who are said in the Scriptures to haue adored Angells and men their case I say is hardâ— if there be no way to saue them from Idolatry but by an absurd Catachresis neuer dream't of by any but by Andrewsâ— For I think no man would be so absurd to imagin a Catachresis where there is no want of proper words especially so often as adoration is vsed for the worship of Angells men not only in the Fathers but also in the holy Scriptures Where I â—are vndertake to shew it in that sense aboue 40. tymes for I haue taken paynes to search it which I hope may suffice to teach Mâ— Andrews that it doth not signify diuine honor only that the ancient Fathersâ— we who vse it sometymes in other sense haue sufficient warrant for it from the Scripture it selfe and finally that there is no other Catachresis I meane no other abuse in all this matter but in M. Andrews his corrupt Conscience who maketh no scruple to abuse and delude his Reader with such shifts and deuises to bolster out his bad cause Thus much for his first reason 21. His second reason why adorare is taken figuratiuely in that place of S. Hierome is thisâ— Vbi vero saith he propriè ei loquendum erat c. For when S. Hierome was to speake properly to wit to Vigilantius his aduersary who pressed him strictly and would not suffer him to speake at large then he denyeth it earnestly saying Nos autem non dico Martyrum reliquias c. We do not worship and adore I do not say the Reliques of Martyrs but neyther the Sunne nor the Moone nor the Angells nor the Cherubim nor the Seraphim Thus saith M. Andrews out of S. Hierome ending his citation there because that which followeth would marre all his market as you shall see after a while and in the meane tyme he concludeth thus What I pray you will the Cardinall say here seeing that the old Fathers of the Church do crie out we do not adore the reliques of Martyrs heere the Cardinall is held so fast that he cannot slip away Thus triumpheth M. Andrews before the victory or rather hauing lost the victory being himselfe a Captiue and hauing no other remedy left him but to brag and face out the matter 22. For thou shalt vnderstand good Reader that S. Hierome here speaketh as the Logicians say ad hominem that is to say according to the sense and meaning of his aduersary Vigilantius one of M. Andrews his worthy progenitours who impugning the adoration of reliques in the same sense that M. Andrews doth held it for no other then Idolatry as S. Hierome testifieth in the same Epistle to Riparius which M. Andrews alledgeth Ais saith S. Hierome Vigilantius c. you say that Vigilantius as we may say M. Andews openeth againe his stinking mouth and casteth forth a most filthy sauour against the Reliques of holy Martyrs and calleth vs who reuerence them and worship the bones of the dead Cinerarios Idololatras worshipers of Ashes Idolators So he And in his tract against Vigilantius himselfe he setteth downe Vigilantius his owne words thus Quid nâ—cesse est c. What need hast thou not only to honour with so greate honour but also to adore that I knowe not what which thou worshipest carrying it in a litle vessell from place to place and why doest thou kisse and adore dust lapt in a linnen cloth And againe a litle after We see you according to the custome of the Gentils c. euery where kisse and adore I knowe not what litle dust carried in a litle vssell and lapt in a precious linnen cloth Thus wrote Vigilantius 23. Whereby you see how he charged the Catholicks of those daies with flat Idolatry for worshipping or adoring the Reliques of Saynts taking adoration for worship due to God alone in which respect he calleth the Catholicks Idolators And therefore S. Hierome answering him in the same sense saith that which M. Andrews alleadgeth to wit non adoramus reliquias Martyrum c. We do not adore the reliques of Martyrs that is to say we do not giue diuine honor to the reliques of Martyrs committing Idolatry as Vigilantius chargeth vs But honoramus saith he presently afterwards reliquias Martyrum vt eum cuius sunt Martyris adoremus c. We honor the Reliques of Martyrs that we may adore or yield diuine honor to him whose Martyres they are Honoramus serous c. We honour the seruants to the end that their honor may redound to the honour of their Lord who said he which receiueth you receiueth me Thus saith S. Hierome which M. Andrews thought good to dissemble as if he had not seeme it for that it fully explicateth the state of the questioÌ„ betwixt S. Hierome Vigilantius as also betwixt M. Andrews vs cleareth all the matter For who seeth not heere that albeit S. Hierome denyeth the adoration of Reliques in the sense that Vigilantius obicted it as we also do to wit as signifying a diuine honor yet he approueth and teacheth it in the sense of Catholiks that is as adoration signifieth a veneration and worship done to Saynts for the honor of God who is honored glorified thereby 24. To which purpose two things are to be noted in this matter the one that whereas Vigilantius chargeth the Catholicks to adore and kisse euery where the Râ—liques of Martyrs he shewed sufficiently that the custome of the faithfull was at that tyme to do corporall reuerence thereto not only by kissing them but also by inclyning or bowing