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
same in defence of his pretended Episcopall authority against the Puritans wherto I may add that M. Andrewes himself also approueth it els where granting that S. Peter was appoynted head of the Apostles by our Sauiour vt schismatis tollatur occasio as S. Hierome saith that the occasion of schisme may be taken away yea and confesseth moreouer that S. Peter had so much authority giuen him as was necessary for auoyding of schisme and for the maintenance of peace and vnity of which poynt I shall haue somewhat to say vnto him here after 50. If then Pastors or gouernours are by his owne confession instituted in the Church to conserue the same in vnity haue speciall authority giuen them to that end he must needs confesse also that they ought to haue more care thereof then those who haue not any speciall institution or authority to the same end and therefore I would be glad to know how he agreeth with himself in this poynt teaching heere as he doth that the care of the peace of the whole Church doth belong to all men alyke For if he say that Pastors are more bound then theyr subiects to care for the vnity of theyr owne particuler Diocesses but not of the whole Church he is too to ridiculous seeing that euery Pastor ought to haue not only as much care of the whole Church as euery other man but also much more then others by reason of his function office which doth extend it selfe to the whole Church it being euident that what authority soeuer any man hath in any part of the Church it is giuen him for the good of the whole and finally tendeth therto 51â— And who knoweth not that all heresies and schismes which violate the vnity of the whole Church do first spring in some part thereof and are to be suppressed not in respect of that part only but much more in regard of the whole Church As in like manner we see in our bodyes that the care of the health and conseruation of euery member tendeth more to the good of the whole then of the part it selfe that is or may be particulerly interessed therefore euery part doth willingly expose it selfe to danger for the conseruation of the whole Whereupon I inferre that if Pastors haue more obligation then lay-men to haue care of a part of the Church they are consequently more bound to haue care of the whole whereto as I haue sayd the care of euery part is specially to be referred 52. Moreouer whosoeuer is Pastour in any one part of the Church is capable of Pastorall iurisdiction in any other though he be restrayned and limited to a certayne part to auoyd confusion in which respect the Priests in euery Diocesse are Priests throughout the whole Church and may minister Sacraments any where in cases of necessity and a Bishop in any place is euerywhere a Bishop and one of the Magistrats and Pastors of the Church and therefore hath a voyce and right of suffrage in all Generall Councells though they be held out of his Diocesse whereas none of the Laity hath any voyce or suffrage therein at all as it is manifest by the testimony of Theodosius the Emperour in his Epistle to the Councell of Ephesus saying Nefas est c. It is not lawfull that he who is not one of the number of the most holy Bishops should meddle in Ecclesiasâ—icall consultations and affayres So he And the like sayd Basilius the Emperour in the 8. Generall Councell with a notable aduertisement to lay-men of what degree soeuer not to presume to deale in Ecclesiastical matters as I haue shewed at large in my Supplement Besides that we read in the Councell of Calcedon that Concilium Episcoporum est a Councell consisteth of Biâ—â—ops whereupon it followeth euidently that all men haue not equal obligation to care for the peace and vnity of the whole Church for if they had then might euery Cobler and Tinker challeng as much right of suffrage as any Bishop in a Generall Councell assembled for the suppression of heresy and schisme which I thinke M. Andrews will be ashamed to say 53. Therefore he must confesse that albeit euery member of the mysticall body of Christ be bound to haue a speciall care of the vnity of the whole vt not sit schisma in corpore sed in idipsum pro inuicem sollicita sint membra That there be no schisme or diuision in the body but that the members togeather be carefull one of another yet this obligation extendeth no further then the condition quality and degree of euery one requyreth which we may learne by the Apostles doctrine to the Romans who hauing signified that we haue many members in one body and that all the members haue not the same action addeth ita multi vnum corpus sumus in Christo c. So we being many are one body in Christ ech one anothers members hauing gifts according to the grace that is giuen vs different eyther Prophesy according to the rule of faith or ministery in ministring or he that teacheth in doctrine he that exhorteth in exhorting he that giueth in simplicity he that ruleth in carfulnes he that sheweth mercy in cheerfulnes 54. Thus far the Apostle who exemplifying heere as you see the different gifts and graces that God bestoweth vpon sundry members of his mysticall body and ascribing to euery one of them the proper talent which is requisit thereto requyreth specially in the Gouernour Solicitude and Carefulnes giuing plainely to vnderstand that although euery member of Christs Church ought to be sollicitous and carefull for the publike good thereof yet a Pastor or Gouernour is most bound thereto as to that which most properly pertayneth to his charge vocation As for example in the tyme of the Apostles the heresy of the Nicolaits did violate the vnion and trouble the peace of the whole Church and albeit there were in the Church of Pergamus as well Prophets Doctors Preachers and Priests as other faithfull people who were all bound to haue care of the vnity of the whole Church as all Christians are neuertheles we see in the Apocalyps that none of them but the Bishop only was reprehended for negligence and want of due care to find and cast out the Nicolaits from amongst them because the sollicitude and care of the vnity and publike good of the Church did specially belong to the Pastour or Bishop in which respect he alone was seuerely reproued and commanded to do pennance 55. So that whereas M. Andrews imposeth an equal obligation of the same care vpon euery member what doth he els but make as I may say a gally-maufrey or hotch-potch of the different members of Christs mysticall body confounding their seuerall functions and making them all eyes or heads requyring the obligation of a Pastor or Gouernor in euery particuler man And truly if this doctrine were
