to affirme that the Popes Supremacy is manifestly gathered out of that Councel addeth further that the Cardinals authority is not yet so great in the world as to make men belieue that the Popes Primacy is established by that which they know doth specially ouerthrow it So saith M. Andrewes therefore this poynt seemeth to me right worthy to be discussed 2. Thus then he saith Legat actione vna totaventilatum c. Let a man read the matter debated in one whole action of the Councel and renewed and confirmed in another finally decreed by a Canon that the priuiledges of the Bishop of Constantinople shal be ne maiora sed aequalia per omnia not greater but equal in all things with the priuiledges of the Bishop of Rome the Roman Legats crying in vayne against it and the Bishop of Rome himself sâ—ying also afterwards by his letters in vayne to the Emperour Empresse and Anatolius Thus saith M. Andrewes wherein two things specially are to be noted for the present for afterwards I will ad a thyrd one is that the Councel granted by that Canon to the Bishop of Constantinople equal priuiledges per omnia in all respects with the Bishop of Rome The other that Pope Leo and his Legats resisted and contradicted it in vayne 3. For the first whereas he saith that the Councell of Calcedon did by that Canon giue to the Bishop of Constantinople ne maiora sed aequalia per omnia priuilegia not greater priuiledges but equal in all things with the Bishop of Rome as though the Councell had exempted the Church and Bishop of Constantinople from subiection to the Roman Sea for par in parem non habet potestatem an equal hath no authority or power ouer his equal truly I must needs say that if M. Andrews had any care what he saith or sparke of shame he would not haue affirmed this so resolutly as he hath done seeing that the very words and text of the Canon it selfe do euince the contrary In which respect he thought good to giue vs only some patches pieces thereof with his corrupt sense and vnderstanding of it and not to lay downe the Canon it selfe whereof the drift and whole scope is no other but to giue to the Bishop of Constantinople the second place after Rome before the Bishops of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem which Churches in former tymes had alwayes had the precedence before the Church of Constantinople 4. The words of the Canon are these Sanctorum Patrum decreta vbique sequentes c. Following euery where the decrees of the holy Fathers and acknowledging the Canon of an hundreth and 50. Bishops which was lately read we do also decree and determine the same concerning the priuiledges of the Church of Constantinople which is new Rome For the Fathers did worthily giue priuiledges to the Throne of old Rome because that Citty did raygne or had the Empyre and the 150. Bishops most beloued of God being moued with the same consideration gaue equall priuiledges to the most holy Throne of new Rome iudging rightly that the Citty which is honored as well with the Empyre as with the Senate and doth enioy equal priuiledges with the most ancient Queene Rome should be also extolled and magnifyed as she is euen in Ecclesiasticall things secundam post illam existentem being the second after her c. 5. Thus saith the Canon adding also certayne priuiledges which were in particuler granted to the Church of Constantinople whereof I shall haue occasion to speake after a whyle when I shall first haue explicated this that I haue layed downe already which as you hane seene hath no other sense or meaning then to renew or confirme a former Canon pretended to be made by 150. Bishops in the Councel of Constantinople some 60. yeares before which Canon was a confirmation of the Decrees of the Councel of Nice not only concerning matters of faith but also touching the limites and iurisdiction of certaine Metropolitan Churches yet with this exception in fauour of the Church of Constantinople that it should haue Primatus honorâ—m post Romanum Episcopum propterea quòd sit noua Roma the honour of Primacy after the Bishop of Rome because it is new Rome 6. This then being the effect of that Canon of the councel of Constantinople it is cleare that this other of the Councell of Calcedon which renewed and confirmed it was also to the same purpose to wit to giue to the Church of Constantinople the second place after the Roman that is to say the preheminence before the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch which according to the Canons of the Councel of Nice had the second and third place after the Church of Rome and this I say is euident in the Canon it selfe alledged by M. Andrewes where it is sayd expresly of the Church of Constantinople that it should be magnified and extolled as old Rome was secundam post illam existentem being the se-second after her which clause was yet more clearely expressed in the same Canon as it was related in the Councell the day after it was made in these words Et in Ecclesiasticis sicut illa maiestatem habere negotijs secundam post illam existere that is to say we iudged it conuenient that the Citty of Constantinople should haue a Maiesty in Ecclesiasticall affayres as Rome hath and be the second after her besides that the relation which the whole Councell of Calcedon made to Pope Leo of the substance and effect of this Canon may put the matter out of all doubt declaring it thus Confirmauimus autem centum quinquaginta sanctorum PatruÌ„ regulam c. We haue also confirmed the rule or CanoÌ„ of the 150. holy Fathers which were assembled in Constantinople vnder Theodosius the elder of pious memory whereby it was ordayned that after that most holy and Apostolicall Seat the Church of Constantinople should haue the honour which is ordayned to be the secoÌ„d c. Thus wrot the whole Councell of Calcedon to Pope Leo. 7. Now then can any thing be more cleare then that the drift and meaning of that Canon is no other then to giue the second place to the Church of Constantinople after the Sea Apostolike Why then doth M. Andrewes affirme so confidently that this CanoÌ„ made theÌ„ equall in all things For although it giueth to the Bishop of ConstaÌ„tinople equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome yet it neither saith nor meaneth that their priuiledges should be equall in all things or in all respects as M. Andrews corruptly frauduleÌ„tly affirmeth in a differeÌ„t Letter as though he laid down the very words of the CanoÌ„ Besides that the equality meÌ„tioned in the Canon is sufficiently explicated by the Canon it self which hauing signified that the Fathers in that Councell thought good to grant the second place vnto the Church of Constantinople and to giue it equall priuiledges
depressing and punishing the pryde of the Bishops of Constantinople who had so oft maliciously impugned the same which may serue for a Caueat to other rebellious Children of the Church For although Almighty God is patiens redditor a slow paymaster yet he payeth home in the end and as Valerius saith tarditatem supplicij grauitate compensat he recompenseth the slownes of his punishment with the weyght or grieuousnes thereof This I haue thought good to touch here by the way vpon so good an occasion will now conclude concerning M. Andrewes his Canon alledged out of the Councell of Calcedon 24. Therfore I say that it being euident by all this discourse that the sayd Canon was neuer able to equal the Church of Constantinople with the Roman Sea to which end M. Andrews saith it was enacted he must needs coufesse that eyther there was no such Canon at all to the purpose that he mentioneth or els that the small force and authority therof may serue for an euident argument of the supreme power and authority of Pope Leo and his successors seeing that theyr only resistance and contradiction sufficed to ouerthrow it notwithstanding the great authority of the Councell of Calcedon which ordayned it Whereby it also appeareth how vainely and vntruely he saith that Pope Leo contradicted it in vayne yea and which is more absurd that he made suite and intercession in vayne Frustra saith he Romano ipso Pontifice apud Augustum Augustam Anatolium per litteras suas intercedente The Bishop of Rome himselfe making intercession or sueing in vayne by his letters to the Emperour the Empresse and Anatolius So that you see he maketh Pope Leo's case very desperate and his authority very feeble seeing that he was fayne to make such intercession and suite not only to the Emperour and Empresse but also to Anatolius himselfe 25. Therefore albeit I am not ignorant that intercedere hath dyuers senses and amongst the rest signifieth to withstand prohibite or hinder a thing proposed or intended and that some perhaps may say that M. Andrews vseth it heere in that sense yet because it signifieth also to make intercession and suite and is so vsed commonly in Ecclesiasticall Authors and will be so vnderstood in this place by euery common Reader yea and for that M. Andrewes himselfe so taketh and vseth it diuers tymes and would be loath no doubt to haue men thinke that Pope Leo did or durst oppose himselfe to the Emperour Empresse but rather that in this case he behaued himselfe towards them and Anatolius as an humble suppliant and yet all in vayne therefore I say I cannot let this poynt passe vnexamined to the end thou mayst see good Reader as well M. Andrewes his vanity as also what kind of suit intercession Pope Leo made vnto these whome he nameth what effect successe it had with them But first I think it not amisse to declare here how this Canon was made in that Councell and why it was contradicted by the Legats of Pope Leo afterwards disanulled by Leo himself 26. Therefore it is to be vnderstood that Anatolius then Bishop of Constantinople ambitiously thirsting after his owne promotion namely to be preferred before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch and considering that Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria was deposed by the Councell for heresy and the Bishop of Antioch much disgraced for hauing adhered to Dioscorus thought that a good opportunity was offered him to accomplish his desyre and therevpon practised with the Bishops in the Councell for the furtherance of his pretence and hauing gayned so many of them that it seemed to him their very number and authority might extort the consent of the rest yea of the Popes Legats themselues procured that when the last session of the Councell was ended and as well the Iudges or Senate as the Legats were departed all the Bishops of his faction eyther remayned behynd or els after their departure returned againe to the place of the assembly and there made the Canon whereof we now treate Whereupon the Legats hauing notice of it caused the whole Councell to be assembled againe the next day and finding Anatolius and his faction who were the far greater part of the Councell resolute in their determination protested their owne opposition contradiction to the Canon as well in respect that it was repugnant to the Councell of Nice as also for that the other Canon which was pretended to be made in the Councell of Constantinople to the same effect was not to be found amongst the Canons of the said Councell sent to Rome neyther had beene euer put in practise by the Bishops of Constantinople 27. Finally they reserued the determination of the matter to Pope Leo himselfe whom they called Apostolicum Virum Vniuersalis Ecclesiae Papam The Apostolicall man and Pope of the Vniuersall Church vt ipse say they aut de suae Sedis iniuria aut de Canonum euersione possit ferre sententiam That he may giue sentence eyther of the iniury done to his Sea by the abuse of his Legats or of the breach of the Canons Thus sayd the Legats signifying that it was in his hands and power to ratify or abrogate as well this Canon as all the other Canons of that Coūcell which also the whole Councell acknowledged sufficiently in a common letter written to him wherein they craued of him the ratification of this Canon most humbly and instantly as it will appeare heereafter which neuertheles he flatly denyed confirming only the condemnation and deposition of Dioscorus and the rest of their decrees cōcerning matters of faith for the which only he sayd the Councell was assembled and in fine he disanulled the Canon for diuers causes specifyed in his Epistles First because it had no other ground but the ambitious humour of Anatolius who inordinatly sought thereby to haue the precedence before the Patriarks of Alexandria and Antioch Secondly because it was not procured or made Canonically but by practise and surreption in the absence of his Legats◠Thirdly for that the other Canon of the Councell of Constantinople vpon the which this seemed to be grounded was of no validity hauing neuer been sent to the Sea Apostolike nor put in practise by the predecessors of Anatolius Lastly for that it was flatly repugnant to the Canons of the Councell of Nice 28. For these causes I say Pope Leo abrogated this Canon which neuertheles it is like he would haue admitted and confirmed if it had proceeded from any good ground and tended to any vtility of the Church and had beene withall orderly proposed and Canonically made for albeit the Councell of Nice had already ordayned the 〈◊〉 and iurisdiction of the Patriarchal Churches of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem with the consent of Pope Siluester who was the head of that Councell without whose ratification nothing could be of force that
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
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
