WHEN I had well-neere ended my Supplement, and already sent away the greatest part of it to the print, it was my chance to haue a sight of M. D. Andrewes his Answere to Car­dinall Bellarmines Apology; and con­sidering that the subiect thereof was in effect the same [Page 2] that Father Persons, The rea­son that moued the Author to adde this Adioyn­der to the former Suplemēt. and I had handled, and debated with M. Barlow; I easily perswaded my selfe that I should find many things treated by M. Andrewes, which I had touched in my Supplement. In which respect I de­termined to take a speedy Suruey of his worke; and finding that he pretended now and then to answere some places, authorities, and arguments which had bene obiected, as well by me, as by the Cardinall, I resol­ued to examine, and confute his Answers, in respect not only of my selfe, but also of the most Worthy Car­dinall; not for that I thinke he needeth any defence, (who like an inexpugnable fortresse trenched on euery side, and fortified with bulwarks of truth, doth of himselfe sufficiently resist the assaults, and daunt both the courage and force of his enemies) but that in dis­charge of the obligation which all true Christians owe him, for his singular merits towards the Church of Christ, I may for my part, out of my pouerty, pay with the poore widdow, my two mytes; and therfore ha­uing offered one of them in my Supplement, I thinke good now to add the other; and the rather, for that I hope by the same meanes to preuent the Cauills of my Aduersary M. Barlow, who otherwise might perhaps in his reply (if he be disposed to make any) blame me, for not taking notice of such a worthy work (as that of M. Andrewes) and eyther turne me ouer to him for satisfaction touching those points, or els make vse of his answers himselfe; which being esteemed as a pre­cious fruite of the fine wit and curious pen of the greatest Rabbin in the English Synagogue, are held (no doubt) by his friends, and followers for no other then oracles of Apollo, I meane, both infallible and irre­fragable: for which cause I am the more willing to en­ter [Page 3] into the examination of them. And therefore to the end thou mayst, The Au­thors in­tention in this Ad­ioynder. good Reader, know how far I meane to proceed therin, thou shalt vnderstād, that seeing my Supplement is already vnder the presse, and that I haue no more tyme to bestow on this Adioynder, but vntill the said Supplement be printed, I make account, that I shall haue opportunity to handle but a few points: in which respect I think good, to make choyce of such on­ly as concerne some of the most important matters, cō ­trouersed betwixt M. Barlow, & me, not doubting but that the same shall suffice to shew ex vngue Leonem, that is, to giue the Reader an aboundant tast and tryall of M. Andrews his good spirit, and sincerity in the defence of his cause.

1. Well then to come to the matter. For as much as one of the chiefest points debated in my Supplement What question is specially handled in this Ad­ioynder. (by occasion of the new Oath) is the question con­cerning the supreme and vniuersall Authority of the Apostolike Roman Sea (which authority I deduced specially from the Pastorall commission giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter) I thinke good to examine of what worth, Supplemēt chap. 1. nu. 58.59. & seq. and weight M. Andrewes his Answeres are touching the same, especially in his 16. & 17. page, where he laboureth seriously to proue three wayes a­gainst Cardinall Bellarmine, that our Sauiours words to S. Peter, D. Andr. Respons. ad Apolog. ca. 1. pag. 16. Pasce oues meas (alleaged, and learnedly vr­ged by the Cardinall) do make nothing for vs.

2. First, he saith, that S. Augustine affirmeth that S. Peter had no peculiar increase by the word Pasce, and that S. Ambrose affirmeth the like of the words oues meas. And to the end that this may appeare, he pre­tendeth to lay downe the very words of those two Fa­thers. Aug. de Agon. Christ. c. 30. Of S. Augustine thus; Cùm Petro dicitur, ad omnes [Page 4] dicitur, Ambros. de sacerd. dignitate cap. 20. Pasce oues meas: when it is said to Peter, it is said to all, Feed my sheep. Of S. Ambrose thus: Eas oues non solùm Beatus suscepit Petrus, sed & nobiscum eas sus­cepit, & nos cum illo accepimus omnes. Those sheep not only the blessed Peter receaued, but also he receaued them with vs, and we all receaued them with him. And then M. An­drewes addeth: Nempe dictum illi Pasce &c. for it was said vnto him, Feed, as well in the person of others, as in his owne, at (que) vel sic iacebit Cardinali ratio sua: and so shall the Cardinalls reason serue him to no purpose. Thus argueth he.

3. But to the end, thou maist ( good Reader) see, and note with what fidelity and conscience this man alledgeth the Fathers, I will lay downe the place of S. Augustine somewhat more amply then he hath done, S. Augu­stine lame­ly and fraudulēt­ly alled­ged by M. Andrews. whereby thou shalt easily discouer his notable fraud. S. Augustine in the place alledged by him saith thus: Non enim sine causa inter omnes Apostolos &c. For not without cause doth Peter sustayne the person of the Catholike Church amongst all the Apostles, for to this Church the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen were giuen, when they were giuen to Peter, August. vbi supra. and when it is said to him, Doest thou loue me? Feed my sheep, it is said to all, and therefore the Ca­tholick Church ought willingly to pardon her Children when they are corrected, and strengthned in piety, seeing we see, that to Peter himselfe, bearing the person of the Church, par­don was granted both when he had doubted vpon the sea &c. and when he had thrice denyed his Maister &c. Thus saith S. Augustine, declaring that Pasce oues (which our Sauiour said to S. Peter) was said to all the Church, because S. Peter bare the person of the Church: Which he did, by reason of the supreme authority that he had ouer the Church.

4. For else why should rather he, then others of [Page 5] the Apostles be said to represent the whole Church, but because he was Head or supreme Gouernour therof; Cic. offic. l. 1. which we may learne euen in Cicero, How S. Peter did beare the person of the Chu­rch when he recea­ued the keyes. who saith that, Est proprium munus Magistratus &c. It is the proper office or duty, of the Magistrate, to vnderstand that he beareth the person of the Citty. So he; speaking of the chiefe or supreme Magistrate: wherby it appeareth, that what­soeuer is giuen to the King, as King, and Head of the Common-wealth, the same is giuen to the Common-wealth, wherof he beareth and representeth the person: and so in like manner what was giuen to S. Peter as Head of the Church, the same was giuen 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 euery particuler Bishop, in respect of the particuler Church which he gouer­neth. So also is it most truly verified in the supreme and vniuersall Pastour, in respect of the whole Church whereof he is Head.

5. That this was S. Augustines meaning, it is e­uident by his owne doctrine in other places, S. Augu­stines meaning de­clared out of his owne do­ctrine. where he sheweth plainly, that S. Peter bare 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 &c. Of which Church Peter in respect of the primacy of his Apostleship, did beare the person, Tract. vlt. in Ioan. figuring, or representing the generality therof. For if we respect what did belong properly to himselfe, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, and by a more a­boundant grace, vnus, idem (que) primus Apostolus, one, & he the chiefe Apostle: but when it was said vnto him, Tibi dabo claues, I will giue thee the keyes &c. he signified the [Page 6] vniuersall Church. Thus saith S. Augustine, teaching euidently, that S. Peter bare the person of the Church, by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship, that is to say, because he was the chiefe Apostle; which the same ho­ly Father signifieth also more plainly in another place, saying, Idem in Ps. 108. Cuius Ecclesiae ille agnoscitur gessisse personā propter Primatum quem in Discipulis habuit: Of which Church he is acknowledged to haue borne the person for the Primacy, which he had amōgst the Disciples. And to the same purpose he saith also elswhere, Idem ser. 13. de verb. Dom. Petrus à petra cognominatus &c. Pe­ter taking his name from a Rock, was happy, bearing the figure of the Church, hauing the principality of the Apostleship.

6. Loe then, for what cause S. Augustine said, that when Christ gaue to S. Peter the keyes of heauen & pa­storall authority to feed his sheep, M. An­drewes fraud a­gainst the intention of S. Au­gustine. he gaue the same to all the Church, to wit, because S. Peter hauing the prin­cipality, or primacy of the Apostolicall dignity (and being consequently chiefe Pastor, and head of the Church) did beare, and represent the person, or figure of the whole Church. So that you see the place which M. Andrewes bringeth out of S. Augustine against the Primacy of S. Peter, maketh notably for it, if it be considered with the circumstances therof, which he cunningly, and craftily concealed. But in the other place which he ci­teth out of S. Ambrose, he is more fraudulent, hauing plainly corrupted the text, which as it is in S. Ambrose, is very conforme to this doctrine of S. Augustine, signi­fying nothing else but that all the lawfull Pastors in Gods Church, S. Ambr. de Sacerd. dignit. c 1. receaued their Pastorall authority ouer their flocks, with S. Peter: and therfore he saith, Quas oues, & 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 receaued, but as so [Page 7] we all receaued them with him. Thus saith S. Ambrose, which all Catholikes do graunt and teach in like mā ­ner, because (as I haue said) S. Peter representing the person of the whole Church (wherof he was head) re­ceaued not that Pastorall authority for himselfe 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 receaued their autho­rity with him, though not in equall degree (as M. An­drews would haue it) who therfore bodgeth into S. Am­brose his text, these words of his owne, Et nobiscum eas suscepit: and he (that is to say S. Peter) receaued those sheep with vs; as if S. Ambrose should meane, that S. Pe­ter had no prerogatiue in that point, but that he and o­ther Pastors receaued them all alike, he with them, & they with him; for to that purpose doth M. Andrewes also alledge the words of S. Ambrose afterwards, in a different letter thus: Andr. ca. 3. pag. 74. § Verum Et ille nobis [...]um, & nos cum illo oues illas pascendas suscepimus, which manner of speach doth indeed inforce a greater equality betwixt S. Peter, and other Pastors, then the true words of S. Ambrose do im­port, or then he euer did imagine, who taught expresly elswhere the Primacy of S. Peter, not only aboue all other inferiour Pastors, but also aboue the Apostles them­selues, saying, Ambr. in 2. Cor. 12. that albeit Andrew was called before Pe­ter, yet Primatum non accepit Andraeas, sed Petrus: Andrew did not receaue the Primacy, but Peter: yea, & in another place he proueth it by these very words of our Sauiour, which are now in question, to wit, P [...]sce oues meas.

8. For hauing said, that our Sauiour asked Peter thrice whether he loued him ( not to learne, Idē lib. 10. cōment. in cap. 24. Euāg. Luc. saith he, a­ny thing of him, but to teach him, whom he meant to leaue to vs, velut amoris sui Vicarium, as the Vicar of his loue) he [Page 8] alleageth our Sauiours words to S. Peter, S. Am­brose pro­ueth S. Peters Su­premacy out of the wordes Pasce oues meas. to wit, Si­mon the sonne of Iohn, doest thou loue me &c. Pasce agnos meos, feed my Lambes, 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 loue, he is preferred before them all: and after a whyle he concludeth, that our Lord asked him the third tyme, whether he loued him: Et iam, saith he, non agnos, vt primò, quodam lacte p [...]scendos &c. And now Peter is commaunded, not to feed Lambs with a certayne milke, as the first time, nor to feed the little sheep, as the second tyme, but, oues pascere iubetur; perfectiores, vt per­fectior gubernaret, he is commaunded to feed the sheep; to the end that he being more perfect, might gouerne 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 Sauiour left S. Peter vnto vs, as the Vicar, or Substitute of his loue, that is to say to succeed him in that fatherly loue, & care of his Church which he himselfe had; the second, that when our Sa­uiour gaue to S. Peter the Pastorall commission, and authority to feed his Lambs, and sheep, he preferred him therin before all the rest of the Apostles; Quia solus (saith S. Ambrose) profitetur ex omnibus, omnibus antefertur: The third is, that wheras S. Ambrose obserueth three degrees of Christians, to wit Lambs, litle sheep, and sheep, all recommended to the Pastorall care of S. Peter, he giueth to vnderstand, that all sorts of Christians were committed to his charge, and gouernment, and not the weake only, but the most holy also, learned, and perfect, yea euen the Apostles themselues, and there­fore he saith: vt perfectiores perfectior gubernaret.

10. This then being S. Ambrose his sense, and [Page 9] doctrine concerning the Pastorall cōmission giuen to S. Peter, it is most euident, that when he teacheth that all Pastours receaued their flocks with S. Peter, he teacheth it in the same sense that S. Augustine doth, to wit, that because S. Peter (being supreme Pastour) represented the whole Church, and receaued the Pa­storall authority not for himselfe alone, but also for all those who were eyther at that tyme, or euer should be subordinate vnto him, D. An­drews can help the dyce whē he is put to his shifts. therefore all other Pastours re­ceaued their authority not only in him (as S. Augustine speaketh) but also with him, that is to say, in, and with their chiefe Pastour, and head. And therefore, where­as D. Andrews, to make a greater shew of parity, or equality betwixt S. Peter, and other Pastors, hath ad­ded to S. Ambrose his text those words of his owne, & nobiscum eas accepit, it may passe for a piece of coggery, and well discouereth his skill to help the dyce when he is put to his shifts.

11. Besids that, his vanity and folly notably appea­reth, in that hauing gayned nothing, A vayne. brag of D. Andrews. but rather lost his cause by alledging 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 oues, was said in the singuler num­ber, and to one (to wit S. Peter) yet it passed to all, and that clariùs id loquuntur Ambrosius & Augustinus, quàm vt obstrepere possint nouitij nostri. Ambrose, and Au­gustine do speake (or affirme) it more plainly, then that our nouices can any way contradict it. So he; meaning by our nouices, the Catholiks, as I take it, though I know not why he so calleth them, neyther do I meane heere to dis­cusse it, but will remit to the indifferent Reader to iudge, what cause he hath so to brag of these two Fa­thers, [Page 10] and what fidelity he hath shewed in alledging them, dissembling the cleare doctrine of the one, and corrupting as well the text, as the sense of the other: and thus much for his first answere.

12. In his second, he seeketh to retort the Cardinals argument vpon him, The secōd argument & answer of M. An­drews which he taketh to be so sharp that it will prick the Cardinall. and to proue the Kings Suprema­cy by the word, pasce, which he saith he knoweth will touch the Cardinall to the quick: quod scio, saith he, punget Cardinalem. Let vs heare then this sharp argument which I thinke will proue a very blunt one. Thus then he saith: Negat Cardinalis Primatum Regis &c. The Car­dinall denieth the Kings 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. §. Verū vim videamꝰ. yea of the Priests, except he will deny them to be part of Israel. Thus argueth this learned and sharp Doctor, ouerthrowing his owne argument sufficiently by his owne conclusion, graunting 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 haue 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 Leuits from the temporall, and politike State, by the expresse words of Almighty God who gaue the Leuits (not to the temporall Prince, Num. c. 8. but) to Aaron and his children, tradidi eos dono Aaron, & fi­lijs eius de medio populi, I haue giuen them (saith Al­mighty God) for a gift to Aaron and his children, out of the midst of the people. Besides, that God ordayned expresly that the Tribe of Leui should not be numbred, Num. 1. nei­ther yet haue any part, or inheritance with the rest of Is­rael, because he had reserued the same for his owne [Page 11] seruice, and therfore would himselfe be their possession, Deut. 10. & 18. portion, and inheritance. So that this being very cleare in the expresse words of the Law, Supplem. c. 1. n. 22.23. & 24. (which, as I also proued, was neuer altered but rather confirmed at the institution of the Kings, who were expresly bound to obserue the whole law, and to obey the high Preist) I may say to the Doctor, as he said before to the Cardi­nall, at (que) vel sic iacebit Doctori ratio sua.

14. But put the case this were not so, yea and that the Preists of the old law had byn subiect to the Kings in spirituall matters (wherof I haue already proued the contrary) will M. Andrews inferre theron, Suppl. cap. 1. vbi supr. that therfore Kings haue also the spirituall Supremacy in the new law, without any new institution, or rati­fication therof by our Sauiour Christ, In what case Chri­stiās may ground v­pon the law of Moyses. or his Apostles? Doth not this great Doctor know, that the Mosaycal law was abrogated by the law of grace, and that wher­as it was deuided into three parts (to wit, Iudiciall, Ce­rimoniall, and Morall) the two former vtterly ceased, and the third (I meane the Morall part, contayning the Commaundements) remayneth only in force, not be­cause it was instituted then, but because those Com­maundments being grounded on the law of Nature, are alwayes in force, and therfore ordayned againe to be kept in the new Law. In which respect the cōmand­ment cōcerning the Sabboth, doth not now bynd Chri­stians, as it was then ordayned and practiced.

15. And therfore M. Andrews might aswell intro­duce Poligamy practised in the old Law, as the spirituall supremacy of Kings (if we should graunt that they then had any such) and with much more reason might he teach abstinence from puddings, and other meates made of bloud; seeing that we find some commaun­dements, [Page 12] or ordinance therof, in the Acts of Apostles, wheras there is no one syllable in all the new Testa­ment, M. An­drews his beggarly proofe for a tempo­ral princes spirituall Suprema­cy. to proue that Kings haue any spirituall autho­rity ouer the Church; it being most euidēt that al those places of Scripture, which he or any other doth, or can alledge out of the new Testament to that purpose, do concerne only temporall obedience to the pagan Em­perours, or Princes, who were then Persecutors of the Church, and therefore could not be spirituall heads or Gouernours thereof, nor obayed by Christians in spirituall matters. And this I say the rather, because M. Andrews doth not only heere, but also throughout his whole booke, seeme to ground his doctrine of the Kings spirituall Primacy, specially vpon the law of Moyses (as I shall haue occasion to shew further here­after) which sufficiently bewrayeth the beggery and misery of his cause, See infra. cap. 6. and his want of proofes 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 controuersy, but also for instruction in matters of morality, yet neyther they, nor we euer do it, to other end, but to confirme things instituted, and taught in the new law, by the or­dinance, and commaundment eyther of Christ, or of his spouse the Church; M. An­drews proofes of the tem­porall Princes suprema­cy, sauour of Iu­daisme. and this we do only in respect of the conformity that is in many things betwixt the figure, and the Verity (I meane betwixt the old law, and the new, Moyses, and our Sauiour Christ, the Sy­nagogue, and the Church) and not to the end to proue any thing to be necessary now, because it was orday­ned, or practised then; which were rather a point of Iudaisme, then of Christianisme. And therefore this and [Page 13] other arguments of M. Andrews grounded only vpon the Iudicial lawes of Moyses, may shew him to be ra­ther a Iew then a Christian, except he can bring some other ground for the same out of the new Testament, or some Apostolicall, or Ecclesiasticall Canon or Tra­dition; which he neyther doth, nor euer shall be able to do.

17. But who seeth not, how he tryfleth in this point, as cōmonly 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 Pastour of the Church by cōmaunding him to feed his sheep) then he gaue the same spirituall authority to Dauid, when he bad 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 signifie to gouerne, D. An­drews doth e­quiuocate egregious­ly. yet it is Equiuocall, being to be vnderstood of a different manner of gouernment in them both, that is to say, in the one spirituall, and in the other temporall? what consequence then can he draw from the one to the other, except it be this, that as when God bad Dauid (who as a temporall man) to feed his people of Israell (which was a temporall peo­ple) he gaue him temporall authority, making him head of a temporall Kingdome? So when he bad S. Pe­ter (who was a spirituall man, a Priest, an Apostle, and Prince of the Apostles) feed his sheep (that is to say) all the faithfull conteyned within his Sheepfold (which is a spirituall congregation) he gaue him a spirituall au­thority, and made him supreme Pastor, and head of a spirituall Kingdome, 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 eyther to Dauid (if we respect him, as he [Page 14] was a King, and not a Prophet) or else to any other temporall Prince.

18. And therfore whereas M. Andrewes saith, Narro autem Cardinali &c. I declare to the Cardinall that the tytle of Pastor was giuen in the holy Scriptures to Princes long before it was giuen to the Bishop, Andr. vbi supra. and much more often, as to Iosue before, and more often euery 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 proueth not any thing which we deny, but that which we willingly graunt, to wit, that the words Pascere, and Pastor, are often applyed in the old Testament to temporall Prin­ces; but that they signify spirituall gouernment in them as Kings, M. Andrews will not proue in hast, and the contrary is manifest inough in Cyrus a Pagan, Isa. 44. and I­dolatrous King, whome God called Pastormeus, and no man I thinke will be so absurd to imagine that he had a­ny Ecclesiasticall authority, or was Head, and chiefe member of Gods Church, wherof he was no member at all: besides, that the example which he giueth vs of Iosue out of the booke 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 commaunded Moy­ses to assigne and ordaine Iosue for his Successour in the gouernmēt of the people (least they should be like to oues sine Pastore, D. An­drews cō ­founded by an in­stance of his owne. sheep without a Sheepheard) yet it is euident there, that he was not to haue any authority ouer the High Priest, but rather the cleane contrary, to wit, that he should depend wholy vpon the High Priests direction; and therfore wheras Moyses was commaun­ded there by almighty God to giue part of his glory to Iosue, Theodoretus doth very well obserue (as I haue [Page 15] noted before in the Supplement) that Moyses did di­stribute his dignity, Theodor. quast. 48. in Num. See Suppl. nu. 21. and authority (which was both spirituall, and temporall) betwixt Iosue and Eleazar the High Priest, yet in such sort, that Iosue should be di­rected in al his affaires by Eleazar, Pro hoc, saith the Scri­pture, si quid agendum erit &c. Num. 27. For him (that is to say Iosue) if any thing be to be done, Eleazar shall consult the Lord, and at his word, he (to wit Iosue) 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, wherby it appeareth that albeit Iosue was Pastor populi, M. An­drews pricking argument doth wound none but himselfe. yet he was but a temporall Pastor, or Gouernour, and to be dire­cted euen in temporall affaires by the spirituall Pastor E­leazar, whome Almighty God did illuminate and in­struct in his consultations, for the direction of Iosue. Now then, doth this example prick Cardinal Bellarmine trow you, or M. Andrews? Truely though he meant to prick the Cardinall, yet you see, he hath wounded none but himselfe. The third answere of D. An­drews e­xamined. Thus much to his second answere.

20. His third is in substance, that albeit S. Augu­stine, and S. Cyril haue amply cōmented vpon the Ghos­pell of S. Iohn, and vpon those very words of our Sa­uiour to S. Peter, Pasce oues meas, yet neyther of them (saith he) saw, illustrem hunc fidei articulum de primatu Petri tem­porali, Andr. vbi supra pag. 17. lin. 4. this notable article of faith concerning the temporall primacy of Peter &c. So he. As if the Cardinal did teach, or affirme, that S. Peters primacy is a temporall primacy; which is a meere fiction of M. Andrews to frame mat­ter for himselfe to impugne; for seeing the spirituall pri­macy of S Peter is so euident in the holy Scriptures, that he is now & then forced to graūt it in some sort, yea See af­ter c. 3. n. 36.37. & seq. somtimes as far forth in effect as we demaūd; though at at other times he laboureth vtterly to ouerthrow it (as I [Page 16] shall haue occasiō to declare more largly Cap. 5. n. 18.19.20. her after) he wil now needs presuppose that we teach the Popes Pri­macy to be a temporall primacy, & why forsooth? Marry because the Cardinal, as also all the Catholiks do teach, that the spirituall authority which our Sauiour gaue S. Peter, and his Successors, may, and doth in some cases extend it selfe to temporall things, so far forth, as it is, or may be necessary for the execution of their spirituall power, and for the benefit of soules, the publike good of the Church, and gods glory, wherof I haue giuen sufficient reason in the first Chapter of my Supple­ment cap. 1. nu. 59. & sequent. Supple­ment.

21. Therefore I will only say for the present, that if the Popes spirituall Primacy may for this cause be cal­led a temporall primacy, If the Popes pri­macy be a temporall Primacy, M. An­drews is a pecuniary Pastour. then may M. Andrews (who taketh himselfe to be a Bishop, and a spirituall Pastour) be iustly called, and nicknamed a corporall Bishop, and a pecuniary Pastour, because he doth punish men some­tymes in his spirituall court, not only in their bodyes, but also in their purses: and if he would thinke him absurd, who should so style, and intytle him, he is no lesse absurd himselfe in calling the Popes Primacy, for the like reason, a temporall Primacy. And although nei­ther S. Augustine, nor S. Cyril, do in the places cyted by M. Andrews speake of any such extension of spiri­tuall power to temporall matters (whereof they had no occasion to treate) yet it sufficeth that they do not deny it, yea and that they do both of them sufficiently teach there, the spirituall Primacy of S. Peter, wherof the other is a necessary consequent.

22. S. Augustine in that very Treatise (wherto M. Andrews appealeth, I meane vpon the Ghospell of S. Iohn, and the last Chapter) hath that expresse do­ctrine, [Page 17] and those very words which I cyted a little be­fore, S. Augu­stine ac­knowled­geth S. Peters su­premacy in the place al­leadged 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 els 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 chiefe Apostle, and saith, that the Church receaued the keyes in him, which as I haue shewed doth euidently proue him to be head and supreme Pastour of the Church, S. August. Tract. 124. in Euang. Ioan. 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. Peters spirituall Supremacy in the place alledged by M. Andrewes.

23. The like doth S. Cyril also in his cōmentary vpon S. Iohns Ghospell, S. Cyril cō ­ment. in Cap. vlt. Ioan. and in the same place which M. Andrewes cyteth, for there he calleth S. Peter expressely Prince, and head of the Apostles, saying: Vt Princeps Ca­put (que) ceterorum primus exclamauit, Tu es Christus filius Dei viui: S. Cyril also ac­knowled­geth S. Peters su­premacy in the place which M. Andrews alleadgeth Peter as Prince, and head of the rest, first exclaymed, Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God. So he: wherby he teacheth euidently, that S. Peter was head, and supreme Pastour of the Church, in that he acknow­ledgeth him to be Prince, and head of the Apostles, who were the chiefe Magistrates, and Pastors therof; and therefore it is to be considered, how this agreeth with that which followeth presently after in M. Andrews his text, who hauing affirmed as you haue heard, that ney­ther of these Fathers saw the article touching Peters temporall Primacy, Andr. vbi supra. addeth, ‘ Id tantum vident, nec praeterea quid, quia &c. They see this only and nothing els, that because Peter had denyed his Lord not once, but thrice [Page 18] he was asked concerning loue, 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 altogeather silent.’ Thus saith M. Andrews.

24. Wherin it is to be noted, that wheras he saith, that these Fathers saw only this, which he heere setteth downe, nec praeterea quid, and nothing else, it is euident­ly false, for two respects; the one, for that they saw more then he mentioneth, yea more then he listed to see, to wit, the Primacy of S. Peter, as I haue shewed out of them both; the other is, because they saw not that which he affirmeth in their behalfe, I meane, that S. Peter was by those wordes of our Sauiour restored to his place in the Apostleship which he had lost; for if they should haue said so, M. An­drews ma­keth S. Augustin & S. Cyril fauour a pernici­ous here­sy. they should seeme to hould (or fa­uour at least) the pernicious heresy of Wycliffe, that Magistrates loose their dignity, and authority by mortall sinne, which pestiferous opinion, those holy Fathers, no doubt, would haue abhorred, if it had bene set a­broach, or taught by any in their tyme; seeing that it shaketh the very foundation of all obedience eyther to Ciuill, or Ecclesiasticall Magistrates; because it doth not only make all obedience vncertaine (for no man knoweth who is in the state of Grace) but also giueth occasion to Subiects vpon euery offence of their Prince to call his authority in question.

25. Therfore to the end thou maist, good Reader, know as wel the integrity of these Fathers in this point, S. Augu­stine bely­ed by D. Andrews. as M. Andrews his fraud, and bad conscience in alledg­ing them, thou shalt vnderstand that S. Augustine saith nothing at all, that may be so much as wrested to any [Page 19] such sense in that place, Aug. Ep. 50. and doth elswhere expressely teach the contrary, as when he saith: Sanctus Dauid de criminibus mortiferis &c. Holy Dauid did pennance for mor­tall sinnes, and yet remayned in his honour, or dignity: and when blessed Peter shed most bitter teares, he repented that he had denied his Lord, and yet remained an Apostle [...] (& againe a little after) when Peter the Apostle denied our Sauiour, and wept, and remayned still an Apostle, he had not yet receaued the holy Ghost. Thus saith S. Augustine; and could he teach a doctrine more contrary to that which M. Andrews fat [...]ereth vpon him?

26. Let vs now see how he handleth S. Cyril, S. Cyril notably a­bused by M. An­drews. vpō whome it may be he principally relyeth for this matter; for indeed that holy Father saith somewhat concerning the same, though far otherwise then M. Andrews would make his Reader belieue, for thus saith S. Cyril: Cyril vbi supra. Dixit, pasce agnos meos, Apostolatus sibi renouās dignitatem, ne propter negationem quae humana infirmitate accidit labe­factata videretur. He (to wit our Sauiour) said (to Pe­ter) feed my Lambs, renewing to him his dignity of the A­postleship, least it might seeme to haue bene decayed by his de­nyall, which happened by humane infirmity. Thus far S. Cy­ril; who you see, neyther saith, nor meaneth that S. Pe­ter fell from his Apostleship by his denyall of Christ, but rather signifieth the contrary, to wit, that Christ would not haue it so much as to seeme, or be supposed, that he had lost his dignity by his fall, and therefore renewed it by that new, and expresse commission, ne labefactata videretur, lest it should seeme to haue bene decayed, or lost.

27. Wherin also it is to be obserued, that the digni­ty wherof 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 him­selfe [Page 20] a little before in the same Chapter, when he tear­med him Principem, & Caput ceterorum, the Prince and head of the rest of the Apostles, as also S. Augustine (as you haue 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 Sauiour renewed in S. Peter, was his Primacy, and Soueraignty in Gods Church, and the renouation thereof was a confirmation, or rather an increase of it, as of a thing which he had neuer lost, and being then renewed, was made more eminent then before. But perhaps some will say, that M. An­drews doth not here plainly affirme as his owne 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. Therfore let vs heare what he saith himselfe in another place concerning the same.

Andr. pag 215. §. No [...] vero.28. ‘ Pasce oues, saith he, expressè faternur vni dictum &c. we confesse expresly that pasce oues was said to one, yea thryce 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 speach restored to his charge, and not constituted, or appoynted in a charge aboue others.’ So he, shewing euidently, that his opinion is, M. An­drews worthily suspected to hold that Magi­strats fall from their dignity by mortal sinnes. that S. Peter lost his office, and authority by his fall, and that he was restored thereto by those words of our Sauiour: which, as I haue said, sauoureth greatly of that damnable and pernicious heresy, whereof I haue spoken before except he can tell vs (which he shall ne­uer 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 grieuous) yet proceeded not of any infidelity, heresy, or malice, but (as S. Cyril [Page] well noteth, and no man I thinke doubteth of it) conti­git humana infirmitate, hapned by humane frailty; so that if he lost his dignity thereby, the like must needs be thought of others in like fraylties, and much more in cases of more greiuous, and malicious sinnes, which would be an euident confirmation of Wickliffs Heresy.

29. But howsoeuer M. Andrews shall be able to purge himselfe of this suspition, it cannot be denied but that he hath most impudently abused and belyed both S. Augustine and S. Cyril, in making them affirme, that S. Peter fell from his Apostleship by his denyall of Christ, whereof the contrary is clearely gathered out of S. Cyrils owne words, and expressely taught by S. Augustine, as you haue heard before, which may also be confirmed by the testimony of the other S. Cyril Bi­shop of Hierusalem, and of Optatus Mile [...]itanus, who do both of them, not only teach in expresse words, that S. Peter did not loose his Apostleship by his fall, but do withall acknowledg his preeminent authority ouer the rest of the Apostles. S. Cyril saith thus: Petrus princeps Apostolorum excellentissimus &c. S. Cyril Hierosol. Cathech. Mystag. 2. Peter the most excellent prince of the Apostles, did not only receiue pardon of his deny­all (of Christ) verùm etiam dignitatem Apostolicam non ablatam retinuit, but also retayned his Apostolicall dignity not taken from him. So he. And Optatus hauing signi­fied that, Optat. l. 7. de Schis­mate Do­natistarū [...] B. Petrus praeferri omnibus Apostolis meruit, Bles­sed Peter deserued to be preferred before all the Apostles, yea and that, solus accepit claues ceteris communicandas, he only receaued the keyes to be cōmunicated to the rest (which was done bono vnitatis, saith he, for the good of vnity, in which respect, he also calleth him a litle after, caput Apostolorum, the head of the Apostles) he concludeth after a while, that albeit Peter did alone deny Christ, [Page] yet, bono vnitatis de numero Apostolorum separari non me­ruit: for the good of vnity he did not deserue to be separated from the number of the Apostles. Thus saith Optatus, to shew the benefite & necessity of Vnity in Gods Church. And this I hope may suffice for this point.

30. Now then, to draw to the Conclusion of the premisses, it appeareth plainly therby, that our Ca­tholike doctrine, and arguments grounded vpon the wordes of our Sauiour to S. Peter, The pla [...]ces of 3. Fathers alledged by M. An­drews do confute him. Pasce oues meas, do remayne good and sound, notwithstanding M. Andrewes false glosse therupon; yea, and that they are much confirmed by these very places of S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, & S Cyril, which he hath produced against vs. For wheras all his drift is to proue out of those Fa­thers, that S. Peter had nothing more by that Pastorall commission, then the rest of the Apostles; you haue heard out of S. Augustine, that in receiuing that cōmis­sion, 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 therby 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 haue bene in him before his fall) was renewed by that commission. S. Chryso­stome for S. Peters Suprema­cy. Wherto may be added the testi­mony of S. Chrysostome, who in his booke de Sacerdotio treating of those words Pasce oues meas, saith, that our Sauiour would haue S. Peter to be auctoritate praeditum, Chrysost. de Sacerd. l. 2. ac reliquis item Apostolis longè praecellere: indued with au­thority, and also far to excell the rest of the Apostles.

31. And again, in his Homilyes vpon S. Iohns Ghos­pell, and the same words of our Sauiour, he saith; that Christ asked S. Peter whether he loued him, because he [Page 23] (to wit Peter) was the mouth of the Apostles, and Prince, & Head of the Congregation: and further teacheth, that by those words, Christ committed vnto him curam Fra­trum, the charge of his Brethren (for so he explicateth Pasce oues meas) Neque negationis meminit, Ibidem. saith he, ne (que) exprobrat; tantùm dicit, si amas me, fratrum curam suscipt­as, that is to say, neyther doth Christ remember Peters denyall, neyther doth he vpbrayd him with it, but only saith, if thou louest me, take the charge of thy Brethren. So he: and that by S. Peters Brethren our Sauiour meant the Apostles, it appeareth euidently afterwards in the same Homily, where S. Chrysostome note [...] that albeit at Christs last Supper, S. Peter did not presume to aske our Sauiour a question, Ibid. but willed S. Iohn to do it, yet now after this commission was giuen him, commissa sibi fratrum cura, saith he, vicem suam alt [...]ri non mandat, sed ipse Magistrum interrogat: the charge of his brethren be­ing committed vnto him, he doth not now delegate a­ny other, but himselfe asketh their Maister. Thus saith S. Chrysostome, giuing plainly to vnderstand, that S. Peter hauing by this commission receaued the charge of his brethren the Apostles, was more confident then be­fore, and would not vse the interuention of any of them (because they were vnder his charge) but him­selfe asked our Sauiour, as the mouth, Prince, and Head of the Apostolicall Congregation, for so you haue also heard S. Chrysostome tearme 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 preheminence, and prerogatiue aboue all the Apostles; yea, and that the charge, or gouernment of them (no lesse then of all [Page 24] inferiour Pastours in Gods Church) was cōmitted to him; S. Leo. ep. 89. which S. Leo also testifyeth expressely, 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 haue the chiefe 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. vt quamuis in popu­lo multi sunt sacerdotes &c. that albeit there are many Priests amongst the people, and many Pastors, yet Peter may properly gouerne them all, quos principalit [...]r regit & Christus, whome Christ doth also principally gouerne.

Euseb. Emis. ho. de natiuit. Ioan. Euan. Theophil. in cap. vlt. Ioan.33. So [...] saith this famous, holy, and ancient Father, of whose great authority in Gods Church I haue spoken amply before, in answere of M. Barlows blasphemous speaches, and exceptions against him: and now to conclude, though I might add to these Fa­thers the cleare testimonies of Eusebius Emissenus, Theo­philactus, S. Bernard, S. Ber. l. 2. de consider. and diuers others concerning S. Peters prerogatiue in his Pastorall commission aboue the rest of the Apostles, yet I will content my selfe with these already cyted, not doubting, but that they may suffice for answere to M. Andrews his idle cauills, Psal. 1.19. Psal. 63. where with he meant [...] pricke the Cardinall, imagining himselfe belike to be the mighty man that shooteth the sharpe arrowes, M. An­drews his sharpe ar­rowes do proue but shuttle­cocks, or fools bolts Eccl. 19. whereof the Psalmist saith, Sagittae potentis acutae; but you see his sharp shafts do proue to be no better then sagittae paruulorum, the shuttlecocks of litle chil­dren, or rather to say truely, to be that fooles bolt, which as the Prouerb saith, is soone shot, wherof Salomon saith, sagitta in fe [...]ore canis, sic verbum in corde stulti: as an arrow in the thygh of a dog (who neuer can rest vntill it be out) so is a word in a fooles hart, which truely I would haue forborne to haue said of M. D. Andrews (were [Page 25] his folly far more exorbitant then it is) if he did not shew so much virulency, and malice towards the wor­thy Cardinall, Prou. 16. as he doth euery where, treating him most iniuriously with such opprobrious and contume­lious tearmes, Concer­ning a law in the Code of Iustinian. that he deserueth to be answered (as the Wyseman aduyseth) secundum stultitiam suam &c. according to his owne folly, lest he may thinke himselfe to be wise.

34. But let vs now passe 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 Iohn the second, to Iustinian the Emperour, and another of Iustinian to him, wherin 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 proue the dutifull respect and obedience of the ancient Emperours, shew­ed to the Apostolicke Roman Sea, and to the same pur­pose it is also alledged by Cardinall 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 &c. The Cardinall might well haue forborne to cyte the law inter Claras, which he knoweth not to be cyted inter Claras leges, amongst the cleare lawes, but amongst the obscure, and counterfait: he might also haue ab­stayned from mentioning Iustinian (the Emperour) who shewed himselfe to be Superiour to the Pope ( ali­qua ex parte) in some part, first in Siluerius the Pope and after in Vigilius, of whome he banished the former, and imprisoned the later.’ So he: wherein you see two things affirmed, the one that the Cardinall knoweth the law of Iustinian which beginneth inter Claras, to be cyted amongst the obscure, and counterfait lawes; and the other, that Iustinian shewed himselfe to be in some [Page 26] part superiour to Popes, The law Inter Cla­ras proued to be a most true & cleare Law, though M. An­drews hold it for ob­scure and counter­fait. 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 boldnes, or rather his impudence, so boldly and confidently to affirme (as he doth without any proofe in the world) that the Cardi­nall knoweth the foresaid law to be cyted amongst the obscure, yea counterfait Lawes, wheras the Cardinall knoweth it to be held & esteemed not only inter Cla­ras, but also, inter clarissimas leges, amongst the most cleare lawes, for so the most famous Lawyer Baldus tear­meth it; The testi­mony of Baldus. who vpon this very law, maketh this Glosse, Clarissima est lex, in qua Dominus Imperator &c. This is a most cleare law, wherin the Emperour writeth to the Pope cō ­cerning the faith which he professeth. see the Code l. 1. tit. de sūm. Trin. So he. And this may be confirmed with the authority of Accursius, who glosseth it no lesse then all the other Lawes in the Code, without making the least doubt or scruple in the world of any obscurity or defect therin. Accurfius

36. But perhaps M. Andrewes will say that it can­not be denyed, The testi­mony of Alciat. but that some haue doubted of it, and impugned it. Whereto I answere, that true it is, that some heretikes of these latter ages haue either ignorant­ly, or maliciously called it in question, Alciat. l. 4. Parergō cap. 25. of whome the learned, and eloquent Lawyer Alciat saith thus: ‘ Sunt qui suspectam habent Ioannis Pontificis epistolam &c. There are some who do suspect Pope Iohns Epistle, which is in Iustinians Code, vnder the Title De Trinitate, and say, that it is not found in some books, which as I thinke they do in fauour of those who depresse the Popes au­thority; as also I haue found other Authors corrupted by them to the same end (to wit, the Chronicles of Otho [Page 27] Frisingensis, and certaine verses of Ligurinus the Poet.) But I do know it to be extant in very many old copyes, and that it cānot with any suspicion be impeached, and if one or two books haue it not, it is to be ascribed to the negligence of the Wryters, who somtymes omitted it, because they thought that it doth not much concerne the Science of the Law; neuerthelesse it is not to be doubted, quin genuinus germanus (que) Ioannis sit foetus, but that it is the proper & true worke of Pope Iohn.’ Thus saith Alciat, who not only testifieth, as you see, that he had himselfe seene it in very many old copyes, but also yieldeth a probable reason why in some other copyes it might be left out.

37. I could confirme this also by the testimony of the learned Lawier Cuiacius & others, Pope Ni­colas the first cyted this law aboue 800. years agoe. if it were need­full, as it is not, seeing that Pope Nicolas the first of that name (who liued aboue 800. years agoe) cyteth the Epi­stle of Iustinian the Emperour to Pope Iohn, beginning, Reddentes honorem (which he saith, Iustinian himselfe inserted into his Lawes) & layeth downe some part of it word for word, Nicol. ep. ad Michael Imperat. as it is yet to be seene in the law inter Claras, wherof we now treate (which law is, as I haue already declared, an Epistle of Pope Iohn to Iu­stinian, wherin that other of Iustinian cyted by Pope Nicolas is inserted) wherby it is euident that the said Law was, The same cōfirmed out of Li­beratus who liued in Iustini­ans dayes. Liberat. in breuiar. c. 20. as it is now in the Code 800. yeares agoe, and held for a cleare Law of Iustinian, wherof there are also other most pregnant, and conuincing testimonies; for Liberatus who liued in Iustinians tyme, witnesseth that he was himselfe at Rome when Hypatius, and Demetrius came thither, sent from Iustinian the Emperour, to con­sult with the Sea Apostolike, against the messengers of certaine Nestorian and Eutychian Bishops, concerning [Page 28] two, or three points then in controuersie betwixt the Catholicks in the East parts, and them (which points also Liberatus setteth downe) & addeth that Pope Iohn did write to the Emperour, Et epistola sua firmauit quid confitendum; and confirmed by his Epistle what was to be professed, or belieued touching the same; and this was done, saith Liberatus, nobis ibi positis, whylest we were there.

38. So that it is euident inough that the Epistle of Pope Iohn, whereof Liberatus speaketh, is the same that is now in question, as well because the contents are the same, that Liberatus testifyeth, as also for that Hypatius, and Demetrius are mentioned therin to be the Embassadours of Iustinian, who brought it to the Pope; besides that Iustinian himselfe writing to Agape­tus the Pope, Tom. 2. Concil. ep. Iustin. ad Agapetū vide Bīniū. maketh mention of his owne Epistle to Pope Iohn, and of Pope Iohns to him; as also Pope Iohn doth the like in his Epistle to diuers Senatours: finally Iustinian in a constitution of his directed to Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople, and set downe in the Code in Greeke, Ibidem ep. 2. Ioan. 2. ad Senatores. relateth the substance of his Epistle to Pope Iohn, to the effect abouesaid, shewing also the great care he had to conserue the vnity 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 himselfe of old Rome, to whome we haue written the like to these. So he. And then addeth further thus. Nec enim patimur &c. For we do not suffer that any of those things which belong to the state of the Church, be not related [...]. 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 Heretikes in these parts, they haue bene corrected by the sentence, and Iudgement of that [Page 29] venerable Seat. Thus saith Iustinian in that cōstitution.

39. Wherein first he testifyeth, that he had written to the Pope of Rome (who was then Iohn the second, as it is euident:) secondly he signifyeth, that the sub­stance of his letters to the Pope was the same in effect, that he wrote to Epiphanius; and this is so cleare by the contents of both the Epistles, that the one (to wit that to Epiphanius) is set downe in the Code in Greeke, with­out any translation, because the other to Pope Iohn which followeth in Latin, See the Code vb [...] supra. is the same in effect: in which respect the former in Greeke needed not to be translated, as the glosse witnesseth. Thirdly Iustinian 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 giueth another most notable testimony as well of the Vniuersall authority, A cleare testimony of the vni­uersall au­thority, & perpetual [...] integrity of the Roman Sea: as of the perpetuall inter­grity of the Roman Sea, seeing he confesseth that all the heresies which euer sprong in the East, or Greeke Church, had been condemned by the Iudiciall sentence of that venerable Seat.

40. Therefore can any man desire eyther more cleare proofes then these, that the law inter Claras, is a cleare, and no obscure or counterfait law? or more pre­gnant testimonies of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome by the Ciuill or Imperiall law in the daies of Iustinian? Or yet a more euident demonstration of M. Andrews vanity, and folly, in seeking to obscure the perspicuous, and cleare light of this ancient law, with such a fri­uolous and vayne exception so clearly conuinced, as you haue seene? Whereby he also worthily incurreth the malediction of the Prophet, Vae qui dicitis &c. VVo be to you who call good bad, Esa. 5. and bad good, and make light dark­nesse, [Page 30] and darknesse light. And thus much for this point.

Two facts of Iustiniā the Emp. against 2. Popes ex­amined & reproued.41. The other point which now resteth to be dis­cussed is, that M. Andrews saith, that the Cardinall might also haue abstayned from mentioning Iustinian, because he shewed himself to be Superiour some way to the Pope; first in banishing Siluerius, & after in imprisoning Vigilius; & wheras the Cardinall had also produced the testimony of the Bishop of Patera, Liberat. in Breuiar. c. 22. who vpon the banishment of Pope Siluerius came to Iustinian, and protested Gods iudgment 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 ouer the Church of the whole world (meaning that there was not one King alone ouer the whole world, as there is one Pope, or vniuer­sall Pastour ouer the whole Church) M. Andrews an­swereth thereto: Andr. vbi supra. pag 81. §. Vt nobis. Non tam curandum &c. It is not to be so much regarded, what the Bishop said, as what Iustinian did. And againe presently after; Facta cùm videamus, verba quid audiamus, vel Paterensis, vel Cardinalis? seeing we see the facts (of Iustinian) why should we harken to the words, eyther of the Bishop of Patera, or of the Cardinall?

42. So he; arguing as you see, far more simply, & absurdly then it could haue bene belieued, or imagined of D. Andrews, if he had not himselfe published this in print. For if this kind of argument may passe for good, A most absurd ar­gument of M. An­drews. what hath there euer bene in the world so wickedly done, that may not be iustifyed? For howsoeuer it hath byn, or may be reprehended by holy, graue, or learned men, those that list to maintayne the fact, may say with this Doctor, facta cùm videamus, verba quid audiamus? And when our Sauiour Christ said to the Iewes, of those [Page 31] who sate vpon the Chayre of Moyses, Matth. 23. Quae dicunt faci­te &c. Do what they say, but not what they do, might not some haue answered (according to this Doctors rule) facta cùm videamus, verba quid audiamus? But to the end that his absurdity may the better appeare, let vs consider a little the manner, & quality of these facts of Iustinian. Thus then passed the matter.

43. Agapetus the Pope, Anast. in Agapeto Hist. miscel. & Paul. Diac. l. 16. Liberat. in Breuiar. c. 22. Predecessour to Syluerius, being at Constantinople, and hauing in the presence of the Emperour Iustinian conuinced the hereticall Bishop of, that Citty called Anthymus, deposed him and orday­ned Mennas Bishop in his place, wherwith the hereti­call and wicked Empresse Theodora, wife to Iustinian, (and speciall Patronesse of Anthymus) was so highly of­fended, Platina Blond. dec. [...]. lib. 3. Niceph. l. 17. cap. 18. Naucler. Gener. 18. anno 510. that she neuer rested to seeke the restitution of Anthymus, and the expulsion of Mennas: and to that end ( Agapetus being shortly after deceased) she made great instance to Siluerius his Successour, to obtaine it of him, and being flatly denyed, she practised his ouerthrow, and caused him to be falsly accused by counterfait let­ters, to haue intelligence with the Gothes against the Roman Empyre, The wic­ked pra­ctise of the hereticall Empresse Theodora against Pope Syl­uerius. and to betray vnto them the Citty of Rome. Vpon which pretence he was by her order taken by Bellisarius, and sent into banishment. Loe then one of the two facts, which M. Andrews iustifieth with his rule or maxime of facta cùm videamus, verba quid audia­mus? But can there any thing be more shamefull, 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 Empresse intruded Vigilius into his Seat, vpon assu­red promise on his part, Liberat. i [...] Breu. c. 22. to satisfy her desire. And al­though Vigilius (as some write) began to publish De­crees [Page 32] in fauour 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 Siluerius (that is to say, whyles he himselfe was an Intruder, and no true Pope) yet such was Gods mercifull proui­dence for the preseruation of S. Peters Seat in the inte­grity of the Catholike faith, that Siluerius deceasing shortly after, and Vigilius being by the meanes of Belli­sarius canonically chosen (whereby he became of an Vsurper to be true Pope, and successour to S. Peter) he vtterly changed his mind, and former course, & not only refused to performe his promise to the Empresse, in the restitution of Anthymus, but also cōming after­wards to Constantinople (where the Emperour recei­ued him with great honour) he excommunicated her, and other her adherents, as S. Gregory witnesseth, who liued at the same tyme.

