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
may not pray to Saynts did he not see trow you if he saw the place in the author and not in some corrupt note-booke eyther of his owne or his fellowes that S. Ambrose speaketh heere of prayer for a particuler purpose to wit to obtayne the grace of God for the Emperours Children to make them like their Father and this S. Ambrose sayd with great reason was to be craued of God alone for he alone and none but he can giue grace and therefore he is only to be inuocated as the giuer of it albeit the prayers both of Saynts and men may be craued to help to obtayne it of him and I thinke M. Andrews will not deny but that S. Ambrose might very lawfully haue desired the people to pray to God to represent Theodosius in his Children that is to say to giue them grace that they might be lyke their father in vertue and piety So as it appeareth that solus inuocandus is no otherwyse vsed in this place of S. Ambrose then as rogandus is which presently followeth and that both of them are to be referred to that which ensueth to wit repraesentes◠and finally that this place doth not exclude the crauing of prayers eyther of man or of Saynts to obtayne grace of God though it signify that God only can giue grace and consequently is only to be inuocated to that end 34. And therefore I leaue it to thy iudgement good Reader how sincere M. Andrews is in cyting the Fathers whome he nippeth and mangleth in this manner to make them speake after his fasshion and what a good cause he hath in hand seeing he is forced to maintayne it with such fraud and falsehood which may yet further appeare by the conclusion of his answere to the place obiected by the Cardinall out of S. Ambrose wherein truly he sheweth himselfe no lesse fraudulent and impertinent then before Thus then he sayth Etiam scriptus illi de oratione liber c. He to wit Ambrose also wrote a booke concerning prayer wherein albeit there was fit place or occasion to treate of this matter yet there is no mention at all of Saynts So he◠which truly I must needs account for a fraud abuse of his reader vntill he tell me where this booke which he mentioneth is to be found for I haue searcht for it diligently as well in the Tome of S. Ambrose as also in others that haue written particulerly of his workes and yet I can find no such booke nor mention thereof any where 35. True it is that he treateth of prayer in many parts of his workes not in any particuler treatise bearing that tytle but obiter by the way vpon occasions offred eyther in the exposition of the Scriptures of the old and new Testament or in his other treatises as for example in his bookes de Sacramentis he writeth of the manner place of prayer of the order to be obserued therein of the beginning midst and end of it of the difference of postulation obsecration and thanksgiuing yea he expoundeth the whole Pater noster And as it is true that in these places there is no mention eyther of the prayers of Saynts for vs or of our prayers to them so also it is no lesse true that there are many other things apperteyning to prayer which are not so much as touched there as to speake of a thing of lyke nature and quality to the other there is not any insinuation of our mutuall prayers one for another albeit there are diuers places which may be supposed very fit and conuenient for that purpose neyther is there any mention there of prayer for our enemies although S. Ambrose may seeme to haue had very iust occasion to speake thereof when treating of prayer he expoundeth this petition of the Pater Noster Dimite nobis debita nostra c. Forgiue vs our trespasses as we for giue them that trespasse agaynst vs. 36. And now shall we say that S. Ambrose held it to be eyther vnlawfull or needles to pray for our enemies or to craue the prayers of our brethren because he fayth nothing of those poynts in these places or shall his silence heere preiudice his cleare doctrine els where and be taken for a recantation of it as M. Andrews would haue it to be supposed in this other case What then will he say of a poynt which he himselfe alloweth concerning the intercession of Saynts to wit not only that they pray for vs but also that we may pray to God to heare and help vs by their intercession which he granteth to be lawfull albeit there would be no mention of it in that booke of S. Ambrose de Oratione which he cyteth if there were any such for he himselfe confesseth that there is no mention therein at all of Saynts will he therefore allow vs to inferre herevpon that S. Ambrose did not belieue eythere that Saynts do pray for vs or that we may pray to God to be helped by their intercession So should this supposed booke whereto he appealeth condemne him no lesse in this poynt then vs in the other 37. And if I would be so absurd to argue as he doth I might as probably say that S. Ambrose approueth prayer to Saynts because he doth not condemne it in his exposition of the Pater Noster where the