AN ADJOINDER TO THE SUPPLEMENT OF FATHER ROBERT PERSONS HIS DISCUSSION of M. Doctor Barlowes Answer etc. CONTAINING A Discovery, and Confutation of very many foul absurdities, Falsities, and Lies in M. D. Andrew's his Latin Book entitled, Responsio ad Apologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini etc. An answer to the Apology of Card. Bellarmine. WRITTEN By F. T. Author of the Supplement, to justify certain places, and authorities alleged, as well by him in the said Supplement, as by the Cardinal in his Apology, and pretended to be answered by M. D. Andrew's. ALSO An Appendix touching a Register alleged by M. Franc. Mason for the lawful Ordaining of Protestant Bishops in Q. Elizabeth's Reign. Mentita est iniquitas sibi. Psal. 26. Iniquity hath lied to itself. Imprinted with Licence, M. DC. XIII. THE PRINTER to the Reader. GENTLE READER, Albeit the Author of this Work designed the same to be printed, and published together with his Supplement to Fa. Persons his Discussion of M. Barlowes Answer etc. by reason of the relation that the one hath to the other (in which respect also this is entitled an Adjoinder:) nevertheless for as much as afterwards, when this came to my hands, I understood that M. Barlowes credit was already quite crushed with the Disscussion of Fa. Persons, and every where so decried, that most men were fully satisfied, concerning his ignorance, absurdity, and folly, and therefore might be more desirous to see this Adjoinder in Answer of M. Doctor Andrews (as well in respect of his far greater reputation, as for that he hath not yet been answered by any in our tongue:) And considering also that this Adjoinder is grown to a far greater volume, than the Author at the first intended, and that therefore many may desire to have it a part, both for the better commodity of carriage, and also for other good respects; yea, and that the separation thereof from the Supplement cannot hinder, but that such as desire to have them both, may easily be satisfied, and cause them to be bound either together, or a sunder, as they shall best like; I therefore resolved, with the good leave of the Author, to print, & publish them both in several volumes. For although this Adjoinder, hath indeed a great connexion with the Supplement, and in some sort dependeth thereon, (as being written only to justify the same, and specially concerning matters incident thereto:) yet the points treated therein are so clearly handled, and discussed, that the truth of the catholic cause, and M. Andrew's his notable frauds, and cavils, may sufficiently appear thereby, without the help of the Supplement, notwithstanding the frequent references thereto. I shall not need to say any thing concerning the intention, and drift of the Author, for that the same may fully be seen, partly by the titles of the Chapters which follow immediately, and partly in the 3. first paragraphs of the first Chapter, and therefore all that I think good to advertise thee, good Reader, is, that albeit this Author hath not had either the occasion, or the intention to answer all M. Andrew's his Book (but such points only, as are some way incident to the foresaid Supplement) nevertheless this Adjoinder may serve for a sufficient answer to the whole, seeing it containeth a confutation of at least an hundred Positions, Assertions, Paradoxes, Answers, and Objections of M. Andrew's; in all which he is proved to be either most Idle, and Impertinent, or egregiously fraudulent, and false, or else to argue directly for the Catholics, against the common doctrine of his own fellows, whereby thou mayst easily judge of the rest of his Work, and what a number of like frauds, and follies might be discovered therein, if the whole were as throughlie sifted, and examined as these points have been, which have occurred to this Author by the occasion of his Supplement. And so wishing thee abundance of God's grace for the discovery of Falsehood, and knowledge of the Truth, to the everlasting good of thy own soul, I take my leave. THE TABLE OF CHAPTERS. THE Authors intention is declared, and M. D. Andrews his interpretation of Pasce oves meas, examined, and confuted. Furthermore it is showed, that he hath belied S. Augustine, corrupted S. Ambrose, notably abused S. Cyril, vainly carped at a Law in the Code, and foolishly approved the unlawful proceeding of justinian the Emperor against the Pope. CHAP. I. Pag. 1. The Answers of M. Andrew's to certain places of the Council of Chalcedon are examined, and confuted. His notable fraud in divers things, and especially in the allegation of a Canon of that Council is discovered: and the supreme authority of the Sea Apostolic clearly proved out of the same Council and Canon. CHAP. II. Pag. 39 M. D. Andrew's his answers to three places of the Fathers are examined. And by the way the Cardinal is cleared from a false imputation of jovinians heresies and M. Andrew's truly charged therewith. Finally all that which we teach concerning the Pope's authority, is necessarily deduced out of M. Andrew's his own doctrine and express words. CHAP. III. Pag. 98. Four other places of the Fathers are debated, and M. Andrew's his Answers thereto confuted. With a Discovery of notable corruption & falsity in him: and of three manifest lies within little more than three lines. And by occasion thereof, it is also proved, that 8. Popes who lived in S. Augustine's time, had, and exercised an universal and supreme Authority. CHAP. FOUR Pag. 133. M. Andrew's his answers to three other places, alleged by the Cardinal out of the Fathers, are examined and confuted, and divers, absurdities discovered therein. And finally he is proved to be a wrangler in the highest degree. CHAP. V. pag. 193. A further manifestation of M. Andrew's his trifling, wrangling, and fraudulent humour, by his Answers to other places of the Fathers, concerning Prayer to saints, which he divideth into three ranks, whereof the two first are examined in this Chapter. CHAP. VI Pag. 218. The Answers of M. Andrew's to the Fathers of the third rank, are examined, and sound to be either impertinent, fraudulent, or most injurious to them; namely to S. Ambrose, whom he most egregiously abuseth. Also it is evidently showed, that the Invocation of Saints was generally practised, & approved aswell by the ancient Fathers, as by all other faithful Christians, in the Primitive Church. CHAP. VII. Pag. 258. Certain objections of M. Andrew's against Prayers to Saints are answered, and by the way, an imposture of the pretended Bishops, and Clergy of the Province of Canterbury in a Synodical Canon of theirs is discovered. And finally M. Andrews is proved to have notably wrangled, juggled, and trifled throughout this whole Controversy. CHAP. VIII. Pag. 306. The Conclusion of this Adjoinder, divided into two Chapters. In this are detected divers srauds and shifts common to M. Andrew's with M. Barlow; as to change the state of the question, dissemble that which most importeth in the cardinals text and argument; to abuse wrest, belly and falsisy not only the Cardinal, but also the ancient Fathers, councils, and holy Scriptures: and finally to face out matters impudently for lack of proofs. CHAP. IX. Pag. 361. That M. Andrews overthroweth his own cause, and fortifieth ours, granting many important points of Catholic Religion: That he is turned Puritan in the point of the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy. and betrayeth his majesties cause underhand, pretending to defend it: and therefore is neither good English Protestant, nor yet good Subject. Lastly what is the opinion of learned strangers concerning him, and his book: with a good advise for a friendly farewell. CHAP. X. Pag. 329. An Appendix touching a Register alleged by M. Franc. Mason for the lawful Ordaining of Protestant Bishops in Q. Elizabeth's Reign. THE authors INTENTION IS DECLARED, AND M. D. Andrew's his interpretation of Pasce oves meas, examined, and confuted. FURTHERMORE It is showed, that he hath belied S. Augustine, corrupted S. Ambrose, notably abused S. Cyril, vainly carped at a law in the Code, & foolishly approved the unlawful proceeding of justinian the Emperor against two Popes. CHAP. I. WHEN I had well-near ended my Supplement, and already sent away the greatest part of it to the print, it was my chance to have a sight of M. D. Andrew's his Answer to Cardinal Bellarmine's Apology; and considering that the subject thereof was in effect the same that Father Persons, The reason that moved the Author to add this Adjoinder to the former Suplement. and I had handled, and debated with M. Barlow; I easily persuaded myself that I should find many things treated by M. Andrew's, which I had touched in my Supplement. In which respect I determined to take a speedy Survey of his work; and finding that he pretended now and then to answer some places, authorities, and arguments which had been objected, as well by me, as by the Cardinal, I resolved to examine, and confute his Answers, in respect not only of myself, but also of the most Worthy Cardinal; not for that I think he needeth any defence, (who like an inexpugnable fortress trenched on every side, and fortified with bulwarks of truth, doth of himself 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 poverty, pay with the poor widow, my two mites; and therefore having offered one of them in my Supplement, I think good now to add the other; and the rather, for that I hope by the same means to prevent the Cavils of my Adversary 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. Andrew's) and either turn me over to him for satisfaction touching those points, or else make use of his answers himself; which being esteemed as a precious fruit 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 than oracles of Apollo, I mean, 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, The Author's intention in this Adjoinder. good Reader, know how far I mean to proceed therein, thou shalt understand, that seeing my Supplement is already under the press, and that I have no more time to bestow on this Adjoinder, but until the said Supplement be printed, I make account, that I shall have opportunity to handle but a few points: in which respect I think good, to make choice of such only as concern some of the most important matters, controversed betwixt M. Barlow, & me, not doubting but that the same shall suffice to show ex ungue Leonem, that is, to give the Reader an abundant taste and trial 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 What question is specially handled in this Adjoinder. (by occasion of the new Oath) is the question concerning the supreme and universal Authority of the Apostolic Roman Sea (which authority I deduced specially from the Pastoral commission given by our Saviour to S. Peter) I think good to examine of what worth, Supplement chap. 1. nu. 58.59. & seq. and weight M. Andrew's his Answers are touching the same, especially in his 16. & 17. page, where he laboureth seriously to prove three ways against Cardinal Bellarmine, that our saviours words to S. Peter, D. Andr. Respons. ad Apolog. ca 1. pag. 16. Pasce oves meas (alleged, and learnedly urged by the Cardinal) do make nothing for us. 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 oves meas. And to the end that this may appear, he pretendeth to lay down the very words of those two Fathers. Aug. de Agon. Christ. c. 30. Of S. Augustine thus; cum Petro dicitur, ad omnes dicitur, Ambros. de sacerd. dignitate cap. 20. Pasce oves meas: when it is said to Peter, it is said to all, Feed my sheep. Of S. Ambrose thus: Eas oves non solùm Beatus suscepit Petrus, sed & nobiscum eas suscepit, & nos cum illo accepimus omnes. Those sheep not only the blessed Peter received, but also he received them with us, and we all received them with him. And then M. Andrew's addeth: Nempe dictum illi Pasce etc. for it was said unto him, Feed, as well in the person of others, as in his own, atque vel sic iacebit Cardinali ratio sua: and so shall the cardinals reason serve him to no purpose. Thus argueth he. 3. But to the end, thou mayst (good Reader) see, and note with what fidelity and conscience this man allegeth the Fathers, I will lay down the place of S. Augustine somewhat more amply than he hath done, S. Augustine lamely and fraudulently alleged by M. Andrews. whereby thou shalt easily discover his notable fraud. S. Augustine in the place alleged by him saith thus: Non enim sine causa inter omnes Apostolos etc. For not without cause doth Peter sustain the person of the Catholic Church amongst all the Apostles, for to this Church the keys of the Kingdom of heaven were given, when they were given to Peter, August. ubi supra. and when it is said to him, Dost thou love me? Feed my sheep, it is said to all, and therefore the Catholic Church ought willingly to pardon her Children when they are corrected, and strengthened in piety, seeing we see, that to Peter himself, bearing the person of the Church, pardon was granted both when he had doubted upon the sea etc. and when he had thrice denied his Master etc. Thus saith S. Augustine, declaring that Pasce oves (which our Saviour said to S. Peter) was said to all the Church, because S. Peter bore the person of the Church: Which he did, by reason of the supreme authority that he had over the Church. 4. For else why should rather he, than others of the Apostles be said to represent the whole Church, but because he was Head or supreme Governor thereof; Cic. office l. 1. which we may learn even in Cicero, How S. Peter did bear the person of the Church when he received the keys. who saith that, Est proprium munus Magistratus etc. It is the proper office or duty, of the Magistrate, to understand that he beareth the person of the City. So he; speaking of the chief or supreme Magistrate: whereby it appeareth, that whatsoever is given to the King, as King, and Head of the Commonwealth, the same is given to the Commonwealth, whereof he beareth and representeth the person: and so in like manner what was given to S. Peter as Head of the Church, the same was given to the Church which he representeth. For which cause also S. Cyprian saith, that Ecclesia est in Episcopo, the Church is in the Bishop; and the reason is, because the Bishop is Head of the Church; & as this is true in every particular Bishop, in respect of the particular Church which he governeth. So also is it most truly verified in the supreme and universal Pastor, in respect of the whole Church whereof he is Head. 5. That this was S. Augustine's meaning, it is evident by his own doctrine in other places, S. Augustine's meaning declared out of his own doctrine. where he showeth plainly, that S. Peter bore the person of figure of the Church, in respect of his Primacy: Cuius Ecclesia, saith he, Petrus Apostolus propter Apostolatus sui primatum gerebat figurata generalitate personam etc. Of which Church Peter in respect of the primacy of his Apostleship, did bear the person, Tract. ult. in joan. figuring, or representing the generality thereof. For if we respect what did belong properly to himself, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, and by a more abundant grace, unus, idemque primus Apostolus, one, & he the chief Apostle: but when it was said unto him, Tibi dabo claves, I will give thee the keys etc. he signified the universal Church. Thus saith S. Augustine, teaching evidently, that S. Peter bore the person of the Church, by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship, that is to say, because he was the chief Apostle; which the same holy Father signifieth also more plainly in another place, saying, Idem in Ps. 108. Cuius Ecclesiae ille agnoscitur gessisse personam propter Primatum quem in Discipulis habuit: Of which Church he is acknowledged to have borne the person for the Primacy, which he had amongst the Disciples. And to the same purpose he saith also elsewhere, Idem ser. 13. de verb. Dom. Petrus à petra cognominatus etc. Peter taking his name from a Rock, was happy, bearing the figure of the Church, having the principality of the Apostleship. 6. Lo then, for what cause S. Augustine said, that when Christ gave to S. Peter the keys of heaven & pastoral authority to feed his sheep, M. Andrew's fraud against the intention of S. Augustine. he gave the same to all the Church, to wit, because S. Peter having the principality, or primacy of the Apostolical dignity (and being consequently chief Pastor, and head of the Church) did bear, and represent the person, or figure of the whole Church. So that you see the place which M. Andrew's bringeth out of S. Augustine against the Primacy of S. Peter, maketh notably for it, if it be considered with the circumstances thereof, which he cunningly, and craftily concealed. But in the other place which he citeth out of S. Ambrose, he is more fraudulent, having plainly corrupted the text, which as it is in S. Ambrose, is very conform to this doctrine of S. Augustine, signifying nothing else but that all the lawful Pastors in God's Church, S. Ambr. de Sacerd. dignit. c 1. received their Pastoral authority over their flocks, with S. Peter: and therefore he saith, Quas oves, & quem gregem non solùm tunc Beatus Petrus suscepit, sed & cum, illo eas nos suscepimus omnes: Which sheep, and which flock not only the Blessed Peter then received, but as so we all received them with him. Thus saith S. Ambrose, which all Catholics do grant and teach in like manner, because (as I have said) S. Peter representing the person of the whole Church (whereof he was head) received not that Pastoral authority for himself alone, but also for the Church. 7. In which respect S. Ambrose saith very well, The meaning of S. Ambrose declared. that all the Pastors of the Church received their authority with him, though not in equal degree (as M. Andrews would have it) who therefore bodgeth into S. Ambrose his text, these words of his own, Et nobiscum eas suscepit: and he (that is to say S. Peter) received those sheep with us; as if S. Ambrose should mean, that S. Peter had no prerogative in that point, but that he and other Pastors received them all alike, he with them, & they with him; for to that purpose doth M. Andrew's also allege the words of S. Ambrose afterwards, in a different letter thus: Andr. ca 3. pag. 74. § Verum Et ille nobis●um, & nos cum illo oves illas pascendas suscepimus, which manner of speech doth indeed enforce a greater equality betwixt S. Peter, and other Pastors, than the true words of S. Ambrose do import, or then he ever did imagine, who taught expressly elsewhere the Primacy of S. Peter, not only above all other inferior Pastors, but also above the Apostles themselves, saying, Ambr. in 2. Cor. 12. that albeit Andrew was called before Peter, yet Primatum non accepit Andraeas, sed Petrus: Andrew did not receive the Primacy, but Peter: yea, & in another place he proveth it by these very words of our Saviour, which are now in question, to wit, P●sce oves meas. 8. For having said, that our Saviour asked Peter thrice whether he loved him (not to learn, Idem lib. 10. comment. in cap. 24. evang. Luc. saith he, any thing of him, but to teach him, whom he meant to leave to us, velut amoris sui Vicarium, as the Vicar of his love) he allegeth our saviours words to S. Peter, S. Ambrose proveth S. Peter's Supremacy out of the words Pasce oves meas. to wit, Simon the son of john, dost thou love me etc. Pasce agnos meos, feed my Lambs, and then shortly after he inferreth thereupon thus, Et ideo quia solus profitetur ex omnibus, omnibus antefertur; and therefore because he alone of all the rest professed his love, he is preferred before them all: and after a while he concludeth, that our Lord asked him the third time, whether he loved him: Et iam, saith he, non agnos, ut primò, quodam lact p●scendos etc. And now Peter is commanded, not to feed Lambs with a certain milk, as the first time, nor to feed the little sheep, as the second time, but, oves pascere iubetur; perfectiores, ut perfectior gubernaret, he is commanded to feed the sheep; to the end that he being more perfect, might govern the more perfect. Thus saith S. Ambrose. 9 Wherein it is to be noted that he teacheth 3. things: Three things taught by S. Ambrose. The first that our Saviour left S. Peter unto us, as the Vicar, or Substitute of his love, that is to say to succeed him in that fatherly love, & care of his Church which he himself had; the second, that when our Saviour gave to S. Peter the Pastoral commission, and authority to feed his Lambs, and sheep, he preferred him therein before all the rest of the Apostles; Quia solus (saith S. Ambrose) profitetur ex omnibus, omnibus antefertur: The third is, that whereas S. Ambrose observeth three degrees of Christians, to wit Lambs, little sheep, and sheep, all recommended to the Pastoral care of S. Peter, he giveth to understand, that all sorts of Christians were committed to his charge, and government, and not the weak only, but the most holy also, learned, and perfect, yea even the Apostles themselves, and therefore he saith: ut perfectiores perfectior gubernaret. 10. This then being S. Ambrose his sense, and doctrine concerning the Pastoral commission given to S. Peter, it is most evident, that when he teacheth that all Pastors received their flocks with S. Peter, he teacheth it in the same sense that S. Augustine doth, to wit, that because S. Peter (being supreme Pastor) represented the whole Church, and received the Pastoral authority not for himself alone, but also for all those who were either at that time, or ever should be subordinate unto him, D. Andrews can help the dice when he is put to his shifts. therefore all other Pastors received their authority not only in him (as S. Augustine speaketh) but also with him, that is to say, in, and with their chief Pastor, and head. And therefore, whereas D. Andrews, to make a greater show of parity, or equality betwixt S. Peter, and other Pastors, hath added to S. Ambrose his text those words of his own, & nobiscum eas accepit, it may pass for a piece of coggery, and well discovereth his skill to help the dice when he is put to his shifts. 11. Besides that, his vanity and folly notably appeareth, in that having gained nothing, A vain. brag of D. Andrews. but rather lost his cause by alleging these two places of S. Augustine, and S. Ambrose, yet he braggeth thereof afterwards, as if he had got a great victory, saying in the 214. page that although, Andr. cap. 8. pag. 214. & 215. pasce oves, was said in the singular number, and to one (to wit S. Peter) yet it passed to all, and that clariùs id loquuntur Ambrose & Augustinus, quam ut obstrepere possint novitij nostri. Ambrose, and Augustine do speak (or affirm) it more plainly, then that our novices can any way contradict it. So he; meaning by our novices, the catholics, as I take it, though I know not why he so calleth them, neither do I mean here to discuss it, but will remit to the indifferent Reader to judge, what cause he hath so to brag of these two Fathers, and what fidelity he hath showed in alleging them, dissembling the clear doctrine of the one, and corrupting as well the text, as the sense of the other: and thus much for his first answer. 12. In his second, he seeketh to retort the Cardinal's argument upon him, The second argument & answer of M. Andrews which he taketh to be so sharp that it will prick the Cardinal. and to prove the King's Supremacy by the word, pasce, which he saith he knoweth will touch the Cardinal to the quick: quod scio, saith he, punget Cardinalem. Let us hear then this sharp argument which I think will prove a very blunt one. Thus than he saith: Negat Cardinalis Primatum Regis etc. The Cardinal denieth the King's Supremacy, and yet God said to a King, tu pasces populum meum Israel, thou shalt feed my people Israel: Where no man can deny, but that a King was made the Pastor of all Israel, Andr. c. 1. pag. 16. §. Verun vim videamus. yea of the Priests, except he will deny them to be part of Israel. Thus argueth this learned and sharp Doctor, overthrowing his own argument sufficiently by his own conclusion, granting in effect, that if the Priests were not a part of the people of Israel, the King was not their Pastor. 13. To this purpose then, it is to be considered what I have amply debated in the first Chapter of my Supplement, See Suppl. Chap. 1. n. 18.19. & sequ. concerning the exemption, and sepation of the Priests and levites from the temporal, and politic State, by the express words of Almighty God who gave the levites (not to the temporal Prince, Num. c. 8. but) to Aaron and his children, tradidi eos dono Aaron, & filijs eius de medio populi, I have given them (saith Almighty God) for a gift to Aaron and his children, out of the midst of the people. Besides, that God ordained expressly that the Tribe of Levi should not be numbered, Num. 1. neither yet have any part, or inheritance with the rest of Israel, because he had reserved the same for his own service, and therefore would himself be their possession, Deut. 10. & 18. portion, and inheritance. So that this being very clear in the express words of the Law, Supplem. c. 1. n. 22.23. & 24. (which, as I also proved, was never altered but rather confirmed at the institution of the Kings, who were expressly bound to observe the whole law, and to obey the high Priest) I may say to the Doctor, as he said before to the Cardinal, atque vel sic iacebit Doctori ratio sua. 14. But put the case this were not so, yea and that the Priests of the old law had been subject to the Kings in spiritual matters (whereof I have already proved the contrary) will M. Andrews infer thereon, Suppl. cap. 1. ubi supr. that therefore Kings have also the spiritual Supremacy in the new law, without any new institution, or ratification thereof by our Saviour Christ, In what case Christians may ground upon the law of Moses. or his Apostles? Doth not this great Doctor know, that the Mosaycal law was abrogated by the law of grace, and that whereas it was divided into three parts (to wit, judicial, Cerimoniall, and Moral) the two former utterly ceased, and the third (I mean the Moral part, containing the Commandments) remaineth only in force, not because it was instituted then, but because those commandments being grounded on the law of Nature, are always in force, and therefore ordained again to be kept in the new Law. In which respect the commandment concerning the Sabbath, doth not now bind Christians, as it was then ordained and practised. 15. And therefore M. Andrews might aswell introduce Polygamy practised in the old Law, as the spiritual supremacy of Kings (if we should grant that they then had any such) and with much more reason might he teach abstinence from puddings, and other meats made of blood; seeing that we find some commandments, or ordinance thereof, in the Acts of Apostles, whereas there is no one syllable in all the new Testament, M. Andrews his beggarly proof for a temporal princes spiritual Supremacy. to prove that Kings have any spiritual authority over the Church; it being most evident that all those places of Scripture, which he or any other doth, or can allege out of the new Testament to that purpose, do concern only temporal obedience to the pagan Emperors, or Princes, who were then Persecutors of the Church, and therefore could not be spiritual heads or Governors thereof, nor obeyed by Christians in spiritual matters. And this I say the rather, because M. Andrews doth not only here, but also throughout his whole book, seem to ground his doctrine of the King's spiritual Primacy, specially upon the law of Moses (as I shall have occasion to show further hereafter) which sufficiently bewrayeth the beggary and misery of his cause, See infra. cap. 6. and his want of proofs for the same by the law of Christ. 16. And although as well the ancient Fathers, as we, do ordinarily produce testimonies of the old Testament, not only for matters in controversy, but also for instruction in matters of morality, yet neither they, nor we ever do it, to other end, but to confirm things instituted, and taught in the new law, by the ordinance, and commandment either of Christ, or of his spouse the Church; M. Andrews proofs of the temporal Prince's supremacy, savour of judaism. and this we do only in respect of the conformity that is in many things betwixt the figure, and the Verity (I mean betwixt the old law, and the new, Moses, and our Saviour Christ, the Synagogue, and the Church) and not to the end to prove any thing to be necessary now, because it was ordained, or practised then; which were rather a point of judaism, then of Christianisme. And therefore this and other arguments of M. Andrews grounded only upon the judicial laws of Moses, may show him to be rather a jew then a Christian, except he can bring some other ground for the same out of the new Testament, or some Apostolical, or Ecclesiastical Canon or Tradition; which he neither doth, nor ever shall be able to do. 17. But who seeth not, how he tryfleth in this point, as commonly he doth in all? For how doth it follow, that if it be true which we teach (to wit, that Christ made S. Peter supreme Pastor of the Church by commanding him to feed his sheep) than he gave the same spiritual authority to David, when he bade him feed his people of Israel? 2. Reg. 5. Is it not manifest, that although the word pasce, feed, as it was spoken to them both, doth signify to govern, D. Andrews doth equivocate egregiously. yet it is Equivocal, being to be understood of a different manner of government in them both, that is to say, in the one spiritual, and in the other temporal? what consequence then can he draw from the one to the other, except it be this, that as when God bad David (who as a temporal man) to feed his people of Israel (which was a temporal people) he gave him temporal authority, making him head of a temporal Kingdom? So when he bade S. Peter (who was a spiritual man, a Priest, an Apostle, and Prince of the Apostles) feed his sheep (that is to say) all the faithful contained within his Sheepfold (which is a spiritual congregation) he gave him a spiritual authority, and made him supreme Pastor, and head of a spiritual Kingdom, that is to say, of his Church. And this no doubt is the most direct inference that can be made of the word Pasce, when it is applied in the old Testament either to David (if we respect him, as he was a King, and not a Prophet) or else to any other temporal Prince. 18. And therefore whereas M. Andrew's saith, Narro autem Cardinali etc. I declare to the Cardinal that the title of Pastor was given in the holy Scriptures to Princes long before it was given to the Bishop, Andr. ubi supra. and much more often, as to joshua before, and more often every where in the holy-history, and in the Prophets. This his narration, I say, is very idle, D. Andrews argueth impertinently. and impertinent, seeing it proveth not any thing which we deny, but that which we willingly grant, to wit, that the words Pascere, and Pastor, are often applied in the old Testament to temporal Princes; but that they signify spiritual government in them as Kings, M. Andrews will not prove in haste, and the contrary is manifest enough in Cyrus a Pagan, Isa. 44. and Idolatrous King, whom God called Pastormeus, and no man I think will be so absurd to imagine that he had any Ecclesiastical authority, or was Head, and chief member of God's Church, whereof he was no member at all: beside, that the example which he giveth us of joshua out of the book of Numbers doth not any way help his cause, but flatly confound him. Num. 27. 19 For albeit in the Chapter which he quoteth, to wit the 27 it is declared that God commanded Moses to assign and ordain joshua for his Successor in the government of the people (lest they should be like to oves sine Pastore, D. Andrews confounded by an instance of his own. sheep without a Shepherd) yet it is evident there, that he was not to have any authority over the High Priest, but rather the clean contrary, to wit, that he should depend wholly upon the High Priests direction; and therefore whereas Moses was commanded there by almighty God to give part of his glory to joshua, Theodoretus doth very well observe (as I have noted before in the Supplement) that Moses did distribute his dignity, Theodor. quast. 48. in Num. See Suppl. nu. 21. and authority (which was both spiritual, and temporal) betwixt joshua and Eleazar the High Priest, yet in such sort, that joshua should be directed in all his affairs by Eleazar, Pro hoc, saith the Scripture, si quid agendum erit etc. Num. 27. For him (that is to say joshua) if any thing be to be done, Eleazar shall consult the Lord, and at his word, he (to wit joshua) shall go out, and in, and all the children of Israel with him, and all the rest of the multitude. Thus saith the holy Scripture, whereby it appeareth that albeit joshua was Pastor populi, M. Andrews pricking argument doth wound none but himself. yet he was but a temporal Pastor, or Governor, and to be directed even in temporal affairs by the spiritual Pastor Eleazar, whom Almighty God did illuminate and instruct in his consultations, for the direction of joshua. Now then, doth this example prick Cardinal Bellarmine trow you, or M. Andrews? Truly though he meant to prick the Cardinal, yet you see, he hath wounded none but himself. The third answer of D. Andrews examined. Thus much to his second answer. 20. His third is in substance, that albeit S. Augustine, and S. Cyril have amply commented upon the Gospel of S. john, and upon those very words of our Saviour to S. Peter, Pasce oves meas, yet neither of them (saith he) saw, illustrem hunc fidei articulum de primatu Petri temporali, Andr. ubi supra pag. 17. lin. 4. this notable article of faith concerning the temporal primacy of Peter etc. So he. As if the Cardinal did teach, or affirm, that S. Peter's primacy is a temporal primacy; which is a mere fiction of M. Andrews to frame matter for himself to impugn; for seeing the spiritual primacy of S Peter is so evident in the holy Scriptures, that he is now & then forced to grant it in some sort, yea (a) See after c. 3. n. 36.37. & seq. sometimes as far forth in effect as we demand; though at at other times he laboureth utterly to overthrow it (as I shall have occasion to declare more largely (b) Cap. 5. n. 18.19.20. her after) he will now needs presuppose that we teach the Pope's Primacy to be a temporal primacy, & why forsooth? Marry because the Cardinal, as also all the catholics do teach, that the spiritual authority which our Saviour gave S. Peter, and his Successors, may, and doth in some cases extend itself to temporal things, so far forth, as it is, or may be necessary for the execution of their spiritual power, and for the benefit of souls, the public good of the Church, and gods glory, whereof I have given sufficient reason in the first Chapter of my (c) Supplement cap. 1. nu. 59 & sequent. Supplement. 21. Therefore I will only say for the present, that if the Pope's spiritual Primacy may for this cause be called a temporal primacy, If the Pope's primacy be a temporal Primacy, M. Andrews is a pecuniary Pastor. then may M. Andrews (who taketh himself to be a Bishop, and a spiritual Pastor) be justly called, and nicknamed a corporal Bishop, and a pecuniary Pastor, because he doth punish men sometimes in his spiritual court, not only in their bodies, but also in their purses: and if he would think him absurd, who should so style, and intytle him, he is no less absurd himself in calling the Pope's Primacy, for the like reason, a temporal Primacy. And although neither S. Augustine, nor S. Cyril, do in the places cited by M. Andrews speak of any such extension of spiritual power to temporal matters (whereof they had no occasion to treat) yet it sufficeth that they do not deny it, yea and that they do both of them sufficiently teach there, the spiritual Primacy of S. Peter, whereof the other is a necessary consequent. 22. S. Augustine in that very Treatise (whereto M. Andrews appealeth, I mean upon the Gospel of S. john, and the last Chapter) hath that express doctrine, and those very words which I cited a little before, S. Augustine acknowledgeth S. Peter's supremacy in the place alleged by M. Andrews. concerning the person, and figure of the whole Church, represented in S. Peter, propter Apostolatus sui Primatum, by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship (or as he saith else where) propter Primatum quem in discipulis habuit, for the Primacy which he had amongst the Disciples. For which cause he called him also twice in the same place, primum Apostolorum, the chief Apostle, and saith, that the Church received the keys in him, which as I have showed doth evidently prove him to be head and supreme Pastor of the Church, S. August. Tract. 124. in evang. joan. Idem. in psal. 108. whereof only he, and no other of the Apostles is said to represent the person, and figure; so that S. Augustine sufficiently acknowledgeth S. Peter's spiritual Supremacy in the place alleged by M. Andrew's. 23. The like doth S. Cyril also in his commentary upon S. john's Gospel, S. Cyril comment. in Cap. ult. joan. and in the same place which M. Andrew's citeth, for there he calleth S. Peter expressly Prince, and head of the Apostles, saying: Vt Princeps Caputque ceterorum primus exclamavit, Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi: S. Cyril also acknowledgeth S. Peter's supremacy in the place which M. Andrews allegeth Peter as Prince, and head of the rest, first exclaimed, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God. So he: whereby he teacheth evidently, that S. Peter was head, and supreme Pastor of the Church, in that he acknowledgeth him to be Prince, and head of the Apostles, who were the chief Magistrates, and Pastors thereof; and therefore it is to be considered, how this agreeth with that which followeth presently after in M. Andrews his text, who having affirmed as you have heard, that neither of these Fathers saw the article touching Peter's temporal Primacy, Andr. ubi supra. addeth, Id tantum vident, nec praeterea quid, quia etc. They see this only and nothing else, that because Peter had denied his Lord not once, but thrice he was asked concerning love, not once but thrice, and so when he had abolished his triple negation, with his triple confession, he was restored to the place or degree of Apostleship, from the which he was fallen: for touching the Primacy they are altogether silent. Thus saith M. Andrews. 24. Wherein it is to be noted, that whereas he saith, that these Fathers saw only this, which he here setteth down, nec praeterea quid, and nothing else, it is evidently false, for two respects; the one, for that they saw more than he mentioneth, yea more than he listed to see, to wit, the Primacy of S. Peter, as I have showed out of them both; the other is, because they saw not that which he affirmeth in their behalf, I mean, that S. Peter was by those words of our Saviour restored to his place in the Apostleship which he had lost; for if they should have said so, M. Andrews maketh S. Augustin & S. Cyril favour a pernicious heresy. they should seem to hold (or favour at least) the pernicious heresy of Wycliffe, that Magistrates lose their dignity, and authority by mortal sin, which pestiferous opinion, those holy Fathers, no doubt, would have abhorred, if it had been set abroach, or taught by any in their time; seeing that it shaketh the very foundation of all obedience either to Civil, or Ecclesiastical Magistrates; because it doth not only make all obedience uncertain (for no man knoweth who is in the state of Grace) but also giveth occasion to Subjects upon every offence of their Prince to call his authority in question. 25. Therefore to the end thou mayst, good Reader, know as well the integrity of these Fathers in this point, S. Augustine belied by D. Andrews. as M. Andrews his fraud, and bad conscience in alleging them, thou shalt understand that S. Augustine saith nothing at all, that may be so much as wrested to any such sense in that place, Aug. Ep. 50. and doth elsewhere expressly teach the contrary, as when he saith: Apostles (& again a little after) when Peter the Apostle denied our Saviour, and wept, and remained still an Apostle, he had not yet received the holy Ghost. Thus saith S. Augustine; and could he teach a doctrine more contrary to that which M. Andrews fat●ereth upon him? 26. Let us now see how he handleth S. Cyril, S. Cyril notably abused by M. Andrews. upon whom it may be he principally relieth for this matter; for indeed that holy Father saith somewhat concerning the same, though far otherwise then M. Andrews would make his Reader believe, for thus saith S. Cyril: Cyril ubi supra. Dixit, pasce agnos meos, Apostolatus sibi renovans dignitatem, ne propter negationem quae humana infirmitate accidit labefactata videretur. He (to wit our Saviour) said (to Peter) feed my Lambs, renewing to him his dignity of the Apostleship, lest it might seem to have been decayed by his denial, which happened by human infirmity. Thus far S. Cyril; who you see, neither saith, nor meaneth that S. Peter fell from his Apostleship by his denial of Christ, but rather signifieth the contrary, to wit, that Christ would not have it so much as to seem, or be supposed, that he had lost his dignity by his fall, and therefore renewed it by that new, and express commission, ne labefactata videretur, lest it should seem to have been decayed, or lost. 27. Wherein also it is to be observed, that the dignity whereof S. Cyril speaketh, was not the bare office, or degree of an Apostle, but that which was peculiar, and proper to S. Peter, and so acknowledged by S. Cyril himself a little before in the same Chapter, when he termed him Principem, & Caput ceterorum, the Prince and head of the rest of the Apostles, as also S. Augustine (as you have heard) calleth it Primatum & principatum Apostolatus, the Primacy and principality of the Apostleship, and therefore I say, the Dignity which according to S. Cyrils' doctrine our Saviour renewed in S. Peter, was his Primacy, and Sovereignty in God's Church, and the renovation thereof was a confirmation, or rather an increase of it, as of a thing which he had never lost, and being then renewed, was made more eminent than before. But perhaps some will say, that M. Andrews doth not here plainly affirm as his own opinion, that S. Peter fell from the Apostleship, but relateth the doctrine of S. Augustine and S. Cyril, who seemed to him so to say. Therefore let us hear what he saith himself in another place concerning the same. Andr. pag 215. §. No● vero. 28. Pasce oves, saith he, expressè faternur uni dictum etc. we confess expressly that pasce oves was said to one, yea thrice said to one, because he had thrice denied, atque ea voce muneri restitutum &c: and that he (to wit Peter) was by that word, or speech restored to his charge, and not constituted, or appointed in a charge above others. So he, showing evidently, that his opinion is, M. Andrews worthily suspected to hold that Magistrates fall from their dignity by mortal sins. that S. Peter lost his office, and authority by his fall, and that he was restored thereto by those words of our Saviour: which, as I have said, savoureth greatly of that damnable and pernicious heresy, whereof I have spoken before except he can tell us (which he shall never be able to do) how, and why S. Peter (rather then all other men) lost his place, and office by his fall, which (though it was most grievous) yet proceeded not of any infidelity, heresy, or malice, but (as S. Cyril well noteth, and no man I think doubteth of it) contigit humana infirmitate, happened by human frailty; so that if he lost his dignity thereby, the like must needs be thought of others in like frailties, and much more in cases of more grievous, and malicious sins, which would be an evident confirmation of Wickliffs' Heresy. 29. But howsoever M. Andrews shall be able to purge himself of this suspicion, it cannot be denied but that he hath most impudently abused and belied both S. Augustine and S. Cyril, in making them affirm, that S. Peter fell from his Apostleship by his denial of Christ, whereof the contrary is clearly gathered out of S. Cyrils' own words, and expressly taught by S. Augustine, as you have heard before, which may also be confirmed by the testimony of the other S. Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem, and of Optatus Mile●itanus, who do both of them, not only teach in express words, that S. Peter did not lose his Apostleship by his fall, but do withal acknowledge his pre-eminent authority over the rest of the Apostles. S. Cyril saith thus: Petrus princeps Apostolorum excellentissimus etc. S. Cyril Hierosol. Cathech. Mystag. 2. Peter the most excellent prince of the Apostles, did not only receive pardon of his denial (of Christ) verùm etiam dignitatem Apostolicam non ablatam retinuit, but also retained his Apostolical dignity not taken from him. So he. And Optatus having signified that, Optat. l. 7. de Schismate Donatistarū● B. Petrus praeferri omnibus Apostolis meruit, Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before all the Apostles, yea and that, solus accepit claves ceteris communicandas, he only received the keys to be communicated to the rest (which was done bono unitatis, saith he, for the good of unity, in which respect, he also calleth him a little after, caput Apostolorum, the head of the Apostles) he concludeth after a while, that albeit Peter did alone deny Christ, yet, bono unitatis de numero Apostolorum separari non meruit: for the good of unity he did not deserve to be separated from the number of the Apostles. Thus saith Optatus, to show the benefit & necessity of Unity in God's Church. And this I hope may suffice for this point. 30. Now then, to draw to the Conclusion of the premises, it appeareth plainly thereby, that our Catholic doctrine, and arguments grounded upon the words of our Saviour to S. Peter, The places of 3. Father's alleged by M. Andrews do confute him. Pasce oves meas, do remain good and sound, notwithstanding M. Andrew's false gloss thereupon; yea, and that they are much confirmed by these very places of S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, & S Cyril, which he hath produced against us. For whereas all his drift is to prove out of those Fathers, that S. Peter had nothing more by that Pastoral commission, than the rest of the Apostles; you have heard out of S. Augustine, that in receiving that commission, he represented the person and figure of the whole Church, by reason of his Primacy amongst the Apostles: and out of S. Ambrose, that he was thereby preferred before all the Apostles: and lastly out of S. Cyril, that he was Prince, and Head of the Apostles, and that the same dignity (for he speaketh of that which he acknowledgeth to have been in him before his fall) was renewed by that commission. S. Chrysostome for S. Peter's Supremacy. Whereto may be added the testimony of S. Chrysostome, who in his book de Sacerdotio treating of those words Pasce oves meas, saith, that our Saviour would have S. Peter to be auctoritate praeditum, Chrysost. de Sacerd. l. 2. ac reliquis item Apostolis longè praecellere: endued with authority, and also far to excel the rest of the Apostles. 31. And again, in his Homilies upon S. john's Gospel, and the same words of our Saviour, he saith; that Christ asked S. Peter whether he loved him, because he (to wit Peter) was the mouth of the Apostles, and Prince, & Head of the Congregation: and further teacheth, that by those words, Christ committed unto him curam Fratrum, the charge of his Brethren (for so he explicateth Pasce oves meas) Neque negationis meminit, Ibidem. saith he, neque exprobrat; tantùm dicit, si amas me, fratrum curam susciptas, that is to say, neither doth Christ remember Peter's denial, neither doth he upbraid him with it, but only saith, if thou lovest me, take the charge of thy Brethren. So he: and that by S. Peter's Brethren our Saviour meant the Apostles, it appeareth evidently afterwards in the same Homily, where S. Chrysostome note 〈◊〉 that albeit at Christ's last Supper, S. Peter did not presume to ask our Saviour a question, Ibid. but willed S. john to do it, yet now after this commission was given him, commissa sibi fratrum cura, saith he, vicem suam alt●ri non mandat, sed ipse Magistrum interrogat: the charge of his brethren being committed unto him, he doth not now delegate any other, but himself asketh their Master. Thus saith S. Chrysostome, giving plainly to understand, that S. Peter having by this commission received the charge of his brethren the Apostles, was more confident than before, and would not use the intervention of any of them (because they were under his charge) but himself asked our Saviour, as the mouth, Prince, and Head of the Apostolical Congregation, for so you have also heard S. Chrysostome term him before, in the same Homily. 32. So that you see this holy Father teacheth the same, that the others before mentioned do, to wit, that S. Peter had by this commission, a pre-eminence, and prerogative above all the Apostles; yea, and that the charge, or government of them (no less than of all inferior Pastors in God's Church) was committed to him; S. Leo. ep. 89. which S. Leo also testifieth expressly, saying that the charge of feeding the sheep of Christ, was more specially committed to Peter. Idem. ser. 3. de assumpt. sua ad Pontif. And in another place, that, Peter was chosen out of the whole world to have the chief charge of the vocation of the Gentills, & of all the Apostles, and of all the Fathers of the Church: Supplem. cap. 5. nu. 25.26. & 27. ut quamuis in populo multi sunt sacerdotes etc. that albeit there are many Priests amongst the people, and many Pastors, yet Peter may properly govern them all, quos principalit●r regit & Christus, whom Christ doth also principally govern. Euseb. Emis. ho. de nativit. joan. evan. Theophil. in cap. ult. joan. 33. So 〈◊〉 saith this famous, holy, and ancient Father, of whose great authority in God's Church I have spoken amply before, in answer of M. Barlows blasphemous speeches, and exceptions against him: and now to conclude, though I might add to these Fathers the clear testimonies of Eusebius Emissenus, Theophilactus, S. Bernard, S. Ber. l. 2. the consider. and divers others concerning S. Peter's prerogative in his Pastoral commission above the rest of the Apostles, yet I will content myself with these already cited, not doubting, but that they may suffice for answer to M. Andrews his idle cavils, Psal. 1.19. Psal. 63. where with he meant 〈◊〉 prick the Cardinal, imagining himself belike to be the mighty man that shooteth the sharp arrows, M. Andrews his sharp arrows do prove but shuttlecocks, or fools bolts Eccl. 19 whereof the Psalmist saith, Sagittae potentis acutae; but you see his sharp shafts do prove to be no better than sagittae paruulorum, the shuttlecocks of little children, or rather to say truly, to be that fools bolt, which as the Proverb saith, is soon shot, whereof Solomon saith, sagitta in fe●ore canis, sic verbum in cord stulti: as an arrow in the thigh of a dog (who never can rest until it be out) so is a word in a fools heart, which truly I would have forborn to have said of M. D. Andrews (were his folly far more exorbitant than it is) if he did not show so much virulency, and malice towards the worthy Cardinal, Prou. 16. as he doth every where, treating him most injuriously with such opprobrious and contumelious terms, Concerning a law in the Code of justinian. that he deserveth to be answered (as the wiseman adviseth) secundum stultitiam suam etc. according to his own folly, lest he may think himself to be wise. 34. But let us now pass to some other matter, which shall be a law in the Code, Supplem. Chap. 1. nu. 99 beginning inter Claras, which law is an Epistle of Pope john the second, to justinian the Emperor, and another of justinian to him, wherein the Pope is acknowledged to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum, Apol. Car. Bellar. c. 3. pag. 17. the Head of all Churches. This law is cited by me in my Supplement, to prove the dutiful respect and obedience of the ancient Emperors, showed to the Apostolic Roman Sea, and to the same purpose it is also alleged by Cardinal Bellarmine in his Apology, Andr. Resp. ad Apolog. cap. 3. pag. 81. to whom M. Andrews answereth thus: Poterat Cardinalis abstinere à lege, inter Claras, citanda etc. The Cardinal might well have forborn to city the law inter Claras, which he knoweth not to be cited inter Claras leges, amongst the clear laws, but amongst the obscure, and counterfeit: he might also have abstained from mentioning justinian (the Emperor) who showed himself to be Superior to the Pope (aliqua ex part) in some part, first in Silverius the Pope and after in Vigilius, of whom he banished the former, and imprisoned the later. So he: wherein you see two things affirmed, the one that the Cardinal knoweth the law of justinian which beginneth inter Claras, to be cited amongst the obscure, and counterfeit laws; and the other, that justinian showed himself to be in some part superior to Popes, The law Inter Claras proved to be a most true & clear Law, though M. Andrews hold it for obscure and counterfeit. because he banished Pope Syluerius, and imprisoned Vigilius; I will briefly examine both these points. 35. As for the first, truly I cannot but wonder at M. Andrews his confidence and boldness, or rather his impudence, so boldly and confidently to affirm (as he doth without any proof in the world) that the Cardinal knoweth the foresaid law to be cited amongst the obscure, yea counterfeit Laws, whereas the Cardinal knoweth it to be held & esteemed not only inter Claras, but also, inter clarissimas leges, amongst the most clear laws, for so the most famous Lawyer Baldus termeth it; The testimony of Baldus. who upon this very law, maketh this Gloss, Clarissima est lex, in qua Dominus Imperator etc. This is a most clear law, wherein the Emperor writeth to the Pope concerning the faith which he professeth. see the Code l. 1. tit. de sum. Trin. So he. And this may be confirmed with the authority of Accursius, who glosseth it no less than all the other Laws in the Code, without making the least doubt or scruple in the world of any obscurity or defect therein. Accurfius 36. But perhaps M. Andrew's will say that it cannot be denied, The testimony of Alciat. but that some have doubted of it, and impugned it. Whereto I answer, that true it is, that some heretics of these latter ages have either ignorantly, or maliciously called it in question, Alciat. l. 4. Parergon cap. 25. of whom the learned, and eloquent Lawyer Alciat saith thus: Sunt qui suspectam habent joannis Pontificis epistolam etc. There are some who do suspect Pope john's Epistle, which is in justinian's Code, under the Title De Trinitate, and say, that it is not found in some books, which as I think they do in favour of those who depress the Pope's authority; as also I have found other Authors corrupted by them to the same end (to wit, the Chronicles of Otho Frisingensis, and certain verses of Ligurinus the Poet.) But I do know it to be extant in very many old copies, and that it cannot with any suspicion be impeached, and if one or two books have it not, it is to be ascribed to the negligence of the Writers, who sometimes omitted it, because they thought that it doth not much concern the Science of the Law; nevertheless it is not to be doubted, quin genuinus germanusque joannis sit foetus, but that it is the proper & true work of Pope john. Thus saith Alciat, who not only testifieth, as you see, that he had himself seen it in very many old copies, but also yieldeth a probable reason why in some other copies it might be left out. 37. I could confirm this also by the testimony of the learned Lawyer Cuiacius & others, Pope Nicolas the first cited this law above 800. years ago. if it were needful, as it is not, seeing that Pope Nicolas the first of that name (who lived above 800. years ago) citeth the Epistle of justinian the Emperor to Pope john, beginning, Reddentes honorem (which he saith, justinian himself inserted into his Laws) & layeth down some part of it word for word, Nicol. ep. ad Michael Imperat. as it is yet to be seen in the law inter Claras, whereof we now treat (which law is, as I have already declared, an Epistle of Pope john to justinian, wherein that other of justinian cited by Pope Nicolas is inserted) whereby it is evident that the said Law was, The same confirmed out of Liberatus who lived in justinian's days. Liberat. in breuiar. c. 20. as it is now in the Code 800. years ago, and held for a clear Law of justinian, whereof there are also other most pregnant, and convincing testimonies; for Liberatus who lived in justinian's time, witnesseth that he was himself at Rome when Hypatius, and Demetrius came thither, sent from justinian the Emperor, to consult with the Sea Apostolic, against the messengers of certain Nestorian and Eutychian Bishops, concerning two, or three points then in controversy betwixt the Catholics in the East parts, and them (which points also Liberatus setteth down) & addeth that Pope john did write to the Emperor, Et epistola sua firmavit quid confitendum; and confirmed by his Epistle what was to be professed, or believed touching the same; and this was done, saith Liberatus, nobis ibi positis, whilst we were there. 38. So that it is evident enough that the Epistle of Pope john, whereof Liberatus speaketh, is the same that is now in question, as well because the contents are the same, that Liberatus testifieth, as also for that Hypatius, and Demetrius are mentioned therein to be the Ambassadors of justinian, who brought it to the Pope; besides that justinian himself writing to Agapetus the Pope, Tom. 2. Concil. ep. justin. ad Agapetum vide Binnium. maketh mention of his own Epistle to Pope john, and of Pope john's to him; as also Pope john doth the like in his Epistle to divers Senators: finally justinian in a constitution of his directed to Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople, and set down in the Code in Greek, Ibidem ep. 2. joan. 2. ad Senatores. relateth the substance of his Epistle to Pope john, to the effect abovesaid, showing also the great care he had to conserve the unity of all the Churches in the East parts: L. 6. Tit. de sum. Trinit. Cum ipso, saith he, Sanctissimo Papa veteris Romae ad quem similia hisc● perscripsimus, with the most holy Pope himself of old Rome, to whom we have written the like to these. So he. And then addeth further thus. Nec enim patimur etc. For we do not suffer that any of those things which belong to the state of the Church, be not related (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. to his Beatitude as being the head of all the most holy Priests of God, and specially because, as often as there hath risen any Heretics in these parts, they have been corrected by the sentence, and judgement of that venerable Seat. Thus saith justinian in that constitution. 39 Wherein first he testifieth, that he had written to the Pope of Rome (who was then john the second, as it is evident:) secondly he signifieth, that the substance of his letters to the Pope was the same in effect, that he wrote to Epiphanius; and this is so clear by the contents of both the Epistles, that the one (to wit that to Epiphanius) is set down in the Code in Greek, without any translation, because the other to Pope john which followeth in Latin, See the Code vb● supra. is the same in effect: in which respect the former in Greek needed not to be translated, as the gloss witnesseth. Thirdly justinian in this Constitution to Epiphanius, not only acknowledgeth the Pope to be head of all the holy Priests of God (as he did in like manner in his Epistle to the Pope) but also giveth another most notable testimony as well of the Universal authority, A clear testimony of the universal authority, & perpetual integrity of the Roman Sea: as of the perpetual intergrity of the Roman Sea, seeing he confesseth that all the heresies which ever sprung in the East, or Greek Church, had been condemned by the judicial sentence of that venerable Seat. 40. Therefore can any man desire either more clear proofs then these, that the law inter Claras, is a clear, and no obscure or counterfeit law? or more pregnant testimonies of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome by the Civil or Imperial law in the days of justinian? Or yet a more evident demonstration of M. Andrews vanity, and folly, in seeking to obscure the perspicuous, and clear light of this ancient law, with such a frivolous and vain exception so clearly convinced, as you have seen? Whereby he also worthily incurreth the malediction of the Prophet, Vae qui dicitis etc. Woe be to you who call good bad, Esa. 5. and bad good, and make light darkness, and darkness light. And thus much for this point. Two facts of justinian the Emp. against 2. Popes examined & reproved. 41. The other point which now resteth to be discussed is, that M. Andrews saith, that the Cardinal might also have abstained from mentioning justinian, because he showed himself to be Superior some way to the Pope; first in banishing Silverius, & after in imprisoning Vigilius; & whereas the Cardinal had also produced the testimony of the Bishop of Patera, Liberat. in Breviar. c. 22. who upon the banishment of Pope Silverius came to justinian, and protested God's judgement against him, saying, that though there were many Kings, yet there was not one alone as he, who was expelled from his Seat, was Pope over the Church of the whole world (meaning that there was not one King alone over the whole world, as there is one Pope, or universal Pastor over the whole Church) M. Andrews answereth thereto: Andr. ubi supra. pag 81. §. Vt nobis. Non tam curandum etc. It is not to be so much regarded, what the Bishop said, as what justinian did. And again presently after; Facta cum videamus, verba quid audiamus, vel Paterensis, vel Cardinalis? seeing we see the facts (of justinian) why should we hearken to the words, either of the Bishop of Patera, or of the Cardinal? 42. So he; arguing as you see, far more simply, & absurdly then it could have been believed, or imagined of D. Andrews, if he had not himself published this in print. For if this kind of argument may pass for good, A most absurd argument of M. Andrews. what hath there ever been in the world so wickedly done, that may not be justified? For howsoever it hath been, or may be reprehended by holy, grave, or learned men, those that list to maintain the fact, may say with this Doctor, facta cum videamus, verba quid audiamus? And when our Saviour Christ said to the jews, of those who sat upon the Chair of Moses, Matth. 23. Quae dicunt facite etc. Do what they say, but not what they do, might not some have answered (according to this Doctor's rule) facta cum videamus, verba quid audiamus? But to the end that his absurdity may the better appear, let us consider a little the manner, & quality of these facts of justinian. Thus then passed the matter. 43. Agapetus the Pope, Anast. in Agapeto Hist. miscel. & Paul. Diac. l. 16. Liberat. in Breviar. c. 22. Predecessor to Syluerius, being at Constantinople, and having in the presence of the Emperor justinian convinced the heretical Bishop of, that City called Anthymus, deposed him and ordained Mennas' Bishop in his place, wherewith the heretical and wicked Empress Theodora, wife to justinian, (and special Patroness of Anthymus) was so highly offended, Platina Blond. dec. ●. lib. 3. Niceph. l. 17. cap. 18. Naucler. Gener. 18. anno 510. that she never rested to seek the restitution of Anthymus, and the expulsion of Mennas: and to that end (Agapetus being shortly after deceased) she made great instance to Silverius his Successor, to obtain it of him, and being flatly denied, she practised his overthrow, and caused him to be falsely accused by counterfeit letters, to have intelligence with the Goths against the Roman Empire, The wicked practice of the heretical Empress Theodora against Pope Syluerius. and to betray unto them the City of Rome. Upon which pretence he was by her order taken by Bellisarius, and sent into banishment. Lo than one of the two facts, which M. Andrews justifieth with his rule or maxim of facta cum videamus, verba quid audiamus? But can there any thing be more shameful, or more shamefully defended? And so I may likewise say of the other fact, which passed in this manner. 44. Syluerius the Pope being banished, the wicked Empress intruded Vigilius into his Seat, upon assured promise on his part, Liberat. i● Breu. c. 22. to satisfy her desire. And although Vigilius (as some write) began to publish Decrees in favour of her heresy, Paul. Diacon. in Ius●iniano. Amoyn, de reb. gest. Franc. l. 2. cap. 2. Marian. Scotus & Platina in Vigilio Blond. dec. ●. l. 6. Petrus de Natal. l. 6. c. 12. S. Greg. l. 2. ep. 36. Baron. an 547. pag. 357. during the life of Silverius (that is to say, whiles he himself was an Intruder, and no true Pope) yet such was Gods merciful providence for the preservation of S. Peter's Seat in the integrity of the Catholic faith, that Silverius deceasing shortly after, and Vigilius being by the means of Bellisarius canonically chosen (whereby he became of an Usurper to be true Pope, and successor to S. Peter) he utterly changed his mind, and former course, & not only refused to perform his promise to the Empress, in the restitution of Anthymus, but also coming afterwards to Constantinople (where the Emperor received him with great honour) he excommunicated her, and other her adherents, as S. Gregory witnesseth, who lived at the same tyme. 45. And albeit some write that she procured his banishment, Idem An. 538. & Liberat. in Breniar. c. 24. yet others affirm (with more probability) that the same happened after her death, and was procured by the instigation of Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, who was a very firebrand of Schism and sedition, and a perverse heretic, though he cunningly cloaked it a long time, being secretly an Origenist, and one of the Sect called Acephali (who impugned the Council of Chalcedon, & were Eutychians;) finally he was the man who in the end wholly seduced the Emperor, and made him a flat heretic, as I have signified (c) Suplem. cap. 1. nu. 108. justinian the Emperor was so ignorant that he could neither write nor read, and therefore easily deceived by subtle heretics. before. So that it is no marvel that the Emperor being himself so ignorant, and unlearned as he was (not having so much skill, as either to writ, or read, being as Suydas testifieth Analphabetus, one that never learned his Christ-cross, and therefore easy to be abused by the practice of subtle Heritiks) it is I say no marvel that he transgressed the bounds, Suydas in justiniano and limits of his Imperial authority, evagr. l. 4. cap. 40. Idem lib. 5. cap. 1. as well in these two Acts concerning these two Popes, as also in divers others. In which respect Euagrius a famous Historiographer (who wrote his history at the same time) having signified that God struck him with sudden death, The judgement of Euagri concerning justinian's death, and the state of his soul. for punishment of his wickedness, made no doubt to conclude, concerning him, in these words: justinianus cum omnia omnino turba, atque tumultu complevisset etc. When justinian had filled all the world with trouble, and tumult, and received in the end a due reward for the same, he passed from this life to endure the penalty thereof in hell, according to God's just judgement. 46. Now then, these being the facts of justinian the Emperor, towards these two Popes, let us ponder a little what reason M. Andrews hath to prefer the same before the Bishop of Patera's censure thereof, which he utterly rejecteth, as not meriting any consideration. It is therefore to be considered, that these facts of the Emperor were no less repugnant to all the Catholic Emperors his predecessors (of whom I have treated amply (d) See supplem. cap. 1 nu. 90. & seq. before) then to his own course and proceedings from the beginning of his Empire, until the time of Silverius the Pope, as it doth evidently appear not only by his public Decrees and letters written to the Pope's john the second, and Agapetus, and to Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople (whereof I have spoken sufficiently already: Anastas. in Agapeto. Blond dec. 1. l. 3. Naucler Gen. 18. an. 510. ) but also by the great honour he did, and the reverent respect which he bore to Agapetus the next predecessor to Silverius, whom as the Historiographers do testify, he received into Constantinople, cum summa veneratione, with exceeding great veneration. 47 And when Agapetus had convinced & confounded the Eutychian Bishop Anthymus, Anastas● in Aga●eto. Naucle. ubi supra, Novel. 42. he (I mean the Emperor) not only renounced the Eutychian heresy, wherewith he had been before somewhat infected, but also● humiliavit se, saith Anastasius, Sedi Apostolicae, ac Beatissimum Agapetum adoravit, humbled himself to the Sea Apostolic, The two facts of justiniana against two Popes, overwayd with ma●ny other of his own in honour & favour of the Sea Apostolic. and adored the most blessed Agapetus, yea and approved his deposition of the heretical Bishop Anthymus, and willed him to ordain & consecrate Mennas in his place, which he also did, as I have signified before. Therefore, I say, if justinian's fact against Silverius, and Vigilius be so much to be esteemed (in M. Andrews his judgement) as to be preferred before the words and judgement of a learned Bishop of the same ages, why shall not all these former facts of his (I mean his public Decrees, letters and most humble submission to Agapetus, all which were conform to the belief, and practise of the whole Church at that time) why shall they not, I say overweygh M. Andrews his words, and approbation of only two facts done in favour of Heretics, and by their instigation, who notably abused justinian, and circumvented him, as it is evident in the histories? May not we therefore with much more reason say of this Doctor, than he said of the Bishop, facta cum videamus, verba Doctoris quid audiamus? The importance of the Bishop of Patera his reprehension of justinian's fact against Pope Syluerius. 48. But now if we weigh the words of the Bishop of Patera, of what weight they ought to be, yea, and were indeed with justinian, we shall easily see how vain, and idle this Doctor's words, and conceits are, who so little esteemeth them as you have heard. It is therefore to be understood that this Bishop was a Grecian by birth and habitation, and not bound to Silverius the Pope by any temporal obligation, of country, Liberat. in breviary ca 22. kindred, benefit, or former acquaintance, (seeing that for aught that is known to the contrary, they never saw one another before Silver, came to Patera, which was the place assigned for his banishment) whereupon it followeth, The Bishop of Patera Protested God's judgement against justinian. that nothing else but mere conscience and the regard of his duty to God, and to the Roman Sea (even by the instinct of that holy spirit which inspired the prophets in like cases) did move this Bishop to go to the Emperor, and so freely, and sharply to reprehend him for his fact, as he did, with protestation of God's judgements against him; for so saith Liberatus, Idem● ibid.. who then lived and wrote the story: judicium Dei, saith he, contestatus est de tantae Sedis Episcopi expulsione. See Card. Apol. pag. 27. The Bishop of Patera called to witness (or rather protested) God's judgement against him for expelling the Bishop of so great a Seat: which words being also related by the Cardinal out of Liberatus, M. Andrews thought good to nipp out of the Cardinal's text, belike because he thought that those words might make the Reader the rather to reflect upon the prophetical zeal & spirit of this holy Bishop, & the importance of his grave & serious reprehension of the Emperor. 49. But whether he did it of negligence or malice, I leave it to God, M. Andrews discovereth an heretical spirit in his judgement of justinian's fact. & his own conscience to judge, and will only say of him, that preferring, as he doth the inconsiderate act of the ignorant, and unlearned Emperor (misled by heretics) before the zealous, & grave speech & cesure of a Catholic, & learned Bishop, he sufficiently discovereth his own heretical spirit, especially seeing that he could not but see in Libera●us, of what moment, & weight the Bishop's words were, which appeareth by the notable effect that they wrought in the Emperor himself, Liberat. ubi supra. who was moved thereby to recall his fact● as Liberatus testifieth in these words: Quem audience Imperato●● revocari Roman Silu●rium 〈◊〉 etc. The Emperor hearing the Bishop of Pater●; justinian revoked his sentence against Pope Silverius upon the reprehensi● given him by the Bishop of Patera. commanded Silverius, to be called back to Rome, and the matter to be examined and tried, concerning his letters (meaning the letters whereof he had been falsely accused) visi appr●●●●●tur ab ipso fuisse scriptu●● in quacumque Cavitate Episcop degeret etc. to the end that if it were proved that he had written them, he might liue● or remain Bishop in any other City, and if they were found to be false, than he might be restored to his seat. Thus saith Liberatus, wherein it is to be noted, that although the Emperor upon the Bishop's admonition, commanded that the matters whereof Silverius was accused, should be better examined; yet he did not presume to ordain, that in case he should be found guilty, he should be deprived of his Dignity, but only that (for the security of the City of Rome) he should live in any other City, and there exercise his function and charge. 50. And Liberatus doth also further declare, that as Silverius was returning to Rome according to the emperors order, Bellisarius caused him (at the instance of Vigilius, Idem ibidem. who then usurped his Seat) to be delivered into the hands of two of Vigilius his servants, in whose custody he perished shortly after with famine & misery, in an Island called Palmaria; whereby it appeareth how the emperors revocation of his fact was frustrated, to wit, not by his own fault, but by the sinister practice of his officers, & ministers, who by the help of the wicked Empress Theodora, easily deluded him. So that M. Andrews might learn by this relation of Liberatus how potent were the Bishop's words, which he so little esteemeth; and the reader may note as well M. Andrews his folly, M. Andrews hi● folly in approving an act which the author of it did after disallow and repent. as his bad conscience: his folly, in that he maketh more account of the temerarious, and erroneous act of the Emperor (which he himself acknowledged for such, & recalled) then of the Bishop's admonition, which made him see and repent his error; his bad conscience, in that he dissembled all this, though he could not but see it in Liberatus● for no man can imagine that he would be so negligent as to answer to this objection of Cardinal Bellarmine, and not to search the Author alleged by the Cardinal, to see whether there were any corruption in the allegation; & therefore thou mayst see, good Reader, with what sincerity he useth to treat matters of Religion (though the same import no less than the eternal salvation, The bad conscience of M. Andrews in dissembling the truth which he could not but see in Liberatus. or damnation of men's souls) not caring what he saith or dissembleth so that he may shift of the matter for the time with some show of probability, whereof we shall see much more experience hereafter in him, as we have already seen the like in M. Barlow. For truly it is hard to say whether of them is more fraudulent, and absurd in this kind. 51. In the mean time two things are evident by this which hath been here debated; the one, how weakly M. Andrew's argueth when he saith, that the Emperor justinian showed himself in these two acts to be superior to the Pope aliqua exparte, for it may well be granted in some sense, A weak & foolish argument of M. Andrews, to prove justinian superior to 2. Popes. & he gain nothing by it, seeing the like may be said of Nero, who put to death S. Peter, and S. Paul; of Herod, who killed S. john Baptist; and of Pilate, who gave sentence of death against Christ, for they and all other persecutors of God's Church (yea justinian also himself in the end of his reign when he declared himself an heretic, and expelled Catholic Bishops from their seats, M. Andrews must devise new answers to the Cardinal, concerning the law inter Claras, & the Bishop of Patera his reprehension of justinian. because they would not subscribe to his heresies) they all, I say, showed themselves to be Superiors (aliqua ex part) over those whom they killed, banished, and persecuted, having by God's permission power over them, and exercising the same power upon them: nevertheless I hope no good Christian man will say that because they did this, ergo, it was lawfully done, which must either be the conclusion of M. Andrew's his argument à facto, or else he concludeth nothing to the purpose. 52. The other thing which I say is clear by the premises, is, that as well the testimony of the Bishop of Patera, produced by the Cardinal, as also the other, grounded upon the law inter Claras (alleged both by the Cardinal, and by me) are good, and solid proofs for the Pope's Universal authority over the Church of God, notwithstanding the idle exceptions of M. Andrew's against the same, and therefore he must now devise some other answer thereto, or seek some other shift, seeing this hath failed him, and served to no other purpose, but to show his conformity of spirit, rather with the heretics, who deceived and seduced justinian in the banishment of two Popes, then with such Catholic and holy Bishops, as the Bishop of Patera, or those others, M. Andrews his words of the Cardinal justly retorted upon himself. whose advise he used in making his Catholic laws, in favour and honour of the Sea Apostolic. Finally, thou seest, good Reader, that it may be justly said of him, as he said of the Cardinal, to wit that he might have abstained from mentioning justinian, and the law inter Claras, seeing that he hath gained thereby nothing else, but to manifest his own folly to bewray the weakness of his cause, & to fortify ours. THE ANSWERS OF M. ANDREWS TO Certain places of the Council of Chalcedon are examined, and confuted. His notable fraud in divers things, and especially in the allegation of a Canon of that Council is discovered: and the supreme authority of the Sea Apostolic clearly proved out of the same Council, and Canon. CHAP. II. IN the second Chapter of my Supplement I have produced certain clear testimonies out of the Council of Chalcedon, Supplem: cap. 2. nu● 15 & 16. Apolog. Car Bellow, pag. 92. cap. 7. for the Pope's Universal, and Supreme authority over the Church of God, and Cardinal Bellarmin also in his Apology hath alleged the same; Whether the Pope's authority be established, or overthrown by the council of Chalcedon. whereto M. Andrew's hath framed an Answer, such a one as it is, & so perhaps may seem to some to have answered us both. In which respect I think good to examine what he saith concerning that matter, the rather because he holdeth it for a paradox in the Cardinal, to affirm that the Pope's Supremacy is manifestly gathered out of that Council, & addeth further, that the Cardinal's authority is not yet so great in the world, as to make men believe that the Pope's Primacy is established by that which they know doth specially overthrow it. Andr. pag. 170. cap. 7. §. Quod ibi. So saith M. Andrew's; & therefore this point seemeth to me right worthy to be discussed. 2. Thus than he saith: Legate actione una totaventilatum etc. Ibidem. Let a man read the matter debated in one whole action (of the Council) and renewed, and confirmed in another, & finally decreed by a Canon, that the privileges of the Bishop of Constantinople shallbe, ne maiora, sed aequalia per omnia, not greater, but equal in all things with the privileges of the Bishop of Rome, the Roman Legates crying in vain against it, and the Bishop of Rome himself s●ying also afterwards by his letters in vain to the Emperor, Empress, and Anatolius. Thus saith M. Andrew's; wherein two things specially are to be noted for the present (for afterwards I will add a third:) one is, that the Council granted by that Canon to the Bishop of Constantinople equal privileges, per omnia, in all respects, with the Bishop of Rome: The other that Pope Leo, and his Legates resisted, and contradicted it in vain. 3. For the first, whereas he saith that the Council of Chalcedon did by that Canon give to the Bishop of Constantinople, M. Andrews his shameless dealing. ne maiora, sed aequalia per omnia privilegia, not greater privileges, but equal in all things with the Bishop of Rome (as though the Council had exempted the Church, and Bishop of Constantinople from subjection to the Roman Sea, for, par in parem non habet potestatem, an equal hath no authority, or power over his equal) truly I must needs say, that if M. Andrews had any care what he saith, or spark of shame, he would not have affirmed this so resolutely as he hath done, seeing that the very words, and text of the Canon itself do evince the contrary. In which respect he thought good to give us only some patches & pieces thereof with his corrupt sense, and understanding of it, and not to lay down the Canon itself, whereof the drift, and whole scope is no other, but to give to the Bishop of Constantinople the second place after Rome, before the Bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, which Churches in former times had always had the precedence before the Church of Constantinople. Concil. Chalced. Act. 15. Can. 28. 4. The words of the Canon are these: Sanctorum Patrum decreta ubique sequentes etc. Following every where the decrees of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the Canon of an hundredth and 50. Bishops, which was lately read, we do also decree, and determine the same, concerning the privileges of the Church of Constantinople, which is new Rome. For the Fathers did worthily give privileges to the Throne of old Rome, because that City did reign (or had the Empire) and the 150. Bishop's most beloved of God, being moved with the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy Throne of new Rome, judging rightly, that the City which is honoured as well with the Empire, as with the Senate, and doth enjoy equal privileges with the most ancient Queen Rome, should be also extolled, and magnified, as she is, even in Ecclesiastical things, secundam post illam existentem, being the second after her etc. 5. Thus saith the Canon, adding also certain privileges which were in particular granted to the Church of Constantinople, whereof I shall have occasion to speak after a while, when I shall first have explicated this that I have laid down already, which, as you have seen, hath no other sense, or meaning, then to renew, or confirm a former Canon pretended to be made by 150. Bishops in the Council of Constantinople some 60. years before, which Canon was a confirmation of the Decrees of the Council of Nice, not only concerning matters of faith, but also touching the limits, and jurisdiction of certain Metropolitan Churches, yet with this exception in favour of the Church of Constantinople, Concil. Constant. Can. ●. that it should have Primatus honor●m post Romanum Episcopum, propterea quòd sit nova Roma, the honour of Primacy after the Bishop of Rome, because it is new Rome. The sense and meaning of the Canon of the Council of Cal. alleged by M. Andrews. 6. This then being the effect of that Canon of the council of Constantinople, it is clear that this other of the Council of Chalcedon which renewed, and confirmed it, was also to the same purpose, to wit, to give to the Church of Constantinople the second place after the Roman, that is to say, the pre-eminence before the Churches of Alexandria, and Antioch, which according to the Canons of the Council of Nice, had the second, and third place after the Church of Rome; and this, I say, is evident in the Canon itself alleged by M. Andrew's, where it is said expressly of the Church of Constantinople, Can. 28. that it should be magnified, and extolled as old Rome was, secundam post illam existentem, being the second after her, which clause was yet more clearly expressed in the same Canon, as it was related in the Council the day after it was made in these words, Concil. Calced. Act. 16. Et in Ecclesiasticis sicut illa maiestatem habere negotijs, & secundam post illam existere, that is to say, we judged it convenient that the City of Constantinople should have a Majesty in Ecclesiastical affairs, Relatio Synodi ad Leon. in fine Còcil. as Rome hath, and be the second after her; beside, that the relation which the whole Council of Chalcedon made to Pope Leo of the substance, and effect of this Canon, may put the matter out of all doubt, declaring it thus: Confirmavimus autem, & centum quinquaginta sanctorum Patrum regulam etc. We have also confirmed the rule, or Canon of the 150. holy Fathers, which were assembled in Constantinople, under Theodosius the elder of pious memory, whereby it was ordained, that after that most holy, and Apostolical Seat, the Church of Constantinople should have the honour, which is ordained to be the second etc. Thus wrote the whole Council of Chalcedon to Pope Leo. 7. Now then can any thing be more clear than that the drift, and meaning of that Canon is no other than to give the second place to the Church of Constantinople, after the Sea Apostolic? Why then doth M. Andrew's affirm so confidently, that this Canon made them equal in all things? M. Andrews corrupteth the text of the Canon, adding unto it per omnia. For although it giveth to the Bishop of Constantinople equal privileges with the Bishop of Rome, yet it neither saith nor meaneth that their privileges should be equal in all things or in all respects, as M. Andrews corruptly, & fraudulently affirmeth in a different Letter, as though he laid down the very words of the Canon. Besides that, the equality mentioned in the Canon, is sufficiently explicated by the Canon itself, which having signified that the Fathers in that Council thought good to grant the second place unto the Church of Constantinople, and to give it equal privileges with the Church of Rome, addeth presently (for the explication thereof) ut & Ponticae, & As●anae, & Thraciae Dioecesis Metropolitanis etc. That the Metropolitans of Pontus, Asia, & Thracia, and also the bishops of the same Diocese amongst the Barbarous (so were all called, that were no Grecians) should be ordained by the Bishops of Constantinople. 8. So saith the Canon, giving to understand that whereas the Church of Constantinople had been in times passed but a private Bishopric (& subject to Heraclea) it should hereafter be not only a Metropolitan, What manner of Equality the Church of Constantinople should have with the Roman Church. but also a patriarchal Sea, and have Metropolitans under it, yea and that as the Church of Rome was the chief Church of the West, so also the Church of Constantinople (being now made the second after Rome) should be the chief Church of the East, & preferred before the patriarchal Seas of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, yet with this evident exception, and reservation, that nevertheless it should be still inferior to the Roman Sea, being the second after it, that is to say, it should have the same place and privilege that the Church of Alexandria had in former times, which though it was the chief Church of the East, & the second after Rome, Sozom. hist. l. 3. cap. 7. yet was always inferior & subject thereto, as it is evident by the appeal of the famous Athanasius Bishop of that Sea, to Pope julius the first of that name, above an hundredth years before the Council of Calcedom. What pre-eminence the Church of Constantinople sought to have in the Council of Chalcedon. 9 Therefore the pre-eminence which the Church of Constantinople was to have by this Canon, was to be preferred before the Churches of Alexandria & Antioch: and the equality that it was to have with Rome, was no other, but to be a patriarchal Sea, and head of all the patriarchal, and Metropolitan Churches of the East, as Rome was in the West, yet with reservation of the right of Primacy due to the Roman Sea. Besides that, it is to be noted that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in our latin Copies is translated aequalis, doth signify also similis, like, not only in profane Authors (as every man may see in the Thesaurus of Henricus Stephanus) but also in divers places of holy Scripture, both in the old & new Testament. And he that list to see more to this purpose, may read the Parallel of Tortus, & his Torture, written against M. D. Andrews, by the Reverend & Learned Father Androas Eudaemon-Ioannes, who hath sufficiently handled, See Paral. Torti. ac Tort. cap. 4. p. 157. edit. Colon, 1611. and explicated this point, and hath also produced a clear testimony out of Theodorus Balsamon a very learned Grecian, and Patriarch of Antioch, to prove that the mention of paria privilegia, equal privileges granted to the Church of Constantinople in the Council of Calcedom, doth not any way derogate from the supreme dignity of the Roman Sea. 10. Whereto I also add, that the word aequalis in the Scripture doth not always signify a true, and just Equality in all respects, but sometimes also an Equality in a certain proportion, How Equality is understood sometimes in the Scriptures. as in the Apostle to the Corinthians, who exhorteth them to supply the temporal wants, and necessities of the poor, with their store, and abundance, ut fiat aequalitas, saith he, that there may be an equality, meaning an equality in a certain similitude, and proportion, as it appeareth by that which he addeth for the further explication thereof, saying: sicut scriptum est, qui muliùm non abundavit, & qui modicum non minoravit, as it is written, he which gathered much, 2. Cor. 8. had no more, than was necessary for him, and, he that gathered little, had no less. So saith the Apostle, alluding to the history in Exodus of those who gathered Manna in different quantity, Exod. 18. and yet found that they had it in a kind of equality (because every one had so much as was needful for him, See S. Tho. in ep. 2. ad Cor. cap. 8. and no more) so that equality doth not signify here an Arithmetical equality (as the Philosophers, Item joan. Gagnaeus in hunc locum. and Schoolmen term it) which is equal in every respect, and is used in commutative justice, that is to say, in buying, and selling and the like (wherein the just and true value of every thing is equally considered) but a Geometrical equality, keeping only a certain proportion according to distributive justice, which (as Aristotle, and the Schoolmen do teach) doth always respect equality in the distribution of honours, privileges, and rewards; yet so, as due proportion be observed correspondent to the different dignity and quality of every one. Two kinds of equality corresponding to two kinds of justice. And therefore when two persons of different quality and degree (as the Captain, and his soldier) are to be rewarded for some one service to the common wealth, their rewards, or privileges are truly equal, when they are privileged, Aristot. Ethic. 5. S. Thom. 2.2. q. 16. and rewarded in a due proportion to their degrees, without impeachment to the difference that is betwixt them. And so a subject may be said to have equal privileges with his King, and yet be his subject still: and in this manner the words equal, and equality are to be understood in the Council of Calcedom (as is evident by the Canon itself) wherein you see, it was ordained that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal privileges with the Bishop of Rome, and yet have the second place after him. 11. But now to deal somewhat more liberally with M. Andrews in this point, let us put the case that the Fathers in the Council of Chalcedon did mean to give to the Church of Constantinople that equality with the Roman sea, The Canon which granted the privileges to the Church of Constantinople abrogated by Pope Leo. which he affirmeth; should he, trow you, gain any thing thereby? Or could he any way prejudice the universal, and supreme authority, either of Pope Leo at that time, or of the other Popes his Successors ever since? Truly no; but rather should notably confirm their primacy, and utterly overthrow his own cause, seeing that it is most evident, that the authority of Pope Leo was such, that his only opposition to that Canon, and his abrogation thereof sufficed to overthrow, & disannul it; which I will take a little pains to prove by the whole course, and practise of the Church, even from that Council, until the ruin of the Greek Church and Empire, which though it be needless in respect of the learned, yet I hope it will not be altogether fruitless to the more ignorant, and unlearned, and may serve for an abundant conviction of M. Andrews his impudence, and malice, who is not ashamed to avouch such a manifest falsehood, and impugn such a known truth, as he doth. 12. To this purpose I wish it to be noted, what Gelasius (who lived at the same time, and was Pope about 30. years after Leo) wrote to the Bishops of Dardania, Four things to be noted in an Epistle of Pope Gelasius for the invalidity of the Canon. concerning a schism raised by Acatius Bishop of Constantinople in the time of Pope Felix his Predecessor, in which Epistle he signifieth 4. things specially to be noted for this purpose. First, that the Emperor Martian (though he had made great instance to Pope Leo for the advancement of the Church of Constantinople, yet) did highly praise, and commend the said Pope, for that he would not by any means suffer the rules of the Canons to be violated in that point. Secondly, that Anatolius the Bishop of Constantinople, in whose favour that Canon was made (being most severely reprehended by Pope Leo for his ambitious attempt) excused himself, laying the fault upon the Clergy of Constantinople, and affirming, in Apostolici Praesulis totum positum potestate, that all the matter was in the power of the Apostolical Prelate, that is to say of Pope Leo. Thirdly, that the Emperor Leo who succeeded Martian before Pope Leo died, attempting within a few years after to obtain the same privileges for the Church of Constantinople in the time of Pope Simplicius, was flatly denied them, and that it was declared unto him by Probus Bishop of Canusium the Pope's Legate, nullatenus posse tentari, that it might by no means be attempted. 13. Finally Gelasius also signifieth, that Acatius Bishop of Constantinople, who raised the Schism whereof he writeth, and was therefore excommunicated by Pope Felix, was himself so subject, & obedient to the Roman Sea, before he fell into that schism, that he procured the Pope to censure, and deprive the Bishops of Alexandria, and Antioch, yea and was himself executor of the Pope's sentence against them, and that therefore falling also himself afterwards into the fellowship of the condemned Bishops (upon whom he had executed the Pope's sentence of condemnation) he deserved no less to be condemned than they. All this witnesseth Gelasius; whereby it appeareth evidently that from the time of the Council of Chalcedon to his reign, which was about 40. years, the Canon whereupon M. Andrew's relieth, was not held to be of any weight, for the exemption of the Church of Constantinople from the subjection of the Church to the Roman Sea. For if the Canon had then had any such force, neither would the Emperor Martian have highly commended Pope Leo for resisting it, nor Anatolius (in whose favour it was made) would have excused himself for procuring it, and acknowledged the matter to depend wholly upon Pope Leo's determination: neither should Leo the Emperor have needed to have renewed that suit to Pope Simplicius; neither yet would Acatius have yielded, as he did, for a time, to obey the Pope, and to execute his sentence upon other Grecian Bishops. 14. Furthermore albeit this schism raised by Acatius continued in the Church of Constantinople some years after his death (during the reign of two Heretical Emperors, The East Church acknowledged to be subject to the Sea of Rome. to wit Zeno, and Anastasius, which was about 40. years) yet divers Grecian, and Oriental Bishops which were partakers of the said schism, made earnest, and humble suit in the mean time to Pope Symmachus in a general, and common letter (with the title, or superscription of Ecclesia Orientalis etc.) to be restored to the union of the Roman Sea, Ep. orient. Episcop. ad Symmachun. To. 2. Concil. acknowledging Symmachus not only to be the true Successor of S. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, but also to feed Christ's sheep committed to his charge per totum habitabilem mundum, throughout the whole habitable world. And as soon as the wicked Emperor Anastasius was dead (who was strooken, by God's just judgement, with a thunderbolt) and the worthy, and Catholic Emperor justinus chosen in his place, as well justinus himself, as also a Synod of Bishops assembled in Constantinople, together with john Bishop of that Sea, demanded of Pope Hormisdas (who succeeded Symmachus) to be reconciled to the Sea Apostolic; and afterwards the said Bishop of Constantinople sent a profession of his faith to Hormisdas, Exemplar libelli joan. Ep. Constantin. To. 2. Concil. acknowledging that the Catholic Religion is always kept inviolable, and sincere in the Apostolical and Roman Sea, by reason of Christ's promise to S. Peter, when he said, Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram etc. 15. Moreover he further protested that he would during his life, admit and follow all the doctrine, and decrees of that Sea, and remain in the communion thereof; In qua, saith he, est integra Christianae Religionis, & perfecta soliditas, wherein there is sincere● and perfect solidity of the Christian Religion. Finally, having promised to raze the name, Vide etiam Ep. justini Imperat. ad Hormisdam ● P. To. 20. Concil. and memory of Acatius (who had been cause of the former schism) out of the holy Tables (that is to say out of the number, and Catalogue of the Bishops of Constantinople, which was wont to be read in the time of the divine Mysteries) he concluded, that if he should at any time vary from this his profession, he understood himself to be comprehended in the number of those whom he had anathematized, and condemned. This I have laid down the more largely, to the end we may consider here, whether this Bishop of Constantinople, and the other Grecian, The Primacy of the Roman Sea acknowledged by the Greek Church, to be grounded upon the express words of Christ. and Oriental Bishops, that is to say, all the Greek Church, together with the most Catholic Emperor justinus (all which so earnestly sought to be reconciled to the union and obedience of Pope Hormisdas) whether they, I say, had not more regard to the Primacy of the Apostolical Roman Sea, grounded (as themselves confessed) upon the express words, and commission of our Saviour to S. Peter, then to the pretended, and supposed equality of privileges which M. Andrews saith, were granted to the Church of Constantinople by that Canon of the Council of Chalcedon. 16. The like may be said, Libe●at. in Breu●ario c. 22. Nicephor. li. 17. c. 9 Anastas. in Agapeto. Paul Diacon. l. 16. and clearly verified in the ensuing ages, for otherwise why would justinian the Emperor (who, as it is evident in the histories, & in his own decrees, favoured exceedingly the Bishops and Church of Constantinople) suffer Pope Agapetus to depose Anthymus Bishop of that Sea, as I have signified before? Why did not either he, or the heretical Empress Theodora his wife, or at least Anthymus himself stand upon the equality granted by the Council of Chalcedon? Nicepho. li. 17. c. 26. vide etiam Constit. Vigilij apud Binium to. 2. Concil. p. 5●2. Baron. An. 551.552. & 553. Or how can it be imagined that Theodora would afterward labour by all means possible, as she did, perfas, & nefas, to induce the two Popes Silverius and Vigilius to the restitution of Anthymus, if she had thought, that they had no jurisdiction over him, by reason of that Canon? Moreover Mennas' Bishop of Constantinople being excommunicated together with Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia by Pope Vigilius, pretended not this Canon, or the equality supposed by M. Andrew's, but submitted himself, as also Theodorus did, to the authority of the Roman Sea, craving absolution, and restitution to the communion thereof. 17. Also Eutychias who succeeded Mennas, claimed so little privilege for himself, or his Sea by this Canon, Ep. Eutychij ad Vigilium To. 2. Concil. in Council. 5. Generali collat. 2. that when the fifth General Council was to be assembled, and held there, he wrote to Vigilius the Pope, requesting him that there might be an Assembly and conference had, praesidente noble, saith he, vestra Be●atitudine, your Beatitude being our precedent. And although some years afterwards john Bishop of Constantinople made a new schisms and opposed himself to the Roman Sea, taking upon him the title of Universal Bishop (which schism lasted only during his life) yet it is evident by the Epistle of Pope Pelagi●s written to him, ●p. 8. Pelag. To. 2. Concil. and to the Schismatical Synod gathered by him, that as well he himself, as his predecessor, non semel, sed saepissim●, not once, but very oft had written to the Sea Apostolic protesting that if they had at any time presumed to do any thing against the authority of the said Sea, they acknowledged themselves to be anathematized, or accursed by their own sentence. 18. And after the death of the said john, S. Gregory the great in an Epistle of his to a Sicilian Bishop, testifieth that the Bishop of Constantinople in his time being accused of a great delict, acknowledged himself to be subject to the censure, or chastisement of the Sea Apostolic, in case he were guilty; whereupon S. Gregory saith, S. Greg. lib. 7● ●p. 65● Nam quòd se dicit Sedi Apostolicae subijci, siqua culpa in Episcopis invenitur etc. For whereas he saith that he is subject to the Sea Apostolic, if any fault be found in the Bishops, I know not who is not subject unto it. Idem ibid. ep. 64. And in another epistle to the same Bishop, he saith: Quis dubitet eam Sedi Apostolicae subiectam etc. Who doubteth but that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Sea apostolic, which as well the most pious Emperor; as Eusebius Bishop thereof do continually profess? So he, wherein it is to be noted that these Bishops of Constantinople professed this their obedience to the Roman Sea, at such time as the Church of Rome was most miserably oppressed by the tyranny of the Goths, and Longobards, in such sort, that it would have been utterly contemned (especially by the Greek Church) if it had usurped a greater authority, than was generally believed to be due unto it, and to have been given by our Saviour to S. Peter, and his Successors. 19 To this may be added the excommunication, and deposition of many Bishops of Constantinople by Bishops of Rome, Many Bishops of Constantinople deposed by the Popes of Rome. as it appeareth in an Epistle of Pope Nicolas the first to the Emperor Michael, wherein he nameth 8. Bishops of that Sea deposed by his predecessors; and afterwards he himself also gave sentence of excommunication, & deposition against Photius Bishop of the same Sea, which sentence Basilius the Emperor executed for fear of incurring the censures of the Sea Apostolic, Ep. Nicolai 1. ad Michael. Imperat. as he himself testified in the 8. general Council. And when Photius was afterwards by his own subtle practice restored to his Sea, he was again deposed by Pope Stephanus: To. 4. council in 8. Synodo gener. in appendice ex Act. 6. and such was the reverence, and respect that the Clergy, and Nobility of Constantinople bore to the Sea Apostolic, that they would not admit one of the blood Royal called Stephanus to succeed Photius, until they had written to the Pope to have his confirmation thereof. Moreover three general Counsels, to wit the 6.7. and 8. being after S. Gregoryes time assembled, and held in Greece, and two of them in Constantinople itself, the Pope's Legates, and not the Bishop of Constantinople were Precedents thereof, which neither the Greek Emperors nor those Bishops would have permitted, if they had been persuaded that the Council of Chalcedon had exempted the Church of Constantinople from the Pope's jurisdiction, or made the same equal with the Roman Church. 20. And albeit after S. Gregory's time divers heretical Emperors, and the Bishops of Constantinople, during their reign, caused divers schisms, and separated themselves from the union of the Roman Sea, yet when Catholic Emperors, and Bishops succeeded, they returned to the union, and obedience thereof; in so much that not only the Ambassadors of the Emperor Petrus Altisiodorensis, but also the two patriarchs of Constantinople, S. Antonin. Tit. ●9. cap. 1. §. 6. Naucler. gener. 41. Blood. lib. 6. dec. 2. in fine. Platina in vita Innocen. 3. To. 3. Concil. in Concilio Lateran. and Jerusalem, with the Delegates of the two other patriarchs of Alexandria, and Antioch, came to the great Council of Lateran held at Rome in the year of our Lord 1215. and subscribed to the Catholic doctrine concerning the Universal Authority, and Primacy of the Sea Apostolic. 21. And again 200. years after in the year 1459. the Greek Emperor joannes Paleologus, and joseph Bishop of Constantinople, together with the Legates of the other 3. patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, besides many Grecian Bishops, Abbots, and other learned Prelates, See Suplem. cap. 2. n●. 1. & 2. came to a General Council held by Pope Eugenius at Florence, and there having first maturely debated amongst themselves the question of the Pope's Supremacy according to the testimonies not only of the holy Scriptures, S. Antoninus Tit. 22. cap. 13. §. 1.2. & seq. Item Concil. Florentin. sess. ult. but also of the ancient Greek Fathers, they received, and with their hands and seals confirmed the Catholic doctrine, as well concerning that point, as all other wherein they had in the time of the former Schisms dissented from the Roman Church, as I have signified more at large in the first Chapter of my Supplement, where I proposed also to be considered, See Suplem. cap. 1. nu. 114. & 115. that presently after their revolt from this solemn union made at Florence, God punished the Empire, and Church of Constantinople with that lamentable, and miserable captivity wherein it hath ever since remained. The just judgements of God upon the Church of Constantinople. 22. And thereto I will now also add for the conclusion of this point, what S. Antoninus observeth in his history concerning the just judgements of God upon the Church of Constantinople, before the fall of the Greek Empire, to wit, that whereas the Bishops of that Sea had divers times most ambitiously, and proudly impugned the authority of the Roman Church, by the favour, and help of the heretical Emperors, God so disposed, that in the end the said Emperors became the instruments of his justice, to punish their pride, especially from the time of the Emperor Constantin called Monomachus, who though in despite, and hatred of the Roman Church, he graced the Bishop of Constantinople called Michaël, not only with extraordinary privileges, and ensigns of honour (which he granted as well to his person and successors, as to his Sea) but also with the title of Universal Patriarch of the whole world, and all Papal authority (leading also his horse by the bridle to his palace, because he had understood that the Emperors of the West had done the like honour, and service to some Popes) nevertheless perceiving afterwards that the people did, by this occasion, bear such reverence, and respect to Michaël, that the Imperial state might be endangered (as he conceived) in case any controversy should fall out betwixt the Church, and the Empire, he publicly degraded, and disgraced him, depriving him of all those ensigns, titles, and privileges, wherewith either he, or any other of the Emperors his predecessors had endowed the Church, or Bishops of Constantinople. 23. And from that time forward, as S. Antoninus testifieth, the patriarchs of that Sea became very slaves to the heretical Emperors, and were put out, and in by them at their pleasure, whiles in the mean time the Roman Church overcoming all her enemies, triumphed over the malice, and tyranny of her oppressors, enjoying the stability, security, and majesty which she still possesseth; wherein the providence and justice of Almighty God is evidently seen, Matth. 16. as well in conserving the Sea Apostolic according to his promise to S. Peter, as also in depressing, and punishing the pride of the Bishops of Constantinople, who had so oft maliciously impugned the same, which may serve for a Caveat to other rebellious Children of the Church. For, Eccli. 5. although Almighty God is patience redditor, a slow paymaster, yet he payeth home in the end; and as Valerius saith, Valer. Maxim. l. 1. cap. 1. tarditatem supplicij gravitate compensat, he recompenseth the slowness of his punishment, with the weight, or grievousness thereof. This I have thought good to touch here by the way, upon so good an occasion, & will now conclude concerning M. Andrew's his Canon, alleged out of the Council of Chalcedon. 24. Therefore I say that it being evident by all this discourse, that the said Canon was never able to equal the Church of Constantinople with the Roman Sea (to which end M. Andrews saith it was enacted) he must needs coufesse, that either there was no such Canon at all, to the purpose that he mentioneth, or else that the small force, and authority thereof may serve for an evident argument of the supreme power, and authority of Pope Leo, and his successors, seeing that their only resistance, and contradiction sufficed to overthrow it, notwithstanding the great authority of the Council of Chalcedon which ordained it. Andr. cap. 7. p. 170. Whereby it also appeareth how vainly and untruly he saith, that Pope Leo contradicted it in vain; yea, and which is more absurd, that he made suit, Bad dealing of M. Andrews. and intercession in vain, Frustra (saith he) Romano ipso Pontifice apud Augustum, Augustam, & Anatolium per litteras suas intercedente; The Bishop of Rome himself making intercession, or sueing in vain by his letters to the Emperor, the Empress, and Anatolius. So that you see, he maketh Pope Leo's case very desperate, and his authority very feeble, seeing that he was fain to make such intercession, and suit, not only to the Emperor and Empress, but also to Anatolius himself. 25. Therefore albeit I am not ignorant that intercedere hath divers senses, and amongst the rest signifieth to withstand, prohibit, or hinder a thing proposed or intended; and that some perhaps may say that M. Andrews useth it here in that sense: yet because it signifieth also to make intercession, and suit, and is so used commonly in Ecclesiastical Authors, and will be so understood in this place by every common Reader; yea and for that M. Andrew's himself so taketh, and useth it divers (d) p. 177. & p. 35. §. de Inuocatione. & p. 45. §● Locus. times, and would be loath (no doubt) to have men think that Pope Leo did, or durst oppose himself to the Emperor, & Empress (but rather that in this case he behaved himself towards them, and Anatolius as an humble suppliant, and yet all in vain) therefore I say, I cannot let this point pass unexamined, to the end thou mayst see, Liberat. in Breviar. cap 13. Ep. Leo. 53.54.55.59.70.71. good Reader, as well M. Andrew's his vanity, as also what kind of suit & intercession Pope Leo made unto these whom he nameth, & what effect, & success it had with them. But first I think it not amiss to declare here how this Canon was made in that Council, and why it was contradicted by the Legates of Pope Leo, How the Canon for the B. of Constantinoples' priviledgs was made. & afterwards disannulled by Leo himself. 26. Therefore it is to be understood that Anatolius then Bishop of Constantinople, ambitiously thirsting after his own promotion (namely to be preferred before the Bishops of Alexandria, and Antioch, and considering that Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria was deposed by the Council for heresy, and the Bishop of Antioch much disgraced for having adhered to Dioscorus, thought that a good opportunity was offered him to accomplish his desire, and thereupon practised with the Bishops in the Council for the furtherance of his pretence, and having gained so many of them, that it seemed to him their very number, and authority, might extort the consent of the rest (yea of the Pope's Legates themselves) procured, that when the last session of the Council was ended, and as well the judges, or Senate, as the Legates were departed, all the Bishops of his faction either remained behind, or else after their departure returned again to the place of the assembly, and there made the Canon whereof we now treat. Whereupon the Legates having notice of it, Concil. Calced. act. 16. caused the whole Council to be assembled again the next day, and finding Anatolius, and his faction (who were the far greater part of the Council) resolute in their determination, protested their own opposition, & contradiction to the Canon, as well in respect, that it was repugnant to the Council of Nice, as also for that the other (d) Concerning the invalidity of this Canon see Baron. To. 4. pag. 4●3. an. 381. edit. Romae an. 1593. Canon which was pretended to be made in the Council of Constantinople to the same effect, was not to be found amongst the Canons of the said Council sent to Rome, neither had been ever put in practice by the Bishops of Constantinople. 