Christ whome he calleth and that very well rem Sacramenti the thing of the Sacrament so also he acknowledgeth that Christ is to be adored in cum Sacramento in and with the Sacrament as being there verè presens verè adorandus truly present and truly to be adored for so he saith and sheweth also afterward how the Sacrament may be adored togeather with Christ. For treating of the same matter he alleadgeth S. Augustine teaching how the humanitie of Christ may be adored and how not Ipsa humanitas saith he vt disputat Augustinus non nuda vel sola adoranda est c. The very humanitie of Christ is not to be adored naked or alone by it selfe but with the diuinity as the Kings Royall Robe not when it lyeth by it selfe but when the King is vested or clad with it So he 5. And then he addeth also further out of S. Augustine concerning the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament cùm vel illam adoras ait ne cogitatione remaneas in carne c. And when thou adorest that flesh doe not sayth Augustine rest with thy cogitation in the flesh wherby thou shalt not be quickned with the spirit for the spirit sayth he quickneth or giueth lyfe the flesh profiteth nothing thus saith M. Andrews out of S. Augustine explicating notably how the very SacrameÌ„t that is to say the exteriour formes of bread wyne may be adored to wit together with the persoÌ„ of Christ which it conteineth for as the humanity or flesh of Christ in the Sacrament may be adored because it is ioyned with the Diuinity so also the Sacrament conteyning Christ truely and really present may be adored togeather with him as the Kings royall Robe saith M. Andrews may be togeather with the Kings person though not without it so that in this point you see he teacheth the very same that we do concerning the adoration of the blessed Sacrament though Caluin all the SacrameÌ„taries with Melancthon Illyricus and diuers other Lutherans do hold it for Idolatry and so I am sure it hath bene coÌ„monly held by the Protestants of England heretofore as it appeareth in the 39. Articles agreed vpon by the whole English Clergy and set forth by M. Thomas Rogers in his booke intituled the Faith Doctrine and Religion professed and protected in the Realme of England c. Thus much for this point and now let vs passe to another 6. No man I thinke that vnderstandeth the matterâ— in controuersie betwixt our aduersaries and vs is ignorant what is their opinion concerning the reward of good workes as that Luther Caluin and most of their followers are so farre from houlding them to be meritorious of eternall reward that they teach the best workes of the iustest man to be mortall sinnes to deserue eternall damnatioÌ„ though they say they are reputed as iust for the merits of Câ—rist and those who seeme to haue the most fauorable opinion of good workes doe teach that howsoeuer they may haue some reward euen in the next lyfe yet they cannot merit eternall Saluation because the same is merited for vs by Christ and apprehended by only faith But M. Andrewes goeth much further coÌ„meth indeed so neere the Catholike doctrine that he acknowledgeth it For although he take some exceptions to merit yet he vnderstandeth it otherwise then we doe and so in effect doth not deny or impugne that which we teach concerning the same notwithstanding his vayne cauils and malicious interpretation of our doctrine whereof I haue already touched some particulers in the last Chapter 7. Therefore it is to be vnderstood that he granteth and teacheth expressely that eternall reward shall be giuen to good workes albeit he doe it with this restriction non ex pondere humani meriti sed ex vi promissi diuini not by the weight of mans merit but by the force of Gods promise whereof grace is the foundatioÌ„ by the which saith he our mercifull Sauiour hath promised mercedeÌ„ plenam operi non pleno mercedeÌ„ diariaÌ„ operi horario a full hire to a scant or vnperfect worke a daies wages to an howers worke So he alluding no doubt to the Parable of the Gospell of the workmeÌ„ who hauing laboured in the vineyard some a whole day and some but an houre had neuerthelesse all of them equall pay to wit the penny promised for the dayes work which penny the Fathers vnderstand to signify eternall Saluation promised for our labour in Gods seruice during our lyfe and so doth M. Andrews no doubt vnderstand it who proceedeth thus And that which he promised of his meâ—re grace and goodnes he rendreth by Iustice for he should not be iust except he should stand to his promise Wee may say to God with conuenieÌ„t humility giue me the reward which thou hast promised but I thinke wee cannot say giue me that which I haue deserued or that which thou owest me for my merit for setting aside the promise of God there is not any sufficient tytle for the which God ought to recoÌ„pence such a worke with eternall lyfe Thus saith M. Andrews 8. Wherein although he exclude all consideratioÌ„ of merit from the reward of works neuertheles graÌ„ting as he doth the reward to be due by the force of Gods promise he granteth in effect as much as we desire To which purpose I wish two thinges to be noted in this his discourse the one that he speaketh clearly of eternall reward and lyfe euerlasting acknowledging the same to be due to good workes by the force of Christs promise the other that the merit which he impugneth is only such as excludeth the consideration of Gods promise as it appeareth by the reason which he giueth out of Gregory de Valentia to wit because setting aside the promise of God there is not any sufficieÌ„t tytle or cause why God is bound to reward good workes with lyfe euerlasting This then being the reason why he excludeth merit it is cleare that he doth not exclude the merit whereof we speake nor conclude any thing against vs but rather argueth for vs for we are so farre from reiecting the consideration of Gods promise from our merit that we graunt the merit of euerlasting lyfe especially thereupon 9. For albeit we teach that the grace of God doth giue a great dignity and valour to the worke and therefore coÌ„curreth to the merit thereof yet we teach withall that the same were not sufficient for the merit of eternall saluation if God had not promised it for the merits of our Sauiours passioÌ„ which is the ground of all mans merit therfore almighty God hauing couenanted and bargayned with vs to giue such a reward for such a worke yea assisting vs with his grace to doe the worke hath not only made himselfe our debter if we doe it but also maketh vs able to merit the reward promised
I say merit though M. Andrewes doth not admit the word who neuertheles doth acknowledge it sufficieÌ„tly wheÌ„ he saith that God hath promised and will render mercedem diariam operi horario the dayes wages to an howers worke for merces meritum reward and merit are correlatiues and cannot be the one but in respect of the other for reward is neuer due but to him that doth merit or deserue it and he only that meriteth may iustly clayme reward And therefore the Apostle saith expressely â—i qui operatur merâ—â—s imputatur non secuÌ„dum gratiam sed secundum debitum to him that worketh the reward is imputed not according to Grace but according to debt 10. So as M. Andrews acknowledging that God hath promised and doth render mercedem operi a râ—ward to the worke doth consequently acknowledge meritum operis operantis the merit both of your worke and of the worker for dignus est operarius mercede sua saith our Sauiour the workman is worthy of his wages that is to say he meriteth or deserueth it In which respect also the Apostle saith Vnusquisque mercedem accipiet secundum laborem suum Euery one shall receiue reward according to his labour that is to say as his labour deserueth or as he meriteth for his labour And aâ—beit almightie God of his infinite bounty hath promised greater rewardes then our workes do in rigour of Iustice merit yet the couenant and promise being made he that doth the workes doth iustly merit the rewardes As for example King Saul promised to giue his daughter Michâ—l to Dauid in mariage yâ— he brought him a hundred prepaces of the Philistines and albeit Dauid thought himselfe vnworthy to marry the Kinges daughter saying that he was a poore man and of sâ—â—al ability yet when he had performed the condition he claymed performance of the Couenant and had her to wyfe and afterwards when she was taken from him by Saul giuen to Phaltiel he required her againe after Sauls death not only because she was his wyfe but also because he had bargayned for her and got her by CouenaÌ„t quam despondi mihi saith he centuÌ„ praeputijs Philistinorum whome I betrothed vnto me with a hundred prepuces of the Philistines as who should say that it was reason he should haue her because he had deserued her 11. And much more truly may the lyke be said of the good workes of iust men proceeding from Gods grace which workes besids the couenant and promise of reward are enobled also and dignified by grace and so made not only acceptable vnto God but also much more worthy of the reward promised then any moral workes could be though God should promise to reward them eternallyâ— so that the dignity of Gods grace concurring in the good worke with Gods promise of reward maketh the same truly meritorious be the worke neuer so smal and the reward promised neuer so great and therefore whosoeuer doth for the pure loue of God forsake his lands or parents or wyfe he meriteth that great reward which our Sauiour promised to wit Centuplum c. an hundreth fold in this world and lyfe euerlasting in the other And in this sense do all the Fathers teach the merit of workes so expressely that not only the Magdeburgenses but also Caluin taketh exceptions to them all for vsing the word merit so frequently as they do which indeed is most euident in theyr wrorkes and may be seene by innumerable places of the sayd Fathers alledged by Cardinall Bellarmine and others to proue the merit of good workes which I pretermit for that my meaning is not here so much to proue or confirme our doctrine in this poynt as somewhat to explicate it vpon this occasion offered 12. This then being the constant doctrine of Catholiks it appeareth how idle is M. Andrews his distinction in his Conclusion to wit reddendum cuique secundum opera sed ex vi promissi non valore meriti Euery one is to rewarded according to his workes but by the force of the promise and not by the valour of the merit This distinction I say is very impertinent for two causes the one for that it excludeth the effect by the cause that is to say the merit by the promise of reward from whence the said merit groweth for albeit we add thereto another consideration to wit the dignitie of Gods grace increasing the valour of the merit yet the same followeth also vpon the promise because God hath promised to reward eternally such workes only as proceed from his grace and are dignified thereby and consequently made the more meritorious in which respect we allwayes say with S. Augustine that omne bonum meritum nostrum non facit in nobis nisi gratia nothing but grace doth cause in vs all our good merit and cùm Deus coronat merita nostra nihil aliud coronat nisi munera sua When God doth crowne our merits he doth crowne nothing els but his owne guifts And truly I cannot see how M. Andrewes can deny that grace increaseth the valour of the merit except he will take part with Pelagius the heretike and impugne the dignity of Gods grace so as he must needes graunt that the worthines of grace being added to the force of Gods promise doth make the worke more worthie of reward The other cause why I say the distinction is ydle or rather M. Andrews for making it is because he maketh the same to confute the Cardinall as if the Cardinall did exclude the Consideration of Gods promise from the reward of workes whereof he might see the contrary in the Cardinalls controuersies where he debated the question at large and substantially proueth the necessity of Gods promise to make a worke meritorious and therefore wheras M. Andrews seeketh also to proue the same by Gregorius de Valentia whom he alledgeth to that purpose as if he would coÌ„fute the Cardinall by one of his owne profession he is as I haue said very impertinent therin labouring to proue that which the Cardinall denyeth not but expressely teacheth So as you see still M. Andrewes doth nothing els but idly beate the aire and fight with his owne shaddow impugning only his owne conceit and in the rest granting our doctrine concerning the reward and merit of good workes Thus much for this point 13. Amongst the examples which I gaue in the last Chapter of his changing the state of the question one was concerning the veneration of reliques for that he will needes suppose that we do worship reliques with deuine adoratioÌ„ and honour and therefore he impugneth and derideth the Cardinals distinction of dyuers kinds of adoratioÌ„ labouring to proue that adoration is not to be taken otherwayes then for deuine honour but in this I haue sufficiently shewed his ignorance and absurdity and haue also proued that we do not honor and worship reliques with diuine
