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
nothing is to be belieued or practiced in the Church whereof there is no cōmandment or example in Scripture which you haue heard already confuted as well by the authority of Scripture and Fathers as also by our aduersaryes owne doctrine approuing the practice of things not cōmanded any where in Scripture as the baptisme of infants the vse of the signe of the Crosse Godfathers and Godmothers in baptisme whereto I may add the tradition of keeping Sunday holy day in memory of the Resurrection of our Sauiour with abstinence from seruile works Also the obseruation of Easter Pentecost and such feasts and diuers other things consisting in matters of practice 56. If then they approue and practice these things although they be not commanded or ordeyned in Scripture what reason haue they to reiect prayer to Saynts because there is no commandement or example of it in Scripture when neuertheles it is most conforme thereto and deduced from it as I haue partly shewed already by an inafallible rule of S. Augustine seeing it is approued by that Church which the Scripture commandeth vs to heare belieue and obay besydes that it being euident in Scripture that Charity which moueth and obligeth men to pray one for another in this lyfe nunquam excidit as the Apostle teacheth neuer decayeth but is more perfect in the next lyfe it followeth not only that the Saynts do pray for vs which M. Andrews granteth but also that we may craue their prayers for it were most absurd to thinke that we may not request them to do that which is most correspondent to their Charity and they will most willingly performe 57. Furthermore seeing that the Scripture doth teach vs to craue the prayers and help of our brethren liuing there can be no reason imagined why we should not also do the same when they are glorifyed in heauen but eyther because they do not heare or vnderstand our prayers or because they are not willing or not able to helpe vs but that they heare vs I haue sufficiently proued already and haue also answered M. Andrews his cauils concerning the same and he neyther denyeth nor seemeth to doubt eyther that they are willing to succour vs considering the perfection of their Charity or yet that they are able to do it seeing he granteth they do pray for vs if he should deny it or that their prayers may auayle vs as Vigilantius his followers did in tymes past and Zuinglius with other sectaries haue done in these our dayes he might easily be conuinced by the holy Scriptures which witnesse that God granteth the petitions of his seruants euen when they are heere subiect to sinne and misery and hath mercy on sinners for the merits of the iust as well dead as liuing and therefore the Prophet prayed ne auferas misericordiam tuam c. do not take away thy mercy from vs O Lord for thy beloued Abraham and thy seruant Isaac and thy holy Israell And we read in the booke of Kings that for Dauids sake God did mitigate his wrath towards Salomon and saued also the Kingdome of Iuda from destruction in the reygne of Ioram and Ezechias 58. In lyke manner God pardoned Iobs friends for his sake and directed them vnto him to craue his prayers for them Also for the prayers of Moyses he had mercy on the people and the lyke we read in the new testament Whereupon S. Hierome sayd to Vigilantius thus Si Apostoli Martyres c. If the Apostles and Martyrs beeing heere in body could pray for others whiles they ought to be carefull for themselues how much more may they do it after their crounes victoryes and tryumphs one Moyses obtayned of God pardon for six hundred thousand armed men and Steuen the follower of his Lord and first Martyr in Christ craued pardon for his persecutours and shall they now be able to doe lesse when they are with Christ Paul the Apostle sayth that 276. mens liues were giuen him in the ship and therefore now when he is dissolued and with Christ will he hold his peace and shall he not be able so much as to open his mouth for those which haue belieued by his preaching throughout the world and shall Vigilantius a liuing dog be better then a dead lyon Thus argueth S. Hierome by an argument a fortiori grounded on the Scripture to shew the extreame absurdity of Vigilantius the heretike who denyed that the Saynts in heauen do pray for vs and are able to helpe vs. 59. And this ability of Saynts to helpe men is to be ascribed not only to the effect of their prayers but also to their power authority and dignity seeing that Christ who is the King of Kings Lord of Lords hath all power in heauen and earth giuen him by his Father doth in the Apocalips promise to his Saynts a communication and participation of his owne Kingdome dominion and