with the Church of Rome addeth presently for the explication thereof vt Ponticae Asâ—anae Thraciae Dioecesis Metropolitani c. That the Metropolitans of Pontus Asia Thracia and also the Bishopps of the same Diocesse amongst the Barbarous so were all called that were no Graecians should be ordayned by the Bishops of Constantinople 8. So sayth the Canon giuing to vnderstand that whereas the Church of Constantinople had bene in times past but a priuate Bishoprick subiect to Heraclea it should hereafter be not only a Metropolitan but also a Patriarchall Sea and haue Metropolitans vnder it yea and that as the Church of Rome was the chiefe Church of the West so also the Church of Constantinople being now made the second after Rome should be the chief Church of the East preferred before the Patriarchall Seas of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem yet with this euident exception and reseruation that neuerthelesse it should be still inferiour to the Roman Sea being the second after it that is to say it should haue the same place and priuiledge that the Church of Alexandria had in former times which though it was the chief Church of the East the secoÌ„d after Rome yet was alwayes inferiour subiect thereto as it is euident by the appeale of the famous Athanasius Bishop of that Sea to Pope Iulius the first of that name aboue an huÌ„dreth yeares before the CouÌ„cel of CalcedoÌ„ 9. Therfore the preheminence which the Church of CoÌ„stantinople was to haue by this Canon was to be preferred before the Churches of Alexandria Antioch and the equality that it was to haue with Rome was no other but to be a Patriarchall Sea and head of all the Patriarchall and Metropolitan Churches of the East as Rome was in the West yet with reseruatioÌ„ of the right of Primacy due to the Roman Sea Besides that it is to be noted that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in our latin Copies is translated aequalis doth signify also similis lyke not only in prophane Authors as euery maÌ„ may see in the Thesaurus of Henricê° Stephanê° but also in diuers places of holy Scripture both in the old new TestameÌ„t And he that list to see more to this purpose may read the Paralel of Tortus his Tortor writteÌ„ against M. D. Andrews by the ReuereÌ„d Learned Father Androas Eudaemon-Ioannes who hath sufficiently handled and explicated this point and hath also produced a cleare testimony out of Theodorus Balsamon a very learned Grecian and Patriarch of Antioch to proue that the mention of paria priuilegia equall priuiledges graÌ„ted to the Church of CoÌ„stantinople in the CouÌ„cell of CalcedoÌ„ doth not any way derogate from the supreme dignity of the RomaÌ„ Sea 10. Whereto I also add that the word aequalis in the Scripture doth not alwayes signify a true and iust Equality in all respects but somtymes also an Equality in a certayne proportion as in the Apostle to the Corinthians who exhorteth them to supply the temporall wants and necessityes of the poore with their store and aboundance vt fiat aequalitas sayth he that there may be an equality meaning an equality in a certayne similitude and proportion as it appeareth by that which he addeth for the further explication therof saying sicut scriptum est qui muliùm non abundauit qui modicum non minorauit as it is written he which gathered much had no more then was necessary for him and he that gathered litle had no less So sayth the Apostle alluding to the history in Exodus of those who gathered Manna in different quantity and yet found that they had it in a kind of equality because euery one had so much as was needfull for him and no more so that equality doth not signify heere an Arithmeticall equality as the Philosophers and Schoolemen tearme it which is equall in euery respect and is vsed in commutatiue Iustice that is to say in buying and selling and the lyke wherein the iust and true valew of euery thing is equally considered but a Geometricall equality keeping only a certayne proportion according to distributiue Iustice which as Aristotle and the Schoolemen do teach doth alwayes respect equality in the distribution of honours priuiledges and rewards yet so as due proportion be obserued correspondent to the different dignity and quality of euery one And therfore when two persons of different quality and degree as the Captayne and his souldiar are to be rewarded for some one seruice to the common wealth their rewards or priuiledges are truly equall when they are priuiledged and rewarded in a due proportion to their degrees without impeachment to the difference that is betwixt them And so a subiect may be said to haue equall priuiledges with his King and yet be his subiect still and in this maÌ„ner the words equall and equality are to be vnderstood in the CouÌ„cell of CalcedoÌ„ as is euident by the CanoÌ„ it self wherin you see it was ordayned that the Bishop of Constantinople should haue equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome and yet haue the secoÌ„d place after him 11. But now to deale somewhat more liberally with M. Andrews in this point let vs put the case that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon did meane to giue to the Church of Constantinople that equality with the Roman sea which he affirmeth should he trow you gayne any thing thereby Or could he any way preiudice the vniuersall and supreme authority either of Pope Leo at that tyme or of the other Popes his Successors euer since Truly no but rather should notably confirme theyr primacy and vtterly ouerthrow his owne cause seeing that it is most euident that the authority of Pope Leo was such that his only opposition to that Canon and his abrogation therof sufficed to ouerthrow disanull it which I will take a litle paynes to proue by the whole course and practise of the Church euen from that Councell vntill the ruine of the Greeke Church and Empyre which though it be needlesse in respect of the learned yet I hope it will not be altogeather fruitles to the more ignorant and vnlearned and may serue for an aboundant conuiction of M. Andrews his impudency and malice who is not ashamed to auouch such a manifest falsehood and impugne such a knowne truth as he doth 12. To this purpose I wish it to be noted what Gelasius who liued at the same tyme and was Pope about 30. yeares after Leo wrote to the Bishops of Dardania concerning a schisme raysed by Acatius Bishop of Constantinople in the tyme of Pope Felix his Predecessor in which Epistle he signifyeth 4. things specially to be noted for this purpose First that the Emperour Martian though he had made great instance to Pope Leo for the aduancement of the Church of Constantinople yet did highly prayse and commend the said
mayntenance of Ecclesiasticall Discipline which Discourse they end with this most humble and submissiue petition Haec sicut propria amica ad decorem conuenientissima dignare complecti Sanctissime Beatissime Pater most holy and blessed Father vouchsafe to imbrace these things as your owne and friendly and most conuenient or fit for good order 73. And afterwards hauing declared that the three Legats of Pope Leo did contradict this Canon they yield this reason thereof Proculdubio say they à vestra Prouidentia inchoari hoc bonum volentes desyring without all doubt that this good should also proceed from your Prouidence vt sicut fidei it a bonae ordinationis vobis deputetur effectus to the end that the effect as well of good order or Ecclesiasticall discipline as of faith may be ascrybed to you In which words it is to be noted that the Councell ascrybed the effect and forcâ— of their determinations not only concerning matters of discipline but also touching matters of faith to the authority especially of Pope Leo to which purpose they also added further that for as much as the Emperour Senate and all the Imperiall Citty desired it and that it seemed also conuenient to the whole Councell yea and that whatsoeuer is well done by the children doth redound to their fathers who account and make the same their owne therefore Rogamus say they tuis decrâ—tis nostrum â—onorâ— iudicium we beseech thee honour also our iudgement with thy decrees sicut nâ—â— capiti in bonis adiecimus consonantiam sic Summitas tua filijs quod decet adimpleat and as we haue yielded conformity on our parts to you our head so let your Highnes fulfill or accomplish to vs your children that which is conuenient Sic enim pij Principes complacebunt c. For so shall the pyousâ— Princes receiue contentment or satisfaction who haue ratified the iudgment of your holynes as a law Sedes Constantinopolitana suscipiâ—t praemiuÌ„ and the Church of Constantinople shall receiue a reward or benefit which Church hath alwayes performed all endeauour towards you to the cause of piety and conioyned it selfe with you to the conseruation of concord and vnity with the same zâ—ale Thus wrote the whole Councell to Pope Leo. 74. And now I report me to M. Andrews himselfâ— though I take him for very partiall in this cause whether any thing could be written in this kind more effectually to shew the beliefe and faith of the whole Councell touching the supreme authority of Pope Leo seeing that they do not only expressely call him their head and themselues his members him their Father and themselues his children but also do aâ—knowledge that he was accustomed to cast forth the light of his Apostolicall beames to the Church of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consuetè soliciti say those Fathâ—rs speaking of him in the plurall number for the reuerend respect they bare him and signifying that his wonted care and authority was so generall that it extended it selfe to the Greeke Church and particulerly to the Church of Constantinople furthermore they testify that the effect of their decrees both in matters of faith and of discipline depended principally on him and therefore do as I may say begge at his hands the confirmation of their Canon in fauour of the Church of Constantinople as a speciall grace benefit and reward foâ— the merits of the sayd Sea towards the Sea Apostolike and this in such earnest and humble manner that it is euident they acknowledged the whole matter to depend on his will to be granted or denyed ratifyed or disanulled by him which also the issue thereof made most manifest seeing that his owne denyall and opposition was sufficient to ouerthrow it as hath bene declared 75. And now I hope M. Andrâ—ws will not say that this is taken out of some corner of a period or some peece of a tytle or fragment of a little clause seeing that this is as he sayd of his Canon the very voyce of the whole Councell being the substance of their publike and generall letter to Pope Leo himselfe which may also be confirmed with their other publike testimonies of their beliefe concerning his authority as that they acknowledged not only that he was successor to S. Peter saying in their generall acclamation to an Epistle of his Petrus per Leonem locutus estâ— Peter hath spoken by Leo but also that he had Peters authority yea and that S. Peter was petra crepido Ecclesiae the rock and toppe of the Church and rectae fidei fundamentum the foundation of the true faith 76. To which purpose it is to be considered that one of the chiefe causes of the assembly of that Councell was to depose Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria which done by the sentence of Pope Leo pronounced by his Legates in these words Sanctissimus Beatissimus Archiepiscopus magnae senioris Romae Leo per nos per presentem sanctam Synodum vnà cum ter beatissimo omni laude digno beato Petro Apostolo qui est petra crepido Ecclesiae ille qui est rectae fidei fundamentum nudauit eum tam Episcopatus dignitate quà m etiam ab omni Sacerdotali alienauit ministerio The most holy and most blessed Archbishop of the elder and great Rome Leo hath depriued him to wit Dioscorus as well of all Episcopall dignity as priestly ministery by vs and this holy Synod togeather with the thrice most blessed and prayse-worthy Peter the Apostle who is the rock and top of the Church and he which is the foundation of the true faith This was the sentence giuen by the Popes Legats against Dioscorus which sentence euery Bishop in the Councell not only approued particulerly with his suffrage or voyce but also confirmed with his subscription as it appeareth in the 3. Action of the sayd Councell 77. Wherein it is to be obserued First that Pope Leo deposed Dioscorus by the Synod whereupon it followeth that he was president and head thereof and that the sayd Synod was but as it were his instrument in that deposition Secondly that he deposed him by the authority which he had as successor to S. Peter in which respect it is sayd here that he did it togeather with the most blessed Apostle Peter Thyrdly that for as much as S. Peter is heere acknowledged to be the head of the Church as being the rock and top thereof and the foundation of the faith the like must needs be granted of Pope Leo who was his successor and exercysed his authority Lastly seeing that this sentence of deposition giuen against Dioscorus in this manner and with these circumstances was receiued particulerly and subscrybed by euery one in that CouÌ„cell without any contradiction or exception taken to any part thereof it is euident that the whole was conforme to the faith and beliefe of the Councell and
