Church subiect to the Church submit their Scepters to the Church and throw downe their Crownes before the Church and that as Beza testifieth they cannot be exempted from this diuine domination of the presbitery whereupon I gather two things the one that the Supremacy which as M. Andrews saith the Puritans do acknowledg in the King is to be vnderstood only in temporall matters wherein they doe indeed admit him to be theyr supreme head and Gouernour though as you see in M. Rogers they hold him in spirituall matters to be wholly subiect to the Presbitery The other is that all the reformed Churches are also of the same mynd seeing that they professe the same doctrine concerning the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy that the Puritans doe as M. Andrews himselfe confesseth◠whereupon it also followeth that the Kings Maiestie hath no spirituall power or authority at all ouer the English Church seeing that by M. Andrewes his owne confessiō he hath no other power but that which the Puritans and the reformed Churches doe admit in their temporall Princes 66. Besides that albeit we should grant that the Puritans and reformed Churches do allow the tēporall Magistrat to haue some power and authority in Ecclesiasticall matters yet it is euident that they do not allow them that spirituall Iurisdiction and authority which our Parliaments haue granted to our Kinges to wit that all the spirituall power of the Church shall reside principally in them and is to be deduced from them to the Church as from the head to the body that they may giue Dispensations Licences and Faculties in matters of Conscience make Ecclesiasticall Lawes giue Commissions to consecrate Bishops to excōmunicat interdict suspend cēsure to visit correct all Ecclesiasticall Persons and to reforme all heresyes and abuses this I say being a meere spirituall power and exercised by our Kings in England according to the grant of the Parliament is not admitted and much lesse practized in any of the reformed Churches as all those know who know any thing of their doctrine and practise 67. Therfore wheras M. Andrews saith that aswell the reformed Churches as the Puritans do grant the self same authority to the temporall Prince which our King hath and exerciseth in England he sheweth euidently that in his opinion his Maiesty hath no such spirituall iurisdiction and authority as hath bin granted him by our Parliament for that as I haue said the Puritans reformed Churches whose doctrine in this point he approueth do not acknowledg any such spirituall authority in temporall Princes but only a temporall power and obligation to mayntayne and defend the Church so farre forth as the same hath need of externall and humane helpe assistance or defēce which is indeed the self same all that M. Andrewes as you haue heard before alloweth to the Kings Maiesty when he saith that he is no otherwise ouer the Church but as a foster-father a tutor to nourish and defend it and that the question of the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy concerneth only the externall gouernment of the Church so farre forth as it requireth and admitteth humane help and authority So that you see M. Andrews is not in this point an English Protestant but rather a flat Puritan 68. And if this be now the common opinion of the Protestants in England as M. Andrewes would haue vs to suppose we may more truly say of them then he said of the Puritans dies diem docuit ex eo facti aequiores recognouerunt errorem suum time hath taught them more wit and so now they haue recanted their errour And no meruaile seing that their former doctrine is of it selfe so absurd hath bin so canuassed battered by Catholicks that they are worthely ashamed of it especially such of thē as haue any learning or shame at all for some no doubt there are of the ministry that will not stick to defend it or any thing els how absurd soeuer it be amongst whom M. Barlow may go for one who in his Preambler Epistle to the ministers of Scotlād which I haue mentioned before vpon another occasion is not ashamed to make the Pagan and Infidell Emperours supreme heades of the Church in the time of the Apostles saying that S. Paul appealed to Caesars iudgment as the supreme wheras Papists and Puritans will haue the King to be but an honorable member not a chief gouernour in the Churches of his dominions So he 69. Wherein two things are to be noted the one that he doth ridiculously make the Pagan Emperours the chief members that is to say the heads or gouernours of the Church who neuertheles being Idolatours could not be so much as the meanest members thereof The other that he seemeth to make the Kings Maiesty no other wise chief gouernour in the Church then they were albeit I think he will not be so absurd as to acknowledge any spirituall authority in thē seing they were altogeather vncapable therof being as I haue sayd Idolatours enemies and violent persecutors of the Church and faith of Christ. So as herby it appeareth that he also concurreth with M. Andrews to depriue his Maiesty of all the spirituall iurisdiction and authority which the Parliaments haue grāted to our Kings and that consequently they are both of them in one predicament of disloyalty towards his Maiesty and defection from the wonted Protestātisme of England in the point of the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy 70. Now then to conclude concerning them both all the premises thou hast seene good Reader how well these two Prelats of the English Church do simbolize agree not only in seeking to delude their Readers with dyuers lyes fraudulent shifts and deuises but also in betraying their owne cause and fortifying ours which is so euident in them both that they may well be accounted the most harmles or rather the most propitious enemies that euer the Catholikes had and therfore may in some sort be compared to the Scorpion which being a most venemous Serpent yieldeth a sufficient remedy against his owne poison and so do they for albeit they are replenished with venom and malignity yea and sting somtimes most maliciously not with solid arguments but with spitefull gibes and contumelious iests yet their malice doth commonly carry with it the remedy of it selfe being for the most part so manifest and accompanyed with such apparant falshood and euident folly that no man of learning and consideration can receiue any harme thereby but rather great benefit by the discouery of their imbecility the weakenes of their cause◠Seing they cannot otherwyse defend it then by such contumelious and malicious proceedings 71. Insomuch that the learned strangers who read M. Andrewes his booke in latin and do consider withall the speciall choyce that the English Clergy hath made of him to mayntayne the combat against Cardinall Bellarmine in the eye and view of the Christian world do
deny this seeing that they do admit diuers traditions whereof there is neyther precept nor example in the Scripture as the baptisme of infants who do not actually belieue for although the same be very consonant to Scripture as also is prayer to Saynts and all other things which are practiced in the Catholike Church yet the vse and practice thereof is grounded vpon tradition and not vpon the Scriptures as Origen testifyeth saying Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditioneÌ„ accepit c. The Church receiued a tradition from the Apostles to giue baptisme to litle children So he And S. Augustin also to the same purpose saith more plainely thus Consuetudo mâ—tris Ecclesiae in baptizandis paruulis c. the custome of our Mother the Church in baptizing infants is not to be contemned or reputed as superfluous neyther were it to be belieued at all if it were not an Apostolicall tradition So he who also acknowledgeth the same in another place and saith further that if any man do demaund diuine authority for it quamquam quod vniuersa tenet Ecclesia c. albeit that which the vniuersall Church holdeth and hath not byn ordayned by Councells but hath alwayes been reteyned is most rightly belieued to haue byn deliuered by no other but by Apostolicall authority neuertheles we may truly coniecture by Circumcision in the old law what force the Sacrament of Baptisme hath in Infants Thus saith S. Augustine who to answere those that do demand diuine authority for the custome of the Church in baptizing Infants doth not proue or confirme it by any precept or example out of Scripture but only by a probable coniecture drawn from the figure of it in the old law relying principally vpon the tradition of the Church 33. But what need I seeke any other testimony for this matter seeing that Tho. Rogers in the 39. articles agreed vpon by the pretended Bishops and Clergy of England and analyzed into propositions glossed and set forth by him with their publyke approbation doth acknowledge that the baptisme of yong children is in any wyse to be retayned in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ although sayth he we be not commanded by expresse termes to baptize them So he whereupon it directly followeth that M. Andrews hath ouerlashed greatly in saying id tantùm audemus facere de quo praeceptum habemus we dare doe that only whereof we haue a precept Also what precept or example haue M. Andrews and his fellowes in Scripture for the vse of Godfathers and Godmothers and of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme allowed as well by their practice as by the late Queenes Iniunctions yea and by the Ecclesiasticall Canons of the Bishops and Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury made in their Synod held at London with his Maiestyes lycence in the yeare 1603. and published the yeare following by his Maiestyes authority vnder the great Seale of England in which Canons they do not only approue the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme but also professe to follow therein the primitiue Apostolicall Churches the true rules of doctrine coÌ„cerning things indifferent which are consonant to the word of God and the iudgement of all the ancient Fathers so that by their owne confession they retayne the vse of it without eyther precept or example in holy Scripture 34. And now because I haue had this occasion to speake of this constitution I can not omit to aduertise thee good Reader of a notable peece of trumpery and cosenage vsed by that graue Synod in this very Canon whereof we now speake wherein giuing the reason why they retayne the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme they say they do it because the same hath byn euer accompanyed among them with sufficient cautions exceptions agaynst all popish superstition and errour and forsooth that the world may vnderstand from what popish errour they haue freed the same they signify that the Church of England since the abolishing of Popery hath euer held and taught that the signe of the crosse vsed in Baptisme is no part of the substance of that Sacrament and that the infant Baptized is by vertue of Baptisme before it be signed with the signe of the crosse receiued into the congregation of Christs flock as a perfect member thereof and not by any power ascribed to the signe of the crosse c. whereupon they conclude that the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme being thus purged from all popish superstition and errour and reduced in the Church of England to the primary institution of it c. it is to be reuerently retayned and vsed Thus teach they in their foresayd Synod 35. But now we must demand of them where they haue euer read in any Catholyke Authour that the signe of the crosse as it is vsed in the administration of baptisme is any part of the substance of the Sacrament sure I am that all our schoolemen and Canonists and others that haue occasion to treat therof do expressely teach the contrary neyther did euer any learned Catholyke hold or suppose it to be any part eyther of the forme or of the matter of Baptisme which are the essentiall parts thereof but only an ancient and holy ceremony and this is euident euen by the practice of the Catholyke Church approuing the baptisme not only of the midwyfe in cases of necessity but also of any heretike if he haue the intention to do that which the Catholyke Church doth and vseth the true forme with conuenient matter without the signe of the crosse or any other ceremony in the world and albeit the Church vseth to suply the sayd ceremonyes afterwards in such as wanted the same yet it maketh no doubt at all but that they are baptized before and in state of saluation if they dye before the sayd ceremonyes be supplyed whereby it is manyfest that the Catholykes do not take the signe of the crosse to be of the substance or essence of the sacrament 36. But of this I shall not neede to produce any further proofe seeing that those pretended Bishops which were present at this Congregation and made this Canon haue giuen sufficient testimony of the truth in this poynt to no meaner a person then to his Maiesty himselfe as he did publikely testify in the CoÌ„ference at Hampton-court wherein the question concerning the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme being debated betwixt them and the Puritans his Maiesty sayd that he vnderstood by the Bishops yea and found it himselfe to be true that the Papists themselues did neuer ascribe any power or spirituall grace to the signe of the crosse in Baptisme whereupon it followeth that they do not nor euer did account to be any essentiall part of the Sacrament for if they did they should ascribe vnto it a spirituall grace and power as they doe to the essence of
the Cardinall with the shot of a Canon whereas not only the most important parts of that Councell but also the very Canon which he mangled and peruerted do euidently proue the Cardinalls intent to wit the primacy of the Roman Sea as I haue amply shewed in the second Chapter aforesaid so as it is hard to say whether he was more impudent in his corruption and falsity or in his vayne brags afterwards as if he had vsed all the sincerity in the world and got a great victorie 73. And in lyke sort dealt he with the Cardinall about the adoratioÌ„ of Reliques when he triumphed saying Tenetur hic Cardinalis vt elabi non possit Heere the Cardinall is catcht and held so fast that he cannot escape away neuertheles the testimony which he himselfe produced being layed downe whole with the circumstaÌ„ces doth coÌ„uince him both of folly fraud as hath bene manifestly shewed a litle before euen in this Chapter and therefore I forbeare to speake further thereof and will only add one other Instance in this kind of a matter which hath not beene touched hitherto 74. The Cardinall as well in his Matthaeus Tortus as also in his Apology auoweth that the Puritans in England do no lesse abhor the oath of supremacy then the Catholikes and in his Apology alleadgeth for the proofe thereof not only his Maiesties monitorie Preface and his BasilicoÌ„ Doron but also Caluins doctrine which the Puritanes professe and the testimony of M. Bancroft late pretended Bishop of Canterbury who plainely witnesseth the same as well concerning the profession and practice of the Puritans as also touching Caluins expressed doctrine in that behalfe and M. Andrews finding himselfe hardly pâ—est therewith and hauing no other remedy but to face out the matter calleth the Cardinall not only Mendacem a Lyâ—r but also Dâ—lirum a Dotard and why Marry because the Puritans saith M. Andrewes do dayly in their Sermons giue the tytle of supreme Gouernour to the King yea and do not stick to sweare somtymes to the Kinges supremacy in so much that facto saith he res tenetur the matter is cleare in fact and experience and afterward acknowledging that indeed M. Bancroft did twenty yeares agoe gather out of diuers Theses or positions of theirs some suspition that they were alienated from the Kinges supremacy yea and that perhaps it was so then he concludeth that now of late recognouerunt errores suos they haue acknowledged or recalled their errours 75. This is M. Andrews his discourse which how true it is notwithstanding his impudent asseueration thereof I do appeale to the consciences of the learneder sort of Puritans Precisians in England whether they haue of late tyme or at any tyme retracted and recanted Caluins doctrine and theirs in this point as an erour For albeit I make no doubt but that some of them may now in their sermons as others of the weaker sort of them did euen in M. Bancrofts tyme and alwayes before vse the ordinary style of his Maiesties tytle yea and that otherwyles some of them also do dispence with their coÌ„sciences and swallow the Oath to get some Benefice or Ecclesiasticall dignity yet I assure my selfe that the more zealous and precise Puritans and especially their whole CongregatioÌ„ will not acknowledge this fact of some of them for any definition or decree of theirs or for a recantation of their doctrine and beliefe in this poynt neyther is it sufficient for the recalling of an errour of a whole sect standing still on foote as this of the Puritans yet doth that some of them chang their opinion or for feare or promotion dissemble it when the same is not ratified by some publike testimony of their whole company 76. Therefore I must now vrge M. Andrews to shew vs in what printed booke or generall decree of their CongregatioÌ„s they haue recanted their opinioÌ„ and acknowledged it for an errour seeing that the same was published before to the world by themselues in such sort that M. Bancroft by M. Andrews his owne confession gathered it out of their owne bookes ita fortè tum fuit saith he and so perhaps it was then he meaneth 20. yeares agoe and yet you see he saith it with a perhaps as if the matter were in doubt and that perhaps it was not so But I dare say without all peraduenture that it was so not only 20. yeares agoe but also much later euen since his Maiesty came into England for I am sure there are ynough who know and remember that Burges a Puritan preacher was committed to Prison for that in a Sermon before his Maiesty he would not giue him his ordinary style and tytle of supreme Gouernour of the Church 77. But what if I produce a very substaÌ„tiall witnes of their continuance in that opinion some yeares after and such a one as M. Andrews hath great reason to admit for that he stil liueth yea ruleth in the English Clergy no lesse theÌ„ M. Andrews himselfe I meane the learned Doctor and worthy superintendent M. Barlow who in his Epistle to the Ministers of Scotland prefixed to the Sermon which he prated before his Maiesty against the Puritans the 21. of September in the yeare 1606. which is not past 6. yeares agoe coupleth the Puritans with the Papists for their opinion in that point saying that Papists and Puritans will haue the King to be but an honorable member not a chiefe gouernour in the Churches of his dominions Thus saith M. Barlow whome M. Andrews must needs allow for a man of credit except he will discredit his owne occupation and ministry 78. Besides that I will adde to M. Barlow another authenticall witnes who wrote the yeare after and representeth the authority of all the Clergy of England I meane M. Thomas Rogers in his booke intytled The faith doctrine and religion professed and protected in the realme of England c. wherein he setteth downe 39. Articles agreed vpon by the whole Clergy and analised by him into propositions with a discouery and confutation as he pretendeth of all those that haue at any tyme contradicted the said articles and all this he saith was perused and by the lawfull authority of the Church of England allowed to be publike So that this is a witnes of sufficient credit if ther be any credit to be giuen to the Church and Clergy of England yea to M. Andrewes himselfe who is a principall member thereof and therefore by all lykelyhood gaue his suffrage to the approbation of M. Rogers his booke 79. This man hauing set downe the 37. Article and the second propositioÌ„ which concerneth his Maiesties Ecclesiasticall Supremacy produceth only two sorts of aduersaries to that Article to wit the Papists and the Puritans and sayth of the later thus False it is which the Puritans do hold namely that Princes must be seruants to the Church be subiect to the Church
