to feed his Lambs and sheep he preferred him therin before all the rest of the Apostles Quia solus saith S. Ambrose profitetur ex omnibus omnibus antefertur The third is that wheras S. Ambrose obserueth three degrees of Christians to wit Lambs litle sheep and sheep all recommended to the Pastorall care of S. Peter he giueth to vnderstand that all sorts of Christians were committed to his charge and gouernment and not the weake only but the most holy also learned and perfect yea euen the Apostles themselues and therefore he saith vt perfectiores perfectior gubernaret 10. This then being S. Ambrose his sense and doctrine concerning the Pastorall cōmission giuen to S. Peter it is most euident that when he teacheth that all Pastours receaued their flocks with S. Peter he teacheth it in the same sense that S. Augustine doth to wit that because S. Peter being supreme Pastour represented the whole Church and receaued the Pastorall authority not for himselfe alone but also for all those who were eyther at that tyme or euer should be subordinate vnto him therefore all other Pastours receaued their authority not only in him as S. Augustine speaketh but also with him that is to say in and with their chiefe Pastour and head And therefore whereas D. Andrews to make a greater shew of parity or equality betwixt S. Peter and other Pastors hath added to S. Ambrose his text those words of his owne nobiscum eas accepit it may passe for a piece of coggery and well discouereth his skill to help the dyce when he is put to his shifts 11. Besids that his vanity and folly notably appeareth in that hauing gayned nothing but rather lost his cause by alledging these two places of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose yet he braggeth thereof afterwards as if he had got a great victory saying in the 214. page that although pasce oues was said in the singuler number and to one to wit S. Peter yet it passed to all and that clariùs id loquuntur Ambrosius Augustinus quà m vt obstrepere possint nouitij nostri Ambrose and Augustine do speake or affirme it more plainly then that our nouices can any way contradict it So he meaning by our nouices the Catholiks as I take it though I know not why he so calleth them neyther do I meane heere to discusse it but will remit to the indifferent Reader to iudge what cause he hath so to brag of these two Fathers and what fidelity he hath shewed in alledging them dissembling the cleare doctrine of the one and corrupting as well the text as the sense of the other and thus much for his first answere 12. In his second he seeketh to retort the Cardinals argument vpon him and to proue the Kings Supremacy by the word pasce which he saith he knoweth will touch the Cardinall to the quick quod scio saith he punget Cardinalem Let vs heare then this sharp argument which I thinke will proue a very blunt one Thus then he saith Negat Cardinalis Primatum Regis c. The Cardinall denieth the Kings Supremacy and yet God said to a King tu pasces populum meum Israel thou shalt feed my people Israel Where no man can deny but that a King was made the Pastor of all Israel yea of the Priests except he will deny them to be part of Israel Thus argueth this learned and sharp Doctor ouerthrowing his owne argument sufficiently by his owne conclusion graunting in effect that if the Priests were not a part of the people of Israel the King was not their Pastor 13. To this purpose then it is to be considered what I haue amply debated in the first Chapter of my Supplement concerning the exemption and sepation of the Priests and Leuits from the temporall and politike State by the expresse words of Almighty God who gaue the Leuits not to the temporall Prince but to Aaron and his children tradidi eos dono Aaron filijs eius de medio populi I haue giuen them saith Almighty God for a gift to Aaron and his children out of the midst of the people Besides that God ordayned expresly that the Tribe of Leui should not be numbred neither yet haue any part or inheritance with the rest of Israel because he had reserued the same for his owne seruice and therfore would himselfe be their possession portion and inheritance So that this being very cleare in the expresse words of the Law which as I also proued was neuer altered but rather confirmed at the institution of the Kings who were expresly bound to obserue the whole law and to obey the high Preist I may say to the Doctor as he said before to the Cardinall atque vel sic iacebit Doctori ratio sua 14. But put the case this were not so yea and that the Preists of the old law had byn subiect to the Kings in spirituall matters wherof I haue already proued the contrary will M. Andrews inferre theron that therfore Kings haue also the spirituall Supremacy in the new law without any new institution or ratification therof by our Sauiour Christ or his Apostles Doth not this great Doctor know that the Mosaycal law was abrogated by the law of grace and that wheras it was deuided into three parts to wit Iudiciall Cerimoniall and Morall the two former vtterly ceased and the third I meane the Morall part contayning the Commaundements remayneth only in force not because it was instituted then but because those Commaundments being grounded on the law of Nature are alwayes in force and therfore ordayned againe to be kept in the new Law In which respect the cōmandment cōcerning the Sabboth doth not now bynd Christians as it was then ordayned and practiced 15. And therfore M. Andrews might aswell introduce Poligamy practised in the old Law as the spirituall supremacy of Kings if we should graunt that they then had any such and with much more reason might he teach abstinence from puddings and other meates made of bloud seeing that we find some commaundements or ordinance therof in the Acts of Apostles wheras there is no one syllable in all the new Testament to proue that Kings haue any spirituall authority ouer the Church it being most euidēt that al those places of Scripture which he or any other doth or can alledge out of the new Testament to that purpose do concerne only temporall obedience to the pagan Emperours or Princes who were then Persecutors of the Church and therefore could not be spirituall heads or Gouernours thereof nor obayed by Christians in spirituall matters And this I say the rather because M. Andrews doth not only heere but also throughout his whole booke seeme to ground his doctrine of the Kings spirituall Primacy specially vpon the law of Moyses as I shall haue occasion to shew further hereafter which sufficiently bewrayeth the beggery and misery of his cause
