power giuen him by the keyes and by his Pastorall commission which doe import authority power Iurisdiction and gouernment 20. Therefore M. Andrews denying S. Peters preeminēce in authority and gouernment denyeth the primacy that the Fathers teach and reduceth it only to a bare name without effect and so doth nothing els indeed but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea and if we well consider what he saith we shall find that he graunteth not so much as the very word or name of primacy or at least if he do he cōtradicteth himselfe for what are trow you those voculae which he excepteth frō his graunt when he sayth that there is nothing in these places of the Fathers which may not presently be graunted nisi voculam fortè habent c. except some litle word perhaps What litle word I say is that which cannot be graunted Is it not Primatus Caput and some such other words as signifie Primacy Yes truely for no other voculae or voces in those places of the Fathers do so much molest him Neuertheles he hath no sooner excepted them from his grant but he granteth thē presētly saying Non negamus Primatum Petri c. Wee doe not deny the primacy of Peter nor those names which signify Primacy which is a strange kinde of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he wrangleth with himselfe contradicting himselfe notably within the space of two lynes first signifying that those wordes and names are not to be graunted and presently after granting them as no way preiudiciall to his doctrine 21. And to the end wee may vnderstand that he granteth vs nothing but words and names he distinguisheth the same from the thing it selfe which he meaneth to deny and yet so handleth the matter that he doth still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reducing also his denyall to a meer quarrell of words deuised by himselfe and neyther vsed nor meant by vs eyther in wordes or sense for he calleth rem ipsam the thing it selfe which is signified by our primacy terrestrem monarchiam an earthly Monarchy and in another place he also tearmeth it temporalem Primatum a temporall Primacie and this forsooth is that which he denyeth heere and so denyeth no part of our doctrine but a foolish cōceipt of his owne for although we hold and teach that the gouernment of the Church is a Monarchie and that the power thereof doth extend it selfe to temporall thinges in such sort and for such reasons as I haue touched in the first chapter of this Adioynder and handled at large in my Supplemēt yet it neyther is nor can be called temporall or earthly otherwise then as S. Hilary calleth S. Peters iudiciall sentences terrena iudicia when he sayth terrena eius iudicia sunt caelestia his earthly Iudgements that is to say his sentences giuen on earth are heauenly 22. And so I say that albeit the gouernment of the Church may in this sense be called earthly to wit because it is exercised vpon earth yet it is not earthly or temporall but spirituall and heauenly both because it is a spirituall and heauenly power and also because it is guided and directed from heauen by the spirit of God And therefore whereas M. Andrews doth call or rather nickname the Popes Supremacy a Temporall Primacy and his Monarchy an earthly Monarchy because he punisheth his spirituall subiects in their temporall goodes or states he may by the same reason say that S. Peter and S. Pauls power was not spirituall but corporall and temporall because the one of them punished Ananias Sapphira with corporall death and the other strook Elimas the Magician blind deliuered the incestuous Corinthian to Sathan in interitum carnis to the destruction of the flesh and finally extended his power to secular and politicall matters commaunding the Corinthians to appoint temporall Iudges amongst themselues rather then to haue recourse to the tribunalls and Iudgements of Infidells yea M. Andrewes must acknowledge himselfe to be but a meere temporall yea a pecuniary Pastour because in his spirituall Courtes he vseth pecuniary mulcts and other temporall punishments as I haue shewed before in the first Chapter By all this it appeareth that M. Andrews denying not the spirituall but as he tearmeth it the earthly Monarchy and temporall primacy of Peter denyeth nothing els but his owne vayne and idle manner of speach expressing only a foolish fancie of his and a very Chymera that hath no being in rerum natura and so he doth still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is therefore truely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say a wrangler in the highest degree 23. And to the end this may yet appeare more manifestly I will examine his answers obiections touching another point in controuersy betwixt him and vs whereby we shall also see how notably he wrangleth cauilleth iuggleth and tryfleth and because the matter and his manner of answering will requyre some long discourse I will make it the subiect of the three next Chapters