in S. Peter was his Primacy and Soueraignty in Gods Church and the renouation thereof was a confirmation or rather an increase of it as of a thing which he had neuer lost and being then renewed was made more eminent then before But perhaps some will say that M. Andrews doth not here plainly affirme as his owne opinion that S. Peter fell from the Apostleship but relateth the doctrine of S. Augustine and S. Cyril who seemed to him so to say Therfore let vs heare what he saith himselfe in another place concerning the same 28. Pasce oues saith he expressè faternur vni dictum c. we confesse expresly that pasce oues was said to one yea thryce said to one because he had thrice denied atque ea voce muneri restitutum c and that he to wit Peter was by that word or speach restored to his charge and not constituted or appoynted in a charge aboue others So he shewing euidently that his opinion is that S. Peter lost his office and authority by his fall and that he was restored thereto by those words of our Sauiour which as I haue said sauoureth greatly of that damnable and pernicious heresy whereof I haue spoken before except he can tell vs which he shall neuer be able to do how and why S. Peter rather then all other men lost his place and office by his fall which though it was most grieuous yet proceeded not of any infidelity heresy or malice but as S. Cyril well noteth and no man I thinke doubteth of it contigit humana infirmitate hapned by humane frailty so that if he lost his dignity thereby the like must needs be thought of others in like fraylties and much more in cases of more greiuous and malicious sinnes which would be an euident confirmation of Wickliffs Heresy 29. But howsoeuer M. Andrews shall be able to purge himselfe of this suspition it cannot be denied but that he hath most impudently abused and belyed both S. Augustine and S. Cyril in making them affirme that S. Peter fell from his Apostleship by his denyall of Christ whereof the contrary is clearely gathered out of S. Cyrils owne words and expressely taught by S. Augustine as you haue heard before which may also be confirmed by the testimony of the other S. Cyril Bishop of Hierusalem and of Optatus Mileâ—itanus who do both of them not only teach in expresse words that S. Peter did not loose his Apostleship by his fall but do withall acknowledg his preeminent authority ouer the rest of the Apostles S. Cyril saith thus Petrus princeps Apostolorum excellentissimus c. Peter the most excellent prince of the Apostles did not only receiue pardon of his denyall of Christ verùm etiam dignitatem Apostolicam non ablatam retinuit but also retayned his Apostolicall dignity not taken from him So he And Optatus hauing signified that B. Petrus praeferri omnibus Apostolis meruit Blessed Peter deserued to be preferred before all the Apostles yea and that solus accepit claues ceteris communicandas he only receaued the keyes to be coÌ„municated to the rest which was done bono vnitatis saith he for the good of vnity in which respect he also calleth him a litle after caput Apostolorum the head of the Apostles he concludeth after a while that albeit Peter did alone deny Christ yet bono vnitatis de numero Apostolorum separari non meruit for the good of vnity he did not deserue to be separated from the number of the Apostles Thus saith Optatus to shew the benefite necessity of Vnity in Gods Church And this I hope may suffice for this point 30. Now then to draw to the Conclusion of the premisses it appeareth plainly therby that our Catholike doctrine and arguments grounded vpon the wordes of our Sauiour to S. Peter Pasce oues meas do remayne good and sound notwithstanding M. Andrewes false glosse therupon yea and that they are much confirmed by these very places of S. Augustine S. Ambrose S Cyril which he hath produced against vs. For wheras all his drift is to proue out of those Fathers that S. Peter had nothing more by that Pastorall commission then the rest of the Apostles you haue heard out of S. Augustine that in receiuing that coÌ„mission he represented the person and figure of the whole Church by reason of his Primacy amongst the Apostles and out of S. Ambrose that he was therby preferred before all the Apostles and lastly out of S. Cyril that he was Prince and Head of the Apostles and that the same dignity for he speaketh of that which he acknowledgeth to haue bene in him before his fall was renewed by that commission Wherto may be added the testimony of S. Chrysostome who in his booke de Sacerdotio treating of those words Pasce oues meas saith that our Sauiour would haue S. Peter to be auctoritate praeditum ac reliquis item Apostolis longè praecellere indued with authority and also far to excell the rest of the Apostles 31. And again in his Homilyes vpon S. Iohns Ghospell and the same words of our Sauiour he saith that Christ asked S. Peter whether he loued him because he to wit Peter was the mouth of the Apostles and Prince Head of the Congregation and further teacheth that by those words Christ committed vnto him curam Fratrum the charge of his Brethren for so he explicateth Pasce oues meas Neque negationis meminit saith he neque exprobrat tantùm dicit si amas me fratrum curam susciptas that is to say neyther doth Christ remember Peters denyall neyther doth he vpbrayd him with it but only saith if thou louest me take the charge of thy Brethren So he and that by S. Peters Brethren our Sauiour meant the Apostles it appeareth euidently afterwards in the same Homily where S. Chrysostome note 〈◊〉 that albeit at Christs last Supper S. Peter did not presume to aske our Sauiour a question but willed S. Iohn to do it yet now after this commission was giuen him commissa sibi fratrum cura saith he vicem suam altâ—ri non mandat sed ipse Magistrum interrogat the charge of his brethren being committed vnto him he doth not now delegate any other but himselfe asketh their Maister Thus saith S. Chrysostome giuing plainly to vnderstand that S. Peter hauing by this commission receaued the charge of his brethren the Apostles was more confident then before and would not vse the interuention of any of them because they were vnder his charge but himselfe asked our Sauiour as the mouth Prince and Head of the Apostolicall Congregation for so you haue also heard S. Chrysostome tearme him before in the same Homily 32. So that you see this holy Father teacheth the same that the others before mentioned do to wit that S. Peter had by this commission a preheminence and prerogatiue aboue all the Apostles yea and that the
twelue Apostles were twelue foundations and consequently twelue heads yet as all the twelue were subordinate to Christ so were eleuen of them subordinate to Peter whome Christ made their Primacy or Head which as you haue heard is the expresse doctrine of S. Cyprian teaching that albeit the Apostles had equal power yet Primatus sayth he Petro datur vt vna Ecclesia Christi vna Cathedra monstretur The Primacy is giuen to Peter that one Church of Christ and one chayre may be shewed Whereby he giueth to vnderstand that although the Apostles were all of equal poweâ— in respect of all other Christians who were subiect to them yet they were not equal in respect of Peter to whome our Sauiour himselfe gaue the Primacy to conserue vnity amongst them and in his whole Church And this I hope may suffise for answere to M. Andrews his glosse vpoÌ„ the 2. places of S. Cyprian only I cannot omit to thanke him for the paynes he taketh still to corroborate our cause with his answers obiections for truly if he write many bookes in this vayne we shall not need any other champion to fight for vs but himselfe as it will also further appeare by his answere to the place of S. Hierome whereof I am now to treate 21. The Cardinall cyteth out of S. Hierome these words Inter duodecem vnus eligitur vt capite constitutâ— schismatis tollatur occasio one is chosen amongst twelue to the end that a head being made the occasion of schisme may be taken away by which words of S. Hierome spoken expressely of S. Peter it is cleare that according to S. Hieromes doctrine our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles and consequently of the whole Church of God to which purpose I haue also vrged the same in my Supplement 22. Now then M. Andrews answereth the Cardinall thus Hicronymus idem hic à Cardinale patitur c. Hierome suffreth heere at the Cardinals hands the same iniury that Cyprian suffred before both their places or texts are lamely cyted for Hiâ—rome saith thus At dices tu scilicet Iouiniane super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia c. But thou to wit Iouinian wilt say the Church is founded vpon Peter which the Cardinall doth now so oft and earnestly inculcate vnto vs well following Iouinian therein but what sayth Hierome Although sayth he the same is in another place done vpon all the Apostles and all of them receiue the keyes and the strength of the Church is equal consolidated or established vpon them all yet neyther in respect of the keyes nor of the foundation which are so much esteemed at Rome but for this cause one is chosen amongst twelue that a head being made the occasion of schisme may be taken away Thus far doth M. Andrews alledge the words of S. Hierome and glosse them as you see wherein two things are specially to be obserued for the present the one that he taxeth the Cardinall for wronging S. Hierome now no lesse then he wronged S. Cyprian before in the lame and corrupt citation of their places The other that he would make the Reader belieue that to hold the Church to be buylt vpon Peter was one of Iouinians heresyes and not S. Hieromes doctrine and that therefore the Cardinall teaching and oft inculcating the same doth follow Iouinian of these two points I must needs say somwhat before I passe further for truely they deserue to be well examined and the good conscyence of M. Andrews to be layed open to the world 23. In the first point I must needs say he hath some reason to wit in saying that S. Hierome is as much wronged by the Cardinall as S. Cyprian was before which is most true for neyther of them both receiue any wrong at all by the Cardinall as you haue already seene in the place of S. Cyprian and will easily see also in this place of S. Hierome if you conferre that which the Cardinall left vncyted and is layd downe by M. Andrews with that which followeth and is cyted by the Cardinall for albeit S. Hierome do teach in the words which M. Andrews cyteth that the Church was equally buylt vpon all the Apostles yet it is euident by that which the Cardinall alledgeth that the same is so to be vnderstood that it doth not any way preiudice the Primacy of S. Peter seeing that S. Hierome affirmeth expressely notwithstanding the equality whereof he speaketh that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles and therefore it is manifest that M. Aâ—drews doth vnderstand this equality in other manner then S. Hierome doth who indeed sayth with great reason as also diuers other Fathers do and no Catholike will deny it that the Church was buylt vpon all the Apostles ex aequo equally but in what sense the same is to be vnderstood I would wish Mr. Andrews to learne of Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in his controuersyes where he declareth the same very learnedly perspicuously and briefely as he is wont 24. Thus then he sayth answering to this very place of S. Hierome and certayne others taken out of the Scriptures and obiected by Luther Respondeo tribus modis Apostolos omnes fuisse Ecclesiae fundamenta c. I answere that all the Apostles were three wayes the foundations of the Church yet without any preiudice to Peter The first is because they were the first that did found Churches euery where for Peter did not himselfe alone conuert the whole world vnto the fayth of Christ but some Nations were conuerted by him others by Iames and others by the rest And therefore S. Paul Rom. 15. saith Sic praedicaui c. I haue so preached this Ghospell where Christ was not named least I should buyld vpon other mens foundation And 1. Cor. 3. vt sapiens architectus c. I haue layd the foundation lyke a wyse Architect and another buyldeth thereupon And in this manner all Apostles are foundations alyke which I thinke is meant in the 21. Chapter of the Apocalyps 25. The Apostles and Prophets are also sayd another way to be foundations of the Church to wit because all Christian doctrine was reuealed vnto them seeing that the fayth of the Church is grounded vpon the reuelation which the Apostles Prophets had from God for new articles of fayth are not alwayes reuealed to the Church But the Church resteth and continueth in that doctrine which the Apostles and Prophets learned of our Lord and deliuered to their posterity by preaching and writing and by this meanes we are as the Apostle sayth Ephes. 2. buylt vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets and according to these two wayes Peter is no greater then the rest But as Hierome sayth the strength of the Church is equally established vpon them all 26. The Apostles also are sayd a third way to be foundations of the Church to wit in respect of their gouernement for all of them
