the Cardinall with the shot of a Canon whereas not only the most important parts of that Councell but also the very Canon which he mangled and peruerted do euidently proue the Cardinalls intent to wit the primacy of the Roman Sea as I haue amply shewed in the second Chapter aforesaid so as it is hard to say whether he was more impudent in his corruption and falsity or in his vayne brags afterwards as if he had vsed all the sincerity in the world and got a great victorie 73. And in lyke sort dealt he with the Cardinall about the adoratioÌ„ of Reliques when he triumphed saying Tenetur hic Cardinalis vt elabi non possit Heere the Cardinall is catcht and held so fast that he cannot escape away neuertheles the testimony which he himselfe produced being layed downe whole with the circumstaÌ„ces doth coÌ„uince him both of folly fraud as hath bene manifestly shewed a litle before euen in this Chapter and therefore I forbeare to speake further thereof and will only add one other Instance in this kind of a matter which hath not beene touched hitherto 74. The Cardinall as well in his Matthaeus Tortus as also in his Apology auoweth that the Puritans in England do no lesse abhor the oath of supremacy then the Catholikes and in his Apology alleadgeth for the proofe thereof not only his Maiesties monitorie Preface and his BasilicoÌ„ Doron but also Caluins doctrine which the Puritanes professe and the testimony of M. Bancroft late pretended Bishop of Canterbury who plainely witnesseth the same as well concerning the profession and practice of the Puritans as also touching Caluins expressed doctrine in that behalfe and M. Andrews finding himselfe hardly pâ—est therewith and hauing no other remedy but to face out the matter calleth the Cardinall not only Mendacem a Lyâ—r but also Dâ—lirum a Dotard and why Marry because the Puritans saith M. Andrewes do dayly in their Sermons giue the tytle of supreme Gouernour to the King yea and do not stick to sweare somtymes to the Kinges supremacy in so much that facto saith he res tenetur the matter is cleare in fact and experience and afterward acknowledging that indeed M. Bancroft did twenty yeares agoe gather out of diuers Theses or positions of theirs some suspition that they were alienated from the Kinges supremacy yea and that perhaps it was so then he concludeth that now of late recognouerunt errores suos they haue acknowledged or recalled their errours 75. This is M. Andrews his discourse which how true it is notwithstanding his impudent asseueration thereof I do appeale to the consciences of the learneder sort of Puritans Precisians in England whether they haue of late tyme or at any tyme retracted and recanted Caluins doctrine and theirs in this point as an erour For albeit I make no doubt but that some of them may now in their sermons as others of the weaker sort of them did euen in M. Bancrofts tyme and alwayes before vse the ordinary style of his Maiesties tytle yea and that otherwyles some of them also do dispence with their coÌ„sciences and swallow the Oath to get some Benefice or Ecclesiasticall dignity yet I assure my selfe that the more zealous and precise Puritans and especially their whole CongregatioÌ„ will not acknowledge this fact of some of them for any definition or decree of theirs or for a recantation of their doctrine and beliefe in this poynt neyther is it sufficient for the recalling of an errour of a whole sect standing still on foote as this of the Puritans yet doth that some of them chang their opinion or for feare or promotion dissemble it when the same is not ratified by some publike testimony of their whole company 76. Therefore I must now vrge M. Andrews to shew vs in what printed booke or generall decree of their CongregatioÌ„s they haue recanted their opinioÌ„ and acknowledged it for an errour seeing that the same was published before to the world by themselues in such sort that M. Bancroft by M. Andrews his owne confession gathered it out of their owne bookes ita fortè tum fuit saith he and so perhaps it was then he meaneth 20. yeares agoe and yet you see he saith it with a perhaps as if the matter were in doubt and that perhaps it was not so But I dare say without all peraduenture that it was so not only 20. yeares agoe but also much later euen since his Maiesty came into England for I am sure there are ynough who know and remember that Burges a Puritan preacher was committed to Prison for that in a Sermon before his Maiesty he would not giue him his ordinary style and tytle of supreme Gouernour of the Church 77. But what if I produce a very substaÌ„tiall witnes of their continuance in that opinion some yeares after and such a one as M. Andrews hath great reason to admit for that he stil liueth yea ruleth in the English Clergy no lesse theÌ„ M. Andrews himselfe I meane the learned Doctor and worthy superintendent M. Barlow who in his Epistle to the Ministers of Scotland prefixed to the Sermon which he prated before his Maiesty against the Puritans the 21. of September in the yeare 1606. which is not past 6. yeares agoe coupleth the Puritans with the Papists for their opinion in that point saying that Papists and Puritans will haue the King to be but an honorable member not a chiefe gouernour in the Churches of his dominions Thus saith M. Barlow whome M. Andrews must needs allow for a man of credit except he will discredit his owne occupation and ministry 78. Besides that I will adde to M. Barlow another authenticall witnes who wrote the yeare after and representeth the authority of all the Clergy of England I meane M. Thomas Rogers in his booke intytled The faith doctrine and religion professed and protected in the realme of England c. wherein he setteth downe 39. Articles agreed vpon by the whole Clergy and analised by him into propositions with a discouery and confutation as he pretendeth of all those that haue at any tyme contradicted the said articles and all this he saith was perused and by the lawfull authority of the Church of England allowed to be publike So that this is a witnes of sufficient credit if ther be any credit to be giuen to the Church and Clergy of England yea to M. Andrewes himselfe who is a principall member thereof and therefore by all lykelyhood gaue his suffrage to the approbation of M. Rogers his booke 79. This man hauing set downe the 37. Article and the second propositioÌ„ which concerneth his Maiesties Ecclesiasticall Supremacy produceth only two sorts of aduersaries to that Article to wit the Papists and the Puritans and sayth of the later thus False it is which the Puritans do hold namely that Princes must be seruants to the Church be subiect to the Church
to feed his Lambs and sheep he preferred him therin before all the rest of the Apostles Quia solus saith S. Ambrose profitetur ex omnibus omnibus antefertur The third is that wheras S. Ambrose obserueth three degrees of Christians to wit Lambs litle sheep and sheep all recommended to the Pastorall care of S. Peter he giueth to vnderstand that all sorts of Christians were committed to his charge and gouernment and not the weake only but the most holy also learned and perfect yea euen the Apostles themselues and therefore he saith vt perfectiores perfectior gubernaret 10. This then being S. Ambrose his sense and doctrine concerning the Pastorall cōmission giuen to S. Peter it is most euident that when he teacheth that all Pastours receaued their flocks with S. Peter he teacheth it in the same sense that S. Augustine doth to wit that because S. Peter being supreme Pastour represented the whole Church and receaued the Pastorall authority not for himselfe alone but also for all those who were eyther at that tyme or euer should be subordinate vnto him therefore all other Pastours receaued their authority not only in him as S. Augustine speaketh but also with him that is to say in and with their chiefe Pastour and head And therefore whereas D. Andrews to make a greater shew of parity or equality betwixt S. Peter and other Pastors hath added to S. Ambrose his text those words of his owne nobiscum eas accepit it may passe for a piece of coggery and well discouereth his skill to help the dyce when he is put to his shifts 11. Besids that his vanity and folly notably appeareth in that hauing gayned nothing but rather lost his cause by alledging these two places of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose yet he braggeth thereof afterwards as if he