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
alledgeth S. Augustine Lactantius and S. Bernard to proue that the soules of the iust are reserued in certayne receptacles and secret places where they haue not the perfect vision of God vntill the day of iudgement I shall not need to say any thing thereto as well because it would auayle him nothing as you see though S. Augustine and all the rest of the Fathers had ben of that opinion seeing that euen there I meane in those receptacles the Saynts might know our prayers by Angâ—es or by diuine reuelation according to S. Augustines doctrine as also because it is euident that not only S. Augustine but also all the Fathers both Greeke and Latin except 3. to wit Tertullian Lactantius and Victorinus do teach that the Saynts do already enioy the visioÌ„ of God though not in that perfection and consummation of their beatitude which they shall haue after the resurection and glorification of the bodyes as M. Andrews may see if it please him in the controuersy of Cardinall Bellarmine who alledgeth to this purpose 36. Fathers of the Greeke and Latin Church and answereth particulerly those very places which M. Andrews quoteth in his margent and all other places and authorityes which are commonly obiected against our Catholyke doctrine in this poynt So as in fine M. Andrewes proueth nothing at all agaynst vs by this obiection 48. And whereas he sayth also by the way that the Saynts ought not to be inuocated albeit they could heare vs because there is no precept of it I forbeare to giue any full satisfaction to that scruple in this place because he doth not heere yield any reason or produce any authority to proue that nothing is to be done wihout an expresse precept though in another place he alledgeth a text of Scripture to that end whereof I shall haue further occasion to speake after a whyle and therefore I remit the full answere thereof vntill then and only in the meane tyme I will say to him with S. Augustine that in his rebus de quibus nihil certi statuit Scriptura c. In these things whereof there is no certayne precept or determination in Scripture the custome of Gods people or the ordinances of our forefathers are to be held for a law 49. So he who also in another place speaking of certayne traditions of the Church sayth Si quid horum tota pâ—r orbem frequentat Ecclesia c. if the whole Church throughout the world do frequent or vse any of these things it is a most insolent madnes to dispute whether it be to be done or no. Thus saith S. Augustine coÌ„cluding M. Andrews to be a most insolent madde man who calleth in question a generall custome of the Church to which purpose S. Hierome also saith to the Luciferians that albeit there were no authority of Scripture for the matter in question betwyxt them yet totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret the conseÌ„t of the whole world in this behalfe were as much as a precept And the lyke sayth Tertullian Hanc si nulla sayth he Scriptura determinauit c. if no Scripture hath determined this yet truly custome which without doubt hath flowed from tradition hath corroborated and strengthned it 50. To these Fathers I might add many more to the same purpose if it were needefull but these may suffice for the present to shew that M. Andrews doth very idly exact a precept for prayer to Saynts when it is euident by the testimony of all the Fathers before cyted that the same was generally practised in the Church in their tyme no lesse then it is at this present whereupon I also conclude concerning the fact of Theodosius the Emperour that it cannot be with reason denyed but that when he lay prostrate before the tombes of the Martyrs crauing helpe agaynst Eugenius the Tyrant by their intercession he prayed also to them and not only to God especially considering the testimonyes produced by me before out of Sozomen concerning his particuler inuocation of S. Iohn Baptist vpon the same occasion and out of S. Chrysostome testifying the Emperours custome in those dayes to pray to the Martyrs at their monuments wherein also it may well be presumed that S. Chrysostome had a speciall relation euen to that fact of Theodosius whereof we now treate because the same was then very famous when he wrote his coÌ„mentary vpon S. Paules Epistles whence this testimony is taken for he wrote the same whyle he was Bishop as it may appeare by the tyme of his election and of a vision of S. Paul who was seene to assist him whiles he interpreted those Epistles being then Bishop which was but a few yeares after the ouerthrow of Eugenius and the death of Theodosius Thus much for the testimony of Ruffinus 51. Next after this followeth a place of S. Paulinus inuocating S. Clarus in these words Haec peccatorum c. Receiue these prayers of sinners who do beseech thee to be mindfull of Paulinus and Therasia And now because Paulinus wrote in verse M. Andrews will haue it to be vnderstood that he did but play or dally lyke a Poet. But to this I answere that if S. Paulinus was a Poet he was a Christian yea a holy Poet and therefore would not vse any Poeticall licence to the derogation of the Christian fayth or Religion or that might any way seeme iniurious to Christ as M. Andrews and his fellowes do account the inuocation of Saynts to be besides that it is manyfest that he did no otherwise in verse then the other Fathers afore mentioned did in prose and was warranted as you haue seene by the custome and practice of the whole Church at that tyme so that this is as vayne an euasion and as improbable as any of the former 52. Finally he concludeth his censure with S. Augustine whome the Cardinall alledgeth thus Habet Ecclesiastica disciplina c. The Ecclesiasticall discipline hath that which the faythfull know who make mention of Martyrs at the Altar of God not to pray for them there as for others that are dead for it is an iniury to pray for a Martyr to whose prayers we ought to be recommended Thus sayth S. Augustine To this M. Andrewes answereth that the Cardinall shall neuer be able to make Augustin on his side or not to be for the Protestants and that whatsoeuer is cyted ex aliquo riuulo Augustini out of some litle booke of Augustine the same is dryed vp with one only sentence as with the sunne and this sentence he saith is in opere suo palmari in his principall worke de Ciuitate Dei Well then let vs see the splendour of this radiant sentence and try what heate or force it hath to dry vp the other testimonyes cyted out of S. Augustine for prayer to Saynts 53. The words which M. Andrews alleadgeth out of S.
