nothing is to be belieued or practiced in the Church whereof there is no cōmandment or example in Scripture which you haue heard already confuted as well by the authority of Scripture and Fathers as also by our aduersaryes owne doctrine approuing the practice of things not cōmanded any where in Scripture as the baptisme of infants the vse of the signe of the Crosse Godfathers and Godmothers in baptisme whereto I may add the tradition of keeping Sunday holy day in memory of the Resurrection of our Sauiour with abstinence from seruile works Also the obseruation of Easter Pentecost and such feasts and diuers other things consisting in matters of practice 56. If then they approue and practice these things although they be not commanded or ordeyned in Scripture what reason haue they to reiect prayer to Saynts because there is no commandement or example of it in Scripture when neuertheles it is most conforme thereto and deduced from it as I haue partly shewed already by an inafallible rule of S. Augustine seeing it is approued by that Church which the Scripture commandeth vs to heare belieue and obay besydes that it being euident in Scripture that Charity which moueth and obligeth men to pray one for another in this lyfe nunquam excidit as the Apostle teacheth neuer decayeth but is more perfect in the next lyfe it followeth not only that the Saynts do pray for vs which M. Andrews granteth but also that we may craue their prayers for it were most absurd to thinke that we may not request them to do that which is most correspondent to their Charity and they will most willingly performe 57. Furthermore seeing that the Scripture doth teach vs to craue the prayers and help of our brethren liuing there can be no reason imagined why we should not also do the same when they are glorifyed in heauen but eyther because they do not heare or vnderstand our prayers or because they are not willing or not able to helpe vs but that they heare vs I haue sufficiently proued already and haue also answered M. Andrews his cauils concerning the same and he neyther denyeth nor seemeth to doubt eyther that they are willing to succour vs considering the perfection of their Charity or yet that they are able to do it seeing he granteth they do pray for vs if he should deny it or that their prayers may auayle vs as Vigilantius his followers did in tymes past and Zuinglius with other sectaries haue done in these our dayes he might easily be conuinced by the holy Scriptures which witnesse that God granteth the petitions of his seruants euen when they are heere subiect to sinne and misery and hath mercy on sinners for the merits of the iust as well dead as liuing and therefore the Prophet prayed ne auferas misericordiam tuam c. do not take away thy mercy from vs O Lord for thy beloued Abraham and thy seruant Isaac and thy holy Israell And we read in the booke of Kings that for Dauids sake God did mitigate his wrath towards Salomon and saued also the Kingdome of Iuda from destruction in the reygne of Ioram and Ezechias 58. In lyke manner God pardoned Iobs friends for his sake and directed them vnto him to craue his prayers for them Also for the prayers of Moyses he had mercy on the people and the lyke we read in the new testament Whereupon S. Hierome sayd to Vigilantius thus Si Apostoli Martyres c. If the Apostles and Martyrs beeing heere in body could pray for others whiles they ought to be carefull for themselues how much more may they do it after their crounes victoryes and tryumphs one Moyses obtayned of God pardon for six hundred thousand armed men and Steuen the follower of his Lord and first Martyr in Christ craued pardon for his persecutours and shall they now be able to doe lesse when they are with Christ Paul the Apostle sayth that 276. mens liues were giuen him in the ship and therefore now when he is dissolued and with Christ will he hold his peace and shall he not be able so much as to open his mouth for those which haue belieued by his preaching throughout the world and shall Vigilantius a liuing dog be better then a dead lyon Thus argueth S. Hierome by an argument a fortiori grounded on the Scripture to shew the extreame absurdity of Vigilantius the heretike who denyed that the Saynts in heauen do pray for vs and are able to helpe vs. 59. And this ability of Saynts to helpe men is to be ascribed not only to the effect of their prayers but also to their power authority and dignity seeing that Christ who is the King of Kings Lord of Lords hath all power in heauen and earth giuen him by his Father doth in the Apocalips promise to his Saynts a communication and participation of his owne Kingdome dominion and power ouer men qui vicerit sayth he dabo sedere mecum c. he that shall ouercome I will giue vnto him to sit with me in my throne as I also haue ouercome and sitten with my father in his throne dabo ei potestatem super gentes c. I will giue him power ouer nations and he shall rule them c. and according to this promise of our Sauiour the Saynts also sayd to him in the Apocalips Redimisti nos Deo in sanguine tuo c. thou hast redeemed vs to God in thy blood and hast made vs to our God a Kingdome and Priests and we shall reygne vpon the earth and this may be confirmed out of the booke of wisdome which sayth that the iust when they shal be glorified iudicabunt Nationes dominabuntur populis c. shall iudge Nations and shall haue dominion ouer people and in like manner the Psalmist saith speaking of the glory of Gods Saynts exultabunt Sancti in gloria c. the Saynts shall exult and reioyce in glory c. they shall haue two edged swoords in their hands to take reuenge vpon nations and to chastise people to tye their Kings in fetters and their noble men in iron manicles c. Thus saith the royall Prophet 60. And albeit this shal be specially and most manifestly fulfilled at the day of Iudgement when the Saynts of God shall assist our Sauiour in the Iudgment and condemnation of the wicked yet it cannot be denyed but that also in the meane tyme it is verifyed in the power and dominion that God imparteth to his Saynts giuing them the protection of Cittyes Countryes and men as it appeareth euidently by innumerable examples which might be alledged of Kingdomes and Cytties defended Gods seruants relieued and his enemies destroyed by them for which cause the ancient Fathers do worthily call them the keepers of human kind gouernours of
deny this seeing that they do admit diuers traditions whereof there is neyther precept nor example in the Scripture as the baptisme of infants who do not actually belieue for although the same be very consonant to Scripture as also is prayer to Saynts and all other things which are practiced in the Catholike Church yet the vse and practice thereof is grounded vpon tradition and not vpon the Scriptures as Origen testifyeth saying Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditioneÌ„ accepit c. The Church receiued a tradition from the Apostles to giue baptisme to litle children So he And S. Augustin also to the same purpose saith more plainely thus Consuetudo mâ—tris Ecclesiae in baptizandis paruulis c. the custome of our Mother the Church in baptizing infants is not to be contemned or reputed as superfluous neyther were it to be belieued at all if it were not an Apostolicall tradition So he who also acknowledgeth the same in another place and saith further that if any man do demaund diuine authority for it quamquam quod vniuersa tenet Ecclesia c. albeit that which the vniuersall Church holdeth and hath not byn ordayned by Councells but hath alwayes been reteyned is most rightly belieued to haue byn deliuered by no other but by Apostolicall authority neuertheles we may truly coniecture by Circumcision in the old law what force the Sacrament of Baptisme hath in Infants Thus saith S. Augustine who to answere those that do demand diuine authority for the custome of the Church in baptizing Infants doth not proue or confirme it by any precept or example out of Scripture but only by a probable coniecture drawn from the figure of it in the old law relying principally vpon the tradition of the Church 33. But what need I seeke any other testimony for this matter seeing that Tho. Rogers in the 39. articles agreed vpon by the pretended Bishops and Clergy of England and analyzed into propositions glossed and set forth by him with their publyke approbation doth acknowledge that the baptisme of yong children is in any wyse to be retayned in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ although sayth he we be not commanded by expresse termes to baptize them So he whereupon it directly followeth that M. Andrews hath ouerlashed greatly in saying id tantùm audemus facere de quo praeceptum habemus we dare doe that only whereof we haue a precept Also what precept or example haue M. Andrews and his fellowes in Scripture for the vse of Godfathers and Godmothers and of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme allowed as well by their practice as by the late Queenes Iniunctions yea and by the Ecclesiasticall Canons of the Bishops and Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury made in their Synod held at London with his Maiestyes lycence in the yeare 1603. and published the yeare following by his Maiestyes authority vnder the great Seale of England in which Canons they do not only approue the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme but also professe to follow therein the primitiue Apostolicall Churches the true rules of doctrine coÌ„cerning things indifferent which are consonant to the word of God and the iudgement of all the ancient Fathers so that by their owne confession they retayne the vse of it without eyther precept or example in holy Scripture 34. And now because I haue had this occasion to speake of this constitution I can not omit to aduertise thee good Reader of a notable peece of trumpery and cosenage vsed by that graue Synod in this very Canon whereof we now speake wherein giuing the reason why they retayne the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme they say they do it because the same hath byn euer accompanyed among them with sufficient cautions exceptions agaynst all popish superstition and errour and forsooth that the world may vnderstand from what popish errour they haue freed the same they signify that the Church of England since the abolishing of Popery hath euer held and taught that the signe of the crosse vsed in Baptisme is no part of the substance of that Sacrament and that the infant Baptized is by vertue of Baptisme before it be signed with the signe of the crosse receiued into the congregation of Christs flock as a perfect member thereof and not by any power ascribed to the signe of the crosse c. whereupon they conclude that the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme being thus purged from all popish superstition and errour and reduced in the Church of England to the primary institution of it c. it is to be reuerently retayned and vsed Thus teach they in their foresayd Synod 35. But now we must demand of them where they haue euer read in any Catholyke Authour that the signe of the crosse as it is vsed in the administration of baptisme is any part of the substance of the Sacrament sure I am that all our schoolemen and Canonists and others that haue occasion to treat therof do expressely teach the contrary neyther did euer any learned Catholyke hold or suppose it to be any part eyther of the forme or of the matter of Baptisme which are the essentiall parts thereof but only an ancient and holy ceremony and this is euident euen by the practice of the Catholyke Church approuing the baptisme not only of the midwyfe in cases of necessity but also of any heretike if he haue the intention to do that which the Catholyke Church doth and vseth the true forme with conuenient matter without the signe of the crosse or any other ceremony in the world and albeit the Church vseth to suply the sayd ceremonyes afterwards in such as wanted the same yet it maketh no doubt at all but that they are baptized before and in state of saluation if they dye before the sayd ceremonyes be supplyed whereby it is manyfest that the Catholykes do not take the signe of the crosse to be of the substance or essence of the sacrament 36. But of this I shall not neede to produce any further proofe seeing that those pretended Bishops which were present at this Congregation and made this Canon haue giuen sufficient testimony of the truth in this poynt to no meaner a person then to his Maiesty himselfe as he did publikely testify in the CoÌ„ference at Hampton-court wherein the question concerning the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme being debated betwixt them and the Puritans his Maiesty sayd that he vnderstood by the Bishops yea and found it himselfe to be true that the Papists themselues did neuer ascribe any power or spirituall grace to the signe of the crosse in Baptisme whereupon it followeth that they do not nor euer did account to be any essentiall part of the Sacrament for if they did they should ascribe vnto it a spirituall grace and power as they doe to the essence of
