in 2. Thes. 2. (c) Haer. 61 (d) Lib. de Spiritu Sanct. cap. 29. (e) Lib. 4. de fide ca. 17 (f) in 2. Thes. 2. (g) Act. Vlt. can 1. S. Augustines golden rule (d) S. Aug. de Baptis contra Donat l. 2. ca. 7. li. 4. c. 6. Ibid cap. 24. li. 5. ca. 23. Idem ep 118. See chap. 7. nu 49. M. Andrews according to S. Augustins censure is an insolent mad man Andr. p. 38. §. Atque S. Aug li de vnit Eccl. ca. 22. vel 19. in some edâ—tions Idem contra Crescon lib. 1. cap. 33. M. Andrews and his fellowes do admit diuers traditions without any exâ—presse precept or example thereof in Scripture Origen lib. 5. in cap. 6. ad Rom. S. Aug. de Gen. ad lit li. 10. c. 23. Idem lib. 4. de Baptis conâ—ra Donatist cap. 24. See the faith doctrine c. printed an Do. 1607. by Iohn Legat in Cambridg pag. 1â—5 art 27. §. The Baptisme p. 168. §. Althoughâ— See constitutions Ecclesiast printed at London by Barker an 1604 can 30. A notable trumpery of the pretended Bishops in their Ecclesiastical Constitutions Ibidem D. Tho. 3. par q 66. Greg. de Valent. disput 4. q. 1. Nauar. in Manu cap. 22. nu 6. Bellar. de Sacra Baptis lib. 1. cap. 25. Nauar. in Manuall cap. 22 nu 6. The pretended Biâ—shops conuinced of fraud by his Maiestyes testimony See the SuÌ„me of the Conference pag. â—7 §. Thirdly printed an 1604. Conference of Hampton Court coÌ„trary to the Constitutions and the same Bishops to them selues The miserable state of England where such Pastors haue the charge of soules M. Andrews transgresseth eyther the Synodical Canon of the English Clergy or his owne rule See supra nu â—4 Andr. p. 37. §. VeruÌ„â— Prayer to Saynts no lesse conforme to the practice of the primitiue Church then the vse of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme S. Aug. li. de vnit Eccl. c. 1â— contra Crescon lib. 1. c. 31. Idem ep 118. M. Andrews still hardly pressed with his owne rule and inference vpoÌ„ the text of Deuteronomy Prayer to Saynts ought rather to be admitted then the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme according to the Synodicall Canon of the English Clergy M. Andrews eyther idly demandeth a precept in Scripture for prayer to Saynts or els he must grant it to be as lawfull as the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme 1. Tim. 2. 1. Ioan. 2. What places and how fit to the purpose the ProtestaÌ„ts alleadge out of the Scriptures agaynst praying to Saynts Matth. 11. The absurdity of our aduersaries arguments against the inuocatioÌ„ of Saynts Andr. cap. 8. pag. 179. lin 29. A very seely and simple discourse of M. Andrews against praying to Saynts S. Aug coÌ„â—â—ra ep Parmen lib. 2. cap. 8. M. Andrews serious in tryfling His argument and whole discourse reâ—torted vpoÌ„ himselfe impugâ—ning our mutuall prayers one for another M. Andrews his argumeÌ„ts do as directly-ouerthrow that which he himselfe approueth aâ— that which he impugneth How it iâ— to be vnderstood that Christ is our only mediatour and aduocat 1. Tim. â—â— 1. Ioan. 2. Hebr. 7. The meaning of S. Augustine peruerted by M. Andrews is truly explicated S. Aug. li. 2. coâ—tra ep Parmemanica 8â— 1. Ioan. 2. How S. Augustine denyeth that men may be mediators one for another Neyther men nor Saynts or Angels do obteyn any thing of God but by the mediation and meriâ—s of Iesus Christ. M. Andrews prodigall of his rhetorik An absurd shift and euasion of our aduersaries vrged against theÌ„ Iac. 5. The Scripture should coÌ„tradict it selfe if Christ were our only mediator in the sense that our aduersaries do take it (c) Supra â—u 25.26 seq (d) Supra nu 33. seq (e) S. Hieron aduers. Vigilant S. Aug. ep 119. lib. 22. de ciuit cap. 30. S. Greg. lib. 11. ep 3. How prayer to Saynts is conforme to Scripture and deduced from it (h) See chap. 7. nu 48. supra hoc cap nu 31. (k) Luc. 10â— Matth. 18. (l) 1. Cor. 1â— If our brethren on earth may pray for vs and we by warrant of the Scriptures coÌ„mend our selues to their prayers why may we not do the like vnto Saynts See suprad nu 12. ad nu 24. Vide coccium To. 1. lib 5. art 4. de Sanctis (c) See supra nu 22. Dan. 3. â— Reg. 11. 2. Paral. 21. 4. Reg 19. Iob. 42. Exod. 32. S. Hieron aduers. Vigilantium Exod. 32. Act. 7. Ibid. ca. 27. Apoc. 1â— Matth. 28. Saynts able to help vs by the participation of Christs power Apoc. 3. Ibid. 2. Ibid. 1. 5. Sap. 3â— Psal. 14â— Matth. 19. Luc. â—2 Saynts protectors of men Cittyes CouÌ„tryes See before nu 18. 19. The 1. part of the Treatise of Policy religion chap. 15. nu 12.13.14.15.16.17.18 27. Item 2 par chap. 24. nu 31. Apoc. 5. See sup nu â—2 Two foolish exceptions taken by M. Andrews to the Cardinalls allegation of the ancient Fathers Andr. pag 35. §. de qua dringentis M. Andrews wrongeth his Maiesty The vniforme consent of the Fathers of the 4. or 5. age must needs be taken for an euideÌ„t testimony of the truth Some one Father of the 4. and 5. age hath written more then all the Fathers of the 3. precedent ages It is not possible that all the Doctors Pastors of the Church can erre in any thing at any tyme and why Matth. 28. Ibid. 16. Ephes. 4. Pastors and Doctors ordayned by Christ in his Church to preserue it from errour vnto the worlds end If all the Doctors of the Church could erre at any tyme the remedy were not effectuall which God hath ordayned to preserue his Church from errour by them See sup chap. 4. nu 36.37.38 If these Fathers cannot be heard or credited what other Fathers will he desire See chap. â— nu 28. 66. Andr. pag. 6. §. Tum The vniforme coÌ„sent of a few Father 's not contradicted by the rest must needs be taken for a genrall consent of the Church iâ— their tyme. See supra nu 33. M. Andrwes confuted by an example of his owne fellowes S Augustine against Iulian the Pelagian contented himselfe with the testimoâ—nyes of six Fathers S. Aug. lib. 1. contra Iulian. cap. 2. Deut. 17. Andr. vbi supra Another vayn euasion of M. Andrews answered Bellar. de beatit Sanct. lib. 1. cap. 20. Cardinall Bellarmine abused by M. Andrews (c) See supra nu 12.13.14.15 16. M Andrews presumed to erre not of ignorance but of malice S. Aug. aduers. Iulian Pela lib. 2. in Epilogo Saynt Augustins words to a Pelagian heretike fitly applyed to M. Andrews Certayne trifeling obiections of M. Andrews out of Origen S. Cyril S. Athanasius (c) Nazianz oratio 1. in Iulian. (d) S. Aug. de ciuita Dei lib. 22. cap. 10. (e) Theodoret de Graecor affect curat cap. 8. (d) See chap. 7. nu 35.36