opertet magis obedire Deo quà m hominibus and to giue our liues rather then to offend God and our consciences in the deniall of such an important article of our faith to the euerlasting damnation of our soules But M. Andrews holding the Kings Supremacy to be no article of faith or beliefe but only a matter of perswasion which passeth not the boundes of probability hath no such cause and obligation to deny it as we haue and yet neuerthelesse vnder the colour and pretence to defend it he doth so extenuate and abase it that he maketh it nothing but an externall humaine and meere temporall authority and consequently as any Pagan Prince may exercise as well as a Christan 60. And therefore he dealeth therin no otherwise then one who being chosen by his friend to maintaine his quarrell draweth his sword with pretence to defend him and giueth him a deadly wound behind his backe or like to some preuaricating Aduocate who being hyred to defend a cause pleadeth for the aduerse party for so doth he who being specially chosen by his Maiesty to defend and maintaine his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy doth couertly and vnderhand betray him depriuing him of all the spirituall power that the Parliament hath giuen him and leauing him only the bare title without the effect which kind of dealing if it were but amongst frendes and equals were no lesse then treacherous and perfidious and therefore what it is in a subiect towardes his Prince especially in a man so much honored aduanced by his Maiesty as M. Andrewes hath bin I leaue it to the iudgement of any indifferent man but sure I am it caÌ„not be counted the part of a good subiect 61. Neither can he be thought to be a good Enlish Protestant for who knoweth not that the English Protestant differeth from all other Protestants of other Nations especially in holding and maintayning the Ecclesiasticall and spirituall Supremacy that our Parliament first gaue to King Henry the 8. which you see M. Andrews doth not who as I haue said hath so pared shaued and abridged it that he hath made it nothing in effect at least much lesse and of farre other conditioÌ„ then the Parliament ordayned it Wherby he is not only subiect to the penalties of the Parliamentall statutes as a Traytor but also incurreth the censure of excommunication imposed by a late Synodicall constitution of the Byshops and Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury vpon such as impeach in any part saith the Canon his Maiesties Regall supremacy in Ecclesiasticall causes restored to the Crowne by the Lawes of this Realme therin established and so strickt is the Canon against such persoÌ„s that it ordayneth further that they being excommunicated ipso facto shall not be restored but only by the Archbyshop after their repentance and publike reuocation of their wicked errour So as this Canon and all the rest made in that Conuocation being authorized by his Maiesty and published by his Regall authority vnder the great Seale of England I remit to the iudgment of all true English Protestantes whether M. Andrews hauing incurred the censure of this Canon and being consequently cut off from the vnion of their Congregation can be a member of their body or any other to them then an Ethnick or a Publican vntill he haue publikly reuoked his errour and be absolued and restored by the Archbishop 62. And no maruell seeing that he is as it seemeth so farre from being an English ProtestaÌ„t whatsoeuer he hath ben hertofore that he is now turned flat Puritan in this point allowing the King no more power ouer the Church then to mayntayne and defend it which is the very doctrine of the Puritans who therfore do willingly sweare obedience to their Princes for the defence and conseruation of the Church as it appeareth by the Oath of the Puritans in ScotlaÌ„d who sweare thus Quoniam percepimus Ecclesiae religionis nostrae tranquillitatem c. Forasmuch as we perceiue that the tranquillity stability of our Church and religion doth depend on the health and good gouernment of his Maiesty as of the comfortable instrument of gods mercy granted the Realm for the conseruation of the Church and the administration of iustice amongst vs we do couenant and promise with our hart vnder the same Oath subscription and penalties to defend his person authority and dignity with our goods bodies and liues for the defence of the Ghospell of Christ and the liberty of our Countrey 63. Thus sweare they and no more teacheth M. Andrewes in substance granting no other power to Kings ouer the Church then they do to wit that Kings are but as Foster-fathers defeÌ„ders of it Wherin neuerthelesse this difference may be noted betwixt the Puritans and him that they do belieue it as a matter of faith no lesse then we wheras M. Andrewes is only perswaded that it is true seing that he placeth therin the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy which he holdeth to be no matter of fayth and therfore if the said Supremacy consist only in the defence of the Church as it doth according to his doctrine then both we and the Puritans are better subiects then he because we belieue the same to be a matter of faith and consequently do think our selues bound in conscience to maintaine it though it be with losâ—e of our liues wheras he taking it to be but only a matter of perswasion will not by all liklyhood loose six pence to defend it 64. Furthermore to shew that he doth truly Puritanize in the point of the Supremacy it is to be vnderstood that whereas the Cardinall obiecteth out of the Basilicon Doron of his Maiesty that the Puritans do not admit the Kings Ecclesiasticall primacy because they introduce a certaine parity into the Church he answereth that albeit they maintayne a parity a mongst themselues reiecting the distinction of degrees of Byshops aboue Ministers or of one Minister aboue another yet they doe not hold that there is any parity betwixt the King and them but do admit and acknowledg his Supremacy ouer them thus teacheth M. Andrews and addeth presently after in the next paragraph that wheresoeuer the Religion is reformed the supreme temporall Magistrats haue this Power euen this selfe same which the King hath So he whereupon two things may be euidently gathered The one that the Puritans haue the same doctrine concerning the Ecclesiasticall primacy of temporall Princes that is taught in all the reformed Churches which indeed they also affirme of themselues The other is that the King hath no other Ecclesiasticall power but the self same that the Puritans and all the reformed Churches doe graunt to their temporall Magistrate 65. But what the Puritans teach concerning this point you heard in the last Chapter by the testimony of M. Rogers approued and warranted by all the Cleargy of England to wit that Princes must be seruants to the
vt coÌ„mig Beethlem S. Dionys. Eccles. Hierar ca. 10. S. Basil. Ep. 1. ad Monach. lapsum in fine in ep ad Virgin laps Idem reg 14. fusius explic S. Aug. in psal 75. ante finem Ioan Cass. de Iustit renuÌ„ti li 4. c. 13. See supl. c. 7. nu 59. 60. M. Andrews approuing the first institute of monks approueth many important points of Catholke Religion See Card. Bellar. l. de monachis c. 42 43. seq (b) See Supplem Chap 7. n. 58 59.60 (a) Luther in colloqu Germa c. de matrimo (b) Idem to 8. de matrimo fol. 119. (c) Idem de Bigamia Episcop proposit 62. IteÌ„ Ochinus dialog l. 2. dial 21. See Caluinoturcis l. 2. cap. 11. (d) Bucer in cap. 1. 19. Mat. (e) 1. Tim. â— (f) Tertul. lib. de monogam c. 13. S. Epiphanius lib. 2. haeres 61. in fine S. Chrysost. hom 19. in 1. Cor. 7. in 1. Tim. 8. hom 15. S. Aug. in Psal. 75. IteÌ„ Concil Carthag 4. can 104. (g) S. Basil. de vera virginitate The first Euangelists of the Protestants Ghospell were the true Locusts that destroyed religiouâ— profession and perfection That the name Catholike belongeth only to the Apostolike Roman Church to the children thereof Andr. c. 5. pag. 125. §. Quod affert (a) See Chap. 4. nu 57.58 sequent (b) Ibid. nu 61. Magdeb. cent 4. c. 10. Socrat. l. 4. c. 30. (c) Cap. 4. nu 62. (d) Ibid. nu 63. (e) Ibid. nu 58. 59. Bellar. dâ— Pont. RoÌ„ l. 4. ca. 8. 11. (a) Idem Resp. ad Apolog. p. vlt. (b) Paâ—id Ep. ad Sympronian (c) S. Ciril Hier. c. 18. (d) Aug. in lib coÌ„tra ep FuÌ„dameÌ„ cap. â—â— Andr. c. 5. p. 125. Nam quae Andr. vbi supra M. Andr. his distinction helpeth him nothing Aug. vbi supra Item de vera religione c. 7. Luc. c. 19. Andr. c. 7. pa. 168. §. Nam de nostr (b) Barl. Ser. an 1606. 21. Septemb. (c) See before chap. 6. nu 77. (d) See Suppl Chap. 4. nu 54.55 seq (f) Suppl ca. 5. nu 2.3.4 5. What a beggarly Church Clergy the Sectaries haue in England See Supl. vbi supra nu 5. See Supl. vbi supra nu 6. S. Hieron aduers. Lucifer Iohn 10. (c) See before nu 35. also Suppl chap. 4 nu 54.55 seq Luc. 19. (b) Chap. 6â— nu 81â— (d) Chap. 3. nu 37. sequent What a poore coÌ„ceipt M. Andrews hath of the Kings ecclesiasticall supremacy Andr. c. 1. pag 21. §. Neque tamâ— Ibidem Ibid. p. 29. §. Aâ— recepta The Ecclesiastical Supremacy of temporall Princes may be in M. Andrews his Pater noster but is not in his Creed The oath of the supremacy vnlawful if the supremacy be no matter of faith Aureol in 3. dist 39â— Ang. verb. periurium See Nauar. manuale c. 12. nu 3. Suarez de relig Tom. 2. li. 3. ca. 4. nu 7. Card. c. 1. pag. 7. Andr. c. 1. p. 22. §. Sed. nec M. Andrews his grosse ignorance S. Aug. Quaest. in Leuit. li. 3. quaest 23. Num. 2â— M. Andrew his notorious malice in the abuse of holy Scripture Deut. 17. See c. 6. nu 68.69.70 See Suppl c. 1. nu 10. seq (g) Ibid. nu â—4 seq (h) Ibid. nu 3â— seq (i) nu 44. (k) nu 45. 50. (l) nu 49. seq (m) nu 3â— seq (n) nu 28. seq (o) nu 53.54.55 56. (p) See sup Chap. 1. nu 83. 84. It cannot be shewed how Kings afâ—ter they were Christened came to haue the gouernment of the Church The Ecclesiasticall supremacy of temporall Princes excluded by a rule of M. Andrewesâ— Andr. c. 1. pag. 37. §. Verùm M. Andrewes doth not allow any spirituall authority to the King Andr. ci 14. pâ— 323. lin 33. (d) nu 37. Ibid. c. 1. p. 21. §. nequâ— tamen What manner of Ecclesiasticall power M. Andreweâ— acknowledgeth in temporall Princes A Pagan Prince hath as much authoritie ouer the Church as M Andrewes alloweth to his Maiestie An. 26. Hen. 8. â— 1. The Parliament Statutes giue spirituall authority to the Kings Queens of England Ibidem The Lord Cromwel Vicar General to K. Henry the 8. for thâ— exercise of his spirituall Iurisdictioâ—â— An. 1. Elizab. c. 1. Spirituall Iurisdiction graÌ„ted to Q. Elizabeth by the Parliament An. 1. Elizab. c. 1. An. 1. Edward 6. c. 2. All the Spirituall Iurisdiction and authoritie of the Clergy of England declared by a statute to be deryued from the Prince M. Andrewes depriueth the Kings Maiesty of all the spirituall authority that the Parliaments haue giuen him (a) See before chap. â— nu 13. (b) suppl c. 1. nu 18.19 seq (c) Num. â— (d) Deut. 10. 18. (e) Numer 8. (f) Suppl c. 1. from nu 10. to 53. (g) Ibid. nu 51.52 K. Saul had no authority ouer the hygh Priest S. Aug. in psal 51. Andr. Tort. Torti p. 151. An. 26. Hen. 8. c. 1. an 1. Eliz ca. 1. The King might according to the statut excoÌ„municate an heretyke as well as any Bishop (d) Supra nu 53. The King could not giue the power of censure to other if he had it not in himfelse See suppl c. 6â— nu 61. M. Andrews neyther good Subiect nor good English Protestant A great difference to be noted betwixt M. Andrews his deniall of the Kings supremacy and ours Act. 5. M. Andrews hath no such obligation to deny the Kings supremacy as we haue M. Andrews lyke to a treacherous frend or a preuaricating aduocate M. Andrews doth vnderhand betray the Kings cause Why M. Andrewes is no good English Protestant See coÌ„stitut and Canons Ecclesiasticall printed by Rob. Barker Anno. 1604. Can. 2. M. Andrewes seemeth to be turned Puritan in the point of the K. Supremacy The Oath of the Puritans of Scotland set forth in the yeare 1584. What difference may be noted betwixt M. Andrews and the Puritans Both Catholikes Puritans are better Subiects then M. Andrews (a) Card. Apol. ca. 1. pag. 10 (b) Andr. c. 1. p. 30. §. Postremo (c) Ibid §. Nec habet See c. 6. n. 78.79 The Puritans doctrine coÌ„cerning the Kings subiectioÌ„ to their Presbytery The pretended reformed churches do not allow in teÌ„porall Princes any such spirituall authority as our ParlameÌ„ts haue graÌ„ted to our Kings M. Andrews professing the doctrine of the Puritans and reformed Churches concerning the Kings supremacy denieth it to be spirituall (b) suprâ— nu 47. (c) nu 37. M. Andrews no English Protestant but a flat Puritan The learned English ProtestaÌ„ts ashamed oâ— their woÌ„ted doctrine coÌ„cerning the Ecclesiasticall supremacy of teÌ„porall Princes See beforâ— nu 35. â— chap. 6. nu 77. M. Barl. seemeth to make the King head of the Church no otherwyse theÌ„ as the Pagan Emperours were M. Barlow and M. Andrews like to the Scorpion and why The opinion of the learned strangers concerning M. Andrewes his bookes against Cardinall Bellarmine M. Andrews gerally disliked for his obscurityâ— M. Andrewes compared for his obscurity to a fish called a Cuttle Plyn l. 9. ca. 29. A good aduise for a frendly farewell to M. Andrews (b) Se sup ca. 8. nu 100. seq (c) Ibid. nu 103. 104. (d) Ibid. nu 105. seq (f) Mat. 16. Mar. 8. Touching the cause and subiect of this Appendix See Suppl p. 208. nu 3 Adioyâ—d ca. 10. nu 35. The exception taken by Catholikâ— to the first Protestant Bishopes in Q. Elizabethâ— dayes iâ— no new quarrell D. Hard. confut of the Apolog par 2. fol. 59. printed an Dom. 1565. D. Hardings chaleng to M. Iewell coÌ„cerning the consecration of the first Protestant Bishops D. Staplet return of vntru fol. 130. lin 26. D. Stapletons chalenge to M. Iewell and M. Horne touching their coÌ„secration Idem counterblast fol. 301. An. 1. Elizab ca. 1. M. Horne answered nothing coÌ„cerning his consecration Iewell defence of the Apology pag. 130. M. Iewels ambiguous and weak answere touching his lawfull consecration How much it imported M. Iewell to haue proued the consecration of their Archbishop Doct. Har. detect fol. 234. p. 2. Touching M. Iewels irresolute ambiguous indirect answere How much it imported the first Protestant Bishops to haue had a publick most solemne Consecration How improbably M. Mason affirmeth out of his Registers that 4. Bishops consecrated M. Parker the first Archbishop How litle credit M. Masons new-found Register deserueth Andr. Resp. ad Apol. p. 41. §. proximi Barl. answâ— to a name Catholike p. 283. With how great reason exception is to be takeÌ„ to M. MasoÌ„s Register vntill he shew it to Catholiks who may giue testimony of it What is to be considered in M. MasoÌ„s Register to make it auteÌ„ticall An offer to shew any manuscript in Rome to English ProtestaÌ„ts
the whole Church but because he was Head or supreme Gouernour therof which we may learne euen in Cicero who saith that Est proprium munus Magistratus c. It is the proper office or duty of the Magistrate to vnderstand that he beareth the person of the Citty So he speaking of the chiefe or supreme Magistrate wherby it appeareth that whatsoeuer is giuen to the King as King and Head of the Common-wealth the same is giuen to the Common-wealth wherof he beareth and representeth the person and so in like manner what was giuen to S. Peter as Head of the Church the same was giuen to the Church which he representeth For which cause also S. Cyprian saith that Ecclesia est in Episcopo the Church is in the Bishop and the reason is because the Bishop is Head of the Church as this is true in euery particuler Bishop in respect of the particuler Church which he gouerneth So also is it most truly verified in the supreme and vniuersall Pastour in respect of the whole Church whereof he is Head 5. That this was S. Augustines meaning it is euident by his owne doctrine in other places where he sheweth plainly that S. Peter bare the person of figure of the Church in respect of his Primacy Cuius Ecclesia saith he Petrus Apostolus propter Apostolatus sui primatum gerebat figurata generalitate personam c. Of which Church Peter in respect of the primacy of his Apostleship did beare the person figuring or representing the generality therof For if we respect what did belong properly to himselfe he was by nature one man by grace one Christian and by a more aboundant grace vnus idemque primus Apostolus one he the chiefe Apostle but when it was said vnto him Tibi dabo claues I will giue thee the keyes c. he signified the vniuersall Church Thus saith S. Augustine teaching euidently that S. Peter bare the person of the Church by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship that is to say because he was the chiefe Apostle which the same holy Father signifieth also more plainly in another place saying Cuius Ecclesiae ille agnoscitur gessisse personaÌ„ propter Primatum quem in Discipulis habuit Of which Church he is acknowledged to haue borne the person for the Primacy which he had amoÌ„gst the Disciples And to the same purpose he saith also elswhere Petrus à petra cognominatus c. Peter taking his name from a Rock was happy bearing the figure of the Church hauing the principality of the Apostleship 6. Loe then for what cause S. Augustine said that when Christ gaue to S. Peter the keyes of heauen pastorall authority to feed his sheep he gaue the same to all the Church to wit because S. Peter hauing the principality or primacy of the Apostolicall dignity and being consequently chiefe Pastor and head of the Church did beare and represent the person or figure of the whole Church So that you see the place which M. Andrewes bringeth out of S. Augustine against the Primacy of S. Peter maketh notably for it if it be considered with the circumstances therof which he cunningly and craftily concealed But in the other place which he citeth out of S. Ambrose he is more fraudulent hauing plainly corrupted the text which as it is in S. Ambrose is very conforme to this doctrine of S. Augustine signifying nothing else but that all the lawfull Pastors in Gods Church receaued their Pastorall authority ouer their flocks with S. Peter and therfore he saith Quas oues quem gregem non solùm tunc Beatus Petrus suscepit sed cum illo eas nos suscepimus omnes Which sheep and which flock not only the Blessed Peter then receaued but as so we all receaued them with him Thus saith S. Ambrose which all Catholikes do graunt and teach in like maÌ„ner because as I haue said S. Peter representing the person of the whole Church wherof he was head receaued not that Pastorall authority for himselfe alone but also for the Church 7. In which respect S. Ambrose saith very well that all the Pastors of the Church receaued their authority with him though not in equall degree as M. Andrews would haue it who therfore bodgeth into S. Ambrose his text these words of his owne Et nobiscum eas suscepit and he that is to say S. Peter receaued those sheep with vs as if S. Ambrose should meane that S. Peter had no prerogatiue in that point but that he and other Pastors receaued them all alike he with them they with him for to that purpose doth M. Andrewes also alledge the words of S. Ambrose afterwards in a different letter thus Et ille nobisâ—um nos cum illo oues illas pascendas suscepimus which manner of speach doth indeed inforce a greater equality betwixt S. Peter and other Pastors then the true words of S. Ambrose do import or then he euer did imagine who taught expresly elswhere the Primacy of S. Peter not only aboue all other inferiour Pastors but also aboue the Apostles themselues saying that albeit Andrew was called before Peter yet Primatum non accepit Andraeas sed Petrus Andrew did not receaue the Primacy but Peter yea in another place he proueth it by these very words of our Sauiour which are now in question to wit Pâ—sce oues meas 8. For hauing said that our Sauiour asked Peter thrice whether he loued him not to learne saith he any thing of him but to teach him whom he meant to leaue to vs velut amoris sui Vicarium as the Vicar of his loue he alleageth our Sauiours words to S. Peter to wit Simon the sonne of Iohn doest thou loue me c. Pasce agnos meos feed my Lambes and then shortly after he inferreth thereupon thus Et ideo quia solus profitetur ex omnibus omnibus antefertur and therefore because he alone of all the rest professed his loue he is preferred before them all and after a whyle he concludeth that our Lord asked him the third tyme whether he loued him Et iam saith he non agnos vt primò quodam lacte pâ—scendos c. And now Peter is commaunded not to feed Lambs with a certayne milke as the first time nor to feed the little sheep as the second tyme but oues pascere iubetur perfectiores vt perfectior gubernaret he is commaunded to feed the sheep to the end that he being more perfect might gouerne the more perfect Thus saith S. Ambrose 9. Wherein it is to be noted that he teacheth 3. things The first that our Sauiour left S. Peter vnto vs as the Vicar or Substitute of his loue that is to say to succeed him in that fatherly loue care of his Church which he himselfe had the second that when our Sauiour gaue to S. Peter the Pastorall commission and authority
