it is most cleare that they cannot possibly signify as he would haue them parificare ad parem dignitatem euehere ad paris magnitudinis instar efferre which words and manner of speach do exclude all that diffeâ—rence of degree and dignity which is expresly reserued in the Canon giuing the second place to Constantinople so that you see he is in all this matter most fraudulent and hath notably corrupted the Canon aswell by concealing that which most imported to shew the full drift therof as also by peruerting both the words and the sense of it 67. It resteth now that I say somewhat more to his conclusion which is this Quod habet ergo Roma de primatu c. therfore that which Rome hath of the primacy it hath not from Christ but from the Fathers and in respect of the seat of the Emperour and not for the seat of Peter and forasmuch as the Fathers in aduancing new Rome to equall greatnes exercised the same power which they vsed in honouring old Rome therfore he is farre from the faith who affirmeth that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is according to the faith and religion of the Councell of Chalcedon So he concluding as you see two things the one concerning the primacy of the Roman Sea which he saith was not giuen by Christ but by the Fathers and not in respect of Peters Seat but for the seat of the Emperour wherto I haue said inough in effect already hauing taught him to distinguish betwixt the Primacy of the Roman Sea granted by Christ to S. Peter and the priuiledges which the Fathers or temporall Princes haue giuen therto for of the former to wit the Primacy of S. Peters Sea the Canon speaketh not at all because the mention of it would haue bene nothing to the purpose of the Canon but rather against it as I haue sufficiently declared and therfore this part of the conclusion is cleane from the matter and cannot possibly be drawne from the Canon wherupon he groundeth all his arguments 68. The other part is also no lesse friuolous then the former for whereas he concludeth that the Fathers of the Councell of Calcedon held not the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome for a matter of faith or Religion because they made the Church of Constantinople equal with the Roman Sea you see that all the equality wherupon he buyldeth is but his owne fiction and repugnant to that very Canon which he layeth for his foundation and yet forsooth he is not ashamed to triumph and insult against the Cardinall exacting of him some Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon for the Popes Primacy as though he himselfe had knockt him downe with a Canon for thus he saith for an vpshot and final conclusion of all this matter 69. Nec alieunde igitur tamquam è vepreculis extrahat nescio quid arrodat c. Therefore let not the Cardinall draw I know not what out of some place as it were out of the bryers and gnaw vpon it let him giue vs a Canon for the Canons are the voyce of the Councell not out of the superscription of an Epistle or some corner of a period or perhaps some peece of a tytle or fragment of a little clause So he wherein thou seest good Reader how he bestirreth himselfe with his diminitiues or to vse a phrase of M. Barlows with his Hypocoristicall alleuiations extenuating all that the Cardinall hath obiected as meere tryfles and calling for a Canon because the Canons are the very voyce of the Councell and so he would haue vs to suppose of his counterfait Canon I say counterfait in respect that he hath abused mangled and peruerted it as you haue seene which therefore is so far from being the voyce of the Councell that it is nothing els but a loud and lewd lye of his owne 70. For the Canon it selfe being taken as it is in the Councell vtterly ouerthroweth his cause seeing that it giueth the second place to Constantinople after Rome and therefore acknowledgeth the Primacy of the Roman Sea besids that although it had ben such as M Andrews would haue it to be yet Pope Leo's authority sufficed to disanul it euen in the Iudgment of Anatolius himselfe who hauing been the cause and authour of it acknowledged his errour therein and craued pardon for the same as I haue amply declared before And although after the earnest endeuours of diuers as well Catholike as Hereticall Emperours to aduance the Church of Constantinople and some schismes also raysed for that cause the Popes permitted the second place to the Bishops of that Sea whithout further opposition especially from the tyme of Iustinian the Emperour which was about a 100. yeares after the Councell of Calcedon yea and afterwards also Pope Innocentius the third ratifyed and confirmed it by a Canon in the great Councell of Lateran yet the supreme authority of the Sea Apostolike was no way preiudiced thereby as it appeareth euidently by the relation which I haue made before of the subiection and obedience of the Catholike Emperours and Bishops of Constantinople to the Sea of Rome from tyme to tyme vntill the Greeke Empyre was vtterly ruyned by the Turkes So that it is euery way manifest that the Canon of the Councell of Calcedon alledged by M. Andrewes hath serued him to no other purpose but to bewray his impudency fraud and folly 71. And wheras he demaundeth of the Cardinall some Canon of that Councell for the proof of the Popes Supremacy he sheweth himselfe very idle to exact a Canon for a matter that was not then in question but professed by the whole Councell as it euidently appeareth by their Epistle to Pope Leo wherin they acknowledge that he being ordayned to be the interpeter of the voyce of Blessed Peter to all men had conserued and kept the true faith which had bene deduced from Christs tyme to theirs and that vnder his conduct as being the author of so great a good they published the truth to the children of the Church that Christ had prepared for them that spirituall banquet meaning their Synod by his Letters that he by his Legates had gouerned them in that Councell as the Head gouerneth the members that the keeping of the Vineyard was committed to him by our Sauiour and that he had depriued Eutyches the heretike of his dignity in ConstaÌ„tinople which as I haue declared before he could not haue done if his authority had not bene vniuersall 72. And then comming to speake of the Canon which they had made in fauour of the Church of Constantinople they signified the trust and confidence they had that as he was wont by his carefull gouernment to cast forth the beames of his Apostolicall light euen to the Church of Constantinople so he would now condescend to confirme that which they had ordayned concerning the said Church for the auoyding of confusion and
in which Councell also the Appeales of Bishops to Rome were expressely confirmed besides that the very Councell of Milâ—uis in which this Canon was made was receaued and confirmed by Pope Innocentius the first as it shall appeare further after a whyle So that this Canon which concerneth only the appeales of inferiour Clergy men and not of Bishops and was admitted by the Popes themselues did not any way preiudice the right of Appeales to Rome or the authority of the sea Apostolicke and this also may be clearely proued out of S. Augustine himselfe who writing to the Donatists and reprehending them for their temerarious presumption in excommunicating and condeÌ„ning Caecilianus the Catholike Bishop of Carthage aduertised them with all of their folly in that they considered not how vayne their attempt was therin and how litle cause Caecilianê° had to care for their senteÌ„ce seing it was free for him to reserue his cause to the iudgement of other Bishops beyond the seas and especially of the Apostolyke Church meaning there by especially the Apostolyke Sea of Rome which he alwayes called the Apostolyke seat or Apostolike Chayre per antonomasiam as it may be noted in diuers places of his workes whereof I haue alledged some already and shall haue occasion to alledge others hereafter insomuch that when he speaketh of the Apostolicke Church or Apostolicke seat or Apostolike chaire without naming any in particuler he speaketh vndoubtedly of the Roman Church 46. And therefore he saith in the same Epistle to the Donatists that Caecilianus might well contemne the multitude of his enemyes seeing that he held communion as well with the Roman Church in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit principatus wherein the principality or soueragnity of the Apoctolike chayre hath alwayes florished as with other Catholicke countryes from whence the Ghospell was brought to Africk c. Moreouer in the said Epistle he maketh playne distinction betwixt the Appeales of Bishops and Priests saying neque enim de Presbyteris c. Neyther was the question heere concerning Priests or Deacons or other Clergy men of the inferiour sort but concerning our collegues who may reserue their cause entyre and whole to the iudgement of other their collegues and especially of the Apostolicke Churches So he whereby it appeareth that albeit he signifieth that there was a restraynt of Appeales of Priests and inferiour Clergy men according to the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis yet he graunteth that Bishops had free liberty to appeale out of Africk to the Apostolike Churches and especially to the RomaÌ„ Church wherein as you haue heard him say before Apostolicae Cathedrae semper viguit principatus the soueraignty of the Apostolike chayre hath alwayes florished 47. And to the end it may appeare that neyther the Councell of Mileuis nor yet the petition of the African Synode to Pope Celestinus did hinder the course of appeales to Rome or the decision of them in Africk by the Popes authority I will conclude with some examples very notable for this purpose The first shal be of Lupicinus a Bishop of Mauritania in Africk restored to his seat shortly after S. Augustines tyme by the sentence of Pope Leo who also sent thither a Bishop called Potentius as his Legate and the Bishops of Africk admitted him albeit the African Synod had requested Pope Celestinus to send no more Legats thither 48. Another example may be of a comission sent by Pope Gregory the Great to an Agent or officer of his in Africk called Hilarius to assemble a Prouinciall Synod there for the examinatioÌ„ of a complaynt made to him by two deacons Felicissimus and Vincentius against Agentius their Bishop in which commission order was giuen to Hilarius punctually to execute the sentence of the Synod Also the same Pope hauing heard the complaints of certayne Priests in Africk against Paulinus their Bishop committed the hearing and decision of the cause to Victor the primate of Numidia and Columbus with other Bishops giuing them commission to heare and determyn it amongst themselues except they should thinke the assistance of his officer Hilarius needfull for the better determination of the cause In like manner a complaynt being exhibited to the said Pope by Donadeus a Deacon against Victor his Bishop he deputed the foresaid Columbus and other Bishops to examin the cause and to punish the Bishop if he were found in fault And the like commission he gaue also to a Synod of Bishops held at Bizacium in Africk for the tryall of the cause of Clementius their Primate 49. Now then in these examples two things are to be noted the one that the Popes vsed to decyde appeales and other controuersyes in diueres manners sometymes ordayning and disposing thereof by their Legats or other officers and sometymes giuing no other commission to their said Legats and officers but to assemble some Prouinciall Synode and to see the sentence thereof executed and sometymes againe giuing all power and authority to the Metropolitan Bishops of that country to decyde the causes which last way and manner of tryall was no way repugnant to the request of the African Synod in their letter to Pope Celestinus as I haue signifyed before 50. The other thinge to be noted is that the Popes vsed still iure suo their owne right notwithstanding the forsaid request of the African Synod yea and that the Bishops of Africk approued and acknowledged the same by their obedience knowing full well that the petitions of their predecessors to Celestinus rested wholy in his will and pleasure to be granted or denied as he should see cause whereof â—here fell out shortly after an euident example and proofe in the Councell of Calcedon for albeit the Fathers of that famous generall Councell not only made earnest sute to Pope Leo by a common letter to obteyne the second place after Rome for Constantinople but also ordayned and decreed it by a speciall Canon neuertheles Pope Leo denyed their sute disanulled their decree and forced the Authors thereof to acknowledge their errour as I haue amply proued in the second Chapter and therefore much more might Pope Celestinus deny the request of a Prouinciall Synode and might also haue disanulled their decrees if they had made any preiudiciall to the Roman Sea as they did not 51. And now to conclude vpon these premisses 3. things do euidently follow thereon The first that the Appeales of Bishops from Africk to Rome were neuer prohibited or so much as interrupted by any decrees or Canons and much lesse by the letters of the African Synode to Pope Celestinus The second that the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis which M. Andrewes seemeth to alledge as forbidding appeales to Rome vnder payne of excommunication did only concerne Priests and Deacons and other Clergy men of the inferiour sort and therefore did not prohibite the Appeales of Bishops and much lesse of all men
in generall besides that being made with the Popes consent it was not any way preiudicall to the authority of the Sea Apostolike The third that M. Andrews iugleth notably with his Reader when he saith as out of S. Augustine Ad eum transmarinus nemo appellet c. To him that is to say to the Bishop of Rome let no man appeale from beyond the seas or if he appeale he is to be excommunicated by Augustine for neyther those words nor the sense thereof are to be found any where in S. Augustine who as you haue seene expressely taught and practised the contrary So that transmarinus nemo being set downe by M. Andrews in a different letter to be noted is indeed worth the noting for a notable falsity and a flat corruption of the Canon and abuse of S. Augustine and of all the Bishops in that Councell What then shall we say of this mans truth and fidelity who maketh no bones to bely the Fathers and corrupt whole Synods Can any man thinke that he hath any regard of conscience or shame Thus much for the second point 52. And now to say somewhat of the third he affirmeth as you haue heard that S. Augustine was far from acknowledging the Popes Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus for heads of the Church whereof you haue already seene the contrary in two of them to wit Bonifacius and Celestinus whose power and custome to admit and determyne Appeales from Africk S. Augustine clearely acknowledged and approued in the cause of Antony Bishop of Fussula as I haue amply shewed which power could not otherwise be due to Bonifacius and Celestinus but only in respect of their supreme and vniuersall authority ouer the whole Church And that S. Augustine had also the same opinion of Zosimus it appeareth sufficiently in an Epistle of his to Optatus to whome he writeth that he receaued his letters at Caesarea quò nos saith he iniuncta nobis à venerabili Papa Zosimo Apostolicae sedis Episcopo Ecclesiastica necessitas traxerat whither we were drawne by an Ecclesiasticall necessity inioyned or imposed vpon vs by the venerable Pope Zosimus Bishop of the Apostolicall seat So he which may also be confirmed out of Possidius who writeth that Litterae sedis Apostolicae compulerunt c. The letters of the Sea Apostolike compelled Augustine with other Bishops to go to Caesarea in Mauritania to consult and determyne of diuers necessityes of the Church 53. Whereby it is manifest that S. Augustine acknowledged in Pope Zosimus an Ecclesiasticall power and authority to impose vpon him and other Bishops a necessity to obay his commaundements in matters concerning the seruice of God and the Church which Zosimus could not do otherwise then as supreme and vniuersall Pastor or head of the Church for that the Church of Africk was not otherwise subiect to him then as all other Churches were But of Pope Zosimus and of S. Augustines opinion concerning his Primacy I shall haue occasion to speake further after a while and in the meane tyme this I hope may suffise to proue that S. Augustine was so far from impugning these three Popes that he acknowledged their supreme and vniuersall authority and consequently that they were heads of the vniuersall Church notwithstanding M. Andrews his peremptory assertion of the contrary which therefore may passe for another vntruth 54. Whereupon it also followeth that he forgot himselfe much more when he so confidently affirmed in the first poynt as you haue heard that the Bishops of Rome in S. Augustines tyme were but only heads of the Church of Rome which I noted before For the first of the 3. vntruthes though I remitted the particuler answere thereof vntill I had discouered the other two because they would not a litle help to the discouery of the first as you may haue already noted for it being cleare by all this former discourse that Appeales from Africk to Rome were vsuall frequent and neuer prohibited in S. Augustines tyme and againe that he acknowledged an authority and power in Pope Zosimus to lay iniunctions commaundements vpon him and other Bishops in Africk it must needs follow that the Bishops of Rome had a more ample authority in his dayes then ouer the particuler Church of Rome And to the end thou mayst yet haue good Reader a more aboundant satisfaction in this poynt I will say somewhat of all the Popes that liued in S. Augustines tyme who were 8. in all to wit Liberius in whose tyme he was borne Damasus Siricius Anastasius Innocentius Zosimus Bonifacius Celestinus And first of Liberius 55. We read in the Ecclesiasticall history that certayne Arian heretykes being excommunicated and deposed from their Bishopricks by the Catholike Bishops of the East Church sent their Legats to Pope Libâ—rius crauing to be restored by his authority and for as much as they craftily dissembled their heresy and faygning to be repentant made open profession of the Catholicke faith according to the beliefe and doctrin of the Councell of Nice they obtayned his letters for their restitution which they presented at their returne in a Synod held at Tyana and by vertue thereof were restored as S. Basil witnesseth saying that Eustathius Bishop of Sebasta who was the chiefe of that Legacy brought an Epistle from Liberius by the which he should be restored and when he had presented it to the Synod at Tyana in locum suum restitutus est he was restored to his place So he 56. Whereby it appeareth that the authority of Liberius extended further then to his owne Church of Rome seeing he could restore Bishops to their seats in the East Church as also his predecessor Pope Iulius had done not long before vpon the appeales of the famous Athanasius deposed by the Arians and of Paulus Bishop of Constantinople Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra Asclepa Bishop of Gaza and Lucian Bishop of Hadrianopolis all of them vniustly expelled from their seats vpon diuers pretences whose causes Iulius discussing saith the Story tamquam omnium curam gerens propter propriae Sedis dignitatem singulis reddidit suas Ecclesias as hauing a care of all for the dignity of his owne seat restored their Churches to euery one of them So saith Sozomâ—n in the tripartite history which I haue thought good to add to the former example of Liberius For although it fell not out in S. Augustines tyme whereof I now specially treate yet it was not aboue 14. yeares before him and therefore may well be applyed to his tyme as the Eue to the Feast Besides that doth demonstrate what was the beliefe of the Catholike Church at that tyme concerning the supreme dignity of the Roman Sea seeing that not only other Catholike Bishops but also Athanasius himselfe who was the mirrour of sanctity zeale and integrity in that age had recourse thereto as to the supreme tribunall on earth for the reparation of his wrongs but now to