had got a great victory saying in the 214. page that although pasce oues was said in the singuler number and to one to wit S. Peter yet it passed to all and that clariùs id loquuntur Ambrosius Augustinus quà m vt obstrepere possint nouitij nostri Ambrose and Augustine do speake or affirme it more plainly then that our nouices can any way contradict it So he meaning by our nouices the Catholiks as I take it though I know not why he so calleth them neyther do I meane heere to discusse it but will remit to the indifferent Reader to iudge what cause he hath so to brag of these two Fathers and what fidelity he hath shewed in alledging them dissembling the cleare doctrine of the one and corrupting as well the text as the sense of the other and thus much for his first answere 12. In his second he seeketh to retort the Cardinals argument vpon him and to proue the Kings Supremacy by the word pasce which he saith he knoweth will touch the Cardinall to the quick quod scio saith he punget Cardinalem Let vs heare then this sharp argument which I thinke will proue a very blunt one Thus then he saith Negat Cardinalis Primatum Regis c. The Cardinall denieth the Kings Supremacy and yet God said to a King tu pasces populum meum Israel thou shalt feed my people Israel Where no man can deny but that a King was made the Pastor of all Israel yea of the Priests except he will deny them to be part of Israel Thus argueth this learned and sharp Doctor ouerthrowing his owne argument sufficiently by his owne conclusion graunting in effect that if the Priests were not a part of the people of Israel the King was not their Pastor 13. To this purpose then it is to be considered what I haue amply debated in the first Chapter of my Supplement concerning the exemption and sepation of the Priests and Leuits from the temporall and politike State by the expresse words of Almighty God who gaue the Leuits not to the temporall Prince but to Aaron and his children tradidi eos dono Aaron filijs eius de medio populi I haue giuen them saith Almighty God for a gift to Aaron and his children out of the midst of the people Besides that God ordayned expresly that the Tribe of Leui should not be numbred neither yet haue any part or inheritance with the rest of Israel because he had reserued the same for his owne seruice and therfore would himselfe be their possession portion and inheritance So that this being very cleare in the expresse words of the Law which as I also proued was neuer altered but rather confirmed at the institution of the Kings who were expresly bound to obserue the whole law and to obey the high Preist I may say to the Doctor as he said before to the Cardinall atque vel sic iacebit Doctori ratio sua 14. But put the case this were not so yea and that the Preists of the old law had byn subiect to the Kings in spirituall matters wherof I haue already proued the contrary will M. Andrews inferre theron that therfore Kings haue also the spirituall Supremacy in the new law without any new institution or ratification therof by our Sauiour Christ or his Apostles Doth not this great Doctor know that the Mosaycal law was abrogated by the law of grace and that wheras it was deuided into three parts to wit Iudiciall Cerimoniall and Morall the two former vtterly ceased and the third I meane the Morall part contayning the Commaundements remayneth only in force not because it was instituted then but because those Commaundments being grounded on the law of Nature are alwayes in force and therfore ordayned againe to be kept in the new Law In which respect the cōmandment cōcerning the Sabboth doth not now bynd Christians as it was then ordayned and practiced 15. And therfore M. Andrews might aswell introduce Poligamy practised in the old Law as the spirituall supremacy of Kings if we should graunt that they then had any such and with much more reason might he teach abstinence from puddings and other meates made of bloud seeing that we find some commaundements or ordinance therof in the Acts of Apostles wheras there is no one syllable in all the new Testament to proue that Kings haue any spirituall authority ouer the Church it being most euidēt that al those places of Scripture which he or any other doth or can alledge out of the new Testament to that purpose do concerne only temporall obedience to the pagan Emperours or Princes who were then Persecutors of the Church and therefore could not be spirituall heads or Gouernours thereof nor obayed by Christians in spirituall matters And this I say the rather because M. Andrews doth not only heere but also throughout his whole booke seeme to ground his doctrine of the Kings spirituall Primacy specially vpon the law of Moyses as I shall haue occasion to shew further hereafter which sufficiently bewrayeth the beggery and misery of his cause
and his want of proofes for the same by the law of Christ. 16. And although as well the ancient Fathers as we do ordinarily produce testimonies of the old Testament not only for matters in controuersy but also for instruction in matters of morality yet neyther they nor we euer do it to other end but to confirme things instituted and taught in the new law by the ordinance and commaundment eyther of Christ or of his spouse the Church and this we do only in respect of the conformity that is in many things betwixt the figure and the Verity I meane betwixt the old law and the new Moyses and our Sauiour Christ the Synagogue and the Church and not to the end to proue any thing to be necessary now because it was ordayned or practised then which were rather a point of Iudaisme then of Christianisme And therefore this and other arguments of M. Andrews grounded only vpon the Iudicial lawes of Moyses may shew him to be rather a Iew then a Christian except he can bring some other ground for the same out of the new Testament or some Apostolicall or Ecclesiasticall Canon or Tradition which he neyther doth nor euer shall be able to do 17. But who seeth not how he tryfleth in this point as cōmonly he doth in all For how doth it follow that if it be true which we teach to wit that Christ made S. Peter supreme Pastour of the Church by cōmaunding him to feed his sheep then he gaue the same spirituall authority to Dauid when he bad him feed his people of Israel Is it not manifest that although the word pasce feed as it was spoken to them both doth signifie to gouerne yet it is Equiuocall being to be vnderstood of a different manner of gouernment in them both that is to say in the one spirituall and in the other temporall what consequence then can he draw from the one to the other except it be this that as when God bad Dauid who as a temporall man to feed his people of Israell which was a temporall people he gaue him temporall authority making him head of a temporall Kingdome So when he bad S. Peter who was a spirituall man a Priest an Apostle and Prince of the Apostles feed his sheep that is to say all the faithfull conteyned within his Sheepfold which is a spirituall congregation he gaue him a spirituall authority and made him supreme Pastor and head of a spirituall Kingdome that is to say of his Church And this no doubt is the most direct inference that can be made of the word Pasce when it is applied in the old Testament eyther to Dauid if we respect him as he was a King and not a Prophet or else to any other temporall Prince 18. And therfore whereas M. Andrewes saith Narro autem Cardinali c. I declare to the Cardinall that the tytle of Pastor was giuen in the holy Scriptures to Princes long before it was giuen to the Bishop and much more often as to Iosue before and more often euery where in the holy-history and in the Prophets This his narration I say is very idle and impertinent seeing it proueth not any thing which we deny but that which we willingly graunt to wit that the words Pascere and Pastor are often applyed in the old Testament to temporall Princes but that they signify spirituall gouernment in them as Kings M. Andrews will not proue in hast and the contrary is manifest inough in Cyrus a Pagan and Idolatrous King whome God called Pastormeus and no man I thinke will be so absurd to imagine that he had any Ecclesiasticall authority or was Head and chiefe member of Gods Church wherof he was no member at all besides that the example which he giueth vs of Iosue out of the booke of Numbers doth not any way help his cause but flatly confound him 19. For albeit in the Chapter which