the Sacrament which they all do vniformly teach to giue grace ex opere operato and therefore seeing that according to his Maiestyes testimony as well vpon his owne knowledge as by the relation of the Bishops to him the Catholykes did neuer ascribe any power or spirituall grace to the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme it is euident that the Bishops in their Synod belyed them egregiously charging them to hold it to be a part of the substance of the Sacrament yea and notably deluded the people in seeking to perswade them that the Catholykes had corrupted the vse thereof and that the English Clergy hath now reduced it to the primary institution 37. Who then could imagine that so many Ecclesiasticall men honorable for their ranke and dignity in the common welâ—h by profession Deuines by tytle Prelats and spirituall Pastors of the people could also vniformely agree to cozen the world in this manner and insteed of feeding their flock with holsome doctrine to infect and poyson them with such manifest lyes as this conuinced euen by their owne testimony to his Maiesty himselfe the very same yeare that they deuised it as it appeareth by the printed copyes of their Ecclesiastical constitutions of the coÌ„ference at Hampton-Court published in the yeare 1604. and therefore I leaue it to thee good Reader to consider in what a miserable state our poore country is where such men as these who as it seemeth haue no care eyther of their owne conscience or reputation haue neuertheles the care and charge of other mens soules 38. But to returne to M. Andrews who perhaps was one of that conuenticle though not as a Bishop yet as one of the Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury I would gladly know of him whether he and his Clergy in the Diocesse of Ely do vse the signe of the Crosse in the administration of Baptisme or not and if they do not let him tell vs how they obserue this Synodicall Canon made by his fellowes and authorized by his Maiesty and if they do obserue it let him shew vs some precept or example of it in Scripture seeing he resolutly affirmeth in the name of the whole English Church as it seemeth that they dare do that only whereof they haue a precept Therefore I say let him eyther shew vs some precept for it in Scripture or els confesse that he and his fellowes dare do more then is commanded therein 39. Finally if they may lawfully follow the primitiue and Apostolicall Churches and the iudgement of all the ancient fathers in matters though not commanded in Scripture yet consonant thereto as they professe to do in the foresayd Canon then they must also grant that it is in lyke manner lawfull for Catholykes to do the lyke for prayer to Saynts seeing that the same is conforme to the practice of the primitiue Church and to the beliefe of the ancient fathers and consequently to the holy Scriptures for otherwyse neyther would so many learned ancient and holy fathers haue approued it neyther yet the Church whose authority as S. Augustine sayth the Scripture recommendeth vnto vs would haue practised it I meane that visible Catholyke Church whereof S. Augustine did so constantly defend and mayntayne the authority agaynst the heretykes in his tyme that he pronounced them as you haue heard before to be most insolent mad men if they did but only doubt of any generall custome thereof 40. Whereupon I conclude that prayer to Saynts being generally approued and practised by the Church in S. Augustines tyme it must needs follow according to his rule that the vse and practice thereof is not only most lawfull and consonant to Scripture but also reuerently to be retayned and vsed by M. Andrews and his fellowes euen according to their owne profession in their Synodicall constitution seeing as I haue signified before they professe reuerently to retayne the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme though not commanded in Scripture because the same was vsed in the primitiue Church and is consonant to Scripture and to the Iudgement of all the ancient Fathers 41. And if he say that they professe in their Canon to follow the rules of doctrine concerning things that are at least indifferent that prayer to Saynts is neyther absolutly good nor yet indifferent but altogeather vnlawfull and consequently not to be vsed he is to vnderstand first that according to his owne rule and inference vpon the text of Deuteronomy he neyther doth nor can admit any thing that is not commanded in Scripture be it neuer so good For he sayth id tantúm audemus facere c. we dare do that only whereof we haue a precept and to that purpose he alledgeth also the text of Deuteronomy hoc tantùm facies quod tibi praecipio thou shalt do this only which I do command thee where you see the word tantùm as well in his assertion as in the text of Scripture excludeth all things whatsoeuer that are not commanded whereupon it followeth that the vse of the signe of the Crosse in baptisme is as well prohibited as prayer to Saynts if hee vnderstand that text of Deuteronomy aright and make a good inference thereon 42. Secondly it is not sufficient that he and his fellowes do hold the inuocation of Saynts to be vnlawfull but they must also proue it so to be or els they must grant the practice of it to be lawfull as of a thing at least indifferent vpon the same reason that they admit the â—igne of the Crosse in baptisme yea with farre greater reason seeing that as I haue already proued prayer to Saynts is not only good and lawfull but also most profitable and beneficiall to men whereas the Crosse in baptisme according to the doctrine of the foresayd Canon hath no vertue or power in it at all but is only an outward Ceremony and honorable badge of a Christian. So as M. Andrews cannot approue the vse thereof and exclude the practice of prayer to Saynts except he wil be so absurd to admit things indifferent and reiect a thing absolutly good and very necessary for euery Christian man for so I say he must needs confesse the inuocation of Saynts to be except he can ouerthrow the testimonies of all the ancient Fathers yea and the experience that the Church hath alwayes had of the soueraygne benefits that men reape thereby 43. Thirdly whereas he demandeth a precept in Scripture for prayer to Saynts he seemeth to grant it to be eyther good of it selfe or at least indifferent for if it were absolutly bad it were in vayne and absurd to demand a precept of it for that it could neuer be commanded so as eyther his demand in that behalfe is very idle and absurd or els he must acknowledge it at least to be indifferent and consequently that it is no lesse lawfull to vse it without a precept then the signe of the Crosse in
our actions the Capteyns Princes propugnators patrons and protectors of men as I haue more particulerly declared before in this Chapter and therefore also all Christian Countryes and Cittyes are accustomed to haue some Saynt or other for their particular patron by whose helpe they haue often receiued reliefe in their necessityes and victory agaynst their enemyes wherof diuers notable examples testified by very graue authours may be seene in a treatise of Policy and Religion published a few yeares a goe wherto I remit my Reader for breuityes sake and will now inferre vpon these premisses that seeing the glorified Saynts of God do not only vnderstād know our prayers but also are most willing able to helpe vs as S. Iohn testifyeth in the Apocalips do offer vp our prayers to God yea and as M. Andrews himselfe granteth do pray for vs and finally seeing that experience also teacheth that they do diuers wayes assist relieue vs which I haue euidently proued by the testimony of the ancient Fathers it were most absurd to think that the holy Scriptures should allow vs to craue the prayers and helpe of men and disallow prayers to Saynts therfore I conclude that for as much as prayer to Saynts is most consonant both to Scripture and reason and most profitable and beneficiall to men and was admitted practised by all the primitue Church and ratified and approued by the vniforme consent of the ancient Fathers as I haue shewed sufficiently before it cannot be reiected by M. Andrews and his fellowes though there should be no cōmandment nor example of it in Scripture seeing they professe to admit without a precept such things as are indifferent when they are conforme to the holy Scriptures the practise of the primitiue Church and iudgement of all the ancient Fathers 61. But what starting hole trow you will M. Andrews find heere or what exceptions will he take to this my conclusion mary forsooth he will cauill at least about the authority of the Fathers alledged by the Cardinall against whome he taketh two mayne exceptions the one concerning the age and tyme when they lyued and the other touching their vniforme consent of the former he sayth that they were all of them after 300. yeares to wit in the 4. age whereas in quadringentis annis sayth he rex expectat the King expecteth the resolution of the Fathers of 400. yeares as who would say that the Cardinall hath proued nothing to the purpose at least to his Maiesties intention because he hath not alledged any of the Fathers of the first 3. hundred yeares wherein no doubt he doth his Maiesty great wrong Fathering his owne foolish and absurd conceipt vpon his Maiesty whose great wisdome being considered it cannot be imagined that in admitting the Fathers of the first 500. yeares for so he doth in the English Apology his meaning was to reiect their vniforme consent in any one of those centuries especially seeing that his Maiesty professeth in the same place to reuerence the ancient Fathers more then euer the Iesuits did which truly he should not do if his meaning were such as M. Andrews maketh it heere 62. For I am well assured that the Iesuits neuer tooke any exception agaynst all the Fathers of any one age from Christs tyme to this and much lesse to those of the 4. and 5. age who were of such eminent learning and sanctity that their vniforme consent concerning any question of religion must needs be held for an euident testimony of the truth seeing that God of his infinit mercy did then propagate his Church and fayth ouer the world and establish the same vnder Christian Emperours to wit Constantin the Great and his successors by meanes whereof the Church was euery where prouided and furnished with notable Pastours who being freed from the former persecutions had opportunity to write those ample volumes and worthy monuments which by Gods great prouidence they left to their posterity for the confirmation of the Christian Catholyke fayth whereas in the former ages I meane the first 3. Centenaryes the persecution was so great vnder the pagan Emperours that neyther the Christian faith could so much extend it selfe as it did in the 4. and 5. age Neyther could there be so many able men to write neyther those that were could haue such opportunity to do it as the others had in the peace and tranquility of the Church 63. And this is euident by the workes of the one and the other seeing that in the first 300. yeares there were not past 7. or 8. Fathers at most that wrote at least whose bookes we now haue and of those also the most wrote very little in so much that the workes of some one of the Fathers of the 4. and 5. age do in volume and quantity exceed all the workes that are now extant of all the Fathers of the 3. former ages and therefore it cannot be expected that they should treate or touch all matters which are now in controuersy especially such as were not then any way called in question Besides that in the 4. and 5. age were held the 4. first Generall Councells which not only his Maiesty but also M. Andrews himselfe admitteth In which respect the Fathers of that tyme must needs be taken for assured and vncontrollable witnesses of the truth for those Councells which were no other but assemblyes of the Fathers then liuing could not be of such vndoubted authority as they are if the Fathers of those ages had vniformely taught or belieued any erroneous doctrine for if they were all deceiued in one point they might also be deceiued and erre in the rest and so should the whole Church wherof they were the Pastors Doctors be drawne into errour by them which is not possible seeing that Christ hath not only promised his owne assistance to his Church for euer and that hell gates shall not preuayle against it but also hath placed in it Pastors and Doctors saith the Apostle to the consummation of the Saynts vnto the worke of the ministery vntill we meete all in the vnity of faith vt iam non simus paruuli fluctuantes c. to the end we now be not wauering Children carryed away with euery blast of doctrine so saith the Apostle 64. Whereby it is euident that God of his singular prouidence hath giuen Doctors and Pastors to the Church yea and ordayned that they shall remayne there vnto the worlds end to preserue the same from errour whereupon it followeth that all the Doctors and Pastors of the Church cannot erre at any tyme for if they could then were not the remedy effectuall and certayne which God hath ordayned in his Church to preserue it from errour by them therefore if they haue all erred in the 4. age or any other then hath the prouidence ordinance yea and the promise of God fayled which is impossible as I
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
