consequently that they held Pope Leo not only for S. Peters successor but also for head of the whole Church and this I trust cannot be sayd to be taken out of the bryars or corner of a period or fragment of a clause but out of one of the most principall and important Acts of all the Councell 78. Also it appeareth in the same Councell that Theodoretus Bishop of Cyrus who being deposed by Dioscorus appealed to Pope Leo was by his authority restored to his seat and admitted into the Councell Ingrediatur say the Fathers Reuerendissimus Episcopus Theodoretus c. Let also the most Reuerend Bishop Theodoretus enter that he may be partaker of our Synod because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored to him his Bishopricke So they whereby they gaue sufficient testimony of the soueraygnty of Pope Leo acknowledging his power to restore Bishops to their Bishopriks in the Greeke Church Finally if there were nothing els in that Councell to proue Pope Leo's supreme and vniuersall authority ouer the Church of God it might suffice for an euident proofe thereof that he was vndoubtedly the president and head of the Councell as you haue heard before and may be confirmed by the subscriptions of his Legats set before all other Bishops though one of them was but a Priest and no Byshop 79. For what reason can be imagined why Pope Leo should be president of a Councell in Greece so far from his owne seat as well he himselfe as his Legats being Romans and of the Latin Church but that it belonged to him to be head thereof in respect of his vniuersall authority Will M. Andrews absurdly say as Caluin doth that there was no Bishop in all Greece at that tyme held to be worthy of that Honour How then was Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople able to procure such a Canon as he did in his owne fauour Can any man belieue that he was as M. Andrews saith esteemed worthy to be made equal in dignity and all things els with the Bishop of Rome and yet not fit to be President of a Councell in his owne country yea lesse fit then a stranger who was held to be but his â—qual Besides that howsoeuer Pope Leo himselfe might be esteemed more worthy of that Charge then the Bishops of Greece in respect of his eminent learning wisdome and vertue yet there is no probability in the world that the Emperour and all the Bishops of that Councell which were aboue 600. had the like conceit of the sufficiency of his Legats or that they would all of them yield as well to them as to him one of them being but a Priest This I say is so improbable that M. Caluin and M. Andrews must eyther giue vs some other probable reason for it as they shall neuer be able to do or els confesse that Leo was President of that Councell by right of his soueraignty and supreme authority ouer Gods Church 80. Therefore now to conclude this matter thou seest good Reader what was the beliefe of the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon concerning the Popes supremacy and how far M. Andrews is from their faith and Religion yea and what a seared conscience he hath not only to deny such an euident truth as this but also to impugne it with so much fraud and impudency as he doth against his owne conscience no doubt for he could not possibly see in the Councell that which he himselfe alledgeth and the Cardinall obiecteth but he must needs see all this which I haue cyted out of it neyther could he alledge some part of the 28. Canon and vrge it as he doth laying downe the words euen of the Greeke text but he saw as well that which followeth immediatly and clearely conuinceth his fraud and forgery as that which went before and seemed to make for him whereby it is euident that he not only wittingly dissembled and concealed the whole drift of that Canon but also maliciously peruerted mangled and falsifyed it to the end to deceiue his Reader for the mayntenance of his miserable cause for so I may well tearme it seeing it dryueth him to such miserable and desperate shifts M. D. ANDREVVS HIS ANSVVERES TO three places of the Fathers are examined AND By the way the Cardinall is cleared from a false imputation of Iouinians heresy and M. Andrews truly charged therewith Finally all that which we teach concerning the Popes authority is necessarily deduced out of M. Andrews his owne doctrine and expresse words CHAP. III. HAVING occasion in my Supplement to proue the necessity of a visible head in Gods Church to coÌ„serue the same in vnity I alledged two places of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome which the Cardinall also cyteth in his Apology togeather with diuers other testimonies of the Fathers to proue the Primacy of S. Peter and for as much as M. Andrews his answere thereto if it haue any force at all maketh as much against me as against the Cardinall I will examine heere what force and pith it hath The Cardinall saith thus of S. Cyprian Fecit Cyprianus Petrum c. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne and roote of the Church and in his Epistle to Quintus Peter saith he whome our Lord first chose and vpon whome he buylt his Church c. Where S. Cyprian doth not only say that Peter was first chosen but also addeth that the Church was buylt vpon him and truely the foundation in a buylding the head in a body are all one Thus saith the Cardinall alledging as you see two places of S. Cyprian to both which M. Andrews meaneth to say somewhat 2. To the first he saith thus Fecit Cyprianus c. Cyprian made Peter the head fountayne and roote of the Church not Peter of the Church but rather maketh the Church it selfe the fountayne from whence many brookes the light from whence many beames and the roote from whence many boughs are propagated Learne this euen of himselfe Sic Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa c. So the Church being wholy resplendent with the light of our Lord casteth forth her beames throughout the whole world loe he sayth the Church and not Peter yet the light is one and the selfe same which is spread euery where is this light Peter or is he euery where spread abroad and the vnity of the body is not separated The Church through the plenty of her fertility stretcheth forth her branches ouer the whole earth and doth amply spread abroad her aboundant flowing brookes yet the head is one the beginning one one mother copious with the prosperous successe of her fecundity or fruitfulnes Caligauit hic Cardinalis c the Cardinall was spurre-blynd or dimme sighted here for I thinke he will not say that Peter is the mother and therefore not the head 3. This is M. Andrews his graue discourse supposing as it seemeth that because the
Christ and exalted Angels that he held Christ to be but pure man and the sonne of Ioseph and that Angels made the world and gaue the law to the Iewes yea that an Angell was the God of the Iewes or finally of some such other heretykes as eyther attributed diuinity to Angels or made them mediatours for man in such sort as those Phrygian heretykes did of whome Theodoret speaketh which was to exclude the mediation of Christ as it appeareth euidently by that which the Apostle addeth saying non tenens Caput ex quo c. and not holding the head whereof the whole body is by ioynts bands compacted c. signifying that he spake of such as forsook the head to wit Christ and made Angels the chiefe mediatours of their reconciliation to God 10. Therefore S. Chrysostome saith vpon that place of S. Paul Sunt nonnulli c. there are some which do say that we must not come to God the Father and be reconciled to him by Christ but by Angels and so doth also Oecumenius and Theophilactus expound the same place And the authour of the Commentary vpon S. Pauls Epistles amongst the workes of S. Ambrose saith that the Apostle taxed there such as adored the starres quas sayth he Angelos vocat he calleth Angels and finally to omit others S. Hierome and Haymo do vnderstand that the Apostle speaketh of such as vsed to offer Sacrifice to Angels whereupon also the Councell of Laodicea might haue iust occasion to make their decree agaynst some such abominable Idolatry done secretly to Angels in their dayes 11. So as it is euident by all this that neyther the Apostle in his Epistle to the Colâ—ssâ—nsesâ— noâ— Theâ—doret in his Commentary vpon the same nor then Galnon of the Laodicean Councell mentioned by Theodoret and obiected by M. Andrews do any way impugne the custome of the Catholyke Church in praying to Angels as mediatours to Christ for â—s And to conclude concerning Theodoret is whereas M. Andrewes would by this place make the world belieuâ— that he did not approue prayer to Sayntsâ— I remit thee good Reader to that most perspicuous and pregâ—antâ— testimony which I haue before produced 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 to proue the publike practiced and custome of the whole Church to pray to Saynts in his tyme together with the admirable effects and miraculous benefitsâ— that deuout people receiued thereby and his owne euident and cleare approbation thereof seeing that he vrgeth it to the confusion of the Paynims inferâ—ing thereupon a manifess argument of Christs diuinity besides that in his historia religiosa wherein wryting the lyues of diuers religious persons he craueth in the end of euery particuler Saynts life Gods fauour and diuine assistance by his intercessionâ— and in the conclusion of the last he desireth them all whose lyues he had written to pray for him So that I hope this may suffice in answere of M. Andrewes his obiection taken out of him 12. I haue before touched another obiection of M. Andrews grounded vpon an absurd conceipt of his that it is vncertayne whether Saynts do heare vs and how they see or know our actions and albeit that which I sayd there touching the common and vniuersall experience that the Church hath had in all ages of the helpe and assistance of Saynts to such as inuocate them might suffice for his confutatioÌ„ in this poynt yet because he vrgeth the same diuers tymes and especially in his preamble to his censure â—pon the Fathers I will and heere somewhat more to shew his absurd manner of arguing in this matter Thus then he saith Vt hoc detur c. although this should be granted that Saynts do pray for vs yet it is not â—â—â—fest how they he are vs praying heere on earth and those your positions touching the glasse of the diuine essence and the shyning therein of all things that are done on earth are more subtil then solid and not cleare inough to your selues and altogeather vnheard of amongst the Fathers and no man doth willingly call vpon those of whome he is not certayne by what meanes