Righteousnes by the which the gates of heauen are opened as it were with keyes sic saith he in singulis quibusque virtutibus and so also in all other vertues and to this purpose is Origens discourse in that homily 5. Now then who seeth not heere that he leaueth the litterall sense altogether in this and lyke a preacher followeth the Allegoricall and Morall thereby to induce his audience to vertue and withdraw them from vice and sinne And will M. Andrewes say that therefore Origens opinion was that Peter had nothing promised peculiarly to himselfe more then to euery perfect Christan So shall euery iust man and womaÌ„ for Origâ—n speaketh of all alyke haue as much Ecclesiasticall power and Iurisdiction as Peter had for I am sure M. Andrewes will not deny but that when Christ promised the keyes to Peter he promised to giue him Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction and power howsoeuer the same is to be vnderstood I meane whether as promised to himselfe alone for the whole Church as we vnderstand it or as promised also to the Apostles equally with him as M. Andrewes and his fellowes would haue it and therefore I say that taking this interpretatioÌ„ of Origen for the literall sense euery faithfull man or woman that is of the elect hath as much power to bynd loose excommunicate and exercise any other Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction as Peter and the rest of the Apostles had yea to be not only Pastors of Christs flock but also chiefe Pastours and to haue summaÌ„ rerum de pascendis ouibus the chiefe charge of feeding Christs sheepe 6. For whereas Origen sayth so of S. Peter in the place now in question M. Andrewes will haue the same to be vnderstood also according to this Interpretation of Origen which as you haue heard includeth not only all the Apostles but also euery other perfect Christian yf he be of the elect and excludeth all those that are not such so as amongst other consequents that follow thereof one may beâ— that it is vncertayne whether M. Andrewes himselfe be a Pastour or no for though he hold himselfe for a perfect Christian which neuertheles I hold to be very doubtfull or rather assure my selfe of the contrary yet it is very vncertayne whether he be one of the elect and if he be not of that number then according to this interpretatioÌ„ if it be literall he hath no pastorall CoÌ„missioÌ„ Besides it would follow that euery Priest should haue as much authority as his Bishop euery Bishop as much as his Metropolitan yea and euery predestinate man or woman that is a perfect Christian should haue as much as any of them or as they all seeing that all they can haue no more then summaÌ„ rerum de pascendis ouibus the chiefe charge and care of feeding Christs flockâ— which Origen saith was giuen to Peter Loe then what good doctrine M. Andrews teacheth heere by this Interpretation of Origen if he will haue it to be litterall ouerthrowing therby all subordination in the Church and coÌ„founding the Ecclesiastical with the secular the Laytie with the Clergy the head with the members I meane the spirituall Pastours or sheapheardes of Christs flock with their sheepe or subiects which truly he would not do if he were not as silly and single witted as a sheepe or at least if he were not more malicious then a sheepe of Christs flock ought to be 7. Therefore to conclude this point seeing that this Interpretation of Origen out of Origen serueth him to no better purpose then the other did before out of S. Augustine S. Ambrose and S. Cyril which only serued to bewray his malice and folly as I haue shewed amply in the first Chapter It is cleare that Origens testimony alleadged by the Cardinall concerning the chiefe Charge of feeding Christs sheepe giuen to Peter remayneth cleare and sound for the Catholiks to be taken in the litterall sense as the Cardinall alleadged it especially seeing it is most conforme to Origens doctrine in other places as in his homilyes vpon diuers Euangelists where he calleth S. Peter Summum Apostolorum verticem the chiefe or supreme head of the Apostles and therefore discoursing also afterwards in the same place of the particuler priuiledges of grace giuen by our Sauiour to S. Iohn the Apostle he preferreth neuertheles S. Peter before him in dignity saying Nemo nos existimet Petro Ioannem preferre c. Let no man thinke that I preferre Iohn before Peter Who would so do for which of the Apostles was hygher in dignity then he qui est dicitur Vertex eorum Who is called and is their head So he And I am sure M. Andrews can not imagine that Origen deduced the supreme dignity of Peter from any other ground or reason but because he had summam rerum de pascendis ouibus the chiefe charge of feeding Christs sheepe and was the foundation of the Church as Origen acknowledgeth in the place alleadged by the Cardinall and diuers others and this shall suffice for him 8. The second place which I am to