were heads gouernours and Pastors of the vniuersall Church but not in the same manner that Peter was for they had a chiefe and most ample power as Apostles or Legats but Peter had it as ordinary Pastor besides that they had their full power in such sort that neuerthelesse Peter was their head and they depended of him and not he of them and this is that which was promised to Peter Matth. 16. when it was sayd vnto him in presence of the rest Vpon this rock I will buyld my Church which besides the other Fathers before cyted S. Hierome teacheth in his first booke against Iouinian where explicating what is the meaning of buylding the Church vpon Peter he sayth thus Licèt super omnes Apostolos c. Although the strength of the Church be established equally vpon all the Apostles yet therefore one was chosen amongst the twelue to the end that a head being made the occasion of schisme might be taken away 27. Thus far the Cardinall which I hope may suffice to teach M. Andrews how the Church was founded equally vpon the Apostles to wit the two first waye whereof the Cardinall speaketh as mentioned in the Apocalyps and the Epistle to the Ephesians where not only the Apostles but also the Prophets are called foundations of the Church which may well stand with the Primacy of S. Peter and S. Hieromes doctrine concerning the same whereas M. Andrews making S. Hierome impugne S. Peters Primacy by the equality that he mentioneth maketh him contradict himselfe and ouerthrow his owne doctrine in the very next words after wherein he expoundeth as the Cardinall noteth very well what is meant by the buylding of the Church vpon S. Peter signifying that it is to be vnderstood thereby that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles as I will shew further hereafter by M. Andrews his owne confession So that it is cleare inough that the Cardinal left not those words of S. Hierome vncyted as preiudiciall to Peters primacy but only for breuityes sake and that therefore M. Andrews hath notably calumniated him as well in this place as in the former seeking to cast vpon him some suspition of fraudulent dealing in the cytation of Authors which is indeed the proper talent of M. Barlow and M. Andrews as you haue hitherto seene sufficiently proued in them both and shall see further exemplyfied heereafter in M. Andrews to his confusion 28. The second point which I wished to be obserued in his Glosse vpon S. Hieromes text is that he sayth the Cardinall followeth Iouinian in affirming that the Church was founded vpon S. Peter as if the Cardinall did teach therein soâ—e heresy of Iouiniâ—n and not S. Hieromes doctrine but this surpasseth all impudency For no doubt he speaketh against his owne conscience and knowledge seeing he cannot be ignorant of the contrary if he haue read and examined that very place in S. Hierome which he obiecteth where it is euident that the matter then in controuersy betwixt S. Hierome and Iouinian was about the merit of Virginity because Iouinian equalled marâ—ryage with it which heresy S. Hierome in that place laboured to confuteâ— and for as much as the heretyke had obiected the marriage of the Apostles inferring thereupon that if Virginity were to be preferred before marriage Christ would not haue chosen marryed men but Virgins to be his Apostles and the Princes and Captains of Christian disciplin therefore S. Hierome answereth that it appeareth not in the Scriptures that any of them had a wyfe except Saint Peter and that he being married whiles he was vnder the law liued continent from his wyfe after his vocation to the Apostleship and that if any of the rest had wyues before their vocation they abstayned from them euer after and that S. Iohn Euangelist being chosen a Virgin was singularly beloued and specially fauoured of our Sauiour aboue the rest for his Virginity 29. And whereas Iouinian also vrged the supreme dignity of S. Peter as that the Church was founded vpon him being a married man and not vpon S. Iohn who was a Virgin wherein it is euident that Iouinian sought to fortify his heresy by an argument drawne from a point of knowne Catholike doctrine S. Hierome was so far from denying the Church to be founded on Peter that he notably confirmed it declaring that Peter was made thereby head of the Apostles for hauing taught that the Church was also founded equally vpon all the Apostles in the sense that I haue declared he gaue a reason not only why S. Peter was made head of the rest to wit to take away the occasion of schisme but also why he being a married man was endowed with that power and dignity rather then S. Iohn who was a Virgin whereof he yielded this probable reason that respect was had to the age of them both because Peter was a man of yeares and Iohn very yong and therefore to auoyd murmuration against Iohn himselfe which would haue hapned in case he being the yongest of them all should haue bene made their head Peter was worthily preferred before him This is briefely the substance of S. Hieromes discourse in that place Whereby it is euident that he notably confirmeth our Catholike doctrine concerning the Supremacy of S. Peter acknowledging him to be made the head as well of S. Iohn as of all the rest 30. And to the end that M. Andrews may euidently see that S. Hierome did not impugne or disallow this proposition the Church is founded vpon Peter but reiected only the false consequent that Iouinian drew thereon against the merit of Virginity I wish him to read S. Hieromes Commentary vpon the 16. Chapter of S. Matthew and particulerly vpon these words of our Sauiour super hanc petrâ—m aedifiâ—abo Ecclesiam meam c. vpon this rock will I buyld my Church c. where he shall see that the proposition which Iouinian obiected is also the cleare and expresse doctrine of S. Hierome who sayth thus in the person of our Sauiour to S. Peter Because thou Simon hast sayd to me thou art Christ the Sonne of God I also say to thee not with a vayne or idle speach that hath no operation or effect sed quia meum dixisse fecisse est but because my saying is a doing or making therefore I say vnto thee thou art Peter or a Rock and vpon this rock I will buyld my Church As Christ being himselfe the light granted to his disciples that they should be called the light of the world so to Simon who belieued in Christ the Rock he gaue the name of Peter that is to say a Rock and according to the metaphor of a Rock it is truly sayd to him I will buyld my Church vpon thee 31. Thus far S Hierome teaching expressely that Christ buylt his Church vpon Peter which also he teacheth in diuers other places as in an Epistle to Marcella where he
no man can doubt but that those Fathers did therein exercise acts of pure deuotion as you see S. Gregory Nyssen did according to the beliefe and practice of the whole Church at that tyme which is euident by the testimonyes that you haue heard already and wil be much more manifest by those that yet rest to be examined And this shall suffice for this poynt 16. The next place that he taketh in hand to answere is one of S. Ambrose in these words Obsecrandi sunt Angeli c. The Angels which are giuen vs for Guardians and defenders are to be prayed vnto and the Martyrs in lyke manner whose protection we seeme to challenge by hauing their bodyes in pledge they may pray for our sinnes who with their owne bloud haue washed away their owne sinnes if they had any 〈◊〉 saith S. Ambrose Whereto M. Andrewes answereth that the Cardinall might very well haue forborne to produce this place and not haue cyted it so greedily as he hath donne but that he litle careth saith he as it seemeth that the bloud of Christ should be held for superfluous rather then he would not pray to Saynts for superfluus certè sanguis Christi c. truly the bloud of Christ is superfluous if Martyrs can wash away their sinnes with their owne bloud So he 17. Wherevpon he also inferreth that the Reader may preceiue heereby that Ambrose wrote this when he was but a Nouice in Chistian religion and that it is no meruaile if he sayd that Martyrs are to be prayed vnto seeing he teachethâ— that they haue washt their sinnes with their owne bloud Wherein appeareth the modesty of M. Andrews and his good spirit who rather then he will acknowledge his owne errour which is euidently conuinced by this place chargeth this holy Father with the most execrable and blasphemous doctrine that can be imagined as to teach that the bloud of Christ is superfluous which any Christian hart would abbore to heare and much more to hold and teach seeing that it must needs follow thereupon that all Christian religion and beliefe is in vayne being all grounded vpon the merits of Christs Passion and his precious bloud shed for vs. 18. And truly if S. Ambrose may be charged with this blasphemous opinion for the cause which M. Andrewes alledgeth then all the Fathers of Gods Church yea the Apostles themselues may in lyke manner be charged therewith For all of them say as much in effect as S. Ambrose doth which also may by some peruerse and hereticall â—rayne be wrested to the same peruerse sense albeit to those who do consider the grounds of their doctrine and beliefe the contrary is euident For who knoweth not if malice do not blynd-fold and wholy peruert his vnderstanding that when in the holy Scriptures and Fathers any merit sufficiency or cooperatioÌ„ to saluation is attributed to a man or to his fayth works or any endeauour of his the same is vnderstood to proceed principally from the merits of Christs Passion which is the cause ground and foundation of all grace goodnes and merit in man and therefore is alwayes supposed and necessarily vnderstood in all such manner of speach as this of S. Ambrose though it be not expressed 19. As when we read in S. Gregory Nazianzen that certayne Christian souldiars hauing committed Idolatry exhorted one another vt Christo satisfacerent sanguine suo to satisfy Christ with their bloud and in S. Cyprian omnia peccata passione purgare to purge all sinnes by passion or suffering And agayne in another place redimere peccata c. to redeeme sinnes with iust sorrow and satisfaction and to wassh the wounds of sinne with teares Also in the same Father Deo precibus operibus satisfaccre to satisfy God with prayers and workes and sordes eleemosynis abluere to wash away the filth of sinne with almes And in Origen Poenitendo flendo satisfaciendo delere quod admissum est to abolish or blot out that which hath byn committed with repentance weeping and satisfaction Also in Tertullian that the sinner hath cui satisfaciat to whome he may giue satisfaction and that God doth offer vs impunitatem poenitentiae compensatione redimendam impunity or remission of punishment to be redeemed with the recompence of pennance 20. We read also in Irenaeus that our goods or substance being giuen to the poore solutionem faciunt praeteritae cupiditatis do cause solution or remission of our former couetousnes Also in S. Augustine that for daily and light sinnes quotidiana oratio fidelium satisfacit the daily prayer of the faythfull doth satisfy And in S. Hilary that Dauid facti veteris crimen lacrymis abluit Dauid washt away the fault of his old deed with teares In S. Chrysostome that S. Peter adeo abluit negationem c. did so wash away his denyall of Christ with his teares or repentance that he was made the chiefe Apostle And agayne in the same Oration Vna anima quam lucrati fuerimus c. One soule which we haue gayned may abolish the wayght of innumerable sinnes animaeque redimendâ— fieri precium in illo die and become a price to redeeme our soule in the day of iudgement Finally to omit innumerable other places of the rest of the Fathers S. Gregory the great teacheth that peccata delenda sunt austeritate poenitentiae sinnes are to be blotted out with the austerity of peÌ„nance and the possunt satisfactione purgari they may be purged with satisfaction Thus say these holy Fathers 21. And now will M. Andrews charge them all to teach that the bloud of Christ is superfluous because they speake of mens satisfaction for sinne by washing the same with teares and by purging and redeeming them with almes peÌ„nance and Martyrdome without mention of Christs satisfaction for vs May he not take the lyke exception also to diuers speaches in the holy Scripture as peccatuÌ„ tuum eleemosynis redime redeeme thy sinne with almes misericordia veritate redimitur iniquitas iniquity is redeemed with mercy verityâ— spesalui facti sumus we are saued by hope baptisma vos saluos facit baptisme saueth you saluos nos fecit per lauachrum regenerationis he hath saued vs by the water of regeneratioÌ„ operamini salutem work your saluation and the lyke in diuers other places may he not I say cauill as well agaynst these speaches as agaynst the other in S. Ambrose Yes truly 22. For the reason is all one in both it being euident that the merit of Christs precious blood and death is presupposed and necessarily vnderstood as well in the one as in the other and as Baptisme and Hope are speciall meanes to apply vnto vs the merits of Christs passion in which respect they are sayd in the Scripture to saue vs so also teares of repentance pennance almes good workes and Martyrdome wherof S.
