke there was neuer any thing more clearly testified by all the Fathers of the Church Councells Historiographers Ecclesiasticall and prophane vndoubted monuments of Antiquity and all manner of Testimony then that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome especially seeing that the continuall succession of Bishops in the Roman Sea from him euen to the present Pope Paulus Quintus doth demonstrate and as I may say proclayme the euidence thereof And therefore I must needes imagine that M. Andrews hath some other meaning then his wordes import but whatsoeuer it is he sheweth by his obscure doubtfull and impertinent manner of wryting that he hath caput morbidum and verticem malè sanum as you heard him say of S. Peter in the last Chapter 16. And this might suffice for answere to his glose vpon the place of S. Maximus but that I cannot omit to say something to the two doubts he maketh to wit whether this Maximê° was he that was Bishop of Turin whether there were SermoÌ„s made purposely of the Apostles in his tyme both which doubts the ancient Gennadiê° who wrote in the same age may wel resolue seeing that in his booke de viris illustribus he writeth that Maximus Bishop of Turin wrote certayne Tracts in prayse of the Apostles which are these verie Homilies whence this testimony is taken hauing mentioned diuers other Tracts and Homilies vpon the Natiuitie of S. Iohn Baptist S. Eusebius of Versels and S. Cypriâ—n also of the passion of Christ and the fast of Lent of the Crosse Sepulcher and Resurection of our Lord which are also to be seene in his works vnder the tytle of homylies he concludeth Scripsit etiam homilias multas c. He to wit Maximus wrote also many Homilyes of the Natiuity of the Theophany which we call the Epiphany of Easter and of Pentecost c. besides diuers others which I haue read and do not remember So he 17. Wherein it is to be noted for the resolution of M. Andrews his doubts that S. Maximus who was Bishop of Turin wrote homilyes in prayse not only of the Apostles but also of diuers other Saints and vpon diuers feasts which M. Andrews may belieue because it is testified by one that might know it well for that he wrote about the yeare of our Lord 490. which was the same age wherein S. Maximus liued who died as Gennadius also witnesseth in the yeare 420. about ten yeares before the decease of S. Augustin which I note by the way to put M. Andrews in mynd of a notable scape ouersight not to call it a flatly in his former answere to a place of S. Augustine wherof I treated in the last Chapter where you may remember he affirmed very confidently that tempore Augustini non fiebant Sermones de tempore In S. Augustins tyme there were no sermons made de Tempore So that you see he is found to be minus habens and taken tardy in euery thing and not able to giue any reasonable satisfaction or answere to any one place of ten alleadged by the Cardinall in one Chapter 18. And yet forsooth in the preamble to his answere of those places he maketh so light of them as though he could blow them away all with a blast for thus he saith Vnum hoc peccant omnia c. they haue all this one fault that they bring nothing which may not straight be graunted except perhaps some litle word about the which I do not meane 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contend in words So he But if this be true how chanceth it that the poore man hath bene so puzled in the answere of these places that he hath bene faine so to trifle wrangle cogg and lye as you haue heard Hath some litle word trow you that hath occurred now and then and could not be graunted driuen him to so hard an exigent But let vs hear what he saith may be graunted and what denied in those places Nam nec primatum saith he negamus Petri c. For we do not deny the Primacy of Peter nor the names which do signify it but we demand the thing or matter it selfe now in question that is to say his earthly Monarchy Thus saith he seeming out of his bountifull liberality to graunt that which he seeketh to ouerthrow as much as in him lyeth yea denying that in effect which he graunteth in words and reducing all his dispute to a playne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say a word-warre or a contention about words which neuertheles he professeth to auoyd 19. You see he graunteth the primacy of Peter yet when it is vrged against him out of the Fathers in the places aboue mentioned he laboureth to ouerthrow the ground from whence they deduce it For whereas they teach that Peter had the primacy because he was the foundation of the Church and had a speciall Commission giuen him to feede Christs sheepe he goeth about to proue that Peter was no more the foundation of the Church then the rest of the Apostles nor otherwise Pastor thereof then they whereupon it must needs follow that he was not their primate nor had any more gouernement ouer the Church then they Wherein then consisteth his primacy which the Fathers teach and deduce from the