he quoteth to wit the 27 it is declared that God commaunded Moyses to assigne and ordaine Iosue for his Successour in the gouernmēt of the people least they should be like to oues sine Pastore sheep without a Sheepheard yet it is euident there that he was not to haue any authority ouer the High Priest but rather the cleane contrary to wit that he should depend wholy vpon the High Priests direction and therfore wheras Moyses was commaunded there by almighty God to giue part of his glory to Iosue Theodoretus doth very well obserue as I haue noted before in the Supplement that Moyses did distribute his dignity and authority which was both spirituall and temporall betwixt Iosue and Eleazar the High Priest yet in such sort that Iosue should be directed in al his affaires by Eleazar Pro hoc saith the Scripture si quid agendum erit c. For him that is to say Iosue if any thing be to be done Eleazar shall consult the Lord and at his word he to wit Iosue shall go out and in and all the children of Israel with him and all the rest of the multitude Thus saith the holy Scripture wherby it appeareth that albeit Iosue was Pastor populi yet he was but a temporall Pastor or Gouernour and to be directed euen in temporall affaires by the spirituall Pastor Eleazar whome Almighty God did illuminate and instruct in his consultations for the direction of Iosue Now then doth this example prick Cardinal Bellarmine trow you or M. Andrews Truely though he meant to prick the Cardinall yet you see he hath wounded none but himselfe Thus much to his second answere 20. His third is in substance that albeit S. Augustine and S. Cyril haue amply cōmented vpon the Ghospell of S. Iohn and vpon those very words of our Sauiour to S. Peter Pasce oues meas yet neyther of them saith he saw illustrem hunc fidei articulum de primatu Petri temporali this notable article of faith concerning the temporall primacy of Peter c. So he As if the Cardinal did teach or affirme that S. Peters primacy is a temporall primacy which is a meere fiction of M. Andrews to frame matter for himselfe to impugne for seeing the spirituall primacy of S Peter is so euident in the holy Scriptures that he is now then forced to graūt it in some sort yea somtimes as far forth in effect as we demaūd though at at other times he laboureth vtterly to ouerthrow it as I shall haue occasiō to declare more largly her after he wil now needs presuppose that we teach the Popes Primacy to be a temporall primacy why forsooth Marry because the Cardinal as also all the Catholiks do teach that the spirituall authority which our Sauiour gaue S. Peter and his Successors may and doth in some cases extend it selfe to temporall things so far forth as it is or may be necessary for the execution of their spirituall power and for
twelue Apostles were twelue foundations and consequently twelue heads yet as all the twelue were subordinate to Christ so were eleuen of them subordinate to Peter whome Christ made their Primacy or Head which as you haue heard is the expresse doctrine of S. Cyprian teaching that albeit the Apostles had equal power yet Primatus sayth he Petro datur vt vna Ecclesia Christi vna Cathedra monstretur The Primacy is giuen to Peter that one Church of Christ and one chayre may be shewed Whereby he giueth to vnderstand that although the Apostles were all of equal poweâ— in respect of all other Christians who were subiect to them yet they were not equal in respect of Peter to whome our Sauiour himselfe gaue the Primacy to conserue vnity amongst them and in his whole Church And this I hope may suffise for answere to M. Andrews his glosse vpoÌ„ the 2. places of S. Cyprian only I cannot omit to thanke him for the paynes he taketh still to corroborate our cause with his answers obiections for truly if he write many bookes in this vayne we shall not need any other champion to fight for vs but himselfe as it will also further appeare by his answere to the place of S. Hierome whereof I am now to treate 21. The Cardinall cyteth out of S. Hierome these words Inter duodecem vnus eligitur vt capite constitutâ— schismatis tollatur occasio one is chosen amongst twelue to the end that a head being made the occasion of schisme may be taken away by which words of S. Hierome spoken expressely of S. Peter it is cleare that according to S. Hieromes doctrine our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles and consequently of the whole Church of God to which purpose I haue also vrged the same in my Supplement 22. Now then M. Andrews answereth the Cardinall thus Hicronymus idem hic à Cardinale patitur c. Hierome suffreth heere at the Cardinals hands the same iniury that Cyprian suffred before both their places or texts are lamely cyted for Hiâ—rome saith thus At dices tu scilicet Iouiniane super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia c. But thou to wit Iouinian wilt say the Church is founded vpon Peter which the Cardinall doth now so oft and earnestly inculcate vnto vs well following Iouinian therein but what sayth Hierome Although sayth he the same is in another place done vpon all the Apostles and all of them receiue the keyes and the strength of the Church is equal consolidated or established vpon them all yet neyther in respect of the keyes nor of the foundation which are so much esteemed at Rome but for this cause one is chosen amongst twelue that a head being made the occasion of schisme may be taken away Thus far doth M. Andrews alledge the words of S. Hierome and glosse them as you see wherein two things are specially to be obserued for the present the one that he taxeth the Cardinall for wronging S. Hierome now no lesse then he wronged S. Cyprian before in the lame and corrupt citation of their places The other that he would make the Reader belieue that to hold the Church to be buylt vpon Peter was one of Iouinians heresyes and not S. Hieromes doctrine and that therefore the Cardinall teaching and oft inculcating the same doth follow Iouinian of these two points I must needs say somwhat before I passe further for truely they deserue to be well examined and the good conscyence of M. Andrews to be layed open to the world 23. In the first point I must needs say he hath some reason to wit in saying that S. Hierome is as much wronged by the Cardinall as S. Cyprian was before which is most true for neyther of them both receiue any wrong at all by the Cardinall as you haue already seene in the place of S. Cyprian and will easily see also in this place of S. Hierome if you conferre that which the Cardinall left vncyted and is layd downe by M. Andrews with that which followeth and is cyted by the Cardinall for albeit S. Hierome do teach in the words which M. Andrews cyteth that the Church was equally buylt vpon all the Apostles yet it is euident by that which the Cardinall alledgeth that the same is so to be vnderstood that it doth not any way preiudice the Primacy of S. Peter seeing that S. Hierome affirmeth expressely notwithstanding the equality whereof he speaketh that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles and therefore it is manifest that M. Aâ—drews doth vnderstand this equality in other manner then S. Hierome doth who indeed sayth with great reason as also diuers other Fathers do and no Catholike will deny it that the Church was buylt vpon all the Apostles ex aequo equally but in what sense the same is to be vnderstood I would wish Mr. Andrews to learne of Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in his controuersyes where he declareth the same very learnedly perspicuously and briefely as he is wont 24. Thus then he sayth answering to this very place of S. Hierome and certayne others taken out of the Scriptures and obiected by Luther Respondeo tribus modis Apostolos omnes fuisse Ecclesiae fundamenta c. I answere that all the Apostles were three wayes the foundations of the Church yet without any preiudice to Peter The first is because they were the first that did found Churches euery where for Peter did not himselfe alone conuert the whole world vnto the fayth of Christ but some Nations were conuerted by him others by Iames and others by the rest And therefore S. Paul Rom. 15. saith Sic praedicaui c. I haue so preached this Ghospell where Christ was not named least I should buyld vpon other mens foundation And 1. Cor. 3. vt sapiens architectus c. I haue layd the foundation lyke a wyse Architect and another buyldeth thereupon And in this manner all Apostles are foundations alyke which I thinke is meant in the 21. Chapter of the Apocalyps 25. The Apostles and Prophets are also sayd another way to be foundations of the Church to wit because all Christian doctrine was reuealed vnto them seeing that the fayth of the Church is grounded vpon the reuelation which the Apostles Prophets had from God for new articles of fayth are not alwayes reuealed to the Church But the Church resteth and continueth in that doctrine which the Apostles and Prophets learned of our Lord and deliuered to their posterity by preaching and writing and by this meanes we are as the Apostle sayth Ephes. 2. buylt vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets and according to these two wayes Peter is no greater then the rest But as Hierome sayth the strength of the Church is equally established vpon them all 26. The Apostles also are sayd a third way to be foundations of the Church to wit in respect of their gouernement for all of them
