the benefit of soules the publike good of the Church and gods glory wherof I haue giuen sufficient reason in the first Chapter of my Supplement 21. Therefore I will only say for the present that if the Popes spirituall Primacy may for this cause be called a temporall primacy then may M. Andrews who taketh himselfe to be a Bishop and a spirituall Pastour be iustly called and nicknamed a corporall Bishop and a pecuniary Pastour because he doth punish men sometymes in his spirituall court not only in their bodyes but also in their purses and if he would thinke him absurd who should so style and intytle him he is no lesse absurd himselfe in calling the Popes Primacy for the like reason a temporall Primacy And although neither S. Augustine nor S. Cyril do in the places cyted by M. Andrews speake of any such extension of spirituall power to temporall matters whereof they had no occasion to treate yet it sufficeth that they do not deny it yea and that they do both of them sufficiently teach there the spirituall Primacy of S. Peter wherof the other is a necessary consequent 22. S. Augustine in that very Treatise wherto M. Andrews appealeth I meane vpon the Ghospell of S. Iohn and the last Chapter hath that expresse doctrine and those very words which I cyted a little before concerning the person and figure of the whole Church represented in S. Peter propter Apostolatus sui Primatum by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship or as he saith els where propter Primatum quem in discipulis habuit for the Primacy which he had amongst the Disciples For which cause he called him also twice in the same place primum Apostolorum the chiefe Apostle and saith that the Church receaued the keyes in him which as I haue shewed doth euidently proue him to be head and supreme Pastour of the Church whereof only he and no other of the Apostles is said to represent the person and figure so that S. Augustine sufficiently acknowledgeth S. Peters spirituall Supremacy in the place alledged by M. Andrewes 23. The like doth S. Cyril also in his coÌ„mentary vpon S. Iohns Ghospell and in the same place which M. Andrewes cyteth for there he calleth S. Peter expressely Prince and head of the Apostles saying Vt Princeps Caputque ceterorum primus exclamauit Tu es Christus filius Dei viui Peter as Prince and head of the rest first exclaymed Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God So he wherby he teacheth euidently that S. Peter was head and supreme Pastour of the Church in that he acknowledgeth him to be Prince and head of the Apostles who were the chiefe Magistrates and Pastors therof and therefore it is to be considered how this agreeth with that which followeth presently after in M. Andrews his text who hauing affirmed as you haue heard that neyther of these Fathers saw the article touching Peters temporall Primacy addeth Id tantum vident nec praeterea quid quia c. They see this only and nothing els that because Peter had denyed his Lord not once but thrice he was asked concerning loue not once but thrice and so when he had abolished his triple negation with his triple confession he was restored to the place or degree of Apostleship from the which he was fallen for touching the Primacy they are altogeather silent Thus saith M. Andrews 24. Wherin it is to be noted that wheras he saith that these Fathers saw only this which he heere setteth downe nec praeterea quid and nothing else it is euidently false for two respects the one for that they saw more then he mentioneth yea more then he listed to see to wit the Primacy of S. Peter as I haue shewed out of them both the other is because they saw not that which he affirmeth in their behalfe I meane that S. Peter was by those wordes of our Sauiour restored to his place in the Apostleship which he had lost for if they should haue said so they should seeme to hould or fauour at least the pernicious heresy of Wycliffe that Magistrates loose their dignity and authority by mortall sinne which pestiferous opinion those holy Fathers no doubt would haue abhorred if it had bene set abroach or taught by any in their tyme seeing that it shaketh the very foundation of all obedience eyther to Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall Magistrates because it doth not only make all obedience vncertaine for no man knoweth who is in the state of Grace but also giueth occasion to Subiects vpon euery offence of their Prince to call his authority in question 25. Therfore to the end thou maist good Reader know as wel the integrity of these Fathers in this point as M. Andrews his fraud and bad conscience in alledging them thou shalt vnderstand that S. Augustine saith nothing at all that may be so much as wrested to any such sense in that place and doth elswhere expressely teach the contrary as when he saith Apostleâ— againe a little after when Peter the Apostle denied our Sauiour and wept and remayned still an Apostle he had not yet receaued the holy Ghost Thus saith S. Augustine and could he teach a doctrine more contrary to that which M. Andrews fatâ—ereth vpon him 26. Let vs now see how he handleth S. Cyril vpoÌ„ whome it may be he principally relyeth for this matter for indeed that holy Father saith somewhat concerning the same though far otherwise then M. Andrews would make his Reader belieue for thus saith S. Cyril Dixit pasce agnos meos Apostolatus sibi renouaÌ„s dignitatem ne propter negationem quae humana infirmitate accidit labefactata videretur He to wit our Sauiour said to Peter feed my Lambs renewing to him his dignity of the Apostleship least it might seeme to haue bene decayed by his denyall which happened by humane infirmity Thus far S. Cyril who you see neyther saith nor meaneth that S. Peter fell from his Apostleship by his denyall of Christ but rather signifieth the contrary to wit that Christ would not haue it so much as to seeme or be supposed that he had lost his dignity by his fall and therefore renewed it by that new and expresse commission ne labefactata videretur lest it should seeme to haue bene decayed or lost 27. Wherin also it is to be obserued that the dignity wherof S. Cyril speaketh was not the bare office or degree of an Apostle but that which was peculiar and proper to S. Peter and so acknowledged by S. Cyril himselfe a little before in the same Chapter when he tearmed him Principem Caput ceterorum the Prince and head of the rest of the Apostles as also S. Augustine as you haue heard calleth it Primatum principatum Apostolatus the Primacy and principality of the Apostleship and therefore I say the Dignity which according to S. Cyrils doctrine our Sauiour renewed
S. Peter and his successors For if S. Peter were made head of all the Apostles to whome Christ left the gouernment of his Church it cannot be denied but that he was made head of the Church for who is head of any common welth but he that is head of all those that haue the administration charge and gouernement of it And if the reason why he was ordayned head of the Apostles was to auoyde and preuent the danger of schisme it must needs be granted that so long as the same cause and reason I meane the danger of schisme continueth in the Church so long also the remedy is to continue therin and that the greater the danger is the more necessary also is the remedy whereupon it followeth that seeing the danger of schisme doth and euer shall continue in the Church the remedy also of one head is euer to continue And for as much as the danger of schisme in the Apostles tyme was not so great they being all of them most holy men and particulerly guyded by the holy Ghost as it is andâ— alwayes hath bene euer since Therefore the remedy of one head which our Sauiour ordayned for the same is more necessary now then it was in their dayes yea and was more specially intended by his diuyne prouidence for all ensuing ages after the Apostles tyme then only during their liâ—es 38. Moreouer it being euident in the holy Scriptures that our Sauiour planted his Church to stand to the worlds end it were absurd to say that he ordayned that forme of gouernement vnder one head to last only during the Apostles tyme as though he had lesse care of the vnity of his Church in future ages then in the beginning when as I haue sayd the danger of schisme should be far lesse then it would be afterwards Therfore I conclude that seeing S. Peter was made head of the Apostles and consequently of the whole Church to auoyd schisme M. Andrews can not deny the same authority to S. Peters successors for the same reason especially seeing that our Sauiours prouidence therein is euident to the very eye of euery man that list not to be willfully blynd in that he hath permitted the succession of all the Apostles to fayle in all the Churches where they gouerned excepting only the succession of S. Peter in the Roman Church which he hath miraculously conserued to make it manifest to the world that S. Peter and his chayre as you haue heard out of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome is the Rock whereupon he promised to buyld his Church and that as S. Augustine sayth Ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae that is the Rock which the proud gates of hell do not ouercome 39. Furthermore whereas M. Andrews granteth also that a head appoynted in the Church for the remedy of schisme is to haue so much power as is necessary for that end he must needs consequently grant all that power which we requyre and acknowledge it in S. Peter and his successors to the same end I meane not only a power authority to define decyde coÌ„trouersies without the which no schisme or diuision concerning matter of doctrine can be conueniently compounded but also power and iurisdiction to punish such as do obstinatly infringe and violate the vniâ—ty and peace of the Church for how can the head sufficiently remedy schisme if he cannot punish those which do cause and mayntayne it and if M. Andrews will say that Christ hath therfore left authority to his Church to punish only by excommunication and spirituall censures I must demand of him what remedy the head of the Church can giue thereby when his censures are contemned and specially by an absolute Prince shall he haue then no further power to remedy the inconuenience how then is his power such as M. Andrews himselfe granteth it to be to wit quanta rei satis siâ— cui constitutus est as much as may be sufficient for the thing for the which he was made head that is to say to remedy and take away schisme 40. And who seeth not that the greatest harme that groweth to the Church by schisme commonly is when secular Princes do eyther rayse it themselues or mayntayne it in others Shall not then the head of the Church haue sufficient power to remedy this greatest danger and mischiefe that can hap to the Church Or shall he not haue meanes as well to correct his greatest and most powerfull subiects as the least and meanest Then as I haue sayd in my Supplement the power of the Church should be no better then a cobweb that holdeth the little flyes and letteth go the great ones and consequently the prouidence of Almighty God should be very defectiue in ordayning a head to conserue his Church in vnity and not giuing him sufficient power to performe it which no wyse temporall Prince would do if he should make a Lieutenant to gouerne in any part of his dominions Wherto it may be added that the Lawyers teach that he which granteth iurisdiction is presumed to grant all things necessary for the execution of it which is also conforme to the Philosophers Maxime to wit Qui dat esse dat consequentia ad esse he which giueth a being giueth togeather with it all those things which are consequents thereof or necessarily requyred thereto as I haue amply proued in my Supplement where I haue deduced the necessity of this consequent from the very Law of nature and light of reason 41. Besides that I haue also declared there that he which hath power ouer the soule for the benefit thereof must needs haue also power ouer the body and goods which by the very Law of nature are subiect to the soule and ordayned to serue it and therefore to be disposed by the spirituall Gouernour or Pastor so far forth as is necessary for the saluation of the soule in which respect the Church hath alwayes vsed and still doth to impose not only fasting and other bodily pennance but also imprisonments and pecuniary mulcts vpon her disobedient children when the benefit of their soules and the publick good of the Church doth requyre it which is also vsed by our Aduersaries themselues in their Ecclesiasticall discipline who in their spirituall Tribunals and Courts do punish the disobedient as well by pecâ—niary penalties as by corporall imprisonements Whereupon it followeth that when Princes who are members of the Church do violate the vnion thereof and are incorrigible by excommunication they may be chastised by their supreme head or spirituall Pastor euen in their temporall states so far as shall be necessary for the good of their soules and the benefit of the whole Church for otherwyse the head of the Church should not haue that sufficient power to remedy schismes and other inconueniences which M. Andrews himselfe granteth and it cannot indeed be denied 42. This then being so
