AN
ADIOYNDER
TO
THE
SVPPLEMENT
OF
FATHER
ROBERT
PERSONS
HIS
DISCVSSION
of
M.
Doctor
Barlowes
Answere
&c.
CONTAYNING
A
Discouery
,
and
Confutation
of
very
many
foule
Absurdityes
,
Falsities
,
and
Lyes
in
M.
D.
Andrewes
his
Latin
Booke
intituled
,
Responsio
ad
Apologiam
Cardinalis
Bellarmini
&c.
An
answere
to
the
Apology
of
Card.
Bellarmine
.
WRITTEN
By
F.
T.
Authour
of
the
Supplement
,
to
iustify
certaine
places
,
and
authorities
alleaged
,
as
well
by
him
in
the
said
Supplement
,
as
by
the
Cardinall
in
his
Apology
,
and
pretended
to
be
answered
by
M.
D.
Andrewes
.
ALSO
An
Appendix
touching
a
Register
alleaged
by
M.
Franc.
Mason
for
the
lawfull
Ordayning
of
Protestant
Bishops
in
Q.
Elizabeths
Raigne
.
Mentita
est
iniquitas
sibi
.
Psal.
26.
Iniquity
hath
lyed
to
it selfe
.
Imprinted
with
Licence
,
M.
DC
.
XIII
.
THE
PRINTER
to
the
Reader
.
GENTLE
READER
,
Albeit
the
Authour
of
this
Worke
designed
the
same
to
be
printed
,
and
published
togeather
with
his
Supplement
to
Fa.
Persons
his
Discussion
of
M.
Barlowes
Answere
&c.
by
reason
of
the
relation
that
the
one
hath
to
the
other
(
in
which
respect
also
this
is
intituled
an
Adioynder
:
)
neuertheles
for
as
much
as
afterwards
,
when
this
came
to
my
hands
,
I
vnderstood
that
M.
Barlowes
credit
was
already
quyte
crushed
with
the
Disscussion
of
Fa.
Persons
,
and
euery
where
so
decried
,
that
most
men
were
fully
satisfyed
,
concerning
his
ignorance
,
absurdity
,
and
folly
,
and
therefore
might
be
more
desirous
to
see
this
Adioynder
in
Answere
of
M.
Doctour
Andrews
(
as
well
in
respect
of
his
farre
greater
reputation
,
as
for
that
he
hath
not
yet
byn
answered
by
any
in
our
tongue
:
)
And
considering
also
that
this
Adioynder
is
growne
to
a
farre
greater
volume
,
then
the
Author
at
the
first
intended
,
and
that
therefore
many
may
desyre
to
haue
it
a
part
,
both
for
the
better
commodity
of
carryage
,
and
also
for
other
good
respects
;
yea
,
and
that
the
separation
thereof
from
the
Supplement
cannot
hinder
,
but
that
such
as
desyre
to
haue
them
both
,
may
easely
be
satisfyed
,
and
cause
them
to
be
bound
eyther
togeather
,
or
a
sunder
,
as
they
shall
best
lyke
;
I
therfore
resolued
,
with
the
good
leaue
of
the
Authour
,
to
print
,
&
publish
them
both
in
seuerall
volumes
.
For
although
this
Adioynder
,
hath
indeed
a
great
connexion
with
the
Supplement
,
and
in
some
sort
dependeth
thereon
,
(
as
being
written
only
to
iustifie
the
same
,
and
specially
concerning
matters
incident
thereto
:
)
yet
the
points
treated
therein
are
so
clearly
handled
,
and
discussed
,
that
the
truth
of
the
Catholyke
cause
,
and
M.
Andrewes
his
notable
fraudes
,
and
cauils
,
may
sufficiently
appeare
thereby
,
without
the
helpe
of
the
Supplement
,
notwithstanding
the
frequent
references
thereto
.
I
shall
not
need
to
say
any
thing
concerning
the
intention
,
and
drift
of
the
Authour
,
for
that
the
same
may
fully
be
seene
,
partly
by
the
titles
of
the
Chapters
which
follow
immediatly
,
and
partly
in
the
3.
first
paragraphs
of
the
first
Chapter
,
and
therefore
all
that
I
thinke
good
to
aduertise
thee
,
good
Reader
,
is
,
that
albeit
this
Authour
hath
not
had
eyther
the
occasion
,
or
the
intention
to
answere
all
M.
Andrewes
his
Booke
(
but
such
points
only
,
as
are
some
way
incident
to
the
foresaid
Supplement
)
neuertheles
this
Adioynder
may
serue
for
a
sufficient
answere
to
the
whole
,
seeing
it
conteineth
a
confutation
of
at
least
an
hundred
Positions
,
Assertions
,
Paradoxes
,
Answeres
,
and
Obiections
of
M.
Andrewes
;
in
all
which
he
is
proued
to
be
eyther
most
Idle
,
and
Impertinent
,
or
egregiously
fraudulent
,
and
false
,
or
els
to
argue
directly
for
the
Catholikes
,
against
the
common
doctrine
of
his
owne
fellows
,
whereby
thou
maist
easily
iudge
of
the
rest
of
his
Worke
,
and
what
a
number
of
like
frauds
,
and
follies
might
be
discouered
therin
,
if
the
whole
were
as
throughlie
sifted
,
and
examined
as
these
points
haue
bene
,
which
haue
occurred
to
this
Authour
by
the
occasion
of
his
Supplement
.
And
so
wishing
thee
aboundance
of
Gods
grace
for
the
discouery
of
Falshood
,
and
knowledge
of
the
Truth
,
to
the
euerlasting
good
of
thy
owne
soule
,
I
take
my
leaue
.
THE
TABLE
OF
CHAPTERS
.
THE
Authours
intention
is
declared
,
and
M.
D.
Andrews
his
interpretation
of
Pasce
oues
meas
,
examined
,
and
confuted
.
Furthermore
it
is
shewed
,
that
he
hath
belyed
S.
Augustine
,
corrupted
S.
Ambrose
,
notably
abused
S.
Cyril
,
vainely
carped
at
a
Law
in
the
Code
,
and
foolishly
approued
the
vnlawfull
proceeding
of
Iustinian
the
Emperour
against
the
Pope
.
CHAP.
I.
-
Pag.
1.
The
Answeres
of
M.
Andrewes
to
certaine
places
of
the
Councell
of
Calcedon
are
examined
,
and
con●uted
.
His
notable
fraud
in
diuers
things
,
and
especially
in
the
allegation
of
a
Canon
of
that
Councell
is
discouered
:
and
the
supreme
authority
of
the
Sea
Apostolike
clearely
proued
out
of
the
same
Councell
and
Canon
.
CHAP.
II.
-
Pag.
39.
M.
D.
Andrewes
his
answeres
to
three
places
of
the
Fathers
are
examined
.
And
by
the
way
the
Cardinall
is
cleared
from
a
false
imputation
of
Iouinians
heresie●
and
M.
Andrewes
truly
charged
therwith
.
Finally
all
that
which
we
teach
concerning
the
Popes
authority
,
is
necessarily
deduced
out
of
M.
Andrewes
his
owne
doctrine
and
expresse
wordes
.
CHAP.
III.
-
Pag.
98.
Foure
other
places
of
the
Fathers
are
debated
,
and
M.
Andrewes
his
Answeres
therto
confuted
.
With
a
Discouery
of
notable
corruption
&
falsity
in
him
:
and
of
three
manifest
lyes
within
little
more
then
three
lines
.
And
by
occasion
therof
,
it
is
also
proued
,
that
8.
Popes
who
liued
in
S.
Augustines
time
,
had
,
and
excercised
an
vniuersall
and
supreme
Authority
.
CHAP.
IIII.
-
Pag.
133.
M.
Andrewes
his
answeres
to
three
other
places
,
alleadged
by
the
Cardinall
out
of
the
Fathers
,
are
examined
and
confuted
,
and
diuers
,
absurdities
discouered
therin
.
And
finally
he
is
proued
to
be
a
wrangler
in
the
highest
degree
.
CHAP.
V.
-
pag.
193.
A
further
manifestation
of
M.
Andrewes
his
trifling
,
wrangling
,
and
fraudulent
humour
,
by
his
Answeres
to
other
places
of
the
Fathers
,
concerning
Prayer
to
Saintes
,
which
he
deuideth
into
three
ranks
,
wherof
the
two
first
are
examined
in
this
Chapter
.
CHAP.
VI.
-
Pag.
218.
The
Answeres
of
M.
Andrewes
to
the
Fathers
of
the
third
ranke
,
are
examined
,
and
sound
to
be
either
impertinent
,
fraudulent
,
or
most
iniurious
to
them
;
namely
to
S.
Ambrose
,
whom
he
most
egregiously
abuseth
.
Also
it
is
euidently
shewed
,
that
the
Inuocation
of
Saints
was
generally
practised
,
&
approued
aswell
by
the
ancient
Fathers
,
as
by
all
other
faithfull
Christians
,
in
the
Primitiue
Church
.
CHAP.
VII
.
-
Pag.
258.
Certaine
obiections
of
M.
Andrewes
against
Prayers
to
Saints
are
answered
,
and
by
the
way
,
an
imposture
of
the
pretended
Bishops
,
and
Clergy
of
the
Prouince
of
Canterbury
in
a
Synodicall
Canon
of
theirs
is
discouered
.
And
finally
M.
Andrews
is
proued
to
haue
notably
wrangled
,
iugled
,
and
trifled
throughout
this
whole
Controuersy
.
CHAP.
VIII
.
-
Pag.
306.
The
Conclusion
of
this
Adioynder
,
deuided
into
two
Chapters
.
In
this
are
detected
diuers
srauds
and
shifts
common
to
M.
Andrewes
with
M.
Barlow
;
as
to
change
the
state
of
the
question
,
dissemble
that
which
most
importeth
in
the
Cardinalls
text
and
argument
;
to
abuse
wrest
,
bely
and
falsisy
not
only
the
Cardinall
,
but
also
the
ancient
Fathers
,
Councells
,
and
holy
Scriptures
:
and
finally
to
face
out
matters
impudently
for
lack
of
proofes
.
CHAP.
IX
.
-
Pag.
361.
That
M.
Andrews
ouerthroweth
his
owne
cause
,
and
fortifieth
ours
,
graunting
many
important
points
of
Catholike
Religion
:
That
he
is
turned
Puritan
in
the
point
of
the
Kings
Ecclesiasticall
Supremacy
.
and
betrayeth
his
Maiesties
cause
vnder-hand
,
pretending
to
defend
it
:
and
therfore
is
neither
good
English
Protestant
,
nor
yet
good
Subiect
.
Lastly
what
is
the
opinion
of
learned
strangers
concerning
him
,
and
his
booke
:
with
a
good
aduise
for
a
friendly
farewell
.
CHAP.
X.
-
Pag.
329.
An
Appendix
touching
a
Register
alleaged
by
M.
Franc.
Mason
for
the
lawfull
Ordayning
of
Protestant
Bishops
in
Q.
Elizabeths
Raigne
.
THE
AVTHORS
INTENTION
IS
DECLARED
,
AND
M.
D.
Andrewes
his
interpretation
of
Pasce
oues
meas
,
examined
,
and
confuted
.
FVRTHERMORE
It
is
shewed
,
that
he
hath
belyed
S.
Augustine
,
corrupted
S.
Ambrose
,
notably
abused
S.
Cyril
,
vainly
carped
at
a
law
in
the
Code
,
&
foolishly
approued
the
vnlawfull
proceeding
of
Iustinian
the
Emperour
against
two
Popes
.
CHAP.
I.
WHEN
I
had
well-neere
ended
my
Supplement
,
and
already
sent
away
the
greatest
part
of
it
to
the
print
,
it
was
my
chance
to
haue
a
sight
of
M.
D.
Andrewes
his
Answere
to
Cardinall
Bellarmines
Apology
;
and
considering
that
the
subiect
thereof
was
in
effect
the
same
that
Father
Persons
,
The
reason
that
moued
the
Author
to
adde
this
Adioynder
to
the
former
Suplement
.
and
I
had
handled
,
and
debated
with
M.
Barlow
;
I
easily
perswaded
my selfe
that
I
should
find
many
things
treated
by
M.
Andrewes
,
which
I
had
touched
in
my
Supplement
.
In
which
respect
I
determined
to
take
a
speedy
Suruey
of
his
worke
;
and
finding
that
he
pretended
now
and
then
to
answere
some
places
,
authorities
,
and
arguments
which
had
bene
obiected
,
as
well
by
me
,
as
by
the
Cardinall
,
I
resolued
to
examine
,
and
confute
his
Answers
,
in
respect
not
only
of
my selfe
,
but
also
of
the
most
Worthy
Cardinall
;
not
for
that
I
thinke
he
needeth
any
defence
,
(
who
like
an
inexpugnable
fortresse
trenched
on
euery
side
,
and
fortified
with
bulwarks
of
truth
,
doth
of
himselfe
sufficiently
resist
the
assaults
,
and
daunt
both
the
courage
and
force
of
his
enemies
)
but
that
in
discharge
of
the
obligation
which
all
true
Christians
owe
him
,
for
his
singular
merits
towards
the
Church
of
Christ
,
I
may
for
my
part
,
out
of
my
pouerty
,
pay
with
the
poore
widdow
,
my
two
mytes
;
and
therfore
hauing
offered
one
of
them
in
my
Supplement
,
I
thinke
good
now
to
add
the
other
;
and
the
rather
,
for
that
I
hope
by
the
same
meanes
to
preuent
the
Cauills
of
my
Aduersary
M.
Barlow
,
who
otherwise
might
perhaps
in
his
reply
(
if
he
be
disposed
to
make
any
)
blame
me
,
for
not
taking
notice
of
such
a
worthy
work
(
as
that
of
M.
Andrewes
)
and
eyther
turne
me
ouer
to
him
for
satisfaction
touching
those
points
,
or
els
make
vse
of
his
answers
himselfe
;
which
being
esteemed
as
a
precious
fruite
of
the
fine
wit
and
curious
pen
of
the
greatest
Rabbin
in
the
English
Synagogue
,
are
held
(
no
doubt
)
by
his
friends
,
and
followers
for
no
other
then
oracles
of
Apollo
,
I
meane
,
both
infallible
and
irrefragable
:
for
which
cause
I
am
the
more
willing
to
enter
into
the
examination
of
them
.
And
therefore
to
the
end
thou
mayst
,
The
Authors
intention
in
this
Adioynder
.
good
Reader
,
know
how
far
I
meane
to
proceed
therin
,
thou
shalt
vnderstand
,
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
,
controuersed
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
,
Supplement
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
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
,
atque
vel
sic
iacebit
Cardinali
ratio
sua
:
and
so
shall
the
Cardinalls
reason
serue
him
to
no
purpose
.
Thus
argueth
he
.
3.
But
to
the
end
,
thou
maist
(
good
Reader
)
see
,
and
note
with
what
fidelity
and
conscience
this
man
alledgeth
the
Fathers
,
I
will
lay
downe
the
place
of
S.
Augustine
somewhat
more
amply
then
he
hath
done
,
S.
Augustine
lamely
and
fraudulently
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
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
,
idemque
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
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
personam
propter
Primatum
quem
in
Discipulis
habuit
:
Of
which
Church
he
is
acknowledged
to
haue
borne
the
person
for
the
Primacy
,
which
he
had
amongst
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
we
all
receaued
them
with
him
.
Thus
saith
S.
Ambrose
,
which
all
Catholikes
do
graunt
and
teach
in
like
manner
,
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
,
Idem
lib.
10.
comment
.
in
cap.
24.
Euang.
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
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
doctrine
concerning
the
Pastorall
commission
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
when
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
,
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
second
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.
§.
Verum
vim
videamus
.
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
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
,
atque
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
Christians
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
commandment
concerning
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
,
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
euident
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
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
commonly
he
doth
in
all
?
For
how
doth
it
follow
,
that
if
it
be
true
which
we
teach
(
to
wit
,
that
Christ
made
S.
Peter
supreme
Pastour
of
the
Church
by
commaunding
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
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
gouernment
of
the
people
(
least
they
should
be
like
to
oues
sine
Pastore
,
D.
Andrews
confounded
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
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
commented
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
graunt
it
in
some
sort
,
yea
[
](A00916-e5420-b)(a)
(a)
See
after
c.
3.
n.
36.37
.
&
seq
.
somtimes
as
far
forth
in
effect
as
we
demaund
;
though
at
at
other
times
he
laboureth
vtterly
to
ouerthrow
it
(
as
I
shall
haue
occasion
to
declare
more
largly
[
](A00916-e5460-b)(b)
(b)
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
[
](A00916-e5510-b)(c)
(c)
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
,
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
commentary
vpon
S.
Iohns
Ghospell
,
S.
Cyril
comment
.
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
Caputque
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
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
such
sense
in
that
place
,
Aug.
Ep.
50.
and
doth
elswhere
expressely
teach
the
contrary
,
as
when
he
saith
:
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
.
vpon
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
renouans
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
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
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
communicated
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
,
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
commission
,
he
represented
the
person
and
figure
of
the
whole
Church
,
by
reason
of
his
Primacy
amongst
the
Apostles
:
and
out
of
S.
Ambrose
,
that
he
was
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
(
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
,
neque
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
inferiour
Pastours
in
Gods
Church
)
was
committed
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
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
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
concerning
the
faith
which
he
professeth
.
see
the
Code
l.
1.
tit
.
de
sum
.
Trin.
So
he
.
And
this
may
be
confirmed
with
the
authority
of
Accursius
,
who
glosseth
it
no
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.
Parergon
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
Frisingensis
,
and
certaine
verses
of
Ligurinus
the
Poet.
)
But
I
do
know
it
to
be
extant
in
very
many
old
copyes
,
and
that
it
cannot
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
germanusque
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
confirmed
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
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
Agapetum
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
[
](A00916-e9600-b)(d)
(d)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
to
his
Beatitude
as
being
the
head
of
all
the
most
holy
Priests
of
God
,
and
specially
because
,
as
often
as
there
hath
risen
any
Heretikes
in
these
parts
,
they
haue
bene
corrected
by
the
sentence
,
and
Iudgement
of
that
venerable
Seat
.
Thus
saith
Iustinian
in
that
constitution
.
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.
Wo
be
to
you
who
call
good
bad
,
Esa.
5.
and
bad
good
,
and
make
light
darknesse
,
and
darknesse
light
.
And
thus
much
for
this
point
.
Two
facts
of
Iustinian
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
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
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
comming
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
[
](A00916-e10950-b)(c)
(c)
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
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
,
atque
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
[
](A00916-e11150-b)(d)
(d)
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
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
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
Liberatus
testifieth
in
these
words
:
Quem
audiens
Imperato●●
reuocari
Roman
Silu●rium
〈◊〉
&c.
The
Emperour
hearing
the
Bishop
of
Pater●
;
Iustinian
reuoked
his
sentence
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
relation
of
Liberatus
how
potent
were
the
Bishops
words
,
which
he
so
litle
esteemeth
;
and
the
reader
may
note
as
well
M.
Andrews
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
damnation
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
sentence
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
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
.
THE
ANSWERS
OF
M.
ANDREWS
TO
Certayne
places
of
the
Councell
of
Calcedon
are
examined
,
and
confuted
.
His
notable
fraud
in
diuers
things
,
and
especially
in
the
allegation
of
a
Canon
of
that
Councell
is
discouered
:
and
the
supreme
authority
of
the
Sea
Apostolike
clearely
proued
out
of
the
same
Councell
,
and
Canon
.
CHAP.
II.
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
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
shal
be
,
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
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
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.
Constant
.
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
se-second
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
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
Patrum
regulam
&c.
We
haue
also
confirmed
the
rule
,
or
Canon
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
second
&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
Canon
made
them
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
Constantinople
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
,
&
fraudulently
affirmeth
in
a
different
Letter
,
as
though
he
laid
down
the
very
words
of
the
Canon
.
Besides
that
,
the
equality
mentioned
in
the
Canon
,
is
sufficiently
explicated
by
the
Canon
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
,
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
manner
of
Equality
the
Church
of
Constantinople
should
haue
with
the
Roman
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
second
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
hundreth
yeares
before
the
Councel
of
Calcedon
.
What
preheminence
the
Church
of
Constantinople
sought
to
haue
in
the
Councell
of
Calcedon
.
9.
Therfore
the
preheminence
which
the
Church
of
Constantinople
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
reseruation
of
the
right
of
Primacy
due
to
the
Roman
Sea
.
Besides
that
,
it
is
to
be
noted
that
the
Greek
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
which
in
our
latin
Copies
is
translated
aequalis
,
doth
signify
also
similis
,
lyke
,
not
only
in
prophane
Authors
(
as
euery
man
may
see
in
the
Thesaurus
of
Henricus
Stephanus
)
but
also
in
diuers
places
of
holy
Scripture
,
both
in
the
old
&
new
Testament
.
And
he
that
list
to
see
more
to
this
purpose
,
may
read
the
Paralel
of
Tortus
,
&
his
Tortor
,
written
against
M.
D.
Andrews
,
by
the
Reuerend
&
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
granted
to
the
Church
of
Constantinople
in
the
Councell
of
Calcedon
,
doth
not
any
way
derogate
from
the
supreme
dignity
of
the
Roman
Sea
.
10.
Whereto
I
also
add
,
that
the
word
aequalis
in
the
Scripture
doth
not
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
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
corresponding
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
manner
the
words
equall
,
and
equality
are
to
be
vnderstood
in
the
Councell
of
Calcedon
(
as
is
euident
by
the
Canon
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
second
place
after
him
.
11.
But
now
to
deale
somewhat
more
liberally
with
M.
Andrews
in
this
point
,
let
vs
put
the
case
that
the
Fathers
in
the
Councell
of
Calcedon
did
meane
to
giue
to
the
Church
of
Constantinople
that
equality
with
the
Roman
sea
,
The
Canon
which
graunted
the
priuiledges
to
the
Church
of
Constantinople
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
Canon
.
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
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
Constantinople
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
condemnation
)
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
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
common
letter
(
with
the
tytle
,
or
superscription
of
Ecclesia
Orientalis
&c.
)
to
be
restored
to
the
vnion
of
the
Roman
Sea
,
Ep.
orient
.
Episcop.
ad
Symmachum
.
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
of
his
faith
to
Hormisdas
,
Exemplar
libelli
Ioan.
Ep.
Constantin
.
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
Roman
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
.
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
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
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
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
question
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
Iudgments
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
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
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
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
[
](A00916-e17960-b)(d)
(d)
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
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
[
](A00916-e18230-b)(d)
(d)
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
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
Councell
,
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
concerning
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
[
](A00916-e18490-b)(d)
(d)
See
more
concerning
this
Canon
in
Binius
.
To.
1.
Concil.
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
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
Parliament
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
contrary
,
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
[
](A00916-e18740-b)(c)
(c)
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
concerning
Pope
Leo's
intercession
,
What
maner
of
intercession
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
Martian
.
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
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
Martian
.
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
intercession
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
Metropolitans
;
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
,
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
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
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
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
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
Constantinople
,
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
,
presently
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
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
words
?
let
him
read
(
not
in
any
tytle
,
or
superscription
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
Councell
,
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
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
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
Concilij
.
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
.
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
concerning
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
,
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
deposition
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
,
if
as
well
the
Bishop
of
that
Church
,
as
Eutiches
had
not
been
subiect
to
him
;
whereto
it
may
also
be
added
,
that
,
as
Liberatus
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
Councell
,
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
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
[
](A00916-e22400-b)(b)
(b)
See
Supplem
.
c.
4.
nu.
3.4.5
.
&
6.
Supplement
.
I
haue
also
shewed
that
M.
[
](A00916-e22460-b)(c)
(c)
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
,
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
[
](A00916-e22620-b)(d)
(d)
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
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
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
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
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
proposition
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
:
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
,
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
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.
Whereto
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
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
Canon
alledged
by
M.
Andrews
,
made
no
mention
of
the
keys
,
and
Pastorall
commission
giuen
to
S.
Peter
.
that
the
penners
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
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
,
(
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
,
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
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
conclusion
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
;
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
Canon
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
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
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
Constantinople
,
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
Councell
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
,
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●●
[
](A00916-e26060-b)(c)
(c)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
capiti
in
bonis
adiecimus
consonantiam
,
sic
&
[
](A00916-e26090-b)(d)
(d)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
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
praemium
,
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
,
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
[
](A00916-e26370-b)(d)
(d)
See
b●fore
from
nu.
29.
to
nu.
39.
declared
.
75.
And
now
,
I
hope
,
M.
Andr●ws
will
not
say
that
this
is
taken
out
of
some
corner
of
a
period
,
or
some
peece
of
a
tytle
,
Other
proofes
that
Pop●
Leo's
supremacy
was
acknowledged
by
the
Councel
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
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
deposition
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.
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
Councell
,
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
suffice
for
an
euident
proofe
thereof
,
Pope
Leo
was
vndoubtedly
the
head
and
president
of
the
Councell
.
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
concerning
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
Councel
of
Calcedon
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
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
conscience
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
.
M.
D.
ANDREWS
HIS
ANSWERES
TO
three
places
of
the
Fathers
are
examined
.
AND
By
the
way
the
Cardinall
is
cleared
from
a
false
imputation
of
Iouinians
heresy
,
and
M.
Andrews
truly
charged
therewith
.
Finally
all
that
which
we
teach
concerning
the
Popes
authority
is
necessarily
deduced
out
of
M.
Andrews
his
owne
doctrine
,
and
expresse
words
.
CHAP.
III.
HAVING
occasion
in
my
Supplement
to
proue
the
necessity
of
a
visible
head
in
Gods
Church
to
conserue
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
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.
Cyprian
.
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
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
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.
Cyprian
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
recommended
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
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.
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
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
sufficient
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
throughout
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
.
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
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.
Cyprian
,
which
M.
Andrews
sayth
the
Cardinall
fraudulently
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
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.
Cyprian
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
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
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.
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
[
](A00916-e30790-b)(c)
(c)
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
vsquequaque
&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
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
,
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
vpon
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
vpon
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
?
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
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
vpon
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
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.
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
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
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
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
grounded
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
quem
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
communicate
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
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
[
](A00916-e34040-b)(d)
(d)
See
before
nu.
4.5
.
&
sequent
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
from
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
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
,
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
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
to
haue
as
much
authority
as
is
conuenient
for
the
end
for
which
he
is
ordayned
;
and
the
fourth
that
of
all
this
there
is
no
question
,
for
that
the
question
is
(
saith
he
)
concerning
the
power
of
the
head
,
how
far
it
extendeth
,
and
how
great
may
be
the
number
that
he
is
to
gouerne
.
37.
But
if
M.
Andrews
consider
well
what
he
granteth
,
M.
Andrews
large
graunt
,
concerning
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
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
Roman
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.
contra
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
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
controuersies
(
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
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
[
](A00916-e35800-b)(b)
(b)
Ibidem
à
nu.
60.
ad
nu.
67.
Supplement
,
where
I
haue
deduced
the
necessity
of
this
consequent
from
the
very
Law
of
[
](A00916-e35840-b)(c)
(c)
Ibid.
nu.
67.
&
s●qu
.
nature
,
and
light
of
reason
.
41.
Besides
that
,
I
haue
also
declared
[
](A00916-e35880-b)(d)
(d)
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
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
shal
be
needfull
for
the
conseruation
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
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.
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
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
consequent
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
,
consisting
of
an
innumerable
multitude
of
the
faithfull
,
dispersed
throughout
the
whole
world
,
who
being
all
visible
members
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
[
](A00916-e36810-b)(d)
(d)
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
[
](A00916-e36890-b)(e)
(e)
Ibid.
nu.
7.8
.
&
9.
himselfe
.
47.
For
which
cause
not
only
S.
Cyprian
(
as
you
haue
heard
before
in
this
[
](A00916-e36940-b)(f)
(f)
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
[
](A00916-e37010-b)(g)
(g)
nu.
37.
before
)
in
which
respect
it
was
needefull
to
be
preuented
by
the
institution
of
one
head
ouer
the
whole
Church
;
The
conclusion
concerning
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
[
](A00916-e37140-b)(h)
(h)
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
,
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
consequent
as
m●ch
as
we
demand
conc●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
[
](A00916-e37540-b)(d)
(d)
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
.
FOVRE
OTHER
PLACES
OF
THE
FATHERS
ARE
DEBATED
:
And
M.
Andrews
his
Answers
thereto
confuted
.
With
a
Discouery
of
notable
corruption
and
falsity
in
him
:
and
of
three
manifest
lyes
within
litle
more
then
three
lynes
.
AND
By
occasion
thereof
,
it
is
also
proued
,
that
8.
Popes
who
liued
in
S.
Augustines
tyme
,
had
,
and
exercysed
an
vniuersall
and
supreme
Authority
.
CHAP.
IIII.
THOV
hast
seene
good
Reader
in
the
last
Chapter
how
well
M.
Andrews
hath
satisfyed
the
Cardinalls
obiection
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
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
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
commission
of
the
keyes
,
a
particuler
Iurisdiction
more
then
the
rest
,
in
respect
whereof
he
was
Boatus
,
happy
,
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
[
](A00916-e38560-b)(c)
(c)
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
[
](A00916-e38670-b)(a)
(a)
Card.
Bellar.
Apolog.
vbi
supra
.
Cardinall
as
by
[
](A00916-e38690-b)(b)
(b)
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
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
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
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
,
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
,
when
they
were
all
asked
,
answered
alone
&c.
In
which
words
S.
Chrysostome
doth
plainly
acknowledge
S.
Peter
to
be
head
of
the
Church
,
seeing
that
he
called
him
head
of
the
Apostles
.
And
in
the
same
place
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
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
conuersus
,
confirma
fratres
tuos
,
and
thou
being
sometyme
conuerted
,
confirme
they
brethren
.
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
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.
Andrews
19.
And
as
for
M.
Andrews
his
stale
,
and
tryfling
deuyse
to
call
the
Pope
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
alluding
to
the
name
of
the
beast
in
the
Apocalyps
,
according
to
the
interpretation
of
Irenaeus
,
as
he
would
haue
his
Reader
to
suppose
,
albeit
he
vse
it
far
otherwise
then
Irenaeus
meant
it
,
who
applyed
it
only
to
the
temporall
Empyre
,
and
not
to
the
Roman
Sea
)
I
willingly
omit
it
,
as
not
pertayning
to
the
place
of
S.
Chrysostome
wherof
I
now
specially
treat
,
and
therefore
do
remit
him
for
his
satisfaction
in
that
point
to
Cardinall
Bellarmines
controuersies
,
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
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.
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
,
&
compoundeth
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
throughout
the
course
of
the
yeare
)
and
that
therefore
the
Authour
of
those
Sermons
de
tempore
,
out
of
the
which
the
Cardinall
taketh
this
place
,
could
not
be
S.
Augustins
,
but
of
some
other
later
wryter
,
who
set
them
out
in
S.
Augustins
name
.
22.
But
now
if
you
aske
how
M.
Andrews
proueth
that
there
were
no
Sermons
de
tempore
in
S.
Augustins
tyme
,
you
must
take
his
bare
word
for
a
proofe
,
for
you
neyther
haue
,
nor
are
like
to
heare
any
other
of
him
.
But
for
the
tryall
of
this
matter
I
must
remit
thee
,
good
Reader
,
to
some
better
,
and
more
authenticall
witnesses
then
M.
Andrewes
,
namely
to
Possidius
a
learned
Bishop
,
who
being
a
familiar
friend
of
S.
Augustin
forty
yeares
togeather
(
as
he
signifieth
himselfe
)
wrote
his
life
,
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
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
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
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
confession
of
Christ
,
in
the
very
foundation
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
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
commission
of
Pastor
,
represented
the
person
of
the
Church
,
inferreth
that
the
Church
ought
to
pardon
repentant
sinners
,
seeing
that
Peter
bearing
the
person
of
the
Church
was
pardoned
when
he
had
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
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
[
](A00916-e43470-b)(b)
(b)
Aug.
de
Vnit.
E●cl
.
ca.
12.
Donatists
,
whose
doctrine
they
professe
concerning
the
fall
of
the
visible
Church
;
[
](A00916-e43500-b)(c)
(c)
Epiphan.
haer.
75.
Aerius
whome
they
follow
in
denying
Sacrifyce
for
the
dead
;
[
](A00916-e43530-b)(d)
(d)
Hieron
aduers.
Vigilant
.
Vigilantius
with
whome
they
impugne
the
reuerend
vse
of
reliques
;
[
](A00916-e43560-b)(f)
(f)
Idem
.
contra
Iouin
.
Iouinian
who
taught
diuers
points
of
their
beliefe
touched
particulerly
in
the
last
[
](A00916-e43590-b)(g)
(g)
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
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
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
Pope
had
no
further
authority
but
ouer
his
Church
of
Rome
in
S.
Augustines
tyme
.
The
second
,
that
no
man
might
in
those
daies
appeale
to
the
Sea
Apostolicke
out
of
Africk
.
The
third
,
that
S.
Augustine
was
far
from
acknowledging
those
three
Popes
Zosimus
,
Bonifacius
,
and
Celestinus
to
be
heads
of
the
Church
,
yea
and
that
he
cured
S.
Peters
disease
in
them
.
Of
these
3.
points
,
the
first
wil
be
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
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
concerning
the
prosecution
of
Appeals
.
and
grew
in
great
part
,
by
reason
of
abuses
committed
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
prosecution
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
country
(
as
S.
Gregory
the
great
did
in
Africk
dyuers
tymes
,
whereof
I
shall
haue
occasion
to
lay
downe
some
examples
[
](A00916-e44500-b)(d)
(d)
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
reasons
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
shall
be
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
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
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
lamenting
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
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
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
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
Councell
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
.
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
condemning
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
Caecilianus
had
to
care
for
their
sentence
,
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
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
Roman
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
shal
be
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
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
examination
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
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
[
](A00916-e46940-b)(h)
(h)
See
cap.
2.
nu.
24.
&
seq.
vsque
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
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
African
Synode
to
Pope
Celestinus
.
The
second
that
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
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
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
[
](A00916-e47340-b)(c)
(c)
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
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
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
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
,
complayning
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
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
[
](A00916-e48580-b)(c)
(c)
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
[
](A00916-e48640-b)(d)
(d)
nu.
4.5.6
.
●
sequent
.
Chapter
.
59.
Finally
,
S.
Hierome
demanding
resolution
from
Damasus
with
whome
he
should
communicate
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
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
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
Cledon
.
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
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
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
written
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
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
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
:
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
African
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
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
commit
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
all
that
which
is
for
the
generall
good
of
the
Church
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
condemnation
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
.
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
damnati
,
cond̄ened
throughout
all
the
Christian
world
,
by
the
vigilancy
of
the
Episcopall
Synods
of
Africk
,
etiam
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
Innocentius
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
Iudgment
of
the
Catholike
Church
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
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
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
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
mundum
haeresis
Pelagiana
condemnata
&c.
which
being
approued
,
the
Pelagian
heresy
was
condemned
throughout
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
concerning
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.
and
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.
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
from
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
Constantinople
.
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
committed
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
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
[
](A00916-e53090-b)(a)
(a)
Supra
nu.
74.
before
,
concerning
the
condemnation
of
the
Pelagian
heresy
,
besides
a
former
[
](A00916-e53120-b)(b)
(b)
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
[
](A00916-e53190-b)(c)
(c)
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
of
the
cause
to
the
said
Bishops
,
P.
Celestinus
head
of
the
generall
Councell
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
[
](A00916-e53470-b)(a)
(a)
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
[
](A00916-e53570-b)(b)
(b)
Concil.
Ephes.
To.
1.
cap.
16.
&
17.
Cyrillus
to
whome
he
wrote
thus
:
Adiuncta
tibi
nostrae
sedis
auctoritate
ipse
qui
vice
nostra
potestateque
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
[
](A00916-e53680-b)(c)
(c)
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
[
](A00916-e53730-b)(d)
(d)
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
[
](A00916-e53820-b)(f)
(f)
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
[
](A00916-e53880-b)(g)
(g)
Niceph.
li.
14.
ca.
34
Nestorius
,
)
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
euident
argument
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
[
](A00916-e54050-b)(d)
(d)
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
cannot
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
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
presumption
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
)
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
[
](A00916-e54510-b)(a)
(a)
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
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
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
.
Mr.
ANDREWES
HIS
ANSWERS
TO
THREE
OTHER
PLACES
Alleadged
by
the
Cardinall
out
of
the
Fathers
,
are
examined
and
confuted
:
and
diuers
absurdities
discouered
therin
.
AND
Finally
he
is
proued
to
be
a
Wrangler
in
the
highest
degree
.
CHAP.
V.
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
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
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
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
caelorum
&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
woman
(
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
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
interpretation
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
summam
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
interpretation
(
if
it
be
literall
)
he
hath
no
pastorall
Commission
.
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
summam
rerum
de
pascendis
ouibus
,
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
confounding
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
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
foundations
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
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
fundamentum
(
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
,
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
Confession
,
the
foundation
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
concerning
S.
Peters
person
,
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
foundation
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
confessionem
beatus
Simon
aedificationi
Eccl●siae
subiacens
,
&
claues
regni
caelestis
accipiens
&c.
Blessed
Simon
after
the
confession
of
the
mystery
,
lying
vnder
the
building
of
the
Church
(
that
is
to
say
,
being
made
the
foundation
of
the
church
)
&
receiuing●y●
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
reason
&
cause
therof
,
he
addeth
post
confessionem
Sacramenti
,
after
the
confession
of
the
mystery
.
11.
So
that
S.
Hilary
saying
in
one
place
,
that
Peter
was
the
foundation
of
the
Church
,
and
in
another
affirming
the
same
of
his
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
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
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
cofounded
by
blowes
then
persuaded
by
arguments
.
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
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.
Maximus
of
Turyn
did
wryte
homilyes
or
Sermons
of
Saints
.
but
that
I
cannot
omit
to
say
something
to
the
two
doubts
he
maketh
,
to
wit
,
whether
this
Maximus
was
he
that
was
Bishop
of
Turin
,
&
whether
there
were
Sermons
made
purposely
of
the
Apostles
in
his
tyme
;
both
which
doubts
the
ancient
Gennadius
(
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
&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
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
word-warre
,
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
,
power
,
Iurisdiction
,
and
gouernment
?
20.
Therefore
M.
Andrews
denying
S.
Peters
preeminence
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
contradicteth
himselfe
;
for
what
are
,
trow
you
,
those
voculae
which
he
excepteth
from
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
them
presently
,
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
:
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
[
](A00916-e59260-b)(d)
(d)
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
conceipt
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
[
](A00916-e59310-b)(e)
(e)
nu.
20.
&
21.
chapter
of
this
Adioynder
,
and
handled
at
large
in
my
[
](A00916-e59340-b)(f)
(f)
See
Supplem
.
chap.
1.
nu.
61.
&
seq.
vsque
ad
69.
Supplement
)
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
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
[
](A00916-e59690-b)(g)
(g)
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
.
A
FVRTHER
MANIFESTATION
OF
MAISTER
ANDREWS
HIS
Tryfling
,
wrangling
,
and
fraudulent
humour
,
by
his
Answers
to
other
places
of
the
Fathers
,
concerning
Prayer
to
Saints
,
which
he
deuydeth
into
three
rankes
,
whereof
the
two
first
are
examined
in
this
Chapter
.
CHAP.
VI.
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
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.
§.
Verum
.
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
nons
Apostolus
,
charging
vs
to
make
light
of
him
,
because
we
inuocate
them
in
whome
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
shal
be
saued
,
and
then
he
addeth
,
The
true
meaning
of
S.
Paul
about
the
inuocation
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
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
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
contradicteth
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
exception
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
inuocation
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
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
euidently
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
&
fraudulent
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
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
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
regionem
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
,
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
continueth
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
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
indifferent
Reader
,
whether
M.
Andrews
hath
any
reason
in
the
world
to
confound
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
confuteth
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
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
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
translation
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
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
committed
any
errour
,
as
he
hath
not
for
the
sense
,
albeit
there
is
difference
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
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
the
holy
Martyr
in
the
place
where
his
reliques
were
kept
(
as
when
he
sayth
,
quotquot
in
hoc
loco
constituti
&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
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
common
custome
of
that
tyme
,
the
Latin
translation
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
verè
25.
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
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
from
the
authority
of
the
Fathers
to
Councells
.
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
Councells
,
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
Inuocation
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
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
concerning
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
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
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
Christians
,
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
common
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
translation
which
the
Cardinall
cyteth
is
not
only
free
from
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
translation
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
,
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
[
](A00916-e64020-b)(d)
(d)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
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
difference
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
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
found
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
Dominicum
Nicolinum
.
In
all
which
he
shall
fynd
tumulos
adoremus
,
and
not
adornemus
.
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
reuerence
,
venerate
,
or
worship
,
I
meane
not
with
diuine
honour
,
but
with
such
veneration
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
[
](A00916-e64500-b)(b)
(b)
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
,
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
Sunne
,
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
:
Roma
salut
auit
voce
manuque
ducem
,
Rome
saluted
her
Captayne
both
with
voyce
,
and
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
manuque
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
.
Tange
manu
mensam
,
tangunt
quo
more
precantes
.
Touch
the
table
with
thy
hand
,
as
men
are
wont
to
do
when
they
pray
.
Also
the
Paynims
were
accustomed
to
touch
the
right
hands
of
their
Gods
for
reuerence
,
and
deuotion
:
whereupon
Lucretius
sayth
:
—
tum
portas
propter
ahena
Lucret.
li.
●
.
de
nat.
rerum
1.
Signa
manus
dextras
ostendunt
attenuari
,
Saepe
salutantum
tactu
praeterque
meantum
.
The
sense
is
,
that
the
images
of
the
Gods
standing
at
the
gates
,
had
their
right
hands
worne
with
the
frequent
touching
of
passengers
.
And
as
you
heard
before
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
confirmed
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
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
,
shal
be
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
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
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
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
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
recommend
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
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
manner
further
testimony
for
the
Inuocation
of
Saynts
,
which
is
also
to
be
seene
in
the
66.
homily
ad
Populum
Antiochenum
,
albeit
the
Cardinall
thought
it
needles
,
as
it
seemeth
,
to
alledge
the
same
,
because
the
former
seemed
to
him
sufficient
;
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
Antiochenum
,
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
cannot
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
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
tent-maker
,
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
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
edification
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
condemneth
the
practise
,
&
beliefe
of
the
Catholyke
Church
of
that
age
,
yea
(
and
if
by
the
decrees
of
the
Fathers
which
he
demandeth
,
he
meaneth
their
expresse
,
and
cleare
doctrine
deliuered
in
their
workes
)
he
condemneth
also
the
decree
of
S.
Chrysostome
touching
the
same
.
And
whereas
he
addeth
for
the
conclusion
of
this
poynt
,
that
this
fact
related
by
S.
Chrysostome
,
was
but
an
act
of
voluntary
deuotion
,
and
not
of
a
thing
necessary
to
saluation
(
which
he
sayth
the
Cardinall
vndertooke
to
proue
)
he
tryfleth
notably
;
for
neyther
doth
the
Cardinall
vndertake
to
proue
any
such
thing
,
neyther
is
it
materiall
for
the
question
in
hand
,
whether
it
be
of
necessity
to
saluation
,
or
no.
54.
The
Cardinall
vndertooke
only
to
proue
that
the
doctrine
of
the
Protestans
reiecting
prayer
to
Saynts
,
is
not
the
faith
of
the
old
primitiue
Church
,
which
he
promiseth
to
proue
by
the
testimony
of
the
Fathers
of
the
first
400.
or
500.
yeares
,
as
it
appeareth
expressely
by
his
owne
words
.
Soquitur
,
saith
he
,
vt
ostendamus
fidem
&c.
It
followeth
that
we
shew
the
faith
(
which
the
King
defends
)
not
to
be
the
faith
of
the
old
,
and
primitiue
Church
&c.
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.
55.
For
there
is
no
doubt
but
that
many
things
are
,
and
may
be
lawfull
,
yea
very
commendable
,
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
saluation
.
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
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
condemne
it
.
whereof
the
whole
Church
hath
had
sufficient
,
and
publyke
experience
in
all
ages
(
as
it
is
most
euident
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
splendida
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
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
[
](A00916-e68600-b)(b)
(b)
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
[
](A00916-e68660-b)(c)
(c)
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
[
](A00916-e68750-b)(d)
(d)
Sixt.
Senens
.
l.
7.
Biblioth.
Sanct.
Senensis
witnesseth
,
to
Tertullian
:
besids
that
[
](A00916-e68800-b)(f)
(f)
Luth.
in
prolo
.
ep.
ad
Hebr.
Luther
,
the
[
](A00916-e68830-b)(g)
(g)
Mag.
cent.
1.
li.
2.
c.
4.
col.
55.
Magdeburgenses
,
[
](A00916-e68890-b)(h)
(h)
Kem.
in
exam
.
●
.
s●ss
.
Concil.
Trident.
Kemnitius
,
[
](A00916-e68930-b)(k)
(k)
in
Confess
.
Wittemb
.
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
[
](A00916-e68970-b)(l)
(l)
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
present
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
it
is
vncertayne
who
that
Cyprian
was
of
whome
the
oration
was
made
,
as
whether
he
was
Cyprian
Bishop
of
Carthage
,
or
another
Cyprian
of
Antioch
:
and
then
he
concludeth
:
Ita
fluctuat
res
tota
,
ita
perplexa
omnia
:
So
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
contayned
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
,
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
.
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
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
committed
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●
reputation
or
any
man
els
that
hath
care
of
his
reputation
would
be
so
shamelesse
,
to
say
,
that
this
is
idem
illud
,
that
very
selfe
same
thing
which
Nazianzen
sayth
that
holy
Virgin
did
,
who
only
craued
help
of
the
Virgin
Mary
?
Is
there
no
difference
betwixt
praying
,
and
sacrifysing
?
betwixt
Idolatry
,
and
religious
veneration
due
to
Gods
Saynts
,
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
.
Apol.
Card.
pa.
●5
.
Cyril
.
Hieros
.
catech.
5.
66.
After
this
M.
Andrews
concludeth
his
censure
vpon
the
Fathers
of
the
second
ranke
,
with
a
place
of
S.
Cyril
alledged
by
the
Cardinall
thus
:
Cùm
hoc
sacrif●cium
offerimus
&c.
When
we
offer
this
sacrifice
(
he
meaneth
the
holy
.
Eucharist
)
we
make
mention
of
them
that
haue
dyed
before
vs
:
first
of
Patriarkes
,
Prophets
,
Apostles
,
and
Martyrs
,
that
Almighty
God
may
by
their
prayers
receiue
ours
.
Thus
farre
the
Cardinall
alledgeth
S.
Cyril
to
proue
that
Saynt●
do
pray
for
vs
;
which
albeit
M.
Andrewes
doth
not
deny
,
yet
diuers
other
Sectaryes
do●
In
which
respect
the
Cardinall
cyted
this
place
no
lesse
then
the
former
,
and
the
rather
,
because
the
Inuocation
of
Saynts
followeth
of
their
prayer
for
vs
;
for
if
they
pray
for
vs
,
we
may
lawfull
craue
their
prayers
,
as
I
will
shew
more
amply
hereafter
:
so
that
I
shall
not
need
to
stand
longe
vpon
this
place
;
only
I
will
say
,
that
whereas
by
occasion
of
this
he
affirmeth
,
that
S.
Augustine
doth
teach
expressely
,
that
Saynts
are
not
to
be
inuocated
at
the
altar
,
though
they
are
named
there
,
I
shall
haue
better
opportunity
to
speake
fully
of
that
poynt
in
the
next
Chapter
;
and
in
the
meane
tyme
I
will
examine
his
answere
to
the
Fathers
of
the
third
rank
,
whome
he
granteth
to
be
true
Fathers
,
and
truly
cyted
,
but
nihil
ad
rem
,
nothing
to
the
purpose
.
And
this
shall
be
the
subiect
of
the
next
Chapter
,
because
so
many
things
occur
to
be
debated
,
that
they
cannot
be
discussed
in
a
few
words
.
THE
ANSWERS
OF
Mr.
ANDREWS
TO
THE
FATHERS
OF
THE
THIRD
RANKE
,
are
examined
,
and
found
to
be
eyther
impertinent
,
fraudulent
,
or
most
iniurious
to
them
;
namely
to
S●
Ambrose
,
whome
he
egregiously
abuseth
.
ALSO
It
is
euidently
shewed
,
that
the
Inuocation
of
Saynts
was
generally
practised
and
approued
,
as
well
by
the
ancient
Fathers
,
as
by
all
other
faithfull
Christians
,
in
the
Primitiue
Church
.
CHAP.
VII
.
TO
the
third
rank
of
Fathers
M.
Andrews
reduceth
those
whome
the
Cardinall
affirmeth
to
haue
expressely
inuocated
Saynts
.
S
Greg.
Nissen
orat
in
S.
Theodor.
Card.
Apol.
p.
13.
As
for
example
,
S.
Gregory
Nyssen
Brother
to
S.
Basil
praying
to
Saynt
Theodorus
the
Marter
,
sayth
thus
:
Intercede
ac
deprecare
&c.
Pray
,
and
make
intercession
for
vs
to
our
common
King
,
and
Lord
,
to
obtayne
vs
grace
&c.
And
a
little
after
:
If
there
be
need
of
greater
prayer
,
or
to
call
vpon
the
other
Martyrs
thy
brethren
,
assemble
the
whole
company
,
and
pray
togeather
with
them
all
,
admonish
Peter
,
stirre
vp
Paul
,
and
Iohn
the
Deuyne
,
and
beloued
Disciple
of
Christ
.
Thus
saith
this
ancient
Father
.
Andr.
p.
42.
§.
Venio
&
seq
.
2.
Whereto
,
as
also
to
all
other
places
of
lyke
quality
,
and
namely
to
three
alledged
by
the
Cardinall
out
of
S.
Gregory
Nazianzen
,
S.
Hierome
,
and
S.
Maximus
,
M.
Andrews
answereth
in
substance
,
Ambros.
in
Luc.
10.
cap.
12.
Euseb.
in
vita
Constant
.
Nazian.
orat
.
in
pascha
.
that
they
are
but
figuratiue
,
and
Rhetoricall
speaches
,
after
the
manner
of
Orators
,
who
in
panegyricall
and
funerall
Orations
do
commonly
vse
the
figures
prosopopaeia
and
Apostrophe
,
whereby
they
speake
not
only
to
dead
men
,
as
though
they
were
liuing
,
but
also
to
senselesse
things
,
as
Ambrose
doth
to
the
water
of
Baptisme
,
Eusebius
to
Piety
,
M.
Andrews
would
make
the
ancient
Fathers
better
Orators
than
Christian●
Nazianzen
to
the
Feast
of
Easter
.
And
for
the
confirmation
of
this
,
he
addeth
that
the
Fathers
themselues
,
when
they
spake
to
Saynts
in
that
manner
do
not
suffer
themselues
to
be
otherwyse
vnderstood
,
seeing
they
confesse
diuers
tymes
that
they
know
not
whether
those
to
whome
they
speake
,
do
heare
them
,
or
no
;
for
so
,
sayth
he
,
doth
Nazianzen
in
an
Apostrophe
to
the
soule
of
Constantius
the
Emperour
,
and
in
the
funerall
Oration
of
his
sister
Gorgonia
;
as
also
Gregory
Nissen
in
his
Oration
vpon
Theodorus
the
Martyr
;
and
Hierome
in
his
Epitaph
vpon
Nepotianus
.
Whereupon
he
concludeth
,
that
when
the
Fathers
do
inuocate
Saynts
by
name
in
their
panegyricall
,
and
funerall
Orations
,
Homilyes
,
or
Sermons
,
they
do
it
not
as
Christians
,
and
Deuines
,
but
as
Orators
and
Rhetoritians
;
to
wit
,
as
the
pagan
Orator
did
,
when
he
said
,
Marce
Druse
te
appello
,
I
call
vpon
thee
Marcus
Drusus
:
or
as
the
Poet
sayd
,
Audis
haec
Amp●iar●e
sub
terram
abdite
?
dost
thou
heare
these
things
,
O
Amphiaraus
,
being
hid
vnder
the
earth
?
3.
And
to
this
effect
he
maketh
a
larger
discourse
then
he
is
commonly
wont
to
doe
,
imploying
therein
all
the
art
he
hath
,
because
he
seeth
it
to
be
very
needfull
to
dazell
the
eyes
of
the
Reader
with
the
splendour
of
a
Rhetoricall
answere
:
but
truly
he
had
need
of
more
Rhetorik
then
euer
had
Cicero
,
or
Demosthenes
to
perswade
a
learned
,
and
discreet
Reader
,
that
the
Fathers
do
inuocate
Saynts
rather
as
Orators
,
then
as
Christians
,
rather
in
shew
then
in
deed
,
and
by
Rhetorical
figures
,
rather
then
with
religious
deuotion
.
And
therefore
whereas
the
confirmation
,
and
proofe
of
this
his
conceipt
,
consisteth
specially
in
that
he
sayth
the
Fathers
themselues
do
seeme
now
and
then
to
doubt
,
whether
those
whome
they
inuocate
in
that
manner
do
heare
them
,
I
must
admonish
him
of
foure
things
,
for
the
full
answere
of
his
obiection
.
4.
First
that
he
make
a
difference
betwixt
the
soules
of
dead
men
in
generall
,
M.
Andrews
ad●uertised
of
4.
things
.
and
of
such
as
are
known
Saynts
,
and
honored
by
Almighty
God
with
publyke
miracles
:
for
albeit
the
Fathers
in
the
funerall
Orations
of
some
lately
dead
,
might
seeme
with
great
reason
to
doubt
whether
they
heard
them
,
or
no
(
knowing
right
well
that
the
dead
,
Matth.
5.
yea
though
they
were
good
men
are
not
receiued
into
glory
vntill
they
haue
as
our
Sauiour
speaketh
,
payd
the
last
farthing
of
the
debts
contracted
in
this
lyfe
)
yet
they
made
no
such
doubt
concerning
the
Saynts
whose
feasts
were
publikly
celebrated
in
the
Church
,
as
were
the
feasts
of
S.
Theodorus
the
Martyr
,
S.
Cyprian
,
and
S.
Agnes
,
of
whome
,
the
first
was
in●ocated
by
S.
Gregory
Nissen
,
the
second
by
S.
Gregory
Nazianzen
,
and
the
third
by
S.
Maximus
in
their
festiuall
dayes
,
celebrated
with
great
solemnity
,
as
it
appeareth
in
the
Orations
,
and
Homilyes
of
the
sayd
Fathers
cyted
by
the
Cardinall
.
5.
Secondly
,
he
is
to
vnderstand
that
such
conditionall
speaches
,
as
he
obiected
out
of
S.
Gregory
Nazianzen
in
his
Apostrophe
to
the
soule
of
Constantius
the
Emperour
to
wit
,
Conditionall
speaches
do
not
alwayes
suppose
a
doubt
in
the
speaker
.
si
quis
tibi
istorum
sensus
sit
,
if
thou
haue
any
feeling
,
or
vnderstanding
of
these
things
)
and
agayne
to
his
sister
Gorgonia
(
si
fanctae
animae
haec
talia
prefe●tiscant
,
if
holy
soules
do
vnderstand
things
of
this
quality
)
these
,
I
say
,
&
such
lyke
do
not
alwayes
signify
a
doubt
in
him
that
vseth
them
,
but
rather
sometymes
an
affirmation
,
or
assurance
of
that
which
he
may
seeme
to
doubt
of
,
being
vsed
rather
by
the
way
of
obsecration
,
than
otherwyse
.
As
for
example
,
if
a
man
should
say
to
some
great
fauorite
of
a
Prince
,
If
you
haue
any
credit
with
your
Mayster
,
procure
me
this
fauour
.
Or
if
one
deare
friend
should
say
to
another
,
If
you
loue
me
,
do
this
for
me
;
these
manners
of
speach
do
signify
nothing
els
in
effect
,
but
because
it
is
certayne
,
that
you
haue
so
great
credit
with
your
maister
,
that
you
may
obtaine
of
him
what
you
will
procure
me
this
grace
at
his
hands
:
or
because
I
am
sure
you
loue
me
,
therefore
let
it
appeare
in
doing
this
for
me
;
Ep.
〈◊〉
hilem●
as
the
Apostle
S.
Paul
vsed
the
like
speach
to
Philemon
,
when
he
requested
him
to
receiue
againe
Onesimus
his
slaue
who
was
run
away
from
him
:
Si
me
,
sayth
he
●otium
habes
&c.
If
thou
take
me
for
thy
fellow
,
receiue
●im
as
my selfe
,
as
if
he
should
haue
said
,
because
I
am
well
assured
that
thou
takest
me
for
thy
〈◊〉
Christ
,
●herfore
receiue
him
as
my selfe
;
and
that
the
Apostles
meaning
was
no
other
then
this
,
it
is
euident
by
that
which
followeth
,
when
he
sayth
;
Confidens
in
obedientia
tuae
&c.
trusting
in
thy
obedince
,
Ibid.
I
haue
written
vnto
thee
,
knowing
that
thou
wilt
doe
aboue
that
which
I
say
.
Therefore
M.
Andrewes
must
not
make
such
a
generall
rule
of
such
condicionall
speaches
as
he
doth
,
but
rather
vnderstand
,
that
when
the
Fathers
do
vse
any
such
concerning
glorified
soules
,
and
knowne
Saynts
,
they
vse
them
no
otherwyse
then
as
affirmations
,
or
rather
earnest
obsecrations
,
M.
Andrews
maketh
the
ancient
Fathers
very
vnchristian
and
wicked
Oratours
.
as
if
they
should
say
,
because
I
am
sure
thou
knowest
what
is
done
heere
on
earth
,
therefore
help
,
and
assist
those
which
recommend
themselues
vnto
thy
prayers
.
6.
Thirdly
,
I
wish
M.
Andrews
well
to
consider
how
absurdly
he
maketh
the
Fathers
(
I
will
not
say
rather
Orators
then
Christians
,
as
he
himselfe
termeth
them
,
but
)
very
vnchristian
,
and
most
wicked
Orators
,
if
it
be
true
which
he
,
and
his
fellowes
teach
concerning
the
Inuocation
of
Saynts
.