is but a vayne shift of M. Andrews to say that they are thrust into the Latin in fauour of the Pope it being more probable as I haue sayd that they were in the old Greeke copies which the Latin translatours followed and that eyther the Grecians themselues in the time of their schisme from the Roman Church or perhaps some of our late heretikes who haue taken vpon them to print the Greeke in these dayes haue purposely left out the same in hatred of the supreme authority of S. Peter and his successors But howsoeuer it is you see the doctrine of S. Chrysostome is cleare to the purpose that those words which M. Andrewes saith are not in the Greek do import and this suffiseth to proue by the testimony of S. Chrysostome that S. Peter was supreme Pastor and head of the vniuersall Church 19. And as for M. Andrews his stale and tryfling deuyse to call the Pope 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alluding to the name of the beast in the Apocalyps according to the interpretation of Irenaeus as he would haue his Reader to suppose albeit he vse it far otherwise then Irenaeus meant it who applyed it only to the temporall Empyre and not to the Roman Sea I willingly omit it as not pertayning to the place of S. Chrysostome wherof I now specially treat and therefore do remit him for his satisfaction in that point to Cardinall Bellarmines controuersies where the same is so sufficiently answered that he and his fellowes may be ashamed still to repeat it and not to impugne the manifold and solid reasons which the Cardinall produceth to confute their ridiculous and absurd application of that name to the Pope 20. And now to end concerning the testimony of S. Chrysostome whereas M. Andrews for conclusion of his answere thereto saith that no man will deny that Peter was Pastor of the Church yea and a principall pastor sed cum alijs pastorem coapostolis suis non solum sine alijs but Pastour togeather with other his fellow Apostles and not alone without others I thinke he was in a dreame when he wrotâ— it impugning no man therein for ought I know For I neuer heard tell of any man yet who taught that S. Peter was Pastor of the Church alone or that the other Apostles were not Pastors as well as he albeit we teach with S. Chrysostome and others as you haue heard that they were subordinate to him as to the supreme pastor and their head which also M. Andrews himselfe doth acknowledge sufficiently as I haue shewed amply in the last Chapter And this I hope may suffice concerning S. Chrysostome 21. There remayneth now only S. Augustin of the 4. Fathers alledged by the Cardinall and my selfe for the proofe of S. Peters Primacy his words are these Totius corporis morbum in ipso capite curat Ecclesiae c. he to wit Christ cureth the disease of the whole body in the very head of the Church coÌ„poundeth the health of all the members in ipso vertice that is to say in the very crowne or top of the head Thus saith S. Augustin whereupon the Cardinall saith Sanctus Augustinus apertè vocat S. Petrum caput corporis Ecclesiae S. Augustine doth planily call S. Peter head of the body of the Church To this M. Andrewes saith thus ConcludÃt testes suos cum Augustino non Augustino cuius tempore non fiebant Sermones de tempore He to wit the Cardinall concludeth his witnesses with an Augustine who is not Augustin in whose tyme there were not made any Sermons de tempore So he taking exceptions to the authority of this allegation because in S. Augustins tyme as he would haue vs suppose there was no such custome in the Church to make Sermons de tempore that is to say of the ordinary feasts that do occur thoughout the course of the yeare and that therefore the Authour of those Sermons de tempore out of the which the Cardinall taketh this place could not be S. Augustins but of some other later wryter who set them out in S. Augustins name 22. But now if you aske how M. Andrews proueth that there were no Sermons de tempore in S. Augustins tyme you must take his bare word for a proofe for you neyther haue nor are like to heare any other of him But for the tryall of this matter I must remit thee good Reader to some better and more authenticall witnesses then M. Andrewes namely to Possidius a learned Bishop who being a familiar friend of S. Augustin forty yeares togeather as he signifieth himselfe wrote his life and making a Catalogue of his workes doth mention amongst the rest diuers Sermons or Treatises of his made of some of the principall feasts of the yeare as of Christmas Ascension Pentecost Lent and 23. Tracts or Sermons per Vigilias Paschae in the Eues of Easter whereof by all likelyhood this very Sermon was one being made on the Wednesday before Easter whereto may be added also diuers other particuler feasts of Saints mentioned in like manner by Possidius as namely the Natiuity of S. Iohn Baptist of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul of S. Laurence S. Cyprian S. Perpetua and Felicitas S. Saluius S. Vincent and some others which I omit for that these I trow may suffice to conuince M. Andrews of great ignorance or malice in that he denyeth that there were any Sermons de tempore in S. Augustins tyme. 23. For although it is like inough that neyther S. Augustin nor any other Father of that age wrote any work vnder the title of Sermones de tempore but that such sermons being made at diuers tymes and dispersed in diuers parts of their workes haue bene since their daies gathered into one volume and set out vnder that tytle for the ease and commodity of the Readers yet no man that hath byn conuersant in the Fathers can be ignorant that such were vsually made both in the Latin and in the Greeke Church in S. Augustins tyme which may euidently appeare besids the testimony of Possidius aforesaid by the works of S. Ambrose wherin there are Sermons vpon almost all the great feasts from Aduent to Pentecost and in the same tyme liued also S. Maximus Bishop of Turin who wrote diuers homilies vpon the principall feasts of the yeare as testifyeth Gennadius a famous writer of that age whereof I shall haue occasion to speake further hereafter Besids that it cannot be denyed that the like custome was also in the Greeke Church in those daies seeing that we fynd in S. Gregory Nissen who was S. Basils brother diuers Orations made vpon the feasts of the Natiuity of our Sauiour S. Stephen Easter and the Ascension And others also in S. Gregory Nazianzen vpon the feasts of Easter Pentecost the Natiuity of Christ the Epiphany which amongst the Greekes was called Sancta Lumina In like
and are done non praescripto legis sed confiâ—io charitatis not by the prescript or commandment of the law but by the counsell of Charity haec sunt saith he quae ampliùs exogantur saucio c. These are those works which are laied out more for the wounded man who through the compassion of the Samaritan was brought to the Inne to be cured and therefore they are said not to be commanded by our Lord although they are aduised to be offered to the end that they may be vnderstood to be so much more gratfull by how much more they are signifyed not to be due So he 5. Also in another place he putteth the matter out of all doubt exemplyfying the same thus Stbularius ergo est Apostolus Quod autem supererogat c. Therefore the host is the Apostle And that which he layeth out more is eyther that counsell whereof he saith De Virginibus praeceptum Domini non habeo consilium autem do Concerning virgines I haue no precept of our Lord but I giue counsell Or ells it is that he wrought with his owne handes least in the begining of the Ghospell he should be a burden to some of the weaker sort when neuertheles it was lawfull for him to be fed or maintayned by the Ghospell Thus sayth S. Augustine clearly confuting M. Andrews his idle discourse for to omit that he teacheth the vse of the word supererogation which therefore was not deuised of late tyme and much lesse by the Catholiks of these dayes first he sheweth that it signifieth such works as being lawfull them selues are not comaunded by any precept in which only sense Cardinall Bellarmine and all other Catholyks vse it 6. Secondly he exemplifieth the same not only in the couÌ„sell of Virginity which is therfore a work of SupererogatioÌ„ but also in S. Paules owne practice of mayntayning himselfe by the labour of his hands when he might haue liued by the Gospell whereupon it followeth clearly that M. Andrews argueth very impertinently in saying that the Apostles themselues could do no workes of Supererogation because they had daily occasion to say Dimitte nobis debita nostra For I am sure M. Andrews will not deny that S. Paul was an Apostle and yet S. Augustine affirmeth as you see that he not only taught works of SupererogatioÌ„ namely Virginity and continent single lyfe but also practised performed them himselfe doing such good workes as he was not bound to do by any precept Besides that it appeareth also hereby that a man may doe a work of Supererogation though he haue occasion dayly to say Dimitte nobis debita nostra Which therefore was an idle exception of M. Andrews against such workes euen in the Apostles themselues Lastly wee see by these testymonyes of S. Augustine and the example of S. Paul that a work of supererogation is no other but such a good work as is not commanded by precept and therfore it is euident that M. Andrews taking it in another sense changeth thâ— state of the question 7. Moreouer whereas the Apology for the Oath accounteth the Adoration of the Bl. Sacrament of the Eucharist to be a new inueÌ„tioÌ„ the Cardinall answering the same declareth the sense and meaning of the Catholiks concerning that point saying that they teach the Adoration of Christ our Lord present in the Sacrament c. M. Andrews replieth thus In adoratione Sacramenti ad limen ipsum turpiter impingit c. In the Adoration of the Sacrament the Cardinall stumbleth shamefully euen at the first entrance Of the Sacrament saith he that is to say of Christ our Lord in the Sacramentâ— Apage vero Quis ei hoc dederit Fy fy who would grant him this The Sacrament that is to say Christ in the Sacrament but rather Christ himselfe who is the thing conteyned in the Sacrament is to be adored wheresoeuer he is iâ— with or without the Sacrament The King houldeth that Christ is truly in the Eucharist and truly to be adored that is to say the thing of the Sacrament but not the Sacrament I meane the earthly part as Irenaeus calleth it the visible according to Augustine So he 8. Wherein I omit for the present to note what he granteth concerning our Catholyk doctrine wherof I shall haue occasion to speake more particulerly hereafter and I only wish to be obserued how manifestly wittingly no doubt he changeth the state of the questioÌ„ notwithstanding the Cardinalls owne explicatioÌ„ therof who signifieth that for as much as Christ is truly and really present in the Sacrament therefore Christ himselfe is adored therein and not the bare Sacrament though the Cardinall I say doth declare this yet M. Andrews will needs presuppose that wee hold and teach that the bare Sacrament or formes of bread and wyne are to be adored for els why doth he make distinction of the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament granting the adoration of the one and not of the other but denying the later as our opinion as though we affirming that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be adored should meane it only of the exteriour formes As well might he say that he which teacheth that Christ is to be adored meaneth it of his humanity and not of his diuinity for who knoweth not that the Sacrament of the Eucharist conteyneth not only the SacrameÌ„t that is to say the exteriour formes of bread wine but also the thing of the SacrameÌ„t which is our Sauiour Christ as the person of Christ conteyneth as well his Diuinity as his humanity And therefore he that adoreth his person doth adore his Diuinity vnited with his humanity and not his humanity alone 9. For otherwise he that should adore Christ Cultu latriae should commit Idolatry And as well S. Ambrose when he saith Carnem Christi in mysterijs odoramus Wee adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries as also S. Augustine saying Nemo illam carnem manducat nisi prius adorauerit No man eates that flesh but he adoreth it first should teach Idolatry if they should be vnderstood to speake of the flesh of Christ alone separated from his Diuinity In which repect M. Andrewes himselfe approueth that manner of speach in those two Fathers yea and afterwards explicateth the same himselfe very well out of S. Augustine saying the humanity it selfe of Christ as S. Augustine disputeth is not to be adored by it selfe but vnited with the Diuinity as the Kings purple or Royall robe when he is vested or clad with it and not when it lyeth by it selfe alone Thus saith M. Andrewes and the lyke exposition might he haue made of adoring the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist if his peruerse wrangling and cauiling humour would haue permitted him to acknowledge what is our Catholik doctrine in this point which he could not but knowe in his conscience for that I am sure he neuer read nor heard tell of any