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
effect Pope Leo's intercession had Leo. ep 68. The Emperour made suite to Pope Leo for Anatolius Idem ep 70. ad Martian Leo. ep 71. ad Anatol. Anatolius his submission to Pope Leo A manifest and sound lye of M. Andrews Pope Leo his supreme authority proued by the ouerthrow of the Canon alledged by M. Andrews Apol. Bellar. pag. 92. Concil Calced Act. 3. The name of Vniuersall Bishop giuen to the Pope by the generall Councell of Calcedon Andr. pag. 170. §. Quod ibi M. Andrews his tryfling answers M. Andrews hardly vrged Bellar. Apol. vbi supra Relat. Synodi ad Leon. in fine CoÌ„cilij Andr. vbi supra A weake and idle answere of M. Andrews Card. Apolog vbi supra Relat. Synodi ad Leon. Andr. vbi supra See cap. 1. nu 3.4.5 sequent Relat. Synodi ad Leon. A cleere testimony for Pope Leo's supremacy Liberat. in Breuiar cap. 12. Andr. vbi supra p. 171. Andr. vbi supra Apolog. C. Bellar. pag. 92. Andr. vbi supra A strange paradoxe of M. Andrews (b) See Supplem c. 4. nu 3.4.5 6. (c) Ibid. nu 7.8 Andr. cap. 8. pag. 219. Hieron li. 1. cont Iouin (d) Chap. 3. nu 37. seq Pastors are more bound to haue care of the Church then priuate men Ep. Theodoâ—â—j ad Synod Ephesin To. 1. Concil To. 4. Concil in 8. Concil general ex act 6. Suppl cap. 1. nu 112. 113. Act. â—â— 1. Cor. 12. Rom. 12. Pastours bound more then other men to haue care of the Church according to the doctrine of the Apostle Apoc. 2. M. Andrews galli-maufrey or hotch-potch M. Andrews teacheth seditious doctrine Equality of obligation requireth equality of care Isa. 32. If M. Andrews his position be true he must lay away his tytle of Lord Bishop Andr. cap. 7. pag. 171. M. Andrews corrupteth the text of the Councel of Calcedon M Andrews groundeth his arguments vpon his owne fraud Act. 15. caâ— 28. A silly collection of M. Andrews A difference to be noted betwixt the primacy of S. Peter and the priuiledgs granted to the Roman Sea Why those which penned the CanoÌ„ alledged by M. Andrews made no mention of the keys and Pastorall commissioÌ„ giuen to S. Peter M. Andrews his fraud in alledging the Canon Andr. vbi supra Can. 28. M. Andrews streyneth the Greek text to make it serue his turne Andr. pag. 171. A very false and foolish conclusioÌ„ of M. Andrews Andr. vbi supra Wisely forsooth The CanoÌ„ alledged by M. Andrews ouerthroweth his causeâ— Concil Lateran sub Innocent 3. cap. 5. See before from num 1â— to nu 24. Relatio Synod ad Leo. The CouÌ„â—ell of Calcedon acknowledged Pope Leo's supreâ—acy See before nu 45. 4â— Ibidem The CouÌ„cell ascrybed their determination of matters of fayth to the authority of Pope Leo (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How effectually clearly the Councell of Calcedon acknowledged Pope Leo's supremacy in their generall letter to him (d) See bâ—fore from nu 29. to nu 39. Other proofes that Popâ— Leo's supremacy was acknowledged by the CouÌ„cel of Calcedoâ—â— Act. 2â— Acâ— â— Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria deposed by Pope Leo. Three things to be noted in the depositioÌ„ of Dioscorus prouing Pope Leo's supremacy Concilâ— Calced Act. â— Ep. Theodor ad Leonem Theodoretus restored to his Bishoprike by Pope Lâ—o. Pope Leo was vndoubtedly the head and president of the CouÌ„cell Caluin confuted coÌ„cerning the cause why Pope Leo was president of the Councell Pope Leo head of the CouÌ„cel of CalcedoÌ„ in respect of his supreme authority ouer the whole Church What a seared coÌ„science M. Andrewâ— hath Suppl cap. 4. nu 3. 4. Apol. Card. Bel. cap. 8. p. 125. CypriaÌ„ de vnit Eccles. Idem ep ad Quintum Andr. Resp. cap. 8. pag. 217. â—in penult M. Andrews graue discourse in answere to the Cardinall The drift and meaning of S. Cyprian Cyprian vbi supra Matth. 1.6 Ioan. 21. Ibid. 20. S. CypriaÌ„ proueth the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head thereof Idem ep ad Iubaian Ibid. A foolish glosse of M. Andrews vpon the text of S. Cyprian Andr. vbi supra pag. 218. lin 2. How S. Peter might be called the light of the Church Matth. 5. Ioan. 11. The vinity of the Church notably proued and deduced by S. Cyprian from the vnity of the Head Why the Church is called one Mother M. Andrews fraudulent in his lame allegation of S. Cyprian S. Cypr. ep ad Quint. Card. Bellar Apolo c. 8. p. 125. Andr. cap. 8. pag. 218. A shifting answere of M. Andrews falsely charging the Cardinall with fraud The Primacy of S. Peter is notably proued by those words of S. CypriaÌ„ which M. Andrews sayth the Cardinall frauduleÌ„tly left out Bellar. dâ— Romano Pout l. â— cap. 25. S. CypriaÌ„ cleerly explicated by the Card. out of S. Augustine S. Peter being head of the Apostles suffered himselfe to be reprehended by S. Paul Bellarmine cleared from M. Andrews imputatioâ— How a man may speake of his owne authority insolently and yet truly Andr. vâ—â— supr How S. Peter is tearmed the foundation of the Church by S. Cyprian 1. Cor. 3. Isa. 28. (c) See after nu 24.25 2â— A bad inference of M. Andrews about twelue heads Apoc. 24. A politicall or mysticall body may haue many heads subordinat to one head M. Andrews so wryteth as he doth much help his Aduersaryes cause Card. Bellar Apol. c. 8. pag. 126 Hierom. l. â— aduers. Iouinian Touching the place of S. Hierome Supple c. 4. nu 3. Andr. vbi supra pag. 219. §. Hieronymus M. Andrews bad glosse vpoÌ„ S. Hieroms text Supra nu 15. The Cardinal falsely charged by M. Andrewâ— with fraâ—d in the citaâ—ion of S. Hierome Psal. 86. Apocal. 21. Ephes. â— Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 11. How the Church according to Cardinal Bellarmine is buylt equally vpoÌ„ all the Apostles See after nu â—6 sequ M. Andrewes calumniateth Bellarmine M. Andrews second charge against the Cardinall touching Iouinianisme refuted and retortedâ— S Hier. li. 1. contra Iouinian Why S. Peter was preferred by our Sauiour to the supremacy before S. Ioâ—n S. Hier. in 16. cap. Matth. S. Peterâ— supremacy acknowledged by S. Hierome and grouÌ„ded vpon our Sauiours ownâ— wordâ— Idem ep aâ— Marcellaâ—â— ep 54. Ibid. ep 5â— Li. 1. contra Iouiâ— (d) See before nu 4.5 sequeÌ„t See before cap. 2. nu 76. Bellar. de Rom. Pontif l. 1. c. 10. How shameles M. Andrews is to charge the Cardinall with Iouinianisme which he himselfe professeth except he dissent froÌ„ his fellows of the English clergy Ambros. ep li. 1. ep 6. 7. Hieronym contra Iouinian Aug. li. de bono coniug de virginit Idem Retract lib. 42. cap. 22. 23. Idem de haeres ad Quoduulâ— haer 82. Aug. vbi sup Ser. 191. de temp Idem de haeres haer 82. Bellar de notis Eccles l. 4. cap. 9.