debate with M. Andrewes is taken by the Cardinall out of S. Hylary in these words O in nuncupatione noui nominis felix Ecclesiae fundamentum c. O happie foundation of the Church in the nuncupation of a new name a rock worthie of the building thereof that is to say of the Church which Rock should dissolue or break the lawes of hell c. Thus far the Cardinall out of S. Hilary to proue that Peter was the foundation and consequently the head of the Church Whereto M. Andrewes answereth thus Ex Hylario felix Ecclesiae fundamentum Petrum out of Hilary the Cardinall obiected that Peter was the happie foundation of the Church Sed inter alia pariter fundamenta but amongst and togeather with other foundations So he Meaning that because all the Apostles are called in the Scriptures foundations of the Church therefore S. Peter was no otherwise the foundation therof then they Wherto I neede not to say any thing heere because I haue largely treated the same point in the third Chapter shewing how the Apostles were called fouÌ„dations of the Church without derogation eyther to Christ who is the first and chiefe foundation or to Peter who is the second immediatly grounded vpon Christ and therefore I remit my Reader thereto 9. And now to go forward with M. Andrewes his answere he addeth the rest of S. Hilaries words thus Dignam aedificatione Christi Petram a Rock worthie of the building of Christ which wordes of Hilary he glosseth thus sed fidei ratione c. but by reason or meanes of fayth sayth Hilary himselfe and not of his person that Peter may depend on the fayth and not the fayth vpon Peter Thus sayth M. Andrews seeking by the help of a lying glosse of his owne to make his Reader belieue that S. Hilary doth so admit S. Peters
the last Chapter where I also charged as wel M. Andrews as M. Barlow with the euident abuse of this place of holy Scripture in diuers respects and therfore I beseech thee good Reader take paines to reuiew what I haue said there if thou dost not well remember it So as I may now conclude vpon these two reasons of M. Andrews that he is both an ignorant and a corrupt Doctor ignorant in affirming that Moyses laid a way his Priesthood and corrupt in notably abusing the holy Scriptures 43. And whereas he very ofâ— recurreth for the profe of this point to the examples of the Kings in the old Testament I haue sufficiently answered therto in my Supplement where I haue proued first that the law of Moyses did expressely and manifestly giue to the high Preist the supreme authoritie not only in matters of religion but also euen in temporall affaires forasmuch as concerned the decision of doubts and difficult questions Secondly that the Kinges were not at their institution exempt from this law but rather commanded to obserue it Thirdly that the particuler examples which he and others are wont to alledg of Iosua Dauid Salomon Ezechtas and Iosias doe make nothing for their purpose that diuers other examples do clearly proue the contrary And lastly that although it were true that Kings were superiour to Preists in the old law yet it doth not follow theron that they are so now also in the new law as well because the law of Moyses at least the iudiciall and ceremoniall part thereof was wholly abrogated by the law of Christ as also because our Sauiour ordained a new and farr more excellent Preisthood manner of gouernment in his Church which beginning in the Apostles and spirituall Pastors was continued also most euidently in them for 300 yeares without interruption to wit during the paganisme of the Emperours and no new coÌ„mission euer since that tyme knowne to be giuen by Christ to Kings whereby they were authorized to take vpon them the gouerment of the Church 44. So that I am to demaund of M. Andrews as I also did of M. Barlow in my Supplement how and by what Commission the supreme authority in Ecclesiasticall affayres was transferred from the Apostles and their Successors to Kings after they were Christened seeing that they can neyther claime any succession therin from the Kinges of the old law which as I haue said was quite abrogated by Christ nor pretend any new authority giuen theÌ„ in the new lawe it being most manifest that all the texts of Scripture which M. Andrewes or other of our aduersaries doe or can alleage for the spirituall Supremacy of temporall Kinges out of the new Testament do ordeyne obedience to the Pagan Princes that the raigned no lesse then to others which therfore cannot be vnderstood to concerne spirituall matters and much lesse to make them heades of the Church except M. Andrewes will be so absurd to say that the most wicked Emperours Tyberius Caius Claudius and Nero were heades or supreme Gouernours of the Church and that they could commaund and ought to be obeyed in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affayres 45. Now then seeing M. Andrewes neither bringeth nor is able to bring any other proofes then these out of the old or new Testament for the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of Kinges I may well conclude that as he hath great reason to hould it for no matter of faith and therfore not to admit it into his Creed as being neither expressely taught in Scripture nor necessarily deduced from it so I may with no lesse reason aduise him also to put it out of his Pater noster if it be gotten so farre into his bookes seeing it is not so much as probably gathered out of Scripture in which respect also I am to put him in mind of a rule giuen by himselfe in another question to witt that nothing is to be admitted and practised in the Church whereof some precept is not to be shewed in holy Scriptures for so doth he tell vs concerning prayer to Saints saying non audemus vota nostra c. We dare not direct our prayers