forth as is necessary for the gouernement of his Church which he hath committed to his charge in which respect it may truely be sayd that the light of the Church proceedeth not only from Christ but also from him as from the head thereof vnder Christ and that by his authority it is spread euery where throughout the Church 9. And this is sufficiēt to make good the similitude according to the intention of S. Cyprian who only speaketh here of the Church as of a body receiuing all the vnity of her seueral many parts from the head as the light which is spread thoughout the world receaueth vnity from the sunne therfore he argueth thus in substance As the light of the sunne dispersed ouer the earth though it haue many beames yet is but one light by reason that it proceedeth from one sunne so also the body of the Church dispersed by many members ouer the whole world is but one body because it proceedeth from one head which reason he giueth yet more expressely in the two other similituds that immediatly follow of a tree spreading forth many boughes and of many brookes flowing from one fountayne for of the former he saith that though the boughes are many and spread far abroad Robur tamen vnum tenaci radice firmatum yet the strengeth is one fastned in the strong and stiffe roote and of the later he saith in like manner that notwithstanding the aboundant and copious plenty of water dispersed by many brookes yet it is but one water because vnitas saith he seruatur in origine the vnity is conserued in the spring Who then seeth not that to apply this similitude to the Church we must needs say that albeit the sayd Church hath very many members and parts spread ouer the whole world yet it is but one body because it hath but one head wherein the vnity of all the parts is conserued 10. And to this is also conforme the rest of S. Cyprians text which M. Andrews proceedeth to lay downe thus Ramos suos Ecclesia c. The Church through her aboundant fertility stretcheth forth her branches ouer the whole earth and largely spreadeth abroad her copious riuers or brookes yet the head is one the origen or beginning one and one mother c. So sayth S. Cyprian teaching as you see nothing els in effect but that the Church being a body dispersed ouer the whole world in her members is vnited in one head and therefore he saith vnum tamen caput origo vna yet the head is one and the origen or beginning one and so hauing spoken as well of the head of the Church as of the body and declared from whence the vnity of the whole is deryued he had great reason to adde vna mater one mother giuing to vnderstand that as the Church hath one head so she is one mother one in respect of her vnity deryued from her head and mother because she is the spouse of Christ and hath children dispersed throughout the world 11. And thus may M. Andrews see that albeit S. Peter is not called in S. Cyprian a Mother yet he is acknowledged to be the head from whence the vnity of the whole Church our mother is communicated to vs her children which would haue bene as cleare as the sunne if he had layd downe the similituds themselues as well as he gaue vs only the application of them out of S. Cyprian beginning his allegation with Sic Ecclesia so also the Church c. for he knew full well that his false glosse would haue bene easily discouered if he had set downe the similituds as they are deliuered and vrged by the Father himselfe Therefore now let the Reader Iudge Quis caligauit hic who was blind heere the Cardinall or M. Andrewes Thus much concerning the first place of S. Cyprian 12. The other place is Petrus super quem Dominus fundauit Ecclesiam Peter vpon whom our Lord did found his Church whereupon the Cardinall infereth that S. Cyprian teacheth that the Church is buylt vpon S. Peter and that therfore he is the foundation of the Church and consequently the head therof because the foundation in a buylding and the head in a body is all one whereto M. Andrewes answereth thus Alter verò illi ex Cypriano locus praecidendus erat c. He thought it necessary to cut of the other place of Cyprian where it seemed little to fauour the Primacy for thus it is nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit c. For neyther did Peter whome our Lord chose the first challenge any thing insolently to himselfe nor take vpon him arrogantly to say that he had the Primacy or that he ought to be obayed of those that were yonger and later then he Wherein the mynd or sense of Cyprian seemeth to be that if Peter had sayd that he had the Primacy he had insolently challenged somewhat to himselfe and therfore the Cardinall suppressed this part of the text warily because it made litle for the Primacy and rather tooke hold of the former part where Cyprian saith that the Church was buylt vpon Peter c. 13. Thus sayth M. Andrews with somewhat more which I will also lay downe after a whyle when I shall first haue examined this wherein you see he would fayne make the Reader belieue that the Cardinall had vsed some art or fraud in leauing it vncyted as not fauorable but rather preiudiciall to S. Peters Primacy wheras in truth it doth notably proue it and no way impayre or infringe it as he may see in the Cardinals controuersyes where amongst very many other places alledged for the Primacy of S. Peter he vrgeth this fortifying it notably with the authority of S. Augustine who also cyteth those words of S. Cyprian though vpon another occasion Therefore I will set downe the Cardinalls owne words to the end that he may answere for himselfe who hauing brought the testimonyes of a whole Iury as I may say of Greeke Fathers to wit Origen Eusebius S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Epiphanius the two S. Cyrils S. Chrysostome Euthymius Theophilact Occumenius and Hugo Etherianus all of them expressely acknowledging the supremacy of S. Peter aboue all the other Apostles addeth as many more of the Latin Fathers and beginneth with S. Cyprian thus 14. Ex latinis S. Cyprianus in Ep. ad Quintum c. Of the latin Fathers S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Quintus sayth that Peter when he was reprehended by Paul would not say that he had the primacy and that he ought to be obayed whereby he signifyeth that Peter had the primacy and might command all others And lest perhaps our aduersaries may say that Cyprian meaneth that Peter did not say he had the Primacy because he should therein haue affirmed that which was false let vs heare Augustine expounding this place of Cyprian lib. 2. de Baptismo cap. 1.