45. And albeit some write that she procured his banishment, Idem An. 538. & Libe­rat. in Bre­niar. c. 24. yet others affirme (with more probabili­ty) that the same hapned after her death, and was procured by the instigation of Theodorus Bishop of Cae­sarea in Cappadocia, who was a very fire-brand of Schisme and sedition, and a peruerse hereticke, though he cunningly cloked it a long tyme, being secretly an Origenist, and one of the Sect called Acephali (who im­pugned the Councell of Chalcedon, & were Eutychians;) finally he was the man who in the end wholy seduced the Emperour, and made him a flat heretike, as I haue signified Sup­lem. cap. 1. nu. 108. Iustinian the Empe­rour was so igno­rant that he could neyther wryte nor read, and therefore easily de­ceaued by subtil he­retiks. before. So that it is no meruail that the Emperour being himselfe so ignorant, and vn­learned as he was (not hauing so much skill, as either to writ, or read, being as Suydas testifieth Analphabe­tus, one that neuer learned his Christ-crosse, and ther­fore easy to be abused by the practise of subtle Heritiks) it is I say no meruail that he transgressed the bounds, Suydas in Iustiniano [Page 33] and limitts of his Imperiall authority, Euagr. l. 4. cap. 40. Idem lib. 5. cap. 1. as well in these two Acts concerning these two Popes, as also in diuers others. In which respect Euagrius a famous Historio­grapher (who wrote his history at the same tyme) ha­uing signified that God strooke him with suddayne death, The Iudgment of Euagri concer­ning Iu­stinians death, and the state of his soule. for punishment of his wickednes, made no doubt to conclude, concerning him, in these words: Iustinianus cùm omnia omnino turba, at (que) tumultu comple­uisset &c. When Iustinian had filled all the world with trou­ble, and tumult, and receaued in the end a due reward for the same, he passed from this life to endure the penalty ther­of in hell, according to Gods iust iudgement.

46. Now then, these being the facts of Iustinian the Emperour, towards these two Popes, let vs ponder a litle what reason M. Andrews hath to prefer the same before the Bishop of Patera's censure thereof, which he vtterly reiecteth, as not meriting any consideration. It is therefore to be considered, that these facts of the Em­perour were no lesse repugnant to all the Catholicke Emperours his predecessours (of whome I haue trea­ted amply See sup­plem. cap. 1 nu. 90. & seq. before) then to his owne course and pro­cedings from the beginning of his Empire, vntill the tyme of Siluerius the Pope, as it doth euidently appeare not only by his publike Decrees and letters written to the Popes Iohn the second, and Agapetus, and to Epi­phanius Bishop of Constantinople (wherof I haue 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 reuerent respect which he bare to Aga­petus the next predecessour to Siluerius, whom as the Historiographers do testifie, he receaued into Constan­tinople, cum summa veneratione, with exceeding great veneration.

47 And when Agapetus had conuinced & con­founded [Page 34] the Eutichian Bishop Anthymus, Anastas [...] in Aga [...]e­to. Naucle. vbi supra, Nouel. 42. he (I meane the Emperour) not only renounced the Eutichian heresy, wherewith he had bene before somewhat infected, but also [...] humiliauit se, saith Anastasius, Sedi Apostolicae, ac Beatissimum Agapetum adorauit, humbled himselfe to the Sea Apostolike, The two facts of Iustiniana a [...]gainst two Popes, ouerwayd with ma [...]ny other of his owne in honour & fauour of the Sea Apostolik. and adored the most blessed Agapetus, yea and approued his deposition of the hereticall Bishop Anthymus, and willed him to ordayne & consecrate Mennas in his place, which he also did, as I haue signified before. Therefore, I say, if Iustinians fact against Siluerius, and Vigilius be so much to be esteemed (in M. Andrews his iudgement) as to be pre­ferred before the words and iudgement of a learned Bishop of the same ages, why shall not all these former facts of his (I meane his publike Decrees, letters and most humble submission to Agapetus, all which were conforme to the beliefe, and practise of the whole Church at that tyme) why shall they not, I say ouer­weygh M. Andrews his words, and approbation of on­ly two facts done in fauour of Heretykes, and by their instigation, who notably abused Iustinian, and cir­cum [...]ented him, as it is euident in the histories? May not we therefore with much more reason say of this Doctor, then he said of the Bishop, facta cùm videamus, verba Doctoris quid audiamus? The im­portance of the Bi­shop of Patera his reprehen­sion of Iu­stinians fact a­gainst Pope Syl­uerius.

48. But now if we weigh the words of the Bishop of Patera, of what weyght they ought to be, yea, and were indeed with Iustinian, we shall easily see how vaine, and idle this Doctors words, and conceipts are, who so litle esteemeth them as you haue heard. It is therfore to be vnderstood that this Bishop was a Grecian by birth and habitation, and not bound to Siluerius the Pope by any temporall obligation, of [Page 35] country, Liberat. in breuiar [...] ca. 22. kindred, benefit, or former acquayntance, (seeing that for ought that is knowne to the contrary, they neuer saw one another before Siluer, came to Pa­tera, which was the place assigned for his banishment) whereupon it followeth, The Bi­shop of Patera Protested Gods Iudgment against Iu­stinian. that nothing els but meere conscience and the regard of his duty to God, and to the Roman Sea (euen by the instinct of that holy spirit which inspired the prophets in like cases) did mooue this Bishop to go to the Emperour, and so freely, and sharpely to reprehend him for his fact, as he did, with protestation of Gods Iudgements against him; for so saith Liberatus, Idem [...] ibid [...]. who then liued and wrote the story: Iudicium Dei, saith he, contestatus est de tantae Sedis Epi­scopi expulsione. See Card. Apol. pag. 27. The Bishop of Patera called to witnes (or rather protested) Gods Iudgement against him for expelling the Bishop of so great a Seat: which words beeing also related by the Cardinall out of Liberatus, M. Andrews thought good to nipp out of the Cardinals text, belike because he thought that those words might make the Reader the rather to reflect vpon the propheti­call zeale & spirit of this holy Bishop, & the importance of his graue & serious reprehension of the Emperour.

49. But whether he did it of negligence or ma­lice, I leaue it to God, M. An­drews dis­couereth an hereti­call spirit in his Iudgment of Iustini­ans fact. & his owne conscience to iudge, and will only say of him, that preferring, as he doth the inconsiderate act of the ignorant, and vnlearned Empe­rour (misled by heretikes) before the zealous, & graue speach & cesu [...]e of a Catholik, & learned Bishop, he suf­ficiently discouereth his owne heretical spirit, especially seing that he could not but see in Libera [...]us, of what mo­ment, & weight the Bishops words were, which appea­reth by the notable effect that they wrought in the Emperour himself, Liberat. vbi supra. who was moued therby to recall his fact [...] as [Page 36] Liberatus testifieth in these words: Quem audiens Im­perato [...] reuocari Roman Silu [...]rium [...] &c. The Em­perour hearing the Bishop of Pater [...]; Iustinian reuoked his sentēce against Pope Sil­uerius v­pon the reprehen­si [...] giuen him by the Bishop of Patera. commaunded Sil­uerius, to be called back to Rome, and the matter to be examined and tryed, conce [...]ning his letters (meaning the letters wherof he had bene falsely accused) visi appr [...] ­ [...]tur ab ipso fuisse scriptu [...] in quacumque Cauitate Episcop degeret &c. to the end that if it were proued that he had written them, he might liue [...] or remaine Bishop in any other Citty, and if they were found to be false, then he might be restored to his seat. Thus saith Liberatus, wherin it is to be noted, that although the Emperour vpon the Bi­shops admonition, commaunded that the matters whereof Siluerius was accused, should be better exami­ned; yet he did not presume to ordayne, that in case he should be found guilty, he should be depriued of his Dignity, but only that (for the security of the Citty of Rome) he should liue in any other Citty, and there exercise his function and charge.

50. And Liberatus doth also further declare, that as Siluerius was returning to Rome according to the Em­perours order, Bellisarius caused him (at the instance of Vigilius, Idem ibi­dem. who then vsurped his Seat) to be deliuered into the hands of two of Vigilius his seruants, in whose custody he perished shortly after with famine & mise­ry, in an Iland called Palmaria; wherby it appeareth how the Emperours reuocation of his fact was frustra­ted, to wit, not by his owne fault, but by the sinister practise of his officers, & ministers, who by the help of the wicked Empresse Theodora, easily deluded him. So that M. Andrews might learne by this relatiō of Liberatꝰ how potent were the Bishops words, which he so litle esteemeth; and the reader may note as well M. Andrews [Page] his folly, M. An­drews hi [...] folly in appro­uing an act which the author of it did after disal­low and repent. as his bad conscience: his folly, in that he maketh more accompt of the temerarious, and errone­ous act of the Emperour (which he himself acknow­ledged for such, & recalled) then of the Bishops admo­nition, which made him see and repent his errour; 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 answere to this obiection of Cardinall Bellarmine, and not to search the Authour alledged by the Cardinall, to see whether there were any corruption in the allegation; & ther­fore thou maist see, good Reader, with what sincerity he vseth to treat matters of Religion (though the same import no lesse then the eternall saluation, The bad conscience of M. An­drews in dissem­bling the truth which he could not but see in Liberatus. or damnatiō of mens soules) not caring what he saith or dissembleth so that he may shift of the matter for the tyme with some shew of probability, whereof we shall see much more experience hereafter in him, as we haue already seene the like in M. Barlow. For truely it is hard to say whether of them is more fraudulent, and absurd in this kind.

51. In the meane time two things are euident by this which hath been heere debated; the one, how weakely M. Andrewes argueth when he saith, that the Emperour Iustinian shewed himself in these two acts to be superiour to the Pope aliqua exparte, for it may well be graunted in some sense, A weake & foolish argument of M. An­drews, to proue Iu­stinian su­periour to 2. Popes. & he gaine nothing by it, se­ing the like may be said of Nero, who put to death S. Peter, and S. Paul; of Herod, who killed S. Iohn Baptist; and of Pilate, who gaue sentēce of death against Christ, for they and all other persecutors of Gods Church (yea Iustinian also himself in the end of his raigne when he declared himself an heretick, and expelled Catholick [Page 38] Bishops from their seats, M. An­drews must de­uyse new answeres to the Car­dinal, con­cerning the law in­ter Claras, & the Bi­shop of Patera his reprehen­sion of Iu­stinian. because they would not sub­scribe to his heresies) they all, I say, shewed themselues to be Superiours ( aliqua ex parte) ouer those whom they killed, banished, and persecuted, hauing by Gods per­mission power ouer them, and exercysing the same po­wer vpon them: neuertheles I hope no good Christian man will say that because they did this, ergo, it was law­fully done, which must eyther be the conclusion of M. Andrewes his argument à facto, or els he concludeth no­thing to the purpose.

52. The other thing which I say is cleare by the premisses, is, that as well the testimony of the Bishop of Patera, produced by the Cardinall, as also the other, grounded vpon the law inter Claras (al­ledged both by the Cardinall, and by me) are good, and solid proofes for the Popes Vniuersall authority ouer the Church of God, notwithstanding the idle exceptions of M. Andrewes against the same, and therefore he must now deuyse some other answere therto, or seek some other shift, seeing this hath fayled him, and serued to no other purpose, but to shew his conformity of spirit, rather with the here­ticks, who deceaued and seduced Iustinian in the banishment of two Popes, then with such Catholicke and holy Bishops, as the Bishop of Patera, or those others, M. An­drews his words of the Cardi­nall iustly retorted v­pon him­selfe. whose aduise he vsed in making his Catholike lawes, in fauour and honour of the Sea Apostolike. Finally, thou seest, good Reader, that it may be iustly sayd of him, as he said of the Cardinall, to wit that he might haue abstayned from mentioning Iusti­nian, and the law inter Claras, seeing that he hath gay­ned thereby nothing els, but to manifest his owne folly to bewray the weaknes of his cause, & to fortify ours.

IN the second Chapter of my Sup­plement I haue produced certayne cleare testimonies out of the Coun­cell of Calcedon, Supplem: cap. 2. nu [...] 15 & 16. Apolog. Car Bellow, pag. 92. cap. 7. for the Popes Vni­uersall, and Supreme authority ouer the Church of God, and Cardinall Bellarmin also in his Apology hath al­leaged the same; Whether the Popes authority be establi­shed, or ouer­throwne by the councell of Cal­cedon. whereto M. Andrewes hath framed an Answere, such a one as it is, & so perhaps may seeme to some to haue answered vs both. In which respect I think good to examin what he saith concerning that [Page 40] matter, the rather because he holdeth it for a paradoxe in the Cardinall, to affirme that the Popes Supremacy is manifestly gathered out of that Councel, & addeth further, that the Cardinals authority is not yet so great in the world, as to make men belieue that the Popes Primacy is established by that which they know doth specially ouerthrow it. Andr. pag. 170. cap. 7. §. Quod ibi. So saith M. Andrewes; & therefore this poynt seemeth to me right worthy to be discussed.

2. Thus then he saith: Legat actione vna totaven­tilatum &c. Ibidem. Let a man read the matter debated in one whole action (of the Councel) and renewed, and confirmed in an­other, & finally decreed by a Canon, that the priuiledges of the Bishop of Constantinople shalbe, ne maiora, sed aequalia per omnia, not greater, but equal in all things with the pri­uiledges of the Bishop of Rome, the Roman Legats crying in vayne against it, and the Bishop of Rome himself s [...]ying also afterwards by his letters in vayne to the Emperour, Em­presse, and Anatolius. Thus saith M. Andrewes; wherein two things specially are to be noted for the present (for afterwards I will ad a thyrd:) one is, that the Councel granted by that Canon to the Bishop of Constantinople equal priuiledges, per omnia, in all respects, with the Bishop of Rome: The other that Pope Leo, and his Legats re­sisted, and contradicted it in vayne.

3. For the first, whereas he saith that the Coun­cell of Calcedon did by that Canon giue to the Bishop of Constantinople, M. An­drews his shameles dealing. ne maiora, sed aequalia per omnia priui­legia, not greater priuiledges, but equal in all things with the Bishop of Rome (as though the Councell had exempted the Church, and Bishop of Constantinople from subie­ction to the Roman Sea, for, par in parem non habet pote­statem, an equal hath no authority, or power ouer his equal) truly I must needs say, that if M. Andrews had any [Page 41] care what he saith, or sparke of shame, he would not haue affirmed this so resolutly as he hath done, seeing that the very words, and text of the Canon it selfe do euince the contrary. In which respect he thought good to giue vs only some patches & pieces thereof with his corrupt sense, and vnderstanding of it, and not to lay downe the Canon it selfe, whereof the drift, and whole scope is no other, but to giue to the Bishop of Constanti­nople the second place after Rome, before the Bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Hierusalem, which Churches in former tymes had alwayes 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 vbique sequentes &c. Following euery where the decrees of the holy Fathers, and acknowled­ging the Canon of an hundreth and 50. Bishops, which was lately read, we do also decree, and deter­mine the same, concerning the priuiledges of the Church of Constantinople, which is new Rome. For the Fathers did worthily giue priuiledges to the Throne of old Rome, because that Citty did raygne (or had the Empyre) and the 150. Bishops most beloued of God, being moued with the same consideration, gaue equall priuiledges to the most holy Throne of new Rome, iudging rightly, that the Citty which is hono­red as well with the Empyre, as with the Senate, and doth enioy equal priuiledges with the most ancient Queene Rome, should be also extolled, and magnifyed, as she is, euen in Ecclesiasticall things, secundam post illam existentem, being the second after her &c.’

5. Thus saith the Canon, adding also certayne priuiledges which were in particuler granted to the Church of Constantinople, whereof I shall haue occa­sion [Page 42] to speake after a whyle, when I shall first haue ex­plicated this that I haue layed downe already, which, as you hane seene, hath no other sense, or meaning, then to renew, or confirme a former Canon pretended to be made by 150. Bishops in the Councel of Constan­tinople some 60. yeares before, which Canon was a con­firmation of the Decrees of the Councel of Nice, not only concerning matters of faith, but also touching the limites, and iurisdiction of certaine Metropolitan Churches, yet with this exception in fauour of the Church of Constantinople, Concil. Cō ­stant. Can. [...]. that it should haue Primatus honor [...]m post Romanum Episcopum, propterea quòd sit noua Roma, the honour of Primacy after the Bishop of Rome, because it is new Rome.

The sense and mea­ning of the Canon of the Councell of Cal. al­leadged by M. An­drews.6. This then being the effect of that Canon of the councel of Constantinople, it is cleare that this other of the Councell of Calcedon which renewed, and con­firmed it, was also to the same purpose, to wit, to giue to the Church of Constantinople the second place after the Roman, that is to say, the preheminence before the Churches of Alexandria, and Antioch, which accor­ding to the Canons of the Councel of Nice, had the se­cond, and third place after the Church of Rome; and this, I say, is euident in the Canon it selfe alledged by M. Andrewes, where it is sayd expresly of the Church of Constantinople, Can. 28. that it should be magnified, and extolled as old Rome was, secundam post illam existentem, being the se­second after her, which clause was yet more clearely expressed in the same Canon, as it was related in the Councell 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 iudged it con­uenient that the Citty of Constantinople should haue a [Page 43] Maiesty in Ecclesiasticall affayres, Relatio Synodi ad Leon. in fine Còcil. as Rome hath, and be the second after her; besides, that the relation which the whole Councell of Calcedon made to Pope Leo of the substance, and effect of this Canon, may put the matter out of all doubt, declaring it thus: Confir­mauimus autem, & centum quinquaginta sanctorum Pa­trū regulam &c. We haue also confirmed the rule, or Canō of the 150. holy Fathers, which were assembled in Con­stantinople, vnder Theodosius the elder of pious memory, whereby it was ordayned, that after that most holy, and Apostolicall Seat, the Church of Constantinople should haue the honour, which is ordayned to be the secōd &c. Thus wrot the whole Councell of Calcedon to Pope Leo.

7. Now then can any thing be more cleare then that the drift, and meaning of that Canon is no other then to giue the second place to the Church of Constantinople, after the Sea Apostolike? Why then doth M. Andrewes affirme so confidently, that this Canō made thē equall in all things? M. An­drews corrup­teth the text of the Canon, adding vnto it per omnia. For although it giueth to the Bishop of Constātinople equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome, yet it neither saith nor mea­neth that their priuiledges should be equall in all things or in all respects, as M. Andrews corruptly, & fraudulēt­ly affirmeth in a differēt Letter, as though he laid down the very words of the Canō. Besides that, the equality mētioned in the Canon, is sufficiently explicated by the Canon it self, which hauing signified that the Fa­thers in that Councell thought good to grant the second place vnto the Church of Constantinople, and to giue it equall priuiledges with the Church of Rome, addeth presently (for the explication thereof) vt & Ponticae, & As [...]anae, & Thraciae Dioecesis Metropolita­ni &c. That the Metropolitans of Pontus, Asia, & Thracia, [Page 44] and also the Bishopps of the same Diocesse amongst the Barbarous (so were all called, that were no Grae­cians) should be ordayned by the Bishops of Constantinople.

8. So sayth the Canon, giuing to vnderstand that whereas the Church of Constantinople had bene in times past but a priuate Bishoprick (& subiect to Heraclea) it should hereafter be not only a Metro­politan, What māner of Equality the Church of Cōstantinople should haue with the Romā Church. but also a Patriarchall Sea, and haue Metro­politans vnder it, yea and that as the Church of Rome was the chiefe Church of the West, so also the Church of Constantinople (being now made the second after Rome) should be the chief Church of the East, & preferred before the Patriarchall Seas of Alexandria, Antioch, and Hierusalem, yet with this euident ex­ception, and reseruation, that neuerthelesse it should be still inferiour to the Roman Sea, being the second after it, that is to say, it should haue the same place and priuiledge that the Church of Alexandria had in former times, which though it was the chief Church of the East, & the secōd after Rome, Sozom. hist. l. 3. cap. 7. yet was alwayes inferiour & subiect thereto, as it is euident by the appeale of the famous Athanasius Bishop of that Sea, to Pope Iulius the first of that name, aboue an hūdreth yeares before the Coūcel of Calcedō.

What prehemi­nence the Church of Cōstā ­tinople sought to haue in the Coū ­cell of Calcedon.9. Therfore the preheminence which the Church of Cōstantinople was to haue by this Canon, was to be preferred before the Churches of Alexandria & Antioch: and the equality that it was to haue with Rome, was no other, but to be a Patriarchall Sea, and head of all the Patriarchall, and Metropolitan Churches of the East, as Rome was in the West, yet with reseruatiō of the right of Primacy due to the Roman Sea. Besides that, it is to be noted that the Greek word [...] which [Page 45] in our latin Copies is translated aequalis, doth signi­fy also similis, lyke, not only in prophane Authors (as euery mā may see in the Thesaurus of Henricꝰ Stephanꝰ) but also in diuers places of holy Scripture, both in the old & new Testamēt. And he that list to see more to this purpose, may read the Paralel of Tortus, & his Tortor, writtē against M. D. Andrews, by the Reuerēd & 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 cleare testimony out of Theodorus Balsamon a very learned Grecian, and Patri­arch of Antioch, to proue that the mention of paria priuilegia, equall priuiledges grāted to the Church of Cō stantinople in the Coūcell of Calcedō, doth not any way derogate from the supreme dignity of the Romā Sea.

10. Whereto I also add, that the word ae­qualis in the Scripture doth not alwayes signify a true, and iust Equality in all respects, but som­tymes also an Equality in a certayne proportion, How E­quality is vnder­stood somtimes in the Scriptures. as in the Apostle to the Corinthians, who exhorteth them to supply the temporall wants, and neces­sityes of the poore, with their store, and aboun­dance, vt fiat aequalitas, sayth he, that there may be an equality, meaning an equality in a certayne si­militude, and proportion, as it appeareth by that which he addeth for the further explication ther­of, saying: sicut scriptum est, qui muliùm non a­bundauit, & qui modicum non minorauit, as it is writ­ten, he which gathered much, 2. Cor. 8. had no more, then was necessary for him, and, he that gathered litle, had no less. So sayth the Apostle, alluding to the histo­ry in Exodus of those who gathered Manna in dif­ferent quantity, Exod. 18. and yet found that they had it in [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [Page 46] a kind of equality (because euery one had so much as was needfull for him, See S. Tho. in ep. 2. ad Cor. cap. 8. and no more) so that equality doth not signify heere an Arithmeticall equa­lity (as the Philosophers, Item Ioan. Gagnaeus in hunc lo­cum. and Schoolemen tearme it) which is equall in euery respect, and is vsed in commutatiue Iustice, that is to say, in buying, and selling and the lyke (wherein the iust and true valew of euery thing is equally considered) but a Geometricall equality, keeping only a certayne pro­portion according to distributiue Iustice, which (as Aristotle, and the Schoolemen do teach) doth al­wayes respect equality in the distribution of ho­nours, priuiledges, and rewards; yet so, as due proportion be obserued correspondent to the diffe­rent dignity and quality of euery one. Two kinds of equality correspō ­ding to two kinds of Iustice. And ther­fore when two persons of different quality and de­gree (as the Captayne, and his souldiar) are to be rewarded for some one seruice to the common wealth, their rewards, or priuiledges are truly e­quall, when they are priuiledged, 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 subiect may be said to haue equall priuiledges with his King, and yet be his subiect still: and in this mā ­ner the words equall, and equality are to be vnderstood in the Coūcell of Calcedō (as is euident by the Canō it self) wherin you see, it was ordayned that the Bishop of Constantinople should haue equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome, and yet haue the secōd place after him.

11. But now to deale somewhat more liberally with M. Andrews in this point, let vs put the case that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon did meane to giue to the Church of Constantinople that equality with the [Page 47] Roman sea, The Ca­non which graunted the priui­ledges to the Church of Constā ­tinople a­brogated by Pope Leo. which he affirmeth; should he, trow you, gayne any thing thereby? Or could he any way preiu­dice the vniuersall, and supreme authority, either of Pope Leo at that tyme, or of the other Popes his Suc­cessors euer since? Truly no; but rather should notably confirme theyr primacy, and vtterly ouerthrow his owne cause, seeing that it is most euident, that the au­thority of Pope Leo was such, that his only opposition to that Canon, and his abrogation therof sufficed to ouerthrow, & disanull it; which I will take a litle paynes to proue by the whole course, and practise of the Church, euen from that Councell, vntill the ruine of the Greeke Church and Empyre, which though it be needlesse in respect of the learned, yet I hope it will not be altogeather fruitles to the more ignorant, and vnlearned, and may serue for an aboundant con­uiction of M. Andrews his impudency, and malice, who is not ashamed to auouch such a manifest false­hood, and impugne such a knowne truth, as he doth.

12. To this purpose I wish it to be noted, what Gelasius (who liued at the same tyme, and was Pope about 30. yeares after Leo) wrote to the Bishops of Dardania, Foure things to be noted in an Epi­stle of Pope Ge­lasius for the inua­lidity of the Canō. concerning a schisme raysed by Acatius Bishop of Constantinople in the tyme of Pope Felix his Predeces­sor, in which Epistle he signifyeth 4. things specially to be noted for this purpose. First, that the Emperour Martian (though he had made great instance to Pope Leo for the aduancement of the Church of Constanti­nople, yet) did highly prayse, and commend the said Pope, for that he would not by any meanes suffer the rules of the Canons to be violated in that point. Se­condly, that Anatolius the Bishop of Constantinople, in [Page 48] whose fauour that Canon was made (being most seuerely reprehended by Pope Leo for his ambitious attempt) excused himself, laying the fault vpon the Clergy of Constantinople, and affirming, in Apostolici Praesulis totum positum potestate, that all the matter was in the power of the Apostolicall Prelate, that is to say of Pope Leo. Thirdly, that the Emperour Leo who suc­ceeded Martian before Pope Leo dyed, attempting with­in a few yeares after to obtayne the same priuiledges for the Church of Cōstātinople in the tyme of Pope Simplicius, was flatly denyed them, and that it was declared vnto him by Probus Bishop of Canusium the Popes Legat, nullatenus posse tentari, that it might by no meanes be attempted.

13. Finally Gelasius also signifyeth, that Acatius Bi­shop of Constantinople, who raysed the Schisme wher­of he writeth, and was therefore excommunicated by Pope Felix, was himself so subiect, & obedient to the Roman Sea, before he fell into that schisme, that he procured the Pope to censure, and depriue the Bishops of Alexandria, and Antioch, yea and was himself exe­cutor of the Popes sentence against them, and that therefore falling also himself afterwards into the fel­lowship of the condemned Bishops (vpon whome he had executed the Popes sentence of condemnatiō) he deserued no lesse to be condemned then they. All this witnesseth Gelasius; whereby it appeareth euidently that from the tyme of the Councel of Calcedon to his raigne, which was about 40. yeares, the Canon whereupon M. Andrewes relyeth, was not held to be of any waight, for the exemption of the Church of Constantinople from the subiection of the Church to the Roman Sea. For if the Canon had then had any such force, neyther [Page 49] would the Emperour Martian haue hyghly commen­ded Pope Leo for resisting it, nor Anatolius (in whose fauour it was made) would haue excused himself for procuring it, and acknowledged the matter to depend wholy vpon Pope Leo's determination: neyther should Leo the Emperour haue needed to haue renew­ed that suit to Pope Simplicius; neyther yet would Aca­tius haue yielded, as he did, for a tyme, to obay the Pope, and to execute his sentence vpon other Grecian Bishops.

14. Furthermore albeit this schisme raysed by Acatius continued in the Church of Constantinople some yeares after his death (during the raigne of two Hereti­call Emperours, The East Church acknow­ledged to be subiect to the Sea of Rome. to wit Zeno, and Anastasius, which was about 40. yeares) yet diuers Grecian, and Orien­tall Bishops which were partakers of the sayd schisme, made earnest, and humble suit in the meane tyme to Pope Symmachus in a generall, and cōmon letter (with the tytle, or superscription of Ecclesia Orientalis &c.) to be restored to the vnion of the Roman Sea, Ep. orient. Episcop. ad Symmachū. To. 2. Concil. acknow­ledging Symmachus not only to be the true Successor of S. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, but also to feede Christs sheep committed to his charge per totum habi­tabilem mundum, throughout the whole habitable world. And as soone as the wicked Emperour Anastasius was dead (who was stroken, by Gods iust iudgement, with a thunderbolt) and the worthy, and Catholike Emperour Iustinus chosen in his place, as well Iustinus himself, as also a Synod of Bishops assembled in Con­stantinople, togeather with Iohn Bishop of that Sea, de­manded of Pope Hormisdas (who succeeded Symma­chus) to be reconciled to the Sea Apostolik; and after­wards the sayd Bishop of Constantinople sent a pro­fession [Page 50] of his faith to Hormisdas, Exemplar libelli Ioan. Ep. Cōstan­tin. To. 2. Concil. acknowledging that the Catholike Religion is alwayes kept inuiolable, and sin­cere in the Apostolicall and Roman Sea, by reason of Christs promise to S. Peter, when he said, Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram &c.

15. Moreouer he further protested that he would during his life, admit and follow all the doctrine, and decrees of that Sea, and remayne 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, ha­uing promised to raze the name, Vide etiam Ep. Iustini Imperat. ad Hormis­dam [...] P. To. 20. Concil. and memory of Acatius (who had byn cause of the former schisme) 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 tyme of the diuine Mysteries) he concluded, that if he should at any tyme vary from this his profession, he vnderstood himselfe to be com­prehended in the number of those whome he had ana­thematiz [...]d, and condemned. This I haue layd downe the more largely, to the end we may consider heere, whether this Bishop of Constantinople, and the other Grecian, The Pri­macy of the Romā Sea ac­knowled­ged by the Greeke Church, to be grounded vpon the ex­presse words of Christ. and Orientall Bishops, that is to say, all the Greeke Church, togeather with the most Catholike Emperour Iustinus (all which so earnestly sought to be reconcyl [...]d to the vnion and obedience of Pope Hor­misdas) whether they, I say, had not more regard to the Primacy of the Apostolicall Roman Sea, grounded (as themselues confessed) vpon the expresse words, and commission of our Sauiour to S. Peter, then to the pretended, and supposed equality of priuiledges which M. Andrews saith, were granted to the Church of Con­stantinople by that Canon of the Councell of Calcedon.

[Page 51]16. The like may be sayd, Libe [...]at. in Breu [...]ario c. 22. Nice­phor. li. 17. c. 9. Ana­stas. in A­gapeto. Paul Dia­con. l. 16. and clearely verifyed in the ensuing ages, for otherwise why would Iustinian the Emperour (who, as it is euident in the histories, & in his owne decrees, fauoured exceedingly the Bishops and Church of Constantinople) suffer Pope Agape­tus to depose Anthymus Bishop of that Sea, as I haue signified before? Why did not either he, or the hereti­call Empresse Theodora his wyfe, or at least Anthymus himselfe stand vpon the equality granted by the Coun­cell of Calcedon? 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 meanes possible, as she did, perfas, & nefas, to induce the two Popes Silue­rius and Vigilius to the restitution of Anthymus, if she had thought, that they had no iurisdiction ouer him, by reason of that Canon? Moreouer 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. Andrewes, but submitted himself, as also Theo­dorus did, to the authority of the Roman Sea, crauing absolution, and restitution to the communion thereof.

17. Also Eutychias who succeeded Mennas, clai­med so litle priuiledge for himself, or his Sea by this Canon, Ep. Euty­chij ad Vi­gilium To. 2. Concil. in Concil. 5. Generali collat. 2. that when the fifth Generall Councell 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 nobil, saith he, vestra Be [...]atitudine, your Beatitude being our president. And although some yeares afterwards Iohn Bishop of Constan­tinople made a new schisme [...] and opposed himself to the Roman Sea, taking vpon him the title of Vniuersall Bishop (which schisme lasted only during his lyfe) yet it is euident by the Epistle of Pope Pelagi [...]s written to [Page 52] him, [...]p. 8. Pe­lag. To. 2. Concil. and to the Schismaticall 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 Apostolike protesting that if they had at any time presumed to do any thing against the authority of the sayd Sea, they acknowledged themselues to be anathe­matized, or accursed by theyr owne sentence.

18. And after the death of the sayd Iohn, 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 subiect to the censure, or chastisment of the Sea A­postolik, 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 inuenitur &c. For wheras he saith that he is sub­iect to the Sea Apostolik, if any fault be found in the Bishops, I know not who is not subiect vnto it. Idem ibid. ep. 64. And in another epi­stle to the same Bishop, he saith: Quis dubitet eam Sedi Apostolicae subiectam &c. Who doubteth but that the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the Sea Apostolyke, which as well the most pious Emperour; as Eusebius Bishop therof do continually professe? So he, wherein it is to be noted that these Bishops of Constantinople professed this their obedience to the Roman Sea, at such tyme as the Church of Rome was most miserably oppressed by the tyranny of the Gothes, and Longobards, in such sort, that it would haue beene vtterly contemned (especially by the Greeke Church) if it had vsurped a greater authority, then was generally belieued to be due vnto it, and to haue byn giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter, and his Successors.

19. To this may be added the excommunication, and deposition of many Bishops of Constantinople by [Page] 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 Emperour Michael, wherein he nameth 8. Bishops of that Sea deposed by his predeces­sors; and afterwards he himself also gaue sentence of ex­communication, & deposition against Photius Bishop of the same Sea, which sentence Basilius the Empe­rour executed for feare of incurring the censures of the Sea Apostolike, Ep. Nicolai 1. ad Mi­chael. Impe­rat. as he himself testified in the 8. gene­rall Councell. And when Photius was afterwards by his owne subtile practise restored to his Sea, he was agayne deposed by Pope Stephanus: To. 4. con­cil in 8. Sy­nodo gener. in appen­dice ex Act. 6. and such was the reuerence, and respect that the Clergy, and Nobility of Constantinople bare to the Sea Apostolike, that they would not admit one of the bloud Royall called Ste­phanus to succeed Photius, vntill they had written to the Pope to haue his confirmation thereof. Moreouer three generall Councels, to wit the 6.7. and 8. being after S. Gregoryes tyme assembled, and held in Greece, and two of them in Constantinople it self, the Popes Legats, and not the Bishop of Constantinople were Presidents therof, which neyther the Greeke Emperours nor those Bishops would haue permitted, if they had byn perswa­ded that the Councell of Chalcedon had exempted the Church of Constantinople from the Popes Iurisdiction, or made the same equal with the Roman Church.

20. And albeit after S. Gregories time diuers here­ticall Emperours, and the Bishops of Constantinople, during their raigne, caused diuers schismes, and sepa­rated them selues from the vnion of the Roman Sea, yet when Catholike Emperours, and Bishops succeeded, they returned to the vnion, and obedience thereof; in so much that not only the Embassadours of the Empe­rour Petrus Altisiodorensis, but also the two Patriarkes [Page 54] of Constantinople, S. Anto­nin. Tit. [...]9. cap. 1. §. 6. Naucler. gener. 41. Bloud. lib. 6. dec. 2. in fine. Platina in vita In­nocen. 3. To. 3. Con­cil. in Con­cilio Late­ran. and Hierusalem, with the Delegates of the two other Patriarks of Alexandria, and Antioch, came to the great Councell of Lateran held at Rome in the yeare of our Lord 1215. and subscrybed to the Ca­tholike doctrine concerning the Vniuersall Authori­ty, and Primacy of the Sea Apostolike.

21. And againe 200. yeares after in the yeare 1459. the Greeke Emperour Ioannes Paleologus, and Ioseph Bishop of Constantinople, togeather with the Legates of the other 3. Patriarkes of Alexandria, Antioch, and Hierusalem, besids many Grecian Bishops, Abbots, and other learned Prelats, See Sup­lem. cap. 2. n [...]. 1. & 2. came to a Generall Coun­cell held by Pope Eugenius at Florence, and there ha­uing first maturely debated amongst themselues the questiō of the Popes Supremacy according to the testi­monies not only of the holy Scriptures, S. Antoni­nus Tit. 22. cap. 13. §. 1.2. & seq. Item Concil. Florentin. sess. vlt. but also of the ancient Greeke Fathers, they receiued, and with their hands and seales confirmed the Catholike doctrine, as well concerning that point, as all other wherein they had in the tyme of the former Schismes dissented from the Roman Church, as I haue 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 reuolt from this solemne vnion made at Florence, God puni­shed the Empyre, and Church of Constantinople with that lamentable, and miserable captiuity wherein it hath euer since remayned.

The iust Iudgmēts of God v­pon the Church of Constan­tinople.22. And thereto I will now also add for the con­clusion of this point, what S. Antoninus obserueth in his history concerning the iust Iudgements of God vpon the Church of Constantinople, before the fall of the Greeke Empyre, to wit, that whereas the Bishops of that Sea had dyuers tymes most ambitiously, and [Page 55] proudly impugned the authority of the Roman Church, by the fauour, and help of the hereticall Emperours, God so disposed, that in the end the said Emperours be­came the instruments of his iustice, to punish their pryde, especially from the tyme of the Emperour Con­stantin called Monomachus, who though in despyte, and hatred of the Roman Church, he graced the Bishop of Constantinople called Michaël, not only with extraordi­nary priuiledges, and ensygnes of honour (which he granted as well to his person and successors, as to his Sea) but also with the tytle of Vniuersall Patriarke of the whole world, and all Papal authority (leading also his horse by the brydle to his pallace, because he had vn­derstood that the Emperours of the West had done the like honour, and seruice to some Popes) neuer­theles perceauing afterwards that the people did, by this occasion, beare such reuerence, and respect to Mi­chaël, that the Imperiall state might be endangered (as he conceiued) in case any controuersy should fall out betwixt the Church, and the Empyre, he publikely degraded, and disgraced him, depriuing him of all those ensignes, tytles, and priuiledges, wherewith ey­ther he, or any other of the Emperours his predeces­sors had endowed the Church, or Bishops of Constan­tinople.

23. And from that tyme forward, as S. Antoni­nus testifieth, the Patriarks of that Sea became very slaues to the hereticall Emperours, and were put out, and in by them at their pleasure, whyles in the meane tyme the Roman Church ouercomming all her enemies, tryumphed ouer the malice, and tyranny of her op­pressors, enioying the stability, security, and maiesty which she still possesseth; wherein the prouidence and [Page 56] iustice of Almighty God is euidently seene, Matth. 16. as well in conseruing the Sea Apostolike according to his promise to S. Peter, as also in depressing, and punishing the pryde of the Bishops of Constantinople, who had so oft maliciously impugned the same, which may serue for a Caueat to other rebellious Children of the Church. For, Eccli. 5. although Almighty God is patiens redditor, a slow paymaster, yet he payeth home in the end; and as Vale­rius saith, Valer. Maxim. l. 1. cap. 1. tarditatem supplicij grauitate compensat, he re­compenseth the slownes of his punishment, with the weyght, or grieuousnes thereof. This I haue thought good to touch here by the way, vpon so good an occasion, & will now conclude concerning M. An­drewes his Canon, alledged out of the Councell of Calcedon.

24. Therfore I say that it being euident by all this discourse, that the sayd Canon was neuer 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 eyther there was no such Canon at all, to the purpose that he mentioneth, or els that the small force, and authority therof may serue for an euident argument of the supreme power, and authority of Pope Leo, and his successors, seeing that theyr only resistance, and contradiction sufficed to ouerthrow it, notwithstanding the great authority of the Councell of Calcedon which ordayned it. Andr. cap. 7. p. 170. Whereby it also appea­reth how vainely and vntruely he saith, that Pope Leo contradicted it in vayne; yea, and which is more ab­surd, that he made suite, Bad dea­ling of M. Andrews. and intercession in vayne, Frustra (saith he) Romano ipso Pontifice apud Augustum, Augustam, & Anatolium per litteras suas intercedente; The Bishop of Rome himselfe making intercession, or [Page 57] sueing in vayne by his letters to the Emperour, the Empresse, and Anatolius. So that you see, he maketh Pope Leo's case very desperate, and his authority very feeble, seeing that he was fayne to make such interces­sion, and suite, not only to the Emperour and Em­presse, but also to Anatolius himselfe.

25. Therefore albeit I am not ignorant that inter­cedere hath dyuers senses, and amongst the rest signifi­eth to withstand, prohibite, or hinder a thing proposed or intended; and that some perhaps may say that M. Andrews vseth it heere in that sense: yet because it signi­fieth also to make intercession, and suite, and is so vsed commonly in Ecclesiasticall Authors, and will be so vnderstood in this place by euery common Reader; yea and for that M. Andrewes himselfe so taketh, and vseth it diuers p. 177. & p. 35. §. de Inuo­catione. & p. 45. § [...] Locus. tymes, and would be loath (no doubt) to haue men thinke that Pope Leo did, or durst oppose himselfe to the Emperour, & Empresse (but rather that in this case he behaued himselfe towards them, and Anatolius as an humble suppliant, and yet all in vayne) therefore I say, I cannot let this poynt passe vnexa­mined, to the end thou mayst see, Liberat. in Breuiar. cap 13. Ep. Leo. 53.54.55.59.70.71. good Reader, as well M. Andrewes his vanity, as also what kind of suit & intercession Pope Leo made vnto these whome he nameth, & what effect, & successe it had with them. But first I think it not amisse to declare here how this Canon was made in that Councell, and why it was contradicted by the Legats of Pope Leo, How the Canon for the B. of Constan­tinoples priuiledgs was made. & afterwards disanulled by Leo himself.

26. Therefore it is to be vnderstood that Anatolius then Bishop of Constantinople, ambitiously thirsting after his owne promotion (namely to be preferred before the Bishops of Alexandria, and Antioch, and considering [Page 58] that Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria was deposed by the Councell for heresy, and the Bishop of Antioch much disgraced for hauing adhered to Dioscorus, thought that a good opportunity was offered him to accomplish his desyre, and therevpon practised with the Bishops in the Councell for the furtherance of his pretence, and hauing gayned so many of them, that it seemed to him their very number, and authority, might extort the consent of the rest (yea of the Popes Legats them­selues) procured, that when the last session of the Councell was ended, and as well the Iudges, or Senate, as the Legats were departed, all the Bishops of his fa­ction eyther remayned behynd, or els after their depar­ture returned againe to the place of the assembly, and there made the Canon whereof we now treate. Where­upon the Legats hauing notice of it, Concil. Calced. act. 16. caused the whole Councell to be assembled againe the next day, and fin­ding Anatolius, and his faction (who were the far greater part of the Councell) resolute in their deter­mination, protested their owne opposition, & contra­diction to the Canon, as well in respect, that it was re­pugnant to the Councell of Nice, as also for that the other Concer­ning the in­ualidity 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 Councell of Constantinople to the same effect, was not to be found amongst the Canons of the said Councell sent to Rome, neyther had beene euer put in practise by the Bishops of Constantinople.

27. Finally they reserued the determination of the matter to Pope Leo himselfe, whom they called Apostolicum Virum, Vniuersalis Ecclesiae Papam. The Apo­stolicall man, and Pope of the Vniuersall Church, vt ipse, say they, aut de suae Sedis iniuria, aut de Canonum euersione possit ferre sententiam. That he may giue sen­tence [Page 59] eyther of the iniury done to his Sea ( by the abuse of his Legats) or of the breach of the Canons. Relat. Sy­nodi ad Leo. in fine Concil. Thus sayd the Legats; signifying that it was in his hands, and power to ratify, or abrogate as well this Canon, as all the other Canons of that Coūcell, Leo. ep. 61. ad Episcop. in Synodo Chal. con­greg. Item ep. 55.70. & 71. which also the whole Councell acknowledged sufficiently in a com­mon letter written to him, wherein they craued of him the ratification of this Canon, most humbly, and in­stantly, (as it will appeare heereafter) which neuer­theles he flatly denyed, confirming only the condem­nation, and deposition of Dioscorus, and the rest of their decrees cōcerning matters of faith (for the which only he sayd the Councell was assembled) and in fine he disanulled the Canon for diuers causes specifyed in his Epistles. First because it had no other ground but the ambitious humour of Anatolius, who inordinatly sought thereby to haue the precedence before the Pa­triarks of Alexandria, and Antioch. Secondly, because it was not procured, or made Canonically, but by pra­ctise, and surreption in the absence of his Legats [...] Thirdly, for that the other See more con­cerning this Canon in Binius. To. 1. Cōcil. pag. 517. edit. Colo­niae an. 1606. Canon of the Councell of Constantinople, vpon the which this seemed to be grounded, Leo ep. 53. ad Anato­lium. Idem ep. 55. ad Pulcher. was of no validity, hauing neuer been sent to the Sea Apostolike, nor put in practise by the pre­decessors of Anatolius. Lastly, for that it was flatly re­pugnant to the Canons of the Councell of Nice.

28. For these causes, I say, Pope Leo abrogated this Canon, which neuertheles it is like he would haue admitted, and confirmed, if it had proceeded from any good ground, and tended to any vtility of the Church, and had beene withall orderly proposed, and Canoni­cally made; Concil. Nicen. Can. 6. for, albeit the Councell of Nice had alrea­dy ordayned: the [...], and iurisdiction of the Patri­archal [Page 60] Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Hierusa­lem, with the consent of Pope Siluester, who was the head of that Councell (without whose ratification, nothing could be of force that was decreed therein, no more then our Acts of Parliamēt without the Kings approbation) neuertheles, for as much as the Canons of the Nicen Councell touching those Churches, and this Canon also, whereof we now specially treate, did not ordayne, or concerne any thing which was de iure diuino, but only the priuiledges, and iurisdiction of Churches pertayning to Ecclesiasticall Lawes, it is eui­dent that Pope Leo (being the head of the whole Church) might dispose of them, as he should see iust cause, yea and it is not to be doubted but that he would haue ratified this Canon, had he not seene such suffici­ent cause to the cōtrary, as hath beene declared; & ther­fore the Popes his successors being moued with such o­ther occasions, and vrgent reasons, as change of tyme produced, not only permitted the Bishops of Constanti­nople to haue the second place after them, but ordayned it also by a Canon, as I shall haue occasion to shew See af­ter in the end of this Chapter. heereafter. In the meane tyme I conclude concerning this poynt, that although Thedorus Balsamon, and Zo­naras, and some other Grecian collectors of the Coun­cells, do set downe this Canon in fauour of the Chur­ches of Constantinople, yet it is not to be found eyther in the Collections of Dionysius and Isidorus gathered out of the Greeke aboue a thousand yeares agoe, or yet in the old Greek manuscripts, or the ancient Latin copies of the Councells, which we haue in these parts: and thus much for the making, and abrogation of this Canon.

29. And now to come to the assertion of M. An­drewes [Page 61] concerning Pope Leo's intercession, What maner of intercessiō Pope Leo made to Martian the Empe­rour a­gainst A­natolius. made (as he saith) in vayne to the Emperour, Empresse, and Ana­tolius, true it is, that Pope Leo wrote to them all three, but whether as a suiter or suppliant, or yet in vayne, let the Reader iudge, and accordingly giue credit to M. Andrews hereafter. First then he wrote to the Empe­rour, that whereas he (I meane Pope Leo) might haue called Anatolius to account long before, for being con­secrated Bishop by an heretike, Leo. ep 54. ad Martiā. he had borne with him at the Emperours request, and that by the Emperours help and by his (I meane Pope Leo's) fauourable con­sent, Anatolius had obtayned that great Bishoprick, and that therefore he might haue contented himselfe with those fauours, and not haue presumed thereupon the rather to encroach vpon the dignities of other Bi­shops. Also he signifyed to the Emperour, that Anato­lius should neuer be able to make his Sea an Apostolicall Sea, or yet to increase it by the iniury, and offence of others; that the priuiledges of Churches being insti­tuted by the Canons, and Decrees of the venerable Councell of Nice, could not be impeached, or changed by any impious attempts of his; that it pertayned to him (I meane to Pope Leo) in respect of his office, and charge, to looke to the obseruation of the Canons, and not to preferre one mans will before the common benefit of the whole Church; finally presuming as he saith, of the Emperours pious disposition to conserue the peace, and vnity of the Church, he besought: him to represse the ambition, and wicked attempt of Anatolius (if he persisted therein) and to make him obay the Canons of the Councell of Nice, for other wyse the issue would be, that Anatolius should but worke his owne separation from the communion of [Page 62] the Vniuersall Church.

30. To this effect wrote Pope Leo to the Empe­rour, crauing indeed with great reason, his help and assistance, for the correction, and amendment of Anato­lius, yet with great grauity, and authority as you see, and not in vayne, as M. Andrewes would haue vs to sup­pose; for albeit the Emperour had fauoured greatly the pretence of Anatolius, Relatio Synod. Chalced. ad Martian. in fine Concil. to prefer the Church of Constan­tinople before Alexandria, and Antioch, neuertheles vpon Pope Leo's letters to him, he not only yielded therein, but also greatly approued it in the sayd Pope, that he defended the Canons of the Councell of Nice with such constancy, and resolution, as he did; which is manifest by another letter of Pope Leo to the Empe­rour, Leo. ep. 59. ad Martiā. wherein he signified the contentment, and ioy that he receaued, when he vnderstood by the Empe­rours letters, that he not only approued his defence of the Canons, but was also himselfe determined to de­fend them, and to conserue the priuiledges of the Churches, according to the decrees of the Nicen Coun­cell. So that I hope M. Andrews cannot now say, that Pope Leo's intercessiō to the Emperour was in vayne. Let vs then see what manner of suite he made to the Empresse.