A FVRTHER MANIFESTATION OF MAISTER ANDREWS HIS Tryfling wrangling and fraudulent humour by his Answers to other places of the Fathers concerning Prayer to Saints which he deuydeth into three rankes whereof the two first are examined in this Chapter CHAP. VI. WHEREAS the Cardinall vndertaketh in his Apology to treate of prayer to Saynts because the Apology for the Oath condemneth the vse and practise of it in the Catholike Church M. Andrewes taketh exception to the Cardinall for changing the state of the question and sayth that he fighteth with his owne shaddow because he promiseth to treate de intercessione Sanctorum of the intercession of Saynts wheras that which the King condemneth saith M. Andrewes is the inuocation of Saynts wherin he also noteth this difference that the intercession of Saynts is their worke and the inuocation of them is ours and that the King denieth not that which the Cardinall proueth to wit that the Saynts do pray for vs but that they are to be inuocated or prayed vnto which saith M. Andrews the Cardinall proueth not 2. And he pleaseth himselfe so much with this deuise that he doth often inculcate the same vrging the Cardinall to proue that Saynts may be inuocated yea producing a text of Scripture to proue that none can be inuocated but God for terret nos Apostolus saith he vtcumque vos hominem habetis pro leui c. The Apostle doth terrify vs how light soeuer you make of the man when he asketh this question quomodo inuocabunt eum in quem non crediderunt how shall they inuocate him in whome they belieue not for you perhaps haue found a way how a man may inuocate those in whome you your selues say you do not belieue whereas he to wit the Apostle seemed then to haue found no way Thus saith M. Andrews wherein it is to be noted that one speciall reason why he rejecteth our
the verity of the Christian fayth saying Siâ—e Deus per seipsum miro modo c. whether God doth worke these things by himselfe in that meruailous manner whereby he worketh temporall things being himselfe eternall or whether he doth the selfe same things by his ministers or whether he doth some of them by the soules of the Martyrs as he doth by men whiles they are yet heere in body or all by Angels whome he commandeth inuisibly immutably and without a body in such sort that those things which are sayd to be done by the Martyrs be done only by their prayers and impetration not also by their operation or whether some things are done by these meanes some by others which cannot by any meanes be coÌ„prehended by mortall men ei profectò haec attestantur fidei c. all these truly do giue testimony to that fayth wherein the resurrection of the flesh is preached 16. Thus discourseth this holy Father acknowledging as you see the imbecillity of mans vnderstanding to comprehend the manner how Almighty God did worke these supernaturall effects although he doubted not of the effects of themselues and yet forsooth M. Andrews must eyther know how Saynts do heare vs or els he will deny that they heare vs notwithstanding the knowne and common experience that the Church of God hath alwayes had thereof to which purpose also it may be obserued that he confeâ—seth himselfe elswhere that God was wont miraculously to relieue those that prayed at the tombes of Martyrs and yet I am sure he knoweth not how the same was wrought I meane whether God did it by himselfe or by the 〈…〉 of the Martyrs 〈◊〉 by the ministery of Angels 〈…〉 and sometymes by 〈…〉 why then doth he deny heere that Sayntâ— heare vs because he is not sure how they heare vs So as thou seest good Reader what a wyse inference he hath made with his proinde when he saith proinde aâ—diant necnâ— therfore a man is not sure whether the Saynts heare him because he is vndertayne quâ— natione audiant compellantâ—â—â— by what â—eanes or in what manner they heare him when he calleth vpon them 17. Therefore wheras he saith that our doctrine concerning the glasse of the diuine Essence and the sight of all things therin is more subtill then solid and not ceare ynough to our selâ—es it would 〈◊〉 import though it 〈…〉 seeing that we do not thereon ground our doctrine that Saynts heare or know ouâ— prayers 〈…〉 the custome and practise of the whole Church of God which prayeth to Saynts 〈◊〉 therefore beleeue that they heare vs and partly vpon euident experience of the benefits that by Gods mercyfull prouidence and ordinance men do receiue by them and partly also vpon the conformity thereof to the holy Scripture which teacheth not only that the Angelâ— in heauen do reioyce at the repentance of sinners which they could not do if they did not kneeâ— it but also that the soules of the iust being glorified 〈◊〉 aequales Angelis equall to Angels and coÌ„sequently haue the lyke knowledge that they haue besids that it is euident in the holy Scriptures that the Prophets of God did see the harts and thoughts of men and know things farre distant from themâ— Samuel