27. Finally they reserved the determination of the matter to Pope Leo himself, whom they called Apostolicum Virum, universalis Ecclesiae Papam. The Apostolical man, and Pope of the Universal Church, ut ipse, say they, aut de suae Sedis iniuria, aut de Canonum euersione possit ferre sententiam. That he may give sentence either of the injury done to his Sea (by the abuse of his Legates) or of the breach of the Canons. Relat. Synodi ad Leo. in fine Concil. Thus said the Legates; signifying that it was in his hands, and power to ratify, or abrogate as well this Canon, as all the other Canons of that Council, Leo. ep. 61. ad Episcop. in Synodo Chal. congreg. Item ep. 55.70. & 71. which also the whole Council acknowledged sufficiently in a common letter written to him, wherein they craved of him the ratification of this Canon, most humbly, and instantly, (as it will appear hereafter) which nevertheless he flatly denied, confirming only the condemnation, and deposition of Dioscorus, and the rest of their decrees concerning matters of faith (for the which only he said the Council was assembled) and in fine he disannulled the Canon for divers causes specified in his Epistles. First because it had no other ground but the ambitious humour of Anatolius, who inordinately sought thereby to have the precedence before the patriarchs of Alexandria, and Antioch. Secondly, because it was not procured, or made Canonically, but by practice, and surreption in the absence of his Legats● Thirdly, for that the other (d) See more concerning this Canon in Binius. To. 1. Concil. pag. 517. edit. Coloniae an. 1606. Canon of the Council of Constantinople, upon the which this seemed to be grounded, Leo ep. 53. ad Anatolium. Idem ep. 55. ad Pulcher. was of no validity, having never been sent to the Sea Apostolic, nor put in practice by the predecessors of Anatolius. Lastly, for that it was flatly repugnant to the Canons of the Council of Nice. 28. For these causes, I say, Pope Leo abrogated this Canon, which nevertheless it is like he would have admitted, and confirmed, if it had proceeded from any good ground, and tended to any utility of the Church, and had been withal orderly proposed, and Canonically made; Concil. Nicen. Can. 6. for, albeit the Council of Nice had already ordained: the 〈◊〉, and jurisdiction of the Patriarchal Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, with the consent of Pope Silvester, who was the head of that Council (without whose ratification, nothing could be of force that was decreed therein, no more than our Acts of Parliament without the King's approbation) nevertheless, for as much as the Canons of the Nicen Council touching those Churches, and this Canon also, whereof we now specially treat, did not ordain, or concern any thing which was de iure divino, but only the privileges, and jurisdiction of Churches pertaining to Ecclesiastical Laws, it is evident that Pope Leo (being the head of the whole Church) might dispose of them, as he should see just cause, yea and it is not to be doubted but that he would have ratified this Canon, had he not seen such sufficient cause to the contrary, as hath been declared; & therefore the Popes his successors being moved with such other occasions, and urgent reasons, as change of time produced, not only permitted the Bishops of Constantinople to have the second place after them, but ordained it also by a Canon, as I shall have occasion to show (c) See after in the end of this Chapter. hereafter. In the mean time I conclude concerning this point, that although Thedorus Balsamon, and Zonaras, and some other Grecian collectors of the councils, do set down this Canon in favour of the Churches of Constantinople, yet it is not to be found either in the Collections of Dionysius and Isidorus gathered out of the Greek above a thousand years ago, or yet in the old Greek manuscripts, or the ancient Latin copies of the councils, which we have in these parts: and thus much for the making, and abrogation of this Canon. 29. And now to come to the assertion of M. Andrew's concerning Pope Leo's intercession, What manner of intercession Pope Leo made to Martian the Emperor against Anatolius. made (as he saith) in vain to the Emperor, Empress, and Anatolius, true it is, that Pope Leo wrote to them all three, but whether as a suitor or suppliant, or yet in vain, let the Reader judge, and accordingly give credit to M. Andrews hereafter. First then he wrote to the Emperor, that whereas he (I mean Pope Leo) might have called Anatolius to account long before, for being consecrated Bishop by an heretic, Leo. ep 54. ad Martian. he had borne with him at the emperors request, and that by the emperors help and by his (I mean Pope Leo's) favourable consent, Anatolius had obtained that great Bishopric, and that therefore he might have contented himself with those favours, and not have presumed thereupon the rather to encroach upon the dignities of other Bishops. Also he signified to the Emperor, that Anatolius should never be able to make his Sea an Apostolical Sea, or yet to increase it by the injury, and offence of others; that the privileges of Churches being instituted by the Canons, and Decrees of the venerable Council of Nice, could not be impeached, or changed by any impious attempts of his; that it pertained to him (I mean to Pope Leo) in respect of his office, and charge, to look to the observation of the Canons, and not to prefer one man's will before the common benefit of the whole Church; finally presuming as he saith, of the emperors pious disposition to conserve the peace, and unity of the Church, he besought: him to repress the ambition, and wicked attempt of Anatolius (if he persisted therein) and to make him obey the Canons of the Council of Nice, for other wise the issue would be, that Anatolius should but work his own separation from the communion of the Universal Church. 30. To this effect wrote Pope Leo to the Emperor, craving indeed with great reason, his help and assistance, for the correction, and amendment of Anatolius, yet with great gravity, and authority as you see, and not in vain, as M. Andrew's would have us to suppose; for albeit the Emperor had favoured greatly the pretence of Anatolius, Relatio Synod. Chalced. ad Martian. in fine Concil. to prefer the Church of Constantinople before Alexandria, and Antioch, nevertheless upon Pope Leo's letters to him, he not only yielded therein, but also greatly approved it in the said Pope, that he defended the Canons of the Council of Nice with such constancy, and resolution, as he did; which is manifest by another letter of Pope Leo to the Emperor, Leo. ep. 59 ad Martian. wherein he signified the contentment, and joy that he received, when he understood by the emperors letters, that he not only approved his defence of the Canons, but was also himself determined to defend them, and to conserve the privileges of the Churches, according to the decrees of the Nicen Council. So that I hope M. Andrews cannot now say, that Pope Leo's intercession to the Emperor was in vain. Let us then see what manner of suit he made to the Empress. 31. He wrote also to her divers Epistles, and in one of them having first taxed Anatolius of immoderate pride, Leo ep. 55. ad Pulcheriam. for seeking to pass the limits of his own dignity, to the prejudice of other Metropolitans; signfying withal, that he might have contented himself to have been advanced to the Bishopric of Constantinople, as well by his favourable consent, and approbation, as by her, and the emperors grant, he addeth touching the Canon now in question, Consensiones, saith he, Episcoporum Canonum apud Nicaeam conditorum regulis repugnantes, unita nobiscum vestrae fidei Pietate, in irritum mittimus, & per auctoritatem B. Petri Apostoli generali prorsus definitione cassamus. The piety of your faith being united with us, we do utterly make void, and by the authority of the Blessed Apostle Peter, do with a general definition wholly disannul the consents (that is to say the Decrees) of the Bishops, which were repugnant to the rules of the Canons made in the Council of Nice. So he, speaking, as you see, not like a suppliant, sed tamquam potestatem habens, like a man that had power, and Apostolical authority, to disannul, and abrogate this Canon, as he did. 32. Now it resteth that we see, What intercession Pope Leo made to Anatolius what manner of petition, or supplication he presented to Anatolius, which truly was such, that it made him stoop, as stout, and proud as he was. First then, Pope Leo blameth him for taking the occasion he did, to seek not only to prefer himself before the Bishops of Alexandria Leo. ep. 53. ad Anatol. and Antioch (as though their Churches had lost their privileges by the fall of their Pastors) but also to subject them and all other Metropolitans of the Greek Church to his jurisdiction; which he termeth inauditum, & numquam antea tentatum excessum, an excess never heard of, nor attempted by any man before. And further signifieth, that this attempt being quite contrary to the most holy Canons of the Council of Nice, was too wicked, and impious; that his haughty pride tended to the trouble of the whole Church; that he had abused his brethren the Bishops in the Council, who being assembled only for the definition, and decision of matters of faith, had been drawn by him, partly by corruption, and partly by fear, to favour, and further his ambitious desires; that he accused himself sufficiently when he acknowledged that the Legates of the Sea apostolic (whom he ought to have obeyed) publicly contradicted, and resisted him in the Council. 33. Moreover he advertiseth him, that the Canon pretended to have been made some 60. years before in the Council of Constantinople, could not serve his turn, seeing that the same was never sent, or intimated by any of his predecessors to the Roman Sea, & therefore he wished him to remember what Christ threateneth to them, who scandalise any one of his little ones, and thereby to consider what he deserveth, who feareth not to scandalise so many Churches, and Priests. Finally he exhorteth him to leave his ambitious desires, concluding with this sentence of the Apocalyps: Apoc. 3. Tene quod habes, ne alius accipiat coronam tuam, hold that which thou hast, lest another take thy Crown; for, si inconcessa quaesieris etc. if thou seek, saith he, those things that are unlawful, thou shalt deprive thyself of the peace, and union of the universal Church by thy own work, and judgement. So he. And dost thou not see good Reader what an humble suppliant Pope Leo was to Anatolius? If one should write a letter to M. Andrew's in this style, and form, would he take it, trow you, for a supplication? 34. But now let us see what effect it had, and whether it was in vain, What effect Pope Leo's intercession had. or no, as M. Andrews affirmeth of it. This will be evident by the epistles of Pope Leo to julianus Bishop of Coa, to the Emperor, and to Anatolius himself. To the Bishop, he signifieth that the Emperor had written unto him, interueniens saith he, pro Anatolio, ut nostri illi animi gratia praebeatur, quoniam correctionem eius promittit etc. Leo. ep. 68 Requesting in the behalf of Anatolius, that we will bestow upon him the grace, or favour of our affection, The Emperor made suit to Pope Leo for Anatolius. because he promiseth his amendment etc. So that you see now, jordanis conversus est retrorsum, for whereas Pope Leo (according to M. Andrew's his assertions) was a suitor both to the Emperor, and to Anatolius, the Emperor is now become a suitor to Pope Leo for Anatolius, which will yet more clearly appear by another Epistle of Pope Leo to the Emperor himself, Idem ep. 70. ad Martian. wherein he promised that Anatolius should find in him sincerae gratiae animum, an affection of sincere grace, or favour, in case he followed sincerely the emperors advise, and counsel, and performed in heart, that which he promised in words; for that otherwise he would resolutely proceed against him, to chastise him for his pride; whereby it is evident, that the Emperor had written to Pope Leo in the behalf of Anatolius, and that Pope Leo would not otherwise promise him his grace, and favour, but upon condition of his hearty repentance, and sincere amendment. 35. And will you now see all this confirmed by Pope Leo's letters to Anatolius himself? Leo. ep. 71. ad Anatol. Therefore whereas Anatolius had written a letter of submission to him, not only acknowledging his fault in that attempt, Anatolius his submission to Pope Leo but also yielding him an account of the state of his Church of Constantinople, Pope Leo answering the same, first commended greatly certain predecessors of Anatolius, to wit john, Atticus, Proclus, and Flavianus, exhorting him to imitate them, and blaming him by the way for his scandalous attempts, and having also signified how glad he was to understand by his letters that he had reform certain abuses in the Church of Constantinople, he gave him order withal to make two priests (called Andreas, and Euphratas) and to admit some others to Ecclesiastical dignities, upon certain conditions which he prescribed him; and lastly coming to speak more particularly of his presumptuous attempt, he saith, that whereas he laid the fault upon the evil counsel, and persuasions of the Clergy of Constantinople, who urged him unto it, he might have given better satisfaction if he had also blamed his own consent thereto, and not have laid the fault upon others: nevertheless, saith he, gratum mihi, frater charissime, est etc. It is grateful to me (most dear brother) that you profess now to be displeased with that which then also should not have pleased you. Your own profession together with the attestation of the Christian Prince, is sufficient for our reconciliation, neither doth your correction (or amendment) seem to me to be overlate (or out of season) cui tam venerabilis assertor accessit, who have so venerable a surety. 36. Thus wrote Pope Leo to Anatolius, whereby it appeareth that M. Andrews saying that he did by his letters intercedere frustrà apud Augustum, Augustam, & Anatolium, hath in two words made two lies, the one in intercedere (for that the Pope made no intercession, or suit, especially to Anatolius, but was sued unto by the Emperor in his behalf:) The other in frustrà; for though it should be granted that the Pope made suit, yet it was not in vain. And therefore if M. Andrews should seek to quit himself of one of the lies, A manifest and sound lie of M. Andrews. by saying that he took intercedere, for to make opposition, and not intercession, yet he cannot rid himself of the other lie (which is a sound one) seeing that Pope Leo's opposition was so far from being in vain, that it brought Anatolius, as I may say, upon his knees, and forced him to humble, and submit himself, to acknowledge his fault, to promise amendment, yea to procure the Emperor to be a suitor, and intercessor for him; and finally to receive, and execute Pope Leo's commandments, laws, and ordinances in the Church of Constantinople, as though he had been some Italian Bishop within the Suburbs of Rome. So that I hope, thou seest good Reader, that I have now clearly proved 2. things. The one that M. Andrews hath sought notoriously to delude thee, in telling thee, that Pope L●o contradicted this Canon, in vain. The other that the Emperor, and the whole Christian world had at that time a firm belief of the supreme authority of Pope Leo over the Council of Chalcedon, and the whole Church of God, seeing that his only opposition to this Canon sufficed to overthrow it. 37. Whereupon it also followeth that although it were true which M. Andrews most falsely, Pope Leo his supreme authority proved by the overthrow of the Canon alleged by M. Andrews. and absurdly affirmeth (to wit, that the Fathers in the Council of Chalcedon meant by this Canon to make the Byshoprik of Constantinople, equal in all respects, with the Apostolical Sea of Rome) yet it little importeth, yea rather maketh for us, then for M. Andrews, seeing that the Cannon was as I have showed, presently overthrown, and ●ade void by the authority of the Roman Séa, and that ●ot only Anatolius himself (who procured it) acknowledged his error therein, but also, as well he, as other Catholic Bishops his successors lived in the union, and subjection of the said Roman Church, as I have sufficiently showed by the experience, and practise even of the Greek Church, until it was utterly ruined by the Turks. 38. Therefore it shall be now convenient to see how well M. Andrews answereth, and satisfieth the places alleged by the Cardinal, and myself out of the Council of Chalcedon; whereby I shall also have occasion to confute certain reasons of his, which he further urgeth out of the circumstances of the foresaid Canon. Apol. Bellar. pag. 92. The first place, or authority, which he undertaketh to answer, is, that in many Epistles, or rather supplications addressed to Pope Leo, and the whole Council, Concil. Calced. Act. 3. he is named before the Council with this title: Sanctissimo & Deo amantissimo, & universali Archiepiscopo, & Patriarchae Magnae Romae Leoni, & Sanctae, & universali Chalcedonensi Synodo, The name of Universal Bishop given to the Pope by the general Council of Chalcedon. quae voluntate Dei congregata est: To the most holy, and most beloved of God, and universal Archbishop, and Patriarch of Great Rome Leo, and to the holy and universal Synod of Chalcedon, which is assembled by the will of God. In which title it is to be observed not only that the name of Pope Leo is set before the name of the Council (whereby he is acknowledged to be superior to the Council) but also he is called Universal Archbishop, and Patriarch of Rome, in respect of his universal authority over the whole Church of God: beside that it is to be noted herein, that the title of Universal Bishop, so much impugned now by the Sectaries of this time, was vsualy given to the Bishops of Rome in the time of that Council, seeing it was in the Council itself divers times used, and given to Pope Leo, without the contradiction of any. 39 Hereto M. Andrews answereth thus: Cur huc illuc oberret quis etc. why shall a man go up and down hither, Andr. pag. 170. §. Quod ibi. and thither, throughout all the corners of the Acts (of this Council) searching the desks, and looking on the backside of letters to find somewhere that whereof he readeth there the contrary in express words? let him read (not in any title, or superscription of a letter, or memorial wherein every man knoweth how suitors are wont to extol, and magnify those to whom they sue) but let him read the matter ventilated, or debated in one whole action, and renewed, and confirmed in another, and finally enacted by a Canon etc. so he: and then followeth that which I have set down out of him, and confuted before concerning the contents of the Canon. 40. here now thou seest, good Reader, that this answer of his containeth 3. points: the first that all this objection is taken, as it were, out of the book, being grounded on nothing else but on the superscriptions of letters, and memorial. The second, that the manner and style of the letters, and memorials of suppliants, is always to extol, and magnify those to whom they make suit. The third, that a Canon of the same Council decreed the contrary to all this in express words (giving to the Bishop of Constantinople equal privileges in all things with the Bishop of Rome) this being the whole substance of his answer, and the last point concerning the Canon (which most importeth) being by me already fully confuted to his shame, it will easily be seen how he tryfleth in the two former. M. Andrews his trifling answers. For as for the first, what skilleth it whether those titles were written on the inside, or outside of the supplications, seeing that they were taken, and set down by the Notaries of the whole Council, no less than the Canons, and Actions themselves, and not reproved, or contradicted by any? Is it not therefore clear enough thereby, that the title of universal Bishop was in those days usually given to the Bishop of Rome? and seeing his name is set down before the name of the Council (though he himself was not present, but only his Legates) was not he sufficiently acknowledged thereby to be the Precedent, and head of the Council? 41. But I would be glad to know of M. Andrews what reason those suppliants had to address, and present their petitions rather to Pope Leo by name, M. Andrews hardly urged. then to the Bishop of Constantinople, or to other Grecian Bishops, and Metropolitans of their own country? Let him tell me, I say, what other reason they could have, but because they held him not only to be the chief, and universal Pastor (that is to say, to have universal authority) but also to be acknowledged by the whole Council, as their head? For if the Council had not so esteemed him, those suppliants might be assured that by naming him alone, and giving him extraordinary titles that were not due unto him, they should offend the Council, and consequently hurt their own cause. 42. Moreover let M. Andrews tell us, if it please him, why those suitors should exceed in the title rather to Pope Leo, then to the whole Council, seeing that they addressed their petitions to both? Why did they not, I say, magnify and extol the Council with some excessive title, as well as the Pope? For, if it were needful for them to use excess, and flattery to either of both, for the better success of their petition, it is like they would have done it rather to the whole Council then to him, if they had not assured themselves, that the grant of their petition depended principally on him, as on the head of the Council; so that the supplications being directed indifferently to both, and no excess, or flattery so much as imagined by M. Andrew's in that part of the title which concerneth the Council, he must either acknowledge the like of the other part that toucheth the Pope, or else ●ell us some reason of the difference, whereof no other can be conceived, but only his greater authority than the councils in respect that he was their head and the universal Pastor of the Church. And thus much touching his answer to the first place. 43. The second place alleged by Cardinal Bellarmine out of that Council, Bellar. Apol. ubi supra. is, that in the Epistle of the whole Council to Pope Leo, he is acknowledged in express words to be the head of all the Bishops assembled there, & they his members, for thus they wrote speaking of themselves: Relat. Synodi ad Leon. in fine Concilij. Quibus tu sicut membris caput praeeras: over whom thou wert Precedent, as head over the members, in those which held thy place etc. So they. And what doth M. Andrews, trow you, answer to this? Marry, Andr. ubi supra. forsooth, he saith, that, utcumque tum praefuit sicut caput etc. howsoever he then governed as head, yet he could not hinder, but that another head was made equal to this head. A weak and idle answer of M. Andrews. So he; meaning that the Canon (whereof we have hitherto treated) made the Bishop of Constantinople, equal with him in all things, and so made two heads. But how weak, and idle this answer is, thou mayst judge, good Reader, by the weakness of this Canon, which I have sufficiently showed, as well by the invalidity, and nullity of it (being abrogated by Pope Leo) as also by the false sense that M. Andrews hath given us of it: so that the foundation of his answer (I mean the Canon) failing him, his answer must needs fall to the ground, and be altogether impertinent, and the place alleged by the Cardinal remain in full force. Card. Apolog. ubi supra. 44. The third and last place, which he undertaketh to answer, is, that the whole Council also testified in the same Epistle to Pope Leo, that our Saviour had committed to him the keeping of his vineyard, Relat. Synodi ad Leon. that is to say, of his Church; whereto M. Andrews answereth, that the vineyard was indeed committed to him, but not to him alone, Andr. ubi supra. sed cum aliis in vin●a operarijs, but toge●ther with other workmen in the vineyard, wherein he saith very truly, for no man denieth, but that there were other Pastors in the Church besides Pope L●o, though we affirm that all other Pastors were inferior, and subordinate to him; and I think no man doubteth but that when the charge, or government of a temporal Commonwealth is committed to a King, or other sovereign Prince, he doth not exercise it alone, but together with other Magistrates subordinate and subject to him: and the like we say of the supreme Pastor of the Church, that he is not the only Pastor, though he be chief, and supreme; which point I have debated in the former Chapter, See cap. 1. nu. 3.4.5. & sequent where I confuted the like answer of M. Andrew's to our objection of the Pastoral commission given by our Saviour to S. Peter. 45. Therefore I remit him, and the Reader to what I have discoursed there, touching that poynt● and will also add further here concerning Pope Leo, that whereas M. Andrew's granteth his Pastoral authority, together with other Pastors (meaning that he had no more, nor other authority over the Church than other Bishops had) he is easily convinced by the circumstances of the same place which the Cardinal objecteth, Relat. Synodi ad Leon. and he pretendeth now to answer; for there Dioscorus is accused of three things: the first, that he had taken upon him to condemn, and depose Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople, and Eusebius Bishop of Doryleum against the Canons of the Church. The second, that whereas Pope Leo had deprived Eutyches the heretic of his dignity in the Church of Constantinople (where he was Abbot of a Monastery) Dioscorus had restored him thereto, and so, irruens in vineam etc. breaking into the vineyard which he found notably well planted, A clear testimony for Pope Leo's supremacy. he overthrew it etc. The third was, that, post haec omnia, saith the Council, insuper, & contra ipsum etc. And after all this, he did moreover extend his madness against him to whom the charge, or keeping of the vineyard was committed by our Saviour, id est, contra tuam quoque Apostolicam Sanctitatem, that is to say, also against thy apostolic Holiness, meaning Pope Leo, for to him the Council wrote this. 46. Whereby it is evident that the Council distinguisheth clearly betwixt the authority of Pope Leo, and of the two other Bishops Flavianus, and Eusebius, seeing that all three of them being named (as greatly injured by Dioscorus) the offence against Pope Leo is exaggerated much more than the injury done to the other two, and held to proceed of mere madness, & fury. And albeit mention be made of the vineyard (as broken down, and overthrown by Dioscorus, in the deposition of those two Catholic Bishops) yet only Pope Leo (who is honoured with the title of Apostolical Sanctity) is acknowledged to have had the charge of the vineyard committed to him by our Saviour: which had been said very impertinently of him alone, if those other two Bishops had as much charge of the vineyard as he Besides that the Council testifieth in the same place, that Pope Leo deprived Eutiches (who was an Abbot in Constantinople) of his dignity, which he could not have done out of his own Diocese in the Church of Constantinople, if as well the Bishop of that Church, as Eutiches had not been subject to him; whereto it may also be added, that, as Liberatus testifieth, this Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople (for whose injurious deposition Dioscorus is here accused by the Council) appealed for remedy to Pope Leo, Liberat. in Breviar. cap. 12. acknowledging thereby that Leo was his superior, and had also an universal authority; for otherwise the appeal from the Greek Church to him had been in vain. So that M. Andrew's his gloss, allowing to Pope Leo no more authority, then to all other Pastors, is very absurd, and easily convinced by the text itself. 47. After this, he idly carpeth at the Cardinal, for saying that the Council acknowledged Pope Leo to have the charge totius vineae, Andr. ubi supra p. 171. of the whole vineyard, because totius is not in the text of the Council: Nec totius vineae dicitur (saith M. Andrew's) sed commoda vox (totius) Cardinali visum est adijcere: Andr. ubi supra. neither is it said, of the whole vineyard, but the Cardinal thought good to add totius, because it is a commodious word for his purpose, whereby it seemeth that he would have some unwary Reader to imagine that the Cardinal had corrupted the text, by adding the word totius, whereas there is no such matter; for having alleged the words of the Council, as they are (to wit, cui vineae custodia à Saluatore commissa est) he doth afterwards in his own discourse, and for the explication thereof, add totius, saying, ubi fatentur totius vineae custodiam etc. where they (to wit the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon) do confess that the charge of all the vineyard, Apolog. C. Bellar. pag. 92. was committed to the Pope. Thus saith the Cardinal, signifying that the Council did mean, that Leo had the charge of the whole Church (which as I have showed) is most evident even by all the circumstances of the place. 48. And therefore M. Andrew's supecting with great reason, Andr. ubi supra. that this devise would serve him to little purpose, thought best to grant, that totius vineae might be said in some sense. Et vel si totius, saith he, nihil iwaret etc. Yea, and if it had been said, totius vineae, it would help him nothing, seeing that whatsoever doth either violate the unity, or trouble the peace of the whole Church, ad curam omnium ex aequo pertinet, non Leonis solùm, doth belong to the care of all men equally, and not of Leo only. So he; signifying that albeit Pope Leo might be said to have had the Charge of the whole Church, yet it were to be understood, that he had it no otherwise, A strange paradox of M. Andrews. than all other men have. And why? Marry, forsooth, because all men are equally bound to have care of the unity and peace of the Church; which truly may pass for a very strange paradox, howsoever he understandeth it, I mean, whether he extend the word omnium, to all men in general (as he seemeth to do) or limit it to all Pastors only. 49. For if he mean that all men ought to have care of the unity, and peace of the Church alike, or in equal degree, he is most absurd, confounding all order, government, and subordination in the Church, seeing that one special cause (if not the chiefest) why God ordaineth Pastors, and Governors therein, was to avoid schisms, and to conserve it in peace, and unity, as I have proved amply in my (b) See Supplem. c. 4. nu. 3.4.5. & 6. Supplement. I have also showed that M. (c) Ibid. nu. 7.8. Barlow urgeth the same, in defence of his pretended Episcopal authority against the Puritans; whereto I may add, that M. Andrew's himself also approveth it else where, granting that S. Peter was appointed head of the Apostles, Andr. cap. 8. pag. 219. by our Saviour, ut schismatis tollatur occasio (as S. Hierome saith) that the occasion of schism may be taken away: Hieron. li. 1. cont. jovin. yea and confesseth moreover, that S. Peter had so much authority given him, as was necessary, for avoiding of schism, and for the maintenance of peace and unity: of which point I shall have somewhat to say unto him (d) Chap. 3. nu. 37. & seq. here after. 50. If then Pastors, or governors are (by his own confession) instituted in the Church to conserve the same in unity, & have special authority given them to that end, he must needs confess also, that they ought to have more care thereof, Pastors are more bound to have care of the Church then private men. than those who have not any special institution, or authority to the same end; and therefore I would be glad to know, how he agreeth with himself in this point, teaching here as he doth, that the care of the peace of the whole Church, doth belong to all men alike? For if he say that Pastors are more bound, than their subjects, to care for the unity of their own particular Dioceses, but not of the whole Church, he is too to ridiculous, seeing that every Pastor ought to have, not only as much care of the whole Church, as every other man, but also much more than others, by reason of his function, & office, which doth extend itself to the whole Church, it being evident that what authority soever any man hath in any part of the Church, it is given him for the good of the whole, and finally tendeth thereto. 51● And who knoweth not, that all heresies, and schisms which violate the unity of the whole Church, do first spring in some part thereof, and are to be suppressed, not in respect of that part only, but much more in regard of the whole Church? As in like manner we see in our bodies that the care of the health, and conservation of every member, tendeth more to the good of the whole, then of the part itself, that is, or may be particularly interessed; & therefore every part doth willingly expose itself to danger for the conservation of the whole. Whereupon I infer, that if Pastors have more obligation, than laymen, to have care of a part of the Church, they are consequently more bound to have care of the whole, whereto (as I have said) the care of every part is specially to be referred. 52. Moreover whosoever is Pastor in any one part of the Church, is capable of Pastoral jurisdiction in any other, though he be restrained, and limited to a certain part, to avoid confusion: in which respect the Priests in every Diocese are Priests throughout the whole Church, and may minister Sacraments any where in cases of necessity; and a Bishop in any place is everywhere a Bishop, and one of the Magistrates, and Pastors of the Church, and therefore hath a voice, and right of suffrage in all General councils though they be held out of his Diocese; whereas none of the Laity hath any voice, or suffrage therein at all, as it is manifest by the testimony of Theodosius the Emperor in his Epistle to the Council of Ephesus; Ep. Theodo●●j ad Synod. Ephesin. To. 1. Concil. saying; Nefas est etc. It is not lawful that he who is not one of the number of the most holy Bishops, should meddle in Ecclesiastical consultations, and affairs. So he. And the like said Basilius the Emperor in the 8. General Council, To. 4. Concil. in 8. Concil. general. ex act. 6. with a notable advertisement to laymen, of what degree soever, not to presume to deal in Ecclesiastical matters, as I have showed at large in my Supplement. Besides that we read in the Council of Chalcedon, Suppl. cap. 1. nu. 112. & 113. that, Concilium Episcoporum est, a Council consisteth of Bi●●ops; whereupon it followeth evidently, Act. ●● that all men have not equal obligation to care for the peace and unity of the whole Church; for if they had, then might every Cobbler, and Tinker challenge as much right of suffrage, as any Bishop in a General Council assembled for the suppression of heresy, and schism, which I think M. Andrews will be ashamed to say. 53. Therefore he must confess, that albeit every member of the mystical body of Christ be bound to have a special care of the unity of the whole, 1. Cor. 12. ut not sit schisma in corpore, sed in idipsum pro invicem sollicita sint membra: That there be no schism, or division in the body, but that the members together be careful one of another: yet this obligation extendeth no further than the condition, quality, and degree of every one requireth, which we may learn by the Apostles doctrine to the Romans, Rom. 12. who having signified that we have many members in one body, and that all the members have not the same action, addeth: ita multi unum corpus sumus in Christo etc. So we being many, are one body in Christ, & each one another's members, & having gifts according to the grace, that is given us different either Prophecy according to the rule of faith, or ministry in ministering, or he that teacheth in doctrine he that exhorteth in exhorting, he that giveth in simplicity, he that ruleth in carfulnes, Pastors bound more than other men to have care of the Church according to the doctrine of the Apostle. he that showeth mercy in cheerfulness. 54. Thus far the Apostle, who exemplifying here, as you see, the different gifts, and graces that God bestoweth upon sundry members of his mystical body, and ascribing to every one of them the proper talon which is requisite thereto, requireth specially in the Governor Solicitude and Carefulness, giving plainly to understand, that although every member of Christ's Church, aught to be solicitous, and careful for the public good thereof; yet a Pastor, or Governor is most bound thereto, as to that which most properly pertaineth to his charge, & vocation. As for example in the time of the Apostles the heresy of the Nicolaits did violate the union, and trouble the peace of the whole Church; and albeit there were in the Church of Pergamus, as well Prophets, Doctors, Preachers, and Priests, as other faithful people, who were all bound to have care of the unity of the whole Church (as all Christians are) nevertheless we see in the Apocalyps that none of them but the Bishop only, Apoc. 2. was reprehended for negligence, and want of due care to find and cast out the Nicolaits from amongst them, because the solicitude, and care of the unity, and public good of the Church did specially belong to the Pastor, or Bishop, in which respect he alone was severely reproved, and commanded to do penance. 55. So that whereas M. Andrews imposeth an equal obligation of the same care upon every member, what doth he else but make, as I may say, a gallimaufry, M. Andrews gallimaufry or hodge-podge. or hodge-podge of the different members of Christ's mystical body confounding their several functions, and making them all eyes, or heads, requiring the obligation of a Pastor, or Governor in every particular man? And truly if this doctrine were generally embraced in England, M. Andrews teacheth seditious doctrine. what other fruit could be expected thereof, but confusion, tumult, and sedition, whiles every giddy-headed fellow persuading himself, that he were as much bound to care for the public good of the Church, as the Pastors thereof (yea as the supreme head, or Governor himself) might intrude himself to intermeddle in Ecclesiastical affairs for the discharge of his conscience, and obligation? For if his band in that behalf were equal with the band of Pastors, he could not with reason be denied equality with them in charge, and commission; seeing that equality of obligation requireth equality and parity of power to perform it, Equality of obligation requireth equality of care. for when power of performance wanteth, the obligation ceaseth. So that a greater power and dignity induceth an obligation of greater care; and therefore let M. Andrews consider what a wise, and learned proposition he hath made, and published to the world, and what a good and vigilant Pastor he is, who teacheth such dangerous, and seditious doctrine. 56. And albeit (to avoid this absurdity) he should restrain his general proposition to Pastors only, and say, that whatsoever violateth the unity of the whole Church doth belong equally to the care of all Pastors; yet he were no less ridiculous than before, seeing that he must needs acknowledge an inequality of obligation, and care even amongst them, according to their different degrees. For if a Patriarch have jurisdiction over Metropolitans, and they over Bishops, and Bishops over Priests, it is clear, that as their charge, and degree is unequal; so also is the obligation of every one of them different, and conform to his dignity, degree, and authority. And therefore although the office and duty of every Pastor, is, as I have said, to have special care of the unity, and peace of the Church, yet his obligation in that behalf must needs be so much the greater, by how much his power, and authority is greater, and he more able to perform it then others his inferiors, to which purpose the Prophet saith of a Prince, or supreme Pastor: Princeps ea quae sunt digna Principe cogitabit, Isa. 32. & ipse super Duces stabit: The Prince shall think those things which are worthy of a Prince, and he shall be over Dukes, or captains. So saith Isay of our Saviour (as some expound it) or, as others say, of josias King of juda. 57 But of whom soever it is to be understood, it is manifest enough, that the form of a good Pastor, or Governor is prescribed therein, showing that the Prince being the supreme Governor, is to embrace cogitations, and thoughts fit for his estate, and as much excelling the cogitations of his Dukes, or Captains (that is to say of his inferior, or subordinate Magistrates) as he excelleth them in degree; and what thought is so worthy of a Prince, as the care of the unity, and peace of his estate, wherein consisteth the public, and general good of every Common wealth? And the like is to be said of Pastors, and especially of the supreme Pastor of the Church, If M. Andrews his position be true he must lay away his title of Lord Bishop. who ought (according to the Prophet) to have cogitations worthy of his sovereignty, that is to say, as much to surpass other inferior Pastors in the care of the public good of the Church, as he surpasseth them in power, and dignity. Well then to conclude, if M. Andrews his position may go for currant, he may shake hands with the Puritans, and lay away his title of Lord Bishop, & become follow Minister with his Ministers in the Diocese of Ely; seeing that there is no reason why he should have a greater degree, and dignity in the Church than they, if they be bound to have as great a care of the Church as he. 58. But let us see how he proceedeth to fortify his assertion, Andr. cap. 7. pag. 171. in hope utterly to overthrow the Pope's Primacy. Thus than he saith: Quòd enim totius vineae, id est, Ecclesiae, custodiam ab ipso Christo ait Pontifici commissam, id est Primatum etc. For whereas the Cardinal saith that the charge of all the vineyard, M. Andrews corrupteth the text of the Council of Chalcedon. that is to say of the Primacy of the Church, was committed by Christ himself to the Bishop, see how it contradicteth the Council, and the sentence of all the Fathers that were there present, who with one voice, said: Siqua essent Romanae Sedis privilegia, ea illi (non à Christo, nesciebant hoc Chalcedonenses quin) à Patribus concessa esse etc. If the Roman Sea had any privileges the same were granted unto it (not by Christ, for they in the Council of Chalcedon knew not that) but by the Fathers etc. So he: grounding still, as you see, all the force, and weight of his arguments upon no better foundation than his own fraud, I mean his fraudulent allegation, and exposition of that Canon of the Council, whereof I have amply treated before; and now he secondeth his former fraud with a new corruption of the text, setting this down in a different letter for the very words of the Council, M Andrews groundeth his arguments upon his own fraud. siqua essent Romanae sedis privilegia, ea illi à Patribus concessa esse, if there were any privileges of the Roman Sea, they were granted to it by the Fathers: whereas neither those words, nor yet the sense thereof are to be found in the 28. Canon, which he allegeth, no nor in all the Council of Chalcedon. 59 For in these general words of his are included all the privileges that the Sea of Rome had any way either by divine, or human law, for any respect or cause whatsoever, but the Canon speaketh with great restriction, Act. 15. ca●. 28. to wit, of privileges granted upon one consideration only; for thus it saith: Etenim antiquae Romae throno, quòd Vrbs illa imperaret, iure Patres privilegia tribuere: For the Fathers did worthily give privileges to the throne of old Rome, because that City did govern. Thus saith the Canon, far otherwise then M. Andrews affirmeth, who with his (siqua) comprehendeth all privileges whatsoever; whereas you see the Canon speaketh only of privileges given to the Roman Church, in respect of the Imperial Seat; so that other privileges might be given thereto for other respects, for aught we see in this Canon; and the reason is clear, why that consideration of the Imperial Seat was only mentioned, and no other, to wit, because those that penned the Canon, saw well enough, that the Church of Constantinople could pretend no other reason to demand extraordinary privileges, but only because the Imperial Seat, which was wont to be at Rome, was then removed to Constantinople. 60. Therefore I beseech thee (good Reader) consider a little M. Andrews his silly discourse, concerning this point, who (having said, as you have heard, that the Fathers in the Council of Chalcedon knew not any privileges granted to the Roman Sea by Christ) addeth: Quare autem concessa & c? A silly collection of M. Andrews. And why were they granted? Was it because Christ said to Peter, Tibi dabo claves, aut, Pasce oves meas? I will give thee the keys, or, feed my sheep? No; but because Rome was then the Seat of the Emperor, and governed the rest. So he; and a little after he concludeth thus: A difference to be noted betwixt the primacy of S. Peter, and the priviledgs granted to the Roman Sea. Quod ergo habet Roma de Primatu etc. Therefore that which Rome hath of the Primacy, is not from Christ, but from the Fathers, and in respect of the emperors Seat, and not for the Sea of Peter. 61. Whereto I answer, first that M. Andrews must learn to distinguish betwixt the Primacy of S. Peter, and the privileges granted to the Sea of Rome, for that the said Primacy could not be from any, but from Christ himself; whereas the Roman Church may have, and hath privileges from men, that is to say not only from general councils, but also from temporal Princes, as from Constantine, Pepin, Charles the Great, and other Catholic Princes, and therefore M. Andrews argueth most absurdly from the Privileges, to the Primacy, denying that the Primacy was from Christ, because the Privileges were from men, and some of them given for human respects; wherein he showeth himself as wise, as if he should deny the regalty, and sovereignty of our Kings, by reason of the prerogatives, and privileges granted to them by the Parliaments; or as if he should say, that the Church of Christ (which is his Spouse) was not instituted by him, but by men, because aswell temporal Princes, as general councils have given great privileges thereto. 62. Secondly I say, that M. Andrew's is very simple if he see not, Why those which penned the Canon alleged by M. Andrews, made no mention of the keys, and Pastoral commission given to S. Peter. that the penners of the Canon had great reason to avoid therein all mention of the keys, and of the Pastoral commission given by our Saviour to S. Peter, as also of the Privileges granted to the Roman Church in respect of S. Pet●rs Sea; seeing that the same could not any way further the pretence of the Bishop of Constantinople, but rather hinder it. For what could he demand for any of those respects? Would M. Andrews have had him to say that because Christ gave S. Peter the keys and commission to feed his sheep, therefore it was convenient that the Council should also give the like authority to the Bishop of Constantinople, or prefer him before the Bishop of Alexandria, and Antioch (which was in deed his demand?) how would this conclusion follow of those premises? Whereas the other consequent was not so evil, to wit, that because the Roman Church had been in times past privileged by reason of the Imperial Seat, it was convenient, that also the Church of Constantinople should have like privileges for the same reason. 63. Again, what should the Bishop of Constantinople have gained by mentioning privileges granted to Peter's Sea? Should he not have hindered his own cause thereby, and pleaded against himself for Alexandria, and Antioch? For who knoweth not, that S. Peter was Bishop of Antioch, some years before he came to Rome, and that he made his disciple S. Mark Bishop of Alexandria, in which respect those two Churches had always the pre-eminence before all other next after the Roman? seeing then the Bishop of Constantinoples' pretence was no other, but to be preferred before the Bishops of Alexandria, and Antioch, he had no less reason to forbear all mention of Peter's Sea, M. Andrews his fraud in alleging the Canon and of the privileges granted thereto, then M. Andrews had in setting down the substance of the Canon, to conceal, and omit all that which would have discovered his fraud, and overthrown his cause (I mean that the second place after Rome was granted by that Canon to the Church of Constantinople) and therefore he was not so simple to touch that string, which would have marred all his music, as it hath been partly signified before, and will further appear by that which followeth. 64. For having said that which you have heard before concerning privileges granted by the Fathers to the Roman Sea (because Rome was then the Imperial City) he addeth: Andr. ubi supra. in sua autem iam potestate esse, ex eadem ratione etc. The Fathers of the Council signified that it was now in their power for the same reason, (seeing that Constantinople did enjoy both the Imperial Seat, and Senate) to advance it also to equal dignity; and for as much as it was equal in all other things, to make it equal also in Ecclesiastical matters, and, to use their own words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, to be magnified as Rome was. So he: wherein he not only falsifieth the sense, and meaning of the Canon (in that he maketh it to give an absolute equality to the Church of Constantinople, with that of Rome) but also craftily leaveth out all mention of the second place after Rome, Can. 28. which was granted to the Church of Constantinople by that Canon, & doth immediately follow the Greek words which he allegeth, and overthrow all the equality that he pretendeth, to be mentioned there; for after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, these words do follow immediately in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which in our Latin copies is very well translated word for word, secundam post illam existentem, that is to say, being the second after it: whereby it is signified, that the Church of Constantinople (which had wont to have an inferior place to divers other Churches) should from thenceforth be the second after Rome. And did not M. Andrews, trow you, see this in the Greek, and Latin? And if he saw it, with what conscience could he so deeply dissemble it, as not only to leave out all mention of it, but also to make an equality, and parity in dignity, and in all things else betwixt the Churches of Rome, and Constantinople? Whereas the words which he concealed do make it clear, that the equality mentioned in the Canon, must needs be understood only according to distributive justice, that is to say, without impeachment, or prejudice of the different degrees, and dignities of the two Churches, as I have amply declared before. 65. And as for the Greek words which he citeth to fortify his forgery, they do not extend so far, as he would stretch them (I mean) to make a parity, and equality in dignity; for whereas the Greek text saith, that Constantinople should be magnified, as Rome was, the same may very well stand with the foresaid equality, which distributive justice ordaineth (to wit, with the reservation of the different dignities of the one, and the other) as when a Noble man, and a mean man do concur in one act, or service to the Common wealth, and both of them are rewarded, and advanced according to their different qualities, it may truly be said that the mean man is advanced as the Noble man is, though not to the same degree, for both of them are advanced, as well the one, as the other, and yet they are not made equal in dignity. 66. But now if we take the Greek words alleged by M. Andrews, or the Latin in our translation, with the restriction that immediately followeth (whereby the second place after Rome is assigned to Constantinople) it is most clear, M. Andrews straineth the Greek text to make it serve his turn. that they cannot possibly signify (as he would have them) parificare, &, ad parem dignitatem evehere, &, ad paris magnitudinis instar efferre, which words and manner of speech do exclude all that difference of degree, and dignity which is expressly reserved in the Canon, giving the second place to Constantinople: so that you see, he is in all this matter most fraudulent, and hath notably corrupted the Canon, aswell by concealing that which most imported, to show the full drift thereof, as also by perverting both the words, and the sense of it. 67. It resteth now, that I say somewhat more to his conclusion, Andr. pag. 171. which is this: Quod habet ergo Roma de primatu etc. therefore that which Rome hath of the primacy, it hath not from Christ, but from the Fathers, and in respect of the seat of the Emperor, A very false and foolish conclusion of M. Andrews. and not for the seat of Peter; and forasmuch as the Fathers in advancing new Rome to equal greatness, exercised the same power which they used in honouring old Rome, therefore he is far from the faith, who affirmeth, that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is according to the faith, and religion of the Council of Chalcedon. So he; concluding as you see two things, the one concerning the primacy of the Roman Sea (which he saith was not given by Christ, but, by the Fathers, and not in respect of Peter's Seat, but, for the seat of the Emperor:) whereto I have said enough in effect already, having taught him to distinguish betwixt the Primacy of the Roman Sea granted by Christ to S. Peter, and the privileges which the Fathers, or temporal Princes have given thereto; for of the former, to wit, the Primacy of S. Peter's Sea, the Canon speaketh not at all (because the mention of it would have been nothing to the purpose of the Canon, but rather against it, as I have sufficiently declared:) and therefore this part of the conclusion is clean from the matter, and cannot possibly be drawn from the Canon whereupon he groundeth all his arguments. 68 The other part is also no less frivolous than the former, for whereas he concludeth that the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon held not the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome for a matter of faith, or Religion, because they made the Church of Constantinople equal with the Roman Sea, you see that all the equality whereupon he buildeth, is but his own fiction, and repugnant to that very Canon, which he layeth for his foundation; and yet forsooth, he is not ashamed to triumph and insult against the Cardinal, exacting of him some Canon of the Council of Chalcedon for the Pope's Primacy, as though he himself had knocked him down with a Canon: for thus he saith for an upshot, and final conclusion of all this matter. 69. Nec alieunde igitur tamquam è vepreculis extrahat nescio quid, Andr. ubi supra. & arrodat &c. Therefore let not (the Cardinal) draw, I know not what, out of some place, as it were, out of the briars, and gnaw upon it; let him give us a Canon (for the Canons are the voice of the Council) not out of the superscription of an Epistle, Wisely forsooth. or some corner of a period, or perhaps some piece of a title, or fragment of a little clause. So he; wherein thou seest, good Reader, how he bestirreth himself with his diminitives, or (to use a phrase of M. Barlows) with his Hypocoristicall alleviations, extenuating all that the Cardinal hath objected, as mere trifles, and calling for a Canon, because the Canons are the very voice of the Council, and so he would have us to suppose of his counterfeit Canon (I say counterfeit, in respect that he hath abused, mangled, and perverted it as you have seen) which therefore is so far from being the voice of the Council, that it is nothing else but a loud, and lewd lie of his own. 70. For the Canon itself, being taken as it is in the Council, utterly overthroweth his cause, seeing that it giveth the second place to Constantinople after Rome, The Canon alleged by M. Andrews overthroweth his cause● and therefore acknowledgeth the Primacy of the Roman Sea: besides that although it had been such as M Andrews would have it to be, yet Pope Leo's authority sufficed to disannul it even in the judgement of Anatolius himself, who having been the cause, and author of it, acknowledged his error therein and craved pardon for the same, as I have amply declared before. And although after the earnest endeavours of divers as well Catholic, as Heretical Emperors to advance the Church of Constantinople, and some schisms also raised for that cause, the Popes permitted the second place to the Bishops of that Sea, without further opposition (especially from the time of justinian the Emperor, which was about a 100 years after the Council of Chalcedon, yea and afterwards also Pope Innocentius the third ratified, Concil. Lateran. sub Innocent. 3. cap. 5. and confirmed it by a Canon in the great Council of Lateran) yet the supreme authority of the Sea Apostolic was no way prejudiced thereby, as it appeareth evidently by the relation, which I have made before of the subjection, and obedience of the Catholic Emperors, See before from num. 1●. to nu. 24. and Bishops of Constantinople to the Sea of Rome from time to time, until the Greek Empire was utterly ruined by the Turks. So that it is every way manifest that the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon alleged by M. Andrew's hath served him to no other purpose, but to bewray his impudence, fraud, and folly. Relatio Synod ad Leo. 71. And whereas he demandeth of the Cardinal some Canon of that Council, for the proof of the Pope's Supremacy, he showeth himself very idle to exact a Canon, for a matter that was not then in question, but professed by the whole Council, as it evidently appeareth by their Epistle to Pope Leo wherein they acknowledge that he being ordained to be the interpeter of the voice of Blessed Peter to all men, The Coū●ell of Chalcedon acknowledged Pope Leo's supremacy. had conserved, and kept the true faith, which had been deduced from Christ's time to theirs; and that under his conduct (as being the author of so great a good) they published the truth to the children of the Church; that Christ had prepared for them that spiritual banquet (meaning their Synod) by his Letters; that he by his Legates had governed them in that Council, as the Head governeth the members; that the keeping of the Vineyard was committed to him by our Saviour; and that he had deprived Eutyches the heretic of his dignity in Constantinople, See before nu. 45. & 4●. which as I have declared before, he could not have done, if his authority had not been universal. 72. And then coming to speak of the Canon which they had made in favour of the Church of Constantinople, they signified the trust and confidence they had, that as he was wont by his careful government to cast forth the beams of his Apostolical light even to the Church of Constantinople, so he would now condescend to confirm, that which they had ordained concerning the said Church, for the avoiding of confusion, and maintenance of Ecclesiastical Discipline, which Discourse they end with this most humble, and submissive petition: Haec sicut propria, & amica, & ad decorem convenientissima, dignare complecti Sanctissime, & Beatissime Pater: most holy and blessed Father vouchsafe to embrace these things, as your own, and friendly, and most convenient, or fit for good order. 73. Ibidem. And afterwards having declared that the three Legates of Pope Leo did contradict this Canon, The Council ascribed their determination of matters of faith to the authority of Pope Leo they yield this reason thereof: Proculdubio, say they, à vestra Providentia inchoari & hoc bonum volentes, desiring without all doubt, that this good should also proceed from your Providence, ut sicut fidei, it a bonae ordinationis vobis deputetur effectus, to the end that the effect as well of good order, or Ecclesiastical discipline, as of faith, may be ascribed to you. In which words it is to be noted, that the Council ascribed the effect, and forc● of their determinations not only concerning matters of discipline, but also touching matters of faith, to the authority especially of Pope Leo: to which purpose they also added further, that for as much as the Emperor, Senate, and all the Imperial City desired it, and that it seemed also convenient to the whole Council (yea and that whatsoever is well done by the children, doth redound to their fathers, who account, and make the same their own) therefore, Rogamus (say they) & tuis decr●tis nostrum ●onor● judicium: we beseech thee, honour also our judgement with thy decrees, & sicut n●● (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 capiti in bonis adiecimus consonantiam, sic & (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Summitas tua filijs (quod decet) adimpleat: and as we have yielded conformity, on our parts to (you) our head, so let your Highness fulfil, or accomplish, to (us) your children that which is convenient. Sic enim & pij Principes complacebunt etc. For so shall the pyous● Princes receive contentment, or satisfaction (who have ratified the judgement of your holiness as a law) & Sedes Constantinopolitana suscipi●t praemium, and the Church of Constantinople shall receive a reward, or benefit, which Church hath always performed all endeavour towards you, to the cause of piety, and conjoined itself with you, How effectually & clearly the Council of Chalcedon acknowledged Pope Leo's supremacy, in their general letter to him. to the conservation of concord and unity with the same zeal. Thus wrote the whole Council to Pope Leo. 74. And now I report me to M. Andrews himself (though I take him for very partial in this cause) whether any thing could be written in this kind more effectually to show the belief, and faith of the whole Council touching the supreme authority of Pope Leo, seeing that they do not only expressly call him their head, and themselves his members, him their Father, and themselves his children; but also do acknowledge that he was accustomed to cast forth the light of his Apostolical beams to the Church of Constantinople (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, consuetè soliciti, say those Father's, speaking of him in the plural number, for the reverend respect they bore him) and signifying that his wont care, and authority was so general, that it extended itself to the Greek Church, and particularly to the Church of Constantinople: furthermore they testify that the effect of their decrees both in matters of faith and of discipline, depended principally on him, and therefore do, as I may say, beg at his hands the confirmation of their Canon in favour of the Church of Constantinople, as a special grace, benefit, and reward fo● the merits of the said Sea towards the Sea Apostolic; and this in such earnest, and humble manner, that it is evident, they acknowledged the whole matter to depend on his will, to be granted, or denied, ratified, or disannulled by him, which also the issue thereof made most manifest, seeing that his own denial, and opposition was sufficient to overthrow it, as hath been (d) See b●fore from nu. 29. to nu. 39 declared. 75. And now, I hope, M. Andr●ws will not say that this is taken out of some corner of a period, or some piece of a title, Other proofs that Pop● Leo's supremacy was acknowledged by the Council of Calcedo●● or fragment of a little clause, seeing that this is (as he said of his Canon) the very voice of the whole Council, being the substance of their public, and general letter to Pope Leo himself; which may also be confirmed with their other public testimonies of their belief concerning his authority, as that they acknowledged not only that he was successor to S. Peter (saying in their general acclamation to an Epistle of his, Act. 2● Petrus per Leonem locutus est● Peter hath spoken by Leo) but also that he had Peter's authority, yea and that S. Peter, was petra, & crepido Ecclesiae, the rock and top of the Church; and, rectae fidei fundamentum, the foundation of the true faith. 76. To which purpose it is to be considered that one of the chief causes of the assembly of that Council, was to depose Dioscorus, Ac●. ●. Bishop of Alexandria, which done by the sentence of Pope Leo, pronounced by his Legates in these words: Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria deposed by Pope Leo. Sanctissimus, & Beatissimus Archiepiscopus magnae & senioris Romae Leo, per nos, & per presentem sanctam Synodum, unà cum ter beatissimo, & omni laud digno beato Petro Apostolo, qui est petra & crepido Ecclesiae, & ille qui est rectae fidei fundamentum, nudavit eum tam Episcopatus dignitate, quam etiam ab omni Sacerdotali alienavit ministerio. The most holy, and most blessed Archbishop of the elder and great Rome Leo, hath deprived him (to wit Dioscorus) as well of all Episcopal dignity, as priestly ministry, by us and this holy Synod, together with the thrice most blessed, and praiseworthy Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and top of the Church, and he which is the foundation of the true faith. This was the sentence given by the Pope's Legates against Dioscorus; which sentence every Bishop in the Council not only approved particularly with his suffrage, or voice, but also confirmed with his subscription, Three things to be noted in the deposition of Dioscorus proving Pope Leo's supremacy. as it appeareth in the 3. Action of the said Council. 77. Wherein it is to be observed. First; that Pope Leo deposed Dioscorus by the Synod, whereupon it followeth, that he was precedent, and head thereof, and that the said Synod was but, as it were, his instrument, in that deposition. Secondly, that he deposed him by the authority which he had, as successor to S. Peter; in which respect it is said here that he did it, together with the most blessed Apostle Peter. Thirdly, that for as much as S. Peter is here acknowledged to be the head of the Church (as being the rock, and top thereof, and the foundation of the faith) the like must needs be granted of Pope Leo who was his successor, and exercised his authority. Lastly, seeing that this sentence of deposition given against Dioscorus in this manner, and with these circumstances, was received particularly, and subscribed by every one in that Council, without any contradiction, or exception taken to any part thereof, it is evident, that the whole was conform to the faith, and belief of the Council, and consequently that they held Pope Leo not only for S. Peter's successor, Concil● Calced. Act. ●. but also for head of the whole Church; and this I trust cannot be said to be taken out of the briars, or corner of a period, or fragment of a clause, but out of one of the most principal, and important Acts of all the Council. 78. Also it appeareth in the same Council that Theodoretus Bishop of Cyrus (who being deposed by Dioscorus, appealed to Pope Leo) was by his authority restored to his seat, Ep. Theodor. ad Leonem. and admitted into the Council: Ingrediatur, say the Fathers, & Reverendissimus Episcopus Theodoretus etc. Let also the most Reverend Bishop Theodoretus enter, that he may be partaker of our Synod, because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored to him his Bishopric. Theodoretus restored to his Bishopric by Pope L●o. So they; whereby they gave sufficient testimony of the sovereignty of Pope Leo, acknowledging his power to restore Bishops to their Bishopriks' in the Greek Church. Finally if there were nothing else in that Council to prove Pope Leo's supreme, and universal authority over the Church of God, it might suffice for an evident proof thereof, Pope Leo was undoubtedly the head and precedent of the Council. that he was undoubtedly the precedent, and head of the Council, as you have heard before, and may be confirmed by the subscriptions of his Legates set before all other Bishops, though one of them was but a Priest, and no Bishop. 79. For what reason can be imagined why Pope Leo should be precedent of a Council in Greece, so far from his own seat (as well he himself as his Legates being Romans, Calvin confuted concerning the cause why Pope Leo was precedent of the Council. and of the Latin Church) but that it belonged to him to be head thereof, in respect of his universal authority? Will M. Andrews absurdly say as Calvin doth, that there was no Bishop in all Greece at that time, 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 own favour? Can any man believe that he was (as M. Andrews saith) esteemed worthy to be made equal in dignity, and all things else with the Bishop of Rome, and yet not fit to be Precedent of a Council in his own country, yea less fit than a stranger, who was held to be but his ●qual? Besides that howsoever Pope Leo himself might be esteemed more worthy of that Charge, than the Bishops of Greece (in respect of his eminent learning, wisdom, and virtue) yet there is no probability in the world, Pope Leo head of the Council of Calcedom in respect of his supreme authority over the whole Church. that the Emperor, and all the Bishops of that Council (which were above 600.) had the like conceit of the sufficiency of his Legates, 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. Calvin, and M. Andrews must either give us some other probable reason for it (as they shall never be able to do) or else confess that Leo was Precedent of that Council by right of his sovereignty, and supreme authority over God's Church. 80. Therefore now to conclude this matter, thou seest, good Reader, what was the belief of the Fathers in the Council of Chalcedon concerning the Pope's supremacy, and how far M. Andrews is from their faith, and Religion, yea and what a seared conscience he hath, What a seared conscience M. Andrew● hath. not only to deny such an evident truth as this, but also to impugn it, with so much fraud, and impudence as he doth against his own conscience (no doubt:) for he could not possibly see in the Council, that which he himself allegeth and the Cardinal objecteth, but he must needs see all this which I have cited out of it: neither could he allege some part of the 28. Canon, and urge it as he doth (laying down the words even of the Greek text) but he saw as well that which followeth immediately (and clearly convinceth his fraud, and forgery) as that which went before, and seemed to make for him; whereby it is evident that he not only wittingly dissembled, and concealed the whole drift of that Canon, but also maliciously perverted, mangled, and falsified it, to the end to deceive his Reader, for the maintenance of his miserable cause; for so I may well term it, seeing it driveth him to such miserable and desperate shifts. M. D. ANDREWS' HIS ANSWERES TO three places of the Fathers are examined. AND By the way the Cardinal is cleared from a false imputation of jovinians heresy, and M. Andrews truly charged therewith. Finally all that which we teach concerning the Pope's authority is necessarily deduced out of M. Andrews his own doctrine, and express words. CHAP. III. HAVING occasion in my Supplement to prove the necessity of a visible head in God's Church to conserve the same in unity, Suppl. cap. 4. nu. 3. & 4. I alleged two places of S. Cyprian, and S. Hierome, which the Cardinal also citeth in his Apology, together with divers other testimonies of the Fathers, to prove the Primacy of S. Peter, and for as much as M. Andrews his answer thereto (if it have any force at all) maketh as much against me, as against the Cardinal, Apol. Card. Bel. cap. 8. p. 125. Cyprian. de unit. Eccles. I will examine here what force, and pith it hath. The Cardinal saith thus of S. Cyprian. Fecit Cyprianus Petrum etc. Cyprian made Peter the head, fountain, and root of the Church: and in his Epistle to Quintus: Peter, saith he, whom our Lord first chose, and upon whom he built his Church etc. Where S. Cyprian doth not only say, Idem ep. ad Quintum. that Peter was first chosen, but also addeth that the Church was built upon him; and truly the foundation in a building, & the head in a body are all one. Thus saith the Cardinal, alleging, as you see, two places of S. Cyprian, to both which M. Andrews meaneth to say somewhat. 2. To the first he saith thus, Andr. Resp. cap. 8. pag. 217. ●in. penult. Fecit Cyprianus etc. Cyprian made Peter the head, fountain, and root of the Church, not Peter of the Church, but rather maketh the Church itself the fountain from whence many brooks, M. Andrews grave discourse in answer to the Cardinal. the light from whence many beams, and the root from whence many boughs are propagated. Learn this even of himself; Sic & Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa etc. So the Church being wholly resplendent with the light of our Lord, casteth forth her beams throughout the whole world (lo, he saith the Church, and not Peter) yet the light is one, and the self same which is spread every where (is this light Peter? or is he every where spread abroad?) and the unity of the body is not separated. The Church through the plenty of her fertility stretcheth forth her branches over the whole earth, and doth amply spread abroad her abundant flowing brooks, yet the head is one, the beginning one, & one mother, copious with the prosperous success of her fecundity, or fruitfulness. Caligavit hic Cardinalis etc. the Cardinal was spurre-blynd, or dim sighted here, for (I think) he will not say, that Peter is the mother, and therefore not the head. 3. This is M. Andrews his grave discourse, supposing, as it seemeth, that because the word matter is applied to the Church by S. Cyprian, therefore Caput cannot be applied to S. Peter, but to the Church. Therefore to the end M. Andrews may understand that S. Peter (and not the Church itself) is in this place worthily termed by S. Cyprian, caput, fons, radix, & origo, the head, the fountain, the root, and the spring, he shall do well to consider the ground and drift of all S. Cyprians discourse, which the Cardinal in his Apology omitted for brevityes sake, and therefore although I have laid it down in my Supplement, to prove the necessity of a visible head in the Church, yet I will take pains to repeat it here, to ease the Reader of the labour to seek it there. 4. S. Cyprian meaning to show the cause, why the Church is troubled with heresies, The drift and meaning of S. Cyprian. and schisms, and withal to give the remedy, saith thus: Hoc eò fit etc. This happeneth, because men do not return to the beginning of truth, nor seek the head, nor observe the doctrine of the heavenly Master, Cyprian ubi supra. which if any man will well consider, and examine, he shall not need any longer treatise, or arguments to prove it; the proof is easy to be believed by the compendiousness, or brevity of the truth; our Lord said to Peter, Matth. 1.6. I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not overcome it etc. joan. 21. To him also he saith after his resurrection, Feed my sheep: upon him being one, he built his Church, and to him he recommended his sheep to be fed, and although after his resurrection he gave equal power to all his Apostles, Ibid. 20. and said, as my Father sent me, so I send you, receive the holy Ghost etc. nevertheless to manifest, and show a unity, he ordained one chair, and by his authority disposed, that the beginning of the same unity should proceed from one. Truly the rest of the Apostles were that which S. Peter was, endued with like fellowship of honour, and power, but the beginning proceedeth from unity; the Primacy is given to Peter, that one Church of Christ, and one chair may be showed. So he. 5. And prosecuting still the same matter, proveth notably the unity of the Church, by the unity of the head, S. Cyprian proveth the unity of the Church by the unity of the head thereof. from whence all the unity of the body is derived, which he showeth by three excellent similitudes of many branches of one tree springing from one root, many brooks of one water flowing from one fountain, and many beams of one light derived from one sun, concluding his discourse, that notwithstanding the amplitude of the Church, by the propagation, and numerosity of her children, and the extension of her parts, and members all over the world, unum tamen caput est, saith he, & origo una etc. yet the head is one, and the origen, or beginning one (that is to say Peter) upon whom he said before (as you have heard) that our Saviour built his Church, and to whom he recommended his sheep to be fed, yea gave him Primatum, the Primacy, ut una Christi Ecclesia, & una cathedra monstretur, to show thereby one Church of Christ, and one chair; and this must needs be the true sense of S. Cyprian in that-place, if we will make his conclusion conform to his premises, and to the whole scope of his intention. 6. So that M. Andrews making the Church itself to be the root, fountain, and head whereof S. Cyprian speaketh, doth most absurdly confound the tree with the root, the rivers with the spring, the body with the head, and lameth all that most excellent discourse, of S. Cyprian, yea overthroweth the very foundation thereof, denying all that which S. Cyprian laid for his ground, to wit, the Primacy, and supreme authority of S. Peter, from whence he expressly deryveth the unity of the Church, as he doth also most clearly else where, saying in his Epistle to jubaianus: Idem ep. ad jubaian. Nos Ecclesiae unius caput, & radicem tenemus: We have, or do hold the head, and root of one Church (and after declaring what root, Ibid. and head he meaneth, he saith:) nam Petro primùm Dominus super quem etc. For our Lord gave this power (of binding, and losing) to Peter, upon whom he built his Church, & unde unitatis orig●nem instituit, & ostendit: and from whence he ordained, and showed the beginning of unity. And again after in the same Epistle: Ecclesia quae una est, super unum qui claves accepit, voce Domini fundata est. The Church which is one, was by the speech of our Lord founded upon one, who received the keys. So he. Whereby it evidently appeareth, that his constant, and manifest doctrine is, that all the unity of the Church, proceedeth from the unity of her head (to wit S. Peter, and his chair) and that the Cardinal affirming that S. Cyprian made Peter the head, fountain, & root of the Church, gave us his true sense: and M. Andrews making the Church itself to be the head, A foolish gloss of M. Andrews upon the text of S. Cyprian. fountain, and root of itself, is very absurd, and wholly repugnant to S. Cyprians doctrine or meaning. 7. And this will be more clear, if we examine a little better M. Andrews his gloss upon the text of S. Cyprian, whereby he laboureth to prove, that the Church itself, and not S. Peter is the head, fountain, and root whereof S. Cyprian speaketh. Andr. ubi supra pag. 218. lin. 2. For having laid down S. Cyprians words (to wit, sic Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa etc. so also the Church shining with the light of our Lord, reacheth forth her beams over the whole world) he noteth that the Father saith, Ecclesia, non Petrus, the Church, not Peter; and no marvel, seeing he had no occasion then to name Peter, but the Church only; for although the Church, being a visible body, hath always a visible head under Christ, to wit Peter, and his successors; yet S. Cyprian doth speak of it here, as of a body considered a part, not including the head, meaning afterwards to speak of the head (as he had in like manner done before) declaring from whence the unity of that body is derived, as it will appear further hereafter. 8. In the mean time, let us see how M. Andrews goeth on with the text; unum tamen lumen est etc. Yet it is one light, which is every where spread, neither is the unity of the body separated; here now he asketh two questions, the one whether Peter be the light, How S. Peter might be called the light of the Church. and the other, whether he be every where dispersed? whereto I answer, that although he is not the light of the Church, as he was a particular man, yet he may well be so called, not only as he was an Apostle (seeing that our Saviour said to all the Apostles, Vos estis lux mundi, you are the light of the world) but also much more as he is the Vicar, Matth. 5. and substitute of our Saviour, who being lux vera, joan. 11. the true light, imparteth unto him his own excellencies, so far forth, as is necessary for the government of his Church, which he hath committed to his charge; in which respect it may truly be said, that the light of the Church proceedeth not only from Christ, but also from him, as from the head thereof under Christ, and that by his authority it is spread every where throughout the Church. 9 And this is sufficient to make good the similitude according to the intention of S. Cyprian, who only speaketh here of the Church, as of a body receiving all the unity of her several & many parts from the head, as the light which is spread throughout the world, receiveth unity from the sun; & therefore he argueth thus in substance: The vinity of the Church notably proved, and deduced by S. Cyprian from the unity of the Head. As the light of the sun dispersed over the earth (though it have many beams, yet) is but one light by reason that it proceedeth from one sun, so also the body of the Church dispersed by many members over the whole world, is but one body, because it proceedeth from one head; which reason he giveth yet more expressly in the two other similitudes that immediately follow (of a tree spreading forth many boughs, and of many brooks flowing from one fountain) for of the former he saith, that though the boughs are many, and spread far abroad, Robur tamen unum tenaci radice firmatum: yet the strengeth is one fastened in the strong, and stiff root; and of the later he saith in like manner, that notwithstanding the abundant, and copious plenty of water dispersed by many brooks, yet it is but one water, because unitas, saith he, servatur in origine, the unity is conserved in the spring. Who then seeth not, that to apply this similitude to the Church, we must needs say, that albeit the said Church hath very many members, and parts spread over the whole world yet it is but one body, because it hath but one head wherein the unity of all the parts is conserved. 10. And to this is also conform the rest of S. Cyprians text, which M. Andrews proceedeth to lay down thus; Ramos suos Ecclesia etc. The Church, through her abundant fertility, stretcheth forth her branches over the whole earth, and largely spreadeth abroad her copious rivers, or brooks, yet the head is one, the origen, or beginning one, and one mother etc. So saith S. Cyprian, teaching, as you see, nothing else in effect, but that the Church being a body dispersed over the whole world in her members, is united in one head, and therefore he saith, unum tamen caput, & origo una, yet the head is one, and the origen, or beginning one: and so having spoken as well of the head of the Church, as of the body, and declared from whence the unity of the whole is derived, he had great reason to add una matter, one mother, Why the Church is called one Mother. giving to understand that as the Church hath one head, so she is one mother; one, in respect of her unity derived 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, M. Andrews fraudulent in his lame allegation of S. Cyprian. yet he is acknowledged to be the head, from whence the unity of the whole Church our mother is communicated to us her children, which would have been as clear as the sun, if he had laid down the similitudes themselves, as well as he gave us only the application of them out of S. Cyprian (beginning his allegation, with Sic & Ecclesia: so also the Church etc.) for he knew full well that his false gloss would have been easily discovered if he had set down the similitudes, as they are delivered, and urged by the Father himself. Therefore now let the Reader judge, Quis caligavit hic? who was blind here? the Cardinal, or M. Andrew's? Thus much concerning the first place of S. Cyprian. 12. The other place is; Petrus super quem Dominus fundavit Ecclesiam: S. Cypr. ep. ad Quint. Peter upon whom our Lord did found his Church; whereupon the Cardinal infereth that S. Cyprian teacheth, that the Church is built upon S. Peter, Card. Bellar. Apolo. c. 8. p. 125. Andr. cap. 8. pag. 218. and that therefore he is the foundation of the Church, and consequently the head thereof, because the foundation in a building, and the head in a body is all one: whereto M. Andrew's answereth thus. Alter verò illi ex Cypriano locus praecidendus erat etc. A shifting answer of M. Andrews, falsely charging the Cardinal with fraud. He thought it necessary to cut of the other place of Cyprian where it seemed little to favour the Primacy; for thus it is, nam nec Petrus (quem primum Dominus elegit) etc. For neither did Peter, whom our Lord chose the first, challenge any thing insolently to himself, nor take upon him arrogantly to say that he had the Primacy, or that he ought to be obeyed of those that were younger, and later than he: Wherein the mind or sense of Cyprian seemeth to be, that if Peter had said that he had the Primacy, he had insolently challenged somewhat to himself, and therefore the Cardinal suppressed this part of the text warily, The Primacy of S. Peter is notably proved, by those words of S. Cyprian, which M. Andrews saith the Cardinal fraudulently left out. because it made little for the Primacy, and rather took hold of the former part, where Cyprian saith, that the Church was built upon Peter etc. 13. Thus saith M. Andrews, with somewhat more, which I will also lay down after a while, when I shall first have examined this; wherein you see he would fain make the Reader believe that the Cardinal had used some art, or fraud, in leaving it uncyted, as not favourable, but rather prejudicial to S. Peter's Primacy; whereas in truth it doth notably prove it, and no way impair, or infringe it, as he may see in the Cardinal's controversies, where amongst very many other places alleged for the Primacy of S. Peter, he urgeth this, fortifying it notably with the authority of S. Augustine, who also citeth those words of S. Cyprian, though upon another occasion. Therefore I will set down the Cardinals own words to the end that he may answer for himself: who having brought the testimonies of a whole jury (as I may say) of Greek 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 expressly acknowledging the supremacy of S. Peter above all the other Apostles) addeth as many more of the Latin Fathers, and beginneth with S. Cyprian thus. Bellar. d● Romano Pout. l. ●. cap. 25. 14. Ex latinis S. Cyprianus in Ep. ad Quintum etc. Of the latin Fathers S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Quintus saith, that Peter, when he was reprehended by Paul, would not say that he had the primacy, and that he ought to be obeyed, S. Cyprian clearly explicated by the Card. out of S. Augustine. whereby he signifieth that Peter had the primacy, and might command all others. And lest perhaps our adversaries may say, that Cyprian meaneth that Peter did not say he had the Primacy, because he should therein have affirmed that which was false, let us hear Augustine expounding this place of Cyprian lib. 2. S. Peter being head of the Apostles suffered himself to be reprehended by S. Paul. de Baptismo cap. 1. etc. Thus saith the Cardinal, and after having laid down S. Cyprians words alleged by S. Augustine (being the same that you have heard before) he addeth the words of S. Augustine which are these: Ecce ubi commemorat Cyprianus etc. Behold how Cyprian doth show that Peter the Apostle (in whom the primacy of the Apostles is pre-eminent with such an excellent grace) corrected by Paul a later Apostle, when he dealt concerning Circumcision otherways then truth required. So saith S. Augustin, whereby it evidently appeareth, how he understandeth S. Cyprian in this place, to wit, that albeit Peter was pre-eminent, and far excelled the Apostles by reason of his Primacy, yet when he erred, he patiently suffered himself to be corrected by Paul, and did not insolently, and arrogantly defend his error, standing upon the authority of his Primacy, and challenging obedience of S. Paul and others. 15. This then being so, and the cardinals opinion concerning the meaning of S. Cyprian in this place being so ●ell fortified, Bellarmine cleared from M. Andrews imputation. as you have now heard, by S. Augustine's construction, and judgement thereof, what reason hath any man to think that the Cardinal did, as M. Andrews chargeth him, purposely, and craftily suppress those words of S. Cyprian, as not making for Peter's Primacy; whereas you see he taketh them to make much for it, and doth urge them notably to prove it? Therefore can any reasonable man imagine any fraud in the Cardinal? Or any other cause why he did not eyte them in his Apology, but partly for brevityes sake (which every may seethe how much he affecteth in all his works) and partly because he thought he had alleged sufficient already out of that Father to prove his intent? 16. So that, whereas M. Andrews saith, Ea Cypriani mens videtur etc. The mind or sense of Cyprian seemeth to be, that if Peter had said he had the Primacy, he had insolently challenged somewhat to himself (that is to say more than was due unto him) he did very well to say videtur, it seemeth; for if he had absolutely affirmed it, he had overlashed very far. Besides that he may learn if it please him to make a great difference betwixt insolenter, How a man may speak of his own authority insolently, and yet truly. and ●also, insolently, and falsely; for a man may take upon him a true authority, and speak of it insolently, that is to say without just cause, or in defence of some evil act, and yet not falsely, because it is true that he hath the authority which he pretendeth. And therefore I say, that if S. Peter should have stood upon his Primacy in defence of his erroneous act, and said, that S. Paul ought to follow and obey him therein, because he was the Primate, and head of the Apostles● he had both said, and done insolently, which nevertheless, in defence of a truth, or upon some other just occasion, he might both say and do, without all note of insolency, yea justly, and necessarily, because he had indeed the Primacy, and therefore was to be obeyed, and followed in all good, and just actions. 17. But now M. Andrews goeth forward: and whereas the Cardinal concluded that Peter being the foundation of the Church was therefore the head of it, Andr. v●● supr. M. Andrews granteth, How S. Peter is termed the foundation of the Church by S. Cyprian. that S. Peter was fundamentum quidem unum, sed non unicum, one, but not the only foundation: esse enim illiusce aedificij duodecem fundamenta, for that there are twelve foundations of that building. But M. Andrews is here short of his account, for he should rather have said that there are thirteen, except he will exclude Christ, of whom the Apostle saith, Fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere etc. no man can lay any other foundation then that which is already laid, 1. Cor. 3. jesus Christ: of whom also the Prophet saith, Ecce ego ponam in fundamentis Sion lapidem etc. Isa. 28. Behold I will lay a stone in the foundation of Zion, an approved stone, a corner, and precious stone, founded in the foundation etc. 18. And this I am sure M. Andrews will not deny, seeing that it is one of the most special arguments whereby his fellows are wont to exclude S. Peter from being the foundation of the Church (to wit because Christ is the foundation of it:) if therefore M. Andrews will admit twelve foundations of the Church, without prejudice to Christ, he may also admit eleven without prejudice to Peter. For albeit the twelve Apostles are all founded upon Christ, who is the first and principal stone, yet Peter may have the first place in the foundation next after Christ, being immediately founded on him (as head and ordinary Pastor of the Church) and the rest upon Peter, as extraordinary, and subordinate to him. Besides that Peter, and the rest of the Apostles are called foundations in different manner, as I will declare (c) See after nu. 24.25. & 2●. more particularly in the discussion of M. Andrews his answer to the place of S. Hierome. 19 And now to conclude concerning S. Cyprian, whereas the Cardinal argueth upon his words, that because S. Peter was the foundation of the Church, he was therefore the head thereof (in respect that the head in a body, A bad inference of M. Andrews about twelve heads. and the foundation in a building is all one) M. Andrews answereth thus: Vix illuc usquequaque etc. That is scantly true every way, for I do show the Cardinal a building, whereof there are twelve foundations, but hardly can the Cardinal show me one body, whereof there are twelve heads. So he, very well to the purpose (I assure you) overthrowing himself with his own answer; for if that building (which he saith hath twelve foundations) be the Church, as indeed it is (and so it appeareth by his quotation of the 24. Chapter of the Apocalyps Apoc. 24. ) then may the Cardinal very easily show him also a body that hath twelve heads, even according to the doctrine, and opinion of M. Andrews himself, who can not deny but that the Church is a body (I mean such a body as here we treat of, to wit not a natural, but a mystical body) neither can he deny that the Apostles were heads of that body seeing all of them had (as M. Andrews still telleth us) the charge, and government of the Church alike; and therefore being twelve governors, they were also twelve heads. 20. Is it then so hard a matter for the Cardinal to show him a body with twelve heads? Nay, which is more, and toucheth more our case, doth not M. Andrews think it possible that such a body may have a hundredth heads, A political or mystical body may have many heads subordinat to one head. and all of them subordinate to one head? What will he say of the state of Venice? Will he deny that the Senators (who are many hundreds) are heads thereof? or that they are subordinat to one Doge, or Duke? So that it is to be understood, that in respect of the rest of the Common wealth, the Senators are all heads, though in respect of the Doge, they are but members subordinate to him. And so in this spiritual building of the Church, or mystical body of Christ, though the twelve Apostles were twelve foundations, and consequently twelve heads, yet, as all the twelve were subordinate to Christ, so were eleven of them subordinate to Peter, whom Christ made their Primacy or Head, which, as you have heard, is the express doctrine of S. Cyprian, teaching that albeit the Apostles had equal power, yet Primatus, saith he, Petro datur, ut una Ecclesia Christi, & una Cathedra monstretur, The Primacy is given to Peter, that one Church of Christ, and one chair may be showed. Whereby he giveth to understand, that although the Apostles were all of equal powe● in respect of all other Christians, who were subject to them, M. Andrews so writeth as he doth much help his Adversaries cause yet they were not equal in respect of Peter to whom our Saviour himself gave the Primacy to conserve unity amongst them, and in his whole Church. And this I hope may suffice for answer to M. Andrews his gloss upon the 2. places of S. Cyprian; only, I cannot omit to thank him, for the pains he taketh still to corroborate our cause with his answers, & objections, for truly if he write many books in this vain, we shall not need any other champion to fight for us but himself, as it will also further appear by his answer to the place of S. Hierome whereof I am now to treat. Card. Bellar. Apol. c. 8. pag. 126 Hierom. l. ●. advers. jovinian. 21. The Cardinal citeth out of S. Hierome these words, Inter duodecem unus eligitur, ut capite constitut● schismatis tollatur occasio: one is chosen amongst twelve, to the end, that a head being made, the occasion of schism may be taken away, Touching the place of S. Hierome. by which words of S. Hierome, spoken expressly of S. Peter, it is clear that according to S. Hieromes doctrine our Saviour made S. Peter head of the Apostles, and consequently of the whole Church of God; Supple. c. 4. nu. 3. to which purpose I have also urged the same in my Supplement. Andr. ubi supra pag. 219. §. Hieronymus. 22. Now then M. Andrews answereth the Cardinal thus: Hicronymus idem hic à Cardinale patitur etc. Hierome suffereth here at the Cardinal's hands the same (injury) that Cyprian suffered before; both their places (or texts) are lamely cited, for Hi●rome saith thus: At dices (tu scilicet joviniane) super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia etc. M. Andrews bad gloss upon S. Hieroms text. But thou (to wit jovinian) wilt say, the Church is founded upon Peter (which the Cardinal doth now so oft, and earnestly inculcate unto us, well following jovinian therein:) but what saith Hierome? Although, saith he, the same is in another place done upon all the Apostles, and all of them receive the keys, and the strength of the Church is equal consolidated, or established upon them all, yet (neither in respect of the keys, nor of the foundation, which are so much esteemed at Rome, but) for this cause one is chosen amongst twelve, that a head being made, the occasion of schism may be taken away. Thus far doth M. Andrews allege the words of S. Hierome, and gloss them, as you see, wherein two things are specially to be observed for the present, the one that he taxeth the Cardinal for wronging S. Hierome now, no less than he wronged S. Cyprian before, in the lame, and corrupt citation of their places. The other, that he would make the Reader believe, that to hold the Church to be built upon Peter was one of jovinians heresies, and not S. Hieromes doctrine; and that therefore the Cardinal teaching, and oft inculcating the same, doth follow jovinian; of these two points I must needs say somewhat before I pass further; for truly they deserve to be well examined, and the good conscience of M. Andrews to be laid open to the world. 23. In the first point I must needs say he hath some reason, to wit, in saying that S. Hierome is as much wronged by the Cardinal, Supra nu. 15. as S. Cyprian was before; which is most true; for neither of them both receive any wrong at all by the Cardinal, The Cardinal falsely charged by M. Andrew● with fra●d in the citation of S. Hierome. as you have already seen in the place of S. Cyprian, and will easily see also in this place of S. Hierome, if you confer that which the Cardinal left uncyted (and is laid down by M. Andrews) with that which followeth, and is cited by the Cardinal: for albeit S. Hierome do teach in the words which M. Andrews citeth, that the Church was equally built upon all the Apostles, yet it is evident by that which the Cardinal allegeth, that the same is so to be understood, that it doth not any way prejudice the Primacy of S. Peter, seeing that S. Hierome affirmeth expressly (notwithstanding the equality, whereof he speaketh) that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles; and therefore it is manifest that M. A●drews doth understand this equality in other manner then S. Hierome doth, who indeed saith, with great reason, as also divers other Fathers do (and no Catholic will deny it) that the Church was built upon all the Apostles (ex aequo, equally) but in what sense the same is to be understood, Psal. 86. Apocal. 21. Ephes. ●. I would wish Mr. Andrews to learn of Cardinal Bellarmine himself in his controversies, where he declareth the same very learnedly, Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 11. perspicuously, and briefly, as he is wont. 24. Thus than he saith, answering to this very place of S. Hierome and certain others taken out of the Scriptures, and objected by Luther: Respondeo, tribus modis Apostolos omnes fuisse Ecclesiae fundamenta etc. How the Church according to Cardinal Bellarmine is built equally upon all the Apostles. I answer that all the Apostles were three ways the foundations of the Church, yet without any prejudice to Peter. The first is, because they were the first that did found Churches every where, for Peter did not himself alone convert the whole world unto the faith of Christ, but some Nations were converted by him, others by james, and others by the rest. And therefore S. Paul Rom. 15. saith: Sic praedicavi etc. I have so preached this Gospel where Christ was not named, lest I should build upon other men's foundation. And 1. Cor. 3. ut sapiens architectus etc. I have laid the foundation like a wise Architect, and another buildeth thereupon. And in this manner all Apostles are foundations alike, which I think is meant in the 21. Chapter of the apocalypse. 25. The Apostles and Prophets are also said another way, to be foundations of the Church, to wit, because all Christian doctrine was revealed unto them, seeing that the faith of the Church is grounded upon the revelation which the Apostles, & Prophets had from God; for new articles of faith are not always revealed to the Church. But the Church resteth, and continueth in that doctrine which the Apostles, and Prophets learned of our Lord, and delivered to their posterity by preaching, and writing, and by this means we are, as the Apostle saith, Ephes. 2. built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, and according to these two ways, Peter is no greater than the rest. But as Hierome saith, the strength of the Church is equally established upon them all. 26. The Apostles also are said a third way, to be foundations of the Church, to wit in respect of their government; for all of them were heads, governors, and Pastors of the universal Church, but not in the same manner that Peter was, for they had a chief, and most ample power as Apostles, or Legates; but Peter had it as ordinary Pastor; besides that they had their full power in such sort, that nevertheless Peter was their head, and they depended of him, and not he of them: and this is that which was promised to Peter Matth. 16. when it was said unto him in presence of the rest, Upon this rock I will build my Church, which besides the other Fathers before cited, S. Hierome teacheth in his first book against jovinian; where explicating what is the meaning of building the Church upon Peter, he saith thus: Licèt super omnes Apostolos etc. Although the strength of the Church be established equally upon all the Apostles, yet therefore one was chosen amongst the twelve, to the end, that a head being made, the occasion of schism might be taken away. 27. Thus far the Cardinal, which I hope may suffice to teach M. Andrews how the Church was founded equally upon the Apostles, to wit, the two first way, (whereof the Cardinal speaketh as mentioned in the Apocalyps, and the Epistle to the Ephesians, where not only the Apostles, but also the Prophets are called foundations of the Church) which may well stand with the Primacy of S. Peter, and S. Hieromes doctrine concerning the same; whereas M. Andrews making S. Hierome impugn S. Peter's Primacy by the equality that he mentioneth, maketh him contradict himself, and overthrow his own doctrine in the very next words after, wherein he expoundeth (as the Cardinal noteth very well) what is meant by the building of the Church upon S. Peter, signifying that it is to be understood thereby, that our Saviour made S. Peter head of the Apostles, as I will show further hereafter, by M. Andrews his own confession. So that it is clear enough that the Cardinal left not those words of S. Hierome uncyted, See after nu. ●6. & sequ. as prejudicial to Peter's primacy, but only for brevityes sake; M. Andrew's calumniateth Bellarmine. and that therefore M. Andrews hath notably calumniated him, as well in this place as in the former, seeking to cast upon him some suspicion of fraudulent dealing in the cytation of Authors, which is indeed the proper talon of M. Barlow, and M. Andrews, as you have hitherto seen sufficiently proved in them both, and shall see further exemplyfied hereafter in M. Andrews, to his confusion. 28. The second point which I wished to be observed in his Gloss upon S. Hieromes text, M. Andrews second charge against the Cardinal touching jovinianisme refuted and retorted● is that he saith the Cardinal followeth jovinian in affirming, that the Church was founded upon S. Peter, as if the Cardinal did teach therein so●e heresy of jovinian, and not S. Hieromes doctrine: but this surpasseth all impudence. For, no doubt, he speaketh against his own conscience, and knowledge, seeing he cannot be ignorant of the contrary, if he have read, and examined that very place in S. Hierome which he objecteth, where it is evident, that the matter then in controversy betwixt S. Hierome, and jovinian was about the merit of Virginity, S Hier. li. 1. contra. jovinian. because jovinian equalled mar●ryage with it, which heresy S. Hierome in that place laboured to confute● and for as much as the heretic had objected the marriage of the Apostles (inferring thereupon that if Virginity were to be preferred before marriage, Christ would not have chosen married men, but Virgins to be his Apostles, and the Princes, and Captains of Christian discipline) therefore S. Hierome answereth, that it appeareth not in the Scriptures that any of them had a wife except Saint Peter, and that he being married whiles he was under the law, lived continent from his wife after his vocation to the Apostleship; and that if any of the rest had wives before their vocation, they abstained from them ever after; and that S. john Evangelist being chosen a Virgin, was singularly beloved, and specially favoured of our Saviour above the rest for his Virginity. 29. And whereas jovinian also urged the supreme dignity of S. Peter, as that the Church was founded upon him, being a married man, and not upon S. john who was a Virgin (wherein it is evident that jovinian sought to fortify his heresy by an argument drawn from a point of known Catholic doctrine) S. Hierome was so far from denying the Church to be founded on Peter, that he notably confirmed it, declaring that Peter was made thereby head of the Apostles; for having taught that the Church was also founded equally upon all the Apostles (in the sense that I have declared) he gave a reason not only why S. Peter was made head of the rest (to wit to take away the occasion of schism) but also why he (being a married man) was endowed with that power, and dignity, rather than S. john who was a Virgin, whereof he yielded this probable reason, that respect was had to the age of them both, because Peter was a man of years, and john very young; and therefore to avoid murmuration against john himself (which would have happened in case he being the youngest of them all should have been made their head) Peter was worthily preferred before him. Why S. Peter was preferred by our Saviour to the supremacy before S. Io●n. This is briefly the substance of S. Hieromes discourse in that place. Whereby it is evident that he notably confirmeth our Catholic doctrine concerning the Supremacy of S. Peter, acknowledging him to be made the head as well of S. john, as of all the rest. 30. And to the end that M. Andrews may evidently see that S. Hierome did not impugn, or disallow this proposition, the Church is founded upon Peter (but rejected only the false consequent that jovinian drew thereon, against the merit of Virginity) I wish him to read S. Hieromes Commentary upon the 16. Chapter of S. Matthew, and particularly upon these words of our Saviour, super hanc petr●m aedifi●abo Ecclesiam meam etc. upon this rock will I build my Church etc. where he shall see that the proposition, which jovinian objected, S. Hier. in 16. cap. Matth. is also the clear, and express doctrine of S. Hierome, who saith thus in the person of our Saviour to S. Peter: Because thou Simon hast said to me, thou art Christ the Son of God, S. Peter● supremacy acknowledged by S. Hierome, and grounded upon our saviours own● word●. I also say to thee (not with a vain, or idle speech that hath no operation, or effect) sed quia meum dixisse fecisse est, but because my saying is a doing (or making) therefore I say unto thee, thou art Peter (or a Rock) and upon this rock I will build my Church. As Christ being himself the light, granted to his disciples that they should be called the light of the world, so to Simon who believed in Christ the Rock, he gave the name of Peter (that is to say, a Rock) and according to the metaphor of a Rock it is truly said to him, I will build my Church upon thee. 31. Thus far S Hierome, teaching expressly that Christ built his Church upon Peter, Idem ep. a● Marcella●● ep. 54. which also he teacheth in divers other places, as in an Epistle to Marcelia, where he hath these words, Petrus super quem Dominus fundavit Ecclesiam etc. Peter upon whom our Lord founded his Church; and in another Epistle to Pope Damasus he affirmed the same, not only of him, but also of the chair of Peter saying: Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae, id est Cathedrae Petri, Ibid. ep. 5●. communione consocior: super illam Petram, aedificatam Ecclesiam scio; I following no first, or chief but Christ, Li. 1. contra Ioui●. do communicate with thy Beatitude, that is to say, with the chair of Peter; upon that Rock I know the Church is built. Finally in the self same book against jovinian, where he answereth the former objection, he calleth S. Peter, Petram Christi, the Rock of Christ, saying: O vox digna Apostolo, & Petra Christi! O speech worthy of an Apostle, and the Rock of Christ! signifying thereby, that S. Peter was the Rock whereupon Christ built his Church. 32. So as it cannot be denied, that S. Hierome both firmly believed, and expressly taught that our Saviour built his Church upon Peter, wherein you have already (d) See before nu. 4.5. & sequent seen, that he agreeth with S. Cyprian (who wrote long before him) and with the whole Council of Chalcedon, which calleth S. Peter, Petram, & crepidinem Ecclesiae, See before cap. 2. nu. 76. the rock, and top of the Church, and rectae fidoi fundamentum, the foundation of the true faith. Besides that you may also see in Cardinal Beauties' controversies, Bellar. de Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 10. that he agreed therein with Origen, S. Athanasius, S Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Epiphanius, S. Chrysostome, S. Cyril, Tertullian, S. Hilary, S. Ambrose, S. Maximus, S. Leo, S. Gregory the Great, and other learned Fathers. 33. Whereupon it followeth that jovinian did not object the same, as his own singular opinion (which he knew well would be little esteemed, and was to be proved, and not objected) but as a matter generally acknowledged by Catholics, and that therefore he only sought to draw some consequence out of it (as out of a known principle of the Catholic faith) for the confirmation of his heresy, How shameless M. Andrews is to charge the Cardinal with jovinianisme, which he himself professeth, except he descent from his fellows of the English clergy. as all heretics do also seek to do the like, not only out of Catholic opinions, but also out of the Scripture itself. What then may we think of M. Andrews, who is not ashamed to tax the Cardinal as a follower of jovinian for teaching that the Church was built upon Peter? Can we think that he hath any conscience, or care of what he saith, especially seeing that he himself is a true scholar, and follower of jovinian, except he descent not only from Luther, Calvin and other Archsectaries his great Masters, but also from his brethren of the present English Church. 34. Ambros. ep. li. 1. ep. 6. & 7. For who knoweth not that they all hold, and teach that marriage is of equal merit with virginity and vidual continency, which is the proper heresy of jovinian, condemned for such in his own time, first by Pope Siricius, Hieronym. contra jovinian. and a Synod of Bishops held at Rome, and afterwards by another Synod held at Milan, where S. Ambrose was present? Besides that, the same is learnedly impugned, Aug. li. de bono coniug. & de virginit. and clearly confuted by S. Hierome in his books written purposely against him; as also by S. Augustine, in his treatises the Bono coniugali, & de Virginitate, which he wrote expressly for the confutation of that heresy, Idem Retract. lib. 42. cap. 22. & 23. as he testifieth himself in his Retractations, where he calleth jovinian a monster for teaching that doctrine, and registereth him for an here●tike in his Tract, and Catalogue of heresies, as well for that opinion, Idem. de haeres. ad Quoduul●. haer. 82. as for impugning the custom, and use of the Catholic Church, in fasting, and abstinence from certain meats wherein also the forenamed sectaries of our days and the English Church at this present, and consequently M. Andrews himself (except he will disclaim from all his brethren) do follow jovinian. Whereto I might add other heresies of his taught by many Archsectaries of our time (wherein, Aug. ubi sup. & Ser. 191. de temp. it may be, M. Andrew's hath his share amongst the rest) as that merits, and rewards of the lust are equal; and that the corporal virginity, and integrity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, was corrupted, and lost by the birth of our Saviour. 35. All which opinions being heresies of jovinian, and registered for such by S. Augustine, Idem. de haeres. haer. 82. have been revived in these our days, partly by Luther, and Calvin, and partly by the Magdeburgenses, Bucer, Molinaeus, and others, Bellar de notis Eccles. l. 4. cap. 9 as Cardinal Bellarmine showeth out of their own works, in his controversies. Therefore I remit it now to the judgement of the indifferent Reader, who is the follower of jovinian, the Cardinal, or M. Andrew's, and his fellows? seeing that the Cardinal holdeth nothing else with jovinian, but only that Catholic doctrine which jovinian held, and professed together with S. Hierome, and all other Fathers of his time (as all heretics have always agreed with Catholics in some points) and condemneth all those heresies wh●ch the Father's aforesaid, and the whole Church of their time condemned in him, and his followers, whereas M. Andrews, and his fellows expressly profess, and teach those very heresies, for th● which jovinian, and his followers were by the ancient Fathers censured, and condemned as monstrous heretics, as hath been before declared: so that I think of this there can be no further controversy. The answer of M. Andrews to the place of S. Hierome examined. 