to feed his Lambs and sheep he preferred him therin before all the rest of the Apostles Quia solus saith S. Ambrose profitetur ex omnibus omnibus antefertur The third is that wheras S. Ambrose obserueth three degrees of Christians to wit Lambs litle sheep and sheep all recommended to the Pastorall care of S. Peter he giueth to vnderstand that all sorts of Christians were committed to his charge and gouernment and not the weake only but the most holy also learned and perfect yea euen the Apostles themselues and therefore he saith vt perfectiores perfectior gubernaret 10. This then being S. Ambrose his sense and doctrine concerning the Pastorall cōmission giuen to S. Peter it is most euident that when he teacheth that all Pastours receaued their flocks with S. Peter he teacheth it in the same sense that S. Augustine doth to wit that because S. Peter being supreme Pastour represented the whole Church and receaued the Pastorall authority not for himselfe alone but also for all those who were eyther at that tyme or euer should be subordinate vnto him therefore all other Pastours receaued their authority not only in him as S. Augustine speaketh but also with him that is to say in and with their chiefe Pastour and head And therefore whereas D. Andrews to make a greater shew of parity or equality betwixt S. Peter and other Pastors hath added to S. Ambrose his text those words of his owne nobiscum eas accepit it may passe for a piece of coggery and well discouereth his skill to help the dyce when he is put to his shifts 11. Besids that his vanity and folly notably appeareth in that hauing gayned nothing but rather lost his cause by alledging these two places of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose yet he braggeth thereof afterwards as if he had got a great victory saying in the 214. page that although pasce oues was said in the singuler number and to one to wit S. Peter yet it passed to all and that clariùs id loquuntur Ambrosius Augustinus quà m vt obstrepere possint nouitij nostri Ambrose and Augustine do speake or affirme it more plainly then that our nouices can any way contradict it So he meaning by our nouices the Catholiks as I take it though I know not why he so calleth them neyther do I meane heere to discusse it but will remit to the indifferent Reader to iudge what cause he hath so to brag of these two Fathers and what fidelity he hath shewed in alledging them dissembling the cleare doctrine of the one and corrupting as well the text as the sense of the other and thus much for his first answere 12. In his second he seeketh to retort the Cardinals argument vpon him and to proue the Kings Supremacy by the word pasce which he saith he knoweth will touch the Cardinall to the quick quod scio saith he punget Cardinalem Let vs heare then this sharp argument which I thinke will proue a very blunt one Thus then he saith Negat Cardinalis Primatum Regis c. The Cardinall denieth the Kings Supremacy and yet God said to a King tu pasces populum meum Israel thou shalt feed my people Israel Where no man can deny but that a King was made the Pastor of all Israel yea of the Priests except he will deny them to be part of Israel Thus argueth this learned and sharp Doctor ouerthrowing his owne argument sufficiently by his owne conclusion graunting in effect that if the Priests were not a part of the people of Israel the King was not their Pastor 13. To this purpose then it is to be considered what I haue amply debated in the first Chapter of my Supplement concerning the exemption and sepation of the Priests and Leuits from the temporall and politike State by the expresse words of Almighty God who gaue the Leuits not to the temporall Prince but to Aaron and his children tradidi eos dono Aaron filijs eius de medio populi I haue giuen them saith Almighty God for a gift to Aaron and his children out of the midst of the people Besides that God ordayned expresly that the Tribe of Leui should not be numbred neither yet haue any part or inheritance with the rest of Israel because he had reserued the same for his owne seruice and therfore would himselfe be their possession portion and inheritance So that this being very cleare in the expresse words of the Law which as I also proued was neuer altered but rather confirmed at the institution of the Kings who were expresly bound to obserue the whole law and to obey the high Preist I may say to the Doctor as he said before to the Cardinall atque vel sic iacebit Doctori ratio sua 14. But put the case this were not so yea and that the Preists of the old law had byn subiect to the Kings in spirituall matters wherof I haue already proued the contrary will M. Andrews inferre theron that therfore Kings haue also the spirituall Supremacy in the new law without any new institution or ratification therof by our Sauiour Christ or his Apostles Doth not this great Doctor know that the Mosaycal law was abrogated by the law of grace and that wheras it was deuided into three parts to wit Iudiciall Cerimoniall and Morall the two former vtterly ceased and the third I meane the Morall part contayning the Commaundements remayneth only in force not because it was instituted then but because those Commaundments being grounded on the law of Nature are alwayes in force and therfore ordayned againe to be kept in the new Law In which respect the cōmandment cōcerning the Sabboth doth not now bynd Christians as it was then ordayned and practiced 15. And therfore M. Andrews might aswell introduce Poligamy practised in the old Law as the spirituall supremacy of Kings if we should graunt that they then had any such and with much more reason might he teach abstinence from puddings and other meates made of bloud seeing that we find some commaundements or ordinance therof in the Acts of Apostles wheras there is no one syllable in all the new Testament to proue that Kings haue any spirituall authority ouer the Church it being most euidēt that al those places of Scripture which he or any other doth or can alledge out of the new Testament to that purpose do concerne only temporall obedience to the pagan Emperours or Princes who were then Persecutors of the Church and therefore could not be spirituall heads or Gouernours thereof nor obayed by Christians in spirituall matters And this I say the rather because M. Andrews doth not only heere but also throughout his whole booke seeme to ground his doctrine of the Kings spirituall Primacy specially vpon the law of Moyses as I shall haue occasion to shew further hereafter which sufficiently bewrayeth the beggery and misery of his cause
the benefit of soules the publike good of the Church and gods glory wherof I haue giuen sufficient reason in the first Chapter of my Supplement 21. Therefore I will only say for the present that if the Popes spirituall Primacy may for this cause be called a temporall primacy then may M. Andrews who taketh himselfe to be a Bishop and a spirituall Pastour be iustly called and nicknamed a corporall Bishop and a pecuniary Pastour because he doth punish men sometymes in his spirituall court not only in their bodyes but also in their purses and if he would thinke him absurd who should so style and intytle him he is no lesse absurd himselfe in calling the Popes Primacy for the like reason a temporall Primacy And although neither S. Augustine nor S. Cyril do in the places cyted by M. Andrews speake of any such extension of spirituall power to temporall matters whereof they had no occasion to treate yet it sufficeth that they do not deny it yea and that they do both of them sufficiently teach there the spirituall Primacy of S. Peter wherof the other is a necessary consequent 22. S. Augustine in that very Treatise wherto M. Andrews appealeth I meane vpon the Ghospell of S. Iohn and the last Chapter hath that expresse doctrine and those very words which I cyted a little before concerning the person and figure of the whole Church represented in S. Peter propter Apostolatus sui Primatum by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship or as he saith els where propter Primatum quem in discipulis habuit for the Primacy which he had amongst the Disciples For which cause he called him also twice in the same place primum Apostolorum the chiefe Apostle and saith that the Church receaued the keyes in him which as I haue shewed doth euidently proue him to be head and supreme Pastour of the Church whereof only he and no other of the Apostles is said to represent the person and figure so that S. Augustine sufficiently acknowledgeth S. Peters spirituall Supremacy in the place alledged by M. Andrewes 23. The like doth S. Cyril also in his coÌ„mentary vpon S. Iohns Ghospell and in the same place which M. Andrewes cyteth for there he calleth S. Peter expressely Prince and head of the Apostles saying Vt Princeps Caputque ceterorum primus exclamauit Tu es Christus filius Dei viui Peter as Prince and head of the rest first exclaymed Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God So he wherby he teacheth euidently that S. Peter was head and supreme Pastour of the Church in that he acknowledgeth him to be Prince and head of the Apostles who were the chiefe Magistrates and Pastors therof and therefore it is to be considered how this agreeth with that which followeth presently after in M. Andrews his text who hauing affirmed as you haue heard that neyther of these Fathers saw the article touching Peters temporall Primacy addeth Id tantum vident nec praeterea quid quia c. They see this only and nothing els that because Peter had denyed his Lord not once but thrice he was asked concerning loue not once but thrice and so when he had abolished his triple negation with his triple confession he was restored to the place or degree of Apostleship from the which he was fallen for touching the Primacy they are altogeather silent Thus saith M. Andrews 24. Wherin it is to be noted that wheras he saith that these Fathers saw only this which he heere setteth downe nec praeterea quid and nothing else it is euidently false for two respects the one for that they saw more then he mentioneth yea more then he listed to see to wit the Primacy of S. Peter as I haue shewed out of them both the other is because they saw not that which he affirmeth in their behalfe I meane that S. Peter was by those wordes of our Sauiour restored to his place in the Apostleship which he had lost for if they should haue said so they should seeme to hould or fauour at least the pernicious heresy of Wycliffe that Magistrates loose their dignity and authority by mortall sinne which pestiferous opinion those holy Fathers no doubt would haue abhorred if it had bene set abroach or taught by any in their tyme seeing that it shaketh the very foundation of all obedience eyther to Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall Magistrates because it doth not only make all obedience vncertaine for no man knoweth who is in the state of Grace but also giueth occasion to Subiects vpon euery offence of their Prince to call his authority in question 25. Therfore to the end thou maist good Reader know as wel the integrity of these Fathers in this point as M. Andrews his fraud and bad conscience in alledging them thou shalt vnderstand that S. Augustine saith nothing at all that may be so much as wrested to any such sense in that place and doth elswhere expressely teach the contrary as when he saith Apostleâ— againe a little after when Peter the Apostle denied our Sauiour and wept and remayned still an Apostle he had not yet receaued the holy Ghost Thus saith S. Augustine and could he teach a doctrine more contrary to that which M. Andrews fatâ—ereth vpon him 26. Let vs now see how he handleth S. Cyril vpoÌ„ whome it may be he principally relyeth for this matter for indeed that holy Father saith somewhat concerning the same though far otherwise then M. Andrews would make his Reader belieue for thus saith S. Cyril Dixit pasce agnos meos Apostolatus sibi renouaÌ„s dignitatem ne propter negationem quae humana infirmitate accidit labefactata videretur He to wit our Sauiour said to Peter feed my Lambs renewing to him his dignity of the Apostleship least it might seeme to haue bene decayed by his denyall which happened by humane infirmity Thus far S. Cyril who you see neyther saith nor meaneth that S. Peter fell from his Apostleship by his denyall of Christ but rather signifieth the contrary to wit that Christ would not haue it so much as to seeme or be supposed that he had lost his dignity by his fall and therefore renewed it by that new and expresse commission ne labefactata videretur lest it should seeme to haue bene decayed or lost 27. Wherin also it is to be obserued that the dignity wherof S. Cyril speaketh was not the bare office or degree of an Apostle but that which was peculiar and proper to S. Peter and so acknowledged by S. Cyril himselfe a little before in the same Chapter when he tearmed him Principem Caput ceterorum the Prince and head of the rest of the Apostles as also S. Augustine as you haue heard calleth it Primatum principatum Apostolatus the Primacy and principality of the Apostleship and therefore I say the Dignity which according to S. Cyrils doctrine our Sauiour renewed