to Saints because we haue no precept thereof hauing a precept in expresse wordes Quod tibi praecepero hoc tantum facies Thou shalt only do this which I shall command thee wherevpon we dare only doe that whereof we haue a precept 46. Thus sayth he and therefore according to this his owne rule I must now exact of him to shew vs some precept whereby the Kinges spirituall Supremacie is coÌ„maunded or ordeyned in Scripture but this he acknowledgeth sufficiently he cannot do seing he teacheth that we are not bouÌ„d to belieue it as an article of faith but to be perswaded only that it is a truth which he neither could nor as I thinke would say if he could shew any precept or commaundement of it in Scripture And this being so how then dare he and his fellowes admit it into their Church seeing he sayth Id tantùm audemus facere â— we dare only doe that whereof we haue a precept And how can he approue that men should be compelled to sweare it as an vndoubted truth when neuertheles it is no matter of faith by his owne confession nor hath any ground in Scripture as I haue shewed and much lesse is ordeyned and commaunded in Scripture and therefore according to his owne rule not to be admitted practised in the Church and consequently not to be ratified by a solemne Oath for an infallible verity as if it were one of the most important Articles of our Creed 47. But yet let vs examine the matter a litle further sound the depth of M. Andrewes his doctrine coÌ„cerning the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy I doubt not but we shall find that he is neither good English Protestant nor yet a good subiect for if it fall out that his doctrine agreeeth not with the moderne Lawes and Statuts of the Realme he is neither of both seing that according to the doctrine of English Protestants none can be accounted to be of their congregation neither yet a good subiect who belieueth not the Kings Supremacy as it is taught and ordeyned by the Statutes of King Henry the 8. King Edward the 6. and â—he late Queene Elizabeth but this M. Andrewes doth not for he doth not allowe the King any spirituall power at all â—eaching expresly that the King himselfe acknowledgeth non se aliter esse supra Ecclesiam quà m vtâ— nutritius â—utor That he is not otherwise ouer the Church but as a foster-father and defender Which he also explicateth adding vt eam scilicet nutriat tuâ—atur that is to say to the end that he may nouâ—â—sh and defend it to which purpose he also sayd before as you haue heard that the Kings Supremacy is no matter or article of faith becaus it concerneth only externall gouermeÌ„t so
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
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
doctrine concerning prayer to Saynts is for that we do inuocate them because in his conceipt Inuocation is so proper to God alone that none can be inuocated but he and if he do not conceiue so why doth he insist so much vpon the word inuocate yea and seeke to terrify vs with his terret nōs Apostolus charging vs to make light of him because we inuocate them in whome we belieue not that is to say those whome we do not hold for God 3. But a man may wonder how this great Doctor could so grossely erre in a matter so euident as this seeing that the words of the Apostle immediatly going before do manifestly shew that he speaketh there of an inuocation due to God alone as to our chiefe Lord which kind of inuocation is not communicable to creatures and therefore the Apostle hauing sayd that God is Dominus omnium c. the Lord of all and rich or bountifull towards all that inuocate him he confirmeth it with the saying of the Prophet omnis qui inuocauerit nomen Domini saluus erit euery one that shall inuocate the name of our Lord shal be saued and then he addeth Quomodo inuocabunt eum in quem non crediderunt How shall they inuocate him in whome they haue not belieued as who would say how can they inuocate him of whome the Prophet speaketh him that is Dominus omnium the Lord of all except they belieue in him that is to say except they belieue him to be their Lord and Creatour Whereby he doth not signify that none but God can be inuocated in any sort but that we cannot inuocate God as our Lord and our God except we belieue him so to be 4. And this doth not contradict the Inuocation of Saynts in another respect to wit not as Gods but as the seruants of God whome he glorifyeth and honoreth and by whose intercession and mediation he bestoweth graces and fauours vpon men in which sense it may also be truly said that we cannot inuocate them or craue the helpe of their prayers except we do in some sort belieue in them I meane so far forth as we inuocate them that is to say except we belieue them to be Gods seruants and that we also haue confidence in them as in those who by Gods goodnes may helpe vs. So as a faith and beliefe in Saynts is also necessary for the inuocation of them though it is not the faith that we haue in God as in our chiefe Lord and Creatour and that we may haue faith in Saynts M. Andrewes may learne in the Apostle himselfe who commendeth the charity and faith which Philemon had in Domino Iesu in omnes Sanctos in our Lord Iesus and in all Saynts vpon which words S. Hierome in his Commentary vpon that Epistle discourseth amply prouing that we may be sayd to haue fayth in Saynts 5. Therefore M. Andrewes is to vnderstand for the full answere of his obiection that as there is an honour and glory which is due to God only as the Apostle witnesseth saying soli Deo honor gloria honour and glory be to God alone and another due to creatures whereof the same Apostle also sayth gloria honor pax omni operanti bonum glory honour and peace be to euery one that doth good so also there are two sorts of