thing expressed by the name and so in conclusion with his fatemur omnia he acknowledgeth vs for true Catholiks and himselfe and his fellowes for heretikes and therefore I may well say vnto him with our Sauiour in the Ghospell ex ore tuo te iudico serue nequam 35. And the lyke I may also say concerning his grant in another matter to wit that our Bishops are true Bishops and that the Protestant Bishops of EnglaÌ„d had their ordination from ours yea from 3. of ours for so he giueth to vnderstand whereupon he also inferreth that he and his fellow SuperinteÌ„dents haue a true ordination and succession from the Catholike Church whereas the quite contrary followeth vpon his grant for if our Bishops be true Bishops as hauing a true successioÌ„ from the Apostles and that the protestant Bishops haue no other lawfull ordinatioÌ„ but from ours two consequents do directly follow thereon the one that we haue the true Church and doctrine if M. Andrewes his fellow and friend M. Barlow say true who in his famous sermon mentioned by me els where affirmeth the Successiue propagation of Bishops from the Apostles to be the mayne roote of Christian Society according to S. Augustine and the mayne proofe of Christian doctrine according to Tertullian as I haue shewed amply in my Suplement and proued thereby that M. Barlow and his fellowes are e heretykes and Schismatikes The other consequent is that if the English Protestant Bishops had no other lawfull ordination then from the Catholikes they had none at all for that at the chaÌ„ge of religion in Queen Elizabeths tyme they were not ordayned by any one Catholyke Bishop and much lesse by three as M. Andrews saith they were but by themselues and by the authority of the Parliament as I haue also declared at large in my Supplement Where neuertheles I am to aduertise thee good Reader of an errour not corrected amongst the faults escaped in the Print For whereas it is said there they had almost seduced an Irish Archbishop and perswaded him to consecrate some of them Byshops there want certaine wordes to wit a Welsh Bishop hauing in vaine sollicited which words are to be inserted thus they had almost seduced a Welsh Bishop hauing in vaine solicited an Irish Archbishop and perswaded him to consecrate some of them Bishops after the Catholike manner c. And agayne a litle after whereas it is said thus seeing the Irish Bishop would not performe his promise they resolued to ordaine themselues c. there want also these words consâ—â—t nor the Welsh Bishop which words are to be added thusâ— seeing the Irish Bishop would not coÌ„sent nor the Welsh Bishop performe his promise they resolued to ordayne themselues Thus I say it should be corrected 36. Whereby it may euidently appeare what a beggarly Church and Clergy they then had and still haue for hauing then not so much as any pretended Archbishop or Bishop of their owne profession they were forced to begg their consecration euen of the Catholikes their aduersaries and hauing solicited an Archbishop in vaine and being out of hope to haue the consent of a Metropolitan to their ordination much more to be consecrated by 2. or 3. Bishops according to the ancient Canons of the Church they determined as I may say to play small game rather then to sit forth being desirous to haue some kind of ordination from any one Catholik though inferiour Bishop yea and in fyne they sought to haue it from such a one as was held to be the simplest man that then was or perhaps euer had bene of the English Clergy for so indeed was esteemed the Bishop of Landâ—â—â— whome they had almost inueygled and induced 〈◊〉 their turne But Almighty God out of his infinite prouidence so disposed for the eternall shame of their pretended Prelacy and Clergy that he also in the end refused to do it vpon a sharp message which he receaued from Bishop â—onner then Prisoner who being Bishop of London and consequeÌ„tly chiefe Bishop in the prouince of Canterbury by the death of Cardinall Pole Archbishop thereof sent one M. Cosen his Chaplen to the sayd Bishop of Landaff to threaten him with excommunication in case he did consecrate any of them whereupon he defisted from his purpose and they resolued to ordayne and consecrate one another and so they did as I haue signified in my Supplement vpon the testimony of one that was an eye-witnes of what passed amongst them at their ordination to wit M.I Thomas Nâ—ale a graueman well knowne no doubt to many yet liuing in Oxford where he was many yeares after Reader of the Hebrew Lecture 37. Whereupon I inferre two things the one that they haue no Clergy nor Church for haâ—ing no Bishops they haue no Priests because none can make Priests but Bishops and hauing neither Bishops nor Priests they haue no Clergy and consequently no Church as I haue shewed in my Supplement out of S. Hierome The other is that M. Andrewes and his fellowes are neyther true Bishops nor haue any succession from the Catholike Church as he sayth they haue noâ— yet any lawfull mission or vocationâ— and that therefore they are not those good shepheards which as our Sauiour saith enter into the fold by the