they heare him proâ—â—de andeant necne c. and therefore vnsure whether they heare him or no. So he 13. Wherein you see he argueth in effect no otherwyse then thus that because we know not certaynely how the Saynts do heare vs therefore we are not sure that they heare vs at all which truly is a strange inference for albeit we be not sure how and in what manner they heare vs yet we may be sure that they heare vs seeing that the certaynty of any effect doth noâ— depend vpon the knowledge eyther of the cause or of the manner or meanes how it is wrought as it is euident by infinite effects which we certaynely know and see though we neyther know the assured cause thereof nor in what manner they are performed As for exampleâ— it is certayne that the sea â—bbeth and floweth that â—eâ—eâ—s haue theyr accesses and crises◠〈…〉 stone draweth 〈◊〉 and loketh alwayes towards the Northâ— and yet neuertheles we neyther cerâ—aynly 〈…〉 these â—ffects proceed nor how they are effected and who can assuredly tell how the sound of a voyce is framed and how the eye seeth whether by intromission or extramission as the Philosophers speake when neuertheles thâ— effects are euident 14. And this being so in naturall and earthly matters subiect to our senses what shall we thinke of heauenly thinges or of matters belonging to religion and fayth which do farre more exceed mans weake capacity must we eyther know how they are wrought or els deny the effects Let M. Andrews tell me how Angels and Saynts in heauen do pray to God for vs which he granteth they do or how they vnderstand one another or yet how the humanity of Christ heareth our prayers and knoweth our actions I meane whether he seeth them in his diuinity or knoweth them by reuelation and if he dare not determine the matter let him according to his owne inference doubt whether Christ heareth our prayers or not yea let him not willingly pray vnto him seeing he sayth that no man doth willingly call vpon those of whome he is vncertayne by what meanes they heare him and if he will take vpon him to determine it let him tell me why the glorified soules of Saynts which see God may not heare our prayers and know our actions in the same manner 15. But to omit infinite other instances which might be giuen let vs heare what S. Augustine sayth euen in a matter pertayning to this question whereof we now treate For albeit he maketh great doubt how Almighty God did work those stupendious miracles which as he testifieth vpon his owne knowledge were done at the memoryes and relyques of S. Steuen and other Martyrs yet he made so litle doubt of the effect that he vrged the same notably against the Paynims to proue
deny this seeing that they do admit diuers traditions whereof there is neyther precept nor example in the Scripture as the baptisme of infants who do not actually belieue for although the same be very consonant to Scripture as also is prayer to Saynts and all other things which are practiced in the Catholike Church yet the vse and practice thereof is grounded vpon tradition and not vpon the Scriptures as Origen testifyeth saying Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditioneÌ„ accepit c. The Church receiued a tradition from the Apostles to giue baptisme to litle children So he And S. Augustin also to the same purpose saith more plainely thus Consuetudo mâ—tris Ecclesiae in baptizandis paruulis c. the custome of our Mother the Church in baptizing infants is not to be contemned or reputed as superfluous neyther were it to be belieued at all if it were not an Apostolicall tradition So he who also acknowledgeth the same in another place and saith further that if any man do demaund diuine authority for it quamquam quod vniuersa tenet Ecclesia c. albeit that which the vniuersall Church holdeth and hath not byn ordayned by Councells but hath alwayes been reteyned is most rightly belieued to haue byn deliuered by no other but by Apostolicall authority neuertheles we may truly coniecture by Circumcision in the old law what force the Sacrament of Baptisme hath in Infants Thus saith S. Augustine who to answere those that do demand diuine authority for the custome of the Church in baptizing Infants doth not proue or confirme it by any precept or example out of Scripture but only by a probable coniecture drawn from the figure of it in the old law relying principally vpon the tradition of the Church 33. But what need I seeke any other testimony for this matter seeing that Tho. Rogers in the 39. articles agreed vpon by the pretended Bishops and Clergy of England and analyzed into propositions glossed and set forth by him with their publyke approbation doth acknowledge that the baptisme of yong children is in any wyse to be retayned in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ although sayth he we be not commanded by expresse termes to baptize them So he whereupon it directly followeth that M. Andrews hath ouerlashed greatly in saying id tantùm audemus facere de quo praeceptum habemus we dare doe that only whereof we haue a precept Also what precept or example haue M. Andrews and his fellowes in Scripture for the vse of Godfathers and Godmothers and of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme allowed as well by their practice as by the late Queenes Iniunctions yea and by the