power giuen him by the keyes and by his Pastorall commission which doe import authority power Iurisdiction and gouernment 20. Therefore M. Andrews denying S. Peters preeminēce in authority and gouernment denyeth the primacy that the Fathers teach and reduceth it only to a bare name without effect and so doth nothing els indeed but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea and if we well consider what he saith we shall find that he graunteth not so much as the very word or name of primacy or at least if he do he cōtradicteth himselfe for what are trow you those voculae which he excepteth frō his graunt when he sayth that there is nothing in these places of the Fathers which may not presently be graunted nisi voculam fortè habent c. except some litle word perhaps What litle word I say is that which cannot be graunted Is it not Primatus Caput and some such other words as signifie Primacy Yes truely for no other voculae or voces in those places of the Fathers do so much molest him Neuertheles he hath no sooner excepted them from his grant but he granteth thē presētly saying Non negamus Primatum Petri c. Wee doe not deny the primacy of Peter nor those names which signify Primacy which is a strange kinde of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he wrangleth with himselfe contradicting himselfe notably within the space of two lynes first signifying that those wordes and names are not to be graunted and presently after granting them as no way preiudiciall to his doctrine 21. And to the end wee may vnderstand that he granteth vs nothing but words and names he distinguisheth the same from the thing it selfe which he meaneth to deny and yet so handleth the matter that he doth still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reducing also his denyall to a meer quarrell of words deuised by himselfe and neyther vsed nor meant by vs eyther in wordes or sense for he calleth rem ipsam the thing it selfe which is signified by our primacy terrestrem monarchiam an earthly Monarchy and in another place he also tearmeth it temporalem Primatum a temporall Primacie and this forsooth is that which he denyeth heere and so denyeth no part of our doctrine but a foolish cōceipt of his owne for although we hold and teach that the gouernment of the Church is a Monarchie and that the power thereof doth extend it selfe to temporall thinges in such sort and for such reasons as I haue touched in the first chapter of this Adioynder and handled at large in my Supplemēt yet it neyther is nor can be called temporall or earthly otherwise then as S. Hilary calleth S. Peters iudiciall sentences terrena iudicia when he sayth terrena eius iudicia sunt caelestia his earthly Iudgements that is to say his sentences giuen on earth are heauenly 22. And so I say that albeit the gouernment of the Church may in this sense be called earthly to wit because it is exercised vpon earth yet it is not earthly or temporall but spirituall and heauenly both because it is a spirituall and heauenly power and also because it is guided and directed from heauen by the spirit of God And therefore whereas M. Andrews doth call or rather nickname the Popes Supremacy a Temporall Primacy and his Monarchy an earthly Monarchy because he punisheth his spirituall subiects in their temporall goodes or states he may by the same reason say that S. Peter and S. Pauls power was not spirituall but corporall and temporall because the one of them punished Ananias Sapphira with corporall death and the other strook Elimas the Magician blind deliuered the incestuous Corinthian to Sathan in interitum carnis to the destruction of the flesh and finally extended his power to secular and politicall matters commaunding the Corinthians to appoint temporall Iudges amongst themselues rather then to haue recourse to the tribunalls and Iudgements of Infidells yea M. Andrewes must acknowledge himselfe to be but a meere temporall yea a pecuniary Pastour because in his spirituall Courtes he vseth pecuniary mulcts and other temporall punishments as I haue shewed before in the first Chapter By all this it appeareth that M. Andrews denying not the spirituall but as he tearmeth it the earthly Monarchy and temporall primacy of Peter denyeth nothing els but his owne vayne and idle manner of speach expressing only a foolish fancie of his and a very Chymera that hath no being in rerum natura and so he doth still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is therefore truely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say a wrangler in the highest degree 23. And to the end this may yet appeare more manifestly I will examine his answers obiections touching another point in controuersy betwixt him and vs whereby we shall also see how notably he wrangleth cauilleth iuggleth and tryfleth and because the matter and his manner of answering will requyre some long discourse I will make it the subiect of the three next Chapters A FVRTHER MANIFESTATION OF MAISTER ANDREWS HIS Tryfling wrangling and fraudulent humour by his Answers to other places of the Fathers concerning Prayer to Saints which he deuydeth into three rankes whereof the two first are examined in this Chapter CHAP. VI. WHEREAS the Cardinall vndertaketh in his Apology to treate of prayer to Saynts because the Apology for the Oath condemneth the vse and practise of it in the Catholike Church M. Andrewes taketh exception to the Cardinall for changing the state of the question and sayth that he fighteth with his owne shaddow because he promiseth to treate de intercessione Sanctorum of the intercession of Saynts wheras that which the King condemneth saith M. Andrewes is the inuocation of Saynts wherin he also noteth this difference that the intercession of Saynts is their worke and the inuocation of them is ours and that the King denieth not that which the Cardinall proueth to wit that the Saynts do pray for vs but that they are to be inuocated or prayed vnto which saith M. Andrews the Cardinall proueth not 2. And he pleaseth himselfe so much with this deuise that he doth often inculcate the same vrging the Cardinall to proue that Saynts may be inuocated yea producing a text of Scripture to proue that none can be inuocated but God for terret nos Apostolus saith he vtcumque vos hominem habetis pro leui c. The Apostle doth terrify vs how light soeuer you make of the man when he asketh this question quomodo inuocabunt eum in quem non crediderunt how shall they inuocate him in whome they belieue not for you perhaps haue found a way how a man may inuocate those in whome you your selues say you do not belieue whereas he to wit the Apostle seemed then to haue found no way Thus saith M. Andrews wherein it is to be noted that one speciall reason why he rejecteth our
conclude this Chapter and matter not doubtingâ— good Reader but thou hast noted throughout the whole that he hath neyther sufficieÌ„tly answered any one place of the Fathers alledged by the Cardinall or any argument of his neyther yet hath obiected any thing himselfe to any purpose but hath eyther notably tryfled and paltred in his answeres and obiections or egregiously peruerted corupted or falsifyed such Fathers and authors as he hath had occasion to alledge 76. So as I hope I haue now performed that which I vndertooke in these 3. Chapters which was to defend the Cardinall and to proue M. Andrews to be a true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an egregious wrangler iangler iuggler and tryfler in the hyghest degree and by the same occasion I haue also fully debated with him an important point of Catholike religion concerning the inuocation of Saynts which I haue euidently proued to be most consonant to holy Scripture practised by the primitiue Church approued by the vniforme consent of the ancieÌ„t Fathers most acceptable to God honorable to him and his Saynts and finally very behouefull and beneficiall to man Whereby it may appeare that M. Andrews and his fellowes who so eagerly impugne it are no other then the instruments and proctors of the Diuell who out of his extreme malice and enuy to Angels Saynts and all mankind seeketh by all the meanes he may to depriue the Angels and Saynts of their honour and man of the inestimable benefits that he may reape both spiritually and temporally by their intercession to which purpose he hath retayned and feyed M. Andrews as it seemeth by his diligent and eloquent pleading the cause and will I feare me one day pay him his fee in other money then he wil be willing to receaue except he open his eyes in tyme to see his danger which I beseech God of his infinit mercy to giue him grace to do THE CONCLVSION OF THIS ADIOYNDER DEVIDED INTO TWO CHAPTERS IN THIS are detected diuers fraudes and shifts common to M. Andrews with M. Barlow as to change the state of the question to dissemble that which most importeth in the Cardinalls text and arguments to abuse wrest bely and falsefy not only the Cardinall but also the ancient Fathers Councells and holy Scriptures and finally to face out matters impudeÌ„tly for lack of proofs CHAP. IX THERE remaine good Reader diuers other thinges in M. Andrews to be examined which I haue touched in my Supplement but being now called on by my printer to furnish his presse I am forced not only to send away that which I haue already written but also to interrupt my designement in the prosecution of the rest and therefore for as much as I am now to draw to an end I think good for the conclusion of the whole to lay before thee sundrie sorts of shifts cosenages corruptions frauds which he hath vsed throughout his whole worke and to the end I may performe it with more breuity and better method I will follow the same course that I held with M. Barlow That is draw them to certaine â—eades and giue thee some few examples of euery one which being added to those that haue already occurred in this Adioynder may suffice I hope to shew â—hee with what kind of stuffe he hath patched vp his Latin volume what a miserable cause he and his fellowes haue to defend seing it driueth them to such shamefull shifts as thou hast partly seene already and shalt further see by that which ensueth 2. The first point which I reproued in M. Barlow was his coÌ„mon custome to change the state of the question and so to answere nothing to the purpose which is no lesse frequent and ordinarie in M. Andrews as for example whereas the true state of the controuersy betwixt vs and them concerning the primacy of the Pope is Whether he be supreme head of the Church in all spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes and may in some cases extend his power to temporall thinges that is to say Whether being the supreme spirituall Pastor he may for the publik benefit of the Church and the good of soules punish his disobedient children namely temporall Princes in their temporall states which I haue shewed in my Supplement to be a necessary consequent of his supreme spirituall power M. Andrews will needes make vs hould and teach that the Popes primacy is a temporall primacy in which respect he calleth our doctrine and beliefe touching that point illustrem fidei articulum de Primatu Petri temporali The notable Article of Faith concerning the temporall Primacy of Peter and as you heard before distinguishing the name of Peters primacy which he granteth from the thing signified by that name which he denyeth he tearmeth it terrestrem Monarchiam an earthly Monarchy and therefore he vrgeth the Cardinall to proue this temporall primacy and earthly Monarchy and so impugneth no opinion of ours nor any thing els but his owne fond fiction as I haue shewed before and more amply in the first Chapter of this Adioynder and therfore I shall not need to stand any longer vpon this point heere but will passe to another 3. Amongst other questions much controuersed concerning good works one is whether there be any works of supererogation which the Catholyks vnderstand to be such as being lawfull and good of their owne nature are not commanded by any precept as for example the Euangelicall Councells in which sense Cardinall Bellarmine and all other Catholikes do vse the word supererogation as signifying a work done supra praeceptum that is to say more then the precept coÌ„mandeth But M. Andrewes impugneth it in another sense and so changeth the state of the question For he will needs haue workes of Supererogation to be such good works only as are done after or besids the full accomplishment of the Commandment so that before a man can do a worke of supererogation he must fullfill and fully obserue all the precepts whereupon he also inferreth that no man can do any such works no not the Apostles themselues because they could not fullfill the Commandments hauing allwayes occasion to to say Dimitte nobis debita nostra forgiue vs Lord our offences 4. Wherein M. Andrews expressely impugneth not so much the Cardinall and other Catholiks as S. Augustine and other ancient Fathers from whome they take both the terme and the sense thereof For whereas our Sauiour saith in the Ghospell that the good Samaritan brought the wounded man into the Inne and leauing two pence with the Host told him quodcumque supererogaueris reddam tibi whatsoeuer thou shalt lay out more I will render it vnto thee S. Augustine alluding to the same place and words of our Sauiour teacheth euidently that those things which are lawfull id est sayth he nullo praecepto Domini prohibentur that is to say which are not forbidden by any precept of our Lord