dore but fures 〈◊〉 theeues and robbersâ— who clymbe vp another way or breake into it by intrusion and force vt mactent â—â—â—â—rdant to kill and destroy the flocke and so they are rotten bought broken of from the may nâ— root of Christian society and consequently heretikes and schismatikes as well by M. Barlowes ground before mentioned as according to M. Andrewes his owne graunt els let him name vnto vs those 3. Catholike Bishops who as he saith consecrated their first Bishops at the change of religion in Queene Elizabeths tyme which I know he cannot doe and therefore I conclude of him in this point as I did in the last ex ore tuo te iudico 38. And this truly might suffice to shew how he fortifieth our cause and ouerthroweth his owne but that besides diuers other points which I might handle to this purpose and am forced to omit for lack of tyme there is one whereof I promised in the last Chapter to say somewhat to wit his doctrine touching the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacie which in verie truth he abaseth disgraceth and vtterly supplanteth whiles he seeketh or at least pretendeth to confirme and establish it as hath partly appeared already by his graunt that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles to take away all occasion of Schisme yea and that he gaue him as much authority as was necessary to that end whereupon I inferred necessarily that not only S. Peter but also his successours haue all that power and authority which we attribute vnto them as may be seene in the third Chapter of this Adioynder and vpon this it followeth also
farre forth as the Church requireth admitteth humane help authority 48. Therefore whereas in the gouerment of the Church two things are specially conâ—idered the one internall and diuine and the other externall and humane the former which is a spirituall heauenly power communicated by almighty God to man he excludeth from the Kings Supremacy and admitteth only the latter which is a meere externall and humane power and the same also non aliter no othâ—rwise then for the nourishment and defence of the Church so as you see he acknowledgeth therby no other power ouer the Church but only externall humane and temporall whereto I make no doubt but all the Puritans in England and Scotland will subscribe neither do the Catholiks deny but affirme and teach that Kings are bound to nourish the Church with their purses and defend it with their power and authority as all or most Christian Kinges at their Coronation are sworne to doe And not only Christian Kings haue this power but also any Pagan Prince hath and may exercise the same as the Kings of Chinae and Persia the one a PagaÌ„ and the other a Mahumetan doe at this day 49. For the King of China nourisheth and defendeth the Church of Christ in the Colledges and Residences of the Fathers of the Society not only in his principall Citty called Pachyn where he keepeth his Court but also in diuers other partes of his Dominions giuing them mayntenance immunities and priuiledges and shewing them many other particuler fauours As also the King of Pâ—rsia doth the lyke to the Carmelitan Fathers in his Country though I think no man will say that these Kinges haue any spirituall power ouer the Church of Christ as our late Statutes haue giuen to our Kinges which may appeare by a Statute of King Henry the 8. whereby it was ordayned in these wordes Be it enacted c. that the King our Soueraigne Lord his heires and successors Kinges of his Realme shall be taken accepted and reputed the only supreme head of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia and shall haue and enioy annexed and vnited to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme as well the Title and stile thereof as all Honours Dignities Preheminences Iurisdictions Priuiledges Authorities Immunities profits and commodities to the said Dignitie of supreme head of the same Church belonging So saith the Statute which must needes be vnderstood to giue spirituall authority when it giueth all that Power Dignity and Iurisdiction which belongeth to the head of the Church 50. For seing that the Church is a spirituall Ecclesiasticall body it must needes bee gouerned by a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power residing in the head thereof And therfore it was also enacted by our Parliaments that King Hâ—nry mighâ— not only visit all Ecclesiasticall Persons reforme all kind of errours heresies and abuses in the Church of England but also assigne 32. persons to examine all manner of Canons conâ—â—itutions and ordinances Prouinâ—iall and synodicall And further to set in order and establish all such Lawes Ecclesiasticall as should be thought by him and them conuenient to be vsed and set forth within his Realme and Dominions in all spirituall Courts and Conuentions and that such Lawes and Ordinances Ecclâ—siasticall as should be deuised and made by the Kings Maiestie and these 32. persons and declared by his Maiesties Proclamation vnder his great Seale should be only taken reputed