Ecclesiasticall Canons of the Bishops and Clergy of the Prouince of Canterbury made in their Synod held at London with his Maiestyes lycence in the yeare 1603. and published the yeare following by his Maiestyes authority vnder the great Seale of England in which Canons they do not only approue the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme but also professe to follow therein the primitiue Apostolicall Churches the true rules of doctrine coÌ„cerning things indifferent which are consonant to the word of God and the iudgement of all the ancient Fathers so that by their owne confession they retayne the vse of it without eyther precept or example in holy Scripture 34. And now because I haue had this occasion to speake of this constitution I can not omit to aduertise thee good Reader of a notable peece of trumpery and cosenage vsed by that graue Synod in this very Canon whereof we now speake wherein giuing the reason why they retayne the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme they say they do it because the same hath byn euer accompanyed among them with sufficient cautions exceptions agaynst all popish superstition and errour and forsooth that the world may vnderstand from what popish errour they haue freed the same they signify that the Church of England since the abolishing of Popery hath euer held and taught that the signe of the crosse vsed in Baptisme is no part of the substance of that Sacrament and that the infant Baptized is by vertue of Baptisme before it be signed with the signe of the crosse receiued into the congregation of Christs flock as a perfect member thereof and not by any power ascribed to the signe of the crosse c. whereupon they conclude that the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme being thus purged from all popish superstition and errour and reduced in the Church of England to the primary institution of it c. it is to be reuerently retayned and vsed Thus teach they in their foresayd Synod 35. But now we must demand of them where they haue euer read in any Catholyke Authour that the signe of the crosse as it is vsed in the administration of baptisme is any part of the substance of the Sacrament sure I am that all our schoolemen and Canonists and others that haue occasion to treat therof do expressely teach the contrary neyther did euer any learned Catholyke hold or suppose it to be any part eyther of the forme or of the matter of Baptisme which are the essentiall parts thereof but only an ancient and holy ceremony and this is euident euen by the practice of the Catholyke Church approuing the baptisme not only of the midwyfe in cases of necessity but also of any heretike if he haue the intention to do that which the Catholyke Church doth and vseth the true forme with conuenient matter without the signe of the crosse or any other ceremony in the world and albeit the Church vseth to suply the sayd ceremonyes afterwards in such as wanted the same yet it maketh no doubt at all but that they are baptized before and in state of saluation if they dye before the sayd ceremonyes be supplyed whereby it is manyfest that the Catholykes do not take the signe of the crosse to be of the substance or essence of the sacrament 36. But of this I shall not neede to produce any further proofe seeing that those pretended Bishops which were present at this Congregation and made this Canon haue giuen sufficient testimony of the truth in this poynt to no meaner a person then to his Maiesty himselfe as he did publikely testify in the CoÌ„ference at Hampton-court wherein the question concerning the vse of the signe of the crosse in Baptisme being debated betwixt them and the Puritans his Maiesty sayd that he vnderstood by the Bishops yea and found it himselfe to be true that the Papists themselues did neuer ascribe any power or spirituall grace to the signe of the crosse in Baptisme whereupon it followeth that they do not nor euer did account to be any essentiall part of the Sacrament for if they did they should ascribe vnto it a spirituall grace and power as they doe to the essence of
forth as is necessary for the gouernement of his Church which he hath committed to his charge in which respect it may truely be sayd that the light of the Church proceedeth not only from Christ but also from him as from the head thereof vnder Christ and that by his authority it is spread euery where throughout the Church 9. And this is sufficiēt to make good the similitude according to the intention of S. Cyprian who only speaketh here of the Church as of a body receiuing all the vnity of her seueral many parts from the head as the light which is spread thoughout the world receaueth vnity from the sunne therfore he argueth thus in substance As the light of the sunne dispersed ouer the earth though it haue many beames yet is but one light by reason that it proceedeth from one sunne so also the body of the Church dispersed by many members ouer the whole world is but one body because it proceedeth from one head which reason he giueth yet more expressely in the two other similituds that immediatly follow of a tree spreading forth many boughes and of many brookes flowing from one fountayne for of the former he saith that though the boughes are many and spread far abroad Robur tamen vnum tenaci radice firmatum