M. Andrews his first question or doubt is sufficiently solued to wit How far the power of the head whereof S. Hierome speaketh doth extend that is to the direction gouernement yea and chastisment when occasion requyreth of all his inferiour members of what degree soeuer and consequently of Kings and Princes so far forth as shal be needfull for the coÌ„seruation of vnity in the Church and that therefore when only excommunication will not suffice to reduce them to vnity and obedience the head may extend his spirituall power to chastise them in their bodyes goods and states as far as shall be conuenient for the good of soules and the glory of God whereto all mens temporall states goods lands and lyues are principally ordayned 43. And now to come to his other question concerning the mumber which this head may gouerne to auoyd and remedy schisme let M. Andrews well ponder what he hath already granted and of this there will be no doubt at all For if Peter was head of the Apostles as S. Hierome teacheth and M. Andrews confesseth then consequently he was head of as many in number as were subiect to them which was no lesse then all the world whereof they had the spirituall charge and gouernement in which respect the Royall Prophet sayth of them and their successors pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filij c. For thy Fathers children are borne vnto thee thou shalt ordayne them to be Princes ouer all the earth So saith the Prophet of the Apostles of Bishops who succeed them in their charge and are therfore Princes Gouernours of the Church as S. Augustine S. Hierome and other Fathers expound this place which therefore is verified especially in the Apostles who being the Princes and Gouernours of the Church did not only plant but also propagate throughout the world in their owne tyme according to the commission and commaundment of our Sauiour who sayd vnto them Euntes in vniuersum mundum c. Going into the vniuersall world preach the Ghospell to euery creature which also the Royal Prophet fore-told of them saying In omnem terram exiuit sonus eorum c. The sound of them went forth into all the earth and their words into the bounds thereof 44. Seeing then the Apostles were Gouernours of the whole Church and yet subiect to S. Peter as to their head it must needs be granted that he was supreme head and gouernour of the whole Church propagated and dispersed throughout the world vnder their gouerment for which cause S. Chrysostome saith with great reason not only of all the Apostles in generall that they were to haue orbis terrarum curam the charge of all the world but also much more of S. Peter in particuler That Petro Apostolo orbis terrarum Ecclesiae the Churches of all the world and the multitudes of people were to be committed to Peter the Apostle and therefore euen in the former place where he saith that the Apostles were to receiue of Christ the charge of the world he acknowledgeth that S. Peter was Princeps Apostolorum vertex totius coetus the Prince of the Apostles and the top or head of all their congregation and that Christ committed vnto him curam fratrum the charge of his brethren that is to say of the Apostles and finally that Christ recommended vnto him orbis terrarum curam the charge of the whole world Finally comparing S. Iames the Apostle with S. Peter in the same place by the way of obiection demanding why then Iames was made Bishop of Hierusalem and not Peter he answereth Hunc totius orbis magistrum praeposuisse that our Sauiour preferred Peter to be the Maister of the whole world giuing to vnderstand that whereas S. Iames was only Bishop of Hierusalem and the Countries adioyning as also the other Apostles had euery one of them some part of the world allotted vnto him to gouerne S. Peter had the charge of the whole 45. By all which it is euident that albeit the Apostles had the gouerment of all the Church yet they were but subordinate to S. Peter who had a commission peculiar and singular to himselfe which was to haue the care charge and gouerment of them as well as of all others subiect to them So that his power and authority was wholy independant on them wheras theirs must needs depend of him as of their immediate head vnder our Sauiour whereby it may appeare what an idle head M. Andrews hath to exclude no lesse S. Peter then euery other particuler man from the gouerment of the whole Church for no better reason then lest he might become heterochtum cuput an extrauagant head or perhaps proue a Tyrant through the excesse eyther of power or of the number of subiects wherein he sheweth himselfe no lesse prophane then absurd attributing as it seemeth no force or effect to our Sauiours promise of his continuall assistance to his Apostles and Church for euer besides that he erreth grosâ—ely if he make the multitude of subiects a noticeâ— or cause of Tyranny it being euident that the greater the number of the subiects is the greater also is the difficulty to oppresse them by Tyranny and the greater the feare and danger to attempt it 46. And therefore we see more frequent tyranny in small States then in great Monarchies and when great Monarches are Tyrants they commonly exercyse their Tyranny vpon some part of their Dominions and not vpon the whole whereas a small State contayning a few subiects is easily Tyrannized vniuersally so that the multitude of subiects is not properly a motiue but rather a brydle to Tyranny though it is properly a cause of schisme when they are not gouerned by one head which M. Andrews acknowledgeth sufficiently when he confesseth that one head is necessary to take away the occasion of schisme amongst twelue or some other small number for if that be true then the greater the number is the greater is the danger of schisme if they haue many heads independant one of another whereupon it followeth that one supreme head is most necessary for the whole Church coÌ„sisting of an innumerable multitude of the faithfull dispersed throughout the whole world who being all visible members of one visible body could not possibly be conserued long in vnity if they had not one visible head whome they were all bound in conscience to obay as I haue shewed more at large in my Supplement euen by the testimony of M. Barlow himselfe 47. For which cause not only S. Cyprian as you haue heard before in this Chapter but also S. Hierome in this place teacheth with great reason that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles to auoyde and remedy the schismes which might grow not so much amongst them as in the whole Church for in them after they had receiued the holy Ghost there was no danger
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
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.
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
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.