the same is to be extended to the new law As well may he say that we are bound to obserue the whole law and so proue himselfe a Iew euacuate the law of Christ as Saynt Paul argueth against those that mayntained the vse of CircuÌ„cisioÌ„ togeather with the faith of Christ. 27. Neuertheles I say not this to exclude all manner of arguments or inferences drawne from the old law to the new that the same remayne within the limits of probability as from the figure to the verity which admitteth many limitations and exceptions but to exclude the obligation of all precepts eyther ceremoniall or Iudiciall which do not in any sort bynd vs now as I haue shewed in the first Chapter of this Adioynder And therefore whereas M. Andrews sayth heere cùm praeceptum acceperimus in lege disertis verbis c. seeing we haue receiued a precept in the law in expresse words c. I say to him that seeing this precept did vndoutedly belong to the ceremoniall law and concerned only the manner of worship to be done to God by Sacrifice he sheweth himselfe a flat Iew in saying that we Christians haue receiued this precept in the law 28. Furthermore he is to vnderstand that albeit we should grant that nothing can be practiced or taught in the new law without some precept or doctrine thereof deliuered by our Sauiour Christ vnto his Church yet he could gayne nothing thereby except he could also proue that all our Sauiours precepts and doctrine are expressely set downe in Scripture which neyther he nor any of his fellowes haue byn able yet to proue or euer shal be it being euident that our Sauiour neyther commanded any thing at all to be written but to be preached and taught saying praedicate euangelium c. preach the gospell to euery Creature and againe docete omnes gentes c. teach all Nations baptizing them c. neyther did the Apostles eyther write any thing of diuers yeares after Christ Ascension or when they wrote deliuer all Christs doctrine and their owne by writing but very many things by tradition in which respect the Apostle himselfe saith tenete traditiones quas accepistis siue per sermonem siue per. Epistolam nostram hold the traditions which you haue receiued eyther by word or by our Epistle by which words of the Apostle the ancient Fathers namely S. Chrysostome S. Epiphanius S. Basil S. Iohn Damascen Oecumenius Theophilactus and the 8. Generall Councell do proue the necessary vse of vnwritten traditions in the Church and amongst the rest S. Chrysostome saith hinc patet c. heereby it is mâ—nifest that the Apostles did not deliuer all things by Epistle but many things without writing eadem fide digna sunt tam illa quà m ista as well those things as these are worthy of the same credit 29. For this cause S. Augustine giueth this generall rule that whatsoeuer the whole Church retayneth whereof the beginning cannot be deduced eyther from the Scriptures or Generall Councells or some later institution the same was vndoutedly deliuered by the Apostles and this he vrgeth very often as a most assured ground and principle agaynst the Donatists and for the same reason not only he but also all other Fathers teach that the generall custome of the Church is an infallible and euident proofe of the truth in any controuersy in so much that he affirmeth it to be insolentissimae insaniae a poynt of most insolent madnes to dispute or doubt of it as I haue declared in the last Chapter which I wish M. Andrews well to obserue as also the other testimonyes of the ancient Fathers produced there concerning this poynt 30. Now then hereupon I conclude two things the one that M. Andrews who as he sayth dare do nothing without a written precept may lay away his scruple in matters that are generally practised by the Church the other that seeing it is euident by these testimonyes of so many holy and learned Fathers as haue byn heere alledged that the whole Church in their dayes practized prayer to Saynts as a thing most beneficiall to men and honorable to God and that they acknowledged the euident and miraculous benefits that grew to men thereby yea vrged the same agaynst the very Gentills and Paynims as inuincible arguments of the diuinity of Christ and of the verity of Christian religion and seeing also that this practice custome and beliefe was then generall when Christian religion most florished I meane in the tyme of the 4. first generall Councells and when the Church abounded most with famous Doctors Pastors and Fathers it must needs be graunted that the doctrine of prayer to Saynts is an irrefragable verity and that according to S. Augustines censure it is no lesse then insolent madnes in M. Andrewes to call it in question and much more to impugne it with such friuolous reasons as he doth and especially with a ceremoniall precept of the Mosaycall law as if he were a Iew and not a Christian seeing that he acknowledgeth himselfe to haue receiued a precept thereby disertis verbis in expresse words which I thinke no good Christian will say of any precept belonging to the ceremoniall or Iudiciall law 31. But M. Andrews goeth yet further and exacteth at least some example of it in the Scripture if there be no precept whereto S. Augustine answereth sufficiently when he sayth to a Donatist who made the lyke demaund about the rebaptization of such as were baptized by heretykes that seeing there is no example or expresse mention of it in Scripture and that Christ hath clearly and expresly recommended vnto vs the authority of his vniuersall Church dispersed thoughout the world the testimony and custome of that Church is to be admitted and imbraced and whosoeuer reiecteth or resisteth the same doth most perniciously resist