same in defence of his pretended Episcopall authority against the Puritans wherto I may add that M. Andrewes himself also approueth it els where granting that S. Peter was appoynted head of the Apostles by our Sauiour vt schismatis tollatur occasio as S. Hierome saith that the occasion of schisme may be taken away yea and confesseth moreouer that S. Peter had so much authority giuen him as was necessary for auoyding of schisme and for the maintenance of peace and vnity of which poynt I shall haue somewhat to say vnto him here after 50. If then Pastors or gouernours are by his owne confession instituted in the Church to conserue the same in vnity haue speciall authority giuen them to that end he must needs confesse also that they ought to haue more care thereof then those who haue not any speciall institution or authority to the same end and therefore I would be glad to know how he agreeth with himself in this poynt teaching heere as he doth that the care of the peace of the whole Church doth belong to all men alyke For if he say that Pastors are more bound then theyr subiects to care for the vnity of theyr owne particuler Diocesses but not of the whole Church he is too to ridiculous seeing that euery Pastor ought to haue not only as much care of the whole Church as euery other man but also much more then others by reason of his function office which doth extend it selfe to the whole Church it being euident that what authority soeuer any man hath in any part of the Church it is giuen him for the good of the whole and finally tendeth therto 51â— And who knoweth not that all heresies and schismes which violate the vnity of the whole Church do first spring in some part thereof and are to be suppressed not in respect of that part only but much more in regard of the whole Church As in like manner we see in our bodyes that the care of the health and conseruation of euery member tendeth more to the good of the whole then of the part it selfe that is or may be particulerly interessed therefore euery part doth willingly expose it selfe to danger for the conseruation of the whole Whereupon I inferre that if Pastors haue more obligation then lay-men to haue care of a part of the Church they are consequently more bound to haue care of the whole whereto as I haue sayd the care of euery part is specially to be referred 52. Moreouer whosoeuer is Pastour in any one part of the Church is capable of Pastorall iurisdiction in any other though he be restrayned and limited to a certayne part to auoyd confusion in which respect the Priests in euery Diocesse are Priests throughout the whole Church and may minister Sacraments any where in cases of necessity and a Bishop in any place is euerywhere a Bishop and one of the Magistrats and Pastors of the Church and therefore hath a voyce and right of suffrage in all Generall Councells though they be held out of his Diocesse whereas none of the Laity hath any voyce or suffrage therein at all as it is manifest by the testimony of Theodosius the Emperour in his Epistle to the Councell of Ephesus saying Nefas est c. It is not lawfull that he who is not one of the number of the most holy Bishops should meddle in Ecclesiasâ—icall consultations and affayres So he And the like sayd Basilius the Emperour in the 8. Generall Councell with a notable aduertisement to lay-men of what degree soeuer not to presume to deale in Ecclesiastical matters as I haue shewed at large in my Supplement Besides that we read in the Councell of Calcedon that Concilium Episcoporum est a Councell consisteth of Biâ—â—ops whereupon it followeth euidently that all men haue not equal obligation to care for the peace and vnity of the whole Church for if they had then might euery Cobler and Tinker challeng as much right of suffrage as any Bishop in a Generall Councell assembled for the suppression of heresy and schisme which I thinke M. Andrews will be ashamed to say 53. Therefore he must confesse that albeit euery member of the mysticall body of Christ be bound to haue a speciall care of the vnity of the whole vt not sit schisma in corpore sed in idipsum pro inuicem sollicita sint membra That there be no schisme or diuision in the body but that the members togeather be carefull one of another yet this obligation extendeth no further then the condition quality and degree of euery one requyreth which we may learne by the Apostles doctrine to the Romans who hauing signified that we haue many members in one body and that all the members haue not the same action addeth ita multi vnum corpus sumus in Christo c. So we being many are one body in Christ ech one anothers members hauing gifts according to the grace that is giuen vs different eyther Prophesy according to the rule of faith or ministery in ministring or he that teacheth in doctrine he that exhorteth in exhorting he that giueth in simplicity he that ruleth in carfulnes he that sheweth mercy in cheerfulnes 54. Thus far the Apostle who exemplifying heere as you see the different gifts and graces that God bestoweth vpon sundry members of his mysticall body and ascribing to euery one of them the proper talent which is requisit thereto requyreth specially in the Gouernour Solicitude and Carefulnes giuing plainely to vnderstand that although euery member of Christs Church ought to be sollicitous and carefull for the publike good thereof yet a Pastor or Gouernour is most bound thereto as to that which most properly pertayneth to his charge vocation As for example in the tyme of the Apostles the heresy of the Nicolaits did violate the vnion and trouble the peace of the whole Church and albeit there were in the Church of Pergamus as well Prophets Doctors Preachers and Priests as other faithfull people who were all bound to haue care of the vnity of the whole Church as all Christians are neuertheles we see in the Apocalyps that none of them but the Bishop only was reprehended for negligence and want of due care to find and cast out the Nicolaits from amongst them because the sollicitude and care of the vnity and publike good of the Church did specially belong to the Pastour or Bishop in which respect he alone was seuerely reproued and commanded to do pennance 55. So that whereas M. Andrews imposeth an equal obligation of the same care vpon euery member what doth he els but make as I may say a gally-maufrey or hotch-potch of the different members of Christs mysticall body confounding their seuerall functions and making them all eyes or heads requyring the obligation of a Pastor or Gouernor in euery particuler man And truly if this doctrine were
thereof though in the whole Church which was to be propagated by them ouer the world the danger of schisme was very great not only in their tyme but also much more afterwards as I haue signifyed before in which respect it was needefull to be preuented by the institution of one head ouer the whole Church and therefore when S. Hierome answering Iouinian saith that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles he meaneth that he was made head of the Church which was represented in them as in the Gouernours thereof for seeing that the obiection of Iouinian which S. Hierome answereth concerned the foundation of the Church vpon S. Peter his answere must needs also concerne the same to which purpose it is to be considered that he denyeth not Iouinians proposition as I haue proued before but explicateth what is tâ—e meaning of super Petrâ—m fundatur Ecclesia signifying that it meaneth nothing els in effect but that Peter was made head of the Apostles which is as much so say as that he was the foundation of the Church or that the Church was founded vpon him because as Cardinall Bellarmine saith very well the foundation in a buylding and the head in a politycall or mysticall body is all one so as S. Peter being made head of the Apostles who represented the Church as Gouernours thereof he was consequently made the head and foundation of the Church and this being so it appeareth that this place of S. Hierome is cleare for vs and directly proueth that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the vniuersall Church 48. And whereas M. Andrews in his glosse vpon S. Hieromes text noteâ—h with a parenthesis that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles not for the keyes saith he or for the foundation which are so much esteâ—med at Rome but to take away the occasion of schisme I know not wâ—at els he impugneth thereby but his owne idle conceipt for no man saith at Rome or any where els for ought I know that S. Peter was made head of the Church for the keyes or for the foundation other wayes then that in receiuing the keyes and being made the foundation of the Church he was made head thereof to take away the occasion of sâ—hisme And this is S. Hiâ—romes doctrine so euident that M. Andrews himselfe is forced thereby to confesse that Sâ— Peter was made head of the Apostles yea and that he had so much power and authority giuen him as was necessary for the preuention and remedy of schisme whereupon all our doâ—trine concerning the Popes authoâ—ity necessarily followeth as I haue shewed so that you see he still pleadeth for vs and well deserueth his fee if not for his good wil yet at least for his paynes in defending our cause against his will FOVRE OTHER PLACES OF THE FATHERS ARE DEBATED And M. Andrews his Answers thereto confuted With a Discouery of notable corruption and falsity in him and of three manifest lyes within litle more then three lynes AND By occasion thereof it is also proued that 8. Popes who liued in S. Augustines tyme had and exercysed an vniuersall and supreme Authority CHAP. IIII. THOV hast seene good Reader in the last Chapter how well M. Andrews hath satisfyed the Cardinalls obiectioÌ„ out of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome and now in this Chapter I will examine his Answers to diuers other places of the Fathers namely of S. Basil and S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine which albeit he pretendeth to answere togeather with the former yet I haue thought good to separate them because I haue alledged them separatly in my Supplement 2. First out of S. Basil the Cardinall an I obiect these words to proue the supremacy of S. Peter ouer the rest of the Apostles Ille beatus qui ceteris praelatus discipulis fuit cui claues regni caelestis commissae That happy or blessed Peter who was preferred before the rest of the disciples to whome the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome were committed c. Hereto M. Andrews answereth thus Ex Basilio ceteris discipulis praelatum Petrum sed an vt esset Monarcha c. The Cardinall obiecteth out of S. Basil that Peter was preferred before the rest of the Disciples but was it to the end that he should be a Monarch is there no other prelacy but of a Monarchy he was preferred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the testimony that was giuen him by Christ as Basil hath there and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blessednes add also if you will that he was preferred in order and place the King doth also attribute the same vnto him yea that he may be the Prince of Apostles yet without a Monarchy Thus saith M. Andrews to the first part of S. Basils place whereto I will say somewhat before I add the rest Heere then you see he graunteth that S. Peter was preferred before the rest of the Apostles in order and place yea and that he was the Prince of the Apostles and forsooth no Monarch 3. But if we consider what he hath graunted in the last Chapter we shall find that he must needs acknowledge him to be a Monarch how much soeuer he mislyke the word for if a Monarch do signify him that is one chiefe Prince and sâ—preme head or gouernour of others not for his owne particuler benefit but for the publike and generall good of those whome he gouerneth for so is a Monarch distinguished from a Tyrant he cannot with any reason deny S. Pâ—ter to be the Monarch that is to say the supreme Prince and head of the Church whome he acknowledgeth togeather with S. Hierome to haue been made by our Sauiour head of the Apostles to preuent and remedy schisme and to haue had not only the precedence of place and order as now he saith but also so much power as suffyced for the conseruation of Vnity in the Church whereupon followeth all that power and authority which we do attribute to S. Peter and his successors as I haue declared briefely in the last Chapter 4. For S. Peter hauing by this commission of our Sauiour authority to ordaine commaund and punish as far as was necessary for the good of the Church it must needs be graunted that he had the power and authority of a Monarch and although M. Andrews had not been forced by â—he euidence of S. Hieromes testimony to grant it yet this very place of S. Basil which he pretendeth heere to answere doth proue it sufficiently signifying as much in effect as S. Hierome teacheth seeing that S. Basil not only saith that Peter was preferred before the rest of the Disciples but also declareth wherein that is to say not in place and order only but in authority also and iurisdiction adding cui claues Regni caelestis commissae sunt to whome to wit Peter the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome were committed giuing to vnderstand that he had by this particuler