inuocation the one vsed to God alone whereof the Apostle speaketh in the text alledged by M. Andrewes and the other vsed not only to Angels and Saynts but also to men as we read in the holy Scriptures where Iacob blessing the children of Ioseph saith inuocetur nomen meum super pueros hos nomina Patrum meorum let my name and the names of my Fathers Abraham and Isaac be inuocated vpon those children Vpon which words S. Augustine noteth expressely that not only exaudition but also inuocation is sometymes applyed to men and not to God alone besides that I will make it euident heereafter that the ancient fathers do vse inuocation for prayer to Saynts 6. But if M. Andrewes will not belieue S. Augustine and the other ancient fathers nor yet the holy Scripture let him belieue himselfe who afterwards teacheth clearely inough that the word inuocation may be applyed to creatures for he saith that poscere à Sanctis auxilium propriè inuocare est to craue helpe of Saynts is properly to inuocate them so that according to this interpretation of his we do properly inuocate all those of whome we craue help and succour which we lawfully craue not only of God but also of those who by the ordinance of God may and do lawfully succour and helpe vs as Angels Saynts and men do whereupon it followeth that we may lawfully demaund their helpe and consequently inuocate them according to M. Andrews his owne interpretation whereby it appeareth that he hath not only very idly laboured to fright vs with his terrible text taken out of the Apostle but also fondly contradicted himselfe 7. No lesse vayne and idle is the exceptiō which he taketh against the Cardinall for vndertaking to proue the intercession of Saynts insteed of the inuocation of Saynts for how can M. Andrewes be ignorant that the Cardinall meaneth to proue the Catholike doctrine concerning prayer to Saynts or the inuocatiō of Saints albeit he tearme it the intercession of Saints For whereas there are in this question two poynts specially controuersed the one whether we may pray to Saynts and the other whether they doe pray for vs which two haue a connexion and dependance one of another it sufficeth that the Cardinall named one of them meaning vnder the tytle thereof to proue the Catholyke doctrine concerning them both as indeed he doth by the places of the Fathers which he alledgeth prouing by some of them that the Saynts pray for vs succour and helpe vs and by others that we may pray to them yea and that we doe receiue helpe and succour by them wherby the Cardinall doth sufficiently discharge his promise yea and proueth that which M. Andrewes exacteth of him to wit the inuocation of Saynts so that M. Andrewes sheweth himselfe still to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a notable wrangler contending about woords when neuertheles he vnderstandeth cleerly the Cardinalls sense and meaning therein 8. And now to shew that the Cardinall euidētly proueth the inuocation of Saynts I will examin M. Andrews his answeres to the places alledged by the Cardinall out of the Fathers wherby also his cauilling wrangling fraudulēt humour shall euidently appeare He deuideth the Fathers which the Cardinall produceth into 3. rankes The first sayth he is of those qui verè Patres sed non verè citantur are truly Fathers but not truly cyted The second of those qui verè citantur sed fidei suspectae which are truly cyted but of no sound credit And the third of those qui veri verè
the Fathers then in matters necessary to saluation yet for as much as the question concerning Prayer to Saynts which the Cardinall vndertook to handle is only whether the primitiue Church held it to be superstitious as his Maiesty affirmeth it to be the Cardinall needed not to debate and discusse whether it be of necessity to saluation and therefore he forebare to speake thereof as needles and impertinent to the question in hand neuertheles this occasion being now offered I cannot omit to say that if M. Andrwees do speake heere not of the act or practise of praying to Saynts but of the beliefe of the doctrine demanding whether it be of necessity to saluation to belieue that prayer to Saints is lawfull I must needes tell him that it is so necessary that if he or any man els do obstinatly deny and impugne it he is an heretike and consequently cannot be saued and the reason is because he impugneth the beliefe and practice of the vniuersall Catholike Church which our Sauiour hath commaunded vs to heare and obey vnder payne to be held as Ethnicks and Publicans 56. Besides that considering the inestimable benefits that we may receiue both spiritually and temporally by prayers to Saynts whereof the whole Church hath had sufficient and publyke experience in all ages as it is most euideÌ„t by the testimonyes of these fathers for the tymes when they liued it cannot be denyed but that to omit the practice of it were extreme folly and to contemne it were impiety So as M. Andrews may now choose whether he will belieue and practise this doctrine with the whole Catholyke Church or els shew himselfe a foole in neglecting it impyous in contemning it or an heretyke in condemning and impugning it And thus much for his censure vpon the place of S. Chrysostome 57. The next place which he censureth is of Saynt Maximus Bishop of Turin alledged by the Cardinall thus S. Maximus in sermone c. S. Maximus in his sermon made in the prayse of S. Agnes sayth O spleÌ„dida virgo c. O worthy Virgin c. we beseech thee with as feruent prayers as we may that thou vouchsafe to remember vs. To this M. Andrewes answereth that the homilyes of Maximus and almost all the rest which goe vnder the tytle of Sermones de tempore and are of Saynts are not very much to be esteemed that this very homily which the