they sent Embassadours to Rome to perswade Damasus that it was necessary for the good of the Church that he should pardon the offence of Flauianus for the concord and peace of the people which being graunted by Damasus communione saith Socrates Flauiano ad hunc modum reddita and Flauianus being by this meanes restored to the communion of the Church the people of Antioch were in tyme reduced to concord and vnion with him 64. Whereto Theodoretus addeth that the Emperour Theodosius in the tyme partly of Pope Damasus and partly of his successor Syricius and Anastasius laboured to procure the reconciliation of Flauianus with the sea Apostolick and commaunded him to goe to Rome to answere for himselfe which he promised to doe in the spring following though he did not performe it Finally the Emperour made his peace with the Pope in the end vpon condition that Flauianus should send his Embassadours to Rome which he did saith Theodoretus with a sollemne embassadge of Bishops Priests and Deacons vnder Acacius Bishop of Berroea who was at that tyme a man of great fame whereupon all the Bishops of Aegipt who vntill then would not communicat with him admitted him to their communion So that albeit the Historiographers do differ concerning the tyme when Flauianus was reconcyled with the Pope yet they all agree that he could neuer be fully restored to the peace and communion of the vniuersall Church vntill he had submitted himselfe to the Roman Sea which sheweth euidently that the Bishops of Rome had far greater and more ample authority then M. Andrewes doth affoard them Thus much concerning Damasus 65. And now to come to his successor Syricius it is euident euen in this cause of Flauianus by the testimony of S. Ambrose that his authority extended it selfe to the Greek and Eastern Church no lesse then to the Latin and West Church seeing that in a Synod held at Capua the hearing of Flauianus his cause was committed to Theophâ—lus Bishop of Alexandria and to the Bishop of Aegipt with this limitation as S. Ambrose witnesseth that the approbation and confirmation of their sentence should be reserued to the Roman Sea and the Bishop thereof who was then Syricius In like manner we fynd that his authority was admitted and acknowledged not only in Spayne and France but also in Africk as it may appeare by his Decretall Epistle writteÌ„ to Himerius or Himericus Bishop of Arragon in Spayne in answere of diuers demaunds of his in which epistle he ordayned that those his decrees should be sent by Himerius as well to Carthage in Africk as to Portugal and France and that they should be of no lesse force there and els where then in Arragon 66. To this will I add a testimony of an African Father that liued in the tyme of Siricius to wit of Optatus Bishop of Mileuis who clearely deduceth the primacy of Syricius from the primacy of S. Peter for writing against Parmenian the Donatist and vrging him that he could not deny but that Petrus omnium Apostolorum caput Peter the head of all the Apostles sate first in the Roman chayre wherof he also yieldeth these reasons viz. that in the said chaire vnity might be kept of all men that the rest of the Apostles should not euery one of them defend or callenge to himselfe a single chayre and that he might be held for a Schismatik and a wiked man who should set vp a chaire contra singularem Cathedram against the singular or principall chayre hauing I say vrged this he reckoneth all the Popes from S. Peter to his tyme ending with Syricius and concluding that because the Donatists held not communion with him therefore they could not haue the true Church 67. In this discourse it is manifest that as he acknowledgeth Peter for head of the Apostles and his chayre for the singular and principall chayre so he also acknowledged Syricius for head of all other Bishops and his chayre which was Peters for the principall chayre for otherwyse his argument against the Donatists grounded on Peters supreme authority had ben to no purpose Besids that he saith also a litle after prosecuting the same argument Legimus Principem nostrum c. We read that Peter our Prince receaued the wholsome keyes against the gates of hell c. Vnde est ergo c. How chanceth it then that you stryue to vsurpe to your selues the keyes of the Kingdome who with your audacious presumption do sacrilegiously make warre against the chayre of Peter So he 68. Therefore omitting heere how aptly this may be applyed to M. Andrews and his fellowes as well as to the Donatists that which I wish specially to be obserued is that Optatus being an African acknowledged the same soueraignty in Syricius which he affirmed to be in S. Peter for whereas he calleth him not only the head of the Apostles but also Principem nostrum our Prince it is cleare that the principality and soueraignty of Peter in the tyme of Optatus could not be otherwise vnderstood but in his successor Syricius who consequently was Prince and head of the Church as Peter was 69. The very same is taught also by S. Augustine concerning Pope Anastasius who succeeded Syricius for S. Augustine presseth the Donatists with the same argument that Optatus doth and naming all the Popes vntill his owne tyme he endeth with Anastasius hauing first deriued their lineall succession from S. Peter Cui saith he totius Ecclesiae figuram gerenti c. to whome bearing the figure of the whole Church our Lord sayd Vpon this rock I will buyld my Church wherein it is to be noted that S. Augustine acknowledging the primacy of S Peter in saying that the Church was built vpon him and that he bare the figure of the whole Church which he did not in any other respect but because he was head thereof as I haue proued in the first Chapter of this Adioynder he acknowledgeth the same in his successors and namely in Anastasius whome therefore he draweth by lyneall succession from S. Peter and to this purpose it may be also obserued that elswhere he ascribeth the great prerogatiue of S. Peter to wit his being the rock or foundation whereupon the Church was buylt to his chayre or seat and to the succession of Bishops deriued from him bidding the Donatists reckon the Priests that had succeeded one another in Peters seat and then concluding Ipsa est Petra c. that is the rock which the proud gates of hell doe not ouercome whereby it is euident that S. Augustine acknowledged Anastasius and all other successors of S. Peter for heads of the vniuersall Church seeing he affirmeth them to be the foundation thereof 70. This may be confirmed also by a Canon of an African Synod where it was decreed that letters should be sent to their brethren and fellow-Bishops abroad and especially to the Sea Apostolike to informe
aduertiseth him that he sent him the copies of such writings and letters of the Sea Apostolike as were come to his hands concerning those matters addressed eyther particulerly to the Bishops of Africk or vniuersally to all Bishops 76. Another thing to be noted in the testimony of Possidius is that he calleth the sentence of those two Popes Innocentius and Zosimus Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae iudicium the Iudgement of the Catholike Church of God which he could not haue done but in respect of their supreme power and authority to condemne heresyes as heads of the whole Catholike Church The third is that albeit the Emperour Honorius condemned also the Pelagians for heretikes by his temporall lawes yet he did it no otherwise but audiens sequens c. hearing and following the iudgment of the Catholike Church that is to say of those two Popes Innocentius and Zosimus for of them he speaketh expresly 77. And now to proceed if M. Andrews do yet desire any further proofe of this matter let him read S. Prosper S. Augustines disciple who sayth that a Synod of 217. Bishops being held at Carthage their Synodicall decrees were sent to Zosimus quibus probatis per totum mundum haeresis Pelagiana condemnata c. which being approued the Pelagian heresy was condemned thoughout the whole world And againe in another place he saith of Innocentius Tunc Pelagianorum machinae fractae sunt c. and then were the engines of the Pelagians broken when Innocentius of blessed memory stroke the heads of their wicked errour with his Apostolicall sword So he and a litle after he affirmeth the like of Pope Zosimus who added saith he the force of his sentence to the decrees of the African Councell and armed the right hands of Bishops with the sword of Peter ad detruncationem impiorum for the excommunication of the wicked So he giuing to vnderstand that not only the force of the African Synods against the Pelagians but also the general condemnation of them throughout the world proceeded from the authority of the Roman Sea wherupon it must needs follow that the said authority was vniuersall and that the Bishops of that Sea and namely Innocentius and Zosimus were more then Caput Ecclesiae suae Romanae heads of their Church of Rome 78. And albeit this might suffice cōcerning these two Popes yet I cannot omit the most famous and sollemne appeale of S. Chrysostome to one of them to wit to Innocentius to whome he sent 4. Bishops to complayne of his vniust banishment procured by Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and wrote also himselfe vnto him thus Obsecro vt scribat c. I beseech you write and decree by your authority that these thinges which were so vniustly done when I was absent aud did not refuse to be iudged may be of no force as indeed of their owne nature they are not and that those which haue done so vniustly may be subiect to the penalty of the Ecclesiasticall lawes c. Thus wrote S. Chrisostome with much more to the same purpose which he would not haue donne if he had thought that the authority of Innocentius had byn lymited within the particuler Church of Rome or rather if he had not knowne that his authority was vniuersall and sufficient to determyne his cause which also was euident by the progresse and issue of the matter for not only he as playntife appealed to Innocentius but also Theophilus as defendant sent a Priest of his called Peter with letters to iustifie his cause besids that all the Bishops of the East and Greek Church being in this controuersy deuided sent messingers or letters to Rome in fauour of the one or of the other as witnesseth Palladius Bishop of Helenopolis who was S. Christostomes disciple and went also to Rome to prosecute his cause and further testifyeth that Pope Innocentius gaue sentence for S. Chrysostome disanulling the act and iudgment of Theophilus 79. And whereas Atticus was made Bishop of Constantinople after the expulsion of S. Chrystostome Innocentius suspended him frō his Episcopall function vntill the causes should be fully heard and determined ordayning that in the meane tyme Proclus Bishop of Cyzicum should gouerne the Church of Constātinople And albeit Innocentius forbare for sometyme to proceed against Theophilus by way of censure yet after S. Chrysostomes death who dyed in banyshment within 3. yeares he excommunicated not only Theophilus and Atticus for the excesses cōmitted on their part but also Arcadius the Emperour and Eudoxia the Empresse for assisting them with their Imperiall authority as Georgius Alexandrinus Gennadius Glicas and Nicephorus do testify Finally although Theophilus remayned obstinate so long as he liued which was not past 5. yeares after S. Chrysostomes death yet he dyed repentant and Atticus after much suite and many Embassages sent as Theodoretus testifyeth was reconcyled to the Roman Church As also Arcadius the Emperour vpon his submission and humble petition of pardon was absolued by Pope Innocentius as appeareth by the letters of them both which are set downe in Glycas And thus passed this matter which alone may suffice to proue the supreme and vniuersall authority of Innocentius 80. And as for Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus who succeeded Innocentius and were the 3. last Popes of the 8. that liued in S. Augustins tyme I shall not need to say much seeing that I haue already spoken sufficiently of them as of Zosimus a litle before concerning the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy besides a former testimony of S. Augustine touching an assembly of himselfe and other African Bishops at Cesaraea by the inuention or commaundment of Pope Zosimus In like manner I haue shewed before that not only S. Augustine but also the Primate of Numidia in Africk acknowledged the primacy of the Popes Bonifacius and Celestinus by recommending to them the cause betwixt Antony Bishop of Fussula and the people of that Diocesse whereto neuertheles I thinke good to add concerning Bonifacius that it appeareth by his letters to the Bishops of 7. Prouinces in France that the Clergy of the Citty of Valentia sent to him a bill of complaynt with the testimony of the whole Prouince against Maximus an hereticall Bishop of the Manichaean sect accusing him of many haynous crymes and that thereupon Bonifacius did delegate the hearing of the cause to the said Bishops whereby it is euident that his power and authority was not confyned within the Church of Rome 81. And now to conclude with Celestinus who was the last of the 8. methinks M. Andrews should not be ignorant how far his authority and Iurisdiction extended seeing that it cannot be denyed that he was President and head of the generall Councell of Ephesus and that the famous S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria was but his substitute and Legate therein which is euident not only by the testimony of Historiographers but also by
the whole Church but because he was Head or supreme Gouernour therof which we may learne euen in Cicero who saith that Est proprium munus Magistratus c. It is the proper office or duty of the Magistrate to vnderstand that he beareth the person of the Citty So he speaking of the chiefe or supreme Magistrate wherby it appeareth that whatsoeuer is giuen to the King as King and Head of the Common-wealth the same is giuen to the Common-wealth wherof he beareth and representeth the person and so in like manner what was giuen to S. Peter as Head of the Church the same was giuen to the Church which he representeth For which cause also S. Cyprian saith that Ecclesia est in Episcopo the Church is in the Bishop and the reason is because the Bishop is Head of the Church as this is true in euery particuler Bishop in respect of the particuler Church which he gouerneth So also is it most truly verified in the supreme and vniuersall Pastour in respect of the whole Church whereof he is Head 5. That this was S. Augustines meaning it is euident by his owne doctrine in other places where he sheweth plainly that S. Peter bare the person of figure of the Church in respect of his Primacy Cuius Ecclesia saith he Petrus Apostolus propter Apostolatus sui primatum gerebat figurata generalitate personam c. Of which Church Peter in respect of the primacy of his Apostleship did beare the person figuring or representing the generality therof For if we respect what did belong properly to himselfe he was by nature one man by grace one Christian and by a more aboundant grace vnus idemque primus Apostolus one he the chiefe Apostle but when it was said vnto him Tibi dabo claues I will giue thee the keyes c. he signified the vniuersall Church Thus saith S. Augustine teaching euidently that S. Peter bare the person of the Church by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship that is to say because he was the chiefe Apostle which the same holy Father signifieth also more plainly in another place saying Cuius Ecclesiae ille agnoscitur gessisse personaÌ„ propter Primatum quem in Discipulis habuit Of which Church he is acknowledged to haue borne the person for the Primacy which he had amoÌ„gst the Disciples And to the same purpose he saith also elswhere Petrus à petra cognominatus c. Peter taking his name from a Rock was happy bearing the figure of the Church hauing the principality of the Apostleship 6. Loe then for what cause S. Augustine said that when Christ gaue to S. Peter the keyes of heauen pastorall authority to feed his sheep he gaue the same to all the Church to wit because S. Peter hauing the principality or primacy of the Apostolicall dignity and being consequently chiefe Pastor and head of the Church did beare and represent the person or figure of the whole Church So that you see the place which M. Andrewes bringeth out of S. Augustine against the Primacy of S. Peter maketh notably for it if it be considered with the circumstances therof which he cunningly and craftily concealed But in the other place which he citeth out of S. Ambrose he is more fraudulent hauing plainly corrupted the text which as it is in S. Ambrose is very conforme to this doctrine of S. Augustine signifying nothing else but that all the lawfull Pastors in Gods Church receaued their Pastorall authority ouer their flocks with S. Peter and therfore he saith Quas oues quem gregem non solùm tunc Beatus Petrus suscepit sed cum illo eas nos suscepimus omnes Which sheep and which flock not only the Blessed Peter then receaued but as so we all receaued them with him Thus saith S. Ambrose which all Catholikes do graunt and teach in like maÌ„ner because as I haue said S. Peter representing the person of the whole Church wherof he was head receaued not that Pastorall authority for himselfe alone but also for the Church 7. In which respect S. Ambrose saith very well that all the Pastors of the Church receaued their authority with him though not in equall degree as M. Andrews would haue it who therfore bodgeth into S. Ambrose his text these words of his owne Et nobiscum eas suscepit and he that is to say S. Peter receaued those sheep with vs as if S. Ambrose should meane that S. Peter had no prerogatiue in that point but that he and other Pastors receaued them all alike he with them they with him for to that purpose doth M. Andrewes also alledge the words of S. Ambrose afterwards in a different letter thus Et ille nobisâ—um nos cum illo oues illas pascendas suscepimus which manner of speach doth indeed inforce a greater equality betwixt S. Peter and other Pastors then the true words of S. Ambrose do import or then he euer did imagine who taught expresly elswhere the Primacy of S. Peter not only aboue all other inferiour Pastors but also aboue the Apostles themselues saying that albeit Andrew was called before Peter yet Primatum non accepit Andraeas sed Petrus Andrew did not receaue the Primacy but Peter yea in another place he proueth it by these very words of our Sauiour which are now in question to wit Pâ—sce oues meas 8. For hauing said that our Sauiour asked Peter thrice whether he loued him not to learne saith he any thing of him but to teach him whom he meant to leaue to vs velut amoris sui Vicarium as the Vicar of his loue he alleageth our Sauiours words to S. Peter to wit Simon the sonne of Iohn doest thou loue me c. Pasce agnos meos feed my Lambes and then shortly after he inferreth thereupon thus Et ideo quia solus profitetur ex omnibus omnibus antefertur and therefore because he alone of all the rest professed his loue he is preferred before them all and after a whyle he concludeth that our Lord asked him the third tyme whether he loued him Et iam saith he non agnos vt primò quodam lacte pâ—scendos c. And now Peter is commaunded not to feed Lambs with a certayne milke as the first time nor to feed the little sheep as the second tyme but oues pascere iubetur perfectiores vt perfectior gubernaret he is commaunded to feed the sheep to the end that he being more perfect might gouerne the more perfect Thus saith S. Ambrose 9. Wherein it is to be noted that he teacheth 3. things The first that our Sauiour left S. Peter vnto vs as the Vicar or Substitute of his loue that is to say to succeed him in that fatherly loue care of his Church which he himselfe had the second that when our Sauiour gaue to S. Peter the Pastorall commission and authority
