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
testifyed in the same Epistle to Pope Leo that our Sauiour had committed to him the keeping of his vineyard that is to say of his Church whereto M. Andrews answereth that the vineyard was indeed committed to him but not to him alone sed cum alijs in vinâ—a operarijs but togeâ—ther with other workmen in the vineyard wherein he saith very truely for no man denyeth but that there were other Pastors in the Church besides Pope Lâ—o though we affirme that all other Pastors were inferiour and subordinate to him and I think no man doubteth but that when the charge or gouernment of a temporall Commonwelth is committed to a King or other soueraigne Prince he doth not exercyse it alone but togeather with other Magistrats subordinate and subiect to him and the like we say of the supreme Pastor of the Church that he is not the only Pastor though he be chiefe and supreme which point I haue debated in the former Chapter where I confuted the like answere of M. Andrewes to our obiection of the Pastorall commission giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter 45. Therefore I remit him and the Reader to what I haue discoursed there touching that poyntâ— and wil also ad further heere coÌ„cerning Pope Leo that wheras M. Andrewes granteth his Pastorall authority togeather with other Pastors meaning that he had no more nor other authority ouer the Church then other Bishops had he is easily conuinced by the circumstances of the same place which the Cardinall obiecteth and he pretendeth now to answere for there Dioscorus is accused of three things the first that he had taken vpon him to condemne and depose Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople and Eusebius Bishop of Doryleum against the Canons of the Church The second that whereas Pope Leo had depriued Eutyches the heretyk of his dignity in the Church of Constantinople where he was Abbot of a Monastery Dioscorus had restored him thereto and so irruens in vineam c. breaking into the vineyard which he found notably well planted he ouerthrew it c. The thyrd was that post haec omnia saith the Councell insuper contra ipsum c. And after all this he did moreouer extend his madnes against him to whom the charge or keeping of the vineyard was committed by our Sauiour id est contra tuam quoque Apostolicam Sanctitatem that is to say also against thy Apostolyke Holynes meaning Pope Leo for to him the Councell wrote this 46. Whereby it is euident that the Councell distinguisheth clearely betwixt the authority of Pope Leo and of the two other Bishops Flauianus and Eusebius seeing that all three of them being named as greatly iniured by Dioscorus the offence agaynst Pope Leo is exaggerated much more then the iniury done to the other two and held to proceed of meere madnes fury And albeit mention be made of the vineyard as broken downe and ouerthrowne by Dioscorus in the depositioÌ„ of those two Catholik Bishops yet only Pope Leo who is honoured with the title of Apostolicall Sanctity is acknowledged to haue had the charge of the vineyard committed to him by our Sauiour which had bene said very impertinently of him alone if those other two Bishops had as much charge of the vineyard as he Besids that the Councell testifieth in the same place that Pope Leo depriued Eutiches who was an Abbot in Constantinople of his dignity which he could not haue done out of his owne Diocesse in the Church of Constantinople if as well the Bishop of that Church as Eutiches had not been subiect to him whereto it may also be added that as Liberatê° testifieth this Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople for whose iniurious deposition Dioscorus is here accused by the Councell appealed for remedy to Pope Leo acknowledging thereby that Leo was his superiour and had also an vniuersall authority for otherwyse the appeale from the Greeke Church to him had byn in vayne So that M. Andrewes his glosse allowing to Pope Leo no more authority then to all other Pastors is very absurd and easily conuinced by the text it selfe 47. After this he idly carpeth at the Cardinall for saying that the Councell acknowledged Pope Leo to haue the charge totius vineae of the whole vineyard because totius is not in the text of the Councell Nec totius vineae dicitur saith M. Andrewes sed commoda vox totius Cardinali visum est adijcere neyther is it said of the whole vineyard but the Cardinall thought good to add totius because it is a commodious word for his purpose whereby it seemeth that he would haue some vnwary Reader to imagin that the Cardinall had corrupted the text by adding the word totius whereas there is no such matter for hauing alledged the words of the CouÌ„cell as they are to wit cui vineae custodia à Saluatore commissa est he doth afterwards in his owne discourse and for the explication therof adde totius saying vbi fatentur totius vineae custodiam c. where they to wit the Fathers of the Councell of Calcedon do confesse that the charge of all the vineyard was committed to the Pope Thus saith the Cardinall signifying that the Councell did meane that Leo had the charge of the whole Church which as I haue shewed is most euident euen by all the circumstances of the place 48. And therefore M. Andrewes supecting with great reason that this deuyse would serue him to litle purpose thought best to grant that totius vineae might be sayd in some sense Et vel si totius sayth he nihil iuuaret c. Yea and if it had bene sayd totius vineae it would help him nothing seeing that whatsoeuer doth eyther violate the vnity or trouble the peace of the whole Church ad curam omnium ex aequo pertinet non Leonis solùm doth belong to the care of all men equally and not of Leo only So he signifying that albeit Pope Leo might be sayd to haue had the Charge of the whole Church yet it were to be vnderstood that he had it no otherwyse then all other men haue And why Marry forsooth because all men are equally bound to haue care of the vnity and peace of the Church which truly may passe for a very strange paradoxe howsoeuer he vnderstandeth it I meane whether he extend the word omnium to all men in generall as he seemeth to do or limit it to all Pastors only 49. For if he meane that all men ought to haue care of the vnity and peace of the Church alyke or in equall degree he is most absurd confounding all order gouernment and subordination in the Church seeing that one speciall cause if not the chiefest why God ordayneth Pastors and Gouernours therin was to auoyd schismes and to conserue it in peace and vnity as I haue proued amply in my Supplement I haue also shewed that M. Barlow vrgeth the
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
word mater is applyed to the Church by S. Cyprian therefore Caput cannot be applyed to S. Peter but to the Church Therfore to the end M. Andrews may vnderstand that S. Peter and not the Church it selfe is in this place worthily tearmed by S. Cyprian caput fons radix origo the head the fountayne the roote and the spring he shall do well to consider the ground and drift of all S. Cyprians discourse which the Cardinall in his Apology omitted for breuityes sake and therefore although I haue layd it downe in my Supplement to proue the necessity of a visible head in the Church yet I will take paynes to repeat it heere to ease the Reader of the labour to seeke it there 4. S. Cyprian meaning to shew the cause why the Church is troubled with heresyes and schismes and withall to giue the remedy saith thus Hoc eò fit c. This hapneth because men do not returne to the beginning of truth nor seeke the head nor obserue the doctrin of the heauenly Maister which if any man will well consider and examine he shall not need any longer treatise or arguments to proue it the proofe is easy to be belieued by the compendiousnes or breuity of the truth our Lord sayd to Peter I say vnto thee thou art Peter and vpon this rock I will buyld my Church and the gates of hell shall not ouercome it c. To him also he saith after his resurrection Feede my sheepe vpon him being one he buylt his Church and to him he recommended his sheep to be fed and although after his resurrection he gaue equal power to all his Apostles and sayd as my Father sent me so I send you receaue the holy Ghost c. neuertheles to manifest and shew a vnity he ordayned one chayre and by his authority disposed that the beginning of the same vnity should proceed from one Truely the rest of the Apostles were that which S. Peter was endued with lyke fellowship of honour and power but the beginning proceedeth from vnity the Primacy is giuen to Peter that one Church of Christ and one chayre may be shewed So he 5. And prosecuting still the same matter proueth notably the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head from whence all the vnity of the body is deriued which he sheweth by three excellent similituds of many branches of one tree springing from one roote many brookes of one water flowing from one fountayne and many beames of one light deriued from one sunne concluding his discourse that notwithstanding the amplitude of the Church by the propagation and numerosity of her children and the extension of her parts and members all ouer the world vnum tamen caput est sayth he origo vna c. yet the head is one and the origen or beginning one that is to say Peter vpon whome he sayd before as you haue heard that our Sauiour buylt his Church and to whom he recoÌ„mended his sheep to be fed yea gaue him Primatum the Primacy vt vna Christi Ecclesia vna cathedra monstretur to shew therby one Church of Christ and one chayre and this must needs be the true sense of S. Cyprian in that-place if we will make his conclusion conforme to his premisses and to the whole scope of his intention 6. So that M. Andrews making the Church it selfe to be the roote fountayne and head whereof S. Cyprian speaketh doth most absurdly confound the tree with the roote the riuers with the spring the body with the head and lameth all that most excellent discourse of S. Cyprian yea ouerthroweth the very foundation thereof denying all that which S. Cyprian layd for his ground to wit the Primacy and supreme authority of S. Peter from whence he expresly deryueth the vnity of the Church as he doth also most clearely els where saying in his Epistle to Iubaianus Nos Ecclesiae vnius caput radicem tenemus We haue or do hold the head and roote of one Church and after declaring what roote and head he meaneth he sayth nam Petro primùm Dominus super quem c. For our Lord gaue this power of binding and loosing to Peter vpon whome he buylt his Church vnde vnitatis origâ—nem instituit ostendit and from whence he ordayned and shewed the beginning of vnity And agayne after in the same Epistle Ecclesia quae vna est super vnum qui claues accepit voce Domini fundata est The Church which is one was by the speach of our Lord founded vpon one who receaued the keyes So he Whereby it euidently appeareth that his constant and manifest doctrine is that all the vnity of the Church proceedeth from the vnity of her head to wit S. Peter and his chayre and that the Cardinall affirming that S. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne roote of the Church gaue vs his true sense and M. Andrews making the Church it selfe to be the head fountayne and roote of it selfe is very absurd and wholy repugnant to S. Cyprians doctrine or meaning 7. And this will be more cleere if we examin a little better M. Andrews his glosse vpon the text of S. Cyprian whereby he laboureth to proue that the Church it selfe and not S. Peter is the head fountayne and roote whereof S. Cyprian speaketh For hauing layd downe S. Cyprians words to wit sic Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa c. so also the Church shyning with the light of our Lord reacheth forth her beames ouer the whole world he noteth that the Father sayth Ecclesia non Petrus the Church not Peter and no meruaile seeing he had no occasion then to name Peter but the Church only for although the Church being a visible body hath alwayes a visible head vnder Christ to wit Peter and his successors yet S. Cyprian doth speake of it heere as of a body considered a part not including the head meaning afterwards to speake of the head as he had in lyke manner done before declaring from whence the vnity of that body is deriued as it will appeare further heereafter 8. In the meane tyme let vs see how M. Andrews goeth on with the text Vnum tamen lumen est c. Yet it is one light which is euery where spread neyther is the vnity of the body separated heere now he asketh two questions the one whether Peter be the light and the other whether he be euery where dispersed whereto I answere that although he is not the light of the Church as he was a particuler man yet he may well be so called not only as he was an Apostle seeing that our Sauiour sayd to all the Apostles Vos estis lux mundi you are the light of the world but also much more as he is the Vicar and substitute of our Sauiour who being lux vera the true light imparteth vnto him his owne excellencyes so far
S. Peter and his successors For if S. Peter were made head of all the Apostles to whome Christ left the gouernment of his Church it cannot be denied but that he was made head of the Church for who is head of any common welth but he that is head of all those that haue the administration charge and gouernement of it And if the reason why he was ordayned head of the Apostles was to auoyde and preuent the danger of schisme it must needs be granted that so long as the same cause and reason I meane the danger of schisme continueth in the Church so long also the remedy is to continue therin and that the greater the danger is the more necessary also is the remedy whereupon it followeth that seeing the danger of schisme doth and euer shall continue in the Church the remedy also of one head is euer to continue And for as much as the danger of schisme in the Apostles tyme was not so great they being all of them most holy men and particulerly guyded by the holy Ghost as it is andâ— alwayes hath bene euer since Therefore the remedy of one head which our Sauiour ordayned for the same is more necessary now then it was in their dayes yea and was more specially intended by his diuyne prouidence for all ensuing ages after the Apostles tyme then only during their liâ—es 38. Moreouer it being euident in the holy Scriptures that our Sauiour planted his Church to stand to the worlds end it were absurd to say that he ordayned that forme of gouernement vnder one head to last only during the Apostles tyme as though he had lesse care of the vnity of his Church in future ages then in the beginning when as I haue sayd the danger of schisme should be far lesse then it would be afterwards Therfore I conclude that seeing S. Peter was made head of the Apostles and consequently of the whole Church to auoyd schisme M. Andrews can not deny the same authority to S. Peters successors for the same reason especially seeing that our Sauiours prouidence therein is euident to the very eye of euery man that list not to be willfully blynd in that he hath permitted the succession of all the Apostles to fayle in all the Churches where they gouerned excepting only the succession of S. Peter in the Roman Church which he hath miraculously conserued to make it manifest to the world that S. Peter and his chayre as you haue heard out of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome is the Rock whereupon he promised to buyld his Church and that as S. Augustine sayth Ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae that is the Rock which the proud gates of hell do not ouercome 39. Furthermore whereas M. Andrews granteth also that a head appoynted in the Church for the remedy of schisme is to haue so much power as is necessary for that end he must needs consequently grant all that power which we requyre and acknowledge it in S. Peter