our Sauiour himselfe against his owne saluation Thus sayth S. Augustine in substance though much more amply who also speaking elswhere of the same point giueth this notable and generall rule that for as much as the holy Scripture doth vndoubtedly recommend vnto vs the authority of the Church etiam in hac re à nobis tenetur Scripturarum veritas c. the veriâ—y of Scripture is retayned by vs in this point when we do that which hath already pleased the whole Church So he And so say I to M. Andrews in this our case to wit that seeing it is euident by the testimony of all antiquity that the inuocation of Saynts was generally admitted and practised by the Primitiue Church and from thence hath descended to our tyme there needeth no example of it in Scripture because the authority of the Church which the Scriptures do expressely recommend vnto vs sufficeth to warrant the same 32. And truly it may seeme strange that M. Andrews or any of his fellowes of the English Clergy do
deny this seeing that they do admit diuers traditions whereof there is neyther precept nor example in the Scripture as the baptisme of infants who do not actually belieue for although the same be very consonant to Scripture as also is prayer to Saynts and all other things which are practiced in the Catholike Church yet the vse and practice thereof is grounded vpon tradition and not vpon the Scriptures as Origen testifyeth saying Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditioneÌ„ accepit c. The Church receiued a tradition from the Apostles to giue baptisme to litle children So he And S. Augustin also to the same purpose saith more plainely thus Consuetudo mâ—tris Ecclesiae in baptizandis paruulis c. the custome of our Mother the Church in baptizing infants is not to be contemned or reputed as superfluous neyther were it to be belieued at all if it were not an Apostolicall tradition So he who also acknowledgeth the same in another place and saith further that if any man do demaund diuine authority for it quamquam quod vniuersa tenet Ecclesia c. albeit that which the vniuersall Church holdeth and hath not byn ordayned by Councells but hath alwayes been reteyned is most rightly belieued to haue byn deliuered by no other but by Apostolicall authority neuertheles we may truly coniecture by Circumcision in the old law what force the Sacrament of Baptisme hath in Infants Thus saith S. Augustine who to answere those that do demand diuine authority for the custome of the Church in baptizing Infants doth not proue or confirme it by any precept or example out of Scripture but only by a probable coniecture drawn from the figure of it in the old law relying principally vpon the tradition of the Church 33. But what need I seeke any other testimony for this matter seeing that Tho. Rogers in the 39. articles agreed vpon by the pretended Bishops and Clergy of England and analyzed into propositions glossed and set forth by him with their publyke approbation doth acknowledge that the baptisme of yong children is in any wyse to be retayned in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ although sayth he we be not commanded by expresse termes to baptize them So he whereupon it directly followeth that M. Andrews hath ouerlashed greatly in saying id tantùm audemus facere de quo praeceptum habemus we dare doe that only whereof we haue a precept Also what precept or example haue M. Andrews and his fellowes in Scripture for the vse of Godfathers and Godmothers and of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme allowed as well by their practice as by the late Queenes Iniunctions yea and by the Ecclesiasticall Canons of the Bishops and Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury made in their Synod held at London with his Maiestyes lycence in the yeare 1603. and published the yeare following by his Maiestyes authority vnder the great Seale of England in which Canons they do not only approue the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme but also professe to follow therein the primitiue Apostolicall Churches the true rules of doctrine coÌ„cerning things indifferent which are consonant to the word of God and the iudgement of all the ancient Fathers so that by their owne confession they retayne the vse of it without eyther precept or example in holy Scripture 34. And now because I haue had this occasion to speake of this constitution I can not omit to aduertise thee good Reader of a notable peece of trumpery and cosenage vsed by that graue Synod in this very Canon whereof we now speake wherein giuing the reason why they retayne the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme they say they do it because the same hath byn euer accompanyed among them with sufficient cautions exceptions agaynst all popish superstition and errour and forsooth that the world may vnderstand from what popish errour they haue freed the same they signify that the Church of England since the abolishing of Popery hath euer held and taught that the signe of the crosse vsed in Baptisme is no part of the substance of that Sacrament and that the infant Baptized is by vertue of Baptisme before it be signed with the signe of the crosse receiued into the congregation of Christs flock as a perfect member thereof and not by any power ascribed to the signe of the crosse c. whereupon they conclude that the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme being thus purged from all popish superstition and errour and reduced in the Church of England to the primary institution of it c. it is to be reuerently retayned and vsed Thus teach they in their foresayd Synod 35. But now we must demand of