31. He wrote also to her diuers Epistles, and in one of them hauing first taxed Anatolius of immoderate pryde, Leo ep. 55. ad Pulche­riam. for seeking to passe the limits of his owne dignity, to the preiudice of other Metropolitās; signfying with­all, that he might haue contented himself to haue byn aduanced to the Bishoprike of Constantinople, as well by his fauourable consent, and approbation, as by her, and the Emperours grant, he addeth touching the Canon now in question, Consensiones, saith he, Episco­porum Canonum apud Nicaeam conditorum regulis repu­gnantes, [Page 63] vnita nobiscum vestrae fidei Pietate, in irritum mit­timus, & per auctoritatem B. Petri Apostoli generali pror­sus definitione cassamus. The piety of your faith being vnited with vs, we do vtterly make voyde, and by the authority of the Blessed Apostle Peter, do with a gene­rall definition wholy disanull the consents (that is to say the Decrees) of the Bishops, which were repugnant to the rules of the Canons made in the Councell of Nice. So he, speaking, as you see, not like a suppliant, sed tamquam potestatem habens, like a man that had po­wer, and Apostolicall authority, to disanull, 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 stoupe, as stout, and proud as he was. First then, Pope Leo bla­meth him for taking the occasion he did, to seeke not only to preferre himselfe before the Bishops of Alexan­dria Leo. ep. 53. ad Anatol. and Antioch (as though their Churches had lost their priuiledges by the fall of their Pastors) but also to subiect them and all other Metropolitans of the Greeke Church to his iurisdiction; which he tearmeth inaudi­tum, & numquam antea tentatum excessum, an excesse neuer heard of, nor attempted by any man before. And further signifyeth, that this attempt being quite contrary to the most holy Canons of the Councell of Nice, was too wicked, and impious; that his haughty pryde tended to the trouble of the whole Church; that he had abused his brethren the Bishops in the Councell, who being assembled only for the definition, and de­cision of matters of faith, had been drawne by him, partly by corruption, and partly by feare, to fauour, and further his ambitious desires; that he accused him­selfe [Page 64] sufficiently when he acknowledged that the Le­gats of the Sea Apostolyke (whome he ought to haue obayed) publikly contradicted, and resisted him in the Councell.

33. Moreouer he aduertiseth him, that the Canon pretended to haue been made some 60. yeares before in the Councell of Constantinople, could not serue his turne, seeing that the same was neuer sent, or intima­ted by any of his predecessors to the Roman Sea, & ther­fore he wished him to remember what Christ threat­neth to them, who scandalize any one of his litle ones, and thereby to consider what he deserueth, who feareth not to scandalize so many Churches, and Priests. Finally he exhorteth him to leaue 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 Crowne; for, si inconcessa quaesieris &c. if thou seeke, saith he, those things that are vnlawfull, thou shalt depriue thy selfe of the peace, and vnion of the vniuersall Church by thy owne work, and iudgement. 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. Andrewes in this style, and forme, would he take it, trow you, for a supplication?

34. But now let vs see what effect it had, and whether it was in vayne, What ef­fect Pope Leo's in­tercession had. or no, as M. Andrews affir­meth of it. This will be euident by the epistles of Pope Leo to Iulianus Bishop of Coa, to the Emperour, and to Anatolius himselfe. To the Bishop, he signifieth that the Emperour had written vnto him, interueniens saith he, pro Anatolio, vt nostri illi animi gratia praebeatur, quoniam correctionem eius promittit &c. Leo. ep. 68. Requesting in the behalfe [Page 65] of Anatolius, that we will bestow vpon him the grace, or fauour of our affection, The Em­perour made suite to Pope Leo for Anatolius. because he promiseth his a­mendment &c. So that you see now, Iordanis conuer­sus est retrorsum, for whereas Pope Leo (according to M. Andrewes his assertions) was a suiter both to the Emperour, and to Anatolius, the Emperour is now become a suiter to Pope Leo for Anatolius, which will yet more cleerly appeare by another Epistle of Pope Leo to the Emperour himselfe, Idem ep. 70. ad Martian. wherein he promised that Anatolius should find in him sincerae gratiae animum, an affection of sincere grace, or fauour, in case he fol­lowed sincerely the Emperours aduise, and counsell, and performed in hart, that which he promised in words; for that otherwyse he would resolutly proceed agaynst him, to chastise him for his pryde; wherby it is euident, that the Emperour had written to Pope Leo in the behalfe of Anatolius, and that Pope Leo would not otherwise promise him his grace, and fauour, but vpon condition of his harty repentance, and sincere amendment.

35. And will you now see all this confirmed by Pope Leo's letters to Anatolius himselfe? Leo. ep. 71. ad Anatol. Therfore wher­as 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 certayne predecessors of Anatolius, to wit Iohn, Atticus, Proclus, and Flauianus, exhorting him to imitate them, and blaming him by the way for his scandalous attempts, and hauing also signified how glad he was to vnderstand by his letters that he had re­formed certayne abuses in the Church of Constantino­ple, he gaue him order withall to make two priests (cal­led [Page 66] Andreas, and Euphratas) and to admit some others to Ecclesiasticall dignities, vpon certayne conditions which he prescribed him; and lastly comming to speake more particulerly of his presumptuous attempt, he saith, that whereas he layd the fault vpon the euill counsell, and perswasions of the Clergy of Constantinople, who vrged him vnto it, he might haue giuen better satisfa­ction if he had also blamed his owne consent thereto, and not haue layed the fault vpon others: neuertheles, saith he, gratum mihi, frater charissime, est &c. It is gratfull to me (most deare brother) that you professe now to be dis­pleased with that which then also should not haue pleased you. Your owne profession togeather with the attestation of the Christian Prince, is sufficient for our reconciliation, neyther doth your correction (or amendement) seeme to me to be ouerlate (or out of season) cui tam venerabilis assertor ac­cessit, who haue 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 lyes, the one in intercedere (for that the Pope made no intercession, or suite, especially to Anatolius, but was sued vnto by the Emperour in his behalfe:) The other in frustrà; for though it should be granted that the Pope made suite, yet it was not in vayne. And therefore if M. Andrews should seeke to quit himselfe of one of the lyes, A mani­fest and sound lye of M. An­drews. by say­ing that he tooke intercedere, for to make opposition, and not intercession, yet he cannot rid himselfe of the other lye (which is a sound one) seeing that Pope Leo's op­position was so far from being in vayne, that it brought Anatolius, as I may say, vpon his knees, and forced him to humble, and submit himselfe, to acknowledge [Page 67] his fault, to promise amendment, yea to procure the Emperour to be a suiter, and intercessor for him; and finally to receiue, and execute Pope Leo's command­ments, lawes, and ordinances in the Church of Con­stantinople, as though he had bene some Italian Bishop within the Suburbs of Rome. So that I hope, thou seest good Reader, that I haue now clearely proued 2. things. The one that M. Andrews hath sought notoriously to delude thee, in telling thee, that Pope L [...]o contradicted this Canon, in vayne. The other that the Emperour, and the whole Christian world had at that tyme a firme be­liefe of the supreme authority of Pope Leo ouer the Councell of Calcedon, and the whole Church of God, seeing that his only opposition to this Canon sufficed to ouerthrow it.

37. Whereupon it also followeth that although it were true which M. Andrews most falsely, Pope Leo his su­preme au­thority proued by the ouer­throw of the Canon alledged by M. An­drews. and ab­surdly affirmeth (to wit, that the Fathers in the Coun­cell of Calcedon meant by this Canon to make the By­shoprik of Cōstantinople, equal in all respects, with the A­postolicall Sea of Rome) yet it little importeth, yea ra­ther maketh for vs, then for M. Andrews, seeing that the C [...]non was as I haue shewed, presētly ouerthrowne, and [...]ade voyd by the authority of the Roman Séa, and that [...]ot only Anatolius himselfe (who procured it) acknowledged his errour therin, but also, as well he, as other Catholike Bishops his successors liued in the vnion, and subiection of the sayd Roman Church, as I haue sufficiently shewed by the experience, and pra­ctise euen of the Greeke Church, vntill it was vtterly ruined by the Turks.

38. Therefore it shall be now conuenient to see how well M. Andrews answereth, and satisfyeth the [Page 68] places alledged by the Cardinall, and my selfe out of the Councell of Calcedon; whereby I shall also haue oc­casion to confute certayne reasons of his, which he further vrgeth out of the circumstances of the foresayd Canon. Apol. Bellar. pag. 92. The first place, or authority, which he vnder­taketh to answere, is, that in many Epistles, or rather supplications addressed to Pope Leo, and the whole Councell, Concil. Calced. Act. 3. he is named before the Councell with this tytle: Sanctissimo & Deo amantissimo, & vniuersali Ar­chiepiscopo, & Patriarchae Magnae Romae Leoni, & Sanctae, & vniuersali Chalcedonensi Synodo, The name of Vniuer­sall Bishop giuen to the Pope by the ge­nerall Councell of Calce­don. quae voluntate Dei con­gregata est: To the most holy, and most beloued of God, and vniuersall Archbishop, and Patriarke of Great Rome Leo, and to the holy and vniuersall Synode of Calcedon, which is assembled by the will of God. In which tytle it is to be obserued not only that the name of Pope Leo is set before the name of the Councell (whereby he is acknowledged to be superiour to the Councell) but also he is called Vniuersall Archbishop, and Patriarke of Rome, in respect of his vniuersall authority ouer the whole Church of God: besides that it is to be noted heerin, that the tytle of Vniuersall Bishop, so much impugned now by the Sectaries of this tyme, was vsua­ly giuen to the Bishops of Rome in the tyme of that Councell, seeing it was in the Councell it selfe diuers tymes vsed, and giuen to Pope Leo, without the con­tradiction of any.

39. Hereto M. Andrews answereth thus: ‘ Cur huc illuc oberret quis &c. why shall a man go vp and downe hither, Andr. pag. 170. §. Quod ibi. and thither, throughout all the corners of the Acts (of this Councell) searching the deskes, and loo­king on the backsyde of letters to find somewhere that whereof he readeth there the contrary in expresse [Page 69] words? let him read (not in any tytle, or superscriptiō of a letter, or memoriall wherin euery man knoweth how suiters are wont to extoll, and magnify those to whome 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 &c.’so he: and then followeth that which I haue set downe out of him, and confuted before concer­ning the contents of the Canon.

40. Heere now thou seest, good Reader, that this answere of his contayneth 3. poynts: the first that all this obiection is taken, as it were, out of the booke, being grounded on nothing els but on the superscripti­ons of letters, and memorials. The second, that the manner and style of the letters, and memorialls of sup­pliants, is alwayes to extoll, and magnify those to whome they make suite. The third, that a Canon of the same Councell decreed the contrary to all this in ex­presse words (giuing to the Bishop of Constantinople equal priuiledges in all things with the Bishop of Rome) this being the whole substance of his answere, and the last poynt concerning the Canon (which most im­porteth) being by me already fully confuted to his shame, it will easily be seene how he tryfleth in the two former. M. An­drews his tryfling answers. For as for the first, what skilleth it whether those tytles were written on the insyde, or outside of the supplications, seeing that they were taken, and set downe by the Notaries of the whole Coūcell, no lesse then the Canons, and Actions themselues, and not reproued, or contradicted by any? Is it not therefore cleare inough thereby, that the tytle of vniuersall Bishop was in those dayes vsually giuen to the Bishop of Rome? and seeing his name is set downe before the name of [Page 70] the Councell (though he himselfe was not present, but only his Legats) was not he sufficiently acknow­ledged thereby to be the President, and head of the Councell?

41. But I would be glad to know of M. Andrews what reason those suppliants had to addresse, and pre­sent their petitions rather to Pope Leo by name, M. An­drews hardly vrged. then to the Bishop of Constantinople, or to other Grecian Bi­shops, and Metropolitans of their owne country? Let him tell me, I say, what other reason they could haue, but because they held him not only to be the chiefe, and vniuersall Pastor (that is to say, to haue vniuersall authority) but also to be acknowledged by the whole Councell, as their head? For if the Councell had not so esteemed him, those suppliants might be assured that by naming him alone, and giuing him extraordinary tytles that were not due vnto him, they should offend the Councell, and consequently hurt their owne cause.

42. Moreouer let M. Andrews tell vs, if it please him, why those suters should exceed in the tytle rather to Pope Leo, then to the whole Councell, seeing that they addressed their petitions to both? Why did they not, I say, magnify and extoll the Councell with some exces­siue tytle, as well as the Pope? For, if it were need­full for them to vse excesse, and flattery to eyther of both, for the better successe of their petition, it is like they would haue done it rather to the whole Coun­cell then to him, if they had not assured themselues, that the grant of their petition depended principally on him, as on the head of the Councell; so that the sup­plications being directed indifferently to both, and no excesse, or flattery so much as imagined by M. An­drewes [Page 71] in that part of the tytle which concerneth the Councell, he must eyther acknowledg the like of the other part that toucheth the Pope, or els [...]ell vs some reason of the difference, whereof no other can be conceiued, but only his greater authority then the Councells in respect that he was their head and the vni­uersall Pastor of the Church. And thus much tou­ching his answere to the first place.

43. The second place alledged by Cardinall Bel­larmine out of that Councell, Bellar. Apol. vbi supra. is, that in the Epistle of the whole Councell to Pope Leo, he is acknowledged in expresse words to be the head of all the Bishops as­sembled there, & they his members, for thus they wrote speaking of themselues: Relat. Sy­nodi ad Leon. in fine Cōcilij. Quibus tu sicut membris caput praeeras: ouer whome thou wert President, as head ouer the members, in those which held thy place &c. So they. And what doth M. Andrews, trow you, answere to this? Marry, Andr. vbi supra. forsooth, he saith, that, vtcumque tum praefuit sicut caput &c. howsoeuer he then gouerned as head, yet he could not hinder, but that another head was made equall to this head. A weake and idle answere of M. An­drews. So he; meaning that the Canon (whereof we haue hitherto treated) made the Bishop of Constan­tinople, equall with him in all things, and so made two heads. But how weake, and idle this answere is, thou mayst iudge, good Reader, by the weaknes of this Canon, which I haue sufficiently shewed, as well by the inualidity, and nullity of it (being abrogated by Pope Leo) as also by the false sense that M. Andrews hath giuen vs of it: so that the foundation of his an­swere (I meane the Canon) fayling him, his answere must needs fall to the ground, and be altogeather im­pertinent, and the place alledged by the Cardinall re­mayne in full force.

[Page 72] Card. A­polog. vbi supra.44. The third and last place, which he vnder­taketh to answere, is, that the whole Councell also testi­fyed in the same Epistle to Pope Leo, that our Sauiour 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. vbi supra. sed cum alijs in vin [...]a operarijs, but toge [...]ther with other workmen in the vineyard, where­in he saith very truely, for no man denyeth, but that there were other Pastors in the Church besides Pope L [...]o, though we affirme that all other Pastors were infe­riour, and subordinate to him; and I think no man doubteth but that when the charge, or gouernment of a temporall Commonwelth is committed to a King, or other soueraigne Prince, he doth not exercyse it alone, but togeather with other Magistrats subordinate and subiect to him: and the like we say of the supreme Pa­stor of the Church, that he is not the only Pastor, though he be chiefe, and supreme; which point I haue debated in the former Chapter, See cap. 1. nu. 3.4.5. & sequent where I confuted the like answere of M. Andrewes to our obiection of the Pastorall commission giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter.

45. Therefore I remit him, and the Reader to what I haue discoursed there, touching that poynt [...] and wil also ad further heere cōcerning Pope Leo, that wher­as M. Andrewes granteth his Pastorall authority, togea­ther with other Pastors (meaning that he had no more, nor other authority ouer the Church then other Bi­shops had) he is easily conuinced by the circumstances of the same place which the Cardinall obiecteth, Relat. Sy­nodi ad Leon. and he pretendeth now to answere; for there Dioscorus is accu­sed of three things: the first, that he had taken vpon him to condemne, and depose Flauianus Bishop of Con­stantinople, [Page 73] and Eusebius Bishop of Doryleum against the Canons of the Church. The second, that whereas Pope Leo had depriued Eutyches the heretyk 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 &c. breaking into the vineyard which he found notably well planted, A cleere testimony for Pope Leo's su­premacy. he ouerthrew it &c. The thyrd was, that, post haec omnia, saith the Councell, insuper, & contra ipsum &c. And after all this, he did more­ouer extend his madnes against him to whom the charge, or keeping of the vineyard was committed by our Sauiour, id est, contra tuam quoque Apostolicam Sanctitatem, that is to say, also against thy Apostolyke Holynes, meaning Pope Leo, for to him the Councell wrote this.

46. Whereby it is euident that the Councell di­stinguisheth clearely betwixt the authority of Pope Leo, and of the two other Bishops Flauianus, and Eusebius, seeing that all three of them being named (as greatly iniured by Dioscorus) the offence agaynst Pope Leo is exaggerated much more then the iniury done to the o­ther two, and held to proceed of meere madnes, & fury. And albeit mention be made of the vineyard (as broken downe, and ouerthrowne by Dioscorus, in the deposi­tiō of those two Catholik Bishops) yet only Pope Leo (who is honoured with the title of Apostolicall Sanctity) is acknowledged to haue had the charge of the vineyard committed to him by our Sauiour: which had bene said very impertinently of him alone, if those other two Bishops had as much charge of the vineyard as he Be­sids that the Councell testifieth in the same place, that Pope Leo depriued Eutiches (who was an Abbot in Constantinople) of his dignity, which he could not haue done out of his owne Diocesse in the Church of Con­stantinople, [Page 74] if as well the Bishop of that Church, as Eu­tiches had not been subiect to him; whereto it may also be added, that, as Liberatꝰ testifieth, this Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople (for whose iniurious deposition Dio­scorus is here accused by the Councell) appealed for re­medy to Pope Leo, Liberat. in Breuiar. cap. 12. acknowledging thereby that Leo was his superiour, and had also an vniuersall authority; for otherwyse the appeale from the Greeke Church to him had byn in vayne. So that M. Andrewes his glosse, allowing to Pope Leo no more authority, then to all other Pastors, is very absurd, and easily conuinced by the text it selfe.

47. After this, he idly carpeth at the Cardinall, for saying that the Councell acknowledged Pope Leo to haue the charge totius vineae, Andr. vbi supra p. 171. of the whole vineyard, be­cause totius is not in the text of the Councell: Nec totius vineae dicitur (saith M. Andrewes) sed commoda vox (totius) Cardinali visum est adijcere: Andr. vbi supra. neyther is it said, of the whole vineyard, but the Cardinall thought good to add totius, because it is a commodious word for his purpose, whereby it seemeth that he would haue some vnwary Reader to imagin that the Cardinall had corrupted the text, by adding the word totius, whereas there is no such matter; for hauing alledged the words of the Coū ­cell, as they are (to wit, cui vineae custodia à Saluatore commissa est) he doth afterwards in his owne discourse, and for the explication therof, adde totius, saying, vbi fatentur totius vineae custodiam &c. where they (to wit the Fathers of the Councell of Calcedon) do confesse that the charge of all the vineyard, Apolog. C. Bellar. pag. 92. was committed to the Pope. Thus saith the Cardinall, signifying that the Councell did meane, that Leo had the charge of the whole Church (which as I haue shewed) is most euident euen by all [Page 75] the circumstances of the place.

48. And therefore M. Andrewes supecting with great reason, Andr. vbi supra. that this deuyse would serue him to litle purpose, thought best to grant, that totius vineae might be sayd in some sense. ‘ Et vel si totius, sayth he, nihil iuuaret &c. Yea, and if it had bene sayd, totius vineae, it would help him nothing, seeing that whatsoeuer doth eyther violate the vnity, 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 sayd to haue had the Charge of the whole Church, yet it were to be vnderstood, that he had it no otherwyse, A strange paradoxe of M. An­drews. then all other men haue. And why? Marry, forsooth, because all men are equal­ly bound to haue care of the vnity and peace of the Church; which truly may passe for a very strange para­doxe, howsoeuer he vnderstandeth it, I meane, whe­ther he extend the word omnium, to all men in generall (as he seemeth to do) or limit it to all Pastors only.

49. For if he meane that all men ought to haue care of the vnity, and peace of the Church alyke, or in equall degree, he is most absurd, confounding all order, gouernment, and subordination in the Church, seeing that one speciall cause (if not the chiefest) why God ordayneth Pastors, and Gouernours therin, was to auoyd schismes, and to conserue it in peace, and vnity, as I haue proued amply in my See Supplem. c. 4. nu. 3.4.5. & 6. Supplement. I haue also shewed that M. Ibid. nu. 7.8. Barlow vrgeth the same, in defence of his pretended Episcopall authority against the Puritans; wherto I may add, that M. Andrewes himself also approueth it els where, granting that S. Peter was appoynted head of the Apostles, Andr. cap. 8. pag. 219. by our Saui­our, [Page 76] vt schismatis tollatur occasio (as S. Hierome saith) that the occasion of schisme may be taken away: Hieron. li. 1. cont. Iouin. yea and confesseth moreouer, that S. Peter had so much authority giuen him, as was necessary, for auoyding of schisme, and for the maintenance of peace and vnity: of which poynt I shall haue somewhat to say vnto him Chap. 3. nu. 37. & seq. here after.

50. If then Pastors, or gouernours are (by his owne confession) instituted in the Church to con­serue the same in vnity, & haue speciall authority giuen them to that end, he must needs confesse also, that they ought to haue more care thereof, Pastors are more bound to haue care of the Church then pri­uate men. then those who haue not any speciall institution, or authority to the same end; and therefore I would be glad to know, how he agreeth with himself in this poynt, teaching heere as he doth, that the care of the peace of the whole Church, doth belong to all men alyke? For if he say that Pastors are more bound, then theyr subiects, to care for the vnity of theyr owne particuler Diocesses, but not of the whole Church, he is too to ridiculous, seeing that euery Pastor ought to haue, not only as much care of the whole Church, as euery other man, but also much more then others, by reason of his function, & office, which doth extend it selfe to the whole Church, it being euident that what authority soeuer any man hath in any part of the Church, it is giuen him for the good of the whole, and finally tendeth therto.

51 [...] And who knoweth not, that all heresies, and schismes which violate the vnity 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 bodyes that the care of the health, and con­seruation [Page 77] of euery member, tendeth more to the good of the whole, then of the part it selfe, that is, or may be particulerly interessed; & therefore euery part doth willingly expose it selfe to danger for the conseruation of the whole. Whereupon I inferre, that if Pastors haue more obligation, then lay-men, to haue care of a part of the Church, they are consequently more bound to haue care of the whole, whereto (as I haue sayd) the care of euery part is specially to be referred.

52. Moreouer whosoeuer is Pastour in any one part of the Church, is capable of Pastorall iurisdiction in any other, though he be restrayned, and limited to a certayne part, to auoyd confusion: in which respect the Priests in euery Diocesse are Priests throughout the whole Church, and may minister Sacraments any where in cases of necessity; and a Bishop in any place is euerywhere a Bishop, and one of the Magistrats, and Pastors of the Church, and therefore hath a voyce, and right of suffrage in all Generall Councells though they be held out of his Diocesse; whereas none of the Laity hath any voyce, or suffrage therein at all, as it is manifest by the testimony of Theodosius the Empe­rour in his Epistle to the Councell of Ephesus; Ep. Theo­do [...]j ad Sy­nod. Ephe­sin. To. 1. Concil. saying; Nefas est &c. It is not lawfull that he who is not one of the number of the most holy Bishops, should meddle in Ecclesias [...]i­call consultations, and affayres. So he. And the like sayd Basilius the Emperour in the 8. Generall Councell, To. 4. Concil. in 8. Concil. ge­neral. ex act. 6. with a notable aduertisement to lay-men, of what degree soeuer, not to presume to deale in Ecclesiastical matters, as I haue shewed at large in my Supplement. Besides that we read in the Councell of Calcedon, Suppl. cap. 1. nu. 112. & 113. that, Concilium Episcoporum est, a Councell consisteth of Bi­ [...]ops; whereupon it followeth euidently, Act. [...] that all men [Page 78] haue not equal obligation to care for the peace and vnity of the whole Church; for if they had, then might euery Cobler, and Tinker challeng as much right of suffrage, as any Bishop in a Generall Councell assem­bled for the suppression of heresy, and schisme, which I thinke M. Andrews will be ashamed to say.

53. Therefore he must confesse, that albeit euery member of the mysticall body of Christ be bound to haue a speciall care of the vnity of the whole, 1. Cor. 12. vt not sit schisma in corpore, sed in idipsum pro inuicem sollicita sint membra: That there be no schisme, or diuision in the body, but that the members togeather be carefull one of another: yet this obligation extendeth no further then the condition, quality, and degree of euery one requyreth, which we may learne by the Apostles do­ctrine to the Romans, Rom. 12. who hauing signified that we haue many members in one body, and that all the members haue not the same action, addeth: ‘ ita multi vnum corpus sumus in Christo &c. So we being many, are one body in Christ, & ech one anothers members, & hauing gifts according to the grace, that is giuen vs different eyther Prophesy according to the rule of faith, or ministery in ministring, or he that teacheth in doctrine he that ex­horteth in exhorting, he that giueth in simplicity, he that ruleth in carfulnes, Pastours bound more then other men to haue care of the Church according to the doctrine of the Apostle. he that sheweth mercy in cheerfulnes.’

54. Thus far the Apostle, who exemplifying heere, as you see, the different gifts, and graces that God be­stoweth vpon sundry members of his mysticall body, and ascribing to euery one of them the proper talent which is requisit thereto, requyreth specially in the Go­uernour Solicitude and Carefulnes, giuing plainely to vnderstand, that although euery member of Christs Church, ought to be sollicitous, and carefull for the [Page 79] publike good thereof; yet a Pastor, or Gouernour is most bound thereto, as to that which most properly pertayneth to his charge, & vocation. As for example in the tyme of the Apostles the heresy of the Nicolaits did violate the vnion, 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 faithfull people, who were all bound to haue care of the vnity of the whole Church (as all Chri­stians are) neuertheles 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 sollicitude, and care of the vnity, and publike good of the Church did specially belong to the Pastour, or Bishop, in which respect he alone was seuerely reproued, and comman­ded to do pennance.

55. So that whereas M. Andrews imposeth an equal obligation of the same care vpon euery member, what doth he els but make, as I may say, a gally-maufrey, M. An­drews galli-mau­frey or hotch-potch. or hotch-potch of the different members of Christs my­sticall body confounding their seuerall functions, and making them all eyes, or heads, requyring the obliga­tion of a Pastor, or Gouernor in euery particuler man? And truly if this doctrine were generally imbraced in England, M. An­drews tea­cheth sedi­tious do­ctrine. what other fruit could be expected thereof, but confusion, tumult, and sedition, whyles euery gyddy-headed fellow perswading himselfe, that he were as much bound to care for the publike good of the Church, as the Pastors thereof (yea as the supreme head, or Gouernour himselfe) might intrude himselfe to intermeddle in Ecclesiasticall affayres for the dis­charge of his conscience, and obligation? For if his [Page 80] band in that behalfe were equal with the band of Pa­stors, he could not with reason be denyed equality with them in charge, and commission; seeing that equality of obligation requireth equality and parity of power to performe 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 Pastour he is, who teacheth such dangerous, and seditious do­ctrine.

56. And albeit (to auoyde this absurdity) he should restrayne his generall propositiō to Pastors only, and say, that whatsoeuer violateth the vnity of the whole Church doth belong equally to the care of all Pastors; yet he were no lesse ridiculous then before, seeing that he must needs acknowledge an inequality of obligation, and care euen amongst them, accor­ding to their different degrees. For if a Patriarke haue iurisdiction ouer Metropolitans, and they ouer Bishops, and Bishops ouer Priests, it is cleare, that as their charge, and degree is vnequal; so also is the obligation of euery one of them different, and conforme to his dignity, degree, and authority. And therefore although the office and duty of euery Pastour, is, as I haue sayd, to haue special care of the vnity, and peace of the Church, yet his obligation in that behalfe must needs be so much the greater, by how much his power, and au­thority is greater, and he more able to performe it then others his inferiours, 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: [Page 81] The Prince shall thinke those things which are worthy of a Prince, and he shall be ouer Dukes, or captaynes. So saith Isay of our Sauiour (as some expound it) or, as others say, of Iosias King of Iuda.

57. But of whom soeuer it is to be vnderstood, it is manifest inough, that the forme of a good Pastor, or Gouernour is prescrybed therein, shewing that the Prince being the supreme Gouernour, is to imbrace cogitations, and thoughtes fit for his estate, and as much excelling the cogitations of his Dukes, or Cap­taynes (that is to say of his inferiour, or subordinate Magistrats) as he excelleth them in degree; and what thought is so worthy of a Prince, as the care of the vni­ty, and peace of his estate, wherein consisteth the pub­lyke, and generall good of euery Common welth? And the like is to be sayd of Pastors, and especially of the supreme Pastor of the Church, If M. An­drews his position be true he must lay away his tytle of Lord Bi­shop. who ought (accor­ding to the Prophet) to haue cogitations worthy of his soueraignty, that is to say, as much to surpasse other inferiour Pastors in the care of the publike 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 tytle of Lord Bishop, & become follow Minister with his Ministers in the Diocesse of Ely; seeing that there is no reason why he should haue a greater degree, and dignity in the Church then they, if they be bound to haue as great a care of the Church as he.

58. But let vs see how he proceedeth to fortify his assertion, Andr. cap. 7. pag. 171. in hope vtterly to ouerthrow the Popes Pri­macy. Thus then he saith: ‘ Quòd enim totius vineae, id est, Ecclesiae, custodiam ab ipso Christo ait Pontifici commissam, [Page 82] id est Primatum &c.’ For whereas the Cardinall saith that the charge of all the vineyard, M. An­drews cor­rupteth the text of the Councel of Calce­don. that is to say of the Primacy of the Church, was committed by Christ himselfe to the Bishop, see how it contradicteth the Councell, and the sentence of all the Fathers that were there present, who with one voyce, sayd: ‘ Siqua essent Romanae Sedis priuilegia, ea illi (non à Christo, nesciebant hoc Chalcedonenses quin) à Patribus concessa esse &c.’ If the Roman Sea had any priuiledges the same were granted vnto it (not by Christ, for they in the Councell of Calcedon knew not that) but by the Fathers &c. So he: grounding still, as you see, all the force, and weyght of his arguments vpon no better foundation then his owne fraud, I meane his fraudulent allegation, and exposition of that Canon of the Councell, wherof I haue amply treated before; and now he secondeth his former fraud with a new corruption of the text, setting this downe in a different letter for the very words of the Councell, M An­drews groundeth his argu­ments v­pon his owne fraud. siqua essent Romanae sedis priuilegia, ea illi à Patribus concessa esse, if there were any priuiledges of the Roman Sea, they were granted to it by the Fathers: whereas neyther those words, nor yet the sense thereof are to be found in the 28. Canon, which he alledgeth, no nor in all the Councell of Calcedon.

59. For in these generall words of his are included all the priuiledges that the Sea of Rome had any way eyther by diuyne, or human law, for any respect or cause whatsoeuer, but the Canon speaketh with great restriction, Act. 15. ca [...]. 28. to wit, of priuiledges granted vpon one consideration only; for thus it saith: Etenim antiquae Romae throno, quòd Vrbs illa imperaret, iure Patres priuilegia tribuere: For the Fathers did worthily giue priuiledges to the throne of old Rome, because that Citty did [Page 83] gouerne. Thus saith the Canon, far otherwyse then M. Andrews affirmeth, who with his (siqua) compre­hendeth all priuiledges whatsoeuer; whereas you see the Canon speaketh only of priuiledges giuen to the Ro­man Church, in respect of the Imperiall Seat; so that other priuiledges might be giuen thereto for other res­pects, for ought we see in this Canon; and the reason is cleare, why that consideration of the Imperial Seat was only mentioned, and no other, to wit, because those that penned the Canon, saw well inough, that the Church of Constantinople could pretend no other reason to demand extraordinary priuiledges, but only because the Imperiall Seat, which was wont to be at Rome, was then remoued to Constantinople.

60. Therefore I beseech thee (good Reader) con­sider a little M. Andrews his silly discourse, concerning this point, who (hauing sayd, as you haue heard, that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon knew not any priuiledges 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 sayd to Peter, Tibi dabo claues, aut, Pasce oues meas? I will giue thee the keyes, or, feed my sheep? No; but because Rome was then the Seat of the Emperour, and gouerned the rest.’ So he; and a litle after he concludeth thus: A diffe­rence to be noted be­twixt the primacy of S. Peter, and the priuiledgs granted to the Ro­man Sea. ‘ Quod ergo habet Roma de Primatu &c. Therefore that which Rome hath of the Primacy, is not from Christ, but from the Fathers, and in respect of the Emperours Seat, and not for the Sea of Peter.’

61. VVhereto I answere, first that M. Andrews must learne to distinguish betwixt the Primacy of S. Peter, and the priuiledges granted to the Sea of Rome, for that the sayd Primacy could not be from any, but [Page 84] from Christ himselfe; whereas the Roman Church may haue, and hath priuiledges from men, that is to say not only from generall Councells, but also from temporall Princes, as from Constantine, Pepin, Charles the Great, and other Catholike Princes, and there­fore M. Andrews argueth most absurdly from the Pri­uiledges, to the Primacy, denying that the Primacy was from Christ, because the Priuiledges were from men, and some of them giuen for humane respects; wherin he sheweth himselfe as wyse, as if he should deny the regalty, and soueraignty of our Kings, by reason of the prerogatiues, and priuiledges 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 temporall Princes, as generall Councells haue giuen great priuiledges thereto.

62. Secondly I say, that M. Andrewes is very sim­ple if he see not, Why those which penned the Canō alledged by M. An­drews, made no mention of the keys, and Pastorall commissiō giuen to S. Peter. that the pēners of the Canon had great reason to auoyd therein all mention of the keyes, and of the Pastorall commission giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter, as also of the Priuiledges 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 demaund for any of those respects? Would M. Andrews haue had him to say that because Christ gaue S. Peter the keyes and commission to feed his sheepe, therefore it was conuenient that the Councell should also giue the lyke authority to the Bishop of Constantinople, or prefer him before the Bishop of Alexandria, and An­tioch (which was in deed his demaund?) how would this conclusion follow of those premisses? Whereas [Page 85] the other consequent was not so euill, to wit, that because the Roman Church had ben in tymes past priui­ledged by reason of the Imperiall Seat, it was conue­nient, that also the Church of Constantinople should haue like priuiledges for the same reason.

63. Agayne, what should the Bishop of Constan­tinople haue gayned by mentioning priuiledges granted to Peters Sea? Should he not haue hindred his owne cause thereby, and pleaded against himselfe for Alexan­dria, and Antioch? For who knoweth not, that S. Peter was Bishop of Antioch, some yeares before he came to Rome, and that he made his disciple S. Marke Bishop of Alexandria, in which respect those two Churches had alwayes the preheminence 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 lesse reason to forbeare all mention of Peters Sea, M. An­drews his fraud in alledging the Canon and of the priuiledges granted thereto, then M. Andrews had in setting downe the substance of the Canon, to con­ceale, and omit all that which would haue discouered his fraud, and ouerthrowne his cause (I meane 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 haue mard all his musick, as it hath been partly signifyed before, and will further appeare by that which followeth.

64. For hauing sayd that which you haue heard before concerning priuiledges granted by the Fathers to the Roman Sea (because Rome was then the Imperial Citty) he addeth: Andr. vbi supra. ‘ in sua autem iam potestate esse, ex ea­dem ratione &c. The Fathers of the Councell signifyed that it was now in their power for the same reason, [Page 86] (seeing that Constantinople did enioy both the Imperiall Seate, and Senate) to aduance it also to equal digni­ty; and for as much as it was equall in all other things, to make it equal also in Ecclesiasticall matters, and, to vse their owne words, [...], that is to say, to be magnifyed as Rome was.’ So he: wherein he not only falsifieth the sense, and meaning of the Canon (in that he maketh it to giue an absolute equality to the Church of Constantinople, with that of Rome) but also craftily leaueth out all mention of the second place after Rome, Can. 28. which was granted to the Church of Constantinople by that Canon, & doth immediatly follow the Greeke words which he alledgeth, and ouerthrow all the equality that he pretendeth, to be mentioned there; for after [...], these words do fol­low immediatly in the Greeke, [...], which in our Latin copyes is very well transla­ted word for word, secundam post illam existentem, that is to say, being the second after it: whereby it is signifyed, that the Church of Constantinople (which had wont to haue an inferiour place to diuers other Churches) should from thenceforth be the second after Rome. And did not M. Andrews, trow you, see this in the Greeke, and Latin? And if he saw it, with what con­science could he so deepely dissemble it, as not only to leaue out all mention of it, but also to make an equa­lity, and parity in dignity, and in all things els be­twixt the Churches of Rome, and Constantinople? Wher­as the words which he concealed do make it cleare, that the equality mentioned in the Canon, must needs be vnderstood only according to distributiue iustice, that is to say, without impeachment, or preiudice of the different degrees, and dignityes of the two Chur­ches, [Page 87] as I haue amply declared before.

65. And as for the Greeke words which he cyteth to fortify his forgery, they do not extend so far, as he would stretch them (I meane) to make a parity, and equality in dignity; for whereas the Greeke text saith, that Constantinople should be magnifyed, as Rome was, the same may very well stand with the foresayd equality, which distributiue Iustice ordayneth (to wit, with the reseruation of the different dignityes of the one, and the other) as when a Noble man, and a meane man do concurre in one act, or seruice to the Common welth, and both of them are rewarded, and aduanced accor­ding to their different qualityes, it may truly be sayd that the meane man is aduanced as the Noble man is, though not to the same degree, for both of them are aduanced, as well the one, as the other, and yet they are not made equal in dignity.

66. But now if we take the Greeke wordes allea­ged by M. Andrews, or the Latin in our translation, with the restriction that immediately followeth (wher­by the second place after Rome is assigned to Constanti­nople) it is most cleare, M. An­drews streyneth the Greek text to make it serue his turne. that they cannot possibly signify (as he would haue them) parificare, &, ad parem digni­tatem euehere, &, ad paris magnitudinis instar efferre, which words and manner of speach do exclude all that diffe [...]rence of degree, and dignity which is expresly reserued in the Canon, giuing 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 shew the full drift therof, as also by peruerting both the words, and the sense of it.

67. It resteth now, that I say somewhat more to [Page 88] his conclusion, Andr. pag. 171. which is this: Quod habet ergo Roma de primatu &c. therfore that which Rome hath of the pri­macy, it hath not from Christ, but from the Fathers, and in respect of the seat of the Emperour, A very false and foolish conclusiō of M. An­drews. and not for the seat of Peter; and forasmuch as the Fathers in aduancing new Rome to equall greatnes, exercised the same power which they vsed in honouring old Rome, therfore he is farre from the faith, who affirmeth, that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is according to the faith, and religion of the Councell of Chalcedon. So he; conclu­ding as you see two things, the one concerning the pri­macy of the Roman Sea (which he saith was not giuen by Christ, but, by the Fathers, and not in respect of Peters Seat, but, for the seat of the Emperour:) wherto I haue said inough in effect already, hauing taught him to di­stinguish betwixt the Primacy of the Roman Sea granted by Christ to S. Peter, and the priuiledges which the Fa­thers, or temporall Princes haue giuen therto; for of the former, to wit, the Primacy of S. Peters Sea, the Canon speaketh not at all (because the mention of it would haue bene nothing to the purpose of the Canon, but ra­ther against it, as I haue sufficiently declared:) and therfore this part of the conclusion is cleane from the matter, and cannot possibly be drawne from the Canon wherupon he groundeth all his arguments.

68. The other part is also no lesse friuolous then the former, for whereas he concludeth that the Fathers of the Councell of Calcedon 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 wher­upon he buyldeth, is but his owne fiction, and repu­gnant to that very Canon, which he layeth for his foun­dation; [Page 89] and yet forsooth, he is not ashamed to triumph and insult against the Cardinall, exacting of him some Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon for the Popes Pri­macy, as though he himselfe had knockt him downe with a Canon: for thus he saith for an vpshot, and final conclusion of all this matter.

69. ‘ Nec alieunde igitur tamquam è vepreculis extra­hat nescio quid, Andr. vbi supra. & arrodat &c. Therefore let not (the Cardinall) draw, I know not what, out of some place, as it were, out of the bryers, and gnaw vpon it; let him giue vs a Canon (for the Canons are the voyce of the Councell) not out of the superscription of an Epistle, Wisely forsooth. or some corner of a period, or perhaps some peece of a tytle, or fragment of a little clause.’ So he; wherein thou seest, good Reader, how he bestirreth himselfe with his diminitiues, or (to vse a phrase of M. Barlows) with his Hypocoristicall alleuiations, extenuating all that the Car­dinall hath obiected, as meere tryfles, and calling for a Canon, because the Canons are the very voyce of the Councell, and so he would haue vs to suppose of his counterfait Canon (I say counterfait, in respect that he hath abused, mangled, and peruerted it as you haue seene) which therefore is so far from being the voyce of the Councell, that it is nothing els but a loud, and lewd lye of his owne.

70. For the Canon it selfe, being taken as it is in the Councell, vtterly ouerthroweth his cause, seeing that it giueth the second place to Constantinople after Rome, The Canō alledged by M. An­drews ouerthroweth his cause [...] and therefore acknowledgeth the Primacy of the Roman Sea: besids that although it had ben such as M Andrews would haue it to be, yet Pope Leo's autho­rity sufficed to disanul it euen in the Iudgment of Ana­tolius himselfe, who hauing been the cause, and au­thour [Page 90] of it, acknowledged his errour therein and cra­ued pardon for the same, as I haue amply declared be­fore. And although after the earnest endeuours of diuers as well Catholike, as Hereticall Emperours to aduance the Church of Constantinople, and some schismes also raysed for that cause, the Popes permitted the second place to the Bishops of that Sea, whithout further op­position (especially from the tyme of Iustinian the Em­perour, which was about a 100. yeares after the Coun­cell of Calcedon, yea and afterwards also Pope Innocen­tius the third ratifyed, Concil. Lateran. sub Inno­cent. 3. cap. 5. and confirmed it by a Canon in the great Councell of Lateran) yet the supreme autho­rity of the Sea Apostolike was no way preiudiced there­by, as it appeareth euidently by the relation, which I haue made before of the subiection, and obedience of the Catholike Emperours, See before from num. 1 [...]. to nu. 24. and Bishops of Constantinople to the Sea of Rome from tyme to tyme, vntill the Greeke Empyre was vtterly ruyned by the Turkes. So that it is euery way manifest that the Canon of the Councell of Calcedon alledged by M. Andrewes hath serued him to no other purpose, but to bewray his impudency, fraud, and folly.

Relatio Synod ad Leo.71. And wheras he demaundeth of the Cardinall some Canon of that Councell, for the proof of the Popes Supremacy, he sheweth himselfe very idle to exact a Canon, for a matter that was not then in question, but professed by the whole Councell, as it euidently appea­reth by their Epistle to Pope Leo wherin they acknow­ledge that he being ordayned to be the interpeter of the voyce of Blessed Peter to all men, The Coū ­ [...]ell of Calcedon acknow­ledged Pope Le­o's supre­ [...]acy. had conserued, and kept the true faith, which had bene deduced from Christs tyme to theirs; and that vnder his conduct (as being the author of so great a good) they published the [Page 91] truth to the children of the Church; that Christ had pre­pared for them that spirituall banquet (meaning their Synod) by his Letters; that he by his Legates had go­uerned them in that Councell, as the Head gouerneth the members; that the keeping of the Vineyard was commit­ted to him by our Sauiour; and that he had depriued Eu­tyches the heretike of his dignity in Constātinople, See before nu. 45. & 4 [...]. which as I haue declared before, he could not haue done, if his authority had not bene vniuersall.

72. And then comming to speake of the Canon which they had made in fauour of the Church of Con­stantinople, they signified the trust and confidence they had, that as he was wont by his carefull gouernment to cast forth the beames of his Apostolicall light euen to the Church of Constantinople, so he would now condes­cend to confirme, that which they had ordayned con­cerning the said Church, for the auoyding of confusi­on, and mayntenance of Ecclesiasticall Discipline, which Discourse they end with this most humble, and submissiue petition: Haec sicut propria, & amica, & ad decorem conuenientissima, dignare complecti Sanctissime, & Beatissime Pater: most holy and blessed Father vouch­safe to imbrace these things, as your owne, and friend­ly, and most conuenient, or fit for good order.

73. Ibidem. And afterwards hauing declared that the three Legats of Pope Leo did contradict this Canon, The Coū ­cell ascry­bed their determi­nation of matters of fayth to the autho­rity of Pope Leo they yield this reason thereof: Proculdubio, say they, à vestra Prouidentia inchoari & hoc bonum volentes, desyring without all doubt, that this good should also proceed from your Prouidence, vt sicut fidei, it a bonae ordinationis vobis deputetur effectus, to the end that the effect as well of good order, or Ecclesiasticall discipline, as of faith, may be ascrybed to you. In which words it is to be no­ted, [Page 92] that the Councell ascrybed 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 Emperour, Senate, and all the Imperiall Citty desired it, and that it seemed also conuenient to the whole Councell (yea and that whatsoeuer is well done by the children, doth re­dound to their fathers, who account, and make the same their owne) therefore, Rogamus (say they) & tuis de­cr [...]tis nostrum [...]onor [...] iudicium: we beseech thee, honour also our iudgement with thy decrees, & sicut n [...] [...] capiti in bo­nis adiecimus consonantiam, sic & [...] Summitas tua filijs (quod decet) adimpleat: and as we haue yielded conformi­ty, on our parts to (you) our head, so let your High­nes fulfill, or accomplish, to (vs) your children that which is conuenient. Sic enim & pij Principes complacebunt &c. For so shall the pyous [...] Princes receiue contentment, or satisfaction (who haue ratified the iudgment of your holy­nes as a law) & Sedes Constantinopolitana suscipi [...]t praemiū, and the Church of Constantinople shall receiue a reward, or benefit, which Church hath alwayes performed all endeauour towards you, to the cause of piety, and conioyned it selfe with you, How effe­ctually & clearly the Councell of Calce­don ac­knowled­ged Pope Leo's su­premacy, in their generall letter to him. to the conseruation of concord and vnity with the same z [...]ale. Thus wrote the whole Councell to Pope Leo.

74. And now I report me to M. Andrews himself [...] (though I take him for very partiall in this cause) whe­ther any thing could be written in this kind more effe­ctually to shew the beliefe, and faith of the whole Councell touching the supreme authority of Pope Leo, seeing that they do not only expressely call him their head, and themselues his members, him their Father, [Page 93] and themselues his children; but also do a [...]knowledge that he was accustomed to cast forth the light of his Apostolicall beames to the Church of Constantinople ( [...], consuetè soliciti, say those Fath [...]rs, spea­king of him in the plurall number, for the reuerend respect they bare him) and signifying that his wonted care, and authority was so generall, that it extended it selfe to the Greeke Church, and particulerly 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, begge at his hands the confir­mation of their Canon in fauour of the Church of Con­stantinople, as a speciall grace, benefit, and reward fo [...] the merits of the sayd Sea towards the Sea Apostolike; and this in such earnest, and humble manner, that it is euident, they acknowledged the whole matter to de­pend on his will, to be granted, or denyed, ratifyed, or disanulled by him, which also the issue thereof made most manifest, seeing that his owne denyall, and op­position was sufficient to ouerthrow it, as hath bene 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 peece of a tytle, Other proofes that Pop [...] Leo's su­premacy was ac­knowled­ged by the Coūcel of Calcedo [...] or fragment of a little clause, seeing that this is (as he sayd of his Canon) the very voyce of the whole Councell, being the substance of their publike, and generall letter to Pope Leo himselfe; which may al­so be confirmed with their other publike testimonies of their beliefe concerning his authority, as that they ac­knowledged not only that he was successor to S. Peter (saying in their generall acclamation to an Epistle of his, Act. 2 [...] Petrus per Leonem locutus est [...] Peter hath spoken by [Page 94] Leo) but also that he had Peters authority, yea and that S. Peter, was petra, & crepido Ecclesiae, the rock and toppe 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 chiefe causes of the assembly of that Coun­cell, was to depose Dioscorus, Ac [...]. [...]. Bishop of Alexandria, which done by the sentence of Pope Leo, pronoun­ced by his Legates in these words: Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexan­dria depo­sed by Pope Leo. ‘ Sanctissimus, & Bea­tissimus Archiepiscopus magnae & senioris Romae Leo, per nos, & per presentem sanctam Synodum, vnà cum ter bea­tissimo, & omni laude digno beato Petro Apostolo, qui est petra & crepido Ecclesiae, & ille qui est rectae fidei funda­mentum, nudauit eum tam Episcopatus dignitate, quàm etiam ab omni Sacerdotali alienauit ministerio. The most holy, and most blessed Archbishop of the elder and great Rome Leo, hath depriued him (to wit Dioscorus) as well of all Episcopall dignity, as priestly ministery, by vs and this holy Synod, togeather with the thrice most blessed, and prayse-worthy 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 giuen by the Popes Legats against Dioscorus; which sentence euery Bishop in the Councell not only approued particulerly with his suffrage, or voyce, but also confirmed with his subscription, Three things to be noted in the de­positiō of Dioscorus prouing Pope Leo's su­premacy. as it appeareth in the 3. Action of the sayd Councell.