yet the strengeth is one fastned in the strong and stiffe roote and of the later he saith in like manner that notwithstanding the aboundant and copious plenty of water dispersed by many brookes yet it is but one water because vnitas saith he seruatur in origine the vnity is conserued in the spring Who then seeth not that to apply this similitude to the Church we must needs say that albeit the sayd Church hath very many members and parts spread ouer the whole world yet it is but one body because it hath but one head wherein the vnity of all the parts is conserued 10. And to this is also conforme the rest of S. Cyprians text which M. Andrews proceedeth to lay downe thus Ramos suos Ecclesia c. The Church through her aboundant fertility stretcheth forth her branches ouer the whole earth and largely spreadeth abroad her copious riuers or brookes yet the head is one the origen or beginning one and one mother c. So sayth S. Cyprian teaching as you see nothing els in effect but that the Church being a body dispersed ouer the whole world in her members is vnited in one head and therefore he saith vnum tamen caput origo vna yet the head is one and the origen or beginning one and so hauing spoken as well of the head of the Church as of the body and declared from whence the vnity of the whole is deryued he had great reason to adde vna mater one mother giuing to vnderstand that as the Church hath one head so she is one mother one in respect of her vnity deryued from her head and mother because she is the spouse of Christ and hath children dispersed throughout the world 11. And thus may M. Andrews see that albeit S. Peter is not called in S. Cyprian a Mother yet he is acknowledged to be the head from whence the vnity of the whole Church our mother is communicated to vs her children which would haue bene as cleare as the sunne if he had layd downe the similituds themselues as well as he gaue vs only the application of them out of S. Cyprian beginning his allegation with Sic Ecclesia so also the Church c. for he knew full well that his false glosse would haue bene easily discouered if he had set downe the similituds as they are deliuered and vrged by the Father himselfe Therefore now let the Reader Iudge Quis caligauit hic who was blind heere the Cardinall or M. Andrewes Thus much concerning the first place of S. Cyprian 12. The other place is Petrus super quem Dominus fundauit Ecclesiam Peter vpon whom our Lord did found his Church whereupon the Cardinall infereth that S. Cyprian teacheth that the Church is buylt vpon S. Peter and that therfore he is the foundation of the Church and consequently the head therof because the foundation in a buylding and the head in a body is all one whereto M. Andrewes answereth thus Alter verò illi ex Cypriano locus praecidendus erat c. He thought it necessary to cut of the other place of Cyprian where it seemed little to fauour the Primacy for thus it is nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit c. For neyther did Peter whome our Lord chose the first challenge any thing insolently to himselfe nor take vpon him arrogantly to say that he had the Primacy or that he ought to be obayed of those that were yonger and later then he Wherein the mynd or sense of Cyprian seemeth to be that if Peter had sayd that he had the Primacy he had insolently challenged somewhat to himselfe and therfore the Cardinall suppressed this part of the text warily because it made litle for the Primacy and rather tooke hold of the former part where Cyprian saith that the Church was buylt vpon Peter c. 13. Thus sayth M. Andrews with somewhat more which I will also lay downe after a whyle when I shall first haue examined this wherein you see he would fayne make the Reader belieue that the Cardinall had vsed some art or fraud in leauing it vncyted as not fauorable but rather preiudiciall to S. Peters Primacy wheras in truth it doth notably proue it and no way impayre or infringe it as he may see in the Cardinals controuersyes where amongst very many other places alledged for the Primacy of S. Peter he vrgeth this fortifying it notably with the authority of S. Augustine who also cyteth those words of S. Cyprian though vpon another occasion Therefore I will set downe the Cardinalls owne words to the end that he may answere for himselfe who hauing brought the testimonyes of a whole Iury as I may say of Greeke Fathers to wit Origen Eusebius S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Epiphanius the two S. Cyrils S. Chrysostome Euthymius Theophilact Occumenius and Hugo Etherianus all of them expressely acknowledging the supremacy of S. Peter aboue all the other Apostles addeth as many more of the Latin Fathers and beginneth with S. Cyprian thus 14. Ex latinis S. Cyprianus in Ep. ad Quintum c. Of the latin Fathers S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Quintus sayth that Peter when he was reprehended by Paul would not say that he had the primacy and that he ought to be obayed whereby he signifyeth that Peter had the primacy and might command all others And lest perhaps our aduersaries may say that Cyprian meaneth that Peter did not say he had the Primacy because he should therein haue affirmed that which was false let vs heare Augustine expounding this place of Cyprian lib. 2. de Baptismo cap. 1.