power ouer men qui vicerit sayth he dabo sedere mecum c. he that shall ouercome I will giue vnto him to sit with me in my throne as I also haue ouercome and sitten with my father in his throne dabo ei potestatem super gentes c. I will giue him power ouer nations and he shall rule them c. and according to this promise of our Sauiour the Saynts also sayd to him in the Apocalips Redimisti nos Deo in sanguine tuo c. thou hast redeemed vs to God in thy blood and hast made vs to our God a Kingdome and Priests and we shall reygne vpon the earth and this may be confirmed out of the booke of wisdome which sayth that the iust when they shal be glorified iudicabunt Nationes dominabuntur populis c. shall iudge Nations and shall haue dominion ouer people and in like manner the Psalmist saith speaking of the glory of Gods Saynts exultabunt Sancti in gloria c. the Saynts shall exult and reioyce in glory c. they shall haue two edged swoords in their hands to take reuenge vpon nations and to chastise people to tye their Kings in fetters and their noble men in iron manicles c. Thus saith the royall Prophet 60. And albeit this shal be specially and most manifestly fulfilled at the day of Iudgement when the Saynts of God shall assist our Sauiour in the Iudgment and condemnation of the wicked yet it cannot be denyed but that also in the meane tyme it is verifyed in the power and dominion that God imparteth to his Saynts giuing them the protection of Cittyes Countryes and men as it appeareth euidently by innumerable examples which might be alledged of Kingdomes and Cytties defended Gods seruants relieued and his enemies destroyed by them for which cause the ancient Fathers do worthily call them the keepers of human kind gouernours of
him to the Church as from the head to the body 54. Now then this being most euident how doth M. Andrewes his doctrine agree with this seeing he teacheth that the King is no otherwise ouer the Church that is to say he hath no power or authority ouer it but as a foster-father and a tutorâ— vt eam nutriat et defeÌ„dat that he may nourish and defend it which as I haue said all Catholike Princes do and Pagan Princes may do without any spirituall power at all So that you see M. Andrewes depriueth his Maiesty of all the spirituall authority and iurisdiction which the Parliament hath giuen him And the like he doth also in other places where he ouerthroweth the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy in other manner for wheras the Cardinall obiecteth Caluins doctrine that no man ought to be called Head of the Church M. Andrews saith that Caluin indeed did not like it quo sâ—nsu Papa c. in the sense that the Pope is called the Ministeriall head but I know saith he it would not dislike Caluin in the sense that Saul was head of the Tribes of Israel and so also the head of the Tribe of Leui so he Giuing to vnderstand that Kings are heades of the Church in no other sense then as Saul was head of the Tribe of Leui. 55. Whereupon iâ— followeth that Kings are neither heads of the Church nor yet haue any authoritie at all ouer it for that Saul had none ouer the tribe of Leui which as I haue shewed in the first Chapter of this adioynder and much more amply in my supplement was by the expresse commaundement of God exempted from the temporall and politicall state in such sort that the Lâ—uits were not somuch as to be numbred amongst the people being Gods owne portion part and inheritance and giuen by him for a guift saith the Scripture to Aaron and his children so as the temporall Magistrate had nothing to doe with them And although it should be graunted that Saul was head of the Tribe of Leui as well as of the rest it would not follow that he was their spirituall head it being manifest that all the spirituall authority and iurisdiction in the lawe of Moyses resyded in the Preists and especially in the high Priest as I haue proued at large in my supplement where I haue also shewed that King Saul had no lawfull power and authority either spirituall or temporall ouer the person of the high Priest as it appeared in that his owne naturall subiects who knew the law of God refused to obey him when he commaunded them to kill Achimelech the high Priest which therefore he caused to be done by Doeg the Idumean who being a stranger and not knowing the law of God or contemning it and representing as S. Augustine testifieth the Earthly Kingdome and societie of wicked men executed his tyranicall and sacrilegious commaundement 56. Therefore whereas M. Andrewes signifieth that our Kings are Heades of the Church of God in England as Saul was head of the tribe of Leui he alloweth them no authority at all ouer the Church neither spirituall nor temporall