Melanch
.
in
antith
.
Verae
doctri
.
&
Pontif.
Magdeb.
cent
.
1.
l.
2.
c.
4.
colum.
340.
Brent
in
Apol.
Confes.
Wittemb
.
Beza
.
in
Respons.
ad
Nicolaum
Seluec
.
Andr.
cap.
8.
p.
150.
liu.
45.
For
who
knoweth
not
,
that
all
the
sectaryes
of
this
tyme
do
hold
the
same
to
be
iniurious
to
Christ
(
yea
and
diuers
of
them
affirme
it
to
be
blasphemous
,
and
Idolatricall
;
for
so
teach
Melanchthon
,
the
Magdeburgenses
,
Brentius
,
Bezae
,
and
diuers
others
of
them
)
and
M.
Andrewes
himselfe
sayth
,
that
when
we
inuocate
Saynts
,
we
giue
them
the
place
of
Christ
,
and
make
other
mediators
besids
him
,
wherein
he
signifieth
euidently
,
that
we
do
iniury
to
Christ
.
And
if
this
be
true
,
what
a
wicked
,
and
impious
Rhetorik
was
this
of
the
fathers
not
only
to
inuocate
Saynts
themselues
,
but
also
to
induce
others
vnto
it
by
their
example
?
7.
For
although
there
is
no
doubt
,
but
that
in
their
writings
,
&
specially
in
their
panegyricall
&
funerall
Orations
they
vsed
all
ornaments
of
Rhetorike
fit
for
the
subiects
wherof
they
treated
(
in
matters
wherein
there
was
no
longer
of
scandall
,
or
errour
)
yet
it
were
absurd
to
think
that
they
would
vse
them
in
such
sort
that
their
audience
might
be
scandalized
,
and
drawne
into
errour
thereby
,
or
that
they
would
themselues
,
so
much
as
in
shew
and
apparence
,
violate
the
least
poynt
of
Christian
doctrine
,
or
seeme
to
do
iniury
to
Christ
;
or
finally
that
they
sought
rather
to
be
eloquent
then
religious
:
and
therefore
M.
Andrews
must
eyther
acknowledge
the
Inuocation
of
Saynts
to
be
lawfull
,
or
els
confesse
that
he
hath
a
most
profane
,
and
irreligious
conceipt
of
the
ancient
Fathers
,
in
affirming
,
as
he
doth
,
that
they
vsed
the
same
,
not
as
Deuynes
,
but
as
Rhetoritians
,
and
not
as
Christians
,
but
as
Orators
.
8.
Lastly
to
put
this
matter
out
of
all
doubt
,
and
to
discouer
the
impertinent
vanity
of
M.
Andrews
in
this
poynt
,
let
vs
consider
the
circumstances
of
one
of
the
places
now
heere
in
question
betwixt
the
Cardinall
,
S.
Greg.
Nyssen
.
orat
.
in
Theodor.
Mart.
and
him
,
I
meane
the
same
place
of
S.
Gregory
Nissen
,
which
I
haue
layd
downe
before
,
taken
out
of
his
oration
made
in
the
solemnity
of
the
feast
of
S.
Theodorus
the
Martyr
,
wherein
S.
Gregory
hauing
first
touched
the
great
celebrity
of
the
feast
by
the
confluence
of
all
sorts
of
people
,
farre
and
neere
,
moueth
them
to
consider
thereby
how
God
rewardeth
the
iust
man
,
not
only
in
earth
and
thereby
also
incyteth
them
further
to
aspyre
to
the
lyke
rewards
,
by
the
imitation
of
the
vertues
of
those
whome
God
so
honoureth
;
and
to
this
end
he
discourseth
amply
of
the
great
honour
that
was
euery
where
exhibited
to
the
reliques
of
martyrs
,
and
particulerly
of
that
holy
Martyr
in
that
place
,
and
feast
,
elegantly
declaring
the
magnificence
of
the
Church
where
his
feast
was
celebrated
adorned
with
excellent
workemanship
of
all
sorts●
and
namely
with
pictures
,
Pictures
of
Martyrs
vsed
in
Churches
,
and
highly
approued
by
S.
Gregory
Nyssen
.
liuely
expressing
the
particularityes
of
his
Martyrdome
,
wherein
,
by
the
way
,
we
may
note
the
vse
of
the
pictures
of
Saynts
in
Churches
in
those
dayes
,
yea
and
that
they
were
held
to
be
very
profitable
for
the
instruction
of
the
people
,
seeing
that
S.
Gregory
Nissen
sayth
also
vpon
this
occasion
:
The
great
deuotion
of
Chrians
in
the
reuereut
touching
of
holy
reliques
,
approued
by
S
Gregory
Nyssen
.
Solet
enim
pictura
tacens
in
pariete
loqui
,
maximeque
prodesse
:
for
the
picture
which
is
sylent
vpon
the
wall
is
wont
to
speak
,
and
to
profit
exceedingly
.
So
he●
giuing
to
vnderstand
,
that
the
sight
of
the
picture
,
or
paynted
history
did
greatly
edify
the
people
,
and
styre
them
vp
to
the
imitation
of
the
Saynts
vertues
,
and
holy
lyfe
.
But
to
proceed
.
9.
After
this
the
same
Father
relateth
the
feruent
deuotion
of
the
people
,
greatly
desiring
to
approach
to
the
tombe
of
the
Martyr
;
Credens
,
sayth
he
,
contrectationem
eius
esse
sanctificationem
,
&
benedictionem
,
belieuing
that
the
very
touching
of
it
would
be
a
sanctification
&
benediction
;
yea
seeking
to
get
but
some
of
the
dust
about
the
tombe
,
esteeming
the
same
as
a
thing
of
great
pryce
;
and
if
they
could
haue
the
good
fortune
to
touch
the
reliques
themselues
,
he
appealeth
to
their
owne
experience
and
knowledge
,
The
Inuocation
of
holy
Martyrs
expresly
mentioned
and
allowed
by
S
Gregory
Nyssen
.
how
prosperous
,
and
happy
they
would
thinke
themselues
,
and
how
they
would
imbrace
the
sayd
reliques
,
kisse
them
,
and
apply
them
to
their
eyes
,
eares
,
and
all
the
instruments
of
their
senses●
Deinde
saith
he
,
deuotionis
&
affectonis
lachrimas
Martyri
&c.
And
then
powring
forth
teares
of
deuotion
and
affection
to
the
Martyr
,
as
though
he
were
there
whole
,
and
aliue
,
they
exhibite
their
humble
petition
vnto
him
,
as
to
the
seruant
of
God
,
and
as
one
that
being
inuocated
(
for
so
signifieth
the
Greeke
[
](A00916-e71540-b)(d)
(d)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
word
)
receiueth
what
gifts
soeuer
he
will
.
Thus
saith
this
ancient
,
and
holy
Father
,
and
then
concludeth
:
ex
hijs
omnibus
,
ô
popule
pie
,
discite
&c.
O
pious
,
or
godly
people
learne
by
all
this
,
that
the
death
of
Gods
Saynts
,
is
honourable
,
and
precious
in
his
sight
.
10.
All
this
I
haue
thought
good
to
lay
downe
at
large
,
first
to
confirme
all
that
which
hath
hitherto
byn
treated
concerning
the
custome
of
the
Church
at
that
tyme
,
not
only
in
the
veneration
of
holy
reliques
,
but
also
in
the
expresse
Inuocation
of
Saynts●
secondly
that
this
holy
Father
making
all
this
discourse
in
the
solemnity
of
that
Martyrs
feast
,
to
styrre
vp
the
people
as
well
to
deuotion
towards
God
,
and
the
Martyr
,
as
to
the
imitation
of
the
Martyrs
vertues
(
for
so
he
himselfe
professeth
)
did
highly
approue
all
that
which
he
hath
heere
related
,
and
consequently
when
afterwards
in
the
conclusion
of
the
Oration
he
himselfe
inuocated
the
Martyr
,
he
did
it
of
pure
deuotion
and
not
of
vayne
ostentation
of
his
eloquence
,
not
as
a
flanting
Rhetorician
,
or
Oratour
,
but
as
a
religious
Deuine
,
and
deuout
Christan
,
a
pious
Pastour
,
and
teacher
of
his
flock
,
to
whome
he
preached
,
for
whome
he
prayed
,
S.
Greg.
Nyssen
.
vbi
supra
.
and
whome
he
sought
to
moue
by
his
owne
example
,
to
concurre
with
him
in
the
Inuocation
of
the
Martyr
.
11.
Wherein
also
M.
Andrews
may
if
it
please
him
note
the
word
Inuocation
vsed
by
this
Father
for
prayer
to
the
Martyr
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
of
whome
he
sayth
,
that
the
people
prayed
vnto
him
,
and
called
vpon
him
as
the
Mynister
of
God
,
and
as
one
that
receiued
(
or
obtayned
of
God
)
what
gifts
he
would
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
that
is
say
,
being
inuocated
;
for
I
thinke
M.
Andrewes
will
not
deny
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
Greeke
doth
properly
signify
inuocare
in
Latin
,
and
in
English
to
inuocate
.
And
therefore
because
he
is
so
curious
to
runne
to
the
Greeke
in
all
occasions
to
examin
our
cytations
of
the
Greeke
Fathers
,
I
remit
him
heere
to
the
Greeke
;
for
that
I
haue
byn
in
this
no
lesse
(
if
not
more
)
curious
then
he
,
M
Andrews
remitted
to
the
Greek
text
,
wherto
he
ordinarily
appealeth
.
hauing
searched
the
old
manuscripts
of
the
Vatican
,
where
I
haue
seene
two
written
copyes
of
S.
Gregory
Nyssen
,
both
of
them
very
ancient
,
and
in
them
both
haue
found
the
Greeke
words
,
as
heere
I
haue
layd
them
downe
in
the
margent
,
with
all
the
rest
,
very
conforme
to
the
Latin
translation
;
and
therefore
I
hope
he
can
take
no
iust
exceptions
thereto
.
12.
And
how
then
do
you
thinke
he
will
seeke
to
elude
this
euident
testimony
of
this
ancient
Father
?
Marry
(
forsooth
)
because
he
findeth
,
A
shifting
euasion
of
M.
Andrews
refuted
.
that
he
sayth
to
the
Martyr
,
vbicumque
tamdem
fueris
,
wheresoeuer
thou
art
,
he
inferreth
thereupon
,
that
the
Father
calleth
vpon
him
doubtfully
,
and
that
fluctuant
hic
omnia
,
fides
nulla
de
hijs
,
securum
nihil
;
all
things
are
heere
vncertayne
,
no
faith
or
beliefe
is
to
be
had
of
these
things
,
Andr.
pag
44.
lin.
12.
nothing
at
all
secure
.
So
he
.
And
shall
then
all
this
serious
discourse
of
this
holy
Father
,
directed
especially
to
the
glory
of
God
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
and
the
hono●r
of
his
Martyr
,
in
the
solemnity
of
his
feast
,
in
a
publike
assembly
of
the
people
,
and
for
their
instruction
and
edification
(
wherin
he
testifyed
,
and
highly
commended
their
deuotion
to
the
Martyr
,
the
honour
they
did
vnto
him
,
yea
to
his
very
reliques
,
and
their
expresse
Inuocation
,
of
him
,
with
teares
of
deuotion
,
and
affection
,
for
so
saith
the
Greeke
:
)
shall
all
this
,
I
say
,
be
vncertayne
,
voyde
of
faith
,
and
beliefe
,
voyde
of
security
,
only
because
M.
Andrewes
hath
found
therein
,
vbicumque
fueris
?
Can
any
man
imagin
that
S.
Gregory
Nyssen
would
publikely
bely
the
people
,
euen
to
their
faces
,
or
yet
approue
their
deuotion
to
the
Martyr
,
and
their
inuocation
of
him
,
if
he
did
not
belieue
it
to
be
acceptable
to
God
,
and
no
way
repugnant
to
the
Catholike
faith
?
13.
And
agayne
on
the
other
side
,
if
all
that
he
sayd
was
true
and
highly
approued
by
him
(
as
it
is
euident
it
was
)
can
we
desire
a
more
cleare
testimony
of
the
beliefe
of
this
holy
Father
,
and
the
Church
in
his
tyme
concerning
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
?
And
what
then
if
he
should
haue
doubted
where
the
soule
of
the
Martyr
was
(
acknowledging
neuertheles
that
wheresoeuer
he
were
,
he
was
highly
in
Gods
fauour
)
would
it
follow
thereon
,
that
all
his
former
discourse
was
eyther
false
,
or
impertinent
?
Or
that
he
doubted
whether
the
Martyr
could
heare
,
M.
Andrews
his
doubt
retorted
vpon
him selfe
.
or
help
them
that
did
inuocate
him
?
Nay
might
not
M.
Andrewes
rather
gather
directly
thereof
,
that
S.
Gregory
Nissen
,
and
the
people
belieued
that
the
Martyr
heard
their
prayers
,
saw
their
deuotion
,
and
vnderstood
their
actions
,
yea
could
,
and
would
help
them
wheresoeuer
he
were
,
seeing
that
they
craued
his
help
,
not
knowing
where
he
was
?
Of
this
truly
there
can
be
no
doubt
.
14.
But
for
M.
Andrewes
his
better
satisfaction
in
this
poynt
,
Ioan.
14.
I
must
needs
desire
him
to
call
to
mynd
what
our
Sauiour
himselfe
teacheth
concerning
the
many
mansions
in
his
Fathers
house
,
What
S.
Gregory
Nyssen
meant
when
he
sayd
to
S.
Theodore
Wheresoeuer
thou
art
.
signifying
thereby
that
as
there
be
many
mansions
,
so
also
there
are
different
degrees
of
glory
which
God
imparteth
to
his
Saynts
;
whereby
M.
Andrews
may
also
vnderstand
(
if
it
please
him
)
that
S.
Gregory
Nissen
alluding
thereto
,
had
reason
to
speake
doubtfully
of
the
mansion
,
or
place
where
the
Martyr
was
,
and
degree
of
glory
,
wherewith
God
had
blessed
him
,
because
no
mortall
man
can
know
it
without
speciall
reuelation
,
neyther
yet
is
it
knowne
to
vs
in
what
sort
the
glorified
soules
are
imploied
in
the
seruice
,
Nyssen
.
vbi
supra
.
and
prayse
of
God
in
those
heauenly
mansions
;
in
which
respect
the
Father
spake
also
doubtfully
thereof
,
beseeching
the
Martyr
that
wheresoeuer
he
was
,
or
howsoeuer
he
was
imployed
in
Gods
seruice
,
he
would
vouchsafe
(
as
an
inuisible
friend
)
to
come
to
visit
the
assembly
of
those
that
honoured
him
,
and
to
prayse
and
thank
God
,
togeather
with
them
,
euen
for
the
rewards
that
God
had
bestowed
vpon
him
,
for
shedding
his
bloud
in
the
confession
of
his
faith
.
15.
This
then
beeing
so
,
I
leaue
it
to
thee
,
good
Reader
,
M.
Andrews
a
wrangler
in
the
highest
degree
.
to
iudge
whether
M.
Andrews
be
not
a
true
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
a
Wrangler
in
the
highest
degree
,
seeing
that
he
not
only
dissembleth
the
whole
drift
,
and
scope
of
this
ancient
Father
,
and
all
the
substance
of
his
discourse
;
but
also
impugneth
the
same
with
some
of
the
Fathers
owne
words
,
or
his
manner
of
speach
,
ill
vnderstood
,
and
wrested
from
the
Fathers
meaning●
besides
that
,
it
also
appeareth
,
what
a
friuolous
and
vayne
euasion
he
hath
sought
heere
to
auoyd
the
force
of
diuers
pregnant
,
and
vnswerable
places
alledged
by
the
Cardinall
,
I
meane
not
only
this
of
S.
Gregory
Nissen
,
but
also
the
others
before
mentioned
,
to
wit
,
of
S.
Gregory
Nazianzen
,
S.
Hierome
,
and
S.
Maximus
,
inuocating
expressely
S.
Cyprian
,
the
holy
widdow
Paula
,
and
S.
Agnes
:
all
which
,
as
also
all
other
places
to
the
same
purpose
he
laboureth
to
frustrate
(
as
you
haue
heard
)
with
a
deuise
of
an
Apostrophe
,
and
a
proso●opaeia
;
whereas
no
man
can
doubt
,
but
that
those
Fathers
did
therein
exercise
acts
of
pure
deuotion
(
as
you
see
S.
Gregory
Nyssen
did
)
according
to
the
beliefe
,
and
practice
of
the
whole
Church
at
that
tyme
;
which
is
euident
by
the
testimonyes
that
you
haue
heard
already
,
and
wil
be
much
more
manifest
by
those
that
yet
rest
to
be
examined
.
And
this
shall
suffice
for
this
poynt
.
16.
The
next
place
that
he
taketh
in
hand
to
answere
,
is
one
of
S.
Ambrose
in
these
words
:
Ambros●
l.
de
viduis
.
Card.
in
Apol.
p.
15.
Obsecrandi
sunt
Angeli
&c.
The
Angels
which
are
giuen
vs
for
Guardians
,
and
defenders
are
to
be
prayed
vnto
;
and
the
Martyrs
in
lyke
manner
,
whose
protection
we
seeme
to
challenge
,
by
hauing
their
bodyes
in
pledge
,
they
may
pray
for
our
sinnes
,
S.
Ambrose
shamefully
calumniated
by
M.
Andrews
.
who
with
their
owne
bloud
haue
washed
away
their
owne
sinnes
,
if
they
had
any
.
〈◊〉
saith
S.
Ambrose
.
Whereto
M.
Andrewes
answereth
,
that
the
Cardinall
might
very
well
haue
forborne
to
produce
this
place
,
and
not
haue
cyted
it
so
greedily
,
as
he
hath
donne
,
but
that
,
he
litle
careth
(
saith
he
)
as
it
seemeth
,
that
the
bloud
of
Christ
should
be
held
for
superfluous
,
Andr.
p.
45.
§.
Pot●rat
.
rather
then
he
would
not
pray
to
Saynts
;
for
,
superfluus
certè
sanguis
Christi
&c.
truly
the
bloud
of
Christ
is
superfluous
,
if
Martyrs
can
wash
away
their
sinnes
with
their
owne
bloud
.
So
he
.
17.
Wherevpon
he
also
inferreth
,
that
the
Reader
may
preceiue
heereby
,
that
Ambrose
wrote
this
when
he
was
but
a
Nouice
in
Chistian
religion
,
and
that
it
is
no
meruaile
,
if
he
sayd
,
that
Martyrs
are
to
be
prayed
vnto
,
seeing
he
teacheth●
that
they
haue
washt
their
sinnes
with
their
owne
bloud
.
Wherein
appeareth
the
modesty
of
M.
Andrews
,
and
his
good
spirit
,
who
rather
then
he
will
acknowledge
his
owne
errour
(
which
is
euidently
conuinced
by
this
place
)
chargeth
this
holy
Father
with
the
most
execrable
,
and
blasphemous
doctrine
that
can
be
imagined
,
as
to
teach
that
the
bloud
of
Christ
is
superfluous
;
which
any
Christian
hart
would
abbore
to
heare
,
and
much
more
to
hold
,
and
teach
;
seeing
that
it
must
needs
follow
thereupon
,
that
all
Christian
religion
,
and
beliefe
is
in
vayne
being
all
grounded
vpon
the
merits
of
Christs
Passion
,
and
his
precious
bloud
shed
for
vs
.
S.
Ambrose
cleared
from
M.
Andrews
his
slaunderous
imputation
by
the
vniforme
doctrine
of
holy
Scriptures
and
Fathers
.
18.
And
truly
if
S.
Ambrose
may
be
charged
with
this
blasphemous
opinion
,
for
the
cause
which
M.
Andrewes
alledgeth
,
then
all
the
Fathers
of
Gods
Church
yea
the
Apostles
themselues
may
in
lyke
manner
be
charged
therewith
.
For
all
of
them
say
as
much
in
effect
,
as
S.
Ambrose
doth
,
which
also
may
by
some
peruerse
and
hereticall
●rayne
be
wrested
to
the
same
peruerse
sense
,
albeit
to
those
who
do
consider
the
grounds
of
their
doctrine
,
and
beliefe
,
the
contrary
is
euident
.
For
who
knoweth
not
(
if
malice
do
not
blynd-fold
,
and
wholy
peruert
his
vnderstanding
)
that
when
in
the
holy
Scriptures
,
and
Fathers
,
any
merit
,
sufficiency
,
or
cooperation
to
saluation
is
attributed
to
a
man
,
or
to
his
fayth
,
works
,
or
any
endeauour
of
his
,
the
same
is
vnderstood
to
proceed
principally
from
the
merits
of
Christs
Passion
,
which
is
the
cause
,
ground
,
and
foundation
of
all
grace
,
goodnes
,
and
merit
in
man
;
and
therefore
is
alwayes
supposed
,
and
necessarily
vnderstood
in
all
such
manner
of
speach
,
as
this
of
S.
Ambrose
,
though
it
be
not
expressed
.
Nazian.
orat.
1.
in
.
Iulian.
19.
As
when
we
read
in
S.
Gregory
Nazianzen
that
certayne
Christian
souldiars
hauing
committed
Idolatry
,
exhorted
one
another
,
vt
Christo
satisfacerent
sanguine
suo
,
to
satisfy
Christ
with
their
bloud
:
and
in
S.
Cyprian
:
Cypr.
li.
4.
ep.
2.
omnia
peccata
passione
purgare
,
to
purge
all
sinnes
by
passion
,
or
suffering
.
And
agayne
in
another
place
,
Idem
li.
1●
ep.
3.
redimere
peccata
&c.
to
redeeme
sinnes
with
iust
sorrow
,
and
satisfaction
;
and
to
wassh
the
wounds
(
of
sinne
)
with
teares
.
li.
3.
ep.
14.
Also
in
the
same
Father
,
Deo
precibus
,
&
operibus
satisfaccre
,
to
satisfy
God
with
prayers
,
and
workes
:
in
ser.
de
opere
&
eleemos
.
and
,
sordes
eleemosynis
abluere
,
to
wash
away
the
filth
(
of
sinne
)
with
almes
.
And
in
Origen
,
Poenitendo
,
flendo
,
satisfaciendo
delere
quod
admissum
est
,
to
abolish
,
Origen
.
bo.
6.
in
exod
.
or
blot
out
that
which
hath
byn
committed
,
with
repentance
,
weeping
,
and
satisfaction
.
Also
in
Tertullian
,
Tertul.
li.
2.
de
poeniten
.
ca.
7.
Ibid.
ca.
6.
that
the
sinner
hath
cui
satisfaciat
,
to
whome
he
may
giue
satisfaction
,
and
that
God
doth
offer
vs
,
impunitatem
poenitentiae
compensatione
redimendam
,
impunity
,
or
remission
of
punishment
to
be
redeemed
with
the
recompence
of
pennance
.
20.
We
read
also
in
Irenaeus
,
that
our
goods
,
or
substance
being
giuen
to
the
poore
,
Iren.
li.
4.
c.
26.
in
sine
.
solutionem
faciunt
praeteritae
cupiditatis
,
do
cause
solution
(
or
remission
)
of
our
former
couetousnes
.
Also
in
S.
Augustine
,
that
for
daily
,
and
light
sinnes
,
quotidiana
oratio
fidelium
satisfacit
,
the
daily
prayer
of
the
faythfull
doth
satisfy
.
S.
Aug.
in
enchiridio
ca.
71.
S.
Hylar
.
in
psalm
.
118.
in
.
fine
.
And
in
S.
Hilary
,
that
Dauid
facti
veteris
crimen
lacrymis
abluit
,
Dauid
washt
away
the
fault
of
his
old
deed
with
teares
.
In
S.
Chrysostome
,
that
S.
Peter
adeo
abluit
negationem
&c.
did
so
wash
away
his
denyall
of
Christ
(
with
his
teares
,
or
repentance
)
that
he
was
made
the
chiefe
Apostle
.
And
agayne
in
the
same
Oration
;
S.
Chrys.
orat.
5.
aduers
.
Iud.
Vna
anima
quam
lucrati
fuerimus
&c.
One
soule
which
we
haue
gayned
,
may
abolish
the
wayght
of
innumerable
sinnes
,
animaeque
redimend●
fieri
precium
in
illo
die
,
and
become
a
price
to
redeeme
our
soule
in
the
day
of
iudgement
.
S.
Greg.
li.
6.
in
2.
Reg.
15●
ca.
2.
Finally
,
to
omit
innumerable
other
places
of
the
rest
of
the
Fathers
,
S.
Gregory
the
great
teacheth
,
that
peccata
delenda
sunt
austeritate
poenitentiae
,
sinnes
are
to
be
blotted
out
with
the
austerity
of
pennance
,
and
,
the
possunt
satisfactione
purgari
,
they
may
be
purged
with
satisfaction
.
Thus
say
these
holy
Fathers
.
21.
And
now
will
M.
Andrews
charge
them
all
to
teach
,
that
the
bloud
of
Christ
is
superfluous
,
because
they
speake
of
mens
satisfaction
for
sinne
(
by
washing
the
same
with
teares
,
and
by
purging
,
and
redeeming
them
with
almes
,
pennance
,
and
Martyrdome
)
without
mention
of
Christs
satisfaction
for
vs
?
May
he
not
take
the
lyke
exception
also
to
diuers
speaches
in
the
holy
Scripture
as
peccatum
tuum
eleemosynis
redime
;
Dan.
4.
redeeme
thy
sinne
with
almes
,
Prou.
16.
misericordia
,
&
veritate
redimitur
iniquitas
,
iniquity
is
redeemed
with
mercy
,
&
verity●
spesalui
facti
sumus
,
Rom.
8.
we
are
saued
by
hope
;
baptisma
vos
saluos
facit
,
baptisme
saueth
you
;
saluos
nos
fecit
per
lauachrum
regenerationis
,
Tit.
3.
he
hath
saued
vs
by
the
water
of
regeneration
;
Philip.
2.
operamini
salutem
,
work
your
saluation
,
and
the
lyke
in
diuers
other
places
:
may
he
not
,
I
say
,
cauill
as
well
agaynst
these
speaches
,
as
agaynst
the
other
in
S.
Ambrose
?
Yes
truly
.
The
reason
why
baptisme
,
pennance
,
good
works
,
Martyrdome
,
and
such
lyke
,
are
sayd
to
saue
vs
,
without
derogation
to
the
Passion
of
Christ
.
22.
For
the
reason
is
all
one
in
both
,
it
being
euident
,
that
the
merit
of
Christs
precious
blood
,
and
death
is
presupposed
,
and
necessarily
vnderstood
as
well
in
the
one
,
as
in
the
other
:
and
as
Baptisme
,
and
Hope
are
speciall
meanes
to
apply
vnto
vs
the
merits
of
Christs
passion
(
in
which
respect
they
are
sayd
in
the
Scripture
to
saue
vs
;
)
so
also
teares
of
repentance
,
pennance
,
almes
,
good
workes
,
and
Martyrdome
(
wherof
S.
Ambrose
speaketh
)
are
speciall
meanes
to
apply
vnto
vs
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
;
and
in
that
respect
the
Fathers
say
,
that
they
satisfy
for
vs
,
wash
away
,
blot
out
,
and
purge
our
sinnes
,
to
wit
,
as
secondary
causes
that
haue
their
operation
by
the
vertue
,
and
force
of
the
first
cause
(
which
is
the
merits
of
our
Sauiours
passion
:
)
and
therefore
if
a
man
should
say
,
that
a
Phisitian
had
saued
his
lyfe
,
he
could
not
with
reason
be
thought
to
derogate
any
thing
eyther
from
the
operation
of
the
medicine
,
or
from
the
prouidence
,
or
power
of
God
,
who
gaue
force
to
the
medicine
,
and
good
successe
to
the
Phisitian
;
as
neyther
he
that
should
say
the
medicine
saued
his
life
,
could
be
thought
to
do
iniury
eyther
to
God
,
or
to
the
Phisitian
.
23.
For
whereas
many
causes
do
commonly
concurre
to
one
effect
,
M.
Andrews
shewed
to
b●
eyther
very
ignorant
,
or
exceeding
malicious
.
euery
cause
may
well
be
sayd
to
work
the
effect
,
without
denyall
of
the
concurrence
of
other
causes
,
and
especially
of
the
first
cause
,
by
vertue
whereof
all
the
rest
haue
their
opperation
.
So
that
M.
Andrews
sheweth
himselfe
eyther
very
ignorant
,
or
totoo
malicious
,
in
saying
,
that
S.
Ambrose
maketh
the
bloud
of
Christ
superfluous
,
because
he
sayth
,
that
the
Martyrs
wash
away
their
sinnes
with
their
owne
bloud
,
as
though
he
denyed
the
vertue
of
Christs
passion
by
ascribing
remission
of
sinne
to
Martyrdome
,
which
is
an
inferiour
,
and
secondary
cause
thereof
,
as
being
an
immediate
meanes
to
apply
the
force
and
fruit
of
Christs
passion
vnto
vs
;
and
therefore
whereas
he
sayth
,
it
is
no
meruaile
that
S.
Ambrose
who
so
sayd
,
did
not
also
stick
to
say
,
that
we
may
pray
to
Saynts
;
it
is
indeed
no
meruaile
at
all
,
seeing
that
his
speach
is
in
both
most
conforme
to
reason
,
Scriptures
,
Fathers
,
and
to
the
doctrine
of
the
whole
Church
.
But
truly
the
wonder
is
,
that
any
modest
Christian
,
and
especially
one
that
pretends
to
be
a
Prelate
in
Gods
Church
,
should
be
so
temerarious
,
and
audacious
,
as
to
lay
so
foule
an
imputation
as
he
doth
here
,
vpon
one
of
the
most
holy
,
and
famous
Fathers
of
Gods
Church
,
for
speaking
only
in
such
sort
,
as
all
other
Fathers
speake
,
yea
the
Scriptures
themselues
,
as
I
haue
already
shewed
.
24.
Yea
but
S.
Ambrose
changed
his
mynd
(
sayth
M.
Andrewes
)
in
the
later
poynt
(
to
wit
concerning
prayer
to
Saynts
)
for
Ambrosio
,
Andr.
p.
45.
§
Poterat
.
sayth
he
,
alibi
alia
mens
prouecto
iam
,
meliùs
edocto
:
Ambrose
was
elswhere
of
another
mynd
,
when
he
waxed
elder
,
and
was
better
learned
.
So
he
;
and
how
doth
he
proue
this
?
Marry
for
sooth
by
two
manyfest
testimonyes
of
his
,
as
he
saith
,
for
thus
he
goeth
forward
,
cuius
nota
sententia
ad
Deum
suffragatore
non
est
opus
,
S.
Ambros
.
in
cap.
1.
ad
Rom.
certe
nec
obsecratore
,
whose
knowne
opinion
,
or
sentence
is
,
there
is
no
need
of
a
suffragator
,
or
helper
to
God
,
nor
yet
of
a
beseecher
,
&
illa
:
Idem
oration
.
de
obitu
Theodos
.
tu
solus
Domine
inuocandus
es
;
and
that
other
,
thou
only
,
O
Lord
art
to
be
inuocated
.
Thus
sayth
he
,
alledging
,
as
you
see
,
two
places
out
of
S.
Ambrose
,
and
cyting
for
the
former
his
Commentary
vpon
the
Epistle
to
the
Romans
,
and
for
the
latter
,
his
funerall
Oration
vpon
Theodosius
the
Emperour
.
But
in
the
former
you
may
note
partly
his
euil
hap
,
and
partly
his
folly
;
M.
Andrews
vnfortunate
,
foolish
,
&
fraudulent
,
and
first
touching
his
euil
fortune
.
in
the
latter
his
fraud
,
and
falshood
.
His
euil
hap
is
manifest
in
the
former
,
because
,
to
shew
that
S.
Ambrose
recalled
his
doctrine
which
he
had
deliuered
in
an
vndoubted
worke
of
his
,
M.
Andrews
bringeth
a
testimony
calling
it
notam
sententiam
,
a
knowne
sentence
,
or
opinion
of
S.
Ambrose
,
albeit
he
take
it
out
of
a
worke
,
which
in
the
opinion
of
diuers
learned
men
was
not
written
by
S.
Ambrose
;
and
so
perhaps
M.
Andrews
himselfe
would
tell
vs
,
Coment
.
in
ca.
3.
ep.
●
.
ad
Tim.
if
we
should
obiect
against
him
out
of
that
Commentary
that
Pope
Damasus
was
head
,
or
gouernour
of
the
whole
Church
,
because
we
read
there
,
cuius
(
Ecclesiae
)
hodie
rector
est
Damasus
,
of
which
(
Church
)
Damasus
is
gouernour
at
this
day
.
25.
Neuertheles
I
say
not
this
because
I
meane
to
reiect
the
authority
of
that
Commentary
,
See
chap.
1.
nu.
7.
hauing
alledged
it
my selfe
before
against
M.
Andrewes
,
as
S.
Ambrose
his
worke
,
which
I
haue
done
partly
because
it
is
commonly
cyted
vnder
his
name
,
being
amongst
his
other
workes
,
and
no
other
Author
of
it
knowne
;
and
partly
because
M.
Andrews
himselfe
approueth
it
so
highly
,
as
you
see
in
this
place
,
and
therefore
I
made
account
that
howsoeuer
others
may
take
exception
to
it
,
and
to
my
allegation
of
it
,
yet
he
can
take
none
,
but
must
needs
admit
it
;
wherein
also
I
wish
this
difference
to
be
noted
betwixt
his
allegation
thereof
,
and
myne
,
that
I
did
not
wholy
rely
vpon
the
authority
of
it
,
but
fortifyed
it
with
a
most
pregnant
place
taken
out
of
a
knowne
,
and
assured
worke
of
S.
Ambrose
for
the
satisfaction
of
such
as
might
doubt
of
the
former
;
Ibidem
.
whereas
he
being
driuen
to
such
an
exigent
as
you
haue
seene
(
that
is
to
say
,
Posseuin
.
in
Appar
.
Maldonat
.
in
cap.
17.
Matt.
Bellar
.
de
amiss
.
gra.
lib.
4.
c.
9.
§.
Sed
facilis
.
flatly
to
deny
S.
Ambrose
his
cleare
doctrine
)
and
vndertaking
to
shew
that
he
recalled
it
afterwards
,
professeth
to
produce
an
vndoubted
and
knowne
testimony
of
S.
Ambrose
,
cyting
neuertheles
a
worke
which
diuers
learned
men
,
as
I
haue
said
,
do
hold
to
be
none
of
his
,
as
it
may
be
seene
in
Posseuinus
,
Maldonatus
,
Cardinall
Bellarmine
,
and
others
;
which
,
I
say
,
I
cannot
but
ascribe
to
some
euil
fortune
that
haunteth
M.
Andrews
,
and
forceth
him
to
ground
all
his
buildings
vpon
such
weake
,
and
vnsure
foundations
,
that
there
is
no
true
solidity
in
anything
he
sayth
,
or
produceth
out
of
others
.
26.
And
put
the
case
there
were
no
doubt
at
all
to
be
made
of
the
Author
of
that
Commentary
,
M
Andrews
his
folly
in
alledging
a
place
against
prayer
to
Saynts
,
which
doth
nothing
concerne
it
.
but
that
he
was
vndoubtedly
S.
Ambrose
,
yet
M.
Andrews
sheweth
himselfe
not
only
vnfortunate
,
but
also
most
foolish
,
and
ridiculous
,
in
that
the
place
which
he
alledgeth
out
of
it
,
against
prayer
to
Saynts
,
doth
not
concerne
it
at
all
,
nor
impugne
any
thing
els
,
but
Idolatry
to
the
Sunne
,
Moone
,
Planets
,
and
Starres
,
which
S.
Paul
reproued
in
the
Pagans
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Romans
,
by
the
occasion
whereof
the
Author
of
the
Commentary
sayth
that
those
Idolatrous
Paynims
of
whome
the
Apostle
speaketh
were
wont
to
excuse
their
Idolatry
,
Rom.
1.
by
saying
,
that
by
the
inferiour
Gods
,
men
did
come
to
the
highest
and
chiefe
God
,
Ambros.
in
cap.
1.
ad
Rom.
as
by
Counts
,
or
Earles
to
the
King
:
&
then
he
addeth
,
Numquid
it
a
demens
est
aliquis
&c.
Is
any
man
so
mad
,
or
so
vnmindfull
of
his
owne
good
,
that
he
giueth
the
Kings
honour
to
the
Count
?
For
if
any
be
found
that
do
but
only
treate
of
such
a
matter
,
they
are
worthily
condemned
as
Traytours
,
and
yet
these
(
Pagans
)
do
not
thinke
themselues
guilty
of
treason
,
when
they
giue
the
honour
of
the
name
of
God
to
his
creature
,
and
forsaking
their
Lord
,
do
adore
their
fellow-seruants
,
as
though
any
thing
more
can
be
reserued
to
God
.
For
men
do
therefore
go
to
the
King
by
his
Tribunes
,
or
Counts
,
because
the
King
is
but
a
man
,
and
knoweth
not
whome
he
may
trust
with
the
Common
wealth
:
Ad
Deum
autem
(
quem
vtique
nihil
latet
,
omnia
enim
merita
nouit
)
promerendum
,
suffragatore
non
est
opus
,
sed
mente
deuota
;
but
to
deserue
the
fauour
of
God
(
from
whome
nothing
is
hid
,
and
who
knoweth
all
mens
merits
)
there
is
no
need
of
a
suffragator
,
or
helper
,
but
of
a
deuout
mynd
.
Thus
saith
that
Author
in
that
place
,
be
he
S.
Ambrose
,
or
who
els
soeuer
.
27.
Wherein
it
is
to
be
obserued
,
What
the
authours
scope
and
drift
was
in
the
place
alledged
by
M.
Andrews
.
that
his
whole
scope
,
and
drift
is
to
confute
the
Idolatrous
Pagans
,
who
did
not
so
much
vse
the
help
,
and
mediation
of
creatures
to
come
to
God
(
which
no
man
can
deny
to
be
lawfull
,
so
that
it
be
done
in
due
manner
)
as
they
gaue
to
creatures
both
the
name
of
God
and
the
honour
due
to
him
,
calling
them
Gods
,
and
adoring
them
with
diuine
honour
,
that
is
to
say
,
with
sacrifice
which
is
a
worship
due
to
God
alone
;
and
this
they
did
because
they
were
of
opinion
that
the
chiefe
God
did
not
otherwise
know
mens
minds
,
or
actions
,
nor
could
otherwyse
gouerne
the
world
,
but
by
the
inferiour
Gods
,
as
kings
cannot
otherwyse
gouerne
their
realmes
,
but
by
their
officers
,
in
which
respect
the
author
sheweth
the
difference
betwixt
God
,
&
earthly
Kings
,
opposing
to
their
ignorance
Gods
knowledge
of
all
mens
harts
,
and
secret
thoughts
,
and
thereupon
concludeth
that
,
Ad
Deum
promerendum
suffragatore
opus
non
est
,
there
is
no
need
of
a
suffragator
to
deserue
the
fauour
of
God
,
sed
mente
deuota
,
but
of
a
deuout
mynd
:
giuing
to
vnderstand
,
that
God
,
to
whome
all
mens
mynds
and
harts
are
manyfest
,
knoweth
and
seeth
the
deuotion
and
merits
of
euery
man
,
though
no
man
intimate
,
or
relate
the
same
vnto
him
.
28.
Wherevpon
it
followeth
,
that
there
is
no
such
absolute
necessity
to
come
to
God
by
the
meanes
of
others
,
as
the
Paynims
imagined
,
seeing
that
any
man
may
(
according
to
the
doctrine
of
this
Author
)
come
to
him
immediatly
by
the
deuotion
of
his
owne
mynd
,
yea
&
by
his
merits
,
which
,
by
the
way
,
I
wish
M.
Andrews
to
obserue
in
this
place
,
where
the
author
signifieth
that
there
is
no
need
of
a
suffragator
ad
Deum
promerendum
,
to
merit
or
deserue
Gods
fauour
,
because
God
knoweth
omnia
merita
,
M.
Andrews
clippeth
the
Fathers
authorities
that
they
may
not
speake
against
him
all
merits
;
which
words
(
I
meane
promerendum
,
and
omnia
merita
)
M.
Andrews
thought
good
to
leaue
out
of
the
text
,
which
he
alledgeth
,
albeit
the
Authors
meaning
,
and
the
true
sense
of
the
place
cannot
be
well
vnderstood
without
them
,
especially
promerendum
,
which
is
essentiall
to
the
text
;
for
the
Author
saith
,
ad
Deum
promerendum
suffragatore
non
est
opus
.
So
as
you
see
,
how
M.
Andrewes
iugleth
in
the
citation
of
this
place
,
not
only
dissembling
the
circumstances
,
and
drift
of
the
Author
,
but
also
nipping
a
word
out
of
the
short
sentence
which
he
cyteth
.
29.
But
notwithstanding
all
his
iugling
,
it
is
euident
(
the
whole
place
being
considered
)
that
it
maketh
nothing
against
our
Prayer
to
Saynts
,
seeing
that
we
do
not
make
the
Saynts
Gods
,
as
the
Paynims
made
the
Sunne
,
&
Moone
,
to
whome
they
sacrificed
,
neyther
do
we
hold
,
as
the
Paynims
did
,
that
a
man
cannot
come
immediatly
to
God
by
prayer
,
and
deuotion
,
which
we
commonly
vse
to
do
,
directing
our
prayers
,
The
mediation
as
well
of
Christ
himselfe
,
as
of
Saynts
&
men
for
vs
,
is
ouerthrowne
by
the
place
alledged
by
M.
Andrews
if
he
vnderstand
it
aright
.
as
well
mentall
as
vocall
,
to
God
himselfe
,
although
we
do
also
many
tymes
craue
the
help
,
and
assistance
,
as
well
of
men
,
as
of
Saynts
,
as
a
thing
(
though
not
of
absolute
necessity
to
saluation
)
yet
very
conuenient
,
behoouefull
,
and
profitable
thereto
,
which
is
no
way
contradicted
by
this
place
.
30.
For
no
man
can
with
any
reason
imagine
that
the
author
of
that
Commentary
denyed
it
to
be
lawfull
,
profitable
,
or
needfull
to
haue
a
suffragatour
,
or
mediatour
to
pray
for
vs
,
for
so
should
he
haue
impugned
a
most
knowne
truth
,
which
M.
Andrews
neyther
will
,
nor
can
deny
(
I
meane
the
mediation
not
only
of
Saynts
for
vs
,
and
of
one
man
for
another
(
both
which
M.
Andrews
granteth
)
but
also
of
the
humanity
of
Christ
for
vs
all
)
for
if
we
haue
no
need
of
eyther
suffragatour
,
or
mediatour
to
God
,
but
only
of
a
deuout
mind
,
because
he
knoweth
our
harts
,
and
thoughts
;
it
followeth
that
when
we
doe
deuoutly
serue
God
our selues
,
we
need
not
the
prayer
eyther
of
other
men
,
or
of
Saynts
,
or
yet
of
Christ
himselfe
and
therefore
let
M.
Andrews
consider
,
whether
he
will
admit
this
inference
,
which
must
needs
be
good
,
if
he
will
inferre
any
thing
vpon
this
place
against
prayer
to
Saynts
.
31.
So
as
you
see
,
he
hath
very
impertinently
alledged
this
testimony
,
to
proue
that
S.
Ambrose
changed
his
mynd
concerning
Prayer
to
Saynts
,
for
neyther
is
the
Commentary
,
The
trick
of
heretiks
to
seeke
to
ouerthrow
plaine
places
by
obscure
.
which
he
cyteth
,
an
vndoubted
worke
of
S.
Ambrose
(
&
consequently
the
sentence
which
he
alledgeth
out
of
it
,
is
not
nota
sententia
,
a
knowne
sentence
of
that
holy
Father
,
as
he
tearmeth
it
:
)
neyther
is
it
any
thing
to
the
purpose
though
it
be
his
,
besides
that
we
may
note
heere
an
ordinary
trick
of
an
heretyke
,
which
is
,
to
seeke
to
ouerthrow
most
euident
and
playne
places
,
by
others
that
are
more
obscure
,
and
doubtfull
,
or
subiect
to
diuers
interpretations
,
for
so
doth
he
heere
,
opposing
this
obscure
,
and
difficult
place
,
to
a
testimony
which
is
so
cleare
,
that
he
is
forced
to
reiect
S.
Ambrose
,
and
make
him
no
better
then
a
blasphemous
heretike
for
his
doctrine
therein
,
and
yet
you
see
also
,
that
the
place
which
he
cyteth
,
being
vnderstood
secundum
subiectam
materiam
,
and
according
to
the
circumstances
thereof
,
maketh
nothing
at
all
for
him
,
or
against
vs
,
and
this
shall
suffice
for
the
former
of
the
two
places
,
and
his
euill
fortune
and
folly
in
the
allegation
thereof
.
32.
In
the
other
sentence
which
he
alledgeth
to
proue
,
that
S.
Ambrose
changed
his
mynd
touching
prayer
to
Saynts
,
he
sheweth
more
fraud
then
folly●
The
words
are
;
Another
place
of
S.
Ambr.
very
fraudulently
cited
by
M.
Andrews
and
ridiculously
applied
to
his
purpose
.
Tu
solus
Domine
inuocandus
es
.
Thou
only
,
o
Lord
,
art
to
be
inuocated
;
whereupon
he
would
inferre
,
that
no
Saynt
may
be
inuocated
,
that
is
to
say
prayed
vnto
;
but
to
omit
that
which
I
haue
sufficiently
treated
before
,
concerning
the
word
inuocation
(
whereon
he
so
much
relyeth
)
I
desire
thee
good
Reader
,
to
note
how
he
would
cozen
,
and
abuse
thee
in
the
allegation
of
this
place
.
Thou
shalt
therefore
vnderstand
,
that
S.
Ambrose
in
his
funerall
oration
vpon
the
death
of
the
Emperour
Theodosius
,
hauing
declared
his
great
vertues
,
See
Chap.
6
nu.
2.
&
3.
vseth
indeed
those
words
which
M.
Andrews
cyteth
,
but
whether
to
the
same
purpose
that
they
are
alledged
,
thou
thy selfe
shalt
be
iudge
.
Thus
then
he
sayth
:
S.
Ambr.
de
obitu
Theod.
Conteror
corde
&c.
I
am
much
afflicted
in
hart
,
because
a
man
is
taken
from
vs
,
whose
like
is
hardly
to
be
found
;
sed
tu
solus
Domine
inuocandus
es
,
tu
rogandus
vt
eum
in
filijs
repraesentes
;
but
thou
alone
,
o
Lord
,
art
to
be
inuocated
,
thou
to
be
prayed
,
that
thou
mayst
represent
him
in
his
Children
.
Thus
sayth
S.
Ambrose
.
33.
And
now
will
M.
Andrews
inferre
vpon
this
,
that
S.
Ambrose
teacheth
heere
,
that
we
may
not
pray
to
Saynts
?
did
he
not
see
trow
you
(
if
he
saw
the
place
in
the
author
,
M.
Andr.
applyeth
that
to
all
things
in
generall
which
S.
Ambrose
speaketh
of
a
particuler
matter
.
and
not
in
some
corrupt
note-booke
,
eyther
of
his
owne
,
or
his
fellowes
)
that
S.
Ambrose
speaketh
heere
of
prayer
for
a
particuler
purpose
,
to
wit
,
to
obtayne
the
grace
of
God
for
the
Emperours
Children
,
to
make
them
like
their
Father
?
and
this
S.
Ambrose
sayd
with
great
reason
was
to
be
craued
of
God
alone
;
for
he
alone
,
and
none
but
he
,
can
giue
grace
,
and
therefore
he
is
only
to
be
inuocated
as
the
giuer
of
it
,
albeit
the
prayers
both
of
Saynts
,
and
men
,
may
be
craued
to
help
to
obtayne
it
of
him
;
and
I
thinke
M.
Andrews
will
not
deny
,
Only
God
is
to
be
inuocated
,
&
prayed
vnto
,
as
the
giuer
of
grace
,
though
the
prayers
of
Saynts
&
men
may
be
craued
to
obteine
it
of
him
.
but
that
S.
Ambrose
might
very
lawfully
haue
desired
the
people
to
pray
to
God
to
represent
Theodosius
in
his
Children
,
that
is
to
say
,
to
giue
them
grace
that
they
might
be
lyke
their
father
in
vertue
,
and
piety
.
So
as
it
appeareth
that
solus
inuocandus
is
no
otherwyse
vsed
in
this
place
of
S.
Ambrose
,
then
as
rogandus
is
,
which
presently
followeth
;
and
that
both
of
them
are
to
be
referred
to
that
which
ensueth
,
to
wit
,
repraesentes●
and
finally
that
this
place
doth
not
exclude
the
crauing
of
prayers
eyther
of
man
,
or
of
Saynts
to
obtayne
grace
of
God
,
though
it
signify
,
that
God
only
can
giue
grace
and
consequently
is
only
to
be
inuocated
to
that
end
.
34.
And
therefore
I
leaue
it
to
thy
iudgement
,
The
weaknes
of
M
Andrews
his
cause
is
further
discouered
,
by
another
shift
and
cozenage
of
his
good
Reader
,
how
sincere
M.
Andrews
is
in
cyting
the
Fathers
,
whome
he
nippeth
,
and
mangleth
in
this
manner
,
to
make
them
speake
after
his
fasshion
,
and
what
a
good
cause
he
hath
in
hand
,
seeing
he
is
forced
to
maintayne
it
with
such
fraud
and
falsehood
,
which
may
yet
further
appeare
by
the
conclusion
of
his
answere
to
the
place
obiected
by
the
Cardinall
out
of
S.
Ambrose
,
wherein
truly
he
sheweth
himselfe
no
lesse
fraudulent
,
Andr.
p.
45.
§.
Poterat
.
and
impertinent
,
then
before
.
Thus
then
he
sayth
.
Etiam
scriptus
illi
de
oratione
liber
&c.
He
(
to
wit
Ambrose
)
also
wrote
a
booke
concerning
prayer
,
wherein
(
albeit
there
was
fit
place
or
occasion
to
treate
of
this
matter
,
A
booke
forged
&
fathered
vpon
S.
Ambrose
which
he
neuer
wrote
.
yet
)
there
is
no
mention
at
all
of
Saynts
.
So
he●
which
truly
I
must
needs
account
for
a
fraud
,
&
abuse
of
his
reader
,
vntill
he
tell
me
where
this
booke
,
which
he
mentioneth
,
is
to
be
found
;
for
I
haue
searcht
for
it
diligently
,
as
well
in
the
Tome
of
S.
Ambrose
,
as
also
in
others
that
haue
written
particulerly
of
his
workes
,
and
yet
I
can
find
no
such
booke
,
nor
mention
thereof
any
where
.
35.
True
it
is
that
he
treateth
of
prayer
in
many
parts
of
his
workes
,
not
in
any
particuler
treatise
bearing
that
tytle
,
but
obiter
by
the
way
vpon
occasions
offred
eyther
in
the
exposition
of
the
Scriptures
of
the
old
and
new
Testament
,
or
in
his
other
treatises
;
as
for
example
,
in
his
bookes
de
Sacramentis
,
he
writeth
of
the
manner
,
&
place
of
prayer
,
of
the
order
to
be
obserued
therein
,
of
the
beginning
,
midst
,
and
end
of
it
,
of
the
difference
of
postulation
,
S.
Ambros.
lib
1
de
sacram
.
cap.
3.4
.
&
5.
Idem
lib.
5.
cap.
4.
obsecration
,
and
thanksgiuing
,
yea
he
expoundeth
the
whole
Pater
noster
.
And
as
it
is
true
,
that
in
these
places
there
is
no
mention
eyther
of
the
prayers
of
Saynts
for
vs
,
or
of
our
prayers
to
them
:
so
also
it
is
no
lesse
true
,
that
there
are
many
other
things
apperteyning
to
prayer
,
which
are
not
so
much
as
touched
there
,
as
(
to
speake
of
a
thing
of
lyke
nature
and
quality
to
the
other
)
there
is
not
any
insinuation
of
our
mutuall
prayers
one
for
another
,
albeit
there
are
diuers
places
which
may
be
supposed
very
fit
,
and
conuenient
for
that
purpose
;
neyther
is
there
any
mention
there
of
prayer
for
our
enemies
,
although
S.
Ambrose
may
seeme
to
haue
had
very
iust
occasion
to
speake
thereof
,
when
treating
of
prayer
,
he
expoundeth
this
petition
of
the
Pater
Noster
,
Dimite
nobis
debita
nostra
&c.
Forgiue
vs
our
trespasses
,
as
we
for
giue
them
that
trespasse
agaynst
vs
.
36.
And
now
shall
we
say
,
that
S.
Ambrose
held
it
to
be
eyther
vnlawfull
,
M.
Andrews
hardly
vrged
by
his
owne
argument
.
or
needles
to
pray
for
our
enemies
?
or
to
craue
the
prayers
of
our
brethren
,
because
he
fayth
nothing
of
those
poynts
in
these
places
?
or
shall
his
silence
heere
preiudice
his
cleare
doctrine
els
where
,
and
be
taken
for
a
recantation
of
it
,
as
M.
Andrews
would
haue
it
to
be
supposed
in
this
other
case
?
What
then
will
he
say
of
a
poynt
which
he
himselfe
alloweth
concerning
the
intercession
of
Saynts
,
to
wit
,
not
only
that
they
pray
for
vs
,
but
also
that
we
may
pray
to
God
to
heare
and
help
vs
by
their
intercession
,
which
he
granteth
to
be
lawfull
,
albeit
there
would
be
no
mention
of
it
in
that
booke
of
S.
Ambrose
de
Oratione
which
he
cyteth
,
Andr.
p.
45.
§
Poterat
.
if
there
were
any
such
,
for
he
himselfe
confesseth
,
that
there
is
no
mention
therein
at
all
of
Saynts
;
will
he
therefore
allow
vs
to
inferre
herevpon
,
that
S.
Ambrose
did
not
belieue
eythere
that
Saynts
do
pray
for
vs
,
or
that
we
may
pray
to
God
to
be
helped
by
their
intercession
?
So
should
this
supposed
booke
whereto
he
appealeth
,
condemne
him
no
lesse
in
this
poynt
,
then
vs
in
the
other
.
37.
And
if
I
would
be
so
absurd
to
argue
as
he
doth
,
I
might
as
probably
say
,
that
S.
Ambrose
approueth
prayer
to
Saynts
,
M.
Andrews
hi●
absurd
argument
ab
authoritat●
negatiua
,
retorted
against
himselfe
.
because
he
doth
not
condemne
it
in
his
exposition
of
the
Pater
Noster
,
where
the
place
seemed
to
inuite
him
to
teach
,
that
all
prayer
ought
to
be
directed
to
God
only
,
if
he
had
byn
of
that
opinion
,
and
had
not
allowed
prayer
to
Saynts
,
as
to
intercessours
to
God
for
vs
:
thus
I
say
,
I
might
argue
with
as
much
probability
,
as
M.
Andrewes
doth
,
but
that
I
am
not
ignorant
(
as
neyther
he
,
me
thinks
,
should
be
)
that
such
an
argument
ab
authoritate
negatiua
(
howsoeuer
it
may
sometymes
serue
for
a
light
or
bare
coniecture
)
yet
can
neuer
passe
for
a
proofe
amongst
learned
men
,
especially
to
such
purpose
as
he
vrgeth
it
here
,
to
wit
to
ouerthrow
an
authors
expresse
doctrine
in
one
place
,
by
his
silence
thereof
in
another
;
for
who
knoweth
not
that
all
authors
haue
certaine
principall
intentions
in
their
workes
and
treatises
,
whereto
specially
tendeth
all
their
discours
;
and
that
they
are
not
any
way
bound
to
handle
other
by-questions
further
then
they
thinke
conuenient
?
wherein
also
euery
one
hath
his
reasons
(
though
vnknowne
to
others
)
why
he
handleth
one
poynt
,
more
then
some
other
,
which
may
perhaps
seeme
no
lesse
pertinent
to
his
subiect
then
that
which
he
handleth
;
neyther
is
he
to
be
controlled
or
blamed
for
the
same
,
if
he
performe
as
much
as
he
eyther
promiseth
or
specially
intendeth
.
And
therefore
although
S.
Ambrose
had
written
such
a
booke
concerning
prayer
,
as
M.
Andrews
forgeth
,
yet
his
silence
therein
touching
prayer
to
Saynts
,
could
not
preiudice
his
expresse
doctrine
thereof
in
his
other
workes
.
38.
Well
then
to
conclude
concerning
this
poynt
,
I
hope
,
good
Reader
,
thou
hast
noted
diuers
thinges
worthy
to
be
considered
;
as
first
that
M.
Andrews
hath
not
only
reiected
S.
Ambrose
his
expresse
testimony
concerning
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
,
but
also
charged
him
with
a
most
blasphemous
doctrine
,
How
many
wayes
M.
Andrews
hath
abused
S.
Ambrose
.
which
neuer
any
man
els
I
dare
say
(
except
perhaps
some
other
Sectary
of
this
age
)
euer
so
much
as
suspected
,
or
imagined
in
that
holy
Father
.
Secondly
promising
to
proue
by
a
knowne
sentence
of
S.
Ambrose
,
that
he
changed
his
mynd
afterwards
in
that
poynt
,
he
alledgeth
a
worke
,
which
in
the
opinion
of
diuers
learned
men
was
not
written
by
S.
Ambrose
;
besydes
that
the
place
which
he
produceth
is
nothing
at
all
to
the
purpose
,
for
the
which
he
alledgeth
it
.
Thirdly
laying
downe
the
true
words
of
another
place
in
a
true
worke
of
S.
Ambrose
,
he
hath
fraudulently
dissembled
&
concealed
that
which
immediatly
followeth
,
and
not
only
discouereth
,
but
also
ouerthroweth
his
false
construction
thereof
;
and
lastly
he
hath
coyned
a
new
worke
of
S.
Ambrose
,
neuer
heard
of
by
any
,
but
by
himselfe
,
whereby
also
he
could
gayne
nothing
if
there
were
any
such
.