place seemed to inuite him to teach that all prayer ought to be directed to God only if he had byn of that opinion and had not allowed prayer to Saynts as to intercessours to God for vs thus I say I might argue with as much probability as M. Andrewes doth but that I am not ignorant as neyther he me thinks should be that such an argument ab authoritate negatiua howsoeuer it may sometymes serue for a light or bare coniecture yet can neuer passe for a proofe amongst learned men especially to such purpose as he vrgeth it here to wit to ouerthrow an authors expresse doctrine in one place by his silence thereof in another for who knoweth not that all authors haue certaine principall intentions in their workes and treatises whereto specially tendeth all their discours and that they are not any way bound to handle other by-questions further then they thinke conuenient wherein also euery one hath his reasons though vnknowne to others why he handleth one poynt more then some other which may perhaps seeme no lesse pertinent to his subiect then that which he handleth neyther is he to be controlled or blamed for the same if he performe as much as he eyther promiseth or specially intendeth And therefore although S. Ambrose had written such a booke concerning prayer as M. Andrews forgeth yet his silence therein touching prayer to Saynts could not preiudice his expresse doctrine thereof in his other workes 38. Well then to conclude cōcerning this poynt I hope good Reader thou hast noted diuers thinges worthy to be considered as first
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
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
submit themselues to the Church throw downe their Crowns before the Church That Magistrats as well as other men must submit them selues and be obedient to the iust lawfull authority of the Church that is of the Presbitery Quis tandem Reges Principes who can exempt euen Kings and Princes from this non humana sed diuina dominatione not humane but diuine domination meaning the Presbitery saith Beza which presbitery they would haue to be in euery parish quotquot Ecclesiae Christi as many as be members of Christ and of the Church they must subiect themselues to the consistorian discipline non hic excipitur Episcopus aut Imperator neyther Bishop or Emperour is excepted heere Thus sayth M. Rogers concerning the doctrine of the Puritans and addeth further also in the next leafe that if the King be not included in the number of Pastors Elders Deacons and Widdowes he cannot possibly haue any thing to doe in Church-affaires in these mens opinions meaning the Puritans 80. All this wrote M. Thomas Rogers touching the doctrine of the Puritans not past fiue yeares agoe for his booke was printed in Cābridge by Iohn Legat in the yeare of our Lord 1607. If then the Puritans were so lately as fiue yeares agoe of the opinion that M. Barlow and M. Rogers report which is the same that the Cardinall affirmeth eyther let M. Andrews tell vs precisely in what bookes or sermons since that tyme they haue recalled this errour or els if he will needs say that they did it before I will turne him to these two for answere not doubting but they are able to giue him full satisfaction therein especially M. Rogers who hath pawned the credit of all the English Clergy for the truth of his testimony And in the meane tyme I will desire thee good Reader to consider whether M. Andrews could haue any iust cause or pretence to reuile the Cardinall and call him lyar and dotard as he doth for affirming a matter belonging to our Country which he findeth expressely testified by the greatest superintendent of our English Clergy besids other sufficient reasons mouing him thereto 81. For put the case it were true as it is most false that the Puritans haue of late recanted their errour as M. Andrews tearmeth it yet the same hauing neuer byn hitherto so published that strangers can take notice thereof hath M. Andrew◠any reason in the world to reprehend and reuyle any stranger for not acknowledging it being but a matter of fact which he neyther knoweth nor is bound to know Truly albeit M. Andrews be of a most intemperate tongue and malignant disposition towards Catholykes as hath appeared diuers wayes yet I verily think that if the weakenes of his cause had not forced him to braue and face it out with rayling for lack of reason to defend it he would not in this case haue byn so immoderate in contumelies and reproaches towards the Cardinall as he hath byn without any cause giuen of his part But heerin he concurreth so well with his companion M. Barlow that it appeareth euidently they are both guided by one spirit To conclude this point concerning the Puritans wheras M. Andrews saith that they haue of late acknowledged their error touching the Kings supremacy I will in the next Chapter make it euident that not they but hee if he be an English Protestant may be sayd to haue acknowledged his error and that he is turned Puritan