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
AN ADIOYNDER TO THE SVPPLEMENT OF FATHER ROBERT PERSONS HIS DISCVSSION of M. Doctor Barlowes Ansvvere c. CONTAYNING A Discouery and Confutation of very many foule Absurdityes Falsities and Lyes in M. D. Andrewes his Latin Booke intituled Responsio ad Apologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini c. An answere to the Apology of Card. Bellarmine WRITTEN By F. T. Authour of the Supplement to iustify certaine places and authorities alleaged as well by him in the said Supplement as by the Cardinall in his Apology and pretended to be answered by M. D. Andrewes ALSO An Appendix touching a Register alleaged by M. Franc. Mason for the lawfull Ordayning of Protestant Bishops in Q. Elizabeths Raigne Mentita est iniquitas sibi Psal. 26. Iniquity hath lyed to it selfe Imprinted with Licence M. DC XIII THE PRINTER to the Reader GENTLE READER Albeit the Authour of this Worke designed the same to be printed and published togeather with his Supplement to Fa. Persons his Discussion of M. Barlowes Answere c. by reason of the relation that the one hath to the other in which respect also this is intituled an Adioynder neuertheles for as much as afterwards when this came to my hands I vnderstood that M. Barlowes credit was already quyte crushed with the Disscussion of Fa. Persons and euery where so decried that most men were fully satisfyed concerning his ignorance absurdity and folly and therefore might be more desirous to see this Adioynder in Answere of M. Doctour Andrews as well in respect of his farre greater reputation as for that he hath not yet byn answered by any in our tongue And considering also that this Adioynder is growne to a farre greater volume then the Author at the first intended and that therefore many may desyre to haue it a part both for the better coÌ„modity of carryage and also for other good respects yea and that the separation thereof from the Supplement cannot hinder but that such as desyre to haue them both may easely be satisfyed and cause them to be bound eyther togeather or a sunder as they shall best lyke I therfore resolued with the good leaue of the Authour to print publish them both in seuerall volumes For although this Adioynder hath indeed a great connexion with the Supplement and in some sort dependeth thereon as being written only to iustifie the same and specially concerning matters incident thereto yet the points treated therein are so clearly handled and discussed that the truth of the Catholyke cause and M. Andrewes his notable fraudes and cauils may sufficiently appeare thereby without the helpe of the Supplement notwithstanding the frequent references thereto I shall not need to say any thing concerning the intention and drift of the Authour for that the same may fully be seene partly by the titles of the Chapters which follow immediatly and partly in the 3. first paragraphs of the first Chapter and therefore all that I thinke good to aduertise thee good Reader is that albeit this Authour hath not had eyther the occasion or the intention to answere all M. Andrewes his Booke but such points only as are some way incideÌ„t to the foresaid Supplement neuertheles this Adioynder may serue for a sufficient answere to the whole seeing it conteineth a confutation of at least an hundred Positions Assertions Paradoxes Answeres and Obiections of M. Andrewes in all which he is proued to be eyther most Idle and Impertinent or egregiously fraudulent and false or els to argue directly for the Catholikes against the common doctrine of his owne fellows whereby thou maist easily iudge of the rest of his Worke and what a number of like frauds and follies might be discouered therin if the whole were as throughlie sifted and examined as these points haue bene which haue occurred to this Authour by the occasion of his Supplement And so vvishing thee aboundance of Gods grace for the discouery of Falshood and knovvledge of the Truth to the euerlasting good of thy ovvne soule I take my leaue THE TABLE OF CHAPTERS THE Authours intention is declared and M. D. Andrews his interpretation of Pasce oues meas examined and confuted Furthermore it is shewed that he hath belyed S. Augustine corrupted S. Ambrose notably abused S. Cyril vainely carped at a Law in the Code and foolishly approued the vnlawfull proceeding of Iustinian the Emperour against the Pope CHAP. I. Pag. 1. The Answeres of M. Andrewes to certaine places of the Councell of Calcedon are examined and conâ—uted His notable fraud in diuers things and especially in the allegation of a Canon of that Councell is discouered and the supreme authority of the Sea Apostolike clearely proued out of the same Councell and Canon CHAP. II. Pag. 39. M. D. Andrewes his answeres to three places of the Fathers are examined And by the way the Cardinall is cleared from a false imputation of Iouinians heresieâ— and M. Andrewes truly charged therwith Finally all that which we teach concerning the Popes authority is necessarily deduced out of M. Andrewes his owne doctrine and expresse wordes CHAP. III. Pag. 98. Foure other places of the Fathers are debated and M. Andrewes his Answeres therto confuted VVith a Discouery of notable corruption falsity in him and of three manifest lyes within little more then three lines And by occasion therof it is also proued that 8. Popes who liued in S. Augustines time had and excercised an vniuersall and supreme Authority CHAP. IIII. Pag. 133. M. Andrewes his answeres to three other places alleadged by the Cardinall out of the Fathers are examined and confuted and diuers absurdities discouered therin And finally he is proued to be a wrangler in the highest degree CHAP. V. pag. 193. A further manifestation of M. Andrewes his trifling wrangling and fraudulent humour by his Answeres to other places of the Fathers concerning Prayer to Saintes which he deuideth into three ranks wherof the two first are examined in this Chapter CHAP. VI. Pag. 218. The Answeres of M. Andrewes to the Fathers of the third ranke are examined and sound to be either impertinent fraudulent or most iniurious to them namely to S. Ambrose whom he most egregiously abuseth Also it is euidently shewed that the Inuocation of Saints was generally practised approued aswell by the ancient Fathers as by all other faithfull Christians in the Primitiue Church CHAP. VII Pag. 258. Certaine obiections of M. Andrewes against Prayers to Saints are answered and by the way an imposture of the pretended Bishops and Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury in a Synodicall Canon of theirs is discouered And finally M. Andrews is proued to haue notably wrangled iugled and trifled throughout this whole Controuersy CHAP. VIII Pag. 306. The Conclusion of this Adioynder deuided into two Chapters In this are detected diuers srauds and shifts common to M. Andrewes with M. Barlow as to change the state of the question dissemble that which most importeth in the Cardinalls text and argument to abuse wrest bely and falsisy not
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
was decreed therein no more then our Acts of Parliamēt without the Kings approbation neuertheles for as much as the Canons of the Nicen Councell touching those Churches and this Canon also whereof we now specially treate did not ordayne or concerne any thing which was de iure diuino but only the priuiledges and iurisdiction of Churches pertayning to Ecclesiasticall Lawes it is euident that Pope Leo being the head of the whole Church might dispose of them as he should see iust cause yea and it is not to be doubted but that he would haue ratified this Canon had he not seene such sufficient cause to the cōtrary as hath beene declared therfore the Popes his successors being moued with such other occasions and vrgent reasons as change of tyme produced not only permitted the Bishops of Constantinople to haue the second place after them but ordayned it also by a Canon as I shall haue occasion to shew heereafter In the meane tyme I conclude concerning this poynt that although Thedorus Balsamon and Zonaras and some other Grecian collectors of the Councells do set downe this Canon in fauour of the Churches of Constantinople yet it is not to be found eyther in the Collections of Dionysius and Isidorus gathered out of the Greeke aboue a thousand yeares agoe or yet in the old Greek manuscripts or the ancient Latin copies of the Councells which we haue in these parts and thus much for the making and abrogation of this Canon 29. And now to come to the assertion of M. Andrewes concerning Pope Leo's intercession made as he saith in vayne to the Emperour Empresse and Anatolius true it is that Pope Leo wrote to them all three but whether as a suiter or suppliant or yet in vayne let the Reader iudge and accordingly giue credit to M. Andrews hereafter First then he wrote to the Emperour that whereas he I meane Pope Leo might haue called Anatolius to account long before for being consecrated Bishop by an heretike he had borne with him at the Emperours request and that by the Emperours help and by his I meane Pope Leo's fauourable consent Anatolius had obtayned that great Bishoprick and that therefore he might haue contented himselfe with those fauours and not haue presumed thereupon the rather to encroach vpon the dignities of other Bishops Also he signifyed to the Emperour that Anatolius should neuer be able to make his Sea an Apostolicall Sea or yet to increase it by the iniury and offence of others that the priuiledges of Churches being instituted by the Canons and Decrees of the venerable Councell of Nice could not be impeached or changed by any impious attempts of his that it pertayned to him I meane to Pope Leo in respect of his office and charge to looke to the obseruation of the Canons and not to preferre one mans will before the common benefit of the whole Church finally presuming as he saith of the Emperours pious disposition to conserue the peace and vnity of the Church he besought him to represse the ambition and wicked attempt of Anatolius if he persisted therein and to make him obay the Canons of the Councell of Nice for other wyse the issue would be that Anatolius should but worke his owne separation from the communion of the Vniuersall Church 30. To this effect wrote Pope Leo to the Emperour crauing indeed with great reason his help and assistance for the correction and amendment of Anatolius yet with great grauity and authority as you see and not in vayne as M. Andrewes would haue vs to suppose for albeit the Emperour had fauoured greatly the pretence of Anatolius to prefer the Church of Constantinople before Alexandria and Antioch neuertheles vpon Pope Leo's letters to him he not only yielded therein but also greatly approued it in the sayd Pope that he defended the Canons of the Councell of Nice with such constancy and resolution as he did which is manifest by another letter of Pope Leo to the Emperour wherein he signified the contentment and ioy that he receaued when he vnderstood by the Emperours letters that he not only approued his defence of the Canons but was also himselfe determined to defend them and to conserue the priuiledges of the Churches according to the decrees of the Nicen Councell So that I hope M. Andrews cannot now say that Pope Leo's intercessiō to the Emperour was in vayne Let vs then see what manner of suite he made to the Empresse 31. He wrote also to her diuers Epistles and in one of them hauing first taxed Anatolius of immoderate pryde for seeking to passe the limits of his owne dignity to the preiudice of other Metropolitās signfying withall that he might haue contented himself to haue byn aduanced to the Bishoprike of Constantinople as well by his fauourable consent and approbation as by her and the Emperours grant he addeth touching the Canon now in question Consensiones saith he Episcoporum Canonum apud Nicaeam conditorum regulis repugnantes vnita nobiscum vestrae fidei Pietate in irritum mittimus per auctoritatem B. Petri Apostoli generali prorsus definitione cassamus The piety of your faith being vnited with vs we do vtterly make voyde and by the authority of the Blessed Apostle Peter do with a generall definition wholy disanull the consents that is to say the Decrees of the Bishops which were repugnant to the rules of the Canons made in the Councell of Nice So he speaking as you see not like a suppliant sed tamquam potestatem habens like a man that had power and Apostolicall authority to disanull and abrogate this Canon as he did 32. Now it resteth that we see what manner of petition or supplication he presented to Anatolius which truly was such that it made him stoupe as stout and proud as he was First then Pope Leo blameth him for taking the occasion he did to seeke not only to preferre himselfe before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch as though their Churches had lost their priuiledges by the fall of their Pastors but also to subiect them and all other Metropolitans of the Greeke Church to his iurisdiction which he tearmeth inauditum numquam antea tentatum excessum an excesse neuer heard of nor attempted by any man before And further signifyeth that this attempt being quite contrary to the most holy Canons of the Councell of Nice was too wicked and impious that his haughty pryde tended to the trouble of the whole Church that he had abused his brethren the Bishops in the Councell who being assembled only for the definition and decision of matters of faith had been drawne by him partly by corruption and partly by feare to fauour and further his ambitious desires that he accused himselfe sufficiently when he acknowledged that the Legats of the Sea Apostolyke whome he ought to haue obayed publikly contradicted and resisted him in the Councell 33. Moreouer he aduertiseth him that the