how substantially he argueth inferring that the matter and substance of the oration is vncertayne because it is doubtfull of which Cyprian the oration was made whereas neuertheles he cannot with any reason deny but that the oration is S. Gregory Nazianzens whereupon it must needs follow that albeit Nazianzen should be deceiued and erre in the history or the persons of whome he speaketh yet the substance as well of the story as of the doctrine coÌ„tayned in that oration was true in his conceipt and therfore may serue for an assured testimony of his beliefe of the practise of the Church in his tyme which is the only poynt now in question and therefore seeing that he not only prayed to a Saynt himselfe but also signifyed that a holy Virgin did the lyke it is cleare that both he himâ—elfe and also the faythfull people in those dayes held it to be lawfull and practised it as occasion requyred 61. And whereas M. Andrewes addeth concerning the latter poynt to wit the prayer of the mayd that it was but a fact of a mayd and then asketh whether the fact of a mayd is a statute of the Church and whether a rule of fayth is to be grounded vpon a mayds act I haue sufficiently answered him already touching the statutes decrees of the Church concerning this point and now tell him agayne that there was neyther at that tyme any need of statutes for prayer to Saynts which then was euery where in practise neyther iâ— iâ— now in question what the Church decreed then touching the same but what was then generally practised and belieued which cannot be better and more clearely proued by any testimonyes of the Fathers then by such as witnesse not only their owne facts but also the practise of other Christians eyther in their dayes or els in former tymes as this was which S. Gregory affirmeth of that holy mayd 62. But will you now heare how well M. Andrewes concludeth all this matter forsooth he maketh an obiection against himselfe saying in a different letter as if the obiection were the Cardinalls sed factum non reprehenditur but this fact of the mayd is not reprehended by S. Gregory Nazianzen and then he addeth answering to his owne obiection Immò idem illud c. yea but Epiphanius sharpely reprehended the selfe same in the same age in the Collyridian heretykes when it was done by many of the same sexe Thus saith M. Andrews playing his part kindly as well in his obiection as in his answere For in his obiection wherein he would seeme to speake for the Cardinall or rather to lay downe his words he dissembleth altogether what the Cardinall saith to vrge and fortify that example of the mayde and therefore forbeareth purposely as it may be thought to set it downe in his margent with the rest of the Cardinalls textâ— who after the words of S. Gregory before related to wit Virginem Mariam rogauit c. She besought the Virgin Mary to succour a Virgin in danger addeth immediatly ac paulo pòst refert eam c. and a litle after Nazianzen declareth that her prayer was heard Vicit inquit virgo vincitur daemon The Virgin saith he ouercame and the Diuel is ouercome Thus doth the Cardinall vrge this example which as you see is of much more force then to say only as M. Andrews saith that S. Gregory did not reprehend the fact 63. For albeit his silence in not reprehending it may serue for an argument that he did not mislyke it yet the other clearely proueth that not only he but also God himselfe did notably approue it seing he saith that she obtayned the effect of her prayer and ouercame the Diuel whereto I also add that when that holy Father beginneth to recount the history of the mayde he sayth thus Audite Virgines ac simul exultate c. Harken o ye Virgins and reioyce also yea all ye that esteeme chastity in matrimony and loue Virgins give eare for to both sorts this my narratio may serue for an ornament So he Whereby it appeareth playnely that he meant to recount that which he would wish to be approued and imitated by others whereupon it followeth that by this example he exhorted and encouraged all those whose chastity should be endangered to craue the help of the blessed Virgin as that holy mayd did who thereby togeather with her other deuotions of fasting and prayer to almighty God which S. Gregory relateth ouercame the Diuel and escaped the danger of his tentation And could this holy Father more euidently declare what his faith and beliefe was concerning prayer to Saynts then not only to relate this fact of a holy Virgin without reprehension of it but also to signify the happy euent and successe thereof yea and to incyte others to the approbation and imitation of it 64. But now sayth M. Andrewes although Nazianzen did not reprehend itâ— yet Epiphanius did sharply reproue idem illud euen the selfe same fact in the same age in other women If this be true M. Andrews doth indeed say somewhat to the purpose at least to proue that the Fathers of that age did not with vnanim consent allow prayers to Saynts but if it be false and that he flatly belyeth S. Epiphanius what shall we think of the mans conscience and cause The truth is S. Epiphanius sharply reprehendeth certayne women who vsed at a certaine tyme of the yeare to commit Idolatry to the Virgin Mary adoring her with diuine honour offring vnto her certayne cakes in sacrifice as though she had byn a God or a Goddesse and they her Priests whereupon he discourseth amply prouing first out of the old Testament that nusquam mulier sacrificauit aut Sacerdotio functa est women haue neuer sacrifyced anywhere or executed Priestly function And then he commeth to the new Testament where he sheweth also the same and addeth further that if women could euer haue byn admitted to Sacrifyce the Virgin Mary her selfe should haue done it rather then any other neuertheles she neuer did and finally he concludeth that the body of the blessed Virgin Mary was reuera sanctum sed non Deus truely holy but not God 65. By all which it appeareth that these women which Epiphanius reprehendeth did not only take vpon them the Priestly function but also coÌ„mitted flat Idolatry adoring the Virgin Mary with diuine honour offring sacrifice vnto her which is a worship due to God alone Now then could a man belieue that M. Andrewes or any man els that hath care of his reputatioÌ„ would be so shamelesse to say that this is idem illud that very selfe same thing which Nazianzen sayth that holy Virgin did who only craued help of the Virgin Mary Is there no difference betwixt praying and sacrifysing betwixt Idolatry and religious veneration due to Gods Saynts and seruants Or betwixt the vsurpation of Priestly function
Miracles were done in the Church of God for 4. hundreth yeares and we can proue the continuance thereof in our Church vntill this day either he must shew vs in what age they ceassed after S. Augustines time and why then rather then before yea and proue also that all the miracles done in the Catholike Church euer since haue bene diabolicall illusions or els he must confesse that the Protestants Church is not the true Church seeing that they haue not hitherto had so much as a lame or sickd og healed in all their Congregations by the vertue of any of their profession dead or aliue notwithstanding their liuely and strong faith whereof they are wont so much to vaunt And this I say the rather because I find that M. Andrewes is verie silent about this point euen when the Cardinall giueth him sufficient cause to speake thereof who answering an obiection of the Apology for the Oath concerning witchcraft imputed to Catholikes because they quench fire with Agnus Deis sayth Respondeo miracula diuina c. I answere that diuine Miracles are seene only amongst the Catholikes and M. Andrewes comming to answere that paragraph which beginneth with those words left them out wholly and setteth downe the next wordes following for the beginning of the Cardinalls text in that place perhaps he lakt paper and place for them or tooke them for words quae abesse poterant which might well be spared for such as you may remember he sayd he would leaue out sometimes 19. But to conclude concerning holy Reliques it appeareth sufficiently hereby that M. Andrewes graunteth as much concerning them as we desire to wit that they are to be decked and adorned layd vp with honour and solemnitie reserued and kept in honourable and holy places and finally that they are to be honored yea and that God doth somtimes worke Miracles by theÌ„ which he cannot deny to be a notable and diuine confirmation of the