AN ADIOYNDER TO THE SVPPLEMENT OF FATHER ROBERT PERSONS HIS DISCVSSION of M. Doctor Barlowes Ansvvere c. CONTAYNING A Discouery and Confutation of very many foule Absurdityes Falsities and Lyes in M. D. Andrewes his Latin Booke intituled Responsio ad Apologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini c. An answere to the Apology of Card. Bellarmine WRITTEN By F. T. Authour of the Supplement to iustify certaine places and authorities alleaged as well by him in the said Supplement as by the Cardinall in his Apology and pretended to be answered by M. D. Andrewes ALSO An Appendix touching a Register alleaged by M. Franc. Mason for the lawfull Ordayning of Protestant Bishops in Q. Elizabeths Raigne Mentita est iniquitas sibi Psal. 26. Iniquity hath lyed to it selfe Imprinted with Licence M. DC XIII THE PRINTER to the Reader GENTLE READER Albeit the Authour of this Worke designed the same to be printed and published togeather with his Supplement to Fa. Persons his Discussion of M. Barlowes Answere c. by reason of the relation that the one hath to the other in which respect also this is intituled an Adioynder neuertheles for as much as afterwards when this came to my hands I vnderstood that M. Barlowes credit was already quyte crushed with the Disscussion of Fa. Persons and euery where so decried that most men were fully satisfyed concerning his ignorance absurdity and folly and therefore might be more desirous to see this Adioynder in Answere of M. Doctour Andrews as well in respect of his farre greater reputation as for that he hath not yet byn answered by any in our tongue And considering also that this Adioynder is growne to a farre greater volume then the Author at the first intended and that therefore many may desyre to haue it a part both for the better coÌ„modity of carryage and also for other good respects yea and that the separation thereof from the Supplement cannot hinder but that such as desyre to haue them both may easely be satisfyed and cause them to be bound eyther togeather or a sunder as they shall best lyke I therfore resolued with the good leaue of the Authour to print publish them both in seuerall volumes For although this Adioynder hath indeed a great connexion with the Supplement and in some sort dependeth thereon as being written only to iustifie the same and specially concerning matters incident thereto yet the points treated therein are so clearly handled and discussed that the truth of the Catholyke cause and M. Andrewes his notable fraudes and cauils may sufficiently appeare thereby without the helpe of the Supplement notwithstanding the frequent references thereto I shall not need to say any thing concerning the intention and drift of the Authour for that the same may fully be seene partly by the titles of the Chapters which follow immediatly and partly in the 3. first paragraphs of the first Chapter and therefore all that I thinke good to aduertise thee good Reader is that albeit this Authour hath not had eyther the occasion or the intention to answere all M. Andrewes his Booke but such points only as are some way incideÌ„t to the foresaid Supplement neuertheles this Adioynder may serue for a sufficient answere to the whole seeing it conteineth a confutation of at least an hundred Positions Assertions Paradoxes Answeres and Obiections of M. Andrewes in all which he is proued to be eyther most Idle and Impertinent or egregiously fraudulent and false or els to argue directly for the Catholikes against the common doctrine of his owne fellows whereby thou maist easily iudge of the rest of his Worke and what a number of like frauds and follies might be discouered therin if the whole were as throughlie sifted and examined as these points haue bene which haue occurred to this Authour by the occasion of his Supplement And so vvishing thee aboundance of Gods grace for the discouery of Falshood and knovvledge of the Truth to the euerlasting good of thy ovvne soule I take my leaue THE TABLE OF CHAPTERS THE Authours intention is declared and M. D. Andrews his interpretation of Pasce oues meas examined and confuted Furthermore it is shewed that he hath belyed S. Augustine corrupted S. Ambrose notably abused S. Cyril vainely carped at a Law in the Code and foolishly approued the vnlawfull proceeding of Iustinian the Emperour against the Pope CHAP. I. Pag. 1. The Answeres of M. Andrewes to certaine places of the Councell of Calcedon are examined and conâ—uted His notable fraud in diuers things and especially in the allegation of a Canon of that Councell is discouered and the supreme authority of the Sea Apostolike clearely proued out of the same Councell and Canon CHAP. II. Pag. 39. M. D. Andrewes his answeres to three places of the Fathers are examined And by the way the Cardinall is cleared from a false imputation of Iouinians heresieâ— and M. Andrewes truly charged therwith Finally all that which we teach concerning the Popes authority is necessarily deduced out of M. Andrewes his owne doctrine and expresse wordes CHAP. III. Pag. 98. Foure other places of the Fathers are debated and M. Andrewes his Answeres therto confuted VVith a Discouery of notable corruption falsity in him and of three manifest lyes within little more then three lines And by occasion therof it is also proued that 8. Popes who liued in S. Augustines time had and excercised an vniuersall and supreme Authority CHAP. IIII. Pag. 133. M. Andrewes his answeres to three other places alleadged by the Cardinall out of the Fathers are examined and confuted and diuers absurdities discouered therin And finally he is proued to be a wrangler in the highest degree CHAP. V. pag. 193. A further manifestation of M. Andrewes his trifling wrangling and fraudulent humour by his Answeres to other places of the Fathers concerning Prayer to Saintes which he deuideth into three ranks wherof the two first are examined in this Chapter CHAP. VI. Pag. 218. The Answeres of M. Andrewes to the Fathers of the third ranke are examined and sound to be either impertinent fraudulent or most iniurious to them namely to S. Ambrose whom he most egregiously abuseth Also it is euidently shewed that the Inuocation of Saints was generally practised approued aswell by the ancient Fathers as by all other faithfull Christians in the Primitiue Church CHAP. VII Pag. 258. Certaine obiections of M. Andrewes against Prayers to Saints are answered and by the way an imposture of the pretended Bishops and Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury in a Synodicall Canon of theirs is discouered And finally M. Andrews is proued to haue notably wrangled iugled and trifled throughout this whole Controuersy CHAP. VIII Pag. 306. The Conclusion of this Adioynder deuided into two Chapters In this are detected diuers srauds and shifts common to M. Andrewes with M. Barlow as to change the state of the question dissemble that which most importeth in the Cardinalls text and argument to abuse wrest bely and falsisy not
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
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
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
consequently that they held Pope Leo not only for S. Peters successor but also for head of the whole Church and this I trust cannot be sayd to be taken out of the bryars or corner of a period or fragment of a clause but out of one of the most principall and important Acts of all the Councell 78. Also it appeareth in the same Councell that Theodoretus Bishop of Cyrus who being deposed by Dioscorus appealed to Pope Leo was by his authority restored to his seat and admitted into the Councell Ingrediatur say the Fathers Reuerendissimus Episcopus Theodoretus c. Let also the most Reuerend Bishop Theodoretus enter that he may be partaker of our Synod because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored to him his Bishopricke So they whereby they gaue sufficient testimony of the soueraygnty of Pope Leo acknowledging his power to restore Bishops to their Bishopriks in the Greeke Church Finally if there were nothing els in that Councell to proue Pope Leo's supreme and vniuersall authority ouer the Church of God it might suffice for an euident proofe thereof that he was vndoubtedly the president and head of the Councell as you haue heard before and may be confirmed by the subscriptions of his Legats set before all other Bishops though one of them was but a Priest and no Byshop 79. For what reason can be imagined why Pope Leo should be president of a Councell in Greece so far from his owne seat as well he himselfe as his Legats being Romans and of the Latin Church but that it belonged to him to be head thereof in respect of his vniuersall authority Will M. Andrews absurdly say as Caluin doth that there was no Bishop in all Greece at that tyme held to be worthy of that Honour How then was Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople able to procure such a Canon as he did in his owne fauour Can any man belieue that he was as M. Andrews saith esteemed worthy to be made equal in dignity and all things els with the Bishop of Rome and yet not fit to be President of a Councell in his owne country yea lesse fit then a stranger who was held to be but his â—qual Besides that howsoeuer Pope Leo himselfe might be esteemed more worthy of that Charge then the Bishops of Greece in respect of his eminent learning wisdome and vertue yet there is no probability in the world that the Emperour and all the Bishops of that Councell which were aboue 600. had the like conceit of the sufficiency of his Legats or that they would all of them yield as well to them as to him one of them being but a Priest This I say is so improbable that M. Caluin and M. Andrews must eyther giue vs some other probable reason for it as they shall neuer be able to do or els confesse that Leo was President of that Councell by right of his soueraignty and supreme authority ouer Gods Church 80. Therefore now to conclude this matter thou seest good Reader what was the beliefe of the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon concerning the Popes supremacy and how far M. Andrews is from their faith and Religion yea and what a seared conscience he hath not only to deny such an euident truth as this but also to impugne it with so much fraud and impudency as he doth against his owne conscience no doubt for he could not possibly see in the Councell that which he himselfe alledgeth and the Cardinall obiecteth but he must needs see all this which I haue cyted out of it neyther could he alledge some part of the 28. Canon and vrge it as he doth laying downe the words euen of the Greeke text but he saw as well that which followeth immediatly and clearely conuinceth his fraud and forgery as that which went before and seemed to make for him whereby it is euident that he not only wittingly dissembled and concealed the whole drift of that Canon but also maliciously peruerted mangled and falsifyed it to the end to deceiue his Reader for the mayntenance of his miserable cause for so I may well tearme it seeing it dryueth him to such miserable and desperate shifts M. D. ANDREVVS HIS ANSVVERES TO three places of the Fathers are examined AND By the way the Cardinall is cleared from a false imputation of Iouinians heresy and M. Andrews truly charged therewith Finally all that which we teach concerning the Popes authority is necessarily deduced out of M. Andrews his owne doctrine and expresse words CHAP. III. HAVING occasion in my Supplement to proue the necessity of a visible head in Gods Church to coÌ„serue the same in vnity I alledged two places of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome which the Cardinall also cyteth in his Apology togeather with diuers other testimonies of the Fathers to proue the Primacy of S. Peter and for as much as M. Andrews his answere thereto if it haue any force at all maketh as much against me as against the Cardinall I will examine heere what force and pith it hath The Cardinall saith thus of S. Cyprian Fecit Cyprianus Petrum c. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne and roote of the Church and in his Epistle to Quintus Peter saith he whome our Lord first chose and vpon whome he buylt his Church c. Where S. Cyprian doth not only say that Peter was first chosen but also addeth that the Church was buylt vpon him and truely the foundation in a buylding the head in a body are all one Thus saith the Cardinall alledging as you see two places of S. Cyprian to both which M. Andrews meaneth to say somewhat 2. To the first he saith thus Fecit Cyprianus c. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne and roote of the Church not Peter of the Church but rather maketh the Church it selfe the fountayne from whence many brookes the light from whence many beames and the roote from whence many boughs are propagated Learne this euen of himselfe Sic Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa c. So the Church being wholy resplendent with the light of our Lord casteth forth her beames throughout the whole world loe he sayth the Church and not Peter yet the light is one and the selfe same which is spread euery where is this light Peter or is he euery where spread abroad and the vnity of the body is not separated The Church through the plenty of her fertility stretcheth forth her branches ouer the whole earth and doth amply spread abroad her aboundant flowing brookes yet the head is one the beginning one one mother copious with the prosperous successe of her fecundity or fruitfulnes Caligauit hic Cardinalis c the Cardinall was spurre-blynd or dimme sighted here for I thinke he will not say that Peter is the mother and therefore not the head 3. This is M. Andrews his graue discourse supposing as it seemeth that because the