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
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
word mater is applyed to the Church by S. Cyprian therefore Caput cannot be applyed to S. Peter but to the Church Therfore to the end M. Andrews may vnderstand that S. Peter and not the Church it selfe is in this place worthily tearmed by S. Cyprian caput fons radix origo the head the fountayne the roote and the spring he shall do well to consider the ground and drift of all S. Cyprians discourse which the Cardinall in his Apology omitted for breuityes sake and therefore although I haue layd it downe in my Supplement to proue the necessity of a visible head in the Church yet I will take paynes to repeat it heere to ease the Reader of the labour to seeke it there 4. S. Cyprian meaning to shew the cause why the Church is troubled with heresyes and schismes and withall to giue the remedy saith thus Hoc eò fit c. This hapneth because men do not returne to the beginning of truth nor seeke the head nor obserue the doctrin of the heauenly Maister which if any man will well consider and examine he shall not need any longer treatise or arguments to proue it the proofe is easy to be belieued by the compendiousnes or breuity of the truth our Lord sayd to Peter I say vnto thee thou art Peter and vpon this rock I will buyld my Church and the gates of hell shall not ouercome it c. To him also he saith after his resurrection Feede my sheepe vpon him being one he buylt his Church and to him he recommended his sheep to be fed and although after his resurrection he gaue equal power to all his Apostles and sayd as my Father sent me so I send you receaue the holy Ghost c. neuertheles to manifest and shew a vnity he ordayned one chayre and by his authority disposed that the beginning of the same vnity should proceed from one Truely the rest of the Apostles were that which S. Peter was endued with lyke fellowship of honour and power but the beginning proceedeth from vnity the Primacy is giuen to Peter that one Church of Christ and one chayre may be shewed So he 5. And prosecuting still the same matter proueth notably the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head from whence all the vnity of the body is deriued which he sheweth by three excellent similituds of many branches of one tree springing from one roote many brookes of one water flowing from one fountayne and many beames of one light deriued from one sunne concluding his discourse that notwithstanding the amplitude of the Church by the propagation and numerosity of her children and the extension of her parts and members all ouer the world vnum tamen caput est sayth he origo vna c. yet the head is one and the origen or beginning one that is to say Peter vpon whome he sayd before as you haue heard that our Sauiour buylt his Church and to whom he recoÌ„mended his sheep to be fed yea gaue him Primatum the Primacy vt vna Christi Ecclesia vna cathedra monstretur to shew therby one Church of Christ and one chayre and this must needs be the true sense of S. Cyprian in that-place if we will make his conclusion conforme to his premisses and to the whole scope of his intention 6. So that M. Andrews making the Church it selfe to be the roote fountayne and head whereof S. Cyprian speaketh doth most absurdly confound the tree with the roote the riuers with the spring the body with the head and lameth all that most excellent discourse of S. Cyprian yea ouerthroweth the very foundation thereof denying all that which S. Cyprian layd for his ground to wit the Primacy and supreme authority of S. Peter from whence he expresly deryueth the vnity of the Church as he doth also most clearely els where saying in his Epistle to Iubaianus Nos Ecclesiae vnius caput radicem tenemus We haue or do hold the head and roote of one Church and after declaring what roote and head he meaneth he sayth nam Petro primùm Dominus super quem c. For our Lord gaue this power of binding and loosing to Peter vpon whome he buylt his Church vnde vnitatis origâ—nem instituit ostendit and from whence he ordayned and shewed the beginning of vnity And agayne after in the same Epistle Ecclesia quae vna est super vnum qui claues accepit voce Domini fundata est The Church which is one was by the speach of our Lord founded vpon one who receaued the keyes So he Whereby it euidently appeareth that his constant and manifest doctrine is that all the vnity of the Church proceedeth from the vnity of her head to wit S. Peter and his chayre and that the Cardinall affirming that S. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne roote of the Church gaue vs his true sense and M. Andrews making the Church it selfe to be the head fountayne and roote of it selfe is very absurd and wholy repugnant to S. Cyprians doctrine or meaning 7. And this will be more cleere if we examin a little better M. Andrews his glosse vpon the text of S. Cyprian whereby he laboureth to proue that the Church it selfe and not S. Peter is the head fountayne and roote whereof S. Cyprian speaketh For hauing layd downe S. Cyprians words to wit sic Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa c. so also the Church shyning with the light of our Lord reacheth forth her beames ouer the whole world he noteth that the Father sayth Ecclesia non Petrus the Church not Peter and no meruaile seeing he had no occasion then to name Peter but the Church only for although the Church being a visible body hath alwayes a visible head vnder Christ to wit Peter and his successors yet S. Cyprian doth speake of it heere as of a body considered a part not including the head meaning afterwards to speake of the head as he had in lyke manner done before declaring from whence the vnity of that body is deriued as it will appeare further heereafter 8. In the meane tyme let vs see how M. Andrews goeth on with the text Vnum tamen lumen est c. Yet it is one light which is euery where spread neyther is the vnity of the body separated heere now he asketh two questions the one whether Peter be the light and the other whether he be euery where dispersed whereto I answere that although he is not the light of the Church as he was a particuler man yet he may well be so called not only as he was an Apostle seeing that our Sauiour sayd to all the Apostles Vos estis lux mundi you are the light of the world but also much more as he is the Vicar and substitute of our Sauiour who being lux vera the true light imparteth vnto him his owne excellencyes so far
c. Thus saith the Cardinall and after hauing layd downe S. Cyprians words alledged by S. Augustine being the same that you haue heard before he addeth the words of S. Augustine which are these Ecce vbi commemorat Cyprianus c. Behold how Cyprian doth shew that Peter the Apostle in whom the primacy of the Apostles is preeminent with such an excellent grace corrected by Paul a later Apostle when he dealt concerning Circumcision otherwayse then truth required So sayth S. Augustin whereby it euidently appeareth how he vnderstandeth S. Cyprian in this place to wit that albeit Peter was preeminent and far excelled the Apostles by reason of his Primacy yet when he erred he patiently suffered himselfe to be corrected by Paul and did not insolently and arrogantly defend his errour standing vpon the authority of his Primacy and challenging obedience of S. Paul and others 15. This then being so and the Cardinalls opinion concerning the meaning of S. Cyprian in this place being so â—ell fortified as you haue now heard by S. Augustines construction and iudgement thereof what reason hath any man to thinke that the Cardinall did as M. Andrews chargeth him purposely and craftily suppresse those words of S. Cyprian as not making for Peters Primacy whereas you see he taketh them to make much for it and doth vrge them notably to proue it Therefore can any reasonable man imagine any fraud in the Cardinall Or any other cause why he did not eyte them in his Apology but partly for breuityes sake which euery may seeth how much he affecteth in all his workes and partly because he thought he had alledged sufficient already out of that Father to proue his intent 16. So that whereas M. Andrews sayth Ea Cypriani mens videtur c. The mynd or sense of Cyprian seemeth to be that if Peter had said he had the Primacy he had insolently challenged somewhat to himselfe that is to say more then was due vnto him he did very well to say videtur it seemeth for if he had absolutly affirmed it he had ouerlashed very far Besides that he may learne if it please him to make a great difference betwixt insolenter and â—also insolently and falsely for a man may take vpon him a true authority and speake of it insolently that is to say without iust cause or in defence of some euill act and yet not falsely because it is true that he hath the authority which he pretendeth And therefore I say that if S. Peter should haue stood vpon his Primacy in defence of his erroneous act and sayd that S. Paul ought to follow and obay him therin because he was the Primate and head of the Apostlesâ— he had both sayd and done insolently which neuertheles in defence of a truth or vpon some other iust occasion he might both say and do without all note of insolency yea iustly and necessarily because he had indeed the Primacy and therefore was to be obayed and followed in all good and iust actions 17. But now M. Andrews goeth forward and whereas the Cardinall concluded that Peter being the foundation of the Church was therefore the head of it M. Andrews granteth that S. Peter was fundamentum quidem vnum sed non vnicum one but not the only foundation esse enim illiusce aedificij duodecem fundamenta for that there are twelue foundations of that building But M. Andrews is heere short of his account for he should rather haue sayd that there are thirteene except he will exclude Christ of whome the Apostle sayth Fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere c. no man can lay any other foundation then that which is already layed Iesus Christ of whome also the Prophet sayth Ecce ego ponam in fundamentis Sion lapidem c. Behold I will lay a stone in the foundation of Sion an approued stone a corner and precious stone founded in the foundation c. 18. And this I am sure M. Andrews will not deny seeing that it is one of the most speciall arguments whereby his fellowes are wont to exclude S. Peter from being the foundation of the Church to wit because Christ is the foundation of it if therefore M. Andrews will admit twelue foundations of the Church without preiudice to Christ he may also admit eleuen without preiudice to Peter For albeit the twelue Apostles are all founded vpon Christ who is the first and principall stone yet Peter may haue the first place in the foundation next after Christ being immediatly founded on him as head and ordinary Pastor of the Church and the rest vpon Peter as extraordinary and subordinate to him Besides that Peter and the rest of the Apostles are called foundations in different manner as I will declare more particulerly in the discussion of M. Andrews his answere to the place of S. Hierome 19. And now to conclude concerning S. Cyprian whereas the Cardinall argueth vpon his words that because S. Peter was the foundation of the Church he was therefore the head thereof in respect that the head in a body and the foundation in a buylding is all one M. Andrews answereth thus Vix illuc vsquequaque c. That is scantly true euery way for I do shew the Cardinall a buylding whereof there are twelue foundations but hardly can the Cardinall shew me one body wherof there are twelue heads So he very well to the purpose I assure you ouerthrowing himselfe with his owne answere for if that buylding which he sayth hath twelue foundations be the Church as indeed it is and so it appeareth by his quotation of the 24. Chapter of the Apocalyps then may the Cardinall very easily shew him also a body that hath twelue heads euen according to the doctrine and opinion of M. Andrews himselfe who can not deny but that the Church is a body I meane such a body as heere we treate of to wit not a naturall but a mysticall body neyther can he deny that the Apostles were heads of that body seeing all of them had as M. Andrews still telleth vs the charge and gouernement of the Church alike and therefore being twelue gouernours they were also twelue heads 20. Is it then so hard a matter for the Cardinall to shew him a body with twelue heads Nay which is more and toucheth more our case doth not M. Andrews thinke it possible that such a body may haue a hundreth heads and all of them subordinate to one head What will he say of the state of Venice Will he deny that the Senators who are many hundreths are heads thereof or that they are subordinat to one Doge or Duke So that it is to be vnderstood that in respect of the rest of the Common welth the Senators are all heads though in respect of the Doge they are but members subordinate to him And so in this spirituall buylding of the Church or mysticall body of Christ though the
twelue Apostles were twelue foundations and consequently twelue heads yet as all the twelue were subordinate to Christ so were eleuen of them subordinate to Peter whome Christ made their Primacy or Head which as you haue heard is the expresse doctrine of S. Cyprian teaching that albeit the Apostles had equal power yet Primatus sayth he Petro datur vt vna Ecclesia Christi vna Cathedra monstretur The Primacy is giuen to Peter that one Church of Christ and one chayre may be shewed Whereby he giueth to vnderstand that although the Apostles were all of equal poweâ— in respect of all other Christians who were subiect to them yet they were not equal in respect of Peter to whome our Sauiour himselfe gaue the Primacy to conserue vnity amongst them and in his whole Church And this I hope may suffise for answere to M. Andrews his glosse vpoÌ„ the 2. places of S. Cyprian only I cannot omit to thanke him for the paynes he taketh still to corroborate our cause with his answers obiections for truly if he write many bookes in this vayne we shall not need any other champion to fight for vs but himselfe as it will also further appeare by his answere to the place of S. Hierome whereof I am now to treate 21. The Cardinall cyteth out of S. Hierome these words Inter duodecem vnus eligitur vt capite constitutâ— schismatis tollatur occasio one is chosen amongst twelue to the end that a head being made the occasion of schisme may be taken away by which words of S. Hierome spoken expressely of S. Peter it is cleare that according to S. Hieromes doctrine our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles and consequently of the whole Church of God to which purpose I haue also vrged the same in my Supplement 22. Now then M. Andrews answereth the Cardinall thus Hicronymus idem hic à Cardinale patitur c. Hierome suffreth heere at the Cardinals hands the same iniury that Cyprian suffred before both their places or texts are lamely cyted for Hiâ—rome saith thus At dices tu scilicet Iouiniane super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia c. But thou to wit Iouinian wilt say the Church is founded vpon Peter which the Cardinall doth now so oft and earnestly inculcate vnto vs well following Iouinian therein but what sayth Hierome Although sayth he the same is in another place done vpon all the Apostles and all of them receiue the keyes and the strength of the Church is equal consolidated or established vpon them all yet neyther in respect of the keyes nor of the foundation which are so much esteemed at Rome but for this cause one is chosen amongst twelue that a head being made the occasion of schisme may be taken away Thus far doth M. Andrews alledge the words of S. Hierome and glosse them as you see wherein two things are specially to be obserued for the present the one that he taxeth the Cardinall for wronging S. Hierome now no lesse then he wronged S. Cyprian before in the lame and corrupt citation of their places The other that he would make the Reader belieue that to hold the Church to be buylt vpon Peter was one of Iouinians heresyes and not S. Hieromes doctrine and that therefore the Cardinall teaching and oft inculcating the same doth follow Iouinian of these two points I must needs say somwhat before I passe further for truely they deserue to be well examined and the good conscyence of M. Andrews to be layed open to the world 23. In the first point I must needs say he hath some reason to wit in saying that S. Hierome is as much wronged by the Cardinall as S. Cyprian was before which is most true for neyther of them both receiue any wrong at all by the Cardinall as you haue already seene in the place of S. Cyprian and will easily see also in this place of S. Hierome if you conferre that which the Cardinall left vncyted and is layd downe by M. Andrews with that which followeth and is cyted by the Cardinall for albeit S. Hierome do teach in the words which M. Andrews cyteth that the Church was equally buylt vpon all the Apostles yet it is euident by that which the Cardinall alledgeth that the same is so to be vnderstood that it doth not any way preiudice the Primacy of S. Peter seeing that S. Hierome affirmeth expressely notwithstanding the equality whereof he speaketh that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles and therefore it is manifest that M. Aâ—drews doth vnderstand this equality in other manner then S. Hierome doth who indeed sayth with great reason as also diuers other Fathers do and no Catholike will deny it that the Church was buylt vpon all the Apostles ex aequo equally but in what sense the same is to be vnderstood I would wish Mr. Andrews to learne of Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in his controuersyes where he declareth the same very learnedly perspicuously and briefely as he is wont 24. Thus then he sayth answering to this very place of S. Hierome and certayne others taken out of the Scriptures and obiected by Luther Respondeo tribus modis Apostolos omnes fuisse Ecclesiae fundamenta c. I answere that all the Apostles were three wayes the foundations of the Church yet without any preiudice to Peter The first is because they were the first that did found Churches euery where for Peter did not himselfe alone conuert the whole world vnto the fayth of Christ but some Nations were conuerted by him others by Iames and others by the rest And therefore S. Paul Rom. 15. saith Sic praedicaui c. I haue so preached this Ghospell where Christ was not named least I should buyld vpon other mens foundation And 1. Cor. 3. vt sapiens architectus c. I haue layd the foundation lyke a wyse Architect and another buyldeth thereupon And in this manner all Apostles are foundations alyke which I thinke is meant in the 21. Chapter of the Apocalyps 25. The Apostles and Prophets are also sayd another way to be foundations of the Church to wit because all Christian doctrine was reuealed vnto them seeing that the fayth of the Church is grounded vpon the reuelation which the Apostles Prophets had from God for new articles of fayth are not alwayes reuealed to the Church But the Church resteth and continueth in that doctrine which the Apostles and Prophets learned of our Lord and deliuered to their posterity by preaching and writing and by this meanes we are as the Apostle sayth Ephes. 2. buylt vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets and according to these two wayes Peter is no greater then the rest But as Hierome sayth the strength of the Church is equally established vpon them all 26. The Apostles also are sayd a third way to be foundations of the Church to wit in respect of their gouernement for all of them