honour that is done vnto them and therefore for as much as the honour that he graunteth to be due vnto them is neither diuine honour which both he and we conclude in this case nor ciuill honour seeing it is not done for any temporall or ciuill respect but proceedeth out of deuotion and tendeth directly to the honour of God he must needs graunt it to be a religious honour and that the same may be exhibited with much more externall worship and reuerence then the ciuill honour or worship which is due to any Prince yea so much more as respect of deuotion and Religion surpasseth and excelleth temporall and ciuil respects so that if ciuill honour do require corporall reuereÌ„ce with cap and knee bowing and prostrating of the body much more doth the Religious honour due to Saints and their Reliques require the same Thus much for this point 20. Whereas the Cardinall hauing occasion to speak of Monks and Religious women he saith that their Institute cannot be reprehended except we reprehend all the Fathers of the first 500. yeares M. Andrews graÌ„teth it to be true for he saith that his Maiesty meaÌ„t not to reprehend the Institute of Monks but the Monkes theÌ„selues because they haue long since gone froÌ„ their Instituts or rule being degenerated into Locusts apud quos saith he desidia nimium verè nimium saepe in luxuriam despumauit whose Idlenes or sloath hath too truly and too oft turned to a very foame or froath of luxurious and licentious life So he and then he addeth that because their Institute was not of the diuine law but only of the positiue and now gone in merum abusum into a meere abuse therfore it is worthily antiquated or abolished amoÌ„gst the Protestants wherin that which I wish especially to be noted is that he approueth the first Institute of Monks and consequently must needs approue diuers important pointes of Catholike doctrine and vtterly condemne his owne Religion 21. For it is most euident that the first Institut and discipline of Religious life consisted principally as still it doth in the obseruation of the Euangelicall Counsells of our Sauiour to wit of voluntary pouety Chastity and obedience abnegation of a mans selfe and Chastisment of his flesh by fasting Pennance wearing of hairecloath disciplines diuers other MortificatioÌ„s as it is manifest partly in the Monasterial discipline obserued by the first Monkes in the Apostles time and related by Philo the Iew as Eusebus S. Hiâ—rome Epiphanius S. Bede Sozomen and Nicephorus do testify and partly in the Monasticall constitutions which are to be seene expresly set downe in S. Basill and often touched and mentioned by Cassianus Palladius Theodoretus IoaÌ„nes Climacus Seuerus Suspitius S. Augustine S. Hierome and other Fathers of the first 400. yeares to omit S. Benets Rules yet extant which were made in the age following So that M. Andrewes approuing the Institutes of the old Monks alloweth the practise of all that Catholicke doctrine before mentioned which other Sectaries of this time haue hitherto condemned derided and abhorred as repugnant to the liberty of their Ghospell and their owne sensuality 22. Besides that he also approueth thereby workes of supererogation such I mean as are not commanded but counselled and left to our owne free choice and consequently he granteth the difference betwixt a Counsell a Precept contrary to the doctrin of Luther Caluin and other Sectaries Finally he alloweth vowes of Pouertie Chastity and Obedience which are and alwaies haue bene as it were the link and band of Monasticall and Religious profession as it appeareth euidently in the ancient Fathers as in Dionysius S. Paules disciple who testifieth that those who were made Monkes in his time which was the tyme of the Apostles made a solemne promise and couenant before the Altar to renounce the world and imbrace the Monasticall lyfe And S. Basil writing to a Monke that was fallen putteth him in mynd of his couenant made with God and prâ—fessed coram multis testibus before many witnesses and in his Monasticall rules signifieth that he which hath vowed himself to God in this Religious profession and passeth afterward to another state of life sacrilegij se scelere obstringit is guilty of Sacriledg because he hath saith he as it were stolne himselfe from God to whome he had dedicated and consecrated himselfe 23. Also S. Augustine saith to the same purpose Nemo potiùs in Monasterio frater dicat c. Let no brother or religious man that is in a monasterie say I will leaue and forsake it or that it is not to be thought that only those shall be saued who liue in Monasteries or that others which liue abroad do not pertaine to god for to him that should say so it is to be answered illi non vouerunt tu vouisti They haue not vowed but thou hast vowed So he Finally Ioannes Cassianus who liued
directly that no temporall Prince is Supreme head of the Church But his opinion concerning the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy will be much more manifest if we consider what a poore conceipt he hath of it and how he abaseth it being so farre from graunting it to be a principall article of faith as we hold the Popes Primacy to be that he saith it is ne articulus quidem not so much as an Article vtpote de exteriori modo regimine c. as of a thing which concerneth only the externall gouâ—rment of the Church so far forth as it requireth and admitteth humane help and authority And therefore hâ— placeth it not amongst points which are to be belieued but amongst matters of perswasion such I meane as we are perswaded to be true and therfore he saith nec sic singula trahimus ad fidem c. we do not so draw all things to faith it sufficeth for some heads or points of religion to belieue them with the Apostle and of some others to be perswaded only quae tameÌ„ infra fideÌ„ subsistant which neuertheles are beneath or vnder matters of faith Therefore it is inough if it be without the compasse of faith so that it may haue place only amongst orthodox or true doctrine So he and to the same purpose he also saith in another place that it is a truth but extra symbolum out of the creed so that it may perhaps be come into his Pater noster but is not yet into Creed Whereupon diuers things might be inferred worth the noting but I will touch only two or three 39. If the Kings Supremacy be not a matter of Faith then is it neither expressely taught in Scripture nor necessarily deduced from it for if it were then must it needes be a matter of Faith and therevpon it followeth that although M. Andrews doe alleage Scripture to proue it yet he himselfe is of opinion that it is but only probably gathered out of Scripture and consequently that a man may without daunger of damnation choose whether he will belieue it or no. For of thinges which are in Controuersy and not defined but only probably gathered out of Scripture a man may without daunger of his soule adhere to eyther parte which truly may serue for a great Motiue to all Protestants to make small account of the Kinges Ecclesiasticall Suâ—remacy otherwise then in respect of the temporall Lawes especially seeing that so great a Doctor as M. Andrewes who pretendeth expresly to maintaine and defend it teacheth that it is no matter of faith Besides that I cannot see how he can approue the Oath of the Kings Ecclesiasticall supremacy to be lawfully teÌ„dred or taken as of an vndoubted truth if it be no matter of faith For he that sweareth a thing to be simply