and vsed as the Kings Lawes Ecclesiasticall c. 51. Furthermore King Henry made the L. CroÌ„mwell his Vicar generall for the exercise of his spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction by vertue whereof the said L. Cromwell ordayned Ecclesiasticall Lawes or iniunctions and published them vnder the Seale of his Vicariat directing them to all Archbishops Abbots and the rest of the Clergyâ— And albeit Queene Elizabâ—th did not vse in her stilâ— and Tiâ—le the name of supreme head as K. Henry and K. Edward did but of Supreme Gouernesse yet it is euident that she did hould the same and all the authoritie belonging thereto to be no lesse due to her then to her Father seing that in her first Parliament she reuiued her Fathes Lawes concerning the same ordayning that all and euery branch word and sentence of the sayd seuerall acts and euery of them should be iudged deemed and taken to extend to her Highnes her heires and successours as fully and largely as euery of the â—ame act or any of them did extend to the said K. Henry the 8. her Highnes Father Whereby it appeareth that as well the Title of Supâ—â—me head as all the spirituall preheminences prerogatiues authoritie and Iurisdiction graunted by the Parliament to King Henry and exercised by him belonged in like manner to the Queene his daughter her heyres and successors and consequently to his Maiesty that now is 52. Besides that the Parliament granted also expresly to the Queene spirituall authority ordayning that such Iurisdiction Priuiledges Superiorities Preheminences spirituall or ecclesiasticall as by any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power or authority hath heretofore bin or may lawfully be exercised or vsed for the visitation of the ecclesiasticall state or persons for the reformation order and correction of the same and of all manner of errours heresies schismes abuses offences contempts and enormities shal be for euer vnited and annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme Thus farre the Statute which you see annexeth to the Crowne all such spirituall and ecclesiasticall power or Iurisdiction as may lawfully be exercised in the visitation of Ecclesiasticall persons and the reformation of heresies c. 53. Moreouer it was also granted to our Kings that they should haue power not only to giue licence by their Letters Patents to consecrate Bishops but also to grant Commissions in certaine cases to giue all manner of such Licences Dispensations Compositions Faculties Grantes c. For causes not being contrary to the Scripture and Lawes of God as heretofore hath bin vsed and accustomed to be had and obtayned at the Sea of Rome all which power must needs be granted to be meere spirituall besides that it was declared by a statute of King Edâ— the 6. Thâ—â— all â—â—thaâ—â—y of Iurisdiction spirituall and temporall is deriued and deduced from the Kings Maiesty as supreme head of the Churches and Realmes of England and Ireland and so iustly acknowledged by the Clergy of the said Realmes Whereby it appeareth euidently that the King according to these Lawes and statutes yea and by the confession and acknowledgement of all the English Clergy not only hath spirituall authority power and iurisdiction but also is the very fountaine and spring from whence it floweth to all Bishops and Clergy in his dominionsâ— Whereupon it followeth that if there be any spirituall iurisdiction and power in the Churchâ— and Clergy of England the same is much more in the King then in them seeing it is deduced and deriued from
him to the Church as from the head to the body 54. Now then this being most euident how doth M. Andrewes his doctrine agree with this seeing he teacheth that the King is no otherwise ouer the Church that is to say he hath no power or authority ouer it but as a foster-father and a tutorâ— vt eam nutriat et defeÌ„dat that he may nourish and defend it which as I haue said all Catholike Princes do and Pagan Princes may do without any spirituall power at all So that you see M. Andrewes depriueth his Maiesty of all the spirituall authority and iurisdiction which the Parliament hath giuen him And the like he doth also in other places where he ouerthroweth the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy in other manner for wheras the Cardinall obiecteth Caluins doctrine that no man ought to be called Head of the Church M. Andrews saith that Caluin indeed did not like it quo sâ—nsu Papa c. in the sense that the Pope is called the Ministeriall head but I know saith he it would not dislike Caluin in the sense that Saul was head of the Tribes of Israel and so also the head of the Tribe of Leui so he Giuing to vnderstand that Kings are heades of the Church in no other sense then as Saul was head of the Tribe of Leui. 55. Whereupon iâ— followeth that Kings are neither heads of the Church nor yet haue any authoritie at all ouer it for that Saul had none ouer the tribe of Leui which as I haue shewed in the first Chapter of this adioynder and much more amply in my supplement was