and his successors to the same end I meane not only a power authority to define decyde coÌ„trouersies without the which no schisme or diuision concerning matter of doctrine can be conueniently compounded but also power and iurisdiction to punish such as do obstinatly infringe and violate the vniâ—ty and peace of the Church for how can the head sufficiently remedy schisme if he cannot punish those which do cause and mayntayne it and if M. Andrews will say that Christ hath therfore left authority to his Church to punish only by excommunication and spirituall censures I must demand of him what remedy the head of the Church can giue thereby when his censures are contemned and specially by an absolute Prince shall he haue then no further power to remedy the inconuenience how then is his power such as M. Andrews himselfe granteth it to be to wit quanta rei satis siâ— cui constitutus est as much as may be sufficient for the thing for the which he was made head that is to say to remedy and take away schisme 40. And who seeth not that the greatest harme that groweth to the Church by schisme commonly is when secular Princes do eyther rayse it themselues or mayntayne it in others Shall not then the head of the Church haue sufficient power to remedy this greatest danger and mischiefe that can hap to the Church Or shall he not haue meanes as well to correct his greatest and most powerfull subiects as the least and meanest Then as I haue sayd in my Supplement the power of the Church should be no better then a cobweb that holdeth the little flyes and letteth go the great ones and consequently the prouidence of Almighty God should be very defectiue in ordayning a head to conserue his Church in vnity and not giuing him sufficient power to performe it which no wyse temporall Prince would do if he should make a Lieutenant to gouerne in any part of his dominions Wherto it may be added that the Lawyers teach that he which granteth iurisdiction is presumed to grant all things necessary for the execution of it which is also conforme to the Philosophers Maxime to wit Qui dat esse dat consequentia ad esse he which giueth a being giueth togeather with it all those things which are consequents thereof or necessarily requyred thereto as I haue amply proued in my Supplement where I haue deduced the necessity of this consequent from the very Law of nature and light of reason 41. Besides that I haue also declared there that he which hath power ouer the soule for the benefit thereof must needs haue also power ouer the body and goods which by the very Law of nature are subiect to the soule and ordayned to serue it and therefore to be disposed by the spirituall Gouernour or Pastor so far forth as is necessary for the saluation of the soule in which respect the Church hath alwayes vsed and still doth to impose not only fasting and other bodily pennance but also imprisonments and pecuniary mulcts vpon her disobedient children when the benefit of their soules and the publick good of the Church doth requyre it which is also vsed by our Aduersaries themselues in their Ecclesiasticall discipline who in their spirituall Tribunals and Courts do punish the disobedient as well by pecâ—niary penalties as by corporall imprisonements Whereupon it followeth that when Princes who are members of the Church do violate the vnion thereof and are incorrigible by excommunication they may be chastised by their supreme head or spirituall Pastor euen in their temporall states so far as shall be necessary for the good of their soules and the benefit of the whole Church for otherwyse the head of the Church should not haue that sufficient power to remedy schismes and other inconueniences which M. Andrews himselfe granteth and it cannot indeed be denied 42. This then being so
M. Andrews his first question or doubt is sufficiently solued to wit How far the power of the head whereof S. Hierome speaketh doth extend that is to the direction gouernement yea and chastisment when occasion requyreth of all his inferiour members of what degree soeuer and consequently of Kings and Princes so far forth as shal be needfull for the coÌ„seruation of vnity in the Church and that therefore when only excommunication will not suffice to reduce them to vnity and obedience the head may extend his spirituall power to chastise them in their bodyes goods and states as far as shall be conuenient for the good of soules and the glory of God whereto all mens temporall states goods lands and lyues are principally ordayned 43. And now to come to his other question concerning the mumber which this head may gouerne to auoyd and remedy schisme let M. Andrews well ponder what he hath already granted and of this there will be no doubt at all For if Peter was head of the Apostles as S. Hierome teacheth and M. Andrews confesseth then consequently he was head of as many in number as were subiect to them which was no lesse then all the world whereof they had the spirituall charge and gouernement in which respect the Royall Prophet sayth of them and their successors pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filij c. For thy Fathers children are borne vnto thee thou shalt ordayne them to be Princes ouer all the earth So saith the Prophet of the Apostles of Bishops who succeed them in their charge and are therfore Princes Gouernours of the Church as S. Augustine S. Hierome and other Fathers expound this place which therefore is verified especially in the Apostles who being the Princes and Gouernours of the Church did not only plant but also propagate throughout the world in their owne tyme according to the commission and commaundment of our Sauiour who sayd vnto them Euntes in vniuersum mundum c. Going into the vniuersall world preach the Ghospell to euery creature which also the Royal Prophet fore-told of them saying In omnem terram exiuit sonus eorum c. The sound of them went forth into all the earth and their words into the bounds thereof 44. Seeing then the Apostles were Gouernours of the whole Church and yet subiect to S. Peter as to their head it must needs be granted that he was supreme head and gouernour of the whole Church propagated and dispersed throughout the world vnder their gouerment for which cause S. Chrysostome saith with great reason not only of all the Apostles in generall that they were to haue orbis terrarum curam the charge of all the world but also much more of S. Peter in particuler That Petro Apostolo orbis terrarum Ecclesiae the Churches of all the world and the multitudes of people were to be committed to Peter the Apostle and therefore euen in the former place where he saith that the Apostles were to receiue of Christ the charge of the world he acknowledgeth that S. Peter was Princeps Apostolorum vertex totius coetus the Prince of the Apostles and the top or head of all their congregation and that Christ committed vnto him curam fratrum the charge of his brethren that is to say of the Apostles and finally that Christ recommended vnto him orbis terrarum curam the charge of the whole world Finally comparing S. Iames the Apostle with S. Peter in the same place by the way of obiection demanding why then Iames was made Bishop of Hierusalem and not Peter he answereth Hunc totius orbis magistrum praeposuisse that our Sauiour preferred Peter to be the Maister of the whole world giuing to vnderstand that whereas S. Iames was only Bishop of Hierusalem and the Countries adioyning as also the other Apostles had euery one of them some part of the world allotted vnto him to gouerne S. Peter had the charge of the whole 45. By all which it is euident that albeit the Apostles had the gouerment of all the Church yet they were but subordinate to S. Peter who had a commission peculiar and singular to himselfe which was to haue the care charge and gouerment of them as well as of all others subiect to them So that his power and authority was wholy independant on them wheras theirs must needs depend of him as of their immediate head vnder our Sauiour whereby it may appeare what an idle head M. Andrews hath to exclude no lesse S. Peter then euery other particuler man from the gouerment of the whole Church for no better reason then lest he might become heterochtum cuput an extrauagant head or perhaps proue a Tyrant through the excesse eyther of power or of the number of subiects wherein he sheweth himselfe no lesse prophane then absurd attributing as it seemeth no force or effect to our Sauiours promise of his continuall assistance to his Apostles and Church for euer besides that he erreth grosâ—ely if he make the multitude of subiects a noticeâ— or cause of Tyranny it being euident that the greater the number of the subiects is the greater also is the difficulty to oppresse them by Tyranny and the greater the feare and danger to attempt it 46. And therefore we see more frequent tyranny in small States then in great Monarchies and when great Monarches are Tyrants they commonly exercyse their Tyranny vpon some part of their Dominions and not vpon the whole whereas a small State contayning a few subiects is easily Tyrannized vniuersally so that the multitude of subiects is not properly a motiue but rather a brydle to Tyranny though it is properly a cause of schisme when they are not gouerned by one head which M. Andrews acknowledgeth sufficiently when he confesseth that one head is necessary to take away the occasion of schisme amongst twelue or some other small number for if that be true then the greater the number is the greater is the danger of schisme if they haue many heads independant one of another whereupon it followeth that one supreme head is most necessary for the whole Church coÌ„sisting of an innumerable multitude of the faithfull dispersed throughout the whole world who being all visible members of one visible body could not possibly be conserued long in vnity if they had not one visible head whome they were all bound in conscience to obay as I haue shewed more at large in my Supplement euen by the testimony of M. Barlow himselfe 47. For which cause not only S. Cyprian as you haue heard before in this Chapter but also S. Hierome in this place teacheth with great reason that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles to auoyde and remedy the schismes which might grow not so much amongst them as in the whole Church for in them after they had receiued the holy Ghost there was no danger
they sent Embassadours to Rome to perswade Damasus that it was necessary for the good of the Church that he should pardon the offence of Flauianus for the concord and peace of the people which being graunted by Damasus communione saith Socrates Flauiano ad hunc modum reddita and Flauianus being by this meanes restored to the communion of the Church the people of Antioch were in tyme reduced to concord and vnion with him 64. Whereto Theodoretus addeth that the Emperour Theodosius in the tyme partly of Pope Damasus and partly of his successor Syricius and Anastasius laboured to procure the reconciliation of Flauianus with the sea Apostolick and commaunded him to goe to Rome to answere for himselfe which he promised to doe in the spring following though he did not performe it Finally the Emperour made his peace with the Pope in the end vpon condition that Flauianus should send his Embassadours to Rome which he did saith Theodoretus with a sollemne embassadge of Bishops Priests and Deacons vnder Acacius Bishop of Berroea who was at that tyme a man of great fame whereupon all the Bishops of Aegipt who vntill then would not communicat with him admitted him to their communion So that albeit the Historiographers do differ concerning the tyme when Flauianus was reconcyled with the Pope yet they all agree that he could neuer be fully restored to the peace and communion of the vniuersall Church vntill he had submitted himselfe to the Roman Sea which sheweth euidently that the Bishops of Rome had far greater and more ample authority then M. Andrewes doth affoard them Thus much concerning Damasus 65. And now to come to his successor Syricius it is euident euen in this cause of Flauianus by the testimony of S. Ambrose that his authority extended it selfe to the Greek and Eastern Church no lesse then to the Latin and West Church seeing that in a Synod held at Capua the hearing of Flauianus his cause was committed to Theophâ—lus Bishop of Alexandria and to the Bishop of Aegipt with this limitation as S. Ambrose witnesseth that the approbation and confirmation of their sentence should be reserued to the Roman Sea and the Bishop thereof who was then Syricius In like manner we fynd that his authority was admitted and acknowledged not only in Spayne and France but also in Africk as it may appeare by his Decretall Epistle writteÌ„ to Himerius or Himericus Bishop of Arragon in Spayne in answere of diuers demaunds of his in which epistle he ordayned that those his decrees should be sent by Himerius as well to Carthage in Africk as to Portugal and France and that they should be of no lesse force there and els where then in Arragon 66. To this will I add a testimony of an African Father that liued in the tyme of Siricius to wit of Optatus Bishop of Mileuis who clearely deduceth the primacy of Syricius from the primacy of S. Peter for writing against Parmenian the Donatist and vrging him that he could not deny but that Petrus omnium Apostolorum caput Peter the head of all the Apostles sate first in the Roman chayre wherof he also yieldeth these reasons viz. that in the said chaire vnity might be kept of all men that the rest of the Apostles should not euery one of them defend or callenge to himselfe a single chayre and that he might be held for a Schismatik and a wiked man who should set vp a chaire contra singularem Cathedram against the singular or principall chayre hauing I say vrged this he reckoneth all the Popes from S. Peter to his tyme ending with Syricius and concluding that because the Donatists held not communion with him therefore they could not haue the true Church 67. In this discourse it is manifest that as he acknowledgeth Peter for head of the Apostles and his chayre for the singular and principall chayre so he also acknowledged Syricius for head of all other Bishops and his chayre which was Peters for the principall chayre for otherwyse his argument against the Donatists grounded on Peters supreme authority had ben to no purpose Besids that he saith also a litle after prosecuting the same argument Legimus Principem nostrum c. We read that Peter our Prince receaued the wholsome keyes against the gates of hell c. Vnde est ergo c. How chanceth it then that you stryue to vsurpe to your selues the keyes of the Kingdome who with your audacious presumption do sacrilegiously make warre against the chayre of Peter So he 68. Therefore omitting heere how aptly this may be applyed to M. Andrews and his fellowes as well as to the Donatists that which I wish specially to be obserued is that Optatus being an African acknowledged the same soueraignty in Syricius which he affirmed to be in S. Peter for whereas he calleth him not only the head of the Apostles but also Principem nostrum our Prince it is cleare that the principality and soueraignty of Peter in the tyme of Optatus could not be otherwise vnderstood but in his successor Syricius who consequently was Prince and head of the Church as Peter was 69. The very same is taught also by S. Augustine concerning Pope Anastasius who succeeded Syricius for S. Augustine presseth the Donatists with the same argument that Optatus doth and naming all the Popes vntill his owne tyme he endeth with Anastasius hauing first deriued their lineall succession from S. Peter Cui saith he totius Ecclesiae figuram gerenti c. to whome bearing the figure of the whole Church our Lord sayd Vpon this rock I will buyld my Church wherein it is to be noted that S. Augustine acknowledging the primacy of S Peter in saying that the Church was built vpon him and that he bare the figure of the whole Church which he did not in any other respect but because he was head thereof as I haue proued in the first Chapter of this Adioynder he acknowledgeth the same in his successors and namely in Anastasius whome therefore he draweth by lyneall succession from S. Peter and to this purpose it may be also obserued that elswhere he ascribeth the great prerogatiue of S. Peter to wit his being the rock or foundation whereupon the Church was buylt to his chayre or seat and to the succession of Bishops deriued from him bidding the Donatists reckon the Priests that had succeeded one another in Peters seat and then concluding Ipsa est Petra c. that is the rock which the proud gates of hell doe not ouercome whereby it is euident that S. Augustine acknowledged Anastasius and all other successors of S. Peter for heads of the vniuersall Church seeing he affirmeth them to be the foundation thereof 70. This may be confirmed also by a Canon of an African Synod where it was decreed that letters should be sent to their brethren and fellow-Bishops abroad and especially to the Sea Apostolike to informe