true which he doth not certainly belieue but only is probably perswaded that it is true sinneth in the opinion of the Diuines Canonistsâ— Wherupon it followeth that M. Andrews who holdeth the Kings Supremacy to be no matter of faith but only a probable truth can neither lawfully take the Oath of the said Supremacy nor iustly approue it to be exacted of any and this will be as cleere as the Sun if we consider by what Scriptures he laboureth to proue the Kings Supremacy wherby we shall easily see that the same is not so much as probably gathered out of Scripture and therfore not to be held for an vndoubted truth and much lesse to be sworne for such 40. For wheras the Cardinall obiecteth that it is a new doctrine taught first in the time of King Henry the 8. who first tooke vpon him the title of supreme head of the Church M. Andrews denieth it saying tantum abest c. It is so farre from being so new as the Cardinall saith to wit a thousand fiue hundred yeares after Christ that it was a thousand fiue hundred yeares before Christ was borne Neither was Henry the 8. the Authour of that in our age but Moyses in his who hauing put off or laid away his Priesthood was neuerthelesse aboue Aaron and when he gaue to the King the Law he gaue him withall the chiefe power to keepe Religion which is the first and chiefest part of the Law and to cause it to be kept So he Wherein he giueth two reasons or groundes out of the old Law for the spirituall Supremacy of temporall Princes The one because Moyses laid aside his Priesthood and being therfore but a temporall man was superiour to Aaron And the other because he gaue to Kings the chief power and charge of Religion when he gaue them the copy of the Law 41. In the former point of the two he notably bewrayeth his owne ignorance in saying that Moyses laid aside his Priesthood or ceased to be Priest after he was once Priest as if Moyses his Priesthood had bin like to the Ministry of the Protestants which may be put of and on like a Ierkin or a Cloake when they list whereas his Priesthood was so permanent and inseparably annexed to his person that albeit he might cease from the execution of the function yet he could neuer put off the power of his Priesthood during his life Besides that he was so farre from putting off his Priesthood that he was not only still Priest after Aaron was consecrated but also as S. Augustine teacheth expresly chief Priest either togeather with Aaron or els aboue him Ambo saith he tunc summi Sacerdotes erant both Moyses and Aaron were theÌ„ high Priests or rather was not Moyses high Priest and Aaron vnder him Thus saith S. Augustine wherby you see how weake and seelly is M. Andrews his first reason grounded vpon his own ignorant conceipt that Moyses left off his Priesthood and that neuertheles he was still superiour to Aaron being a meere temporall Prince for if he meant not so his argument for the temporall Princes supremacy is not worth a rush but you haue heard out of S. Augustine that Moyses was not only a Priest after the Consecration of Aaron but also chief Priest I meane aboue Aaron in which respect it may be thought that God commaunded Moyses not Aaron to cloath Eleazar Aaron Sonneâ— with Aarons vestments in the preâ—â—nce of Aaron himself to succeed him in the office of high Priest 42. In his second reason concerning the chiefe power and charge of Religion giuen to Kings by Moyses togeather with the copy of the Law he sheweth most euident and notorious malice in the manifest abuse corruption of Scripture no such thing but rather the cleane contrary being to be gathered out of that place of Deuteronomy where Moyses ordayned that the copy of the Law should be giuen by the Priestes to the future Kings I say future for that there was no King ouer Gods people in the time of Moyses nor of 400. years after as I haue signified in
with the Church of Rome addeth presently for the explication thereof vt Ponticae Asâ—anae Thraciae Dioecesis Metropolitani c. That the Metropolitans of Pontus Asia Thracia and also the Bishopps of the same Diocesse amongst the Barbarous so were all called that were no Graecians should be ordayned by the Bishops of Constantinople 8. So sayth the Canon giuing to vnderstand that whereas the Church of Constantinople had bene in times past but a priuate Bishoprick subiect to Heraclea it should hereafter be not only a Metropolitan but also a Patriarchall Sea and haue Metropolitans vnder it yea and that as the Church of Rome was the chiefe Church of the West so also the Church of Constantinople being now made the second after Rome should be the chief Church of the East preferred before the Patriarchall Seas of Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem yet with this euident exception and reseruation that neuerthelesse it should be still inferiour to the Roman Sea being the second after it that is to say it should haue the same place and priuiledge that the Church of Alexandria had in former times which though it was the chief Church of the East the secoÌ„d after Rome yet was alwayes inferiour subiect thereto as it is euident by the appeale of the famous Athanasius Bishop of that Sea to Pope Iulius the first of that name aboue an huÌ„dreth yeares before the CouÌ„cel of CalcedoÌ„ 9. Therfore the preheminence which the Church of CoÌ„stantinople was to haue by this Canon was to be preferred before the Churches of Alexandria Antioch and the equality that it was to haue with Rome was no other but to be a Patriarchall Sea and head of all the Patriarchall and Metropolitan Churches of the East as Rome was in the West yet with reseruatioÌ„ of the right of Primacy due to the Roman Sea Besides that it is to be noted that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in our latin Copies is translated aequalis doth signify also similis lyke not only in prophane Authors as euery maÌ„ may see in the Thesaurus of Henricê° Stephanê° but also in diuers places of holy Scripture both in the old new TestameÌ„t And he that list to see more to this purpose may read the Paralel of Tortus his Tortor writteÌ„ against M. D. Andrews by the ReuereÌ„d Learned Father Androas Eudaemon-Ioannes who hath sufficiently handled and explicated this point and hath also produced a cleare testimony out of Theodorus Balsamon a very learned Grecian and Patriarch of Antioch to proue that the mention of paria priuilegia equall priuiledges graÌ„ted to the Church of CoÌ„stantinople in the CouÌ„cell of CalcedoÌ„ doth not any way derogate from the supreme dignity of the RomaÌ„ Sea 10. Whereto I also add that the word aequalis in the Scripture doth not alwayes signify a true and iust Equality in all respects but somtymes also an Equality in a certayne proportion as in the Apostle to the Corinthians who exhorteth them to supply the temporall wants and necessityes of the poore with their store and aboundance vt fiat aequalitas sayth he that there may be an equality meaning an equality in a certayne similitude and proportion as it appeareth by that which he addeth for the further explication therof saying sicut scriptum est qui muliùm non abundauit qui modicum non minorauit as it is written he which gathered much had no more then was necessary for him and he that gathered litle had no less So sayth the Apostle alluding to the history in Exodus of those who gathered Manna in different quantity and yet found that they had it in a kind of equality because euery one had so much as