mayntenance of Ecclesiasticall Discipline which Discourse they end with this most humble and submissiue petition Haec sicut propria amica ad decorem conuenientissima dignare complecti Sanctissime Beatissime Pater most holy and blessed Father vouchsafe to imbrace these things as your owne and friendly and most conuenient or fit for good order 73. And afterwards hauing declared that the three Legats of Pope Leo did contradict this Canon they yield this reason thereof Proculdubio say they à vestra Prouidentia inchoari hoc bonum volentes desyring without all doubt that this good should also proceed from your Prouidence vt sicut fidei it a bonae ordinationis vobis deputetur effectus to the end that the effect as well of good order or Ecclesiasticall discipline as of faith may be ascrybed to you In which words it is to be noted that the Councell ascrybed the effect and forcâ— of their determinations not only concerning matters of discipline but also touching matters of faith to the authority especially of Pope Leo to which purpose they also added further that for as much as the Emperour Senate and all the Imperiall Citty desired it and that it seemed also conuenient to the whole Councell yea and that whatsoeuer is well done by the children doth redound to their fathers who account and make the same their owne therefore Rogamus say they tuis decrâ—tis nostrum â—onorâ— iudicium we beseech thee honour also our iudgement with thy decrees sicut nâ—â— capiti in bonis adiecimus consonantiam sic Summitas tua filijs quod decet adimpleat and as we haue yielded conformity on our parts to you our head so let your Highnes fulfill or accomplish to vs your children that which is conuenient Sic enim pij Principes complacebunt c. For so shall the pyousâ— Princes receiue contentment or satisfaction who haue ratified the iudgment of your holynes as a law Sedes Constantinopolitana suscipiâ—t praemiuÌ„ and the Church of Constantinople shall receiue a reward or benefit which Church hath alwayes performed all endeauour towards you to the cause of piety and conioyned it selfe with you to the conseruation of concord and vnity with the same zâ—ale Thus wrote the whole Councell to Pope Leo. 74. And now I report me to M. Andrews himselfâ— though I take him for very partiall in this cause whether any thing could be written in this kind more effectually to shew the beliefe and faith of the whole Councell touching the supreme authority of Pope Leo seeing that they do not only expressely call him their head and themselues his members him their Father and themselues his children but also do aâ—knowledge that he was accustomed to cast forth the light of his Apostolicall beames to the Church of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consuetè soliciti say those Fathâ—rs speaking of him in the plurall number for the reuerend respect they bare him and signifying that his wonted care and authority was so generall that it extended it selfe to the Greeke Church and particulerly to the Church of Constantinople furthermore they testify that the effect of their decrees both in matters of faith and of discipline depended principally on him and therefore do as I may say begge at his hands the confirmation of their Canon in fauour of the Church of Constantinople as a speciall grace benefit and reward foâ— the merits of the sayd Sea towards the Sea Apostolike and this in such earnest and humble manner that it is euident they acknowledged the whole matter to depend on his will to be granted or denyed ratifyed or disanulled by him which also the issue thereof made most manifest seeing that his owne denyall and opposition was sufficient to ouerthrow it as hath bene declared 75. And now I hope M. Andrâ—ws will not say that this is taken out of some corner of a period or some peece of a tytle or fragment of a little clause seeing that this is as he sayd of his Canon the very voyce of the whole Councell being the substance of their publike and generall letter to Pope Leo himselfe which may also be confirmed with their other publike testimonies of their beliefe concerning his authority as that they acknowledged not only that he was successor to S. Peter saying in their generall acclamation to an Epistle of his Petrus per Leonem locutus estâ— Peter hath spoken by Leo but also that he had Peters authority yea and that S. Peter was petra crepido Ecclesiae the rock and toppe of the Church and rectae fidei fundamentum the foundation of the true faith 76. To which purpose it is to be considered that one of the chiefe causes of the assembly of that Councell was to depose Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria which done by the sentence of Pope Leo pronounced by his Legates in these words Sanctissimus Beatissimus Archiepiscopus magnae senioris Romae Leo per nos per presentem sanctam Synodum vnà cum ter beatissimo omni laude digno beato Petro Apostolo qui est petra crepido Ecclesiae ille qui est rectae fidei fundamentum nudauit eum tam Episcopatus dignitate quà m etiam ab omni Sacerdotali alienauit ministerio The most holy and most blessed Archbishop of the elder and great Rome Leo hath depriued him to wit Dioscorus as well of all Episcopall dignity as priestly ministery by vs and this holy Synod togeather with the thrice most blessed and prayse-worthy Peter the Apostle who is the rock and top of the Church and he which is the foundation of the true faith This was the sentence giuen by the Popes Legats against Dioscorus which sentence euery Bishop in the Councell not only approued particulerly with his suffrage or voyce but also confirmed with his subscription as it appeareth in the 3. Action of the sayd Councell 77. Wherein it is to be obserued First that Pope Leo deposed Dioscorus by the Synod whereupon it followeth that he was president and head thereof and that the sayd Synod was but as it were his instrument in that deposition Secondly that he deposed him by the authority which he had as successor to S. Peter in which respect it is sayd here that he did it togeather with the most blessed Apostle Peter Thyrdly that for as much as S. Peter is heere acknowledged to be the head of the Church as being the rock and top thereof and the foundation of the faith the like must needs be granted of Pope Leo who was his successor and exercysed his authority Lastly seeing that this sentence of deposition giuen against Dioscorus in this manner and with these circumstances was receiued particulerly and subscrybed by euery one in that CouÌ„cell without any contradiction or exception taken to any part thereof it is euident that the whole was conforme to the faith and beliefe of the Councell and
S. Peter and his successors For if S. Peter were made head of all the Apostles to whome Christ left the gouernment of his Church it cannot be denied but that he was made head of the Church for who is head of any common welth but he that is head of all those that haue the administration charge and gouernement of it And if the reason why he was ordayned head of the Apostles was to auoyde and preuent the danger of schisme it must needs be granted that so long as the same cause and reason I meane the danger of schisme continueth in the Church so long also the remedy is to continue therin and that the greater the danger is the more necessary also is the remedy whereupon it followeth that seeing the danger of schisme doth and euer shall continue in the Church the remedy also of one head is euer to continue And for as much as the danger of schisme in the Apostles tyme was not so great they being all of them most holy men and particulerly guyded by the holy Ghost as it is andâ— alwayes hath bene euer since Therefore the remedy of one head which our Sauiour ordayned for the same is more necessary now then it was in their dayes yea and was more specially intended by his diuyne prouidence for all ensuing ages after the Apostles tyme then only during their liâ—es 38. Moreouer it being euident in the holy Scriptures that our Sauiour planted his Church to stand to the worlds end it were absurd to say that he ordayned that forme of gouernement vnder one head to last only during the Apostles tyme as though he had lesse care of the vnity of his Church in future ages then in the beginning when as I haue sayd the danger of schisme should be far lesse then it would be afterwards Therfore I conclude that seeing S. Peter was made head of the Apostles and consequently of the whole Church to auoyd schisme M. Andrews can not deny the same authority to S. Peters successors for the same reason especially seeing that our Sauiours prouidence therein is euident to the very eye of euery man that list not to be willfully blynd in that he hath permitted the succession of all the Apostles to fayle in all the Churches where they gouerned excepting only the succession of S. Peter in the Roman Church which he hath miraculously conserued to make it manifest to the world that S. Peter and his chayre as you haue heard out of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome is the Rock whereupon he promised to buyld his Church and that as S. Augustine sayth Ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae that is the Rock which the proud gates of hell do not ouercome 39. Furthermore whereas M. Andrews granteth also that a head appoynted in the Church for the remedy of schisme is to haue so much power as is necessary for that end he must needs consequently grant all that power which we requyre and acknowledge it in S. Peter and his successors to the same end I meane not only a power authority to define decyde coÌ„trouersies without the which no schisme or diuision concerning matter of doctrine can be conueniently compounded but also power and iurisdiction to punish such as do obstinatly infringe and violate the vniâ—ty and peace of the Church for how can the head sufficiently remedy schisme if he cannot punish those which do cause and mayntayne it and if M. Andrews will say that Christ hath therfore left authority to his Church to punish only by excommunication and spirituall censures I must demand of him what remedy the head of the Church can giue thereby when his censures are contemned and specially by an absolute Prince shall he haue then no further power to remedy the inconuenience how then is his power such as M. Andrews himselfe granteth it to be to wit quanta rei satis siâ— cui constitutus est as much as may be sufficient for the thing for the which he was made head that is to say to remedy and take away schisme 40. And who seeth not that the greatest harme that groweth to the Church by schisme commonly is when secular Princes do eyther rayse it themselues or mayntayne it in others Shall not then the head of the Church haue sufficient power to remedy this greatest danger and mischiefe that can hap to the Church Or shall he not haue meanes as well to correct his greatest and most powerfull subiects as the least and meanest Then as I haue sayd in my Supplement the power of the Church should be no better then a cobweb that holdeth the little flyes and letteth go the great ones and consequently the prouidence of Almighty God should be very defectiue in ordayning a head to conserue his Church in vnity and not giuing him sufficient power to performe it which no wyse temporall Prince would do if he should make a Lieutenant to gouerne in any part of his dominions Wherto it may be added that the Lawyers teach that he which granteth iurisdiction is presumed to grant all things necessary for the execution of it which is also conforme to the Philosophers Maxime to wit Qui dat esse dat consequentia ad esse he which giueth a being giueth togeather with it all those things which are consequents thereof or necessarily requyred thereto as I haue amply proued in my Supplement where I haue deduced the necessity of this consequent from the very Law of nature and light of reason 41. Besides that I haue also declared there that he which hath power ouer the soule for the benefit thereof must needs haue also power ouer the body and goods which by the very Law of nature are subiect to the soule and ordayned to serue it and therefore to be disposed by the spirituall Gouernour or Pastor so far forth as is necessary for the saluation of the soule in which respect the Church hath alwayes vsed and still doth to impose not only fasting and other bodily pennance but also imprisonments and pecuniary mulcts vpon her disobedient children when the benefit of their soules and the publick good of the Church doth requyre it which is also vsed by our Aduersaries themselues in their Ecclesiasticall discipline who in their spirituall Tribunals and Courts do punish the disobedient as well by pecâ—niary penalties as by corporall imprisonements Whereupon it followeth that when Princes who are members of the Church do violate the vnion thereof and are incorrigible by excommunication they may be chastised by their supreme head or spirituall Pastor euen in their temporall states so far as shall be necessary for the good of their soules and the benefit of the whole Church for otherwyse the head of the Church should not haue that sufficient power to remedy schismes and other inconueniences which M. Andrews himselfe granteth and it cannot indeed be denied 42. This then being so
thereof though in the whole Church which was to be propagated by them ouer the world the danger of schisme was very great not only in their tyme but also much more afterwards as I haue signifyed before in which respect it was needefull to be preuented by the institution of one head ouer the whole Church and therefore when S. Hierome answering Iouinian saith that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles he meaneth that he was made head of the Church which was represented in them as in the Gouernours thereof for seeing that the obiection of Iouinian which S. Hierome answereth concerned the foundation of the Church vpon S. Peter his answere must needs also concerne the same to which purpose it is to be considered that he denyeth not Iouinians proposition as I haue proued before but explicateth what is tâ—e meaning of super Petrâ—m fundatur Ecclesia signifying that it meaneth nothing els in effect but that Peter was made head of the Apostles which is as much so say as that he was the foundation of the Church or that the Church was founded vpon him because as Cardinall Bellarmine saith very well the foundation in a buylding and the head in a politycall or mysticall body is all one so as S. Peter being made head of the Apostles who represented the Church as Gouernours thereof he was consequently made the head and foundation of the Church and this being so it appeareth that this place of S. Hierome is cleare for vs and directly proueth that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the vniuersall Church 48. And whereas M. Andrews in his glosse vpon S. Hieromes text noteâ—h with a parenthesis that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles not for the keyes saith he or for the foundation which are so much esteâ—med at Rome but to take away the occasion of schisme I know not wâ—at els he impugneth thereby but his owne idle conceipt for no man saith at Rome or any where els for ought I know that S. Peter was made head of the Church for the keyes or for the foundation other wayes then that in receiuing the keyes and being made the foundation of the Church he was made head thereof to take away the occasion of sâ—hisme And this is S. Hiâ—romes doctrine so euident that M. Andrews himselfe is forced thereby to confesse that Sâ— Peter was made head of the Apostles yea and that he had so much power and authority giuen him as was necessary for the preuention and remedy of schisme whereupon all our doâ—trine concerning the Popes authoâ—ity necessarily followeth as I haue shewed so that you see he still pleadeth for vs and well deserueth his fee if not for his good wil yet at least for his paynes in defending our cause against his will FOVRE OTHER PLACES OF THE FATHERS ARE DEBATED And M. Andrews his Answers thereto confuted With a Discouery of notable corruption and falsity in him and of three manifest lyes within litle more then three lynes AND By occasion thereof it is also proued that 8. Popes who liued in S. Augustines tyme had and exercysed an vniuersall and supreme Authority CHAP. IIII. THOV hast seene good Reader in the last Chapter how well M. Andrews hath satisfyed the Cardinalls obiectioÌ„ out of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome and now in this Chapter I will examine his Answers to diuers other places of the Fathers namely of S. Basil and S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine which albeit he pretendeth to answere togeather with the former yet I haue thought good to separate them because I haue alledged them separatly in my Supplement 2. First out of S. Basil the Cardinall an I obiect these words to proue the supremacy of S. Peter ouer the rest of the Apostles Ille beatus qui ceteris praelatus discipulis fuit cui claues regni caelestis commissae That happy or blessed Peter who was preferred before the rest of the disciples to whome the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome were committed c. Hereto M. Andrews answereth thus Ex Basilio ceteris discipulis praelatum Petrum sed an vt esset Monarcha c. The Cardinall obiecteth out of S. Basil that Peter was preferred before the rest of the Disciples but was it to the end that he should be a Monarch is there no other prelacy but of a Monarchy he was preferred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the testimony that was giuen him by Christ as Basil hath there and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blessednes add also if you will that he was preferred in order and place the King doth also attribute the same vnto him yea that he may be the Prince of Apostles yet without a Monarchy Thus saith M. Andrews to the first part of S. Basils place whereto I will say somewhat before I add the rest Heere then you see he graunteth that S. Peter was preferred before the rest of the Apostles in order and place yea and that he was the Prince of the Apostles and forsooth no Monarch 3. But if we consider what he hath graunted in the last Chapter we shall find that he must needs acknowledge him to be a Monarch how much soeuer he mislyke the word for if a Monarch do signify him that is one chiefe Prince and sâ—preme head or gouernour of others not for his owne particuler benefit but for the publike and generall good of those whome he gouerneth for so is a Monarch distinguished from a Tyrant he cannot with any reason deny S. Pâ—ter to be the Monarch that is to say the supreme Prince and head of the Church whome he acknowledgeth togeather with S. Hierome to haue been made by our Sauiour head of the Apostles to preuent and remedy schisme and to haue had not only the precedence of place and order as now he saith but also so much power as suffyced for the conseruation of Vnity in the Church whereupon followeth all that power and authority which we do attribute to S. Peter and his successors as I haue declared briefely in the last Chapter 4. For S. Peter hauing by this commission of our Sauiour authority to ordaine commaund and punish as far as was necessary for the good of the Church it must needs be graunted that he had the power and authority of a Monarch and although M. Andrews had not been forced by â—he euidence of S. Hieromes testimony to grant it yet this very place of S. Basil which he pretendeth heere to answere doth proue it sufficiently signifying as much in effect as S. Hierome teacheth seeing that S. Basil not only saith that Peter was preferred before the rest of the Disciples but also declareth wherein that is to say not in place and order only but in authority also and iurisdiction adding cui claues Regni caelestis commissae sunt to whome to wit Peter the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome were committed giuing to vnderstand that he had by this particuler