So
as
now
I
report
me
to
thee
,
good
Reader
,
whether
he
hath
not
quit
himselfe
well
in
the
answere
of
the
Cardinalls
obiection
out
of
S.
Ambrose
.
Let
vs
then
passe
to
another
.
M.
Andrews
answere
to
a
place
of
Ruffinus
examined
.
and
confuted
.
39.
The
next
place
which
he
laboureth
to
answere
is
taken
out
of
the
history
of
Ruffinus
,
who
saith
of
Theodosius
the
Emperour
thus
.
Circuibat
omnia
orationum
loca
&c.
he
went
about
to
all
places
of
prayer
,
and
lay
prostrate
in
hearcloth
,
and
craued
help
for
himselfe
,
by
the
faithfull
intercession
of
Saynts
.
So
he
;
declaring
what
meanes
Theodosius
vsed
to
obtayne
the
admirable
victory
which
almighty
God
afterwards
gaue
him
against
Eugenius
the
Tyrant
.
Ruffin
.
lib.
2.
Hist.
c.
33.
Card.
Apol.
p.
10.
To
this
M.
Andrews
answereth
thus
:
Theodosius
ibi
sanctorum
inuocator
non
est
&c.
Andr.
p.
4.5
.
§.
Locus
.
Theodosius
is
not
there
an
inuocatour
of
Saynts
,
for
it
is
one
thing
to
craue
help
of
Saynts
,
which
is
properly
to
inuocate
them
,
and
another
to
craue
help
of
God
by
the
intercession
of
Saynts
,
So
he
,
giuing
to
vnderstand
that
Theodosius
did
not
pray
to
Saynts
,
but
to
God
,
to
heare
him
by
the
intercession
of
Saynts
,
which
he
signifieth
afterwards
more
playnely
,
saying
.
Rogare
autem
Deum
&c.
To
beseech
God
to
fauour
vs
at
the
request
of
Saynts
,
is
not
to
pray
to
them
,
Pag.
48.
lin.
14.
or
to
inuocate
them
but
God
;
hoc
autem
nec
praeterea
quid
fecit
ibi
Theodosius
,
this
,
and
nothing
els
did
Theodosius
there
.
Thus
sayth
M.
Andrewes
,
who
,
as
you
see
granteth
that
Theodosius
prayed
at
the
tombes
of
Martyrs
,
yea
that
he
craued
help
of
almighty
God
by
the
intercession
of
Saynts
,
but
not
that
he
prayed
to
the
Saynts
themselues
.
40.
Neuertheles
he
may
easily
be
conuinced
heerein
,
if
we
consider
what
hath
byn
already
proued
by
the
testimonyes
of
those
holy
Fathers
which
haue
hytherto
byn
produced
;
by
the
which
it
is
euident
that
the
common
custome
of
Christians
was
at
that
tyme
to
pray
to
Saynts
,
and
Martyrs
,
at
their
tombes
,
and
monuments
;
and
amongst
the
rest
S.
Chrysostome
testifyeth
expressely
(
as
you
haue
heard
)
that
the
very
Emperours
themselues
(
of
whome
one
was
Theodosius
)
vsed
to
come
to
the
monuments
of
Martyrs
,
Supra
chap.
6.
and
there
to
pray
to
them
,
S.
Chrysost.
ho.
20.
in
ep.
ad
Corin.
to
the
end
that
they
might
pray
to
God
for
them
,
and
therefore
I
remit
it
to
the
iudgment
of
any
indifferent
man
,
whether
it
be
credible
that
Theodosius
being
to
craue
Gods
fauour
,
and
assistance
against
the
Tyrant
Eugenius
at
the
tombes
of
Martyrs
,
and
by
their
intercession
,
did
not
also
particulerly
pray
to
them
,
as
not
only
all
Christians
at
that
tyme
,
but
also
he
,
and
other
Emperours
were
wont
to
do
in
their
necessityes
;
is
it
likely
that
he
would
do
it
at
other
tymes
,
and
not
then
when
he
had
most
need
?
41.
This
is
so
improbable
that
M.
Andrews
had
need
to
bring
some
more
pregnant
reasons
to
proue
it
then
he
doth
,
especially
seeing
it
was
commonly
reported
,
as
Zozomen
witnesseth
,
that
Theodosius
going
to
encounter
Eugenius
,
Zozomen
.
lib.
7.
cap.
24.
passed
by
a
Church
which
he
had
buylt
in
the
honour
of
S.
Iohn
Baptist
,
and
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
is
to
say
,
he
inuocated
the
Baptist
to
be
his
Assistant
in
the
battayle
?
The
Emperour
Theodosius
inuocated
Saintes
,
&
namely
S.
Iohn
Baptist
.
whereby
it
euidently
appeareth
,
that
Theodosius
was
held
at
that
tyme
to
be
an
inuocatour
of
Saynts
,
and
namely
of
S.
Iohn
Baptist
,
and
that
the
same
was
generally
approued
in
him
,
seeing
it
was
reported
amongst
the
people
,
and
related
by
Sozomen
,
as
one
speciall
meanes
which
he
vsed
to
obtayne
the
famous
victory
,
that
God
gaue
him
presently
after
against
his
enemy
;
and
therefore
there
is
no
doubt
,
but
that
when
he
craued
help
against
the
same
enemy
by
the
intercession
of
Martyrs
at
their
tombes
(
as
Ruffinus
testifyeth
in
the
place
alledged
by
the
Cardinall
)
he
inuocated
the
Martyrs
themselues
;
for
I
thinke
no
reason
can
be
giuen
why
he
should
pray
particulerly
to
S.
Iohn
Baptist
,
and
not
also
to
those
Martyrs
,
seeing
that
the
selfe
same
occasion
,
and
oportunity
of
tyme
,
place
,
and
necessity
vrged
him
to
both
alyke●
42.
But
perhaps
you
will
imagine
that
some
potent
reasons
moued
M.
Andrewes
to
thinke
that
Theodosius
did
not
inuocate
the
Martyrs
,
yea
that
it
was
not
lawfull
for
him
to
do
it
.
Andr.
p.
45.
§.
Locus
.
But
truly
his
reason
is
no
other
,
but
because
,
we
neyther
are
sure
that
the
Saynts
heare
vs
,
nor
haue
any
precept
in
Scripture
to
pray
to
them
.
Vtcumque
,
This
is
to
giue
checkmates
to
all
the
ancient
Fathers
at
once
,
and
was
there
not
one
of
all
these
great
Clerks
that
vnderstood
the
Scripture
as
well
as
this
Mynister●
sayth
he
,
illi
pro
nobis
intercedant
&c.
Howsoeuer
the
Saynts
pray
for
vs
,
yet
except
we
may
be
sure
that
they
heare
vs
,
yea
and
though
the
same
were
manifest
,
yet
except
we
haue
some
commandment
of
God
for
it
,
they
are
not
to
be
inuocated
by
vs
,
albeit
they
pray
for
vs
of
their
owne
accord
.
So
he
;
opposing
this
his
friuolous
conceipt
against
the
sacred
authority
,
as
wel
of
the
publike
custome
,
and
practise
of
the
primitue
Church
,
as
of
the
beliefe
of
the
ancient
Fathers
,
testifying
,
and
approuing
the
same
;
which
might
suffise
to
perswade
any
reasonable
man
,
both
that
Saynts
do
heare
vs
,
and
also
that
they
may
be
inuocated
.
For
would
the
whole
Church
of
God
,
euen
then
when
it
was
notably
furnished
with
learned
,
and
holy
pastors
(
which
our
aduersaries
cannot
deny
)
haue
practised
,
or
yet
permitted
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
,
if
eyther
it
were
vnlawfull
,
or
els
that
the
Saynts
do
not
heare
vs
?
●
.
Tim.
3.
So
should
the
spouse
of
Christ
,
Matth.
28.
and
the
pillar
of
truth
(
whereto
our
Sauiour
promised
his
owne
continuall
assistance
)
so
should
she
,
I
say
haue
erred
most
perniciously
,
if
it
were
not
lawfull
to
pray
to
Saynts
;
and
foolishly
,
if
they
did
not
heare
vs
;
and
therefore
if
there
were
no
other
argument
or
proofe
thereof
,
but
the
practise
of
the
whole
Church
,
as
well
in
those
dayes
as
euer
since
,
yet
the
same
might
suffice
to
conuince
M.
Andrews
,
and
his
fellowes
in
this
poynt
.
It
is
proued
by
manifest
experience
that
Saynts
do
heare
our
prayers
,
&
help
vs
.
43.
But
what
will
he
say
to
the
vndoubted
experience
that
men
haue
had
in
all
tymes
,
and
ages
,
and
yet
haue
of
the
admirable
,
and
most
miraculous
effects
of
petitions
made
to
Saynts
?
do
not
the
same
most
euidently
proue
both
that
the
Saynts
do
heare
vs
,
and
that
God
himselfe
approueth
the
vse
,
and
custome
of
praying
to
them
?
I
haue
shewed
this
experience
already
in
the
age
whereof
we
now
speake
,
by
the
testimonyes
of
Saynt
Basil
,
See
Chap.
6.
and
Saynt
Gregory
Nazianzen
,
witnessing
the
notable
effects
of
prayers
to
the
40●
Martyrs
,
Saynt
Mammas
,
and
the
blessed
Virgine
Mary
,
whereto
I
might
add
diuers
others
of
the
same
age
,
and
all
other
ages
ensuing
vntill
this
day
;
but
to
auoyde
prolixity
(
and
because
I
hold
it
needeles
to
multiply
witnesses
,
in
a
matter
so
manifest
as
this
)
I
will
content
my selfe
with
only
one
euident
testimony
of
Theodoret
,
who
liued
in
the
same
age
that
diuers
of
those
other
fathers
did
,
whome
the
Cardinall
alledgeth
;
for
he
was
Bishop
of
Sirus
in
S.
Augustines
tyme
before
the
third
Generall
Councell
,
of
Ephesus
,
though
he
was
yonger
then
any
of
the
rest
,
&
liued
many
yeares
after
them
,
to
wit
vntill
the
4.
Generall
Councell
where
he
was
present●
So
as
two
of
the
4.
first
Generall
Councells
were
held
in
his
dayes
,
and
whyles
he
was
Bishop
.
44.
This
ancient
Father
writing
against
the
Gentils
of
his
tyme
,
and
prouing
by
many
euident
arguments
that
Christ
is
God
,
vrgeth
notably
the
great
honour
generally
exhibited
in
those
dayes
to
Martyrs
,
in
the
sumptuous
,
and
magnificent
Churches
that
were
then
dedicated
vnto
them
,
Theodor●
de
Graec.
affect
.
curan.
lib.
8.
whereof
he
sayth
thus
:
Neque
verò
ad
haec
per
annum
semel
,
aut
bis
&c.
We
do
not
vse
to
come
to
these
only
once
,
or
twyce
,
or
fiue
tymes
in
the
yeare
,
but
we
do
often
celebrate
festiuall
dayes
in
them
;
we
do
often
euery
day
sing
hymnes
,
and
prayses
to
the
Lord
of
those
Martyrs
;
and
men
that
are
in
health
do
pray
to
be
conserued
in
it
,
and
those
that
are
sicke
do
craue
health
;
also
barren
women
and
men
do
desire
to
haue
children
,
and
those
that
are
already
Fathers
do
seeke
to
haue
their
Children
conserued
:
also
trauaylers
[
](A00916-e76480-b)(b)
(b)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
do
craue
the
Martyrs
to
be
their
companions
in
their
way
,
and
guydes
of
their
iourney
;
and
those
that
are
safely
returned
,
giue
thankes
,
confessing
the
benefit
receiued
,
[
](A00916-e76510-b)(c)
(c)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
not
comming
to
them
,
as
to
Gods
,
but
praying
to
them
as
to
diuine
men
,
and
beseeching
them
to
be
intercessors
for
them
;
and
that
they
do
obtayne
those
things
which
they
piously
,
and
faithfully
craue
,
it
is
testifyed
by
the
gifts
,
that
are
offered
by
such
as
haue
made
vowes
,
which
are
manifest
tokens
that
they
haue
obtayned
their
desired
health
;
for
some
do
hang
vp
figures
(
or
representations
)
of
eyes
,
some
of
feete
,
some
of
hands
,
all
made
of
siluer
,
or
gould
;
and
their
Lord
doth
gratfully
accept
what
gift
soeuer
is
giuen
,
and
disdayneth
none
,
though
neuer
so
small
and
meane
,
measuring
them
according
to
the
ability
of
the
giuer
.
Therefore
those
gifts
being
set
forth
to
the
publike
view
of
all
men
,
are
most
euident
signes
,
and
testimonyes
,
that
those
which
giue
them
are
freed
from
their
diseases
,
and
haue
recouered
their
health
.
These
I
say
do
shew
what
is
the
vertue
or
power
of
the
Martyrs
,
and
the
power
,
and
vertue
of
the
Martyrs
doth
declare
,
that
he
whome
they
haue
worshipped
and
serued
,
is
true
God
.
Thus
sayth
Theodoret.
The
ancient
custome
of
the
primitiue
Church
to
hang
vp
votiue
representations
of
hands
,
feet
eyes
,
and
such
like
in
Churches
,
to
testify
the
recouery
of
bodily
health
by
the
intercession
of
Saynts
.
45.
And
can
any
man
desire
more
cleare
,
and
manifest
testimony
,
eyther
that
the
generall
custome
of
the
Church
was
to
pray
to
Saynts
in
his
tyme
,
or
that
God
approued
it
with
miraculous
effects
?
Yea
,
and
that
the
same
was
held
for
a
speciall
argument
to
proue
that
Christ
was
God
?
Wherein
also
it
is
to
be
obserued
,
that
the
vse
was
in
that
age
(
aboue
eleuen
hundred
yeares
agoe
)
to
hang
vp
votiue
Images
and
representations
of
hands
,
feete
,
eyes
,
and
such
like
,
to
testify
the
miraculous
recouery
of
bodily
health
by
the
intercession
of
Saynts
,
which
therefore
is
no
moderne
custome
of
these
later
ages
(
as
our
aduersaryes
falsely
affirme
it
to
be
)
but
an
ancient
practice
of
the
primitiue
Church
.
Whereupon
it
also
followeth
not
only
that
prayer
to
Saynts
is
most
lawfull
,
and
honorable
to
almighty
God
,
and
profitable
to
men
,
but
also
that
Saynts
heare
the
prayers
that
are
made
vnto
them
,
seeing
that
they
obtayne
the
grant
thereof
,
and
giue
succour
to
their
suppliants
.
What
account
then
is
to
be
made
of
the
cauilling
,
and
trifling
doubt
that
M.
Andrews
maketh
,
whether
they
heare
vs
,
or
no
?
Especially
seeing
he
groundeth
the
same
vpon
no
better
reason
,
then
partly
because
some
of
the
ancient
Fathers
were
of
opinion
that
the
Saynts
shall
not
haue
the
perfect
vision
of
God
,
before
the
day
of
Iudgment
(
and
consequently
that
they
do
not
see
in
him
what
is
done
on
earth
)
and
partly
also
for
that
S.
Augustine
teacheth
,
Andr.
p.
40.
lin.
5.
that
the
dead
are
not
present
at
the
affayres
of
men
.
Whereupon
he
concludeth
;
Quòd
sinec
ipsi
intersint
(
vt
Augustinus
)
&c.
if
the
Saynts
are
neyther
present
heere
themselues
,
A
very
simple
discourse
of
M.
Andrews
.
as
Augustin
affirmeth
,
neyther
yet
do
see
any
thing
in
the
glasse
(
he
meaneth
the
Essence
of
God
)
as
almost
all
the
other
Fathers
affirme
,
they
cannot
know
our
desires
;
for
how
should
they
know
them
,
seeing
that
they
neyther
can
see
things
in
the
glasse
,
nor
yet
in
themselues
.
So
he
;
arguing
more
simply
then
I
could
haue
imagined
of
so
great
a
Doctor
,
if
I
had
not
seene
it
.
46.
For
put
the
case
that
all
this
which
he
saith
,
How
Saynts
may
vnderstand
and
know
our
prayers
and
actions
.
were
infallibly
true
(
I
meane
that
the
Saynts
neyther
haue
as
yet
the
full
vision
of
God
,
neyther
are
at
any
time
present
heere
amongst
men
)
is
there
no
otherway
for
them
to
know
our
actions
,
or
vnderstand
our
petitions
?
how
did
Elizaeus
the
Prophet
know
that
his
seruant
Giezi
tooke
gifts
of
Naman
Syrus
,
when
neuertheles
he
neyther
had
the
vision
of
God
,
4.
Reg.
c.
5.
nor
yet
was
present
with
Giezi
when
he
receiued
the
gifts
?
And
how
do
Prophets
vnderstand
things
to
come
,
or
done
in
remote
places
?
Will
M.
Andrews
say
,
that
they
haue
no
knowledge
thereof
,
because
they
neyther
see
God
,
nor
are
present
at
the
actions
,
nor
in
the
places
whereof
they
speake
?
This
I
thinke
he
wil
be
ashamed
to
say
;
&
therefore
he
must
needs
confesse
that
his
inference
is
very
vayne
,
&
idle
,
when
he
argueth
that
the
Saynts
do
not
vnderstand
our
prayers
,
because
they
do
not
see
God
,
nor
are
present
with
vs
.
And
this
he
might
haue
learned
of
S.
Augustine
,
euen
in
that
place
which
he
cyteth
,
to
proue
that
the
dead
are
not
present
at
our
affayres
.
47.
For
euen
there
(
I
meane
in
his
booke
de
cura
pro
mortuis
)
he
declareth
,
S.
Aug.
l.
de
cura
pro
mort
.
c.
12.
that
albeit
the
dead
do
not
naturally
know
what
passeth
in
earth
,
neyther
are
ordinarily
conuersant
with
vs
,
yet
they
may
know
our
actions
,
Ibid.
ca.
15.
See
Chap.
9.
nu.
42.43
.
&
44.
S.
Aug.
lib.
2.
de
Ciuit.
Dei
cap.
9.
as
well
by
the
relation
of
Angels
,
as
by
diuine
reuelation
,
yea
,
and
that
they
may
be
present
with
vs
,
and
helpe
vs
per
diuinam
potentiam
,
by
diuine
power
,
as
shall
further
appeare
in
the
ninth
Chapter
,
where
I
shall
haue
somewhat
more
to
say
to
M.
Andrewes
concerning
his
grosse
,
and
shamefull
abuse
both
of
the
Cardinall
,
Lact.
li.
7.
cap.
21.
and
S.
Augustine
touching
this
place
.
Therfore
whereas
he
also
alledgeth
S.
Augustine
,
Lactantius
,
and
S.
Bernard
to
proue
that
the
soules
of
the
iust
are
reserued
in
certayne
receptacles
,
Bern.
ser.
3.
de
omnib
.
Sanct.
and
secret
places
,
where
they
haue
not
the
perfect
vision
of
God
vntill
the
day
of
iudgement
,
I
shall
not
need
to
say
any
thing
thereto
,
as
well
because
it
would
auayle
him
nothing
,
as
you
see
,
though
S.
Augustine
and
all
the
rest
of
the
Fathers
had
ben
of
that
opinion
,
seeing
that
euen
there
(
I
meane
in
those
receptacles
)
the
Saynts
might
know
our
prayers
by
Ang●es
,
or
by
diuine
reuelation
,
according
to
S.
Augustines
doctrine
,
as
also
because
it
is
euident
,
that
not
only
S.
Augustine
,
but
also
all
the
Fathers
both
Greeke
and
Latin
(
except
3.
to
wit
,
Tertullian
,
Lactantius
,
and
Victorinus
)
do
teach
,
that
the
Saynts
do
already
enioy
the
vision
of
God
,
though
not
in
that
perfection
,
and
consummation
of
their
beatitude
,
which
they
shall
haue
after
the
resurection
,
and
glorification
of
the
bodyes
,
as
M.
Andrews
may
see
,
if
it
please
him
in
the
controuersy
of
Cardinall
Bellarmine
,
who
alledgeth
to
this
purpose
36.
Fathers
of
the
Greeke
,
Bellar.
de
Sanct
Fea●it
lib.
1.
c.
4.
&
5.
Ibid.
cap.
1.
and
Latin
Church
,
and
answereth
particulerly
those
very
places
,
which
M.
Andrews
quoteth
in
his
margent
,
and
all
other
places
and
authorityes
,
which
are
commonly
obiected
against
our
Catholyke
doctrine
in
this
poynt
.
So
as
,
in
fine
M.
Andrewes
proueth
nothing
at
all
agaynst
vs
by
this
obiection
.
48.
And
whereas
he
sayth
also
by
the
way
that
the
Saynts
ought
not
to
be
inuocated
,
albeit
they
could
heare
vs
,
because
there
is
no
precept
of
it
,
I
forbeare
to
giue
any
full
satisfaction
to
that
scruple
in
this
place
,
because
he
doth
not
heere
yield
any
reason
,
or
produce
any
authority
to
proue
,
that
nothing
is
to
be
done
wihout
an
expresse
precept
,
though
in
another
place
he
alledgeth
a
text
of
Scripture
to
that
end
,
whereof
I
shall
haue
further
occasion
to
speake
after
a
whyle
,
and
therefore
I
remit
the
full
answere
thereof
vntill
then
,
and
only
in
the
meane
tyme
I
will
say
to
him
with
S.
Augustine
,
S.
Aug.
To.
2.
●p.
86.
that
in
his
rebus
de
quibus
nihil
certi
statuit
Scriptura
&c.
In
these
things
whereof
there
is
no
certayne
precept
,
or
determination
in
Scripture
,
the
custome
of
Gods
people
,
or
the
ordinances
of
our
forefathers
are
to
be
held
for
a
law
.
49.
So
he
;
Idem
.
ep.
118.
who
also
in
another
place
speaking
of
certayne
traditions
of
the
Church
,
sayth
:
Si
quid
horum
tota
p●r
orbem
frequentat
Ecclesia
&c.
if
the
whole
Church
throughout
the
world
do
frequent
,
The
force
and
validity
of
Ecclesiasticall
customes
.
or
vse
any
of
these
things
,
it
is
a
most
insolent
madnes
to
dispute
whether
it
be
to
be
done
,
or
no.
Thus
saith
S.
Augustine
,
concluding
M.
Andrews
to
be
a
most
insolent
madde
man
,
who
calleth
in
question
a
generall
custome
of
the
Church
:
S.
Hiero.
contra
Lucifer
.
c●
.
4●
to
which
purpose
S.
Hierome
also
saith
to
the
Luciferians
,
that
albeit
there
were
no
authority
of
Scripture
for
the
matter
in
question
betwyxt
them
,
yet
,
totius
orbis
in
hanc
partem
consensus
instar
praecepti
obtineret
,
the
consent
of
the
whole
world
in
this
behalfe
were
as
much
as
a
precept
.
And
the
lyke
sayth
Tertullian
;
Hanc
si
nulla
,
sayth
he
,
Tertul.
de
corona
.
mil.
cap.
3.
Scriptura
determinauit
&c.
if
no
Scripture
hath
determined
this
,
yet
truly
custome
,
which
without
doubt
,
hath
flowed
from
tradition
,
hath
corroborated
,
and
strengthned
it
.
50.
To
these
Fathers
I
might
add
many
more
to
the
same
purpose
,
if
it
were
needefull
,
but
these
may
suffice
for
the
present
,
to
shew
that
M.
Andrews
doth
very
idly
exact
a
precept
for
prayer
to
Saynts
,
when
it
is
euident
by
the
testimony
of
all
the
Fathers
before
cyted
,
that
the
same
was
generally
practised
in
the
Church
in
their
tyme
,
no
lesse
then
it
is
at
this
present
:
whereupon
I
also
conclude
concerning
the
fact
of
Theodosius
the
Emperour
,
See
supra
nu
.
41.
Sozom.
hist.
lib.
7.
cap.
24.
S.
Chryso
.
ho.
26.
in
ep.
ad
Corinth
.
that
it
cannot
be
with
reason
denyed
,
but
that
when
he
lay
prostrate
before
the
tombes
of
the
Martyrs
,
crauing
helpe
agaynst
Eugenius
the
Tyrant
by
their
intercession
,
he
prayed
also
to
them
,
and
not
only
to
God
,
especially
considering
the
testimonyes
produced
by
me
before
out
of
Sozomen
concerning
his
particuler
inuocation
of
S.
Iohn
Baptist
vpon
the
same
occasion
,
and
out
of
S.
Chrysostome
,
testifying
the
Emperours
custome
in
those
dayes
to
pray
to
the
Martyrs
at
their
monuments
;
wherein
also
,
it
may
well
be
presumed
,
that
S.
Chrysostome
had
a
speciall
relation
euen
to
that
fact
of
Theodosius
whereof
we
now
treate
,
because
the
same
was
then
very
famous
when
he
wrote
his
commentary
vpon
S.
Paules
Epistles
,
whence
this
testimony
is
taken
;
for
he
wrote
the
same
,
whyle
he
was
Bishop
,
as
it
may
appeare
by
the
tyme
of
his
election
,
and
of
a
vision
of
S.
Paul
who
was
seene
to
assist
him
whiles
he
interpreted
those
Epistles
,
See
Baron
.
an
.
●97
.
in
fine
.
&
in
●nno
407.
being
then
Bishop
,
which
was
but
a
few
yeares
after
the
ouerthrow
of
Eugenius
,
and
the
death
of
Theodosius
.
Thus
much
for
the
testimony
of
Ruffinus
.
51.
Next
after
this
followeth
a
place
of
S.
Paulinus
,
S.
Paulinus
ep.
12.
ad
Seuer
.
Card.
Apol●
p.
●7
Andr.
p.
4●
.
§
Postquam
.
inuocating
S.
Clarus
in
these
words
:
Haec
peccatorum
&c.
Receiue
these
prayers
of
sinners
,
who
do
beseech
thee
to
be
mindfull
of
Paulinus
,
and
Therasia
.
And
now
because
Paulinus
wrote
in
verse
,
M.
Andrews
will
haue
it
to
be
vnderstood
that
he
did
but
play
,
or
dally
lyke
a
Poet.
The
testimony
of
S.
Paulin
for
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
defended
against
M.
Andrews
.
But
to
this
I
answere
,
that
if
S.
Paulinus
was
a
Poet
,
he
was
a
Christian
,
yea
a
holy
Poet
,
and
therefore
would
not
vse
any
Poeticall
licence
to
the
derogation
of
the
Christian
fayth
,
or
Religion
,
or
that
might
any
way
seeme
iniurious
to
Christ
(
as
M.
Andrews
,
and
his
fellowes
do
account
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
to
be
:
)
besides
that
,
it
is
manyfest
that
he
did
no
otherwise
in
verse
,
then
the
other
Fathers
afore
mentioned
did
in
prose
,
See
before
nu.
6.
and
was
warranted
,
as
you
haue
seene
by
the
custome
,
and
practice
of
the
whole
Church
at
that
tyme
:
S.
Aug.
ser.
17.
d●
verb.
Apostol.
pa.
18.
so
that
this
is
as
vayne
an
euasion
,
and
as
improbable
as
any
of
the
former
.
52.
Finally
he
concludeth
his
censure
with
S.
Augustine
,
whome
the
Cardinall
alledgeth
thus
:
Habet
Ecclesiastica
disciplina
&c.
M.
Andrews
his
answere
to
a
place
of
S.
Augustine
examined
and
confuted
.
The
Ecclesiasticall
discipline
hath
that
which
the
faythfull
know
,
who
make
mention
of
Martyrs
at
the
Altar
of
God
,
not
to
pray
for
them
there
,
as
for
others
that
are
dead
,
for
it
is
an
iniury
to
pray
for
a
Martyr
,
to
whose
prayers
we
ought
to
be
recommended
:
Thus
sayth
S.
Augustine
.
To
this
M.
Andrewes
answereth
,
that
the
Cardinall
shall
neuer
be
able
to
make
Augustin
on
his
side
,
Andr.
p.
46.
§.
At.
A
most
vayne
and
ridiculous
brag
of
M.
Andrews
.
or
not
to
be
for
the
Protestants
,
and
that
whatsoeuer
is
cyted
ex
aliquo
riuulo
Augustini
,
out
of
some
litle
booke
of
Augustine
;
the
same
is
dryed
vp
with
one
only
sentence
,
as
with
the
sunne
:
and
this
sentence
,
he
saith
,
is
in
opere
suo
palmari
,
in
his
principall
worke
de
Ciuitate
Dei
.
Well
then
let
vs
see
the
splendour
of
this
radiant
sentence
,
and
try
what
heate
or
force
it
hath
to
dry
vp
the
other
testimonyes
cyted
out
of
S.
Augustine
for
prayer
to
Saynts
.
S
Aug.
de
ciuit
.
Dei
l.
22●
ca.
10.
53.
The
words
which
M.
Andrews
alleadgeth
out
of
S.
Augustine
are
these
:
Ad
quod
Sacrificium
Martyres
&c.
At
which
Sacrifyce
(
S.
Augustine
meanes
the
Sacrifice
of
the
Masse
)
the
Martyrs
are
named
in
their
place
,
and
order
,
as
the
men
of
God
(
who
haue
ouercome
the
world
in
the
confession
of
him
)
but
yet
they
are
not
inuocated
by
the
Priest
which
sacrificeth
.
Thus
far
M.
Andrews
cyteth
S.
Augutine
,
and
then
addeth
:
Non
inuocantur
Martyres
&c.
Augustine
hath
these
very
words
,
the
Martyrs
are
not
inuocated
by
the
Priest
;
and
why
lesse
by
the
Priest
,
then
by
the
people
?
And
that
which
is
not
lawfull
in
Sacrifice
,
why
is
it
lawfull
out
of
Sacrifice
?
And
that
which
is
not
to
be
done
at
Masse
,
A
childish
discourse
of
M.
Andrews
contayning
three
foolish
demaunds
.
why
may
it
be
done
at
Mattins
?
And
is
there
any
force
in
the
Sacrifice
or
Altar
to
make
that
vnlawfull
,
which
is
otherwyse
lawfull
?
Thus
M.
Andrews
discourseth
to
proue
that
S.
Augustine
is
not
ours
,
but
wholy
his
in
this
controuersy
.
54.
Thereof
let
vs
see
how
well
he
hath
performed
it
,
and
for
as
much
as
he
insisteth
most
vpon
the
word
inuocantur
,
because
S.
Augustine
sayth
,
Touching
the
inuocation
which
S.
Augustine
sayth
is
due
to
God
alone
that
the
Martyrs
are
not
inuocated
by
the
Priest
,
it
is
specially
to
be
considered
in
what
sense
S.
Augustine
vseth
that
word
in
this
place
;
for
seeing
that
it
is
applyed
sometymes
to
God
alone
,
and
sometymes
to
creatures
(
as
I
haue
shewed
before
,
as
well
out
of
the
holy
Scripture
,
as
by
the
testimony
of
S.
Augustine
himselfe
)
it
is
euident
,
Chap.
6.
nu.
2.
&
seq
.
that
if
it
be
vsed
heere
in
the
former
sense
only
(
I
meane
for
an
inuocation
of
God
including
a
diuine
honour
)
it
doth
no
way
constradict
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
in
our
sense
,
signifying
only
a
request
of
their
help
by
their
prayers
,
which
,
as
I
haue
shewed
,
M.
Andrews
himselfe
acknowledgeth
to
be
the
proper
signification
of
inuocare
.
Ibid.
It
is
therefore
to
be
vnderstood
that
S.
Augustine
in
this
place
vseth
it
only
for
an
inuocation
by
Sacrifice
,
which
is
so
proper
to
God
alone
,
that
it
cannot
be
applyed
to
Saynts
,
or
any
pure
creature
.
55.
This
wil
be
most
manifest
,
The
true
sense
of
S.
Augustin●
declared
.
if
we
consider
the
circumstances
of
the
text
,
and
the
drift
of
S.
Augustine
,
who
meaning
to
shew
that
the
honour
which
we
Christians
do
to
Martyrs
,
redoundeth
specially
to
God
,
signifyeth
,
that
albeit
God
doth
worke
greate
miracles
by
them
,
yet
we
do
not
hold
them
for
Gods
,
neyther
buyld
temples
to
them
as
to
Gods
,
nor
erect
Altars
to
Sacrifice
to
them
;
sed
vni
Deo
,
&
Martyrum
,
&
nostro
Sacrificium
immolamus
,
but
we
offer
Sacrifice
to
one
God
,
who
is
as
well
the
God
of
the
Martyrs
,
as
ours
;
at
which
Sacrifice
(
sayth
he
)
they
are
named
as
the
seruants
of
God
,
non
tamen
à
Sacerdote
qui
sacrificat
inuocantur
,
yet
they
are
not
inuocated
by
the
Priest
which
sacrificeth
;
and
then
to
shew
euidently
that
he
includeth
the
oblation
of
Sacrifice
in
the
inuocation
whereof
he
speaketh
,
he
addeth
presently
:
Deo
quippe
non
ipsis
sacrificat
&c.
for
he
sacrificeth
to
God
,
and
not
to
them
,
though
he
sacrificeth
in
the
honour
of
them
,
The
inuocation
wherof
S.
Augustin
speaketh
is
proper●
to
Priestly
function
,
and
not
to
be
vsed
but
in
Sacrifice
.
because
he
is
Gods
Priest
,
and
not
theirs
.
Thus
saith
S.
Augustine
,
immediatly
after
the
word
inuocantur
.
56.
Whereby
he
giueth
to
vnderstand
that
the
inuocation
whereof
he
speaketh
is
proper
to
Priestly
function
,
and
therefore
to
be
exhibited
by
the
Priest
to
God
only
(
whole
Priest
he
is
)
and
not
to
the
Martyrs
;
as
who
would
say
,
because
the
Priest
is
Gods
Priest
,
and
ought
to
sacrifice
to
God
alone
,
therefore
he
only
nameth
the
Martyrs
in
his
Sacrifice
,
and
doth
not
inuocate
them
,
that
is
to
say
,
he
doth
not
inuocate
them
with
Sacrifice
,
which
is
proper
to
the
office
,
or
function
of
a
Priest
,
S.
Augustine
doth
no
way
impugne
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
in
the
place
alledged
by
M.
Andrews
.
for
otherwyse
(
I
meane
if
S.
Augustine
did
not
take
inuocation
in
this
place
for
a
Priestly
,
or
Sacrificall
action
)
his
reason
why
the
Priest
doth
not
inuocate
the
Martyrs
(
to
wit
,
because
he
is
the
Priest
of
God
,
and
sacrificeth
to
him
alone
)
were
to
no
purpose
;
which
no
doubt
M.
Andrews
saw
well
ynough
,
and
therefore
he
ended
his
citation
at
inuocantur
,
without
adding
that
which
immediatly
followeth
,
and
sheweth
what
S.
Augustine
meaneth
there
by
inuocation
.
57.
Now
then
what
wonder
it
is
that
S.
Augustine
saith
,
that
Martyrs
are
not
to
be
inuocated
in
this
manner
,
that
is
to
say
,
with
Sacrifice
which
is
offred
to
God
alone
?
Doth
any
man
doubt
of
it
?
Or
doth
it
any
way
impugne
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
by
prayer
?
how
idle
then
are
M.
Andrews
his
questions
,
to
wit
,
why
the
Priest
may
not
inuocate
Martyrs
,
as
well
as
the
people
may
?
and
why
not
at
Masse
,
as
well
as
at
Mattins
?
and
whether
there
be
any
force
in
the
Sacrifice
or
Altar
,
M.
Andrews
doth
seeme
to
confound
the
Priest
with
the
people
Masse
with
Mattins
,
and
the
Aultar
with
euery
other
place
.
to
make
that
vnlawfull
which
otherwyse
is
lawfull
?
whereby
he
seemeth
to
confound
the
Priest
with
the
people
,
Masse
with
Mattins
,
and
the
Altar
with
euery
other
place
,
supposing
that
whatsoeuer
is
prohibited
to
the
Priest
,
is
also
forbidden
to
the
people
,
and
what
cannot
be
done
at
Masse
,
is
not
to
be
done
at
Mattins
:
and
finally
that
whatsoeuer
is
vnlawfull
at
the
Altar
,
is
lawfull
no
where
els
,
which
is
most
absurd
,
seeing
that
many
things
are
lawfull
,
or
vnlawfull
according
to
the
different
state
,
and
quality
of
persons
,
matters
,
tyme
,
and
place
.
58.
For
who
knoweth
not
that
to
inuocate
God
with
Sacrifice
,
is
the
proper
function
of
the
Priest
,
and
not
of
the
people
,
and
that
the
same
is
done
at
Masse
,
and
not
at
Mattins
,
and
no
where
els
but
at
the
Altar
,
yea
and
that
the
Priest
may
highly
offend
God
in
his
Sacrifice
,
that
is
to
say
at
Masse
,
or
at
the
Altar
,
when
the
people
offende
no
way
at
all
:
and
therefore
to
satisfy
M.
Andrews
his
three
demaunds
according
to
S.
Augustines
meaning
in
this
place
,
he
is
to
vnderstand
that
the
Priest
may
inuocate
God
with
Sacrifice
,
Three
foolish
demands
of
M.
Andrews
answered
,
according
to
S
Augustins
meaning
.
and
the
people
cannot
,
that
the
same
is
to
be
done
at
Masse
,
and
not
at
Mattins
,
and
that
such
inuocation
is
not
lawfully
done
any
where
,
but
at
the
Altar
,
and
that
it
is
so
due
to
God
alone
,
that
it
can
neuer
be
applyed
to
Saynts
,
eyther
by
people
,
or
Priest
,
at
Mattins
,
or
Masse
,
at
the
Altar
,
or
yet
elswhere
;
and
so
shall
he
vnderstand
that
the
place
which
he
alledgeth
maketh
nothing
agaynst
prayer
to
Saynts
,
and
that
his
vayne
demands
haue
serued
to
no
other
purpose
but
to
shew
his
ignorance
and
folly
.
59.
This
will
yet
further
appeare
by
his
conclusion
,
wherein
he
taketh
vpon
him
to
expound
the
other
place
of
S.
Augustine
,
which
you
haue
heard
cyted
by
the
Cardinall
,
to
wit
,
Iniuria
est
&c.
It
is
iniury
to
pray
for
a
Martyr
,
to
whose
prayers
we
ought
to
be
recommended
:
whereto
M.
Andrews
hauing
opposed
,
M.
Andrews
his
extrauagant
and
foolish
glosse
,
vpon
S
Augustins
place
obiected
by
the
Cardinall
.
and
vaynely
vrged
this
other
place
in
such
sort
,
as
you
haue
heard
,
answereth
in
conclusion
thus
:
Quare
apud
illum
&c.
Wherefore
,
that
we
should
be
recomended
to
the
prayers
of
Martyrs
,
is
not
to
inuocate
them
;
but
to
wish
to
be
recommended
to
the
intercession
of
Christ
the
head
,
and
of
all
his
mysticall
body
,
and
we
do
call
vpon
Christ
,
that
he
may
heare
vs
,
and
not
vpon
the
Saynts
that
they
may
heare
vs
,
but
this
we
craue
of
God
,
that
they
may
be
heard
for
vs
of
him
,
and
with
him
.
Thus
doth
M.
Andrews
glosse
that
text
.
60.
So
as
to
be
recommended
to
the
prayer
of
a
Martyr
,
is
to
wish
to
be
recommended
to
the
intercession
of
Christ
,
and
of
all
his
mistycall
body
;
as
if
a
man
should
say
,
that
for
a
man
to
be
recommended
to
the
prayers
of
M.
Andrews
,
is
not
to
craue
the
help
of
his
prayers
in
particuler
,
but
to
wish
that
the
Kings
Maiesty
(
being
head
of
the
English
Church
)
and
all
English
Protestants
,
may
pray
for
him
.
For
truly
he
may
say
the
one
as
well
as
the
other
,
especially
seeing
that
he
giueth
no
reason
at
all
of
this
his
extrauagant
interpretation
,
but
relyeth
wholy
vpon
his
owne
peruerse
,
and
false
vnderstanding
of
the
other
place
of
S.
Augustine
,
which
he
will
needs
suppose
to
exclude
all
inuocation
of
Saynts
,
though
,
as
you
haue
seene
,
it
doth
not
concerne
the
same
any
way
at
all
.
61.
But
to
put
the
matter
out
of
doubt
what
S.
Augustine
meant
in
this
place
,
when
he
sayd
,
that
we
ought
to
be
recommended
to
the
prayer
of
the
Martyr
,
we
are
to
consider
what
his
expresse
doctrine
is
els
where
concerning
the
same
poynt
,
namely
in
his
Treatise
de
cura
pro
mortuis
,
of
the
care
to
be
had
of
the
dead
,
which
albeit
M.
Andrews
will
not
(
as
I
thinke
)
allow
for
opus
palmare
,
S.
Augustines
principall
worke
(
because
he
hath
already
giuen
that
tytle
to
the
bookes
de
Ciuitate
Dei
)
yet
it
cannot
be
denied
to
be
S.
Augustines
,
S.
Augustines
expresse
doctrine
concerning
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
.
who
doth
himselfe
acknowledge
it
for
such
in
his
Retractions
.
This
learned
holy
Father
treating
of
the
good
that
the
dead
may
receiue
by
the
care
of
their
friends
to
bury
their
bodyes
neere
to
the
monuments
of
Saynts
,
sayth
thus
:
62.
Sed
cum
talia
viuorum
solatia
requi●unt●r
&c.
But
when
such
comforts
of
the
liuing
are
sought
,
S.
Aug.
in
lib.
de
cura
pro.
mort
.
cap.
4.
whereby
they
may
shew
their
pious
mynd
or
affection
towards
their
friends
,
I
do
not
see
what
help
the
dead
may
receiue
thereby
,
but
only
this
,
that
whyles
the
liuing
do
remember
where
the
bodyes
of
their
friends
are
layed
,
e●sd●m
illos
ta●quam
paironis
susc●ptos
,
apud
Dominum
adiuuandos
commendent
,
they
may
by
prayer
recommend
them
to
the
same
Saynts
,
as
to
their
patrons
,
who
haue
receiued
them
into
their
protection
to
be
helped
with
Almighty
God
,
which
truly
they
might
also
do
,
although
they
could
not
bury
them
in
such
places
.
So
he
.
And
a
little
after
he
sayth
further
to
the
same
purpose
:
Cùm
it
aque
recolit
animus
&c.
Therefore
when
the
mynd
of
a
man
remembreth
where
his
friends
body
is
buried
,
and
some
place
also
which
is
venerable
by
the
name
of
some
Martyr
occurreth
to
his
remembrance
,
eidem
Martyri
animam
dilectam
commendat
recordantis
,
&
precantis
affectus
;
the
affection
of
him
that
remembreth
it
and
prayeth
,
doth
recommend
the
soule
of
his
friend
,
to
the
same
Martyr
.
Thus
sayth
S.
Augustine
,
teaching
expressely
not
only
prayer
to
Saynts
,
but
also
prayer
for
the
dead
(
which
I
wish
M.
Andrewes
to
note
by
the
way
)
as
also
that
the
prayer
whereof
S.
Augustine
speaketh
heere
,
cannot
be
sayd
to
be
made
generally
to
Christ
,
and
to
all
his
mysticall
body
(
according
to
M.
Andrews
his
former
glosse
)
but
particulerly
eisdem
Sanctis
tamquam
patronis
,
to
the
same
Saynts
,
as
to
their
patrons
,
and
eidem
Martyri
,
to
the
same
Martyr
,
by
whose
tombe
the
bodyes
of
the
dead
are
buryed
.
63.
But
perhaps
M.
Andrews
will
say
that
this
is
taken
ex
aliquo
riuulo
Augustini
,
out
of
some
litle
brooke
of
Augustine
,
and
not
ex
opere
suo
palmari
,
out
of
his
principall
worke
de
Ciuitate
Dei
.
Well
then
,
let
vs
see
whether
we
can
find
any
thing
there
to
this
purpose
.
I
doubt
not
but
that
M.
Andrews
(
who
highly
esteemeth
that
most
excellent
worke
,
and
therefore
seemeth
to
haue
read
it
diligently
)
will
easily
call
to
mind
what
a
number
of
notable
,
A
notable
miracle
recounted
by
S.
Augustine
.
and
manifest
miracles
S.
Augustine
relateth
there
,
as
knowne
to
himselfe
to
haue
byn
done
at
the
memoryes
of
S.
Steuen
and
diuers
other
Martyrs
,
&
that
amongst
the
rest
he
recounteth
one
which
happened
to
an
honest
poore
old
man
of
Hippo
,
S.
Aug.
de
ciuit
.
Dei
lib.
22.
c.
8.
called
Florentius
,
who
hauing
lost
his
cloke
,
and
not
hauing
money
wherewith
to
buy
another
,
went
to
the
monument
of
the
Twenty
Martyrs
(
which
was
there
very
famous
)
and
clara
voce
,
sayth
he
,
vt
vestiretur
orauit
,
prayed
with
a
lowd
voyce
,
that
he
might
haue
wherewith
to
cloth
himselfe
.
64.
Wherupon
certayne
scoffing
yong
men
,
for
(
so
S.
Augustine
calleth
them
)
being
by
chance
present
,
and
hauing
heard
him
,
followed
him
at
his
departure
,
and
mocked
him
,
quasi
à
Martyribus
quinquagenos
folles
,
vnde
vestimentum
emeret
,
petiuisset
,
as
though
he
had
demanded
of
the
Martyrs
fifty
peeces
of
money
(
called
folles
)
wherewith
he
might
buy
him
clothes
.
But
he
not
regarding
them
went
towards
the
sea
side
,
and
there
saw
a
great
fish
panting
vpon
the
shore
,
which
,
with
their
help
(
who
had
followed
him
thither
)
he
tooke
,
and
sold
for
three
hundred
folles
to
a
Christian
Cooke
called
C●rt●sus
(
declaring
vnto
him
all
that
had
hapned
)
who
opening
the
fish
,
found
in
his
belly
a
ring
of
gold
,
and
being
moued
partly
with
commiseration
,
and
partly
with
scruple
,
gaue
it
also
to
the
poore
man
,
saying
vnto
him
,
Ecce
quomodo
viginti
Martyres
te
vestierunt
:
Behold
how
the
20.
Martyrs
haue
clothed
thee
.
Thus
much
relateth
S.
Augustine
concerning
this
matter
.
65.
Whereby
it
euidently
appeareth
,
An
inference
vpon
the
miracle
related
by
S.
Augustine
.
first
,
that
this
poore
man
prayed
not
only
at
the
monument
of
those
Martyrs
,
but
also
to
the
Martyrs
themselues
,
crauing
of
them
reliefe
of
his
necessity
;
for
there
vpon
the
yong
men
,
who
heard
his
prayer
,
tooke
occasion
to
charge
him
to
haue
craued
50.
folles
of
the
Martyrs
,
which
they
would
not
haue
done
if
they
had
not
heard
him
pray
vnto
the
Martyrs
;
&
thereto
also
alluded
the
Cooke
,
who
hauing
heard
the
story
related
,
and
vnderstood
thereby
,
to
whome
,
and
for
what
he
had
prayed
,
sayd
vnto
him
,
Behold
how
the
Martyrs
haue
clothed
thee
,
as
who
would
say
,
the
Martyrs
of
whome
thou
crauedst
to
be
clothed
,
haue
heard
thy
prayer
,
and
giuen
thee
wherewith
to
cloth
thee
.
66.
Secondly
it
appeareth
that
it
was
the
custome
at
that
tyme
to
inuocate
Saynts
particulerly
,
and
that
God
approued
it
by
this
miraculous
effect
.
And
if
M.
Andrews
do
say
,
that
if
it
had
byn
vsuall
,
these
yong
men
who
heard
him
,
would
not
haue
mocked
him
for
doing
it
,
he
is
to
vnderstand
,
that
they
did
not
mock
him
for
calling
vpon
the
Martyrs
,
but
because
his
request
seemed
to
them
extrauagant
,
quasi
qui
à
Martyribus
quinquagenos
folles
petiuisset
,
as
though
he
had
demanded
50.
folles
to
buy
him
clothes
.
Besids
that
,
Saynt
Augustine
so
much
condemned
them
for
deryding
him
,
that
he
calleth
them
adolescentes
irrisores
,
scoffing
yong
men
,
yea
and
God
so
disposed
for
their
confusion
,
that
they
themselues
were
witnesses
of
the
miraculous
euent
,
and
helped
him
to
take
the
fish
which
he
sold
for
300.
folles
,
besids
the
ring
that
was
found
in
his
belly
.
97.
Thirdly
it
is
cleare
,
that
S.
Augustine
highly
approued
the
inuocation
of
the
20.
Martyrs
,
seeing
that
he
recounteth
this
togeather
with
many
other
miracles
,
to
proue
the
truth
of
the
Christian
faith
,
saying
in
the
end
for
the
conclusion
of
the
whole
:
Cui
nisi
huic
fidei
attesta●tur
ista
miracula
&c.
To
what
other
faith
doe
these
miracles
giue
testimony●
but
to
this
,
whereby
Christ
is
preached
to
haue
ascended
into
heauen
with
his
flesh
?
for
these
Martyrs
,
were
Martyrs
(
that
is
to
say
witnesses
)
of
this
faith
&c.
For
in
this
faith
they
dyed
,
who
can
obtayne
these
things
of
God
,
for
whose
name
they
were
slayne
.
So
he
.
68.
Now
then
,
that
which
I
wish
thee
,
good
Reader
,
to
note
in
all
this
discourse
,
The
conclusion
of
this
Chapter
,
touching
the
vanity
of
M.
Andrews
&
the
conformity
of
S.
Augustine
with
the
other
Fathers
alledged
by
the
Cardinall
for
prayer
to
Saynts
.
is
,
how
well
M.
Andrews
hath
performed
his
vaunt
,
which
was
that
he
would
with
one
only
sentence
,
as
with
the
sunne
,
dry
vp
,
whatsoeuer
could
be
obiected
out
of
any
litle
brooke
of
Augustine
,
when
neuertheles
his
hoat
sunny
sentence
hath
proued
no
warmer
,
nor
brighter
then
the
moone
in
the
wayne
,
and
change
,
which
hath
neyther
heate
nor
light
,
for
so
you
see
it
hath
fallen
out
with
the
place
cyted
by
him
out
of
S.
Augustine
,
which
proueth
nothing
at
all
for
his
purpose
,
whereas
the
other
testimonyes
alledged
partly
by
the
Cardinall
,
and
partly
by
me
,
are
(
as
you
haue
also
seen
)
most
euident
,
and
pregnant
,
to
proue
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
,
which
M.
Andrews
hath
hitherto
impugned
.
69.
If
then
we
consider
the
conformity
of
S.
Augustine
in
this
point
withall
the
other
Fathers
,
whose
places
haue
byn
before
produced
to
wit
S.
Basil
,
Eusebius
,
S.
Chrysostome
,
S.
Ephrem
,
S.
Maximus
,
S.
Gregory
Nazianzen
,
S.
Gregory
Nyssen
,
S.
Ambrose
,
S.
Hierome
,
Ruffinus
,
S.
Paulinus
,
and
Theodoret
,
I
doubt
not
but
that
their
consent
,
and
vniforme
testimony
may
suffice
in
the
opinion
of
any
reasonable
man
,
to
shew
that
the
vniuersall
custome
,
practise
,
and
faith
of
the
Church
in
their
age
,
was
the
same
that
now
is
concerning
the
Inuocation
of
Saynts
,
notwithstanding
all
the
wrangling
,
trifling
,
shifts
,
euasions
,
collusions
,
and
frauds
,
which
you
see
M.
Andrews
hath
vsed
to
obscure
the
euident
,
and
manifest
verity
thereof
:
so
as
I
might
heere
very
well
end
this
matter
,
were
it
not
that
M.
Andrews
in
the
preamble
to
his
censure
vpon
the
places
of
the
Fathers
,
maketh
some
obiections
,
not
hitherto
answered
by
me
,
which
by
all
likelyhood
not
only
he
,
but
also
those
that
haue
read
him
,
will
expect
should
be
some
way
satisfyed
,
and
therefore
I
meane
to
examine
the
validity
thereof
,
with
what
breuity
I
conueniently
may
.
CERTAYNE
OBIECTIONS
OF
M.
ANDREWS
AGAINST
PRAYERS
TO
SAYNTS
ARE
ANSWERED
:
AND
by
the
way
,
an
Imposture
of
the
pretended
Bishops
and
Clergy
of
the
Prouince
of
Canterbury
in
a
Synodicall
Canon
of
theirs
is
discouered
.
AND
Finally
,
M.
Andrews
is
proued
to
haue
notably
wrangled
,
iuggled
,
and
tryfled
throughout
this
whole
Controuersy
.
CHAP.
VIII
.
AMONGST
diuers
friuolous
obiections
there
is
one
especially
,
which
,
as
it
seemeth
,
he
maketh
his
Achilles
,
and
holdeth
for
inuincible
,
and
therfore
he
tryumpheth
not
a
little
,
before
he
produceth
it
,
Andr.
p.
39.
§.
Neque
.
saying
,
that
he
will
not
obiect
to
the
Cardinall
some
acclamation
,
or
vow
proceeding
from
some
mans
impetuous
or
violet
affection
,
M.
Andrews
confidence
in
the
Canon
of
the
Councell
of
Laodicea
.
but
a
Canon
,
and
a
statute
of
a
Councell
held
at
Laodicea
about
the
same
tyme
,
and
published
by
the
vniforme
consent
of
the
Fathers
,
quod
leges
,
sayth
he
,
bis
à
Thedoret
relatum
&c.
which
(
Statute
)
thou
shalt
read
twice
related
by
Theodoret
in
his
Commentary
vpon
the
2.
and
3.
Chapter
to
the
Colossenses
.
They
do
there
forbid
in
expresse
words
,
ne
quis
precetur
Angelos
,
that
no
man
pray
to
Angels
(
and
the
reason
touching
Saynts
is
all
one
)
because
some
men
did
then
giue
counsaile
,
&
thought
it
necessary
to
procure
the
fauour
of
God
by
Angels
.
Thus
sayth
M.
Andrews
,
vsing
no
lesse
fraude
then
he
is
wont
,
as
well
touching
Theodoret
,
as
the
Canon
of
the
Councell
of
Laodicea
.
2.
And
first
for
Theodoret
,
Theodoret
notably
abused
by
M
Andrews
.
he
abuseth
him
notably
,
alledging
some
part
of
his
words
,
and
leauing
out
that
which
would
clearely
explicate
the
whole
matter
,
and
Theodorets
meaning
,
who
interpreting
the
place
of
S.
Paul
to
the
Colossenses
(
Nemo
vos
seducat
,
volens
in
humilitate
&
religione
Angelorum
,
Coloss.
2.
let
no
man
seduce
you
,
willing
in
the
humility
,
and
religion
of
Angels
)
declareth
that
certayne
heretykes
in
Phrygia
and
Pisidia
defending
the
vse
of
the
old
law
,
Theodoret.
in
c.
●
.
ep
ad
Coloss●n
.
induced
men
to
the
worship
of
Angels
;
and
after
a
whyle
layeth
downe
the
reason
,
which
they
vsed
to
that
end
,
saying
;
Illi
ergo
consulebant
&c.
therefore
they
counselled
this
vnder
pretence
of
humility
,
saying
that
men
cannot
see
,
nor
comprehend
Almighty
God
,
nor
come
vnto
him
,
and
that
they
must
procure
to
themselues
Gods
fauour
by
Angels
.
Thus
sayth
Theodoret
,
whereof
you
see
M.
Andrewes
layeth
downe
only
the
last
words
,
to
wit
,
putabant
oportere
sibi
diuinam
beneuolentiam
conciliare
&c.
They
thought
they
must
procure
to
themselues
the
diuine
fauour
by
Angels
;
whereas
the
words
immediatly
going
before
,
which
he
leaueth
out
,
gaue
the
reason
of
this
their
errour
,
signifying
that
they
thought
it
necessary
to
procure
Gods
fauour
by
Angels
,
because
men
could
not
come
to
him
otherwyse
,
which
is
farre
from
the
conceipt
of
any
Catholyke
,
or
Christian
man
,
seing
that
this
opinion
denyeth
that
we
may
come
to
God
by
Christ
,
and
maketh
Angels
the
only
mediatours
betwyxt
God
and
vs
,
which
is
in
effect
to
deny
,
and
destroy
the
Christian
faith
.
3.
And
therefore
no
meruaile
if
Saynt
Paul
,
the
Councell
of
Laodicea
,
and
Theodoret
forbad
such
prayer
to
Angels
;
but
the
truth
is
that
the
Canon
which
Theodoret
mentioneth
forbiddeth
only
to
commit
Idolatry
to
Angels
,
and
not
simply
to
pray
to
them
,
as
I
will
make
it
manifest
,
when
I
shall
haue
first
declared
how
M.
Andrews
hath
abused
the
Councell
of
Laodicea
.
M.
Andrews
abuseth
the
Councell
of
Laodicea
.
Therefore
hauing
sayd
that
the
Canon
of
that
Councell
is
twyce
related
by
Theodoret
in
his
Comment
vpon
the
second
,
and
thyrd
to
the
Colossenses
,
he
addeth
;
Prohibent
ibi
disertis
verbis
,
ne
quis
precetur
Angelos
;
the
Fathers
of
that
Councell
do
there
forbid
in
expresse
words
,
Andr.
p.
39.
§.
Neque
.
that
no
man
pray
to
Angels
.
So
he
.
Whereby
the
Reader
must
needs
imagin
not
only
that
the
Canon
of
the
Councell
was
fully
layd
downe
by
Theodoret
,
but
also
that
the
same
was
to
no
other
effect
,
The
Councell
of
Laodicea
forbiddeth
Idolatry
to
Angels
&
not
prayer
●o
them
.
but
only
to
ordayne
that
no
man
should
pray
to
Angels
;
wheras
Theodoret
doth
not
alledge
any
one
word
of
the
Canon
,
but
toucheth
only
the
effect
of
it
in
some
sort
and
in
very
generall
tearmes
,
for
the
Canon
it selfe
maketh
no
mention
at
all
of
prayer
,
but
forbiddeth
only
an
Idolatrous
worship
of
Angels
;
which
also
Theodoret
sheweth
to
be
his
owne
meaning
,
though
he
speake
only
of
prayer
to
Angels
,
as
it
is
euident
both
by
the
circumstances
of
the
place
layd
downe
by
me
before
,
and
left
out
by
M.