downe the body which the word adoration signifieth and S. Hierome denyeth not though he denyeth the inference of Idolatry that Vigilantius made thereon 25. The other is that as Vigilantius did not herein reproue the particuler custome of some particuler men but the practice of the whole Church at that tyme so also S. Hierome did not impugne him only with priuate reasons and arguments of his owne but also with publick examples as of the publick translation of the holy Reliques of S. Andrew S. Luke and S. Timothy to Constantinople by Constantin the Emperour apud quas saith he Daemones rugiunt c. at which reliques Diuells do rore and the inhabitors and prossessors of Vigilantius do confesse that they feele their presence So he And then produceth also another example that had passed not long before of a most solemne translation of the Reliques of Samuel the Prophet from Iudaea to Chalcedon in Thracia which were sumptuously and triumphantly carried by Bishops in a goulden vessell and met receiued and accompanied by the people of all the Churches by the way in so much that there were saith S. Hierome continuall swarmes of people euen from Palestina to Chalcedon sounding forth the praise of Christ with one voice all a long as they went whereupon he asketh Vigilantius whether
Catholik who taught or thought that the bare SacrameÌ„t in the Eucharist I meane the exteriour forme is to be adored without Christs presence or in respect of it selfe And this may suffice for this point 10. I may adde the lyke concerning another point wherein M. Andrewes chargeth the Cardinall to change the state of the question I meane touching the reuerence and honor that is and allwayes hath byn done in the Catholik Church to the holy reliques of Saynts For whereas the Apology for the Oath condemneth it for a new and false yea an abhominable doctrine and the Cardinall in his answere thereto so amply and euidently proueth it out of the Ancient Fathers that it cannot be denyed M. Andrews hath no other refuge but to take hould of the word Adoration vsed by the Apology vnderstanding it for worship due to God alone and exacting of the Cardinall some proofe that such adoration is due to reliques as though Catholiks were of that opinon wheras nether the Cardinall nor any other Catholike doth apply that word to reliques in that sense but vse it for reuerence and veneration due to holy men or holy things as the Cardinall himselfe signifieth in plaine and expresse words So that if the said Apology do impugne the adoration of Reliques in the other sense meaning the exhibition of diuine honour thereunto it doth not any way impugne our doctrine but changeth the state of the question as well as M. Andrewes though so absurdly as he who doth not only vnderstand the Adoration of Reliques to signify a diuine honor done vnto them but also will needs proue no adoration of creatures is lawfull 11. To which purpose he alledgeth the example of the Angell in the Apocalyps who when Saynt Iohn the Euangelist would haue adored him twice forbad him to do it at both tymes saying Vide ne feceris Deum adora See that thou doest it not adore God Whereupon he inferreth that seeing S. Iohn could not be ignorant especially the second tyme that the Angell was not God and yet would haue adored him it followeth that he I meane S. Iohn did not intend to adore him with adoration due to God alone but with such saith M. Andrews as the Cardinall supposeth may be vsed to Angells holy men or sacred thinges and yet neuerthelesse the Angell would not permit it and therefore in M. Andrews his opinion no such adoration is lawfull for Nec est saith he Angelorum ratio alia alia Sanctorum c. For in this there is no difference betwixt the adoration of Angells and of Saynts of holy menâ— neyther is there more respect to be had to reliques theÌ„ to those whose reliques they are So he Not admitting as you â—ee any adoration of Angells or Saynts though it be not meant thereby to exhibit diuine honour vnto them but only to do an act of veneratioÌ„ reuereÌ„ce or religioê° worship and why Many forsooth because the Angell would not suffer S. Iohn the Apostle to adore him in that maÌ„ner 12. Wherein two thinges are to be noted the one what a poore conceipt M. Andrews hath of S. Iohn whome he maketh to be so ignorant that he knew not whether such adoration were lawfull or no vntill the Angell did instruct him and forbad him to vse it The other that he reasoneth as substantially as if he should say that if a holy man should of modesty and humility refuse some extraordinary honour offred vnto him by some other holy person and byd him not to do it to him but to God hee must needs meane that no such kind of reuerence or honor may be done to men for such no doubt was the case betwixt S. Iohn and the Angell eyther of them shewing their humility and the respect they bare the one to the other S. Iohn reuerencing the Angell as a Celestiall creature to whome he held himselfe much inferiour and the Angell bearing much respect and reuerence to S. Iohn as to the most worthy and beloued Apostle of Christ who was Lord and maister to them both and therefore acknowledging himselfe to be no other but conseruum as he said a fellow seruant of S. Iohn he would