directly that no temporall Prince is Supreme head of the Church But his opinion concerning the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy will be much more manifest if we consider what a poore conceipt he hath of it and how he abaseth it being so farre from graunting it to be a principall article of faith as we hold the Popes Primacy to be that he saith it is ne articulus quidem not so much as an Article vtpote de exteriori modo regimine c. as of a thing which concerneth only the externall gouâ—rment of the Church so far forth as it requireth and admitteth humane help and authority And therefore hâ— placeth it not amongst points which are to be belieued but amongst matters of perswasion such I meane as we are perswaded to be true and therfore he saith nec sic singula trahimus ad fidem c. we do not so draw all things to faith it sufficeth for some heads or points of religion to belieue them with the Apostle and of some others to be perswaded only quae tameÌ„ infra fideÌ„ subsistant which neuertheles are beneath or vnder matters of faith Therefore it is inough if it be without the compasse of faith so that it may haue place only amongst orthodox or true doctrine So he and to the same purpose he also saith in another place that it is a truth but extra symbolum out of the creed so that it may perhaps be come into his Pater noster but is not yet into Creed Whereupon diuers things might be inferred worth the noting but I will touch only two or three 39. If the Kings Supremacy be not a matter of Faith then is it neither expressely taught in Scripture nor necessarily deduced from it for if it were then must it needes be a matter of Faith and therevpon it followeth that although M. Andrews doe alleage Scripture to proue it yet he himselfe is of opinion that it is but only probably gathered out of Scripture and consequently that a man may without daunger of damnation choose whether he will belieue it or no. For of thinges which are in Controuersy and not defined but only probably gathered out of Scripture a man may without daunger of his soule adhere to eyther parte which truly may serue for a great Motiue to all Protestants to make small account of the Kinges Ecclesiasticall Suâ—remacy otherwise then in respect of the temporall Lawes especially seeing that so great a Doctor as M. Andrewes who pretendeth expresly to maintaine and defend it teacheth that it is no matter of faith Besides that I cannot see how he can approue the Oath of the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy to be lawfully teÌ„dred or taken as of an vndoubted truth if it be no matter of faith For he that sweareth a thing to be simply true which he doth not certainly belieue but only is probably perswaded that it is true sinneth in the opinion of the Diuines Canonistsâ— Wherupon it followeth that M. Andrews who holdeth the Kings Supremacy to be no matter of faith but only a probable truth can neither lawfully take the Oath of the said Supremacy nor iustly approue it to be exacted of any and this will be as cleere as the Sun if we consider by what Scriptures he laboureth to proue the Kings Supremacy wherby we shall easily see that the same is not so much as probably gathered out of Scripture and therfore not to be held for an vndoubted truth and much lesse to be sworne for such 40. For wheras the Cardinall obiecteth that it is a new doctrine taught first in the time of King Henry the 8. who first tooke vpon him the title of supreme head of the Church M. Andrews denieth it saying tantum abest c. It is so farre from being so new as the Cardinall saith to wit a thousand fiue hundred yeares after Christ that it was a thousand fiue hundred yeares before Christ was borne Neither was Henry the 8. the Authour of that in our age but Moyses in his who hauing put off or laid away his Priesthood was neuerthelesse aboue Aaron and when he gaue to the King the Law he gaue him withall the chiefe power to keepe Religion which is the first and chiefest part of the Law and to cause it to be kept So he Wherein he giueth two reasons or groundes out of the old Law for the spirituall Supremacy of temporall Princes The one because Moyses laid aside his Priesthood and being therfore but a temporall man was superiour to Aaron And the other because he gaue to Kings the chief power and charge of Religion when he gaue them the copy of the Law 41. In the former point of the two he notably bewrayeth his owne ignorance in saying that Moyses laid aside his Priesthood or ceased to be Priest after he was once Priest as if Moyses his Priesthood had bin like to the Ministry of the Protestants which may be put of and on like a Ierkin or a Cloake when they list whereas his Priesthood was so permanent and inseparably annexed to his person that albeit he might cease from the execution of the function yet he could neuer put off the power of his Priesthood during his life Besides that he was so farre from putting off his Priesthood that he was not only still Priest after Aaron was consecrated but also as S. Augustine teacheth expresly chief Priest either togeather with Aaron or els aboue him Ambo saith he tunc summi Sacerdotes erant both Moyses and Aaron were theÌ„ high Priests or rather was not Moyses high Priest and Aaron vnder him Thus saith S. Augustine wherby you see how weake and seelly is M. Andrews his first reason grounded vpon his own ignorant conceipt that Moyses left off his Priesthood and that neuertheles he was still superiour to Aaron being a meere temporall Prince for if he meant not so his argument for the temporall Princes supremacy is not worth a rush but you haue heard out of S. Augustine that Moyses was not only a Priest after the Consecration of Aaron but also chief Priest I meane aboue Aaron in which respect it may be thought that God commaunded Moyses not Aaron to cloath Eleazar Aaron Sonneâ— with Aarons vestments in the preâ—â—nce of Aaron himself to succeed him in the office of high Priest 42. In his second reason concerning the chiefe power and charge of Religion giuen to Kings by Moyses togeather with the copy of the Law he sheweth most euident and notorious malice in the manifest abuse corruption of Scripture no such thing but rather the cleane contrary being to be gathered out of that place of Deuteronomy where Moyses ordayned that the copy of the Law should be giuen by the Priestes to the future Kings I say future for that there was no King ouer Gods people in the time of Moyses nor of 400. years after as I haue signified in
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
him to the Church as from the head to the body 54. Now then this being most euident how doth M. Andrewes his doctrine agree with this seeing he teacheth that the King is no otherwise ouer the Church that is to say he hath no power or authority ouer it but as a foster-father and a tutorâ— vt eam nutriat et defeÌ„dat that he may nourish and defend it which as I haue said all Catholike Princes do and Pagan Princes may do without any spirituall power at all So that you see M. Andrewes depriueth his Maiesty of all the spirituall authority and iurisdiction which the Parliament hath giuen him And the like he doth also in other places where he ouerthroweth the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy in other manner for wheras the Cardinall obiecteth Caluins doctrine that no man ought to be called Head of the Church M. Andrews saith that Caluin indeed did not like it quo sâ—nsu Papa c. in the sense that the Pope is called the Ministeriall head but I know saith he it would not dislike Caluin in the sense that Saul was head of the Tribes of Israel and so also the head of the Tribe of Leui so he Giuing to vnderstand that Kings are heades of the Church in no other sense then as Saul was head of the Tribe of Leui. 55. Whereupon iâ— followeth that Kings are neither heads of the Church nor yet haue any authoritie at all ouer it for that Saul had none ouer the tribe of Leui which as I haue shewed in the first Chapter of this adioynder and much more amply in my supplement was by the expresse commaundement of God exempted from the temporall and politicall state in such sort that the Lâ—uits were not somuch as to be numbred amongst the people being Gods owne portion part and inheritance and giuen by him for a guift saith the Scripture to Aaron and his children so as the temporall Magistrate had nothing to doe with them And although it should be graunted that Saul was head of the Tribe of Leui as well as of the rest it would not follow that he was their spirituall head it being manifest that all the spirituall authority and iurisdiction in the lawe of Moyses resyded in the Preists and especially in the high Priest as I haue proued at large in my supplement where I haue also shewed that King Saul had no lawfull power and authority either spirituall or temporall ouer the person of the high Priest as it appeared in that his owne naturall subiects who knew the law of God refused to obey him when he commaunded them to kill Achimelech the high Priest which therefore he caused to be done by Doeg the Idumean who being a stranger and not knowing the law of God or contemning it and representing as S. Augustine testifieth the Earthly Kingdome and societie of wicked men executed his tyranicall and sacrilegious commaundement 56. Therefore whereas M. Andrewes signifieth that our Kings are Heades of the Church of God in England as Saul was head of the tribe of Leui he alloweth them no authority at all ouer the Church neither spirituall nor temporall for that as I haue sayd the Leuiticall tribe was wholy exempt from the temporall state and subiect only to the high Preist and albeit Saul was truly head of all the other tribes yet he was only their temporall head and had no other but temporall power ouer them And therefore M. Andrewes doth also by this example depriue his Maiestie if not of all authority at least of all the spirituall power and iurisdiction which our Parliaments haue graunted him 57. To this may be added also his doctrine in his Tortura Torti where he saith facimusâ— we doe not graunt the power of censure to the Prince whereby he taketh from the King all that ample authority aboue meÌ„tioned which is aÌ„nexed to the Crowne by the statutes aforesayd to wit all such IurisdictioÌ„s priuiledges superiorityes and preheminences spirituall Ecclesiasticall as by any Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power hath heretofore byn or may lawfully be exercised or vsed for the visitation of Ecclesiasticall persons the reformation and correction of errors heresies and abuses c. In which wordes being the wordes of the Statute no man can deny but that all manner of Censures are coÌ„preheÌ„dedâ— without the which heresies abuses can neuer be sufficieÌ„tly corrected reformed therfore if the Prince thought good to excoÌ„municate any obstinat heretike he might according to this Statute do it as well or better then any Bishop in his Realme seeing that no Bishop can doe it otherwise then by the authority and iurisdiction which he hath from the Prince as I haue declared before out of the Statuts neither could the Prince giue it to any other if he had it not truly and properly in himselfe in whose person the same must needes principally reside seeing that by the expresse words of the Statute it is vnited and annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of England for what right Power of Iurisdiction soeuer is in the Crowne the same must needes be vnderstood to be principally and most properly in the Prince 58. Whereby it is manifest that the Kinges of England may according to this Statute not only giue all manner of Iurisdiction wherein all kind of Censures are included but also exercise the same themselues if it please them as in lyke case they might yf they thought it conuenient do and exercise the acts of all the ciuill offices in the common wealth as well as the officers themselues who haue their Power and Iurisdiction from them as I haue signified more at large in my Supplement vpon the lyke occasion ministred by M. Barlow and therefore M. Andrewes denying the Power of Censures to the King denyeth him the Royall prerogatiue and supreme spirituall authority wherewith our Parliaments haue indued him whereupon it followeth directly that he is neither good subiect nor good English Protestant For seeing he abridgeth his Maiesties authority denying his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy in the sense and maÌ„ner that our late Parliaments haue ordayned the same he caÌ„not be accounted a good subiect 59. And if he say that by this argument I confesse that we our selues are no good Subiects because we deny the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy he is to vnderstand that the case betwixt him and vs is farre different for we deny it only of meere conscience because we hold our selues bound to belieue as a matter of faith that S. Peter and his successors are supreme heades of the Church being a doctrine deduced from our Sauiours expresse words and commission giuen to S. Peter acknowledged by the vniforme consent of the ancient Fathers and confirmed by the continuall practise of the Church euen from S. Peters time to these our daies as I haue proued sufficiently throughout this Treatise in which respect we haue great reason to say with the Apostles