by the expresse commaundement of God exempted from the temporall and politicall state in such sort that the Lâ—uits were not somuch as to be numbred amongst the people being Gods owne portion part and inheritance and giuen by him for a guift saith the Scripture to Aaron and his children so as the temporall Magistrate had nothing to doe with them And although it should be graunted that Saul was head of the Tribe of Leui as well as of the rest it would not follow that he was their spirituall head it being manifest that all the spirituall authority and iurisdiction in the lawe of Moyses resyded in the Preists and especially in the high Priest as I haue proued at large in my supplement where I haue also shewed that King Saul had no lawfull power and authority either spirituall or temporall ouer the person of the high Priest as it appeared in that his owne naturall subiects who knew the law of God refused to obey him when he commaunded them to kill Achimelech the high Priest which therefore he caused to be done by Doeg the Idumean who being a stranger and not knowing the law of God or contemning it and representing as S. Augustine testifieth the Earthly Kingdome and societie of wicked men executed his tyranicall and sacrilegious commaundement 56. Therefore whereas M. Andrewes signifieth that our Kings are Heades of the Church of God in England as Saul was head of the tribe of Leui he alloweth them no authority at all ouer the Church neither spirituall nor temporall for that as I haue sayd the Leuiticall tribe was wholy exempt from the temporall state and subiect only to the high Preist and albeit Saul was truly head of all the other tribes yet he was only their temporall head and had no other but temporall power ouer them And therefore M. Andrewes doth also by this example depriue his Maiestie if not of all authority at least of all the spirituall power and iurisdiction which our Parliaments haue graunted him 57. To this may be added also his doctrine in his Tortura Torti where he saith facimusâ— we doe not graunt the power of censure to the Prince whereby he taketh from the King all that ample authority aboue meÌ„tioned which is aÌ„nexed to the Crowne by the statutes aforesayd to wit all such IurisdictioÌ„s priuiledges superiorityes and preheminences spirituall Ecclesiasticall as by any Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power hath heretofore byn or may lawfully be exercised or vsed for the visitation of Ecclesiasticall persons the reformation and correction of errors heresies and abuses c. In which wordes being the wordes of the Statute no man can deny but that all manner of Censures are coÌ„preheÌ„dedâ— without the which heresies abuses can neuer be sufficieÌ„tly corrected reformed therfore if the Prince thought good to excoÌ„municate any obstinat heretike he might according to this Statute do it as well or better then any Bishop in his Realme seeing that no Bishop can doe it otherwise then by the authority and iurisdiction which he hath from the Prince as I haue declared before out of the Statuts neither could the Prince giue it to any other if he had it not truly and properly in himselfe in whose person the same must needes principally reside seeing that by the expresse words of the Statute it is vnited and annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of England for what right Power of Iurisdiction soeuer is in the Crowne the same must needes be vnderstood to be principally and most properly in the Prince 58. Whereby it is manifest that the Kinges of England may according to this Statute not only giue all manner of Iurisdiction wherein all kind of Censures are included but also exercise the same themselues if it please them as in lyke case they might yf they thought it conuenient do and exercise the acts of all the ciuill offices in the common wealth as well as the officers themselues who haue their Power and Iurisdiction from them as I haue signified more at large in my Supplement vpon the lyke occasion ministred by M. Barlow and therefore M. Andrewes denying the Power of Censures to the King denyeth him the Royall prerogatiue and supreme spirituall authority wherewith our Parliaments haue indued him whereupon it followeth directly that he is neither good subiect nor good English Protestant For seeing he abridgeth his Maiesties authority denying his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy in the sense and maÌ„ner that our late Parliaments haue ordayned the same he caÌ„not be accounted a good subiect 59. And if he say that by this argument I confesse that we our selues are no good Subiects because we deny the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy he is to vnderstand that the case betwixt him and vs is farre different for we deny it only of meere conscience because we hold our selues bound to belieue as a matter of faith that S. Peter and his successors are supreme heades of the Church being a doctrine deduced from our Sauiours expresse words and commission giuen to S. Peter acknowledged by the vniforme consent of the ancient Fathers and confirmed by the continuall practise of the Church euen from S. Peters time to these our daies as I haue proued sufficiently throughout this Treatise in which respect we haue great reason to say with the Apostles