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
the same is to be extended to the new law As well may he say that we are bound to obserue the whole law and so proue himselfe a Iew euacuate the law of Christ as Saynt Paul argueth against those that mayntained the vse of CircuÌ„cisioÌ„ togeather with the faith of Christ. 27. Neuertheles I say not this to exclude all manner of arguments or inferences drawne from the old law to the new that the same remayne within the limits of probability as from the figure to the verity which admitteth many limitations and exceptions but to exclude the obligation of all precepts eyther ceremoniall or Iudiciall which do not in any sort bynd vs now as I haue shewed in the first Chapter of this Adioynder And therefore whereas M. Andrews sayth heere cùm praeceptum acceperimus in lege disertis verbis c. seeing we haue receiued a precept in the law in expresse words c. I say to him that seeing this precept did vndoutedly belong to the ceremoniall law and concerned only the manner of worship to be done to God by Sacrifice he sheweth himselfe a flat Iew in saying that we Christians haue receiued this precept in the law 28. Furthermore he is to vnderstand that albeit we should grant that nothing can be practiced or taught in the new law without some precept or doctrine thereof deliuered by our Sauiour Christ vnto his Church yet he could gayne nothing thereby except he could also proue that all our Sauiours precepts and doctrine are expressely set downe in Scripture which neyther he nor any of his fellowes haue byn able yet to proue or euer shal be it being euident that our Sauiour neyther commanded any thing at all to be written but to be preached and taught saying praedicate euangelium c. preach the gospell to euery Creature and againe docete omnes gentes c. teach all Nations baptizing them c. neyther did the Apostles eyther write any thing of diuers yeares after Christ Ascension or when they wrote deliuer all Christs doctrine and their owne by writing but very many things by tradition in which respect the Apostle himselfe saith tenete traditiones quas accepistis siue per sermonem siue per. Epistolam nostram hold the traditions which you haue receiued eyther by word or by our Epistle by which words of the Apostle the ancient Fathers namely S. Chrysostome S. Epiphanius S. Basil S. Iohn Damascen Oecumenius Theophilactus and the 8. Generall Councell do proue the necessary vse of vnwritten traditions in the Church and amongst the rest S. Chrysostome saith hinc patet c. heereby it is mâ—nifest that the Apostles did not deliuer all things by Epistle but many things without writing eadem fide digna sunt tam illa quà m ista as well those things as these are worthy of the same credit 29. For this cause S. Augustine giueth this generall rule that whatsoeuer the whole Church retayneth whereof the beginning cannot be deduced eyther from the Scriptures or Generall Councells or some later institution the same was vndoutedly deliuered by the Apostles and this he vrgeth very often as a most assured ground and principle agaynst the Donatists and for the same reason not only he but also all other Fathers teach that the generall custome of the Church is an infallible and euident proofe of the truth in any controuersy in so much that he affirmeth it to be insolentissimae insaniae a poynt of most insolent madnes to dispute or doubt of it as I haue declared in the last Chapter which I wish M. Andrews well to obserue as also the other testimonyes of the ancient Fathers produced there concerning this poynt 30. Now then hereupon I conclude two things the one that M. Andrews who as he sayth dare do nothing without a written precept may lay away his scruple in matters that are generally practised by the Church the other that seeing it is euident by these testimonyes of so many holy and learned Fathers as haue byn heere alledged that the whole Church in their dayes practized prayer to Saynts as a thing most beneficiall to men and honorable to God and that they acknowledged the euident and miraculous benefits that grew to men thereby yea vrged the same agaynst the very Gentills and Paynims as inuincible arguments of the diuinity of Christ and of the verity of Christian religion and seeing also that this practice custome and beliefe was then generall when Christian religion most florished I meane in the tyme of the 4. first generall Councells and when the Church abounded most with famous Doctors Pastors and Fathers it must needs be graunted that the doctrine of prayer to Saynts is an irrefragable verity and that according to S. Augustines censure it is no lesse then insolent madnes in M. Andrewes to call it in question and much more to impugne it with such friuolous reasons as he doth and especially with a ceremoniall precept of the Mosaycall law as if he were a Iew and not a Christian seeing that he acknowledgeth himselfe to haue receiued a precept thereby disertis verbis in expresse words which I thinke no good Christian will say of any precept belonging to the ceremoniall or Iudiciall law 31. But M. Andrews goeth yet further and exacteth at least some example of it in the Scripture if there be no precept whereto S. Augustine answereth sufficiently when he sayth to a Donatist who made the lyke demaund about the rebaptization of such as were baptized by heretykes that seeing there is no example or expresse mention of it in Scripture and that Christ hath clearly and expresly recommended vnto vs the authority of his vniuersall Church dispersed thoughout the world the testimony and custome of that Church is to be admitted and imbraced and whosoeuer reiecteth or resisteth the same doth most perniciously resist our Sauiour himselfe against his owne saluation Thus sayth S. Augustine in substance though much more amply who also speaking elswhere of the same point giueth this notable and generall rule that for as much as the holy Scripture doth vndoubtedly recommend vnto vs the authority of the Church etiam in hac re à nobis tenetur Scripturarum veritas c. the veriâ—y of Scripture is retayned by vs in this point when we do that which hath already pleased the whole Church So he And so say I to M. Andrews in this our case to wit that seeing it is euident by the testimony of all antiquity that the inuocation of Saynts was generally admitted and practised by the Primitiue Church and from thence hath descended to our tyme there needeth no example of it in Scripture because the authority of the Church which the Scriptures do expressely recommend vnto vs sufficeth to warrant the same 32. And truly it may seeme strange that M. Andrews or any of his fellowes of the English Clergy do
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
directly that no temporall Prince is Supreme head of the Church But his opinion concerning the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy will be much more manifest if we consider what a poore conceipt he hath of it and how he abaseth it being so farre from graunting it to be a principall article of faith as we hold the Popes Primacy to be that he saith it is ne articulus quidem not so much as an Article vtpote de exteriori modo regimine c. as of a thing which concerneth only the externall gouâ—rment of the Church so far forth as it requireth and admitteth humane help and authority And therefore hâ— placeth it not amongst points which are to be belieued but amongst matters of perswasion such I meane as we are perswaded to be true and therfore he saith nec sic singula trahimus ad fidem c. we do not so draw all things to faith it sufficeth for some heads or points of religion to belieue them with the Apostle and of some others to be perswaded only quae tameÌ„ infra fideÌ„ subsistant which neuertheles are beneath or vnder matters of faith Therefore it is inough if it be without the compasse of faith so that it may haue place only amongst orthodox or true doctrine So he and to the same purpose he also saith in another place that it is a truth but extra symbolum out of the creed so that it may perhaps be come into his Pater noster but is not yet into Creed Whereupon diuers things might be inferred worth the noting but I will touch only two or three 39. If the Kings Supremacy be not a matter of Faith then is it neither expressely taught in Scripture nor necessarily deduced from it for if it were then must it needes be a matter of Faith and therevpon it followeth that although M. Andrews doe alleage Scripture to proue it yet he himselfe is of opinion that it is but only probably gathered out of Scripture and consequently that a man may without daunger of damnation choose whether he will belieue it or no. For of thinges which are in Controuersy and not defined but only probably gathered out of Scripture a man may without daunger of his soule adhere to eyther parte which truly may serue for a great Motiue to all Protestants to make small account of the Kinges Ecclesiasticall Suâ—remacy otherwise then in respect of the temporall Lawes especially seeing that so great a Doctor as M. Andrewes who pretendeth expresly to maintaine and defend it teacheth that it is no matter of faith Besides that I cannot see how he can approue the Oath of the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy to be lawfully teÌ„dred or taken as of an vndoubted truth if it be no matter of faith For he that sweareth a thing to be simply true which he doth not certainly belieue but only is probably perswaded that it is true sinneth in the opinion of the Diuines Canonistsâ— Wherupon it followeth that M. Andrews who holdeth the Kings Supremacy to be no matter of faith but only a probable truth can neither lawfully take the Oath of the said Supremacy nor iustly approue it to be exacted of any and this will be as cleere as the Sun if we consider by what Scriptures he laboureth to proue the Kings Supremacy wherby we shall easily see that the same is not so much as probably gathered out of Scripture and therfore not to be held for an vndoubted truth and much lesse to be sworne for such 40. For wheras the Cardinall obiecteth that it is a new doctrine taught first in the time of King Henry the 8. who first tooke vpon him the title of supreme head of the Church M. Andrews denieth it saying tantum abest c. It is so farre from being so new as the Cardinall saith to wit a thousand fiue hundred yeares after Christ that it was a thousand fiue hundred yeares before Christ was borne Neither was Henry the 8. the Authour of that in our age but Moyses in his who hauing put off or laid away his Priesthood was neuerthelesse aboue Aaron and when he gaue to the King the Law he gaue him withall the chiefe power to keepe Religion which is the first and chiefest part of the Law and to cause it to be kept So he Wherein he giueth two reasons or groundes out of the old Law for the spirituall Supremacy of temporall Princes The one because Moyses laid aside his Priesthood and being therfore but a temporall man was superiour to Aaron And the other because he gaue to Kings the chief power and charge of Religion when he gaue them the copy of the Law 41. In the former point of the two he notably bewrayeth his owne ignorance in saying that Moyses laid aside his Priesthood or ceased to be Priest after he was once Priest as if Moyses his Priesthood had bin like to the Ministry of the Protestants which may be put of and on like a Ierkin or a Cloake when they list whereas his Priesthood was so permanent and inseparably annexed to his person that albeit he might cease from the execution of the function yet he could neuer put off the power of his Priesthood during his life Besides that he was so farre from putting off his Priesthood that he was not only still Priest after Aaron was consecrated but also as S. Augustine teacheth expresly chief Priest either togeather with Aaron or els aboue him Ambo saith he tunc summi Sacerdotes erant both Moyses and Aaron were theÌ„ high Priests or rather was not Moyses high Priest and Aaron vnder him Thus saith S. Augustine wherby you see how weake and seelly is M. Andrews his first reason grounded vpon his own ignorant conceipt that Moyses left off his Priesthood and that neuertheles he was still superiour to Aaron being a meere temporall Prince for if he meant not so his argument for the temporall Princes supremacy is not worth a rush but you haue heard out of S. Augustine that Moyses was not only a Priest after the Consecration of Aaron but also chief Priest I meane aboue Aaron in which respect it may be thought that God commaunded Moyses not Aaron to cloath Eleazar Aaron Sonneâ— with Aarons vestments in the preâ—â—nce of Aaron himself to succeed him in the office of high Priest 42. In his second reason concerning the chiefe power and charge of Religion giuen to Kings by Moyses togeather with the copy of the Law he sheweth most euident and notorious malice in the manifest abuse corruption of Scripture no such thing but rather the cleane contrary being to be gathered out of that place of Deuteronomy where Moyses ordayned that the copy of the Law should be giuen by the Priestes to the future Kings I say future for that there was no King ouer Gods people in the time of Moyses nor of 400. years after as I haue signified in