were heads gouernours and Pastors of the vniuersall Church but not in the same manner that Peter was for they had a chiefe and most ample power as Apostles or Legats but Peter had it as ordinary Pastor besides that they had their full power in such sort that neuerthelesse Peter was their head and they depended of him and not he of them and this is that which was promised to Peter Matth. 16. when it was sayd vnto him in presence of the rest Vpon this rock I will buyld my Church which besides the other Fathers before cyted S. Hierome teacheth in his first booke against Iouinian where explicating what is the meaning of buylding the Church vpon Peter he sayth thus Licèt super omnes Apostolos c. Although the strength of the Church be established equally vpon all the Apostles yet therefore one was chosen amongst the twelue to the end that a head being made the occasion of schisme might be taken away 27. Thus far the Cardinall which I hope may suffice to teach M. Andrews how the Church was founded equally vpon the Apostles to wit the two first waye whereof the Cardinall speaketh as mentioned in the Apocalyps and the Epistle to the Ephesians where not only the Apostles but also the Prophets are called foundations of the Church which may well stand with the Primacy of S. Peter and S. Hieromes doctrine concerning the same whereas M. Andrews making S. Hierome impugne S. Peters Primacy by the equality that he mentioneth maketh him contradict himselfe and ouerthrow his owne doctrine in the very next words after wherein he expoundeth as the Cardinall noteth very well what is meant by the buylding of the Church vpon S. Peter signifying that it is to be vnderstood thereby that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles as I will shew further hereafter by M. Andrews his owne confession So that it is cleare inough that the Cardinal left not those words of S. Hierome vncyted as preiudiciall to Peters primacy but only for breuityes sake and that therefore M. Andrews hath notably calumniated him as well in this place as in the former seeking to cast vpon him some suspition of fraudulent dealing in the cytation of Authors which is indeed the proper talent of M. Barlow and M. Andrews as you haue hitherto seene sufficiently proued in them both and shall see further exemplyfied heereafter in M. Andrews to his confusion 28. The second point which I wished to be obserued in his Glosse vpon S. Hieromes text is that he sayth the Cardinall followeth Iouinian in affirming that the Church was founded vpon S. Peter as if the Cardinall did teach therein soâ—e heresy of Iouiniâ—n and not S. Hieromes doctrine but this surpasseth all impudency For no doubt he speaketh against his owne conscience and knowledge seeing he cannot be ignorant of the contrary if he haue read and examined that very place in S. Hierome which he obiecteth where it is euident that the matter then in controuersy betwixt S. Hierome and Iouinian was about the merit of Virginity because Iouinian equalled marâ—ryage with it which heresy S. Hierome in that place laboured to confuteâ— and for as much as the heretyke had obiected the marriage of the Apostles inferring thereupon that if Virginity were to be preferred before marriage Christ would not haue chosen marryed men but Virgins to be his Apostles and the Princes and Captains of Christian disciplin therefore S. Hierome answereth that it appeareth not in the Scriptures that any of them had a wyfe except Saint Peter and that he being married whiles he was vnder the law liued continent from his wyfe after his vocation to the Apostleship and that if any of the rest had wyues before their vocation they abstayned from them euer after and that S. Iohn Euangelist being chosen a Virgin was singularly beloued and specially fauoured of our Sauiour aboue the rest for his Virginity 29. And whereas Iouinian also vrged the supreme dignity of S. Peter as that the Church was founded vpon him being a married man and not vpon S. Iohn who was a Virgin wherein it is euident that Iouinian sought to fortify his heresy by an argument drawne from a point of knowne Catholike doctrine S. Hierome was so far from denying the Church to be founded on Peter that he notably confirmed it declaring that Peter was made thereby head of the Apostles for hauing taught that the Church was also founded equally vpon all the Apostles in the sense that I haue declared he gaue a reason not only why S. Peter was made head of the rest to wit to take away the occasion of schisme but also why he being a married man was endowed with that power and dignity rather then S. Iohn who was a Virgin whereof he yielded this probable reason that respect was had to the age of them both because Peter was a man of yeares and Iohn very yong and therefore to auoyd murmuration against Iohn himselfe which would haue hapned in case he being the yongest of them all should haue bene made their head Peter was worthily preferred before him This is briefely the substance of S. Hieromes discourse in that place Whereby it is euident that he notably confirmeth our Catholike doctrine concerning the Supremacy of S. Peter acknowledging him to be made the head as well of S. Iohn as of all the rest 30. And to the end that M. Andrews may euidently see that S. Hierome did not impugne or disallow this proposition the Church is founded vpon Peter but reiected only the false consequent that Iouinian drew thereon against the merit of Virginity I wish him to read S. Hieromes Commentary vpon the 16. Chapter of S. Matthew and particulerly vpon these words of our Sauiour super hanc petrâ—m aedifiâ—abo Ecclesiam meam c. vpon this rock will I buyld my Church c. where he shall see that the proposition which Iouinian obiected is also the cleare and expresse doctrine of S. Hierome who sayth thus in the person of our Sauiour to S. Peter Because thou Simon hast sayd to me thou art Christ the Sonne of God I also say to thee not with a vayne or idle speach that hath no operation or effect sed quia meum dixisse fecisse est but because my saying is a doing or making therefore I say vnto thee thou art Peter or a Rock and vpon this rock I will buyld my Church As Christ being himselfe the light granted to his disciples that they should be called the light of the world so to Simon who belieued in Christ the Rock he gaue the name of Peter that is to say a Rock and according to the metaphor of a Rock it is truly sayd to him I will buyld my Church vpon thee 31. Thus far S Hierome teaching expressely that Christ buylt his Church vpon Peter which also he teacheth in diuers other places as in an Epistle to Marcella where he