Cardinall cyteth as of Maximus was a long tyme held to be of Ambrose and that now we haue made it to be the homily of Maximus that we are wont to attribute these homilyes sometymes to one and sometymes to another as it pleaseth vs to make tytles and finally that nec fides certa vbi author incertus there is no sure credit to be giuen to a worke wherof the author is vncertayne So he But how much this his censure is to be esteemed you may partly ghesse by his lyke censure vpon an homily of S. Augustine de tempore whereof I treated amply in the 4. Chapter and touched also againe in the last Chapter by occasion of an homily of S. Maximus made in the prayse of the Apostles which I proued to be his as also that he wâ—ote diuers other homilyes as well de tempore as of particuler Saynts whereto I remit thee good Reader to auoyd a needles repetition thereof 58. And whereas M. Andrewes sayth heere that this homily in the prayse of S. Agnes was a long tyme held for an homily of S. Ambrose he might haue done well to haue told vs where he findeth the same True it is that S. Ambrose in his booke de Virginibus wryteth a notable encomium or prayse of S. Agnes and in his Epistles he wrote an elegant discourse of her life martyrdome and miracles but that he was euer thought to be author of this homily it is but a conceipt or inuention of M. Andrews for ought I haue yet seene and put the case that that there hath byn some doubt or question whether of them was the author of it will he conclude as heere he doth that therefore there is no credit to be giuen vnto it If he will iustify that consequence he must reiect diuers parts of the holy Scripture which neuerthelesse I hope he will acknowledge to be of sound credit as in the old Testament the booke of the Iudges Ruth and Iob of which the author is eyther wholy vnknowne or vncertayne and to omit other in the new Testament there is euen at this day amongst the sectaryes as there was also in the primitiue Church great doubt who was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews some ascrybing it as S. Hierome testifyeth to S. Clement who was after Pope some to S. Barnabas and others to S. Luke and some as Sixtus Senensis witnesseth to Tertullian besids that Luther the Magdeburgenses Kemnitius and Brentius with dyuers other Ghospellers do deny it to be S. Paules or any of the Apostles or yet Canonicall Scripture And albeit Caluin and diuers of his followers admit it for Scripture yet they doubt greatly who was the author of it 59. So as if M. Andrewes will stand to his owne inference he must needs conclude that the Epistle to the Hebrews is of no sound credit which I thinke he will be loath to say seeing that all the English Clergy doth at this preseÌ„t acknowledge it for Canonical Scripture Besides that although it should be true which he sayth to wit that it hath byn doubted whether S. Ambrose or S. Maximus were author of that homily yet that can be no sufficient reason to reiect the doctrine of it but rather an argument to fortify and approue it as both very sound and very acient seeing that it hath byn alwayes ascrybed to one of those two ancient learned and holy Fathers and therefore to conclude you see that M. Andrews hath sayd nothing to the purpose against this testimony produced by the Cardinall out of S. Maximus 60. There followeth another out of S. Gregory Nazianzen his oration in the prayse of S. Cyprian to whome he prayeth thus Tu è supernis nos respice populum hunc sanctum dirige Behold vs from aboue and direct this holy people And agayne in the same Oration the same Father testifyeth that a holy Virgin called Iustina did pray vnto the Virgin Mary to deliuer her from danger To these two poynts M. Andrews answereth seuerally to the first he sayth that the oration is not liquidae fideâ— of cleare credit and his reason is because it is vncertayne who that Cyprian was of whome the oratioÌ„ was made as whether he was Cyprian Bishop of Carthage or another Cyprian of Antioch and then he concludeth Ita fluctuat res tota ita perplexa omnia So vncertayne is the whole matter so perplexe or doubtfull are all things in that oration So he Wherein you see
liberality of God is not to haue place in his last Iudgement as it should haue if Caluins doctrine were true but also his Iusticeâ— And therefore vpon this it followeth directly as the Cardinall argueth very well that whosoeuer belieueth Caluins doctrine in this behalfe doth not belieue the Article of the Creed concerning Gods Iudgement and retribution of workes 48. But now let vs se how M. Andrews vnderstandeth and glosseth the Cardinalls text and to the end thou mayst good Reader heare him in his right vaine how he bâ—stirreth himselfe and flourisheth when he hath once chaunged the state of the question and brought it to his purpose I will imparte vnto thee a good part of his discourse and set downe also as much of the Cardinalls text in the margent as M. Andrewes doth to the end thou mayst the better iudge of the whole matter Thus then he sayth Symbolum quoque tertium ab Athanasio conscriptum recipimus integrè c. We receiue also wholy the third Creed written by Athanasius There was no need to make mention of the last iudgement out of that seeing it is expressed both by the Apostolicall and also in the Nycen Creed It is said there that we are to yield account of our deedes but not such an account as it seemeth heere the Cardinall will make who I think will not appeare in the last Iudggement with this his Theology nor say there behould the merits of my workes behould the qualitie of my deedes for the which I require that lyfe euerlasting be giuen me I doe not desire here a mercifull Father but I will haue a iust iudge away with the grace of Faith or of the righteousnes