exceedingly wonder as well at the penury of learned Deuines in England as at their want of iudgment in venturing the credit of their cause vpoÌ„ so weake a Champion whose valour consisteth in nothing els but in certayne Thrasonicall braggs Satyricall scoffes and a vayne presumption of his latin stile which neuertheles seemeth to learned men more fit for a Comicall or Satyriall Poet theÌ„ for a Doctor of Diuinity wherein also they obserue such obsurdityâ— that they hold it for no lesse vicious in a Deuine writing of matters in controuersy then it would be in an Orator or Aduocat pleading a cause in whome nothing is more requisit then perspicuity and therefore Quintilian greatly reprehendeth such as affecting an extraordinary breuity necessaria subtrahunt verba c. do leaue out saith he necessary words And as if it were sufficient that they know their owne meaning care not whether others vnderstand them or no. So sayth Quintilian 72. And truly the same is so well verifyed in M. Andrewes that he may iustly say with the Poet dum breuis esse laboro obscurus fio whyles I labour to be briefe I become obseure in so much that he is farre more easy to be confuted then vnderstood seeming somtymes rather to propound riddles then to argue or discourse which he doth perhaps of purpose to the end that being obscure and ambiguous he may alwayes haue some starting hole or other when he is pressed by his aduersary not vnlike to a fish called in latin sepia in English a Cuttle which when she is in danger to be taken casteth out a kind of black licour lyke inke wherwith she obscureth and troubleth the water in such sort that she cannot be seene and so the more easily escapeth 73. Neuertheles M. Andrews reapeth not the like benefit by his obscurity being discouered wheresoeuer he lurketh and taken tardy at euery turne whereof sufficient experience hath bene seene in these few points of his booke which I haue had occasion to handle being only such as are incident to matters treated in my Supplement besydes dyuers others of the same sort which I am forced for lack of time to omit wherein I might much more amply haue displayed his insufficiency falsity and folly and therfore I leaue it to thee good Reader to imagin what a number of absurdityes lyes frauds and corruptions his whole worke would affoard if it were well examined 74 But now to end in no lesse charitable manner with him then I did with M. Barlow I will only wish him well to consider those few aduyses which I gaue to M. Barlow in the 8. last paragraphs of my Supplement and to take them also as meant and giuen to himselfe to the end he may seriously reflect vpon them specially vpon his vayne endeauours and lost labour in impugning the Apostolike Roman Sea weyghing withall in what a dangerous and miserable state he standeth so long as he is separated from the vnion therof which I haue there euidently shewed by the testimony of the most ancient and holy Fathers Almighty God of his infinit mercy open his eyes that he may see it and duly ponder our Sauiours most important aduyse golden lesson Quid prodest homini c. What doth it profit a man if he gayne all the world and loose his owne soule FINIS AN APPENDIX TOVCHING A Register alleadged by M. Francis Mason to proue THAT The first Protestant Byshops in the reigne of Queene Elizabeth had a lawfull Consecration THIS Adioynder being printed and some copyes ready to be diuulged it was my chance to vnderstand by a Letter written to a frend of myne that one M. Mason hath lately published a Book wherin he preteÌ„deth to answere the Preface to Fa. Persons his Discussion especially concerning one point treated therin to wit the Consecration of the first Protestant Bishops in the raigne of Queene Elizabeth further that he indeauoureth to proue their consecration by a Register testifying that 4. Bishops consecrated M. Parker the first Archbishop of Canterbury in the said Queenes dayes wherupon if it be true it must needes follow that all other Bishops consecrated after him and his successors euen vntill this day haue some more shew of lawfull consecration and succession then the Catholickes haue hitherto known or imagined 2. And therfore for as much as not only the Authour of the Preface to Fa. Persons his Discussion but also my selfe in my Supplement and in this Adioynder haue constantly denyed that they had any such consecration I thought good to stay the publication of this Adioynder vntill I had added therto this briefe Appendix concerning M. Masons pretended Register left otherwise M. Barlow and M. Andrewes may hold me to be sufficiently answered by M. Mason and remit me to his Register for that point Thou shalt therfore vnderstand Good Reader that this our exception touching the lawfull vocation and Consecration of the first Protestant Bishops in the late Queenes dayes is not a new quarrell now lately raised by vs two only I meane the Authour of the foresaid Preface and my self but vehemently vrged dyuers tymes heretofore by many other Catholykes many yeares ago yea in the very beginning of the late Queenes reygne as namely to omit others by the two learned Doctors Harding and Stapleton in theyr bookes against the Apology of the Châ—rch of England M. Iewell and M. Horne whome they pressed mightily with the defect of due vocation and consecration vrging them to proue the same and to shew how and by whome they were made Priests and Bishops 3. To which purpose M. D. Harding in his confutation of the Apology speaking to M. Iewell the pretended Bishop of Salisbury and hauing already proued that he had no succession in his Episcopall function from the Apostles sayth thus Therefore to goe from your succession to your vocation how say you Syr You beare your selfe as though you were a Bishop of Salisbury but how can you proue your vocation By what authority vsurp you the administration of doctrine and Sacraments What can you alledg for the right proof of your ministry Who hath called you Who hath layd hands on you By what example hath he done it how and by whome are you consecrated Who hath sent you c. So he 4. In lyke manner M. Doctor Stapleton in his answere to M. Iewells booke intituled A reply c. saith thus How chanced then M. Iewell that you and your fellowes bearing your selues for Bishops haue not so much as this congruity and consent I will not say of the Pope but of any Christian Bishop at all throughout all Christendome neyther are lyked and allowed of any one of them all but haue taken vpon you that office without any imposition of hands without all Ecclesiasticall authority without all order of Canons and right I aske not who gaue you Bishoprikes but who made you Bishops
c. Thus saith the Cardinall and after hauing layd downe S. Cyprians words alledged by S. Augustine being the same that you haue heard before he addeth the words of S. Augustine which are these Ecce vbi commemorat Cyprianus c. Behold how Cyprian doth shew that Peter the Apostle in whom the primacy of the Apostles is preeminent with such an excellent grace corrected by Paul a later Apostle when he dealt concerning Circumcision otherwayse then truth required So sayth S. Augustin whereby it euidently appeareth how he vnderstandeth S. Cyprian in this place to wit that albeit Peter was preeminent and far excelled the Apostles by reason of his Primacy yet when he erred he patiently suffered himselfe to be corrected by Paul and did not insolently and arrogantly defend his errour standing vpon the authority of his Primacy and challenging obedience of S. Paul and others 15. This then being so and the Cardinalls opinion concerning the meaning of S. Cyprian in this place being so â—ell fortified as you haue now heard by S. Augustines construction and iudgement thereof what reason hath any man to thinke that the Cardinall did as M. Andrews chargeth him purposely and craftily suppresse those words of S. Cyprian as not making for Peters Primacy whereas you see he taketh them to make much for it and doth vrge them notably to proue it Therefore can any reasonable man imagine any fraud in the Cardinall Or any other cause why he did not eyte them in his Apology but partly for breuityes sake which euery may seeth how much he affecteth in all his workes and partly because he thought he had alledged sufficient already out of that Father to proue his intent 16. So that whereas M. Andrews sayth Ea Cypriani mens videtur c. The mynd or sense of Cyprian seemeth to be that if Peter had said he had the Primacy he had insolently challenged somewhat to himselfe that is to say more then was due vnto him he did very well to say videtur it seemeth for if he had absolutly affirmed it he had ouerlashed very far Besides that he may learne if it please him to make a great difference betwixt insolenter and â—also insolently and falsely for a man may take vpon him a true authority and speake of it insolently that is to say without iust cause or in defence of some euill act and yet not falsely because it is true that he hath the authority which he pretendeth And therefore I say that if S. Peter should haue stood vpon his Primacy in defence of his erroneous act and sayd that S. Paul ought to follow and obay him therin because he was the Primate and head of the Apostlesâ— he had both sayd and done insolently which neuertheles in defence of a truth or vpon some other iust occasion he might both say and do without all note of insolency yea iustly and necessarily because he had indeed the Primacy and therefore was to be obayed and followed in all good and iust actions 17. But now M. Andrews goeth forward and whereas the Cardinall concluded that Peter being the foundation of the Church was therefore the head of it M. Andrews granteth that S. Peter was fundamentum quidem vnum sed non vnicum one but not the only foundation esse enim illiusce aedificij duodecem fundamenta for that there are twelue foundations of that building But M. Andrews is heere short of his account for he should rather haue sayd that there are thirteene except he will exclude Christ of whome the Apostle sayth Fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere c. no man can lay any other foundation then that which is already layed Iesus Christ of whome also the Prophet sayth Ecce ego ponam in fundamentis Sion lapidem c. Behold I will lay a stone in the foundation of Sion an approued stone a corner and precious stone founded in the foundation c. 18. And this I am sure M. Andrews will not deny seeing that it is one of the most speciall arguments whereby his fellowes are wont to exclude S. Peter from being the foundation of the Church to wit because Christ is the foundation of it if therefore M. Andrews will admit twelue foundations of the Church without preiudice to Christ he may also admit eleuen without preiudice to Peter For albeit the twelue Apostles are all founded vpon Christ who is the first and principall stone yet Peter may haue the first place in the foundation next after Christ being immediatly founded on him as head and ordinary Pastor of the Church and the rest vpon Peter as extraordinary and subordinate to him Besides that Peter and the rest of the Apostles are called foundations in different manner as I will declare more particulerly in the discussion of M. Andrews his answere to the place of S. Hierome 19. And now to conclude concerning S. Cyprian whereas the Cardinall argueth vpon his words that because S. Peter was the foundation of the Church he was therefore the head thereof in respect that the head in a body and the foundation in a buylding is all one M. Andrews answereth thus Vix illuc vsquequaque c. That is scantly true euery way for I do shew the Cardinall a buylding whereof there are twelue foundations but hardly can the Cardinall shew me one body wherof there are twelue heads So he very well to the purpose I assure you ouerthrowing himselfe with his owne answere for if that buylding which he sayth hath twelue foundations be the Church as indeed it is and so it appeareth by his quotation of the 24. Chapter of the Apocalyps then may the Cardinall very easily shew him also a body that hath twelue heads euen according to the doctrine and opinion of M. Andrews himselfe who can not deny but that the Church is a body I meane such a body as heere we treate of to wit not a naturall but a mysticall body neyther can he deny that the Apostles were heads of that body seeing all of them had as M. Andrews still telleth vs the charge and gouernement of the Church alike and therefore being twelue gouernours they were also twelue heads 20. Is it then so hard a matter for the Cardinall to shew him a body with twelue heads Nay which is more and toucheth more our case doth not M. Andrews thinke it possible that such a body may haue a hundreth heads and all of them subordinate to one head What will he say of the state of Venice Will he deny that the Senators who are many hundreths are heads thereof or that they are subordinat to one Doge or Duke So that it is to be vnderstood that in respect of the rest of the Common welth the Senators are all heads though in respect of the Doge they are but members subordinate to him And so in this spirituall buylding of the Church or mysticall body of Christ though the