hath these wordes Petrus super queÌ„ Dominus fundauit Ecclesiam c. Peter vpon whome our Lord founded his Church and in another Epistle to Pope Damasus he affirmed the same not only of him but also of the chayre of Peter saying Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae id est Cathedrae Petri communione consocior super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio I following no first or chiefe but Christ do coÌ„municate with thy Beatitude that is to say with the chayre of Peter vpon that Rock I know the Church is buylt Finally in the selfe same booke against Iouinian where he answereth the former obiection he calleth S. Peter Petram Christi the Rock of Christ saying O vox digna Apostolo Petra Christi O speach worthy of an Apostle and the Rock of Christ signifying thereby that S. Peter was the Rock whereupon Christ buylt his Church 32. So as it cannot be denyed that S. Hierome both firmely belieued and expressely taught that our Sauiour buylt his Church vpon Peter wherein you haue already seene that he agreeth with S. Cyprian who wrote long before him and with the whole Councell of Calcedon which calleth S. Peter Petram crepidinem Ecclesiae the rock and top of the Church and rectae fidoi fundamentum the foundation of the true faith Besids that you may also see in Cardinall Bellarmins controuersyes that he agreed therin with Origen S. Athanasius S Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Epiphanius S. Chrysostome S. Cyril Tertullian S. Hilary S. Ambrose S. Maximus S. Leo S. Gregory the Great and other learned Fathers 33. Wherupon it followeth that Iouinian did not obiect the same as his owne singular opinion which he knew well would be litle esteemed and was to be proued and not obiected but as a matter generally acknowledged by Catholikes and that therefore he only sought to draw some consequence out of it as out of a knowne principle of the Catholike faith for the confirmation of his heresy as all heretykes do also seeke to do the like not only out of Catholike opinions but also out of the Scripture it selfe What then may we thinke of M. Andrews who is not ashamed to taxe the Cardinall as a follower of Iouinian for teaching that the Church was buylt vpon Peter Can we thinke that he hath any conscience or care of what he saith especially seeing that he himselfe is a true scholler and follower of Iouinian except he dissent not only from Luther Caluin and other Archsectaries his great Maisters but also from his brethren of the present English Church 34. For who knoweth not that they all hold and teach that marriage is of equal merit with virginity and viduall continency which is the proper heresy of Iouinian condemned for such in his owne tyme first by Pope Siricius and a Synode of Bishops held at Rome and afterwards by another Synode held at Milan where S. Ambrose was present Besides that the same is learnedly impugned and clearely confuted by S. Hierome in his bookes written purposely against him as also by S. Augustine in his treatises de Bono coniugali de Virginitate which he wrote expressely for the confutation of that heresy as he testifyeth himselfe in his Retractations where he calleth Iouinian a monster for teaching that doctrine and registreth him for an hereâ—tike in his Tract and Catalogue of heresyes as well for that opinion as for impugning the custome and vse of the Catholike Church in fasting and abstinence from certayne meates wherin also the forenamed sectaries of our dayes and the English Church at this present and consequently M. Andrews himselfe except he will disclayme from all his brethren do follow Iouinian Whereto I might add other heresyes of his taught by many Archsectaries of our tyme wherin it may be M. Andrewes hath his share amongst the rest as that merits and rewards of the lust are equal and that the corporall virginity and integrity of the Blessed Virgin Mary was corrupted and lost by the birth of our Sauiour 35. All which opinions being heresyes of Iouinian and registred for such by S. Augustine haue bene reuyued in these our dayes partly by Luther and Caluin and partly by the Magdeburgenses Bucer Molinaeus and others as Cardinall Bellarmine sheweth out of their owne workes in his controuersies Therefore I remit it now to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader who is the follower of Iouinian the Cardinall or M. Andrewes and his fellowes seeing that the Cardinall holdeth nothing els with Iouinian but only that Catholike doctrine which Iouinian held and professed togeather with S. Hierome and all other Fathers of his tyme as all heretikes haue alwayes agreed with Catholikes in some points and condemneth all those heresyes whâ—ch the Fathers aforesayd and the whole Church of their tyme condemned in him and his followers wheras M. Andrews and his fellowes expressely professe and teach those very heresyes for thâ— which Iouinian and his followers were by the ancient Fathers censured and condemned as monstrous heretikes as hath ben before declared so that I thinke of this there can be no further controuersy 36. Now then let vs proceed with the examination of what he saith further to the place of S. Hierome alledged by the Cardinall which is this Propterea inter duodecim c. Therefore amongst twelue one is chosenâ— that a head being appointed the occasion of schisme may be taken away whereto he answereth thus Inter duodecim vnum eligi c. that one be chosen amongst twelue or some number which some one man may be able to gouerne and prouyde for or els to take away schisme who doth forbid a head to be chosen or so much power to be giuen him as may suffice for the end or purpose for the which he was ordayned But the question is how far that power and that number extendeth lest the head become caput heteroclitum an extrauagant head or a head out of course and not so much the occasion of schisme taken away as an occasion giuen of tyranny So he all which I beseech thee good Reader well to note and particulerly that he granteth these points following The first that S. Peter was chosen head of the Apostles the second that a head is necessary for auoyding of schisme the third that the same head is to haue as much authority as is conuenient for the end for which he is ordayned and the fourth that of all this there is no question for that the question is saith he concerning the power of the head how far it extendeth and how great may be the number that he is to gouerne 37. But if M. Andrews consider well what he granteth he may consequently decyde the question or doubt that he maketh and shall see that he hath granted as much in effect as we teach or demand conâ—cerning the authority of
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
the Fathers then in matters necessary to saluation yet for as much as the question concerning Prayer to Saynts which the Cardinall vndertook to handle is only whether the primitiue Church held it to be superstitious as his Maiesty affirmeth it to be the Cardinall needed not to debate and discusse whether it be of necessity to saluation and therefore he forebare to speake thereof as needles and impertinent to the question in hand neuertheles this occasion being now offered I cannot omit to say that if M. Andrwees do speake heere not of the act or practise of praying to Saynts but of the beliefe of the doctrine demanding whether it be of necessity to saluation to belieue that prayer to Saints is lawfull I must needes tell him that it is so necessary that if he or any man els do obstinatly deny and impugne it he is an heretike and consequently cannot be saued and the reason is because he impugneth the beliefe and practice of the vniuersall Catholike Church which our Sauiour hath commaunded vs to heare and obey vnder payne to be held as Ethnicks and Publicans 56. Besides that considering the inestimable benefits that we may receiue both spiritually and temporally by prayers to Saynts whereof the whole Church hath had sufficient and publyke experience in all ages as it is most euideÌ„t by the testimonyes of these fathers for the tymes when they liued it cannot be denyed but that to omit the practice of it were extreme folly and to contemne it were impiety So as M. Andrews may now choose whether he will belieue and practise this doctrine with the whole Catholyke Church or els shew himselfe a foole in neglecting it impyous in contemning it or an heretyke in condemning and impugning it And thus much for his censure vpon the place of S. Chrysostome 57. The next place which he censureth is of Saynt Maximus Bishop of Turin alledged by the Cardinall thus S. Maximus in sermone c. S. Maximus in his sermon made in the prayse of S. Agnes sayth O spleÌ„dida virgo c. O worthy Virgin c. we beseech thee with as feruent prayers as we may that thou vouchsafe to remember vs. To this M. Andrewes answereth that the homilyes of Maximus and almost all the rest which goe vnder the tytle of Sermones de tempore and are of Saynts are not very much to be esteemed that this very homily which the Cardinall cyteth as of Maximus was a long tyme held to be of Ambrose and that now we haue made it to be the homily of Maximus that we are wont to attribute these homilyes sometymes to one and sometymes to another as it pleaseth vs to make tytles and