Reader the rather to reflect vpon the propheticall zeale spirit of this holy Bishop the importance of his graue serious reprehension of the Emperour 49. But whether he did it of negligence or malice I leaue it to God his owne conscience to iudge and will only say of him that preferring as he doth the inconsiderate act of the ignorant and vnlearned Emperour misled by heretikes before the zealous graue speach cesuâ—e of a Catholik learned Bishop he sufficiently discouereth his owne heretical spirit especially seing that he could not but see in Liberaâ—us of what moment weight the Bishops words were which appeareth by the notable effect that they wrought in the Emperour himself who was moued therby to recall his factâ— as Liberatus testifieth in these words Quem audiens Imperatoâ—â— reuocari Roman Siluâ—rium 〈◊〉 c. The Emperour hearing the Bishop of Paterâ— commaunded Siluerius to be called back to Rome and the matter to be examined and tryed conceâ—ning his letters meaning the letters wherof he had bene falsely accused visi apprâ—â—â—â—â—tur ab ipso fuisse scriptuâ—â— in quacumque Cauitate Episcop degeret c. to the end that if it were proued that he had written them he might liueâ— or remaine Bishop in any other Citty and if they were found to be false then he might be restored to his seat Thus saith Liberatus wherin it is to be noted that although the Emperour vpon the Bishops admonition commaunded that the matters whereof Siluerius was accused should be better examined yet he did not presume to ordayne that in case he should be found guilty he should be depriued of his Dignity but only that for the security of the Citty of Rome he should liue in any other Citty and there exercise his function and charge 50. And Liberatus doth also further declare that as Siluerius was returning to Rome according to the Emperours order Bellisarius caused him at the instance of Vigilius who then vsurped his Seat to be deliuered into the hands of two of Vigilius his seruants in whose custody he perished shortly after with famine misery in an Iland called Palmaria wherby it appeareth how the Emperours reuocation of his fact was frustrated to wit not by his owne fault but by the sinister practise of his officers ministers who by the help of the wicked Empresse Theodora easily deluded him So that M. Andrews might learne by this relatioÌ„ of Liberatê° how potent were the Bishops words which he so litle esteemeth and the reader may note as well M. Andrews his folly as his bad conscience his folly in that he maketh more accompt of the temerarious and erroneous act of the Emperour which he himself acknowledged for such recalled then of the Bishops admonition which made him see and repent his errour his bad conscience in that he dissembled all this though he could not but see it in Liberatusâ— for no man can imagine that he would be so negligent as to answere to this obiection of Cardinall Bellarmine and not to search the Authour alledged by the Cardinall to see whether there were any corruption in the allegation therfore thou maist see good Reader with what sincerity he vseth to treat matters of Religion though the same import no lesse then the eternall saluation or damnatioÌ„ of mens soules not caring what he saith or dissembleth so that he may shift of the matter for the tyme with some shew of probability whereof we shall see much more experience hereafter in him as we haue already seene the like in M. Barlow For truely it is hard to say whether of them is more fraudulent and absurd in this kind 51. In the meane time two things are euident by this which hath been heere debated the one how weakely M. Andrewes argueth when he saith that the Emperour Iustinian shewed himself in these two acts to be superiour to the Pope aliqua exparte for it may well be graunted in some sense he gaine nothing by it seing the like may be said of Nero who put to death S. Peter and S. Paul of Herod who killed S. Iohn Baptist and of Pilate who gaue senteÌ„ce of death against Christ for they and all other persecutors of Gods Church yea Iustinian also himself in the end of his raigne when he declared himself an heretick and expelled Catholick Bishops from their seats because they would not subscribe to his heresies they all I say shewed themselues to be Superiours aliqua ex parte ouer those whom they killed banished and persecuted hauing by Gods permission power ouer them and exercysing the same power vpon them neuertheles I hope no good Christian man will say that because they did this ergo it was lawfully done which must eyther be the conclusion of M. Andrewes his argument à facto or els he concludeth nothing to the purpose 52. The other thing which I say is cleare by the premisses is that as well the testimony of the Bishop of Patera produced by the Cardinall as also the other grounded vpon the law inter Claras alledged both by the Cardinall and by me are good and solid proofes for the Popes Vniuersall authority ouer the Church of God notwithstanding the idle exceptions of M. Andrewes against the same and therefore he must now deuyse some other answere therto or seek some other shift seeing this hath fayled him and serued to no other purpose but to shew his conformity of spirit rather with the hereticks who deceaued and seduced Iustinian in the banishment of two Popes then with such Catholicke and holy Bishops as the Bishop of Patera or those others whose aduise he vsed in making his Catholike lawes in fauour and honour of the Sea Apostolike Finally thou seest good Reader that it may be iustly sayd of him as he said of the Cardinall to wit that he might haue abstayned from mentioning Iustinian and the law inter Claras seeing that he hath gayned thereby nothing els but to manifest his owne folly to bewray the weaknes of his cause to fortify ours THE ANSVVERS OF M. ANDREWS TO Certayne places of the Councell of Calcedon are examined and confuted His notable fraud in diuers things and especially in the allegation of a Canon of that Councell is discouered and the supreme authority of the Sea Apostolike clearely proued out of the same Councell and Canon CHAP. II. IN the second Chapter of my Supplement I haue produced certayne cleare testimonies out of the Councell of Calcedon for the Popes Vniuersall and Supreme authority ouer the Church of God and Cardinall Bellarmin also in his Apology hath alleaged the same whereto M. Andrewes hath framed an Answere such a one as it is so perhaps may seeme to some to haue answered vs both In which respect I think good to examin what he saith concerning that matter the rather because he holdeth it for a paradoxe in the Cardinall
with the Church of Rome addeth presently for the explication thereof vt Ponticae Asâ—anae Thraciae Dioecesis Metropolitani c. That the Metropolitans of Pontus Asia Thracia and also the Bishopps of the same Diocesse amongst the Barbarous so were all called that were no Graecians should be ordayned by the Bishops of Constantinople 8. So sayth the Canon giuing to vnderstand that whereas the Church of Constantinople had bene in times past but a priuate Bishoprick subiect to Heraclea it should hereafter be not only a Metropolitan but also a Patriarchall Sea and haue Metropolitans vnder it yea and that as the Church of Rome was the chiefe Church of the West so also the Church of Constantinople being now made the second after Rome should be the chief Church of the East preferred before the Patriarchall Seas of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem yet with this euident exception and reseruation that neuerthelesse it should be still inferiour to the Roman Sea being the second after it that is to say it should haue the same place and priuiledge that the Church of Alexandria had in former times which though it was the chief Church of the East the secoÌ„d after Rome yet was alwayes inferiour subiect thereto as it is euident by the appeale of the famous Athanasius Bishop of that Sea to Pope Iulius the first of that name aboue an huÌ„dreth yeares before the CouÌ„cel of CalcedoÌ„ 9. Therfore the preheminence which the Church of CoÌ„stantinople was to haue by this Canon was to be preferred before the Churches of Alexandria Antioch and the equality that it was to haue with Rome was no other but to be a Patriarchall Sea and head of all the Patriarchall and Metropolitan Churches of the East as Rome was in the West yet with reseruatioÌ„ of the right of Primacy due to the Roman Sea Besides that it is to be noted that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in our latin Copies is translated aequalis doth signify also similis lyke not only in prophane Authors as euery maÌ„ may see in the Thesaurus of Henricê° Stephanê° but also in diuers places of holy Scripture both in the old new TestameÌ„t And he that list to see more to this purpose may read the Paralel of Tortus his Tortor writteÌ„ against M. D. Andrews by the ReuereÌ„d Learned Father Androas Eudaemon-Ioannes who hath sufficiently handled and explicated this point and hath also produced a cleare testimony out of Theodorus Balsamon a very learned Grecian and Patriarch of Antioch to proue that the mention of paria priuilegia equall priuiledges graÌ„ted to the Church of CoÌ„stantinople in the CouÌ„cell of CalcedoÌ„ doth not any way derogate from the supreme dignity of the RomaÌ„ Sea 10. Whereto I also add that the word aequalis in the Scripture doth not alwayes signify a true and iust Equality in all respects but somtymes also an Equality in a certayne proportion as in the Apostle to the Corinthians who exhorteth them to supply the temporall wants and necessityes of the poore with their store and aboundance vt fiat aequalitas sayth he that there may be an equality meaning an equality in a certayne similitude and proportion as it appeareth by that which he addeth for the further explication therof saying sicut scriptum est qui muliùm non abundauit qui modicum non minorauit as it is written he which gathered much had no more then was necessary for him and he that gathered litle had no less So sayth the Apostle alluding to the history in Exodus of those who gathered Manna in different quantity and yet found that they had it in a kind of equality because euery one had so much as was needfull for him and no more so that equality doth not signify heere an Arithmeticall equality as the Philosophers and Schoolemen tearme it which is equall in euery respect and is vsed in commutatiue Iustice that is to say in buying and selling and the lyke wherein the iust and true valew of euery thing is equally considered but a Geometricall equality keeping only a certayne proportion according to distributiue Iustice which as Aristotle and the Schoolemen do teach doth alwayes respect equality in the distribution of honours priuiledges and rewards yet so as due proportion be obserued correspondent to the different dignity and quality of euery one And therfore when two persons of different quality and degree as the Captayne and his souldiar are to be rewarded for some one seruice to the common wealth their rewards or priuiledges are truly equall when they are priuiledged and rewarded in a due proportion to their degrees without impeachment to the difference that is betwixt them And so a subiect may be said to haue equall priuiledges with his King and yet be his subiect still and in this maÌ„ner the words equall and equality are to be vnderstood in the CouÌ„cell of CalcedoÌ„ as is euident by the CanoÌ„ it self wherin you see it was ordayned that the Bishop of Constantinople should haue equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome and yet haue the secoÌ„d place after him 11. But now to deale somewhat more liberally with M. Andrews in this point let vs put the case that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon did meane to giue to the Church of Constantinople that equality with the Roman sea which he affirmeth should he trow you gayne any thing thereby Or could he any way preiudice the vniuersall and supreme authority either of Pope Leo at that tyme or of the other Popes his Successors euer since Truly no but rather should notably confirme theyr primacy and vtterly ouerthrow his owne cause seeing that it is most euident that the authority of Pope Leo was such that his only opposition to that Canon and his abrogation therof sufficed to ouerthrow disanull it which I will take a litle paynes to proue by the whole course and practise of the Church euen from that Councell vntill the ruine of the Greeke Church and Empyre which though it be needlesse in respect of the learned yet I hope it will not be altogeather fruitles to the more ignorant and vnlearned and may serue for an aboundant conuiction of M. Andrews his impudency and malice who is not ashamed to auouch such a manifest falsehood and impugne such a knowne truth as he doth 12. To this purpose I wish it to be noted what Gelasius who liued at the same tyme and was Pope about 30. yeares after Leo wrote to the Bishops of Dardania concerning a schisme raysed by Acatius Bishop of Constantinople in the tyme of Pope Felix his Predecessor in which Epistle he signifyeth 4. things specially to be noted for this purpose First that the Emperour Martian though he had made great instance to Pope Leo for the aduancement of the Church of Constantinople yet did highly prayse and commend the said
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
Canon pretended to haue been made some 60. yeares before in the Councell of Constantinople could not serue his turne seeing that the same was neuer sent or intimated by any of his predecessors to the Roman Sea therfore he wished him to remember what Christ threatneth to them who scandalize any one of his litle ones and thereby to consider what he deserueth who feareth not to scandalize so many Churches and Priests Finally he exhorteth him to leaue his ambitious desires concluding with this sentence of the Apocalyps Tene quod habes ne alius accipiat coronam tuam hold that which thou hast lest another take thy Crowne for si inconcessa quaesieris c. if thou seeke saith he those things that are vnlawfull thou shalt depriue thy selfe of the peace and vnion of the vniuersall Church by thy owne work and iudgement So he And dost thou not see good Reader what an humble suppliant Pope Leo was to Anatolius If one should write a letter to M. Andrewes in this style and forme would he take it trow you for a supplication 34. But now let vs see what effect it had and whether it was in vayne or no as M. Andrews affirmeth of it This will be euident by the epistles of Pope Leo to Iulianus Bishop of Coa to the Emperour and to Anatolius himselfe To the Bishop he signifieth that the Emperour had written vnto him interueniens saith he pro Anatolio vt nostri illi animi gratia praebeatur quoniam correctionem eius promittit c. Requesting in the behalfe of Anatolius that we will bestow vpon him the grace or fauour of our affection because he promiseth his amendment c. So that you see now Iordanis conuersus est retrorsum for whereas Pope Leo according to M. Andrewes his assertions was a suiter both to the Emperour and to Anatolius the Emperour is now become a suiter to Pope Leo for Anatolius which will yet more cleerly appeare by another Epistle of Pope Leo to the Emperour himselfe wherein he promised that Anatolius should find in him sincerae gratiae animum an affection of sincere grace or fauour in case he followed sincerely the Emperours aduise and counsell and performed in hart that which he promised in words for that otherwyse he would resolutly proceed agaynst him to chastise him for his pryde wherby it is euident that the Emperour had written to Pope Leo in the behalfe of Anatolius and that Pope Leo would not otherwise promise him his grace and fauour but vpon condition of his harty repentance and sincere amendment 35. And will you now see all this confirmed by Pope Leo's letters to Anatolius himselfe Therfore wheras Anatolius had written a letter of submission to him not only acknowledging his fault in that attempt but also yielding him an account of the state of his Church of Constantinople Pope Leo answering the same first commended greatly certayne predecessors of Anatolius to wit Iohn Atticus Proclus and Flauianus exhorting him to imitate them and blaming him by the way for his scandalous attempts and hauing also signified how glad he was to vnderstand by his letters that he had reformed certayne abuses in the Church of Constantinople he gaue him order withall to make two priests called Andreas and Euphratas and to admit some others to Ecclesiasticall dignities vpon certayne conditions which he prescribed him