vt coÌ„mig Beethlem S. Dionys. Eccles. Hierar ca. 10. S. Basil. Ep. 1. ad Monach. lapsum in fine in ep ad Virgin laps Idem reg 14. fusius explic S. Aug. in psal 75. ante finem Ioan Cass. de Iustit renuÌ„ti li 4. c. 13. See supl. c. 7. nu 59. 60. M. Andrews approuing the first institute of monks approueth many important points of Catholke Religion See Card. Bellar. l. de monachis c. 42 43. seq (b) See Supplem Chap 7. n. 58 59.60 (a) Luther in colloqu Germa c. de matrimo (b) Idem to 8. de matrimo fol. 119. (c) Idem de Bigamia Episcop proposit 62. IteÌ„ Ochinus dialog l. 2. dial 21. See Caluinoturcis l. 2. cap. 11. (d) Bucer in cap. 1. 19. Mat. (e) 1. Tim. â— (f) Tertul. lib. de monogam c. 13. S. Epiphanius lib. 2. haeres 61. in fine S. Chrysost. hom 19. in 1. Cor. 7. in 1. Tim. 8. hom 15. S. Aug. in Psal. 75. IteÌ„ Concil Carthag 4. can 104. (g) S. Basil. de vera virginitate The first Euangelists of the Protestants Ghospell were the true Locusts that destroyed religiouâ— profession and perfection That the name Catholike belongeth only to the Apostolike Roman Church to the children thereof Andr. c. 5. pag. 125. §. Quod affert (a) See Chap. 4. nu 57.58 sequent (b) Ibid. nu 61. Magdeb. cent 4. c. 10. Socrat. l. 4. c. 30. (c) Cap. 4. nu 62. (d) Ibid. nu 63. (e) Ibid. nu 58. 59. Bellar. dâ— Pont. RoÌ„ l. 4. ca. 8. 11. (a) Idem Resp. ad Apolog. p. vlt. (b) Paâ—id Ep. ad Sympronian (c) S. Ciril Hier. c. 18. (d) Aug. in lib coÌ„tra ep FuÌ„dameÌ„ cap. â—â— Andr. c. 5. p. 125. Nam quae Andr. vbi supra M. Andr. his distinction helpeth him nothing Aug. vbi supra Item de vera religione c. 7. Luc. c. 19. Andr. c. 7. pa. 168. §. Nam de nostr (b) Barl. Ser. an 1606. 21. Septemb. (c) See before chap. 6. nu 77. (d) See Suppl Chap. 4. nu 54.55 seq (f) Suppl ca. 5. nu 2.3.4 5. What a beggarly Church Clergy the Sectaries haue in England See Supl. vbi supra nu 5. See Supl. vbi supra nu 6. S. Hieron aduers. Lucifer Iohn 10. (c) See before nu 35. also Suppl chap. 4 nu 54.55 seq Luc. 19. (b) Chap. 6â— nu 81â— (d) Chap. 3. nu 37. sequent What a poore coÌ„ceipt M. Andrews hath of the Kings ecclesiasticall supremacy Andr. c. 1. pag 21. §. Neque tamâ— Ibidem Ibid. p. 29. §. Aâ— recepta The Ecclesiastical Supremacy of temporall Princes may be in M. Andrews his Pater noster but is not in his Creed The oath of the supremacy vnlawful if the supremacy be no matter of faith Aureol in 3. dist 39â— Ang. verb. periurium See Nauar. manuale c. 12. nu 3. Suarez de relig Tom. 2. li. 3. ca. 4. nu 7. Card. c. 1. pag. 7. Andr. c. 1. p. 22. §. Sed. nec M. Andrews his grosse ignorance S. Aug. Quaest. in Leuit. li. 3. quaest 23. Num. 2â— M. Andrew his notorious malice in the abuse of holy Scripture Deut. 17. See c. 6. nu 68.69.70 See Suppl c. 1. nu 10. seq (g) Ibid. nu â—4 seq (h) Ibid. nu 3â— seq (i) nu 44. (k) nu 45. 50. (l) nu 49. seq (m) nu 3â— seq (n) nu 28. seq (o) nu 53.54.55 56. (p) See sup Chap. 1. nu 83. 84. It cannot be shewed how Kings afâ—ter they were Christened came to haue the gouernment of the Church The Ecclesiasticall supremacy of temporall Princes excluded by a rule of M. Andrewesâ— Andr. c. 1. pag. 37. §. Verùm M. Andrewes doth not allow any spirituall authority to the King Andr. ci 14. pâ— 323. lin 33. (d) nu 37. Ibid. c. 1. p. 21. §. nequâ— tamen What manner of Ecclesiasticall power M. Andreweâ— acknowledgeth in temporall Princes A Pagan Prince hath as much authoritie ouer the Church as M Andrewes alloweth to his Maiestie An. 26. Hen. 8. â— 1. The Parliament Statutes giue spirituall authority to the Kings Queens of England Ibidem The Lord Cromwel Vicar General to K. Henry the 8. for thâ— exercise of his spirituall Iurisdictioâ—â— An. 1. Elizab. c. 1. Spirituall Iurisdiction graÌ„ted to Q. Elizabeth by the Parliament An. 1. Elizab. c. 1. An. 1. Edward 6. c. 2. All the Spirituall Iurisdiction and authoritie of the Clergy of England declared by a statute to be deryued from the Prince M. Andrewes depriueth the Kings Maiesty of all the spirituall authority that the Parliaments haue giuen him (a) See before chap. â— nu 13. (b) suppl c. 1. nu 18.19 seq (c) Num. â— (d) Deut. 10. 18. (e) Numer 8. (f) Suppl c. 1. from nu 10. to 53. (g) Ibid. nu 51.52 K. Saul had no authority ouer the hygh Priest S. Aug. in psal 51. Andr. Tort. Torti p. 151. An. 26. Hen. 8. c. 1. an 1. Eliz ca. 1. The King might according to the statut excoÌ„municate an heretyke as well as any Bishop (d) Supra nu 53. The King could not giue the power of censure to other if he had it not in himfelse See suppl c. 6â— nu 61. M. Andrews neyther good Subiect nor good English Protestant A great difference to be noted betwixt M. Andrews his deniall of the Kings supremacy and ours Act. 5. M. Andrews hath no such obligation to deny the Kings supremacy as we haue M. Andrews lyke to a treacherous frend or a preuaricating aduocate M. Andrews doth vnderhand betray the Kings cause Why M. Andrewes is no good English Protestant See coÌ„stitut and Canons Ecclesiasticall printed by Rob. Barker Anno. 1604. Can. 2. M. Andrewes seemeth to be turned Puritan in the point of the K. Supremacy The Oath of the Puritans of Scotland set forth in the yeare 1584. What difference may be noted betwixt M. Andrews and the Puritans Both Catholikes Puritans are better Subiects then M. Andrews (a) Card. Apol. ca. 1. pag. 10 (b) Andr. c. 1. p. 30. §. Postremo (c) Ibid §. Nec habet See c. 6. n. 78.79 The Puritans doctrine coÌ„cerning the Kings subiectioÌ„ to their Presbytery The pretended reformed churches do not allow in teÌ„porall Princes any such spirituall authority as our ParlameÌ„ts haue graÌ„ted to our Kings M. Andrews professing the doctrine of the Puritans and reformed Churches concerning the Kings supremacy denieth it to be spirituall (b) suprâ— nu 47. (c) nu 37. M. Andrews no English Protestant but a flat Puritan The learned English ProtestaÌ„ts ashamed oâ— their woÌ„ted doctrine coÌ„cerning the Ecclesiasticall supremacy of teÌ„porall Princes See beforâ— nu 35. â— chap. 6. nu 77. M. Barl. seemeth to make the King head of the Church no otherwyse theÌ„ as the Pagan Emperours were M. Barlow and M. Andrews like to the Scorpion and why The opinion of the learned strangers concerning M. Andrewes his bookes against Cardinall Bellarmine M. Andrews gerally disliked for his obscurityâ— M. Andrewes compared for his obscurity to a fish called a Cuttle Plyn l. 9. ca. 29. A good aduise for a frendly farewell to M. Andrews (b) Se sup ca. 8. nu 100. seq (c) Ibid. nu 103. 104. (d) Ibid. nu 105. seq (f) Mat. 16. Mar. 8. Touching the cause and subiect of this Appendix See Suppl p. 208. nu 3 Adioyâ—d ca. 10. nu 35. The exception taken by Catholikâ— to the first Protestant Bishopes in Q. Elizabethâ— dayes iâ— no new quarrell D. Hard. confut of the Apolog par 2. fol. 59. printed an Dom. 1565. D. Hardings chaleng to M. Iewell coÌ„cerning the consecration of the first Protestant Bishops D. Staplet return of vntru fol. 130. lin 26. D. Stapletons chalenge to M. Iewell and M. Horne touching their coÌ„secration Idem counterblast fol. 301. An. 1. Elizab ca. 1. M. Horne answered nothing coÌ„cerning his consecration Iewell defence of the Apology pag. 130. M. Iewels ambiguous and weak answere touching his lawfull consecration How much it imported M. Iewell to haue proued the consecration of their Archbishop Doct. Har. detect fol. 234. p. 2. Touching M. Iewels irresolute ambiguous indirect answere How much it imported the first Protestant Bishops to haue had a publick most solemne Consecration How improbably M. Mason affirmeth out of his Registers that 4. Bishops consecrated M. Parker the first Archbishop How litle credit M. Masons new-found Register deserueth Andr. Resp. ad Apol. p. 41. §. proximi Barl. answâ— to a name Catholike p. 283. With how great reason exception is to be takeÌ„ to M. MasoÌ„s Register vntill he shew it to Catholiks who may giue testimony of it What is to be considered in M. MasoÌ„s Register to make it auteÌ„ticall An offer to shew any manuscript in Rome to English ProtestaÌ„ts
generally imbraced in England what other fruit could be expected thereof but confusion tumult and sedition whyles euery gyddy-headed fellow perswading himselfe that he were as much bound to care for the publike good of the Church as the Pastors thereof yea as the supreme head or Gouernour himselfe might intrude himselfe to intermeddle in Ecclesiasticall affayres for the discharge of his conscience and obligation For if his band in that behalfe were equal with the band of Pastors he could not with reason be denyed equality with them in charge and commission seeing that equality of obligation requireth equality and parity of power to performe it for when power of performance wanteth the obligation ceaseth So that a greater power and dignity induceth an obligation of greater care and therefore let M. Andrews consider what a wise and learned proposition he hath made and published to the world and what a good and vigilant Pastour he is who teacheth such dangerous and seditious doctrine 56. And albeit to auoyde this absurdity he should restrayne his generall propositiō to Pastors only and say that whatsoeuer violateth the vnity of the whole Church doth belong equally to the care of all Pastors yet he were no lesse ridiculous then before seeing that he must needs acknowledge an inequality of obligation and care euen amongst them according to their different degrees For if a Patriarke haue iurisdiction ouer Metropolitans and they ouer Bishops and Bishops ouer Priests it is cleare that as their charge and degree is vnequal so also is the obligation of euery one of them different and conforme to his dignity degree and authority And therefore although the office and duty of euery Pastour is as I haue sayd to haue special care of the vnity and peace of the Church yet his obligation in that behalfe must needs be so much the greater by how much his power and authority is greater and he more able to performe it then others his inferiours to which purpose the Prophet saith of a Prince or supreme Pastor Princeps ea quae sunt digna Principe cogitabit ipse super Duces stabit The Prince shall thinke those things which are worthy of a Prince and he shall be ouer Dukes or captaynes So saith Isay of our Sauiour as some expound it or as others say of Iosias King of Iuda 57. But of whom soeuer it is to be vnderstood it is manifest inough that the forme of a good Pastor or Gouernour is prescrybed therein shewing that the Prince being the supreme Gouernour is to imbrace cogitations and thoughtes fit for his estate and as much excelling the cogitations of his Dukes or Captaynes that is to say of his inferiour or subordinate Magistrats as he excelleth them in degree and what thought is so worthy of a Prince as the care of the vnity and peace of his estate wherein consisteth the publyke and generall good of euery Common welth And the like is to be sayd of Pastors and especially of the supreme Pastor of the Church who ought according to the Prophet to haue cogitations worthy of his soueraignty that is to say as much to surpasse other inferiour Pastors in the care of the publike good of the Church as he surpasseth them in power and dignity Well then to conclude if M. Andrews his position may go for currant he may shake hands with the Puritans and lay away his tytle of Lord Bishop become follow Minister with his Ministers in the Diocesse of Ely seeing that there is no reason why he should haue a greater degree and dignity in the Church then they if they be bound to haue as great a care of the Church as he 58. But let vs see how he proceedeth to fortify his assertion in hope vtterly to ouerthrow the Popes Primacy Thus then he saith Quòd enim totius vineae id est Ecclesiae custodiam ab ipso Christo ait Pontifici commissam id est Primatum c. For whereas the Cardinall saith that the charge of all the vineyard that is to say of the Primacy of the Church was committed by Christ himselfe to the Bishop see how it contradicteth the Councell and the sentence of all the Fathers that were there present who with one voyce sayd Siqua essent Romanae Sedis priuilegia ea illi non à Christo nesciebant hoc Chalcedonenses quin à Patribus concessa esse c. If the Roman Sea had any priuiledges the same were granted vnto it not by Christ for they in the Councell of Calcedon knew not that but by the Fathers c. So he grounding still as you see all the force and weyght of his arguments vpon no better foundation then his owne fraud I meane his fraudulent allegation and exposition of that Canon of the Councell wherof I haue amply treated before and now he secondeth his former fraud with a new corruption of the text setting this downe in a different letter for the very words of the Councell siqua essent Romanae sedis priuilegia ea illi à Patribus concessa esse if there were any priuiledges of the Roman Sea they were granted to it by the Fathers whereas neyther those words nor yet the sense thereof are to be found in the 28. Canon which he alledgeth no nor in all the Councell of Calcedon 59. For in these generall words of his are included all the priuiledges that the Sea of Rome had any way eyther by diuyne or human law for any respect or cause whatsoeuer but the Canon speaketh with great restriction to wit of priuiledges granted vpon one consideration only for thus it saith Etenim antiquae Romae throno quòd Vrbs illa imperaret iure Patres priuilegia tribuere For the Fathers did worthily giue priuiledges to the throne of old Rome because that Citty did gouerne Thus saith the Canon far otherwyse then M. Andrews affirmeth who with his siqua comprehendeth all priuiledges whatsoeuer whereas you see the Canon speaketh only of priuiledges giuen to the Roman Church in respect of the Imperiall Seat so that other priuiledges might be giuen thereto for other respects for ought we see in this Canon and the reason is cleare why that consideration of the Imperial Seat was only mentioned and no other to wit because those that penned the Canon saw well inough that the Church of Constantinople could pretend no other reason to demand extraordinary priuiledges but only because the Imperiall Seat which was wont to be at Rome was then remoued to Constantinople 60. Therefore I beseech thee good Reader consider a little M. Andrews his silly discourse concerning this point who hauing sayd as you haue heard that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon knew not any priuiledges granted to the Roman Sea by Christ addeth Quare autem concessa c And why were they granted Was it because Christ sayd to Peter Tibi dabo claues aut Pasce oues meas I will giue thee