with the Church of Rome addeth presently for the explication thereof vt Ponticae Asâ—anae Thraciae Dioecesis Metropolitani c. That the Metropolitans of Pontus Asia Thracia and also the Bishopps of the same Diocesse amongst the Barbarous so were all called that were no Graecians should be ordayned by the Bishops of Constantinople 8. So sayth the Canon giuing to vnderstand that whereas the Church of Constantinople had bene in times past but a priuate Bishoprick subiect to Heraclea it should hereafter be not only a Metropolitan but also a Patriarchall Sea and haue Metropolitans vnder it yea and that as the Church of Rome was the chiefe Church of the West so also the Church of Constantinople being now made the second after Rome should be the chief Church of the East preferred before the Patriarchall Seas of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem yet with this euident exception and reseruation that neuerthelesse it should be still inferiour to the Roman Sea being the second after it that is to say it should haue the same place and priuiledge that the Church of Alexandria had in former times which though it was the chief Church of the East the secoÌ„d after Rome yet was alwayes inferiour subiect thereto as it is euident by the appeale of the famous Athanasius Bishop of that Sea to Pope Iulius the first of that name aboue an huÌ„dreth yeares before the CouÌ„cel of CalcedoÌ„ 9. Therfore the preheminence which the Church of CoÌ„stantinople was to haue by this Canon was to be preferred before the Churches of Alexandria Antioch and the equality that it was to haue with Rome was no other but to be a Patriarchall Sea and head of all the Patriarchall and Metropolitan Churches of the East as Rome was in the West yet with reseruatioÌ„ of the right of Primacy due to the Roman Sea Besides that it is to be noted that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in our latin Copies is translated aequalis doth signify also similis lyke not only in prophane Authors as euery maÌ„ may see in the Thesaurus of Henricê° Stephanê° but also in diuers places of holy Scripture both in the old new TestameÌ„t And he that list to see more to this purpose may read the Paralel of Tortus his Tortor writteÌ„ against M. D. Andrews by the ReuereÌ„d Learned Father Androas Eudaemon-Ioannes who hath sufficiently handled and explicated this point and hath also produced a cleare testimony out of Theodorus Balsamon a very learned Grecian and Patriarch of Antioch to proue that the mention of paria priuilegia equall priuiledges graÌ„ted to the Church of CoÌ„stantinople in the CouÌ„cell of CalcedoÌ„ doth not any way derogate from the supreme dignity of the RomaÌ„ Sea 10. Whereto I also add that the word aequalis in the Scripture doth not alwayes signify a true and iust Equality in all respects but somtymes also an Equality in a certayne proportion as in the Apostle to the Corinthians who exhorteth them to supply the temporall wants and necessityes of the poore with their store and aboundance vt fiat aequalitas sayth he that there may be an equality meaning an equality in a certayne similitude and proportion as it appeareth by that which he addeth for the further explication therof saying sicut scriptum est qui muliùm non abundauit qui modicum non minorauit as it is written he which gathered much had no more then was necessary for him and he that gathered litle had no less So sayth the Apostle alluding to the history in Exodus of those who gathered Manna in different quantity and yet found that they had it in a kind of equality because euery one had so much as was needfull for him and no more so that equality doth not signify heere an Arithmeticall equality as the Philosophers and Schoolemen tearme it which is equall in euery respect and is vsed in commutatiue Iustice that is to say in buying and selling and the lyke wherein the iust and true valew of euery thing is equally considered but a Geometricall equality keeping only a certayne proportion according to distributiue Iustice which as Aristotle and the Schoolemen do teach doth alwayes respect equality in the distribution of honours priuiledges and rewards yet so as due proportion be obserued correspondent to the different dignity and quality of euery one And therfore when two persons of different quality and degree as the Captayne and his souldiar are to be rewarded for some one seruice to the common wealth their rewards or priuiledges are truly equall when they are priuiledged and rewarded in a due proportion to their degrees without impeachment to the difference that is betwixt them And so a subiect may be said to haue equall priuiledges with his King and yet be his subiect still and in this maÌ„ner the words equall and equality are to be vnderstood in the CouÌ„cell of CalcedoÌ„ as is euident by the CanoÌ„ it self wherin you see it was ordayned that the Bishop of Constantinople should haue equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome and yet haue the secoÌ„d place after him 11. But now to deale somewhat more liberally with M. Andrews in this point let vs put the case that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon did meane to giue to the Church of Constantinople that equality with the Roman sea which he affirmeth should he trow you gayne any thing thereby Or could he any way preiudice the vniuersall and supreme authority either of Pope Leo at that tyme or of the other Popes his Successors euer since Truly no but rather should notably confirme theyr primacy and vtterly ouerthrow his owne cause seeing that it is most euident that the authority of Pope Leo was such that his only opposition to that Canon and his abrogation therof sufficed to ouerthrow disanull it which I will take a litle paynes to proue by the whole course and practise of the Church euen from that Councell vntill the ruine of the Greeke Church and Empyre which though it be needlesse in respect of the learned yet I hope it will not be altogeather fruitles to the more ignorant and vnlearned and may serue for an aboundant conuiction of M. Andrews his impudency and malice who is not ashamed to auouch such a manifest falsehood and impugne such a knowne truth as he doth 12. To this purpose I wish it to be noted what Gelasius who liued at the same tyme and was Pope about 30. yeares after Leo wrote to the Bishops of Dardania concerning a schisme raysed by Acatius Bishop of Constantinople in the tyme of Pope Felix his Predecessor in which Epistle he signifyeth 4. things specially to be noted for this purpose First that the Emperour Martian though he had made great instance to Pope Leo for the aduancement of the Church of Constantinople yet did highly prayse and commend the said
the keyes or feed my sheep No but because Rome was then the Seat of the Emperour and gouerned the rest So he and a litle after he concludeth thus Quod ergo habet Roma de Primatu c. Therefore that which Rome hath of the Primacy is not from Christ but from the Fathers and in respect of the Emperours Seat and not for the Sea of Peter 61. VVhereto I answere first that M. Andrews must learne to distinguish betwixt the Primacy of S. Peter and the priuiledges granted to the Sea of Rome for that the sayd Primacy could not be from any but from Christ himselfe whereas the Roman Church may haue and hath priuiledges from men that is to say not only from generall Councells but also from temporall Princes as from Constantine Pepin Charles the Great and other Catholike Princes and therefore M. Andrews argueth most absurdly from the Priuiledges to the Primacy denying that the Primacy was from Christ because the Priuiledges were from men and some of them giuen for humane respects wherin he sheweth himselfe as wyse as if he should deny the regalty and soueraignty of our Kings by reason of the prerogatiues and priuiledges granted to them by the Parliaments or as if he should say that the Church of Christ which is his Spouse was not instituted by him but by men because aswell temporall Princes as generall Councells haue giuen great priuiledges thereto 62. Secondly I say that M. Andrewes is very simple if he see not that the peÌ„ners of the Canon had great reason to auoyd therein all mention of the keyes and of the Pastorall commission giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter as also of the Priuiledges granted to the Roman Church in respect of S. Petâ—rs Sea seeing that the same could not any way further the pretence of the Bishop of Constantinople but rather hinder it For what could he demaund for any of those respects Would M. Andrews haue had him to say that because Christ gaue S. Peter the keyes and commission to feed his sheepe therefore it was conuenient that the Councell should also giue the lyke authority to the Bishop of Constantinople or prefer him before the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch which was in deed his demaund how would this conclusion follow of those premisses Whereas the other consequent was not so euill to wit that because the Roman Church had ben in tymes past priuiledged by reason of the Imperiall Seat it was conuenient that also the Church of Constantinople should haue like priuiledges for the same reason 63. Agayne what should the Bishop of Constantinople haue gayned by mentioning priuiledges granted to Peters Sea Should he not haue hindred his owne cause thereby and pleaded against himselfe for Alexandria and Antioch For who knoweth not that S. Peter was Bishop of Antioch some yeares before he came to Rome and that he made his disciple S. Marke Bishop of Alexandria in which respect those two Churches had alwayes the preheminence before all other next after the Roman seeing then the Bishop of Constantinoples pretence was no other but to be preferred before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch he had no lesse reason to forbeare all mention of Peters Sea and of the priuiledges granted thereto then M. Andrews had in setting downe the substance of the Canon to conceale and omit all that which would haue discouered his fraud and ouerthrowne his cause I meane that the second place after Rome was granted by that Canon to the Church of Constantinople and therefore he was not so simple to touch that string which would haue mard all his musick as it hath been partly signifyed before and will further appeare by that which followeth 64. For hauing sayd that which you haue heard before concerning priuiledges granted by the Fathers to the Roman Sea because Rome was then the Imperial Citty he addeth in sua autem iam potestate esse ex eadem ratione c. The Fathers of the Councell signifyed that it was now in their power for the same reason seeing that Constantinople did enioy both the Imperiall Seate and Senate to aduance it also to equal dignity and for as much as it was equall in all other things to make it equal also in Ecclesiasticall matters and to vse their owne words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say to be magnifyed as Rome was So he wherein he not only falsifieth the sense and meaning of the Canon in that he maketh it to giue an absolute equality to the Church of Constantinople with that of Rome but also craftily leaueth out all mention of the second place after Rome which was granted to the Church of Constantinople by that Canon doth immediatly follow the Greeke words which he alledgeth and ouerthrow all the equality that he pretendeth to be mentioned there for after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these words do follow immediatly in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in our Latin copyes is very well translated word for word secundam post illam existentem that is to say being the second after it whereby it is signifyed that the Church of Constantinople which had wont to haue an inferiour place to diuers other Churches should from thenceforth be the second after Rome And did not M. Andrews trow you see this in the Greeke and Latin And if he saw it with what conscience could he so deepely dissemble it as not only to leaue out all mention of it but also to make an equality and parity in dignity and in all things els betwixt the Churches of Rome and Constantinople Wheras the words which he concealed do make it cleare that the equality mentioned in the Canon must needs be vnderstood only according to distributiue iustice that is to say without impeachment or preiudice of the different degrees and dignityes of the two Churches as I haue amply declared before 65. And as for the Greeke words which he cyteth to fortify his forgery they do not extend so far as he would stretch them I meane to make a parity and equality in dignity for whereas the Greeke text saith that Constantinople should be magnifyed as Rome was the same may very well stand with the foresayd equality which distributiue Iustice ordayneth to wit with the reseruation of the different dignityes of the one and the other as when a Noble man and a meane man do concurre in one act or seruice to the Common welth and both of them are rewarded and aduanced according to their different qualityes it may truly be sayd that the meane man is aduanced as the Noble man is though not to the same degree for both of them are aduanced as well the one as the other and yet they are not made equal in dignity 66. But now if we take the Greeke wordes alleaged by M. Andrews or the Latin in our translation with the restriction that immediately followeth wherby the second place after Rome is assigned to Constantinople
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
only the Cardinall but also the ancient Fathers Councells and holy Scriptures and finally to face out matters impudently for lack of proofes CHAP. IX Pag. 361. That M. Andrews ouerthroweth his owne cause and fortifieth ours graunting many important points of Catholike Religion That he is turned Puritan in the point of the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy and betrayeth his Maiesties cause vnder-hand pretending to defend it and therfore is neither good English Protestant nor yet good Subiect Lastly what is the opinion of learned strangers concerning him and his booke with a good aduise for a friendly farewell CHAP. X. Pag. 329. An Appendix touching a Register alleaged by M. Franc. Mason for the lawfull Ordayning of Protestant Bishops in Q. Elizabeths Raigne THE AVTHORS INTENTION IS DECLARED AND M. D. Andrewes his interpretation of Pasce oues meas examined and confuted FVRTHERMORE It is shewed that he hath belyed S. Augustine corrupted S. Ambrose notably abused S. Cyril vainly carped at a law in the Code foolishly approued the vnlawfull proceeding of Iustinian the Emperour against two Popes CHAP. I. WHEN I had well-neere ended my Supplement and already sent away the greatest part of it to the print it was my chance to haue a sight of M. D. Andrewes his Answere to Cardinall Bellarmines Apology and considering that the subiect thereof was in effect the same that Father Persons and I had handled and debated with M. Barlow I easily perswaded my selfe that I should find many things treated by M. Andrewes which I had touched in my Supplement In which respect I determined to take a speedy Suruey of his worke and finding that he pretended now and then to answere some places authorities and arguments which had bene obiected as well by me as by the Cardinall I resolued to examine and confute his Answers in respect not only of my selfe but also of the most Worthy Cardinall not for that I thinke he needeth any defence who like an inexpugnable fortresse trenched on euery side and fortified with bulwarks of truth doth of himselfe sufficiently resist the assaults and daunt both the courage and force of his enemies but that in discharge of the obligation which all true Christians owe him for his singular merits towards the Church of Christ I may for my part out of my pouerty pay with the poore widdow my two mytes and therfore hauing offered one of them in my Supplement I thinke good now to add the other and the rather for that I hope by the same meanes to preuent the Cauills of my Aduersary M. Barlow who otherwise might perhaps in his reply if he be disposed to make any blame me for not taking notice of such a worthy work as that of M. Andrewes and eyther turne me ouer to him for satisfaction touching those points or els make vse of his answers himselfe which being esteemed as a precious fruite of the fine wit and curious pen of the greatest Rabbin in the English Synagogue are held no doubt by his friends and followers for no other then oracles of Apollo I meane both infallible and irrefragable for which cause I am the more willing to enter into the examination of them And therefore to the end thou mayst good Reader know how far I meane to proceed therin thou shalt vnderstād that seeing my Supplement is already vnder the presse and that I haue no more tyme to bestow on this Adioynder but vntill the said Supplement be printed I make account that I shall haue opportunity to handle but a few points in which respect I think good to make choyce of such only as concerne some of the most important matters cōtrouersed betwixt M. Barlow me not doubting but that the same shall suffice to shew ex vngue Leonem that is to giue the Reader an aboundant tast and tryall of M. Andrews his good spirit and sincerity in the defence of his cause 1. Well then to come to the matter For as much as one of the chiefest points debated in my Supplement by occasion of the new Oath is the question concerning the supreme and vniuersall Authority of the Apostolike Roman Sea which authority I deduced specially from the Pastorall commission giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter I thinke good to examine of what worth and weight M. Andrewes his Answeres are touching the same especially in his 16. 17. page where he laboureth seriously to proue three wayes against Cardinall Bellarmine that our Sauiours words to S. Peter Pasce oues meas alleaged and learnedly vrged by the Cardinall do make nothing for vs. 2. First he saith that S. Augustine affirmeth that S. Peter had no peculiar increase by the word Pasce and that S. Ambrose affirmeth the like of the words oues meas And to the end that this may appeare he pretendeth to lay downe the very words of those two Fathers Of S. Augustine thus Cùm Petro dicitur ad omnes dicitur Pasce oues meas when it is said to Peter it is said to all Feed my sheep Of S. Ambrose thus Eas oues non solùm Beatus suscepit Petrus sed nobiscum eas suscepit nos cum illo accepimus omnes Those sheep not only the blessed Peter receaued but also he receaued them with vs and we all receaued them with him And then M. Andrewes addeth Nempe dictum illi Pasce c. for it was said vnto him Feed as well in the person of others as in his owne atque vel sic iacebit Cardinali ratio sua and so shall the Cardinalls reason serue him to no purpose Thus argueth he 3. But to the end thou maist good Reader see and note with what fidelity and conscience this man alledgeth the Fathers I will lay downe the place of S. Augustine somewhat more amply then he hath done whereby thou shalt easily discouer his notable fraud S. Augustine in the place alledged by him saith thus Non enim sine causa inter omnes Apostolos c. For not without cause doth Peter sustayne the person of the Catholike Church amongst all the Apostles for to this Church the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen were giuen when they were giuen to Peter and when it is said to him Doest thou loue me Feed my sheep it is said to all and therefore the Catholick Church ought willingly to pardon her Children when they are corrected and strengthned in piety seeing we see that to Peter himselfe bearing the person of the Church pardon was granted both when he had doubted vpon the sea c. and when he had thrice denyed his Maister c. Thus saith S. Augustine declaring that Pasce oues which our Sauiour said to S. Peter was said to all the Church because S. Peter bare the person of the Church Which he did by reason of the supreme authority that he had ouer the Church 4. For else why should rather he then others of the Apostles be said to represent
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
the benefit of soules the publike good of the Church and gods glory wherof I haue giuen sufficient reason in the first Chapter of my Supplement 21. Therefore I will only say for the present that if the Popes spirituall Primacy may for this cause be called a temporall primacy then may M. Andrews who taketh himselfe to be a Bishop and a spirituall Pastour be iustly called and nicknamed a corporall Bishop and a pecuniary Pastour because he doth punish men sometymes in his spirituall court not only in their bodyes but also in their purses and if he would thinke him absurd who should so style and intytle him he is no lesse absurd himselfe in calling the Popes Primacy for the like reason a temporall Primacy And although neither S. Augustine nor S. Cyril do in the places cyted by M. Andrews speake of any such extension of spirituall power to temporall matters whereof they had no occasion to treate yet it sufficeth that they do not deny it yea and that they do both of them sufficiently teach there the spirituall Primacy of S. Peter wherof the other is a necessary consequent 22. S. Augustine in that very Treatise wherto M. Andrews appealeth I meane vpon the Ghospell of S. Iohn and the last Chapter hath that expresse doctrine and those very words which I cyted a little before concerning the person and figure of the whole Church represented in S. Peter propter Apostolatus sui Primatum by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship or as he saith els where propter Primatum quem in discipulis habuit for the Primacy which he had amongst the Disciples For which cause he called him also twice in the same place primum Apostolorum the chiefe Apostle and saith that the Church receaued the keyes in him which as I haue shewed doth euidently proue him to be head and supreme Pastour of the Church whereof only he and no other of the Apostles is said to represent the person and figure so that S. Augustine sufficiently acknowledgeth S. Peters spirituall Supremacy in the place alledged by M. Andrewes 23. The like doth S. Cyril also in his coÌ„mentary vpon S. Iohns Ghospell and in the same place which M. Andrewes cyteth for there he calleth S. Peter expressely Prince and head of the Apostles saying Vt Princeps Caputque ceterorum primus exclamauit Tu es Christus filius Dei viui Peter as Prince and head of the rest first exclaymed Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God So he wherby he teacheth euidently that S. Peter was head and supreme Pastour of the Church in that he acknowledgeth him to be Prince and head of the Apostles who were the chiefe Magistrates and Pastors therof and therefore it is to be considered how this agreeth with that which followeth presently after in M. Andrews his text who hauing affirmed as you haue heard that neyther of these Fathers saw the article touching Peters temporall Primacy addeth Id tantum vident nec praeterea quid quia c. They see this only and nothing els that because Peter had denyed his Lord not once but thrice he was asked concerning loue not once but thrice and so when he had abolished his triple negation with his triple confession he was restored to the place or degree of Apostleship from the which he was fallen for touching the Primacy they are altogeather silent Thus saith M. Andrews 24. Wherin it is to be noted that wheras he saith that these Fathers saw only this which he heere setteth downe nec praeterea quid and nothing else it is euidently false for two respects the one for that they saw more then he mentioneth yea more then he listed to see to wit the Primacy of S. Peter as I haue shewed out of them both the other is because they saw not that which he affirmeth in their behalfe I meane that S. Peter was by those wordes of our Sauiour restored to his place in the Apostleship which he had lost for if they should haue said so they should seeme to hould or fauour at least the pernicious heresy of Wycliffe that Magistrates loose their dignity and authority by mortall sinne which pestiferous opinion those holy Fathers no doubt would haue abhorred if it had bene set abroach or taught by any in their tyme seeing that it shaketh the very foundation of all obedience eyther to Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall Magistrates because it doth not only make all obedience vncertaine for no man knoweth who is in the state of Grace but also giueth occasion to Subiects vpon euery offence of their Prince to call his authority in question 25. Therfore to the end thou maist good Reader know as wel the integrity of these Fathers in this point as M. Andrews his fraud and bad conscience in alledging them thou shalt vnderstand that S. Augustine saith nothing at all that may be so much as wrested to any such sense in that place and doth elswhere expressely teach the contrary as when he saith Apostleâ— againe a little after when Peter the Apostle denied our Sauiour and wept and remayned still an Apostle he had not yet receaued the holy Ghost Thus saith S. Augustine and could he teach a doctrine more contrary to that which M. Andrews fatâ—ereth vpon him 26. Let vs now see how he handleth S. Cyril vpoÌ„ whome it may be he principally relyeth for this matter for indeed that holy Father saith somewhat concerning the same though far otherwise then M. Andrews would make his Reader belieue for thus saith S. Cyril Dixit pasce agnos meos Apostolatus sibi renouaÌ„s dignitatem ne propter negationem quae humana infirmitate accidit labefactata videretur He to wit our Sauiour said to Peter feed my Lambs renewing to him his dignity of the Apostleship least it might seeme to haue bene decayed by his denyall which happened by humane infirmity Thus far S. Cyril who you see neyther saith nor meaneth that S. Peter fell from his Apostleship by his denyall of Christ but rather signifieth the contrary to wit that Christ would not haue it so much as to seeme or be supposed that he had lost his dignity by his fall and therefore renewed it by that new and expresse commission ne labefactata videretur lest it should seeme to haue bene decayed or lost 27. Wherin also it is to be obserued that the dignity wherof S. Cyril speaketh was not the bare office or degree of an Apostle but that which was peculiar and proper to S. Peter and so acknowledged by S. Cyril himselfe a little before in the same Chapter when he tearmed him Principem Caput ceterorum the Prince and head of the rest of the Apostles as also S. Augustine as you haue heard calleth it Primatum principatum Apostolatus the Primacy and principality of the Apostleship and therefore I say the Dignity which according to S. Cyrils doctrine our Sauiour renewed