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
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
Matthaeum c. S. Iohn Chrysostome in his 55. homily vpon Matthew saith Christ made Peter Pastor of his future Church And a litle after God alone can graunt that the future Church shall remayne immouable notwithstanding so many and so great waues of persecution violently breâ—â— in vpon it of which Church a fisherman and of meane parentage is the Pastor and head c. Heere we read expressely that Peter was head of the Church Thus far the Cardinall 12. Heereto M. Andrews answereth thus Ex Chrysostomo Cuius Pastor caput homo piscator c. Out of Chrysostome he obiecteth thus Whereof the Pastour and head was a fisherman but these words whereof the pastor and head are crept into the text and added in the Latin in fauour of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he meaneth the Pope for they are not in the Greeke where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fisherman but the word head appeareth no where nor in that place so much as Pastor albeit no man will deny that Peter was pastor of the Church yea and a chiefe or principall pastor but yet a pastor togeather with other Pastors his fellow-Apostles and not alone without others c. So he wherein you see he taketh exception to the words cuius pastor caput which he saith are not in the Greeke Whereto I answere that put the case they be not now in the Greeke copies which M. Andrews hath seene yet it litle importeth seeing that the latin translatour found them as it is most probable in the Greeke copie which he followed and that S. Chrysostome saith as much in effect as well in the same homily as in other places 13. Whereby it is euident that it is conforme to his doctrine and not added in fauour of the Pope as M. Andrews would haue his Reader to suppose For S. Chrysostome saith in the same homily Petrus Apostolorum os vertex cùm omnes interrogati essent solus respondit c. Peter the mouth head of the Apostles wheÌ„ they were all asked answered alone c. In which words S. Chrysostome doth plainly acknowledge S. Peter to be head of the Church seeing that he called him head of the Apostles And in the same place alledged by the Cardinall hauing said that a poore fisherman by the power and vertue of Christs graunt surpasseth in strength aâ—d solidity the nature of the dyamond he preferreth him far before Hieromy the Prophet saying that whereas Almighty God made Hierâ—my like a pillar of yron and a brazen wall and gaue him power and authority ouer one Nation hunc autem vniuerso terrarum orbi Christus praeposuit Christ gaue him to wit Peter power and authority ouer the whole world So he 14. And because M. Andrews will be like heere to fly to his common place and to say that all the Apostles had power and authority ouer the whole world as well as S. Peter and that therefore this comparison of him with Hieremy proueth not that he had any more authority then the rest of the Apostles M. Andrews must consider that S. Chrysostome cannot heere meane that his authority ouer the whole world was no other then that which the other Apostles had seeing he hath taught before in the same homily that he was their head and I thinke M. Andrews will not be so absurd to say that the authority of the head and of the members is all one besides that S. Chrysostome teacheth most clearely els where that S. Peter was head not only of the Apostles but also of the whole Church as it may appeare by that which I haue alledged out of him to that purpose both in the first and also in the precedent Chapter of this Adioynder 15. Whereto I will now add a most cleare testimony thereof out of his learned Commentary vpon the Acts of the Apostles where discoursing vpon the election of Matthias the Apostle in the place of Iudas and particulerly vpon those words Et in diebus illis surgens Petrus he noteth not only the fauour of Peter but also his authority ouer the rest as ouer the flock committed to his charge Quà m est feruidus saith he quà m agnoscit creditum à Christo gregem c. How feruent is Peter how well doth he acknowledge the flock committed to him by Christ Loe how he is Prince in this company or congregation and euery where beginneth first to speake c. 16. And againe afterwards prosecuting the same matter he sayth Quid an non licebat ipsi eligere Licebat quidem maxime c. What and was it not lawfull for him to choose Matthias Yes truely it was most lawfull but he did it not because he would not seeme to gratify any Also againe after a while he saith thus Primus hic Doctorem constituit c. he to wit Peter did first heere make a Doctor he said not we are sufficient to teach c. quamquam autem habebat ius constituendi par omnibus tamen haec congruenter fiebant c. Albeit he had as much authority to appoynt him as they all yet this was done very conueniently So he giuing to vnderstand that notwithstanding Peters absolute power to choose Matthias himselfe alone yet out of prudence he determined rather to do it by the generall consent of all the Apostles which he also signifyed no lesse plainly afterwards in these words Meritò primus omnium c. he doth worthily first of all the rest vse or exercyse his authority in this busines as one that had all the rest in his hand or power for to him Christ sayd tu aliquando coÌ„uersus confirma fratres tuos and thou being sometyme conuerted confirme they brethren 17. All this saith S. Chrysostome concerning the the election of Matthias the Apostle whereby it appeareth playnly that he held S. Peter to be head of the Apostles and of the whole Church seeing he teacheth not only that he was the Prince in that Congregation but also that he had as much authority to make an Apostle as they all and might haue done it of himselfe if he had thought it fit and conuenient because he had them all in his hand So as it is cleare that when S. Chrysostome in the 55. homily vpon Matthew which the Cardinall alledgeth calleth S. Peter verticem Apostolorum the head of the Apostles and saith that Christ made him power of the Church and that he gaue him authority ouer the whole world he meaneth and teacheth manifestly that he was supreme head and Pastor of the vniuersall Church which is the same in substance and effect that those words Cuius pastor caput do signify 18. Therefore the doctrine being S. Chrysostomes as well in that homily alledged by the Cardinall as els where and the words also themselues which perhaps may be wanting in some Greeke copie being extant as they are cyted by the Cardinall in all our Latin translations it
is but a vayne shift of M. Andrews to say that they are thrust into the Latin in fauour of the Pope it being more probable as I haue sayd that they were in the old Greeke copies which the Latin translatours followed and that eyther the Grecians themselues in the time of their schisme from the Roman Church or perhaps some of our late heretikes who haue taken vpon them to print the Greeke in these dayes haue purposely left out the same in hatred of the supreme authority of S. Peter and his successors But howsoeuer it is you see the doctrine of S. Chrysostome is cleare to the purpose that those words which M. Andrewes saith are not in the Greek do import and this suffiseth to proue by the testimony of S. Chrysostome that S. Peter was supreme Pastor and head of the vniuersall Church 19. And as for M. Andrews his stale and tryfling deuyse to call the Pope 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alluding to the name of the beast in the Apocalyps according to the interpretation of Irenaeus as he would haue his Reader to suppose albeit he vse it far otherwise then Irenaeus meant it who applyed it only to the temporall Empyre and not to the Roman Sea I willingly omit it as not pertayning to the place of S. Chrysostome wherof I now specially treat and therefore do remit him for his satisfaction in that point to Cardinall Bellarmines controuersies where the same is so sufficiently answered that he and his fellowes may be ashamed still to repeat it and not to impugne the manifold and solid reasons which the Cardinall produceth to confute their ridiculous and absurd application of that name to the Pope 20. And now to end concerning the testimony of S. Chrysostome whereas M. Andrews for conclusion of his answere thereto saith that no man will deny that Peter was Pastor of the Church yea and a principall pastor sed cum alijs pastorem coapostolis suis non solum sine alijs but Pastour togeather with other his fellow Apostles and not alone without others I thinke he was in a dreame when he wrotâ— it impugning no man therein for ought I know For I neuer heard tell of any man yet who taught that S. Peter was Pastor of the Church alone or that the other Apostles were not Pastors as well as he albeit we teach with S. Chrysostome and others as you haue heard that they were subordinate to him as to the supreme pastor and their head which also M. Andrews himselfe doth acknowledge sufficiently as I haue shewed amply in the last Chapter And this I hope may suffice concerning S. Chrysostome 21. There remayneth now only S. Augustin of the 4. Fathers alledged by the Cardinall and my selfe for the proofe of S. Peters Primacy his words are these Totius corporis morbum in ipso capite curat Ecclesiae c. he to wit Christ cureth the disease of the whole body in the very head of the Church coÌ„poundeth the health of all the members in ipso vertice that is to say in the very crowne or top of the head Thus saith S. Augustin whereupon the Cardinall saith Sanctus Augustinus apertè vocat S. Petrum caput corporis Ecclesiae S. Augustine doth planily call S. Peter head of the body of the Church To this M. Andrewes saith thus ConcludÃt testes suos cum Augustino non Augustino cuius tempore non fiebant Sermones de tempore He to wit the Cardinall concludeth his witnesses with an Augustine who is not Augustin in whose tyme there were not made any Sermons de tempore So he taking exceptions to the authority of this allegation because in S. Augustins tyme as he would haue vs suppose there was no such custome in the Church to make Sermons de tempore that is to say of the ordinary feasts that do occur thoughout the course of the yeare and that therefore the Authour of those Sermons de tempore out of the which the Cardinall taketh this place could not be S. Augustins but of some other later wryter who set them out in S. Augustins name 22. But now if you aske how M. Andrews proueth that there were no Sermons de tempore in S. Augustins tyme you must take his bare word for a proofe for you neyther haue nor are like to heare any other of him But for the tryall of this matter I must remit thee good Reader to some better and more authenticall witnesses then M. Andrewes namely to Possidius a learned Bishop who being a familiar friend of S. Augustin forty yeares togeather as he signifieth himselfe wrote his life and making a Catalogue of his workes doth mention amongst the rest diuers Sermons or Treatises of his made of some of the principall feasts of the yeare as of Christmas Ascension Pentecost Lent and 23. Tracts or Sermons per Vigilias Paschae in the Eues of Easter whereof by all likelyhood this very Sermon was one being made on the Wednesday before Easter whereto may be added also diuers other particuler feasts of Saints mentioned in like manner by Possidius as namely the Natiuity of S. Iohn Baptist of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul of S. Laurence S. Cyprian S. Perpetua and Felicitas S. Saluius S. Vincent and some others which I omit for that these I trow may suffice to conuince M. Andrews of great ignorance or malice in that he denyeth that there were any Sermons de tempore in S. Augustins tyme. 23. For although it is like inough that neyther S. Augustin nor any other Father of that age wrote any work vnder the title of Sermones de tempore but that such sermons being made at diuers tymes and dispersed in diuers parts of their workes haue bene since their daies gathered into one volume and set out vnder that tytle for the ease and commodity of the Readers yet no man that hath byn conuersant in the Fathers can be ignorant that such were vsually made both in the Latin and in the Greeke Church in S. Augustins tyme which may euidently appeare besids the testimony of Possidius aforesaid by the works of S. Ambrose wherin there are Sermons vpon almost all the great feasts from Aduent to Pentecost and in the same tyme liued also S. Maximus Bishop of Turin who wrote diuers homilies vpon the principall feasts of the yeare as testifyeth Gennadius a famous writer of that age whereof I shall haue occasion to speake further hereafter Besids that it cannot be denyed that the like custome was also in the Greeke Church in those daies seeing that we fynd in S. Gregory Nissen who was S. Basils brother diuers Orations made vpon the feasts of the Natiuity of our Sauiour S. Stephen Easter and the Ascension And others also in S. Gregory Nazianzen vpon the feasts of Easter Pentecost the Natiuity of Christ the Epiphany which amongst the Greekes was called Sancta Lumina In like
manner diuers homilies in S. Chrysostom of the fifth feria in Passion week and of the Resurection and Ascension of our Sauiour and of Pentecost besids diuers others of particuler Saints as S. Fulgentius Sâ— Augustines schooler and others So that this exception of M. Andrews to the authority of this place of S. Augustin is tooto cold and friuolous and far vnworthy of a man that professeth to haue read the ancient Fathers and therefore truely he had reason to seeke out another answere that might be of some more weight which he frameth in these words Sed nec si tempori cedamus hic tamen testis satis in tempore venit c. But though we should yield to tyme he meaneth that albeit we should graunt that Sermons were made de tempore in those daies yet this witnes commeth out of tyme or season very vnluckily who doth not tell vs of any other head but of a sickly head nor of any other crowne of a head but a crazed or crackt crowne which therefore might very well haue been passed with silence 24. Thus raueth M. Andrews hauing his head so crazed with the frenzy of heresy that he vttereth such braynsick and idle stuffe as this which truely no man that were well in his wits would vtter to the purpose he doth that is to say to proue that S. Peter was not head of the Church For els why doth he say it seeing that the Cardinall cyteth this place to no other end but to proue that S. Peter was head of the Church and therefore M. Andrews giuing this for his second answere hauing as you haue seene great reason to mistrust the former must needs conclude thereupon that S. Peter was not head of the Church But how doth it follow that because S. Peter by fraylty denyed our Sauiour Ergo he was not head of the Church Do those that hold and teach his primacy deny his fall Or teach that his successours cannot also erre in matter of fact as he did though not in definition of matters of faith 25. Truly if M. Andrews eyther had a sound brayne or els were guyded by the same spirit that S. Augustine and other fathers were he would haue made another manner of construction of this place then he doth and rather haue sought to confirme S. Peters Primacy by his fall then to impugne it thereby for so doth S. Augustine in this place shewing that it was conuenient that almighty God should suffer him to fall because he was to be the gouernour and head of the Church which S. Augustine teacheth expressely in these words 26. Ideo B. Petrum paululum Dominus subdeseruit c. Our Lord did therefore forsake blessed Peter for a while to the end that all humane kind might know in him that without the grace of God it could do nothing and thereby a rule might be giuen also to him who was to be gouernour of the Church to pardon sinners for the keyes of the Church were to be committed to Peter the Apostle yea the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen were recommended vnto him as also in like manner there was to be committed to his charge an innumerable multitude of people which in respect of the vyces and passions of their nature were wrapped in sinnes and offences And againe after a while Idcirco saith he diuinae prouidentiae secretum c. Therefore did the secret of Gods prouidence so dispose and permit that he to wit Peter should himselfe first fayle and fall into sinne that by the consideration of his owne fall he might temper the rigour of his sentence towards sinners Quantum igitur diuini inuneris c. Therefore note what great bounty and goodnes and how much care and sollicitude God sheweth heerin towards the saluation of man he câ—reth the disease of the whole body in the head of the Church and compoundeth the health of all the members in the very crowne of the head in the very top of the coÌ„fession of Christ in the very fouÌ„datioÌ„ of an immoueable faith that is to say in that Peter who said although I should dye with thee yet I will not deny thee 27. All this saith S Augustine and much more to the same purpose which I omit for breuityes sake for that this may suffice to teach M. Andrews that S. Peters Primacy was so far from being preiudyced by his fall that it may rather be in some sort confirmed thereby seeing it appeareth that it was conuenient in respect of his Primacy that he should fall for the benefit that should ensue thereof as well to himselfe as to the Church which is also the expresse doctrine of S. Chrysostome who hauing said that Orbis terrarum Ecclesiae c. the Churches of the whole world and the multituds of people were to be committed to his charge And hauing also called him Apostolorum verticem the head of the Apostles the immouable foundation the steedfast rock the pillar of Churches and mayster of the whole world he addeth Peccare permissus est c. he was suffered to sinne for this cause chiefly because the multitude of people was to be committed vnto him lest he being seuere and innocent might be vnwilling to pardon the offences of his brethren So he to whome I may also adde S. Gregory the Great who maketh the same construction of S. Peters fall that these two other Fathers do affirming that God suffered him to fayle quem praeferre cunctae Ecclesiae disposuerat whome he had determined to make gouernour of all the Church that he might learne by his owne fraylty to haue compassion of other sinners 28. And to the end M. Andrewes may see that S. Augustine doth also else where plainly acknowledg the Primacy of S. Peter notwithstanding his fall he shall do well to read a place alleadged by himselfe in his first chapter to proue that S. Peter had nothing peculiar to himself by his pastorall commission which place if he had layd downe at large as he curtolled and maymed it after his manner it might haue sufficed to conuince him as well in the matter for the which he produced it as also in this For there S. Augustin hauing taught that S. Peter receauing the keyes the coÌ„mission of Pastor represented the person of the Church inferreth that the Church ought to pardon repentant sinners seeing that Peter bearing the person of the Church was pardoned wheÌ„ he had denyed his maister 29. Wherein S. Augustine not only deduceth a pious document out of S. Peters offence as you see he doth in the other place but also acknowledgeth sufficiently his supreme Dignity teaching that he bare the person of the Church which he did no otherwise but as he was supreme head and Gouernour thereof as I haue declared at large in the first Chapter of this Adioynder where I haue layd downe the words of S. Augustine and discouered M.