was needfull for him and no more so that equality doth not signify heere an Arithmeticall equality as the Philosophers and Schoolemen tearme it which is equall in euery respect and is vsed in commutatiue Iustice that is to say in buying and selling and the lyke wherein the iust and true valew of euery thing is equally considered but a Geometricall equality keeping only a certayne proportion according to distributiue Iustice which as Aristotle and the Schoolemen do teach doth alwayes respect equality in the distribution of honours priuiledges and rewards yet so as due proportion be obserued correspondent to the different dignity and quality of euery one And therfore when two persons of different quality and degree as the Captayne and his souldiar are to be rewarded for some one seruice to the common wealth their rewards or priuiledges are truly equall when they are priuiledged and rewarded in a due proportion to their degrees without impeachment to the difference that is betwixt them And so a subiect may be said to haue equall priuiledges with his King and yet be his subiect still and in this maÌ„ner the words equall and equality are to be vnderstood in the CouÌ„cell of CalcedoÌ„ as is euident by the CanoÌ„ it self wherin you see it was ordayned that the Bishop of Constantinople should haue equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome and yet haue the secoÌ„d place after him 11. But now to deale somewhat more liberally with M. Andrews in this point let vs put the case that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon did meane to giue to the Church of Constantinople that equality with the Roman sea which he affirmeth should he trow you gayne any thing thereby Or could he any way preiudice the vniuersall and supreme authority either of Pope Leo at that tyme or of the other Popes his Successors euer since Truly no but rather should notably confirme theyr primacy and vtterly ouerthrow his owne cause seeing that it is most euident that the authority of Pope Leo was such that his only opposition to that Canon and his abrogation therof sufficed to ouerthrow disanull it which I will take a litle paynes to proue by the whole course and practise of the Church euen from that Councell vntill the ruine of the Greeke Church and Empyre which though it be needlesse in respect of the learned yet I hope it will not be altogeather fruitles to the more ignorant and vnlearned and may serue for an aboundant conuiction of M. Andrews his impudency and malice who is not ashamed to auouch such a manifest falsehood and impugne such a knowne truth as he doth 12. To this purpose I wish it to be noted what Gelasius who liued at the same tyme and was Pope about 30. yeares after Leo wrote to the Bishops of Dardania concerning a schisme raysed by Acatius Bishop of Constantinople in the tyme of Pope Felix his Predecessor in which Epistle he signifyeth 4. things specially to be noted for this purpose First that the Emperour Martian though he had made great instance to Pope Leo for the aduancement of the Church of Constantinople yet did highly prayse and commend the said
acknowledged by all men to be S. Chrysostomes works So that there is no doubt but that the words alledged by the Cardinall are S. Chrysostomes and do correspond to the Greeke text word for word in which respect the testimony caÌ„not be auoyded and shifted of by M. Andrews as eyther corrupt or counterfait 50. And this as it seemeth he knew well inough and therefore deuysed another shift seeming to admit that S. Chrysostome doth say so and yet denying that it maketh for vs. For non quid fecerit sayth he tum aliquis sed quid ex Patrum statuto fecerit c The King demandeth not what some man did then but what he did according to the decree of the Fathers and what at that tyme the Fathers decreed concerning this poynt Where an act or deed only is declared no decree related is a voluntary act as of a matter of free deuotion and not as of a thing necessary to saluation which neuertheles the Cardinall vndertooke to proue Thus farre M. Andrewes turning and wynding as you see to fynd some starting hole if it were possible though he be catcht so fast that he cannot escape away For wheras he flyeth to his former shift of demanding some decree of the Fathers and reiecting their testimony of facts he notably discouereth the weakenes of his cause 51. For as I signifyed before vpon the occasion of the selfe same answere which he made to a place of S. Basil there was not any sufficient occasion why the Fathers of the Greek Church should make any Synodicall decree at that tyme concerning prayer to Saynts seeing that there was no question of it among them but a generall custome and practise thereof euery where as I partly shewed by the testimony of S. Basil the same may be clearly euinced euen by this place of S. Chrysostome especially if we consider what followeth immediatly the words alledged by the Cardinall and me For S. Chrysostome hauing sayd as you haue heard that he which was clad with purple meaning the Emperour stood praying to the Saynts at their tombes that he which weareth the diâ—deme doth pray to the tent-maker and the fisher as his Patrons and protectours addeth Therefore darest thou be so bold to say that their Lord or Mayster is dead whose seruants euen when they are dead are the protâ—ctors of the Kings of the world And this is not only seene at Rome but also at Constantinople for euen here the Sonne of Constantine the Great thought his father to be much honoured if his body were layd before the Gates of the Fisher. Thus sayth S. Chrysostome with much more to the same purpose which I omit 52. For by this it appeareth sufficiently first that the custome and practise of prayer to Saynts was vniuersall I meane both in the Latin and in the Greeke Church in the tyme of S. Chrysostome which he signifyeth expressely by naming the two principall Cittyes and Imperiall Seates to wit Rome and Constantinople where the same was in vre Secondly it appeareth that it was not practised only by some obscure person as M. Andrews seemeth to insinuate when he sayth that the question is not quid aliquis tum fecerit what some man did then but that it was the custome of most worthy and remarkable persons to wit the most Christian and Catholyke Emperours themselues Thirdly it is euident by this place that S. Chrysostome hyghly approued this custome and belieued it to be most necessary and conforme to the Christian and Catholyke verity seing he doth notably vrge and exaggerate the same for the instruction and edificatioÌ„ of the people to shew vnto them not only the great dignity and glory of Gods seruants and Saynts but also the Omnipotent power and diuinity of our Sauiour Christ. 