for that as I haue sayd the Leuiticall tribe was wholy exempt from the temporall state and subiect only to the high Preist and albeit Saul was truly head of all the other tribes yet he was only their temporall head and had no other but temporall power ouer them And therefore M. Andrewes doth also by this example depriue his Maiestie if not of all authority at least of all the spirituall power and iurisdiction which our Parliaments haue graunted him 57. To this may be added also his doctrine in his Tortura Torti where he saith facimusâ— we doe not graunt the power of censure to the Prince whereby he taketh from the King all that ample authority aboue meÌ„tioned which is aÌ„nexed to the Crowne by the statutes aforesayd to wit all such IurisdictioÌ„s priuiledges superiorityes and preheminences spirituall Ecclesiasticall as by any Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power hath heretofore byn or may lawfully be exercised or vsed for the visitation of Ecclesiasticall persons the reformation and correction of errors heresies and abuses c. In which wordes being the wordes of the Statute no man can deny but that all manner of Censures are coÌ„preheÌ„dedâ— without the which heresies abuses can neuer be sufficieÌ„tly corrected reformed therfore if the Prince thought good to excoÌ„municate any obstinat heretike he might according to this Statute do it as well or better then any Bishop in his Realme seeing that no Bishop can doe it otherwise then by the authority and iurisdiction which he hath from the Prince as I haue declared before out of the Statuts neither could the Prince giue it to any other if he had it not truly and properly in himselfe in whose person the same must needes principally reside seeing that by the expresse words of the Statute it is vnited and annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of England for what right Power of Iurisdiction soeuer is in the Crowne the same must needes be vnderstood to be principally and most properly in the Prince 58. Whereby it is manifest that the Kinges of England may according to this Statute not only giue all manner of Iurisdiction wherein all kind of Censures are included but also exercise the same themselues if it please them as in lyke case they might yf they thought it conuenient do and exercise the acts of all the ciuill offices in the common wealth as well as the officers themselues who haue their Power and Iurisdiction from them as I haue signified more at large in my Supplement vpon the lyke occasion ministred by M. Barlow and therefore M. Andrewes denying the Power of Censures to the King denyeth him the Royall prerogatiue and supreme spirituall authority wherewith our Parliaments haue indued him whereupon it followeth directly that he is neither good subiect nor good English Protestant For seeing he abridgeth his Maiesties authority denying his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy in the sense and maÌ„ner that our late Parliaments haue ordayned the same he caÌ„not be accounted a good subiect 59. And if he say that by this argument I confesse that we our selues are no good Subiects because we deny the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy he is to vnderstand that the case betwixt him and vs is farre different for we deny it only of meere conscience because we hold our selues bound to belieue as a matter of faith that S. Peter and his successors are supreme heades of the Church being a doctrine deduced from our Sauiours expresse words and commission giuen to S. Peter acknowledged by the vniforme consent of the ancient Fathers and confirmed by the continuall practise of the Church euen from S. Peters time to these our daies as I haue proued sufficiently throughout this Treatise in which respect we haue great reason to say with the Apostles
the Fathers then in matters necessary to saluation yet for as much as the question concerning Prayer to Saynts which the Cardinall vndertook to handle is only whether the primitiue Church held it to be superstitious as his Maiesty affirmeth it to be the Cardinall needed not to debate and discusse whether it be of necessity to saluation and therefore he forebare to speake thereof as needles and impertinent to the question in hand neuertheles this occasion being now offered I cannot omit to say that if M. Andrwees do speake heere not of the act or practise of praying to Saynts but of the beliefe of the doctrine demanding whether it be of necessity to saluation to belieue that prayer to Saints is lawfull I must needes tell him that it is so necessary that if he or any man els do obstinatly deny and impugne it he is an heretike and consequently cannot be saued and the reason is because he impugneth