77. Wherein it is to be obserued. First; that Pope Leo deposed Dioscorus by the Synod, whereupon it fol­loweth, that he was president, and head thereof, and that the sayd 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. [Page 95] Peter; in which respect it is sayd here that he did it, togeather with the most blessed Apostle Peter. Thyrdly, that for as much as S. Peter is heere 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 exercysed his authority. Lastly, seeing that this sentence of deposition giuen against Dioscorus in this manner, and with these circumstances, was receiued particulerly, and subscrybed by euery one in that Coū ­cell, without any contradiction, or exception taken to any part thereof, it is euident, that the whole was conforme to the faith, and beliefe of the Councell, and consequently that they held Pope Leo not only for S. Peters successor, Concil [...] Calced. Act. [...]. but also for head of the whole Church; and this I trust cannot be sayd to be taken out of the bryars, or corner of a period, or fragment of a clause, but out of one of the most principall, and im­portant Acts of all the Councell.

78. Also it appeareth in the same Councell that Theodoretus Bishop of Cyrus (who being deposed by Dioscorus, appealed to Pope Leo) was by his authority restored to his seat, Ep. Theo­dor. ad Leonem. and admitted into the Councell: Ingrediatur, say the Fathers, & Reuerendissimus Episcopus Theodoretus &c. Let also the most Reuerend Bishop Theodoretus enter, that he may be partaker of our Synod, because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored to him his Bishopricke. Theodo­retus re­stored to his Bisho­prike by Pope L [...]o. So they; whereby they gaue sufficient testimony of the soueraygnty of Pope Leo, acknowled­ging his power to restore Bishops to their Bishopriks in the Greeke Church. Finally if there were nothing els in that Councell to proue Pope Leo's supreme, and vniuersall authority ouer the Church of God, it might [Page 96] suffice for an euident proofe thereof, Pope Leo was vn­doubtedly the head and presi­dent of the Coū ­cell. that he was vn­doubtedly the president, and head of the Councell, as you haue heard before, and may be confirmed by the subscriptions of his Legats set before all other Bishops, though one of them was but a Priest, and no By­shop.

79. For what reason can be imagined why Pope Leo should be president of a Councell in Greece, so far from his owne seat (as well he himselfe as his Legats being Romans, Caluin confuted cōcerning the cause why Pope Leo was president of the Councell. and of the Latin Church) but that it belonged to him to be head thereof, in respect of his vniuersall authority? Will M. Andrews absurdly say as Caluin doth, that there was no Bishop in all Greece at that tyme, held to be worthy of that Honour? How then was Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople able to pro­cure such a Canon, as he did, in his owne fauour? Can any man belieue that he was (as M. Andrews saith) esteemed worthy to be made equal in dignity, and all things els with the Bishop of Rome, and yet not fit to be President of a Councell in his owne country, yea lesse fit then a stranger, who was held to be but his [...]qual? Besides that howsoeuer Pope Leo himselfe might be esteemed more worthy of that Charge, then the Bi­shops of Greece (in respect of his eminent learning, wisdome, and vertue) yet there is no probability in the world, Pope Leo head of the Coūcel of Calcedō in respect of his su­preme au­thority ouer the whole Church. that the Emperour, and all the Bishops of that Councell (which were aboue 600.) had the like conceit of the sufficiency of his Legats, or that they would all of them yield as well to them, as to him (one of them being but a Priest:) This, I say, is so impro­bable that M. Caluin, and M. Andrews must eyther giue vs some other probable reason for it (as they shall neuer be able to do) or els confesse that Leo was Presi­dent [Page 97] of that Councell by right of his soueraignty, and supreme authority ouer Gods Church.

80. Therefore now to conclude this matter, thou seest, good Reader, what was the beliefe of the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon concerning the Popes su­premacy, and how far M. Andrews is from their faith, and Religion, yea and what a seared conscience he hath, What a seared cō ­science M. Andrew [...] hath. not only to deny such an euident truth as this, but also to impugne it, with so much fraud, and impudency as he doth against his owne conscience (no doubt:) for he could not possibly see in the Councell, that which he himselfe alledgeth and the Cardinall obiecteth, but he must needs see all this which I haue cyted out of it: neyther could he alledge some part of the 28. Canon, and vrge it as he doth (laying downe the words euen of the Greeke text) but he saw as well that which fol­loweth immediatly (and clearely conuinceth his fraud, and forgery) as that which went before, and seemed to make for him; whereby it is euident that he not on­ly wittingly dissembled, and concealed the whole drift of that Canon, but also maliciously peruerted, mangled, and falsifyed it, to the end to deceiue his Reader, for the mayntenance of his miserable cause; for so I may well tearme it, seeing it dryueth him to such miserable and desperate shifts.

HAVING occasion in my Supple­ment to proue the necessity of a visi­ble head in Gods Church to cōserue the same in vnity, Suppl. cap. 4. nu. 3. & 4. I alledged two places of S. Cyprian, and S. Hierome, which the Cardinall also cyteth in his Apology, togeather with diuers other testimonies of [Page 99] the Fathers, to proue the Primacy of S. Peter, and for as much as M. Andrews his answere thereto (if it haue any force at all) maketh as much against me, as a­gainst the Cardinall, Apol. Card. Bel. cap. 8. p. 125. Cypriā. de vnit. Eccles. I will examine heere what force, and pith it hath. The Cardinall saith thus of S. Cyprian. Fecit Cyprianus Petrum &c. Cyprian made Peter the head, fountayne, and roote of the Church: and in his Epistle to Quintus: Peter, saith he, whome our Lord first chose, and vpon whome he buylt his Church &c. ‘Where S. Cyprian doth not only say, Idem ep. ad Quintum. that Peter was first chosen, but also addeth that the Church was buylt vpon him; and true­ly the foundation in a buylding, & the head in a body are all one.’ Thus saith the Cardinall, alledging, as you see, two places of S. Cyprian, to both which M. Andrews meaneth to say somewhat.

2. To the first he saith thus, Andr. Resp. cap. 8. pag. 217. [...]in. penult. ‘ Fecit Cyprianus &c. Cyprian made Peter the head, fountayne, and roote of the Church, not Peter of the Church, but rather maketh the Church it selfe the fountayne from whence many brookes, M. An­drews graue dis­course in answere to the Cardinall. the light from whence many beames, and the roote from whence many boughs are propagated. Learne this euen of himselfe; Sic & Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa &c. So the Church being wholy resplendent with the light of our Lord, casteth forth her beames throughout the whole world (loe, he sayth the Church, and not Peter) yet the light is one, and the selfe same which is spread euery where (is this light Peter? or is he euery where spread a­broad?) and the vnity of the body is not separated. The Church through the plenty of her fertility stretcheth forth her branches ouer the whole earth, and doth amply spread abroad her aboundant flowing brookes, yet the head is one, the beginning one, & one mother, copious with the prosperous successe of her fecundity, or fruitfulnes. Caligauit hic [Page 100] Cardinalis &c the Cardinall was spurre-blynd, or dim­me sighted here, for (I thinke) he will not say, that Peter is the mother, and therefore not the head.’

3. This is M. Andrews his graue discourse, suppo­sing, as it seemeth, that because the word mater is ap­plyed to the Church by S. Cyprian, therefore Caput cannot be applyed to S. Peter, but to the Church. Ther­fore to the end M. Andrews may vnderstand that S. Peter (and not the Church it selfe) is in this place worthily tearmed by S. Cyprian, caput, fons, radix, & origo, the head, the fountayne, the roote, and the spring, he shall do well to consider the ground and drift of all S. Cyprians discourse, which the Cardinall in his Apo­logy omitted for breuityes sake, and therefore although I haue layd it downe in my Supplement, to proue the necessity of a visible head in the Church, yet I will take paynes to repeat it heere, to ease the Reader of the labour to seeke it there.

4. S. Cyprian meaning to shew the cause, why the Church is troubled with heresyes, The drift and mea­ning of S. Cyprian. and schismes, and withall to giue the remedy, saith thus: ‘ Hoc eò fit &c. This hapneth, because men do not returne to the be­ginning of truth, nor seeke the head, nor obserue the do­ctrin of the heauenly Maister, Cyprian vbi supra. which if any man will well consider, and examine, he shall not need any longer treatise, or arguments to proue it; the proofe is easy to be belieued by the compendiousnes, or breuity of the truth; our Lord sayd to Peter, Matth. 1.6. I say vnto thee, thou art Peter, and vpon this rock I will buyld my Church, and the gates of hell shall not ouercome it &c. Ioan. 21. To him also he saith after his resurre­ction, Feede my sheepe: vpon him being one, he buylt his Church, and to him he recommended his sheep to be fed, and although after his resurrection he gaue [Page 101] equal power to all his Apostles, Ibid. 20. and sayd, as my Fa­ther sent me, so I send you, receaue the holy Ghost &c. neuertheles to manifest, and shew a vnity, he orday­ned one chayre, and by his authority disposed, that the beginning of the same vnity should proceed from one. Truely the rest of the Apostles were that which S. Peter was, endued with lyke fellowship of honour, and power, but the beginning proceedeth from vnity; the Primacy is giuen to Peter, that one Church of Christ, and one chayre may be shewed.’ So he.

5. And prosecuting still the same matter, proueth notably the vnity of the Church, by the vnity of the head, S. Cypriā proueth the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head thereof. from whence all the vnity of the body is deriued, which he sheweth by three excellent similituds of ma­ny branches of one tree springing from one roote, many brookes of one water flowing from one foun­tayne, and many beames of one light deriued from one sunne, 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 ouer the world, vnum tamen caput est, sayth he, & origo vna &c. yet the head is one, and the origen, or beginning one (that is to say Peter) vpon whome he sayd before (as you haue heard) that our Sauiour buylt his Church, and to whom he recō ­mended his sheep to be fed, yea gaue him Primatum, the Primacy, vt vna Christi Ecclesia, & vna cathedra mon­stretur, to shew therby one Church of Christ, and one chayre; and this must needs be the true sense of S. Cy­prian in that-place, if we will make his conclusion con­forme to his premisses, and to the whole scope of his intention.

6. So that M. Andrews making the Church it selfe [Page 102] to be the roote, fountayne, and head whereof S. Cyprian speaketh, doth most absurdly confound the tree with the roote, the riuers with the spring, the body with the head, and lameth all that most excellent discourse, of S. Cyprian, yea ouerthroweth the very foundation thereof, denying all that which S. Cyprian layd for his ground, to wit, the Primacy, and supreme authority of S. Peter, from whence he expresly deryueth the vnity of the Church, as he doth also most clearely els where, saying in his Epistle to Iubaianus: Idem ep. ad Iubaian. Nos Ecclesiae vnius caput, & radicem tenemus: We haue, or do hold the head, and roote of one Church (and after decla­ring what roote, Ibid. and head he meaneth, he sayth:) nam Petro primùm Dominus super quem &c. For our Lord gaue this power (of binding, and loosing) to Peter, vpon whome he buylt his Church, & vnde vnitatis orig [...]nem instituit, & ostendit: and from whence he ordayned, and shewed the beginning of vnity. And agayne after in the same Epistle: Ecclesia quae vna est, super vnum qui claues accepit, voce Domini fundata est. The Church which is one, was by the speach of our Lord founded vpon one, who receaued the keyes. So he. Whereby it eui­dently appeareth, that his constant, and manifest do­ctrine is, that all the vnity of the Church, proceedeth from the vnity of her head (to wit S. Peter, and his chayre) and that the Cardinall affirming that S. Cyprian made Peter the head, fountayne, & roote of the Church, gaue vs his true sense: and M. Andrews making the Church it selfe to be the head, A foolish glosse of M. An­drews v­pon the text of S. Cyprian. fountayne, and roote of it selfe, is very absurd, and wholy repugnant to S. Cy­prians doctrine or meaning.

7. And this will be more cleere, if we examin a little better M. Andrews his glosse vpon the text of S. [Page 103] Cyprian, whereby he laboureth to proue, that the Church it selfe, and not S. Peter is the head, fountayne, and roote whereof S. Cyprian speaketh. Andr. vbi supra pag. 218. lin. 2. For hauing layd downe S. Cyprians words (to wit, sic Ecclesia Do­mini luce perfusa &c. so also the Church shyning with the light of our Lord, reacheth forth her beames ouer the whole world) he noteth that the Father sayth, Ecclesia, non Petrus, the Church, not Peter; and no meruaile, see­ing he had no occasion then to name Peter, but the Church only; for although the Church, being a visi­ble body, hath alwayes a visible head vnder Christ, to wit Peter, and his successors; yet S. Cyprian doth speake of it heere, as of a body considered a part, not including the head, meaning afterwards to speake of the head (as he had in lyke manner done before) de­claring from whence the vnity of that body is deriued, as it will appeare further heereafter.

8. In the meane tyme, let vs see how M. Andrews goeth on with the text; Vnum tamen lumen est &c. Yet it is one light, which is euery where spread, neyther is the vnity of the body separated; heere 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 euery where dispersed? whereto I an­swere, that although he is not the light of the Church, as he was a particuler man, yet he may well be so cal­led, not only as he was an Apostle (seeing that our Sa­uiour sayd 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 Sauiour, who being lux vera, Ioan. 11. the true light, imparteth vnto him his owne excellencyes, so far forth, as is necessary for the gouer­nement of his Church, which he hath committed to his charge; in which respect it may truely be sayd, that [Page 104] the light of the Church proceedeth not only from Christ, but also from him, as from the head thereof vnder Christ, and that by his authority it is spread euery where throughout the Church.

9. And this is sufficiēt to make good the similitude according to the intention of S. Cyprian, who only speaketh here of the Church, as of a body receiuing all the vnity of her seueral & many parts from the head, as the light which is spread thoughout the world, re­ceaueth vnity from the sunne; & therfore he argueth thus in substance: The vini­ty of the Church notably proued, and dedu­ced by S. Cyprian from the vnity of the Head. As the light of the sunne dispersed ouer the earth (though it haue many beames, yet) is but one light by reason that it proceedeth from one sunne, so also the body of the Church dispersed by ma­ny members ouer the whole world, is but one body, because it proceedeth from one head; which reason he giueth yet more expressely in the two other similituds that immediatly follow (of a tree spreading forth ma­ny boughes, and of many brookes flowing from one fountayne) for of the former he saith, that though the boughes are many, and spread far abroad, Robur ta­men vnum tenaci radice firmatum: yet the strengeth is one fastned in the strong, and stiffe roote; and of the later he saith in like manner, that notwithstanding the aboun­dant, and copious plenty of water dispersed by many brookes, yet it is but one water, because vnitas, saith he, seruatur in origine, the vnity is conserued in the spring. Who then seeth not, that to apply this similitude to the Church, we must needs say, that albeit the sayd Church hath very many members, and parts spread ouer the whole world yet it is but one body, because it hath but one head wherein the vnity of all the parts is conserued.

[Page 105]10. And to this is also conforme the rest of S. Cyprians text, which M. Andrews proceedeth to lay downe thus; ‘ Ramos suos Ecclesia &c. The Church, through her aboundant fertility, stretcheth forth her branches ouer the whole earth, and largely spreadeth abroad her copious riuers, or brookes, yet the head is one, the origen, or beginning one, and one mother &c.’ So sayth S. Cyprian, teaching, as you see, nothing els in effect, but that the Church being a body disper­sed ouer the whole world in her members, is vnited in one head, and therefore he saith, vnum tamen caput, & origo vna, yet the head is one, and the origen, or be­ginning one: and so hauing spoken as well of the head of the Church, as of the body, and declared from whence the vnity of the whole is deryued, he had great reason to adde vna mater, one mother, Why the Church is called one Mother. giuing to vnderstand that as the Church hath one head, so she is one mother; one, in respect of her vnity deryued from her head, and mother, because she is the spouse of Christ, and hath children dispersed throughout the world.

11. And thus may M. Andrews see, that albeit S. Peter is not called in S. Cyprian a Mother, M. An­drews fraudulent in his lame allegation of S. Cy­prian. yet he is ac­knowledged to be the head, from whence the vnity of the whole Church our mother is communicated to vs her children, which would haue bene as cleare as the sunne, if he had layd downe the similituds themselues, as well as he gaue vs only the application of them out of S. Cyprian (beginning his allegation, with Sic & Ecclesia: so also the Church &c.) for he knew full well that his false glosse would haue bene easily disco­uered if he had set downe the similituds, as they are deliuered, and vrged by the Father himselfe. There­fore now let the Reader Iudge, Quis caligauit hic? who [Page 106] was blind heere? the Cardinall, or M. Andrewes? Thus much concerning the first place of S. Cy­prian.

12. The other place is; Petrus super quem Domi­nus fundauit Ecclesiam: S. Cypr. ep. ad Quint. Peter vpon whom our Lord did found his Church; whereupon the Cardinall infer­eth that S. Cyprian teacheth, that the Church is buylt vpon S. Peter, Card. Bel­lar. Apolo. c. 8. p. 125. Andr. cap. 8. pag. 218. and that therfore he is the foundation of the Church, and consequently the head therof, be­cause the foundation in a buylding, and the head in a body is all one: whereto M. Andrewes answereth thus. Alter verò illi ex Cypriano locus praecidendus erat &c. A shifting answere of M. An­drews, falsely charging the Cardi­nall with fraud. He thought it necessary to cut of the other place of Cyprian where it seemed little to fauour the Primacy; for thus it is, nam nec Petrus (quem primum Dominus elegit) &c. For neyther did Peter, whome our Lord chose the first, chal­lenge any thing insolently to himselfe, nor take vpon him arrogantly to say that he had the Primacy, or that he ought to be obayed of those that were yonger, and later then he: ‘Wherein the mynd or sense of Cyprian seemeth to be, that if Peter had sayd that he had the Primacy, he had insolently challenged somewhat to himselfe, and ther­fore the Cardinall suppressed this part of the text warily, The Pri­macy of S. Peter is notably proued, by those words of S. Cypriā, which M. Andrews sayth the Cardinall fraudulēt­ly left out. because it made litle for the Primacy, and rather tooke hold of the former part, where Cyprian saith, that the Church was buylt vpon Peter &c.’

13. Thus sayth M. Andrews, with somewhat more, which I will also lay downe after a whyle, when I shall first haue examined this; wherein you see he would fayne make the Reader belieue that the Cardi­nall had vsed some art, or fraud, in leauing it vncyted, as not fauorable, but rather preiudiciall to S. Peters Primacy; wheras in truth it doth notably proue it, and [Page 107] no way impayre, or infringe it, as he may see in the Cardinals controuersyes, where amongst very many other places alledged for the Primacy of S. Peter, he vrgeth this, fortifying it notably with the authority of S. Augustine, who also cyteth those words of S. Cy­prian, though vpon another occasion. Therefore I will set downe the Cardinalls owne words to the end that he may answere for himselfe: who hauing brought the testimonyes of a whole Iury (as I may say) of Greeke Fathers (to wit Origen, Eusebius, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Epiphanius, the two S. Cyrils, S. Chrysostome, Euthymius, Theophilact, Occumenius, and Hugo Etherianus, all of them expressely acknowled­ging the supremacy of S. Peter aboue all the other Apo­stles) addeth as many more of the Latin Fathers, and beginneth with S. Cyprian thus. Bellar. d [...] Romano Pout. l. [...]. cap. 25.

14. ‘ Ex latinis S. Cyprianus in Ep. ad Quintum &c. Of the latin Fathers S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Quin­tus sayth, that Peter, when he was reprehended by Paul, would not say that he had the primacy, and that he ought to be obayed, S. Cypriā cleerly ex­plicated by the Card. out of S. Au­gustine. whereby he signifyeth that Peter had the primacy, and might command all o­thers. And lest perhaps our aduersaries may say, that Cyprian meaneth that Peter did not say he had the Pri­macy, because he should therein haue affirmed that which was false, let vs heare Augustine expounding this place of Cyprian lib. 2. S. Peter being head of the A­postles suffered himselfe to be repre­hended by S. Paul. de Baptismo cap. 1. &c.’ Thus saith the Cardinall, and after hauing layd downe S. Cy­prians words alledged by S. Augustine (being the same that you haue heard before) he addeth the words of S. Augustine which are these: Ecce vbi commemorat Cyprianus &c. Behold how Cyprian doth shew that Peter the Apostle (in whom the primacy of the Apostles is preeminent [Page 108] with such an excellent grace) corrected by Paul a later Apostle, when he dealt concerning Circumcision otherwayse then truth required. So sayth S. Augustin, whereby it euidently appeareth, how he vnderstandeth S. Cyprian in this place, to wit, that albeit Peter was preeminent, and far excelled the Apostles by reason of his Primacy, yet when he erred, he patiently suffered himselfe to be corrected by Paul, and did not insolently, and arrogant­ly defend his errour, standing vpon the authority of his Primacy, and challenging obedience of S. Paul and others.

15. This then being so, and the Cardinalls opini­on concerning the meaning of S. Cyprian in this place being so [...]ell fortified, Bellar­mine clea­red from M. An­drews im­putatio [...]. as you haue now heard, by S. Augustines construction, and iudgement thereof, what reason hath any man to thinke that the Cardinall did, as M. Andrews chargeth him, purposely, and craftily suppresse those words of S. Cyprian, as not making for Peters Primacy; whereas you see he taketh them to make much for it, and doth vrge them notably to proue it? Therefore can any reasonable man imagine any fraud in the Cardinall? Or any other cause why he did not eyte them in his Apology, but partly for breuityes sake (which euery may seeth how much he affecteth in all his workes) and partly because he thought he had al­ledged sufficient already out of that Father to proue his intent?

16. So that, whereas M. Andrews sayth, Ea Cypria­ni mens videtur &c. The mynd or sense of Cyprian see­meth to be, that if Peter had said he had the Primacy, he had insolently challenged somewhat to himselfe (that is to say more then was due vnto him) he did very well to say videtur, it seemeth; for if he had absolutly affirmed [Page 109] it, he had ouerlashed very far. Besides that he may learne if it please him to make a great difference be­twixt insolenter, How a man may speake of his owne authority insolently, and yet truly. and [...]also, insolently, and falsely; for a man may take vpon him a true authority, and speake of it insolently, that is to say without iust cause, or in defence of some euill 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 haue stood vpon his Primacy in defence of his erroneous act, and sayd, that S. Paul ought to follow and obay him therin, because he was the Primate, and head of the Apostles [...] he had both sayd, and done insolently, which neuerthe­les, in defence of a truth, or vpon some other iust oc­casion, he might both say and do, without all note of insolency, yea iustly, and necessarily, because he had indeed the Primacy, and therefore was to be obayed, and followed in all good, and iust actions.

17. But now M. Andrews goeth forward: and whereas the Cardinall 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 tearmed the foun­dation of the Church by S. Cy­prian. that S. Peter was fundamentum quidem vnum, sed non vnicum, one, but not the only foundation: esse enim illiusce aedificij duodecem fundamenta, for that there are twelue foundations of that building. But M. Andrews is heere short of his account, for he should rather haue sayd that there are thirteene, except he will exclude Christ, of whome the Apostle sayth, Fundamen­tum aliud nemo potest ponere &c. no man can lay any other foundation then that which is already layed, 1. Cor. 3. Iesus Christ: of whome also the Prophet sayth, Ecce ego ponam in funda­mentis Sion lapidem &c. Isa. 28. Behold I will lay a stone in the foundation of Sion, an approued stone, a corner, and preci­ous stone, founded in the foundation &c.

[Page 110]18. And this I am sure M. Andrews will not deny, seeing that it is one of the most speciall arguments whereby his fellowes 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 twelue foundations of the Church, without preiudice to Christ, he may also admit eleuen without preiudice to Peter. For albeit the twelue Apo­stles are all founded vpon Christ, who is the first and principall stone, yet Peter may haue the first place in the foundation next after Christ, being immediatly founded on him (as head and ordinary Pastor of the Church) and the rest vpon 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 See after nu. 24.25. & 2 [...]. more particulerly in the discussion of M. Andrews his answere to the place of S. Hierome.

19. And now to conclude concerning S. Cyprian, whereas the Cardinall argueth vpon 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 twelue heads. and the foundation in a buylding is all one) M. Andrews answereth thus: ‘ Vix illuc vsquequa (que) &c. That is scantly true euery way, for I do shew the Car­dinall a buylding, whereof there are twelue foundations, but hardly can the Cardinall shew me one body, wher­of there are twelue heads.’ So he, very well to the pur­pose (I assure you) ouerthrowing himselfe with his owne answere; for if that buylding (which he sayth hath twelue 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 Cardinall very easi­ly [Page 111] shew him also a body that hath twelue heads, euen according to the doctrine, and opinion of M. An­drews himselfe, who can not deny but that the Church is a body (I meane such a body as heere we treate of, to wit not a naturall, but a mysticall body) neyther can he deny that the Apostles were heads of that body seeing all of them had (as M. Andrews still telleth vs) the charge, and gouernement of the Church alike; and therefore being twelue gouernours, they were also twelue heads.

20. Is it then so hard a matter for the Cardinall to shew him a body with twelue heads? Nay, which is more, and toucheth more our case, doth not M. An­drews thinke it possible that such a body may haue a hundreth heads, A politi­call or mysticall body may haue 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 hundreths) are heads thereof? or that they are subordinat to one Doge, or Duke? So that it is to be vnderstood, that in respect of the rest of the Common welth, the Senators are all heads, though in respect of the Doge, they are but mem­bers subordinate to him. And so in this spirituall buyl­ding of the Church, or mysticall body of Christ, though the twelue Apostles were twelue foundations, and conse­quently twelue heads, yet, as all the twelue were sub­ordinate to Christ, so were eleuen of them subordinate to Peter, whome Christ made their Primacy or Head, which, as you haue heard, is the expresse doctrine of S. Cyprian, teaching that albeit the Apostles had equal power, yet Primatus, sayth he, Petro datur, vt vna Ecclesia Christi, & vna Cathedra monstretur, The Primacy is giuen to Peter, that one Church of Christ, and one chayre may be shewed. Whereby he giueth to vnder­stand, [Page 112] that although the Apostles were all of equal powe [...] in respect of all other Christians, who were subiect to them, M. An­drews so wryteth as he doth much help his Aduersa­ryes cause yet they were not equal in respect of Peter to whome our Sauiour himselfe gaue the Primacy to con­serue vnity amongst them, and in his whole Church. And this I hope may suffise for answere to M. Andrews his glosse vpō the 2. places of S. Cyprian; only, I cannot omit to thanke him, for the paynes he taketh still to corroborate our cause with his answers, & obiections, for truly if he write many bookes in this vayne, we shall not need any other champion to fight for vs but himselfe, as it will also further appeare by his answere to the place of S. Hierome whereof I am now to treate. Card. Bel­lar. Apol. c. 8. pag. 126 Hierom. l. [...]. aduers. Iouinian.

21. The Cardinall cyteth out of S. Hierome these words, Inter duodecem vnus eligitur, vt capite constitut [...] schismatis tollatur occasio: one is chosen amongst twelue, to the end, that a head being made, the occasion of schisme may be taken away, Touching the place of S. Hie­rome. by which words of S. Hierome, spoken expressely of S. Peter, it is cleare that according to S. Hieromes doctrine our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles, and consequently of the whole Church of God; Supple. c. 4. nu. 3. to which purpose I haue also vrged the same in my Supplement.

Andr. vbi supra pag. 219. §. Hie­ronymus.22. Now then M. Andrews answereth the Car­dinall thus: ‘ Hicronymus idem hic à Cardinale patitur &c. Hierome suffreth heere at the Cardinals hands the same (iniury) that Cyprian suffred before; both their places (or texts) are lamely cyted, for Hi [...]rome saith thus: At dices (tu scilicet Iouiniane) super Petrum fundatur Ec­clesia &c. M. An­drews bad glosse vpō S. Hie­roms text. But thou (to wit Iouinian) wilt say, the Church is founded vpon Peter (which the Cardinall doth now so oft, and earnestly inculcate vnto vs, well following Iouinian therein:) but what sayth Hie­rome? [Page 113] Although, sayth he, the same is in another place done vpon all the Apostles, and all of them receiue the keyes, and the strength of the Church is equal consolidated, or established vpon them all, yet (neyther in respect of the keyes, nor of the foundation, which are so much esteemed at Rome, but) for this cause one is chosen a­mongst twelue, that a head being made, the occasion of schisme may be taken away.’ Thus far doth M. Andrews alledge the words of S. Hierome, and glosse them, as you see, wherein two things are specially to be obser­ued for the present, the one that he taxeth the Car­dinall for wronging S. Hierome now, no lesse then he wronged S. Cyprian before, in the lame, and corrupt citation of their places. The other, that he would make the Reader belieue, that to hold the Church to be buylt vpon Peter was one of Iouinians heresyes, and not S. Hieromes doctrine; and that therefore the Cardinall teaching, and oft inculcating the same, doth follow Iouinian; of these two points I must needs say somwhat before I passe further; for truely they deserue to be well examined, and the good conscyence of M. An­drews to be layed 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 Cardinall, Supra nu. 15. as S. Cyprian was be­fore; which is most true; for neyther of them both receiue any wrong at all by the Cardinall, The Car­dinal falsely charged by M. An­drew [...] with fra [...]d in the cita­ [...]ion of S. Hierome. as you haue already seene in the place of S. Cyprian, and will easi­ly see also in this place of S. Hierome, if you conferre that which the Cardinall left vncyted (and is layd downe by M. Andrews) with that which followeth, and is cyted by the Cardinall: for albeit S. Hierome do teach in the words which M. Andrews cyteth, that the [Page 114] Church was equally buylt vpon all the Apostles, yet it is euident by that which the Cardinall alledgeth, that the same is so to be vnderstood, that it doth not any way preiudice the Primacy of S. Peter, seeing that S. Hierome affirmeth expressely (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 vnderstand this equality in other manner then S. Hierome doth, who indeed sayth, with great reason, as also diuers other Fathers do (and no Catholike will deny it) that the Church was buylt vpon all the Apostles ( ex aequo, equally) but in what sense the same is to be vnderstood, Psal. 86. Apocal. 21. Ephes. [...]. I would wish Mr. Andrews to learne of Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in his controuersyes, where he declareth the same very learnedly, Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 11. perspicuously, and briefely, as he is wont.

24. Thus then he sayth, answering to this very place of S. Hierome and certayne others taken out of the Scriptures, and obiected by Luther: Respondeo, tri­bus modis Apostolos omnes fuisse Ecclesiae fundamenta &c. How the Church according to Cardi­nal Bellar­mine is buylt e­qually vpō all the A­postles. I answere that all the Apostles were three wayes the foundations of the Church, yet without any preiudice to Peter. The first is, because they were the first that did found Churches euery where, for Peter did not himselfe alone conuert the whole world vnto the fayth of Christ, but some Nations were conuerted by him, others by Iames, and others by the rest. And therefore S. Paul Rom. 15. saith: ‘ Sic praedicaui &c. I haue so prea­ched this Ghospell where Christ was not named, least I should buyld vpon other mens foundation. And 1. Cor. 3. vt sapiens architectus &c. I haue layd the foundation lyke a wyse Ar­chitect, and another buyldeth thereupon. And in this manner all Apostles are foundations alyke, which [Page 115] I thinke is meant in the 21. Chapter of the Apoca­lyps.’

‘25. The Apostles and Prophets are also sayd ano­ther way, to be foundations of the Church, to wit, be­cause all Christian doctrine was reuealed vnto them, seeing that the fayth of the Church is grounded vpon the reuelation which the Apostles, & Prophets had from God; for new articles of fayth are not alwayes reuealed to the Church. But the Church resteth, and continueth in that doctrine which the Apostles, and Prophets lear­ned of our Lord, and deliuered to their posterity by preaching, and writing, and by this meanes we are, as the Apostle sayth, Ephes. 2. buylt vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, and according to these two wayes, Peter is no greater then the rest. But as Hierome sayth, the strength of the Church is equally established v­pon them all.’

‘26. The Apostles also are sayd a third way, to be foundations of the Church, to wit in respect of their gouernement; for all of them were heads, gouernours, and Pastors of the vniuersall Church, but not in the same manner that Peter was, for they had a chiefe, and most ample power as Apostles, or Legats; but Peter had it as ordinary Pastor; besides that they had their full power in such sort, that neuerthelesse 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 sayd vnto him in presence of the rest, Vpon this rock I will buyld my Church, which besides the other Fathers before cyted, S. Hierome tea­cheth in his first booke against Iouinian; where expli­cating what is the meaning of buylding the Church vpon Peter, he sayth thus: Licèt super omnes Apostolos &c. [Page 116] Although the strength of the Church be established equally vpon all the Apostles, yet therefore one was chosen amongst the twelue, to the end, that a head being made, the occa­sion of schisme might be taken away.’

27. Thus far the Cardinall, which I hope may suf­fice to teach M. Andrews how the Church was foun­ded equally vpon the Apostles, to wit, the two first waye, (whereof the Cardinall 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 impugne S. Peters Primacy by the equality that he mentioneth, maketh him contradict himselfe, and ouerthrow his owne doctrine in the very next words after, wherein he expoundeth (as the Cardinall noteth very well) what is meant by the buyl­ding of the Church vpon S. Peter, signifying that it is to be vnderstood thereby, that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles, as I will shew further here­after, by M. Andrews his owne confession. So that it is cleare inough that the Cardinal left not those words of S. Hierome vncyted, See after nu. [...]6. & sequ. as preiudiciall to Peters primacy, but only for breuityes sake; M. An­drewes calumni­ateth Bel­larmine. and that therefore M. Andrews hath notably calumniated him, as well in this place as in the former, seeking to cast vpon him some suspition of fraudulent dealing in the cytation of Au­thors, which is indeed the proper talent of M. Barlow, and M. Andrews, as you haue hitherto seene sufficient­ly proued in them both, and shall see further exemply­fied heereafter in M. Andrews, to his confusion.

28. The second point which I wished to be ob­serued [Page 117] in his Glosse vpon S. Hieromes text, M. An­drews second charge a­gainst the Cardinall touching Iouinia­nisme re­futed and retorted [...] is that he sayth the Cardinall followeth Iouinian in affirming, that the Church was founded vpon S. Peter, as if the Cardinall did teach therein so [...]e heresy of Iouini [...]n, and not S. Hieromes doctrine: but this surpasseth all impudency. For, no doubt, he speaketh against his owne conscience, and knowledge, seeing he cannot be ignorant of the contrary, if he haue read, and exa­mined that very place in S. Hierome which he obie­cteth, where it is euident, that the matter then in con­trouersy betwixt S. Hierome, and Iouinian was about the merit of Virginity, S Hier. li. 1. contra. Iouinian. because Iouinian equalled mar [...]ryage with it, which heresy S. Hierome in that place laboured to confute [...] and for as much as the heretyke had obiected the marriage of the Apostles (inferring thereupon that if Virginity were to be preferred before marriage, Christ would not haue chosen marryed men, but Virgins to be his Apostles, and the Princes, and Captains of Christian disciplin) therefore S. Hierome answereth, that it appeareth not in the Scriptures that any of them had a wyfe except Saint Peter, and that he being married whiles he was vnder the law, liued continent from his wyfe after his vocation to the Apo­stleship; and that if any of the rest had wyues before their vocation, they abstayned from them euer after; and that S. Iohn Euangelist being chosen a Virgin, was singularly beloued, and specially fauoured of our Sa­uiour aboue the rest for his Virginity.

29. And whereas Iouinian also vrged the supreme dignity of S. Peter, as that the Church was founded v­pon him, being a married man, and not vpon S. Iohn who was a Virgin (wherein it is euident that Iouinian sought to fortify his heresy by an argument drawne [Page 118] from a point of knowne Catholike 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 hauing taught that the Church was also founded equally vpon all the Apostles (in the sense that I haue declared) he gaue a reason not only why S. Peter was made head of the rest (to wit to take away the occasion of schisme) but also why he (being a married man) was endowed with that power, and dignity, rather then S. Iohn 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 yeares, and Iohn very yong; and therefore to auoyd murmura­tion against Iohn himselfe (which would haue hapned in case he being the yongest of them all should haue bene made their head) Peter was worthily preferred before him. Why S. Peter was preferred by our Sauiour to the supre­macy be­fore S. Io [...]n. This is briefely the substance of S. Hie­romes discourse in that place. Whereby it is euident that he notably confirmeth our Catholike doctrine concerning the Supremacy of S. Peter, acknowled­ging him to be made the head as well of S. Iohn, as of all the rest.

30. And to the end that M. Andrews may eui­dently see that S. Hierome did not impugne, or disal­low this proposition, the Church is founded vpon Peter (but reiected only the false consequent that Iouinian drew thereon, against the merit of Virginity) I wish him to read S. Hieromes Commentary vpon the 16. Chapter of S. Matthew, and particulerly vpon these words of our Sauiour, super hanc petr [...]m aedifi [...]abo Eccle­siam meam &c. vpon this rock will I buyld my Church &c. where he shall see that the proposition, which Iouinian [Page 119] obiected, S. Hier. in 16. cap. Matth. is also the cleare, and expresse doctrine of S. Hierome, who sayth thus in the person of our Sauiour to S. Peter: Because thou Simon hast sayd to me, thou art Christ the Sonne of God, S. Peter [...] suprema­cy ac­knowled­ged by S. Hierome, and groū ­ded vpon our Saui­ours own [...] word [...]. I also say to thee (not with a vayne, or idle speach that hath no operation, or effect) sed quia meum dixisse fecisse est, but because my saying is a doing (or making) therefore I say vnto thee, thou art Peter (or a Rock) and vpon this rock I will buyld my Church. As Christ being himselfe the light, granted to his disciples that they should be called the light of the world, so to Simon who belieued in Christ the Rock, he gaue the name of Peter (that is to say, a Rock) and according to the meta­phor of a Rock it is truly sayd to him, I will buyld my Church vpon thee.

31. Thus far S Hierome, teaching expressely that Christ buylt his Church vpon Peter, Idem ep. a [...] Marcella [...] ep. 54. which also he teacheth in diuers other places, as in an Epistle to Marcella, where he hath these wordes, Petrus super quē Dominus fundauit Ecclesiam &c. Peter vpon whome our Lord founded his Church; and in another Epistle to Pope Damasus he affirmed the same, not only of him, but also of the chayre 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 chiefe but Christ, Li. 1. con­tra Ioui [...]. do cōmunicate with thy Beatitude, that is to say, with the chayre of Peter; vpon that Rock I know the Church is buylt. Finally in the selfe same booke against Iouinian, where he answereth the for­mer obiection, he calleth S. Peter, Petram Christi, the Rock of Christ, saying: O vox digna Apostolo, & Petra Christi! O speach worthy of an Apostle, and the Rock of Christ! signifying thereby, that S. Peter was the Rock [Page 120] whereupon Christ buylt his Church.

32. So as it cannot be denyed, that S. Hierome both firmely belieued, and expressely taught that our Sauiour buylt his Church vpon Peter, wherein you haue already See be­fore nu. 4.5. & sequēt seene, that he agreeth with S. Cyprian (who wrote long before him) and with the whole Councell of Calcedon, 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. Besids that you may also see in Cardinall Bellar­mins controuersyes, Bellar. de Rom. Pon­tif. l. 1. c. 10. that he agreed therin 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. Wherupon it followeth that Iouinian did not obiect the same, as his owne singular opinion (which he knew well would be litle esteemed, and was to be proued, and not obiected) but as a matter generally acknowledged by Catholikes, and that therefore he only sought to draw some consequence out of it (as out of a knowne principle of the Catho­like faith) for the confirmation of his heresy, How shameles M. An­drews is to charge the Cardinall with Ioui­nianisme, which he himselfe professeth, except he dissent frō his fellows of the En­glish cler­gy. as all heretykes do also seeke to do the like, not only out of Catholike opinions, but also out of the Scripture it selfe. What then may we thinke of M. Andrews, who is not ashamed to taxe the Cardinall as a follower of Iouinian for teaching that the Church was buylt vpon Peter? Can we thinke that he hath any conscience, or care of what he saith, especially seeing that he himselfe is a true scholler, and follower of Iouinian, except he dissent not only from Luther, Caluin and other Arch­sectaries his great Maisters, but also from his brethren [Page 121] 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 viduall continency, which is the proper heresy of Iouinian, condemned for such in his owne tyme, first by Pope Siricius, Hieronym. contra Io­uinian. and a Synode of Bishops held at Rome, and afterwards by another Synode held at Milan, where S. Ambrose was present? Besides that, the same is learnedly impugned, Aug. li. de bono con­iug. & de virginit. and clearely confuted by S. Hierome in his bookes written purposely against him; as also by S. Augustine, in his treatises de Bono coniugali, & de Virginitate, which he wrote expressely for the confutation of that heresy, Idem Re­tract. lib. 42. cap. 22. & 23. as he testifyeth himselfe in his Retractations, where he calleth Iouinian a monster for teaching that doctrine, and registreth him for an here [...]tike in his Tract, and Catalogue of heresyes, as well for that opinion, Idem. de haeres. ad Quoduul [...]. haer. 82. as for impugning the custome, and vse of the Catholike Church, in fasting, and absti­nence from certayne meates wherin also the forena­med sectaries of our dayes and the English Church at this present, and consequently M. Andrews himselfe (except he will disclayme from all his brethren) do follow Iouinian. Whereto I might add other heresyes of his taught by many Archsectaries of our tyme (wher­in, Aug. vbi sup. & Ser. 191. de temp. it may be, M. Andrewes hath his share amongst the rest) as that merits, and rewards of the lust are equal; and that the corporall virginity, and integrity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, was corrupted, and lost by the birth of our Sauiour.

35. All which opinions being heresyes of Iouinian, and registred for such by S. Augustine, Idem. de haeres. haer. 82. haue bene re­uyued in these our dayes, partly by Luther, and Caluin, and partly by the Magdeburgenses, Bucer, Molinaeus, [Page 122] and others, Bellar de notis Ec­cles. l. 4. cap. 9. as Cardinall Bellarmine sheweth out of their owne workes, in his controuersies. Therefore I remit it now to the iudgement of the indifferent Rea­der, who is the follower of Iouinian, the Cardinall, or M. Andrewes, and his fellowes? seeing that the Car­dinall holdeth nothing els with Iouinian, but only that Catholike doctrine which Iouinian held, and professed togeather with S. Hierome, and all other Fathers of his tyme (as all heretikes haue alwayes agreed with Ca­tholikes in some points) and condemneth all those heresyes wh [...]ch the Fathers aforesayd, and the whole Church of their tyme condemned in him, and his fol­lowers, wheras M. Andrews, and his fellowes expres­sely professe, and teach those very heresyes, for th [...] which Iouinian, and his followers were by the ancient Fathers censured, and condemned as monstrous here­tikes, as hath ben before declared: so that I thinke of this there can be no further controuersy.

The an­swere of M. An­drews to the place of S. Hie­rome exa­mined.36. Now then let vs proceed with the examina­tion of what he saith further to the place of S. Hierome alledged by the Cardinall, which is this: ‘ Propterea inter duodecim &c. Therefore amongst twelue one is chosen [...] that a head being appointed, the occasion of schisme may be taken away: whereto he answereth thus: Inter duodecim vnum eligi &c. that one be chosen amongst twelue, or some number which some one man may be able to gouerne, Andr cap. 8. pag. 219. § Hierony­mus. and prouyde for, or els to take away schisme, who doth forbid a head to be chosen? or so much power to be giuen him, as may suffice for the end, or purpose for the which he was ordayned? But the question is how far that power, and that number extendeth, lest the head become caput heteroclitum (an extrauagant head, or a head out of course) and not so much the occasion [Page 123] of schisme taken away, Foure things to be noted in M An­drews his answere. as an occasion giuen of tyran­ny.’ So he, all which I beseech thee, good Reader, well to note, and particulerly 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 auoyding of schisme: the third, that the same head is 1 to haue as much authority as is conuenient for the end 2 for which he is ordayned; and the fourth that of all 3 this there is no question, for that the question is (saith 4 he) concerning the power of the head, how far it ex­tendeth, and how great may be the number that he is to gouerne.

37. But if M. Andrews consider well what he granteth, M. An­drews large graunt, cōcerning the pri­macy of S. Peter. he may consequently decyde 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 whome Christ left the gouernment of his Church, it cannot be denied, but that he was made head of the Church; for who is head of any common welth, but he that is head of all those that haue the administra­tion, charge, and gouernement of it? And if the rea­son why he was ordayned head of the Apostles, was to auoyde and preuent the danger of schisme, it must needs be granted, that so long as the same cause, and reason (I meane the danger of schisme) continueth in the Church, What fol­loweth of M. An­drews hi [...] gra [...]nt. so long also the remedy is to continue ther­in; and that the greater the danger is, the more neces­sary also is the remedy; whereupon it followeth that seeing the danger of schisme doth, and euer shall con­tinue in the Church, the remedy also of one head is euer to continue. And for as much as the danger of schisme [Page 124] in the Apostles tyme 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 particulerly guyded by the holy Ghost) as it is, and [...] alwayes hath bene euer since. Therefore the remedy of one head which our Sa­uiour ordayned for the same, is more necessary now, then it was in their dayes, yea and was more specially intended by his diuyne prouidence for all ensuing ages after the Apostles tyme, then only during their li [...]es.

Psal. [...]7. & 8 [...]. Isa. 61.38. Moreouer it being euident in the holy Scri­ptures that our Sauiour planted his Church to stand to the worlds end, it were absurd to say that he ordayned that forme of gouernement vnder one head to last only during the Apostles tyme, Matt [...] 16. & vlt. Luc. 1. Ephes. 4. as though he had lesse care of the vnity of his Church in future ages then in the beginning when (as I haue sayd) the danger of schisme should be far lesse, then it would be afterwards. Ther­fore I conclude that seeing S. Peter was made head of the Apostles, Our Saui­ours pro­uidence in the conser­uation of the Romā Church when all other A­postlicall Churches haue fay­led. and consequently of the whole Church, to auoyd schisme, M. Andrews can not deny the same au­thority to S. Peters successors for the same reason; es­pecially seeing that our Sauiours prouidence therein is euident (to the very eye of euery man that list not to be willfully blynd) in that he hath permitted the suc­cession of all the Apostles to fayle in all the Churches where they gouerned, excepting only the succession of S. Peter in the Roman Church, which he hath mira­culously conserued, to make it manifest to the world, that S. Peter, and his chayre (as you haue heard out of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome) is the Rock whereupon he promised to buyld his Church, [...]. Aug. in Psal. cōtra part. Do­nati. and that as S. Augu­stine sayth: Ipsa est Petra, quam non vincunt superbae in­ferorum portae, that is, the Rock which the proud gates [Page 125] of hell do not ouercome.

39. Furthermore, whereas M. Andrews granteth also that a head appoynted in the Church for the re­medy of schisme is to haue so much power, as is neces­sary for that end, he must needs consequently grant all that power which we requyre, 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 schismes. I meane, not only a power & authority to define, & decyde cō ­trouersies (without the which no schisme, or diuision concerning matter of doctrine can be conueniently compounded) but also power, and iurisdiction to pu­nish such as do obstinatly infringe and violate the vni [...]ty, and peace of the Church; for how can the head sufficiently remedy schisme if he cannot punish those which do cause, and mayntayne it? and if M. Andrews will say that Christ hath therfore left authority to his Church to punish only by excommunication, and spirituall censures, I must demand of him, what re­medy the head of the Church can giue thereby, when his censures are contemned, and specially by an abso­lute Prince? shall he haue then no further power to re­medy the inconuenience? how then is his power such as M. Andrews himselfe 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 schisme?

40. Whence the grea­test danger of schisme common­ly aryseth. And who seeth not that the greatest harme that groweth to the Church by schisme commonly is, when secular Princes do eyther rayse it themselues, or mayntayne it in others? Shall not then the head of the Church haue sufficient power to remedy this greatest danger, and mischiefe that can hap to the Church? Or shall he not haue meanes as well to correct his [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [Page 126] greatest and most powerfull subiects, See Sup­plem. cap. 1. nu. 61.62 as the least, and meanest? Then (as I haue sayd in my Supplement) the power of the Church should be no better then a cob­web, that holdeth the little flyes, and letteth go the great ones, and consequently the prouidence of Al­mighty God should be very defectiue, in ordayning a head to conserue his Church in vnity, and not giuing him sufficient power to performe it, which no wyse temporall Prince would do, if he should make a Lieu­tenant to gouerne in any part of his dominions. Wher­to it may be added, that the Lawyers teach, that he which granteth iurisdiction, is presumed to grant all things necessary for the execution of it; which is also conforme to the Philosophers Maxime, to wit, Qui dat esse, dat consequentia ad esse, he which giueth a being, giueth togeather with it all those things which are consequents thereof, or necessarily requyred thereto, as I haue amply proued in my Ibidem à nu. 60. ad nu. 67. Supplement, where I haue deduced the necessity of this consequent from the very Law of Ibid. nu. 67. & s [...]qu. nature, and light of reason.