opertet magis obedire Deo quà m hominibus and to giue our liues rather then to offend God and our consciences in the deniall of such an important article of our faith to the euerlasting damnation of our soules But M. Andrews holding the Kings Supremacy to be no article of faith or beliefe but only a matter of perswasion which passeth not the boundes of probability hath no such cause and obligation to deny it as we haue and yet neuerthelesse vnder the colour and pretence to defend it he doth so extenuate and abase it that he maketh it nothing but an externall humaine and meere temporall authority and consequently as any Pagan Prince may exercise as well as a Christan 60. And therefore he dealeth therin no otherwise then one who being chosen by his friend to maintaine his quarrell draweth his sword with pretence to defend him and giueth him a deadly wound behind his backe or like to some preuaricating Aduocate who being hyred to defend a cause pleadeth for the aduerse party for so doth he who being specially chosen by his Maiesty to defend and maintaine his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy doth couertly and vnderhand betray him depriuing him of all the spirituall power that the Parliament hath giuen him and leauing him only the bare title without the effect which kind of dealing if it were but amongst frendes and equals were no lesse then treacherous and perfidious and therefore what it is in a subiect towardes his Prince especially in a man so much honored aduanced by his Maiesty as M. Andrewes hath bin I leaue it to the iudgement of any indifferent man but sure I am it caÌ„not be counted the part of a good subiect 61. Neither can he be thought to be a good Enlish Protestant for who knoweth not that the English Protestant differeth from all other Protestants of other Nations especially in holding and maintayning the Ecclesiasticall and spirituall Supremacy that our Parliament first gaue to King Henry the 8. which you see M. Andrews doth not who as I haue said hath so pared shaued and abridged it that he hath made it nothing in effect at least much lesse and of farre other conditioÌ„ then the Parliament ordayned it Wherby he is not only subiect to the penalties of the Parliamentall statutes as a Traytor but also incurreth the censure of excommunication imposed by a late Synodicall constitution of the Byshops and Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury vpon such as impeach in any part saith the Canon his Maiesties Regall supremacy in Ecclesiasticall causes restored to the Crowne by the Lawes of this Realme therin established and so strickt is the Canon against such persoÌ„s that it ordayneth further that they being excommunicated ipso facto shall not be restored but only by the Archbyshop after their repentance and publike reuocation of their wicked errour So as this Canon and all the rest made in that Conuocation being authorized by his Maiesty and published by his Regall authority vnder the great Seale of England I remit to the iudgment of all true English Protestantes whether M. Andrews hauing incurred the censure of this Canon and being consequently cut off from the vnion of their Congregation can be a member of their body or any other to them then an Ethnick or a Publican vntill he haue publikly reuoked his errour and be absolued and restored by the Archbishop 62. And no maruell seeing that he is as it seemeth so farre from being an English ProtestaÌ„t whatsoeuer he hath ben hertofore that he is now turned flat Puritan in this point allowing the King no more power ouer the Church then to mayntayne and defend it which is the very doctrine of the Puritans who therfore do willingly sweare obedience to their Princes for the defence and conseruation of the Church as it appeareth by the Oath of the Puritans in ScotlaÌ„d who sweare thus Quoniam percepimus Ecclesiae religionis nostrae tranquillitatem c. Forasmuch as we perceiue that the tranquillity stability of our Church and religion doth depend on the health and good gouernment of his Maiesty as of the comfortable instrument of gods mercy granted the Realm for the conseruation of the Church and the administration of iustice amongst vs we do couenant and promise with our hart vnder the same Oath subscription and penalties to defend his person authority and dignity with our goods bodies and liues for the defence of the Ghospell of Christ and the liberty of our Countrey 63. Thus sweare they and no more teacheth M. Andrewes in substance granting no other power to Kings ouer the Church then they do to wit that Kings are but as Foster-fathers defeÌ„ders of it Wherin neuerthelesse this difference may be noted betwixt the Puritans and him that they do belieue it as a matter of faith no lesse then we wheras M. Andrewes is only perswaded