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
Andrews his fraud more particulerly and produced also a cleare testimony of S. Cyril concerning the Primacy of S. Peter whome he calleth Principem Caput Apostolorum the Prince head of the Apostles though he do there grant his fall which he saith hapned by humane infirmity whereof M. Andrews cannot be ignorant seeing he cyteth also that place of S. Cyril no lesse then the other of S. Augustin though with greater fraud as I haue also shewed in the first Chapter 30. Finally I may add to these those other testimonies which I haue now lastly examined and debated with M. Andrewes out of S Cyril S. Hierome S Basil and S. Chrysostome as also the rest of that grand Iury of 24. Fathers Greeks and Latins alledged by Cardinall Bellarmine in his controuersies to proue the supreme authority of S. Peter ouer the Apostles all which most learned and ancient Fathers being the lights of the Church knew as well as M. Andrews that S. Peter had denyed our Sauiour and yet neuertheles did not take the same to be any preiudice to his Supremacy Whereupon I conclude that if their heads were sound then M. Andrews his head must needs be very sick and crazed seeing his sense and iudgment is so far different from theirs as to seek to ouerthrow or disproue S. Peters Primacy by his fall and to speake of him so contemptibly and opprobriously as he doth 31. But will you heare how well he mendeth the matter Marke him well I pray you and you shall see that as his head hath ben hitherto somewhat crackt so now he is become wholy distract talking as idly as if he were more fit for Bedlam then for a Bishoprick For hauing sayd as you haue heard before that this testimony of S. Augustine was vnluckily produced by the Cardinall because it giueth vs notice of no other head but of a sickly head to wit S. Peter and that therfore it might very well haue bin pretermitted he goeth forward thus Praesertim cùm eùmdem morbum in capite vestro notarint diu iam medicorum filij et si omnes non ego id est plus ego quà m omnes especially seeing that the Phisitians children haue now a long tyme noted the same disease in your head although all not I that is to say I more then all Thus saith he so mystically I assure you that he seemeth to propound a riddle and therefore may do well to explicate his meaning and let vs know who were those Phisitians and their children that haue noted the same disease in our head 32. Neuertheles for as much as it may be presumed that by the children he meaneth Luther Caluin Beza and himselfe with other Sectaries of this age we may also make a reasonable coniecture who were the Phisitians seeing that we are not ignorant that the true progenitours of all the Sectaries aforenamed were dyuers old heretykes whose herefies they haue reuyued namely the Donatists whose doctrine they professe concerning the fall of the visible Church Aerius whome they follow in denying Sacrifyce for the dead Vigilantius with whome they impugne the reuerend vse of reliques Iouinian who taught diuers points of their beliefe touched particulerly in the last Chapter and other Arch-heretikes condemned by the Church in ancient tyme who as S. Augustine witnesseth vsed also to barke though in vayne against the Sea Apostolike no lesse then these their children do 33. But although we may ghesse who were the Phisitians and their children yet it will not be so easy to coniecture what he meaneth by etsi omnes non ego id est plus ego quà m omnes although all not I that is to say I more then all for truely I haue shewed it to diuers and haue not found two that agree in the interpretation of it but the most probable seemeth to be the one of two one is that he alludeth to the words of S. Peter when he sayd etsi omnes scandalizati fuerint sed non ego Although all shall be scandalized yet not I who neuerthelesse was scandalized more then they all because he alone denyed his mayster which sense hath great difficulty because it neyther hath connexion with that which goeth immediatly before nor is truly applicable to the Pope of whome M. Andrews seemeth there to treate but is only contumelious to S Peter being a taunting kind of exprobration of his fall and therefore me thinkes M. Andrews should not admit it to be his meaning as sauouring too much of impiety 34. The other sense is that it should be referred to M. Andrews himselfe and that there is some litle fault in the print I mean in the points though not in the words which therefore should be pointed this si omnes non ego and if all not I that is to say if all haue noted this disease in your head why should not I note it Giuing to vnderstand that he will not yield to any of his brethren for zeale skill in noting the faults of Popes but rather plus ego quà m omnes that is to say therein will I go beyond them all which sense hath at least some good coherence with the precedent clause and well befitteth M. Andrews his zeale to the Ghospell and hatred to the Pope and so may passe for his meaning But whatsoeuer his meaning is I cannot forbeare to tell him that seeing his brayn is so intoxicated that he cannot write intelligibly and yet will take vpon him to play the Physitian and to cure the Popes diseases I will say to him with our Sauiour Medice cura teipsum and wish him to purge his owne head with some good quantity of a drug called Catholicon and a litle Helleborum to restore him againe to his right wits before he presume to be the Popes Physitian and to iudge of the diseases of the head of the Church 35. And whereas he goeth forward to shew vs a difference in the cure of Peters disease and of the diseases of his Successors let vs follow him a while and you shall see him runne as well out of his honesty as out of his wit For thus he saith Sed ab eo morbo sanatum hoc caput c. But this head to wit S. Peter was healed of this disease but your head he meaneth the Pope neyther will be healed nor yet is curable yet if he euer be healed let him be the head of the Church of Rome as he was in Augustines tyme but let no man appeale to him from beyond the sea or if any appeale he is to be excommunicated by Augustine who was far from acknowledging Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus for heads of the Church in whome neuertheles he cured the same disease So he which I beseech thee good Reader well to note and thou shalt see his conscience no lesse crackt then his brayne ioyning extreme falsity with folly abusing the authority not
the same is to be extended to the new law As well may he say that we are bound to obserue the whole law and so proue himselfe a Iew euacuate the law of Christ as Saynt Paul argueth against those that mayntained the vse of CircuÌ„cisioÌ„ togeather with the faith of Christ. 27. Neuertheles I say not this to exclude all manner of arguments or inferences drawne from the old law to the new that the same remayne within the limits of probability as from the figure to the verity which admitteth many limitations and exceptions but to exclude the obligation of all precepts eyther ceremoniall or Iudiciall which do not in any sort bynd vs now as I haue shewed in the first Chapter of this Adioynder And therefore whereas M. Andrews sayth heere cùm praeceptum acceperimus in lege disertis verbis c. seeing we haue receiued a precept in the law in expresse words c. I say to him that seeing this precept did vndoutedly belong to the ceremoniall law and concerned only the manner of worship to be done to God by Sacrifice he sheweth himselfe a flat Iew in saying that we Christians haue receiued this precept in the law 28. Furthermore he is to vnderstand that albeit we should grant that nothing can be practiced or taught in the new law without some precept or doctrine thereof deliuered by our Sauiour Christ vnto his Church yet he could gayne nothing thereby except he could also proue that all our Sauiours precepts and doctrine are expressely set downe in Scripture which neyther he nor any of his fellowes haue byn able yet to proue or euer shal be it being euident that our Sauiour neyther commanded any thing at all to be written but to be preached and taught saying praedicate euangelium c. preach the gospell to euery Creature and againe docete omnes gentes c. teach all Nations baptizing them c. neyther did the Apostles eyther write any thing of diuers yeares after Christ Ascension or when they wrote deliuer all Christs doctrine and their owne by writing but very many things by tradition in which respect the Apostle himselfe saith tenete traditiones quas accepistis siue per sermonem siue per. Epistolam nostram hold the traditions which you haue receiued eyther by word or by our Epistle by which words of the Apostle the ancient Fathers namely S. Chrysostome S. Epiphanius S. Basil S. Iohn Damascen Oecumenius Theophilactus and the 8. Generall Councell do proue the necessary vse of vnwritten traditions in the Church and amongst the rest S. Chrysostome saith hinc patet c. heereby it is mâ—nifest that the Apostles did not deliuer all things by Epistle but many things without writing eadem fide digna sunt tam illa quà m ista as well those things as these are worthy of the same credit 29. For this cause S. Augustine giueth this generall rule that whatsoeuer the whole Church retayneth whereof the beginning cannot be deduced eyther from the Scriptures or Generall Councells or some later institution the same was vndoutedly deliuered by the Apostles and this he vrgeth very often as a most assured ground and principle agaynst the Donatists and for the same reason not only he but also all other Fathers teach that the generall custome of the Church is an infallible and euident proofe of the truth in any controuersy in so much that he affirmeth it to be insolentissimae insaniae a poynt of most insolent madnes to dispute or doubt of it as I haue declared in the last Chapter which I wish M. Andrews well to obserue as also the other testimonyes of the ancient Fathers produced there concerning this poynt 30. Now then hereupon I conclude two things the one that M. Andrews who as he sayth dare do nothing without a written precept may lay away his scruple in matters that are generally practised by the Church the other that seeing it is euident by these testimonyes of so many holy and learned Fathers as haue byn heere alledged that the whole Church in their dayes practized prayer to Saynts as a thing most beneficiall to men and honorable to God and that they acknowledged the euident and miraculous benefits that grew to men thereby yea vrged the same agaynst the very Gentills and Paynims as inuincible arguments of the diuinity of Christ and of the verity of Christian religion and seeing also that this practice custome and beliefe was then generall when Christian religion most florished I meane in the tyme of the 4. first generall Councells and when the Church abounded most with famous Doctors Pastors and Fathers it must needs be graunted that the doctrine of prayer to Saynts is an irrefragable verity and that according to S. Augustines censure it is no lesse then insolent madnes in M. Andrewes to call it in question and much more to impugne it with such friuolous reasons as he doth and especially with a ceremoniall precept of the Mosaycall law as if he were a Iew and not a Christian seeing that he acknowledgeth himselfe to haue receiued a precept thereby disertis verbis in expresse words which I thinke no good Christian will say of any precept belonging to the ceremoniall or Iudiciall law 31. But M. Andrews goeth yet further and exacteth at least some example of it in the Scripture if there be no precept whereto S. Augustine answereth sufficiently when he sayth to a Donatist who made the lyke demaund about the rebaptization of such as were baptized by heretykes that seeing there is no example or expresse mention of it in Scripture and that Christ hath clearly and expresly recommended vnto vs the authority of his vniuersall Church dispersed thoughout the world the testimony and custome of that Church is to be admitted and imbraced and whosoeuer reiecteth or resisteth the same doth most perniciously resist our Sauiour himselfe against his owne saluation Thus sayth S. Augustine in substance though much more amply who also speaking elswhere of the same point giueth this notable and generall rule that for as much as the holy Scripture doth vndoubtedly recommend vnto vs the authority of the Church etiam in hac re à nobis tenetur Scripturarum veritas c. the veriâ—y of Scripture is retayned by vs in this point when we do that which hath already pleased the whole Church So he And so say I to M. Andrews in this our case to wit that seeing it is euident by the testimony of all antiquity that the inuocation of Saynts was generally admitted and practised by the Primitiue Church and from thence hath descended to our tyme there needeth no example of it in Scripture because the authority of the Church which the Scriptures do expressely recommend vnto vs sufficeth to warrant the same 32. And truly it may seeme strange that M. Andrews or any of his fellowes of the English Clergy do