and lastly comming to speake more particulerly of his presumptuous attempt he saith that whereas he layd the fault vpon the euill counsell and perswasions of the Clergy of Constantinople who vrged him vnto it he might haue giuen better satisfaction if he had also blamed his owne consent thereto and not haue layed the fault vpon others neuertheles saith he gratum mihi frater charissime est c. It is gratfull to me most deare brother that you professe now to be displeased with that which then also should not haue pleased you Your owne profession togeather with the attestation of the Christian Prince is sufficient for our reconciliation neyther doth your correction or amendement seeme to me to be ouerlate or out of season cui tam venerabilis assertor accessit who haue so venerable a surety 36. Thus wrote Pope Leo to Anatolius whereby it appeareth that M. Andrews saying that he did by his letters intercedere frustrà apud Augustum Augustam Anatolium hath in two words made two lyes the one in intercedere for that the Pope made no intercession or suite especially to Anatolius but was sued vnto by the Emperour in his behalfe The other in frustrà for though it should be granted that the Pope made suite yet it was not in vayne And therefore if M. Andrews should seeke to quit himselfe of one of the lyes by saying that he tooke intercedere for to make opposition and not intercession yet he cannot rid himselfe of the other lye which is a sound one seeing that Pope Leo's opposition was so far from being in vayne that it brought Anatolius as I may say vpon his knees and forced him to humble and submit himselfe to acknowledge his fault to promise amendment yea to procure the Emperour to be a suiter and intercessor for him and finally to receiue and execute Pope Leo's commandments lawes and ordinances in the Church of Constantinople as though he had bene some Italian Bishop within the Suburbs of Rome So that I hope thou seest good Reader that I haue now clearely proued 2. things The one that M. Andrews hath sought notoriously to delude thee in telling thee that Pope Lâ—o contradicted this Canon in vayne The other that the Emperour and the whole Christian world had at that tyme a firme beliefe of the supreme authority of Pope Leo ouer the Councell of Calcedon and the whole Church of God seeing that his only opposition to this Canon sufficed to ouerthrow it 37. Whereupon it also followeth that although it were true which M. Andrews most falsely and absurdly affirmeth to wit that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon meant by this Canon to make the Byshoprik of CoÌ„stantinople equal in all respects with the Apostolicall Sea of Rome yet it little importeth yea rather maketh for vs then for M. Andrews seeing that the Câ—non was as I haue shewed preseÌ„tly ouerthrowne and â—ade voyd by the authority of the Roman Séa and that â—ot only Anatolius himselfe who procured it acknowledged his errour therin but also as well he as other Catholike Bishops his successors liued in the vnion and subiection of the sayd Roman Church as I haue sufficiently shewed by the experience and practise euen of the Greeke Church vntill it was vtterly ruined by the Turks 38. Therefore it shall be now conuenient to see how well M. Andrews answereth and satisfyeth the places alledged by the Cardinall and my selfe out of the Councell of Calcedon whereby I shall also haue occasion to confute certayne reasons of his which he further vrgeth out
it is most cleare that they cannot possibly signify as he would haue them parificare ad parem dignitatem euehere ad paris magnitudinis instar efferre which words and manner of speach do exclude all that diffeâ—rence of degree and dignity which is expresly reserued in the Canon giuing the second place to Constantinople so that you see he is in all this matter most fraudulent and hath notably corrupted the Canon aswell by concealing that which most imported to shew the full drift therof as also by peruerting both the words and the sense of it 67. It resteth now that I say somewhat more to his conclusion which is this Quod habet ergo Roma de primatu c. therfore that which Rome hath of the primacy it hath not from Christ but from the Fathers and in respect of the seat of the Emperour and not for the seat of Peter and forasmuch as the Fathers in aduancing new Rome to equall greatnes exercised the same power which they vsed in honouring old Rome therfore he is farre from the faith who affirmeth that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is according to the faith and religion of the Councell of Chalcedon So he concluding as you see two things the one concerning the primacy of the Roman Sea which he saith was not giuen by Christ but by the Fathers and not in respect of Peters Seat but for the seat of the Emperour wherto I haue said inough in effect already hauing taught him to distinguish betwixt the Primacy of the Roman Sea granted by Christ to S. Peter and the priuiledges which the Fathers or temporall Princes haue giuen therto for of the former to wit the Primacy of S. Peters Sea the Canon speaketh not at all because the mention of it would haue bene nothing to the purpose of the Canon but rather against it as I haue sufficiently declared and therfore this part of the conclusion is cleane from the matter and cannot possibly be drawne from the Canon wherupon he groundeth all his arguments 68. The other part is also no lesse friuolous then the former for whereas he concludeth that the Fathers of the Councell of Calcedon held not the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome for a matter of faith or Religion because they made the Church of Constantinople equal with the Roman Sea you see that all the equality wherupon he buyldeth is but his owne fiction and repugnant to that very Canon which he layeth for his foundation and yet forsooth he is not ashamed to triumph and insult against the Cardinall exacting of him some Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon for the Popes Primacy as though he himselfe had knockt him downe with a Canon for thus he saith for an vpshot and final conclusion of all this matter 69. Nec alieunde igitur tamquam è vepreculis extrahat nescio quid arrodat c. Therefore let not the Cardinall draw I know not what out of some place as it were out of the bryers and gnaw vpon it let him giue vs a Canon for the Canons are the voyce of the Councell not out of the superscription of an Epistle or some corner of a period or perhaps some peece of a tytle or fragment of a little clause So he wherein thou seest good Reader how he bestirreth himselfe with his diminitiues or to vse a phrase of M. Barlows with his Hypocoristicall alleuiations extenuating all that the Cardinall hath obiected as meere tryfles and calling for a Canon because the Canons are the very voyce of the Councell and so he would haue vs to suppose of his counterfait Canon I say counterfait in respect that he hath abused mangled and peruerted it as you haue seene which therefore is so far from being the voyce of the Councell that it is nothing els but a loud and lewd lye of his owne 70. For the Canon it selfe being taken as it is in the Councell vtterly ouerthroweth his cause seeing that it giueth the second place to Constantinople after Rome and therefore acknowledgeth the Primacy of the Roman Sea besids that although it had ben such as M Andrews would haue it to be yet Pope Leo's authority sufficed to disanul it euen in the Iudgment of Anatolius himselfe who hauing been the cause and authour of it acknowledged his errour therein and craued pardon for the same as I haue amply declared before And although after the earnest endeuours of diuers as well Catholike as Hereticall Emperours to aduance the Church of Constantinople and some schismes also raysed for that cause the Popes permitted the second place to the Bishops of that Sea whithout further opposition especially from the tyme of Iustinian the Emperour which was about a 100. yeares after the Councell of Calcedon yea and afterwards also Pope Innocentius the third ratifyed and confirmed it by a Canon in the great Councell of Lateran yet the supreme authority of the Sea Apostolike was no way preiudiced thereby as it appeareth euidently by the relation which I haue made before of the subiection and obedience of the Catholike Emperours and Bishops of Constantinople to the Sea of Rome from tyme to tyme vntill the Greeke Empyre was vtterly ruyned by the Turkes So that it is euery way manifest that the Canon of the Councell of Calcedon alledged by M. Andrewes hath serued him to no other purpose but to bewray his impudency fraud and folly 71. And wheras he demaundeth of the Cardinall some Canon of that Councell for the proof of the Popes Supremacy he sheweth himselfe very idle to exact a Canon for a matter that was not then in question but professed by the whole Councell as it euidently appeareth by their Epistle to Pope Leo wherin they acknowledge that he being ordayned to be the interpeter of the voyce of Blessed Peter to all men had conserued and kept the true faith which had bene deduced from Christs tyme to theirs and that vnder his conduct as being the author of so great a good they published the truth to the children of the Church that Christ had prepared for them that spirituall banquet meaning their Synod by his Letters that he by his Legates had gouerned them in that Councell as the Head gouerneth the members that the keeping of the Vineyard was committed to him by our Sauiour and that he had depriued Eutyches the heretike of his dignity in ConstaÌ„tinople which as I haue declared before he could not haue done if his authority had not bene vniuersall 72. And then comming to speake of the Canon which they had made in fauour of the Church of Constantinople they signified the trust and confidence they had that as he was wont by his carefull gouernment to cast forth the beames of his Apostolicall light euen to the Church of Constantinople so he would now condescend to confirme that which they had ordayned concerning the said Church for the auoyding of confusion and
in which Councell also the Appeales of Bishops to Rome were expressely confirmed besides that the very Councell of Milâ—uis in which this Canon was made was receaued and confirmed by Pope Innocentius the first as it shall appeare further after a whyle So that this Canon which concerneth only the appeales of inferiour Clergy men and not of Bishops and was admitted by the Popes themselues did not any way preiudice the right of Appeales to Rome or the authority of the sea Apostolicke and this also may be clearely proued out of S. Augustine himselfe who writing to the Donatists and reprehending them for their temerarious presumption in excommunicating and condeÌ„ning Caecilianus the Catholike Bishop of Carthage aduertised them with all of their folly in that they considered not how vayne their attempt was therin and how litle cause Caecilianê° had to care for their senteÌ„ce seing it was free for him to reserue his cause to the iudgement of other Bishops beyond the seas and especially of the Apostolyke Church meaning there by especially the Apostolyke Sea of Rome which he alwayes called the Apostolyke seat or Apostolike Chayre per antonomasiam as it may be noted in diuers places of his workes whereof I haue alledged some already and shall haue occasion to alledge others hereafter insomuch that when he speaketh of the Apostolicke Church or Apostolicke seat or Apostolike chaire without naming any in particuler he speaketh vndoubtedly of the Roman Church 46. And therefore he saith in the same Epistle to the Donatists that Caecilianus might well contemne the multitude of his enemyes seeing that he held communion as well with the Roman Church in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit principatus wherein the principality or soueragnity of the Apoctolike chayre hath alwayes florished as with other Catholicke countryes from whence the Ghospell was brought to Africk c. Moreouer in the said Epistle he maketh playne distinction betwixt the Appeales of Bishops and Priests saying neque enim de Presbyteris c. Neyther was the question heere concerning Priests or Deacons or other Clergy men of the inferiour sort but concerning our collegues who may reserue their cause entyre and whole to the iudgement of other their collegues and especially of the Apostolicke Churches So he whereby it appeareth that albeit he signifieth that there was a restraynt of Appeales of Priests and inferiour Clergy men according to the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis yet he graunteth that Bishops had free liberty to appeale out of Africk to the Apostolike Churches and especially to the RomaÌ„ Church wherein as you haue heard him say before Apostolicae Cathedrae semper viguit principatus the soueraignty of the Apostolike chayre hath alwayes florished 47. And to the end it may appeare that neyther the Councell of Mileuis nor yet the petition of the African Synode to Pope Celestinus did hinder the course of appeales to Rome or the decision of them in Africk by the Popes authority I will conclude with some examples very notable for this purpose The first shal be of Lupicinus a Bishop of Mauritania in Africk restored to his seat shortly after S. Augustines tyme by the sentence of Pope Leo who also sent thither a Bishop called Potentius as his Legate and the Bishops of Africk admitted him albeit the African Synod had requested Pope Celestinus to send no more Legats thither 48. Another example may be of a comission sent by Pope Gregory the Great to an Agent or officer of his in Africk called Hilarius to assemble a Prouinciall Synod there for the examinatioÌ„ of a complaynt made to him by two deacons Felicissimus and Vincentius against Agentius their Bishop in which commission order was giuen to Hilarius punctually to execute the sentence of the Synod Also the same Pope hauing heard the complaints of certayne Priests in Africk against Paulinus their Bishop committed the hearing and decision of the cause to Victor the primate of Numidia and Columbus with other Bishops giuing them commission to heare and determyn it amongst themselues except they should thinke the assistance of his officer Hilarius needfull for the better determination of the cause In like manner a complaynt being exhibited to the said Pope by Donadeus a Deacon against Victor his Bishop he deputed the foresaid Columbus and other Bishops to examin the cause and to punish the Bishop if he were found in fault And the like commission he gaue also to a Synod of Bishops held at Bizacium in Africk for the tryall of the cause of Clementius their Primate 49. Now then in these examples two things are to be noted the one that the Popes vsed to decyde appeales and other controuersyes in diueres manners sometymes ordayning and disposing thereof by their Legats or other officers and sometymes giuing no other commission to their said Legats and officers but to assemble some Prouinciall Synode and to see the sentence thereof executed and sometymes againe giuing all power and authority to the Metropolitan Bishops of that country to decyde the causes which last way and manner of tryall was no way repugnant to the request of the African Synod in their letter to Pope Celestinus as I haue signifyed before 50. The other thinge to be noted is that the Popes vsed still iure suo their owne right notwithstanding the forsaid request of the African Synod yea and that the Bishops of Africk approued and acknowledged the same by their obedience knowing full well that the petitions of their predecessors to Celestinus rested wholy in his will and pleasure to be granted or denied as he should see cause whereof â—here fell out shortly after an euident example and proofe in the Councell of Calcedon for albeit the Fathers of that famous generall Councell not only made earnest sute to Pope Leo by a common letter to obteyne the second place after Rome for Constantinople but also ordayned and decreed it by a speciall Canon neuertheles Pope Leo denyed their sute disanulled their decree and forced the Authors thereof to acknowledge their errour as I haue amply proued in the second Chapter and therefore much more might Pope Celestinus deny the request of a Prouinciall Synode and might also haue disanulled their decrees if they had made any preiudiciall to the Roman Sea as they did not 51. And now to conclude vpon these premisses 3. things do euidently follow thereon The first that the Appeales of Bishops from Africk to Rome were neuer prohibited or so much as interrupted by any decrees or Canons and much lesse by the letters of the African Synode to Pope Celestinus The second that the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis which M. Andrewes seemeth to alledge as forbidding appeales to Rome vnder payne of excommunication did only concerne Priests and Deacons and other Clergy men of the inferiour sort and therefore did not prohibite the Appeales of Bishops and much lesse of all men