depressing and punishing the pryde of the Bishops of Constantinople who had so oft maliciously impugned the same which may serue for a Caueat to other rebellious Children of the Church For although Almighty God is patiens redditor a slow paymaster yet he payeth home in the end and as Valerius saith tarditatem supplicij grauitate compensat he recompenseth the slownes of his punishment with the weyght or grieuousnes thereof This I haue thought good to touch here by the way vpon so good an occasion will now conclude concerning M. Andrewes his Canon alledged out of the Councell of Calcedon 24. Therfore I say that it being euident by all this discourse that the sayd Canon was neuer able to equal the Church of Constantinople with the Roman Sea to which end M. Andrews saith it was enacted he must needs coufesse that eyther there was no such Canon at all to the purpose that he mentioneth or els that the small force and authority therof may serue for an euident argument of the supreme power and authority of Pope Leo and his successors seeing that theyr only resistance and contradiction sufficed to ouerthrow it notwithstanding the great authority of the Councell of Calcedon which ordayned it Whereby it also appeareth how vainely and vntruely he saith that Pope Leo contradicted it in vayne yea and which is more absurd that he made suite and intercession in vayne Frustra saith he Romano ipso Pontifice apud Augustum Augustam Anatolium per litteras suas intercedente The Bishop of Rome himselfe making intercession or sueing in vayne by his letters to the Emperour the Empresse and Anatolius So that you see he maketh Pope Leo's case very desperate and his authority very feeble seeing that he was fayne to make such intercession and suite not only to the Emperour and Empresse but also to Anatolius himselfe 25. Therefore albeit I am not ignorant that intercedere hath dyuers senses and amongst the rest signifieth to withstand prohibite or hinder a thing proposed or intended and that some perhaps may say that M. Andrews vseth it heere in that sense yet because it signifieth also to make intercession and suite and is so vsed commonly in Ecclesiasticall Authors and will be so vnderstood in this place by euery common Reader yea and for that M. Andrewes himselfe so taketh and vseth it diuers tymes and would be loath no doubt to haue men thinke that Pope Leo did or durst oppose himselfe to the Emperour Empresse but rather that in this case he behaued himselfe towards them and Anatolius as an humble suppliant and yet all in vayne therefore I say I cannot let this poynt passe vnexamined to the end thou mayst see good Reader as well M. Andrewes his vanity as also what kind of suit intercession Pope Leo made vnto these whome he nameth what effect successe it had with them But first I think it not amisse to declare here how this Canon was made in that Councell and why it was contradicted by the Legats of Pope Leo afterwards disanulled by Leo himself 26. Therefore it is to be vnderstood that Anatolius then Bishop of Constantinople ambitiously thirsting after his owne promotion namely to be preferred before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch and considering that Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria was deposed by the Councell for heresy and the Bishop of Antioch much disgraced for hauing adhered to Dioscorus thought that a good opportunity was offered him to accomplish his desyre and therevpon practised with the Bishops in the Councell for the furtherance of his pretence and hauing gayned so many of them that it seemed to him their very number and authority might extort the consent of the rest yea of the Popes Legats themselues procured that when the last session of the Councell was ended and as well the Iudges or Senate as the Legats were departed all the Bishops of his faction eyther remayned behynd or els after their departure returned againe to the place of the assembly and there made the Canon whereof we now treate Whereupon the Legats hauing notice of it caused the whole Councell to be assembled againe the next day and finding Anatolius and his faction who were the far greater part of the Councell resolute in their determination protested their owne opposition contradiction to the Canon as well in respect that it was repugnant to the Councell of Nice as also for that the other Canon which was pretended to be made in the Councell of Constantinople to the same effect was not to be found amongst the Canons of the said Councell sent to Rome neyther had beene euer put in practise by the Bishops of Constantinople 27. Finally they reserued the determination of the matter to Pope Leo himselfe whom they called Apostolicum Virum Vniuersalis Ecclesiae Papam The Apostolicall man and Pope of the Vniuersall Church vt ipse say they aut de suae Sedis iniuria aut de Canonum euersione possit ferre sententiam That he may giue sentence eyther of the iniury done to his Sea by the abuse of his Legats or of the breach of the Canons Thus sayd the Legats signifying that it was in his hands and power to ratify or abrogate as well this Canon as all the other Canons of that Coūcell which also the whole Councell acknowledged sufficiently in a common letter written to him wherein they craued of him the ratification of this Canon most humbly and instantly as it will appeare heereafter which neuertheles he flatly denyed confirming only the condemnation and deposition of Dioscorus and the rest of their decrees cōcerning matters of faith for the which only he sayd the Councell was assembled and in fine he disanulled the Canon for diuers causes specifyed in his Epistles First because it had no other ground but the ambitious humour of Anatolius who inordinatly sought thereby to haue the precedence before the Patriarks of Alexandria and Antioch Secondly because it was not procured or made Canonically but by practise and surreption in the absence of his Legats◠Thirdly for that the other Canon of the Councell of Constantinople vpon the which this seemed to be grounded was of no validity hauing neuer been sent to the Sea Apostolike nor put in practise by the predecessors of Anatolius Lastly for that it was flatly repugnant to the Canons of the Councell of Nice 28. For these causes I say Pope Leo abrogated this Canon which neuertheles it is like he would haue admitted and confirmed if it had proceeded from any good ground and tended to any vtility of the Church and had beene withall orderly proposed and Canonically made for albeit the Councell of Nice had already ordayned the 〈◊〉 and iurisdiction of the Patriarchal Churches of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem with the consent of Pope Siluester who was the head of that Councell without whose ratification nothing could be of force that
mayntenance of Ecclesiasticall Discipline which Discourse they end with this most humble and submissiue petition Haec sicut propria amica ad decorem conuenientissima dignare complecti Sanctissime Beatissime Pater most holy and blessed Father vouchsafe to imbrace these things as your owne and friendly and most conuenient or fit for good order 73. And afterwards hauing declared that the three Legats of Pope Leo did contradict this Canon they yield this reason thereof Proculdubio say they à vestra Prouidentia inchoari hoc bonum volentes desyring without all doubt that this good should also proceed from your Prouidence vt sicut fidei it a bonae ordinationis vobis deputetur effectus to the end that the effect as well of good order or Ecclesiasticall discipline as of faith may be ascrybed to you In which words it is to be noted that the Councell ascrybed the effect and forcâ— of their determinations not only concerning matters of discipline but also touching matters of faith to the authority especially of Pope Leo to which purpose they also added further that for as much as the Emperour Senate and all the Imperiall Citty desired it and that it seemed also conuenient to the whole Councell yea and that whatsoeuer is well done by the children doth redound to their fathers who account and make the same their owne therefore Rogamus say they tuis decrâ—tis nostrum â—onorâ— iudicium we beseech thee honour also our iudgement with thy decrees sicut nâ—â— capiti in bonis adiecimus consonantiam sic Summitas tua filijs quod decet adimpleat and as we haue yielded conformity on our parts to you our head so let your Highnes fulfill or accomplish to vs your children that which is conuenient Sic enim pij Principes complacebunt c. For so shall the pyousâ— Princes receiue contentment or satisfaction who haue ratified the iudgment of your holynes as a law Sedes Constantinopolitana suscipiâ—t praemiuÌ„ and the Church of Constantinople shall receiue a reward or benefit which Church hath alwayes performed all endeauour towards you to the cause of piety and conioyned it selfe with you to the conseruation of concord and vnity with the same zâ—ale Thus wrote the whole Councell to Pope Leo. 74. And now I report me to M. Andrews himselfâ— though I take him for very partiall in this cause whether any thing could be written in this kind more effectually to shew the beliefe and faith of the whole Councell touching the supreme authority of Pope Leo seeing that they do not only expressely call him their head and themselues his members him their Father and themselues his children but also do aâ—knowledge that he was accustomed to cast forth the light of his Apostolicall beames to the Church of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consuetè soliciti say those Fathâ—rs speaking of him in the plurall number for the reuerend respect they bare him and signifying that his wonted care and authority was so generall that it extended it selfe to the Greeke Church and particulerly to the Church of Constantinople furthermore they testify that the effect of their decrees both in matters of faith and of discipline depended principally on him and therefore do as I may say begge at his hands the confirmation of their Canon in fauour of the Church of Constantinople as a speciall grace benefit and reward foâ— the merits of the sayd Sea towards the Sea Apostolike and this in such earnest and humble manner that it is euident they acknowledged the whole matter to depend on his will to be granted or denyed ratifyed or disanulled by him which also the issue thereof made most manifest seeing that his owne denyall and opposition was sufficient to ouerthrow it as hath bene declared 75. And now I hope M. Andrâ—ws will not say that this is taken out of some corner of a period or some peece of a tytle or fragment of a little clause seeing that this is as he sayd of his Canon the very voyce of the whole Councell being the substance of their publike and generall letter to Pope Leo himselfe which may also be confirmed with their other publike testimonies of their beliefe concerning his authority as that they acknowledged not only that he was successor to S. Peter saying in their generall acclamation to an Epistle of his Petrus per Leonem locutus estâ— Peter hath spoken by Leo but also that he had Peters authority yea and that S. Peter was petra crepido Ecclesiae the rock and toppe of the Church and rectae fidei fundamentum the foundation of the true faith 76. To which purpose it is to be considered that one of the chiefe causes of the assembly of that Councell was to depose Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria which done by the sentence of Pope Leo pronounced by his Legates in these words Sanctissimus Beatissimus Archiepiscopus magnae senioris Romae Leo per nos per presentem sanctam Synodum vnà cum ter beatissimo omni laude digno beato Petro Apostolo qui est petra crepido Ecclesiae ille qui est rectae fidei fundamentum nudauit eum tam Episcopatus dignitate quà m etiam ab omni Sacerdotali alienauit ministerio The most holy and most blessed Archbishop of the elder and great Rome Leo hath depriued him to wit Dioscorus as well of all Episcopall dignity as priestly ministery by vs and this holy Synod togeather with the thrice most blessed and prayse-worthy Peter the Apostle who is the rock and top of the Church and he which is the foundation of the true faith This was the sentence giuen by the Popes Legats against Dioscorus which sentence euery Bishop in the Councell not only approued particulerly with his suffrage or voyce but also confirmed with his subscription as it appeareth in the 3. Action of the sayd Councell 77. Wherein it is to be obserued First that Pope Leo deposed Dioscorus by the Synod whereupon it followeth that he was president and head thereof and that the sayd Synod was but as it were his instrument in that deposition Secondly that he deposed him by the authority which he had as successor to S. Peter in which respect it is sayd here that he did it togeather with the most blessed Apostle Peter Thyrdly that for as much as S. Peter is heere acknowledged to be the head of the Church as being the rock and top thereof and the foundation of the faith the like must needs be granted of Pope Leo who was his successor and exercysed his authority Lastly seeing that this sentence of deposition giuen against Dioscorus in this manner and with these circumstances was receiued particulerly and subscrybed by euery one in that CouÌ„cell without any contradiction or exception taken to any part thereof it is euident that the whole was conforme to the faith and beliefe of the Councell and
word mater is applyed to the Church by S. Cyprian therefore Caput cannot be applyed to S. Peter but to the Church Therfore to the end M. Andrews may vnderstand that S. Peter and not the Church it selfe is in this place worthily tearmed by S. Cyprian caput fons radix origo the head the fountayne the roote and the spring he shall do well to consider the ground and drift of all S. Cyprians discourse which the Cardinall in his Apology omitted for breuityes sake and therefore although I haue layd it downe in my Supplement to proue the necessity of a visible head in the Church yet I will take paynes to repeat it heere to ease the Reader of the labour to seeke it there 4. S. Cyprian meaning to shew the cause why the Church is troubled with heresyes and schismes and withall to giue the remedy saith thus Hoc eò fit c. This hapneth because men do not returne to the beginning of truth nor seeke the head nor obserue the doctrin of the heauenly Maister which if any man will well consider and examine he shall not need any longer treatise or arguments to proue it the proofe is easy to be belieued by the compendiousnes or breuity of the truth our Lord sayd to Peter I say vnto thee thou art Peter and vpon this rock I will buyld my Church and the gates of hell shall not ouercome it c. To him also he saith after his resurrection Feede my sheepe vpon him being one he buylt his Church and to him he recommended his sheep to be fed and although after his resurrection he gaue equal power to all his Apostles and sayd as my Father sent me so I send you receaue the holy Ghost c. neuertheles to manifest and shew a vnity he ordayned one chayre and by his authority disposed that the beginning of the same vnity should proceed from one Truely the rest of the Apostles were that which S. Peter was endued with lyke fellowship of honour and power but the beginning proceedeth from vnity the Primacy is giuen to Peter that one Church of Christ and one chayre may be shewed So he 5. And prosecuting still the same matter proueth notably the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head from whence all the vnity of the body is deriued which he sheweth by three excellent similituds of many branches of one tree springing from one roote many brookes of one water flowing from one fountayne and many beames of one light deriued from one sunne concluding his discourse that notwithstanding the amplitude of the Church by the propagation and numerosity of her children and the extension of her parts and members all ouer the world vnum tamen caput est sayth he origo vna c. yet the head is one and the origen or beginning one that is to say Peter vpon whome he sayd before as you haue heard that our Sauiour buylt his Church and to whom he recoÌ„mended his sheep to be fed yea gaue him Primatum the Primacy vt vna Christi Ecclesia vna cathedra monstretur to shew therby one Church of Christ and one chayre and this must needs be the true sense of S. Cyprian in that-place if we will make his conclusion conforme to his premisses and to the whole scope of his intention 6. So that M. Andrews making the Church it selfe to be the roote fountayne and head whereof S. Cyprian speaketh doth most absurdly confound the tree with the roote the riuers with the spring the body with the head and lameth all that most excellent discourse of S. Cyprian yea ouerthroweth the very foundation thereof denying all that which S. Cyprian layd for his ground to wit the Primacy and supreme authority of S. Peter from whence he expresly deryueth the vnity of the Church as he doth also most clearely els where saying in his Epistle to Iubaianus Nos Ecclesiae vnius caput radicem tenemus We haue or do hold the head and roote of one Church and after declaring what roote and head he meaneth he sayth nam Petro primùm Dominus super quem c. For our Lord gaue this power of binding and loosing to Peter vpon whome he buylt his Church vnde vnitatis origâ—nem instituit ostendit and from whence he ordayned and shewed the beginning of vnity And agayne after in the same Epistle Ecclesia quae vna est super vnum qui claues accepit voce Domini fundata est The Church which is one was by the speach of our Lord founded vpon one who receaued the keyes So he Whereby it euidently appeareth that his constant and manifest doctrine is that all the vnity of the Church proceedeth from the vnity of her head to wit S. Peter and his chayre and that the Cardinall affirming that S. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne roote of the Church gaue vs his true sense and M. Andrews making the Church it selfe to be the head fountayne and roote of it selfe is very absurd and wholy repugnant to S. Cyprians doctrine or meaning 7. And this will be more cleere if we examin a little better M. Andrews his glosse vpon the text of S. Cyprian whereby he laboureth to proue that the Church it selfe and not S. Peter is the head fountayne and roote whereof S. Cyprian speaketh For hauing layd downe S. Cyprians words to wit sic Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa c. so also the Church shyning with the light of our Lord reacheth forth her beames ouer the whole world he noteth that the Father sayth Ecclesia non Petrus the Church not Peter and no meruaile seeing he had no occasion then to name Peter but the Church only for although the Church being a visible body hath alwayes a visible head vnder Christ to wit Peter and his successors yet S. Cyprian doth speake of it heere as of a body considered a part not including the head meaning afterwards to speake of the head as he had in lyke manner done before declaring from whence the vnity of that body is deriued as it will appeare further heereafter 8. In the meane tyme let vs see how M. Andrews goeth on with the text Vnum tamen lumen est c. Yet it is one light which is euery where spread neyther is the vnity of the body separated heere now he asketh two questions the one whether Peter be the light and the other whether he be euery where dispersed whereto I answere that although he is not the light of the Church as he was a particuler man yet he may well be so called not only as he was an Apostle seeing that our Sauiour sayd to all the Apostles Vos estis lux mundi you are the light of the world but also much more as he is the Vicar and substitute of our Sauiour who being lux vera the true light imparteth vnto him his owne excellencyes so far
