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
c. postquam ei totius gubernacula tradidistis You giue him the gouerment of the particuler Church of Rome after you haue giuen him the gouernement of the whole 14. So that he suposeth here that not Christ but we haue giuen him both the one and the other to wit the particuler after the generall whereby he seemeth also to affirme that S. Peter was not Bishop of Rome otherwise then in our conceit and by our gift adding withall a strange parenthesis quasi ea totius pars non esset as though the same particuâ—â—e Church of Rome were not a part of the whole as who would say that S. Peter could not be gouernor both of the whole Church and of a particuler Church wherein he argueth as wisely as if he should say that a Bishop of Ely could not be Gouernor of the particuler Church of Ely and of the whole Diocesse or that a Bishop of Canterbury could not be Gouernour of that Bishoprick and Prymate of England or that a generall of an Army could not gouerne a particuler Company and be Generall of the whole Army 15. But will M. Andrewes trow you be so absurd to say in good earnest that S. Peter was not gouernor of a particuler Church or that we only meaning the Catholikes of this age haue made him so Truly if he affirme this and will stand to it he is not to be confuted by arguments but confounded by blowes as a mad man that had need to be beaten into his witts hauing as Aristotle sayth of some as much need of punishment as he should haue of sense that should deny the snow to be white for I thinke there was neuer any thing more clearly testified by all the Fathers of the Church Councells Historiographers Ecclesiasticall and prophane vndoubted monuments of Antiquity and all manner of Testimony then that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome especially seeing that the continuall succession of Bishops in the Roman Sea from him euen to the present Pope Paulus Quintus doth demonstrate and as I may say proclayme the euidence thereof And therefore I must needes imagine that M. Andrews hath some other meaning then his wordes import but whatsoeuer it is he sheweth by his obscure doubtfull and impertinent manner of wryting that he hath caput morbidum and verticem malè sanum as you heard him say of S. Peter in the last Chapter 16. And this might suffice for answere to his glose vpon the place of S. Maximus but that I cannot omit to say something to the two doubts he maketh to wit whether this Maximê° was he that was Bishop of Turin whether there were SermoÌ„s made purposely of the Apostles in his tyme both which doubts the ancient Gennadiê° who wrote in the same age may wel resolue seeing that in his booke de viris illustribus he writeth that Maximus Bishop of Turin wrote certayne Tracts in prayse of the Apostles which are these verie Homilies whence this testimony is taken hauing mentioned diuers other Tracts and Homilies vpon the Natiuitie of S. Iohn Baptist S. Eusebius of Versels and S. Cypriâ—n also of the passion of Christ and the fast of Lent of the Crosse Sepulcher and Resurection of our Lord which are also to be seene in his works vnder the tytle of homylies he concludeth Scripsit etiam homilias multas c. He to wit Maximus wrote also many Homilyes of the Natiuity of the Theophany which we call the Epiphany of Easter and of Pentecost c. besides diuers others which I haue read and do not remember So he 17. Wherein it is to be noted for the resolution of M. Andrews his doubts that S. Maximus who was Bishop of Turin wrote homilyes in prayse not only of the Apostles but also of diuers other Saints and vpon diuers feasts which M. Andrews may belieue because it is testified by one that might know it well for that he wrote about the yeare of our Lord 490. which was the same age wherein S. Maximus liued who died as Gennadius also witnesseth in the yeare 420. about ten yeares before the decease of S. Augustin which I note by the way to put M. Andrews in mynd of a notable scape ouersight not to call it a flatly in his former answere to a place of S. Augustine wherof I treated in the last Chapter where you may remember he affirmed very confidently that tempore Augustini non fiebant Sermones de tempore In S. Augustins tyme there were no sermons made de Tempore So that you see he is found to be minus habens and taken tardy in euery thing and not able to giue any reasonable satisfaction or answere to any one place of ten alleadged by the Cardinall