consequently that they held Pope Leo not only for S. Peters successor but also for head of the whole Church and this I trust cannot be sayd to be taken out of the bryars or corner of a period or fragment of a clause but out of one of the most principall and important Acts of all the Councell 78. Also it appeareth in the same Councell that Theodoretus Bishop of Cyrus who being deposed by Dioscorus appealed to Pope Leo was by his authority restored to his seat and admitted into the Councell Ingrediatur say the Fathers Reuerendissimus Episcopus Theodoretus c. Let also the most Reuerend Bishop Theodoretus enter that he may be partaker of our Synod because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored to him his Bishopricke So they whereby they gaue sufficient testimony of the soueraygnty of Pope Leo acknowledging his power to restore Bishops to their Bishopriks in the Greeke Church Finally if there were nothing els in that Councell to proue Pope Leo's supreme and vniuersall authority ouer the Church of God it might suffice for an euident proofe thereof that he was vndoubtedly the president and head of the Councell as you haue heard before and may be confirmed by the subscriptions of his Legats set before all other Bishops though one of them was but a Priest and no Byshop 79. For what reason can be imagined why Pope Leo should be president of a Councell in Greece so far from his owne seat as well he himselfe as his Legats being Romans and of the Latin Church but that it belonged to him to be head thereof in respect of his vniuersall authority Will M. Andrews absurdly say as Caluin doth that there was no Bishop in all Greece at that tyme held to be worthy of that Honour How then was Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople able to procure such a Canon as he did in his owne fauour Can any man belieue that he was as M. Andrews saith esteemed worthy to be made equal in dignity and all things els with the Bishop of Rome and yet not fit to be President of a Councell in his owne country yea lesse fit then a stranger who was held to be but his â—qual Besides that howsoeuer Pope Leo himselfe might be esteemed more worthy of that Charge then the Bishops of Greece in respect of his eminent learning wisdome and vertue yet there is no probability in the world that the Emperour and all the Bishops of that Councell which were aboue 600. had the like conceit of the sufficiency of his Legats or that they would all of them yield as well to them as to him one of them being but a Priest This I say is so improbable that M. Caluin and M. Andrews must eyther giue vs some other probable reason for it as they shall neuer be able to do or els confesse that Leo was President of that Councell by right of his soueraignty and supreme authority ouer Gods Church 80. Therefore now to conclude this matter thou seest good Reader what was the beliefe of the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon concerning the Popes supremacy and how far M. Andrews is from their faith and Religion yea and what a seared conscience he hath not only to deny such an euident truth as this but also to impugne it with so much fraud and impudency as he doth against his owne conscience no doubt for he could not possibly see in the Councell that which he himselfe alledgeth and the Cardinall obiecteth but he must needs see all this which I haue cyted out of it neyther could he alledge some part of the 28. Canon and vrge it as he doth laying downe the words euen of the Greeke text but he saw as well that which followeth immediatly and clearely conuinceth his fraud and forgery as that which went before and seemed to make for him whereby it is euident that he not only wittingly dissembled and concealed the whole drift of that Canon but also maliciously peruerted mangled and falsifyed it to the end to deceiue his Reader for the mayntenance of his miserable cause for so I may well tearme it seeing it dryueth him to such miserable and desperate shifts M. D. ANDREVVS HIS ANSVVERES TO three places of the Fathers are examined AND By the way the Cardinall is cleared from a false imputation of Iouinians heresy and M. Andrews truly charged therewith Finally all that which we teach concerning the Popes authority is necessarily deduced out of M. Andrews his owne doctrine and expresse words CHAP. III. HAVING occasion in my Supplement to proue the necessity of a visible head in Gods Church to coÌ„serue the same in vnity I alledged two places of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome which the Cardinall also cyteth in his Apology togeather with diuers other testimonies of the Fathers to proue the Primacy of S. Peter and for as much as M. Andrews his answere thereto if it haue any force at all maketh as much against me as against the Cardinall I will examine heere what force and pith it hath The Cardinall saith thus of S. Cyprian Fecit Cyprianus Petrum c. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne and roote of the Church and in his Epistle to Quintus Peter saith he whome our Lord first chose and vpon whome he buylt his Church c. Where S. Cyprian doth not only say that Peter was first chosen but also addeth that the Church was buylt vpon him and truely the foundation in a buylding the head in a body are all one Thus saith the Cardinall alledging as you see two places of S. Cyprian to both which M. Andrews meaneth to say somewhat 2. To the first he saith thus Fecit Cyprianus c. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne and roote of the Church not Peter of the Church but rather maketh the Church it selfe the fountayne from whence many brookes the light from whence many beames and the roote from whence many boughs are propagated Learne this euen of himselfe Sic Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa c. So the Church being wholy resplendent with the light of our Lord casteth forth her beames throughout the whole world loe he sayth the Church and not Peter yet the light is one and the selfe same which is spread euery where is this light Peter or is he euery where spread abroad and the vnity of the body is not separated The Church through the plenty of her fertility stretcheth forth her branches ouer the whole earth and doth amply spread abroad her aboundant flowing brookes yet the head is one the beginning one one mother copious with the prosperous successe of her fecundity or fruitfulnes Caligauit hic Cardinalis c the Cardinall was spurre-blynd or dimme sighted here for I thinke he will not say that Peter is the mother and therefore not the head 3. This is M. Andrews his graue discourse supposing as it seemeth that because 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