Andrews
,
and
also
more
playnely
afterwards
when
he
speaketh
of
the
sayd
Councell
,
and
Canon
the
second
tyme
,
in
one
of
the
two
places
which
M.
Andrews
himselfe
quoteth
,
to
wit
,
vpon
the
thyrd
Chapter
to
the
Colossenses
,
where
he
sayth
thus
.
4.
Quòd
enim
illi
Angelos
iubebant
adorare
&c.
For
because
those
Phrygians
commanded
men
to
adore
Angels
,
he
(
to
wit
S.
Paul
)
commanded
the
contrary
,
Theodor●t
.
in
3.
Coloss.
that
they
should
adorne
both
their
words
,
and
deeds
with
the
remembrance
of
Christ
our
Lord
.
Theodoret
his
meaning
cleerly
explicated
by
his
owne
words
.
Vtter
forth
(
saith
the
Apostle
)
your
thanks
giuing
to
God
the
Father
by
him
,
and
not
by
Angels
.
And
the
Synod
of
Laodicea
following
this
law
,
and
seeking
to
remedy
the
old
disease
,
decreed
,
that
men
should
not
pray
to
Angels
,
and
leaue
our
Lord
Iesus
Christ
.
Thus
saith
Theodoret
:
whereby
he
sheweth
that
those
Phrygian
Idolatours
made
a
playne
opposition
of
Angels
to
Christ
,
teaching
&
commanding
an
adoration
of
Angels
insteed
of
Christ
,
&
therefore
he
sayth
that
the
Apostle
commanded
the
contrary
to
them
,
to
wit
,
that
we
should
prayse
God
by
Christ
,
and
not
by
Angels
;
whereby
it
appeareth
that
their
contrary
doctrine
was
to
prayse
God
by
Angels
,
and
not
by
Christ
;
which
he
also
confirmeth
saying
,
Theodoret
forbiddeth
such
prayer
to
Angels
as
excludeth
the
mediation
of
Christ
.
that
the
Councell
of
Laodicea
made
the
lyke
Decree
agaynst
the
same
errour
,
ordayning
that
none
should
pray
to
Angels
,
and
leaue
Christ
.
So
as
by
all
this
it
is
manifest
,
that
according
to
Theodoret
,
the
adoration
,
and
prayer
to
Angels
forbidden
by
S.
Paul
,
and
the
Councell
,
was
such
as
excluded
the
mediation
of
Christ
for
vs
,
and
made
the
Angels
our
only
mediatours
whereof
neuertheles
you
do
not
see
so
much
as
any
insinuation
,
or
ynkling
in
M.
Andrews
,
whereby
it
is
euident
,
that
he
hath
abused
both
the
Councell
,
and
Theodoret
,
and
his
Reader
most
of
all
.
5.
This
will
appeare
more
clearely
by
the
expresse
words
of
the
Canon
whereof
Theodoret
speaketh
,
which
are
these
:
Quòd
non
oporteat
Christianos
relicta
Dei
Ecclesia
obire
&c.
Concil.
Laodic
.
cap.
35.
That
Christians
ought
not
to
forsake
the
Church
of
God
,
and
to
goe
away
,
and
to
make
Congregations
of
abominable
Idolatry
to
Angels
,
which
is
forbidden
,
and
therefore
whosoeuer
shall
be
found
,
The
meaning
of
the
Canon
of
the
Councell
of
Laodicea
.
huic
occultae
Idololatriae
vacans
,
exercising
this
hidden
,
or
secret
Idolatry
,
be
he
accursed
,
for
that
he
hath
forsaken
our
Lord
Iesus
Christ
,
and
gone
to
Idols
.
Thus
sayth
the
Canon
,
shewing
euidently
,
that
the
adoration
,
and
prayer
to
Angels
,
which
Theodoret
sayth
was
forbidden
by
the
Canon
,
What
kind
of
Idolatry
was
done
to
Angels
by
the
Phrygians
was
some
abominable
Idolatry
committed
to
Angels
in
certayne
secret
Congregations
,
which
those
Phrygians
made
in
corners
,
forsaking
the
Church
of
God
,
and
Christ
himselfe
.
And
this
I
say
is
euident
by
the
Canon
;
for
no
man
I
thinke
can
be
so
simple
to
imagine
that
all
this
could
be
sayd
,
or
meant
of
prayer
to
Angels
,
in
such
sort
as
we
Catholykes
vse
the
same
,
that
is
to
craue
the
assistance
of
their
prayers
to
Christ
for
vs
,
or
to
God
by
the
merits
,
and
mediation
of
Christ
.
6.
For
if
this
were
the
abominable
Idolatry
whereof
the
Councell
speaketh
,
then
should
the
Apostle
haue
byn
an
abominable
Idolatour
,
when
he
desired
the
Romans
,
Corinthians
,
Thessalonians
,
and
others
to
pray
for
him
:
Rom.
15.
and
so
should
we
in
lyke
manner
when
we
desire
one
anothers
prayers
,
1.
Cor.
1.
for
no
sufficient
,
Thess.
3.
Colos.
4.
or
probable
reason
can
be
giuen
why
it
should
be
Idolatry
to
pray
to
Angels
,
Iosue
.
5.
and
no
Idolatry
to
craue
the
prayers
of
men
,
Dan.
10.
especially
seeing
that
we
read
in
expresse
Scripture
,
Iudith
.
13.
that
Iacob
blessing
the
children
of
Act.
12.
Ioseph
,
Matth.
18.
did
inuocate
an
Angell
,
saying
;
Angelus
qui
cruit
me
&c.
the
Angel
which
hath
deliuered
me
from
all
1.
Cor.
11.
euils
,
S.
Dionys.
Areop
.
eccles.
Hier.
c.
9.
S.
Iustin
.
Mart.
quaest
.
30.
Clemens
Alexand.
li.
5.
strom
.
Origen
ho.
8.
in
Gen.
&
alibipassim
.
S.
Basil.
ho.
in
Psal.
33.
S.
Chrysost.
ho.
3.
ad
c.
1.
ad
Colos.
Theodor.
ad
cap.
10.
Daniel
.
&
in
Genes.
quaes
.
3.
S.
Hilar.
ad
Psal.
129.
&
Ca.
18.
in
Mat.
S.
Hi●ron
.
ad
ca.
66.
Esai
.
S.
Ambros.
l.
de
viduis
.
S.
Aug.
in
Soliloquij●
cap.
27.
blesse
these
children
.
And
Iosue
fell
downe
prostrate
before
an
Angell
,
and
called
him
Dominum
suum
,
his
Lord
.
Besids
that
the
Apostle
,
yea
our
Sauiour
himselfe
testifyeth
,
not
only
the
continuall
presence
of
Angels
amongst
vs
,
but
also
the
assistance
,
and
help
that
we
receiue
by
them
:
in
so
much
that
the
ancient
Fathers
(
and
amongst
the
rest
Theodoret
himselfe
)
do
thereupon
teach
expressely
that
we
haue
euery
one
of
vs
from
our
natiuity
a
proper
Angell
,
who
protecteth
,
and
defendeth
vs
,
and
prayeth
to
God
for
vs
.
7.
Whereupon
it
must
needs
follow
that
seeing
the
Angels
do
not
only
know
our
actions
much
better
then
men
,
and
heare
our
prayers
no
lesse
then
they
,
but
also
do
continually
assist
vs
as
well
with
their
prayers
,
as
otherwyse
;
it
followeth
,
I
say
,
that
we
may
lawfully
craue
their
assistance
,
yea
much
more
then
of
men
,
for
that
they
being
ordayned
by
God
to
help
vs
,
are
no
lesse
willing
,
and
farre
more
potent
,
and
able
to
do
it
then
men
are
;
and
therefore
truly
I
may
well
conclude
,
that
neyther
the
Councell
of
Laodicea
,
nor
yet
Theodoret
could
be
so
absurd
as
M.
Andrews
would
make
them
,
to
thinke
it
Idolatry
to
pray
to
Angels
,
when
they
know
it
to
be
lawfull
to
pray
to
men
.
And
this
I
say
the
rather
of
Theodoret
,
because
he
teaching
expressely
(
as
I
signifyed
before
)
that
Angels
haue
the
protection
of
men
,
doth
declare
withall
,
that
men
are
subiect
imperio
Angelorum
,
Theodor.
in
G●nes
.
quaest
.
●●
to
the
gouernment
,
and
command
of
Angels
,
and
that
they
pray
for
vs
,
whereby
he
teacheth
consequently
that
men
owe
vnto
them
,
not
only
loue
,
and
gratitude
as
to
their
Guardians
,
and
Protectors
,
but
also
the
duty
of
reuerence
,
and
supplication
,
as
to
their
superiours
,
commanders
,
gouernours
,
and
intercessours
for
them
.
M.
Andrews
must
reforme
his
vnderstanding
of
Theodoret.
8.
So
as
M.
Andrewes
may
see
that
he
hath
iust
cause
to
reforme
his
vnderstanding
of
that
place
of
Theodoret
,
and
acknowledge
that
it
is
not
likely
,
that
Theodoret
would
thereby
contradict
his
owne
doctrine
elswhere
,
but
rather
that
he
,
I
meane
M.
Andrews
,
hath
notably
abused
both
the
Councell
and
Theodoret
;
the
Councell
,
in
concealing
,
and
dissembling
the
whole
substance
of
the
Canon
,
which
he
could
not
but
know
;
and
Theodoret
in
leauing
out
that
which
was
most
necessary
for
the
explication
of
his
meaning
in
both
those
places
which
he
cyteth
;
and
finally
that
he
hath
also
abused
them
both
,
in
making
them
to
impugne
,
and
forbid
all
prayer
to
Angels
,
though
as
intercessours
to
Christ
for
vs
:
whereas
they
only
forbid
Idolatry
to
Angels
,
with
prayer
to
them
,
as
to
the
only
mediatours
betwixt
God
and
vs
,
wherby
Christs
mediation
for
vs
is
wholy
excluded
,
to
the
vtter
subuersion
,
and
ouerthrow
of
our
Christian
fayth
.
The
place
of
S.
Paul
forbidding
the
religion
of
Angels
explicated
.
9.
And
to
the
end
that
all
this
may
be
yet
more
cleare
,
we
are
to
consider
that
religio
Angelorum
,
the
religion
,
or
superstitious
worship
of
Angels
,
which
S.
Paul
reprehended
in
the
Epistle
to
the
Colossenses
,
that
Theodoret
expoundeth
,
was
no
other
but
some
such
Magicall
,
or
Idolatrous
worship
exhibited
to
Angels
as
the
disciples
of
Simon
Magus
vsed
(
whereof
[
](A00916-e81520-b)(b)
(b)
Tertul.
de
praesor
.
cap.
23.
in
fin●
.
Tertullian
saith
:
Simonianae
magiae
disciplina
Angelis
seruiens
&c.
the
discipline
of
Simons
magick
seruing
Angels
,
was
also
held
to
be
Idolatry
)
or
some
such
other
as
might
spring
from
the
blasphemous
heresie
of
[
](A00916-e81570-b)(c)
(c)
Irae●●●●
lib.
1.
c.
25.
Tertul.
de
praescrip.
cap.
4●
.
S.
Epipha●
haer.
28.
Cerinthus
,
who
so
much
abused
Christ
,
and
exalted
Angels
,
that
he
held
Christ
to
be
but
pure
man
,
and
the
sonne
of
Ioseph
,
and
that
Angels
made
the
world
,
and
gaue
the
law
to
the
Iewes
,
yea
that
an
Angell
was
the
God
of
the
Iewes
;
or
finally
of
some
such
other
heretykes
,
as
eyther
attributed
diuinity
to
Angels
,
or
made
them
mediatours
for
man
in
such
sort
,
as
those
Phrygian
heretykes
did
,
S.
Chryso
.
in
2.
ad
〈◊〉
of
whome
Theodoret
speaketh
,
which
was
to
exclude
the
mediation
of
Christ
,
as
it
appeareth
euidently
by
that
which
the
Apostle
addeth
saying
:
&
non
tenens
Caput
ex
quo
&c.
and
not
holding
the
head
whereof
the
whole
body
is
by
ioynts
,
&
bands
compacted
&c.
signifying
that
he
spake
of
such
as
forsook
the
head
,
to
wit
Christ
,
and
made
Angels
the
chiefe
mediatours
of
their
reconciliation
to
God
.
10.
Therefore
S.
Chrysostome
saith
vpon
that
place
of
S.
Paul
:
Sunt
nonnulli
&c.
there
are
some
which
do
say
that
we
must
not
come
to
God
the
Father
,
and
be
reconciled
to
him
by
Christ
,
but
by
Angels
:
and
so
doth
also
Oecumenius
,
and
Theophilactus
expound
the
same
place
.
And
the
authour
of
the
Commentary
vpon
S.
Pauls
Epistles
amongst
the
workes
of
S.
Ambrose
,
Oecum
.
Theoph.
in
hunc
locum
.
saith
that
the
Apostle
taxed
there
such
as
adored
the
starres
quas
,
sayth
he
Angelos
vocat
,
he
calleth
Angels
;
and
finally
to
omit
others
,
S.
Hierome
,
S.
Hieron
.
q.
10.
ad
Algasia●
Haymo
in
ep.
ad
Colos.
cap.
2.
and
Haymo
,
do
vnderstand
that
the
Apostle
speaketh
of
such
as
vsed
to
offer
Sacrifice
to
Angels
;
whereupon
also
the
Councell
of
Laodicea
might
haue
iust
occasion
to
make
their
decree
agaynst
some
such
abominable
Idolatry
done
secretly
to
Angels
in
their
dayes
.
11.
So
as
it
is
euident
by
all
this
,
that
neyther
the
Apostle
in
his
Epistle
to
(
the
Col●ss●nses●
The
conclusion
〈◊〉
M.
Andrews
his
obiection
out
of
Theodoret.
no●
The●doret
,
in
his
Commentary
vpon
the
same
)
nor
then
Galnon
of
the
Laodicean
Councell
mentioned
by
Theodoret
,
and
obiected
by
M.
Andrews
,
do
any
way
impugne
the
custome
of
the
Catholyke
Church
in
praying
to
Angels
;
as
mediatours
to
Christ
for
●s
.
And
to
conclude
concerning
Theodoret
is
whereas
M.
Andrewes
would
by
,
this
place
make
the
world
belieu●
that
he
did
not
approue
prayer
to
Saynts●
See
before
chap.
7.
〈◊〉
44.
I
remit
thee
,
good
Reader
,
to
that
most
perspicuous
,
and
preg●ant●
testimony
,
which
I
haue
before
produced
〈◊〉
of
〈◊〉
to
proue
the
publike
practiced
and
custome
of
the
whole
Church
to
pray
to
Saynts
in
his
tyme
,
together
with
the
admirable
effects
,
and
miraculous
benefits●
that
deuout
people
receiued
thereby
,
and
his
owne
euident
and
cleare
approbation
thereof
,
seeing
that
he
vrgeth
it
,
to
the
confusion
of
the
Paynims
infer●ing
thereupon
a
manifess
argument
of
Christs
diuinity
besides
,
that
in
his
historia
religiosa
(
wherein
wryting
the
lyues
of
diuers
religious
persons
)
he
craueth
in
the
end
of
euery
particuler
Saynts
life
,
Another
obiection
of
M.
An●drews
answered
touching
the
question
whether
Saynts
do
heare
vs
,
and
how
they
see
or
know
our
actions
.
Gods
fauour
and
diuine
assistance
by
his
intercession●
and
in
the
conclusion
[
](A00916-e82000-b)(b)
(b)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
of
the
last
he
desireth
them
all
(
whose
lyues
he
had
written
)
to
pray
for
him
.
So
that
I
hope
,
this
may
suffice
in
answere
of
M.
Andrewes
his
obiection
taken
out
of
him
.
12.
I
haue
before
touched
another
obiection
of
M.
Andrews
grounded
vpon
an
absurd
conceipt
of
his
,
that
it
is
vncertayne
,
whether
Saynts
do
heare
vs
,
and
how
they
see
,
or
know
our
actions
:
and
albeit
that
which
I
sayd
[
](A00916-e82050-b)(d)
(d)
〈◊〉
before
chap.
7.
nu.
42
.
4●
.
&
seq
.
there
,
touching
the
common
,
and
vniuersall
experience
that
the
Church
hath
had
in
all
ages
of
the
helpe
,
and
assistance
of
Saynts
to
such
as
inuocate
them
,
might
suffice
for
his
confutation
in
this
poynt
,
yet
because
he
vrgeth
the
same
diuers
tymes
,
and
especially
in
his
preamble
to
his
censure
●pon
the
Fathers
,
I
will
and
heere
somewhat
more
to
shew
his
absurd
manner
of
arguing
in
this
matter
.
Thus
then
he
saith
;
An●r
.
pag.
34.
Vt
hoc
tamen
.
Vt
hoc
detur
&c.
although
this
should
be
granted
(
that
Saynts
do
pray
for
vs
)
yet
it
is
not
●●●fest
how
they
he
are
vs
praying
heere
on
earth
;
and
those
your
positions
touching
the
glasse
of
the
diuine
essence
;
and
the
shyning
therein
of
all
things
that
are
done
on
earth
,
are
more
subtil
,
then
solid
,
and
not
cleare
inough
to
your selues
,
and
altogeather
vnheard
of
amongst
the
Fathers
,
and
no
man
doth
willingly
call
vpon
those
of
whome
he
is
not
certayne
by
what
meanes
they
heare
him
,
&
pro●●de
andeant
necne
&c.
and
therefore
vnsure
whether
they
heare
him
,
or
no.
So
he
.
13.
Wherein
you
see
he
argueth
in
effect
no
otherwyse
then
thus
,
that
because
we
know
not
certaynely
how
the
Saynts
do
heare
vs
,
therefore
we
are
not
sure
,
that
they
heare
vs
at
all
;
which
truly
is
a
strange
inference
for
albeit
we
be
not
sure
how
,
and
in
what
manner
they
heare
vs
,
yet
we
may
be
sure
that
they
heare
vs
,
seeing
that
the
certaynty
of
any
effect
doth
no●
depend
vpon
the
knowledge
eyther
of
the
cause
,
Many
effects
euident
though
their
causes
be
secret
and
vnknowne
,
and
first
of
naturall
effects
.
or
of
the
manner
,
or
meanes
how
it
is
wrought
,
as
it
is
euident
by
infinite
effects
which
we
certaynely
know
and
see
,
though
we
neyther
know
the
assured
cause
thereof
,
nor
in
what
manner
they
are
performed
.
As
for
example●
it
is
certayne
that
the
sea
●bbeth
,
and
floweth
,
that
●e●e●s
haue
theyr
accesses
,
and
crises●
〈…〉
stone
draweth
〈◊〉
,
and
loketh
alwayes
towards
the
North●
and
yet
neuertheles
we
neyther
cer●aynly
〈…〉
these
●ffects
proceed
,
nor
how
they
are
effected
,
and
who
can
assuredly
tell
,
how
the
sound
of
a
voyce
is
framed
,
and
how
the
eye
seeth
(
whether
by
intromission
,
or
extramission
,
as
the
Philosophers
speake
)
when
neuertheles
th●
effects
are
euident
.
The
same
is
to
be
granted
much
more
in
supernaturall
things
.
14.
And
this
being
so
in
naturall
and
earthly
matters
subiect
to
our
senses
,
what
shall
we
thinke
of
heauenly
thinges
,
or
of
matters
belonging
to
religion
,
and
fayth
,
which
do
farre
more
exceed
mans
weake
capacity
?
must
we
eyther
know
how
they
are
wrought
,
or
els
deny
the
effects
?
Let
M.
Andrews
tell
me
how
Angels
,
and
Saynts
in
heauen
do
pray
to
God
for
vs
,
which
he
granteth
they
do
,
or
how
they
vnderstand
one
another
;
or
yet
how
the
humanity
of
Christ
heareth
our
prayers
,
and
knoweth
our
actions
,
I
meane
,
whether
he
seeth
them
in
his
diuinity
,
or
knoweth
them
by
reuelation
?
and
if
he
dare
not
determine
the
matter
,
let
him
according
to
his
owne
inference
doubt
whether
Christ
heareth
our
prayers
,
or
not
:
yea
let
him
not
willingly
pray
vnto
him
,
seeing
he
[
](A00916-e82230-b)(d)
(d)
Pa.
37.
§.
Vt
hoc
.
sayth
that
no
man
doth
willingly
call
vpon
those
of
whome
he
is
vncertayne
by
what
meanes
they
heare
him
:
and
if
he
will
take
vpon
him
to
determine
it
,
let
him
tell
me
why
the
glorified
soules
of
Saynts
which
see
God
,
may
not
heare
our
prayers
,
and
know
our
actions
in
the
same
manner
?
15.
But
to
omit
infinite
other
instances
which
might
be
giuen
,
let
vs
heare
what
S.
Augustine
sayth
,
euen
in
a
matter
pertayning
to
this
question
whereof
we
now
treate
.
For
albeit
he
maketh
great
doubt
how
Almighty
God
did
work
those
stupendious
miracles
(
which
as
he
testifieth
vpon
his
owne
knowledge
were
done
at
the
memoryes
,
S.
Aug.
de
ciuit
.
li
22.
cap.
8.
and
relyques
of
S.
Steuen
,
and
other
Martyrs
)
yet
he
made
so
litle
doubt
of
the
effect
,
that
he
vrged
the
same
notably
against
the
Paynims
to
proue
the
verity
of
the
Christian
fayth
,
saying
:
Si●e
Deus
per
seipsum
miro
modo
&c.
whether
God
doth
worke
these
things
by
himselfe
,
in
that
meruailous
manner
,
Idem
Ibid.
c.
●
.
whereby
he
worketh
temporall
things
,
being
himselfe
eternall
;
or
whether
he
doth
the
selfe
same
things
by
his
ministers
,
or
whether
he
doth
some
of
them
by
the
soules
of
the
Martyrs
,
as
he
doth
by
men
whiles
they
are
yet
heere
in
body
,
or
all
by
Angels
whome
he
commandeth
inuisibly
,
immutably
,
and
without
a
body
(
in
such
sort
that
those
things
which
are
sayd
to
be
done
by
the
Martyrs
,
be
done
only
by
their
prayers
,
and
impetration
,
&
not
also
by
their
operation
)
or
whether
some
things
are
done
by
these
meanes
,
&
some
by
others
,
which
cannot
by
any
meanes
be
comprehended
by
mortall
men
,
ei
profectò
haec
attestantur
fidei
&c.
all
these
truly
do
giue
testimony
to
that
fayth
,
wherein
the
resurrection
of
the
flesh
is
preached
.
16.
Thus
discourseth
this
holy
Father
,
acknowledging
as
you
see
,
the
imbecillity
of
mans
vnderstanding
to
comprehend
the
manner
how
Almighty
God
did
worke
these
supernaturall
effects
,
although
he
doubted
not
of
the
effects
of
themselues
,
M.
Andrews
conuinced
by
that
which
he
granteth
elswhere
.
and
yet
forsooth
M.
Andrews
must
eyther
know
how
Saynts
do
heare
vs
,
or
els
he
will
deny
that
they
heare
vs
,
notwithstanding
the
knowne
,
and
common
experience
that
the
Church
of
God
hath
alwayes
had
thereof
;
to
which
purpose
also
it
may
be
obserued
that
he
confe●seth
himselfe
[
](A00916-e82410-b)(b)
(b)
And●
.
p.
40.
§.
Non
ver●●
elswhere
,
that
God
was
wont
miraculously
to
relieue
those
that
prayed
at
the
tombes
of
Martyrs
;
and
yet
I
am
sure
he
knoweth
not
how
the
same
was
wrought
(
I
meane
whether
God
did
it
by
himselfe
,
or
by
the
〈…〉
of
the
Martyrs
,
〈◊〉
by
the
ministery
of
Angels
,
〈…〉
and
sometymes
by
〈…〉
why
then
doth
he
deny
heere
,
that
Saynt●
heare
vs
,
because
he
is
not
sure
how
they
heare
vs
?
So
as
thou
seest
good
Reader
what
a
wyse
inference
he
hath
made
with
his
proinde
,
when
he
saith
;
proinde
a●diant
necn●
&
.
therfore
a
man
is
not
sure
whether
the
Saynts
heare
him
,
Andr.
p.
37.
§.
Vt
hoc
.
because
he
is
vndertayne
,
qu●
natione
audiant
compellant●●●
,
by
what
●eanes
,
or
in
what
manner
,
they
heare
him
when
he
calleth
vpon
them
.
17.
Therefore
wheras
he
saith
,
that
our
doctrine
concerning
the
glasse
of
the
diuine
Essence
,
and
the
sight
of
all
things
therin
is
more
subtill
then
solid
,
and
not
ceare
ynough
to
our
sel●es
,
Vpon
what
grounds
the
doctrine
that
Saynts
do
heare
our
prayers
,
is
founded
.
it
would
〈◊〉
import
though
it
〈…〉
,
seeing
that
we
do
not
thereon
ground
our
doctrine
that
Saynts
heare
,
or
know
ou●
prayers
,
〈…〉
the
custome
,
and
practise
of
the
whole
Church
of
God
which
prayeth
to
Saynts
,
〈◊〉
therefore
beleeue
that
they
heare
vs
;
and
partly
vpon
euident
experience
of
the
benefits
that
by
Gods
mercyfull
prouidence
,
and
ordinance
men
do
receiue
by
them
and
partly
also
vpon
the
conformity
thereof
to
the
holy
Scripture
,
which
teacheth
not
only
that
the
Angel●
in
heauen
do
reioyce
at
the
repentance
of
sinners
(
which
they
could
not
do
if
they
did
not
knee●
Luc.
1●
.
it
)
but
also
that
the
soules
of
the
iust
being
glorified
〈◊〉
aequales
Angelis
,
Luc.
20.
equall
to
Angels
,
and
consequently
haue
the
lyke
knowledge
that
they
haue
;
besids
that
it
is
euident
in
the
holy
Scriptures
,
that
the
Prophets
of
God
did
see
the
harts
and
thoughts
of
men
,
●
.
Reg.
9.
and
know
things
farre
distant
from
them●
Samuel
told
vnto
Saul
all
that
he
had
in
his
hart
;
●
.
Reg.
5.
and
Eliz●●s
being
absent
,
saw
hi●
seruant
G●●zi
take
gifts
of
〈◊〉
the
Syrian●
and
discouered
also
all
that
which
the
King
of
Syria
treated
in
his
cabinet
.
Ibid.
cap.
●
.
Act.
7.
Also
S.
Steuen
being
on
earth
did
see
our
Sauiour
Iesus
Christ
on
the
right
hand
of
his
Father
in
heauen
;
and
therefore
it
,
were
absurd
to
imagine
that
the
glorified
Saynts
in
heauen
could
not
see
,
or
know
what
is
done
on
earth
,
especially
such
things
as
concerne
themselues
,
and
the
honour
that
is
done
vnto
them
for
Gods
greater
glory
,
and
the
prayers
that
are
directed
to
them
for
the
reliefe
of
Gods
seruants
.
Lastly
S.
Iohn
in
the
Apocalyps
signifyeth
that
the
Saynts
in
heauen
do
offer
vp
the
prayers
of
holy
men
on
earth
,
Apoc.
●●
which
they
could
not
do
,
if
they
did
not
vnderstand
and
know
mens
prayers
.
18.
Furthermore
this
doctrine
is
also
grounded
vpon
the
cleare
testimony
of
the
Fathers
who
teach
it
expressely
.
S.
Atha
.
q.
11.
As
S.
Athanasius
who
sayth
,
that
the
soules
of
Saynts
,
The
Fathers
plainely
testify
that
the
Saynts
do
know
all
our
actions
in
earth
.
&
post
mortem
,
&
in
die
Iudicij
cognoscent
omnia
,
shall
know
all
things
both
after
their
death
,
and
in
the
day
of
iudgment
:
and
,
nullus
est
(
sayth
S.
Basil
)
ex
hijs
,
qui
non
singula
vbique
consideret
,
there
is
none
of
these
(
he
speaketh
of
Angels
,
and
the
soules
of
the
iust
)
who
doth
not
consider
euery
thing
euery
where
besides
,
that
he
calleth
the
40.
Martyrs
communes
humani
generis
custodes
,
the
common
guardians
,
or
keepers
of
humane
kind
.
S.
Basil
d●
vera
Virginitate
paulo
ante
medium
.
S.
Ambrose
also
saith
,
that
Martyrs
are
prae●ules
,
&
spectatores
actuum
nostrorum
,
the
gouernour●
,
and
beholders
of
our
actions
.
19.
In
lyke
manner
S.
Hierom●
teacheth
,
S.
Ambros.
de
viduis
Apoc.
14.
Vigila●●●
●●
that
it
is
written
of
the
soules
of
the
iust
in
the
holy
Scripture
si
quuntur
agnum
quocumque
ierit
,
they
follow
the
Lambe
wheresoeuer
he
goeth●
and
then
he
addeth
,
Si
agnu●
vbique
&c.
If
the
Lambe
●e
euery
were
,
therefore
it
is
to
be
belieued
that
those
also
who
are
with
the
Lambe
are
euery
where
;
and
seeing
that
Diuels
go
all
the
world
ouer
,
and
by
reason
of
their
exceeding
great
celerity
are
euery
where
present
,
shall
Martyrs
after
they
haue
shed
their
bloud
for
Christ
,
be
shut
vp
,
as
it
were
in
a
coffer
,
that
they
cannot
get
out
?
So
he
.
Theodoret
also
giueth
to
Martyrs
,
the
title
of
Duces
,
Principes
,
propugnatores
,
&
custodes
hominum
&c.
the
Captayns
,
the
Princes
,
Theodoret
de
Graec.
●ffect
.
cu●●
.
lib.
8.
the
defenders
,
and
guardians
of
men
,
by
whome
(
sayth
he
)
those
mischiefs
,
and
miseryes
which
Diuels
do
inflict
vpon
vs
,
are
auerted
from
vs
.
S.
Chrysostome
calleth
S.
Peter
,
●
.
Chrys.
ho.
●●
.
in
.
ep.
ad
Corinth
.
and
S.
Paul
and
Patrons
,
and
Protectors
of
the
Emperours
.
Whereupon
it
must
needs
follow
,
that
those
blessed
Apostles
,
and
other
Saynts
,
did
vnderstand
the
actions
,
and
necessityes
of
those
whome
they
protected
,
and
defended
.
S.
Aug.
li.
●●
.
de
ciuit
.
〈◊〉
cap.
●●
.
20.
Moreouer
S.
Augustine
discoursing
how
the
Saynts
shall
see
God
in
heauen
after
the
resurrection
,
and
whether
they
shall
see
him
with
their
corporall
eyes
,
teacheth
by
the
way
,
that
they
shall
then
see
all
things
with
the
eyes
of
the
spirit
,
etiam
vnde
sunt
corpore
absentes
,
euen
whence
they
are
absent
in
body
;
and
this
he
proueth
amply
by
the
example
of
Elizaeus
,
who
being
absent
from
his
seruant
Giezi
,
saw
him
take
gifts
of
Naaman
,
●
.
Reg.
●
.
and
therefore
sayd
vnto
him
,
Nonne
cor
meum
in
praesenti
erat
&c.
was
not
my
hart
present
with
thee
,
when
the
man
came
from
his
Chariot
to
meete
thee
,
and
thou
tookest
the
money
?
Whereupon
S.
Augustine
sayth
;
Corde
suo
ergo
se
dixit
hoc
vidisse
Propheta
&c.
therfore
the
Prophet
sayd
that
he
saw
this
with
his
hart
,
being
no
doubt
admirably
helped
by
Almighty
God
:
but
how
much
more
shall
all
men
then
abound
in
this
gift
,
when
God
shal
be
omnia
in
omnibus
,
all
in
all
?
Thus
discourseth
this
learned
Father
to
proue
that
the
Saynts
after
their
resurrection
videbunt
omnia
,
shall
see
all
things
with
their
spirituall
eye
,
etiam
vnde
sunt
corpore
absentes
,
euen
whence
they
are
absent
in
body
.
21.
And
this
must
needs
be
vnderstood
in
lyke
manner
of
glorifyed
soules
before
the
resurrection
,
for
that
the
glorification
of
their
bodyes
(
although
it
shall
increase
their
Ioy
,
and
glory
,
yet
)
shall
not
increase
their
vision
of
God
,
or
knowledge
,
which
they
haue
now
as
perfect
,
as
they
shall
haue
after
their
resurrection
.
Finally
to
omit
many
other
Fathers
which
might
be
alledged
,
S.
Gregory
sayth
,
S.
Greg.
li.
12.
Moral
.
cap.
14.
that
it
is
not
to
be
belieued
,
that
quae
intus
claritatem
Dei
vident
&c.
the
soules
which
see
into
the
light
,
or
brightnes
of
God
,
are
ignorant
of
any
thing
that
is
abroad
;
Idem
.
li.
4.
Dial.
ca.
33.
and
againe
in
another
place
,
quia
in
illa
aeterna
haereditate
&c.
for
as
much
as
in
that
eternall
inheritance
all
men
do
see
God
with
a
common
clarity
,
or
brightnes
,
what
is
there
which
they
cannot
know
,
who
know
him
that
knoweth
all
things
?
Thus
saith
S.
Gregory
,
teaching
,
as
you
see
,
that
the
Saynts
in
heauen
know
all
things
in
earth
,
and
yielding
the
selfe
same
reason
thereof
which
you
haue
heard
M.
Andrews
say
was
inaudita
Patribus
,
neuer
heard
of
amongst
the
Fathers
,
to
wit
,
that
because
they
see
,
and
know
God
,
therefore
they
see
,
and
know
all
things
in
him
,
in
whome
omnia
constant
,
sayth
the
Apostle
,
all
things
do
consist
.
22.
So
as
howsoeuer
the
ancient
Fathers
may
haue
differed
in
opinion
concerning
the
manner
how
the
Saynts
know
things
done
on
earth
,
A
good
deduction
vpon
M.
Andrews
his
owne
grant
.
M.
Andrews
may
see
that
they
agree
touching
the
effect
:
which
also
is
so
conforme
to
reason
,
that
he
cannot
with
reason
deny
it
,
especially
seeing
he
himselfe
granteth
that
the
Saynts
do
pray
for
vs
of
their
charity
,
&
loue
towards
vs
.
For
if
they
loue
vs
so
,
that
as
[
](A00916-e83490-b)(d)
(d)
S.
Cyprian
.
li.
de
mortalit
.
Item
.
ep.
57.
S.
Cyprian
saith
,
de
nostra
salute
sunt
solliciti
,
they
are
carefull
for
our
saluation
,
and
as
M.
Andrews
[
](A00916-e83540-b)(f)
(f)
Andr.
pag.
37.
§.
Omnia
.
Item
.
p.
46.
lin.
9.
confesseth
they
do
indeed
pray
for
vs
,
it
must
needs
be
granted
that
this
their
loue
,
and
care
doth
include
a
desire
to
know
our
necessityes
whereupon
it
also
followeth
that
they
do
know
them●
for
if
their
desire
should
not
be
satisfyed
,
they
should
not
be
so
happy
and
blessed
,
as
the
perfection
of
their
beatitude
doth
requyre
:
besides
,
that
seeing
Almighty
God
doth
glorify
them
not
only
in
heauen
with
the
vision
of
his
Deity
,
but
also
in
earth
with
many
miracles
done
at
their
monuments
(
as
M.
Andrews
himselfe
confesseth
in
his
answere
to
a
place
of
S.
Basil
)
it
were
absurd
to
thinke
that
they
do
not
know
as
well
the
particuler
fauours
that
God
doth
to
men
for
their
fakes
,
Andr.
p.
4.
§.
Non
Verè
.
as
also
the
honour
and
glory
that
redoundeth
thereof
both
to
God
,
and
them
,
without
which
knowledge
their
beatitude
,
as
I
haue
sayd
,
should
not
be
complete
.
23.
Now
then
seeing
that
our
doctrine
,
that
Saynts
do
heare
,
A
brief
recapitulation
of
the
reasons
whereupon
is
grounded
the
doctrine
that
Saynts
heare
our
prayers
.
or
vnderstand
our
prayers
,
is
grounded
vpon
such
sure
foundations
,
as
heere
I
haue
declared
,
to
wit
,
the
continuall
custome
,
and
practice
of
the
Church
to
pray
to
them
;
the
manifest
experience
of
benefits
receiued
by
them
;
the
conformity
thereof
to
the
holy
Scriptures
,
with
the
vniforme
and
expresse
testimonyes
of
the
Fathers
,
&
lastly
vpon
reason
it selfe
;
how
little
reason
hath
M.
Andrews
to
deny
it
vpon
no
better
reason
,
then
because
it
is
vncertayne
in
what
manner
they
heare
vs
?
especially
seeing
I
haue
also
euidently
proued
that
the
vncertainty
of
the
manner
,
See
before
nu.
13
&
14.
meanes
,
or
cause
of
any
thing
,
can
nothing
derogate
from
the
certaynty
of
the
effect
,
so
as
he
must
eyther
bring
some
more
solid
arguments
agaynst
prayer
to
Saynts
,
or
els
he
shall
but
discouer
both
his
owne
imbecillity
,
and
the
weakenes
if
his
cause
.
24.
And
therefore
he
had
reason
to
seeke
some
better
reason
,
Another
silly
shift
of
M.
Andrews
.
which
he
doth
,
seeming
to
put
the
case
that
it
were
true
,
yea
most
manifest
that
Saynts
do
heare
our
prayers
,
yet
,
ne
sic
quidem
(
sayth
he
)
audemus
vota
nostra
ad
illos
precesque
dirigere
,
we
dare
not
for
all
that
direct
our
vowes
,
Andr
cap.
1
p.
37.
§.
Verum
.
and
prayers
vnto
them
;
and
hereof
he
yieldeth
this
reason
,
cùm
praeceptum
●a
de
re
nullum
acceperimus
,
praeceptum
autem
acceperimus
in
Lege
disertis
verbis
:
Deut.
12.
Quod
tibi
praecepero
hoc
tantùm
facies
.
We
dare
not
(
saith
he
)
pray
vnto
them
,
because
we
haue
receiued
no
precept
concerning
that
poynt
,
M.
Andrews
is
so
scrupulous
that
he
dare
do
nothing
without
●
precept
or
example
in
Scripture
.
but
haue
receiued
a
precept
in
the
law
,
in
expresse
words
;
What
I
shall
command
thee
,
that
only
thou
shalt
doe
:
So
he
;
and
then
concludeth
;
id
tantùm
audemus
facere
&c.
We
dare
doe
that
only
whereof
we
haue
a
precept
.
Bring
you
a
praecept
,
and
we
will
straight
inuocate
them
with
you
.
Thus
argueth
he
.
25.
And
hath
he
not
,
trow
you
,
very
well
proued
now
,
that
nothing
may
be
practiced
in
Gods
Church
without
an
expresse
written
precept
?
His
impertinent
allegation
of
Scripture
.
Who
would
thinke
that
a
Doctor
of
diuinity
should
haue
so
litle
vnderstanding
of
the
holy
Scriptures
,
as
to
inferre
this
conclusion
vpon
the
place
that
he
alledgeth
,
which
concerneth
only
the
Sacrifyces
that
God
required
,
and
commanded
to
be
offred
vnto
him
in
the
Mosaycall
law
,
as
it
is
euident
by
the
very
circumstances
of
the
place
,
in
the
12.
Chapter
of
Deuteronomy
,
from
whence
that
precept
is
taken
.
For
when
Almighty
God
had
admonished
the
people
to
beware
that
they
did
not
imitate
the
nations
whose
lands
they
should
possesse
,
in
their
abominable
Sacrifyces
,
saying
:
for
all
the
abhominations
,
that
our
Lord
doth
abhorre
,
haue
they
done
to
their
Gods
,
Deut.
12.
offering
their
sonnes
,
and
daughters
,
An
explication
of
the
place
of
Deuteronomy
alledged
by
M.
Andrews
.
and
burning
them
with
fire
,
after
this
I
say
,
followeth
immediatly
,
what
I
command
thee
,
that
only
doe
to
our
Lord
,
neyther
adde
any
thing
,
nor
diminish
.
Thus
sayd
Almighty
God
;
as
who
would
say
,
whereas
the
gentills
whose
lands
thou
shalt
possesse
,
did
worship
their
Gods
with
most
abominable
Sacrifyces
,
and
ceremonyes
,
sacrificing
their
owne
children
by
fire
,
do
not
thou
imitate
them
therein
,
but
offer
thou
to
me
in
Sacrifice
,
only
that
which
I
doe
command
thee
,
to
wit
those
things
which
are
ordayned
,
and
prescrybed
in
the
law
to
that
end
,
26.
And
this
no
doubt
is
the
cleare
sense
,
and
meaning
of
those
words
,
for
if
they
shal
be
vnderstood
,
as
M.
Andrews
taketh
them
,
to
exclude
the
practice
of
all
things
whatsoeuer
that
were
not
expressely
commanded
in
the
letter
of
the
law
,
Hest.
9
Iudith
ca.
vlt.
1.
Machab.
4.
then
the
solmne
feasts
ordayned
afterwards
by
Mardochaeus
,
Iudith
,
and
the
Machabees
had
byn
vnlawfull
,
which
neuertheles
are
approued
in
the
Scripture
,
and
the
last
of
the
3.
to
wit
the
feast
of
the
Dedication
instituted
by
the
Machabees
,
Ioan.
10.
was
honoured
by
our
Sauiour
himself
with
his
presence
.
But
let
vs
put
the
case
that
this
commandment
of
Almighty
God
was
generall
touching
the
seruice
and
worship
of
God
in
the
old
law
,
M.
Andrews
hardly
pressed
by
his
owne
argument
.
will
M.
Andrewes
inferre
thereupon
,
that
the
same
is
to
be
extended
to
the
new
law
?
As
well
may
he
say
,
that
we
are
bound
to
obserue
the
whole
law
,
and
so
proue
himselfe
a
Iew
,
&
euacuate
the
law
of
Christ
,
as
Saynt
Paul
argueth
against
Gal.
5.
those
that
mayntained
the
vse
of
Circumcision
togeather
with
the
faith
of
Christ
.
27.
Neuertheles
I
say
not
this
to
exclude
all
manner
of
arguments
,
How
arguments
may
be
deduced
from
the
Law
of
Moyses
.
or
inferences
drawne
from
the
old
law
to
the
new
(
that
the
same
remayne
within
the
limits
of
probability
,
as
from
the
figure
,
to
the
verity
,
which
admitteth
many
limitations
,
and
exceptions
)
but
to
exclude
the
obligation
of
all
precepts
eyther
ceremoniall
,
See
chap.
1.
nu.
14.15
.
&
16.
or
Iudiciall
,
which
do
not
in
any
sort
bynd
vs
now
,
as
I
haue
shewed
in
the
first
Chapter
of
this
Adioynder
.
And
therefore
whereas
M.
Andrews
sayth
heere
,
cùm
praeceptum
acceperimus
in
lege
disertis
verbis
&c.
seeing
we
haue
receiued
a
precept
in
the
law
in
expresse
words
&c.
M.
Andrews
his
argument
proueth
himselfe
to
be
a
Iew
.
I
say
to
him
that
seeing
this
precept
did
vndoutedly
belong
to
the
ceremoniall
law
,
and
concerned
only
the
manner
of
worship
to
be
done
to
God
by
Sacrifice
,
he
sheweth
himselfe
a
flat
Iew
,
in
saying
that
we
Christians
haue
receiued
this
precept
in
the
law
.
28.
Furthermore
he
is
to
vnderstand
,
that
albeit
we
should
grant
that
nothing
can
be
practiced
,
or
taught
in
the
new
law
without
some
precept
,
or
doctrine
thereof
deliuered
by
our
Sauiour
Christ
vnto
his
Church
,
yet
he
could
gayne
nothing
thereby
,
except
he
could
also
proue
that
all
our
Sauiours
precepts
,
and
doctrine
are
expressely
set
downe
in
Scripture
,
which
neyther
he
nor
any
of
his
fellowes
haue
byn
able
yet
to
proue
,
or
euer
shal
be
,
it
being
euident
that
our
Sauiour
neyther
commanded
any
thing
at
all
to
be
written
,
but
to
be
preached
,
and
taught
,
saying
,
praedicate
euangelium
&c.
preach
the
gospell
to
euery
Creature
,
and
againe
docete
omnes
gentes
&c.
teach
all
Nations
,
Matth.
28.
baptizing
them
&c.
neyther
did
the
Apostles
eyther
write
any
thing
of
diuers
yeares
after
Christ
Ascension
,
or
when
they
wrote
,
deliuer
all
Christs
doctrine
,
and
their
owne
by
writing
,
●
.
Thes.
2.
but
very
many
things
by
tradition
,
in
which
respect
the
Apostle
himselfe
saith
,
tenete
traditiones
quas
accepistis
,
siue
per
sermonem
,
siue
per.
Epistolam
nostram
,
hold
the
traditions
which
you
haue
receiued
eyther
by
word
,
or
by
our
Epistle
,
by
which
words
of
the
Apostle
the
ancient
Fathers
namely
[
](A00916-e84350-b)(b)
(b)
Hom.
in
2.
Thes.
2.
S.
Chrysostome
[
](A00916-e84390-b)(c)
(c)
Haer.
61
S.
Epiphanius
[
](A00916-e84420-b)(d)
(d)
Lib.
de
Spiritu
Sanct.
cap.
29.
S.
Basil
,
S.
Iohn
[
](A00916-e84450-b)(e)
(e)
Lib.
4.
de
fide
ca.
17
Damascen
,
[
](A00916-e84490-b)(f)
(f)
in
2.
Thes.
2.
Oecumenius
Theophilactus
,
and
the
8.
Generall
[
](A00916-e84530-b)(g)
(g)
Act.
Vlt.
can.
1.
Councell
do
proue
the
necessary
vse
of
vnwritten
traditions
in
the
Church
,
and
amongst
the
rest
S.
Chrysostome
saith
:
hinc
patet
&c.
heereby
it
is
m●nifest
,
that
the
Apostles
did
not
deliuer
all
things
by
Epistle
,
but
many
things
without
writing
;
eadem
fide
digna
sunt
tam
illa
,
quàm
ista
:
as
well
those
things
as
these
,
are
worthy
of
the
same
credit
.
S.
Augustines
golden
rule
.
29.
For
this
cause
S.
Augustine
giueth
this
generall
rule
,
that
whatsoeuer
the
whole
Church
retayneth
,
whereof
the
beginning
cannot
be
deduced
eyther
from
the
Scriptures
,
or
Generall
Councells
,
or
some
later
institution
,
the
same
was
vndoutedly
deliuered
by
the
Apostles
,
and
this
he
vrgeth
[
](A00916-e84600-b)(d)
(d)
S.
Aug.
de
Baptis
.
contra
Donat.
l.
2.
ca.
7.
&
li.
4.
c.
6.
&
Ibid
cap.
24.
&
li.
5.
ca.
23.
very
often
as
a
most
assured
ground
,
and
principle
agaynst
the
Donatists
;
and
for
the
same
reason
not
only
he
,
but
also
all
other
Fathers
teach
,
that
the
generall
custome
of
the
Church
,
is
an
infallible
,
and
euident
proofe
of
the
truth
in
any
controuersy
,
in
so
much
that
he
affirmeth
it
to
be
insolentissimae
insaniae
,
a
poynt
of
most
insolent
madnes
to
dispute
,
or
doubt
of
it
,
as
I
haue
declared
in
the
last
Chapter
,
which
I
wish
M.
Andrews
well
to
obserue
,
as
also
the
other
testimonyes
of
the
ancient
Fathers
produced
there
concerning
this
poynt
.
Idem
ep.
118.
See
chap.
7.
nu.
49.
30.
Now
then
,
hereupon
I
conclude
two
things
,
the
one
,
that
M.
Andrews
,
who
as
he
sayth
dare
do
nothing
without
a
written
precept
,
may
lay
away
his
scruple
,
in
matters
that
are
generally
practised
by
the
Church
,
the
other
,
that
seeing
it
is
euident
by
these
testimonyes
of
so
many
holy
and
learned
Fathers
,
as
haue
byn
heere
alledged
,
that
the
whole
Church
in
their
dayes
practized
prayer
to
Saynts
,
as
a
thing
most
beneficiall
to
men
,
and
honorable
to
God
;
and
that
they
acknowledged
the
euident
and
miraculous
benefits
that
grew
to
men
thereby
,
yea
vrged
the
same
agaynst
the
very
Gentills
,
and
Paynims
,
as
inuincible
arguments
of
the
diuinity
of
Christ
,
and
of
the
verity
of
Christian
religion
:
and
seeing
also
that
this
practice
,
custome
,
and
beliefe
was
then
generall
,
when
Christian
religion
most
florished
(
I
meane
in
the
tyme
of
the
4.
first
generall
Councells
)
and
when
the
Church
abounded
most
with
famous
Doctors
,
Pastors
,
and
Fathers
,
it
must
needs
be
graunted
,
that
the
doctrine
of
prayer
to
Saynts
,
is
an
irrefragable
verity
,
and
that
according
to
S.
Augustines
censure
,
it
is
no
lesse
then
insolent
madnes
in
M.
Andrewes
to
call
it
in
question
,
M.
Andrews
according
to
S.
Augustins
censure
is
an
insolent
mad
man
.
and
much
more
to
impugne
it
with
such
friuolous
reasons
as
he
doth
,
and
especially
with
a
ceremoniall
precept
of
the
Mosaycall
law
,
as
if
he
were
a
Iew
,
and
not
a
Christian
,
seeing
that
he
acknowledgeth
himselfe
to
haue
receiued
a
precept
thereby
disertis
verbis
,
in
expresse
words
,
which
I
thinke
no
good
Christian
will
say
of
any
precept
,
Andr.
p.
38.
§.
Atque
.
belonging
to
the
ceremoniall
,
or
Iudiciall
law
.
31.
But
M.
Andrews
goeth
yet
further
,
and
exacteth
at
least
some
example
of
it
in
the
Scripture
,
S.
Aug
li
de
vnit
.
Eccl.
ca.
22.
vel.
19.
in
some
ed●tions
.
if
there
be
no
precept
:
whereto
S.
Augustine
answereth
sufficiently
,
when
he
sayth
to
a
Donatist
(
who
made
the
lyke
demaund
about
the
rebaptization
of
such
as
were
baptized
by
heretykes
)
that
seeing
there
is
no
example
or
expresse
mention
of
it
in
Scripture
,
and
that
Christ
hath
clearly
and
expresly
recommended
vnto
vs
the
authority
of
his
vniuersall
Church
dispersed
throughout
the
world
,
the
testimony
and
custome
of
that
Church
is
to
be
admitted
and
imbraced
,
and
whosoeuer
reiecteth
or
resisteth
the
same
,
Idem
.
contra
.
Crescon
.
lib.
1.
cap.
33.
doth
most
perniciously
resist
our
Sauiour
himselfe
against
his
owne
saluation
.
Thus
sayth
S.
Augustine
in
substance
,
though
much
more
amply
;
who
also
speaking
elswhere
of
the
same
point
,
giueth
this
notable
,
and
generall
rule
,
that
for
as
much
as
the
holy
Scripture
doth
vndoubtedly
recommend
vnto
vs
the
authority
of
the
Church
etiam
in
hac
re
à
nobis
tenetur
Scripturarum
veritas
&c.
the
veri●y
of
Scripture
is
retayned
by
vs
in
this
point
,
when
we
do
that
which
hath
already
pleased
the
whole
Church
.
So
he
.
And
so
say
I
to
M.
Andrews
in
this
our
case
;
to
wit
that
seeing
it
is
euident
by
the
testimony
of
all
antiquity
,
that
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
was
generally
admitted
,
and
practised
by
the
Primitiue
Church
,
and
from
thence
hath
descended
to
our
tyme
,
there
needeth
no
example
of
it
in
Scripture
,
because
the
authority
of
the
Church
,
which
the
Scriptures
do
expressely
recommend
vnto
vs
sufficeth
to
warrant
the
same
.
M.
Andrews
and
his
fellowes
do
admit
diuers
traditions
without
any
ex●presse
precept
,
or
example
thereof
in
Scripture
.
32.
And
truly
it
may
seeme
strange
that
M.
Andrews
,
or
any
of
his
fellowes
of
the
English
Clergy
do
deny
this
,
seeing
that
they
do
admit
diuers
traditions
whereof
there
is
neyther
precept
,
nor
example
in
the
Scripture
;
as
the
baptisme
of
infants
,
who
do
not
actually
belieue
,
for
although
the
same
be
very
consonant
to
Scripture
(
as
also
is
prayer
to
Saynts
,
and
all
other
things
which
are
practiced
in
the
Catholike
Church
)
yet
the
vse
,
and
practice
thereof
is
grounded
vpon
tradition
and
not
vpon
the
Scriptures
,
Origen
lib.
5.
in
cap.
6.
ad
Rom.
as
Origen
testifyeth
,
saying
:
Ecclesia
ab
Apostolis
traditionem
accepit
&c.
The
Church
receiued
a
tradition
from
the
Apostles
,
to
giue
baptisme
to
litle
children
.
So
he
.
And
S.
Augustin
also
to
the
same
purpose
saith
more
plainely
thus
;
S.
Aug.
de
Gen.
ad
lit
.
li.
10.
c.
23.
Consuetudo
m●tris
Ecclesiae
in
baptizandis
paruulis
&c.
the
custome
of
our
Mother
the
Church
in
baptizing
infants
,
is
not
to
be
contemned
,
or
reputed
as
superfluous
,
neyther
were
it
to
be
belieued
at
all
,
if
it
were
not
an
Apostolicall
tradition
.
So
he
,
who
also
acknowledgeth
the
same
in
another
place
,
Idem
lib.
4.
de
Baptis
.
con●ra
Donatist
.
cap.
24.
and
saith
further
,
that
if
any
man
do
demaund
diuine
authority
for
it
(
quamquam
quod
vniuersa
tenet
Ecclesia
&c.
albeit
that
which
the
vniuersall
Church
holdeth
,
and
hath
not
byn
ordayned
by
Councells
,
but
hath
alwayes
been
reteyned
,
is
most
rightly
belieued
to
haue
byn
deliuered
by
no
other
,
but
by
Apostolicall
authority
)
neuertheles
we
may
truly
coniecture
by
Circumcision
in
the
old
law
,
what
force
the
Sacrament
of
Baptisme
hath
in
Infants
.
Thus
saith
S.
Augustine
,
who
to
answere
those
,
that
do
demand
diuine
authority
,
for
the
custome
of
the
Church
in
baptizing
Infants
,
doth
not
proue
,
or
confirme
it
by
any
precept
,
or
example
out
of
Scripture
,
but
only
by
a
probable
coniecture
drawn
from
the
figure
of
it
in
the
old
law
,
relying
principally
vpon
the
tradition
of
the
Church
.
33.
But
what
need
I
seeke
any
other
testimony
for
this
matter
,
seeing
that
Tho.
Rogers
in
the
39.
articles
agreed
vpon
by
the
pretended
Bishops
,
and
Clergy
of
England
,
and
analyzed
into
propositions
,
glossed
,
and
set
forth
by
him
,
with
their
publyke
approbation
,
doth
acknowledge
that
the
baptisme
of
yong
children
,
is
in
any
wyse
to
be
retayned
in
the
Church
,
as
most
agreeable
with
the
institution
of
Christ
,
See
the
faith
,
doctrine
&c.
printed
an
.
Do.
1607.
by
Iohn
Legat
in
Cambridg
pag.
1●5
.
art.
27.
§.
The
Baptisme
.
&
p.
168.
§.
Although●
although
(
sayth
he
)
we
be
not
commanded
by
expresse
termes
to
baptize
them
.
So
he
;
whereupon
it
directly
followeth
,
that
M.
Andrews
hath
ouerlashed
greatly
in
saying
,
id
tantùm
audemus
facere
de
quo
praeceptum
habemus
,
we
dare
doe
that
only
whereof
we
haue
a
precept
.
Also
what
precept
,
or
example
haue
M.
Andrews
and
his
fellowes
in
Scripture
for
the
vse
of
Godfathers
,
and
Godmothers
,
and
of
the
signe
of
the
crosse
in
Baptisme
,
allowed
as
well
by
their
practice
,
as
by
the
late
Queenes
Iniunctions
,
yea
and
by
the
Ecclesiasticall
Canons
of
the
Bishops
,
See
constitutions
Ecclesiast.
printed
at
London
by
Barker
an
.
1604
,
can.
30.
and
Clergy
of
the
Prouince
of
Canterbury
,
made
in
their
Synod
held
at
London
with
his
Maiestyes
lycence
,
in
the
yeare
1603.
and
published
the
yeare
following
by
his
Maiestyes
authority
,
vnder
the
great
Seale
of
England
,
in
which
Canons
they
do
not
only
approue
the
vse
of
the
signe
of
the
crosse
in
Baptisme
,
but
also
professe
to
follow
therein
the
primitiue
,
&
Apostolicall
Churches
,
&
the
true
rules
of
doctrine
concerning
things
indifferent
,
which
are
consonant
to
the
word
of
God
,
and
the
iudgement
of
all
the
ancient
Fathers
,
so
that
by
their
owne
confession
,
they
retayne
the
vse
of
it
without
eyther
precept
or
example
in
holy
Scripture
.
34.
And
now
,
because
I
haue
had
this
occasion
to
speake
of
this
constitution
,
A
notable
trumpery
of
the
pretended
Bishops
in
their
Ecclesiastical
Constitutions
.