they sent Embassadours to Rome to perswade Damasus that it was necessary for the good of the Church that he should pardon the offence of Flauianus for the concord and peace of the people which being graunted by Damasus communione saith Socrates Flauiano ad hunc modum reddita and Flauianus being by this meanes restored to the communion of the Church the people of Antioch were in tyme reduced to concord and vnion with him 64. Whereto Theodoretus addeth that the Emperour Theodosius in the tyme partly of Pope Damasus and partly of his successor Syricius and Anastasius laboured to procure the reconciliation of Flauianus with the sea Apostolick and commaunded him to goe to Rome to answere for himselfe which he promised to doe in the spring following though he did not performe it Finally the Emperour made his peace with the Pope in the end vpon condition that Flauianus should send his Embassadours to Rome which he did saith Theodoretus with a sollemne embassadge of Bishops Priests and Deacons vnder Acacius Bishop of Berroea who was at that tyme a man of great fame whereupon all the Bishops of Aegipt who vntill then would not communicat with him admitted him to their communion So that albeit the Historiographers do differ concerning the tyme when Flauianus was reconcyled with the Pope yet they all agree that he could neuer be fully restored to the peace and communion of the vniuersall Church vntill he had submitted himselfe to the Roman Sea which sheweth euidently that the Bishops of Rome had far greater and more ample authority then M. Andrewes doth affoard them Thus much concerning Damasus 65. And now to come to his successor Syricius it is euident euen in this cause of Flauianus by the testimony of S. Ambrose that his authority extended it selfe to the Greek and Eastern Church no lesse then to the Latin and West Church seeing that in a Synod held at Capua the hearing of Flauianus his cause was committed to Theophâ—lus Bishop of Alexandria and to the Bishop of Aegipt with this limitation as S. Ambrose witnesseth that the approbation and confirmation of their sentence should be reserued to the Roman Sea and the Bishop thereof who was then Syricius In like manner we fynd that his authority was admitted and acknowledged not only in Spayne and France but also in Africk as it may appeare by his Decretall Epistle writteÌ„ to Himerius or Himericus Bishop of Arragon in Spayne in answere of diuers demaunds of his in which epistle he ordayned that those his decrees should be sent by Himerius as well to Carthage in Africk as to Portugal and France and that they should be of no lesse force there and els where then in Arragon 66. To this will I add a testimony of an African Father that liued in the tyme of Siricius to wit of Optatus Bishop of Mileuis who clearely deduceth the primacy of Syricius from the primacy of S. Peter for writing against Parmenian the Donatist and vrging him that he could not deny but that Petrus omnium Apostolorum caput Peter the head of all the Apostles sate first in the Roman chayre wherof he also yieldeth these reasons viz. that in the said chaire vnity might be kept of all men that the rest of the Apostles should not euery one of them defend or callenge to himselfe a single chayre and that he might be held for a Schismatik and a wiked man who should set vp a chaire contra singularem Cathedram against the singular or principall chayre hauing I say vrged this he reckoneth all the Popes from S. Peter to his tyme ending with Syricius and concluding that because the Donatists held not communion with him therefore they could not haue the true Church 67. In this discourse it is manifest that as he acknowledgeth Peter for head of the Apostles and his chayre for the singular and principall chayre so he also acknowledged Syricius for head of all other Bishops and his chayre which was Peters for the principall chayre for otherwyse his argument against the Donatists grounded on Peters supreme authority had ben to no purpose Besids that he saith also a litle after prosecuting the same argument Legimus Principem nostrum c. We read that Peter our Prince receaued the wholsome keyes against the gates of hell c. Vnde est ergo c. How chanceth it then that you stryue to vsurpe to your selues the keyes of the Kingdome who with your audacious presumption do sacrilegiously make warre against the chayre of Peter So he 68. Therefore omitting heere how aptly this may be applyed to M. Andrews and his fellowes as well as to the Donatists that which I wish specially to be obserued is that Optatus being an African acknowledged the same soueraignty in Syricius which he affirmed to be in S. Peter for whereas he calleth him not only the head of the Apostles but also Principem nostrum our Prince it is cleare that the principality and soueraignty of Peter in the tyme of Optatus could not be otherwise vnderstood but in his successor Syricius who consequently was Prince and head of the Church as Peter was 69. The very same is taught also by S. Augustine concerning Pope Anastasius who succeeded Syricius for S. Augustine presseth the Donatists with the same argument that Optatus doth and naming all the Popes vntill his owne tyme he endeth with Anastasius hauing first deriued their lineall succession from S. Peter Cui saith he totius Ecclesiae figuram gerenti c. to whome bearing the figure of the whole Church our Lord sayd Vpon this rock I will buyld my Church wherein it is to be noted that S. Augustine acknowledging the primacy of S Peter in saying that the Church was built vpon him and that he bare the figure of the whole Church which he did not in any other respect but because he was head thereof as I haue proued in the first Chapter of this Adioynder he acknowledgeth the same in his successors and namely in Anastasius whome therefore he draweth by lyneall succession from S. Peter and to this purpose it may be also obserued that elswhere he ascribeth the great prerogatiue of S. Peter to wit his being the rock or foundation whereupon the Church was buylt to his chayre or seat and to the succession of Bishops deriued from him bidding the Donatists reckon the Priests that had succeeded one another in Peters seat and then concluding Ipsa est Petra c. that is the rock which the proud gates of hell doe not ouercome whereby it is euident that S. Augustine acknowledged Anastasius and all other successors of S. Peter for heads of the vniuersall Church seeing he affirmeth them to be the foundation thereof 70. This may be confirmed also by a Canon of an African Synod where it was decreed that letters should be sent to their brethren and fellow-Bishops abroad and especially to the Sea Apostolike to informe
the last Chapter where I also charged as wel M. Andrews as M. Barlow with the euident abuse of this place of holy Scripture in diuers respects and therfore I beseech thee good Reader take paines to reuiew what I haue said there if thou dost not well remember it So as I may now conclude vpon these two reasons of M. Andrews that he is both an ignorant and a corrupt Doctor ignorant in affirming that Moyses laid a way his Priesthood and corrupt in notably abusing the holy Scriptures 43. And whereas he very ofâ— recurreth for the profe of this point to the examples of the Kings in the old Testament I haue sufficiently answered therto in my Supplement where I haue proued first that the law of Moyses did expressely and manifestly giue to the high Preist the supreme authoritie not only in matters of religion but also euen in temporall affaires forasmuch as concerned the decision of doubts and difficult questions Secondly that the Kinges were not at their institution exempt from this law but rather commanded to obserue it Thirdly that the particuler examples which he and others are wont to alledg of Iosua Dauid Salomon Ezechtas and Iosias doe make nothing for their purpose that diuers other examples do clearly proue the contrary And lastly that although it were true that Kings were superiour to Preists in the old law yet it doth not follow theron that they are so now also in the new law as well because the law of Moyses at least the iudiciall and ceremoniall part thereof was wholly abrogated by the law of Christ as also because our Sauiour ordained a new and farr more excellent Preisthood manner of gouernment in his Church which beginning in the Apostles and spirituall Pastors was continued also most euidently in them for 300 yeares without interruption to wit during the paganisme of the Emperours and no new coÌ„mission euer since that tyme knowne to be giuen by Christ to Kings whereby they were authorized to take vpon them the gouerment of the Church 44. So that I am to demaund of M. Andrews as I also did of M. Barlow in my Supplement how and by what Commission the supreme authority in Ecclesiasticall affayres was transferred from the Apostles and their Successors to Kings after they were Christened seeing that they can neyther claime any succession therin from the Kinges of the old law which as I haue said was quite abrogated by Christ nor pretend any new authority giuen theÌ„ in the new lawe it being most manifest that all the texts of Scripture which M. Andrewes or other of our aduersaries doe or can alleage for the spirituall Supremacy of temporall Kinges out of the new Testament do ordeyne obedience to the Pagan Princes that the raigned no lesse then to others which therfore cannot be vnderstood to concerne spirituall matters and much lesse to make them heades of the Church except M. Andrewes will be so absurd to say that the most wicked Emperours Tyberius Caius Claudius and Nero were heades or supreme Gouernours of the Church and that they could commaund and ought to be obeyed in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affayres 45. Now then seeing M. Andrewes neither bringeth nor is able to bring any other proofes then these out of the old or new Testament for the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of Kinges I may well conclude that as he hath great reason to hould it for no matter of faith and therfore not to admit it into his Creed as being neither expressely taught in Scripture nor necessarily deduced from it so I may with no lesse reason aduise him also to put it out of his Pater noster if it be gotten so farre into his bookes seeing it is not so much as probably gathered out of Scripture in which respect also I am to put him in mind of a rule giuen by himselfe in another question to witt that nothing is to be admitted and practised in the Church whereof some precept is not to be shewed in holy Scriptures for so doth he tell vs concerning prayer to Saints saying non audemus vota nostra c. We dare not direct our prayers to Saints because we haue no precept thereof hauing a precept in expresse wordes Quod tibi praecepero hoc tantum facies Thou shalt only do this which I shall command thee wherevpon we dare only doe that whereof we haue a precept 46. Thus sayth he and therefore according to this his owne rule I must now exact of him to shew vs some precept whereby the Kinges spirituall Supremacie is coÌ„maunded or ordeyned in Scripture but this he acknowledgeth sufficiently he cannot do seing he teacheth that we are not bouÌ„d to belieue it as an article of faith but to be perswaded only that it is a truth which he neither could nor as I thinke would say if he could shew any precept or commaundement of it in Scripture And this being so how then dare he and his fellowes admit it into their Church seeing he sayth Id tantùm audemus facere â— we dare only doe that whereof we haue a precept And how can he approue that men should be compelled to sweare it as an vndoubted truth when neuertheles it is no matter of faith by his owne confession nor hath any ground in Scripture as I haue shewed and much lesse is ordeyned and commaunded in Scripture and therefore according to his owne rule not to be admitted practised in the Church and consequently not to be ratified by a solemne Oath for an infallible verity as if it were one of the most important Articles of our Creed 47. But yet let vs examine the matter a litle further sound the depth of M. Andrewes his doctrine coÌ„cerning the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy I doubt not but we shall find that he is neither good English Protestant nor yet a good subiect for if it fall out that his doctrine agreeeth not with the moderne Lawes and Statuts of the Realme he is neither of both seing that according to the doctrine of English Protestants none can be accounted to be of their congregation neither yet a good subiect who belieueth not the Kings Supremacy as it is taught and ordeyned by the Statutes of King Henry the 8. King Edward the 6. and â—he late Queene Elizabeth but this M. Andrewes doth not for he doth not allowe the King any spirituall power at all â—eaching expresly that the King himselfe acknowledgeth non se aliter esse supra Ecclesiam quà m vtâ— nutritius â—utor That he is not otherwise ouer the Church but as a foster-father and defender Which he also explicateth adding vt eam scilicet nutriat tuâ—atur that is to say to the end that he may nouâ—â—sh and defend it to which purpose he also sayd before as you haue heard that the Kings Supremacy is no matter or article of faith becaus it concerneth only externall gouermeÌ„t so
and his want of proofes for the same by the law of Christ. 16. And although as well the ancient Fathers as we do ordinarily produce testimonies of the old Testament not only for matters in controuersy but also for instruction in matters of morality yet neyther they nor we euer do it to other end but to confirme things instituted and taught in the new law by the ordinance and commaundment eyther of Christ or of his spouse the Church and this we do only in respect of the conformity that is in many things betwixt the figure and the Verity I meane betwixt the old law and the new Moyses and our Sauiour Christ the Synagogue and the Church and not to the end to proue any thing to be necessary now because it was ordayned or practised then which were rather a point of Iudaisme then of Christianisme And therefore this and other arguments of M. Andrews grounded only vpon the Iudicial lawes of Moyses may shew him to be rather a Iew then a Christian except he can bring some other ground for the same out of the new Testament or some Apostolicall or Ecclesiasticall Canon or Tradition which he neyther doth nor euer shall be able to do 17. But who seeth not how he tryfleth in this point as cōmonly he doth in all For how doth it follow that if it be true which we teach to wit that Christ made S. Peter supreme Pastour of the Church by cōmaunding him to feed his sheep then he gaue the same spirituall authority to Dauid when he bad him feed his people of Israel Is it not manifest that although the word pasce feed as it was spoken to them both doth signifie to gouerne yet it is Equiuocall being to be vnderstood of a different manner of gouernment in them both that is to say in the one spirituall and in the other temporall what consequence then can he draw from the one to the other except it be this that as when God bad Dauid who as a temporall man to feed his people of Israell which was a temporall people he gaue him temporall authority making him head of a temporall Kingdome So when he bad S. Peter who was a spirituall man a Priest an Apostle and Prince of the Apostles feed his sheep that is to say all the faithfull conteyned within his Sheepfold which is a spirituall congregation he gaue him a spirituall authority and made him supreme Pastor and head of a spirituall Kingdome that is to say of his Church And this no doubt is the most direct inference that can be made of the word Pasce when it is applied in the old Testament eyther to Dauid if we respect him as he was a King and not a Prophet or else to any other temporall Prince 18. And therfore whereas M. Andrewes saith Narro autem Cardinali c. I declare to the Cardinall that the tytle of Pastor was giuen in the holy Scriptures to Princes long before it was giuen to the Bishop and much more often as to Iosue before and more often euery where in the holy-history and in the Prophets This his narration I say is very idle and impertinent seeing it proueth not any thing which we deny but that which we willingly graunt to wit that the words Pascere and Pastor are often applyed in the old Testament to temporall Princes but that they signify spirituall gouernment in them as Kings M. Andrews will not proue in hast and the contrary is manifest inough in Cyrus a Pagan and Idolatrous King whome God called Pastormeus and no man I thinke will be so absurd to imagine that he had any Ecclesiasticall authority or was Head and chiefe member of Gods Church wherof he was no member at all besides that the example which he giueth vs of Iosue out of the booke of Numbers doth not any way help his cause but flatly confound him 19. For albeit in the Chapter which he quoteth to wit the 27 it is declared that God commaunded Moyses to assigne and ordaine Iosue for his Successour in the gouernmēt of the people least they should be like to oues sine Pastore sheep without a Sheepheard yet it is euident there that he was not to haue any authority ouer the High Priest but rather the cleane contrary to wit that he should depend wholy vpon the High Priests direction and therfore wheras Moyses was commaunded there by almighty God to giue part of his glory to Iosue Theodoretus doth very well obserue as I haue noted before in the Supplement that Moyses did distribute his dignity and authority which was both spirituall and temporall betwixt Iosue and Eleazar the High Priest yet in such sort that Iosue should be directed in al his affaires by Eleazar Pro hoc saith the Scripture si quid agendum erit c. For him that is to say Iosue if any thing be to be done Eleazar shall consult the Lord and at his word he to wit Iosue shall go out and in and all the children of Israel with him and all the rest of the multitude Thus saith the holy Scripture wherby it appeareth that albeit Iosue was Pastor populi yet he was but a temporall Pastor or Gouernour and to be directed euen in temporall affaires by the spirituall Pastor Eleazar whome Almighty God did illuminate and instruct in his consultations for the direction of Iosue Now then doth this example prick Cardinal Bellarmine trow you or M. Andrews Truely though he meant to prick the Cardinall yet you see he hath wounded none but himselfe Thus much to his second answere 20. His third is in substance that albeit S. Augustine and S. Cyril haue amply cōmented vpon the Ghospell of S. Iohn and vpon those very words of our Sauiour to S. Peter Pasce oues meas yet neyther of them saith he saw illustrem hunc fidei articulum de primatu Petri temporali this notable article of faith concerning the temporall primacy of Peter c. So he As if the Cardinal did teach or affirme that S. Peters primacy is a temporall primacy which is a meere fiction of M. Andrews to frame matter for himselfe to impugne for seeing the spirituall primacy of S Peter is so euident in the holy Scriptures that he is now then forced to graūt it in some sort yea somtimes as far forth in effect as we demaūd though at at other times he laboureth vtterly to ouerthrow it as I shall haue occasiō to declare more largly her after he wil now needs presuppose that we teach the Popes Primacy to be a temporall primacy why forsooth Marry because the Cardinal as also all the Catholiks do teach that the spirituall authority which our Sauiour gaue S. Peter and his Successors may and doth in some cases extend it selfe to temporall things so far forth as it is or may be necessary for the execution of their spirituall power and for
charge or gouernment of them no lesse then of all inferiour Pastours in Gods Church was coÌ„mitted to him which S. Leo also testifyeth expressely saying that the charge of feeding the sheep of Christ was more specially committed to Peter And in another place that Peter was chosen out of the whole world to haue the chiefe charge of the vocation of the Gentills of all the Apostles and of all the Fathers of the Church vt quamuis in populo multi sunt sacerdotes c. that albeit there are many Priests amongst the people and many Pastors yet Peter may properly gouerne them all quos principalitâ—r regit Christus whome Christ doth also principally gouerne 33. So 〈◊〉 saith this famous holy and ancient Father of whose great authority in Gods Church I haue spoken amply before in answere of M. Barlows blasphemous speaches and exceptions against him and now to conclude though I might add to these Fathers the cleare testimonies of Eusebius Emissenus Theophilactus S. Bernard and diuers others concerning S. Peters prerogatiue in his Pastorall commission aboue the rest of the Apostles yet I will content my selfe with these already cyted not doubting but that they may suffice for answere to M. Andrews his idle cauills where with he meant 〈◊〉 pricke the Cardinall imagining himselfe belike to be the mighty man that shooteth the sharpe arrowes whereof the Psalmist saith Sagittae potentis acutae but you see his sharp shafts do proue to be no better then sagittae paruulorum the shuttlecocks of litle children or rather to say truely to be that fooles bolt which as the Prouerb saith is soone shot wherof Salomon saith sagitta in feâ—ore canis sic verbum in corde stulti as an arrow in the thygh of a dog who neuer can rest vntill it be out so is a word in a fooles hart which truely I would haue forborne to haue said of M. D. Andrews were his folly far more exorbitant then it is if he did not shew so much virulency and malice towards the worthy Cardinall as he doth euery where treating him most iniuriously with such opprobrious and contumelious tearmes that he deserueth to be answered as the Wyseman aduyseth secundum stultitiam suam c. according to his owne folly lest he may thinke himselfe to be wise 34. But let vs now passe to some other matter which shall be a law in the Code beginning inter Claras which law is an Epistle of Pope Iohn the second to Iustinian the Emperour and another of Iustinian to him wherin the Pope is acknowledged to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches This law is cited by me in my Supplement to proue the dutifull respect and obedience of the ancient Emperours shewed to the Apostolicke Roman Sea and to the same purpose it is also alledged by Cardinall Bellarmine in his Apology to whom M. Andrews answereth thus Poterat Cardinalis abstinere à lege inter Claras citanda c. The Cardinall might well haue forborne to cyte the law inter Claras which he knoweth not to be cyted inter Claras leges amongst the cleare lawes but amongst the obscure and counterfait he might also haue abstayned from mentioning Iustinian the Emperour who shewed himselfe to be Superiour to the Pope aliqua ex parte in some part first in Siluerius the Pope and after in Vigilius of whome he banished the former and imprisoned the later So he wherein you see two things affirmed the one that the Cardinall knoweth the law of Iustinian which beginneth inter Claras to be cyted amongst the obscure and counterfait lawes and the other that Iustinian shewed himselfe to be in some part superiour to Popes because he banished Pope Syluerius and imprisoned Vigilius I will briefly examine both these points 35. As for the first truly I cannot but wonder at M. Andrews his confidence and boldnes or rather his impudence so boldly and confidently to affirme as he doth without any proofe in the world that the Cardinall knoweth the foresaid law to be cyted amongst the obscure yea counterfait Lawes wheras the Cardinall knoweth it to be held esteemed not only inter Claras but also inter clarissimas leges amongst the most cleare lawes for so the most famous Lawyer Baldus tearmeth it who vpon this very law maketh this Glosse Clarissima est lex in qua Dominus Imperator c. This is a most cleare law wherin the Emperour writeth to the Pope coÌ„cerning the faith which he professeth So he And this may be confirmed with the authority of Accursius who glosseth it no lesse then all the other Lawes in the Code without making the least doubt or scruple in the world of any obscurity or defect therin 36. But perhaps M. Andrewes will say that it cannot be denyed but that some haue doubted of it and impugned it Whereto I answere that true it is that some heretikes of these latter ages haue either ignorantly or maliciously called it in question of whome the learned and eloquent Lawyer Alciat saith thus Sunt qui suspectam habent Ioannis Pontificis epistolam c. There are some who do suspect Pope Iohns Epistle which is in Iustinians Code vnder the Title De Trinitate and say that it is not found in some books which as I thinke they do in fauour of those who depresse the Popes authority as also I haue found other Authors corrupted by them to the same end to wit the Chronicles of Otho Frisingensis and certaine verses of Ligurinus the Poet. But I do know it to be extant in very many old copyes and that it caÌ„not with any suspicion be impeached and if one or two books haue it not it is to be ascribed to the negligence of the Wryters who somtymes omitted it because they thought that it doth not much concerne the Science of the Law neuerthelesse it is not to be doubted quin genuinus germanusque Ioannis sit foetus but that it is the proper true worke of Pope Iohn Thus saith Alciat who not only testifieth as you see that he had himselfe seene it in very many old copyes but also yieldeth a probable reason why in some other copyes it might be left out 37. I could confirme this also by the testimony of the learned Lawier Cuiacius others if it were needfull as it is not seeing that Pope Nicolas the first of that name who liued aboue 800. years agoe cyteth the Epistle of Iustinian the Emperour to Pope Iohn beginning Reddentes honorem which he saith Iustinian himselfe inserted into his Lawes layeth downe some part of it word for word as it is yet to be seene in the law inter Claras wherof we now treate which law is as I haue already declared an Epistle of Pope Iohn to Iustinian wherin that other of Iustinian cyted by Pope Nicolas is inserted wherby it is