aduertiseth him that he sent him the copies of such writings and letters of the Sea Apostolike as were come to his hands concerning those matters addressed eyther particulerly to the Bishops of Africk or vniuersally to all Bishops 76. Another thing to be noted in the testimony of Possidius is that he calleth the sentence of those two Popes Innocentius and Zosimus Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae iudicium the Iudgement of the Catholike Church of God which he could not haue done but in respect of their supreme power and authority to condemne heresyes as heads of the whole Catholike Church The third is that albeit the Emperour Honorius condemned also the Pelagians for heretikes by his temporall lawes yet he did it no otherwise but audiens sequens c. hearing and following the iudgment of the Catholike Church that is to say of those two Popes Innocentius and Zosimus for of them he speaketh expresly 77. And now to proceed if M. Andrews do yet desire any further proofe of this matter let him read S. Prosper S. Augustines disciple who sayth that a Synod of 217. Bishops being held at Carthage their Synodicall decrees were sent to Zosimus quibus probatis per totum mundum haeresis Pelagiana condemnata c. which being approued the Pelagian heresy was condemned thoughout the whole world And againe in another place he saith of Innocentius Tunc Pelagianorum machinae fractae sunt c. and then were the engines of the Pelagians broken when Innocentius of blessed memory stroke the heads of their wicked errour with his Apostolicall sword So he and a litle after he affirmeth the like of Pope Zosimus who added saith he the force of his sentence to the decrees of the African Councell and armed the right hands of Bishops with the sword of Peter ad detruncationem impiorum for the excommunication of the wicked So he giuing to vnderstand that not only the force of the African Synods against the Pelagians but also the general condemnation of them throughout the world proceeded from the authority of the Roman Sea wherupon it must needs follow that the said authority was vniuersall and that the Bishops of that Sea and namely Innocentius and Zosimus were more then Caput Ecclesiae suae Romanae heads of their Church of Rome 78. And albeit this might suffice cōcerning these two Popes yet I cannot omit the most famous and sollemne appeale of S. Chrysostome to one of them to wit to Innocentius to whome he sent 4. Bishops to complayne of his vniust banishment procured by Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and wrote also himselfe vnto him thus Obsecro vt scribat c. I beseech you write and decree by your authority that these thinges which were so vniustly done when I was absent aud did not refuse to be iudged may be of no force as indeed of their owne nature they are not and that those which haue done so vniustly may be subiect to the penalty of the Ecclesiasticall lawes c. Thus wrote S. Chrisostome with much more to the same purpose which he would not haue donne if he had thought that the authority of Innocentius had byn lymited within the particuler Church of Rome or rather if he had not knowne that his authority was vniuersall and sufficient to determyne his cause which also was euident by the progresse and issue of the matter for not only he as playntife appealed to Innocentius but also Theophilus as defendant sent a Priest of his called Peter with letters to iustifie his cause besids that all the Bishops of the East and Greek Church being in this controuersy deuided sent messingers or letters to Rome in fauour of the one or of the other as witnesseth Palladius Bishop of Helenopolis who was S. Christostomes disciple and went also to Rome to prosecute his cause and further testifyeth that Pope Innocentius gaue sentence for S. Chrysostome disanulling the act and iudgment of Theophilus 79. And whereas Atticus was made Bishop of Constantinople after the expulsion of S. Chrystostome Innocentius suspended him frō his Episcopall function vntill the causes should be fully heard and determined ordayning that in the meane tyme Proclus Bishop of Cyzicum should gouerne the Church of Constātinople And albeit Innocentius forbare for sometyme to proceed against Theophilus by way of censure yet after S. Chrysostomes death who dyed in banyshment within 3. yeares he excommunicated not only Theophilus and Atticus for the excesses cōmitted on their part but also Arcadius the Emperour and Eudoxia the Empresse for assisting them with their Imperiall authority as Georgius Alexandrinus Gennadius Glicas and Nicephorus do testify Finally although Theophilus remayned obstinate so long as he liued which was not past 5. yeares after S. Chrysostomes death yet he dyed repentant and Atticus after much suite and many Embassages sent as Theodoretus testifyeth was reconcyled to the Roman Church As also Arcadius the Emperour vpon his submission and humble petition of pardon was absolued by Pope Innocentius as appeareth by the letters of them both which are set downe in Glycas And thus passed this matter which alone may suffice to proue the supreme and vniuersall authority of Innocentius 80. And as for Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus who succeeded Innocentius and were the 3. last Popes of the 8. that liued in S. Augustins tyme I shall not need to say much seeing that I haue already spoken sufficiently of them as of Zosimus a litle before concerning the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy besides a former testimony of S. Augustine touching an assembly of himselfe and other African Bishops at Cesaraea by the inuention or commaundment of Pope Zosimus In like manner I haue shewed before that not only S. Augustine but also the Primate of Numidia in Africk acknowledged the primacy of the Popes Bonifacius and Celestinus by recommending to them the cause betwixt Antony Bishop of Fussula and the people of that Diocesse whereto neuertheles I thinke good to add concerning Bonifacius that it appeareth by his letters to the Bishops of 7. Prouinces in France that the Clergy of the Citty of Valentia sent to him a bill of complaynt with the testimony of the whole Prouince against Maximus an hereticall Bishop of the Manichaean sect accusing him of many haynous crymes and that thereupon Bonifacius did delegate the hearing of the cause to the said Bishops whereby it is euident that his power and authority was not confyned within the Church of Rome 81. And now to conclude with Celestinus who was the last of the 8. methinks M. Andrews should not be ignorant how far his authority and Iurisdiction extended seeing that it cannot be denyed that he was President and head of the generall Councell of Ephesus and that the famous S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria was but his substitute and Legate therein which is euident not only by the testimony of Historiographers but also by
the whole Church but because he was Head or supreme Gouernour therof which we may learne euen in Cicero who saith that Est proprium munus Magistratus c. It is the proper office or duty of the Magistrate to vnderstand that he beareth the person of the Citty So he speaking of the chiefe or supreme Magistrate wherby it appeareth that whatsoeuer is giuen to the King as King and Head of the Common-wealth the same is giuen to the Common-wealth wherof he beareth and representeth the person and so in like manner what was giuen to S. Peter as Head of the Church the same was giuen to the Church which he representeth For which cause also S. Cyprian saith that Ecclesia est in Episcopo the Church is in the Bishop and the reason is because the Bishop is Head of the Church as this is true in euery particuler Bishop in respect of the particuler Church which he gouerneth So also is it most truly verified in the supreme and vniuersall Pastour in respect of the whole Church whereof he is Head 5. That this was S. Augustines meaning it is euident by his owne doctrine in other places where he sheweth plainly that S. Peter bare the person of figure of the Church in respect of his Primacy Cuius Ecclesia saith he Petrus Apostolus propter Apostolatus sui primatum gerebat figurata generalitate personam c. Of which Church Peter in respect of the primacy of his Apostleship did beare the person figuring or representing the generality therof For if we respect what did belong properly to himselfe he was by nature one man by grace one Christian and by a more aboundant grace vnus idemque primus Apostolus one he the chiefe Apostle but when it was said vnto him Tibi dabo claues I will giue thee the keyes c. he signified the vniuersall Church Thus saith S. Augustine teaching euidently that S. Peter bare the person of the Church by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship that is to say because he was the chiefe Apostle which the same holy Father signifieth also more plainly in another place saying Cuius Ecclesiae ille agnoscitur gessisse personaÌ„ propter Primatum quem in Discipulis habuit Of which Church he is acknowledged to haue borne the person for the Primacy which he had amoÌ„gst the Disciples And to the same purpose he saith also elswhere Petrus à petra cognominatus c. Peter taking his name from a Rock was happy bearing the figure of the Church hauing the principality of the Apostleship 6. Loe then for what cause S. Augustine said that when Christ gaue to S. Peter the keyes of heauen pastorall authority to feed his sheep he gaue the same to all the Church to wit because S. Peter hauing the principality or primacy of the Apostolicall dignity and being consequently chiefe Pastor and head of the Church did beare and represent the person or figure of the whole Church So that you see the place which M. Andrewes bringeth out of S. Augustine against the Primacy of S. Peter maketh notably for it if it be considered with the circumstances therof which he cunningly and craftily concealed But in the other place which he citeth out of S. Ambrose he is more fraudulent hauing plainly corrupted the text which as it is in S. Ambrose is very conforme to this doctrine of S. Augustine signifying nothing else but that all the lawfull Pastors in Gods Church receaued their Pastorall authority ouer their flocks with S. Peter and therfore he saith Quas oues quem gregem non solùm tunc Beatus Petrus suscepit sed cum illo eas nos suscepimus omnes Which sheep and which flock not only the Blessed Peter then receaued but as so we all receaued them with him Thus saith S. Ambrose which all Catholikes do graunt and teach in like maÌ„ner because as I haue said S. Peter representing the person of the whole Church wherof he was head receaued not that Pastorall authority for himselfe alone but also for the Church 7. In which respect S. Ambrose saith very well that all the Pastors of the Church receaued their authority with him though not in equall degree as M. Andrews would haue it who therfore bodgeth into S. Ambrose his text these words of his owne Et nobiscum eas suscepit and he that is to say S. Peter receaued those sheep with vs as if S. Ambrose should meane that S. Peter had no prerogatiue in that point but that he and other Pastors receaued them all alike he with them they with him for to that purpose doth M. Andrewes also alledge the words of S. Ambrose afterwards in a different letter thus Et ille nobisâ—um nos cum illo oues illas pascendas suscepimus which manner of speach doth indeed inforce a greater equality betwixt S. Peter and other Pastors then the true words of S. Ambrose do import or then he euer did imagine who taught expresly elswhere the Primacy of S. Peter not only aboue all other inferiour Pastors but also aboue the Apostles themselues saying that albeit Andrew was called before Peter yet Primatum non accepit Andraeas sed Petrus Andrew did not receaue the Primacy but Peter yea in another place he proueth it by these very words of our Sauiour which are now in question to wit Pâ—sce oues meas 8. For hauing said that our Sauiour asked Peter thrice whether he loued him not to learne saith he any thing of him but to teach him whom he meant to leaue to vs velut amoris sui Vicarium as the Vicar of his loue he alleageth our Sauiours words to S. Peter to wit Simon the sonne of Iohn doest thou loue me c. Pasce agnos meos feed my Lambes and then shortly after he inferreth thereupon thus Et ideo quia solus profitetur ex omnibus omnibus antefertur and therefore because he alone of all the rest professed his loue he is preferred before them all and after a whyle he concludeth that our Lord asked him the third tyme whether he loued him Et iam saith he non agnos vt primò quodam lacte pâ—scendos c. And now Peter is commaunded not to feed Lambs with a certayne milke as the first time nor to feed the little sheep as the second tyme but oues pascere iubetur perfectiores vt perfectior gubernaret he is commaunded to feed the sheep to the end that he being more perfect might gouerne the more perfect Thus saith S. Ambrose 9. Wherein it is to be noted that he teacheth 3. things The first that our Sauiour left S. Peter vnto vs as the Vicar or Substitute of his loue that is to say to succeed him in that fatherly loue care of his Church which he himselfe had the second that when our Sauiour gaue to S. Peter the Pastorall commission and authority