I
can
not
omit
to
aduertise
thee
,
good
Reader
,
of
a
notable
peece
of
trumpery
,
and
cosenage
,
vsed
by
that
graue
Synod
,
in
this
very
Canon
whereof
we
now
speake
;
wherein
giuing
the
reason
why
they
retayne
the
vse
of
the
signe
of
the
crosse
in
Baptisme
,
they
say
they
do
it
,
because
the
same
hath
byn
euer
accompanyed
(
among
them
)
with
sufficient
cautions
,
&
exceptions
agaynst
all
popish
superstition
,
and
errour
,
and
forsooth
,
Ibidem
.
that
the
world
may
vnderstand
from
what
popish
errour
they
haue
freed
the
same
,
they
signify
,
that
the
Church
of
England
since
the
abolishing
of
Popery
,
hath
euer
held
,
and
taught
,
that
the
signe
of
the
crosse
vsed
in
Baptisme
is
no
part
of
the
substance
of
that
Sacrament
,
and
that
the
infant
Baptized
is
by
vertue
of
Baptisme
(
before
it
be
signed
with
the
signe
of
the
crosse
)
receiued
into
the
congregation
of
Christs
flock
,
as
a
perfect
member
thereof
,
and
not
by
any
power
ascribed
to
the
signe
of
the
crosse
&c.
whereupon
they
conclude
,
that
the
vse
of
the
signe
of
the
crosse
in
Baptisme
,
being
thus
purged
from
all
popish
superstition
,
and
errour
,
and
reduced
in
the
Church
of
England
to
the
primary
institution
of
it
&c.
it
is
to
be
reuerently
retayned
,
and
vsed
.
Thus
teach
they
in
their
foresayd
Synod
.
35.
But
now
we
must
demand
of
them
where
they
haue
euer
read
in
any
Catholyke
Authour
,
that
the
signe
of
the
crosse
,
D.
Tho.
3.
par.
q
66.
Greg.
de
Valent.
disput.
4.
q.
1.
Nauar.
in
Manu
.
cap.
22.
nu.
6.
Bellar.
de
Sacra
:
Baptis
.
lib.
1.
cap.
25.
as
it
is
vsed
in
the
administration
of
baptisme
,
is
any
part
of
the
substance
of
the
Sacrament
:
sure
I
am
that
all
our
schoolemen
,
and
Canonists
and
others
that
haue
occasion
to
treat
therof
,
do
expressely
teach
the
contrary
:
neyther
did
euer
any
learned
Catholyke
hold
,
or
suppose
it
to
be
any
part
,
eyther
of
the
forme
or
of
the
matter
of
Baptisme
,
(
which
are
the
essentiall
parts
thereof
)
but
only
an
ancient
and
holy
ceremony
;
and
this
is
euident
euen
by
the
practice
of
the
Catholyke
Church
,
approuing
the
baptisme
not
only
of
the
midwyfe
(
in
cases
of
necessity
)
but
also
of
any
heretike
,
if
he
haue
the
intention
to
do
that
which
the
Catholyke
Church
doth
,
and
vseth
the
true
forme
,
with
conuenient
matter
,
without
the
signe
of
the
crosse
,
or
any
other
ceremony
in
the
world
;
and
albeit
the
Church
vseth
to
suply
the
sayd
ceremonyes
afterwards
,
in
such
as
wanted
the
same
,
yet
it
maketh
no
doubt
at
all
,
Nauar.
in
Manuall
cap.
22
nu
6.
but
that
they
are
baptized
before
,
and
in
state
of
saluation
,
if
they
dye
before
the
sayd
ceremonyes
be
supplyed
,
whereby
it
is
manyfest
that
the
Catholykes
do
not
take
the
signe
of
the
crosse
to
be
of
the
substance
,
or
essence
of
the
sacrament
.
The
pretended
Bi●shops
conuinced
of
fraud
by
his
Maiestyes
testimony
.
36.
But
of
this
I
shall
not
neede
to
produce
any
further
proofe
,
seeing
that
those
pretended
Bishops
,
which
were
present
at
this
Congregation
,
and
made
this
Canon
,
haue
giuen
sufficient
testimony
of
the
truth
in
this
poynt
,
to
no
meaner
a
person
,
then
to
his
Maiesty
himselfe
,
as
he
did
publikely
testify
in
the
Conference
at
Hampton-court
wherein
the
question
concerning
the
vse
of
the
signe
of
the
crosse
in
Baptisme
,
being
debated
betwixt
them
and
the
Puritans
,
his
Maiesty
sayd
,
that
he
vnderstood
by
the
Bishops
,
yea
and
found
it
himselfe
to
be
true
,
that
the
Papists
themselues
did
neuer
ascribe
any
power
,
or
spirituall
grace
to
the
signe
of
the
crosse
in
Baptisme
,
See
the
Summe
of
the
Conference
pag.
●7
.
§.
Thirdly
.
printed
an.
1604.
whereupon
it
followeth
that
they
do
not
,
nor
euer
did
account
to
be
any
essentiall
part
of
the
Sacrament
,
for
if
they
did
,
they
should
ascribe
vnto
it
a
spirituall
grace
,
and
power
,
as
they
doe
to
the
essence
of
the
Sacrament
,
which
they
all
do
vniformly
teach
to
giue
grace
ex
opere
operato
,
and
therefore
seeing
that
according
to
his
Maiestyes
testimony
(
as
well
vpon
his
owne
knowledge
,
Conference
of
Hampton
Court
contrary
to
the
Constitutions
and
the
same
Bishops
to
them selues
.
as
by
the
relation
of
the
Bishops
to
him
)
the
Catholykes
did
neuer
ascribe
any
power
,
or
spirituall
grace
to
the
signe
of
the
Crosse
in
Baptisme
,
it
is
euident
that
the
Bishops
in
their
Synod
belyed
them
egregiously
(
charging
them
to
hold
it
to
be
a
part
of
the
substance
of
the
Sacrament
)
yea
and
notably
deluded
the
people
in
seeking
to
perswade
them
,
that
the
Catholykes
had
corrupted
the
vse
thereof
,
and
that
the
English
Clergy
hath
now
reduced
it
to
the
primary
institution
.
37.
The
miserable
state
of
England
where
such
Pastors
haue
the
charge
of
soules
.
Who
then
could
imagine
that
so
many
Ecclesiasticall
men
,
honorable
for
their
ranke
,
and
dignity
in
the
common
wel●h
,
by
profession
Deuines
,
by
tytle
Prelats
,
and
spirituall
Pastors
of
the
people
,
could
also
vniformely
agree
to
cozen
the
world
in
this
manner
,
and
insteed
of
feeding
their
flock
with
holsome
doctrine
,
to
infect
and
poyson
them
with
such
manifest
lyes
as
this
,
conuinced
euen
by
their
owne
testimony
to
his
Maiesty
himselfe
,
the
very
same
yeare
that
they
deuised
it
;
as
it
appeareth
by
the
printed
copyes
of
their
Ecclesiastical
constitutions
,
&
of
the
conference
at
Hampton-Court
,
published
in
the
yeare
1604.
and
therefore
I
leaue
it
to
thee
,
good
Reader
,
to
consider
in
what
a
miserable
state
our
poore
country
is
,
where
such
men
as
these
(
who
as
it
seemeth
haue
no
care
eyther
of
their
owne
conscience
,
or
reputation
)
haue
neuertheles
the
care
,
and
charge
of
other
mens
soules
.
38.
M.
Andrews
transgresseth
eyther
the
Synodical
Canon
of
the
English
Clergy
or
his
owne
rule
But
to
returne
to
M.
Andrews
(
who
perhaps
was
one
of
that
conuenticle
,
though
not
as
a
Bishop
,
yet
as
one
of
the
Clergy
of
the
Prouince
of
Canterbury
)
I
would
gladly
know
of
him
whether
he
,
and
his
Clergy
in
the
Diocesse
of
Ely
,
do
vse
the
signe
of
the
Crosse
in
the
administration
of
Baptisme
,
or
not
;
and
if
they
do
not
,
let
him
tell
vs
how
they
obserue
this
Synodicall
Canon
made
by
his
fellowes
,
and
authorized
by
his
Maiesty
:
and
if
they
do
obserue
it
,
let
him
shew
vs
some
precept
,
or
example
of
it
in
Scripture
,
seeing
he
resolutly
affirmeth
in
the
name
of
the
whole
English
Church
,
See
supra
nu
.
●4
.
Andr.
p.
37.
§.
Verū●
as
it
seemeth
,
that
they
dare
do
that
only
whereof
they
haue
a
precept
.
Therefore
I
say
,
let
him
eyther
shew
vs
some
precept
for
it
in
Scripture
,
or
els
confesse
that
he
,
and
his
fellowes
dare
do
more
then
is
commanded
therein
.
39.
Finally
,
if
they
may
lawfully
follow
the
primitiue
,
and
Apostolicall
Churches
,
and
the
iudgement
of
all
the
ancient
fathers
,
in
matters
though
not
commanded
in
Scripture
,
Prayer
to
Saynts
no
lesse
conforme
to
the
practice
of
the
primitiue
Church
,
then
the
vse
of
the
signe
of
the
Crosse
in
Baptisme
.
yet
consonant
thereto
(
as
they
professe
to
do
in
the
foresayd
Canon
)
then
they
must
also
grant
,
that
it
is
in
lyke
manner
lawfull
for
Catholykes
,
to
do
the
lyke
for
prayer
to
Saynts
,
seeing
that
the
same
is
conforme
to
the
practice
of
the
primitiue
Church
,
and
to
the
beliefe
of
the
ancient
fathers
,
and
consequently
to
the
holy
Scriptures
,
for
otherwyse
neyther
would
so
many
learned
,
ancient
and
holy
fathers
haue
approued
it
,
neyther
yet
the
Church
(
whose
authority
,
as
S.
Augustine
sayth
,
the
Scripture
recommendeth
vnto
vs
)
would
haue
practised
it
;
I
meane
that
visible
Catholyke
Church
,
S.
Aug.
li.
de
vnit
.
Eccl.
c.
1●
.
&
contra
Crescon
.
lib.
1.
c.
31.
whereof
S.
Augustine
did
so
constantly
defend
,
and
mayntayne
the
authority
,
agaynst
the
heretykes
in
his
tyme
,
that
he
pronounced
them
(
as
you
haue
heard
before
)
to
be
most
insolent
mad
men
,
if
they
did
but
only
doubt
of
any
generall
custome
thereof
.
Idem
.
ep.
118.
40.
Whereupon
I
conclude
,
that
prayer
to
Saynts
being
generally
approued
,
and
practised
by
the
Church
in
S.
Augustines
tyme
,
it
must
needs
follow
according
to
his
rule
,
that
the
vse
,
and
practice
thereof
,
is
not
only
most
lawfull
,
and
consonant
to
Scripture
,
but
also
reuerently
to
be
retayned
,
and
vsed
by
M.
Andrews
,
and
his
fellowes
,
euen
according
to
their
owne
profession
in
their
Synodicall
constitution
,
seeing
,
as
I
haue
signified
before
,
they
professe
reuerently
to
retayne
the
signe
of
the
Crosse
in
Baptisme
(
though
not
commanded
in
Scripture
)
because
the
same
was
vsed
in
the
primitiue
Church
,
and
is
consonant
to
Scripture
,
and
to
the
Iudgement
of
all
the
ancient
Fathers
.
41.
And
if
he
say
,
M.
Andrews
still
hardly
pressed
with
his
owne
rule
and
inference
vpon
the
text
of
Deuteronomy
.
that
they
professe
in
their
Canon
to
follow
the
rules
of
doctrine
,
concerning
things
that
are
(
at
least
)
indifferent
,
&
that
prayer
to
Saynts
is
neyther
absolutly
good
,
nor
yet
indifferent
,
but
altogeather
vnlawfull
,
and
consequently
not
to
be
vsed
,
he
is
to
vnderstand
first
,
that
according
to
his
owne
rule
,
and
inference
vpon
the
text
of
Deuteronomy
,
he
neyther
doth
,
nor
can
admit
any
thing
,
that
is
not
commanded
in
Scripture
,
be
it
neuer
so
good
.
For
he
sayth
id
tantúm
audemus
facere
&c.
we
dare
do
that
only
whereof
we
haue
a
precept
,
and
to
that
purpose
he
alledgeth
also
the
text
of
Deuteronomy
,
hoc
tantùm
facies
quod
tibi
praecipio
,
thou
shalt
do
this
only
which
I
do
command
thee
,
where
you
see
the
word
tantùm
as
well
in
his
assertion
,
as
in
the
text
of
Scripture
,
excludeth
all
things
whatsoeuer
that
are
not
commanded
,
whereupon
it
followeth
that
the
vse
of
the
signe
of
the
Crosse
in
baptisme
is
as
well
prohibited
,
as
prayer
to
Saynts
,
if
hee
vnderstand
that
text
of
Deuteronomy
aright
,
Prayer
to
Saynts
ought
rather
to
be
admitted
,
then
the
signe
of
the
Crosse
in
Baptisme
according
to
the
Synodicall
Canon
of
the
English
Clergy
.
and
make
a
good
inference
thereon
,
42.
Secondly
it
is
not
sufficient
,
that
he
and
his
fellowes
do
hold
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
to
be
vnlawfull
,
but
they
must
also
proue
it
so
to
be
,
or
els
they
must
grant
the
practice
of
it
to
be
lawfull
(
as
of
a
thing
at
least
indifferent
)
vpon
the
same
reason
that
they
admit
the
●igne
of
the
Crosse
in
baptisme
,
yea
with
farre
greater
reason
,
seeing
that
,
as
I
haue
already
proued
,
prayer
to
Saynts
is
not
only
good
,
and
lawfull
,
but
also
most
profitable
,
and
beneficiall
to
men
,
whereas
the
Crosse
in
baptisme
(
according
to
the
doctrine
of
the
foresayd
Canon
)
hath
no
vertue
,
or
power
in
it
at
all
,
but
is
only
an
outward
Ceremony
,
and
honorable
badge
of
a
Christian.
So
as
M.
Andrews
cannot
approue
the
vse
thereof
,
and
exclude
the
practice
of
prayer
to
Saynts
,
except
he
wil
be
so
absurd
to
admit
things
indifferent
,
and
reiect
a
thing
absolutly
good
,
and
very
necessary
for
euery
Christian
man
;
for
so
I
say
,
he
must
needs
confesse
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
to
be
,
M.
Andrews
eyther
idly
demandeth
a
precept
in
Scripture
for
prayer
to
Saynts
,
or
els
he
must
grant
it
to
be
as
lawfull
as
the
signe
of
the
Crosse
in
Baptisme
.
except
he
can
ouerthrow
the
testimonies
of
all
the
ancient
Fathers
,
yea
and
the
experience
that
the
Church
hath
alwayes
had
of
the
soueraygne
benefits
that
men
reape
thereby
.
43.
Thirdly
,
whereas
he
demandeth
a
precept
in
Scripture
for
prayer
to
Saynts
,
he
seemeth
to
grant
it
to
be
eyther
good
of
it selfe
,
or
at
least
indifferent
;
for
if
it
were
absolutly
bad
,
it
were
in
vayne
,
and
absurd
to
demand
a
precept
of
it
,
for
that
it
could
neuer
be
commanded
,
so
as
eyther
his
demand
in
that
behalfe
is
very
idle
,
and
absurd
,
or
els
he
must
acknowledge
it
at
least
to
be
indifferent
,
and
consequently
,
that
it
is
no
lesse
lawfull
to
vse
it
without
a
precept
,
then
the
signe
of
the
Crosse
in
Baptisme
.
1.
Tim.
2.
1.
Ioan.
2.
44.
Lastly
,
seeing
that
he
vseth
the
signe
of
the
Crosse
without
a
precept
,
because
it
is
consonant
to
Scripture
(
for
so
sayth
the
Canon
)
and
reiecteth
prayer
to
Saynts
for
want
of
a
precept
,
What
places
and
how
fit
to
the
purpose
the
Protestants
alleadge
out
of
the
Scriptures
agaynst
praying
to
Saynts
.
it
is
reason
that
he
shew
vs
,
eyther
some
prohibition
of
prayer
to
Saynts
in
Scripture
,
or
at
least
how
it
is
repugnant
to
Scripture
:
which
he
shall
neuer
be
able
to
do
,
as
it
appeareth
suffciently
by
those
texts
of
Scripture
,
that
he
and
his
fellowes
are
wont
to
alledge
agaynst
it
;
as
for
example
,
they
obiect
,
that
Christ
is
the
only
mediatour
betwixt
God
,
and
man
,
that
he
is
our
aduocate
with
his
Father
,
and
that
he
commandeth
all
men
that
labour
,
Matth.
11.
and
are
loaden
to
come
to
him
,
promising
to
refresh
them
,
and
such
lyke
places
as
signify
vnto
vs
the
bounty
,
and
mercy
of
our
Sauiour
Christ
,
and
his
facility
,
and
readines
to
heare
,
and
helpe
vs
;
all
which
places
being
vnderstood
as
our
aduersaries
take
them
,
do
no
lesse
ouerthrow
our
mutuall
prayers
one
for
another
,
then
our
prayers
to
Saynts
,
whereby
they
may
vnderstand
their
absurdity
.
45.
For
if
Christ
be
our
only
mediatour
,
The
absurdity
of
our
aduersaries
arguments
against
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
.
and
aduocate
in
such
sort
as
they
take
it
,
to
wit
,
that
we
may
not
craue
the
prayers
of
Saynts
without
iniury
to
Christ
,
because
he
is
our
only
mediatour
,
how
then
doth
the
Scripture
teach
vs
to
craue
one
anothers
prayers
?
is
i●
lesse
iniury
to
Christ
to
craue
the
prayers
of
sinners
,
them
of
Angels
,
and
Saynts
,
who
are
free
from
sinne
,
and
most
acceptable
to
God
?
And
againe
,
if
it
be
lawfull
to
come
to
God
by
the
mediation
,
and
prayers
of
men
,
can
it
be
vnlawfull
to
come
to
him
by
the
intercession
of
Angels
,
and
Saynts
?
But
that
thou
mayst
,
good
Reader
,
see
how
substantially
M.
Andrews
argueth
against
prayer
to
Saynts
out
of
these
places
of
Scripture
,
Andr.
cap.
8.
pag.
179.
lin.
29.
thou
shalt
heare
an
eloquent
discourse
of
his
;
thus
then
he
sayth
.
46.
Cùm
,
Venite
ad
me
,
dixerit
&c.
seeing
that
Christ
sayd
come
to
me
,
come
all
and
I
will
refresh
you
(
that
is
to
say
,
by
my selfe
,
and
not
by
mynisters
)
why
do
we
not
go
to
himselfe
directly
without
an
interpreter
,
A
very
seely
and
simple
discourse
of
M.
Andrews
against
praying
to
Saynts
.
and
sue
to
him
,
but
do
go
out
of
the
way
to
Saynts
,
and
sue
to
them
that
they
may
vouchsafe
to
be
suters
for
vs
?
Do
we
treate
with
any
of
the
holy
Spirits
more
safely
,
or
sweetly
then
with
our
Iesus
?
haue
they
more
easy
accesse
,
or
better
commodity
to
speake
to
God
?
or
is
any
elder
amongst
the
Iewes
,
more
gratefull
to
Christ
then
the
faithfull
Centurian
?
do
the
Saynts
better
know
our
needs
,
or
are
they
more
compassionate
,
or
more
mercifull
or
yet
more
affectionat
towards
vs
then
he
,
whereby
we
may
haue
more
confidence
in
them
,
then
in
him
?
ought
we
to
make
more
account
of
any
fauour
of
theirs
,
then
of
Christs
promisse
(
I
will
refresh
you
)
or
of
his
precept
,
come
to
me
?
But
when
you
do
so
inuocate
Saynts
,
you
giue
them
the
place
of
Christ
,
for
if
you
come
to
them
,
you
haue
in
Christs
place
those
that
may
refresh
you
insteed
of
him
;
you
haue
mediatours
to
God
who
may
pray
for
your
sinnes
,
such
(
mediatours
)
as
Paul
,
and
Iohn
did
not
make
themselues
,
and
if
they
had
,
the
faithfull
Christians
would
not
haue
suffered
it
,
S.
Aug
con●●ra
ep.
Parmen
lib.
2.
cap.
8.
if
Augustine
in
his
bookes
agaynst
Parmenian
do
vnderstand
the
matter
aright
.
47.
Thus
farre
M.
Andrewes
;
which
I
haue
layd
downe
the
more
amply
to
the
end
it
may
appeare
how
seriously
he
tryfleth
in
this
important
matter
,
M.
Andrews
serious
in
tryfling
.
which
thou
wilt
euidently
see
,
good
Reader
,
if
thou
do
but
note
well
his
discourse
,
and
what
followeth
thereof
(
if
his
construction
of
those
places
of
Scripture
,
which
he
alledgeth
be
true
)
for
as
well
might
he
argue
thus
(
following
his
owne
grounds
and
changing
only
the
word
Saynts
into
men
)
Cùm
,
His
argument
and
whole
discourse
re●torted
vpon
himselfe
impug●ning
our
mutuall
prayers
one
for
another
.
Venite
ad
me
dixerit
&c.
seeing
that
Christ
sayd
Come
to
me
,
and
I
will
refresh
you
(
by
my selfe
,
and
not
by
my
Ministers
)
why
do
we
not
go
to
him
directly
without
any
interpreter
,
but
sue
to
men
,
that
they
may
be
suters
for
vs
?
Do
we
conferre
more
safely
,
or
sweetly
with
any
man
then
with
our
Iesus
?
haue
we
more
easy
accesse
or
better
opportunity
to
speake
to
any
man
then
to
him
?
do
men
know
our
necessityes
better
then
he
,
or
are
they
more
compassionate
,
mercifull
,
or
more
affectionate
towards
vs
then
he
,
whereby
we
may
haue
more
confidence
in
them
,
then
in
him
?
ought
we
not
much
more
to
esteeme
Christs
promise
(
to
wit
,
I
will
refresh
you
)
and
his
precept
Come
vnto
me
,
then
any
fauour
of
men
?
But
you
,
when
you
craue
the
prayers
of
men
,
do
giue
them
the
place
of
Christ
;
for
if
you
come
to
them
,
you
haue
in
Christs
place
those
which
may
refresh
you
insteed
of
him
,
you
haue
mediatours
to
God
,
which
may
pray
for
your
sinnes
,
such
(
mediatours
)
as
Paul
,
and
Iohn
did
not
make
themselues
&c.
48.
Loe
then
how
substantially
he
hath
argued
against
prayer
to
Saynts
,
M.
Andrews
his
arguments
do
as
directly-ouerthrow
that
which
he
himselfe
approueth
,
a●
that
which
he
impugneth
.
seeing
that
his
arguments
(
if
they
haue
any
force
at
all
)
do
as
directly
ouerthrow
that
which
he
himselfe
approueth
,
as
that
which
he
impugneth
,
I
meane
as
well
our
mutuall
prayer
one
for
another
(
which
I
am
sure
he
will
not
disallow
)
as
eyther
the
prayers
of
Saynts
for
vs
,
or
our
intercession
to
them
;
and
is
it
possible
,
that
so
great
a
Clarke
,
and
subtill
Logician
as
he
,
did
not
see
this
?
or
that
he
is
ignorant
in
what
sense
the
Scripture
teacheth
that
our
Sauiour
is
our
only
mediatour
,
and
aduocat
?
seeing
that
the
Apostle
hauing
sayd
,
that
,
there
is
one
mediatour
of
God
and
men
Iesus
Christ
,
addeth
immediatly
,
qui
dedit
redemptionem
semetipsum
pro
omnibus
,
who
gaue
himselfe
a
redemption
for
all
,
How
it
i●
to
be
vnderstood
that
Christ
is
our
only
mediatour
and
aduocat
.
as
who
would
say
,
he
is
the
only
mediator
,
because
he
only
being
both
God
,
and
man
,
is
that
eternall
Priest
,
and
Redeemer
who
by
the
Sacrifice
of
himselfe
vpon
the
Crosse
,
hath
reconcyled
vs
to
God
,
and
payed
our
ransome
hauing
himselfe
no
need
of
redemption
in
which
sense
also
he
is
our
singuler
aduocat
,
and
patron
.
49.
And
therefore
Iohn
hauing
sayd
that
we
haue
1.
Tim.
●●
an
aduocate
with
the
Father
,
1.
Ioan.
2.
Iesus
Christ
,
addeth
presently
,
&
ipse
est
propitiatio
&c.
and
he
is
the
propitiation
for
our
sinnes
,
and
not
only
for
ours
,
but
also
for
the
sinnes
of
the
whole
world
,
giuing
to
vnderstand
that
he
is
our
aduocate
and
prayeth
for
vs
in
a
very
peculiar
,
and
singuler
manner
,
for
that
he
by
himselfe
alone
,
and
by
his
owne
merits
procureth
all
grace
,
and
mercy
to
mankind
in
the
sight
of
his
Father
,
accedens
per
semetipsum
ad
Deum
,
Hebr.
7.
comming
(
sayth
the
Apostle
)
to
God
by
himselfe
,
whereas
all
other
Aduocats
,
or
Patrons
(
be
they
Angels
,
Saynts
,
or
men
)
do
no
otherwyse
obtayne
grace
,
or
mercy
but
by
him
,
and
by
his
merits
,
in
which
respect
the
Church
endeth
her
prayers
to
Saints
with
per
Christum
Dominum
nostrum
,
by
Christ
our
Lord
;
and
in
this
sense
,
I
say
,
our
Sauiour
Christ
is
truly
called
our
only
mediatour
,
not
only
by
the
way
of
redemption
,
but
also
by
the
way
of
prayer
which
doth
no
way
exclude
other
mediators
to
him
for
vs
,
or
to
God
the
Father
by
his
merits
,
which
M.
Andrews
himselfe
confesseth
sufficiently
,
seeing
he
granteth
that
the
Saynts
in
heauen
do
pray
for
vs
all
with
Christ
their
head
,
and
doth
not
deny
,
but
that
we
may
craue
the
prayers
one
of
another
:
whereupon
it
followeth
that
Christ
is
not
our
only
mediatour
by
the
way
of
prayer
,
in
such
sort
as
he
and
his
fellowes
do
vnderstand
it
.
50.
And
whereas
he
seeketh
to
confirme
his
false
inference
with
the
testimony
of
S.
Augustine
agaynst
Parmenian
the
Donatist
,
The
meaning
of
S.
Augustine
peruerted
by
M.
Andrews
,
is
truly
explicated
.
saying
,
that
if
Paul
,
and
Iohn
had
made
themselues
mediators
,
the
faithfull
Christians
would
not
haue
suffred
it
,
he
peruerteth
wholy
the
sense
of
S.
Augustine
,
as
he
is
wont
,
alledging
only
a
litle
scrap
of
his
discourse
,
and
dissembling
all
that
which
doth
fully
explicate
his
meaning
.
And
that
this
may
appeare
thou
shalt
vnderstand
,
good
Reader
,
that
for
as
much
as
the
Donatists
taught
that
the
grace
of
the
Sacraments
depended
of
the
goodnes
of
the
minister
,
yea
and
did
most
wickedly
,
and
proudly
affirme
of
themselues
,
S.
Aug.
li.
2.
co●tra
ep.
Parmemanica
.
8●
neminem
esse
inter
collegas
suos
,
vel
seipsos
,
cum
aliqua
macula
&
vitio
,
that
there
was
none
amongst
their
collegues
,
or
companions
,
or
amongst
themselues
spotted
with
any
blot
,
or
vice
;
and
that
Parmenian
also
sayd
of
a
Bishop
of
theirs
,
that
he
was
a
mediatour
betwixt
God
and
the
people
(
meaning
an
immaculate
,
and
vnspotted
mediatour
)
S.
Augustine
inueigheth
bitterly
agaynst
this
their
execrable
presumption
,
and
pryde
,
&
sayth
,
that
neyther
S.
Iohn
,
nor
S.
Paul
,
nor
the
rest
of
the
Apostles
durst
euer
presume
to
make
themselues
mediators
in
this
sense
;
and
therefore
he
saith
that
they
acknowledged
themselues
to
be
sinners
,
and
that
S.
Iohn
did
not
say
,
1.
Ioan.
2.
si
quis
peccauerit
mediatorem
me
babetis
&c.
if
any
man
sinne
,
you
haue
me
for
a
mediatour
,
but
,
aduocatum
habemus
&c.
we
haue
an
aduocate
Iesus
Christ
;
whereby
S.
Iohn
confessed
himselfe
to
be
a
sinner
&
to
haue
need
of
the
propitiation
,
and
mediation
of
Christ
.
51.
And
S.
Paul
in
lyke
manner
commended
himselfe
(
saith
S.
Augustine
)
to
the
prayers
of
the
faithfull
,
and
did
not
make
himselfe
a
mediator
betwixt
God
,
and
the
people
:
so
as
S.
Augustine
sheweth
euidently
heereby
,
that
he
doth
not
exclude
the
mediation
of
Saynts
,
or
of
one
man
for
another
by
way
of
intercession
to
Christ
,
but
only
in
such
sort
,
as
the
same
should
impugne
Christs
mediation
for
all
men
;
which
he
also
signifieth
more
expressely
in
the
same
place
,
saying
,
Homines
omnes
Christiani
&c.
all
Christian
men
do
recommend
themselues
one
to
anothers
prayers
,
but
he
for
whome
no
man
prayeth
,
but
he
for
all
,
is
the
only
and
true
mediatour
.
Thus
saith
S.
Augustine
;
How
S.
Augustine
denyeth
that
men
may
be
mediators
one
for
another
.
who
affirming
that
Christians
craue
the
prayers
one
of
another
,
graunteth
consequently
that
they
may
also
be
mediatours
,
that
is
to
say
intercessors
one
for
another
,
and
therefore
doth
not
deny
that
Saynts
,
or
men
may
be
mediators
for
men
in
any
other
sense
then
such
as
the
proud
Donatists
vnderstood
the
same
,
who
did
so
iustify
themselues
that
they
did
euacuate
,
&
take
away
the
necessity
of
Christs
mediation
for
them
,
or
for
such
as
they
recommended
to
God
,
esteeming
themselues
to
be
so
pure
,
and
immaculate
,
that
God
did
heare
them
in
respect
of
their
owne
purity
.
52.
Wherein
also
it
is
to
be
obserued
that
albeit
S.
Augustine
in
all
this
discourse
speaketh
only
of
men
whyles
they
liue
in
this
world
(
and
not
of
Saynts
,
or
Angels
)
teaching
that
no
man
liuing
(
in
respect
of
his
frailty
,
and
subiection
to
sinne
)
can
be
a
mediator
,
or
aduocate
in
the
same
sense
that
Christ
is
(
to
wit
,
in
such
sort
that
he
needeth
no
other
mediator
,
Neyther
men
nor
Saynts
,
or
Angels
do
obteyn
any
thing
of
God
but
by
the
mediation
and
meri●s
of
Iesus
Christ
.
or
aduocate
to
pray
for
him
,
but
that
he
prayeth
for
all
other
)
neuertheles
the
same
may
also
be
vnderstood
of
Angels
,
and
Saynts
;
for
although
they
pray
for
all
men
,
and
no
man
for
them
,
yet
for
as
much
as
they
obtayne
nothing
of
God
but
by
Christs
mediation
,
and
merits
,
they
cannot
be
sayd
to
be
such
mediatours
,
or
aduocates
as
neede
no
other
mediation
,
or
helpe
to
obtayne
their
sutes
,
which
is
only
sayd
truly
of
Christ
,
who
therefore
is
(
as
S.
Augustine
sayth
)
the
true
,
and
only
mediator
pro
quo
nemo
interpellat
,
sed
ipse
pro
omnibus
,
for
whome
no
man
prayeth
,
but
he
for
all
.
53.
This
then
being
the
cleare
sense
,
and
meaning
of
S.
Augustine
,
I
remit
it
to
thy
iudgement
good
Reader
,
whether
this
contradicteth
any
way
our
Catholyke
doctrine
,
or
maketh
any
thing
at
al
for
M.
Andrewes
his
purpose
;
may
he
not
then
be
ashamed
to
say
,
as
he
doth
,
that
when
we
craue
the
prayers
to
Saynts
,
we
giue
them
the
place
of
Christ
,
&
that
when
we
come
to
them
we
seeke
to
be
refreshed
by
them
insteed
of
Christ
?
when
neuertheles
he
doth
not
deny
but
that
we
may
craue
the
prayers
of
men
and
consequently
come
to
Christ
by
them
,
or
rather
togeather
with
them
,
and
with
their
assistance
;
for
no
man
I
think
that
requests
eyther
men
,
or
Saynts
to
pray
for
him
,
doth
so
wholy
confide
in
their
prayers
,
that
he
omitteth
to
pray
to
Christ
,
M.
Andrews
prodigall
of
his
rhetorik
.
and
therefore
he
commeth
also
himselfe
immediatly
to
Christ
,
as
he
that
hath
a
suite
to
a
Prince
,
and
doth
not
only
procure
to
be
recommended
to
him
by
his
fauorits
,
but
also
presenteth
his
owne
petition
vnto
him
,
doth
come
himselfe
immediatly
to
the
Prince
,
though
he
be
accompanyed
,
or
seconded
by
others
,
whereby
it
appeareth
what
a
deale
of
Rhetorik
M.
Andrews
hath
cast
away
,
to
proue
that
he
which
prayeth
to
Saynts
doth
not
come
to
Christ
.
54.
And
if
he
will
yet
say
further
(
as
some
of
his
fellowes
are
wont
to
do
,
that
the
case
is
not
lyke
of
Saynts
,
and
men
,
because
there
are
examples
in
the
Scripture
of
crauing
the
prayers
of
men
,
but
not
of
Saynts
,
he
shall
shew
himselfe
to
be
no
lesse
ignorant
then
absurb
,
because
the
same
can
be
no
confirmation
of
his
former
arguments
taken
out
of
Scripture
,
An
absurd
shift
and
euasion
of
our
aduersaries
vrged
against
them
.
but
an
euident
confutation
of
them
,
seeing
that
it
appeareth
thereby
,
that
Christ
is
not
the
only
mediator
,
or
aduocate
in
the
sense
that
they
take
it
;
for
if
he
were
then
could
we
not
craue
the
prayers
of
any
but
of
Christ
;
and
therefore
for
as
much
as
the
Scripture
(
which
cannot
be
contrary
to
it selfe
,
alloweth
and
exhorteth
vs
to
craue
one
anothers
prayers
,
Iac.
5.
it
is
euident
that
it
doth
not
teach
,
The
Scripture
should
contradict
it selfe
,
if
Christ
were
our
only
mediator
in
the
sense
that
our
aduersaries
do
take
it
.
or
meane
that
Christ
is
our
only
mediatour
,
or
aduocate
,
in
such
sort
as
that
no
other
may
pray
for
vs
but
he
,
or
we
craue
the
prayers
of
no
other
but
of
him
,
or
that
we
do
iniury
to
him
,
when
we
come
to
him
by
the
mediation
,
meanes
,
and
assistance
of
others
,
for
so
should
the
Scripture
contradict
it selfe
,
which
it
cannot
do
.
55.
Moreouer
by
seeking
this
shift
,
they
leaue
wholy
their
former
argument
,
and
fly
to
another
,
grounded
vpon
as
false
a
foundation
as
the
former
,
to
wit
,
that
nothing
is
to
be
belieued
,
or
practiced
in
the
Church
whereof
there
is
no
commandment
,
or
example
in
Scripture
,
which
you
haue
heard
[
](A00916-e88190-b)(c)
(c)
Supra
●u.
25.26
.
&
seq
.
already
confuted
,
as
well
by
the
authority
of
Scripture
,
and
Fathers
,
as
also
by
our
aduersaryes
owne
[
](A00916-e88220-b)(d)
(d)
Supra
nu.
33.
&
seq
.
doctrine
,
approuing
the
practice
of
things
not
commanded
any
where
in
Scripture
,
as
the
baptisme
of
infants
,
the
vse
of
the
signe
of
the
Crosse
,
&
Godfathers
,
and
Godmothers
in
baptisme
;
whereto
I
may
add
the
tradition
of
keeping
Sunday
holy
day
in
[
](A00916-e88250-b)(e)
(e)
S.
Hieron
.
aduers.
Vigilant
.
S.
Aug.
ep.
119.
&
lib.
22.
de
ciuit
.
cap.
30.
S.
Greg.
lib.
11.
ep.
3.
How
prayer
to
Saynts
is
conforme
to
Scripture
and
deduced
from
it
.
memory
of
the
Resurrection
of
our
Sauiour
,
with
abstinence
from
seruile
works
.
Also
the
obseruation
of
Easter
,
Pentecost
,
and
such
feasts
,
and
diuers
other
things
consisting
in
matters
of
practice
56.
If
then
they
approue
and
practice
these
things
,
although
they
be
not
commanded
or
ordeyned
in
Scripture
,
what
reason
haue
they
to
reiect
prayer
to
Saynts
,
because
there
is
no
commandement
,
or
example
of
it
in
Scripture
,
when
neuertheles
it
is
most
conforme
thereto
and
deduced
from
it
,
as
I
haue
partly
shewed
[
](A00916-e88330-b)(h)
(h)
See
chap.
7.
nu.
48.
&
supra
hoc
cap
nu.
31.
already
,
by
an
inafallible
rule
of
S.
Augustine
(
seeing
it
is
approued
by
that
Church
which
the
Scripture
commandeth
vs
to
[
](A00916-e88380-b)(k)
(k)
Luc.
10●
Matth.
18.
heare
,
belieue
,
and
obay
)
besydes
that
it
being
euident
in
Scripture
,
that
Charity
,
which
moueth
,
and
obligeth
men
to
pray
one
for
another
in
this
lyfe
,
[
](A00916-e88420-b)(l)
(l)
1.
Cor.
1●
.
nunquam
excidit
(
as
the
Apostle
teacheth
)
neuer
decayeth
,
but
is
more
perfect
in
the
next
lyfe
,
it
followeth
not
only
that
the
Saynts
do
pray
for
vs
(
which
M.
Andrews
granteth
)
but
also
that
we
may
craue
their
prayers
,
If
our
brethren
on
earth
may
pray
for
vs
and
we
by
warrant
of
the
Scriptures
commend
our selues
to
their
prayers
,
why
may
we
not
do
the
like
vnto
Saynts
?
for
it
were
most
absurd
to
thinke
that
we
may
not
request
them
to
do
that
,
which
is
most
correspondent
to
their
Charity
,
and
they
will
most
willingly
performe
.
57.
Furthermore
seeing
that
the
Scripture
doth
teach
vs
to
craue
the
prayers
and
help
of
our
brethren
liuing
,
there
can
be
no
reason
imagined
,
why
we
should
not
also
do
the
same
when
they
are
glorifyed
in
heauen
,
but
eyther
because
they
do
not
heare
,
or
vnderstand
our
prayers
,
or
because
they
are
not
willing
,
or
not
able
to
helpe
vs
,
but
that
they
heare
vs
,
I
haue
sufficiently
proued
already
,
and
haue
also
answered
M.
Andrews
his
cauils
concerning
the
same
;
and
he
neyther
denyeth
,
nor
seemeth
to
doubt
eyther
that
they
are
willing
to
succour
vs
,
See
suprad
nu.
12.
ad
nu.
24.
(
considering
the
perfection
of
their
Charity
)
or
yet
that
they
are
able
to
do
it
,
seeing
he
granteth
they
do
pray
for
vs
;
&
if
he
should
deny
it
,
or
that
their
prayers
may
auayle
vs
(
as
Vigilantius
&
his
followers
did
in
tymes
past
,
Vide
coccium
To.
1.
lib
5.
art.
4.
de
Sanctis
.
and
Zuinglius
with
other
sectaries
haue
done
in
these
our
dayes
)
he
might
easily
be
conuinced
by
the
holy
Scriptures
,
which
witnesse
that
God
granteth
the
petitions
of
his
seruants
euen
when
they
are
heere
subiect
to
sinne
,
[
](A00916-e88600-b)(c)
(c)
See
supra
nu.
22.
and
misery
,
and
hath
mercy
on
sinners
for
the
merits
of
the
iust
,
as
well
dead
,
as
liuing
;
and
therefore
the
Prophet
prayed
:
ne
auferas
misericordiam
tuam
&c.
do
not
take
away
thy
mercy
from
vs
O
Lord
,
Dan.
3.
for
thy
beloued
Abraham
,
and
thy
seruant
Isaac
,
and
thy
holy
Israell
.
And
we
read
in
the
booke
of
Kings
that
for
Dauids
sake
God
did
mitigate
his
wrath
towards
Salomon
,
●
.
Reg.
11.
and
saued
also
the
Kingdome
of
Iuda
from
destruction
in
the
reygne
of
Ioram
,
2.
Paral.
21.
and
Ezechias
.
4.
Reg
19.
58.
In
lyke
manner
God
pardoned
Iobs
friends
for
his
sake
,
Iob.
42.
and
directed
them
vnto
him
to
craue
his
prayers
for
them
.
Also
for
the
prayers
of
Moyses
he
had
mercy
on
the
people
;
Exod.
32.
and
the
lyke
we
read
in
the
new
testament
.
Whereupon
S.
Hierome
sayd
to
Vigilantius
thus
:
S.
Hieron
.
aduers.
Vigilantium
.
Si
Apostoli
&
Martyres
&c.
If
the
Apostles
,
and
Martyrs
beeing
heere
in
body
could
pray
for
others
,
whiles
they
ought
to
be
carefull
for
themselues
,
how
much
more
may
they
do
it
after
their
crounes
,
victoryes
,
and
tryumphs
;
one
Moyses
obtayned
of
God
pardon
for
six
hundred
thousand
armed
men
,
and
Steuen
the
follower
of
his
Lord
,
Exod.
32.
and
first
Martyr
in
Christ
,
craued
pardon
for
his
persecutours
,
and
shall
they
now
be
able
to
doe
lesse
when
they
are
with
Christ
?
Act.
7.
Paul
the
Apostle
sayth
that
276.
mens
liues
were
giuen
him
in
the
ship
,
Ibid.
ca.
27.
and
therefore
now
when
he
is
dissolued
,
and
with
Christ
,
will
he
hold
his
peace
,
and
shall
he
not
be
able
so
much
as
to
open
his
mouth
for
those
which
haue
belieued
by
his
preaching
throughout
the
world
?
and
shall
Vigilantius
a
liuing
dog
be
better
then
a
dead
lyon
?
Thus
argueth
S.
Hierome
by
an
argument
a
fortiori
,
grounded
on
the
Scripture
to
shew
the
extreame
absurdity
of
Vigilantius
the
heretike
,
who
denyed
that
the
Saynts
in
heauen
do
pray
for
vs
,
and
are
able
to
helpe
vs
.
59.
And
this
ability
of
Saynts
to
helpe
men
,
is
to
be
ascribed
not
only
to
the
effect
of
their
prayers
,
but
also
to
their
power
,
Apoc.
1●
.
authority
,
and
dignity
;
seeing
that
Christ
who
is
the
King
of
Kings
,
Matth.
28.
&
Lord
of
Lords
,
&
hath
all
power
in
heauen
and
earth
giuen
him
by
his
Father
,
Saynts
able
to
help
,
vs
by
the
participation
of
Christs
power
.
doth
in
the
Apocalips
promise
to
his
Saynts
a
communication
,
and
participation
of
his
owne
Kingdome
,
dominion
,
and
power
ouer
men
;
qui
vicerit
,
sayth
he
,
dabo
sedere
mecum
&c.
he
that
shall
ouercome
,
I
will
giue
vnto
him
to
sit
with
me
in
my
throne
,
as
I
also
haue
ouercome
,
and
sitten
with
my
father
in
his
throne
;
dabo
ei
potestatem
super
gentes
&c.
Apoc.
3.
I
will
giue
him
power
ouer
nations
,
Ibid.
2.
and
he
shall
rule
them
&c.
and
according
to
this
promise
of
our
Sauiour
,
the
Saynts
also
sayd
to
him
in
the
Apocalips
;
Ibid.
1.
&
5.
Redimisti
nos
Deo
in
sanguine
tuo
&c.
thou
hast
redeemed
vs
to
God
in
thy
blood
,
and
hast
made
vs
to
our
God
a
Kingdome
,
and
Priests
,
and
we
shall
reygne
vpon
the
earth
;
and
this
may
be
confirmed
out
of
the
booke
of
wisdome
,
Sap.
3●
which
sayth
,
that
the
iust
(
when
they
shal
be
glorified
)
iudicabunt
Nationes
,
&
dominabuntur
populis
&c.
shall
iudge
Nations
,
and
shall
haue
dominion
ouer
people
;
and
in
like
manner
the
Psalmist
saith
(
speaking
of
the
glory
of
Gods
Saynts
)
exultabunt
Sancti
in
gloria
&c.
the
Saynts
shall
exult
,
Psal.
14●
.
and
reioyce
in
glory
&c.
they
shall
haue
two
edged
swoords
in
their
hands
to
take
reuenge
vpon
nations
,
and
to
chastise
people
,
to
tye
their
Kings
in
fetters
,
and
their
noble
men
in
iron
manicles
&c.
Thus
saith
the
royall
Prophet
.
60.
And
albeit
this
shal
be
specially
,
Matth.
19.
and
most
manifestly
fulfilled
at
the
day
of
Iudgement
,
Luc.
●2
.
when
the
Saynts
of
God
shall
assist
our
Sauiour
in
the
Iudgment
,
Saynts
protectors
of
men
,
Cittyes
&
Countryes
.
and
condemnation
of
the
wicked
,
yet
it
cannot
be
denyed
but
that
also
in
the
meane
tyme
it
is
verifyed
in
the
power
and
dominion
that
God
imparteth
to
his
Saynts
,
giuing
them
the
protection
of
Cittyes
,
Countryes
,
and
men
,
as
it
appeareth
euidently
by
innumerable
examples
which
might
be
alledged
of
Kingdomes
and
Cytties
defended
,
Gods
seruants
relieued
,
and
his
enemies
destroyed
by
them
;
See
before
nu
.
18.
&
19.
for
which
cause
the
ancient
Fathers
do
worthily
call
them
the
keepers
of
human
kind
,
gouernours
of
our
actions
,
the
Capteyns
,
Princes
,
propugnators
,
patrons
,
and
protectors
of
men
(
as
I
haue
more
particulerly
declared
before
in
this
Chapter
)
and
therefore
also
all
Christian
Countryes
,
and
Cittyes
are
accustomed
to
haue
some
Saynt
,
The
1.
part
of
the
Treatise
of
Policy
&
religion
chap.
15.
nu.
12.13.14.15.16.17.18
.
&
27.
Item
2
par.
chap.
24.
nu.
31.
or
other
for
their
particular
patron
,
by
whose
helpe
they
haue
often
receiued
reliefe
in
their
necessityes
,
and
victory
agaynst
their
enemyes
;
wherof
diuers
notable
examples
testified
by
very
graue
authours
may
be
seene
in
a
treatise
of
Policy
and
Religion
published
a
few
yeares
a
goe
,
wherto
I
remit
my
Reader
for
breuityes
sake
and
will
now
inferre
vpon
these
premisses
that
seeing
the
glorified
Saynts
of
God
,
do
not
only
vnderstand
&
know
our
prayers
,
but
also
are
most
willing
&
able
to
helpe
vs
,
&
,
as
S.
Iohn
testifyeth
in
the
Apocalips
do
offer
vp
our
prayers
to
God
,
Apoc.
5.
yea
and
as
M.
Andrews
himselfe
granteth
do
pray
for
vs
;
and
finally
seeing
that
experience
See
sup.
nu
.
●2
.
also
teacheth
that
they
do
diuers
wayes
assist
&
relieue
vs
(
which
I
haue
euidently
proued
by
the
testimony
of
the
ancient
Fathers
)
it
were
most
absurd
to
think
that
the
holy
Scriptures
should
allow
vs
to
craue
the
prayers
and
helpe
of
men
,
and
disallow
prayers
to
Saynts
&
therfore
I
conclude
that
for
as
much
as
prayer
to
Saynts
is
most
consonant
both
to
Scripture
and
reason
,
and
most
profitable
,
and
beneficiall
to
men
,
and
was
admitted
,
&
practised
by
all
the
primitue
Church
,
and
ratified
,
and
approued
by
the
vniforme
consent
of
the
ancient
Fathers
(
as
I
haue
shewed
sufficiently
before
)
it
cannot
be
reiected
by
M.
Andrews
,
and
his
fellowes
,
though
there
should
be
no
commandment
nor
example
of
it
in
Scripture
,
seeing
they
professe
to
admit
without
a
precept
,
such
things
as
are
indifferent
,
when
they
are
conforme
to
the
holy
Scriptures
,
the
practise
of
the
primitiue
Church
,
and
iudgement
of
all
the
ancient
Fathers
.
61.
But
what
starting
hole
,
Two
foolish
exceptions
taken
by
M.
Andrews
to
the
Cardinalls
allegation
of
the
ancient
Fathers
.
trow
you
,
will
M.
Andrews
find
heere
,
or
what
exceptions
will
he
take
to
this
my
conclusion
?
mary
forsooth
,
he
will
cauill
,
at
least
,
about
the
authority
of
the
Fathers
alledged
by
the
Cardinall
;
against
whome
he
taketh
two
mayne
exceptions
,
the
one
concerning
the
age
,
and
tyme
when
they
lyued
,
and
the
other
touching
their
vniforme
consent
;
of
the
former
he
sayth
that
they
were
all
of
them
after
300.
yeares
,
to
wit
,
in
the
4.
age
,
whereas
in
quadringentis
annis
,
sayth
he
,
rex
expectat
,
the
King
expecteth
the
resolution
of
the
Fathers
of
400.
yeares
;
Andr.
pag
35.
§.
de
qua
dringentis
.
as
who
would
say
that
the
Cardinall
hath
proued
nothing
to
the
purpose
(
at
least
to
his
Maiesties
intention
)
because
he
hath
not
alledged
any
of
the
Fathers
of
the
first
3.
hundred
yeares
;
M.
Andrews
wrongeth
his
Maiesty
.
wherein
no
doubt
he
doth
his
Maiesty
great
wrong
,
Fathering
his
owne
foolish
,
and
absurd
conceipt
vpon
his
Maiesty
,
whose
great
wisdome
being
considered
,
it
cannot
be
imagined
,
that
in
admitting
the
Fathers
of
the
first
500.
yeares
(
for
so
he
doth
in
the
English
Apology
)
his
meaning
was
to
reiect
their
vniforme
consent
in
any
one
of
those
centuries
especially
seeing
that
his
Maiesty
professeth
in
the
same
place
to
reuerence
the
ancient
Fathers
more
then
euer
the
Iesuits
did
;
which
truly
he
should
not
do
if
his
meaning
were
such
as
M.
Andrews
maketh
it
heere
.
62.
For
I
am
well
assured
that
the
Iesuits
neuer
tooke
any
exception
agaynst
all
the
Fathers
of
any
one
age
from
Christs
tyme
to
this
,
The
vniforme
consent
of
the
Fathers
of
the
4.
or
5.
age
must
needs
be
taken
for
an
euident
testimony
of
the
truth
.
and
much
lesse
to
those
of
the
4.
and
5.
age
,
who
were
of
such
eminent
learning
;
and
sanctity
,
that
their
vniforme
consent
concerning
any
question
of
religion
,
must
needs
be
held
for
an
euident
testimony
of
the
truth
,
seeing
that
God
of
his
infinit
mercy
,
did
then
propagate
his
Church
,
and
fayth
ouer
the
world
,
and
establish
the
same
vnder
Christian
Emperours
(
to
wit
Constantin
the
Great
,
and
his
successors
(
by
meanes
whereof
the
Church
was
euery
where
prouided
,
and
furnished
with
notable
Pastours
,
who
being
freed
from
the
former
persecutions
,
had
opportunity
to
write
those
ample
volumes
,
and
worthy
monuments
,
which
by
Gods
great
prouidence
they
left
to
their
posterity
,
for
the
confirmation
of
the
Christian
Catholyke
fayth
;
whereas
in
the
former
ages
(
I
meane
the
first
3.
Centenaryes
)
the
persecution
was
so
great
vnder
the
pagan
Emperours
that
neyther
the
Christian
faith
could
so
much
extend
it selfe
,
as
it
did
in
the
4.
and
5.
age
.
Neyther
could
there
be
so
many
able
men
to
write
,
neyther
those
that
were
,
could
haue
such
opportunity
to
do
it
,
as
the
others
had
in
the
peace
,
and
tranquility
of
the
Church
.
Some
one
Father
of
the
4.
and
5.
age
hath
written
more
then
all
the
Fathers
of
the
3.
precedent
ages
.
63.
And
this
is
euident
by
the
workes
of
the
one
,
and
the
other
seeing
that
in
the
first
300.
yeares
,
there
were
not
past
7.
or
8.
Fathers
at
most
,
that
wrote
,
(
at
least
whose
bookes
we
now
haue
)
and
of
those
also
the
most
wrote
very
little
,
in
so
much
that
the
workes
of
some
one
of
the
Fathers
of
the
4.
and
5.
age
do
in
volume
,
and
quantity
exceed
all
the
workes
(
that
are
now
extant
)
of
all
the
Fathers
of
the
3.
former
ages
;
and
therefore
it
cannot
be
expected
,
that
they
should
treate
,
or
touch
all
matters
which
are
now
in
controuersy
,
especially
such
as
were
not
then
any
way
called
in
question
.
Besides
that
in
the
4.
and
5.
age
were
held
the
4.
first
Generall
Councells
,
which
not
only
his
Maiesty
,
It
is
not
possible
that
all
the
Doctors
&
Pastors
of
the
Church
can
erre
in
any
thing
at
any
tyme
and
why
.
but
also
M.
Andrews
himselfe
admitteth
.
In
which
respect
the
Fathers
of
that
tyme
must
needs
be
taken
for
assured
,
and
vncontrollable
witnesses
of
the
truth
,
for
those
Councells
(
which
were
no
other
but
assemblyes
of
the
Fathers
then
liuing
)
could
not
be
of
such
vndoubted
authority
,
as
they
are
,
if
the
Fathers
of
those
ages
had
vniformely
taught
,
or
belieued
any
erroneous
doctrine
;
for
if
they
were
all
deceiued
in
one
point
,
they
might
also
be
deceiued
and
erre
in
the
rest
,
and
so
should
the
whole
Church
(
wherof
they
were
the
Pastors
&
Doctors
)
be
drawne
into
errour
by
them
,
Matth.
28.
Ibid.
16.
which
is
not
possible
,
seeing
that
Christ
hath
not
only
promised
his
owne
assistance
to
his
Church
for
euer
,
Ephes.
4.
and
that
hell
gates
shall
not
preuayle
against
it
,
but
also
hath
placed
in
it
Pastors
,
Pastors
and
Doctors
ordayned
by
Christ
in
his
Church
to
preserue
it
from
errour
,
vnto
the
worlds
end
.
and
Doctors
(
saith
the
Apostle
)
to
the
consummation
of
the
Saynts
,
vnto
the
worke
of
the
ministery
,
vntill
we
meete
all
in
the
vnity
of
faith
;
vt
iam
non
simus
paruuli
fluctuantes
&c.
to
the
end
we
now
be
not
wauering
Children
,
&
carryed
away
with
euery
blast
of
doctrine
;
so
saith
the
Apostle
.
64.
Whereby
it
is
euident
that
God
of
his
singular
prouidence
hath
giuen
Doctors
,
and
Pastors
to
the
Church
,
yea
and
ordayned
that
they
shall
remayne
there
vnto
the
worlds
end
,
to
preserue
the
same
from
errour
;
whereupon
it
followeth
,
that
all
the
Doctors
,
and
Pastors
of
the
Church
,
If
all
the
Doctors
of
the
Church
,
could
erre
at
any
tyme
,
the
remedy
were
not
effectuall
which
God
hath
ordayned
to
preserue
his
Church
from
errour
by
them
.
cannot
erre
at
any
tyme
,
for
if
they
could
,
then
were
not
the
remedy
effectuall
,
and
certayne
which
God
hath
ordayned
in
his
Church
to
preserue
it
from
errour
by
them
;
&
therefore
if
they
haue
all
erred
in
the
4.
age
,
or
any
other
,
then
hath
the
prouidence
,
ordinance
,
yea
and
the
promise
of
God
fayled
,
which
is
impossible
(
as
I
haue
amply
proued
in
my
supplement
)
so
as
I
conclude
that
the
exception
which
M.
Andrews
taketh
against
the
Fathers
alledged
by
the
Cardinall
,
for
being
all
of
that
4.
age
,
is
most
vayne
,
and
friuolous
,
seeing
that
the
consent
of
the
Doctors
of
any
one
age
is
sufficient
to
determin
any
matter
in
controuersy
.
65.
And
much
more
may
we
content
our selues
with
the
vniforme
testimony
,
and
consent
of
those
of
the
4.
and
5.
age
in
the
tyme
of
the
4.
first
generall
Councells
,
See
sup.
chap.
4.
nu.
36.37.38
.
when
the
Church
most
florished
,
and
as
I
haue
signified
before
,
was
best
furnished
with
learned
,
and
holy
Pastors
,
and
Doctors
of
whome
the
Cardinall
hath
cyted
no
lesse
then
twelue
,
to
wit
S.
Basil
,
S.
Gregory
Nyssen
,
S.
Ephraem
,
S.
Gregory
Nazianzen
.
Eusebius
.
S.
Chrisostome
,
If
these
Fathers
cannot
be
heard
or
credited
what
other
Fathers
will
he
desire
?
S.
Ambrose
,
S.
Augustine
,
S.
Hierome
,
S.
Cyril
,
S.
Paulinus
and
S.
Maximus
;
besyds
the
history
of
Ruffinus
,
to
whome
I
haue
also
added
Theodoret
,
not
inferiour
in
learning
to
the
rest
;
all
which
were
pillars
,
lights
,
and
notable
ornaments
of
the
latin
,
and
Greeke
Church
in
the
4.
and
5.
age
;
and
all
of
these
being
14.
in
number
,
alledged
by
the
Cardinall
and
me
,
12.
haue
giuen
(
as
you
haue
heard
)
vniforme
and
cleare
testimony
to
the
doctrine
,
and
custome
of
Prayer
to
Saynts
,
eyther
inuocating
Saynts
themselues
,
or
approuing
the
publike
vse
and
practise
of
it
in
others
;
and
albeit
the
other
two
(
to
wit
S.