heere is that in the same Chapter which he quoteth all the arguments of Luther Caluin the Magdeburgenses and the rest and amongst others euen those which he obiecteth against prayer to Saynts are fully answered and yet he insisteth still vpon the same without any reply in the world to the Cardinalls answers as though these his old stale obiections were new inuentions and had neuer byn answered before whereas reason would that seeing he saw the answeres thereto as by this his quotation it is manifest he did he should haue said somewhat to confute them And if he say that he did not hold them worthy of a reply he should haue shewed the same at least in some one or 2. of them and so no doubt he would haue done if he had byn able whereby it appeareth that he erreth not of ignorance but of meere malice and impugneth a knowne truth against his owne conscience and knowledge 71. Well then I will conclude concerning the 12. Fathers alledged by the Cardinall and me with the words of S. Augustine defending the authority and faith of 11. Fathers alledged by him against Iulian the Pelagiâ—n who desired to haue Iudges of his cause His igitur eloquijs saith S. Augustine tanta auctoritate Sanctorum c. therefore with these testimonyes and so great authority of holy men eyther thou wilt through Gods mercy be cured which how much I desire he seeth whome I beseech to worke it or if which God forbid thou still remayne in thy great folly for so it is though it seeme wisdome to thee thou wilt not seeke Iudges to the end to purge thy selfe and try thy cause but to accuse the worthy and famous Doctors of Catholyke verity Irenaeus Cyprian Reticius Olympius Hilary Gregory Ambrose Basil Iohn Innocent and Hierome with the rest of their fellowes yea the vniuersall Church of Christ wherein they haue florished with exceeding great glory in our Lord whyles they faithfully ministred the food of God to his diuine family and therefore I will see that in respect of this thy miserable madnesse from which God deliuer thee thy bookes are to be answered in such sort that the fayth of these Fathers is to be defended agaynst thee no lesse then the Ghospell it selfe against the professed enemyes of Christ. Thus sayth S. Augustine to Iulian and the same say I to M. Andrews with lyke harty desire of this good leauing the application of the whole partly to the consideration of the discreet Reader and partly to himselfe according to the light and feeling he may haue thereof in his owne conscience 72. It resteth now that I say somewhat briefely to certayne trifling obiections which he maketh against the inuocation of Saynts out of Origen S. Cyril and S. Athanasius vrging the Cardinall to shew somewhat out of them to proue it to be lawfull and particulerly out of Origen against Celsus and S. Cyril against Iulian the Apostata and out of Athanasius against the Arians because he supposeth that those Fathers should in those their treatises haue taught that the inuocation of Saynts is lawfull if they had byn of that opinion and he addeth that the two former do flatly deny that Christians do honour Martyrs pari cultu with equal honour to that which the Paynims gaue to their Heroes wherein truly he hath great reason and I will also add thereto that not only Origen and S. Cyril but also S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Augustine Theodoret diuers other Fathers deny the same as well as they but what is that to the inuocation of Saynts or yet to the honour that the Church doth to them in their feasts which perhaps M. Andrews couertly impugneth by this obiection though he speake expressely of nothing els but of the inuocation of Saynts doth he not know that the Heroes were not only accounted Gods but also honored as Gods with Sacrifice which honour the Fathers do vterly deny to be giuen by Christians to Martyrs and Saynts though they highly approue the honour that is done vnto them in the Church as to the beloued seruants of God 73. And now will M. Andrews inferre heereupon that Saynts may not be inuocated me thinks he should not be simple and if he say that those Fathers should at least vpon the same occasion haue taught that the inuocation of Saynts is lawfull if they had held it so to be for so indeed he seemeth to inferre I haue already answered him sufficiently concerning this absurd manner of arguing ab auctoritate negatiua and therefore will only say vnto him heere that I may with much more reason inferre the contrary vpon the same ground to wit that because those Fathers did not vpoÌ„ that occasion teach the inuocation of Saynts to be vnlawfull therefore they approued it for reiecting the vnlawfull honour that the Paynims sayd was done to Martyrs they had sufficient occasion to reiect also the inuocation of them if they had held it to be vnlawfull So as you see he gayneth nothing by this obiection out of Origen and Sâ— Cyril but rather hurteth his cause and bewrayeth his owne folly 74. But now in his other obiection out of Athanasius he sheweth both folly and fraud For whereas he vrgeth the Cardinall to bring some testimony for the inuocation of Saynts out of the Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians he pretendeth to find there that the same is wholy excluded and reiected vbi saith he Christum ideo conuincit esse Deum quòd inuocetur praeter Deum enim à Christianis neminem inuocari where Athanasius doth therefore conuince that Christ is God because he is inuocated for that Christians do inuocate none but God So he quoting for thâ— same the second oration of S. Athanasius against the Arians where truly I fynd no such thing true it is that in the 3. Oration he proueth substantially and amply that Christ is God because he is adored speaking playnly of that kind of adoration which is called Cultus latriae and is due to God alone as it is euident by the places of Scripture which he alledgeth to proue it but of inuocation there is not one word for ought I find and though there were yet it were as litle to the purpose for that inuocation is also diuersly taken as adoration is and is applyed sometymes to God alone in which sense it cannot be applyed to creatures and sometymes to Angels Saynts or men as I haue shewed euidently before in the 6. Chapter by examples of holy Scripture and the testimony of S. Augustine 75. Whereby it appeareth that he is not only idle and impertinent in this obiection but also fraudulent changing the word adoration into inuocation if he did mistake the second oratioÌ„ of S. Athanasius for the third and not of purpose falsify and bely him in both which I remit to God and his conscience to iudge of and will now with this
ancient and venerable vse of holy Reliques and the miraculous assistance and helpe that God giueth to his faithfull people thereby and by the praiers and Reliques of his holy Martyrs and Saints So that truly a man may wonder at the impudency and seared Conscience of M. Andrews who seeketh to delude his Reader with such a fraudulent and inexcusable abuse of this holy Father 68. But no wonder that he is so bould with the Fathers seeing that the Sacred authority of the holy Scriptures cānot suffice to free them from his fraud Wherein it seemeth he hath conspired with M. Barlow with whome he concurreth in the corruption and abuse of one and the selfe same place To which purpose I must desire the good Reader to call to mind what I debated with M. Barlow concerning this point in the sixt Chapter of my Supplement where I shewed euidently how he abused the holy Scripture in saying that God in his word appointed Kinges to be guardians of both the tables to command and prohibit in matters of Religion for which he quoted in his margēt the 17. of Deuteronomy and 18. verse where no such thing is to be found but rather the cleane contrary is to be inferred thereon as I amply declared in the foresaid Chapter and now M. Andrews hauing occasion to treat of the antiquitie of the spiritual primacy of temporall Kings draweth it partly from the same place deducing it euen from Moyses who when he deliuered saith he the Copie of the law to the King cum eo sic tradito summam religionis quae prima summaque legis pars est custodiendae custodiri faciendae potestatem tradidit gaue togeather with it the chief power to keepe Religion and cause it to be kept which Religion is the first and chiefe parte of the lawe Thus saith M. Andrews though he quot no place yet he must eyther ground this his assertion vpon the same place of Deuteronomy which M. Barlow alleadgeth or els he shall finde it no where for it was ordeyned only there no where els that the King should haue a Copie of the lawe 69. Wherein neuerthelesse that is to be noted by the way that Moyses did not there or any where els giue a Copie of the lawe to any King for there were no Kinges of the people of Israell for 4. hundred yeares after Moyses but God ordeyned by Moyses in 17. of Deuteronomy that the future King should take a Copie of the law from the Priest of the Tribe of Leui and haue the same with him and read it all the daies of his lyfe But what Will M. Andrews say that the King was made hereby supreame head or gouernor of the Church in Ecclesiasticall causes or to vse his owne manner of speach that the Cheif or supreame power to keepe Religion and cause it to be kept was giuen him hereby Truly the wordes immediatly following do shew another reason why the King should haue the Copy of the law to wit vt discat c. to the end he may learne to feare his Lord God and keepe his word and ceremonies commanded in the law That is to say he should haue it for his owne priuat vse and instruction that he might punctually obserue it all the dayes of his lyfe to which purpose I am sure M. Andrews will allow euery man and woman to haue a Copy of it as well as the King How then was sūma potestas the supreme power wherof he speaketh giuen hereby to the King more then to any other man or woman 70. But if wee cōsider what was expressely ordeyned a litle before in the same Chapter touching the supreme authority of the high Priest and that the future King was presētly after cōmanded to keepe exactly the whole law of God wherof the ordinance touching the obediēce to the high Priest was a principall part yea to take a Copie of the law of the Priests who kept the originall therefor as I argued against M. Barlow were the true Gardiās of the law not the King who had but the Copy if wee weigh withall that he was to learne of them also the sense interpretation of the law because they only not the King had authority to teach interpret it and to resolue all doubts difficulties which should occurre therein as I proued clearly out of the Scriptures in the first Chapter of my Supplement if all this I say be well considered it may be wondred with what face M. Barlow and M. Andrews could inferre any spirituall supremacy of the King vpon this place which doth in truth proue their subiection in matters of Religion to Priests and specially to the high Priest So as it is euident that M. Andrews hath no lesse shamefully abused the holy Scriptures in this point then M. Barlow in so much that it is hard to say whether of them is more shameles especially seeing that they both do also exceed in a prodigious kind of impudency wherin I thought no man could haue matched M. Barlow vntill I had read M. Andrews I meane in facing and bragging out a bad matter when arguments and proofs are to weake whereof I gaue some Instances in M. Barlow and will now do the lyke in M. Andrews 71. Thou maist remember good Reader what poore stuffe he produced to proue that S. Peter had nothing peculiar to himselfe by his pastorall Cōmission and how he triumphed in two or three paragraphes as though he had trodden the Cardinall vnder his feet yea and bragged also afterwardes in another place saying Clariùs id loquuntur Ambrosius Augustinus quà m vt obstrepere possint nostri nouitij Ambrose and Augustine do speake or affirme it more clearly then that our nouices meaning the Catholiks are able any way to contradict it When neuerthelesse to make good his idle cōceipt he was faine to vse great fraud and corruption in the allegation of those two Fathers corrupting the text of S. Ambrose dissembling the circumstances of the place in S. Augustine which clearely proueth the Primacy of S. Peter as I haue amply declared in the first Chapter of this Adioynder so that his braggs and vaunts had no other ground but his owne vanity corruption and falsity 72. The lyke may be noted also in his vayne insultations against the Cardinall about the Councell of Chalcedon For when he himselfe had shamefully abused peruerted and mangled the 28. Canon as I haue clearly shewed in the second Chapter of this Adioinder he admonisheth the Cardinall seriously not to produce his proofes tamquam è vepreculis as it were out of the bryers not out of the superscriptions of letters or of some corner of a period or perhaps some peece of a tytle or fragment of a litle clause but to bring out some Canon for that the Canons are the voyce of the Councells As though forsooth he had beaten downe
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