that it is true seing that he placeth therin the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy which he holdeth to be no matter of fayth and therfore if the said Supremacy consist only in the defence of the Church as it doth according to his doctrine then both we and the Puritans are better subiects then he because we belieue the same to be a matter of faith and consequently do think our selues bound in conscience to maintaine it though it be with losâ—e of our liues wheras he taking it to be but only a matter of perswasion will not by all liklyhood loose six pence to defend it 64. Furthermore to shew that he doth truly Puritanize in the point of the Supremacy it is to be vnderstood that whereas the Cardinall obiecteth out of the Basilicon Doron of his Maiesty that the Puritans do not admit the Kings Ecclesiasticall primacy because they introduce a certaine parity into the Church he answereth that albeit they maintayne a parity a mongst themselues reiecting the distinction of degrees of Byshops aboue Ministers or of one Minister aboue another yet they doe not hold that there is any parity betwixt the King and them but do admit and acknowledg his Supremacy ouer them thus teacheth M. Andrews and addeth presently after in the next paragraph that wheresoeuer the Religion is reformed the supreme temporall Magistrats haue this Power euen this selfe same which the King hath So he whereupon two things may be euidently gathered The one that the Puritans haue the same doctrine concerning the Ecclesiasticall primacy of temporall Princes that is taught in all the reformed Churches which indeed they also affirme of themselues The other is that the King hath no other Ecclesiasticall power but the self same that the Puritans and all the reformed Churches doe graunt to their temporall Magistrate 65. But what the Puritans teach concerning this point you heard in the last Chapter by the testimony of M. Rogers approued and warranted by all the Cleargy of England to wit that Princes must be seruants to the
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
vt coÌ„mig Beethlem S. Dionys. Eccles. Hierar ca. 10. S. Basil. Ep. 1. ad Monach. lapsum in fine in ep ad Virgin laps Idem reg 14. fusius explic S. Aug. in psal 75. ante finem Ioan Cass. de Iustit renuÌ„ti li 4. c. 13. See supl. c. 7. nu 59. 60. M. Andrews approuing the first institute of monks approueth many important points of Catholke Religion See Card. Bellar. l. de monachis c. 42 43. seq (b) See Supplem Chap 7. n. 58 59.60 (a) Luther in colloqu Germa c. de matrimo (b) Idem to 8. de matrimo fol. 119. (c) Idem de Bigamia Episcop proposit 62. IteÌ„ Ochinus dialog l. 2. dial 21. See Caluinoturcis l. 2. cap. 11. (d) Bucer in cap. 1. 19. Mat. (e) 1. Tim. â— (f) Tertul. lib. de monogam c. 13. S. Epiphanius lib. 2. haeres 61. in fine S. Chrysost. hom 19. in 1. Cor. 7. in 1. Tim. 8. hom 15. S. Aug. in Psal. 75. IteÌ„ Concil Carthag 4. can 104. (g) S. Basil. de vera virginitate The first Euangelists of the Protestants Ghospell were the true Locusts that destroyed religiouâ— profession and perfection That the name Catholike belongeth only to the Apostolike Roman Church to the children thereof Andr. c. 5. pag. 125. §. Quod affert (a) See Chap. 4. nu 57.58 sequent (b) Ibid. nu 61. Magdeb. cent 4. c. 10. Socrat. l. 4. c. 30. (c) Cap. 4. nu 62. (d) Ibid. nu 63. (e) Ibid. nu 58. 59. Bellar. dâ— Pont. RoÌ„ l. 4. ca. 8. 11. (a) Idem Resp. ad Apolog. p. vlt. (b) Paâ—id Ep. ad Sympronian (c) S. Ciril Hier. c. 18. (d) Aug. in lib coÌ„tra ep FuÌ„dameÌ„ cap. â—â— Andr. c. 5. p. 125. Nam quae Andr. vbi supra M. Andr. his distinction helpeth him nothing Aug. vbi supra Item de vera religione c. 7. Luc. c. 19. Andr. c. 7. pa. 168. §. Nam de nostr (b) Barl. Ser. an 1606. 21. Septemb. (c) See before chap. 6. nu 77. (d) See Suppl Chap. 4. nu 54.55 seq (f) Suppl ca. 5. nu 2.3.4 5. What a beggarly Church Clergy the Sectaries haue in England See Supl. vbi supra nu 5. See Supl. vbi supra nu 6. S. Hieron aduers. Lucifer Iohn 10. (c) See before nu 35. also Suppl chap. 4 nu 54.55 seq Luc. 19. (b) Chap. 6â— nu 81â— (d) Chap. 3. nu 37. sequent What a poore coÌ„ceipt M. Andrews hath of the Kings ecclesiasticall supremacy Andr. c. 1. pag 21. §. Neque tamâ— Ibidem Ibid. p. 29. §. Aâ— recepta The Ecclesiastical Supremacy of temporall Princes may be in M. Andrews his Pater noster but is not in his Creed The oath of the supremacy vnlawful if the supremacy be no matter of faith Aureol in 3. dist 39â— Ang. verb. periurium See Nauar. manuale c. 12. nu 3. Suarez de relig Tom. 2. li. 3. ca. 4. nu 7. Card. c. 1. pag. 7. Andr. c. 1. p. 22. §. Sed. nec M. Andrews his grosse ignorance S. Aug. Quaest. in Leuit. li. 3. quaest 23. Num. 2â— M. Andrew his notorious malice in the abuse of holy Scripture Deut. 17. See c. 6. nu 68.69.70 See Suppl c. 1. nu 10. seq (g) Ibid. nu â—4 seq (h) Ibid. nu 3â— seq (i) nu 44. (k) nu 45. 50. (l) nu 49. seq (m) nu 3â— seq (n) nu 28. seq (o) nu 53.54.55 56. (p) See sup Chap. 1. nu 83. 