the beliefe and practice of the vniuersall Catholike Church which our Sauiour hath commaunded vs to heare and obey vnder payne to be held as Ethnicks and Publicans 56. Besides that considering the inestimable benefits that we may receiue both spiritually and temporally by prayers to Saynts whereof the whole Church hath had sufficient and publyke experience in all ages as it is most euideÌ„t by the testimonyes of these fathers for the tymes when they liued it cannot be denyed but that to omit the practice of it were extreme folly and to contemne it were impiety So as M. Andrews may now choose whether he will belieue and practise this doctrine with the whole Catholyke Church or els shew himselfe a foole in neglecting it impyous in contemning it or an heretyke in condemning and impugning it And thus much for his censure vpon the place of S. Chrysostome 57. The next place which he censureth is of Saynt Maximus Bishop of Turin alledged by the Cardinall thus S. Maximus in sermone c. S. Maximus in his sermon made in the prayse of S. Agnes sayth O spleÌ„dida virgo c. O worthy Virgin c. we beseech thee with as feruent prayers as we may that thou vouchsafe to remember vs. To this M. Andrewes answereth that the homilyes of Maximus and almost all the rest which goe vnder the tytle of Sermones de tempore and are of Saynts are not very much to be esteemed that this very homily which the Cardinall cyteth as of Maximus was a long tyme held to be of Ambrose and that now we haue made it to be the homily of Maximus that we are wont to attribute these homilyes sometymes to one and sometymes to another as it pleaseth vs to make tytles and finally that nec fides certa vbi author incertus there is no sure credit to be giuen to a worke wherof the author is vncertayne So he But how much this his censure is to be esteemed you may partly ghesse by his lyke censure vpon an homily of S. Augustine de tempore whereof I treated amply in the 4. Chapter and touched also againe in the last Chapter by occasion of an homily of S. Maximus made in the prayse of the Apostles which I proued to be his as also that he wâ—ote diuers other homilyes as well de tempore as of particuler Saynts whereto I remit thee good Reader to auoyd a needles repetition thereof 58. And whereas M. Andrewes sayth heere that this homily in the prayse of S. Agnes was a long tyme held for an homily of S. Ambrose he might haue done well to haue told vs where he findeth the same True it is that S. Ambrose in his booke de Virginibus wryteth a notable encomium or prayse of S. Agnes and in his Epistles he wrote an elegant discourse of her life martyrdome and miracles but that he was euer thought to be author of this homily it is but a conceipt or inuention of M. Andrews for ought I haue yet seene and put the case that that there hath byn some doubt or question whether of them was the author of it will he conclude as heere he doth that therefore there is no credit to be giuen vnto it If he will iustify that consequence he must reiect diuers parts of the holy Scripture which neuerthelesse I hope he will acknowledge to be of sound credit as in the old Testament the booke of the Iudges Ruth and Iob of which the author is eyther wholy vnknowne or vncertayne and to omit other in the new Testament there is euen at this day amongst the sectaryes as there was also in the primitiue Church great doubt who was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews some ascrybing it as S. Hierome testifyeth to S. Clement who was after Pope some to S. Barnabas and others to S. Luke and some as Sixtus Senensis witnesseth to Tertullian besids that Luther the Magdeburgenses Kemnitius and Brentius with dyuers other Ghospellers do deny it to be S. Paules or any of the Apostles or yet Canonicall Scripture And albeit Caluin and diuers of his followers admit it for Scripture yet they doubt greatly who was the author of it 59. So as if M. Andrewes will stand to his owne inference he must needs conclude that the Epistle to the Hebrews is of no sound credit which I thinke he will be loath to say seeing that all the English Clergy doth at this preseÌ„t acknowledge it for Canonical Scripture Besides that although it should be true which he sayth to wit that it hath byn doubted whether S. Ambrose or S. Maximus were author of that homily yet that can be no sufficient reason to reiect the doctrine of it but rather an argument to fortify and approue it as both very sound and very acient seeing that it hath byn alwayes ascrybed to one of those two ancient learned and holy Fathers and therefore to conclude you see that M. Andrews hath sayd nothing to the purpose against this testimony produced by the Cardinall out of S. Maximus 60. There