them where they haue euer read in any Catholyke Authour that the signe of the crosse as it is vsed in the administration of baptisme is any part of the substance of the Sacrament sure I am that all our schoolemen and Canonists and others that haue occasion to treat therof do expressely teach the contrary neyther did euer any learned Catholyke hold or suppose it to be any part eyther of the forme or of the matter of Baptisme which are the essentiall parts thereof but only an ancient and holy ceremony and this is euident euen by the practice of the Catholyke Church approuing the baptisme not only of the midwyfe in cases of necessity but also of any heretike if he haue the intention to do that which the Catholyke Church doth and vseth the true forme with conuenient matter without the signe of the crosse or any other ceremony in the world and albeit the Church vseth to suply the sayd ceremonyes afterwards in such as wanted the same yet it maketh no doubt at all but that they are baptized before and in state of saluation if they dye before the sayd ceremonyes be supplyed whereby it is manyfest that the Catholykes do not take the signe of the crosse to be of the substance or essence of the sacrament 36. But of this I shall not neede to produce any further proofe seeing that those pretended Bishops which were present at this Congregation and made this Canon haue giuen sufficient testimony of the truth in this poynt to no meaner a person then to his Maiesty himselfe as he did publikely testify in the CoÌ„ference at Hampton-court wherein the question concerning the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme being debated betwixt them and the Puritans his Maiesty sayd that he vnderstood by the Bishops yea and found it himselfe to be true that the Papists themselues did neuer ascribe any power or spirituall grace to the signe of the crosse in Baptisme whereupon it followeth that they do not nor euer did account to be any essentiall part of the Sacrament for if they did they should ascribe vnto it a spirituall grace and power as they doe to the essence of
the Sacrament which they all do vniformly teach to giue grace ex opere operato and therefore seeing that according to his Maiestyes testimony as well vpon his owne knowledge as by the relation of the Bishops to him the Catholykes did neuer ascribe any power or spirituall grace to the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme it is euident that the Bishops in their Synod belyed them egregiously charging them to hold it to be a part of the substance of the Sacrament yea and notably deluded the people in seeking to perswade them that the Catholykes had corrupted the vse thereof and that the English Clergy hath now reduced it to the primary institution 37. Who then could imagine that so many Ecclesiasticall men honorable for their ranke and dignity in the common welâ—h by profession Deuines by tytle Prelats and spirituall Pastors of the people could also vniformely agree to cozen the world in this manner and insteed of feeding their flock with holsome doctrine to infect and poyson them with such manifest lyes as this conuinced euen by their owne testimony to his Maiesty himselfe the very same yeare that they deuised it as it appeareth by the printed copyes of their Ecclesiastical constitutions of the coÌ„ference at Hampton-Court published in the yeare 1604. and therefore I leaue it to thee good Reader to consider in what a miserable state our poore country is where such men as these who as it seemeth haue no care eyther of their owne conscience or reputation haue neuertheles the care and charge of other mens soules 38. But to returne to M. Andrews who perhaps was one of that conuenticle though not as a Bishop yet as one of the Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury I would gladly know of him whether he and his Clergy in the Diocesse of Ely do vse the signe of the Crosse in the administration of Baptisme or not and if they do not let him tell vs how they obserue this Synodicall Canon made by his fellowes and authorized by his Maiesty and if they do obserue it let him shew vs some precept or example of it in Scripture seeing he resolutly affirmeth in the name of the whole English Church as it seemeth that they dare do that only whereof they haue a precept Therefore I say let him eyther shew vs some precept for it in Scripture or els confesse that he and his fellowes dare do more then is commanded therein 39. Finally if they may lawfully follow the primitiue and Apostolicall Churches and the iudgement of all the ancient fathers in matters though not commanded in Scripture yet consonant thereto as they professe to do in the foresayd Canon then they must also grant that it is in lyke manner lawfull for Catholykes to do the lyke for prayer to Saynts seeing that the same is conforme to the practice of the primitiue Church and to the beliefe of the ancient fathers and consequently to the holy Scriptures for otherwyse neyther would so many learned ancient and holy fathers haue approued it neyther yet the Church whose authority as S. Augustine sayth the Scripture recommendeth vnto vs would haue practised it I meane that visible Catholyke Church whereof S. Augustine did so constantly defend and mayntayne the authority agaynst the heretykes in his tyme that he pronounced them as you haue heard before to be most insolent mad men if they did but only doubt of any generall custome thereof 40. Whereupon I conclude that prayer to Saynts being generally approued and practised by the Church in S. Augustines tyme it must needs follow according to his rule that the vse and practice thereof is not only