told vnto Saul all that he had in his hart and Elizâ—â—s being absent saw hiâ— seruant Gâ—â—zi take gifts of 〈◊〉 the Syrianâ— and discouered also all that which the King of Syria treated in his cabinet Also S. Steuen being on earth did see our Sauiour Iesus Christ on the right hand of his Father in heauen and therefore it were absurd to imagine that the glorified Saynts in heauen could not see or know what is done on earth especially such things as concerne themselues and the honour that is done vnto them for Gods greater glory and the prayers that are directed to them for the reliefe of Gods seruants Lastly S. Iohn in the Apocalyps signifyeth that the Saynts in heauen do offer vp the prayers of holy men on earth which they could not do if they did not vnderstand and know mens prayers 18. Furthermore this doctrine is also grounded vpon the cleare testimony of the Fathers who teach it expressely As S. Athanasius who sayth that the soules of Saynts post mortem in die Iudicij cognoscent omnia shall know all things both after their death and in the day of iudgment and nullus est sayth S. Basil ex hijs qui non singula vbique consideret there is none of these he speaketh of Angels and the soules of the iust who doth not consider euery thing euery where besides that he calleth the 40. Martyrs communes humani generis custodes the common guardians or keepers of humane kind S. Ambrose also saith that Martyrs are praeâ—ules spectatores actuum nostroruÌ„ the gouernourâ— and beholders of our actions 19. In lyke manner S. Hieromâ— teacheth that it is written of the soules of the iust in the holy Scripture si quuntur agnum quocumque ierit they follow the Lambe wheresoeuer he goethâ— and then he addeth Si agnuâ— vbique c. If the Lambe â—e euery were therefore it is to be belieued that those also who are with the Lambe are euery where and seeing that Diuels go all the world ouer and by reason of their exceeding great celerity are euery where present shall Martyrs after they haue shed their bloud for Christ be shut vp as it were in a coffer that they cannot get out So he Theodoret also giueth to Martyrs the title of Duces Principes propugnatores custodes hominum c. the Captayns the Princes the defenders and guardians of men by whome sayth he those mischiefs and miseryes which Diuels do inflict vpon vs are auerted from vs. S. Chrysostome calleth S. Peter and S. Paul and Patrons and Protectors of the Emperours Whereupon it must needs follow that those blessed Apostles and other Saynts did vnderstand the actions and necessityes of those whome they protected and defended 20. Moreouer S. Augustine discoursing how the Saynts shall see God in heauen after the resurrection and whether they shall see him with their corporall eyes teacheth by the way that they shall then see all things with the eyes of the spirit etiam vnde sunt corpore absentes euen whence they are absent in body and this he proueth amply by the example of Elizaeus who being absent from his seruant Giezi saw him take gifts of Naaman and therefore sayd vnto him Nonne cor meum in praesenti erat c. was not my hart present with thee when the man came from his Chariot to meete thee and thou tookest the money Whereupon S. Augustine sayth Corde suo ergo se dixit hoc vidisse Propheta c. therfore the Prophet sayd that he saw this with his hart being no doubt admirably helped by Almighty God but how much
nothing is to be belieued or practiced in the Church whereof there is no cōmandment or example in Scripture which you haue heard already confuted as well by the authority of Scripture and Fathers as also by our aduersaryes owne doctrine approuing the practice of things not cōmanded any where in Scripture as the baptisme of infants the vse of the signe of the Crosse Godfathers and Godmothers in baptisme whereto I may add the tradition of keeping Sunday holy day in memory of the Resurrection of our Sauiour with abstinence from seruile works Also the obseruation of Easter Pentecost and such feasts and diuers other things consisting in matters of practice 56. If then they approue and practice these things although they be not commanded or ordeyned in Scripture what reason haue they to reiect prayer to Saynts because there is no commandement or example of it in Scripture when neuertheles it is most conforme thereto and deduced from it as I haue partly shewed already by an inafallible rule of S. Augustine seeing it is approued by that Church which the Scripture commandeth vs to heare belieue and obay besydes that it being euident in Scripture that Charity which moueth and obligeth men to pray one for another in this lyfe nunquam excidit as the Apostle teacheth neuer decayeth but is more perfect in the next lyfe it followeth not only that the Saynts do pray for vs which M. Andrews granteth but also that we may craue their prayers for it were most absurd to thinke that we may not request them to do that which is most correspondent to their