followeth another out of S. Gregory Nazianzen his oration in the prayse of S. Cyprian to whome he prayeth thus Tu è supernis nos respice populum hunc sanctum dirige Behold vs from aboue and direct this holy people And agayne in the same Oration the same Father testifyeth that a holy Virgin called Iustina did pray vnto the Virgin Mary to deliuer her from danger To these two poynts M. Andrews answereth seuerally to the first he sayth that the oration is not liquidae fideâ— of cleare credit and his reason is because it is vncertayne who that Cyprian was of whome the oratioÌ„ was made as whether he was Cyprian Bishop of Carthage or another Cyprian of Antioch and then he concludeth Ita fluctuat res tota ita perplexa omnia So vncertayne is the whole matter so perplexe or doubtfull are all things in that oration So he Wherein you see
our actions the Capteyns Princes propugnators patrons and protectors of men as I haue more particulerly declared before in this Chapter and therefore also all Christian Countryes and Cittyes are accustomed to haue some Saynt or other for their particular patron by whose helpe they haue often receiued reliefe in their necessityes and victory agaynst their enemyes wherof diuers notable examples testified by very graue authours may be seene in a treatise of Policy and Religion published a few yeares a goe wherto I remit my Reader for breuityes sake and will now inferre vpon these premisses that seeing the glorified Saynts of God do not only vnderstād know our prayers but also are most willing able to helpe vs as S. Iohn testifyeth in the Apocalips do offer vp our prayers to God yea and as M. Andrews himselfe granteth do pray for vs and finally seeing that experience also teacheth that they do diuers wayes assist relieue vs which I haue euidently proued by the testimony of the ancient Fathers it were most absurd to think that the holy Scriptures should allow vs to craue the prayers and helpe of men and disallow prayers to Saynts therfore I conclude that for as much as prayer to Saynts is most consonant both to Scripture and reason and most profitable and beneficiall to men and was admitted practised by all the primitue Church and ratified and approued by the vniforme consent of the ancient Fathers as I haue shewed sufficiently before it cannot be reiected by M. Andrews and his fellowes though there should be no cōmandment nor example of it in Scripture seeing they professe to admit without a precept such things as are indifferent when they are conforme to the holy Scriptures the practise of the primitiue Church and iudgement of all the ancient Fathers 61. But what starting hole trow you will M. Andrews find heere or what exceptions will he take to this my conclusion mary forsooth he will cauill at least about the authority of the Fathers alledged by the Cardinall against whome he taketh two mayne exceptions the one concerning the age and tyme when they lyued and the other touching their vniforme consent of the former he sayth that they were all of them after 300. yeares to wit in the 4. age whereas in quadringentis annis sayth he rex expectat the King expecteth the resolution of the Fathers of 400. yeares as who would say that the Cardinall hath proued nothing to the purpose at least to his Maiesties intention because he hath not alledged any of the Fathers of the first 3. hundred yeares wherein no doubt he doth his Maiesty great wrong Fathering his owne foolish and absurd conceipt vpon his Maiesty whose great wisdome being considered it cannot be imagined that in admitting the Fathers of the first 500. yeares for so he doth in the English Apology his meaning was to reiect their vniforme consent in any one of those centuries especially seeing that his Maiesty professeth in the same place to reuerence the ancient Fathers more then euer the Iesuits did which truly he should not do if his meaning were such as M. Andrews maketh it heere 62. For I am well assured that the Iesuits neuer tooke any exception agaynst all the Fathers of any one age from Christs tyme to this and much lesse to those of the 4. and 5. age who were of such eminent learning and sanctity that their vniforme consent concerning any question of religion must needs be held for an euident testimony of the truth seeing that God of his infinit mercy did then propagate his Church and fayth ouer the world and establish the same vnder Christian Emperours to wit Constantin the Great and his successors by meanes whereof the Church was euery where prouided and furnished with notable Pastours who being freed from the former persecutions had opportunity to write those ample volumes and worthy monuments which by Gods great prouidence they left to their posterity