most lawfull and consonant to Scripture but also reuerently to be retayned and vsed by M. Andrews and his fellowes euen according to their owne profession in their Synodicall constitution seeing as I haue signified before they professe reuerently to retayne the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme though not commanded in Scripture because the same was vsed in the primitiue Church and is consonant to Scripture and to the Iudgement of all the ancient Fathers 41. And if he say that they professe in their Canon to follow the rules of doctrine concerning things that are at least indifferent that prayer to Saynts is neyther absolutly good nor yet indifferent but altogeather vnlawfull and consequently not to be vsed he is to vnderstand first that according to his owne rule and inference vpon the text of Deuteronomy he neyther doth nor can admit any thing that is not commanded in Scripture be it neuer so good For he sayth id tantúm audemus facere c. we dare do that only whereof we haue a precept and to that purpose he alledgeth also the text of Deuteronomy hoc tantùm facies quod tibi praecipio thou shalt do this only which I do command thee where you see the word tantùm as well in his assertion as in the text of Scripture excludeth all things whatsoeuer that are not commanded whereupon it followeth that the vse of the signe of the Crosse in baptisme is as well prohibited as prayer to Saynts if hee vnderstand that text of Deuteronomy aright and make a good inference thereon 42. Secondly it is not sufficient that he and his fellowes do hold the inuocation of Saynts to be vnlawfull but they must also proue it so to be or els they must grant the practice of it to be lawfull as of a thing at least indifferent vpon the same reason that they admit the â—igne of the Crosse in baptisme yea with farre greater reason seeing that as I haue already proued prayer to Saynts is not only good and lawfull but also most profitable and beneficiall to men whereas the Crosse in baptisme according to the doctrine of the foresayd Canon hath no vertue or power in it at all but is only an outward Ceremony and honorable badge of a Christian. So as M. Andrews cannot approue the vse thereof and exclude the practice of prayer to Saynts except he wil be so absurd to admit things indifferent and reiect a thing absolutly good and very necessary for euery Christian man for so I say he must needs confesse the inuocation of Saynts to be except he can ouerthrow the testimonies of all the ancient Fathers yea and the experience that the Church hath alwayes had of the soueraygne benefits that men reape thereby 43. Thirdly whereas he demandeth a precept in Scripture for prayer to Saynts he seemeth to grant it to be eyther good of it selfe or at least indifferent for if it were absolutly bad it were in vayne and absurd to demand a precept of it for that it could neuer be commanded so as eyther his demand in that behalfe is very idle and absurd or els he must acknowledge it at least to be indifferent and consequently that it is no lesse lawfull to vse it without a precept then the signe of the Crosse in
nothing is to be belieued or practiced in the Church whereof there is no cōmandment or example in Scripture which you haue heard already confuted as well by the authority of Scripture and Fathers as also by our aduersaryes owne doctrine approuing the practice of things not cōmanded any where in Scripture as the baptisme of infants the vse of the signe of the Crosse Godfathers and Godmothers in baptisme whereto I may add the tradition of keeping Sunday holy day in memory of the Resurrection of our Sauiour with abstinence from seruile works Also the obseruation of Easter Pentecost and such feasts and diuers other things consisting in matters of practice 56. If then they approue and practice these things although they be not commanded or ordeyned in Scripture what reason haue they to reiect prayer to Saynts because there is no commandement or example of it in Scripture when neuertheles it is most conforme thereto and deduced from it as I haue partly shewed already by an inafallible rule of S. Augustine seeing it is approued by that Church which the Scripture commandeth vs to heare belieue and obay besydes that it being euident in Scripture that Charity which moueth and obligeth men to pray one for another in this lyfe nunquam excidit as the Apostle teacheth neuer decayeth but is more perfect in the next lyfe it followeth not only that the Saynts do pray for vs which M. Andrews granteth but also that we may craue their prayers for it were most absurd to thinke that we may not request them to do that which is most correspondent to their Charity and they will most willingly performe 57. Furthermore seeing that the Scripture doth teach vs to craue the prayers and help of our brethren liuing there can be no reason imagined why we should not also do the same when they are glorifyed in heauen but eyther because they do not heare or vnderstand our prayers or because they are not willing or not able to helpe vs but that they heare vs I haue sufficiently proued already and haue also answered M. Andrews his cauils concerning the same and he neyther denyeth nor seemeth to doubt eyther that they are willing to succour vs considering the perfection of their Charity or yet that they are able to do it seeing he granteth they do pray for vs if he should deny it or that their prayers may auayle vs as Vigilantius his followers did in tymes past and Zuinglius with other sectaries haue done in these our dayes he might easily be conuinced by the holy Scriptures which witnesse that God granteth the petitions of