Charity and they will most willingly performe 57. Furthermore seeing that the Scripture doth teach vs to craue the prayers and help of our brethren liuing there can be no reason imagined why we should not also do the same when they are glorifyed in heauen but eyther because they do not heare or vnderstand our prayers or because they are not willing or not able to helpe vs but that they heare vs I haue sufficiently proued already and haue also answered M. Andrews his cauils concerning the same and he neyther denyeth nor seemeth to doubt eyther that they are willing to succour vs considering the perfection of their Charity or yet that they are able to do it seeing he granteth they do pray for vs if he should deny it or that their prayers may auayle vs as Vigilantius his followers did in tymes past and Zuinglius with other sectaries haue done in these our dayes he might easily be conuinced by the holy Scriptures which witnesse that God granteth the petitions of his seruants euen when they are heere subiect to sinne and misery and hath mercy on sinners for the merits of the iust as well dead as liuing and therefore the Prophet prayed ne auferas misericordiam tuam c. do not take away thy mercy from vs O Lord for thy beloued Abraham and thy seruant Isaac and thy holy Israell And we read in the booke of Kings that for Dauids sake God did mitigate his wrath towards Salomon and saued also the Kingdome of Iuda from destruction in the reygne of Ioram and Ezechias 58. In lyke manner God pardoned Iobs friends for his sake and directed them vnto him to craue his prayers for them Also for the prayers of Moyses he had mercy on the people and the lyke we read in the new testament Whereupon S. Hierome sayd to Vigilantius thus Si Apostoli Martyres c. If the Apostles and Martyrs beeing heere in body could pray for others whiles they ought to be carefull for themselues how much more may they do it after their crounes victoryes and tryumphs one Moyses obtayned of God pardon for six hundred thousand armed men and Steuen the follower of his Lord and first Martyr in Christ craued pardon for his persecutours and shall they now be able to doe lesse when they are with Christ Paul the Apostle sayth that 276. mens liues were giuen him in the ship and therefore now when he is dissolued and with Christ will he hold his peace and shall he not be able so much as to open his mouth for those which haue belieued by his preaching throughout the world and shall Vigilantius a liuing dog be better then a dead lyon Thus argueth S. Hierome by an argument a fortiori grounded on the Scripture to shew the extreame absurdity of Vigilantius the heretike who denyed that the Saynts in heauen do pray for vs and are able to helpe vs. 59. And this ability of Saynts to helpe men is to be ascribed not only to the effect of their prayers but also to their power authority and dignity seeing that Christ who is the King of Kings Lord of Lords hath all power in heauen and earth giuen him by his Father doth in the Apocalips promise to his Saynts a communication and participation of his owne Kingdome dominion and power ouer men qui vicerit sayth he dabo sedere mecum c. he that shall ouercome I will giue vnto him to sit with me in my throne as I also haue ouercome and sitten with my father in his throne dabo ei potestatem super gentes c. I will giue him power ouer nations and he shall rule them c. and according to this promise of our Sauiour the Saynts also sayd to him in the Apocalips Redimisti nos Deo in sanguine tuo c. thou hast redeemed vs to God in thy blood and hast made vs to our God a Kingdome and Priests and we shall reygne vpon the earth and this may be confirmed out of the booke of wisdome which sayth that the iust when they shal be glorified iudicabunt Nationes dominabuntur populis c. shall iudge Nations and shall haue dominion ouer people and in like manner the Psalmist saith speaking of the glory of Gods Saynts exultabunt Sancti in gloria c. the Saynts shall exult and reioyce in glory c. they shall haue two edged swoords in their hands to take reuenge vpon nations and to chastise people to tye their Kings in fetters and their noble men in iron manicles c. Thus saith the royall Prophet 60. And albeit this shal be specially and most manifestly fulfilled at the day of Iudgement when the Saynts of God shall assist our Sauiour in the Iudgment and condemnation of the wicked yet it cannot be denyed but that also in the meane tyme it is verifyed in the power and dominion that God imparteth to his Saynts giuing them the protection of Cittyes Countryes and men as it appeareth euidently by innumerable examples which might be alledged of Kingdomes and Cytties defended Gods seruants relieued and his enemies destroyed by them for which cause the ancient Fathers do worthily call them the keepers of human kind gouernours of