c. Thus saith the Cardinall and after hauing layd downe S. Cyprians words alledged by S. Augustine being the same that you haue heard before he addeth the words of S. Augustine which are these Ecce vbi commemorat Cyprianus c. Behold how Cyprian doth shew that Peter the Apostle in whom the primacy of the Apostles is preeminent with such an excellent grace corrected by Paul a later Apostle when he dealt concerning Circumcision otherwayse then truth required So sayth S. Augustin whereby it euidently appeareth how he vnderstandeth S. Cyprian in this place to wit that albeit Peter was preeminent and far excelled the Apostles by reason of his Primacy yet when he erred he patiently suffered himselfe to be corrected by Paul and did not insolently and arrogantly defend his errour standing vpon the authority of his Primacy and challenging obedience of S. Paul and others 15. This then being so and the Cardinalls opinion concerning the meaning of S. Cyprian in this place being so â—ell fortified as you haue now heard by S. Augustines construction and iudgement thereof what reason hath any man to thinke that the Cardinall did as M. Andrews chargeth him purposely and craftily suppresse those words of S. Cyprian as not making for Peters Primacy whereas you see he taketh them to make much for it and doth vrge them notably to proue it Therefore can any reasonable man imagine any fraud in the Cardinall Or any other cause why he did not eyte them in his Apology but partly for breuityes sake which euery may seeth how much he affecteth in all his workes and partly because he thought he had alledged sufficient already out of that Father to proue his intent 16. So that whereas M. Andrews sayth Ea Cypriani mens videtur c. The mynd or sense of Cyprian seemeth to be that if Peter had said he had the Primacy he had insolently challenged somewhat to himselfe that is to say more then was due vnto him he did very well to say videtur it seemeth for if he had absolutly affirmed it he had ouerlashed very far Besides that he may learne if it please him to make a great difference betwixt insolenter and â—also insolently and falsely for a man may take vpon him a true authority and speake of it insolently that is to say without iust cause or in defence of some euill act and yet not falsely because it is true that he hath the authority which he pretendeth And therefore I say that if S. Peter should haue stood vpon his Primacy in defence of his erroneous act and sayd that S. Paul ought to follow and obay him therin because he was the Primate and head of the Apostlesâ— he had both sayd and done insolently which neuertheles in defence of a truth or vpon some other iust occasion he might both say and do without all note of insolency yea iustly and necessarily because he had indeed the Primacy and therefore was to be obayed and followed in all good and iust actions 17. But now M. Andrews goeth forward and whereas the Cardinall concluded that Peter being the foundation of the Church was therefore the head of it M. Andrews granteth that S. Peter was fundamentum quidem vnum sed non vnicum one but not the only foundation esse enim illiusce aedificij duodecem fundamenta for that there are twelue foundations of that building But M. Andrews is heere short of his account for he should rather haue sayd that there are thirteene except he will exclude Christ of whome the Apostle sayth Fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere c. no man can lay any other foundation then that which is already layed Iesus Christ of whome also the Prophet sayth Ecce ego ponam in fundamentis Sion lapidem c. Behold I will lay a stone in the foundation of Sion an approued stone a corner and precious stone founded in the foundation c. 18. And this I am sure M. Andrews will not deny seeing that it is one of the most speciall arguments whereby his fellowes are wont to exclude S. Peter from being the foundation of the Church to wit because Christ is the foundation of it if therefore M. Andrews will admit twelue foundations of the Church without preiudice to Christ he may also admit eleuen without preiudice to Peter For albeit the twelue Apostles are all founded vpon Christ who is the first and principall stone yet Peter may haue the first place in the foundation next after Christ being immediatly founded on him as head and ordinary Pastor of the Church and the rest vpon Peter as extraordinary and subordinate to him Besides that Peter and the rest of the Apostles are called foundations in different manner as I will declare more particulerly in the discussion of M. Andrews his answere to the place of S. Hierome 19. And now to conclude concerning S. Cyprian whereas the Cardinall argueth vpon his words that because S. Peter was the foundation of the Church he was therefore the head thereof in respect that the head in a body and the foundation in a buylding is all one M. Andrews answereth thus Vix illuc vsquequaque c. That is scantly true euery way for I do shew the Cardinall a buylding whereof there are twelue foundations but hardly can the Cardinall shew me one body wherof there are twelue heads So he very well to the purpose I assure you ouerthrowing himselfe with his owne answere for if that buylding which he sayth hath twelue foundations be the Church as indeed it is and so it appeareth by his quotation of the 24. Chapter of the Apocalyps then may the Cardinall very easily shew him also a body that hath twelue heads euen according to the doctrine and opinion of M. Andrews himselfe who can not deny but that the Church is a body I meane such a body as heere we treate of to wit not a naturall but a mysticall body neyther can he deny that the Apostles were heads of that body seeing all of them had as M. Andrews still telleth vs the charge and gouernement of the Church alike and therefore being twelue gouernours they were also twelue heads 20. Is it then so hard a matter for the Cardinall to shew him a body with twelue heads Nay which is more and toucheth more our case doth not M. Andrews thinke it possible that such a body may haue a hundreth heads and all of them subordinate to one head What will he say of the state of Venice Will he deny that the Senators who are many hundreths are heads thereof or that they are subordinat to one Doge or Duke So that it is to be vnderstood that in respect of the rest of the Common welth the Senators are all heads though in respect of the Doge they are but members subordinate to him And so in this spirituall buylding of the Church or mysticall body of Christ though the
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
S. Peter and his successors For if S. Peter were made head of all the Apostles to whome Christ left the gouernment of his Church it cannot be denied but that he was made head of the Church for who is head of any common welth but he that is head of all those that haue the administration charge and gouernement of it And if the reason why he was ordayned head of the Apostles was to auoyde and preuent the danger of schisme it must needs be granted that so long as the same cause and reason I meane the danger of schisme continueth in the Church so long also the remedy is to continue therin and that the greater the danger is the more necessary also is the remedy whereupon it followeth that seeing the danger of schisme doth and euer shall continue in the Church the remedy also of one head is euer to continue And for as much as the danger of schisme in the Apostles tyme was not so great they being all of them most holy men and particulerly guyded by the holy Ghost as it is andâ— alwayes hath bene euer since Therefore the remedy of one head which our Sauiour ordayned for the same is more necessary now then it was in their dayes yea and was more specially intended by his diuyne prouidence for all ensuing ages after the Apostles tyme then only during their liâ—es 38. Moreouer it being euident in the holy Scriptures that our Sauiour planted his Church to stand to the worlds end it were absurd to say that he ordayned that forme of gouernement vnder one head to last only during the Apostles tyme as though he had lesse care of the vnity of his Church in future ages then in the beginning when as I haue sayd the danger of schisme should be far lesse then it would be afterwards Therfore I conclude that seeing S. Peter was made head of the Apostles and consequently of the whole Church to auoyd schisme M. Andrews can not deny the same authority to S. Peters successors for the same reason especially seeing that our Sauiours prouidence therein is euident to the very eye of euery man that list not to be willfully blynd in that he hath permitted the succession of all the Apostles to fayle in all the Churches where they gouerned excepting only the succession of S. Peter in the Roman Church which he hath miraculously conserued to make it manifest to the world that S. Peter and his chayre as you haue heard out of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome is the Rock whereupon he promised to buyld his Church and that as S. Augustine sayth Ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae that is the Rock which the proud gates of hell do not ouercome 39. Furthermore whereas M. Andrews granteth also that a head appoynted in the Church for the remedy of schisme is to haue so much power as is necessary for that end he must needs consequently grant all that power which we requyre and acknowledge it in S. Peter and his successors to the same end I meane not only a power authority to define decyde coÌ„trouersies without the which no schisme or diuision concerning matter of doctrine can be conueniently compounded but also power and iurisdiction to punish such as do obstinatly infringe and violate the vniâ—ty and peace of the Church for how can the head sufficiently remedy schisme if he cannot punish those which do cause and mayntayne it and if M. Andrews will say that Christ hath therfore left authority to his Church to punish only by excommunication and spirituall censures I must demand of him what remedy the head of the Church can giue thereby when his censures are contemned and specially by an absolute Prince shall he haue then no further power to remedy the inconuenience how then is his power such as M. Andrews himselfe granteth it to be to wit quanta rei satis siâ— cui constitutus est as much as may be sufficient for the thing for the which he was made head that is to say to remedy and take away schisme 40. And who seeth not that the greatest harme that groweth to the Church by schisme commonly is when secular Princes do eyther rayse it themselues or mayntayne it in others Shall not then the head of the Church haue sufficient power to remedy this greatest danger and mischiefe that can hap to the Church Or shall he not haue meanes as well to correct his greatest and most powerfull subiects as the least and meanest Then as I haue sayd in my Supplement the power of the Church should be no better then a cobweb that holdeth the little flyes and letteth go the great ones and consequently the prouidence of Almighty God should be very defectiue in ordayning a head to conserue his Church in vnity and not giuing him sufficient power to performe it which no wyse temporall Prince would do if he should make a Lieutenant to gouerne in any part of his dominions Wherto it may be added that the Lawyers teach that he which granteth iurisdiction is presumed to grant all things necessary for the execution of it which is also conforme to the Philosophers Maxime to wit Qui dat esse dat consequentia ad esse he which giueth a being giueth togeather with it all those things which are consequents thereof or necessarily requyred thereto as I haue amply proued in my Supplement where I haue deduced the necessity of this consequent from the very Law of nature and light of reason 41. Besides that I haue also declared there that he which hath power ouer the soule for the benefit thereof must needs haue also power ouer the body and goods which by the very Law of nature are subiect to the soule and ordayned to serue it and therefore to be disposed by the spirituall Gouernour or Pastor so far forth as is necessary for the saluation of the soule in which respect the Church hath alwayes vsed and still doth to impose not only fasting and other bodily pennance but also imprisonments and pecuniary mulcts vpon her disobedient children when the benefit of their soules and the publick good of the Church doth requyre it which is also vsed by our Aduersaries themselues in their Ecclesiasticall discipline who in their spirituall Tribunals and Courts do punish the disobedient as well by pecâ—niary penalties as by corporall imprisonements Whereupon it followeth that when Princes who are members of the Church do violate the vnion thereof and are incorrigible by excommunication they may be chastised by their supreme head or spirituall Pastor euen in their temporall states so far as shall be necessary for the good of their soules and the benefit of the whole Church for otherwyse the head of the Church should not haue that sufficient power to remedy schismes and other inconueniences which M. Andrews himselfe granteth and it cannot indeed be denied 42. This then being so
M. Andrews his first question or doubt is sufficiently solued to wit How far the power of the head whereof S. Hierome speaketh doth extend that is to the direction gouernement yea and chastisment when occasion requyreth of all his inferiour members of what degree soeuer and consequently of Kings and Princes so far forth as shal be needfull for the coÌ„seruation of vnity in the Church and that therefore when only excommunication will not suffice to reduce them to vnity and obedience the head may extend his spirituall power to chastise them in their bodyes goods and states as far as shall be conuenient for the good of soules and the glory of God whereto all mens temporall states goods lands and lyues are principally ordayned 43. And now to come to his other question concerning the mumber which this head may gouerne to auoyd and remedy schisme let M. Andrews well ponder what he hath already granted and of this there will be no doubt at all For if Peter was head of the Apostles as S. Hierome teacheth and M. Andrews confesseth then consequently he was head of as many in number as were subiect to them which was no lesse then all the world whereof they had the spirituall charge and gouernement in which respect the Royall Prophet sayth of them and their successors pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filij c. For thy Fathers children are borne vnto thee thou shalt ordayne them to be Princes ouer all the earth So saith the Prophet of the Apostles of Bishops who succeed them in their charge and are therfore Princes Gouernours of the Church as S. Augustine S. Hierome and other Fathers expound this place which therefore is verified especially in the Apostles who being the Princes and Gouernours of the Church did not only plant but also propagate throughout the world in their owne tyme according to the commission and commaundment of our Sauiour who sayd vnto them Euntes in vniuersum mundum c. Going into the vniuersall world preach the Ghospell to euery creature which also the Royal Prophet fore-told of them saying In omnem terram exiuit sonus eorum c. The sound of them went forth into all the earth and their words into the bounds thereof 44. Seeing then the Apostles were Gouernours of the whole Church and yet subiect to S. Peter as to their head it must needs be granted that he was supreme head and gouernour of the whole Church propagated and dispersed throughout the world vnder their gouerment for which cause S. Chrysostome saith with great reason not only of all the Apostles in generall that they were to haue orbis terrarum curam the charge of all the world but also much more of S. Peter in particuler That Petro Apostolo orbis terrarum Ecclesiae the Churches of all the world and the multitudes of people were to be committed to Peter the Apostle and therefore euen in the former place where he saith that the Apostles were to receiue of Christ the charge of the world he acknowledgeth that S. Peter was Princeps Apostolorum vertex totius coetus the Prince of the Apostles and the top or head of all their congregation and that Christ committed vnto him curam fratrum the charge of his brethren that is to say of the Apostles and finally that Christ recommended vnto him orbis terrarum curam the charge of the whole world Finally comparing S. Iames the Apostle with S. Peter in the same place by the way of obiection demanding why then Iames was made Bishop of Hierusalem and not Peter he answereth Hunc totius orbis magistrum praeposuisse that our Sauiour preferred Peter to be the Maister of the whole world giuing to vnderstand that whereas S. Iames was only Bishop of Hierusalem and the Countries adioyning as also the other Apostles had euery one of them some part of the world allotted vnto him to gouerne S. Peter had the charge of the whole 45. By all which it is euident that albeit the Apostles had the gouerment of all the Church yet they were but subordinate to S. Peter who had a commission peculiar and singular to himselfe which was to haue the care charge and gouerment of them as well as of all others subiect to them So that his power and authority was wholy independant on them wheras theirs must needs depend of him as of their immediate head vnder our Sauiour whereby it may appeare what an idle head M. Andrews hath to exclude no lesse S. Peter then euery other particuler man from the gouerment of the whole Church for no better reason then lest he might become heterochtum cuput an extrauagant head or perhaps proue a Tyrant through the excesse eyther of power or of the number of subiects wherein he sheweth himselfe no lesse prophane then absurd attributing as it seemeth no force or effect to our Sauiours promise of his continuall assistance to his Apostles and Church for euer besides that he erreth grosâ—ely if he make the multitude of subiects a noticeâ— or cause of Tyranny it being euident that the greater the number of the subiects is the greater also is the difficulty to oppresse them by Tyranny and the greater the feare and danger to attempt it 46. And therefore we see more frequent tyranny in small States then in great Monarchies and when great Monarches are Tyrants they commonly exercyse their Tyranny vpon some part of their Dominions and not vpon the whole whereas a small State contayning a few subiects is easily Tyrannized vniuersally so that the multitude of subiects is not properly a motiue but rather a brydle to Tyranny though it is properly a cause of schisme when they are not gouerned by one head which M. Andrews acknowledgeth sufficiently when he confesseth that one head is necessary to take away the occasion of schisme amongst twelue or some other small number for if that be true then the greater the number is the greater is the danger of schisme if they haue many heads independant one of another whereupon it followeth that one supreme head is most necessary for the whole Church coÌ„sisting of an innumerable multitude of the faithfull dispersed throughout the whole world who being all visible members of one visible body could not possibly be conserued long in vnity if they had not one visible head whome they were all bound in conscience to obay as I haue shewed more at large in my Supplement euen by the testimony of M. Barlow himselfe 47. For which cause not only S. Cyprian as you haue heard before in this Chapter but also S. Hierome in this place teacheth with great reason that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles to auoyde and remedy the schismes which might grow not so much amongst them as in the whole Church for in them after they had receiued the holy Ghost there was no danger