Canon pretended to haue been made some 60. yeares before in the Councell of Constantinople could not serue his turne seeing that the same was neuer sent or intimated by any of his predecessors to the Roman Sea therfore he wished him to remember what Christ threatneth to them who scandalize any one of his litle ones and thereby to consider what he deserueth who feareth not to scandalize so many Churches and Priests Finally he exhorteth him to leaue his ambitious desires concluding with this sentence of the Apocalyps Tene quod habes ne alius accipiat coronam tuam hold that which thou hast lest another take thy Crowne for si inconcessa quaesieris c. if thou seeke saith he those things that are vnlawfull thou shalt depriue thy selfe of the peace and vnion of the vniuersall Church by thy owne work and iudgement So he And dost thou not see good Reader what an humble suppliant Pope Leo was to Anatolius If one should write a letter to M. Andrewes in this style and forme would he take it trow you for a supplication 34. But now let vs see what effect it had and whether it was in vayne or no as M. Andrews affirmeth of it This will be euident by the epistles of Pope Leo to Iulianus Bishop of Coa to the Emperour and to Anatolius himselfe To the Bishop he signifieth that the Emperour had written vnto him interueniens saith he pro Anatolio vt nostri illi animi gratia praebeatur quoniam correctionem eius promittit c. Requesting in the behalfe of Anatolius that we will bestow vpon him the grace or fauour of our affection because he promiseth his amendment c. So that you see now Iordanis conuersus est retrorsum for whereas Pope Leo according to M. Andrewes his assertions was a suiter both to the Emperour and to Anatolius the Emperour is now become a suiter to Pope Leo for Anatolius which will yet more cleerly appeare by another Epistle of Pope Leo to the Emperour himselfe wherein he promised that Anatolius should find in him sincerae gratiae animum an affection of sincere grace or fauour in case he followed sincerely the Emperours aduise and counsell and performed in hart that which he promised in words for that otherwyse he would resolutly proceed agaynst him to chastise him for his pryde wherby it is euident that the Emperour had written to Pope Leo in the behalfe of Anatolius and that Pope Leo would not otherwise promise him his grace and fauour but vpon condition of his harty repentance and sincere amendment 35. And will you now see all this confirmed by Pope Leo's letters to Anatolius himselfe Therfore wheras Anatolius had written a letter of submission to him not only acknowledging his fault in that attempt but also yielding him an account of the state of his Church of Constantinople Pope Leo answering the same first commended greatly certayne predecessors of Anatolius to wit Iohn Atticus Proclus and Flauianus exhorting him to imitate them and blaming him by the way for his scandalous attempts and hauing also signified how glad he was to vnderstand by his letters that he had reformed certayne abuses in the Church of Constantinople he gaue him order withall to make two priests called Andreas and Euphratas and to admit some others to Ecclesiasticall dignities vpon certayne conditions which he prescribed him and lastly comming to speake more particulerly of his presumptuous attempt he saith that whereas he layd the fault vpon the euill counsell and perswasions of the Clergy of Constantinople who vrged him vnto it he might haue giuen better satisfaction if he had also blamed his owne consent thereto and not haue layed the fault vpon others neuertheles saith he gratum mihi frater charissime est c. It is gratfull to me most deare brother that you professe now to be displeased with that which then also should not haue pleased you Your owne profession togeather with the attestation of the Christian Prince is sufficient for our reconciliation neyther doth your correction or amendement seeme to me to be ouerlate or out of season cui tam venerabilis assertor accessit who haue so venerable a surety 36. Thus wrote Pope Leo to Anatolius whereby it appeareth that M. Andrews saying that he did by his letters intercedere frustrà apud Augustum Augustam Anatolium hath in two words made two lyes the one in intercedere for that the Pope made no intercession or suite especially to Anatolius but was sued vnto by the Emperour in his behalfe The other in frustrà for though it should be granted that the Pope made suite yet it was not in vayne And therefore if M. Andrews should seeke to quit himselfe of one of the lyes by saying that he tooke intercedere for to make opposition and not intercession yet he cannot rid himselfe of the other lye which is a sound one seeing that Pope Leo's opposition was so far from being in vayne that it brought Anatolius as I may say vpon his knees and forced him to humble and submit himselfe to acknowledge his fault to promise amendment yea to procure the Emperour to be a suiter and intercessor for him and finally to receiue and execute Pope Leo's commandments lawes and ordinances in the Church of Constantinople as though he had bene some Italian Bishop within the Suburbs of Rome So that I hope thou seest good Reader that I haue now clearely proued 2. things The one that M. Andrews hath sought notoriously to delude thee in telling thee that Pope Lâ—o contradicted this Canon in vayne The other that the Emperour and the whole Christian world had at that tyme a firme beliefe of the supreme authority of Pope Leo ouer the Councell of Calcedon and the whole Church of God seeing that his only opposition to this Canon sufficed to ouerthrow it 37. Whereupon it also followeth that although it were true which M. Andrews most falsely and absurdly affirmeth to wit that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon meant by this Canon to make the Byshoprik of CoÌ„stantinople equal in all respects with the Apostolicall Sea of Rome yet it little importeth yea rather maketh for vs then for M. Andrews seeing that the Câ—non was as I haue shewed preseÌ„tly ouerthrowne and â—ade voyd by the authority of the Roman Séa and that â—ot only Anatolius himselfe who procured it acknowledged his errour therin but also as well he as other Catholike Bishops his successors liued in the vnion and subiection of the sayd Roman Church as I haue sufficiently shewed by the experience and practise euen of the Greeke Church vntill it was vtterly ruined by the Turks 38. Therefore it shall be now conuenient to see how well M. Andrews answereth and satisfyeth the places alledged by the Cardinall and my selfe out of the Councell of Calcedon whereby I shall also haue occasion to confute certayne reasons of his which he further vrgeth out
M. Andrews his first question or doubt is sufficiently solued to wit How far the power of the head whereof S. Hierome speaketh doth extend that is to the direction gouernement yea and chastisment when occasion requyreth of all his inferiour members of what degree soeuer and consequently of Kings and Princes so far forth as shal be needfull for the coÌ„seruation of vnity in the Church and that therefore when only excommunication will not suffice to reduce them to vnity and obedience the head may extend his spirituall power to chastise them in their bodyes goods and states as far as shall be conuenient for the good of soules and the glory of God whereto all mens temporall states goods lands and lyues are principally ordayned 43. And now to come to his other question concerning the mumber which this head may gouerne to auoyd and remedy schisme let M. Andrews well ponder what he hath already granted and of this there will be no doubt at all For if Peter was head of the Apostles as S. Hierome teacheth and M. Andrews confesseth then consequently he was head of as many in number as were subiect to them which was no lesse then all the world whereof they had the spirituall charge and gouernement in which respect the Royall Prophet sayth of them and their successors pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filij c. For thy Fathers children are borne vnto thee thou shalt ordayne them to be Princes ouer all the earth So saith the Prophet of the Apostles of Bishops who succeed them in their charge and are therfore Princes Gouernours of the Church as S. Augustine S. Hierome and other Fathers expound this place which therefore is verified especially in the Apostles who being the Princes and Gouernours of the Church did not only plant but also propagate throughout the world in their owne tyme according to the commission and commaundment of our Sauiour who sayd vnto them Euntes in vniuersum mundum c. Going into the vniuersall world preach the Ghospell to euery creature which also the Royal Prophet fore-told of them saying In omnem terram exiuit sonus eorum c. The sound of them went forth into all the earth and their words into the bounds thereof 44. Seeing then the Apostles were Gouernours of the whole Church and yet subiect to S. Peter as to their head it must needs be granted that he was supreme head and gouernour of the whole Church propagated and dispersed throughout the world vnder their gouerment for which cause S. Chrysostome saith with great reason not only of all the Apostles in generall that they were to haue orbis terrarum curam the charge of all the world but also much more of S. Peter in particuler That Petro Apostolo orbis terrarum Ecclesiae the Churches of all the world and the multitudes of people were to be committed to Peter the Apostle and therefore euen in the former place where he saith that the Apostles were to receiue of Christ the charge of the world he acknowledgeth that S. Peter was Princeps Apostolorum vertex totius coetus the Prince of the Apostles and the top or head of all their congregation and that Christ committed vnto him curam fratrum the charge of his brethren that is to say of the Apostles and finally that Christ recommended vnto him orbis terrarum curam the charge of the whole world Finally comparing S. Iames the Apostle with S. Peter in the same place by the way of obiection demanding why then Iames was made Bishop of Hierusalem and not Peter he answereth Hunc totius orbis magistrum praeposuisse that our Sauiour preferred Peter to be the Maister of the whole world giuing to vnderstand that whereas S. Iames was only Bishop of Hierusalem and the Countries adioyning as also the other Apostles had euery one of them some part of the world allotted vnto him to gouerne S. Peter had the charge of the whole 45. By all which it is euident that albeit the Apostles had the gouerment of all the Church yet they were but subordinate to S. Peter who had a commission peculiar and singular to himselfe which was to haue the care charge and gouerment of them as well as of all others subiect to them So that his power and authority was wholy independant on them wheras theirs must needs depend of him as of their immediate head vnder our Sauiour whereby it may appeare what an idle head M. Andrews hath to exclude no lesse S. Peter then euery other particuler man from the gouerment of the whole Church for no better reason then lest he might become heterochtum cuput an extrauagant head or perhaps proue a Tyrant through the excesse eyther of power or of the number of subiects wherein he sheweth himselfe no lesse prophane then absurd attributing as it seemeth no force or effect to our Sauiours promise of his continuall assistance to his Apostles and Church for euer besides that he erreth grosâ—ely if he make the multitude of subiects a noticeâ— or cause of Tyranny it being euident that the greater the number of the subiects is the greater also is the difficulty to oppresse them by Tyranny and the greater the feare and danger to attempt it 46. And therefore we see more frequent tyranny in small States then in great Monarchies and when great Monarches are Tyrants they commonly exercyse their Tyranny vpon some part of their Dominions and not vpon the whole whereas a small State contayning a few subiects is easily Tyrannized vniuersally so that the multitude of subiects is not properly a motiue but rather a brydle to Tyranny though it is properly a cause of schisme when they are not gouerned by one head which M. Andrews acknowledgeth sufficiently when he confesseth that one head is necessary to take away the occasion of schisme amongst twelue or some other small number for if that be true then the greater the number is the greater is the danger of schisme if they haue many heads independant one of another whereupon it followeth that one supreme head is most necessary for the whole Church coÌ„sisting of an innumerable multitude of the faithfull dispersed throughout the whole world who being all visible members of one visible body could not possibly be conserued long in vnity if they had not one visible head whome they were all bound in conscience to obay as I haue shewed more at large in my Supplement euen by the testimony of M. Barlow himselfe 47. For which cause not only S. Cyprian as you haue heard before in this Chapter but also S. Hierome in this place teacheth with great reason that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles to auoyde and remedy the schismes which might grow not so much amongst them as in the whole Church for in them after they had receiued the holy Ghost there was no danger
cōmission of the keyes a particuler Iurisdiction more then the rest in respect whereof he was Boatus happy or Blessed and preferred before the rest 5. Whereby it may appeare how vainly M. Andrews seeketh to elude the force of this place by that which he addeth saying Nam claues ei commissas quis dubitat c. for who doubteth that the keyes were committed to him but whether the same was done in his person or in the person of the Church Basil doth not declare heere but Augustine doth in many places So he as though S. Basil did not sufficiently explicate himselfe and shew that S. Peter had by the keyes a greater iurisdiction then the other Apostles for els to what purpose did he add that the keyes were committed to him but to shew how and wherein he was Blessed and preferred before the rest And whereas M. Andrews sayth that Augustine declareth in many places that the keyes were giuen him in the person of the Church and not in his owne I haue sufficiently shewed the vanity of this euasion in the first Chapter of this Adioynder where I haue euidently proued out of S. Augustine himselfe that S. Peter receaued the keyes and Pastorall authority for the Church no otherwyse but as the supreme head and Gouernour thereof in which respect he represented the person of the whole Church wherein consisteth his preheminence preferment before the rest wherof S. Basil speaketh So that you see M. Andrews hath said nothing to any purpose in answere of the place of S. Basil. 6. Now then let vs see what he saith to a place of S. Gregory Nazianzen obiected as well by the Cardinall as by me Vides sayth he quemadmodum c. Thou seest how amongst the Disciples of Christ all of them truely great and high and worthy to be chosen this to wit Peter is called a Rocke and hath the foundations of the Church committed to his charge c. Thus saith this ancient and holy Father whereto M. Andrews answereth thus Ex Nazianzeno Petrum Ioannem aliquo prae ceteris priuilegio donatos c. Out of Nazianzen he obiecteth that Peter and Iohn had some priuiledge more then the rest Peter that he had a new name taken from a Rock and that Iohn was beloued more then the rest and might layne vpon Christs brest and the rest of the Apostles did not take it ill what was there heere singular in Peter more then in Iohn and therefore there is eyther heere no Primacy or els a double Primacy So he 7. Wherein thou mayst easily see good Reader how he paltreth and iuggleth if thou notest well the obiection and how he answereth it partly dissembling those very words which most import and partly seeking to blynd the Readers eyes with the mention of a priuiledge giuen to S. Iohn which indeed is also related in that place by S. Gregory Nazianzen but nothing at all preiudiceth the far greater priuiledge of S. Peter I meane his supreme authority signifyed by S. Gregory in the words obiected by the Cardinall For when S. Gregory saith that Peter was called a Rock and had Ecclesiae fundamenta fidei suae credita the foundations of the Church committed to his charge what els doth he affirme therein but that the Church was buylt vpon Peter as vpon a Rock and that the charge or gouernment thereof was giuen more particulerly to him then to the rest For if M. Andrews will say heere as he is wont that they were all foundations and gouernours of the Church alike why was he called a Rock more then they or what was the priuiledge of Peter whereof Nazianzen speaketh heere according to M. Andrews his owne confession who graunteth that Nazianzen testifieth that Peter and Iohn were aliquo priuilegio prae ceteris donati priuiledged in some things aboue the rest 8. Therefore if M. Andrews will allow any particuler priuiledge to S. Iohns layning vpon Christs brest as he must needs do for I thinke he will not be so absurd to say that the same is also to be vnderstood of all the rest he must needs graunt that Peter had also a particuler priuiledge not only in the name of a Rock but also in that which was signifyed thereby that is to say in that the foundations of the Church were committed particulerly to his charge as Nazianzen speaketh by which Metaphore he signifyeth sufficiently that S. Peter was made supreme Gouernour of the Church as hath bene declared heretofore and therfore those words of Nazianzen atque Ecclesiae fundamenta fidei suae credita habeat wherein consisteth the force of the obiection seemed to M. Andrews as sore as a byle and not to be toucht in his answere though he set it downe in his margent togeather with the rest of the Cardinalls text 9. But what shall we say of his absurd inference or conclusion when he saith that because a priuiledge was giuen to Iohn as well as to Peter therefore there was eyther nullus or duplex primatus a double primacy or none at all Shall we thinke so great a Doctour as M. Andrews to be so simple as not to see how impertinently he try fleth therein For what coherence is there betwixt those two priuiledges wherby he should make that inference in them both especially seeing that he himselfe will I am sure deny one part thereof to wit the double primacy no lesse then we and the other part is also sufficiently contradicted not only by S. Hierome but also by himselfe as I haue shewed amply in the last Chapter where I haue declared how S. Hierome answered Iouinians obiection that the Church was founded vpon Peter and not vpon Iohn by occasion whereof S. Hierome teacheth that although Iohn was more fauoured and beloued of our Sauiour then the rest of the Apostles for his Virginity yet Peter was preferred before him in the primacy being made head of them all to take away the occasion of schisme and thereby ouerthroweth this his inference of a double primacy or none 10. For if Peter were head of the Apostles he was also head of the Church and consequently there was one primate or head and not two notwithstanding that Iohn layned vpon Christs brest and was more beloued of Christ then the rest so as M. Andrews doth notably contradict himselfe besides that he argueth as wisely as if he should say that when his Maiesty sheweth more particuler fauour and affection to any man then to my L. of Canterbury he maketh eyther two Primates of England or none at all Whereby thou mayst see good Reader what an absurd and as I may tearme it a sleeueles answere he hath made heere to the place of S. Gregory Nazianzen 11. After this there followeth another place of the Cardinall taken out of S. Chrysostome which I haue also obiected in my Supplement The words layd downe by the Cardinall are these Sanctus Ioannes Chrysostomus ho. 55. in