deuotion of the people by the ministry of Angels through the merites of the Martyrs or els whether it be done both waies this he saith he dare not define confessing and teaching euidently as much as we require in this matter to wit that deuout people are certainly helped by the Martyrs Neyther is it to be wondred that S. Augustine would not take vpon him to determine how the same was wrought saying that euen in ordinarie and naturall thinges the effects are euident and certayne and yet the causes are many tymes eyther vncertayn or els wholy vnknowne which is to be graunted much more in supernaturall and miraculous euents as I haue shewed euidently in the last Chapter where I haue confuted such another ridiculous argument of his against Prayer to Saints 44. And albeit he had resolued that the Saints themselues do not appeare or assist at their tombes but Angels in their shape and lykenes yet it could not be sayd but that apparition is theirs being made by Gods expresse ordinance for their merites in their name and lykenes and for the benefit of those that expect and craue their help especially seeing it is vsually said in the holy Scriptures that God spake and appeared to Abraham and Moyses when neuerthelesse it was done by the ministry of Angels and not in any shape that could represent him and therfore S. Augustin◠had great reason to say that S. Felix appeared and that the Martyrs per diuinam potentiam viuorum rebus intersunt are by the diuine power present at the doings or affaires of men although afterwards he moueth a question concerning the manner of it and doth not deny but that it may be done by the ministery of Angels Hereby then it appeareth that this place of S. Augustine so clearely proueth the Apparition of Saints and that men are helped by theirs prayers and merits that M. Andrews had no other way to shift it off handsomly but to omit the wordes of S. Augustine as of small moment and testifying only a sleight matter of heare-say I might add diuers others of this kind but I omit them for breuities sake and the rather for that they are commonly mixed with other kind of fraudes wherof I shall haue occasiō to speake herafter and therefore I will now proceed to others of more importance namely his egregious abuse of authors partly in wresting peruerting their sense partly in the corrupt fraudulent citation of thē in which kind you haue already seene M. Barlows talent whereby you shall be able to iudge whether of them excelleth therin 45. First then I will begyn with his abuse of the Cardinall who to shew that the Protestants in England do not entirely hold the Creed of Athanasius proposeth the Article concerning the day of Iudgemēt when euery one saith Athanasius is to render account de factis proprijs of his owne acts and those which haue done well shall go to life euerlasting and those which haue done euill shall go to eternall fire Whereupon the Cardinnll saith thus In quibus verbis confitemur c. In which wordes of Athanasius we confesse that there shall be a last Iudgement wherein the iust Iudge will render to euery one according to the quality of his deedes to some the crowne of Iustice and to others eternall punishment and shame For if lyfe euerlasting should be giuen to the faithfull not for the merits of workes but in respect of faith and of Christs righteousnes mercifully imputed vnto them there should be no need of Iudgement nor of examination of deedes neither were it needfull that there should come a iust Iudge but a mercyfull Father neyther that we should render any reason of our deedes but shew Christs Iustice imputed vnto vs and apprehended by fayth therefore the King cannot belieue this Article if he belieue with Caluin and the Protestants that all the workes of iust men are sinnes for these are Caluins wordes no worke can passe from holy men which doth not deserue the iust reward of shame 46. And what account shall iust men be able to make of their owne deedes vnto Christ the Iudge if all their workes are vicious and deserue the iust reward of reproach and if iust men shall not be able to giue account of their deedes truly the vniust shall be much lesse able to doe it to what purpose then shall we all stand before the Tribunall of Christ to render account of our owne actions But perhapps they will say that all the workes of the Iust are vncleane and filthie but their filth shall be couered by the mercie of God and the workes reputed as cleane to the faithfull for Christ. But if this were true then should there be no neede as I haue sayd before of the iustice of a Iudge but of the mercie of a Father and liberalitie of a Prince therefore to what purpose doth the Article of the Creed say that Christ shall come to iudge the quick and the dead and that all men shall render account of their owne deedes and why doth the Apostle say reposita est mihi corona iustitiae c. The Crowne of Iustice is layd vp for me which the iust Iudge will giue me in that daie And why doth his fellow Apostle Peter say in lyke sort si patrem inuocatis c. And if you inuocate or call vpon the Father him which iudgeth without acception of persons according to the worke of euery man conuerse yee with fear in the time of your soiourning or dwelling heere And finally why doth our Lord who will come to iudge fortell that he will come with his Angells to render to euery one according to his workes 47. All this saith the Cardinal concerning this matter which I haue laid downe thus largely to the end you may see as well his sound discourse grounded vpon expresse scripture as the malice of M. Andrewes peruerting and wresting the same to another sense then euer the Cardinall meant and there fore craftily leaueth out of the Cardinalls text all that which toucheth Caluins doctrine concerning the impuritie and vncleanes of the best workes which poynt the Cardinall especially impugneth vrging that if Caluins doctrine were true in that behalfe then were the Iustice of God in the iugement and examinatiō of workes needles and only his mercy and liberality requisite whereby the Cardinall excludeth not Gods mercie from his Iudgements as you shall hear euen now M. Andrews charge him but inferreth 3. thinges vpon the Article of the Creed against Caluins doctrine The First that iust mens workes which are to be iustly examined iudged and rewarded with eternall life are not damnable sinnes as Caluin teacheth them to be The Second that men shall not be saued only by their faith and the imputation of Christes Iustice but also by the merits of good workes And the third followeth directly of the former to wit that the only mercie and
only the Cardinall but also the ancient Fathers Councells and holy Scriptures and finally to face out matters impudently for lack of proofes CHAP. IX Pag. 361. That M. Andrews ouerthroweth his owne cause and fortifieth ours graunting many important points of Catholike Religion That he is turned Puritan in the point of the Kings Ecclesiasticall Supremacy and betrayeth his Maiesties cause vnder-hand pretending to defend it and therfore is neither good English Protestant nor yet good Subiect Lastly what is the opinion of learned strangers concerning him and his booke with a good aduise for a friendly farewell CHAP. X. Pag. 329. An Appendix touching a Register alleaged by M. Franc. Mason for the lawfull Ordayning of Protestant Bishops in Q. Elizabeths Raigne THE AVTHORS INTENTION IS DECLARED AND M. D. Andrewes his interpretation of Pasce oues meas examined and confuted FVRTHERMORE It is shewed that he hath belyed S. Augustine corrupted S. Ambrose notably abused S. Cyril vainly carped at a law in the Code foolishly approued the vnlawfull proceeding of Iustinian the Emperour against two Popes CHAP. I. WHEN I had well-neere ended my Supplement and already sent away the greatest part of it to the print it was my chance to haue a sight of M. D. Andrewes his Answere to Cardinall Bellarmines Apology and considering that the subiect thereof was in effect the same that Father Persons and I had handled and debated with M. Barlow I easily perswaded my selfe that I should find many things treated by M. Andrewes which I had touched in my Supplement In which respect I determined to take a speedy Suruey of his worke and finding that he pretended now and then to answere some places authorities and arguments which had bene obiected as well by me as by the Cardinall I resolued to examine and confute his Answers in respect not only of my selfe but also of the most Worthy Cardinall not for that I thinke he needeth any defence who like an inexpugnable fortresse trenched on euery side and fortified with bulwarks of truth doth of himselfe sufficiently resist the assaults and daunt both the courage and force of his enemies but that in discharge of the obligation which all true Christians owe him for his singular merits towards the Church of Christ I may for my part out of my pouerty pay with the poore widdow my two mytes and therfore hauing offered one of them in my Supplement I thinke good now to add the other and the rather for that I hope by the same meanes to preuent the Cauills of my Aduersary M. Barlow who otherwise might perhaps in his reply if he be disposed to make any blame me for not taking notice of such a worthy work as that of M. Andrewes and eyther turne me ouer to him for satisfaction touching those points or els make vse of his answers himselfe which being esteemed as a precious fruite of the fine wit and curious pen of the greatest Rabbin in the English Synagogue are held no doubt by his friends and followers for no other then oracles of Apollo I meane both infallible and irrefragable for which cause I am the more willing to enter into the examination of them And therefore to the end thou mayst good Reader know how far I meane to proceed therin thou shalt vnderstād that seeing my Supplement is already vnder the presse and that I haue no more tyme to bestow on this Adioynder but vntill the said Supplement be printed I make account that I shall haue opportunity to handle but a few points in which respect I think good to make choyce of such only as concerne some of the most important matters cōtrouersed betwixt M. Barlow me not doubting but that the same shall suffice to shew ex vngue Leonem that is to giue the Reader an aboundant tast and tryall of M. Andrews his good spirit and sincerity in the defence of his cause 1. Well then to come to the matter For as much as one of the chiefest points debated in my Supplement by occasion of the new Oath is the question concerning the supreme and vniuersall Authority of the Apostolike Roman Sea which authority I deduced specially from the Pastorall commission giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter I thinke good to examine of what worth and weight M. Andrewes his Answeres are touching the same especially in his 16. 17. page where he laboureth seriously to proue three wayes against Cardinall Bellarmine that our Sauiours words to S. Peter Pasce oues meas alleaged and learnedly vrged by the Cardinall do make nothing for vs. 2. First he saith that S. Augustine affirmeth that S. Peter had no peculiar increase by the word Pasce and that S. Ambrose affirmeth the like of the words oues meas And to the end that this may appeare he pretendeth to lay downe the very words of those two Fathers Of S. Augustine thus Cùm Petro dicitur ad omnes dicitur Pasce oues meas when it is said to Peter it is said to all Feed my sheep Of S. Ambrose thus Eas oues non solùm Beatus suscepit Petrus sed nobiscum eas suscepit nos cum illo accepimus omnes Those sheep not only the blessed Peter receaued but also he receaued them with vs and we all receaued them with him And then M. Andrewes addeth Nempe dictum illi Pasce c. for it was said vnto him Feed as well in the person of others as in his owne atque vel sic iacebit Cardinali ratio sua and so shall the Cardinalls reason serue him to no purpose Thus argueth he 3. But to the end thou maist good Reader see and note with what fidelity and conscience this man alledgeth the Fathers I will lay downe the place of S. Augustine somewhat more amply then he hath done whereby thou shalt easily discouer his notable fraud S. Augustine in the place alledged by him saith thus Non enim sine causa inter omnes Apostolos c. For not without cause doth Peter sustayne the person of the Catholike Church amongst all the Apostles for to this Church the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen were giuen when they were giuen to Peter and when it is said to him Doest thou loue me Feed my sheep it is said to all and therefore the Catholick Church ought willingly to pardon her Children when they are corrected and strengthned in piety seeing we see that to Peter himselfe bearing the person of the Church pardon was granted both when he had doubted vpon the sea c. and when he had thrice denyed his Maister c. Thus saith S. Augustine declaring that Pasce oues which our Sauiour said to S. Peter was said to all the Church because S. Peter bare the person of the Church Which he did by reason of the supreme authority that he had ouer the Church 4. For else why should rather he then others of the Apostles be said to represent
and yet extant to seene so neere to Rome where his Tomes were printed especially seeing that there is such continuall recourse and confluence thither from Rome by reason of the celebrity of that Monastery that he might well think he should quickly be discouered for an impudent and notable lyar in case he should faygne the same And therefore for his further iustification in this poynt he also directeth his Reader to the very Classe where the sayd manuscripts are to be found in the Library of Grotta ferrata to wit vnder the tytles of these Greeke letters ω and ΤΤ. Besyds that he declareth also further that he conferred the same copyes with dyuers other which he saw and are yet to be seene in the Vatican at Rome and in the library of Cardinall Sforza 45. So that these particularityes being considered no man can with any reason or without extreme malice imagin any fraudulent meaning in the translatour seeing he remitteth his translation to the examination of so many learned men as Rome continually affoardeth who might with all facility conuince him of fraud if he had vsed any and therefore M. Andrews sheweth more malice then wit in this exception as also in that he reiecteth the translation because the author thereof was a Catholyke For albeit he say that Catholykes haue lost their credit in matters of that kind yet I hope the discreet Reader who hath already seene by many examples how litle credit M. Andrews deserueth will not easily belieue him without some further proofe then his bare word And this it seemeth he himselfe feareth and therefore seeketh another shift in these words Longè aliter Tomo primo germanus Epâ—rem c. The true Ephrem in his first Tome where he prayâ—th and doth not make orations sayth farre otherwyse calling vpon God alone in euery prayer not so much as naming any Sayâ—t yea there he sâ—eketh to God in this manner Ad te ad praeter te nemiuem orationem facio to thee to none but thee I make my prayer So he not quoting any particuler Treatise or chapter where the words which he cyteth are to be found which by all lykelyhood he omiteth of purpose the better to cloke a peece of coggery which he may be worthily suspected to haue vsed in this poynt 46. For whereas he mentioneth the first tome of a true Ephrem thou shalt vnderstand good Reader that there are no other works of S. Ephrem extant in Latin