in one Chapter 18. And yet forsooth in the preamble to his answere of those places he maketh so light of them as though he could blow them away all with a blast for thus he saith Vnum hoc peccant omnia c. they haue all this one fault that they bring nothing which may not straight be graunted except perhaps some litle word about the which I do not meane 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contend in words So he But if this be true how chanceth it that the poore man hath bene so puzled in the answere of these places that he hath bene faine so to trifle wrangle cogg and lye as you haue heard Hath some litle word trow you that hath occurred now and then and could not be graunted driuen him to so hard an exigent But let vs hear what he saith may be graunted and what denied in those places Nam nec primatum saith he negamus Petri c. For we do not deny the Primacy of Peter nor the names which do signify it but we demand the thing or matter it selfe now in question that is to say his earthly Monarchy Thus saith he seeming out of his bountifull liberality to graunt that which he seeketh to ouerthrow as much as in him lyeth yea denying that in effect which he graunteth in words and reducing all his dispute to a playne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say a word-warre or a contention about words which neuertheles he professeth to auoyd 19. You see he graunteth the primacy of Peter yet when it is vrged against him out of the Fathers in the places aboue mentioned he laboureth to ouerthrow the ground from whence they deduce it For whereas they teach that Peter had the primacy because he was the foundation of the Church and had a speciall Commission giuen him to feede Christs sheepe he goeth about to proue that Peter was no more the foundation of the Church then the rest of the Apostles nor otherwise Pastor thereof then they whereupon it must needs follow that he was not their primate nor had any more gouernement ouer the Church then they Wherein then consisteth his primacy which the Fathers teach and deduce from the
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
pag â—09 A pecuniary Pastour 210. Confuteth himself 220. A meere wrangler pag. 222.268 His inference of Quidlibet ex Quolibet pag. 233. His Cripticall Cauill against S. Ephrem 23â— His Goggery pag. 241. His abuse of Sâ— Epiphanius 254. Of S. Ambrose 269. His euill fortune 274. His clipping paring of Fathers authorities when they make against him 278. His confusion of the Priest with the people Masse with Mattines c. 298. His abuse of Theodoret 307. his scrupulosity in alleaging of Authorityes 323. Pressed with his owne Argument 324. Proueth himselfe a Iew 325. His transgressioÌ„ of the Synodicall Canons of England 333. His silly discourse about prayer to Saints 337. Prodigall of his Rhetorickâ— 343. Wrongeth his Maiesty 349. His erring of malice â—56 His trifling obiections 357.358.359 His changing the state of the Question about the Popes Primacy 362. CoÌ„cerning holy reliques 368. His poore conceipt of S. Iohn the EuaÌ„gelist 370. A iest of his spoyled 374. Triumpheth when he looseth 377. His Dissimulation of matters that most import to be explicated 386.388 His want of paper in text margent to set downe the truth 394. His Lucidum interuallum 405. His abuse of S. Gregory 407. his bad conscience 412. His outfacing of matters when he cannot answere 418. His abuse of the Iesuits 425.426 He triâ—th how neere he can go to the Catholike Religion misse it 430.431 his poore conceyt of the K. Ecclesiasticall Supremacy 459. How it may be in his Pater noster but not in his Creed 460. Excluded by M. Andrews 467. from his Maiesty 471. How he is turned Puritan pag. 477.480 Angell in the Apocalyps for bad S. Iohn to adore him why pag. 370. Appeales to Rome pag. 155. by Anthony Byshop of Fussula 160. allowed by the Primate of Numidia 164. testified by S. Augustine and others pag. 165. by S. Iohn Chrysostome 184. S. Augustine abused by M. Andr. pâ— 4.5.6 his acknowledgment respect of S. Peters Supremacy p. 17. p. 150.159.167.189 his approuing of prayers to Saints 296.297.298 Authority of the Sea of Rome in all ages p. 169.170.173.180.181.188 proued by all the ancient Fathers passim by Origen 198. by S. Hilary 189.200 Authors reason and intention of this Booke p. 2.3 what question handled therin ibid. pag. 4. B M. BARLOW and M. Andrewes disagree about our English Clergies gouernement 422. S. Basils discourse of prayer to Saints 218. of Inuocation of Martyrs 223. Beggary of the Church Clergy of England 457. Ca. Bellarmine abused by M. Andrewes cleared pag. 108.221 355. his meaning about our prayers to Saints and their praying for vs explicated 215. Bishops of the East-church deposed by the Pope pagâ— 53. C CHRIST our Mediatour Aduocate 339. S. Chrisostome proueth S. Peters Supremacy pag. 22. 