were heads gouernours and Pastors of the vniuersall Church but not in the same manner that Peter was for they had a chiefe and most ample power as Apostles or Legats but Peter had it as ordinary Pastor besides that they had their full power in such sort that neuerthelesse Peter was their head and they depended of him and not he of them and this is that which was promised to Peter Matth. 16. when it was sayd vnto him in presence of the rest Vpon this rock I will buyld my Church which besides the other Fathers before cyted S. Hierome teacheth in his first booke against Iouinian where explicating what is the meaning of buylding the Church vpon Peter he sayth thus Licèt super omnes Apostolos c. Although the strength of the Church be established equally vpon all the Apostles yet therefore one was chosen amongst the twelue to the end that a head being made the occasion of schisme might be taken away 27. Thus far the Cardinall which I hope may suffice to teach M. Andrews how the Church was founded equally vpon the Apostles to wit the two first waye whereof the Cardinall speaketh as mentioned in the Apocalyps and the Epistle to the Ephesians where not only the Apostles but also the Prophets are called foundations of the Church which may well stand with the Primacy of S. Peter and S. Hieromes doctrine concerning the same whereas M. Andrews making S. Hierome impugne S. Peters Primacy by the equality that he mentioneth maketh him contradict himselfe and ouerthrow his owne doctrine in the very next words after wherein he expoundeth as the Cardinall noteth very well what is meant by the buylding of the Church vpon S. Peter signifying that it is to be vnderstood thereby that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles as I will shew further hereafter by M. Andrews his owne confession So that it is cleare inough that the Cardinal left not those words of S. Hierome vncyted as preiudiciall to Peters primacy but only for breuityes sake and that therefore M. Andrews hath notably calumniated him as well in this place as in the former seeking to cast vpon him some suspition of fraudulent dealing in the cytation of Authors which is indeed the proper talent of M. Barlow and M. Andrews as you haue hitherto seene sufficiently proued in them both and shall see further exemplyfied heereafter in M. Andrews to his confusion 28. The second point which I wished to be obserued in his Glosse vpon S. Hieromes text is that he sayth the Cardinall followeth Iouinian in affirming that the Church was founded vpon S. Peter as if the Cardinall did teach therein soâ—e heresy of Iouiniâ—n and not S. Hieromes doctrine but this surpasseth all impudency For no doubt he speaketh against his owne conscience and knowledge seeing he cannot be ignorant of the contrary if he haue read and examined that very place in S. Hierome which he obiecteth where it is euident that the matter then in controuersy betwixt S. Hierome and Iouinian was about the merit of Virginity because Iouinian equalled marâ—ryage with it which heresy S. Hierome in that place laboured to confuteâ— and for as much as the heretyke had obiected the marriage of the Apostles inferring thereupon that if Virginity were to be preferred before marriage Christ would not haue chosen marryed men but Virgins to be his Apostles and the Princes and Captains of Christian disciplin therefore S. Hierome answereth that it appeareth not in the Scriptures that any of them had a wyfe except Saint Peter and that he being married whiles he was vnder the law liued continent from his wyfe after his vocation to the Apostleship and that if any of the rest had wyues before their vocation they abstayned from them euer after and that S. Iohn Euangelist being chosen a Virgin was singularly beloued and specially fauoured of our Sauiour aboue the rest for his Virginity 29. And whereas Iouinian also vrged the supreme dignity of S. Peter as that the Church was founded vpon him being a married man and not vpon S. Iohn who was a Virgin wherein it is euident that Iouinian sought to fortify his heresy by an argument drawne from a point of knowne Catholike doctrine S. Hierome was so far from denying the Church to be founded on Peter that he notably confirmed it declaring that Peter was made thereby head of the Apostles for hauing taught that the Church was also founded equally vpon all the Apostles in the sense that I haue declared he gaue a reason not only why S. Peter was made head of the rest to wit to take away the occasion of schisme but also why he being a married man was endowed with that power and dignity rather then S. Iohn who was a Virgin whereof he yielded this probable reason that respect was had to the age of them both because Peter was a man of yeares and Iohn very yong and therefore to auoyd murmuration against Iohn himselfe which would haue hapned in case he being the yongest of them all should haue bene made their head Peter was worthily preferred before him This is briefely the substance of S. Hieromes discourse in that place Whereby it is euident that he notably confirmeth our Catholike doctrine concerning the Supremacy of S. Peter acknowledging him to be made the head as well of S. Iohn as of all the rest 30. And to the end that M. Andrews may euidently see that S. Hierome did not impugne or disallow this proposition the Church is founded vpon Peter but reiected only the false consequent that Iouinian drew thereon against the merit of Virginity I wish him to read S. Hieromes Commentary vpon the 16. Chapter of S. Matthew and particulerly vpon these words of our Sauiour super hanc petrâ—m aedifiâ—abo Ecclesiam meam c. vpon this rock will I buyld my Church c. where he shall see that the proposition which Iouinian obiected is also the cleare and expresse doctrine of S. Hierome who sayth thus in the person of our Sauiour to S. Peter Because thou Simon hast sayd to me thou art Christ the Sonne of God I also say to thee not with a vayne or idle speach that hath no operation or effect sed quia meum dixisse fecisse est but because my saying is a doing or making therefore I say vnto thee thou art Peter or a Rock and vpon this rock I will buyld my Church As Christ being himselfe the light granted to his disciples that they should be called the light of the world so to Simon who belieued in Christ the Rock he gaue the name of Peter that is to say a Rock and according to the metaphor of a Rock it is truly sayd to him I will buyld my Church vpon thee 31. Thus far S Hierome teaching expressely that Christ buylt his Church vpon Peter which also he teacheth in diuers other places as in an Epistle to Marcella where he
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
aduertiseth him that he sent him the copies of such writings and letters of the Sea Apostolike as were come to his hands concerning those matters addressed eyther particulerly to the Bishops of Africk or vniuersally to all Bishops 76. Another thing to be noted in the testimony of Possidius is that he calleth the sentence of those two Popes Innocentius and Zosimus Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae iudicium the Iudgement of the Catholike Church of God which he could not haue done but in respect of their supreme power and authority to condemne heresyes as heads of the whole Catholike Church The third is that albeit the Emperour Honorius condemned also the Pelagians for heretikes by his temporall lawes yet he did it no otherwise but audiens sequens c. hearing and following the iudgment of the Catholike Church that is to say of those two Popes Innocentius and Zosimus for of them he speaketh expresly 77. And now to proceed if M. Andrews do yet desire any further proofe of this matter let him read S. Prosper S. Augustines disciple who sayth that a Synod of 217. Bishops being held at Carthage their Synodicall decrees were sent to Zosimus quibus probatis per totum mundum haeresis Pelagiana condemnata c. which being approued the Pelagian heresy was condemned thoughout the whole world And againe in another place he saith of Innocentius Tunc Pelagianorum machinae fractae sunt c. and then were the engines of the Pelagians broken when Innocentius of blessed memory stroke the heads of their wicked errour with his Apostolicall sword So he and a litle after he affirmeth the like of Pope Zosimus who added saith he the force of his sentence to the decrees of the African Councell and armed the right hands of Bishops with the sword of Peter ad detruncationem impiorum for the excommunication of the wicked So he giuing to vnderstand that not only the force of the African Synods against the Pelagians but also the general condemnation of them throughout the world proceeded from the authority of the Roman Sea wherupon it must needs follow that the said authority was vniuersall and that the Bishops of that Sea and namely Innocentius and Zosimus were more then Caput Ecclesiae suae Romanae heads of their Church of Rome 78. And albeit this might suffice cōcerning these two Popes yet I cannot omit the most famous and sollemne appeale of S. Chrysostome to one of them to wit to Innocentius to whome he sent 4. Bishops to complayne of his vniust banishment procured by Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and wrote also himselfe vnto him thus Obsecro vt scribat c. I beseech you write and decree by your authority that these thinges which were so vniustly done when I was absent aud did not refuse to be iudged may be of no force as indeed of their owne nature they are not and that those which haue done so vniustly may be subiect to the penalty of the Ecclesiasticall lawes c. Thus wrote S. Chrisostome with much more to the same purpose which he would not haue donne if he had thought that the authority of Innocentius had byn lymited within the particuler Church of Rome or rather if he had not knowne that his authority was vniuersall and sufficient to determyne his cause which also was euident by the progresse and issue of the matter for not only he as playntife appealed to Innocentius but also Theophilus as defendant sent a Priest of his called Peter with letters to iustifie his cause besids that all the Bishops of the East and Greek Church being in this controuersy deuided sent messingers or letters to Rome in fauour of the one or of the other as witnesseth Palladius Bishop of Helenopolis who was S. Christostomes disciple and went also to Rome to prosecute his cause and further testifyeth that Pope Innocentius gaue sentence for S. Chrysostome disanulling the act and iudgment of Theophilus 79. And whereas Atticus was made Bishop of Constantinople after the expulsion of S. Chrystostome Innocentius suspended him frō his Episcopall function vntill the causes should be fully heard and determined ordayning that in the meane tyme Proclus Bishop of Cyzicum should gouerne the Church of Constātinople And albeit Innocentius forbare for sometyme to proceed against Theophilus by way of censure yet after S. Chrysostomes death who dyed in banyshment within 3. yeares he excommunicated not only Theophilus and Atticus for the excesses cōmitted on their part but also Arcadius the Emperour and Eudoxia the Empresse for assisting them with their Imperiall authority as Georgius Alexandrinus Gennadius Glicas and Nicephorus do testify Finally although Theophilus remayned obstinate so long as he liued which was not past 5. yeares after S. Chrysostomes death yet he dyed repentant and Atticus after much suite and many Embassages sent as Theodoretus testifyeth was reconcyled to the Roman Church As also Arcadius the Emperour vpon his submission and humble petition of pardon was absolued by Pope Innocentius as appeareth by the letters of them both which are set downe in Glycas And thus passed this matter which alone may suffice to proue the supreme and vniuersall authority of Innocentius 80. And as for Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus who succeeded Innocentius and were the 3. last Popes of the 8. that liued in S. Augustins tyme I shall not need to say much seeing that I haue already spoken sufficiently of them as of Zosimus a litle before concerning the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy besides a former testimony of S. Augustine touching an assembly of himselfe and other African Bishops at Cesaraea by the inuention or commaundment of Pope Zosimus In like manner I haue shewed before that not only S. Augustine but also the Primate of Numidia in Africk acknowledged the primacy of the Popes Bonifacius and Celestinus by recommending to them the cause betwixt Antony Bishop of Fussula and the people of that Diocesse whereto neuertheles I thinke good to add concerning Bonifacius that it appeareth by his letters to the Bishops of 7. Prouinces in France that the Clergy of the Citty of Valentia sent to him a bill of complaynt with the testimony of the whole Prouince against Maximus an hereticall Bishop of the Manichaean sect accusing him of many haynous crymes and that thereupon Bonifacius did delegate the hearing of the cause to the said Bishops whereby it is euident that his power and authority was not confyned within the Church of Rome 81. And now to conclude with Celestinus who was the last of the 8. methinks M. Andrews should not be ignorant how far his authority and Iurisdiction extended seeing that it cannot be denyed that he was President and head of the generall Councell of Ephesus and that the famous S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria was but his substitute and Legate therein which is euident not only by the testimony of Historiographers but also by