and his want of proofes for the same by the law of Christ. 16. And although as well the ancient Fathers as we do ordinarily produce testimonies of the old Testament not only for matters in controuersy but also for instruction in matters of morality yet neyther they nor we euer do it to other end but to confirme things instituted and taught in the new law by the ordinance and commaundment eyther of Christ or of his spouse the Church and this we do only in respect of the conformity that is in many things betwixt the figure and the Verity I meane betwixt the old law and the new Moyses and our Sauiour Christ the Synagogue and the Church and not to the end to proue any thing to be necessary now because it was ordayned or practised then which were rather a point of Iudaisme then of Christianisme And therefore this and other arguments of M. Andrews grounded only vpon the Iudicial lawes of Moyses may shew him to be rather a Iew then a Christian except he can bring some other ground for the same out of the new Testament or some Apostolicall or Ecclesiasticall Canon or Tradition which he neyther doth nor euer shall be able to do 17. But who seeth not how he tryfleth in this point as cōmonly he doth in all For how doth it follow that if it be true which we teach to wit that Christ made S. Peter supreme Pastour of the Church by cōmaunding him to feed his sheep then he gaue the same spirituall authority to Dauid when he bad him feed his people of Israel Is it not manifest that although the word pasce feed as it was spoken to them both doth signifie to gouerne yet it is Equiuocall being to be vnderstood of a different manner of gouernment in them both that is to say in the one spirituall and in the other temporall what consequence then can he draw from the one to the other except it be this that as when God bad Dauid who as a temporall man to feed his people of Israell which was a temporall people he gaue him temporall authority making him head of a temporall Kingdome So when he bad S. Peter who was a spirituall man a Priest an Apostle and Prince of the Apostles feed his sheep that is to say all the faithfull conteyned within his Sheepfold which is a spirituall congregation he gaue him a spirituall authority and made him supreme Pastor and head of a spirituall Kingdome that is to say of his Church And this no doubt is the most direct inference that can be made of the word Pasce when it is applied in the old Testament eyther to Dauid if we respect him as he was a King and not a Prophet or else to any other temporall Prince 18. And therfore whereas M. Andrewes saith Narro autem Cardinali c. I declare to the Cardinall that the tytle of Pastor was giuen in the holy Scriptures to Princes long before it was giuen to the Bishop and much more often as to Iosue before and more often euery where in the holy-history and in the Prophets This his narration I say is very idle and impertinent seeing it proueth not any thing which we deny but that which we willingly graunt to wit that the words Pascere and Pastor are often applyed in the old Testament to temporall Princes but that they signify spirituall gouernment in them as Kings M. Andrews will not proue in hast and the contrary is manifest inough in Cyrus a Pagan and Idolatrous King whome God called Pastormeus and no man I thinke will be so absurd to imagine that he had any Ecclesiasticall authority or was Head and chiefe member of Gods Church wherof he was no member at all besides that the example which he giueth vs of Iosue out of the booke of Numbers doth not any way help his cause but flatly confound him 19. For albeit in the Chapter which he quoteth to wit the 27 it is declared that God commaunded Moyses to assigne and ordaine Iosue for his Successour in the gouernmēt of the people least they should be like to oues sine Pastore sheep without a Sheepheard yet it is euident there that he was not to haue any authority ouer the High Priest but rather the cleane contrary to wit that he should depend wholy vpon the High Priests direction and therfore wheras Moyses was commaunded there by almighty God to giue part of his glory to Iosue Theodoretus doth very well obserue as I haue noted before in the Supplement that Moyses did distribute his dignity and authority which was both spirituall and temporall betwixt Iosue and Eleazar the High Priest yet in such sort that Iosue should be directed in al his affaires by Eleazar Pro hoc saith the Scripture si quid agendum erit c. For him that is to say Iosue if any thing be to be done Eleazar shall consult the Lord and at his word he to wit Iosue shall go out and in and all the children of Israel with him and all the rest of the multitude Thus saith the holy Scripture wherby it appeareth that albeit Iosue was Pastor populi yet he was but a temporall Pastor or Gouernour and to be directed euen in temporall affaires by the spirituall Pastor Eleazar whome Almighty God did illuminate and instruct in his consultations for the direction of Iosue Now then doth this example prick Cardinal Bellarmine trow you or M. Andrews Truely though he meant to prick the Cardinall yet you see he hath wounded none but himselfe Thus much to his second answere 20. His third is in substance that albeit S. Augustine and S. Cyril haue amply cōmented vpon the Ghospell of S. Iohn and vpon those very words of our Sauiour to S. Peter Pasce oues meas yet neyther of them saith he saw illustrem hunc fidei articulum de primatu Petri temporali this notable article of faith concerning the temporall primacy of Peter c. So he As if the Cardinal did teach or affirme that S. Peters primacy is a temporall primacy which is a meere fiction of M. Andrews to frame matter for himselfe to impugne for seeing the spirituall primacy of S Peter is so euident in the holy Scriptures that he is now then forced to graūt it in some sort yea somtimes as far forth in effect as we demaūd though at at other times he laboureth vtterly to ouerthrow it as I shall haue occasiō to declare more largly her after he wil now needs presuppose that we teach the Popes Primacy to be a temporall primacy why forsooth Marry because the Cardinal as also all the Catholiks do teach that the spirituall authority which our Sauiour gaue S. Peter and his Successors may and doth in some cases extend it selfe to temporall things so far forth as it is or may be necessary for the execution of their spirituall power and for
the benefit of soules the publike good of the Church and gods glory wherof I haue giuen sufficient reason in the first Chapter of my Supplement 21. Therefore I will only say for the present that if the Popes spirituall Primacy may for this cause be called a temporall primacy then may M. Andrews who taketh himselfe to be a Bishop and a spirituall Pastour be iustly called and nicknamed a corporall Bishop and a pecuniary Pastour because he doth punish men sometymes in his spirituall court not only in their bodyes but also in their purses and if he would thinke him absurd who should so style and intytle him he is no lesse absurd himselfe in calling the Popes Primacy for the like reason a temporall Primacy And although neither S. Augustine nor S. Cyril do in the places cyted by M. Andrews speake of any such extension of spirituall power to temporall matters whereof they had no occasion to treate yet it sufficeth that they do not deny it yea and that they do both of them sufficiently teach there the spirituall Primacy of S. Peter wherof the other is a necessary consequent 22. S. Augustine in that very Treatise wherto M. Andrews appealeth I meane vpon the Ghospell of S. Iohn and the last Chapter hath that expresse doctrine and those very words which I cyted a little before concerning the person and figure of the whole Church represented in S. Peter propter Apostolatus sui Primatum by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship or as he saith els where propter Primatum quem in discipulis habuit for the Primacy which he had amongst the Disciples For which cause he called him also twice in the same place primum Apostolorum the chiefe Apostle and saith that the Church receaued the keyes in him which as I haue shewed doth euidently proue him to be head and supreme Pastour of the Church whereof only he and no other of the Apostles is said to represent the person and figure so that S. Augustine sufficiently acknowledgeth S. Peters spirituall Supremacy in the place alledged by M. Andrewes 23. The like doth S. Cyril also in his coÌ„mentary vpon S. Iohns Ghospell and in the same place which M. Andrewes cyteth for there he calleth S. Peter expressely Prince and head of the Apostles saying Vt Princeps Caputque ceterorum primus exclamauit Tu es Christus filius Dei viui Peter as Prince and head of the rest first exclaymed Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God So he wherby he teacheth euidently that S. Peter was head and supreme Pastour of the Church in that he acknowledgeth him to be Prince and head of the Apostles who were the chiefe Magistrates and Pastors therof and therefore it is to be considered how this agreeth with that which followeth presently after in M. Andrews his text who hauing affirmed as you haue heard that neyther of these Fathers saw the article touching Peters temporall Primacy addeth Id tantum vident nec praeterea quid quia c. They see this only and nothing els that because Peter had denyed his Lord not once but thrice he was asked concerning loue not once but thrice and so when he had abolished his triple negation with his triple confession he was restored to the place or degree of Apostleship from the which he was fallen for touching the Primacy they are altogeather silent Thus saith M. Andrews 24. Wherin it is to be noted that wheras he saith that these Fathers saw only this which he heere setteth downe nec praeterea quid and nothing else it is euidently false for two respects the one for that they saw more then he mentioneth yea more then he listed to see to wit the Primacy of S. Peter as I haue shewed out of them both the other is because they saw not that which he affirmeth in their behalfe I meane that S. Peter was by those wordes of our Sauiour restored to his place in the Apostleship which he had lost for if they should haue said so they should seeme to hould or fauour at least the pernicious heresy of Wycliffe that Magistrates loose their dignity and authority by mortall sinne which pestiferous opinion those holy Fathers no doubt would haue abhorred if it had bene set abroach or taught by any in their tyme seeing that it shaketh the very foundation of all obedience eyther to Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall Magistrates because it doth not only make all obedience vncertaine for no man knoweth who is in the state of Grace but also giueth occasion to Subiects vpon euery offence of their Prince to call his authority in question 25. Therfore to the end thou maist good Reader know as wel the integrity of these Fathers in this point as M. Andrews his fraud and bad conscience in alledging them thou shalt vnderstand that S. Augustine saith nothing at all that may be so much as wrested to any such sense in that place and doth elswhere expressely teach the contrary as when he saith Apostleâ— againe a little after when Peter the Apostle denied our Sauiour and wept and remayned still an Apostle he had not yet receaued the holy Ghost Thus saith S. Augustine and could he teach a doctrine more contrary to that which M. Andrews fatâ—ereth vpon him 26. Let vs now see how he handleth S. Cyril vpoÌ„ whome it may be he principally relyeth for this matter for indeed that holy Father saith somewhat concerning the same though far otherwise then M. Andrews would make his Reader belieue for thus saith S. Cyril Dixit pasce agnos meos Apostolatus sibi renouaÌ„s dignitatem ne propter negationem quae humana infirmitate accidit labefactata videretur He to wit our Sauiour said to Peter feed my Lambs renewing to him his dignity of the Apostleship least it might seeme to haue bene decayed by his denyall which happened by humane infirmity Thus far S. Cyril who you see neyther saith nor meaneth that S. Peter fell from his Apostleship by his denyall of Christ but rather signifieth the contrary to wit that Christ would not haue it so much as to seeme or be supposed that he had lost his dignity by his fall and therefore renewed it by that new and expresse commission ne labefactata videretur lest it should seeme to haue bene decayed or lost 27. Wherin also it is to be obserued that the dignity wherof S. Cyril speaketh was not the bare office or degree of an Apostle but that which was peculiar and proper to S. Peter and so acknowledged by S. Cyril himselfe a little before in the same Chapter when he tearmed him Principem Caput ceterorum the Prince and head of the rest of the Apostles as also S. Augustine as you haue heard calleth it Primatum principatum Apostolatus the Primacy and principality of the Apostleship and therefore I say the Dignity which according to S. Cyrils doctrine our Sauiour renewed
Pope for that he would not by any meanes suffer the rules of the Canons to be violated in that point Secondly that Anatolius the Bishop of Constantinople in whose fauour that Canon was made being most seuerely reprehended by Pope Leo for his ambitious attempt excused himself laying the fault vpon the Clergy of Constantinople and affirming in Apostolici Praesulis totum positum potestate that all the matter was in the power of the Apostolicall Prelate that is to say of Pope Leo. Thirdly that the Emperour Leo who succeeded Martian before Pope Leo dyed attempting within a few yeares after to obtayne the same priuiledges for the Church of CoÌ„staÌ„tinople in the tyme of Pope Simplicius was flatly denyed them and that it was declared vnto him by Probus Bishop of Canusium the Popes Legat nullatenus posse tentari that it might by no meanes be attempted 13. Finally Gelasius also signifyeth that Acatius Bishop of Constantinople who raysed the Schisme wherof he writeth and was therefore excommunicated by Pope Felix was himself so subiect obedient to the Roman Sea before he fell into that schisme that he procured the Pope to censure and depriue the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch yea and was himself executor of the Popes sentence against them and that therefore falling also himself afterwards into the fellowship of the condemned Bishops vpon whome he had executed the Popes sentence of condemnatioÌ„ he deserued no lesse to be condemned then they All this witnesseth Gelasius whereby it appeareth euidently that from the tyme of the Councel of Calcedon to his raigne which was about 40. yeares the Canon whereupon M. Andrewes relyeth was not held to be of any waight for the exemption of the Church of Constantinople from the subiection of the Church to the Roman Sea For if the Canon had then had any such force neyther would the Emperour Martian haue hyghly commended Pope Leo for resisting it nor Anatolius in whose fauour it was made would haue excused himself for procuring it and acknowledged the matter to depend wholy vpon Pope Leo's determination neyther should Leo the Emperour haue needed to haue renewed that suit to Pope Simplicius neyther yet would Acatius haue yielded as he did for a tyme to obay the Pope and to execute his sentence vpon other Grecian Bishops 14. Furthermore albeit this schisme raysed by Acatius continued in the Church of Constantinople some yeares after his death during the raigne of two Hereticall Emperours to wit Zeno and Anastasius which was about 40. yeares yet diuers Grecian and Orientall Bishops which were partakers of the sayd schisme made earnest and humble suit in the meane tyme to Pope Symmachus in a generall and coÌ„mon letter with the tytle or superscription of Ecclesia Orientalis c. to be restored to the vnion of the Roman Sea acknowledging Symmachus not only to be the true Successor of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles but also to feede Christs sheep committed to his charge per totum habitabilem mundum throughout the whole habitable world And as soone as the wicked Emperour Anastasius was dead who was stroken by Gods iust iudgement with a thunderbolt and the worthy and Catholike Emperour Iustinus chosen in his place as well Iustinus himself as also a Synod of Bishops assembled in Constantinople togeather with Iohn Bishop of that Sea demanded of Pope Hormisdas who succeeded Symmachus to be reconciled to the Sea Apostolik and afterwards the sayd Bishop of Constantinople sent a profession of his faith to Hormisdas acknowledging that the Catholike Religion is alwayes kept inuiolable and sincere in the Apostolicall and Roman Sea by reason of Christs promise to S. Peter when he said Tu es Petrus super hanc petram c. 15. Moreouer he further protested that he would during his life admit and follow all the doctrine and decrees of that Sea and remayne in the communion thereof In qua saith he est integra Christianae Religionis perfecta soliditas wherein there is sincereâ— and perfect solidity of the Christian Religion Finally hauing promised to raze the name and memory of Acatius who had byn cause of the former schisme out of the holy Tables that is to say out of the number and Catalogue of the Bishops of Constantinople which was wont to be read in the tyme of the diuine Mysteries he concluded that if he should at any tyme vary from