in generall besides that being made with the Popes consent it was not any way preiudicall to the authority of the Sea Apostolike The third that M. Andrews iugleth notably with his Reader when he saith as out of S. Augustine Ad eum transmarinus nemo appellet c. To him that is to say to the Bishop of Rome let no man appeale from beyond the seas or if he appeale he is to be excommunicated by Augustine for neyther those words nor the sense thereof are to be found any where in S. Augustine who as you haue seene expressely taught and practised the contrary So that transmarinus nemo being set downe by M. Andrews in a different letter to be noted is indeed worth the noting for a notable falsity and a flat corruption of the Canon and abuse of S. Augustine and of all the Bishops in that Councell What then shall we say of this mans truth and fidelity who maketh no bones to bely the Fathers and corrupt whole Synods Can any man thinke that he hath any regard of conscience or shame Thus much for the second point 52. And now to say somewhat of the third he affirmeth as you haue heard that S. Augustine was far from acknowledging the Popes Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus for heads of the Church whereof you haue already seene the contrary in two of them to wit Bonifacius and Celestinus whose power and custome to admit and determyne Appeales from Africk S. Augustine clearely acknowledged and approued in the cause of Antony Bishop of Fussula as I haue amply shewed which power could not otherwise be due to Bonifacius and Celestinus but only in respect of their supreme and vniuersall authority ouer the whole Church And that S. Augustine had also the same opinion of Zosimus it appeareth sufficiently in an Epistle of his to Optatus to whome he writeth that he receaued his letters at Caesarea quò nos saith he iniuncta nobis à venerabili Papa Zosimo Apostolicae sedis Episcopo Ecclesiastica necessitas traxerat whither we were drawne by an Ecclesiasticall necessity inioyned or imposed vpon vs by the venerable Pope Zosimus Bishop of the Apostolicall seat So he which may also be confirmed out of Possidius who writeth that Litterae sedis Apostolicae compulerunt c. The letters of the Sea Apostolike compelled Augustine with other Bishops to go to Caesarea in Mauritania to consult and determyne of diuers necessityes of the Church 53. Whereby it is manifest that S. Augustine acknowledged in Pope Zosimus an Ecclesiasticall power and authority to impose vpon him and other Bishops a necessity to obay his commaundements in matters concerning the seruice of God and the Church which Zosimus could not do otherwise then as supreme and vniuersall Pastor or head of the Church for that the Church of Africk was not otherwise subiect to him then as all other Churches were But of Pope Zosimus and of S. Augustines opinion concerning his Primacy I shall haue occasion to speake further after a while and in the meane tyme this I hope may suffise to proue that S. Augustine was so far from impugning these three Popes that he acknowledged their supreme and vniuersall authority and consequently that they were heads of the vniuersall Church notwithstanding M. Andrews his peremptory assertion of the contrary which therefore may passe for another vntruth 54. Whereupon it also followeth that he forgot himselfe much more when he so confidently affirmed in the first poynt as you haue heard that the Bishops of Rome in S. Augustines tyme were but only heads of the Church of Rome which I noted before For the first of the 3. vntruthes though I remitted the particuler answere thereof vntill I had discouered the other two because they would not a litle help to the discouery of the first as you may haue already noted for it being cleare by all this former discourse that Appeales from Africk to Rome were vsuall frequent and neuer prohibited in S. Augustines tyme and againe that he acknowledged an authority and power in Pope Zosimus to lay iniunctions commaundements vpon him and other Bishops in Africk it must needs follow that the Bishops of Rome had a more ample authority in his dayes then ouer the particuler Church of Rome And to the end thou mayst yet haue good Reader a more aboundant satisfaction in this poynt I will say somewhat of all the Popes that liued in S. Augustines tyme who were 8. in all to wit Liberius in whose tyme he was borne Damasus Siricius Anastasius Innocentius Zosimus Bonifacius Celestinus And first of Liberius 55. We read in the Ecclesiasticall history that certayne Arian heretykes being excommunicated and deposed from their Bishopricks by the Catholike Bishops of the East Church sent their Legats to Pope Libâ—rius crauing to be restored by his authority and for as much as they craftily dissembled their heresy and faygning to be repentant made open profession of the Catholicke faith according to the beliefe and doctrin of the Councell of Nice they obtayned his letters for their restitution which they presented at their returne in a Synod held at Tyana and by vertue thereof were restored as S. Basil witnesseth saying that Eustathius Bishop of Sebasta who was the chiefe of that Legacy brought an Epistle from Liberius by the which he should be restored and when he had presented it to the Synod at Tyana in locum suum restitutus est he was restored to his place So he 56. Whereby it appeareth that the authority of Liberius extended further then to his owne Church of Rome seeing he could restore Bishops to their seats in the East Church as also his predecessor Pope Iulius had done not long before vpon the appeales of the famous Athanasius deposed by the Arians and of Paulus Bishop of Constantinople Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra Asclepa Bishop of Gaza and Lucian Bishop of Hadrianopolis all of them vniustly expelled from their seats vpon diuers pretences whose causes Iulius discussing saith the Story tamquam omnium curam gerens propter propriae Sedis dignitatem singulis reddidit suas Ecclesias as hauing a care of all for the dignity of his owne seat restored their Churches to euery one of them So saith Sozomâ—n in the tripartite history which I haue thought good to add to the former example of Liberius For although it fell not out in S. Augustines tyme whereof I now specially treate yet it was not aboue 14. yeares before him and therefore may well be applyed to his tyme as the Eue to the Feast Besides that doth demonstrate what was the beliefe of the Catholike Church at that tyme concerning the supreme dignity of the Roman Sea seeing that not only other Catholike Bishops but also Athanasius himselfe who was the mirrour of sanctity zeale and integrity in that age had recourse thereto as to the supreme tribunall on earth for the reparation of his wrongs but now to
proceed 57. After Liberius succeeded Damasus whose vniuersall authority is sufficiently testified euen by the African Bishops whome M. Andrewes maketh most opposit to the Roman Sea This may be veryfied by an Epistle of 3. Councells of Africk and the Archbishop Stephanus who wrote to Pope Damasus giuing him the title of most Blessed Lord raysed to the heyght of Apostolicall dignity holy Father of Fathers Damasus Pope and chiefe Bishop of Prelats and in the Epistle it selfe they do clearely acknowledge the supremacy of his sea coÌ„playning of certayne Bishops their neyghbours who without his consent or knowledge had presumed to depose Bishops which they said was against the decrees of all the Fathers and ancient rules and Canons of the Church by the which say they sancitum est vt quicquid horum vel in remotis c. it was decreed that whatsoeuer should be treated though in remote and far distant Prouinces concerning these matters that is to say the deposition of Bishops and other important affiayres of the Church the same should not be receiued nisi ad notitiam almae Sedis vestrae fuisset deductum c. except it were brought to the knowledge of your holy seat to the end that whatsoeuer should be resolued might be confirmed with the authority thereof thus wrot they and much more to the same purpose calling him also ipsum Apostolicum verticem Praesulum the very Apostolicall top or head of Prelats 58. And therefore no meruaile that another Father of the same tyme calleth him the gouernour of the Church of God expounding these words of the Apostle to Timothy Ecclesia est domus Dei viui c. whereupon he saith Ecclesia domus Dei dicitur cuius rector hodie est Damasus the Church is called the house of God the gouernour whereof at this day is Damasus So he wherto I may add a notable testimony of S Hierome who wryting also to Damasus to know of him with whome he might communicate in Syria and whether he might vse the word hypostasis affirmed that he held CoÌ„mâ—nion with his Beatitude that is to say saith he with Peters Chayre and that he knew the Church to be buylt vpon the rock inferring thereupon that whosoeuer did eate the Lambe out of that house he meaneth the communion of Damasus or of Peters Chayre he was a profane man and out of the Arck of Noe wherupon I infer that S. Hierome affirming the Church to be built vpon Damasus acknowledgeth him to be head thereof for the reason vrged before by me in the last chapter to wit because the head of a mysticall or politicall body and the foundation in a buylding are all one besyds that he also acknowledgeth the same by excluding all those from the vnity of the Church who did not hold communication with Damasus because the vnity of the body is deriued principally from the vnity of the head thereof according to the expresse doctrin of S. Cyprian which I haue also amply layd downe in the last Chapter 59. Finally S. Hierome demanding resolution from Damasus with whome he should coÌ„municate in Syria where was then a great Schisme and whether he might vse the word hypostasis sheweth that Damasus had authority to determyne and decyde controuersies and resolue doubts or difficult questions in matter of religion and therfore S. Hierome saith vnto him Discernite siplacet obsecro non timebo tres hypostases dicere si iubetis I beseech you iudge or determyne if it please you for I will not feare to say that there are three hypostases if you command me And againe afterwards Quamobrâ—m obtestor Beatitudinem tuam per crucifixum c. Therefore I beseech your Beatitud for Christs sake crucified and for the consubstantiall Trinity that authority may be giuen me by your letters eyther to vse or to forbeare the word hypostasis c. as also that you will signifie vnto me with whome I may communicate at Antioch for that the Campenses and the heretikes called Tharsenses being vnited togeather nihil aliud ambiunt quà m vt auctoritate communionis vestrae fulti c. do seeke nothing more or with greater ambition then that being vpheld with the authority of your communion they may vse the word hypostasis in the old sense So he 60. Wherin two thinges are to be noted the one that S. Hierome doth not aske counsaile or aduise of Pope Damasus but a definitiue sentence vt auctoritas detur that authority be giuen him that is to say that Damasus should by his letters determin and ordein what S. Hierome should doe in those cases The other is that not only the Catholikes in the East parts as S. Hierome and the Aegyptians whome he also called the collegues of Damasus but also the heretyks sought to fortifie themselues by the communion and authority of the Sea Apostolike Whereupon two things do also follow euidently the one that Damasus had power to decyde and determyne controuersies euen in the East Church and the other that his authority was not restreyned to his owne Church at Rome as M. Andrews seemeth to suppose but was vniuersall and therefore acknowledged as well in the East as in the West 61. This may be notably confirmed by the restitution of Peter Bishop of Alexandria to his seat who immediatly succeeded Athanasius and being oppressed by the Arians followed the example of his worthy predecessour and fled to Rome to Pope Damasus and returning with his letters which confirmed as well his creation as the Catholike faith was restored by the people qui illis confisus saith Socrates expollit Lucium Petrum in eius locum introducit who by the vertue of those letters expelled Lucius the Arrian Bishop and put Peter into his place 62. Also Vitalis an heretike in Antioch being accused to Pope Damasus of heresy was forced to come to Rome to purge himselfe and albeit after he had there professed himselfe to be a Catholike he was remitted by Pope Damasus to Paulinus Bishop of Antioch for his final absolution yet Damasus prescribed to Paulinus a forme of abiuration whereto Vitalis should subscribe which being done Paulinus absolued him Whereby it is euident that Damasus had a supreme authority as well in the East or Greeke Church as in the West for otherwise neyther would Peter Bishop of Alexandria who was a very holy man haue appealed vnto him nor the people haue receaued Peter by the vertue of his letters neither yet would Vitalis haue gone from Antioch to purge himselfe at Rome nor Paulinus Bishop of Antioch permitted that Damasus should intermeddle in matters pertayning to his charge 63. And this may yet further appeare by the earnest endeuours of S. Chrysostome then Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria to pacify Damasus towards Flauianus Bishop of Antioch who had committed periury and byn the cause of a great diuision and trouble in the Church for the remedy wherof
sanctae recordâ—tionis virum pro vita sua meritis in nostra semper communione habiumus c. We haue alwayes held Augustine of holy memory in our communion for his life and merits neyther was he euer toucht with so much as any rumor of euill suspition whome we haue knowne to haue been so learned that he was held by my predecessours for one of the chiefe or best maisters So he 88. Whereby it is euident that S. Augustine euer liued in the vnion and obedience of the Roman Sea for otherwyse Pope Celestinus would not haue giuen this testimony of him especially if he had byn so opposit to him and his predecessours as M. Andrewes affirmeth I meane if he had taken vpon him not only to correct and reforme them and to excommunicate euery one that should appeale to them out of Africk but also to deny and impugne their supreme and vniuersall authority which all Christendome acknowledged at that tyme as I haue euidently shewed So that now I leaue it to thee good Reader to consider whether M. Andrews hath not as it pleased him to say of S. Peter caput morbidum verticem malè sanum being so possest and opprest with the peccant or rather pestilent hereticall humour of lying that it floweth out of his mouth in such aboundance as we see And therefore whereas he pretendeth to descend of the race of Phisitians and to be one of those Medicorum filij who make speciall profession to pry into the diseases of Popes I may truly say that whosoeuer was his Grand father were he Phisitian or Apothecary his father could be no other but the Father of lyes from whome he hath contracted this pestiferous and diuelish disease which therefore being hereditary is as it may be feared incurable in which respect we may more truely say of his head then he said of ours nec est sanum nec vt videtur sanabile Mr. ANDREVVES HIS ANSWERS TO THREE OTHER PLACES Alleadged by the Cardinall out of the Fathers are examined and confuted and diuers absurdities discouered therin AND Finally he is proued to be a Wrangler in the highest degree CHAP. V. IN the two last Chapters I haue examined and if I be not much deceaued fully confuted M. Andrewes his answers to 7. places of the Fathers obiected by the Cardinall in his Apology and by me in my Supplement And whereas there are 3. other Authorityes of the Fathers obiected togeather with the former by the Cardinall and pretended also to be answered by M. Andrews which I haue not touched any where in my Supplement I thinke good to say somewhat thereto lest if I should passe them with silence it may seeme to some that M. Andrewes hath quit himselfe better in the answere of them then of the rest and that he hath bene able at the least to say somewhat to the purpose in defence of his cause 2. The First of the 3. places is alleadged by the Cardinall out of Origen thus Petro cum summa rerum de pascendis ouibus traderetur super ipsum c. When the chiefe or supreme charge of feeding Christs sheepe was giuen to Peter and the Church founded vpon him veluti super terram as vpon the ground the confession of no other vertue but only of Charitie was exacted of him Thus far the Cardinall out of Origen to proue the primacy of Peter Whereto M. Andrewes answereth thus Ex Origâ—ne summam rerum c. Out of Origen the Cardinall obiecteth that the Chiefe charge of feeding Christes sheepe was giuen to Peter but the same Chiefe or supreme Charge was also giuen to others as Origen doth els where plainly affirme and if any thing were giuen there peculiarly to Peter the same was giuen him in respect of his peculiar fall super ipsum veluti super terram c. The Church was founded vpon him as vpon the ground but it was also founded vpon others togeather with him Thus sayth M. Andrewes 3. Wherein I wish two things to be noted The one that heere he flyeth to his common and stale shift to wit that the rest of the Apostles had as much preheminence in all this as Peter and that if he had any thing peculiar it was in respect of his fall all which I haue fully confuted to his shame in the first Chapter where I haue declared how he abused S. Augustine S. Ambrose and S. Cyril concerning this point and therefore I will not trouble my selfe and my Reader with the Repetition thereof The other is that he seeketh to fortify this idle conceipt of his by the interpretation of Origen himselfe who he sayth teacheth expressely els where that others had the chiefe charge of feeding Christs flock as well as Peter for the which he quoteth his first homily vpon the 16. of Matthew where neuerthelesse Origen hath not one word touching the words Pasce oues meas but expoundeth there that which occurred in the 16. of Matthew concerning Peters Confession of Christ Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God and Christs answere to him Thou art Peter and vpon this rock I will build my Church c. and I will giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen c. wherein it is also to be obserued that Origen in that Homily followeth altogeather an Allegoricall sense and seeking to drawe from thence some Morall doctrine as preachers vse to do applyeth the same not only to all the Apostles as well as to Peter but also to all perfect Christians teaching that whosoeuer doth by the reuelation of God and light of grace confesse Christ as Peter did he shall haue the same beatitude which Peter had and be a Rock as he was and that as euery true Christian and iust man doth participate of Christ and therefore may well be called Christus Iustitia Sapientia so also he may be called Petrus Petra and to this purpose Origen addeth further that the Church is built vpon such and that hell gates shall not preuaile against them meaning such iust men and perfect Christians as are of the mâ—mber of the elect expounding the gates of hell to signify all kind of sinnes as well as false doctrine 4. In like manner he applieth the giuing of the keyes as well to euery faythfull Christian as eyther to Peter or to the rest of the Apostles saying Videamus quomodo dictum est Petro omni fideli qui Petrus est Dabo tibi claues c. Let vs see how it is said to Peter and euery faithfull man which is Peter I will giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen And then he proceedeth shewing that Christ promiseth the keyes to euery faithfull man in reward of his confession vt ipse sibi aperiat portas Regni caeloruÌ„ c. That he may open for himselfe the gates of the Kingdome of heauen Which gates also Origen expoundeth to be the vertues of Chaslitic and perfect