but only the three Tomes aboue mentioned set forth by Vossius except a litle pamphlet contayning a few sermons translated by a monke of Camaldula which cannot deserue the name of a Tome besides that there is not any such prayer therein as he mentioneth for ought I can find And put the case he could there shew the same words which he cyteth yet they may be so vnderstood that they will make nothing for his purpose For euen as Dauid when he had committed homicide and sinned not only against God but also against his neyghbour sayd neuertheles to almighty God Tibi soli peccaui I haue sinned against thee alone because all sinne against man doth finally redound to God euen so for as much as all our prayer is finally directed to God the author and giuer of all grace and goodnes we may well say that we pray to none but to him albeit we vse therein the interuention and assistance of Angels Saynts or men by whome we also pray to God when we craue or procure their prayers to him for vs. 47. And in this sense no doubt that manner of prayer is to be vnderstood if any such be in S. Ephrem or in any other ancient Father for otherwise it should contradict the custome of the Apostle who vsed to craue the prayers of the Romans Ephesians Thessalonians and others to whome he wrote as also all good Christians are wont to recoÌ„mend themselues to the prayers one of another and are warranted so to do by the holy Scripture so as I shall not need to say any more concerning his true Ephrem vntill he giue me further newes by whome he was translated and published how many tomes there are of him and in what part of his first tome those words which he cyteth are to be found And whereas he concludeth his censure vpon this place with another deuyse affirming that S. Ephrem might perhaps play the Oratour and inuocate Martyrs by a figure called Prosopopaeia whereupon sayth he you may perhaps ground an example of Rhetorick but no rule of Diuinity I will differre the answere thereof for a whyle because he handleth the same point more amply afterwards vpon another occasion 48. In the meane tyme I will proceed to the examination of his censure vpon a place of S. Chrysostome which the Cardinall cyteth thus Nam ipse qui purpuram indutus est c. For he also which is clad with purple commeth to imbrace these tombes and all pryde layd aside to pray to the Saynts that they may pray to God for him To this he answereth in substance that the homily from whence it is taken to wit the 66. ad populum Antiochenum is not S. Chrysostomes by the opinion not only of Erasmus but also of our Garetius yea and that the Cardinall himselfe knoweth that S. Chrysostome did not make 26. Homilyes ad populum Antiochenum and much lesse 66. But heere I must aduertise him that as the Cardinall knoweth that S. Chrysostome made not 66. Homilyes ad populum Antiochenum so he also knoweth very well that all those homilyes are taken out of other vndoubted works of S. Chrysostome and namely that very place which the Cardinall alledgeth is to be seene word for word in S. Chrysostomes Homilyes vpon the Epistle to the Corinth where the words cyted by the Cardinall in Latin are in Greeke thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 49. This I haue thought good for the satisfaction of those that vnderstand the Greeke to lay downe out of the Greeke text in the 26. homily of S. Chrysostome vpon the second Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians where there followeth in lyke maÌ„ner further testimony for the Inuocation of Saynts which is also to be seene in the 66. homily ad Populum Antiochenum albeit the Cardinall thought it needles as it seemeth to alledge the same because the former seemed to him sufficient neuertheles I thinke it not amisse vpon this occasion to add a few words which follow in the Greeke text thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say and which hath or weareth the diademe prayeth to the tent-maker and the fisher as to his patrons yea though they be dead Thus sayth S. Chrysostome in the same place immediatly after the words alledged by the Cardinall as it may be seene not only in the 66. homily ad populum AntiochenuÌ„ but also in the homilyes vpon the Epistle to the Corinthians which are
no man can doubt but that those Fathers did therein exercise acts of pure deuotion as you see S. Gregory Nyssen did according to the beliefe and practice of the whole Church at that tyme which is euident by the testimonyes that you haue heard already and wil be much more manifest by those that yet rest to be examined And this shall suffice for this poynt 16. The next place that he taketh in hand to answere is one of S. Ambrose in these words Obsecrandi sunt Angeli c. The Angels which are giuen vs for Guardians and defenders are to be prayed vnto and the Martyrs in lyke manner whose protection we seeme to challenge by hauing their bodyes in pledge they may pray for our sinnes who with their owne bloud haue washed away their owne sinnes if they had any 〈◊〉 saith S. Ambrose Whereto M. Andrewes answereth that the Cardinall might very well haue forborne to produce this place and not haue cyted it so greedily as he hath donne but that he litle careth saith he as it seemeth that the bloud of Christ should be held for superfluous rather then he would not pray to Saynts for superfluus certè sanguis Christi c. truly the bloud of Christ is superfluous if Martyrs can wash away their sinnes with their owne bloud So he 17. Wherevpon he also inferreth that the Reader may preceiue heereby that Ambrose wrote this when he was but a Nouice in Chistian religion and that it is no meruaile if he sayd that Martyrs are to be prayed vnto seeing he teachethâ— that they haue washt their sinnes with their owne bloud Wherein appeareth the modesty of M. Andrews and his good spirit who rather then he will acknowledge his owne errour which is euidently conuinced by this place chargeth this holy Father with the most execrable and blasphemous doctrine that can be imagined as to teach that the bloud of Christ is superfluous which any Christian hart would abbore to heare and much more to hold and teach seeing that it must needs follow thereupon that all Christian religion and beliefe is in vayne being all grounded vpon the merits of Christs Passion and his precious bloud shed for vs. 18. And truly if S. Ambrose may be charged with this blasphemous opinion for the cause which M. Andrewes alledgeth then all the Fathers of Gods Church yea the Apostles themselues may in lyke manner be charged therewith For all of them say as much in effect as S. Ambrose doth which also may by some peruerse and hereticall â—rayne be wrested to the same peruerse sense albeit to those who do consider the grounds of their doctrine and beliefe the contrary is euident For who knoweth not if malice do not blynd-fold and wholy peruert his vnderstanding that when in the holy Scriptures and Fathers any merit sufficiency or cooperatioÌ„ to saluation is attributed to a man or to his fayth works or any endeauour of his the same is vnderstood to proceed principally from the merits of Christs Passion which is the cause ground and foundation of all grace goodnes and merit in man and therefore is alwayes supposed and necessarily vnderstood in all such manner of speach as this of S. Ambrose though it be not expressed 19. As when we read in S. Gregory Nazianzen that certayne Christian souldiars hauing committed Idolatry exhorted one another vt Christo satisfacerent sanguine suo to satisfy Christ with their bloud and in S. Cyprian omnia peccata passione purgare to purge all sinnes by passion or suffering And agayne in another place redimere peccata c. to redeeme sinnes with iust sorrow and satisfaction and to wassh the wounds of sinne with teares Also in the same Father Deo precibus operibus satisfaccre to satisfy God with prayers and workes and sordes eleemosynis abluere to wash away the filth of sinne with almes And in Origen Poenitendo flendo satisfaciendo delere quod admissum est to abolish or blot out that which hath byn committed with repentance weeping and satisfaction Also in Tertullian that the sinner hath cui satisfaciat to whome he may giue satisfaction and that God doth offer vs impunitatem poenitentiae compensatione redimendam impunity or remission of punishment to be redeemed with the recompence of pennance 20. We read also in Irenaeus that our goods or substance being giuen to the poore solutionem faciunt praeteritae cupiditatis do cause solution or remission of our former couetousnes Also in S. Augustine that for daily and light sinnes quotidiana oratio fidelium satisfacit the daily prayer of the faythfull doth satisfy And in S. Hilary that Dauid facti veteris crimen lacrymis abluit Dauid washt away the fault of his old deed with teares In S. Chrysostome that S. Peter adeo abluit negationem c. did so wash away his denyall of Christ with his teares or repentance that he was made the chiefe Apostle And agayne in the same Oration Vna anima quam lucrati fuerimus c. One soule which we haue gayned may abolish the wayght of innumerable sinnes animaeque redimendâ— fieri precium in illo die and become a price to redeeme our soule in the day of iudgement Finally to omit innumerable other places of the rest of the Fathers S. Gregory the great teacheth that peccata delenda sunt austeritate poenitentiae sinnes are to be blotted out with the austerity of peÌ„nance and the possunt satisfactione purgari they may be purged with satisfaction Thus say these holy Fathers 21. And now will M. Andrews charge them all to teach that the bloud of Christ is superfluous because they speake of mens satisfaction for sinne by washing the same with teares and by purging and redeeming them with almes peÌ„nance and Martyrdome without mention of Christs satisfaction for vs May he not take the lyke exception also to diuers speaches in the holy Scripture as peccatuÌ„ tuum eleemosynis redime redeeme thy sinne with almes misericordia veritate redimitur iniquitas iniquity is redeemed with mercy verityâ— spesalui facti sumus we are saued by hope baptisma vos saluos facit baptisme saueth you saluos nos fecit per lauachrum regenerationis he hath saued vs by the water of regeneratioÌ„ operamini salutem work your saluation and the lyke in diuers other places may he not I say cauill as well agaynst these speaches as agaynst the other in S. Ambrose Yes truly 22. For the reason is all one in both it being euident that the merit of Christs precious blood and death is presupposed and necessarily vnderstood as well in the one as in the other and as Baptisme and Hope are speciall meanes to apply vnto vs the merits of Christs passion in which respect they are sayd in the Scripture to saue vs so also teares of repentance pennance almes good workes and Martyrdome wherof S.
trust with the Common wealth Ad Deum autem quem vtique nihil latet omnia enim merita nouit promerendum suffragatore non est opus sed mente deuota but to deserue the fauour of God from whome nothing is hid and who knoweth all mens merits there is no need of a suffragator or helper but of a deuout mynd Thus saith that Author in that place be he S. Ambrose or who els soeuer 27. Wherein it is to be obserued that his whole scope and drift is to confute the Idolatrous Pagans who did not so much vse the help and mediation of creatures to come to God which no man can deny to be lawfull so that it be done in due manner as they gaue to creatures both the name of God and the honour due to him calling them Gods and adoring them with diuine honour that is to say with sacrifice which is a worship due to God alone and this they did because they were of opinion that the chiefe God did not otherwise know mens minds or actions nor could otherwyse gouerne the world but by the inferiour Gods as kings cannot otherwyse gouerne their realmes but by their officers in which respect the author sheweth the difference betwixt God earthly Kings opposing to their ignorance Gods knowledge of all mens harts and secret thoughts and thereupon concludeth that Ad Deum promerendum suffragatore opus non est there is no need of a suffragator to deserue the fauour of God sed mente deuota but of a deuout mynd giuing to vnderstand that God to whome all mens mynds and harts are manyfest knoweth and seeth the deuotion and merits of euery man though no man intimate or relate the same vnto him 28. Wherevpon it followeth that there is no such absolute necessity to come to God by the meanes of others as the Paynims imagined seeing that any man may according to the doctrine of this Author come to him immediatly by the deuotiō of his owne mynd yea by his merits which by the way I wish M. Andrews to obserue in this place where the author signifieth that there is no need of a suffragator ad Deum promerendū to merit or deserue Gods fauour because God knoweth omnia merita all merits which words I meane promerendum and omnia merita M. Andrews thought good to leaue out of the text which he alledgeth albeit the Authors meaning and the true sense of the place cannot be well vnderstood without them especially promerendum which is essentiall to the text for the Author saith ad Deum promerendum suffragatore non est opus So as you see how M. Andrewes iugleth in the citation of this place not only dissembling the circumstances and drift of the Author but also nipping a word out of the short sentence which he cyteth 29. But notwithstanding all his iugling it is euident the whole place being considered that it maketh nothing against our Prayer to Saynts seeing that we do not make the Saynts Gods as the Paynims made the Sunne Moone to whome they sacrificed neyther do we hold as the Paynims did that a man cannot come immediatly to God by prayer and deuotion which we commonly vse to do directing our prayers as well mentall as vocall to God himselfe although we do also many tymes craue the help and assistance as well of men as of Saynts as a thing though not of