41. Besides that, I haue also declared Ibid. nu. 63. & 64. there that he which hath power ouer the soule for the benefit thereof, Power ouer the soule ne­cessarily implieth some power ouer the body. must needs haue also power ouer the body, and goods, which by the very Law of nature are sub­iect to the soule, and ordayned to serue it, and there­fore to be disposed by the spirituall Gouernour, or Pa­stor, so far forth, as is necessary for the saluation of the soule, in which respect the Church hath alwayes vsed (and still doth) to impose not only fasting, and o­ther bodily pennance, but also imprisonments, and pecuniary mulcts vpon her disobedient children, when the benefit of their soules, and the publick good of the Church doth requyre it, which is also vsed by our [Page 127] Aduersaries themselues in their Ecclesiasticall disci­pline, who in their spirituall Tribunals, and Courts do punish the disobedient, as well by pec [...]niary penal­ties, as by corporall imprisonements. Whereupon it followeth, that when Princes (who are members of the Church) do violate the vnion thereof, and are incorrigible by excommunication, they may be cha­stised by their supreme head, or spirituall Pastor euen in their temporall states, so far as shall be necessary for the good of their soules, and the benefit of the whole Church; for otherwyse the head of the Church should not haue that sufficient power to remedy schismes, and other inconueniences, which M. Andrews himselfe granteth, and it cannot indeed be denied.

42. This then being so, M. Andrews his first que­stion, or doubt is sufficiently solued, A doubt of M. An­drews sufficient­ly solued. to wit, How far the power of the head, whereof S. Hierome speaketh, doth extend; that is, to the direction, gouernement yea and chastisment (when occasion requyreth) of all his inferiour members, of what degree soeuer, and consequently of Kings and Princes, so far forth as shal­be needfull for the cōseruation of vnity in the Church; and that therefore when only excommunication will not suffice to reduce them to vnity, and obedience, the head may extend his spirituall power to chastise them in their bodyes, goods, and states, as far as shall be conuenient for the good of soules, and the glory of God, whereto all mens temporall states, goods, lands, and lyues are principally ordayned. Touching the num­ber com­mitted to S. Peters charge.

43. And now to come to his other question con­cerning the mumber, which this head may gouerne to auoyd and remedy schisme, let M. Andrews well ponder what he hath already granted, and of this [Page 128] 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 subiect to them; which was no lesse then all the world, whereof they had the spi­rituall charge, and gouernement, in which respect the Royall Prophet sayth of them and their successors, pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filij &c. Psal. 44. For thy Fathers, children are borne vnto thee, thou shalt ordayne them to be Princes ouer all the earth. So saith the Prophet of the A­postles, & of Bishops who succeed them in their charge, and are therfore Princes & Gouernours 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 Gouernours of the Church, did not only plant, but also propagate throughout the world in their owne tyme, according to the commission, and commaund­ment of our Sauiour, who sayd vnto them: Euntes in vniuersum mundum &c. Going into the vniuersall world preach the Ghospell to euery creature; Mar. vlt. which also the Royal Prophet fore-told of them saying, In omnem terram exi­uit sonus eorum &c. 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 Gouernours of the whole Church, and yet subiect to S. Peter, as to their head, it must needs be granted that he was su­preme head, and gouernour of the whole Church, pro­pagated, and dispersed throughout the world vnder their gouerment; for which cause S. Chrysostome saith with great reason (not only of all the Apostles in ge­nerall, that they were to haue orbis terrarum curam, the charge of all the world, but also much more) of S. [Page 129] Peter in particuler. 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 euen in the former place, where he saith, that the Apostles were to receiue of Christ the charge of the world, Idem. ho. 87. in Ioan. 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 vnto him curam fratrum, the charge of his brethren (that is to say of the Apostles) and finally that Christ recommended vnto him orbis terrarum curam, the charge of the whole world. Finally, comparing S. Iames the Apostle with S. Peter in the same place (by the way of obiection, demanding why then Iames was made Bishop of Hie­rusalem, and not Peter) he answereth: Hunc totius orbis magistrum praeposuisse, that our Sauiour preferred Peter to be the Maister of the whole world, giuing to vn­derstand, that whereas S. Iames was only Bishop of Hierusalem, and the Countries adioyning (as also the other Apostles had euery one of them some part of the world allotted vnto him to gouerne) S. Peter had the charge of the whole.

45. By all which it is euident that albeit the Apo­stles had the gouerment of all the Church, yet they were but subordinate to S. Peter, who had a commis­sion peculiar, and singular to himselfe, which was to haue the care, charge, and gouerment of them, as well as of all others subiect to them: So that his power, and authority was wholy independant on them, wher­as theirs must needs depend of him, as of their imme­diate head vnder our Sauiour, whereby it may appeare what an idle head M. Andrews hath, to exclude no [Page 130] lesse S. Peter then euery other particuler man from the gouerment of the whole Church, M. An­drews head very idle. for no better reason, then lest he might become heterochtum cuput (an extra­uagant head) or perhaps proue a Tyrant, through the excesse eyther of power, or of the number of subiects: wherein he sheweth himselfe no lesse prophane, then absurd, attributing as it seemeth, no force, or effect to our Sauiours promise of his continuall assistance to his Apostles, and Church for euer: besides that he erreth gros [...]ely if he make the multitude of subiects a notice [...] or cause of Tyranny, Matth. 16. & vlt. it being euident that the greater the number of the subiects is, A para­dox of M. Andrews. the greater also is the difficulty to oppresse them by Tyranny, and the greater the feare, 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 stats then great Monar­chies. and when great Monarches are Tyrants, they commonly exercyse their Tyranny vpon some part of their Dominions and not vpon the whole, whereas a small State contayning a few subiects, is easily Tyrannized vniuersally; so that the multitude of subiects is not properly a motiue, but rather a brydle to Tyranny, though it is properly a cause of schisme, when they are not gouerned by one head, which M. Andrews acknowledgeth sufficiently, when he confesseth, M. An­drews acknowled­geth by a necessary cōsequent that one head is necessary for the whole Church. that one head is necessary to take away the occasion of schisme amongst twelue, or some other small number: for if that be true, then the grea­ter the number is, the greater is the danger of schisme, if they haue many heads independant one of another; whereupon it followeth that one supreme head is most necessary for the whole Church, cōsisting of an innu­merable multitude of the faithfull, dispersed through­out the whole world, who being all visible members [Page 131] of one visible body, could not possibly be conserued long in vnity if they had not one visible head (whome they were all bound in conscience to obay) as I haue See sup­pl. cap. 1. nu. 81. & cap. 4. à nu. 3. ad nu. 18. shewed more at large in my Supplement, euen by the testimony of M. Barlow Ibid. nu. 7.8. & 9. himselfe.

47. For which cause not only S. Cyprian (as you haue heard before in this num. 2.3.4. & se­quent. Chapter) but also S. Hie­rome in this place teacheth with great reason that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles, to auoyde and remedy the schismes, which might grow (not so much amongst them, as) in the whole Church; for in them (after they had receiued the holy Ghost) there was no danger thereof, though in the whole Church, which was to be propagated by them ouer the world, the danger of schisme was very great, not only in their tyme, but also much more afterwards (as I haue signi­fyed nu. 37. before) in which respect it was needefull to be preuented by the institution of one head ouer the whole Church; The con­clusion cōcerning the place of S. Hie­rome. and therefore when S. Hierome an­swering Iouinian, 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 Gouernours thereof; for seeing that the obiection of Iouinian which S. Hierome answereth, concerned the foundation of the Church vpon S. Peter, his answere must needs also concerne the same: to which purpose it is to be considered, that he denyeth not Iouinians proposition (as I haue proued nu. 29. & s [...]qu. before) but explica­teth what is t [...]e meaning of super Petr [...]m fundatur Ec­clesia, signifying that it meaneth nothing els 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 vpon him, [Page 132] because, as Cardinall Bellarmine saith very well, the foundation in a buylding, and the head in a politycall, or mysticall body is all one: so as S. Peter being made head of the Apostles (who represented the Church as Gouernours 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 cleare for vs, and directly proueth that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the vniuersall Church.

48. And whereas M. Andrews in his glosse vpon S. Hieromes text note [...]h with a parenthesis, that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles ( not for the keyes, saith he, Andr. vbi supra. or for the foundation, which are so much este [...]med at Rome, but to take away the occasion of schisme) I know not w [...]at els he impugneth thereby, M. An­drews hath gran­ted by cō ­sequent as m [...]ch as we de­mand cō ­c [...]rning the s [...] ­preme au­thority of S. Peter [...] but his owne idle conceipt: for no man saith at Rome, or any where els for ought I know, that S. Peter was made head of the Church for the keyes, or for the foundation, other wayes then that in receiuing the keyes, and being made the foundation of the Church he was made head thereof, to take away the occasion of s [...]hisme. And this is S. Hi [...] ­romes doctrine, so euident, that M. Andrews himselfe is forced thereby to confesse that S [...] Peter was made head of the Apostles, yea, and that he had so much power, and authority giuen him as was necessary for the pre­uention, and remedy of schisme, whereupon all our do [...]trine concerning the Popes autho [...]ity necessarily followeth, as I haue See be­fo [...]e nu [...] 17 [...] 38. & sequent. shewed: so that you see, he still pleadeth for vs, and well deserueth his fee (if not for his good wil, yet at least) for his paynes in defen­ding our cause against his will.

THOV hast seene good Reader in the last Chapter how well M. Andrews hath satisfyed the Cardinalls obiectiō out of S. Cyprian, and S. Hierome; and now in this Chapter I will exa­mine his Answers to diuers other places of the Fathers, namely of S. Basil, and S. Gre­gory [Page 134] Nazianzen, S. Chrysostome, and S. Augustine, which albeit he pretendeth to answere togeather with the former; yet I haue thought good to separate them, because I haue alledged them separatly in my Supplement.

Card. Bel­lar. Apolo. c. 8. pag. 125 Suppl. cap. 4 nu. 15. S. Basil. in serm. de iu­dicio Dei. Andr. cap. 8. p. 218. §. Ex Basilio.2. First out of S. Basil, the Cardinall, an I ob­iect these words to proue the supremacy of S. Peter ouer the rest of the Apostles: Ille beatus qui ceteris prae­latus discipulis fuit, cui claues regni caelestis commissae. That happy, or blessed (Peter) who was preferred before the rest of the disciples, to whome the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome were committed &c. Hereto M. Andrews answereth thus: ‘ Ex Basilio, ceteris discipulis prae­latum Petrum, sed an vt esset Monarcha? &c. The Car­dinall obiecteth 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 giuen him by Christ) as Basil hath there, and [...], blessednes: add also (if you will) that he was preferred in order, and place; the King doth also attribute the same vnto 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. Heere then you see he graunteth 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 sayd to be a Mo­narch.3. But if we consider what he hath graunted in the last Chapter, we shall find that he must needs ac­knowledge him to be a Monarch, how much soeuer he mislyke the word: for if a Monarch do signify him that [Page 135] is one chiefe Prince, and s [...]preme head or gouernour of others, not for his owne particuler benefit, but for the publike and generall good of those whome he go­uerneth (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, whome he acknowledgeth togeather with S. Hierome to haue been made by our Sauiour, head of the Apostles, to preuent and remedy schisme, and to haue had not only the precedence of place, and order (as now he saith) but also so much power as suffy­ced, for the conseruation of Vnity 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 haue declared briefely in the last Chapter.

4. For S. Peter hauing by this commission of our Sauiour, authority to ordaine, commaund, and punish as far as was necessary for the good of the Church, it must needs be graunted that he had the power and au­thority of a Monarch: and although M. Andrews had not been forced by [...]he euidence of S. Hieromes testi­mony to grant it, yet this very place of S. Basil which he pretendeth heere to answere, doth proue 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 iurisdiction; adding, cui claues Regni caelestis commissae sunt, to whome (to wit Peter) the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome were committed; giuing to vnderstand, that he had by this particuler cōmission of the keyes, a particuler Iurisdiction more then the rest, in respect whereof he was Boatus, happy, [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [Page 136] or Blessed, and preferred before the rest.

Andr. vbi supra. A vaine cauill of M. An­drews.5. Whereby it may appeare how vainly M. An­drews seeketh to elude the force of this place, by that which he addeth, saying, Nam claues ei commissas quis dubitat &c. for who doubteth that the keyes were com­mitted to him, but whether the same was done in his person, or in the person of the Church, Basil doth not declare heere, but Augustine doth in many places. So he: as though S. Basil did not sufficiently explicate himselfe, and shew that S. Peter had by the keyes a greater iuris­diction then the other Apostles, for els to what purpose did he add, that the keyes were committed to him, but to shew how, and wherein he was Blessed, and preferred be­fore the rest? And whereas M. Andrews sayth, that Au­gustine declareth in many places, that the keyes were giuen him in the person of the Church, and not in his owne, I haue sufficiently shewed the vanity of this euasion in the first Cap. 1. nu. 3.4. & 5. Chapter of this Adioynder, where I haue euidently proued out of S. Augustine himselfe that S. Peter receaued the keyes, and Pastorall authority for the Church, no otherwyse, but as the supreme head, and Gouernour thereof, in which respect he represen­ted the person of the whole Church, wherein consisteth his preheminence, & preferment before the rest, wher­of S. Basil speaketh. So that you see M. Andrews hath said nothing to any purpose in answere of the place of S. Basil.

6. Now then let vs see what he saith to a place of S. Gregory Nazianzen obiected as well by the Card. Bellar. Apolog. vbi supra. Cardi­nall as by Suppl. cap. 4. nu. 10. S. Greg. Nazianzen orat. de moderat. &c. me: Vides (sayth he) quemadmodum &c. Thou seest how amongst the Disciples of Christ (all of them truely great, and high, and worthy to be chosen) this, to wit Peter, is called a Rocke, and hath the foundations of the [Page 137] Church committed to his charge &c. Andr. vbi supra. Thus saith this ancient and holy Father: whereto M. Andrews answe­reth thus: ‘ Ex Nazianzeno, Petrum & Ioannem aliquo prae ceteris priuilegio donatos &c. Out of Nazianzen (he ob­iecteth) that Peter, and Iohn had some priuiledge more then the rest: Peter that he had a new name taken from a Rock, and that Iohn was beloued more then the rest, and might layne vpon Christs brest, and the rest of the Apostles did not take it ill; what was there heere singular in Peter more then in Iohn? and therefore there is eyther heere no Primacy, or els a double Primacy.’ So he.

7. Wherein thou mayst easily see, A place of S. Grego­ry Nazi­an. expli­cated and vrged. good Reader, how he paltreth and iuggleth, if thou notest well the obiection, and how he answereth it, partly dissem­bling those very words which most import, and part­ly seeking to blynd the Readers eyes with the mention of a priuiledge giuen to S. Iohn, which indeed is also related in that place by S. Gregory Nazianzen, but no­thing at all preiudiceth the far greater priuiledge of S. Peter, I meane his supreme authority signifyed by S. Gregory in the words obiected by the Cardinall. 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 els doth he affirme therein, but that the Church was buylt vpon Peter, as vpon a Rock; and that the charge, or gouernment thereof was giuen more particulerly to him then to the rest. For if M. Andrews will say heere (as he is wont) that they were all foundations and gouernours of the Church alike, why was he called a Rock more then they? or what was the priuiledge of Peter whereof Nazianzen speaketh heere, according [Page 138] to M. Andrews his owne confession, who graunteth that Nazianzen testifieth that Peter and Iohn were aliquo priuilegio prae ceteris donati, priuiledged in some things aboue the rest?

8. Therefore if M. Andrews will allow any parti­culer priuiledge to S. Iohns layning vpon Christs brest, as he must needs do (for I thinke he will not be so ab­surd to say that the same is also to be vnderstood of all the rest) he must needs graunt that Peter had also a particuler priuiledge not only in the name of a Rock, but also in that which was signifyed thereby, that is to say, in that the foundations of the Church were committed particulerly to his charge (as Nazianzen speaketh) by which Metaphore he signifyeth sufficient­ly that S. Peter was made supreme Gouernour of the Church, as hath bene declared heretofore, and ther­fore those words of Nazianzen (atque Ecclesiae funda­menta fidei suae credita habeat) wherein consisteth the force of the obiection, seemed to M. Andrews as sore as a byle, and not to be toucht in his answere, though he set it downe in his margent togeather with the rest of the Cardinalls text.

9. But what shall we say of his absurd inference or conclusion, M. An­drews im­pertinent trifling. when he saith, that because a priuiledge was giuen to Iohn, as well as to Peter, therefore there was eyther nullus, or duplex primatus, a double primacy, or none at all? Shall we thinke so great a Doctour, 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 priuiledges wherby he should make that inference in them both? especially seeing that he himselfe will, I am sure, deny one part thereof (to wit the double primacy) no lesse then we, and the [Page 139] other part is also sufficiently contradicted, not only by S. Hierome, but also by himselfe, as I haue shewed amply in the last Chapter, where I haue declared, how S. Hierome answered Iouinians obiection, that the Church was founded vpon Peter, and not vpon Iohn, by occasion whereof S. Hierome teacheth, that al­though Iohn was more fauoured and beloued of our Sauiour 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 schisme, and thereby ouerthroweth 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 Iohn layned vpon Christs brest, and was more be­loued of Christ then the rest; so as M. Andrews doth notably contradict himselfe; besides that he argueth as wisely, as if he should say that when his Maiesty she­weth more particuler fauour, and affection to any man then to my L. of Canterbury, he maketh eyther two Primates of England, or none at all. Whereby thou mayst see (good Reader) what an absurd, and as I may tearme it, a sleeueles answere he hath made heere to the place of S. Gregory Nazianzen.

11. After this there followeth another place of the Cardinall, Suppl. cap. 4. nu. 15. Card. Apol. vbi supra. taken out of S. Chrysostome, which I haue also obiected in my Supplement. The words layd downe by the Cardinall are these: Sanctus Ioannes Chry­sostomus ho. 55. in Matthaeum &c. S. Chrysost [...] ho. 55. in Matth. S. Iohn Chrysostome in his 55. homily vpon Matthew saith: (Christ) made Peter Pastor of his future Church. And a litle after: God a­lone can graunt that the future Church shall remayne immo­uable, [Page 140] notwithstanding so many, and so great waues (of persecution) violently bre [...] in vpon it: of which Church a fisherman, and of meane parentage is the Pastor and head &c. Heere we read expressely, that Peter was head of the Church. Thus far the Cardinall.

12. Heereto M. Andrews answereth thus: ‘ Ex Chry­sostomo, Cuius Pastor & caput homo piscator &c. Andr. cap. 8. pag. 219. Out of Chrysostome he obiecteth thus, Whereof the Pastour, and head was a fisherman: but these words (whereof the pa­stor, and head) are crept into the text, and added in the Latin in fauour of [...] (he meaneth the Pope) for they are not in the Greeke, 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 chiefe or principall pastor, but yet a pastor togeather 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 Greeke. Whereto I answere, that put the case they be not now in the Greeke copies which M. An­drews hath seene, yet it litle importeth, seeing that the latin translatour found them (as it is most probable) in the Greeke copie 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 euident that it is conforme to his doctrine, and not added in fauour of the Pope, as M. Andrews would haue his Reader to suppose. For S. Chrysostome saith in the same homily: Petrus Aposto­lorum os & vertex, Chrysost. vbi supra. cùm omnes interrogati essent, solus res­pondit &c. Peter the mouth & head of the Apostles, whē they were all asked, answered alone &c. In which words S. [Page 141] 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 alledged by the Cardinall, hauing said, that a poore fisherman (by the power, Idem ibid. and vertue of Christs graunt) surpasseth in strength a [...]d solidity the nature of the dyamond, he pre­ferreth him far before Hieromy the Prophet, saying; that whereas Almighty God made Hier [...]my like a pillar of yron, and a brazen wall, and gaue him power, and au­thority ouer one Nation, hunc autem vniuerso terra­rum orbi Christus praeposuit, Christ gaue him (to wit Peter) power, and authority ouer the whole world. So he.

14. And because, M. Andrews will be like heere to fly to his common place, and to say, that all the A­postles had power, and authority ouer the whole world, as well as S. Peter, and that therefore this com­parison of him with Hieremy proueth not, that he had any more authority then the rest of the Apostles, M. Andrews must consider that S. Chrysostome cannot heere meane that his authority ouer 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 thinke 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 clearely els where, that S. Peter was head not only of the Apostles, but also of the whole Church, as it may appeare by that which I haue alledged out of him to that purpose, both in the first, and also in the precedent Chapter of this Adioynder.

15. Whereto I will now add a most cleare testi­mony thereof, out of his learned Commentary vpon [Page 142] the Acts of the Apostles, where discoursing vpon the election of Matthias the Apostle in the place of Iudas, and particulerly vpon those words, Et in diebus illis sur­gens Petrus, he noteth not only the fauour of Peter, but also his authority ouer the rest, as ouer the flock committed to his charge. Quàm est feruidus, saith he, quàm agnoscit creditum à Christo gregem &c. How fer­uent is Peter, how well doth he acknowledge the flock committed to him by Christ! Loe how he is Prince in this company or congregation, and euery where beginneth first to speake &c.

16. And againe afterwards prosecuting the same matter, Idem. ho. 3. in Acta Apost. he sayth: Quid? an non licebat ipsi eligere? Licebat & quidem maxime &c. What? and was it not lawfull for him to choose (Matthias?) Yes truely it was most lawfull, but he did it not, because he would not seeme to gratify any. Also againe after a while, he saith thus, Primus hic Do­ctorem constituit &c. he (to wit Peter) did first heere make a Doctor; A notable discourse of S. Chry­sostome prouing S. Peters Supre­macy. he said not, we are sufficient to teach &c. quamquam autem habebat ius constituendi par omnibus, tamen haec congruenter fiebant &c. Albeit he had as much authority to appoynt him as they all, yet this was done very conueniently. So he, giuing to vnderstand, that notwith­standing Peters absolute power to choose Matthias himselfe alone, yet out of prudence he determined ra­ther to do it by the generall consent of all the Apostles, which he also signifyed no lesse plainly afterwards in these words: Meritò primus omnium &c. he doth worthily first of all the rest vse, or exercyse his authority in this busi­nes, as one that had all the rest in his hand, or power, for to him Christ sayd: & tu aliquando cōuersus, confirma fratres tuos, and thou being sometyme conuerted, confirme they bre­thren.

[Page 143]17. All this saith S. Chrysostome, concerning the the election of Matthias the Apostle, whereby it ap­peareth playnly, 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 haue done it of himselfe (if he had thought it fit, and conuenient) because he had them all in his hand. So as it is cleare, that when S. Chry­sostome in the 55. homily vpon Matthew (which the Cardinall alledgeth) calleth S. Peter verticem Apostolo­rum, the head of the Apostles, and saith that Christ made him power of the Church, and that he gaue him authority ouer the whole world, he meaneth, and tea­cheth manifestly that he was supreme head, and Pastor of the vniuersall Church: which is the same in sub­stance, and effect, that those words, Cuius pastor & ca­put, do signify.

18. Therefore the doctrine being S. Chrysostomes, as well in that homily alledged by the Cardinall as els where, and the words also themselues (which per­haps may be wanting in some Greeke copie) being ex­tant, as they are cyted by the Cardinall, in all our Latin translations, it is but a vayne shift of M. An­drews to say, that they are thrust into the Latin in fa­uour of the Pope, it being more probable (as I haue sayd) that they were in the old Greeke copies, which the Latin translatours followed, and that eyther the Grecians themselues in the time of their schisme from the Roman Church, or perhaps some of our late here­tikes (who haue taken vpon them to print the Greeke in these dayes) haue purposely left out the same, in hatred of the supreme authority of S. Peter, and his [Page 144] successors. But howsoeuer it is, you see the doctrine of S. Chrysostome is cleare to the purpose that those words (which M. Andrewes saith are not in the Greek) do import: and this suffiseth to proue by the testimony of S. Chrysostome, that S. Peter was supreme Pastor and head of the vniuersall Church.

A stale trifeling conceyt touching the word [...] againe brought in by M. Andrews19. And as for M. Andrews his stale, and tryfling deuyse to call the Pope [...] (alluding to the name of the beast in the Apocalyps, according to the interpreta­tion of Irenaeus, as he would haue his Reader to sup­pose, albeit he vse it far otherwise then Irenaeus meant it, who applyed it only to the temporall Empyre, and not to the Roman Sea) I willingly omit it, as not pertayning to the place of S. Chrysostome wherof I now specially treat, and therefore do remit him for his sa­tisfaction in that point to Cardinall Bellarmines contro­uersies, Bellar. de Rom. Pon. lib. 3. cap. 10. §. Se­cunda opinio. where the same is so sufficiently answered, that he, and his fellowes may be ashamed still to repeat it, and not to impugne the manifold, and solid rea­sons which the Cardinall produceth to confute their ridiculous, and absurd application of that name to the Pope.

20. And now to end concerning the testimony of S. Chrysostome; whereas M. Andrews for conclu­sion of his answere thereto saith, that no man will deny that Peter was Pastor of the Church, yea and a principall pastor, sed cum alijs pastorem coapostolis suis, non solum sine alijs, A drea­ming fancy of M. An­drews. but Pastour togeather with other his fellow A­postles, and not alone without others; I thinke he was in a dreame when he wrot [...] it, impugning no man therein for ought I know. For I neuer heard tell of any man yet, who taught that S. Peter was Pastor of the Church alone, or that the other Apostles were not [Page 145] Pastors as well as he, Chap. 3. n [...]. 39.40. & 41. albeit we teach with S. Chryso­stome, and others, as you haue heard, that they were subordinate to him, as to the supreme pastor, and their head; Card. Bell. Apolog. vbi supra. Supple. chap. 4. which also M. Andrews himselfe doth acknow­ledge sufficiently, as I haue shewed amply in the last Chapter. And this I hope may suffice concerning S. Chrysostome.

21. There remayneth now only S. Augustin of the 4. Aug. Ser. 124. de tempore quiest pri­mus feriae [...] 4. post Domin. Palma. Fathers alledged by the Cardinall and my selfe for the proofe of S. Peters Primacy: his words are these: Totius corporis morbum in ipso capite curat Ecclesiae &c. he (to wit Christ) cureth the disease of the whole body in the very head of the Church, & cōpoundeth the health of all the members, in ipso vertice (that is to say) in the very crowne, or top of the head: Thus saith S. Augustin: whereupon the Cardinall saith: Andr. vbi 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. An­drewes bold as­sertion without all proofe. To this M. Andrewes saith thus: Concludít testes suos cum Augustino, non Augustino, cuius tempore non fiebant Sermones de tem­pore. He (to wit the Cardinall) concludeth his wit­nesses with an Augustine, who is not Augustin; in whose tyme there were not made any Sermons de tempore. So he, taking exceptions to the authority of this allega­tion, because in S. Augustins tyme (as he would haue vs suppose) there was no such custome in the Church, to make Sermons de tempore (that is to say of the or­dinary feasts that do occur thoughout the course of the yeare) and that therefore the Authour of those Ser­mons de tempore, out of the which the Cardinall taketh this place, could not be S. Augustins, but of some other later wryter, who set them out in S. Augustins name.

[Page 146]22. But now if you aske how M. Andrews pro­ueth that there were no Sermons de tempore in S. Au­gustins tyme, you must take his bare word for a proofe, for you neyther haue, nor are like to heare any other of him. But for the tryall of this matter I must re­mit thee, good Reader, to some better, and more au­thenticall witnesses then M. Andrewes, namely to Possidius a learned Bishop, who being a familiar friend of S. Augustin forty yeares togeather (as he signifieth himselfe) wrote his life, Possidius in vita Augustin. Indic. Pos­sid. cap. 9. & 10. and making a Catalogue of his workes doth mention amongst the rest diuers Ser­mons, or Treatises of his made of some of the princi­pall feasts of the yeare, as of Christmas, Ascension, Pente­cost, Lent, and 23. Tracts, or Sermons per Vigilias Paschae, in the Eues of Easter (whereof by all likely­hood this very Sermon was one, being made on the Wednesday before Easter:) whereto may be added also diuers other particuler feasts of Saints, menti­oned in like manner by Possidius, as namely the Nati­uity of S. Iohn Baptist, of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul, 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 conuince M. Andrews of great ignorance, or malice in that he deny­eth that there were any Sermons de tempore, in S. Augu­stins tyme. Sermons were made de tempore both in the Latin [...] and in the Greeke Church in S. Augu­stins tyme.

23. For although it is like inough that neyther S. Augustin, nor any other Father of that age, wrote any work vnder the title of Sermones de tempore (but that such sermons being made at diuers tymes, and disper­sed in diuers parts of their workes, haue bene since their daies gathered into one volume, and set out vnder that tytle for the ease, and commodity of the [Page 147] Readers) yet no man that hath byn conuersant in the Fathers can be ignorant that such were vsually made both in the Latin and in the Greeke Church in S. Au­gustins tyme; Ambros. To. 5. Serm de tempore. which may euidently appeare (besids the testimony of Possidius aforesaid) by the works of S. Ambrose, wherin there are Sermons vpon almost all the great feasts from Aduent to Pentecost: S. Maxi­mus. and in the same tyme liued also S. Maximus Bishop of Turin, who wrote diuers homilies vpon the principall feasts of the yeare, Gennadius de viris Il­lustrib. as testifyeth Gennadius a famous writer of that age, whereof I shall haue occasion to speake further hereafter. Besids that it cannot be denyed that the like custome was also in the Greeke Church in those daies, Gregor. Nyssen. seeing that we fynd in S. Gregory Nissen (who was S. Basils brother) diuers Orations made vpon the feasts of the Natiuity of our Sauiour, Gregor. Nazian. S. Stephen, Easter, and the Ascension; And others also in S. Gre­gory Nazianzen vpon the feasts of Easter, Chrysost. To. 3. Pentecost, the Natiuity of Christ, the Epiphany (which amongst the Greekes was called Sancta Lumina.) In like man­ner diuers homilies in S. Chrysostom of the fifth feria in Passion week, and of the Resurection, and Ascension of our Sauiour, and of Pentecost, besids diuers others of particuler Saints, as S. Fulgentius S [...] Augustines schooler, and others. So that this exception of M. An­drews to the authority of this place of S. Augustin is too­to cold, and friuolous, and far vnworthy of a man that professeth to haue read the ancient Fathers, and there­fore truely he had reason to seeke out another an­swere 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 &c. Andr. vbi supra. But though we should yield to tyme (he meaneth that albeit we should [Page 148] graunt that Sermons were made de tempore in those daies) yet this witnes commeth out of tyme, or season, & very vnluckily, who doth not tell vs of any other head but of a sickly head, nor of any other crowne of a head, but a crazed, M. An­drews ra­uing fit. or crackt, crowne, which therefore might very well haue been passed with silence.

24. Thus raueth M. Andrews, hauing his head so crazed with the frenzy of heresy, that he vttereth such braynsick, and idle stuffe, as this, which truely no man that were well in his wits, would vtter to the purpose he doth, that is to say, to proue that S. Peter was not head of the Church. For els why doth he say it? seeing that the Cardinall cyteth this place to no other end, but to proue that S. Peter was head of the Church, S [...] Peters fall no preiudice to his Pri­macy. and therefore M. Andrews giuing this for his second answere (hauing as you haue seene 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 frayl­ty denyed our Sauiour, Ergo, he was not head of the Church? Do those that hold, and teach his primacy, deny his fall? Or teach that his successours cannot also erre in matter of fact, as he did, though not in defini­tion of matters of faith?

25. Truly if M. Andrews eyther had a sound brayne, or els were guyded by the same spirit that S. Augustine and other fathers were, he would haue made another manner of construction of this place then he doth, and rather haue sought to confirme S. Peters Pri­macy by his fall, then to impugne it thereby, for so doth S. Augustine in this place, shewing that it was conuenient, that almighty God should suffer him to fall, because he was to be the gouernour and head of [Page 149] the Church, which S. Augustine teacheth expressely in these words.

26. Ideo B. Petrum paululum Dominus subdeseruit &c. S. Aug. ser. 124. de temp. Our Lord did therefore forsake blessed Peter for a while, to the end that all humane kind might know in him, that without the grace of God it could do nothing, and thereby a rule might be giuen also to him (who was to be gouernour of the Church) to pardon sinners; for the keyes of the Church were to be committed to Peter the Apostle, yea the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen were recommended vnto 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 vyces and passions of their nature were wrapped in sinnes, and offences. And againe after a while: Idcirco, saith he, diuinae prouidentiae secretum &c. Therefore did the secret of Gods prouidence so dispose, and permit, that he (to wit Peter) should himselfe first fayle and fall into sinne, that by the consideration of his owne fall he might temper the rigour of his sentence towards sinners: Quantum igitur diuini inuneris &c. Therefore note what great bounty, and goodnes, and how much care and sollicitude God sheweth heerin towards the saluation 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 crowne of the head, & in the very top of the cōfession of Christ, in the very foū ­datiō of an immoueable faith, that is to say, in that Peter, who said, although I should dye 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 breuityes sake, for that this may suffice to teach M. Andrews that S. Peters 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 conuenient in respect [Page 150] of his Primacy, that he should fall for the benefit that should ensue thereof, The same also taught by S. Chry­sostome. as well to himselfe, as to the Church which is also the expresse doctrine of S. Chry­sostome, who hauing said, that Orbis terrarum Ecclesiae &c. the Churches of the whole world, S. Chrysost. hom. in S. Petrum & Eliam. and the multituds of people were to be committed to his charge. And hauing al­so called him Apostolorum verticem, the head of the Apo­stles, the immouable foundation, the steedfast rock, the pillar of Churches, and mayster of the whole world, he addeth, Peccare permissus est &c. he was suffered to sinne, for this cause chiefly, because the multitude of people was to be com­mitted vnto him, lest he being seuere and innocent might be vnwilling to pardon the offences of his brethren. S. Greg. ho. 21. in E­uangel. So he: to whome I may also adde S. Gregory the Great, who maketh the same construction of S. Peters fall that these two other Fathers do, affirming that God suffe­red him to fayle, quem praeferre cunctae Ecclesiae disposuerat, whome he had determined to make gouernour of all the Church, that he might learne by his owne fraylty to haue compassion of other sinners.

28. And to the end M. Andrewes may see that S. Augustine doth also else where plainly acknowledg the Primacy of S. Peter notwithstanding his fall; Another place of S. Augu­stine ac­knowled­ging S. Peters su­premacy notwith­standing his fall. See Andr. cap. 1. pag. 16. lin. 17. he shall do well to read a place alleadged by himselfe in his first chapter, to proue that S. Peter had nothing peculiar to himself by his pastorall commission; which place if he had layd downe at large (as he curtolled, and maymed it after his manner) it might haue sufficed to conuince him, as well in the matter for the which he produced it, as also in this. For there S. Augustin hauing taught that S. Peter receauing the keyes, & the cōmission of Pastor, represented the person of the Church, inferreth that the Church ought to pardon repentant [Page 151] sinners, seeing that Peter bearing the person of the Church was pardoned whē he had denyed his maister. Aug. de agone Christ. cap. 30.

29. Wherein S. Augustine not only deduceth a pious document out of S. Peters 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 bare the person of the Church, which he did no otherwise, but as he was supreme head, and Gouernour thereof, as I haue declared at large in the first Chapter of this Ad­ioynder, where I haue layd downe the words of S. Au­gustine, Cyril. in cap. vlt. Ioan. and discouered M. Andrews his fraud more particulerly, Vbi supra nu. 23. & 24. and produced also a cleare testimony of S. Cyril concerning the Primacy of S. Peter (whome he calleth Principem & Caput Apostolorum: the Prince & head of the Apostles) though he do there grant his fall which he saith hapned by humane infirmity, Bellar. de Rom. Pont li. 1. c. 25. whereof M. Andrews cannot be ignorant, seeing he cyteth also that place of S. Cyril, no lesse then the other of S. Augustin, though with greater fraud, as I haue also shewed in the first Chapter.

30. Finally I may add to these, those other testi­monies which I haue now lastly examined, and deba­ted with M. Andrewes out of S Cyril, S. Hierome, S Ba­sil, and S. Chrysostome, as also the rest of that grand Iury of 24. Fathers, Greeks, and Latins alledged by Cardinall Bellarmine in his controuersies to proue the supreme authority of S. Peter ouer 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 denyed our Sauiour, and yet neuertheles did not take the same to be any preiudice to his Supre­macy. Whereupon I conclude, that if their heads were sound, then M. Andrews his head must needs be very [Page 152] sick and crazed, seeing his sense, and iudgment is so far different from theirs, as to seek to ouerthrow, or disproue S. Peters Primacy by his fall, and to speake of him so contemptibly, and opprobriously, as he doth.

31. But will you heare how well he mendeth the matter? Marke him well, I pray you, and you shall see that as his head hath ben hitherto somewhat crackt, so now he is become wholy distract, talking as idly, as if he were more fit for Bedlam then for a Bishoprick. For hauing sayd, as you haue heard before, that this testi­mony of S. Augustine was vnluckily produced by the Cardinall, because it giueth vs notice of no other head, but of a sickly head (to wit S. Peter) and that therfore it might very well haue bin pretermitted, he goeth for­ward thus: O caput elleboro dignum! Praesertim cùm eùmdem morbum in capite vestro notarint diu iam medicorum filij. et si omnes non ego, id est, plus ego quàm omnes: especially seeing that the Phisitians children haue now a long tyme noted the same disease in your head, although all not I, that is to say, I more then 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 vs know who were those Phisitians, and their children that haue noted the same disease in our head.

The later hereticks do follow the old.32. Neuertheles for as much as it may be presu­med, that by the children he meaneth Luther, Caluin, Beza and himselfe, with other Sectaries of this age, we may also make a reasonable coniecture who were the Phisitians, seeing that we are not ignorant that the true progenitours of all the Sectaries aforenamed, were dyuers old heretykes, whose herefies they haue reuy­ued; namely the Aug. de Vnit. E [...]cl. ca. 12. Donatists, whose doctrine they [Page 153] professe concerning the fall of the visible Church; Epiphā. haer. 75. Aerius whome they follow in denying Sacrifyce for the dead; Hieron aduers. Vigilant. Vigilantius with whome they impugne the reuerend vse of reliques; Idem. contra Io­uin. Iouinian who taught diuers points of their beliefe touched particulerly in the last See be­fore chap. 3. nu. 34. & 35. Aug. de vtilitate credendi cap. 17. Chapter, and other Arch-heretikes con­demned by the Church in ancient tyme, who (as S. Augustine witnesseth) vsed also to barke (though in vayne) against the Sea Apostolike, no lesse then these their children do.

33. But although we may ghesse who were the Phisitians, and their children, yet it will not be so easy to coniecture what he meaneth by etsi omnes non ego, id est plus ego quàm omnes: although all not I, that is to say, I more then all; for truely I haue shewed it to diuers, and haue 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 sayd etsi omnes scandalizati fuerint sed non ego: Although all shall be scandalized, yet not I, who neuerthelesse was scandalized more then they all, because he alone denyed his mayster: which sense hath great difficulty, because it neyther hath conne­xion with that which goeth immediatly before, nor is truly applicable to the Pope (of whome M. An­drews seemeth there to treate) but is only contumelious to S Peter (being a taunting kind of exprobration of his fall) and therefore me thinkes M. Andrews should not admit it to be his meaning, as sauouring too much of impiety.

34. The other sense is, that it should be referred to M. Andrews himselfe, and that there is some litle fault in the print, I mean in the points, though not in the [Page 154] words, which therefore should be pointed this, & si omnes, non ego? and if all, not I? that is to say, if all haue noted this disease in your head, why should not I note it? Giuing to vnderstand, that he will not yield to any of his brethren for zeale, & skill in noting the faults of Popes, but rather, plus ego quàm omnes, that is to say, therein will I go beyond them all: M An­drews zeale grea­ter then his wit. which sense hath at least some good coherence with the precedent clause and well befitteth M. Andrews his zeale to the Ghos­pell and hatred to the Pope, and so may passe for his meaning. But whatsoeuer his meaning is, I cannot forbeare to tell him, that seeing his brayn is so intoxi­cated that he cannot write intelligibly, and yet will take vpon him to play the Physitian, and to cure the Popes diseases, I will say to him with our Sauiour Medice cura teipsum, and wish him to purge his owne head, A good recipe for M. An­drews. with some good quantity of a drug called Ca­tholicon, and a litle Helleborum to restore him againe to his right wits, before he presume to be the Popes Phy­sitian, and to iudge of the diseases of the head of the Church.

35. And whereas he goeth forward to shew vs a difference in the cure of Peters disease, and of the di­seases of his Successors, let vs follow him a while, and you shall see him runne as well out of his honesty, as out of his wit. For thus he saith: ‘ Sed ab eo morbo sana­tum hoc caput &c. But this head (to wit S. Peter) was healed of this disease, but your head (he meaneth the Pope) neyther will be healed, nor yet is curable: yet if he euer be healed, let him be the head of the Church of Rome, Three notorious lyes. as he was in Augustines tyme, but, let no man appeale to him from beyond the sea, or if any appeale, he is to be excommunicated by Augustine, who was [Page 155] far from acknowledging Zosimus, Bonifacius, and Ce­lestinus for heads of the Church, in whome neuertheles he cured the same disease.’ So he, which I beseech thee good Reader, well to note, and thou shalt see his con­science no lesse crackt then his brayne, ioyning ex­treme falsity with folly, abusing the authority not only of S. Augustine, but also of the whole Councell of African Bishops (though he name S. Augustin only, and none of the other) and finally vttering 3. nota­ble lyes in litle more then 3. lynes. The first is, that the 1 Pope had no further authority but ouer his Church of Rome in S. Augustines tyme. The second, that no man 2 might in those daies appeale to the Sea Apostolicke out of Africk. The third, that S. Augustine was far 3 from acknowledging those three Popes Zosimus, Boni­facius, and Celestinus to be heads of the Church, yea and that he cured S. Peters disease in them. Of these 3. points, the first wilbe fully cleared by the discussion of the second and the third.

36. First then concerning the second, whereas M. Andrews affirmeth that all Appeales from Africk to Rome were forbidden by S. Augustin, Concer­ning the prohibi­tion of ap­peals from Afrike to Rome ob­iected by M. An­drews. vnder payne of excommunication, wee shall neede no other wit­nesse to conuince him, but S. Augustine himselfe, who teacheth the flat contrary not only in expresse words, but also by practise, as it will euidently appeare after a whyle; for albeit there was a controuersy betwixt the Church of Africk, and the Roman Sea, in S. Augustins tyme, partly about appeales to Rome, and partly about the Canons of the Nicen Councell, for that a Canon related by the Popes Legate, as out of the said Coun­cell, was not found in the Copies that were then in Africk (whereof the causes may be seene at large as [Page 156] well in Cardinall Bellarmins Controuersies, Bellar. de Rom. Pont l. 2. c. 25. Baron. an. 419. as in the history of Cardinall Baronius, who doe fully answere all our aduersaryes cauills concerning the same:) al­beit, I say, this controuersy continued some 4. or 5. yeares, A contro­uersy be­twixt the Bishops of Africk, & the Sea of Rome cō ­cerning the prose­cution of Appeals. and grew in great part, by reason of abuses cōmitted by some of the Popes legates, in the rigorous, and violent execution of the Popes sentences (which may suffice to proue the comon vse of Appeales from Africk to Rome in those daies) neuertheles it is euident that during the tyme of this controuersy there was no prohibition of the appeales of Bishops from Africk, to Rome; for that all the African Bishops agreed to con­tinue the wonted course of Appeales without in­nouation, vntill they should haue answere out of Greece, concerning the Canons of the Nicen Coun­cell.

37. And when they had receaued the same, they were so far from excommunicating such as should ap­peale to Rome, or from prohibiting the same, by a Synodicall Decree, that they only wrote a common letter to Pope Celestinus, wherein they did not impugne the right of Appeales to Rome, but shewed their dislike of the manner, and meanes that had ben vsed in the prosecutiō thereof. And whereas there were 3. wayes vsed by the Sea Apostolyke in the prosecution, and decision of appeales, Three wayes vsed in the prose­cution & decision of appea­les. the first, by calling the parties and witnesses to Rome; the second, by sending Le­gates to the place from whence the appeales came, with commission to heare, and determin them, some­tymes with the assistance of the Bishops of that pro­uince, and sometymes without them; and the third, to remit the matter wholy to the determination of the Metropolitan, or of some Prouinciall Synod of the same [Page 157] country (as S. Gregory the great did in Africk dyuers tymes, whereof I shall haue occasiō to lay downe some examples infra nu. 47.48. & 49. heereafter:) of these 3. wayes I say, the African Bishops held the two former to be very incon­uenient for them, but tooke no exception at all to the third way (which was to remit the causes to be tried at home by the Metropolitans or by Prouinciall Synods) & therfore the reasōs which they vrged, tended especially to proue that it was most conuenient, & conforme to the Councell of Nice, that causes should be decyded by the Metropolitans, and Synods of the same Country, where the controuersy should ryse; and this the Pope might haue graunted (if he had thought it conueni­ent) and yet haue reserued to himselfe the right of ap­pellation, and haue decyded Appeales also by his com­mission, as it shall further appeare after a while by the practise of S. Gregory.

38 But put the case, Ibid. that S. Augustine, and the Bishops of Africk had required of Pope Celestinus to be quite rid of Appeales, what will M. Andrewes infer thereon? Will he say, that therefore they decreed, vt transmarinus nemo appellet, & si appellet excommunican­dus, that no man appeale out of Africk, and that if he doe, he shallbe excommunicated? Will he infer this vpon their demaund, or petition? I say their petition, for that when they come to treate of that matter in their Epistle, To. 1. Con­cil. in Con­cil. Afri­cano ca. 10 [...]. they begin it thus: Praefato debitae sa­lutationis officio impendiò deprecamur, vt &c. The office or duty of due salutations premised, we do most earnestly beseech you, that you will not ouer easily giue eare to such as come from hence &c. Will then M. Andrewes make no difference betwixt demaunds, and decrees? petitions, and prohibitions? must he not rather confesse that the [Page 158] African Bishops acknowledged that Pope Celestinus had power to dispose appeales? For otherwyse why did they rather seeke satisfaction by letters to him, then resolue by some Synodicall decree to exclude his au­thority, and to debar him from further medling in those affaires? as it is like they would haue done, had they had byn perswaded that his authority in that be­halfe was vsurped. But let M. Andrewes take the re­quest of the African Bishops in what sense he list (I meane eyther for the exclusion of Appeales, or for moderation in the prosecution of them) yet he can neuer make good his forgery of transmarinus nemo ap­pellet &c. it beeing most euident, M. An­drews his forgery. that neyther these petitions of theirs, nor any Canon of the African Sy­nods, nor yet any one word in S. Augustin did euer prohibite all Appellation from Africk to Rome, or yet cause any surcease, or interruption thereof, nor yet hinder the moderate and conuenient prosecution of appeales; for the proofe whereof I shall not need (as I haue said) to produce any other witnes then S. Au­gustine himselfe, and his owne practise not past 5. or 6. yeares before his death in the cause of a Bishop cal­led Antony, whome he had made Bishop of Fus­sula.

39. It is therefore to be vnderstood that this An­tony being depriued of his Bishoprick by a Synodicall sentence of African Bishops (for his outragious misde­meanours) appealed to Rome to Pope Bonifacius, S. Aug. ep. 261. The case of Anto­ny Bishop of Fussula appealing to Rome. wher­upon the Pope being moued partly with the Primats letters, and partly with such other testimony as Antony had cunningly produced for his purgation, resolued to returne him to his Bishopricke (yet with this ex­presse condition, as S. Augustine witnesseth, if the in­formation [Page 159] which he had giuen, were found to be true) but before it could be executed, it chanced that Pope Boni­facius dyed, and Celestinus succeeded him.

40. And for as much as many rumours were spred in fauour of Antony, that he should be restored by the Popes sentence, and the same executed by violence with the help of secular power, if need were (as the like had byn also vsed in former occasions) the people of Fussula were so exasperated therewith, that they were like to fall to tumult, and conceiued no small in­dignation against S. Augustine himselfe, complayning of him to the Pope, because he had made Antony their Bishop, wherewith he was so afflicted, that he wrote a most pittifull letter to Celestinus successor to Bonifacius lamēting greatly his owne mishap in that he had made such an vnworthy Bishop; Ibid. and recommended the de­cision of the case to his wife, and charitable conside­ration, saying thus amongst diuers other things: S. Augu­stine his dutifull respect to Pope Ce­lestinus. Collabora nobiscum pietate venerabilis, Domine beatis­sime, & debita charitate suscipiende sancte Papa &c. Most blessed Lord venerable for thy piety, and holy Pope, to be receaued with due charity, labour togeather with vs, and commaund that all those things which are sent, be read, or related vnto thee. So he.

41. And whereas Antony being depriued of the Bishoprick, and remayning still with the tytle, had greatly vrged, that seeing he had still the tytle of Bi­shop of Fussula, he ought also to haue the Bishoprick, Ibid. S. Augustine made instance on the other side, that the sentence giuen against Antony might stand, for that it was conforme euen to former sentences giuen in like cases by the Sea Apostolike, and therefore he saith: Existat exemplo ipsa Sede Apostolica iudicante, vel aliorum [Page 160] iudicata firmante &c. Let it serue for an example, the Sea Apostolike either iudging so it selfe, or els con­firming the iudgments or sentences of others. So he, and then addeth diuers examples of Bishops, who being depriued of their Bishoprikes retayned still their tytle; and sayth moreouer thus.