Righteousnes by the which the gates of heauen are opened as it were with keyes sic saith he in singulis quibusque virtutibus and so also in all other vertues and to this purpose is Origens discourse in that homily 5. Now then who seeth not heere that he leaueth the litterall sense altogether in this and lyke a preacher followeth the Allegoricall and Morall thereby to induce his audience to vertue and withdraw them from vice and sinne And will M. Andrewes say that therefore Origens opinion was that Peter had nothing promised peculiarly to himselfe more then to euery perfect Christan So shall euery iust man and womaÌ„ for Origâ—n speaketh of all alyke haue as much Ecclesiasticall power and Iurisdiction as Peter had for I am sure M. Andrewes will not deny but that when Christ promised the keyes to Peter he promised to giue him Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction and power howsoeuer the same is to be vnderstood I meane whether as promised to himselfe alone for the whole Church as we vnderstand it or as promised also to the Apostles equally with him as M. Andrewes and his fellowes would haue it and therefore I say that taking this interpretatioÌ„ of Origen for the literall sense euery faithfull man or woman that is of the elect hath as much power to bynd loose excommunicate and exercise any other Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction as Peter and the rest of the Apostles had yea to be not only Pastors of Christs flock but also chiefe Pastours and to haue summaÌ„ rerum de pascendis ouibus the chiefe charge of feeding Christs sheepe 6. For whereas Origen sayth so of S. Peter in the place now in question M. Andrewes will haue the same to be vnderstood also according to this Interpretation of Origen which as you haue heard includeth not only all the Apostles but also euery other perfect Christian yf he be of the elect and excludeth all those that are not such so as amongst other consequents that follow thereof one may beâ— that it is vncertayne whether M. Andrewes himselfe be a Pastour or no for though he hold himselfe for a perfect Christian which neuertheles I hold to be very doubtfull or rather assure my selfe of the contrary yet it is very vncertayne whether he be one of the elect and if he be not of that number then according to this interpretatioÌ„ if it be literall he hath no pastorall CoÌ„missioÌ„ Besides it would follow that euery Priest should haue as much authority as his Bishop euery Bishop as much as his Metropolitan yea and euery predestinate man or woman that is a perfect Christian should haue as much as any of them or as they all seeing that all they can haue no more then summaÌ„ rerum de pascendis ouibus the chiefe charge and care of feeding Christs flockâ— which Origen saith was giuen to Peter Loe then what good doctrine M. Andrews teacheth heere by this Interpretation of Origen if he will haue it to be litterall ouerthrowing therby all subordination in the Church and coÌ„founding the Ecclesiastical with the secular the Laytie with the Clergy the head with the members I meane the spirituall Pastours or sheapheardes of Christs flock with their sheepe or subiects which truly he would not do if he were not as silly and single witted as a sheepe or at least if he were not more malicious then a sheepe of Christs flock ought to be 7. Therefore to conclude this point seeing that this Interpretation of Origen out of Origen serueth him to no better purpose then the other did before out of S. Augustine S. Ambrose and S. Cyril which only serued to bewray his malice and folly as I haue shewed amply in the first Chapter It is cleare that Origens testimony alleadged by the Cardinall concerning the chiefe Charge of feeding Christs sheepe giuen to Peter remayneth cleare and sound for the Catholiks to be taken in the litterall sense as the Cardinall alleadged it especially seeing it is most conforme to Origens doctrine in other places as in his homilyes vpon diuers Euangelists where he calleth S. Peter Summum Apostolorum verticem the chiefe or supreme head of the Apostles and therefore discoursing also afterwards in the same place of the particuler priuiledges of grace giuen by our Sauiour to S. Iohn the Apostle he preferreth neuertheles S. Peter before him in dignity saying Nemo nos existimet Petro Ioannem preferre c. Let no man thinke that I preferre Iohn before Peter Who would so do for which of the Apostles was hygher in dignity then he qui est dicitur Vertex eorum Who is called and is their head So he And I am sure M. Andrews can not imagine that Origen deduced the supreme dignity of Peter from any other ground or reason but because he had summam rerum de pascendis ouibus the chiefe charge of feeding Christs sheepe and was the foundation of the Church as Origen acknowledgeth in the place alleadged by the Cardinall and diuers others and this shall suffice for him 8. The second place which I am to debate with M. Andrewes is taken by the Cardinall out of S. Hylary in these words O in nuncupatione noui nominis felix Ecclesiae fundamentum c. O happie foundation of the Church in the nuncupation of a new name a rock worthie of the building thereof that is to say of the Church which Rock should dissolue or break the lawes of hell c. Thus far the Cardinall out of S. Hilary to proue that Peter was the foundation and consequently the head of the Church Whereto M. Andrewes answereth thus Ex Hylario felix Ecclesiae fundamentum Petrum out of Hilary the Cardinall obiected that Peter was the happie foundation of the Church Sed inter alia pariter fundamenta but amongst and togeather with other foundations So he Meaning that because all the Apostles are called in the Scriptures foundations of the Church therefore S. Peter was no otherwise the foundation therof then they Wherto I neede not to say any thing heere because I haue largely treated the same point in the third Chapter shewing how the Apostles were called fouÌ„dations of the Church without derogation eyther to Christ who is the first and chiefe foundation or to Peter who is the second immediatly grounded vpon Christ and therefore I remit my Reader thereto 9. And now to go forward with M. Andrewes his answere he addeth the rest of S. Hilaries words thus Dignam aedificatione Christi Petram a Rock worthie of the building of Christ which wordes of Hilary he glosseth thus sed fidei ratione c. but by reason or meanes of fayth sayth Hilary himselfe and not of his person that Peter may depend on the fayth and not the fayth vpon Peter Thus sayth M. Andrews seeking by the help of a lying glosse of his owne to make his Reader belieue that S. Hilary doth so admit S. Peters
acknowledged by all men to be S. Chrysostomes works So that there is no doubt but that the words alledged by the Cardinall are S. Chrysostomes and do correspond to the Greeke text word for word in which respect the testimony caÌ„not be auoyded and shifted of by M. Andrews as eyther corrupt or counterfait 50. And this as it seemeth he knew well inough and therefore deuysed another shift seeming to admit that S. Chrysostome doth say so and yet denying that it maketh for vs. For non quid fecerit sayth he tum aliquis sed quid ex Patrum statuto fecerit c The King demandeth not what some man did then but what he did according to the decree of the Fathers and what at that tyme the Fathers decreed concerning this poynt Where an act or deed only is declared no decree related is a voluntary act as of a matter of free deuotion and not as of a thing necessary to saluation which neuertheles the Cardinall vndertooke to proue Thus farre M. Andrewes turning and wynding as you see to fynd some starting hole if it were possible though he be catcht so fast that he cannot escape away For wheras he flyeth to his former shift of demanding some decree of the Fathers and reiecting their testimony of facts he notably discouereth the weakenes of his cause 51. For as I signifyed before vpon the occasion of the selfe same answere which he made to a place of S. Basil there was not any sufficient occasion why the Fathers of the Greek Church should make any Synodicall decree at that tyme concerning prayer to Saynts seeing that there was no question of it among them but a generall custome and practise thereof euery where as I partly shewed by the testimony of S. Basil the same may be clearly euinced euen by this place of S. Chrysostome especially if we consider what followeth immediatly the words alledged by the Cardinall and me For S. Chrysostome hauing sayd as you haue heard that he which was clad with purple meaning the Emperour stood praying to the Saynts at their tombes that he which weareth the diâ—deme doth pray to the tent-maker and the fisher as his Patrons and protectours addeth Therefore darest thou be so bold to say that their Lord or Mayster is dead whose seruants euen when they are dead are the protâ—ctors of the Kings of the world And this is not only seene at Rome but also at Constantinople for euen here the Sonne of Constantine the Great thought his father to be much honoured if his body were layd before the Gates of the Fisher. Thus sayth S. Chrysostome with much more to the same purpose which I omit 52. For by this it appeareth sufficiently first that the custome and practise of prayer to Saynts was vniuersall I meane both in the Latin and in the Greeke Church in the tyme of S. Chrysostome which he signifyeth expressely by naming the two principall Cittyes and Imperiall Seates to wit Rome and Constantinople where the same was in vre Secondly it appeareth that it was not practised only by some obscure person as M. Andrews seemeth to insinuate when he sayth that the question is not quid aliquis tum fecerit what some man did then but that it was the custome of most worthy and remarkable persons to wit the most Christian and Catholyke Emperours themselues Thirdly it is euident by this place that S. Chrysostome hyghly approued this custome and belieued it to be most necessary and conforme to the Christian and Catholyke verity seing he doth notably vrge and exaggerate the same for the instruction and edificatioÌ„ of the people to shew vnto them not only the great dignity and glory of Gods seruants and Saynts but also the Omnipotent power and diuinity of our Sauiour Christ. 53. Whereupon it also followeth that M. Andrewes and others who deny this article of Catholike religion do deny a notable argument of Christs Diuinity And therefore whereas he contemneth such a fact as this of most Christian worthy Emperours so testifyed approued and vrged by S. Chrysostome as you haue heard to proue that Christ is God it is cleare that he coÌ„demneth the practise beliefe of the Catholyke Church of that age yea and if by the decrees of the Fathers which he demandeth he meaneth their expresse and cleare doctrine deliuered in their workes he condemneth also the decree of S. Chrysostome touching the same And whereas he addeth for the conclusion of this poynt that this fact related by S. Chrysostome was but an act of voluntary deuotion and not of a thing necessary to saluation which he sayth the Cardinall vndertooke to proue he tryfleth notably for neyther doth the Cardinall vndertake to proue any such thing neyther is it materiall for the question in hand whether it be of necessity to saluation or no. 54. The Cardinall vndertooke only to proue that the doctrine of the Protestans reiecting prayer to Saynts is not the faith of the old primitiue Church which he promiseth to proue by the testimony of the Fathers of the first 400. or 500. yeares as it appeareth expressely by his owne words Soquitur saith he vt ostendamus fidem c. It followeth that we shew the faith which the King defends not to be the faith of the old and primitiue Church c. And agayne a litle after hauing signifyed that his Maiesty in his preface admitteth the 3. Creeds the 4. first Generall Councells and the vniforme doctrine of the Fathers of the first 400. or as it is in the English copy 500. yeares he declareth that amongst other poynts of Catholike religion his Maiesty condemneth Prayer to Saynts and the veneration of Reliques as superstitious Whereupon the Cardinall sayth Accipiam Intercessionem Sanctorum c. I will take in hand the intercession of Saynts with the veneration of reliques which if I can shew to be approued by an vnanime consent of the Fathers of the first 400. or 500. yeares I shall withall proue that the King of Englands fayth is not the fayth of the old primitiue Church but the deuyses heresies of late innouatours Thus saith the Cardinall without touching any way the question whether prayer to Saynts be necessary to saluation which as I haue sayd litle importeth for the decision of the controuersy whether the primitiue Church held it to be lawfull or no. 55. For there is no doubt but that many things are and may be lawfull yea very coÌ„mendable and behoouefull to saluation though they are not of such necessity but that a man may in some cases be saued without them as for example the Euangelicall Counsayles and many workes of supererogation as almes fasting and such lyke which consist in acts of voluntary deuotion are conuenient and notable helps though not absolutly necessary to euery mans saluatioÌ„ And therefore albeit his Maiesty seemeth not to bynd himselfe further to admit the vniforme consent of
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.
alledgeth S. Augustine Lactantius and S. Bernard to proue that the soules of the iust are reserued in certayne receptacles and secret places where they haue not the perfect vision of God vntill the day of iudgement I shall not need to say any thing thereto as well because it would auayle him nothing as you see though S. Augustine and all the rest of the Fathers had ben of that opinion seeing that euen there I meane in those receptacles the Saynts might know our prayers by Angâ—es or by diuine reuelation according to S. Augustines doctrine as also because it is euident that not only S. Augustine but also all the Fathers both Greeke and Latin except 3. to wit Tertullian Lactantius and Victorinus do teach that the Saynts do already enioy the visioÌ„ of God though not in that perfection and consummation of their beatitude which they shall haue after the resurection and glorification of the bodyes as M. Andrews may see if it please him in the controuersy of Cardinall Bellarmine who alledgeth to this purpose 36. Fathers of the Greeke and Latin Church and answereth particulerly those very places which M. Andrews quoteth in his margent and all other places and authorityes which are commonly obiected against our Catholyke doctrine in this poynt So as in fine M. Andrewes proueth nothing at all agaynst vs by this obiection 48. And whereas he sayth also by the way that the Saynts ought not to be inuocated albeit they could heare vs because there is no precept of it I forbeare to giue any full satisfaction to that scruple in this place because he doth not heere yield any reason or produce any authority to proue that nothing is to be done wihout an expresse precept though in another place he alledgeth a text of Scripture to that end whereof I shall haue further occasion to speake after a whyle and therefore I remit the full answere thereof vntill then and only in the meane tyme I will say to him with S. Augustine that in his rebus de quibus nihil certi statuit Scriptura c. In these things whereof there is no certayne precept or determination in Scripture the custome of Gods people or the ordinances of our forefathers are to be held for a law 49. So he who also in another place speaking of certayne traditions of the Church sayth Si quid horum tota pâ—r orbem frequentat Ecclesia c. if the whole Church throughout the world do frequent or vse any of these things it is a most insolent madnes to dispute whether it be to be done or no. Thus saith S. Augustine coÌ„cluding M. Andrews to be a most insolent madde man who calleth in question a generall custome of the Church to which purpose S. Hierome also saith to the Luciferians that albeit there were no authority of Scripture for the matter in question betwyxt them yet totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret the conseÌ„t of the whole world in this behalfe were as much as a precept And the lyke sayth Tertullian Hanc si nulla sayth he Scriptura determinauit c. if no Scripture hath determined this yet truly custome which without doubt hath flowed from tradition hath corroborated and strengthned it 50. To these Fathers I might add many more to the same purpose if it were needefull but these may suffice for the present to shew that M. Andrews doth very idly exact a precept for prayer to Saynts when it is euident by the testimony of all the Fathers before cyted that the same was generally practised in the Church in their tyme no lesse then it is at this present whereupon I also conclude concerning the fact of Theodosius the Emperour that it cannot be with reason denyed but that when he lay prostrate before the tombes of the Martyrs crauing helpe agaynst Eugenius the Tyrant by their intercession he prayed also to them and not only to God especially considering the testimonyes produced by me before out of Sozomen concerning his particuler inuocation of S. Iohn Baptist vpon the same occasion and out of S. Chrysostome testifying the Emperours custome in those dayes to pray to the Martyrs at their monuments wherein also it may well be presumed that S. Chrysostome had a speciall relation euen to that fact of Theodosius whereof we now treate because the same was then very famous when he wrote his coÌ„mentary vpon S. Paules Epistles whence this testimony is taken for he wrote the same whyle he was Bishop as it may appeare by the tyme of his election and of a vision of S. Paul who was seene to assist him whiles he interpreted those Epistles being then Bishop which was but a few yeares after the ouerthrow of Eugenius and the death of Theodosius Thus much for the testimony of Ruffinus 51. Next after this followeth a place of S. Paulinus inuocating S. Clarus in these words Haec peccatorum c. Receiue these prayers of sinners who do beseech thee to be mindfull of Paulinus and Therasia And now because Paulinus wrote in verse M. Andrews will haue it to be vnderstood that he did but play or dally lyke a Poet. But to this I answere that if S. Paulinus was a Poet he was a Christian yea a holy Poet and therefore would not vse any Poeticall licence to the derogation of the Christian fayth or Religion or that might any way seeme iniurious to Christ as M. Andrews and his fellowes do account the inuocation of Saynts to be besides that it is manyfest that he did no otherwise in verse then the other Fathers afore mentioned did in prose and was warranted as you haue seene by the custome and practice of the whole Church at that tyme so that this is as vayne an euasion and as improbable as any of the former 52. Finally he concludeth his censure with S. Augustine whome the Cardinall alledgeth thus Habet Ecclesiastica disciplina c. The Ecclesiasticall discipline hath that which the faythfull know who make mention of Martyrs at the Altar of God not to pray for them there as for others that are dead for it is an iniury to pray for a Martyr to whose prayers we ought to be recommended Thus sayth S. Augustine To this M. Andrewes answereth that the Cardinall shall neuer be able to make Augustin on his side or not to be for the Protestants and that whatsoeuer is cyted ex aliquo riuulo Augustini out of some litle booke of Augustine the same is dryed vp with one only sentence as with the sunne and this sentence he saith is in opere suo palmari in his principall worke de Ciuitate Dei Well then let vs see the splendour of this radiant sentence and try what heate or force it hath to dry vp the other testimonyes cyted out of S. Augustine for prayer to Saynts 53. The words which M. Andrews alleadgeth out of S.