opertet magis obedire Deo quà m hominibus and to giue our liues rather then to offend God and our consciences in the deniall of such an important article of our faith to the euerlasting damnation of our soules But M. Andrews holding the Kings Supremacy to be no article of faith or beliefe but only a matter of perswasion which passeth not the boundes of probability hath no such cause and obligation to deny it as we haue and yet neuerthelesse vnder the colour and pretence to defend it he doth so extenuate and abase it that he maketh it nothing but an externall humaine and meere temporall authority and consequently as any Pagan Prince may exercise as well as a Christan 60. And therefore he dealeth therin no otherwise then one who being chosen by his friend to maintaine his quarrell draweth his sword with pretence to defend him and giueth him a deadly wound behind his backe or like to some preuaricating Aduocate who being hyred to defend a cause pleadeth for the aduerse party for so doth he who being specially chosen by his Maiesty to defend and maintaine his Ecclesiasticall Supremacy doth couertly and vnderhand betray him depriuing him of all the spirituall power that the Parliament hath giuen him and leauing him only the bare title without the effect which kind of dealing if it were but amongst frendes and equals were no lesse then treacherous and perfidious and therefore what it is in a subiect towardes his Prince especially in a man so much honored aduanced by his Maiesty as M. Andrewes hath bin I leaue it to the iudgement of any indifferent man but sure I am it caÌ„not be counted the part of a good subiect 61. Neither can he be thought to be a good Enlish Protestant for who knoweth not that the English Protestant differeth from all other Protestants of other Nations especially in holding and maintayning the Ecclesiasticall and spirituall Supremacy that our Parliament first gaue to King Henry the 8. which you see M. Andrews doth not who as I haue said hath so pared shaued and abridged it that he hath made it nothing in effect at least much lesse and of farre other conditioÌ„ then the Parliament ordayned it Wherby he is not only subiect to the penalties of the Parliamentall statutes as a Traytor but also incurreth the censure of excommunication imposed by a late Synodicall constitution of the Byshops and Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury vpon such as impeach in any part saith the Canon his Maiesties Regall supremacy in Ecclesiasticall causes restored to the Crowne by the Lawes of this Realme therin established and so strickt is the Canon against such persoÌ„s that it ordayneth further that they being excommunicated ipso facto shall not be restored but only by the Archbyshop after their repentance and publike reuocation of their wicked errour So as this Canon and all the rest made in that Conuocation being authorized by his Maiesty and published by his Regall authority vnder the great Seale of England I remit to the iudgment of all true English Protestantes whether M. Andrews hauing incurred the censure of this Canon and being consequently cut off from the vnion of their Congregation can be a member of their body or any other to them then an Ethnick or a Publican vntill he haue publikly reuoked his errour and be absolued and restored by the Archbishop 62. And no maruell seeing that he is as it seemeth so farre from being an English ProtestaÌ„t whatsoeuer he hath ben hertofore that he is now turned flat Puritan in this point allowing the King no more power ouer the Church then to mayntayne and defend it which is the very doctrine of the Puritans who therfore do willingly sweare obedience to their Princes for the defence and conseruation of the Church as it appeareth by the Oath of the Puritans in ScotlaÌ„d who sweare thus Quoniam percepimus Ecclesiae religionis nostrae tranquillitatem c. Forasmuch as we perceiue that the tranquillity stability of our Church and religion doth depend on the health and good gouernment of his Maiesty as of the comfortable instrument of gods mercy granted the Realm for the conseruation of the Church and the administration of iustice amongst vs we do couenant and promise with our hart vnder the same Oath subscription and penalties to defend his person authority and dignity with our goods bodies and liues for the defence of the Ghospell of Christ and the liberty of our Countrey 63. Thus sweare they and no more teacheth M. Andrewes in substance granting no other power to Kings ouer the Church then they do to wit that Kings are but as Foster-fathers defeÌ„ders of it Wherin neuerthelesse this difference may be noted betwixt the Puritans and him that they do belieue it as a matter of faith no lesse then we wheras M. Andrewes is only perswaded that it is true seing that he placeth therin the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy which he holdeth to be no matter of fayth and therfore if the said Supremacy consist only in the defence of the Church as it doth according to his doctrine then both we and the Puritans are better subiects then he because we belieue the same to be a matter of faith and consequently do think our selues bound in conscience to maintaine it though it be with losâ—e of our liues wheras he taking it to be but only a matter of perswasion will not by all liklyhood loose six pence to defend it 64. Furthermore to shew that he doth truly Puritanize in the point of the Supremacy it is to be vnderstood that whereas the Cardinall obiecteth out of the Basilicon Doron of his Maiesty that the Puritans do not admit the Kings Ecclesiasticall primacy because they introduce a certaine parity into the Church he answereth that albeit they maintayne a parity a mongst themselues reiecting the distinction of degrees of Byshops aboue Ministers or of one Minister aboue another yet they doe not hold that there is any parity betwixt the King and them but do admit and acknowledg his Supremacy ouer them thus teacheth M. Andrews and addeth presently after in the next paragraph that wheresoeuer the Religion is reformed the supreme temporall Magistrats haue this Power euen this selfe same which the King hath So he whereupon two things may be euidently gathered The one that the Puritans haue the same doctrine concerning the Ecclesiasticall primacy of temporall Princes that is taught in all the reformed Churches which indeed they also affirme of themselues The other is that the King hath no other Ecclesiasticall power but the self same that the Puritans and all the reformed Churches doe graunt to their temporall Magistrate 65. But what the Puritans teach concerning this point you heard in the last Chapter by the testimony of M. Rogers approued and warranted by all the Cleargy of England to wit that Princes must be seruants to the
Church subiect to the Church submit their Scepters to the Church and throw downe their Crownes before the Church and that as Beza testifieth they cannot be exempted from this diuine domination of the presbitery whereupon I gather two things the one that the Supremacy which as M. Andrews saith the Puritans do acknowledg in the King is to be vnderstood only in temporall matters wherein they doe indeed admit him to be theyr supreme head and Gouernour though as you see in M. Rogers they hold him in spirituall matters to be wholly subiect to the Presbitery The other is that all the reformed Churches are also of the same mynd seeing that they professe the same doctrine concerning the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy that the Puritans doe as M. Andrews himselfe confesseth◠whereupon it also followeth that the Kings Maiestie hath no spirituall power or authority at all ouer the English Church seeing that by M. Andrewes his owne confessiō he hath no other power but that which the Puritans and the reformed Churches doe admit in their temporall Princes 66. Besides that albeit we should grant that the Puritans and reformed Churches do allow the tēporall Magistrat to haue some power and authority in Ecclesiasticall matters yet it is euident that they do not allow them that spirituall Iurisdiction and authority which our Parliaments haue granted to our Kinges to wit that all the spirituall power of the Church shall reside principally in them and is to be deduced from them to the Church as from the head to the body that they may giue Dispensations Licences and Faculties in matters of Conscience make Ecclesiasticall Lawes giue Commissions to consecrate Bishops to excōmunicat interdict suspend cēsure to visit correct all Ecclesiasticall Persons and to reforme all heresyes and abuses this I say being a meere spirituall power and exercised by our Kings in England according to the grant of the Parliament is not admitted and much lesse practized in any of the reformed Churches as all those know who know any thing of their doctrine and practise 67. Therfore wheras M. Andrews saith that aswell the reformed Churches as the Puritans do grant the self same authority to the temporall Prince which our King hath and exerciseth in England he sheweth euidently that in his opinion his Maiesty hath no such spirituall iurisdiction and authority as hath bin granted him by our Parliament for that as I haue said the Puritans reformed Churches whose doctrine in this point he approueth do not acknowledg any such spirituall authority in temporall Princes but only a temporall power and obligation to mayntayne and defend the Church so farre forth as the same hath need of externall and humane helpe assistance or defēce which is indeed the self same all that M. Andrewes as you haue heard before alloweth to the Kings Maiesty when he saith that he is no otherwise ouer the Church but as a foster-father a tutor to nourish and defend it and that the question of the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy concerneth only the externall gouernment of the Church so farre forth as it requireth and admitteth humane help and authority So that you see M. Andrews is not in this point an English Protestant but rather a flat Puritan 68. And if this be now the common opinion of the Protestants in England as M. Andrewes would haue vs to suppose we may more truly say of them then he said of the Puritans dies diem docuit ex eo facti aequiores recognouerunt errorem suum time hath taught them more wit and so now they haue recanted their errour And no meruaile seing that their former doctrine is of it selfe so absurd hath bin so canuassed battered by Catholicks that they are worthely ashamed of it especially such of thē as haue any learning or shame at all for some no doubt there are of the ministry that will not stick to defend it or any thing els how absurd soeuer it be amongst whom M. Barlow may go for one who in his Preambler Epistle to the ministers of Scotlād which I haue mentioned before vpon another occasion is not ashamed to make the Pagan and Infidell Emperours supreme heades of the Church in the time of the Apostles saying that S. Paul appealed to Caesars iudgment as the supreme wheras Papists and Puritans will haue the King to be but an honorable member not a chief gouernour in the Churches of his dominions So he 69. Wherein two things are to be noted the one that he doth ridiculously make the Pagan Emperours the chief members that is to say the heads or gouernours of the Church who neuertheles being Idolatours could not be so much as the meanest members thereof The other that he seemeth to make the Kings Maiesty no other wise chief gouernour in the Church then they were albeit I think he will not be so absurd as to acknowledge any spirituall authority in thē seing they were altogeather vncapable therof being as I haue sayd Idolatours enemies and violent persecutors of the Church and faith of Christ. So as herby it appeareth that he also concurreth with M. Andrews to depriue his Maiesty of all the spirituall iurisdiction and authority which the Parliaments haue grāted to our Kings and that consequently they are both of them in one predicament of disloyalty towards his Maiesty and defection from the wonted Protestātisme of England in the point of the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy 70. Now then to conclude concerning them both all the premises thou hast seene good Reader how well these two Prelats of the English Church do simbolize agree not only in seeking to delude their Readers with dyuers lyes fraudulent shifts and deuises but also in betraying their owne cause and fortifying ours which is so euident in them both that they may well be accounted the most harmles or rather the most propitious enemies that euer the Catholikes had and therfore may in some sort be compared to the Scorpion which being a most venemous Serpent yieldeth a sufficient remedy against his owne poison and so do they for albeit they are replenished with venom and malignity yea and sting somtimes most maliciously not with solid arguments but with spitefull gibes and contumelious iests yet their malice doth commonly carry with it the remedy of it selfe being for the most part so manifest and accompanyed with such apparant falshood and euident folly that no man of learning and consideration can receiue any harme thereby but rather great benefit by the discouery of their imbecility the weakenes of their cause◠Seing they cannot otherwyse defend it then by such contumelious and malicious proceedings 71. Insomuch that the learned strangers who read M. Andrewes his booke in latin and do consider withall the speciall choyce that the English Clergy hath made of him to mayntayne the combat against Cardinall Bellarmine in the eye and view of the Christian world do