Matthaeum c. S. Iohn Chrysostome in his 55. homily vpon Matthew saith Christ made Peter Pastor of his future Church And a litle after God alone can graunt that the future Church shall remayne immouable notwithstanding so many and so great waues of persecution violently breâ—â— in vpon it of which Church a fisherman and of meane parentage is the Pastor and head c. Heere we read expressely that Peter was head of the Church Thus far the Cardinall 12. Heereto M. Andrews answereth thus Ex Chrysostomo Cuius Pastor caput homo piscator c. Out of Chrysostome he obiecteth thus Whereof the Pastour and head was a fisherman but these words whereof the pastor and head are crept into the text and added in the Latin in fauour of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he meaneth the Pope for they are not in the Greeke where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fisherman but the word head appeareth no where nor in that place so much as Pastor albeit no man will deny that Peter was pastor of the Church yea and a chiefe or principall pastor but yet a pastor togeather with other Pastors his fellow-Apostles and not alone without others c. So he wherein you see he taketh exception to the words cuius pastor caput which he saith are not in the Greeke Whereto I answere that put the case they be not now in the Greeke copies which M. Andrews hath seene yet it litle importeth seeing that the latin translatour found them as it is most probable in the Greeke copie which he followed and that S. Chrysostome saith as much in effect as well in the same homily as in other places 13. Whereby it is euident that it is conforme to his doctrine and not added in fauour of the Pope as M. Andrews would haue his Reader to suppose For S. Chrysostome saith in the same homily Petrus Apostolorum os vertex cùm omnes interrogati essent solus respondit c. Peter the mouth head of the Apostles wheÌ„ they were all asked answered alone c. In which words S. Chrysostome doth plainly acknowledge S. Peter to be head of the Church seeing that he called him head of the Apostles And in the same place alledged by the Cardinall hauing said that a poore fisherman by the power and vertue of Christs graunt surpasseth in strength aâ—d solidity the nature of the dyamond he preferreth him far before Hieromy the Prophet saying that whereas Almighty God made Hierâ—my like a pillar of yron and a brazen wall and gaue him power and authority ouer one Nation hunc autem vniuerso terrarum orbi Christus praeposuit Christ gaue him to wit Peter power and authority ouer the whole world So he 14. And because M. Andrews will be like heere to fly to his common place and to say that all the Apostles had power and authority ouer the whole world as well as S. Peter and that therefore this comparison of him with Hieremy proueth not that he had any more authority then the rest of the Apostles M. Andrews must consider that S. Chrysostome cannot heere meane that his authority ouer the whole world was no other then that which the other Apostles had seeing he hath taught before in the same homily that he was their head and I thinke M. Andrews will not be so absurd to say that the authority of the head and of the members is all one besides that S. Chrysostome teacheth most clearely els where that S. Peter was head not only of the Apostles but also of the whole Church as it may appeare by that which I haue alledged out of him to that purpose both in the first and also in the precedent Chapter of this Adioynder 15. Whereto I will now add a most cleare testimony thereof out of his learned Commentary vpon the Acts of the Apostles where discoursing vpon the election of Matthias the Apostle in the place of Iudas and particulerly vpon those words Et in diebus illis surgens Petrus he noteth not only the fauour of Peter but also his authority ouer the rest as ouer the flock committed to his charge Quà m est feruidus saith he quà m agnoscit creditum à Christo gregem c. How feruent is Peter how well doth he acknowledge the flock committed to him by Christ Loe how he is Prince in this company or congregation and euery where beginneth first to speake c. 16. And againe afterwards prosecuting the same matter he sayth Quid an non licebat ipsi eligere Licebat quidem maxime c. What and was it not lawfull for him to choose Matthias Yes truely it was most lawfull but he did it not because he would not seeme to gratify any Also againe after a while he saith thus Primus hic Doctorem constituit c. he to wit Peter did first heere make a Doctor he said not we are sufficient to teach c. quamquam autem habebat ius constituendi par omnibus tamen haec congruenter fiebant c. Albeit he had as much authority to appoynt him as they all yet this was done very conueniently So he giuing to vnderstand that notwithstanding Peters absolute power to choose Matthias himselfe alone yet out of prudence he determined rather to do it by the generall consent of all the Apostles which he also signifyed no lesse plainly afterwards in these words Meritò primus omnium c. he doth worthily first of all the rest vse or exercyse his authority in this busines as one that had all the rest in his hand or power for to him Christ sayd tu aliquando coÌ„uersus confirma fratres tuos and thou being sometyme conuerted confirme they brethren 17. All this saith S. Chrysostome concerning the the election of Matthias the Apostle whereby it appeareth playnly that he held S. Peter to be head of the Apostles and of the whole Church seeing he teacheth not only that he was the Prince in that Congregation but also that he had as much authority to make an Apostle as they all and might haue done it of himselfe if he had thought it fit and conuenient because he had them all in his hand So as it is cleare that when S. Chrysostome in the 55. homily vpon Matthew which the Cardinall alledgeth calleth S. Peter verticem Apostolorum the head of the Apostles and saith that Christ made him power of the Church and that he gaue him authority ouer the whole world he meaneth and teacheth manifestly that he was supreme head and Pastor of the vniuersall Church which is the same in substance and effect that those words Cuius pastor caput do signify 18. Therefore the doctrine being S. Chrysostomes as well in that homily alledged by the Cardinall as els where and the words also themselues which perhaps may be wanting in some Greeke copie being extant as they are cyted by the Cardinall in all our Latin translations it
Anastasius who then was Pope how necessary it was for the Church of Africk that such Donatists as being Clergy men should returne to the vnity of the Catholike Church might be receiued and admitted without preiudice to their former dignityes if the Catholike Bishops that should receiue them should thinke it conuenient notwithstanding a Decree made to the contrary before in another Synod held beyond the seas whereby it appeareth that notwithstanding the great need which the AfricaÌ„ Church had of this decree as they signifyed yet they would not ordayne it without his knowledge and consent or rather as it seemeth they expected his leaue and order to do it and no meruail seeing that in other Synods and namely in the next following in the tyme of his immediate successor Innocentius of whome I am now to treat the African Bishops craued confirmation of their decrees from the Sea Apostolike vt statutis say they nostrae mediocritatis etiam Apostolicae Sedis adhibeatur auctoritas c. That the authority of the Sea Apostolike may also be added to the statutes of our mediocrity to conserue the saluation of many and to correct the peruersity of some 71. Thus wrote they to Pope Innocentius giuing clearely to vnderstand not only that the validity of their decrees depended vpon his confirmation but also that the conseruation of the faithfull in the true faith and the correction of peruerse and obstinate heretiks did specially belong to his care and proceed from his authority This will further appeare by another Epistle written to the same Pope Innocentius by them in another Synod held at Mileuis as also by his answere to them Thus then they wrote Quia te Dominus gratiae suae praecipuo munere in Sede Apostolica collocauit c. Because our Lord hath by his speciall guift of his grace placed thee in the Apostolicall seat and ordayned thee to be such a one in these our tymes that we should rather coÌ„mit the fault of negligence if we should conceale from thy Reuerence those things that are to be suggested for the Church then that thou canst eyther disdayne them or contemne them therefore we beseech thee to vse and apply thy Pastorall diligence to the great dangers of the weaker members of Christ c. So they whereby they shewed sufficiently their opinion concerning as well the worthynes of his person as his Pastorall power and authority ouer all the members of Christ as it will more euidently appeare by his answere whicâ— was this 72. Diligenter congruè Apostolico consulitis honori c. You do diligently and conueniently prouyde for the Apostolicall honour I meane the honour of him who besides other intrinsecall things hath the sollicitude or care of all Churches to declare what sentence is to be held in doubtfull matters wherein truely you follow the rule that you know hath bene kept with me alwayes throughout the whole world c. So he and a litle after he saith further that as often as there is question of matter of faith all Bishops ought to referre all that which is for the generall good of the Church honourâ— giuing to vnderstand that all Episcopall honour and dignity and other Ecclesiasticall authority proceedeth immediatly from the visible head of the Church vnder Christ that is to say S. Peter and his successors and that therefore the coÌ„demnation of heresyes determination of all doubts in faith ought to be expected and required specially from them 73. And to the end that M. Andrews may know that Pope Innocentius did not in this vrge his owne Apostolicall authority more then S. Augustine and the other African Bishops approued I wish him to read an Epistle of S. Augustine and Alypius where hauing sayd that relations were sent ex duobus Concilijs Cathaginensi Mileuitano ad Apostolicam sadem from the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the Sea Apostolike they add afterwards concerning the answere of Pope Innocentius ad omnia illa rescripsit â—o modo quo fas erat atque oportebat Apostolicae sedis Antistitem he to wit Innocentius wrote backe or answered to all things in such sort as was conuenient and as the Bishop of the Apostolike Sea ought to do So they approuing as you see not only the substance and matter of his Epistle but also his Apostolicall manner of writing acknowledging it to be fit for a man of his Apostolicall dignity So that it appeareth as well by the Epistle of the African Bishops to Pope Innocentius as also by his answere to them and their approbation thereof that the Bishops of Rome in those dayes had and exercysed a supreme authority in the confirmation of Synods resolution of doubts and condemnation of heresyes and heretikes 74. Whereof there occurred at that tyme a notable example in the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy for although the African Bishops did particulerly condemne it in their prouinciall Synods which could not prescrybe lawes to the whole Church yet the generall and vniuersall condemnation thereof throughout the world proceeded from the authority of the Sea Apostolyke and the seuerall sentences of the two Popes Innocentius an Zosimus which they signifyed in their letters not only to the Bishops of Africk but also to all Bishops vniuersally in respect of the vniuersall care and authority they had ouer the whole Church And therefore S. Augustine saith that the heretikes Pelagius Celestius were toto Christiano orbe daÌ„nati condÌ„ened throughout all the Christian world by the vigilaÌ„cy of the Episcopall Synods of Africk etiaÌ„ à Venerabilibus Antistitibus Apostolicae sedis Papa Innocentio Papa Zosimo and by the venerable Bishops of the Apostolick Sea Pope Innocentius and Pope Zosimus 75. Thus saith S. Augustine which his great friend Possidius Bishop of Calama who wrote his life confirmeth and explicateth notably signifying that the 2. Popes InnoceÌ„tius and Zosimus did at the great instance of the Councell of Africk cut off the Pelagians from the members of the Church and by letters directed to the Churches as well of Africk as of the East and West iudge them to be held as accursed and to be auoyded of all Catholikes Et hoc tale saith he de illis Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae pronuntiatum iudicium etiam pijssimus Imperator Honorius audiens sequens c. and the most pious Emperour Honorius hearing and following this such a notable IudgmeÌ„t of the Catholike Church of God pronounced against them condemned them by his lawes and ordayned that they should be held for heretikes So he wherein three things are specially to be noted The first that the Pelagian heresy was condemned vniuersally by the authority of the Sea Apostolike to wit by the sentence of the Popes Innocentius and Zosimus signified by their letters not only to the Churches of Africk but also to all other Churches in which respect S. Augustine also in his foresaid Epistle to Optatus
did aske the Bishop with great reason whether he agreed with the Roman Church sciebat enim Episcopum tum Romae Catholicum for he knew that the Bishop of Rome then was a Catholike So he wherin he granteth consequently that the Pope is supreme and vniuersall Pastor of the whole Church for that must needes follow of his grant seeing it is euident that he who then was Bishop of Rome and whom he alloweth for Catholik had and exercised a supreme and vniuersall authority to which purpose it is to be considered who was Bishop of Rome at that time wherto M. Andrewes himselfe giueth vs no small light signifying presently after that Liberius was Bishop a litle before him and sure it is that Damasus succeeded Liberius and reygned many yeares who therefore must needes be the Catholike Bishop that M. Andrewes meaneth 30. Now then what authority Damasus had and exercised during his raigne it appeareth sufficiently by that which I signified before concerning him and his supremacy in the 4. Chapter where I shewed that the same was acknowledged not only in Affrick by the Byshops of 3. African Synods who in a commoÌ„ Epistle to him gaue cleare and euident testimony thereof but also in the East Church euen by the chief Patriarkes therof to wit by Peter the holy Bishop of Alexandria who immediately succeeded Athanasius and being expelled from his Church by the Arians fled to Pope Damasus and by the vertue and authority of his letters was restored to his seat as the Magdeburgians themselues do relate out of the Ecclesiasticall histories And in the Church of Antioch his authority was acknowledged by Paulinus Byshop therof receiuing instructions and orders from him for the absolution of Vitalis the Heritick Also afterwards Theopilus Byshop of Alexandria and S. Chrysostome Byshop of Constantinople were suters to him to obtain pardon for Flauianus Byshop of Antioch as may be seene more particulerly in the fourth Chapter of this Adioynder where I haue also set downe the cleer testimonies of some Fathers who liued at the same time and euidently acknowledged his supremacy 31. So that M. Andrewes granting that Pope Damasus was a Catholike Bishop and that the Church of Rome was in such integrity vnder him that S. Ambrose had reason to hold none for Catholickes but such as held vnion therewith It mâ—st needs follow that the supreme and vniuersall authority which Pope Damasus had and vsed was not vsurped but due to him his Sea and consequently to his successors And wheras M. Andrewes signifieth that the Roman Church and Bishops were not alwaies in the like integrity that they were at that time to wit neither a little before in the time of Liberius nor shortly after in the time of Honorius because both of them subscribed to heresy as he saith I will not now stand to debate that point with him both because I should digresse too much from the matter in hand hauing here vndertaken to shew what he granteth in fauour of Catholicks not to disproue what he denieth or affirmeth otherwise as also because he may see those old and stale obiections fully answered by the Cardinall himself in his CoÌ„trouersies not only concerning those two Popes but also touching all the rest whom our aduersaries were wont to calumniate in like manner and therfore I remit him therto 32. There followeth presently after a large and liberall grant of M. Andrews right worth the noting For wheras the Cardinall still prosecuteth the same matter touching the application of the name Catholicke to the Roman Church and hauing produced the precedent authority of S. Ambrose remitteth his Reader for further proofe therof to the last page of his former Booke which was his Answere to the Apology for the Oath it is to be vnderstood that in the said book and page he proueth by the authority of 3. Ancient Fathers to wit Pacianus S. Cyrill and S. Augustine that the name Catholike is a most true and proper note of the true Church and that it could neuer be vsurped by Hereticks yea and that our aduersaries themselues namely in the Apology for the Oath do so call vs and distinguish vs from themselues by that name and do consequently acknowledge vs to be members of the true Church whereto M. Andrews answereth thus Nam quae in extrema pagina c. For as for those things which the Cardinall wrote in the last page of his former booke and would gladly haue his Reader to see fatemur omnia we graunt and acknowledge them all So he Whereby he granteth that we being called Catholiks euen by our aduersaries themselues haue the true signe note of the true Church and are therefore true members thereof and that he and his fellowes who haue not the same note are Heretikes or Schismatiks For this is in effect the ArgumeÌ„t of the Cardinall grounded vpon the authority of the Fathers aforesayd which you see M. Andrews graunteth saying fatemur omnia 33. And albeit he seeketh presently an euasion by a distinction yet it helpeth him nothing for thus he saith Nec de nominis honore lis vlla sed vtri è re magis nomen habeant neyther is there any contention betwixt vs about the honour of the name but whether of both haue the name deriued from the thing So he allowing vs as you see the honor of the name for the which he saith they do not contend with vs and calling in question only to whome belongeth the thing signified by that name whereas neuertheles it is euident that according to the authorities alledged and vrged by the Cardinall out of the Fathers the name and the thing expressed by the name do alwaies so coÌ„cur that they are neuer separated for which cause those Fathers do hold and teach that the very name and word Catholyke is an euident note to distinguish the true Catholike faith and Church from the false doctrine and Congregation of Heretickes which they could not do if some might haue only the name Catholike and others the faith or Church which it signifieth 34. And therefore S. Augustine in the place alledged by the Cardinall saith that the very name Catholike held him in the Catholike Church quod saith he non sine causâ— inter tot haereses ista Ecclesia sola obtinuit which name this Church only hath obteyned amongst so many heresies not without cause So saith S. Augustine whereto the other Fathers which the Cardinall also cyteth do agree all teaching that heretikes or hereticall congregations neuer did or could vsurpe the name Catholike but that the same hath alwayes been and euer shall be peculiar to the true Church wherby they teach euidently that the name and the thing signified by the name do euer concur So as M. Andrews granting not only the Fathers doctrine in this poynt but also giuing vs freely the honour of the name alloweth vs to haue the
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
to feed his Lambs and sheep he preferred him therin before all the rest of the Apostles Quia solus saith S. Ambrose profitetur ex omnibus omnibus antefertur The third is that wheras S. Ambrose obserueth three degrees of Christians to wit Lambs litle sheep and sheep all recommended to the Pastorall care of S. Peter he giueth to vnderstand that all sorts of Christians were committed to his charge and gouernment and not the weake only but the most holy also learned and perfect yea euen the Apostles themselues and therefore he saith vt perfectiores perfectior gubernaret 10. This then being S. Ambrose his sense and doctrine concerning the Pastorall cōmission giuen to S. Peter it is most euident that when he teacheth that all Pastours receaued their flocks with S. Peter he teacheth it in the same sense that S. Augustine doth to wit that because S. Peter being supreme Pastour represented the whole Church and receaued the Pastorall authority not for himselfe alone but also for all those who were eyther at that tyme or euer should be subordinate vnto him therefore all other Pastours receaued their authority not only in him as S. Augustine speaketh but also with him that is to say in and with their chiefe Pastour and head And therefore whereas D. Andrews to make a greater shew of parity or equality betwixt S. Peter and other Pastors hath added to S. Ambrose his text those words of his owne nobiscum eas accepit it may passe for a piece of coggery and well discouereth his skill to help the dyce when he is put to his shifts 11. Besids that his vanity and folly notably appeareth in that hauing gayned nothing but rather lost his cause by alledging these two places of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose yet he braggeth thereof afterwards as if he had got a great victory saying in the 214. page that although pasce oues was said in the singuler number and to one to wit S. Peter yet it passed to all and that clariùs id loquuntur Ambrosius Augustinus quà m vt obstrepere possint nouitij nostri Ambrose and Augustine do speake or affirme it more plainly then that our nouices can any way contradict it So he meaning by our nouices the Catholiks as I take it though I know not why he so calleth them neyther do I meane heere to discusse it but will remit to the indifferent Reader to iudge what cause he hath so to brag of these two Fathers and what fidelity he hath shewed in alledging them dissembling the cleare doctrine of the one and corrupting as well the text as the sense of the other and thus much for his first answere 12. In his second he seeketh to retort the Cardinals argument vpon him and to proue the Kings Supremacy by the word pasce which he saith he knoweth will touch the Cardinall to the quick quod scio saith he punget Cardinalem Let vs heare then this sharp argument which I thinke will proue a very blunt one Thus then he saith Negat Cardinalis Primatum Regis c. The Cardinall denieth the Kings Supremacy and yet God said to a King tu pasces populum meum Israel thou shalt feed my people Israel Where no man can deny but that a King was made the Pastor of all Israel yea of the Priests except he will deny them to be part of Israel Thus argueth this learned and sharp Doctor ouerthrowing his owne argument sufficiently by his owne conclusion graunting in effect that if the Priests were not a part of the people of Israel the King was not their Pastor 13. To this purpose then it is to be considered what I haue amply debated in the first Chapter of my Supplement concerning the exemption and sepation of the Priests and Leuits from the temporall and politike State by the expresse words of Almighty God who gaue the Leuits not to the temporall Prince but to Aaron and his children tradidi eos dono Aaron filijs eius de medio populi I haue giuen them saith Almighty God for a gift to Aaron and his children out of the midst of the people Besides that God ordayned expresly that the Tribe of Leui should not be numbred neither yet haue any part or inheritance with the rest of Israel because he had reserued the same for his owne seruice and therfore would himselfe be their possession portion and inheritance So that this being very cleare in the expresse words of the Law which as I also proued was neuer altered but rather confirmed at the institution of the Kings who were expresly bound to obserue the whole law and to obey the high Preist I may say to the Doctor as he said before to the Cardinall atque vel sic iacebit Doctori ratio sua 14. But put the case this were not so yea and that the Preists of the old law had byn subiect to the Kings in spirituall matters wherof I haue already proued the contrary will M. Andrews inferre theron that therfore Kings haue also the spirituall Supremacy in the new law without any new institution or ratification therof by our Sauiour Christ or his Apostles Doth not this great Doctor know that the Mosaycal law was abrogated by the law of grace and that wheras it was deuided into three parts to wit Iudiciall Cerimoniall and Morall the two former vtterly ceased and the third I meane the Morall part contayning the Commaundements remayneth only in force not because it was instituted then but because those Commaundments being grounded on the law of Nature are alwayes in force and therfore ordayned againe to be kept in the new Law In which respect the cōmandment cōcerning the Sabboth doth not now bynd Christians as it was then ordayned and practiced 15. And therfore M. Andrews might aswell introduce Poligamy practised in the old Law as the spirituall supremacy of Kings if we should graunt that they then had any such and with much more reason might he teach abstinence from puddings and other meates made of bloud seeing that we find some commaundements or ordinance therof in the Acts of Apostles wheras there is no one syllable in all the new Testament to proue that Kings haue any spirituall authority ouer the Church it being most euidēt that al those places of Scripture which he or any other doth or can alledge out of the new Testament to that purpose do concerne only temporall obedience to the pagan Emperours or Princes who were then Persecutors of the Church and therefore could not be spirituall heads or Gouernours thereof nor obayed by Christians in spirituall matters And this I say the rather because M. Andrews doth not only heere but also throughout his whole booke seeme to ground his doctrine of the Kings spirituall Primacy specially vpon the law of Moyses as I shall haue occasion to shew further hereafter which sufficiently bewrayeth the beggery and misery of his cause