of the circumstances of the foresayd Canon The first place or authority which he vndertaketh to answere is that in many Epistles or rather supplications addressed to Pope Leo and the whole Councell he is named before the Councell with this tytle Sanctissimo Deo amantissimo vniuersali Archiepiscopo Patriarchae Magnae Romae Leoni Sanctae vniuersali Chalcedonensi Synodo quae voluntate Dei congregata est To the most holy and most beloued of God and vniuersall Archbishop and Patriarke of Great Rome Leo and to the holy and vniuersall Synode of Calcedon which is assembled by the will of God In which tytle it is to be obserued not only that the name of Pope Leo is set before the name of the Councell whereby he is acknowledged to be superiour to the Councell but also he is called Vniuersall Archbishop and Patriarke of Rome in respect of his vniuersall authority ouer the whole Church of God besides that it is to be noted heerin that the tytle of Vniuersall Bishop so much impugned now by the Sectaries of this tyme was vsualy giuen to the Bishops of Rome in the tyme of that Councell seeing it was in the Councell it selfe diuers tymes vsed and giuen to Pope Leo without the contradiction of any 39. Hereto M. Andrews answereth thus Cur huc illuc oberret quis c. why shall a man go vp and downe hither and thither throughout all the corners of the Acts of this Councell searching the deskes and looking on the backsyde of letters to find somewhere that whereof he readeth there the contrary in expresse words let him read not in any tytle or superscriptioÌ„ of a letter or memoriall wherin euery man knoweth how suiters are wont to extoll and magnify those to whome they sue but let him read the matter ventilated or debated in one whole action and renewed and confirmed in another and finally enacted by a Canon c. so he and then followeth that which I haue set downe out of him and confuted before concerning the contents of the Canon 40. Heere now thou seest good Reader that this answere of his contayneth 3. poynts the first that all this obiection is taken as it were out of the booke being grounded on nothing els but on the superscriptions of letters and memorials The second that the manner and style of the letters and memorialls of suppliants is alwayes to extoll and magnify those to whome they make suite The third that a Canon of the same Councell decreed the contrary to all this in expresse words giuing to the Bishop of Constantinople equal priuiledges in all things with the Bishop of Rome this being the whole substance of his answere and the last poynt concerning the Canon which most importeth being by me already fully confuted to his shame it will easily be seene how he tryfleth in the two former For as for the first what skilleth it whether those tytles were written on the insyde or outside of the supplications seeing that they were taken and set downe by the Notaries of the whole CouÌ„cell no lesse then the Canons and Actions themselues and not reproued or contradicted by any Is it not therefore cleare inough thereby that the tytle of vniuersall Bishop was in those dayes vsually giuen to the Bishop of Rome and seeing his name is set downe before the name of the Councell though he himselfe was not present but only his Legats was not he sufficiently acknowledged thereby to be the President and head of the Councell 41. But I would be glad to know of M. Andrews what reason those suppliants had to addresse and present their petitions rather to Pope Leo by name then to the Bishop of Constantinople or to other Grecian Bishops and Metropolitans of their owne country Let him tell me I say what other reason they could haue but because they held him not only to be the chiefe and vniuersall Pastor that is to say to haue vniuersall authority but also to be acknowledged by the whole Councell as their head For if the Councell had not so esteemed him those suppliants might be assured that by naming him alone and giuing him extraordinary tytles that were not due vnto him they should offend the Councell and consequently hurt their owne cause 42. Moreouer let M. Andrews tell vs if it please him why those suters should exceed in the tytle rather to Pope Leo then to the whole Councell seeing that they addressed their petitions to both Why did they not I say magnify and extoll the Councell with some excessiue tytle as well as the Pope For if it were needfull for them to vse excesse and flattery to eyther of both for the better successe of their petition it is like they would haue done it rather to the whole Councell then to him if they had not assured themselues that the grant of their petition depended principally on him as on the head of the Councell so that the supplications being directed indifferently to both and no excesse or flattery so much as imagined by M. Andrewes in that part of the tytle which concerneth the Councell he must eyther acknowledg the like of the other part that toucheth the Pope or els â—ell vs some reason of the difference whereof no other can be conceiued but only his greater authority then the Councells in respect that he was their head and the vniuersall Pastor of the Church And thus much touching his answere to the first place 43. The second place alledged by Cardinall Bellarmine out of that Councell is that in the Epistle of the whole Councell to Pope Leo he is acknowledged in expresse words to be the head of all the Bishops assembled there they his members for thus they wrote speaking of themselues Quibus tu sicut membris caput praeeras ouer whome thou wert President as head ouer the members in those which held thy place c. So they And what doth M. Andrews trow you answere to this Marry forsooth he saith that vtcumque tum praefuit sicut caput c. howsoeuer he then gouerned as head yet he could not hinder but that another head was made equall to this head So he meaning that the Canon whereof we haue hitherto treated made the Bishop of Constantinople equall with him in all things and so made two heads But how weake and idle this answere is thou mayst iudge good Reader by the weaknes of this Canon which I haue sufficiently shewed as well by the inualidity and nullity of it being abrogated by Pope Leo as also by the false sense that M. Andrews hath giuen vs of it so that the foundation of his answere I meane the Canon fayling him his answere must needs fall to the ground and be altogeather impertinent and the place alledged by the Cardinall remayne in full force 44. The third and last place which he vndertaketh to answere is that the whole Councell also
consequently that they held Pope Leo not only for S. Peters successor but also for head of the whole Church and this I trust cannot be sayd to be taken out of the bryars or corner of a period or fragment of a clause but out of one of the most principall and important Acts of all the Councell 78. Also it appeareth in the same Councell that Theodoretus Bishop of Cyrus who being deposed by Dioscorus appealed to Pope Leo was by his authority restored to his seat and admitted into the Councell Ingrediatur say the Fathers Reuerendissimus Episcopus Theodoretus c. Let also the most Reuerend Bishop Theodoretus enter that he may be partaker of our Synod because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored to him his Bishopricke So they whereby they gaue sufficient testimony of the soueraygnty of Pope Leo acknowledging his power to restore Bishops to their Bishopriks in the Greeke Church Finally if there were nothing els in that Councell to proue Pope Leo's supreme and vniuersall authority ouer the Church of God it might suffice for an euident proofe thereof that he was vndoubtedly the president and head of the Councell as you haue heard before and may be confirmed by the subscriptions of his Legats set before all other Bishops though one of them was but a Priest and no Byshop 79. For what reason can be imagined why Pope Leo should be president of a Councell in Greece so far from his owne seat as well he himselfe as his Legats being Romans and of the Latin Church but that it belonged to him to be head thereof in respect of his vniuersall authority Will M. Andrews absurdly say as Caluin doth that there was no Bishop in all Greece at that tyme held to be worthy of that Honour How then was Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople able to procure such a Canon as he did in his owne fauour Can any man belieue that he was as M. Andrews saith esteemed worthy to be made equal in dignity and all things els with the Bishop of Rome and yet not fit to be President of a Councell in his owne country yea lesse fit then a stranger who was held to be but his â—qual Besides that howsoeuer Pope Leo himselfe might be esteemed more worthy of that Charge then the Bishops of Greece in respect of his eminent learning wisdome and vertue yet there is no probability in the world that the Emperour and all the Bishops of that Councell which were aboue 600. had the like conceit of the sufficiency of his Legats or that they would all of them yield as well to them as to him one of them being but a Priest This I say is so improbable that M. Caluin and M. Andrews must eyther giue vs some other probable reason for it as they shall neuer be able to do or els confesse that Leo was President of that Councell by right of his soueraignty and supreme authority ouer Gods Church 80. Therefore now to conclude this matter thou seest good Reader what was the beliefe of the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon concerning the Popes supremacy and how far M. Andrews is from their faith and Religion yea and what a seared conscience he hath not only to deny such an euident truth as this but also to impugne it with so much fraud and impudency as he doth against his owne conscience no doubt for he could not possibly see in the Councell that which he himselfe alledgeth and the Cardinall obiecteth but he must needs see all this which I haue cyted out of it neyther could he alledge some part of the 28. Canon and vrge it as he doth laying downe the words euen of the Greeke text but he saw as well that which followeth immediatly and clearely conuinceth his fraud and forgery as that which went before and seemed to make for him whereby it is euident that he not only wittingly dissembled and concealed the whole drift of that Canon but also maliciously peruerted mangled and falsifyed it to the end to deceiue his Reader for the mayntenance of his miserable cause for so I may well tearme it seeing it dryueth him to such miserable and desperate shifts M. D. ANDREVVS HIS ANSVVERES TO three places of the Fathers are examined AND By the way the Cardinall is cleared from a false imputation of Iouinians heresy and M. Andrews truly charged therewith Finally all that which we teach concerning the Popes authority is necessarily deduced out of M. Andrews his owne doctrine and expresse words CHAP. III. HAVING occasion in my Supplement to proue the necessity of a visible head in Gods Church to coÌ„serue the same in vnity I alledged two places of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome which the Cardinall also cyteth in his Apology togeather with diuers other testimonies of the Fathers to proue the Primacy of S. Peter and for as much as M. Andrews his answere thereto if it haue any force at all maketh as much against me as against the Cardinall I will examine heere what force and pith it hath The Cardinall saith thus of S. Cyprian Fecit Cyprianus Petrum c. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne and roote of the Church and in his Epistle to Quintus Peter saith he whome our Lord first chose and vpon whome he buylt his Church c. Where S. Cyprian doth not only say that Peter was first chosen but also addeth that the Church was buylt vpon him and truely the foundation in a buylding the head in a body are all one Thus saith the Cardinall alledging as you see two places of S. Cyprian to both which M. Andrews meaneth to say somewhat 2. To the first he saith thus Fecit Cyprianus c. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne and roote of the Church not Peter of the Church but rather maketh the Church it selfe the fountayne from whence many brookes the light from whence many beames and the roote from whence many boughs are propagated Learne this euen of himselfe Sic Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa c. So the Church being wholy resplendent with the light of our Lord casteth forth her beames throughout the whole world loe he sayth the Church and not Peter yet the light is one and the selfe same which is spread euery where is this light Peter or is he euery where spread abroad and the vnity of the body is not separated The Church through the plenty of her fertility stretcheth forth her branches ouer the whole earth and doth amply spread abroad her aboundant flowing brookes yet the head is one the beginning one one mother copious with the prosperous successe of her fecundity or fruitfulnes Caligauit hic Cardinalis c the Cardinall was spurre-blynd or dimme sighted here for I thinke he will not say that Peter is the mother and therefore not the head 3. This is M. Andrews his graue discourse supposing as it seemeth that because the
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
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
only of S. Augustine but also of the whole Councell of African Bishops though he name S. Augustin only and none of the other and finally vttering 3. notable lyes in litle more then 3. lynes The first is that the Pope had no further authority but ouer his Church of Rome in S. Augustines tyme. The second that no man might in those daies appeale to the Sea Apostolicke out of Africk The third that S. Augustine was far from acknowledging those three Popes Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus to be heads of the Church yea and that he cured S. Peters disease in them Of these 3. points the first wil be fully cleared by the discussion of the second and the third 36. First then concerning the second whereas M. Andrews affirmeth that all Appeales from Africk to Rome were forbidden by S. Augustin vnder payne of excommunication wee shall neede no other witnesse to conuince him but S. Augustine himselfe who teacheth the flat contrary not only in expresse words but also by practise as it will euidently appeare after a whyle for albeit there was a controuersy betwixt the Church of Africk and the Roman Sea in S. Augustins tyme partly about appeales to Rome and partly about the Canons of the Nicen Councell for that a Canon related by the Popes Legate as out of the said Councell was not found in the Copies that were then in Africk whereof the causes may be seene at large as well in Cardinall Bellarmins Controuersies as in the history of Cardinall Baronius who doe fully answere all our aduersaryes cauills concerning the same albeit I say this controuersy continued some 4. or 5. yeares and grew in great part by reason of abuses cōmitted by some of the Popes legates in the rigorous and violent execution of the Popes sentences which may suffice to proue the comon vse of Appeales from Africk to Rome in those daies neuertheles it is euident that during the tyme of this controuersy there was no prohibition of the appeales of Bishops from Africk to Rome for that all the African Bishops agreed to continue the wonted course of Appeales without innouation vntill they should haue answere out of Greece concerning the Canons of the Nicen Councell 37. And when they had receaued the same they were so far from excommunicating such as should appeale to Rome or from prohibiting the same by a Synodicall Decree that they only wrote a common letter to Pope Celestinus wherein they did not impugne the right of Appeales to Rome but shewed their dislike of the manner and meanes that had ben vsed in the prosecutiō thereof And whereas there were 3. wayes vsed by the Sea Apostolyke in the prosecution and decision of appeales the first by calling the parties and witnesses to Rome the second by sending Legates to the place from whence the appeales came with commission to heare and determin them sometymes with the assistance of the Bishops of that prouince and sometymes without them and the third to remit the matter wholy to the determination of the Metropolitan or of some Prouinciall Synod of the same country as S. Gregory the great did in Africk dyuers tymes whereof I shall haue occasiō to lay downe some examples heereafter of these 3. wayes I say the African Bishops held the two former to be very inconuenient for them but tooke no exception at all to the third way which was to remit the causes to be tried at home by the Metropolitans or by Prouinciall Synods therfore the reasōs which they vrged tended especially to proue that it was most conuenient conforme to the Councell of Nice that causes should be decyded by the Metropolitans and Synods of the same Country where the controuersy should ryse and this the Pope might haue graunted if he had thought it conuenient and yet haue reserued to himselfe the right of appellation and haue decyded Appeales also by his commission as it shall further appeare after a while by the practise of S. Gregory 38 But put the case that S. Augustine and the Bishops of Africk had required of Pope Celestinus to be quite rid of Appeales what will M. Andrewes infer thereon Will he say that therefore they decreed vt transmarinus nemo appellet si appellet excommunicandus that no man appeale out of Africk and that if he doe he shall be excommunicated Will he infer this vpon their demaund or petition I say their petition for that when they come to treate of that matter in their Epistle they begin it thus Praefato debitae salutationis officio impendiò deprecamur vt c. The office or duty of due salutations premised we do most earnestly beseech you that you will not ouer easily giue eare to such as come from hence c. Will then M. Andrewes make no difference betwixt demaunds and decrees petitions and prohibitions must he not rather confesse that the African Bishops acknowledged that Pope Celestinus had power to dispose appeales For otherwyse why did they rather seeke satisfaction by letters to him then resolue by some Synodicall decree to exclude his authority and to debar him from further medling in those affaires as it is like they would haue done had they had byn perswaded that his authority in that behalfe was vsurped But let M. Andrewes take the request of the African Bishops in what sense he list I meane eyther for the exclusion of Appeales or for moderation in the prosecution of them yet he can neuer make good his forgery of transmarinus nemo appellet c. it beeing most euident that neyther these petitions of theirs nor any Canon of the African Synods nor yet any one word in S. Augustin did euer prohibite all Appellation from Africk to Rome or yet cause any surcease or interruption thereof nor yet hinder the moderate and conuenient prosecution of appeales for the proofe whereof I shall not need as I haue said to produce any other witnes then S. Augustine himselfe and his owne practise not past 5. or 6. yeares before his death in the cause of a Bishop called Antony whome he had made Bishop of Fussula 39. It is therefore to be vnderstood that this Antony being depriued of his Bishoprick by a Synodicall sentence of African Bishops for his outragious misdemeanours appealed to Rome to Pope Bonifacius wherupon the Pope being moued partly with the Primats letters and partly with such other testimony as Antony had cunningly produced for his purgation resolued to returne him to his Bishopricke yet with this expresse condition as S. Augustine witnesseth if the information which he had giuen were found to be true but before it could be executed it chanced that Pope Bonifacius dyed and Celestinus succeeded him 40. And for as much as many rumours were spred in fauour of Antony that he should be restored by the Popes sentence and the same executed by violence with the help of secular power if need were as the
like had byn also vsed in former occasions the people of Fussula were so exasperated therewith that they were like to fall to tumult and conceiued no small indignation against S. Augustine himselfe complayning of him to the Pope because he had made Antony their Bishop wherewith he was so afflicted that he wrote a most pittifull letter to Celestinus successor to Bonifacius lameÌ„ting greatly his owne mishap in that he had made such an vnworthy Bishop and recommended the decision of the case to his wife and charitable consideration saying thus amongst diuers other things Collabora nobiscum pietate venerabilis Domine beatissime debita charitate suscipiende sancte Papa c. Most blessed Lord venerable for thy piety and holy Pope to be receaued with due charity labour togeather with vs and commaund that all those things which are sent be read or related vnto thee So he 41. And whereas Antony being depriued of the Bishoprick and remayning still with the tytle had greatly vrged that seeing he had still the tytle of Bishop of Fussula he ought also to haue the Bishoprick S. Augustine made instance on the other side that the sentence giuen against Antony might stand for that it was conforme euen to former sentences giuen in like cases by the Sea Apostolike and therefore he saith Existat exemplo ipsa Sede Apostolica iudicante vel aliorum iudicata firmante c. Let it serue for an example the Sea Apostolike either iudging so it selfe or els confirming the iudgments or sentences of others So he and then addeth diuers examples of Bishops who being depriued of their Bishoprikes retayned still their tytle and sayth moreouer thus Ego Fussulenses Catholicos filios in Christo meos c. I doe recommend to the benignity of the charity of your Holynes as well the Catholike people of Fussula my children in Christ as Antony the Bishop my sonne also in Christ for that I loue them both c. Let both of them deserue your mercy they that they may suffer no ill he that he may do no ill they lest they may hate the very name of Catholike if they receiue no help from Catholike Bishops especially from the Sea Apostolike against a Catholike Bishop and he lest he may commit so great a wickednes as to alienate those from Christ whome he seeketh to make his owne against their wills c. Finally S. Augustine concludeth thus Si autem membra Christi quae in illa regione sunt c. If you do relieue the members of Christ which are in that quarter he meaneth Fussula from the deadly feare and sorrow wherein they liue and do comfort my old age with this mercifull iustice he will reward you as well in this present life as in the future who doth by you succour vs in this our trouble and hath placed you in that seat 42. Thus wrote S. Augustine to Celestinus the Pope and much more to the same purpose intreating most earnestly for the people of Fussula especially that there mâ—ght be no violence vsed to restore Antony and therefore hauing signified what was reported and feared in that behalfe he said non sinas ista fieri per Christi sanguinem c. suffer not these things to be donne for the bloud of Christ and for the memory of Peter who admonished the gouernours of Christian people not to exercise a violent dominion amongst their brethren So he giuing a necessary aduise to Pope Celestinus though with all humility as you see to preuent the inconueniences that were feared and had hapned before by the indiscreet and violent proceeding of some of the Popes Legats in like cases And so far was he from any meaning to oppose himselfe to the Popes authority