36. Now then let us proceed with the examination of what he saith further to the place of S. Hierome alleged by the Cardinal, which is this: Propterea inter duodecim etc. Therefore amongst twelve one is chosen's that a head being appointed, the occasion of schism may be taken away: whereto he answereth thus: Inter duodecim unum eligi etc. that one be chosen amongst twelve, or some number which some one man may be able to govern, Andr cap. 8. pag. 219. § Hieronymus. and provide for, or else to take away schism, who doth forbid a head to be chosen? or so much power to be given him, as may suffice for the end, or purpose for the which he was ordained? But the question is how far that power, and that number extendeth, lest the head become caput heteroclitum (an extravagant head, or a head out of course) and not so much the occasion of schism taken away, Four things to be noted in M Andrews his answer. as an occasion given of tyranny. So he, all which I beseech thee, good Reader, well to note, and particularly that he granteth these points following: The first, that S. Peter was chosen head of the Apostles: the second, that a head is necessary for avoiding of schism: the third, that the same head is to have as much authority as is convenient for the end for which he is ordained; and the fourth that of all this there is no question, for that the question is (saith he) concerning the power of the head, how far it extendeth, and how great may be the number that he is to govern. 37. But if M. Andrews consider well what he granteth, M. Andrews large grant, concerning the primacy of S. Peter. he may consequently decide the question, or doubt that he maketh, and shall see that he hath granted as much in effect as we teach, or demand con●cerning the authority of S. Peter, and his successors. For if S. Peter were made head of all the Apostles to whom Christ left the government of his Church, it cannot be denied, but that he was made head of the Church; for who is head of any common wealth, but he that is head of all those that have the administration, charge, and government of it? And if the reason why he was ordained head of the Apostles, was to avoid and prevent the danger of schism, it must needs be granted, that so long as the same cause, and reason (I mean the danger of schism) continueth in the Church, What followeth of M. Andrews hi● grant. so long also the remedy is to continue therein; and that the greater the danger is, the more necessary also is the remedy; whereupon it followeth that seeing the danger of schism doth, and ever shall continue in the Church, the remedy also of one head is ever to continue. And for as much as the danger of schism in the Apostles time was not so great (they being all of them most holy men, One ●ead more necessary now in the Church then in the Apostles time, and why and particularly guided by the holy Ghost) as it is, and● always hath been ever since. Therefore the remedy of one head which our Saviour ordained for the same, is more necessary now, than it was in their days, yea and was more specially intended by his divine providence for all ensuing ages after the Apostles time, then only during their li●es. Psal. ●7. & 8●. Isa. 61. 38. Moreover it being evident in the holy Scriptures that our Saviour planted his Church to stand to the world's end, it were absurd to say that he ordained that form of government under one head to last only during the Apostles time, Matt●● 16. & ult. Luc. 1. Ephes. 4. as though he had less care of the unity of his Church in future ages then in the beginning when (as I have said) the danger of schism should be far less, than it would be afterwards. Therefore I conclude that seeing S. Peter was made head of the Apostles, Our saviours providence in the conservation of the Roman Church when all other Apostlicall Churches have failed. and consequently of the whole Church, to avoid schism, M. Andrews can not deny the same authority to S. Peter's successors for the same reason; especially seeing that our saviours providence therein is evident (to the very eye of every man that list not to be wilfully blind) in that he hath permitted the succession of all the Apostles to fail in all the Churches where they governed, excepting only the succession of S. Peter in the Roman Church, which he hath miraculously conserved, to make it manifest to the world, that S. Peter, and his chair (as you have heard out of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome) is the Rock whereupon he promised to build his Church, ●. Aug. in Psal. contra part. Donati. and that as S. Augustine saith: Ipsa est Petra, quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae, that is, the Rock which the proud gates of hell do not overcome. 39 Furthermore, whereas M. Andrews granteth also that a head appointed in the Church for the remedy of schism is to have so much power, as is necessary for that end, he must needs consequently grant all that power which we require, and acknowledge it in S. Peter and his successors to the same end; Power to punish & to define, necessary in the head of the Church to remedy schisms. I mean, not only a power & authority to define, & decide controversies (without the which no schism, or division concerning matter of doctrine can be conveniently compounded) but also power, and jurisdiction to punish such as do obstinately infringe and violate the vni●ty, and peace of the Church; for how can the head sufficiently remedy schism if he cannot punish those which do cause, and maintain it? and if M. Andrews will say that Christ hath therefore left authority to his Church to punish only by excommunication, and spiritual censures, I must demand of him, what remedy the head of the Church can give thereby, when his censures are contemned, and specially by an absolute Prince? shall he have then no further power to remedy the inconvenience? how then is his power such as M. Andrews himself granteth it to be, to wit quanta rei satis si●, cui constitutus est, as much as may be sufficient for the thing, for the which he was made head, that is to say, to remedy, and take away schism? 40. Whence the greatest danger of schism commonly ariseth. And who seeth not that the greatest harm that groweth to the Church by schism commonly is, when secular Princes do either raise it themselves, or maintain it in others? Shall not then the head of the Church have sufficient power to remedy this greatest danger, and mischief that can hap to the Church? Or shall he not have means as well to correct his greatest and most powerful subjects, See Supplem. cap. 1. nu. 61.62 as the least, and meanest? Then (as I have said in my Supplement) the power of the Church should be no better than a cobweb, that holdeth the little flies, and letteth go the great ones, and consequently the providence of Almighty God should be very defective, in ordaining a head to conserve his Church in unity, and not giving him sufficient power to perform it, which no wise temporal Prince would do, if he should make a Lieutenant to govern in any part of his dominions. Whereto it may be added, that the Lawyers teach, that he which granteth jurisdiction, is presumed to grant all things necessary for the execution of it; which is also conform to the Philosopher's Maxim, to wit, Qui dat esse, dat consequentia ad esse, he which giveth a being, giveth together with it all those things which are consequents thereof, or necessarily required thereto, as I have amply proved in my (b) Ibidem à nu. 60. ad nu. 67. Supplement, where I have deduced the necessity of this consequent from the very Law of (c) Ibid. nu. 67. & s●qu. nature, and light of reason. 41. Besides that, I have also declared (d) Ibid. nu. 63. & 64. there that he which hath power over the soul for the benefit thereof, Power over the soul necessarily implieth some power over the body. must needs have also power over the body, and goods, which by the very Law of nature are subject to the soul, and ordained to serve it, and therefore to be disposed by the spiritual Governor, or Pastor, so far forth, as is necessary for the salvation of the soul, in which respect the Church hath always used (and still doth) to impose not only fasting, and other bodily penance, but also imprisonments, and pecuniary mulcts upon her disobedient children, when the benefit of their souls, and the public good of the Church doth require it, which is also used by our Adversaries themselves in their Ecclesiastical discipline, who in their spiritual Tribunals, and Courts do punish the disobedient, as well by pecuniary penalties, as by corporal imprisonements. Whereupon it followeth, that when Princes (who are members of the Church) do violate the union thereof, and are incorrigible by excommunication, they may be chastised by their supreme head, or spiritual Pastor even in their temporal states, so far as shall be necessary for the good of their souls, and the benefit of the whole Church; for otherwise the head of the Church should not have that sufficient power to remedy schisms, and other inconveniences, which M. Andrews himself granteth, and it cannot indeed be denied. 42. This then being so, M. Andrews his first question, or doubt is sufficiently solved, A doubt of M. Andrews sufficiently solved. to wit, How far the power of the head, whereof S. Hierome speaketh, doth extend; that is, to the direction, government yea and chastisement (when occasion requireth) of all his inferior members, of what degree soever, and consequently of Kings and Princes, so far forth as shallbe needful for the conservation of unity in the Church; and that therefore when only excommunication will not suffice to reduce them to unity, and obedience, the head may extend his spiritual power to chastise them in their bodies, goods, and states, as far as shall be convenient for the good of souls, and the glory of God, whereto all men's temporal states, goods, lands, and lives are principally ordained. Touching the number committed to S. Peter's charge. 43. And now to come to his other question concerning the number, which this head may govern to avoid and remedy schism, let M. Andrews well ponder what he hath already granted, and of this there will be no doubt at all. For if Peter was head of the Apostles (as S. Hierome teacheth, and M. Andrews confesseth) then consequently he was head of as many in number, as were subject to them; which was no less than all the world, whereof they had the spiritual charge, and government, in which respect the Royal Prophet saith of them and their successors, pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filii etc. Psal. 44. For thy Fathers, children are borne unto thee, thou shalt ordain them to be Princes over all the earth. So saith the Prophet of the Apostles, & of Bishops who succeed them in their charge, and are therefore Princes & Governors of the Church as S. Augustine, In Psal. 44. S. Hierome, and other Fathers expound this place; which therefore is verified, especially in the Apostles, who being the Princes, and Governors of the Church, did not only plant, but also propagate throughout the world in their own time, according to the commission, and commandment of our Saviour, who said unto them: Euntes in universum mundum etc. Going into the universal world preach the Gospel to every creature; Mar. ult. which also the Royal Prophet foretold of them saying, In omnem terram exivit sonus eorum etc. Psal. 18. The sound of them went forth into all the earth, and their words into the bounds thereof. M. Andrews granting S. Peter to be head of the Apostles granteth that he was head of the whole Church. 44. Seeing then the Apostles were Governors of the whole Church, and yet subject to S. Peter, as to their head, it must needs be granted that he was supreme head, and governor of the whole Church, propagated, and dispersed throughout the world under their government; for which cause S. Chrysostome saith with great reason (not only of all the Apostles in general, that they were to have orbis terrarum curam, the charge of all the world, but also much more) of S. Peter in particular. Idem. ho. 5. in Petris Apost. & Eliant. That, Petro Apostolo orbis terrarum Ecclesiae, the Churches of all the world, and the multitudes of people were to be committed to Peter the Apostle; and therefore even in the former place, where he saith, that the Apostles were to receive of Christ the charge of the world, Idem. ho. 87. in joan. he acknowledgeth that S. Peter was Princeps Apostolorum, & vertex totius coetus, the Prince of the Apostles, and the top, or head of all their congregation, and that Christ committed unto him curam fratrum, the charge of his brethren (that is to say of the Apostles) and finally that Christ recommended unto him orbis terrarum curam, the charge of the whole world. Finally, comparing S. james the Apostle with S. Peter in the same place (by the way of objection, demanding why then james was made Bishop of Jerusalem, and not Peter) he answereth: Hunc totius orbis magistrum praeposuisse, that our Saviour preferred Peter to be the Master of the whole world, giving to understand, that whereas S. james was only Bishop of Jerusalem, and the Countries adjoining (as also the other Apostles had every one of them some part of the world allotted unto him to govern) S. Peter had the charge of the whole. 45. By all which it is evident that albeit the Apostles had the government of all the Church, yet they were but subordinate to S. Peter, who had a commission peculiar, and singular to himself, which was to have the care, charge, and government of them, as well as of all others subject to them: So that his power, and authority was wholly independent on them, whereas theirs must needs depend of him, as of their immediate head under our Saviour, whereby it may appear what an idle head M. Andrews hath, to exclude no less S. Peter then every other particular man from the government of the whole Church, M. Andrews head very idle. for no better reason, then lest he might become heterochtum cuput (an extravagant head) or perhaps prove a Tyrant, through the excess either of power, or of the number of subjects: wherein he showeth himself no less profane, then absurd, attributing as it seemeth, no force, or effect to our saviours promise of his continual assistance to his Apostles, and Church for ever: beside that he erreth grossly if he make the multitude of subjects a notice● or cause of Tyranny, Matth. 16. & ult. it being evident that the greater the number of the subjects is, A paradox of M. Andrews. the greater also is the difficulty to oppress them by Tyranny, and the greater the fear, and danger to attempt it. 46. And therefore we see more frequent tyranny in small States then in great Monarchies, Tyranny more frequent in small states then great Monarchies. and when great monarchs are Tyrants, they commonly exercise their Tyranny upon some part of their Dominions and not upon the whole, whereas a small State containing a few subjects, is easily Tyrannised universally; so that the multitude of subjects is not properly a motive, but rather a bridle to Tyranny, though it is properly a cause of schism, when they are not governed by one head, which M. Andrews acknowledgeth sufficiently, when he confesseth, M. Andrews acknowledgeth by a necessary consequent that one head is necessary for the whole Church. that one head is necessary to take away the occasion of schism amongst twelve, or some other small number: for if that be true, than the greater the number is, the greater is the danger of schism, if they have many heads independent one of another; whereupon it followeth that one supreme head is most necessary for the whole Church, consisting of an innumerable multitude of the faithful, dispersed throughout the whole world, who being all visible members of one visible body, could not possibly be conserved long in unity if they had not one visible head (whom they were all bound in conscience to obey) as I have (d) See suppl. cap. 1. nu. 81. & cap. 4. à nu. 3. ad nu. 18. showed more at large in my Supplement, even by the testimony of M. Barlow (e) Ibid. nu. 7.8. & 9 himself. 47. For which cause not only S. Cyprian (as you have heard before in this (f) num. 2.3.4. & sequent. Chapter) but also S. Hierome in this place teacheth with great reason that our Saviour made S. Peter head of the Apostles, to avoid and remedy the schisms, which might grow (not so much amongst them, as) in the whole Church; for in them (after they had received the holy Ghost) there was no danger thereof, though in the whole Church, which was to be propagated by them over the world, the danger of schism was very great, not only in their time, but also much more afterwards (as I have signified (g) nu. 37. before) in which respect it was needful to be prevented by the institution of one head over the whole Church; The conclusion concerning the place of S. Hierome. and therefore when S. Hierome answering jovinian, saith, that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles, he meaneth that he was made head of the Church, which was represented in them, as in the Governors thereof; for seeing that the objection of jovinian which S. Hierome answereth, concerned the foundation of the Church upon S. Peter, his answer must needs also concern the same: to which purpose it is to be considered, that he denieth not jovinians proposition (as I have proved (h) nu. 29. & s●qu. before) but explicateth what is t●e meaning of super Petr●m fundatur Ecclesia, signifying that it meaneth nothing else in effect, but that Peter was made head of the Apostles, which is as much so say, as that he was the foundation of the Church, or that the Church was founded upon him, because, as Cardinal Bellarmine saith very well, the foundation in a building, and the head in a politycall, or mystical body is all one: so as S. Peter being made head of the Apostles (who represented the Church as Governors thereof) he was consequently made the head, and foundation of the Church; and this being so, it appeareth that this place of S. Hierome is clear for us, and directly proveth that our Saviour made S. Peter head of the universal Church. 48. And whereas M. Andrews in his gloss upon S. Hieromes text note●h with a parenthesis, that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles (not for the keys, saith he, Andr. ubi supra. or for the foundation, which are so much esteemed at Rome, but to take away the occasion of schism) I know not w●at else he impugneth thereby, M. Andrews hath granted by consequent as m●ch as we demand concerning the supreme authority of S. Peter● but his own idle conceit: for no man saith at Rome, or any where else for aught I know, that S. Peter was made head of the Church for the keys, or for the foundation, other ways then that in receiving the keys, and being made the foundation of the Church he was made head thereof, to take away the occasion of schism. And this is S. Hi●romes doctrine, so evident, that M. Andrews himself is forced thereby to confess that S● Peter was made head of the Apostles, yea, and that he had so much power, and authority given him as was necessary for the prevention, and remedy of schism, whereupon all our doctrine concerning the Pope's authority necessarily followeth, as I have (d) See before nu● 17● 38. & sequent. showed: so that you see, he still pleadeth for us, and well deserveth his fee (if not for his good will, yet at least) for his pains in defending our cause against his will. FOUR OTHER PLACES OF THE FATHERS ARE DEBATED: And M. Andrews his Answers thereto confuted. With a Discovery of notable corruption and falsity in him: and of three manifest lies within little more than three lines. AND By occasion thereof, it is also proved, that 8. Popes who lived in S. Augustine's time, had, and exercised an universal and supreme Authority. CHAP. FOUR THOU hast seen good Reader in the last Chapter how well M. Andrews hath satisfied the cardinals objection out of S. Cyprian, and S. Hierome; and now in this Chapter I will examine his Answers to divers other places of the Fathers, namely of S. Basil, and S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Chrysostome, and S. Augustine, which albeit he pretendeth to answer together with the former; yet I have thought good to separate them, because I have alleged them separately in my Supplement. Card. Bellar. Apolo. c. 8. pag. 125 Suppl. cap. 4 nu. 15. S. Basil. in serm. de judicio Dei. Andr. cap. 8. p. 218. §. Ex Basilio. 2. First out of S. Basil, the Cardinal, an I object these words to prove the supremacy of S. Peter over the rest of the Apostles: Ille beatus qui ceteris praelatus discipulis fuit, cui claves regni caelestis commissae. That happy, or blessed (Peter) who was preferred before the rest of the disciples, to whom the keys of the heavenly Kingdom were committed etc. Hereto M. Andrews answereth thus: Ex Basilio, ceteris discipulis praelatum Petrum, sed an ut esset Monarcha? etc. The Cardinal objecteth out of S. Basil that Peter was preferred before the rest of the Disciples; but was it to the end that he should be a Monarch? is there no other prelacy but of a Monarchy? he was preferred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the testimony (that was given him by Christ) as Basil hath there, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, blessedness: add also (if you will) that he was preferred in order, and place; the King doth also attribute the same unto him, yea that he may be the Prince of Apostles, yet without a Monarchy. Thus saith M. Andrews to the first part of S. Basils' place: whereto I will say somewhat before I add the rest. here than you see he granteth that S. Peter was preferred before the rest of the Apostles in order, and place, yea and that he was the Prince of the Apostles, and forsooth no Monarch. How S. Peter may be said to be a Monarch. 3. But if we consider what he hath granted in the last Chapter, we shall find that he must needs acknowledge him to be a Monarch, how much soever he mislike the word: for if a Monarch do signify him that is one chief Prince, and supreme head or governor of others, not for his own particular benefit, but for the public and general good of those whom he governeth (for so is a Monarch distinguished from a Tyrant) he cannot with any reason deny S. P●ter to be the Monarch, that is to say, the supreme Prince, and head of the Church, whom he acknowledgeth together with S. Hierome to have been made by our Saviour, head of the Apostles, to prevent and remedy schism, and to have had not only the precedence of place, and order (as now he saith) but also so much power as suffyced, for the conservation of Unity in the Church, whereupon followeth all that power, Chap. 3. nu. 39.40. & 41. and authority which we do attribute to S. Peter, and his successors, as I have declared briefly in the last Chapter. 4. For S. Peter having by this commission of our Saviour, authority to ordain, command, and punish as far as was necessary for the good of the Church, it must needs be granted that he had the power and authority of a Monarch: and although M. Andrews had not been forced by ●he evidence of S. Hieromes testimony to grant it, yet this very place of S. Basil which he pretendeth here to answer, doth prove it sufficiently, signifying as much in effect as S. Hierome teacheth; seeing that S. Basil not only saith that Peter was preferred before the rest of the Disciples, but also declareth wherein, that is to say (not in place and order only, but) in authority also, and jurisdiction; adding, cui claves Regni caelestis commissae sunt, to whom (to wit Peter) the keys of the heavenly Kingdom were committed; giving to understand, that he had by this particular commission of the keys, a particular jurisdiction more than the rest, in respect whereof he was Boatus, happy, or Blessed, and preferred before the rest. Andr. ubi supra. A vain cavil of M. Andrews. 5. Whereby it may appear how vainly M. Andrews seeketh to elude the force of this place, by that which he addeth, saying, Name claves ei commissas quis dubitat etc. for who doubteth that the keys were committed to him, but whether the same was done in his person, or in the person of the Church, Basil doth not declare here, but Augustine doth in many places. So he: as though S. Basil did not sufficiently explicate himself, and show that S. Peter had by the keys a greater jurisdiction than the other Apostles, for else to what purpose did he add, that the keys were committed to him, but to show how, and wherein he was Blessed, and preferred before the rest? And whereas M. Andrews saith, that Augustine declareth in many places, that the keys were given him in the person of the Church, and not in his own, I have sufficiently showed the vanity of this evasion in the first (c) Cap. 1. nu. 3.4. & 5. Chapter of this Adjoinder, where I have evidently proved out of S. Augustine himself that S. Peter received the keys, and Pastoral authority for the Church, no otherwise, but as the supreme head, and Governor thereof, in which respect he represented the person of the whole Church, wherein consisteth his pre-eminence, & preferment before the rest, whereof S. Basil speaketh. So that you see M. Andrews hath said nothing to any purpose in answer of the place of S. Basil. 6. Now then let us see what he saith to a place of S. Gregory Nazianzen objected as well by the (a) Card. Bellar. Apolog. ubi supra. Cardinal as by (b) Suppl. cap. 4. nu. 10. S. Greg. Nazianzen orat. de moderate. etc. me: Vides (saith he) quemadmodum etc. Thou seest how amongst the Disciples of Christ (all of them truly great, and high, and worthy to be chosen) this, to wit Peter, is called a Rock, and hath the foundations of the Church committed to his charge etc. Andr. ubi supra. Thus saith this ancient and holy Father: whereto M. Andrews answereth thus: Ex Nazianzeno, Petrum & joannem aliquo prae ceteris privilegio donatos etc. Out of Nazianzen (he objecteth) that Peter, and john had some privilege more than the rest: Peter that he had a new name taken from a Rock, and that john was beloved more than the rest, and might lain upon Christ's breast, and the rest of the Apostles did not take it ill; what was there here singular in Peter more than in john? and therefore there is either here no Primacy, or else a double Primacy. So he. 7. Wherein thou mayst easily see, A place of S. Gregory Nazian. explicated and urged. good Reader, how he paltreth and juggleth, if thou notest well the objection, and how he answereth it, partly dissembling those very words which most import, and partly seeking to blind the Readers eyes with the mention of a privilege given to S. john, which indeed is also related in that place by S. Gregory Nazianzen, but nothing at all preiudiceth the far greater privilege of S. Peter, I mean his supreme authority signified by S. Gregory in the words objected by the Cardinal. For when S. Gregory saith, that Peter was called a Rock, and had Ecclesiae fundamenta fidei suae credita, the foundations of the Church committed to his charge, what else doth he affirm therein, but that the Church was built upon Peter, as upon a Rock; and that the charge, or government thereof was given more particularly to him then to the rest. For if M. Andrews will say here (as he is wont) that they were all foundations and governors of the Church alike, why was he called a Rock more than they? or what was the privilege of Peter whereof Nazianzen speaketh here, according to M. Andrews his own confession, who granteth that Nazianzen testifieth that Peter and john were aliquo privilegio prae ceteris donati, privileged in some things above the rest? 8. Therefore if M. Andrews will allow any particular privilege to S. john's layning upon Christ's breast, as he must needs do (for I think he will not be so absurd to say that the same is also to be understood of all the rest) he must needs grant that Peter had also a particular privilege not only in the name of a Rock, but also in that which was signified thereby, that is to say, in that the foundations of the Church were committed particularly to his charge (as Nazianzen speaketh) by which Metaphor he signifieth sufficiently that S. Peter was made supreme Governor of the Church, as hath been declared heretofore, and therefore those words of Nazianzen (atque Ecclesiae fundamenta fidei suae credita habeat) wherein consisteth the force of the objection, seemed to M. Andrews as sore as a bile, and not to be touched in his answer, though he set it down in his margin together with the rest of the cardinals text. 9 But what shall we say of his absurd inference or conclusion, M. Andrews impertinent trifling. when he saith, that because a privilege was given to john, as well as to Peter, therefore there was either nullus, or duplex primatus, a double primacy, or none at all? Shall we think so great a Doctor, as M. Andrews, to be so simple, as not to see how impertinently he try fleth therein? For what coherence is there betwixt those two privileges whereby he should make that inference in them both? especially seeing that he himself will, I am sure, deny one part thereof (to wit the double primacy) no less than we, and the other part is also sufficiently contradicted, not only by S. Hierome, but also by himself, as I have showed amply in the last Chapter, where I have declared, how S. Hierome answered jovinians objection, that the Church was founded upon Peter, and not upon john, by occasion whereof S. Hierome teacheth, that although john was more favoured and beloved of our Saviour then the rest of the Apostles for his Virginity, yet Peter was preferred before him in the primacy, being made head of them all to take away the occasion of schism, and thereby overthroweth this his inference of a double primacy or none. 10. For if Peter were head of the Apostles, he was also head of the Church, and consequently there was one primate, or head, and not two, notwithstanding that john layned upon Christ's breast, and was more beloved of Christ then the rest; so as M. Andrews doth notably contradict himself; besides that he argueth as wisely, as if he should say that when his Majesty showeth more particular favour, and affection to any man then to my L. of Canterbury, he maketh either two Primates of England, or none at all. Whereby thou mayst see (good Reader) what an absurd, and as I may term it, a sleeveles answer he hath made here to the place of S. Gregory Nazianzen. 11. After this there followeth another place of the Cardinal, Suppl. cap. 4. nu. 15. Card. Apol. ubi supra. taken out of S. Chrysostome, which I have also objected in my Supplement. The words laid down by the Cardinal are these: Sanctus joannes Chrysostomus ho. 55. in Matthaeum etc. S. Chrysost● ho. 55. in Matth. S. john Chrysostome in his 55. homily upon Matthew saith: (Christ) made Peter Pastor of his future Church. And a little after: God alone can grant that the future Church shall remain immovable, notwithstanding so many, and so great waves (of persecution) violently bre●● in upon it: of which Church a fisherman, and of mean parentage is the Pastor and head etc. here we read expressly, that Peter was head of the Church. Thus far the Cardinal. 12. Hereto M. Andrews answereth thus: Ex Chrysostomo, Cuius Pastor & caput homo piscator etc. Andr. cap. 8. pag. 219. Out of Chrysostome he objecteth thus, Whereof the Pastor, and head was a fisherman: but these words (whereof the pastor, and head) are crept into the text, and added in the Latin in favour of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (he meaneth the Pope) for they are not in the Greek, where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fisherman, but the word head appeareth no where, nor in that place so much as Pastor, albeit no man will deny that Peter was pastor of the Church, yea, and a chief or principal pastor, but yet a pastor together with other Pastors his fellow-Apostles, and not alone without others &c. So he: wherein you see he taketh exception to the words cuius pastor & caput, which he saith are not in the Greek. Whereto I answer, that put the case they be not now in the Greek copies which M. Andrews hath seen, yet it little importeth, seeing that the latin translator found them (as it is most probable) in the Greek copy which he followed, and that S. Chrysostome saith as much in effect, as well in the same homily, as in other places. 13. Whereby it is evident that it is conform to his doctrine, and not added in favour of the Pope, as M. Andrews would have his Reader to suppose. For S. Chrysostome saith in the same homily: Petrus Apostolorum os & vertex, Chrysost. ubi supra. cum omnes interrogati essent, solus respondit etc. Peter the mouth & head of the Apostles, when they were all asked, answered alone etc. In which words S. Chrysostome doth plainly acknowledge S. Peter to be head of the Church, seeing that he called him head of the Apostles. And in the same place alleged by the Cardinal, having said, that a poor fisherman (by the power, Idem ibid. and virtue of Christ's grant) surpasseth in strength a●d solidity the nature of the diamond, he preferreth him far before Hieromy the Prophet, saying; that whereas Almighty God made Hier●my like a pillar of iron, and a brazen wall, and gave him power, and authority over one Nation, hunc autem universo terrarum orbi Christus praeposuit, Christ gave him (to wit Peter) power, and authority over the whole world. So he. 14. And because, M. Andrews will be like here to fly to his common place, and to say, that all the Apostles had power, and authority over the whole world, as well as S. Peter, and that therefore this comparison of him with Hieremy proveth not, that he had any more authority than the rest of the Apostles, M. Andrews must consider that S. Chrysostome cannot here mean that his authority over the whole world was no other, then that which the other Apostles had, seeing he hath taught before in the same homily that he was their head; and I think M. Andrews will not be so absurd to say that the authority of the head, and of the members is all one: besides that S. Chrysostome teacheth most clearly else where, that S. Peter was head not only of the Apostles, but also of the whole Church, as it may appear by that which I have alleged out of him to that purpose, both in the first, and also in the precedent Chapter of this Adjoinder. 15. Whereto I will now add a most clear testimony thereof, out of his learned Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles, where discoursing upon the election of Mathias the Apostle in the place of judas, and particularly upon those words, Et in diebus illis surgens Petrus, he noteth not only the favour of Peter, but also his authority over the rest, as over the flock committed to his charge. quam est feruidus, saith he, quam agnoscit creditum à Christo gregem etc. How fervent is Peter, how well doth he acknowledge the flock committed to him by Christ! Lo how he is Prince in this company or congregation, and every where beginneth first to speak etc. 16. And again afterwards prosecuting the same matter, Idem. ho. 3. in Acta Apost. he saith: Quid? an non licebat ipsi eligere? Licebat & quidem maxim etc. What? and was it not lawful for him to choose (Mathias?) Yes truly it was most lawful, but he did it not, because he would not seem to gratify any. Also again after a while, he saith thus, Primus hic Doctorem constituit etc. he (to wit Peter) did first here make a Doctor; A notable discourse of S. Chrysostome proving S. Peter's Supremacy. he said not, we are sufficient to teach &c. quamquam autem habebat ius constituendi par omnibus, tamen haec congruenter fiebant etc. Albeit he had as much authority to appoint him as they all, yet this was done very conveniently. So he, giving to understand, that notwithstanding Peter's absolute power to choose Mathias himself alone, yet out of prudence he determined rather to do it by the general consent of all the Apostles, which he also signified no less plainly afterwards in these words: Meritò primus omnium etc. he doth worthily first of all the rest use, or exercise his authority in this business, as one that had all the rest in his hand, or power, for to him Christ said: & tu aliquando conversus, confirma fratres tuos, and thou being sometime converted, confirm they brethren. 17. All this saith S. Chrysostome, concerning the the election of Mathias the Apostle, whereby it appeareth plainly, that he held S. Peter to be head of the Apostles, and of the whole Church, seeing he teacheth not only that he was the Prince in that Congregation, but also that he had as much authority, to make an Apostle, as they all, and might have done it of himself (if he had thought it fit, and convenient) because he had them all in his hand. So as it is clear, that when S. Chrysostome in the 55. homily upon Matthew (which the Cardinal allegeth) calleth S. Peter verticem Apostolorum, the head of the Apostles, and saith that Christ made him power of the Church, and that he gave him authority over the whole world, he meaneth, and teacheth manifestly that he was supreme head, and Pastor of the universal Church: which is the same in substance, and effect, that those words, Cuius pastor & caput, do signify. 18. Therefore the doctrine being S. Chrysostom's, as well in that homily alleged by the Cardinal as else where, and the words also themselves (which perhaps may be wanting in some Greek copy) being extant, as they are cited by the Cardinal, in all our Latin translations, it is but a vain shift of M. Andrews to say, that they are thrust into the Latin in favour of the Pope, it being more probable (as I have said) that they were in the old Greek copies, which the Latin translators followed, and that either the Grecians themselves in the time of their schism from the Roman Church, or perhaps some of our late heretics (who have taken upon them to print the Greek in these days) have purposely left out the same, in hatred of the supreme authority of S. Peter, and his successors. But howsoever it is, you see the doctrine of S. Chrysostome is clear to the purpose that those words (which M. Andrew's saith are not in the Greek) do import: and this sufficeth to prove by the testimony of S. Chrysostome, that S. Peter was supreme Pastor and head of the universal Church. A stale trifling conceit touching the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 again brought in by M. Andrews 19 And as for M. Andrews his stale, and trifling devise to call the Pope 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (alluding to the name of the beast in the Apocalyps, according to the interpretation of Irenaeus, as he would have his Reader to suppose, albeit he use it far otherwise then Irenaeus meant it, who applied it only to the temporal Empire, and not to the Roman Sea) I willingly omit it, as not pertaining to the place of S. Chrysostome whereof I now specially treat, and therefore do remit him for his satisfaction in that point to Cardinal Bellarmine's controversies, Bellar. de Rom. Pon. lib. 3. cap. 10. §. Secunda opinio. where the same is so sufficiently answered, that he, and his fellows may be ashamed still to repeat it, and not to impugn the manifold, and solid reasons which the Cardinal 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 answer thereto saith, that no man will deny that Peter was Pastor of the Church, yea and a principal pastor, sed cum aliis pastorem coapostolis suis, non solum sine aliis, A dreaming fancy of M. Andrews. but Pastor together with other his fellow Apostles, and not alone without others; I think he was in a dream when he wrot● it, impugning no man therein for aught I know. For I never 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, Chap. 3. n●. 39.40. & 41. albeit we teach with S. Chrysostome, and others, as you have heard, that they were subordinate to him, as to the supreme pastor, and their head; Card. Bell. Apolog. ubi supra. Supple. chap. 4. which also M. Andrews himself doth acknowledge sufficiently, as I have showed amply in the last Chapter. And this I hope may suffice concerning S. Chrysostome. 21. There remaineth now only S. Augustin of the 4. Aug. Ser. 124. feriae● 4. post Domin. Palma. Father's alleged by the Cardinal and myself for the proof of S. Peter's Primacy: his words are these: Totius corporis morbum in ipso capite curat Ecclesiae etc. he (to wit Christ) cureth the disease of the whole body in the very head of the Church, & compoundeth the health of all the members, in ipso vertice (that is to say) in the very crown, or top of the head: Thus saith S. Augustin: whereupon the Cardinal saith: Andr. ubi sup. Sanctus Augustinus apertè vocat S. Petrum caput corporis Ecclesiae. S. Augustine doth planily call S. Peter head of the body of the Church. M. Andrew's bold assertion without all proof. To this M. Andrew's saith thus: Concludít testes suos cum Augustino, non Augustino, cuius tempore non fiebant Sermones de tempore. He (to wit the Cardinal) concludeth his witnesses with an Augustine, who is not Augustin; in whose time there were not made any Sermons de tempore. So he, taking exceptions to the authority of this allegation, because in S. Augustins time (as he would have us suppose) there was no such custom in the Church, to make Sermons de tempore (that is to say of the ordinary feasts that do occur throughout the course of the year) and that therefore the Author of those Sermons de tempore, out of the which the Cardinal taketh this place, could not be S. Augustins, but of some other later writer, who set them out in S. Augustins name. 22. But now if you ask how M. Andrews proveth that there were no Sermons de tempore in S. Augustins time, you must take his bare word for a proof, for you neither have, nor are like to hear any other of him. But for the trial of this matter I must remit thee, good Reader, to some better, and more authentical witnesses then M. Andrew's, namely to Possidius a learned Bishop, who being a familiar friend of S. Augustin forty years together (as he signifieth himself) wrote his life, Possidius in vita Augustin. Indic. Possid. cap. 9 & 10. and making a Catalogue of his works doth mention amongst the rest divers Sermons, or Treatises of his made of some of the principal feasts of the year, as of Christmas, Ascension, Pentecost, Lent, and 23. Tracts, or Sermons per Vigilias Paschae, in the eves of Easter (whereof by all likelihood this very Sermon was one, being made on the Wednesday before Easter:) whereto may be added also divers other particular feasts of Saints, mentioned in like manner by Possidius, as namely the Nativity of S. john Baptist, of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul, Ibidem. 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 convince M. Andrews of great ignorance, or malice in that he denieth that there were any Sermons de tempore, in S. Augustins tyme. Sermons were made de tempore both in the Latin● and in the Greek Church in S. Augustins tyme. 23. For although it is like enough that neither S. Augustin, nor any other Father of that age, wrote any work under the title of Sermons de tempore (but that such sermons being made at divers times, and dispersed in divers parts of their works, have been since their days gathered into one volume, and set out under that title for the ease, and commodity of the Readers) yet no man that hath been conversant in the Fathers can be ignorant that such were usually made both in the Latin and in the Greek Church in S. Augustins time; Ambros. To. 5. Serm de tempore. which may evidently appear (besides the testimony of Possidius aforesaid) by the works of S. Ambrose, wherein there are Sermons upon almost all the great feasts from Aduent to Pentecost: S. Maximus. and in the same time lived also S. Maximus Bishop of Turin, who wrote divers homilies upon the principal feasts of the year, Gennadius de viris Illustrib. as testifieth Gennadius a famous writer of that age, whereof I shall have occasion to speak further hereafter. Besides that it cannot be denied that the like custom was also in the Greek Church in those days, Gregor. Nyssen. seeing that we find in S. Gregory Nissen (who was S. Basils' brother) divers Orations made upon the feasts of the Nativity of our Saviour, Gregor. Nazian. S. Stephen, Easter, and the Ascension; And others also in S. Gregory Nazianzen upon the feasts of Easter, Chrysost. To. 3. Pentecost, the Nativity of Christ, the Epiphany (which amongst the greeks was called Sancta Lumina.) In like manner divers homilies in S. Chrysostom of the fifth feria in Passion week, and of the Resurrection, and Ascension of our Saviour, and of Pentecost, besides divers others of particular Saints, as S. Fulgentius S● Augustine's schooler, and others. So that this exception of M. Andrews to the authority of this place of S. Augustin is tooto cold, and frivolous, and far unworthy of a man that professeth to have read the ancient Fathers, and therefore truly he had reason to seek out another answer that might be of some more weight, which he frameth in these words: Sed nec si tempori cedamus, hic tamen testis satis in tempore venit etc. Andr. ubi supra. But though we should yield to time (he meaneth that albeit we should grant that Sermons were made de tempore in those days) yet this witness cometh out of time, or season, & very unluckily, who doth not tell us of any other head but of a sickly head, nor of any other crown of a head, but a crazed, M. Andrews raving fit. or cracked, crown, which therefore might very well have been passed with silence. 24. Thus raveth M. Andrews, having his head so crazed with the frenzy of heresy, that he uttereth such brainsick, and idle stuff, as this, which truly no man that were well in his wits, would utter to the purpose he doth, that is to say, to prove that S. Peter was not head of the Church. For else why doth he say it? seeing that the Cardinal citeth this place to no other end, but to prove that S. Peter was head of the Church, S● Peter's fall no prejudice to his Primacy. and therefore M. Andrews giving this for his second answer (having as you have seen great reason to mistrust the former) must needs conclude thereupon, that S. Peter was not head of the Church. But how doth it follow, that because S. Peter by frailty denied our Saviour, Ergo, he was not head of the Church? Do those that hold, and teach his primacy, deny his fall? Or teach that his successors cannot also err in matter of fact, as he did, though not in definition of matters of faith? 25. Truly if M. Andrews either had a sound brain, or else were guided by the same spirit that S. Augustine and other fathers were, he would have made another manner of construction of this place than he doth, and rather have sought to confirm S. Peter's Primacy by his fall, then to impugn it thereby, for so doth S. Augustine in this place, showing that it was convenient, that almighty God should suffer him to fall, because he was to be the governor and head of the Church, which S. Augustine teacheth expressly in these words. 26. Ideo B. Petrum paululum Dominus subdeseruit etc. S. Aug. ser. 124. de temp. Our Lord did therefore forsake blessed Peter for a while, to the end that all human kind might know in him, that without the grace of God it could do nothing, and thereby a rule might be given also to him (who was to be governor of the Church) to pardon sinners; for the keys of the Church were to be committed to Peter the Apostle, yea the keys of the Kingdom of heaven were recommended unto him: as also in like manner there was to be committed to his charge an innumerable multitude of people, S. Augustine teacheth that S. Peter was permitted to fall because he was to be supreme head of the Church. which in respect of the vices and passions of their nature were wrapped in sins, and offences. And again after a while: Idcirco, saith he, divinae providentiae secretum etc. Therefore did the secret of God's providence so dispose, and permit, that he (to wit Peter) should himself first fail and fall into sin, that by the consideration of his own fall he might temper the rigour of his sentence towards sinners: Quantum igitur divini inuneris etc. Therefore note what great bounty, and goodness, and how much care and solicitude God showeth herein towards the salvation of man, he c●reth the disease of the whole body in the head of the Church, and compoundeth the health of all the members in the very crown of the head, & in the very top of the confession of Christ, in the very foundation of an immovable faith, that is to say, in that Peter, who said, although I should die with thee, yet I will not deny thee. 27. All this saith S Augustine, and much more to the same purpose, which I omit for brevityes sake, for that this may suffice to teach M. Andrews that S. Peter's Primacy was so far from being preiudyced by his fall, that it may rather be in some sort confirmed thereby, seeing it appeareth, that it was convenient in respect of his Primacy, that he should fall for the benefit that should ensue thereof, The same also taught by S. Chrysostome. as well to himself, as to the Church which is also the express doctrine of S. Chrysostome, who having said, that Orbis terrarum Ecclesiae etc. the Churches of the whole world, S. Chrysost. hom. in S. Petrum & Eliam. and the multitudes of people were to be committed to his charge. And having also called him Apostolorum verticem, the head of the Apostles, the immovable foundation, the steedfast rock, the pillar of Churches, and master of the whole world, he addeth, Peccare permissus est etc. he was suffered to sin, for this cause chiefly, because the multitude of people was to be committed unto him, lest he being severe and innocent might be unwilling to pardon the offences of his brethren. S. Greg. ho. 21. in evangel. So he: to whom I may also add S. Gregory the Great, who maketh the same construction of S. Peter's fall that these two other Fathers do, affirming that God suffered him to fail, quem praeferre cunctae Ecclesiae disposuerat, whom he had determined to make governor of all the Church, that he might learn by his own frailty to have compassion of other sinners. 28. And to the end M. Andrew's may see that S. Augustine doth also else where plainly acknowledge the Primacy of S. Peter notwithstanding his fall; Another place of S. Augustine acknowledging S. Peter's supremacy notwithstanding his fall. See Andr. cap. 1. pag. 16. lin. 17. he shall do well to read a place alleged by himself in his first chapter, to prove that S. Peter had nothing peculiar to himself by his pastoral commission; which place if he had laid down at large (as he curtolled, and maimed it after his manner) it might have sufficed to convince him, as well in the matter for the which he produced it, as also in this. For there S. Augustin having taught that S. Peter receiving the keys, & the commission of Pastor, represented the person of the Church, inferreth that the Church ought to pardon repentant sinners, seeing that Peter bearing the person of the Church was pardoned when he had denied his master. Aug. de agone Christ. cap. 30. 29. Wherein S. Augustine not only deduceth a pious document out of S. Peter's offence (as you see he doth in the other place) but also acknowledgeth sufficiently his supreme Dignity, See before Chap. 1. nu. 3.4. & 5. teaching that he bore the person of the Church, which he did no otherwise, but as he was supreme head, and Governor thereof, as I have declared at large in the first Chapter of this Adjoinder, where I have laid down the words of S. Augustine, Cyril. in cap. ult. joan. and discovered M. Andrews his fraud more particularly, Vbi supra nu. 23. & 24. and produced also a clear testimony of S. Cyril concerning the Primacy of S. Peter (whom he calleth Principem & Caput Apostolorum: the Prince & head of the Apostles) though he do there grant his fall which he saith happened by human infirmity, Bellar. de Rom. Pont li. 1. c. 25. whereof M. Andrews cannot be ignorant, seeing he citeth also that place of S. Cyril, no less than the other of S. Augustin, though with greater fraud, as I have also showed in the first Chapter. 30. Finally I may add to these, those other testimonies which I have now lastly examined, and debated with M. Andrew's out of S Cyril, S. Hierome, S Basil, and S. Chrysostome, as also the rest of that grand jury of 24. Fathers, Greeks, and Latins alleged by Cardinal Bellarmine in his controversies to prove the supreme authority of S. Peter over the Apostles, all which most learned, and ancient Fathers, being the lights of the Church, knew as well as M. Andrews, that S. Peter had denied our Saviour, and yet nevertheless did not take the same to be any prejudice to his Supremacy. Whereupon I conclude, that if their heads were sound, then M. Andrews his head must needs be very sick and crazed, seeing his sense, and judgement is so far different from theirs, as to seek to overthrow, or disprove S. Peter's Primacy by his fall, and to speak of him so contemptibly, and opprobriously, as he doth. 31. But will you hear how well he mendeth the matter? Mark him well, I pray you, and you shall see that as his head hath been hitherto somewhat cracked, so now he is become wholly distracted, talking as idly, as if he were more fit for Bedlam then for a Bishopric. For having said, as you have heard before, that this testimony of S. Augustine was unluckily produced by the Cardinal, because it giveth us notice of no other head, but of a sickly head (to wit S. Peter) and that therefore it might very well have been pretermitted, he goeth forward thus: O caput elleboro dignum! Praesertim cum eùmdem morbum in capite vestro notarint diu iam medicorum filii. et si omnes non ego, id est, plus ego quam omnes: especially seeing that the physicians children have now a long time noted the same disease in your head, although all not I, that is to say, I more than all. Thus saith he, so mystically I assure you, that he seemeth to propound a riddle, and therefore may do well to explicate his meaning, and let us know who were those Physicians, and their children that have noted the same disease in our head. The later heretics do follow the old. 32. Nevertheless for as much as it may be presumed, that by the children he meaneth Luther, Calvin, Beza and himself, with other Sectaries of this age, we may also make a reasonable conjecture who were the Physicians, seeing that we are not ignorant that the true progenitors of all the Sectaries aforenamed, were divers old heretics, whose heresies they have revived; namely the (b) Aug. de Vnit. E●cl. ca 12. Donatists, whose doctrine they profess concerning the fall of the visible Church; (c) Epiphan. haer. 75. Aerius whom they follow in denying Sacrifice for the dead; (d) Hieron advers. Vigilant. Vigilantius with whom they impugn the reverend use of relics; (f) Idem. contra jovin. jovinian who taught divers points of their belief touched particularly in the last (g) See before chap. 3. nu. 34. & 35. Aug. de utilitate credendi cap. 17. Chapter, and other arch-heretics condemned by the Church in ancient time, who (as S. Augustine witnesseth) used also to bark (though in vain) against the Sea Apostolic, no less than these their children do. 33. But although we may guess who were the Physicians, and their children, yet it will not be so easy to conjecture what he meaneth by etsi omnes non ego, id est plus ego quam omnes: although all not I, that is to say, I more than all; for truly I have showed it to divers, and have not found two that agree in the interpretation of it, but the most probable seemeth to be the one of two; one is, that he alludeth to the words of S. Peter, Marc. 14. Matth. 26. when he said etsi omnes scandalizati fuerint sed non ego: Although all shall be scandalised, yet not I, who nevertheless was scandalised more than they all, because he alone denied his master: which sense hath great difficulty, because it neither hath connexion with that which goeth immediately before, nor is truly applicable to the Pope (of whom M. Andrews seemeth there to treat) but is only contumelious to S Peter (being a taunting kind of exprobration of his fall) and therefore me thinks M. Andrews should not admit it to be his meaning, as savouring too much of impiety. 34. The other sense is, that it should be referred to M. Andrews himself, and that there is some little fault in the print, I mean in the points, though not in the words, which therefore should be pointed this, & si omnes, non ego? and if all, not I? that is to say, if all have noted this disease in your head, why should not I note it? Giving to understand, that he will not yield to any of his brethren for zeal, & skill in noting the faults of Popes, but rather, plus ego quam omnes, that is to say, therein will I go beyond them all: M Andrews zeal greater than his wit. which sense hath at least some good coherence with the precedent clause and well befitteth M. Andrews his zeal to the Gospel and hatred to the Pope, and so may pass for his meaning. But whatsoever his meaning is, I cannot forbear to tell him, that seeing his brain is so intoxicated that he cannot write intelligibly, and yet will take upon him to play the Physician, and to cure the Pope's diseases, I will say to him with our Saviour Medice cura teipsum, and wish him to purge his own head, A good recipe for M. Andrews. with some good quantity of a drug called Catholicon, and a little Helleborum to restore him again to his right wits, before he presume to be the Pope's Physician, and to judge of the diseases of the head of the Church. 35. And whereas he goeth forward to show us a difference in the cure of Peter's disease, and of the diseases of his Successors, let us follow him a while, and you shall see him run as well out of his honesty, as out of his wit. For thus he saith: Sed ab eo morbo sanatum hoc caput etc. But this head (to wit S. Peter) was healed of this disease, but your head (he meaneth the Pope) neither will be healed, nor yet is curable: yet if he ever be healed, let him be the head of the Church of Rome, Three notorious lies. as he was in Augustine's time, but, let no man appeal to him from beyond the sea, or if any appeal, he is to be excommunicated by Augustine, who was far from acknowledging Zosimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus for heads of the Church, in whom nevertheless he cured the same disease. So he, which I beseech thee good Reader, well to note, and thou shalt see his conscience no less cracked than his brain, joining extreme falsity with folly, abusing the authority not only of S. Augustine, but also of the whole Council of African Bishops (though he name S. Augustin only, and none of the other) and finally uttering 3. notable lies in little more than 3. lines. The first is, that the Pope had no further authority but over his Church of Rome in S. Augustine's tyme. The second, that no man might in those days appeal to the Sea Apostolic out of afric. The third, that S. Augustine was far from acknowledging those three Popes Zosimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus to be heads of the Church, yea and that he cured S. Peter's disease in them. Of these 3. points, the first willbe fully cleared by the discussion of the second and the third. 36. First then concerning the second, whereas M. Andrews affirmeth that all Appeals from afric to Rome were forbidden by S. Augustin, Concerning the prohibition of appeals from Africa to Rome objected by M. Andrews. under pain of excommunication, we shall need no other witness to convince him, but S. Augustine himself, who teacheth the flat contrary not only in express words, but also by practice, as it will evidently appear after a while; for albeit there was a controversy betwixt the Church of afric, and the Roman Sea, in S. Augustins time, partly about appeals to Rome, and partly about the Canons of the Nicen Council, for that a Canon related by the Pope's Legate, as out of the said Council, was not found in the Copies that were then in afric (whereof the causes may be seen at large as well in Cardinal Beauties' Controversies, Bellar. de Rom. Pont l. 2. c. 25. Baron. an. 419. as in the history of Cardinal Baronius, who do fully answer all our adversaries cavils concerning the same:) albeit, I say, this controversy continued some 4. or 5. years, A controversy betwixt the Bishops of afric, & the Sea of Rome concerning the prosecution of Appeals. and grew in great part, by reason of abuses committed by some of the Pope's legates, in the rigorous, and violent execution of the Pope's sentences (which may suffice to prove the common use of Appeals from afric to Rome in those days) nevertheless it is evident that during the time of this controversy there was no prohibition of the appeals of Bishops from afric, to Rome; for that all the African Bishops agreed to continue the wont course of Appeals without innovation, until they should have answer out of Greece, concerning the Canons of the Nicen Council. 37. And when they had received the same, they were so far from excommunicating such as should appeal to Rome, or from prohibiting the same, by a Synodical Decree, that they only wrote a common letter to Pope Celestinus, wherein they did not impugn the right of Appeals to Rome, but showed their dislike of the manner, and means that had been used in the prosecution thereof. And whereas there were 3. ways used by the Sea apostolic in the prosecution, and decision of appeals, Three ways used in the prosecution & decision of appeals. the first, by calling the parties and witnesses to Rome; the second, by sending Legates to the place from whence the appeals came, with commission to hear, and determine them, sometimes with the assistance of the Bishops of that province, and sometimes without them; and the third, to remit the matter wholly to the determination of the Metropolitan, or of some Provincial Synod of the same country (as S. Gregory the great did in afric divers times, whereof I shall have occasion to lay down some examples (d) infra nu. 47.48. & 49. hereafter:) of these 3. ways I say, the African Bishops held the two former to be very inconvenient for them, but took no exception at all to the third way (which was to remit the causes to be tried at home by the Metropolitans or by Provincial Synods) & therefore the reasons which they urged, tended especially to prove that it was most convenient, & conform to the Council of Nice, that causes should be decided by the Metropolitans, and Synods of the same Country, where the controversy should rise; and this the Pope might have granted (if he had thought it convenient) and yet have reserved to himself the right of appellation, and have decided Appeals also by his commission, as it shall further appear after a while by the practice of S. Gregory. 38 But put the case, Ibid. that S. Augustine, and the Bishops of afric had required of Pope Celestinus to be quite rid of Appeals, what will M. Andrew's infer thereon? Will he say, that therefore they decreed, ut transmarinus nemo appellet, & si appellet excommunicandus, that no man appeal out of afric, and that if he do, he shallbe excommunicated? Will he infer this upon their demand, or petition? I say their petition, for that when they come to treat of that matter in their Epistle, To. 1. Concil. in Concil. Africano ca 100L. they begin it thus: Praefato debitae salutationis officio impendiò deprecamur, ut etc. The office or duty of due salutations premised, we do most earnestly beseech you, that you will not over easily give ear to such as come from hence etc. Will then M. Andrew's make no difference betwixt demands, and decrees? petitions, and prohibitions? must he not rather confess that the African Bishops acknowledged that Pope Celestinus had power to dispose appeals? For otherwise why did they rather seek satisfaction by letters to him, then resolve by some Synodical decree to exclude his authority, and to debar him from further meddling in those affairs? as it is like they would have done, had they had been persuaded that his authority in that behalf was usurped. But let M. Andrew's take the request of the African Bishops in what sense he list (I mean either for the exclusion of Appeals, or for moderation in the prosecution of them) yet he can never make good his forgery of transmarinus nemo appellet etc. it being most evident, M. Andrews his forgery. that neither these petitions of theirs, nor any Canon of the African Synods, nor yet any one word in S. Augustin did ever prohibit all Appellation from afric to Rome, or yet cause any surcease, or interruption thereof, nor yet hinder the moderate and convenient prosecution of appeals; for the proof whereof I shall not need (as I have said) to produce any other witness then S. Augustine himself, and his own practice not past 5. or 6. years before his death in the cause of a Bishop called Antony, whom he had made Bishop of Fussula. 39 It is therefore to be understood that this Antony being deprived of his Bishopric by a Synodical sentence of African Bishops (for his outrageous misdemeanours) appealed to Rome to Pope Bonifacius, S. Aug. ep. 261. The case of Antony Bishop of Fussula appealing to Rome. whereupon the Pope being moved partly with the primates letters, and partly with such other testimony as Antony had cunningly produced for his purgation, resolved to return him to his Bishopric (yet with this express condition, as S. Augustine witnesseth, if the information which he had given, were found to be true) but before it could be executed, it chanced that Pope Bonifacius died, and Celestinus succeeded him. 40. And for as much as many rumours were spread in favour of Antony, that he should be restored by the Pope's sentence, and the same executed by violence with the help of secular power, if need were (as the like had been also used in former occasions) the people of Fussula were so exasperated therewith, that they were like to fall to tumult, and conceived no small indignation against S. Augustine himself, complaining of him to the Pope, because he had made Antony their Bishop, wherewith he was so afflicted, that he wrote a most pitiful letter to Celestinus successor to Bonifacius lamenting greatly his own mishap in that he had made such an unworthy Bishop; Ibid. and recommended the decision of the case to his wife, and charitable consideration, saying thus amongst divers other things: S. Augustine his dutiful respect to Pope Celestinus. Collabora nobiscum pietate venerabilis, Domine beatissime, & debita charitate suscipiende sancte Papa etc. Most blessed Lord venerable for thy piety, and holy Pope, to be received with due charity, labour together with us, and command that all those things which are sent, be read, or related unto thee. So he. 41. And whereas Antony being deprived of the Bishopric, and remaining still with the title, had greatly urged, that seeing he had still the title of Bishop of Fussula, he ought also to have the Bishopric, Ibid. S. Augustine made instance on the other side, that the sentence given against Antony might stand, for that it was conform even to former sentences given in like cases by the Sea Apostolic, and therefore he saith: Existat exemplo ipsa Sede Apostolica iudicante, vel aliorum iudicata firmante etc. Let it serve for an example, the Sea Apostolic either judging so itself, or else confirming the judgements or sentences of others. So he, and then addeth divers examples of Bishops, who being deprived of their bishoprics retained still their title; and saith moreover thus. Ibid. Ego Fussulenses Catholicos filios in Christo meos etc. I do recommend to the benignity of the charity of your Holiness, as well the Catholic people of Fussula my children in Christ, as Antony the Bishop my son also in Christ, for that I love them both etc. Let both of them deserve your mercy; they, that they may suffer no ill, he, that he may do no ill; they, lest they may hate the very name of Catholic, if they receive no help from Catholic Bishops, especially from the Sea Apostolic against a Catholic Bishop; and he, lest he may commit so great a wickedness as to alienate those from Christ, whom he seeketh to make his own against their wills etc. Finally S. Augustine concludeth thus: Si autem membra Christi quae in illa regione sunt etc. If you do relieve the members of Christ which are in that quarter (he meaneth Fussula) from the deadly fear and sorrow wherein they live, and do comfort my old age with this merciful justice, he will reward you, as well in this present life, as in the future, who doth by you secure us in this our trouble, and hath placed you in that seat. 42. Thus wrote S. Augustine to Celestinus the Pope, and much more to the same purpose, entreating most earnestly for the people of Fussula, especially that there m●ght be no violence used to restore Antony, and therefore having signified what was reported and feared in that behalf, Ibid. he said, non sinas ista fieri per Christi sanguinem etc. suffer not these things to be done for the blood of Christ, and for the memory of Peter, who admonished the governors of Christian people not to exercise a violent dominion amongst their brethren. So he; giving a necessary advise to Pope Celestinus, though with all humility, as you see, to prevent the inconveniences that were feared, and had happened before by the indiscreet, and violent proceeding of some of the Pope's Legates in like cases. And so far was he from any meaning to oppose himself to the Pope's authority, Ibid. or to the restitution of Antony (in case the Pope should have ordained it) that he resolved for his part, as he signified, that, if he could not obtain his suit of Celestinus he would renounce his Bishopric, and retire himself to a private life, to do penance, for having been partly the cause of so great a scandal, in making Antony Bishop. 43. By all which it appeareth how far S. Augustine and other Bishops of afric, The primate of Numidia in afric approved the Appeal of Antony to Rome. were from denying the Pope's authority to admit Appeals, seeing that the primate of Numidia himself assisted Antony in his Appeal to Pope Bonifacius; and S. Augustine wrote also to Celestinus concerning the same with such submission, as you have heard, not threatening to excommunicate Antony for his Appeal to Rome (as M. Andrew's would have us to suppose, saying: si appellet, ab Augustino excommunicandus, if any man appeal he is to be excommunicated by Augustine) but most humbly, craving merciful justice, and moderation in the decision of the cause. So as we must needs say, that either S. Augustine contradicteth himself and his own actions (which is not credible) or else that M. Andrew's hath belied him in this point, as indeed he hath; and therefore he had reason not so much as to quote in his margin any place of S. Augustine for the proof, or confirmation of his assertion. 44. Nevertheless for as much as he mentioneth an excommunication threatened by S. Augustine to all such as should appeal from afric to Rome, Concil. Mileu. Can. 12. he seemeth to aim at a Canon of a Council held at Milevis, where S. Augustin was present, in which Synod it was indeed ordained under pain of excommunication, that no Priests or Deacons, or other Clergy men of the inferior sort should appeal from their own Bishops and Memetropolitans in afric to Bishops beyond the seas. And to the end M. Andrew's his cozenage may the better appear, I will set down the Canon itself, which is this: Placuit, ut Presbyteri, Diaconi, vel inferiores Clerici etc. we have ordained that Priests, deacons, and other inferior Clergymen, if in the causes which they shall have, they complain of the judgements of their Bishops, they may be heard by the Bishops their neighbours etc. And if they shall think it necessary to appeal from them, that they appeal not to any, but to the councils of afric, or to the primates of their own Provinces; Ad transmarina autem qui putaverit appellandum etc. and he that shall think it convenient to appeal to the parts beyond the seas, shall not be admitted to the communion of any within Africa. Thus saith that Canon. And who seeth not, that those words (qui putaverit appellandum etc. he which thinketh convenient to appeal) are to be referred only to those of whom the Canon expressly speaketh immediately before (to wit, M. Andrew's Transmarinus nemo. Priests, and Deacons, and other inferior Clergymen) and therefore do not any way concern Bishops, and much less exclude all Appeals, as M. Andrew's doth with his transmarinus nemo. 45. To which purpose it is to be considered that this Canon is conform to another made many years before in the great general Council of Sardica, Concil. Sard. ca 17. approved by Pope julius the first (in which Council also the Appeals of Bishops to Rome were expressly confirmed) besides that the very Council of Mil●uis in which this Canon was made, S. Aug. ep. 92. & 93. was received, and confirmed by Pope Innocentius the first, as it shall appear further after a while. So that this Canon which concerneth only the appeals of inferior Clergy men, and not of Bishops, and was admitted by the Popes themselves did not any way prejudice the right of Appeals to Rome, or the authority of the sea Apostolic; and this also may be clearly proved out of S. Augustine himself, who writing to the Donatists, and reprehending them for their temerarious presumption in excommunicating, and condemneth Caecilianus the Catholic Bishop of Carthage, advertised them with all of their folly, in that they considered not how vain their attempt was therein, and how little cause Caecilianus had to care for their sentence, seeing it was free for him to reserve his cause to the judgement of other Bishops beyond the seas, and especially of the apostolic Church, meaning there by especially the apostolic Sea of Rome, which he always called the apostolic seat, or Apostolic Chair, per antonomasiam, as it may be noted in divers places of his works (whereof I have alleged some already, and shall have occasion to allege others hereafter) insomuch that when he speaketh of the Apostolic Church, or Apostolic seat, or Apostolic chair, without naming any in particular, he speaketh undoubtedly of the Roman Church 46. And therefore he saith in the same Epistle to the Donatists that Caecilianus might well contemn the multitude of his enemies, ●. Aug. ep. 1.62. seeing that he held communion, as well with the Roman Church) in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit principatus, wherein the principality, or soveragnity of the Apoctolike chair hath always flourished) as with other Catholic countries from whence the Gospel was brought to afric etc. Moreover in the said Epistle he maketh plain distinction betwixt the Appeals of Bishops, and Priests, saying: neque enim de Presbyteris etc. S. Augustine testifieth that appeals to Rome were allowed to the Bishops of afric though prohibited to the inferour Clergy. Neither was the question here concerning Priests, or Deacons or other Clergy men of the inferior sort, but concerning our colleagues, who may reserve their cause entire, and whole to the judgement of other their colleagues, and especially of the Apostolic Churches. So he: whereby it appeareth, that albeit he signifieth that there was a restraint of Appeals of Priests, and inferior Clergy men (according to the Canon of the Council of Milevis) yet he granteth that Bishops had free liberty to appeal out of afric to the Apostolic Churches, and especially to the Roman Church, wherein (as you have heard him say before) Apostolicae Cathedrae semper viguit principatus, the sovereignty of the Apostolic chair hath always flourished. 47. And to the end it may appear, that neither the Council of Milevis, Examples of Appeals from afric to to Rome. nor yet the petition of the African Synod to Pope Celestinus, did hinder the course of appeals to Rome, or the decision of them in afric by the Pope's authority, I will conclude with some examples very notable for this purpose. The first shallbe of Lupicinus a Bishop of Mauritania in afric, restored to his seat shortly after S. Augustine's time, by the sentence of Pope Leo, S. Leo ep. 87. ad Epis. Maurit. who also sent thither a Bishop called Potentius, as his Legate, and the Bishops of afric admitted him, albeit the African Synod had requested Pope Celestinus to send no more Legates thither. 48. Another example may be of a commission sent by Pope Gregory the Great to an Agent, or officer of his in afric, S. Greg. Regist. lib. 1. ep. 82. called Hilarius, to assemble a Provincial Synod there, for the examination of a complaint made to him by two deacons Felicissimus and Vincentius, against Agentius their Bishop, in which commission order was given to Hilarius punctually to execute the sentence of the Synod. Idem ibid. lib. 10. ep. 31. & 32. Also the same Pope, having heard the complaints of certain Priests in afric against Paulinus their Bishop, committed the hearing, and decision of the cause to Victor the primate of Numidia, and Columbus, with other Bishops, giving them commission to hear and determine it amongst themselves, Ibid. lib. 10. ep. 8. except they should think the assistance of his officer Hilarius needful for the better determination of the cause. Ibid. ep. 35. In like manner a complaint being exhibited to the said Pope by Donadeus a Deacon, against Victor his Bishop, he deputed the foresaid Columbus, and other Bishops to examine the cause, and to punish the Bishop if he were found in fault. And the like commission he gave also to a Synod of Bishops held at Bizacium in afric, for the trial of the cause of Clementius their Primate. 49. Now then in these examples two things are to be noted, the one that the Popes used to decide appeals, and other controversies, in diveres manners, sometimes ordaining and disposing thereof by their Legates or other officers, and sometimes giving no other commission to their said Legates, and officers, but to assemble some Provincial Synod, and to see the sentence thereof executed: and sometimes again giving all power, and authority to the Metropolitan, & Bishops of that country to decide the causes; which last way, and manner of trial was no way repugnant to the request of the African Synod in their letter to Pope Celestinus, Supra nu. 36. as I have signified before. 50. The other thing to be noted, is, that the Popes used still iure suo, The request of the African Bishops to Pope Celestinus concerning appeals, neither did nor could prejudice the right of the sea Apostolic. their own right (notwithstanding the foresaid request of the African Synod) yea, and that the Bishops of afric approved, and acknowledged the same by their obedience, knowing full well that the petitions of their predecessors to Celestinus rested wholly in his will and pleasure, to be granted, or denied, as he should see cause, whereof ●here fell out shortly after an evident example, and proof in the Council of Chalcedon: for albeit the Fathers of that famous general Council not only made earnest suit to Pope Leo by a common letter to obtain the second place after Rome for Constantinople, but also ordained, and decreed it by a special Canon, nevertheless Pope Leo denied their suit, disannulled their decree, and forced the Authors thereof to acknowledge their error, as I have amply proved in the second (h) See cap. 2. nu. 24. & seq. usque ad nu. 28. Chapter; and therefore much more might Pope Celestinus deny the request of a Provincial Synod, and might also have disannulled their decrees, if they had made any prejudicial to the Roman Sea, as they did not. 51. And now to conclude upon these premises 3. things do evidently follow thereon. The first, that the Appeals of Bishops from afric to Rome were never prohibited, or so much as interrupted by any decrees, or Canons, and much less by the letters of the African Synod to Pope Celestinus. The second that the Canon of the Council of Milevis which M. Andrew's seemeth to allege (as forbidding appeals to Rome, under pain of excommunication) did only concern Priests and Deacons, and other Clergy men of the inferior sort, and therefore did not prohibit the Appeals of Bishops, and much less of all men in general, besides that being made with the Pope's consent it was not any way preiudicall to the authority of the Sea Apostolic. The third, that M. Andrews iugleth notably with his Reader, when he saith as out of S. Augustine, M. Andrews maketh no bones to falsify whole Synods and belly the Fathers. Ad eum transmarinus nemo appellet etc. To him (that is to say to the Bishop of Rome) let no man appeal from beyond the seas: or if he appeal, he is to be excommunicated by Augustine, for neither those words nor the sense thereof are to be found any where in S. Augustine, who, as you have seen, expressly taught and practised the contrary. So that transmarinus nemo being set down by M. Andrews in a different letter to be noted, is indeed worth the noting for a notable falsity, and a flat corruption of the Canon, and abuse of S. Augustine, and of all the Bishops in that Council. What then shall we say of this man's truth, and fidelity who maketh no bones to belly the Fathers, It is proved S. Augustine acknowledged the Pope's Zosimus, Bonifacius and Celestinus, for heads of the Church. and corrupt whole Synods? Can any man think that he hath any regard of conscience, or shame? Thus much for the second point. 52. And now to say somewhat of the third, he affirmeth as you have heard, that S. Augustine was far from acknowledging the Pope's Zosimus, Bonifacius and Celestinus for heads of the Church, whereof you have already seen the contrary in two of them, to wit Bonifacius, and Celestinus, whose power, and custom to admit, and determine Appeals from afric, S. Augustine clearly acknowledged, and approved in the cause of Antony Bishop of Fussula (as I have amply (c) See before nu. 38.39. & seq. showed) which power could not otherwise be due to Bonifacius, and Celestinus, but only in respect of their supreme, and universal authority over the whole Church. S. Aug. ep. 157. ad Optat. And that S. Augustine had also the same opinion of Zosimus, it appeareth sufficiently in an Epistle of his to Optatus, to whom he writeth, that he received his letters at Caesarea, quò nos (saith he) iniuncta nobis à venerabili Papa Zosimo Apostolicae sedis Episcopo Ecclesiastica necessitas traxerat; whither we were drawn by an Ecclesiastical necessity, enjoined, or imposed upon us by the venerable Pope Zosimus, Bishop of the Apostolical seat. So he; which may also be confirmed out of Possidius, who writeth, that Litterae sedis Apostolicae compulerunt etc. The letters of the Sea Apostolic compelled Augustine with other Bishops to go to Caesarea in Mauritania, Posidius in vita Augustini to consult and determine of divers necessities of the Church. 53. Whereby it is manifest that S. Augustine acknowledged in Pope Zosimus an Ecclesiastical power, and authority to impose upon him, and other Bishops a necessity to obey his commandments in matters concerning the service of God, and the Church, which Zosimus could not do otherwise then as supreme and universal Pastor, or head of the Church, for that the Church of afric was not otherwise subject to him, then as all other Churches were. But of Pope Zosimus, and of S. Augustine's opinion concerning his Primacy I shall have occasion to speak further after a while: and in the mean time this I hope may suffice to prove that S. Augustine was so far from impugning these three Popes, that he acknowledged their supreme and universal authority, and consequently that they were heads of the universal Church, notwithstanding M. Andrews his peremptory assertion of the contrary, which therefore may pass for another untruth. 54. Whereupon it also followeth, that he forgot himself much more when he so confidently affirmed in the first point, as you have heard, that the Bishops of Rome in S. Augustine's time, were but only heads of the Church of Rome, which I noted before. For the first of the 3. untruths, though I remitted the particular answer thereof until I had discovered the other two, because they would not a little help to the discovery of the first, as you may have already noted; for it being clear by all this former discourse that Appeals from afric to Rome were usual, frequent, and never prohibited in S. Augustine's time; and again that he acknowledged an authority and power in Pope Zosimus to lay injunctions, & commandments upon him, and other Bishops in afric, it must needs follow that the Bishops of Rome had a more ample authority in his days then over the particular Church of Rome. 8 Popes. who lived in S. Augustins time, exercised a supreme & universal authority. And to the end thou mayst yet have, good Reader, a more abundant satisfaction in this point, I will say somewhat of all the Popes that lived in S. Augustine's time who were 8. in all, to wit Liberius (in whose time he was borne) Damasus, Siricius, Anastasius, Innocentius, Zosimus, Bonifacius, & Celestinus. And first of Liberius. 55. We read in the Ecclesiastical history, that certain Arian heretics being excommunicated, Pope Liberius. and deposed from their Bishoprics by the Catholic Bishops of the East Church sent their Legates to Pope Lib●rius craving to be restored by his authority, and for as much as they craftily dissembled their heresy, and feigning to be repentant, made open profession of the Catholic faith, according to the belief, and doctrine of the Council of Nice, they obtained his letters for their restitution, ●. Basil ep. 74. & 82. which they presented at their return in a Synod held at Tyana, and by virtue thereof were restored, as S. Basil witnesseth, saying, that Eustathius Bishop of Sebasta (who was the chief of that Legacy) brought an Epistle (from Liberius) by the which he should be restored, and when he had presented it to the Synod at Tyana, in locum suum restitutus est, he was restored to his place. So he. 56. Whereby it appeareth that the authority of Liberius extended further then to his own Church of Rome; seeing he could restore Bishops to their seats in the East Church, as also his predecessor Pope julius had done not long before, upon the appeals of the famous Athanasius deposed by the Arians, and of Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, Asclepa Bishop of Gaza, and Lucian Bishop of Hadrianopolis, all of them unjustly expelled from their seats upon divers pretences; whose causes julius discussing (saith the Story) tamquam omnium curam gerens propter propriae Sedis dignitatem singulis reddidit suas Ecclesias, as having a care of all for the dignity of his own seat restored their Churches to every one of them. Tripartit. hist. lib. 4. ca 15. So saith Sozom●n in the tripartite history, which I have thought good to add to the former example of Liberius. For although it fell not out in S. Augustine's time (whereof I now specially treat) yet it was not above 14. years before him, and therefore may well be applied to his time, as the Eve to the Feast. Besides, that doth demonstrate what was the belief of the Catholic Church at that time concerning the supreme dignity of the Roman Sea, seeing that not only other Catholic Bishops, but also Athanasius himself (who was the mirror of sanctity, zeal, and integrity in that age) had recourse thereto, as to the supreme tribunal on earth, for the reparation of his wrongs; but now to proceed. 57 After Liberius succeeded Damasus, P. Damasus. whose universal authority is sufficiently testified even by the African Bishops, whom M. Andrew's maketh most opposite to the Roman Sea. This may be verified by an Epistle of 3. councils of afric, and the Archbishop Stephanus, who wrote to Pope Damasus, giving him the title of most Blessed Lord, raised to the height of Apostolical dignity, Concil. To. 1. inter ep. Damas. holy Father of Fathers, Damasus Pope, and chief Bishop of Prelates, and in the Epistle itself they do clearly acknowledge the supremacy of his sea, complaining of certain Bishops their neighbours who without his consent, or knowledge had presumed to depose Bishops, which they said was against the decrees of all the Fathers, and ancient rules, and Canons of the Church, by the which (say they) sancitum est, ut quicquid horum vel in remotis etc. it was decreed, that whatsoever should be treated, though in remote, and far distant Provinces, concerning these matters (that is to say the deposition of Bishops, and other important affiayres of the Church) the same should not be received, nisi ad notitiam almae Sedis vestrae fuisset deductum etc. except it were brought to the knowledge of your holy seat, to the end, that whatsoever should be resolved might be confirmed with the authority thereof: thus wrote they, S. Ambros in ca 3. ep. 1. ad Timoth. and much more to the same purpose, calling him also, ipsum Apostolicum verticem Praesulum, the very Apostolical top (or head) of Prelates. 58. And therefore no marvel, that another Father of the same time, S. Hier. ep. ●7. To. 2. calleth him the governor of the Church of God; expounding these words of the Apostle to Timothy: Ecclesia est domus Dei vivi etc. whereupon he saith, Ecclesia domus Dei dicitur, cuius rector hody est Damasus: the Church is called the house of God, the governor whereof at this day, is Damasus So he; whereto I may add a notable testimony of S Hierome, who writing also to Damasus to know of him, with whom he might communicate in Syria, and whether he might use the word hypostasis, affirmed that he held Communion with his Beatitude, that is to say (saith he) with Peter's Chair, and that he knew the Church to be built upon the rock, inferring thereupon, that whosoever did eat the Lamb out of that house (he meaneth the communion of Damasus, or of Peter's Chair) he was a profane man, and out of the ark of No: whereupon I infer, that S. Hierome affirming the Church to be built upon Damasus, acknowledgeth him to be head thereof, for the reason urged (c) Chap. 3. nu. 17.18.19. & 20. before by me in the last chapter, to wit, because the head of a mystical, or political body, and the foundation in a building are all one; besides that he also acknowledgeth the same, by excluding all those from the unity of the Church, who did not hold communication with Damasus, because the unity of the body is derived principally from the unity of the head thereof, according to the express doctrine of S. Cyprian, which I have also amply laid down in the last (d) nu. 4.5.6. ● sequent. Chapter. 59 Finally, S. Hierome demanding resolution from Damasus with whom he should communicate in Syria (where was then a great Schism) and whether he might use the word hypostasis, showeth, that Damasus had authority to determine, What authority S. Hierome did attribute unto Damasus. and decide controversies and resolve doubts, or difficult questions in matter of religion; and therefore S. Hierome saith unto him, Discernite, siplacet, obsecro, non timebo tres hypostases dicere, si iubetis: I beseech you judge, or determine, if it please you, for I will not fear to say that there are three hypostases, if you command me. And again afterwards; Quamobr●m obtestor Beatitudinem tuam per crucifixum etc. Therefore I beseech your beatitude Christ's sake crucified, and for the consubstantial Trinity, that authority may be given me by your letters, either to use, or to forbear the word hypostasis etc. as also that you will signify unto me, with whom I may communicate at Antioch; for that the Campenses, and the heretics called Tharsenses being united together, nihil aliud ambiunt, quam ut auctoritate communionis vestrae fulti etc. do seek nothing more, or with greater ambition, then that being upheld with the authority of your communion, they may use the word hypostasis in the old sense. So he. 60. Wherein two things are to be noted, the one that S. Hierome doth not ask counsel or advise of Pope Damasus, but a definitive sentence (ut auctoritas detur, that authority be given him) that is to say, that Damasus should by his letters determine and ordain what S. Hierome should do in those cases. The other is that not only the Catholics in the East parts (as S. Hierome and the Egyptians, whom he also called the colleagues of Damasus) but also the heretyks sought to fortify themselves, by the communion and authority of the Sea Apostolic. Whereupon two things do also follow evidently: the one, that Damasus had power to decide and determine controversies even in the East Church; and the other, that his authority was not restrained to his own Church at Rome, as M. Andrews seemeth to suppose, but was universal, and therefore acknowledged as well in the East, as in the West. 61. This may be notably confirmed by the restitution of Peter Bishop of Alexandria to his seat, who immediately succeeded Athanasius, and being oppressed by the Arians, followed the example of his worthy predecessor, and fled to Rome to Pope Damasus, Socrat. lib. 4. ca 30. and returning with his letters (which confirmed as well his creation, as the Catholic faith) was restored by the people, qui illis confisus (saith Socrates) expollit Lucium, & Petrum in eius locum introducit; who by the virtue of those letters expelled Lucius the Arrian Bishop, and put Peter into his place. 62. Also Vitalis an heretic in Antioch being accused to Pope Damasus of heresy, was forced to come to Rome to purge himself: Elias Cretens. in ep. 2. ad Cledom. Greg. Nazian. Baron. an. 373. To. 1. Concil. ep. 1. Damas. and albeit after he had there professed himself to be a Catholic, he was remitted by Pope Damasus to Paulinus Bishop of Antioch for his final absolution, yet Damasus prescribed to Paulinus a form of abjuration, whereto Vitalis should subscribe; which being done Paulinus absolved him. Whereby it is evident that Damasus had a supreme authority as well in the East, or Greek Church, as in the West; for otherwise neither would Peter Bishop of Alexandria (who was a very holy man) have appealed unto him, nor the people have received Peter by the virtue of his letters; neither yet would Vitalis have gone from Antioch to purge himself at Rome, nor Paulinus Bishop of Antioch permitted that Damasus should intermeddle in matters pertaining to his charge. 63. And this may yet further appear by the earnest endeavours of S. Chrysostome then Bishop of Constantinople, and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria to pacify Damasus towards Flavianus Bishop of Antioch; Sozom. li. 8. cap. 3. who had committed perjury, and been the cause of a great division and trouble in the Church, for the remedy whereof they sent Ambassadors to Rome to persuade Damasus that it was necessary for the good of the Church, Socrat. li. 5. c. 15. that he should pardon the offence of Flavianus, for the concord and peace of the people; which being granted by Damasus: & communione (saith Socrates) Flaviano ad hunc modum reddita: and Flavianus being by this means restored to the communion of the Church, the people of Antioch were in time reduced to concord, and union with him. 64. Whereto Theodoretus addeth, Theodor. lib. 5. cap. 23. that the Emperor Theodosius in the time partly of Pope Damasus, and partly of his successor Syricius and Anastasius, laboured to procure the reconciliation of Flavianus with the sea Apostolic, and commanded him to go to Rome to answer for himself which he promised to do in the spring following, though he did not perform it. Finally the Emperor made his peace with the Pope in the end, upon condition that Flavianus should send his Ambassadors to Rome, which he did (saith Theodoretus) with a solemn embassadge of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, under Acacius Bishop of Berroea, who was at that time a man of great fame; whereupon all the Bishops of Egypt (who until then would not communicate with him) admitted him to their communion. So that albeit the Historiographers do differ concerning the time when Flavianus was reconciled with the Pope, yet they all agree, that he could never be fully restored to the peace, and communion of the universal Church, until he had submitted himself to the Roman Sea, which showeth evidently that the Bishops of Rome had far greater and more ample authority, then M. Andrew's doth afford them. Thus much concerning Damasus. P. Syricius. 65. And now to come to his successor Syricius, it is evident even in this cause of Flavianus (by the testimony of S. Ambrose) that his authority extended itself to the Greek, and Eastern Church, no less then to the Latin, and West Church; seeing that in a Synod held at Capua, ●. Ambrose ep. 78. See Binius To. 1. Concil. Baron. an. 389. the hearing of Flavianus his cause was committed to Theoph●lus Bishop of Alexandria, and to the Bishop of Egypt, with this limitation (as S. Ambrose witnesseth) that the approbation, and confirmation of their sentence should be reserved to the Roman Sea, and the Bishop thereof, who was then Syricius. In like manner we find that his authority was admitted and acknowledged not only in Spain, and France, but also in afric, To. 1. Concil. inter Siricij ep. & decret. as it may appear by his Decretal Epistle written to Himerius, or Himericus Bishop of Arragon in Spain, in answer of divers demands of his, in which epistle he ordained that those his decrees should be sent by Himerius, as well to Carthage in afric, as to Portugal, and France, and that they should be of no less force there, and else where, then in Arragon. 66. To this will I add a testimony of an African Father that lived in the time of Siricius, Optat. li. ●. contra Parmen. to wit of Optatus Bishop of Milevis, who clearly deduceth the primacy of Syricius from the primacy of S. Peter: for writing against Parmenian the Donatist, and urging him that he could not deny but that Petrus omnium Apostolorum caput, Peter the head of all the Apostles sat first in the Roman chair (whereof he also yieldeth these reasons, viz. that in the said chair unity might be kept of all men, The argument of Optatus Milevitanus. that the rest of the Apostles should not every one of them defend or calling to himself a single chair, and that he might be held for a Schismatik, and a wicked man who should set up a chair contra singularem Cathedram, against the singular, or principal chair) having, I say, urged this, he reckoneth all the Popes from S. Peter to his time, ending with Syricius, and concluding, that because the Donatists held not communion with him, therefore they could not have the true Church. 67. In this discourse it is manifest that as he acknowledgeth Peter for head of the Apostles, and his chair for the singular, and principal chair, so he also acknowledged Syricius for head of all other Bishops, and his chair (which was Peter) for the principal chair; for otherwise his argument against the Donatists grounded on Peter's supreme authority, had been to no purpose. Besides that he saith also a little after (prosecuting the same argument:) Legimus Principem nostrum etc. We read that Peter our Prince received the wholesome keys against the gates of hell etc. unde est ergo etc. How chanceth it then that you strive to usurp to yourselves the keys of the Kingdom, who with your audacious presumption do sacrilegiously make war against the chair of Peter? So he. 68 Therefore (omitting here how aptly this may be applied to M. Andrews and his fellows as well as to the Donatists) that which I wish specially to be observed, is, that Optatus being an African acknowledged the same sovereignty in Syricius which he affirmed to be in S. Peter: for whereas he calleth him not only the head of the Apostles, but also Principem nostrum, our Prince; it is clear that the principality, and sovereignty of Peter in the time of Optatus, could not be otherwise understood, but in his successor Syricius, who consequently was Prince, and head of the Church as Peter was. 69. The very same is taught also by S. Augustine concerning Pope Anastasius, Anastasius. who succeeded Syricius; for S. Augustine presseth the Donatists with the same argument that Optatus doth, and naming all the Popes until his own time, Aug. ep. 165. he endeth with Anastasius, having first derived their lineal succession from S. Peter, Cui, saith he, totius Ecclesiae figuram gerenti etc. to whom bearing the figure of the whole Church our Lord said: Upon this rock I will build my Church: wherein it is to be noted, that S. Augustine acknowledging the primacy of S Peter, in saying, that the Church was built upon him, and that he bore the figure of the whole Church (which he did not in any other respect but because he was head thereof, as I have proved in the first Chapter of this Adjoinder) he acknowledgeth the same in his successors, and namely in Anastasius, whom therefore he draweth by lineal succession from S. Peter: and to this purpose it may be also observed, that elsewhere he ascribeth the great prerogative of S. Peter (to wit his being the rock, or foundation whereupon the Church was built) to his chair, or seat, and to the succession of Bishops derived from him, bidding the Donatists reckon the Priests, Idem in psal. contra part. Donati. that had succeeded one another in Peter's seat, and then concluding, Ipsa est Petra etc. that is the rock which the proud gates of hell do not overcome: whereby it is evident, that S. Augustine acknowledged Anastasius, and all other successors of S. Peter for heads of the universal Church, seeing he affirmeth them to be the foundation thereof. 70. This may be confirmed also by a Canon of an African Synod, where it was decreed, that letters should be sent to their brethren and fellow-Bishops abroad, Concil. African. can 35. vide ●innium pag. 637. edit. Colon. 1606. and especially to the Sea Apostolic, to inform Anastasius, who then was Pope, how necessary it was for the Church of afric, that such Donatists as being Clergy men should return to the unity of the Catholic Church, might be received and admitted, without prejudice to their former dignities, if the Catholic Bishops that should receive them, should think it convenient, notwithstanding a Decree made to the contrary before, in another Synod held beyond the seas: whereby it appeareth that notwithstanding the great need which the African Church had of this decree (as they signified) yet they would not ordain it without his knowledge and consent or rather, as it seemeth, they expected his leave, and order to do it, and no marvel seeing that in other Synods and namely in the next following in the time of his immediate successor Innocentius P. Innocentius. (of whom I am now to treat) the African Bishops craved confirmation of their decrees from the Sea Apostolic; Ep. 90. inter ep. August. ut statutis, say they, nostrae mediocritatis etiam Apostolicae Sedis adhibeatur auctoritas etc. That the authority of the Sea Apostolic may also be added to the statutes of our mediocrity, to conserve the salvation of many, and to correct the perversity of some. 71. Thus wrote they to Pope Innocentius, giving clearly to understand, not only that the validity of their decrees depended upon his confirmation, but also that the conservation of the faithful in the true faith and the correction of perverse, and obstinate heretics did specially belong to his care, and proceed from his authority. This will further appear by another Epistle written to the same Pope Innocentius by them in another Synod held at Milevis, Ibid. ep. 92. as also by his answer to them. Thus than they wrote: Quia te Dominus gratiae suae praecipuo munere in Sede Apostolica collocavit etc. Because our Lord hath by his special gift of his grace placed thee in the Apostolical seat, and ordained thee to be such a one in these our times that we should rather commit the fault of negligence if we should conceal from thy Reverence those things that are to be suggested for the Church, then that thou canst either disdain them, or contemn them; therefore we beseech thee, to use and apply thy Pastoral diligence to the great dangers of the weaker members of Christ etc. So they, whereby they showed sufficiently their opinion concerning as well the worthiness of his person, as his Pastoral power and authority over all the members of Christ; as it will more evidently appear by his answer, whic● was this. 72. Diligenter & congruè Apostolico consulitis honori etc. Ibid. ep. 93. You do diligently, and conveniently provide for the Apostolical honour, I mean the honour of him, who besides other intrinsical things, hath the solicitude, or care of all Churches (to declare what sentence is to be held in doubtful matters) wherein truly you follow the rule that you know hath been kept with me always throughout the whole world etc. So he: and a little after, he saith further, that as often as there is question of matter of faith, all Bishops ought to refer all that which is for the general good of the Church honour's giving to understand that all Episcopal honour and dignity, and other Ecclesiastical authority proceedeth immediately from the visible head of the Church under Christ, that is to say, S. Peter, and his successors; and that therefore the condemnation of heresies, & determination of all doubts in faith ought to be expected and required specially from them. 73. And to the end that M. Andrews may know that Pope Innocentius did not in this urge his own Apostolical authority more than S. Augustine, and the other African Bishops approved; I wish him to read an Epistle of S. Augustine, and Alypius, where having said that relations were sent ex duobus Concilijs, Cathaginensi, & Milevitano ad Apostolicam sadem, August. ep. 106. ad Bonifac. from the two councils of Carthage, and Milevis to the Sea Apostolic, they add afterwards (concerning the answer of Pope Innocentius) ad omnia illa rescripsit ●o modo, quo fas erat, atque oportebat Apostolicae sedis Antistitem: he (to wit Innocentius) wrote back or answered to all things in such sort as was convenient, and as the Bishop of the Apostolic Sea ought to do. So they; approving as you see, not only the substance, and matter of his Epistle, but also his Apostolical manner of writing, acknowledging it to be fit for a man of his Apostolical dignity. So that it appeareth as well by the Epistle of the African Bishops to Pope Innocentius, as also by his answer to them, and their approbation thereof, Mark this consequence. that the Bishops of Rome in those days had, and exercised a supreme authority in the confirmation of Synods, resolution of doubts, and condemnation of heresies, and heretics. The Pelagian heresy condemned by Zozsimus and Innocentius. 74. Whereof there occurred at that time a notable example in the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy: for although the African Bishops did particularly condemn it in their provincial Synods (which could not prescribe laws to the whole Church, yet the general and universal condemnation thereof, throughout the world proceeded from the authority of the Sea apostolic, and the several sentences of the two Popes Innocentius, an Zosimus, which they signified in their letters not only to the Bishops of afric, but also to all Bishops universally, in respect of the universal care, Aug. ep. 157. and authority they had over the whole Church. And therefore S. Augustine saith, that the heretics, Pelagius & Celestius were, toto Christiano orb damnati, condened throughout all the Christian world, by the vigilancy of the Episcopal Synods of afric, etiam à Venerabilibus Antistitibus Apostolicae sedis Papa Innocentio, & Papa Zosimo, and by the venerable Bishops of the Apostolic Sea, Pope Innocentius, and Pope Zosimus. 75. Thus saith S. Augustine; which his great friend Possidius Bishop of Calama (who wrote his life) confirmeth, Possid. in vita August. ca 18. and explicateth notably, signifying that the 2. Popes Innocentius and Zosimus did (at the great instance of the Council of afric) cut off the Pelagians, from the members of the Church, and by letters directed to the Churches, as well of afric, as of the East, and West, judge them to be held as accursed, and to be avoided of all Catholics, Et hoc tale, saith he, de illis Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae pronuntiatum judicium, etiam pijssimus Imperator Honorius audience & sequens etc. and the most pious Emperor Honorius hearing, and following this such a notable judgement of the Catholic Church of God pronounced against them, condemned them by his laws, 3. things to be noted in the precedent testimony of Possidius. and ordained that they should be held for heretics. So he; wherein three things are specially to be noted. The first, that the Pelagian heresy was condemned universally by the authority of the Sea Apostolic, to wit, by the sentence of the Pope's Innocentius and Zosimus, signified by their letters, not only to the Churches of afric, but also to all other Churches; in which respect S. Augustine also in his foresaid Epistle to Optatus, Aug. ubi supra. advertiseth him, that he sent him the copies of such writings, and letters of the Sea Apostolic, as were come to his hands, concerning those matters, addressed either particularly to the Bishops of afric, or universally to all Bishops. 76. Another thing to be noted in the testimony of Possidius, is, that he calleth the sentence of those two Popes Innocentius and Zosimus, Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae judicium the judgement of the Catholic Church of God; which he could not have done, but in respect of their supreme power, and authority to condemn heresies, as heads of the whole Catholic Church. The third is, that albeit the Emperor Honorius condemned also the Pelagians for heretics by his temporal laws, yet he did it no otherwise but audience, & sequens etc. hearing and following the judgement of the Catholic Church, that is to say, of those two Popes Innocentius and Zosimus; for of them he speaketh expressly. 77. And now to proceed, if M. Andrews do yet desire any further proof of this matter, Prosper in Chron. let him read S. Prosper S. Augustine's disciple, who saith that a Synod of 217. Bishop's being held at Carthage, their Synodical decrees were sent to Zosimus: quibus probatis, per totum mundum haeresis Pelagiana condemnata etc. which being approved, the Pelagian heresy was condemned throughout the whole world. And again in another place he saith of Innocentius: Tunc Pelagianorum, machinae fractae sunt etc. and then were the engines of the Pelagians broken, when Innocentius of blessed memory struck the heads of their wicked error with his Apostolical sword. Idem contra collat. ca 41. So he, and a little after he affirmeth the like of Pope Zosimus who added, saith he, the force of his sentence to the decrees of the African Council, and armed the right hands of Bishops with the sword of Peter, ad detruncationem impiorum, for the excommunication of the wicked. So he; giving to understand, that not only the force of the African Synods against the Pelagians, but also the general condemnation of them throughout the world, proceeded from the authority of the Roman Sea: whereupon it must needs follow, that the said authority was universal, and that the Bishops of that Sea (and namely Innocentius and Zosimus) were more than Caput Ecclesiae suae Romanae, heads of their Church of Rome. 78. And albeit this might suffice concerning these two Popes; yet I cannot omit the most famous, The famous appeal of S. john Chrysostome to Innocentius. and solemn appeal of S. Chrysostome to one of them (to wit to Innocentius) to whom he sent 4. Bishop's to complain of his unjust banishment procured by Theophilus' Bishop of Alexandria, and wrote also himself unto him thus: Obsecro, ut scribat etc. I beseech you write, and decree by your authority that these things which were so unjustly done (when I was absent, Chrysost. ep. ad Inno. To. 5. and did not refuse to be judged) may be of no force (as indeed of their own nature they are not) and that those which have done so unjustly, may be subject to the penalty of the Ecclesiastical laws etc. Thus wrote S. Chrisostome with much more to the same purpose which he would not have done, if he had thought that the authority of Innocentius had been limited within the particular Church of Rome, or rather if he had not known that his authority was universal and sufficient to determine his cause, Palladius in vita Chrysost. which also was evident by the progress and issue of the matter; for not only he as plaintiff appealed to Innocentius, but also Theophilus, as defendant sent a Priest of his called Peter with letters to justify his cause; besides that all the Bishops of the East, Zosom. li. 8. ca 26. and Greek Church (being in this controversy divided) sent messengers or letters to Rome in favour of the one, or of the other, as witnesseth Palladius Bishop of Helenopolis, Georg. Alexand. in vita Chrysost. who was S. Christostomes' disciple, and went also to Rome to prosecute his cause, and further testifieth that Pope Innocentius gave sentence for S. Chrysostome, disannulling the act, and judgement of Theophilus. 79. And whereas Atticus was made Bishop of Constantinople after the expulsion of S. Chrystostome, Idem ibid. Nicep. l. 13. ca 34. Innocentius suspended him from his Episcopal function, until the causes should be fully heard, Glycas Annal. part. 4. Gennadius Patriar. Constant. Exposit. pro Concil. Florent. ca 5. Sect. 7. Theodoreti histor. Eccle. li. 5. c. 34. and determined, ordaining that in the mean time Proclus Bishop of Cyzicum should govern the Church of Constantinople. And albeit Innocentius forbore for sometime to proceed against Theophilus by way of censure; yet after S. Chrysostom's death (who died in banishment within 3. years) he excommunicated not only Theophilus, and Atticus for the excesses committed on their part, but also Arcadius the Emperor, and Eudoxia the Empress for assisting them with their Imperial authority, as Georgius Alexandrinus, Gennadius, Glicas', and Nicephorus do testify. Finally although Theophilus remained obstinate so long as he lived (which was not passed 5. years after S. Chrysostom's death) yet he died repentant, and Atticus after much suit and many Embassages sent (as Theodoretus testifieth) was reconciled to the Roman Church. As also Arcadius the Emperor upon his submission, and humble petition of pardon was absolved by Pope Innocentius as appeareth by the letters of them both, which are set down in Glycas. And thus passed this matter, Glycas part. 4. Annal. which alone may suffice to prove the supreme, and universal authority of Innocentius. 