Ciril
and
Eusebius
)
do
not
so
expresly
speake
of
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
,
as
the
other
fathers
do
,
yet
the
same
is
also
sufficiently
gathered
out
of
their
testimonyes
,
as
I
haue
shewed
before
in
the
6.
Chapter
;
See
chap.
●
.
nu.
28.
&
66.
whereupon
I
conclude
,
that
this
doctrine
of
prayer
to
Saynts
,
be●ing
approued
&
practised
by
so
many
learned
Fathers
of
the
4.
and
5.
age
,
it
must
needs
be
admitted
for
an
infallible
truth
.
66.
Andr.
pag.
6.
§.
Tum
.
Yea
but
saith
M.
Andrews
there
is
no
vniforme
consent
of
Fathers
in
this
poynt
;
for
,
alij
,
saith
he
,
non
pauci
sunt
&c.
there
are
not
a
few
others
,
who
haue
right
of
suffrage
,
or
voyce
,
heerein
;
omitted
by
the
Cardinall
.
So
he
;
wherein
I
doubt
not
,
good
Reader
,
but
thou
seest
how
absurdly
he
cauilleth
,
and
tryfleth
,
for
may
not
the
verdict
of
a
whole
Iury
of
Fathers
alledged
by
the
Cardinall
,
The
vniforme
consent
of
a
few
Fathers
not
contradicted
by
the
rest
,
must
needs
be
taken
for
a
genrall
consent
of
the
Church
i●
their
tyme
.
and
not
contradicted
by
any
suffice
to
shew
a
generall
,
and
vniforme
consent
of
the
Church
in
their
tyme
?
and
will
not
M.
Andrews
acknowledge
an
vniforme
consent
in
the
Fathers
,
without
a
particuler
testimony
of
euery
one
of
them
?
doth
he
suppose
that
euery
one
of
them
hath
written
of
all
poynts
of
religion
?
and
if
they
haue
not
(
whereof
there
is
no
doubt
)
shall
the
sylence
of
some
preiudice
the
cleare
testimony
of
others
?
so
shall
we
proue
litle
or
nothing
at
all
by
the
Fathers
,
for
there
are
but
very
few
poynts
of
religi●on
,
whereof
euery
one
of
them
hath
had
occasion
to
write
.
67.
But
will
M.
Andrews
,
&
his
fellowes
be
content
that
we
exact
the
lyke
of
them
when
they
alledge
the
Fathers
;
See
supra
nu.
33.
as
for
example
,
the
Bishops
in
their
Canon
before
mentioned
,
concerning
the
vse
of
the
signe
of
the
Crosse
in
Baptisme
,
M.
Andrwes
confuted
by
an
example
of
his
owne
fellowes
.
doe
affirme
that
they
follow
therein
the
iudgement
of
all
the
Fathers
of
the
primitiue
Church
,
but
can
they
shew
,
trow
you
,
that
euery
Father
of
the
primitiue
Church
,
yea
or
the
greatest
part
of
them
do
particulerly
speake
of
that
ceremony
?
sure
I
am
they
cannot
show
it
;
for
albeit
diuers
very
ancient
and
holy
Fathers
do
treat
thereof
and
highly
approue
it
,
yet
many
others
are
vtterly
silent
concerning
the
same
;
neuertheles
for
as
much
as
those
that
approue
it
,
are
not
contradicted
by
any
of
the
rest
,
their
testimony
may
well
be
taken
for
the
vniforme
consent
of
all
,
or
truly
otherwyse
my
Lord
Bishops
will
not
be
able
to
iustify
their
assertion
,
and
proue
that
they
follow
the
iudgement
of
all
the
Fathers
in
that
poynt
.
Therfore
this
exception
of
M.
Andrewes
is
very
ridiculous
except
he
can
shew
that
those
Fathers
whome
the
Cardinall
omitted
,
haue
contradicted
the
testimonyes
of
the
other
;
but
this
you
see
,
he
hath
not
byn
able
to
doe
,
though
he
hath
done
his
best
endeauour
thereto
,
with
shame
ynough
to
himselfe
,
and
his
cause
.
S
Augustine
against
Iulian
the
Pelagian
contented
himselfe
with
the
testimo●nyes
of
six
Fathers
.
68.
S.
Augustine
writing
against
Iulian
the
Pelagian
about
originall
sinne
,
and
the
baptisme
of
Infants
,
thought
the
testimony
of
6.
Fathers
sufficient
to
conuince
him
,
though
fyue
of
them
were
of
the
same
tyme
,
and
age
wherein
he
himselfe
liued
;
for
whereas
the
Pelagian
falsely
pretended
that
S.
Chrysostome
made
for
him
,
S.
Augustine
answered
:
Absit
vt
Ioannes
Constantinopolitanus
&c.
God
forbid
that
Iohn
Bishop
of
Constantinople
should
resist
so
many
,
and
worthy
Bishops
his
fellowes
,
especially
Innocentius
Bishop
of
Rome
,
S.
Aug.
lib.
1.
contra
Iulian.
cap.
2.
Cyprian
of
Carthage
,
Basil
of
Cappadocia
,
Gregory
of
Nazianzen
,
Hilary
of
France
,
and
Ambrose
of
Milan
.
So
he
.
Therefore
how
much
more
may
we
rely
vpon
the
authority
of
as
many
more
Fathers
,
whereof
there
were
4.
euen
of
those
whome
S.
Augustine
named
,
and
he
himselfe
also
one
of
the
number
,
and
all
of
them
florished
aboue
1100.
yeares
agoe
,
and
haue
not
byn
gaynsayd
,
or
impugned
by
any
?
May
we
not
,
I
say
,
boldly
admit
their
testimonyes
for
a
proofe
of
the
vniforme
consent
of
the
Church
in
their
tyme
?
The
Scripture
teacheth
,
and
common
practice
approueth
that
2.
or
3.
substantiall
witnesses
may
suffice
to
proue
any
matter
in
question
,
Deut.
17.
and
therefore
much
more
may
these
12.
most
learned
,
and
holy
Fathers
suffice
to
shew
,
what
was
the
practice
,
and
beliefe
of
the
Church
in
their
dayes
,
especially
seeing
that
diuers
of
them
speake
of
publike
matters
of
fact
,
which
passed
in
their
owne
tyme
,
and
knowledge
,
in
which
respect
they
cannot
be
thought
to
fayne
;
and
lye
,
except
we
shall
take
them
to
be
voyd
both
of
conscience
,
and
common
honesty
.
69.
But
M.
Andrewes
addeth
further
,
that
it
appeareth
euen
in
Cardinall
Bellarmine
himselfe
that
the
Fathers
were
not
all
of
one
mynd
concerning
prayer
to
Saynts
,
Andr.
vbi
supra
.
and
for
proofe
thereof
he
remitteth
his
Reader
to
the
Cardinalls
controuersyes
,
Another
vayn
euasion
of
M.
Andrews
answered
.
and
particulerly
to
the
tract
de
beatitudine
Sanctorum
,
the
first
booke
,
and
20.
Chapter
;
which
truly
I
haue
read
diligently
,
and
cannot
find
any
thing
at
all
to
that
purpose
,
except
perhaps
he
meane
that
the
Cardinall
signifyeth
there
the
different
opinions
of
the
Fathers
concerning
the
manner
how
Saynts
do
vnderstand
,
Bellar.
de
beatit
.
Sanct.
lib.
1.
cap.
20.
or
heare
our
prayers
;
whereupon
it
seemeth
M.
Andrewes
inferreth
that
they
differed
also
in
opinion
concerning
the
whole
controuersy
,
Cardinall
Bellarmine
abused
by
M.
Andrews
.
when
neuertheles
it
appeareth
euidently
there
,
that
they
made
no
doubt
whether
prayer
to
Saynts
be
lawfull
,
neyther
yet
whether
they
know
our
actions
,
but
only
in
what
manner
they
know
them
,
and
how
they
heare
,
or
vnderstand
our
prayers
;
touching
which
poynt
,
and
the
absurd
inference
that
M
Andrewes
maketh
thereof
(
denying
the
certaynty
of
the
effect
,
by
the
vncertainty
of
the
cause
,
or
manner
of
it
)
I
haue
so
amply
discoursed
[
](A00916-e90790-b)(c)
(c)
See
supra
nu.
12.13.14.15
.
&
16.
before
,
that
I
shall
not
need
to
say
any
more
thereof
in
this
place
.
70.
But
that
which
I
wish
to
be
noted
heere
is
,
that
in
the
same
Chapter
which
he
quoteth
,
all
the
arguments
of
Luther
,
Caluin
,
the
Magdeburgenses
,
and
the
rest
,
and
amongst
others
euen
those
which
he
obiecteth
against
prayer
to
Saynts
,
are
fully
answered
,
and
yet
he
insisteth
still
vpon
the
same
,
without
any
reply
in
the
world
to
the
Cardinalls
answers
,
as
though
these
his
old
stale
obiections
were
new
inuentions
,
and
had
neuer
byn
answered
before
;
whereas
reason
would
,
M
Andrews
presumed
to
erre
not
of
ignorance
but
of
malice
.
that
seeing
he
saw
the
answeres
thereto
(
as
by
this
his
quotation
it
is
manifest
he
did
)
he
should
haue
said
somewhat
to
confute
them
.
And
if
he
say
that
he
did
not
hold
them
worthy
of
a
reply
,
he
should
haue
shewed
the
same
,
at
least
in
some
one
or
2.
of
them
:
and
so
no
doubt
he
would
haue
done
,
if
he
had
byn
able
,
whereby
it
appeareth
that
he
erreth
not
of
ignorance
,
but
of
meere
malice
,
and
impugneth
a
knowne
truth
against
his
owne
conscience
,
and
knowledge
.
71.
Well
then
I
will
conclude
concerning
the
12.
Fathers
alledged
by
the
Cardinall
,
S.
Aug.
aduers.
Iulian
Pela
.
lib.
2.
in
Epilogo
.
and
me
,
with
the
words
of
S.
Augustine
,
defending
the
authority
,
and
faith
of
11.
Fathers
alledged
by
him
against
Iulian
the
Pelagi●n
,
who
desired
to
haue
Iudges
of
his
cause
.
His
igitur
eloquijs
,
saith
S.
Augustine
,
Saynt
Augustins
words
to
a
Pelagian
heretike
fitly
applyed
to
M.
Andrews
.
&
tanta
auctoritate
Sanctorum
&c.
therefore
with
these
testimonyes
,
and
so
great
authority
of
holy
men
,
eyther
thou
wilt
through
Gods
mercy
be
cured
(
which
how
much
I
desire
,
he
seeth
,
whome
I
beseech
to
worke
it
)
or
if
(
which
God
forbid
)
thou
still
remayne
in
thy
great
folly
(
for
so
it
is
,
though
it
seeme
wisdome
to
thee
)
thou
wilt
not
seeke
Iudges
,
to
the
end
to
purge
thy selfe
,
and
try
thy
cause
,
but
to
accuse
the
worthy
,
and
famous
Doctors
of
Catholyke
verity
,
Irenaeus
,
Cyprian
,
Reticius
,
Olympius
,
Hilary
,
Gregory
,
Ambrose
,
Basil
,
Iohn
,
Innocent
,
and
Hierome
,
with
the
rest
of
their
fellowes
yea
the
vniuersall
Church
of
Christ
,
wherein
they
haue
florished
with
exceeding
great
glory
in
our
Lord
,
whyles
they
faithfully
ministred
the
food
of
God
to
his
diuine
family
,
and
therefore
I
will
see
that
in
respect
of
this
thy
miserable
madnesse
(
from
which
God
deliuer
thee
)
thy
bookes
are
to
be
answered
in
such
sort
that
the
fayth
of
these
Fathers
is
to
be
defended
agaynst
thee
,
no
lesse
then
the
Ghospell
it selfe
against
the
professed
enemyes
of
Christ
.
Thus
sayth
S.
Augustine
to
Iulian
,
and
the
same
say
I
to
M.
Andrews
,
with
lyke
harty
desire
of
this
good
,
leauing
the
application
of
the
whole
partly
to
the
consideration
of
the
discreet
Reader
,
and
partly
to
himselfe
according
to
the
light
,
and
feeling
he
may
haue
thereof
in
his
owne
conscience
.
72.
It
resteth
now
that
I
say
somewhat
briefely
to
certayne
trifling
obiections
which
he
maketh
against
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
out
of
Origen
,
S.
Cyril
,
and
S.
Athanasius
,
Certayne
trifeling
obiections
of
M.
Andrews
out
of
Origen
,
S.
Cyril
,
&
S.
Athanasius
.
vrging
the
Cardinall
to
shew
somewhat
out
of
them
to
proue
it
to
be
lawfull
,
and
particulerly
out
of
Origen
against
Celsus
,
and
S.
Cyril
against
Iulian
the
Apostata
,
and
out
of
Athanasius
against
the
Arians
,
because
he
supposeth
that
those
Fathers
should
in
those
their
treatises
haue
taught
that
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
is
lawfull
,
if
they
had
byn
of
that
opinion
;
and
he
addeth
that
the
two
former
do
flatly
deny
that
Christians
do
honour
Martyrs
pari
cultu
,
with
equal
honour
to
that
which
the
Paynims
gaue
to
their
Heroes
:
wherein
truly
he
hath
great
reason
;
and
I
will
also
add
thereto
that
not
only
Origen
,
and
S.
Cyril
,
but
also
S.
[
](A00916-e91240-b)(c)
(c)
Nazianz
.
oratio
.
1.
in
Iulian.
Gregory
Nazianzen
,
S.
[
](A00916-e91280-b)(d)
(d)
S.
Aug.
de
ciuita
.
Dei
lib.
22.
cap.
10.
Augustine
,
&
[
](A00916-e91320-b)(e)
(e)
Theodoret
de
Graecor
.
affect
.
curat
.
cap.
8.
Theodoret
,
&
diuers
other
Fathers
deny
the
same
,
as
well
as
they
,
but
what
is
that
to
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
,
or
yet
to
the
honour
that
the
Church
doth
to
them
in
their
feasts
(
which
perhaps
M.
Andrews
couertly
impugneth
by
this
obiection
,
though
he
speake
expressely
of
nothing
els
but
of
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
)
doth
he
not
know
that
the
Heroes
were
not
only
accounted
Gods
,
but
also
honored
as
Gods
with
Sacrifice
,
which
honour
the
Fathers
do
vterly
deny
to
be
giuen
by
Christians
to
Martyrs
,
and
Saynts
,
though
they
highly
approue
the
honour
that
is
done
vnto
them
in
the
Church
,
as
to
the
beloued
seruants
of
God
.
73.
And
now
will
M.
Andrews
inferre
heereupon
that
Saynts
may
not
be
inuocated
?
me
thinks
he
should
not
be
simple
;
and
if
he
say
that
those
Fathers
should
at
least
vpon
the
same
occasion
haue
taught
that
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
is
lawfull
,
if
they
had
held
it
so
to
be
(
for
so
indeed
he
seemeth
to
inferre
)
I
haue
[
](A00916-e91420-b)(d)
(d)
See
chap.
7.
nu.
35.36
.
&
37.
already
answered
him
sufficiently
concerning
this
absurd
manner
of
arguing
,
ab
auctoritate
negatiua
,
and
therefore
will
only
say
vnto
him
heere
,
that
I
may
with
much
more
reason
inferre
the
contrary
vpon
the
same
ground
,
M
Andrews
his
argument
retorted
vpon
himselfe
.
to
wit
that
because
those
Fathers
did
not
vpon
that
occasion
teach
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
to
be
vnlawfull
,
therefore
they
approued
it
;
for
reiecting
the
vnlawfull
honour
that
the
Paynims
sayd
was
done
to
Martyrs
,
they
had
sufficient
occasion
to
reiect
also
the
inuocation
of
them
,
if
they
had
held
it
to
be
vnlawfull
.
So
as
,
you
see
,
he
gayneth
nothing
by
this
obiection
out
of
Origen
,
and
S●
Cyril
,
but
rather
hurteth
his
cause
,
and
bewrayeth
his
owne
folly
.
74.
But
now
in
his
other
obiection
out
of
Athanasius
he
sheweth
both
folly
,
and
fraud
.
For
whereas
he
vrgeth
the
Cardinall
to
bring
some
testimony
for
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
out
of
the
Orations
of
S.
Athanasius
against
the
Arians
,
M.
Andrews
frameth
a
very
fraudulent
obiection
out
of
S.
Athanasiu●
.
he
pretendeth
to
find
there
,
that
the
same
is
wholy
excluded
,
and
reiected
,
vbi
,
saith
he
,
Christum
ideo
conuincit
esse
Deum
,
quòd
inuocetur
;
praeter
Deum
enim
à
Christianis
neminem
inuocari
,
where
Athanasius
doth
therefore
conuince
that
Christ
is
God
,
because
he
is
inuocated
,
for
that
Christians
do
inuocate
none
but
God
.
So
he
;
quoting
for
th●
same
the
second
oration
of
S.
Athanasius
against
the
Arians
;
orat●●●
●●
.
where
truly
I
fynd
no
such
thing
;
true
it
is
that
in
the
3.
Oration
he
proueth
substantially
,
and
amply
that
Christ
is
God
because
he
is
adored
,
speaking
playnly
of
that
kind
of
adoration
which
is
called
Cultus
latriae
,
and
is
due
to
God
alone
,
as
it
is
euident
by
the
places
of
Scripture
which
he
alledgeth
to
proue
it
;
but
of
inuocation
there
is
not
one
word
,
for
ought
I
find
,
and
though
there
were
,
yet
it
were
as
litle
to
the
purpose
,
for
that
inuocation
is
also
diuersly
taken
,
as
adoration
is
,
and
is
applyed
sometymes
to
God
alone
(
in
which
sense
it
cannot
be
applyed
to
creatures
)
and
sometymes
to
Angels
,
Saynts
,
or
men
,
as
I
haue
shewed
euidently
before
in
the
6.
Chapter
by
examples
of
holy
Scripture
,
See
before
Chap.
6.
nu.
2.3.4
.
&
5.
and
the
testimony
of
S.
Augustine
.
75.
Whereby
it
appeareth
,
that
he
is
not
only
idle
,
and
impertinent
in
this
obiection
,
M.
Andrews
idle
impertinent
and
fraudulent
.
but
also
fraudulent
;
changing
the
word
adoration
into
inuocation
,
if
he
did
mistake
the
second
oration
of
S.
Athanasius
for
the
third
,
and
not
of
purpose
falsify
,
and
bely
him
in
both
;
which
I
remit
to
God
and
his
conscience
to
iudge
of
;
and
will
now
with
this
conclude
this
Chapter
,
and
matter
,
not
doubting●
good
Reader
,
but
thou
hast
noted
throughout
the
whole
,
that
he
hath
neyther
sufficiently
answered
any
one
place
of
the
Fathers
alledged
by
the
Cardinall
,
or
any
argument
of
his
,
neyther
yet
hath
obiected
any
thing
himselfe
to
any
purpose
,
but
hath
eyther
notably
tryfled
,
and
paltred
in
his
answeres
,
and
obiections
,
or
egregiously
peruerted
,
corupted
,
or
falsifyed
such
Fathers
,
and
authors
as
he
hath
had
occasion
to
alledge
.
M.
Andrews
a
true
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
a
wrangler
,
iuggler
and
tryfler
in
the
hyghest
degree
.
76.
So
as
,
I
hope
,
I
haue
now
performed
that
which
I
vndertooke
in
these
3.
Chapters
,
which
was
to
defend
the
Cardinall
,
and
to
proue
M.
Andrews
to
be
a
true
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
is
,
an
egregious
wrangler
,
iangler
,
iuggler
,
and
tryfler
in
the
hyghest
degree
;
and
by
the
same
occasion
I
haue
also
fully
debated
with
him
an
important
point
of
Catholike
religion
concerning
the
inuocation
of
Saynts
,
which
I
haue
euidently
proued
to
be
most
consonant
to
holy
Scripture
,
practised
by
the
primitiue
Church
,
approued
by
the
vniforme
consent
of
the
ancient
Fathers
,
most
acceptable
to
God
,
honorable
to
him
,
and
his
Saynts
,
and
finally
very
behouefull
,
and
beneficiall
to
man
.
Whereby
it
may
appeare
that
M.
Andrews
,
and
his
fellowes
,
who
so
eagerly
impugne
it
,
are
no
other
then
the
instruments
,
and
proctors
of
the
Diuell
,
who
out
of
his
extreme
malice
,
and
enuy
to
Angels
,
Saynts
,
and
all
mankind
,
seeketh
by
all
the
meanes
he
may
,
to
depriue
the
Angels
,
and
Saynts
of
their
honour
,
M.
Andrews
the
Diuells
Proctor
.
and
man
of
the
inestimable
benefits
that
he
may
reape
,
both
spiritually
,
and
temporally
by
their
intercession
;
to
which
purpose
he
hath
retayned
,
and
feyed
M.
Andrews
,
as
it
seemeth
by
his
diligent
,
and
eloquent
pleading
the
cause
,
and
will
,
I
feare
me
,
one
day
pay
him
his
fee
in
other
money
then
he
wil
be
willing
to
receaue
,
except
he
open
his
eyes
in
tyme
to
see
his
danger
,
which
I
beseech
God
of
his
infinit
mercy
to
giue
him
grace
to
do
.
THE
CONCLVSION
OF
THIS
ADIOYNDER
,
DEVIDED
INTO
TWO
CHAPTERS
.
IN
THIS
,
are
detected
diuers
fraudes
and
shifts
common
to
M.
Andrews
with
M.
Barlow
;
as
to
change
the
state
of
the
question
,
to
dissemble
that
which
most
importeth
in
the
Cardinalls
text
and
arguments
;
to
abuse
,
wrest
,
bely
and
falsefy
not
only
the
Cardinall
,
but
also
the
ancient
Fathers
,
Councells
,
and
holy
Scriptures
:
and
finally
to
face
out
matters
impudently
for
lack
of
proofs
.
CHAP.
IX
.
THERE
remaine
,
good
Reader
,
diuers
other
thinges
in
M.
Andrews
to
be
examined
which
I
haue
touched
in
my
Supplement
:
The
authour
forced
to
draw
to
an
end
.
but
being
now
called
on
by
my
printer
to
furnish
his
presse
,
I
am
forced
not
only
to
send
away
that
which
I
haue
already
written
,
but
also
to
interrupt
my
designement
in
the
prosecution
of
the
rest
;
and
therefore
for
as
much
,
as
I
am
now
to
draw
to
an
end
,
I
think
good
for
the
conclusion
of
the
whole
,
to
lay
before
thee
sundrie
sorts
of
shifts
,
cosenages
,
corruptions
,
&
frauds
which
he
hath
vsed
throughout
his
whole
worke
;
and
to
the
end
I
may
performe
it
with
more
breuity
,
and
better
method
,
I
will
follow
the
same
course
that
I
held
with
M.
Barlow
,
That
is
,
draw
them
to
certaine
●eades
and
giue
thee
some
few
examples
of
euery
one
,
which
being
added
to
those
that
haue
already
occurred
in
this
Adioynder
,
may
suffice
,
I
hope
,
to
shew
●hee
with
what
kind
of
stuffe
he
hath
patched
vp
his
Latin
volume
,
what
a
miserable
cause
he
and
his
fellowes
haue
to
defend
,
seing
it
driueth
them
to
such
shamefull
shifts
as
thou
hast
partly
seene
already
,
and
shalt
further
see
by
that
which
ensueth
.
2.
The
first
point
which
I
reproued
in
M.
Barlow
was
his
common
custome
to
change
the
state
of
the
question
,
Changing
the
state
of
the
question
exemplified
in
the
question
of
the
Popes
Primacy
.
and
so
to
answere
nothing
to
the
purpose
,
which
is
no
lesse
frequent
and
ordinarie
in
M.
Andrews
:
as
for
example
,
whereas
the
true
state
of
the
controuersy
betwixt
vs
and
them
concerning
the
primacy
of
the
Pope
,
is
,
Whether
he
be
supreme
head
of
the
Church
in
all
spirituall
and
Ecclesiasticall
causes
,
and
may
in
some
cases
extend
his
power
to
temporall
thinges
,
that
is
to
say
,
Whether
being
the
supreme
spirituall
Pastor
,
he
may
for
the
publik
benefit
of
the
Church
and
the
good
of
soules
punish
his
disobedient
children
(
namely
temporall
Princes
)
in
their
temporall
See
supl.
chap.
1.
nu.
59.
&
seq
.
states
(
which
I
haue
shewed
in
my
Supplement
to
be
a
necessary
consequent
of
his
supreme
spirituall
power
)
M.
Andrews
will
needes
make
vs
hould
and
teach
that
the
Popes
primacy
is
a
temporall
primacy
,
in
which
respect
he
[
](A00916-e92140-b)(a)
(a)
Andr.
cap.
1.
pag.
17.
linca
.
4.
calleth
our
doctrine
and
beliefe
touching
that
point
,
illustrem
fidei
articulum
de
Primatu
Petri
temporali
,
The
notable
Article
of
Faith
concerning
the
temporall
Primacy
of
Peter
:
and
as
you
heard
[
](A00916-e92190-b)(b)
(b)
Chap.
5.
nu.
21.
before
distinguishing
the
name
of
Peters
primacy
(
which
he
granteth
)
from
the
thing
signified
by
that
name
(
which
he
denyeth
)
he
tearmeth
it
[
](A00916-e92230-b)(c)
(c)
Cap.
8.
pag
217.
§.
Inspiciam
&
cap.
1.
pag.
14.
§.
1.
terrestrem
Monarchiam
,
an
earthly
Monarchy
,
and
therefore
he
vrgeth
the
Cardinall
to
proue
this
temporall
primacy
,
and
earthly
Monarchy
,
and
so
impugneth
no
opinion
of
ours
,
nor
any
thing
els
but
his
owne
fond
fiction
,
as
I
haue
shewed
[
](A00916-e92310-b)(d)
(d)
Chap.
5.
nu.
21.
&
22.
before
,
and
more
amply
in
the
[
](A00916-e92350-b)(e)
(e)
See
chap.
1.
nu.
20.
&
2●
.
first
Chapter
of
this
Adioynder
,
and
therfore
I
shall
not
need
to
stand
any
longer
vpon
this
point
heere
,
but
will
passe
to
another
.
3.
Amongst
other
questions
much
controuersed
concerning
good
works
,
Another
example
of
the
state
of
the
question
changed
touching
works
of
supererogation
.
one
is
,
whether
there
be
any
works
of
supererogation
,
which
the
Catholyks
vnderstand
to
be
such
as
being
lawfull
and
good
of
their
owne
nature
,
are
not
commanded
by
any
precept
(
as
for
example
,
the
Euangelicall
Councells
)
in
which
sense
Cardinall
Bellarmine
,
and
all
other
Catholikes
do
vse
the
word
supererogation
,
as
signifying
a
work
done
supra
praeceptum
,
that
is
to
say
,
more
then
the
precept
commandeth
.
But
M.
Andrewes
impugneth
it
in
another
sense
and
so
changeth
the
state
of
the
question
.
Andr.
cap.
8.
pag.
169.
§.
In
supererogationis
.
For
he
will
needs
haue
workes
of
Supererogation
to
be
such
good
works
only
as
are
done
after
or
besids
the
full
accomplishment
of
the
Commandment
(
so
that
before
a
man
can
do
a
worke
of
supererogation
,
he
must
fullfill
and
fully
obserue
all
the
precepts
)
whereupon
he
also
inferreth
,
that
no
man
can
do
any
such
works
,
no
not
the
Apostles
themselues
,
because
they
could
not
fullfill
the
Commandments
,
hauing
allwayes
occasion
to
to
say
,
Dimitte
nobis
debita
nostra
,
forgiue
vs
Lord
our
offences
.
4.
Wherein
M.
Andrews
expressely
impugneth
not
so
much
the
Cardinall
and
other
.
Catholiks
,
as
S.
Augustine
,
and
other
ancient
Fathers
,
from
whome
they
take
both
the
terme
and
the
sense
thereof
.
For
whereas
our
Sauiour
saith
in
the
Ghospell
,
that
the
good
Samaritan
brought
the
wounded
man
into
the
Inne
,
Luc.
10.
and
leauing
two
pence
with
the
Host
told
him
,
quodcumque
supererogaueris
reddam
tibi
,
whatsoeuer
thou
shalt
lay
out
more
I
will
render
it
vnto
thee
,
S.
Augustine
alluding
to
the
same
place
,
and
words
of
our
Sauiour
,
teacheth
euidently
,
that
those
things
which
are
lawfull
,
id
est
,
S.
Aug.
lib.
●
.
de
adulter
coniug.
ad
Pollent
.
cap.
14.
sayth
he
,
nullo
praecepto
Domini
prohibentur
,
that
is
to
say
,
which
are
not
forbidden
by
any
precept
of
our
Lord
,
and
are
done
,
non
praescripto
legis
,
sed
confi●io
charitatis
,
not
by
the
prescript
or
commandment
of
the
law
,
but
by
the
counsell
of
Charity
,
haec
sunt
,
saith
he
,
quae
ampliùs
exogantur
saucio
&c.
These
are
those
works
which
are
laied
out
more
for
the
wounded
man
,
who
through
the
compassion
of
the
Samaritan
was
brought
to
the
Inne
to
be
cured
,
and
therefore
they
are
said
not
to
be
commanded
by
our
Lord
,
although
they
are
aduised
to
be
offered
,
to
the
end
,
that
they
may
be
vnderstood
to
be
so
much
more
gratfull
,
by
how
much
more
they
are
signifyed
not
to
be
due
.
So
he
.
5.
Also
in
another
place
he
putteth
the
matter
out
of
all
doubt
exemplyfying
the
same
thus
:
Stbularius
ergo
est
Apostolus
.
Idem
lib.
2.
quaest.
Euang.
cap.
1●●
Quod
autem
supererogat
&c.
Therefore
the
host
is
the
Apostle
,
And
that
which
he
layeth
out
more
,
is
eyther
that
counsell
whereof
he
saith
,
De
Virginibus
praeceptum
Domini
non
habeo
,
consilium
autem
do
:
Concerning
virgines
I
haue
no
precept
of
our
Lord
,
but
I
giue
counsell
.
Or
ells
it
is
,
that
he
wrought
with
his
owne
handes
,
least
in
the
begining
of
the
Ghospell
he
should
be
a
burden
to
some
of
the
weaker
sort
,
when
neuertheles
it
was
lawfull
for
him
to
be
fed
or
maintayned
by
the
Ghospell
.
Thus
sayth
S.
Augustine
,
clearly
confuting
M.
Andrews
his
idle
discourse
;
for
to
omit
that
he
teacheth
the
vse
of
the
word
supererogation
(
which
therefore
was
not
deuised
of
late
tyme
and
much
lesse
by
the
Catholiks
of
these
dayes
)
first
he
sheweth
that
it
signifieth
such
works
,
as
being
lawfull
them selues
are
not
comaunded
by
any
precept
,
in
which
only
sense
Cardinall
Bellarmine
,
and
all
other
Catholyks
vse
it
.
6.
Secondly
he
exemplifieth
the
same
not
only
in
the
counsell
of
Virginity
(
which
is
therfore
a
work
of
Supererogation
)
but
also
in
S.
Paules
owne
practice
of
mayntayning
himselfe
by
the
labour
of
his
hands
,
when
he
might
haue
liued
by
the
Gospell
;
whereupon
it
followeth
clearly
that
M.
Andrews
argueth
very
impertinently
in
saying
,
that
the
Apostles
themselues
could
do
no
workes
of
Supererogation
,
because
they
had
daily
occasion
to
say
,
Dimitte
nobis
debita
nostra
.
For
I
am
sure
M.
Andrews
will
not
deny
that
S.
Paul
was
an
Apostle
,
and
yet
S.
Augustine
affirmeth
,
as
you
see
,
that
he
not
only
taught
works
of
Supererogation
(
namely
Virginity
,
and
continent
single
lyfe
)
but
also
practised
&
performed
them
himselfe
,
doing
such
good
workes
as
he
was
not
bound
to
do
by
any
precept
.
Besides
that
,
it
appeareth
also
hereby
that
a
man
may
doe
a
work
of
Supererogation
,
though
he
haue
occasion
dayly
to
say
Dimitte
nobis
debita
nostra
.
Which
therefore
was
an
idle
exception
of
M.
Andrews
against
such
workes
,
euen
in
the
Apostles
themselues
.
Lastly
wee
see
by
these
testymonyes
of
S.
Augustine
,
and
the
example
of
S.
Paul
,
that
a
work
of
supererogation
is
no
other
but
such
a
good
work
as
is
not
commanded
by
precept
,
and
therfore
it
is
euident
that
M.
Andrews
taking
it
in
another
sense
changeth
th●
state
of
the
question
.
A
third
example
of
the
state
of
the
question
changed
.
Car.
Apol.
pa.
107.
7.
Moreouer
,
whereas
the
Apology
for
the
Oath
accounteth
the
Adoration
of
the
Bl.
Sacrament
of
the
Eucharist
to
be
a
new
inuention
,
&
the
Cardinall
answering
the
same
declareth
the
sense
and
meaning
of
the
Catholiks
concerning
that
point
,
saying
,
that
they
teach
the
Adoration
of
Christ
our
Lord
present
in
the
Sacrament
&c.
M.
Andrews
replieth
thus
:
In
adoratione
Sacramenti
ad
limen
ipsum
turpiter
impingit
&c.
In
the
Adoration
of
the
Sacrament
the
Cardinall
stumbleth
shamefully
,
Andr.
cap.
8.
pag.
195.
§.
In
adora
.
euen
at
the
first
entrance
.
Of
the
Sacrament
,
saith
he
,
that
is
to
say
of
Christ
our
Lord
in
the
Sacrament●
Apage
vero
!
Quis
ei
hoc
dederit
?
Fy
fy
,
who
would
grant
him
this
?
The
Sacrament
,
that
is
to
say
,
Lib.
4.
cap.
34.
de
consecrat
.
2.
Hoc
ergo
.
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
,
but
rather
Christ
himselfe
(
who
is
the
thing
conteyned
in
the
Sacrament
)
is
to
be
adored
wheresoeuer
he
is
,
i●
,
with
,
or
without
the
Sacrament
.
The
King
houldeth
that
Christ
is
truly
in
the
Eucharist
,
and
truly
to
be
adored
,
that
is
to
say
,
the
thing
of
the
Sacrament
,
but
not
the
Sacrament
,
I
meane
the
earthly
part
,
as
Irenaeus
calleth
it
,
&
the
visible
according
to
Augustine
.
So
he
.
8.
Wherein
I
omit
for
the
present
to
note
what
he
granteth
concerning
our
Catholyk
doctrine
(
wherof
I
shall
haue
occasion
to
speake
more
particulerly
[
](A00916-e93180-b)(a)
(a)
Chap.
10.
nu.
4.
hereafter
)
and
I
only
wish
to
be
obserued
,
how
manifestly
&
wittingly
(
no
doubt
)
he
changeth
the
state
of
the
question
,
notwithstanding
the
Cardinalls
owne
explication
therof
,
who
signifieth
,
that
for
as
much
as
Christ
is
truly
,
and
really
present
in
the
Sacrament
,
therefore
Christ
himselfe
is
adored
therein
,
and
not
the
bare
Sacrament
:
though
the
Cardinall
,
I
say
,
doth
declare
this
,
yet
M.
Andrews
will
needs
presuppose
that
wee
hold
and
teach
that
the
bare
Sacrament
or
formes
of
bread
and
wyne
are
to
be
adored
,
for
els
why
doth
he
make
distinction
of
the
Sacrament
,
and
the
thing
of
the
Sacrament
,
granting
the
adoration
of
the
one
,
and
not
of
the
other
,
but
denying
the
later
,
as
our
opinion
,
as
though
we
affirming
that
the
Sacrament
of
the
Eucharist
is
to
be
adored
,
should
meane
it
only
of
the
exteriour
formes
?
As
well
might
he
say
,
that
he
which
teacheth
that
Christ
is
to
be
adored
,
meaneth
it
of
his
humanity
,
and
not
of
his
diuinity
;
for
who
knoweth
not
that
the
Sacrament
of
the
Eucharist
conteyneth
not
only
the
Sacrament
(
that
is
to
say
the
exteriour
formes
of
bread
,
&
wine
)
but
also
the
thing
of
the
Sacrament
,
which
is
our
Sauiour
Christ
,
as
the
person
of
Christ
conteyneth
as
well
his
Diuinity
,
as
his
humanity
.
And
therefore
he
that
adoreth
his
person
doth
adore
his
Diuinity
vnited
with
his
humanity
,
and
not
his
humanity
alone
.
9.
For
otherwise
he
that
should
adore
Christ
Cultu
latriae
,
S.
Ambros.
lib.
3
de
spiritu
S.
cap.
12.
should
commit
Idolatry
.
And
as
well
S.
Ambrose
(
when
he
saith
,
Carnem
Christi
in
mysterijs
odoramus
,
Wee
adore
the
flesh
of
Christ
in
the
mysteries
)
as
also
S.
Augustine
(
saying
,
S.
Aug.
in
Psa●m
.
98.
Nemo
illam
carnem
manducat
nisi
prius
adorauerit
,
No
man
eates
that
flesh
but
he
adoreth
it
first
)
should
teach
Idolatry
,
if
they
should
be
vnderstood
to
speake
of
the
flesh
of
Christ
alone
separated
from
his
Diuinity
.
In
which
repect
M.
Andrewes
himselfe
approueth
that
manner
of
speach
in
those
two
Fathers
,
yea
,
and
afterwards
explicateth
the
same
himselfe
very
well
out
of
S.
Augustine
,
saying
,
the
humanity
it selfe
of
Christ
(
as
S.
Augustine
disputeth
)
is
not
to
be
adored
by
it selfe
,
Andr.
vbi
supra
pag.
201.
but
vnited
with
the
Diuinity
,
as
the
Kings
purple
,
or
Royall
robe
,
when
he
is
vested
or
clad
with
it
,
and
not
when
it
lyeth
by
it selfe
alone
.
Thus
saith
M.
Andrewes
:
and
the
lyke
exposition
might
he
haue
made
of
adoring
the
Blessed
Sacrament
of
the
Eucharist
,
if
his
peruerse
,
wrangling
,
and
cauiling
humour
would
haue
permitted
him
to
acknowledge
what
is
our
Catholik
doctrine
in
this
point
,
which
he
could
not
but
knowe
in
his
conscience
,
for
that
I
am
sure
he
neuer
read
,
nor
heard
tell
of
any
Catholik
,
who
taught
or
thought
that
the
bare
Sacrament
in
the
Eucharist
I
meane
the
exteriour
forme
,
is
to
be
adored
without
Christs
presence
,
or
in
respect
of
it selfe
.
And
this
may
suffice
for
this
point
.
A
fourth
example
of
the
state
of
the
question
changed
,
concerning
the
veneration
of
holy
reliques
.
10.
I
may
adde
the
lyke
concerning
another
point
,
wherein
M.
Andrewes
chargeth
the
Cardinall
to
change
the
state
of
the
question
,
I
meane
touching
the
reuerence
and
honor
that
is
and
allwayes
hath
byn
done
in
the
Catholik
Church
to
the
holy
reliques
of
Saynts
.
For
whereas
the
Apology
for
the
Oath
condemneth
it
for
a
new
and
false
,
yea
an
abhominable
doctrine
,
and
the
Cardinall
in
his
answere
thereto
,
so
amply
and
euidently
proueth
it
out
of
the
Ancient
Fathers
that
it
cannot
be
denyed
,
M.
Andrews
hath
no
other
refuge
but
to
take
hould
of
the
word
Adoration
vsed
by
the
Apology
,
Card.
Apolog.
cap.
1.
pag.
12.13.14.15.16.17
.
&
18.
vnderstanding
it
for
worship
due
to
God
alone
,
and
exacting
of
the
Cardinall
some
proofe
that
such
adoration
is
due
to
reliques
,
as
though
Catholiks
were
of
that
opinon
;
wheras
nether
the
Cardinall
,
nor
any
other
Catholike
doth
apply
that
word
to
reliques
in
that
sense
,
but
vse
it
for
reuerence
and
veneration
due
to
holy
men
,
or
holy
things
,
as
the
Cardinall
himselfe
signifieth
in
plaine
and
expresse
words
.
So
that
if
the
said
Apology
do
impugne
the
adoration
of
Reliques
,
in
the
other
sense
(
meaning
the
exhibition
of
diuine
honour
thereunto
)
it
doth
not
any
way
impugne
our
doctrine
,
A
strange
peruersity
but
changeth
the
state
of
the
question
,
as
well
as
M.
Andrewes
,
though
so
absurdly
as
he
who
doth
not
only
vnderstand
the
Adoration
of
Reliques
to
signify
a
diuine
honor
done
vnto
them
,
but
also
will
needs
proue
no
adoration
of
creatures
is
lawfull
.
11.
To
which
purpose
he
alledgeth
the
example
of
the
Angell
in
the
Apocalyps
,
Apocal.
1●
.
&
22.
who
when
Saynt
Iohn
the
Euangelist
would
haue
adored
him
twice
,
forbad
him
to
do
it
at
both
tymes
,
saying
,
Vide
ne
feceris
,
Deum
adora
,
Andr.
vbi
supra
.
pag.
49.
§.
neces●se
●abe●
.
See
that
thou
doest
it
not
,
adore
God
.
Whereupon
he
inferreth
,
that
seeing
S.
Iohn
could
not
be
ignorant
(
especially
the
second
tyme
)
that
the
Angell
was
not
God
,
and
yet
would
haue
adored
him
,
it
followeth
that
he
(
I
meane
S.
Iohn
)
did
not
intend
to
adore
him
with
adoration
due
to
God
alone
,
but
with
such
(
saith
M.
Andrews
)
as
the
Cardinall
supposeth
may
be
vsed
to
Angells
,
holy
men
,
or
sacred
thinges
,
and
yet
neuerthelesse
the
Angell
would
not
permit
it
,
Andr.
ibidem
pag.
5●
.
and
therefore
in
M.
Andrews
his
opinion
no
such
adoration
is
lawfull
,
for
,
Nec
est
,
saith
he
,
Angelorum
ratio
alia
,
alia
Sanctorum
&c.
For
in
this
there
is
no
difference
betwixt
the
adoration
of
Angells
,
and
of
Saynts
of
holy
men●
neyther
is
there
more
respect
to
be
had
to
reliques
than
to
those
whose
reliques
they
are
.
So
he
.
Not
admitting
,
as
you
●ee
,
any
adoration
of
Angells
or
Saynts
,
though
it
be
not
meant
thereby
to
exhibit
diuine
honour
vnto
them
,
but
only
to
do
an
act
of
veneration
,
reuerence
or
religious
worship
;
and
why
?
Many
forsooth
because
the
Angell
would
not
suffer
S.
Iohn
the
Apostle
to
adore
him
in
that
manner
.
12.
Wherein
two
thinges
are
to
be
noted
,
the
one
,
what
a
poore
conceipt
M.
Andrews
hath
of
S.
Iohn
whome
he
maketh
to
be
so
ignorant
that
he
knew
not
whether
such
adoration
were
lawfull
or
no
,
M.
Andrews
hath
a
poore
conceipt
of
S.
Iohn
the
Euangelist
vntill
the
Angell
did
instruct
him
,
and
forbad
him
to
vse
it
.
The
other
that
he
reasoneth
as
substantially
as
if
he
should
say
,
that
if
a
holy
man
should
of
modesty
and
humility
.
refuse
some
extraordinary
honour
offred
vnto
him
by
some
other
holy
person
,
and
byd
him
not
to
do
it
to
him
,
but
to
God
,
hee
must
needs
meane
that
no
such
kind
of
reuerence
,
or
honor
may
be
done
to
men
;
for
such
no
doubt
was
the
case
betwixt
S.
Iohn
and
the
Angell
,
Why
the
Angel
in
the
Apocalips
did
forbid
S.
Iohn
to
adore
him
eyther
of
them
shewing
their
humility
,
and
the
respect
they
bare
the
one
to
the
other
,
S.
Iohn
reuerencing
the
Angell
as
a
Celestiall
creature
to
whome
he
held
himselfe
much
inferiour
,
and
the
Angell
bearing
much
respect
,
and
reuerence
to
S.
Iohn
as
to
the
most
worthy
and
beloued
Apostle
of
Christ
,
who
was
Lord
and
maister
to
them
both
,
and
therefore
acknowledging
himselfe
to
be
no
other
but
conseruum
,
S.
Greg.
ho.
●
.
in
Euang
●●
ad
.
A●sel
.
Richar.
Ruper
.
in
19.
Apoc.
as
he
said
,
a
fellow
seruant
of
S.
Iohn
,
he
would
not
permit
him
to
do
him
that
honor
,
but
bad
him
do
it
to
God
;
besides
that
,
S.
Gregory
the
great
,
Beda
,
Anselmus
,
Richardus
de
S.
Victore
,
and
Rupertus
do
giue
also
another
reason
thereof
to
wit
,
that
the
Angell
bare
respect
euen
to
humane
nature
,
in
regard
of
the
humanity
of
our
Sauiour
.
Hinc
est
,
saith
S.
Gregory
,
quòd
Lot
,
&
Iosue
Angelos
ipsis
non
prohibentibus
&c.
S.
Greg
vbi
supra
.
For
this
cause
Lot
and
Iosue
adored
Angells
,
and
were
not
forbidden
by
them
,
but
〈◊〉
in
the
Apocalips
meaning
to
adore
an
Angell
,
was
by
him
forbidden
to
do
it
.
So
he
,
signifying
how
much
the
Angells
respected
humane
nature
after
the
Incarnation
of
our
Sauiour
more
then
before
.
13.
But
for
the
further
satisfaction
and
instruction
of
the
vnlearned
reader
in
this
point
,
Three
sorts
of
adoration
mentioned
in
the
Scriptures
he
is
to
vnderstand
that
there
are
three
kindes
of
adoration
specified
in
the
holy
Scripture
.
The
first
is
that
which
is
due
to
God
alone
,
and
is
called
by
Deuines
Adoratio
Latriae
,
that
is
to
say
,
an
adoration
,
or
exteriour
worship
exhibited
by
some
corporall
reuerence
,
and
submission
to
acknowledge
our
duety
and
seruice
to
God
,
as
he
is
our
Creatour
,
Conseruatour
,
and
Chiefe
good
,
and
this
adoration
is
so
due
proper
vnto
God
alone
,
that
it
is
Idolatry
to
exhibit
the
same
vnto
any
Creature
.
Of
this
kind
the
Scripture
speaketh
when
it
saith
[
](A00916-e94440-b)(b)
(b)
Matth
4.
Dominum
Deum
tuum
adorabis
,
&
illi
soli
seruies
.
Thou
shalt
adore
thy
Lord
God
,
and
serue
him
alone
.
Also
,
Non
[
](A00916-e94480-b)(c)
(c)
Exod.
20.
adorabis
ea
neque
coles
:
Thou
shalt
not
adore
,
nor
worship
them
,
that
is
to
say
Idolls
.
Non
[
](A00916-e94520-b)(d)
(d)
●bid
.
23.
adorabis
Deos
eorum
;
Thou
shalt
not
adore
●heir
Gods
.
[
](A00916-e94550-b)(e)
(e)
Gen.
47
Adorauit
Irael
Dominum
,
Israell
adored
our
Lord
.
[
](A00916-e94580-b)(g)
(g)
Iudic.
7.
Gedeon
adorauit
&
reuersus
est
.
Gedeon
adored
and
returned
.
[
](A00916-e94610-b)(h)
(h)
Ioan.
4.
Veri
adoratores
adorabunt
patrem
in
spiritu
,
&
veritate
.
The
true
Adorers
,
or
worshipers
,
shall
adore
my
Father
in
spirit
and
truth
.
And
the
lyke
occurreth
in
infinite
other
places
as
well
of
the
new
as
the
old
testament
.
14●
The
second
kind
of
adoration
,
though
it
be
inferiour
to
this
,
yet
is
also
an
act
of
Religion
,
exhibited
in
like
manner
exteriourly
to
Angells
,
Saynts
or
holy
men
,
as
to
the
seruants
of
God
,
and
for
the
honor
and
loue
of
him
:
of
which
kind
many
examples
are
set
downe
in
holy
Scriptures
,
as
of
[
](A00916-e94670-b)(b)
(b)
Genes.
18.
Abraham
,
[
](A00916-e94700-b)(c)
(c)
Gen.
19●
Lo●
,
and
[
](A00916-e94730-b)(d)
(d)
Num.
22.
Balaam
,
who
adored
Angells
prostrate
vpon
the
ground
.
And
of
[
](A00916-e94770-b)(f)
(f)
Iosue
5.
Iosue
who
fell
downe
prostrate
before
an
Angell
,
&
adorans
ait
,
quid
Dominus
meus
&c.
And
adoring
said
,
why
doth
my
Lord
speake
vnto
his
seruant
?
And
so
far
was
the
Angell
from
reprehending
him
,
that
he
made
him
do
more
reueren●e
,
commanding
him
to
put
of
his
shooes
because
the
place
was
holy
wherein
he
stood
;
which
place
(
no
doubt
)
was
no
other
way
holy
,
but
for
the
presence
of
the
Angell●
Also
[
](A00916-e94810-b)(g)
(g)
●
.
Reg.
2●
.
Saul
adored
the
soule
of
Samuel
.
And
though
Abdias
was
in
temporall
dignity
a
greater
man
,
and
more
worthie
then
Elias
the
Prophet
,
yet
he
fell
vpon
his
face
before
[
](A00916-e94870-b)(h)
(h)
3.
Reg.
28.4
.
Reg.
●
.
Elias
,
acknowledging
thereby
the
spirituall
excellencie
and
sanctity
of
Gods
Prophet
,
and
therein
did
an
act
of
Religion●
As
also
the
Children
of
the
Prophets
did
the
like
to
Elizaeus
,
when
they
perceiued
by
his
miraculous
passage
of
the
Riuer
,
that
God
had
giuen
him
the
spirit
of
Elias
,
adorauerunt
eum
,
saith
the
Scripture
,
proni
interram
.
They
adored
him
flat
vpon
the
ground
.
In
like
manner
[
](A00916-e94940-b)(k)
(k)
Dan.
2.
Nabuchodonozor
adored
Daniel
,
and
[
](A00916-e94970-b)(l)
(l)
Hebr.
11.
Psalm●8
●8
See
Bellar.
de
beat●e
.
Sanct.
li.
1.
cap.
1●
.
Iacob
the
top
of
Iosephs
r●d
.
Finally
the
Psalmist
saith
of
the
Arke
(
for
so
it
is
to
be
vnderstood
according
to
the
letter
)
adorate
scabellum
pedum
eius
,
Adore
the
Foot-stoole
of
his
Feete
.
15.
The
third
kind
of
Adoration
,
is
no
act
of
Religion
,
but
meerely
ciuill
testifying
a
reuerend
respect
of
one
man
to
another
,
for
some
ciuill
,
and
temporall
excellencie
;
such
was
the
adoration
,
which
[
](A00916-e95110-b)(n)
(n)
Gen.
23.
Abraham
vsed
to
the
Children
of
Heth
,
[
](A00916-e95150-b)(p)
(p)
Gen.
33.
Iacob
to
his
brother
Es●u
,
the
[
](A00916-e95190-b)(q)
(q)
Ib●d.
42
Children
of
Israël
to
their
brother
Ioseph
,
[
](A00916-e95230-b)(r)
(r)
Ruth
.
2.
Ruth
to
Booz●
[
](A00916-e95270-b)(s)
(s)
Iudith
.
2
Iudith
to
Holofernes
,
[
](A00916-e95310-b)(t)
(t)
1.
Reg
25
Abigail
and
[
](A00916-e95340-b)(v)
(v)
2.
Reg.
9
Miphiboseth
to
Dauid
,
besides
very
many
[
](A00916-e95380-b)(w)
(w)
Gen.
7
49.50
.
2.
Reg.
24.
2.
R●g.
14.16.18
.
&
14.
3.
Reg.
1.
ver.
6.23.31
47.
&
53.
It●m
●ap.
2.
&
alibi
passim
.
other
which
I
omit
for
breuityes
sake
.
In
which
as
also
in
the
two
former
kindes
of
adoration
,
it
is
to
be
obserued
that
as
well
the
exteriour
Acts
of
submission
,
and
reuerence
as
the
word
adoration
are
common
to
all
three
kindes
,
and
diuersifyed
or
distinguished
only
by
the
intention
and
will
of
him
that
performeth
the
same
,
and
therefore
we
see
that
the
same
manner
of
prostra●ion
which
[
](A00916-e95510-b)(x)
(x)
Gen.
1●
.
Abraham
vsed
to
Almighty
God
for
diuine
honor
,
was
vsed
as
well
by
[
](A00916-e95550-b)(y)
(y)
Ibid.
18.
himselfe
as●
[
](A00916-e95570-b)(z)
(z)
Ibid.
19.
others
to
Angells
for
a
Religious
veneration
,
and
to
[
](A00916-e95600-b)(b)
(b)
Gen.
23
.
3●
.
&
42.
men
of
dignity
for
a
ciuill
worship
and
submission
,
and
the
same
termed
euery
where
adoration
.
16.
Hereby
then
it
is
euident
,
that
according
to
the
vse
and
phrase
of
the
holy
Scripture
,
Adoration
is
vnderstood
diuersly
according
to
the
circumstances
.
the
word
Adoration
is
to
be
vnderstood
diuersly
as
it
is
diuersly
applied
eyther
to
God
alone
,
or
to
Angells
,
holy
men
,
and
holy
thinges
,
or
els
to
men
of
dignity
and
the
same
is
also
obserued
in
the
hebrew
word
Sachah
which
signifieth
Adorare
,
and
is
diuersly
vnderstood
of
each
of
these
three
kindes
of
Adoration
,
according
to
the
different
application
thereof●
in
so
much
that
it
cannot
otherwise
be
distinguished
but
by
the
circumstances
.
So
as
it
is
no
meruaile
,
that
as
well
the
ancient
Fathers
as
the
Catholiks
of
these
dayes
,
following
the
custome
of
the
holy
Scriptures
do
vse
the
word
Adoration
in
the
same
different
manner
and
s●nse
,
that
the
Scripture
doth
.
But
it
may
be
wondered
that
M.
Andrews
being
so
great
a
Doctor
,
and
R●bin
,
as
he
is
taken
to
be
,
can
eyther
be
so
ignorant
as
not
to
know
this
,
or
so
peruerse
and
malicious
(
if
he
know
it
)
as
to
contend
and
striue
to
proue
that
there
can
be
no
lawfull
Adoration
but
of
God
alone
.
17.
And
therefore
for
as
much
as
he
hath
sought
to
make
good
his
Assertion
,
not
only
by
the
example
of
the
Angell
in
the
Apocalyps
before
mentioned
,
but
also
by
two
or
three
testimonyes
of
the
Fathers
(
yea
gybing
,
bragging
,
and
triumphing
,
in
such
sort
as
if
he
had
vtterly
foyled
the
Cardinall
)
I
cannot
omit
to
say
somwhat
thereto
,
Card.
Apol
vbi
supra
.
S.
Hierom.
Epist.
ad
Marcel
.
vt
commigret
Bethl●●m
.
seeing
I
haue
had
this
occasion
to
speake
thereof
.
The
Cardinall
to
proue
the
Adoration
of
Reliques
in
the
Catholyke
sense
,
alledgeth
amongst
many
other
places
,
one
out
of
S.
Hierome
to
Marcella
,
where
he
signified
that
if
she
would
come
to
Bethleem
,
she
might
besides
many
other
acts
of
deuotion
(
which
he
there
recounteth
)
adorare
cineres
&c.
Andr.
vbi
supra
pag.
49.
§.
Non
probat
.
Adore
the
ashes
of
S.
Iohn
Baptist
,
He●isaeus
,
and
Abdias
.
Whereto
M.
Andrews
answereth
that
S.
Hierome
doth
not
vse
adorare
there
properly
,
but
figuratiuely
:
and
thereof
he
yieldeth
two
reasons
,
the
one
because
in
the
same
place
he
sayth
also
,
that
she
might
puluerem
lingere
,
lick
the
dust
,
Quare
vt
hoc
,
ita
&
illud
non
propriè
,
sed
figuratè
.
Wherefore
as
this
,
so
also
that
is
not
spoken
properly
,
but
figuratiuely
.
Thus
reasoneth
M.
Andrews
,
and
by
the
way
addeth
out
of
his
scoffing
humour
:
At
nec
vos
puluerilingi
estis
;
But
neyther
you
your selues
are
dust-lickers
,
meaning
as
I
take
it
,
that
we
must
eyther
be
dust-lickers
,
or
els
take
adorare
figuratiuely
in
that
place
.
A
iest
of
M.
Andrews
spoyled
.
18.
But
truly
he
hath
spoiled
his
iest
by
mistaking
the
phrase
,
whereupon
he
groundeth
it
,
for
puluerem
lingere
,
is
not
in
all
that
Epistle
,
for
ought
I
can
find
,
though
I
haue
read
it
ouer
of
purpose
;
but
some
lines
before
there
is
indeed
,
Crucis
lignum
lambere
,
to
like
the
wood
of
the
Crosse
,
and
therefore
if
he
will
make
himselfe
as
merry
with
vs
,
and
with
this
phrase
,
as
he
doth
with
that
other
,
he
must
say
wee
are
not
Crucilambi
,
Crosse-lickers
,
or
rather
to
expresse
the
whole
and
make
a
merry
word
indeed
he
must
say
Cruci-ligni-lambi
,
Crosse-wood-lickers
;
but
howsoeuer
it
pleaseth
him
to
be
merrie
,
I
must
tell
him
seriously
,
that
I
will
not
so
easely
grant
him
,
that
Crucis
lignum
lambere
,
was
spoken
there
figuratiuely
,
for
that
it
may
well
be
that
the
deuotion
of
the
faythfull
people
was
such
a●
that
tyme
,
that
in
kissing
of
the
Crosse
they
vsed
also
to
like
the
wood
thereof
.
But
put
the
case
S.