Ibid. ‘ Ego Fussulenses Catholicos filios in Christo meos &c. I doe recommend to the benignity of the charity of your Holynes, as well the Catholike people of Fus­sula my children in Christ, as Antony the Bishop my sonne also in Christ, for that I loue them both &c. Let both of them deserue 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 Catholike, if they receiue no help from Catholike Bishops, especially from the Sea Apostolike against a Catholike Bishop; and he, lest he may commit so great a wickednes as to alienate those from Christ, whome he seeketh to make his owne against their wills &c. Finally S. Augustine con­cludeth thus: Si autem membra Christi quae in illa regione sunt &c. If you do relieue the members of Christ which are in that quarter (he meaneth Fussula) from the deadly feare and sorrow wherein they liue, and do comfort my old age with this mercifull iustice, he will reward you, as well in this present life, as in the future, who doth by you succour vs 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, intreating most earnestly for the people of Fussula, especially that there m [...]ght be no violence vsed to restore Antony, and therefore hauing signified what was reported and feared in that behalfe, Ibid. he said, non sinas ista fieri per [Page 161] Christi sanguinem &c. suffer not these things to be donne for the bloud of Christ, and for the memory of Peter, who admonished the gouernours of Christian people not to exercise a violent dominion amongst their brethren. So he; giuing a necessary aduise to Pope Celestinus, though with all humility, as you see, to preuent the inconueniences that were feared, and had hapned before by the in­discreet, and violent proceeding of some of the Popes Legats in like cases. And so far was he from any mea­ning to oppose himselfe to the Popes authority, Ibid. or to the restitution of Antony (in case the Pope should haue ordayned it) that he resolued for his part, as he signified, that, if he could not obtayne his sute of Ce­lestinus he would renounce his Bishoprick, and retyre himselfe to a priuate life, to do penance, for hauing bene partly the cause of so great a scandall, in making Antony Bishop.

43. By all which it appeareth how far S. Augu­stine and other Bishops of Africk, The pri­mate of Numidia in Africk approued the Ap­peale of Antony to Rome. were from denying the Popes authority to admit Appeales, seeing that the primate of Numidia himselfe assisted Antony in his Appeale to Pope Bonifacius; and S. Augustine wrote also to Celestinus concerning the same with such sub­mission, as you haue heard, not threatning to excom­municate Antony for his Appeale to Rome (as M. An­drewes would haue vs to suppose, saying: si appellet, ab Augustino excommunicandus, if any man appeale he is to be excommunicated by Augustine) but most humbly, crauing mercifull iustice, and moderation in the decision of the cause. So as we must needs say, that eyther S. Augustine contradicteth himselfe and his owne actions (which is not credible) or els that M. Andrewes hath belyed him in this poynt, as indeed he [Page 162] hath; and therefore he had reason not so much as to quote in his margent any place of S. Augustine for the proofe, or confirmation of his assertion.

44. Neuertheles for as much as he mentioneth an excommunication threatned by S. Augustine to all such as should appeale from Africk to Rome, Concil. Mileu. Can. 12. he seemeth to ayme at a Canon of a Coūcell held at Mileuis, where S. Augustin was present, in which Synod it was indeed ordayned vnder payne of excommunication, that no Priests or Deacons, or other Clergy men of the inferiour sort should appeale from their owne Bishops and Me­metropolitans in Africk to Bishops beyond the seas. And to the end M. Andrewes his cosenage may the better ap­peare, I will set downe the Canon it selfe, which is this: Placuit, vt Presbyteri, Diaconi, vel inferiores Clerici &c. we haue ordayned that Priests, deacons, and other infe­riour Clergymen, if in the causes which they shall haue, they complaine of the iudgments of their Bishops, they may be heard by the Bishops their neyghbours &c. And if they shall thinke it necessary to appeale from them, that they appeale not to any, but to the Councells of Africk, or to the Primats of their owne Prouinces; Ad transmarina autem qui putauerit appellandum &c. and he that shall thinke it conuenient to appeale to the parts beyond the seas, shall not be admitted to the communion of any within Africke. Thus saith that Canon. And who seeth not, that those words ( qui putauerit appellandum &c. he which thinketh con­uenient to appeale) are to be referred only to those of whome the Canon expressely speaketh immediatly before (to wit, M. An­drewes Transma­rinus nemo. Priests, and Deacons, and other inferiour Clergymen) and therefore do not any way concerne Bishops, and much lesse exclude all Appeales, as M. Andrewes doth with his transmarinus nemo.

[Page 163]45. To which purpose it is to be considered that this Canon is conforme to another made many yeares before in the great generall Councell of Sardica, Concil. Sard. ca. 17. ap­proued by Pope Iulius the first (in which Councell also the Appeales of Bishops to Rome were expressely confirmed) besides that the very Councell of Mil [...]uis in which this Canon was made, S. Aug. ep. 92. & 93. was receaued, and confirmed by Pope Innocentius the first, as it shall ap­peare further after a whyle. So that this Canon which concerneth only the appeales of inferiour Clergy men, and not of Bishops, and was admitted by the Popes themselues did not any way preiudice the right of Appeales to Rome, or the authority of the sea Apo­stolicke; and this also may be clearely proued out of S. Augustine himselfe, who writing to the Donatists, and reprehending them for their temerarious presump­tion in excommunicating, and condēning Caecilianus the Catholike Bishop of Carthage, aduertised them with all of their folly, in that they considered not how vayne their attempt was therin, and how litle cause Caecilianꝰ had to care for their sentēce, seing it was free for him to reserue his cause to the iudgement of other Bishops beyond the seas, and especially of the Aposto­lyke Church, meaning there by especially the Aposto­lyke Sea of Rome, which he alwayes called the Aposto­lyke seat, or Apostolike Chayre, per antonomasiam, as it may be noted in diuers places of his workes (whereof I haue alledged some already, and shall haue occasion to alledge others hereafter) insomuch that when he speaketh of the Apostolicke Church, or Apostolicke seat, or Apostolike chaire, without naming any in particuler, he speaketh vndoubtedly of the Roman Church

46. And therefore he saith in the same Epistle to [Page 164] the Donatists that Caecilianus might well contemne the multitude of his enemyes, [...]. 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 soueragnity of the Apoctolike chayre hath alwayes florished) as with other Catholicke countryes from whence the Ghospell was brought to Africk &c. More­ouer in the said Epistle he maketh playne distinction betwixt the Appeales of Bishops, and Priests, saying: neque enim de Presbyteris &c. S. Augu­stine testi­fyeth that appeales to Rome were allo­wed to the Bi­shops of Africk though prohibi­ted to the inferour Clergy. Neyther was the question heere concerning Priests, or Deacons or other Clergy men of the inferiour sort, but concerning our collegues, who may reserue their cause entyre, and whole to the iudgement of other their collegues, and especially of the Apostolicke Chur­ches. So he: whereby it appeareth, that albeit he signi­fieth that there was a restraynt of Appeales of Priests, and inferiour Clergy men (according to the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis) yet he graunteth that Bi­shops had free liberty to appeale out of Africk to the Apostolike Churches, and especially to the Romā Church, wherein (as you haue heard him say before) Apo­stolicae Cathedrae semper viguit principatus, the soue­raignty of the Apostolike chayre hath alwayes flori­shed.

47. And to the end it may appeare, that neyther the Councell of Mileuis, Examples of Appea­les from Africk to to Rome. nor yet the petition of the African Synode to Pope Celestinus, did hinder the course of appeales to Rome, or the decision of them in Africk by the Popes authority, I will conclude with some examples very notable for this purpose. The first shalbe of Lupicinus a Bishop of Mauritania in A­frick, restored to his seat shortly after S. Augustines tyme, by the sentence of Pope Leo, S. Leo ep. 87. ad Epis. Maurit. who also sent thi­ther [Page 165] a Bishop called Potentius, as his Legate, and the Bishops of Africk admitted him, albeit the African Synod had requested Pope Celestinus to send no more Legats thither.

48. Another example may be of a comission sent by Pope Gregory the Great to an Agent, or officer of his in Africk, S. Greg. Regist. lib. 1. ep. 82. called Hilarius, to assemble a Prouinciall Synod there, for the examinatiō of a complaynt made to him by two deacons Felicissimus and Vincentius, a­gainst Agentius their Bishop, in which commission order was giuen to Hilarius punctually to execute the sentence of the Synod. Idem ibid. lib. 10. ep. 31. & 32. Also the same Pope, hauing heard the complaints of certayne Priests in Africk a­gainst Paulinus their Bishop, committed the hearing, and decision of the cause to Victor the primate of Nu­midia, and Columbus, with other Bishops, giuing them commission to heare and determyn it amongst them­selues, Ibid. lib. 10. ep. 8. except they should thinke the assistance of his officer Hilarius needfull for the better determination of the cause. Ibid. ep. 35. In like manner a complaynt being exhi­bited to the said Pope by Donadeus a Deacon, against Victor his Bishop, he deputed the foresaid Columbus, and other Bishops to examin the cause, and to punish the Bishop if he were found in fault. And the like com­mission he gaue also to a Synod of Bishops held at Bi­zacium in Africk, for the tryall of the cause of Clemen­tius their Primate.

49. Now then in these examples two things are to be noted, the one that the Popes vsed to decyde ap­peales, and other controuersyes, in diueres manners, sometymes ordayning and disposing thereof by their Legats or other officers, and sometymes giuing no other commission to their said Legats, and officers, but [Page 166] to assemble some Prouinciall Synode, and to see the sentence thereof executed: and sometymes againe giuing all power, and authority to the Metropolitan, & Bishops of that country to decyde the causes; which last way, and manner of tryall was no way repugnant to the request of the African Synod in their letter to Pope Celestinus, Supra nu. 36. as I haue signifyed before.

50. The other thinge to be noted, is, that the Popes vsed still iure suo, The re­quest of the Afri­can Bi­shops to Pope Cele­stinus con­cerning appeals, neyther did nor could pre­iudice the right of the sea A­postolick. their owne right (notwith­standing the forsaid request of the African Synod) yea, and that the Bishops of Africk approued, and acknow­ledged the same by their obedience, knowing full well that the petitions of their predecessors to Celesti­nus rested wholy in his will and pleasure, to be gran­ted, or denied, as he should see cause, whereof [...]here fell out shortly after an euident example, and proofe in the Councell of Calcedon: for albeit the Fathers of that famous generall Councell not only made earnest sute to Pope Leo by a common letter to obteyne the second place after Rome for Constantinople, but also or­dayned, and decreed it by a speciall Canon, neuerthe­les Pope Leo denyed their sute, disanulled their decree, and forced the Authors thereof to acknowledge their errour, as I haue amply proued in the second See cap. 2. nu. 24. & seq. vs (que) ad nu. 28. Chap­ter; and therefore much more might Pope Celestinus deny the request of a Prouinciall Synode, and might also haue disanulled their decrees, if they had made any preiudiciall to the Roman Sea, as they did not.

51. And now to conclude vpon these premisses 3. things do euidently follow thereon. The first, that 1 the Appeales of Bishops from Africk to Rome were ne­uer prohibited, or so much as interrupted by any de­crees, or Canons, and much lesse by the letters of the [Page 167] African Synode to Pope Celestinus. The second that 2 the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis which M. An­drewes seemeth to alledge (as forbidding appeales to Rome, vnder payne of excommunication) did only concerne Priests and Deacons, and other Clergy men of the inferiour sort, and therefore did not prohibite the Appeales of Bishops, and much lesse of all men in generall, besides that being made with the Popes con­sent it was not any way preiudicall to the authority of the Sea Apostolike. The third, that M. Andrews iug­leth 3 notably with his Reader, when he saith as out of S. Augustine, M. An­drews maketh no bones to falsify whole Sy­nods and bely the Fathers. Ad eum transmarinus nemo appellet &c. To him (that is to say to the Bishop of Rome) let no man appeale from beyond the seas: or if he appeale, he is to be ex­communicated by Augustine, for neyther those words nor the sense thereof are to be found any where in S. Augustine, who, as you haue seene, expressely taught and practised the contrary. So that transmarinus nemo being set downe 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 Councell. What then shall we say of this mans truth, and fidelity who maketh no bones to bely the Fathers, It is pro­ued S. Au­gustine ac­knowled­ged the Popes Zosimus, Bonifacius and Cele­stinus, for heads of the Church. and corrupt whole Synods? Can any man thinke 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 haue heard, that S. Augustine was far from acknowledging the Popes Zosimus, Bonifacius and Celestinus for heads of the Church, whereof you haue already seene the contrary in two of them, to wit Bonifacius, and Celestinus, whose power, and custome [Page 168] to admit, and determyne Appeales from Africk, S. Augustine clearely acknowledged, and approued in the cause of Antony Bishop of Fussula (as I haue amply See be­fore nu. 38.39. & seq. shewed) which power could not otherwise be due to Bonifacius, and Celestinus, but only in respect of their supreme, and vniuersall authority ouer 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 whome he writeth, that he re­ceaued his letters at Caesarea, quò nos (saith he) iniun­cta nobis à venerabili Papa Zosimo Apostolicae sedis Episcopo Ecclesiastica necessitas traxerat; whither we were drawne by an Ecclesiasticall necessity, inioyned, or imposed vpon vs by the venerable Pope Zosimus, Bishop of the Apostolicall seat. So he; which may also be confirmed out of Possidius, who writeth, that Litterae sedis Aposto­licae compulerunt &c. The letters of the Sea Apostolike com­pelled Augustine with other Bishops to go to Caesarea in Mauritania, Posidius in vita Augustini to consult and determyne of diuers necessityes of the Church.

53. Whereby it is manifest that S. Augustine ac­knowledged in Pope Zosimus an Ecclesiasticall power, and authority to impose vpon him, and other Bishops a necessity to obay his commaundements in matters concerning the seruice of God, and the Church, which Zosimus could not do otherwise then as supreme and vniuersall Pastor, or head of the Church, for that the Church of Africk was not otherwise subiect to him, then as all other Churches were. But of Pope Zosimus, and of S. Augustines opinion concerning his Primacy I shall haue occasion to speake further after a while: and in the meane tyme this I hope may suffise to proue that S. Augustine was so far from impugning these [Page 169] three Popes, that he acknowledged their supreme and vniuersall authority, and consequently that they were heads of the vniuersall Church, notwithstanding M. Andrews his peremptory assertion of the con­trary, which therefore may passe for another vn­truth.

54. Whereupon it also followeth, that he forgot himselfe much more when he so confidently affirmed in the first poynt, as you haue heard, that the Bishops of Rome in S. Augustines tyme, were but only heads of the Church of Rome, which I noted before. For the first of the 3. vntruthes, though I remitted the parti­culer answere thereof vntill I had discouered the other two, because they would not a litle help to the disco­uery of the first, as you may haue already noted; for it being cleare by all this former discourse that Ap­peales from Africk to Rome were vsuall, frequent, and neuer prohibited in S. Augustines tyme; and againe that he acknowledged an authority and power in Pope Zosimus to lay iniunctions, & commaundements vpon him, and other Bishops in Africk, it must needs follow that the Bishops of Rome had a more ample au­thority in his dayes then ouer the particuler Church of Rome. 8 Popes. who liued in S. Au­gustins tyme, exercysed a supreme & vniuer­sall autho­rity. And to the end thou mayst yet haue, good Reader, a more aboundant satisfaction in this poynt, I will say somewhat of all the Popes that liued in S. Au­gustines tyme who were 8. in all, to wit Liberius (in whose tyme he was borne) Damasus, Siricius, Anasta­sius, Innocentius, Zosimus, Bonifacius, & Celestinus. And first of Liberius.

55. We read in the Ecclesiasticall history, that certayne Arian heretykes being excommunicated, Pope Li­berius. and deposed from their Bishopricks by the Catholike Bi­shops [Page 170] of the East Church sent their Legats to Pope Lib [...]rius crauing to be restored by his authority, and for as much as they craftily dissembled their heresy, and faygning to be repentant, made open profession of the Catholicke faith, according to the beliefe, and do­ctrin of the Councell of Nice, they obtayned his letters for their restitution, [...]. Basil ep. 74. & 82. which they presented at their returne in a Synod held at Tyana, and by vertue thereof were restored, as S. Basil witnesseth, saying, that Eustathius Bishop of Sebasta (who was the chiefe 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 owne Church of Rome; seeing he could restore Bishops to their seats in the East Church, as also his predecessor Pope Iulius had done not long before, vpon the appeales 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 vniustly expelled from their seats v­pon diuers pretences; whose causes Iulius discussing (saith the Story) tamquam omnium curam gerens propter propriae Sedis dignitatem singulis reddidit suas Ecclesias, as hauing a care of all for the dignity of his owne seat restored their Churches to euery one of them. Tripartit. hist. lib. 4. ca. 15. So saith Sozom [...]n in the tripartite history, which I haue thought good to add to the former example of Liberius. For although it fell not out in S. Augustines tyme (where­of I now specially treate) yet it was not aboue 14. yeares before him, and therefore may well be applyed [Page 171] to his tyme, as the Eue to the Feast. Besides, that doth demonstrate what was the beliefe of the Ca­tholike Church at that tyme concerning the su­preme dignity of the Roman Sea, seeing that not only other Catholike Bishops, but also Athanasius himselfe (who was the mirrour of sanctity, zeale, and inte­grity in that age) had recourse thereto, as to the su­preme tribunall on earth, for the reparation of his wrongs; but now to proceed.

57. After Liberius succeeded Damasus, P. Dama­sus. whose vni­uersall authority is sufficiently testified euen by the A­frican Bishops, whome M. Andrewes maketh most op­posit to the Roman Sea. This may be veryfied by an Epistle of 3. Councells of Africk, and the Archbishop Stephanus, who wrote to Pope Damasus, giuing him the title of most Blessed Lord, raysed to the heyght of Apo­stolicall dignity, Concil. To. 1. inter ep. Damas. holy Father of Fathers, Damasus Pope, and chiefe Bishop of Prelats, and in the Epistle it selfe they do clearely acknowledge the supremacy of his sea, cōplayning of certayne Bishops their neyghbours 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, vt quicquid horum vel in remotis &c. it was decreed, that whatsoeuer should be treated, though in remote, and far distant Prouinces, concerning these matters (that is to say the deposition of Bishops, and other im­portant affiayres of the Church) the same should not be receiued, nisi ad notitiam almae Sedis vestrae fuisset de­ductum &c. except it were brought to the knowledge of your holy seat, to the end, that whatsoeuer should be resolued might be confirmed with the authority thereof: thus wrot [Page 172] 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 Apo­stolicall top (or head) of Prelats.

58. And therefore no meruaile, that another Father of the same tyme, S. Hier. ep. [...]7. To. 2. calleth him the gouernour of the Church of God; expounding these words of the A­postle to Timothy: Ecclesia est domus Dei viui &c. where­upon he saith, Ecclesia domus Dei dicitur, cuius rector hodie est Damasus: the Church is called the house of God, the gouernour whereof at this day, is Damasus So he; wherto I may add a notable testimony of S Hierome, who wryting also to Damasus to know of him, with whome he might communicate in Syria, and whether he might vse the word hypostasis, affirmed that he held Cōm [...]nion with his Beatitude, that is to say (saith he) with Peters Chayre, and that he knew the Church to be buylt vpon the rock, inferring thereupon, that whosoeuer did eate the Lambe out of that house (he meaneth the commu­nion of Damasus, or of Peters Chayre) he was a profane man, and out of the Arck of Noe: wherupon I infer, that S. Hierome affirming the Church to be built vpon Da­masus, acknowledgeth him to be head thereof, for the reason vrged Chap. 3. nu. 17.18.19. & 20. before by me in the last chapter, to wit, because the head of a mysticall, or politicall body, and the foundation in a buylding are all one; besyds that he also acknowledgeth the same, by exclu­ding all those from the vnity of the Church, who did not hold communication with Damasus, because the vnity of the body is deriued principally from the vnity of the head thereof, according to the expresse doctrin of S. Cyprian, which I haue also amply layd downe in the last nu. 4.5.6. [...] se­quent. Chapter.

59. Finally, S. Hierome demanding resolution [Page 173] from Damasus with whome he should cōmunicate in Syria (where was then a great Schisme) and whe­ther he might vse the word hypostasis, sheweth, that Damasus had authority to determyne, What authority S. Hie­rome did attribute vnto Da­masus. and decyde con­trouersies and resolue doubts, or difficult questions in matter of religion; and therfore S. Hierome saith vnto him, Discernite, siplacet, obsecro, non timebo tres hypostases dicere, si iubetis: I beseech you iudge, or determyne, if it please you, for I will not feare to say that there are three hypostases, if you command me. And againe afterwards; Quamobr [...]m obtestor Beatitudinem tuam per crucifixum &c. Therefore I beseech your Beatitud for Christs sake cru­cified, and for the consubstantiall Trinity, that authority may be giuen me by your letters, eyther to vse, or to for­beare the word hypostasis &c. as also that you will signifie vnto me, with whome I may communicate at Antioch; for that the Campenses, and the heretikes called Tharsenses being vnited togeather, nihil aliud ambiunt, quàm vt au­ctoritate communionis vestrae fulti &c. do seeke nothing more, or with greater ambition, then that being vpheld with the authority of your communion, they may vse the word hypostasis in the old sense. So he.

60. Wherin two thinges are to be noted, the one that S. Hierome doth not aske counsaile or aduise of Pope Damasus, but a definitiue sentence ( vt auctori­tas detur, that authority be giuen him) that is to say, that Damasus should by his letters determin and ordein what S. Hierome should doe in those cases. The other is that not only the Catholikes in the East parts (as S. Hierome and the Aegyptians, whome he also called the collegues of Damasus) but also the heretyks sought to fortifie themselues, by the communion and authority of the Sea Apostolike. Whereupon two things do also [Page 174] follow euidently: the one, that Damasus had power to decyde and determyne controuersies euen in the East Church; and the other, that his authority was not re­streyned to his owne Church at Rome, as M. Andrews seemeth to suppose, but was vniuersall, 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 immediatly succeeded Athanasius, and being oppressed by the Arians, followed the example of his worthy pre­decessour, 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 Catholike faith) was restored by the people, qui illis confisus (saith Socrates) expollit Lucium, & Petrum in eius locum introducit; who by the vertue of those letters expelled Lucius the Arrian Bishop, and put Peter into his place.

62. Also Vitalis an heretike in Antioch being ac­cused to Pope Damasus of heresy, was forced to come to Rome to purge himselfe: Elias Cre­tens. in ep. 2. ad Cledō. Greg. Na­zian. Ba­ron. an. 373. To. 1. Concil. ep. 1. Damas. and albeit after he had there professed himselfe to be a Catholike, he was remitted by Pope Damasus to Paulinus Bishop of Antioch for his final absolution, yet Damasus prescribed to Paulinus a forme of abiuration, whereto Vitalis should subscribe; which being done Paulinus absolued him. Whereby it is euident that Damasus had a supreme authority as well in the East, or Greeke Church, as in the West; for o­therwise neyther would Peter Bishop of Alexandria (who was a very holy man) haue appealed vnto him, nor the people haue receaued Peter by the vertue of his letters; neither yet would Vitalis haue gone from An­tioch to purge himselfe at Rome, nor Paulinus Bishop of Antioch permitted that Damasus should intermeddle in [Page 175] matters pertayning to his charge.

63. And this may yet further appeare by the ear­nest endeuours of S. Chrysostome then Bishop of Con­stantinople, and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria to pa­cify Damasus towards Flauianus Bishop of Antioch; Sozom. li. 8. cap. 3. who had committed periury, and byn the cause of a great diuision and trouble in the Church, for the re­medy wherof they sent Embassadours to Rome to per­swade Damasus that it was necessary for the good of the Church, Socrat. li. 5. c. 15. that he should pardon the offence of Flauianus, for the concord and peace of the people; which being graunted by Damasus: & communione (saith Socrates) Flauiano ad hunc modum reddita: and Flauianus being by this meanes restored to the communion of the Church, the people of Antioch were in tyme reduced to concord, and vni­on with him.

64. Whereto Theodoretus addeth, Theodor. lib. 5. cap. 23. that the Empe­rour Theodosius in the tyme partly of Pope Damasus, and partly of his successor Syricius and Anastasius, la­boured to procure the reconciliation of Flauianus with the sea Apostolick, and commaunded him to goe to Rome to answere for himselfe which he promised to doe in the spring following, though he did not per­forme it. Finally the Emperour made his peace with the Pope in the end, vpon condition that Flauianus should send his Embassadours to Rome, which he did (saith Theodoretus) with a sollemne embassadge of Bi­shops, Priests, and Deacons, vnder Acacius Bishop of Berroea, who was at that tyme a man of great fame; whereupon all the Bishops of Aegipt (who vntill then would not communicat with him) admitted him to their communion. So that albeit the Historiographers do differ concerning the tyme when Flauianus was re­concyled [Page 176] with the Pope, yet they all agree, that he could neuer be fully restored to the peace, and com­munion of the vniuersall Church, vntill he had sub­mitted himselfe to the Roman Sea, which sheweth eui­dently that the Bishops of Rome had far greater and more ample authority, then M. Andrewes doth affoard them. Thus much concerning Damasus.

P. Syri­cius.65. And now to come to his successor Syricius, it is euident euen in this cause of Flauianus (by the te­stimony of S. Ambrose) that his authority extended it selfe to the Greek, and Eastern Church, no lesse 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 Flauianus his cause was committed to Theoph [...]lus Bishop of Alexandria, and to the Bishop of Aegipt, with this limitation (as S. Am­brose witnesseth) that the approbation, and confir­mation of their sentence should be reserued to the Ro­man Sea, and the Bishop thereof, who was then Syricius. In like manner we fynd that his authority was admit­ted and acknowledged not only in Spayne, and France, but also in Africk, To. 1. Con­cil. inter Siricij ep. & decret. as it may appeare by his Decretall Epistle writtē to Himerius, or Himericus Bishop of Ar­ragon in Spayne, in answere of diuers demaunds of his, in which epistle he ordayned that those his decrees should be sent by Himerius, as well to Carthage in A­frick, as to Portugal, and France, and that they should be of no lesse force there, and els where, then in Ar­ragon.

66. To this will I add a testimony of an African Father that liued in the tyme of Siricius, Optat. li. [...]. contra Parmen. to wit of Op­tatus Bishop of Mileuis, who clearely deduceth the pri­macy of Syricius from the primacy of S. Peter: for wri­ting against Parmenian the Donatist, and vrging him [Page 177] that he could not deny but that Petrus omnium Apostolo­rum caput, Peter the head of all the Apostles sate first in the Roman chayre (wherof he also yieldeth these reasons, viz. that in the said chaire vnity might be kept of all men, The argu­ment of Optatus Mileuita­nus. that the rest of the Apostles should not euery one of them defend or callenge to himselfe a single chayre, and that he might be held for a Schismatik, and a wiked man who should set vp a chaire contra singularem Ca­thedram, against the singular, or principall chayre) ha­uing, I say, vrged this, he reckoneth all the Popes from S. Peter to his tyme, ending with Syricius, and conclu­ding, that because the Donatists held not communi­on with him, therefore they could not haue the true Church.

67. In this discourse it is manifest that as he ac­knowledgeth Peter for head of the Apostles, and his chayre for the singular, and principall chayre, so he also acknowledged Syricius for head of all other Bishops, and his chayre (which was Peters) for the principall chayre; for otherwyse his argument against the Dona­tists grounded on Peters supreme authority, had ben to no purpose. Besids that he saith also a litle after (prosecuting the same argument:) Legimus Principem nostrum &c. We read that Peter our Prince receaued the wholsome keyes against the gates of hell &c. Vnde est ergo &c. How chanceth it then that you stryue to vsurpe to your selues the keyes of the Kingdome, who with your auda­cious presumption do sacrilegiously make warre against the chayre of Peter? So he.

68. Therefore (omitting heere how aptly this may be applyed to M. Andrews and his fellowes as well as to the Donatists) that which I wish specially to be obserued, is, that Optatus being an African acknow­ledged [Page 178] the same soueraignty 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 cleare that the principality, and soue­raignty of Peter in the tyme of Optatus, could not be otherwise vnderstood, 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 vntill his owne tyme, Aug. ep. 165. he endeth with Anastasius, ha­uing first deriued their lineall succession from S. Peter, Cui, saith he, totius Ecclesiae figuram gerenti &c. to whome bearing the figure of the whole Church our Lord sayd: Vpon this rock I will buyld my Church: wherein it is to be no­ted, that S. Augustine acknowledging the primacy of S Peter, in saying, that the Church was built vpon him, and that he bare the figure of the whole Church (which he did not in any other respect but because he was head thereof, as I haue proued in the first Chapter of this Adioynder) he acknowledgeth the same in his successors, and namely in Anastasius, whome therefore he draweth by lyneall succession from S. Peter: and to this purpose it may be also obserued, that elswhere he ascribeth the great prerogatiue of S. Peter (to wit his being the rock, or foundation whereupon the Church was buylt) to his chayre, or seat, and to the succession of Bishops deriued from him, bidding the Donatists reckon the Priests, Idem in psal. con­tra part. Donati. that had succeeded one another in Peters seat, and then concluding, Ipsa est Petra &c. that is the rock which the proud gates of hell doe not ouer­come: [Page 179] whereby it is euident, that S. Augustine ac­knowledged Anastasius, and all other successors of S. Peter for heads of the vniuersall 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 Apostolike, to informe Anastasius, who then was Pope, how necessary it was for the Church of Africk, that such Donatists as being Clergy men should returne to the vnity of the Catho­like Church, might be receiued and admitted, without preiudice to their former dignityes, if the Catholike Bishops that should receiue them, should thinke it conuenient, 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 Africā Church had of this decree (as they signifyed) yet they would not ordayne it without his knowledge and consent or rather, as it seemeth, they expected his leaue, and order to do it, and no meruail seeing that in other Synods and name­ly in the next following in the tyme of his immediate successor Innocentius P. Inno­centius. (of whome I am now to treat) the African Bishops craued confirmation of their de­crees from the Sea Apostolike; Ep. 90. inter ep. August. vt statutis, say they, nostrae mediocritatis etiam Apostolicae Sedis adhibeatur au­ctoritas &c. That the authority of the Sea Apostolike may also be added to the statutes of our mediocrity, to conserue the saluation of many, and to correct the peruersity of some.

71. Thus wrote they to Pope Innocentius, giuing clearely to vnderstand, not only that the validity of [Page 180] their decrees depended vpon his confirmation, but al­so that the conseruation of the faithfull in the true faith and the correction of peruerse, and obstinate heretiks did specially belong to his care, and proceed from his authority. This will further appeare by another Epi­stle written to the same Pope Innocentius by them in another Synod held at Mileuis, Ibid. ep. 92. as also by his answere to them. Thus then they wrote: Quia te Dominus gra­tiae suae praecipuo munere in Sede Apostolica collocauit &c. Because our Lord hath by his speciall guift of his grace placed thee in the Apostolicall seat, and ordayned thee to be such a one in these our tymes that we should rather cōmit the fault of negligence if we should con­ceale from thy Reuerence those things that are to be suggested for the Church, then that thou canst eyther disdayne them, or contemne them; therefore we be­seech thee, to vse and apply thy Pastorall diligence to the great dangers of the weaker members of Christ &c. So they, whereby they shewed sufficiently their opinion concerning as well the worthynes of his per­son, as his Pastorall power and authority ouer all the members of Christ; as it will more euidently appeare by his answere, whic [...] was this.

72. Diligenter & congruè Apostolico consulitis honori &c. Ibid. ep. 93. You do diligently, and conueniently prouyde for the Apostolicall honour, I meane the honour of him, who besides other intrinsecall things, hath the sollici­tude, or care of all Churches (to declare what sentence is to be held in doubtfull matters) wherein truely you follow the rule that you know hath bene kept with me alwayes throughout the whole world &c. So he: and a litle after, he saith further, that as often as there is question of matter of faith, all Bishops ought to referre [Page 181] all that which is for the generall good of the Church to Peter, the authour of their name, and honour [...] giuing to vnderstand that all Episcopall honour and dignity, and other Ecclesiasticall authority proceedeth imme­diatly from the visible head of the Church vnder Christ, that is to say, S. Peter, and his successors; and that therefore the cōdemnation of heresyes, & 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 vrge his owne A­postolicall authority more then S. Augustine, and the other African Bishops approued; I wish him to read an Epistle of S. Augustine, and Alypius, where hauing sayd that relations were sent ex duobus Concilijs, Catha­ginensi, & Mileuitano ad Apostolicam sadem, August. ep. 106. ad Bonifac. from the two Councells of Carthage, and Mileuis to the Sea A­postolike, they add afterwards (concerning the an­swere of Pope Innocentius) ad omnia illa rescripsit [...]o mo­do, quo fas erat, atque oportebat Apostolicae sedis Antisti­tem: he (to wit Innocentius) wrote backe or answered to all things in such sort as was conuenient, and as the Bishop of the Apostolike Sea ought to do. So they; ap­prouing as you see, not only the substance, and matter of his Epistle, but also his Apostolicall manner of wri­ting, acknowledging it to be fit for a man of his Apo­stolicall dignity. So that it appeareth as well by the Epistle of the African Bishops to Pope Innocentius, as also by his answere to them, and their approbation thereof, Marke this con­sequence. that the Bishops of Rome in those dayes had, and exercysed a supreme authority in the confirmation of Synods, resolution of doubts, and condemnation of heresyes, and heretikes.

[Page 182] The Pela­gian here­sy con­demned by Zozsi­mus and Innocen­tius.74. Whereof there occurred at that tyme a nota­ble example in the condemnation of the Pelagian here­sy: for although the African Bishops did particulerly condemne it in their prouinciall Synods (which could not prescrybe lawes to the whole Church, yet the ge­nerall and vniuersall condemnation thereof, through­out the world proceeded from the authority of the Sea Apostolyke, and the seuerall sentences of the two Popes Innocentius, an Zosimus, which they signifyed in their letters not only to the Bishops of Africk, but also to all Bishops vniuersally, in respect of the vni­uersall care, Aug. ep. 157. and authority they had ouer the whole Church. And therefore S. Augustine saith, that the heretikes, Pelagius & Celestius were, toto Christiano orbe dānati, cond̄ened throughout all the Christian world, by the vigilācy of the Episcopall Synods of Africk, etiā à Venerabilibus Antistitibus Apostolicae sedis Papa Innocen­tio, & Papa Zosimo, and by the venerable Bishops of the Apostolick 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 Innocētius and Zosimus did (at the great instance of the Councell of Africk) cut off the Pelagi­ans, from the members of the Church, and by letters dire­cted to the Churches, as well of Africk, as of the East, and West, iudge them to be held as accursed, and to be auoyded of all Catholikes, Et hoc tale, saith he, de illis Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae pronuntiatum iudicium, etiam pijssi­mus Imperator Honorius audiens & sequens &c. and the most pious Emperour Honorius hearing, and following this such a notable Iudgmēt of the Catholike Church [Page 183] of God pronounced against them, condemned them by his lawes, 3. things to be no­ted in the precedent testimony of Possi­dius. and ordayned that they should be held for here­tikes. So he; wherein three things are specially to be noted. The first, that the Pelagian heresy was condem­ned vniuersally by the authority of the Sea Apostolike, to wit, by the sentence of the Popes Innocentius and Zo­simus, signified by their letters, not only to the Chur­ches 1 of Africk, but also to all other Churches; in which respect S. Augustine also in his foresaid Epistle to Opta­tus, Aug. vbi supra. aduertiseth him, that he sent him the copies of such writings, and letters of the Sea Apostolike, as were come to his hands, concerning those matters, addressed eyther particulerly to the Bishops of Africk, or vniuer­sally to all Bishops.

76. Another thing to be noted in the testimony 2 of Possidius, is, that he calleth the sentence of those two Popes Innocentius and Zosimus, Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae iudicium the Iudgement of the Catholike Church of God; which he could not haue done, but in respect of their supreme power, and authority to condemne heresyes, as heads of the whole Catholike Church. The third is, that albeit the Emperour Honorius con­demned 3 also the Pelagians for heretikes by his tempo­rall lawes, yet he did it no otherwise but audiens, & sequens &c. hearing and following the iudgment of the Catholike Church, that is to say, of those two Popes Innocentius and Zosimus; for of them he speaketh expresly.

77. And now to proceed, if M. Andrews do yet desire any further proofe of this matter, Prosper in Chron. let him read S. Prosper S. Augustines disciple, who sayth that a Synod of 217. Bishops being held at Carthage, their Synodicall decrees were sent to Zosimus: quibus probatis, per totum [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [Page 184] mundum haeresis Pelagiana condemnata &c. which being approued, the Pelagian heresy was condemned though­out the whole world. And againe in another place he saith of Innocentius: Tunc Pelagianorum, machinae fractae sunt &c. and then were the engines of the Pelagians bro­ken, when Innocentius of blessed memory stroke the heads of their wicked errour with his Apostolicall sword. Idem con­tra collat. ca. 41. So he, and a litle after he affirmeth the like of Pope Zosimus who added, saith he, the force of his sentence to the de­crees of the African Councell, and armed the right hands of Bishops with the sword of Peter, ad detruncationem im­piorum, for the excommunication of the wicked. So he; giuing to vnderstand, 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: wher­upon it must needs follow, that the said authority was vniuersall, and that the Bishops of that Sea (and name­ly Innocentius and Zosimus) were more then Caput Ecclesiae suae Romanae, heads of their Church of Rome.

78. And albeit this might suffice cōcerning these two Popes; yet I cannot omit the most famous, The fa­mous ap­peale of S. Iohn Chryso­stome to Innocenti­us. and sollemne appeale of S. Chrysostome to one of them (to wit to Innocentius) to whome he sent 4. Bishops to complayne of his vniust banishment procured by Theo­philus Bishop of Alexandria, and wrote also himselfe vnto him thus: Obsecro, vt scribat &c. I beseech you write, and decree by your authority that these thinges which were so vniustly done (when I was absent, Chrysost. ep. ad Inno. To. 5. aud did not refuse to be iudged) may be of no force (as indeed of their owne nature they are not) and that those which haue done so vniustly, may be subiect to the penalty of the Ecclesiasticall lawes &c. [Page 185] Thus wrote S. Chrisostome with much more to the same purpose which he would not haue donne, if he had thought that the authority of Innocentius had byn lymited within the particuler Church of Rome, or ra­ther if he had not knowne that his authority was vni­uersall and sufficient to determyne his cause, Palladius in vita Chrysost. which al­so was euident by the progresse and issue of the matter; for not only he as playntife appealed to Innocentius, but also Theophilus, as defendant sent a Priest of his called Peter with letters to iustifie his cause; besids that all the Bishops of the East, Zosom. li. 8. ca. 26. and Greek Church (being in this controuersy deuided) sent messingers or letters to Rome in fauour 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 testifyeth that Pope Inno­centius gaue sentence for S. Chrysostome, disanulling the act, and iudgment 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 frō his Episcopall function, vntill 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, ordayning that in the meane tyme Proclus Bishop of Cyzicum should gouerne the Church of Constātinople. And albeit Innocentius forbare for sometyme to pro­ceed against Theophilus by way of censure; yet after S. Chrysostomes death (who dyed in banyshment within 3. yeares) he excommunicated not only Theophilus, and Atticus for the excesses cōmitted on their part, but also Arcadius the Emperour, and Eudoxia the Empresse for assisting them with their Imperiall authority, as Georgius Alexandrinus, Gennadius, Glicas, and Nicephorus do testify. Finally although Theophilus remayned ob­stinate [Page 186] so long as he liued (which was not past 5. yeares after S. Chrysostomes death) yet he dyed repen­tant, and Atticus after much suite and many Embassa­ges sent (as Theodoretus testifyeth) was reconcyled to the Roman Church. As also Arcadius the Emperour vpon his submission, and humble petition of pardon was absolued by Pope Innocentius as appeareth by the letters of them both, which are set downe in Glycas. And thus passed this matter, Glycas part. 4. Annal. which alone may suffice to proue the supreme, and vniuersall authority of In­nocentius.

80. And as for Zosimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus, who succeeded Innocentius and were the 3. last Popes of the 8. that liued in S. Augustins tyme, I shall not need to say much, seeing that I haue already spoken sufficiently of them as of Zosimus a litle Supra nu. 74. before, con­cerning the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy, be­sides a former Supra nu. 52. & 53. testimony of S. Augustine, touching an assembly of himselfe, and other African Bishops at Cesaraea, by the inuention or commaundment of Pope Zosimus. In like manner I haue Supra nu. [...]8. & seq. shewed before that not only S. Augustine, but also the Primate of Numidia in Africk acknowledged the primacy of the Popes Bo­nifacius, and Celestinus by recommending to them the cause betwixt Antony Bishop of Fussula, and the people of that Diocesse, whereto neuertheles I thinke good to add concerning Bonifacius, that it appeareth by his letters to the Bishops of 7. Prouinces in France, that To. 1. Concil. ep. 2. Bonif.the Clergy of the Citty of Valentia sent to him a bill of complaynt with the testimony of the whole Pro­uince against Maximus an hereticall Bishop of the Ma­nichaean sect, accusing him of many haynous crymes, and that thereupon Bonifacius did delegate the hearing [Page 187] of the cause to the said Bishops, P. Cele­stinus head of the gene­rall Coū ­cell of E­phesus. whereby it is euident that his power, and authority was not confyned 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 Iurisdiction extended, seeing that, it cannot be denyed that he was President and head of the generall Councell of Ephesus, and that the famous S. Cyril Bishop of Ale­xandria was but his substitute, and Legate therein, which is euident not only by the testimony Euagr. 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 Concil. Ephes. To. 1. cap. 16. & 17. Cyrillus to whome he wrote thus: Adiuncta tibi no­strae sedis auctoritate ipse qui vice nostra potestate (que) fungeris &c. Thou which holdest our place and power (the authority of our seat concurring with thee) shalt with all euerity pro­nounce this sentence against Nestorius, that if within 10. daies after this admonition, he do not detest and renounce his wicked doctrine &c. Thou shalt prouide his Church (of a Pastor) and he shall vnderstand that he is excluded from our communion &c.

82. Thus wrote Celestinus to Cyril, who therefore in his Ibid. To. 1. cap. 14. letters, to Nestorius signifyed vnto him, that if he did not recant, and reforme his errours within the tyme limited, and prescrybed by Pope Celestinus, he should be excommunicated, and depriued. And the whole Councell also pronouncing Ibid. To. 2. ca. 1 [...]. Euag. lib. 1. ca. 4. Nicepho. l. 14. cap. 34. sentence of con­demnation against Nestorius, affirmed, that they were compelled to vse that seuerity not only by the Canons of the Church, but also by the letters of Pope Celestinus: and To. 4. cap 17. Concil. Ephes. in their Epistle to the said Pope they signifyed, that they reserued, and remitted the cause of Iohn the Patriarch of Antioch (who was a fauourer of Niceph. li. 14. ca. 34 Nesto­rius,) [Page 188] to his iudgment and sentence. Besides that Ni­cephorus testifieth that the common fame was in his time, that certayne priuiledges were graunted to S. Cyril, (which also his successours enioyed) by reason of his Legacy, and substitution to Pope Celestinus in that Councell and amongst other things that he had the title of Iudex vniuersi orbis, Iudge of the whole world.

An euidēt argumēt that Cele­stinus was vniuersall and su­preme Pastor of the Church.83. Now then I report me to thee, good Reader, whether Celestinus was no more then the head of his Church of Rome as M. Andrews maketh him. For is it likely that eyther S. Cyrill (who was Bishop of Alex­andria, and consequently the first and chiefe Patriarke of the East) would haue stouped to be his substitute and Legate, and to receiue commissions and orders from him, or yet that the whole Councell, (beeing most of them also of the Greeke and East Church) would haue acknowledged themselues to be compel­led by his letters to condemne Nestorius, yea and re­mitted the cause of the second Patriarke of the Greeke Church to his finall determination, if they had not ta­ken him for the vniuersall and supreme Pastour of the whole Church? As I shewed also the like be­fore in the second See cap. 2. per. [...]otum. Chapter of this Adioynder, con­cerning the authority of Pope Leo in the great Coun­cell of Chalcedon, which was held in the same age, not past 20. yeares after this other of Ephesus. So that M. Andrewes cānot by any meanes excuse himselfe from a manifest lye in this, no more then in other two poynts before mentioned.

M. An­drews fa­cility in [...]ing.84. Whereby it appeareth euidently that he hath made 3. notable lyes as I may say with one breath, that is to say within litle more then 3. lynes, Besyds an [Page 189] egregious corruption of the Canon, of the African Sy­nod (with his transmarinus nemo) and a foule abuse as well of S. Augustine (in making him say, that which he neyther sayd, nor meant) as also of his Reader in seeking to perswade him, that S. Augustine excom­municated all those that would appeale to Rome out of Africk, yea and cured Peters-diseases in the 3. last Popes; for so he also saith, in quibus tamen eumdem morbum curauit, in whome, to wit ( Zosimus Bonifacius, and Celestinus) Augustine cured the same diseases (that is to say the diseases of Peter) meaning as I take it, eyther Peters presumptiō of his owne strength or els his denyall of Christ: which neuertheles I cannot see how he can apply to them, and much lesse 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 perswade thee (good Rea­der) that S. Augustine was at daggers drawing with these 3. Popes, thou hast partly seene already by that which hath bene said concerning two of them to wit Zosimus, & Celestinus, how much he hath sought to a­buse thee therin, & the like will also euidently appeare concerning Pope Bonifacius, if thou consider with what affection, August. contra. duas ep. Pe­lag. lib. 1 [...] cap. 1. reuerend respect, and submission S. Augustine dedicated vnto him his 4. bookes a­gainst two Epistles of the Pelagians writing to him thus:

86. Noueram te quidem fama celeberrima praedicante &c. I knew thee truely before, S. Augu­stins duti­full respect vnto Pope Ba­nifacius. by the most famous report of thy renoumne, and vnderstood by many most frequent, and true relations, how aboundantly thou art replenished with Gods grace (most blessed and venerable Pope Boniface) [Page 190] but after that my brother Alipius, had seene thee, and been receiued by thee with all benignity and sincerity &c. I had so much more notice of thy Holinesse, by how much more certeyne is our amity; for thou, who takest no gust, or de­light in high things (though thou art in a higher degree then others) dost not disdayne to be a friend to the meane and inferiour sort. So he; and afterwards hauing signi­fyed that he had vndertaken to write against 2. epi­stles of the Pelagians, he concludeth: Haec ergo quae duabus Epistolis &c. These things therefore which I doe answere in this disputation to two Epistles of the Pelagians, I haue determyned to direct specially to thy Holynes, not as things needfull to be learned by you but to be examined, and amended if any thing do chance to dislyke you. Thus wrote S. Augustine to Pope Bonifacius: being so far from ha­uing any auersion or alienation from him, and much more from presumyng to cure any diseases in him (that is to say to correct any errours in his person or gouern­ment) that he shewed all dutifull loue and reuerend affection towards him, giuing notable testimony to his rare vertue, & sanctity, and not only acknowledging the dignity of his seat, but also submitting himselfe and his workes to his censure, and Iudgment, to be examined corrected, and amended by him as he should see cause, whereby it appeareth that S. Augustine liued in perfect vnion with Pope Bonifacius.

87. And in what tearmes he stood with Pope Celestinus (though we may gather it sufficiently by his owne letter See be­fore nu. 38. & seq. before mentioned concerning the Bishop of Fussula) yet it shall not be amisse to vnder­stand it also by the testimony of Celestinus himselfe. It is therefore to be vnderstood that S. Augustine dying in the tyme of Pope Celestinus, and his workes (especi­ally [Page 191] those against the Pelagians) being by their practise much impugned and defamed in France S. Prosper who had been a disciple (as I haue sayd before) of S. Augustine, and was then Bishop of Aquitane, went pur­posely to Rome togeather with Hilarlus Bishop of Arles, to complayne thereof & to procure the letters of Pope Celestinus in iustifycation of him, and his workes: Whereupon Celestinus wrote a generall letter to all the Bishops of France, as well in defence of S. Augustine, as in condemnation of the Pelagians, and amongst o­ther things sayth 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 &c. We haue alwayes held Augu­stine, of holy memory, in our communion for his life, and merits: neyther was he euer toucht with so much as any ru­mor of euill suspition, whome we haue knowne to haue been so learned, Vincent. lirinens. cap. vlt. that he was held by my predecessours for one of the chiefe, or best maisters. So he.

88. Whereby it is euident that S. Augustine euer liued in the vnion and obedience of the Roman Sea, for otherwyse Pope Celestinus would not haue giuen this testimony of him especially if he had byn so opposit to him, and his predecessours as M. Andrewes affirmeth, I meane if he had taken vpon him not only to correct, and reforme them, and to excommunicate euery one that should appeale to them out of Africk, but also to deny and impugne their supreme, and vniuersall au­thority which all Christendome acknowledged at that tyme, as I haue euidently shewed So that now I leaue 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 possest and opprest with the peccant, or rather pestilent here­ticall [Page 192] humour of lying, that it floweth out of his mouth in such aboundance, as we see. And therefore where­as he pretendeth to descend of the race of Phisitians, and to be one of those Medicorum filij, who make speci­all profession to pry into the diseases of Popes, M. An­drewes his Father, a Father of lyes. I may truly say that whosoeuer was his Grand father (were he Phisitian, or Apothecary) his father could be no other but the Father of lyes, from whome he hath con­tracted this pestiferous, and diuelish disease, which therefore being hereditary is, as it may be feared, in­curable: in which respect we may more truely say of his head, then he said of ours, nec est sanum, nec vt videtur, sanabile.