thereof though in the whole Church which was to be propagated by them ouer the world the danger of schisme was very great not only in their tyme but also much more afterwards as I haue signifyed before in which respect it was needefull to be preuented by the institution of one head ouer the whole Church and therefore when S. Hierome answering Iouinian saith that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles he meaneth that he was made head of the Church which was represented in them as in the Gouernours thereof for seeing that the obiection of Iouinian which S. Hierome answereth concerned the foundation of the Church vpon S. Peter his answere must needs also concerne the same to which purpose it is to be considered that he denyeth not Iouinians proposition as I haue proued before but explicateth what is tâ—e meaning of super Petrâ—m fundatur Ecclesia signifying that it meaneth nothing els in effect but that Peter was made head of the Apostles which is as much so say as that he was the foundation of the Church or that the Church was founded vpon him because as Cardinall Bellarmine saith very well the foundation in a buylding and the head in a politycall or mysticall body is all one so as S. Peter being made head of the Apostles who represented the Church as Gouernours thereof he was consequently made the head and foundation of the Church and this being so it appeareth that this place of S. Hierome is cleare for vs and directly proueth that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the vniuersall Church 48. And whereas M. Andrews in his glosse vpon S. Hieromes text noteâ—h with a parenthesis that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles not for the keyes saith he or for the foundation which are so much esteâ—med at Rome but to take away the occasion of schisme I know not wâ—at els he impugneth thereby but his owne idle conceipt for no man saith at Rome or any where els for ought I know that S. Peter was made head of the Church for the keyes or for the foundation other wayes then that in receiuing the keyes and being made the foundation of the Church he was made head thereof to take away the occasion of sâ—hisme And this is S. Hiâ—romes doctrine so euident that M. Andrews himselfe is forced thereby to confesse that Sâ— Peter was made head of the Apostles yea and that he had so much power and authority giuen him as was necessary for the preuention and remedy of schisme whereupon all our doâ—trine concerning the Popes authoâ—ity necessarily followeth as I haue shewed so that you see he still pleadeth for vs and well deserueth his fee if not for his good wil yet at least for his paynes in defending our cause against his will FOVRE OTHER PLACES OF THE FATHERS ARE DEBATED And M. Andrews his Answers thereto confuted With a Discouery of notable corruption and falsity in him and of three manifest lyes within litle more then three lynes AND By occasion thereof it is also proued that 8. Popes who liued in S. Augustines tyme had and exercysed an vniuersall and supreme Authority CHAP. IIII. THOV hast seene good Reader in the last Chapter how well M. Andrews hath satisfyed the Cardinalls obiectioÌ„ out of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome and now in this Chapter I will examine his Answers to diuers other places of the Fathers namely of S. Basil and S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine which albeit he pretendeth to answere togeather with the former yet I haue thought good to separate them because I haue alledged them separatly in my Supplement 2. First out of S. Basil the Cardinall an I obiect these words to proue the supremacy of S. Peter ouer the rest of the Apostles Ille beatus qui ceteris praelatus discipulis fuit cui claues regni caelestis commissae That happy or blessed Peter who was preferred before the rest of the disciples to whome the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome were committed c. Hereto M. Andrews answereth thus Ex Basilio ceteris discipulis praelatum Petrum sed an vt esset Monarcha c. The Cardinall obiecteth out of S. Basil that Peter was preferred before the rest of the Disciples but was it to the end that he should be a Monarch is there no other prelacy but of a Monarchy he was preferred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the testimony that was giuen him by Christ as Basil hath there and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blessednes add also if you will that he was preferred in order and place the King doth also attribute the same vnto him yea that he may be the Prince of Apostles yet without a Monarchy Thus saith M. Andrews to the first part of S. Basils place whereto I will say somewhat before I add the rest Heere then you see he graunteth that S. Peter was preferred before the rest of the Apostles in order and place yea and that he was the Prince of the Apostles and forsooth no Monarch 3. But if we consider what he hath graunted in the last Chapter we shall find that he must needs acknowledge him to be a Monarch how much soeuer he mislyke the word for if a Monarch do signify him that is one chiefe Prince and sâ—preme head or gouernour of others not for his owne particuler benefit but for the publike and generall good of those whome he gouerneth for so is a Monarch distinguished from a Tyrant he cannot with any reason deny S. Pâ—ter to be the Monarch that is to say the supreme Prince and head of the Church whome he acknowledgeth togeather with S. Hierome to haue been made by our Sauiour head of the Apostles to preuent and remedy schisme and to haue had not only the precedence of place and order as now he saith but also so much power as suffyced for the conseruation of Vnity in the Church whereupon followeth all that power and authority which we do attribute to S. Peter and his successors as I haue declared briefely in the last Chapter 4. For S. Peter hauing by this commission of our Sauiour authority to ordaine commaund and punish as far as was necessary for the good of the Church it must needs be graunted that he had the power and authority of a Monarch and although M. Andrews had not been forced by â—he euidence of S. Hieromes testimony to grant it yet this very place of S. Basil which he pretendeth heere to answere doth proue it sufficiently signifying as much in effect as S. Hierome teacheth seeing that S. Basil not only saith that Peter was preferred before the rest of the Disciples but also declareth wherein that is to say not in place and order only but in authority also and iurisdiction adding cui claues Regni caelestis commissae sunt to whome to wit Peter the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome were committed giuing to vnderstand that he had by this particuler
proceed 57. After Liberius succeeded Damasus whose vniuersall authority is sufficiently testified euen by the African Bishops whome M. Andrewes maketh most opposit to the Roman Sea This may be veryfied by an Epistle of 3. Councells of Africk and the Archbishop Stephanus who wrote to Pope Damasus giuing him the title of most Blessed Lord raysed to the heyght of Apostolicall dignity holy Father of Fathers Damasus Pope and chiefe Bishop of Prelats and in the Epistle it selfe they do clearely acknowledge the supremacy of his sea coÌ„playning of certayne Bishops their neyghbours who without his consent or knowledge had presumed to depose Bishops which they said was against the decrees of all the Fathers and ancient rules and Canons of the Church by the which say they sancitum est vt quicquid horum vel in remotis c. it was decreed that whatsoeuer should be treated though in remote and far distant Prouinces concerning these matters that is to say the deposition of Bishops and other important affiayres of the Church the same should not be receiued nisi ad notitiam almae Sedis vestrae fuisset deductum c. except it were brought to the knowledge of your holy seat to the end that whatsoeuer should be resolued might be confirmed with the authority thereof thus wrot they and much more to the same purpose calling him also ipsum Apostolicum verticem Praesulum the very Apostolicall top or head of Prelats 58. And therefore no meruaile that another Father of the same tyme calleth him the gouernour of the Church of God expounding these words of the Apostle to Timothy Ecclesia est domus Dei viui c. whereupon he saith Ecclesia domus Dei dicitur cuius rector hodie est Damasus the Church is called the house of God the gouernour whereof at this day is Damasus So he wherto I may add a notable testimony of S Hierome who wryting also to Damasus to know of him with whome he might communicate in Syria and whether he might vse the word hypostasis affirmed that he held CoÌ„mâ—nion with his Beatitude that is to say saith he with Peters Chayre and that he knew the Church to be buylt vpon the rock inferring thereupon that whosoeuer did eate the Lambe out of that house he meaneth the communion of Damasus or of Peters Chayre he was a profane man and out of the Arck of Noe wherupon I infer that S. Hierome affirming the Church to be built vpon Damasus acknowledgeth him to be head thereof for the reason vrged before by me in the last chapter to wit because the head of a mysticall or politicall body and the foundation in a buylding are all one besyds that he also acknowledgeth the same by excluding all those from the vnity of the Church who did not hold communication with Damasus because the vnity of the body is deriued principally from the vnity of the head thereof according to the expresse doctrin of S. Cyprian which I haue also amply layd downe in the last Chapter 59. Finally S. Hierome demanding resolution from Damasus with whome he should coÌ„municate in Syria where was then a great Schisme and whether he might vse the word hypostasis sheweth that Damasus had authority to determyne and decyde controuersies and resolue doubts or difficult questions in matter of religion and therfore S. Hierome saith vnto him Discernite siplacet obsecro non timebo tres hypostases dicere si iubetis I beseech you iudge or determyne if it please you for I will not feare to say that there are three hypostases if you command me And againe afterwards Quamobrâ—m obtestor Beatitudinem tuam per crucifixum c. Therefore I beseech your Beatitud for Christs sake crucified and for the consubstantiall Trinity that authority may be giuen me by your letters eyther to vse or to forbeare the word hypostasis c. as also that you will signifie vnto me with whome I may communicate at Antioch for that the Campenses and the heretikes called Tharsenses being vnited togeather nihil aliud ambiunt quà m vt auctoritate communionis vestrae fulti c. do seeke nothing more or with greater ambition then that being vpheld with the authority of your communion they may vse the word hypostasis in the old sense So he 60. Wherin two thinges are to be noted the one that S. Hierome doth not aske counsaile or aduise of Pope Damasus but a definitiue sentence vt auctoritas detur that authority be giuen him that is to say that Damasus should by his letters determin and ordein what S. Hierome should doe in those cases The other is that not only the Catholikes in the East parts as S. Hierome and the Aegyptians whome he also called the collegues of Damasus but also the heretyks sought to fortifie themselues by the communion and authority of the Sea Apostolike Whereupon two things do also follow euidently the one that Damasus had power to decyde and determyne controuersies euen in the East Church and the other that his authority was not restreyned to his owne Church at Rome as M. Andrews seemeth to suppose but was vniuersall and therefore acknowledged as well in the East as in the West 61. This may be notably confirmed by the restitution of Peter Bishop of Alexandria to his seat who immediatly succeeded Athanasius and being oppressed by the Arians followed the example of his worthy predecessour and fled to Rome to Pope Damasus and returning with his letters which confirmed as well his creation as the Catholike faith was restored by the people qui illis confisus saith Socrates expollit Lucium Petrum in eius locum introducit who by the vertue of those letters expelled Lucius the Arrian Bishop and put Peter into his place 62. Also Vitalis an heretike in Antioch being accused to Pope Damasus of heresy was forced to come to Rome to purge himselfe and albeit after he had there professed himselfe to be a Catholike he was remitted by Pope Damasus to Paulinus Bishop of Antioch for his final absolution yet Damasus prescribed to Paulinus a forme of abiuration whereto Vitalis should subscribe which being done Paulinus absolued him Whereby it is euident that Damasus had a supreme authority as well in the East or Greeke Church as in the West for otherwise neyther would Peter Bishop of Alexandria who was a very holy man haue appealed vnto him nor the people haue receaued Peter by the vertue of his letters neither yet would Vitalis haue gone from Antioch to purge himselfe at Rome nor Paulinus Bishop of Antioch permitted that Damasus should intermeddle in matters pertayning to his charge 63. And this may yet further appeare by the earnest endeuours of S. Chrysostome then Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria to pacify Damasus towards Flauianus Bishop of Antioch who had committed periury and byn the cause of a great diuision and trouble in the Church for the remedy wherof
the letters of Celestinus to Cyrillus to whome he wrote thus Adiuncta tibi nostrae sedis auctoritate ipse qui vice nostra potestateque fungeris c. Thou which holdest our place and power the authority of our seat concurring with thee shalt with all euerity pronounce this sentence against Nestorius that if within 10. daies after this admonition he do not detest and renounce his wicked doctrine c. Thou shalt prouide his Church of a Pastor and he shall vnderstand that he is excluded from our communion c. 82. Thus wrote Celestinus to Cyril who therefore in his letters to Nestorius signifyed vnto him that if he did not recant and reforme his errours within the tyme limited and prescrybed by Pope Celestinus he should be excommunicated and depriued And the whole Councell also pronouncing sentence of condemnation against Nestorius affirmed that they were compelled to vse that seuerity not only by the Canons of the Church but also by the letters of Pope Celestinus and in their Epistle to the said Pope they signifyed that they reserued and remitted the cause of Iohn the Patriarch of Antioch who was a fauourer of Nestorius to his iudgment and sentence Besides that Nicephorus testifieth that the common fame was in his time that certayne priuiledges were graunted to S. Cyril which also his successours enioyed by reason of his Legacy and substitution to Pope Celestinus in that Councell and amongst other things that he had the title of Iudex vniuersi orbis Iudge of the whole world 83. Now then I report me to thee good Reader whether Celestinus was no more then the head of his Church of Rome as M. Andrews maketh him For is it likely that eyther S. Cyrill who was Bishop of Alexandria and consequently the first and chiefe Patriarke of the East would haue stouped to be his substitute and Legate and to receiue commissions and orders from him or yet that the whole Councell beeing most of them also of the Greeke and East Church would haue acknowledged themselues to be compelled by his letters to condemne Nestorius yea and remitted the cause of the second Patriarke of the Greeke Church to his finall determination if they had not taken him for the vniuersall and supreme Pastour of the whole Church As I shewed also the like before in the second Chapter of this Adioynder concerning the authority of Pope Leo in the great Councell of Chalcedon which was held in the same age not past 20. yeares after this other of Ephesus So that M. Andrewes cānot by any meanes excuse himselfe from a manifest lye in this no more then in other two poynts before mentioned 84. Whereby it appeareth euidently that he hath made 3. notable lyes as I may say with one breath that is to say within litle more then 3. lynes Besyds an egregious corruption of the Canon of the African Synod with his transmarinus nemo and a foule abuse as well of S. Augustine in making him say that which he neyther sayd nor meant as also of his Reader in seeking to perswade him that S. Augustine excommunicated all those that would appeale to Rome out of Africk yea and cured Peters-diseases in the 3. last Popes for so he also saith in quibus tamen eumdem morbum curauit in whome to wit Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus Augustine cured the same diseases that is to say the diseases of Peter meaning as I take it eyther Peters presumptiō of his owne strength or els his denyall of Christ which neuertheles I cannot see how he can apply to them and much lesse pretend that S. Augustine cured the same diseases in them 85. Therefore whereas his drift was no other in all this as it seemeth but to perswade thee good Reader that S. Augustine was at daggers drawing with these 3. Popes thou hast partly seene already by that which hath bene said concerning two of them to wit Zosimus Celestinus how much he hath sought to abuse thee therin the like will also euidently appeare concerning Pope Bonifacius if thou consider with what affection reuerend respect and submission S. Augustine dedicated vnto him his 4. bookes against two Epistles of the Pelagians writing to him thus 86. Noueram te quidem fama celeberrima praedicante c. I knew thee truely before by the most famous report of thy renoumne and vnderstood by many most frequent and true relations how aboundantly thou art replenished with Gods grace most blessed and venerable Pope Boniface but after that my brother Alipius had seene thee and been receiued by thee with all benignity and sincerity c. I had so much more notice of thy Holinesse by how much more certeyne is our amity for thou who takest no gust or delight in high things though thou art in a higher degree then others dost not disdayne to be a friend to the meane and inferiour sort So he and afterwards hauing signifyed that he had vndertaken to write against 2. epistles of the Pelagians he concludeth Haec ergo quae duabus Epistolis c. These things therefore which I doe answere in this disputation to two Epistles of the Pelagians I haue determyned to direct specially to thy Holynes not as things needfull to be learned by you but to be examined and amended if any thing do chance to dislyke you Thus wrote S. Augustine to Pope Bonifacius being so far from hauing any auersion or alienation from him and much more from presumyng to cure any diseases in him that is to say to correct any errours in his person or gouernment that he shewed all dutifull loue and reuerend affection towards him giuing notable testimony to his rare vertue sanctity and not only acknowledging the dignity of his seat but also submitting himselfe and his workes to his censure and Iudgment to be examined corrected and amended by him as he should see cause whereby it appeareth that S. Augustine liued in perfect vnion with Pope Bonifacius 87. And in what tearmes he stood with Pope Celestinus though we may gather it sufficiently by his owne letter before mentioned concerning the Bishop of Fussula yet it shall not be amisse to vnderstand it also by the testimony of Celestinus himselfe It is therefore to be vnderstood that S. Augustine dying in the tyme of Pope Celestinus and his workes especially those against the Pelagians being by their practise much impugned and defamed in France S. Prosper who had been a disciple as I haue sayd before of S. Augustine and was then Bishop of Aquitane went purposely to Rome togeather with Hilarlus Bishop of Arles to complayne thereof to procure the letters of Pope Celestinus in iustifycation of him and his workes Whereupon Celestinus wrote a generall letter to all the Bishops of France as well in defence of S. Augustine as in condemnation of the Pelagians and amongst other things sayth of S. Augustine thus Augustinum