or to the restitution of Antony in case the Pope should haue ordayned it that he resolued for his part as he signified that if he could not obtayne his sute of Celestinus he would renounce his Bishoprick and retyre himselfe to a priuate life to do penance for hauing bene partly the cause of so great a scandall in making Antony Bishop 43. By all which it appeareth how far S. Augustine and other Bishops of Africk were from denying the Popes authority to admit Appeales seeing that the primate of Numidia himselfe assisted Antony in his Appeale to Pope Bonifacius and S. Augustine wrote also to Celestinus concerning the same with such submission as you haue heard not threatning to excommunicate Antony for his Appeale to Rome as M. Andrewes would haue vs to suppose saying si appellet ab Augustino excommunicandus if any man appeale he is to be excommunicated by Augustine but most humbly crauing mercifull iustice and moderation in the decision of the cause So as we must needs say that eyther S. Augustine contradicteth himselfe and his owne actions which is not credible or els that M. Andrewes hath belyed him in this poynt as indeed he hath and therefore he had reason not so much as to quote in his margent any place of S. Augustine for the proofe or confirmation of his assertion 44. Neuertheles for as much as he mentioneth an excommunication threatned by S. Augustine to all such as should appeale from Africk to Rome he seemeth to ayme at a Canon of a CouÌ„cell held at Mileuis where S. Augustin was present in which Synod it was indeed ordayned vnder payne of excommunication that no Priests or Deacons or other Clergy men of the inferiour sort should appeale from their owne Bishops and Memetropolitans in Africk to Bishops beyond the seas And to the end M. Andrewes his cosenage may the better appeare I will set downe the Canon it selfe which is this Placuit vt Presbyteri Diaconi vel inferiores Clerici c. we haue ordayned that Priests deacons and other inferiour Clergymen if in the causes which they shall haue they complaine of the iudgments of their Bishops they may be heard by the Bishops their neyghbours c. And if they shall thinke it necessary to appeale from them that they appeale not to any but to the Councells of Africk or to the Primats of their owne Prouinces Ad transmarina autem qui putauerit appellandum c. and he that shall thinke it conuenient to appeale to the parts beyond the seas shall not be admitted to the communion of any within Africke Thus saith that Canon And who seeth not that those words qui putauerit appellandum c. he which thinketh conuenient to appeale are to be referred only to those of whome the Canon expressely speaketh immediatly before to wit Priests and Deacons and other inferiour Clergymen and therefore do not any way concerne Bishops and much lesse exclude all Appeales as M. Andrewes doth with his transmarinus nemo 45. To which purpose it is to be considered that this Canon is conforme to another made many yeares before in the great generall Councell of Sardica approued by Pope Iulius the first
may not pray to Saynts did he not see trow you if he saw the place in the author and not in some corrupt note-booke eyther of his owne or his fellowes that S. Ambrose speaketh heere of prayer for a particuler purpose to wit to obtayne the grace of God for the Emperours Children to make them like their Father and this S. Ambrose sayd with great reason was to be craued of God alone for he alone and none but he can giue grace and therefore he is only to be inuocated as the giuer of it albeit the prayers both of Saynts and men may be craued to help to obtayne it of him and I thinke M. Andrews will not deny but that S. Ambrose might very lawfully haue desired the people to pray to God to represent Theodosius in his Children that is to say to giue them grace that they might be lyke their father in vertue and piety So as it appeareth that solus inuocandus is no otherwyse vsed in this place of S. Ambrose then as rogandus is which presently followeth and that both of them are to be referred to that which ensueth to wit repraesentes◠and finally that this place doth not exclude the crauing of prayers eyther of man or of Saynts to obtayne grace of God though it signify that God only can giue grace and consequently is only to be inuocated to that end 34. And therefore I leaue it to thy iudgement good Reader how sincere M. Andrews is in cyting the Fathers whome he nippeth and mangleth in this manner to make them speake after his fasshion and what a good cause he hath in hand seeing he is forced to maintayne it with such fraud and falsehood which may yet further appeare by the conclusion of his answere to the place obiected by the Cardinall out of S. Ambrose wherein truly he sheweth himselfe no lesse fraudulent and impertinent then before Thus then he sayth Etiam scriptus illi de oratione liber c. He to wit Ambrose also wrote a booke concerning prayer wherein albeit there was fit place or occasion to treate of this matter yet there is no mention at all of Saynts So he◠which truly I must needs account for a fraud abuse of his reader vntill he tell me where this booke which he mentioneth is to be found for I haue searcht for it diligently as well in the Tome of S. Ambrose as also in others that haue written particulerly of his workes and yet I can find no such booke nor mention thereof any where 35. True it is that he treateth of prayer in many parts of his workes not in any particuler treatise bearing that tytle but obiter by the way vpon occasions offred eyther in the exposition of the Scriptures of the old and new Testament or in his other treatises as for example in his bookes de Sacramentis he writeth of the manner place of prayer of the order to be obserued therein of the beginning midst and end of it of the difference of postulation obsecration and thanksgiuing yea he expoundeth the whole Pater noster And as it is true that in these places there is no mention eyther of the prayers of Saynts for vs or of our prayers to them so also it is no lesse true that there are many other things apperteyning to prayer which are not so much as touched there as to speake of a thing of lyke nature and quality to the other there is not any insinuation of our mutuall prayers one for another albeit there are diuers places which may be supposed very fit and conuenient for that purpose neyther is there any mention there of prayer for our enemies although S. Ambrose may seeme to haue had very iust occasion to speake thereof when treating of prayer he expoundeth this petition of the Pater Noster Dimite nobis debita nostra c. Forgiue vs our trespasses as we for giue them that trespasse agaynst vs. 36. And now shall we say that S. Ambrose held it to be eyther vnlawfull or needles to pray for our enemies or to craue the prayers of our brethren because he fayth nothing of those poynts in these places or shall his silence heere preiudice his cleare doctrine els where and be taken for a recantation of it as M. Andrews would haue it to be supposed in this other case What then will he say of a poynt which he himselfe alloweth concerning the intercession of Saynts to wit not only that they pray for vs but also that we may pray to God to heare and help vs by their intercession which he granteth to be lawfull albeit there would be no mention of it in that booke of S. Ambrose de Oratione which he cyteth if there were any such for he himselfe confesseth that there is no mention therein at all of Saynts will he therefore allow vs to inferre herevpon that S. Ambrose did not belieue eythere that Saynts do pray for vs or that we may pray to God to be helped by their intercession So should this supposed booke whereto he appealeth condemne him no lesse in this poynt then vs in the other 37. And if I would be so absurd to argue as he doth I might as probably say that S. Ambrose approueth prayer to Saynts because he doth not condemne it in his exposition of the Pater Noster where the place seemed to inuite him to teach that all prayer ought to be directed to God only if he had byn of that opinion and had not allowed prayer to Saynts as to intercessours to God for vs thus I say I might argue with as much probability as M. Andrewes doth but that I am not ignorant as neyther he me thinks should be that such an argument ab authoritate negatiua howsoeuer it may sometymes serue for a light or bare coniecture yet can neuer passe for a proofe amongst learned men especially to such purpose as he vrgeth it here to wit to ouerthrow an authors expresse doctrine in one place by his silence thereof in another for who knoweth not that all authors haue certaine principall intentions in their workes and treatises whereto specially tendeth all their discours and that they are not any way bound to handle other by-questions further then they thinke conuenient wherein also euery one hath his reasons though vnknowne to others why he handleth one poynt more then some other which may perhaps seeme no lesse pertinent to his subiect then that which he handleth neyther is he to be controlled or blamed for the same if he performe as much as he eyther promiseth or specially intendeth And therefore although S. Ambrose had written such a booke concerning prayer as M. Andrews forgeth yet his silence therein touching prayer to Saynts could not preiudice his expresse doctrine thereof in his other workes 38. Well then to conclude cōcerning this poynt I hope good Reader thou hast noted diuers thinges worthy to be considered as first
Christ and exalted Angels that he held Christ to be but pure man and the sonne of Ioseph and that Angels made the world and gaue the law to the Iewes yea that an Angell was the God of the Iewes or finally of some such other heretykes as eyther attributed diuinity to Angels or made them mediatours for man in such sort as those Phrygian heretykes did of whome Theodoret speaketh which was to exclude the mediation of Christ as it appeareth euidently by that which the Apostle addeth saying non tenens Caput ex quo c. and not holding the head whereof the whole body is by ioynts bands compacted c. signifying that he spake of such as forsook the head to wit Christ and made Angels the chiefe mediatours of their reconciliation to God 10. Therefore S. Chrysostome saith vpon that place of S. Paul Sunt nonnulli c. there are some which do say that we must not come to God the Father and be reconciled to him by Christ but by Angels and so doth also Oecumenius and Theophilactus expound the same place And the authour of the Commentary vpon S. Pauls Epistles amongst the workes of S. Ambrose saith that the Apostle taxed there such as adored the starres quas sayth he Angelos vocat he calleth Angels and finally to omit others S. Hierome and Haymo do vnderstand that the Apostle speaketh of such as vsed to offer Sacrifice to Angels whereupon also the Councell of Laodicea might haue iust occasion to make their decree agaynst some such abominable Idolatry done secretly to Angels in their dayes 11. So as it is euident by all this that neyther the Apostle in his Epistle to the Colâ—ssâ—nsesâ— noâ— Theâ—doret in his Commentary vpon the same nor then Galnon of the Laodicean Councell mentioned by Theodoret and obiected by M. Andrews do any way impugne the custome of the Catholyke Church in praying to Angels as mediatours to Christ for â—s And to conclude concerning Theodoret is whereas M. Andrewes would by this place make the world belieuâ— that he did not approue prayer to Sayntsâ— I remit thee good Reader to that most perspicuous and pregâ—antâ— testimony which I haue before produced 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 to proue the publike practiced and custome of the whole Church to pray to Saynts in his tyme together with the admirable effects and miraculous benefitsâ— that deuout people receiued thereby and his owne euident and cleare approbation thereof seeing that he vrgeth it to the confusion of the Paynims inferâ—ing thereupon a manifess argument of Christs diuinity besides that in his historia religiosa wherein wryting the lyues of diuers religious persons he craueth in the end of euery particuler Saynts life Gods fauour and diuine assistance by his intercessionâ— and in the conclusion of the last he desireth them all whose lyues he had written to pray for him So that I hope this may suffice in answere of M. Andrewes his obiection taken out of him 12. I haue before touched another obiection of M. Andrews grounded vpon an absurd conceipt of his that it is vncertayne whether Saynts do heare vs and how they see or know our actions and albeit that which I sayd there touching the common and vniuersall experience that the