only the Cardinall but also the ancient Fathers Councells and holy Scriptures and finally to face out matters impudently for lack of proofes CHAP. IX Pag. 361. That M. Andrews ouerthroweth his owne cause and fortifieth ours graunting many important points of Catholike Religion That he is turned Puritan in the point of the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy and betrayeth his Maiesties cause vnder-hand pretending to defend it and therfore is neither good English Protestant nor yet good Subiect Lastly what is the opinion of learned strangers concerning him and his booke with a good aduise for a friendly farewell CHAP. X. Pag. 329. An Appendix touching a Register alleaged by M. Franc. Mason for the lawfull Ordayning of Protestant Bishops in Q. Elizabeths Raigne THE AVTHORS INTENTION IS DECLARED AND M. D. Andrewes his interpretation of Pasce oues meas examined and confuted FVRTHERMORE It is shewed that he hath belyed S. Augustine corrupted S. Ambrose notably abused S. Cyril vainly carped at a law in the Code foolishly approued the vnlawfull proceeding of Iustinian the Emperour against two Popes CHAP. I. WHEN I had well-neere ended my Supplement and already sent away the greatest part of it to the print it was my chance to haue a sight of M. D. Andrewes his Answere to Cardinall Bellarmines Apology and considering that the subiect thereof was in effect the same that Father Persons and I had handled and debated with M. Barlow I easily perswaded my selfe that I should find many things treated by M. Andrewes which I had touched in my Supplement In which respect I determined to take a speedy Suruey of his worke and finding that he pretended now and then to answere some places authorities and arguments which had bene obiected as well by me as by the Cardinall I resolued to examine and confute his Answers in respect not only of my selfe but also of the most Worthy Cardinall not for that I thinke he needeth any defence who like an inexpugnable fortresse trenched on euery side and fortified with bulwarks of truth doth of himselfe sufficiently resist the assaults and daunt both the courage and force of his enemies but that in discharge of the obligation which all true Christians owe him for his singular merits towards the Church of Christ I may for my part out of my pouerty pay with the poore widdow my two mytes and therfore hauing offered one of them in my Supplement I thinke good now to add the other and the rather for that I hope by the same meanes to preuent the Cauills of my Aduersary M. Barlow who otherwise might perhaps in his reply if he be disposed to make any blame me for not taking notice of such a worthy work as that of M. Andrewes and eyther turne me ouer to him for satisfaction touching those points or els make vse of his answers himselfe which being esteemed as a precious fruite of the fine wit and curious pen of the greatest Rabbin in the English Synagogue are held no doubt by his friends and followers for no other then oracles of Apollo I meane both infallible and irrefragable for which cause I am the more willing to enter into the examination of them And therefore to the end thou mayst good Reader know how far I meane to proceed therin thou shalt vnderstād that seeing my Supplement is already vnder the presse and that I haue no more tyme to bestow on this Adioynder but vntill the said Supplement be printed I make account that I shall haue opportunity to handle but a few points in which respect I think good to make choyce of such only as concerne some of the most important matters cōtrouersed betwixt M. Barlow me not doubting but that the same shall suffice to shew ex vngue Leonem that is to giue the Reader an aboundant tast and tryall of M. Andrews his good spirit and sincerity in the defence of his cause 1. Well then to come to the matter For as much as one of the chiefest points debated in my Supplement by occasion of the new Oath is the question concerning the supreme and vniuersall Authority of the Apostolike Roman Sea which authority I deduced specially from the Pastorall commission giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter I thinke good to examine of what worth and weight M. Andrewes his Answeres are touching the same especially in his 16. 17. page where he laboureth seriously to proue three wayes against Cardinall Bellarmine that our Sauiours words to S. Peter Pasce oues meas alleaged and learnedly vrged by the Cardinall do make nothing for vs. 2. First he saith that S. Augustine affirmeth that S. Peter had no peculiar increase by the word Pasce and that S. Ambrose affirmeth the like of the words oues meas And to the end that this may appeare he pretendeth to lay downe the very words of those two Fathers Of S. Augustine thus Cùm Petro dicitur ad omnes dicitur Pasce oues meas when it is said to Peter it is said to all Feed my sheep Of S. Ambrose thus Eas oues non solùm Beatus suscepit Petrus sed nobiscum eas suscepit nos cum illo accepimus omnes Those sheep not only the blessed Peter receaued but also he receaued