absolute necessity to saluation yet very conuenient behoouefull and profitable thereto which is no way contradicted by this place 30. For no man can with any reason imagine that the author of that Commentary denyed it to be lawfull profitable or needfull to haue a suffragatour or mediatour to pray for vs for so should he haue impugned a most knowne truth which M. Andrews neyther will nor can deny I meane the mediation not only of Saynts for vs and of one man for another both which M. Andrews granteth but also of the humanity of Christ for vs all for if we haue no need of eyther suffragatour or mediatour to God but only of a deuout mind because he knoweth our harts and thoughts it followeth that when we doe deuoutly serue God our selues we need not the prayer eyther of other men or of Saynts or yet of Christ himselfe and therefore let M. Andrews consider whether he will admit this inference which must needs be good if he will inferre any thing vpon this place against prayer to Saynts 31. So as you see he hath very impertinently alledged this testimony to proue that S. Ambrose changed his mynd concerning Prayer to Saynts for neyther is the Commentary which he cyteth an vndoubted worke of S. Ambrose consequently the sentence which he alledgeth out of it is not nota sententia a knowne sentence of that holy Father as he tearmeth it neyther is it any thing to the purpose though it be his besides that we may note heere an ordinary trick of an heretyke which is to seeke to ouerthrow most euident and playne places by others that are more obscure and doubtfull or subiect to diuers interpretations for so doth he heere opposing this obscure and difficult place to a testimony which is so cleare that he is forced to reiect S. Ambrose and make him no better then a blasphemous heretike for his doctrine therein and yet you see also that the place which he cyteth being vnderstood secundum subiectam materiam and according to the circumstances thereof maketh nothing at all for him or against vs and this shall suffice for the former of the two places and his euill fortune and folly in the allegation thereof 32. In the other sentence which he alledgeth to proue that S. Ambrose changed his mynd touching prayer to Saynts he sheweth more fraud then folly◠The words are Tu solus Domine inuocandus es Thou only o Lord art to be inuocated whereupon he would inferre that no Saynt may be inuocated that is to say prayed vnto but to omit that which I haue sufficiently treated before concerning the word inuocation whereon he so much relyeth I desire thee good Reader to note how he would cozen and abuse thee in the allegation of this place Thou shalt therefore vnderstand that S. Ambrose in his funerall oration vpon the death of the Emperour Theodosius hauing declared his great vertues vseth indeed those words which M. Andrews cyteth but whether to the same purpose that they are alledged thou thy selfe shalt be iudge Thus then he sayth Conteror corde c. I am much afflicted in hart because a man is taken from vs whose like is hardly to be found sed tu solus Domine inuocandus es tu rogandus vt eum in filijs repraesentes but thou alone o Lord art to be inuocated thou to be prayed that thou mayst represent him in his Children Thus sayth S. Ambrose 33. And now will M. Andrews inferre vpon this that S. Ambrose teacheth heere that we
conclude this Chapter and matter not doubtingâ— good Reader but thou hast noted throughout the whole that he hath neyther sufficieÌ„tly answered any one place of the Fathers alledged by the Cardinall or any argument of his neyther yet hath obiected any thing himselfe to any purpose but hath eyther notably tryfled and paltred in his answeres and obiections or egregiously peruerted corupted or falsifyed such Fathers and authors as he hath had occasion to alledge 76. So as I hope I haue now performed that which I vndertooke in these 3. Chapters which was to defend the Cardinall and to proue M. Andrews to be a true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an egregious wrangler iangler iuggler and tryfler in the hyghest degree and by the same occasion I haue also fully debated with him an important point of Catholike religion concerning the inuocation of Saynts which I haue euidently proued to be most consonant to holy Scripture practised by the primitiue Church approued by the vniforme consent of the ancieÌ„t Fathers most acceptable to God honorable to him and his Saynts and finally very behouefull and beneficiall to man Whereby it may appeare that M. Andrews and his fellowes who so eagerly impugne it are no other then the instruments and proctors of the Diuell who out of his extreme malice and enuy to Angels Saynts and all mankind seeketh by all the meanes he may to depriue the Angels and Saynts of their honour and man of the inestimable benefits that he may reape both spiritually and temporally by their intercession to which purpose he hath retayned and feyed M. Andrews as it seemeth by his diligent and eloquent pleading the cause and will I feare me one day pay him his fee in other money then he wil be willing to receaue except he open his eyes in tyme to see his danger which I beseech God of his infinit mercy to giue him grace to do THE CONCLVSION OF THIS ADIOYNDER DEVIDED INTO TWO CHAPTERS IN THIS are detected diuers fraudes and shifts common to M. Andrews with M. Barlow as to change the state of the question to dissemble that which most importeth in the Cardinalls text and arguments to abuse wrest bely and falsefy not only the Cardinall but also the ancient Fathers Councells and holy Scriptures and finally to face out matters impudeÌ„tly for lack of proofs CHAP. IX THERE remaine good Reader diuers other thinges in M. Andrews to be examined which I haue touched in my Supplement but being now called on by my printer to furnish his presse I am forced not only to send away that which I haue already written but also to interrupt my designement in the prosecution of the rest and therefore for as much as I am now to draw to an end I think good for the conclusion of the whole to lay before thee sundrie sorts of shifts cosenages corruptions frauds which he hath vsed throughout his whole worke and to the end I may performe it with more breuity and better method I will follow the same course that I held with M. Barlow That is draw them to certaine â—eades and giue thee some few examples of euery one which being added to those that haue already occurred in this Adioynder may suffice I hope to shew â—hee with what kind of stuffe he hath patched vp his Latin volume what a miserable cause he and his fellowes haue to defend seing it driueth them to such shamefull shifts as thou hast partly seene already and shalt further see by that which ensueth 2. The first point which I reproued in M. Barlow was his coÌ„mon custome to change the state of the question and so to answere nothing to the purpose which is no lesse frequent and ordinarie in M. Andrews as for example whereas the true state of the controuersy betwixt vs and them concerning the primacy of the Pope is Whether he be supreme head of the Church in all spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes and may in some cases extend his power to temporall thinges that is to say Whether being the supreme spirituall Pastor he may for the publik benefit of the Church and the good of soules punish his disobedient children namely temporall Princes in their temporall states which I haue shewed in my Supplement to be a necessary consequent of his supreme spirituall power M. Andrews will needes make vs hould and teach that the Popes primacy is a temporall primacy in which respect he calleth our doctrine and beliefe touching that point illustrem fidei articulum de Primatu Petri temporali The notable Article of Faith concerning the temporall Primacy of Peter and as you heard before distinguishing the name of Peters primacy which he granteth from the thing signified by that name which he denyeth he tearmeth it terrestrem Monarchiam an earthly Monarchy and therefore he vrgeth the Cardinall to proue this temporall primacy and earthly Monarchy and so impugneth no opinion of ours nor any thing els but his owne fond fiction as I haue shewed before and more amply in the first Chapter of this Adioynder and therfore I shall not need to stand any longer vpon this point heere but will passe to another 3. Amongst other questions much controuersed concerning good works one is whether there be any works of supererogation which the Catholyks vnderstand to be such as being lawfull and good of their owne nature are not commanded by any precept as for example the Euangelicall Councells in which sense Cardinall Bellarmine and all other Catholikes do vse the word supererogation as signifying a work done supra praeceptum that is to say more then the precept coÌ„mandeth But M. Andrewes impugneth it in another sense and so changeth the state of the question For he will needs haue workes of Supererogation to be such good works only as are done after or besids the full accomplishment of the Commandment so that before a man can do a worke of supererogation he must fullfill and fully obserue all the precepts whereupon he also inferreth that no man can do any such works no not the Apostles themselues because they could not fullfill the Commandments hauing allwayes occasion to to say Dimitte nobis debita nostra forgiue vs Lord our offences 4. Wherein M. Andrews expressely impugneth not so much the Cardinall and other Catholiks as S. Augustine and other ancient Fathers from whome they take both the terme and the sense thereof For whereas our Sauiour saith in the Ghospell that the good Samaritan brought the wounded man into the Inne and leauing two pence with the Host told him quodcumque supererogaueris reddam tibi whatsoeuer thou shalt lay out more I will render it vnto thee S. Augustine alluding to the same place and words of our Sauiour teacheth euidently that those things which are lawfull id est sayth he nullo praecepto Domini prohibentur that is to say which are not forbidden by any precept of our Lord
liberality of God is not to haue place in his last Iudgement as it should haue if Caluins doctrine were true but also his Iusticeâ— And therefore vpon this it followeth directly as the Cardinall argueth very well that whosoeuer belieueth Caluins doctrine in this behalfe doth not belieue the Article of the Creed concerning Gods Iudgement and retribution of workes 48. But now let vs se how M. Andrews vnderstandeth and glosseth the Cardinalls text and to the end thou mayst good Reader heare him in his right vaine how he bâ—stirreth himselfe and flourisheth when he hath once chaunged the state of the question and brought it to his purpose I will imparte vnto thee a good part of his discourse and set downe also as much of the Cardinalls text in the margent as M. Andrewes doth to the end thou mayst the better iudge of the whole matter Thus then he sayth Symbolum quoque tertium ab Athanasio conscriptum recipimus integrè c. We receiue also wholy the third Creed written by Athanasius There was no need to make mention of the last iudgement out of that seeing it is expressed both by the Apostolicall and also in the Nycen Creed It is said there that we are to yield account of our deedes but not such an account as it seemeth heere the Cardinall will make who I think will not appeare in the last Iudggement with this his Theology nor say there behould the merits of my workes behould the qualitie of my deedes for the which I require that lyfe euerlasting be giuen me I doe not desire here a mercifull Father but I will haue a iust iudge away with the grace of Faith or of the righteousnes of Christ mercifully imputed vnto me I will haue my deedes examined for works haue proceeded from me which doe not deserue reproach as being such as are without fault and haue nothing that needes to be couered with mercy for if it were so I should haue no need of the Iustice of a Iudge but of the mercie of a Father or of the liberality of a Prince whereof I haue no need It is meruaile that the Cardinal did not add for I am not as all other men as also these innouatours are who haue need of thy mercy to the end that their euill deedes be not ymputed vnto theÌ„ reputed as good deedes for the righteousnes of Christ. But if this were so theÌ„ would CoÌ„stantine say to the Cardinall set vp a ladder clime vp to heaueÌ„ alon as he sayd once to Acetius the NouatiaÌ„ heretick 49. Neuerthelesse a man may well maruaille and demaund whether the Cardinall in good earnest be so affected and so think of himselfe as heere he seemes to doe to wit that he shall haue no need of the mercy of a Father nor of the liberality of a Prince that he feareth not the Iustice of the Iudge that he challengeth to himselfe lyfe euerlasting for the quality of his deedes and merits of his workes that he renounceth the Grace Fayth and Righteousnes of Christ that he will appeare in IudgemeÌ„t without these and there make ostentation of his workes as being full pure and perfect without all kind of filth or vice Thus farre M. Andrewes 50. And dost thou not good Reader see how he descanteth heere vpon a false burthen of his owne amplifying exaggerating his owne malicious conceit and misconstruction of the Cardinalls wordes as though the same were his true sense and meaning dost thou not see I say how he pleaseth himselfe in dilating and amplifying his slanderous fiction glorying and triumphing in his owne malice In so much that I may well say vnto him with the psalmist Quid gloriaris in malitia qui potens es in iniquitate For I appeale to any indifferent man whether any such thing as heere maliciously he inferreth can be iustly gathered on the Cardinalls wordes who as I haue said before meaning to confute Caluins pernicious doctrine which draweth men to a most dangerous presumption of Gods mercy and neglect of his iustice yea and to a careles contempt of all good workes teaching all to be