Augustine are these Ad quod Sacrificium Martyres c. At which Sacrifyce S. Augustine meanes the Sacrifice of the Masse the Martyrs are named in their place and order as the men of God who haue ouercome the world in the confession of him but yet they are not inuocated by the Priest which sacrificeth Thus far M. Andrews cyteth S. Augutine and then addeth Non inuocantur Martyres c. Augustine hath these very words the Martyrs are not inuocated by the Priest and why lesse by the Priest then by the people And that which is not lawfull in Sacrifice why is it lawfull out of Sacrifice And that which is not to be done at Masse why may it be done at Mattins And is there any force in the Sacrifice or Altar to make that vnlawfull which is otherwyse lawfull Thus M. Andrews discourseth to proue that S. Augustine is not ours but wholy his in this controuersy 54. Thereof let vs see how well he hath performed it and for as much as he insisteth most vpon the word inuocantur because S. Augustine sayth that the Martyrs are not inuocated by the Priest it is specially to be considered in what sense S. Augustine vseth that word in this place for seeing that it is applyed sometymes to God alone and sometymes to creatures as I haue shewed before as well out of the holy Scripture as by the testimony of S. Augustine himselfe it is euident that if it be vsed heere in the former sense only I meane for an inuocation of God including a diuine honour it doth no way constradict the inuocation of Saynts in our sense signifying only a request of their help by their prayers which as I haue shewed M. Andrews himselfe acknowledgeth to be the proper signification of inuocare It is therefore to be vnderstood that S. Augustine in this place vseth it only for an inuocation by Sacrifice which is so proper to God alone that it cannot be applyed to Saynts or any pure creature 55. This wil be most manifest if we consider the circumstances of the text and the drift of S. Augustine who meaning to shew that the honour which we Christians do to Martyrs redoundeth specially to God signifyeth that albeit God doth worke greate miracles by them yet we do not hold them for Gods neyther buyld temples to them as to Gods nor erect Altars to Sacrifice to them sed vni Deo Martyrum nostro Sacrificium immolamus but we offer Sacrifice to one God who is as well the God of the Martyrs as ours at which Sacrifice sayth he they are named as the seruants of God non tamen à Sacerdote qui sacrificat inuocantur yet they are not inuocated by the Priest which sacrificeth and then to shew euidently that he includeth the oblation of Sacrifice in the inuocation whereof he speaketh he addeth presently Deo quippe non ipsis sacrificat c. for he sacrificeth to God and not to them though he sacrificeth in the honour of them because he is Gods Priest and not theirs Thus saith S. Augustine immediatly after the word inuocantur 56. Whereby he giueth to vnderstand that the inuocation whereof he speaketh is proper to Priestly function and therefore to be exhibited by the Priest to God only whole Priest he is and not to the Martyrs as who would say because the Priest is Gods Priest and ought to sacrifice to God alone therefore he only nameth the Martyrs in his Sacrifice and doth not inuocate them that is to say he doth not inuocate them with Sacrifice which is proper to the office or function of a Priest for otherwyse I meane if S. Augustine did not take inuocation in this place for a Priestly or Sacrificall action his reason why the Priest doth not inuocate the Martyrs to wit because he is the Priest of God and sacrificeth to him alone were to no purpose which no doubt M. Andrews saw well ynough and therefore he ended his citation at inuocātur without adding that which immediatly followeth and sheweth what S. Augustine meaneth there by inuocation 57. Now then what wonder it is that S. Augustine saith that Martyrs are not to be inuocated in this manner that is to say with Sacrifice which is offred to God alone Doth any man doubt of it Or doth it any way impugne the inuocation of Saynts by prayer how idle then are M. Andrews his questions to wit why the Priest may not inuocate Martyrs as well as the people may and why not at Masse as well as at Mattins and whether there be any force in the Sacrifice or Altar to make that vnlawfull which otherwyse is lawfull whereby he seemeth to confound the Priest with the people Masse with Mattins and the Altar with euery other place supposing that whatsoeuer is prohibited to the Priest is also forbidden to the people and what cannot be done at Masse is not to be done at Mattins and finally that whatsoeuer is vnlawfull at the Altar is lawfull no where els which is most absurd seeing that many things are lawfull or vnlawfull according to the different state and quality of persons matters tyme and place 58. For who knoweth not that to inuocate God with Sacrifice is the proper function of the Priest and not of the people and that the same is done at Masse and not at Mattins and no where els but at the Altar yea and that the Priest may highly offend God in his Sacrifice that is to say at Masse or at the Altar when the people offende no way at all and therefore to satisfy M. Andrews his three demaunds according to S. Augustines meaning in this place he is to vnderstand that the Priest may inuocate God with Sacrifice and the people cannot that the same is to be done at Masse and not at Mattins and that such inuocation is not lawfully done any where but at the Altar and that it is so due to God alone that it can neuer be applyed to Saynts eyther by people or Priest at Mattins or Masse at the Altar or yet elswhere and so shall he vnderstand that the place which he alledgeth maketh nothing agaynst prayer to Saynts and that his vayne demands haue serued to no other purpose but to shew his ignorance and folly 59. This will yet further appeare by his conclusion wherein he taketh vpon him to expound the other place of S. Augustine which you haue heard cyted by the Cardinall to wit Iniuria est c. It is iniury to pray for a Martyr to whose prayers we ought to be recommended whereto M. Andrews hauing opposed and vaynely vrged this other place in such sort as you haue heard answereth in conclusion thus Quare apud illum c. Wherefore that we should be recomended to the prayers of Martyrs is not to inuocate them but to wish to be recommended to the intercession of Christ the head and of all his mysticall body and we do