them with vs and we all receaued them with him And then M. Andrewes addeth Nempe dictum illi Pasce c. for it was said vnto him Feed as well in the person of others as in his owne atque vel sic iacebit Cardinali ratio sua and so shall the Cardinalls reason serue him to no purpose Thus argueth he 3. But to the end thou maist good Reader see and note with what fidelity and conscience this man alledgeth the Fathers I will lay downe the place of S. Augustine somewhat more amply then he hath done whereby thou shalt easily discouer his notable fraud S. Augustine in the place alledged by him saith thus Non enim sine causa inter omnes Apostolos c. For not without cause doth Peter sustayne the person of the Catholike Church amongst all the Apostles for to this Church the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen were giuen when they were giuen to Peter and when it is said to him Doest thou loue me Feed my sheep it is said to all and therefore the Catholick Church ought willingly to pardon her Children when they are corrected and strengthned in piety seeing we see that to Peter himselfe bearing the person of the Church pardon was granted both when he had doubted vpon the sea c. and when he had thrice denyed his Maister c. Thus saith S. Augustine declaring that Pasce oues which our Sauiour said to S. Peter was said to all the Church because S. Peter bare the person of the Church Which he did by reason of the supreme authority that he had ouer the Church 4. For else why should rather he then others of the Apostles be said to represent
Righteousnes by the which the gates of heauen are opened as it were with keyes sic saith he in singulis quibusque virtutibus and so also in all other vertues and to this purpose is Origens discourse in that homily 5. Now then who seeth not heere that he leaueth the litterall sense altogether in this and lyke a preacher followeth the Allegoricall and Morall thereby to induce his audience to vertue and withdraw them from vice and sinne And will M. Andrewes say that therefore Origens opinion was that Peter had nothing promised peculiarly to himselfe more then to euery perfect Christan So shall euery iust man and womaÌ„ for Origâ—n speaketh of all alyke haue as much Ecclesiasticall power and Iurisdiction as Peter had for I am sure M. Andrewes will not deny but that when Christ promised the keyes to Peter he promised to giue him Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction and power howsoeuer the same is to be vnderstood I meane whether as promised to himselfe alone for the whole Church as we vnderstand it or as promised also to the Apostles equally with him as M. Andrewes and his fellowes would haue it and therefore I say that taking this interpretatioÌ„ of Origen for the literall sense euery faithfull man or woman that is of the elect hath as much power to bynd loose excommunicate and exercise any other Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction as Peter and the rest of the Apostles had yea to be not only Pastors of Christs flock but also chiefe Pastours and to haue summaÌ„ rerum de pascendis ouibus the chiefe charge of feeding Christs sheepe 6. For whereas Origen sayth so of S. Peter in the place now in question M. Andrewes will haue the same to be vnderstood also according to this Interpretation of Origen which as you haue heard includeth not only all the Apostles but also euery other perfect Christian yf he be of the elect and excludeth all those that are not such so as amongst other consequents that follow thereof one may beâ— that it is vncertayne whether M. Andrewes himselfe be a Pastour or no for though he hold himselfe for a perfect Christian which neuertheles I hold to be very doubtfull or rather assure my selfe of the contrary yet it is very vncertayne whether he be one of the elect and if he be not of that number then according to this interpretatioÌ„ if it be literall he hath no pastorall CoÌ„missioÌ„ Besides it would follow that euery Priest should haue as much authority as his Bishop euery Bishop as much as his Metropolitan yea and euery predestinate man or woman that is a perfect Christian should haue as much as any of them or as they all seeing that all they can haue no more then summaÌ„ rerum de pascendis ouibus the chiefe charge and care of feeding Christs flockâ— which Origen saith was giuen to Peter Loe then what good doctrine M. Andrews teacheth heere by this Interpretation of Origen if he will haue it to be litterall ouerthrowing therby all subordination in the Church and coÌ„founding the Ecclesiastical with the secular the Laytie with the Clergy the head with the members I meane the spirituall Pastours or sheapheardes of Christs flock with their sheepe or subiects which truly he would not do if he were not as silly and single witted as a sheepe or at least if he were not more malicious then a sheepe of Christs flock ought to be 7. Therefore to conclude this point seeing that this