fayth to be the foundation of the Church that he excludeth his person fidei ratione ait ipse Hilarius non personae sayth M. Andrewes Peter was a Rock by the meanes of his faith saith Hilary himselfe and not of his person So indeed saith M. Andrewes but so sayth not S. Hilary And therefore M. Andrewes thought best to quote no place of S. Hilary neither in the text nor in the margent and sure I am that in the place which the Cardinall alleadgeth S. Hilary speaketh expressely of S. Peters person and not of his faith except M. Andrewes can shew vs how faith was called by a new name so made the foundation of the Church as we can shew him how Symon was called Peter that is to say a Rock to signify by that new name that he should be felix Ecclesiae fundamentuÌ„ as S. Hilary sayth the happie foundation of the Church receiue the keyes of heauen In which respect S. Hilary addeth also in the same place O Beatus caeli ianitor O blessed porter of heauen Neuerthelesse I would not haue M. Andrews to think that in affirming with S. Hilary that Peter was the foundation of the Church I doe exclude his faith from his person as though S. Hilary should say or any Catholike man meane that the Church was built vpon Peters person and not vpon his faith but I do attribute the same so to his person that I acknowledge therein the presence concurrence and merit of his faith by the which he deserued to be made the foundation of the Church and the porter of heauen as S. Hilary calleth him 10. And therfore albeit S. Hilary in another place calleth the Rock of CoÌ„fession the fouÌ„datioÌ„ of the Church sayth also that fayth receiued the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome which by all likelyhood is the place that M. Andrews meaneth though he doth not quote it yet in the same place he addeth coÌ„cerning S. Peters persoÌ„ that supereminentem beatae fidei suae confessione gloriam promeruit he deserued a supereminent glorie by the confession of his blessed fayth and a litle after hinc regni caelorum habet claues c. hereby or in respect hereof that is to say of his faith or confession of Christ he hath the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen and his earthly iudgments are heauenly Thus sayth S. Hilary shewing euidently in what sense he sayth that fayth the confession of Christ was the foundation of the Church and that it receiued the keyes to wit because by the Merit thereof S. Peter deserued to haue the supereminent dignity or glorie to be the foundatioÌ„ of the Church and to haue the keyes which he also signifyeth more plainely before in the same Tract saying of Peters person post Sacramenti confessioneÌ„ beatus Simon aedificationi Ecclâ—siae subiaceÌ„s claues regni caelestis accipiens c. Blessed Simon after the coÌ„fessioÌ„ of the mystery lying vnder the building of the Church that is to say being made the fouÌ„datioÌ„ of the church receiuingâ—yâ— keyes of the heauenly Kingdome c. So he Where you see he ascribeth S. Peters being the foundation of the Church as also his hauing of the keyes to his person though to shew the reasoÌ„ cause therof he addeth post coÌ„fessioneÌ„ Sacramenti after the coÌ„fession of the mystery 11. So that S. Hilary saying in one place that Peter was the foundation of the Church and in another affirming the same of his fayth or Confession doth not in either of both vnderstand his person without his faith or yet his faith without his person I meane abstracting his faith from his person but considereth both ioyntly that is to say his person by the merit of his faith And therefore whereas M. Andrewes affirmeth as you haue heard that S. Hilary himselfe sayth that Peter was the foundation of the Church fidei ratione non personae by the meanes of his faith and not of his person he may put vp non personae in his pocket for S. Hilary hath no such word neither that meaning which M. Andrews would haue his Reader to gather thereof that is to say to exclude S. Peters person from the foundation of the Church So as this may passe for a petty fraud and a pretty cosening trick amongst many other of more importance whereof you haue seene diuers already and shall see more hereafter 12. There resteth now to be examined only one of the 3. places before mentioned which is alleadged by the Cardinall out of S. Maximus thus Quanti igitur meriti apud Deum suum Petrus c. Of how great merit do you thinke that Peter was with his God that after the rowing of a litle boat the gouerment of the whole Church was giuen him Thus far the Cardinall out of S. Maximus To this M. Andrews saith E Maximo si tamen Maximus is Taurinensis c. The Cardinall obiecteth out of Maximus if neuerthelesse this was Maximus of Turin and not some other later then he if also in the tyme of Maximus Sermons were purposely made of the Apostles as no doubt there were in the age after Petro totius Ecclesiae gubernacula tradita c. the gouerment of the whole Church was giuen to Peter But did euer any man thinke that the gouerment of any particuler Church was giuen him except you who gaue him the gouerment of the Roman Church as though the same were not part of the whole after you haue giuen him the gouerment of the whole So he very mystically as he is wont yet seeming to graunt for ought I see that Peter had the gouerment of the whole Church which is the same â—â—at the Cardinall teacheth and seeketh to proue by this place 13. But perhaps he will fly heere to his old shift to wit that though Peter had the gouerment of the whole Church yet he had it no otherwise then the rest of the Apostles had Concerning which point I haue treated so amply before that it were needles to repeat it heere especially seeing that he seeketh no such euasion in this place but seemeth to graunt as much as we demand and only carpeth at vs for giuing to Peter the gouerment of the particuler Church of Rome after we haue giuen him the gouerment of the whole For so he saith which truly is a fine conceipt and right worthy of M. Andrews enigmaticall and phantasticall braine who loueth to walk in mysts and cloudes to the end it may be vncertayne what he affirmeth or what he denyeth as for example he graunteth heere or at least seemeth to graunt the doctrine of S. Maximus which is that Christ gaue the gouerment of the whole Church to S. Peter and yet presently after he seemeth to call the same in question againe affirming that we haue giuen him the gouerment as well of the whole Church of God as of the particuler Church of Rome saying Romanae vestrae traditis
acknowledged by all men to be S. Chrysostomes works So that there is no doubt but that the words alledged by the Cardinall are S. Chrysostomes and do correspond to the Greeke text word for word in which respect the testimony caÌ„not be auoyded and shifted of by M. Andrews as eyther corrupt or counterfait 50. And this as it seemeth he knew well inough and therefore deuysed another shift seeming to admit that S. Chrysostome doth say so and yet denying that it maketh for vs. For non quid fecerit sayth he tum aliquis sed quid ex Patrum statuto fecerit c The King demandeth not what some man did then but what he did according to the decree of the Fathers and what at that tyme the Fathers decreed concerning this poynt Where an act or deed only is declared no decree related is a voluntary act as of a matter of free deuotion and not as of a thing necessary to saluation which neuertheles the Cardinall vndertooke to proue Thus farre M. Andrewes turning and wynding as you see to fynd some starting hole if it were possible though he be catcht so fast that he cannot escape away For wheras he flyeth to his former shift of demanding some decree of the Fathers and reiecting their testimony of facts he notably discouereth the weakenes of his cause 51. For as I signifyed before vpon the occasion of the selfe same answere which he made to a place of S. Basil there was not any sufficient occasion why the Fathers of the Greek Church should make any Synodicall decree at that tyme concerning prayer to Saynts seeing that there was no question of it among them but a generall custome and practise thereof euery where as I partly shewed by the testimony of S. Basil the same may be clearly euinced euen by this place of S. Chrysostome especially if we consider what followeth immediatly the words alledged by the Cardinall and me For S. Chrysostome hauing sayd as you haue heard that he which was clad with purple meaning the Emperour stood praying to the Saynts at their tombes that he which weareth the diâ—deme doth pray to the tent-maker and the fisher as his Patrons and protectours addeth Therefore darest thou be so bold to say that their Lord or Mayster is dead whose seruants euen when they are dead are the protâ—ctors of the Kings of the world And this is not only seene at Rome but also at Constantinople for euen here the Sonne of Constantine the Great thought his father to be much honoured if his body were layd before the Gates of the Fisher. Thus sayth S. Chrysostome with much more to the same purpose which I omit 52. For by this it appeareth sufficiently first that the custome and practise of prayer to Saynts was vniuersall I meane both in the Latin and in the Greeke Church in the tyme of S. Chrysostome which he signifyeth expressely by naming the two principall Cittyes and Imperiall Seates to wit Rome and Constantinople where the same was in vre Secondly it appeareth that it was not practised only by some obscure person as M. Andrews seemeth to insinuate when he sayth that the question is not quid aliquis tum fecerit what some man did then but that it was the custome of most worthy and remarkable persons to wit the most Christian and Catholyke Emperours themselues Thirdly it is euident by this place that S. Chrysostome hyghly approued this custome and belieued it to be most necessary and conforme to the Christian and Catholyke verity seing he doth notably vrge and exaggerate the same for the instruction and edificatioÌ„ of the people to shew vnto them not only the great dignity and glory of Gods seruants and Saynts but also the Omnipotent power and diuinity of our Sauiour Christ. 53. Whereupon it also followeth that M. Andrewes and others who deny this article of Catholike religion do deny a notable argument of Christs Diuinity And therefore whereas he contemneth such a fact as this of most Christian worthy Emperours so testifyed approued and vrged by S. Chrysostome as you haue heard to proue that Christ is God it is cleare that he coÌ„demneth the practise beliefe of the Catholyke Church of that age yea and if by the decrees of the Fathers which he demandeth he meaneth their expresse and cleare doctrine deliuered in their workes he condemneth also the decree of S. Chrysostome touching the same And whereas he addeth for the conclusion of this poynt that this fact related by S. Chrysostome was but an act of voluntary deuotion and not of a thing necessary to saluation which he sayth the Cardinall vndertooke to proue he tryfleth notably for neyther doth the Cardinall vndertake to proue any such thing neyther is it materiall for the question in hand whether it be of necessity to saluation or no. 54. The Cardinall vndertooke only to proue that the doctrine of the Protestans reiecting prayer to Saynts is not the faith of the old primitiue Church which he promiseth to proue by the testimony of the Fathers of the first 400. or 500. yeares as it appeareth expressely by his owne words Soquitur saith he vt ostendamus fidem c. It followeth that we shew the faith which the King defends not to be the faith of the old and primitiue Church c. And agayne a litle after hauing signifyed that his Maiesty in his preface admitteth the 3. Creeds the 4. first Generall Councells and the vniforme doctrine of the Fathers of the first 400. or as it is in the English copy 500. yeares he declareth that amongst other poynts of Catholike religion his Maiesty condemneth Prayer to Saynts and the veneration of Reliques as superstitious Whereupon the Cardinall sayth Accipiam Intercessionem Sanctorum c. I will take in hand the intercession of Saynts with the veneration of reliques which if I can shew to be approued by an vnanime consent of the Fathers of the first 400. or 500. yeares I shall withall proue that the King of Englands fayth is not the fayth of the old primitiue Church but the deuyses heresies of late innouatours Thus saith the Cardinall without touching any way the question whether prayer to Saynts be necessary to saluation which as I haue sayd litle importeth for the decision of the controuersy whether the primitiue Church held it to be lawfull or no. 55. For there is no doubt but that many things are and may be lawfull yea very coÌ„mendable and behoouefull to saluation though they are not of such necessity but that a man may in some cases be saued without them as for example the Euangelicall Counsayles and many workes of supererogation as almes fasting and such lyke which consist in acts of voluntary deuotion are conuenient and notable helps though not absolutly necessary to euery mans saluatioÌ„ And therefore albeit his Maiesty seemeth not to bynd himselfe further to admit the vniforme consent of
no man can doubt but that those Fathers did therein exercise acts of pure deuotion as you see S. Gregory Nyssen did according to the beliefe and practice of the whole Church at that tyme which is euident by the testimonyes that you haue heard already and wil be much more manifest by those that yet rest to be examined And this shall suffice for this poynt 16. The next place that he taketh in hand to answere is one of S. Ambrose in these words Obsecrandi sunt Angeli c. The Angels which are giuen vs for Guardians and defenders are to be prayed vnto and the Martyrs in lyke manner whose protection we seeme to challenge by hauing their bodyes in pledge they may pray for our sinnes who with their owne bloud haue washed away their owne sinnes if they had any 〈◊〉 saith S. Ambrose Whereto M. Andrewes answereth that the Cardinall might very well haue forborne to produce this place and not haue cyted it so greedily as he hath donne but that he litle careth saith he as it seemeth that the bloud of Christ should be held for superfluous rather then he would not pray to Saynts for superfluus certè sanguis Christi c. truly the bloud of Christ is superfluous if Martyrs can wash away their sinnes with their owne bloud So he 17. Wherevpon he also inferreth that the Reader may preceiue heereby that Ambrose wrote this when he was but a Nouice in Chistian religion and that it is no meruaile if he sayd that Martyrs are to be prayed vnto seeing he teachethâ— that they haue washt their sinnes with their owne bloud Wherein appeareth the modesty of M. Andrews and his good spirit who rather then he will acknowledge his owne errour which is euidently conuinced by this place chargeth this holy Father with the most execrable and blasphemous doctrine that can be imagined as to teach that the bloud of Christ is superfluous which any Christian hart would abbore to heare and much more to hold and teach seeing that it must needs follow thereupon that all Christian religion and beliefe is in vayne being all grounded vpon the merits of Christs Passion and his precious bloud shed for vs. 18. And truly if S. Ambrose may be charged with this blasphemous opinion for the cause which M. Andrewes alledgeth then all the Fathers of Gods Church yea the Apostles themselues may in lyke manner be charged therewith For all of them say as much in effect as S. Ambrose doth which also may by some peruerse and hereticall â—rayne be wrested to the same peruerse sense albeit to those who do consider the grounds of their doctrine and beliefe the contrary is euident For who knoweth not if malice do not blynd-fold and wholy peruert his vnderstanding that when in the holy Scriptures and Fathers any merit sufficiency or cooperatioÌ„ to saluation is attributed to a man or to his fayth works or any endeauour of his the same is vnderstood to proceed principally from the merits of Christs Passion which is the cause ground and foundation of all grace goodnes and merit in man and therefore is alwayes supposed and necessarily vnderstood in all such manner of speach as this of S. Ambrose though it be not expressed 19. As when we read in S. Gregory Nazianzen that certayne Christian souldiars hauing committed Idolatry exhorted one another vt Christo satisfacerent sanguine suo to satisfy Christ with their bloud and in S. Cyprian omnia peccata passione purgare to purge all sinnes by passion or suffering And agayne in another place redimere peccata c. to redeeme sinnes with iust sorrow and satisfaction and to wassh the wounds of sinne with teares Also in the same Father Deo precibus operibus satisfaccre to satisfy God with prayers and workes and sordes eleemosynis abluere to wash away the filth of sinne with almes And in Origen Poenitendo flendo satisfaciendo delere quod admissum est to abolish or blot out that which hath byn committed with repentance weeping and satisfaction Also in Tertullian that the sinner hath cui satisfaciat to whome he may giue satisfaction and that God doth offer vs impunitatem poenitentiae compensatione redimendam impunity or remission of punishment to be redeemed with the recompence of pennance 20. We read also in Irenaeus that our goods or substance being giuen to the poore solutionem faciunt praeteritae cupiditatis do cause solution or remission of our former couetousnes Also in S. Augustine that for daily and light sinnes quotidiana oratio fidelium satisfacit the daily prayer of the faythfull doth satisfy And in S. Hilary that Dauid facti veteris crimen lacrymis abluit Dauid washt away the fault of his old deed with teares In S. Chrysostome that S. Peter adeo abluit negationem c. did so wash away his denyall of Christ with his teares or repentance that he was made the chiefe Apostle And agayne in the same Oration Vna anima quam lucrati fuerimus c. One soule which we haue gayned may abolish the wayght of innumerable sinnes animaeque redimendâ— fieri precium in illo die and become a price to redeeme our soule in the day of iudgement Finally to omit innumerable other places of the rest of the Fathers S. Gregory the great teacheth that peccata delenda sunt austeritate poenitentiae sinnes are to be blotted out with the austerity of peÌ„nance and the possunt satisfactione purgari they may be purged with satisfaction Thus say these holy Fathers 21. And now will M. Andrews charge them all to teach that the bloud of Christ is superfluous because they speake of mens satisfaction for sinne by washing the same with teares and by purging and redeeming them with almes peÌ„nance and Martyrdome without mention of Christs satisfaction for vs May he not take the lyke exception also to diuers speaches in the holy Scripture as peccatuÌ„ tuum eleemosynis redime redeeme thy sinne with almes misericordia veritate redimitur iniquitas iniquity is redeemed with mercy verityâ— spesalui facti sumus we are saued by hope baptisma vos saluos facit baptisme saueth you saluos nos fecit per lauachrum regenerationis he hath saued vs by the water of regeneratioÌ„ operamini salutem work your saluation and the lyke in diuers other places may he not I say cauill as well agaynst these speaches as agaynst the other in S. Ambrose Yes truly 22. For the reason is all one in both it being euident that the merit of Christs precious blood and death is presupposed and necessarily vnderstood as well in the one as in the other and as Baptisme and Hope are speciall meanes to apply vnto vs the merits of Christs passion in which respect they are sayd in the Scripture to saue vs so also teares of repentance pennance almes good workes and Martyrdome wherof S.
the same is to be extended to the new law As well may he say that we are bound to obserue the whole law and so proue himselfe a Iew euacuate the law of Christ as Saynt Paul argueth against those that mayntained the vse of CircuÌ„cisioÌ„ togeather with the faith of Christ. 27. Neuertheles I say not this to exclude all manner of arguments or inferences drawne from the old law to the new that the same remayne within the limits of probability as from the figure to the verity which admitteth many limitations and exceptions but to exclude the obligation of all precepts eyther ceremoniall or Iudiciall which do not in any sort bynd vs now as I haue shewed in the first Chapter of this Adioynder And therefore whereas M. Andrews sayth heere cùm praeceptum acceperimus in lege disertis verbis c. seeing we haue receiued a precept in the law in expresse words c. I say to him that seeing this precept did vndoutedly belong to the ceremoniall law and concerned only the manner of worship to be done to God by Sacrifice he sheweth himselfe a flat Iew in saying that we Christians haue receiued this precept in the law 28. Furthermore he is to vnderstand that albeit we should grant that nothing can be practiced or taught in the new law without some precept or doctrine thereof deliuered by our Sauiour Christ vnto his Church yet he could gayne nothing thereby except he could also proue that all our Sauiours precepts and doctrine are expressely set downe in Scripture which neyther he nor any of his fellowes haue byn able yet to proue or euer shal be it being euident that our Sauiour neyther commanded any thing at all to be written but to be preached and taught saying praedicate euangelium c. preach the gospell to euery Creature and againe docete omnes gentes c. teach all Nations baptizing them c. neyther did the Apostles eyther write any thing of diuers yeares after Christ Ascension or when they wrote deliuer all Christs doctrine and their owne by writing but very many things by tradition in which respect the Apostle himselfe saith tenete traditiones quas accepistis siue per sermonem siue per. Epistolam nostram hold the traditions which you haue receiued eyther by word or by our Epistle by which words of the Apostle the ancient Fathers namely S. Chrysostome S. Epiphanius S. Basil S. Iohn Damascen Oecumenius Theophilactus and the 8. Generall Councell do proue the necessary vse of vnwritten traditions in the Church and amongst the rest S. Chrysostome saith hinc patet c. heereby it is mâ—nifest that the Apostles did not deliuer all things by Epistle but many things without writing eadem fide digna sunt tam illa quà m ista as well those things as these are worthy of the same credit 29. For this cause S. Augustine giueth this generall rule that whatsoeuer the whole Church retayneth whereof the beginning cannot be deduced eyther from the Scriptures or Generall Councells or some later institution the same was vndoutedly deliuered by the Apostles and this he vrgeth very often as a most assured ground and principle agaynst the Donatists and for the same reason not only he but also all other Fathers teach that the generall custome of the Church is an infallible and euident proofe of the truth in any controuersy in so much that he affirmeth it to be insolentissimae insaniae a poynt of most insolent madnes to dispute or doubt of it as I haue declared in the last Chapter which I wish M. Andrews well to obserue as also the other testimonyes of the ancient Fathers produced there concerning this poynt 30. Now then hereupon I conclude two things the one that M. Andrews who as he sayth dare do nothing without a written precept may lay away his scruple in matters that are generally practised by the Church the other that seeing it is euident by these testimonyes of so many holy and learned Fathers as haue byn heere alledged that the whole Church in their dayes practized prayer to Saynts as a thing most beneficiall to men and honorable to God and that they acknowledged the euident and miraculous benefits that grew to men thereby yea vrged the same agaynst the very Gentills and Paynims as inuincible arguments of the diuinity of Christ and of the verity of Christian religion and seeing also that this practice custome and beliefe was then generall when Christian religion most florished I meane in the tyme of the 4. first generall Councells and when the Church abounded most with famous Doctors Pastors and Fathers it must needs be graunted that the doctrine of prayer to Saynts is an irrefragable verity and that according to S. Augustines censure it is no lesse then insolent madnes in M. Andrewes to call it in question and much more to impugne it with such friuolous reasons as he doth and especially with a ceremoniall precept of the Mosaycall law as if he were a Iew and not a Christian seeing that he acknowledgeth himselfe to haue receiued a precept thereby disertis verbis in expresse words which I thinke no good Christian will say of any precept belonging to the ceremoniall or Iudiciall law 31. But M. Andrews goeth yet further and exacteth at least some example of it in the Scripture if there be no precept whereto S. Augustine answereth sufficiently when he sayth to a Donatist who made the lyke demaund about the rebaptization of such as were baptized by heretykes that seeing there is no example or expresse mention of it in Scripture and that Christ hath clearly and expresly recommended vnto vs the authority of his vniuersall Church dispersed thoughout the world the testimony and custome of that Church is to be admitted and imbraced and whosoeuer reiecteth or resisteth the same doth most perniciously resist our Sauiour himselfe against his owne saluation Thus sayth S. Augustine in substance though much more amply who also speaking elswhere of the same point giueth this notable and generall rule that for as much as the holy Scripture doth vndoubtedly recommend vnto vs the authority of the Church etiam in hac re à nobis tenetur Scripturarum veritas c. the veriâ—y of Scripture is retayned by vs in this point when we do that which hath already pleased the whole Church So he And so say I to M. Andrews in this our case to wit that seeing it is euident by the testimony of all antiquity that the inuocation of Saynts was generally admitted and practised by the Primitiue Church and from thence hath descended to our tyme there needeth no example of it in Scripture because the authority of the Church which the Scriptures do expressely recommend vnto vs sufficeth to warrant the same 32. And truly it may seeme strange that M. Andrews or any of his fellowes of the English Clergy do