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
pag â—09 A pecuniary Pastour 210. Confuteth himself 220. A meere wrangler pag. 222.268 His inference of Quidlibet ex Quolibet pag. 233. His Cripticall Cauill against S. Ephrem 23â— His Goggery pag. 241. His abuse of Sâ— Epiphanius 254. Of S. Ambrose 269. His euill fortune 274. His clipping paring of Fathers authorities when they make against him 278. His confusion of the Priest with the people Masse with Mattines c. 298. His abuse of Theodoret 307. his scrupulosity in alleaging of Authorityes 323. Pressed with his owne Argument 324. Proueth himselfe a Iew 325. His transgressioÌ„ of the Synodicall Canons of England 333. His silly discourse about prayer to Saints 337. Prodigall of his Rhetorickâ— 343. Wrongeth his Maiesty 349. His erring of malice â—56 His trifling obiections 357.358.359 His changing the state of the Question about the Popes Primacy 362. CoÌ„cerning holy reliques 368. His poore conceipt of S. Iohn the EuaÌ„gelist 370. A iest of his spoyled 374. Triumpheth when he looseth 377. His Dissimulation of matters that most import to be explicated 386.388 His want of paper in text margent to set downe the truth 394. His Lucidum interuallum 405. His abuse of S. Gregory 407. his bad conscience 412. His outfacing of matters when he cannot answere 418. His abuse of the Iesuits 425.426 He triâ—th how neere he can go to the Catholike Religion misse it 430.431 his poore conceyt of the K. Ecclesiasticall Supremacy 459. How it may be in his Pater noster but not in his Creed 460. Excluded by M. Andrews 467. from his Maiesty 471. How he is turned Puritan pag. 477.480 Angell in the Apocalyps for bad S. Iohn to adore him why pag. 370. Appeales to Rome pag. 155. by Anthony Byshop of Fussula 160. allowed by the Primate of Numidia 164. testified by S. Augustine and others pag. 165. by S. Iohn Chrysostome 184. S. Augustine abused by M. Andr. pâ— 4.5.6 his acknowledgment respect of S. Peters Supremacy p. 17. p. 150.159.167.189 his approuing of prayers to Saints 296.297.298 Authority of the Sea of Rome in all ages p. 169.170.173.180.181.188 proued by all the ancient Fathers passim by Origen 198. by S. Hilary 189.200 Authors reason and intention of this Booke p. 2.3 what question handled therin ibid. pag. 4. B M. BARLOW and M. Andrewes disagree about our English Clergies gouernement 422. S. Basils discourse of prayer to Saints 218. of Inuocation of Martyrs 223. Beggary of the Church Clergy of England 457. Ca. Bellarmine abused by M. Andrewes cleared pag. 108.221 355. his meaning about our prayers to Saints and their praying for vs explicated 215. Bishops of the East-church deposed by the Pope pagâ— 53. C CHRIST our Mediatour Aduocate 339. S. Chrisostome proueth S. Peters Supremacy pag. 22. 142. His appeale to Pope Innocentius 184. His testimony for inuocatioÌ„ of Saints 244. Church of the East subiect to the West pag. 49. Church why it is called one Mother pag. 105. built equally vpon the Apostles pag. 144. how it only challengeth the name Catholick 451. Church of England beggarly 457. Collyridians their heresy 255. Constantinople subiect to the Church of Rome pag. 50. Gods Iudgement vpon that Church for her schisme pag. 54. Constitutions of the pretended Bishops of England pag. 330. conuinced of fraud by his Maiesty 332. Conference at Hampton-Court before his Maiesty 332. L. Cromwell Vicar Generall to K. Henry 8. in spiritualibus 469. Councell of Calcedon approued the Popes Supremacy pag. 39.40 Councell of Ephesus head therof 187. Councels why assembled pag 227. Councell of Loadicea forbiddeth Idolatry to Angels 308. Customes Ecclesiasticall of what force validity pag. 293. S. Cyprian proueth the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head thereof 101.104 also the Primacy of S. Peter pag. 106. S. Cyril acknowledged S. Peters Supremacy pag. 17. abused by M. Andrewes pag. 19. D DAMASVS Pope what authority attributed to him by S. Hierome pag. 173. Difference betweene the Primacy of S. Peter and the priuiledges graunted to the Roman Sea 83. Dignity of Gods grace increaseth the value of merit 437. Dioscorus Patriark of Constantinople depriued by Pope Leo. p. 94. E S. EPHREM calumniated by Mâ— Andrews 239. S. Epiphanius abused by M. Andrewes 254. Equality how it is sometimes to be vnderstood pag. 45.46 Equality of obligation requireth equality of care pag. 80. F FATHERS of the Church abused misconstrued belyed and falsified by M Andrewes pag. 5.6.7.18.19.415 passim Father of Lyes M. Andrewes his Father 192. Fall of S. Peter no preiudice to his Primacy pag. 148.149.150 Francis vide Mason G F. GARNET impudently belyed by M. Andrewes 247. Grace of Christ worketh a true inherent Iustification in vs. pag. 391. H HERETICKS the later follow the elder pag. 152. Heresy to condemne prayer to Saints 249. Heresy of the Collyridians 255. Heretikes their tricks to ouerthrow playne places by obscure 279. S. Hierome abused by M. Andrewes pag. 113. how he acknowledgeth S. Peters Supremacy pag. 119. His contradiction of Vigilantius for denying prayer to Saints p. 228. S. Hilaryes proof for S. Peters Primacy pag. 199.200 I IDOLATRY of the Phrygians done to Angells 310. Iesuits belyed by M. Andrewes for not synning 425. Images of Saints vsed in the Church 264. approued by S. Gregor Nissen ibid. Inuocation of him in whome we belieue how it is meant by S. Paul pag. 213. Inuocation of Martyrs â—23 miraculous effects thereby 225. not confirmed by any decree in the primitiue Church why p. 227. warranted by S. Chrisostome pag. 244. Vniuersall in his tyme 245. How the belief thereof is necessary to saluation 248. approued by S. Gregorie Nazianz. 253. by Nissen 264. practised by Theodosius the Emperour 286. defended by S. Paulinus 295. by S. Augustine 296. impugned by Protestants 336.337 Justinian the Emperour his law for the Popes Supremacy pag. 25. His facts against two Popes examined reproued pag. 30. His ignorance pag. 32. His death and repentance pag. 33.36.37 K KEYES and Pastorall Commission giuen to S. Peter not mentioned in the CanoÌ„ of the CouÌ„cell of Constantinople pag. 84. Kings neuer came to the Gouernement of the Church 464. Excluded by a Rule of M. Andrewes 465. King of England taketh his power Eâ—clesiasticall from the Parliament 468. L LAW of Moyses how Christians may ground theron p. 11. P. Leo his controuersy with Martian the Emperour and Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople pag. 62.63.64.70.72.73 His primacy acknowledg by the Councell of Calcedon pag. 90.92 93.94 Locusts that destroy Religious profession perfection are Protestants 450. M Mr. MASON his Register for the Consecration of the first Protestant Bishops confuted In appendice per totum Martian the Emperour his controuersy with Pope Leo pag. 61. Martyrs inuocated 223. miraculous effects therby 225. S. Maximus B. of Turin his homiles of Saints pag. 205. Merits of Christ how we are saued by them 342. Merit of good works granted by M. Andrewes 434.436 Miracles in
sharpe arrowes do proue but shuttlecocks or fools bolts Eccl. 19. Prou. 16. Concerning a law in the Code of Iustinian Supplem Chap. 1. nu 99. Apol. Car. Bellar. c. 3. pag. 17. Andr. Resp. ad Apolog. cap. 3. pag. 81. The law Inter Claras proued to be a most true cleare Law though M. Andrews hold it for obscure and counterfait The testimony of Baldus see the Code l. 1. tit de suÌ„m Trin. Accurfius The testimony of Alciat Alciat l. 4. ParergoÌ„ cap. 25. Pope Nicolas the first cyted this law aboue 800. years agoe Nicol. ep ad Michael Imperat. The same coÌ„firmed out of Liberatus who liued in Iustinians dayes Liberat. in breuiar c. 20. Tom. 2. Concil ep Iustin. ad AgapetuÌ„ vide BiÌ„niuÌ„ Ibidem ep 2. Ioan. 2. ad Senatores L. 6. Tit. de sum Trinit (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See the Code vbâ— supra A cleare testimony of the vniuersall authority perpetualâ— integrity of the Roman Sea Esa. 5. Two facts of IustiniaÌ„ the Emp. against 2. Popes examined reproued Liberat. in Breuiar c. 22. Andr. vbi supra pag 81. §. Vt nobis A most absurd argument of M. Andrews Matth. 23. Anast. in Agapeto Hist. miscel Paul Diac. l. 16. Liberat. in Breuiar c. 22. Platina Blond dec â— lib. 3. Niceph. l. 17. cap. 18. Naucler Gener. 18. anno 510. The wicked practise of the hereticall Empresse Theodora against Pope Syluerius Liberat. iâ— Breu. c. 22. Paul Diacon in Iusâ—iniano Amoyn de reb gest Franc. l. 2. cap. 2. Marian. Scotus Platina in Vigilio Blond dec â— l. 6. Petrus de Natal l. 6. c. 12. S. Greg. l. 2. ep 36. Baron an 547. pag. 357. Idem An. 538. Liberat in Breniar c. 24. (c) Suplem cap. 1. nu 108. Iustinian the Emperour was so ignorant that he could neyther wryte nor read and therefore easily deceaued by subtil heretiks Suydas in Iustiniano Euagr. l. 4. cap. 40. Idem lib. 5. cap. 1. The Iudgment of Euagri concerning Iustinians death and the state of his soule (d) See supplem cap. 1 nu 90. seq Anastas in Agapeto Blond dec 1. l. 3. Naucler Gen. 18. an 510. Anastasâ— in Agaâ—eto Naucle vbi supra Nouel 42. The two facts of Iustiniana aâ—gainst two Popes ouerwayd with maâ—ny other of his owne in honour fauour of the Sea Apostolik The importance of the Bishop of Patera his reprehension of Iustinians fact against Pope Syluerius Liberat. in breuiarâ— ca. 22. The Bishop of Patera Protested Gods Iudgment against Iustinian Idemâ— ibidâ— See Card. Apol. pag. 27. M. Andrews discouereth an hereticall spirit in his Iudgment of Iustinians fact Liberat. vbi supra Iustinian reuoked his senteÌ„ce against Pope Siluerius vpon the reprehensiâ— giuen him by the Bishop of Patera Idem ibidem M. Andrews hiâ— folly in approuing an act which the author of it did after disallow and repent The bad conscience of M. Andrews in dissembling the truth which he could not but see in Liberatus A weake foolish argument of M. Andrews to proue Iustinian superiour to 2. Popes M. Andrews must deuyse new answeres to the Cardinal concerning the law inter Claras the Bishop of Patera his reprehension of Iustinian M. Andrews his words of the Cardinall iustly retorted vpon himselfe Supplem cap. 2. nuâ— 15 16. Apolog. Car Bellow pag. 92. cap. 7. Whether the Popes authority be established or ouerthrowne by the councell of Calcedon Andr. pag. 170. cap. 7. §. Quod ibi Ibidem M. Andrews his shameles dealing Concil Chalced. Act. 15. Can. 28. Concil CoÌ„stant Can. â— The sense and meaning of the Canon of the Councell of Cal. alleadged by M. Andrews Can. 28. Concil Calced Act. 16. Relatio Synodi ad Leon. in fine Còcil M. Andrews corrupteth the text of the Canon adding vnto it per omnia What maÌ„ner of Equality the Church of CoÌ„stantinople should haue with the RomaÌ„ Church Sozom. hist. l. 3. cap. 7. What preheminence the Church of CoÌ„staÌ„tinople sought to haue in the CouÌ„cell of Calcedon See Paral. Torti ac Tort. cap. 4. p. 157. edit Colon 1611. How Equality is vnderstood somtimes in the Scriptures 2. Cor. 8. Exod. 18. See S. Tho. in ep 2. ad Cor. cap. 8. Item Ioan. Gagnaeus in hunc locum Two kinds of equality correspoÌ„ding to two kinds of Iustice. Aristot. Ethic. 5. S. Thom. 2.2 q. 16. The Canon which graunted the priuiledges to the Church of ConstaÌ„tinople abrogated by Pope Leo. Foure things to be noted in an Epistle of Pope Gelasius for the inualidity of the CanoÌ„ The East Church acknowledged to be subiect to the Sea of Rome Ep. orient Episcop ad SymmachuÌ„ To. 2. Concil Exemplar libelli Ioan. Ep. CoÌ„stantin To. 2. Concil Vide etiam Ep. Iustini Imperat. ad Hormisdam â— P. To. 20. Concil The Primacy of the RomaÌ„ Sea acknowledged by the Greeke Church to be grounded vpon the expresse words of Christ. Libeâ—at in Breuâ—ario c. 22. Nicephor li. 17. c. 9. Anastas in Agapeto Paul Diacon l. 16. Nicepho li. 17. c. 26. vide etiam Constit. Vigilij apud Binium to 2. Concil p. 5â—2 Baron An. 551.552 553. Ep. Eutychij ad Vigilium To. 2. Concil in Concil 5. Generali collat 2. â—p 8. Pelag To. 2. Concil S. Greg. lib. 7â— â—p 65â— Idem ibid. ep 64. Many Bishops of Constantinople deposed by the Popes of Rome Ep. Nicolai 1. ad Michael Imperat To. 4. concil in 8. Synodo gener in appendice ex Act. 6. S. Antonin Tit. â—9 cap. 1. §. 6. Naucler gener 41. Bloud lib. 6. dec 2. in fine Platina in vita Innocen 3. To. 3. Concil in Concilio Lateran See Suplem cap. 2. nâ— 1. 2. S. Antoninus Tit. 22. cap. 13. §. 1.2 seq Item Concil Florentin sess vlt. See Suplem cap. 1. nu 114. 115. The iust IudgmeÌ„ts of God vpon the Church of Constantinople Matth. 16. Eccli 5. Valer. Maxim l. 1. cap. 1. Andr. cap. 7. p. 170. Bad dealing of M. Andrews (d) p. 177. p. 35. §. de Inuocatione p. 45. §◠Locus Liberat. in Breuiar cap 13. Ep. Leo. 53.54.55.59.70.71 How the Canon for the B. of Constantinoples priuiledgs was made Concil Calced act 16. (d) Concerning the inualidity of this Canon see Baron To. 4. pag. 4â—3 an 381. edit Romae an 1593. Relat. Synodi ad Leo. in fine Concil Leo. ep 61. ad Episcop in Synodo Chal. congreg Item ep 55.70 71. (d) See more concerning this Canon in Binius To. 1. CoÌ„cil pag. 517. edit Coloniae an 1606. Leo ep 53. ad Anatolium Idem ep 55. ad Pulcher. Concil Nicen. Can. 6. (c) See after in the end of this Chapter What maner of intercessioÌ„ Pope Leo made to Martian the Emperour against Anatolius Leo. ep 54. ad MartiaÌ„ Relatio Synod Chalced. ad Martian in fine Concil Leo. ep 59. ad MartiaÌ„ Leo ep 55. ad Pulcheriam What intercession Pope Leo made to Anatolius Leo. ep 53. ad Anatol. Apoc. 3. What