this his profession he vnderstood himselfe to be comprehended in the number of those whome he had anathematizâ—d and condemned This I haue layd downe the more largely to the end we may consider heere whether this Bishop of Constantinople and the other Grecian and Orientall Bishops that is to say all the Greeke Church togeather with the most Catholike Emperour Iustinus all which so earnestly sought to be reconcylâ—d to the vnion and obedience of Pope Hormisdas whether they I say had not more regard to the Primacy of the Apostolicall Roman Sea grounded as themselues confessed vpon the expresse words and commission of our Sauiour to S. Peter then to the pretended and supposed equality of priuiledges which M. Andrews saith were granted to the Church of Constantinople by that Canon of the Councell of Calcedon 16. The like may be sayd and clearely verifyed in the ensuing ages for otherwise why would Iustinian the Emperour who as it is euident in the histories in his owne decrees fauoured exceedingly the Bishops and Church of Constantinople suffer Pope Agapetus to depose Anthymus Bishop of that Sea as I haue signified before Why did not either he or the hereticall Empresse Theodora his wyfe or at least Anthymus himselfe stand vpon the equality granted by the Councell of Calcedon Or how can it be imagined that Theodora would afterward labour by all meanes possible as she did perfas nefas to induce the two Popes Siluerius and Vigilius to the restitution of Anthymus if she had thought that they had no iurisdiction ouer him by reason of that Canon Moreouer Mennas Bishop of Constantinople being excommunicated together with Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia by Pope Vigilius pretended not this Canon or the equality supposed by M. Andrewes but submitted himself as also Theodorus did to the authority of the Roman Sea crauing absolution and restitution to the communion thereof 17. Also Eutychias who succeeded Mennas claimed so litle priuiledge for himself or his Sea by this Canon that when the fifth Generall Councell was to be assembled and held there he wrote to Vigilius the Pope requesting him that there might be an Assemblyâ— and conference had praesidente nobil saith he vestra Beâ—atitudine your Beatitude being our president And although some yeares afterwards Iohn Bishop of Constantinople made a new schismeâ— and opposed himself to the Roman Sea taking vpon him the title of Vniuersall Bishop which schisme lasted only during his lyfe yet it is euident by the Epistle of Pope Pelagiâ—s written to him and to
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
the keyes or feed my sheep No but because Rome was then the Seat of the Emperour and gouerned the rest So he and a litle after he concludeth thus Quod ergo habet Roma de Primatu c. Therefore that which Rome hath of the Primacy is not from Christ but from the Fathers and in respect of the Emperours Seat and not for the Sea of Peter 61. VVhereto I answere first that M. Andrews must learne to distinguish betwixt the Primacy of S. Peter and the priuiledges granted to the Sea of Rome for that the sayd Primacy could not be from any but from Christ himselfe whereas the Roman Church may haue and hath priuiledges from men that is to say not only from generall Councells but also from temporall Princes as from Constantine Pepin Charles the Great and other Catholike Princes and therefore M. Andrews argueth most absurdly from the Priuiledges to the Primacy denying that the Primacy was from Christ because the Priuiledges were from men and some of them giuen for humane respects wherin he sheweth himselfe as wyse as if he should deny the regalty and soueraignty of our Kings by reason of the prerogatiues and priuiledges granted to them by the Parliaments or as if he should say that the Church of Christ which is his Spouse was not instituted by him but by men because aswell temporall Princes as generall Councells haue giuen great priuiledges thereto 62. Secondly I say that M. Andrewes is very simple if he see not that the peÌ„ners of the Canon had great reason to auoyd therein all mention of the keyes and of the Pastorall commission giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter as also of the Priuiledges granted to the Roman Church in respect of S. Petâ—rs Sea seeing that the same could not any way further the pretence of the Bishop of Constantinople but rather hinder it For what could he demaund for any of those respects Would M. Andrews haue had him to say that because Christ gaue S. Peter the keyes and commission to feed his sheepe therefore it was conuenient that the Councell should also giue the lyke authority to the Bishop of Constantinople or prefer him before the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch which was in deed his demaund how would this conclusion follow of those premisses Whereas the other consequent was not so euill to wit that because the Roman Church had ben in tymes past priuiledged by reason of the Imperiall Seat it was conuenient that also the Church of Constantinople should haue like priuiledges for the same reason 63. Agayne what should the Bishop of Constantinople haue gayned by mentioning priuiledges granted to Peters Sea Should he not haue hindred his owne cause thereby and pleaded against himselfe for Alexandria and Antioch For who knoweth not that S. Peter was Bishop of Antioch some yeares before he came to Rome and that he made his disciple S. Marke Bishop of Alexandria in which respect those two Churches had alwayes the preheminence before all other next after the Roman seeing then the Bishop of Constantinoples pretence was no other but to be preferred before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch he had no lesse reason to forbeare all mention of Peters Sea and of the priuiledges granted thereto then M. Andrews had in setting downe the substance of the Canon to conceale and omit all that which would haue discouered his fraud and ouerthrowne his cause I meane that the second place after Rome was granted by that Canon to the Church of Constantinople and therefore he was not so simple to touch that string which would haue mard all his musick as it hath been partly signifyed before and will further appeare by that which followeth 64. For hauing sayd that which you haue heard before concerning priuiledges granted by the Fathers to the Roman Sea because Rome was then the Imperial Citty he addeth in sua autem iam potestate esse ex eadem ratione c. The Fathers of the Councell signifyed that it was now in their power for the same reason seeing that Constantinople did enioy both the Imperiall Seate and Senate to aduance it also to equal dignity and for as much as it was equall in all other things to make it equal also in Ecclesiasticall matters and to vse their owne words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say to be magnifyed as Rome was So he wherein he not only falsifieth the sense and meaning of the Canon in that he maketh it to giue an absolute equality to the Church of Constantinople with that of Rome but also craftily leaueth out all mention of the second place after Rome which was granted to the Church of Constantinople by that Canon doth immediatly follow the Greeke words which he alledgeth and ouerthrow all the equality that he pretendeth to be mentioned there for after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these words do follow immediatly in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in our Latin copyes is very well translated word for word secundam post illam existentem that is to say being the second after it whereby it is signifyed that the Church of Constantinople which had wont to haue an inferiour place to diuers other Churches should from thenceforth be the second after Rome And did not M. Andrews trow you see this in the Greeke and Latin And if he saw it with what conscience could he so deepely dissemble it as not only to leaue out all mention of it but also to make an equality and parity in dignity and in all things els betwixt the Churches of Rome and Constantinople Wheras the words which he concealed do make it cleare that the equality mentioned in the Canon must needs be vnderstood only according to distributiue iustice that is to say without impeachment or preiudice of the different degrees and dignityes of the two Churches as I haue amply declared before 65. And as for the Greeke words which he cyteth to fortify his forgery they do not extend so far as he would stretch them I meane to make a parity and equality in dignity for whereas the Greeke text saith that Constantinople should be magnifyed as Rome was the same may very well stand with the foresayd equality which distributiue Iustice ordayneth to wit with the reseruation of the different dignityes of the one and the other as when a Noble man and a meane man do concurre in one act or seruice to the Common welth and both of them are rewarded and aduanced according to their different qualityes it may truly be sayd that the meane man is aduanced as the Noble man is though not to the same degree for both of them are aduanced as well the one as the other and yet they are not made equal in dignity 66. But now if we take the Greeke wordes alleaged by M. Andrews or the Latin in our translation with the restriction that immediately followeth wherby the second place after Rome is assigned to Constantinople
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
manner diuers homilies in S. Chrysostom of the fifth feria in Passion week and of the Resurection and Ascension of our Sauiour and of Pentecost besids diuers others of particuler Saints as S. Fulgentius Sâ— Augustines schooler and others So that this exception of M. Andrews to the authority of this place of S. Augustin is tooto cold and friuolous and far vnworthy of a man that professeth to haue read the ancient Fathers and therefore truely he had reason to seeke out another answere that might be of some more weight which he frameth in these words Sed nec si tempori cedamus hic tamen testis satis in tempore venit c. But though we should yield to tyme he meaneth that albeit we should graunt that Sermons were made de tempore in those daies yet this witnes commeth out of tyme or season very vnluckily who doth not tell vs of any other head but of a sickly head nor of any other crowne of a head but a crazed or crackt crowne which therefore might very well haue been passed with silence 24. Thus raueth M. Andrews hauing his head so crazed with the frenzy of heresy that he vttereth such braynsick and idle stuffe as this which truely no man that were well in his wits would vtter to the purpose he doth that is to say to proue that S. Peter was not head of the Church For els why doth he say it seeing that the Cardinall cyteth this place to no other end but to proue that S. Peter was head of the Church and therefore M. Andrews giuing this for his second answere hauing as you haue seene great reason to mistrust the former must needs conclude thereupon that S. Peter was not head of the Church But how doth it follow that because S. Peter by fraylty denyed our Sauiour Ergo he was not head of the Church Do those that hold and teach his primacy deny his fall Or teach that his successours cannot also erre in matter of fact as he did though not in definition of matters of faith 25. Truly if M. Andrews eyther had a sound brayne or els were guyded by the same spirit that S. Augustine and other fathers were he would haue made another manner of construction of this place then he doth and rather haue sought to confirme S. Peters Primacy by his fall then to impugne it thereby for so doth S. Augustine in this place shewing that it was conuenient that almighty God should suffer him to fall because he was to be the gouernour and head of the Church which S. Augustine teacheth expressely in these words 26. Ideo B. Petrum paululum Dominus subdeseruit c. Our Lord did therefore forsake blessed Peter for a while to the end that all humane kind might know in him that without the grace of God it could do nothing and thereby a rule might be giuen also to him who was to be gouernour of the Church to pardon sinners for the keyes of the Church were to be committed to Peter the Apostle yea the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen were recommended vnto him as also in like manner there was to be committed to his charge an innumerable multitude of people which in respect of the vyces and passions of their nature were wrapped in sinnes and offences And againe after a while Idcirco saith he diuinae prouidentiae secretum c. Therefore did the secret of Gods prouidence so dispose and permit that he to wit Peter should himselfe first fayle and fall into sinne that by the consideration of his owne fall he might temper the rigour of his sentence towards sinners Quantum igitur diuini inuneris c. Therefore note what great bounty and goodnes and how much care and sollicitude God sheweth heerin towards the saluation of man he câ—reth the disease of the whole body in the head of the Church and compoundeth the health of all the members in the very crowne of the head in the very top of the coÌ„fession of Christ in the very fouÌ„datioÌ„ of an immoueable faith that is to say in that Peter who said although I should dye with thee yet I will not deny thee 27. All this saith S Augustine and much more to the same purpose which I omit for breuityes sake for that this may suffice to teach M. Andrews that S. Peters Primacy was so far from being preiudyced by his fall that it may rather be in some sort confirmed thereby seeing it appeareth that it was conuenient in respect of his Primacy that he should fall for the benefit that should ensue thereof as well to himselfe as to the Church which is also the expresse doctrine of S. Chrysostome who hauing said that Orbis terrarum Ecclesiae c. the Churches of the whole world and the multituds of people were to be committed to his charge And hauing also called him Apostolorum verticem the head of the Apostles the immouable foundation the steedfast rock the pillar of Churches and mayster of the whole world he addeth Peccare permissus est c. he was suffered to sinne for this cause chiefly because the multitude of people was to be committed vnto him lest he being seuere and innocent might be vnwilling to pardon the offences of his brethren So he to whome I may also adde S. Gregory the Great who maketh the same construction of S. Peters fall that these two other Fathers do affirming that God suffered him to fayle quem praeferre cunctae Ecclesiae disposuerat whome he had determined to make gouernour of all the Church that he might learne by his owne fraylty to haue compassion of other sinners 28. And to the end M. Andrewes may see that S. Augustine doth also else where plainly acknowledg the Primacy of S. Peter notwithstanding his fall he shall do well to read a place alleadged by himselfe in his first chapter to proue that S. Peter had nothing peculiar to himself by his pastorall commission which place if he had layd downe at large as he curtolled and maymed it after his manner it might haue sufficed to conuince him as well in the matter for the which he produced it as also in this For there S. Augustin hauing taught that S. Peter receauing the keyes the coÌ„mission of Pastor represented the person of the Church inferreth that the Church ought to pardon repentant sinners seeing that Peter bearing the person of the Church was pardoned wheÌ„ he had denyed his maister 29. Wherein S. Augustine not only deduceth a pious document out of S. Peters offence as you see he doth in the other place but also acknowledgeth sufficiently his supreme Dignity teaching that he bare the person of the Church which he did no otherwise but as he was supreme head and Gouernour thereof as I haue declared at large in the first Chapter of this Adioynder where I haue layd downe the words of S. Augustine and discouered M.