Church subiect to the Church submit their Scepters to the Church and throw downe their Crownes before the Church and that as Beza testifieth they cannot be exempted from this diuine domination of the presbitery whereupon I gather two things the one that the Supremacy which as M. Andrews saith the Puritans do acknowledg in the King is to be vnderstood only in temporall matters wherein they doe indeed admit him to be theyr supreme head and Gouernour though as you see in M. Rogers they hold him in spirituall matters to be wholly subiect to the Presbitery The other is that all the reformed Churches are also of the same mynd seeing that they professe the same doctrine concerning the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy that the Puritans doe as M. Andrews himselfe confesseth◠whereupon it also followeth that the Kings Maiestie hath no spirituall power or authority at all ouer the English Church seeing that by M. Andrewes his owne confessiō he hath no other power but that which the Puritans and the reformed Churches doe admit in their temporall Princes 66. Besides that albeit we should grant that the Puritans and reformed Churches do allow the tēporall Magistrat to haue some power and authority in Ecclesiasticall matters yet it is euident that they do not allow them that spirituall Iurisdiction and authority which our Parliaments haue granted to our Kinges to wit that all the spirituall power of the Church shall reside principally in them and is to be deduced from them to the Church as from the head to the body that they may giue Dispensations Licences and Faculties in matters of Conscience make Ecclesiasticall Lawes giue Commissions to consecrate Bishops to excōmunicat interdict suspend cēsure to visit correct all Ecclesiasticall Persons and to reforme all heresyes and abuses this I say being a meere spirituall power and exercised by our Kings in England according to the grant of the Parliament is not admitted and much lesse practized in any of the reformed Churches as all those know who know any thing of their doctrine and practise 67. Therfore wheras M. Andrews saith that aswell the reformed Churches as the Puritans do grant the self same authority to the temporall Prince which our King hath and exerciseth in England he sheweth euidently that in his opinion his Maiesty hath no such spirituall iurisdiction and authority as hath bin granted him by our Parliament for that as I haue said the Puritans reformed Churches whose doctrine in this point he approueth do not acknowledg any such spirituall authority in temporall Princes but only a temporall power and obligation to mayntayne and defend the Church so farre forth as the same hath need of externall and humane helpe assistance or defēce which is indeed the self same all that M. Andrewes as you haue heard before alloweth to the Kings Maiesty when he saith that he is no otherwise ouer the Church but as a foster-foster-father a tutor to nourish and defend it and that the question of the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy concerneth only the externall gouernment of the Church so farre forth as it requireth and admitteth humane help and authority So that you see M. Andrews is not in this point an English Protestant but rather a flat Puritan 68. And if this be now the common opinion of the Protestants in England as M. Andrewes would haue vs to suppose we may more truly say of them then he said of the Puritans dies diem docuit ex eo facti aequiores recognouerunt errorem suum time hath taught them more wit and so now they haue recanted their errour And no meruaile seing that their former doctrine is of it selfe so absurd hath bin so canuassed battered by Catholicks that they are worthely ashamed of it especially such of thē as haue any learning or shame at all for some no doubt there are of the ministry that will not stick to defend it or any thing els how absurd soeuer it be amongst whom M. Barlow may go for one who in his Preambler Epistle to the ministers of Scotlād which I haue mentioned before vpon another occasion is not ashamed to make the Pagan and Infidell Emperours supreme heades of the Church in the time of the Apostles saying that S. Paul appealed to Caesars iudgment as the supreme wheras Papists and Puritans will haue the King to be but an honorable member not a chief gouernour in the Churches of his dominions So he 69. Wherein two things are to be noted the one that he doth ridiculously make the Pagan Emperours the chief members that is to say the heads or gouernours of the Church who neuertheles being Idolatours could not be so much as the meanest members thereof The other that he seemeth to make the Kings Maiesty no other wise chief gouernour in the Church then they were albeit I think he will not be so absurd as to acknowledge any spirituall authority in thē seing they were altogeather vncapable therof being as I haue sayd Idolatours enemies and violent persecutors of the Church and faith of Christ. So as herby it appeareth that he also concurreth with M. Andrews to depriue his Maiesty of all the spirituall iurisdiction and authority which the Parliaments haue grāted to our Kings and that consequently they are both of them in one predicament of disloyalty towards his Maiesty and defection from the wonted Protestātisme of England in the point of the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy 70. Now then to conclude concerning them both all the premises thou hast seene good Reader how well these two Prelats of the English Church do simbolize agree not only in seeking to delude their Readers with dyuers lyes fraudulent shifts and deuises but also in betraying their owne cause and fortifying ours which is so euident in them both that they may well be accounted the most harmles or rather the most propitious enemies that euer the Catholikes had and therfore may in some sort be compared to the Scorpion which being a most venemous Serpent yieldeth a sufficient remedy against his owne poison and so do they for albeit they are replenished with venom and malignity yea and sting somtimes most maliciously not with solid arguments but with spitefull gibes and contumelious iests yet their malice doth commonly carry with it the remedy of it selfe being for the most part so manifest and accompanyed with such apparant falshood and euident folly that no man of learning and consideration can receiue any harme thereby but rather great benefit by the discouery of their imbecility the weakenes of their cause◠Seing they cannot otherwyse defend it then by such contumelious and malicious proceedings 71. Insomuch that the learned strangers who read M. Andrewes his booke in latin and do consider withall the speciall choyce that the English Clergy hath made of him to mayntayne the combat against Cardinall Bellarmine in the eye and view of the Christian world do
pag â—09 A pecuniary Pastour 210. Confuteth himself 220. A meere wrangler pag. 222.268 His inference of Quidlibet ex Quolibet pag. 233. His Cripticall Cauill against S. Ephrem 23â— His Goggery pag. 241. His abuse of Sâ— Epiphanius 254. Of S. Ambrose 269. His euill fortune 274. His clipping paring of Fathers authorities when they make against him 278. His confusion of the Priest with the people Masse with Mattines c. 298. His abuse of Theodoret 307. his scrupulosity in alleaging of Authorityes 323. Pressed with his owne Argument 324. Proueth himselfe a Iew 325. His transgressioÌ„ of the Synodicall Canons of England 333. His silly discourse about prayer to Saints 337. Prodigall of his Rhetorickâ— 343. Wrongeth his Maiesty 349. His erring of malice â—56 His trifling obiections 357.358.359 His changing the state of the Question about the Popes Primacy 362. CoÌ„cerning holy reliques 368. His poore conceipt of S. Iohn the EuaÌ„gelist 370. A iest of his spoyled 374. Triumpheth when he looseth 377. His Dissimulation of matters that most import to be explicated 386.388 His want of paper in text margent to set downe the truth 394. His Lucidum interuallum 405. His abuse of S. Gregory 407. his bad conscience 412. His outfacing of matters when he cannot answere 418. His abuse of the Iesuits 425.426 He triâ—th how neere he can go to the Catholike Religion misse it 430.431 his poore conceyt of the K. Ecclesiasticall Supremacy 459. How it may be in his Pater noster but not in his Creed 460. Excluded by M. Andrews 467. from his Maiesty 471. How he is turned Puritan pag. 477.480 Angell in the Apocalyps for bad S. Iohn to adore him why pag. 370. Appeales to Rome pag. 155. by Anthony Byshop of Fussula 160. allowed by the Primate of Numidia 164. testified by S. Augustine and others pag. 165. by S. Iohn Chrysostome 184. S. Augustine abused by M. Andr. pâ— 4.5.6 his acknowledgment respect of S. Peters Supremacy p. 17. p. 150.159.167.189 his approuing of prayers to Saints 296.297.298 Authority of the Sea of Rome in all ages p. 169.170.173.180.181.188 proued by all the ancient Fathers passim by Origen 198. by S. Hilary 189.200 Authors reason and intention of this Booke p. 2.3 what question handled therin ibid. pag. 4. B M. BARLOW and M. Andrewes disagree about our English Clergies gouernement 422. S. Basils discourse of prayer to Saints 218. of Inuocation of Martyrs 223. Beggary of the Church Clergy of England 457. Ca. Bellarmine abused by M. Andrewes cleared pag. 108.221 355. his meaning about our prayers to Saints and their praying for vs explicated 215. Bishops of the East-church deposed by the Pope pagâ— 53. C CHRIST our Mediatour Aduocate 339. S. Chrisostome proueth S. Peters Supremacy pag. 22. 142. His appeale to Pope Innocentius 184. His testimony for inuocatioÌ„ of Saints 244. Church of the East subiect to the West pag. 49. Church why it is called one Mother pag. 105. built equally vpon the Apostles pag. 144. how it only challengeth the name Catholick 451. Church of England beggarly 457. Collyridians their heresy 255. Constantinople subiect to the Church of Rome pag. 50. Gods Iudgement vpon that Church for her schisme pag. 54. Constitutions of the pretended Bishops of England pag. 330. conuinced of fraud by his Maiesty 332. Conference at Hampton-Court before his Maiesty 332. L. Cromwell Vicar Generall to K. Henry 8. in spiritualibus 469. Councell of Calcedon approued the Popes Supremacy pag. 39.40 Councell of Ephesus head therof 187. Councels why assembled pag 227. Councell of Loadicea forbiddeth Idolatry to Angels 308. Customes Ecclesiasticall of what force validity pag. 293. S. Cyprian proueth the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head thereof 101.104 also the Primacy of S. Peter pag. 106. S. Cyril acknowledged S. Peters Supremacy pag. 17. abused by M. Andrewes pag. 19. D DAMASVS Pope what authority attributed to him by S. Hierome pag. 173. Difference betweene the Primacy of S. Peter and the priuiledges graunted to the Roman Sea 83. Dignity of Gods grace increaseth the value of merit 437. Dioscorus Patriark of Constantinople depriued by Pope Leo. p. 94. E S. EPHREM calumniated by Mâ— Andrews 239. S. Epiphanius abused by M. Andrewes 254. Equality how it is sometimes to be vnderstood pag. 45.46 Equality of obligation requireth equality of care pag. 80. F FATHERS of the Church abused misconstrued belyed and falsified by M Andrewes pag. 5.6.7.18.19.415 passim Father of Lyes M. Andrewes his Father 192. Fall of S. Peter no preiudice to his Primacy pag. 148.149.150 Francis vide Mason G F. GARNET impudently belyed by M. Andrewes 247. Grace of Christ worketh a true inherent Iustification in vs. pag. 391. H HERETICKS the later follow the elder pag. 152. Heresy to condemne prayer to Saints 249. Heresy of the Collyridians 255. Heretikes their tricks to ouerthrow playne places by obscure 279. S. Hierome abused by M. Andrewes pag. 113. how he acknowledgeth S. Peters Supremacy pag. 119. His contradiction of Vigilantius for denying prayer to Saints p. 228. S. Hilaryes proof for S. Peters Primacy pag. 199.200 I IDOLATRY of the Phrygians done to Angells 310. Iesuits belyed by M. Andrewes for not synning 425. Images of Saints vsed in the Church 264. approued by S. Gregor Nissen ibid. Inuocation of him in whome we belieue how it is meant by S. Paul pag. 213. Inuocation of Martyrs â—23 miraculous effects thereby 225. not confirmed by any decree in the primitiue Church why p. 227. warranted by S. Chrisostome pag. 244. Vniuersall in his tyme 245. How the belief thereof is necessary to saluation 248. approued by S. Gregorie Nazianz. 253. by Nissen 264. practised by Theodosius the Emperour 286. defended by S. Paulinus 295. by S. Augustine 296. impugned by Protestants 336.337 Justinian the Emperour his law for the Popes Supremacy pag. 25. His facts against two Popes examined reproued pag. 30. His ignorance pag. 32. His death and repentance pag. 33.36.37 K KEYES and Pastorall Commission giuen to S. Peter not mentioned in the CanoÌ„ of the CouÌ„cell of Constantinople pag. 84. Kings neuer came to the Gouernement of the Church 464. Excluded by a Rule of M. Andrewes 465. King of England taketh his power Eâ—clesiasticall from the Parliament 468. L LAW of Moyses how Christians may ground theron p. 11. P. Leo his controuersy with Martian the Emperour and Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople pag. 62.63.64.70.72.73 His primacy acknowledg by the Councell of Calcedon pag. 90.92 93.94 Locusts that destroy Religious profession perfection are Protestants 450. M Mr. MASON his Register for the Consecration of the first Protestant Bishops confuted In appendice per totum Martian the Emperour his controuersy with Pope Leo pag. 61. Martyrs inuocated 223. miraculous effects therby 225. S. Maximus B. of Turin his homiles of Saints pag. 205. Merits of Christ how we are saued by them 342. Merit of good works granted by M. Andrewes 434.436 Miracles in