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
generally imbraced in England what other fruit could be expected thereof but confusion tumult and sedition whyles euery gyddy-headed fellow perswading himselfe that he were as much bound to care for the publike good of the Church as the Pastors thereof yea as the supreme head or Gouernour himselfe might intrude himselfe to intermeddle in Ecclesiasticall affayres for the discharge of his conscience and obligation For if his band in that behalfe were equal with the band of Pastors he could not with reason be denyed equality with them in charge and commission seeing that equality of obligation requireth equality and parity of power to performe it for when power of performance wanteth the obligation ceaseth So that a greater power and dignity induceth an obligation of greater care and therefore let M. Andrews consider what a wise and learned proposition he hath made and published to the world and what a good and vigilant Pastour he is who teacheth such dangerous and seditious doctrine 56. And albeit to auoyde this absurdity he should restrayne his generall propositiō to Pastors only and say that whatsoeuer violateth the vnity of the whole Church doth belong equally to the care of all Pastors yet he were no lesse ridiculous then before seeing that he must needs acknowledge an inequality of obligation and care euen amongst them according to their different degrees For if a Patriarke haue iurisdiction ouer Metropolitans and they ouer Bishops and Bishops ouer Priests it is cleare that as their charge and degree is vnequal so also is the obligation of euery one of them different and conforme to his dignity degree and authority And therefore although the office and duty of euery Pastour is as I haue sayd to haue special care of the vnity and peace of the Church yet his obligation in that behalfe must needs be so much the greater by how much his power and authority is greater and he more able to performe it then others his inferiours to which purpose the Prophet saith of a Prince or supreme Pastor Princeps ea quae sunt digna Principe cogitabit ipse super Duces stabit The Prince shall thinke those things which are worthy of a Prince and he shall be ouer Dukes or captaynes So saith Isay of our Sauiour as some expound it or as others say of Iosias King of Iuda 57. But of whom soeuer it is to be vnderstood it is manifest inough that the forme of a good Pastor or Gouernour is prescrybed therein shewing that the Prince being the supreme Gouernour is to imbrace cogitations and thoughtes fit for his estate and as much excelling the cogitations of his Dukes or Captaynes that is to say of his inferiour or subordinate Magistrats as he excelleth them in degree and what thought is so worthy of a Prince as the care of the vnity and peace of his estate wherein consisteth the publyke and generall good of euery Common welth And the like is to be sayd of Pastors and especially of the supreme Pastor of the Church who ought according to the Prophet to haue cogitations worthy of his soueraignty that is to say as much to surpasse other inferiour Pastors in the care of the publike good of the Church as he surpasseth them in power and dignity Well then to conclude if M. Andrews his position may go for currant he may shake hands with the Puritans and lay away his tytle of Lord Bishop become follow Minister with his Ministers in the Diocesse of Ely seeing that there is no reason why he should haue a greater degree and dignity in the Church then they if they be bound to haue as great a care of the Church as he 58. But let vs see how he proceedeth to fortify his assertion in hope vtterly to ouerthrow the Popes Primacy Thus then he saith Quòd enim totius vineae id est Ecclesiae custodiam ab ipso Christo ait Pontifici commissam id est Primatum c. For whereas the Cardinall saith that the charge of all the vineyard that is to say of the Primacy of the Church was committed by Christ himselfe to the Bishop see how it contradicteth the Councell and the sentence of all the Fathers that were there present who with one voyce sayd Siqua essent Romanae Sedis priuilegia ea illi non à Christo nesciebant hoc Chalcedonenses quin à Patribus concessa esse c. If the Roman Sea had any priuiledges the same were granted vnto it not by Christ for they in the Councell of Calcedon knew not that but by the Fathers c. So he grounding still as you see all the force and weyght of his arguments vpon no better foundation then his owne fraud I meane his fraudulent allegation and exposition of that Canon of the Councell wherof I haue amply treated before and now he secondeth his former fraud with a new corruption of the text setting this downe in a different letter for the very words of the Councell siqua essent Romanae sedis priuilegia ea illi à Patribus concessa esse if there were any priuiledges of the Roman Sea they were granted to it by the Fathers whereas neyther those words nor yet the sense thereof are to be found in the 28. Canon which he alledgeth no nor in all the Councell of Calcedon 59. For in these generall words of his are included all the priuiledges that the Sea of Rome had any way eyther by diuyne or human law for any respect or cause whatsoeuer but the Canon speaketh with great restriction to wit of priuiledges granted vpon one consideration only for thus it saith Etenim antiquae Romae throno quòd Vrbs illa imperaret iure Patres priuilegia tribuere For the Fathers did worthily giue priuiledges to the throne of old Rome because that Citty did gouerne Thus saith the Canon far otherwyse then M. Andrews affirmeth who with his siqua comprehendeth all priuiledges whatsoeuer whereas you see the Canon speaketh only of priuiledges giuen to the Roman Church in respect of the Imperiall Seat so that other priuiledges might be giuen thereto for other respects for ought we see in this Canon and the reason is cleare why that consideration of the Imperial Seat was only mentioned and no other to wit because those that penned the Canon saw well inough that the Church of Constantinople could pretend no other reason to demand extraordinary priuiledges but only because the Imperiall Seat which was wont to be at Rome was then remoued to Constantinople 60. Therefore I beseech thee good Reader consider a little M. Andrews his silly discourse concerning this point who hauing sayd as you haue heard that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon knew not any priuiledges granted to the Roman Sea by Christ addeth Quare autem concessa c And why were they granted Was it because Christ sayd to Peter Tibi dabo claues aut Pasce oues meas I will giue thee
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
proceed 57. After Liberius succeeded Damasus whose vniuersall authority is sufficiently testified euen by the African Bishops whome M. Andrewes maketh most opposit to the Roman Sea This may be veryfied by an Epistle of 3. Councells of Africk and the Archbishop Stephanus who wrote to Pope Damasus giuing him the title of most Blessed Lord raysed to the heyght of Apostolicall dignity holy Father of Fathers Damasus Pope and chiefe Bishop of Prelats and in the Epistle it selfe they do clearely acknowledge the supremacy of his sea coÌ„playning of certayne Bishops their neyghbours who without his consent or knowledge had presumed to depose Bishops which they said was against the decrees of all the Fathers and ancient rules and Canons of the Church by the which say they sancitum est vt quicquid horum vel in remotis c. it was decreed that whatsoeuer should be treated though in remote and far distant Prouinces concerning these matters that is to say the deposition of Bishops and other important affiayres of the Church the same should not be receiued nisi ad notitiam almae Sedis vestrae fuisset deductum c. except it were brought to the knowledge of your holy seat to the end that whatsoeuer should be resolued might be confirmed with the authority thereof thus wrot they and much more to the same purpose calling him also ipsum Apostolicum verticem Praesulum the very Apostolicall top or head of Prelats 58. And therefore no meruaile that another Father of the same tyme calleth him the gouernour of the Church of God expounding these words of the Apostle to Timothy Ecclesia est domus Dei viui c. whereupon he saith Ecclesia domus Dei dicitur cuius rector hodie est Damasus the Church is called the house of God the gouernour whereof at this day is Damasus So he wherto I may add a notable testimony of S Hierome who wryting also to Damasus to know of him with whome he might communicate in Syria and whether he might vse the word hypostasis affirmed that he held CoÌ„mâ—nion with his Beatitude that is to say saith he with Peters Chayre and that he knew the Church to be buylt vpon the rock inferring thereupon that whosoeuer did eate the Lambe out of that house he meaneth the communion of Damasus or of Peters Chayre he was a profane man and out of the Arck of Noe wherupon I infer that S. Hierome affirming the Church to be built vpon Damasus acknowledgeth him to be head thereof for the reason vrged before by me in the last chapter to wit because the head of a mysticall or politicall body and the foundation in a buylding are all one besyds that he also acknowledgeth the same by excluding all those from the vnity of the Church who did not hold communication with Damasus because the vnity of the body is deriued principally from the vnity of the head thereof according to the expresse doctrin of S. Cyprian which I haue also amply layd downe in the last Chapter 59. Finally S. Hierome demanding resolution from Damasus with whome he should coÌ„municate in Syria where was then a great Schisme and whether he might vse the word hypostasis sheweth that Damasus had authority to determyne and decyde controuersies and resolue doubts or difficult questions in matter of religion and therfore S. Hierome saith vnto him Discernite siplacet obsecro non timebo tres hypostases dicere si iubetis I beseech you iudge or determyne if it please you for I will not feare to say that there are three hypostases if you command me And againe afterwards Quamobrâ—m obtestor Beatitudinem tuam per crucifixum c. Therefore I beseech your Beatitud for Christs sake crucified and for the consubstantiall Trinity that authority may be giuen me by your letters eyther to vse or to forbeare the word hypostasis c. as also that you will signifie vnto me with whome I may communicate at Antioch for that the Campenses and the heretikes called Tharsenses being vnited togeather nihil aliud ambiunt quà m vt auctoritate communionis vestrae fulti c. do seeke nothing more or with greater ambition then that being vpheld with the authority of your communion they may vse the word hypostasis in the old sense So he 60. Wherin two thinges are to be noted the one that S. Hierome doth not aske counsaile or aduise of Pope Damasus but a definitiue sentence vt auctoritas detur that authority be giuen him that is to say that Damasus should by his letters determin and ordein what S. Hierome should doe in those cases The other is that not only the Catholikes in the East parts as S. Hierome and the Aegyptians whome he also called the collegues of Damasus but also the heretyks sought to fortifie themselues by the communion and authority of the Sea Apostolike Whereupon two things do also follow euidently the one that Damasus had power to decyde and determyne controuersies euen in the East Church and the other that his authority was not restreyned to his owne Church at Rome as M. Andrews seemeth to suppose but was vniuersall and therefore acknowledged as well in the East as in the West 61. This may be notably confirmed by the restitution of Peter Bishop of Alexandria to his seat who immediatly succeeded Athanasius and being oppressed by the Arians followed the example of his worthy predecessour and fled to Rome to Pope Damasus and returning with his letters which confirmed as well his creation as the Catholike faith was restored by the people qui illis confisus saith Socrates expollit Lucium Petrum in eius locum introducit who by the vertue of those letters expelled Lucius the Arrian Bishop and put Peter into his place 62. Also Vitalis an heretike in Antioch being accused to Pope Damasus of heresy was forced to come to Rome to purge himselfe and albeit after he had there professed himselfe to be a Catholike he was remitted by Pope Damasus to Paulinus Bishop of Antioch for his final absolution yet Damasus prescribed to Paulinus a forme of abiuration whereto Vitalis should subscribe which being done Paulinus absolued him Whereby it is euident that Damasus had a supreme authority as well in the East or Greeke Church as in the West for otherwise neyther would Peter Bishop of Alexandria who was a very holy man haue appealed vnto him nor the people haue receaued Peter by the vertue of his letters neither yet would Vitalis haue gone from Antioch to purge himselfe at Rome nor Paulinus Bishop of Antioch permitted that Damasus should intermeddle in matters pertayning to his charge 63. And this may yet further appeare by the earnest endeuours of S. Chrysostome then Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria to pacify Damasus towards Flauianus Bishop of Antioch who had committed periury and byn the cause of a great diuision and trouble in the Church for the remedy wherof