with the Church of Rome addeth presently for the explication thereof vt Ponticae Asâ—anae Thraciae Dioecesis Metropolitani c. That the Metropolitans of Pontus Asia Thracia and also the Bishopps of the same Diocesse amongst the Barbarous so were all called that were no Graecians should be ordayned by the Bishops of Constantinople 8. So sayth the Canon giuing to vnderstand that whereas the Church of Constantinople had bene in times past but a priuate Bishoprick subiect to Heraclea it should hereafter be not only a Metropolitan but also a Patriarchall Sea and haue Metropolitans vnder it yea and that as the Church of Rome was the chiefe Church of the West so also the Church of Constantinople being now made the second after Rome should be the chief Church of the East preferred before the Patriarchall Seas of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem yet with this euident exception and reseruation that neuerthelesse it should be still inferiour to the Roman Sea being the second after it that is to say it should haue the same place and priuiledge that the Church of Alexandria had in former times which though it was the chief Church of the East the secoÌ„d after Rome yet was alwayes inferiour subiect thereto as it is euident by the appeale of the famous Athanasius Bishop of that Sea to Pope Iulius the first of that name aboue an huÌ„dreth yeares before the CouÌ„cel of CalcedoÌ„ 9. Therfore the preheminence which the Church of CoÌ„stantinople was to haue by this Canon was to be preferred before the Churches of Alexandria Antioch and the equality that it was to haue with Rome was no other but to be a Patriarchall Sea and head of all the Patriarchall and Metropolitan Churches of the East as Rome was in the West yet with reseruatioÌ„ of the right of Primacy due to the Roman Sea Besides that it is to be noted that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in our latin Copies is translated aequalis doth signify also similis lyke not only in prophane Authors as euery maÌ„ may see in the Thesaurus of Henricê° Stephanê° but also in diuers places of holy Scripture both in the old new TestameÌ„t And he that list to see more to this purpose may read the Paralel of Tortus his Tortor writteÌ„ against M. D. Andrews by the ReuereÌ„d Learned Father Androas Eudaemon-Ioannes who hath sufficiently handled and explicated this point and hath also produced a cleare testimony out of Theodorus Balsamon a very learned Grecian and Patriarch of Antioch to proue that the mention of paria priuilegia equall priuiledges graÌ„ted to the Church of CoÌ„stantinople in the CouÌ„cell of CalcedoÌ„ doth not any way derogate from the supreme dignity of the RomaÌ„ Sea 10. Whereto I also add that the word aequalis in the Scripture doth not alwayes signify a true and iust Equality in all respects but somtymes also an Equality in a certayne proportion as in the Apostle to the Corinthians who exhorteth them to supply the temporall wants and necessityes of the poore with their store and aboundance vt fiat aequalitas sayth he that there may be an equality meaning an equality in a certayne similitude and proportion as it appeareth by that which he addeth for the further explication therof saying sicut scriptum est qui muliùm non abundauit qui modicum non minorauit as it is written he which gathered much had no more then was necessary for him and he that gathered litle had no less So sayth the Apostle alluding to the history in Exodus of those who gathered Manna in different quantity and yet found that they had it in a kind of equality because euery one had so much as was needfull for him and no more so that equality doth not signify heere an Arithmeticall equality as the Philosophers and Schoolemen tearme it which is equall in euery respect and is vsed in commutatiue Iustice that is to say in buying and selling and the lyke wherein the iust and true valew of euery thing is equally considered but a Geometricall equality keeping only a certayne proportion according to distributiue Iustice which as Aristotle and the Schoolemen do teach doth alwayes respect equality in the distribution of honours priuiledges and rewards yet so as due proportion be obserued correspondent to the different dignity and quality of euery one And therfore when two persons of different quality and degree as the Captayne and his souldiar are to be rewarded for some one seruice to the common wealth their rewards or priuiledges are truly equall when they are priuiledged and rewarded in a due proportion to their degrees without impeachment to the difference that is betwixt them And so a subiect may be said to haue equall priuiledges with his King and yet be his subiect still and in this maÌ„ner the words equall and equality are to be vnderstood in the CouÌ„cell of CalcedoÌ„ as is euident by the CanoÌ„ it self wherin you see it was ordayned that the Bishop of Constantinople should haue equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome and yet haue the secoÌ„d place after him 11. But now to deale somewhat more liberally with M. Andrews in this point let vs put the case that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon did meane to giue to the Church of Constantinople that equality with the Roman sea which he affirmeth should he trow you gayne any thing thereby Or could he any way preiudice the vniuersall and supreme authority either of Pope Leo at that tyme or of the other Popes his Successors euer since Truly no but rather should notably confirme theyr primacy and vtterly ouerthrow his owne cause seeing that it is most euident that the authority of Pope Leo was such that his only opposition to that Canon and his abrogation therof sufficed to ouerthrow disanull it which I will take a litle paynes to proue by the whole course and practise of the Church euen from that Councell vntill the ruine of the Greeke Church and Empyre which though it be needlesse in respect of the learned yet I hope it will not be altogeather fruitles to the more ignorant and vnlearned and may serue for an aboundant conuiction of M. Andrews his impudency and malice who is not ashamed to auouch such a manifest falsehood and impugne such a knowne truth as he doth 12. To this purpose I wish it to be noted what Gelasius who liued at the same tyme and was Pope about 30. yeares after Leo wrote to the Bishops of Dardania concerning a schisme raysed by Acatius Bishop of Constantinople in the tyme of Pope Felix his Predecessor in which Epistle he signifyeth 4. things specially to be noted for this purpose First that the Emperour Martian though he had made great instance to Pope Leo for the aduancement of the Church of Constantinople yet did highly prayse and commend the said
the Schismaticall Synod gathered by him that as well he himself as his predecessor non semel sed saepissim◠not once but very oft had written to the Sea Apostolike protesting that if they had at any time presumed to do any thing against the authority of the sayd Sea they acknowledged themselues to be anathematized or accursed by theyr owne sentence 18. And after the death of the sayd Iohn S. Gregory the great in an Epistle of his to a Sicilian Bishop testifieth that the Bishop of Constantinople in his time being accused of a great delict acknowledged himself to be subiect to the censure or chastisment of the Sea Apostolik in case he were guilty whereupon S. Gregory saith Nam quòd se dicit Sedi Apostolicae subijci siqua culpa in Episcopis inuenitur c. For wheras he saith that he is subiect to the Sea Apostolik if any fault be found in the Bishops I know not who is not subiect vnto it And in another epistle to the same Bishop he saith Quis dubitet eam Sedi Apostolicae subiectam c. Who doubteth but that the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the Sea Apostolyke which as well the most pious Emperour as Eusebius Bishop therof do continually professe So he wherein it is to be noted that these Bishops of Constantinople professed this their obedience to the Roman Sea at such tyme as the Church of Rome was most miserably oppressed by the tyranny of the Gothes and Longobards in such sort that it would haue beene vtterly contemned especially by the Greeke Church if it had vsurped a greater authority then was generally belieued to be due vnto it and to haue byn giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter and his Successors 19. To this may be added the excommunication and deposition of many Bishops of Constantinople by Bishops of Rome as it appeareth in an Epistle of Pope Nicolas the first to the Emperour Michael wherein he nameth 8. Bishops of that Sea deposed by his predecessors and afterwards he himself also gaue sentence of excommunication deposition against Photius Bishop of the same Sea which sentence Basilius the Emperour executed for feare of incurring the censures of the Sea Apostolike as he himself testified in the 8. generall Councell And when Photius was afterwards by his owne subtile practise restored to his Sea he was agayne deposed by Pope Stephanus and such was the reuerence and respect that the Clergy and Nobility of Constantinople bare to the Sea Apostolike that they would not admit one of the bloud Royall called Stephanus to succeed Photius vntill they had written to the Pope to haue his confirmation thereof Moreouer three generall Councels to wit the 6.7 and 8. being after S. Gregoryes tyme assembled and held in Greece and two of them in Constantinople it self the Popes Legats and not the Bishop of Constantinople were Presidents therof which neyther the Greeke Emperours nor those Bishops would haue permitted if they had byn perswaded that the Councell of Chalcedon had exempted the Church of Constantinople from the Popes Iurisdiction or made the same equal with the Roman Church 20. And albeit after S. Gregories time diuers hereticall Emperours and the Bishops of Constantinople during their raigne caused diuers schismes and separated them selues from the vnion of the Roman Sea yet when Catholike Emperours and Bishops succeeded they returned to the vnion and obedience thereof in so much that not only the Embassadours of the Emperour Petrus Altisiodorensis but also the two Patriarkes of Constantinople and Hierusalem with the Delegates of the two other Patriarks of Alexandria and Antioch came to the great Councell of Lateran held at Rome in the yeare of our Lord 1215. and subscrybed to the Catholike doctrine concerning the Vniuersall Authority and Primacy of the Sea Apostolike 21. And againe 200. yeares after in the yeare 1459. the Greeke Emperour Ioannes Paleologus and Ioseph Bishop of Constantinople togeather with the Legates of the other 3. Patriarkes of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem besids many Grecian Bishops Abbots and other learned Prelats came to a Generall Councell held by Pope Eugenius at Florence and there hauing first maturely debated amongst themselues the questiō of the Popes Supremacy according to the testimonies not only of the holy Scriptures but also of the ancient Greeke Fathers they receiued and with their hands and seales confirmed the Catholike doctrine as well concerning that point as all other wherein they had in the tyme of the former Schismes dissented from the Roman Church as I haue signified more at large in the first Chapter of my Supplement where I proposed also to be considered that presently after their reuolt from this solemne vnion made at Florence God punished the Empyre and Church of Constantinople with that lamentable and miserable captiuity wherein it hath euer since remayned 22. And thereto I will now also add for the conclusion of this point what S. Antoninus obserueth in his history concerning the iust Iudgements of God vpon the Church of Constantinople before the fall of the Greeke Empyre to wit that whereas the Bishops of that Sea had dyuers tymes most ambitiously and proudly impugned the authority of the Roman Church by the fauour and help of the hereticall Emperours God so disposed that in the end the said Emperours became the instruments of his iustice to punish their pryde especially from the tyme of the Emperour Constantin called Monomachus who though in despyte and hatred of the Roman Church he graced the Bishop of Constantinople called Michaël not only with extraordinary priuiledges and ensygnes of honour which he granted as well to his person and successors as to his Sea but also with the tytle of Vniuersall Patriarke of the whole world and all Papal authority leading also his horse by the brydle to his pallace because he had vnderstood that the Emperours of the West had done the like honour and seruice to some Popes neuertheles perceauing afterwards that the people did by this occasion beare such reuerence and respect to Michaël that the Imperiall state might be endangered as he conceiued in case any controuersy should fall out betwixt the Church and the Empyre he publikely degraded and disgraced him depriuing him of all those ensignes tytles and priuiledges wherewith eyther he or any other of the Emperours his predecessors had endowed the Church or Bishops of Constantinople 23. And from that tyme forward as S. Antoninus testifieth the Patriarks of that Sea became very slaues to the hereticall Emperours and were put out and in by them at their pleasure whyles in the meane tyme the Roman Church ouercomming all her enemies tryumphed ouer the malice and tyranny of her oppressors enioying the stability security and maiesty which she still possesseth wherein the prouidence and iustice of Almighty God is euidently seene as well in conseruing the Sea Apostolike according to his promise to S. Peter as also in
depressing and punishing the pryde of the Bishops of Constantinople who had so oft maliciously impugned the same which may serue for a Caueat to other rebellious Children of the Church For although Almighty God is patiens redditor a slow paymaster yet he payeth home in the end and as Valerius saith tarditatem supplicij grauitate compensat he recompenseth the slownes of his punishment with the weyght or grieuousnes thereof This I haue thought good to touch here by the way vpon so good an occasion will now conclude concerning M. Andrewes his Canon alledged out of the Councell of Calcedon 24. Therfore I say that it being euident by all this discourse that the sayd Canon was neuer able to equal the Church of Constantinople with the Roman Sea to which end M. Andrews saith it was enacted he must needs coufesse that eyther there was no such Canon at all to the purpose that he mentioneth or els that the small force and authority therof may serue for an euident argument of the supreme power and authority of Pope Leo and his successors seeing that theyr only resistance and contradiction sufficed to ouerthrow it notwithstanding the great authority of the Councell of Calcedon which ordayned it Whereby it also appeareth how vainely and vntruely he saith that Pope Leo contradicted it in vayne yea and which is more absurd that he made suite and intercession in vayne Frustra saith he Romano ipso Pontifice apud Augustum Augustam Anatolium per litteras suas intercedente The Bishop of Rome himselfe making intercession or sueing in vayne by his letters to the Emperour the Empresse and Anatolius So that you see he maketh Pope Leo's case very desperate and his authority very feeble seeing that he was fayne to make such intercession and suite not only to the Emperour and Empresse but also to Anatolius himselfe 25. Therefore albeit I am not ignorant that intercedere hath dyuers senses and amongst the rest signifieth to withstand prohibite or hinder a thing proposed or intended and that some perhaps may say that M. Andrews vseth it heere in that sense yet because it signifieth also to make intercession and suite and is so vsed commonly in Ecclesiasticall Authors and will be so vnderstood in this place by euery common Reader yea and for that M. Andrewes himselfe so taketh and vseth it diuers tymes and would be loath no doubt to haue men thinke that Pope Leo did or durst oppose himselfe to the Emperour Empresse but rather that in this case he behaued himselfe towards them and Anatolius as an humble suppliant and yet all in vayne therefore I say I cannot let this poynt passe vnexamined to the end thou mayst see good Reader as well M. Andrewes his vanity as also what kind of suit intercession Pope Leo made vnto these whome he nameth what effect successe it had with them But first I think it not amisse to declare here how this Canon was made in that Councell and why it was contradicted by the Legats of Pope Leo afterwards disanulled by Leo himself 26. Therefore it is to be vnderstood that Anatolius then Bishop of Constantinople ambitiously thirsting after his owne promotion namely to be preferred before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch and considering that Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria was deposed by the Councell for heresy and the Bishop of Antioch much disgraced for hauing adhered to Dioscorus thought that a good opportunity was offered him to accomplish his desyre and therevpon practised with the Bishops in the Councell for the furtherance of his pretence and hauing gayned so many of them that it seemed to him their very number and authority might extort the consent of the rest yea of the Popes Legats themselues procured that when the last session of the Councell was ended and as well the Iudges or Senate as the Legats were departed all the Bishops of his faction eyther remayned behynd or els after their departure returned againe to the place of the assembly and there made the Canon whereof we now treate Whereupon the Legats hauing notice of it caused the whole Councell to be assembled againe the next day and finding Anatolius and his faction who were the far greater part of the Councell resolute in their determination protested their owne opposition contradiction to the Canon as well in respect that it was repugnant to the Councell of Nice as also for that the other Canon which was pretended to be made in the Councell of Constantinople to the same effect was not to be found amongst the Canons of the said Councell sent to Rome neyther had beene euer put in practise by the Bishops of Constantinople 27. Finally they reserued the determination of the matter to Pope Leo himselfe whom they called Apostolicum Virum Vniuersalis Ecclesiae Papam The Apostolicall man and Pope of the Vniuersall Church vt ipse say they aut de suae Sedis iniuria aut de Canonum euersione possit ferre sententiam That he may giue sentence eyther of the iniury done to his Sea by the abuse of his Legats or of the breach of the Canons Thus sayd the Legats signifying that it was in his hands and power to ratify or abrogate as well this Canon as all the other Canons of that Coūcell which also the whole Councell acknowledged sufficiently in a common letter written to him wherein they craued of him the ratification of this Canon most humbly and instantly as it will appeare heereafter which neuertheles he flatly denyed confirming only the condemnation and deposition of Dioscorus and the rest of their decrees cōcerning matters of faith for the which only he sayd the Councell was assembled and in fine he disanulled the Canon for diuers causes specifyed in his Epistles First because it had no other ground but the ambitious humour of Anatolius who inordinatly sought thereby to haue the precedence before the Patriarks of Alexandria and Antioch Secondly because it was not procured or made Canonically but by practise and surreption in the absence of his Legats◠Thirdly for that the other Canon of the Councell of Constantinople vpon the which this seemed to be grounded was of no validity hauing neuer been sent to the Sea Apostolike nor put in practise by the predecessors of Anatolius Lastly for that it was flatly repugnant to the Canons of the Councell of Nice 28. For these causes I say Pope Leo abrogated this Canon which neuertheles it is like he would haue admitted and confirmed if it had proceeded from any good ground and tended to any vtility of the Church and had beene withall orderly proposed and Canonically made for albeit the Councell of Nice had already ordayned the 〈◊〉 and iurisdiction of the Patriarchal Churches of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem with the consent of Pope Siluester who was the head of that Councell without whose ratification nothing could be of force that