finally that nec fides certa vbi author incertus there is no sure credit to be giuen to a worke wherof the author is vncertayne So he But how much this his censure is to be esteemed you may partly ghesse by his lyke censure vpon an homily of S. Augustine de tempore whereof I treated amply in the 4. Chapter and touched also againe in the last Chapter by occasion of an homily of S. Maximus made in the prayse of the Apostles which I proued to be his as also that he wâ—ote diuers other homilyes as well de tempore as of particuler Saynts whereto I remit thee good Reader to auoyd a needles repetition thereof 58. And whereas M. Andrewes sayth heere that this homily in the prayse of S. Agnes was a long tyme held for an homily of S. Ambrose he might haue done well to haue told vs where he findeth the same True it is that S. Ambrose in his booke de Virginibus wryteth a notable encomium or prayse of S. Agnes and in his Epistles he wrote an elegant discourse of her life martyrdome and miracles but that he was euer thought to be author of this homily it is but a conceipt or inuention of M. Andrews for ought I haue yet seene and put the case that that there hath byn some doubt or question whether of them was the author of it will he conclude as heere he doth that therefore there is no credit to be giuen vnto it If he will iustify that consequence he must reiect diuers parts of the holy Scripture which neuerthelesse I hope he will acknowledge to be of sound credit as in the old Testament the booke of the Iudges Ruth and Iob of which the author is eyther wholy vnknowne or vncertayne and to omit other in the new Testament there is euen at this day amongst the sectaryes as there was also in the primitiue Church great doubt who was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews some ascrybing it as S. Hierome testifyeth to S. Clement who was after Pope some to S. Barnabas and others to S. Luke and some as Sixtus Senensis witnesseth to Tertullian besids that Luther the Magdeburgenses Kemnitius and Brentius with dyuers other Ghospellers do deny it to be S. Paules or any of the Apostles or yet Canonicall Scripture And albeit Caluin and diuers of his followers admit it for Scripture yet they doubt greatly who was the author of it 59. So as if M. Andrewes will stand to his owne inference he must needs conclude that the Epistle to the Hebrews is of no sound credit which I thinke he will be loath to say seeing that all the English Clergy doth at this preseÌ„t acknowledge it for Canonical Scripture Besides that although it should be true which he sayth to wit that it hath byn doubted whether S. Ambrose or S. Maximus were author of that homily yet that can be no sufficient reason to reiect the doctrine of it but rather an argument to fortify and approue it as both very sound and very acient seeing that it hath byn alwayes ascrybed to one of those two ancient learned and holy Fathers and therefore to conclude you see that M. Andrews hath sayd nothing to the purpose against this testimony produced by the Cardinall out of S. Maximus 60. There followeth another out of S. Gregory Nazianzen his oration in the prayse of S. Cyprian to whome he prayeth thus Tu è supernis nos respice populum hunc sanctum dirige Behold vs from aboue and direct this holy people And agayne in the same Oration the same Father testifyeth that a holy Virgin called Iustina did pray vnto the Virgin Mary to deliuer her from danger To these two poynts M. Andrews answereth seuerally to the first he sayth that the oration is not liquidae fideâ— of cleare credit and his reason is because it is vncertayne who that Cyprian was of whome the oratioÌ„ was made as whether he was Cyprian Bishop of Carthage or another Cyprian of Antioch and then he concludeth Ita fluctuat res tota ita perplexa omnia So vncertayne is the whole matter so perplexe or doubtfull are all things in that oration So he Wherein you see
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
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
did aske the Bishop with great reason whether he agreed with the Roman Church sciebat enim Episcopum tum Romae Catholicum for he knew that the Bishop of Rome then was a Catholike So he wherin he granteth consequently that the Pope is supreme and vniuersall Pastor of the whole Church for that must needes follow of his grant seeing it is euident that he who then was Bishop of Rome and whom he alloweth for Catholik had and exercised a supreme and vniuersall authority to which purpose it is to be considered who was Bishop of Rome at that time wherto M. Andrewes himselfe giueth vs no small light signifying presently after that Liberius was Bishop a litle before him and sure it is that Damasus succeeded Liberius and reygned many yeares who therefore must needes be the Catholike Bishop that M. Andrewes meaneth 30. Now then what authority Damasus had and exercised during his raigne it appeareth sufficiently by that which I signified before concerning him and his supremacy in the 4. Chapter where I shewed that the same was acknowledged not only in Affrick by the Byshops of 3. African Synods who in a commoÌ„ Epistle to him gaue cleare and euident testimony thereof but also in the East Church euen by the chief Patriarkes therof to wit by Peter the holy Bishop of Alexandria who immediately succeeded Athanasius and being expelled from his Church by the Arians fled to Pope Damasus and by the vertue and authority of his letters was restored to his seat as the Magdeburgians themselues do relate out of the Ecclesiasticall histories And in the Church of Antioch his authority was acknowledged by Paulinus Byshop therof receiuing instructions and orders from him for the absolution of Vitalis the Heritick Also afterwards Theopilus Byshop of Alexandria and S. Chrysostome Byshop of Constantinople were suters to him to obtain pardon for Flauianus Byshop of Antioch as may be seene more particulerly in the fourth Chapter of this Adioynder where I haue also set downe the cleer testimonies of some Fathers who liued at the same time and euidently acknowledged his supremacy 31. So that M. Andrewes granting that Pope Damasus was a Catholike Bishop and that the Church of Rome was in such integrity vnder him that S. Ambrose had reason to hold none for Catholickes but such as held vnion therewith It mâ—st needs follow that the supreme and vniuersall authority which Pope Damasus had and vsed was not vsurped but due to him his Sea and consequently to his successors And wheras M. Andrewes signifieth that the Roman Church and Bishops were not alwaies in the like integrity that they were at that time to wit neither a little before in the time of Liberius nor shortly after in the time of Honorius because both of them subscribed to heresy as he saith I will not now stand to debate that point with him both because I should digresse too much from the matter in hand hauing here vndertaken to shew what he granteth in fauour of Catholicks not to disproue what he denieth or affirmeth otherwise as also because he may see those old and stale obiections fully answered by the Cardinall himself in his CoÌ„trouersies not only concerning those two Popes but also touching all the rest whom our aduersaries were wont to calumniate in like manner and therfore I remit him therto 32. There followeth presently after a large and liberall grant of M. Andrews right worth the noting For wheras the Cardinall still prosecuteth the same matter touching the application of the name Catholicke to the Roman Church and hauing produced the precedent authority of S. Ambrose remitteth his Reader for further proofe therof to the last page of his former Booke which was his Answere to the Apology for the Oath it is to be vnderstood that in the said book and page he proueth by the authority of 3. Ancient Fathers to wit Pacianus S. Cyrill and S. Augustine that the name Catholike is a most true and proper note of the true Church and that it could neuer be vsurped by Hereticks yea and that our aduersaries themselues namely in the Apology for the Oath do so call vs and distinguish vs from themselues by that name and do consequently acknowledge vs to be members of the true Church whereto M. Andrews answereth thus Nam quae in extrema pagina c. For as for those things which the Cardinall wrote in the last page of his former booke and would gladly haue his Reader to see fatemur omnia we graunt and acknowledge them all So he Whereby he