the place layd downe by me before and left out by M. Andrews and also more playnely afterwards when he speaketh of the sayd Councell and Canon the second tyme in one of the two places which M. Andrews himselfe quoteth to wit vpon the thyrd Chapter to the Colossenses where he sayth thus 4. Quòd enim illi Angelos iubebant adorare c. For because those Phrygians commanded men to adore Angels he to wit S. Paul commanded the contrary that they should adorne both their words and deeds with the remembrance of Christ our Lord. Vtter forth saith the Apostle your thanks giuing to God the Father by him and not by Angels And the Synod of Laodicea following this law and seeking to remedy the old disease decreed that men should not pray to Angels and leaue our Lord Iesus Christ. Thus saith Theodoret whereby he sheweth that those Phrygian Idolatours made a playne oppositiō of Angels to Christ teaching cōmāding an adoratiō of Angels insteed of Christ therefore he sayth that the Apostle cōmanded the contrary to them to wit that we should prayse God by Christ and not by Angels whereby it appeareth that their contrary doctrine was to prayse God by Angels and not by Christ which he also confirmeth saying that the Councell of Laodicea made the lyke Decree agaynst the same errour ordayning that none should pray to Angels and leaue Christ. So as by all this it is manifest that according to Theodoret the adoration and prayer to Angels forbidden by S. Paul and the Councell was such as excluded the mediation of Christ for vs and made the Angels our only mediatours whereof neuertheles you do not see so much as any insinuation or ynkling in M. Andrews whereby it is euident that he hath abused both the Councell and Theodoret and his Reader most of all 5. This will appeare more clearely by the expresse words of the Canon whereof Theodoret speaketh which are these Quòd non oporteat Christianos relicta Dei Ecclesia obire c. That Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God and to goe away and to make Congregations of abominable Idolatry to Angels which is forbidden and therefore whosoeuer shall be found huic occultae Idololatriae vacans exercising this hidden or secret Idolatry be he accursed for that he hath forsaken our Lord Iesus Christ and gone to Idols Thus sayth the Canon shewing euidently that the adoration and prayer to Angels which Theodoret sayth was forbidden by the Canon was some abominable Idolatry committed to Angels in certayne secret Congregations which those Phrygians made in corners forsaking the Church of God and Christ himselfe And this I say is euident by the Canon for no man I thinke can be so simple to imagine that all this could be sayd or meant of prayer to Angels in such sort as we Catholykes vse the same that is to craue the assistance of their prayers to Christ for vs or to God by the merits and mediation of Christ. 6. For if this were the abominable Idolatry whereof the Councell speaketh then should the Apostle haue byn an abominable Idolatour when he desired the Romans Corinthians Thessalonians and others to pray for him and so should we in lyke manner when we desire one anothers prayers for no sufficient or probable reason can be giuen why it should be Idolatry to pray to Angels and no Idolatry to craue the prayers of men especially seeing that we read in expresse Scripture that Iacob blessing the children of Ioseph did inuocate an Angell saying Angelus qui cruit me c. the Angel which hath deliuered me from all euils blesse these childrē And Iosue fell downe prostrate before an Angell and called him Dominum suum his Lord. Besids that the Apostle yea our Sauiour himselfe testifyeth not only the continuall presence of Angels amongst vs but also the assistance and help that we receiue by them in so much that the ancient Fathers and amongst the rest Theodoret himselfe do thereupon teach expressely that we haue euery one of vs from our natiuity a proper Angell who protecteth and defendeth vs and prayeth to God for vs. 7. Whereupon it must needs follow that seeing the Angels do not only know our actions much better then men and heare our prayers no lesse then they but also do continually assist vs as well with their prayers as otherwyse it followeth I say that we may lawfully craue their assistance yea much more then of men for that they being ordayned by God to help vs are no lesse willing and farre more potent and able to do it then men are and therefore truly I may well conclude that neyther the Councell of Laodicea nor yet Theodoret could be so absurd as M. Andrews would make them to thinke it Idolatry to pray to Angels when they know it to be lawfull to pray to men And this I say the rather of Theodoret because he teaching expressely as I signifyed before that Angels haue the protection of men doth declare withall that men are subiect imperio Angelorum to the gouernment and command of Angels and that they pray for vs whereby he teacheth consequently that men owe vnto them not only loue and gratitude as to their Guardians and Protectors but also the duty of reuerence and supplication as to their superiours commanders gouernours and intercessours for them 8. So as M. Andrewes may see that he hath iust cause to reforme his vnderstanding of that place of Theodoret and acknowledge that it is not likely that Theodoret would thereby contradict his owne doctrine elswhere but rather that he I meane M. Andrews hath notably abused both the Councell and Theodoret the Councell in concealing and dissembling the whole substance of the Canon which he could not but know and Theodoret in leauing out that which was most necessary for the explication of his meaning in both those places which he cyteth and finally that he hath also abused them both in making them to impugne and forbid all prayer to Angels though as intercessours to Christ for vs whereas they only forbid Idolatry to Angels with prayer to them as to the only mediatours betwixt God and vs wherby Christs mediation for vs is wholy excluded to the vtter subuersion and ouerthrow of our Christian fayth 9. And to the end that all this may be yet more cleare we are to consider that religio Angelorum the religion or superstitious worship of Angels which S. Paul reprehended in the Epistle to the Colossenses that Theodoret expoundeth was no other but some such Magicall or Idolatrous worship exhibited to Angels as the disciples of Simon Magus vsed whereof Tertullian saith Simonianae magiae disciplina Angelis seruiens c. the discipline of Simons magick seruing Angels was also held to be Idolatry or some such other as might spring from the blasphemous heresie of Cerinthus who so much abused
deny this seeing that they do admit diuers traditions whereof there is neyther precept nor example in the Scripture as the baptisme of infants who do not actually belieue for although the same be very consonant to Scripture as also is prayer to Saynts and all other things which are practiced in the Catholike Church yet the vse and practice thereof is grounded vpon tradition and not vpon the Scriptures as Origen testifyeth saying Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditioneÌ„ accepit c. The Church receiued a tradition from the Apostles to giue baptisme to litle children So he And S. Augustin also to the same purpose saith more plainely thus Consuetudo mâ—tris Ecclesiae in baptizandis paruulis c. the custome of our Mother the Church in baptizing infants is not to be contemned or reputed as superfluous neyther were it to be belieued at all if it were not an Apostolicall tradition So he who also acknowledgeth the same in another place and saith further that if any man do demaund diuine authority for it quamquam quod vniuersa tenet Ecclesia c. albeit that which the vniuersall Church holdeth and hath not byn ordayned by Councells but hath alwayes been reteyned is most rightly belieued to haue byn deliuered by no other but by Apostolicall authority neuertheles we may truly coniecture by Circumcision in the old law what force the Sacrament of Baptisme hath in Infants Thus saith S. Augustine who to answere those that do demand diuine authority for the custome of the Church in baptizing Infants doth not proue or confirme it by any precept or example out of Scripture but only by a probable coniecture drawn from the figure of it in the old law relying principally vpon the tradition of the Church 33. But what need I seeke any other testimony for this matter seeing that Tho. Rogers in the 39. articles agreed vpon by the pretended Bishops and Clergy of England and analyzed into propositions glossed and set forth by him with their publyke approbation doth acknowledge that the baptisme of yong children is in any wyse to be retayned in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ although sayth he we be not commanded by expresse termes to baptize them So he whereupon it directly followeth that M. Andrews hath ouerlashed greatly in saying id tantùm audemus facere de quo praeceptum habemus we dare doe that only whereof we haue a precept Also what precept or example haue M. Andrews and his fellowes in Scripture for the vse of Godfathers and Godmothers and of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme allowed as well by their practice as by the late Queenes Iniunctions yea and by the Ecclesiasticall Canons of the Bishops and Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury made in their Synod held at London with his Maiestyes lycence in the yeare 1603. and published the yeare following by his Maiestyes authority vnder the great Seale of England in which Canons they do not only approue the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme but also professe to follow therein the primitiue Apostolicall Churches the true rules of doctrine coÌ„cerning things indifferent which are consonant to the word of God and the iudgement of all the ancient Fathers so that by their owne confession they retayne the vse of it without eyther precept or example in holy Scripture 34. And now because I haue had this occasion to speake of this constitution I can not omit to aduertise thee good Reader of a notable peece of trumpery and cosenage vsed by that graue Synod in this very Canon whereof we now speake wherein giuing the reason why they retayne the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme they say they do it because the same hath byn euer accompanyed among them with sufficient cautions exceptions agaynst all popish superstition and errour and forsooth that the world may vnderstand from what popish errour they haue freed the same they signify that the Church of England since the abolishing of Popery hath euer held and taught that the signe of the crosse vsed in Baptisme is no part of the substance of that Sacrament and that the infant Baptized is by vertue of Baptisme before it be signed with the signe of the crosse receiued into the congregation of Christs flock as a perfect member thereof and not by any power ascribed to the signe of the crosse c. whereupon they conclude that the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme being thus purged from all popish superstition and errour and reduced in the Church of England to the primary institution of it c. it is to be reuerently retayned and vsed Thus teach they in their foresayd Synod 35. But now we must demand of them where they haue euer read in any Catholyke Authour that the signe of the crosse as it is vsed in the administration of baptisme is any part of the substance of the Sacrament sure I am that all our schoolemen and Canonists and others that haue occasion to treat therof do expressely teach the contrary neyther did euer any learned Catholyke hold or suppose it to be any part eyther of the forme or of the matter of Baptisme which are the essentiall parts thereof but only an ancient and holy ceremony and this is euident euen by the practice of the Catholyke Church approuing the baptisme not only of the midwyfe in cases of necessity but also of any heretike if he haue the intention to do that which the Catholyke Church doth and vseth the true forme with conuenient matter without the signe of the crosse or any other ceremony in the world and albeit the Church vseth to suply the sayd ceremonyes afterwards in such as wanted the same yet it maketh no doubt at all but that they are baptized before and in state of saluation if they dye before the sayd ceremonyes be supplyed whereby it is manyfest that the Catholykes do not take the signe of the crosse to be of the substance or essence of the sacrament 36. But of this I shall not neede to produce any further proofe seeing that those pretended Bishops which were present at this Congregation and made this Canon haue giuen sufficient testimony of the truth in this poynt to no meaner a person then to his Maiesty himselfe as he did publikely testify in the CoÌ„ference at Hampton-court wherein the question concerning the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme being debated betwixt them and the Puritans his Maiesty sayd that he vnderstood by the Bishops yea and found it himselfe to be true that the Papists themselues did neuer ascribe any power or spirituall grace to the signe of the crosse in Baptisme whereupon it followeth that they do not nor euer did account to be any essentiall part of the Sacrament for if they did they should ascribe vnto it a spirituall grace and power as they doe to the essence of
the Sacrament which they all do vniformly teach to giue grace ex opere operato and therefore seeing that according to his Maiestyes testimony as well vpon his owne knowledge as by the relation of the Bishops to him the Catholykes did neuer ascribe any power or spirituall grace to the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme it is euident that the Bishops in their Synod belyed them egregiously charging them to hold it to be a part of the substance of the Sacrament yea and notably deluded the people in seeking to perswade them that the Catholykes had corrupted the vse thereof and that the English Clergy hath now reduced it to the primary institution 37. Who then could imagine that so many Ecclesiasticall men honorable for their ranke and dignity in the common welâ—h by profession Deuines by tytle Prelats and spirituall Pastors of the people could also vniformely agree to cozen the world in this manner and insteed of feeding their flock with holsome doctrine to infect and poyson them with such manifest lyes as this conuinced euen by their owne testimony to his Maiesty himselfe the very same yeare that they deuised it as it appeareth by the printed copyes of their Ecclesiastical constitutions of the coÌ„ference at Hampton-Court published in the yeare 1604. and therefore I leaue it to thee good Reader to consider in what a miserable state our poore country is where such men as these who as it seemeth haue no care eyther of their owne conscience or reputation haue neuertheles the care and charge of other mens soules 38. But to returne to M. Andrews who perhaps was one of that conuenticle though not as a Bishop yet as one of the Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury I would gladly know of him whether he and his Clergy in the Diocesse of Ely do vse the signe of the Crosse in the administration of Baptisme or not and if they do not let him tell vs how they obserue this Synodicall Canon made by his fellowes and authorized by his Maiesty and if they do obserue it let him shew vs some precept or example of it in Scripture seeing he resolutly affirmeth in the name of the whole English Church as it seemeth that they dare do that only whereof they haue a precept Therefore I say let him eyther shew vs some precept for it in Scripture or els confesse that he and his fellowes dare do more then is commanded therein 39. Finally if they may lawfully follow the primitiue and Apostolicall Churches and the iudgement of all the ancient fathers in matters though not commanded in Scripture yet consonant thereto as they professe to do in the foresayd Canon then they must also grant that it is in lyke manner lawfull for Catholykes to do the lyke for prayer to Saynts seeing that the same is conforme to the practice of the primitiue Church and to the beliefe of the ancient fathers and consequently to the holy Scriptures for otherwyse neyther would so many learned ancient and holy fathers haue approued it neyther yet the Church whose authority as S. Augustine sayth the Scripture recommendeth vnto vs would haue practised it I meane that visible Catholyke Church whereof S. Augustine did so constantly defend and mayntayne the authority agaynst the