for the confirmation of the Christian Catholyke fayth whereas in the former ages I meane the first 3. Centenaryes the persecution was so great vnder the pagan Emperours that neyther the Christian faith could so much extend it selfe as it did in the 4. and 5. age Neyther could there be so many able men to write neyther those that were could haue such opportunity to do it as the others had in the peace and tranquility of the Church 63. And this is euident by the workes of the one and the other seeing that in the first 300. yeares there were not past 7. or 8. Fathers at most that wrote at least whose bookes we now haue and of those also the most wrote very little in so much that the workes of some one of the Fathers of the 4. and 5. age do in volume and quantity exceed all the workes that are now extant of all the Fathers of the 3. former ages and therefore it cannot be expected that they should treate or touch all matters which are now in controuersy especially such as were not then any way called in question Besides that in the 4. and 5. age were held the 4. first Generall Councells which not only his Maiesty but also M. Andrews himselfe admitteth In which respect the Fathers of that tyme must needs be taken for assured and vncontrollable witnesses of the truth for those Councells which were no other but assemblyes of the Fathers then liuing could not be of such vndoubted authority as they are if the Fathers of those ages had vniformely taught or belieued any erroneous doctrine for if they were all deceiued in one point they might also be deceiued and erre in the rest and so should the whole Church wherof they were the Pastors Doctors be drawne into errour by them which is not possible seeing that Christ hath not only promised his owne assistance to his Church for euer and that hell gates shall not preuayle against it but also hath placed in it Pastors and Doctors saith the Apostle to the consummation of the Saynts vnto the worke of the ministery vntill we meete all in the vnity of faith vt iam non simus paruuli fluctuantes c. to the end we now be not wauering Children carryed away with euery blast of doctrine so saith the Apostle 64. Whereby it is euident that God of his singular prouidence hath giuen Doctors and Pastors to the Church yea and ordayned that they shall remayne there vnto the worlds end to preserue the same from errour whereupon it followeth that all the Doctors and Pastors of the Church cannot erre at any tyme for if they could then were not the remedy effectuall and certayne which God hath ordayned in his Church to preserue it from errour by them therefore if they haue all erred in the 4. age or any other then hath the prouidence ordinance yea and the promise of God fayled which is impossible as I
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
liberality of God is not to haue place in his last Iudgement as it should haue if Caluins doctrine were true but also his Iusticeâ— And therefore vpon this it followeth directly as the Cardinall argueth very well that whosoeuer belieueth Caluins doctrine in this behalfe doth not belieue the Article of the Creed concerning Gods Iudgement and retribution of workes 48. But now let vs se how M. Andrews vnderstandeth and glosseth the Cardinalls text and to the end thou mayst good Reader heare him in his right vaine how he bâ—stirreth himselfe and flourisheth when he hath once chaunged the state of the question and brought it to his purpose I will imparte vnto thee a good part of his discourse and set downe also as much of the Cardinalls text in the margent as M. Andrewes doth to the end thou mayst the better iudge of the whole matter Thus then he sayth Symbolum quoque tertium ab Athanasio conscriptum recipimus integrè c. We receiue also wholy the third Creed written by Athanasius There was no need to make mention of the last iudgement out of that seeing it is expressed both by the Apostolicall and also in the Nycen Creed It is said there that we are to yield account of our deedes but not such an account as it seemeth heere the Cardinall will make who I think will not appeare in the last Iudggement with this his Theology nor say there behould the merits of my workes behould the qualitie of my deedes for the which I require that lyfe euerlasting be giuen me I doe not desire here a mercifull Father but I will haue a iust iudge away with the grace of Faith or of the righteousnes of Christ mercifully imputed vnto me I will haue my deedes examined for works haue proceeded from me which doe not deserue reproach as being such as are without fault and haue nothing that needes to be couered with mercy for if it were so I should haue no need of the Iustice of a Iudge but of the mercie of