Interpretation of Origen out of Origen serueth him to no better purpose then the other did before out of S. Augustine S. Ambrose and S. Cyril which only serued to bewray his malice and folly as I haue shewed amply in the first Chapter It is cleare that Origens testimony alleadged by the Cardinall concerning the chiefe Charge of feeding Christs sheepe giuen to Peter remayneth cleare and sound for the Catholiks to be taken in the litterall sense as the Cardinall alleadged it especially seeing it is most conforme to Origens doctrine in other places as in his homilyes vpon diuers Euangelists where he calleth S. Peter Summum Apostolorum verticem the chiefe or supreme head of the Apostles and therefore discoursing also afterwards in the same place of the particuler priuiledges of grace giuen by our Sauiour to S. Iohn the Apostle he preferreth neuertheles S. Peter before him in dignity saying Nemo nos existimet Petro Ioannem preferre c. Let no man thinke that I preferre Iohn before Peter Who would so do for which of the Apostles was hygher in dignity then he qui est dicitur Vertex eorum Who is called and is their head So he And I am sure M. Andrews can not imagine that Origen deduced the supreme dignity of Peter from any other ground or reason but because he had summam rerum de pascendis ouibus the chiefe charge of feeding Christs sheepe and was the foundation of the Church as Origen acknowledgeth in the place alleadged by the Cardinall and diuers others and this shall suffice for him 8. The second place which I am to debate with M. Andrewes is taken by the Cardinall out of S. Hylary in these words O in nuncupatione noui nominis felix Ecclesiae fundamentum c. O happie foundation of the Church in the nuncupation of a new name a rock worthie of the building thereof that is to say of the Church which Rock should dissolue or break the lawes of hell c. Thus far the Cardinall out of S. Hilary to proue that Peter was the foundation and consequently the head of the Church Whereto M. Andrewes answereth thus Ex Hylario felix Ecclesiae fundamentum Petrum out of Hilary the Cardinall obiected that Peter was the happie foundation of the Church Sed inter alia pariter fundamenta but amongst and togeather with other foundations So he Meaning that because all the Apostles are called in the Scriptures foundations of the Church therefore S. Peter was no otherwise the foundation therof then they Wherto I neede not to say any thing heere because I haue largely treated the same point in the third Chapter shewing how the Apostles were called fouÌ„dations of the Church without derogation eyther to Christ who is the first and chiefe foundation or to Peter who is the second immediatly grounded vpon Christ and therefore I remit my Reader thereto 9. And now to go forward with M. Andrewes his answere he addeth the rest of S. Hilaries words thus Dignam aedificatione Christi Petram a Rock worthie of the building of Christ which wordes of Hilary he glosseth thus sed fidei ratione c. but by reason or meanes of fayth sayth Hilary himselfe and not of his person that Peter may depend on the fayth and not the fayth vpon Peter Thus sayth M. Andrews seeking by the help of a lying glosse of his owne to make his Reader belieue that S. Hilary doth so admit S. Peters
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
more shall all men then abound in this gift when God shal be omnia in omnibus all in all Thus discourseth this learned Father to proue that the Saynts after their resurrection videbunt omnia shall see all things with their spirituall eye etiam vnde sunt corpore absentes euen whence they are absent in body 21. And this must needs be vnderstood in lyke manner of glorifyed soules before the resurrection for that the glorification of their bodyes although it shall increase their Ioy and glory yet shall not increase their vision of God or knowledge which they haue now as perfect as they shall haue after their resurrection Finally to omit many other Fathers which might be alledged S. Gregory sayth that it is not to be belieued that quae intus claritatem Dei vident c. the soules which see into the light or brightnes of God are ignorant of any thing that is abroad and againe in another place quia in illa aeterna haereditate c. for as much as in that eternall inheritance all men do see God with a coÌ„mon clarity or brightnes what is there which they cannot know who know him that knoweth all things Thus saith S. Gregory teaching as you see that the Saynts in heauen know all things in earth and yielding the selfe same reason thereof which you haue heard M. Andrews say was inaudita Patribus neuer heard of amongst the Fathers to wit that because they see and know God therefore they see and know all things in him in whome omnia constant sayth the Apostle all things do consist 22. So as howsoeuer the ancient Fathers may haue differed in opinion concerning the manner how the Saynts know things done on earth