IN the two last Chapters I haue exa­mined, and (if I be not much decea­ued) fully confuted M. Andrewes his answers to 7. places of the Fa­thers, obiected by the Cardinall in his Apology, and by me in my Sup­plement. And whereas there are 3. other Authorityes [Page 194] of the Fathers obiected togeather with the former by the Cardinall, and pretended also to be answered by M. Andrews, which I haue not touched any where in my Supplement, I thinke good to say somewhat there­to, lest if I should passe them with silence, it may seeme to some that M. Andrewes hath quit himselfe better in the answere of them, then of the rest; and that he hath bene able, at the least, to say somewhat to the purpose in defence of his cause.

2. The First of the 3. places is alleadged by the Cardinall out of Origen thus: Orig. in cap. 6. ad Rom. Petro cum summa rerum de pascendis ouibus traderetur, & super ipsum &c. When the chiefe or supreme charge of feeding Christs sheepe was giuen to Peter, and the Church founded vpon him, veluti super terram, A place of Origen is discussed. as vpon the ground, the confession of no other vertue but only of Charitie was exacted of him. Thus far the Cardinall out of Origen to proue the primacy of Peter. Andr cap. 2. pa [...] 217. §. ex Origene. Whereto M. Andrewes answereth thus. Ex Orig [...]ne summam rerum &c. Out of Origen the Cardinall obiecteth that the Chiefe charge of feeding Christes sheepe, was giuen to Peter, Orig. in Matth. 16. Tract. 1. but the same Chiefe or supreme Charge was also giuen to others, as Origen doth els where plainly affirme, and if any thing were giuen there peculiarly to Peter, the same was giuen him in respect of his peculiar fall; super ipsum veluti super terram &c. The Church was foun­ded vpon him as vpon the ground; but it was also founded vpon others, togeather with him. Thus sayth M. An­drewes.

3. Wherein I wish two things to be noted. The one, that heere he flyeth to his common and stale shift, to wit, that the rest of the Apostles had as much preheminence in all this as Peter: and that if he had any thing peculiar it was in respect of his fall, all [Page 195] which I haue fully confuted to his shame in the first Chapter, See cap. 1. nu. 3.6.23. & 26. where I haue declared how he abused S. Au­gustine, S. Ambrose, and S. Cyril concerning this point, and therefore I will not trouble my selfe and my Reader with the Repetition thereof. The o­ther is, that he seeketh to fortify this idle conceipt of his by the interpretation of Origen himselfe who he sayth teacheth expressely els where that others had the chiefe charge of feeding Christs flock as well as Peter, for the which he quoteth his first homily vpon the 16. of Matthew, where neuerthelesse Origen hath not one word touching the words, Pasce oues meas, but ex­poundeth there that which occurred in the 16. of Mat­thew, concerning Peters Confession of Christ, Matth. 16. Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God, and Christs an­swere to him, Thou art Peter, and vpon this rock I will build my Church &c. and I will giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen &c. wherein it is also to be obser­ued, that Origen in that Homily followeth altogeather an Allegoricall sense, and seeking to drawe from thence some Morall doctrine (as preachers vse to do) applyeth the same not only to all the Apostles, as well as to Peter, but also to all perfect Christians, teaching that whosoeuer doth by the reuelation of God, and light of grace confesse Christ, as Peter did, he shall haue the same beatitude which Peter had, and be a Rock as he was; and that as euery true Christian and iust man doth participate of Christ, and therefore may well be called Christus, Iustitia & Sapientia, so also he may be called Petrus & Petra, and to this purpose Origen addeth further that the Church is built vpon such, and that hell gates shall not preuaile against them, mea­ning such iust men and perfect Christians as are of [Page 196] the m [...]mber of the elect, expounding the gates of hell to signify all kind of sinnes, as well as false doctrine.

4. In like manner he applieth the giuing of the keyes, as well to euery faythfull Christian, as eyther to Peter, or to the rest of the Apostles, saying; Videamus quomodo dictum est Petro, & omni fideli qui Petrus est, Da­bo tibi claues &c. Let vs see how it is said to Peter, and euery faithfull man which is Peter, I will giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen. And then he pro­ceedeth, shewing that Christ promiseth the keyes to euery faithfull man in reward of his confession, vt ipse sibi aperiat portas Regni caelorū &c. That he may open for himselfe the gates of the Kingdome of heauen. Which gates also Origen expoundeth to be the vertues of Cha­slitic, and perfect Righteousnes, by the which the gates of heauen are opened (as it were with keyes) & sic (saith he) in singulis quibusque virtutibus, and so also in all other vertues; and to this purpose is Origens dis­course in that homily.

5. Now then who seeth not heere, that he leaueth the litterall sense altogether in this, and lyke a prea­cher, followeth the Allegoricall and Morall, thereby to induce his audience to vertue, and withdraw them from vice and sinne? And will M. Andrewes say, that therefore Origens opinion was, that Peter had nothing promised peculiarly to himselfe more then to euery perfect Christan? By M. Andrews [...]ad glosse eue­ry good man and woman shall haue as much authority as S. Peter. So shall euery iust man and womā (for Orig [...]n speaketh of all alyke) haue as much Eccle­siasticall power and Iurisdiction as Peter had; for I am sure M. Andrewes will not deny, but that when Christ promised the keyes to Peter, he promised to giue him Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction and power, howsoeuer the same is to be vnderstood, I meane whether as promi­sed [Page 197] to himselfe alone for the whole Church (as we vnderstand it) or as promised also to the Apostles equally with him (as M. Andrewes, and his fellowes would haue it) and therefore, I say, that taking this interpretatiō of Origen for the literall sense, euery faith­full man or woman that is of the elect hath as much power to bynd, loose, excommunicate, and exercise any other Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, as Peter, and the rest of the Apostles had: yea to be not only Pastors of Christs flock, but also chiefe Pastours and to haue summā rerum de pascendis ouibus, the chiefe charge of feeding Christs sheepe.

6. For whereas Origen sayth so of S. Peter, in the place now in question; M. Andrewes will haue the same to be vnderstood also according to this Interpre­tation of Origen, which as you haue heard, includeth not only all the Apostles, but also euery other perfect Christian (yf 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 vncer­tayne whether M. Andrewes himselfe be a Pastour, A great doubt whether M. An­drews be a Pastor or not, if he vnder­stand Ori­gen a­right. or no; for though he hold himselfe for a perfect Chri­stian (which neuertheles I hold to be very doubtfull, or rather assure my selfe of the contrary) yet it is very vncertayne whether he be one of the elect, and if he be not of that number, then according to this interpre­tatiō (if it be literall) he hath no pastorall Cōmissiō. Be­sides, it would follow that euery Priest should haue as much authority as his Bishop, & euery Bishop as much as his Metropolitan, yea and euery predestinate man, or woman (that is a perfect Christian) should haue as much as any of them, or as they all: seeing that all they can haue no more then summā rerum de pascendis ouibus, [Page 198] the chiefe charge and care of feeding Christs flock [...] which Origen saith was giuen to Peter. M. An­drews by his inter­pretation of Origen ouer­throweth all subor­dination in the Church. Loe then what good doctrine M. Andrews teacheth heere, by this In­terpretation of Origen (if he will haue it to be litterall) ouerthrowing therby all subordination in the Church, and cōfounding the Ecclesiastical with the secular, the Laytie with the Clergy & the head with the members, I meane the spirituall Pastours or sheapheardes of Christs flock, with their sheepe or subiects, which truly he would not do if he were not as silly and single witted as a sheepe, or at least, if he were not more malicious then a sheepe of Christs flock ought to be.

7. Therefore to conclude this point, seeing that this Interpretation of Origen out of Origen serueth him to no better purpose then the other did before out of S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, and S. Cyril (which only serued to bewray his malice and folly, Chap. 1. vbi supra. as I haue she­wed amply in the first Chapter.) It is cleare that Ori­gens testimony alleadged by the Cardinall (concer­ning the chiefe Charge of feeding Christs sheepe gi­uen to Peter) remayneth cleare, Other plaine places of Origen to proue S. Peters primacy. and sound for the Ca­tholiks to be taken in the litterall sense as the Cardi­nall alleadged it, especially seeing it is most conforme to Origens doctrine in other places, as in his homilyes vpon diuers Euangelists, Origen. in diuers. E­uangel. hom. 2. where he calleth. S. Peter Sum­mum Apostolorum verticem, the chiefe or supreme head of the Apostles; and therefore discoursing also after­wards in the same place of the particuler priuiledges of grace giuen by our Sauiour to S. Iohn the Apostle, he preferreth neuertheles S. Peter before him in dignity saying, Nemo nos existimet Petro Ioannem preferre &c. Let no man thinke that I preferre Iohn before Peter. Who [Page 199] would so do? for, which of the Apostles was hygher (in dignity) then 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 ouibus, the chiefe charge of feeding Christs sheepe, and was the foundation of the Church, as Origen acknow­ledgeth in the place alleadged by the Cardinall, and diuers others: and this shall suffice for him.

8. The second place which I am to debate with M. Andrewes is taken by the Cardinall out of S. Hylary in these words; Card. Apol. cap [...] 8. pag. 125. S. Hyl. in 16. cap. Matth. O in nuncupatione noui nominis felix Eccle­siae fundamentum &c. O happie foundation of the Church in the nuncupation of a new name & a rock worthie of the buil­ding thereof, A place of S. Hilary for S. Peters au­thority defended. that is to say of the Church. which (Rock) should dissolue or break the lawes of hell &c. Thus far the Cardinall out of S. Hilary, to proue that Peter was the foundation, and consequently the head of the Church. Whereto M. Andrewes answereth thus. Ex Hylario, felix Ecclesiae fundamentum Petrum, out of Hilary the Cardinall obiected that Peter was the happie founda­tion of the Church, Andr. cap. 8. pag. 218. §. ex Hyla­rio. Sed inter alia pariter fundamenta, but amongst and togeather 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 therof then they. Wherto I neede not to say any thing heere, be­cause I haue largely treated the same point in the third Chapter, shewing how the Apostles were called foū ­dations of the Church, See chap. [...]. nu [...] 18.24.25. & 2 [...]. without derogation eyther to Christ, who is the first, and chiefe foundation, or to Peter who is the second immediatly grounded [Page 200] vpon Christ, and therefore I remit my Reader there­to.

9. And now to go forward with M. Andrewes his answere, he addeth the rest of S. Hilaries words thus: Dignam aedificatione Christi Petram, a Rock wor­thie of the building of Christ; which wordes of Hilary he glosseth thus; sed fidei ratione &c. but by reason or meanes of fayth (sayth Hilary himselfe) and not of his person, that Peter may depend on the fayth, and not the fayth vpon Peter. M. An­drewes his shifting glosse. Thus sayth M. Andrews, seeking by the help of a lying glosse of his owne to make his Reader belieue, that S. Hilary doth so admit S. Peters fayth to be the foundation of the Church, that he excludeth his person; fidei ratione ait ipse Hilarius, non personae, sayth M. Andrewes, Peter was a Rock by the meanes of his faith, saith Hilary himselfe, and not of his person. So indeed saith M. Andrewes, but so sayth not S. Hilary. And therefore M. Andrewes thought best to quote no place of S. Hilary neither in the text nor in the margent; and sure I am that in the place which the Cardinall alleadgeth, S. Hilary speaketh expressely of S. Peters person, and not of his faith, except M. Andrewes can shew vs how faith was called by a new name, & so made the foundation of the Church, as we can shew him, how Symon was called Peter, that is to say a Rock, to signify by that new name that he should be felix Eccle­siae fundamentū (as S. Hilary sayth) the happie foundation of the Church, S. Peters fayth not separated from his person in the sense and mea­ning of S. Hilary. & receiue the keyes of heauen. In which respect S. Hilary addeth also in the same place, O Bea­tus caeli ianitor! O blessed porter of heauen! Neuer­thelesse I would not haue M. Andrews to think that in affirming with S. Hilary that Peter was the foundation of the Church, I doe exclude his faith from his person, [Page 201] as though S. Hilary should say or any Catholike man meane, that the Church was built vpon Peters person and not vpon 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 deserued to be made the foundation of the Church, and the porter of heauen, as S. Hilary calleth him.

10. And therfore albeit S. Hilary in another place calleth the Rock of Cōfession, the foūdatiō of the Church, & sayth also that fayth receiued the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome (which by all likelyhood is the place that M. Andrews meaneth, though he doth not quote it) yet in the same place he addeth cōcerning S. Peters persō, that supereminentem beatae fidei suae confessione gloriam prome­ruit, S. Hilar [...] li. 6. de Trinitate. he deserued a supereminent glorie by the confes­sion of his blessed fayth: and a litle after, hinc regni caelorum habet claues &c. hereby, or in respect hereof (that is to say of his faith, or confession of Christ) he hath the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen, and his earthly iudgments are heauenly. Thus sayth S. Hilary, shewing euidently in what sense he sayth, that fayth & the confession of Christ was the foundation of the Church, and that it receiued the keyes, to wit, because by the Merit thereof S. Peter deserued to haue the su­pereminent dignity or glorie to be the foundatiō of the Church, Ibidem. and to haue the keyes; which he also signi­fyeth more plainely before in the same Tract, saying of Peters person, post Sacramenti confessionē beatus Simon aedificationi Eccl [...]siae subiacēs, & claues regni caelestis accipi­ens &c. Blessed Simon after the cōfessiō of the mystery, lying vnder the building of the Church (that is to say, being made the foūdatiō of the church) & receiuing [...]y [...] [Page 202] keyes of the heauenly Kingdome &c. So he. Where you see he ascribeth S. Peters being the foundation of the Church, as also his hauing of the keyes, to his person, though to shew the reasō & cause therof, he addeth post cōfessionē Sacramenti, after the cōfession 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 fayth, or Confession, doth not in either of both vnderstand his person without his faith, or yet his faith without his person (I meane ab­stracting his faith from his person) but considereth both ioyntly, that is to say, his person by the merit of his faith. One of M. An­drews his petty [...]rauds. And therefore whereas M. Andrewes affir­meth, as you haue heard, that S. Hilary himselfe sayth, that Peter was the foundation of the Church fidei ra­tione, non personae, by the meanes of his faith, and not of his person, he may put vp non personae in his pocket, for S. Hilary hath no such word, neither that meaning, which M. Andrews would haue his Reader to gather thereof, that is to say, to exclude S. Peters person from the foundation of the Church. So as this may passe for a petty fraud, and a pretty cosening trick a­mongst many other of more importance, whereof you haue seene diuers already, and shall see more here­after.

12. There resteth now to be examined only one of the 3. places before mentioned, which is alleadged by the Cardinall out of S. Maximus thus: Card. cap. 8. p. 125. Quanti igitur meriti apud Deum suum Petrus &c. Of how great merit do you thinke that Peter was with his God, Maxim. ho. 3. de Apost. Pe­ [...]ro & Paulo. that after the row­ing of a litle boat, the gouerment of the whole Church was giuen him. Thus far the Cardinall out of S. Maximus. To this M. Andrews saith: ‘ E Maximo (si tamen Maxi­mus [Page 203] is Taurinensis &c. Andr. vbi supra pag. 219. §. E. Maximo. The Cardinall obiecteth out of Maximus (if neuerthelesse this was Maximus of Turin and not some other later then he, if also in the tyme of Maximus Sermons were purposely made of the Apo­stles, as no doubt there were in the age after) Petro to­tius Ecclesiae gubernacula tradita &c. the gouerment of the whole Church was giuen to Peter. But did euer any man thinke that the gouerment of any particuler Church was giuen him, except you who gaue him the gouerment of the Roman Church (as though the same were not part of the whole) after you haue giuen him the gouerment of the whole?’ So he: very mystical­ly as he is wont, yet seeming to graunt (for ought I see) that Peter had the gouerment of the whole Church, which is the same [...]at the Cardinall teacheth, and see­keth to proue by this place.

13. But perhaps he will fly heere to his old shift, to wit, that though Peter had the gouerment of the whole Church, yet he had it no otherwise then the rest of the Apostles had. Concerning which point, I haue treated so amply before, that it were needles to repeat it heere, especially seeing that he seeketh no such euasion in this place, but seemeth to graunt as much as we demand; and only carpeth at vs for giuing to Peter the gouerment of the particuler Church of Rome, M. An­drews his phanta­sticall con­ceit. after we haue giuen him the gouerment of the whole. For so he saith; which truly is a fine conceipt, and right worthy of M. Andrews enigmaticall and phantasti­call braine, who loueth to walk in mysts, and cloudes, to the end it may be vncertayne what he affirmeth, or what he denyeth: as for example, he graunteth heere or at least seemeth to graunt the doctrine of S. Maxi­mus, which is, that Christ gaue the gouerment of the [Page 204] whole Church to S. Peter; and yet presently after he seemeth to call the same in question againe, affirming, that we haue giuen him the gouerment as well of the whole Church of God, as of the particuler Church of Rome, saying: Romanae vestrae traditis &c. postquam ei totius gubernacula tradidistis: You giue him the gouer­ment of the particuler Church of Rome, after you haue giuen him the gouernement of the whole.

14. So that he suposeth here, that not Christ, but we haue giuen him both the one and the other, to wit the particuler, after the generall: whereby he seemeth also to affirme that S. Peter was not Bishop of Rome otherwise then in our conceit, and by our gift, adding withall 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 gouernor both of the whole Church and of a particuler Church; wherein he argueth as wisely as if he should say, that a Bishop of Ely could not be Gouernor of the particuler Church of Ely, and of the whole Diocesse, or that a Bishop of Canterbury could not be Gouernour of that Bishoprick and Prymate of England, or that a generall of an Army could not go­uerne a particuler Company, and be Generall of the whole Army.

M. An­drews dull head more to be con­foūded by blowes then per­suaded by argumēts.15. But will M. Andrewes, trow you, be so ab­surd to say in good earnest that S. Peter was not gouer­nor of a particuler Church, or that we only (meaning the Catholikes of this age) haue made him so? Tru­ly if he affirme this, and will stand to it, he is not to be confuted by arguments, but confounded by blowes, as a mad man that had need to be beaten into his witts, hauing (as Aristotle sayth of some) as much [Page 205] need of punishment, Arist. Topic. li. 1 [...] cap. 9. as he should haue of sense, that should deny the snow to be white, for I thinke there was neuer any thing more clearly testified by all the Fa­thers of the Church, Councells, Historiographers Ecclesiasticall and prophane, vndoubted monuments of Antiquity, and all manner of Testimony then that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome, especially seeing that the continuall succession of Bishops in the Roman Sea from him, euen to the present Pope Paulus Quintus, doth de­monstrate, and as I may say proclayme the euidence thereof. And therefore I must needes imagine that M. Andrews hath some other meaning then his wordes im­port; but whatsoeuer it is, he sheweth by his obscure, doubtfull and impertinent manner of wryting, 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 answere to his glose vpon the place of S. Maximus, S. Maximꝰ of Turyn did wryte homilyes or Sermōs of Saints. but that I cannot omit to say something to the two doubts he maketh, to wit, whether this Maximꝰ was he that was Bishop of Turin, & whether there were Sermōs made purposely of the Apostles in his tyme; both which doubts the ancient Gennadiꝰ (who wrote in the same age) may wel resolue, seeing that in his booke de viris illustribus, Genadius in Catal. Illustrium viror. he writeth that Maximus Bishop of Turin wrote certayne Tracts in prayse of the Apostles (which are these verie Homilies whence this testimony is taken) & hauing mentioned diuers other Tracts and Homilies vpon the Natiuitie of S. Iohn Baptist, S. Eusebius of Versels, and S. Cypri [...]n, also of the passion of Christ, and the fast of Lent, of the Crosse, Sepulcher, and Resurection of our Lord (which are also to be seene in his works vnder the tytle of homylies, he concludeth: Scripsit etiam homilias multas [Page 206] &c. He (to wit Maximus) wrote also many Homilyes of the Natiuity of the Theophany (which we call the Epiphany) of Easter, and of Pentecost &c. besides diuers others which I haue 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 homilyes in prayse, not only of the Apostles, but also of diuers other Saints, and vpon diuers feasts; which M. Andrews may belieue because it is testified by one that might know it well, for that he wrote about the yeare of our Lord 490. which was the same age wherein S. Maximus liued, who died (as Gennadius also witnesseth) in the yeare 420. about ten yeares before the decease of S. Augustin, Gennadius vbi supra. which I note by the way to put M. Andrews in mynd of a notable scape & ouersight (not to call it a flatly) in his former answere to a place of S. Augustine (wher­of 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 giuen any probable answere to any one of ten places ob­iected by the Car­dinall. In S. Augustins tyme there were no sermons made de Tempore. So that you see he is found to be minus habens, and taken tar­dy in euery thing, and not able to giue any reasonable satisfaction, or answere to any one place of ten allead­ged by the Cardinall in one Chapter.

18. And yet forsooth in the preamble to his an­swere of those places, he maketh so light of them as though he could blow them away all with a blast; for thus he saith: Vnum hoc peccant omnia &c. they haue all this one fault, Andr. vbi supra pag. 217. §. In­spiciamus. that they bring nothing which may not straight be graunted, except perhaps some litle word, about the which I do not meane [...], to contend in words. So he. But [Page 207] if this be true, how chanceth it that the poore man hath bene so puzled in the answere of these places that he hath bene faine so to trifle, wrangle, cogg, and lye, as you haue heard? Hath some litle word, trow you, that hath occurred now and then, and could not be graun­ted, driuen him to so hard an exigent? But let vs hear what he saith may be graunted, and what denied in those places: Nam nec primatum (saith he) negamus Petri &c. For we do not deny the Primacy of Peter, nor the names which do signify it, but we demand the thing or matter it selfe now in question, that is to say, his earthly Monarchy. Thus saith he, seeming out of his bountifull liberality, to graunt that which he seeketh to ouer­throw, as much as in him lyeth, yea denying that in effect which he graunteth in words, M. An­drews his [...]. and reducing all his dispute to a playne [...], that is to say, a word­warre, or a contention about words, which neuer­theles he professeth to auoyd.

19. You see he graunteth the primacy of Peter, yet when it is vrged against him out of the Fathers in the places aboue mentioned, he laboureth to ouerthrow 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 speciall Com­mission giuen him to feede Christs sheepe, he goeth a­bout to proue that Peter was no more the foundation of the Church, then 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 gouernement ouer the Church then they. Wherein then consisteth his primacy which the Fathers teach, and deduce from the power giuen him by the keyes, and by his Pastorall commission, which doe import au­thority, [Page 208] power, Iurisdiction, and gouernment?

20. Therefore M. Andrews denying S. Peters preeminēce in authority and gouernment, denyeth the primacy, that the Fathers teach, and reduceth it only to a bare name, without effect, and so doth nothing els indeed but [...]; yea and if we well consider what he saith we shall find that he graunteth not so much as the very word or name of primacy, or at least if he do he cōtradicteth himselfe; for what are, trow you, those vo­culae which he excepteth frō his graunt, when he sayth, that there is nothing in these places of the Fathers, which may not presently be graunted, nisi voculam fortè habent &c. except some litle word perhaps? M. An­drewes troubled greatly with litle wordes. What litle word I say is that which cannot be graunted? Is it not Primatus, Caput, and some such other words as signifie Primacy? Yes truely; for no other voculae, or voces in those places of the Fathers do so much molest him. Neuertheles he hath no sooner excepted them from his grant, but he granteth thē presētly, saying: Non negamus Primatum Petri &c. Wee doe not deny the primacy of Peter, nor those names which signify Primacy, which is a strange kinde of [...], for he wrangleth with himselfe, contradicting himselfe notably within the space of two lynes, first signifying that those wordes and names are not to be graunted, and presently after granting them, as no way preiudiciall to his doctrine.

21. And to the end wee may vnderstand that he granteth vs nothing but words and names, he distin­guisheth the same from the thing it selfe which he meaneth to deny, and yet so handleth the matter that he doth still [...], reducing also his denyall to a meer quarrell of words deuised by himselfe, and ney­ther vsed nor meant by vs, eyther in wordes or sense: [Page 209] for he calleth rem ipsam, M. An­drewes fighteth in the aire and per­uerteth the state of the Question. the thing it selfe (which is sig­nified by our primacy) terrestrem monarchiam, an earth­ly Monarchy: and in another place he also tearmeth it See cap. 1. nu. 20. temporalem Primatum, a temporall Primacie; and this forsooth is that which he denyeth heere, and so denyeth no part of our doctrine, but a foolish cōceipt of his owne; for although we hold and teach that the gouernment of the Church is a Monarchie, and that the power thereof doth extend it selfe to temporall thinges (in such sort and for such reasons as I haue touched in the first nu. 20. & 21. chapter of this Adioynder, and handled at large in my See Sup­plem. chap. 1. nu. 61. & seq. vs­ (que) ad 69. Supplemēt) yet it neyther is nor can be called temporall or earthly, otherwise then as S. Hilary calleth S. Peters iudiciall sentences terrena iudicia, when he sayth, terrena eius iudicia sunt caelestia, his earthly Iudgements (that is to say, S. Hilar. l. 6. de Tri­nit. his sentences giuen on earth) are heauenly.

22. And so I say, that albeit the gouernment of the Church may in this sense be called earthly, to wit, because it is exercised vpon earth, yet it is not earthly or temporall, but spirituall and heauenly, both because it is a spirituall and heauenly power, and also because it is guided and directed from heauen by the spirit of God. And therefore whereas M. Andrews doth call or rather nickname the Popes Supremacy, a Temporall Pri­macy, and his Monarchy an earthly Monarchy, because he punisheth his spirituall subiects in their temporall goodes, or states, he may by the same reason say, that S. Peter and S. Pauls power was not spirituall, but cor­porall and temporall, because the one of them puni­shed Ananias & Sapphira with corporall death, and the other strook Elimas the Magician blind, Act. 5. Ibid. ca. 13. deliuered the incestuous Corinthian to Sathan in interitum carnis, 1. Cor. 5. to [Page 210] the destruction of the flesh, and finally extended his power to secular and politicall matters, commaun­ding Ibid. ca. 6. the Corinthians to appoint temporall Iudges a­mongst themselues rather then to haue recourse to the tribunalls and Iudgements of Infidells: M. An­drews a pecuniary Pastour & a wran­gler in the highest degree. yea M. An­drewes must acknowledge himselfe to be but a meere temporall, yea a pecuniary Pastour, because in his spiri­tuall Courtes he vseth pecuniary mulcts, and other tem­porall punishments, as I haue shewed before, in the first See be­fore chap. 1. nu. 21. Chapter. By all this it appeareth that M. An­drews denying not the spirituall, but (as he tearmeth it) the earthly Monarchy, and temporall primacy of Peter, denyeth nothing els but his owne vayne and idle man­ner of speach, expressing only a foolish fancie of his, and a very Chymera that hath no being in rerum natura, and so he doth still [...], and is therefore truely [...], that is to say a wrangler, in the highest degree.

23. And to the end this may yet appeare more manifestly, I will examine his answers & obiections touching another point in controuersy betwixt him, and vs, whereby we shall also see how notably he wrangleth, cauilleth, iuggleth, and tryfleth; and be­cause the matter, and his manner of answering will requyre some long discourse, I will make it the subiect of the three next Chapters.

WHEREAS the Cardinall vnder­taketh in his Apology Card. Apol. cap. 1. pag. 12. to treate of prayer to Saynts (because the Apo­logy for the Oath condemneth the vse, M. An­drews his meer trif­ling cauill. and practise of it in the Catho­like Church) M. Andrewes taketh exception to the Cardinall for changing the state of [Page 212] the question, Andr. cap. 1. p. 35. §. Porrò. and sayth that he fighteth with his owne shaddow, because he promiseth to treate de intercessione Sanctorum of the intercession of Saynts, wheras that which the King condemneth (saith M. Andrewes) is the inuocation of Saynts: wherin he also noteth this dif­ference, that the intercession of Saynts is their worke, and the inuocation of them is ours, and that the King denieth not that which the Cardinall proueth, to wit, that the Saynts do pray for vs, but that they are to be inuocated, or prayed vnto, which (saith M. Andrews) the Cardinall proueth not.

2. And he pleaseth himselfe so much with this de­uise, that he doth often inculcate the same, vrging the Cardinall to proue that Saynts may be inuocated, yea producing a text of Scripture, to proue that none can be inuocated but God; Andr. pa. 37. §. Verū. for ‘ terret nos Apostolus, saith he, vtcumque vos hominem habetis pro leui &c. The Apo­stle doth terrify vs (how light soeuer you make of the man) when he asketh this question, Rom. 10. quomodo inuoca­bunt eum, in quem non crediderunt? how shall they inuo­cate him in whome they belieue not? An igno­rant colle­ction. for you perhaps haue found a way how a man may inuocate those in whome you your selues say you do not belieue, where­as he (to wit the Apostle) seemed then to haue found no way.’ Thus saith M. Andrews: wherein it is to be noted, that one speciall reason why he rejecteth our doctrine concerning prayer to Saynts, is, for that we do inuocate them; because in his conceipt, Inuocation is so proper to God alone, that none can be inuocated but he; and if he do not conceiue so, why doth he insist so much vpon the word inuocate, yea, and seeke to terrify vs with his terret nōs Apostolus, charging vs to make light of him, because we inuocate them in whome [Page 213] we belieue not, that is to say, those whome we do not hold for God.

3. But a man may wonder how this great Do­ctor could so grossely erre in a matter so euident as this, seeing that the words of the Apostle immediatly going before, do manifestly shew, that he speaketh there of an inuocation due to God alone, as to our chiefe Lord; which kind of inuocation is not communicable to creatures; and therefore the Apostle hauing sayd, that God is Dominus omnium &c. the Lord of all, and rich, or bountifull; Rom. 10. towards all that inuocate him, he confir­meth it with the saying of the Prophet, omnis qui inuo­cauerit nomen Domini saluus erit, Ioel. 2. euery one that shall in­uocate the name of our Lord shalbe saued, and then he addeth, The true meaning of S. Paul about the inuocatiō of him in whome we be­lieue. Quomodo inuocabunt eum in quem non crediderunt? How shall they inuocate him, in whome they haue not belieued? as who would say, how can they inuo­cate him, of whome the Prophet speaketh, him that is Dominus omnium, the Lord of all, except they belieue in him, that is to say, except they belieue him to be their Lord, and Creatour. Whereby he doth not signi­fy that none but God can be inuocated in any sort, but that we cannot inuocate God, as our Lord, and our God, except we belieue him so to be.

4. And this doth not contradict the Inuocation of Saynts in another respect, to wit (not as Gods) but as the seruants of God, whome he glorifyeth, and hono­reth, and by whose intercession, and mediation he bestoweth graces, and fauours vpon men: in which sense it may also be truly said, that we cannot inuocate them, or craue the helpe of their prayers, except we do in some sort belieue in them (I meane) so far forth as we inuocate them, that is to, say except we belieue [Page 214] them to be Gods seruants, and that we also haue con­fidence in them, as in those, who by Gods goodnes may helpe vs. So as a faith, and beliefe in Saynts, is also necessary for the inuocation of them, though it is not the faith that we haue in God, as in our chiefe Lord, and Creatour; and that we may haue faith in Saynts, M. Andrewes may learne in the Apostle himselfe, who commendeth the charity, Ep. ad Philem. and faith which Phile­mon had in Domino Iesu, & in omnes Sanctos, in our Lord Iesus, and in all Saynts; vpon which words S. Hierome in his Commentary vpon that Epistle discourseth amply, S. Hieron. To. 6. in ep. ad Phi­lem. prouing that we may be sayd to haue fayth in Saynts.

5. Therefore M. Andrewes is to vnderstand for the full answere of his obiection, that as there is an honour, and glory which is due to God only (as the Apostle witnesseth, 1. Tim. 1. saying, soli Deo honor, & gloria, honour, and glory be to God alone) and another due to creatures (whereof the same Apostle also sayth, Rom. 2. glo­ria, honor, & pax omni operanti bonum; glory, honour, and peace be to euery one that doth good) so also there are two sorts of inuocation, the one vsed to God alone (whereof the Apostle speaketh in the text alledged by M. Andrewes) and the other vsed not only to Angels, and Saynts, Gen. 48. but also to men, as we read in the holy Scriptures, where Iacob blessing the children of Ioseph saith, [...]. inuocetur nomen meum super pueros hos, & nomina Patrum meorum: let my name, and the names of my Fathers Abraham, and Isaac be inuocated vpon those children. Vpon which words S. Augustine noteth ex­pressely that not only exaudition, S. Aug. li. locution. in Gen. nu. 200. but also inuocation is sometymes applyed to men, and not to God alone; besides that, I will make it euident heereafter, that [Page 215] the ancient fathers do vse inuocation, for prayer to Saynts.

6. But if M. Andrewes will not belieue S. Augu­stine, and the other ancient fathers, nor yet the holy Scripture, let him belieue himselfe, who afterwards teacheth clearely inough, that the word inuocation may be applyed to creatures, for he saith, that poscere à Sanctis auxilium, Andr. p. 45. §. Locus autem. propriè inuocare est, to craue helpe of Saynts, is properly to inuocate them, so that according to this interpretation of his, we do properly inuocate all those of whome we craue help, M. An­drews cō ­tradicteth himselfe. and succour, which we lawfully craue, not only of God, but also of those, who by the ordinance of God, may, and do lawfully succour, and helpe vs, as Angels, Saynts, and men do; whereupon it followeth that we may lawfully demaund their helpe, and consequently inuocate them according to M. Andrews his owne interpretation, whereby it appeareth that he hath not only very idly laboured to fright vs with his terrible text taken out of the Apostle, but also fondly contradicted him­selfe.

7. No lesse vayne, and idle is the exceptiō which he taketh against the Cardinall, Cardinall Bellar­mine vn­der the name of Interces­sion of Saints compri­zeth as well our prayers to them as their prai­ers for vs. for vndertaking to proue the intercession of Saynts, insteed of the inuoca­tion of Saynts: for how can M. Andrewes be ignorant that the Cardinall meaneth to proue the Catholike doctrine concerning prayer to Saynts, or the inuocatiō of Saints, albeit he tearme it the intercession of Saints? For whereas there are in this question two poynts spe­cially controuersed, the one, whether we may pray to Saynts, and the other, whether they doe pray for vs, (which two haue a connexion, and dependance one of another) it sufficeth that the Cardinall named one [Page 216] of them, meaning vnder the tytle thereof to proue the Catholyke doctrine concerning them both, as indeed he doth by the places of the Fathers which he alled­geth; prouing by some of them that the Saynts pray for vs, succour, and helpe vs, and by others that we may pray to them, yea and that we doe receiue helpe, and succour by them; wherby the Cardinall doth suffici­ently discharge his promise, yea and proueth that which M. Andrewes exacteth of him, to wit, the inuo­cation of Saynts, so that M. Andrewes sheweth himselfe still to be [...], a notable wrangler, contending a­bout woords, when neuertheles he vnderstandeth cleerly the Cardinalls sense, and meaning therein.

8. And now to shew that the Cardinall euidētly pro­ueth the inuocation of Saynts, I will examin M. Andrews his answeres to the places alledged by the Cardinall out of the Fathers, wherby also his cauilling, wrangling & fraudulēt humour shall euidently appeare. He deui­deth the Fathers (which the Cardinall produceth) into 3. rankes. Andr. pa. 39. §. Pa­trum. The first (sayth he) is of those, qui verè Pa­tres, sed non verè citantur, are truly Fathers, but not tru­ly cyted. The second, of those, qui verè citantur, sed fidei suspectae, which are truly cyted, but of no sound credit. And the third, M. An­drews his triple di­uision not worth three chipps. of those, qui & veri, & verè citantur, sed nihil ad rem, which are both true Fathers, and truly cy­ted, but nothyng to the purpose. Thus sayth M. An­drewes. In the first ranke he placeth S. Basil, out of whose Oration vpon the Fourty Martyrs the Cardi­nall alledgeth these words: Qui aliqua premitur angustia &c. whosoeuer is pressed (or vexed) with any griefe, S. Basil. ho. in 40. Martyres. let him haue recourse to these, and he that is ioyfull, or merry, let him pray to these: the one, that he may be deliuered from his griefe, and the other, that he may be conserued in his [Page 217] mirth. Thus far the Cardinall alledgeth S. Basil in that place.

9. Whereto M. Andrews giueth two answers. M. An­drews wrangleth when he he cannot answere. 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 Greeke, which later point I thinke good to examine first, because the other will be after­wards the more easily discussed. Now then M. An­drews would make the world belieue, that the Cardi­nall had vsed great fraud, and corruption in cyting S. Basils words, and that he hath falsifyed the Greeke text; whereas he knoweth well that the Cardinall al­ledgeth truly the Latin translation, which also though it do not render the Greeke, word for word, yet giueth the true sense, and meaning thereof. The corruption which M. Andrews imputeth to the Cardinall consi­steth in these words, hos oret, let him pray to these, which (saith M. Andrews) is not so in the Greeke, eyther for the words, or sense. The words in the Greeke he saith, are [...], that is to say, he runneth to these, wherein he also noteth, that the manner of speach is different, as that there is not in the Greeke any precept, or commandment to pray, or runne, but only a declaration of a fact, to wit, that men did then vse to haue recourse, and runne 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 &c. that is to say, to their memoryes, where he may pray vnto God, who by mi­racles then done there shewed, that he did heare the prayers [Page 218] of his suppliants. So he, and then addeth further thus [...] And that there should be no doubt hereof he (to wit) Basil addeth presently [...] &c. the deuout woman maketh her prayers in this place, and therefore he speaketh of the place: and then to take away all scruple he saith a litle 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 togeather; whereas S. Basil toucheth all those three things seuerally, passing from one to another.

11. And to the end that this may be euident, I craue thy patience, good Reader, whyles I lay downe vnto thee the whole substance of S. Basils discourse touching these 3 points. The sub­stance of S. Basils discourse about praying vnto Saints. First then he speaketh of the Martyrs themselues, saying, hi sunt qui nostram re­gionē administrant &c. these are they which gouerne our Country, and like Towers, or fortresses vnited togeather, do giue vs security against our enemies: and then speaking not only of them, but also of dyuers places where they were honoured, and serued in their reliques, he addeth nec in vno loco se clauserunt, sed in multis locis hospitio ex­cepti, multorum, Patrias ornauerunt: they haue not shut themselues vp in one place, but being receiued as guests in many places, they haue adorned the countryes of many men. Afterwards he speaketh both of the parti­culer Temple, and Church in Caesarea dedicated to those Martyrs (where it seemeth he made his Oration, or sermon) and also of the Martyrs themselues. Bene­ficium, [Page 219] sayth he, fratres dilectissimi &c.; most louing Bre­thren we haue this benefit, and perpetuall fauour of Al­mighty God, heere is a ready helpe for Christians, to wit, a Church of Martyrs, an army of the triumphant, a quyre of those that prayse God. So he.

12. Then he cōtinueth his speach of the Martyrs, signifying that whereas they were wont to vse greate diligence to fynd out some one intercessor for them, Quadraginta, sayth he, sunt hi &c. These Martyrs are fourty praying altogeather, for seeing God is where one or two are gathered in his name, who can doubt that God is present where there are fourty? He that is afflicted which any griefe, hath refuge, or recourse to these, and he which is ioyfull, or merry doth runne to these &c. Thus sayth S. Basil speaking sometymes, as you see, of the Mar­tyrs themselues, and sometymes of the place where their reliques were reserued, & they honoured in their reliques.

13. And therefore he passeth also now from them agayne to speake of the place, and to shew with­all the notable effects, and the temporall benefits which the people might expect by their recourse to the Martyrs, saying: Hic, mulier pia orans pro filijs auditur &c. Heere, the deuout woman praying for her children is heard, and craueth a safe returne for her husband, when he is in his iourney, and health for him when he is sick. And then he concludeth concerning the Martyrs themselues, cum his ergo Martyribus nostrae fiant preces, therefore let vs pray with these Martyrs; in all which you see he exhorteth the people not only to haue recourse to these Martyrs in their necessities, but also finally to pray with them, because our prayers to Saynts doe litle auayle vs, except we also pray to God for our [Page 220] selues; & then are our prayers much more potent, and acceptable to God, when they concurre with the prayers of his Saynts, and seruants, and are fortifyed, and strengthened by them.

M. An­drews ve­ry grosse and foo­lish.14. Now then, I remit it heere to the iudgment of any indifferēt Reader, whether M. Andrews hath any reason in the world to cōfound hos, with hic, & to de­stroy ad hos, cum his, seeing that euery one of these hath a cleare, and different sense according to the dif­ferent nature, and property of the words. Besids, that M. Andrewes is totoo grosse, and foolish in making ad hos, to signify in hoc loco, seeing that presently after he himselfe maketh cum his, to signify, with these Martyrs. For if cum his, or cum illis, with these, or with them, do signify the Martyrs themselues, what reason had he to make ad [...]os, a litle before to signify the place, especi­ally seeing that hi, is clearely referred to the Martyrs themselues, throughout the whole context, as you haue euidently seene?

15. But will you heare him yet further confute his owne glosse, M. An­drews cō ­futeth himselfe. and see him tript, as I may say, in his owne play? You shall therefore vnderstand that the Cardinall hauing alledged that part of S. Basils dis­course which you haue heard to proue prayers to Saynts, addeth those other words which I haue also by occasion layd downe a litle before, to wit, Hi sunt qui nostram regionem administrant &c. these are they who go­u [...]rne our Country, and lyke towers, or fortresses giue vs security against the incursion of enemies &c. which words the Cardinall cyteth to proue the veneration of holy reliques; Card. Apol. pag. 13. and M. Andrewes comming to treate of that matter, and to answere that place, not past 3. lea [...]es after his answere to the former, flatly ouerthroweth [Page 221] his owne exposition, Andr. p. 47. §. Pari autem. which you haue heard, saying thus: ‘ locum Basilij a [...]ert &c. The Cardinall bringeth a place of Basil, whereof it shall suffice to admonish you in one word. The Reader shall not find there any reliques of Martyrs, but the Martyrs themselues, hij sunt inquit &c. he sayth these are the words hij, cannot be referred to reliques; for the Gender doth not suffer it, eyther in the Latin, where it were to be sayd hae, or in the Greeke, where it were to be sayd haec, so that it cannot be re­ferred to [...], which is of the neuter gender.’ So he.

16. If this then be true, why doth he in the former place make hos, those, to signify memorias Martyrum, the memoryes, or monuments of Martyrs? Doth the Gender, trow you, suffer it, eyther in the Latin, or in the Greeke? 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 Greeke, whereof the first is feminine, and the other two neuters? Truly he must eyther make a new Grammar to mayntayne his con­struction in the former place, or els retract his expo­sition, and argument in the later, See Apol. Card. p. 13. so that you see, how true it is, which the Latin Prouerb saith, oportet men­dacem esse memorem, it behooueth a lyar to haue a good memory. Another cauill of M. An­drews a­gainst Cardinall Bellar­mine.

17. But if M. Andrewes will say, that he may as well take hos Martyres, for memorias Martyrum in the former place, as Cardinall Bellarmine taketh hij Mar­tyres, for reliquias Martyrum in the later (for so indeed doth M. Andrews affirme of the Cardinall) I must tell him, Andr. p. 47. §. P [...]r [...] that it is but an idle conceit of his owne, that the Cardinall so taketh hi Martyres in that place, or any [Page 222] where els, for although he cyteth those words of S. Basil for the veneration of reliques, yet the intercession of Saynts is also clearely proued thereby, and therfore the Cardinall doth not confound the one with the o­ther, but proueth the one by the other, to wit, the neces­sary vse, and veneration of holy reliques, by the help, and protection which we receiue from Saynts, to which purpose he alledgeth the place of S. Basil, she­wing thereby that the fourty Martyrs being honored in their reliques throughout all that Country did pro­tect, and defend the same, veluti quaedam Turres like certayne Towers, and fortresses.

18. And therefore, as S. Basil saith of them, and not of their reliques, hij sunt &c. these are they which gouerne our Country, so the Cardinall also vnderstandeth the words hij sunt, to signify the Martyrs themselues, and not their reliques, though he alledge it, and that worthily, to proue that the practise of the Catholike Church in the reuerent reseruation, and veneration of reliques, is not only lawfull, but also very commen­dable, and profitable: whereby it appeareth that M. Andrews cauilleth euidently and very idly, when he maketh the Cardinall to take hij Martyres, for reliquias Martyrum, and much more, when he argueth so sub­stantially, as you haue heard, vpon the difference of the Genders, in the Greeke, and Latin, seriously im­pugning his owne vayne conceit, and vsing still that [...] [...] and [...] wherewith he falsely chargeth the Cardinall.

19. And now to say a word or two concerning the difference betwyxt the Latin, The latin translatiō of S Basil defended. and the Greeke (by reason whereof M. Andrewes chargeth the Cardinall to haue corrupted the Greeke, text) I am sure M. An­drewes [Page 223] is not ignorant (as I haue sayd before) that the Cardinall hath layd downe sincerely the words of the Latin translation, who therefore could not iustly be charged with falsity, though the translatour had cō ­mitted any errour, as he hath not for the sense, albeit there is differēce in the words. For although [...] doth in deede, signify currere to runne, and not orare, to pray; yet for as much as the ordinary meanes, and manner of running, or hauing recourse to Martyrs, both is, and was in S. Basils tyme by prayer vnto them, yea and that S. Basil doth in this oration sufficiently exhort, and perswade his auditors thereto, first vsing an argument à fortiore (to wit, that seeing they were wont to take great paynes to find out some one in­tercessor for them, they had much more reason to haue recourse to these fourty) and afterwards signifying not only the custome of the afflicted to recurre to them, but also the comfortable effects and helps which they receiued thereby, to which purpose he sayth, hic pia mulier orans profilijs auditur &c [...] here the deuout wo­man is heard praying for her children &c. therefore I say all this being considered the Latin translatour (whose text the Cardinal cyteth) doubted not to tran­slate [...], hos oret, expressing also the indica­tiue moode in the Greeke, by an imparatiue in the La­tin, because S. Basils discourse sufficiently includeth an exhortation, and perswasion, as I haue signifyed before.

20. And because M. Andrewes may perhaps desire some further proofe that it was the custome in S Basils tyme to pray to Martyrs, A plaine place out of S. Basil for the in­uocation of Mar­tyrs. yea to inuocate them (for without that word there is no bargayne with M. Andrewes) let vs heare what S. Basil himselfe [Page 224] sayth of another holy Martyr, to wit S. Mammas, S. Basil. o­rat. in S. Mamman­tem. vpon whome he made also another oration, and sayth as fol­loweth: ‘ memores estote Martyris, quotquot &c. Be yee myndfull of the Martyr, as many of you as haue en­ioyed him in your sleepe (he meaneth by some vision, or apparition) as many as haue euen in this place had his help, [...]. to pray for you, or whome soeuer nomine aduo­catus, he being called vpon by name, hath assisted in his actions, or workes, as many as he hath reduced to the right way when they went astray, as many as haue re­couered their healths by him, to whomesoeuer he hath restored their children, reuyuing them when they were dead; and finally as many of you, as haue had your liues prolonged by him [...] gather all these together, and contribute the same, as it were a common shot, to the prayse of the Martyr &c.’

21. Thus sayth S. Basil, which I haue the more largely layd downe, to the end thou mayst see good Reader, not only what benefits the deuout Christians in S. Basils tyme receiued by the intercession, & prayer of Martyrs, but also that this holy Martyr of whome he treateth did sometyme appeare to men by visions in their sleep, and that men vsed to inuocate him in their necessityes, and thereby had his assistance, which is euident euen in the Greeke text, where we read [...], that is to say, whom­soeuer he (to wit the Martyr) hath assisted in his works, being called vpon by name: which words I hope M. An­drewes cannot deny to expresse a playne inuocation of the Martyr, and the good effect (I meane the helpe, and assistance) that followed thereof.

22. Besyds that it is also to be considered heere, that S. Basil doth speak not only of assistance giuen by [Page 225] the holy Martyr in the place where his reliques were kept (as when he sayth, quotquot in hoc loco cōstituti &c. as many of you as heere in this place haue had his help in your prayers) but also of great fauours done by him in other places, as namely to wandring men that had lost their way &c. And therefore I would gladly know heere of M. Andrews in what manner these wandring men, or others that were absent from the monument, and reliques of the Martyr, M. An­drewes very hardly posed. obtayned those fauours mentioned by S. Basil, yea, and how they knew that the Martyr had fauoured, and helped them, if they had not first inuocated him, and prayed particulerly vnto him; for M. Andrews cannot say in this case, as he sayd in the former, that because God did shew by mi­racles at the Monuments of the Martyrs, that he heard mens prayers there, therefore men had & might haue recourse thither to pray to God for help, but not to the Martyr himselfe; this deuyse I say cannot serue his turne.

23. For how did the way-faring man (who was far from the Monument of the Martyr, and had lost his way) know that he was brought into it againe by the help of the Martyr, but because he had reposed speciall confidence in him, yea, and recommended himselfe particulerly to his prayers, and assistance? In which respect S. Basil hauing vsed that generall speach: Diuers miracu­lous ef­fects of the Inuo­cation of Martyrs specifyed by S. Basil quibuscumque ex nomine vocatus adfuit &c. to whomesoeuer the Martyr had giuen assistance being called vpon by name, doth particularize the fauours that many had receiued by the inuocation of him, saying that some had byn reduced to their right way, others restored to their health, others had recouered their dead children, and others agayne obtayned prolonga­tion [Page 226] of lyfe, all which, no doubt, were things well knowne to S. Basils auditors, to haue happened in that manner to some or other amongst them, for other­wyse he would not haue affirmed the same vnto them so confidently as he did.