sinfull and damnable and no other meanes of saluation but by only faith and the imputation of Christs Iustice the Cardinall I say impugning this as well by expresse Scripture as by the Article of the Creed doth vrge the Iustice of our iust Iudge as well in the reward of vertue and good workes as in the punishment of vice sinne not excluding his mercy from his Iustice which can neuer be separated but inculcating the consideration of his exact Iudgment in the examination punishment and reward of mens deedes good and bad according to their merits which directly ouerthroweth Caluins doctrine of iustification by only fayth and of the impurity of good workes 51. And therefore for as much as M. Andrews knew very well that he could not so easily delude his Reader with the flourish of his false glosse if he should lay downe the doctrine and words of Caluin which the Cardinall alledgeth and confuteth he resolued to leaue them quite out with a great parte also of the Cardinalls text concerning the same Perhaps he would haue his Reader to imagine that he lackt place and paper but if you consider the length of his discourse which he continueth for almost three whole pages you will easily see that he wanteth neyther paper nor roome in his margent to set downe all the Cardinalls text if he had thought it would haue bene for his purpose 52. But truely that which seemeth to me most strange in his extrauagant discourse is how he could imagine that the Cardinall taketh vpon him to be iudge of his owne actions whose arguments tend to proue that God only is to examine and iudg all mens workes and not that euery man or yet any man shall be able to iudg and determine of the quality of his owne deedes for so should man be his owne Iudg the iugdement of God be no lesse superfluous needles then it should be if Caluins doctrin which the Cardinall impugneth were true Besides that the Cardinall neyther saith nor so much as insinuateth that we shall haue no need in iudgement of the mercy of a Father or the liberalitie of a Prince and much lesse that he renounceth the mercy grace faith and the Righteousnes of Christ as M. Andrews doth calumniate and belie him For the Cardinall knoweth and acknowledgeth as all Catholikes do that without the mercy grace faith and Righteousnes of Christ there can be noe iustificatioÌ„ I meane not the Righteousâ—es of Christ imputed to vs but that which he of his infinit mercy and bounty giueth vs maketh ours non qua iustus est Deus saith S. Augustine sed quam dat homini Deus c. not that Iustice by the which God is iust but that which he giues to man that man may be iust by God and therefore that which the Cardinall saith is only this that
si ita esset if it were so as Caluin teacheth that is to say if the iust mans best workes were sinfull and impure and yet couered and reputed as cleane by the mercy of God and for the Righteousnes of Christ imputed vnto vs then the iustice of a Iudg to examin and iudg our workes were needles and to no purpose seeing in that case the only mercy of God couering our sinnes and imputing Christs Righteousenes vnto vs would suffice to saue vs without the examination and iust iudgment of workes which consequence is indeed so cleare that M. Andrews had noe other shift to auoid it but to peruert the Cardinalls whole sense and meaning and so to argue against his owne fiction and make a plaine Schiâ—maâ—hia as you haue seene him often do before 53. Furthermore it may be wondred greatly how he could so farre forget himselfe as to make the Cardinall so coÌ„fident presumptuous of his owne merit as to brag and boast euen to God himselfe of the quality of his deedes seeing that he I meane M. Andrews knoweth full well and accounteth it for no small error in the Cardinall and all Catholykes that they impugne Luther and Caluins doctrine concerning the certainety and assurance of Saluation and hould that no man without a speciall reuelation from almighty God can know and much lesse determine vtrum odio vel amore dignus sit Whether he be worthy of loue or hatred that is to say whether he be in the state of grace or haue true merits and be truly iustified And therfore the good Catholike though his merits be neuer so great in the sight of God yea and his conscience neuer so cleare whereby his hope also of reward may be greate yet assuring himselfe that he hath no goodnes of himselfe but that all his good merits are Gods guifts are speciall fruits of Gods grace neyther is vainly proud thereof but rather more humble and thankfull for the same neyther yet presumeth to be his owne iudg whether he haue any good merits or no but leaueth the iudgment therof to God with due reuerence and feare knowing that he searcheth the harts and reynes yea and that as the Prophet saith scrutabitur Hierusalem cum lucernis he will search Hierusalem that is to say euen the Consciences of the iust with Candles And that therefore it is necessary for euery man according to the aduise of the Apostle operari salutem cum metu tremore to worke his saluation with feare and trembling In which respect the Cardinall treating in his controuersies of the merits of workes and hauing proued that a man may haue some confidence in good works and merits modo superbia cauetur saith he so that pride be auoided concludeth that propter incertitudinem propriae iustitiae c. For the vncertainty of a mans owne Iustice and the danger of vaine glory it is most safe and secure for euery man to repose his whole confidence and trust in the only mercie and benignity of almighty God Whereof he yealdeth also this reason out of S. Chrysostome that God who seeth and knoweth his good merits will vndoubtedly reward him the rather for his humility 54. Thus then you see that M. Andrewes hath imployd all his Rhetorick no lesse maliciously then vainly in framing such a formal prosopopaeia as he hath done of the Cardinalls Iustification of himselfe and ostentation of his merits which is so farre not only from the Cardinalls humilitie and sanctitie but also from his doctrine euery where and his sense and meaning in this place that I may well conclude that M. Andrews hath notoriously abused wronged and belyed him charging him with false and absurd doctrine which he neuer thought and much lesse taught wresting his words and sense to other purpose then euer he meant or could ymagine which is the point that I haue vndertaken to shew at this tyme and therefore I omit to prosecute the Confutation of the rest of his idle discourse wherein after some further gybes at the Cardinall yea at all Cardinalls and Iesuits for their presumption in their owne Innocencie he laboureth to proue that there shall be place for mercie in Gods Iudgement which I thinke no man will be so absurd to deny and then he alleadgeth certaine places of S. Gregory and S. Bernard to proue that our best workes are impure which places as also all the rest that his fellowes are wont to cite for that purpose are fully answered in Cardinall Bellarmins Controuersies whereto I remit him for that point But in the end after all his rauing it seemeth he is somewhat come to himselfe acknowledging as it were in lucidâ— interuallo that account is to be giuen for deedes as well at the howre of death as in the last iudgement and that good workes shall be rewarded by the force of Gods promise yea and that a man may claime that as due say to almightie God with due humility redde quod promisiâ—ti Giue me that which thou hast promised touching which graunts of his I shall haue very iust occasion heerafter to say somewhat more vnto him as also about merits and the eternall retribution of workes And therefore this shall suffice for the present concerning this point 55. But what meruaile is it if he maketh no scruple to abuse the Cardinall and to peruert his sense and meaning seeing that he vseth the same stile with the holy and auncient Fathers to which purpose I doubt not but you may remember that in the first Chapter of this Adioynder I shewed euidently how he abused belyed and falsified S. Ambrose S. Augustine and S. Cyrill as that he corrupted S. Ambrose his text adding certaine words thereto and belyed S. Augustine and S. Cyril affirming them to teach that S. Peter lost his Apostleship by his fall Whereas S. Augustine hath nothing at all to that purpose in the place cyted by M. Andrews and teacheth the quite contrary els where And though S. Cyril hath somewhat concerning that matter yet it is farre otherwyse then M. Andrews suggesteth as is euident by the place it selfe which I haue laid downe at large in the first Chapter and therfore I forbear to treat further therof in this place 56. Also you may remember his notable fraud in the corrupt allegation of a Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon concerning the equality of dignity power and authority which he saith was giuen thereby to the Bishop of Constantinople with the Bishop of Romeâ— whereas the contrary appeareth by the expresse wordes of the same Canon by the which it is cleare that only the precedeÌ„ce was not graÌ„ted to the Bishop of CoÌ„stantinople before the Bishops of Alexandria Antioch and therefore he craftely concealed and left vncited such wordes of the Canon as would haue discouered his fraud besids other tricks shifts which he vsed in other points coÌ„cerning the same matter
exceedingly wonder as well at the penury of learned Deuines in England as at their want of iudgment in venturing the credit of their cause vpoÌ„ so weake a Champion whose valour consisteth in nothing els but in certayne Thrasonicall braggs Satyricall scoffes and a vayne presumption of his latin stile which neuertheles seemeth to learned men more fit for a Comicall or Satyriall Poet theÌ„ for a Doctor of Diuinity wherein also they obserue such obsurdityâ— that they hold it for no lesse vicious in a Deuine writing of matters in controuersy then it would be in an Orator or Aduocat pleading a cause in whome nothing is more requisit then perspicuity and therefore Quintilian greatly reprehendeth such as affecting an extraordinary breuity necessaria subtrahunt verba c. do leaue out saith he necessary words And as if it were sufficient that they know their owne meaning care not whether others vnderstand them or no. So sayth Quintilian 72. And truly the same is so well verifyed in M. Andrewes that he may iustly say with the Poet dum breuis esse laboro obscurus fio whyles I labour to be briefe I become obseure in so much that he is farre more easy to be confuted then vnderstood seeming somtymes rather to propound riddles then to argue or discourse which he doth perhaps of purpose to the end that being obscure and ambiguous he may alwayes haue some starting hole or other when he is pressed by his aduersary not vnlike to a fish called in latin sepia in English a Cuttle which when she is in danger to be taken casteth out a kind of black licour lyke inke wherwith she obscureth and troubleth the water in such sort that she cannot be seene and so the more easily escapeth 73. Neuertheles M. Andrews reapeth not the like benefit by his obscurity being discouered wheresoeuer he lurketh and taken tardy at euery turne whereof sufficient experience hath bene seene in these few points of his booke which I haue had occasion to handle being only such as are incident to matters treated in my Supplement besydes dyuers others of the same sort which I am forced for lack of time to omit wherein I might much more amply haue displayed his insufficiency falsity and folly and therfore I leaue it to thee good Reader to imagin what a number of absurdityes lyes frauds and corruptions his whole worke would affoard if it were well examined 74 But now to end in no lesse charitable manner with him then I did with M. Barlow I will only wish him well to consider those few aduyses which I gaue to M. Barlow in the 8. last paragraphs of my Supplement and to take them also as meant and giuen to himselfe to the end he may seriously reflect vpon them specially vpon his vayne endeauours and lost labour in impugning the Apostolike Roman Sea weyghing withall in what a dangerous and miserable state he standeth so long as he is separated from the vnion therof which I haue there euidently shewed by the testimony of the most ancient and holy Fathers Almighty God of his infinit mercy open his eyes that he may see it and duly ponder our Sauiours most important aduyse golden lesson Quid prodest homini c. What doth it profit a man if he gayne all the world and loose his owne soule FINIS AN APPENDIX TOVCHING A Register alleadged by M. Francis Mason to proue THAT The first Protestant Byshops in the reigne of Queene Elizabeth had a lawfull Consecration THIS Adioynder being printed and some copyes ready to be diuulged it was my chance to vnderstand by a Letter written to a frend of myne that one M. Mason hath lately published a Book wherin he preteÌ„deth to answere the Preface to Fa. Persons his Discussion especially concerning one point treated therin to wit the Consecration of the first Protestant Bishops in the raigne of Queene Elizabeth further that he indeauoureth to proue their consecration by a Register testifying that 4. Bishops consecrated M. Parker the first Archbishop of Canterbury in the said Queenes dayes wherupon if it be true it must needes follow that all other Bishops consecrated after him and his successors euen vntill this day haue some more shew of lawfull consecration and succession then the Catholickes haue hitherto known or imagined 2. And therfore for as much as not only the Authour of the Preface to Fa. Persons his Discussion but also my selfe in my Supplement and in this Adioynder haue constantly denyed that they had any such consecration I thought good to stay the publication of this Adioynder vntill I had added therto this briefe Appendix concerning M. Masons pretended Register left otherwise M. Barlow and M. Andrewes may hold me to be sufficiently answered by M. Mason and remit me to his Register for that point Thou shalt therfore vnderstand Good Reader that this our exception touching the lawfull vocation and Consecration of the first Protestant Bishops in the late Queenes dayes is not a new quarrell now lately raised by vs two only I meane the Authour of the foresaid Preface and my self but vehemently vrged dyuers tymes heretofore by many other Catholykes many yeares ago yea in the very beginning of the late Queenes reygne as namely to omit others by the two learned Doctors Harding and Stapleton in theyr bookes against the Apology of the Châ—rch of England M. Iewell and M. Horne whome they pressed mightily with the defect of due vocation and consecration vrging them to proue the same and to shew how and by whome they were made Priests and Bishops 3. To which purpose M. D. Harding in his confutation of the Apology speaking to M. Iewell the pretended Bishop of Salisbury and hauing already proued that he had no succession in his Episcopall function from the Apostles sayth thus Therefore to goe from your succession to your vocation how say you Syr You beare your selfe as though you were a Bishop of Salisbury but how can you proue your vocation By what authority vsurp you the administration of doctrine and Sacraments What can you alledg for the right proof of your ministry Who hath called you Who hath layd hands on you By what example hath he done it how and by whome are you consecrated Who hath sent you c. So he 4. In lyke manner M. Doctor Stapleton in his answere to M. Iewells booke intituled A reply c. saith thus How chanced then M. Iewell that you and your fellowes bearing your selues for Bishops haue not so much as this congruity and consent I will not say of the Pope but of any Christian Bishop at all throughout all Christendome neyther are lyked and allowed of any one of them all but haue taken vpon you that office without any imposition of hands without all Ecclesiasticall authority without all order of Canons and right I aske not who gaue you Bishoprikes but who made you Bishops