not permit him to do him that honor but bad him do it to God besides that S. Gregory the great Beda Anselmus Richardus de S. Victore and Rupertus do giue also another reason thereof to wit that the Angell bare respect euen to humane nature in regard of the humanity of our Sauiour Hinc est saith S. Gregory quòd Lot Iosue Angelos ipsis non prohibentibus c. For this cause Lot and Iosue adored Angells and were not forbidden by them but 〈◊〉 in the Apocalips meaning to adore an Angell was by him forbidden to do it So he signifying how much the Angells respected humane nature after the Incarnation of our Sauiour more then before 13. But for the further satisfaction and instruction of the vnlearned reader in this point he is to vnderstand that there are three kindes of adoration specified in the holy Scripture The first is that which is due to God alone and is called by Deuines Adoratio Latriae that is to say an adoration or exteriour worship exhibited by some corporall reuerence and submission to acknowledge our duety and seruice to God as he is our Creatour Conseruatour and Chiefe good and this adoration is so due proper vnto God alone that it is Idolatry to exhibit the same vnto any Creature Of this kind the Scripture speaketh when it saith Dominum Deum tuum adorabis illi soli seruies Thou shalt adore thy Lord God and serue him alone Also Non adorabis ea neque coles Thou shalt not adore nor worship them that is to say Idolls Non adorabis Deos eorum Thou shalt not adore â—heir Gods Adorauit Irael Dominum Israell adored our Lord. Gedeon adorauit reuersus est Gedeon adored and returned Veri adoratores adorabunt patrem in spiritu veritate The true Adorers or worshipers shall adore my Father in spirit and truth And the lyke occurreth in infinite other places as well of the new as the old testament 14â— The second kind of adoration though it be inferiour to this yet is also an act of Religion exhibited in like manner exteriourly to Angells Saynts or holy men as to the seruants of God and for the honor and loue of him of which kind many examples are set downe in holy Scriptures as of Abraham Loâ— and Balaam who adored Angells prostrate vpon the ground And of Iosue who fell downe prostrate before an Angell adorans ait quid Dominus meus c. And adoring said why doth my Lord speake vnto his seruant And so far was the Angell from reprehending him that he made him do more reuerenâ—e commanding him to put of his shooes because the place was holy wherein he stood which place no
he tooke Arcadius the Emperour who caused this to be done and all the Bishops which caried these reliques and all the multitude of people which accompanied them for sacrilegious persons and fooles and finally concludeth deryding his folly Videlicet saith he adorabant Samuelem non Christum cuius Samuel Leuita Propheta fuit Belike they adored Samuel and not Christ whose Leuite and Prophet Samuel was This saith S. Hierome shewing the absurdity of Vigilantius who did thinke that Christ was not adored in all this but only Samuel Whereas all the reuerence honor adoration vsed by those Bishops and people to the Reliques of Samuel was indeed done to Christ because as S. Hierome said before seruorum honos redundat ad Dominum The honor of the seruants redoundeth to their Lord. 26. So that S. Hierome doth not deny that holy reliques may be adored in any other sense then as M. Andrewes following his progenitor Vigilantius will needs vnderstand the word adoration that is for a diuine Cult and worship in which sense neyther S. Hierome nor the Catholiks in his tyme nor we now do vse or take it when it is applied to holy things but only for a deuout and religious veneration as S. Hierome himselfe doth also vse it not only in the place before cited by the Cardinall touching the adoratioÌ„ of the ashes of S. Iohn and other Prophets but also when he said of himselfe Praesepe Domini incunabula adoraui I adored the manger and cradle of Christ and againe expounding that verse of the Psalme adorate scabellum pedum eius adore the Foot-stole of his Feet he taketh the Foot-stoole to be the Crosse giuing thereby to vnderstand that the Crosse is to be adored And therefore I leaue it to thee good Reader to iudge what a vaine vaunt it was of M. Andrews to say vpon the former place of S. Hierome Tenetur hic Cardinalis vt elabi non possit hecre the Cardinall is taken and held so fast that he cannot slip away Whereas you see that the whole place and the circumstances being laied downe with the state of the question betwixt Vigilantius and S. Hierome all which he craftily concealed he is caught himselfe lyke a mouse in a trappe in such sort that he shall neuer be able to get out with his credit 27. But yet there remaineth a word or two more to be said of this matter to a place of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose which he also obiecteth to the same purpose For whereas those two Fathers interpreting the wordes of the psalme adorate scabellum pedum eius Adore yee the Foot-stoole of his Feete do expound the foot-stoole to be the body of our Sauiour in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist teaching that the same is there to be adored M. Andrews saith that if adorare might be taken properly to