inter ep August Ibid. ep 92. Ibid. ep 93. August ep 106. ad Bonifac. Marke this consequence The Pelagian heresy condemned by Zozsimus and Innocentius Aug. ep 157. Possid in vita August ca. 18. 3. things to be noted in the precedent testimony of Possidius Aug. vbi supra Prosper in Chron. Idem contra collat ca. 41. The famous appeale of S. Iohn Chrysostome to Innocentius Chrysost. ep ad Inno. To. 5. Palladius in vita Chrysost. Zosom li. 8. ca. 26. Georg. Alexand. in vita Chrysost. Idem ibid. Nicep l. 13. ca. 34. Glycas Annal. part 4. Gennadius Patriar Constant. Exposit. pro Concil Florent ca. 5. Sect. 7. Theodoreti histor Eccle. li. 5. c. 34. Glycas part 4. Annal. (a) Supra nu 74. (b) Supra nu 52. 53. (c) Supra nu â—8 seq To. 1. Concil ep 2. Bonif. P. Celestinus head of the generall CouÌ„cell of Ephesus (a) Euagr. lib. 1. c. 4. Prosper in chron Liberat. c. 5 Photin de 7. Synod To. 2 ca. 17. Concil Ephesc ibid. To. 1. ca. 14 (b) Concil Ephes. To. 1. cap. 16. 17. (c) Ibid. To. 1. cap. 14. (d) Ibid. To. 2. ca. 1â— Euag. lib. 1. ca. 4. Nicepho l. 14. cap. 34. (f) To. 4. cap 17. Concil Ephes. (g) Niceph. li. 14. ca. 34 An euideÌ„t argumeÌ„t that Celestinus was vniuersall and supreme Pastor of the Church (d) See cap. 2. per. â—otum M. Andrews facility in â—ing August contra duas ep Pelag lib. 1â— cap. 1. S. Augustins dutifull respect vnto Pope Banifacius (a) See before nu 38. seq To. 1. Concil ep 1. Celest. S. Prosper contra Collator cap. 42. Vincent lirinens cap. vlt. M. Andrewes his Father a Father of lyes Orig. in cap. 6. ad Rom. A place of Origen is discussed Andr cap. 2. paâ— 217. §. ex Origene Orig. in Matth. 16. Tract 1. See cap. 1. nu 3.6.23 26. Matth. 16. By M. Andrews â—ad glosse euery good man and woman shall haue as much authority as S. Peter A great doubt whether M. Andrews be a Pastor or not if he vnderstand Origen aright M. Andrews by his interpretation of Origen ouerthroweth all subordination in the Church Chap. 1. vbi supra Other plaine places of Origen to proue S. Peters primacy Origen in diuers Euangel hom 2. Card. Apol. capâ— 8. pag. 125. S. Hyl. in 16. cap. Matth. A place of S. Hilary for S. Peters authority defended Andr. cap. 8. pag. 218. §. ex Hylario See chap. â— nuâ— 18.24.25 2â— M. Andrewes his shifting glosse S. Peters fayth not separated from his person in the sense and meaning of S. Hilary S. Hilarâ— li. 6. de Trinitate Ibidem One of M. Andrews his petty â—rauds Card. cap. 8. p. 125. Maxim ho. 3. de Apost Peâ—ro Paulo Andr. vbi supra pag. 219. §. E. Maximo M. Andrews his phantasticall conceit M. Andrews dull head more to be confouÌ„ded by blowes then persuaded by argumeÌ„ts Arist. Topic. li. 1â— cap. 9. See cap. 4 nu 23. S. Maximê° of Turyn did wryte homilyes or SermoÌ„s of Saints Genadius in Catal. Illustrium viror Gennadius vbi supra See before chap. 4. nu 21. M. Andrews hath not giuen any probable answere to any one of ten places obiected by the Cardinall Andr. vbi supra pag. 217. §. Inspiciamus M. Andrews his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Andrewes troubled greatly with litle wordes M. Andrewes fighteth in the aire and peruerteth the state of the Question (d) See cap. 1. nu 20. (e) nu 20. 21. (f) See Supplem chap. 1. nu 61. seq vsque ad 69. S. Hilar. l. 6. de Trinit Act. 5. Ibid. ca. 13. 1. Cor. 5. Ibid. ca. 6. M. Andrews a pecuniary Pastour a wrangler in the highest degree (g) See before chap. 1. nu 21. Card. Apol. cap. 1. pag. 12. M. Andrews his meer trifling cauill Andr. cap. 1. p. 35. §. Porrò Andr. pa. 37. §. VeruÌ„ Rom. 10. An ignorant collection Rom. 10. Ioel. 2. The true meaning of S. Paul about the inuocatioÌ„ of him in whome we belieue Ep. ad Philem. S. Hieron To. 6. in ep ad Philem 1. Tim. 1. Rom. 2. Gen. 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Aug. li. locution in Gen. nu 200. Andr. p. 45. §. Locus autem M. Andrews coÌ„tradicteth himselfe Cardinall Bellarmine vnder the name of Intercession of Saints comprizeth as well our prayers to them as their praiers for vs. Andr. pa. 39. §. Patrum M. Andrews his triple diuision not worth three chipps S. Basil. ho. in 40. Martyres M. Andrews wrangleth when he he cannot answere Andr. pag. 40. §. Non verè The substance of S. Basils discourse about praying vnto Saints M. Andrews very grosse and foolish M. Andrews coÌ„futeth himselfe Card. Apol. pag. 13. Andr. p. 47. §. Pari autem See Apol. Card. p. 13. Another cauill of M. Andrews against Cardinall Bellarmine Andr. p. 47. §. Pâ—râ—â— The latin translatioÌ„ of S Basil defended A plaine place out of S. Basil for the inuocation of Martyrs S. Basil. orat in S. Mammantem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Andrewes very hardly posed Diuers miraculous effects of the Inuocation of Martyrs specifyed by S. Basil the Latin translatioÌ„ of S. Basil defended Andr. p. 40. §. Non verè Another answere of M. Andrewes refuted M. Andr. vrging stil to haue some decrees of the Fathers concerning prayers to Saynts flieth froÌ„ the authority of the Fathers to CouÌ„cells Why Councellâ— are assembled Why the InuocatioÌ„ of Saynts was not confirmed by some Synodicall decree in the primitiue Church Concil Gangren in proamio ca. 20. S. Hieron aduer Vigilant The heresy of Vigilantius denying the Saints pray for vs quikly repressed by S. Hierome The conclusion coÌ„cerning the place of S. Basil. nu 19. 20. Apol. Card. p. 14â— Euseb. de praep Euangel lib. 13. c. 7. M. Andrews his cauill against the place cyted out of Eusebius See before nu 20. infra nu â—â— 48 5â—.57.60 seq Item cap. 7. 8. per. totum M. Andrews his exception against the testimony cited by Bellarmine out of S. Chrysostome Andr. vbi supra §. Sed neque M. Andrews sayth nothing to the whole substance of the place but cauilleth only about some words (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Andrews a meere wrangler M. Andrews hath fouÌ„d out a new Logik to inferre quidlibet ex quolibeâ— M. Andrews his trifling toy of tumulos tangere answered See after chap. 9. from nu 10. to nu 31. (b) Andr. ca. 1. pa. 49. §. Necesse Plut. in Othone vide Crispin in Dictionario ex Budaeo Homer Iliad â—â— Eurip. Hecub act 1. Arsen. Comment in Eurip. Martialis li. 8. epig. 65 Tacit. li. 10. anual Idem li. 1. histor Sueton. in Claudio Plin. li. 11. cap. 48. Ouidius Lucret. li. â— de nat rerum 1. Seneca iâ— Medea S. Greg. Nyssen orat in S. Theod. S. Basil in Psal. 115. S. Greg. Nazianz. orat 1. in Iulian. 4. Reg. 13. S. Aug. li. 22. de
ciuit Deica 8. S. Ambros li. 7. ep 54. ad Marcellin See cap. 9. nu 14. 15. Andr. paâ— 4. lin 7. S. Ephr. Ser. de laud. SS Mart Card. Apol p. 15. Andr. ca. 1. p. 41. §. Proximi M. Andrews his crypticall cauill against the testimony alleadged out of S. Ephrem Andr. vbi supr M. Andrews his câ—ggery Psal. 50. In what sense it is sayd that we pray to God alone Ro. 15. Ephes. 6. Thes. 3. Col. 4. Heb. 13. S. Chrys. Hom. 66. ad Pop. Antioch Caâ—d Apol p. 14. Andr. pa. 41 §. lamdudum S. Chryso Ho 26. in 2 ep ad Corâ— A further testimony of Sâ— Chrysostome touching the inuoâ—cation of Saynts Andr. vbi supra This is nothing els but to cast shaddowes before the light to obscure not to seek out the truth Supra nu 26. 27. Supra nu 19. 20. The custome of prayer to Saynts vniuersall in S Chrysostomes tyme. M. Andrews impugning the custome of prayer to Saynts impugneth an argument of Christs diuinity M. Andrews tryfleth notably in vrging the Cardinall to proue that prayer to Saynts is of necessity to saluation Apol. Card. p. 11. §. Sequituâ— Ibid p. â—2 §. Accipiam How the beliefe of prayer to Saynts is of necessity to saluation Matth. 18. Folly to neglect omit prayer to Saynts impiety to contemnâ— it heresy to coÌ„demne it Card. Apol p. 17â— S. Max. in ser. de laud. S. Agnet Andr. pâ— 42. §. Maxmi See chap. 4. nu 22.23 24. See chap. 5. nu 16. 17. S. Ambro de Virgin li. 4. epâ— 33. (b) Vide Bellar. de verbo Dei cap. 20. The writers of diuers parts of holy Scripture vncertayne (c) Euseb. li. 3. hist. c. 3. S. Hier. de viris Illust. (d) Sixt. Senens l. 7. Biblioth Sanct. (f) Luth. in prolo ep ad Hebr. (g) Mag. cent 1. li. 2. c. 4. col 55. (h) Kem. in exam â— sâ—ss Concil Trident. (k) in Confess VVittemb cap. de sacra Scriptura (l) Caluinus inst ca. 10. § â—â— c. 16. §. 25. S. Greg. Naz. in laud. S. Cypri Card. Apol. p. 14 A cauill against a place cited out of S. Greg. Nazianzen Andr. vâ—i supra â— Hieron comment in cap. 23. Matth. See before nu â—â— 19 â—7 Iâ—em nuâ— 5â— Andr. vbi supra A notable collusion of M. Andrews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Gregory Nazianzen highly approueth prayer to our Blessed Lady S. Greg. Nazian vbi supra S. Epiphâ— shamefully abused by M Andrewes The heresy of the Collyridâ—anâ— S. Epipha haer 79. de Collyriâ— dianis M. Andrews careâ—lesse of hiâ— reputatioÌ„ Mâ— Andrews seeking to discredit a place of Nazianzen hath discredited himselfe Apol. Card. pa. â—5 Cyril Hieros catech 5. S Greg. Nissen orat in S. Theodor. Card. Apol p. 13. Andr. p. 42. §. Venio seq Ambros. in Luc. 10. cap. 12. Euseb. in vita Constant Nazian orat in pascha M. Andrews would make the ancient Fathers better Orators theÌ„ Christianâ— M. Andrews adâ—uertised of 4. things Matth. 5. Conditionall speaches do not alwayes suppose a doubt in the speaker Ep. 〈◊〉 hilemâ— Ibid. M. Andrews maketh the ancient Fathers very vnchristian and wicked Oratours Melanch in antith Verae doctri Pontif. Magdeb. cent 1. l. 2. c. 4. colum 340. Brent in Apol. Confes. VVittemb Beza in Respons ad Nicolaum Seluec Andr. cap. 8. p. 150. liu 45. S. Greg. Nyssen orat in Theodor. Mart. Pictures of Martyrs vsed in Churches and highly approued by S. Gregory Nyssen The great deuotion of Chrians in the reuereut touching of holy reliques approued by S Gregory Nyssen The Inuocation of holy Martyrs expresly mentioned and allowed by S Gregory Nyssen (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Greg. Nyssen vbi supra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M Andrews remitted to the Greek text wherto he ordinarily appealeth A shifting euasion of M. Andrews refuted Andr. pag 44. lin 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Andrews his doubt retorted vpon him selfe Ioan. 14. What S. Gregory Nyssen meant when he sayd to S. Theodore Wheresoeuer thou art Nyssen vbi supra M. Andrews a wrangler in the highest degree Ambrosâ— l. de viduis Card. in Apol. p. 15. S. Ambrose shamefully calumniated by M. Andrews Andr. p. 45. §. Potâ—rat S. Ambrose cleared from M. Andrews his slaunderous imputation by the vniforme doctrine of holy Scriptures and Fathers Nazian orat 1. in Iulian. Cypr. li. 4. ep 2. Idem li. 1â— ep 3. li. 3. ep 14. in ser. de opere eleemos Origen bo 6. in exod Tertul. li. 2. de poeniten ca. 7. Ibid. ca. 6. Iren. li. 4. c. 26. in sine S. Aug. in enchiridio ca. 71. S. Hylar in psalm 118. in fine S. Chrys. orat 5. aduers Iud. S. Greg. li. 6. in 2. Reg. 15â— ca. 2. Dan. 4. Prou. 16. Rom. 8. Tit. 3. Philip. 2. The reason why baptisme pennance good works Martyrdome and such lyke are sayd to saue vs without derogatioÌ„ to the Passion of Christ. M. Andrews shewed to bâ— eyther very ignorant or exceeding malicious Andr. p. 45. § Poterat S. Ambros in cap. 1. ad Rom. Idem oration de obitu Theodos M. Andrews vnfortunate foolish frauduleÌ„t and first touching his euil fortune Coment in ca. 3. ep â— ad Tim. See chap. 1. nu 7. Ibidem Posseuin in Appar Maldonat in cap. 17. Matt. Bellar de amiss gra lib. 4. c. 9. §. Sed facilis M Andrews his folly in alledging a place against prayer to Saynts which doth nothing concerne it Rom. 1. Ambros. in cap. 1. ad Rom. What the authours scope and drift was in the place alledged by M. Andrews M. Andrews clippeth the Fathers authorities that they may not speake against him The mediation as well of Christ himselfe as of Saynts men for vs is ouerthrowne by the place alledged by M. Andrews if he vnderstand it aright The trick of heretiks to seeke to ouerthrow plaine places by obscure Another place of S. Ambr. very fraudulently cited by M. Andrews and ridiculously applied to his purpose See Chap. 6 nu 2. 3. S. Ambr. de obitu Theod. M. Andr. applyeth that to all things in generall which S. Ambrose speaketh of a particuler matter Only God is to be inuocated prayed vnto as the giuer of grace though the prayers of Saynts men may be craued to obteine it of him The weaknes of M Andrews his cause is further discouered by another shift and cozenage of his Andr. p. 45. §. Poterat A booke forged fathered vpon S. Ambrose which he neuer wrote S. Ambros. lib 1 de sacram cap. 3.4 5. Idem lib. 5. cap. 4. M. Andrews hardly vrged by his owne argument Andr. p. 45. § Poterat M. Andrews hiâ— absurd argument ab authoritatâ— negatiua retorted against himselfe How many wayes M. Andrews hath abused S. Ambrose M. Andrews answere to a place of Ruffinus examined and confuted Ruffin lib. 2. Hist. c. 33. Card. Apol p. 10. Andr. p.