granteth that we being called Catholiks euen by our aduersaries themselues haue the true signe note of the true Church and are therefore true members thereof and that he and his fellowes who haue not the same note are Heretikes or Schismatiks For this is in effect the ArgumeÌ„t of the Cardinall grounded vpon the authority of the Fathers aforesayd which you see M. Andrews graunteth saying fatemur omnia 33. And albeit he seeketh presently an euasion by a distinction yet it helpeth him nothing for thus he saith Nec de nominis honore lis vlla sed vtri è re magis nomen habeant neyther is there any contention betwixt vs about the honour of the name but whether of both haue the name deriued from the thing So he allowing vs as you see the honor of the name for the which he saith they do not contend with vs and calling in question only to whome belongeth the thing signified by that name whereas neuertheles it is euident that according to the authorities alledged and vrged by the Cardinall out of the Fathers the name and the thing expressed by the name do alwaies so coÌ„cur that they are neuer separated for which cause those Fathers do hold and teach that the very name and word Catholyke is an euident note to distinguish the true Catholike faith and Church from the false doctrine and Congregation of Heretickes which they could not do if some might haue only the name Catholike and others the faith or Church which it signifieth 34. And therefore S. Augustine in the place alledged by the Cardinall saith that the very name Catholike held him in the Catholike Church quod saith he non sine causâ— inter tot haereses ista Ecclesia sola obtinuit which name this Church only hath obteyned amongst so many heresies not without cause So saith S. Augustine whereto the other Fathers which the Cardinall also cyteth do agree all teaching that heretikes or hereticall congregations neuer did or could vsurpe the name Catholike but that the same hath alwayes been and euer shall be peculiar to the true Church wherby they teach euidently that the name and the thing signified by the name do euer concur So as M. Andrews granting not only the Fathers doctrine in this poynt but also giuing vs freely the honour of the name alloweth vs to haue the
alyue by all lyklyhood when D. Harding wrote this which was within 6. or 7. yeares after this pretended consecration at least if any of them should haue bene dead the memory of them would haue bene so fresh that M. Iewell might and no doubt would not only haue named them but also haue appealed to the knowledge and testimony of hundreths of witnesses who must needs haue knowne them and remembred this pretended Consecration which was as I haue sayd so constantly denyed by Catholikes at the same tyme that it highly imported M. Iewell and his fellowes to lay downe their best and most substantiall and authenticall proofes of it for the defence of theyr owne honour and credit of theyr whole Clergy and Cause 12. This then being so I report me to the iudgment of any indifferent man what credit M. Masons new found register deserueth being produced now after fifty and odd yeares to testify this consecration whereof not so much as any one witnes was named nor any register pretended by those whom it most imported to proue it within 5. or 6. yeares after it was supposed to be done 13. And therefore seeing it pleaseth M. Andrewes to say of S. Ephraems Tomes translated by Vossius that they are Crypticae fidei because they were found in Crypta ferrata and M. Barlow in his pleasant humour iesteth at an Authour alledged by Cardinall Baroniê° out of a manuscript calling him a Corner-creeping relatour and a Vatican deske-creeper as also others of our aduersaries are wont to reiect what soeuer we alledge out of the manuscripts of the Vatican other Libraries vpon no better ground but because they will needes haue an vncharitable or rather malicious conceipt and imagination of fraudulent dealing in vs I hope it will not seeme to any reasonable man vnreasonable or strange that vpon so good ground and reason as I haue heere declared I take a mayne exception to this Register of M. Masons vntill he or some of his fellowes do shew the same to some learned discreet and sincere Catholikes who vpon the view and due consideration thereof may giue iudgement and testimonie of the truth and validity of it 14. For I doubt not but that it will easily appeare whether it be an olde and authenticall Register as well by the antiquity of the booke and letter and the formalities requisite thereto as also by the matters antecedent and consequent to this pretended Consecration For as there were many things no doubt done before worth the Registring so also diuers thinges haue passed since in the space of 55. yeares which wil be found in their due order place whereby the validity of the pretended Register may be the more easily discerned therefore I say let it be shewed and in recompence thereof I promise as well in my owne behalfe as for other Catholikes heere in Rome that if any English Protestant come hither as many do dayly and shall desire to see any manuscript in Rome alledged by any Catholike authour we will procure him ample satisfaction therein and doe him what other seruice we may as we are wont to doe to all our louing countrymen that come into these parts which many Noblemen and Gentlemen of great reputation and some of the greatest who haue receiued courtesy and seruice at our hands may and no doubt will testify And thus much I haue thought good to say to M. Masons Register in generall leauing the particuler examination and answere thereof to such Catholikes as shall haue the sight of it and occasion withall to treate of the matter which it handleth as I doubt not but some will haue ere it be long Faultes escaped in the Printing Pag. 22. lin 12. much confirmed by these very places c. sic corrigâ— much confirmed euen by those Fathers to wit S. Augustine c. Also in the marginall note which is The places of 3. Fathers alleaged c. corrige The 3. Fathers alleaged c. Pag. 24 lin 12. So that saith this famous dele that Pag. 31. lin 11. of the Citty read of that Citty Pag 40. lin 16. saying read suyng Pag. 48. lin penult from the subiection of the Church to the Roman Sea read from subiection to the Roman Sea Pag. 69. lin 12. out of the booke read out of the backside of the booke Pag. 75. lin 28. I haue also shewed read where I haue also shewed Pag 130. lin 11. notice read motiueâ— Pag. 139. lin 11. schisme and therby c. read schisme which as you haue heard M. Andrewes himself confesseth and therby c. Pag. 140. lin 2. break read breaking Pag. 142. lin 4. fauour read feruour Pag. 143. lin 13. Power of the Church read Pastour of the Church Pag. 147. lin 24. where it is said as S. Fulgentius S. Augustines scholler and others those wordes must be placed in the margent for a citation thus See S. Fulgentius c. Pag. 191. lin 11. saith S. Augustine read saith of S. Augustine Pag. 238. lin 22. which faith read with faith Pag. 268. lin 24. vnswerable read vnanswerable Pag. 378. lin 18 seeme read seene Pag. 380. lin vlt. taught read caught Pag. 383. lin 1. when in it is read when it is Pag. 395. lin 1. quod per read quos per. Pag. 418. lin 21. by noted read be noted A TABLE OF THE PRINCIPALL MATTERS HANDLED IN THIS ADIOYNDER A ADORATION diuersly mentioned in Scripture 371.373.376 S. Ambrose his proofe of S. Peters Supremacy out of the words Pasce oues meas pag. 8. abused by M. Andrews 281.282.283 Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople censured by Pope Leo. p. 62.63 His submission p. 65. M. Andrewes his abuse of S. Augustin S. Ambrose p. 5.6.7 8.18.415 His vayne braggs p. 9. his beggarly proofe of Princes spirituall Supremacy p. 12. sauours of Iudaisme ibid. His egregious equiuocation pag. 13. confounded by his owne Instance pag. 14. How he is a pecuniary Pastour pag. 16. His abuse of S. Cyril pag. 19. His shuttlecocks fools bolts pag. 24. His abuse of the Law Inter Claras p. 33.34.35 38. His belying and corrupting the Councell of Calcedon pag. 40.43 82. his Galli-maufrey or hoch-potch pag. 79. his strang paradox pag. 75. His strayning of the Greeke textâ— ib. His cause ouerthrowne by himself pag 89. his seared conscience p. 97. His foolish Glosse fraud vpon S. Cyprian pag. 102.105 c. His abuse of Cardinall Bellarmine pag. 113.116.117.355 His professioÌ„ of Iouianisme 120. His idle head pag. 130. His impertinent trifling pag. 1â—8 His trifling tale of Latinos pag. 144 His zeale greater then his wit pag 154. His TraÌ„smarinus Nemo pag. 162. His Father a Father of lyes 192. proued a wrangler cap. 5. 6. pertotum he ouerthroweth all subordination in the Church 198. His petty frauds 202. his phantasticall conceipts 203. His dull head 204. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 207.360 greatly troubled with litle words 208. His â—ighâ— in the ayre