conclude this Chapter and matter not doubtingâ— good Reader but thou hast noted throughout the whole that he hath neyther sufficieÌ„tly answered any one place of the Fathers alledged by the Cardinall or any argument of his neyther yet hath obiected any thing himselfe to any purpose but hath eyther notably tryfled and paltred in his answeres and obiections or egregiously peruerted corupted or falsifyed such Fathers and authors as he hath had occasion to alledge 76. So as I hope I haue now performed that which I vndertooke in these 3. Chapters which was to defend the Cardinall and to proue M. Andrews to be a true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an egregious wrangler iangler iuggler and tryfler in the hyghest degree and by the same occasion I haue also fully debated with him an important point of Catholike religion concerning the inuocation of Saynts which I haue euidently proued to be most consonant to holy Scripture practised by the primitiue Church approued by the vniforme consent of the ancieÌ„t Fathers most acceptable to God honorable to him and his Saynts and finally very behouefull and beneficiall to man Whereby it may appeare that M. Andrews and his fellowes who so eagerly impugne it are no other then the instruments and proctors of the Diuell who out of his extreme malice and enuy to Angels Saynts and all mankind seeketh by all the meanes he may to depriue the Angels and Saynts of their honour and man of the inestimable benefits that he may reape both spiritually and temporally by their intercession to which purpose he hath retayned and feyed M. Andrews as it seemeth by his diligent and eloquent pleading the cause and will I feare me one day pay him his fee in other money then he wil be willing to receaue except he open his eyes in tyme to see his danger which I beseech God of his infinit mercy to giue him grace to do THE CONCLVSION OF THIS ADIOYNDER DEVIDED INTO TWO CHAPTERS IN THIS are detected diuers fraudes and shifts common to M. Andrews with M. Barlow as to change the state of the question to dissemble that which most importeth in the Cardinalls text and arguments to abuse wrest bely and falsefy not only the Cardinall but also the ancient Fathers Councells and holy Scriptures and finally to face out matters impudeÌ„tly for lack of proofs CHAP. IX THERE remaine good Reader diuers other thinges in M. Andrews to be examined which I haue touched in my Supplement but being now called on by my printer to furnish his presse I am forced not only to send away that which I haue already written but also to interrupt my designement in the prosecution of the rest and therefore for as much as I am now to draw to an end I think good for the conclusion of the whole to lay before thee sundrie sorts of shifts cosenages corruptions frauds which he hath vsed throughout his whole worke and to the end I may performe it with more breuity and better method I will follow the same course that I held with M. Barlow That is draw them to certaine â—eades and giue thee some few examples of euery one which being added to those that haue already occurred in this Adioynder may suffice I hope to shew â—hee with what kind of stuffe he hath patched vp his Latin volume what a miserable cause he and his fellowes haue to defend seing it driueth them to such shamefull shifts as thou hast partly seene already and shalt further see by that which ensueth 2. The first point which I reproued in M. Barlow was his coÌ„mon custome to change the state of the question and so to answere nothing to the purpose which is no lesse frequent and ordinarie in M. Andrews as for example whereas the true state of the controuersy betwixt vs and them concerning the primacy of the Pope is Whether he be supreme head of the Church in all spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes and may in some cases extend his power to temporall thinges that is to say Whether being the supreme spirituall Pastor he may for the publik benefit of the Church and the good of soules punish his disobedient children namely temporall Princes in their temporall states which I haue shewed in my Supplement to be a necessary consequent of his supreme spirituall power M. Andrews will needes make vs hould and teach that the Popes primacy is a temporall primacy in which respect he calleth our doctrine and beliefe touching that point illustrem fidei articulum de Primatu Petri temporali The notable Article of Faith concerning the temporall Primacy of Peter and as you heard before distinguishing the name of Peters primacy which he granteth from the thing signified by that name which he denyeth he tearmeth it terrestrem Monarchiam an earthly Monarchy and therefore he vrgeth the Cardinall to proue this temporall primacy and earthly Monarchy and so impugneth no opinion of ours nor any thing els but his owne fond fiction as I haue shewed before and more amply in the first Chapter of this Adioynder and therfore I shall not need to stand any longer vpon this point heere but will passe to another 3. Amongst other questions much controuersed concerning good works one is whether there be any works of supererogation which the Catholyks vnderstand to be such as being lawfull and good of their owne nature are not commanded by any precept as for example the Euangelicall Councells in which sense Cardinall Bellarmine and all other Catholikes do vse the word supererogation as signifying a work done supra praeceptum that is to say more then the precept coÌ„mandeth But M. Andrewes impugneth it in another sense and so changeth the state of the question For he will needs haue workes of Supererogation to be such good works only as are done after or besids the full accomplishment of the Commandment so that before a man can do a worke of supererogation he must fullfill and fully obserue all the precepts whereupon he also inferreth that no man can do any such works no not the Apostles themselues because they could not fullfill the Commandments hauing allwayes occasion to to say Dimitte nobis debita nostra forgiue vs Lord our offences 4. Wherein M. Andrews expressely impugneth not so much the Cardinall and other Catholiks as S. Augustine and other ancient Fathers from whome they take both the terme and the sense thereof For whereas our Sauiour saith in the Ghospell that the good Samaritan brought the wounded man into the Inne and leauing two pence with the Host told him quodcumque supererogaueris reddam tibi whatsoeuer thou shalt lay out more I will render it vnto thee S. Augustine alluding to the same place and words of our Sauiour teacheth euidently that those things which are lawfull id est sayth he nullo praecepto Domini prohibentur that is to say which are not forbidden by any precept of our Lord
also in the same tyme treating of the perfection of Religious men and hauing said that inestimable glory in heauen is promised them yf they keep their Rules and most grieuous paines prepared for them if they neglect them concludeth Meliusest enim c. For it is better according to the sentence of the Scripture not to vow then to vow and not to performe it Thus saith Cassianus to whome I might add many other witnesses but that it is needlesse seing these may suffice to shew M. Andrews allowing as he doth the Instituts of the Monks of the primitiue Church must needes admit allow religious vowes of Pouerty Chastity Obedience whereto all Religious men are and euer haue bene bound by their Institutes 24. So as it is cleare by all this that in this one point he hath graunted diuers important points of Catholike religion yea and vtterly condemned his owne which denyeth and impugneth all those things practised in Monasticall lyfe according to the first Institutes thereof Besides that it also followeth theroÌ„ that his religion is vtterly voyd of all christian perfection which specially consisteth in the true imitation of Christs lyfe by the obseruation of the Euangelicall Counsells professed and practised in Religious discipline for which cause all the Ancient Fathers placed the highest perfection of christian Religion therein as I haue euidently shewed in any Supplement by the clear testimonies of S. Dionysius Areopagita Eusebius S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Basil S. Chrisostome S. Hierome S. Augustin Sozomenus S. Bernard 25. Therefore it litle importeth for the matter in hand what he iangleth against Monkes for put the case it were true that they were all degenerated from their first institute as it is most false and affirmed by him without any proofe and therfore to be answered with a bare deniall yet it suffiseth for the proofe of that which I haue heere vndertaken that the sayd institut consisted in the practise of many notable and important points of Catholike religion and that he hath by an euident consequent granted and approued the said points together with the institut against the curreÌ„t of the doctrine and profession of all his fellowes in which respect I shall not need to trouble thee good Reader with any answere to the rest of his impertineÌ„t discourse and namely to his friuolous stale obiection concerning the idlenes of Monkes answered fully long since by dyuers Catholiks and namely by Cardinall Bellarmine in his Controuersies whereto I remit him because I am forced to hast to an end for otherwise truly I would not only say somewhat therto but also I would examine and debate with him 2. or 3. other points which he toucheth and especially what was the true cause why monasticall profession was first abrogated amongst the Protestants and why they pretending to reforme the Church in these our dayes did rather quite abolish the institute of Monks theÌ„ seeke to restore it to the first integrity if it were good at the first and only fallen to decay and corruption as he signifieth 26. For whereas he seemeth to giue two causes thereof the one that Monkes were growne to be idle and the other that their idlenes was turned to licentiousnes if that were true those reformers should rather haue sought to redresse the abuse and to reduce the Monkes to their first rules then to antiquate the whole Institute which being grounded vpon the holy Scriptures the expresse Counsels of our Sauiour and the example of his lyfe was ordeyned by the Apostles as I haue shewed in my Supplement and doth conteyn in it all true Christian perfection according to the opinion of all the Fathers in which respect it could not by any humane authority be lawfully abrogated and taken quite out of the Church Besides that it is euident that the Ringleaders in that pretended reformation I meane Luther Oecolâ—mpadius Bucer Peter Martyr Ochinus Michonius Menius Musculus Pelicanus Pomeranus and Munsterus being all of them Votaries that is to say Monkes Fryars and religious men abolished the Institutes of monasticall lyfe only because they themselues were so transported with the fury of lust and sensuality that they could no longer indure the restraint therof in religious discipline 27. And therefore they resolued not only to teach most beastly and fleshly doctrine tending to all liberty of the flesh as that it is no more possible to liue chast then to liue without meate That if the wyfe will not come let the maid come That Poligamy or the hauing of many wiues at once is not forbidden in the new law Yea and that it is not lawfull for a man to pray for the guift of Chastity except he surely know that God will giue it him They resolued I say not only to teach this beastly and Mahometicall doctrine but also to incite men therto by their examples euen with the damnable breach of their owne vowes habentes damnationem quia primam fidem irritam fecerunt hauing damnation because they broke their first faith as S. Paul said of the yong widdowes who after their vowes of chastity had but only a wil and desire to marry wheras these deformers hauing bound themselues both to Chastity and Monasticall lyfe by solemne vowe abandoned both the one and the other and as S. Basil saith of such did seek to couer stupri scelus honesto coÌ„iugij nomine the wickednes of whordome with the honest name of Marriage most of them taking harlots vnder the name of wiues 28. So as M. Andrewes may see who were indeed those Locusts whose slothfull idlenes turning to a froath of licencious lyfe destroyed monasticall perfection and profession amongst the Prostestants to wit the very first Apostles and Euangelists of their Ghospell I meane the votaries aboue named and other such of their humour and crew who being weary of the seuerity of Monasticall discipline became Apostata's and renegats and the better to cloake and excuse their owne Apostasy not only sought to abrogate all monasticall discipline but did also set abroach the new doctrine which M. Andrewes and all other Protestants now professe and therefore it is easie to iudg what good fruit such bad trees could yield and consequently from what spirit as well the abrogation of monasticall profession amongst the Protestants as their whole doctrine proceedeth And thus much for this point 29. The Cardinall to proue that the name Catholike doth most properly belong to them that liue in the vnitie and obedience of the Roman Church alleageth S. Ambrose who hauing declared that his brother Satyrus being by shipwrack cast vpon a coast where there were many Schismatiks called LuciferiaÌ„s asked the Bishop of the place whether he did agree with the Catholike Bishops and explicated the same presently saying id est an cum Romana Ecclesia consentiret that is to say whether he agreed with the Roman Church whereto M. Andrewes answereth that Ambrose
effect Pope Leo's intercession had Leo. ep 68. The Emperour made suite to Pope Leo for Anatolius Idem ep 70. ad Martian Leo. ep 71. ad Anatol. Anatolius his submission to Pope Leo A manifest and sound lye of M. Andrews Pope Leo his supreme authority proued by the ouerthrow of the Canon alledged by M. Andrews Apol. Bellar. pag. 92. Concil Calced Act. 3. The name of Vniuersall Bishop giuen to the Pope by the generall Councell of Calcedon Andr. pag. 170. §. Quod ibi M. Andrews his tryfling answers M. Andrews hardly vrged Bellar. Apol. vbi supra Relat. Synodi ad Leon. in fine CoÌ„cilij Andr. vbi supra A weake and idle answere of M. Andrews Card. Apolog vbi supra Relat. Synodi ad Leon. Andr. vbi supra See cap. 1. nu 3.4.5 sequent Relat. Synodi ad Leon. A cleere testimony for Pope Leo's supremacy Liberat. in Breuiar cap. 12. Andr. vbi supra p. 171. Andr. vbi supra Apolog. C. Bellar. pag. 92. Andr. vbi supra A strange paradoxe of M. Andrews (b) See Supplem c. 4. nu 3.4.5 6. (c) Ibid. nu 7.8 Andr. cap. 8. pag. 219. Hieron li. 1. cont Iouin (d) Chap. 3. nu 37. seq Pastors are more bound to haue care of the Church then priuate men Ep. Theodoâ—â—j ad Synod Ephesin To. 1. Concil To. 4. Concil in 8. Concil general ex act 6. Suppl cap. 1. nu 112. 113. Act. â—â— 1. Cor. 12. Rom. 12. Pastours bound more then other men to haue care of the Church according to the doctrine of the Apostle Apoc. 2. M. Andrews galli-maufrey or hotch-potch M. Andrews teacheth seditious doctrine Equality of obligation requireth equality of care Isa. 32. If M. Andrews his position be true he must lay away his tytle of Lord Bishop Andr. cap. 7. pag. 171. M. Andrews corrupteth the text of the Councel of Calcedon M Andrews groundeth his arguments vpon his owne fraud Act. 15. caâ— 28. A silly collection of M. Andrews A difference to be noted betwixt the primacy of S. Peter and the priuiledgs granted to the Roman Sea Why those which penned the CanoÌ„ alledged by M. Andrews made no mention of the keys and Pastorall commissioÌ„ giuen to S. Peter M. Andrews his fraud in alledging the Canon Andr. vbi supra Can. 28. M. Andrews streyneth the Greek text to make it serue his turne Andr. pag. 171. A very false and foolish conclusioÌ„ of M. Andrews Andr. vbi supra Wisely forsooth The CanoÌ„ alledged by M. Andrews ouerthroweth his causeâ— Concil Lateran sub Innocent 3. cap. 5. See before from num 1â— to nu 24. Relatio Synod ad Leo. The CouÌ„â—ell of Calcedon acknowledged Pope Leo's supreâ—acy See before nu 45. 4â— Ibidem The CouÌ„cell ascrybed their determination of matters of fayth to the authority of Pope Leo (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How effectually clearly the Councell of Calcedon acknowledged Pope Leo's supremacy in their generall letter to him (d) See bâ—fore from nu 29. to nu 39. Other proofes that Popâ— Leo's supremacy was acknowledged by the CouÌ„cel of Calcedoâ—â— Act. 2â— Acâ— â— Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria deposed by Pope Leo. Three things to be noted in the depositioÌ„ of Dioscorus prouing Pope Leo's supremacy Concilâ— Calced Act. â— Ep. Theodor ad Leonem Theodoretus restored to his Bishoprike by Pope Lâ—o. Pope Leo was vndoubtedly the head and president of the CouÌ„cell Caluin confuted coÌ„cerning the cause why Pope Leo was president of the Councell Pope Leo head of the CouÌ„cel of CalcedoÌ„ in respect of his supreme authority ouer the whole Church What a seared coÌ„science M. Andrewâ— hath Suppl cap. 4. nu 3. 4. Apol. Card. Bel. cap. 8. p. 125. CypriaÌ„ de vnit Eccles. Idem ep ad Quintum Andr. Resp. cap. 8. pag. 217. â—in penult M. Andrews graue discourse in answere to the Cardinall The drift and meaning of S. Cyprian Cyprian vbi supra Matth. 1.6 Ioan. 21. Ibid. 20. S. CypriaÌ„ proueth the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head thereof Idem ep ad Iubaian Ibid. A foolish glosse of M. Andrews vpon the text of S. Cyprian Andr. vbi supra pag. 218. lin 2. How S. Peter might be called the light of the Church Matth. 5. Ioan. 11. The vinity of the Church notably proued and deduced by S. Cyprian from the vnity of the Head Why the Church is called one Mother M. Andrews fraudulent in his lame allegation of S. Cyprian S. Cypr. ep ad Quint. Card. Bellar Apolo c. 8. p. 125. Andr. cap. 8. pag. 218. A shifting answere of M. Andrews falsely charging the Cardinall with fraud The Primacy of S. Peter is notably proued by those words of S. CypriaÌ„ which M. Andrews sayth the Cardinall frauduleÌ„tly left out Bellar. dâ— Romano Pout l. â— cap. 25. S. CypriaÌ„ cleerly explicated by the Card. out of S. Augustine S. Peter being head of the Apostles suffered himselfe to be reprehended by S. Paul Bellarmine cleared from M. Andrews imputatioâ— How a man may speake of his owne authority insolently and yet truly Andr. vâ—â— supr How S. Peter is tearmed the foundation of the Church by S. Cyprian 1. Cor. 3. Isa. 28. (c) See after nu 24.25 2â— A bad inference of M. Andrews about twelue heads Apoc. 24. A politicall or mysticall body may haue many heads subordinat to one head M. Andrews so wryteth as he doth much help his Aduersaryes cause Card. Bellar Apol. c. 8. pag. 126 Hierom. l. â— aduers. Iouinian Touching the place of S. Hierome Supple c. 4. nu 3. Andr. vbi supra pag. 219. §. Hieronymus M. Andrews bad glosse vpoÌ„ S. Hieroms text Supra nu 15. The Cardinal falsely charged by M. Andrewâ— with fraâ—d in the citaâ—ion of S. Hierome Psal. 86. Apocal. 21. Ephes. â— Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 11. How the Church according to Cardinal Bellarmine is buylt equally vpoÌ„ all the Apostles See after nu â—6 sequ M. Andrewes calumniateth Bellarmine M. Andrews second charge against the Cardinall touching Iouinianisme refuted and retortedâ— S Hier. li. 1. contra Iouinian Why S. Peter was preferred by our Sauiour to the supremacy before S. Ioâ—n S. Hier. in 16. cap. Matth. S. Peterâ— supremacy acknowledged by S. Hierome and grouÌ„ded vpon our Sauiours ownâ— wordâ— Idem ep aâ— Marcellaâ—â— ep 54. Ibid. ep 5â— Li. 1. contra Iouiâ— (d) See before nu 4.5 sequeÌ„t See before cap. 2. nu 76. Bellar. de Rom. Pontif l. 1. c. 10. How shameles M. Andrews is to charge the Cardinall with Iouinianisme which he himselfe professeth except he dissent froÌ„ his fellows of the English clergy Ambros. ep li. 1. ep 6. 7. Hieronym contra Iouinian Aug. li. de bono coniug de virginit Idem Retract lib. 42. cap. 22. 23. Idem de haeres ad Quoduulâ— haer 82. Aug. vbi sup Ser. 191. de temp Idem de haeres haer 82. Bellar de notis Eccles l. 4. cap. 9.