M. Andrews may see that they agree touching the effect which also is so conforme to reason that he cannot with reason deny it especially seeing he himselfe granteth that the Saynts do pray for vs of their charity loue towards vs. For if they loue vs so that as S. Cyprian saith de nostra salute sunt solliciti they are carefull for our saluation and as M. Andrews confesseth they do indeed pray for vs it must needs be granted that this their loue and care doth include a desire to know our necessityes whereupon it also followeth that they do know themâ— for if their desire should not be satisfyed they should not be so happy and blessed as the perfection of their beatitude doth requyre besides that seeing Almighty God doth glorify them not only in heauen with the visioÌ„ of his Deity but also in earth with many miracles done at their monuments as M. Andrews himselfe confesseth in his answere to a place of S. Basil it were absurd to thinke that they do not know as well the particuler fauours that God doth to men for their fakes as also the honour and glory that redoundeth thereof both to God and them without which knowledge their beatitude as I haue sayd should not be complete 23. Now then seeing that our doctrine that Saynts do heare or vnderstand our prayers is grounded vpon such sure foundations as heere I haue declared to wit the continuall custome and practice of the Church to pray to them the manifest experience of benefits receiued by them the conformity thereof to the holy Scriptures with the vniforme and expresse testimonyes of the Fathers lastly vpon reason it selfe how little reason hath M. Andrews to deny it vpon no better reason then because it is vncertayne in what manner they heare vs especially seeing I haue also euidently proued that the vncertainty of the manner meanes or cause of any thing can nothing derogate from the certaynty of the effect so as he must eyther bring some more solid arguments agaynst prayer to Saynts or els he shall but discouer both his owne imbecillity and the weakenes if his cause 24. And therefore he had reason to seeke some better reason which he doth seeming to put the case that it were true yea most manifest that Saynts do heare our prayers yet ne sic quidem sayth he audemus vota nostra ad illos precesque dirigere we dare not for all that direct our vowes and prayers vnto them and hereof he yieldeth this reason cùm praeceptum â—a de re nullum acceperimus praeceptum autem acceperimus in Lege disertis verbis Quod tibi praecepero hoc tantùm facies We dare not saith he pray vnto them because we haue receiued no precept concerning that poynt but haue receiued a precept in the law in expresse words What I shall command thee that only thou shalt doe So he and then concludeth id tantùm audemus facere c. We dare doe that only whereof we haue a precept Bring you a praecept and we will straight inuocate them with you Thus argueth he 25. And hath he not trow you very well proued now that nothing may be practiced in Gods Church without an expresse written precept Who would thinke that a Doctor of diuinity should haue so litle vnderstanding of the holy Scriptures as to inferre this conclusion vpon the place that he alledgeth which concerneth only the Sacrifyces that God required and commanded to be offred vnto him in the Mosaycall law as it is euident by the very circumstances of the place in the 12. Chapter of Deuteronomy from whence that precept is taken For when Almighty God had admonished the people to beware that they did not imitate the nations whose lands they should possesse in their abominable Sacrifyces saying for all the abhominations that our Lord doth abhorre haue they done to their Gods offering their sonnes and daughters and burning them with fire after this I say followeth immediatly what I command thee that only doe to our Lord neyther adde any thing nor diminish Thus sayd Almighty God as who would say whereas the gentills whose lands thou shalt possesse did worship their Gods with most abominable Sacrifyces and ceremonyes sacrificing their owne children by fire do not thou imitate them therein but offer thou to me in Sacrifice only that which I doe command thee to wit those things which are ordayned and prescrybed in the law to that end 26. And this no doubt is the cleare sense and meaning of those words for if they shal be vnderstood as M. Andrews taketh them to exclude the practice of all things whatsoeuer that were not expressely commanded in the letter of the law then the solmne feasts ordayned afterwards by Mardochaeus Iudith and the Machabees had byn vnlawfull which neuertheles are approued in the Scripture and the last of the 3. to wit the feast of the Dedication instituted by the Machabees was honoured by our Sauiour himself with his preseÌ„ce But let vs put the case that this commandment of Almighty God was generall touching the seruice and worship of God in the old law will M. Andrewes inferre thereupon that