the Cath. Church done at the Reliques of Saints 443. at Valentia in Spaine ibid. None wrought in the ProtestaÌ„ts Church why ibid. Monks of the Primitiue Church their discipline .449 their first Institute approued by M. Andrews 448. N NAME Catholike belongeth only to the Roman Church 451. S. Greg. Nazianz. his approbation of prayer to Saintes pag. 253. to our B. Ladie ibid. S. Greg. Nissen his approbation of holy reliques in the Church 264. of prayer to Saints ibid. His prayer to S. Theodor the Martyr 267. O OATH of Supremacy why it is vnlawfull 461. Origen his proof of S. Peters Primacy 198. P PASTORS their obligation of care of their Churches pag. 76.78 Prayer to Saintes approued by S. Basil 218. Impugned by Protestants 336.337 conform to Scripture deduced from it 344. Power ouer the soule implyeth power ouer the body pag. 126. Priuiledges graÌ„ted to the Church of Constantinople pag. 44.45.46 Abrogated by Pope Leo pa. 47. Puritans their Doctrine concerning the Kinges Supremacy 419. How some of them take the Oath of Supremacy 420. S. Peter how he bare the person of the Church when he receaued the Keyes pag. 5. His Supremacy grounded vpoÌ„ the wordes Pasce oues meas pag. 8. acknowledged by S. Augustine pag. 17. By S Cyril ibid. by S. Hierome pag. 119. by Origen 198. by S. Hilary 199. How he was called the light of the Church pag. 103. How he was reprehended by S. Paul pag. 107. how he is the foundation of the Church pag. 109. preferred before S. Iohn why pag. 118 How he may be called a Monarch pag. 134. His fall no preiudice to his Primacy pag. 148. Q QVEENE Elizabeth her spirituall Gouernment giuen vnto her by the Parliament 476. R RELIQVES of Saints vsed in the Church 284. approued by S. Gregory Nissen ibid. M. Rogers against M. Andrews concerning our English Clergy 422 423. Roman Church neuer fayled in Faith by Gods prouidence pag. 124. S SAINTS praied vnto in all ages passim how they heare our prayers and help vs pag. 288. how they know our praiers and actions 291.318.319 practised in the primitiue Church 334. impugned by Protestants out of Scripture 336.337 How they helpe vs by the participation of Christs power 347. Protectors of Citties Countries ibid. Schisme whence it commonly ariseth pag. 125. Signe of the Crosse in Baptisme 334.336 Sermons de tempore in Latin and Greeke in S. Augustines tyme pag. 146. by S. Maximus Bishop of Turin 205. Siluerius the Pope his vsage by Theodora and Iustinian pag. 32.33 defended by the Bishop of Patera 24.35.36 Speaches conditionall do not alwayes suppose a doubt in the Speaker 261. Supremacy of S. Peter grounded vpon the words Pasce oues meas pag. 8. proued by S. Chrisostome 142. Supremacy Ecclesiasticall of the King of England and M. Andrews conceit thereof .459 excluded by a Rule of M. Andrewes 465. T THEODOSIVS the Emperour inuocated Saints pag. 286. particulerly S. Iohn Baptist. ibid. Theodoretus restored to his Bishoprike by Pope Leo pag. 59. Abused by Maister Andrewes 307. Theodora the Empresse her practise against Pope Siluerius pag. 31. Tyranny more frequent in smal States then in great Monarchies pag. 130. V VIGILANTIVS his heresy against prayer to Saints pag. 228. resisted by S. Hierome ibid. 377.378.379 M. Andrews his progenitour 377. Vniuersall Bishop the title giuen to the Pope by the CouÌ„cell of Calcedon pag. 68. Votiue represeÌ„tations of haÌ„ds feet eyes c. hung vp in Churches in the Primitiue Church 2â—0 W VVORKSâ— good Works how the are said to saue vs. 272. Wryters of diuers partes of Scripture vncertayne pag 250. FINIS The reason that moued the Author to adde this Adioynder to the former SuplemeÌ„t The Authors intention in this Adioynder What question is specially handled in this Adioynder SupplemeÌ„t chap. 1. nu 58.59 seq D. Andr. Respons ad Apolog. ca. 1. pag. 16. Aug. de Agon Christ. c. 30. Ambros. de sacerd dignitate cap. 20. S. Augustine lamely and frauduleÌ„tly alledged by M. Andrews August vbi supra Cic. offic l. 1. How S. Peter did beare the person of the Church when he receaued the keyes S. Augustines meaning declared out of his owne doctrine Tract vlt. in Ioan. Idem in Ps. 108. Idem ser. 13. de verb. Dom. M. Andrewes fraud against the intention of S. Augustine S. Ambr. de Sacerd. dignit c 1. The meaning of S. Ambrose declared Andr. ca. 3. pag. 74. § Verum Ambr. in 2. Cor. 12. IdeÌ„ lib. 10. coÌ„ment in cap. 24. EuaÌ„g Luc. S. Ambrose proueth S. Peters Supremacy out of the wordes Pasce oues meas Three things taught by S. Ambrose D. Andrews can help the dyce wheÌ„ he is put to his shifts A vayne brag of D. Andrews Andr. cap. 8. pag. 214. 215. The secoÌ„d argument answer of M. Andrews which he taketh to be so sharp that it will prick the Cardinall Andr. c. 1. pag. 16. §. VeruÌ„ vim videamê° See Suppl Chap. 1. n. 18.19 sequ Num. c. 8. Num. 1. Deut. 10. 18. Supplem c. 1. n. 22.23 24. Suppl cap. 1. vbi supr In what case ChristiaÌ„s may ground vpon the law of Moyses M. Andrews his beggarly proofe for a temporal princes spirituall Supremacy See infra cap. 6. M. Andrews proofes of the temporall Princes supremacy sauour of Iudaisme 2. Reg. 5. D. Andrews doth equiuocate egregiously Andr. vbi supra D. Andrews argueth impertinently Isa. 44. Num. 27. D. Andrews coÌ„founded by an instance of his owne Theodor. quast 48. in Num. See Suppl nu 21. Num. 27. M. Andrews pricking argument doth wound none but himselfe The third answere of D. Andrews examined Andr. vbi supra pag. 17. lin 4. (a) See after c. 3. n. 36.37 seq (b) Cap. 5. n. 18.19.20 (c) Supplement cap. 1. nu 59. sequent If the Popes primacy be a temporall Primacy M. Andrews is a pecuniary Pastour S. Augustine acknowledgeth S. Peters supremacy in the place alleadged by M. Andrews S. August Tract 124. in Euang. Ioan. Idem in psal 108. S. Cyril coÌ„ment in Cap. vlt. Ioan. S. Cyril also acknowledgeth S. Peters supremacy in the place which M. Andrews alleadgeth Andr. vbi supra M. Andrews maketh S. Augustin S. Cyril fauour a pernicious heresy S. Augustine belyed by D. Andrews Aug. Ep. 50. S. Cyril notably abused by M. Andrews Cyril vbi supra Andr. pag 215. §. Noâ— vero M. Andrews worthily suspected to hold that Magistrats fall from their dignity by mortal sinnes S. Cyril Hierosol Cathech Mystag 2. Optat. l. 7. de Schismate DonatistaruÌ„â— The plaâ—ces of 3. Fathers alledged by M. Andrews do confute him S. Chrysostome for S. Peters Supremacy Chrysost. de Sacerd. l. 2. Ibidem Ibid. S. Leo. ep 89. Idem ser. 3. de assumpt sua ad Pontif. Supplem cap. 5. nu 25.26 27. Euseb. Emis ho. de natiuit Ioan. Euan. Theophil in cap. vlt. Ioan. S. Ber. l. 2. de consider Psal. 1.19 Psal. 63. M. Andrews his
and his want of proofes for the same by the law of Christ. 16. And although as well the ancient Fathers as we do ordinarily produce testimonies of the old Testament not only for matters in controuersy but also for instruction in matters of morality yet neyther they nor we euer do it to other end but to confirme things instituted and taught in the new law by the ordinance and commaundment eyther of Christ or of his spouse the Church and this we do only in respect of the conformity that is in many things betwixt the figure and the Verity I meane betwixt the old law and the new Moyses and our Sauiour Christ the Synagogue and the Church and not to the end to proue any thing to be necessary now because it was ordayned or practised then which were rather a point of Iudaisme then of Christianisme And therefore this and other arguments of M. Andrews grounded only vpon the Iudicial lawes of Moyses may shew him to be rather a Iew then a Christian except he can bring some other ground for the same out of the new Testament or some Apostolicall or Ecclesiasticall Canon or Tradition which he neyther doth nor euer shall be able to do 17. But who seeth not how he tryfleth in this point as cōmonly he doth in all For how doth it follow that if it be true which we teach to wit that Christ made S. Peter supreme Pastour of the Church by cōmaunding him to feed his sheep then he gaue the same spirituall authority to Dauid when he bad him feed his people of Israel Is it not manifest that although the word pasce feed as it was spoken to them both doth signifie to gouerne yet it is Equiuocall being to be vnderstood of a different manner of gouernment in them both that is to say in the one spirituall and in the other temporall what consequence then can he draw from the one to the other except it be this that as when God bad Dauid who as a temporall man to feed his people of Israell which was a temporall people he gaue him temporall authority making him head of a temporall Kingdome So when he bad S. Peter who was a spirituall man a Priest an Apostle and Prince of the Apostles feed his sheep that is to say all the faithfull conteyned within his Sheepfold which is a spirituall congregation he gaue him a spirituall authority and made him supreme Pastor and head of a spirituall Kingdome that is to say of his Church And this no doubt is the most direct inference that can be made of the word Pasce when it is applied in the old Testament eyther to Dauid if we respect him as he was a King and not a Prophet or else to any other temporall Prince 18. And therfore whereas M. Andrewes saith Narro autem Cardinali c. I declare to the Cardinall that the tytle of Pastor was giuen in the holy Scriptures to Princes long before it was giuen to the Bishop and much more often as to Iosue before and more often euery where in the holy-history and in the Prophets This his narration I say is very idle and impertinent seeing it proueth not any thing which we deny but that which we willingly graunt to wit that the words Pascere and Pastor are often applyed in the old Testament to temporall Princes but that they signify spirituall gouernment in them as Kings M. Andrews will not proue in hast and the contrary is manifest inough in Cyrus a Pagan and Idolatrous King whome God called Pastormeus and no man I thinke will be so absurd to imagine that he had any Ecclesiasticall authority or was Head and chiefe member of Gods Church wherof he was no member at all besides that the example which he giueth vs of Iosue out of the booke of Numbers doth not any way help his cause but flatly confound him 19. For albeit in the Chapter which he quoteth to wit the 27 it is declared that God commaunded Moyses to assigne and ordaine Iosue for his Successour in the gouernmēt of the people least they should be like to oues sine Pastore sheep without a Sheepheard yet it is euident there that he was not to haue any authority ouer the High Priest but rather the cleane contrary to wit that he should depend wholy vpon the High Priests direction and therfore wheras Moyses was commaunded there by almighty God to giue part of his glory to Iosue Theodoretus doth very well obserue as I haue noted before in the Supplement that Moyses did distribute his dignity and authority which was both spirituall and temporall betwixt Iosue and Eleazar the High Priest yet in such sort that Iosue should be directed in al his affaires by Eleazar Pro hoc saith the Scripture si quid agendum erit c. For him that is to say Iosue if any thing be to be done Eleazar shall consult the Lord and at his word he to wit Iosue shall go out and in and all the children of Israel with him and all the rest of the multitude Thus saith the holy Scripture wherby it appeareth that albeit Iosue was Pastor populi yet he was but a temporall Pastor or Gouernour and to be directed euen in temporall affaires by the spirituall Pastor Eleazar whome Almighty God did illuminate and instruct in his consultations for the direction of Iosue Now then doth this example prick Cardinal Bellarmine trow you or M. Andrews Truely though he meant to prick the Cardinall yet you see he hath wounded none but himselfe Thus much to his second answere 20. His third is in substance that albeit S. Augustine and S. Cyril haue amply cōmented vpon the Ghospell of S. Iohn and vpon those very words of our Sauiour to S. Peter Pasce oues meas yet neyther of them saith he saw illustrem hunc fidei articulum de primatu Petri temporali this notable article of faith concerning the temporall primacy of Peter c. So he As if the Cardinal did teach or affirme that S. Peters primacy is a temporall primacy which is a meere fiction of M. Andrews to frame matter for himselfe to impugne for seeing the spirituall primacy of S Peter is so euident in the holy Scriptures that he is now then forced to graūt it in some sort yea somtimes as far forth in effect as we demaūd though at at other times he laboureth vtterly to ouerthrow it as I shall haue occasiō to declare more largly her after he wil now needs presuppose that we teach the Popes Primacy to be a temporall primacy why forsooth Marry because the Cardinal as also all the Catholiks do teach that the spirituall authority which our Sauiour gaue S. Peter and his Successors may and doth in some cases extend it selfe to temporall things so far forth as it is or may be necessary for the execution of their spirituall power and for