53. Whereupon it also followeth that M. Andrewes and others who deny this article of Catholike religion do deny a notable argument of Christs Diuinity And therefore whereas he contemneth such a fact as this of most Christian worthy Emperours so testifyed approued and vrged by S. Chrysostome as you haue heard to proue that Christ is God it is cleare that he coÌ„demneth the practise beliefe of the Catholyke Church of that age yea and if by the decrees of the Fathers which he demandeth he meaneth their expresse and cleare doctrine deliuered in their workes he condemneth also the decree of S. Chrysostome touching the same And whereas he addeth for the conclusion of this poynt that this fact related by S. Chrysostome was but an act of voluntary deuotion and not of a thing necessary to saluation which he sayth the Cardinall vndertooke to proue he tryfleth notably for neyther doth the Cardinall vndertake to proue any such thing neyther is it materiall for the question in hand whether it be of necessity to saluation or no. 54. The Cardinall vndertooke only to proue that the doctrine of the Protestans reiecting prayer to Saynts is not the faith of the old primitiue Church which he promiseth to proue by the testimony of the Fathers of the first 400. or 500. yeares as it appeareth expressely by his owne words Soquitur saith he vt ostendamus fidem c. It followeth that we shew the faith which the King defends not to be the faith of the old and primitiue Church c. And agayne a litle after hauing signifyed that his Maiesty in his preface admitteth the 3. Creeds the 4. first Generall Councells and the vniforme doctrine of the Fathers of the first 400. or as it is in the English copy 500. yeares he declareth that amongst other poynts of Catholike religion his Maiesty condemneth Prayer to Saynts and the veneration of Reliques as superstitious Whereupon the Cardinall sayth Accipiam Intercessionem Sanctorum c. I will take in hand the intercession of Saynts with the veneration of reliques which if I can shew to be approued by an vnanime consent of the Fathers of the first 400. or 500. yeares I shall withall proue that the King of Englands fayth is not the fayth of the old primitiue Church but the deuyses heresies of late innouatours Thus saith the Cardinall without touching any way the question whether prayer to Saynts be necessary to saluation which as I haue sayd litle importeth for the decision of the controuersy whether the primitiue Church held it to be lawfull or no. 55. For there is no doubt but that many things are and may be lawfull yea very coÌ„mendable and behoouefull to saluation though they are not of such necessity but that a man may in some cases be saued without them as for example the Euangelicall Counsayles and many workes of supererogation as almes fasting and such lyke which consist in acts of voluntary deuotion are conuenient and notable helps though not absolutly necessary to euery mans saluatioÌ„ And therefore albeit his Maiesty seemeth not to bynd himselfe further to admit the vniforme consent of
our actions the Capteyns Princes propugnators patrons and protectors of men as I haue more particulerly declared before in this Chapter and therefore also all Christian Countryes and Cittyes are accustomed to haue some Saynt or other for their particular patron by whose helpe they haue often receiued reliefe in their necessityes and victory agaynst their enemyes wherof diuers notable examples testified by very graue authours may be seene in a treatise of Policy and Religion published a few yeares a goe wherto I remit my Reader for breuityes sake and will now inferre vpon these premisses that seeing the glorified Saynts of God do not only vnderstād know our prayers but also are most willing able to helpe vs as S. Iohn testifyeth in the Apocalips do offer vp our prayers to God yea and as M. Andrews himselfe granteth do pray for vs and finally seeing that experience also teacheth that they do diuers wayes assist relieue vs which I haue euidently proued by the testimony of the ancient Fathers it were most absurd to think that the holy Scriptures should allow vs to craue the prayers and helpe of men and disallow prayers to Saynts therfore I conclude that for as much as prayer to Saynts is most consonant both to Scripture and reason and most profitable and beneficiall to men and was admitted practised by all the primitue Church and ratified and approued by the vniforme consent of the ancient Fathers as I haue shewed sufficiently before it cannot be reiected by M. Andrews and his fellowes though there should be no cōmandment nor example of it in Scripture seeing they professe to admit without a precept such things as are indifferent when they are conforme to the holy Scriptures the practise of the primitiue Church and iudgement of all the ancient Fathers 61. But what starting hole trow you will M. Andrews find heere or what exceptions will he take to this my conclusion mary forsooth he will cauill at least about the authority of the Fathers alledged by the Cardinall against whome he taketh two mayne exceptions the one concerning the age and tyme when they lyued and the other touching their vniforme consent of the former he sayth that they were all of them after 300. yeares to wit in the 4. age whereas in quadringentis annis sayth he rex expectat the King expecteth the resolution of the Fathers of 400. yeares as who would say that the Cardinall hath proued nothing to the purpose at least to his Maiesties intention because he hath not alledged any of the Fathers of the first 3. hundred yeares wherein no doubt he doth his Maiesty great wrong Fathering his owne foolish and absurd conceipt vpon his Maiesty whose great wisdome being considered it cannot be imagined that in admitting the Fathers of the first 500. yeares for so he doth in the English Apology his meaning was to reiect their vniforme consent in any one of those centuries especially seeing that his Maiesty professeth in the same place to reuerence the ancient Fathers more then euer the Iesuits did which truly he should not do if his meaning were such as M. Andrews maketh it heere 62. For I am well assured that the Iesuits neuer tooke any exception agaynst all the Fathers of any one age from Christs tyme to this and much lesse to those of the 4. and 5. age who were of such eminent learning and sanctity that their vniforme consent concerning any question of religion must needs be held for an euident testimony of the truth seeing that God of his infinit mercy did then propagate his Church and fayth ouer the world and establish the same vnder Christian Emperours to wit Constantin the Great and his successors by meanes whereof the Church was euery where prouided and furnished with notable Pastours who being freed from the former persecutions had opportunity to write those ample volumes and worthy monuments which by Gods great prouidence they left to their posterity for the confirmation of the Christian Catholyke fayth whereas in the former ages I meane the first 3. Centenaryes the persecution was so great vnder the pagan Emperours that neyther the Christian faith could so much extend it selfe as it did in the 4. and 5. age Neyther could there be so many able men to write neyther those that were could haue such opportunity to do it as the others had in the peace and tranquility of the Church 63. And this is euident by the workes of the one and the other seeing that in the first 300. yeares there were not past 7. or 8. Fathers at most that wrote at least whose bookes we now haue and of those also the most wrote very little in so much that the workes of some one of the Fathers of the 4. and 5. age do in volume and quantity exceed all the workes that are now extant of all the Fathers of the 3. former ages and therefore it cannot be expected that they should treate or touch all matters which are now in controuersy especially such as were not then any way called in question Besides that in the 4. and 5. age were held the 4. first Generall Councells which not only his Maiesty but also M. Andrews himselfe admitteth In which respect the Fathers of that tyme must needs be taken for assured