80. And as for Zosimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus, who succeeded Innocentius and were the 3. last Popes of the 8. that lived in S. Augustins time, I shall not need to say much, seeing that I have already spoken sufficiently of them as of Zosimus a little (a) Supra nu. 74. before, concerning the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy, besides a former (b) Supra nu. 52. & 53. testimony of S. Augustine, touching an assembly of himself, and other African Bishops at Cesaraea, by the invention or commandment of Pope Zosimus. In like manner I have (c) Supra nu. ●8. & seq. showed before that not only S. Augustine, but also the Primate of Numidia in afric acknowledged the primacy of the Pope's Bonifacius, and Celestinus by recommending to them the cause betwixt Antony Bishop of Fussula, and the people of that Diocese, whereto nevertheless I think good to add concerning Bonifacius, that it appeareth by his letters to the Bishops of 7. Provinces in France, that To. 1. Concil. ep. 2. Bonif. the Clergy of the City of Valentia sent to him a bill of complaint with the testimony of the whole Province against Maximus an heretical Bishop of the Manichaean sect, accusing him of many heinous crimes, and that thereupon Bonifacius did delegate the hearing of the cause to the said Bishops, P. Celestinus head of the general Council of Ephesus. whereby it is evident that his power, and authority was not confined within the Church of Rome. 81. And now to conclude with Celestinus, who was the last of the 8. methinks M. Andrews should not be ignorant how far his authority, and jurisdiction extended, seeing that, it cannot be denied that he was Precedent and head of the general Council of Ephesus, and that the famous S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria was but his substitute, and Legate therein, which is evident not only by the testimony (a) evagr. lib. 1. c. 4. Prosper. in chron. Liberat. c. 5 Photin. de 7. Synod. & To. 2 ca 17. Concil. Ephesc. ibid. To. 1. ca 14 of Historiographers but also by the letters of Celestinus to (b) Concil. Ephes. To. 1. cap. 16. & 17. Cyrillus to whom he wrote thus: Adiuncta tibi nostrae sedis auctoritate ipse qui vice nostra potestateque fungeris etc. Thou which holdest our place and power (the authority of our seat concurring with thee) shalt with all everity pronounce this sentence against Nestorius, that if within 10. days after this admonition, he do not detest and renounce his wicked doctrine etc. Thou shalt provide his Church (of a Pastor) and he shall understand that he is excluded from our communion etc. 82. Thus wrote Celestinus to Cyril, who therefore in his (c) Ibid. To. 1. cap. 14. letters, to Nestorius signified unto him, that if he did not recant, and reform his errors within the time limited, and prescribed by Pope Celestinus, he should be excommunicated, and deprived. And the whole Council also pronouncing (d) Ibid. To. 2. ca 1●. evag. lib. 1. ca 4. Nicepho. l. 14. cap. 34. sentence of condemnation against Nestorius, affirmed, that they were compelled to use that severity not only by the Canons of the Church, but also by the letters of Pope Celestinus: and (f) To. 4. cap 17. Concil. Ephes. in their Epistle to the said Pope they signified, that they reserved, and remitted the cause of john the Patriarch of Antioch (who was a favourer of (g) Niceph. li. 14. ca 34 Nestorius,) to his judgement and sentence. Besides that Nicephorus testifieth that the common fame was in his time, that certain privileges were granted to S. Cyril, (which also his successors enjoyed) by reason of his Legacy, and substitution to Pope Celestinus in that Council and amongst other things that he had the title of judex universi orbis, judge of the whole world. An evident argument that Celestinus was universal and supreme Pastor of the Church. 83. Now than I report me to thee, good Reader, whether Celestinus was no more than the head of his Church of Rome as M. Andrews maketh him. For is it likely that either S. Cyrill (who was Bishop of Alexandria, and consequently the first and chief Patriarch of the East) would have stooped to be his substitute and Legate, and to receive commissions and orders from him, or yet that the whole Council, (being most of them also of the Greek and East Church) would have acknowledged themselves to be compelled by his letters to condemn Nestorius, yea and remitted the cause of the second Patriarch of the Greek Church to his final determination, if they had not taken him for the universal and supreme Pastor of the whole Church? As I showed also the like before in the second (d) See cap. 2. per. ●otum. Chapter of this Adjoinder, concerning the authority of Pope Leo in the great Council of Chalcedon, which was held in the same age, not past 20. years after this other of Ephesus. So that M. Andrew's cannot by any means excuse himself from a manifest lie in this, no more then in other two points before mentioned. M. Andrews facility in ●ing. 84. Whereby it appeareth evidently that he hath made 3. notable lies as I may say with one breath, that is to say within little more than 3. lines, Besyds an egregious corruption of the Canon, of the African Synod (with his transmarinus nemo) and a foul abuse as well of S. Augustine (in making him say, that which he neither said, nor meant) as also of his Reader in seeking to persuade him, that S. Augustine excommunicated all those that would appeal to Rome out of afric, yea and cured Peters-diseases in the 3. last Popes; for so he also saith, in quibus tamen eumdem morbum curavit, in whom, to wit (Zosimus Bonifacius, and Celestinus) Augustine cured the same diseases (that is to say the diseases of Peter) meaning as I take it, either Peter's presumption of his own strength or else his denial of Christ: which nevertheless I cannot see how he can apply to them, and much less pretend that S. Augustine cured the same diseases in them. 85. Therefore whereas his drift was no other in all this, as it seemeth but to persuade thee (good Reader) that S. Augustine was at daggers drawing with these 3. Popes, thou hast partly seen already by that which hath been said concerning two of them to wit Zosimus, & Celestinus, how much he hath sought to abuse thee therein, & the like will also evidently appear concerning Pope Bonifacius, if thou consider with what affection, August. contra. duas ep. Pelag. lib. 1● cap. 1. reverend respect, and submission S. Augustine dedicated unto him his 4. books against two Epistles of the Pelagians writing to him thus: 86. Noveram te quidem fama celeberrima praedicante etc. I knew thee truly before, S. Augustins dutiful respect unto Pope Banifacius. by the most famous report of thy renoumne, and understood by many most frequent, and true relations, how abundantly thou art replenished with God's grace (most blessed and venerable Pope Boniface) but after that my brother Alipius, had seen thee, and been received by thee with all benignity and sincerity etc. I had so much more notice of thy Holiness, by how much more certain is our amity; for thou, who takest no gust, or delight in high things (though thou art in a higher degree than others) dost not disdain to be a friend to the mean and inferior sort. So he; and afterwards having signified that he had undertaken to write against 2. epistles of the Pelagians, he concludeth: Haec ergo quae duabus Epistolis etc. These things therefore which I do answer in this disputation to two Epistles of the Pelagians, I have determined to direct specially to thy Holiness, not as things needful to be learned by you but to be examined, and amended if any thing do chance to dislike you. Thus wrote S. Augustine to Pope Bonifacius: being so far from having any aversion or alienation from him, and much more from presuming to cure any diseases in him (that is to say to correct any errors in his person or government) that he showed all dutiful love and reverend affection towards him, giving notable testimony to his rare virtue, & sanctity, and not only acknowledging the dignity of his seat, but also submitting himself and his works to his censure, and judgement, to be examined corrected, and amended by him as he should see cause, whereby it appeareth that S. Augustine lived in perfect union with Pope Bonifacius. 87. And in what terms he stood with Pope Celestinus (though we may gather it sufficiently by his own letter (a) See before nu. 38. & seq. before mentioned concerning the Bishop of Fussula) yet it shall not be amiss to understand it also by the testimony of Celestinus himself. It is therefore to be understood that S. Augustine dying in the time of Pope Celestinus, and his works (especially those against the Pelagians) being by their practice much impugned and defamed in France S. Prosper who had been a disciple (as I have said before) of S. Augustine, and was then Bishop of Aquitane, went purposely to Rome together with Hilarlus Bishop of Arles, to complain thereof & to procure the letters of Pope Celestinus in justification of him, and his works: Whereupon Celestinus wrote a general letter to all the Bishops of France, as well in defence of S. Augustine, as in condemnation of the Pelagians, and amongst other things saith of S. Augustine thus: To. 1. Concil. ep. 1. Celest. S. Prosper contra Collator. cap. 42. Augustinum sanctae record●tionis virum pro vita sua & meritis in nostra semper communione habiumus etc. We have always held Augustine, of holy memory, in our communion for his life, and merits: neither was he ever touched with so much as any rumour of evil suspicion, whom we have known to have been so learned, Vincent. lirinens. cap. ult. that he was held by my predecessors for one of the chief, or best masters. So he. 88 Whereby it is evident that S. Augustine ever lived in the union and obedience of the Roman Sea, for otherwise Pope Celestinus would not have given this testimony of him especially if he had been so opposite to him, and his predecessors as M. Andrew's affirmeth, I mean if he had taken upon him not only to correct, and reform them, and to excommunicate every one that should appeal to them out of afric, but also to deny and impugn their supreme, and universal authority which all Christendom acknowledged at that time, as I have evidently showed So that now I leave it to thee, good Reader, to consider whether M. Andrews hath not (as it pleased him to say of S. Peter) caput morbidum, & verticem malè sanum, being so possessed and oppressed with the peccant, or rather pestilent heretical humour of lying, that it floweth out of his mouth in such abundance, as we see. And therefore whereas he pretendeth to descend of the race of Physicians, and to be one of those Medicorum filii, who make special profession to pry into the diseases of Popes, M. Andrew's his Father, a Father of lies. I may truly say that whosoever was his Grand father (were he Physician, or Apothecary) his father could be no other but the Father of lies, from whom he hath contracted this pestiferous, and devilish disease, which therefore being hereditary is, as it may be feared, incurable: in which respect we may more truly say of his head, than he said of ours, nec est sanum, nec ut videtur, sanabile. Mr. ANDREWES HIS ANSWERS TO THREE OTHER PLACES Alleged by the Cardinal out of the Fathers, are examined and confuted: and divers absurdities discovered therein. AND Finally he is proved to be a Wrangler in the highest degree. CHAP. V. IN the two last Chapters I have examined, and (if I be not much deceived) fully confuted M. Andrew's his answers to 7. places of the Fathers, objected by the Cardinal in his Apology, and by me in my Supplement. And whereas there are 3. other authorities of the Fathers objected together with the former by the Cardinal, and pretended also to be answered by M. Andrews, which I have not touched any where in my Supplement, I think good to say somewhat thereto, lest if I should pass them with silence, it may seem to some that M. Andrew's hath quit himself better in the answer of them, then of the rest; and that he hath been able, at the least, to say somewhat to the purpose in defence of his cause. 2. The First of the 3. places is alleged by the Cardinal out of Origen thus: Orig. in cap. 6. ad Rom. Petro cum summa rerum de pascendis ovibus traderetur, & super ipsum etc. When the chief or supreme charge of feeding Christ's sheep was given to Peter, and the Church founded upon him, veluti super terram, A place of Origen is discussed. as upon the ground, the confession of no other virtue but only of Charity was exacted of him. Thus far the Cardinal out of Origen to prove the primacy of Peter. Andr cap. 2. pa● 217. §. ex origen. Whereto M. Andrew's answereth thus. Ex Orig●ne summam rerum etc. Out of Origen the Cardinal objecteth that the Chief charge of feeding Christ's sheep, was given to Peter, Orig. in Matth. 16. Tract. 1. but the same Chief or supreme Charge was also given to others, as Origen doth else where plainly affirm, and if any thing were given there peculiarly to Peter, the same was given him in respect of his peculiar fall; super ipsum veluti super terram etc. The Church was founded upon him as upon the ground; but it was also founded upon others, together with him. Thus saith M. Andrew's. 3. Wherein I wish two things to be noted. The one, that here he flieth to his common and stale shift, to wit, that the rest of the Apostles had as much pre-eminence in all this as Peter: and that if he had any thing peculiar it was in respect of his fall, all which I have fully confuted to his shame in the first Chapter, See cap. 1. nu. 3.6.23. & 26. where I have declared how he abused S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, and S. Cyril concerning this point, and therefore I will not trouble myself and my Reader with the Repetition thereof. The other is, that he seeketh to fortify this idle conceit of his by the interpretation of Origen himself who he saith teacheth expressly else where that others had the chief charge of feeding Christ's flock as well as Peter, for the which he quoteth his first homily upon the 16. of Matthew, where nevertheless Origen hath not one word touching the words, Pasce oves meas, but expoundeth there that which occurred in the 16. of Matthew, concerning Peter's Confession of Christ, Matth. 16. Thou art Christ the Son of the living God, and Christ's answer to him, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church etc. and I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven etc. wherein it is also to be observed, that Origen in that Homily followeth altogether an Allegorical sense, and seeking to draw from thence some Moral doctrine (as preachers use to do) applieth the same not only to all the Apostles, as well as to Peter, but also to all perfect Christians, teaching that whosoever doth by the revelation of God, and light of grace confess Christ, as Peter did, he shall have the same beatitude which Peter had, and be a Rock as he was; and that as every true Christian and just man doth participate of Christ, and therefore may well be called Christus, justitia & Sapientia, so also he may be called Petrus & Petra, and to this purpose Origen addeth further that the Church is built upon such, and that hell gates shall not prevail against them, meaning such just men and perfect Christians as are of the member of the elect, expounding the gates of hell to signify all kind of sins, as well as false doctrine. 4. In like manner he applieth the giving of the keys, as well to every faithful Christian, as either to Peter, or to the rest of the Apostles, saying; Videamus quomodo dictum est Petro, & omni fideli qui Petrus est, Dabo tibi claves etc. Let us see how it is said to Peter, and every faithful man which is Peter, I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven. And then he proceedeth, showing that Christ promiseth the keys to every faithful man in reward of his confession, ut ipse sibi aperiat portas Regni caelorum etc. That he may open for himself the gates of the Kingdom of heaven. Which gates also Origen expoundeth to be the virtues of Chaslitic, and perfect Righteousness, by the which the gates of heaven are opened (as it were with keys) & sic (saith he) in singulis quibusque virtutibus, and so also in all other virtues; and to this purpose is Origens' discourse in that homily. 5. Now than who seeth not here, that he leaveth the literal sense altogether in this, and like a preacher, followeth the Allegorical and Moral, thereby to induce his audience to virtue, and withdraw them from vice and sin? And will M. Andrew's say, that therefore Origens' opinion was, that Peter had nothing promised peculiarly to himself more then to every perfect Christian? By M. Andrews ●ad gloss every good man and woman shall have as much authority as S. Peter. So shall every just man and woman (for Orig●n speaketh of all alike) have as much Ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction as Peter had; for I am sure M. Andrew's will not deny, but that when Christ promised the keys to Peter, he promised to give him Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and power, howsoever the same is to be understood, I mean whether as promised to himself alone for the whole Church (as we understand it) or as promised also to the Apostles equally with him (as M. Andrew's, and his fellows would have it) and therefore, I say, that taking this interpretation of Origen for the literal sense, every faithful man or woman that is of the elect hath as much power to bind, loose, excommunicate, and exercise any other Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as Peter, and the rest of the Apostles had: yea to be not only Pastors of Christ's flock, but also chief Pastors and to have summam rerum de pascendis ovibus, the chief charge of feeding Christ's sheep. 6. For whereas Origen saith so of S. Peter, in the place now in question; M. Andrew's will have the same to be understood also according to this Interpretation of Origen, which as you have heard, includeth not only all the Apostles, but also every other perfect Christian (if he be of the elect) and excludeth all those that are not such: so as amongst other consequents that follow thereof, one may be● that it is uncertain whether M. Andrew's himself be a Pastor, A great doubt whether M. Andrews be a Pastor or not, if he understand Origen aright. or no; for though he hold himself for a perfect Christian (which nevertheless I hold to be very doubtful, or rather assure myself of the contrary) yet it is very uncertain whether he be one of the elect, and if he be not of that number, then according to this interpretation (if it be literal) he hath no pastoral Commission. Besides, it would follow that every Priest should have as much authority as his Bishop, & every Bishop as much as his Metropolitan, yea and every predestinate man, or woman (that is a perfect Christian) should have as much as any of them, or as they all: seeing that all they can have no more than summam rerum de pascendis ovibus, the chief charge and care of feeding Christ's flock● which Origen saith was given to Peter. M. Andrews by his interpretation of Origen overthroweth all subordination in the Church. Lo than what good doctrine M. Andrews teacheth here, by this Interpretation of Origen (if he will have it to be literal) overthrowing thereby all subordination in the Church, and confounding the Ecclesiastical with the secular, the laity with the Clergy & the head with the members, I mean the spiritual Pastors or shepherds of Christ's flock, with their sheep or subjects, which truly he would not do if he were not as silly and single witted as a sheep, or at least, if he were not more malicious than a sheep of Christ's flock ought to be. 7. Therefore to conclude this point, seeing that this Interpretation of Origen out of Origen serveth him to no better purpose than the other did before out of S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, and S. Cyril (which only served to bewray his malice and folly, Chap. 1. ubi supra. as I have showed amply in the first Chapter.) It is clear that Origens' testimony alleged by the Cardinal (concerning the chief Charge of feeding Christ's sheep given to Peter) remaineth clear, Other plain places of Origen to prove S. Peter's primacy. and sound for the catholics to be taken in the literal sense as the Cardinal alleged it, especially seeing it is most conform to Origens' doctrine in other places, as in his homilies upon divers Evangelists, Origen. in divers. Euangel. hom. 2. where he calleth. S. Peter Summum Apostolorum verticem, the chief or supreme head of the Apostles; and therefore discoursing also afterwards in the same place of the particular privileges of grace given by our Saviour to S. john the Apostle, he preferreth nevertheless S. Peter before him in dignity saying, Nemo nos existimet Petro joannem prefer etc. Let no man think that I prefer john before Peter. Who would so do? for, which of the Apostles was higher (in dignity) than he, qui est & dicitur Vertex eorum? Who is called, and is their head. So he. And I am sure M. Andrews can not imagine that Origen deduced the supreme dignity of Peter from any other ground or reason, but because he had, summam rerum de pascendis ovibus, the chief charge of feeding Christ's sheep, and was the foundation of the Church, as Origen acknowledgeth in the place alleged by the Cardinal, and divers others: and this shall suffice for him. 8. The second place which I am to debate with M. Andrew's is taken by the Cardinal out of S. Hylary in these words; Card. Apol. cap● 8. pag. 125. S. Hyl. in 16. cap. Matth. O in nuncupatione novi nominis felix Ecclesiae fundamentum etc. O happy foundation of the Church in the nuncupation of a new name & a rock worthy of the building thereof, A place of S. Hilary for S. Peter's authority defended. that is to say of the Church. which (Rock) should dissolve or break the laws of hell etc. Thus far the Cardinal out of S. Hilary, to prove that Peter was the foundation, and consequently the head of the Church. Whereto M. Andrew's answereth thus. Ex Hylario, felix Ecclesiae fundamentum Petrum, out of Hilary the Cardinal objected that Peter was the happy foundation of the Church, Andr. cap. 8. pag. 218. §. ex Hylario. Sed inter alia pariter fundamenta, but amongst and together with other foundations. So he. Meaning that because all the Apostles are called in the Scriptures foundations of the Church, therefore S. Peter was no otherwise the foundation thereof then they. Whereto I need not to say any thing here, because I have largely treated the same point in the third Chapter, showing how the Apostles were called foundations of the Church, See chap. ●. nu● 18.24.25. & 2●. without derogation either to Christ, who is the first, and chief foundation, or to Peter who is the second immediately grounded upon Christ, and therefore I remit my Reader thereto. 9 And now to go forward with M. Andrew's his answer, he addeth the rest of S. Hilaries words thus: Dignam aedificatione Christi Petram, a Rock worthy of the building of Christ; which words of Hilary he glosseth thus; sed fidei ratione etc. but by reason or means of faith (saith Hilary himself) and not of his person, that Peter may depend on the faith, and not the faith upon Peter. M. Andrew's his shifting gloss. Thus saith M. Andrews, seeking by the help of a lying gloss of his own to make his Reader believe, that S. Hilary doth so admit S. Peter's faith to be the foundation of the Church, that he excludeth his person; fidei ratione ait ipse Hilarius, non personae, saith M. Andrew's, Peter was a Rock by the means of his faith, saith Hilary himself, and not of his person. So indeed saith M. Andrew's, but so saith not S. Hilary. And therefore M. Andrew's thought best to quote no place of S. Hilary neither in the text nor in the margin; and sure I am that in the place which the Cardinal allegeth, S. Hilary speaketh expressly of S. Peter's person, and not of his faith, except M. Andrew's can show us how faith was called by a new name, & so made the foundation of the Church, as we can show him, how Simon was called Peter, that is to say a Rock, to signify by that new name that he should be felix Ecclesiae fundamentum (as S. Hilary saith) the happy foundation of the Church, S. Peter's faith not separated from his person in the sense and meaning of S. Hilary. & receive the keys of heaven. In which respect S. Hilary addeth also in the same place, O Beatus caeli ianitor! O blessed porter of heaven! Nevertheless I would not have M. Andrews to think that in affirming with S. Hilary that Peter was the foundation of the Church, I do exclude his faith from his person, as though S. Hilary should say or any Catholic man mean, that the Church was built upon Peter's person and not upon his faith; but I do attribute the same so to his person, that I acknowledge therein the presence, concurrence, and merit of his faith, by the which he deserved to be made the foundation of the Church, and the porter of heaven, as S. Hilary calleth him. 10. And therefore albeit S. Hilary in another place calleth the Rock of Confession, the foundation of the Church, & saith also that faith received the keys of the heavenly Kingdom (which by all likelihood is the place that M. Andrews meaneth, though he doth not quote it) yet in the same place he addeth concerning S. Peter's person, that supereminentem beatae fidei suae confessione gloriam promeruit, S. Hilar● li. 6. de Trinitate. he deserved a supereminent glory by the confession of his blessed faith: and a little after, hinc regni caelorum habet claves etc. hereby, or in respect hereof (that is to say of his faith, or confession of Christ) he hath the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and his earthly judgements are heavenly. Thus saith S. Hilary, showing evidently in what sense he saith, that faith & the confession of Christ was the foundation of the Church, and that it received the keys, to wit, because by the Merit thereof S. Peter deserved to have the supereminent dignity or glory to be the foundation of the Church, Ibidem. and to have the keys; which he also signifieth more plainly before in the same Tract, saying of Peter's person, post Sacramenti confessionem beatus Simon aedificationi Eccl●siae subiacens, & claves regni caelestis accipiens etc. Blessed Simon after the confession of the mystery, lying under the building of the Church (that is to say, being made the foundation of the church) & receiuing●y● keys of the heavenly Kingdom etc. So he. Where you see he ascribeth S. Peter's being the foundation of the Church, as also his having of the keys, to his person, though to show the reason & cause thereof, he addeth post confessionem Sacramenti, after the confession of the mystery. 11. So that S. Hilary saying in one place, that Peter was the foundation of the Church, and in another affirming the same of his faith, or Confession, doth not in either of both understand his person without his faith, or yet his faith without his person (I mean abstracting his faith from his person) but considereth both jointly, that is to say, his person by the merit of his faith. One of M. Andrews his petty frauds. And therefore whereas M. Andrew's affirmeth, as you have heard, that S. Hilary himself saith, that Peter was the foundation of the Church fidei ratione, non personae, by the means of his faith, and not of his person, he may put up non personae in his pocket, for S. Hilary hath no such word, neither that meaning, which M. Andrews would have his Reader to gather thereof, that is to say, to exclude S. Peter's person from the foundation of the Church. So as this may pass for a petty fraud, and a pretty cozening trick amongst many other of more importance, whereof you have seen divers already, and shall see more hereafter. 12. There resteth now to be examined only one of the 3. places before mentioned, which is alleged by the Cardinal out of S. Maximus thus: Card. cap. 8. p. 125. Quanti igitur meriti apud Deum suum Petrus etc. Of how great merit do you think that Peter was with his God, Maxim. ho. 3. de Apost. Pe●ro & Paulo. that after the rowing of a little boat, the government of the whole Church was given him. Thus far the Cardinal out of S. Maximus. To this M. Andrews saith: E Maximo (si tamen Maximus is Taurinensis etc. Andr. ubi supra pag. 219. §. E. Maximo. The Cardinal objecteth out of Maximus (if nevertheless this was Maximus of Turin and not some other later than he, if also in the time of Maximus Sermons were purposely made of the Apostles, as no doubt there were in the age after) Petro totius Ecclesiae gubernacula tradita etc. the government of the whole Church was given to Peter. But did ever any man think that the government of any particular Church was given him, except you who gave him the government of the Roman Church (as though the same were not part of the whole) after you have given him the government of the whole? So he: very mystically as he is wont, yet seeming to grant (for aught I see) that Peter had the government of the whole Church, which is the same ●●at the Cardinal teacheth, and seeketh to prove by this place. 13. But perhaps he will fly here to his old shift, to wit, that though Peter had the government of the whole Church, yet he had it no otherwise then the rest of the Apostles had. Concerning which point, I have treated so amply before, that it were needles to repeat it here, especially seeing that he seeketh no such evasion in this place, but seemeth to grant as much as we demand; and only carpeth at us for giving to Peter the government of the particular Church of Rome, M. Andrews his fantastical conceit. after we have given him the government of the whole. For so he saith; which truly is a fine conceit, and right worthy of M. Andrews enigmatical and fantastical brain, who loveth to walk in mists, and clouds, to the end it may be uncertain what he affirmeth, or what he denieth: as for example, he granteth here or at least seemeth to grant the doctrine of S. Maximus, which is, that Christ gave the government of the whole Church to S. Peter; and yet presently after he seemeth to call the same in question again, affirming, that we have given him the government as well of the whole Church of God, as of the particular Church of Rome, saying: Romanae vestrae traditis etc. postquam ei totius gubernacula tradidistis: You give him the government of the particular Church of Rome, after you have given him the government of the whole. 14. So that he suposeth here, that not Christ, but we have given him both the one and the other, to wit the particular, after the general: whereby he seemeth also to affirm that S. Peter was not Bishop of Rome otherwise then in our conceit, and by our gift, adding withal a strange parenthesis (quasi ea totius pars non esset) as though the same particu●●e Church of Rome were not a part of the whole; as who would say that S. Peter could not be governor both of the whole Church and of a particular Church; wherein he argueth as wisely as if he should say, that a Bishop of Ely could not be Governor of the particular Church of Ely, and of the whole Diocese, or that a Bishop of Canterbury could not be Governor of that Bishopric and primate of England, or that a general of an Army could not govern a particular Company, and be General of the whole Army. M. Andrews dull head more to be confounded by blows then persuaded by arguments. 15. But will M. Andrew's, trow you, be so absurd to say in good earnest that S. Peter was not governor of a particular Church, or that we only (meaning the Catholics of this age) have made him so? Truly if he affirm this, and will stand to it, he is not to be confuted by arguments, but confounded by blows, as a mad man that had need to be beaten into his wits, having (as Aristotle saith of some) as much need of punishment, Arist. Topic. li. 1● cap. 9 as he should have of sense, that should deny the snow to be white, for I think there was never any thing more clearly testified by all the Fathers of the Church, councils, Historiographers Ecclesiastical and profane, undoubted monuments of Antiquity, and all manner of Testimony than that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome, especially seeing that the continual succession of Bishops in the Roman Sea from him, even to the present Pope Paulus Quintus, doth demonstrate, and as I may say proclaim the evidence thereof. And therefore I must needs imagine that M. Andrews hath some other meaning then his words import; but whatsoever it is, he showeth by his obscure, doubtful and impertinent manner of writing, See cap. 4 nu. 23. that he hath caput morbidum, and verticem malè sanum, as you heard him say of S. Peter in the last Chapter. 16. And this might suffice for answer to his gloze upon the place of S. Maximus, S. Maximus of Turyn did write homilies or Sermons of Saints. but that I cannot omit to say something to the two doubts he maketh, to wit, whether this Maximus was he that was Bishop of Turin, & whether there were Sermons made purposely of the Apostles in his time; both which doubts the ancient Gennadius (who wrote in the same age) may well resolve, seeing that in his book de viris illustribus, Genadius in Catal. Illustrium viror. he writeth that Maximus Bishop of Turin wrote certain Tracts in praise of the Apostles (which are these very Homilies whence this testimony is taken) & having mentioned divers other Tracts and Homilies upon the Nativity of S. john Baptist, S. Eusebius of Versels, and S. Cypri●n, also of the passion of Christ, and the fast of Lent, of the Cross, Sepulchre, and Resurrection of our Lord (which are also to be seen in his works under the title of homilies, he concludeth: Scripsit etiam homilias multas etc. He (to wit Maximus) wrote also many Homilies of the Nativity of the Theophany (which we call the Epiphany) of Easter, and of Pentecost etc. besides divers others which I have read, and do not remember. So he. 17. Wherein it is to be noted for the resolution of M. Andrews his doubts, that S. Maximus who was Bishop of Turin, wrote homilies in praise, not only of the Apostles, but also of divers other Saints, and upon divers feasts; which M. Andrews may believe because it is testified by one that might know it well, for that he wrote about the year of our Lord 490. which was the same age wherein S. Maximus lived, who died (as Gennadius also witnesseth) in the year 420. about ten years before the decease of S. Augustin, Gennadius ubi supra. which I note by the way to put M. Andrews in mind of a notable escape & oversight (not to call it a flatly) in his former answer to a place of S. Augustine (whereof I treated in the last Chapter) where you may remember he affirmed very confidently, See before chap. 4. nu. 21. that, tempore Augustini non fiebant Sermones de tempore: M. Andrews hath not given any probable answer to any one of ten places objected by the Cardinal. In S. Augustins time there were no sermons made de Tempore. So that you see he is found to be minus habens, and taken tardy in every thing, and not able to give any reasonable satisfaction, or answer to any one place of ten alleged by the Cardinal in one Chapter. 18. And yet forsooth in the preamble to his answer of those places, he maketh so light of them as though he could blow them away all with a blast; for thus he saith: unum hoc peccant omnia etc. they have all this one fault, Andr. ubi supra pag. 217. §. Inspiciamus. that they bring nothing which may not strait be granted, except perhaps some little word, about the which I do not mean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to contend in words. So he. But if this be true, how chanceth it that the poor man hath been so puzzled in the answer of these places that he hath been fain so to trifle, wrangle, cog, and lie, as you have heard? Hath some little word, trow you, that hath occurred now and then, and could not be granted, driven him to so hard an exigent? But let us hear what he saith may be granted, and what denied in those places: Nam nec primatum (saith he) negamus Petri etc. For we do not deny the Primacy of Peter, nor the names which do signify it, but we demand the thing or matter itself now in question, that is to say, his earthly Monarchy. Thus saith he, seeming out of his bountiful liberality, to grant that which he seeketh to overthrow, as much as in him lieth, yea denying that in effect which he granteth in words, M. Andrews his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and reducing all his dispute to a plain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, a word-warre, or a contention about words, which nevertheless he professeth to avoid. 19 You see he granteth the primacy of Peter, yet when it is urged against him out of the Fathers in the places above mentioned, he laboureth to overthrow the ground from whence they deduce it. For whereas they teach, that Peter had the primacy because he was the foundation of the Church, and had a special Commission given him to feed Christ's sheep, he goeth about to prove that Peter was no more the foundation of the Church, than the rest of the Apostles, nor otherwise Pastor thereof then they: whereupon it must needs follow, that he was not their primate, nor had any more government over the Church than they. Wherein then consisteth his primacy which the Fathers teach, and deduce from the power given him by the keys, and by his Pastoral commission, which do import authority, power, jurisdiction, and government? 20. Therefore M. Andrews denying S. Peter's pre-eminence in authority and government, denieth the primacy, that the Fathers teach, and reduceth it only to a bare name, without effect, and so doth nothing else indeed but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; yea and if we well consider what he saith we shall find that he granteth not so much as the very word or name of primacy, or at least if he do he contradicteth himself; for what are, trow you, those voculae which he excepteth from his grant, when he saith, that there is nothing in these places of the Fathers, which may not presently be granted, nisi voculam fortè habent etc. except some little word perhaps? M. Andrew's troubled greatly with little words. What little word I say is that which cannot be granted? Is it not Primatus, Caput, and some such other words as signify Primacy? Yes truly; for no other voculae, or voces in those places of the Fathers do so much molest him. Nevertheless he hath no sooner excepted them from his grant, but he granteth them presently, saying: Non negamus Primatum Petri etc. We do not deny the primacy of Peter, nor those names which signify Primacy, which is a strange kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for he wrangleth with himself, contradicting himself notably within the space of two lines, first signifying that those words and names are not to be granted, and presently after granting them, as no way prejudicial to his doctrine. 21. And to the end we may understand that he granteth us nothing but words and names, he distinguisheth the same from the thing itself which he meaneth to deny, and yet so handleth the matter that he doth still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, reducing also his denial to a mere quarrel of words devised by himself, and neither used nor meant by us, either in words or sense: for he calleth rem ipsam, M. Andrew's fighteth in the air and perverteth the state of the Question. the thing itself (which is signified by our primacy) terrestrem monarchiam, an earthly Monarchy: and in another place he also termeth it (d) See cap. 1. nu. 20. temporalem Primatum, a temporal Primacy; and this forsooth is that which he denieth here, and so denieth no part of our doctrine, but a foolish conceit of his own; for although we hold and teach that the government of the Church is a Monarchy, and that the power thereof doth extend itself to temporal things (in such sort and for such reasons as I have touched in the first (e) nu. 20. & 21. chapter of this Adjoinder, and handled at large in my (f) See Supplem. chap. 1. nu. 61. & seq. usque ad 69. Supplement) yet it neither is nor can be called temporal or earthly, otherwise then as S. Hilary calleth S. Peter's judicial sentences terrena judicia, when he saith, terrena eius judicia sunt caelestia, his earthly judgements (that is to say, S. Hilar. l. 6. de Trinit. his sentences given on earth) are heavenly. 22. And so I say, that albeit the government of the Church may in this sense be called earthly, to wit, because it is exercised upon earth, yet it is not earthly or temporal, but spiritual and heavenly, both because it is a spiritual and heavenly power, and also because it is guided and directed from heaven by the spirit of God. And therefore whereas M. Andrews doth call or rather nickname the Pope's Supremacy, a Temporal Primacy, and his Monarchy an earthly Monarchy, because he punisheth his spiritual subjects in their temporal goods, or states, he may by the same reason say, that S. Peter and S. Paul's power was not spiritual, but corporal and temporal, because the one of them punished Ananias & Sapphira with corporal death, and the other struck Elimas the Magician blind, Act. 5. Ibid. ca 13. delivered the incestuous Corinthian to Satan in interitum carnis, 1. Cor. 5. to the destruction of the flesh, and finally extended his power to secular and political matters, commanding Ibid. ca 6. the Corinthians to appoint temporal judges amongst themselves rather than to have recourse to the tribunals and judgements of Infidels: M. Andrews a pecuniary Pastor & a wrangler in the highest degree. yea M. Andrew's must acknowledge himself to be but a mere temporal, yea a pecuniary Pastor, because in his spiritual Courts he useth pecuniary mulcts, and other temporal punishments, as I have showed before, in the first (g) See before chap. 1. nu. 21. Chapter. By all this it appeareth that M. Andrews denying not the spiritual, but (as he termeth it) the earthly Monarchy, and temporal primacy of Peter, denieth nothing else but his own vain and idle manner of speech, expressing only a foolish fancy of his, and a very chimera that hath no being in rerum natura, and so he doth still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and is therefore truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say a wrangler, in the highest degree. 23. And to the end this may yet appear more manifestly, I will examine his answers & objections touching another point in controversy betwixt him, and us, whereby we shall also see how notably he wrangleth, cavilleth, juggleth, and tryfleth; and because the matter, and his manner of answering will require some long discourse, I will make it the subject of the three next Chapters. A FURTHER MANIFESTATION OF MASTER ANDREWS HIS Trifling, wrangling, and fraudulent humour, by his Answers to other places of the Fathers, concerning Prayer to Saints, which he divideth into three ranks, whereof the two first are examined in this Chapter. CHAP. VI WHEREAS the Cardinal undertaketh in his Apology Card. Apol. cap. 1. pag. 12. to treat of prayer to Saints (because the Apology for the Oath condemneth the use, M. Andrews his mere trifling cavil. and practise of it in the Catholic Church) M. Andrew's taketh exception to the Cardinal for changing the state of the question, Andr. cap. 1. p. 35. §. Porrò. and saith that he fighteth with his own shadow, because he promiseth to treat de intercessione Sanctorum of the intercession of Saints, whereas that which the King condemneth (saith M. Andrew's) is the invocation of Saints: wherein he also noteth this difference, that the intercession of Saints is their work, and the invocation of them is ours, and that the King denieth not that which the Cardinal proveth, to wit, that the Saints do pray for us, but that they are to be invocated, or prayed unto, which (saith M. Andrews) the Cardinal proveth not. 2. And he pleaseth himself so much with this devise, that he doth often inculcate the same, urging the Cardinal to prove that Saints may be invocated, yea producing a text of Scripture, to prove that none can be invocated but God; Andr. pa. 37. §. Verun. for terret nos Apostolus, saith he, utcumque vos hominem habetis pro levi etc. The Apostle doth terrify us (how light soever you make of the man) when he asketh this question, Rom. 10. quomodo invocabunt eum, in quem non crediderunt? how shall they invocate him in whom they believe not? An ignorant collection. for you perhaps have found a way how a man may invocate those in whom you yourselves say you do not believe, whereas he (to wit the Apostle) seemed then to have found no way. Thus saith M. Andrews: wherein it is to be noted, that one special reason why he rejecteth our doctrine concerning prayer to Saints, is, for that we do invocate them; because in his conceit, Invocation is so proper to God alone, that none can be invocated but he; and if he do not conceive so, why doth he insist so much upon the word invocate, yea, and seek to terrify us with his terret nons Apostolus, charging us to make light of him, because we invocate them in whom we believe not, that is to say, those whom we do not hold for God. 3. But a man may wonder how this great Doctor could so grossly err in a matter so evident as this, seeing that the words of the Apostle immediately going before, do manifestly show, that he speaketh there of an invocation due to God alone, as to our chief Lord; which kind of invocation is not communicable to creatures; and therefore the Apostle having said, that God is Dominus omnium etc. the Lord of all, and rich, or bountiful; Rom. 10. towards all that invocate him, he confirmeth it with the saying of the Prophet, omnis qui invocaverit nomen Domini saluus erit, joel. 2. every one that shall invocate the name of our Lord shallbe saved, and then he addeth, The true meaning of S. Paul about the invocation of him in whom we believe. Quomodo invocabunt eum in quem non crediderunt? How shall they invocate him, in whom they have not believed? as who would say, how can they invocate him, of whom the Prophet speaketh, him that is Dominus omnium, the Lord of all, except they believe in him, that is to say, except they believe him to be their Lord, and Creator. Whereby he doth not signify that none but God can be invocated in any sort, but that we cannot invocate God, as our Lord, and our God, except we believe him so to be. 4. And this doth not contradict the Invocation of Saints in another respect, to wit (not as Gods) but as the servants of God, whom he glorifyeth, and honoureth, and by whose intercession, and mediation he bestoweth graces, and favours upon men: in which sense it may also be truly said, that we cannot invocate them, or crave the help of their prayers, except we do in some sort believe in them (I mean) so far forth as we invocate them, that is to, say except we believe them to be God's servants, and that we also have confidence in them, as in those, who by God's goodness may help us. So as a faith, and belief in Saints, is also necessary for the invocation of them, though it is not the faith that we have in God, as in our chief Lord, and Creator; and that we may have faith in Saints, M. Andrew's may learn in the Apostle himself, who commendeth the charity, Ep. ad Philem. and faith which Philemon had in Domino jesu, & in omnes Sanctos, in our Lord jesus, and in all Saints; upon which words S. Hierome in his Commentary upon that Epistle discourseth amply, S. Hieron. To. 6. in ep. ad Philem. proving that we may be said to have faith in Saints. 5. Therefore M. Andrew's is to understand for the full answer of his objection, that as there is an honour, and glory which is due to God only (as the Apostle witnesseth, 1. Tim. 1. saying, soli Deo honour, & gloria, honour, and glory be to God alone) and another due to creatures (whereof the same Apostle also saith, Rom. 2. gloria, honour, & pax omni operanti bonum; glory, honour, and peace be to every one that doth good) so also there are two sorts of invocation, the one used to God alone (whereof the Apostle speaketh in the text alleged by M. Andrew's) and the other used not only to Angels, and Saints, Gen. 48. but also to men, as we read in the holy Scriptures, where jacob blessing the children of joseph saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. invocetur nomen meum super pueros hos, & nomina Patrum meorum: let my name, and the names of my Fathers Abraham, and Isaac be invocated upon those children. Upon which words S. Augustine noteth expressly that not only exaudition, S. Aug. li. locution. in Gen. nu. 200. but also invocation is sometimes applied to men, and not to God alone; besides that, I will make it evident hereafter, that the ancient fathers do use invocation, for prayer to Saints. 6. But if M. Andrew's will not believe S. Augustine, and the other ancient fathers, nor yet the holy Scripture, let him believe himself, who afterwards teacheth clearly enough, that the word invocation may be applied to creatures, for he saith, that poscere à Sanctis auxilium, Andr. p. 45. §. Locus autem. propriè invocare est, to crave help of Saints, is properly to invocate them, so that according to this interpretation of his, we do properly invocate all those of whom we crave help, M. Andrews contradicteth himself. and succour, which we lawfully crave, not only of God, but also of those, who by the ordinance of God, may, and do lawfully succour, and help us, as Angels, Saints, and men do; whereupon it followeth that we may lawfully demand their help, and consequently invocate them according to M. Andrews his own interpretation, whereby it appeareth that he hath not only very idly laboured to fright us with his terrible text taken out of the Apostle, but also fond contradicted himself. 7. No less vain, and idle is the exception which he taketh against the Cardinal, Cardinal Bellarmine under the name of Intercession of Saints compriseth as well our prayers to them as their prayers for us. for undertaking to prove the intercession of Saints, instead of the invocation of Saints: for how can M. Andrew's be ignorant that the Cardinal meaneth to prove the Catholic doctrine concerning prayer to Saints, or the invocation of Saints, albeit he term it the intercession of Saints? For whereas there are in this question two points specially controversed, the one, whether we may pray to Saints, and the other, whether they do pray for us, (which two have a connexion, and dependence one of another) it sufficeth that the Cardinal named one of them, meaning under the title thereof to prove the catholic doctrine concerning them both, as indeed he doth by the places of the Fathers which he allegeth; proving by some of them that the Saints pray for us, succour, and help us, and by others that we may pray to them, yea and that we do receive help, and succour by them; whereby the Cardinal doth sufficiently discharge his promise, yea and proveth that which M. Andrew's exacteth of him, to wit, the invocation of Saints, so that M. Andrew's showeth himself still to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a notable wrangler, contending about words, when nevertheless he understandeth clearly the cardinals sense, and meaning therein. 8. And now to show that the Cardinal evidently proveth the invocation of Saints, I will examine M. Andrews his answers to the places alleged by the Cardinal out of the Fathers, whereby also his cavilling, wrangling & fraudulent humour shall evidently appear. He divideth the Fathers (which the Cardinal produceth) into 3. ranks. Andr. pa. 39 §. Patrum. The first (saith he) is of those, qui verè Patres, sed non verè citantur, are truly Fathers, but not truly cited. The second, of those, qui verè citantur, sed fidei suspectae, which are truly cited, but of no sound credit. And the third, M. Andrews his triple division not worth three chips. of those, qui & veri, & verè citantur, sed nihil ad rem, which are both true Fathers, and truly cited, but nothing to the purpose. Thus saith M. Andrew's. In the first rank he placeth S. Basil, out of whose Oration upon the Forty Martyrs the Cardinal allegeth these words: Qui aliqua premitur angustia etc. whosoever is pressed (or vexed) with any grief, S. Basil. ho. in 40. Martyrs. let him have recourse to these, and he that is joyful, or merry, let him pray to these: the one, that he may be delivered from his grief, and the other, that he may be conserved in his mirth. Thus far the Cardinal allegeth S. Basil in that place. 9 Whereto M. Andrews giveth two answers. M. Andrews wrangleth when he he cannot answer. In the first he saith, that it is one thing to declare what is done, and another to determine what ought to be done. In the other he taketh exception to the translation of the place out of the Greek, which later point I think good to examine first, because the other will be afterwards the more easily discussed. Now then M. Andrews would make the world believe, that the Cardinal had used great fraud, and corruption in citing S. Basils' words, and that he hath falsified the Greek text; whereas he knoweth well that the Cardinal allegeth truly the Latin translation, which also though it do not render the Greek, word for word, yet giveth the true sense, and meaning thereof. The corruption which M. Andrews imputeth to the Cardinal consisteth in these words, hos oret, let him pray to these, which (saith M. Andrews) is not so in the Greek, either for the words, or sense. The words in the Greek he saith, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, he runneth to these, wherein he also noteth, that the manner of speech is different, as that there is not in the Greek any precept, or commandment to pray, or run, but only a declaration of a fact, to wit, that men did then use to have recourse, and run to the Martyrs: besides that, he maketh (hos) these Martyrs, to signfy the place where their memories, or monuments were. 10. And therefore he expoundeth, Andr. pag. 40. §. Non verè. ad hos currit, id est, saith he, ad eorum memorias etc. that is to say, to their memories, where he may pray unto God, who by miracles then done there showed, that he did hear the prayers of his suppliants. So he, and then addeth further thuss And that there should be no doubt hereof he (to wit) Basil addeth presently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. the devout woman maketh her prayers in this place, and therefore he speaketh of the place: and then to take away all scruple he saith a little after, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (and not) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not let him pray to them, nor let our prayers be made to them) but with them. Thus saith M. Andrews confounding, as you see, hos, with hic, the Martyrs with the place where they were honoured, and seeking to destroy ad hos, to these, by cum hijs with these, absurdly impugning one truth by another, as though these could not all stand together; whereas S. Basil toucheth all those three things severally, passing from one to another. 11. And to the end that this may be evident, I crave thy patience, good Reader, whiles I lay down unto thee the whole substance of S. Basils' discourse touching these 3 points. The substance of S. Basils' discourse about praying unto Saints. First then he speaketh of the Martyrs themselves, saying, high sunt qui nostram regionem administrant etc. these are they which govern our Country, and like Towers, or fortresses united together, do give us security against our enemies: and then speaking not only of them, but also of divers places where they were honoured, and served in their relics, he addeth nec in uno loco se clauserunt, sed in multis locis hospitio excepti, multorum, Patrias ornaverunt: they have not shut themselves up in one place, but being received as guests in many places, they have adorned the countries of many men. Afterwards he speaketh both of the particular Temple, and Church in Caesarea dedicated to those Martyrs (where it seemeth he made his Oration, or sermon) and also of the Martyrs themselves. Beneficium, saith he, fratres dilectissimi &c.; most loving Brethren we have this benefit, and perpetual favour of Almighty God, here is a ready help for Christians, to wit, a Church of Martyrs, an army of the triumphant, a choir of those that praise God. So he. 12. Then he continueth his speech of the Martyrs, signifying that whereas they were wont to use great diligence to find out some one intercessor for them, Quadraginta, saith he, sunt high etc. These Martyrs are forty praying altogether, for seeing God is where one or two are gathered in his name, who can doubt that God is present where there are forty? He that is afflicted which any grief, hath refuge, or recourse to these, and he which is joyful, or merry doth run to these etc. Thus saith S. Basil speaking sometimes, as you see, of the Martyrs themselves, and sometimes of the place where their relics were reserved, & they honoured in their relics. 13. And therefore he passeth also now from them again to speak of the place, and to show withal the notable effects, and the temporal benefits which the people might expect by their recourse to the Martyrs, saying: Hic, mulier pia orans pro filijs auditur etc. here, the devout woman praying for her children is heard, and craveth a safe return for her husband, when he is in his journey, and health for him when he is sick. And then he concludeth concerning the Martyrs themselves, cum his ergo Martyribus nostrae fiant preces, therefore let us pray with these Martyrs; in all which you see he exhorteth the people not only to have recourse to these Martyrs in their necessities, but also finally to pray with them, because our prayers to Saints do little avail us, except we also pray to God for our selves; & then are our prayers much more potent, and acceptable to God, when they concur with the prayers of his Saints, and servants, and are fortified, and strengthened by them. M. Andrews very gross and foolish. 14. Now then, I remit it here to the judgement of any indifferent Reader, whether M. Andrews hath any reason in the world to confounded hos, with hic, & to destroy ad hos, cum his, seeing that every one of these hath a clear, and different sense according to the different nature, and property of the words. Besides, that M. Andrew's is totoo gross, and foolish in making ad hos, to signify in hoc loco, seeing that presently after he himself maketh come his, to signify, with these Martyrs. For if cum his, or cum illis, with these, or with them, do signify the Martyrs themselves, what reason had he to make ad ●os, a little before to signify the place, especially seeing that high, is clearly referred to the Martyrs themselves, throughout the whole context, as you have evidently seen? 15. But will you hear him yet further confute his own gloss, M. Andrews confuteth himself. and see him tripped, as I may say, in his own play? You shall therefore understand that the Cardinal having alleged that part of S. Basils' discourse which you have heard to prove prayers to Saints, addeth those other words which I have also by occasion laid down a little before, to wit, Hi sunt qui nostram regionem administrant etc. these are they who govern our Country, and like towers, or fortresses give us security against the incursion of enemies etc. which words the Cardinal citeth to prove the veneration of holy relics; Card. Apol. pag. 13. and M. Andrew's coming to treat of that matter, and to answer that place, not past 3. lea●es after his answer to the former, flatly overthroweth his own exposition, Andr. p. 47. §. Pari autem. which you have heard, saying thus: locum Basilij a●●ert etc. The Cardinal bringeth a place of Basil, whereof it shall suffice to admonish you in one word. The Reader shall not find there any relics of Martyrs, but the Martyrs themselves, hij sunt inquit etc. he saith these are the words hij, cannot be referred to relics; for the Gender doth not suffer it, either in the Latin, where it were to be said hae, or in the Greek, where it were to be said haec, so that it cannot be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is of the neuter gender. So he. 16. If this than be true, why doth he in the former place make hos, those, to signify memorias Martyrum, the memories, or monuments of Martyrs? Doth the Gender, trow you, suffer it, either in the Latin, or in the Greek? Can he make hij, or hos, which are masculine, agree with memorias of the feminine, or with monumenta of the neuter Gender? or with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek, whereof the first is feminine, and the other two neuters? Truly he must either make a new Grammar to maintain his construction in the former place, or else retract his exposition, and argument in the later, See Apol. Card. p. 13. so that you see, how true it is, which the Latin Proverb saith, oportet mendacem esse memorem, it behoveth a liar to have a good memory. Another cavil of M. Andrews against Cardinal Bellarmine. 17. But if M. Andrew's will say, that he may as well take hos Martyrs, for memorias Martyrum in the former place, as Cardinal Bellarmine taketh hij Martyrs, for reliquias Martyrum in the later (for so indeed doth M. Andrews affirm of the Cardinal) I must tell him, Andr. p. 47. §. P●r●● that it is but an idle conceit of his own, that the Cardinal so taketh high Martyrs in that place, or any where else, for although he citeth those words of S. Basil for the veneration of relics, yet the intercession of Saints is also clearly proved thereby, and therefore the Cardinal doth not confound the one with the other, but proveth the one by the other, to wit, the necessary use, and veneration of holy relics, by the help, and protection which we receive from Saints, to which purpose he allegeth the place of S. Basil, showing thereby that the forty Martyrs being honoured in their relics throughout all that Country did protect, and defend the same, veluti quaedam Turres like certain Towers, and fortresses. 18. And therefore, as S. Basil saith of them, and not of their relics, hij sunt etc. these are they which govern our Country, so the Cardinal also understandeth the words hij sunt, to signify the Martyrs themselves, and not their relics, though he allege it, and that worthily, to prove that the practice of the Catholic Church in the reverent reservation, and veneration of relics, is not only lawful, but also very commendable, and profitable: whereby it appeareth that M. Andrews cavilleth evidently and very idly, when he maketh the Cardinal to take hij Martyrs, for reliquias Martyrum, and much more, when he argueth so substantially, as you have heard, upon the difference of the Genders, in the Greek, and Latin, seriously impugning his own vain conceit, and using still that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ● and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherewith he falsely chargeth the Cardinal. 19 And now to say a word or two concerning the difference betwixt the Latin, The latin translation of S Basil defended. and the Greek (by reason whereof M. Andrew's chargeth the Cardinal to have corrupted the Greek, text) I am sure M. Andrew's is not ignorant (as I have said before) that the Cardinal hath laid down sincerely the words of the Latin translation, who therefore could not justly be charged with falsity, though the translator had committed any error, as he hath not for the sense, albeit there is difference in the words. For although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth in deed, signify currere to run, and not orare, to pray; yet for as much as the ordinary means, and manner of running, or having recourse to Martyrs, both is, and was in S. Basils' time by prayer unto them, yea and that S. Basil doth in this oration sufficiently exhort, and persuade his auditors thereto, first using an argument à fortiore (to wit, that seeing they were wont to take great pains to find out some one intercessor for them, they had much more reason to have recourse to these forty) and afterwards signifying not only the custom of the afflicted to recurre to them, but also the comfortable effects and helps which they received thereby, to which purpose he saith, hic pia mulier orans profilijs auditur & c● here the devout woman is heard praying for her children etc. therefore I say all this being considered the Latin translator (whose text the Cardinal citeth) doubted not to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hos oret, expressing also the indicative mood in the Greek, by an imperative in the Latin, because S. Basils' discourse sufficiently includeth an exhortation, and persuasion, as I have signified before. 20. And because M. Andrew's may perhaps desire some further proof that it was the custom in S Basils' time to pray to Martyrs, A plain place out of S. Basil for the invocation of Martyrs. yea to invocate them (for without that word there is no bargain with M. Andrew's) let us hear what S. Basil himself saith of another holy Martyr, to wit S. Mammas, S. Basil. orat. in S. Mammantem. upon whom he made also another oration, and saith as followeth: memores estote Martyris, quotquot etc. Be ye mindful of the Martyr, as many of you as have enjoyed him in your sleep (he meaneth by some vision, or apparition) as many as have even in this place had his help, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. to pray for you, or whom soever nomine advocatus, he being called upon by name, hath assisted in his actions, or works, as many as he hath reduced to the right way when they went astray, as many as have recovered their healths by him, to whomsoever he hath restored their children, revyuing them when they were dead; and finally as many of you, as have had your lives prolonged by him● gather all these together, and contribute the same, as it were a common shot, to the praise of the Martyr etc. 21. Thus saith S. Basil, which I have the more largely laid down, to the end thou mayst see good Reader, not only what benefits the devout Christians in S. Basils' time received by the intercession, & prayer of Martyrs, but also that this holy Martyr of whom he treateth did sometime appear to men by visions in their sleep, and that men used to invocate him in their necessities, and thereby had his assistance, which is evident even in the Greek text, where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, whomsoever he (to wit the Martyr) hath assisted in his works, being called upon by name: which words I hope M. Andrew's cannot deny to express a plain invocation of the Martyr, and the good effect (I mean the help, and assistance) that followed thereof. 22. Besyds that it is also to be considered here, that S. Basil doth speak not only of assistance given by the holy Martyr in the place where his relics were kept (as when he saith, quotquot in hoc loco constituti etc. as many of you as here in this place have had his help in your prayers) but also of great favours done by him in other places, as namely to wandering men that had lost their way etc. And therefore I would gladly know here of M. Andrews in what manner these wandering men, or others that were absent from the monument, and relics of the Martyr, M. Andrew's very hardly posed. obtained those favours mentioned by S. Basil, yea, and how they knew that the Martyr had favoured, and helped them, if they had not first invocated him, and prayed particularly unto him; for M. Andrews cannot say in this case, as he said in the former, that because God did show by miracles at the Monuments of the Martyrs, that he heard men's prayers there, therefore men had & might have recourse thither to pray to God for help, but not to the Martyr himself; this devise I say cannot serve his turn. 23. For how did the wayfaring man (who was far from the Monument of the Martyr, and had lost his way) know that he was brought into it again by the help of the Martyr, but because he had reposed special confidence in him, yea, and recommended himself particularly to his prayers, and assistance? In which respect S. Basil having used that general speech: divers miraculous effects of the Invocation of Martyrs specified by S. Basil quibuscumque ex nomine vocatus adfuit etc. to whomsoever the Martyr had given assistance being called upon by name, doth particularise the favours that many had received by the invocation of him, saying that some had been reduced to their right way, others restored to their health, others had recovered their dead children, and others again obtained prolongation of life, all which, no doubt, were things well known to S. Basils' auditors, to have happened in that manner to some or other amongst them, for otherwise he would not have affirmed the same unto them so confidently as he did. 24. This then being so, it is evident by the testimony of S. Basil himself, that the custom, and practise of faithful, and catholic people in his time, was to invocate holy Martyrs, and Saints by name, and that God did approve the same by many miracles: whereupon it followeth, that the recourse which S. Basil saith was ordinary to the forty Martyrs, included the invocation of them according to the common custom of that time, the Latin translation of S. Basil defended in which respect I also infer, that the translator expounding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by orare, did express S. Basils' sense, and meaning, though not the nature of the Greek word: and finally I conclude, that the place of S. Basil alleged by the Cardinal proveth directly not only the intercession of Saints for us, which M. Andrew's granteth but also our intercession, and prayers to them, notwithstanding the gloss of M. Andrew's confounding the Martyrs with their Monuments; which how impertinent, and frivolous it is, you have sufficiently seen, as well by an argument of his own, as by the rest of this discourse. Andr. p. 40. §. Non verè 25. And now to say somewhat of his other answer which I mentioned in the beginning, he saith, Aliud est narrare quid fiat, aliud statuere quid faciendum sit: it is one thing to declare what is done, Another answer of M. Andrew's refuted. and another thing to declare what should be done, giving to understand that albeit S. Basil in the place alleged by the Cardinal, declared that men used in his time to pray to Saints, yet the same doth not suffice to prove it to be lawful, M. Andr. urging still to have some decrees of the Father's concerning prayers to Saints flieth from the authority of the Fathers to councils. except it be approved by some decree of S. Basil, and the other Fathers of that time; to which purpose he doth often inculcate the same, demanding still some statute, or decree of the Fathers, as I shall have occasion to show further hereafter. But here I would be glad to know, what kind of statute, and decree he would have in this question, for if he exact some decree of the Fathers assembled in a General, or Provincial Council, he flieth, as I may say, out of the lists, to another manner of trial than the Cardinal offereth in this place, and then he himself seemeth to accept. Besides that he must expect such decrees from the To●es of the councils, where they are particularly related, and not from the works of the Fathers, who are not wont to set them down, but upon particular occasions now and then occurring. 26. To which purpose it is also to be understood, that there were never any councils assembled, or Synodical statutes made concerning faith, Why Councell● are assembled. but by reason of matters controversed with public trouble, scandal, and danger to the Church; as the 4. first General councils were called by reason of the heresies of the Arians, M●cedonians, Nestorians, and Eutychians, which at those days did exceedingly molest and scandalise all the East Church; Why the Invocation of Saints was not confirmed by some Synodical decree in the primitive Church. whereas the invocation of Saynts-being then publicly, and generally practised throughout the whole Church needed not to be confirmed by decrees of Synods, especially seeing it was not expressly denied by any at that tyme. For albeit an abominable Arian heretic called Eustathius did then impugn the public honour done to Saints, by dedicating Churches to them, and celebrating their feasts (for which cause a Provincial Council was held at Gangra, Concil. Gangrene. in proamio & ca 20. where this his heresy, together with divers others of his was condemned, and all those anathematized who did contemn the Temples, and Monuments of Martyrs, and the assemblies, and sacred oblations which were made there:) yet because this heretic did not directly impugn the invocation of Saints, the same was not directly, and expressly confirmed, or mentioned in this Canon. 27. And although about this time also (I mean in the 4. age) Vigilantius denied, S. Hieron. adver. Vigilant. that Saints pray for us (whereupon it may indeed be inferred that he consequently held the Invocation of them to be superfluous) yet for as much as he lived but only in a corner of France, The heresy of Vigilantius denying the Saints pray for us, quickly repressed by S. Hierome. and was presently confuted and repressed by S. Hierome, in such sort, that the Church was no further troubled with his error, therefore there needed no councils to be assembled, or Synodical decrees to be made for the condemnation thereof, and much less for the confirmation of prayer to Saints, which he did not expressly deny. So as M. Andrews showeth himself very impertinent still to demand statutes, and decrees for the invocation of Saints within the first 400. years, at what time it was (as I have said) so public, and general throughout the whole Church, that it was needles to confirm it by Canons, or decrees, as it will still further appear, the further we debate this matter. 28. In the mean time to return to S. Basil, and to conclude concerning him, The conclusion concerning the place of S. Basil. I appeal to the judgement of any indifferent man, whether he could declare either his own belief, or the faith of the Church touching this point, more clearly than he hath done here, showing the use, and custom of Catholic people in his time, not only approved, and highly commended by him (as it is evident by that which I have laid down before) but also confirmed, nu. 19 & 20. and ratified by Almighty God with miraculous effects, and the grant of pious petitions made by devout people to the holy Martyrs, and Saints, at their Monuments, and else where. All which, I say, being witnessed by S. Basil, is truly a far greater testimony for us, then if he should have only declared his own opinion. So as a man may wonder with what face M. Andrew's can admit the authority of the Fathers, and yet reject their testimony of such facts as these, whereby they show not only their own belief, but also the belief, and practice of the Church in their days. And thus much concerning S. Basil. 29. The next place which M. Andrew's undertaketh to answer is taken out of Eusebius, and cited by the Cardinal thus: Apol. Card. p. 14● Euseb. de praep. Euangel. lib. 13. c. 7. Haec nos quotidie factitamus etc. These things we (Christians) use to do daily, who honouring the true Soldiers of piety as the friends of God, do also go to their tombs, and pray unto them, by whose intercession to Almighty God, we do acknowledge, that we receive great help. M. Andrews his cavil against the place cited out of Eusebius. Thus far the Cardinal citeth the words of Eusebius, according to the Latin translation, which he layeth down sincerely; albeit M. Andrew's chargeth him with fraud in perverting the Greek text, because the words in the Greek are somewhat otherwise, signifying that the custom of the Christians was to pray at the tombs of the Martyrs, and maketh no express mention of praying to them: whereto I answer as to the former charge, that the Latin translator, whose words the Cardinal citeth, followeth the sense of Eus●bius, gathering the same out of the circumstance of the place. For Eusebius showing there the conformity of Plato's doctrine to our Christian Religion, layeth down Plato's words, wherein he saith, that those which were virtuous, and valiant men, and died for the defence of their Country, became after their death, Semidei, half Gods, and delivered men from many evils, and were served, and worshipped as Gods, & their monuments and tombs adored. 30. Whereupon Eusebius to show the like practice of Christians, saith that it was usual, & ordinary amongst Christians to go to the tombs of Martyrs, and there to pray, and to honour their blessed souls (for so hath the Greek) which being considered, together with the doctrine of Plato before related, concerning the honour, and worship done to the Semidei, and the conformity thereof with Christian religion urged by Eusebius, as also that the common custom of Christians was at that time to pray to Martyrs by name (as I have showed a little before, See before nu. 20. & infra nu. ●● 48. 5●.57.60. & seq. Item cap. 7. & 8. per. totum. by the authority of S. Basil, and will show further after a while:) All this, I say, being considered, the Translator had reason to understand, that the prayers which Eusebius saith the Christians made at the tombs of Martyrs, were directed to them, and not to God only, especially seeing that all the prayers, honour, and service exhibited to Martyrs, either at their tombs, or else where, redoundeth to the honour, and service of God, to whom the same are finally directed, and addressed, and for whose sake principally, the holy Martyrs, and Saints, are honoured, and served. Therefore seeing the Latin translation which the Cardinal citeth is not only free from error in doctrine, but also conform to the circumstances of the place, and to the practice of the Church at that time, it may well be admitted, though it be not altogether literal: but howsoever it is, the Cardinal following, and alleging it, as it is generally received amongst learned men, could not justly be charged with fraud, though the same should be erroneous: whereas M. Andrews showeth himself both fraudulent and malicious, in charging the Cardinal to pervert the Greek text, when he citeth the Latin translation with all sincerity. And thus much for this point. 31. Furthermore M. Andrew's addeth to the two former places another out of S. Chrysostome, M. Andrews his exception against the testimony cited by Bellarmine out of S. Chrysostome. which the Cardinal citeth thus: Saepius illos invisamus, tumulos adoremus etc. let us often visit these Martyrs (to wit S. Iwentinus, and S. Maximus) let us adore their tombs, & let us with great faith touch their relics, to the end we may obtain some benediction thereby. Thus far the Cardinal out of S. Chrysostome, to prove that the ancient Fathers of the first 400. years, and namely S. Chrysostome approved the veneration of holy relics. Wherein M. Andrew's pretendeth to have found two frauds; Andr. ubi supra. §. Sed neque. the one, in the translation of the Greek, and the other in the allegation of the Latin. Of the former he saith thus: Nam & graecè &c. For in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is to touch the shrine; but to touch the shrine, I think, is not to adore it. Our Saviour did not adore the son of the widow of Naim, when he touched the coffin wherein his body lay. So he. 32. Wherein I beseech thee good Reader, to note how substantially he answereth this place, saying nothing at all to the substance, and whole drift thereof, but cavilling only about a word, M. Andrews saith nothing to the whole substance of the place, but cavilleth only about some words. or two, as if all the weight, and force of the place consisted therein, whereas the place would directly pro●e all that which the Cardinal intendeth, though we should grant that which M. Andrew's affirmeth concerning the difference betwixt the Greek, and the Latin. For seeing that S. Chrysostome exhorteth the people not only to visit the Martyrs by repairing to their tombs, but also to touch, yea, and with faith to embrace their relics (for so hath the (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greek) to the end to have thereby some benediction, doth he not plainly teach therein that holy relics are to be reverently kept, visited, and worshipped? 33. For how can it be imagined that a man can come to visit holy relics, and with faith touch, and embrace them to the end here declared (to wit, to receive thereby some blessing from Almighty God) but that he doth it with devotion, and an exterior demonstration of the internal reverence that he beareth thereto, I mean with a reverent, and religious veneration thereof expressed with his external acts, and religious behaviour, which is nothing else, but that reverence, and worship, which the Cardinal teacheth to be due to holy relics; and therefore seeing that this is S. Chrysostom's express doctrine in this place, even according to the Greek text, and words laid down, and urged by M. Andrews himself, how impertinent is his cavil touching the difference betwixt the Greek, and the Latin? Doth he not therein show himself to be a mere tryfler, caviller, and wrangler? Which may appear also further by his confirmation thereof, M. Andrews a mere wrangler. where he saith that our Saviour did not adore the son of the widow of Naim, when he touched the coffin. 34. For to what purpose serveth this, but to bewray his own perverse, and wrangling humour? Will he argue thus: Christ touched not the coffin to adore the widows son, Ergo, relics may not be touched with intention to worship them? How absurd were this consequence? As well might he say, that because Christ touched the coffin of the widows son with intent to stay it, M. Andrews hath found out a new Logik to infer quidlibet ex quolibe● therefore whosoever toucheth the tomb of a Martyr, either hath, or aught to have the same intention; for the one may be inferred upon Christ's example as truly, and directly as the other. B●● perhaps M. Andrews hath found out a new Logic to infer quidlibet ex quolibet. 35. The second exception which he taketh to the Cardinal for the citation of this place, is for the difference betwixt the Latin text, and the cardinals allegation, who hath tumulos adoremus, let us adore their tombs, whereas the Latin translation (saith M. Andrews) hath tumulos adornemus, let us adorn, or deck their tombs; and this he urgeth for a great fraud; from the which the Cardinal may easily be freed. For albeit some impressions of S. Chrysostome have tumulos adornemus, yet others (& namely those which the Cardinal followed) have tumulos adoremus. And to the end M. Andrew's may be satisfied in this point, I remit him to three impressions of S. Chrysostoms' works set forth at Venice, two of them in divers years, and all 3. of divers stamps; the first in the year 1574. apud juntas: the second in the same year apud haeredes Melchioris Sessae; and the third in the year 1583. apud Dominicum Nicolinum. In all which he shall find tumulos adoremus, and not adornemus. M. Andrews his trifling toy of tumulos tangere answered. 36. And now for as much as M. Andrews saith very confidently, that the Greek being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is in Latin capsulam tangere, to touch the shrine) he believeth, that to touch the shrine, is not to adore it, I will debate the matter a little with him, and make no doubt to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, & tangere in Latin, as they are here taken, do signify in effect adorare, that is to say to reverence, venerate, or worship, I mean not with divine honour, but with such veneration as is due to Saints, holy men, and holy things, for so signifieth adorare in this place, and so the Cardinal, and all other Catholics take it, when they apply it to Saints, or holy relics, as I will show amply hereafter in the 9 Chapter, where I shall have a good occasion to justify the use of it in that sense against M. Andrew's, See after chap. 9 from nu. 10. to nu. 31. who will needs have it to signify nothing else but to worship (b) Andr. ca 1. pa. 49. §. Necesse. with divine honour, contrary to the manifest, and frequent use of the word in the holy Scriptures, as I will make it most evident when I shall come to treat of that point. 37. In the mean time that which I wish to be observed concerning the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is, that although it do properly signify tangere, to touch, yet it includeth many times an act of veneration, or worship, yea sometimes of prayer, Plut. in Othone. vide Crispin. in Dictionario ex Budaeo. and supplication, as when Plutark saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say sup●licibus manibus orabant (as Budaeus expoundeth it) they prayed with their hands held up, as suppliants. Also we read in Homer, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Thetis autem sicut tetigit genua, sic inhaerebat advoluta: where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tetigit genua, expresseth an act of veneration, and supplication; Homer Iliad. ●● and therefore whereas Homer signifieth in another place, the honour, and reverence that Thetis did to jupiter, saying, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— accepit genua sinistra, Eustathius in his commentary upon Homer, saith, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there doth signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tangere, as if he should have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thetis touched the knees of jupiter. Eurip. Hecub. act. 1. The like we read also in Euripides, who expressing the reverence that Ulysses, and Hecuba did one to another (touching each others knees, hand, and cheek) useth the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Arsen. Comment. in Eurip. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: whereupon Arsenius in his Commentary saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, suppliants did use to touch either the knees, or the hands, or the cheeks of those to whom they were suitors. So as, you see, that in all this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 includeth, and expresseth an act of veneration. 38. And upon this occasion, I cannot omit to speak of an ancient kind of adoration with the hand, used amongst the Paynims; which was to stretch forth their hand towards the Sun, or Moon, or what else soever they meant to adore, as though they would touch it, and then to kiss their hand: of which kind of adoration it seemeth job spoke, when he said, that he had never kissed his hand when he saw the sun, and Moon, quae est, saith he, iniquitas maxima, which is the greatest iniquity that may be. And from hence, no doubt descended the civil veneration, with the hand, whereof martial speaketh, when he saith, Martialis li. 8. epig. 65: Roma salut avit voce manuque ducem, Rome saluted her Captain both with voice, and hand. And the like we read in Tacitus, Tacit. li. 10. anual. who saith of Nero, that being to sing, he bowed his knee, & coetum manu veneratus est, Idem. li. 1. histor. did reverence to the whole company with his hand. And of Otho, that, protendens manum adoravit vulgum, he adored the people, stretching forth his hand. Sueton. in Claudio. And Suetonius seemeth to signify the like of Claudius the Emperor, when he saith, that he reverenced the Senators voce manuque with his voice, & hand. And this, I say, was a kind of touching a far off, or a demonstration of a desire, for reverence sake to touch those persons or things which were out of reach. 39 But now to return to actual touching for reverence or devotion (signified in Latin authors by the word tangere, Plin. li. 11. cap. 48. as it was amongst the greeks by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Pliny witnesseth that the ancient Grecians did use attingere genua, vel mentum, to touch the knees or chin of those, to whom they made supplication: and Servius referreth the same to the forehead, saying, venerantes Deum tangimus frontem. We read also in Virgil, tangere arras, used for the taking of a solemn oath, by touching the altar; and in another Poet, ovidius. Tange manu mensam, tangunt quo more precantes. Touch the table with thy hand, as men are wont to do when they pray. Also the Paynims were accustomed to touch the right hands of their Gods for reverence, and devotion: whereupon Lucretius saith: — tum portas propter ahena Lucret. li. ●. de nat. rerum 1. Signa manus dextras ostendunt attenuari, Saepe salutantum tactu praeterque meantum. The sense is, that the images of the Gods standing at the gates, had their right hands worn with the frequent touching of passengers. And as you heard before in Homer, that Thetis touched the knees of jupiter, when she did him reverence: Seneca i● Medea. so also Medea did the like to Creon in Seneca, which is expressed there with the word attingere. Finally, from hence it is likely the custom grew, which is ordinary at this day, to offer to touch the knees, or the lower part of the garment of great personages, to do them honour, and reverence. 40. What marvel is it then that the use was in times past (as still it is) to touch holy things for reverence sake, or that S. Chrysostome earnestly exhorted the people thereto in the place whereof we now treat, which may also be notably confirmed by the testimony of S. Gregory Nyssen in his Oration upon S. Theodorus the Martyr, S. Greg. Nyssen orat. in S. Theod. declaring what a wonderful comfort it was to be admitted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to touch the Martyr's relics (as I shall have occasion to show more at large after a while: S. Basil in Psal. 115. ) and S. Basil also saith to the same purpose, qui contingit ossa Martyrum etc. he which toucheth the bones of Martyrs, receiveth a kind of sanctification, by the grace that resideth in the body. S. Greg. Nazianz. orat. 1. in julian. So he: to whom I may add S. Gregory Nazianzen testifying, that the bodies of Martyrs, and Saints, sive manibus contrectentur etc. whether they be touched with hands, or honoured, are able to do as much as their holy souls. 41. And hereof there hath always been manifest experience in the Church of God, yea even in the old Testament, 4. Reg. 13. where we read that a dead body was revived as soon as it touched the bones of the Prophet Elizaeus. S. Aug. li. 22. the civit. Deica. 8. And the like recounteth S. Augustine of Eucharius a Priest, a religious woman, and a young maid, who being all 3. dead, were restored to life as soon as their garments which had been laid upon the relics of S. Stephen were cast upon them. Also he signifieth that a blind woman recovered her sight by applying to her eyes certain flowers which had but touched the said Martyrs relics. S. Ambros. li. 7. ep. 54. ad Marcellin. S. Ambrose also testifieth the like concerning the relics of S. Geruasius, and S. Protasius, saying: Cognovistis, imo vidistis etc. you have known, yea you have seen many dispossessed of Devils, and very many cured of their diseases, assoon as they touched the clothes of the Saint. So he; who also further declareth that men used commonly to cast their garments super Sanctissimas reliquias, upon their most holy relics to the end they might become tactu ipso medicabilia, medicinable, or able to cure diseases even by touching them. And finally he saith, that men desired to touch though it were but the very extreme parts of their relics, & qui tetigerit, saith he, saluus ●rit, and he which toucheth them, shallbe safe, or healed. 42. Now than all this being considered, with the circumstances of the place in S. Chrysostome (to wit, that he not only exhorted the people to touch the shrine of the Martyrs, but also to embrace their relics which faith, to the end they might receive some benediction thereby) who seeth not that he doth evidently include an act of veneration, and devotion, to be done to the tomb, and relics of the Martyrs, by the reverend touching of them. Whereupon it also followeth, that he who translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tumulum adorare, giveth the true sense of S. Chrysostome, and so neither he, nor the Cardinal following his translation hath committed any error. And therefore M. Andrews may do well to rectify his belief (which was, as you have heard, that Capsulam tangere, is not adorare) so as withal he learn to take adoration in the sense that here it is meant, and is frequently used in the holy Scriptures (I mean for a religious worship, See cap. 9 nu. 14. & 15. or veneration, inferior to divine honour) which I hope to persuade him, or at least the indifferent Reader in the 9 Chapter. Andr. pa● 4. lin. 7. Besides, that it may please him to free the Cardinal from the fraud, which he imputeth to him, for using adoremus, in steed of adornemus, seeing it is evident by this which I have said, that adoremus expresseth the sense of tangamus, as it is used by S. Chrysostome in that place. And therefore whereas M. Andrews concludeth abbess voci litteram, Cardinali fidem, that there wants a letter in the word, and fidelity in the Cardinal, he may now understand that there is no other want here, but of wit in himself, or at least of a sincere will to understand the place aright, according to the meaning of the author. And this shall suffice for answer to his censure upon the Fathers of the first rank. 43. Now let us see what he saith to the second rank of Fathers which he granteth to be truly cited, S. Ephr. Ser. de laud. SS. Mart Card. Apol. p. 15. but not to be of sound credit. The first of these is S. Ephrem, out of whom the Cardinal allegeth these words: Precamur be atissimi Martyrs etc. we beseech you most blessed Martyrs, Andr. ca 1. p. 41. §. Proximi. that you will vouchsafe to pray unto our Lord for us wretched sinners, that the grace of Christ may come unto us. To this M. Andrew's answereth divers ways; M. Andrews his cryptical cavil against the testimony alleged out of S. Ephrem. first he taketh exception against the translation, both because the author thereof was one of ours (who fidelity and credit he saith hath been long since cracked) and also because the original (which is in Greek) was, saith he, lately taken out of a grot, and therefore is fidei crypticae, of obscure credit. So it pleaseth him to make himself merry with the word Crypta, for that Vossius the Translator signifieth in his Epistle to the reader, in the beginning of the first Tome, that he had a special help for his translation, by two very ancient manuscripts, or written copies of S. Ephrems works, which are to be seen in Crypta ferrata (a famous monastery near to Rome called, commonly in Italian Grotta ferrata) of which manuscripts the one was written in the year of our Lord 531. 44. But what cause had M. Andrews to jest at this? Sure I am, that in the judgement of any indifferent man, it may serve for no small justification of the translator, that he fortifyeth his translation with the authority of such an ancient manuscript, written above eleven hundredth years ago, and yet extant to seen so near to Rome, where his Tomes were printed, especially seeing that there is such continual recourse, and confluence thither from Rome (by reason of the celebrity of that Monastery) that he might well think he should quickly be discovered for an impudent, and notable liar, in case he should feign the same. And therefore for his further justification in this point, he also directeth his Reader to the very Class where the said manuscripts are, to be found in the Library of Grotta ferrata, to wit, under the titles of these Greek letters ω, and ΤΤ. Besyds, that he declareth also further that he conferred the same copies with divers other which he saw, and are yet to be seen in the Vatican at Rome, and in the library of Cardinal Sforza. 45. So that these particularityes being considered, no man can with any reason, or without extreme malice imagine any fraudulent meaning in the translator, seeing he remitteth his translation to the examination of so many learned men, as Rome continually affoardeth, who might with all facility convince him of fraud, if he had used any: and therefore M. Andrews showeth more malice, than wit, in this exception, as also in that he rejecteth the translation, because the author thereof was a catholic. For albeit he say that Catholykes have lost their credit in matters of that kind, yet I hope the discreet Reader (who hath already seen by many examples how little credit M. Andrews deserveth) will not easily believe him without some further proof than his bare word. And this it seemeth he himself feareth, and therefore seeketh another shift in these words: Andr. ubi supr. Longè aliter Tomo primo germanus Ep●rem etc. The true Ephrem in his first Tome (where he prayeth, and doth not make orations) saith far otherwise, calling upon God alone in every prayer, not so much as naming any Say●t, M. Andrews his coggery. yea there he seeks to God in this manner: Ad te, ad praeter te nemivem orationem facio, to thee, to none but thee I make my prayer. So he; not quoting any particular Treatise, or chapter where the words which he citeth are to be found; which by all likelihood he omiteth of purpose, the better to cloak a piece of coggery, which he may be worthily suspected to have used in this point. 46. For whereas he mentioneth the first tome of a true Ephrem, thou shalt understand, good Reader, that there are no other works of S. Ephrem extant in Latin, but only the three Tomes above mentioned set forth by Vossius, except a little pamphlet containing a few sermons translated by a monk of Camaldula, which cannot deserve the name of a Tome: besides that, there is not any such prayer therein as he mentioneth, for aught I can find. And put the case he could there show the same words which he citeth, yet they may be so understood, that they will make nothing for his purpose. Psal. 50. For even as David when he had committed homicide, and sinned not only against God, In what sense it is said that we pray to God alone. but also against his neighbour, said nevertheless to almighty God, Tibi soli peccavi, I have sinned against thee alone, because all sin against man, doth finally redound to God: even so, for as much as all our prayer is finally directed to God the author, and giver of all grace, and goodness, we may well say, that we pray to none but to him; albeit we use therein the intervention, and assistance of Angels, Saints, or men, by whom we also pray to God, when we crave, or procure their prayers to him for us. 47. And in this sense, no doubt that manner of prayer is to be understood, if any such be in S. Ephrem, or in any other ancient Father: for otherwise it should contradict the custom of the Apostle, who used to crave the prayers of the Romans, Ro. 15. Ephesians, Ephes. 6. Thessalonians and others to whom he wrote, Thes. 3. Col. 4. as also all good Christians are wont to recommend themselves to the prayers one of another, Heb. 13. and are warranted so to do by the holy Scripture: so as I shall not need to say any more concerning his true Ephrem, until he give me further news by whom he was translated, and published, how many tomes there are of him, and in what part of his first tome those words which he citeth are to be found. And whereas he concludeth his censure upon this place, with another devise, affirming that S. Ephrem might perhaps play the Orator, and invocate Martyrs by a figure called Prosopopaeia (whereupon, saith he, you may perhaps ground an example of Rhetoric, but no rule of Divinity) I will differre the answer thereof for a while, because he handleth the same point more amply afterwards upon another occasion. 48. In the mean time I will proceed to the examination of his censure upon a place of S. Chrysostome which the Cardinal citeth thus: S. Chrys. Hom. 66. ad Pop. Antioch. Ca●d. Apol. p. 14. Nam & ipse qui purpuram indutus est etc. For he also which is clad with purple cometh to embrace these tombs, and all pride laid aside, to pray to the Saints, that they may pray to God for him. To this he answereth in substance, Andr. pa. 41 §. lamdudum. that the homily from whence it is taken (to wit the 66. ad populum Antiochenum) is not S. Chrysostom's by the opinion not only of Erasmus, but also of our Garetius, yea and that the Cardinal himself knoweth that S. Chrysostome did not make 26. Homilies ad populum Antiochenum, and much less 66. But here I must advertise him, that as the Cardinal knoweth that S. Chrysostome made not 66. Homilies ad populum Antiochenum, so he also knoweth very well that all those homilies are taken out of other undoubted works of S. Chrysostome, and namely that very place which the Cardinal allegeth, is to be seen word for word in S. Chrysostom's Homilies upon the Epistle to the Corinth. where the words cited by the Cardinal in Latin are in Greek thus: S. Chryso. Ho 26. in 2 ep. ad Cor● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 49. This I have thought good for the satisfaction of those that understand the Greek to lay down out of the Greek text, in the 26. homily of S. Chrysostome upon the second Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians, where there followeth in like manner further testimony for the Invocation of Saints, which is also to be seen in the 66. homily ad Populum Antiochenum, albeit the Cardinal thought it needles, as it seemeth, to allege the same, because the former seemed to him sufficient; A further testimony of S● Chrysostome touching the inuo●cation of Saints. nevertheless I think it not amiss upon this occasion to add a few words, which follow in the Greek text, thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that is to say, and which hath (or weareth) the diadem prayeth to the tentmaker, and the fisher, as to his patrons, yea though they be dead. Thus saith S. Chrysostome in the same place immediately after the words alleged by the Cardinal, as it may be seen not only in the 66. homily ad populum Antiochenun, but also in the homilies upon the Epistle to the Corinthians, which are acknowledged by all men to be S. Chrysostom's works. So that there is no doubt, but that the words alleged by the Cardinal are S. Chrysostom's, and do correspond to the Greek text word for word, in which respect the testimony cannot be avoided, and shifted of by M. Andrews, as either corrupt, or counterfeit. 50. And this as it seemeth, he knew well enough, and therefore devised another shift, seeming to admit that S. Chrysostome doth say so, Andr. ubi supra. and yet denying that it maketh for us. For, non quid fecerit, saith he, tum aliquis, sed quid ex Patrum statuto fecerit etc. The King demandeth not what some man did then, This is nothing else but to cast shadows before the light, to obscure, & not to seek out the truth. but what he did according to the decree of the Fathers, and what at that time the Fathers decreed concerning this point? Where an act, or deed only is declared, & no decree related, is a voluntary act, as of a matter of free devotion, and not as of a thing necessary to salvation, which nevertheless the Cardinal undertook to prove. Thus far M. Andrew's, turning, and winding, as you see, to find some starting hole if it were possible, though he be catched so fast that he cannot escape away. For, whereas he flieth to his former shift of demanding some decree of the Fathers, and rejecting their testimony of facts, he notably discovereth the weakness of his cause. 51. For, Supra. nu. 26. & 27. as I signified before (upon the occasion of the self same answer which he made to a place of S. Basil) there was not any sufficient occasion, why the Fathers of the Greek Church should make any Synodical decree at that time concerning prayer to Saints, Supra. nu. 19 & 20. seeing that there was no question of it among them, but a general custom, and practise thereof every where, as I partly showed by the testimony of S. Basil, & the same may be clearly evinced even by this place of S. Chrysostome, especially if we consider what followeth immediately the words alleged by the Cardinal, and me. For S. Chrysostome having said (as you have heard) that he which was clad with purple (meaning the Emperor) stood praying to the Saints at their tombs, & that he which weareth the diadem doth pray to the tentmaker, and the fisher, as his Patrons, and protectors, addeth; Therefore darest thou be so bold to say, that their Lord, The custom of prayer to Saints universal in S Chrysostom's tyme. or Master is dead, whose servants, even when they are dead, are the protector's of the Kings of the world? And this is not only seen at Rome, but also at Constantinople, for even here the Son of Constantine the Great, thought his father to be much honoured, if his body were laid before the Gates of the Fisher. Thus saith S. Chrysostome, with much more to the same purpose, which I omit. 52. For by this it appeareth sufficiently, first, that the custom, and practise of prayer to Saints was universal, I mean both in the Latin, and in the Greek Church in the time of S. Chrysostome, which he signifieth expressly by naming the two principal Cities, and Imperial Seats, to wit Rome, and Constantinople, where the same was in ure. Secondly it appeareth that it was not practised only by some obscure person (as M. Andrews seemeth to insinuate, when he saith that the question is not quid aliquis tum fecerit, what some man did then) but that it was the custom of most worthy, M. Andrews impugning the custom of prayer to Saints impugneth an argument of Christ's divinity. and remarkable persons, to wit, the most Christian and catholic Emperors themselves. Thirdly it is evident by this place, that S. Chrysostome highly approved this custom and believed it to be most necessary, and conform to the Christian and catholic verity, seeing he doth notably urge, and exaggerate the same, for the instruction, and edification of the people, to show unto them, not only the great dignity, and glory of God's servants, and Saints, but also the Omnipotent power, and divinity of our Saviour Christ. 53. Whereupon it also followeth, that M. Andrew's, and others who deny this article of Catholic religion, do deny a notable argument of Christ's Divinity. And therefore whereas he contemneth such a fact as this of most Christian & worthy Emperors, so testified, M. Andrews tryfleth notably in urging the Cardinal to prove that prayer to Saints is of necessity to salvation. approved and urged by S. Chrysostome, as you have heard, to prove that Christ is God, it is clear that he condemneth the practice, & belief of the catholic Church of that age, yea (and if by the decrees of the Fathers which he demandeth, he meaneth their express, and clear doctrine delivered in their works) he condemneth also the decree of S. Chrysostome touching the same. And whereas he addeth for the conclusion of this point, that this fact related by S. Chrysostome, was but an act of voluntary devotion, and not of a thing necessary to salvation (which he saith the Cardinal undertook to prove) he tryfleth notably; for neither doth the Cardinal undertake to prove any such thing, neither is it material for the question in hand, whether it be of necessity to salvation, or no. 54. The Cardinal undertook only to prove that the doctrine of the Protestans rejecting prayer to Saints, is not the faith of the old primitive Church, which he promiseth to prove by the testimony of the Fathers of the first 400. or 500 years, as it appeareth expressly by his own words. Soquitur, saith he, ut ostendamus fidem etc. It followeth that we show the faith (which the King defends) not to be the faith of the old, and primitive Church etc. Apol. Card. p. 11. §. Sequitu● And again a little after, having signified that his Majesty in his preface, admitteth the 3. Creeds, the 4. first General councils, and the uniform doctrine of the Fathers of the first 400. (or as it is in the English copy 500 years) he declareth that amongst other points of Catholic religion his Majesty condemneth Prayer to Saints, and the veneration of Relics, as superstitious. Whereupon the Cardinal saith: Accipiam Intercessionem Sanctorum etc. I will take in hand the intercession of Saints, with the veneration of relics, which if I can show to be approved by an unanime consent of the Fathers of the first 400. or 500 years, Ibid p. ●2. §. Accipiam. I shall withal prove that the King of England's faith is not the faith of the old, & primitive Church, but the devices & heresies of late innovatours. Thus saith the Cardinal, without touching any way the question, whether prayer to Saints be necessary to salvation, which as I have said little importeth for the decision of the controversy, whether the primitive Church held it to be lawful or no. 55. For there is no doubt but that many things are, and may be lawful, yea very commendable, and behoveful to salvation, though they are not of such necessity, but that a man may in some cases be saved without them; as for example, the evangelical Counsels, and many works of supererogation (as alms, fasting, and such like, which consist in acts of voluntary devotion) are convenient and notable helps, though not absolutely necessary to every man's salvation. And therefore albeit his Majesty seemeth not to bind himself further to admit the uniform consent of the Fathers, then in matters necessary to salvation; yet for as much as the question concerning Prayer to Saints, which the Cardinal undertook to handle, is only whether the primitive Church held it to be superstitious (as his Majesty affirmeth it to be) the Cardinal needed not to debate and discuss, How the belief of prayer to Saints is of necessity to salvation. whether it be of necessity to salvation; and therefore he forebare to speak thereof, as needles, and impertinent to the question in hand: nevertheless this occasion being now offered, I cannot omit to say, that if M. Andrwees do speak here (not of the act, or practise of praying to Saints, but) of the belief of the doctrine, demanding, whether it be of necessity to salvation to believe that prayer to Saints is lawful, I must needs tell him that it is so necessary, that if he, or any man else do obstinately deny, and impugn it, he is an heretic, and consequently cannot be saved, and the reason is because he impugneth the belief, and practice of the universal Catholic Church, which our Saviour hath commanded us to hear, and obey, under pain to be held as Ethnics, Matth. 18. and Publicans. 56. Besides that, considering the inestimable benefits that we may receive both spiritually, and temporally by prayers to Saints, Folly to neglect & omit prayer to Saints, impiety to contemns it, heresy to condemn it. whereof the whole Church hath had sufficient, and public experience in all ages (as it is most evident by the testimonies of these fathers, for the times when they lived) it cannot be denied, but that to omit the practice of it, were extreme folly, and to contemn it were impiety. So as M. Andrews may now choose whether he will believe, and practise this doctrine with the whole catholic Church, or else show himself a fool in neglecting it, impyous in contemning it, or an heretic in condemning and impugning it. And thus much for his censure upon the place of S. Chrysostome. 57 The next place which he censureth, is of Saint Maximus Bishop of Turin, Card. Apol. p. 17● S. Max. in ser. de laud. S. Agnet. alleged by the Cardinal thus: S. Maximus in sermone etc. S. Maximus in his sermon made in the praise of S. Agnes saith: O splendida virgo etc. O worthy Virgin etc. we beseech thee, with as fervent prayers, as we may, that thou vouchsafe to remember us. Andr. p● 42. §. Maxmi. To this M. Andrew's answereth that the homilies of Maximus, and almost all the rest which go under the title of Sermons de tempore, and are of Saints, are not very much to be esteemed: that this very homily which the Cardinal citeth as of Maximus, was a long time held to be of Ambrose, and that now we have made it to be the homily of Maximus: that we are wont to attribute these homilies sometimes to one, and sometimes to another, as it pleaseth us to make titles: and finally, that nec fides certa, ubi author incertus, there is no sure credit to be given to a work, whereof the author is uncertain. So he. But how much this his censure is to be esteemed you may partly guess by his like censure upon an homily of S. Augustine de tempore, See chap. 4. nu. 22.23. & 24. See chap. 5. nu. 16. & 17. whereof I treated amply in the 4. Chapter, and touched also again in the last Chapter by occasion of an homily of S. Maximus made in the praise of the Apostles, which I proved to be his, as also that he written divers other homilies, as well de tempore, as of particular Saints, whereto I remit thee, good Reader, S. Ambro. de Virgin, & li. 4. ep● 33. to avoid a needle's repetition thereof. 58. And whereas M. Andrew's saith here, that this homily in the praise of S. Agnes was a long time held for an homily of S. Ambrose, he might have done well to have told us where he findeth the same. True it is, that S. Ambrose in his book de Virginibus writeth a notable encomium, or praise of S. Agnes, and in his Epistles he wrote an elegant discourse of her life, martyrdom, and miracles; but that he was ever thought to be author of this homily, it is but a conceit, or invention of M. Andrews for aught I have yet seen: and put the case, that that there hath been some doubt or question whether of them was the author of it, will he conclude, as here he doth, that therefore there is no credit to be given unto it? If he will justify that consequence, he must reject, divers parts of the holy Scripture, which nevertheless I hope he will acknowledge to be of sound credit; as in the old Testament the book of the (b) Vide Bellar. de verbo Dei cap. 20. judges, Ruth, and job, of which the author is either wholly unknown, or uncertain: The writers of divers parts of holy Scripture uncertain. and to omit other in the new Testament, there is even at this day amongst the sectaries, as there was also in the primitive Church, great doubt who was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (c) Euseb. li. 3. hist. c. 3. S. Hier. de viris. Illust. some ascrybing it (as S. Hierome testifieth) to S. Clement who was after Pope, some to S. Barnabas, and others to S. Luke, and some, as Sixtus (d) Sixt. Senens. l. 7. Biblioth. Sanct. Senensis witnesseth, to Tertullian: besides that (f) Luth. in prolo. ep. ad Hebr. Luther, the (g) Mag. cent. 1. li. 2. c. 4. col. 55. Magdeburgenses, (h) Kem. in exam. ●. s●ss. Concil. Trident. Kemnitius, (k) in Confess. Wittemb. cap. de sacra. Scriptura. and Brentius, with divers other Ghospellers, do deny it to be S. Paul's, or any of the Apostles, or yet Canonical Scripture. And albeit (l) Calvinus inst. ca 10. § ●●. etc. 16. §. 