142. His appeale to Pope Innocentius 184. His testimony for inuocatioÌ„ of Saints 244. Church of the East subiect to the West pag. 49. Church why it is called one Mother pag. 105. built equally vpon the Apostles pag. 144. how it only challengeth the name Catholick 451. Church of England beggarly 457. Collyridians their heresy 255. Constantinople subiect to the Church of Rome pag. 50. Gods Iudgement vpon that Church for her schisme pag. 54. Constitutions of the pretended Bishops of England pag. 330. conuinced of fraud by his Maiesty 332. Conference at Hampton-Court before his Maiesty 332. L. Cromwell Vicar Generall to K. Henry 8. in spiritualibus 469. Councell of Calcedon approued the Popes Supremacy pag. 39.40 Councell of Ephesus head therof 187. Councels why assembled pag 227. Councell of Loadicea forbiddeth Idolatry to Angels 308. Customes Ecclesiasticall of what force validity pag. 293. S. Cyprian proueth the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head thereof 101.104 also the Primacy of S. Peter pag. 106. S. Cyril acknowledged S. Peters Supremacy pag. 17. abused by M. Andrewes pag. 19. D DAMASVS Pope what authority attributed to him by S. Hierome pag. 173. Difference betweene the Primacy of S. Peter and the priuiledges graunted to the Roman Sea 83. Dignity of Gods grace increaseth the value of merit 437. Dioscorus Patriark of Constantinople depriued by Pope Leo. p. 94. E S. EPHREM calumniated by Mâ— Andrews 239. S. Epiphanius abused by M. Andrewes 254. Equality how it is sometimes to be vnderstood pag. 45.46 Equality of obligation requireth equality of care pag. 80. F FATHERS of the Church abused misconstrued belyed and falsified by M Andrewes pag. 5.6.7.18.19.415 passim Father of Lyes M. Andrewes his Father 192. Fall of S. Peter no preiudice to his Primacy pag. 148.149.150 Francis vide Mason G F. GARNET impudently belyed by M. Andrewes 247. Grace of Christ worketh a true inherent Iustification in vs. pag. 391. H HERETICKS the later follow the elder pag. 152. Heresy to condemne prayer to Saints 249. Heresy of the Collyridians 255. Heretikes their tricks to ouerthrow playne places by obscure 279. S. Hierome abused by M. Andrewes pag. 113. how he acknowledgeth S. Peters Supremacy pag. 119. His contradiction of Vigilantius for denying prayer to Saints p. 228. S. Hilaryes proof for S. Peters Primacy pag. 199.200 I IDOLATRY of the Phrygians done to Angells 310. Iesuits belyed by M. Andrewes for not synning 425. Images of Saints vsed in the Church 264. approued by S. Gregor Nissen ibid. Inuocation of him in whome we belieue how it is meant by S. Paul pag. 213. Inuocation of Martyrs â—23 miraculous effects thereby 225. not confirmed by any decree in the primitiue Church why p. 227. warranted by S. Chrisostome pag. 244. Vniuersall in his tyme 245. How the belief thereof is necessary to saluation 248. approued by S. Gregorie Nazianz. 253. by Nissen 264. practised by Theodosius the Emperour 286. defended by S. Paulinus 295. by S. Augustine 296. impugned by Protestants 336.337 Justinian the Emperour his law for the Popes Supremacy pag. 25. His facts against two Popes examined reproued pag. 30. His ignorance pag. 32. His death and repentance pag. 33.36.37 K KEYES and Pastorall Commission giuen to S. Peter not mentioned in the CanoÌ„ of the CouÌ„cell of Constantinople pag. 84. Kings neuer came to the Gouernement of the Church 464. Excluded by a Rule of M. Andrewes 465. King of England taketh his power Eâ—clesiasticall from the Parliament 468. L LAW of Moyses how Christians may ground theron p. 11. P. Leo his controuersy with Martian the Emperour and Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople pag. 62.63.64.70.72.73 His primacy acknowledg by the Councell of Calcedon pag. 90.92 93.94 Locusts that destroy Religious profession perfection are Protestants 450. M Mr. MASON his Register for the Consecration of the first Protestant Bishops confuted In appendice per totum Martian the Emperour his controuersy with Pope Leo pag. 61. Martyrs inuocated 223. miraculous effects therby 225. S. Maximus B. of Turin his homiles of Saints pag. 205. Merits of Christ how we are saued by them 342. Merit of good works granted by M. Andrewes 434.436 Miracles in