of Christ mercifully imputed vnto me I will haue my deedes examined for works haue proceeded from me which doe not deserue reproach as being such as are without fault and haue nothing that needes to be couered with mercy for if it were so I should haue no need of the Iustice of a Iudge but of the mercie of a Father or of the liberality of a Prince whereof I haue no need It is meruaile that the Cardinal did not add for I am not as all other men as also these innouatours are who haue need of thy mercy to the end that their euill deedes be not ymputed vnto theÌ„ reputed as good deedes for the righteousnes of Christ. But if this were so theÌ„ would CoÌ„stantine say to the Cardinall set vp a ladder clime vp to heaueÌ„ alon as he sayd once to Acetius the NouatiaÌ„ heretick 49. Neuerthelesse a man may well maruaille and demaund whether the Cardinall in good earnest be so affected and so think of himselfe as heere he seemes to doe to wit that he shall haue no need of the mercy of a Father nor of the liberality of a Prince that he feareth not the Iustice of the Iudge that he challengeth to himselfe lyfe euerlasting for the quality of his deedes and merits of his workes that he renounceth the Grace Fayth and Righteousnes of Christ that he will appeare in IudgemeÌ„t without these and there make ostentation of his workes as being full pure and perfect without all kind of filth or vice Thus farre M. Andrewes 50. And dost thou not good Reader see how he descanteth heere vpon a false burthen of his owne amplifying exaggerating his owne malicious conceit and misconstruction of the Cardinalls wordes as though the same were his true sense and meaning dost thou not see I say how he pleaseth himselfe in dilating and amplifying his slanderous fiction glorying and triumphing in his owne malice In so much that I may well say vnto him with the psalmist Quid gloriaris in malitia qui potens es in iniquitate For I appeale to any indifferent man whether any such thing as heere maliciously he inferreth can be iustly gathered on the Cardinalls wordes who as I haue said before meaning to confute Caluins pernicious doctrine which draweth men to a most dangerous presumption of Gods mercy and neglect of his iustice yea and to a careles contempt of all good workes teaching all to be sinfull and damnable and no other meanes of saluation but by only faith and the imputation of Christs Iustice the Cardinall I say impugning this as well by expresse Scripture as by the Article of the Creed doth vrge the Iustice of our iust Iudge as well in the reward of vertue and good workes as in the punishment of vice sinne not excluding his mercy from his Iustice which can neuer be separated but inculcating the consideration of his exact Iudgment in the examination punishment and reward of mens deedes good and bad according to their merits which directly ouerthroweth Caluins doctrine of iustification by only fayth and of the impurity of good workes 51. And therefore for as much as M. Andrews knew very well that he could not so easily delude his Reader with the flourish of his false glosse if he should lay downe the doctrine and words of Caluin which the Cardinall alledgeth and confuteth he resolued to leaue them quite out with a great parte also of the Cardinalls text concerning the same Perhaps he would haue his Reader to imagine that he lackt place and paper but if you consider the length of his discourse which he continueth for almost three whole pages you will easily see that he wanteth neyther paper nor roome in his margent to set downe all the Cardinalls text if he had thought it would haue bene for his purpose 52. But truely that which seemeth to me most strange in his extrauagant discourse is how he could imagine that the Cardinall taketh vpon him to be iudge of his owne actions whose arguments tend to proue that God only is to examine and iudg all mens workes and not that euery man or yet any man shall be able to iudg and determine of the quality of his owne deedes for so should man be his owne Iudg the iugdement of God be no lesse superfluous needles then it should be if Caluins doctrin which the Cardinall impugneth were true Besides that the Cardinall neyther saith nor so much as insinuateth that we shall haue no need in iudgement of the mercy of a Father or the liberalitie of a Prince and much lesse that he renounceth the mercy grace faith and the Righteousnes of Christ as M. Andrews doth calumniate and belie him For the Cardinall knoweth and acknowledgeth as all Catholikes do that without the mercy grace faith and Righteousnes of Christ there can be noe iustificatioÌ„ I meane not the Righteousâ—es of Christ imputed to vs but that which he of his infinit mercy and bounty giueth vs maketh ours non qua iustus est Deus saith S. Augustine sed quam dat homini Deus c. not that Iustice by the which God is iust but that which he giues to man that man may be iust by God and therefore that which the Cardinall saith is only this that