25. Calvin and divers of his followers admit it for Scripture, yet they doubt greatly who was the author of it. 59 So as if M. Andrew's will stand to his own inference he must needs conclude, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is of no sound credit, which I think he will be loath to say, seeing that all the English Clergy doth at this present acknowledge it for Canonical Scripture. Besides, that although it should be true which he saith (to wit that it hath been doubted whether S. Ambrose, or S. Maximus were author of that homily) yet that can be no sufficient reason to reject the doctrine of it, but rather an argument to fortify, and approve it, as both very sound, and very acient, seeing that it hath been always ascribed to one of those two ancient, learned, and holy Fathers: and therefore to conclude, you see that M. Andrews hath said nothing to the purpose against this testimony produced by the Cardinal out of S. Maximus. 60. There followeth another out of S. Gregory Nazianzen his oration, S. Greg. Naz. in laud. S. Cypri. Card. Apol. p. 14 A cavil against a place cited out of S. Greg. Nazianzen. Andr. v●i supra. in the praise of S. Cyprian, to whom he prayeth thus: Tu è supernis nos respice, & populum hunc sanctum dirige: Behold us from above, and direct this holy people. And again in the same Oration, the same Father testifieth that a holy Virgin called justina did pray unto the Virgin Mary, to deliver her from danger. To these two points M. Andrews answereth severally: to the first he saith that the oration is not liquidae fide●, of clear credit; and his reason is because it is uncertain who that Cyprian was of whom the oration was made, as whether he was Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, or another Cyprian of Antioch: and then he concludeth: Ita fluctuat res tota, ita perplexa omnia: So uncertain is the whole matter, so perplex, or doubtful are all things in that oration. So he. Wherein you see how substantially he argueth, inferring that the matter, and substance of the oration is uncertain, because it is doubtful of which Cyprian the oration was made, whereas nevertheless he cannot with any reason deny but that the oration is S. Gregory Nazianzens: whereupon it must needs follow that albeit Nazianzen should be deceived, ●. Hieron. comment. in cap. 23. Matth. and err in the history, or the persons of whom he speaketh, yet the substance as well of the story, as of the doctrine contained in that oration, was true in his conceit, and therefore may serve for an assured testimony of his belief, & of the practice of the Church in his time (which is the only point now in question) and therefore seeing that he not only prayed to a Saint himself, but also signified that a holy Virgin did the like; it is clear, that both he him●elfe, and also the faithful people in those days, held it to be lawful, and practised it as occasion required. 61. And whereas M. Andrew's addeth concerning the latter point (to wit, the prayer of the maid) that it was but a fact of a maid, and then asketh whether the fact of a maid is a statute of the Church? and whether a rule of faith is to be grounded upon a maids act? I have sufficiently answered him already touching the statutes, See before. nu. ●●. 19 ●7 I●em nu● 5●. & decrees of the Church concerning this point and now tell him again, that there was neither at that time, any need of statutes for prayer to Saints, which then was every where in practice; neither i● i● now in question what the Church decreed then touching the same, but what was then generally practised and believed, which cannot be better, and more clearly proved by any testimonies of the Fathers, then by such as witness, not only their own facts, but also the practice of other Christians, either in their days, or else in former times, as this was which S. Gregory affirmeth of that holy maid. 62. But will you now hear how well M. Andrew's concludeth all this matter? Andr. ubi supra. forsooth he maketh an objection against himself, saying in a different letter (as if the objection were the Cardinals) sed factum non reprehenditur, A notable collusion. of M. Andrews. but this fact of the maid is not reprehended by S. Gregory Nazianzen: and then he addeth answering to his own objection: Immò, idem illud etc. yea, but Epiphanius sharply reprehended the self same, in the same age, in the Collyridian heretics, when it was done by many of the same sex. Thus saith M. Andrews, playing his part kindly, as well in his objection as in his answer. For in his objection (wherein he would seem to speak for the Cardinal, or rather to lay down his words) he dissembleth altogether what the Cardinal saith to urge, and fortify that example of the maid, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and therefore forbeareth purposely, as it may be thought, to set it down in his margin with the rest of the cardinals texts who after the words of S. Gregory before related (to wit Virginem Mariam rogavit etc. S. Gregory Nazianzen highly approveth prayer to our Blessed Lady. She besought the Virgin Mary to succour a Virgin in danger) addeth immediately, ac paulo pòst refert eam etc. and a little after (Nazianzen) declareth that her prayer was heard. Vicit, inquit, virgo, vincitur daemon. The Virgin (saith he) overcame, and the Devil is overcome. Thus doth the Cardinal urge this example, which as you see, is of much more force, then to say only (as M. Andrews saith) that S. Gregory did not reprehend the fact. 63. For albeit his silence in not reprehending it may serve for an argument that he did not mislike it, yet the other clearly proveth that not only he, but also God himself did notably approve it, seeing he saith that she obtained the effect of her prayer, and overcame the Devil: whereto I also add, that when that holy Father beginneth to recount the history of the maid, S. Greg. Nazian. ubi supra he saith thus: Audite Virgins, ac simul exultate etc. hearken o ye Virgins, and rejoice also, yea all ye that esteem chastity in matrimony, and love Virgins, give ear, for to both sorts this my narratio may serve for an ornament. So he. Whereby it appeareth plainly that he meant to recount that which he would wish to be approved and imitated by others: whereupon it followeth that by this example he exhorted, and encouraged all those whose chastity should be endangered. to crave the help of the blessed Virgin, as that holy maid did, who thereby (together with her other devotions of fasting, and prayer to almighty God, which S. Gregory relateth) overcame the Devil and escaped the danger of his tentation. And could this holy Father more evidently declare what his faith and belief was, concerning prayer to Saints, than not only to relate this fact of a holy Virgin without reprehension of it, but also to signify the happy event, and success thereof, yea, and to incite others to the approbation, S. Epiph●. shamefully abused by M Andrew's. and imitation of it? 64. But now saith M. Andrew's, although Nazianzen did not reprehend it● yet Epiphanius did sharply reprove idem illud, even the self same fact in the same age in other women. If this be true, M. Andrews doth indeed say somewhat to the purpose (at least to prove that the Fathers of that age did not with unanim consent allow prayers to Saints;) but if it be false, and that he flatly belieth S. Epiphanius, The heresy of the Collyrid●an●. what shall we think of the man's conscience, and cause. The truth is, S. Epiphanius sharply reprehendeth certain women who used at a certain time of the year to commit Idolatry to the Virgin Mary, S. Epipha. haer. 79. de Collyri● dianis. adoring her with divine honour, offering unto her certain cakes in sacrifice, as though she had been a God, or a Goddess, and they her Priests: whereupon he discourseth amply, proving first out of the old Testament, that nusquam mulier sacrificavit, aut Sacerdotio functa est, women have never sacrificed anywhere, or executed Priestly function. And then he cometh to the new Testament, where he showeth also the same, and addeth further, that if women could ever have been admitted to Sacrifice, the Virgin Mary herself should have done it rather, than any other, nevertheless she never did: and finally he concludeth, that the body of the blessed Virgin Mary was revera sanctum, sed non Deus, truly holy, but not God, 65. By all which it appeareth, that these women, which Epiphanius reprehendeth, did not only take upon them the Priestly function, but also committed flat Idolatry, adoring the Virgin Mary with divine honour, offering sacrifice unto her, which is a worship due to God alone. Now then could a man believe that M. Andrew's, M. Andrews care●lesse of hi● reputation or any man else that hath care of his reputation would be so shameless, to say, that this is idem illud, that very self same thing which Nazianzen saith that holy Virgin did, who only craved help of the Virgin Mary? Is there no difference betwixt praying, and sacrifysing? betwixt Idolatry, and religious veneration due to God's Saints, M● Andrews seeking to discredit a place of Nazianzen hath discredited himself. and servants? Or betwixt the usurpation of Priestly function (whereof no woman is capable) and the oblation of private prayers, which is as free for women, as men? Doth every one, or any one that prayeth to Saints or Angels, craving their help, and assistance (as that holy Virgin did) doth he, I say, adore them as Gods, commit Idolatry, offer Sacrifice, usurp the function of a Priest, as those women did, whom Epiphanius reprehended? Truly if M. Andrews can justify this, he may boldly say, and write what he list. So as now you see that whereas he undertook to prove that this testimony of S. Gregory Nazianzen is not liquidae fidei, of clear credit, he hath obscured, or rather clearly lost his own credit, by an evident, and intolerable abuse of S. Epiphanius, without giving the least blemish, or taint in the world to the credit of the place that he impugneth: by the which it appeareth evidently, that the Invocation of Saints was usual in the time of S. Gregory Nazianzen, seeing that he himself did both invocate Saints, and also testify and approve the practice of it in others, as you have heard: and this shall suffice for him. Apol. Card. pa. ●5. Cyril. Hieros'. catech. 5. 66. After this M. Andrews concludeth his censure upon the Fathers of the second rank, with a place of S. Cyril alleged by the Cardinal thus: cum hoc sacrif●cium offerimus etc. When we offer this sacrifice (he meaneth the holy. Eucharist) we make mention of them that have died before us: first of patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs, that Almighty God may by their prayers receive ours. Thus far the Cardinal allegeth S. Cyril to prove that Saynt● do pray for us; which albeit M. Andrew's doth not deny, yet divers other sectaries do● In which respect the Cardinal cited this place no less than the former, and the rather, because the Invocation of Saints followeth of their prayer for us; for if they pray for us, we may lawful crave their prayers, as I will show more amply hereafter: so that I shall not need to stand long upon this place; only I will say, that whereas by occasion of this he affirmeth, that S. Augustine doth teach expressly, that Saints are not to be invocated at the altar, though they are named there, I shall have better opportunity to speak fully of that point in the next Chapter; and in the mean time I will examine his answer to the Fathers of the third rank, whom he granteth to be true Fathers, and truly cited, but nihil ad rem, nothing to the purpose. And this shall be the subject of the next Chapter, because so many things occur to be debated, that they cannot be discussed in a few words. THE ANSWERS OF Mr. ANDREWS' TO THE FATHERS OF THE THIRD RANK, are examined, and found to be either impertinent, fraudulent, or most injurious to them; namely to S● Ambrose, whom he egregiously abuseth. ALSO It is evidently showed, that the Invocation of Saints was generally practised and approved, as well by the ancient Fathers, as by all other faithful Christians, in the Primitive Church. CHAP. VII. TO the third rank of Fathers M. Andrews reduceth those whom the Cardinal affirmeth to have expressly invocated Saints. S Greg. Nissen orat in S. Theodor. Card. Apol. p. 13. As for example, S. Gregory Nyssen Brother to S. Basil praying to Saint Theodorus the Martyr, saith thus: Intercede ac deprecare etc. Pray, and make intercession for us to our common King, and Lord, to obtain us grace etc. And a little after: If there be need of greater prayer, or to call upon the other Martyrs thy brethren, assemble the whole company, and pray together with them all, admonish Peter, stir up Paul, and john the divine, and beloved Disciple of Christ. Thus saith this ancient Father. Andr. p. 42. §. Venio & seq. 2. Whereto, as also to all other places of like quality, and namely to three alleged by the Cardinal out of S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Hierome, and S. Maximus, M. Andrews answereth in substance, Ambros. in Luc. 10. cap. 12. Euseb. in vita Constant. Nazian. orat. in pascha. that they are but figurative, and Rhetorical speeches, after the manner of Orators, who in panegyrical and funeral Orations do commonly use the figures prosopopaeia and Apostrophe, whereby they speak not only to dead men, as though they were living, but also to senseless things, as Ambrose doth to the water of Baptism, Eusebius to Piety, M. Andrews would make the ancient Father's better Orators than Christian● Nazianzen to the Feast of Easter. And for the confirmation of this, he addeth that the Fathers themselves, when they spoke to Saints in that manner do not suffer themselves to be otherwise understood, seeing they confess divers times that they know not whether those to whom they speak, do hear them, or no; for so, saith he, doth Nazianzen in an Apostrophe to the soul of Constantius the Emperor, and in the funeral Oration of his sister Gorgonia; as also Gregory Nissen in his Oration upon Theodorus the Martyr; and Hierome in his Epitaph upon Nepotianus. Whereupon he concludeth, that when the Fathers do invocate Saints by name in their panegyrical, and funeral Orations, Homilies, or Sermons, they do it not as Christians, and Divines, but as Orators and rhetoricians; to wit, as the pagan Orator did, when he said, Marce Druse te appello, I call upon thee Marcus Drusus: or as the Poet said, Audis haec Amp●iar●e sub terram abdite? dost thou hear these things, O Amphiaraus, being hid under the earth? 3. And to this effect he maketh a larger discourse than he is commonly wont to do, employing therein all the art he hath, because he seeth it to be very needful to dazzle the eyes of the Reader with the splendour of a Rhetorical answer: but truly he had need of more Rhetorik then ever had Cicero, or Demosthenes to persuade a learned, and discreet Reader, that the Fathers do invocate Saints rather as Orators, then as Christians, rather in show then in deed, and by Rhetorical figures, rather than with religious devotion. And therefore whereas the confirmation, and proof of this his conceit, consisteth specially in that he saith the Fathers themselves do seem now and then to doubt, whether those whom they invocate in that manner do hear them, I must admonish him of four things, for the full answer of his objection. 4. First that he make a difference betwixt the souls of dead men in general, M. Andrews ad●uertised of 4. things. and of such as are known Saints, and honoured by Almighty God with public miracles: for albeit the Fathers in the funeral Orations of some lately dead, might seem with great reason to doubt whether they heard them, or no (knowing right well that the dead, Matth. 5. yea though they were good men are not received into glory until they have as our Saviour speaketh, paid the last farthing of the debts contracted in this life) yet they made no such doubt concerning the Saints whose feasts were publicly celebrated in the Church, as were the feasts of S. Theodorus the Martyr, S. Cyprian, and S. Agnes, of whom, the first was invocated by S. Gregory Nissen, the second by S. Gregory Nazianzen, and the third by S. Maximus in their festival days, celebrated with great solemnity, as it appeareth in the Orations, and Homilies of the said Fathers cited by the Cardinal. 5. Secondly, he is to understand that such conditional speeches, as he objected out of S. Gregory Nazianzen in his Apostrophe to the soul of Constantius the Emperor to wit, Conditional speeches do not always suppose a doubt in the speaker. si quis tibi istorum sensus sit, if thou have any feeling, or understanding of these things) and again to his sister Gorgonia (si fanctae animae haec talia prefe●tiscant, if holy souls do understand things of this quality) these, I say, & such like do not always signify a doubt in him that useth them, but rather sometimes an affirmation, or assurance of that which he may seem to doubt of, being used rather by the way of obsecration, than otherwise. As for example, if a man should say to some great favourite of a Prince, If you have any credit with your Master, procure me this favour. Or if one dear friend should say to another, If you love me, do this for me; these manners of speech do signify nothing else in effect, but because it is certain, that you have so great credit with your master, that you may obtain of him what you will procure me this grace at his hands: or because I am sure you love me, therefore let it appear in doing this for me; Ep. 〈◊〉 hilem● as the Apostle S. Paul used the like speech to Philemon, when he requested him to receive again Onesimus his slave who was run away from him: Si me, saith he lotium habes etc. If thou take me for thy fellow, receive ●im as myself, as if he should have said, because I am well assured that thou takest me for thy 〈◊〉 Christ, ●herfore receive him as myself; and that the Apostles meaning was no other than this, it is evident by that which followeth, when he saith; Confidens in obedientia tuae etc. trusting in thy obedince, Ibid. I have written unto thee, knowing that thou wilt do above that which I say. Therefore M. Andrew's must not make such a general rule of such condicional speeches as he doth, but rather understand, that when the Fathers do use any such concerning glorified souls, and known Saints, they use them no otherwise then as affirmations, or rather earnest obsecrations, M. Andrews maketh the ancient Fathers very unchristian and wicked Orators. as if they should say, because I am sure thou knowest what is done here on earth, therefore help, and assist those which recommend themselves unto thy prayers. 6. Thirdly, I wish M. Andrews well to consider how absurdly he maketh the Fathers (I will not say rather Orators than Christians, as he himself termeth them, but) very unchristian, and most wicked Orators, if it be true which he, and his fellows teach concerning the Invocation of Saints. Melanch. in antith. Verae doctri. & Pontif. Magdeb. cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. colum. 340. Brent in Apol. Confes. Wittemb. Beza. in Respons. ad Nicolaum Seluec. Andr. cap. 8. p. 150. liu. 45. For who knoweth not, that all the sectaries of this time do hold the same to be injurious to Christ (yea and divers of them affirm it to be blasphemous, and Idolatricall; for so teach Melanchthon, the Magdeburgenses, Brentius, Bezae, and divers others of them) and M. Andrew's himself saith, that when we invocate Saints, we give them the place of Christ, and make other mediators besides him, wherein he signifieth evidently, that we do injury to Christ. And if this be true, what a wicked, and impious Rhetorik was this of the fathers not only to invocate Saints themselves, but also to induce others unto it by their example? 7. For although there is no doubt, but that in their writings, & specially in their panegyrical & funeral Orations they used all ornaments of Rhetoric fit for the subjects whereof they treated (in matters wherein there was no longer of scandal, or error) yet it were absurd to think that they would use them in such sort that their audience might be scandalised, and drawn into error thereby, or that they would themselves, so much as in show and appearance, violate the least point of Christian doctrine, or seem to do injury to Christ; or finally that they sought rather to be eloquent then religious: and therefore M. Andrews must either acknowledge the Invocation of Saints to be lawful, or else confess that he hath a most profane, and irreligious conceit of the ancient Fathers, in affirming, as he doth, that they used the same, not as Devynes, but as rhetoricians, and not as Christians, but as Orators. 8. Lastly to put this matter out of all doubt, and to discover the impertinent vanity of M. Andrews in this point, let us consider the circumstances of one of the places now here in question betwixt the Cardinal, S. Greg. Nyssen. orat. in Theodor. Mart. and him, I mean the same place of S. Gregory Nissen, which I have laid down before, taken out of his oration made in the solemnity of the feast of S. Theodorus the Martyr, wherein S. Gregory having first touched the great celebrity of the feast by the confluence of all sorts of people, far and near, moveth them to consider thereby how God rewardeth the just man, not only in earth and thereby also inciteth them further to aspire to the like rewards, by the imitation of the virtues of those whom God so honoureth; and to this end he discourseth amply of the great honour that was every where exhibited to the relics of martyrs, and particularly of that holy Martyr in that place, and feast, elegantly declaring the magnificence of the Church where his feast was celebrated adorned with excellent workmanship of all sorts● and namely with pictures, Pictures of Martyrs used in Churches, and highly approved by S. Gregory Nyssen. lively expressing the particularityes of his Martyrdom, wherein, by the way, we may note the use of the pictures of Saints in Churches in those days, yea and that they were held to be very profitable for the instruction of the people, seeing that S. Gregory Nissen saith also upon this occasion: The great devotion of Chrians in the revereut touching of holy relics, approved by S Gregory Nyssen. Solet enim pictura tacens in pariete loqui, maximeque prodesse: for the picture which is silent upon the wall is wont to speak, and to profit exceedingly. So he● giving to understand, that the sight of the picture, or painted history did greatly edify the people, and stir them up to the imitation of the Saints virtues, and holy life. But to proceed. 9 After this the same Father relateth the fervent devotion of the people, greatly desiring to approach to the tomb of the Martyr; Credens, saith he, contrectationem eius esse sanctificationem, & benedictionem, believing that the very touching of it would be a sanctification & benediction; yea seeking to get but some of the dust about the tomb, esteeming the same as a thing of great price; and if they could have the good fortune to touch the relics themselves, he appealeth to their own experience and knowledge, The Invocation of holy Martyrs expressly mentioned and allowed by S Gregory Nyssen. how prosperous, and happy they would think themselves, and how they would embrace the said relics, kiss them, and apply them to their eyes, ears, and all the instruments of their senses● Deinde saith he, devotionis & affectonis lachrimas Martyri etc. And then pouring forth tears of devotion and affection to the Martyr, as though he were there whole, and alive, they exhibit their humble petition unto him, as to the servant of God, and as one that being invocated (for so signifieth the Greek (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. word) receiveth what gifts soever he will. Thus saith this ancient, and holy Father, and then concludeth: ex hijs omnibus, o popule pie, discite etc. O pious, or godly people learn by all this, that the death of God's Saints, is honourable, and precious in his sight. 10. All this I have thought good to lay down at large, first to confirm all that which hath hitherto been treated concerning the custom of the Church at that time, not only in the veneration of holy relics, but also in the express Invocation of Saynts● secondly that this holy Father making all this discourse in the solemnity of that Martyr's feast, to stir up the people as well to devotion towards God, and the Martyr, as to the imitation of the Martyr's virtues (for so he himself professeth) did highly approve all that which he hath here related, and consequently when afterwards in the conclusion of the Oration he himself invocated the Martyr, he did it of pure devotion and not of vain ostentation of his eloquence, not as a flaunting Rhetorician, or Orator, but as a religious Divine, and devout Christian, a pious Pastor, and teacher of his flock, to whom he preached, for whom he prayed, S. Greg. Nyssen. ubi supra. and whom he sought to move by his own example, to concur with him in the Invocation of the Martyr. 11. Wherein also M. Andrews may if it please him note the word Invocation used by this Father for prayer to the Martyr, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of whom he saith, that the people prayed unto him, and called upon him as the Minister of God, and as one that received (or obtained of God) what gifts he would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is say, being invocated; for I think M. Andrew's will not deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek doth properly signify invocare in Latin, and in English to invocate. And therefore because he is so curious to run to the Greek in all occasions to examine our cytations of the Greek Fathers, I remit him here to the Greek; for that I have been in this no less (if not more) curious than he, M Andrews remitted to the Greek text, whereto he ordinarily appealeth. having searched the old manuscripts of the Vatican, where I have seen two written copies of S. Gregory Nyssen, both of them very ancient, and in them both have found the Greek words, as here I have laid them down in the margin, with all the rest, very conform to the Latin translation; and therefore I hope he can take no just exceptions thereto. 12. And how then do you think he will seek to elude this evident testimony of this ancient Father? Marry (forsooth) because he findeth, A shifting evasion of M. Andrews refuted. that he saith to the Martyr, ubicumque tamdem fueris, wheresoever thou art, he inferreth thereupon, that the Father calleth upon him doubtfully, and that fluctuant hic omnia, fides nulla de hijs, securum nihil; all things are here uncertain, no faith or belief is to be had of these things, Andr. pag 44. lin. 12. nothing at all secure. So he. And shall then all this serious discourse of this holy Father, directed especially to the glory of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and the honour of his Martyr, in the solemnity of his feast, in a public assembly of the people, and for their instruction and edification (wherein he testified, and highly commended their devotion to the Martyr, the honour they did unto him, yea to his very relics, and their express Invocation, of him, with tears of devotion, and affection, for so saith the Greek:) shall all this, I say, be uncertain, void of faith, and belief, void of security, only because M. Andrew's hath found therein, ubicumque fueris? Can any man imagine that S. Gregory Nyssen would publicly belly the people, even to their faces, or yet approve their devotion to the Martyr, and their invocation of him, if he did not believe it to be acceptable to God, and no way repugnant to the Catholic faith? 13. And again on the other side, if all that he said was true and highly approved by him (as it is evident it was) can we desire a more clear testimony of the belief of this holy Father, and the Church in his time concerning the invocation of Saints? And what then if he should have doubted where the soul of the Martyr was (acknowledging nevertheless that wheresoever he were, he was highly in God's favour) would it follow thereon, that all his former discourse was either false, or impertinent? Or that he doubted whether the Martyr could hear, M. Andrews his doubt retorted upon himself. or help them that did invocate him? Nay might not M. Andrew's rather gather directly thereof, that S. Gregory Nissen, and the people believed that the Martyr heard their prayers, saw their devotion, and understood their actions, yea could, and would help them wheresoever he were, seeing that they craved his help, not knowing where he was? Of this truly there can be no doubt. 14. But for M. Andrew's his better satisfaction in this point, joan. 14. I must needs desire him to call to mind what our Saviour himself teacheth concerning the many mansions in his Father's house, What S. Gregory Nyssen meant when he said to S. Theodore Wheresoever thou art. signifying thereby that as there be many mansions, so also there are different degrees of glory which God imparteth to his Saints; whereby M. Andrews may also understand (if it please him) that S. Gregory Nissen alluding thereto, had reason to speak doubtfully of the mansion, or place where the Martyr was, and degree of glory, wherewith God had blessed him, because no mortal man can know it without special revelation, neither yet is it known to us in what sort the glorified souls are employed in the service, Nyssen. ubi supra. and praise of God in those heavenly mansions; in which respect the Father spoke also doubtfully thereof, beseeching the Martyr that wheresoever he was, or howsoever he was employed in God's service, he would vouchsafe (as an invisible friend) to come to visit the assembly of those that honoured him, and to praise and thank God, together with them, even for the rewards that God had bestowed upon him, for shedding his blood in the confession of his faith. 15. This then being so, I leave it to thee, good Reader, M. Andrews a wrangler in the highest degree. to judge whether M. Andrews be not a true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and a Wrangler in the highest degree, seeing that he not only dissembleth the whole drift, and scope of this ancient Father, and all the substance of his discourse; but also impugneth the same with some of the Fathers own words, or his manner of speech, ill understood, and wrested from the Father's meanings besides that, it also appeareth, what a frivolous and vain evasion he hath sought here to avoid the force of divers pregnant, and unswerable places alleged by the Cardinal, I mean not only this of S. Gregory Nissen, but also the others before mentioned, to wit, of S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Hierome, and S. Maximus, invocating expressly S. Cyprian, the holy widow Paula, and S. Agnes: all which, as also all other places to the same purpose he laboureth to frustrate (as you have heard) with a devise of an Apostrophe, and a proso●opaeia; whereas no man can doubt, but that those Fathers did therein exercise acts of pure devotion (as you see S. Gregory Nyssen did) according to the belief, and practice of the whole Church at that time; which is evident by the testimonies that you have heard already, and will be much more manifest by those that yet rest to be examined. And this shall suffice for this point. 16. The next place that he taketh in hand to answer, is one of S. Ambrose in these words: Ambros● l. de viduis. Card. in Apol. p. 15. Obsecrandi sunt Angeli etc. The Angels which are given us for Guardians, and defenders are to be prayed unto; and the Martyrs in like manner, whose protection we seem to challenge, by having their bodies in pledge, they may pray for our sins, S. Ambrose shamefully calumniated by M. Andrews. who with their own blood have washed away their own sins, if they had any. 〈◊〉 saith S. Ambrose. Whereto M. Andrew's answereth, that the Cardinal might very well have forborn to produce this place, and not have cited it so greedily, as he hath done, but that, he little careth (saith he) as it seemeth, that the blood of Christ should be held for superfluous, Andr. p. 45. §. Pot●rat. rather than he would not pray to Saints; for, superfluus certè sanguis Christi etc. truly the blood of Christ is superfluous, if Martyrs can wash away their sins with their own blood. So he. 17. Whereupon he also inferreth, that the Reader may preceiue hereby, that Ambrose wrote this when he was but a Novice in Chistian religion, and that it is no marvel, if he said, that Martyrs are to be prayed unto, seeing he teacheth● that they have washed their sins with their own blood. Wherein appeareth the modesty of M. Andrews, and his good spirit, who rather than he will acknowledge his own error (which is evidently convinced by this place) chargeth this holy Father with the most execrable, and blasphemous doctrine that can be imagined, as to teach that the blood of Christ is superfluous; which any Christian heart would abbore to hear, and much more to hold, and teach; seeing that it must needs follow thereupon, that all Christian religion, and belief is in vain being all grounded upon the merits of Christ's Passion, and his precious blood shed for us. S. Ambrose cleared from M. Andrews his slanderous imputation by the uniform doctrine of holy Scriptures and Fathers. 18. And truly if S. Ambrose may be charged with this blasphemous opinion, for the cause which M. Andrew's allegeth, than all the Fathers of God's Church yea the Apostles themselves may in like manner be charged therewith. For all of them say as much in effect, as S. Ambrose doth, which also may by some perverse and heretical ●rayne be wrested to the same perverse sense, albeit to those who do consider the grounds of their doctrine, and belief, the contrary is evident. For who knoweth not (if malice do not blynd-fold, and wholly pervert his understanding) that when in the holy Scriptures, and Fathers, any merit, sufficiency, or cooperation to salvation is attributed to a man, or to his faith, works, or any endeavour of his, the same is understood to proceed principally from the merits of Christ's Passion, which is the cause, ground, and foundation of all grace, goodness, and merit in man; and therefore is always supposed, and necessarily understood in all such manner of speech, as this of S. Ambrose, though it be not expressed. Nazian. orat. 1. in. julian. 19 As when we read in S. Gregory Nazianzen that certain Christian soldiers having committed Idolatry, exhorted one another, ut Christo satisfacerent sanguine suo, to satisfy Christ with their blood: and in S. Cyprian: Cypr. li. 4. ep. 2. omnia peccata passione purgare, to purge all sins by passion, or suffering. And again in another place, Idem li. 1● ep. 3. redimere peccata etc. to redeem sins with just sorrow, and satisfaction; and to wash the wounds (of sin) with tears. li. 3. ep. 14. Also in the same Father, Deo precibus, & operibus satisfaccre, to satisfy God with prayers, and works: in servant de opere & eleemos. and, sordes eleemosynis abluere, to wash away the filth (of sin) with alms. And in Origen, Poenitendo, flendo, satisfaciendo delere quod admissum est, to abolish, Origen. bo. 6. in exod. or blot out that which hath been committed, with repentance, weeping, and satisfaction. Also in Tertullian, Tertul. li. 2. de poeniten. ca 7. Ibid. ca 6. that the sinner hath cui satisfaciat, to whom he may give satisfaction, and that God doth offer us, impunitatem poenitentiae compensatione redimendam, impunity, or remission of punishment to be redeemed with the recompense of penance. 20. We read also in Irenaeus, that our goods, or substance being given to the poor, Iren. li. 4. c. 26. in sine. solutionem faciunt praeteritae cupiditatis, do cause solution (or remission) of our former covetousness. Also in S. Augustine, that for daily, and light sins, quotidiana oratio fidelium satisfacit, the daily prayer of the faithful doth satisfy. S. Aug. in enchiridio ca 71. S. Hylar. in psalm. 118. in. fine. And in S. Hilary, that David facti veteris crimen lacrymis abluit, David washed away the fault of his old deed with tears. In S. Chrysostome, that S. Peter adeo abluit negationem etc. did so wash away his denial of Christ (with his tears, or repentance) that he was made the chief Apostle. And again in the same Oration; S. Chrys. orat. 5. adverse. jud. una anima quam lucrati fuerimus etc. One soul which we have gained, may abolish the weight of innumerable sins, animaeque redimend● fieri precium in illo die, and become a price to redeem our soul in the day of judgement. S. Greg. li. 6. in 2. Reg. 15● ca 2. Finally, to omit innumerable other places of the rest of the Fathers, S. Gregory the great teacheth, that peccata delenda sunt austeritate poenitentiae, sins are to be blotted out with the austerity of penance, 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 blood of Christ is superfluous, because they speak of men's satisfaction for sin (by washing the same with tears, and by purging, and redeeming them with alms, penance, and Martyrdom) without mention of Christ's satisfaction for us? May he not take the like exception also to divers speeches in the holy Scripture as peccatum tuum eleemosynis redime; Dan. 4. redeem thy sin with alms, Prou. 16. misericordia, & veritate redimitur iniquitas, iniquity is redeemed with mercy, & verity● spesalui facti sumus, Rom. 8. we are saved by hope; baptisma vos saluos facit, baptism saveth you; saluos nos fecit per lavachrum regenerationis, Tit. 3. he hath saved us by the water of regeneration; Philip. 2. operamini salutem, work your salvation, and the like in divers other places: may he not, I say, cavil as well against these speeches, as against the other in S. Ambrose? Yes truly. The reason why baptism, penance, good works, Martyrdom, and such like, are said to save us, without derogation to the Passion of Christ. 22. For the reason is all one in both, it being evident, that the merit of Christ's precious blood, and death is presupposed, and necessarily understood as well in the one, as in the other: and as Baptism, and Hope are special means to apply unto us the merits of Christ's passion (in which respect they are said in the Scripture to save us;) so also tears of repentance, penance, alms, good works, and Martyrdom (whereof S. Ambrose speaketh) are special means to apply unto us the satisfaction of Christ; and in that respect the Fathers say, that they satisfy for us, wash away, blot out, and purge our sins, to wit, as secondary causes that have their operation by the virtue, and force of the first cause (which is the merits of our saviours passion:) and therefore if a man should say, that a Physician had saved his life, he could not with reason be thought to derogate any thing either from the operation of the medicine, or from the providence, or power of God, who gave force to the medicine, and good success to the Physician; as neither he that should say the medicine saved his life, could be thought to do injury either to God, or to the Physician. 23. For whereas many causes do commonly concur to one effect, M. Andrews showed to b● either very ignorant, or exceeding malicious. every cause may well be said to work the effect, without denial of the concurrence of other causes, and especially of the first cause, by virtue whereof all the rest have their operation. So that M. Andrews showeth himself either very ignorant, or totoo malicious, in saying, that S. Ambrose maketh the blood of Christ superfluous, because he saith, that the Martyrs wash away their sins with their own blood, as though he denied the virtue of Christ's passion by ascribing remission of sin to Martyrdom, which is an inferior, and secondary cause thereof, as being an immediate means to apply the force and fruit of Christ's passion unto us; and therefore whereas he saith, it is no marvel that S. Ambrose who so said, did not also stick to say, that we may pray to Saints; it is indeed no marvel at all, seeing that his speech is in both most conform to reason, Scriptures, Fathers, and to the doctrine of the whole Church. But truly the wonder is, that any modest Christian, and especially one that pretends to be a Prelate in God's Church, should be so temerarious, and audacious, as to lay so foul an imputation as he doth here, upon one of the most holy, and famous Fathers of God's Church, for speaking only in such sort, as all other Fathers speak, yea the Scriptures themselves, as I have already showed. 24. Yea but S. Ambrose changed his mind (saith M. Andrew's) in the later point (to wit concerning prayer to Saints) for Ambrosio, Andr. p. 45. § Poterat. saith he, alibi alia mens provecto iam, meliùs edocto: Ambrose was elsewhere of another mind, when he waxed elder, and was better learned. So he; and how doth he prove this? Marry for sooth by two manifest testimonies of his, as he saith, for thus he goeth forward, cuius nota sententia ad Deum suffragatore non est opus, S. Ambros. in cap. 1. ad Rom. certe nec obsecratore, whose known opinion, or sentence is, there is no need of a suffragator, or helper to God, nor yet of a beseecher, & illa: Idem oration. de obitu Theodos. tu solus Domine invocandus es; and that other, thou only, O Lord art to be invocated. Thus saith he, alleging, as you see, two places out of S. Ambrose, and citing for the former his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans, and for the latter, his funeral Oration upon Theodosius the Emperor. But in the former you may note partly his evil hap, and partly his folly; M. Andrews unfortunate, foolish, & fraudulent, and first touching his evil fortune. in the latter his fraud, and falsehood. His evil hap is manifest in the former, because, to show that S. Ambrose recalled his doctrine which he had delivered in an undoubted work of his, M. Andrews bringeth a testimony calling it notam sententiam, a known sentence, or opinion of S. Ambrose, albeit he take it out of a work, which in the opinion of divers learned men was not written by S. Ambrose; and so perhaps M. Andrews himself would tell us, Coment. in ca 3. ep. ●. ad Tim. if we should object against him out of that Commentary that Pope Damasus was head, or governor of the whole Church, because we read there, cuius (Ecclesiae) hody rector est Damasus, of which (Church) Damasus is governor at this day. 25. Nevertheless I say not this because I mean to reject the authority of that Commentary, See chap. 1. nu. 7. having alleged it myself before against M. Andrew's, as S. Ambrose his work, which I have done partly because it is commonly cited under his name, being amongst his other works, and no other Author of it known; and partly because M. Andrews himself approveth it so highly, as you see in this place, and therefore I made account that howsoever others may take exception to it, and to my allegation of it, yet he can take none, but must needs admit it; wherein also I wish this difference to be noted betwixt his allegation thereof, and mine, that I did not wholly rely upon the authority of it, but fortified it with a most pregnant place taken out of a known, and assured work of S. Ambrose for the satisfaction of such as might doubt of the former; Ibidem. whereas he being driven to such an exigent as you have seen (that is to say, Possevin. in Appar. Maldonat. in cap. 17. Matt. Bellar. de amiss. gra. lib. 4. c. 9 §. Sed facilis. flatly to deny S. Ambrose his clear doctrine) and undertaking to show that he recalled it afterwards, professeth to produce an undoubted and known testimony of S. Ambrose, citing nevertheless a work which divers learned men, as I have said, do hold to be none of his, as it may be seen in Possevinus, Maldonatus, Cardinal Bellarmine, and others; which, I say, I cannot but ascribe to some evil fortune that haunteth M. Andrews, and forceth him to ground all his buildings upon such weak, and unsure foundations, that there is no true solidity in anything he saith, or produceth out of others. 26. And put the case there were no doubt at all to be made of the Author of that Commentary, M Andrews his folly in alleging a place against prayer to Saints, which doth nothing concern it. but that he was undoubtedly S. Ambrose, yet M. Andrews showeth himself not only unfortunate, but also most foolish, and ridiculous, in that the place which he allegeth out of it, against prayer to Saints, doth not concern it at all, nor impugn any thing else, but Idolatry to the Sun, Moon, Planets, and Stars, which S. Paul reproved in the Pagans in his Epistle to the Romans, by the occasion whereof the Author of the Commentary saith that those Idolatrous Paynims of whom the Apostle speaketh were wont to excuse their Idolatry, Rom. 1. by saying, that by the inferior Gods, men did come to the highest and chief God, Ambros. in cap. 1. ad Rom. as by Counts, or Earls to the King: & then he addeth, Numquid it a demens est aliquis etc. Is any man so mad, or so unmindful of his own good, that he giveth the King's honour to the Count? For if any be found that do but only treat of such a matter, they are worthily condemned as Traitors, and yet these (Pagans) do not think themselves guilty of treason, when they give the honour of the name of God to his creature, and forsaking their Lord, do adore their fellow-servants, as though any thing more can be reserved to God. For men do therefore go to the King by his Tribunes, or Counts, because the King is but a man, and knoweth not whom he may trust with the Common wealth: Ad Deum autem (quem utique nihil latet, omnia enim merita novit) promerendum, suffragatore non est opus, sed mente devota; but to deserve the favour of God (from whom nothing is hid, and who knoweth all men's merits) there is no need of a suffragator, or helper, but of a devout mind. Thus saith that Author in that place, be he S. Ambrose, or who else soever. 27. Wherein it is to be observed, What the authors scope and drift was in the place alleged by M. Andrews. that his whole scope, and drift is to confute the Idolatrous Pagans, who did not so much use the help, and mediation of creatures to come to God (which no man can deny to be lawful, so that it be done in due manner) as they gave to creatures both the name of God and the honour due to him, call them Gods, and adoring them with divine 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 chief God did not otherwise know men's minds, or actions, nor could otherwise govern the world, but by the inferior Gods, as kings cannot otherwise govern their realms, but by their officers, in which respect the author showeth the difference betwixt God, & earthly Kings, opposing to their ignorance God's knowledge of all men's hearts, and secret thoughts, and thereupon concludeth that, Ad Deum promerendum suffragatore opus non est, there is no need of a suffragator to deserve the favour of God, sed mente devota, but of a devout mind: giving to understand, that God, to whom all men's minds and hearts are manifest, knoweth and seeth the devotion and merits of every man, though no man intimate, or relate the same unto him. 28. Whereupon it followeth, that there is no such absolute necessity to come to God by the means of others, as the Paynims imagined, seeing that any man may (according to the doctrine of this Author) come to him immediately by the devotion of his own mind, yea & by his merits, which, by the way, I wish M. Andrews to observe in this place, where the author signifieth that there is no need of a suffragator ad Deum promerendum, to merit or deserve God's favour, because God knoweth omnia merita, M. Andrews clippeth the Father's authorities that they may not speak against him all merits; which words (I mean promerendum, and omnia merita) M. Andrews thought good to leave out of the text, which he allegeth, albeit the Author's meaning, and the true sense of the place cannot be well understood without them, especially promerendum, which is essential to the text; for the Author saith, ad Deum promerendum suffragatore non est opus. So as you see, how M. Andrew's 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 citeth. 29. But notwithstanding all his juggling, it is evident (the whole place being considered) that it maketh nothing against our Prayer to Saints, seeing that we do not make the Saints Gods, as the Paynims made the Sun, & Moon, to whom they sacrificed, neither do we hold, as the Paynims did, that a man cannot come immediately to God by prayer, and devotion, which we commonly use to do, directing our prayers, The mediation as well of Christ himself, as of Saints & men for us, is overthrown by the place alleged by M. Andrews if he understand it aright. as well mental as vocal, to God himself, although we do also many times crave the help, and assistance, as well of men, as of Saints, as a thing (though not of absolute necessity to salvation) yet very convenient, behoveful, 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 denied it to be lawful, profitable, or needful to have a suffragatour, or mediator to pray for us, for so should he have impugned a most known truth, which M. Andrews neither will, nor can deny (I mean the mediation not only of Saints for us, and of one man for another (both which M. Andrews granteth) but also of the humanity of Christ for us all) for if we have no need of either suffragatour, or mediator to God, but only of a devout mind, because he knoweth our hearts, and thoughts; it followeth that when we do devoutly serve God ourselves, we need not the prayer either of other men, or of Saints, or yet of Christ himself and therefore let M. Andrews consider, whether he will admit this inference, which must needs be good, if he will infer any thing upon this place against prayer to Saints. 31. So as you see, he hath very impertinently alleged this testimony, to prove that S. Ambrose changed his mind concerning Prayer to Saints, for neither is the Commentary, The trick of heretics to seek to overthrow plain places by obscure. which he citeth, an undoubted work of S. Ambrose (& consequently the sentence which he allegeth out of it, is not nota sententia, a known sentence of that holy Father, as he termeth it:) neither is it any thing to the purpose though it be his, besides that we may note here an ordinary trick of an heretic, which is, to seek to overthrow most evident and plain places, by others that are more obscure, and doubtful, or subject to divers interpretations, for so doth he here, opposing this obscure, and difficult place, to a testimony which is so clear, that he is forced to reject S. Ambrose, and make him no better than a blasphemous heretic for his doctrine therein, and yet you see also, that the place which he citeth, being understood secundum subiectam materiam, and according to the circumstances thereof, maketh nothing at all for him, or against us, and this shall suffice for the former of the two places, and his evil fortune and folly in the allegation thereof. 32. In the other sentence which he allegeth to prove, that S. Ambrose changed his mind touching prayer to Saints, he showeth more fraud than folly● The words are; Another place of S. Ambr. very fraudulently cited by M. Andrews and ridiculously applied to his purpose. Tu solus Domine invocandus es. Thou only, o Lord, art to be invocated; whereupon he would infer, that no Saint may be invocated, that is to say prayed unto; but to omit that which I have sufficiently treated before, concerning the word invocation (whereon he so much relieth) I desire thee good Reader, to note how he would cozen, and abuse thee in the allegation of this place. Thou shalt therefore understand, that S. Ambrose in his funeral oration upon the death of the Emperor Theodosius, having declared his great virtues, See Chap. 6 nu. 2. & 3. useth indeed those words which M. Andrews citeth, but whether to the same purpose that they are alleged, thou thyself shalt be judge. Thus than he saith: S. Ambr. de obitu Theod. Conteror cord etc. I am much afflicted in heart, because a man is taken from us, whose like is hardly to be found; sed tu solus Domine invocandus es, tu rogandus ut eum in filijs repraesentes; but thou alone, o Lord, art to be invocated, thou to be prayed, that thou mayst represent him in his Children. Thus saith S. Ambrose. 33. And now will M. Andrews infer upon this, that S. Ambrose teacheth here, that we may not pray to Saints? did he not see trow you (if he saw the place in the author, M. Andr. applieth that to all things in general which S. Ambrose speaketh of a particular matter. and not in some corrupt notebook, either of his own, or his fellows) that S. Ambrose speaketh here of prayer for a particular purpose, to wit, to obtain the grace of God for the emperors Children, to make them like their Father? and this S. Ambrose said with great reason was to be craved of God alone; for he alone, and none but he, can give grace, and therefore he is only to be invocated as the giver of it, albeit the prayers both of Saints, and men, may be craved to help to obtain it of him; and I think M. Andrews will not deny, Only God is to be invocated, & prayed unto, as the giver of grace, though the prayers of Saints & men may be craved to obtain it of him. but that S. Ambrose might very lawfully have desired the people to pray to God to represent Theodosius in his Children, that is to say, to give them grace that they might be like their father in virtue, and piety. So as it appeareth that solus invocandus is no otherwise used in this place of S. Ambrose, then as rogandus is, which presently followeth; and that both of them are to be referred to that which ensueth, to wit, repraesentes● and finally that this place doth not exclude the craving of prayers either of man, or of Saints to obtain grace of God, though it signify, that God only can give grace and consequently is only to be invocated to that end. 34. And therefore I leave it to thy judgement, The weakness of M Andrews his cause is further discovered, by another shift and cozenage of his good Reader, how sincere M. Andrews is in citing the Fathers, whom he nippeth, and mangleth in this manner, to make them speak after his fashion, and what a good cause he hath in hand, seeing he is forced to maintain it with such fraud and falsehood, which may yet further appear by the conclusion of his answer to the place objected by the Cardinal out of S. Ambrose, wherein truly he showeth himself no less fraudulent, Andr. p. 45. §. Poterat. and impertinent, then before. Thus than he saith. Etiam scriptus illi de oratione liber etc. He (to wit Ambrose) also wrote a book concerning prayer, wherein (albeit there was fit place or occasion to treat of this matter, A book forged & fathered upon S. Ambrose which he never wrote. yet) there is no mention at all of Saints. So he● which truly I must needs account for a fraud, & abuse of his reader, until he tell me where this book, which he mentioneth, is to be found; for I have searched for it diligently, as well in the Tome of S. Ambrose, as also in others that have written particularly of his works, and yet I can find no such book, nor mention thereof any where. 35. True it is that he treateth of prayer in many parts of his works, not in any particular treatise bearing that title, but obiter by the way upon occasions offered either in the exposition of the Scriptures of the old and new Testament, or in his other treatises; as for example, in his books de Sacramentis, he writeth of the manner, & place of prayer, of the order to be observed therein, of the beginning, midst, and end of it, of the difference of postulation, S. Ambros. lib 1 de sacram. cap. 3.4. & 5. Idem lib. 5. cap. 4. obsecration, and thanksgiving, yea he expoundeth the whole Pater noster. And as it is true, that in these places there is no mention either of the prayers of Saints for us, or of our prayers to them: so also it is no less true, that there are many other things appertaining to prayer, which are not so much as touched there, as (to speak of a thing of like nature and quality to the other) there is not any insinuation of our mutual prayers one for another, albeit there are divers places which may be supposed very fit, and convenient for that purpose; neither is there any mention there of prayer for our enemies, although S. Ambrose may seem to have had very just occasion to speak thereof, when treating of prayer, he expoundeth this petition of the Pater Noster, Dimite nobis debita nostra etc. Forgive us our trespasses, as we for give them that trespass against us. 36. And now shall we say, that S. Ambrose held it to be either unlawful, M. Andrews hardly urged by his own argument. or needles to pray for our enemies? or to crave the prayers of our brethren, because he faith nothing of those points in these places? or shall his silence here prejudice his clear doctrine else where, and be taken for a recantation of it, as M. Andrews would have it to be supposed in this other case? What then will he say of a point which he himself alloweth concerning the intercession of Saints, to wit, not only that they pray for us, but also that we may pray to God to hear and help us by their intercession, which he granteth to be lawful, albeit there would be no mention of it in that book of S. Ambrose de Oratione which he citeth, Andr. p. 45. § Poterat. if there were any such, for he himself confesseth, that there is no mention therein at all of Saints; will he therefore allow us to infer hereupon, that S. Ambrose did not believe either that Saints do pray for us, or that we may pray to God to be helped by their intercession? So should this supposed book whereto he appealeth, condemn him no less in this point, then us in the other. 37. And if I would be so absurd to argue as he doth, I might as probably say, that S. Ambrose approveth prayer to Saints, M. Andrews hi● absurd argument ab authoritat● negativa, retorted against himself. because he doth not condemn it in his exposition of the Pater Noster, where the place seemed to invite him to teach, that all prayer ought to be directed to God only, if he had been of that opinion, and had not allowed prayer to Saints, as to intercessors to God for us: thus I say, I might argue with as much probability, as M. Andrew's doth, but that I am not ignorant (as neither he, me thinks, should be) that such an argument ab authoritate negativa (howsoever it may sometimes serve for a light or bare conjecture) yet can never pass for a proof amongst learned men, especially to such purpose as he urgeth it here, to wit to overthrow an authors express doctrine in one place, by his silence thereof in another; for who knoweth not that all authors have certain principal intentions in their works and treatises, whereto specially tendeth all their discourse; and that they are not any way bound to handle other by-questions further than they think convenient? wherein also every one hath his reasons (though unknown to others) why he handleth one point, more than some other, which may perhaps seem no less pertinent to his subject then that which he handleth; neither is he to be controlled or blamed for the same, if he perform as much as he either promiseth or specially intendeth. And therefore although S. Ambrose had written such a book concerning prayer, as M. Andrews forgeth, yet his silence therein touching prayer to Saints, could not prejudice his express doctrine thereof in his other works. 38. Well then to conclude concerning this point, I hope, good Reader, thou hast noted divers things worthy to be considered; as first that M. Andrews hath not only rejected S. Ambrose his express testimony concerning the invocation of Saints, but also charged him with a most blasphemous doctrine, How many ways M. Andrews hath abused S. Ambrose. which never any man else I dare say (except perhaps some other Sectary of this age) ever so much as suspected, or imagined in that holy Father. Secondly promising to prove by a known sentence of S. Ambrose, that he changed his mind afterwards in that point, he allegeth a work, which in the opinion of divers learned men was not written by S. Ambrose; besides that the place which he produceth is nothing at all to the purpose, for the which he allegeth it. Thirdly laying down the true words of another place in a true work of S. Ambrose, he hath fraudulently dissembled & concealed that which immediately followeth, and not only discovereth, but also overthroweth his false construction thereof; and lastly he hath coined a new work of S. Ambrose, never heard of by any, but by himself, whereby also he could gain nothing if there were any such. So as now I report me to thee, good Reader, whether he hath not quit himself well in the answer of the cardinals objection out of S. Ambrose. Let us then pass to another. M. Andrews answer to a place of Ruffinus examined. and confuted. 39 The next place which he laboureth to answer is taken out of the history of Ruffinus, who saith of Theodosius the Emperor thus. Circuibat omnia orationum loca etc. he went about to all places of prayer, and lay prostrate in hearcloth, and craved help for himself, by the faithful intercession of Saints. So he; declaring what means Theodosius used to obtain the admirable victory which almighty God afterwards gave him against Eugenius the Tyrant. Ruffin. lib. 2. Hist. c. 33. Card. Apol. p. 10. To this M. Andrews answereth thus: Theodosius ibi sanctorum inuocator non est &c. Andr. p. 4.5. §. Locus. Theodosius is not there an invocatour of Saints, for it is one thing to crave help of Saints, which is properly to invocate them, and another to crave help of God by the intercession of Saints, So he, giving to understand that Theodosius did not pray to Saints, but to God, to hear him by the intercession of Saints, which he signifieth afterwards more plainly, saying. Rogare autem Deum etc. To beseech God to favour us at the request of Saints, is not to pray to them, Pag. 48. lin. 14. or to invocate them but God; hoc autem nec praeterea quid fecit ibi Theodosius, this, and nothing else did Theodosius there. Thus saith M. Andrew's, who, as you see granteth that Theodosius prayed at the tombs of Martyrs, yea that he craved help of almighty God by the intercession of Saints, but not that he prayed to the Saints themselves. 40. Nevertheless he may easily be convinced herein, if we consider what hath been already proved by the testimonies of those holy Fathers which have hitherto been produced; by the which it is evident that the common custom of Christians was at that time to pray to Saints, and Martyrs, at their tombs, and monuments; and amongst the rest S. Chrysostome testifieth expressly (as you have heard) that the very emperors themselves (of whom one was Theodosius) used to come to the monuments of Martyrs, Supra chap. 6. and there to pray to them, S. Chrysost. ho. 20. in ep. ad Corin. to the end that they might pray to God for them, and therefore I remit it to the judgement of any indifferent man, whether it be credible that Theodosius being to crave God's favour, and assistance against the Tyrant Eugenius at the tombs of Martyrs, and by their intercession, did not also particularly pray to them, as not only all Christians at that time, but also he, and other Emperors were wont to do in their necessities; is it likely that he would do it at other times, and not then when he had most need? 41. This is so improbable that M. Andrews had need to bring some more pregnant reasons to prove it then he doth, especially seeing it was commonly reported, as Zozomen witnesseth, that Theodosius going to encounter Eugenius, Zozomen. lib. 7. cap. 24. passed by a Church which he had built in the honour of S. john Baptist, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, he invocated the Baptist to be his Assistant in the battle? The Emperor Theodosius invocated saints, & namely S. john Baptist. whereby it evidently appeareth, that Theodosius was held at that time to be an invocatour of Saints, and namely of S. john Baptist, and that the same was generally approved in him, seeing it was reported amongst the people, and related by Sozomen, as one special means which he used to obtain the famous victory, that God gave him presently after against his enemy; and therefore there is no doubt, but that when he craved help against the same enemy by the intercession of Martyrs at their tombs (as Ruffinus testifieth in the place alleged by the Cardinal) he invocated the Martyrs themselves; for I think no reason can be given why he should pray particularly to S. john Baptist, and not also to those Martyrs, seeing that the self same occasion, and opportunity of time, place, and necessity urged him to both alyke● 42. But perhaps you will imagine that some potent reasons moved M. Andrew's to think that Theodosius did not invocate the Martyrs, yea that it was not lawful for him to do it. Andr. p. 45. §. Locus. But truly his reason is no other, but because, we neither are sure that the Saints hear us, nor have any precept in Scripture to pray to them. Vtcumque, This is to give checkmates to all the ancient Fathers at once, and was there not one of all these great Clerks that understood the Scripture as well as this Mynister● saith he, illi pro nobis intercedant etc. Howsoever the Saints pray for us, yet except we may be sure that they hear us, yea and though the same were manifest, yet except we have some commandment of God for it, they are not to be invocated by us, albeit they pray for us of their own accord. So he; opposing this his frivolous conceit against the sacred authority, as well of the public custom, and practise of the primitue Church, as of the belief of the ancient Fathers, testifying, and approving the same; which might suffice to persuade any reasonable man, both that Saints do hear us, and also that they may be invocated. For would the whole Church of God, even then when it was notably furnished with learned, and holy pastors (which our adversaries cannot deny) have practised, or yet permitted the invocation of Saints, if either it were unlawful, or else that the Saints do not hear us? ●. Tim. 3. So should the spouse of Christ, Matth. 28. and the pillar of truth (whereto our Saviour promised his own continual assistance) so should she, I say have erred most perniciously, if it were not lawful to pray to Saints; and foolishly, if they did not hear us; and therefore if there were no other argument or proof thereof, but the practice of the whole Church, as well in those days as ever since, yet the same might suffice to convince M. Andrews, and his fellows in this point. It is proved by manifest experience that Saints do hear our prayers, & help us. 43. But what will he say to the undoubted experience that men have had in all times, and ages, and yet have of the admirable, and most miraculous effects of petitions made to Saints? do not the same most evidently prove both that the Saints do hear us, and that God himself approveth the use, and custom of praying to them? I have showed this experience already in the age whereof we now speak, by the testimonies of Saint Basil, See Chap. 6. and Saint Gregory Nazianzen, witnessing the notable effects of prayers to the 40● Martyrs, Saint Mammas, and the blessed Virgin Mary, whereto I might add divers others of the same age, and all other ages ensuing until this day; but to avoid prolixity (and because I hold it needless to multiply witnesses, in a matter so manifest as this) I will content myself with only one evident testimony of Theodoret, who lived in the same age that divers of those other fathers did, whom the Cardinal allegeth; for he was Bishop of Sirus in S. Augustine's time before the third General Council, of Ephesus, though he was younger than any of the rest, & lived many years after them, to wit until the 4. General Council where he was presents So as two of the 4. first General councils were held in his days, and whiles he was Bishop. 44. This ancient Father writing against the Gentiles of his time, and proving by many evident arguments that Christ is God, urgeth notably the great honour generally exhibited in those days to Martyrs, in the sumptuous, and magnificent Churches that were then dedicated unto them, Theodor● de Graec. affect. curan. lib. 8. whereof he saith thus: Neque verò ad haec per annum semel, aut bis etc. We do not use to come to these only once, or twice, or five times in the year, but we do often celebrate festival days in them; we do often every day sing hymns, and praises to the Lord of those Martyrs; and men that are in health do pray to be conserved in it, and those that are sick do crave health; also barren women and men do desire to have children, and those that are already Fathers do seek to have their Children conserved: also travailers (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. do crave the Martyrs to be their companions in their way, and guides of their journey; and those that are safely returned, give thanks, confessing the benefit received, (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not coming to them, as to Gods, but praying to them as to divine men, and beseeching them to be intercessors for them; and that they do obtain those things which they piously, and faithfully crave, it is testified by the gifts, that are offered by such as have made vows, which are manifest tokens that they have obtained their desired health; for some do hang up figures (or representations) of eyes, some of feet, some of hands, all made of silver, or gold; and their Lord doth gratfully accept what gift soever is given, and disdaineth none, though never so small and mean, measuring them according to the ability of the giver. Therefore those gifts being set forth to the public view of all men, are most evident signs, and testimonies, that those which give them are freed from their diseases, and have recovered their health. These I say do show what is the virtue or power of the Martyrs, and the power, and virtue of the Martyrs doth declare, that he whom they have worshipped and served, is true God. Thus saith Theodoret. The ancient custom of the primitive Church to hang up votive representations of hands, feet eyes, and such like in Churches, to testify the recovery of bodily health by the intercession of Saints. 45. And can any man desire more clear, and manifest testimony, either that the general custom of the Church was to pray to Saints in his time, or that God approved it with miraculous effects? Yea, and that the same was held for a special argument to prove that Christ was God? Wherein also it is to be observed, that the use was in that age (above eleven hundred years ago) to hang up votive Images and representations of hands, feet, eyes, and such like, to testify the miraculous recovery of bodily health by the intercession of Saints, which therefore is no modern custom of these later ages (as our adversaries falsely affirm it to be) but an ancient practice of the primitive Church. Whereupon it also followeth not only that prayer to Saints is most lawful, and honourable to almighty God, and profitable to men, but also that Saints hear the prayers that are made unto them, seeing that they obtain the grant thereof, and give succour to their suppliants. What account then is to be made of the cavilling, and trifling doubt that M. Andrews maketh, whether they hear us, or no? Especially seeing he groundeth the same upon no better reason, than partly because some of the ancient Fathers were of opinion that the Saints shall not have the perfect vision of God, before the day of judgement (and consequently that they do not see in him what is done on earth) and partly also for that S. Augustine teacheth, Andr. p. 40. lin. 5. that the dead are not present at the affairs of men. Whereupon he concludeth; Quòd sinec ipsi intersint (ut Augustinus) etc. if the Saints are neither present here themselves, A very simple discourse of M. Andrews. as Augustin affirmeth, neither yet do see any thing in the glass (he meaneth the Essence of God) as almost all the other Fathers affirm, they cannot know our desires; for how should they know them, seeing that they neither can see things in the glass, nor yet in themselves. So he; arguing more simply than I could have imagined of so great a Doctor, if I had not seen it. 46. For put the case that all this which he saith, How Saints may understand and know our prayers and actions. were infallibly true (I mean that the Saints neither have as yet the full vision of God, neither are at any time present here amongst men) is there no otherway for them to know our actions, or understand our petitions? how did Elizaeus the Prophet know that his servant Giezi took gifts of Naman Syrus, when nevertheless he neither had the vision of God, 4. Reg. c. 5. nor yet was present with Giezi when he received the gifts? And how do Prophets understand things to come, or done in remote places? Will M. Andrews say, that they have no knowledge thereof, because they neither see God, nor are present at the actions, nor in the places whereof they speak? This I think he will be ashamed to say; & therefore he must needs confess that his inference is very vain, & idle, when he argueth that the Saints do not understand our prayers, because they do not see God, nor are present with us. And this he might have learned of S. Augustine, even in that place which he citeth, to prove that the dead are not present at our affairs. 47. For even there (I mean in his book de cura pro mortuis) he declareth, S. Aug. l. de cura pro mort. c. 12. that albeit the dead do not naturally know what passeth in earth, neither are ordinarily conversant with us, yet they may know our actions, Ibid. ca 15. See Chap. 9 nu. 42.43. & 44. S. Aug. lib. 2. de Civit. Dei cap. 9 as well by the relation of Angels, as by divine revelation, yea, and that they may be present with us, and help us per divinam potentiam, by divine power, as shall further appear in the ninth Chapter, where I shall have somewhat more to say to M. Andrew's concerning his gross, and shameful abuse both of the Cardinal, Lact. li. 7. cap. 21. and S. Augustine touching this place. Therefore whereas he also allegeth S. Augustine, Lactantius, and S. Bernard to prove that the souls of the just are reserved in certain receptacles, Bern. ser. 3. de omnib. Sanct. and secret places, where they have not the perfect vision of God until the day of judgement, I shall not need to say any thing thereto, as well because it would avail him nothing, as you see, though S. Augustine and all the rest of the Fathers had been of that opinion, seeing that even there (I mean in those receptacles) the Saints might know our prayers by Angels, or by divine revelation, according to S. Augustine's doctrine, as also because it is evident, that not only S. Augustine, but also all the Fathers both Greek and Latin (except 3. to wit, Tertullian, Lactantius, and Victorinus) do teach, that the Saints do already enjoy the vision of God, though not in that perfection, and consummation of their beatitude, which they shall have after the resurrection, and glorification of the bodies, as M. Andrews may see, if it please him in the controversy of Cardinal Bellarmine, who allegeth to this purpose 36. Fathers of the Greek, Bellar. de Sanct Fea●it lib. 1. c. 4. & 5. Ibid. cap. 1. and Latin Church, and answereth particularly those very places, which M. Andrews quoteth in his margin, and all other places and authorities, which are commonly objected against our catholic doctrine in this point. So as, in fine M. Andrew's proveth nothing at all against us by this objection. 48. And whereas he saith also by the way that the Saints ought not to be invocated, albeit they could hear us, because there is no precept of it, I forbear to give any full satisfaction to that scruple in this place, because he doth not here yield any reason, or produce any authority to prove, that nothing is to be done without an express precept, though in another place he allegeth a text of Scripture to that end, whereof I shall have further occasion to speak after a while, and therefore I remit the full answer thereof until then, and only in the mean time I will say to him with S. Augustine, S. Aug. To. 2. ●p. 86. that in his rebus de quibus nihil certi statuit Scriptura etc. In these things whereof there is no certain precept, or determination in Scripture, the custom of God's people, or the ordinances of our forefathers are to be held for a law. 49. So he; Idem. ep. 118. who also in another place speaking of certain traditions of the Church, saith: Si quid horum tota p●r orbem frequentat Ecclesia etc. if the whole Church throughout the world do frequent, The force and validity of Ecclesiastical customs. or use any of these things, it is a most insolent madness to dispute whether it be to be done, or no. Thus saith S. Augustine, concluding M. Andrews to be a most insolent mad man, who calleth in question a general custom of the Church: S. Hiero. contra Lucifer. c●. 4● to which purpose S. Hierome also saith to the Luciferians, that albeit there were no authority of Scripture for the matter in question betwixt them, yet, totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret, the consent of the whole world in this behalf were as much as a precept. And the like saith Tertullian; Hanc si nulla, saith he, Tertul. de corona. mil. cap. 3. Scriptura determinavit etc. if no Scripture hath determined this, yet truly custom, which without doubt, hath flowed from tradition, hath corroborated, and strengthened it. 50. To these Fathers I might add many more to the same purpose, if it were needful, but these may suffice for the present, to show that M. Andrews doth very idly exact a precept for prayer to Saints, when it is evident by the testimony of all the Fathers before cited, that the same was generally practised in the Church in their time, no less than it is at this present: whereupon I also conclude concerning the fact of Theodosius the Emperor, See supra nu. 41. Sozom. hist. lib. 7. cap. 24. S. Chryso. ho. 26. in ep. ad Corinth. that it cannot be with reason denied, but that when he lay prostrate before the tombs of the Martyrs, craving help against Eugenius the Tyrant by their intercession, he prayed also to them, and not only to God, especially considering the testimonies produced by me before out of Sozomen concerning his particular invocation of S. john Baptist upon the same occasion, and out of S. Chrysostome, testifying the emperors custom in those days to pray to the Martyrs at their monuments; wherein also, it may well be presumed, that S. Chrysostome had a special relation even to that fact of Theodosius whereof we now treat, because the same was then very famous when he wrote his commentary upon S. Paul's Epistles, whence this testimony is taken; for he wrote the same, while he was Bishop, as it may appear by the time of his election, and of a vision of S. Paul who was seen to assist him whiles he interpreted those Epistles, See Baron. an. ●97. in fine. & in ●nno 407. being then Bishop, which was but a few years after the overthrow of Eugenius, and the death of Theodosius. Thus much for the testimony of Ruffinus. 51. Next after this followeth a place of S. Paulinus, S. Paulinus ep. 12. add Sever. Card. Apol● p. ●7 Andr. p. 4●. § Postquam. invocating S. Clarus in these words: Haec peccatorum etc. Receive these prayers of sinners, who do beseech thee to be mindful of Paulinus, and Therasia. And now because Paulinus wrote in verse, M. Andrews will have it to be understood that he did but play, or dally like a Poet. The testimony of S. Paulin for the invocation of Saints defended against M. Andrews. But to this I answer, that if S. Paulinus was a Poet, he was a Christian, yea a holy Poet, and therefore would not use any Poetical licence to the derogation of the Christian faith, or Religion, or that might any way seem injurious to Christ (as M. Andrews, and his fellows do account the invocation of Saints to be:) besides that, it is manifest that he did no otherwise in verse, than the other Fathers afore mentioned did in prose, See before nu. 6. and was warranted, as you have seen by the custom, and practice of the whole Church at that time: S. Aug. ser. 17. d● verb. Apostol. pa. 18. so that this is as vain an evasion, and as improbable as any of the former. 52. Finally he concludeth his censure with S. Augustine, whom the Cardinal allegeth thus: Habet Ecclesiastica disciplina etc. M. Andrews his answer to a place of S. Augustine examined and confuted. The Ecclesiastical discipline hath that which the faithful know, who make mention of Martyrs at the Altar of God, not to pray for them there, as for others that are dead, for it is an injury to pray for a Martyr, to whose prayers we ought to be recommended: Thus saith S. Augustine. To this M. Andrew's answereth, that the Cardinal shall never be able to make Augustin on his side, Andr. p. 46. §. At. A most vain and ridiculous brag of M. Andrews. or not to be for the Protestants, and that whatsoever is cited ex aliquo riwlo Augustini, out of some little book of Augustine; the same is dried up with one only sentence, as with the sun: and this sentence, he saith, is in opere suo palmari, in his principal work de Civitate Dei. Well then let us see the splendour of this radiant sentence, and try what heat or force it hath to dry up the other testimonies cited out of S. Augustine for prayer to Saints. S Aug. de civit. Dei l. 22● ca 10. 53. The words which M. Andrews allegeth out of S. Augustine are these: Ad quod Sacrificium Martyrs etc. At which Sacrifice (S. Augustine means the Sacrifice of the Mass) the Martyrs are named in their place, and order, as the men of God (who have overcome the world in the confession of him) but yet they are not invocated by the Priest which sacrificeth. Thus far M. Andrews citeth S. Augutine, and then addeth: Non invocantur Martyrs etc. Augustine hath these very words, the Martyrs are not invocated by the Priest; and why less by the Priest, then by the people? And that which is not lawful in Sacrifice, why is it lawful out of Sacrifice? And that which is not to be done at Mass, A childish discourse of M. Andrews containing three foolish demands. why may it be done at Matins? And is there any force in the Sacrifice or Altar to make that unlawful, which is otherwise lawful? Thus M. Andrews discourseth to prove that S. Augustine is not ours, but wholly his in this controversy. 54. Thereof let us see how well he hath performed it, and for as much as he insisteth most upon the word invocantur, because S. Augustine saith, Touching the invocation which S. Augustine saith is due to God alone that the Martyrs are not invocated by the Priest, it is specially to be considered in what sense S. Augustine useth that word in this place; for seeing that it is applied sometimes to God alone, and sometimes to creatures (as I have showed before, as well out of the holy Scripture, as by the testimony of S. Augustine himself) it is evident, Chap. 6. nu. 2. & seq. that if it be used here in the former sense only (I mean for an invocation of God including a divine honour) it doth no way constradict the invocation of Saints in our sense, signifying only a request of their help by their prayers, which, as I have showed, M. Andrews himself acknowledgeth to be the proper signification of invocare. Ibid. It is therefore to be understood that S. Augustine in this place useth it only for an invocation by Sacrifice, which is so proper to God alone, that it cannot be applied to Saints, or any pure creature. 55. This willbe most manifest, The true sense of S. Augustin● declared. if we consider the circumstances of the text, and the drift of S. Augustine, who meaning to show that the honour which we Christians do to Martyrs, redoundeth specially to God, signifieth, that albeit God doth work great miracles by them, yet we do not hold them for Gods, neither build temples to them as to Gods, nor erect Altars to Sacrifice to them; sed uni Deo, & Martyrum, & nostro Sacrificium immolamus, but we offer Sacrifice to one God, who is as well the God of the Martyrs, as ours; at which Sacrifice (saith he) they are named as the servants of God, non tamen à Sacerdote qui sacrificat invocantur, yet they are not invocated by the Priest which sacrificeth; and then to show evidently that he includeth the oblation of Sacrifice in the invocation whereof he speaketh, he addeth presently: Deo quip non ipsis sacrificat etc. for he sacrificeth to God, and not to them, though he sacrificeth in the honour of them, The invocation whereof S. Augustin speaketh is proper● to Priestly function, and not to be used but in Sacrifice. because he is God's Priest, and not theirs. Thus saith S. Augustine, immediately after the word invocantur. 56. Whereby he giveth to understand that the invocation whereof he speaketh is proper to Priestly function, and therefore to be exhibited by the Priest to God only (whole Priest he is) and not to the Martyrs; as who would say, because the Priest is God's Priest, and aught to sacrifice to God alone, therefore he only nameth the Martyrs in his Sacrifice, and doth not invocate them, that is to say, he doth not invocate them with Sacrifice, which is proper to the office, or function of a Priest, S. Augustine doth no way impugn the invocation of Saints in the place alleged by M. Andrews. for otherwise (I mean if S. Augustine did not take invocation in this place for a Priestly, or sacrifical action) his reason why the Priest doth not invocate the Martyrs (to wit, because he is the Priest of God, and sacrificeth to him alone) were to no purpose; which no doubt M. Andrews saw well enough, and therefore he ended his citation at invocantur, without adding that which immediately followeth, and showeth what S. Augustine meaneth there by invocation. 57 Now than what wonder it is that S. Augustine saith, that Martyrs are not to be invocated in this manner, that is to say, with Sacrifice which is offered to God alone? Doth any man doubt of it? Or doth it any way impugn the invocation of Saints by prayer? how idle then are M. Andrews his questions, to wit, why the Priest may not invocate Martyrs, as well as the people may? and why not at Mass, as well as at Matins? and whether there be any force in the Sacrifice or Altar, M. Andrews doth seem to confound the Priest with the people Mass with Matins, and the Altar with every other place. to make that unlawful which otherwise is lawful? whereby he seemeth to confound the Priest with the people, Mass with Matins, and the Altar with every other place, supposing that whatsoever is prohibited to the Priest, is also forbidden to the people, and what cannot be done at Mass, is not to be done at Matins: and finally that whatsoever is unlawful at the Altar, is lawful no where else, which is most absurd, seeing that many things are lawful, or unlawful according to the different state, and quality of persons, matters, time, and place. 58. For who knoweth not that to invocate God with Sacrifice, is the proper function of the Priest, and not of the people, and that the same is done at Mass, and not at Matins, and no where else but at the Altar, yea and that the Priest may highly offend God in his Sacrifice, that is to say at Mass, or at the Altar, when the people offend no way at all: and therefore to satisfy M. Andrews his three demands according to S. Augustine's meaning in this place, he is to understand that the Priest may invocate God with Sacrifice, Three foolish demands of M. Andrews answered, according to S Augustins meaning. and the people cannot, that the same is to be done at Mass, and not at Matins, and that such invocation is not lawfully done any where, but at the Altar, and that it is so due to God alone, that it can never be applied to Saints, either by people, or Priest, at Matins, or Mass, at the Altar, or yet elsewhere; and so shall he understand that the place which he allegeth maketh nothing against prayer to Saints, and that his vain demands have served to no other purpose but to show his ignorance and folly. 59 This will yet further appear by his conclusion, wherein he taketh upon him to expound the other place of S. Augustine, which you have heard cited by the Cardinal, to wit, Iniuria est etc. It is injury to pray for a Martyr, to whose prayers we ought to be recommended: whereto M. Andrews having opposed, M. Andrews his extravagant and foolish gloss, upon S Augustins place objected by the Cardinal. and vainly urged this other place in such sort, as you have heard, answereth in conclusion thus: Quare apud illum etc. Wherefore, that we should be recommended to the prayers of Martyrs, is not to invocate them; but to wish to be recommended to the intercession of Christ the head, and of all his mystical body, and we do call upon Christ, that he may hear us, and not upon the Saints that they may hear us, but this we crave of God, that they may be heard for us of him, and with him. Thus doth M. Andrews gloss that text. 60. So as to be recommended to the prayer of a Martyr, is to wish to be recommended to the intercession of Christ, and of all his mystical body; as if a man should say, that for a man to be recommended to the prayers of M. Andrews, is not to crave the help of his prayers in particular, but to wish that the King's Majesty (being head of the English Church) and all English Protestants, may pray for him. For truly he may say the one as well as the other, especially seeing that he giveth no reason at all of this his extravagant interpretation, but relieth wholly upon his own perverse, and false understanding of the other place of S. Augustine, which he will needs suppose to exclude all invocation of Saints, though, as you have seen, it doth not concern the same any way at all. 61. But to put the matter out of doubt what S. Augustine meant in this place, when he said, that we ought to be recommended to the prayer of the Martyr, we are to consider what his express doctrine is else where concerning the same point, namely in his Treatise de cura pro mortuis, of the care to be had of the dead, which albeit M. Andrews will not (as I think) allow for opus palmare, S. Augustine's principal work (because he hath already given that title to the books de Civitate Dei) yet it cannot be denied to be S. Augustine's, S. Augustine's express doctrine concerning the invocation of Saints. who doth himself acknowledge it for such in his Retractions. This learned holy Father treating of the good that the dead may receive by the care of their friends to bury their bodies near to the monuments of Saints, saith thus: 62. Sed cum talia vivorum solatia requi●unt●r etc. But when such comforts of the living are sought, S. Aug. in lib. de cura pro. mort. cap. 4. whereby they may show their pious mind or affection towards their friends, I do not see what help the dead may receive thereby, but only this, that whiles the living do remember where the bodies of their friends are laid, e●sd●m illos ta●quam paironis susc●ptos, apud Dominum adiwandos commendent, they may by prayer recommend them to the same Saints, as to their patrons, who have received them into their protection to be helped with Almighty God, which truly they might also do, although they could not bury them in such places. So he. And a little after he saith further to the same purpose: cum it aque recolit animus etc. Therefore when the mind of a man remembreth where his friend's body is buried, and some place also which is venerable by the name of some Martyr occurreth to his remembrance, eidem Martyri animam dilectam commendat recordantis, & precantis affectus; the affection of him that remembreth it and prayeth, doth recommend the soul of his friend, to the same Martyr. Thus saith S. Augustine, teaching expressly not only prayer to Saints, but also prayer for the dead (which I wish M. Andrew's to note by the way) as also that the prayer whereof S. Augustine speaketh here, cannot be said to be made generally to Christ, and to all his mystical body (according to M. Andrews his former gloss) but particularly eisdem Sanctis tamquam patronis, to the same Saints, as to their patrons, and eidem Martyri, to the same Martyr, by whose tomb the bodies of the dead are buried. 63. But perhaps M. Andrews will say that this is taken ex aliquo riwlo Augustini, out of some little brook of Augustine, and not ex opere suo palmari, out of his principal work de Civitate Dei. Well then, let us see whether we can find any thing there to this purpose. I doubt not but that M. Andrews (who highly esteemeth that most excellent work, and therefore seemeth to have read it diligently) will easily call to mind what a number of notable, A notable miracle recounted by S. Augustine. and manifest miracles S. Augustine relateth there, as known to himself to have been done at the memories of S. Steven and divers other Martyrs, & that amongst the rest he recounteth one which happened to an honest poor old man of Hippo, S. Aug. de civit. Dei lib. 22. c. 8. called Florentius, who having lost his cloak, and not having money wherewith to buy another, went to the monument of the Twenty Martyrs (which was there very famous) and clara voce, saith he, ut vestiretur oravit, prayed with a loud voice, that he might have wherewith to clothe himself. 64. Whereupon certain scoffing young men, for (so S. Augustine calleth them) being by chance present, and having heard him, followed him at his departure, and mocked him, quasi à Martyribus quinquagenos folles, unde vestimentum emeret, petivisset, as though he had demanded of the Martyrs fifty pieces of money (called folles) wherewith he might buy him clothes. But he not regarding them went towards the sea side, and there saw a great fish panting upon the shore, which, with their help (who had followed him thither) he took, and sold for three hundred folles to a Christian Cook called C●rt●sus (declaring unto him all that had happened) who opening the fish, found in his belly a ring of gold, and being moved partly with commiseration, and partly with scruple, gave it also to the poor man, saying unto him, Ecce quomodo viginti Martyres te vestierunt: Behold how the 20. Martyrs have clothed thee. Thus much relateth S. Augustine concerning this matter. 65. Whereby it evidently appeareth, An inference upon the miracle related by S. Augustine. first, that this poor man prayed not only at the monument of those Martyrs, but also to the Martyrs themselves, craving of them relief of his necessity; for there upon the young men, who heard his prayer, took occasion to charge him to have craved 50. folles of the Martyrs, which they would not have done if they had not heard him pray unto the Martyrs; & thereto also alluded the Cook, who having heard the story related, and understood thereby, to whom, and for what he had prayed, said unto him, Behold how the Martyrs have clothed thee, as who would say, the Martyrs of whom thou cravedst to be clothed, have heard thy prayer, and given thee wherewith to clothe thee. 66. Secondly it appeareth that it was the custom at that time to invocate Saints particularly, and that God approved it by this miraculous effect. And if M. Andrews do say, that if it had been usual, these young men who heard him, would not have mocked him for doing it, he is to understand, that they did not mock him for calling upon the Martyrs, but because his request seemed to them extravagant, quasi qui à Martyribus quinquagenos folles petivisset, as though he had demanded 50. folles to buy him clothes. Besides that, Saint Augustine so much condemned them for deriding him, that he calleth them adolescentes irrisores, scoffing young men, yea and God so disposed for their confusion, that they themselves were witnesses of the miraculous event, and helped him to take the fish which he sold for 300. folles, besides the ring that was found in his belly. 97. Thirdly it is clear, that S. Augustine highly approved the invocation of the 20. Martyrs, seeing that he recounteth this together with many other miracles, to prove the truth of the Christian faith, saying in the end for the conclusion of the whole: Cui nisi huic fidei attesta●tur ista miracula etc. To what other faith do these miracles give testimony● but to this, whereby Christ is preached to have ascended into heaven with his flesh? for these Martyrs, were Martyrs (that is to say witnesses) of this faith etc. For in this faith they died, who can obtain these things of God, for whose name they were slain. So he. 68 Now then, that which I wish thee, good Reader, to note in all this discourse, The conclusion of this Chapter, touching the vanity of M. Andrews & the conformity of S. Augustine with the other Fathers alleged by the Cardinal for prayer to Saints. is, how well M. Andrews hath performed his vaunt, which was that he would with one only sentence, as with the sun, dry up, whatsoever could be objected out of any little brook of Augustine, when nevertheless his hot sunny sentence hath proved no warmer, nor brighter than the moon in the wain, and change, which hath neither heat nor light, for so you see it hath fallen out with the place cited by him out of S. Augustine, which proveth nothing at all for his purpose, whereas the other testimonies alleged partly by the Cardinal, and partly by me, are (as you have also seen) most evident, and pregnant, to prove the invocation of Saints, which M. Andrews hath hitherto impugned. 69. If then we consider the conformity of S. Augustine in this point withal the other Fathers, whose places have been before produced to wit S. Basil, Eusebius, S. Chrysostome, S. Ephrem, S. Maximus, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Gregory Nyssen, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, Ruffinus, S. Paulinus, and Theodoret, I doubt not but that their consent, and uniform testimony may suffice in the opinion of any reasonable man, to show that the universal custom, practice, and faith of the Church in their age, was the same that now is concerning the Invocation of Saints, notwithstanding all the wrangling, trifling, shifts, evasions, collusions, and frauds, which you see M. Andrews hath used to obscure the evident, and manifest verity thereof: so as I might here very well end this matter, were it not that M. Andrews in the preamble to his censure upon the places of the Fathers, maketh some objections, not hitherto answered by me, which by all likelihood not only he, but also those that have read him, will expect should be some way satisfied, and therefore I mean to examine the validity thereof, with what brevity I conveniently may. CERTAIN OBJECTIONS OF M. ANDREWS AGAINST PRAYERS TO SAINTS ARE ANSWERED: AND by the way, an Imposture of the pretended Bishops and Clergy of the Province of Canterbury in a Synodical Canon of theirs is discovered. AND Finally, M. Andrews is proved to have notably wrangled, juggled, and tryfled throughout this whole Controversy. CHAP. VIII. AMONGST divers frivolous objections there is one especially, which, as it seemeth, he maketh his Achilles, and holdeth for invincible, and therefore he triumpheth not a little, before he produceth it, Andr. p. 39 §. Neque. saying, that he will not object to the Cardinal some acclamation, or vow proceeding from some man's impetuous or violet affection, M. Andrews confidence in the Canon of the Council of Laodicea. but a Canon, and a statute of a Council held at Laodicea about the same time, and published by the uniform consent of the Fathers, quod leges, saith he, bis à Thedoret relatum etc. which (Statute) thou shalt read twice related by Theodoret in his Commentary upon the 2. and 3. Chapter to the Colossenses. They do there forbid in express words, ne quis precetur Angelos, that no man pray to Angels (and the reason touching Saints is all one) because some men did then give counsel, & thought it necessary to procure the favour of God by Angels. Thus saith M. Andrews, using no less fraud than he is wont, as well touching Theodoret, as the Canon of the Council of Laodicea. 2. And first for Theodoret, Theodoret notably abused by M Andrews. he abuseth him notably, alleging some part of his words, and leaving out that which would clearly explicate the whole matter, and Theodoret's meaning, who interpreting the place of S. Paul to the Colossenses (Nemo vos seducat, volens in humilitate & religione Angelorum, Coloss. 2. let no man seduce you, willing in the humility, and religion of Angels) declareth that certain heretics in Phrygia and Pisidia defending the use of the old law, Theodoret. in c. ●. ep ad Coloss●n. induced men to the worship of Angels; and after a while layeth down the reason, which they used to that end, saying; Illi ergo consulebant etc. therefore they counseled this under pretence of humility, saying that men cannot see, nor comprehend Almighty God, nor come unto him, and that they must procure to themselves God's favour by Angels. Thus saith Theodoret, whereof you see M. Andrew's layeth down only the last words, to wit, putabant oportere sibi divinam benevolentiam conciliare etc. They thought they must procure to themselves the divine favour by Angels; whereas the words immediately going before, which he leaveth out, gave the reason of this their error, signifying that they thought it necessary to procure God's favour by Angels, because men could not come to him otherwise, which is far from the conceit of any catholic, or Christian man, seeing that this opinion denieth that we may come to God by Christ, and maketh Angels the only mediators betwixt God and us, which is in effect to deny, and destroy the Christian faith. 3. And therefore no marvel if Saint Paul, the Council of Laodicea, and Theodoret forbade such prayer to Angels; but the truth is that the Canon which Theodoret mentioneth forbiddeth only to commit Idolatry to Angels, and not simply to pray to them, as I will make it manifest, when I shall have first declared how M. Andrews hath abused the Council of Laodicea. M. Andrews abuseth the Council of Laodicea. Therefore having said that the Canon of that Council is twice related by Theodoret in his Comment upon the second, and third to the Colossenses, he addeth; Prohibent ibi disertis verbis, ne quis precetur Angelos; the Fathers of that Council do there forbid in express words, Andr. p. 39 §. Neque. that no man pray to Angels. So he. Whereby the Reader must needs imagine not only that the Canon of the Council was fully laid down by Theodoret, but also that the same was to no other effect, The Council of Laodicea forbiddeth Idolatry to Angels & not prayer ●o them. but only to ordain that no man should pray to Angels; whereas Theodoret doth not allege any one word of the Canon, but toucheth only the effect of it in some sort and in very general terms, for the Canon itself maketh no mention at all of prayer, but forbiddeth only an Idolatrous worship of Angels; which also Theodoret showeth to be his own meaning, though he speak only of prayer to Angels, as it is evident both by the circumstances of the place laid down by me before, and left out by M. Andrews, and also more plainly afterwards when he speaketh of the said Council, and Canon the second time, in one of the two places which M. Andrews himself quoteth, to wit, upon the third Chapter to the Colossenses, where he saith thus. 4. Quòd enim illi Angelos iubebant adorare etc. For because those Phrygians commanded men to adore Angels, he (to wit S. Paul) commanded the contrary, Theodor●t. in 3. Coloss. that they should adorn both their words, and deeds with the remembrance of Christ our Lord. Theodoret his meaning clearly explicated by his own words. Utter forth (saith the Apostle) your thanks giving to God the Father by him, and not by Angels. And the Synod of Laodicea following this law, and seeking to remedy the old disease, decreed, that men should not pray to Angels, and leave our Lord jesus Christ. Thus saith Theodoret: whereby he showeth that those Phrygian idolaters made a plain opposition of Angels to Christ, teaching & commanding an adoration of Angels instead of Christ, & therefore he saith that the Apostle commanded the contrary to them, to wit, that we should praise God by Christ, and not by Angels; whereby it appeareth that their contrary doctrine was to praise God by Angels, and not by Christ; which he also confirmeth saying, Theodoret forbiddeth such prayer to Angels as excludeth the mediation of Christ. that the Council of Laodicea made the like Decree against the same error, ordaining that none should pray to Angels, and leave Christ. So as by all this it is manifest, that according to Theodoret, the adoration, and prayer to Angels forbidden by S. Paul, and the Council, was such as excluded the mediation of Christ for us, and made the Angels our only mediators whereof nevertheless you do not see so much as any insinuation, or ynkling in M. Andrews, whereby it is evident, that he hath abused both the Council, and Theodoret, and his Reader most of all. 5. This will appear more clearly by the express words of the Canon whereof Theodoret speaketh, which are these: Quòd non oporteat Christianos relicta Dei Ecclesia obire etc. Concil. Laodic. cap. 35. That Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God, and to go away, and to make Congregations of abominable Idolatry to Angels, which is forbidden, and therefore whosoever shallbe found, The meaning of the Canon of the Council of Laodicea. huic occultae Idololatriae vacans, exercising this hidden, or secret Idolatry, be he accursed, for that he hath forsaken our Lord jesus Christ, and gone to Idols. Thus saith the Canon, showing evidently, that the adoration, and prayer to Angels, which Theodoret saith was forbidden by the Canon, What kind of Idolatry was done to Angels by the Phrygians was some abominable Idolatry committed to Angels in certain secret Congregations, which those Phrygians made in corners, forsaking the Church of God, and Christ himself. And this I say is evident by the Canon; for no man I think can be so simple to imagine that all this could be said, or meant of prayer to Angels, in such sort as we Catholykes use the same, that is to crave the assistance of their prayers to Christ for us, or to God by the merits, and mediation of Christ. 6. For if this were the abominable Idolatry whereof the Council speaketh, than should the Apostle have been an abominable idolater, when he desired the Romans, Corinthians, Thessalonians, and others to pray for him: Rom. 15. and so should we in like manner when we desire one another's prayers, 1. Cor. 1. for no sufficient, Thess. 3. Colos. 4. or probable reason can be given why it should be Idolatry to pray to Angels, joshua. 5. and no Idolatry to crave the prayers of men, Dan. 10. especially seeing that we read in express Scripture, judith. 13. that jacob blessing the children of Act. 12. joseph, Matth. 18. did invocate an Angel, saying; Angelus qui cruit me etc. the Angel which hath delivered me from all 1. Cor. 11. evils, S. Dionys. Areop. eccles. Hier. c. 9 S. justin. Mart. quaest. 30. Clemens Alexand. li. 5. storm. Origen ho. 8. in Gen. & alibipassim. S. Basil. ho. in Psal. 33. S. Chrysost. ho. 3. ad c. 1. ad Colos. Theodor. ad cap. 10. Daniel. & in Genes. quaes. 3. S. Hilar. ad Psal. 129. & Ca 18. in Mat. S. Hi●ron. ad ca 66. Esai. S. Ambros. l. de viduis. S. Aug. in Soliloquij● cap. 27. bless these children. And joshua fell down prostrate before an Angel, and called him Dominum suum, his Lord. Besides that the Apostle, yea our Saviour himself testifieth, not only the continual presence of Angels amongst us, but also the assistance, and help that we receive by them: in so much that the ancient Fathers (and amongst the rest Theodoret himself) do thereupon teach expressly that we have every one of us from our nativity a proper Angel, who protecteth, and defendeth us, and prayeth to God for us. 7. Whereupon it must needs follow that seeing the Angels do not only know our actions much better than men, and hear our prayers no less than they, but also do continually assist us as well with their prayers, as otherwise; it followeth, I say, that we may lawfully crave their assistance, yea much more than of men, for that they being ordained by God to help us, are no less willing, and far more potent, and able to do it then men are; and therefore truly I may well conclude, that neither the Council of Laodicea, nor yet Theodoret could be so absurd as M. Andrews would make them, to think it Idolatry to pray to Angels, when they know it to be lawful to pray to men. And this I say the rather of Theodoret, because he teaching expressly (as I signified before) that Angels have the protection of men, doth declare withal, that men are subject imperio Angelorum, Theodor. in G●nes. quaest. ●● to the government, and command of Angels, and that they pray for us, whereby he teacheth consequently that men owe unto them, not only love, and gratitude as to their Guardians, and Protectors, but also the duty of reverence, and supplication, as to their superiors, commanders, governors, and intercessors for them. M. Andrews must reform his understanding of Theodoret. 8. So as M. Andrew's may see that he hath just cause to reform his understanding of that place of Theodoret, and acknowledge that it is not likely, that Theodoret would thereby contradict his own doctrine elsewhere, but rather that he, I mean M. Andrews, hath notably abused both the Council and Theodoret; the Council, in concealing, and dissembling the whole substance of the Canon, which he could not but know; and Theodoret in leaving out that which was most necessary for the explication of his meaning in both those places which he citeth; and finally that he hath also abused them both, in making them to impugn, and forbid all prayer to Angels, though as intercessors to Christ for us: whereas they only forbid Idolatry to Angels, with prayer to them, as to the only mediators betwixt God and us, whereby Christ's mediation for us is wholly excluded, to the utter subversion, and overthrow of our Christian faith. The place of S. Paul forbidding the religion of Angels explicated. 9 And to the end that all this may be yet more clear, we are to consider that religio Angelorum, the religion, or superstitious worship of Angels, which S. Paul reprehended in the Epistle to the Colossenses, that Theodoret expoundeth, was no other but some such Magical, or Idolatrous worship exhibited to Angels as the disciples of Simon Magus used (whereof (b) Tertul. de praesor. cap. 23. in fin●. Tertullian saith: Simonianae magiae disciplina Angelis seruiens etc. the discipline of Simons magic serving Angels, was also held to be Idolatry) or some such other as might spring from the blasphemous heresy of (c) Irae●●●● lib. 1. c. 25. Tertul. de praescrip. cap. 4●. S. Epipha● haer. 28. Cerinthus, who so much abused Christ, and exalted Angels, that he held Christ to be but pure man, and the son of joseph, and that Angels made the world, and gave the law to the jews, yea that an Angel was the God of the jews; or finally of some such other heretics, as either attributed divinity to Angels, or made them mediators for man in such sort, as those Phrygian heretics did, S. Chryso. in 2. ad 〈◊〉 of whom Theodoret speaketh, which was to exclude the mediation of Christ, as it appeareth evidently by that which the Apostle addeth saying: & non tenens Caput ex quo etc. and not holding the head whereof the whole body is by joints, & bands compacted &c. signifying that he spoke of such as forsook the head, to wit Christ, and made Angels the chief mediators of their reconciliation to God. 10. Therefore S. Chrysostome saith upon that place of S. Paul: Sunt nonnulli etc. 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 author of the Commentary upon S. Paul's Epistles amongst the works of S. Ambrose, Oecum. Theoph. in hunc locum. saith that the Apostle taxed there such as adored the stars quas, saith he Angelos vocat, he calleth Angels; and finally to omit others, S. Hierome, S. Hieron. q. 10. ad Algasia● Haymo in ep. ad Colos. cap. 2. and Haymo, do understand that the Apostle speaketh of such as used to offer Sacrifice to Angels; whereupon also the Council of Laodicea might have just occasion to make their decree against some such abominable Idolatry done secretly to Angels in their days. 11. So as it is evident by all this, that neither the Apostle in his Epistle to (the Col●ss●nses● The conclusion 〈◊〉 M. Andrews his objection out of Theodoret. no● The●doret, in his Commentary upon the same) nor then Galnon of the Laodicean Council mentioned by Theodoret, and objected by M. Andrews, do any way impugn the custom of the catholic Church in praying to Angels; as mediators to Christ for ●s. And to conclude concerning Theodoret is whereas M. Andrew's would by, this place make the world belieu● that he did not approve prayer to Saynts● See before chap. 7. 