24. This then being so, it is euident by the testi­mony of S. Basil himselfe, that the custome, and pra­ctise of faithfull, and Catholyke people in his tyme, was to inuocate holy Martyrs, and Saynts by name, and that God did approue the same by many miracles: whereupon it followeth, that the recourse which S. Ba­sil sayth was ordinary to the fourty Martyrs, included the inuocation of them according to the cōmon cu­stome of that tyme, the Latin translatiō of S. Basil defended in which respect I also inferre, that the translatour expounding [...], by orare, did ex­presse S. Basils sense, and meaning, though not the nature of the Greeke word: and finally I conclude, that the place of S. Basil alledged by the Cardinall pro­ueth directly not only the intercession of Saynts for vs, which M. Andrewes graunteth but also our inter­cession, and prayers to them, notwithstanding the glosse of M. Andrewes confounding the Martyrs with their Monuments; which how impertinent, and fri­uolous it is, you haue sufficiently seene, as well by an argument of his owne, as by the rest of this dis­course.

Andr. p. 40. §. Non verè25. And now to say somewhat of his other an­swere which I mentioned in the beginning, he sayth, Aliud est narrare quid fiat, aliud statuere quid faciendum sit: it is one thing to declare what is done, Another answere of M. An­drewes refuted. and another thing to declare what should be done, giuing to vnder­stand that albeit S. Basil in the place alledged by the Cardinall, declared that men vsed in his tyme to pray [Page 227] to Saynts, yet the same doth not suffice to proue it to be lawfull, M. Andr. vrging stil to haue some de­crees of the Fa­thers con­cerning prayers to Saynts flieth frō the autho­rity of the Fathers to Coūcells. except it be approued by some decree of S. Basil, and the other Fathers of that tyme; to which purpose he doth often inculcate the same, demanding still some statute, or decree of the Fathers, as I shall haue occasion to shew further heereafter. But heere I would be glad to know, what kind of statute, and decree he would haue in this question, for if he exact some decree of the Fathers assembled in a Generall, or Prouinciall Councell, he flyeth, as I may say, out of the lists, to another manner of tryall then the Cardinal offereth in this place, and then he himselfe seemeth to accept. Besydes that he must expect such decrees from the To [...]es of the Coūcells, where they are particulerly related, and not from the workes of the Fathers, who are not wont to set them downe, but vpon particuler occasions now and then occurring.

26. To which purpose it is also to be vnderstood, that there were neuer any Councells assembled, or Synodicall statutes made concerning faith, Why Councell [...] are assem­bled. but by rea­son of matters controuersed with publike trouble, scandall, and danger to the Church; as the 4. first Generall Councells were called by reason of the here­syes of the Arians, M [...]cedonians, Nestorians, and Eu­tychians, which at those dayes did exceedingly molest and scandalize all the East Church; Why the Inuocatiō of Saynts was not confir­med by some Sy­nodicall decree in the primi­tiue Church. whereas the in­uocation of Saynts-being then publikely, and generally practised throughout the whole Church needed not to be confirmed by decrees of Synods, especially see­ing it was not expressely denyed by any at that tyme. For albeit an abominable Arian heretike called Eusta­thius did then impugne the publyke honour done to Saynts, by dedicating Churches to them, and cele­brating [Page 228] their feasts (for which cause a Prouinciall Councell was held at Gangra, Concil. Gangren. in proamio & ca. 20. where this his heresy, togeather with diuers others of his was condemned, and all those anathematized who did contemne the Temples, and Monuments of Martyrs, and the assem­blyes, and sacred oblations which were made there:) yet because this heretike did not directly impugne the inuocation of Saynts, the same was not directly, and expressely confirmed, or mentioned in this Canon.

27. And although about this tyme also (I meane in the 4. age) Vigilantius denyed, S. Hieron. aduer. Vi­gilant. that Saynts pray for vs (whereupon it may indeed be inferred that he con­sequently held the Inuocation of them to be superflu­ous) yet for as much as he liued but only in a corner of France, The here­sy of Vi­gilantius denying the Saints pray for vs, quikly 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 errour, therefore there needed no Councells to be assembled, or Synodicall decrees to be made for the condemnation thereof, and much lesse for the confirmation of prayer to Saynts, which he did not expressely deny. So as M. Andrews sheweth himselfe very impertinent still to demaund statutes, and decrees for the inuocation of Saynts within the first 400. yeares, at what tyme it was (as I haue sayd) so publike, and generall throughout the whole Church, that it was needles to confirme it by Canons, or de­crees, as it will still further appeare, the further we debate this matter.

28. In the meane tyme to returne to S. Basil, and to conclude concerning him, The con­clusion cō ­cerning the place of S. Basil. I appeale to the iudg­ment of any indifferent man, whether he could declare eyther his owne beliefe, or the faith of the Church tou­ching this point, more clearely then he hath done [Page 229] heere, shewing the vse, and custome of Catholike people in his tyme, not only approued, and highly commended by him (as it is euident by that which I haue layd downe before) but also confirmed, nu. 19. & 20. and ratifyed by Almighty God with miraculous effects, and the grant of pious petitions made by deuout people to the holy Martyrs, and Saynts, at their Monuments, and els where. All which, I say, being witnessed by S. Basil, is truly a far greater testimony for vs, then if he should haue only declared his owne opinion. So as a man may wonder with what face M. Andrewes can admit the authority of the Fathers, and yet reiect their testimony of such facts as these, whereby they shew not only their owne beliefe, but also the beliefe, and practice of the Church in their dayes. And thus much concerning S. Basil.

29. The next place which M. Andrewes vnder­taketh to answere is taken out of Eusebius, and cyted by the Cardinall thus: Apol. Card. p. 14 [...] Euseb. de praep. E­uangel. lib. 13. c. 7. Haec nos quotidie factitamus &c. These things we (Christians) vse to do daily, who hono­ring the true Souldiars of piety as the friends of God, do al­so go to their tombes, and pray vnto them, by whose inter­cession to Almighty God, we do acknowledge, that we receiue great help. M. An­drews his cauill a­gainst the place cy­ted out of Eusebius. Thus far the Cardinall cyteth the words of Eusebius, according to the Latin translation, which he layeth downe sincerely; albeit M. Andrewes char­geth him with fraud in peruerting the Greeke text, because the words in the Greeke are somewhat other­wise, signifying that the custome of the Christians was to pray at the tombes of the Martyrs, and maketh no expresse mention of praying to them: whereto I answere as to the former charge, that the Latin tran­slatour, whose words the Cardinall cyteth, followeth [Page 230] the sense of Eus [...]bius, gathering the same out of the circumstance of the place. For Eusebius shewing there the conformity of Plato's doctrine to our Christian Religion, layeth downe Plato's words, wherein he sayth, that those which were vertuous, and valiant men, and dyed for the defence of their Country, be­came after their death, Semidei, halfe Godes, and de­liuered men from many euils, and were serued, and worshipped as Gods, & their monuments and tombes adored.

30. Wherupon Eusebius to shew the lyke practice of Christiās, sayth that it was vsuall, & ordinary amongst Christians to goe to the tombes of Martyrs, and there to pray, and to honour their blessed soules (for so hath the Greeke) 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 vrged by Eusebius, as also that the cōmon custome of Christians was at that tyme to pray to Martyrs by name (as I haue shewed a litle 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 shew further after a whyle:) All this, I say, being considered, the Translatour had reason to vn­derstand, that the prayers which Eusebius sayth the Christians made at the tombes of Martyrs, were di­rected to them, and not to God only, especially seeing that all the prayers, honour, and seruice exhibited to Martyrs, eyther at theyr tombes, or els where, redoun­deth to the honour, and seruice of God, to whome the same are finally directed, and addressed, and for whose sake principally, the holy Martyrs, and Saynts, are ho­nored, and serued. Therefore seeing the Latin tran­slatiō which the Cardinall cyteth is not only free from [Page 231] errour in doctrine, but also conforme to the circum­stances of the place, and to the practice of the Church at that tyme, it may well be admitted, though it be not altogeather litterall: but howsoeuer it is, the Cardinall following, and alledging it, as it is generally receiued amongst learned men, could not iustly be charged with fraud, though the same should be erroneous: whereas M. Andrews sheweth himselfe both frau­dulent and malicious, in charging the Cardinal to per­uert the Greeke text, when he cyteth the Latin tran­slatiō with all sincerity. And thus much for this poynt.

31. Furthermore M. Andrewes 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 Cardinall cyteth thus: Saepius illos inuisamus, tumulos adoremus &c. let vs often visit these Martyrs (to wit S. Iuuentinus, and S. Maximus) let vs adore their tombes, & let vs with great faith touch their reliques, to the end we may obtayne some benediction thereby. Thus farre the Cardinall out of S. Chrysostome, to proue that the ancient Fathers of the first 400. yeares, and namely S. Chrysostome approued the veneration of holy reliques. Wherin M. Andrewes pretendeth to haue found two fraudes; Andr. vbi supra. §. Sed neque. the one, in the translation of the Greeke, and the other in the allegation of the Latin. Of the former he sayth thus: Nam & graecè &c. For in the Greeke [...], is to touch the shryne; but to touch the shrine, I thinke, is not to a­dore it. Our Sauiour did not adore the sonne of the widdow 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, [Page 232] but cauilling only about a word, M. An­drews sayth no­thing to the whole substance of the place, but cauilleth only a­bout some words. or two, as if all the wayght, and force of the place consisted therein, whereas the place would directly pro [...]e all that which the Cardinall intendeth, though we should grant that which M. Andrewes affirmeth concerning the diffe­rence betwixt the Greeke, and the Latin. For seeing that S. Chrysostome exhorteth the people not only to visit the Martyrs by repayring to their tombes, but al­so to touch, yea, and with faith to imbrace their reliques (for so hath the [...]. Greeke) to the end to haue thereby some benediction, doth he not plainely teach therein that holy reliques are to be reuerently kept, visited, and worshipped?

33. For how can it be imagined that a man can come to visit holy reliques, and with fayth touch, and imbrace them to the end heere declared (to wit, to receiue thereby some blessing from Almighty God) but that he doth it with deuotion, and an exteriour demon­stration of the internall reuerence that he beareth ther­to, I meane with a reuerent, and religious veneration thereof expressed with his externall acts, and religi­ous behauiour, which is nothing els, but that reue­rence, and worship, which the Cardinall teacheth to be due to holy reliques; and therefore seeing that this is S. Chrysostomes expresse doctrine in this place, euen according to the Greeke text, and words layd downe, and vrged by M. Andrews himselfe, how impertinent is his cauill touching the differēce betwixt the Greeke, and the Latin? Doth he not therein shew himselfe to be a meere tryfler, cauiller, and wrangler? Which may appeare also further by his confirmation thereof, M. An­drews a meere wrangler. where he sayth that our Sauiour did not adore the sonne of the widdow of Naim, when he touched the [Page 233] coffin.

34. For to what purpose serueth this, but to be­wray his owne peruerse, and wrangling humour? Will he argue thus: Christ touched not the coffin to adore the widdowes sonne, Ergo, reliques 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 widdowes sonne with intent to stay it, M. An­drews hath foūd out a new Logik to inferre quidlibet ex quolibe [...] therefore whosoeuer toucheth the tombe of a Martyr, eyther hath, or ought to haue the same intention; for the one may be inferred vpon Christs example as truly, and directly as the other. B [...] perhaps M. Andrews hath found out a new Logick to inferre quidlibet ex quolibet.

35. The second exception which he taketh to the Cardinall for the citation of this place, is for the dif­ference betwixt the Latin text, and the Cardinalls allegation, who hath tumulos adoremus, let vs adore their tombes, whereas the Latin translation (saith M. Andrews) hath tumulos adornemus, let vs adorne, or deck their tombes; and this he vrgeth for a great fraud; from the which the Cardinall may easily be freed. For albeit some impressions of S. Chrysostome haue tumulos adornemus, yet others (& namely those which the Car­dinall followed) haue tumulos adoremus. And to the end M. Andrewes may be satisfied in this poynt, I re­mit him to three impressions of S. Chrysostoms workes set forth at Venice, two of them in diuers yeares, and all 3. of dyuers stampes; the first in the yeare 1574. apud Iuntas: the second in the same yeare apud haeredes Melchioris Sessae; and the third in the yeere 1583. apud Dominicū Nicolinum. In all which he shall fynd tumulos adoremus, and not adornemus.

[Page 234] M. An­drews his trifling toy of tumulos tangere answered.36. And now for as much as M. Andrews sayth very confidently, that the Greeke being [...] (which is in Latin capsulam tangere, to touch the shrine) he belieueth, that to touch the shryne, is not to adore it, I will debate the matter a litle with him, and make no doubt to proue that [...] in Greeke, & tangere in La­tin, as they are heere taken, do signify in effect adorare, that is to say to reuerēce, venerate, or worship, I meane not with diuine honour, but with such veneratiō as is due to Saynts, holy men, and holy things, for so signifyeth adorare in this place, and so the Cardinall, and all o­ther Catholikes take it, when they apply it to Saynts, or holy reliques, as I will shew amply hereafter in the 9. Chapter, where I shall haue a good occasion to iu­stify the vse of it in that sense against M. Andrewes, See after chap. 9. from nu. 10. to nu. 31. who will needs haue it to signify nothing els but to worship Andr. ca. 1. pa. 49. §. Ne­cesse. with diuine honour, contrary to the ma­nifest, and frequent vse of the word in the holy Scrip­tures, as I will make it most euident when I shall come to treat of that point.

37. In the meane tyme that which I wish to be obserued concerning the Greeke word [...], is, that although it do properly signify tangere, to touch, yet it includeth many tymes an act of veneration, or wor­ship, yea sometymes 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 vp, as suppliants. Also we read in Homer,

Thetis autem sicut tetigit genua, sic inhaerebat aduoluta: where [...], tetigit genua, expresseth an act of ve­neration, [Page 235] and supplication; Homer Iliad. [...] and therefore wheras Homer signifyeth in another place, the honour, and reuerence that Thetis did to Iupiter, saying,

accepit genua sinistra, Eustathius in his commentary vpon Homer, sayth, that [...] there doth signify [...], tangere, as if he should haue sayd [...], Thetis touched the knees of Iupiter. Eurip. Hecub. act. 1. The like we read also in Euripides, who expressing the reue­rence that Vlysses, and Hecuba did one to another (tou­ching ech others knees, hand, and cheeke) vseth the words [...], Arsen. Comment. in Eurip. and [...]: whereupon Arsenius in his Commentary saith [...], that is to say, suppliants did vse to touch eyther the knees, or the hands, or the cheeks of those to whome they were suitors. So as, you see, that in all this, [...], or [...] includeth, and expresseth an act of veneration.

38. And vpon this occasion, I cannot omit to speak of an ancient kind of adoration with the hand, vsed amongst the Paynims; which was to stretch forth their hand towards the Sunne, or Moone, or what els soeuer they meant to adore, as though they would touch it, and then to kisse their hand: of which kind of adoration it seemeth Iob spake, when he sayd, that he had neuer kissed his hand when he saw the Sūne, and Moone, quae est, sayth he, iniquitas maxima, which is the greatest iniquity that may be. And from hence, no doubt descended the ciuil veneration, with the hand, whereof Martiall speaketh, when he sayth, Martialis li. 8. epig. 65:

Rome saluted her Captayne both with voyce, and [Page 236] hand. And the lyke we read in Tacitus, Tacit. li. 10. anual. who sayth of Nero, that being to sing, he bowed his knee, & coetum manu veneratus est, Idem. li. 1. histor. did reuerence to the whole compa­ny with his hand. And of Otho, that, protendens manum adorauit vulgum, he adored the people, stretching forth his hand. Sueton. in Claudio. And Suetonius seemeth to signify the like of Claudius the Emperour, when he sayth, that he reueren­ced the Sen [...]ours voce manu (que) with his voyce, & hand. And this, I say, was a kind of touching a farre off, or a demonstration of a desire, for reuerence sake to touch those persons or things which were out of reach.

39. But now to returne to actuall touching for reuerence or deuotion (signifyed in Latin authors by the word tangere, Plin. li. 11. cap. 48. as it was amongst the Greekes by [...], or [...]) Pliny witnesseth that the ancient Grecians did vse attingere genua, vel mentum, to touch the knees or chinne of those, to whome they made supplication: and Seruius referreth the same to the for­head, saying, venerantes Deum tangimus frontem. We read also in Virgil, tangere aras, vsed for the taking of a solemne oath, by touching the altar; and in another Poet, Ouidius.

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 reuerence, and deuotion: whereupon Lucretius sayth:

The sense is, that the images of the Gods standing at the gates, had their right hands worne with the fre­quent touching of passengers. And as you heard before [Page 237] in Homer, that Thetis touched the knees of Iupiter, when she did him reuerence: Seneca i [...] Medea. so also Medea did the lyke to Creon in Seneca, which is expressed there with the word attingere. Finally, from hence it is lykely the custome 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 re­uerence.

40. What meruaile is it then that the vse was in tymes past (as still it is) to touch holy things for reue­rence sake, or that S. Chrysostome earnestly exhorted the people ther [...]to in the place whereof we now treat, which may also be notably cōfirmed by the testimony of S. Gregory Nyssen in his Oration vpon S. Theodorus the Martyr, S. Greg. Nyssen orat. in S. Theod. declaring what a wonderfull comfort it was to be admitted [...], to touch the Martyrs reliques (as I shall haue occasion to shew more at large after a whyle: S. Basil in Psal. 115.) and S. Basil also saith to the same purpose, qui contingit ossa Martyrum &c. he which toucheth the bones of Martyrs, receiueth a kind of sanctifi­cation, by the grace that resideth in the body. S. Greg. Nazianz. orat. 1. in Iulian. So he: to whome I may adde S. Gregory Nazianzen testifying, that the bodyes of Martyrs, and Saynts, siue manibus con­trectentur &c. whether they be touched with hands, or ho­nored, are able to do as much as their holy soules.

41. And hereof there hath alwayes byn manifest experience in the Church of God, yea euen in the old Testament, 4. Reg. 13. where we read that a dead body was reui­ued as soone as it touched the bones of the Prophet Elizaeus. S. Aug. li. 22. de ci­uit. Deica. 8. And the lyke recounteth S. Augustine of Eu­charius a Priest, a religious woman, and a yong mayde, who being all 3. dead, were restored to lyfe as soone as their garments which had byn layd vpon the reliques [Page 238] of S. Stephen were cast vpon them. Also he signifyeth that a blynd woman recouered her sight by applying to her eyes certayne flowers which had but touched the said Martyrs reliques. S. Am­bros. li. 7. ep. 54. ad Marcellin. S. Ambrose also testifyeth the lyke concerning the relyques of S. Geruasius, and S. Prota­sius, saying: Cognouistis, imo vidistis &c. you haue knowne, yea you haue seene many dispossessed of Diuels, and very many cured of their diseases, assoone as they touched the clothes of the Saynt. So he; who also further declareth that men vsed commonly to cast their garments super Sanctissimas reliquias, vpon their most holy reliques to the end they might become tactu ipso medicabilia, medicinable, or able to cure diseases euen by touching them. And finally he saith, that men desyred to touch though it were but the very extreme parts of their relyques, & qui tetigerit, saith he, saluus [...]rit, and he which tou­cheth them, shalbe safe, or healed.

42. Now then 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 shryne of the Martyrs, but also to imbrace their reliques which faith, to the end they might receiue some benediction there­by) who seeth not that he doth euidently include an act of veneration, and deuotion, to be done to the tombe, and reliques of the Martyrs, by the reuerend touching of them. Whereupon it also followeth, that he who translated [...], tumulum adorare, gi­ueth the true sense of S. Chrysostome, and so neyther he, nor the Cardinall following his translation hath committed any errour. And therefore M. Andrews may do well to rectify his beliefe (which was, as you haue heard, that Capsulam tangere, is not adorare) so as withall he learne to take adoration in the sense that [Page 239] heere it is meant, and is frequently vsed in the holy Scriptures (I meane for a religious worship, See cap. 9. nu. 14. & 15. or vene­ration, inferiour to diuyne honour) which I hope to perswade 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 Cardinall from the fraud, which he imputeth to him, for vsing adoremus, in steed of adornemus, seeing it is euident by this which I haue sayd, that adoremus ex­presseth the sense of tangamus, as it is vsed by S. Chry­sostome in that place. And therefore whereas M. An­drews concludeth abesse voci litteram, Cardinali fidem, that there wants a letter in the word, and fidelity in the Cardinall, he may now vnderstand that there is no other want heere, but of wit in himselfe, or at least of a sincere will to vnderstand the place aright, accor­ding to the meaning of the author. And this shall suf­fice for answere to his censure vpon the Fathers of the first ranke.

43. Now let vs see what he sayth to the second ranke of Fathers which he granteth to be truly cyted, 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 whome the Cardinall alledgeth these words: Precamur be atissimi Martyres &c. we beseech you most blessed Martyrs, Andr. ca. 1. p. 41. §. Proximi. that you will vouchsafe to pray vnto our Lord for vs wretched sinners, that the grace of Christ may come vnto vs. To this M. Andrewes answereth dyuers wayes; M. An­drews his crypticall cauill a­gainst the testimony alleadged 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 byn long since cracked) and also because the originall (which is in Greeke) was, saith he, lately taken out of a grot, and therefore is fidei crypticae, of obscure cre­dit. So it pleaseth him to make himselfe merry with [Page 240] the word Crypta, for that Vossius the Translatour signi­fyeth in his Epistle to the reader, in the beginning of the first Tome, that he had a speciall help for his tran­slation, by two very ancient manuscripts, or written copyes of S. Ephrems workes, which are to be seene in Crypta ferrata (a famous monastery neere to Rome called, commonly in Italian Grotta ferrata) of which manuscripts the one was written in the yeare of our Lord 531.

44. But what cause had M. Andrews to iest at this? Sure I am, that in the iudgement of any indiffe­rent man, it may serue for no small iustification of the translatour, that he fortifyeth his translation with the authority of such an ancient manuscript, written a­boue eleuen hundreth yeares agoe, and yet extant to seene so neere to Rome, where his Tomes were printed, especially seeing that there is such continuall recourse, and confluence thither from Rome (by reason of the celebrity of that Monastery) that he might well think he should quickly be discouered for an impudent, and notable lyar, in case he should faygne the same. And therefore for his further iustification in this poynt, he also directeth his Reader to the very Classe where the sayd manuscripts are, to be found in the Library of Grotta ferrata, to wit, vnder the tytles of these Greeke letters ω, and ΤΤ. Besyds, that he declareth also further that he conferred the same copyes with dyuers other which he saw, and are yet to be seene in the Vatican at Rome, and in the library of Cardinall Sforza.

45. So that these particularityes being conside­red, no man can with any reason, or without extreme malice imagin any fraudulent meaning in the transla­tour, seeing he remitteth his translation to the exami­nation [Page 241] of so many learned men, as Rome continually affoardeth, who might with all facility conuince him of fraud, if he had vsed any: and therefore M. Andrews sheweth more malice, then wit, in this exception, as also in that he reiecteth the translation, because the author thereof was a Catholyke. For albeit he say that Catholykes haue lost their credit in matters of that kind, yet I hope the discreet Reader (who hath al­ready seene by many examples how litle credit M. An­drews deserueth) will not easily belieue him without some further proofe then his bare word. And this it seemeth he himselfe feareth, and therefore seeketh an­other shift in these words: Andr. vbi supr. Longè aliter Tomo primo ger­manus Ep [...]rem &c. The true Ephrem in his first Tome (where he pray [...]th, and doth not make orations) sayth farre otherwyse, calling vpon God alone in euery prayer, not so much as naming any Say [...]t, M. An­drews his c [...]ggery. yea there he s [...]eketh to God in this manner: Ad te, ad praeter te nemiuem orationem facio, to thee, to none but thee I make my prayer. So he; not quoting any particuler Treatise, or chapter where the words which he cyteth are to be found; which by all lykelyhood he omiteth of purpose, the better to cloke a peece of coggery, which he may be worthily suspe­cted to haue vsed in this poynt.

46. For whereas he mentioneth the first tome of a true Ephrem, thou shalt vnderstand, good Reader, that there are no other works of S. Ephrem extant in Latin, but only the three Tomes aboue mentioned set forth by Vossius, except a litle pamphlet contay­ning a few sermons translated by a monke of Camal­dula, which cannot deserue the name of a Tome: be­sides that, there is not any such prayer therein as he mentioneth, for ought I can find. And put the case [Page 242] he could there shew the same words which he cyteth, yet they may be so vnderstood, that they will make nothing for his purpose. Psal. 50. For euen as Dauid when he had committed homicide, and sinned not only against God, In what sense it is sayd that we pray to God alone. but also against his neyghbour, sayd neuerthe­les to almighty God, Tibi soli peccaui, I haue sinned a­gainst thee alone, because all sinne against man, doth finally redound to God: euen so, for as much as all our prayer is finally directed to God the author, and giuer of all grace, and goodnes, we may well say, that we pray to none but to him; albeit we vse therein the in­teruention, and assistance of Angels, Saynts, or men, by whome we also pray to God, when we craue, or procure their prayers to him for vs.

47. And in this sense, no doubt that manner of prayer is to be vnderstood, if any such be in S. Ephrem, or in any other ancient Father: for otherwise it should contradict the custome of the Apostle, who vsed to craue the prayers of the Romans, Ro. 15. Ephesians, Ephes. 6. Thessalonians and others to whome he wrote, Thes. 3. Col. 4. as also all good Chri­stians are wont to recōmend themselues 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, vntill he giue me further newes by whome he was translated, and published, how many tomes there are of him, and in what part of his first tome those words which he cyteth are to be found. And whereas he concludeth his censure vpon this place, with another deuyse, affirming that S. Ephrem might perhaps play the Oratour, and inuocate Martyrs by a figure called Prosopopaeia (whereupon, sayth he, you may perhaps ground an example of Rhe­torick, but no rule of Diuinity) I will differre the an­swere [Page 243] thereof for a whyle, because he handleth the same point more amply afterwards vpon another oc­casion.

48. In the meane tyme I will proceed to the exa­mination of his censure vpon a place of S. Chrysostome which the Cardinall cyteth thus: S. Chrys. Hom. 66. ad Pop. Antioch. Ca [...]d. A­pol. p. 14. Nam & ipse qui pur­puram indutus est &c. For he also which is clad with purple commeth to imbrace these tombes, and all pryde layd aside, to pray to the Saynts, that they may pray to God for him. To this he answereth in substance, Andr. pa. 41 §. lam­dudum. that the homily from whence it is taken (to wit the 66. ad populum An­tiochenum) is not S. Chrysostomes by the opinion not only of Erasmus, but also of our Garetius, yea and that the Cardinall himselfe knoweth that S. Chrysostome did not make 26. Homilyes ad populum Antiochenum, and much lesse 66. But heere I must aduertise him, that as the Cardinall knoweth that S. Chrysostome made not 66. Homilyes ad populum Antiochenum, so he also knoweth very well that all those homilyes are taken out of other vndoubted works of S. Chrysostome, and namely that very place which the Cardinall alledgeth, is to be seene word for word in S. Chrysostomes Homi­lyes vpon the Epistle to the Corinth. where the words cyted by the Cardinall in Latin are in Greeke thus: S. Chryso. Ho 26. in 2 ep. ad Cor [...] [...].

49. This I haue thought good for the satisfaction of those that vnderstand the Greeke to lay downe out of the Greeke text, in the 26. homily of S. Chrysostome vpon the second Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians, where there followeth in lyke māner further testimo­ny for the Inuocation of Saynts, which is also to be [Page 244] seene in the 66. homily ad Populum Antiochenum, albeit the Cardinall thought it needles, as it seemeth, to alledge the same, because the former seemed to him sufficient; A further testimony of S [...] Chrysostome touching the inuo [...]cation of Saynts. neuertheles I thinke it not amisse vpon this occasion to add a few words, which follow in the Greeke text, thus: [...]: that is to say, and which hath (or weareth) the diademe prayeth to the tent-maker, and the fisher, as to his patrons, yea though they be dead. Thus sayth S. Chrysostome in the same place immediatly after the words alledged by the Cardinall, as it may be seene not only in the 66. homily ad populum Antiochenū, but also in the homilyes vpon the Epistle to the Corin­thians, which are acknowledged by all men to be S. Chrysostomes works. So that there is no doubt, but that the words alledged by the Cardinall are S. Chrysostomes, and do correspond to the Greeke text word for word, in which respect the testimony cānot be auoyded, and shifted of by M. Andrews, as eyther corrupt, or coun­terfait.

50. And this as it seemeth, he knew well inough, and therefore deuysed another shift, seeming to admit that S. Chrysostome doth say so, Andr. vbi supra. and yet denying that it maketh for vs. For, non quid fecerit, sayth he, tum ali­quis, sed quid ex Patrum statuto fecerit &c The King de­mandeth not what some man did then, This is nothing els but to cast shad­dowes 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 tyme the Fathers decreed concerning this poynt? Where an act, or deed only is declared, & no decree related, is a voluntary act, as of a matter of free deuotion, and not as of a thing neces­sary to saluation, which neuertheles the Cardinall vnder­tooke to proue. Thus farre M. Andrewes, turning, and wynding, as you see, to fynd some starting hole if it [Page 245] were possible, though he be catcht so fast that he can­not escape away. For, wheras he flyeth to his former shift of demanding some decree of the Fathers, and reiecting their testimony of facts, he notably discoue­reth the weakenes of his cause.

51. For, Supra. nu. 26. & 27. as I signifyed before (vpon the occasion of the selfe same answere which he made to a place of S. Basil) there was not any sufficient occasion, why the Fathers of the Greek Church should make any Syno­dicall decree at that tyme concerning prayer to Saynts, Supra. nu. 19. & 20. seeing that there was no question of it among them, but a generall custome, and practise thereof euery where, as I partly shewed by the testimony of S. Basil, & the same may be clearly euinced euen by this place of S. Chrysostome, especially if we consider what followeth immediatly the words alledged by the Cardinall, and me. For S. Chrysostome hauing sayd (as you haue heard) that he which was clad with purple (meaning the Emperour) stood praying to the Saynts at their tombes, & that he which weareth the di [...]deme doth pray to the tent­maker, and the fisher, as his Patrons, and protectours, addeth; Therefore darest thou be so bold to say, that their Lord, The cu­stome of prayer to Saynts vniuersall in S Chry­sostomes tyme. or Mayster is dead, whose seruants, euen when they are dead, are the prot [...]ctors of the Kings of the world? And this is not only seene at Rome, but also at Constantinople, for euen here the Sonne of Constantine the Great, thought his father to be much honoured, if his body were layd before the Gates of the Fisher. Thus sayth S. Chrysostome, with much more to the same purpose, which I omit.

52. For by this it appeareth sufficiently, first, that the custome, and practise of prayer to Saynts was vni­uersall, I meane both in the Latin, and in the Greeke Church in the tyme of S. Chrysostome, which he signi­fyeth [Page 246] expressely by naming the two principall Cittyes, and Imperiall Seates, to wit Rome, and Constantinople, where the same was in vre. Secondly it appeareth that it was not practised only by some obscure person (as M. Andrews seemeth to insinuate, when he sayth that the question is not quid aliquis tum fecerit, what some man did then) but that it was the custome of most worthy, M. An­drews im­pugning the cu­stome of prayer to Saynts impug­neth an argument of Christs diuinity. and remarkable persons, to wit, the most Christian and Catholyke Emperours themselues. Thirdly it is euident by this place, that S. Chrysostome hyghly approued this custome and belieued it to be most necessary, and conforme to the Christian and Catholyke verity, seing he doth notably vrge, and exaggerate the same, for the instruction, and edificatiō of the people, to shew vnto them, not only the great dignity, and glory of Gods seruants, and Saynts, but also the Omnipotent power, and diuinity of our Saui­our Christ.

53. Whereupon it also followeth, that M. An­drewes, and others who deny this article of Catholike religion, do deny a notable argument of Christs Diui­nity. And therefore whereas he contemneth such a fact as this of most Christian & worthy Emperours, so testifyed, M. An­drews tryfleth notably in vrging the Cardinall to proue that prayer to Saynts is of necessi­ty to sal­uation. approued and vrged by S. Chrysostome, as you haue heard, to proue that Christ is God, it is cleare that he cōdemneth the practise, & beliefe of the Catholyke Church of that age, yea (and if by the decrees of the Fathers which he demandeth, he meaneth their ex­presse, and cleare doctrine deliuered in their workes) he condemneth also the decree of S. Chrysostome touching the same. And whereas he addeth for the conclusion of this poynt, that this fact related by S. Chrysostome, was but an act of voluntary deuotion, and not of a thing [Page 247] necessary to saluation (which he sayth the Cardinall vndertooke to proue) he tryfleth notably; for neyther doth the Cardinall vndertake to proue any such thing, neyther is it materiall for the question in hand, whether it be of necessity to saluation, or no.

54. The Cardinall vndertooke only to proue that the doctrine of the Protestans reiecting prayer to Saynts, is not the faith of the old primitiue Church, which he promiseth to proue by the testimony of the Fathers of the first 400. or 500. yeares, as it appeareth expressely by his owne words. Soquitur, saith he, vt ostendamus fidem &c. It followeth that we shew the faith (which the King defends) not to be the faith of the old, and primitiue Church &c. Apol. Card. p. 11. §. Sequitu [...] And agayne a litle after, ha­uing signifyed that his Maiesty in his preface, admit­teth the 3. Creeds, the 4. first Generall Councells, and the vniforme doctrine of the Fathers of the first 400. (or as it is in the English copy 500. yeares) he decla­reth that amongst other poynts of Catholike religion his Maiesty condemneth Prayer to Saynts, and the ve­neration of Reliques, as superstitious. Whereupon the Cardinall sayth: Accipiam Intercessionem Sanctorum &c. I will take in hand the intercession of Saynts, with the veneration of reliques, which if I can shew to be approued by an vnanime consent of the Fathers of the first 400. or 500. yeares, Ibid p. [...]2. §. Acci­piam. I shall withall proue that the King of Englands fayth is not the fayth of the old, & primitiue Church, but the deuyses & heresies of late innouatours. Thus saith the Car­dinall, without touching any way the question, whe­ther prayer to Saynts be necessary to saluation, which as I haue sayd litle importeth for the decision of the controuersy, whether the primitiue Church held it to be lawfull or no.

[Page 248]55. For there is no doubt but that many things are, and may be lawfull, yea very cōmendable, and behoouefull to saluation, though they are not of such necessity, but that a man may in some cases be saued without them; as for example, the Euangelicall Coun­sayles, and many workes of supererogation (as almes, fasting, and such lyke, which consist in acts of volun­tary deuotion) are conuenient and notable helps, though not absolutly necessary to euery mans saluatiō. And therefore albeit his Maiesty seemeth not to bynd himselfe further to admit the vniforme consent of the Fathers, then in matters necessary to saluation; yet for as much as the question concerning Prayer to Saynts, which the Cardinall vndertook to handle, is only whether the primitiue Church held it to be super­stitious (as his Maiesty affirmeth it to be) the Cardi­nall needed not to debate and discusse, How the beliefe of prayer to Saynts is of necessi­ty to sal­uation. whether it be of necessity to saluation; and therefore he forebare to speake thereof, as needles, and impertinent to the question in hand: neuertheles this occasion being now offered, I cannot omit to say, that if M. Andrwees do speake heere (not of the act, or practise of praying to Saynts, but) of the beliefe of the doctrine, deman­ding, whether it be of necessity to saluation to belieue that prayer to Saints is lawfull, I must needes tell him that it is so necessary, that if he, or any man els do ob­stinatly deny, and impugne it, he is an heretike, and consequently cannot be saued, and the reason is be­cause he impugneth the beliefe, and practice of the v­niuersall Catholike Church, which our Sauiour hath commaunded vs to heare, and obey, vnder payne to be held as Ethnicks, Matth. 18. and Publicans.

56. Besides that, considering the inestimable be­nefits [Page 249] that we may receiue both spiritually, and tem­porally by prayers to Saynts, Folly to neglect & omit prayer to Saynts, impiety to contemn [...] it, heresy to cōdem­ne it. whereof the whole Church hath had sufficient, and publyke experience in all ages (as it is most euidēt by the testimonyes of these fathers, for the tymes when they liued) it cannot be denyed, but that to omit the practice of it, were ex­treme folly, and to contemne it were impiety. So as M. Andrews may now choose whether he will belieue, and practise this doctrine with the whole Catholyke Church, or els shew himselfe a foole in neglecting it, impyous in contemning it, or an heretyke in condem­ning and impugning it. And thus much for his censure vpon the place of S. Chrysostome.

57. The next place which he censureth, is of Saynt Maximus Bishop of Turin, Card. A­pol. p. 17 [...] S. Max. in ser. de laud. S. Agnet. alledged by the Car­dinall thus: S. Maximus in sermone &c. S. Maximus in his sermon made in the prayse of S. Agnes sayth: O splē ­dida virgo &c. O worthy Virgin &c. we beseech thee, with as feruent prayers, as we may, that thou vouchsafe to remember vs. Andr. p [...] 42. §. Maxmi. To this M. Andrewes answereth that the homilyes of Maximus, and almost all the rest which goe vnder the tytle of Sermones de tempore, and are of Saynts, are not very much to be esteemed: that this very homily which the Cardinall cyteth as of Maxi­mus, was a long tyme held to be of Ambrose, and that now we haue made it to be the homily of Maximus: that we are wont to attribute these homilyes some­tymes to one, and sometymes to another, as it pleaseth vs to make tytles: and finally, that nec fides certa, vbi author incertus, there is no sure credit to be giuen to a worke, wherof the author is vncertayne. So he. But how much this his censure is to be esteemed you may partly ghesse by his lyke censure vpon an homily of [Page 250] 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 againe in the last Chapter by occasion of an homily of S. Maximus made in the prayse of the Apostles, which I proued to be his, as also that he w [...]ote diuers other homilyes, as well de tempore, as of particuler Saynts, whereto I remit thee, good Reader, S. Am­bro. de Vir­gin, & li. 4. ep [...] 33. to auoyd a needles repetition thereof.

58. And whereas M. Andrewes sayth heere, that this homily in the prayse of S. Agnes was a long tyme held for an homily of S. Ambrose, he might haue done well to haue told vs where he findeth the same. True it is, that S. Ambrose in his booke de Virginibus wryteth a notable encomium, or prayse of S. Agnes, and in his Epistles he wrote an elegant discourse of her life, martyrdome, and miracles; but that he was euer thought to be author of this homily, it is but a con­ceipt, or inuention of M. Andrews for ought I haue yet seene: and put the case, that that there hath byn some doubt or question whether of them was the au­thor of it, will he conclude, as heere he doth, that therefore there is no credit to be giuen vnto it? If he will iustify that consequence, he must reiect, diuers parts of the holy Scripture, which neuerthelesse I hope he will acknowledge to be of sound credit; as in the old Testament the booke of the Vide Bellar. de verbo Dei cap. 20. Iudges, Ruth, and Iob, of which the author is eyther wholy vnknowne, or vncertayne: The wri­ters of di­uers parts of holy Scripture vncer­tayne. and to omit other in the new Testa­ment, there is euen at this day amongst the sectaryes, as there was also in the primitiue Church, great doubt who was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews Euseb. li. 3. hist. c. 3. S. Hier. de viris. Illust. some ascrybing it (as S. Hierome testifyeth) to S. Clement who was after Pope, some to S. Barnabas, and others to S. Luke, and some, as Sixtus Sixt. Senens. l. 7. Biblioth. Sanct. Senensis wit­nesseth, [Page 251] to Tertullian: besids that Luth. in prolo. ep. ad Hebr. Luther, the Mag. cent. 1. li. 2. c. 4. col. 55. Mag­deburgenses, Kem. in exam. [...]. s [...]ss. Concil. Trident. Kemnitius, in Con­fess. VVit­temb. cap. de sacra. Scriptura. and Brentius, with dy­uers other Ghospellers, do deny it to be S. Paules, or any of the Apostles, or yet Canonicall Scripture. And albeit Calui­nus inst. ca. 10. § [...]. &c. 16. §. 25. Caluin and diuers of his followers admit it for Scripture, yet they doubt greatly who was the au­thor of it.

59. So as if M. Andrewes will stand to his owne inference he must needs conclude, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is of no sound credit, which I thinke he will be loath to say, seeing that all the English Clergy doth at this presēt acknowledge it for Canonical Scri­pture. Besides, that although it should be true which he sayth (to wit that it hath byn doubted whether S. Am­brose, or S. Maximus were author of that homily) yet that can be no sufficient reason to reiect the doctrine of it, but rather an argument to fortify, and approue it, as both very sound, and very acient, seeing that it hath byn alwayes ascrybed to one of those two an­cient, learned, and holy Fathers: and therefore to con­clude, you see that M. Andrews hath sayd nothing to the purpose against this testimony produced by the Cardinall 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 cauill a­gainst a place cited out of S. Greg. Na­zianzen. Andr. v [...]i supra. in the prayse of S. Cyprian, to whome he prayeth thus: Tu è supernis nos respice, & po­pulum hunc sanctum dirige: Behold vs from aboue, and direct this holy people. And agayne in the same Ora­tion, the same Father testifyeth that a holy Virgin called Iustina did pray vnto the Virgin Mary, to deliuer her from danger. To these two poynts M. Andrews an­swereth seuerally: to the first he sayth that the oration is not liquidae fide [...], of cleare credit; and his reason is because [Page 252] it is vncertayne who that Cyprian was of whome the oratiō 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 vncertayne is the whole matter, so perplexe, or doubt­full 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 vncertayne, because it is doubtfull of which Cyprian the oration was made, whereas neuertheles he cannot with any reason deny but that the oration is S. Gregory Nazian­zens: whereupon it must needs follow that albeit Na­zianzen should be deceiued, [...]. Hieron. comment. in cap. 23. Matth. and erre in the history, or the persons of whome he speaketh, yet the substance as well of the story, as of the doctrine cōtayned in that oration, was true in his conceipt, and therfore may serue for an assured testimony of his beliefe, & of the practise of the Church in his tyme (which is the only poynt now in question) and therefore seeing that he not only prayed to a Saynt himselfe, but also signi­fyed that a holy Virgin did the lyke; it is cleare, that both he him [...]elfe, and also the faythfull people in those dayes, held it to be lawfull, and practised it as occasion requyred.

61. And whereas M. Andrewes addeth concer­ning the latter poynt (to wit, the prayer of the mayd) that it was but a fact of a mayd, and then asketh whe­ther the fact of a mayd is a statute of the Church? and whe­ther a rule of fayth is to be grounded vpon a mayds act? I haue sufficiently answered him already touching the statutes, See before. nu. [...].19 [...]7 I [...]em nu [...] 5 [...]. & decrees of the Church concerning this point and now tell him agayne, that there was neyther at that tyme, any need of statutes for prayer to Saynts, [Page] which then was euery where in practise; neyther i [...] i [...] now in question what the Church decreed then tou­ching the same, but what was then generally practised and belieued, which cannot be better, and more clearely proued by any testimonyes of the Fathers, then by such as witnesse, not only their owne facts, but also the practise of other Christians, eyther in their dayes, or els in former tymes, as this was which S. Gregory affirmeth of that holy mayd.

62. But will you now heare how well M. An­drewes concludeth all this matter? Andr. vbi supra. forsooth he maketh an obiection against himselfe, saying in a different letter (as if the obiection were the Cardinalls) sed fa­ctum non reprehenditur, A notable collusion. of M. An­drews. but this fact of the mayd is not reprehended by S. Gregory Nazianzen: and then he addeth answering to his owne obiection: Immò, idem illud &c. yea, but Epiphanius sharpely reprehended the selfe same, in the same age, in the Collyridian heretykes, when it was done by many of the same sexe. Thus saith M. Andrews, playing his part kindly, as well in his obiection as in his answere. For in his obiection (wherein he would seeme to speake for the Cardinall, or rather to lay downe his words) he dissembleth altogether what the Cardinall saith to vrge, and fortify that example of the mayde, [...]. and therefore forbeareth purposely, as it may be thought, to set it downe in his margent with the rest of the Cardinalls text [...] who after the words of S. Gregory before related (to wit Virginem Mariam ro­gauit &c. S. Grego­ry Nazi­anzen highly ap­proueth prayer to our Bles­sed Lady. She besought the Virgin Mary to succour a Vir­gin in danger) addeth immediatly, ac paulo pòst refert eam &c. and a litle after (Nazianzen) declareth that her prayer was heard. Vicit, inquit, virgo, vincitur daemon. The Virgin (saith he) ouercame, and the Diuel is ouer­come. [Page 254] Thus doth the Cardinall vrge this example, which as you see, is of much more force, then to say only (as M. Andrews saith) that S. Gregory did not repre­hend the fact.

63. For albeit his silence in not reprehending it may serue for an argument that he did not mislyke it, yet the other clearely proueth that not only he, but also God himselfe did notably approue it, seing he saith that she obtayned the effect of her prayer, and ouer­came the Diuel: whereto I also add, that when that holy Father beginneth to recount the history of the mayde, S. Greg. Nazian. vbi supra he sayth thus: Audite Virgines, ac simul exultate &c. Harken o ye Virgins, and reioyce also, yea all ye that esteeme chastity in matrimony, and loue Virgins, give eare, for to both sorts this my narratio may serue for an ornament. So he. Whereby it appeareth playnely that he meant to recount that which he would wish to be approued and imitated by others: whereupon it followeth that by this example he exhorted, and encouraged all those whose chastity should be endangered. to craue the help of the blessed Virgin, as that holy mayd did, who thereby (togeather with her other deuotions of fa­sting, and prayer to almighty God, which S. Gregory relateth) ouercame the Diuel and escaped the danger of his tentation. And could this holy Father more eui­dently declare what his faith and beliefe was, concer­ning prayer to Saynts, then not only to relate this fact of a holy Virgin without reprehension of it, but also to signify the happy euent, and successe thereof, yea, and to incyte others to the approbation, S. Epiph [...]. shameful­ly abused by M An­drewes. and imitation of it?

64. But now sayth M. Andrewes, although Na­zianzen did not reprehend it [...] yet Epiphanius did sharp­ly [Page 255] reproue idem illud, euen the selfe same fact in the same age in other women. If this be true, M. Andrews doth indeed say somewhat to the purpose (at least to proue that the Fathers of that age did not with vnanim consent allow prayers to Saynts;) but if it be false, and that he flatly belyeth S. Epiphanius, The here­sy of the Collyrid [...] ­an [...]. what shall we think of the mans conscience, and cause. The truth is, S. E­piphanius sharply reprehendeth certayne women who vsed at a certaine tyme of the yeare to commit Idolatry to the Virgin Mary, S. Epipha. haer. 79. de Collyri [...] dianis. adoring her with diuine honour, offring vnto her certayne cakes in sacrifice, as though she had byn a God, or a Goddesse, and they her Priests: whereupon he discourseth amply, prouing first out of the old Testament, that nusquam mulier sacrificauit, aut Sacerdotio functa est, women haue neuer sacrifyced any­where, or executed Priestly function. And then he commeth to the new Testament, where he sheweth also the same, and addeth further, that if women could euer haue byn admitted to Sacrifyce, the Virgin Mary her selfe should haue done it rather, then any other, neuertheles she neuer did: and finally he concludeth, that the body of the blessed Virgin Mary was reuera san­ctum, sed non Deus, truely holy, but not God,

65. By all which it appeareth, that these women, which Epiphanius reprehendeth, did not only take v­pon them the Priestly function, but also cōmitted flat Idolatry, adoring the Virgin Mary with diuine honour, offring sacrifice vnto her, which is a worship due to God alone. Now then could a man belieue that M. Andrewes, M. An­drews care [...]lesse of hi [...] reputatiō or any man els that hath care of his reputa­tiō would be so shamelesse, to say, that this is idem illud, that very selfe same thing which Nazianzen sayth that holy Virgin did, who only craued help of the Virgin [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [Page 256] Mary? Is there no difference betwixt praying, and sacrifysing? betwixt Idolatry, and religious venera­tion due to Gods Saynts, M [...] An­drews see­king to discredit a place of Nazian­zen hath discredi­ted him­selfe. and seruants? Or betwixt the vsurpation of Priestly function (whereof no wo­man is capable) and the oblation of priuate prayers, which is as free for women, as men? Doth euery one, or any one that prayeth to Saynts or Angels, crauing their help, and assistance (as that holy Virgin did) doth he, I say, adore them as Gods, commit Idolatry, offer Sacrifice, vsurpe the function of a Priest, as those women did, whome Epiphanius reprehended? Truly if M. Andrews can iustify this, he may boldly say, and write what he list. So as now you see that wher­as he vndertooke to proue that this testimony of S. Gregory Nazianzen is not liquidae fidei, of cleare credit, he hath obscured, or rather clearly lost his owne cre­dit, by an euident, and intollerable abuse of S. Epipha­nius, without giuing the least blemish, or taynt in the world to the credit of the place that he impugneth: by the which it appeareth euidently, that the Inuocation of Saynts was vsuall in the tyme of S. Gregory Nazianzen, seeing that he himselfe did both inuocate Saynts, and also testify and approue the practise of it in others, as you haue heard: and this shall suffice for him.