c. postquam ei totius gubernacula tradidistis You giue him the gouerment of the particuler Church of Rome after you haue giuen him the gouernement of the whole 14. So that he suposeth here that not Christ but we haue giuen him both the one and the other to wit the particuler after the generall whereby he seemeth also to affirme that S. Peter was not Bishop of Rome otherwise then in our conceit and by our gift adding withall a strange parenthesis quasi ea totius pars non esset as though the same particuâ—â—e Church of Rome were not a part of the whole as who would say that S. Peter could not be gouernor both of the whole Church and of a particuler Church wherein he argueth as wisely as if he should say that a Bishop of Ely could not be Gouernor of the particuler Church of Ely and of the whole Diocesse or that a Bishop of Canterbury could not be Gouernour of that Bishoprick and Prymate of England or that a generall of an Army could not gouerne a particuler Company and be Generall of the whole Army 15. But will M. Andrewes trow you be so absurd to say in good earnest that S. Peter was not gouernor of a particuler Church or that we only meaning the Catholikes of this age haue made him so Truly if he affirme this and will stand to it he is not to be confuted by arguments but confounded by blowes as a mad man that had need to be beaten into his witts hauing as Aristotle sayth of some as much need of punishment as he should haue of sense that should deny the snow to be white for I thinke there was neuer any thing more clearly testified by all the Fathers of the Church Councells Historiographers Ecclesiasticall and prophane vndoubted monuments of Antiquity and all manner of Testimony then that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome especially seeing that the continuall succession of Bishops in the Roman Sea from him euen to the present Pope Paulus Quintus doth demonstrate and as I may say proclayme the euidence thereof And therefore I must needes imagine that M. Andrews hath some other meaning then his wordes import but whatsoeuer it is he sheweth by his obscure doubtfull and impertinent manner of wryting that he hath caput morbidum and verticem malè sanum as you heard him say of S. Peter in the last Chapter 16. And this might suffice for answere to his glose vpon the place of S. Maximus but that I cannot omit to say something to the two doubts he maketh to wit whether this Maximê° was he that was Bishop of Turin whether there were SermoÌ„s made purposely of the Apostles in his tyme both which doubts the ancient Gennadiê° who wrote in the same age may wel resolue seeing that in his booke de viris illustribus he writeth that Maximus Bishop of Turin wrote certayne Tracts in prayse of the Apostles which are these verie Homilies whence this testimony is taken hauing mentioned diuers other Tracts and Homilies vpon the Natiuitie of S. Iohn Baptist S. Eusebius of Versels and S. Cypriâ—n also of the passion of Christ and the fast of Lent of the Crosse Sepulcher and Resurection of our Lord which are also to be seene in his works vnder the tytle of homylies he concludeth Scripsit etiam homilias multas c. He to wit Maximus wrote also many Homilyes of the Natiuity of the Theophany which we call the Epiphany of Easter and of Pentecost c. besides diuers others which I haue read and do not remember So he 17. Wherein it is to be noted for the resolution of M. Andrews his doubts that S. Maximus who was Bishop of Turin wrote homilyes in prayse not only of the Apostles but also of diuers other Saints and vpon diuers feasts which M. Andrews may belieue because it is testified by one that might know it well for that he wrote about the yeare of our Lord 490. which was the same age wherein S. Maximus liued who died as Gennadius also witnesseth in the yeare 420. about ten yeares before the decease of S. Augustin which I note by the way to put M. Andrews in mynd of a notable scape ouersight not to call it a flatly in his former answere to a place of S. Augustine wherof I treated in the last Chapter where you may remember he affirmed very confidently that tempore Augustini non fiebant Sermones de tempore In S. Augustins tyme there were no sermons made de Tempore So that you see he is found to be minus habens and taken tardy in euery thing and not able to giue any reasonable satisfaction or answere to any one place of ten alleadged by the Cardinall in one Chapter 18. And yet forsooth in the preamble to his answere of those places he maketh so light of them as though he could blow them away all with a blast for thus he saith Vnum hoc peccant omnia c. they haue all this one fault that they bring nothing which may not straight be graunted except perhaps some litle word about the which I do not meane 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contend in words So he But if this be true how chanceth it that the poore man hath bene so puzled in the answere of these places that he hath bene faine so to trifle wrangle cogg and lye as you haue heard Hath some litle word trow you that hath occurred now and then and could not be graunted driuen him to so hard an exigent But let vs hear what he saith may be graunted and what denied in those places Nam nec primatum saith he negamus Petri c. For we do not deny the Primacy of Peter nor the names which do signify it but we demand the thing or matter it selfe now in question that is to say his earthly Monarchy Thus saith he seeming out of his bountifull liberality to graunt that which he seeketh to ouerthrow as much as in him lyeth yea denying that in effect which he graunteth in words and reducing all his dispute to a playne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say a word-warre or a contention about words which neuertheles he professeth to auoyd 19. You see he graunteth the primacy of Peter yet when it is vrged against him out of the Fathers in the places aboue mentioned he laboureth to ouerthrow the ground from whence they deduce it For whereas they teach that Peter had the primacy because he was the foundation of the Church and had a speciall Commission giuen him to feede Christs sheepe he goeth about to proue that Peter was no more the foundation of the Church then the rest of the Apostles nor otherwise Pastor thereof then they whereupon it must needs follow that he was not their primate nor had any more gouernement ouer the Church then they Wherein then consisteth his primacy which the Fathers teach and deduce from the
power giuen him by the keyes and by his Pastorall commission which doe import authority power Iurisdiction and gouernment 20. Therefore M. Andrews denying S. Peters preeminēce in authority and gouernment denyeth the primacy that the Fathers teach and reduceth it only to a bare name without effect and so doth nothing els indeed but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea and if we well consider what he saith we shall find that he graunteth not so much as the very word or name of primacy or at least if he do he cōtradicteth himselfe for what are trow you those voculae which he excepteth frō his graunt when he sayth that there is nothing in these places of the Fathers which may not presently be graunted nisi voculam fortè habent c. except some litle word perhaps What litle word I say is that which cannot be graunted Is it not Primatus Caput and some such other words as signifie Primacy Yes truely for no other voculae or voces in those places of the Fathers do so much molest him Neuertheles he hath no sooner excepted them from his grant but he granteth thē presētly saying Non negamus Primatum Petri c. Wee doe not deny the primacy of Peter nor those names which signify Primacy which is a strange kinde of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he wrangleth with himselfe contradicting himselfe notably within the space of two lynes first signifying that those wordes and names are not to be graunted and presently after granting them as no way preiudiciall to his doctrine 21. And to the end wee may vnderstand that he granteth vs nothing but words and names he distinguisheth the same from the thing it selfe which he meaneth to deny and yet so handleth the matter that he doth still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reducing also his denyall to a meer quarrell of words deuised by himselfe and neyther vsed nor meant by vs eyther in wordes or sense for he calleth rem ipsam the thing it selfe which is signified by our primacy terrestrem monarchiam an earthly Monarchy and in another place he also tearmeth it temporalem Primatum a temporall Primacie and this forsooth is that which he denyeth heere and so denyeth no part of our doctrine but a foolish cōceipt of his owne for although we hold and teach that the gouernment of the Church is a Monarchie and that the power thereof doth extend it selfe to temporall thinges in such sort and for such reasons as I haue touched in the first chapter of this Adioynder and handled at large in my Supplemēt yet it neyther is nor can be called temporall or earthly otherwise then as S. Hilary calleth S. Peters iudiciall sentences terrena iudicia when he sayth terrena eius iudicia sunt caelestia his earthly Iudgements that is to say his sentences giuen on earth are heauenly 22. And so I say that albeit the gouernment of the Church may in this sense be called earthly to wit because it is exercised vpon earth yet it is not earthly or temporall but spirituall and heauenly both because it is a spirituall and heauenly power and also because it is guided and directed from heauen by the spirit of God And therefore whereas M. Andrews doth call or rather nickname the Popes Supremacy a Temporall Primacy and his Monarchy an earthly Monarchy because he punisheth his spirituall subiects in their temporall goodes or states he may by the same reason say that S. Peter and S. Pauls power was not spirituall but corporall and temporall because the one of them punished Ananias Sapphira with corporall death and the other strook Elimas the Magician blind deliuered the incestuous Corinthian to Sathan in interitum carnis to the destruction of the flesh and finally extended his power to secular and politicall matters commaunding the Corinthians to appoint temporall Iudges amongst themselues rather then to haue recourse to the tribunalls and Iudgements of Infidells yea M. Andrewes must acknowledge himselfe to be but a meere temporall yea a pecuniary Pastour because in his spirituall Courtes he vseth pecuniary mulcts and other temporall punishments as I haue shewed before in the first Chapter By all this it appeareth that M. Andrews denying not the spirituall but as he tearmeth it the earthly Monarchy and temporall primacy of Peter denyeth nothing els but his owne vayne and idle manner of speach expressing only a foolish fancie of his and a very Chymera that hath no being in rerum natura and so he doth still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is therefore truely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say a wrangler in the highest degree 23. And to the end this may yet appeare more manifestly I will examine his answers obiections touching another point in controuersy betwixt him and vs whereby we shall also see how notably he wrangleth cauilleth iuggleth and tryfleth and because the matter and his manner of answering will requyre some long discourse I will make it the subiect of the three next Chapters A FVRTHER MANIFESTATION OF MAISTER ANDREWS HIS Tryfling wrangling and fraudulent humour by his Answers to other places of the Fathers concerning Prayer to Saints which he deuydeth into three rankes whereof the two first are examined in this Chapter CHAP. VI. WHEREAS the Cardinall vndertaketh in his Apology to treate of prayer to Saynts because the Apology for the Oath condemneth the vse and practise of it in the Catholike Church M. Andrewes taketh exception to the Cardinall for changing the state of the question and sayth that he fighteth with his owne shaddow because he promiseth to treate de intercessione Sanctorum of the intercession of Saynts wheras that which the King condemneth saith M. Andrewes is the inuocation of Saynts wherin he also noteth this difference that the intercession of Saynts is their worke and the inuocation of them is ours and that the King denieth not that which the Cardinall proueth to wit that the Saynts do pray for vs but that they are to be inuocated or prayed vnto which saith M. Andrews the Cardinall proueth not 2. And he pleaseth himselfe so much with this deuise that he doth often inculcate the same vrging the Cardinall to proue that Saynts may be inuocated yea producing a text of Scripture to proue that none can be inuocated but God for terret nos Apostolus saith he vtcumque vos hominem habetis pro leui c. The Apostle doth terrify vs how light soeuer you make of the man when he asketh this question quomodo inuocabunt eum in quem non crediderunt how shall they inuocate him in whome they belieue not for you perhaps haue found a way how a man may inuocate those in whome you your selues say you do not belieue whereas he to wit the Apostle seemed then to haue found no way Thus saith M. Andrews wherein it is to be noted that one speciall reason why he rejecteth our