same in defence of his pretended Episcopall authority against the Puritans wherto I may add that M. Andrewes himself also approueth it els where granting that S. Peter was appoynted head of the Apostles by our Sauiour vt schismatis tollatur occasio as S. Hierome saith that the occasion of schisme may be taken away yea and confesseth moreouer that S. Peter had so much authority giuen him as was necessary for auoyding of schisme and for the maintenance of peace and vnity of which poynt I shall haue somewhat to say vnto him here after 50. If then Pastors or gouernours are by his owne confession instituted in the Church to conserue the same in vnity haue speciall authority giuen them to that end he must needs confesse also that they ought to haue more care thereof then those who haue not any speciall institution or authority to the same end and therefore I would be glad to know how he agreeth with himself in this poynt teaching heere as he doth that the care of the peace of the whole Church doth belong to all men alyke For if he say that Pastors are more bound then theyr subiects to care for the vnity of theyr owne particuler Diocesses but not of the whole Church he is too to ridiculous seeing that euery Pastor ought to haue not only as much care of the whole Church as euery other man but also much more then others by reason of his function office which doth extend it selfe to the whole Church it being euident that what authority soeuer any man hath in any part of the Church it is giuen him for the good of the whole and finally tendeth therto 51â— And who knoweth not that all heresies and schismes which violate the vnity of the whole Church do first spring in some part thereof and are to be suppressed not in respect of that part only but much more in regard of the whole Church As in like manner we see in our bodyes that the care of the health and conseruation of euery member tendeth more to the good of the whole then of the part it selfe that is or may be particulerly interessed therefore euery part doth willingly expose it selfe to danger for the conseruation of the whole Whereupon I inferre that if Pastors haue more obligation then lay-men to haue care of a part of the Church they are consequently more bound to haue care of the whole whereto as I haue sayd the care of euery part is specially to be referred 52. Moreouer whosoeuer is Pastour in any one part of the Church is capable of Pastorall iurisdiction in any other though he be restrayned and limited to a certayne part to auoyd confusion in which respect the Priests in euery Diocesse are Priests throughout the whole Church and may minister Sacraments any where in cases of necessity and a Bishop in any place is euerywhere a Bishop and one of the Magistrats and Pastors of the Church and therefore hath a voyce and right of suffrage in all Generall Councells though they be held out of his Diocesse whereas none of the Laity hath any voyce or suffrage therein at all as it is manifest by the testimony of Theodosius the Emperour in his Epistle to the Councell of Ephesus saying Nefas est c. It is not lawfull that he who is not one of the number of the most holy Bishops should meddle in Ecclesiasâ—icall consultations and affayres So he And the like sayd Basilius the Emperour in the 8. Generall Councell with a notable aduertisement to lay-men of what degree soeuer not to presume to deale in Ecclesiastical matters as I haue shewed at large in my Supplement Besides that we read in the Councell of Calcedon that Concilium Episcoporum est a Councell consisteth of Biâ—â—ops whereupon it followeth euidently that all men haue not equal obligation to care for the peace and vnity of the whole Church for if they had then might euery Cobler and Tinker challeng as much right of suffrage as any Bishop in a Generall Councell assembled for the suppression of heresy and schisme which I thinke M. Andrews will be ashamed to say 53. Therefore he must confesse that albeit euery member of the mysticall body of Christ be bound to haue a speciall care of the vnity of the whole vt not sit schisma in corpore sed in idipsum pro inuicem sollicita sint membra That there be no schisme or diuision in the body but that the members togeather be carefull one of another yet this obligation extendeth no further then the condition quality and degree of euery one requyreth which we may learne by the Apostles doctrine to the Romans who hauing signified that we haue many members in one body and that all the members haue not the same action addeth ita multi vnum corpus sumus in Christo c. So we being many are one body in Christ ech one anothers members hauing gifts according to the grace that is giuen vs different eyther Prophesy according to the rule of faith or ministery in ministring or he that teacheth in doctrine he that exhorteth in exhorting he that giueth in simplicity he that ruleth in carfulnes he that sheweth mercy in cheerfulnes 54. Thus far the Apostle who exemplifying heere as you see the different gifts and graces that God bestoweth vpon sundry members of his mysticall body and ascribing to euery one of them the proper talent which is requisit thereto requyreth specially in the Gouernour Solicitude and Carefulnes giuing plainely to vnderstand that although euery member of Christs Church ought to be sollicitous and carefull for the publike good thereof yet a Pastor or Gouernour is most bound thereto as to that which most properly pertayneth to his charge vocation As for example in the tyme of the Apostles the heresy of the Nicolaits did violate the vnion and trouble the peace of the whole Church and albeit there were in the Church of Pergamus as well Prophets Doctors Preachers and Priests as other faithfull people who were all bound to haue care of the vnity of the whole Church as all Christians are neuertheles we see in the Apocalyps that none of them but the Bishop only was reprehended for negligence and want of due care to find and cast out the Nicolaits from amongst them because the sollicitude and care of the vnity and publike good of the Church did specially belong to the Pastour or Bishop in which respect he alone was seuerely reproued and commanded to do pennance 55. So that whereas M. Andrews imposeth an equal obligation of the same care vpon euery member what doth he els but make as I may say a gally-maufrey or hotch-potch of the different members of Christs mysticall body confounding their seuerall functions and making them all eyes or heads requyring the obligation of a Pastor or Gouernor in euery particuler man And truly if this doctrine were
word mater is applyed to the Church by S. Cyprian therefore Caput cannot be applyed to S. Peter but to the Church Therfore to the end M. Andrews may vnderstand that S. Peter and not the Church it selfe is in this place worthily tearmed by S. Cyprian caput fons radix origo the head the fountayne the roote and the spring he shall do well to consider the ground and drift of all S. Cyprians discourse which the Cardinall in his Apology omitted for breuityes sake and therefore although I haue layd it downe in my Supplement to proue the necessity of a visible head in the Church yet I will take paynes to repeat it heere to ease the Reader of the labour to seeke it there 4. S. Cyprian meaning to shew the cause why the Church is troubled with heresyes and schismes and withall to giue the remedy saith thus Hoc eò fit c. This hapneth because men do not returne to the beginning of truth nor seeke the head nor obserue the doctrin of the heauenly Maister which if any man will well consider and examine he shall not need any longer treatise or arguments to proue it the proofe is easy to be belieued by the compendiousnes or breuity of the truth our Lord sayd to Peter I say vnto thee thou art Peter and vpon this rock I will buyld my Church and the gates of hell shall not ouercome it c. To him also he saith after his resurrection Feede my sheepe vpon him being one he buylt his Church and to him he recommended his sheep to be fed and although after his resurrection he gaue equal power to all his Apostles and sayd as my Father sent me so I send you receaue the holy Ghost c. neuertheles to manifest and shew a vnity he ordayned one chayre and by his authority disposed that the beginning of the same vnity should proceed from one Truely the rest of the Apostles were that which S. Peter was endued with lyke fellowship of honour and power but the beginning proceedeth from vnity the Primacy is giuen to Peter that one Church of Christ and one chayre may be shewed So he 5. And prosecuting still the same matter proueth notably the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head from whence all the vnity of the body is deriued which he sheweth by three excellent similituds of many branches of one tree springing from one roote many brookes of one water flowing from one fountayne and many beames of one light deriued from one sunne concluding his discourse that notwithstanding the amplitude of the Church by the propagation and numerosity of her children and the extension of her parts and members all ouer the world vnum tamen caput est sayth he origo vna c. yet the head is one and the origen or beginning one that is to say Peter vpon whome he sayd before as you haue heard that our Sauiour buylt his Church and to whom he recoÌ„mended his sheep to be fed yea gaue him Primatum the Primacy vt vna Christi Ecclesia vna cathedra monstretur to shew therby one Church of Christ and one chayre and this must needs be the true sense of S. Cyprian in that-place if we will make his conclusion conforme to his premisses and to the whole scope of his intention 6. So that M. Andrews making the Church it selfe to be the roote fountayne and head whereof S. Cyprian speaketh doth most absurdly confound the tree with the roote the riuers with the spring the body with the head and lameth all that most excellent discourse of S. Cyprian yea ouerthroweth the very foundation thereof denying all that which S. Cyprian layd for his ground to wit the Primacy and supreme authority of S. Peter from whence he expresly deryueth the vnity of the Church as he doth also most clearely els where saying in his Epistle to Iubaianus Nos Ecclesiae vnius caput radicem tenemus We haue or do hold the head and roote of one Church and after declaring what roote and head he meaneth he sayth nam Petro primùm Dominus super quem c. For our Lord gaue this power of binding and loosing to Peter vpon whome he buylt his Church vnde vnitatis origâ—nem instituit ostendit and from whence he ordayned and shewed the beginning of vnity And agayne after in the same Epistle Ecclesia quae vna est super vnum qui claues accepit voce Domini fundata est The Church which is one was by the speach of our Lord founded vpon one who receaued the keyes So he Whereby it euidently appeareth that his constant and manifest doctrine is that all the vnity of the Church proceedeth from the vnity of her head to wit S. Peter and his chayre and that the Cardinall affirming that S. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne roote of the Church gaue vs his true sense and M. Andrews making the Church it selfe to be the head fountayne and roote of it selfe is very absurd and wholy repugnant to S. Cyprians doctrine or meaning 7. And this will be more cleere if we examin a little better M. Andrews his glosse vpon the text of S. Cyprian whereby he laboureth to proue that the Church it selfe and not S. Peter is the head fountayne and roote whereof S. Cyprian speaketh For hauing layd downe S. Cyprians words to wit sic Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa c. so also the Church shyning with the light of our Lord reacheth forth her beames ouer the whole world he noteth that the Father sayth Ecclesia non Petrus the Church not Peter and no meruaile seeing he had no occasion then to name Peter but the Church only for although the Church being a visible body hath alwayes a visible head vnder Christ to wit Peter and his successors yet S. Cyprian doth speake of it heere as of a body considered a part not including the head meaning afterwards to speake of the head as he had in lyke manner done before declaring from whence the vnity of that body is deriued as it will appeare further heereafter 8. In the meane tyme let vs see how M. Andrews goeth on with the text Vnum tamen lumen est c. Yet it is one light which is euery where spread neyther is the vnity of the body separated heere now he asketh two questions the one whether Peter be the light and the other whether he be euery where dispersed whereto I answere that although he is not the light of the Church as he was a particuler man yet he may well be so called not only as he was an Apostle seeing that our Sauiour sayd to all the Apostles Vos estis lux mundi you are the light of the world but also much more as he is the Vicar and substitute of our Sauiour who being lux vera the true light imparteth vnto him his owne excellencyes so far
c. Thus saith the Cardinall and after hauing layd downe S. Cyprians words alledged by S. Augustine being the same that you haue heard before he addeth the words of S. Augustine which are these Ecce vbi commemorat Cyprianus c. Behold how Cyprian doth shew that Peter the Apostle in whom the primacy of the Apostles is preeminent with such an excellent grace corrected by Paul a later Apostle when he dealt concerning Circumcision otherwayse then truth required So sayth S. Augustin whereby it euidently appeareth how he vnderstandeth S. Cyprian in this place to wit that albeit Peter was preeminent and far excelled the Apostles by reason of his Primacy yet when he erred he patiently suffered himselfe to be corrected by Paul and did not insolently and arrogantly defend his errour standing vpon the authority of his Primacy and challenging obedience of S. Paul and others 15. This then being so and the Cardinalls opinion concerning the meaning of S. Cyprian in this place being so â—ell fortified as you haue now heard by S. Augustines construction and iudgement thereof what reason hath any man to thinke that the Cardinall did as M. Andrews chargeth him purposely and craftily suppresse those words of S. Cyprian as not making for Peters Primacy whereas you see he taketh them to make much for it and doth vrge them notably to proue it Therefore can any reasonable man imagine any fraud in the Cardinall Or any other cause why he did not eyte them in his Apology but partly for breuityes sake which euery may seeth how much he affecteth in all his workes and partly because he thought he had alledged sufficient already out of that Father to proue his intent 16. So that whereas M. Andrews sayth Ea Cypriani mens videtur c. The mynd or sense of Cyprian seemeth to be that if Peter had said he had the Primacy he had insolently challenged somewhat to himselfe that is to say more then was due vnto him he did very well to say videtur it seemeth for if he had absolutly affirmed it he had ouerlashed very far Besides that he may learne if it please him to make a great difference betwixt insolenter and â—also insolently and falsely for a man may take vpon him a true authority and speake of it insolently that is to say without iust cause or in defence of some euill act and yet not falsely because it is true that he hath the authority which he pretendeth And therefore I say that if S. Peter should haue stood vpon his Primacy in defence of his erroneous act and sayd that S. Paul ought to follow and obay him therin because he was the Primate and head of the Apostlesâ— he had both sayd and done insolently which neuertheles in defence of a truth or vpon some other iust occasion he might both say and do without all note of insolency yea iustly and necessarily because he had indeed the Primacy and therefore was to be obayed and followed in all good and iust actions 17. But now M. Andrews goeth forward and whereas the Cardinall concluded that Peter being the foundation of the Church was therefore the head of it M. Andrews granteth that S. Peter was fundamentum quidem vnum sed non vnicum one but not the only foundation esse enim illiusce aedificij duodecem fundamenta for that there are twelue foundations of that building But M. Andrews is heere short of his account for he should rather haue sayd that there are thirteene except he will exclude Christ of whome the Apostle sayth Fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere c. no man can lay any other foundation then that which is already layed Iesus Christ of whome also the Prophet sayth Ecce ego ponam in fundamentis Sion lapidem c. Behold I will lay a stone in the foundation of Sion an approued stone a corner and precious stone founded in the foundation c. 18. And this I am sure M. Andrews will not deny seeing that it is one of the most speciall arguments whereby his fellowes are wont to exclude S. Peter from being the foundation of the Church to wit because Christ is the foundation of it if therefore M. Andrews will admit twelue foundations of the Church without preiudice to Christ he may also admit eleuen without preiudice to Peter For albeit the twelue Apostles are all founded vpon Christ who is the first and principall stone yet Peter may haue the first place in the foundation next after Christ being immediatly founded on him as head and ordinary Pastor of the Church and the rest vpon Peter as extraordinary and subordinate to him Besides that Peter and the rest of the Apostles are called foundations in different manner as I will declare more particulerly in the discussion of M. Andrews his answere to the place of S. Hierome 19. And now to conclude concerning S. Cyprian whereas the Cardinall argueth vpon his words that because S. Peter was the foundation of the Church he was therefore the head thereof in respect that the head in a body and the foundation in a buylding is all one M. Andrews answereth thus Vix illuc vsquequaque c. That is scantly true euery way for I do shew the Cardinall a buylding whereof there are twelue foundations but hardly can the Cardinall shew me one body wherof there are twelue heads So he very well to the purpose I assure you ouerthrowing himselfe with his owne answere for if that buylding which he sayth hath twelue foundations be the Church as indeed it is and so it appeareth by his quotation of the 24. Chapter of the Apocalyps then may the Cardinall very easily shew him also a body that hath twelue heads euen according to the doctrine and opinion of M. Andrews himselfe who can not deny but that the Church is a body I meane such a body as heere we treate of to wit not a naturall but a mysticall body neyther can he deny that the Apostles were heads of that body seeing all of them had as M. Andrews still telleth vs the charge and gouernement of the Church alike and therefore being twelue gouernours they were also twelue heads 20. Is it then so hard a matter for the Cardinall to shew him a body with twelue heads Nay which is more and toucheth more our case doth not M. Andrews thinke it possible that such a body may haue a hundreth heads and all of them subordinate to one head What will he say of the state of Venice Will he deny that the Senators who are many hundreths are heads thereof or that they are subordinat to one Doge or Duke So that it is to be vnderstood that in respect of the rest of the Common welth the Senators are all heads though in respect of the Doge they are but members subordinate to him And so in this spirituall buylding of the Church or mysticall body of Christ though the