pag â—09 A pecuniary Pastour 210. Confuteth himself 220. A meere wrangler pag. 222.268 His inference of Quidlibet ex Quolibet pag. 233. His Cripticall Cauill against S. Ephrem 23â— His Goggery pag. 241. His abuse of Sâ— Epiphanius 254. Of S. Ambrose 269. His euill fortune 274. His clipping paring of Fathers authorities when they make against him 278. His confusion of the Priest with the people Masse with Mattines c. 298. His abuse of Theodoret 307. his scrupulosity in alleaging of Authorityes 323. Pressed with his owne Argument 324. Proueth himselfe a Iew 325. His transgressioÌ„ of the Synodicall Canons of England 333. His silly discourse about prayer to Saints 337. Prodigall of his Rhetorickâ— 343. Wrongeth his Maiesty 349. His erring of malice â—56 His trifling obiections 357.358.359 His changing the state of the Question about the Popes Primacy 362. CoÌ„cerning holy reliques 368. His poore conceipt of S. Iohn the EuaÌ„gelist 370. A iest of his spoyled 374. Triumpheth when he looseth 377. His Dissimulation of matters that most import to be explicated 386.388 His want of paper in text margent to set downe the truth 394. His Lucidum interuallum 405. His abuse of S. Gregory 407. his bad conscience 412. His outfacing of matters when he cannot answere 418. His abuse of the Iesuits 425.426 He triâ—th how neere he can go to the Catholike Religion misse it 430.431 his poore conceyt of the K. Ecclesiasticall Supremacy 459. How it may be in his Pater noster but not in his Creed 460. Excluded by M. Andrews 467. from his Maiesty 471. How he is turned Puritan pag. 477.480 Angell in the Apocalyps for bad S. Iohn to adore him why pag. 370. Appeales to Rome pag. 155. by Anthony Byshop of Fussula 160. allowed by the Primate of Numidia 164. testified by S. Augustine and others pag. 165. by S. Iohn Chrysostome 184. S. Augustine abused by M. Andr. pâ— 4.5.6 his acknowledgment respect of S. Peters Supremacy p. 17. p. 150.159.167.189 his approuing of prayers to Saints 296.297.298 Authority of the Sea of Rome in all ages p. 169.170.173.180.181.188 proued by all the ancient Fathers passim by Origen 198. by S. Hilary 189.200 Authors reason and intention of this Booke p. 2.3 what question handled therin ibid. pag. 4. B M. BARLOW and M. Andrewes disagree about our English Clergies gouernement 422. S. Basils discourse of prayer to Saints 218. of Inuocation of Martyrs 223. Beggary of the Church Clergy of England 457. Ca. Bellarmine abused by M. Andrewes cleared pag. 108.221 355. his meaning about our prayers to Saints and their praying for vs explicated 215. Bishops of the East-church deposed by the Pope pagâ— 53. C CHRIST our Mediatour Aduocate 339. S. Chrisostome proueth S. Peters Supremacy pag. 22. 142. His appeale to Pope Innocentius 184. His testimony for inuocatioÌ„ of Saints 244. Church of the East subiect to the West pag. 49. Church why it is called one Mother pag. 105. built equally vpon the Apostles pag. 144. how it only challengeth the name Catholick 451. Church of England beggarly 457. Collyridians their heresy 255. Constantinople subiect to the Church of Rome pag. 50. Gods Iudgement vpon that Church for her schisme pag. 54. Constitutions of the pretended Bishops of England pag. 330. conuinced of fraud by his Maiesty 332. Conference at Hampton-Court before his Maiesty 332. L. Cromwell Vicar Generall to K. Henry 8. in spiritualibus 469. Councell of Calcedon approued the Popes Supremacy pag. 39.40 Councell of Ephesus head therof 187. Councels why assembled pag 227. Councell of Loadicea forbiddeth Idolatry to Angels 308. Customes Ecclesiasticall of what force validity pag. 293. S. Cyprian proueth the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head thereof 101.104 also the Primacy of S. Peter pag. 106. S. Cyril acknowledged S. Peters Supremacy pag. 17. abused by M. Andrewes pag. 19. D DAMASVS Pope what authority attributed to him by S. Hierome pag. 173. Difference betweene the Primacy of S. Peter and the priuiledges graunted to the Roman Sea 83. Dignity of Gods grace increaseth the value of merit 437. Dioscorus Patriark of Constantinople depriued by Pope Leo. p. 94. E S. EPHREM calumniated by Mâ— Andrews 239. S. Epiphanius abused by M. Andrewes 254. Equality how it is sometimes to be vnderstood pag. 45.46 Equality of obligation requireth equality of care pag. 80. F FATHERS of the Church abused misconstrued belyed and falsified by M Andrewes pag. 5.6.7.18.19.415 passim Father of Lyes M. Andrewes his Father 192. Fall of S. Peter no preiudice to his Primacy pag. 148.149.150 Francis vide Mason G F. GARNET impudently belyed by M. Andrewes 247. Grace of Christ worketh a true inherent Iustification in vs. pag. 391. H HERETICKS the later follow the elder pag. 152. Heresy to condemne prayer to Saints 249. Heresy of the Collyridians 255. Heretikes their tricks to ouerthrow playne places by obscure 279. S. Hierome abused by M. Andrewes pag. 113. how he acknowledgeth S. Peters Supremacy pag. 119. His contradiction of Vigilantius for denying prayer to Saints p. 228. S. Hilaryes proof for S. Peters Primacy pag. 199.200 I IDOLATRY of the Phrygians done to Angells 310. Iesuits belyed by M. Andrewes for not synning 425. Images of Saints vsed in the Church 264. approued by S. Gregor Nissen ibid. Inuocation of him in whome we belieue how it is meant by S. Paul pag. 213. Inuocation of Martyrs â—23 miraculous effects thereby 225. not confirmed by any decree in the primitiue Church why p. 227. warranted by S. Chrisostome pag. 244. Vniuersall in his tyme 245. How the belief thereof is necessary to saluation 248. approued by S. Gregorie Nazianz. 253. by Nissen 264. practised by Theodosius the Emperour 286. defended by S. Paulinus 295. by S. Augustine 296. impugned by Protestants 336.337 Justinian the Emperour his law for the Popes Supremacy pag. 25. His facts against two Popes examined reproued pag. 30. His ignorance pag. 32. His death and repentance pag. 33.36.37 K KEYES and Pastorall Commission giuen to S. Peter not mentioned in the CanoÌ„ of the CouÌ„cell of Constantinople pag. 84. Kings neuer came to the Gouernement of the Church 464. Excluded by a Rule of M. Andrewes 465. King of England taketh his power Eâ—clesiasticall from the Parliament 468. L LAW of Moyses how Christians may ground theron p. 11. P. Leo his controuersy with Martian the Emperour and Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople pag. 62.63.64.70.72.73 His primacy acknowledg by the Councell of Calcedon pag. 90.92 93.94 Locusts that destroy Religious profession perfection are Protestants 450. M Mr. MASON his Register for the Consecration of the first Protestant Bishops confuted In appendice per totum Martian the Emperour his controuersy with Pope Leo pag. 61. Martyrs inuocated 223. miraculous effects therby 225. S. Maximus B. of Turin his homiles of Saints pag. 205. Merits of Christ how we are saued by them 342. Merit of good works granted by M. Andrewes 434.436 Miracles in
the Cath. Church done at the Reliques of Saints 443. at Valentia in Spaine ibid. None wrought in the ProtestaÌ„ts Church why ibid. Monks of the Primitiue Church their discipline .449 their first Institute approued by M. Andrews 448. N NAME Catholike belongeth only to the Roman Church 451. S. Greg. Nazianz. his approbation of prayer to Saintes pag. 253. to our B. Ladie ibid. S. Greg. Nissen his approbation of holy reliques in the Church 264. of prayer to Saints ibid. His prayer to S. Theodor the Martyr 267. O OATH of Supremacy why it is vnlawfull 461. Origen his proof of S. Peters Primacy 198. P PASTORS their obligation of care of their Churches pag. 76.78 Prayer to Saintes approued by S. Basil 218. Impugned by Protestants 336.337 conform to Scripture deduced from it 344. Power ouer the soule implyeth power ouer the body pag. 126. Priuiledges graÌ„ted to the Church of Constantinople pag. 44.45.46 Abrogated by Pope Leo pa. 47. Puritans their Doctrine concerning the Kinges Supremacy 419. How some of them take the Oath of Supremacy 420. S. Peter how he bare the person of the Church when he receaued the Keyes pag. 5. His Supremacy grounded vpoÌ„ the wordes Pasce oues meas pag. 8. acknowledged by S. Augustine pag. 17. By S Cyril ibid. by S. Hierome pag. 119. by Origen 198. by S. Hilary 199. How he was called the light of the Church pag. 103. How he was reprehended by S. Paul pag. 107. how he is the foundation of the Church pag. 109. preferred before S. Iohn why pag. 118 How he may be called a Monarch pag. 134. His fall no preiudice to his Primacy pag. 148. Q QVEENE Elizabeth her spirituall Gouernment giuen vnto her by the Parliament 476. R RELIQVES of Saints vsed in the Church 284. approued by S. Gregory Nissen ibid. M. Rogers against M. Andrews concerning our English Clergy 422 423. Roman Church neuer fayled in Faith by Gods prouidence pag. 124. S SAINTS praied vnto in all ages passim how they heare our prayers and help vs pag. 288. how they know our praiers and actions 291.318.319 practised in the primitiue Church 334. impugned by Protestants out of Scripture 336.337 How they helpe vs by the participation of Christs power 347. Protectors of Citties Countries ibid. Schisme whence it commonly ariseth pag. 125. Signe of the Crosse in Baptisme 334.336 Sermons de tempore in Latin and Greeke in S. Augustines tyme pag. 146. by S. Maximus Bishop of Turin 205. Siluerius the Pope his vsage by Theodora and Iustinian pag. 32.33 defended by the Bishop of Patera 24.35.36 Speaches conditionall do not alwayes suppose a doubt in the Speaker 261. Supremacy of S. Peter grounded vpon the words Pasce oues meas pag. 8. proued by S. Chrisostome 142. Supremacy Ecclesiasticall of the King of England and M. Andrews conceit thereof .459 excluded by a Rule of M. Andrewes 465. T THEODOSIVS the Emperour inuocated Saints pag. 286. particulerly S. Iohn Baptist. ibid. Theodoretus restored to his Bishoprike by Pope Leo pag. 59. Abused by Maister Andrewes 307. Theodora the Empresse her practise against Pope Siluerius pag. 31. Tyranny more frequent in smal States then in great Monarchies pag. 130. V VIGILANTIVS his heresy against prayer to Saints pag. 228. resisted by S. Hierome ibid. 377.378.379 M. Andrews his progenitour 377. Vniuersall Bishop the title giuen to the Pope by the CouÌ„cell of Calcedon pag. 68. Votiue represeÌ„tations of haÌ„ds feet eyes c. hung vp in Churches in the Primitiue Church 2â—0 W VVORKSâ— good Works how the are said to saue vs. 272. Wryters of diuers partes of Scripture vncertayne pag 250. FINIS The reason that moued the Author to adde this Adioynder to the former SuplemeÌ„t The Authors intention in this Adioynder What question is specially handled in this Adioynder SupplemeÌ„t chap. 1. nu 58.59 seq D. Andr. Respons ad Apolog. ca. 1. pag. 16. Aug. de Agon Christ. c. 30. Ambros. de sacerd dignitate cap. 20. S. Augustine lamely and frauduleÌ„tly alledged by M. Andrews August vbi supra Cic. offic l. 1. How S. Peter did beare the person of the Church when he receaued the keyes S. Augustines meaning declared out of his owne doctrine Tract vlt. in Ioan. Idem in Ps. 108. Idem ser. 13. de verb. Dom. M. Andrewes fraud against the intention of S. Augustine S. Ambr. de Sacerd. dignit c 1. The meaning of S. Ambrose declared Andr. ca. 3. pag. 74. § Verum Ambr. in 2. Cor. 12. IdeÌ„ lib. 10. coÌ„ment in cap. 24. EuaÌ„g Luc. S. Ambrose proueth S. Peters Supremacy out of the wordes Pasce oues meas Three things taught by S. Ambrose D. Andrews can help the dyce wheÌ„ he is put to his shifts A vayne brag of D. Andrews Andr. cap. 8. pag. 214. 215. The secoÌ„d argument answer of M. Andrews which he taketh to be so sharp that it will prick the Cardinall Andr. c. 1. pag. 16. §. VeruÌ„ vim videamê° See Suppl Chap. 1. n. 18.19 sequ Num. c. 8. Num. 1. Deut. 10. 18. Supplem c. 1. n. 22.23 24. Suppl cap. 1. vbi supr In what case ChristiaÌ„s may ground vpon the law of Moyses M. Andrews his beggarly proofe for a temporal princes spirituall Supremacy See infra cap. 6. M. Andrews proofes of the temporall Princes supremacy sauour of Iudaisme 2. Reg. 5. D. Andrews doth equiuocate egregiously Andr. vbi supra D. Andrews argueth impertinently Isa. 44. Num. 27. D. Andrews coÌ„founded by an instance of his owne Theodor. quast 48. in Num. See Suppl nu 21. Num. 27. M. Andrews pricking argument doth wound none but himselfe The third answere of D. Andrews examined Andr. vbi supra pag. 17. lin 4. (a) See after c. 3. n. 36.37 seq (b) Cap. 5. n. 18.19.20 (c) Supplement cap. 1. nu 59. sequent If the Popes primacy be a temporall Primacy M. Andrews is a pecuniary Pastour S. Augustine acknowledgeth S. Peters supremacy in the place alleadged by M. Andrews S. August Tract 124. in Euang. Ioan. Idem in psal 108. S. Cyril coÌ„ment in Cap. vlt. Ioan. S. Cyril also acknowledgeth S. Peters supremacy in the place which M. Andrews alleadgeth Andr. vbi supra M. Andrews maketh S. Augustin S. Cyril fauour a pernicious heresy S. Augustine belyed by D. Andrews Aug. Ep. 50. S. Cyril notably abused by M. Andrews Cyril vbi supra Andr. pag 215. §. Noâ— vero M. Andrews worthily suspected to hold that Magistrats fall from their dignity by mortal sinnes S. Cyril Hierosol Cathech Mystag 2. Optat. l. 7. de Schismate DonatistaruÌ„â— The plaâ—ces of 3. Fathers alledged by M. Andrews do confute him S. Chrysostome for S. Peters Supremacy Chrysost. de Sacerd. l. 2. Ibidem Ibid. S. Leo. ep 89. Idem ser. 3. de assumpt sua ad Pontif. Supplem cap. 5. nu 25.26 27. Euseb. Emis ho. de natiuit Ioan. Euan. Theophil in cap. vlt. Ioan. S. Ber. l. 2. de consider Psal. 1.19 Psal. 63. M. Andrews his