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
the Sacrament which they all do vniformly teach to giue grace ex opere operato and therefore seeing that according to his Maiestyes testimony as well vpon his owne knowledge as by the relation of the Bishops to him the Catholykes did neuer ascribe any power or spirituall grace to the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme it is euident that the Bishops in their Synod belyed them egregiously charging them to hold it to be a part of the substance of the Sacrament yea and notably deluded the people in seeking to perswade them that the Catholykes had corrupted the vse thereof and that the English Clergy hath now reduced it to the primary institution 37. Who then could imagine that so many Ecclesiasticall men honorable for their ranke and dignity in the common welâ—h by profession Deuines by tytle Prelats and spirituall Pastors of the people could also vniformely agree to cozen the world in this manner and insteed of feeding their flock with holsome doctrine to infect and poyson them with such manifest lyes as this conuinced euen by their owne testimony to his Maiesty himselfe the very same yeare that they deuised it as it appeareth by the printed copyes of their Ecclesiastical constitutions of the coÌ„ference at Hampton-Court published in the yeare 1604. and therefore I leaue it to thee good Reader to consider in what a miserable state our poore country is where such men as these who as it seemeth haue no care eyther of their owne conscience or reputation haue neuertheles the care and charge of other mens soules 38. But to returne to M. Andrews who perhaps was one of that conuenticle though not as a Bishop yet as one of the Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury I would gladly know of him whether he and his Clergy in the Diocesse of Ely do vse the signe of the Crosse in the administration of Baptisme or not and if they do not let him tell vs how they obserue this Synodicall Canon made by his fellowes and authorized by his Maiesty and if they do obserue it let him shew vs some precept or example of it in Scripture seeing he resolutly affirmeth in the name of the whole English Church as it seemeth that they dare do that only whereof they haue a precept Therefore I say let him eyther shew vs some precept for it in Scripture or els confesse that he and his fellowes dare do more then is commanded therein 39. Finally if they may lawfully follow the primitiue and Apostolicall Churches and the iudgement of all the ancient fathers in matters though not commanded in Scripture yet consonant thereto as they professe to do in the foresayd Canon then they must also grant that it is in lyke manner lawfull for Catholykes to do the lyke for prayer to Saynts seeing that the same is conforme to the practice of the primitiue Church and to the beliefe of the ancient fathers and consequently to the holy Scriptures for otherwyse neyther would so many learned ancient and holy fathers haue approued it neyther yet the Church whose authority as S. Augustine sayth the Scripture recommendeth vnto vs would haue practised it I meane that visible Catholyke Church whereof S. Augustine did so constantly defend and mayntayne the authority agaynst the heretykes in his tyme that he pronounced them as you haue heard before to be most insolent mad men if they did but only doubt of any generall custome thereof 40. Whereupon I conclude that prayer to Saynts being generally approued and practised by the Church in S. Augustines tyme it must needs follow according to his rule that the vse and practice thereof is not only most lawfull and consonant to Scripture but also reuerently to be retayned and vsed by M. Andrews and his fellowes euen according to their owne profession in their Synodicall constitution seeing as I haue signified before they professe reuerently to retayne the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme though not commanded in Scripture because the same was vsed in the primitiue Church and is consonant to Scripture and to the Iudgement of all the ancient Fathers 41. And if he say that they professe in their Canon to follow the rules of doctrine concerning things that are at least indifferent that prayer to Saynts is neyther absolutly good nor yet indifferent but altogeather vnlawfull and consequently not to be vsed he is to vnderstand first that according to his owne rule and inference vpon the text of Deuteronomy he neyther doth nor can admit any thing that is not commanded in Scripture be it neuer so good For he sayth id tantúm audemus facere c. we dare do that only whereof we haue a precept and to that purpose he alledgeth also the text of Deuteronomy hoc tantùm facies quod tibi praecipio thou shalt do this only which I do command thee where you see the word tantùm as well in his assertion as in the text of Scripture excludeth all things whatsoeuer that are not commanded whereupon it followeth that the vse of the signe of the Crosse in baptisme is as well prohibited as prayer to Saynts if hee vnderstand that text of Deuteronomy aright and make a good inference thereon 42. Secondly it is not sufficient that he and his fellowes do hold the inuocation of Saynts to be vnlawfull but they must also proue it so to be or els they must grant the practice of it to be lawfull as of a thing at least indifferent vpon the same reason that they admit the â—igne of the Crosse in baptisme yea with farre greater reason seeing that as I haue already proued prayer to Saynts is not only good and lawfull but also most profitable and beneficiall to men whereas the Crosse in baptisme according to the doctrine of the foresayd Canon hath no vertue or power in it at all but is only an outward Ceremony and honorable badge of a Christian. So as M. Andrews cannot approue the vse thereof and exclude the practice of prayer to Saynts except he wil be so absurd to admit things indifferent and reiect a thing absolutly good and very necessary for euery Christian man for so I say he must needs confesse the inuocation of Saynts to be except he can ouerthrow the testimonies of all the ancient Fathers yea and the experience that the Church hath alwayes had of the soueraygne benefits that men reape thereby 43. Thirdly whereas he demandeth a precept in Scripture for prayer to Saynts he seemeth to grant it to be eyther good of it selfe or at least indifferent for if it were absolutly bad it were in vayne and absurd to demand a precept of it for that it could neuer be commanded so as eyther his demand in that behalfe is very idle and absurd or els he must acknowledge it at least to be indifferent and consequently that it is no lesse lawfull to vse it without a precept then the signe of the Crosse in
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
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
Catholik who taught or thought that the bare SacrameÌ„t in the Eucharist I meane the exteriour forme is to be adored without Christs presence or in respect of it selfe And this may suffice for this point 10. I may adde the lyke concerning another point wherein M. Andrewes chargeth the Cardinall to change the state of the question I meane touching the reuerence and honor that is and allwayes hath byn done in the Catholik Church to the holy reliques of Saynts For whereas the Apology for the Oath condemneth it for a new and false yea an abhominable doctrine and the Cardinall in his answere thereto so amply and euidently proueth it out of the Ancient Fathers that it cannot be denyed M. Andrews hath no other refuge but to take hould of the word Adoration vsed by the Apology vnderstanding it for worship due to God alone and exacting of the Cardinall some proofe that such adoration is due to reliques as though Catholiks were of that opinon wheras nether the Cardinall nor any other Catholike doth apply that word to reliques in that sense but vse it for reuerence and veneration due to holy men or holy things as the Cardinall himselfe signifieth in plaine and expresse words So that if the said Apology do impugne the adoration of Reliques in the other sense meaning the exhibition of diuine honour thereunto it doth not any way impugne our doctrine but changeth the state of the question as well as M. Andrewes though so absurdly as he who doth not only vnderstand the Adoration of Reliques to signify a diuine honor done vnto them but also will needs proue no adoration of creatures is lawfull 11. To which purpose he alledgeth the example of the Angell in the Apocalyps who when Saynt Iohn the Euangelist would haue adored him twice forbad him to do it at both tymes saying Vide ne feceris Deum adora See that thou doest it not adore God Whereupon he inferreth that seeing S. Iohn could not be ignorant especially the second tyme that the Angell was not God and yet would haue adored him it followeth that he I meane S. Iohn did not intend to adore him with adoration due to God alone but with such saith M. Andrews as the Cardinall supposeth may be vsed to Angells holy men or sacred thinges and yet neuerthelesse the Angell would not permit it and therefore in M. Andrews his opinion no such adoration is lawfull for Nec est saith he Angelorum ratio alia alia Sanctorum c. For in this there is no difference betwixt the adoration of Angells and of Saynts of holy menâ— neyther is there more respect to be had to reliques theÌ„ to those whose reliques they are So he Not admitting as you â—ee any adoration of Angells or Saynts though it be not meant thereby to exhibit diuine honour vnto them but only to do an act of veneratioÌ„ reuereÌ„ce or religioê° worship and why Many forsooth because the Angell would not suffer S. Iohn the Apostle to adore him in that maÌ„ner 12. Wherein two thinges are to be noted the one what a poore conceipt M. Andrews hath of S. Iohn whome he maketh to be so ignorant that he knew not whether such adoration were lawfull or no vntill the Angell did instruct him and forbad him to vse it The other that he reasoneth as substantially as if he should say that if a holy man should of modesty and humility refuse some extraordinary honour offred vnto him by some other holy person and byd him not to do it to him but to God hee must needs meane that no such kind of reuerence or honor may be done to men for such no doubt was the case betwixt S. Iohn and the Angell eyther of them shewing their humility and the respect they bare the one to the other S. Iohn reuerencing the Angell as a Celestiall creature to whome he held himselfe much inferiour and the Angell bearing much respect and reuerence to S. Iohn as to the most worthy and beloued Apostle of Christ who was Lord and maister to them both and therefore acknowledging himselfe to be no other but conseruum as he said a fellow seruant of S. Iohn he would not permit him to do him that honor but bad him do it to God besides that S. Gregory the great Beda Anselmus Richardus de S. Victore and Rupertus do giue also another reason thereof to wit that the Angell bare respect euen to humane nature in regard of the humanity of our Sauiour Hinc est saith S. Gregory quòd Lot Iosue Angelos ipsis non prohibentibus c. For this cause Lot and Iosue adored Angells and were not forbidden by them but 〈◊〉 in the Apocalips meaning to adore an Angell was by him forbidden to do it So he signifying how much the Angells respected humane nature after the Incarnation of our Sauiour more then before 13. But for the further satisfaction and instruction of the vnlearned reader in this point he is to vnderstand that there are three kindes of adoration specified in the holy Scripture The first is that which is due to God alone and is called by Deuines Adoratio Latriae that is to say an adoration or exteriour worship exhibited by some corporall reuerence and submission to acknowledge our duety and seruice to God as he is our Creatour Conseruatour and Chiefe good and this adoration is so due proper vnto God alone that it is Idolatry to exhibit the same vnto any Creature Of this kind the Scripture speaketh when it saith Dominum Deum tuum adorabis illi soli seruies Thou shalt adore thy Lord God and serue him alone Also Non adorabis ea neque coles Thou shalt not adore nor worship them that is to say Idolls Non adorabis Deos eorum Thou shalt not adore â—heir Gods Adorauit Irael Dominum Israell adored our Lord. Gedeon adorauit reuersus est Gedeon adored and returned Veri adoratores adorabunt patrem in spiritu veritate The true Adorers or worshipers shall adore my Father in spirit and truth And the lyke occurreth in infinite other places as well of the new as the old testament 14â— The second kind of adoration though it be inferiour to this yet is also an act of Religion exhibited in like manner exteriourly to Angells Saynts or holy men as to the seruants of God and for the honor and loue of him of which kind many examples are set downe in holy Scriptures as of Abraham Loâ— and Balaam who adored Angells prostrate vpon the ground And of Iosue who fell downe prostrate before an Angell adorans ait quid Dominus meus c. And adoring said why doth my Lord speake vnto his seruant And so far was the Angell from reprehending him that he made him do more reuerenâ—e commanding him to put of his shooes because the place was holy wherein he stood which place no
submit themselues to the Church throw downe their Crowns before the Church That Magistrats as well as other men must submit them selues and be obedient to the iust lawfull authority of the Church that is of the Presbitery Quis tandem Reges Principes who can exempt euen Kings and Princes from this non humana sed diuina dominatione not humane but diuine domination meaning the Presbitery saith Beza which presbitery they would haue to be in euery parish quotquot Ecclesiae Christi as many as be members of Christ and of the Church they must subiect themselues to the consistorian discipline non hic excipitur Episcopus aut Imperator neyther Bishop or Emperour is excepted heere Thus sayth M. Rogers concerning the doctrine of the Puritans and addeth further also in the next leafe that if the King be not included in the number of Pastors Elders Deacons and Widdowes he cannot possibly haue any thing to doe in Church-affaires in these mens opinions meaning the Puritans 80. All this wrote M. Thomas Rogers touching the doctrine of the Puritans not past fiue yeares agoe for his booke was printed in Cābridge by Iohn Legat in the yeare of our Lord 1607. If then the Puritans were so lately as fiue yeares agoe of the opinion that M. Barlow and M. Rogers report which is the same that the Cardinall affirmeth eyther let M. Andrews tell vs precisely in what bookes or sermons since that tyme they haue recalled this errour or els if he will needs say that they did it before I will turne him to these two for answere not doubting but they are able to giue him full satisfaction therein especially M. Rogers who hath pawned the credit of all the English Clergy for the truth of his testimony And in the meane tyme I will desire thee good Reader to consider whether M. Andrews could haue any iust cause or pretence to reuile the Cardinall and call him lyar and dotard as he doth for affirming a matter belonging to our Country which he findeth expressely testified by the greatest superintendent of our English Clergy besids other sufficient reasons mouing him thereto 81. For put the case it were true as it is most false that the Puritans haue of late recanted their errour as M. Andrews tearmeth it yet the same hauing neuer byn hitherto so published that strangers can take notice thereof hath M. Andrew◠any reason in the world to reprehend and reuyle any stranger for not acknowledging it being but a matter of fact which he neyther knoweth nor is bound to know Truly albeit M. Andrews be of a most intemperate tongue and malignant disposition towards Catholykes as hath appeared diuers wayes yet I verily think that if the weakenes of his cause had not forced him to braue and face it out with rayling for lack of reason to defend it he would not in this case haue byn so immoderate in contumelies and reproaches towards the Cardinall as he hath byn without any cause giuen of his part But heerin he concurreth so well with his companion M. Barlow that it appeareth euidently they are both guided by one spirit To conclude this point concerning the Puritans wheras M. Andrews saith that they haue of late acknowledged their error touching the Kings supremacy I will in the next Chapter make it euident that not they but hee if he be an English Protestant may be sayd to haue acknowledged his error and that he is turned Puritan in that point admitting the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy no otherwise but so as they may safely grant it without change of opinion yea subscribe or sweare to it in the same sense that he teacheth it and so perhaps such of them do as take the Oath of supremacy and this I say I make no doubt to proue clearely in the next Chapter quod scio punget Doctorem as he sayd once of the Cardinall 82. To these examples of his egregious impudency in this kind I may well adde one or two other examples of his impudent assertion of notable lyes without allegation of authour or witnesse as when he chargeth certayne Iesuits to haue affirmed or as it seemeth to haue written that they cōmitted no sinne abannis saith he nescio quot I know not for how many yeares togeather which I dare boldly affirme to be a monstrous lye I meane that any Iesuit hath so written or sayd eyther of himselfe or any other man for although I make no doubt but that many Iesuits and other good men both Religious and secular by the help of Gods grace doe liue free from all mortall sinnes that is to say such sinnes as do vtterly depriue men of Gods fauour grace and deserue eternall damnatiō yet I am well assured that no Catholyke will say that any man liueth free from all sinnes such I meane as are called veniall which could not be sayd of the Apostles themselues as S. Iohn testifieth saying si dixerimus quod peccatum non habemus c. Yf we say that we haue no sinne we seduce our selues and truth is not in vs and to the same purpose also the Scripture sayth els where Septies in die cadet iustus c. The iust mā shall fall seauen tymes a day and shall ryse againe 83. And this is so knowne and firmely belieued of all Catholykes that it is incredible that any one who professeth the Catholyke Religiō should affirme of any man and much lesse be so vayne to say of him selfe that he committed no sinne for some yeares therefore M. Andrewes must not thinke it strange if we take this for an egregious lye vntill he produce some other authour or witnes then himselfe as I doubt not but he would haue dōe if he had any worth the naming or els had not perhaps forgot his name as well as the number of yeares in which those Iesuits committed no sinne for so it appeareth by his ab annis nescio quot whereby we may see what substātiall tales he telleth vs seeing he writeth eyther he knoweth not or at least he careth not what 84. The lyke I say also of another matter auowed by him with more particularities and circumstances to wit that a Iesuit being in Prison at the same tyme when he wrote cōfessed vpon his owne accord without all compulsion feare or examination moued merely with remorse of conscience that the Popesent to England 3. Buls of excommunication to be kept in readines and published in three seuerall parts of the realme vpon the execution of the powder-plot wherevpon he inferreth that the Pope must needs be priuy vnto the sayd plot But for as much as I assure my selfe and know right well that no such Buls as he mentioneth were euer made I do not only deny the inference of the Popes knowledge of the powder-plot but also may iustly charge M. Andrews to haue faygned the whole matter himselfe vntill he name the
did aske the Bishop with great reason whether he agreed with the Roman Church sciebat enim Episcopum tum Romae Catholicum for he knew that the Bishop of Rome then was a Catholike So he wherin he granteth consequently that the Pope is supreme and vniuersall Pastor of the whole Church for that must needes follow of his grant seeing it is euident that he who then was Bishop of Rome and whom he alloweth for Catholik had and exercised a supreme and vniuersall authority to which purpose it is to be considered who was Bishop of Rome at that time wherto M. Andrewes himselfe giueth vs no small light signifying presently after that Liberius was Bishop a litle before him and sure it is that Damasus succeeded Liberius and reygned many yeares who therefore must needes be the Catholike Bishop that M. Andrewes meaneth 30. Now then what authority Damasus had and exercised during his raigne it appeareth sufficiently by that which I signified before concerning him and his supremacy in the 4. Chapter where I shewed that the same was acknowledged not only in Affrick by the Byshops of 3. African Synods who in a commoÌ„ Epistle to him gaue cleare and euident testimony thereof but also in the East Church euen by the chief Patriarkes therof to wit by Peter the holy Bishop of Alexandria who immediately succeeded Athanasius and being expelled from his Church by the Arians fled to Pope Damasus and by the vertue and authority of his letters was restored to his seat as the Magdeburgians themselues do relate out of the Ecclesiasticall histories And in the Church of Antioch his authority was acknowledged by Paulinus Byshop therof receiuing instructions and orders from him for the absolution of Vitalis the Heritick Also afterwards Theopilus Byshop of Alexandria and S. Chrysostome Byshop of Constantinople were suters to him to obtain pardon for Flauianus Byshop of Antioch as may be seene more particulerly in the fourth Chapter of this Adioynder where I haue also set downe the cleer testimonies of some Fathers who liued at the same time and euidently acknowledged his supremacy 31. So that M. Andrewes granting that Pope Damasus was a Catholike Bishop and that the Church of Rome was in such integrity vnder him that S. Ambrose had reason to hold none for Catholickes but such as held vnion therewith It mâ—st needs follow that the supreme and vniuersall authority which Pope Damasus had and vsed was not vsurped but due to him his Sea and consequently to his successors And wheras M. Andrewes signifieth that the Roman Church and Bishops were not alwaies in the like integrity that they were at that time to wit neither a little before in the time of Liberius nor shortly after in the time of Honorius because both of them subscribed to heresy as he saith I will not now stand to debate that point with him both because I should digresse too much from the matter in hand hauing here vndertaken to shew what he granteth in fauour of Catholicks not to disproue what he denieth or affirmeth otherwise as also because he may see those old and stale obiections fully answered by the Cardinall himself in his CoÌ„trouersies not only concerning those two Popes but also touching all the rest whom our aduersaries were wont to calumniate in like manner and therfore I remit him therto 32. There followeth presently after a large and liberall grant of M. Andrews right worth the noting For wheras the Cardinall still prosecuteth the same matter touching the application of the name Catholicke to the Roman Church and hauing produced the precedent authority of S. Ambrose remitteth his Reader for further proofe therof to the last page of his former Booke which was his Answere to the Apology for the Oath it is to be vnderstood that in the said book and page he proueth by the authority of 3. Ancient Fathers to wit Pacianus S. Cyrill and S. Augustine that the name Catholike is a most true and proper note of the true Church and that it could neuer be vsurped by Hereticks yea and that our aduersaries themselues namely in the Apology for the Oath do so call vs and distinguish vs from themselues by that name and do consequently acknowledge vs to be members of the true Church whereto M. Andrews answereth thus Nam quae in extrema pagina c. For as for those things which the Cardinall wrote in the last page of his former booke and would gladly haue his Reader to see fatemur omnia we graunt and acknowledge them all So he Whereby he granteth that we being called Catholiks euen by our aduersaries themselues haue the true signe note of the true Church and are therefore true members thereof and that he and his fellowes who haue not the same note are Heretikes or Schismatiks For this is in effect the ArgumeÌ„t of the Cardinall grounded vpon the authority of the Fathers aforesayd which you see M. Andrews graunteth saying fatemur omnia 33. And albeit he seeketh presently an euasion by a distinction yet it helpeth him nothing for thus he saith Nec de nominis honore lis vlla sed vtri è re magis nomen habeant neyther is there any contention betwixt vs about the honour of the name but whether of both haue the name deriued from the thing So he allowing vs as you see the honor of the name for the which he saith they do not contend with vs and calling in question only to whome belongeth the thing signified by that name whereas neuertheles it is euident that according to the authorities alledged and vrged by the Cardinall out of the Fathers the name and the thing expressed by the name do alwaies so coÌ„cur that they are neuer separated for which cause those Fathers do hold and teach that the very name and word Catholyke is an euident note to distinguish the true Catholike faith and Church from the false doctrine and Congregation of Heretickes which they could not do if some might haue only the name Catholike and others the faith or Church which it signifieth 34. And therefore S. Augustine in the place alledged by the Cardinall saith that the very name Catholike held him in the Catholike Church quod saith he non sine causâ— inter tot haereses ista Ecclesia sola obtinuit which name this Church only hath obteyned amongst so many heresies not without cause So saith S. Augustine whereto the other Fathers which the Cardinall also cyteth do agree all teaching that heretikes or hereticall congregations neuer did or could vsurpe the name Catholike but that the same hath alwayes been and euer shall be peculiar to the true Church wherby they teach euidently that the name and the thing signified by the name do euer concur So as M. Andrews granting not only the Fathers doctrine in this poynt but also giuing vs freely the honour of the name alloweth vs to haue the