hath these wordes Petrus super queÌ„ Dominus fundauit Ecclesiam c. Peter vpon whome our Lord founded his Church and in another Epistle to Pope Damasus he affirmed the same not only of him but also of the chayre of Peter saying Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae id est Cathedrae Petri communione consocior super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio I following no first or chiefe but Christ do coÌ„municate with thy Beatitude that is to say with the chayre of Peter vpon that Rock I know the Church is buylt Finally in the selfe same booke against Iouinian where he answereth the former obiection he calleth S. Peter Petram Christi the Rock of Christ saying O vox digna Apostolo Petra Christi O speach worthy of an Apostle and the Rock of Christ signifying thereby that S. Peter was the Rock whereupon Christ buylt his Church 32. So as it cannot be denyed that S. Hierome both firmely belieued and expressely taught that our Sauiour buylt his Church vpon Peter wherein you haue already seene that he agreeth with S. Cyprian who wrote long before him and with the whole Councell of Calcedon which calleth S. Peter Petram crepidinem Ecclesiae the rock and top of the Church and rectae fidoi fundamentum the foundation of the true faith Besids that you may also see in Cardinall Bellarmins controuersyes that he agreed therin with Origen S. Athanasius S Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Epiphanius S. Chrysostome S. Cyril Tertullian S. Hilary S. Ambrose S. Maximus S. Leo S. Gregory the Great and other learned Fathers 33. Wherupon it followeth that Iouinian did not obiect the same as his owne singular opinion which he knew well would be litle esteemed and was to be proued and not obiected but as a matter generally acknowledged by Catholikes and that therefore he only sought to draw some consequence out of it as out of a knowne principle of the Catholike faith for the confirmation of his heresy as all heretykes do also seeke to do the like not only out of Catholike opinions but also out of the Scripture it selfe What then may we thinke of M. Andrews who is not ashamed to taxe the Cardinall as a follower of Iouinian for teaching that the Church was buylt vpon Peter Can we thinke that he hath any conscience or care of what he saith especially seeing that he himselfe is a true scholler and follower of Iouinian except he dissent not only from Luther Caluin and other Archsectaries his great Maisters but also from his brethren of the present English Church 34. For who knoweth not that they all hold and teach that marriage is of equal merit with virginity and viduall continency which is the proper heresy of Iouinian condemned for such in his owne tyme first by Pope Siricius and a Synode of Bishops held at Rome and afterwards by another Synode held at Milan where S. Ambrose was present Besides that the same is learnedly impugned and clearely confuted by S. Hierome in his bookes written purposely against him as also by S. Augustine in his treatises de Bono coniugali de Virginitate which he wrote expressely for the confutation of that heresy as he testifyeth himselfe in his Retractations where he calleth Iouinian a monster for teaching that doctrine and registreth him for an hereâ—tike in his Tract and Catalogue of heresyes as well for that opinion as for impugning the custome and vse of the Catholike Church in fasting and abstinence from certayne meates wherin also the forenamed sectaries of our dayes and the English Church at this present and consequently M. Andrews himselfe except he will disclayme from all his brethren do follow Iouinian Whereto I might add other heresyes of his taught by many Archsectaries of our tyme wherin it may be M. Andrewes hath his share amongst the rest as that merits and rewards of the lust are equal and that the corporall virginity and integrity of the Blessed Virgin Mary was corrupted and lost by the birth of our Sauiour 35. All which opinions being heresyes of Iouinian and registred for such by S. Augustine haue bene reuyued in these our dayes partly by Luther and Caluin and partly by the Magdeburgenses Bucer Molinaeus and others as Cardinall Bellarmine sheweth out of their owne workes in his controuersies Therefore I remit it now to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader who is the follower of Iouinian the Cardinall or M. Andrewes and his fellowes seeing that the Cardinall holdeth nothing els with Iouinian but only that Catholike doctrine which Iouinian held and professed togeather with S. Hierome and all other Fathers of his tyme as all heretikes haue alwayes agreed with Catholikes in some points and condemneth all those heresyes whâ—ch the Fathers aforesayd and the whole Church of their tyme condemned in him and his followers wheras M. Andrews and his fellowes expressely professe and teach those very heresyes for thâ— which Iouinian and his followers were by the ancient Fathers censured and condemned as monstrous heretikes as hath ben before declared so that I thinke of this there can be no further controuersy 36. Now then let vs proceed with the examination of what he saith further to the place of S. Hierome alledged by the Cardinall which is this Propterea inter duodecim c. Therefore amongst twelue one is chosenâ— that a head being appointed the occasion of schisme may be taken away whereto he answereth thus Inter duodecim vnum eligi c. that one be chosen amongst twelue or some number which some one man may be able to gouerne and prouyde for or els to take away schisme who doth forbid a head to be chosen or so much power to be giuen him as may suffice for the end or purpose for the which he was ordayned But the question is how far that power and that number extendeth lest the head become caput heteroclitum an extrauagant head or a head out of course and not so much the occasion of schisme taken away as an occasion giuen of tyranny So he all which I beseech thee good Reader well to note and particulerly that he granteth these points following The first that S. Peter was chosen head of the Apostles the second that a head is necessary for auoyding of schisme the third that the same head is to haue as much authority as is conuenient for the end for which he is ordayned and the fourth that of all this there is no question for that the question is saith he concerning the power of the head how far it extendeth and how great may be the number that he is to gouerne 37. But if M. Andrews consider well what he granteth he may consequently decyde the question or doubt that he maketh and shall see that he hath granted as much in effect as we teach or demand conâ—cerning the authority of
is but a vayne shift of M. Andrews to say that they are thrust into the Latin in fauour of the Pope it being more probable as I haue sayd that they were in the old Greeke copies which the Latin translatours followed and that eyther the Grecians themselues in the time of their schisme from the Roman Church or perhaps some of our late heretikes who haue taken vpon them to print the Greeke in these dayes haue purposely left out the same in hatred of the supreme authority of S. Peter and his successors But howsoeuer it is you see the doctrine of S. Chrysostome is cleare to the purpose that those words which M. Andrewes saith are not in the Greek do import and this suffiseth to proue by the testimony of S. Chrysostome that S. Peter was supreme Pastor and head of the vniuersall Church 19. And as for M. Andrews his stale and tryfling deuyse to call the Pope 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alluding to the name of the beast in the Apocalyps according to the interpretation of Irenaeus as he would haue his Reader to suppose albeit he vse it far otherwise then Irenaeus meant it who applyed it only to the temporall Empyre and not to the Roman Sea I willingly omit it as not pertayning to the place of S. Chrysostome wherof I now specially treat and therefore do remit him for his satisfaction in that point to Cardinall Bellarmines controuersies where the same is so sufficiently answered that he and his fellowes may be ashamed still to repeat it and not to impugne the manifold and solid reasons which the Cardinall produceth to confute their ridiculous and absurd application of that name to the Pope 20. And now to end concerning the testimony of S. Chrysostome whereas M. Andrews for conclusion of his answere thereto saith that no man will deny that Peter was Pastor of the Church yea and a principall pastor sed cum alijs pastorem coapostolis suis non solum sine alijs but Pastour togeather with other his fellow Apostles and not alone without others I thinke he was in a dreame when he wrotâ— it impugning no man therein for ought I know For I neuer heard tell of any man yet who taught that S. Peter was Pastor of the Church alone or that the other Apostles were not Pastors as well as he albeit we teach with S. Chrysostome and others as you haue heard that they were subordinate to him as to the supreme pastor and their head which also M. Andrews himselfe doth acknowledge sufficiently as I haue shewed amply in the last Chapter And this I hope may suffice concerning S. Chrysostome 21. There remayneth now only S. Augustin of the 4. Fathers alledged by the Cardinall and my selfe for the proofe of S. Peters Primacy his words are these Totius corporis morbum in ipso capite curat Ecclesiae c. he to wit Christ cureth the disease of the whole body in the very head of the Church coÌ„poundeth the health of all the members in ipso vertice that is to say in the very crowne or top of the head Thus saith S. Augustin whereupon the Cardinall saith Sanctus Augustinus apertè vocat S. Petrum caput corporis Ecclesiae S. Augustine doth planily call S. Peter head of the body of the Church To this M. Andrewes saith thus ConcludÃt testes suos cum Augustino non Augustino cuius tempore non fiebant Sermones de tempore He to wit the Cardinall concludeth his witnesses with an Augustine who is not Augustin in whose tyme there were not made any Sermons de tempore So he taking exceptions to the authority of this allegation because in S. Augustins tyme as he would haue vs suppose there was no such custome in the Church to make Sermons de tempore that is to say of the ordinary feasts that do occur thoughout the course of the yeare and that therefore the Authour of those Sermons de tempore out of the which the Cardinall taketh this place could not be S. Augustins but of some other later wryter who set them out in S. Augustins name 22. But now if you aske how M. Andrews proueth that there were no Sermons de tempore in S. Augustins tyme you must take his bare word for a proofe for you neyther haue nor are like to heare any other of him But for the tryall of this matter I must remit thee good Reader to some better and more authenticall witnesses then M. Andrewes namely to Possidius a learned Bishop who being a familiar friend of S. Augustin forty yeares togeather as he signifieth himselfe wrote his life and making a Catalogue of his workes doth mention amongst the rest diuers Sermons or Treatises of his made of some of the principall feasts of the yeare as of Christmas Ascension Pentecost Lent and 23. Tracts or Sermons per Vigilias Paschae in the Eues of Easter whereof by all likelyhood this very Sermon was one being made on the Wednesday before Easter whereto may be added also diuers other particuler feasts of Saints mentioned in like manner by Possidius as namely the Natiuity of S. Iohn Baptist of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul of S. Laurence S. Cyprian S. Perpetua and Felicitas S. Saluius S. Vincent and some others which I omit for that these I trow may suffice to conuince M. Andrews of great ignorance or malice in that he denyeth that there were any Sermons de tempore in S. Augustins tyme. 23. For although it is like inough that neyther S. Augustin nor any other Father of that age wrote any work vnder the title of Sermones de tempore but that such sermons being made at diuers tymes and dispersed in diuers parts of their workes haue bene since their daies gathered into one volume and set out vnder that tytle for the ease and commodity of the Readers yet no man that hath byn conuersant in the Fathers can be ignorant that such were vsually made both in the Latin and in the Greeke Church in S. Augustins tyme which may euidently appeare besids the testimony of Possidius aforesaid by the works of S. Ambrose wherin there are Sermons vpon almost all the great feasts from Aduent to Pentecost and in the same tyme liued also S. Maximus Bishop of Turin who wrote diuers homilies vpon the principall feasts of the yeare as testifyeth Gennadius a famous writer of that age whereof I shall haue occasion to speake further hereafter Besids that it cannot be denyed that the like custome was also in the Greeke Church in those daies seeing that we fynd in S. Gregory Nissen who was S. Basils brother diuers Orations made vpon the feasts of the Natiuity of our Sauiour S. Stephen Easter and the Ascension And others also in S. Gregory Nazianzen vpon the feasts of Easter Pentecost the Natiuity of Christ the Epiphany which amongst the Greekes was called Sancta Lumina In like
also in the same tyme treating of the perfection of Religious men and hauing said that inestimable glory in heauen is promised them yf they keep their Rules and most grieuous paines prepared for them if they neglect them concludeth Meliusest enim c. For it is better according to the sentence of the Scripture not to vow then to vow and not to performe it Thus saith Cassianus to whome I might add many other witnesses but that it is needlesse seing these may suffice to shew M. Andrews allowing as he doth the Instituts of the Monks of the primitiue Church must needes admit allow religious vowes of Pouerty Chastity Obedience whereto all Religious men are and euer haue bene bound by their Institutes 24. So as it is cleare by all this that in this one point he hath graunted diuers important points of Catholike religion yea and vtterly condemned his owne which denyeth and impugneth all those things practised in Monasticall lyfe according to the first Institutes thereof Besides that it also followeth theroÌ„ that his religion is vtterly voyd of all christian perfection which specially consisteth in the true imitation of Christs lyfe by the obseruation of the Euangelicall Counsells professed and practised in Religious discipline for which cause all the Ancient Fathers placed the highest perfection of christian Religion therein as I haue euidently shewed in any Supplement by the clear testimonies of S. Dionysius Areopagita Eusebius S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Basil S. Chrisostome S. Hierome S. Augustin Sozomenus S. Bernard 25. Therefore it litle importeth for the matter in hand what he iangleth against Monkes for put the case it were true that they were all degenerated from their first institute as it is most false and affirmed by him without any proofe and therfore to be answered with a bare deniall yet it suffiseth for the proofe of that which I haue heere vndertaken that the sayd institut consisted in the practise of many notable and important points of Catholike religion and that he hath by an euident consequent granted and approued the said points together with the institut against the curreÌ„t of the doctrine and profession of all his fellowes in which respect I shall not need to trouble thee good Reader with any answere to the rest of his impertineÌ„t discourse and namely to his friuolous stale obiection concerning the idlenes of Monkes answered fully long since by dyuers Catholiks and namely by Cardinall Bellarmine in his Controuersies whereto I remit him because I am forced to hast to an end for otherwise truly I would not only say somewhat therto but also I would examine and debate with him 2. or 3. other points which he toucheth and especially what was the true cause why monasticall profession was first abrogated amongst the Protestants and why they pretending to reforme the Church in these our dayes did rather quite abolish the institute of Monks theÌ„ seeke to restore it to the first integrity if it were good at the first and only fallen to decay and corruption as he signifieth 26. For whereas he seemeth to giue two causes thereof the one that Monkes were growne to be idle and the other that their idlenes was turned to licentiousnes if that were true those reformers should rather haue sought to redresse the abuse and to reduce the Monkes to their first rules then to antiquate the whole Institute which being grounded vpon the holy Scriptures the expresse Counsels of our Sauiour and the example of his lyfe was ordeyned by the Apostles as I haue shewed in my Supplement and doth conteyn in it all true Christian perfection according to the opinion of all the Fathers in which respect it could not by any humane authority be lawfully abrogated and taken quite out of the Church Besides that it is euident that the Ringleaders in that pretended reformation I meane Luther Oecolâ—mpadius Bucer Peter Martyr Ochinus Michonius Menius Musculus Pelicanus Pomeranus and Munsterus being all of them Votaries that is to say Monkes Fryars and religious men abolished the Institutes of monasticall lyfe only because they themselues were so transported with the fury of lust and sensuality that they could no longer indure the restraint therof in religious discipline 27. And therefore they resolued not only to teach most beastly and fleshly doctrine tending to all liberty of the flesh as that it is no more possible to liue chast then to liue without meate That if the wyfe will not come let the maid come That Poligamy or the hauing of many wiues at once is not forbidden in the new law Yea and that it is not lawfull for a man to pray for the guift of Chastity except he surely know that God will giue it him They resolued I say not only to teach this beastly and Mahometicall doctrine but also to incite men therto by their examples euen with the damnable breach of their owne vowes habentes damnationem quia primam fidem irritam fecerunt hauing damnation because they broke their first faith as S. Paul said of the yong widdowes who after their vowes of chastity had but only a wil and desire to marry wheras these deformers hauing bound themselues both to Chastity and Monasticall lyfe by solemne vowe abandoned both the one and the other and as S. Basil saith of such did seek to couer stupri scelus honesto coÌ„iugij nomine the wickednes of whordome with the honest name of Marriage most of them taking harlots vnder the name of wiues 28. So as M. Andrewes may see who were indeed those Locusts whose slothfull idlenes turning to a froath of licencious lyfe destroyed monasticall perfection and profession amongst the Prostestants to wit the very first Apostles and Euangelists of their Ghospell I meane the votaries aboue named and other such of their humour and crew who being weary of the seuerity of Monasticall discipline became Apostata's and renegats and the better to cloake and excuse their owne Apostasy not only sought to abrogate all monasticall discipline but did also set abroach the new doctrine which M. Andrewes and all other Protestants now professe and therefore it is easie to iudg what good fruit such bad trees could yield and consequently from what spirit as well the abrogation of monasticall profession amongst the Protestants as their whole doctrine proceedeth And thus much for this point 29. The Cardinall to proue that the name Catholike doth most properly belong to them that liue in the vnitie and obedience of the Roman Church alleageth S. Ambrose who hauing declared that his brother Satyrus being by shipwrack cast vpon a coast where there were many Schismatiks called LuciferiaÌ„s asked the Bishop of the place whether he did agree with the Catholike Bishops and explicated the same presently saying id est an cum Romana Ecclesia consentiret that is to say whether he agreed with the Roman Church whereto M. Andrewes answereth that Ambrose
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
exceedingly wonder as well at the penury of learned Deuines in England as at their want of iudgment in venturing the credit of their cause vpoÌ„ so weake a Champion whose valour consisteth in nothing els but in certayne Thrasonicall braggs Satyricall scoffes and a vayne presumption of his latin stile which neuertheles seemeth to learned men more fit for a Comicall or Satyriall Poet theÌ„ for a Doctor of Diuinity wherein also they obserue such obsurdityâ— that they hold it for no lesse vicious in a Deuine writing of matters in controuersy then it would be in an Orator or Aduocat pleading a cause in whome nothing is more requisit then perspicuity and therefore Quintilian greatly reprehendeth such as affecting an extraordinary breuity necessaria subtrahunt verba c. do leaue out saith he necessary words And as if it were sufficient that they know their owne meaning care not whether others vnderstand them or no. So sayth Quintilian 72. And truly the same is so well verifyed in M. Andrewes that he may iustly say with the Poet dum breuis esse laboro obscurus fio whyles I labour to be briefe I become obseure in so much that he is farre more easy to be confuted then vnderstood seeming somtymes rather to propound riddles then to argue or discourse which he doth perhaps of purpose to the end that being obscure and ambiguous he may alwayes haue some starting hole or other when he is pressed by his aduersary not vnlike to a fish called in latin sepia in English a Cuttle which when she is in danger to be taken casteth out a kind of black licour lyke inke wherwith she obscureth and troubleth the water in such sort that she cannot be seene and so the more easily escapeth 73. Neuertheles M. Andrews reapeth not the like benefit by his obscurity being discouered wheresoeuer he lurketh and taken tardy at euery turne whereof sufficient experience hath bene seene in these few points of his booke which I haue had occasion to handle being only such as are incident to matters treated in my Supplement besydes dyuers others of the same sort which I am forced for lack of time to omit wherein I might much more amply haue displayed his insufficiency falsity and folly and therfore I leaue it to thee good Reader to imagin what a number of absurdityes lyes frauds and corruptions his whole worke would affoard if it were well examined 74 But now to end in no lesse charitable manner with him then I did with M. Barlow I will only wish him well to consider those few aduyses which I gaue to M. Barlow in the 8. last paragraphs of my Supplement and to take them also as meant and giuen to himselfe to the end he may seriously reflect vpon them specially vpon his vayne endeauours and lost labour in impugning the Apostolike Roman Sea weyghing withall in what a dangerous and miserable state he standeth so long as he is separated from the vnion therof which I haue there euidently shewed by the testimony of the most ancient and holy Fathers Almighty God of his infinit mercy open his eyes that he may see it and duly ponder our Sauiours most important aduyse golden lesson Quid prodest homini c. What doth it profit a man if he gayne all the world and loose his owne soule FINIS AN APPENDIX TOVCHING A Register alleadged by M. Francis Mason to proue THAT The first Protestant Byshops in the reigne of Queene Elizabeth had a lawfull Consecration THIS Adioynder being printed and some copyes ready to be diuulged it was my chance to vnderstand by a Letter written to a frend of myne that one M. Mason hath lately published a Book wherin he preteÌ„deth to answere the Preface to Fa. Persons his Discussion especially concerning one point treated therin to wit the Consecration of the first Protestant Bishops in the raigne of Queene Elizabeth further that he indeauoureth to proue their consecration by a Register testifying that 4. Bishops consecrated M. Parker the first Archbishop of Canterbury in the said Queenes dayes wherupon if it be true it must needes follow that all other Bishops consecrated after him and his successors euen vntill this day haue some more shew of lawfull consecration and succession then the Catholickes haue hitherto known or imagined 2. And therfore for as much as not only the Authour of the Preface to Fa. Persons his Discussion but also my selfe in my Supplement and in this Adioynder haue constantly denyed that they had any such consecration I thought good to stay the publication of this Adioynder vntill I had added therto this briefe Appendix concerning M. Masons pretended Register left otherwise M. Barlow and M. Andrewes may hold me to be sufficiently answered by M. Mason and remit me to his Register for that point Thou shalt therfore vnderstand Good Reader that this our exception touching the lawfull vocation and Consecration of the first Protestant Bishops in the late Queenes dayes is not a new quarrell now lately raised by vs two only I meane the Authour of the foresaid Preface and my self but vehemently vrged dyuers tymes heretofore by many other Catholykes many yeares ago yea in the very beginning of the late Queenes reygne as namely to omit others by the two learned Doctors Harding and Stapleton in theyr bookes against the Apology of the Châ—rch of England M. Iewell and M. Horne whome they pressed mightily with the defect of due vocation and consecration vrging them to proue the same and to shew how and by whome they were made Priests and Bishops 3. To which purpose M. D. Harding in his confutation of the Apology speaking to M. Iewell the pretended Bishop of Salisbury and hauing already proued that he had no succession in his Episcopall function from the Apostles sayth thus Therefore to goe from your succession to your vocation how say you Syr You beare your selfe as though you were a Bishop of Salisbury but how can you proue your vocation By what authority vsurp you the administration of doctrine and Sacraments What can you alledg for the right proof of your ministry Who hath called you Who hath layd hands on you By what example hath he done it how and by whome are you consecrated Who hath sent you c. So he 4. In lyke manner M. Doctor Stapleton in his answere to M. Iewells booke intituled A reply c. saith thus How chanced then M. Iewell that you and your fellowes bearing your selues for Bishops haue not so much as this congruity and consent I will not say of the Pope but of any Christian Bishop at all throughout all Christendome neyther are lyked and allowed of any one of them all but haue taken vpon you that office without any imposition of hands without all Ecclesiasticall authority without all order of Canons and right I aske not who gaue you Bishoprikes but who made you Bishops