adore holy thinges they would neuer haue troubled themselues so much to find out how the Footstool of God might be adored neyther would they haue determined that it could not be adored but in the body of Christ Whereto I answere firstâ— that they do not expound the same litterally but mystically for scabellum Dei the Foot-stoole of God in that place is litterally to be vnderstood of the Arke of the TestameÌ„t as the Cardinal hath proued by many notable reasoÌ„â— authorityâ— in his CoÌ„trouersys wherto I remit M. Andrews because I will not detayne my reader too long vpon this point 28. Secondly I say that albeit they vnderstood adoration in that place for diuine honour yet they do not deny but that it is and well may be taken in other places for a religious worship done to holy men for S. Augustine himselfe teacheth expressely in his booke de Ciuitate Dei that there is no one word in Latin that so properly signifieth diuine honor or worship but it is and may be applied to creatures except Latria which is borrowed of the Greeks and applyed eyther alwayes sayth S. Augustine or almost allwayes to the seruice of God rather by custome and vse then by the nature of the word properly signifying seruitus seruice For which cause hauing in his questions vpon Genesis demanded how Abraham could lawfully adore the Children of Heth seeing the Scripture sayth Dominum Deum tuum adorabis illi soli seruies Thou shalt adore thy Lord God and serue him alone he answereth that it is not said there Deum solum adorabis Thou shalt adore God alone but illi soli seruies thou shalt serue him alone and noteth also that for the word seruies in Latine the Greeke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence is deriued Latria So that it is euident by S. Augustine himselfe that neyther adorare nor any other Latine word doth properly signify to worship God only and that adoratio when it is not taken for cultus Latriae as he taketh it in the exposition of Adorate scabellum c. may be applyed to creatures and therefore he himsefe not only vnderstandeth adoratioÌ„ for ciuil worship in the foresaid example of Abraham but also vseth it els where for religious worship due to holy men saying of S. Peter Beaâ—issimum Petrum piscatorom c. The multitude of faithfull people doth now adore the most Blessed Peter the Fisherâ— genibus prouolutis vpon their knees 29. S. Ambrose also made no doubt to apply it to the veneration and worship of holy things who speaking of the Nayle of Christs Crosse which Queene Helen caused to be set in the Diadem of the Emperour Constantin her sonne sayd that she did wysely therein vt Crux Christi adoretur in regibus that the Crosse of Christ may be adored in Kings and to shew that he spake of religious worship adoration not of ciuill honour due to kings he addeth immediatly non insolentia ista sed pietas est cùm defertur sacrae redemptioni This is not insolency but piety when 〈◊〉 it is referred to our holy Redemption wherein I wish it â—o be noted by the way that M. Andrewes may learne hereby how impertinently he answereth els where to this place alledged by Cardinall Bellarmine for whereas the Cardinall to proue the religious adoration of reliques and images obiecteth out of S. Ambrose this very place to wit that Queene Helen did well and wisely cause the Crosse to be set vpon the head of Kings to the end that the Crosse of Christ may be adored in Kings M. Andrews answereth that if the Crosse be adored in Kings noÌ„ aliter adoratur c. it is not otherwyse adored then the Kings themsâ—lues is autem ciuilis honos est non religiosus but this is a ciuil and not religious honour So he but you see heere that the adoration whereof S. Ambrose speaketh is not due or giuen to the Kings themselues but referred to our redemption that is to say to the Passion of Christ and therefore
and Saynts are present amongst men per diuinam potentiam by the diuine power 63. And to shew this the Cardinall alledgeth these wordes out of the said treatise of S. Augustine non ideo putandum est c. It is not therefore to be thought that euery one of the dead may be present at the affaires of men because the Martyrs are present in healing and helping some men but rather it is to be vnderstood that because the dead caÌ„not be present amongst men by their owne nature therefore the Martyrs are present at mens affaires by the diuine power Thus saith S. Augustine where you see he distinguisheth betwixt naturall and supernaturall meanes and betwixt the glorified Saynts of God for such are the Martyrs of whome he speaketh and other dead men granting that the Marâ—yrs do that by supernaturall and diuine meanes which other dead men cannot naturally do and this is the same in effect that all Catholikes hould concerning the knowledge that the glorified Saynts haue of things don in earth to wit that they do not know the same naturally but by supernaturall meanes whether they see it in seeing the diuine essence or know it otherwise by reuelation so as thereby it is manifest that M. Andrewes hath notably abused both S. Augustine and the Cardinall S. Augustine in making him to affirme of glorified Saynts that which he spake of other dead men as if he made no difference betweene the supernaturall knowledge