heretykes in his tyme that he pronounced them as you haue heard before to be most insolent mad men if they did but only doubt of any generall custome thereof 40. Whereupon I conclude that prayer to Saynts being generally approued and practised by the Church in S. Augustines tyme it must needs follow according to his rule that the vse and practice thereof is not only most lawfull and consonant to Scripture but also reuerently to be retayned and vsed by M. Andrews and his fellowes euen according to their owne profession in their Synodicall constitution seeing as I haue signified before they professe reuerently to retayne the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme though not commanded in Scripture because the same was vsed in the primitiue Church and is consonant to Scripture and to the Iudgement of all the ancient Fathers 41. And if he say that they professe in their Canon to follow the rules of doctrine concerning things that are at least indifferent that prayer to Saynts is neyther absolutly good nor yet indifferent but altogeather vnlawfull and consequently not to be vsed he is to vnderstand first that according to his owne rule and inference vpon the text of Deuteronomy he neyther doth nor can admit any thing that is not commanded in Scripture be it neuer so good For he sayth id tantúm audemus facere c. we dare do that only whereof we haue a precept and to that purpose he alledgeth also the text of Deuteronomy hoc tantùm facies quod tibi praecipio thou shalt do this only which I do command thee where you see the word tantùm as well in his assertion as in the text of Scripture excludeth all things whatsoeuer that are not commanded whereupon it followeth that the vse of the signe of the Crosse in baptisme is as well prohibited as prayer to Saynts if hee vnderstand that text of Deuteronomy aright and make a good inference thereon 42. Secondly it is not sufficient that he and his fellowes do hold the inuocation of Saynts to be vnlawfull but they must also proue it so to be or els they must grant the practice of it to be lawfull as of a thing at least indifferent vpon the same reason that they admit the â—igne of the Crosse in baptisme yea with farre greater reason seeing that as I haue already proued prayer to Saynts is not only good and lawfull but also most profitable and beneficiall to men whereas the Crosse in baptisme according to the doctrine of the foresayd Canon hath no vertue or power in it at all but is only an outward Ceremony and honorable badge of a Christian. So as M. Andrews cannot approue the vse thereof and exclude the practice of prayer to Saynts except he wil be so absurd to admit things indifferent and reiect a thing absolutly good and very necessary for euery Christian man for so I say he must needs confesse the inuocation of Saynts to be except he can ouerthrow the testimonies of all the ancient Fathers yea and the experience that the Church hath alwayes had of the soueraygne benefits that men reape thereby 43. Thirdly whereas he demandeth a precept in Scripture for prayer to Saynts he seemeth to grant it to be eyther good of it selfe or at least indifferent for if it were absolutly bad it were in vayne and absurd to demand a precept of it for that it could neuer be commanded so as eyther his demand in that behalfe is very idle and absurd or els he must acknowledge it at least to be indifferent and consequently that it is no lesse lawfull to vse it without a precept then the signe of the Crosse in
haue amply proued in my supplement so as I conclude that the exception which M. Andrews taketh against the Fathers alledged by the Cardinall for being all of that 4. age is most vayne and friuolous seeing that the consent of the Doctors of any one age is sufficient to determin any matter in controuersy 65. And much more may we content our selues with the vniforme testimony and consent of those of the 4. and 5. age in the tyme of the 4. first generall Councells when the Church most florished and as I haue signified before was best furnished with learned and holy Pastors and Doctors of whome the Cardinall hath cyted no lesse then twelue to wit S. Basil S. Gregory Nyssen S. Ephraem S. Gregory Nazianzen Eusebius S. Chrisostome S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Hierome S. Cyril S. Paulinus and S. Maximus besyds the history of Ruffinus to whome I haue also added Theodoret not inferiour in learning to the rest all which were pillars lights and notable ornaments of the latin and Greeke Church in the 4. and 5. age and all of these being 14. in number alledged by the Cardinall and me 12. haue giuen as you haue heard vniforme and cleare testimony to the doctrine and custome of Prayer to Saynts eyther inuocating Saynts themselues or approuing the publike vse and practise of it in others and albeit the other two to wit S. Ciril and Eusebius do not so expresly speake of the inuocatioÌ„ of Saynts as the other fathers do yet the same is also sufficiently gathered out of their testimonyes as I haue shewed before in the 6. Chapter whereupon I conclude that this doctrine of prayer to Saynts beâ—ing approued practised by so many learned Fathers of the 4. and 5. age it must needs be admitted for an infallible truth 66. Yea but saith M. Andrews there is no vniforme coÌ„seÌ„t of Fathers in this poynt for alij saith he non pauci sunt c. there are not a few others who haue right of suffrage or voyce heerein omitted by the Cardinall So he wherein I doubt not good Reader but thou seest how absurdly he cauilleth and tryfleth for may not the verdict of a whole Iury of Fathers alledged by the Cardinall and not contradicted by any suffice to shew a generall and vniforme consent of the Church in their tyme and will not M. Andrews acknowledge an vniforme consent in the Fathers without a particuler testimony of euery one of them doth he suppose that euery one of them hath written of all poynts of religion and if they haue not whereof there is no doubt shall the sylence of some preiudice the cleare testimony of others so shall we proue litle or nothing at all by the Fathers for there are but very few poynts of religiâ—on whereof euery one of them hath had occasion to write 67. But will M. Andrews his fellowes be content that we exact the lyke of them when they alledge the Fathers as for example the Bishops in their Canon before mentioned concerning the vse of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme doe affirme that they follow therein the iudgement of all the Fathers of the primitiue Church but can they shew trow you that euery Father of the primitiue Church yea or the greatest part of them do particulerly speake of that ceremony sure I am they cannot show it for albeit diuers very ancient and holy Fathers do treat thereof and highly approue it yet many others are vtterly silent concerning the same neuertheles for as much as those that approue it are not contradicted by any of the rest their testimony may well be taken for the vniforme consent of all or truly otherwyse my Lord Bishops will not be able to iustify their assertion and proue that they follow the iudgement of all the Fathers in that poynt Therfore this exception of M. Andrewes is very ridiculous except he can shew that those Fathers whome the Cardinall omitted haue contradicted the testimonyes of the other but this you see he hath not byn able to doe though he hath done his best endeauour thereto with shame ynough to himselfe and his cause 68. S. Augustine writing against Iulian the Pelagian about originall sinne and the baptisme of Infants thought the testimony of 6. Fathers sufficient to conuince him though fyue of them were of the same tyme and age wherein he himselfe liued for whereas the Pelagian falsely pretended that S. Chrysostome made for him S. Augustine answered Absit vt Ioannes Constantinopolitanus c. God forbid that Iohn Bishop of Constantinople should resist so many and worthy Bishops his fellowes especially Innocentius Bishop of Rome Cyprian of Carthage Basil of Cappadocia Gregory of Nazianzen Hilary of France and Ambrose of Milan So he Therefore how much more may we rely vpon the authority of as many more Fathers whereof there were 4. euen of those whome S. Augustine named and he himselfe also one of the number and all of them florished aboue 1100. yeares agoe and haue not byn gaynsayd or impugned by any May we not I say boldly admit their testimonyes for a proofe of the vniforme consent of the Church in their tyme The Scripture teacheth and common practice approueth that 2. or 3. substantiall witnesses may suffice to proue any matter in question and therefore much more may these 12. most learned and holy Fathers suffice to shew what was the practice and beliefe of the Church in their dayes especially seeing that diuers of them speake of publike matters of fact which passed in their owne tyme and knowledge in which respect they cannot be thought to fayne and lye except we shall take them to be voyd both of conscience and common honesty 69. But M. Andrewes addeth further that it appeareth euen in Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe that the Fathers were not all of one mynd concerning prayer to Saynts and for proofe thereof he remitteth his Reader to the Cardinalls controuersyes and particulerly to the tract de beatitudine Sanctorum the first booke and 20. Chapter which truly I haue read diligently and cannot find any thing at all to that purpose except perhaps he meane that the Cardinall signifyeth there the different opinions of the Fathers concerning the manner how Saynts do vnderstand or heare our prayers whereupon it seemeth M. Andrewes inferreth that they differed also in opinion concerning the whole controuersy when neuertheles it appeareth euidently there that they made no doubt whether prayer to Saynts be lawfull neyther yet whether they know our actions but only in what manner they know them and how they heare or vnderstand our prayers touching which poynt and the absurd inference that M Andrewes maketh thereof denying the certaynty of the effect by the vncertainty of the cause or manner of it I haue so amply discoursed before that I shall not need to say any more thereof in this place 70. But that which I wish to be noted
thing expressed by the name and so in conclusion with his fatemur omnia he acknowledgeth vs for true Catholiks and himselfe and his fellowes for heretikes and therefore I may well say vnto him with our Sauiour in the Ghospell ex ore tuo te iudico serue nequam 35. And the lyke I may also say concerning his grant in another matter to wit that our Bishops are true Bishops and that the Protestant Bishops of EnglaÌ„d had their ordination from ours yea from 3. of ours for so he giueth to vnderstand whereupon he also inferreth that he and his fellow SuperinteÌ„dents haue a true ordination and succession from the Catholike Church whereas the quite contrary followeth vpon his grant for if our Bishops be true Bishops as hauing a true successioÌ„ from the Apostles and that the protestant Bishops haue no other lawfull ordinatioÌ„ but from ours two consequents do directly follow thereon the one that we haue the true Church and doctrine if M. Andrewes his fellow and friend M. Barlow say true who in his famous sermon mentioned by me els where affirmeth the Successiue propagation of Bishops from the Apostles to be the mayne roote of Christian Society according to S. Augustine and the mayne proofe of Christian doctrine according to Tertullian as I haue shewed amply in my Suplement and proued thereby that M. Barlow and his fellowes are e heretykes and Schismatikes The other consequent is that if the English Protestant Bishops had no other lawfull ordination then from the Catholikes they had none at all for that at the chaÌ„ge of religion in Queen Elizabeths tyme they were not ordayned by any one Catholyke Bishop and much lesse by three as M. Andrews saith they were but by themselues and by the authority of the Parliament as I haue also declared at large in my Supplement Where neuertheles I am to aduertise thee good Reader of an errour not corrected amongst the faults escaped in the Print For whereas it is said there they had almost seduced an Irish Archbishop and perswaded him to consecrate some of them Byshops there want certaine wordes to wit a Welsh Bishop hauing in vaine sollicited which words are to be inserted thus they had almost seduced a Welsh Bishop hauing in vaine solicited an Irish Archbishop and perswaded him to consecrate some of them Bishops after the Catholike manner c. And agayne a litle after whereas it is said thus seeing the Irish Bishop would not performe his promise they resolued to ordaine themselues c. there want also these words consâ—â—t nor the Welsh Bishop which words are to be added thusâ— seeing the Irish Bishop would not coÌ„sent nor the Welsh Bishop performe his promise they resolued to ordayne themselues Thus I say it should be corrected 36. Whereby it may euidently appeare what a beggarly Church and Clergy they then had and still haue for hauing then not so much as any pretended Archbishop or Bishop of their owne profession they were forced to begg their consecration euen of the Catholikes their aduersaries and hauing solicited an Archbishop in vaine and being out of hope to haue the consent of a Metropolitan to their ordination much more to be consecrated by 2. or 3. Bishops according to the ancient Canons of the Church they determined as I may say to play small game rather then to sit forth being desirous to haue some kind of ordination from any one Catholik though inferiour Bishop yea and in fyne they sought to haue it from such a one as was held to be the simplest man that then was or perhaps euer had bene of the English Clergy for so indeed was esteemed the Bishop of Landâ—â—â— whome they had almost inueygled and induced 〈◊〉 their turne But Almighty God out of his infinite prouidence so disposed for the eternall shame of their pretended Prelacy and Clergy that he also in the end refused to do it vpon a sharp message which he receaued from Bishop â—onner then Prisoner who being Bishop of London and consequeÌ„tly chiefe Bishop in the prouince of Canterbury by the death of Cardinall Pole Archbishop thereof sent one M. Cosen his Chaplen to the sayd Bishop of Landaff to threaten him with excommunication in case he did consecrate any of them whereupon he defisted from his purpose and they resolued to ordayne and consecrate one another and so they did as I haue signified in my Supplement vpon the testimony of one that was an eye-witnes of what passed amongst them at their ordination to wit M.I Thomas Nâ—ale a graueman well knowne no doubt to many yet liuing in Oxford where he was many yeares after Reader of the Hebrew Lecture 37. Whereupon I inferre two things the one that they haue no Clergy nor Church for haâ—ing no Bishops they haue no Priests because none can make Priests but Bishops and hauing neither Bishops nor Priests they haue no Clergy and consequently no Church as I haue shewed in my Supplement out of S. Hierome The other is that M. Andrewes and his fellowes are neyther true Bishops nor haue any succession from the Catholike Church as he sayth they haue noâ— yet any lawfull mission or vocationâ— and that therefore they are not those good shepheards which as our Sauiour saith enter into the fold by the dore but fures 〈◊〉 theeues and robbersâ— who clymbe vp another way or breake into it by intrusion and force vt mactent â—â—â—â—rdant to kill and destroy the flocke and so they are rotten bought broken of from the may nâ— root of Christian society and consequently heretikes and schismatikes as well by M. Barlowes ground before mentioned as according to M. Andrewes his owne graunt els let him name vnto vs those 3. Catholike Bishops who as he saith consecrated their first Bishops at the change of religion in Queene Elizabeths tyme which I know he cannot doe and therefore I conclude of him in this point as I did in the last ex ore tuo te iudico 38. And this truly might suffice to shew how he fortifieth our cause and ouerthroweth his owne but that besides diuers other points which I might handle to this purpose and am forced to omit for lack of tyme there is one whereof I promised in the last Chapter to say somewhat to wit his doctrine touching the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacie which in verie truth he abaseth disgraceth and vtterly supplanteth whiles he seeketh or at least pretendeth to confirme and establish it as hath partly appeared already by his graunt that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles to take away all occasion of Schisme yea and that he gaue him as much authority as was necessary to that end whereupon I inferred necessarily that not only S. Peter but also his successours haue all that power and authority which we attribute vnto them as may be seene in the third Chapter of this Adioynder and vpon this it followeth also