and vncontrollable witnesses of the truth for those Councells which were no other but assemblyes of the Fathers then liuing could not be of such vndoubted authority as they are if the Fathers of those ages had vniformely taught or belieued any erroneous doctrine for if they were all deceiued in one point they might also be deceiued and erre in the rest and so should the whole Church wherof they were the Pastors Doctors be drawne into errour by them which is not possible seeing that Christ hath not only promised his owne assistance to his Church for euer and that hell gates shall not preuayle against it but also hath placed in it Pastors and Doctors saith the Apostle to the consummation of the Saynts vnto the worke of the ministery vntill we meete all in the vnity of faith vt iam non simus paruuli fluctuantes c. to the end we now be not wauering Children carryed away with euery blast of doctrine so saith the Apostle 64. Whereby it is euident that God of his singular prouidence hath giuen Doctors and Pastors to the Church yea and ordayned that they shall remayne there vnto the worlds end to preserue the same from errour whereupon it followeth that all the Doctors and Pastors of the Church cannot erre at any tyme for if they could then were not the remedy effectuall and certayne which God hath ordayned in his Church to preserue it from errour by them therefore if they haue all erred in the 4. age or any other then hath the prouidence ordinance yea and the promise of God fayled which is impossible as I
haue amply proued in my supplement so as I conclude that the exception which M. Andrews taketh against the Fathers alledged by the Cardinall for being all of that 4. age is most vayne and friuolous seeing that the consent of the Doctors of any one age is sufficient to determin any matter in controuersy 65. And much more may we content our selues with the vniforme testimony and consent of those of the 4. and 5. age in the tyme of the 4. first generall Councells when the Church most florished and as I haue signified before was best furnished with learned and holy Pastors and Doctors of whome the Cardinall hath cyted no lesse then twelue to wit S. Basil S. Gregory Nyssen S. Ephraem S. Gregory Nazianzen Eusebius S. Chrisostome S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Hierome S. Cyril S. Paulinus and S. Maximus besyds the history of Ruffinus to whome I haue also added Theodoret not inferiour in learning to the rest all which were pillars lights and notable ornaments of the latin and Greeke Church in the 4. and 5. age and all of these being 14. in number alledged by the Cardinall and me 12. haue giuen as you haue heard vniforme and cleare testimony to the doctrine and custome of Prayer to Saynts eyther inuocating Saynts themselues or approuing the publike vse and practise of it in others and albeit the other two to wit S. Ciril and Eusebius do not so expresly speake of the inuocatioÌ„ of Saynts as the other fathers do yet the same is also sufficiently gathered out of their testimonyes as I haue shewed before in the 6. Chapter whereupon I conclude that this doctrine of prayer to Saynts beâ—ing approued practised by so many learned Fathers of the 4. and 5. age it must needs be admitted for an infallible truth 66. Yea but saith M. Andrews there is no vniforme coÌ„seÌ„t of Fathers in this poynt for alij saith he non pauci sunt c. there are not a few others who haue right of suffrage or voyce heerein omitted by the Cardinall So he wherein I doubt not good Reader but thou seest how absurdly he cauilleth and tryfleth for may not the verdict of a whole Iury of Fathers alledged by the Cardinall and not contradicted by any suffice to shew a generall and vniforme consent of the Church in their tyme and will not M. Andrews acknowledge an vniforme consent in the Fathers without a particuler testimony of euery one of them doth he suppose that euery one of them hath written of all poynts of religion and if they haue not whereof there is no doubt shall the sylence of some preiudice the cleare testimony of others so shall we proue litle or nothing at all by the Fathers for there are but very few poynts of religiâ—on whereof euery one of them hath had occasion to write 67. But will M. Andrews his fellowes be content that we exact the lyke of them when they alledge the Fathers as for example the Bishops in their Canon before mentioned concerning the vse of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme doe affirme that they follow therein the iudgement of all the Fathers of the primitiue Church but can they shew trow you that euery Father of the primitiue Church yea or the greatest part of them do particulerly speake of that ceremony sure I am they cannot show it for albeit diuers very ancient and holy Fathers do treat thereof and highly approue it yet many others are vtterly silent concerning the same neuertheles for as much as those that approue it are not contradicted by any of the rest their testimony may well be taken for the vniforme consent of all or truly otherwyse my Lord Bishops will not be able to iustify their assertion and proue that they follow the iudgement of all the Fathers in that poynt Therfore this exception of M. Andrewes is very ridiculous except he can shew that those Fathers whome the Cardinall omitted haue contradicted the testimonyes of the other but this you see he hath not byn able to doe though he hath done his best endeauour thereto with shame ynough to himselfe and his cause 68. S. Augustine writing against Iulian the Pelagian about originall sinne and the baptisme of Infants thought the testimony of 6. Fathers sufficient to conuince him though fyue of them were of the same tyme and age wherein he himselfe liued for whereas the Pelagian falsely pretended that S. Chrysostome made for him S. Augustine answered Absit vt Ioannes Constantinopolitanus c. God forbid that Iohn Bishop of Constantinople should resist so many and worthy Bishops his fellowes especially Innocentius Bishop of Rome Cyprian of Carthage Basil of Cappadocia Gregory of Nazianzen Hilary of France and Ambrose of Milan So he Therefore how much more may we rely vpon the authority of as many more Fathers whereof there were 4. euen of those whome S. Augustine named and he himselfe also one of the number and all of them florished aboue 1100. yeares agoe and haue not byn gaynsayd or impugned by any May we not I say boldly admit their testimonyes for a proofe of the vniforme consent of the Church in their tyme The Scripture teacheth and common practice approueth that 2. or 3. substantiall witnesses may suffice to proue any matter in question and therefore much more may these 12. most learned and holy Fathers suffice to shew what was the practice and beliefe of the Church in their dayes especially seeing that diuers of them speake of publike matters of fact which passed in their owne tyme and knowledge in which respect they cannot be thought to fayne and lye except we shall take them to be voyd both of conscience and common honesty 69. But M. Andrewes addeth further that it appeareth euen in Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe that the Fathers were not all of one mynd concerning prayer to Saynts and for proofe thereof he remitteth his Reader to the Cardinalls controuersyes and particulerly to the tract de beatitudine Sanctorum the first booke and 20. Chapter which truly I haue read diligently and cannot find any thing at all to that purpose except perhaps he meane that the Cardinall signifyeth there the different opinions of the Fathers concerning the manner how Saynts do vnderstand or heare our prayers whereupon it seemeth M. Andrewes inferreth that they differed also in opinion concerning the whole controuersy when neuertheles it appeareth euidently there that they made no doubt whether prayer to Saynts be lawfull neyther yet whether they know our actions but only in what manner they know them and how they heare or vnderstand our prayers touching which poynt and the absurd inference that M Andrewes maketh thereof denying the certaynty of the effect by the vncertainty of the cause or manner of it I haue so amply discoursed before that I shall not need to say any more thereof in this place 70. But that which I wish to be noted