Hierome
spake
therein
figuratiuely
,
doth
it
therefore
follow
that
adorare
cin●res
(
which
commeth
after
some
lines
)
is
also
a
figuratiue
speach
?
as
well
may
he
say
that
euery
word●
yea
the
whole
context
of
that
Epistle
is
figuratiue
,
seeing
that
there
are
throughout
the
whole
many
elegant
Metaphors
,
Allegories
,
and
figuratiue
speaches
.
19.
But
what
figure
trow
you
is
it
that
he
meaneth
?
Andr.
pa.
50.
〈…〉
.
forsooth
no
other
will
serue
the
turne
but
Catachresis
,
for
so
he
saith
in
the
end
,
Cardinalis
iam
adoratio
per
Catachresin
fortè
,
propriè
autem
non
est
adoratio
.
This
Adoration
(
which
the
Cardinall
saith
is
due
to
holy
thinges
)
may
perhaps
be
so
called
by
the
figure
Catachresis
,
Qui●t
.
●●flic
.
bra●
.
lib
9.
cap.
6.
Isidor●
&
Etymol
.
but
is
not
properly
adoration
.
Thus
saith
he
most
absurdly
,
for
so
should
it
be
vsed
for
lack
of
a
proper
word
,
if
the
Grammarians
,
and
Rhetoricians
do
iudge
of
Catachresis
aright
,
which
signifying
Ab●sio
,
doth
import
the
abuse
of
a
Methaphore
,
when
there
wanteth
a
proper
word
:
as
Quintilian
and
others
teach
.
20.
But
will
M.
Andrews
say
,
that
there
is
such
want
of
proper
wordes
for
the
Veneration
of
Angells
,
Saynts
,
and
men
,
that
the
penners
and
translatours
of
the
holy
Scriptures
were
forced
in
all
those
places
mentioned
before
,
to
abuse
a
word
that
is
proper
to
God
?
Might
not
honorare
&
venerari
haue
serued
to
expresse
their
meaning
,
if
adorare
were
only
to
be
vnderstood
of
diuine
honour
?
Besides
that
,
I
must
needs
say
that
the
matter
goeth
very
hard
with
Abraham
,
Lot
,
Iosue
,
Balaam
,
the
Children
of
the
Prophets
,
and
all
those
others
before
mentioned
(
who
are
said
in
the
Scriptures
to
haue
adored
Angells
and
men
)
their
case
,
I
say
,
is
hard●
if
there
be
no
way
to
saue
them
from
Idolatry
,
but
by
an
absurd
Catachresis
neuer
dream't
of
by
any
but
by
M.
Andrews●
For
I
think
no
man
would
be
so
absurd
to
imagin
a
Catachresis
,
where
there
is
no
want
of
proper
words
,
The
word
adoration
vsed
for
the
worship
of
Angells
and
men
in
holy
Sc●ipture
aboue
40.
tymes
.
especially
so
often
as
adoration
is
vsed
for
the
worship
of
Angells
&
men
,
not
only
in
the
Fathers
but
also
in
the
holy
Scriptures
.
Where
I
●are
vndertake
to
shew
it
in
that
sense
aboue
40.
tymes
(
for
I
haue
taken
paynes
to
search
it
)
which
I
hope
may
suffice
to
teach
M●
Andrews
that
it
doth
not
signify
diuine
honor
only
,
&
that
the
ancient
Fathers●
&
we
,
who
vse
it
sometymes
in
other
sense
,
haue
sufficient
warrant
for
it
from
the
Scripture
it selfe
,
and
finally
that
there
is
no
other
Catachresis
(
I
meane
no
other
abuse
)
in
all
this
matter
,
but
in
M.
Andrews
his
corrupt
Conscience
,
M.
Andrews
his
corrupt
conscience
.
who
maketh
no
scruple
to
abuse
and
delude
his
Reader
with
such
shifts
and
deuises
,
to
bolster
out
his
bad
cause
.
Thus
much
for
his
first
reason
.
21.
His
second
reason
why
adorare
is
taken
figuratiuely
in
that
place
of
S.
Hierome
is
this●
Vbi
vero
saith
he
,
Andr.
vbi
supra
.
propriè
ei
loquendum
erat
&c.
For
when
S.
Hierome
was
to
speake
properly
,
to
wit
,
to
Vigilantius
his
aduersary
(
who
pressed
him
strictly
,
and
would
not
suffer
him
to
speake
at
large
(
then
he
denyeth
it
earnestly
,
saying
,
Nos
autem
,
non
dico
,
Martyrum
reliquias
&c.
We
do
not
worship
and
adore
(
I
do
not
say
)
the
Reliques
of
Martyrs
,
but
neyther
the
Sunne
nor
the
Moone
,
nor
the
Angells
,
nor
the
Cherubim
,
nor
the
Seraphim
.
Thus
saith
M.
Andrews
out
of
S.
Hierome
,
ending
his
citation
there
;
because
that
which
followeth
would
marre
all
his
market
,
as
you
shall
see
after
a
while
,
and
in
the
meane
tyme
he
concludeth
thus
,
What
I
pray
you
will
the
Cardinall
say
here
,
seeing
that
the
old
Fathers
of
the
Church
do
crie
out
we
do
not
adore
the
reliques
of
Martyrs
?
M.
Andrews
tryumpheth
when
he
hath
lost
the
victory
.
heere
the
Cardinall
is
held
so
fast
that
he
cannot
slip
away
.
Thus
triumpheth
M.
Andrews
before
the
victory
,
or
rather
hauing
lost
the
victory
,
being
himselfe
a
Captiue
,
and
hauing
no
other
remedy
left
him
,
but
to
brag
and
face
out
the
matter
.
22.
For
thou
shalt
vnderstand
good
Reader
,
that
S.
Hierome
here
speaketh
(
as
the
Logicians
say
)
ad
hominem
,
that
is
to
say
according
to
the
sense
and
meaning
of
his
aduersary
Vigilantius
(
one
of
M.
Andrews
his
worthy
progenitours
)
who
impugning
the
adoration
of
reliques
in
the
same
sense
that
M.
Andrews
doth
,
Vigilantius
M.
Andrews
his
progenitor
.
held
it
for
no
other
then
Idolatry
,
as
S.
Hierome
testifieth
in
the
same
Epistle
to
Riparius
,
which
M.
Andrews
alledgeth
.
Ais
,
saith
S.
Hierome
,
S.
Hier.
ad
Riparium
.
Vigilantius
&c.
you
say
,
that
Vigilantius
(
as
we
may
say
M.
Andews
)
openeth
againe
his
stinking
mouth
,
and
casteth
forth
a
most
filthy
sauour
against
the
Reliques
of
holy
Martyrs
,
and
calleth
vs
,
who
reuerence
them
,
and
worship
the
bones
of
the
dead
,
Cinerarios
,
&
Idololatras
,
worshipers
of
Ashes
,
&
Idolators
.
Idem
li.
aduers
.
Vigilantium
.
So
he
.
And
in
his
tract
against
Vigilantius
himselfe
,
he
setteth
downe
Vigilantius
his
owne
words
thus
,
Quid
n●cesse
est
&c.
What
need
hast
thou
not
only
to
honour
with
so
greate
honour
,
but
also
to
adore
that
(
I
knowe
not
what
)
which
thou
worshipest
,
carrying
it
in
a
litle
vessell
from
place
to
place
,
and
why
doest
thou
kisse
and
adore
dust
lapt
in
a
linnen
cloth
?
And
againe
a
litle
after
,
We
see
you
,
according
to
the
custome
of
the
Gentils
&c.
euery
where
kisse
and
adore
I
knowe
not
what
litle
dust
carried
in
a
litle
vssell
,
and
lapt
in
a
precious
linnen
cloth
.
Thus
wrote
Vigilantius
.
23.
Whereby
you
see
how
he
charged
the
Catholicks
of
those
daies
with
flat
Idolatry
,
for
worshipping
,
or
adoring
the
Reliques
of
Saynts
,
taking
adoration
for
worship
due
to
God
alone
,
in
which
respect
he
calleth
the
Catholicks
Idolators
.
And
therefore
S.
Hierome
answering
him
in
the
same
sense
,
saith
that
which
M.
Andrews
alleadgeth
,
S.
Hierom
explicated
by
himselfe
.
to
wit
,
non
adoramus
reliquias
Martyrum
&c.
We
do
not
adore
the
reliques
of
Martyrs
(
that
is
to
say
,
we
do
not
giue
diuine
honor
to
the
reliques
of
Martyrs
,
committing
Idolatry
as
Vigilantius
chargeth
vs
:
Idem
ibidem
.
)
But
,
honoramus
(
saith
he
presently
afterwards
)
reliquias
Martyrum
,
vt
eum
cuius
sunt
Martyris
adoremus
&c.
We
honor
the
Reliques
of
Martyrs
,
that
we
may
adore
(
or
yield
diuine
honor
to
)
him
whose
Martyres
they
are
.
The
honour
done
to
Gods
seruants
for
his
sake
,
redoundeth
to
God
.
Honoramus
serous
&c.
We
honour
the
seruants
,
to
the
end
that
their
honor
may
redound
to
the
honour
of
their
Lord
,
who
said
,
he
which
receiueth
you
,
receiueth
me
.
Thus
saith
S.
Hierome
;
which
M.
Andrews
thought
good
to
dissemble
,
as
if
he
had
not
seeme
it
,
for
that
it
fully
explicateth
the
state
of
the
question
betwixt
S.
Hierome
&
Vigilantius
(
as
also
betwixt
M.
Andrews
&
vs
)
&
cleareth
all
the
matter
.
For
who
seeth
not
heere
that
albeit
S.
Hierome
denyeth
the
adoration
of
Reliques
in
the
sense
that
Vigilantius
obicted
it
,
as
we
also
do
(
to
wit
as
signifying
a
diuine
honor
)
yet
he
approueth
and
teacheth
it
in
the
sense
of
Catholiks
,
that
is
,
as
adoration
signifieth
a
veneration
and
worship
done
to
Saynts
,
for
the
honor
of
God
who
is
honored
&
glorified
thereby
.
24.
To
which
purpose
two
things
are
to
be
noted
in
this
matter
,
the
one
,
that
whereas
Vigilantius
chargeth
the
Catholicks
to
adore
and
kisse
euery
where
the
R●liques
of
Martyrs
,
he
shewed
sufficiently
,
that
the
custome
of
the
faithfull
was
at
that
tyme
to
do
corporall
reuerence
thereto
,
not
only
by
kissing
them
,
but
also
by
inclyning
or
bowing
downe
the
body
,
which
the
word
adoration
signifieth
,
and
S.
Hierome
denyeth
not
,
though
he
denyeth
the
inference
of
Idolatry
,
that
Vigilantius
made
thereon
.
25.
The
other
is
,
that
as
Vigilantius
did
not
herein
reproue
the
particuler
custome
of
some
particuler
men
,
but
the
practice
of
the
whole
Church
at
that
tyme
;
so
also
S.
Hierome
did
not
impugne
him
only
with
priuate
reasons
and
arguments
of
his
owne
,
but
also
with
publick
examples
,
as
of
the
publick
translation
of
the
holy
Reliques
of
S.
Andrew
,
S.
Luke
,
and
S.
Timothy
to
Constantinople
by
Constantin
the
Emperour
,
S.
Hiero●
.
vbi
supr●●
apud
quas
,
saith
he
,
Daemones
rugiunt
&c.
at
which
reliques
Diuells
do
rore
,
and
the
inhabitors
and
prossessors
of
Vigilantius
do
confesse
that
they
feele
their
presence
.
So
he
.
And
then
produceth
also
another
example
that
had
passed
not
long
before
of
a
most
solemne
translation
of
the
Reliques
of
Samuel
the
Prophet
from
Iudaea
to
Chalcedon
in
Thracia
,
which
were
sumptuously
and
triumphantly
carried
by
Bishops
in
a
goulden
vessell
,
and
met
,
receiued
,
and
accompanied
by
the
people
of
all
the
Churches
by
the
way
(
in
so
much
that
there
were
,
saith
S.
Hierome
,
continuall
swarmes
of
people
euen
from
Palestina
to
Chalcedon
,
sounding
forth
the
praise
of
Christ
with
one
voice
all
a
long
as
they
went
:
Mark
●hi●
reason
of
S.
Hierome
.
)
whereupon
he
asketh
Vigilantius
,
whether
he
tooke
Arcadius
the
Emperour
(
who
caused
this
to
be
done
)
and
all
the
Bishops
which
caried
these
reliques
,
and
all
the
multitude
of
people
which
accompanied
them
,
for
sacrilegious
persons
and
fooles
,
and
finally
concludeth
,
deryding
his
folly
,
Videlicet
,
saith
he
,
adorabant
Samuelem
,
non
Christum
,
cuius
Samuel
&
Leuita
&
Propheta
fuit
.
Belike
they
adored
Samuel
,
and
not
Christ
,
whose
Leuite
and
Prophet
Samuel
was
.
This
saith
S.
Hierome
,
shewing
the
absurdity
of
Vigilantius
,
who
did
thinke
that
Christ
was
not
adored
in
all
this
,
but
only
Samuel
.
Whereas
all
the
reuerence
,
honor
,
&
adoration
vsed
by
those
Bishops
,
and
people
to
the
Reliques
of
Samuel
,
was
indeed
done
to
Christ
,
because
(
as
S.
Hierome
said
before
)
seruorum
honos
redundat
ad
Dominum
:
The
honor
of
the
seruants
redoundeth
to
their
Lord
.
26.
So
that
S.
Hierome
doth
not
deny
,
that
holy
reliques
may
be
adored
in
any
other
sense
,
then
as
M.
Andrewes
(
following
his
progenitor
Vigilantius
)
will
needs
vnderstand
the
word
adoration
,
that
is
,
for
a
diuine
Cult
,
and
worship
,
in
which
sense
neyther
S.
Hierome
nor
the
Catholiks
in
his
tyme
,
nor
we
now
do
vse
,
or
take
it
,
when
it
is
applied
to
holy
things
,
but
only
for
a
deuout
and
religious
veneration
,
as
S.
Hierome
himselfe
doth
also
vse
it
,
not
only
in
the
place
before
cited
by
the
Cardinall
(
touching
the
adoration
of
the
ashes
of
S.
Iohn
,
and
other
Prophets
)
but
also
when
he
said
of
himselfe
,
S.
Hierom.
lib.
2.
Apol
aduersus
Ruffin
.
Praesepe
Domini
&
incunabula
adoraui
.
I
adored
the
manger
,
and
cradle
of
Christ
:
and
againe
expounding
that
verse
of
the
Psalme
,
adorate
scabellum
pedum
eius
,
adore
the
Foot-stole
of
his
Feet
,
he
taketh
the
Foot-stoole
to
be
the
Crosse
,
Idem
in
Psalm
.
98.
giuing
thereby
to
vnderstand
that
the
Crosse
is
to
be
adored
.
And
therefore
I
leaue
it
to
thee
,
good
Reader
,
to
iudge
what
a
vaine
vaunt
it
was
of
M.
Andrews
to
say
vpon
the
former
place
of
S.
Hierome
,
Tenetur
hic
Cardinalis
vt
elabi
non
possit
:
hecre
the
Cardinall
is
taken
,
and
held
so
fast
,
that
he
cannot
slip
away
.
Whereas
you
see
,
that
the
whole
place
and
the
circumstances
,
being
laied
downe
with
the
state
of
the
question
betwixt
Vigilantius
and
S.
Hierome
(
all
which
he
craftily
concealed
)
he
is
caught
himselfe
lyke
a
mouse
in
a
trappe
in
such
sort
that
he
shall
neuer
be
able
to
get
out
with
his
credit
.
27.
A
place
of
S.
Augustine
and
S.
Ambrose
examined
.
But
yet
there
remaineth
a
word
or
two
more
to
be
said
of
this
matter
to
a
place
of
S.
Augustine
,
and
S.
Ambrose
,
which
he
also
obiecteth
to
the
same
purpose
.
For
whereas
those
two
Fathers
interpreting
the
wordes
of
the
psalme
,
adorate
scabellum
pedum
eius
,
Adore
yee
the
Foot-stoole
of
his
Feete
,
do
expound
the
foot-stoole
to
be
the
body
of
our
Sauiour
in
the
Blessed
Sacrament
of
the
Eucharist
,
S.
Aug.
in
Psalm
.
98.
S
Ambros.
lib.
3.
despir●
Sancto
.
c.
12.
teaching
that
the
same
is
there
to
be
adored
,
M.
Andrews
saith
,
that
if
adorare
might
be
taken
properly
to
adore
holy
thinges
,
they
would
neuer
haue
troubled
themselues
so
much
to
find
out
how
the
Footstool
of
God
might
be
adored
:
neyther
would
they
haue
determined
that
it
could
not
be
adored
but
in
the
body
of
Christ
:
Bellar.
de
Sanctor
.
Beatit
.
lib.
2.
cap.
13.
Whereto
I
answere
,
first●
that
they
do
not
expound
the
same
litterally
,
but
mystically
;
for
scabellum
Dei
,
the
Foot-stoole
of
God
,
in
that
place
,
is
litterally
to
be
vnderstood
of
the
Arke
of
the
Testament
,
as
the
Cardinal
hath
proued
by
many
notable
reasō●
&
authority●
in
his
Controuersys
,
wherto
I
remit
M.
Andrews
,
because
I
will
not
detayne
my
reader
too
long
vpon
this
point
.
28.
Secondly
I
say
,
that
albeit
they
vnderstood
adoration
in
that
place
for
diuine
honour
,
yet
they
do
not
deny
but
that
it
is
,
and
well
may
be
taken
in
other
places
,
S.
Aug.
de
ciuitate
Dei
li.
10.
cap.
1.
for
a
religious
worship
,
done
to
holy
men
;
for
S.
Augustine
himselfe
teacheth
expressely
in
his
booke
de
Ciuitate
Dei
,
that
there
is
no
one
word
in
Latin
that
so
properly
signifieth
diuine
honor
,
or
worship
,
but
it
is
,
and
may
be
applied
to
creatures
,
except
Latria
,
which
is
borrowed
of
the
Greeks
,
and
applyed
eyther
alwayes
,
sayth
S.
Augustine
,
or
almost
allwayes
,
to
the
seruice
of
God
,
rather
by
custome
and
vse
,
then
by
the
nature
of
the
word
,
properly
signifying
seruitus
,
seruice
.
For
which
cause
hauing
in
his
questions
vpon
Genesis
demanded
,
how
Abraham
could
lawfully
adore
the
Children
of
Heth
,
seeing
the
Scripture
sayth
,
Matth.
4.
Dominum
Deum
tuum
adorabis
,
&
illi
soli
seruies
.
Thou
shalt
adore
thy
Lord
God
,
and
serue
him
alone
,
he
answereth
that
it
is
not
said
there
,
Deum
solum
adorabis
,
Thou
shalt
adore
God
alone
,
but
,
illi
soli
seruies
thou
shalt
serue
him
alone
,
and
noteth
also
,
that
for
the
word
seruies
in
Latine
,
the
Greeke
hath
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
from
whence
is
deriued
Latria
.
So
that
it
is
euident
by
S.
Augustine
himselfe
,
that
neyther
adorare
,
nor
any
other
Latine
word
doth
properly
signify
to
worship
God
only
,
and
that
adoratio
when
it
is
not
taken
for
cultus
Latriae
(
as
he
taketh
it
in
the
exposition
of
Adorate
scabellum
&c.
)
may
be
applyed
to
creatures
;
and
therefore
he
himsefe
not
only
vnderstandeth
adoration
for
ciuil
worship
in
the
foresaid
example
of
Abraham
,
Idem
ser.
25
de
Sanctis
.
but
also
vseth
it
els
where
for
religious
worship
due
to
holy
men
,
saying
of
S.
Peter
,
Bea●issimum
Petrum
piscatorom
&c.
The
multitude
of
faithfull
people
doth
now
adore
the
most
Blessed
Peter
the
Fisher●
genibus
prouolutis
,
vpon
their
knees
.
S.
Ambros.
de
obitu
Theodosij
.
29.
S.
Ambrose
also
made
no
doubt
to
apply
it
to
the
veneration
,
and
worship
of
holy
things
,
who
speaking
of
the
Nayle
of
Christs
Crosse
(
which
Queene
Helen
caused
to
be
set
in
the
Diadem
of
the
Emperour
Constantin
her
sonne
)
sayd
,
that
she
did
wysely
therein
,
vt
Crux
Christi
adoretur
in
regibus
,
that
the
Crosse
of
Christ
may
be
adored
in
Kings
;
and
to
shew
that
he
spake
of
religious
worship
,
&
adoration
,
&
not
of
ciuill
honour
due
to
kings
,
he
addeth
immediatly
,
non
insolentia
ista
,
sed
pietas
est
,
cùm
defertur
sacrae
redemptioni
,
This
is
not
insolency
,
but
piety
,
when
〈◊〉
it
is
referred
to
our
holy
Redemption
:
wherein
I
wish
it
●o
be
noted
by
the
way
,
that
M.
Andrewes
may
learne
hereby
how
impertinently
he
answereth
els
where
to
this
place
alledged
by
Cardinall
Bellarmine
;
for
whereas
the
Cardinall
(
to
proue
the
religious
adoration
of
reliques
,
and
images
)
obiecteth
out
of
S.
Ambrose
this
very
place
(
to
wit
that
Queene
Helen
did
well
,
and
wisely
cause
the
Crosse
to
be
set
vpon
the
head
of
Kings
,
to
the
end
that
the
Crosse
of
Christ
may
be
adored
in
Kings
)
M.
Andrews
answereth
,
Andr.
cap.
8.
p.
198.
§.
Ambrosio
.
that
if
the
Crosse
be
adored
in
Kings
,
non
aliter
adoratur
&c.
it
is
not
otherwyse
adored
then
the
Kings
thems●lues
:
is
autem
ciuilis
honos
est
,
non
religiosus
,
but
this
is
a
ciuil
,
and
not
religious
honour
.
So
he
:
but
you
see
heere
that
the
adoration
whereof
S.
Ambrose
speaketh
,
is
not
due
,
or
giuen
to
the
Kings
themselues
,
but
referred
to
our
redemption
,
that
is
to
say
,
to
the
Passion
of
Christ
,
and
therefore
it
is
not
ciuil
,
but
religious
adoration
,
which
also
appeareth
more
euidently
by
that
which
followeth
a
litle
after
in
S.
Ambrose
,
declaring
what
manner
of
reuerence
was
exhibited
to
the
holy
Nayle
of
the
Crosse
;
for
hauing
sayd
,
Ecce
clauus
in
honore
est
&c.
behold
the
Nayle
is
honored
&c.
and
that
,
inuisibili
potestate
daemones
torquet
,
S.
Ambros
vbi
supra
.
it
doth
torment
diuels
by
an
inuisible
power
,
he
addeth
after
a
whyle●
ferro
pedum
eius
reges
inclinantur
;
reges
adorant
,
&
Photinians
diuinitatem
eius
negant
?
Kings
do
bow
downe
to
the
iron
of
his
feete
(
that
is
to
say
to
the
nayle
wherewith
Christs
feete
were
fastened
to
the
Crosse
)
Kings
do
adore
,
and
doe
the
Photinian
heretikes
deny
his
diuinity
?
thus
saith
S.
Ambrose
,
making
,
as
you
see
,
the
adoration
of
the
instruments
of
our
Sauiours
Passion
,
to
be
an
argument
of
his
diuinity
,
and
shewing
withall
what
manner
of
reuerence
Kings
themselues
vsed
to
the
holy
Nayle
,
to
wit
,
a
corporall
reuerence
,
and
submission
,
inclyning
and
bowing
downe
their
bodyes
vnto
it
,
which
is
properly
Adoration
.
30.
Whereby
the
Reader
may
also
see
the
absurdity
of
another
euasion
which
M.
Andrews
seeketh
in
the
same
place
,
Andr.
vbi
supra
.
Ambros.
de
obitu
Theod.
saying
:
vbi
de
religiosa
adoratione
sermo
illi
&c.
where
he
(
to
wit
Ambrose
)
speaketh
of
religious
adoration
,
he
sayth
,
that
Helen
hauing
found
the
Crosse
adored
the
King
(
that
is
to
say
Christ
)
and
not
the
wood
,
whereof
he
also
declareth
the
cause
,
to
wit
,
because
this
is
the
errour
of
the
gentils
,
and
the
vanity
of
wicked
men
.
So
he
;
who
in
these
very
words
of
S.
Ambrose
,
which
he
obiecteth
,
may
see
,
and
acknowledg
,
if
it
please
him
,
what
all
Catholikes
do
teach
togeather
with
S.
Ambrose
concerning
the
adoration
of
the
Crosse
,
and
other
instruments
of
Christs
Passion
,
Images
,
and
holy
relicks
,
to
wit
,
that
the
wood
,
substance
,
and
matter
it selfe
is
not
adored
,
but
that
which
is
thereby
represented
:
as
in
like
case
,
when
M.
Andrews
standeth
bare
in
the
Chamber
of
Presence
before
the
Kings
chayr
,
&
Cloth
of
Estate
,
he
doth
nor
reuerence
the
matter
,
or
substance
of
the
Cloth
and
Chayre
,
but
the
Maiesty
of
the
Prince
which
the
same
doth
represent
,
and
yet
neuertheles
he
cannot
deny
,
but
that
he
reuerenceth
,
and
honoureth
the
Kings
Chayre
,
though
not
for
it selfe
,
but
to
shew
,
and
expresse
his
duty
towards
his
Prince
;
and
in
like
manner
,
albeit
S.
Ambrose
affirmeth
with
great
reason
,
that
Queene
Helen
did
not
adore
the
wood
of
the
Crosse
,
but
Christ
(
because
to
adore
the
wood
alone
,
without
relation
to
Christ
,
had
byn
a
wicked
,
and
Gentilicall
vanity
,
and
errour
)
yet
he
saith
afterwards
,
as
you
haue
heard
,
not
only
that
the
Crosse
is
adored
,
but
also
that
ferro
pedum
eius
reges
inclinantur
,
Kings
do
bow
downe
to
the
Iron
of
Christs
feete
,
meaning
the
holy
Nayle
,
as
I
haue
declared
before
;
and
therefore
M.
Andrewes
must
needs
graunt
,
that
though
S.
Ambrose
do
reiect
(
as
all
Catholikes
also
do
)
the
adoration
of
the
bare
wood
and
Iron
of
the
Crosse
,
and
Nayle
in
respect
of
themselues
,
yet
he
admitteth
,
and
approueth
the
adoration
of
them
,
with
relation
to
our
Sauiours
Passion
,
cùm
defertur
(
as
he
speaketh
)
sacrae
Redemptioni
,
when
the
honour
is
referred
to
our
holy
Redemption
.
31.
This
then
being
so
,
Three
things
gathered
out
of
the
premises
.
3.
thinges
follow
vpon
the
premises
.
The
first
,
that
S.
Augustine
and
S.
Ambrose
affirming
that
the
Foot-stoole
of
God
could
not
be
adored
,
if
it
were
not
vnderstood
of
the
Blessed
body
of
our
Sauiour
in
the
Eucharist
,
do
speake
only
of
adoratio
latriae
,
that
is
to
say
the
adoration
which
is
due
to
God
alone
,
and
therefore
they
alledge
the
wordes
of
our
Sauiour
,
Dominum
Deum
tuum
adorabis
,
&
illi
soli
seruies
:
thou
shalt
adore
thy
God
and
serue
him
alone
.
Matth.
1●
In
which
wordes
adoration
is
precisely
to
be
vnderstood
of
diuine
honour
,
and
yet
so
,
that
S.
Augustine
(
as
you
haue
heard
)
gathereth
thereby
,
that
there
is
also
an
inferiour
adoration
which
may
be
exhibited
to
creatures
,
and
therefore
he
noteth
that
our
Sauiour
said
not
,
Deum
solum
adorabis
,
thou
shalt
adore
God
alone
.
The
second
consequent
is
,
that
M.
Andrewes
hath
wholy
failed
of
his
purpose
,
which
was
to
proue
that
adoration
of
Reliques
must
needs
be
vnderstood
to
signify
a
diuine
and
godly
honor
done
to
Reliques
,
whereof
I
haue
clearely
proued
the
contrary
,
notwithstanding
his
obiections
,
which
I
haue
shewed
to
be
partly
friuolous
,
and
partly
fraudulent
.
The
third
is
,
that
he
sheweth
himselfe
to
be
the
true
progeny
of
the
heretike
Vigilantius
,
whose
humour
and
condition
he
expresseth
ad
v●uum
,
not
only
in
calumniating
vs
,
and
our
doctrine
concerning
the
adoration
of
holy
Reliques
,
but
also
in
changing
the
state
of
the
question
,
as
Vigilantius
did
,
and
therefore
I
may
well
and
iustly
say
of
him
as
S.
Hierome
said
of
the
other
,
O
praecidendam
linguam
à
medicis
!
immò
insanum
curandum
caput
,
vt
qui
loqui
nescit
,
discat
aliquando
reticere
!
And
this
shall
suffice
for
this
point
,
I
meane
his
custome
to
change
the
state
of
the
question
,
which
is
so
ordinary
in
him
,
that
I
could
giue
many
other
instances
thereof
,
but
that
I
must
p●sse
to
other
shifts
and
fraudes
of
his
,
not
hauing
tyme
to
stand
long
vpon
any
one
kind
,
and
therefore
I
meane
also
to
be
briefer
in
the
rest
.
Supl.
cap.
8.
nn
.
75.
M.
Andres
dissimulation
of
that
which
most
importeth
in
the
obiection●
of
his
aduersaries
.
32.
The
second
point
of
cosenage
which
I
discouered
in
M.
Barlow
,
was
that
he
vsed
to
dissemble
and
omitt
many
tymes
the
most
important
part
of
his
aduersaries
obiections
,
and
answeres
,
which
kind
of
fraudulent
dealing
is
no
lesse
ordinary
in
M.
Andrews
,
though
neuerthelesse
in
his
Preface
to
the
Reader
he
promiseth
to
set
downe
in
his
Margent
the
Cardinalls
owne
words
and
text
,
and
albeit
he
confesseth
that
other
whiles
he
contracteth
,
or
abridgeth
the
same
when
place
and
paper
wanteth
,
and
that
sometymes
he
leaueth
out
and
cutteth
off
some
wordes
,
quae
abesse
poterant
,
which
might
well
be
spared
,
Andr.
ad
Lecto
.
in
fine●
§.
Deduco
.
autem
.
yet
he
assureth
his
Reader
,
that
he
will
allwaies
set
downe
those
words
wherein
the
whole
force
of
the
Cardinalls
meaning
and
intent
consisteth
,
in
such
sort
,
Vt
nihil
pereat
de
argumenti
pondere
,
that
there
shall
vant
nothing
of
the
weight
of
his
argument
.
Thus
promiseth
he
,
but
how
well
he
performeth
it
we
shall
easely
perceiue
by
those
two
or
three
examples
following
.
For
though
I
might
lay
downe
many
more
,
yet
I
am
forced
to
keep
my selfe
within
certayne
limits
to
auoyd
prolixity
.
33.
The
Cardinall
to
proue
that
the
Article
of
the
Creed
concerning
the
remission
of
sinnes
,
is
not
admitted
and
receiued
in
England
as
it
ought
to
be
,
sayth
thus
:
Veram
peccatorum
remissionem
credere
non
potest
&c.
he
cannot
belieue
that
there
is
true
remission
of
sinnes
,
Card.
in
Apol.
cap.
7.
pag.
84.
lin.
19.
who
belieueth
,
as
the
new
Sectaries
do
,
that
sinnes
do
allwayes
remayne
in
man
,
though
he
be
iustified
,
albeit
they
be
not
imputed
.
For
the
Apostle
did
not
say
in
the
Creed
,
I
belieue
that
sinnes
are
not
imputed
,
The
argument
of
Cardinall
Bellarmine
.
but
,
I
belieue
the
Remission
of
sinnes
,
that
is
to
say
,
true
and
full
remission
;
otherwise
the
offence
of
the
first
man
Adam
which
did
truly
and
properly
infect
all
his
ofspring
,
should
be
of
greater
force
then
the
grace
of
the
second
man
,
that
is
to
say
Christ
,
which
could
not
truly
and
properly
purge
or
make
cleane
those
that
are
borne
againe
in
him
.
Thus
sayth
the
Cardinall
:
who
you
see
groundeth
the
force
of
his
reason
partly
vpon
the
expresse
words
of
the
Creed
,
and
partly
vpon
a
comparison
of
the
offence
of
Adam
,
and
the
grace
of
Christ
,
shewing
that
if
sinnes
be
not
truly
remitted
,
the
grace
,
and
merits
of
Christ
shall
not
be
so
powerfull
to
clense
vs
from
sinne
,
Rom.
3●
as
the
fall
of
Adam
was
to
infect
vs
therewith
,
which
cannot
be
said
without
extreme
iniury
to
our
Sauiour
.
34.
And
this
is
not
the
Cardinalls
owne
argument
but
taken
from
the
Apostle
himselfe
,
and
therefore
being
most
important
,
it
deserued
to
be
set
downe
and
answered
by
M.
Andrews
,
who
neuertheles
doth
not
eyther
alleadg
it
in
his
margent
with
the
rest
of
the
Cardinalls
text
,
Andr.
ca.
7.
p.
162.
§.
S●d
neque
.
or
so
much
as
mention
it
in
his
answere
,
but
maketh
the
Cardinall
say
only
this
,
Neque
veram
remissionem
peccatorum
&c.
Neyther
can
he
belieue
the
true
remission
of
sinnes
,
which
belieueth
,
as
the
new
Sectaries
do
,
that
sinnes
do
allwaies
remaine
in
man
,
though
he
be
iustified
,
albeit
they
be
not
imputed
.
Thus
farre
doth
M.
Andrewes
alledge
the
Cardinalls
text
,
leauing
out
his
arguments
wherein
consisteth
the
proofe
of
his
assertion
,
and
insteed
of
answering
the
same
,
he
vrgeth
an
ordinary
and
stale
obiection
out
of
the
Psalmist
,
Psal.
31.
and
the
Apostle
to
the
Romanes
,
Rom.
4.
to
proue
that
sinnes
are
not
forgiuen
,
but
only
discouered
,
and
not
imputed
.
35.
But
this
hath
bene
answered
a
hundreth
tymes
so
fully
,
that
he
may
be
ashamed
to
vrge
the
same
still
and
not
to
take
so
much
as
knowledg
of
the
answere
,
M.
Andrews
bringeth
in
stale
arguments
and
dissembleth
their
answers
.
though
neuertheles
Cardinall
Bellarmine
gaue
him
sufficient
occasion
to
do
it
euen
in
this
place
,
remitting
his
Reader
to
his
Controuersies
,
as
indeed
he
had
great
reason
to
do
,
for
that
he
hath
there
substantially
and
clearely
proued
the
Catholike
doctrine
in
this
point
,
and
confuted
all
the
aduersaries
arguments
,
and
particulerly
answered
those
obiections
which
M.
Andrews
bringeth
heere
concerning
the
couering
of
sinne
and
not
imputing
it
;
which
phrases
and
manner
of
speach
the
Cardinall
teacheth
to
signify
a
full
remission
of
sinne
,
and
this
he
proueth
not
only
by
solid
arguments
deduced
out
of
the
holy
Scripture
,
but
also
by
the
interpretation
of
the
ancient
Fathers
,
as
of
S.
[
](A00916-e100020-b)(a)
(a)
S.
Iustin
.
Dial.
cum
Triph.
propefinem
.
Iustin
the
Martyr
(
who
liued
within
150.
yeares
after
Christ
)
[
](A00916-e100060-b)(b)
(b)
Orig.
li.
4.
in
ep.
ad
Rom.
Origen
,
S.
[
](A00916-e100100-b)(c)
(c)
S.
Hier.
comment
in
.
Psal.
31.
Hierome
,
S.
[
](A00916-e100130-b)(d)
(d)
S.
Aug.
concio
.
2.
in
psal.
31.
Augustine
,
and
S.
[
](A00916-e100180-b)(e)
(e)
S.
Greg.
in
psal.
2.
poenitent
.
Gregory
the
Great
;
all
which
expounding
the
same
place
of
the
Psalmist
,
and
the
very
words
which
M.
Andrews
obiecteth
,
do
teach
that
sinnes
are
said
there
to
be
couered
and
not
imputed
,
when
they
are
fully
remitted
.
I
forbeare
to
set
downe
the
words
of
those
Fathers
for
breuities
●ake
,
[
](A00916-e100250-b)(f)
(f)
Bellar.
de
Iustif.
li.
2.
ca.
●
.
remitting
my
Reader
eyther
to
Cardinall
Bellarmine
(
who
cyteth
them
more
at
large
)
or
rather
to
the
Authors
themselues
,
whose
doctrine
in
this
point
is
so
cleare
,
that
it
may
satisfy
any
reasonable
man
.
36.
And
albeit
I
haue
determined
not
to
enter
into
any
new
debate
of
matters
in
Controuersy
with
M.
Andrews
in
this
my
Conclusion
,
but
only
to
admonish
him
of
his
fraudes
,
yet
I
cannot
omitt
vpon
this
occasion
to
desire
thee
,
good
Reader
,
to
obserue
in
this
matter
a
notable
absurdity
in
him
and
his
fellowes
,
in
that
they
fl●
heere
to
a
common
shift
of
theirs
,
which
is
,
to
find
out
some
few
obscure
texts
of
Scripture
to
interprete
thereby
a
great
number
of
playne
and
euident
places
,
which
might
be
exemplif●ed
in
many
Controuersyes
betwixt
them
,
&
vs
,
&
in
this
is
most
manifest
.
For
is
there
any
thing
in
the
holy
Scriptures
eyther
more
playne
or
frequent
,
then
the
mention
of
true
remission
,
and
abolition
of
sinne
?
which
is
expressed
there
so
many
wayes
,
and
by
such
different
manner
of
speaches
,
that
nothing
can
be
added
to
make
it
more
cleare
;
as
when
the
Prophet
sayth
:
[
](A00916-e100320-b)(a)
(a)
Esay
ca
1.
If
your
sinnes
shall
be
lyke
scarlet
,
they
shall
be
made
as
whyte
as
snow
.
[
](A00916-e100350-b)(b)
(b)
ca.
33.
The
Iniquity
of
the
people
shall
be
taken
away
.
[
](A00916-e100380-b)(c)
(c)
ca.
44.
I
am
he
who
do
wype
or
blott
out
thy
sinnes
for
my
owne
sake
.
[
](A00916-e100410-b)(d)
(d)
ca.
48.
I
haue
abolished
thy
iniquity
lyke
a
cloud
,
and
thy
sinnes
as
a
mist.
And
in
another
[
](A00916-e100440-b)(e)
(e)
Ezech.
ca.
37.
Prophet
:
I
will
powre
out
a
cleane
water
vpon
you
,
and
you
shall
be
cleansed
from
all
your
filth
.
And
againe
in
[
](A00916-e100470-b)(f)
(f)
Mich.
c.
7
another
,
he
will
cast
all
your
sinnes
into
the
bottom
of
the
sea
.
And
in
the
[
](A00916-e100500-b)(g)
(g)
prou.
15.
Prouerbes
,
sinnes
are
purged
by
mercy
&
●aith
.
Also
in
the
[
](A00916-e100530-b)(h)
(h)
psal.
102.
Psalmist
,
he
hath
made
our
iniquity
to
be
as
farre
from
vs
,
as
the
East
is
from
the
west
;
and
againe
,
[
](A00916-e100580-b)(i)
(i)
Psal.
9.
his
sinne
shall
be
sought
,
and
shall
not
be
found
.
Whereto
may
be
added
the
praiers
of
the
Psalmist
,
that
it
might
please
God
to
[
](A00916-e100610-b)(k)
(k)
psal.
50
blot
,
or
wype
out
his
iniquity
,
to
make
him
cleane
,
and
to
[
](A00916-e100660-b)(l)
(l)
Ibid.
wash
him
more
,
and
more
,
that
so
he
might
be
whyter
then
snowe
.
37.
Also
in
the
new
testament
,
the
lyke
manner
of
speaches
are
most
frequent
,
as
that
our
Sauiour
[
](A00916-e100690-b)(a)
(a)
Apoc.
1.
washed
our
sinnes
in
his
bloud
,
[
](A00916-e100720-b)(b)
(b)
Haebr.
9.
shall
cleanse
our
consciences
from
dead
workes
,
[
](A00916-e100750-b)(c)
(c)
Ibid.
c.
1.
make
a
purgation
of
sinnes
,
[
](A00916-e100780-b)(d)
(d)
Act.
15.
purify
out
harts
,
[
](A00916-e100810-b)(e)
(e)
Iohn
.
1.
take
away
the
sinnes
of
the
world
,
[
](A00916-e100840-b)(f)
(f)
Coloss.
2.
cancell
our
obligation
of
debt
,
[
](A00916-e100870-b)(g)
(g)
Ephes.
2.
kill
our
enmities
in
himselfe
,
[
](A00916-e100900-b)(h)
(h)
Haeb.
9.
exhaust
or
consume
sinne
,
and
finally
make
vs
holy
,
[
](A00916-e100930-b)(i)
(i)
Coloss.
1.
immaculate
,
and
irreprehensible
coram
ipso
,
before
him
,
or
in
his
sight
.
In
all
which
you
see
the
holy
Ghost
teacheth
such
a
full
and
perfect
remission
,
and
vtter
abolition
of
sinne
(
to
our
exceeding
comfort
)
that
if
a
man
should
studie
and
deuise
wordes
and
phrases
to
signify
,
and
perswade
the
same
,
it
were
not
possible
to
do
it
more
effectually
.
And
yet
all
these
places
being
so
euident
as
you
see
,
must
be
vnderstood
forsooth
(
say
our
aduersaries
)
of
couering
or
hiding
sinne
,
What
the
Psalmist
meant
by
not
imputation
of
sinne
.
or
not
imputing
it
,
because
the
Scripture
somtymes
vseth
such
manner
of
speaches
,
though
reason
would
,
that
the
more
rare
and
obscure
phrases
should
be
expounded
by
the
more
frequent
and
cleare
,
especially
in
this
place
of
the
Psalme
alledged
by
M.
Andrews
,
which
the
Psalmist
himselfe
doth
sufficiently
explicate
,
who
hauing
said
:
Blessed
is
the
man
to
whome
God
hath
not
imputed
sinne
,
addeth
immediatly
,
Nec
est
in
Spiritu
eius
dolus
;
Nor
any
deceipt
is
in
his
spirit
,
or
soule
:
whereby
he
signifieth
plainly
,
that
mans
sinnes
are
then
couered
,
and
not
imputed
,
when
his
soule
is
cleare
,
or
free
from
sinne
.
38.
And
now
to
returne
to
the
Cardinals
argument
dissembled
and
omitted
by
M.
Andrews
,
The
aboundance
of
Christ
his
grace
,
worketh
a
true
and
inherent
Iustification
in
vs
.
the
same
doth
notably
confirme
all
this
,
for
that
it
inuincibly
proueth
a
reall
,
and
inherent
Iustification
in
vs
,
consisting
in
a
true
remission
of
sinne
,
&
a
true
sanctification
grounded
vpon
the
plenitude
,
&
fullnes
of
Christs
merits
,
and
the
aboundance
of
grace
which
we
receiue
therby
according
to
the
expresse
Doctrine
of
the
Apostle
,
saying
,
Si
enim
vniusdelicto
mors
regnauit
per
vnum
&c.
If
by
one
mans
fault
,
Rom.
5.
death
hath
reigned
by
one
,
much
more
those
which
receiue
aboundance
of
grace
,
and
of
the
guift
,
and
of
the
Iustice
,
shall
reigne
in
life
by
one
Iesus
Christ
.
In
which
wordes
it
is
to
be
noted
that
the
Apostle
speaking
of
Iustification
doth
plainly
exclude
,
and
reiect
the
imputation
of
Iustice
,
making
expresse
mention
of
a
righteousnes
,
which
we
receiue
aboundantly
with
grace
,
and
a
guift
giuen
vs
by
Almighty
God
;
which
aboundance
of
Grace
and
Iustice
,
being
giuen
vs
,
and
receiued
by
vs
,
must
needes
be
really
in
vs
,
and
make
vs
truly
iust
.
And
this
is
much
more
euident
by
that
which
followeth
,
Sicut
enim
,
saith
the
Apostle
,
Ibidem
.
per
inobedientiam
vnius
hominis
&c.
for
euen
as
by
the
disobedience
of
one
man
,
many
sinners
were
made
,
so
by
the
obedience
of
one
man
,
many
iust
shall
be
made
.
39.
Thus
saith
the
Apostle
,
who
,
as
you
see
,
compareth
,
or
rather
opposeth
Christ
to
Adam
,
and
our
Iustification
giuen
vs
by
Christ
,
to
the
death
of
the
soule
,
or
damnation
purchased
for
vs
by
Adam
,
concluding
that
we
are
made
as
truly
iust
by
Christ
,
as
wee
were
truly
sinners
by
Adam
,
which
he
also
enforceth
and
vrgeth
in
the
same
place
,
Rom.
5.
saying
:
Si
enim
vnius
delicto
multi
mortui
sunt
&c.
For
if
by
one
mans
fault
many
haue
died
,
much
more
the
grace
of
God
,
and
the
guift
in
the
grace
of
one
man
Iesus
Christ
,
hath
abounded
vnto
more
men
,
wherby
the
Apostle
signifieth
not
,
that
more
are
iustified
by
Christ
,
then
haue
died
,
or
byn
condemned
by
Adam
(
which
in
the
Greeke
is
manifest
,
where
insteed
of
plures
,
more
men
,
we
read
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
many
men
)
but
that
Christs
grace
was
more
abundant
,
and
of
greater
force
to
iustifie
vs
,
then
Adams
sinne
was
to
make
vs
sinners
,
and
to
condemne
vs
,
which
he
confirmeth
also
afterward
saying
:
Vbi
abundauit
delictum
superabundauit
gratia
:
Where
the
fault
abounded
,
grace
hath
byn
much
more
aboundant
.
40.
Whereupon
the
Cardinall
inferreth
with
the
Blessed
Apostle
,
that
seeing
the
sinne
of
Adam
was
of
force
to
make
vs
truly
sinners
,
the
merits
and
grace
of
Christ
are
of
far
greater
force
to
purge
,
and
cleanse
vs
from
our
sinnes
,
&
to
make
vs
truly
iust
;
for
otherwise
we
must
needes
say
,
that
our
help
is
not
equiualent
to
our
harme
,
nor
our
remedy
to
our
diseases
,
nor
our
rysing
to
our
fall
,
nor
our
gayne
to
our
losse
,
nor
consequently●
Christ
to
Adam
,
M.
Andrewes
doth
fouly
break
his
promise
.
which
were
impiety
to
think
,
and
blasphemy
to
say
.
This
then
being
the
effect
and
substance
of
the
Cardinals
argument
,
and
the
same
so
important
,
as
you
see
,
I
leaue
it
to
the
Iudgement
of
any
indifferent
man
,
whether
M.
Andrews
hath
performed
his
promise
in
his
Preface
,
which
was
(
as
you
haue
heard
)
that
albeit
he
should
be
forced
sometymes
for
want
of
place
and
paper
to
abridge
and
contract
the
Cardinals
text
,
yet
he
would
leaue
out
nothing
that
should
be
of
moment
,
vt
nihil
ei
pereat
de
argumenti
pondere
,
so
that
nothing
should
be
lost
of
the
weight
of
his
argument
?
Did
he
want
heere
,
trow
you
,
place
and
paper
?
or
rather
sincerity
to
set
downe
that
which
he
had
neither
will
,
not
skill
to
answere
?
truly
so
it
must
be
supposed
,
vntill
he
yield
some
more
probable
reason
thereof
.
In
the
mean
tyme
let
vs
〈◊〉
some
more
of
his
iugling
in
this
kind
.
Card.
cap●
7.
pag.
90.
&
.
91.
41.
The
Cardinall
alledgeth
part
of
the
Epistle
of
the
Emperour
Theodosius
the
yonger
to
the
3.
Generall
Councell
of
Ephesus
,
M.
Andrews
hi●
crafly
conueyance
concerning
th●
epistle
of
Theodosius
the
Emperour
.
to
shew
what
is
the
office
of
Kinges
in
Generall
Councells
,
and
to
whome
it
specially
belongeth
to
iudge
and
determine
of
Ecclesiasticall
causes
;
to
which
end
the
Cardinall
layeth
downe
,
aboue
a
dozen
lynes
of
the
sayd
Epistle
,
all
which
M.
Andrewes
thought
good
to
leaue
out
,
least
the
same
might
discouer
the
weaknes
of
his
answere
.
For
wheras
the
principall
point
which
the
Cardinall
sought
to
proue
thereby
,
was
that
Kinges
could
haue
no
voyce
,
or
suffrage
in
the
definition
of
Ecclesiasticall
matters
,
M.
Andrews
answereth
,
that
Theodosius
in
that
Epistle
signifyeth
what
the
Count
Candidianus
was
to
do
in
the
Councell
,
and
not
what
he
himselfe
might
do
therein
:
which
answere
would
haue
appeared
to
haue
bene
most
friuolous
,
if
so
much
of
the
Epistle
had
bene
set
downe
,
as
the
Cardinall
alledgeth
,
and
especially
these
wordes
,
Nefas
est
&c.
It
is
v●lawfull
that
he
which
is
not
of
the
number
of
the
most
holy
Bishops
,
Andr.
c.
7.
pag.
169.
§.
Etiam
tertium
.
should
meddle
w●ich
Ecclesiasticall
busines
,
and
Consultations
,
which
wordes
being
generall
(
extending
themselues
to
all
men
that
are
not
Bishops
)
excluded
no
lesse
the
Emperour
himselfe
,
then
the
Count
Candidianus
from
dealing
in
Ecclesiasticall
causes
.
So
that
this
remayneth
as
well
vnsatisfyed
as
vncited
:
belyke
he
was
scanted
of
place
and
paper
no
lesse
in
this
point
,
then
in
the
former
.
42.
Also
in
the
same
Chapter
the
Cardinall
(
to
proue
the
Apparition
of
Saints
,
and
consequently
the
help
that
we
haue
by
their
meri●s
,
M.
Andrewes
wanteth
paper
in
his
text
&
margent
to
set
downe
S.
Augustins
words
.
and
prayers
)
alleadgeth
the
wordes
of
S.
Augustine
concerning
the
apparition
of
S.
Felix
in
the
siege
of
Nola
,
but
M.
●●drewes
did
not
think
good
,
or
perhaps
had
no
roome
to
lay
downe
the
wordes
either
in
the
margent
or
in
his
text
,
but
only
nameth
Augustine
in
his
margent
,
and
answereth
in
his
text
,
that
Augustinus
nihil
praeter
auditum
habet
&c.
A●gustine
hath
nothing
in
this
matter
but
by
hear-say
.
Whereas
the
Cardinall
alledgeth
out
of
S.
Augustine
these
wordes
,
Card.
apol.
c.
8.
pag.
95
§.
Neque
And.
c.
7.
pag.
178.
§.
Instit.
S.
Aug
de
cura
pro
mortuis
c.
16.
Audiuimus
non
incertis
rumor●bus
,
sed
certis
testibus
&c.
We
haue
heard
not
by
vncertayne
rumors
,
but
by
assured
witnesses
,
that
the
Confessor
Felix
hath
appeared
,
not
only
by
the
effects
of
benefits
,
but
also
to
the
very
sights
of
men
.
So
he
.
Where
you
see
S.
Augustine
giueth
another
manner
of
assurance
of
this
apparition
then
M.
Andrewes
acknowledgeth
in
his
answere
,
who
maketh
the
matter
to
seeme
very
vncertayn
,
as
depending
vpon
a
bare
heare-say
;
whereas
S.
Augustine
excludeth
all
vncertainty
of
Rumors
,
and
fortifieth
his
relation
with
the
testimonies
of
assured
witnesses
.
43.
And
whereas
M.
Andrews
addeth
,
that
S.
Augustine
was
so
vncertayn
of
this
matter
of
apparitions
,
that
he
durst
not
de●ine
,
whether
they
were
made
by
the
Saints
themselues
,
or
by
Angels
in
their
lykenes
,
he
saith
true
,
though
I
know
not
what
he
can
inferre
thereon
for
his
purpose
,
seeing
that
S.
Augustine
maketh
no
question
of
the
verity
of
apparitions
(
and
much
lesse
of
the
benefit
and
help
which
deuout
people
receiued
thereby
)
but
only
of
the
manner
how
the
same
was
performed
,
and
therefore
he
saith
in
the
beginning
of
that
discourse
,
Ista
quaestio
&c.
This
question
surpasseth
the
force
of
my
vnderstanding
how
Martyrs
doe
help
those
,
qoud
per
eos
certum
est
adi●uari
,
who
it
is
certayne
are
helped
by
them
.
So
he
.
And
then
proceedeth
with
the
question
,
whether
the
Martyrs
are
themselues
present
in
so
diuerse
places
,
and
so
far
asunder
at
one
tyme
,
or
whether
Almigh●●
God
doe
satisfie
the
deuotion
of
the
people
by
the
ministry
of
Angels
,
through
the
merites
of
the
Martyrs
,
or
els
whether
it
be
done
both
waies
;
this
he
saith
he
dare
not
define
,
confessing
and
teaching
euidently
as
much
as
we
require
in
this
matter
,
to
wit
,
that
deuout
people
are
certainly
helped
by
the
Martyrs
.
Neyther
is
it
to
be
wondred
,
that
S.
Augustine
would
not
take
vpon
him
to
determine
how
the
same
was
wrought
,
saying
that
euen
in
ordinarie
and
naturall
thinges
,
the
effects
are
euident
and
certayne
,
and
yet
the
causes
are
many
tymes
eyther
vncertayn
,
or
els
wholy
vnknowne
,
which
is
to
be
graunted
much
more
in
supernaturall
and
miraculous
euents
,
See
Chap.
8.
n.
12.13.14.15.16
.
as
I
haue
shewed
euidently
in
the
last
Chapter
,
where
I
haue
confuted
such
another
ridiculous
argument
of
his
against
Prayer
to
Saints
.
44.
And
albeit
he
had
resolued
that
the
Saints
themselues
do
not
appeare
or
assist
at
their
tombes
,
but
Angels
in
their
shape
and
lykenes
,
yet
it
could
not
be
sayd
but
that
apparition
is
theirs
,
being
made
by
Gods
expresse
ordinance
for
their
merites
,
in
their
name
and
lykenes
,
and
for
the
benefit
of
those
that
expect
and
craue
their
help
;
especially
seeing
it
is
vsually
said
in
the
holy
Scriptures
,
that
God
spake
and
appeared
to
[
](A00916-e101930-b)(b)
(b)
Genes.
18.
Abraham
,
and
Moyses
[
](A00916-e101970-b)(c)
(c)
Exod.
3.
,
when
neuerthelesse
it
was
done
by
the
ministry
of
Angels
,
and
not
in
any
shape
that
could
represent
him
;
and
therfore
S.
Augustin●
had
great
reason
to
say
,
that
S.
Felix
appeared
,
and
that
the
Martyrs
per
diuinam
potentiam
viuorum
rebus
intersunt
,
are
by
the
diuine
power
present
at
the
doings
or
affaires
of
men
:
although
afterwards
he
moueth
a
question
concerning
the
manner
of
it
,
and
doth
not
deny
,
but
that
it
may
be
done
by
the
ministery
of
Angels
.
Hereby
then
it
appeareth
,
that
this
place
of
S.
Augustine
so
clearely
proueth
the
Apparition
of
Saints
,
and
that
men
are
helped
by
theirs
prayers
and
merits
,
that
M.
Andrews
had
no
other
way
to
shift
it
off
handsomly
,
but
to
omit
the
wordes
of
S.
Augustine
as
of
small
moment
,
and
testifying
only
a
sleight
matter
of
heare-say
.
I
might
add
diuers
others
of
this
kind
,
but
I
omit
them
for
breuities
sake
,
and
the
rather
for
that
they
are
commonly
mixed
with
other
kind
of
fraudes
,
wherof
I
shall
haue
occasion
to
speake
herafter
;
and
therefore
I
will
now
proceed
to
others
of
more
importance
,
namely
his
egregious
abuse
of
authors
,
partly
in
wresting
&
peruerting
their
sense
,
&
partly
in
the
corrupt
&
fraudulent
citation
of
them
,
in
which
kind
you
haue
already
seene
M.
Barlows
talent
,
whereby
you
shall
be
able
to
iudge
whether
of
them
excelleth
therin
.
45.
First
then
I
will
begyn
with
his
abuse
of
the
Cardinall
,
who
to
shew
that
the
Protestants
in
England
do
not
entirely
hold
the
Creed
of
Athanasius
,
M.
Andrews
his
abusing
&
corrupting
of
Authors
.
Bell.
Apol.
cap.
7.
§.
Venio
ad
tertium
.
proposeth
the
Article
concerning
the
day
of
Iudgement
,
when
euery
one
(
saith
Athanasius
)
is
to
render
account
(
de
factis
proprijs
)
of
his
owne
acts
:
and
those
which
haue
done
well
,
shall
go
to
life
euerlasting
;
and
those
which
haue
done
euill
,
shall
go
to
eternall
fire
.
Whereupon
the
Cardinnll
saith
thus
,
In
quibus
verbis
confitemur
&c.
In
which
wordes
(
of
Athanasius
)
we
confesse
,
that
there
shall
be
a
last
Iudgement
,
wherein
the
iust
Iudge
will
render
to
euery
one
according
to
the
quality
of
his
deedes
,
to
some
the
crowne
of
Iustice
,
and
to
others
eternall
punishment
,
and
shame
.
For
if
lyfe
euerlasting
should
be
giuen
to
the
faithfull
not
for
the
merits
of
workes
,
but
in
respect
of
faith
and
of
Christs
righteousnes
mercifully
imputed
vnto
them
,
there
should
be
no
need
of
Iudgement
nor
of
examination
of
deedes
:
neither
were
it
needfull
that
there
should
come
a
iust
Iudge
,
but
a
mercyfull
Father
,
neyther
that
we
should
render
any
reason
of
our
deedes
,
but
shew
Christs
Iustice
imputed
vnto
vs
,
and
apprehended
by
fayth
;
therefore
the
King
cannot
belieue
this
Article
,
if
he
belieue
with
Caluin
and
the
Protestants
,
that
all
the
workes
of
iust
men
are
sinnes
;
Calu.
l.