call vpon Christ that he may heare vs and not vpon the Saynts that they may heare vs but this we craue of God that they may be heard for vs of him and with him Thus doth M. Andrews glosse that text 60. So as to be recommended to the prayer of a Martyr is to wish to be recommended to the intercession of Christ and of all his mistycall body as if a man should say that for a man to be recommended to the prayers of M. Andrews is not to craue the help of his prayers in particuler but to wish that the Kings Maiesty being head of the English Church and all English Protestants may pray for him For truly he may say the one as well as the other especially seeing that he giueth no reason at all of this his extrauagant interpretation but relyeth wholy vpon his owne peruerse and false vnderstanding of the other place of S. Augustine which he will needs suppose to exclude all inuocation of Saynts though as you haue seene it doth not concerne the same any way at all 61. But to put the matter out of doubt what S. Augustine meant in this place when he sayd that we ought to be recommended to the prayer of the Martyr we are to consider what his expresse doctrine is els where concerning the same poynt namely in his Treatise de cura pro mortuis of the care to be had of the dead which albeit M. Andrews will not as I thinke allow for opus palmare S. Augustines principall worke because he hath already giuen that tytle to the bookes de Ciuitate Dei yet it cannot be denied to be S. Augustines who doth himselfe acknowledge it for such in his Retractions This learned holy Father treating of the good that the dead may receiue by the care of their friends to bury their bodyes neere to the monuments of Saynts sayth thus 62. Sed cum talia viuorum solatia requiâ—untâ—r c. But when such comforts of the liuing are sought whereby they may shew their pious mynd or affection towards their friends I do not see what help the dead may receiue thereby but only this that whyles the liuing do remember where the bodyes of their friends are layed eâ—sdâ—m illos taâ—quam paironis suscâ—ptos apud Dominum adiuuandos commendent they may by prayer recommend them to the same Saynts as to their patrons who haue receiued them into their protection to be helped with Almighty God which truly they might also do although they could not bury them in such places So he And a little after he sayth further to the same purpose Cùm it aque recolit animus c. Therefore when the mynd of a man remembreth where his friends body is buried and some place also which is venerable by the name of some Martyr occurreth to his remembrance eidem Martyri animam dilectam commendat recordantis precantis affectus the affection of him that remembreth it and prayeth doth recommend the soule of his friend to the same Martyr Thus sayth S. Augustine teaching expressely not only prayer to Saynts but also prayer for the dead which I wish M. Andrewes to note by the way as also that the prayer whereof S. Augustine speaketh heere cannot be sayd to be made generally to Christ and to all his mysticall body according to M. Andrews his former glosse but particulerly eisdem Sanctis tamquam patronis to the same Saynts as to their patrons and eidem Martyri to the same Martyr by whose tombe the bodyes of the dead are buryed 63. But perhaps M. Andrews will say that this is taken ex aliquo riuulo Augustini out of some litle brooke of Augustine and not ex opere suo palmari out of his principall worke de Ciuitate Dei Well then let vs see whether we can find any thing there to this purpose I doubt not but that M. Andrews who highly esteemeth that most excellent worke and therefore seemeth to haue read it diligently will easily call to mind what a number of notable and manifest miracles S. Augustine relateth there as knowne to himselfe to haue byn done at the memoryes of S. Steuen and diuers other Martyrs that amongst the rest he recounteth one which happened to an honest poore old man of Hippo called Florentius who hauing lost his cloke and not hauing money wherewith to buy another went to the monument of the Twenty Martyrs which was there very famous and clara voce sayth he vt vestiretur orauit prayed with a lowd voyce that he might haue wherewith to cloth himselfe 64. Wherupon certayne scoffing yong men for so S. Augustine calleth them being by chance present and hauing heard him followed him at his departure and mocked him quasi à Martyribus quinquagenos folles vnde vestimentum emeret petiuisset as though he had demanded of the Martyrs fifty peeces of money called folles wherewith he might buy him clothes But he not regarding them went towards the sea side and there saw a great fish panting vpon the shore which with their help who had followed him thither he tooke and sold for three hundred folles to a Christian Cooke called Câ—rtâ—sus declaring vnto him all that had hapned who opening the fish found in his belly a ring of gold and being moued partly with commiseration and partly with scruple gaue it also to the poore man saying vnto him Ecce quomodo viginti Martyres te vestierunt Behold how the 20. Martyrs haue clothed thee Thus much relateth S. Augustine concerning this matter 65. Whereby it euidently appeareth first that this poore man prayed not only at the monument of those Martyrs but also to the Martyrs themselues crauing of them reliefe of his necessity for there vpon the yong men who heard his prayer tooke occasion to charge him to haue craued 50. folles of the Martyrs which they would not haue done if they had not heard him pray vnto the Martyrs thereto also alluded the Cooke who hauing heard the story related and vnderstood thereby to whome and for what he had prayed sayd vnto him Behold how the Martyrs haue clothed thee as who would say the Martyrs of whome thou crauedst to be clothed haue heard thy prayer and giuen thee wherewith to cloth thee 66. Secondly it appeareth that it was the custome at that tyme to inuocate Saynts particulerly and that God approued it by this miraculous effect And if M. Andrews do say that if it had byn vsuall these yong men who heard him would not haue mocked him for doing it he is to vnderstand that they did not mock him for calling vpon the Martyrs but because his request seemed to them extrauagant quasi qui à Martyribus quinquagenos folles petiuisset as though he had demanded 50. folles to buy him clothes Besids that Saynt Augustine so much condemned them for deryding him that he calleth them adolescentes irrisores scoffing yong men yea and God so disposed for their