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
adoration but with a Religious worship due to holy men or holy things for the honor and loue of God in which point it seemeth M. Andrews agreeth fully with vs confessing that the dead bodyes and reliques of holy Martyrs and Saynts which are truely knowne to be such are to be honoured and kept with reuerence and therefore answering to a place of S. Gregory Nyssen alledged by the Cardinall he alloweth that the body of a Martyr si veri Martyris verum corpus if it be the true body of a true Martyr is to be adorned and decked with honour in Augusto Sacratoque loco poni and to be placed in a Maiesticall and Sacred place yea and he confirmeth it with the authoritie of his Maiesty saying Idem hoc vult Rex honorifico loco solemniter inferri The King also will haue the same to be solemnly carried into an honorable place 14. And afterwards answering to a place of S. Ambrose which the Cardinall obiecteth he saith that wheras Ambrose will haue vs to honor the body of the dead Martyr and the seed of eternity in him Facimus saith he non illibeÌ„ter wee doe it willingly then addeth Quid porrò quaerit sed pallium breue est honâ—s non pertingit ad adorationem What doth he desire more but the cloake is too short honour doth not reach to adoratioÌ„ So he Meaning by adoratioÌ„ diuine honor which we grauÌ„t him for we say also that the honor due to Reliques doth not extend it selfe to a diuine adoration therefore we desire no more of him then that he do a religious honor and worship therto for such is the honour wherof S. Ambrose speaketh because it is due and exhibited to Saynts for the honour and loue of God whose seruants they are quin seruorum honos saith S. Hierome redundat ad Dominum the honor of the seruants redoundeth to their Lord. In which respect the same holy Father signifieth that all the adoration which was done to the Reliques of the Prophet Samuel when they were transported with great solemnity and honour from Palestine to Constantinople was not done so much to Samuel as to Christ whose Leuite Prophet Samuel was as I haue signified more at large in the last Chapter 15. Whereby it appeareth that the honor done to the seruants of Christ for Christs sake only and not for any ciuil and temporall respect must needes be a religious honour such I meane as I haue declared in the last Chapter to haue bin often exhibited in the holy Scripture to Angells and holy men with the terme of adoration and with the exhibition of a Corporall reuerence which may be more or lesse according to the deuotion of the exhibitours thereof so that it be in their mind and intention distinguished from diuine honour due to God alone in which intention consisteth the true difference and distinction of diuine religious and ciuil adoration as I haue also declared before in the last Chapter So as M. Andrews confessing an honor to be due to holy Reliques cannot with reason exclude from the same any Corporall reuerence so that the intention be to doe only a religious and not diuine worship As he must needs also acknowledge the lyke in ciuil adoration and honor done to Princes and great personages 16. For whereas the same is diuersly performed somtymes by putting of the cap sometymes by bowing the body and somtymes by kneeling and other whiles also by prostration vpon the ground which maner of ciuill adoration is often mentioned in the old testament and was vsed in tymes past amongst the Persians to their Kinges there is no doubt but that as all these may lawfully be vsed wheÌ„ the intention is no other but to do a Ciuill honor thereby so also the least of them were vnlawfull yea Idolatry if the intention of the doer were to giue thereby a diuine honor to any man and the lyke I say must needes be graunted concerning the externe honor due to the holy Reliques of Saints which how great it was in the tyme of S. Ambrose S. Hierome and S. Augustine we may vnderstand by the custome then vsuall to kisse them for deuotion sake and to carry them about in procession as we now terme it with great solemnity and reuerence which appeareth not only in S. Hierome who seuerely reprehended Vigilantius for carping at the same as I haue signified in the last Chapter but also by the testimony of S. Augustine who recounteth diuerse Miracles done by reliques while they were so carried by Bishops as namely that Lucillus the Bishop was himselfe cured of a fistula carrying a certaine relique of S. Stephen populo praecedente sequente the people going before him and following him and that a blind woman being brought to the Bishop Proiectus as he carried Sacra pignora so termeth he the holy Reliques of S. Stephen was restored to her sight by applying to her eyes certayne flowers which had touched them 17. Such was the honour that Catholike people bare to holy Reliques in those dayes that they sought either to touch them or to haue some thing that had touched them or bene neere about them whereby diuers great Miracles were done yea dead men reuiued as S. Augustine testifieth in the same place by diuers examples which he relateth and therefore I leaue it to the Iudgment of any reasonable man how great the deuotion and the religious honour was which then was vsuall in the Church and allowed by these Fathers to be done to the reliques of Saints especially seeing that the same was also approued and confirmed from heauen by innumerable Miracles which M. Andrewes himselfe granteth saying Augustino assentimur c. we grant with Augustin that the body of the Protomartyr was conueniently or duely to be honored after that it pleased god to worke certaine Miracles thereat So he wherein besides the graunt of due honour to be done to holy reliques whereof now I speake I wish also to be noted that he graunteth that Miracles were done in Gods Church in S. Augustins tyme which most of the Sectaries of these daies haue hitherto denyed affirming that Miracles ceassed after the tyme of the Apostles which they are forced to say because we exact of them to shew Miracles in their Church as an vndoubted signe of the true Church shewing on our part the continuance thereof in our Church from the Apostles to this day whereof sufficient experience hath bene seene in euery age and euen now lately by innumerable cures of all sorts of diseases at Sichem in Flanders at Minich in Bauiere in diuerse partes of Italy and at this present at Valentia in Spaine at the body of a holy Preist who dyed in April last all so publick and so sufficiently testified to the world that impudencie it selfe cannot deny the truth thereof 18. So that seeing M. Andrewes graunteth that