ciuit Deica 8. S. Ambros li. 7. ep 54. ad Marcellin See cap. 9. nu 14. 15. Andr. paâ— 4. lin 7. S. Ephr. Ser. de laud. SS Mart Card. Apol p. 15. Andr. ca. 1. p. 41. §. Proximi M. Andrews his crypticall cauill against the testimony alleadged out of S. Ephrem Andr. vbi supr M. Andrews his câ—ggery Psal. 50. In what sense it is sayd that we pray to God alone Ro. 15. Ephes. 6. Thes. 3. Col. 4. Heb. 13. S. Chrys. Hom. 66. ad Pop. Antioch Caâ—d Apol p. 14. Andr. pa. 41 §. lamdudum S. Chryso Ho 26. in 2 ep ad Corâ— A further testimony of Sâ— Chrysostome touching the inuoâ—cation of Saynts Andr. vbi supra This is nothing els but to cast shaddowes before the light to obscure not to seek out the truth Supra nu 26. 27. Supra nu 19. 20. The custome of prayer to Saynts vniuersall in S Chrysostomes tyme. M. Andrews impugning the custome of prayer to Saynts impugneth an argument of Christs diuinity M. Andrews tryfleth notably in vrging the Cardinall to proue that prayer to Saynts is of necessity to saluation Apol. Card. p. 11. §. Sequituâ— Ibid p. â—2 §. Accipiam How the beliefe of prayer to Saynts is of necessity to saluation Matth. 18. Folly to neglect omit prayer to Saynts impiety to contemnâ— it heresy to coÌ„demne it Card. Apol p. 17â— S. Max. in ser. de laud. S. Agnet Andr. pâ— 42. §. Maxmi See chap. 4. nu 22.23 24. See chap. 5. nu 16. 17. S. Ambro de Virgin li. 4. epâ— 33. (b) Vide Bellar. de verbo Dei cap. 20. The writers of diuers parts of holy Scripture vncertayne (c) Euseb. li. 3. hist. c. 3. S. Hier. de viris Illust. (d) Sixt. Senens l. 7. Biblioth Sanct. (f) Luth. in prolo ep ad Hebr. (g) Mag. cent 1. li. 2. c. 4. col 55. (h) Kem. in exam â— sâ—ss Concil Trident. (k) in Confess VVittemb cap. de sacra Scriptura (l) Caluinus inst ca. 10. § â—â— c. 16. §. 25. S. Greg. Naz. in laud. S. Cypri Card. Apol. p. 14 A cauill against a place cited out of S. Greg. Nazianzen Andr. vâ—i supra â— Hieron comment in cap. 23. Matth. See before nu â—â— 19 â—7 Iâ—em nuâ— 5â— Andr. vbi supra A notable collusion of M. Andrews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Gregory Nazianzen highly approueth prayer to our Blessed Lady S. Greg. Nazian vbi supra S. Epiphâ— shamefully abused by M Andrewes The heresy of the Collyridâ—anâ— S. Epipha haer 79. de Collyriâ— dianis M. Andrews careâ—lesse of hiâ— reputatioÌ„ Mâ— Andrews seeking to discredit a place of Nazianzen hath discredited himselfe Apol. Card. pa. â—5 Cyril Hieros catech 5. S Greg. Nissen orat in S. Theodor. Card. Apol p. 13. Andr. p. 42. §. Venio seq Ambros. in Luc. 10. cap. 12. Euseb. in vita Constant Nazian orat in pascha M. Andrews would make the ancient Fathers better Orators theÌ„ Christianâ— M. Andrews adâ—uertised of 4. things Matth. 5. Conditionall speaches do not alwayes suppose a doubt in the speaker Ep. 〈◊〉 hilemâ— Ibid. M. Andrews maketh the ancient Fathers very vnchristian and wicked Oratours Melanch in antith Verae doctri Pontif. Magdeb. cent 1. l. 2. c. 4. colum 340. Brent in Apol. Confes. VVittemb Beza in Respons ad Nicolaum Seluec Andr. cap. 8. p. 150. liu 45. S. Greg. Nyssen orat in Theodor. Mart. Pictures of Martyrs vsed in Churches and highly approued by S. Gregory Nyssen The great deuotion of Chrians in the reuereut touching of holy reliques approued by S Gregory Nyssen The Inuocation of holy Martyrs expresly mentioned and allowed by S Gregory Nyssen (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Greg. Nyssen vbi supra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M Andrews remitted to the Greek text wherto he ordinarily appealeth A shifting euasion of M. Andrews refuted Andr. pag 44. lin 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Andrews his doubt retorted vpon him selfe Ioan. 14. What S. Gregory Nyssen meant when he sayd to S. Theodore Wheresoeuer thou art Nyssen vbi supra M. Andrews a wrangler in the highest degree Ambrosâ— l. de viduis Card. in Apol. p. 15. S. Ambrose shamefully calumniated by M. Andrews Andr. p. 45. §. Potâ—rat S. Ambrose cleared from M. Andrews his slaunderous imputation by the vniforme doctrine of holy Scriptures and Fathers Nazian orat 1. in Iulian. Cypr. li. 4. ep 2. Idem li. 1â— ep 3. li. 3. ep 14. in ser. de opere eleemos Origen bo 6. in exod Tertul. li. 2. de poeniten ca. 7. Ibid. ca. 6. Iren. li. 4. c. 26. in sine S. Aug. in enchiridio ca. 71. S. Hylar in psalm 118. in fine S. Chrys. orat 5. aduers Iud. S. Greg. li. 6. in 2. Reg. 15â— ca. 2. Dan. 4. Prou. 16. Rom. 8. Tit. 3. Philip. 2. The reason why baptisme pennance good works Martyrdome and such lyke are sayd to saue vs without derogatioÌ„ to the Passion of Christ. M. Andrews shewed to bâ— eyther very ignorant or exceeding malicious Andr. p. 45. § Poterat S. Ambros in cap. 1. ad Rom. Idem oration de obitu Theodos M. Andrews vnfortunate foolish frauduleÌ„t and first touching his euil fortune Coment in ca. 3. ep â— ad Tim. See chap. 1. nu 7. Ibidem Posseuin in Appar Maldonat in cap. 17. Matt. Bellar de amiss gra lib. 4. c. 9. §. Sed facilis M Andrews his folly in alledging a place against prayer to Saynts which doth nothing concerne it Rom. 1. Ambros. in cap. 1. ad Rom. What the authours scope and drift was in the place alledged by M. Andrews M. Andrews clippeth the Fathers authorities that they may not speake against him The mediation as well of Christ himselfe as of Saynts men for vs is ouerthrowne by the place alledged by M. Andrews if he vnderstand it aright The trick of heretiks to seeke to ouerthrow plaine places by obscure Another place of S. Ambr. very fraudulently cited by M. Andrews and ridiculously applied to his purpose See Chap. 6 nu 2. 3. S. Ambr. de obitu Theod. M. Andr. applyeth that to all things in generall which S. Ambrose speaketh of a particuler matter Only God is to be inuocated prayed vnto as the giuer of grace though the prayers of Saynts men may be craued to obteine it of him The weaknes of M Andrews his cause is further discouered by another shift and cozenage of his Andr. p. 45. §. Poterat A booke forged fathered vpon S. Ambrose which he neuer wrote S. Ambros. lib 1 de sacram cap. 3.4 5. Idem lib. 5. cap. 4. M. Andrews hardly vrged by his owne argument Andr. p. 45. § Poterat M. Andrews hiâ— absurd argument ab authoritatâ— negatiua retorted against himselfe How many wayes M. Andrews hath abused S. Ambrose M. Andrews answere to a place of Ruffinus examined and confuted Ruffin lib. 2. Hist. c. 33. Card. Apol p. 10. Andr. p.
Cap. 6. nu 64. (d) Cap. 7. nu 16.17 sup (e) Cap. 8. nu 1.2.3 seq vsque ad nu 10. Suplem â— 2. nu 71. And cap. 7. p. 160. §. Verum S. Gregory abused by M. Andrewâ— Open your eyes Syr Lancelot and see whether S. Gregory sayd nothing of the fifth generall Councell S. Greg. l. 3. Ep. 37. Andr. cap. 1. pag. 46. (a) Bellar de Sanct. beatit lib. 1. ca. 1. 2. (b) Andr. vbi supra lin 4. Bell. de Beatit lib. 1. ca. 20. S. Aug. li. de cura pro mort ca. 12. (c) Idem ibid c. 15. (d) Ibid. c. 1â— A most grosse and palpable fraud or rather foolery of M. Andrewes Card. Apolog c. 12. p. 157. S. Aug. de ciuit Dei l. 22. cap. 8. Andre ca. 12. pag. 284. §. 1. Epist. 137 M. Andrews his bad conscience in abusing S. Augustine most impudently S. Aug. Ep. â—37 S. Aug. de ciuit Dei l. 22. cap. 8. Andr. c. 1. p. 46. §. at id nuÌ„quam M. Andrews his abuse of S. Augustine inexcusable See suppl c. 6. num 14 15.16 Ibidem Andr. ca. 1. p. 22. §. Sed nec The holy Scripture abused by M. Andrews Deut. 17. (d) Deut. 17. 24. Exod. 28. Ezech 44. Malach 2. See chap. 1. à nu 10 ad nu 24. (a) Andr. ca. 1. p. 16. M. Andrews his facing-out of matters (b) ca. 8. p. 214. §. Negatâ— (c) Cap. 1. nu 3. sequent ad nu 12. (d) c. 2. nu 3.4.6.7.59 64. Ibidem (f) See before nu 21. seq ad nu 27. Card. Apolog ca. 15. pag. 197. 198. M. Andrews impudently affirmeth that the Puritans haue recalled their doctrine coÌ„cerning the Kings supremacy Andr. cap. 15. p. 342. §. ad quartum The fact of some Puritans in taking the oath cannot preiudice the opinioÌ„ or doctrin of the rest Andr. p. 34◠§. Porrò M. Barlow a witnes against M. Andrews (b) M. Barlow in his Epistle to the ministersâ— of Scotland The testimony of all the English Clergy against M. Andrews Thom. Rogers Artic 37. propos 2. p. 206. (f) T. C. â—â—p p. 144. (g) Ecc. dis p. 185. (h) Lear. disc p. 89. (i) Beza dâ— presb p. 124. (k) Lear. disc p. 84. Tho. Rogers p. 208. §. penult M. Andrewes his immodesty in reuyling the Cardinall most iniuriously (d) Chap. 10. nu 61. sequeÌ„t Andr. p. 15. §. verum An impudent lye of M. Andrews touching certayne Iesuits 1. Iohn 1. Prouerb 24. Another egregious lye of M. Andrews coÌ„cerning a Iesuit in prison Andr. ca. 15. pag. 342. lin 5.6 7. F. Garnet impudently belyed by M. Andrews See Sup. c. 8. nu (a) See Cap. 1. nu 3.4.5.22 23. (b) Ibidem nu 19. (c) Ibid. nu 44.45.46.47.48 sequent (d) Chap. 2. nu 4 seq vsque ad nu 11. Item nu 64.65 66. (f) Chap. 3. nu 13.14 15. (g) Ibid. nu 30.37 sequent (h) Chap. 4. nu 21. seq ad nu 31. (k) Ibid. nu 34.35 seq (l) Chap. 6. nu 21.22 sequent vsque ad nu 27. M. Andrews tryeth how neere he can goe to Catholike Religion and misse it (a) Cap. â— nu 7. 8. Andr. caâ— 8. p. 195. §. In adoratiâ—one Ibidem Ibidem p. 201. lin 8. Ibidem How the SacrameÌ„t that is to say the exteriour formes of bread and wyne may be adored according to M. Andrews (b) Caluin li. 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 35. (c) MelaÌ„ch in Iudicio suo de Coena Dom. ed an 1559. (d) Illyric in confes Antuerp Apolog ca. 14. See Bellar. de Euchar. li. 4. c. 29. (e) Tho. Rogers art 28. propos 5. p 176. 177. Luther li. de libert Christia in asser ar 2.31.32 36. Caluin l. 3. Instit. ca. 14. §. 9. in Antido Concil sess 6. ca. 11. Melancth in locis coÌ„ an 1521. tit de peccatis See Bellar. de Iustif. li. 4. ca. 10. li. 5. ca. 1. See chap. 6. nu 45.46.47.48 sequent Andr. ca. 7. p. 165. §. Reddi Math. 20. Hieron li. 2. in Iouin Aug. li. de Sancta virgin c. 26. Gregor Moral li. 4. ca. 31. See also the CoÌ„mentaryes vpoÌ„ ca. 20. Math. Andr. vbi supra Valent. 8.9.4 M. Andrews granteth the merit of good workes by coÌ„sequeÌ„ce Andr. vbi supra The coÌ„sideratioÌ„ of Gods promise for the merits of Christ necessarily included in the coÌ„sideratioÌ„ of our merit Reward merit are correlatiues cannot be but in respect of one another M. Andrewes acknowledging the reward of the work granteth the merit of the worke the worker â— Reg. 18. The question of the reward merit of good works explicated by an example of king Dauid â— Reg. 3. The dignity of Gods grace increaseth the valew of merit (a) Math. 19. Mar. 10. Luc. 19. Magdeburg ca. 4. Caluin l. 3. Inst. c. 15. §. 2. seq See Bellar. lib. â—â— de â—usâ—if c. 1.2.3.4 seq Andr. vbi supra M. Andrews maketh an ydle distinctioÌ„ and whyâ— S. Aug. ep 105. M. Andrews cannot deny that the dignity of Gods grace increaseth the valour of merit except he will take part with the Pelagians Bellar. de Iustifiâ— lib. 5. c. 14. (*) Greg. de valeÌ„ de effec grat disput 8. quaest 16. punct 4. (b) Cap. 6. nu 10. (c) Andr. ca. 1.1.47.48.49 50. (d) Ibid. p. 50. § Necesse habet (e) See before Ca. 6. nu 11. Apoc 19. 22. (f) Ibid. from nu 10. to nu 31. Greg. Nys in orat in S. Theodor. Card. ca. 1. p. 13. Andr. ca. 1. p. 48. §. Nyssen Praefat. Monitor pag. 43. S. Ambros. ser. 14. de Sanct. Card. vbi supra p. 15. Andr. vbi supra §. Honorare S. Hieron vbi supra (k) See ca. 9. nu 25. (m) Ibidem nu 14.15 (n) Ibidem S. Hieron aduers. Vigilant (g) Cap. 6. nu 22.23.24 25. (h) S. Aug de ciuit Dei l. 22. ca. 8. Idem ibid. Andr. vbi supra p. 5. M. Andrewes granteth that Miracles were doÌ„ne at the reliques of Martyres in S. Augustins time Many notable miracles lately done at ValeÌ„tia in Spayne No Miracles done in the protestants Church (a) Card. c. 1â— p. 116. §. Râ—spondeo (b) Andr. ca. 12. p. 283. §. Veneficia (c) Idem praefat ad Lector (d) See before chap. â— nu 31. Card. c. 12. p. 157. §. dâ— multitudine Andr. c. 12. p. 284. §. institutaâ— In what consisted the religious disciplin of the ancient Monks (a) de vita contemp â— (b) Eccles. hist. l. 2. c. 16. (c) de Scriptor Eccles in Phil. d) de haeres l. 1. haer 29. (e) in Prologo super Matth. (f) l. 1. c. 12. (g) l. 2. c. 16. (h) in constit Monâ—st regul breuior Item de institut Monach. (i) de institut renuntiant (k) Histor. Lausia (l) Histor. religios (m) in scala paradisi (n) Vita Sancti Martini (o) de moribus Eccl. ca. 3â— (p) ad MarcellaÌ„