Church hath had in all ages of the helpe and assistance of Saynts to such as inuocate them might suffice for his confutatioÌ„ in this poynt yet because he vrgeth the same diuers tymes and especially in his preamble to his censure â—pon the Fathers I will and heere somewhat more to shew his absurd manner of arguing in this matter Thus then he saith Vt hoc detur c. although this should be granted that Saynts do pray for vs yet it is not â—â—â—fest how they he are vs praying heere on earth and those your positions touching the glasse of the diuine essence and the shyning therein of all things that are done on earth are more subtil then solid and not cleare inough to your selues and altogeather vnheard of amongst the Fathers and no man doth willingly call vpon those of whome he is not certayne by what meanes they heare him proâ—â—de andeant necne c. and therefore vnsure whether they heare him or no. So he 13. Wherein you see he argueth in effect no otherwyse then thus that because we know not certaynely how the Saynts do heare vs therefore we are not sure that they heare vs at all which truly is a strange inference for albeit we be not sure how and in what manner they heare vs yet we may be sure that they heare vs seeing that the certaynty of any effect doth noâ— depend vpon the knowledge eyther of the cause or of the manner or meanes how it is wrought as it is euident by infinite effects which we certaynely know and see though we neyther know the assured cause thereof nor in what manner they are performed As for exampleâ— it is certayne that the sea â—bbeth and floweth that â—eâ—eâ—s haue theyr accesses and crises◠〈…〉 stone draweth 〈◊〉 and loketh alwayes towards the Northâ— and yet neuertheles we neyther cerâ—aynly 〈…〉 these â—ffects proceed nor how they are effected and who can assuredly tell how the sound of a voyce is framed and how the eye seeth whether by intromission or extramission as the Philosophers speake when neuertheles thâ— effects are euident 14. And this being so in naturall and earthly matters subiect to our senses what shall we thinke of heauenly thinges or of matters belonging to religion and fayth which do farre more exceed mans weake capacity must we eyther know how they are wrought or els deny the effects Let M. Andrews tell me how Angels and Saynts in heauen do pray to God for vs which he granteth they do or how they vnderstand one another or yet how the humanity of Christ heareth our prayers and knoweth our actions I meane whether he seeth them in his diuinity or knoweth them by reuelation and if he dare not determine the matter let him according to his owne inference doubt whether Christ heareth our prayers or not yea let him not willingly pray vnto him seeing he sayth that no man doth willingly call vpon those of whome he is vncertayne by what meanes they heare him and if he will take vpon him to determine it let him tell me why the glorified soules of Saynts which see God may not heare our prayers and know our actions in the same manner 15. But to omit infinite other instances which might be giuen let vs heare what S. Augustine sayth euen in a matter pertayning to this question whereof we now treate For albeit he maketh great doubt how Almighty God did work those stupendious miracles which as he testifieth vpon his owne knowledge were done at the memoryes and relyques of S. Steuen and other Martyrs yet he made so litle doubt of the effect that he vrged the same notably against the Paynims to proue
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
he tooke Arcadius the Emperour who caused this to be done and all the Bishops which caried these reliques and all the multitude of people which accompanied them for sacrilegious persons and fooles and finally concludeth deryding his folly Videlicet saith he adorabant Samuelem non Christum cuius Samuel Leuita Propheta fuit Belike they adored Samuel and not Christ whose Leuite and Prophet Samuel was This saith S. Hierome shewing the absurdity of Vigilantius who did thinke that Christ was not adored in all this but only Samuel Whereas all the reuerence honor adoration vsed by those Bishops and people to the Reliques of Samuel was indeed done to Christ because as S. Hierome said before seruorum honos redundat ad Dominum The honor of the seruants redoundeth to their Lord. 26. So that S. Hierome doth not deny that holy reliques may be adored in any other sense then as M. Andrewes following his progenitor Vigilantius will needs vnderstand the word adoration that is for a diuine Cult and worship in which sense neyther S. Hierome nor the Catholiks in his tyme nor we now do vse or take it when it is applied to holy things but only for a deuout and religious veneration as S. Hierome himselfe doth also vse it not only in the place before cited by the Cardinall touching the adoratioÌ„ of the ashes of S. Iohn and other Prophets but also when he said of himselfe Praesepe Domini incunabula adoraui I adored the manger and cradle of Christ and againe expounding that verse of the Psalme adorate scabellum pedum eius adore the Foot-stole of his Feet he taketh the Foot-stoole to be the Crosse giuing thereby to vnderstand that the Crosse is to be adored And therefore I leaue it to thee good Reader to iudge what a vaine vaunt it was of M. Andrews to say vpon the former place of S. Hierome Tenetur hic Cardinalis vt elabi non possit hecre the Cardinall is taken and held so fast that he cannot slip away Whereas you see that the whole place and the circumstances being laied downe with the state of the question betwixt Vigilantius and S. Hierome all which he craftily concealed he is caught himselfe lyke a mouse in a trappe in such sort that he shall neuer be able to get out with his credit 27. But yet there remaineth a word or two more to be said of this matter to a place of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose which he also obiecteth to the same purpose For whereas those two Fathers interpreting the wordes of the psalme adorate scabellum pedum eius Adore yee the Foot-stoole of his Feete do expound the foot-stoole to be the body of our Sauiour in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist teaching that the same is there to be adored M. Andrews saith that if adorare might be taken properly to adore holy thinges they would neuer haue troubled themselues so much to find out how the Footstool of God might be adored neyther would they haue determined that it could not be adored but in the body of Christ Whereto I answere firstâ— that they do not expound the same litterally but mystically for scabellum Dei the Foot-stoole of God in that place is litterally to be vnderstood of the Arke of the TestameÌ„t as the Cardinal hath proued by many notable reasoÌ„â— authorityâ— in his CoÌ„trouersys wherto I remit M. Andrews because I will not detayne my reader too long vpon this point 28. Secondly I say that albeit they vnderstood adoration in that place for diuine honour yet they do not deny but that it is and well may be taken in other places for a religious worship done to holy men for S. Augustine himselfe teacheth expressely in his booke de Ciuitate Dei that there is no one word in Latin that so properly signifieth diuine honor or worship but it is and may be applied to creatures except Latria which is borrowed of the Greeks and applyed eyther alwayes sayth S. Augustine or almost allwayes to the seruice of God rather by custome and vse then by the nature of the word properly signifying seruitus seruice For which cause hauing in his questions vpon Genesis demanded how Abraham could lawfully adore the Children of Heth seeing the Scripture sayth Dominum Deum tuum adorabis illi soli seruies Thou shalt adore thy Lord God and serue him alone he answereth that it is not said there Deum solum adorabis Thou shalt adore God alone but illi soli seruies thou shalt serue him alone and noteth also that for the word seruies in Latine the Greeke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence is deriued Latria So that it is euident by S. Augustine himselfe that neyther adorare nor any other Latine word doth properly signify to worship God only and that adoratio when it is not taken for cultus Latriae as he taketh it in the exposition of Adorate scabellum c. may be applyed to creatures and therefore he himsefe not only vnderstandeth adoratioÌ„ for ciuil worship in the foresaid example of Abraham but also vseth it els where for religious worship due to holy men saying of S. Peter Beaâ—issimum Petrum piscatorom c. The multitude of faithfull people doth now adore the most Blessed Peter the Fisherâ— genibus prouolutis vpon their knees 29. S. Ambrose also made no doubt to apply it to the veneration and worship of holy things who speaking of the Nayle of Christs Crosse which Queene Helen caused to be set in the Diadem of the Emperour Constantin her sonne sayd that she did wysely therein vt Crux Christi adoretur in regibus that the Crosse of Christ may be adored in Kings and to shew that he spake of religious worship adoration not of ciuill honour due to kings he addeth immediatly non insolentia ista sed pietas est cùm defertur sacrae redemptioni This is not insolency but piety when 〈◊〉 it is referred to our holy Redemption wherein I wish it â—o be noted by the way that M. Andrewes may learne hereby how impertinently he answereth els where to this place alledged by Cardinall Bellarmine for whereas the Cardinall to proue the religious adoration of reliques and images obiecteth out of S. Ambrose this very place to wit that Queene Helen did well and wisely cause the Crosse to be set vpon the head of Kings to the end that the Crosse of Christ may be adored in Kings M. Andrews answereth that if the Crosse be adored in Kings noÌ„ aliter adoratur c. it is not otherwyse adored then the Kings themsâ—lues is autem ciuilis honos est non religiosus but this is a ciuil and not religious honour So he but you see heere that the adoration whereof S. Ambrose speaketh is not due or giuen to the Kings themselues but referred to our redemption that is to say to the Passion of Christ and therefore
it is not ciuil but religious adoration which also appeareth more euidently by that which followeth a litle after in S. Ambrose declaring what manner of reuerence was exhibited to the holy Nayle of the Crosse for hauing sayd Ecce clauus in honore est c. behold the Nayle is honored c. and that inuisibili potestate daemones torquet it doth torment diuels by an inuisible power he addeth after a whyleâ— ferro pedum eius reges inclinantur reges adorant Photinians diuinitatem eius negant Kings do bow downe to the iron of his feete that is to say to the nayle wherewith Christs feete were fastened to the Crosse Kings do adore and doe the Photinian heretikes deny his diuinity thus saith S. Ambrose making as you see the adoration of the instruments of our Sauiours Passion to be an argument of his diuinity and shewing withall what manner of reuerence Kings themselues vsed to the holy Nayle to wit a corporall reuerence and submission inclyning and bowing downe their bodyes vnto it which is properly Adoration 30. Whereby the Reader may also see the absurdity of another euasion which M. Andrews seeketh in the same place saying vbi de religiosa adoratione sermo illi c. where he to wit Ambrose speaketh of religious adoration he sayth that Helen hauing found the Crosse adored the King that is to say Christ and not the wood whereof he also declareth the cause to wit because this is the errour of the gentils and the vanity of wicked men So he who in these very words of S. Ambrose which he obiecteth may see and acknowledg if it please him what all Catholikes do teach togeather with S. Ambrose concerning the adoration of the Crosse and other instruments of Christs Passion Images and holy relicks to wit that the wood substance and matter it selfe is not adored but that which is thereby represented as in like case when M. Andrews standeth bare in the Chamber of Presence before the Kings chayr Cloth of Estate he doth nor reuerence the matter or substance of the Cloth and Chayre but the Maiesty of the Prince which the same doth represent and yet neuertheles he cannot deny but that he reuerenceth and honoureth the Kings Chayre though not for it selfe but to shew and expresse his duty towards his Prince and in like manner albeit S. Ambrose affirmeth with great reason that Queene Helen did not adore the wood of the Crosse but Christ because to adore the wood alone without relation to Christ had byn a wicked and Gentilicall vanity and errour yet he saith afterwards as you haue heard not only that the Crosse is adored but also that ferro pedum eius reges inclinantur Kings do