〈◊〉 44. I remit thee, good Reader, to that most perspicuous, and preg●ant● testimony, which I have before produced 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 to prove the public practised and custom of the whole Church to pray to Saints in his time, together with the admirable effects, and miraculous benefits● that devout people received thereby, and his own evident and clear approbation thereof, seeing that he urgeth it, to the confusion of the Paynims inferring thereupon a manifess argument of Christ's divinity beside, that in his historia religiosa (wherein writing the lives of divers religious persons) he craveth in the end of every particular saints life, Another objection of M. An●drews answered touching the question whether Saints do hear us, and how they see or know our actions. God's favour and divine assistance by his intercessions and in the conclusion (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. of the last he desireth them all (whose lives he had written) to pray for him. So that I hope, this may suffice in answer of M. Andrew's his objection taken out of him. 12. I have before touched another objection of M. Andrews grounded upon an absurd conceit of his, that it is uncertain, whether Saints do hear us, and how they see, or know our actions: and albeit that which I said (d) 〈◊〉 before chap. 7. nu. 42. 4●. & seq. there, touching the common, and universal experience that the Church hath had in all ages of the help, and assistance of Saints to such as invocate them, might suffice for his confutation in this point, yet because he urgeth the same divers times, and especially in his preamble to his censure ●pon the Fathers, I will and here somewhat more to show his absurd manner of arguing in this matter. Thus than he saith; An●r. pag. 34. Vt hoc tamen. Vt hoc detur etc. although this should be granted (that Saints do pray for us) yet it is not ●●●fest how they he are us praying here on earth; and those your positions touching the glass of the divine essence; and the shining therein of all things that are done on earth, are more subtle, then solid, and not clear enough to yourselves, and altogether unheard of amongst the Fathers, and no man doth willingly call upon those of whom he is not certain by what means they hear him, & pro●●de andeant necne etc. and therefore unsure whether they hear him, or no. So he. 13. Wherein you see he argueth in effect no otherwise then thus, that because we know not certainly how the Saints do hear us, therefore we are not sure, that they hear us at all; which truly is a strange inference for albeit we be not sure how, and in what manner they hear us, yet we may be sure that they hear us, seeing that the certainty of any effect doth no● depend upon the knowledge either of the cause, Many effects evident though their causes be secret and unknown, and first of natural effects. or of the manner, or means how it is wrought, as it is evident by infinite effects which we certainly know and see, though we neither know the assured cause thereof, nor in what manner they are performed. As for example● it is certain that the sea ●bbeth, and floweth, that ●e●e●s have their accesses, and crises● 〈…〉 stone draweth 〈◊〉, and looketh always towards the North● and yet nevertheless we neither certainly 〈…〉 these ●ffects proceed, nor how they are effected, and who can assuredly tell, how the sound of a voice is framed, and how the eye seeth (whether by intromission, or extramission, as the Philosophers speak) when nevertheless th● effects are evident. The same is to be granted much more in supernatural things. 14. And this being so in natural and earthly matters subject to our senses, what shall we think of heavenly things, or of matters belonging to religion, and faith, which do far more exceed man's weak capacity? must we either know how they are wrought, or else deny the effects? Let M. Andrews tell me how Angels, and Saints in heaven do pray to God for us, which he granteth they do, or how they understand one another; or yet how the humanity of Christ heareth our prayers, and knoweth our actions, I mean, whether he seeth them in his divinity, or knoweth them by revelation? and if he dare not determine the matter, let him according to his own inference doubt whether Christ heareth our prayers, or not: yea let him not willingly pray unto him, seeing he (d) Pa. 37. §. Vt hoc. saith that no man doth willingly call upon those of whom he is uncertain by what means they hear him: and if he will take upon him to determine it, let him tell me why the glorified souls of Saints which see God, may not hear our prayers, and know our actions in the same manner? 15. But to omit infinite other instances which might be given, let us hear what S. Augustine saith, even in a matter pertaining to this question whereof we now treat. For albeit he maketh great doubt how Almighty God did work those stupendious miracles (which as he testifieth upon his own knowledge were done at the memories, S. Aug. de civit. li 22. cap. 8. and relics of S. Steven, and other Martyrs) yet he made so little doubt of the effect, that he urged the same notably against the Paynims to prove the verity of the Christian faith, saying: Si●e Deus per seipsum miro modo etc. whether God doth work these things by himself, in that marvelous manner, Idem Ibid. c. ●. whereby he worketh temporal things, being himself eternal; or whether he doth the self same things by his ministers, or whether he doth some of them by the souls of the Martyrs, as he doth by men whiles they are yet here in body, or all by Angels whom he commandeth invisibly, immutably, and without a body (in such sort that those things which are said to be done by the Martyrs, be done only by their prayers, and impetration, & not also by their operation) or whether some things are done by these means, & some by others, which cannot by any means be comprehended by mortal men, ei profectò haec attestantur fidei etc. all these truly do give testimony to that faith, wherein the resurrection of the flesh is preached. 16. Thus discourseth this holy Father, acknowledging as you see, the imbecility of man's understanding to comprehend the manner how Almighty God did work these supernatural effects, although he doubted not of the effects of themselves, M. Andrews convinced by that which he granteth elsewhere. and yet forsooth M. Andrews must either know how Saints do hear us, or else he will deny that they hear us, notwithstanding the known, and common experience that the Church of God hath always had thereof; to which purpose also it may be observed that he confesses himself (b) And●. p. 40. §. Non ver●● elsewhere, that God was wont miraculously to relieve those that prayed at the tombs of Martyrs; and yet I am sure he knoweth not how the same was wrought (I mean whether God did it by himself, or by the 〈…〉 of the Martyrs, 〈◊〉 by the ministry of Angels, 〈…〉 and sometimes by 〈…〉 why then doth he deny here, that Saynt● hear us, because he is not sure how they hear us? So as thou seest good Reader what a wise inference he hath made with his proinde, when he saith; proinde a●diant necn● &. therefore a man is not sure whether the Saints hear him, Andr. p. 37. §. Vt hoc. because he is undertayne, qu● natione audiant compellant●●●, by what ●eanes, or in what manner, they hear him when he calleth upon them. 17. Therefore whereas he saith, that our doctrine concerning the glass of the divine Essence, and the sight of all things therein is more subtle than solid, and not sear enough to our sel●es, Upon what grounds the doctrine that Saints do hear our prayers, is founded. it would 〈◊〉 import though it 〈…〉, seeing that we do not thereon ground our doctrine that Saints hear, or know ou● prayers, 〈…〉 the custom, and practise of the whole Church of God which prayeth to Saints, 〈◊〉 therefore believe that they hear us; and partly upon evident experience of the benefits that by God's merciful providence, and ordinance men do receive by them and partly also upon the conformity thereof to the holy Scripture, which teacheth not only that the Angel● in heaven do rejoice at the repentance of sinners (which they could not do if they did not knee● Luc. 1●. it) but also that the souls of the just being glorified 〈◊〉 aequales Angelis, Luc. 20. equal to Angels, and consequently have the like knowledge that they have; besides that it is evident in the holy Scriptures, that the Prophets of God did see the hearts and thoughts of men, ●. Reg. 9 and know things far distant from them● Samuel told unto Saul all that he had in his heart; ●. Reg. 5. and Eliz●●s being absent, saw hi● servant G●●zi take gifts of 〈◊〉 the Syrians and discovered also all that which the King of Syria treated in his cabinet. Ibid. cap. ●. Act. 7. Also S. Steven being on earth did see our Saviour jesus Christ on the right hand of his Father in heaven; and therefore it, were absurd to imagine that the glorified Saints in heaven could not see, or know what is done on earth, especially such things as concern themselves, and the honour that is done unto them for God's greater glory, and the prayers that are directed to them for the relief of God's servants. Lastly S. john in the Apocalyps signifieth that the Saints in heaven do offer up the prayers of holy men on earth, Apoc. ●● which they could not do, if they did not understand and know men's prayers. 18. Furthermore this doctrine is also grounded upon the clear testimony of the Fathers who teach it expressly. S. Atha. q. 11. As S. Athanasius who saith, that the souls of Saints, The Fathers plainly testify that the Saints do know all our actions in earth. & post mortem, & in die judicij cognoscent omnia, shall know all things both after their death, and in the day of judgement: and, nullus est (saith S. Basil) ex hijs, qui non singula ubique consideret, there is none of these (he speaketh of Angels, and the souls of the just) who doth not consider every thing every where beside, that he calleth the 40. Martyrs communes humani generis custodes, the common guardians, or keepers of human kind. S. Basil d● vera Virginitate paulo ante medium. S. Ambrose also saith, that Martyrs are prae●ules, & spectatores actuum nostrorum, the governors, and beholders of our actions. 19 In like manner S. Hierom● teacheth, S. Ambros. de viduis Apoc. 14. Vigila●●● ●● that it is written of the souls of the just in the holy Scripture si quuntur agnum quocumque ierit, they follow the Lamb wheresoever he goethe and then he addeth, Si agnu● ubique etc. If the Lamb ●e every were, therefore it is to be believed that those also who are with the Lamb are every where; and seeing that Devils go all the world over, and by reason of their exceeding great celerity are every where present, shall Martyrs after they have shed their blood for Christ, be shut up, as it were in a coffer, that they cannot get out? So he. Theodoret also giveth to Martyrs, the title of Deuces, Principes, propugnatores, & custodes hominum etc. the captains, the Princes, Theodoret de Graec. ●ffect. cu●●. lib. 8. the defenders, and guardians of men, by whom (saith he) those mischiefs, and miseries which Devils do inflict upon us, are averted from us. S. Chrysostome calleth S. Peter, ●. Chrys. ho. ●●. in. ep. ad Corinth. and S. Paul and Patrons, and Protectors of the Emperors. Whereupon it must needs follow, that those blessed Apostles, and other Saints, did understand the actions, and necessities of those whom they protected, and defended. S. Aug. li. ●●. de civit. 〈◊〉 cap. ●●. 20. Moreover S. Augustine discoursing how the Saints shall see God in heaven after the resurrection, and whether they shall see him with their corporal eyes, teacheth by the way, that they shall then see all things with the eyes of the spirit, etiam unde sunt corpore absentes, even whence they are absent in body; and this he proveth amply by the example of Elizaeus, who being absent from his servant Giezi, saw him take gifts of Naaman, ●. Reg. ●. and therefore said unto him, Nun cor meum in praesenti erat etc. was not my heart present with thee, when the man came from his Chariot to meet thee, and thou tookest the money? Whereupon S. Augustine saith; Cord suo ergo se dixit hoc vidisse Propheta etc. therefore the Prophet said that he saw this with his heart, being no doubt admirably helped by Almighty God: but how much more shall all men than abound in this gift, when God shallbe omnia in omnibus, all in all? Thus discourseth this learned Father to prove that the Saints after their resurrection videbunt omnia, shall see all things with their spiritual eye, etiam unde sunt corpore absentes, even whence they are absent in body. 21. And this must needs be understood in like manner of glorified souls before the resurrection, for that the glorification of their bodies (although it shall increase their joy, and glory, yet) shall not increase their vision of God, or knowledge, which they have now as perfect, as they shall have after their resurrection. Finally to omit many other Fathers which might be alleged, S. Gregory saith, S. Greg. li. 12. Moral. cap. 14. that it is not to be believed, that quae intus claritatem Dei vident etc. the souls which see into the light, or brightness of God, are ignorant of any thing that is abroad; Idem. li. 4. Dial. ca 33. and again in another place, quia in illa aeterna haereditate etc. for as much as in that eternal inheritance all men do see God with a common clarity, or brightness, what is there which they cannot know, who know him that knoweth all things? Thus saith S. Gregory, teaching, as you see, that the Saints in heaven know all things in earth, and yielding the self same reason thereof which you have heard M. Andrews say was inaudita Patribus, never heard of amongst the Fathers, to wit, that because they see, and know God, therefore they see, and know all things in him, in whom omnia constant, saith the Apostle, all things do consist. 22. So as howsoever the ancient Fathers may have differed in opinion concerning the manner how the Saints know things done on earth, A good deduction upon M. Andrews his own grant. M. Andrews may see that they agree touching the effect: which also is so conform to reason, that he cannot with reason deny it, especially seeing he himself granteth that the Saints do pray for us of their charity, & love towards us. For if they love us so, that as (d) S. Cyprian. li. de mortalit. Item. ep. 57 S. Cyprian saith, de nostra salute sunt solliciti, they are careful for our salvation, and as M. Andrews (f) Andr. pag. 37. §. Omnia. Item. p. 46. lin. 9 confesseth they do indeed pray for us, it must needs be granted that this their love, and care doth include a desire to know our necessities whereupon it also followeth that they do know them● for if their desire should not be satisfied, they should not be so happy and blessed, as the perfection of their beatitude doth require: beside, that seeing Almighty God doth glorify them not only in heaven with the vision of his Deity, but also in earth with many miracles done at their monuments (as M. Andrews himself confesseth in his answer to a place of S. Basil) it were absurd to think that they do not know as well the particular favours that God doth to men for their fakes, Andr. p. 4. §. Non Verè. as also the honour and glory that redoundeth thereof both to God, and them, without which knowledge their beatitude, as I have said, should not be complete. 23. Now then seeing that our doctrine, that Saints do hear, A brief recapitulation of the reasons whereupon is grounded the doctrine that Saints hear our prayers. or understand our prayers, is grounded upon such sure foundations, as here I have declared, to wit, the continual custom, and practice of the Church to pray to them; the manifest experience of benefits received by them; the conformity thereof to the holy Scriptures, with the uniform and express testimonies of the Fathers, & lastly upon reason itself; how little reason hath M. Andrews to deny it upon no better reason, then because it is uncertain in what manner they hear us? especially seeing I have also evidently proved that the uncertainty of the manner, See before nu. 13 & 14. means, or cause of any thing, can nothing derogate from the certainty of the effect, so as he must either bring some more solid arguments against prayer to Saints, or else he shall but discover both his own imbecility, and the weakness if his cause. 24. And therefore he had reason to seek some better reason, Another silly shift of M. Andrews. which he doth, seeming to put the case that it were true, yea most manifest that Saints do hear our prayers, yet, ne sic quidem (saith he) audemus vota nostra ad illos precesque dirigere, we dare not for all that direct our vows, Andr cap. 1 p. 37. §. Verum. and prayers unto them; and hereof he yieldeth this reason, cum praeceptum ●a de re nullum acceperimus, praeceptum autem acceperimus in Lege disertis verbis: Deut. 12. Quod tibi praecepero hoc tantùm facies. We dare not (saith he) pray unto them, because we have received no precept concerning that point, M. Andrews is so scrupulous that he dare do nothing without ● precept or example in Scripture. but have received a precept in the law, in express words; What I shall command thee, that only thou shalt do: So he; and then concludeth; id tantùm audemus facere etc. We dare do that only whereof we have a precept. Bring you a precept, and we will strait invocate them with you. Thus argueth he. 25. And hath he not, trow you, very well proved now, that nothing may be practised in God's Church without an express written precept? His impertinent allegation of Scripture. Who would think that a Doctor of divinity should have so little understanding of the holy Scriptures, as to infer this conclusion upon the place that he allegeth, which concerneth only the Sacrifices that God required, and commanded to be offered unto him in the mosaical law, as it is evident by the very circumstances of the place, in the 12. Chapter of Deuteronomy, from whence that precept is taken. For when Almighty God had admonished the people to beware that they did not imitate the nations whose lands they should possess, in their abominable Sacrifices, saying: for all the abominations, that our Lord doth abhor, have they done to their Gods, Deut. 12. offering their sons, and daughters, An explication of the place of Deuteronomy alleged by M. Andrews. and burning them with fire, after this I say, followeth immediately, what I command thee, that only do to our Lord, neither add any thing, nor diminish. Thus said Almighty God; as who would say, whereas the Gentiles whose lands thou shalt possess, did worship their Gods with most abominable Sacrifices, and ceremonies, sacrificing their own children by fire, do not thou imitate them therein, but offer thou to me in Sacrifice, only that which I do command thee, to wit those things which are ordained, and prescribed in the law to that end, 26. And this no doubt is the clear sense, and meaning of those words, for if they shallbe understood, as M. Andrews taketh them, to exclude the practice of all things whatsoever that were not expressly commanded in the letter of the law, Hest. 9 judith ca ult. 1. Machab. 4. than the solmne feasts ordained afterwards by Mardochaeus, judith, and the Maccabees had been unlawful, which nevertheless are approved in the Scripture, and the last of the 3. to wit the feast of the Dedication instituted by the Maccabees, joan. 10. was honoured by our Saviour himself with his presence. But let us put the case that this commandment of Almighty God was general touching the service and worship of God in the old law, M. Andrews hardly pressed by his own argument. will M. Andrew's infer thereupon, that the same is to be extended to the new law? As well may he say, that we are bound to observe the whole law, and so prove himself a jew, & evacuate the law of Christ, as Saint Paul argueth against Gal. 5. those that maintained the use of Circumcision together with the faith of Christ. 27. Nevertheless I say not this to exclude all manner of arguments, How arguments may be deduced from the Law of Moses. or inferences drawn from the old law to the new (that the same remain within the limits of probability, as from the figure, to the verity, which admitteth many limitations, and exceptions) but to exclude the obligation of all precepts either ceremonial, See chap. 1. nu. 14.15. & 16. or judicial, which do not in any sort bind us now, as I have showed in the first Chapter of this Adjoinder. And therefore whereas M. Andrews saith here, cum praeceptum acceperimus in lege disertis verbis etc. seeing we have received a precept in the law in express words etc. M. Andrews his argument proveth himself to be a Iew. I say to him that seeing this precept did undoubtedly belong to the ceremonial law, and concerned only the manner of worship to be done to God by Sacrifice, he showeth himself a flat jew, in saying that we Christians have received this precept in the law. 28. Furthermore he is to understand, that albeit we should grant that nothing can be practised, or taught in the new law without some precept, or doctrine thereof delivered by our Saviour Christ unto his Church, yet he could gain nothing thereby, except he could also prove that all our saviours precepts, and doctrine are expressly set down in Scripture, which neither he nor any of his fellows have been able yet to prove, or ever shallbe, it being evident that our Saviour neither commanded any thing at all to be written, but to be preached, and taught, saying, praedicate evangelium etc. preach the gospel to every Creature, and again docete omnes gentes etc. teach all Nations, Matth. 28. baptizing them &c. neither did the Apostles either write any thing of divers years after Christ Ascension, or when they wrote, deliver all Christ's doctrine, and their own by writing, ●. Thes. 2. but very many things by tradition, in which respect the Apostle himself saith, tenete traditiones quas accepistis, sive per sermonem, sive per. Epistolam nostram, hold the traditions which you have received either by word, or by our Epistle, by which words of the Apostle the ancient Fathers namely (b) Hom. in 2. Thes. 2. S. Chrysostome (c) Haer. 61 S. Epiphanius (d) Lib. de Spiritu Sanct. cap. 29. S. Basil, S. john (e) Lib. 4. de fide ca 17 Damascen, (f) in 2. Thes. 2. Oecumenius Theophilactus, and the 8. General (g) Act. Vlt. can. 1. Council do prove the necessary use of unwritten traditions in the Church, and amongst the rest S. Chrysostome saith: hinc patet etc. hereby it is manifest, that the Apostles did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things without writing; eadem fide digna sunt tam illa, quam ista: as well those things as these, are worthy of the same credit. S. Augustine's golden rule. 29. For this cause S. Augustine giveth this general rule, that whatsoever the whole Church retaineth, whereof the beginning cannot be deduced either from the Scriptures, or General councils, or some later institution, the same was undoubtedly delivered by the Apostles, and this he urgeth (d) S. Aug. de Baptis. contra Donat. l. 2. ca 7. & li. 4. c. 6. & Ibid cap. 24. & li. 5. ca 23. very often as a most assured ground, and principle against the Donatists; and for the same reason not only he, but also all other Fathers teach, that the general custom of the Church, is an infallible, and evident proof of the truth in any controversy, in so much that he affirmeth it to be insolentissimae insaniae, a point of most insolent madness to dispute, or doubt of it, as I have declared in the last Chapter, which I wish M. Andrews well to observe, as also the other testimonies of the ancient Fathers produced there concerning this point. Idem ep. 118. See chap. 7. nu. 49. 30. Now then, hereupon I conclude two things, the one, that M. Andrews, who as he saith dare do nothing without a written precept, may lay away his scruple, in matters that are generally practised by the Church, the other, that seeing it is evident by these testimonies of so many holy and learned Fathers, as have been here alleged, that the whole Church in their days practised prayer to Saints, as a thing most beneficial to men, and honourable to God; and that they acknowledged the evident and miraculous benefits that grew to men thereby, yea urged the same against the very Gentills, and Paynims, as invincible arguments of the divinity of Christ, and of the verity of Christian religion: and seeing also that this practice, custom, and belief was then general, when Christian religion most flourished (I mean in the time of the 4. first general councils) and when the Church abounded most with famous Doctors, Pastors, and Fathers, it must needs be granted, that the doctrine of prayer to Saints, is an irrefragable verity, and that according to S. Augustine's censure, it is no less than insolent madness in M. Andrew's to call it in question, M. Andrews according to S. Augustins censure is an insolent mad man. and much more to impugn it with such frivolous reasons as he doth, and especially with a ceremonial precept of the mosaical law, as if he were a jew, and not a Christian, seeing that he acknowledgeth himself to have received a precept thereby disertis verbis, in express words, which I think no good Christian will say of any precept, Andr. p. 38. §. Atque. belonging to the ceremonial, or judicial law. 31. But M. Andrews goeth yet further, and exacteth at least some example of it in the Scripture, S. Aug li de unit. Eccl. ca 22. vel. 19 in some editions. if there be no precept: whereto S. Augustine answereth sufficiently, when he saith to a Donatist (who made the like demand about the rebaptisation of such as were baptised by heretics) that seeing there is no example or express mention of it in Scripture, and that Christ hath clearly and expressly recommended unto us the authority of his universal Church dispersed throughout the world, the testimony and custom of that Church is to be admitted and embraced, and whosoever rejecteth or resisteth the same, Idem. contra. Crescon. lib. 1. cap. 33. doth most perniciously resist our Saviour himself against his own salvation. Thus saith S. Augustine in substance, though much more amply; who also speaking elsewhere of the same point, giveth this notable, and general rule, that for as much as the holy Scripture doth undoubtedly recommend unto us the authority of the Church etiam in hac re à nobis tenetur Scripturarum veritas etc. the veri●y of Scripture is retained by us in this point, when we do that which hath already pleased the whole Church. So he. And so say I to M. Andrews in this our case; to wit that seeing it is evident by the testimony of all antiquity, that the invocation of Saints was generally admitted, and practised by the Primitive Church, and from thence hath descended to our time, there needeth no example of it in Scripture, because the authority of the Church, which the Scriptures do expressly recommend unto us sufficeth to warrant the same. M. Andrews and his fellows do admit divers traditions without any ex●presse precept, or example thereof in Scripture. 32. And truly it may seem strange that M. Andrews, or any of his fellows of the English Clergy do deny this, seeing that they do admit divers traditions whereof there is neither precept, nor example in the Scripture; as the baptism of infants, who do not actually believe, for although the same be very consonant to Scripture (as also is prayer to Saints, and all other things which are practised in the Catholic Church) yet the use, and practice thereof is grounded upon tradition and not upon the Scriptures, Origen lib. 5. in cap. 6. ad Rom. as Origen testifieth, saying: Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem accepit etc. The Church received a tradition from the Apostles, to give baptism to little children. So he. And S. Augustin also to the same purpose saith more plainly thus; S. Aug. de Gen. ad lit. li. 10. c. 23. Consuetudo m●tris Ecclesiae in baptizandis paruulis etc. the custom of our Mother the Church in baptizing infants, is not to be contemned, or reputed as superfluous, neither were it to be believed at all, if it were not an Apostolical tradition. So he, who also acknowledgeth the same in another place, Idem lib. 4. de Baptis. con●ra Donatist. cap. 24. and saith further, that if any man do demand divine authority for it (quamquam quod universa tenet Ecclesia etc. albeit that which the universal Church holdeth, and hath not been ordained by councils, but hath always been retained, is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no other, but by Apostolical authority) nevertheless we may truly conjecture by Circumcision in the old law, what force the Sacrament of Baptism hath in Infants. Thus saith S. Augustine, who to answer those, that do demand divine authority, for the custom of the Church in baptizing Infants, doth not prove, or confirm it by any precept, or example out of Scripture, but only by a probable conjecture drawn from the figure of it in the old law, relying principally upon the tradition of the Church. 33. But what need I seek any other testimony for this matter, seeing that Tho. Rogers in the 39 articles agreed upon by the pretended Bishops, and Clergy of England, and analyzed into propositions, glossed, and set forth by him, with their public approbation, doth acknowledge that the baptism of young children, is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ, See the faith, doctrine etc. printed an. Do. 1607. by john Legate in Cambridg pag. 1●5. art. 27. §. The Baptism. & p. 168. §. Although although (saith he) we be not commanded by express terms to baptise them. So he; whereupon it directly followeth, that M. Andrews hath overlashed greatly in saying, id tantùm audemus facere de quo praeceptum habemus, we dare do that only whereof we have a precept. Also what precept, or example have M. Andrews and his fellows in Scripture for the use of Godfathers, and Godmothers, and of the sign of the cross in Baptism, allowed as well by their practice, as by the late Queen's Injunctions, yea and by the Ecclesiastical Canons of the Bishops, See constitutions Ecclesiast. printed at London by Barker an. 1604, can. 30. and Clergy of the Province of Canterbury, made in their Synod held at London with his majesties licence, in the year 1603. and published the year following by his majesties authority, under the great Seal of England, in which Canons they do not only approve the use of the sign of the cross in Baptism, but also profess to follow therein the primitive, & Apostolical Churches, & the true rules of doctrine concerning things indifferent, which are consonant to the word of God, and the judgement of all the ancient Fathers, so that by their own confession, they retain the use of it without either precept or example in holy Scripture. 34. And now, because I have had this occasion to speak of this constitution, A notable trumpery of the pretended Bishops in their Ecclesiastical Constitutions. I can not omit to advertise thee, good Reader, of a notable piece of trumpery, and cozenage, used by that grave Synod, in this very Canon whereof we now speak; wherein giving the reason why they retain the use of the sign of the cross in Baptism, they say they do it, because the same hath been ever accompanied (among them) with sufficient cautions, & exceptions against all popish superstition, and error, and forsooth, Ibidem. that the world may understand from what popish error they have freed the same, they signify, that the Church of England since the abolishing of Popery, hath ever held, and taught, that the sign of the cross used in Baptism is no part of the substance of that Sacrament, and that the infant baptized is by virtue of Baptism (before it be signed with the sign of the cross) received into the congregation of Christ's flock, as a perfect member thereof, and not by any power ascribed to the sign of the cross etc. whereupon they conclude, that the use of the sign of the cross in Baptism, being thus purged from all popish superstition, and error, and reduced in the Church of England to the primary institution of it etc. it is to be reverently retained, and used. Thus teach they in their foresaid Synod. 35. But now we must demand of them where they have ever read in any catholic Author, that the sign of the cross, D. Tho. 3. par. q 66. Greg. de Valent. disput. 4. q. 1. Navar. in Manu. cap. 22. nu. 6. Bellar. de Sacra: Baptis. lib. 1. cap. 25. as it is used in the administration of baptism, is any part of the substance of the Sacrament: sure I am that all our schoolmen, and Canonists and others that have occasion to treat thereof, do expressly teach the contrary: neither did ever any learned catholic hold, or suppose it to be any part, either of the form or of the matter of Baptism, (which are the essential parts thereof) but only an ancient and holy ceremony; and this is evident even by the practice of the catholic Church, approving the baptism not only of the midwife (in cases of necessity) but also of any heretic, if he have the intention to do that which the catholic Church doth, and useth the true form, with convenient matter, without the sign of the cross, or any other ceremony in the world; and albeit the Church useth to supply the said ceremonies afterwards, in such as wanted the same, yet it maketh no doubt at all, Navar. in Manual cap. 22 nu 6. but that they are baptised before, and in state of salvation, if they die before the said ceremonies be supplied, whereby it is manifest that the Catholykes do not take the sign of the cross to be of the substance, or essence of the sacrament. The pretended Bishops convinced of fraud by his majesties testimony. 36. But of this I shall not need to produce any further proof, seeing that those pretended Bishops, which were present at this Congregation, and made this Canon, have given sufficient testimony of the truth in this point, to no meaner a person, then to his Majesty himself, as he did publicly testify in the Conference at Hampton-court wherein the question concerning the use of the sign of the cross in Baptism, being debated betwixt them and the Puritans, his Majesty said, that he understood by the Bishops, yea and found it himself to be true, that the Papists themselves did never ascribe any power, or spiritual grace to the sign of the cross in Baptism, See the Sum of the Conference pag. ●7. §. Thirdly. printed an. 1604. whereupon it followeth that they do not, nor ever did account to be any essential part of the Sacrament, for if they did, they should ascribe unto it a spiritual grace, and power, as they do to the essence of the Sacrament, which they all do uniformly teach to give grace ex opere operato, and therefore seeing that according to his majesties testimony (as well upon his own knowledge, Conference of Hampton Court contrary to the Constitutions and the same Bishops to themselves. as by the relation of the Bishops to him) the Catholykes did never ascribe any power, or spiritual grace to the sign of the Cross in Baptism, it is evident that the Bishops in their Synod belied them egregiously (charging them to hold it to be a part of the substance of the Sacrament) yea and notably deluded the people in seeking to persuade them, that the Catholykes had corrupted the use thereof, and that the English Clergy hath now reduced it to the primary institution. 37. The miserable state of England where such Pastors have the charge of souls. Who then could imagine that so many Ecclesiastical men, honourable for their rank, and dignity in the common wel●h, by profession Divines, by title Prelates, and spiritual Pastors of the people, could also uniformly agree to cozen the world in this manner, and instead of feeding their flock with wholesome doctrine, to infect and poison them with such manifest lies as this, convinced even by their own testimony to his Majesty himself, the very same year that they devised it; as it appeareth by the printed copies of their Ecclesiastical constitutions, & of the conference at Hampton-Court, published in the year 1604. and therefore I leave it to thee, good Reader, to consider in what a miserable state our poor country is, where such men as these (who as it seemeth have no care either of their own conscience, or reputation) have nevertheless the care, and charge of other men's souls. 38. M. Andrews transgresseth either the Synodical Canon of the English Clergy or his own rule But to return to M. Andrews (who perhaps was one of that conventicle, though not as a Bishop, yet as one of the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury) I would gladly know of him whether he, and his Clergy in the Diocese of Ely, do use the sign of the Cross in the administration of Baptism, or not; and if they do not, let him tell us how they observe this Synodical Canon made by his fellows, and authorized by his Majesty: and if they do observe it, let him show us some precept, or example of it in Scripture, seeing he resolutely affirmeth in the name of the whole English Church, See supra nu. ●4. Andr. p. 37. §. Verū● as it seemeth, that they dare do that only whereof they have a precept. Therefore I say, let him either show us some precept for it in Scripture, or else confess that he, and his fellows dare do more than is commanded therein. 39 Finally, if they may lawfully follow the primitive, and Apostolical Churches, and the judgement of all the ancient fathers, in matters though not commanded in Scripture, Prayer to Saints no less conform to the practice of the primitive Church, than the use of the sign of the Cross in Baptism. yet consonant thereto (as they profess to do in the foresaid Canon) than they must also grant, that it is in like manner lawful for Catholykes, to do the like for prayer to Saints, seeing that the same is conform to the practice of the primitive Church, and to the belief of the ancient fathers, and consequently to the holy Scriptures, for otherwise neither would so many learned, ancient and holy fathers have approved it, neither yet the Church (whose authority, as S. Augustine saith, the Scripture recommendeth unto us) would have practised it; I mean that visible catholic Church, S. Aug. li. de unit. Eccl. c. 1●. & contra Crescon. lib. 1. c. 31. whereof S. Augustine did so constantly defend, and maintain the authority, against the heretics in his time, that he pronounced them (as you have heard before) to be most insolent mad men, if they did but only doubt of any general custom thereof. Idem. ep. 118. 40. Whereupon I conclude, that prayer to Saints being generally approved, and practised by the Church in S. Augustine's time, it must needs follow according to his rule, that the use, and practice thereof, is not only most lawful, and consonant to Scripture, but also reverently to be retained, and used by M. Andrews, and his fellows, even according to their own profession in their Synodical constitution, seeing, as I have signified before, they profess reverently to retain the sign of the Cross in Baptism (though not commanded in Scripture) because the same was used in the primitive Church, and is consonant to Scripture, and to the judgement of all the ancient Fathers. 41. And if he say, M. Andrews still hardly pressed with his own rule and inference upon the text of Deuteronomy. that they profess in their Canon to follow the rules of doctrine, concerning things that are (at least) indifferent, & that prayer to Saints is neither absolutely good, nor yet indifferent, but altogether unlawful, and consequently not to be used, he is to understand first, that according to his own rule, and inference upon the text of Deuteronomy, he neither doth, nor can admit any thing, that is not commanded in Scripture, be it never so good. For he saith id tantúm audemus facere etc. we dare do that only whereof we have a precept, and to that purpose he allegeth also the text of Deuteronomy, hoc tantùm facies quod tibi praecipio, thou shalt do this only which I do command thee, where you see the word tantùm as well in his assertion, as in the text of Scripture, excludeth all things whatsoever that are not commanded, whereupon it followeth that the use of the sign of the Cross in baptism is as well prohibited, as prayer to Saints, if he understand that text of Deuteronomy aright, Prayer to Saints ought rather to be admitted, than the sign of the Cross in Baptism according to the Synodical Canon of the English Clergy. and make a good inference thereon, 42. Secondly it is not sufficient, that he and his fellows do hold the invocation of Saints to be unlawful, but they must also prove it so to be, or else they must grant the practice of it to be lawful (as of a thing at least indifferent) upon the same reason that they admit the ●igne of the Cross in baptism, yea with far greater reason, seeing that, as I have already proved, prayer to Saints is not only good, and lawful, but also most profitable, and beneficial to men, whereas the Cross in baptism (according to the doctrine of the foresaid Canon) hath no virtue, or power in it at all, but is only an outward Ceremony, and honourable badge of a Christian. So as M. Andrews cannot approve the use thereof, and exclude the practice of prayer to Saints, except he willbe so absurd to admit things indifferent, and reject a thing absolutely good, and very necessary for every Christian man; for so I say, he must needs confess the invocation of Saints to be, M. Andrews either idly demandeth a precept in Scripture for prayer to Saints, or else he must grant it to be as lawful as the sign of the Cross in Baptism. except he can overthrow the testimonies of all the ancient Fathers, yea and the experience that the Church hath always had of the sovereign benefits that men reap thereby. 43. Thirdly, whereas he demandeth a precept in Scripture for prayer to Saints, he seemeth to grant it to be either good of itself, or at least indifferent; for if it were absolutely bad, it were in vain, and absurd to demand a precept of it, for that it could never be commanded, so as either his demand in that behalf is very idle, and absurd, or else he must acknowledge it at least to be indifferent, and consequently, that it is no less lawful to use it without a precept, than the sign of the Cross in Baptism. 1. Tim. 2. 1. joan. 2. 44. Lastly, seeing that he useth the sign of the Cross without a precept, because it is consonant to Scripture (for so saith the Canon) and rejecteth prayer to Saints for want of a precept, What places and how fit to the purpose the Protestant's allege out of the Scriptures against praying to Saints. it is reason that he show us, either some prohibition of prayer to Saints in Scripture, or at least how it is repugnant to Scripture: which he shall never be able to do, as it appeareth suffciently by those texts of Scripture, that he and his fellows are wont to allege against it; as for example, they object, that Christ is the only mediator betwixt God, and man, that he is our advocate with his Father, and that he commandeth all men that labour, Matth. 11. and are loaden to come to him, promising to refresh them, and such like places as signify unto us the bounty, and mercy of our Saviour Christ, and his facility, and readiness to hear, and help us; all which places being understood as our adversaries take them, do no less overthrow our mutual prayers one for another, than our prayers to Saints, whereby they may understand their absurdity. 45. For if Christ be our only mediator, The absurdity of our adversaries arguments against the invocation of Saints. and advocate in such sort as they take it, to wit, that we may not crave the prayers of Saints without injury to Christ, because he is our only mediator, how then doth the Scripture teach us to crave one another's prayers? is i● less injury to Christ to crave the prayers of sinners, them of Angels, and Saints, who are free from sin, and most acceptable to God? And again, if it be lawful to come to God by the mediation, and prayers of men, can it be unlawful to come to him by the intercession of Angels, and Saints? But that thou mayst, good Reader, see how substantially M. Andrews argueth against prayer to Saints out of these places of Scripture, Andr. cap. 8. pag. 179. lin. 29. thou shalt hear an eloquent discourse of his; thus than he saith. 46. cum, Venite ad me, dixerit etc. seeing that Christ said come to me, come all and I will refresh you (that is to say, by myself, and not by ministers) why do we not go to himself directly without an interpreter, A very silly and simple discourse of M. Andrews against praying to Saints. and sue to him, but do go out of the way to Saints, and sue to them that they may vouchsafe to be suitors for us? Do we treat with any of the holy Spirits more safely, or sweetly then with our jesus? have they more easy access, or better commodity to speak to God? or is any elder amongst the jews, more grateful to Christ then the faithful Centurion? do the Saints better know our needs, or are they more compassionate, or more merciful or yet more affectionate towards us than he, whereby we may have more confidence in them, then in him? aught we to make more account of any favour of theirs, then of Christ's promiss (I will refresh you) or of his precept, come to me? But when you do so invocate Saints, you give them the place of Christ, for if you come to them, you have in Christ's place those that may refresh you instead of him; you have mediators to God who may pray for your sins, such (mediators) as Paul, and john did not make themselves, and if they had, the faithful Christians would not have suffered it, S. Aug con●●ra ep. Parmen lib. 2. cap. 8. if Augustine in his books against Parmenian do understand the matter aright. 47. Thus far M. Andrew's; which I have laid down the more amply to the end it may appear how seriously he tryfleth in this important matter, M. Andrews serious in trifling. which thou wilt evidently see, good Reader, if thou do but note well his discourse, and what followeth thereof (if his construction of those places of Scripture, which he allegeth be true) for as well might he argue thus (following his own grounds and changing only the word Saints into men) cum, His argument and whole discourse re●torted upon himself impug●ning our mutual prayers one for another. Venite ad me dixerit etc. seeing that Christ said Come to me, and I will refresh you (by myself, and not by my Ministers) why do we not go to him directly without any interpreter, but sue to men, that they may be suitors for us? Do we confer more safely, or sweetly with any man then with our jesus? have we more easy access or better opportunity to speak to any man then to him? do men know our necessities better than he, or are they more compassionate, merciful, or more affectionate towards us than he, whereby we may have more confidence in them, then in him? aught we not much more to esteem Christ's promise (to wit, I will refresh you) and his precept Come unto me, than any favour of men? But you, when you crave the prayers of men, do give them the place of Christ; for if you come to them, you have in Christ's place those which may refresh you instead of him, you have mediators to God, which may pray for your sins, such (mediators) as Paul, and john did not make themselves etc. 48. Lo then how substantially he hath argued against prayer to Saints, M. Andrews his arguments do as directly-overthrow that which he himself approveth, a● that which he impugneth. seeing that his arguments (if they have any force at all) do as directly overthrow that which he himself approveth, as that which he impugneth, I mean as well our mutual prayer one for another (which I am sure he will not disallow) as either the prayers of Saints for us, or our intercession to them; and is it possible, that so great a Clerk, and subtle Logician as he, did not see this? or that he is ignorant in what sense the Scripture teacheth that our Saviour is our only mediator, and advocate? seeing that the Apostle having said, that, there is one mediator of God and men jesus Christ, addeth immediately, qui dedit redemptionem semetipsum pro omnibus, who gave himself a redemption for all, How it i● to be understood that Christ is our only mediator and advocate. as who would say, he is the only mediator, because he only being both God, and man, is that eternal Priest, and Redeemer who by the Sacrifice of himself upon the Cross, hath reconciled us to God, and paid our ransom having himself no need of redemption in which sense also he is our singular advocate, and patron. 49. And therefore john having said that we have 1. Tim. ●● an advocate with the Father, 1. joan. 2. jesus Christ, addeth presently, & ipse est propitiatio etc. and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world, giving to understand that he is our advocate and prayeth for us in a very peculiar, and singular manner, for that he by himself alone, and by his own merits procureth all grace, and mercy to mankind in the sight of his Father, accedens per semetipsum ad Deum, Hebr. 7. coming (saith the Apostle) to God by himself, whereas all other Advocates, or Patrons (be they Angels, Saints, or men) do no otherwise obtain grace, or mercy but by him, and by his merits, in which respect the Church endeth her prayers to Saints with per Christum Dominum nostrum, by Christ our Lord; and in this sense, I say, our Saviour Christ is truly called our only mediator, not only by the way of redemption, but also by the way of prayer which doth no way exclude other mediators to him for us, or to God the Father by his merits, which M. Andrews himself confesseth sufficiently, seeing he granteth that the Saints in heaven do pray for us all with Christ their head, and doth not deny, but that we may crave the prayers one of another: whereupon it followeth that Christ is not our only mediator by the way of prayer, in such sort as he and his fellows do understand it. 50. And whereas he seeketh to confirm his false inference with the testimony of S. Augustine against Parmenian the Donatist, The meaning of S. Augustine perverted by M. Andrews, is truly explicated. saying, that if Paul, and john had made themselves mediators, the faithful Christians would not have suffered it, he perverteth wholly the sense of S. Augustine, as he is wont, alleging only a little scrap of his discourse, and dissembling all that which doth fully explicate his meaning. And that this may appear thou shalt understand, good Reader, that for as much as the Donatists taught that the grace of the Sacraments depended of the goodness of the minister, yea and did most wickedly, and proudly affirm of themselves, S. Aug. li. 2. co●tra ep. Parmemanica. 8● neminem esse inter collegas suos, vel seipsos, cum aliqua macula & vitio, that there was none amongst their colleagues, or companions, or amongst themselves spotted with any blot, or vice; and that Parmenian also said of a Bishop of theirs, that he was a mediator betwixt God and the people (meaning an immaculate, and unspotted mediator) S. Augustine inveigheth bitterly against this their execrable presumption, and pride, & saith, that neither S. john, nor S. Paul, nor the rest of the Apostles durst ever presume to make themselves mediators in this sense; and therefore he saith that they acknowledged themselves to be sinners, and that S. john did not say, 1. joan. 2. si quis peccaverit mediatorem me babetis etc. if any man sin, you have me for a mediator, but, advocatum habemus etc. we have an advocate jesus Christ; whereby S. john confessed himself to be a sinner & to have need of the propitiation, and mediation of Christ. 51. And S. Paul in like manner commended himself (saith S. Augustine) to the prayers of the faithful, and did not make himself a mediator betwixt God, and the people: so as S. Augustine showeth evidently hereby, that he doth not exclude the mediation of Saints, or of one man for another by way of intercession to Christ, but only in such sort, as the same should impugn Christ's mediation for all men; which he also signifieth more expressly in the same place, saying, Homines omnes Christiani etc. all Christian men do recommend themselves one to another's prayers, but he for whom no man prayeth, but he for all, is the only and true mediator. Thus saith S. Augustine; How S. Augustine denieth that men may be mediators one for another. who affirming that Christians crave the prayers one of another, granteth consequently that they may also be mediators, that is to say intercessors one for another, and therefore doth not deny that Saints, or men may be mediators for men in any other sense then such as the proud Donatists understood the same, who did so justify themselves that they did evacuate, & take away the necessity of Christ's mediation for them, or for such as they recommended to God, esteeming themselves to be so pure, and immaculate, that God did hear them in respect of their own purity. 52. Wherein also it is to be observed that albeit S. Augustine in all this discourse speaketh only of men whiles they live in this world (and not of Saints, or Angels) teaching that no man living (in respect of his frailty, and subjection to sin) can be a mediator, or advocate in the same sense that Christ is (to wit, in such sort that he needeth no other mediator, Neither men nor Saints, or Angels do obtain any thing of God but by the mediation and meri●s of jesus Christ. or advocate to pray for him, but that he prayeth for all other) nevertheless the same may also be understood of Angels, and Saints; for although they pray for all men, and no man for them, yet for as much as they obtain nothing of God but by Christ's mediation, and merits, they cannot be said to be such mediators, or advocates as need no other mediation, or help to obtain their suits, which is only said truly of Christ, who therefore is (as S. Augustine saith) the true, and only mediator pro quo nemo interpellat, sed ipse pro omnibus, for whom no man prayeth, but he for all. 53. This then being the clear sense, and meaning of S. Augustine, I remit it to thy judgement good Reader, whether this contradicteth any way our catholic doctrine, or maketh any thing at all for M. Andrew's his purpose; may he not then be ashamed to say, as he doth, that when we crave the prayers to Saints, we give them the place of Christ, & that when we come to them we seek to be refreshed by them instead of Christ? when nevertheless he doth not deny but that we may crave the prayers of men and consequently come to Christ by them, or rather together with them, and with their assistance; for no man I think that requests either men, or Saints to pray for him, doth so wholly confide in their prayers, that he omitteth to pray to Christ, M. Andrews prodigal of his rhetorik. and therefore he cometh also himself immediately to Christ, as he that hath a suit to a Prince, and doth not only procure to be recommended to him by his favourits, but also presenteth his own petition unto him, doth come himself immediately to the Prince, though he be accompanied, or seconded by others, whereby it appeareth what a deal of Rhetorik M. Andrews hath cast away, to prove that he which prayeth to Saints doth not come to Christ. 54. And if he will yet say further (as some of his fellows are wont to do, that the case is not like of Saints, and men, because there are examples in the Scripture of craving the prayers of men, but not of Saints, he shall show himself to be no less ignorant than absurb, because the same can be no confirmation of his former arguments taken out of Scripture, An absurd shift and evasion of our adversaries urged against them. but an evident confutation of them, seeing that it appeareth thereby, that Christ is not the only mediator, or advocate in the sense that they take it; for if he were then could we not crave the prayers of any but of Christ; and therefore for as much as the Scripture (which cannot be contrary to itself, alloweth and exhorteth us to crave one another's prayers, jac. 5. it is evident that it doth not teach, The Scripture should contradict itself, if Christ were our only mediator in the sense that our adversaries do take it. or mean that Christ is our only mediator, or advocate, in such sort as that no other may pray for us but he, or we crave the prayers of no other but of him, or that we do injury to him, when we come to him by the mediation, means, and assistance of others, for so should the Scripture contradict itself, which it cannot do. 55. Moreover by seeking this shift, they leave wholly their former argument, and fly to another, grounded upon as false a foundation as the former, to wit, that nothing is to be believed, or practised in the Church whereof there is no commandment, or example in Scripture, which you have heard (c) Supra ●u. 25.26. & seq. already confuted, as well by the authority of Scripture, and Fathers, as also by our adversaries own (d) Supra nu. 33. & seq. doctrine, approving the practice of things not commanded any where in Scripture, as the baptism of infants, the use of the sign of the Cross, & Godfathers, and Godmothers in baptism; whereto I may add the tradition of keeping Sunday holy day in (e) S. Hieron. advers. Vigilant. S. Aug. ep. 119. & lib. 22. the civit. cap. 30. S. Greg. lib. 11. ep. 3. How prayer to Saints is conform to Scripture and deduced from it. memory of the Resurrection of our Saviour, with abstinence from servile works. Also the observation of Easter, Pentecost, and such feasts, and divers other things consisting in matters of practice 56. If then they approve and practise these things, although they be not commanded or ordained in Scripture, what reason have they to reject prayer to Saints, because there is no commandment, or example of it in Scripture, when nevertheless it is most conform thereto and deduced from it, as I have partly showed (h) See chap. 7. nu. 48. & supra hoc cap nu. 31. already, by an inafallible rule of S. Augustine (seeing it is approved by that Church which the Scripture commandeth us to (k) Luc. 10● Matth. 18. hear, believe, and obey) besides that it being evident in Scripture, that Charity, which moveth, and obligeth men to pray one for another in this life, (l) 1. Cor. 1●. nunquam excidit (as the Apostle teacheth) never decayeth, but is more perfect in the next life, it followeth not only that the Saints do pray for us (which M. Andrews granteth) but also that we may crave their prayers, If our brethren on earth may pray for us and we by warrant of the Scriptures commend ourselves to their prayers, why may we not do the like unto Saints? for it were most absurd to think that we may not request them to do that, which is most correspondent to their Charity, and they will most willingly perform. 57 Furthermore seeing that the Scripture doth teach us to crave the prayers and help of our brethren living, there can be no reason imagined, why we should not also do the same when they are glorified in heaven, but either because they do not hear, or understand our prayers, or because they are not willing, or not able to help us, but that they hear us, I have sufficiently proved already, and have also answered M. Andrews his cavils concerning the same; and he neither denieth, nor seemeth to doubt either that they are willing to succour us, See suprad nu. 12. ad nu. 24. (considering the perfection of their Charity) or yet that they are able to do it, seeing he granteth they do pray for us; & if he should deny it, or that their prayers may avail us (as Vigilantius & his followers did in times past, Vide coccium To. 1. lib 5. art. 4. de Sanctis. and Zuinglius with other sectaries have done in these our days) he might easily be convinced by the holy Scriptures, which witness that God granteth the petitions of his servants even when they are here subject to sin, (c) See supra nu. 22. and misery, and hath mercy on sinners for the merits of the just, as well dead, as living; and therefore the Prophet prayed: ne auferas misericordiam tuam etc. do not take away thy mercy from us O Lord, Dan. 3. for thy beloved Abraham, and thy servant Isaac, and thy holy Israel. And we read in the book of Kings that for David's sake God did mitigate his wrath towards Solomon, ●. Reg. 11. and saved also the Kingdom of juda from destruction in the reign of joram, 2. Paral. 21. and Ezechias. 4. Reg 19 58. In like manner God pardoned jobs friends for his sake, job. 42. and directed them unto him to crave his prayers for them. Also for the prayers of Moses he had mercy on the people; Exod. 32. and the like we read in the new testament. Whereupon S. Hierome said to Vigilantius thus: S. Hieron. advers. Vigilantium. Si Apostoli & Martyrs etc. If the Apostles, and Martyrs being here in body could pray for others, whiles they ought to be careful for themselves, how much more may they do it after their crowns, victories, and triumphs; one Moses obtained of God pardon for six hundred thousand armed men, and Steven the follower of his Lord, Exod. 32. and first Martyr in Christ, craved pardon for his persecutors, and shall they now be able to do less when they are with Christ? Act. 7. Paul the Apostle saith that 276. men's lives were given him in the ship, Ibid. ca 27. and therefore now when he is dissolved, and with Christ, will he hold his peace, and shall he not be able so much as to open his mouth for those which have believed by his preaching throughout the world? and shall Vigilantius a living dog be better than a dead lion? Thus argueth S. Hierome by an argument a fortiori, grounded on the Scripture to show the extreme absurdity of Vigilantius the heretic, who denied that the Saints in heaven do pray for us, and are able to help us. 59 And this ability of Saints to help men, is to be ascribed not only to the effect of their prayers, but also to their power, Apoc. 1●. authority, and dignity; seeing that Christ who is the King of Kings, Matth. 28. & Lord of Lords, & hath all power in heaven and earth given him by his Father, Saints able to help, us by the participation of Christ's power. doth in the apocalypse promise to his Saints a communication, and participation of his own Kingdom, dominion, and power over men; qui vicerit, saith he, dabo sedere mecum etc. he that shall overcome, I will give unto him to sit with me in my throne, as I also have overcome, and sitten with my father in his throne; dabo ei potestatem super gentes etc. Apoc. 3. I will give him power over nations, Ibid. 2. and he shall rule them etc. and according to this promise of our Saviour, the Saints also said to him in the apocalypse; Ibid. 1. & 5. Redimisti nos Deo in sanguine tuo etc. thou hast redeemed us to God in thy blood, and hast made us to our God a Kingdom, and Priests, and we shall reign upon the earth; and this may be confirmed out of the book of wisdom, Sap. 3● which saith, that the just (when they shallbe glorified) iudicabunt Nationes, & dominabuntur populis etc. shall judge Nations, and shall have dominion over people; and in like manner the Psalmist saith (speaking of the glory of God's Saints) exultabunt Sancti in gloria etc. the Saints shall exult, Psal. 14●. and rejoice in glory etc. they shall have two edged swords in their hands to take revenge upon nations, and to chastise people, to tie their Kings in fetters, and their noble men in iron manacles etc. Thus saith the royal Prophet. 60. And albeit this shallbe specially, Matth. 19 and most manifestly fulfilled at the day of judgement, Luc. ●2. when the Saints of God shall assist our Saviour in the judgement, saints protectors of men, Cities & Countries. and condemnation of the wicked, yet it cannot be denied but that also in the mean time it is verified in the power and dominion that God imparteth to his Saints, giving them the protection of Cities, Countries, and men, as it appeareth evidently by innumerable examples which might be alleged of Kingdoms and Cities defended, God's servants relieved, and his enemies destroyed by them; See before nu. 18. & 19 for which cause the ancient Fathers do worthily call them the keepers of human kind, governors of our actions, the captains, Princes, propugnators, patrons, and protectors of men (as I have more particularly declared before in this Chapter) and therefore also all Christian Countries, and Cities are accustomed to have some Saint, The 1. part of the Treatise of Policy & religion chap. 15. nu. 12.13.14.15.16.17.18. & 27. Item 2 par. chap. 24. nu. 31. or other for their particular patron, by whose help they have often received relief in their necessities, and victory against their enemies; whereof divers notable examples testified by very grave authors may be seen in a treatise of Policy and Religion published a few years a go, whereto I remit my Reader for brevityes sake and will now infer upon these premises that seeing the glorified Saints of God, do not only understand & know our prayers, but also are most willing & able to help us, &, as S. john testifieth in the apocalypse do offer up our prayers to God, Apoc. 5. yea and as M. Andrews himself granteth do pray for us; and finally seeing that experience See sup. nu. ●2. also teacheth that they do divers ways assist & relieve us (which I have evidently proved by the testimony of the ancient Fathers) it were most absurd to think that the holy Scriptures should allow us to crave the prayers and help of men, and disallow prayers to Saints & therefore I conclude that for as much as prayer to Saints is most consonant both to Scripture and reason, and most profitable, and beneficial to men, and was admitted, & practised by all the primitue Church, and ratified, and approved by the uniform consent of the ancient Fathers (as I have showed sufficiently before) it cannot be rejected by M. Andrews, and his fellows, though there should be no commandment nor example of it in Scripture, seeing they profess to admit without a precept, such things as are indifferent, when they are conform to the holy Scriptures, the practice of the primitive Church, and judgement of all the ancient Fathers. 61. But what starting hole, Two foolish exceptions taken by M. Andrews to the cardinals allegation of the ancient Fathers. trow you, will M. Andrews find here, or what exceptions will he take to this my conclusion? marry forsooth, he will cavil, at least, about the authority of the Fathers alleged by the Cardinal; against whom he taketh two main exceptions, the one concerning the age, and time when they lived, and the other touching their uniform consent; of the former he saith that they were all of them after 300. years, to wit, in the 4. age, whereas in quadringentis annis, saith he, rex expectat, the King expecteth the resolution of the Fathers of 400. years; Andr. pag 35. §. de qua dringentis. as who would say that the Cardinal hath proved nothing to the purpose (at least to his majesties intention) because he hath not alleged any of the Fathers of the first 3. hundred years; M. Andrews wrongeth his Majesty. wherein no doubt he doth his Majesty great wrong, Fathering his own foolish, and absurd conceit upon his Majesty, whose great wisdom being considered, it cannot be imagined, that in admitting the Fathers of the first 500 years (for so he doth in the English Apology) his meaning was to reject their uniform consent in any one of those centuries especially seeing that his Majesty professeth in the same place to reverence the ancient Fathers more than ever the jesuits did; which truly he should not do if his meaning were such as M. Andrews maketh it here. 62. For I am well assured that the jesuits never took any exception against all the Fathers of any one age from Christ's time to this, The uniform consent of the Fathers of the 4. or 5. age must needs be taken for an evident testimony of the truth. and much less to those of the 4. and 5. age, who were of such eminent learning; and sanctity, that their uniform consent concerning any question of religion, must needs be held for an evident testimony of the truth, seeing that God of his infinite mercy, did then propagate his Church, and faith over the world, and establish the same under Christian Emperors (to wit Constantin the Great, and his successors (by means whereof the Church was every where provided, and furnished with notable Pastors, who being freed from the former persecutions, had opportunity to write those ample volumes, and worthy monuments, which by God's great providence they left to their posterity, for the confirmation of the Christian catholic faith; whereas in the former ages (I mean the first 3. Centenaryes) the persecution was so great under the pagan Emperors that neither the Christian faith could so much extend itself, as it did in the 4. and 5. age. Neither could there be so many able men to write, neither those that were, could have such opportunity to do it, as the others had in the peace, and tranquillity of the Church. Some one Father of the 4. and 5. age hath written more than all the Fathers of the 3. precedent ages. 63. And this is evident by the works of the one, and the other seeing that in the first 300. years, there were not passed 7. or 8. Fathers at most, that wrote, (at least whose books we now have) and of those also the most wrote very little, in so much that the works of some one of the Fathers of the 4. and 5. age do in volume, and quantity exceed all the works (that are now extant) of all the Fathers of the 3. former ages; and therefore it cannot be expected, that they should treat, or touch all matters which are now in controversy, especially such as were not then any way called in question. Besides that in the 4. and 5. age were held the 4. first General councils, which not only his Majesty, It is not possible that all the Doctors & Pastors of the Church can err in any thing at any time and why. but also M. Andrews himself admitteth. In which respect the Fathers of that time must needs be taken for assured, and uncontrollable witnesses of the truth, for those councils (which were no other but assemblies of the Fathers then living) could not be of such undoubted authority, as they are, if the Fathers of those ages had uniformly taught, or believed any erroneous doctrine; for if they were all deceived in one point, they might also be deceived and err in the rest, and so should the whole Church (whereof they were the Pastors & Doctors) be drawn into error by them, Matth. 28. Ibid. 16. which is not possible, seeing that Christ hath not only promised his own assistance to his Church for ever, Ephes. 4. and that hell gates shall not prevail against it, but also hath placed in it Pastors, Pastors and Doctors ordained by Christ in his Church to preserve it from error, unto the world's end. and Doctors (saith the Apostle) to the consummation of the Saints, unto the work of the ministry, until we meet all in the unity of faith; ut iam non simus paruuli fluctuantes etc. to the end we now be not wavering Children, & carried away with every blast of doctrine; so saith the Apostle. 64. Whereby it is evident that God of his singular providence hath given Doctors, and Pastors to the Church, yea and ordained that they shall remain there unto the world's end, to preserve the same from error; whereupon it followeth, that all the Doctors, and Pastors of the Church, If all the Doctors of the Church, could err at any time, the remedy were not effectual which God hath ordained to preserve his Church from error by them. cannot err at any time, for if they could, then were not the remedy effectual, and certain which God hath ordained in his Church to preserve it from error by them; & therefore if they have all erred in the 4. age, or any other, then hath the providence, ordinance, yea and the promise of God failed, which is impossible (as I have amply proved in my supplement) so as I conclude that the exception which M. Andrews taketh against the Father's alleged by the Cardinal, for being all of that 4. age, is most vain, and frivolous, seeing that the consent of the Doctors of any one age is sufficient to determine any matter in controversy. 65. And much more may we content ourselves with the uniform testimony, and consent of those of the 4. and 5. age in the time of the 4. first general councils, See sup. chap. 4. nu. 36.37.38. when the Church most flourished, and as I have signified before, was best furnished with learned, and holy Pastors, and Doctors of whom the Cardinal hath cited no less than twelve, to wit S. Basil, S. Gregory Nyssen, S. Ephraem, S. Gregory Nazianzen. Eusebius. S. Chrisostome, If these Fathers cannot be heard or credited what other Fathers will he desire? S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Hierome, S. Cyril, S. Paulinus and S. Maximus; besides the history of Ruffinus, to whom I have also added Theodoret, not inferior in learning to the rest; all which were pillars, lights, and notable ornaments of the latin, and Greek Church in the 4. and 5. age; and all of these being 14. in number, alleged by the Cardinal and me, 12. have given (as you have heard) uniform and clear testimony to the doctrine, and custom of Prayer to Saints, either invocating Saints themselves, or approving the public use and practise of it in others; and albeit the other two (to wit S. Ciril and Eusebius) do not so expressly speak of the invocation of Saints, as the other fathers do, yet the same is also sufficiently gathered out of their testimonies, as I have showed before in the 6. Chapter; See chap. ●. nu. 28. & 66. whereupon I conclude, that this doctrine of prayer to Saints, be●ing approved & practised by so many learned Fathers of the 4. and 5. age, it must needs be admitted for an infallible truth. 66. Andr. pag. 6. §. Tum. Yea but saith M. Andrews there is no uniform consent of Fathers in this point; for, alij, saith he, non pauci sunt etc. there are not a few others, who have right of suffrage, or voice, herein; omitted by the Cardinal. So he; wherein I doubt not, good Reader, but thou seest how absurdly he cavilleth, and tryfleth, for may not the verdict of a whole jury of Fathers alleged by the Cardinal, The uniform consent of a few Fathers not contradicted by the rest, must needs be taken for a general consent of the Church i● their tyme. and not contradicted by any suffice to show a general, and uniform consent of the Church in their time? and will not M. Andrews acknowledge an uniform consent in the Fathers, without a particular testimony of every one of them? doth he suppose that every one of them hath written of all points of religion? and if they have not (whereof there is no doubt) shall the silence of some prejudice the clear testimony of others? so shall we prove little or nothing at all by the Fathers, for there are but very few points of religi●on, whereof every one of them hath had occasion to write. 67. But will M. Andrews, & his fellows be content that we exact the like of them when they allege the Fathers; See supra nu. 33. as for example, the Bishops in their Canon before mentioned, concerning the use of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, M. Andrwes confuted by an example of his own fellows. do affirm that they follow therein the judgement of all the Fathers of the primitive Church, but can they show, trow you, that every Father of the primitive Church, yea or the greatest part of them do particularly speak of that ceremony? sure I am they cannot show it; for albeit divers very ancient and holy Fathers do treat thereof and highly approve it, yet many others are utterly silent concerning the same; nevertheless for as much as those that approve it, are not contradicted by any of the rest, their testimony may well be taken for the uniform consent of all, or truly otherwise my Lord Bishops will not be able to justify their assertion, and prove that they follow the judgement of all the Fathers in that point. Therefore this exception of M. Andrew's is very ridiculous except he can show that those Fathers whom the Cardinal omitted, have contradicted the testimonies of the other; but this you see, he hath not been able to do, though he hath done his best endeavour thereto, with shame enough to himself, and his cause. S Augustine against julian the Pelagian contented himself with the testimo●nyes of six Fathers. 68 S. Augustine writing against julian the Pelagian about original sin, and the baptism of Infants, thought the testimony of 6. Father's sufficient to convince him, though five of them were of the same time, and age wherein he himself lived; for whereas the Pelagian falsely pretended that S. Chrysostome made for him, S. Augustine answered: Absit ut joannes Constantinopolitanus etc. God forbid that john Bishop of Constantinople should resist so many, and worthy Bishops his fellows, especially Innocentius Bishop of Rome, S. Aug. lib. 1. contra julian. cap. 2. Cyprian of Carthage, Basil of Cappadocia, Gregory of Nazianzen, Hilary of France, and Ambrose of Milan. So he. Therefore how much more may we rely upon the authority of as many more Fathers, whereof there were 4. even of those whom S. Augustine named, and he himself also one of the number, and all of them flourished above 1100. years ago, and have not been gainsaid, or impugned by any? May we not, I say, boldly admit their testimonies for a proof of the uniform consent of the Church in their time? The Scripture teacheth, and common practice approveth that 2. or 3. substantial witnesses may suffice to prove any matter in question, Deut. 17. and therefore much more may these 12. most learned, and holy Fathers suffice to show, what was the practice, and belief of the Church in their days, especially seeing that divers of them speak of public matters of fact, which passed in their own time, and knowledge, in which respect they cannot be thought to fayne; and lie, except we shall take them to be void both of conscience, and common honesty. 69. But M. Andrew's addeth further, that it appeareth even in Cardinal Bellarmine himself that the Fathers were not all of one mind concerning prayer to Saints, Andr. ubi supra. and for proof thereof he remitteth his Reader to the cardinals controversies, Another vain evasion of M. Andrews answered. and particularly to the tract de beatitudine Sanctorum, the first book, and 20. Chapter; which truly I have read diligently, and cannot find any thing at all to that purpose, except perhaps he mean that the Cardinal signifieth there the different opinions of the Father's concerning the manner how Saints do understand, Bellar. de beatit. Sanct. lib. 1. cap. 20. or hear our prayers; whereupon it seemeth M. Andrew's inferreth that they differed also in opinion concerning the whole controversy, Cardinal Bellarmine abused by M. Andrews. when nevertheless it appeareth evidently there, that they made no doubt whether prayer to Saints be lawful, neither yet whether they know our actions, but only in what manner they know them, and how they hear, or understand our prayers; touching which point, and the absurd inference that M Andrew's maketh thereof (denying the certainty of the effect, by the uncertainty of the cause, or manner of it) I have so amply discoursed (c) See supra nu. 12.13.14.15. & 16. before, that I shall not need to say any more thereof in this place. 70. But that which I wish to be noted here is, that in the same Chapter which he quoteth, all the arguments of Luther, Calvin, the Magdeburgenses, and the rest, and amongst others even those which he objecteth against prayer to Saints, are fully answered, and yet he insisteth still upon the same, without any reply in the world to the cardinals answers, as though these his old stale objections were new inventions, and had never been answered before; whereas reason would, M Andrews presumed to err not of ignorance but of malice. that seeing he saw the answers thereto (as by this his quotation it is manifest he did) he should have said somewhat to confute them. And if he say that he did not hold them worthy of a reply, he should have showed the same, at least in some one or 2. of them: and so no doubt he would have done, if he had been able, whereby it appeareth that he erreth not of ignorance, but of mere malice, and impugneth a known truth against his own conscience, and knowledge. 71. Well then I will conclude concerning the 12. Father's alleged by the Cardinal, S. Aug. advers. julian Pela. lib. 2. in Epilogo. and me, with the words of S. Augustine, defending the authority, and faith of 11. Father's alleged by him against julian the Pelagian, who desired to have judges of his cause. His igitur eloquijs, saith S. Augustine, Saint Augustins words to a Pelagian heretic fitly applied to M. Andrews. & tanta auctoritate Sanctorum etc. therefore with these testimonies, and so great authority of holy men, either thou wilt through God's mercy be cured (which how much I desire, he seeth, whom I beseech to work it) or if (which God forbid) thou still remain in thy great folly (for so it is, though it seem wisdom to thee) thou wilt not seek judges, to the end to purge thyself, and try thy cause, but to accuse the worthy, and famous Doctors of catholic verity, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Reticius, Olympius, Hilary, Gregory, Ambrose, Basil, john, Innocent, and Hierome, with the rest of their fellows yea the universal Church of Christ, wherein they have flourished with exceeding great glory in our Lord, whiles they faithfully ministered the food of God to his divine family, and therefore I will see that in respect of this thy miserable madness (from which God deliver thee) thy books are to be answered in such sort that the faith of these Fathers is to be defended against thee, no less than the Gospel itself against the professed enemies of Christ. Thus saith S. Augustine to julian, and the same say I to M. Andrews, with like hearty desire of this good, leaving the application of the whole partly to the consideration of the discreet Reader, and partly to himself according to the light, and feeling he may have thereof in his own conscience. 72. It resteth now that I say somewhat briefly to certain trifling objections which he maketh against the invocation of Saints out of Origen, S. Cyril, and S. Athanasius, Certain trifling objections of M. Andrews out of Origen, S. Cyril, & S. Athanasius. urging the Cardinal to show somewhat out of them to prove it to be lawful, and particularly out of Origen against Celsus, and S. Cyril against julian the Apostata, and out of Athanasius against the Arians, because he supposeth that those Fathers should in those their treatises have taught that the invocation of Saints is lawful, if they had been of that opinion; and he addeth that the two former do flatly deny that Christians do honour Martyrs pari cultu, with equal honour to that which the Paynims gave to their Heroes: wherein truly he hath great reason; and I will also add thereto that not only Origen, and S. Cyril, but also S. (c) Nazianz. oratio. 1. in julian. Gregory Nazianzen, S. (d) S. Aug. de civita. Dei lib. 22. cap. 10. Augustine, & (e) Theodoret de Graecor. affect. curate. cap. 8. Theodoret, & divers other Fathers deny the same, as well as they, but what is that to the invocation of Saints, or yet to the honour that the Church doth to them in their feasts (which perhaps M. Andrews covertly impugneth by this objection, though he speak expressly of nothing else but of the invocation of Saints) doth he not know that the Heroes were not only accounted Gods, but also honoured as Gods with Sacrifice, which honour the Fathers do utterly deny to be given by Christians to Martyrs, and Saints, though they highly approve the honour that is done unto them in the Church, as to the beloved servants of God. 73. And now will M. Andrews infer hereupon that Saints may not be invocated? me thinks he should not be simple; and if he say that those Fathers should at least upon the same occasion have taught that the invocation of Saints is lawful, if they had held it so to be (for so indeed he seemeth to infer) I have (d) See chap. 7. nu. 35.36. & 37. already answered him sufficiently concerning this absurd manner of arguing, ab auctoritate negativa, and therefore will only say unto him here, that I may with much more reason infer the contrary upon the same ground, M Andrews his argument retorted upon himself. to wit that because those Fathers did not upon that occasion teach the invocation of Saints to be unlawful, therefore they approved it; for rejecting the unlawful honour that the Paynims said was done to Martyrs, they had sufficient occasion to reject also the invocation of them, if they had held it to be unlawful. So as, you see, he gaineth nothing by this objection out of Origen, and S● Cyril, but rather hurteth his cause, and bewrayeth his own folly. 74. But now in his other objection out of Athanasius he showeth both folly, and fraud. For whereas he urgeth the Cardinal to bring some testimony for the invocation of Saints out of the Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians, M. Andrews frameth a very fraudulent objection out of S. Athanasiu●. he pretendeth to find there, that the same is wholly excluded, and rejected, ubi, saith he, Christum ideo convincit esse Deum, quòd invocetur; praeter Deum enim à Christianis neminem invocari, where Athanasius doth therefore convince that Christ is God, because he is invocated, for that Christians do invocate none but God. So he; quoting for th● same the second oration of S. Athanasius against the Arians; orat●●● ●●. where truly I find no such thing; true it is that in the 3. Oration he proveth substantially, and amply that Christ is God because he is adored, speaking plainly of that kind of adoration which is called Cultus latriae, and is due to God alone, as it is evident by the places of Scripture which he allegeth to prove it; but of invocation there is not one word, for aught I find, and though there were, yet it were as little to the purpose, for that invocation is also diversly taken, as adoration is, and is applied sometimes to God alone (in which sense it cannot be applied to creatures) and sometimes to Angels, Saints, or men, as I have showed evidently before in the 6. Chapter by examples of holy Scripture, See before Chap. 6. nu. 2.3.4. & 5. and the testimony of S. Augustine. 75. Whereby it appeareth, that he is not only idle, and impertinent in this objection, M. Andrews idle impertinent and fraudulent. but also fraudulent; changing the word adoration into invocation, if he did mistake the second oration of S. Athanasius for the third, and not of purpose falsify, and belly him in both; which I remit to God and his conscience to judge of; and will now with this conclude this Chapter, and matter, not doubting● good Reader, but thou hast noted throughout the whole, that he hath neither sufficiently answered any one place of the Fathers alleged by the Cardinal, or any argument of his, neither yet hath objected any thing himself to any purpose, but hath either notably tryfled, and paltred in his answers, and objections, or egregiously perverted, corrupted, or falsified such Fathers, and authors as he hath had occasion to allege. M. Andrews a true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a wrangler, juggler and tryfler in the highest degree. 76. So as, I hope, I have now performed that which I undertook in these 3. Chapters, which was to defend the Cardinal, and to prove M. Andrews to be a true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, an egregious wrangler, jangler, juggler, and tryfler in the highest degree; and by the same occasion I have also fully debated with him an important point of Catholic religion concerning the invocation of Saints, which I have evidently proved to be most consonant to holy Scripture, practised by the primitive Church, approved by the uniform consent of the ancient Fathers, most acceptable to God, honourable to him, and his Saints, and finally very behoveful, and beneficial to man. Whereby it may appear that M. Andrews, and his fellows, who so eagerly impugn it, are no other than the instruments, and proctor's of the Devil, who out of his extreme malice, and envy to Angels, Saints, and all mankind, seeketh by all the means he may, to deprive the Angels, and Saints of their honour, M. Andrews the devils Proctor. and man of the inestimable benefits that he may reap, both spiritually, and temporally by their intercession; to which purpose he hath retained, and feyed M. Andrews, as it seemeth by his diligent, and eloquent pleading the cause, and will, I fear me, one day pay him his fee in other money than he willbe willing to receive, except he open his eyes in time to see his danger, which I beseech God of his infinite mercy to give him grace to do. THE CONCLUSION OF THIS ADJOINDER, DIVIDED INTO TWO CHAPTERS. IN THIS, are detected divers frauds 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 cardinals text and arguments; to abuse, wrest, belly and falsify not only the Cardinal, but also the ancient Fathers, councils, and holy Scriptures: and finally to face out matters impudently for lack of proofs. CHAP. IX. THERE remain, good Reader, divers other things in M. Andrews to be examined which I have touched in my Supplement: The author forced to draw to an end. but being now called on by my printer to furnish his press, I am forced not only to send away that which I have already written, but also to interrupt my designment 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 sundry sorts of shifts, cozenages, corruptions, & frauds which he hath used throughout his whole work; and to the end I may perform it with more brevity, and better method, I will follow the same course that I held with M. Barlow, That is, draw them to certain ●eades and give thee some few examples of every one, which being added to those that have already occurred in this Adjoinder, may suffice, I hope, to show ●hee with what kind of stuff he hath patched up his Latin volume, what a miserable cause he and his fellows have to defend, seeing it driveth them to such shameful shifts as thou hast partly seen already, and shalt further see by that which ensueth. 2. The first point which I reproved in M. Barlow was his common custom to change the state of the question, Changing the state of the question exemplified in the question of the Pope's Primacy. and so to answer nothing to the purpose, which is no less frequent and ordinary in M. Andrews: as for example, whereas the true state of the controversy betwixt us and them concerning the primacy of the Pope, is, Whether he be supreme head of the Church in all spiritual and Ecclesiastical causes, and may in some cases extend his power to temporal things, that is to say, Whether being the supreme spiritual Pastor, he may for the public benefit of the Church and the good of souls punish his disobedient children (namely temporal Princes) in their temporal See supl. chap. 1. nu. 59 & seq. states (which I have showed in my Supplement to be a necessary consequent of his supreme spiritual power) M. Andrews will needs make us hold and teach that the Pope's primacy is a temporal primacy, in which respect he (a) Andr. cap. 1. pag. 17. linca. 4. calleth our doctrine and belief touching that point, illustrem fidei articulum de Primatu Petri temporali, The notable Article of Faith concerning the temporal Primacy of Peter: and as you heard (b) Chap. 5. nu. 21. before distinguishing the name of Peter's primacy (which he granteth) from the thing signified by that name (which he denieth) he termeth it (c) Cap. 8. pag 217. §. Inspiciam & cap. 1. pag. 14. §. 1. terrestrem Monarchiam, an earthly Monarchy, and therefore he urgeth the Cardinal to prove this temporal primacy, and earthly Monarchy, and so impugneth no opinion of ours, nor any thing else but his own fond fiction, as I have showed (d) Chap. 5. nu. 21. & 22. before, and more amply in the (e) See chap. 1. nu. 20. & 2●. first Chapter of this Adjoinder, and therefore I shall not need to stand any longer upon this point here, but will pass to another. 3. Amongst other questions much controversed concerning good works, Another example of the state of the question changed touching works of supererogation. one is, whether there be any works of supererogation, which the Catholyks understand to be such as being lawful and good of their own nature, are not commanded by any precept (as for example, the evangelical councils) in which sense Cardinal Bellarmine, and all other Catholics do use the word supererogation, as signifying a work done supra praeceptum, that is to say, more than the precept commandeth. But M. Andrew's impugneth it in another sense and so changeth the state of the question. Andr. cap. 8. pag. 169. §. In supererogationis. For he will needs have works of Supererogation to be such good works only as are done after or besides the full accomplishment of the Commandment (so that before a man can do a work of supererogation, he must fulfil and fully observe all the precepts) whereupon he also inferreth, that no man can do any such works, no not the Apostles themselves, because they could not fulfil the Commandments, having always occasion to to say, dimit nobis debita nostra, forgive us Lord our offences. 4. Wherein M. Andrews expressly impugneth not so much the Cardinal and other. catholics, as S. Augustine, and other ancient Fathers, from whom they take both the term and the sense thereof. For whereas our Saviour saith in the Gospel, that the good Samaritan brought the wounded man into the Inn, Luc. 10. and leaving two pence with the Host told him, quodcumque supererogaveris reddam tibi, whatsoever thou shalt lay out more I will render it unto thee, S. Augustine alluding to the same place, and words of our Saviour, teacheth evidently, that those things which are lawful, id est, S. Aug. lib. ●. de adulter coniug. ad Pollent. cap. 14. saith he, nullo praecepto Domini prohibentur, that is to say, which are not forbidden by any precept of our Lord, and are done, non praescripto legis, sed confi●io charitatis, not by the prescript or commandment of the law, but by the counsel of Charity, haec sunt, saith he, quae ampliùs exogantur saucio etc. These are those works which are laid out more for the wounded man, who through the compassion of the Samaritan was brought to the Inn to be cured, and therefore they are said not to be commanded by our Lord, although they are advised to be offered, to the end, that they may be understood to be so much more grateful, by how much more they are signified 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. Idem lib. 2. quaest. evang. cap. 1ST Quod autem supererogat etc. Therefore the host is the Apostle, And that which he layeth out more, is either that counsel whereof he saith, De Virginibus praeceptum Domini non habeo, consilium autem do: Concerning virgins I have no precept of our Lord, but I give counsel. Or else it is, that he wrought with his own hands, lest in the beginning of the Gospel he should be a burden to some of the weaker sort, when nevertheless it was lawful for him to be fed or maintained by the Gospel. Thus saith S. Augustine, clearly confuting M. Andrews his idle discourse; for to omit that he teacheth the use of the word supererogation (which therefore was not devised of late time and much less by the catholics of these days) first he showeth that it signifieth such works, as being lawful themselves are not commanded by any precept, in which only sense Cardinal Bellarmine, and all other Catholyks use it. 6. Secondly he exemplifieth the same not only in the counsel of Virginity (which is therefore a work of Supererogation) but also in S. Paul's own practice of maintaining himself by the labour of his hands, when he might have lived by the Gospel; whereupon it followeth clearly that M. Andrews argueth very impertinently in saying, that the Apostles themselves could do no works of Supererogation, because they had daily occasion to say, dimit 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 Supererogation (namely Virginity, and continent single life) but also practised & performed them himself, doing such good works as he was not bound to do by any precept. Besides that, it appeareth also hereby that a man may do a work of Supererogation, though he have occasion daily to say dimit nobis debita nostra. Which therefore was an idle exception of M. Andrews against such works, even in the Apostles themselves. Lastly we see by these testimonies 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 therefore it is evident that M. Andrews taking it in another sense changeth th● state of the question. A third example of the state of the question changed. Car. Apol. pa. 107. 7. Moreover, whereas the Apology for the Oath accounteth the Adoration of the Bl. Sacrament of the Eucharist to be a new invention, & the Cardinal answering the same declareth the sense and meaning of the catholics concerning that point, saying, that they teach the Adoration of Christ our Lord present in the Sacrament etc. M. Andrews replieth thus: In adoratione Sacramenti ad limen ipsum turpiter impingit etc. In the Adoration of the Sacrament the Cardinal stumbleth shamefully, Andr. cap. 8. pag. 195. §. In adora. even at the first entrance. Of the Sacrament, saith he, that is to say of Christ our Lord in the Sacrament● Apage vero! Quis ei hoc dederit? Fie fie, who would grant him this? The Sacrament, that is to say, Lib. 4. cap. 34. de consecrat. 2. Hoc ergo. Christ in the Sacrament, but rather Christ himself (who is the thing contained in the Sacrament) is to be adored wheresoever he is, i●, with, or without the Sacrament. The King holdeth 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 mean 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 (whereof I shall have occasion to speak more particularly (a) Chap. 10. nu. 4. hereafter) and I only wish to be observed, how manifestly & wittingly (no doubt) he changeth the state of the question, notwithstanding the Cardinals own explication thereof, who signifieth, that for as much as Christ is truly, and really present in the Sacrament, therefore Christ himself is adored therein, and not the bare Sacrament: though the Cardinal, I say, doth declare this, yet M. Andrews will needs presuppose that we hold and teach that the bare Sacrament or forms of bread and wine are to be adored, for else 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 mean it only of the exterior forms? As well might he say, that he which teacheth that Christ is to be adored, meaneth it of his humanity, and not of his divinity; for who knoweth not that the Sacrament of the Eucharist containeth not only the Sacrament (that is to say the exterior forms of bread, & wine) but also the thing of the Sacrament, which is our Saviour Christ, as the person of Christ containeth as well his Divinity, as his humanity. And therefore he that adoreth his person doth adore his Divinity united with his humanity, and not his humanity alone. 9 For otherwise he that should adore Christ Cultu latriae, S. Ambros. lib. 3 de spiritu S. cap. 12. should commit Idolatry. And as well S. Ambrose (when he saith, Carnem Christi in mysterijs odoramus, We adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries) as also S. Augustine (saying, S. Aug. in Psa●m. 98. Nemo illam carnem manducat nisi prius adoraverit, No man eats that flesh but he adoreth it first) should teach Idolatry, if they should be understood to speak of the flesh of Christ alone separated from his Divinity. In which respect M. Andrew's himself approveth that manner of speech in those two Fathers, yea, and afterwards explicateth the same himself very well out of S. Augustine, saying, the humanity itself of Christ (as S. Augustine disputeth) is not to be adored by itself, Andr. ubi supra pag. 201. but united with the Divinity, as the King's purple, or Royal rob, when he is vested or clad with it, and not when it lieth by itself alone. Thus saith M. Andrew's: and the like exposition might he have made of adoring the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, if his perverse, wrangling, and caviling humour would have permitted him to acknowledge what is our Catholic doctrine in this point, which he could not but know in his conscience, for that I am sure he never read, nor heard tell of any Catholic, who taught or thought that the bare Sacrament in the Eucharist I mean the exterior form, is to be adored without Christ's presence, or in respect of itself. And this may suffice for this point. A fourth example of the state of the question changed, concerning the veneration of holy relics. 10. I may add the like concerning another point, wherein M. Andrew's chargeth the Cardinal to change the state of the question, I mean touching the reverence and honour that is and always hath been done in the Catholic Church to the holy relics of Saints. For whereas the Apology for the Oath condemneth it for a new and false, yea an abominable doctrine, and the Cardinal in his answer thereto, so amply and evidently proveth it out of the Ancient Fathers that it cannot be denied, M. Andrews hath no other refuge but to take hold of the word Adoration used by the Apology, Card. Apolog. cap. 1. pag. 12.13.14.15.16.17. & 18. understanding it for worship due to God alone, and exacting of the Cardinal some proof that such adoration is due to relics, as though catholics were of that opinion; whereas neither the Cardinal, nor any other Catholic doth apply that word to relics in that sense, but use it for reverence and veneration due to holy men, or holy things, as the Cardinal himself signifieth in plain and express words. So that if the said Apology do impugn the adoration of Relics, in the other sense (meaning the exhibition of divine honour thereunto) it doth not any way impugn our doctrine, A strange perversity but changeth the state of the question, as well as M. Andrew's, though so absurdly as he who doth not only understand the Adoration of Relics to signify a divine honour done unto them, but also will needs prove no adoration of creatures is lawful. 11. To which purpose he allegeth the example of the Angel in the Apocalyps, Apocal. 1●. & 22. who when Saint john the Evangelist would have adored him twice, forbade him to do it at both times, saying, Vide ne feceris, Deum adora, Andr. ubi supra. pag. 49. §. neces●se ●abe●. See that thou dost it not, adore God. Whereupon he inferreth, that seeing S. john could not be ignorant (especially the second time) that the Angel was not God, and yet would have adored him, it followeth that he (I mean S. john) did not intend to adore him with adoration due to God alone, but with such (saith M. Andrews) as the Cardinal supposeth may be used to Angels, holy men, or sacred things, and yet nevertheless the Angel would not permit it, Andr. ibidem pag. 5●. and therefore in M. Andrews his opinion no such adoration is lawful, for, Nec est, saith he, Angelorum ratio alia, alia Sanctorum etc. For in this there is no difference betwixt the adoration of Angels, and of Saints of holy men● neither is there more respect to be had to relics than to those whose relics they are. So he. Not admitting, as you ●ee, any adoration of Angels or Saints, though it be not meant thereby to exhibit divine honour unto them, but only to do an act of veneration, reverence or religious worship; and why? Many forsooth because the Angel would not suffer S. john the Apostle to adore him in that manner. 12. Wherein two things are to be noted, the one, what a poor conceit M. Andrews hath of S. john whom he maketh to be so ignorant that he knew not whether such adoration were lawful or no, M. Andrews hath a poor conceit of S. john the Evangelist until the Angel did instruct him, and forbade him to use it. The other that he reasoneth as substantially as if he should say, that if a holy man should of modesty and humility. refuse some extraordinary honour offered unto him by some other holy person, and bid him not to do it to him, but to God, he must needs mean that no such kind of reverence, or honour may be done to men; for such no doubt was the case betwixt S. john and the Angel, Why the Angel in the apocalypse did forbid S. john to adore him either of them showing their humility, and the respect they bore the one to the other, S. john reverencing the Angel as a Celestial creature to whom he held himself much inferior, and the Angel bearing much respect, and reverence to S. john as to the most worthy and beloved Apostle of Christ, who was Lord and master to them both, and therefore acknowledging himself to be no other but conseruum, S. Greg. ho. ●. in Evang ●● ad. A●sel. Richar. Ruper. in 19 Apoc. as he said, a fellow servant of S. john, he would not permit him to do him that honour, but bade him do it to God; besides that, S. Gregory the great, Beda, Anselmus, Richardus de S. Victore, and Rupertus do give also another reason thereof to wit, that the Angel bare respect even to human nature, in regard of the humanity of our Saviour. Hinc est, saith S. Gregory, quòd Lot, & joshua Angelos ipsis non prohibentibus etc. S. Greg ubi supra. For this cause Lot and joshua adored Angels, and were not forbidden by them, but 〈◊〉 in the apocalypse meaning to adore an Angel, was by him forbidden to do it. So he, signifying how much the Angels respected human nature after the Incarnation of our Saviour more than before. 13. But for the further satisfaction and instruction of the unlearned reader in this point, Three sorts of adoration mentioned in the Scriptures he is to understand that there are three kinds of adoration specified in the holy Scripture. The first is that which is due to God alone, and is called by Divines Adoratio Latriae, that is to say, an adoration, or exterior worship exhibited by some corporal reverence, and submission to acknowledge our duty and service to God, as he is our Creator, conservator, and Chief good, and this adoration is so due proper unto God alone, that it is Idolatry to exhibit the same unto any Creature. Of this kind the Scripture speaketh when it saith (b) Matth 4. Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, & illi soli seruies. Thou shalt adore thy Lord God, and serve him alone. Also, Non (c) Exod. 20. adorabis ea neque coals: Thou shalt not adore, nor worship them, that is to say Idols. Non (d) abide. 23. adorabis Deos eorum; Thou shalt not adore ●heir Gods. (e) Gen. 47 Adoravit Irael Dominum, Israel adored our Lord. (g) judic. 7. Gedeon adoravit & reversus est. Gedeon adored and returned. (h) joan. 4. Veri adoratores adorabunt patrem in spiritu, & veritate. The true Adorers, or worshippers, shall adore my Father in spirit and truth. And the like occurreth in infinite other places as well of the new as the old testament. 14● The second kind of adoration, though it be inferior to this, yet is also an act of Religion, exhibited in like manner exteriorly to Angels, Saints or holy men, as to the servants of God, and for the honour and love of him: of which kind many examples are set down in holy Scriptures, as of (b) Genes. 18. Abraham, (c) Gen. 19● Lo●, and (d) Num. 22. Balaam, who adored Angels prostrate upon the ground. And of (f) joshua 5. joshua who fell down prostrate before an Angel, & adorans ait, quid Dominus meus etc. And adoring said, why doth my Lord speak unto his servant? And so far was the Angel from reprehending him, that he made him do more reverence, commanding him to put of his shoes because the place was holy wherein he stood; which place (no doubt) was no other way holy, but for the presence of the Angell● Also (g) ●. Reg. 2●. Saul adored the soul of Samuel. And though Abdias was in temporal dignity a greater man, and more worthy than Elias the Prophet, yet he fell upon his face before (h) 3. Reg. 28.4. Reg. ●. Elias, acknowledging thereby the spiritual excellency and sanctity of God's Prophet, and therein did an act of Religion● As also the Children of the Prophets did the like to Elizaeus, when they perceived by his miraculous passage of the River, that God had given him the spirit of Elias, adoraverunt eum, saith the Scripture, proni interram. They adored him flat upon the ground. In like manner (k) Dan. 2. Nabuchodonozor adored Daniel, and (l) Hebr. 11. Psalm●8 ●8 See Bellar. de beat●e. Sanct. li. 1. cap. 1●. jacob the top of Joseph's r●d. Finally the Psalmist saith of the Ark (for so it is to be understood according to the letter) adorate scabellum pedum eius, Adore the Footstool of his Feet. 15. The third kind of Adoration, is no act of Religion, but merely civil testifying a reverend respect of one man to another, for some civil, and temporal excellency; such was the adoration, which (n) Gen. 23. Abraham used to the Children of Heth, (p) Gen. 33. jacob to his brother Es●u, the (q) Ibid. 42 Children of Israel to their brother joseph, (r) Ruth. 2. Ruth to Booz● (s) judith. 2 judith to Holofernes, (t) 1. Reg 25 Abigail and (v) 2. Reg. 9 Miphiboseth to David, besides very many (w) Gen. 7 49.50. 2. Reg. 24. 2. R●g. 14.16.18. & 14. 3. Reg. 1. ver. 6.23.31 47. & 53. It●m ●ap. 2. & alibi passim. other which I omit for brevityes sake. In which as also in the two former kinds of adoration, it is to be observed that as well the exterior Acts of submission, and reverence as the word adoration are common to all three kinds, and diversified or distinguished only by the intention and will of him that performeth the same, and therefore we see that the same manner of prostration which (x) Gen. 1●. Abraham used to Almighty God for divine honour, was used as well by (y) Ibid. 18. himself as● (z) Ibid. 19 others to Angels for a Religious veneration, and to (b) Gen. 23. 3●. & 42. men of dignity for a civil worship and submission, and the same termed every where adoration. 16. Hereby than it is evident, that according to the use and phrase of the holy Scripture, Adoration is understood diversly according to the circumstances. the word Adoration is to be understood diversly as it is diversly applied either to God alone, or to Angels, holy men, and holy things, or else to men of dignity and the same is also observed in the hebrew word Sachah which signifieth Adorare, and is diversly understood of each of these three kinds of Adoration, according to the different application thereof● in so much that it cannot otherwise be distinguished but by the circumstances. So as it is no marvel, that as well the ancient Fathers as the catholics of these days, following the custom of the holy Scriptures do use the word Adoration in the same different manner and s●nse, that the Scripture doth. But it may be wondered that M. Andrews being so great a Doctor, and R●bin, as he is taken to be, can either be so ignorant as not to know this, or so perverse and malicious (if he know it) as to contend and strive to prove that there can be no lawful Adoration but of God alone. 17. And therefore for as much as he hath sought to make good his Assertion, not only by the example of the Angel in the Apocalyps before mentioned, but also by two or three testimonies of the Fathers (yea gibing, bragging, and triumphing, in such sort as if he had utterly foiled the Cardinal) I cannot omit to say somewhat thereto, Card. Apol ubi supra. S. Hierom. Epist. ad Marcel. ut commigret Bethl●●m. seeing I have had this occasion to speak thereof. The Cardinal to prove the Adoration of Relics in the catholic sense, allegeth amongst many other places, one out of S. Hierome to Marcelia, where he signified that if she would come to Bethleem, she might besides many other acts of devotion (which he there recounteth) adorare cineres etc. Andr. ubi supra pag. 49. §. Non probat. Adore the ashes of S. john Baptist, He●isaeus, and Abdias. Whereto M. Andrews answereth that S. Hierome doth not use adorare there properly, but figuratively: and thereof he yieldeth two reasons, the one because in the same place he saith also, that she might pulverem lingere, lick the dust, Quare ut hoc, ita & illud non propriè, sed figuratè. Wherefore as this, so also that is not spoken properly, but figuratively. Thus reasoneth M. Andrews, and by the way addeth out of his scoffing humour: At nec vos puluerilingi estis; But neither you yourselves are dust-lickers, meaning as I take it, that we must either be dust-lickers, or else take adorare figuratively in that place. A jest of M. Andrews spoiled. 18. But truly he hath spoiled his jest by mistaking the phrase, whereupon he groundeth it, for pulverem lingere, is not in all that Epistle, for aught I can find, though I have read it over of purpose; but some lines before there is indeed, Crucis lignum lambere, to like the wood of the Cross, and therefore if he will make himself as merry with us, and with this phrase, as he doth with that other, he must say we are not Crucilambi, Crosse-lickers, or rather to express the whole and make a merry word indeed he must say Cruci-ligni-lambi, Crosse-wood-lickers; but howsoever it pleaseth him to be merry, I must tell him seriously, that I will not so easily grant him, that Crucis lignum lambere, was spoken there figuratively, for that it may well be that the devotion of the faithful people was such a● that time, that in kissing of the Cross they used also to like the wood thereof. But put the case S. Hierome spoke therein figuratively, doth it therefore follow that adorare cin●res (which cometh after some lines) is also a figurative speech? as well may he say that every word● yea the whole context of that Epistle is figurative, seeing that there are throughout the whole many elegant Metaphors, Allegories, and figurative speeches. 19 But what figure trow you is it that he meaneth? Andr. pa. 50. 〈…〉. forsooth no other will serve the turn but Catachresis, for so he saith in the end, Cardinalis iam adoratio per Catachresin fortè, propriè autem non est adoratio. This Adoration (which the Cardinal saith is due to holy things) may perhaps be so called by the figure Catachresis, Qui●t. ●●flic. bra●. lib 9 cap. 6. Isidor● & Etymol. but is not properly adoration. Thus saith he most absurdly, for so should it be used for lack of a proper word, if the Grammarians, and Rhetoricians do judge of Catachresis aright, which signifying Ab●sio, doth import the abuse of a Methaphore, when there wanteth a proper word: as Quintilian and others teach. 20. But will M. Andrews say, that there is such want of proper words for the Veneration of Angels, Saints, and men, that the penners and translators of the holy Scriptures were forced in all those places mentioned before, to abuse a word that is proper to God? Might not honorare & venerari have served to express their meaning, if adorare were only to be understood of divine honour? Besides that, I must needs say that the matter goeth very hard with Abraham, Lot, joshua, Balaam, the Children of the Prophets, and all those others before mentioned (who are said in the Scriptures to have adored Angels and men) their case, I say, is hard● if there be no way to save them from Idolatry, but by an absurd Catachresis never dreamt of by any but by M. Andrews● For I think no man would be so absurd to imagine a Catachresis, where there is no want of proper words, The word adoration used for the worship of Angels and men in holy Scripture above 40. times. especially so often as adoration is used for the worship of Angels & men, not only in the Fathers but also in the holy Scriptures. Where I ●are undertake to show it in that sense above 40. times (for I have taken pains to search it) which I hope may suffice to teach M● Andrews that it doth not signify divine honour only, & that the ancient Fathers & we, who use it sometimes in other sense, have sufficient warrant for it from the Scripture itself, and finally that there is no other Catachresis (I mean no other abuse) in all this matter, but in M. Andrews his corrupt Conscience, M. Andrews his corrupt conscience. who maketh no scruple to abuse and delude his Reader with such shifts and devices, to bolster out his bad cause. Thus much for his first reason. 