in 2. Thes. 2. (c) Haer. 61 (d) Lib. de Spiritu Sanct. cap. 29. (e) Lib. 4. de fide ca. 17 (f) in 2. Thes. 2. (g) Act. Vlt. can 1. S. Augustines golden rule (d) S. Aug. de Baptis contra Donat l. 2. ca. 7. li. 4. c. 6. Ibid cap. 24. li. 5. ca. 23. Idem ep 118. See chap. 7. nu 49. M. Andrews according to S. Augustins censure is an insolent mad man Andr. p. 38. §. Atque S. Aug li de vnit Eccl. ca. 22. vel 19. in some edâ—tions Idem contra Crescon lib. 1. cap. 33. M. Andrews and his fellowes do admit diuers traditions without any exâ—presse precept or example thereof in Scripture Origen lib. 5. in cap. 6. ad Rom. S. Aug. de Gen. ad lit li. 10. c. 23. Idem lib. 4. de Baptis conâ—ra Donatist cap. 24. See the faith doctrine c. printed an Do. 1607. by Iohn Legat in Cambridg pag. 1â—5 art 27. §. The Baptisme p. 168. §. Althoughâ— See constitutions Ecclesiast printed at London by Barker an 1604 can 30. A notable trumpery of the pretended Bishops in their Ecclesiastical Constitutions Ibidem D. Tho. 3. par q 66. Greg. de Valent. disput 4. q. 1. Nauar. in Manu cap. 22. nu 6. Bellar. de Sacra Baptis lib. 1. cap. 25. Nauar. in Manuall cap. 22 nu 6. The pretended Biâ—shops conuinced of fraud by his Maiestyes testimony See the SuÌ„me of the Conference pag. â—7 §. Thirdly printed an 1604. Conference of Hampton Court coÌ„trary to the Constitutions and the same Bishops to them selues The miserable state of England where such Pastors haue the charge of soules M. Andrews transgresseth eyther the Synodical Canon of the English Clergy or his owne rule See supra nu â—4 Andr. p. 37. §. VeruÌ„â— Prayer to Saynts no lesse conforme to the practice of the primitiue Church then the vse of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme S. Aug. li. de vnit Eccl. c. 1â— contra Crescon lib. 1. c. 31. Idem ep 118. M. Andrews still hardly pressed with his owne rule and inference vpoÌ„ the text of Deuteronomy Prayer to Saynts ought rather to be admitted then the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme according to the Synodicall Canon of the English Clergy M. Andrews eyther idly demandeth a precept in Scripture for prayer to Saynts or els he must grant it to be as lawfull as the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme 1. Tim. 2. 1. Ioan. 2. What places and how fit to the purpose the ProtestaÌ„ts alleadge out of the Scriptures agaynst praying to Saynts Matth. 11. The absurdity of our aduersaries arguments against the inuocatioÌ„ of Saynts Andr. cap. 8. pag. 179. lin 29. A very seely and simple discourse of M. Andrews against praying to Saynts S. Aug coÌ„â—â—ra ep Parmen lib. 2. cap. 8. M. Andrews serious in tryfling His argument and whole discourse reâ—torted vpoÌ„ himselfe impugâ—ning our mutuall prayers one for another M. Andrews his argumeÌ„ts do as directly-ouerthrow that which he himselfe approueth aâ— that which he impugneth How it iâ— to be vnderstood that Christ is our only mediatour and aduocat 1. Tim. â—â— 1. Ioan. 2. Hebr. 7. The meaning of S. Augustine peruerted by M. Andrews is truly explicated S. Aug. li. 2. coâ—tra ep Parmemanica 8â— 1. Ioan. 2. How S. Augustine denyeth that men may be mediators one for another Neyther men nor Saynts or Angels do obteyn any thing of God but by the mediation and meriâ—s of Iesus Christ. M. Andrews prodigall of his rhetorik An absurd shift and euasion of our aduersaries vrged against theÌ„ Iac. 5. The Scripture should coÌ„tradict it selfe if Christ were our only mediator in the sense that our aduersaries do take it (c) Supra â—u 25.26 seq (d) Supra nu 33. seq (e) S. Hieron aduers. Vigilant S. Aug. ep 119. lib. 22. de ciuit cap. 30. S. Greg. lib. 11. ep 3. How prayer to Saynts is conforme to Scripture and deduced from it (h) See chap. 7. nu 48. supra hoc cap nu 31. (k) Luc. 10â— Matth. 18. (l) 1. Cor. 1â— If our brethren on earth may pray for vs and we by warrant of the Scriptures coÌ„mend our selues to their prayers why may we not do the like vnto Saynts See suprad nu 12. ad nu 24. Vide coccium To. 1. lib 5. art 4. de Sanctis (c) See supra nu 22. Dan. 3. â— Reg. 11. 2. Paral. 21. 4. Reg 19. Iob. 42. Exod. 32. S. Hieron aduers. Vigilantium Exod. 32. Act. 7. Ibid. ca. 27. Apoc. 1â— Matth. 28. Saynts able to help vs by the participation of Christs power Apoc. 3. Ibid. 2. Ibid. 1. 5. Sap. 3â— Psal. 14â— Matth. 19. Luc. â—2 Saynts protectors of men Cittyes CouÌ„tryes See before nu 18. 19. The 1. part of the Treatise of Policy religion chap. 15. nu 12.13.14.15.16.17.18 27. Item 2 par chap. 24. nu 31. Apoc. 5. See sup nu â—2 Two foolish exceptions taken by M. Andrews to the Cardinalls allegation of the ancient Fathers Andr. pag 35. §. de qua dringentis M. Andrews wrongeth his Maiesty The vniforme consent of the Fathers of the 4. or 5. age must needs be taken for an euideÌ„t testimony of the truth Some one Father of the 4. and 5. age hath written more then all the Fathers of the 3. precedent ages It is not possible that all the Doctors Pastors of the Church can erre in any thing at any tyme and why Matth. 28. Ibid. 16. Ephes. 4. Pastors and Doctors ordayned by Christ in his Church to preserue it from errour vnto the worlds end If all the Doctors of the Church could erre at any tyme the remedy were not effectuall which God hath ordayned to preserue his Church from errour by them See sup chap. 4. nu 36.37.38 If these Fathers cannot be heard or credited what other Fathers will he desire See chap. â— nu 28. 66. Andr. pag. 6. §. Tum The vniforme coÌ„sent of a few Father 's not contradicted by the rest must needs be taken for a genrall consent of the Church iâ— their tyme. See supra nu 33. M. Andrwes confuted by an example of his owne fellowes S Augustine against Iulian the Pelagian contented himselfe with the testimoâ—nyes of six Fathers S. Aug. lib. 1. contra Iulian. cap. 2. Deut. 17. Andr. vbi supra Another vayn euasion of M. Andrews answered Bellar. de beatit Sanct. lib. 1. cap. 20. Cardinall Bellarmine abused by M. Andrews (c) See supra nu 12.13.14.15 16. M Andrews presumed to erre not of ignorance but of malice S. Aug. aduers. Iulian Pela lib. 2. in Epilogo Saynt Augustins words to a Pelagian heretike fitly applyed to M. Andrews Certayne trifeling obiections of M. Andrews out of Origen S. Cyril S. Athanasius (c) Nazianz oratio 1. in Iulian. (d) S. Aug. de ciuita Dei lib. 22. cap. 10. (e) Theodoret de Graecor affect curat cap. 8. (d) See chap. 7. nu 35.36
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
Anastasius who then was Pope how necessary it was for the Church of Africk that such Donatists as being Clergy men should returne to the vnity of the Catholike Church might be receiued and admitted without preiudice to their former dignityes if the Catholike Bishops that should receiue them should thinke it conuenient notwithstanding a Decree made to the contrary before in another Synod held beyond the seas whereby it appeareth that notwithstanding the great need which the AfricaÌ„ Church had of this decree as they signifyed yet they would not ordayne it without his knowledge and consent or rather as it seemeth they expected his leaue and order to do it and no meruail seeing that in other Synods and namely in the next following in the tyme of his immediate successor Innocentius of whome I am now to treat the African Bishops craued confirmation of their decrees from the Sea Apostolike vt statutis say they nostrae mediocritatis etiam Apostolicae Sedis adhibeatur auctoritas c. That the authority of the Sea Apostolike may also be added to the statutes of our mediocrity to conserue the saluation of many and to correct the peruersity of some 71. Thus wrote they to Pope Innocentius giuing clearely to vnderstand not only that the validity of their decrees depended vpon his confirmation but also that the conseruation of the faithfull in the true faith and the correction of peruerse and obstinate heretiks did specially belong to his care and proceed from his authority This will further appeare by another Epistle written to the same Pope Innocentius by them in another Synod held at Mileuis as also by his answere to them Thus then they wrote Quia te Dominus gratiae suae praecipuo munere in Sede Apostolica collocauit c. Because our Lord hath by his speciall guift of his grace placed thee in the Apostolicall seat and ordayned thee to be such a one in these our tymes that we should rather coÌ„mit the fault of negligence if we should conceale from thy Reuerence those things that are to be suggested for the Church then that thou canst eyther disdayne them or contemne them therefore we beseech thee to vse and apply thy Pastorall diligence to the great dangers of the weaker members of Christ c. So they whereby they shewed sufficiently their opinion concerning as well the worthynes of his person as his Pastorall power and authority ouer all the members of Christ as it will more euidently appeare by his answere whicâ— was this 72. Diligenter congruè Apostolico consulitis honori c. You do diligently and conueniently prouyde for the Apostolicall honour I meane the honour of him who besides other intrinsecall things hath the sollicitude or care of all Churches to declare what sentence is to be held in doubtfull matters wherein truely you follow the rule that you know hath bene kept with me alwayes throughout the whole world c. So he and a litle after he saith further that as often as there is question of matter of faith all Bishops ought to referre all that which is for the generall good of the Church honourâ— giuing to vnderstand that all Episcopall honour and dignity and other Ecclesiasticall authority proceedeth immediatly from the visible head of the Church vnder Christ that is to say S. Peter and his successors and that therefore the coÌ„demnation of heresyes determination of all doubts in faith ought to be expected and required specially from them 73. And to the end that M. Andrews may know that Pope Innocentius did not in this vrge his owne Apostolicall authority more then S. Augustine and the other African Bishops approued I wish him to read an Epistle of S. Augustine and Alypius where hauing sayd that relations were sent ex duobus Concilijs Cathaginensi Mileuitano ad Apostolicam sadem from the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to the Sea Apostolike they add afterwards concerning the answere of Pope Innocentius ad omnia illa rescripsit â—o modo quo fas erat atque oportebat Apostolicae sedis Antistitem he to wit Innocentius wrote backe or answered to all things in such sort as was conuenient and as the Bishop of the Apostolike Sea ought to do So they approuing as you see not only the substance and matter of his Epistle but also his Apostolicall manner of writing acknowledging it to be fit for a man of his Apostolicall dignity So that it appeareth as well by the Epistle of the African Bishops to Pope Innocentius as also by his answere to them and their approbation thereof that the Bishops of Rome in those dayes had and exercysed a supreme authority in the confirmation of Synods resolution of doubts and condemnation of heresyes and heretikes 74. Whereof there occurred at that tyme a notable example in the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy for although the African Bishops did particulerly condemne it in their prouinciall Synods which could not prescrybe lawes to the whole Church yet the generall and vniuersall condemnation thereof throughout the world proceeded from the authority of the Sea Apostolyke and the seuerall sentences of the two Popes Innocentius an Zosimus which they signifyed in their letters not only to the Bishops of Africk but also to all Bishops vniuersally in respect of the vniuersall care and authority they had ouer the whole Church And therefore S. Augustine saith that the heretikes Pelagius Celestius were toto Christiano orbe daÌ„nati condÌ„ened throughout all the Christian world by the vigilaÌ„cy of the Episcopall Synods of Africk etiaÌ„ à Venerabilibus Antistitibus Apostolicae sedis Papa Innocentio Papa Zosimo and by the venerable Bishops of the Apostolick Sea Pope Innocentius and Pope Zosimus 75. Thus saith S. Augustine which his great friend Possidius Bishop of Calama who wrote his life confirmeth and explicateth notably signifying that the 2. Popes InnoceÌ„tius and Zosimus did at the great instance of the Councell of Africk cut off the Pelagians from the members of the Church and by letters directed to the Churches as well of Africk as of the East and West iudge them to be held as accursed and to be auoyded of all Catholikes Et hoc tale saith he de illis Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae pronuntiatum iudicium etiam pijssimus Imperator Honorius audiens sequens c. and the most pious Emperour Honorius hearing and following this such a notable IudgmeÌ„t of the Catholike Church of God pronounced against them condemned them by his lawes and ordayned that they should be held for heretikes So he wherein three things are specially to be noted The first that the Pelagian heresy was condemned vniuersally by the authority of the Sea Apostolike to wit by the sentence of the Popes Innocentius and Zosimus signified by their letters not only to the Churches of Africk but also to all other Churches in which respect S. Augustine also in his foresaid Epistle to Optatus