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
the last Chapter where I also charged as wel M. Andrews as M. Barlow with the euident abuse of this place of holy Scripture in diuers respects and therfore I beseech thee good Reader take paines to reuiew what I haue said there if thou dost not well remember it So as I may now conclude vpon these two reasons of M. Andrews that he is both an ignorant and a corrupt Doctor ignorant in affirming that Moyses laid a way his Priesthood and corrupt in notably abusing the holy Scriptures 43. And whereas he very ofâ— recurreth for the profe of this point to the examples of the Kings in the old Testament I haue sufficiently answered therto in my Supplement where I haue proued first that the law of Moyses did expressely and manifestly giue to the high Preist the supreme authoritie not only in matters of religion but also euen in temporall affaires forasmuch as concerned the decision of doubts and difficult questions Secondly that the Kinges were not at their institution exempt from this law but rather commanded to obserue it Thirdly that the particuler examples which he and others are wont to alledg of Iosua Dauid Salomon Ezechtas and Iosias doe make nothing for their purpose that diuers other examples do clearly proue the contrary And lastly that although it were true that Kings were superiour to Preists in the old law yet it doth not follow theron that they are so now also in the new law as well because the law of Moyses at least the iudiciall and ceremoniall part thereof was wholly abrogated by the law of Christ as also because our Sauiour ordained a new and farr more excellent Preisthood manner of gouernment in his Church which beginning in the Apostles and spirituall Pastors was continued also most euidently in them for 300 yeares without interruption to wit during the paganisme of the Emperours and no new coÌ„mission euer since that tyme knowne to be giuen by Christ to Kings whereby they were authorized to take vpon them the gouerment of the Church 44. So that I am to demaund of M. Andrews as I also did of M. Barlow in my Supplement how and by what Commission the supreme authority in Ecclesiasticall affayres was transferred from the Apostles and their Successors to Kings after they were Christened seeing that they can neyther claime any succession therin from the Kinges of the old law which as I haue said was quite abrogated by Christ nor pretend any new authority giuen theÌ„ in the new lawe it being most manifest that all the texts of Scripture which M. Andrewes or other of our aduersaries doe or can alleage for the spirituall Supremacy of temporall Kinges out of the new Testament do ordeyne obedience to the Pagan Princes that the raigned no lesse then to others which therfore cannot be vnderstood to concerne spirituall matters and much lesse to make them heades of the Church except M. Andrewes will be so absurd to say that the most wicked Emperours Tyberius Caius Claudius and Nero were heades or supreme Gouernours of the Church and that they could commaund and ought to be obeyed in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affayres 45. Now then seeing M. Andrewes neither bringeth nor is able to bring any other proofes then these out of the old or new Testament for the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of Kinges I may well conclude that as he hath great reason to hould it for no matter of faith and therfore not to admit it into his Creed as being neither expressely taught in Scripture nor necessarily deduced from it so I may with no lesse reason aduise him also to put it out of his Pater noster if it be gotten so farre into his bookes seeing it is not so much as probably gathered out of Scripture in which respect also I am to put him in mind of a rule giuen by himselfe in another question to witt that nothing is to be admitted and practised in the Church whereof some precept is not to be shewed in holy Scriptures for so doth he tell vs concerning prayer to Saints saying non audemus vota nostra c. We dare not direct our prayers to Saints because we haue no precept thereof hauing a precept in expresse wordes Quod tibi praecepero hoc tantum facies Thou shalt only do this which I shall command thee wherevpon we dare only doe that whereof we haue a precept 46. Thus sayth he and therefore according to this his owne rule I must now exact of him to shew vs some precept whereby the Kinges spirituall Supremacie is coÌ„maunded or ordeyned in Scripture but this he acknowledgeth sufficiently he cannot do seing he teacheth that we are not bouÌ„d to belieue it as an article of faith but to be perswaded only that it is a truth which he neither could nor as I thinke would say if he could shew any precept or commaundement of it in Scripture And this being so how then dare he and his fellowes admit it into their Church seeing he sayth Id tantùm audemus facere â— we dare only doe that whereof we haue a precept And how can he approue that men should be compelled to sweare it as an vndoubted truth when neuertheles it is no matter of faith by his owne confession nor hath any ground in Scripture as I haue shewed and much lesse is ordeyned and commaunded in Scripture and therefore according to his owne rule not to be admitted practised in the Church and consequently not to be ratified by a solemne Oath for an infallible verity as if it were one of the most important Articles of our Creed 47. But yet let vs examine the matter a litle further sound the depth of M. Andrewes his doctrine coÌ„cerning the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy I doubt not but we shall find that he is neither good English Protestant nor yet a good subiect for if it fall out that his doctrine agreeeth not with the moderne Lawes and Statuts of the Realme he is neither of both seing that according to the doctrine of English Protestants none can be accounted to be of their congregation neither yet a good subiect who belieueth not the Kings Supremacy as it is taught and ordeyned by the Statutes of King Henry the 8. King Edward the 6. and â—he late Queene Elizabeth but this M. Andrewes doth not for he doth not allowe the King any spirituall power at all â—eaching expresly that the King himselfe acknowledgeth non se aliter esse supra Ecclesiam quà m vtâ— nutritius â—utor That he is not otherwise ouer the Church but as a foster-father and defender Which he also explicateth adding vt eam scilicet nutriat tuâ—atur that is to say to the end that he may nouâ—â—sh and defend it to which purpose he also sayd before as you haue heard that the Kings Supremacy is no matter or article of faith becaus it concerneth only externall gouermeÌ„t so
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 Cath. Church done at the Reliques of Saints 443. at Valentia in Spaine ibid. None wrought in the ProtestaÌ„ts Church why ibid. Monks of the Primitiue Church their discipline .449 their first Institute approued by M. Andrews 448. N NAME Catholike belongeth only to the Roman Church 451. S. Greg. Nazianz. his approbation of prayer to Saintes pag. 253. to our B. Ladie ibid. S. Greg. Nissen his approbation of holy reliques in the Church 264. of prayer to Saints ibid. His prayer to S. Theodor the Martyr 267. O OATH of Supremacy why it is vnlawfull 461. Origen his proof of S. Peters Primacy 198. P PASTORS their obligation of care of their Churches pag. 76.78 Prayer to Saintes approued by S. Basil 218. Impugned by Protestants 336.337 conform to Scripture deduced from it 344. Power ouer the soule implyeth power ouer the body pag. 126. Priuiledges graÌ„ted to the Church of Constantinople pag. 44.45.46 Abrogated by Pope Leo pa. 47. Puritans their Doctrine concerning the Kinges Supremacy 419. How some of them take the Oath of Supremacy 420. S. Peter how he bare the person of the Church when he receaued the Keyes pag. 5. His Supremacy grounded vpoÌ„ the wordes Pasce oues meas pag. 8. acknowledged by S. Augustine pag. 17. By S Cyril ibid. by S. Hierome pag. 119. by Origen 198. by S. Hilary 199. How he was called the light of the Church pag. 103. How he was reprehended by S. Paul pag. 107. how he is the foundation of the Church pag. 109. preferred before S. Iohn why pag. 118 How he may be called a Monarch pag. 134. His fall no preiudice to his Primacy pag. 148. Q QVEENE Elizabeth her spirituall Gouernment giuen vnto her by the Parliament 476. R RELIQVES of Saints vsed in the Church 284. approued by S. Gregory Nissen ibid. M. Rogers against M. Andrews concerning our English Clergy 422 423. Roman Church neuer fayled in Faith by Gods prouidence pag. 124. S SAINTS praied vnto in all ages passim how they heare our prayers and help vs pag. 288. how they know our praiers and actions 291.318.319 practised in the primitiue Church 334. impugned by Protestants out of Scripture 336.337 How they helpe vs by the participation of Christs power 347. Protectors of Citties Countries ibid. Schisme whence it commonly ariseth pag. 125. Signe of the Crosse in Baptisme 334.336 Sermons de tempore in Latin and Greeke in S. Augustines tyme pag. 146. by S. Maximus Bishop of Turin 205. Siluerius the Pope his vsage by Theodora and Iustinian pag. 32.33 defended by the Bishop of Patera 24.35.36 Speaches conditionall do not alwayes suppose a doubt in the Speaker 261. Supremacy of S. Peter grounded vpon the words Pasce oues meas pag. 8. proued by S. Chrisostome 142. Supremacy Ecclesiasticall of the King of England and M. Andrews conceit thereof .459 excluded by a Rule of M. Andrewes 465. T THEODOSIVS the Emperour inuocated Saints pag. 286. particulerly S. Iohn Baptist. ibid. Theodoretus restored to his Bishoprike by Pope Leo pag. 59. Abused by Maister Andrewes 307. Theodora the Empresse her practise against Pope Siluerius pag. 31. Tyranny more frequent in smal States then in great Monarchies pag. 130. V VIGILANTIVS his heresy against prayer to Saints pag. 228. resisted by S. Hierome ibid. 377.378.379 M. Andrews his progenitour 377. Vniuersall Bishop the title giuen to the Pope by the CouÌ„cell of Calcedon pag. 68. Votiue represeÌ„tations of haÌ„ds feet eyes c. hung vp in Churches in the Primitiue Church 2â—0 W VVORKSâ— good Works how the are said to saue vs. 272. Wryters of diuers partes of Scripture vncertayne pag 250. FINIS The reason that moued the Author to adde this Adioynder to the former SuplemeÌ„t The Authors intention in this Adioynder What question is specially handled in this Adioynder SupplemeÌ„t chap. 1. nu 58.59 seq D. Andr. Respons ad Apolog. ca. 1. pag. 16. Aug. de Agon Christ. c. 30. Ambros. de sacerd dignitate cap. 20. S. Augustine lamely and frauduleÌ„tly alledged by M. Andrews August vbi supra Cic. offic l. 1. How S. Peter did beare the person of the Church when he receaued the keyes S. Augustines meaning declared out of his owne doctrine Tract vlt. in Ioan. Idem in Ps. 108. Idem ser. 13. de verb. Dom. M. Andrewes fraud against the intention of S. Augustine S. Ambr. de Sacerd. dignit c 1. The meaning of S. Ambrose declared Andr. ca. 3. pag. 74. § Verum Ambr. in 2. Cor. 12. IdeÌ„ lib. 10. coÌ„ment in cap. 24. EuaÌ„g Luc. S. Ambrose proueth S. Peters Supremacy out of the wordes Pasce oues meas Three things taught by S. Ambrose D. Andrews can help the dyce wheÌ„ he is put to his shifts A vayne brag of D. Andrews Andr. cap. 8. pag. 214. 215. The secoÌ„d argument answer of M. Andrews which he taketh to be so sharp that it will prick the Cardinall Andr. c. 1. pag. 16. §. VeruÌ„ vim videamê° See Suppl Chap. 1. n. 18.19 sequ Num. c. 8. Num. 1. Deut. 10. 18. Supplem c. 1. n. 22.23 24. Suppl cap. 1. vbi supr In what case ChristiaÌ„s may ground vpon the law of Moyses M. Andrews his beggarly proofe for a temporal princes spirituall Supremacy See infra cap. 6. M. Andrews proofes of the temporall Princes supremacy sauour of Iudaisme 2. Reg. 5. D. Andrews doth equiuocate egregiously Andr. vbi supra D. Andrews argueth impertinently Isa. 44. Num. 27. D. Andrews coÌ„founded by an instance of his owne Theodor. quast 48. in Num. See Suppl nu 21. Num. 27. M. Andrews pricking argument doth wound none but himselfe The third answere of D. Andrews examined Andr. vbi supra pag. 17. lin 4. (a) See after c. 3. n. 36.37 seq (b) Cap. 5. n. 18.19.20 (c) Supplement cap. 1. nu 59. sequent If the Popes primacy be a temporall Primacy M. Andrews is a pecuniary Pastour S. Augustine acknowledgeth S. Peters supremacy in the place alleadged by M. Andrews S. August Tract 124. in Euang. Ioan. Idem in psal 108. S. Cyril coÌ„ment in Cap. vlt. Ioan. S. Cyril also acknowledgeth S. Peters supremacy in the place which M. Andrews alleadgeth Andr. vbi supra M. Andrews maketh S. Augustin S. Cyril fauour a pernicious heresy S. Augustine belyed by D. Andrews Aug. Ep. 50. S. Cyril notably abused by M. Andrews Cyril vbi supra Andr. pag 215. §. Noâ— vero M. Andrews worthily suspected to hold that Magistrats fall from their dignity by mortal sinnes S. Cyril Hierosol Cathech Mystag 2. Optat. l. 7. de Schismate DonatistaruÌ„â— The plaâ—ces of 3. Fathers alledged by M. Andrews do confute him S. Chrysostome for S. Peters Supremacy Chrysost. de Sacerd. l. 2. Ibidem Ibid. S. Leo. ep 89. Idem ser. 3. de assumpt sua ad Pontif. Supplem cap. 5. nu 25.26 27. Euseb. Emis ho. de natiuit Ioan. Euan. Theophil in cap. vlt. Ioan. S. Ber. l. 2. de consider Psal. 1.19 Psal. 63. M. Andrews his
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.
farre forth as the Church requireth admitteth humane help authority 48. Therefore whereas in the gouerment of the Church two things are specially conâ—idered the one internall and diuine and the other externall and humane the former which is a spirituall heauenly power communicated by almighty God to man he excludeth from the Kings Supremacy and admitteth only the latter which is a meere externall and humane power and the same also non aliter no othâ—rwise then for the nourishment and defence of the Church so as you see he acknowledgeth therby no other power ouer the Church but only externall humane and temporall whereto I make no doubt but all the Puritans in England and Scotland will subscribe neither do the Catholiks deny but affirme and teach that Kings are bound to nourish the Church with their purses and defend it with their power and authority as all or most Christian Kinges at their Coronation are sworne to doe And not only Christian Kings haue this power but also any Pagan Prince hath and may exercise the same as the Kings of Chinae and Persia the one a PagaÌ„ and the other a Mahumetan doe at this day 49. For the King of China nourisheth and defendeth the Church of Christ in the Colledges and Residences of the Fathers of the Society not only in his principall Citty called Pachyn where he keepeth his Court but also in diuers other partes of his Dominions giuing them mayntenance immunities and priuiledges and shewing them many other particuler fauours As also the King of Pâ—rsia doth the lyke to the Carmelitan Fathers in his Country though I think no man will say that these Kinges haue any spirituall power ouer the Church of Christ as our late Statutes haue giuen to our Kinges which may appeare by a Statute of King Henry the 8. whereby it was ordayned in these wordes Be it enacted c. that the King our Soueraigne Lord his heires and successors Kinges of his Realme shall be taken accepted and reputed the only supreme head of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia and shall haue and enioy annexed and vnited to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme as well the Title and stile thereof as all Honours Dignities Preheminences Iurisdictions Priuiledges Authorities Immunities profits and commodities to the said Dignitie of supreme head of the same Church belonging So saith the Statute which must needes be vnderstood to giue spirituall authority when it giueth all that Power Dignity and Iurisdiction which belongeth to the head of the Church 50. For seing that the Church is a spirituall Ecclesiasticall body it must needes bee gouerned by a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power residing in the head thereof And therfore it was also enacted by our Parliaments that King Hâ—nry mighâ— not only visit all Ecclesiasticall Persons reforme all kind of errours heresies and abuses in the Church of England but also assigne 32. persons to examine all manner of Canons conâ—â—itutions and ordinances Prouinâ—iall and synodicall And further to set in order and establish all such Lawes Ecclesiasticall as should be thought by him and them conuenient to be vsed and set forth within his Realme and Dominions in all spirituall Courts and Conuentions and that such Lawes and Ordinances Ecclâ—siasticall as should be deuised and made by the Kings Maiestie and these 32. persons and declared by his Maiesties Proclamation vnder his great Seale should be only taken reputed and vsed as the Kings Lawes Ecclesiasticall c. 51. Furthermore King Henry made the L. CroÌ„mwell his Vicar generall for the exercise of his spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction by vertue whereof the said L. Cromwell ordayned Ecclesiasticall Lawes or iniunctions and published them vnder the Seale of his Vicariat directing them to all Archbishops Abbots and the rest of the Clergyâ— And albeit Queene Elizabâ—th did not vse in her stilâ— and Tiâ—le the name of supreme head as K. Henry and K. Edward did but of Supreme Gouernesse yet it is euident that she did hould the same and all the authoritie belonging thereto to be no lesse due to her then to her Father seing that in her first Parliament she reuiued her Fathes Lawes concerning the same ordayning that all and euery branch word and sentence of the sayd seuerall acts and euery of them should be iudged deemed and taken to extend to her Highnes her heires and successours as fully and largely as euery of the â—ame act or any of them did extend to the said K. Henry the 8. her Highnes Father Whereby it appeareth that as well the Title of Supâ—â—me head as all the spirituall preheminences prerogatiues authoritie and Iurisdiction graunted by the Parliament to King Henry and exercised by him belonged in like manner to the Queene his daughter her heyres and successors and consequently to his Maiesty that now is 52. Besides that the Parliament granted also expresly to the Queene spirituall authority ordayning that such Iurisdiction Priuiledges Superiorities Preheminences spirituall or ecclesiasticall as by any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power or authority hath heretofore bin or may lawfully be exercised or vsed for the visitation of the ecclesiasticall state or persons for the reformation order and correction of the same and of all manner of errours heresies schismes abuses offences contempts and enormities shal be for euer vnited and annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme Thus farre the Statute which you see annexeth to the Crowne all such spirituall and ecclesiasticall power or Iurisdiction as may lawfully be exercised in the visitation of Ecclesiasticall persons and the reformation of heresies c. 53. Moreouer it was also granted to our Kings that they should haue power not only to giue licence by their Letters Patents to consecrate Bishops but also to grant Commissions in certaine cases to giue all manner of such Licences Dispensations Compositions Faculties Grantes c. For causes not being contrary to the Scripture and Lawes of God as heretofore hath bin vsed and accustomed to be had and obtayned at the Sea of Rome all which power must needs be granted to be meere spirituall besides that it was declared by a statute of King Edâ— the 6. Thâ—â— all â—â—thaâ—â—y of Iurisdiction spirituall and temporall is deriued and deduced from the Kings Maiesty as supreme head of the Churches and Realmes of England and Ireland and so iustly acknowledged by the Clergy of the said Realmes Whereby it appeareth euidently that the King according to these Lawes and statutes yea and by the confession and acknowledgement of all the English Clergy not only hath spirituall authority power and iurisdiction but also is the very fountaine and spring from whence it floweth to all Bishops and Clergy in his dominionsâ— Whereupon it followeth that if there be any spirituall iurisdiction and power in the Churchâ— and Clergy of England the same is much more in the King then in them seeing it is deduced and deriued from