in generall besides that being made with the Popes consent it was not any way preiudicall to the authority of the Sea Apostolike The third that M. Andrews iugleth notably with his Reader when he saith as out of S. Augustine Ad eum transmarinus nemo appellet c. To him that is to say to the Bishop of Rome let no man appeale from beyond the seas or if he appeale he is to be excommunicated by Augustine for neyther those words nor the sense thereof are to be found any where in S. Augustine who as you haue seene expressely taught and practised the contrary So that transmarinus nemo being set downe by M. Andrews in a different letter to be noted is indeed worth the noting for a notable falsity and a flat corruption of the Canon and abuse of S. Augustine and of all the Bishops in that Councell What then shall we say of this mans truth and fidelity who maketh no bones to bely the Fathers and corrupt whole Synods Can any man thinke that he hath any regard of conscience or shame Thus much for the second point 52. And now to say somewhat of the third he affirmeth as you haue heard that S. Augustine was far from acknowledging the Popes Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus for heads of the Church whereof you haue already seene the contrary in two of them to wit Bonifacius and Celestinus whose power and custome to admit and determyne Appeales from Africk S. Augustine clearely acknowledged and approued in the cause of Antony Bishop of Fussula as I haue amply shewed which power could not otherwise be due to Bonifacius and Celestinus but only in respect of their supreme and vniuersall authority ouer the whole Church And that S. Augustine had also the same opinion of Zosimus it appeareth sufficiently in an Epistle of his to Optatus to whome he writeth that he receaued his letters at Caesarea quò nos saith he iniuncta nobis à venerabili Papa Zosimo Apostolicae sedis Episcopo Ecclesiastica necessitas traxerat whither we were drawne by an Ecclesiasticall necessity inioyned or imposed vpon vs by the venerable Pope Zosimus Bishop of the Apostolicall seat So he which may also be confirmed out of Possidius who writeth that Litterae sedis Apostolicae compulerunt c. The letters of the Sea Apostolike compelled Augustine with other Bishops to go to Caesarea in Mauritania to consult and determyne of diuers necessityes of the Church 53. Whereby it is manifest that S. Augustine acknowledged in Pope Zosimus an Ecclesiasticall power and authority to impose vpon him and other Bishops a necessity to obay his commaundements in matters concerning the seruice of God and the Church which Zosimus could not do otherwise then as supreme and vniuersall Pastor or head of the Church for that the Church of Africk was not otherwise subiect to him then as all other Churches were But of Pope Zosimus and of S. Augustines opinion concerning his Primacy I shall haue occasion to speake further after a while and in the meane tyme this I hope may suffise to proue that S. Augustine was so far from impugning these three Popes that he acknowledged their supreme and vniuersall authority and consequently that they were heads of the vniuersall Church notwithstanding M. Andrews his peremptory assertion of the contrary which therefore may passe for another vntruth 54. Whereupon it also followeth that he forgot himselfe much more when he so confidently affirmed in the first poynt as you haue heard that the Bishops of Rome in S. Augustines tyme were but only heads of the Church of Rome which I noted before For the first of the 3. vntruthes though I remitted the particuler answere thereof vntill I had discouered the other two because they would not a litle help to the discouery of the first as you may haue already noted for it being cleare by all this former discourse that Appeales from Africk to Rome were vsuall frequent and neuer prohibited in S. Augustines tyme and againe that he acknowledged an authority and power in Pope Zosimus to lay iniunctions commaundements vpon him and other Bishops in Africk it must needs follow that the Bishops of Rome had a more ample authority in his dayes then ouer the particuler Church of Rome And to the end thou mayst yet haue good Reader a more aboundant satisfaction in this poynt I will say somewhat of all the Popes that liued in S. Augustines tyme who were 8. in all to wit Liberius in whose tyme he was borne Damasus Siricius Anastasius Innocentius Zosimus Bonifacius Celestinus And first of Liberius 55. We read in the Ecclesiasticall history that certayne Arian heretykes being excommunicated and deposed from their Bishopricks by the Catholike Bishops of the East Church sent their Legats to Pope Libâ—rius crauing to be restored by his authority and for as much as they craftily dissembled their heresy and faygning to be repentant made open profession of the Catholicke faith according to the beliefe and doctrin of the Councell of Nice they obtayned his letters for their restitution which they presented at their returne in a Synod held at Tyana and by vertue thereof were restored as S. Basil witnesseth saying that Eustathius Bishop of Sebasta who was the chiefe of that Legacy brought an Epistle from Liberius by the which he should be restored and when he had presented it to the Synod at Tyana in locum suum restitutus est he was restored to his place So he 56. Whereby it appeareth that the authority of Liberius extended further then to his owne Church of Rome seeing he could restore Bishops to their seats in the East Church as also his predecessor Pope Iulius had done not long before vpon the appeales of the famous Athanasius deposed by the Arians and of Paulus Bishop of Constantinople Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra Asclepa Bishop of Gaza and Lucian Bishop of Hadrianopolis all of them vniustly expelled from their seats vpon diuers pretences whose causes Iulius discussing saith the Story tamquam omnium curam gerens propter propriae Sedis dignitatem singulis reddidit suas Ecclesias as hauing a care of all for the dignity of his owne seat restored their Churches to euery one of them So saith Sozomâ—n in the tripartite history which I haue thought good to add to the former example of Liberius For although it fell not out in S. Augustines tyme whereof I now specially treate yet it was not aboue 14. yeares before him and therefore may well be applyed to his tyme as the Eue to the Feast Besides that doth demonstrate what was the beliefe of the Catholike Church at that tyme concerning the supreme dignity of the Roman Sea seeing that not only other Catholike Bishops but also Athanasius himselfe who was the mirrour of sanctity zeale and integrity in that age had recourse thereto as to the supreme tribunall on earth for the reparation of his wrongs but now to
the letters of Celestinus to Cyrillus to whome he wrote thus Adiuncta tibi nostrae sedis auctoritate ipse qui vice nostra potestateque fungeris c. Thou which holdest our place and power the authority of our seat concurring with thee shalt with all euerity pronounce this sentence against Nestorius that if within 10. daies after this admonition he do not detest and renounce his wicked doctrine c. Thou shalt prouide his Church of a Pastor and he shall vnderstand that he is excluded from our communion c. 82. Thus wrote Celestinus to Cyril who therefore in his letters to Nestorius signifyed vnto him that if he did not recant and reforme his errours within the tyme limited and prescrybed by Pope Celestinus he should be excommunicated and depriued And the whole Councell also pronouncing sentence of condemnation against Nestorius affirmed that they were compelled to vse that seuerity not only by the Canons of the Church but also by the letters of Pope Celestinus and in their Epistle to the said Pope they signifyed that they reserued and remitted the cause of Iohn the Patriarch of Antioch who was a fauourer of Nestorius to his iudgment and sentence Besides that Nicephorus testifieth that the common fame was in his time that certayne priuiledges were graunted to S. Cyril which also his successours enioyed by reason of his Legacy and substitution to Pope Celestinus in that Councell and amongst other things that he had the title of Iudex vniuersi orbis Iudge of the whole world 83. Now then I report me to thee good Reader whether Celestinus was no more then the head of his Church of Rome as M. Andrews maketh him For is it likely that eyther S. Cyrill who was Bishop of Alexandria and consequently the first and chiefe Patriarke of the East would haue stouped to be his substitute and Legate and to receiue commissions and orders from him or yet that the whole Councell beeing most of them also of the Greeke and East Church would haue acknowledged themselues to be compelled by his letters to condemne Nestorius yea and remitted the cause of the second Patriarke of the Greeke Church to his finall determination if they had not taken him for the vniuersall and supreme Pastour of the whole Church As I shewed also the like before in the second Chapter of this Adioynder concerning the authority of Pope Leo in the great Councell of Chalcedon which was held in the same age not past 20. yeares after this other of Ephesus So that M. Andrewes cānot by any meanes excuse himselfe from a manifest lye in this no more then in other two poynts before mentioned 84. Whereby it appeareth euidently that he hath made 3. notable lyes as I may say with one breath that is to say within litle more then 3. lynes Besyds an egregious corruption of the Canon of the African Synod with his transmarinus nemo and a foule abuse as well of S. Augustine in making him say that which he neyther sayd nor meant as also of his Reader in seeking to perswade him that S. Augustine excommunicated all those that would appeale to Rome out of Africk yea and cured Peters-diseases in the 3. last Popes for so he also saith in quibus tamen eumdem morbum curauit in whome to wit Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus Augustine cured the same diseases that is to say the diseases of Peter meaning as I take it eyther Peters presumptiō of his owne strength or els his denyall of Christ which neuertheles I cannot see how he can apply to them and much lesse pretend that S. Augustine cured the same diseases in them 85. Therefore whereas his drift was no other in all this as it seemeth but to perswade thee good Reader that S. Augustine was at daggers drawing with these 3. Popes thou hast partly seene already by that which hath bene said concerning two of them to wit Zosimus Celestinus how much he hath sought to abuse thee therin the like will also euidently appeare concerning Pope Bonifacius if thou consider with what affection reuerend respect and submission S. Augustine dedicated vnto him his 4. bookes against two Epistles of the Pelagians writing to him thus 86. Noueram te quidem fama celeberrima praedicante c. I knew thee truely before by the most famous report of thy renoumne and vnderstood by many most frequent and true relations how aboundantly thou art replenished with Gods grace most blessed and venerable Pope Boniface but after that my brother Alipius had seene thee and been receiued by thee with all benignity and sincerity c. I had so much more notice of thy Holinesse by how much more certeyne is our amity for thou who takest no gust or delight in high things though thou art in a higher degree then others dost not disdayne to be a friend to the meane and inferiour sort So he and afterwards hauing signifyed that he had vndertaken to write against 2. epistles of the Pelagians he concludeth Haec ergo quae duabus Epistolis c. These things therefore which I doe answere in this disputation to two Epistles of the Pelagians I haue determyned to direct specially to thy Holynes not as things needfull to be learned by you but to be examined and amended if any thing do chance to dislyke you Thus wrote S. Augustine to Pope Bonifacius being so far from hauing any auersion or alienation from him and much more from presumyng to cure any diseases in him that is to say to correct any errours in his person or gouernment that he shewed all dutifull loue and reuerend affection towards him giuing notable testimony to his rare vertue sanctity and not only acknowledging the dignity of his seat but also submitting himselfe and his workes to his censure and Iudgment to be examined corrected and amended by him as he should see cause whereby it appeareth that S. Augustine liued in perfect vnion with Pope Bonifacius 87. And in what tearmes he stood with Pope Celestinus though we may gather it sufficiently by his owne letter before mentioned concerning the Bishop of Fussula yet it shall not be amisse to vnderstand it also by the testimony of Celestinus himselfe It is therefore to be vnderstood that S. Augustine dying in the tyme of Pope Celestinus and his workes especially those against the Pelagians being by their practise much impugned and defamed in France S. Prosper who had been a disciple as I haue sayd before of S. Augustine and was then Bishop of Aquitane went purposely to Rome togeather with Hilarlus Bishop of Arles to complayne thereof to procure the letters of Pope Celestinus in iustifycation of him and his workes Whereupon Celestinus wrote a generall letter to all the Bishops of France as well in defence of S. Augustine as in condemnation of the Pelagians and amongst other things sayth of S. Augustine thus Augustinum