bow downe to the Iron of Christs feete meaning the holy Nayle as I haue declared before and therefore M. Andrewes must needs graunt that though S. Ambrose do reiect as all Catholikes also do the adoration of the bare wood and Iron of the Crosse and Nayle in respect of themselues yet he admitteth and approueth the adoration of them with relation to our Sauiours Passion cùm defertur as he speaketh sacrae Redemptioni when the honour is referred to our holy Redemption 31. This then being so 3. thinges follow vpon the premises The first that S. Augustine and S. Ambrose affirming that the Foot-stoole of God could not be adored if it were not vnderstood of the Blessed body of our Sauiour in the Eucharist do speake only of adoratio latriae that is to say the adoration which is due to God alone and therefore they alledge the wordes of our Sauiour Dominum Deum tuum adorabis illi soli seruies thou shalt adore thy God and serue him alone In which wordes adoration is precisely to be vnderstood of diuine honour and yet so that S. Augustine as you haue heard gathereth thereby that there is also an inferiour adoration which may be exhibited to creatures and therefore he noteth that our Sauiour said not Deum solum adorabis thou shalt adore God alone The second consequent is that M. Andrewes hath wholy failed of his purpose which was to proue that adoration of Reliques must needs be vnderstood to signify a diuine and godly honor done to Reliques whereof I haue clearely proued the contrary notwithstanding his obiections which I haue shewed to be partly friuolous and partly fraudulent The third is that he sheweth himselfe to be the true progeny of the heretike Vigilantius whose humour and condition he expresseth ad vâ—uum not only in calumniating vs and our doctrine concerning the adoration of holy Reliques but also in changing the state of the question as Vigilantius did and therefore I may well and iustly say of him as S. Hierome said of the other O praecidendam linguam à medicis immò insanum curandum caput vt qui loqui nescit discat aliquando reticere And this shall suffice for this point I meane his custome to change the state of the question which is so ordinary in him that I could giue many other instances thereof but that I must pâ—sse to other shifts and fraudes of his not hauing tyme to stand long vpon any one kind and therefore I meane also to be briefer in the rest 32. The second point of cosenage which I discouered in M. Barlow was that he vsed to dissemble and omitt many tymes the most important part of his aduersaries obiections and answeres which kind of fraudulent dealing is no lesse ordinary in M. Andrews though neuerthelesse in his Preface to the Reader he promiseth to set downe in his Margent the Cardinalls owne words and text and albeit he confesseth that other whiles he contracteth or abridgeth the same when place and paper wanteth and that sometymes he leaueth out and cutteth off some wordes quae abesse poterant which might well be spared yet he assureth his Reader that he will allwaies set downe those words wherein the whole force of the Cardinalls meaning and intent consisteth in such sort Vt nihil pereat de argumenti pondere that there shall vant nothing of the weight of his argument Thus promiseth he but how well he performeth it we shall easely perceiue by those two or three examples following For though I might lay downe many more yet I am forced to keep my selfe within certayne limits to auoyd prolixity 33. The Cardinall to proue that the Article of the Creed concerning the remission of sinnes is not admitted and receiued in England as it ought to be sayth thus Veram peccatorum remissionem credere non potest c. he cannot belieue that there is true remission of sinnes who belieueth as the new Sectaries do that sinnes do allwayes remayne in man though he be iustified albeit they be not imputed For the Apostle did not say in the Creed I belieue that sinnes are not imputed but I belieue the Remission of sinnes that is to say true and full remission otherwise
I say merit though M. Andrewes doth not admit the word who neuertheles doth acknowledge it sufficieÌ„tly wheÌ„ he saith that God hath promised and will render mercedem diariam operi horario the dayes wages to an howers worke for merces meritum reward and merit are correlatiues and cannot be the one but in respect of the other for reward is neuer due but to him that doth merit or deserue it and he only that meriteth may iustly clayme reward And therefore the Apostle saith expressely â—i qui operatur merâ—â—s imputatur non secuÌ„dum gratiam sed secundum debitum to him that worketh the reward is imputed not according to Grace but according to debt 10. So as M. Andrews acknowledging that God hath promised and doth render mercedem operi a râ—ward to the worke doth consequently acknowledge meritum operis operantis the merit both of your worke and of the worker for dignus est operarius mercede sua saith our Sauiour the workman is worthy of his wages that is to say he meriteth or deserueth it In which respect also the Apostle saith Vnusquisque mercedem accipiet secundum laborem suum Euery one shall receiue reward according to his labour that is to say as his labour deserueth or as he meriteth for his labour And aâ—beit almightie God of his infinite bounty hath promised greater rewardes then our workes do in rigour of Iustice merit yet the couenant and promise being made he that doth the workes doth iustly merit the rewardes As for example King Saul promised to giue his daughter Michâ—l to Dauid in mariage yâ— he brought him a hundred prepaces of the Philistines and albeit Dauid thought himselfe vnworthy to marry the Kinges daughter saying that he was a poore man and of sâ—â—al ability yet when he had performed the condition he claymed performance of the Couenant and had her to wyfe and afterwards when she was taken from him by Saul giuen to Phaltiel he required her againe after Sauls death not only because she was his wyfe but also because he had bargayned for her and got her by CouenaÌ„t quam despondi mihi saith he centuÌ„ praeputijs Philistinorum whome I betrothed vnto me with a hundred prepuces of the Philistines as who should say that it was reason he should haue her because he had deserued her 11. And much more truly may the lyke be said of the good workes of iust men proceeding from Gods grace which workes besids the couenant and promise of reward are enobled also and dignified by grace and so made not only acceptable vnto God but also much more worthy of the reward promised then any moral workes could be though God should promise to reward them eternallyâ— so that the dignity of Gods grace concurring in the good worke with Gods promise of reward maketh the same truly meritorious be the worke neuer so smal and the reward promised neuer so great and therefore whosoeuer doth for the pure loue of God forsake his lands or parents or wyfe he meriteth that great reward which our Sauiour promised to wit Centuplum c. an hundreth fold in this world and lyfe euerlasting in the other And in this sense do all the Fathers teach the merit of workes so expressely that not only the Magdeburgenses but also Caluin taketh exceptions to them all for vsing the word merit so frequently as they do which indeed is most euident in theyr wrorkes and may be seene by innumerable places of the sayd Fathers alledged by Cardinall Bellarmine and others to proue the merit of good workes which I pretermit for that my meaning is not here so much to proue or confirme our doctrine in this poynt as somewhat to explicate it vpon this occasion offered 12. This then being the constant doctrine of Catholiks it appeareth how idle is M. Andrews his distinction in his Conclusion to wit reddendum cuique secundum opera sed ex vi promissi non valore meriti Euery one is to rewarded according to his workes but by the force of the promise and not by the valour of the merit This distinction I say is very impertinent for two causes the one for that it excludeth the effect by the cause that is to say the merit by the promise of reward from whence the said merit groweth for albeit we add thereto another consideration to wit the dignitie of Gods grace increasing the valour of the merit yet the same followeth also vpon the promise because God hath promised to reward eternally such workes only as proceed from his grace and are dignified thereby and consequently made the more meritorious in which respect we allwayes say with S. Augustine that omne bonum meritum nostrum non facit in nobis nisi gratia nothing but grace doth cause in vs all our good merit and cùm Deus coronat merita nostra nihil aliud coronat nisi munera sua When God doth crowne our merits he doth crowne nothing els but his owne guifts And truly I cannot see how M. Andrewes can deny that grace increaseth the valour of the merit except he will take part with Pelagius the heretike and impugne the dignity of Gods grace so as he must needes graunt that the worthines of grace being added to the force of Gods promise doth make the worke more worthie of reward The other cause why I say the distinction is ydle or rather M. Andrews for making it is because he maketh the same to confute the Cardinall as if the Cardinall did exclude the Consideration of Gods promise from the reward of workes whereof he might see the contrary in the Cardinalls controuersies where he debated the question at large and substantially proueth the necessity of Gods promise to make a worke meritorious and therefore wheras M. Andrews seeketh also to proue the same by Gregorius de Valentia whom he alledgeth to that purpose as if he would coÌ„fute the Cardinall by one of his owne profession he is as I haue said very impertinent therin labouring to proue that which the Cardinall denyeth not but expressely teacheth So as you see still M. Andrewes doth nothing els but idly beate the aire and fight with his owne shaddow impugning only his owne conceit and in the rest granting our doctrine concerning the reward and merit of good workes Thus much for this point 13. Amongst the examples which I gaue in the last Chapter of his changing the state of the question one was concerning the veneration of reliques for that he will needes suppose that we do worship reliques with deuine adoratioÌ„ and honour and therefore he impugneth and derideth the Cardinals distinction of dyuers kinds of adoratioÌ„ labouring to proue that adoration is not to be taken otherwayes then for deuine honour but in this I haue sufficiently shewed his ignorance and absurdity and haue also proued that we do not honor and worship reliques with diuine
Miracles were done in the Church of God for 4. hundreth yeares and we can proue the continuance thereof in our Church vntill this day either he must shew vs in what age they ceassed after S. Augustines time and why then rather then before yea and proue also that all the miracles done in the Catholike Church euer since haue bene diabolicall illusions or els he must confesse that the Protestants Church is not the true Church seeing that they haue not hitherto had so much as a lame or sickd og healed in all their Congregations by the vertue of any of their profession dead or aliue notwithstanding their liuely and strong faith whereof they are wont so much to vaunt And this I say the rather because I find that M. Andrewes is verie silent about this point euen when the Cardinall giueth him sufficient cause to speake thereof who answering an obiection of the Apology for the Oath concerning witchcraft imputed to Catholikes because they quench fire with Agnus Deis sayth Respondeo miracula diuina c. I answere that diuine Miracles are seene only amongst the Catholikes and M. Andrewes comming to answere that paragraph which beginneth with those words left them out wholly and setteth downe the next wordes following for the beginning of the Cardinalls text in that place perhaps he lakt paper and place for them or tooke them for words quae abesse poterant which might well be spared for such as you may remember he sayd he would leaue out sometimes 19. But to conclude concerning holy Reliques it appeareth sufficiently hereby that M. Andrewes graunteth as much concerning them as we desire to wit that they are to be decked and adorned layd vp with honour and solemnitie reserued and kept in honourable and holy places and finally that they are to be honored yea and that God doth somtimes worke Miracles by theÌ„ which he cannot deny to be a notable and diuine confirmation of the honour that is done vnto them and therefore for as much as the honour that he graunteth to be due vnto them is neither diuine honour which both he and we conclude in this case nor