in that point admitting the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy no otherwise but so as they may safely grant it without change of opinion yea subscribe or sweare to it in the same sense that he teacheth it and so perhaps such of them do as take the Oath of supremacy and this I say I make no doubt to proue clearely in the next Chapter quod scio punget Doctorem as he sayd once of the Cardinall 82. To these examples of his egregious impudency in this kind I may well adde one or two other examples of his impudent assertion of notable lyes without allegation of authour or witnesse as when he chargeth certayne Iesuits to haue affirmed or as it seemeth to haue written that they cōmitted no sinne abannis saith he nescio quot I know not for how many yeares togeather which I dare boldly affirme to be a monstrous lye I meane that any Iesuit hath so written or sayd eyther of himselfe or any other man for although I make no doubt but that many Iesuits and other good men both Religious and secular by the help of Gods grace doe liue free from all mortall sinnes that is to say such sinnes as do vtterly depriue men of Gods fauour grace and deserue eternall damnatiō yet I am well assured that no Catholyke will say that any man liueth free from all sinnes such I meane as are called veniall which could not be sayd of the Apostles themselues as S. Iohn testifieth saying si dixerimus quod peccatum non habemus c. Yf we say that we haue no sinne we seduce our selues and truth is not in vs and to the same purpose also the Scripture sayth els where Septies in die cadet iustus c. The iust mā shall fall seauen tymes a day and shall ryse againe 83. And this is so knowne and firmely belieued of all Catholykes that it is incredible that any one who professeth the Catholyke Religiō should affirme of any man and much lesse be so vayne to say of him selfe that he committed no sinne for some yeares therefore M. Andrewes must not thinke it strange if we take this for an egregious lye vntill he produce some other authour or witnes then himselfe as I doubt not but he would haue dōe if he had any worth the naming or els had not perhaps forgot his name as well as the number of yeares in which those Iesuits committed no sinne for so it appeareth by his ab annis nescio quot whereby we may see what substātiall tales he telleth vs seeing he writeth eyther he knoweth not or at least he careth not what 84. The lyke I say also of another matter auowed by him with more particularities and circumstances to wit that a Iesuit being in Prison at the same tyme when he wrote cōfessed vpon his owne accord without all compulsion feare or examination moued merely with remorse of conscience that the Popesent to England 3. Buls of excommunication to be kept in readines and published in three seuerall parts of the realme vpon the execution of the powder-plot wherevpon he inferreth that the Pope must needs be priuy vnto the sayd plot But for as much as I assure my selfe and know right well that no such Buls as he mentioneth were euer made I do not only deny the inference of the Popes knowledge of the powder-plot but also may iustly charge M. Andrews to haue faygned the whole matter himselfe vntill he name the
exceedingly wonder as well at the penury of learned Deuines in England as at their want of iudgment in venturing the credit of their cause vpoÌ„ so weake a Champion whose valour consisteth in nothing els but in certayne Thrasonicall braggs Satyricall scoffes and a vayne presumption of his latin stile which neuertheles seemeth to learned men more fit for a Comicall or Satyriall Poet theÌ„ for a Doctor of Diuinity wherein also they obserue such obsurdityâ— that they hold it for no lesse vicious in a Deuine writing of matters in controuersy then it would be in an Orator or Aduocat pleading a cause in whome nothing is more requisit then perspicuity and therefore Quintilian greatly reprehendeth such as affecting an extraordinary breuity necessaria subtrahunt verba c. do leaue out saith he necessary words And as if it were sufficient that they know their owne meaning care not whether others vnderstand them or no. So sayth Quintilian 72. And truly the same is so well verifyed in M. Andrewes that he may iustly say with the Poet dum breuis esse laboro obscurus fio whyles I labour to be briefe I become obseure in so much that he is farre more easy to be confuted then vnderstood seeming somtymes rather to propound riddles then to argue or discourse which he doth perhaps of purpose to the end that being obscure and ambiguous he may alwayes haue some starting hole or other when he is pressed by his aduersary not vnlike to a fish called in latin sepia in English a Cuttle which when she is in danger to be taken casteth out a kind of black licour lyke inke wherwith she obscureth and troubleth the water in such sort that she cannot be seene and so the more easily escapeth 73. Neuertheles M. Andrews reapeth not the like benefit by his