his seruants euen when they are heere subiect to sinne and misery and hath mercy on sinners for the merits of the iust as well dead as liuing and therefore the Prophet prayed ne auferas misericordiam tuam c. do not take away thy mercy from vs O Lord for thy beloued Abraham and thy seruant Isaac and thy holy Israell And we read in the booke of Kings that for Dauids sake God did mitigate his wrath towards Salomon and saued also the Kingdome of Iuda from destruction in the reygne of Ioram and Ezechias 58. In lyke manner God pardoned Iobs friends for his sake and directed them vnto him to craue his prayers for them Also for the prayers of Moyses he had mercy on the people and the lyke we read in the new testament Whereupon S. Hierome sayd to Vigilantius thus Si Apostoli Martyres c. If the Apostles and Martyrs beeing heere in body could pray for others whiles they ought to be carefull for themselues how much more may they do it after their crounes victoryes and tryumphs one Moyses obtayned of God pardon for six hundred thousand armed men and Steuen the follower of his Lord and first Martyr in Christ craued pardon for his persecutours and shall they now be able to doe lesse when they are with Christ Paul the Apostle sayth that 276. mens liues were giuen him in the ship and therefore now when he is dissolued and with Christ will he hold his peace and shall he not be able so much as to open his mouth for those which haue belieued by his preaching throughout the world and shall Vigilantius a liuing dog be better then a dead lyon Thus argueth S. Hierome by an argument a fortiori grounded on the Scripture to shew the extreame absurdity of Vigilantius the heretike who denyed that the Saynts in heauen do pray for vs and are able to helpe vs. 59. And this ability of Saynts to helpe men is to be ascribed not only to the effect of their prayers but also to their power authority and dignity seeing that Christ who is the King of Kings Lord of Lords hath all power in heauen and earth giuen him by his Father doth in the Apocalips promise to his Saynts a communication and participation of his owne Kingdome dominion and power ouer men qui vicerit sayth he dabo sedere mecum c. he that shall ouercome I will giue vnto him to sit with me in my throne as I also haue ouercome and sitten with my father in his throne dabo ei potestatem super gentes c. I will giue him power ouer nations and he shall rule them c. and according to this promise of our Sauiour the Saynts also sayd to him in the Apocalips Redimisti nos Deo in sanguine tuo c. thou hast redeemed vs to God in thy blood and hast made vs to our God a Kingdome and Priests and we shall reygne vpon the earth and this may be confirmed out of the booke of wisdome which sayth that the iust when they shal be glorified iudicabunt Nationes dominabuntur populis c. shall iudge Nations and shall haue dominion ouer people and in like manner the Psalmist saith speaking of the glory of Gods Saynts exultabunt Sancti in gloria c. the Saynts shall exult and reioyce in glory c. they shall haue two edged swoords in their hands to take reuenge vpon nations and to chastise people to tye their Kings in fetters and their noble men in iron manicles c. Thus saith the royall Prophet 60. And albeit this shal be specially and most manifestly fulfilled at the day of Iudgement when the Saynts of God shall assist our Sauiour in the Iudgment and condemnation of the wicked yet it cannot be denyed but that also in the meane tyme it is verifyed in the power and dominion that God imparteth to his Saynts giuing them the protection of Cittyes Countryes and men as it appeareth euidently by innumerable examples which might be alledged of Kingdomes and Cytties defended Gods seruants relieued and his enemies destroyed by them for which cause the ancient Fathers do worthily call them the keepers of human kind gouernours of
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
the offence of the first man Adam which did truly and properly infect all his ofspring should be of greater force then the grace of the second man that is to say Christ which could not truly and properly purge or make cleane those that are borne againe in him Thus sayth the Cardinall who you see groundeth the force of his reason partly vpon the expresse words of the Creed and partly vpon a comparison of the offence of Adam and the grace of Christ shewing that if sinnes be not truly remitted the grace and merits of Christ shall not be so powerfull to clense vs from sinne as the fall of Adam was to infect vs therewith which cannot be said without extreme iniury to our Sauiour 34. And this is not the Cardinalls owne argument but taken from the Apostle himselfe and therefore being most important it deserued to be set downe and answered by M. Andrews who neuertheles doth not eyther alleadg it in his margent with the rest of the Cardinalls text or so much as mention it in his answere but maketh the Cardinall say only this Neque veram remissionem peccatorum c. Neyther can he belieue the true remission of sinnes which belieueth as the new Sectaries do that sinnes do allwaies remaine in man though he be iustified albeit they be not imputed Thus farre doth M. Andrewes alledge the Cardinalls text leauing out his arguments wherein consisteth the proofe of his assertion and insteed of answering the same he vrgeth an ordinary and stale obiection out of the Psalmist and the Apostle to the Romanes to proue that sinnes are not forgiuen but only discouered and not imputed 35. But this hath bene answered a hundreth tymes so fully that he may be ashamed to vrge the same still and not to take so much as knowledg of the