and power of the one and the naturall of the other which he euidently distinguisheth Also he abuseth the Cardinall in taking hould of his obiection and dissembling his solution which is one of the most grosse and palpable frauds or rather fooleries that may be imagined in this kind 64. Furthermore whereas the Cardinall produceth the euident and cleere testimony of S. Augustine to proue that many Miracles were done by the Reliques of S. Stephen in Affrick M. Andrews wisheth the Cardinall to consider how he can well and handsomly reconcile Augustine with Augustine concerning those Miracles and his reason is because Augustine saith in an Epistle to his Cleargie and all the people of Hippo nusquam hic in Africa tâ—lia fieri se scire he knew that such things were not don any where in Africk which I beseech thee good Reader to note and thou shalt euidently see the good Conscience of M. Andrews who abuseth S. Augustine notably two wayes the one in making him seeme to contradict himselfe most manifestly yea and to giue himselfe as it were the lye witnessing in one place matters of fact vpon his owne knowledge for so he testifieth those Miracles don by S. Stephens reliques and in another place affirming that he knewe the same to be false for so must it needes be if he knewe that such thinges were not done any where in Africk The other abuse is in that he peruerteth the sense of S. Augustins Epistle as it will easely appeare if we consider the occasion why S. Augustine wrote the same which therefore I think good here to relate 65. A Scandalous quarrell being fallen out betwixt a Chaplaine of S. Augustin and a yong man concerning an infamous calumniation raysed by the yong man against the Preist whereof the truth could not be tried or knowne because the matter depended wholly vpon their owne oathes and testimonyes S. Augustin aduised them to goe to Nola in Italy to the body of S. Felix where it pleased God ordinarily in like cases to discouer periuries by the miraculous punishment of the periured person and of this he thought good afterwards to giue account vnto his Cleargie and People for their satisfaction which he did by the Epistle that M. Andrews citeth wherein discoursing by the occasion of this matter why Almighty God doth such Miracles in some places and not in others he saith Multis notissima est sanctitas loci c. Many do verie well knowe the holynes of the place where lyeth the bodie of Blessed Felix of Nola whither I ordeyned them to go because from thence I might more easely and truly vnderstand by letters whatsoeuer that should please God to manifest in either of them So he and then hauing added that also in Millan a periured theefe was discouered miraculously at the Monuments of certaine Saints and forced to restore that which he had stolne he saith further thus numquid non Africa c. Is not Affrick full of the bodies of holy Martyrs tamen nusquam hic scimus talia fieri c. And neuerthelesse we know that such things that is to say Miracles in this kind are not don any where here in Africk For euen as the Apostle sayth that all holy men haue not the guifts of healing so also he who diuideth things proper or peculiar to euery one as it pleaseth him would not haue these things to be done at all the memories or monuments of Saynts Thus sayth S. Augustine 66. Whereby I doubt not but thou seest good Reader in what sense he denieth Miracles to haue byn done in Affrick that is to say such Miracles as were done at the body of S. Felix for the discouery and punishment of periury and not such as he testifieth els where to haue byn ordinarily don at the Reliques of S. Stephen whereof he recounteth such a multitude with such asseueration of his owne knowledge therof and publique testymony of an infinite number of witnesses and such particular relation of circumstances tymes and places that a man must hould him for the most impudent lyar that euer wrote if they were not most true Besides that writing the same as he did for the proofe of Christian Religion against Pagans and Infidells it cannot without extreme folly be imagined that such a learned wise and holy man as he would be so prodigall not only of his owne credit and reputation but also of the honour of ChristiaÌ„ ReligioÌ„ as to expose the same to the derision of the Paynims by seking to confirme it by fables and lyes which euery man in those parts as well the Paynimes themselues as others might haue coÌ„trolled and would haue derided if they had byn fained 67. Finally these miracles of S. Stephen which M. Andrewes calleth here in question are testified by S. Augustine in that worke which M. Andrewes himselfe so much esteemeth els where that alledging out of it a sentence which he thought might make for him he calleth it opus palmare de ciuitate Dei the principall or most excellent worke of Augustine of the citty of God And yet now he would faine disgrace it or rather S. Augustine himselfe by the imputation of a contradiction which he would the Reader should suppose to be betwixt it and the foresaid Epistle of S. Augustine whereas you see and M. Andrews knoweth it in his owne conscience that there is no contradiction in the world betwixt them but that both of them do notably and clearly testifie the