21. His second reason why adorare is taken figuratively in that place of S. Hierome is this● Vbi vero saith he, Andr. ubi supra. propriè ei loquendum erat etc. For when S. Hierome was to speak properly, to wit, to Vigilantius his adversary (who pressed him strictly, and would not suffer him to speak at large (than he denieth it earnestly, saying, Nos autem, non dico, Martyrum reliquias etc. We do not worship and adore (I do not say) the Relics of Martyrs, but neither the Sun nor the Moon, nor the Angels, nor the Cherubin, nor the Seraphim. Thus saith M. Andrews out of S. Hierome, ending his citation there; because that which followeth would mar all his market, as you shall see after a while, and in the mean time he concludeth thus, What I pray you will the Cardinal say here, seeing that the old Fathers of the Church do cry out we do not adore the relics of Martyrs? M. Andrews triumpheth when he hath lost the victory. here the Cardinal is held so fast that he cannot slip away. Thus triumpheth M. Andrews before the victory, or rather having lost the victory, being himself a Captive, and having no other remedy left him, but to brag and face out the matter. 22. For thou shalt understand good Reader, that S. Hierome here speaketh (as the Logicians say) ad hominem, that is to say according to the sense and meaning of his adversary Vigilantius (one of M. Andrews his worthy progenitors) who impugning the adoration of relics in the same sense that M. Andrews doth, Vigilantius M. Andrews his progenitor. held it for no other than Idolatry, as S. Hierome testifieth in the same Epistle to Riparius, which M. Andrews allegeth. Ais, saith S. Hierome, S. Hier. ad Riparium. Vigilantius etc. you say, that Vigilantius (as we may say M. Andews) openeth again his stinking mouth, and casteth forth a most filthy savour against the Relics of holy Martyrs, and calleth us, who reverence them, and worship the bones of the dead, Cinerarios, & Idololatras, worshippers of Ashes, & idolaters. Idem li. adverse. Vigilantium. So he. And in his tract against Vigilantius himself, he setteth down Vigilantius his own words thus, Quid n●cesse est etc. What need hast thou not only to honour with so great honour, but also to adore that (I know not what) which thou worshipest, carrying it in a little vessel from place to place, and why dost thou kiss and adore dust leapt in a linen cloth? And again a little after, We see you, according to the custom of the Gentiles &c. every where kiss and adore I know not what little dust carried in a little ussell, and leapt in a precious linen cloth. Thus wrote Vigilantius. 23. Whereby you see how he charged the Catholics of those days with flat Idolatry, for worshipping, or adoring the Relics of Saints, taking adoration for worship due to God alone, in which respect he calleth the Catholics idolaters. And therefore S. Hierome answering him in the same sense, saith that which M. Andrews allegeth, S. Hierom explicated by himself. to wit, non adoramus reliquias Martyrum etc. We do not adore the relics of Martyrs (that is to say, we do not give divine honour to the relics of Martyrs, committing Idolatry as Vigilantius chargeth us: Idem ibidem. ) But, honoramus (saith he presently afterwards) reliquias Martyrum, ut eum cuius sunt Martyris adoremus etc. We honour the Relics of Martyrs, that we may adore (or yield divine honour to) him whose Martyrs they are. The honour done to God's servants for his sake, redoundeth to God. Honoramus serous etc. We honour the servants, to the end that their honour may redound to the honour of their Lord, who said, he which receiveth you, receiveth me. Thus saith S. Hierome; which M. Andrews thought good to dissemble, as if he had not seem it, for that it fully explicateth the state of the question betwixt S. Hierome & Vigilantius (as also betwixt M. Andrews & us) & cleareth all the matter. For who seeth not here that albeit S. Hierome denieth the adoration of Relics in the sense that Vigilantius obicted it, as we also do (to wit as signifying a divine honour) yet he approveth and teacheth it in the sense of catholics, that is, as adoration signifieth a veneration and worship done to Saints, for the honour of God who is honoured & glorified thereby. 24. To which purpose two things are to be noted in this matter, the one, that whereas Vigilantius chargeth the Catholics to adore and kiss every where the Relics of Martyrs, he showed sufficiently, that the custom of the faithful was at that time to do corporal reverence thereto, not only by kissing them, but also by inclining or bowing down the body, which the word adoration signifieth, and S. Hierome denieth not, though he denieth the inference of Idolatry, that Vigilantius made thereon. 25. The other is, that as Vigilantius did not herein reprove the particular custom of some particular men, but the practice of the whole Church at that time; so also S. Hierome did not impugn him only with private reasons and arguments of his own, but also with public examples, as of the public translation of the holy Relics of S. Andrew, S. Luke, and S. Timothy to Constantinople by Constantin the Emperor, S. Hiero●. ubi supr●● apud quas, saith he, Daemons rugiunt etc. at which relics Devils do roar, and the inhabitors and prossessors of Vigilantius do confess that they feel their presence. So he. And then produceth also another example that had passed not long before of a most solemn translation of the Relics of Samuel the Prophet from judaea to Chalcedon in Thracia, which were sumptuously and triumphantly carried by Bishops in a golden vessel, and met, received, and accompanied by the people of all the Churches by the way (in so much that there were, saith S. Hierome, continual swarms of people even from Palestina to Chalcedon, sounding forth the praise of Christ with one voice all a long as they went: Mark ●hi● reason of S. Hierome. ) whereupon he asketh Vigilantius, whether he took Arcadius the Emperor (who caused this to be done) and all the Bishops which carried these relics, and all the multitude of people which accompanied them, for sacrilegious persons and fools, and finally concludeth, deriding his folly, Videlicet, saith he, adorabant Samuelem, non Christum, cuius Samuel & Levita & Propheta fuit. Belike they adored Samuel, and not Christ, whose Levite and Prophet Samuel was. This saith S. Hierome, showing the absurdity of Vigilantius, who did think that Christ was not adored in all this, but only Samuel. Whereas all the reverence, honour, & adoration used by those Bishops, and people to the Relics of Samuel, was indeed done to Christ, because (as S. Hierome said before) servorum honos redundat ad Dominum: The honour of the servants redoundeth to their Lord. 26. So that S. Hierome doth not deny, that holy relics may be adored in any other sense, then as M. Andrew's (following his progenitor Vigilantius) will needs understand the word adoration, that is, for a divine Cult, and worship, in which sense neither S. Hierome nor the catholics in his time, nor we now do use, or take it, when it is applied to holy things, but only for a devout and religious veneration, as S. Hierome himself doth also use it, not only in the place before cited by the Cardinal (touching the adoration of the ashes of S. john, and other Prophets) but also when he said of himself, S. Hierom. lib. 2. Apol adversus Ruffin. Praesepe Domini & incunabula adoravi. I adored the manger, and cradle of Christ: and again expounding that verse of the Psalm, adorate scabellum pedum eius, adore the Footstole of his Feet, he taketh the Footstool to be the Cross, Idem in Psalm. 98. giving thereby to understand that the Cross is to be adored. And therefore I leave it to thee, good Reader, to judge what a vain vaunt it was of M. Andrews to say upon the former place of S. Hierome, Tenetur hic Cardinalis ut elabi non possit: hecre the Cardinal is taken, and held so fast, that he cannot slip away. Whereas you see, that the whole place and the circumstances, being laid down with the state of the question betwixt Vigilantius and S. Hierome (all which he craftily concealed) he is caught himself like a mouse in a trap in such sort that he shall never be able to get out with his credit. 27. A place of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose examined. But yet there remaineth a word or two more to be said of this matter to a place of S. Augustine, and S. Ambrose, which he also objecteth to the same purpose. For whereas those two Father's interpreting the words of the psalm, adorate scabellum pedum eius, Adore ye the Footstool of his Feet, do expound the footstool to be the body of our Saviour in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, S. Aug. in Psalm. 98. S Ambros. lib. 3. despir● Sancto. c. 12. teaching that the same is there to be adored, M. Andrews saith, that if adorare might be taken properly to adore holy things, they would never have troubled themselves so much to find out how the Footstool of God might be adored: neither would they have determined that it could not be adored but in the body of Christ: Bellar. de Sanctor. Beatit. lib. 2. cap. 13. Whereto I answer, first● that they do not expound the same literally, but mystically; for scabellum Dei, the Footstool of God, in that place, is literally to be understood of the Ark of the Testament, as the Cardinal hath proved by many notable reason's & authority in his Controversys, whereto I remit M. Andrews, because I will not detain my reader too long upon this point. 28. Secondly I say, that albeit they understood adoration in that place for divine honour, yet they do not deny but that it is, and well may be taken in other places, S. Aug. de civitate Dei li. 10. cap. 1. for a religious worship, done to holy men; for S. Augustine himself teacheth expressly in his book de Civitate Dei, that there is no one word in Latin that so properly signifieth divine honour, or worship, but it is, and may be applied to creatures, except Latria, which is borrowed of the Greeks, and applied either always, saith S. Augustine, or almost always, to the service of God, rather by custom and use, then by the nature of the word, properly signifying servitus, service. For which cause having in his questions upon Genesis demanded, how Abraham could lawfully adore the Children of Heth, seeing the Scripture saith, Matth. 4. Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, & illi soli seruies. Thou shalt adore thy Lord God, and serve him alone, he answereth that it is not said there, Deum solum adorabis, Thou shalt adore God alone, but, illi soli seruies thou shalt serve him alone, and noteth also, that for the word seruies in Latin, the Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from whence is derived Latria. So that it is evident by S. Augustine himself, that neither adorare, nor any other Latin word doth properly signify to worship God only, and that adoratio when it is not taken for cultus Latriae (as he taketh it in the exposition of Adorate scabellum etc.) may be applied to creatures; and therefore he himself not only understandeth adoration for civil worship in the foresaid example of Abraham, Idem ser. 25 de Sanctis. but also useth it else where for religious worship due to holy men, saying of S. Peter, Bea●issimum Petrum piscatorom etc. The multitude of faithful people doth now adore the most Blessed Peter the Fishery genibus provolutis, upon their knees. S. Ambros. de obitu Theodosijs. 29. S. Ambrose also made no doubt to apply it to the veneration, and worship of holy things, who speaking of the Nail of Christ's Cross (which Queen Helen caused to be set in the Diadem of the Emperor Constantin her son) said, that she did wisely therein, ut Crux Christi adoretur in regibus, that the Cross of Christ may be adored in Kings; and to show that he spoke of religious worship, & adoration, & not of civil honour due to kings, he addeth immediately, non insolentia ista, sed pietas est, cum defertur sacrae redemptioni, This is not insolency, but piety, when 〈◊〉 it is referred to our holy Redemption: wherein I wish it ●o be noted by the way, that M. Andrew's may learn hereby how impertinently he answereth else where to this place alleged by Cardinal Bellarmine; for whereas the Cardinal (to prove the religious adoration of relics, and images) objecteth out of S. Ambrose this very place (to wit that Queen Helen did well, and wisely cause the Cross to be set upon the head of Kings, to the end that the Cross of Christ may be adored in Kings) M. Andrews answereth, Andr. cap. 8. p. 198. §. Ambrosio. that if the Cross be adored in Kings, non aliter adoratur etc. it is not otherwise adored then the Kings themselves: is autem civilis honos est, non religiosus, but this is a civil, and not religious honour. So he: but you see here that the adoration whereof S. Ambrose speaketh, is not due, or given to the Kings themselves, but referred to our redemption, that is to say, to the Passion of Christ, and therefore it is not civil, but religious adoration, which also appeareth more evidently by that which followeth a little after in S. Ambrose, declaring what manner of reverence was exhibited to the holy Nail of the Cross; for having said, Ecce claws in honore est etc. behold the Nail is honoured etc. and that, invisibili potestate daemones torquet, S. Ambros ubi supra. it doth torment devils by an invisible power, he addeth after a whiles ferro pedum eius reges inclinantur; reges adorant, & Photinians divinitatem eius negant? King's do bow down to the iron of his feet (that is to say to the nail wherewith Christ's feet were fastened to the Cross) Kings do adore, and do the Photinian heretics deny his divinity? thus saith S. Ambrose, making, as you see, the adoration of the instruments of our saviours Passion, to be an argument of his divinity, and showing withal what manner of reverence Kings themselves used to the holy Nail, to wit, a corporal reverence, and submission, inclining and bowing down their bodies unto it, which is properly Adoration. 30. Whereby the Reader may also see the absurdity of another evasion which M. Andrews seeketh in the same place, Andr. ubi supra. Ambros. de obitu Theod. saying: ubi de religiosa adoratione sermo illi etc. where he (to wit Ambrose) speaketh of religious adoration, he saith, that Helen having found the Cross adored the King (that is to say Christ) and not the wood, whereof he also declareth the cause, to wit, because this is the error of the gentiles, and the vanity of wicked men. So he; who in these very words of S. Ambrose, which he objecteth, may see, and acknowledge, if it please him, what all Catholics do teach together with S. Ambrose concerning the adoration of the Cross, and other instruments of Christ's Passion, Images, and holy relics, to wit, that the wood, substance, and matter itself is not adored, but that which is thereby represented: as in like case, when M. Andrews standeth bare in the Chamber of Presence before the King's chair, & Cloth of Estate, he doth nor reverence the matter, or substance of the Cloth and Chair, but the Majesty of the Prince which the same doth represent, and yet nevertheless he cannot deny, but that he reverenceth, and honoureth the King's Chair, though not for itself, but to show, and express his duty towards his Prince; and in like manner, albeit S. Ambrose affirmeth with great reason, that Queen Helen did not adore the wood of the Cross, but Christ (because to adore the wood alone, without relation to Christ, had been a wicked, and gentilical vanity, and error) yet he saith afterwards, as you have heard, not only that the Cross is adored, but also that ferro pedum eius reges inclinantur, Kings do bow down to the Iron of Christ's feet, meaning the holy Nail, as I have declared before; and therefore M. Andrew's must needs grant, that though S. Ambrose do reject (as all Catholics also do) the adoration of the bare wood and Iron of the Cross, and Nail in respect of themselves, yet he admitteth, and approveth the adoration of them, with relation to our saviours Passion, cum defertur (as he speaketh) sacrae Redemptioni, when the honour is referred to our holy Redemption. 31. This then being so, Three things gathered out of the premises. 3. things follow upon the premises. The first, that S. Augustine and S. Ambrose affirming that the Footstool of God could not be adored, if it were not understood of the Blessed body of our Saviour in the Eucharist, do speak only of adoratio latriae, that is to say the adoration which is due to God alone, and therefore they allege the words of our Saviour, Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, & illi soli seruies: thou shalt adore thy God and serve him alone. Matth. 1● In which words adoration is precisely to be understood of divine honour, and yet so, that S. Augustine (as you have heard) gathereth thereby, that there is also an inferior adoration which may be exhibited to creatures, and therefore he noteth that our Saviour said not, Deum solum adorabis, thou shalt adore God alone. The second consequent is, that M. Andrew's hath wholly failed of his purpose, which was to prove that adoration of Relics must needs be understood to signify a divine and godly honour done to Relics, whereof I have clearly proved the contrary, notwithstanding his objections, which I have showed to be partly frivolous, and partly fraudulent. The third is, that he showeth himself to be the true progeny of the heretic Vigilantius, whose humour and condition he expresseth ad v●uum, not only in calumniating us, and our doctrine concerning the adoration of holy Relics, but also in changing the state of the question, as Vigilantius did, and therefore I may well and justly say of him as S. Hierome said of the other, O praecidendam linguam à medicis! immò insanum curandum caput, ut qui loqui nescit, discat aliquando reticere! And this shall suffice for this point, I mean his custom to change the state of the question, which is so ordinary in him, that I could give many other instances thereof, but that I must p●sse to other shifts and frauds of his, not having time to stand long upon any one kind, and therefore I mean also to be briefer in the rest. Supl. cap. 8. nn. 75. M. Andres dissimulation of that which most importeth in the objections of his adversaries. 32. The second point of cozenage which I discovered in M. Barlow, was that he used to dissemble and omit many times the most important part of his adversaries objections, and answers, which kind of fraudulent dealing is no less ordinary in M. Andrews, though nevertheless in his Preface to the Reader he promiseth to set down in his Margin the Cardinals own words and text, and albeit he confesseth that other whiles he contracteth, or abridgeth the same when place and paper wanteth, and that sometimes he leaveth out and cutteth off some words, quae abbess poterant, which might well be spared, Andr. ad Lecto. in fine● §. Deduco. autem. yet he assureth his Reader, that he will always set down those words wherein the whole force of the cardinals meaning and intent consisteth, in such sort, Vt nihil pereat de argumenti pondere, that there shall vaunt nothing of the weight of his argument. Thus promiseth he, but how well he performeth it we shall easily perceive by those two or three examples following. For though I might lay down many more, yet I am forced to keep myself within certain limits to avoid prolixity. 33. The Cardinal to prove that the Article of the Creed concerning the remission of sins, is not admitted and received in England as it ought to be, saith thus: Veram peccatorum remissionem credere non potest etc. he cannot believe that there is true remission of sins, Card. in Apol. cap. 7. pag. 84. lin. 19 who believeth, as the new Sectaries do, that sins do always remain in man, though he be justified, albeit they be not imputed. For the Apostle did not say in the Creed, I believe that sins are not imputed, The argument of Cardinal Bellarmine. but, I believe the Remission of sins, that is to say, true and full remission; otherwise the offence of the first man Adam which did truly and properly infect all his offspring, should be of greater force than the grace of the second man, that is to say Christ, which could not truly and properly purge or make clean those that are borne again in him. Thus saith the Cardinal: who you see groundeth the force of his reason partly upon the express words of the Creed, and partly upon a comparison of the offence of Adam, and the grace of Christ, showing that if sins be not truly remitted, the grace, and merits of Christ shall not be so powerful to cleanse us from sin, Rom. 3● as the fall of Adam was to infect us therewith, which cannot be said without extreme injury to our Saviour. 34. And this is not the Cardinals own argument but taken from the Apostle himself, and therefore being most important, it deserved to be set down and answered by M. Andrews, who nevertheless doth not either allege it in his margin with the rest of the cardinals text, Andr. ca 7. p. 162. §. S●d neque. or so much as mention it in his answer, but maketh the Cardinal say only this, Neque veram remissionem peccatorum etc. Neither can he believe the true remission of sins, which believeth, as the new Sectaries do, that sins do always remain in man, though he be justified, albeit they be not imputed. Thus far doth M. Andrew's allege the cardinals text, leaving out his arguments wherein consisteth the proof of his assertion, and instead of answering the same, he urgeth an ordinary and stale objection out of the Psalmist, Psal. 31. and the Apostle to the Romans, Rom. 4. to prove that sins are not forgiven, but only discovered, and not imputed. 35. But this hath been answered a hundredth times so fully, that he may be ashamed to urge the same still and not to take so much as knowledge of the answer, M. Andrews bringeth in stale arguments and dissembleth their answers. though nevertheless Cardinal Bellarmine gave him sufficient occasion to do it even in this place, remitting his Reader to his Controversies, as indeed he had great reason to do, for that he hath there substantially and clearly proved the Catholic doctrine in this point, and confuted all the adversaries arguments, and particularly answered those objections which M. Andrews bringeth here concerning the covering of sin and not imputing it; which phrases and manner of speech the Cardinal teacheth to signify a full remission of sin, and this he proveth not only by solid arguments deduced out of the holy Scripture, but also by the interpretation of the ancient Fathers, as of S. (a) S. justin. Dial. cum Triph. propefinem. justin the Martyr (who lived within 150. years after Christ) (b) Orig. li. 4. in ep. ad Rom. Origen, S. (c) S. Hier. comment in. Psal. 31. Hierome, S. (d) S. Aug. concio. 2. in psal. 31. Augustine, and S. (e) S. Greg. in psal. 2. penitent. Gregory the Great; all which expounding the same place of the Psalmist, and the very words which M. Andrews objecteth, do teach that sins are said there to be covered and not imputed, when they are fully remitted. I forbear to set down the words of those Fathers for brevities ●ake, (f) Bellar. de justif. li. 2. ca ●. remitting my Reader either to Cardinal Bellarmine (who citeth them more at large) or rather to the Authors themselves, whose doctrine in this point is so clear, that it may satisfy any reasonable man. 36. And albeit I have determined not to enter into any new debate of matters in Controversy with M. Andrews in this my Conclusion, but only to admonish him of his frauds, yet I cannot omit upon this occasion to desire thee, good Reader, to observe in this matter a notable absurdity in him and his fellows, in that they fl● here to a common shift of theirs, which is, to find out some few obscure texts of Scripture to interpret thereby a great number of plain and evident places, which might be exemplified in many controversies betwixt them, & us, & in this is most manifest. For is there any thing in the holy Scriptures either more plain or frequent, than the mention of true remission, and abolition of sin? which is expressed there so many ways, and by such different manner of speeches, that nothing can be added to make it more clear; as when the Prophet saith: (a) Esay ca 1. If your sins shall be like scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow. (b) ca 33. The Iniquity of the people shall be taken away. (c) ca 44. I am he who do wipe or blot out thy sins for my own sake. (d) ca 48. I have abolished thy iniquity like a cloud, and thy sins as a mist. And in another (e) Ezech. ca 37. Prophet: I will power out a clean water upon you, and you shall be cleansed from all your filth. And again in (f) Mich. c. 7 another, he will cast all your sins into the bottom of the sea. And in the (g) prou. 15. proverbs, sins are purged by mercy & ●aith. Also in the (h) psal. 102. Psalmist, he hath made our iniquity to be as far from us, as the East is from the west; and again, (i) Psal. 9 his sin shall be sought, and shall not be found. Whereto may be added the prayers of the Psalmist, that it might please God to (k) psal. 50 blot, or wipe out his iniquity, to make him clean, and to (l) Ibid. wash him more, and more, that so he might be whiter then snow. 37. Also in the new testament, the like manner of speeches are most frequent, as that our Saviour (a) Apoc. 1. washed our sins in his blood, (b) Haebr. 9 shall cleanse our consciences from dead works, (c) Ibid. c. 1. make a purgation of sins, (d) Act. 15. purify out hearts, (e) john. 1. take away the sins of the world, (f) Coloss. 2. cancel our obligation of debt, (g) Ephes. 2. kill our enmities in himself, (h) Haeb. 9 exhaust or consume sin, and finally make us holy, (i) Coloss. 1. immaculate, and irreprehensible coram ipso, before him, or in his sight. In all which you see the holy Ghost teacheth such a full and perfect remission, and utter abolition of sin (to our exceeding comfort) that if a man should study and devise words and phrases to signify, and persuade the same, it were not possible to do it more effectually. And yet all these places being so evident as you see, must be understood forsooth (say our adversaries) of covering or hiding sin, What the Psalmist meant by not imputation of sin. or not imputing it, because the Scripture sometimes useth such manner of speeches, though reason would, that the more rare and obscure phrases should be expounded by the more frequent and clear, especially in this place of the Psalm alleged by M. Andrews, which the Psalmist himself doth sufficiently explicate, who having said: Blessed is the man to whom God hath not imputed sin, addeth immediately, Nec est in Spiritu eius dolus; Nor any deceit is in his spirit, or soul: whereby he signifieth plainly, that man's sins are then covered, and not imputed, when his soul is clear, or free from sin. 38. And now to return to the Cardinal's argument dissembled and omitted by M. Andrews, The abundance of Christ his grace, worketh a true and inherent justification in us. the same doth notably confirm all this, for that it invincibly proveth a real, and inherent justification in us, consisting in a true remission of sin, & a true sanctification grounded upon the plenitude, & fullness of Christ's merits, and the abundance of grace which we receive thereby according to the express Doctrine of the Apostle, saying, Si enim uniusdelicto mors regnavit per unum etc. If by one man's fault, Rom. 5. death hath reigned by one, much more those which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of the justice, shall reign in life by one jesus Christ. In which words it is to be noted that the Apostle speaking of justification doth plainly exclude, and reject the imputation of justice, making express mention of a righteousness, which we receive abundantly with grace, and a gift given us by Almighty God; which abundance of Grace and justice, being given us, and received by us, must needs be really in us, and make us truly just. And this is much more evident by that which followeth, Sicut enim, saith the Apostle, Ibidem. per inobedientiam unius hominis etc. for even as by the disobedience of one man, many sinners were made, so by the obedience of one man, many just shall be made. 39 Thus saith the Apostle, who, as you see, compareth, or rather opposeth Christ to Adam, and our justification given us by Christ, to the death of the soul, or damnation purchased for us by Adam, concluding that we are made as truly just by Christ, as we were truly sinners by Adam, which he also enforceth and urgeth in the same place, Rom. 5. saying: Si enim unius delicto multi mortui sunt etc. For if by one man's fault many have died, much more the grace of God, and the gift in the grace of one man jesus Christ, hath abounded unto more men, whereby the Apostle signifieth not, that more are justified by Christ, then have died, or been condemned by Adam (which in the Greek is manifest, where instead of plures, more men, we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, many men) but that Christ's grace was more abundant, and of greater force to justify us, than Adam's sin was to make us sinners, and to condemn us, which he confirmeth also afterward saying: Vbi abundavit delictum superabundavit gratia: Where the fault abounded, grace hath been much more abundant. 40. Whereupon the Cardinal inferreth with the Blessed Apostle, that seeing the sin of Adam was of force to make us truly sinners, the merits and grace of Christ are of far greater force to purge, and cleanse us from our sins, & to make us truly just; for otherwise we must needs say, that our help is not equivalent to our harm, nor our remedy to our diseases, nor our rising to our fall, nor our gain to our loss, nor consequently● Christ to Adam, M. Andrew's doth foully break his promise. which were impiety to think, and blasphemy to say. This then being the effect and substance of the Cardinal's argument, and the same so important, as you see, I leave it to the judgement of any indifferent man, whether M. Andrews hath performed his promise in his Preface, which was (as you have heard) that albeit he should be forced sometimes for want of place and paper to abridge and contract the Cardinal's text, yet he would leave out nothing that should be of moment, ut nihil ei pereat de argumenti pondere, so that nothing should be lost of the weight of his argument? Did he want here, trow you, place and paper? or rather sincerity to set down that which he had neither will, not skill to answer? truly so it must be supposed, until he yield some more probable reason thereof. In the mean time let us 〈◊〉 some more of his juggling in this kind. Card. cap● 7. pag. 90. &. 91. 41. The Cardinal allegeth part of the Epistle of the Emperor Theodosius the younger to the 3. General Council of Ephesus, M. Andrews hi● crafly conveyance concerning th● epistle of Theodosius the Emperor. to show what is the office of Kings in General councils, and to whom it specially belongeth to judge and determine of Ecclesiastical causes; to which end the Cardinal layeth down, above a dozen lines of the said Epistle, all which M. Andrew's thought good to leave out, lest the same might discover the weakness of his answer. For whereas the principal point which the Cardinal sought to prove thereby, was that Kings could have no voice, or suffrage in the definition of Ecclesiastical matters, M. Andrews answereth, that Theodosius in that Epistle signifieth what the Count Candidianus was to do in the Council, and not what he himself might do therein: which answer would have appeared to have been most frivolous, if so much of the Epistle had been set down, as the Cardinal allegeth, and especially these words, Nefas est etc. It is unlawful that he which is not of the number of the most holy Bishops, Andr. c. 7. pag. 169. §. Etiam tertium. should meddle w●ich Ecclesiastical business, and Consultations, which words being general (extending themselves to all men that are not Bishops) excluded no less the Emperor himself, than the Count Candidianus from dealing in Ecclesiastical causes. So that this remaineth as well unsatisfyed as uncited: belike he was scanted of place and paper no less in this point, then in the former. 42. Also in the same Chapter the Cardinal (to prove the Apparition of Saints, and consequently the help that we have by their meri●s, M. Andrew's wanteth paper in his text & margin to set down S. Augustins words. and prayers) allegeth the words of S. Augustine concerning the apparition of S. Felix in the siege of Nola, but M. andrews did not think good, or perhaps had no room to lay down the words either in the margin or in his text, but only nameth Augustine in his margin, and answereth in his text, that Augustinus nihil praeter auditum habet etc. A●gustine hath nothing in this matter but by hear-say. Whereas the Cardinal allegeth out of S. Augustine these words, Card. apol. c. 8. pag. 95 §. Neque And. c. 7. pag. 178. §. Instit. S. Aug de cura pro mortuis c. 16. Audivimus non incertis rumor●bus, sed certis testibus etc. We have heard not by uncertain rumours, but by assured witnesses, that the Confessor Felix hath appeared, not only by the effects of benefits, but also to the very sights of men. So he. Where you see S. Augustine giveth another manner of assurance of this apparition then M. Andrew's acknowledgeth in his answer, who maketh the matter to seem very uncertain, as depending upon a bare hearsay; whereas S. Augustine excludeth all uncertainty of Rumours, and fortifieth his relation with the testimonies of assured witnesses. 43. And whereas M. Andrews addeth, that S. Augustine was so uncertain of this matter of apparitions, that he durst not de●ine, whether they were made by the Saints themselves, or by Angels in their likeness, he saith true, though I know not what he can infer thereon for his purpose, seeing that S. Augustine maketh no question of the verity of apparitions (and much less of the benefit and help which devout people received thereby) but only of the manner how the same was performed, and therefore he saith in the beginning of that discourse, Ista quaestio etc. This question surpasseth the force of my understanding how Martyrs do help those, qoud per eos certum est adi●uari, who it is certain are helped by them. So he. And then proceedeth with the question, whether the Martyrs are themselves present in so diverse places, and so far asunder at one time, or whether Almighty God do satisfy the devotion of the people by the ministry of Angels, through the merits of the Martyrs, or else whether it be done both ways; this he saith he dare not define, confessing and teaching evidently as much as we require in this matter, to wit, that devout people are certainly helped by the Martyrs. Neither is it to be wondered, that S. Augustine would not take upon him to determine how the same was wrought, saying that even in ordinary and natural things, the effects are evident and certain, and yet the causes are many times either uncertain, or else wholly unknown, which is to be granted much more in supernatural and miraculous events, See Chap. 8. n. 12.13.14.15.16. as I have showed evidently in the last Chapter, where I have confuted such another ridiculous argument of his against Prayer to Saints. 44. And albeit he had resolved that the Saints themselves do not appear or assist at their tombs, but Angels in their shape and likeness, yet it could not be said but that apparition is theirs, being made by God's express ordinance for their merits, in their name and likeness, and for the benefit of those that expect and crave their help; especially seeing it is usually said in the holy Scriptures, that God spoke and appeared to (b) Genes. 18. Abraham, and Moses (c) Exod. 3. , when nevertheless it was done by the ministry of Angels, and not in any shape that could represent him; and therefore S. Augustin● had great reason to say, that S. Felix appeared, and that the Martyrs per divinam potentiam vivorum rebus intersunt, are by the divine power present at the doings or affairs of men: although afterwards he moveth a question concerning the manner of it, and doth not deny, but that it may be done by the ministry of Angels. Hereby than it appeareth, that this place of S. Augustine so clearly proveth 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 handsomely, but to omit the words of S. Augustine as of small moment, and testifying only a sleight matter of hearsay. I might add divers others of this kind, but I omit them for brevities sake, and the rather for that they are commonly mixed with other kind of frauds, whereof I shall have occasion to speak hereafter; and therefore I will now proceed to others of more importance, namely his egregious abuse of authors, partly in wresting & perverting their sense, & partly in the corrupt & fraudulent citation of them, in which kind you have already seen M. Barlows talon, whereby you shall be able to judge whether of them excelleth therein. 45. First then I will begin with his abuse of the Cardinal, who to show that the Protestants in England do not entirely hold the Creed of Athanasius, M. Andrews his abusing & corrupting of Authors. Bell. Apol. cap. 7. §. Venio ad tertium. proposeth the Article concerning the day of judgement, when every one (saith Athanasius) is to render account (de factis proprijs) of his own acts: and those which have done well, shall go to life everlasting; and those which have done evil, shall go to eternal fire. Whereupon the Cardinnll saith thus, In quibus verbis confitemur etc. In which words (of Athanasius) we confess, that there shall be a last judgement, wherein the just judge will render to every one according to the quality of his deeds, to some the crown of justice, and to others eternal punishment, and shame. For if life everlasting should be given to the faithful not for the merits of works, but in respect of faith and of Christ's righteousness mercifully imputed unto them, there should be no need of judgement nor of examination of deeds: neither were it needful that there should come a just judge, but a merciful Father, neither that we should render any reason of our deeds, but show Christ's justice imputed unto us, and apprehended by faith; therefore the King cannot believe this Article, if he believe with Calvin and the Protestants, that all the works of just men are sins; Calu. l. 3. Inst. c. 14. for these are Caluins words: no work can pass from holy men, which doth not deserve the just reward of shame. 46. And what account shall just men be able to make of their own deeds unto Christ the judge, if all their works are vicious, and deserve the just reward of reproach? and if just men shall not be able to give account of their deeds, truly the unjust shall be much less able to do it; to what purpose then shall we all stand before the Tribunal of Christ to render account of our own actions? But perhaps they will say, that all the works of the Just are unclean, and filthy, but their filth shall be covered by the mercy of God, and the works reputed as clean to the faithful, for Christ. But if this were true, then should there be no need (as I have said before) of the justice of a judge, but of the mercy of a Father, and liberality of a Prince, therefore to what purpose doth the Article of the Creed say that Christ shall come to judge the quick and the dead, and that all men shall render account of their own deeds, and why doth the Apostle say, reposita est mihi corona justitiae etc. The Crown of justice is laid up for me, 1. Pet. 1. which the just judge will give me in that day? And why doth his fellow Apostle Peter say in like sort, & si patrem invocatis etc. And if you invocate, or call upon the Father, Matth. 16. him which judgeth without acception of persons, according to the work of every man: converse ye with fear in the time of your sojourning or dwelling here? And finally why doth our Lord, who will come to judge, foretell that he will come with his Angels to render to every one according to his works? 47. All this saith the Cardinal concerning this matter, which I have laid down thus largely to the end you may see as well his sound discourse grounded upon express scripture, as the malice of M. Andrew's perverting and wresting the same to another sense then ever the Cardinal meant, and therefore craftily leaveth out of the cardinals text, all that which toucheth Calvin's doctrine, concerning the impurity and uncleanness of the best works; which point the Cardinal especially impugneth, urging, that if Calvin's doctrine were true in that behalf, than were the justice of God in the judgement and examination of works needles, and only his mercy and liberality requisite, whereby the Cardinal excludeth not God's mercy from his judgements (as you shall hear even now M. Andrews charge him) but inferreth 3. Card. Bellarmine's inferences. things upon the Article of the Creed against Calvin's doctrine. The First, that just men's works which are to be justly examined, judged and rewarded with eternal life, are not damnable sins, as Calvin teacheth them to be. The Second, that men shall not be saved only by their faith, and the imputation of Christ's justice, but also by the merits of good works. And the third followeth directly of the former, to wit, that the only mercy and liberality of God is not to have place in his last judgement (as it should have if Calvin's doctrine were true) but also his Iustice● And therefore upon this it followeth directly (as the Cardinal argueth very well) that whosoever believeth Calvin's doctrine in this behalf, doth not believe the Article of the Creed concerning God's judgement, and retribution of works. 48. But now let us see, how M. Andrews understandeth, and glosseth the cardinals text; and to the end thou mayst, good Reader, hear him in his right vain how he b●stirreth himself, and flourisheth when he hath once changed the state of the question and brought it to his purpose, I will impart unto thee a good part of his discourse, and set down also as much of the cardinals text in the margin, as M. Andrew's doth, Andr. c. 7. pag. 163. §. Symbolum. Symboli 3. articulum de ratione redd●nda de proprijs factis Rex credere non poterit. Consit●mu● judicium novissimum in quo judex pro qualitate factorum reddet aliis coronam justitiae, aliis supplicium sempiternum. Nam si non pro meritis operum sed in gratiam fidei & justitiae misericorditer imputatae vita aeterna daretur, non esset opus iudicio● neque discussione factorum, neque oporteret judicem justum, sed Patrem misericorde● aduenire● neque rationem de factis proprijs reddere, sed Christi justitiam nobis i●putatam ostendere deberemus. pag. 87. to the end thou mayst the better judge of the whole matter. Thus than he saith: Symbolum quoque tertium ab Athanasio conscriptum recipimus integrè etc. We receive also wholly the third Creed, written by Athanasius. There was no need to make mention of the last judgement out of that, seeing it is expressed both by the Apostolical, and also in the Nycen Creed. It is said there that we are to yield account of our deeds, but not such an account as it seemeth here the Cardinal will make, who I think will not appear in the last judggement with this his Theology, nor say there, behold the merits of my works; behold the quality of my deeds, for the which I require that life everlasting be given me. I do not desire here a merciful Father, but I will have a just judge, away with the grace of Faith, or of the righteousness of Christ mercifully imputed unto me. I will have my deeds examined, for works have proceeded from me which do not deserve reproach, as being such as are without fault, and have nothing that needs to be covered with mercy: for if it were so, I should have no need of the justice of a judge, but of the mercy of a Father, or of the liberality of a Prince, whereof I have no need. It is marvel that the Cardinal did not add, for I am not as all other men, as also these innovatours are, who have need of thy mercy, to the end that their evil deeds be not ymputed unto them, & reputed as good deeds for the righteousness of Christ. But if this were so, them would Constantine say to the Cardinal, set up a ladder, & climb up to heaven alone, as he said once to Acetius the Novatian heretic. 49. Nevertheless a man may well maruaille and demand, whether the Cardinal in good earnest be so affected, Sozomen. l. 1.22. At fi ita ●sset, non justitia judicis, sed misericordia Patris velliberalitat● Principis opus ●sset. pag. 87. and so think of himself as here he seems to do, to wit, that he shall have no need of the mercy of a Father, nor of the liberality of a Prince, that he feareth not the justice of the judge, that he challengeth to himself life everlasting, for the quality of his deeds, and merits of his works; that he renounceth the Grace, faith, and Righteousness of Christ; that he will appear in judgement without these, and there make ostentation of his works, as being full, pure, and perfect, without all kind of filth, or vice. Thus far M. Andrew's. 50. And dost thou not (good Reader) see how he descanteth here upon a false burden of his own, amplifying & exaggerating his own malicious conceit, and misconstruction of the cardinals words, as though the same were his true sense and meaning? dost thou not see, I say, how he pleaseth himself in dilating and amplifying his slanderous fiction, glorying and triumphing in his own malice? In so much that I may well say unto him with the psalmist, Psal. 51. Quid gloriaris in malitia, qui potens es in iniquitate? For I appeal to any indifferent man whether any such thing, as here maliciously he inferreth, can be justly gathered on the cardinals words, who (as I have said before) meaning to confute Caluins pernicious doctrine (which draweth men to a most dangerous presumption of God's mercy and neglect of his justice, yea and to a careless contempt of all good works, teaching all to be sinful and damnable, and no other means of salvation but by only faith, and the imputation of Christ's justice;) the Cardinal, I say, impugning this as well by express Scripture, as by the Article of the Creed, doth urge the justice of our just judge, as well in the reward of virtue, and good works, as in the punishment of vice & sin, not excluding his mercy from his justice (which can never be separated) but inculcating the consideration of his exact judgement in the examination, punishment, and reward of men's deeds, good and bad, according to their merits, which directly overthroweth Calvin's doctrine of justification by only faith, and of the impurity of good works. 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 gloss, if he should lay down the doctrine, and words of Calvin (which the Cardinal allegeth and confuteth) he resolved to leave them quite out with a great part also of the cardinals text concerning the same. Perhaps he would have his Reader to imagine that he lacked 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 neither paper nor room in his margin to set down all the cardinals text, if he had thought it would have been for his purpose. 52. But truly, that which seemeth to me most strange in his extravagant discourse, is, how he could imagine that the Cardinal taketh upon him to be judge of his own actions, whose arguments tend to prove, that God only is to examine and judge all men's works, and not that every man, or yet any man shall be able to iudg and determine of the quality of his own deeds; for so should man be his own Iudg, & the judgment of God be no less superfluous & needles, than it should be if Calvin's doctrine (which the Cardinal impugneth) were true. Besides, that the Cardinal neither saith, nor so much as insinuateth, that we shall have no need in judgement of the mercy of a Father, or the liberality of a Prince, and much less that he renounceth the mercy, grace, faith, and the Righteousness of Christ (as M. Andrews doth calumniate and bely him.) For the Cardinal knoweth and acknowledgeth, as all Catholics do, that without the mercy, grace, faith, and Righteousness of Christ, there can be no justification (I mean not the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, but that which he of his infinite mercy, and bounty, giveth us & maketh ours, non qua justus est Deus, Aug. tract. ●6● in joan. saith S. Augustine, sed quam dat homini Deus etc. not that justice by the which God is just, but that which he gives to man, that man may be just by God) and therefore that which the Cardinal saith, is only this, that, si ita esset, if it were so as Calvin teacheth, that is to say, if the just man's best works were sinful, and impure, and yet covered and reputed as clean by the mercy of God, and for the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, than the justice of a Iudg to examine, and judge our works were needles, and to no purpose, seeing in that case the only mercy of God covering our sins, and imputing Christ's righteousness unto us, would suffice to save us without the examination and just judgement of works: which consequence is indeed so clear, that M. Andrews had no other shift to avoid it, but to pervert the cardinals whole sense, and meaning, and so to argue against his own fiction, and make a plain Schi●ma●hia as you have seen him often do before. 53. Furthermore it may be wondered greatly how he could so far forget himself as to make the Cardinal so confident & presumptuous of his own merit, as to brag and boast even to God himself of the quality of his deeds, seeing that he (I mean M. Andrews) knoweth full well (and accounteth it for no small error in the Cardinal, and all Catholykes) that they impugn Luther and Calvin's doctrine concerning the certainty and assurance of Salvation, and hold that no man without a special revelation from almighty God can know, and much less determine, utrum odio vel amore dignus sit. Whether he be worthy of love or hatred, Eccles. 9 that is to say, whether he be in the state of grace, or have true merits, and be truly justified. And therefore the good Catholic, though his merits be never so great in the sight of God, yea and his conscience never so clear (whereby his hope also of reward may be great) yet assuring himself that he hath no goodness of himself, but that all his good merits are Gods gifts, are special fruits of God's grace, neither is vainly proud thereof, but rather more humble and thankful for the same; neither yet presumeth to be his own iudg, whether he have any good merits or no, but leaveth the judgement thereof to God, with due reverence and fear, knowing that he searcheth the hearts and reins, yea and that, as the Prophet saith, Psalm. 7. scrutabitur Hierusalem cum lucernis, he will search Jerusalem (that is to say even the Consciences of the just) with Candles. Sophon. cap. 1. And that therefore it is necessary for every man according to the advise of the Apostle, Bellar. de justific. lib. 5. ca 7. §. Sat iam altera. operari salutem cum metu, & tremore, to work his salvation with fear and trembling. In which respect the Cardinal treating in his controversies of the merits of works, and having proved that a man may have some confidence in good works and merits (modo superbia cavetur, Ibid. §. Sat tertia propositio. saith he, so that pride be avoided) concludeth that, propter incertitudinem propriae justitiae etc. For the uncertainty of a man's own justice and the danger of vain glory, S. Chrysos. Ho. 38. ad Pop. Antioch & ho. 3. in Matth. it is most safe, and secure for every man to repose his whole confidence, and trust in the only mercy and benignity of almighty God. Whereof he yieldeth also this reason out of S. Chrysostome, that God who seeth, and knoweth his good merits, will undoubtedly reward him, the rather for his humility. 54. Thus than you see that M. Andrew's hath employed all his Rhetoric, no less maliciously then vainly in framing such a formal prosopopaeia, as he hath done, of the cardinals justification of himself, and ostentation of his merits, which is so far, not only from the cardinals humility and sanctity, but also from his doctrine every where, and his sense and meaning in this place, that I may well conclude, that M. Andrews hath notoriously abused, wronged, and belied him, charging him with false and absurd doctrine which he never thought and much less taught, wresting his words, and sense to other purpose, than ever he meant, or could imagine, which is the point that I have undertaken to show at this time; and therefore I omit to prosecute the Confutation of the rest of his idle discourse, wherein after some further gybes at the Cardinal, M. Andrews is copious in proving that which no man doth deny. yea at all Cardinals and jesuits for their presumption in their own (innocency) he laboureth to prove that there shall be place for mercy in God's judgement, which I think no man will be so absurd to deny; and then he allegeth certain places of S. Gregory and S. Bernard to prove that our best works are impure, which places (as also all the rest that his fellows are wont to cite for that purpose) are fully answered in Cardinal Beauties' Controversies, Bellar. d● justif. lib. 4. cap. 21. whereto I remit him for that point. But in the end after all his raving, it seemeth he is somewhat come to himself, acknowledging (as it were in lucid● interuallo) that account is to be given for deeds, M. Andrews lucidum interuallum. as well at the hour of death as in the last judgement, and that good works shall be rewarded by the force of God's promise, yea and that a man may claim that as due, & say to almighty God with due humility, red quod promisi●ti; Give me that which thou hast promised, touching which grants of his, I shall have very just occasion (a) See Cap. 10. nu. 6.7. & seq. hereafter to say somewhat more unto him, as also about merits and the eternal retribution of works. And therefore this shall suffice for the present concerning this point. 55. But what marvel is it if he maketh no scruple to abuse the Cardinal and to pervert his sense and meaning, M. Andrews abuseth the Fathers. seeing that he useth the same style with the holy and ancient Fathers, to which purpose I doubt not but you may remember that in the first Chapter of this Adjoinder I showed evidently how he abused, belied, and falsified S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, and S. Cyrill; as that he corrupted (b) See before Chap. 1. nu. 6. S. Ambrose his text, adding certain words thereto, and belied S. (c) Ibid. num. 25. 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 cited by M. Andrews, and teacheth the quite contrary else where. And though S. Cyril hath somewhat concerning that matter, yet it is far otherwise then M. Andrews suggesteth, as is evident by the place itself which I have laid down at large in the first (d) nu. 26.27. Chapter, and therefore I forbear to treat further thereof in this place. 56. Also you may remember his notable fraud in the corrupt allegation of a Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, concerning the equality of dignity, power and authority, which he saith, was given thereby to the Bishop of Constantinople with the Bishop of Rome● whereas the contrary appeareth by the express words of the same Canon, by the which it is clear, that only the precedence was not granted to the Bishop of Constantinople before the Bishops of Alexandria & Antioch; and therefore he craftily concealed and left uncited such words of the Canon as would have discovered his fraud, besides other tricks & shifts which he used in other points concerning the same matter, See Chapt. 2. nu. 6.8.9.64.65. & 66. as I declared amply in the 2. Chapter. 57 I doubt not also, but that you remember his egregious abuse of S. Augustine and of an African Synod concerning appeals from afric to Rome with 3. notable (b) Cap. 4. nu. 34. & sequent. lies within little more than 3. lyness and of S. (c) See Cap. 6. nu. 64. Epiphanius flatly belied touching prayer to our Blessed Lady. Also of S. (d) Cap. 7. nu. 16.17. & sup. Ambrose not only shamefully calumniated, but also very fraudulently alleged. And lastly, his notable abuse, and deceitful allegation of (e) Cap. 8. nu. 1.2.3. & seq. usque ad nu. 10. Suplem. ●. 2. nu. 71. Theod●ret concerning prayer to Angels; all which I have amply & clearly discovered in the 4.6.7. and 8. Chapters. Whereto I will now add some other examples of his fraudulent dealing in this kind; and first touching a point which I had occasion to touch in my Suplement, to wit, the authority of general councils. 58. Therefore whereas the Apology for the Oath seemeth only to admit and approve the 4. first general councils, the Cardinal demandeth, why those only should be admitted and received, And cap. 7. p. 160. §. Verum. and not also the 5.6.7.8. and the rest? Whereto M. Andrew's answereth thuss Cur qu●tuor tantùm prima C●n●ilia veneratur Rex● Quaere id à Gregorio etc. Why doth the King reverence only the four first councils? S. Gregory abused by M. Andrew● Ask that of Gregory, who albeit he was after the fifth, yet he bore this honour only to the 4. first. He spoke magnificently of the first four, de quinto silijt, he was silent, or said nothing of the fifth; and the reason which moved him not to give like honour to the fifth as to the other, moved also the King not to bear the like respect to the rest of the councils which followed the fifth. So he. Wherein you see he affirmeth that S. Gregory spoke magnificently, or very honourably of the 4. first councils, and de quinto siluit, said nothing of the fifth, though the same had been held before his tyme. 59 But how truly he saith this, it shall appear by Saint Gregory's own words, who writing to john Bishop of Constantinople, and having said of the 4. first councils that he did embrace them tota devotione. ut quatuor evangelia, with all devotion as the 4. gospels (because, saith he, the building of the holy faith is raised upon them as upon a four squared stone etc.) he addeth concerning the fi●●t, Open your eyes Sir Lancelot and see whether S. Gregory said nothing of the fifth general Council. quintum quoque pariter veneror etc. I reverence also together with them the fifth Council, wherein the Epistle of Iba is rejected, as full of error, and Theodorus separating the person of our mediator in two substances, is convinced to have fallen into perfidious impiety. Also the writings of Theodoret, reproving the faith of Cyril, are refuted there, for their temerarious madness, and therefore all the persons which the said venerable Counsels reject, I do also reject, and those which they admit, and reverence, I do embrace: for seeing they were ordained by an universal consent, whosoever presumeth to lose that which they bind, or to bind that which they lose, doth destroy himself and not them. Quisquis ergo aliud sapit, Anathema sit etc. Therefore whosoever thinketh, or understandeth otherwise, let him be accursed, and whosoever holdeth the faith of the foresaid Synods, peace be to him from God the Father by jesus Christ his Son. Thus saith S. Gregory, as well of the 5. Synod, as of the other four. 60. And now, good Reader, I remit it to thy judgement whether it be truth which M. Andrews saith, to wit, that S. Gregory, Siluit de quinto, said nothing to the fifth Council, yea and whether he admitted, and honoured only the four first councils, doth he not say, quintum quoque pariter ven●ror. I do also together with the other reverence the fifth Council? and doth he not acknowledge the infallible verity thereof as well as of the other, holding him for accursed who doth reject anything determined by any of the five, whether it concern matter of faith, or the Condennation of any man's person? and what other reason doth he allege, but because they were all five held by general consent, giving evidently to understand that a general Council lawfully assembled, representeth the whole Church of God, and is infallibly guided by the holy Ghost. 61. And whereas he seemeth to speak more magnificiently (as M. Andrews termeth it) of the four former then of the fifth (saying that he reverenceth them with all devotion as the 4. gospels) the reason thereof is evident, to wit, because the most important points of our Christian faith (concerning the Blessed Trinity, the Godhead of the holy Ghost, and the Divinity, Humanity, Nature and Person of our Saviour Christ) were resolved, and decreed therein, whereas in the 5. there was not any new matter of faith determined, but only certain persons and their writings condemned, which had caused a great controversy, and schism in the Church at that time; nevertheless we see, S. Greg. l. 3. Ep. 37. that albeit S. Gregory doth not say in express words, that he reverenceth the 5. Council, as the 4. gospels (as he said of the other four) yet he saith as much in effect, seeing that he professeth to hold all those for accursed who do reject or contradict it. So that M. Andrews hath shamefully abused and belied S. Gregory herein, and must seek some other Patron to justify and defend him for admitting only the 4. first general councils: but let us see some more of his frauds in this kind. 62. Upon occasion of certain places of the Fathers alleged by the Cardinal, to show the Custom of praying to Saints in the primitive Church, M. Andrews goeth about to prove that Saints do not know what we do here on earth, Andr. cap. 1. pag. 46. either by seeing the same in God, or by being themselves present amongst us, and having alleged 3. or 4. authorities for the former point (which he may see sufficiently answered in Cardinal (a) Bellar de Sanct. beatit. lib. 1. ca 1. & 2. Bellarmine's Controversies) he saith for the letter, (b) Andr. ubi supra lin. 4. mortuos autem rebus nostris non interuenire sensit Augustinus. Augustine was of opinion that the dead are not present at our affairs, for the which he quoteth no place of S. Augustine, but addeth, quis hoc refert? Cardinalis. Who relateth or affirmeth this? the Cardinal: and for this M. Andrews citeth in his margin the cardinals treatise of the beatitude of Saints in his books of Controversies, Bell. de Beatit. lib. 1. ca 20. where indeed the Cardinal handling that question, and laying down the objection of heretics, hath amongst the rest a place of S. Augustine in his books de cura pro mortuis, S. Aug. li. de cura pro mort. ca 12. where he affirmeth that the dead are not present at men's affairs, neither yet do know what is done upon earth; nevertheless afterwards the Cardinal answering the same objection in the same Chapter, proveth out of the very same treatise of S. Augustine (from whence the objection is taken) that albeit the dead are not usually present at men's affairs, nor do naturally know what is done upon earth, yet they may know it, not only by Angels, (c) Idem ibid. c. 15. but also supernaturally, to wit, by divine revelation, yea and that the holy Martyrs, (d) Ibid. c. 1●. and Saints are present amongst men, per divinam potentiam, by the divine power. 63. And to show this, the Cardinal allegeth these words out of the said treatise of S. Augustine, non ideo putandum est etc. It is not therefore to be thought that every one of the dead may be present at the affairs of men, because the Martyrs are present in healing and helping some men, but rather it is to be understood, that because the dead cannot be present amongst men by their own nature, therefore the Martyrs are present at men's affairs by the divine power. Thus saith S. Augustine: where you see he distinguisheth betwixt natural, and supernatural means, and betwixt the glorified Saints of God (for such are the Martyrs of whom he speaketh) and other dead men, granting that the Martyr's do that by supernatural, and divine means, which other dead men cannot naturally do; and this is the same in effect that all Catholics hold concerning the knowledge that the glorified Saints have of things done in earth, to wit, that they do not know the same naturally, but by supernatural means, whether they see it in seeing the divine essence, or know it otherwise by revelation; so as; thereby it is manifest that M. Andrew's hath notably abused both S. Augustine and the Cardinal; S. Augustine, in making him to affirm of glorified Saints, that which he spoke of other dead men, as if he made no difference between the supernatural knowledge and power of the one, and the natural of the other, which he evidently distinguisheth; Also he abuseth the Cardinal in taking hold of his objection, and dissembling his solution, which is one of the most gross and palpable frauds or rather fooleries that may be imagined in this kind. A most gross and palpable fraud or rather foolery of M. Andrew's. 64. Furthermore whereas the Cardinal produceth the evident and clear testimony of S. Augustine, to prove that many Miracles were done by the Relics of S. Stephen in Africa, M. Andrews wisheth the Cardinal to consider how he can well and handsomely reconcile Augustine with Augustine concerning those Miracles, Card. Apolog. c. 12. p. 157. and his reason is, because Augustine saith in an Epistle to his Clergy, S. Aug. de civit. Dei l. 22. cap. 8. Andre. ca 12. pag. 284. §. 1. and all the people of Hippo, nusquam hic in Africa, t●lia fieri se scire, he knew that such things were not done any where in afric, which I beseech thee good Reader, to note, and thou shalt evidently see the good Conscience of M. Andrews, Epist. 137 who abuseth S. Augustine notably two ways, the one in making him seem to contradict himself most manifestly, M. Andrews his bad conscience in abusing S. Augustine most impudently. yea and to give himself, as it were, the lie, witnessing in one place matters of fact upon his own knowledge, (for so he testifieth those Miracles done by S. Stephen's relics,) and in another place affirming that he knew the same to be false, for so must it needs be, if he knew that such things were not done any where in afric. The other abuse is in that he perverteth the sense of S. Augustins Epistle, as it will easily appear, if we consider the occasion why S. Augustine wrote the same; which therefore I think good here to relate. 65. A Scandalous quarrel being fallen out betwixt a Chaplain of S. Augustin, and a young man concerning an infamous calumniation raised by the young man against the Priest (whereof the truth could not be tried or known, because the matter depended wholly upon their own oaths, and testimonies) S. Augustin advised them to go to Nola in Italy to the body of S. Felix, where it pleased God ordinarily in like cases to discover perjuries, by the miraculous punishment of the perjured person; and of this he thought good afterwards to give account unto his Clergy and People for their satisfaction, which he did by the Epistle that M. Andrews citeth, wherein discoursing, by the occasion of this matter, why Almighty God, doth such Miracles in some places, and not in others, he saith, S. Aug. Ep. ●37. Multis notissima est sanctitas loci etc. Many do very well know the holiness of the place, where lieth the body of Blessed Felix of Nola, whither I ordained them to go, because from thence I might more easily and truly understand by letters whatsoever that should please God to manifest in either of them. So he; and then having added that also in Milan a perjured thief was discovered miraculously at the Monuments of certain Saints, and forced to restore that which he had stolen, he saith further thus; numquid non Africa etc. Is not Africa full of the bodies of holy Martyrs? & tamen nusquam hic scimus talia fieri etc. And nevertheless we know that such things (that is to say Miracles in this kind) are not done any where here in afric. For even as the Apostle saith that all holy men have not the gifts of healing, so also, he who divideth things proper, or peculiar to every one as it pleaseth him, would not have these things to be done at all the memories or monuments of Saints. Thus saith S. Augustine. 66. Whereby I doubt not but thou seest, good Reader, in what sense he denieth Miracles to have been done in Africa, that is to say, such Miracles as were done at the body of S. Felix, for the discovery and punishment of perjury and not such as he testifieth else where, to have been ordinarily done at the Relics of S. Stephen, S. Aug. de civit. Dei l. 22. cap. 8. whereof he recounteth such a multitude, with such asseveration of his own knowledge thereof, and public testimony of an infinite number of witnesses, and such particular relation of circumstances, times, and places, that a man must hold him for the most impudent liar, that ever wrote, if they were not most true. Besides, that writing the same, as he did, for the proof of Christian Religion against Pagans, and Infidels, it cannot without extreme folly be imagined that such a learned, wise, and holy man, as he, would be so prodigal not only of his own credit, and reputation, but also of the honour of Christian Religion, as to expose the same to the derision of the Paynims, by seeking to confirm it by fables and lies, which every man in those parts (as well the paynims themselves as others) might have controlled and would have derided, if they had been feigned. 67. Finally, these miracles of S. Stephen which M. Andrew's calleth here in question, are testified by S. Augustine in that work which M. Andrew's himself so much esteemeth else where, Andr. c. 1. p. 46. §. at id numquam. that alleging out of it a sentence which he thought might make for him, he calleth it opus palmare de civitate Dei, the principal or most excellent work of Augustine of the city of God. And yet now he would fain disgrace it, or rather S. Augustine himself by the imputation of a contradiction, which he would the Reader should suppose to be betwixt it, and the foresaid Epistle of S. Augustine, whereas you see (and M. Andrews knoweth it in his own conscience) that there is no contradiction in the world betwixt them, but that both of them do notably and clearly testify the ancient and venerable use of holy Relics, and the miraculous assistance, and help that God giveth to his faithful people thereby, and by the prayers and Relics of his holy Martyrs and Saints. So that truly a man may wonder at the impudence, M. Andrews his abuse of S. Augustine inexcusable. and seared Conscience of M. Andrews, who seeketh to delude his Reader with such a fraudulent and inexcusable abuse of this holy Father. 68 But no wonder that he is so bold with the Fathers, seeing that the Sacred authority of the holy Scriptures cannot suffice to free them from his fraud: Wherein it seemeth he hath conspired with M. Barlow, with whom he concurreth in the corruption and abuse of one and the self same place. To which purpose I must desire the good Reader to call to mind what I debated with M. Barlow concerning this point in the sixth Chapter of my Supplement, See suppl. c. 6. num. 14 15.16. where I showed evidently how he abused the holy Scripture, in saying that God in his word appointed Kings to be guardians of both the tables, to command and prohibit in matters of Religion, Ibidem. for which he quoted in his margin the 17. of Deuteronomy, and 18. verse, where no such thing is to be found, but rather the clean contrary is to be inferred thereon, Andr. ca 1. p. 22. §. Sed nec. as I amply declared in the foresaid Chapter: and now M. Andrews having occasion to treat of the antiquity of the spiritual primacy of temporal Kings, The holy Scripture abused by M. Andrews. draweth it partly from the same place, deducing it even from Moses, who when he delivered, saith he, the Copy of the law to the King, cum eo sic tradito summam religionis (quae prima, summaque legis pars est) custodiendae, & custodiri faciendae potestatem tradidit; gave together with it the chief power to keep Religion and cause it to be kept, which Religion is the first and chief part of the law. Thus saith M. Andrews, & though he quot no place, yet he must either ground this his assertion upon the same place of Deuteronomy, which M. Barlow allegeth, or else he shall find it nowhere, for it was ordained only there & no where else, that the King should have a Copy of the law. 69. Wherein nevertheless that is to be noted by the way, that Moses did not there, or any where else, give a Copy of the law to any King, (for there were no Kings of the people of Israel for 4. hundred years after Moses) but God ordained by Moses in 17. of Deuteronomy that the future King, should take a Copy of the law, from the Priest of the Tribe of Levi, and have the same with him, and read it all the days of his life. But what? Will M. Andrews say that the King was made hereby supreme head or governor of the Church in Ecclesiastical causes? or (to use his own manner of speech) that the Chief or supreme power to keep Religion and cause it to be kept, was given him hereby? Truly the words immediately following do show another reason why the King should have the Copy of the law, to wit, ut discat etc. to the end he may learn to fear his Lord God, and keep his word, and ceremonies commanded in the law. That is to say, he should have it for his own private use, and instruction, that he might punctually observe it all the days of his life, to which purpose I am sure M. Andrews will allow every man and woman to have a Copy of it as well as the King. How then was summa potestas the supreme power, whereof he speaketh, given hereby to the King more than to any other man or woman? 70. But if we consider what was expressly ordained a little before in the same Chapter touching the supreme authority of the high Priest, Deut. 17. and that the future King was presently after commanded to keep exactly the whole law of God (whereof the ordinance touching the obedience to the high Priest was a principal part) yea & to take a Copy of the law of the Priests, who kept the original (& therefore as I argued against M. Barlow, were the true guardians of the law, & not the King, who had but the Copy) & if we weigh withal that he was to learn of them also the sense & interpretation of the law, because they only, & not the King had authority to teach & interpret it, and to resolve all doubts & difficulties which should occur therein (as I proved clearly out of the (d) Deut. 17. &. 24. Exod. 28. Ezech 44. Malach 2. See chap. 1. à nu. 10 ad nu. 24. Scriptures in the first Chapter of my Supplement) if all this, I say be well considered, it may be wondered, with what face M. Barlow and M. Andrews could infer any spiritual supremacy of the King upon this place, which doth in truth prove their subjection in matters of Religion to Priests, and specially to the high Priest. So as it is evident that M. Andrews hath no less shamefully abused the holy Scriptures in this point, than M. Barlow: in so much that it is hard to say whether of them is more shameless, especially seeing that they both do also exceed in a prodigious kind of impudence, wherein I thought no man could have matched M. Barlow, until I had read M. Andrews, I mean in facing and bragging out a bad matter, when arguments and proofs are to weak, whereof I gave some Instances in M. Barlow, and will now do the like in M. Andrews. 71. Thou mayst remember, good Reader, what poor stuff he produced (a) Andr. ca 1. p. 16. to prove that S. Peter had nothing peculiar to himself by his pastoral Commission, and how he triumphed in two or three paragraphs, as though he had trodden the Cardinal under his feet, M. Andrews his facing-out of matters. yea and bragged also afterwards in another place, saying: (b) ca 8. p. 214. §. Negat● Clariùs id loquuntur Ambrose & Augustinus quam ut obstrepere possint nostri novitij: Ambrose and Augustine do speak or affirm it more clearly than that our novices (meaning the catholics) are able any way to contradict it. When nevertheless to make good his idle conceit he was fain to use great fraud and corruption in the allegation of those two Fathers, corrupting the text of S. Ambrose, & dissembling the circumstances of the place in S. Augustine, which clearly proveth the Primacy of S. Peter, as I have amply declared in the first Chapter of this (c) Cap. 1. nu. 3. & sequent. ad nu 12. Adjoinder, so that his brags and vaunts had no other ground, but his own vanity, corruption, and falsity. 72. The like may be noted also in his vain insultations against the Cardinal about the Council of Chalcedon. For when he himself had shamefully abused, perverted, and mangled the 28. Canon (as I have clearly showed in the second Chapter of this Adjoinder (d) c. 2. nu. 3.4.6.7.59. &. 64. he admonisheth the Cardinal seriously not to produce his proofs, tamquam è vepreculis, as it were out of the briars, not out of the superscriptions of letters, or of some corner of a period, or perhaps some piece of a title, or fragment of a little clause, but to bring out some Canon, for that the Canons are the voice of the councils. As though forsooth he had beaten down the Cardinal with the shot of a Canon; whereas not only the most important parts of that Council, but also the very Canon, which he mangled, and perverted, do evidently prove the cardinals intent, to wit, the primacy of the Roman Sea, Ibidem. as I have amply showed in the second Chapter aforesaid: so as it is hard to say whether he was more impudent in his corruption and falsity, or in his vain brags afterwards, as if he had used all the sincerity in the world, and got a great victory. 73. And in like sort dealt he with the Cardinal about the adoration of Relics, when he triumphed saying: Tenetur hic Cardinalis ut elabi non possit. here the Cardinal is catched, and held so fast, that he cannot escape away: nevertheless the testimony which he himself produced, being laid down whole with the circumstances doth convince him both of folly & fraud, as hath been manifestly showed a little before even in this (f) See before nu. 21. & seq. ad nu. 27. Chapter, and therefore I forbear to speak further thereof, and will only add one other Instance in this kind, Card. Apolog. ca 15. pag. 197. & 198. of a matter which hath not been touched hitherto. 74. The Cardinal as well in his Matthaeus Tortus, as also in his Apology; M. Andrews impudently affirmeth that the Puritans have recalled their doctrine concerning the King's supremacy. avoweth that the Puritans in England do no less abhor the oath of supremacy than the Catholics, and in his Apology allegeth for the proof thereof, not only his majesties monitory Preface, and his Basilicon Doron, but also Calvin's doctrine (which the Puritans profess) and the testimony of M. Bancroft late pretended Bishop of Canterbury, who plainly witnesseth the same, as well concerning the profession and practice of the Puritans, as also touching Caluins expressed doctrine in that behalf; and M. Andrews finding himself hardly pressed therewith, and having no other remedy but to face out the matter, calleth the Cardinal not only Mendacem, a Ly●r, but also D●lirum, Andr. cap. 15. p. 342. §. ad quartum. a Dotard, and why? Marry because the Puritans (saith M. Andrew's) do daily in their Sermons give the title of supreme Governor to the King, yea and do not stick to swear sometimes to the kings supremacy, in so much, that, facto, saith he, res tenetur, the matter is clear in fact, and experience; and afterward acknowledging that indeed M. Bancroft did twenty years ago gather out of divers Theses or positions of theirs, some suspicion that they were alienated from the kings supremacy, yea and that perhaps it was so then, he concludeth, that now of late recognoverunt errores suos, they have acknowledged, or recalled their errors. 75. This is M. Andrews his discourse, which how true it is (notwithstanding his impudent asseveration thereof) I do appeal to the consciences of the learneder sort of Puritans, & Precisians in England, whether they have of late time, or at any time, retracted, and recanted Calvin's doctrine and theirs in this point as an erour. For albeit I make no doubt but that some of them may now in their sermons (as others of the weaker sort of them did even in M. bancroft's time, The fact of some Puritans in taking the oath cannot prejudice the opinion or doctrine of the rest. and always before) use the ordinary style of his majesties title, yea and that otherwyles some of them also do dispense with their consciences, and swallow the Oath to get some Benefice, or Ecclesiastical dignity: yet I assure myself that the more zealous, and precise Puritans, and especially their whole Congregation will not acknowledge this fact of some of them for any definition, or decree of theirs, or for a recantation of their doctrine, and belief in this point, neither is it sufficient for the recalling of an error of a whole sect standing still on foot (as this of the Puritans yet doth) that some of them change their opinion, or for fear, or promotion dissemble it, when the same is not ratified by some public testimony of their whole company. 76. Therefore I must now urge M. Andrews to show us in what printed book, or general decree of their Congregations they have recanted their opinion, and acknowledged it for an error, seeing that the same was published before to the world by themselves, in such sort, that M. Bancroft (by M. Andrews his own confession) gathered it out of their own books; Andr. p. 34●. §. Porrò. & ita fortè tum fuit, saith he, and so perhaps it was then (he meaneth 20. years ago) and yet you see, he saith it with a perhaps, as if the matter were in doubt, and that perhaps it was not so. But I dare say without all peradventure that it was so; not only 20. years ago, but also much later, even since his Majesty came into England, for I am sure there are enough who know and remember, that Burges a Puritan preacher was committed to Prison, for that in a Sermon before his Majesty, he would not give him his ordinary style, and title of supreme Governor of the Church. 77. But what if I produce a very substantial witness of their continuance in that opinion some years after, and such a one as M. Andrews hath great reason to admit, for that he still liveth, yea ruleth in the English Clergy no less than M. Andrews himself, M. Barlow a witness against M. Andrews. I mean the learned Doctor and worthy superintendant M. Barlow, who in his Epistle to the Ministers of Scotland, prefixed to the Sermon which he prated before his Majesty against the Puritans the 21. of September in the year 1606. (which is not past 6. years ago) coupleth the Puritans with the Papists for their opinion in that point, saying, (b) M. Barlow in his Epistle to the ministers● of Scotland. that Papists, and Puritans will have the King to be but an honourable member, not a chief governor in the Churches of his dominions. Thus saith M. Barlow, whom M. Andrews must needs allow for a man of credit, except he will discredit his own occupation, and ministry. 78. Besides that, I will add to M. Barlow another authentical witness, who wrote the year after, and representeth the authority of all the Clergy of England, I mean M. Thomas Rogers in his book entitled; The faith, doctrine, and religion professed, and protected in the realm of England etc. wherein he setteth down 39 Articles agreed upon by the whole Clergy, and analised by him into propositions, with a discovery, and confutation (as he pretendeth) of all those that have at any time contradicted the said articles; and all this he saith was perused, The testimony of all the English Clergy against M. Andrews. and by the lawful authority of the Church of England allowed to be public; So that this is a witness of sufficient credit, if there be any credit to be given to the Church, and Clergy of England, yea to M. Andrew's himself, who is a principal member thereof, and therefore by all likelihood gave his suffrage to the approbation of M. Roger's his book. Thom. Roger's Artic. 37. propos. 2. p. 206. 79. This man having set down the 37. Article, and the second proposition (which concerneth his majesties Ecclesiastical Supremacy) produceth only two sorts of adversaries to that Article, to wit, the Papists and the Puritans, and saith of the later thus: False it is which the Puritans do hold, namely that (f) T. C. ●●p. p. 144. Princes must be servants to the Church, be subject to the Church, submit themselves to the Church, & throw down their Crowns before the Church; That (g) Ecc. dis. p. 185. Magistrates as well as other men must submit themselves, and be obedient to the just & lawful authority of the Church, that is, of (h) Lear. disc. p. 89. the Presbytery. Quis tandem Reges, & Principes, who can exempt even Kings and Princes from this, non humana, sed divina dominatione, not human but divine domination (meaning the Presbytery saith, (i) Beza d● presb. p. 124. Beza, which (k) Lear. disc. p. 84. presbytery they would have to be in every parish, quotquot Ecclesiae Christi, as many as be members of Christ, and of the Church, they must subject themselves to the consistorian discipline, non hic excipitur Episcopus, aut Imperator, neither Bishop, or Emperor is excepted here. Thus saith M. Rogers, Tho. Rogers. p. 208. §. penult. concerning the doctrine of the Puritans, and addeth further also in the next leaf, that if the King be not included in the number of Pastors, Elders, Deacons, and Widows, he cannot possibly have any thing to do in church-affairs in these men's opinions, meaning the Puritans. 80. All this wrote M. Thomas Rogers touching the doctrine of the Puritans not past five years ago, for his book was printed in Cambridge by john Legate in the year of our Lord 1607. If then the Puritans were so lately (as five years ago, of the opinion that M. Barlow, and M. Roger's report, which is the same that the Cardinal affirmeth) either let M. Andrews tell us precisely in what books, or sermons since that time they have recalled this error, or else if he will needs say that they did it before, I will turn him to these two for answer, not doubting but they are able to give him full satisfaction therein, especially M. Rogers, who hath pawned the credit of all the English Clergy for the truth of his testimony. M. Andrew's his immodesty in reviling the Cardinal most injuriously. And in the mean time I will desire thee, good Reader, to consider, whether M. Andrews could have any just cause, or pretence to revile the Cardinal, and call him liar, and dotard as he doth, for affirming a matter belonging to our Country, which he findeth expressly testified by the greatest superintendant of our English Clergy, besides other sufficient reasons moving him thereto. 81. For put the case it were true (as it is most false) that the Puritans have of late recanted their error (as M. Andrews termeth it) yet the same having never been hitherto so published that strangers can take notice thereof, hath M. Andrew● any reason in the world to reprehend and revile any stranger for not acknowledging it, being but a matter of fact, which he neither knoweth, nor is bound to know? Truly, albeit M. Andrews be of a most intemperate tongue, and malignant disposition towards Catholykes (as hath appeared divers ways) yet I verily think that if the weakness of his cause had not forced him to brave, and face it out with railing for lack of reason to defend it, he would not in this case have been so immoderate in contumelies, and reproaches towards the Cardinal, as he hath been without any cause given of his part. But herein he concurreth so well with his companion M. Barlow, that it appeareth evidently they are both guided by one spirit. To conclude this point concerning the Puritans, whereas M. Andrews saith that they have of late acknowledged their error touching the King's supremacy, I will in the next Chapter (d) Chap. 10. nu. 61. & sequent. make it evident, that not they, but he (if he be an English Protestant) may be said to have acknowledged his error, and that he is turned Puritan in that point, admitting the King's Ecclesiastical supremacy no otherwise, but so, as they may safely grant it without change of opinion, yea subscribe, or swear to it in the same sense that he teacheth it (and so perhaps such of them do as take the Oath of supremacy: Andr. p. 15. §. verum. ) and this I say, I make no doubt to prove clearly in the next Chapter, quod scio punget Doctorem, as he said once of the Cardinal. 82. To these examples of his egregious impudence in this kind, I may well add one, or two other examples of his impudent assertion of notable lies without allegation of author, or witness; as when he chargeth certain jesuits to have affirmed, or (as it seemeth) to have written, that they committed no sin abannis, An impudent lie of M. Andrews touching certain jesuits. saith he, nescio quot, I know not for how many years together; which I dare boldly affirm to be a monstrous lie, I mean; that any jesuit hath so written, or said either of himself, or any other man; for although I make no doubt but that many jesuits, and other good men both Religious, and secular by the help of God's grace, do live free from all mortal sins (that is to say such sins as do utterly deprive men of God's favour, & grace, and deserve eternal damnation) yet I am well assured, that no catholic will say, that any man liveth free from all sins (such I mean as are called venial) which could not be said of the Apostles themselves, as S. john testifieth, 1. john 1. saying, si dixerimus quod peccatum non habemus etc. If we say that we have no sin, we seduce ourselves, and truth is not in us; and to the same purpose also the Scripture saith else where, Proverb. 24. Septies in die cadet justus etc. The just man shall fall seven times a day, and shall rise again. 83. And this is so known, and firmly believed of all Catholykes, that it is incredible that any one who professeth the catholic Religion should affirm of any man (and much less be so vain to say of himself) that he committed no sin for some years; & therefore M. Andrew's must not think it strange if we take this for an egregious lie, until he produce some other author, or witness then himself, as I doubt not but he would have done, if he had any worth the naming, or else had not (perhaps) forgot his name, as well as the number of years in which those jesuits committed no sin, for so it appeareth by his ab annis, nescio quot; whereby we may see what substantial tales he telleth us, seeing he writeth, either he knoweth not, or at least he careth not what. 84. The like I say also of another matter avowed by him with more particularities, Another egregious lie of M. Andrews concerning a jesuit in prison. and circumstances, to wit, that a jesuit being in Prison at the same time when he wrote, confessed upon his own accord without all compulsion, fear, or examination, (moved merely with remorse of conscience) that the Popesent to England 3. Bulls of excommunication to be kept in readiness, and published in three several parts of the realm upon the execution of the powder-plot, whereupon he inferreth that the Pope must needs be privy unto the said plot. But for as much as I assure myself, and know right well, that no such Bulls, as he mentioneth were ever made, I do not only deny the inference of the Pope's knowledge of the powder-plot, but also may justly charge M. Andrews to have feigned the whole matter himself, until he name the jesuit, who confessed it, yea, and procure him also to give public testimony of it, which by all likelihood would have been done long ere this, if any secular Priest, jesuit, or other catholic man (of any credit, or reputation amongst Catholykes) had confessed, and acknowledged any such matter, especially in such manner as he hath declared. 85. Besides, that it is not unknown what jesuits have been in prison of late years, or were when he wrote, whereby also it may easily be judged by such as know them, how unlikely it is, that any of them would (upon pretence to discharge his conscience) charge, and stain it with such a horrible forgery as this is. Neither are we ignorant of the common practice of M. Andrews, and his fellow-ministers to calumniate, and slander such Catholic Priests, and jesuits, as they have under lock and key in close prison; whereof sufficient experience was seen when F. Garnet was in the tower, of whom a hundredth false bruits were spread, not only over all England, but also in foreign countries, yea over all christendom. And albeit he sufficiently purged, and cleared himself at his death of all the slanderous imputatious, yet M. Andrews is not ashamed still to avow some of them; Andr. ca 15. pag. 342. lin. 5.6. & 7. as that he acknowledged by writing divers times under his own hand, and thrice publykly at his death, that he had understood of the powder-treason out of confession; whereas he public protested the contrary: F. Garnet impudently belied by M. Andrews. for being greatly urged to confess, and acknowledge that he heard it out of confession, he flatly denied it, repeating thrice, never, never, never; and wheareas he was charged to have already acknowledged it under his hand, he also denied it, bidding his accusers show it if they could; and of all this I am well assured by the relation of credible persons, who were there present, and especially of an honourable Gentleman, who stood so near him that he heard every word he said, and hath upon his credit, and conscience affirmed it unto me. In so much that I dare boldly appeal for the truth of this matter, to the consciences, and knowledge of all those that were within the hearing of him; whom I also beseech to consider what credit is to be given to M. Andrews his report of the other thing touching the jesuit in prison (which passed in secret) seeing he is so shameless to lie concerning a public matter, wherein he may be disproved by some hundreds of witnesses. 86. But it is not to be wondered that he speaketh his pleasure of F. Garnet, and other jesuits, whom he professeth to hate, seeing he useth (as you have heard) to belly the ancient Fathers, whom he pretendeth to love and honour, for he that belieth those whom he supposeth to be his friends, will care little what he saith of such as he holdeth for enemies. And this shall suffice for this matter, and Chapter, wherein I doubt not, but it evidently appeareth that M. Andrews will not yield a jot to M. Barlow for all kind of cozenages, lies, and fraudulent devices to cover the nakedness, and poverty of his cause. THAT Mr. ANDREWS OVERTHROWETH HIS own cause, and fortifieth ours, granting many important points of Catholic Religion. THAT he is turned Puritan in the point of the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy, and betrayeth his majesties cause under hand, pretending to defend it: & therefore is neither good English Protestant, nor yet good Subject. LASTLY what is the opinion of learned Strangers concerning him, and his Book: with a good advise for a friendly farewell CHAP. X. NOw there resteth only one point to be handled which is of far different quality from the former. For thou mayst remember, good Reader, that amongst many things which I censured and reproved in M. Barlow, See Sup. c. 8. nu. I greatly allowed and approved one which is ordinary in him, to wit, that he doth very often overthrow his own cause, and fortify ours, which truly is no less but rather more ordinary in M. Andrews, as it may appear by many examples which partly have already occurred in this Adjoinder, and partly may be noted throughout his whole work. In the first Chapter I showed how he confirmed (though against his will) the Catholic doctrine concerning the Primacy of the Pope, by the allegation of certain places of S. Augustin (a) See Cap. 1. nu. 3.4.5.22. & 23. and S. Cyril, and of a place of Deuteronomy concerning (b) Ibidem nu. 19 joshua, as also of a fact of (c) Ibid. nu. 44.45.46.47.48. & sequent. justinian the Emperor against Syluerius the Pope. 2. In the second Chapter the same is also evident in his allegation of the 28 (d) Chap. 2. nu. 4 & seq. usque ad nu. 11. Item nu. 64.65. & 66. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon which he seriously and mightily urgeth against the supremacy of the Roman Sea, though it doth clearly prove the same. In the third Chapter the like occurreth in certain places of S. (f) Chap. 3. nu. 13.14. & 15. Cyprian and S. (g) Ibid. nu. 30.37. & sequent. Hierome, by occasion whereof he is forced to grant as much in effect as we teach concerning the supreme authority of the Pope. In the fourth (h) Chap. 4. nu. 21. & seq. ad nu. 31. Chapter the discovery of certain (k) Ibid. nu. 34.35. & seq. notable lies, and corruptions of his, doth evidently prove the clean contrary to that which he falsely avoweth, concerning the Roman Sea. And lastly in the last Chapter you may remember a place of (l) Chap. 6. nu. 21.22 & sequent. usque ad nu. 27. S. Hierome concerning the Adoration of Relics, which being truly laid down with the circumstances doth sound confirm the Catholic doctrine, which he sought to impugn thereby; whereof, as also of all the former examples, I forbear to lay down the particulars, because thou mayst (good Reader) either call them to mind, or at least easily find them out by the quotations of the Chapters and numbers in the margin, whereto I remit thee, and will now add thereto some other examples in the same kind. 3. Whereby it will appear that howsoever M. Barlow may in other points before mentioned go beyond M. Andrews: yet in this he cometh far behind him. M. Andrews trieth how near he can go to Catholic Religion and miss it For you are to consider that M. Andrews seeing evidently that the Protestants religion cannot be defended with any probability in the rigour of the first grounds thereof laid by Luther, Calvin and others, taketh a new course; which is to see how near he can go to the catholic Religion and miss it, persuading himself that he shall be the more able in that manner to answer our objections, and find always some occasion or other which how little soever it be, seemeth to him sufficient: for he maketh account that he shall always be a Protestant good enough, if he be not a Catholic; wherein nevertheless it befalleth him as it doth to the fly that playeth with the flame, coming now and then so near it, that she burneth her wings, and falleth into it, whereof you shall see sufficient experience in this Chapter. 4. It appeareth (a) Cap. ●. nu. 7. & 8. before that he admitteth the adoration not only of our Saviour Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but also of the Sacrament together with Christ, Andr. ca● 8. p. 195. §. In adorati●one. for as he denieth with us the adoration of the bare Sacrament, that is to say, the exterior forms of bread and wine without the presence of our Saviour Christ, whom he calleth (and that very well rem Sacramenti, Ibidem. 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 presence, & verè adorandus, truly present and truly to be adored (for so he saith) and showeth also afterward how the Sacrament may be adored together with Christ. Ibidem p. 201. lin. 8. For treating of the same matter, he allegeth S. Augustine teaching how the humanity of Christ may be adored, and how not. Ipsa humanitas, Ibidem. saith he, ut disputat, Augustinus non nuda vel sola adoranda est etc. The very humanity of Christ, is not to be adored naked, or alone by itself but with the divinity, as the King's Royal rob, not when it lieth by itself, but when the King is vested or clad, with it. How the Sacrament (that is to say the exterior forms of bread and wine) may be adored according to M. Andrews. So he 5. And then he addeth also further out of S. Augustine concerning the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament, & cum vel illam adoras, ait, ne cogitation remaneas in carne etc. And when thou adorest that (flesh) do not (saith Augustine) rest with thy cogitation in the flesh, whereby thou shalt not be quickened with the spirit, for the spirit, saith he, quickeneth, or giveth life, the flesh profiteth nothing, thus saith M. Andrews out of S. Augustine, explicating notably how the very Sacrament (that is to say the exterior forms of bread & wine) may be adored, to wit, together with the person of Christ which it containeth: for as the humanity, or flesh of Christ in the Sacrament may be adored because it is joined with the Divinity, so also the Sacrament containing Christ truly and really present, may be adored together with him, as the King's royal rob (saith M. Andrews) may be together with the King's 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 Calvin (b) Calvin li. 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 35. & all the Sacramentaries with (c) Melanch. in judicio suo de Coena Dom. ed an. 1559. Melancthon, (d) Illyric. in confess. Antuerp. & Apolog. ca 14. See Bellar. de Euchar. li. 4. c. 29. Illyricus and divers other Lutherans do hold it for Idolatry, and so I am sure it hath been commonly held by the Protestants of England heretofore, as it appeareth in the 39 Articles agreed upon by the whole English Clergy, and set forth by M. Thomas (e) Tho. Roger's art: 28. propos. 5. p 176. & 177. Rogers in his book entitled the Faith, Doctrine, and Religion professed and protected in the Realm of England etc. Thus much for this point and now let us pass to another. Luther. li. de libert. Christia. & in asser. ar. 2.31.32. & 36. Calvin l. 3. Instit. ca 14. §. 9 & in Antido. Concil. sess. 6. ca 11. Melancth. in locis con. an. 1521. tit. de peccatis. See Bellar. de justif. li. 4. ca 10. & li. 5. ca 1. 6. No man I think that understandeth the matter● in controversy betwixt our adversaries and us, is ignorant what is their opinion concerning the reward of good works, as that Luther, Calvin, and most of their followers are so far from holding them to be meritorious of eternal reward, that they teach, the best works of the justest man to be mortal sins, & to deserve eternal damnation, though they say they are reputed as just for the merits of C●rist: and those who seem to have the most favourable opinion of good works, do teach, that howsoever they may have some reward even in the next life, yet they cannot merit eternal Salvation, because the same is merited for us by Christ, and apprehended by only faith. But M. Andrew's goeth much further, & cometh indeed so near the Catholic doctrine that he acknowledgeth it. For although he take some exceptions to merit, yet he understandeth it otherwise then we do, and so in effect doth not deny or impugn that which we teach concerning the same, notwithstanding his vain cavils, See chap. 6. nu 45.46.47.48. & sequent. and malicious interpretation of our doctrine, whereof I have already touched some particulars in the last Chapter. 7. Therefore it is to be understood, that he granteth, and teacheth expressly, that eternal reward shall be given to good works, albeit he do it with this restriction, Andr. ca 7. p. 165. §. Reddi. non ex pondere humani meriti, sed ex vi promissi divini, not by the weight of man's merit, but by the force of God's promise, whereof grace is the foundation, by the which, saith he, our merciful Saviour hath promised merceden plenam operi non pleno, merceden diariam operi horario, a full hire to a scant or unperfect work, a days wages to an hours work. Math. 20. So he, alluding, no doubt, to the Parable of the Gospel of the workmen, who having laboured in the vineyard, Hieron. li. 2. in jovin. Aug. li. de Sancta virgin. c. 26. Gregor. Moral. li. 4. ca 31. See also the Commentaries upon ca 20. Math. Andr. ubi supra. some a whole day, and some but an hour, had nevertheless all of them equal pay, to wit the penny promised for the days work, which penny the Fathers understand to signify eternal Salvation promised for our labour in God's service during our life, and so doth M. Andrews, no doubt, understand it, who proceedeth thus, And that which he promised of his me●re grace, and goodness, he rendereth by justice; for he should not be just except he should stand to his promise. We may say (to God) with convenient humility, give me the reward which thou hast promised, but I think we cannot say, give me that which I have deserved, or that which thou owest me for my merit; for setting aside the promise of God, there is not any sufficient title for the which, Valent. 8.9.4. God ought to recompense such a work with eternal life. Thus saith M. Andrews. 8. Wherein although he exclude all consideration of merit from the reward of works, M. Andrews granteth the merit of good works by consequence. nevertheless granting, as he doth, the reward to be due by the force of God's promise, he granteth in effect as much as we desire. To which purpose, I wish two things to be noted in this his discourse, the one, that he speaketh clearly of eternal reward and life everlasting, acknowledging the same to be due to good works by the force of Christ's promise; the other that the merit which he impugneth, is only such as excludeth the consideration of God's promise, as it appeareth by the reason which he giveth out of Gregory de Valentia, to wit, Andr. ubi supra. because setting aside the promise of God, there is not any sufficient title or cause why God is bound to reward good works with life everlasting. This then being the reason why he excludeth merit, it is clear that he doth not exclude the merit whereof we speak, nor conclude any thing against us, but rather argueth for us; for we are so far from rejecting the consideration of God's promise from our merit, that we grant the merit of everlasting life especially thereupon. 9 For albeit we teach, that the grace of God doth give a great dignity and valour to the work, and therefore concurreth to the merit thereof, yet we teach withal, that the same were not sufficient for the merit of eternal salvation, The consideration of God's promise for the merits of Christ necessarily included in the consideration of our merit. if God had not promised it for the merits of our saviours passion (which is the ground of all man's merit) & therefore almighty God having covenanted and bargained with us to give such a reward for such a work, yea & assisting us with his grace to do the work, hath not only made himself our debtor, if we do it, but also maketh us able to merit the reward promised. I say merit, though M. Andrew's doth not admit the word, who nevertheless doth acknowledge it sufficiently when he saith, that God hath promised, and will render mercedem diariam operi horario, Reward & merit are correlatives, & cannot be, but in respect of one another. the days wages to an hours work, for merces & meritum, reward and merit are correlatives, and cannot be the one, but in respect of the other, for reward is never due but to him that doth merit or deserve it, and he only that meriteth may justly claim reward. And therefore the Apostle saith expressly, ●i qui operatur mer●●s imputatur, non secundum gratiam, sed secundum debitum: to him that worketh the reward is imputed, not according to Grace, but according to debt. M. Andrew's acknowledging the reward of the work granteth the merit of the work, & the worker. 10. So as M. Andrews acknowledging that God hath promised, and doth render mercedem operi, a reward to the work, doth consequently acknowledge meritum operis, & operantis, the merit both of your work, and of the worker; for, dignus est operarius mercede sua, (saith our Saviour) the workman is worthy of his wages, that is to say, he meriteth or deserveth it. In which respect also the Apostle saith, unusquisque mercedem accipiet secundum laborem suum, Every one shall receive reward according to his labour, that is to say, as his labour deserveth, or as he meriteth for his labour. And a●beit almighty God of his infinite bounty hath promised greater rewards than our works do in rigour of justice merit, ●. Reg. 18. The question of the reward, & merit of good works explicated by an example of king David. yet the covenant, and promise being made, he that doth the works, doth justly merit the rewards. As for example, King Saul promised to give his daughter Mich●l to David in marriage, y● he brought him a hundred prepaces of the Philistines, and albeit David thought himself unworthy to marry the kings daughter (saying that he was a poor man, and of s●●al ability) yet when he had performed the condition, he claimed performance of the Covenant, and had her to wife; and afterwards when she was taken from him by Saul, & given to Phaltiel, he required her again (after Saul's death) not only because she was his wife, but also because he had bargained for her, and got her by Covenant, ●. Reg. 3. quam despondi mihi, saith he, centum praeputijs Philistinorum; whom I betrothed unto me, with a hundred prepuces of the Philistines, as who should say, that it was reason he should have her, because he had deserved her. 11. And much more truly may the like be said of the good works of just men, The dignity of God's grace increaseth the value of merit. proceeding from God's grace, which works besides the covenant and promise of reward, are ennobled also, and dignified by grace, and so made not only acceptable unto God, but also much more worthy of the reward promised, than any moral works could be, though God should promise to reward them eternally● so that the dignity of God's grace concurring in the good work, with God's promise of reward, maketh the same truly meritorious, be the work never so small, and the reward promised never so great; and therefore whosoever doth for the pure love of God, forsake his lands, or parents, or wife, he meriteth that great reward which our Saviour promised, to wit (a) Math. 19 Mar. 10. Luc. 19 Magdeburg. ca 4. Calvin. l. 3. Inst. c. 15. §. 2. & seq. See Bellar. lib. ●● de ●us●if. c. 1.2.3.4. & seq. Centuplum etc. an hundredth fold in this world, and life everlasting in the other. And in this sense do all the Fathers teach the merit of works so expressly, that not only the Magdeburgenses, but also Calvin taketh exceptions to them all, for using the word merit so frequently as they do, which indeed is most evident in their wrorkes, and may be seen by innumerable places of the said Fathers alleged by Cardinal Bellarmine and others, to prove the merit of good works; which I pretermit, for that my meaning is not here so much to prove or confirm our doctrine in this point, as somewhat to explicate it, upon this occasion offered. 12. Andr. ubi supra. This then being the constant doctrine of catholics, 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. Every one is to rewarded according to his works, but by the force of the promise, M. Andrews maketh an idle distinction, and why● 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 dignity of God's grace, increasing the valour of the merit, yet the same followeth also upon the promise, because God hath promised to reward eternally such works only as proceed from his grace, and are dignified thereby, and consequently made the more meritorious, in which respect we always say with S. Augustine, S. Aug. ep. 105. that omne bonum meritum nostrum non facit in nobis nisi gratia, nothing but grace doth cause in us all our good merit, and cum Deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud coronat nisi munera sua, When God doth crown our merits, M. Andrews cannot deny, that the dignity of God's grace increaseth the valour of merit, except he will take part with the Pelagians. he doth crown nothing else but his own gifts. And truly I cannot see how M. Andrew's can deny that grace increaseth the valour of the merit, except he will take part with Pelagius the heretic, and impugn the dignity of God's grace, so as he must needs grant that the worthiness of grace being added to the force of God's promise, doth make the work more worthy of reward. The other cause why I say the distinction is idle (or rather M. Andrews for making it) is because he maketh the same to confute the Cardinal, as if the Cardinal did exclude the Consideration of God's promise from the reward of works, whereof he might see the contrary in the cardinals controversies, Bellar. de justify. lib. 5. c. 14. where he debated the question at large, and substantially proveth the necessity of God's promise to make a work meritorious, and therefore whereas M. Andrews seeketh also to prove the same by (*) Greg. de valen. de effec. great. disput. 8. quaest. 16. punct. 4. Gregorius de Valentia whom he allegeth to that purpose (as if he would confute the Cardinal by one of his own profession) he is, as I have said, very impertinent therein, labouring to prove that which the Cardinal denieth not, but expressly teacheth. So as, you see still M. Andrew's doth nothing else but idly beat the air, and fight with his own shadow, impugning only his own conceit, and in the rest granting our doctrine concerning the reward and merit of good works. Thus much for this point. 13. Amongst the examples which I gave in the last (b) Cap. 6. nu. 10. Chapter of his changing the state of the question, one was concerning the veneration of relics, for that he will (c) Andr. ca 1.1.47.48.49. & 50. needs suppose that we do worship relics with divine adoration, and honour; and therefore (d) Ibid. p. 50. § Necesse habet. he impugneth, and derideth the Cardinal's distinction, of divers kinds of adoration, (e) See before Ca 6. nu. 11. Apoc. 19 & 22. labouring to prove that adoration is not to be taken otherways, then for divine honour; but in this I have sufficiently showed his ignorance and absurdity, and have also proved (f) Ibid. from nu. 10. to nu. 31. that we do not honour and worship relics with divine adoration, but with a Religious worship due to holy men, or holy things for the honour and love of God: in which point it seemeth M. Andrews agreeth fully with us, confessing that the dead bodies and relics of holy Martyrs, and Saints (which are truly known to be such) are to be honoured, Greg. Nys. in orat. in S. Theodor. Card. ca 1. p. 13. and kept with reverence, and therefore answering to a place of S. Gregory Nyssen, alleged by the Cardinal, he alloweth that the body of a Martyr, Andr. ca 1. p. 48. §. Nyssen. si veri Martyris verum corpus, if it be the true body of a true Martyr, is to be adorned, and decked with honour, & in Augusto, Sacratoque loco poni, Praefat. Monitor. pag. 43. and to be placed in a Majestical and Sacred place: yea and he confirmeth it with the authority of his Majesty, saying, Idem hoc vult, & Rex honorifico loco solemniter inferri. The King also will have the same to be solemnly carried into an honourable place. 