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
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
c. So he Who also in his Counterblast against M. Horne the pretended Bishop of Winchester saith to him thus It is not the Princes only pleasure that maketh a Bishop but there must be both free election without eyther forcing the Clergy to a choyse or forcing the chosen to filthy brybery and also there must follow a due consecration which you and all your fellowes doe lack and therefore you are indeed by the way to conclude it no true Byshops neyther by the law of the Church neyther yet by the lawes of the Realme for want of due consecration expressely required by an act of Parliamēt renewed in this Queens dayes in suffragā Bishops much more in you Thus sayth M. Stapleton which I haue layd downe at large in his owne words togeather with the lyke out of D. Harding before to the end it may appeare how earnestly they pressed M. Iewell M. Horne who were two of the first pretended Byshops in Queene Elizabeths tyme to shew from whom and by whom they had their vocation and consecration 5. And what trow you was answered therto was there any Bishop named who had consecrated them were there any witnesses alledged of their consecration was M. Masons register or any other authenticall proof therof produced eyther by M. Iewell or M. Horne No truly for as for M. Horne he neuer replyed or any man for him for ought I euer heard And M. Iewell though he tooke vpon him to answere it yet did it so weakely coldly and ambiguously that he sufficiently fortified and iustified his aduersaries obiection 6. For whereas D. Harding had demanded of him how he could proue that he was a Bishop◠who had called him who had layd hands on him and who had consecrated him he answered that he was a Bishop by the free and accustomed Canonicall election of the whole Chapter of Salisbury but to the question how he was consecrated or by whome he answereth no otherwyse then thus Our Bishops are made saith he in forme and order as they haue byn euer by free election of the Chapter by consecration of the Archbishop and 3. other Bishops wherein you see he saith not I was made or wee were made by the consecration of the Archbishop and 3. other Bishops as he should haue said to answere directly to the question but our Bishops are made c. declaring directly and truly nothing els but the custome that then was receiued and vsed amongst them for the making of Bishops which was not denyed or doubted of by D◠Harding neyther was it any thing at all to the purpose because the same concerned not the institution and consecration of M. Iewell himselfe or the first pretended Bishops and much lesse did it concerne the ordination and consecration of their Archbishop which as M. Iewell could not but know most imported to be declared 7. For albeit it should be true that the Arch-Bishop and 3. others consecrated M. Iewell himselfe and the rest yet if the sayd Archbishop and those three others had themselues no consecration neyther they nor any other ordayned by them were Bishops and therefore this was the difficulty which M. Iewell should principally haue cleared as M. Doctor Harding afterwards in his detection told him roundly saying thus And how I pray you was your Archbishop himselfe consecrated what 3. Bishops in the realme were there to lay hands vpon him You haue now vttered a worse case for your selues then was by me before named for your Metropolitan who should giue authority to all your consecrations himselfe had no lawfull consecration Yf you had byn consecrated after the forme and order which hath euer byn vsed yee might haue had Bishops out of France to haue consecrated you in case there had lacked in England But now there were ancient Bishops ynough in England who eyther were not required or refused to consecrate you which is an euident signe that you sought not such a consecration as had byn euer vsed but such a one whereof all the former Bishops were ashamed Thus saith D. Harding 8. Now then good Reader I wish heere certaine thinges to be considered first that this controuersy betwixt D. Harding and M. Iewell was thus debated as you haue heard in the very beginning of the Queenes reygne not past 5. or 6. yeares after the institution of those first pretended Bishops as it