power giuen him by the keyes and by his Pastorall commission which doe import authority power Iurisdiction and gouernment 20. Therefore M. Andrews denying S. Peters preeminēce in authority and gouernment denyeth the primacy that the Fathers teach and reduceth it only to a bare name without effect and so doth nothing els indeed but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea and if we well consider what he saith we shall find that he graunteth not so much as the very word or name of primacy or at least if he do he cōtradicteth himselfe for what are trow you those voculae which he excepteth frō his graunt when he sayth that there is nothing in these places of the Fathers which may not presently be graunted nisi voculam fortè habent c. except some litle word perhaps What litle word I say is that which cannot be graunted Is it not Primatus Caput and some such other words as signifie Primacy Yes truely for no other voculae or voces in those places of the Fathers do so much molest him Neuertheles he hath no sooner excepted them from his grant but he granteth thē presētly saying Non negamus Primatum Petri c. Wee doe not deny the primacy of Peter nor those names which signify Primacy which is a strange kinde of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he wrangleth with himselfe contradicting himselfe notably within the space of two lynes first signifying that those wordes and names are not to be graunted and presently after granting them as no way preiudiciall to his doctrine 21. And to the end wee may vnderstand that he granteth vs nothing but words and names he distinguisheth the same from the thing it selfe which he meaneth to deny and yet so handleth the matter that he doth still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reducing also his denyall to a meer quarrell of words deuised by himselfe and neyther vsed nor meant by vs eyther in wordes or sense for he calleth rem ipsam the thing it selfe which is signified by our primacy terrestrem monarchiam an earthly Monarchy and in another place he also tearmeth it temporalem Primatum a temporall Primacie and this forsooth is that which he denyeth heere and so denyeth no part of our doctrine but a foolish cōceipt of his owne for although we hold and teach that the gouernment of the Church is a Monarchie and that the power thereof doth extend it selfe to temporall thinges in such sort and for such reasons as I haue touched in the first chapter of this Adioynder and handled at large in my Supplemēt yet it neyther is nor can be called temporall or earthly otherwise then as S. Hilary calleth S. Peters iudiciall sentences terrena iudicia when he sayth terrena eius iudicia sunt caelestia his earthly Iudgements that is to say his sentences giuen on earth are heauenly 22. And so I say that albeit the gouernment of the Church may in this sense be called earthly to wit because it is exercised vpon earth yet it is not earthly or temporall but spirituall and heauenly both because it is a spirituall and heauenly power and also because it is guided and directed from heauen by the spirit of God And therefore whereas M. Andrews doth call or rather nickname the Popes Supremacy a Temporall Primacy and his Monarchy an earthly Monarchy because he punisheth his spirituall subiects in their temporall goodes or states he may by the same reason say that S. Peter and S. Pauls power was not spirituall but corporall and temporall because the one of them punished Ananias Sapphira with corporall death and the other strook Elimas the Magician blind deliuered the incestuous Corinthian to Sathan in interitum carnis to the destruction of the flesh and finally extended his power to secular and politicall matters commaunding the Corinthians to appoint temporall Iudges amongst themselues rather then to haue recourse to the tribunalls and Iudgements of Infidells yea M. Andrewes must acknowledge himselfe to be but a meere temporall yea a pecuniary Pastour because in his spirituall Courtes he vseth pecuniary mulcts and other temporall punishments as I haue shewed before in the first Chapter By all this it appeareth that M. Andrews denying not the spirituall but as he tearmeth it the earthly Monarchy and temporall primacy of Peter denyeth nothing els but his owne vayne and idle manner of speach expressing only a foolish fancie of his and a very Chymera that hath no being in rerum natura and so he doth still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is therefore truely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say a wrangler in the highest degree 23. And to the end this may yet appeare more manifestly I will examine his answers obiections touching another point in controuersy betwixt him and vs whereby we shall also see how notably he wrangleth cauilleth iuggleth and tryfleth and because the matter and his manner of answering will requyre some long discourse I will make it the subiect of the three next Chapters A FVRTHER MANIFESTATION OF MAISTER ANDREWS HIS Tryfling wrangling and fraudulent humour by his Answers to other places of the Fathers concerning Prayer to Saints which he deuydeth into three rankes whereof the two first are examined in this Chapter CHAP. VI. WHEREAS the Cardinall vndertaketh in his Apology to treate of prayer to Saynts because the Apology for the Oath condemneth the vse and practise of it in the Catholike Church M. Andrewes taketh exception to the Cardinall for changing the state of the question and sayth that he fighteth with his owne shaddow because he promiseth to treate de intercessione Sanctorum of the intercession of Saynts wheras that which the King condemneth saith M. Andrewes is the inuocation of Saynts wherin he also noteth this difference that the intercession of Saynts is their worke and the inuocation of them is ours and that the King denieth not that which the Cardinall proueth to wit that the Saynts do pray for vs but that they are to be inuocated or prayed vnto which saith M. Andrews the Cardinall proueth not 2. And he pleaseth himselfe so much with this deuise that he doth often inculcate the same vrging the Cardinall to proue that Saynts may be inuocated yea producing a text of Scripture to proue that none can be inuocated but God for terret nos Apostolus saith he vtcumque vos hominem habetis pro leui c. The Apostle doth terrify vs how light soeuer you make of the man when he asketh this question quomodo inuocabunt eum in quem non crediderunt how shall they inuocate him in whome they belieue not for you perhaps haue found a way how a man may inuocate those in whome you your selues say you do not belieue whereas he to wit the Apostle seemed then to haue found no way Thus saith M. Andrews wherein it is to be noted that one speciall reason why he rejecteth our
doctrine concerning prayer to Saynts is for that we do inuocate them because in his conceipt Inuocation is so proper to God alone that none can be inuocated but he and if he do not conceiue so why doth he insist so much vpon the word inuocate yea and seeke to terrify vs with his terret nōs Apostolus charging vs to make light of him because we inuocate them in whome we belieue not that is to say those whome we do not hold for God 3. But a man may wonder how this great Doctor could so grossely erre in a matter so euident as this seeing that the words of the Apostle immediatly going before do manifestly shew that he speaketh there of an inuocation due to God alone as to our chiefe Lord which kind of inuocation is not communicable to creatures and therefore the Apostle hauing sayd that God is Dominus omnium c. the Lord of all and rich or bountifull towards all that inuocate him he confirmeth it with the saying of the Prophet omnis qui inuocauerit nomen Domini saluus erit euery one that shall inuocate the name of our Lord shal be saued and then he addeth Quomodo inuocabunt eum in quem non crediderunt How shall they inuocate him in whome they haue not belieued as who would say how can they inuocate him of whome the Prophet speaketh him that is Dominus omnium the Lord of all except they belieue in him that is to say except they belieue him to be their Lord and Creatour Whereby he doth not signify that none but God can be inuocated in any sort but that we cannot inuocate God as our Lord and our God except we belieue him so to be 4. And this doth not contradict the Inuocation of Saynts in another respect to wit not as Gods but as the seruants of God whome he glorifyeth and honoreth and by whose intercession and mediation he bestoweth graces and fauours vpon men in which sense it may also be truly said that we cannot inuocate them or craue the helpe of their prayers except we do in some sort belieue in them I meane so far forth as we inuocate them that is to say except we belieue them to be Gods seruants and that we also haue confidence in them as in those who by Gods goodnes may helpe vs. So as a faith and beliefe in Saynts is also necessary for the inuocation of them though it is not the faith that we haue in God as in our chiefe Lord and Creatour and that we may haue faith in Saynts M. Andrewes may learne in the Apostle himselfe who commendeth the charity and faith which Philemon had in Domino Iesu in omnes Sanctos in our Lord Iesus and in all Saynts vpon which words S. Hierome in his Commentary vpon that Epistle discourseth amply prouing that we may be sayd to haue fayth in Saynts 5. Therefore M. Andrewes is to vnderstand for the full answere of his obiection that as there is an honour and glory which is due to God only as the Apostle witnesseth saying soli Deo honor gloria honour and glory be to God alone and another due to creatures whereof the same Apostle also sayth gloria honor pax omni operanti bonum glory honour and peace be to euery one that doth good so also there are two sorts of inuocation the one vsed to God alone whereof the Apostle speaketh in the text alledged by M. Andrewes and the other vsed not only to Angels and Saynts but also to men as we read in the holy Scriptures where Iacob blessing the children of Ioseph saith inuocetur nomen meum super pueros hos nomina Patrum meorum let my name and the names of my Fathers Abraham and Isaac be inuocated vpon those children Vpon which words S. Augustine noteth expressely that not only exaudition but also inuocation is sometymes applyed to men and not to God alone besides that I will make it euident heereafter that the ancient fathers do vse inuocation for prayer to Saynts 6. But if M. Andrewes will not belieue S. Augustine and the other ancient fathers nor yet the holy Scripture let him belieue himselfe who afterwards teacheth clearely inough that the word inuocation may be applyed to creatures for he saith that poscere à Sanctis auxilium propriè inuocare est to craue helpe of Saynts is properly to inuocate them so that according to this interpretation of his we do properly inuocate all those of whome we craue help and succour which we lawfully craue not only of God but also of those who by the ordinance of God may and do lawfully succour and helpe vs as Angels Saynts and men do whereupon it followeth that we may lawfully demaund their helpe and consequently inuocate them according to M. Andrews his owne interpretation whereby it appeareth that he hath not only very idly laboured to fright vs with his terrible text taken out of the Apostle but also fondly contradicted himselfe 7. No lesse vayne and idle is the exceptiō which he taketh against the Cardinall for vndertaking to proue the intercession of Saynts insteed of the inuocation of Saynts for how can M. Andrewes be ignorant that the Cardinall meaneth to proue the Catholike doctrine concerning prayer to Saynts or the inuocatiō of Saints albeit he tearme it the intercession of Saints For whereas there are in this question two poynts specially controuersed the one whether we may pray to Saynts and the other whether they doe pray for vs which two haue a connexion and dependance one of another it sufficeth that the Cardinall named one of them meaning vnder the tytle thereof to proue the Catholyke doctrine concerning them both as indeed he doth by the places of the Fathers which he alledgeth prouing by some of them that the Saynts pray for vs succour and helpe vs and by others that we may pray to them yea and that we doe receiue helpe and succour by them wherby the Cardinall doth sufficiently discharge his promise yea and proueth that which M. Andrewes exacteth of him to wit the inuocation of Saynts so that M. Andrewes sheweth himselfe still to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a notable wrangler contending about woords when neuertheles he vnderstandeth cleerly the Cardinalls sense and meaning therein 8. And now to shew that the Cardinall euidētly proueth the inuocation of Saynts I will examin M. Andrews his answeres to the places alledged by the Cardinall out of the Fathers wherby also his cauilling wrangling fraudulēt humour shall euidently appeare He deuideth the Fathers which the Cardinall produceth into 3. rankes The first sayth he is of those qui verè Patres sed non verè citantur are truly Fathers but not truly cyted The second of those qui verè citantur sed fidei suspectae which are truly cyted but of no sound credit And the third of those qui veri verè