effect Pope Leo's intercession had Leo. ep 68. The Emperour made suite to Pope Leo for Anatolius Idem ep 70. ad Martian Leo. ep 71. ad Anatol. Anatolius his submission to Pope Leo A manifest and sound lye of M. Andrews Pope Leo his supreme authority proued by the ouerthrow of the Canon alledged by M. Andrews Apol. Bellar. pag. 92. Concil Calced Act. 3. The name of Vniuersall Bishop giuen to the Pope by the generall Councell of Calcedon Andr. pag. 170. §. Quod ibi M. Andrews his tryfling answers M. Andrews hardly vrged Bellar. Apol. vbi supra Relat. Synodi ad Leon. in fine CoÌ„cilij Andr. vbi supra A weake and idle answere of M. Andrews Card. Apolog vbi supra Relat. Synodi ad Leon. Andr. vbi supra See cap. 1. nu 3.4.5 sequent Relat. Synodi ad Leon. A cleere testimony for Pope Leo's supremacy Liberat. in Breuiar cap. 12. Andr. vbi supra p. 171. Andr. vbi supra Apolog. C. Bellar. pag. 92. Andr. vbi supra A strange paradoxe of M. Andrews (b) See Supplem c. 4. nu 3.4.5 6. (c) Ibid. nu 7.8 Andr. cap. 8. pag. 219. Hieron li. 1. cont Iouin (d) Chap. 3. nu 37. seq Pastors are more bound to haue care of the Church then priuate men Ep. Theodoâ—â—j ad Synod Ephesin To. 1. Concil To. 4. Concil in 8. Concil general ex act 6. Suppl cap. 1. nu 112. 113. Act. â—â— 1. Cor. 12. Rom. 12. Pastours bound more then other men to haue care of the Church according to the doctrine of the Apostle Apoc. 2. M. Andrews galli-maufrey or hotch-potch M. Andrews teacheth seditious doctrine Equality of obligation requireth equality of care Isa. 32. If M. Andrews his position be true he must lay away his tytle of Lord Bishop Andr. cap. 7. pag. 171. M. Andrews corrupteth the text of the Councel of Calcedon M Andrews groundeth his arguments vpon his owne fraud Act. 15. caâ— 28. A silly collection of M. Andrews A difference to be noted betwixt the primacy of S. Peter and the priuiledgs granted to the Roman Sea Why those which penned the CanoÌ„ alledged by M. Andrews made no mention of the keys and Pastorall commissioÌ„ giuen to S. Peter M. Andrews his fraud in alledging the Canon Andr. vbi supra Can. 28. M. Andrews streyneth the Greek text to make it serue his turne Andr. pag. 171. A very false and foolish conclusioÌ„ of M. Andrews Andr. vbi supra Wisely forsooth The CanoÌ„ alledged by M. Andrews ouerthroweth his causeâ— Concil Lateran sub Innocent 3. cap. 5. See before from num 1â— to nu 24. Relatio Synod ad Leo. The CouÌ„â—ell of Calcedon acknowledged Pope Leo's supreâ—acy See before nu 45. 4â— Ibidem The CouÌ„cell ascrybed their determination of matters of fayth to the authority of Pope Leo (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How effectually clearly the Councell of Calcedon acknowledged Pope Leo's supremacy in their generall letter to him (d) See bâ—fore from nu 29. to nu 39. Other proofes that Popâ— Leo's supremacy was acknowledged by the CouÌ„cel of Calcedoâ—â— Act. 2â— Acâ— â— Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria deposed by Pope Leo. Three things to be noted in the depositioÌ„ of Dioscorus prouing Pope Leo's supremacy Concilâ— Calced Act. â— Ep. Theodor ad Leonem Theodoretus restored to his Bishoprike by Pope Lâ—o. Pope Leo was vndoubtedly the head and president of the CouÌ„cell Caluin confuted coÌ„cerning the cause why Pope Leo was president of the Councell Pope Leo head of the CouÌ„cel of CalcedoÌ„ in respect of his supreme authority ouer the whole Church What a seared coÌ„science M. Andrewâ— hath Suppl cap. 4. nu 3. 4. Apol. Card. Bel. cap. 8. p. 125. CypriaÌ„ de vnit Eccles. Idem ep ad Quintum Andr. Resp. cap. 8. pag. 217. â—in penult M. Andrews graue discourse in answere to the Cardinall The drift and meaning of S. Cyprian Cyprian vbi supra Matth. 1.6 Ioan. 21. Ibid. 20. S. CypriaÌ„ proueth the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head thereof Idem ep ad Iubaian Ibid. A foolish glosse of M. Andrews vpon the text of S. Cyprian Andr. vbi supra pag. 218. lin 2. How S. Peter might be called the light of the Church Matth. 5. Ioan. 11. The vinity of the Church notably proued and deduced by S. Cyprian from the vnity of the Head Why the Church is called one Mother M. Andrews fraudulent in his lame allegation of S. Cyprian S. Cypr. ep ad Quint. Card. Bellar Apolo c. 8. p. 125. Andr. cap. 8. pag. 218. A shifting answere of M. Andrews falsely charging the Cardinall with fraud The Primacy of S. Peter is notably proued by those words of S. CypriaÌ„ which M. Andrews sayth the Cardinall frauduleÌ„tly left out Bellar. dâ— Romano Pout l. â— cap. 25. S. CypriaÌ„ cleerly explicated by the Card. out of S. Augustine S. Peter being head of the Apostles suffered himselfe to be reprehended by S. Paul Bellarmine cleared from M. Andrews imputatioâ— How a man may speake of his owne authority insolently and yet truly Andr. vâ—â— supr How S. Peter is tearmed the foundation of the Church by S. Cyprian 1. Cor. 3. Isa. 28. (c) See after nu 24.25 2â— A bad inference of M. Andrews about twelue heads Apoc. 24. A politicall or mysticall body may haue many heads subordinat to one head M. Andrews so wryteth as he doth much help his Aduersaryes cause Card. Bellar Apol. c. 8. pag. 126 Hierom. l. â— aduers. Iouinian Touching the place of S. Hierome Supple c. 4. nu 3. Andr. vbi supra pag. 219. §. Hieronymus M. Andrews bad glosse vpoÌ„ S. Hieroms text Supra nu 15. The Cardinal falsely charged by M. Andrewâ— with fraâ—d in the citaâ—ion of S. Hierome Psal. 86. Apocal. 21. Ephes. â— Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 11. How the Church according to Cardinal Bellarmine is buylt equally vpoÌ„ all the Apostles See after nu â—6 sequ M. Andrewes calumniateth Bellarmine M. Andrews second charge against the Cardinall touching Iouinianisme refuted and retortedâ— S Hier. li. 1. contra Iouinian Why S. Peter was preferred by our Sauiour to the supremacy before S. Ioâ—n S. Hier. in 16. cap. Matth. S. Peterâ— supremacy acknowledged by S. Hierome and grouÌ„ded vpon our Sauiours ownâ— wordâ— Idem ep aâ— Marcellaâ—â— ep 54. Ibid. ep 5â— Li. 1. contra Iouiâ— (d) See before nu 4.5 sequeÌ„t See before cap. 2. nu 76. Bellar. de Rom. Pontif l. 1. c. 10. How shameles M. Andrews is to charge the Cardinall with Iouinianisme which he himselfe professeth except he dissent froÌ„ his fellows of the English clergy Ambros. ep li. 1. ep 6. 7. Hieronym contra Iouinian Aug. li. de bono coniug de virginit Idem Retract lib. 42. cap. 22. 23. Idem de haeres ad Quoduulâ— haer 82. Aug. vbi sup Ser. 191. de temp Idem de haeres haer 82. Bellar de notis Eccles l. 4. cap. 9.
the benefit of soules the publike good of the Church and gods glory wherof I haue giuen sufficient reason in the first Chapter of my Supplement 21. Therefore I will only say for the present that if the Popes spirituall Primacy may for this cause be called a temporall primacy then may M. Andrews who taketh himselfe to be a Bishop and a spirituall Pastour be iustly called and nicknamed a corporall Bishop and a pecuniary Pastour because he doth punish men sometymes in his spirituall court not only in their bodyes but also in their purses and if he would thinke him absurd who should so style and intytle him he is no lesse absurd himselfe in calling the Popes Primacy for the like reason a temporall Primacy And although neither S. Augustine nor S. Cyril do in the places cyted by M. Andrews speake of any such extension of spirituall power to temporall matters whereof they had no occasion to treate yet it sufficeth that they do not deny it yea and that they do both of them sufficiently teach there the spirituall Primacy of S. Peter wherof the other is a necessary consequent 22. S. Augustine in that very Treatise wherto M. Andrews appealeth I meane vpon the Ghospell of S. Iohn and the last Chapter hath that expresse doctrine and those very words which I cyted a little before concerning the person and figure of the whole Church represented in S. Peter propter Apostolatus sui Primatum by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship or as he saith els where propter Primatum quem in discipulis habuit for the Primacy which he had amongst the Disciples For which cause he called him also twice in the same place primum Apostolorum the chiefe Apostle and saith that the Church receaued the keyes in him which as I haue shewed doth euidently proue him to be head and supreme Pastour of the Church whereof only he and no other of the Apostles is said to represent the person and figure so that S. Augustine sufficiently acknowledgeth S. Peters spirituall Supremacy in the place alledged by M. Andrewes 23. The like doth S. Cyril also in his coÌ„mentary vpon S. Iohns Ghospell and in the same place which M. Andrewes cyteth for there he calleth S. Peter expressely Prince and head of the Apostles saying Vt Princeps Caputque ceterorum primus exclamauit Tu es Christus filius Dei viui Peter as Prince and head of the rest first exclaymed Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God So he wherby he teacheth euidently that S. Peter was head and supreme Pastour of the Church in that he acknowledgeth him to be Prince and head of the Apostles who were the chiefe Magistrates and Pastors therof and therefore it is to be considered how this agreeth with that which followeth presently after in M. Andrews his text who hauing affirmed as you haue heard that neyther of these Fathers saw the article touching Peters temporall Primacy addeth Id tantum vident nec praeterea quid quia c. They see this only and nothing els that because Peter had denyed his Lord not once but thrice he was asked concerning loue not once but thrice and so when he had abolished his triple negation with his triple confession he was restored to the place or degree of Apostleship from the which he was fallen for touching the Primacy they are altogeather silent Thus saith M. Andrews 24. Wherin it is to be noted that wheras he saith that these Fathers saw only this which he heere setteth downe nec praeterea quid and nothing else it is euidently false for two respects the one for that they saw more then he mentioneth yea more then he listed to see to wit the Primacy of S. Peter as I haue shewed out of them both the other is because they saw not that which he affirmeth in their behalfe I meane that S. Peter was by those wordes of our Sauiour restored to his place in the Apostleship which he had lost for if they should haue said so they should seeme to hould or fauour at least the pernicious heresy of Wycliffe that Magistrates loose their dignity and authority by mortall sinne which pestiferous opinion those holy Fathers no doubt would haue abhorred if it had bene set abroach or taught by any in their tyme seeing that it shaketh the very foundation of all obedience eyther to Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall Magistrates because it doth not only make all obedience vncertaine for no man knoweth who is in the state of Grace but also giueth occasion to Subiects vpon euery offence of their Prince to call his authority in question 25. Therfore to the end thou maist good Reader know as wel the integrity of these Fathers in this point as M. Andrews his fraud and bad conscience in alledging them thou shalt vnderstand that S. Augustine saith nothing at all that may be so much as wrested to any such sense in that place and doth elswhere expressely teach the contrary as when he saith Apostleâ— againe a little after when Peter the Apostle denied our Sauiour and wept and remayned still an Apostle he had not yet receaued the holy Ghost Thus saith S. Augustine and could he teach a doctrine more contrary to that which M. Andrews fatâ—ereth vpon him 26. Let vs now see how he handleth S. Cyril vpoÌ„ whome it may be he principally relyeth for this matter for indeed that holy Father saith somewhat concerning the same though far otherwise then M. Andrews would make his Reader belieue for thus saith S. Cyril Dixit pasce agnos meos Apostolatus sibi renouaÌ„s dignitatem ne propter negationem quae humana infirmitate accidit labefactata videretur He to wit our Sauiour said to Peter feed my Lambs renewing to him his dignity of the Apostleship least it might seeme to haue bene decayed by his denyall which happened by humane infirmity Thus far S. Cyril who you see neyther saith nor meaneth that S. Peter fell from his Apostleship by his denyall of Christ but rather signifieth the contrary to wit that Christ would not haue it so much as to seeme or be supposed that he had lost his dignity by his fall and therefore renewed it by that new and expresse commission ne labefactata videretur lest it should seeme to haue bene decayed or lost 27. Wherin also it is to be obserued that the dignity wherof S. Cyril speaketh was not the bare office or degree of an Apostle but that which was peculiar and proper to S. Peter and so acknowledged by S. Cyril himselfe a little before in the same Chapter when he tearmed him Principem Caput ceterorum the Prince and head of the rest of the Apostles as also S. Augustine as you haue heard calleth it Primatum principatum Apostolatus the Primacy and principality of the Apostleship and therefore I say the Dignity which according to S. Cyrils doctrine our Sauiour renewed
directly that no temporall Prince is Supreme head of the Church But his opinion concerning the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy will be much more manifest if we consider what a poore conceipt he hath of it and how he abaseth it being so farre from graunting it to be a principall article of faith as we hold the Popes Primacy to be that he saith it is ne articulus quidem not so much as an Article vtpote de exteriori modo regimine c. as of a thing which concerneth only the externall gouâ—rment of the Church so far forth as it requireth and admitteth humane help and authority And therefore hâ— placeth it not amongst points which are to be belieued but amongst matters of perswasion such I meane as we are perswaded to be true and therfore he saith nec sic singula trahimus ad fidem c. we do not so draw all things to faith it sufficeth for some heads or points of religion to belieue them with the Apostle and of some others to be perswaded only quae tameÌ„ infra fideÌ„ subsistant which neuertheles are beneath or vnder matters of faith Therefore it is inough if it be without the compasse of faith so that it may haue place only amongst orthodox or true doctrine So he and to the same purpose he also saith in another place that it is a truth but extra symbolum out of the creed so that it may perhaps be come into his Pater noster but is not yet into Creed Whereupon diuers things might be inferred worth the noting but I will touch only two or three 39. If the Kings Supremacy be not a matter of Faith then is it neither expressely taught in Scripture nor necessarily deduced from it for if it were then must it needes be a matter of Faith and therevpon it followeth that although M. Andrews doe alleage Scripture to proue it yet he himselfe is of opinion that it is but only probably gathered out of Scripture and consequently that a man may without daunger of damnation choose whether he will belieue it or no. For of thinges which are in Controuersy and not defined but only probably gathered out of Scripture a man may without daunger of his soule adhere to eyther parte which truly may serue for a great Motiue to all Protestants to make small account of the Kinges Ecclesiasticall Suâ—remacy otherwise then in respect of the temporall Lawes especially seeing that so great a Doctor as M. Andrewes who pretendeth expresly to maintaine and defend it teacheth that it is no matter of faith Besides that I cannot see how he can approue the Oath of the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy to be lawfully teÌ„dred or taken as of an vndoubted truth if it be no matter of faith For he that sweareth a thing to be simply true which he doth not certainly belieue but only is probably perswaded that it is true sinneth in the opinion of the Diuines Canonistsâ— Wherupon it followeth that M. Andrews who holdeth the Kings Supremacy to be no matter of faith but only a probable truth can neither lawfully take the Oath of the said Supremacy nor iustly approue it to be exacted of any and this will be as cleere as the Sun if we consider by what Scriptures he laboureth to proue the Kings Supremacy wherby we shall easily see that the same is not so much as probably gathered out of Scripture and therfore not to be held for an vndoubted truth and much lesse to be sworne for such 40. For wheras the Cardinall obiecteth that it is a new doctrine taught first in the time of King Henry the 8. who first tooke vpon him the title of supreme head of the Church M. Andrews denieth it saying tantum abest c. It is so farre from being so new as the Cardinall saith to wit a thousand fiue hundred yeares after Christ that it was a thousand fiue hundred yeares before Christ was borne Neither was Henry the 8. the Authour of that in our age but Moyses in his who hauing put off or laid away his Priesthood was neuerthelesse aboue Aaron and when he gaue to the King the Law he gaue him withall the chiefe power to keepe Religion which is the first and chiefest part of the Law and to cause it to be kept So he Wherein he giueth two reasons or groundes out of the old Law for the spirituall Supremacy of temporall Princes The one because Moyses laid aside his Priesthood and being therfore but a temporall man was superiour to Aaron And the other because he gaue to Kings the chief power and charge of Religion when he gaue them the copy of the Law 41. In the former point of the two he notably bewrayeth his owne ignorance in saying that Moyses laid aside his Priesthood or ceased to be Priest after he was once Priest as if Moyses his Priesthood had bin like to the Ministry of the Protestants which may be put of and on like a Ierkin or a Cloake when they list whereas his Priesthood was so permanent and inseparably annexed to his person that albeit he might cease from the execution of the function yet he could neuer put off the power of his Priesthood during his life Besides that he was so farre from putting off his Priesthood that he was not only still Priest after Aaron was consecrated but also as S. Augustine teacheth expresly chief Priest either togeather with Aaron or els aboue him Ambo saith he tunc summi Sacerdotes erant both Moyses and Aaron were theÌ„ high Priests or rather was not Moyses high Priest and Aaron vnder him Thus saith S. Augustine wherby you see how weake and seelly is M. Andrews his first reason grounded vpon his own ignorant conceipt that Moyses left off his Priesthood and that neuertheles he was still superiour to Aaron being a meere temporall Prince for if he meant not so his argument for the temporall Princes supremacy is not worth a rush but you haue heard out of S. Augustine that Moyses was not only a Priest after the Consecration of Aaron but also chief Priest I meane aboue Aaron in which respect it may be thought that God commaunded Moyses not Aaron to cloath Eleazar Aaron Sonneâ— with Aarons vestments in the preâ—â—nce of Aaron himself to succeed him in the office of high Priest 42. In his second reason concerning the chiefe power and charge of Religion giuen to Kings by Moyses togeather with the copy of the Law he sheweth most euident and notorious malice in the manifest abuse corruption of Scripture no such thing but rather the cleane contrary being to be gathered out of that place of Deuteronomy where Moyses ordayned that the copy of the Law should be giuen by the Priestes to the future Kings I say future for that there was no King ouer Gods people in the time of Moyses nor of 400. years after as I haue signified in