fayth to be the foundation of the Church that he excludeth his person fidei ratione ait ipse Hilarius non personae sayth M. Andrewes Peter was a Rock by the meanes of his faith saith Hilary himselfe and not of his person So indeed saith M. Andrewes but so sayth not S. Hilary And therefore M. Andrewes thought best to quote no place of S. Hilary neither in the text nor in the margent and sure I am that in the place which the Cardinall alleadgeth S. Hilary speaketh expressely of S. Peters person and not of his faith except M. Andrewes can shew vs how faith was called by a new name so made the foundation of the Church as we can shew him how Symon was called Peter that is to say a Rock to signify by that new name that he should be felix Ecclesiae fundamentuÌ„ as S. Hilary sayth the happie foundation of the Church receiue the keyes of heauen In which respect S. Hilary addeth also in the same place O Beatus caeli ianitor O blessed porter of heauen Neuerthelesse I would not haue M. Andrews to think that in affirming with S. Hilary that Peter was the foundation of the Church I doe exclude his faith from his person as though S. Hilary should say or any Catholike man meane that the Church was built vpon Peters person and not vpon his faith but I do attribute the same so to his person that I acknowledge therein the presence concurrence and merit of his faith by the which he deserued to be made the foundation of the Church and the porter of heauen as S. Hilary calleth him 10. And therfore albeit S. Hilary in another place calleth the Rock of CoÌ„fession the fouÌ„datioÌ„ of the Church sayth also that fayth receiued the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome which by all likelyhood is the place that M. Andrews meaneth though he doth not quote it yet in the same place he addeth coÌ„cerning S. Peters persoÌ„ that supereminentem beatae fidei suae confessione gloriam promeruit he deserued a supereminent glorie by the confession of his blessed fayth and a litle after hinc regni caelorum habet claues c. hereby or in respect hereof that is to say of his faith or confession of Christ he hath the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen and his earthly iudgments are heauenly Thus sayth S. Hilary shewing euidently in what sense he sayth that fayth the confession of Christ was the foundation of the Church and that it receiued the keyes to wit because by the Merit thereof S. Peter deserued to haue the supereminent dignity or glorie to be the foundatioÌ„ of the Church and to haue the keyes which he also signifyeth more plainely before in the same Tract saying of Peters person post Sacramenti confessioneÌ„ beatus Simon aedificationi Ecclâ—siae subiaceÌ„s claues regni caelestis accipiens c. Blessed Simon after the coÌ„fessioÌ„ of the mystery lying vnder the building of the Church that is to say being made the fouÌ„datioÌ„ of the church receiuingâ—yâ— keyes of the heauenly Kingdome c. So he Where you see he ascribeth S. Peters being the foundation of the Church as also his hauing of the keyes to his person though to shew the reasoÌ„ cause therof he addeth post coÌ„fessioneÌ„ Sacramenti after the coÌ„fession of the mystery 11. So that S. Hilary saying in one place that Peter was the foundation of the Church and in another affirming the same of his fayth or Confession doth not in either of both vnderstand his person without his faith or yet his faith without his person I meane abstracting his faith from his person but considereth both ioyntly that is to say his person by the merit of his faith And therefore whereas M. Andrewes affirmeth as you haue heard that S. Hilary himselfe sayth that Peter was the foundation of the Church fidei ratione non personae by the meanes of his faith and not of his person he may put vp non personae in his pocket for S. Hilary hath no such word neither that meaning which M. Andrews would haue his Reader to gather thereof that is to say to exclude S. Peters person from the foundation of the Church So as this may passe for a petty fraud and a pretty cosening trick amongst many other of more importance whereof you haue seene diuers already and shall see more hereafter 12. There resteth now to be examined only one of the 3. places before mentioned which is alleadged by the Cardinall out of S. Maximus thus Quanti igitur meriti apud Deum suum Petrus c. Of how great merit do you thinke that Peter was with his God that after the rowing of a litle boat the gouerment of the whole Church was giuen him Thus far the Cardinall out of S. Maximus To this M. Andrews saith E Maximo si tamen Maximus is Taurinensis c. The Cardinall obiecteth out of Maximus if neuerthelesse this was Maximus of Turin and not some other later then he if also in the tyme of Maximus Sermons were purposely made of the Apostles as no doubt there were in the age after Petro totius Ecclesiae gubernacula tradita c. the gouerment of the whole Church was giuen to Peter But did euer any man thinke that the gouerment of any particuler Church was giuen him except you who gaue him the gouerment of the Roman Church as though the same were not part of the whole after you haue giuen him the gouerment of the whole So he very mystically as he is wont yet seeming to graunt for ought I see that Peter had the gouerment of the whole Church which is the same â—â—at the Cardinall teacheth and seeketh to proue by this place 13. But perhaps he will fly heere to his old shift to wit that though Peter had the gouerment of the whole Church yet he had it no otherwise then the rest of the Apostles had Concerning which point I haue treated so amply before that it were needles to repeat it heere especially seeing that he seeketh no such euasion in this place but seemeth to graunt as much as we demand and only carpeth at vs for giuing to Peter the gouerment of the particuler Church of Rome after we haue giuen him the gouerment of the whole For so he saith which truly is a fine conceipt and right worthy of M. Andrews enigmaticall and phantasticall braine who loueth to walk in mysts and cloudes to the end it may be vncertayne what he affirmeth or what he denyeth as for example he graunteth heere or at least seemeth to graunt the doctrine of S. Maximus which is that Christ gaue the gouerment of the whole Church to S. Peter and yet presently after he seemeth to call the same in question againe affirming that we haue giuen him the gouerment as well of the whole Church of God as of the particuler Church of Rome saying Romanae vestrae traditis
Martyr c. 21. Thus sayth S. Basil which I haue the more largely layd downe to the end thou mayst see good Reader not only what benefits the deuout Christians in S. Basils tyme receiued by the intercession prayer of Martyrs but also that this holy Martyr of whome he treateth did sometyme appeare to men by visions in their sleep and that men vsed to inuocate him in their necessityes and thereby had his assistance which is euident euen in the Greeke text where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say whomsoeuer he to wit the Martyr hath assisted in his works being called vpon by name which words I hope M. Andrewes cannot deny to expresse a playne inuocation of the Martyr and the good effect I meane the helpe and assistance that followed thereof 22. Besyds that it is also to be considered heere that S. Basil doth speak not only of assistance giuen by the holy Martyr in the place where his reliques were kept as when he sayth quotquot in hoc loco coÌ„stituti c. as many of you as heere in this place haue had his help in your prayers but also of great fauours done by him in other places as namely to wandring men that had lost their way c. And therefore I would gladly know heere of M. Andrews in what manner these wandring men or others that were absent from the monument and reliques of the Martyr obtayned those fauours mentioned by S. Basil yea and how they knew that the Martyr had fauoured and helped them if they had not first inuocated him and prayed particulerly vnto him for M. Andrews cannot say in this case as he sayd in the former that because God did shew by miracles at the Monuments of the Martyrs that he heard mens prayers there therefore men had might haue recourse thither to pray to God for help but not to the Martyr himselfe this deuyse I say cannot serue his turne 23. For how did the way-faring man who was far from the Monument of the Martyr and had lost his way know that he was brought into it againe by the help of the Martyr but because he had reposed speciall confidence in him yea and recommended himselfe particulerly to his prayers and assistance In which respect S. Basil hauing vsed that generall speach quibuscumque ex nomine vocatus adfuit c. to whomesoeuer the Martyr had giuen assistance being called vpon by name doth particularize the fauours that many had receiued by the inuocation of him saying that some had byn reduced to their right way others restored to their health others had recouered their dead children and others agayne obtayned prolongation of lyfe all which no doubt were things well knowne to S. Basils auditors to haue happened in that manner to some or other amongst them for otherwyse he would not haue affirmed the same vnto them so confidently as he did 24. This then being so it is euident by the testimony of S. Basil himselfe that the custome and practise of faithfull and Catholyke people in his tyme was to inuocate holy Martyrs and Saynts by name and that God did approue the same by many miracles whereupon it followeth that the recourse which S. Basil sayth was ordinary to the fourty Martyrs included the inuocation of them according to the coÌ„mon custome of that tyme in which respect I also inferre that the translatour expounding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by orare did expresse S. Basils sense and meaning though not the nature of the Greeke word and finally I conclude that the place of S. Basil alledged by the Cardinall proueth directly not only the intercession of Saynts for vs which M. Andrewes graunteth but also our intercession and prayers to them notwithstanding the glosse of M. Andrewes confounding the Martyrs with their Monuments which how impertinent and friuolous it is you haue sufficiently seene as well by an argument of his owne as by the rest of this discourse 25. And now to say somewhat of his other answere which I mentioned in the beginning he sayth Aliud est narrare quid fiat aliud statuere quid faciendum sit it is one thing to declare what is done and another thing to declare what should be done giuing to vnderstand that albeit S. Basil in the place alledged by the Cardinall declared that men vsed in his tyme to pray to Saynts yet the same doth not suffice to proue it to be lawfull except it be approued by some decree of S. Basil and the other Fathers of that tyme to which purpose he doth often inculcate the same demanding still some statute or decree of the Fathers as I shall haue occasion to shew further heereafter But heere I would be glad to know what kind of statute and decree he would haue in this question for if he exact some decree of the Fathers assembled in a Generall or Prouinciall Councell he flyeth as I may say out of the lists to another manner of tryall then the Cardinal offereth in this place and then he himselfe seemeth to accept Besydes that he must expect such decrees from the Toâ—es of the CouÌ„cells where they are particulerly related and not from the workes of the Fathers who are not wont to set them downe but vpon particuler occasions now and then occurring 26. To which purpose it is also to be vnderstood that there were neuer any Councells assembled or Synodicall statutes made concerning faith but by reason of matters controuersed with publike trouble scandall and danger to the Church as the 4. first Generall Councells were called by reason of the heresyes of the Arians Mâ—cedonians Nestorians and Eutychians which at those dayes did exceedingly molest and scandalize all the East Church whereas the inuocation of Saynts-being then publikely and generally practised throughout the whole Church needed not to be confirmed by decrees of Synods especially seeing it was not expressely denyed by any at that tyme. For albeit an abominable Arian heretike called Eustathius did then impugne the publyke honour done to Saynts by dedicating Churches to them and celebrating their feasts for which cause a Prouinciall Councell was held at Gangra where this his heresy togeather with diuers others of his was condemned and all those anathematized who did contemne the Temples and Monuments of Martyrs and the assemblyes and sacred oblations which were made there yet because this heretike did not directly impugne the inuocation of Saynts the same was not directly and expressely confirmed or mentioned in this Canon 27. And although about this tyme also I meane in the 4. age Vigilantius denyed that Saynts pray for vs whereupon it may indeed be inferred that he consequently held the Inuocation of them to be superfluous yet for as much as he liued but only in a corner of France and was presently confuted and repressed by S. Hierome in such sort that the Church was no further troubled with his errour therefore there
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
ancient and venerable vse of holy Reliques and the miraculous assistance and helpe that God giueth to his faithfull people thereby and by the praiers and Reliques of his holy Martyrs and Saints So that truly a man may wonder at the impudency and seared Conscience of M. Andrews who seeketh to delude his Reader with such a fraudulent and inexcusable abuse of this holy Father 68. But no wonder that he is so bould with the Fathers seeing that the Sacred authority of the holy Scriptures cānot suffice to free them from his fraud Wherein it seemeth he hath conspired with M. Barlow with whome he concurreth in the corruption and abuse of one and the selfe same place To which purpose I must desire the good Reader to call to mind what I debated with M. Barlow concerning this point in the sixt Chapter of my Supplement where I shewed euidently how he abused the holy Scripture in saying that God in his word appointed Kinges to be guardians of both the tables to command and prohibit in matters of Religion for which he quoted in his margēt the 17. of Deuteronomy and 18. verse where no such thing is to be found but rather the cleane contrary is to be inferred thereon as I amply declared in the foresaid Chapter and now M. Andrews hauing occasion to treat of the antiquitie of the spiritual primacy of temporall Kings draweth it partly from the same place deducing it euen from Moyses who when he deliuered saith he the Copie of the law to the King cum eo sic tradito summam religionis quae prima summaque legis pars est custodiendae custodiri faciendae potestatem tradidit gaue togeather with it the chief power to keepe Religion and cause it to be kept which Religion is the first and chiefe parte of the lawe Thus saith M. Andrews though he quot no place yet he must eyther ground this his assertion vpon the same place of Deuteronomy which M. Barlow alleadgeth or els he shall finde it no where for it was ordeyned only there no where els that the King should haue a Copie of the lawe 69. Wherein neuerthelesse that is to be noted by the way that Moyses did not there or any where els giue a Copie of the lawe to any King for there were no Kinges of the people of Israell for 4. hundred yeares after Moyses but God ordeyned by Moyses in 17. of Deuteronomy that the future King should take a Copie of the law from the Priest of the Tribe of Leui and haue the same with him and read it all the daies of his lyfe But what Will M. Andrews say that the King was made hereby supreame head or gouernor of the Church in Ecclesiasticall causes or to vse his owne manner of speach that the Cheif or supreame power to keepe Religion and cause it to be kept was giuen him hereby Truly the wordes immediatly following do shew another reason why the King should haue the Copy of the law to wit vt discat c. to the end he may learne to feare his Lord God and keepe his word and ceremonies commanded in the law That is to say he should haue it for his owne priuat vse and instruction that he might punctually obserue it all the dayes of his lyfe to which purpose I am sure M. Andrews will allow euery man and woman to haue a Copy of it as well as the King How then was sūma potestas the supreme power wherof he speaketh giuen hereby to the King more then to any other man or woman 70. But if wee cōsider what was expressely ordeyned a litle before in the same Chapter touching the supreme authority of the high Priest and that the future King was presētly after cōmanded to keepe exactly the whole law of God wherof the ordinance touching the obediēce to the high Priest was a principall part yea to take a Copie of the law of the Priests who kept the originall therefor as I argued against M. Barlow were the true Gardiās of the law not the King who had but the Copy if wee weigh withall that he was to learne of them also the sense interpretation of the law because they only not the King had authority to teach interpret it and to resolue all doubts difficulties which should occurre therein as I proued clearly out of the Scriptures in the first Chapter of my Supplement if all this I say be well considered it may be wondred with what face M. Barlow and M. Andrews could inferre any spirituall supremacy of the King vpon this place which doth in truth proue their subiection in matters of Religion to Priests and specially to the high Priest So as it is euident that M. Andrews hath no lesse shamefully abused the holy Scriptures in this point then M. Barlow in so much that it is hard to say whether of them is more shameles especially seeing that they both do also exceed in a prodigious kind of impudency wherin I thought no man could haue matched M. Barlow vntill I had read M. Andrews I meane in facing and bragging out a bad matter when arguments and proofs are to weake whereof I gaue some Instances in M. Barlow and will now do the lyke in M. Andrews 71. Thou maist remember good Reader what poore stuffe he produced to proue that S. Peter had nothing peculiar to himselfe by his pastorall Cōmission and how he triumphed in two or three paragraphes as though he had trodden the Cardinall vnder his feet yea and bragged also afterwardes in another place saying Clariùs id loquuntur Ambrosius Augustinus quà m vt obstrepere possint nostri nouitij Ambrose and Augustine do speake or affirme it more clearly then that our nouices meaning the Catholiks are able any way to contradict it When neuerthelesse to make good his idle cōceipt he was faine to vse great fraud and corruption in the allegation of those two Fathers corrupting the text of S. Ambrose dissembling the circumstances of the place in S. Augustine which clearely proueth the Primacy of S. Peter as I haue amply declared in the first Chapter of this Adioynder so that his braggs and vaunts had no other ground but his owne vanity corruption and falsity 72. The lyke may be noted also in his vayne insultations against the Cardinall about the Councell of Chalcedon For when he himselfe had shamefully abused peruerted and mangled the 28. Canon as I haue clearly shewed in the second Chapter of this Adioinder he admonisheth the Cardinall seriously not to produce his proofes tamquam è vepreculis as it were out of the bryers not out of the superscriptions of letters or of some corner of a period or perhaps some peece of a tytle or fragment of a litle clause but to bring out some Canon for that the Canons are the voyce of the Councells As though forsooth he had beaten downe