ciuill honour seeing it is not done for any temporall or ciuill respect but proceedeth out of deuotion and tendeth directly to the honour of God he must needs graunt it to be a religious honour and that the same may be exhibited with much more externall worship and reuerence then the ciuill honour or worship which is due to any Prince yea so much more as respect of deuotion and Religion surpasseth and excelleth temporall and ciuil respects so that if ciuill honour do require corporall reuereÌ„ce with cap and knee bowing and prostrating of the body much more doth the Religious honour due to Saints and their Reliques require the same Thus much for this point 20. Whereas the Cardinall hauing occasion to speak of Monks and Religious women he saith that their Institute cannot be reprehended except we reprehend all the Fathers of the first 500. yeares M. Andrews graÌ„teth it to be true for he saith that his Maiesty meaÌ„t not to reprehend the Institute of Monks but the Monkes theÌ„selues because they haue long since gone froÌ„ their Instituts or rule being degenerated into Locusts apud quos saith he desidia nimium verè nimium saepe in luxuriam despumauit whose Idlenes or sloath hath too truly and too oft turned to a very foame or froath of luxurious and licentious life So he and then he addeth that because their Institute was not of the diuine law but only of the positiue and now gone in merum abusum into a meere abuse therfore it is worthily antiquated or abolished amoÌ„gst the Protestants wherin that which I wish especially to be noted is that he approueth the first Institute of Monks and consequently must needs approue diuers important pointes of Catholike doctrine and vtterly condemne his owne Religion 21. For it is most euident that the first Institut and discipline of Religious life consisted principally as still it doth in the obseruation of the Euangelicall Counsells of our Sauiour to wit of voluntary pouety Chastity and obedience abnegation of a mans selfe and Chastisment of his flesh by fasting Pennance wearing of hairecloath disciplines diuers other MortificatioÌ„s as it is manifest partly in the Monasterial discipline obserued by the first Monkes in the Apostles time and related by Philo the Iew as Eusebus S. Hiâ—rome Epiphanius S. Bede Sozomen and Nicephorus do testify and partly in the Monasticall constitutions which are to be seene expresly set downe in S. Basill and often touched and mentioned by Cassianus Palladius Theodoretus IoaÌ„nes Climacus Seuerus Suspitius S. Augustine S. Hierome and other Fathers of the first 400. yeares to omit S. Benets Rules yet extant which were made in the age following So that M. Andrewes approuing the Institutes of the old Monks alloweth the practise of all that Catholicke doctrine before mentioned which other Sectaries of this time haue hitherto condemned derided and abhorred as repugnant to the liberty of their Ghospell and their owne sensuality 22. Besides that he also approueth thereby workes of supererogation such I mean as are not commanded but counselled and left to our owne free choice and consequently he granteth the difference betwixt a Counsell a Precept contrary to the doctrin of Luther Caluin and other Sectaries Finally he alloweth vowes of Pouertie Chastity and Obedience which are and alwaies haue bene as it were the link and band of Monasticall and Religious profession as it appeareth euidently in the ancient Fathers as in Dionysius S. Paules disciple who testifieth that those who were made Monkes in his time which was the tyme of the Apostles made a solemne promise and couenant before the Altar to renounce the world and imbrace the Monasticall lyfe And S. Basil writing to a Monke that was fallen putteth him in mynd of his couenant made with God and prâ—fessed coram multis testibus before many witnesses and in his Monasticall rules signifieth that he which hath vowed himself to God in this Religious profession and passeth afterward to another state of life sacrilegij se scelere obstringit is guilty of Sacriledg because he hath saith he as it were stolne himselfe from God to whome he had dedicated and consecrated himselfe 23. Also S. Augustine saith to the same purpose Nemo potiùs in Monasterio frater dicat c. Let no brother or religious man that is in a monasterie say I will leaue and forsake it or that it is not to be thought that only those shall be saued who liue in Monasteries or that others which liue abroad do not pertaine to god for to him that should say so it is to be answered illi non vouerunt tu vouisti They haue not vowed but thou hast vowed So he Finally Ioannes Cassianus who liued
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
vt coÌ„mig Beethlem S. Dionys. Eccles. Hierar ca. 10. S. Basil. Ep. 1. ad Monach. lapsum in fine in ep ad Virgin laps Idem reg 14. fusius explic S. Aug. in psal 75. ante finem Ioan Cass. de Iustit renuÌ„ti li 4. c. 13. See supl. c. 7. nu 59. 60. M. Andrews approuing the first institute of monks approueth many important points of Catholke Religion See Card. Bellar. l. de monachis c. 42 43. seq (b) See Supplem Chap 7. n. 58 59.60 (a) Luther in colloqu Germa c. de matrimo (b) Idem to 8. de matrimo fol. 119. (c) Idem de Bigamia Episcop proposit 62. IteÌ„ Ochinus dialog l. 2. dial 21. See Caluinoturcis l. 2. cap. 11. (d) Bucer in cap. 1. 19. Mat. (e) 1. Tim. â— (f) Tertul. lib. de monogam c. 13. S. Epiphanius lib. 2. haeres 61. in fine S. Chrysost. hom 19. in 1. Cor. 7. in 1. Tim. 8. hom 15. S. Aug. in Psal. 75. IteÌ„ Concil Carthag 4. can 104. (g) S. Basil. de vera virginitate The first Euangelists of the Protestants Ghospell were the true Locusts that destroyed religiouâ— profession and perfection That the name Catholike belongeth only to the Apostolike Roman Church to the children thereof Andr. c. 5. pag. 125. §. Quod affert (a) See Chap. 4. nu 57.58 sequent (b) Ibid. nu 61. Magdeb. cent 4. c. 10. Socrat. l. 4. c. 30. (c) Cap. 4. nu 62. (d) Ibid. nu 63. (e) Ibid. nu 58. 59. Bellar. dâ— Pont. RoÌ„ l. 4. ca. 8. 11. (a) Idem Resp. ad Apolog. p. vlt. (b) Paâ—id Ep. ad Sympronian (c) S. Ciril Hier. c. 18. (d) Aug. in lib coÌ„tra ep FuÌ„dameÌ„ cap. â—â— Andr. c. 5. p. 125. Nam quae Andr. vbi supra M. Andr. his distinction helpeth him nothing Aug. vbi supra Item de vera religione c. 7. Luc. c. 19. Andr. c. 7. pa. 168. §. Nam de nostr (b) Barl. Ser. an 1606. 21. Septemb. (c) See before chap. 6. nu 77. (d) See Suppl Chap. 4. nu 54.55 seq (f) Suppl ca. 5. nu 2.3.4 5. What a beggarly Church Clergy the Sectaries haue in England See Supl. vbi supra nu 5. See Supl. vbi supra nu 6. S. Hieron aduers. Lucifer Iohn 10. (c) See before nu 35. also Suppl chap. 4 nu 54.55 seq Luc. 19. (b) Chap. 6â— nu 81â— (d) Chap. 3. nu 37. sequent What a poore coÌ„ceipt M. Andrews hath of the Kings ecclesiasticall supremacy Andr. c. 1. pag 21. §. Neque tamâ— Ibidem Ibid. p. 29. §. Aâ— recepta The Ecclesiastical Supremacy of temporall Princes may be in M. Andrews his Pater noster but is not in his Creed The oath of the supremacy vnlawful if the supremacy be no matter of faith Aureol in 3. dist 39â— Ang. verb. periurium See Nauar. manuale c. 12. nu 3. Suarez de relig Tom. 2. li. 3. ca. 4. nu 7. Card. c. 1. pag. 7. Andr. c. 1. p. 22. §. Sed. nec M. Andrews his grosse ignorance S. Aug. Quaest. in Leuit. li. 3. quaest 23. Num. 2â— M. Andrew his notorious malice in the abuse of holy Scripture Deut. 17. See c. 6. nu 68.69.70 See Suppl c. 1. nu 10. seq (g) Ibid. nu â—4 seq (h) Ibid. nu 3â— seq (i) nu 44. (k) nu 45. 50. (l) nu 49. seq (m) nu 3â— seq (n) nu 28. seq (o) nu 53.54.55 56. (p) See sup Chap. 1. nu 83. 84. It cannot be shewed how Kings afâ—ter they were Christened came to haue the gouernment of the Church The Ecclesiasticall supremacy of temporall Princes excluded by a rule of M. Andrewesâ— Andr. c. 1. pag. 37. §. Verùm M. Andrewes doth not allow any spirituall authority to the King Andr. ci 14. pâ— 323. lin 33. (d) nu 37. Ibid. c. 1. p. 21. §. nequâ— tamen What manner of Ecclesiasticall power M. Andreweâ— acknowledgeth in temporall Princes A Pagan Prince hath as much authoritie ouer the Church as M Andrewes alloweth to his Maiestie An. 26. Hen. 8. â— 1. The Parliament Statutes giue spirituall authority to the Kings Queens of England Ibidem The Lord Cromwel Vicar General to K. Henry the 8. for thâ— exercise of his spirituall Iurisdictioâ—â— An. 1. Elizab. c. 1. Spirituall Iurisdiction graÌ„ted to Q. Elizabeth by the Parliament An. 1. Elizab. c. 1. An. 1. Edward 6. c. 2. All the Spirituall Iurisdiction and authoritie of the Clergy of England declared by a statute to be deryued from the Prince M. Andrewes depriueth the Kings Maiesty of all the spirituall authority that the Parliaments haue giuen him (a) See before chap. â— nu 13. (b) suppl c. 1. nu 18.19 seq (c) Num. â— (d) Deut. 10. 18. (e) Numer 8. (f) Suppl c. 1. from nu 10. to 53. (g) Ibid. nu 51.52 K. Saul had no authority ouer the hygh Priest S. Aug. in psal 51. Andr. Tort. Torti p. 151. An. 26. Hen. 8. c. 1. an 1. Eliz ca. 1. The King might according to the statut excoÌ„municate an heretyke as well as any Bishop (d) Supra nu 53. The King could not giue the power of censure to other if he had it not in himfelse See suppl c. 6â— nu 61. M. Andrews neyther good Subiect nor good English Protestant A great difference to be noted betwixt M. Andrews his deniall of the Kings supremacy and ours Act. 5. M. Andrews hath no such obligation to deny the Kings supremacy as we haue M. Andrews lyke to a treacherous frend or a preuaricating aduocate M. Andrews doth vnderhand betray the Kings cause Why M. Andrewes is no good English Protestant See coÌ„stitut and Canons Ecclesiasticall printed by Rob. Barker Anno. 1604. Can. 2. M. Andrewes seemeth to be turned Puritan in the point of the K. Supremacy The Oath of the Puritans of Scotland set forth in the yeare 1584. What difference may be noted betwixt M. Andrews and the Puritans Both Catholikes Puritans are better Subiects then M. Andrews (a) Card. Apol. ca. 1. pag. 10 (b) Andr. c. 1. p. 30. §. Postremo (c) Ibid §. Nec habet See c. 6. n. 78.79 The Puritans doctrine coÌ„cerning the Kings subiectioÌ„ to their Presbytery The pretended reformed churches do not allow in teÌ„porall Princes any such spirituall authority as our ParlameÌ„ts haue graÌ„ted to our Kings M. Andrews professing the doctrine of the Puritans and reformed Churches concerning the Kings supremacy denieth it to be spirituall (b) suprâ— nu 47. (c) nu 37. M. Andrews no English Protestant but a flat Puritan The learned English ProtestaÌ„ts ashamed oâ— their woÌ„ted doctrine coÌ„cerning the Ecclesiasticall supremacy of teÌ„porall Princes See beforâ— nu 35. â— chap. 6. nu 77. M. Barl. seemeth to make the King head of the Church no otherwyse theÌ„ as the Pagan Emperours were M. Barlow and M. Andrews like to the Scorpion and why The opinion of the learned strangers concerning M. Andrewes his bookes against Cardinall Bellarmine M. Andrews gerally disliked for his obscurityâ— M. Andrewes compared for his obscurity to a fish called a Cuttle Plyn l. 9. ca. 29. A good aduise for a frendly farewell to M. Andrews (b) Se sup ca. 8. nu 100. seq (c) Ibid. nu 103. 104. (d) Ibid. nu 105. seq (f) Mat. 16. Mar. 8. Touching the cause and subiect of this Appendix See Suppl p. 208. nu 3 Adioyâ—d ca. 10. nu 35. The exception taken by Catholikâ— to the first Protestant Bishopes in Q. Elizabethâ— dayes iâ— no new quarrell D. Hard. confut of the Apolog par 2. fol. 59. printed an Dom. 1565. D. Hardings chaleng to M. Iewell coÌ„cerning the consecration of the first Protestant Bishops D. Staplet return of vntru fol. 130. lin 26. D. Stapletons chalenge to M. Iewell and M. Horne touching their coÌ„secration Idem counterblast fol. 301. An. 1. Elizab ca. 1. M. Horne answered nothing coÌ„cerning his consecration Iewell defence of the Apology pag. 130. M. Iewels ambiguous and weak answere touching his lawfull consecration How much it imported M. Iewell to haue proued the consecration of their Archbishop Doct. Har. detect fol. 234. p. 2. Touching M. Iewels irresolute ambiguous indirect answere How much it imported the first Protestant Bishops to haue had a publick most solemne Consecration How improbably M. Mason affirmeth out of his Registers that 4. Bishops consecrated M. Parker the first Archbishop How litle credit M. Masons new-found Register deserueth Andr. Resp. ad Apol. p. 41. §. proximi Barl. answâ— to a name Catholike p. 283. With how great reason exception is to be takeÌ„ to M. MasoÌ„s Register vntill he shew it to Catholiks who may giue testimony of it What is to be considered in M. MasoÌ„s Register to make it auteÌ„ticall An offer to shew any manuscript in Rome to English ProtestaÌ„ts