a Father or of the liberality of a Prince whereof I haue no need It is meruaile that the Cardinal did not add for I am not as all other men as also these innouatours are who haue need of thy mercy to the end that their euill deedes be not ymputed vnto theÌ„ reputed as good deedes for the righteousnes of Christ. But if this were so theÌ„ would CoÌ„stantine say to the Cardinall set vp a ladder clime vp to heaueÌ„ alon as he sayd once to Acetius the NouatiaÌ„ heretick 49. Neuerthelesse a man may well maruaille and demaund whether the Cardinall in good earnest be so affected and so think of himselfe as heere he seemes to doe to wit that he shall haue no need of the mercy of a Father nor of the liberality of a Prince that he feareth not the Iustice of the Iudge that he challengeth to himselfe lyfe euerlasting for the quality of his deedes and merits of his workes that he renounceth the Grace Fayth and Righteousnes of Christ that he will appeare in IudgemeÌ„t without these and there make ostentation of his workes as being full pure and perfect without all kind of filth or vice Thus farre M. Andrewes 50. And dost thou not good Reader see how he descanteth heere vpon a false burthen of his owne amplifying exaggerating his owne malicious conceit and misconstruction of the Cardinalls wordes as though the same were his true sense and meaning dost thou not see I say how he pleaseth himselfe in dilating and amplifying his slanderous fiction glorying and triumphing in his owne malice In so much that I may well say vnto him with the psalmist Quid gloriaris in malitia qui potens es in iniquitate For I appeale to any indifferent man whether any such thing as heere maliciously he inferreth can be iustly gathered on the Cardinalls wordes who as I haue said before meaning to confute Caluins pernicious doctrine which draweth men to a most dangerous presumption of Gods mercy and neglect of his iustice yea and to a careles contempt of all good workes teaching all to be sinfull and damnable and no other meanes of saluation but by only faith and the imputation of Christs Iustice the Cardinall I say impugning this as well by expresse Scripture as by the Article of the Creed doth vrge the Iustice of our iust Iudge as well in the reward of vertue and good workes as in the punishment of vice sinne not excluding his mercy from his Iustice which can neuer be separated but inculcating the consideration of his exact Iudgment in the examination punishment and reward of mens deedes good and bad according to their merits which directly ouerthroweth Caluins doctrine of iustification by only fayth and of the impurity of good workes 51. And therefore for as much as M. Andrews knew very well that he could not so easily delude his Reader with the flourish of his false glosse if he should lay downe the doctrine and words of Caluin which the Cardinall alledgeth and confuteth he resolued to leaue them quite out with a great parte also of the Cardinalls text concerning the same Perhaps he would haue his Reader to imagine that he lackt place and paper but if you consider the length of his discourse which he continueth for almost three whole pages you will easily see that he wanteth neyther paper nor roome in his margent to set downe all the Cardinalls text if he had thought it would haue bene for his purpose 52. But truely that which seemeth to me most strange in his extrauagant discourse is how he could imagine that the Cardinall taketh vpon him to be iudge of his owne actions whose arguments tend to proue that God only is to examine and iudg all mens workes and not that euery man or yet any man shall be able to iudg and determine of the quality of his owne deedes for so should man be his owne Iudg the iugdement of God be no lesse superfluous needles then it should be if Caluins doctrin which the Cardinall impugneth were true Besides that the Cardinall neyther saith nor so much as insinuateth that we shall haue no need in iudgement of the mercy of a Father or the liberalitie of a Prince and much lesse that he renounceth the mercy grace faith and the Righteousnes of Christ as M. Andrews doth calumniate and belie him For the Cardinall knoweth and acknowledgeth as all Catholikes do that without the mercy grace faith and Righteousnes of Christ there can be noe iustificatioÌ„ I meane not the Righteousâ—es of Christ imputed to vs but that which he of his infinit mercy and bounty giueth vs maketh ours non qua iustus est Deus saith S. Augustine sed quam dat homini Deus c. not that Iustice by the which God is iust but that which he giues to man that man may be iust by God and therefore that which the Cardinall saith is only this that
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