vt coÌ„mig Beethlem S. Dionys. Eccles. Hierar ca. 10. S. Basil. Ep. 1. ad Monach. lapsum in fine in ep ad Virgin laps Idem reg 14. fusius explic S. Aug. in psal 75. ante finem Ioan Cass. de Iustit renuÌ„ti li 4. c. 13. See supl. c. 7. nu 59. 60. M. Andrews approuing the first institute of monks approueth many important points of Catholke Religion See Card. Bellar. l. de monachis c. 42 43. seq (b) See Supplem Chap 7. n. 58 59.60 (a) Luther in colloqu Germa c. de matrimo (b) Idem to 8. de matrimo fol. 119. (c) Idem de Bigamia Episcop proposit 62. IteÌ„ Ochinus dialog l. 2. dial 21. See Caluinoturcis l. 2. cap. 11. (d) Bucer in cap. 1. 19. Mat. (e) 1. Tim. â— (f) Tertul. lib. de monogam c. 13. S. Epiphanius lib. 2. haeres 61. in fine S. Chrysost. hom 19. in 1. Cor. 7. in 1. Tim. 8. hom 15. S. Aug. in Psal. 75. IteÌ„ Concil Carthag 4. can 104. (g) S. Basil. de vera virginitate The first Euangelists of the Protestants Ghospell were the true Locusts that destroyed religiouâ— profession and perfection That the name Catholike belongeth only to the Apostolike Roman Church to the children thereof Andr. c. 5. pag. 125. §. Quod affert (a) See Chap. 4. nu 57.58 sequent (b) Ibid. nu 61. Magdeb. cent 4. c. 10. Socrat. l. 4. c. 30. (c) Cap. 4. nu 62. (d) Ibid. nu 63. (e) Ibid. nu 58. 59. Bellar. dâ— Pont. RoÌ„ l. 4. ca. 8. 11. (a) Idem Resp. ad Apolog. p. vlt. (b) Paâ—id Ep. ad Sympronian (c) S. Ciril Hier. c. 18. (d) Aug. in lib coÌ„tra ep FuÌ„dameÌ„ cap. â—â— Andr. c. 5. p. 125. Nam quae Andr. vbi supra M. Andr. his distinction helpeth him nothing Aug. vbi supra Item de vera religione c. 7. Luc. c. 19. Andr. c. 7. pa. 168. §. Nam de nostr (b) Barl. Ser. an 1606. 21. Septemb. (c) See before chap. 6. nu 77. (d) See Suppl Chap. 4. nu 54.55 seq (f) Suppl ca. 5. nu 2.3.4 5. What a beggarly Church Clergy the Sectaries haue in England See Supl. vbi supra nu 5. See Supl. vbi supra nu 6. S. Hieron aduers. Lucifer Iohn 10. (c) See before nu 35. also Suppl chap. 4 nu 54.55 seq Luc. 19. (b) Chap. 6â— nu 81â— (d) Chap. 3. nu 37. sequent What a poore coÌ„ceipt M. Andrews hath of the Kings ecclesiasticall supremacy Andr. c. 1. pag 21. §. Neque tamâ— Ibidem Ibid. p. 29. §. Aâ— recepta The Ecclesiastical Supremacy of temporall Princes may be in M. Andrews his Pater noster but is not in his Creed The oath of the supremacy vnlawful if the supremacy be no matter of faith Aureol in 3. dist 39â— Ang. verb. periurium See Nauar. manuale c. 12. nu 3. Suarez de relig Tom. 2. li. 3. ca. 4. nu 7. Card. c. 1. pag. 7. Andr. c. 1. p. 22. §. Sed. nec M. Andrews his grosse ignorance S. Aug. Quaest. in Leuit. li. 3. quaest 23. Num. 2â— M. Andrew his notorious malice in the abuse of holy Scripture Deut. 17. See c. 6. nu 68.69.70 See Suppl c. 1. nu 10. seq (g) Ibid. nu â—4 seq (h) Ibid. nu 3â— seq (i) nu 44. (k) nu 45. 50. (l) nu 49. seq (m) nu 3â— seq (n) nu 28. seq (o) nu 53.54.55 56. (p) See sup Chap. 1. nu 83. 84. It cannot be shewed how Kings afâ—ter they were Christened came to haue the gouernment of the Church The Ecclesiasticall supremacy of temporall Princes excluded by a rule of M. Andrewesâ— Andr. c. 1. pag. 37. §. Verùm M. Andrewes doth not allow any spirituall authority to the King Andr. ci 14. pâ— 323. lin 33. (d) nu 37. Ibid. c. 1. p. 21. §. nequâ— tamen What manner of Ecclesiasticall power M. Andreweâ— acknowledgeth in temporall Princes A Pagan Prince hath as much authoritie ouer the Church as M Andrewes alloweth to his Maiestie An. 26. Hen. 8. â— 1. The Parliament Statutes giue spirituall authority to the Kings Queens of England Ibidem The Lord Cromwel Vicar General to K. Henry the 8. for thâ— exercise of his spirituall Iurisdictioâ—â— An. 1. Elizab. c. 1. Spirituall Iurisdiction graÌ„ted to Q. Elizabeth by the Parliament An. 1. Elizab. c. 1. An. 1. Edward 6. c. 2. All the Spirituall Iurisdiction and authoritie of the Clergy of England declared by a statute to be deryued from the Prince M. Andrewes depriueth the Kings Maiesty of all the spirituall authority that the Parliaments haue giuen him (a) See before chap. â— nu 13. (b) suppl c. 1. nu 18.19 seq (c) Num. â— (d) Deut. 10. 18. (e) Numer 8. (f) Suppl c. 1. from nu 10. to 53. (g) Ibid. nu 51.52 K. Saul had no authority ouer the hygh Priest S. Aug. in psal 51. Andr. Tort. Torti p. 151. An. 26. Hen. 8. c. 1. an 1. Eliz ca. 1. The King might according to the statut excoÌ„municate an heretyke as well as any Bishop (d) Supra nu 53. The King could not giue the power of censure to other if he had it not in himfelse See suppl c. 6â— nu 61. M. Andrews neyther good Subiect nor good English Protestant A great difference to be noted betwixt M. Andrews his deniall of the Kings supremacy and ours Act. 5. M. Andrews hath no such obligation to deny the Kings supremacy as we haue M. Andrews lyke to a treacherous frend or a preuaricating aduocate M. Andrews doth vnderhand betray the Kings cause Why M. Andrewes is no good English Protestant See coÌ„stitut and Canons Ecclesiasticall printed by Rob. Barker Anno. 1604. Can. 2. M. Andrewes seemeth to be turned Puritan in the point of the K. Supremacy The Oath of the Puritans of Scotland set forth in the yeare 1584. What difference may be noted betwixt M. Andrews and the Puritans Both Catholikes Puritans are better Subiects then M. Andrews (a) Card. Apol. ca. 1. pag. 10 (b) Andr. c. 1. p. 30. §. Postremo (c) Ibid §. Nec habet See c. 6. n. 78.79 The Puritans doctrine coÌ„cerning the Kings subiectioÌ„ to their Presbytery The pretended reformed churches do not allow in teÌ„porall Princes any such spirituall authority as our ParlameÌ„ts haue graÌ„ted to our Kings M. Andrews professing the doctrine of the Puritans and reformed Churches concerning the Kings supremacy denieth it to be spirituall (b) suprâ— nu 47. (c) nu 37. M. Andrews no English Protestant but a flat Puritan The learned English ProtestaÌ„ts ashamed oâ— their woÌ„ted doctrine coÌ„cerning the Ecclesiasticall supremacy of teÌ„porall Princes See beforâ— nu 35. â— chap. 6. nu 77. M. Barl. seemeth to make the King head of the Church no otherwyse theÌ„ as the Pagan Emperours were M. Barlow and M. Andrews like to the Scorpion and why The opinion of the learned strangers concerning M. Andrewes his bookes against Cardinall Bellarmine M. Andrews gerally disliked for his obscurityâ— M. Andrewes compared for his obscurity to a fish called a Cuttle Plyn l. 9. ca. 29. A good aduise for a frendly farewell to M. Andrews (b) Se sup ca. 8. nu 100. seq (c) Ibid. nu 103. 104. (d) Ibid. nu 105. seq (f) Mat. 16. Mar. 8. Touching the cause and subiect of this Appendix See Suppl p. 208. nu 3 Adioyâ—d ca. 10. nu 35. The exception taken by Catholikâ— to the first Protestant Bishopes in Q. Elizabethâ— dayes iâ— no new quarrell D. Hard. confut of the Apolog par 2. fol. 59. printed an Dom. 1565. D. Hardings chaleng to M. Iewell coÌ„cerning the consecration of the first Protestant Bishops D. Staplet return of vntru fol. 130. lin 26. D. Stapletons chalenge to M. Iewell and M. Horne touching their coÌ„secration Idem counterblast fol. 301. An. 1. Elizab ca. 1. M. Horne answered nothing coÌ„cerning his consecration Iewell defence of the Apology pag. 130. M. Iewels ambiguous and weak answere touching his lawfull consecration How much it imported M. Iewell to haue proued the consecration of their Archbishop Doct. Har. detect fol. 234. p. 2. Touching M. Iewels irresolute ambiguous indirect answere How much it imported the first Protestant Bishops to haue had a publick most solemne Consecration How improbably M. Mason affirmeth out of his Registers that 4. Bishops consecrated M. Parker the first Archbishop How litle credit M. Masons new-found Register deserueth Andr. Resp. ad Apol. p. 41. §. proximi Barl. answâ— to a name Catholike p. 283. With how great reason exception is to be takeÌ„ to M. MasoÌ„s Register vntill he shew it to Catholiks who may giue testimony of it What is to be considered in M. MasoÌ„s Register to make it auteÌ„ticall An offer to shew any manuscript in Rome to English ProtestaÌ„ts