answere though neuertheles Cardinall Bellarmine gaue him sufficient occasion to do it euen in this place remitting his Reader to his Controuersies as indeed he had great reason to do for that he hath there substantially and clearely proued the Catholike doctrine in this point and confuted all the aduersaries arguments and particulerly answered those obiections which M. Andrews bringeth heere concerning the couering of sinne and not imputing it which phrases and manner of speach the Cardinall teacheth to signify a full remission of sinne and this he proueth not only by solid arguments deduced out of the holy Scripture but also by the interpretation of the ancient Fathers as of S. Iustin the Martyr who liued within 150. yeares after Christ Origen S. Hierome S. Augustine and S. Gregory the Great all which expounding the same place of the Psalmist and the very words which M. Andrews obiecteth do teach that sinnes are said there to be couered and not imputed when they are fully remitted I forbeare to set downe the words of those Fathers for breuities â—ake remitting my Reader eyther to Cardinall Bellarmine who cyteth them more at large or rather to the Authors themselues whose doctrine in this point is so cleare that it may satisfy any reasonable man 36. And albeit I haue determined not to enter into any new debate of matters in Controuersy with M. Andrews in this my Conclusion but only to admonish him of his fraudes yet I cannot omitt vpon this occasion to desire thee good Reader to obserue in this matter a notable absurdity in him and his fellowes in that they flâ— heere to a coÌ„mon shift of theirs which is to find out some few obscure texts of Scripture to interprete thereby a great number of playne and euident places which might be exemplifâ—ed in many Controuersyes betwixt theÌ„ vs in this is most manifest For is there any thing in the holy Scriptures eyther more playne or frequent then the mention of true remission and abolition of sinne which is expressed there so many wayes and by such different manner of speaches that nothing can be added to make it more cleare as when the Prophet sayth If your sinnes shall be lyke scarlet they shall be made as whyte as snow The Iniquity of the people shall be taken away I am he who do wype or blott out thy sinnes for my owne sake I haue abolished thy iniquity lyke a cloud and thy sinnes as a mist. And in another Prophet I will powre out a cleane water vpon you and you shall be cleansed from all your filth And againe in another he will cast all your sinnes into the bottom of the sea And in the Prouerbes sinnes are purged by mercy â—aith Also in the Psalmist he hath made our iniquity to be as farre from vs as the East is from the west and againe his sinne shall be sought and shall not be found Whereto may be added the praiers of the Psalmist that it might please God to blot or wype out his iniquity to make him cleane and to wash him more and more that so he might be whyter then snowe 37. Also in the new testament the lyke manner of speaches are most frequent as that our Sauiour washed our sinnes in his bloud shall cleanse our consciences from dead workes make a purgation of sinnes purify out harts take away the sinnes of the world cancell our obligation of debt kill our enmities in himselfe exhaust or consume sinne and finally make vs holy immaculate and irreprehensible coram ipso before him or in his sight In all which you see the holy Ghost teacheth such a full and perfect remission and vtter abolition of sinne to our exceeding comfort that if a man should studie and deuise wordes and phrases to signify and perswade the same it were not possible to do it more effectually And yet all these places being so euident as you see must be vnderstood forsooth say our aduersaries of couering or hiding sinne or not imputing it because the Scripture somtymes vseth such manner of speaches though reason would that the more rare and obscure phrases should be expounded by the more frequent and cleare especially in this place of the Psalme alledged by M. Andrews which the Psalmist himselfe doth sufficiently explicate who hauing said Blessed is the man to whome God hath not imputed sinne addeth immediatly Nec est in Spiritu eius dolus Nor any deceipt is in his spirit or soule whereby he signifieth plainly that mans sinnes are then couered and not imputed when his soule is cleare or free from sinne 38. And now to returne to the Cardinals argument dissembled and omitted by M. Andrews the same doth notably confirme all this for that it inuincibly proueth a reall and inherent Iustification in vs consisting in a true remissioÌ„ of sinne a true sanctificatioÌ„ grouÌ„ded vpon the plenitude fullnes of Christs merits and the aboundance of grace which we receiue therby according to the expresse Doctrine of the Apostle saying Si