84. It cannot be shewed how Kings afâ—ter they were Christened came to haue the gouernment of the Church The Ecclesiasticall supremacy of temporall Princes excluded by a rule of M. Andrewesâ— Andr. c. 1. pag. 37. §. Verùm M. Andrewes doth not allow any spirituall authority to the King Andr. ci 14. pâ— 323. lin 33. (d) nu 37. Ibid. c. 1. p. 21. §. nequâ— tamen What manner of Ecclesiasticall power M. Andreweâ— acknowledgeth in temporall Princes A Pagan Prince hath as much authoritie ouer the Church as M Andrewes alloweth to his Maiestie An. 26. Hen. 8. â— 1. The Parliament Statutes giue spirituall authority to the Kings Queens of England Ibidem The Lord Cromwel Vicar General to K. Henry the 8. for thâ— exercise of his spirituall Iurisdictioâ—â— An. 1. Elizab. c. 1. Spirituall Iurisdiction graÌ„ted to Q. Elizabeth by the Parliament An. 1. Elizab. c. 1. An. 1. Edward 6. c. 2. All the Spirituall Iurisdiction and authoritie of the Clergy of England declared by a statute to be deryued from the Prince M. Andrewes depriueth the Kings Maiesty of all the spirituall authority that the Parliaments haue giuen him (a) See before chap. â— nu 13. (b) suppl c. 1. nu 18.19 seq (c) Num. â— (d) Deut. 10. 18. (e) Numer 8. (f) Suppl c. 1. from nu 10. to 53. (g) Ibid. nu 51.52 K. Saul had no authority ouer the hygh Priest S. Aug. in psal 51. Andr. Tort. Torti p. 151. An. 26. Hen. 8. c. 1. an 1. Eliz ca. 1. The King might according to the statut excoÌ„municate an heretyke as well as any Bishop (d) Supra nu 53. The King could not giue the power of censure to other if he had it not in himfelse See suppl c. 6â— nu 61. M. Andrews neyther good Subiect nor good English Protestant A great difference to be noted betwixt M. Andrews his deniall of the Kings supremacy and ours Act. 5. M. Andrews hath no such obligation to deny the Kings supremacy as we haue M. Andrews lyke to a treacherous frend or a preuaricating aduocate M. Andrews doth vnderhand betray the Kings cause Why M. Andrewes is no good English Protestant See coÌ„stitut and Canons Ecclesiasticall printed by Rob. Barker Anno. 1604. Can. 2. M. Andrewes seemeth to be turned Puritan in the point of the K. Supremacy The Oath of the Puritans of Scotland set forth in the yeare 1584. What difference may be noted betwixt M. Andrews and the Puritans Both Catholikes Puritans are better Subiects then M. Andrews (a) Card. Apol. ca. 1. pag. 10 (b) Andr. c. 1. p. 30. §. Postremo (c) Ibid §. Nec habet See c. 6. n. 78.79 The Puritans doctrine coÌ„cerning the Kings subiectioÌ„ to their Presbytery The pretended reformed churches do not allow in teÌ„porall Princes any such spirituall authority as our ParlameÌ„ts haue graÌ„ted to our Kings M. Andrews professing the doctrine of the Puritans and reformed Churches concerning the Kings supremacy denieth it to be spirituall (b) suprâ— nu 47. (c) nu 37. M. Andrews no English Protestant but a flat Puritan The learned English ProtestaÌ„ts ashamed oâ— their woÌ„ted doctrine coÌ„cerning the Ecclesiasticall supremacy of teÌ„porall Princes See beforâ— nu 35. â— chap. 6. nu 77. M. Barl. seemeth to make the King head of the Church no otherwyse theÌ„ as the Pagan Emperours were M. Barlow and M. Andrews like to the Scorpion and why The opinion of the learned strangers concerning M. Andrewes his bookes against Cardinall Bellarmine M. Andrews gerally disliked for his obscurityâ— M. Andrewes compared for his obscurity to a fish called a Cuttle Plyn l. 9. ca. 29. A good aduise for a frendly farewell to M. Andrews (b) Se sup ca. 8. nu 100. seq (c) Ibid. nu 103. 104. (d) Ibid. nu 105. seq (f) Mat. 16. Mar. 8. Touching the cause and subiect of this Appendix See Suppl p. 208. nu 3 Adioyâ—d ca. 10. nu 35. The exception taken by Catholikâ— to the first Protestant Bishopes in Q. Elizabethâ— dayes iâ— no new quarrell D. Hard. confut of the Apolog par 2. fol. 59. printed an Dom. 1565. D. Hardings chaleng to M. Iewell coÌ„cerning the consecration of the first Protestant Bishops D. Staplet return of vntru fol. 130. lin 26. D. Stapletons chalenge to M. Iewell and M. Horne touching their coÌ„secration Idem counterblast fol. 301. An. 1. Elizab ca. 1. M. Horne answered nothing coÌ„cerning his consecration Iewell defence of the Apology pag. 130. M. Iewels ambiguous and weak answere touching his lawfull consecration How much it imported M. Iewell to haue proued the consecration of their Archbishop Doct. Har. detect fol. 234. p. 2. Touching M. Iewels irresolute ambiguous indirect answere How much it imported the first Protestant Bishops to haue had a publick most solemne Consecration How improbably M. Mason affirmeth out of his Registers that 4. Bishops consecrated M. Parker the first Archbishop How litle credit M. Masons new-found Register deserueth Andr. Resp. ad Apol. p. 41. §. proximi Barl. answâ— to a name Catholike p. 283. With how great reason exception is to be takeÌ„ to M. MasoÌ„s Register vntill he shew it to Catholiks who may giue testimony of it What is to be considered in M. MasoÌ„s Register to make it auteÌ„ticall An offer to shew any manuscript in Rome to English ProtestaÌ„ts