14. And afterwards answering to a place of S. Ambrose which the Cardinal objecteth, he saith that whereas Ambrose will have us to honour the body of the dead Martyr, S. Ambros. ser. 14. the Sanct. Card. ubi supra p. 15. Andr. ubi supra. §. Honorare. and the seed of eternity in him, Facimus, saith he, non illibenter, we do it willingly, & then addeth: Quid porrò quaerit? sed pallium breve est, hon●s non pertingit ad adorationem. What doth he desire more? but the cloak is too short, honour doth not reach to adoration. So he. Meaning by adoration, divine honour, which we grant him; for we say also that the honour due to Relics, doth not extend itself to a divine adoration, & therefore we desire no more of him then that he do a religious honour and worship thereto; for such is the honour whereof S. Ambrose speaketh, because it is due, and exhibited to Saints for the honour and love of God whose servants they are, S. Hieron. ubi supra. quin servorum honos, saith S. Hierome, redundat ad Dominum, the honour of the servants redoundeth to their Lord. In which respect the same holy Father signifieth that all the adoration which was done to the Relics of the Prophet Samuel (when they were transported with great solemnity and honour from Palestine to Constantinople) was not done so much to Samuel as to Christ, whose Levite & Prophet Samuel was, as I have signified more at large in the last (k) See ca 9 nu. 25. Chapter 15. Whereby it appeareth that the honour done to the servants of Christ for Christ's sake only (and not for any civil and temporal respect) must needs be a religious honour: such I mean, as I have declared in the last (m) Ibidem nu. 14.15 Chapter to have been often exhibited in the holy Scripture to Angels, and holy men with the term of adoration, and with the exhibition of a Corporal reverence, which may be more or less according to the devotion of the exhibitours thereof, so that it be in their mind and intention distinguished from divine honour due to God alone, in which intention consisteth the true difference and distinction of divine, religious, and civil adoration, as I have also declared before in the last (n) Ibidem Chapter. So as M. Andrews confessing an honour to be due to holy Relics, cannot with reason exclude from the same any Corporal reverence, so that the intention be to do only a religious and not divine worship; As he must needs also acknowledge the like in civil adoration and honour done to Princes and great personages. 16. For whereas the same is diversly performed, sometimes by putting of the cap, sometimes by bowing the body, and sometimes by kneeling, and other whiles also by prostration upon the ground (which manner of civil adoration is often mentioned in the old testament, and was used in times passed amongst the Persians to their Kings) there is no doubt, but that as all these may lawfully be used when the intention is no other but to do a Civil honour thereby, so also the least of them were unlawful, yea Idolatry, if the intention of the doer were to give thereby a divine honour to any man: and the like, I say must needs be granted, concerning the extern honour due to the holy Relics of Saints, which how great it was in the time of S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Hieron. advers. Vigilant. and S. Augustine we may understand by the custom then usual to kiss them for devotion sake; and to carry them about in procession (as we now term it) with great solemnity and reverence; which appeareth not only in S. Hierome, who severely reprehended Vigilantius for carping at the same (as I have signified in the last (g) Cap. 6. nu 22.23.24. & 25. Chapter) but also by the testimony of S. (h) S. Aug de civit. Dei l. 22. ca 8. Augustine, who recounteth diverse Miracles done by relics while they were so carried by Bishops; as namely that Lucillus the Bishop was himself cured of a fistula carrying a certain relic of S. Stephen, populo praecedente & sequent, the people going before him, and following him; and that a blind woman being brought to the Bishop Proiectus, as he carried Sacra pignora (so termeth he the holy Relics of S. Stephen) was restored to her sight by applying to her eyes certain flowers which had touched them. 17. Such was the honour that Catholic people bore to holy Relics in those days, that they sought either to touch them, or to have some thing that had touched them, or been near about them; whereby divers great Miracles were done, Idem ibid. yea dead men revived, as S. Augustine testifieth in the same place by divers examples which he relateth, and therefore I leave it to the judgement of any reasonable man how great the devotion, and the religious honour was which then was usual in the Church, and allowed by these Fathers to be done to the relics of Saints, especially seeing that the same was also approved, and confirmed from heaven by innumerable Miracles; which M. Andrew's himself granteth, saying, Augustino assentimur etc. we grant with Augustin that the body of the Protomartyr was conveniently, Andr. ubi supra. p. 5. or duly to be honoured, after that it pleased god to work certain Miracles thereat. M. Andrew's granteth that Miracles were done at the relics of Martyrs in S. Augustins time So he; wherein besides the grant of due honour to be done to holy relics (whereof now I speak) I wish also to be noted, that he granteth that Miracles were done in God's Church in S. Augustins time, which most of the Sectaries of these days have hitherto denied, affirming that Miracles ceased after the time of the Apostles, which they are forced to say because we exact of them to show Miracles in their Church as an undoubted sign of the true Church; showing on our part the continuance thereof in our Church from the Apostles to this day, whereof sufficient experience hath been seen in every age, Many notable miracles lately done at Valentia in Spain. and even now lately by innumerable cures of all sorts of diseases, at Sichem in Flanders, at Minich in Baviere, in diverse parts of Italy, and at this present at Valentia in Spain, at the body of a holy Priest who died in April last, all so public and so sufficiently testified to the world, that impudency itself cannot deny the truth thereof. 18. So that seeing M. Andrew's granteth that Miracles were done in the Church of God, for 4. hundredth years, and we can prove the continuance thereof in our Church until this day, either he must show us in what age they ceased after S. Augustine's time, and why then rather then before, yea and prove also that all the miracles done in the Catholic Church ever since, have been diabolical illusions; or else he must confess, that the Protestants Church is not the true Church, No Miracles done in the protestants Church. seeing that they have not hitherto had so much as a lame or sickd og healed in all their Congregations by the virtue of any of their profession dead or alive, notwithstanding their lively and strong faith whereof they are wont so much to vaunt. And this I say the rather, because I find that M. Andrew's is very silent about this point, even when the Cardinal giveth him sufficient cause to speak thereof, who answering an objection of the Apology for the Oath concerning witchcraft imputed to Catholics (because they quench fire with Agnus Deis) saith (a) Card. c. 1●. p. 116. §. R●spondeo. : Respondeo miracula divina etc. I answer that divine Miracles are seen only amongst the Catholics; and M. (b) Andr. ca 12. p. 283. §. Veneficia. Andrew's coming to answer that paragraph which beginneth with those words, left them out wholly, and setteth down the next words following for the beginning of the cardinals text in that place, perhaps he lakt (c) Idem praefat ad Lector. paper and place for them, or took them for words quae abbess poterant, which might well be spared; for such as you may remember (d) See before chap. ●. nu. 31. he said he would leave out sometimes. 19 But to conclude concerning holy Relics, it appeareth sufficiently hereby that M. Andrew's granteth as much concerning them as we desire, to wit, that they are to be decked, and adorned, laid up with honour and solemnity, reserved and kept in honourable and holy places, and finally that they are to be honoured, yea and that God doth sometimes work Miracles by them (which he cannot deny to be a notable and divine confirmation of the honour that is done unto them) and therefore for as much as the honour that he granteth to be due unto them, is neither divine honour (which both he and we conclude in this case) nor civil honour, (seeing it is not done for any temporal or civil respect, but proceedeth out of devotion, and tendeth directly to the honour of God) he must needs grant it to be a religious honour, and that the same may be exhibited with much more external worship and reverence then the civil honour or worship, which is due to any Prince: yea so much more, as respect of devotion and Religion surpasseth and excelleth temporal and civil respects: so that if civil honour do require corporal reverence with cap and knee, bowing and prostrating of the body, much more doth the Religious honour due to Saints, and their Relics require the same. Thus much for this point. 20. Whereas the Cardinal having occasion to speak of Monks, Card. c. 12. p. 157. §. d● multitudine. and Religious women, he saith, that their Institute cannot be reprehended, except we reprehend all the Fathers of the first 500 years, M. Andrews granteth it to be true, Andr. c. 12. p. 284. §. nec instituta● for he saith that his Majesty meant not to reprehend the Institute of Monks, but the Monks themselves, because they have long since gone from their Instituts or rule, being degenerated into Locusts, apud quos, saith he, desidia nimium verè, nimium saepe in luxuriam despumavit, whose Idleness, or sloth hath too truly, and too oft turned to a very foam, or froth of luxurious and licentious life. So he, and then he addeth, that because their Institute was not of the divine law, but only of the positive, and now gone in merum abusum, into a mere abuse, therefore it is worthily antiquated, or abolished amongst the Protestants; wherein that which I wish especially to be noted, is, that he approveth the first Institute of Monks, and consequently must needs approve divers important points of Catholic doctrine, and utterly condemn his own Religion. 21. For it is most evident that the first Institut and discipline of Religious life, In what consisted the religious discipline of the ancient Monks. consisted principally, as still it doth, in the observation of the evangelical Counsels of our Saviour, to wit, of voluntary povety, Chastity, and obedience, abnegation of a man's self, and Chastisement of his flesh, by fasting, Penance, wearing of haircloth, disciplines, & divers other Mortifications as it is manifest partly in the Monasterial discipline observed by the first Monks in the Apostles time, and related by Philo (a) de vita. contempt. ● the jew, (as Eusebus (b) Eccles. hist. l. 2. c. 16. , S. Hi●rome (c) de Scriptor. Eccles. in Phil. Epiphanius d) de haeres. l. 1. haer. 29. S. Bede (e) in Prologo super Matth. Sozomen (f) l. 1. c. 12. and Nicephorus (g) l. 2. c. 16. do testify) and partly in the Monastical constitutions which are to be seen expressly set down in S. Basill (h) in constit. Mon●st & regul. brevior. Item de institut. Monach. and often touched and mentioned by Cassianus (i) de institut. renuntiant. Palladius (k) Histor. Lausia. Theodoretus (l) Histor. religios. joannes Climacus (m) in scala paradisi. , Severus Suspitius (n) Vita Sancti Martini. S. Augustine (o) de moribus Eccl. ca 3●. S. Hierome (p) ad Marcellam ut commig. Beethlem. S. Dionys. Eccles. Hierar. ca 10. S. Basil. and other Fathers of the first 400. years, to omit S. Benet's Rules yet extant which were made in the age following. So that M. Andrew's approving the Institutes of the old Monks, alloweth the practice of all that Catholic doctrine before mentioned, which other Sectaries of this time have hitherto condemned, derided and abhorred, as repugnant to the liberty of their Gospel and their own sensuality. 22. Besides that, he also approveth thereby works of supererogation, (such I mean as are not commanded, but counseled and left to our own free choice) and consequently he granteth the difference betwixt a Counsel, & a Precept, contrary to the doctrine of Luther Calvin, and other Sectaries. Finally he alloweth vows of Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience which are, and always have been as it were, the link and band of Monastical and Religious profession, as it appeareth evidently in the ancient Fathers, as in Dionysius S. Paul's disciple, who testifieth that those who were made Monks in his time (which was the time of the Apostles) made a solemn promise and covenant before the Altar to renounce the world, and embrace the Monastical life. And S. Basil writing to a Monk that was fallen, Ep. 1. ad Monach. lapsum in fine. & in ep. ad Virgin. laps. Idem. reg. 14. fusius explic. S. Aug. in psal. 75. ante finem. putteth him in mind of his covenant made with God, and professed coram multis testibus, before many witnesses: and in his Monastical rules signifieth that he which hath vowed himself to God in this Religious profession, and passeth afterward to another state of life, sacrilegij se scelere obstringit, is guilty of Sacrilege, because he hath, saith he, as it were stolen himself from God, to whom he had dedicated and consecrated himself. 23. Also S. Augustine saith to the same purpose, Nemo potius in Monasterio frater dicat etc. Let no brother or religious man that is in a monastery, say, I will leave and forsake it, or that it is not to be thought, that only those shall be saved who live in Monasteries, or that others which live abroad, do not pertain to god, for to him that should say so, it is to be answered, illi non voverunt, tu vovisti. They have not vowed, but thou hast vowed. So he. Finally joannes Cassianus who lived also in the same time, treating of the perfection of Religious men, and having said, that inestimable glory in heaven, is promised them if they keep their Rules, and most grievous pains prepared for them if they neglect them, concludeth, Meliusest enim etc. For it is better according to the sentence of the Scripture not to vow, then to vow and not to perform it. Thus saith Cassianus, to whom I might add many other witnesses, joan Cass. de justit. renunti. li 4. c. 13. but that it is needless, seeing these may suffice to show M. Andrews allowing as he doth the Instituts of the Monks of the primitive Church must needs admit, & allow religious vows of Poverty, Chastity, & Obedience, whereto all Religious men are, and ever have been bound by their Institutes. 24. So as it is clear by all this, that in this one point he hath granted divers important points of Catholic religion, yea and utterly condemned his own, which denieth and impugneth all those things practised in Monastical life, according to the first Institutes thereof. Besides that it also followeth thereon, that his religion is utterly void of all christian perfection, which specially consisteth in the true imitation of Christ's life, by the observation of the evangelical Counsels professed and practised in Religious discipline; for which cause all the Ancient Fathers placed the highest perfection of christian Religion therein, as I have evidently showed in any Supplement by the clear testimonies of S. Dionysius Areopagita, See supl. c. 7. nu. 59 & 60. Eusebius, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Basil, S. Chrisostome, S. Hierome, S. Augustin, Sozomenus, & S. Bernard. 25. Therefore it little importeth for the matter in hand what he jangleth against Monks: for put the case it were true that they were all degenerated from their first institute (as it is most false, and affirmed by him without any proof, and therefore to be answered with a bare denial) yet it sufficeth for the proof of that which I have here undertaken, M. Andrews approving the first institute of monks approveth many important points of Catholke Religion. that the said institut consisted in the practice of many notable, and important points of Catholic religion, and that he hath by an evident consequent granted, and approved the said points, together with the institut against the current of the doctrine, and profession of all his fellows; in which respect I shall not need to trouble thee, good Reader with any answer to the rest of his impertinent discourse, and namely to his frivolous stale objection, concerning the idleness of Monks, See Card. Bellar. l. de. monachis. c. 42 43. & seq. answered fully long since by divers catholics, and namely by Cardinal Bellarmine in his Controversies, whereto I remit him, because I am forced to hast to an end: for otherwise truly, I would not only say somewhat thereto, but also I would examine, and debate with him 2. or 3. other points which he toucheth, and especially what was the true cause, why monastical profession was first abrogated amongst the Protestants, and why they pretending to reform the Church in these our days, did rather quite abolish the institute of Monks, them seek to restore it to the first integrity, if it were good at the first, and only fallen to decay, and corruption, as he signifieth. 26. For whereas he seemeth to give two causes thereof, the one that Monks were grown to be idle, and the other, that their idleness was turned to licentiousness; if that were true, those reformers should rather have sought to redress the abuse, and to reduce the Monks to their first rules, then to antiquate the whole Institute, which being grounded upon the holy Scriptures, the express Counsels of our Saviour, and the example of his life, was ordained (b) See Supplem Chap 7. n. 58 59.60. by the Apostles (as I have showed in my Supplement) and doth contain in it all true Christian perfection according to the opinion of all the Fathers, in which respect it could not by any human authority be lawfully abrogated, and taken quite out of the Church. Besides that it is evident that the Ringleaders in that pretended reformation, I mean Luther, Oecol●mpadius, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Ochinus, Michonius, Menius, Musculus, Pelicanus, Pomeranus, and Munsterus, being all of them Votaries, that is to say Monks, Friars, and religious men, abolished the Institutes of monastical life, only because they themselves were so transported with the fury of lust, and sensuality, that they could no longer endure the restraint thereof in religious discipline. 27. And therefore they resolved not only to teach most beastly and fleshly doctrine tending to all liberty of the flesh (as that, it (a) Luther in colloqu. Germa. c. de matrimo. is no more possible to live chaste, then to live without meat. That (b) Idem. to. 8. de matrimo. fol. 119. if the wife will not come, let the maid come. That Polygamy or the having of many wives at once, is (c) Idem de Bigamia Episcop. proposit. 62. Iten Ochinus dialog. l. 2. dial. 21. See Caluinoturcis. l. 2. cap. 11. not forbidden in the new law: Yea and that it is not lawful for a man to (d) Bucer in cap. 1. & 19 Mat. pray for the gift of Chastity, except he surely know that God will give it him:) They resolved I say not only to teach this beastly and mahometical doctrine, but also to incite men thereto by their examples, even with the damnable breach of their own vows, (e) 1. Tim. ●. habentes damnationem quia primam fidem (f) Tertul. lib. de monogam. c. 13. S. Epiphanius lib. 2. haeres. 61. in fine. S. Chrysost. hom. 19 in 1. Cor. 7. & in 1. Tim. 8. hom. 15. S. Aug. in Psal. 75. Iten Concil. Carthag. 4. can. 104. irritam fecerunt, having damnation because they broke their first faith, as S. Paul said of the young widows, who after their vows of chastity, had but only a will and desire to marry, whereas these deformers having bound themselves both to Chastity, and Monastical life by solemn vow, abandoned both the one and the other, and (as S. (g) S. Basil. de vera virginitate. The first Evangelists of the Protestants Gospel, were the true Locusts that destroyed religious profession and perfection. Basil saith of such) did seek to cover stupri scelus honesto coniugij nomine, the wickedness of whoredom with the honest name of Marriage, most of them taking harlots under the name of wives. 28. So as M. Andrew's may see who were indeed those Locusts, whose slothful idleness turning to a froth of licentious life destroyed monastical perfection and profession amongst the protestants, to wit, the very first Apostles, and Evangelists of their Gospel, I mean the votaries above named, and other such of their humour, and crew, who being weary of the severity of Monastical discipline became Apostatas, and renegats, and the better to cloak and excuse their own Apostasy, not only sought to abrogate all monastical discipline, but did also set abroach the new doctrine which M. Andrew's and all other Protestants now profess, and therefore it is easy to iudg what good fruit such bad trees could yield, and consequently from what spirit as well the abrogation of monastical profession amongst the Protestants, as their whole doctrine proceedeth. And thus much for this point. 29. The Cardinal to prove that the name Catholic doth most properly belong to them that live in the unity, and obedience of the Roman Church, allegeth S. Ambrose; who having declared that his brother Satyrus being by shipwreck cast upon a coast where there were many schismatics called Luciferians, That the name Catholic belongeth only to the Apostolic Roman Church, & to the children thereof. asked the Bishop of the place, whether he did agree with the Catholic Bishops, and explicated the same presently saying, id est, an cum Romana Ecclesia consentiret, that is to say, whether he agreed with the Roman Church, whereto M. Andrew's answereth that Ambrose did ask the Bishop with great reason whether he agreed with the Roman Church, sciebat enim Episcopum tum Romae Catholicum, for he knew that the Bishop of Rome then was a Catholic. So he; wherein he granteth consequently that the Pope is supreme and universal Pastor of the whole Church, Andr. c. 5. pag. 125. §. Quod affert. for that must needs follow of his grant; seeing it is evident that he who then was Bishop of Rome, and whom he alloweth for Catholic, had, and exercised a supreme and universal authority; to which purpose it is to be considered who was Bishop of Rome at that time; whereto M. Andrew's himself giveth us no small light, signifying presently after, that Liberius was Bishop a little before him; and sure it is, that Damasus succeeded Liberius, and reigned many years, who therefore must needs be the Catholic Bishop that M. Andrew's meaneth. 30. Now than what authority Damasus had, and exercised during his reign, it appeareth sufficiently by that which I signified before concerning him and his supremacy, in the 4. (a) See Chap. 4. nu. 57.58. & sequent. Chapter, where I showed that the same was acknowledged not only in Africa, by the Bishops of 3. African Synods, who in a common Epistle to him, gave clear and evident testimony thereof, but also in the East Church, even by the chief patriarchs thereof, to wit, by (b) Ibid. nu. 61. Peter the holy Bishop of Alexandria, who immediately succeeded Athanasius and being expelled from his Church by the Arians, fled to Pope Damasus, Magdeb. cent. 4. c. 10. Socrat. l. 4. c. 30. and by the virtue and authority of his letters was restored to his seat, as the Magdeburgians themselves do relate, out of the Ecclesiastical histories. And in the Church of Antioch, his authority was acknowledged by Paulinus Bishop thereof, receiving instructions and orders from him, (c) Cap. 4. nu. 62. for the absolution of Vitalis the Heritick. Also afterwards (d) Ibid. nu. 63. Theopilus Bishop of Alexandria, and S. Chrysostome Bishop of Constantinople, were suitors to him to obtain pardon for Flavianus Bishop of Antioch, as may be seen more particularly in the fourth Chapter of this Adjoinder, where I have also set down the clear (e) Ibid. nu. 58. & 59 testimonies of some Fathers, who lived at the same time, and evidently acknowledged his supremacy. 31. So that M. Andrew's granting that Pope Damasus was a Catholic Bishop, and that the Church of Rome was in such integrity under him, that S. Ambrose had reason to hold none for Catholics, but such as held union therewith. It m●st needs follow that the supreme and universal authority, which Pope Damasus had and used, was not usurped, but due to him, & his Sea, and consequently to his successors. And whereas M. Andrew's signifieth that the Roman Church, and Bishops were not always in the like integrity, that they were at that time, to wit, neither a little before in the time of Liberius, nor shortly after in the time of Honorius, because both of them subscribed to heresy, (as he saith) I will not now stand to debate that point with him, both because I should digress too much from the matter in hand (having here undertaken to show what he granteth in favour of Catholics, & not to disprove what he denieth or affirmeth otherwise) as also because he may see those old and stale objections fully answered by the Cardinal himself in his Controversies, Bellar. d● Pont. Rom. l. 4. ca 8. & 11. not only concerning those two Popes, but also touching all the rest, whom our adversaries were wont to calumniate in like manner, and therefore I remit him thereto. 32. There followeth presently after a large and liberal grant of M. Andrews right worth the noting. For whereas the Cardinal still prosecuteth the same matter (touching the application of the name Catholic to the Roman Church) and having produced the precedent authority of S. Ambrose remitteth his Reader for further proof thereof, to the last page of his (a) Idem Resp. ad Apolog. p. ult. former Book (which was his Answer to the Apology for the Oath) it is to be understood, that in the said book and page, he proveth by the authority of 3. Ancient Fathers (to wit (b) Pa●id. Ep. ad Sympronian. Pacianus (c) S. Ciril Hier. c. 18. S. Cyrill and (d) Aug. in lib contra ep. Fundamen. cap. ●● S. Augustine) that the name Catholic is a most true and proper note of the true Church, and that it could never be usurped by Heretics, yea and that our adversaries themselves (namely in the Apology for the Oath) do so call us, Andr. c. 5. p. 125. Nam quae. and distinguish us from themselves by that name, and do consequently acknowledge us to be members of the true Church, whereto M. Andrews answereth thus. Nam quae in extrema pagina etc. For as for those things which the Cardinal wrote in the last page of his former book, and would gladly have his Reader to see, fatemur omnia, we grant and acknowledge them all. So he. Whereby he granteth that we being called catholics, even by our adversaries themselves have the true sign & note of the true Church, and are therefore true members thereof, and that he and his fellows, who have not the same note are Heretics or schismatics. For this is in effect the Argument of the Cardinal, grounded upon the authority of the Father's aforesaid, which (you see) M. Andrews granteth saying, fatemur omnia. Andr. ubi supra. 33. And albeit he seeketh presently an evasion, by a distinction, yet it helpeth him nothing, for thus he saith. Nec de nominis honore lis ulla, sed utri è re magis nomen habeant, M. Andr. his distinction helpeth him nothing. neither is there any contention (betwixt us) about the honour of the name, but whether of both have the name (derived) from the thing. So he, allowing us as you see, the honour of the name (for the which he saith they do not contend with us) and calling in question only to whom belongeth the thing, signified by that name, whereas nevertheless it is evident, that according to the authorities alleged and urged by the Cardinal out of the Fathers, the name and the thing expressed by the name do always so concur, that they are never separated; for which cause those Fathers do hold and teach, that the very name, and word catholic is an evident note, to distinguish the true Catholic faith and Church, from the false doctrine and Congregation of Heretics, which they could not do, if some might have only the name Catholic, and others the faith, or Church which it signifieth. 34. And therefore S. Augustine in the place alleged by the Cardinal, Aug. ubi supra. Item de vera religione c. 7. saith that the very name Catholic held him in the Catholic Church: quoth (saith he) non sine caus● inter tot haereses ista Ecclesia sola obtinuit, which name this Church only hath obtained amongst so many heresies not without cause. So saith S. Augustine, whereto the other Fathers, which the Cardinal also citeth, do agree, all teaching that heretics or heretical congregations never did or could usurp the name Catholic, but that the same hath always been, and ever shall be peculiar to the true Church; whereby they teach evidently that the name, and the thing signified by the name do ever concur. So as M. Andrews granting not only the Father's doctrine in this point, but also giving us freely the honour of the name, alloweth us to have the thing expressed by the name, and so in conclusion with his fatemur omnia, he acknowledgeth us for true catholics and himself, and his fellows for heretics, Luc. c. 19 and therefore I may well say unto him with our Saviour in the Gospel ex ore tuo te judico serve nequam. 35. And the like I may also say concerning his grant in another matter, Andr. c. 7. pa. 168. §. Name de nostr. to wit, that our Bishops are true Bishops, and that the Protestant Bishops of England had their ordination from ours, yea from 3. of ours (for so he giveth to understand) whereupon he also inferreth, that he and his fellow Superintendents have a true ordination and succession from the Catholic Church, whereas the quite contrary followeth upon his grant, for if our Bishops be true Bishops (as having a true succession from the Apostles) and that the protestant Bishops have no other lawful ordination but from ours, two consequents do directly follow thereon, the one; that we have the true Church and doctrine if M. Andrew's his fellow and friend M. Barlow (b) Barl. Ser. an. 1606. 21. Septemb. say true, who in his famous sermon (mentioned by me (c) See before chap. 6. nu. 77. else where) affirmeth, the Successive propagation of Bishops from the Apostles, to be the main root of Christian Society (according to S. Augustine) and the main proof of Christian doctrine (according to Tertullian) as I have showed amply in my (d) See Suppl. Chap. 4. nu. 54.55. & seq. Suplement, and proved thereby that M. Barlow, and his fellows are (e) heretics and Schismatics. The other consequent is, that if the English Protestant Bishops had no other lawful ordination then from the Catholics, they had none at all; for that at the change of religion in Queen Elizabeth's time, they were not ordained by any one catholic Bishop and much less by three (as M. Andrews saith they were) but by themselves, and by the authority of the Parliament as I have also declared at large in my Supplement (f) Suppl. ca 5. nu. 2.3.4. & 5. . Where nevertheless, I am to advertise thee, good Reader, of an error not corrected amongst the faults escaped in the Print. For, whereas it is said there, they had almost seduced an Irish Archbishop, and persuaded him to consecrate some of them Bishops, there want certain words, to wit, a Welsh Bishop, having in vain solicited, which words, are to be inserted thus; they had almost seduced a Welsh Bishop (having in vain solicited an Irish Archbishop) and persuaded him to consecrate some of them Bishops after the Catholic manner etc. And again a little after, whereas it is said thus; seeing the Irish Bishop would not perform his promise, they resolved to ordain themselves &c. there want also these words, cons●●t, nor the Welsh Bishop; which words are to be added thuss seeing the Irish Bishop would not consent, nor the Welsh Bishop perform his promise, they resolved to ordain themselves. Thus, I say, it should be corrected. 36. Whereby it may evidently appear what a beggarly Church and Clergy they then had, What a beggarly Church & Clergy the Sectaries have in England and still have: for having then not so much as any pretended Archbishop, or Bishop of their own profession, they were forced to beg their consecration even of the Catholics their adversaries, and having solicited an Archbishop in vain, and being out of hope to have the consent of a Metropolitan to their ordination, & much more to be consecrated by 2. or 3. Bishops, according to the ancient Canons of the Church, they determined, as I may say, to play small game, rather than to sit forth, being desirous to have some kind of ordination from any one Catholic, though inferior Bishop, yea and in fine they sought to have it from such a one, as was held to be the simplest man that then was, or perhaps ever had been of the English Clergy; for so indeed was esteemed the Bishop of Land●●●, whom they had almost inveygled, and induced 〈◊〉 their turn. But Almighty God out of his infinite providence so disposed (for the eternal shame of their pretended Prelacy, and Clergy) that he also in the end refused to do it, upon a sharp message which he received from Bishop ●onner than Prisoner, who being Bishop of London (and consequently chief Bishop in the province of Canterbury by the death of Cardinal Pole Archbishop thereof) sent one M. cozen his Chaplain to the said Bishop of Landaff to threaten him with excommunication in case he did consecrate any of them, whereupon he defisted from his purpose, and they resolved to ordain, and consecrate one another, and so they did, as I have signified in my Supplement, upon the testimony of one that was an eye-witness of what passed amongst them at their ordination, See Supl. ubi supra nu. 5. to wit, M.I Thomas N●ale a graveman, well known, no doubt, to many yet living in Oxford, where he was many years after Reader of the Hebrew Lecture. 37. Whereupon I infer two things, the one that they have no Clergy nor Church; for ha●ing no Bishops, they have no Priests, (because none can make Priests but Bishops) and having neither Bishops, See Supl. ubi supra nu. 6. nor Priests, they have no Clergy and consequently no Church as I have showed in my Supplement out of S. Hierome. S. Hieron. advers. Lucifer. The other is, that M. Andrew's, and his fellows are neither true Bishops, nor have any succession from the Catholic Church (as he saith they have) no● yet any lawful mission or vocation● and that therefore they are not those good shepherds which as our Saviour saith) enter into the fold by the door, john. 10. but fures & 〈◊〉, thieves and robbers● who climb up another way, or break into it by intrusion and force, ut mactent ●●●●rdant, to kill, and destroy the flock and so they are rotten bought broken of from the may n● root of Christian society, and consequently heretics and schismatics, as well by M. Barlowes ground before (c) See before nu. 35. also Suppl. chap. 4 nu. 54.55. & seq. mentioned as according to M. Andrew's his own grant else let him name unto us those 3. Catholic Bishops who (as he saith) consecrated their first Bishops, at the change of religion in Queen Elizabeth's time, Luc. 19 which I know he cannot do, and therefore I conclude of him in this point, as I did in the last, ex ore tuo te judico. 38. And this truly might suffice to show how he fortifieth our cause, and overthroweth his own; but that, besides divers other points which I might handle to this purpose (and am forced to omit for lack of time) there is one, whereof I promised in the last (b) Chap. 6● nu. 81● Chapter to say somewhat, to wit, his doctrine touching the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy, which in very truth he abaseth, disgraceth, and utterly supplanteth, whiles he seeketh, or at least pretendeth to confirm, and establish it, as hath partly appeared already by his grant that our Saviour made S. Peter head of the Apostles, to take away all occasion of Schism, yea and that he gave him as much authority as was necessary to that end, whereupon I inferred necessarily that not only S. Peter but also his successors have all that power, and authority which we attribute unto them (as may be seen in the third Chapter (d) Chap. 3. nu. 37. & sequent. of this Adjoinder) and upon this it followeth also directly that no temporal Prince is Supreme head of the Church. What a poor conceit M. Andrews hath of the King's ecclesiastical supremacy. But his opinion concerning the King's Ecclesiastical supremacy will be much more manifest, if we consider what a poor conceit he hath of it, and how he abaseth it, being so far from granting it, to be a principal article of faith, (as we hold the Pope's Primacy to be) that he saith it is, ne articulus quidem, not so much as an Article, utpote de exteriori modo regimine etc. as of a thing which concerneth only the external government of the Church, Andr. c. 1. pag 21. §. Neque tam● so far forth as it requireth, and admitteth human help, and authority. And therefore h● placeth it not amongst points which are to be believed, Ibidem. but amongst matters of persuasion, such I mean as we are persuaded to be true; and therefore he saith, nec sic singula trahimus ad fidem etc. we do not so draw all things to faith, it sufficeth for some heads or points of religion to believe them with the Apostle, and of some others to be persuaded only, quae tamen infra fidem subsistant, which nevertheless are beneath, or under matters of faith. Therefore it is enough if it be without the compass of faith, so that it may have place only amongst orthodox, or true doctrine. So he; Ibid. p. 29. §. A● recepta. and to the same purpose he also saith in another place, that it is a truth, but extra symbolum, out of the creed, The Ecclesiastical Supremacy of temporal Princes, may be in M. Andrews his Pater noster but is not in his Creed. so that it may perhaps be come into his Pater noster, but is not yet into Creed. Whereupon divers things might be inferred worth the noting; but I will touch only two or three. 39 If the King's Supremacy be not a matter of Faith, then is it neither expressly taught in Scripture, nor necessarily deduced from it; for if it were, then must it needs be a matter of Faith, and thereupon it followeth that although M. Andrews do allege Scripture to prove it, yet he himself is of opinion that it is but only probably gathered out of Scripture, and consequently that a man may without danger of damnation, choose whether he will believe it or no. For of things which are in Controversy, and not defined, but only probably gathered out of Scripture, a man may without danger of his soul adhere to either part, which truly may serve for a great Motive to all Protestants to make small account of the kings Ecclesiastical Supremacy, otherwise then in respect of the temporal Laws, especially seeing that so great a Doctor as M. Andrew's, (who pretendeth expressly to maintain and defend it) teacheth, The oath of the supremacy unlawful, if the supremacy be no matter of faith that it is no matter of faith. Besides that I cannot see how he can approve the Oath of the King's Ecclesiastical supremacy, to be lawfully tendered or taken, as of an undoubted truth, if it be no matter of faith. For he that sweareth a thing to be simply true, which he doth not certainly believe, but only is probably persuaded that it is true, Aureol. in 3. dist. 39● Ang. verb. periurium. See Navar. manuale c. 12. nu. 3. & Suarez de relig. Tom. 2. li. 3. ca 4. nu. 7. sinneth in the opinion of the Divines & Canonists● Whereupon it followeth that M. Andrews who holdeth the King's Supremacy to be no matter of faith, but only a probable truth, can neither lawfully take the Oath of the said Supremacy, nor justly approve it to be exacted of any, and this will be as clear as the Sun, if we consider by what Scriptures he laboureth to prove the King's Supremacy, whereby we shall easily see that the same is not so much as probably gathered out of Scripture, and therefore not to be held for an undoubted truth, and much less to be sworn for such. Card. c. 1. pag. 7. 40. For whereas the Cardinal objecteth that it is a new doctrine, taught first in the time of King Henry the 8. who first took upon him the title of supreme head of the Church, Andr. c. 1. p. 22. §. Sed. nec. M. Andrews denieth it saying, tantum abest etc. It is so far from being (so new as the Cardinal saith (to wit) a thousand five hundred years after Christ) that it was a thousand five hundred years before Christ was borne. Neither was Henry the 8. the Author of that in our age, but Moses in his, who having put off (or laid away) his Priesthood, was nevertheless above Aaron: and when he gave to the King the Law, he gave him withal the chief power to keep Religion (which is the first and chiefest part of the Law) and to cause it to be kept. So he. Wherein he giveth two reasons or grounds out of the old Law, for the spiritual Supremacy of temporal Princes. The one because Moses laid aside his Priesthood (and being therefore but a temporal man) was superior to Aaron. M. Andrews his gross ignorance. And the other, because he gave to Kings, the chief power and charge of Religion, when he gave them the copy of the Law. 41. In the former point of the two, he notably bewrayeth his own ignorance, in saying that Moses laid aside his Priesthood, or ceased to be Priest, after he was once Priest, as if Moses his Priesthood had been like to the Ministry of the Protestants, which may be put of and on like a jerkin, or a Cloak when they list, whereas his Priesthood was so permanent and inseparably annexed to his person, that albeit he might cease from the execution of the function, yet he could never put off the power of his Priesthood during his life. Besides that he was so far from putting off his Priesthood, that he was not only still Priest after Aaron was consecrated, S. Aug. Quaest in. Leuit. li. 3. quaest. 23. but also (as S. Augustine teacheth expressly) chief Priest either together with Aaron, or else above him. Ambo, saith he, tunc summi Sacerdotes erant: both Moses and Aaron were then high Priests, or rather was not Moses' high Priest, and Aaron under him? Thus saith S. Augustine, whereby you see how weak and silly is M. Andrews his first reason grounded upon his own ignorant conceit, that Moses left off his Priesthood, and that nevertheless he was still superior to Aaron, being a mere temporal Prince (for if he meant not so, his argument, for the temporal Prince's supremacy is not worth a rush:) but you have heard out of S. Augustine, that Moses was not only a Priest after the Consecration of Aaron, but also chief Priest, I mean above Aaron in which respect it may be thought that God commanded Moses & not Aaron to cloth Eleazar Aaron Sonne● Num. 2●. with Aaron's vestments in the pre●●nce of Aaron himself, to succeed him in the office of high Priest: 42. In his second reason (concerning the chief power and charge of Religion given to Kings by Moses together with the copy of the Law) he showeth most evident and notorious malice in the manifest abuse & corruption of Scripture, M. Andrew his notorious malice in the abuse of holy Scripture. no such thing, but rather the clean contrary, being to be gathered out of that place of Deuteronomy, Deut. 17. where Moses ordained that the copy of the Law, should be given by the Priests, to the future Kings. I say future, for that there was no King over God's people in the time of Moses, See c. 6. nu. 68.69.70. nor of 400. years after, as I have signified in the last Chapter, where I also charged as well M. Andrews as M. Barlow with the evident abuse of this place of holy Scripture in divers respects, and therefore I beseech thee good Reader, take pains to review what I have said there, if thou dost not well remember it. So as I may now conclude upon these two reasons of M. Andrews, that he is both an ignorant and a corrupt Doctor: ignorant in affirming that Moses laid a way his Priesthood, and corrupt in notably abusing the holy Scriptures. 43. And whereas he very of● recurreth for the proof of this point to the examples of the Kings in the old Testament, See Suppl. c. 1. nu. 10. & seq. I have sufficiently answered thereto in my Supplement, where I have proved first, that the law of Moses did expressly and manifestly give to the high Priest the supreme authority not only in matters of religion, but also even in temporal affairs, forasmuch as concerned the decision of doubts and difficult questions. Secondly that the (g) Ibid. nu. ●4. & seq. Kings were not at their institution exempt from this law, but rather commanded to observe it. Thirdly that the (h) Ibid. nu. 3●. & seq. particular examples which he and others are wont to allege of josua, (i) nu. 44. David, (k) nu. 45. & 50. Solomon, (l) nu. 49. & seq. Ezechtas (m) nu. 3●. & seq. , and josias do make nothing for their purpose, & that divers other (n) nu. 28. & seq. examples do clearly prove the contrary. And lastly that although it were true, that Kings were superior to Priests in the old law, yet it doth not (o) nu. 53.54.55. & 56. follow thereon that they are so now also in the new law, as well because the law of Moses (at least the judicial and ceremonial part thereof) was wholly abrogated by the law of Christ, as also because our Saviour ordained a new and far more excellent priesthood, & manner of government in his Church, which beginning in the Apostles and spiritual Pastors, was continued also most evidently in them for 300: years, without interruption (to wit during the paganism of the Emperors) and no new commission ever since that time known to be given by Christ to Kings, whereby they were authorized to take upon them the government of the Church. 44. So that I am to demand of M. Andrews (as I also did of M. Barlow in my (p) See sup. Chap. 1. nu. 83. & 84. It cannot be showed how Kings af●ter they were Christened came to have the government of the Church. Supplement) how, and by what Commission the supreme authority in Ecclesiastical affairs was transferred from the Apostles and their Successors, to Kings after they were Christened; seeing that they can neither claim any succession therein from the Kings of the old law (which as I have said was quite abrogated by Christ) nor pretend any new authority given them in the new law, it being most manifest that all the texts of Scripture, which M. Andrew's or other of our adversaries do, or can allege for the spiritual Supremacy of temporal Kings out of the new Testament, do ordain obedience to the Pagan Princes that the reigned, no less then to others, which therefore cannot be understood to concern spiritual matters, and much less to make them heads of the Church, except M. Andrew's will be so absurd to say, that the most wicked Emperors, Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, and Nero were heads or supreme Governors of the Church, and that they could command and aught to be obeyed in spiritual and Ecclesiastical affairs. 45. Now then seeing M. Andrew's neither bringeth, nor is able to bring, any other proofs than these out of the old or new Testament for the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of Kings, I may well conclude, that as he hath great reason to hold it for no matter of faith, and therefore not to admit it into his Creed (as being neither expressly taught in Scripture, nor necessarily deduced from it) so I may with no less reason advise him also to put it out of his Pater noster (if it be gotten so far into his books) seeing it is not so much as probably gathered out of Scripture; The Ecclesiastical supremacy of temporal Princes excluded by a rule of M. Andrewes● in which respect also I am to put him in mind of a rule given by himself in another question, to wit, that nothing is to be admitted and practised in the Church, whereof some precept is not to be showed in holy Scriptures, for so doth he tell us concerning prayer to Saints, saying, non audemus vota nostra etc. We dare not direct our prayers to Saints, because we have no precept thereof, having a precept in express words. Andr. c. 1. pag. 37. §. Verùm. Quod tibi praecepero hoc tantum facies, Thou shalt only do this which I shall command thee, whereupon we dare only do that whereof we have a precept. 46. Thus saith he, and therefore according to this his own rule, I must now exact of him to show us some precept whereby the kings spiritual Supremacy is commanded or ordained in Scripture, but this he acknowledgeth sufficiently he cannot do, seeing he teacheth that we are not bound to believe it as an article of faith but to be persuaded only that it is a truth, which he neither could, nor as I think, would say if he could show any precept or commandment of it in Scripture. And this being so, how then dare he and his fellows admit it into their Church, seeing he saith, Id tantùm audemus facere & ● we dare only do that whereof we have a precept? And how can he approve that men should be compelled to swear it as an undoubted truth, when nevertheless it is no matter of faith (by his own confession) nor hath any ground in Scripture, (as I have showed) and much less is ordained and commanded in Scripture, and therefore, according to his own rule, not to be admitted & practised in the Church, and consequently not to be ratified by a solemn Oath for an infallible verity, as if it were one of the most important Articles of our Creed. 47. But yet let us examine the matter a little further & sound the depth of M. Andrew's his doctrine concerning the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy, I doubt not but we shall find that he is neither good English Protestant, nor yet a good subject; for if it fall out that his doctrine agreeth not with the modern Laws and Statutes of the Realm, he is neither of both, seeing that according to the doctrine of English Protestants, none can be accounted to be of their congregation, neither yet a good subject who believeth not the King's Supremacy as it is taught, M. Andrew's doth not allow any spiritual authority to the King. and ordained by the Statutes of King Henry the 8. King Edward the 6. and ●he late Queen Elizabeth: but this M. Andrew's doth not, for he doth not allow the King any spiritual power at all, ●eaching expressly that the King himself acknowledgeth, non se aliter esse supra Ecclesiam quam vt● nutritius & ●utor. Andr. ci 14. p● 323. lin. 33. That he is not otherwise over the Church, but as a foster-father and defender. Which he also explicateth adding, ut eam scilicet nutriat & tu●atur, that is to say, to the end that he may nourish and defend it, to which purpose he also said (d) nu. 37. before (as you have heard) that the King's Supremacy is no matter or article of faith, because it concerneth only external government so far forth as the Church requireth, Ibid. c. 1. p. 21. §. nequ● tamen. & admitteth human help & authority. 48. Therefore whereas in the government of the Church, two things are specially considered, the one internal and divine, and the other external and human, the former (which is a spiritual & heavenly power, communicated by almighty God to man) he excludeth from the King's Supremacy, and admitteth only the latter, which is a mere external and human power; and the same also, non aliter, no otherwise, then for the nourishment and defence of the Church, so as you see he acknowledgeth thereby no other power over the Church, but only external, human, and temporal, whereto I make no doubt but all the Puritans in England and Scotland will subscribe; What manner of Ecclesiastical power M. Andrewe● acknowledgeth in temporal Princes. neither do the catholics deny, but affirm and teach, that Kings are bound to nourish the Church with their purses, and defend it with their power and authority; as all or most Christian Kings at their Coronation are sworn to do. And not only Christian Kings have this power, but also any Pagan Prince hath, and may exercise the same, as the Kings of Chinae and Persia (the one a Pagan and the other a Mahometan) do at this day. 49. For the King of China nourisheth, and defendeth the Church of Christ in the Colleges and Residences of the Fathers of the Society, A Pagan Prince hath as much authority over the Church, as M Andrew's alloweth to his Majesty. not only in his principal City called Pachyn (where he keepeth his Court) but also in divers other parts of his Dominions, giving them maintenance, immunities and privileges, and showing them many other particular favours. As also the King of P●rsia doth the like to the Carmelitan Fathers in his Country, though I think no man will say, that these Kings have any spiritual power over the Church of Christ, as our late Statutes have given to our Kings; An. 26. Hen. 8. ●. 1. which may appear by a Statute of King Henry the 8. whereby it was ordained in these words: Be it enacted etc. that the King our Sovereign Lord, his heirs, and successors Kings of his Realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head of the Church of England, The Parliament Statutes give spiritual authority to the Kings, & Queens of England. called Anglicana Ecclesia, and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, as well the Title, and style thereof, as all Honours, Dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdictions, Privileges, Authorities, Immunities, profits and commodities to the said Dignity of supreme head of the same Church belonging. So saith the Statute, which must needs be understood to give spiritual authority, when it giveth all that Power, Dignity, and jurisdiction which belongeth to the head of the Church. 50. For seeing that the Church is a spiritual & Ecclesiastical body, it must needs be governed by a Spiritual and Ecclesiastical power, residing in the head thereof. And therefore it was also enacted by our Parliaments that King H●nry might not only visit all Ecclesiastical Persons, Ibidem. & reform all kind of errors, heresies and abuses in the Church of England, but also assign 32. persons to examine all manner of Canons, constitutions and ordinances Provincial and synodical. And further to set in order and establish all such Laws Ecclesiastical, as should be thought by him, and them convenient to be used, and set forth within his Realm and Dominions, in all spiritual Courts, and conventions, and that such Laws, and Ordinances Ecclesiastical, as should be devised, and made by the King's Majesty, and these 32. persons and declared by his majesties Proclamation under his great Seal, should be only taken, reputed, and used as the King's Laws Ecclesiastical etc. 51. Furthermore King Henry made the L. Crommwell his Vicar general for the exercise of his spiritual, and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by virtue whereof the said L. Cromwell ordained Ecclesiastical Laws, The Lord Cromwell Vicar General to K. Henry the 8. for th● exercise of his spiritual jurisdictions or injunctions and published them under the Seal of his Vicariat, directing them to all Archbishops, Abbots, and the rest of the Clergys' And albeit Queen Elizab●th did not use in her stil● and Ti●le, the name of supreme head, as K. Henry and K. Edward did (but of Supreme Governess) yet it is evident that she did hold the same and all the authority belonging thereto, to be no less due to her, then to her Father, seeing that in her first Parliament she revived her Fathes Laws concerning the same, An. 1. Elizab. c. 1. ordaining, that all and every branch, word, and sentence of the said several acts, and every of them, should be judged, deemed and taken, to extend to her Highness, her heirs, and successors, as fully, and largely, as every of the ●ame act, or any of them did extend to the said K. Henry the 8. her highness Father. Whereby it appeareth that as well the Title of Supreme head, as all the spiritual pre-eminences, prerogatives, authority, and jurisdiction granted by the Parliament to King Henry, and exercised by him, belonged in like manner to the Queen his daughter, her heirs, and successors, and consequently, to his Majesty that now is. 52. Besides that, the Parliament granted also expressly to the Queen spiritual authority, Spiritual jurisdiction granted to Q. Elizabeth by the Parliament. An. 1. Elizab. c. 1. ordaining that such jurisdiction, Privileges, Superiorities, pre-eminences spiritual or ecclesiastical, as by any spiritual or Ecclesiastical power, or authority hath heretofore been, or may lawfully be exercised, or used for the visitation of the ecclesiastical state, or persons, & for the reformation, order, and correction of the same, and of all manner of errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities shallbe for ever united, and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. Thus far the Statute; which you see annexeth to the Crown all such spiritual, and ecclesiastical power, or jurisdiction as may lawfully be exercised in the visitation of Ecclesiastical persons and the reformation of heresies etc. 53. Moreover it was also granted to our Kings, that they should have power not only to give licence by their Letters Patents to consecrate Bishops, but also to grant Commissions in certain cases, to give all manner of such Licences, Dispensations, Compositions, Faculties, Grants etc. For causes not being contrary to the Scripture, and Laws of God as heretofore hath been used, and accustomed to be had, and obtained at the Sea of Rome: all which power must needs be granted to be mere spiritual, besides that it was declared by a statute of King Ed●. the 6. Th●● all ●●tha●●y of jurisdiction spiritual, and temporal, is derived and deduced from the King's Majesty as supreme head of the Churches, An. 1. Edward. 6. c. 2. All the Spiritual jurisdiction and authority of the Clergy of England declared by a statute to be derived from the Prince. and Realms of England, and Ireland, and so justly acknowledged by the Clergy of the said Realms. Whereby it appeareth evidently that the King according to these Laws and statutes (yea and by the confession and acknowledgement of all the English Clergy) not only hath spiritual authority, power, and jurisdiction, but also is the very fountain and spring, from whence it floweth to all Bishops and Clergy in his dominions● Whereupon it followeth that if there be any spiritual jurisdiction and power in the Church● and Clergy of England, the same is much more in the King then in them, seeing it is deduced and derived from him, to the Church, as from the head to the body. 54. Now than this being most evident, how doth M. Andrew's his doctrine agree with this? seeing he teacheth that the King is no otherwise over the Church, (that is to say) he hath no power or authority over it, but as a foster-father and a tutor● ut eam nutriat et defendat that he may nourish and defend it, which as I have said, M. Andrew's depriveth the King's Majesty of all the spiritual authority that the Parliaments have given him. all Catholic Princes do, and Pagan Princes may do without any spiritual power at all. So that you see M. Andrew's depriveth his Majesty of all the spiritual authority and jurisdiction, which the Parliament hath given him. And the like he doth also in other places, where he overthroweth the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy in other manner; for whereas the Cardinal objecteth Calvin's doctrine, that no man ought to be called Head of the Church, M. Andrews saith that Calvin indeed did not like it quo s●nsu Papa etc. in the sense that the Pope is called the Ministerial head, but I know saith he, it would not dislike Calvin in the sense that Saul was head of the Tribes of Israel, and so also the head of the Tribe of Levi: so he. Giving to understand that Kings are heads of the Church, in no other sense then as Saul was head of the Tribe of Levi. 55. Whereupon i● followeth, that Kings are neither heads of the Church, nor yet have any authority at all over it; for that Saul had none over the tribe of Levi, which (as I have showed in the (a) See before chap. ●. nu. 13. first Chapter of this adjoinder, and much more amply in my (b) suppl. c. 1. nu. 18.19. & seq. supplement) was by the express commandment of God exempted from the temporal and political state, in such sort, that the Levites were not somuch as to be numbered (c) Num. ●. amongst the people, being Gods own portion, (d) Deut. 10. & 18. part, and inheritance, and given by him for a gift (saith the (e) Numer. 8. Scripture) to Aaron and his children, so as the temporal Magistrate had nothing to do with them. And although it should be granted that Saul was head of the Tribe of Levi, as well as of the rest, it would not follow, that he was their spiritual head, it being manifest, that all the spiritual authority and jurisdiction in the law of Moses resyded in the Priests, and especially in the high Priest, as I have proved at large in my (f) Suppl. c. 1. from nu. 10. to 53. supplement, where I have also showed (g) Ibid. nu. 51.52. that King Saul had no lawful power and authority either spiritual or temporal over the person of the high Priest, as it appeared, in that his own natural subjects (who knew the law of God) refused to obey him when he commanded them to kill Achimelech the high Priest, K. Saul had no authority over the high Priest. S. Aug. in psal. 51. which therefore he caused to be done by Doeg the Idumean, who being a stranger, and not knowing the law of God, or contemning it (and representing, as S. Augustine testifieth, the Earthly Kingdom and society of wicked men) executed his tyrannical and sacrilegious commandment. 56. Therefore whereas M. Andrew's signifieth that our Kings are Heads of the Church of God in England, as Saul was head of the tribe of Levi, he alloweth them no authority at all over the Church, neither spiritual nor temporal; for that, as I have said, the Levitical tribe was wholly exempt from the temporal state, and subject only to the high Priest: and albeit Saul was truly head of all the other tribes, yet he was only their temporal head, and had no other but temporal power over them. And therefore M. Andrew's doth also by this example deprive his Majesty (if not of all authority) at least of all the spiritual power and jurisdiction which our Parliaments have granted him. 57 To this may be added also his doctrine in his Tortura Torti, Andr. Tort. Torti. p. 151. where he saith, facimus● we do not grant the power of censure to the Prince, whereby he taketh from the King all that ample authority above mentioned, which is annexed to the Crown by the statutes aforesaid, An. 26. Hen. 8. c. 1. & an 1. Eliz. ca 1. The King might (according to the statut) excommunicate an heretic, as well as any Bishop. to wit, all such jurisdictions, privileges, superiorityes, and pre-eminences spiritual & Ecclesiastical, as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power hath heretofore been, or may lawfully be exercised or used for the visitation of Ecclesiastical persons, & the reformation and correction of errors, heresies, and abuses etc. In which words (being the words of the Statute) no man can deny but that all manner of Censures are cōprehēded● without the which, heresies & abuses can never be sufficiently corrected, & reform; & therefore if the Prince thought good to excommunicate any obstinate heretic he might (according to this Statute) do it as well or better than any Bishop in his Realm, seeing that no Bishop can do it otherwise then by the authority and jurisdiction which he hath from the Prince, as I have (d) Supra nu. 53. declared before out of the Statutes; neither could the Prince give it to any other, if he had it not truly and properly in himself, in whose person the same must needs principally reside, seeing that by the express words of the Statute, it is united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of England, The King could not give the power of censure to other if he had it not in himfelse. for what right, Power, of jurisdiction soever is in the Crown, the same must needs be understood to be principally and most properly in the Prince. 58. Whereby it is manifest that the Kings of England may according to this Statute, not only give all manner of jurisdiction (wherein all kind of Censures are included) but also exercise the same themselves if it please them, as in like case they might (if they thought it convenient) do and exercise the acts of all the civil offices in the common wealth, as well as the officers themselves, See suppl. c. 6● nu. 61. who have their Power and jurisdiction from them, as I have signified more at large in my Supplement upon the like occasion ministered by M. Barlow, M. Andrews neither good Subject nor. good English Protestant. and therefore M. Andrew's denying the Power of Censures to the King, denieth him the Royal prerogative, and supreme spiritual authority wherewith our Parliaments have endued him: whereupon it followeth directly that he is neither good subject nor good English Protestant. For seeing he abridgeth his majesties authority, denying his Ecclesiastical Supremacy in the sense and manner that our late Parliaments have ordained the same, he cannot be accounted a good subject. 59 And if he say that by this argument, I confess that we ourselves are no good Subjects, because we deny the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy, A great difference to be noted betwixt M. Andrews his denial of the King's supremacy and ours. he is to understand, that the case betwixt him and us, is far different; for, we deny it only of mere conscience, because we hold ourselves bound to believe, as a matter of faith, that S. Peter and his successors are supreme heads of the Church (being a doctrine deduced from our saviours express words and commission given to S. Peter, acknowledged by the uniform consent of the ancient Fathers, and confirmed by the continual practice of the Church, even from S. Peter's time to these our days, as I have proved sufficiently throughout this Treatise,) in which respect we have great reason to say with the Apostles, Act. 5. opertet magis obedire Deo, quam hominibus, and to give our lives, rather than to offend God, and our consciences, in the denial of such an important article of our faith, to the everlasting damnation of our souls. M. Andrews hath no such obligation to deny the King's supremacy, as we have. But M. Andrews holding the King's Supremacy to be no article of faith, or belief, but only a matter of persuasion, (which passeth not the bounds of probability) hath no such cause and obligation to deny it, as we have, and yet nevertheless (under the colour and pretence to defend it) he doth so extenuate and abase it, that he maketh it nothing, but an external, humane and mere temporal authority, and consequently as any Pagan Prince may exercise, as well as a Christian. M. Andrews like to a treacherous friend or a prevaricating advocate. 60. And therefore he dealeth therein no otherwise then one who being chosen by his friend to maintain his quarrel, draweth his sword with pretence to defend him, and giveth him a deadly wound behind his back: or like to some prevaricating Advocate, who being hired to defend a cause, pleadeth for the adverse party: for so doth he, who being specially chosen by his Majesty, to defend and maintain his Ecclesiastical Supremacy, doth covertly, and underhand betray him, M. Andrews doth underhand betray the King's cause. depriving him of all the spiritual power that the Parliament hath given him, and leaving him only the bare title without the effect; which kind of dealing, if it were but amongst friends and equals, were no less than treacherous and perfidious, and therefore what it is in a subject towards his Prince, especially in a man so much honoured & advanced by his Majesty, as M. Andrew's hath been, I leave it to the judgement of any indifferent man, but sure I am it cannot be counted the part of a good subject. 61. Neither can he be thought to be a good Enlish Protestant, for who knoweth not that the English Protestant differeth from all other Protestants of other Nations, especially in holding and maintaining the Ecclesiastical and spiritual Supremacy, that our Parliament first gave to King Henry the 8. which you see M. Andrews doth not, Why M. Andrew's is no good English Protestant. who (as I have said) hath so pared, shaved, and abridged it, that he hath made it nothing in effect, at least much less, and of far other condition than the Parliament ordained it. Whereby he is not only subject to the penalties of the Parliamental statutes, See constitut. and Canons Ecclesiastical, printed. by Rob. Barker, Anno. 1604. Can. 2. as a Traitor, but also incurreth the censure of excommunication imposed by a late Synodical constitution of the Bishops and Clergy of the Province of Canterbury, upon such, as impeach in any part, (saith the Canon) his majesties Regal supremacy in Ecclesiastical causes, restored to the Crown by the Laws of this Realm therein established, and so strict is the Canon against such people, that it ordaineth further, that they being excommunicated ipso facto, shall not be restored, but only by the Archbishop, after their repentance, and public revocation of their wicked error. So as this Canon, and all the rest made in that Convocation, being authorized by his Majesty, and published by his Regal authority, under the great Seal of England, I remit to the judgement of all true English Protestants, whether M. Andrews having incurred the censure of this Canon (and being consequently cut off from the union of their Congregation) can be a member of their body, or any other to them, than an Ethnic, or a Publican, until he have publicly revoked his error, and be absolved, and restored by the Archbishop. 62. And no marvel, seeing that he is (as it seemeth) so far from being an English Protestant (whatsoever he hath been heretofore) that he is now turned flat Puritan in this point, M. Andrew's seemeth to be turned Puritan, in the point of the K. Supremacy. allowing the King no more power over the Church then to maintain, and defend it, which is the very doctrine of the Puritans, who therefore do willingly swear obedience to their Princes for the defence, and conservation of the Church, as it appeareth by the Oath of the Puritans in Scotland, who swear thus: Quoniam percepimus Ecclesiae, & religionis nostrae tranquillitatem etc. Forasmuch as we perceive that the tranquillity, The Oath of the Puritans of Scotland, set forth in the year 1584. & stability of our Church, and religion doth depend on the health, and good government of his Majesty, as of the comfortable instrument of gods mercy, granted the Realm for the conservation of the Church, and the administration of justice amongst us; we do covenant, and promise with our heart, under the same Oath, subscription, and penalties, to defend his person, authority, and dignity, with our goods, bodies, and lives, for the defence of the Gospel of Christ, and the liberty of our Country. 63. Thus swear they, and no more teacheth M. Andrew's in substance, granting no other power to Kings over the Church, than they do, to wit, that Kings are but as Foster-fathers', & defenders of it. Wherein nevertheless this difference may be noted betwixt the Puritans and him, What difference may be noted betwixt M. Andrews and the Puritans. that they do believe it as a matter of faith (no less than we) whereas M. Andrew's is only persuaded that it is true, seeing that he placeth therein the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy, which he holdeth to be no matter of faith, and therefore if the said Supremacy consist only in the defence of the Church, (as it doth according to his doctrine) then both we, and the Puritans are better subjects than he, Both Catholics & Puritans are better Subjects then M. Andrews. because we believe the same to be a matter of faith, and consequently do think ourselves bound in conscience to maintain it, though it be with los●e of our lives, whereas he taking it to be but only a matter of persuasion, will not, by all likelihood, lose six pence to defend it. 64. Furthermore to show that he doth truly Puritanize in the point of the Supremacy, it is to be understood, that whereas the (a) Card. Apol. ca 1. pag. 10 Cardinal objecteth out of the Basilicon Doron of his Majesty, that the Puritans do not admit the King's Ecclesiastical primacy, because they introduce a certain parity into the Church, he (b) Andr. c. 1. p. 30. §. Postremo. answereth that albeit they maintain a parity a 'mongst themselves (rejecting the distinction of degrees of Bishops above Ministers or of one Minister, above another) yet they do not hold, that there is any parity betwixt the King, and them, but do admit and acknowledge his Supremacy over them; thus teacheth M. Andrews, and addeth presently after in the (c) Ibid §. Nec habet. next paragraph, that wheresoever the Religion is reform, the supreme temporal Magistrates have this Power, even this self same, which the King hath. So he, whereupon two things may be evidently gathered. The one, that the Puritans have the same doctrine concerning the Ecclesiastical primacy of temporal Princes, that is taught in all the reformed Churches, which indeed they also affirm of themselves. The other is, that the King hath no other Ecclesiastical power but the self same that the Puritans, and all the reformed Churches do grant to their temporal Magistrate. 65. But what the Puritans teach concerning this point, See c. 6. n. 78.79. you heard in the last Chapter by the testimony of M. Rogers, approved, and warranted by all the Clergy of England, to wit, that Princes must be servants to the Church, The Puritans doctrine concerning the King's subjection to their Presbytery. subject to the Church, submit their Sceptres to the Church, and throw down their Crowns before the Church, and that (as Beza testifieth) they cannot be exempted from this divine domination of the presbytery; whereupon I gather two things, the one, that the Supremacy which (as M. Andrews saith) the Puritans do acknowledge in the King, is to be understood only in temporal matters, wherein they do indeed admit him to be their supreme head, and Governor, though (as you see in M. Rogers) they hold him in spiritual matters to be wholly subject to the Presbytery. The other is, that all the reformed Churches are also of the same mind, seeing that they profess the same doctrine concerning the King's Ecclesiastical supremacy, that the Puritans do, as M. Andrews himself confesseth● whereupon it also followeth that the King's Majesty hath no spiritual power, or authority at all over the English Church, seeing that (by M. Andrew's his own confession) he hath no other power but that which the Puritans and the reformed Churches do admit in their temporal Princes. 66. Besides that, albeit we should grant, that the Puritans and reform Churches do allow the temporal Magistrate to have some power, and authority in Ecclesiastical matters, yet it is evident that they do not allow them that spiritual jurisdiction and authority, The pretended reformed churches do not allow in temporal Princes any such spiritual authority as our Parliaments have granted to our Kings. which our Parliaments have granted to our Kings, to wit, that all the spiritual power of the Church shall reside principally in them, and is to be deduced from them to the Church, as from the head to the body, & that they may give Dispensations, Licences, and Faculties in matters of Conscience, make Ecclesiastical Laws, give Commissions to consecrate Bishops, to excommunicate, interdict, suspend, censure, to visit & correct all Ecclesiastical Persons, and to reform all heresies, and abuses: this I say being a mere spiritual power, and exercised by our Kings in England (according to the grant of the Parliament) is not admitted, and much less practised in any of the reformed Churches, M. Andrews professing the doctrine of the Puritans and reform Churches concerning the King's supremacy denieth it to be spiritual. as all those know, who know any thing of their doctrine and practice. 67. Therefore whereas M. Andrews saith, that aswell the reformed Churches as the Puritans, do grant the self same authority to the temporal Prince, which our King hath, and exerciseth in England: he showeth evidently that in his opinion his Majesty hath no such spiritual jurisdiction, and authority as hath been granted him by our Parliament, for that (as I have said) the Puritans & reformed Churches (whose doctrine in this point he approveth) do not acknowledge any such spiritual authority in temporal Princes, but only a temporal power, and obligation to maintain, and defend the Church, so far forth as the same hath need of external, and human help, assistance, or defence, which is indeed the self same, & all that M. Andrew's (as you have heard (b) supr● nu. 47. before) alloweth to the King's Majesty, when he saith, that he is no otherwise over the Church, but as a foster-father & a tutor to nourish and defend it, and that the question of the King's Ecclesiastical supremacy concerneth (c) nu. 37. only the external government of the Church, M. Andrews no English Protestant but a flat Puritan. so far forth as it requireth, and admitteth human help and authority. So that you see M. Andrews is not in this point an English Protestant, but rather a flat Puritan. 68 And if this be now the common opinion of the Protestants in England (as M. Andrew's would have us to suppose) we may more truly say of them, The learned English Protestant's ashamed o● their wont doctrine concerning the Ecclesiastical supremacy of temporal Princes. than he said of the Puritans, dies diem docuit, & ex eo facti aequiores recognoverunt errorem suum: time hath taught them more wit, and so now they have recanted their error. And no marvel, seeing that their former doctrine is of itself so absurd, & hath been so canvased, & battered by Catholics, that they are worthily ashamed of it, especially such of them as, have any learning, or shame at all, for some no doubt there are of the ministry, that will not stick to defend it, or any thing else, how absurd soever it be, amongst whom M. Barlow may go for one, who in his Preambler Epistle to the ministers of Scotland, which I have mentioned before upon another occasion) is not ashamed to make the Pagan, See befor● nu. 35. & ● chap. 6. nu. 77. and Infidel emperors supreme heads of the Church, in the time of the Apostles, saying that S. Paul appealed to Caesar's judgement as the supreme, whereas Papists and Puritans will have the King to be but an honourable member, not a chief governor in the Churches of his dominions. So he. 69. Wherein two things are to be noted, the one that he doth ridiculously make the Pagan Emperors the chief members, that is to say, the heads, or governors of the Church, who nevertheless being idolaters, could not be so much as the meanest members thereof. The other, that he seemeth to make the King's Majesty no other wise chief governor in the Church, than they were, albeit I think he will not be so absurd, as to acknowledge any spiritual authority in them, M. Barl. seemeth to make the King head of the Church no otherwise than as the Pagan Emperors were. seeing they were altogether uncapable thereof, being as I have said, idolaters, enemies, and violent persecutors of the Church, and faith of Christ. So as hereby it appeareth that he also concurreth with M. Andrews to deprive his Majesty of all the spiritual jurisdiction, and authority which the Parliaments have granted to our Kings, and that consequently they are both of them in one predicament of disloyalty towards his Majesty, and defection from the wont Protestantisme of England, in the point of the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy. 70. Now then to conclude concerning them both, & all the premises, thou hast seen, good Reader, how well these two Prelates of the English Church do symbolize, & agree, not only in seeking to delude their Readers with divers lies, fraudulent shifts, and devices, but also in betraying their own cause, and fortifying ours which is so evident in them both, that they may well be accounted the most harmless, or rather the most propitious enemies that ever the Catholics had, and therefore may in some sort be compared to the Scorpion, which being a most venomous Serpent, M. Barlow and M. Andrews, like to the Scorpion, and why. yieldeth a sufficient remedy against his own poison, and so do they; for albeit they are replenished with venom, and malignity, yea and sting sometimes most maliciously, (not with solid arguments, but with spiteful gibes, and contumelious jests) yet their malice doth commonly carry with it the remedy of itself, being for the most part so manifest, and accompanied with such apparent falsehood, and evident folly, that no man of learning, and consideration can receive any harm thereby, but rather great benefit by the discovery of their imbecility, & the weakness of their cause● Seing they cannot otherwise defend it, then by such contumelious, and malicious proceedings. 71. Insomuch that the learned strangers, who read M. Andrew's his book in latin, The opinion of the learned strangers concerning M. Andrew's his books against Cardinal Bellarmine. and do consider withal the special choice that the English Clergy hath made of him to maintain the combat against Cardinal Bellarmine, in the eye, and view of the Christian world, do exceedingly wonder, as well at the penury of learned Divines in England, as at their want of judgement in venturing the credit of their cause, upon so weak a Champion, whose valour consisteth in nothing else, but in certain Thrasonical brags, Satirical scoffs, and a vain presumption of his latin style; M. Andrews gerally disliked for his obscurity● which nevertheless seemeth to learned men more fit for a Comical, or Satyriall Poet, then for a Doctor of Divinity; wherein also they observe such obsurdity● that they hold it for no less vicious in a Divine writing of matters in controversy, than it would be in an Orator or Advocate pleading a cause, in whom nothing is more requisite, than perspicuity: and therefore Quintilian greatly reprehendeth such as affecting an extraordinary brevity, necessaria subtrahunt verba etc. do leave out, saith he, necessary words. And (as if it were sufficient that they know their own meaning) care not whether others understand them or no. So saith Quintilian. 72. And truly the same is so well verified in M. Andrew's that he may justly say with the Poet dum brevis esse laboro obscurus fio, whiles I labour to be brief I become obseure, in so much that he is far more easy to be confuted, M. Andrew's compared for his obscurity to a fish called a Cuttle. then understood, seeming sometimes 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 always have some starting hole, or other, when he is pressed by his adversary; not unlike 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 liquor like ink, Plyn. l. 9 ca 29. wherewith she obscureth, and troubleth the water in such sort that she cannot be seen, and so the more easily escapeth. 73. Nevertheless M. Andrews reapeth not the like benefit by his obscurity, being discovered wheresoever he lurketh, and taken tardy at every turn, whereof sufficient experience hath been seen in these few points of his book, which I have had occasion to handle, being only such as are incident to matters treated in my Supplement, besides divers others of the same sort, which I am forced, for lack of time, to omit, wherein I might much more amply have displayed his insufficiency, falsity, and folly: and therefore I leave it to thee good Reader, to imagine what a number of absurdities, lies, frauds, and corruptions his whole work would afford, if it were well examined. 74 But now to end in no less charitable manner with him, A good advise for a friendly farewell to M. Andrews. than I did with M. Barlow, I will only wish him well to consider those few advyses which I gave to M. Barlow in the 8. last paragraphs of my (b) See sup. ca 8. nu. 100 & seq. Supplement, and to take them also as meant, and given to himself, to the end he may seriously reflect upon them, & specially upon his vain endeavours, and lost (c) Ibid. nu. 103. & 104. labour in impugning the Apostolic Roman Sea, weighing withal in what a dangerous, and miserable state he standeth, so long as he is separated from the union thereof, which I have there (d) Ibid. nu. 105. & seq. evidently showed by the testimony of the most ancient, and holy Fathers. Almighty God (of his infinite mercy) open his eyes that he may see it, and duly ponder our saviours most important advise, & golden lesson (f) Mat. 16. Mar. 8. Quid prodest homini etc. What doth it profit a man, if he gain all the world, and lose his own soul? FINIS. AN APPENDIX TOUCHING A Register alleged by M. Francis Mason, to prove THAT The first Protestant bishops, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, had a lawful Consecration. THIS Adjoinder being printed, and some copies ready to be divulged, it was my chance to understand by a Letter written to a friend of mine, that one M. Mason hath lately published a Book, Touching the cause and subject of this Appendix. wherein he pretendeth to answer the Preface to Fa. Persons his Discussion, especially concerning one point treated therein, to wit, the Consecration of the first Protestant Bishops in the reign of Queen Elizabeth: & further, that he indeauoureth to prove their consecration by a Register, testifying that 4. Bishops consecrated M. Parker, the first Archbishop of Canterbury in the said Queen's days; whereupon, if it be true, it must needs follow that all other Bishops consecrated after him, and his successors, even until this day, have some more show of lawful consecration, and succession, than the Catholics have hitherto known or imagined. 2. And therefore for as much, as not only the Author of the Preface to Fa. Persons his Discussion, but also myself in my Supplement, See Suppl. p. 208. nu. 3 Adioy●d. ca 10. nu. 35. and in this Adjoinder have constantly denied, that they had any such consecration, I thought good to stay the publication of this Adjoinder, until I had added thereto this brief Appendix concerning M. Masons pretended Register, left otherwise M. Barlow, and M. Andrew's may hold me to be sufficiently answered by M. Mason, and remit me to his Register for that point. Thou shalt therefore understand, Good Reader, that this our exception, touching the lawful vocation, and Consecration of the first Protestant Bishops in the late Queen's days, The exception taken by Catholik● to the first Protestant bishops in Q. Elizabeth● days, i● no new quarrel. is not a new quarrel now lately raised by us two only, (I mean the Author of the foresaid Preface, and myself) but vehemently urged divers times heretofore by many other Catholykes many years ago, yea in the very beginning of the late Queen's reign, as namely to omit others, by the two learned Doctors Harding, and Stapleton in their books against the Apology of the Ch●rch of England, M. jewel, and M. Horn, whom they pressed mightily with the defect of due vocation, and consecration, urging them to prove the same, and to show how, and by whom they were made Priests, and Bishops. 3. To which purpose M. D. Harding in his confutation of the Apology, D. Hard. confut. of the Apolog. par. 2. fol. 59 printed an. Dom. 1565. speaking to M. jewel the pretended Bishop of Salisbury, and having already proved, that he had no succession in his Episcopal function from the Apostles, saith thus: Therefore to go from your succession, to your vocation, how say you Sir? You bear yourself, D. Hardings' challenge to M. jewel concerning the consecration of the first Protestant Bishops. as though you were a Bishop of Salisbury; but how can you prove your vocation? By what authority usurp you the administration of doctrine, and Sacraments? What can you allege for the right, & proof of your ministry? Who hath called you? Who hath laid hands on you? By what example hath he done it? how, and by whom are you consecrated? Who hath sent you etc. So he. 4. In like manner M. Doctor Stapleton in his answer to M. jewels book entitled, D. Staplet. return of untru. fol. 130. lin. 26. A reply etc. saith thus: How chanced then M. jewel, that you and your fellows bearing yourselves for Bishops, have not so much as this congruity, D. Stapletons' challenge to M. jewel, and M. Horn touching their consecration. and consent, I will not say of the Pope, but of any Christian Bishop at all throughout all Christendom, neither are liked, and allowed of any one of them all, but have taken upon you that office without any imposition of hands, without all Ecclesiastical authority, without all order of Canons and right? I ask not who gave you bishoprics, but who made you Bishops etc. So he. Who also in his Counterblast against M. Horn the pretended Bishop of Winchester, saith to him thus: It is not the Princes only pleasure that maketh a Bishop, Idem counterblast fol. 301. but there must be both free election, without either forcing the Clergy to a choice, or forcing the chosen to filthy bribery, and also there must follow a due consecration, which you, and all your fellows do lack, and therefore you are indeed (by the way to conclude it) no true Bishops, An. 1. Elizab. ca 1. neither by the law of the Church, neither yet by the laws of the Realm, for want of due consecration, expressly required by an act of Parliament renewed in this Queen's days in suffragan Bishops, much more in you. Thus saith M. Stapleton, which I have laid down at large in his own words, together with the like out of D. Harding before, to the end it may appear how earnestly they pressed M. jewel, & M. Horn (who were two of the first pretended Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's time) to show from whom, and by whom, they had their vocation, and consecration. 5. And what, M. Horn answered nothing concerning his consecration. trow you, was answered thereto? was there any Bishop named who had consecrated them? were there any witnesses alleged of their consecration? was M. Masons register, or any other authentical proof thereof produced, either by M. jewel, or M. Horn? jewel defence of the Apology pag. 130. No truly; for as for M. Horn he never replied, or any man for him, for aught I ever heard. And M. jewel though he took upon him to answer it, yet did it so weakly, coldly, and ambiguously, that he sufficiently fortified and justified his adversaries objection. 6. For whereas D. Harding had demanded of him how he could prove that he was a Bishop● who had called him, who had laid hands on him, and who had consecrated him; he answered, that he was a Bishop by the free, and accustomed Canonical election of the whole Chapter of Salisbury, M. jewels ambiguous and weak answer touching his lawful consecration. but to the question how he was consecrated, or by whom, he answereth no otherwise, then thus, Our Bishops are made, saith he, in form and order, as they have been ever, by free election of the Chapter, by consecration of the Archbishop, and 3. other Bishops, wherein you see, he saith not, I was made, or we were made, by the consecration of the Archbishop, and 3. other Bishops (as he should have said, to answer directly to the question) but our Bishops are made etc. declaring directly, and truly nothing else, but the custom that then was received, and used amongst them, for the making of Bishops, which was not denied, or doubted of by D● Harding, neither was it any thing at all to the purpose, because the same concerned not the institution, and consecration of M. jewel himself, or the first pretended Bishops, and much less did it concern the ordination, and consecration of their Archbishop, which as M. jewel could not but know, most imported to be declared. 7. For albeit it should be true, that the Archbishop, and 3. others consecrated M. jewel himself, and the rest, How much it imported M. jewel to have proved the consecration of their Archbishop. yet if the said Archbishop, and those three others, had themselves no consecration, neither they, nor any other ordained by them were Bishops; and therefore this was the difficulty which M. jewel should principally have cleared, as M. Doctor Harding afterwards in his detection told him roundly, saying thus: And how I pray you was your Archbishop himself consecrated? what 3. Bishops in the realm were there to lay hands upon him? You have now uttered a worse case for yourselves, Doct. Har. detect. fol. 234. p. 2. than was by me before named, for your Metropolitan, who should give authority to all your consecrations, himself had no lawful consecration. If you had been consecrated after the form, and order which hath ever been used, ye might have had Bishops out of France to have consecrated you, in case there had lacked in England. But now there were ancient Bishops enough in England, who either were not required, or refused to consecrate you, which is an evident sign that you sought not such a consecration, as had been ever used, but such a one, whereof all the former Bishops were ashamed. Thus saith D. Harding. 8. Now then, good Reader, I wish here certain things to be considered, first, that this controversy betwixt D. Harding, and M. jewel, was thus debated, as you have heard, in the very beginning of the Queen's reign, not past 5. or 6. years after the institution of those first pretended Bishops, as it may appear by Doctor Hardings' confutation of the Apology, printed in the year of our Lord 1565. and by Doctor Stapletons' Return of untruths, printed the year following. 9 Secondly I wish it well to be weighed, whether it be probable, that these two learned men (Doctor Harding, and Doctor Stapleton) would have objected to M. jewel, and M. Horn, this defect of their consecration in printed books, so confidently, and resolutely, as they did, if they had not been well assured of it, especially them, when their consecration would have been so fresh in memory (if they had been consecrated at all) that the deniers of it might have been convinced by multitudes of witnesses to their perpetual shame. 10. Thirdly, Touching M. jewels irresolute ambiguous & indirect answer. let it be considered, whether M. jewel being expressly demanded, and urged to show who consecrated him and his fellows, would have answered so irresolutly, ambiguously, and indirectly as he did, if he could have proved their consecration either by witnesses, or by Registers, or any other authentical proof; to which purpose it is also to be noted, that he made no doubt at all, to speak resolutely, and clearly of his election, because it was true, and evident, that he was chosen by the Chapter of Salisbury, How much it imported the first Protestant Bishops to have had a public & most solemn Consecration. & therefore for that point he boldly appealed to D. Hardings' own knowledge. And would he not trow you, have spoken as resolutely & clearly of his consecration, if he could have produced the like proof thereof, or any other probability at all? especially seeing that it was the point which was then chiefly in question? nay would not he have cried shame on D. Harding for denying, or calling in question a matter that must needs have been most notorious at the sane time if there had been any such thing at all? For besides that the consecration of Bishops is always wont to be done in public, who knoweth not that it greatly imported those new pretended Bishops, for the credit of their cause, & honour of all their future Clergy, to have been consecrated with all the publicity, and solemnity in the world, if they could have had any show of lawful consecration, espicially by 4. Bishops, as M. Masons register reporteth? How improbably M. Mason affirmeth out of his Registers that 4. Bishops consecrated M. Parker the first Archbishop. 11. Neither can it be imagned that M. D. Harding would have been so inconsiderate as to demand of M. jewel expressly, what three Bishops in the Realm were to lay hands upon him (meaning Protestant Bishops) if there had been 4. it being a thing whereof neither he, nor any man else could have been ignorant at that time, if there had been so many, the persons themselves being then all alive by all lyklyhood when D. Harding wrote this, which was within 6. or 7. years after this pretended consecration; at least if any of them should have been dead, the memory of them would have been so fresh, that M. jewel might, and no doubt would, not only have named them, How little credit M. Masons newfound Register deserveth. but also have appealed to the knowledge, and testimony of hundreds of witnesses, who must needs have known them, and remembered, this pretended Consecration; which was as I have said so constantly denied by Catholics at the same time, that it highly imported M. jewel, and his fellows to lay down their best, and most substantial, and authentical proofs of it, for the defence of their own honour and credit of their whole Clergy and Cause. 12. This then being so, I report me to the judgement of any indifferent man, what credit M. Masons new found register deserveth, being produced now after fifty and odd years to testify this consecration, Andr. Resp. ad Apol. p. 41. §. proximi. whereof not so much as any one witness was named, nor any register pretended by those whom it most imported to prove it, within 5. or 6. years after it was supposed to be done. Barl. answ● to a name. Catholic p. 283. 13. And therefore seeing it pleaseth M. Andrew's to say of S. Ephraems Tomes translated by Vossius, that they are Crypticae fidei, With how great reason exception is to be taken to M. Masons Register until he show it to catholics, who may give testimony of it. because they were found in Crypta ferrata, and M. Barlow in his pleasant humour jesteth at an Author alleged by Cardinal Baronius out of a manuscript, calling him a Corner-creeping relator, and a Vatican deske-creeper; as also others of our adversaries are wont to reject what soever we allege out of the manuscripts of the Vatican, & other Libraries, upon no better ground, but because they will needs have an uncharitable, or rather malicious conceit, and imagination of fraudulent dealing in us; I hope it will not seem to any reasonable man, unreasonable, or strange, that upon so good ground, and reason, as I have here declared, I take a main exception to this Register of M. Masons, until he, or some of his fellows do show the same to some learned, discreet, and sincere Catholics, who upon the view, and due consideration thereof, may give judgement, and testimony of the truth, and validity of it. What is to be considered in M. Masons Register to make it authentical. 14. For I doubt not but that it will easily appear, whether it be an old, and authentical Register, as well by the antiquity of the book, and letter, and the formalities requisite thereto, as also by the matters antecedent, and consequent to this pretended Consecration. For as there were many things, no doubt, done before, worth the Registering, so also divers things have passed since in the space of 55. years, which willbe found in their due order & place, whereby the validity of the pretended Register may be the more easily discerned; therefore I say, let it be showed, and in recompense thereof I promise as well in my own behalf, as for other Catholics here in Rome, that if any English Protestant come hither, (as many do daily) and shall desire to see any manuscript in Rome alleged by any Catholic author, we will procure him ample satisfaction therein, and do him what other service we may, An offer to show any manuscript in Rome to English Protestant's. as we are wont to do to all our loving countrymen that come into these parts; which many Noblemen, and Gentlemen of great reputation, and some of the greatest, (who have received courtesy, and service at our hands) may, and no doubt will testify. And thus much I have thought good to say to M. Masons Register in general, leaving the particular examination, and answer thereof to such Catholics as shall have the sight of it, and occasion withal to treat of the matter which it handleth, as I doubt not, but some will have, ere it be long. Faults escaped in the Printing. Pag. 22. lin. 12. much confirmed by these very places etc. sic corrig● much confirmed even by those Fathers, to wit, S. Augustine etc. Also in the marginal note, which is, The places of 3. Fathers alleged etc. corrige, The 3. Fathers alleged etc. Pag. 24 lin. 12. So that saith this famous, deal, that. Pag. 31. lin. 11. of the City, read of, that City. Pag 40. lin. 16. saying, read suing, Pag. 48. lin. penult from the subjection of the Church to the Roman Sea, read, from subjection to the Roman Sea. Pag. 69. lin 12. out of the book, read, out of the backside of the book, Pag. 75. lin. 28. I have also showed, read, where I have also showed Pag 130. lin. 11. notice, read, motiue● Pag. 139. lin. 11. schism; and thereby etc. read, schism, which (as you have heard) M. Andrew's himself confesseth; and thereby etc. Pag. 140. lin. 2. break, read, breaking, Pag. 142. lin. 4. favour, read, fervour. Pag. 143. lin. 13. Power of the Church, read, Pastor of the Church. Pag. 147. lin. 24. where it is said, as S. Fulgentius S. Augustine's scholar and others, those words must be placed in the margin for a citation, thus: See S. Fulgentius etc. Pag. 191. lin. 11. saith S. Augustine, read, saith of S. Augustine, Pag. 238. lin. 22. which faith, read, with faith. Pag. 268. lin. 24. unswerable, read, unanswerable. Pag. 378. lin. 18 seem, read, seen. Pag. 380. lin. ult. taught, read, caught Pag. 383. lin. 1. when in it is, read, when it is. Pag. 395. lin. 1. quod per, read, quos per. Pag. 418. lin. 21. by noted, read, be noted. A TABLE OF THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS HANDLED IN THIS ADJOINDER. A ADORATION diversly mentioned in Scripture. 371.373.376. S. Ambrose his proof of S. Peter's Supremacy out of the words Pasce oves meas. pag. 8. abused by M. Andrews, 281.282.283 Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople censured by Pope Leo. p. 62.63. His submission, p. 65. M. Andrew's his abuse of S. Augustin & S. Ambrose, p. 5.6.7. 8.18.415. His vain brags, p. 9 his beggarly proof of Princes spiritual Supremacy, p. 12. savours of judaism ibid. His egregious equivocation, pag. 13. confounded by his own Instance, pag. 14. How he is a pecuniary Pastor, pag. 16. His abuse of S. Cyril, pag. 19 His shuttlecocks & fools bolts, pag. 24. His abuse of the Law Inter Claras, p. 33.34.35. & 38. His belying and corrupting the Council of Chalcedon, pag. 40.43. & 82. his Gallimaufry or hoch-potch pag. 79. his strange paradox, pag. 75. His straining of the Greek texts ib. His cause overthrown by himself. pag 89. his seared conscience p. 97. His foolish Gloss, & fraud upon S. Cyprian, pag. 102.105. etc. His abuse of Cardinal Bellarmine, pag. 113.116.117.355. His profession of jovianisme 120. His idle head, pag. 130. His impertinent trifling pag. 1●8. His trifling tale of Latino's. pag. 144 His zeal greater than his wit, pag 154. His Transmarinus Nemo, pag. 162. His Father a Father of lies, 192. proved a wrangler, cap. 5. & 6. pertotum. he overthroweth all subordination in the Church, 198. His petty frauds, 202. his fantastical conceits, 203. His dull head, 204. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 207.360. greatly troubled with little words. 208. His ●igh● in the air, pag ●09. A pecuniary Pastor, 210. Confuteth himself, 220. A mere wrangler, pag. 222.268. His inference of Quidlibet ex Quolibet, pag. 233. His cryptical Cavil against S. Ephrem. 23●. His Goggery. pag. 241. His abuse of S● Epiphanius. 254. Of S. Ambrose, 269. His evil fortune, 274. His clipping & paring of Father's authorities when they make against him 278. His confusion of the Priest with the people, Mass with Matins etc. 298. His abuse of Theodoret, 307. his scrupulosity in alleging of authorities, 323. Pressed with his own Argument, 324. Proveth himself a jew, 325. His transgression of the Synodical Canons of England. 333. His silly discourse about prayer to Saints 337. Prodigal of his Rhetorick● 343. Wrongeth his Majesty, 349. His erring of malice ●56. His trifling objections, 357.358.359. His changing the state of the Question about the Pope's Primacy, 362. Concerning holy relics, 368. His poor conceit of S. john the Evangelist, 370. A jest of his spoiled, 374. Triumpheth when he looseth, 377. His Dissimulation of matters that most import to be explicated 386.388. His want of paper in text & margin to set down the truth 394. His Lucidum interuallum, 405. His abuse of S. Gregory 407. his bad conscience 412. His outfacing of matters when he cannot answer, 418. His abuse of the jesuits, 425.426. He trieth how near he can go to the Catholic Religion & miss it, 430.431. his poor conceit of the K. Ecclesiastical Supremacy, 459. How it may be in his Pater noster, but not in his Creed, 460. Excluded by M. Andrews, 467. from his Majesty 471. How he is turned Puritan, pag. 477.480. Angel in the Apocalyps for bad S. john to adore him & why? pag. 370. Appeals to Rome, pag. 155. by Anthony Bishop of Fussula, 160. allowed by the Primate of Numidia, 164. testified by S. Augustine and others, pag. 165. by S. john Chrysostome, 184. S. Augustine abused by M. Andr. p● 4.5.6. his acknowledgement & respect of S. Peter's Supremacy p. 17. p. 150.159.167.189. his approving of prayers to Saints 296.297.298. Authority of the Sea of Rome in all ages, p. 169.170.173.180.181.188. proved by all the ancient Fathers, passim. by Origen, 198. by S. Hilary, 189.200. Author's reason and intention of this Book p. 2.3. what question handled therein. ibid. pag. 4. B M. BARLOW and M. Andrew's disagree about our English Clergies government, 422. S. Basils' discourse of prayer to Saints 218. of Invocation of Martyrs. 223. Beggary of the Church & Clergy of England, 457. Ca Bellarmine abused by M. Andrew's & cleared pag. 108.221. 355. his meaning about our prayers to Saints, and their praying for us explicated, 215. Bishops of the East-church deposed by the Pope pag● 53. C CHRIST our Mediator & Advocate, 339. S. Chrisostome proveth S. Peter's Supremacy pag. 22. & 142. His appeal to Pope Innocentius 184. His testimony for invocation of Saints. 244. Church of the East subject to the West, pag. 49. Church why it is called one Mother pag. 105. built equally upon the Apostles, pag. 144. how it only challengeth the name Catholic 451. Church of England beggarly, 457. Collyridians their heresy, 255. Constantinople subject to the Church of Rome, pag. 50. God's judgement upon that Church for her schism, pag. 54. Constitutions of the pretended Bishops of England, pag. 330. convinced of fraud by his Majesty 332. Conference at Hampton-Court before his Majesty. 332. L. Cromwell Vicar General to K. Henry 8. in spiritualibus 469. Council of Chalcedon approved the Pope's Supremacy, pag. 39.40. Council of Ephesus & head thereof 187. Counsels why assembled, pag 227. Council of Loadicea forbiddeth Idolatry to Angels 308. Customs Ecclesiastical of what force & validity pag. 293. S. Cyprian proveth the unity of the Church by the unity of the head thereof 101.104. also the Primacy of S. Peter. pag. 106. S. Cyril acknowledged S. Peter's Supremacy. pag. 17. abused by M. Andrew's pag. 19 D DAMASUS Pope what authority attributed to him by S. Hierome pag. 173. Difference between the Primacy of S. Peter, and the privileges granted to the Roman Sea. 83. Dignity of God's grace increaseth the value of merit. 437. Dioscorus Patriarch of Constantinople deprived by Pope Leo. p. 94. E S. EPHREM calumniated by M● Andrews 239. S. Epiphanius abused by M. Andrew's, 254. Equality how it is sometimes to be understood, pag. 45.46. Equality of obligation requireth equality of care, pag. 80. F FATHERS of the Church abused, misconstrued, belied and falsified by M Andrew's. pag. 5.6.7.18.19.415. & passim. Father of Lies M. Andrew's his Father, 192. Fall of S. Peter no prejudice to his Primacy. pag. 148.149.150. Francis, vide Mason. G F. GARNET impudently belied by M. Andrew's 247. Grace of Christ worketh a true inherent justification in us. pag. 391. H HERETICS the later follow the elder. pag. 152. Heresy to condemn prayer to Saints, 249. Heresy of the Collyridians, 255. Heretics their tricks to overthrow plain places by obscure. 279. S. Hierome abused by M. Andrew's, pag. 113. how he acknowledgeth S. Peter's Supremacy pag. 119. His contradiction of Vigilantius for denying prayer to Saints, p. 228. S. Hilaryes proof for S. Peter's Primacy, pag. 199.200. I IDOLATRY of the Phrygians done to Angels 310. jesuits belied by M. Andrew's for not synning. 425. Images of Saints used in the Church, 264. approved by S. Gregor. Nissen. ibid. Invocation of him in whom we believe, how it is meant by S. Paul pag. 213. Invocation of Martyrs, ●23. miraculous effects thereby 225. not confirmed by any decree in the primitive Church & why? p. 227. warranted by S. Chrisostome pag. 244. Universal in his time, 245. How the belief thereof is necessary to salvation 248. approved by S. Gregory Nazianz. 253. by Nissen. 264. practised by Theodosius the Emperor, 286. defended by S. Paulinus, 295. by S. Augustine 296. impugned by Protestants, 336.337. Justinian the Emperor his law for the Pope's Supremacy, pag. 25. His facts against two Popes examined & reproved pag. 30. His ignorance, pag. 32. His death and repentance, pag. 33.36.37. K keys and Pastoral Commission given to S. Peter not mentioned in the Canon of the Council of Constantinople, pag. 84. King's never came to the Government of the Church 464. Excluded by a Rule of M. Andrew's, 465. King of England taketh his power Ecclesiastical from the Parliament. 468. L LAW of Moses, how Christians may ground thereon. p. 11. P. Leo his controversy with Martian the Emperor and Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, pag. 62.63.64.70.72.73. His primacy acknowledge by the Council of Chalcedon. 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 Bishop's confuted. In appendice per totum. Martian the Emperor his controversy with Pope Leo, pag. 61. Martyrs invocated 223. miraculous effects thereby 225. S. Maximus B. of Turin his homiles of Saints, pag. 205. Merits of Christ how we are saved by them 342. Merit of good works granted by M. Andrew's 434.436. Miracles in the Cath. Church done at the Relics of Saints 443. at Valentia in Spain ibid. None wrought in the Protestant's Church & why ibid. Monks of the Primitive Church & their discipline .449. their first Institute approved by M. Andrews 448. N NAME Catholic belongeth only to the Roman Church 451. S. Greg. Nazianz. his approbation of prayer to saints. pag. 253. to our B. Lady. ibid. S. Greg. Nissen his approbation of holy relics in the Church, 264. of prayer to Saints ibid. His prayer to S. Theodor the Martyr, 267. O OATH of Supremacy, why it is unlawful, 461. Origen his proof of S. Peter's Primacy, 198. P PASTORS their obligation of care of their Churches, pag. 76.78. Prayer to saints approved by S. Basil 218. Impugned by Protestants 336.337. conform to Scripture & deduced from it 344. Power over the soul, implieth power over the body. pag. 126. Privileges granted to the Church of Constantinople. pag. 44.45.46. Abrogated by Pope Leo pa. 47. Puritan their Doctrine concerning the kings Supremacy, 419. How some of them take the Oath of Supremacy, 420. S. Peter how he bore the person of the Church when he received the Keys, pag. 5. His Supremacy grounded upon the words Pasce oves 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. john & why. pag. 118, How he may be called a Monarch pag. 134. His fall no prejudice to his Primacy, pag. 148. Q QUEEN Elizabeth her spiritual Government given unto her by the Parliament 476. R RELIQVES of Saints used in the Church, 284. approved by S. Gregory Nissen. ibid. M. Rogers against M. Andrews concerning our English Clergy, 422 423. Roman Church never failed in Faith by God's providence pag. 124. S SAINTS prayed unto in all ages, passim. how they hear our prayers and help us, pag. 288. how they know our prayers and actions, 291.318.319. practised in the primitive Church 334. impugned by Protestants out of Scripture 336.337. How they help us by the participation of Christ's power, 347. Protectors of Cities & Countries, ibid. Schism whence it commonly ariseth, pag. 125. Sign of the Cross in Baptism 334.336. Sermons de tempore in Latin and Greek in S. Augustine's time pag. 146. by S. Maximus Bishop of Turin. 205. Silverius the Pope his usage by Theodora, and justinian, pag. 32.33. defended by the Bishop of Patera, 24.35.36. Speeches conditional do not always suppose a doubt in the Speaker. 261. Supremacy of S. Peter grounded upon the words Pasce oves meas, pag. 8. proved by S. Chrisostome, 142. Supremacy Ecclesiastical of the King of England and M. Andrews conceit thereof .459, excluded by a Rule of M. Andrew's 465. T THEODOSIUS the Emperor invocated Saints pag. 286. particularly S. john Baptist. ibid. Theodoretus restored to his Bishopric by Pope Leo pag. 59 Abused by Master Andrew's, 307. Theodora the Empress her practice against Pope Silverius, pag. 31. Tyranny more frequent in small States, then in great Monarchies. pag. 130. V VIGILANTIUS his heresy against prayer to Saints pag. 228. resisted by S. Hierome ibid. 377.378.379. M. Andrews his progenitor. 377. Universal Bishop the title given to the Pope by the Council of Chalcedon, pag. 68 Votive representations of hands, feet, eyes etc. hung up in Churches, in the Primitive Church 2●0. W WORKS● good Works how the are said to save us. 272. Writers of divers parts of Scripture uncertain, pag 250. FINIS.