ancient and venerable vse of holy Reliques and the miraculous assistance and helpe that God giueth to his faithfull people thereby and by the praiers and Reliques of his holy Martyrs and Saints So that truly a man may wonder at the impudency and seared Conscience of M. Andrews who seeketh to delude his Reader with such a fraudulent and inexcusable abuse of this holy Father 68. But no wonder that he is so bould with the Fathers seeing that the Sacred authority of the holy Scriptures cānot suffice to free them from his fraud Wherein it seemeth he hath conspired with M. Barlow with whome he concurreth in the corruption and abuse of one and the selfe same place To which purpose I must desire the good Reader to call to mind what I debated with M. Barlow concerning this point in the sixt Chapter of my Supplement where I shewed euidently how he abused the holy Scripture in saying that God in his word appointed Kinges to be guardians of both the tables to command and prohibit in matters of Religion for which he quoted in his margēt the 17. of Deuteronomy and 18. verse where no such thing is to be found but rather the cleane contrary is to be inferred thereon as I amply declared in the foresaid Chapter and now M. Andrews hauing occasion to treat of the antiquitie of the spiritual primacy of temporall Kings draweth it partly from the same place deducing it euen from Moyses who when he deliuered saith he the Copie of the law to the King cum eo sic tradito summam religionis quae prima summaque legis pars est custodiendae custodiri faciendae potestatem tradidit gaue togeather with it the chief power to keepe Religion and cause it to be kept which Religion is the first and chiefe parte of the lawe Thus saith M. Andrews though he quot no place yet he must eyther ground this his assertion vpon the same place of Deuteronomy which M. Barlow alleadgeth or els he shall finde it no where for it was ordeyned only there no where els that the King should haue a Copie of the lawe 69. Wherein neuerthelesse that is to be noted by the way that Moyses did not there or any where els giue a Copie of the lawe to any King for there were no Kinges of the people of Israell for 4. hundred yeares after Moyses but God ordeyned by Moyses in 17. of Deuteronomy that the future King should take a Copie of the law from the Priest of the Tribe of Leui and haue the same with him and read it all the daies of his lyfe But what Will M. Andrews say that the King was made hereby supreame head or gouernor of the Church in Ecclesiasticall causes or to vse his owne manner of speach that the Cheif or supreame power to keepe Religion and cause it to be kept was giuen him hereby Truly the wordes immediatly following do shew another reason why the King should haue the Copy of the law to wit vt discat c. to the end he may learne to feare his Lord God and keepe his word and ceremonies commanded in the law That is to say he should haue it for his owne priuat vse and instruction that he might punctually obserue it all the dayes of his lyfe to which purpose I am sure M. Andrews will allow euery man and woman to haue a Copy of it as well as the King How then was sūma potestas the supreme power wherof he speaketh giuen hereby to the King more then to any other man or woman 70. But if wee cōsider what was expressely ordeyned a litle before in the same Chapter touching the supreme authority of the high Priest and that the future King was presētly after cōmanded to keepe exactly the whole law of God wherof the ordinance touching the obediēce to the high Priest was a principall part yea to take a Copie of the law of the Priests who kept the originall therefor as I argued against M. Barlow were the true Gardiās of the law not the King who had but the Copy if wee weigh withall that he was to learne of them also the sense interpretation of the law because they only not the King had authority to teach interpret it and to resolue all doubts difficulties which should occurre therein as I proued clearly out of the Scriptures in the first Chapter of my Supplement if all this I say be well considered it may be wondred with what face M. Barlow and M. Andrews could inferre any spirituall supremacy of the King vpon this place which doth in truth proue their subiection in matters of Religion to Priests and specially to the high Priest So as it is euident that M. Andrews hath no lesse shamefully abused the holy Scriptures in this point then M. Barlow in so much that it is hard to say whether of them is more shameles especially seeing that they both do also exceed in a prodigious kind of impudency wherin I thought no man could haue matched M. Barlow vntill I had read M. Andrews I meane in facing and bragging out a bad matter when arguments and proofs are to weake whereof I gaue some Instances in M. Barlow and will now do the lyke in M. Andrews 71. Thou maist remember good Reader what poore stuffe he produced to proue that S. Peter had nothing peculiar to himselfe by his pastorall Cōmission and how he triumphed in two or three paragraphes as though he had trodden the Cardinall vnder his feet yea and bragged also afterwardes in another place saying Clariùs id loquuntur Ambrosius Augustinus quà m vt obstrepere possint nostri nouitij Ambrose and Augustine do speake or affirme it more clearly then that our nouices meaning the Catholiks are able any way to contradict it When neuerthelesse to make good his idle cōceipt he was faine to vse great fraud and corruption in the allegation of those two Fathers corrupting the text of S. Ambrose dissembling the circumstances of the place in S. Augustine which clearely proueth the Primacy of S. Peter as I haue amply declared in the first Chapter of this Adioynder so that his braggs and vaunts had no other ground but his owne vanity corruption and falsity 72. The lyke may be noted also in his vayne insultations against the Cardinall about the Councell of Chalcedon For when he himselfe had shamefully abused peruerted and mangled the 28. Canon as I haue clearly shewed in the second Chapter of this Adioinder he admonisheth the Cardinall seriously not to produce his proofes tamquam è vepreculis as it were out of the bryers not out of the superscriptions of letters or of some corner of a period or perhaps some peece of a tytle or fragment of a litle clause but to bring out some Canon for that the Canons are the voyce of the Councells As though forsooth he had beaten downe
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