Christ and exalted Angels that he held Christ to be but pure man and the sonne of Ioseph and that Angels made the world and gaue the law to the Iewes yea that an Angell was the God of the Iewes or finally of some such other heretykes as eyther attributed diuinity to Angels or made them mediatours for man in such sort as those Phrygian heretykes did of whome Theodoret speaketh which was to exclude the mediation of Christ as it appeareth euidently by that which the Apostle addeth saying non tenens Caput ex quo c. and not holding the head whereof the whole body is by ioynts bands compacted c. signifying that he spake of such as forsook the head to wit Christ and made Angels the chiefe mediatours of their reconciliation to God 10. Therefore S. Chrysostome saith vpon that place of S. Paul Sunt nonnulli c. there are some which do say that we must not come to God the Father and be reconciled to him by Christ but by Angels and so doth also Oecumenius and Theophilactus expound the same place And the authour of the Commentary vpon S. Pauls Epistles amongst the workes of S. Ambrose saith that the Apostle taxed there such as adored the starres quas sayth he Angelos vocat he calleth Angels and finally to omit others S. Hierome and Haymo do vnderstand that the Apostle speaketh of such as vsed to offer Sacrifice to Angels whereupon also the Councell of Laodicea might haue iust occasion to make their decree agaynst some such abominable Idolatry done secretly to Angels in their dayes 11. So as it is euident by all this that neyther the Apostle in his Epistle to the Colâ—ssâ—nsesâ— noâ— Theâ—doret in his Commentary vpon the same nor then Galnon of the Laodicean Councell mentioned by Theodoret and obiected by M. Andrews do any way impugne the custome of the Catholyke Church in praying to Angels as mediatours to Christ for â—s And to conclude concerning Theodoret is whereas M. Andrewes would by this place make the world belieuâ— that he did not approue prayer to Sayntsâ— I remit thee good Reader to that most perspicuous and pregâ—antâ— testimony which I haue before produced 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 to proue the publike practiced and custome of the whole Church to pray to Saynts in his tyme together with the admirable effects and miraculous benefitsâ— that deuout people receiued thereby and his owne euident and cleare approbation thereof seeing that he vrgeth it to the confusion of the Paynims inferâ—ing thereupon a manifess argument of Christs diuinity besides that in his historia religiosa wherein wryting the lyues of diuers religious persons he craueth in the end of euery particuler Saynts life Gods fauour and diuine assistance by his intercessionâ— and in the conclusion of the last he desireth them all whose lyues he had written to pray for him So that I hope this may suffice in answere of M. Andrewes his obiection taken out of him 12. I haue before touched another obiection of M. Andrews grounded vpon an absurd conceipt of his that it is vncertayne whether Saynts do heare vs and how they see or know our actions and albeit that which I sayd there touching the common and vniuersall experience that the Church hath had in all ages of the helpe and assistance of Saynts to such as inuocate them might suffice for his confutatioÌ„ in this poynt yet because he vrgeth the same diuers tymes and especially in his preamble to his censure â—pon the Fathers I will and heere somewhat more to shew his absurd manner of arguing in this matter Thus then he saith Vt hoc detur c. although this should be granted that Saynts do pray for vs yet it is not â—â—â—fest how they he are vs praying heere on earth and those your positions touching the glasse of the diuine essence and the shyning therein of all things that are done on earth are more subtil then solid and not cleare inough to your selues and altogeather vnheard of amongst the Fathers and no man doth willingly call vpon those of whome he is not certayne by what meanes they heare him proâ—â—de andeant necne c. and therefore vnsure whether they heare him or no. So he 13. Wherein you see he argueth in effect no otherwyse then thus that because we know not certaynely how the Saynts do heare vs therefore we are not sure that they heare vs at all which truly is a strange inference for albeit we be not sure how and in what manner they heare vs yet we may be sure that they heare vs seeing that the certaynty of any effect doth noâ— depend vpon the knowledge eyther of the cause or of the manner or meanes how it is wrought as it is euident by infinite effects which we certaynely know and see though we neyther know the assured cause thereof nor in what manner they are performed As for exampleâ— it is certayne that the sea â—bbeth and floweth that â—eâ—eâ—s haue theyr accesses and crises◠〈…〉 stone draweth 〈◊〉 and loketh alwayes towards the Northâ— and yet neuertheles we neyther cerâ—aynly 〈…〉 these â—ffects proceed nor how they are effected and who can assuredly tell how the sound of a voyce is framed and how the eye seeth whether by intromission or extramission as the Philosophers speake when neuertheles thâ— effects are euident 14. And this being so in naturall and earthly matters subiect to our senses what shall we thinke of heauenly thinges or of matters belonging to religion and fayth which do farre more exceed mans weake capacity must we eyther know how they are wrought or els deny the effects Let M. Andrews tell me how Angels and Saynts in heauen do pray to God for vs which he granteth they do or how they vnderstand one another or yet how the humanity of Christ heareth our prayers and knoweth our actions I meane whether he seeth them in his diuinity or knoweth them by reuelation and if he dare not determine the matter let him according to his owne inference doubt whether Christ heareth our prayers or not yea let him not willingly pray vnto him seeing he sayth that no man doth willingly call vpon those of whome he is vncertayne by what meanes they heare him and if he will take vpon him to determine it let him tell me why the glorified soules of Saynts which see God may not heare our prayers and know our actions in the same manner 15. But to omit infinite other instances which might be giuen let vs heare what S. Augustine sayth euen in a matter pertayning to this question whereof we now treate For albeit he maketh great doubt how Almighty God did work those stupendious miracles which as he testifieth vpon his owne knowledge were done at the memoryes and relyques of S. Steuen and other Martyrs yet he made so litle doubt of the effect that he vrged the same notably against the Paynims to proue