obscurity being discouered wheresoeuer he lurketh and taken tardy at euery turne whereof sufficient experience hath bene seene in these few points of his booke which I haue had occasion to handle being only such as are incident to matters treated in my Supplement besydes dyuers others of the same sort which I am forced for lack of time to omit wherein I might much more amply haue displayed his insufficiency falsity and folly and therfore I leaue it to thee good Reader to imagin what a number of absurdityes lyes frauds and corruptions his whole worke would affoard if it were well examined 74 But now to end in no lesse charitable manner with him then I did with M. Barlow I will only wish him well to consider those few aduyses which I gaue to M. Barlow in the 8. last paragraphs of my Supplement and to take them also as meant and giuen to himselfe to the end he may seriously reflect vpon them specially vpon his vayne endeauours and lost labour in impugning the Apostolike Roman Sea weyghing withall in what a dangerous and miserable state he standeth so long as he is separated from the vnion therof which I haue there euidently shewed by the testimony of the most ancient and holy Fathers Almighty God of his infinit mercy open his eyes that he may see it and duly ponder our Sauiours most important aduyse golden lesson Quid prodest homini c. What doth it profit a man if he gayne all the world and loose his owne soule FINIS AN APPENDIX TOVCHING A Register alleadged by M. Francis Mason to proue THAT The first Protestant Byshops in the reigne of Queene Elizabeth had a lawfull Consecration THIS Adioynder being printed and some copyes ready to be diuulged it was my chance to vnderstand by a Letter written to a frend of myne that one M. Mason hath lately published a Book wherin he preteÌ„deth to answere the Preface to Fa. Persons his Discussion especially concerning one point treated therin to wit the Consecration of the first Protestant Bishops in the raigne of Queene Elizabeth further that he indeauoureth to proue their consecration by a Register testifying that 4. Bishops consecrated M. Parker the first Archbishop of Canterbury in the said Queenes dayes wherupon if it be true it must needes follow that all other Bishops consecrated after him and his successors euen vntill this day haue some more shew of lawfull consecration and succession then the Catholickes haue hitherto known or imagined 2. And therfore for as much as not only the Authour of the Preface to Fa. Persons his Discussion but also my selfe in my Supplement and in this Adioynder haue constantly denyed that they had any such consecration I thought good to stay the publication of this Adioynder vntill I had added therto this briefe Appendix concerning M. Masons pretended Register left otherwise M. Barlow and M. Andrewes may hold me to be sufficiently answered by M. Mason and remit me to his Register for that point Thou shalt therfore vnderstand Good Reader that this our exception touching the lawfull vocation and Consecration of the first Protestant Bishops in the late Queenes dayes is not a new quarrell now lately raised by vs two only I meane the Authour of the foresaid Preface and my self but vehemently vrged dyuers tymes heretofore by many other Catholykes many yeares ago yea in the very beginning of the late Queenes reygne as namely to omit others by the two learned Doctors Harding and Stapleton in theyr bookes against the Apology of the Châ—rch of England M. Iewell and M. Horne whome they pressed mightily with the defect of due vocation and consecration vrging them to proue the same and to shew how and by whome they were made Priests and Bishops 3. To which purpose M. D. Harding in his confutation of the Apology speaking to M. Iewell the pretended Bishop of Salisbury and hauing already proued that he had no succession in his Episcopall function from the Apostles sayth thus Therefore to goe from your succession to your vocation how say you Syr You beare your selfe as though you were a Bishop of Salisbury but how can you proue your vocation By what authority vsurp you the administration of doctrine and Sacraments What can you alledg for the right proof of your ministry Who hath called you Who hath layd hands on you By what example hath he done it how and by whome are you consecrated Who hath sent you c. So he 4. In lyke manner M. Doctor Stapleton in his answere to M. Iewells booke intituled A reply c. saith thus How chanced then M. Iewell that you and your fellowes bearing your selues for Bishops haue not so much as this congruity and consent I will not say of the Pope but of any Christian Bishop at all throughout all Christendome neyther are lyked and allowed of any one of them all but haue taken vpon you that office without any imposition of hands without all Ecclesiasticall authority without all order of Canons and right I aske not who gaue you Bishoprikes but who made you Bishops
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