submit themselues to the Church throw downe their Crowns before the Church That Magistrats as well as other men must submit them selues and be obedient to the iust lawfull authority of the Church that is of the Presbitery Quis tandem Reges Principes who can exempt euen Kings and Princes from this non humana sed diuina dominatione not humane but diuine domination meaning the Presbitery saith Beza which presbitery they would haue to be in euery parish quotquot Ecclesiae Christi as many as be members of Christ and of the Church they must subiect themselues to the consistorian discipline non hic excipitur Episcopus aut Imperator neyther Bishop or Emperour is excepted heere Thus sayth M. Rogers concerning the doctrine of the Puritans and addeth further also in the next leafe that if the King be not included in the number of Pastors Elders Deacons and Widdowes he cannot possibly haue any thing to doe in Church-affaires in these mens opinions meaning the Puritans 80. All this wrote M. Thomas Rogers touching the doctrine of the Puritans not past fiue yeares agoe for his booke was printed in Cābridge by Iohn Legat in the yeare of our Lord 1607. If then the Puritans were so lately as fiue yeares agoe of the opinion that M. Barlow and M. Rogers report which is the same that the Cardinall affirmeth eyther let M. Andrews tell vs precisely in what bookes or sermons since that tyme they haue recalled this errour or els if he will needs say that they did it before I will turne him to these two for answere not doubting but they are able to giue him full satisfaction therein especially M. Rogers who hath pawned the credit of all the English Clergy for the truth of his testimony And in the meane tyme I will desire thee good Reader to consider whether M. Andrews could haue any iust cause or pretence to reuile the Cardinall and call him lyar and dotard as he doth for affirming a matter belonging to our Country which he findeth expressely testified by the greatest superintendent of our English Clergy besids other sufficient reasons mouing him thereto 81. For put the case it were true as it is most false that the Puritans haue of late recanted their errour as M. Andrews tearmeth it yet the same hauing neuer byn hitherto so published that strangers can take notice thereof hath M. Andrew◠any reason in the world to reprehend and reuyle any stranger for not acknowledging it being but a matter of fact which he neyther knoweth nor is bound to know Truly albeit M. Andrews be of a most intemperate tongue and malignant disposition towards Catholykes as hath appeared diuers wayes yet I verily think that if the weakenes of his cause had not forced him to braue and face it out with rayling for lack of reason to defend it he would not in this case haue byn so immoderate in contumelies and reproaches towards the Cardinall as he hath byn without any cause giuen of his part But heerin he concurreth so well with his companion M. Barlow that it appeareth euidently they are both guided by one spirit To conclude this point concerning the Puritans wheras M. Andrews saith that they haue of late acknowledged their error touching the Kings supremacy I will in the next Chapter make it euident that not they but hee if he be an English Protestant may be sayd to haue acknowledged his error and that he is turned Puritan in that point admitting the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy no otherwise but so as they may safely grant it without change of opinion yea subscribe or sweare to it in the same sense that he teacheth it and so perhaps such of them do as take the Oath of supremacy and this I say I make no doubt to proue clearely in the next Chapter quod scio punget Doctorem as he sayd once of the Cardinall 82. To these examples of his egregious impudency in this kind I may well adde one or two other examples of his impudent assertion of notable lyes without allegation of authour or witnesse as when he chargeth certayne Iesuits to haue affirmed or as it seemeth to haue written that they cōmitted no sinne abannis saith he nescio quot I know not for how many yeares togeather which I dare boldly affirme to be a monstrous lye I meane that any Iesuit hath so written or sayd eyther of himselfe or any other man for although I make no doubt but that many Iesuits and other good men both Religious and secular by the help of Gods grace doe liue free from all mortall sinnes that is to say such sinnes as do vtterly depriue men of Gods fauour grace and deserue eternall damnatiō yet I am well assured that no Catholyke will say that any man liueth free from all sinnes such I meane as are called veniall which could not be sayd of the Apostles themselues as S. Iohn testifieth saying si dixerimus quod peccatum non habemus c. Yf we say that we haue no sinne we seduce our selues and truth is not in vs and to the same purpose also the Scripture sayth els where Septies in die cadet iustus c. The iust mā shall fall seauen tymes a day and shall ryse againe 83. And this is so knowne and firmely belieued of all Catholykes that it is incredible that any one who professeth the Catholyke Religiō should affirme of any man and much lesse be so vayne to say of him selfe that he committed no sinne for some yeares therefore M. Andrewes must not thinke it strange if we take this for an egregious lye vntill he produce some other authour or witnes then himselfe as I doubt not but he would haue dōe if he had any worth the naming or els had not perhaps forgot his name as well as the number of yeares in which those Iesuits committed no sinne for so it appeareth by his ab annis nescio quot whereby we may see what substātiall tales he telleth vs seeing he writeth eyther he knoweth not or at least he careth not what 84. The lyke I say also of another matter auowed by him with more particularities and circumstances to wit that a Iesuit being in Prison at the same tyme when he wrote cōfessed vpon his owne accord without all compulsion feare or examination moued merely with remorse of conscience that the Popesent to England 3. Buls of excommunication to be kept in readines and published in three seuerall parts of the realme vpon the execution of the powder-plot wherevpon he inferreth that the Pope must needs be priuy vnto the sayd plot But for as much as I assure my selfe and know right well that no such Buls as he mentioneth were euer made I do not only deny the inference of the Popes knowledge of the powder-plot but also may iustly charge M. Andrews to haue faygned the whole matter himselfe vntill he name the