may appeare by Doctor Hardings confutation of the Apology printed in the yeare of our Lord 1565. and by Doctor Stapletons Returne of vntruths printed the yeare following 9. Secondly I wish it well to be weyghed whether it be probable that these two learned men Doctor Harding and Doctor Stapleton would haue obiected to M. Iewell and M. Horne this defect of their consecration in printed bookes so confidently and resolutely as they did if they had not bin well assured of it especially thē whē their consecration would haue byn so fresh in memory if they had byn consecrated at all that the denyers of it might haue byn conuinced by multitudes of witnesses to their perpetuall shame 10. Thirdly let it be considered whether M. Iewell being expresly demanded and vrged to shew who consecrated him and his fellowes would haue answered so irresolutly ambiguously and indirectly as he did if he could haue proued theyr consecration eyther by witnesses or by Registers or any other authenticall proofe to which purpose it is also to be noted that he made no doubt at all to speake resolutly and clearely of his election because it was true and euident that he was chosen by the Chapter of Salisbury therfore for that point he boldly appealed to D. Hardings owne knowledg And would he not trow you haue spoken as resolutly clearely of his consecration if he could haue produced the lyke proof therof or any other probability at all especially seeing that it was the poynt which was thē chiefly in questiō nay would not he haue cried shame on D. Harding for denying or calling in questiō a matter that must needs haue bin most notorious at the sāe time if there had bin any such thing at all For besids that the cōsecratiō of Bishops is allwayes wōt to be don in publik who knoweth not that it greatly imported those new pretēded Bishops for the credit of their cause honour of all theyr future Clergy to haue bene consecrated with all the publicity and solemnity in the world if they could haue had any shew of lawfull consecration espicially by 4. Bishops as M. Masons register reporteth 11. Neither can it be imagned that M. D. Harding would haue bene so inconsiderate as to demand of M. Iewell expresly what three Byshops in the Realme were to lay hands vpon him meaning Protestant Bishops if there had bene 4. it being a thing whereof neither he nor any man els could haue bene ignorant at that tyme if there had bene so many the persons themselues being then all
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
in 2. Thes. 2. (c) Haer. 61 (d) Lib. de Spiritu Sanct. cap. 29. (e) Lib. 4. de fide ca. 17 (f) in 2. Thes. 2. (g) Act. Vlt. can 1. S. Augustines golden rule (d) S. Aug. de Baptis contra Donat l. 2. ca. 7. li. 4. c. 6. Ibid cap. 24. li. 5. ca. 23. Idem ep 118. See chap. 7. nu 49. M. Andrews according to S. Augustins censure is an insolent mad man Andr. p. 38. §. Atque S. Aug li de vnit Eccl. ca. 22. vel 19. in some edâ—tions Idem contra Crescon lib. 1. cap. 33. M. Andrews and his fellowes do admit diuers traditions without any exâ—presse precept or example thereof in Scripture Origen lib. 5. in cap. 6. ad Rom. S. Aug. de Gen. ad lit li. 10. c. 23. Idem lib. 4. de Baptis conâ—ra Donatist cap. 24. See the faith doctrine c. printed an Do. 1607. by Iohn Legat in Cambridg pag. 1â—5 art 27. §. The Baptisme p. 168. §. Althoughâ— See constitutions Ecclesiast printed at London by Barker an 1604 can 30. A notable trumpery of the pretended Bishops in their Ecclesiastical Constitutions Ibidem D. Tho. 3. par q 66. Greg. de Valent. disput 4. q. 1. Nauar. in Manu cap. 22. nu 6. Bellar. de Sacra Baptis lib. 1. cap. 25. Nauar. in Manuall cap. 22 nu 6. The pretended Biâ—shops conuinced of fraud by his Maiestyes testimony See the SuÌ„me of the Conference pag. â—7 §. Thirdly printed an 1604. Conference of Hampton Court coÌ„trary to the Constitutions and the same Bishops to them selues The miserable state of England where such Pastors haue the charge of soules M. Andrews transgresseth eyther the Synodical Canon of the English Clergy or his owne rule See supra nu â—4 Andr. p. 37. §. VeruÌ„â— Prayer to Saynts no lesse conforme to the practice of the primitiue Church then the vse of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme S. Aug. li. de vnit Eccl. c. 1â— contra Crescon lib. 1. c. 31. Idem ep 118. M. Andrews still hardly pressed with his owne rule and inference vpoÌ„ the text of Deuteronomy Prayer to Saynts ought rather to be admitted then the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme according to the Synodicall Canon of the English Clergy M. Andrews eyther idly demandeth a precept in Scripture for prayer to Saynts or els he must grant it to be as lawfull as the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme 1. Tim. 2. 