c. postquam ei totius gubernacula tradidistis You giue him the gouerment of the particuler Church of Rome after you haue giuen him the gouernement of the whole 14. So that he suposeth here that not Christ but we haue giuen him both the one and the other to wit the particuler after the generall whereby he seemeth also to affirme that S. Peter was not Bishop of Rome otherwise then in our conceit and by our gift adding withall a strange parenthesis quasi ea totius pars non esset as though the same particuâ—â—e Church of Rome were not a part of the whole as who would say that S. Peter could not be gouernor both of the whole Church and of a particuler Church wherein he argueth as wisely as if he should say that a Bishop of Ely could not be Gouernor of the particuler Church of Ely and of the whole Diocesse or that a Bishop of Canterbury could not be Gouernour of that Bishoprick and Prymate of England or that a generall of an Army could not gouerne a particuler Company and be Generall of the whole Army 15. But will M. Andrewes trow you be so absurd to say in good earnest that S. Peter was not gouernor of a particuler Church or that we only meaning the Catholikes of this age haue made him so Truly if he affirme this and will stand to it he is not to be confuted by arguments but confounded by blowes as a mad man that had need to be beaten into his witts hauing as Aristotle sayth of some as much need of punishment as he should haue of sense that should deny the snow to be white for I thinke there was neuer any thing more clearly testified by all the Fathers of the Church Councells Historiographers Ecclesiasticall and prophane vndoubted monuments of Antiquity and all manner of Testimony then that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome especially seeing that the continuall succession of Bishops in the Roman Sea from him euen to the present Pope Paulus Quintus doth demonstrate and as I may say proclayme the euidence thereof And therefore I must needes imagine that M. Andrews hath some other meaning then his wordes import but whatsoeuer it is he sheweth by his obscure doubtfull and impertinent manner of wryting that he hath caput morbidum and verticem malè sanum as you heard him say of S. Peter in the last Chapter 16. And this might suffice for answere to his glose vpon the place of S. Maximus but that I cannot omit to say something to the two doubts he maketh to wit whether this Maximê° was he that was Bishop of Turin whether there were SermoÌ„s made purposely of the Apostles in his tyme both which doubts the ancient Gennadiê° who wrote in the same age may wel resolue seeing that in his booke de viris illustribus he writeth that Maximus Bishop of Turin wrote certayne Tracts in prayse of the Apostles which are these verie Homilies whence this testimony is taken hauing mentioned diuers other Tracts and Homilies vpon the Natiuitie of S. Iohn Baptist S. Eusebius of Versels and S. Cypriâ—n also of the passion of Christ and the fast of Lent of the Crosse Sepulcher and Resurection of our Lord which are also to be seene in his works vnder the tytle of homylies he concludeth Scripsit etiam homilias multas c. He to wit Maximus wrote also many Homilyes of the Natiuity of the Theophany which we call the Epiphany of Easter and of Pentecost c. besides diuers others which I haue read and do not remember So he 17. Wherein it is to be noted for the resolution of M. Andrews his doubts that S. Maximus who was Bishop of Turin wrote homilyes in prayse not only of the Apostles but also of diuers other Saints and vpon diuers feasts which M. Andrews may belieue because it is testified by one that might know it well for that he wrote about the yeare of our Lord 490. which was the same age wherein S. Maximus liued who died as Gennadius also witnesseth in the yeare 420. about ten yeares before the decease of S. Augustin which I note by the way to put M. Andrews in mynd of a notable scape ouersight not to call it a flatly in his former answere to a place of S. Augustine wherof I treated in the last Chapter where you may remember he affirmed very confidently that tempore Augustini non fiebant Sermones de tempore In S. Augustins tyme there were no sermons made de Tempore So that you see he is found to be minus habens and taken tardy in euery thing and not able to giue any reasonable satisfaction or answere to any one place of ten alleadged by the Cardinall in one Chapter 18. And yet forsooth in the preamble to his answere of those places he maketh so light of them as though he could blow them away all with a blast for thus he saith Vnum hoc peccant omnia c. they haue all this one fault that they bring nothing which may not straight be graunted except perhaps some litle word about the which I do not meane 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contend in words So he But if this be true how chanceth it that the poore man hath bene so puzled in the answere of these places that he hath bene faine so to trifle wrangle cogg and lye as you haue heard Hath some litle word trow you that hath occurred now and then and could not be graunted driuen him to so hard an exigent But let vs hear what he saith may be graunted and what denied in those places Nam nec primatum saith he negamus Petri c. For we do not deny the Primacy of Peter nor the names which do signify it but we demand the thing or matter it selfe now in question that is to say his earthly Monarchy Thus saith he seeming out of his bountifull liberality to graunt that which he seeketh to ouerthrow as much as in him lyeth yea denying that in effect which he graunteth in words and reducing all his dispute to a playne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say a word-warre or a contention about words which neuertheles he professeth to auoyd 19. You see he graunteth the primacy of Peter yet when it is vrged against him out of the Fathers in the places aboue mentioned he laboureth to ouerthrow the ground from whence they deduce it For whereas they teach that Peter had the primacy because he was the foundation of the Church and had a speciall Commission giuen him to feede Christs sheepe he goeth about to proue that Peter was no more the foundation of the Church then the rest of the Apostles nor otherwise Pastor thereof then they whereupon it must needs follow that he was not their primate nor had any more gouernement ouer the Church then they Wherein then consisteth his primacy which the Fathers teach and deduce from the
thing expressed by the name and so in conclusion with his fatemur omnia he acknowledgeth vs for true Catholiks and himselfe and his fellowes for heretikes and therefore I may well say vnto him with our Sauiour in the Ghospell ex ore tuo te iudico serue nequam 35. And the lyke I may also say concerning his grant in another matter to wit that our Bishops are true Bishops and that the Protestant Bishops of EnglaÌ„d had their ordination from ours yea from 3. of ours for so he giueth to vnderstand whereupon he also inferreth that he and his fellow SuperinteÌ„dents haue a true ordination and succession from the Catholike Church whereas the quite contrary followeth vpon his grant for if our Bishops be true Bishops as hauing a true successioÌ„ from the Apostles and that the protestant Bishops haue no other lawfull ordinatioÌ„ but from ours two consequents do directly follow thereon the one that we haue the true Church and doctrine if M. Andrewes his fellow and friend M. Barlow say true who in his famous sermon mentioned by me els where affirmeth the Successiue propagation of Bishops from the Apostles to be the mayne roote of Christian Society according to S. Augustine and the mayne proofe of Christian doctrine according to Tertullian as I haue shewed amply in my Suplement and proued thereby that M. Barlow and his fellowes are e heretykes and Schismatikes The other consequent is that if the English Protestant Bishops had no other lawfull ordination then from the Catholikes they had none at all for that at the chaÌ„ge of religion in Queen Elizabeths tyme they were not ordayned by any one Catholyke Bishop and much lesse by three as M. Andrews saith they were but by themselues and by the authority of the Parliament as I haue also declared at large in my Supplement Where neuertheles I am to aduertise thee good Reader of an errour not corrected amongst the faults escaped in the Print For whereas it is said there they had almost seduced an Irish Archbishop and perswaded him to consecrate some of them Byshops there want certaine wordes to wit a Welsh Bishop hauing in vaine sollicited which words are to be inserted thus they had almost seduced a Welsh Bishop hauing in vaine solicited an Irish Archbishop and perswaded him to consecrate some of them Bishops after the Catholike manner c. And agayne a litle after whereas it is said thus seeing the Irish Bishop would not performe his promise they resolued to ordaine themselues c. there want also these words consâ—â—t nor the Welsh Bishop which words are to be added thusâ— seeing the Irish Bishop would not coÌ„sent nor the Welsh Bishop performe his promise they resolued to ordayne themselues Thus I say it should be corrected 36. Whereby it may euidently appeare what a beggarly Church and Clergy they then had and still haue for hauing then not so much as any pretended Archbishop or Bishop of their owne profession they were forced to begg their consecration euen of the Catholikes their aduersaries and hauing solicited an Archbishop in vaine and being out of hope to haue the consent of a Metropolitan to their ordination much more to be consecrated by 2. or 3. Bishops according to the ancient Canons of the Church they determined as I may say to play small game rather then to sit forth being desirous to haue some kind of ordination from any one Catholik though inferiour Bishop yea and in fyne they sought to haue it from such a one as was held to be the simplest man that then was or perhaps euer had bene of the English Clergy for so indeed was esteemed the Bishop of Landâ—â—â— whome they had almost inueygled and induced 〈◊〉 their turne But Almighty God out of his infinite prouidence so disposed for the eternall shame of their pretended Prelacy and Clergy that he also in the end refused to do it vpon a sharp message which he receaued from Bishop â—onner then Prisoner who being Bishop of London and consequeÌ„tly chiefe Bishop in the prouince of Canterbury by the death of Cardinall Pole Archbishop thereof sent one M. Cosen his Chaplen to the sayd Bishop of Landaff to threaten him with excommunication in case he did consecrate any of them whereupon he defisted from his purpose and they resolued to ordayne and consecrate one another and so they did as I haue signified in my Supplement vpon the testimony of one that was an eye-witnes of what passed amongst them at their ordination to wit M.I Thomas Nâ—ale a graueman well knowne no doubt to many yet liuing in Oxford where he was many yeares after Reader of the Hebrew Lecture 37. Whereupon I inferre two things the one that they haue no Clergy nor Church for haâ—ing no Bishops they haue no Priests because none can make Priests but Bishops and hauing neither Bishops nor Priests they haue no Clergy and consequently no Church as I haue shewed in my Supplement out of S. Hierome The other is that M. Andrewes and his fellowes are neyther true Bishops nor haue any succession from the Catholike Church as he sayth they haue noâ— yet any lawfull mission or vocationâ— and that therefore they are not those good shepheards which as our Sauiour saith enter into the fold by the dore but fures 〈◊〉 theeues and robbersâ— who clymbe vp another way or breake into it by intrusion and force vt mactent â—â—â—â—rdant to kill and destroy the flocke and so they are rotten bought broken of from the may nâ— root of Christian society and consequently heretikes and schismatikes as well by M. Barlowes ground before mentioned as according to M. Andrewes his owne graunt els let him name vnto vs those 3. Catholike Bishops who as he saith consecrated their first Bishops at the change of religion in Queene Elizabeths tyme which I know he cannot doe and therefore I conclude of him in this point as I did in the last ex ore tuo te iudico 38. And this truly might suffice to shew how he fortifieth our cause and ouerthroweth his owne but that besides diuers other points which I might handle to this purpose and am forced to omit for lack of tyme there is one whereof I promised in the last Chapter to say somewhat to wit his doctrine touching the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacie which in verie truth he abaseth disgraceth and vtterly supplanteth whiles he seeketh or at least pretendeth to confirme and establish it as hath partly appeared already by his graunt that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles to take away all occasion of Schisme yea and that he gaue him as much authority as was necessary to that end whereupon I inferred necessarily that not only S. Peter but also his successours haue all that power and authority which we attribute vnto them as may be seene in the third Chapter of this Adioynder and vpon this it followeth also