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
The answere of M. Andrews to the place of S. Hierome examined Andr cap. 8. pag. 219. § Hieronymus Foure things to be noted in M Andrews his answere M. Andrews large graunt coÌ„cerning the primacy of S. Peter What followeth of M. Andrews hiâ— graâ—nt One â—ead more necessary now in the Church then in the Apostles time and why Psal. â—7 8â— Isa. 61. Mattâ—â— 16. vlt. Luc. 1. Ephes. 4. Our Sauiours prouidence in the conseruation of the RomaÌ„ Church when all other Apostlicall Churches haue fayled â— Aug. in Psal. coÌ„tra part Donati Power to punish to define necessary in the head of the Church to remedy schismes Whence the greatest danger of schisme commonly aryseth See Supplem cap. 1. nu 61.62 (b) Ibidem à nu 60. ad nu 67. (c) Ibid. nu 67. sâ—qu (d) Ibid. nu 63. 64. Power ouer the soule necessarily implieth some power ouer the body A doubt of M. Andrews sufficiently solued Touching the number committed to S. Peters charge Psal. 44. In Psal. 44. Mar. vlt. Psal. 18. M. Andrews granting S. Peter to be head of the Apostles granteth that he was head of the whole Church Idem ho. 5. in Petris Apost Eliant Idem ho. 87. in Ioan. M. Andrews head very idle Matth. 16. vlt. A paradox of M. Andrews Tyranny more frequent in small stats then great Monarchies M. Andrews acknowledgeth by a necessary coÌ„sequent that one head is necessary for the whole Church (d) See suppl cap. 1. nu 81. cap. 4. à nu 3. ad nu 18. (e) Ibid. nu 7.8 9. (f) num 2.3.4 sequent (g) nu 37. The conclusion coÌ„cerning the place of S. Hierome (h) nu 29. sâ—qu Andr. vbi supra M. Andrews hath granted by coÌ„sequent as mâ—ch as we demand coÌ„câ—rning the sâ—preme authority of S. Peterâ— (d) See befoâ—e nuâ— 17â— 38. sequent Card. Bellar Apolo c. 8. pag. 125 Suppl cap. 4 nu 15. S. Basil. in serm de iudicio Dei Andr. cap. 8. p. 218. §. Ex Basilio How S. Peter may be sayd to be a Monarch Chap. 3. nu 39.40 41. Andr. vbi supra A vaine cauill of M. Andrews (c) Cap. 1. nu 3.4 5. (a) Card. Bellar. Apolog. vbi supra (b) Suppl cap. 4. nu 10. S. Greg. Nazianzen orat de moderat c. Andr. vbi supra A place of S. Gregory Nazian explicated and vrged M. Andrews impertinent trifling Suppl cap. 4. nu 15. Card. Apol. vbi supra S. Chrysostâ— ho. 55. in Matth. Andr. cap. 8. pag. 219. Chrysost. vbi supra Idem ibid. Idem ho. 3. in Acta Apost A notable discourse of S. Chrysostome prouing S. Peters Supremacy A stale trifeling conceyt touching the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 againe brought in by M. Andrews Bellar. de Rom. Pon. lib. 3. cap. 10. §. Secunda opinio A dreaming fancy of M. Andrews Chap. 3. nâ— 39.40 41. Card. Bell. Apolog. vbi supra Supple chap. 4. Aug. Ser. 124. feriaeâ— 4. post Domin Palma Andr. vbi sup M. Andrewes bold assertion without all proofe Possidius in vita Augustin Indic Possid cap. 9. 10. Ibidem Sermons were made de tempore both in the Latinâ— and in the Greeke Church in S. Augustins tyme. Ambros. To. 5. Serm de tempore S. Maximus Gennadius de viris Illustrib Gregor Nyssen Gregor Nazian Chrysost. To. 3. Andr. vbi supra M. Andrews rauing fit Sâ— Peters fall no preiudice to his Primacy S. Aug. ser. 124. de temp S. Augustine teacheth that S. Peter was permitted to fall because he was to be supreme head of the Church The same also taught by S. Chrysostome S. Chrysost. hom in S. Petrum Eliam S. Greg. ho. 21. in Euangel Another place of S. Augustine acknowledging S. Peters supremacy notwithstanding his fall See Andr. cap. 1. pag. 16. lin 17. Aug. de agone Christ. cap. 30. See before Chap. 1. nu 3.4 5. Cyril in cap. vlt. Ioan. Vbi supra nu 23. 24. Bellar. de Rom. Pont li. 1. c. 25. O caput elleboro dignum The later hereticks do follow the old (b) Aug. de Vnit. Eâ—cl ca. 12. (c) EpiphaÌ„ haer 75. (d) Hieron aduers. Vigilant (f) Idem contra Iouin (g) See before chap. 3. nu 34. 35. Aug. de vtilitate credendi cap. 17. Marc. 14. Matth. 26. M Andrews zeale greater then his wit A good recipe for M. Andrews Three notorious lyes Concerning the prohibition of appeals from Afrike to Rome obiected by M. Andrews Bellar. de Rom. Pont l. 2. c. 25. Baron an 419. A controuersy betwixt the Bishops of Africk the Sea of Rome coÌ„cerning the prosecution of Appeals Three wayes vsed in the prosecution decision of appeales (d) infra nu 47.48 49. Ibid. To. 1. Concil in Concil Africano ca. 10â— M. Andrews his forgery S. Aug. ep 261. The case of Antony Bishop of Fussula appealing to Rome Ibid. S. Augustine his dutifull respect to Pope Celestinus Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. The primate of Numidia in Africk approued the Appeale of Antony to Rome Concil Mileu Can. 12. M. Andrewes Transmarinus nemo Concil Sard. ca. 17. S. Aug. ep 92. 93. â— Aug. ep 1.62 S. Augustine testifyeth that appeales to Rome were allowed to the Bishops of Africk though prohibited to the inferour Clergy Examples of Appeales from Africk to to Rome S. Leo ep 87. ad Epis. Maurit S. Greg. Regist. lib. 1. ep 82. Idem ibid. lib. 10. ep 31. 32. Ibid. lib. 10. ep 8. Ibid. ep 35. Supra nu 36. The request of the African Bishops to Pope Celestinus concerning appeals neyther did nor could preiudice the right of the sea Apostolick (h) See cap. 2. nu 24. seq vsque ad nu 28. M. Andrews maketh no bones to falsify whole Synods and bely the Fathers It is proued S. Augustine acknowledged the Popes Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus for heads of the Church (c) See before nu 38.39 seq S. Aug. ep 157. ad Optat. Posidius in vita Augustini 8 Popes who liued in S. Augustins tyme exercysed a supreme vniuersall authority Pope Liberius â— Basil ep 74. 82. Tripartit hist. lib. 4. ca. 15. P. Damasus Concil To. 1. inter ep Damas. S. Ambros in ca. 3. ep 1. ad Timoth. S. Hier. ep â—7 To. 2. (c) Chap. 3. nu 17.18.19 20. (d) nu 4.5.6 â— sequent What authority S. Hierome did attribute vnto Damasus Socrat. lib. 4. ca. 30. Elias Cretens in ep 2. ad CledoÌ„ Greg. Nazian Baron an 373. To. 1. Concil ep 1. Damas. Sozom. li. 8. cap. 3. Socrat. li. 5. c. 15. Theodor. lib. 5. cap. 23. P. Syricius â— Ambrose ep 78. See Binius To. 1. Concil Baron an 389. To. 1. Concil inter Siricij ep decret Optat. li. â— contra Parmen The argument of Optatus Mileuitanus Anastasius Aug. ep 165. Idem in psal contra part Donati Concil African can 35. vide â—innium pag. 637. edit Colon. 1606. P. Innocentius Ep. 90.
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