1. Ioan. 2. What places and how fit to the purpose the ProtestaÌ„ts alleadge out of the Scriptures agaynst praying to Saynts Matth. 11. The absurdity of our aduersaries arguments against the inuocatioÌ„ of Saynts Andr. cap. 8. pag. 179. lin 29. A very seely and simple discourse of M. Andrews against praying to Saynts S. Aug coÌ„â—â—ra ep Parmen lib. 2. cap. 8. M. Andrews serious in tryfling His argument and whole discourse reâ—torted vpoÌ„ himselfe impugâ—ning our mutuall prayers one for another M. Andrews his argumeÌ„ts do as directly-ouerthrow that which he himselfe approueth aâ— that which he impugneth How it iâ— to be vnderstood that Christ is our only mediatour and aduocat 1. Tim. â—â— 1. Ioan. 2. Hebr. 7. The meaning of S. Augustine peruerted by M. Andrews is truly explicated S. Aug. li. 2. coâ—tra ep Parmemanica 8â— 1. Ioan. 2. How S. Augustine denyeth that men may be mediators one for another Neyther men nor Saynts or Angels do obteyn any thing of God but by the mediation and meriâ—s of Iesus Christ. M. Andrews prodigall of his rhetorik An absurd shift and euasion of our aduersaries vrged against theÌ„ Iac. 5. The Scripture should coÌ„tradict it selfe if Christ were our only mediator in the sense that our aduersaries do take it (c) Supra â—u 25.26 seq (d) Supra nu 33. seq (e) S. Hieron aduers. Vigilant S. Aug. ep 119. lib. 22. de ciuit cap. 30. S. Greg. lib. 11. ep 3. How prayer to Saynts is conforme to Scripture and deduced from it (h) See chap. 7. nu 48. supra hoc cap nu 31. (k) Luc. 10â— Matth. 18. (l) 1. Cor. 1â— If our brethren on earth may pray for vs and we by warrant of the Scriptures coÌ„mend our selues to their prayers why may we not do the like vnto Saynts See suprad nu 12. ad nu 24. Vide coccium To. 1. lib 5. art 4. de Sanctis (c) See supra nu 22. Dan. 3. â— Reg. 11. 2. Paral. 21. 4. Reg 19. Iob. 42. Exod. 32. S. Hieron aduers. Vigilantium Exod. 32. Act. 7. Ibid. ca. 27. Apoc. 1â— Matth. 28. Saynts able to help vs by the participation of Christs power Apoc. 3. Ibid. 2. Ibid. 1. 5. Sap. 3â— Psal. 14â— Matth. 19. Luc. â—2 Saynts protectors of men Cittyes CouÌ„tryes See before nu 18. 19. The 1. part of the Treatise of Policy religion chap. 15. nu 12.13.14.15.16.17.18 27. Item 2 par chap. 24. nu 31. Apoc. 5. See sup nu â—2 Two foolish exceptions taken by M. Andrews to the Cardinalls allegation of the ancient Fathers Andr. pag 35. §. de qua dringentis M. Andrews wrongeth his Maiesty The vniforme consent of the Fathers of the 4. or 5. age must needs be taken for an euideÌ„t testimony of the truth Some one Father of the 4. and 5. age hath written more then all the Fathers of the 3. precedent ages It is not possible that all the Doctors Pastors of the Church can erre in any thing at any tyme and why Matth. 28. Ibid. 16. Ephes. 4. Pastors and Doctors ordayned by Christ in his Church to preserue it from errour vnto the worlds end If all the Doctors of the Church could erre at any tyme the remedy were not effectuall which God hath ordayned to preserue his Church from errour by them See sup chap. 4. nu 36.37.38 If these Fathers cannot be heard or credited what other Fathers will he desire See chap. â— nu 28. 66. Andr. pag. 6. §. Tum The vniforme coÌ„sent of a few Father 's not contradicted by the rest must needs be taken for a genrall consent of the Church iâ— their tyme. See supra nu 33. M. Andrwes confuted by an example of his owne fellowes S Augustine against Iulian the Pelagian contented himselfe with the testimoâ—nyes of six Fathers S. Aug. lib. 1. contra Iulian. cap. 2. Deut. 17. Andr. vbi supra Another vayn euasion of M. Andrews answered Bellar. de beatit Sanct. lib. 1. cap. 20. Cardinall Bellarmine abused by M. Andrews (c) See supra nu 12.13.14.15 16. M Andrews presumed to erre not of ignorance but of malice S. Aug. aduers. Iulian Pela lib. 2. in Epilogo Saynt Augustins words to a Pelagian heretike fitly applyed to M. Andrews Certayne trifeling obiections of M. Andrews out of Origen S. Cyril S. Athanasius (c) Nazianz oratio 1. in Iulian. (d) S. Aug. de ciuita Dei lib. 22. cap. 10. (e) Theodoret de Graecor affect curat cap. 8. (d) See chap. 7. nu 35.36