also in the same tyme treating of the perfection of Religious men and hauing said that inestimable glory in heauen is promised them yf they keep their Rules and most grieuous paines prepared for them if they neglect them concludeth Meliusest enim c. For it is better according to the sentence of the Scripture not to vow then to vow and not to performe it Thus saith Cassianus to whome I might add many other witnesses but that it is needlesse seing these may suffice to shew M. Andrews allowing as he doth the Instituts of the Monks of the primitiue Church must needes admit allow religious vowes of Pouerty Chastity Obedience whereto all Religious men are and euer haue bene bound by their Institutes 24. So as it is cleare by all this that in this one point he hath graunted diuers important points of Catholike religion yea and vtterly condemned his owne which denyeth and impugneth all those things practised in Monasticall lyfe according to the first Institutes thereof Besides that it also followeth theroÌ„ that his religion is vtterly voyd of all christian perfection which specially consisteth in the true imitation of Christs lyfe by the obseruation of the Euangelicall Counsells professed and practised in Religious discipline for which cause all the Ancient Fathers placed the highest perfection of christian Religion therein as I haue euidently shewed in any Supplement by the clear testimonies of S. Dionysius Areopagita Eusebius S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Basil S. Chrisostome S. Hierome S. Augustin Sozomenus S. Bernard 25. Therefore it litle importeth for the matter in hand what he iangleth against Monkes for put the case it were true that they were all degenerated from their first institute as it is most false and affirmed by him without any proofe and therfore to be answered with a bare deniall yet it suffiseth for the proofe of that which I haue heere vndertaken that the sayd institut consisted in the practise of many notable and important points of Catholike religion and that he hath by an euident consequent granted and approued the said points together with the institut against the curreÌ„t of the doctrine and profession of all his fellowes in which respect I shall not need to trouble thee good Reader with any answere to the rest of his impertineÌ„t discourse and namely to his friuolous stale obiection concerning the idlenes of Monkes answered fully long since by dyuers Catholiks and namely by Cardinall Bellarmine in his Controuersies whereto I remit him because I am forced to hast to an end for otherwise truly I would not only say somewhat therto but also I would examine and debate with him 2. or 3. other points which he toucheth and especially what was the true cause why monasticall profession was first abrogated amongst the Protestants and why they pretending to reforme the Church in these our dayes did rather quite abolish the institute of Monks theÌ„ seeke to restore it to the first integrity if it were good at the first and only fallen to decay and corruption as he signifieth 26. For whereas he seemeth to giue two causes thereof the one that Monkes were growne to be idle and the other that their idlenes was turned to licentiousnes if that were true those reformers should rather haue sought to redresse the abuse and to reduce the Monkes to their first rules then to antiquate the whole Institute which being grounded vpon the holy Scriptures the expresse Counsels of our Sauiour and the example of his lyfe was ordeyned by the Apostles as I haue shewed in my Supplement and doth conteyn in it all true Christian perfection according to the opinion of all the Fathers in which respect it could not by any humane authority be lawfully abrogated and taken quite out of the Church Besides that it is euident that the Ringleaders in that pretended reformation I meane Luther Oecolâ—mpadius Bucer Peter Martyr Ochinus Michonius Menius Musculus Pelicanus Pomeranus and Munsterus being all of them Votaries that is to say Monkes Fryars and religious men abolished the Institutes of monasticall lyfe only because they themselues were so transported with the fury of lust and sensuality that they could no longer indure the restraint therof in religious discipline 27. And therefore they resolued not only to teach most beastly and fleshly doctrine tending to all liberty of the flesh as that it is no more possible to liue chast then to liue without meate That if the wyfe will not come let the maid come That Poligamy or the hauing of many wiues at once is not forbidden in the new law Yea and that it is not lawfull for a man to pray for the guift of Chastity except he surely know that God will giue it him They resolued I say not only to teach this beastly and Mahometicall doctrine but also to incite men therto by their examples euen with the damnable breach of their owne vowes habentes damnationem quia primam fidem irritam fecerunt hauing damnation because they broke their first faith as S. Paul said of the yong widdowes who after their vowes of chastity had but only a wil and desire to marry wheras these deformers hauing bound themselues both to Chastity and Monasticall lyfe by solemne vowe abandoned both the one and the other and as S. Basil saith of such did seek to couer stupri scelus honesto coÌ„iugij nomine the wickednes of whordome with the honest name of Marriage most of them taking harlots vnder the name of wiues 28. So as M. Andrewes may see who were indeed those Locusts whose slothfull idlenes turning to a froath of licencious lyfe destroyed monasticall perfection and profession amongst the Prostestants to wit the very first Apostles and Euangelists of their Ghospell I meane the votaries aboue named and other such of their humour and crew who being weary of the seuerity of Monasticall discipline became Apostata's and renegats and the better to cloake and excuse their owne Apostasy not only sought to abrogate all monasticall discipline but did also set abroach the new doctrine which M. Andrewes and all other Protestants now professe and therefore it is easie to iudg what good fruit such bad trees could yield and consequently from what spirit as well the abrogation of monasticall profession amongst the Protestants as their whole doctrine proceedeth And thus much for this point 29. The Cardinall to proue that the name Catholike doth most properly belong to them that liue in the vnitie and obedience of the Roman Church alleageth S. Ambrose who hauing declared that his brother Satyrus being by shipwrack cast vpon a coast where there were many Schismatiks called LuciferiaÌ„s asked the Bishop of the place whether he did agree with the Catholike Bishops and explicated the same presently saying id est an cum Romana Ecclesia consentiret that is to say whether he agreed with the Roman Church whereto M. Andrewes answereth that Ambrose
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
Church subiect to the Church submit their Scepters to the Church and throw downe their Crownes before the Church and that as Beza testifieth they cannot be exempted from this diuine domination of the presbitery whereupon I gather two things the one that the Supremacy which as M. Andrews saith the Puritans do acknowledg in the King is to be vnderstood only in temporall matters wherein they doe indeed admit him to be theyr supreme head and Gouernour though as you see in M. Rogers they hold him in spirituall matters to be wholly subiect to the Presbitery The other is that all the reformed Churches are also of the same mynd seeing that they professe the same doctrine concerning the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy that the Puritans doe as M. Andrews himselfe confesseth◠whereupon it also followeth that the Kings Maiestie hath no spirituall power or authority at all ouer the English Church seeing that by M. Andrewes his owne confessiō he hath no other power but that which the Puritans and the reformed Churches doe admit in their temporall Princes 66. Besides that albeit we should grant that the Puritans and reformed Churches do allow the tēporall Magistrat to haue some power and authority in Ecclesiasticall matters yet it is euident that they do not allow them that spirituall Iurisdiction and authority which our Parliaments haue granted to our Kinges to wit that all the spirituall power of the Church shall reside principally in them and is to be deduced from them to the Church as from the head to the body that they may giue Dispensations Licences and Faculties in matters of Conscience make Ecclesiasticall Lawes giue Commissions to consecrate Bishops to excōmunicat interdict suspend cēsure to visit correct all Ecclesiasticall Persons and to reforme all heresyes and abuses this I say being a meere spirituall power and exercised by our Kings in England according to the grant of the Parliament is not admitted and much lesse practized in any of the reformed Churches as all those know who know any thing of their doctrine and practise 67. Therfore wheras M. Andrews saith that aswell the reformed Churches as the Puritans do grant the self same authority to the temporall Prince which our King hath and exerciseth in England he sheweth euidently that in his opinion his Maiesty hath no such spirituall iurisdiction and authority as hath bin granted him by our Parliament for that as I haue said the Puritans reformed Churches whose doctrine in this point he approueth do not acknowledg any such spirituall authority in temporall Princes but only a temporall power and obligation to mayntayne and defend the Church so farre forth as the same hath need of externall and humane helpe assistance or defēce which is indeed the self same all that M. Andrewes as you haue heard before alloweth to the Kings Maiesty when he saith that he is no otherwise ouer the Church but as a foster-father a tutor to nourish and defend it and that the question of the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy concerneth only the externall gouernment of the Church so farre forth as it requireth and admitteth humane help and authority So that you see M. Andrews is not in this point an English Protestant but rather a flat Puritan 68. And if this be now the common opinion of the Protestants in England as M. Andrewes would haue vs to suppose we may more truly say of them then he said of the Puritans dies diem docuit ex eo facti aequiores recognouerunt errorem suum time hath taught them more wit and so now they haue recanted their errour And no meruaile seing that their former doctrine is of it selfe so absurd hath bin so canuassed battered by Catholicks that they are worthely ashamed of it especially such of thē as haue any learning or shame at all for some no doubt there are of the ministry that will not stick to defend it or any thing els how absurd soeuer it be amongst whom M. Barlow may go for one who in his Preambler Epistle to the ministers of Scotlād which I haue mentioned before vpon another occasion is not ashamed to make the Pagan and Infidell Emperours supreme heades of the Church in the time of the Apostles saying that S. Paul appealed to Caesars iudgment as the supreme wheras Papists and Puritans will haue the King to be but an honorable member not a chief gouernour in the Churches of his dominions So he 69. Wherein two things are to be noted the one that he doth ridiculously make the Pagan Emperours the chief members that is to say the heads or gouernours of the Church who neuertheles being Idolatours could not be so much as the meanest members thereof The other that he seemeth to make the Kings Maiesty no other wise chief gouernour in the Church then they were albeit I think he will not be so absurd as to acknowledge any spirituall authority in thē seing they were altogeather vncapable therof being as I haue sayd Idolatours enemies and violent persecutors of the Church and faith of Christ. So as herby it appeareth that he also concurreth with M. Andrews to depriue his Maiesty of all the spirituall iurisdiction and authority which the Parliaments haue grāted to our Kings and that consequently they are both of them in one predicament of disloyalty towards his Maiesty and defection from the wonted Protestātisme of England in the point of the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy 70. Now then to conclude concerning them both all the premises thou hast seene good Reader how well these two Prelats of the English Church do simbolize agree not only in seeking to delude their Readers with dyuers lyes fraudulent shifts and deuises but also in betraying their owne cause and fortifying ours which is so euident in them both that they may well be accounted the most harmles or rather the most propitious enemies that euer the Catholikes had and therfore may in some sort be compared to the Scorpion which being a most venemous Serpent yieldeth a sufficient remedy against his owne poison and so do they for albeit they are replenished with venom and malignity yea and sting somtimes most maliciously not with solid arguments but with spitefull gibes and contumelious iests yet their malice doth commonly carry with it the remedy of it selfe being for the most part so manifest and accompanyed with such apparant falshood and euident folly that no man of learning and consideration can receiue any harme thereby but rather great benefit by the discouery of their imbecility the weakenes of their cause◠Seing they cannot otherwyse defend it then by such contumelious and malicious proceedings 71. Insomuch that the learned strangers who read M. Andrewes his booke in latin and do consider withall the speciall choyce that the English Clergy hath made of him to mayntayne the combat against Cardinall Bellarmine in the eye and view of the Christian world do