3.
Inst.
c.
14.
for
these
are
Caluins
wordes
:
no
worke
can
passe
from
holy
men
,
which
doth
not
deserue
the
iust
reward
of
shame
.
46.
And
what
account
shall
iust
men
be
able
to
make
of
their
owne
deedes
vnto
Christ
the
Iudge
,
if
all
their
workes
are
vicious
,
and
deserue
the
iust
reward
of
reproach
?
and
if
iust
men
shall
not
be
able
to
giue
account
of
their
deedes
,
truly
the
vniust
shall
be
much
lesse
able
to
doe
it
;
to
what
purpose
then
shall
we
all
stand
before
the
Tribunall
of
Christ
to
render
account
of
our
owne
actions
?
But
perhapps
they
will
say
,
that
all
the
workes
of
the
Iust
are
vncleane
,
and
filthie
,
but
their
filth
shall
be
couered
by
the
mercie
of
God
,
and
the
workes
reputed
as
cleane
to
the
faithfull
,
for
Christ
.
But
if
this
were
true
,
then
should
there
be
no
neede
(
as
I
haue
sayd
before
)
of
the
iustice
of
a
Iudge
,
but
of
the
mercie
of
a
Father
,
and
liberalitie
of
a
Prince
,
therefore
to
what
purpose
doth
the
Article
of
the
Creed
say
that
Christ
shall
come
to
iudge
the
quick
and
the
dead
,
and
that
all
men
shall
render
account
of
their
owne
deedes
,
and
why
doth
the
Apostle
say
,
reposita
est
mihi
corona
iustitiae
&c.
The
Crowne
of
Iustice
is
layd
vp
for
me
,
1.
Pet.
1.
which
the
iust
Iudge
will
giue
me
in
that
daie
?
And
why
doth
his
fellow
Apostle
Peter
say
in
lyke
sort
,
&
si
patrem
inuocatis
&c.
And
if
you
inuocate
,
or
call
vpon
the
Father
,
Matth.
16.
him
which
iudgeth
without
acception
of
persons
,
according
to
the
worke
of
euery
man
:
conuerse
yee
with
fear
in
the
time
of
your
soiourning
or
dwelling
heere
?
And
finally
why
doth
our
Lord
,
who
will
come
to
iudge
,
fortell
that
he
will
come
with
his
Angells
to
render
to
euery
one
according
to
his
workes
?
47.
All
this
saith
the
Cardinal
concerning
this
matter
,
which
I
haue
laid
downe
thus
largely
to
the
end
you
may
see
as
well
his
sound
discourse
grounded
vpon
expresse
scripture
,
as
the
malice
of
M.
Andrewes
peruerting
and
wresting
the
same
to
another
sense
then
euer
the
Cardinall
meant
,
and
there fore
craftily
leaueth
out
of
the
Cardinalls
text
,
all
that
which
toucheth
Caluins
doctrine
,
concerning
the
impuritie
and
vncleanes
of
the
best
workes
;
which
poynt
the
Cardinall
especially
impugneth
,
vrging
,
that
if
Caluins
doctrine
were
true
in
that
behalfe
,
then
were
the
Iustice
of
God
in
the
iugement
and
examination
of
workes
needles
,
and
only
his
mercy
and
liberality
requisite
,
whereby
the
Cardinall
excludeth
not
Gods
mercie
from
his
Iudgements
(
as
you
shall
hear
euen
now
M.
Andrews
charge
him
)
but
inferreth
3.
Card.
Bellarmines
inferences
.
thinges
vpon
the
Article
of
the
Creed
against
Caluins
doctrine
.
The
First
,
that
iust
mens
workes
which
are
to
be
iustly
examined
,
iudged
and
rewarded
with
eternall
life
,
are
not
damnable
sinnes
,
as
Caluin
teacheth
them
to
be
.
The
Second
,
that
men
shall
not
be
saued
only
by
their
faith
,
and
the
imputation
of
Christes
Iustice
,
but
also
by
the
merits
of
good
workes
.
And
the
third
followeth
directly
of
the
former
,
to
wit
,
that
the
only
mercie
and
liberality
of
God
is
not
to
haue
place
in
his
last
Iudgement
(
as
it
should
haue
if
Caluins
doctrine
were
true
)
but
also
his
Iustice●
And
therefore
vpon
this
it
followeth
directly
(
as
the
Cardinall
argueth
very
well
)
that
whosoeuer
belieueth
Caluins
doctrine
in
this
behalfe
,
doth
not
belieue
the
Article
of
the
Creed
concerning
Gods
Iudgement
,
and
retribution
of
workes
.
48.
But
now
let
vs
se
,
how
M.
Andrews
vnderstandeth
,
and
glosseth
the
Cardinalls
text
;
and
to
the
end
thou
mayst
,
good
Reader
,
heare
him
in
his
right
vaine
how
he
b●stirreth
himselfe
,
and
flourisheth
when
he
hath
once
chaunged
the
state
of
the
question
and
brought
it
to
his
purpose
,
I
will
imparte
vnto
thee
a
good
part
of
his
discourse
,
and
set
downe
also
as
much
of
the
Cardinalls
text
in
the
margent
,
as
M.
Andrewes
doth
,
Andr.
c.
7.
pag.
163.
§.
Symbolum
.
Symboli
3.
articulum
de
ratione
redd●nda
de
proprijs
factis
Rex
credere
non
poterit
.
Consit●mu●
iudicium
nouissimum
in
quo
iudex
pro
qualitate
factorum
reddet
alijs
coronam
Iustitiae
,
alijs
supplicium
sempiternum
.
Nam
si
non
pro
meritis
operum
sed
in
gratiam
fidei
&
Iustitiae
misericorditer
imputatae
vita
aeterna
daretur
,
non
esset
opus
iudicio●
neque
discussione
factorum
,
neque
oporteret
Iudicem
iustum
,
sed
Patrem
misericorde●
aduenire●
neque
rationem
de
factis
proprijs
reddere
,
sed
Christi
Iustitiam
nobis
i●putatam
ostendere
deberemus
.
pag.
87.
to
the
end
thou
mayst
the
better
iudge
of
the
whole
matter
.
Thus
then
he
sayth
:
Symbolum
quoque
tertium
ab
Athanasio
conscriptum
recipimus
integrè
&c.
We
receiue
also
wholy
the
third
Creed
,
written
by
Athanasius
.
There
was
no
need
to
make
mention
of
the
last
iudgement
out
of
that
,
seeing
it
is
expressed
both
by
the
Apostolicall
,
and
also
in
the
Nycen
Creed
.
It
is
said
there
that
we
are
to
yield
account
of
our
deedes
,
but
not
such
an
account
as
it
seemeth
heere
the
Cardinall
will
make
,
who
I
think
will
not
appeare
in
the
last
Iudggement
with
this
his
Theology
,
nor
say
there
,
behould
the
merits
of
my
workes
;
behould
the
qualitie
of
my
deedes
,
for
the
which
I
require
that
lyfe
euerlasting
be
giuen
me
.
I
doe
not
desire
here
a
mercifull
Father
,
but
I
will
haue
a
iust
iudge
,
away
with
the
grace
of
Faith
,
or
of
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
mercifully
imputed
vnto
me
.
I
will
haue
my
deedes
examined
,
for
works
haue
proceeded
from
me
which
doe
not
deserue
reproach
,
as
being
such
as
are
without
fault
,
and
haue
nothing
that
needes
to
be
couered
with
mercy
:
for
if
it
were
so
,
I
should
haue
no
need
of
the
Iustice
of
a
Iudge
,
but
of
the
mercie
of
a
Father
,
or
of
the
liberality
of
a
Prince
,
whereof
I
haue
no
need
.
It
is
meruaile
that
the
Cardinal
did
not
add
,
for
I
am
not
as
all
other
men
,
as
also
these
innouatours
are
,
who
haue
need
of
thy
mercy
,
to
the
end
that
their
euill
deedes
be
not
ymputed
vnto
them
,
&
reputed
as
good
deedes
for
the
righteousnes
of
Christ
.
But
if
this
were
so
,
them
would
Constantine
say
to
the
Cardinall
,
set
vp
a
ladder
,
&
clime
vp
to
heauen
alon
,
as
he
sayd
once
to
Acetius
the
Nouatian
heretick
.
49.
Neuerthelesse
a
man
may
well
maruaille
and
demaund
,
whether
the
Cardinall
in
good
earnest
be
so
affected
,
Sozomen
.
l.
1.22
.
At
fi
ita
●sset
,
non
iustitia
iudicis
,
sed
misericordia
Patris
velliberalitat●
Principis
opus
●sset
.
pag.
87.
and
so
think
of
himselfe
as
heere
he
seemes
to
doe
,
to
wit
,
that
he
shall
haue
no
need
of
the
mercy
of
a
Father
,
nor
of
the
liberality
of
a
Prince
,
that
he
feareth
not
the
Iustice
of
the
Iudge
,
that
he
challengeth
to
himselfe
lyfe
euerlasting
,
for
the
quality
of
his
deedes
,
and
merits
of
his
workes
;
that
he
renounceth
the
Grace
,
Fayth
,
and
Righteousnes
of
Christ
;
that
he
will
appeare
in
Iudgement
without
these
,
and
there
make
ostentation
of
his
workes
,
as
being
full
,
pure
,
and
perfect
,
without
all
kind
of
filth
,
or
vice
.
Thus
farre
M.
Andrewes
.
50.
And
dost
thou
not
(
good
Reader
)
see
how
he
descanteth
heere
vpon
a
false
burthen
of
his
owne
,
amplifying
&
exaggerating
his
owne
malicious
conceit
,
and
misconstruction
of
the
Cardinalls
wordes
,
as
though
the
same
were
his
true
sense
and
meaning
?
dost
thou
not
see
,
I
say
,
how
he
pleaseth
himselfe
in
dilating
and
amplifying
his
slanderous
fiction
,
glorying
and
triumphing
in
his
owne
malice
?
In
so
much
that
I
may
well
say
vnto
him
with
the
psalmist
,
Psal.
51.
Quid
gloriaris
in
malitia
,
qui
potens
es
in
iniquitate
?
For
I
appeale
to
any
indifferent
man
whether
any
such
thing
,
as
heere
maliciously
he
inferreth
,
can
be
iustly
gathered
on
the
Cardinalls
wordes
,
who
(
as
I
haue
said
before
)
meaning
to
confute
Caluins
pernicious
doctrine
(
which
draweth
men
to
a
most
dangerous
presumption
of
Gods
mercy
and
neglect
of
his
iustice
,
yea
and
to
a
careles
contempt
of
all
good
workes
,
teaching
all
to
be
sinfull
and
damnable
,
and
no
other
meanes
of
saluation
but
by
only
faith
,
and
the
imputation
of
Christs
Iustice
;
)
the
Cardinall
,
I
say
,
impugning
this
as
well
by
expresse
Scripture
,
as
by
the
Article
of
the
Creed
,
doth
vrge
the
Iustice
of
our
iust
Iudge
,
as
well
in
the
reward
of
vertue
,
and
good
workes
,
as
in
the
punishment
of
vice
&
sinne
,
not
excluding
his
mercy
from
his
Iustice
(
which
can
neuer
be
separated
)
but
inculcating
the
consideration
of
his
exact
Iudgment
in
the
examination
,
punishment
,
and
reward
of
mens
deedes
,
good
and
bad
,
according
to
their
merits
,
which
directly
ouerthroweth
Caluins
doctrine
of
iustification
by
only
fayth
,
and
of
the
impurity
of
good
workes
.
51.
And
therefore
for
as
much
as
M.
Andrews
knew
very
well
that
he
could
not
so
easily
delude
his
Reader
with
the
flourish
of
his
false
glosse
,
if
he
should
lay
downe
the
doctrine
,
and
words
of
Caluin
(
which
the
Cardinall
alledgeth
and
confuteth
)
he
resolued
to
leaue
them
quite
out
with
a
great
parte
also
of
the
Cardinalls
text
concerning
the
same
.
Perhaps
he
would
haue
his
Reader
to
imagine
that
he
lackt
place
and
paper
but
if
you
consider
the
length
of
his
discourse
(
which
he
continueth
for
almost
three
whole
pages
)
you
will
easily
see
that
he
wanteth
neyther
paper
nor
roome
in
his
margent
to
set
downe
all
the
Cardinalls
text
,
if
he
had
thought
it
would
haue
bene
for
his
purpose
.
52.
But
truely
,
that
which
seemeth
to
me
most
strange
in
his
extrauagant
discourse
,
is
,
how
he
could
imagine
that
the
Cardinall
taketh
vpon
him
to
be
iudge
of
his
owne
actions
,
whose
arguments
tend
to
proue
,
that
God
only
is
to
examine
and
iudg
all
mens
workes
,
and
not
that
euery
man
,
or
yet
any
man
shall
be
able
to
iudg
and
determine
of
the
quality
of
his
owne
deedes
;
for
so
should
man
be
his
owne
Iudg
,
&
the
iugdement
of
God
be
no
lesse
superfluous
&
needles
,
then
it
should
be
if
Caluins
doctrin
(
which
the
Cardinall
impugneth
)
were
true
.
Besides
,
that
the
Cardinall
neyther
saith
,
nor
so
much
as
insinuateth
,
that
we
shall
haue
no
need
in
iudgement
of
the
mercy
of
a
Father
,
or
the
liberalitie
of
a
Prince
,
and
much
lesse
that
he
renounceth
the
mercy
,
grace
,
faith
,
and
the
Righteousnes
of
Christ
(
as
M.
Andrews
doth
calumniate
and
belie
him
.
)
For
the
Cardinall
knoweth
and
acknowledgeth
,
as
all
Catholikes
do
,
that
without
the
mercy
,
grace
,
faith
,
and
Righteousnes
of
Christ
,
there
can
be
noe
iustification
(
I
meane
not
the
Righteous●es
of
Christ
imputed
to
vs
,
but
that
which
he
of
his
infinit
mercy
,
and
bounty
,
giueth
vs
&
maketh
ours
,
non
qua
iustus
est
Deus
,
Aug.
tract
.
●6●
in
Ioan.
saith
S.
Augustine
,
sed
quam
dat
homini
Deus
&c.
not
that
Iustice
by
the
which
God
is
iust
,
but
that
which
he
giues
to
man
,
that
man
may
be
iust
by
God
)
and
therefore
that
which
the
Cardinall
saith
,
is
only
this
,
that
,
si
ita
esset
,
if
it
were
so
as
Caluin
teacheth
,
that
is
to
say
,
if
the
iust
mans
best
workes
were
sinfull
,
and
impure
,
and
yet
couered
and
reputed
as
cleane
by
the
mercy
of
God
,
and
for
the
Righteousnes
of
Christ
imputed
vnto
vs
,
then
the
iustice
of
a
Iudg
to
examin
,
and
iudg
our
workes
were
needles
,
and
to
no
purpose
,
seeing
in
that
case
the
only
mercy
of
God
couering
our
sinnes
,
and
imputing
Christs
Righteousenes
vnto
vs
,
would
suffice
to
saue
vs
without
the
examination
and
iust
iudgment
of
workes
:
which
consequence
is
indeed
so
cleare
,
that
M.
Andrews
had
noe
other
shift
to
auoid
it
,
but
to
peruert
the
Cardinalls
whole
sense
,
and
meaning
,
and
so
to
argue
against
his
owne
fiction
,
and
make
a
plaine
Schi●ma●hia
as
you
haue
seene
him
often
do
before
.
53.
Furthermore
it
may
be
wondred
greatly
how
he
could
so
farre
forget
himselfe
as
to
make
the
Cardinall
so
confident
&
presumptuous
of
his
owne
merit
,
as
to
brag
and
boast
euen
to
God
himselfe
of
the
quality
of
his
deedes
,
seeing
that
he
(
I
meane
M.
Andrews
)
knoweth
full
well
(
and
accounteth
it
for
no
small
error
in
the
Cardinall
,
and
all
Catholykes
)
that
they
impugne
Luther
and
Caluins
doctrine
concerning
the
certainety
and
assurance
of
Saluation
,
and
hould
that
no
man
without
a
speciall
reuelation
from
almighty
God
can
know
,
and
much
lesse
determine
,
vtrum
odio
vel
amore
dignus
sit
.
Whether
he
be
worthy
of
loue
or
hatred
,
Eccles.
9.
that
is
to
say
,
whether
he
be
in
the
state
of
grace
,
or
haue
true
merits
,
and
be
truly
iustified
.
And
therfore
the
good
Catholike
,
though
his
merits
be
neuer
so
great
in
the
sight
of
God
,
yea
and
his
conscience
neuer
so
cleare
(
whereby
his
hope
also
of
reward
may
be
greate
)
yet
assuring
himselfe
that
he
hath
no
goodnes
of
himselfe
,
but
that
all
his
good
merits
are
Gods
guifts
,
are
speciall
fruits
of
Gods
grace
,
neyther
is
vainly
proud
thereof
,
but
rather
more
humble
and
thankfull
for
the
same
;
neyther
yet
presumeth
to
be
his
owne
iudg
,
whether
he
haue
any
good
merits
or
no
,
but
leaueth
the
iudgment
therof
to
God
,
with
due
reuerence
and
feare
,
knowing
that
he
searcheth
the
harts
and
reynes
,
yea
and
that
,
as
the
Prophet
saith
,
Psalm.
7.
scrutabitur
Hierusalem
cum
lucernis
,
he
will
search
Hierusalem
(
that
is
to
say
euen
the
Consciences
of
the
iust
)
with
Candles
.
Sophon
.
cap.
1.
And
that
therefore
it
is
necessary
for
euery
man
according
to
the
aduise
of
the
Apostle
,
Bellar.
de
Iustific
.
lib.
5.
ca.
7.
§.
Sit
iam
altera
.
operari
salutem
cum
metu
,
&
tremore
,
to
worke
his
saluation
with
feare
and
trembling
.
In
which
respect
the
Cardinall
treating
in
his
controuersies
of
the
merits
of
workes
,
and
hauing
proued
that
a
man
may
haue
some
confidence
in
good
works
and
merits
(
modo
superbia
cauetur
,
Ibid.
§.
Sit
tertia
propositio
.
saith
he
,
so
that
pride
be
auoided
)
concludeth
that
,
propter
incertitudinem
propriae
iustitiae
&c.
For
the
vncertainty
of
a
mans
owne
Iustice
and
the
danger
of
vaine
glory
,
S.
Chrysos
.
Ho.
38.
ad
Pop.
Antioch
&
ho.
3.
in
Matth.
it
is
most
safe
,
and
secure
for
euery
man
to
repose
his
whole
confidence
,
and
trust
in
the
only
mercie
and
benignity
of
almighty
God
.
Whereof
he
yealdeth
also
this
reason
out
of
S.
Chrysostome
,
that
God
who
seeth
,
and
knoweth
his
good
merits
,
will
vndoubtedly
reward
him
,
the
rather
for
his
humility
.
54.
Thus
then
you
see
that
M.
Andrewes
hath
imployd
all
his
Rhetorick
,
no
lesse
maliciously
then
vainly
in
framing
such
a
formal
prosopopaeia
,
as
he
hath
done
,
of
the
Cardinalls
Iustification
of
himselfe
,
and
ostentation
of
his
merits
,
which
is
so
farre
,
not
only
from
the
Cardinalls
humilitie
and
sanctitie
,
but
also
from
his
doctrine
euery
where
,
and
his
sense
and
meaning
in
this
place
,
that
I
may
well
conclude
,
that
M.
Andrews
hath
notoriously
abused
,
wronged
,
and
belyed
him
,
charging
him
with
false
and
absurd
doctrine
which
he
neuer
thought
and
much
lesse
taught
,
wresting
his
words
,
and
sense
to
other
purpose
,
then
euer
he
meant
,
or
could
ymagine
,
which
is
the
point
that
I
haue
vndertaken
to
shew
at
this
tyme
;
and
therefore
I
omit
to
prosecute
the
Confutation
of
the
rest
of
his
idle
discourse
,
wherein
after
some
further
gybes
at
the
Cardinall
,
M.
Andrews
is
copious
in
prouing
that
which
no
man
doth
deny
.
yea
at
all
Cardinalls
and
Iesuits
for
their
presumption
in
their
owne
(
Innocencie
)
he
laboureth
to
proue
that
there
shall
be
place
for
mercie
in
Gods
Iudgement
,
which
I
thinke
no
man
will
be
so
absurd
to
deny
;
and
then
he
alleadgeth
certaine
places
of
S.
Gregory
and
S.
Bernard
to
proue
that
our
best
workes
are
impure
,
which
places
(
as
also
all
the
rest
that
his
fellowes
are
wont
to
cite
for
that
purpose
)
are
fully
answered
in
Cardinall
Bellarmins
Controuersies
,
Bellar.
d●
Iustif.
lib.
4.
cap.
21.
whereto
I
remit
him
for
that
point
.
But
in
the
end
after
all
his
rauing
,
it
seemeth
he
is
somewhat
come
to
himselfe
,
acknowledging
(
as
it
were
in
lucid●
interuallo
)
that
account
is
to
be
giuen
for
deedes
,
M.
Andrews
lucidum
interuallum
.
as
well
at
the
howre
of
death
as
in
the
last
iudgement
,
and
that
good
workes
shall
be
rewarded
by
the
force
of
Gods
promise
,
yea
and
that
a
man
may
claime
that
as
due
,
&
say
to
almightie
God
with
due
humility
,
redde
quod
promisi●ti
;
Giue
me
that
which
thou
hast
promised
,
touching
which
graunts
of
his
,
I
shall
haue
very
iust
occasion
[
](A00916-e103690-b)(a)
(a)
See
Cap.
10.
nu.
6.7
.
&
seq
.
heerafter
to
say
somewhat
more
vnto
him
,
as
also
about
merits
and
the
eternall
retribution
of
workes
.
And
therefore
this
shall
suffice
for
the
present
concerning
this
point
.
55.
But
what
meruaile
is
it
if
he
maketh
no
scruple
to
abuse
the
Cardinall
and
to
peruert
his
sense
and
meaning
,
M.
Andrews
abuseth
the
Fathers
.
seeing
that
he
vseth
the
same
stile
with
the
holy
and
auncient
Fathers
,
to
which
purpose
I
doubt
not
but
you
may
remember
that
in
the
first
Chapter
of
this
Adioynder
I
shewed
euidently
how
he
abused
,
belyed
,
and
falsified
S.
Ambrose
,
S.
Augustine
,
and
S.
Cyrill
;
as
that
he
corrupted
[
](A00916-e103770-b)(b)
(b)
See
before
Chap.
1.
nu.
6.
S.
Ambrose
his
text
,
adding
certaine
words
thereto
,
and
belyed
S.
[
](A00916-e103820-b)(c)
(c)
Ibid.
num
.
25.
Augustine
,
and
S.
Cyril
,
affirming
them
to
teach
that
S.
Peter
lost
his
Apostleship
by
his
fall
.
Whereas
S.
Augustine
hath
nothing
at
all
to
that
purpose
in
the
place
cyted
by
M.
Andrews
,
and
teacheth
the
quite
contrary
els
where
.
And
though
S.
Cyril
hath
somewhat
concerning
that
matter
,
yet
it
is
farre
otherwyse
then
M.
Andrews
suggesteth
,
as
is
euident
by
the
place
it selfe
which
I
haue
laid
downe
at
large
in
the
first
[
](A00916-e103910-b)(d)
(d)
nu.
26.27
.
Chapter
,
and
therfore
I
forbear
to
treat
further
therof
in
this
place
.
56.
Also
you
may
remember
his
notable
fraud
in
the
corrupt
allegation
of
a
Canon
of
the
Councell
of
Chalcedon
,
concerning
the
equality
of
dignity
,
power
and
authority
,
which
he
saith
,
was
giuen
thereby
to
the
Bishop
of
Constantinople
with
the
Bishop
of
Rome●
whereas
the
contrary
appeareth
by
the
expresse
wordes
of
the
same
Canon
,
by
the
which
it
is
cleare
,
that
only
the
precedence
was
not
granted
to
the
Bishop
of
Constantinople
before
the
Bishops
of
Alexandria
&
Antioch
;
and
therefore
he
craftely
concealed
and
left
vncited
such
wordes
of
the
Canon
as
would
haue
discouered
his
fraud
,
besids
other
tricks
&
shifts
which
he
vsed
in
other
points
concerning
the
same
matter
,
See
Chapt.
2.
nu.
6.8.9.64.65
.
&
66.
as
I
declared
amply
in
the
2.
Chapter
.
57.
I
doubt
not
also
,
but
that
you
remember
his
egregious
abuse
of
S.
Augustine
and
of
an
Affrican
Synod
concerning
appeales
from
Africk
to
Rome
with
3.
notable
[
](A00916-e104120-b)(b)
(b)
Cap.
4.
nu.
34.
&
sequent
.
lyes
within
little
more
then
3.
lynes●
and
of
S.
[
](A00916-e104170-b)(c)
(c)
See
Cap.
6.
nu.
64.
Epiphanius
flatly
belyed
touching
prayer
to
our
Blessed
Lady
.
Also
of
S.
[
](A00916-e104230-b)(d)
(d)
Cap.
7.
nu.
16.17
.
&
sup
.
Ambrose
not
only
shamefully
calumniated
,
but
also
very
fraudulently
alleaged
.
And
lastly
,
his
notable
abuse
,
and
deceiptfull
allegation
of
[
](A00916-e104280-b)(e)
(e)
Cap.
8.
nu.
1.2.3
.
&
seq.
vsque
ad
nu.
10.
Suplem
.
●
.
2.
nu.
71.
Theod●ret
concerning
prayer
to
Angells
;
all
which
I
haue
amply
&
clearely
discouered
in
the
4.6.7
.
and
8.
Chapters
.
Whereto
I
will
now
add
some
other
examples
of
his
fraudulent
dealing
in
this
kind
;
and
first
touching
a
point
which
I
had
occasion
to
touch
in
my
Suplement
,
to
wit
,
the
authority
of
generall
Councells
.
58.
Therefore
whereas
the
Apologie
for
the
Oath
seemeth
only
to
admit
and
approue
the
4.
first
generall
Councells
,
the
Cardinall
demandeth
,
why
those
only
should
be
admitted
and
receiued
,
And
cap.
7.
p.
160.
§.
Verum
.
and
not
also
the
5.6.7.8
.
and
the
rest
?
Whereto
M.
Andrewes
answereth
thus●
Cur
qu●tuor
tantùm
prima
C●n●ilia
veneratur
Rex●
Quaere
id
à
Gregorio
&c.
Why
doth
the
King
reuerence
only
the
fowre
first
Councells
?
S.
Gregory
abused
by
M.
Andrew●
Aske
that
of
Gregory
,
who
allbeit
he
was
after
the
fifth
,
yet
he
bare
this
honour
only
to
the
4.
first
.
He
spake
magnificently
of
the
first
fower
,
de
quinto
silijt
,
he
was
silent
,
or
said
nothing
of
the
fift
;
and
the
reason
which
moued
him
not
to
giue
lyke
honor
to
the
fift
as
to
the
other
,
moued
also
the
King
not
to
beare
the
lyke
respect
to
the
rest
of
the
Councells
which
followed
the
fift
.
So
he
.
Wherein
you
see
he
affirmeth
that
S.
Gregory
spake
magnificently
,
or
very
honorably
of
the
4.
first
Councells
,
and
de
quinto
siluit
,
said
nothing
of
the
fift
,
though
the
same
had
bene
held
before
his
tyme
.
59.
But
how
truly
he
saith
this
,
it
shall
appeare
by
Saint
Gregories
owne
words
,
who
wryting
to
Iohn
Byshop
of
Constantinople
,
and
hauing
said
of
the
4.
first
Councells
that
he
did
imbrace
them
tota
deuotione
.
vt
quatuor
Euangelia
,
with
all
deuotion
as
the
4.
Ghospels
(
because
,
saith
he
,
the
building
of
the
holy
faith
is
raised
vpon
them
as
vpon
a
fowre
squared
stone
&c.
)
he
addeth
concerning
the
fi●●t
,
Open
your
eyes
Syr
Lancelot
and
see
whether
S.
Gregory
sayd
nothing
of
the
fifth
generall
Councell
.
quintum
quoque
pariter
veneror
&c.
I
reuerence
also
together
with
them
the
fifth
Councell
,
wherin
the
Epistle
of
Iba
is
reiected
,
as
full
of
error
,
and
Theodorus
separating
the
person
of
our
mediatour
in
two
substances
,
is
conuinced
to
haue
fallen
into
perfidious
impietie
.
Also
the
writinges
of
Theodoret
,
reprouing
the
faith
of
Cyril
,
are
refuted
there
,
for
their
temerarious
madnes
,
and
therefore
all
the
persons
which
the
said
venerable
Councels
reiect
,
I
do
also
reiect
,
and
those
which
they
admit
,
and
reuerence
,
I
doe
imbrace
:
for
seeing
they
were
ordeyned
by
an
vniuersall
consent
,
whosoeuer
presumeth
to
loose
that
which
they
binde
,
or
to
binde
that
which
they
loose
,
doth
destroy
himselfe
and
not
them
.
Quisquis
ergo
aliud
sapit
,
Anathema
sit
&c.
Therefore
whosoeuer
thinketh
,
or
vnderstandeth
otherwise
,
let
him
be
accursed
,
and
whosoeuer
holdeth
the
faith
of
the
foresaid
Synods
,
peace
be
to
him
from
God
the
Father
by
Iesus
Christ
his
Sonne
.
Thus
saith
S.
Gregorie
,
as
well
of
the
5.
Synod
,
as
of
the
other
fowre
.
60.
And
now
,
good
Reader
,
I
remit
it
to
thy
iudgement
whether
it
be
truth
which
M.
Andrews
saith
,
to
wit
,
that
S.
Gregory
,
Siluit
de
quinto
,
said
nothing
to
the
fift
Councell
,
yea
and
whether
he
admitted
,
and
honored
only
the
fowre
first
Councells
,
doth
he
not
say
,
quintum
quoque
pariter
ven●ror
.
I
doe
also
togeather
with
the
other
reuerence
the
fift
Councell
?
and
doth
he
not
acknowledg
the
infallible
verity
thereof
as
well
as
of
the
other
,
holding
him
for
accursed
who
doth
reiect
anything
determined
by
any
of
the
fiue
,
whether
it
concerne
matter
of
faith
,
or
the
Condemnation
of
any
mans
person
?
and
what
other
reason
doth
he
alledg
,
but
because
they
were
all
fiue
held
by
generall
consent
,
giuing
euidently
to
vnderstand
that
a
generall
Councell
lawfully
assembled
,
representeth
the
whole
Church
of
God
,
and
is
infallibly
guided
by
the
holy
Ghost
.
61.
And
whereas
he
seemeth
to
speake
more
magnificiently
(
as
M.
Andrews
termeth
it
)
of
the
fowre
former
then
of
the
fift
(
saying
that
he
reuerenceth
them
with
all
deuotion
as
the
4.
Ghospells
)
the
reason
thereof
is
euident
,
to
wit
,
because
the
most
important
points
of
our
Christian
faith
(
concerning
the
Blessed
Trinity
,
the
Godhead
of
the
holy
Ghost
,
and
the
Diuinity
,
Humanity
,
Nature
and
Person
of
our
Sauiour
Christ
)
were
resolued
,
and
decreed
therin
,
whereas
in
the
5.
there
was
not
any
new
matter
of
faith
determined
,
but
only
certaine
persons
and
their
writinges
condemned
,
which
had
caused
a
great
controuersy
,
and
schisme
in
the
Church
at
that
tyme
;
neuertheles
we
see
,
S.
Greg.
l.
3.
Ep.
37.
that
albeit
S.
Gregory
doth
not
say
in
expresse
wordes
,
that
he
reuerenceth
the
5.
Councell
,
as
the
4.
Ghospells
(
as
he
said
of
the
other
fowre
)
yet
he
saith
as
much
in
effect
,
seeing
that
he
professeth
to
hould
all
those
for
accursed
who
do
reiect
or
contradict
it
.
So
that
M.
Andrews
hath
shamefully
abused
and
belied
S.
Gregory
herein
,
and
must
seeke
some
other
Patron
to
iustifie
and
defend
him
for
admitting
only
the
4.
first
generall
Councells
:
but
let
vs
see
some
more
of
his
fraudes
in
this
kind
.
62.
Vpon
occasion
of
certaine
places
of
the
Fathers
alledged
by
the
Cardinall
,
to
shew
the
Custome
of
praying
to
Saints
in
the
primatiue
Church
,
M.
Andrews
goeth
about
to
proue
that
Saynts
do
not
know
what
wee
do
here
on
earth
,
Andr.
cap.
1.
pag.
46.
eyther
by
seeing
the
same
in
God
,
or
by
being
themselues
present
amongst
vs
,
and
hauing
alleadged
3.
or
4.
authorities
for
the
former
point
(
which
he
may
see
sufficiently
answered
in
Cardinall
[
](A00916-e104830-b)(a)
(a)
Bellar
de
Sanct.
beatit
.
lib.
1.
ca.
1.
&
2.
Bellarmines
Controuersies
)
he
saith
for
the
letter
,
[
](A00916-e104870-b)(b)
(b)
Andr.
vbi
supra
lin.
4.
mortuos
autem
rebus
nostris
non
interuenire
sensit
Augustinus
.
Augustine
was
of
opinion
that
the
dead
are
not
present
at
our
affaires
,
for
the
which
he
quoteth
no
place
of
S.
Augustine
,
but
addeth
,
quis
hoc
refert
?
Cardinalis
.
Who
relateth
or
affirmeth
this
?
the
Cardinall
:
and
for
this
M.
Andrews
citeth
in
his
margent
the
Cardinalls
treatise
of
the
beatitude
of
Saynts
in
his
bookes
of
Controuersies
,
Bell.
de
Beatit
.
lib.
1.
ca.
20.
where
indeed
the
Cardinall
handling
that
question
,
and
laying
downe
the
obiection
of
hereticks
,
hath
amongst
the
rest
a
place
of
S.
Augustine
in
his
books
de
cura
pro
mortuis
,
S.
Aug.
li.
de
cura
pro
mort
.
ca.
12.
where
he
affirmeth
that
the
dead
are
not
present
at
mens
affaires
,
neyther
yet
do
know
what
is
done
vpon
earth
;
neuertheles
afterwards
the
Cardinall
answering
the
same
obiection
in
the
same
Chapter
,
proueth
out
of
the
very
same
treatise
of
S.
Augustine
(
from
whence
the
obiection
is
taken
)
that
albeit
the
dead
are
not
vsually
present
at
mens
affaires
,
nor
do
naturally
know
what
is
done
vpon
earth
,
yet
they
may
know
it
,
not
only
by
Angells
,
[
](A00916-e105010-b)(c)
(c)
Idem
ibid.
c.
15.
but
also
supernaturally
,
to
wit
,
by
diuine
reuelation
,
yea
and
that
the
holy
Martyrs
,
[
](A00916-e105030-b)(d)
(d)
Ibid.
c.
1●
.
and
Saynts
are
present
amongst
men
,
per
diuinam
potentiam
,
by
the
diuine
power
.
63.
And
to
shew
this
,
the
Cardinall
alledgeth
these
wordes
out
of
the
said
treatise
of
S.
Augustine
,
non
ideo
putandum
est
&c.
It
is
not
therefore
to
be
thought
that
euery
one
of
the
dead
may
be
present
at
the
affaires
of
men
,
because
the
Martyrs
are
present
in
healing
and
helping
some
men
,
but
rather
it
is
to
be
vnderstood
,
that
because
the
dead
cannot
be
present
amongst
men
by
their
owne
nature
,
therefore
the
Martyrs
are
present
at
mens
affaires
by
the
diuine
power
.
Thus
saith
S.
Augustine
:
where
you
see
he
distinguisheth
betwixt
naturall
,
and
supernaturall
meanes
,
and
betwixt
the
glorified
Saynts
of
God
(
for
such
are
the
Martyrs
of
whome
he
speaketh
)
and
other
dead
men
,
granting
that
the
Mar●yrs
do
that
by
supernaturall
,
and
diuine
meanes
,
which
other
dead
men
cannot
naturally
do
;
and
this
is
the
same
in
effect
that
all
Catholikes
hould
concerning
the
knowledge
that
the
glorified
Saynts
haue
of
things
don
in
earth
,
to
wit
,
that
they
do
not
know
the
same
naturally
,
but
by
supernaturall
meanes
,
whether
they
see
it
in
seeing
the
diuine
essence
,
or
know
it
otherwise
by
reuelation
;
so
as
;
thereby
it
is
manifest
that
M.
Andrewes
hath
notably
abused
both
S.
Augustine
and
the
Cardinall
;
S.
Augustine
,
in
making
him
to
affirme
of
glorified
Saynts
,
that
which
he
spake
of
other
dead
men
,
as
if
he
made
no
difference
betweene
the
supernaturall
knowledge
and
power
of
the
one
,
and
the
naturall
of
the
other
,
which
he
euidently
distinguisheth
;
Also
he
abuseth
the
Cardinall
in
taking
hould
of
his
obiection
,
and
dissembling
his
solution
,
which
is
one
of
the
most
grosse
and
palpable
frauds
or
rather
fooleries
that
may
be
imagined
in
this
kind
.
A
most
grosse
and
palpable
fraud
or
rather
foolery
of
M.
Andrewes
.
64.
Furthermore
whereas
the
Cardinall
produceth
the
euident
and
cleere
testimony
of
S.
Augustine
,
to
proue
that
many
Miracles
were
done
by
the
Reliques
of
S.
Stephen
in
Affrick
,
M.
Andrews
wisheth
the
Cardinall
to
consider
how
he
can
well
and
handsomly
reconcile
Augustine
with
Augustine
concerning
those
Miracles
,
Card.
Apolog.
c.
12.
p.
157.
and
his
reason
is
,
because
Augustine
saith
in
an
Epistle
to
his
Cleargie
,
S.
Aug.
de
ciuit
.
Dei
l.
22.
cap.
8.
Andre
.
ca.
12.
pag.
284.
§.
1.
and
all
the
people
of
Hippo
,
nusquam
hic
in
Africa
,
t●lia
fieri
se
scire
,
he
knew
that
such
things
were
not
don
any
where
in
Africk
,
which
I
beseech
thee
good
Reader
,
to
note
,
and
thou
shalt
euidently
see
the
good
Conscience
of
M.
Andrews
,
Epist.
137
who
abuseth
S.
Augustine
notably
two
wayes
,
the
one
in
making
him
seeme
to
contradict
himselfe
most
manifestly
,
M.
Andrews
his
bad
conscience
in
abusing
S.
Augustine
most
impudently
.
yea
and
to
giue
himselfe
,
as
it
were
,
the
lye
,
witnessing
in
one
place
matters
of
fact
vpon
his
owne
knowledge
,
(
for
so
he
testifieth
those
Miracles
don
by
S.
Stephens
reliques
,
)
and
in
another
place
affirming
that
he
knewe
the
same
to
be
false
,
for
so
must
it
needes
be
,
if
he
knewe
that
such
thinges
were
not
done
any
where
in
Africk
.
The
other
abuse
is
in
that
he
peruerteth
the
sense
of
S.
Augustins
Epistle
,
as
it
will
easely
appeare
,
if
we
consider
the
occasion
why
S.
Augustine
wrote
the
same
;
which
therefore
I
think
good
here
to
relate
.
65.
A
Scandalous
quarrell
being
fallen
out
betwixt
a
Chaplaine
of
S.
Augustin
,
and
a
yong
man
concerning
an
infamous
calumniation
raysed
by
the
yong
man
against
the
Preist
(
whereof
the
truth
could
not
be
tried
or
knowne
,
because
the
matter
depended
wholly
vpon
their
owne
oathes
,
and
testimonyes
)
S.
Augustin
aduised
them
to
goe
to
Nola
in
Italy
to
the
body
of
S.
Felix
,
where
it
pleased
God
ordinarily
in
like
cases
to
discouer
periuries
,
by
the
miraculous
punishment
of
the
periured
person
;
and
of
this
he
thought
good
afterwards
to
giue
account
vnto
his
Cleargie
and
People
for
their
satisfaction
,
which
he
did
by
the
Epistle
that
M.
Andrews
citeth
,
wherein
discoursing
,
by
the
occasion
of
this
matter
,
why
Almighty
God
,
doth
such
Miracles
in
some
places
,
and
not
in
others
,
he
saith
,
S.
Aug.
Ep.
●37
.
Multis
notissima
est
sanctitas
loci
&c.
Many
do
verie
well
knowe
the
holynes
of
the
place
,
where
lyeth
the
bodie
of
Blessed
Felix
of
Nola
,
whither
I
ordeyned
them
to
go
,
because
from
thence
I
might
more
easely
and
truly
vnderstand
by
letters
whatsoeuer
that
should
please
God
to
manifest
in
either
of
them
.
So
he
;
and
then
hauing
added
that
also
in
Millan
a
periured
theefe
was
discouered
miraculously
at
the
Monuments
of
certaine
Saints
,
and
forced
to
restore
that
which
he
had
stolne
,
he
saith
further
thus
;
numquid
non
Africa
&c.
Is
not
Affrick
full
of
the
bodies
of
holy
Martyrs
?
&
tamen
nusquam
hic
scimus
talia
fieri
&c.
And
neuerthelesse
we
know
that
such
things
(
that
is
to
say
Miracles
in
this
kind
)
are
not
don
any
where
here
in
Africk
.
For
euen
as
the
Apostle
sayth
that
all
holy
men
haue
not
the
guifts
of
healing
,
so
also
,
he
who
diuideth
things
proper
,
or
peculiar
to
euery
one
as
it
pleaseth
him
,
would
not
haue
these
things
to
be
done
at
all
the
memories
or
monuments
of
Saynts
.
Thus
sayth
S.
Augustine
.
66.
Whereby
I
doubt
not
but
thou
seest
,
good
Reader
,
in
what
sense
he
denieth
Miracles
to
haue
byn
done
in
Affrick
,
that
is
to
say
,
such
Miracles
as
were
done
at
the
body
of
S.
Felix
,
for
the
discouery
and
punishment
of
periury
and
not
such
as
he
testifieth
els
where
,
to
haue
byn
ordinarily
don
at
the
Reliques
of
S.
Stephen
,
S.
Aug.
de
ciuit
.
Dei
l.
22.
cap.
8.
whereof
he
recounteth
such
a
multitude
,
with
such
asseueration
of
his
owne
knowledge
therof
,
and
publique
testymony
of
an
infinite
number
of
witnesses
,
and
such
particular
relation
of
circumstances
,
tymes
,
and
places
,
that
a
man
must
hould
him
for
the
most
impudent
lyar
,
that
euer
wrote
,
if
they
were
not
most
true
.
Besides
,
that
writing
the
same
,
as
he
did
,
for
the
proofe
of
Christian
Religion
against
Pagans
,
and
Infidells
,
it
cannot
without
extreme
folly
be
imagined
that
such
a
learned
,
wise
,
and
holy
man
,
as
he
,
would
be
so
prodigall
not
only
of
his
owne
credit
,
and
reputation
,
but
also
of
the
honour
of
Christian
Religion
,
as
to
expose
the
same
to
the
derision
of
the
Paynims
,
by
seking
to
confirme
it
by
fables
and
lyes
,
which
euery
man
in
those
parts
(
as
well
the
Paynimes
themselues
as
others
)
might
haue
controlled
and
would
haue
derided
,
if
they
had
byn
fained
.
67.
Finally
,
these
miracles
of
S.
Stephen
which
M.
Andrewes
calleth
here
in
question
,
are
testified
by
S.
Augustine
in
that
worke
which
M.
Andrewes
himselfe
so
much
esteemeth
els
where
,
Andr.
c.
1.
p.
46.
§.
at
id
numquam
.
that
alledging
out
of
it
a
sentence
which
he
thought
might
make
for
him
,
he
calleth
it
opus
palmare
de
ciuitate
Dei
,
the
principall
or
most
excellent
worke
of
Augustine
of
the
citty
of
God
.
And
yet
now
he
would
faine
disgrace
it
,
or
rather
S.
Augustine
himselfe
by
the
imputation
of
a
contradiction
,
which
he
would
the
Reader
should
suppose
to
be
betwixt
it
,
and
the
foresaid
Epistle
of
S.
Augustine
,
whereas
you
see
(
and
M.
Andrews
knoweth
it
in
his
owne
conscience
)
that
there
is
no
contradiction
in
the
world
betwixt
them
,
but
that
both
of
them
do
notably
and
clearly
testifie
the
ancient
and
venerable
vse
of
holy
Reliques
,
and
the
miraculous
assistance
,
and
helpe
that
God
giueth
to
his
faithfull
people
thereby
,
and
by
the
praiers
and
Reliques
of
his
holy
Martyrs
and
Saints
.
So
that
truly
a
man
may
wonder
at
the
impudency
,
M.
Andrews
his
abuse
of
S.
Augustine
inexcusable
.
and
seared
Conscience
of
M.
Andrews
,
who
seeketh
to
delude
his
Reader
with
such
a
fraudulent
and
inexcusable
abuse
of
this
holy
Father
.
68.
But
no
wonder
that
he
is
so
bould
with
the
Fathers
,
seeing
that
the
Sacred
authority
of
the
holy
Scriptures
cannot
suffice
to
free
them
from
his
fraud
:
Wherein
it
seemeth
he
hath
conspired
with
M.
Barlow
,
with
whome
he
concurreth
in
the
corruption
and
abuse
of
one
and
the
selfe
same
place
.
To
which
purpose
I
must
desire
the
good
Reader
to
call
to
mind
what
I
debated
with
M.
Barlow
concerning
this
point
in
the
sixt
Chapter
of
my
Supplement
,
See
suppl
.
c.
6.
num.
14
15.16
.
where
I
shewed
euidently
how
he
abused
the
holy
Scripture
,
in
saying
that
God
in
his
word
appointed
Kinges
to
be
guardians
of
both
the
tables
,
to
command
and
prohibit
in
matters
of
Religion
,
Ibidem
.
for
which
he
quoted
in
his
margent
the
17.
of
Deuteronomy
,
and
18.
verse
,
where
no
such
thing
is
to
be
found
,
but
rather
the
cleane
contrary
is
to
be
inferred
thereon
,
Andr.
ca.
1.
p.
22.
§.
Sed
nec
.
as
I
amply
declared
in
the
foresaid
Chapter
:
and
now
M.
Andrews
hauing
occasion
to
treat
of
the
antiquitie
of
the
spiritual
primacy
of
temporall
Kings
,
The
holy
Scripture
abused
by
M.
Andrews
.
draweth
it
partly
from
the
same
place
,
deducing
it
euen
from
Moyses
,
who
when
he
deliuered
,
saith
he
,
the
Copie
of
the
law
to
the
King
,
cum
eo
sic
tradito
summam
religionis
(
quae
prima
,
summaque
legis
pars
est
)
custodiendae
,
&
custodiri
faciendae
potestatem
tradidit
;
gaue
togeather
with
it
the
chief
power
to
keepe
Religion
and
cause
it
to
be
kept
,
which
Religion
is
the
first
and
chiefe
parte
of
the
lawe
.
Thus
saith
M.
Andrews
,
&
though
he
quot
no
place
,
yet
he
must
eyther
ground
this
his
assertion
vpon
the
same
place
of
Deuteronomy
,
which
M.
Barlow
alleadgeth
,
or
els
he
shall
finde
it
no where
,
for
it
was
ordeyned
only
there
&
no
where
els
,
that
the
King
should
haue
a
Copie
of
the
lawe
.
69.
Wherein
neuerthelesse
that
is
to
be
noted
by
the
way
,
that
Moyses
did
not
there
,
or
any
where
els
,
giue
a
Copie
of
the
lawe
to
any
King
,
(
for
there
were
no
Kinges
of
the
people
of
Israell
for
4.
hundred
yeares
after
Moyses
)
but
God
ordeyned
by
Moyses
in
17.
of
Deuteronomy
that
the
future
King
,
should
take
a
Copie
of
the
law
,
from
the
Priest
of
the
Tribe
of
Leui
,
and
haue
the
same
with
him
,
and
read
it
all
the
daies
of
his
lyfe
.
But
what
?
Will
M.
Andrews
say
that
the
King
was
made
hereby
supreame
head
or
gouernor
of
the
Church
in
Ecclesiasticall
causes
?
or
(
to
vse
his
owne
manner
of
speach
)
that
the
Cheif
or
supreame
power
to
keepe
Religion
and
cause
it
to
be
kept
,
was
giuen
him
hereby
?
Truly
the
wordes
immediatly
following
do
shew
another
reason
why
the
King
should
haue
the
Copy
of
the
law
,
to
wit
,
vt
discat
&c.
to
the
end
he
may
learne
to
feare
his
Lord
God
,
and
keepe
his
word
,
and
ceremonies
commanded
in
the
law
.
That
is
to
say
,
he
should
haue
it
for
his
owne
priuat
vse
,
and
instruction
,
that
he
might
punctually
obserue
it
all
the
dayes
of
his
lyfe
,
to
which
purpose
I
am
sure
M.
Andrews
will
allow
euery
man
and
woman
to
haue
a
Copy
of
it
as
well
as
the
King
.
How
then
was
summa
potestas
the
supreme
power
,
wherof
he
speaketh
,
giuen
hereby
to
the
King
more
then
to
any
other
man
or
woman
?
70.
But
if
wee
consider
what
was
expressely
ordeyned
a
litle
before
in
the
same
Chapter
touching
the
supreme
authority
of
the
high
Priest
,
Deut.
17.
and
that
the
future
King
was
presently
after
commanded
to
keepe
exactly
the
whole
law
of
God
(
wherof
the
ordinance
touching
the
obedience
to
the
high
Priest
was
a
principall
part
)
yea
&
to
take
a
Copie
of
the
law
of
the
Priests
,
who
kept
the
originall
(
&
therefor
as
I
argued
against
M.
Barlow
,
were
the
true
Gardians
of
the
law
,
&
not
the
King
,
who
had
but
the
Copy
)
&
if
wee
weigh
withall
that
he
was
to
learne
of
them
also
the
sense
&
interpretation
of
the
law
,
because
they
only
,
&
not
the
King
had
authority
to
teach
&
interpret
it
,
and
to
resolue
all
doubts
&
difficulties
which
should
occurre
therein
(
as
I
proued
clearly
out
of
the
[
](A00916-e106400-b)(d)
(d)
Deut.
17.
&
.
24.
Exod.
28.
Ezech
44.
Malach
2.
See
chap.
1.
à
nu.
10
ad
nu.
24.
Scriptures
in
the
first
Chapter
of
my
Supplement
)
if
all
this
,
I
say
be
well
considered
,
it
may
be
wondred
,
with
what
face
M.
Barlow
and
M.
Andrews
could
inferre
any
spirituall
supremacy
of
the
King
vpon
this
place
,
which
doth
in
truth
proue
their
subiection
in
matters
of
Religion
to
Priests
,
and
specially
to
the
high
Priest
.
So
as
it
is
euident
that
M.
Andrews
hath
no
lesse
shamefully
abused
the
holy
Scriptures
in
this
point
,
then
M.
Barlow
:
in
so
much
that
it
is
hard
to
say
whether
of
them
is
more
shameles
,
especially
seeing
that
they
both
do
also
exceed
in
a
prodigious
kind
of
impudency
,
wherin
I
thought
no
man
could
haue
matched
M.
Barlow
,
vntill
I
had
read
M.
Andrews
,
I
meane
in
facing
and
bragging
out
a
bad
matter
,
when
arguments
and
proofs
are
to
weake
,
whereof
I
gaue
some
Instances
in
M.
Barlow
,
and
will
now
do
the
lyke
in
M.
Andrews
.
71.
Thou
maist
remember
,
good
Reader
,
what
poore
stuffe
he
produced
[
](A00916-e106610-b)(a)
(a)
Andr.
ca.
1.
p.
16.
to
proue
that
S.
Peter
had
nothing
peculiar
to
himselfe
by
his
pastorall
Commission
,
and
how
he
triumphed
in
two
or
three
paragraphes
,
as
though
he
had
trodden
the
Cardinall
vnder
his
feet
,
M.
Andrews
his
facing-out
of
matters
.
yea
and
bragged
also
afterwardes
in
another
place
,
saying
:
[
](A00916-e106660-b)(b)
(b)
ca.
8.
p.
214.
§.
Negat●
Clariùs
id
loquuntur
Ambrosius
&
Augustinus
quàm
vt
obstrepere
possint
nostri
nouitij
:
Ambrose
and
Augustine
do
speake
or
affirme
it
more
clearly
then
that
our
nouices
(
meaning
the
Catholiks
)
are
able
any
way
to
contradict
it
.
When
neuerthelesse
to
make
good
his
idle
conceipt
he
was
faine
to
vse
great
fraud
and
corruption
in
the
allegation
of
those
two
Fathers
,
corrupting
the
text
of
S.
Ambrose
,
&
dissembling
the
circumstances
of
the
place
in
S.
Augustine
,
which
clearely
proueth
the
Primacy
of
S.
Peter
,
as
I
haue
amply
declared
in
the
first
Chapter
of
this
[
](A00916-e106750-b)(c)
(c)
Cap.
1.
nu.
3.
&
sequent
.
ad
nu
12.
Adioynder
,
so
that
his
braggs
and
vaunts
had
no
other
ground
,
but
his
owne
vanity
,
corruption
,
and
falsity
.
72.
The
lyke
may
be
noted
also
in
his
vayne
insultations
against
the
Cardinall
about
the
Councell
of
Chalcedon
.
For
when
he
himselfe
had
shamefully
abused
,
peruerted
,
and
mangled
the
28.
Canon
(
as
I
haue
clearly
shewed
in
the
second
Chapter
of
this
Adioinder
[
](A00916-e106820-b)(d)
(d)
c.
2.
nu.
3.4.6.7.59
.
&
.
64.
he
admonisheth
the
Cardinall
seriously
not
to
produce
his
proofes
,
tamquam
è
vepreculis
,
as
it
were
out
of
the
bryers
,
not
out
of
the
superscriptions
of
letters
,
or
of
some
corner
of
a
period
,
or
perhaps
some
peece
of
a
tytle
,
or
fragment
of
a
litle
clause
,
but
to
bring
out
some
Canon
,
for
that
the
Canons
are
the
voyce
of
the
Councells
.
As
though
forsooth
he
had
beaten
downe
the
Cardinall
with
the
shot
of
a
Canon
;
whereas
not
only
the
most
important
parts
of
that
Councell
,
but
also
the
very
Canon
,
which
he
mangled
,
and
peruerted
,
do
euidently
proue
the
Cardinalls
intent
,
to
wit
,
the
primacy
of
the
Roman
Sea
,
Ibidem
.
as
I
haue
amply
shewed
in
the
second
Chapter
aforesaid
:
so
as
it
is
hard
to
say
whether
he
was
more
impudent
in
his
corruption
and
falsity
,
or
in
his
vayne
brags
afterwards
,
as
if
he
had
vsed
all
the
sincerity
in
the
world
,
and
got
a
great
victorie
.
73.
And
in
lyke
sort
dealt
he
with
the
Cardinall
about
the
adoration
of
Reliques
,
when
he
triumphed
saying
:
Tenetur
hic
Cardinalis
vt
elabi
non
possit
.
Heere
the
Cardinall
is
catcht
,
and
held
so
fast
,
that
he
cannot
escape
away
:
neuertheles
the
testimony
which
he
himselfe
produced
,
being
layed
downe
whole
with
the
circumstances
doth
conuince
him
both
of
folly
&
fraud
,
as
hath
bene
manifestly
shewed
a
litle
before
euen
in
this
[
](A00916-e107000-b)(f)
(f)
See
before
nu.
21.
&
seq.
ad
nu.
27.
Chapter
,
and
therefore
I
forbeare
to
speake
further
thereof
,
and
will
only
add
one
other
Instance
in
this
kind
,
Card.
Apolog.
ca.
15.
pag.
197.
&
198.
of
a
matter
which
hath
not
beene
touched
hitherto
.
74.
The
Cardinall
as
well
in
his
Matthaeus
Tortus
,
as
also
in
his
Apology
;
M.
Andrews
impudently
affirmeth
that
the
Puritans
haue
recalled
their
doctrine
concerning
the
Kings
supremacy
.
auoweth
that
the
Puritans
in
England
do
no
lesse
abhor
the
oath
of
supremacy
then
the
Catholikes
,
and
in
his
Apology
alleadgeth
for
the
proofe
thereof
,
not
only
his
Maiesties
monitorie
Preface
,
and
his
Basilicon
Doron
,
but
also
Caluins
doctrine
(
which
the
Puritanes
professe
)
and
the
testimony
of
M.
Bancroft
late
pretended
Bishop
of
Canterbury
,
who
plainely
witnesseth
the
same
,
as
well
concerning
the
profession
and
practice
of
the
Puritans
,
as
also
touching
Caluins
expressed
doctrine
in
that
behalfe
;
and
M.
Andrews
finding
himselfe
hardly
p●est
therewith
,
and
hauing
no
other
remedy
but
to
face
out
the
matter
,
calleth
the
Cardinall
not
only
Mendacem
,
a
Ly●r
,
but
also
D●lirum
,
Andr.
cap.
15.
p.
342.
§.
ad
quartum
.
a
Dotard
,
and
why
?
Marry
because
the
Puritans
(
saith
M.
Andrewes
)
do
dayly
in
their
Sermons
giue
the
tytle
of
supreme
Gouernour
to
the
King
,
yea
and
do
not
stick
to
sweare
somtymes
to
the
Kinges
supremacy
,
in
so
much
,
that
,
facto
,
saith
he
,
res
tenetur
,
the
matter
is
cleare
in
fact
,
and
experience
;
and
afterward
acknowledging
that
indeed
M.
Bancroft
did
twenty
yeares
agoe
gather
out
of
diuers
Theses
or
positions
of
theirs
,
some
suspition
that
they
were
alienated
from
the
Kinges
supremacy
,
yea
and
that
perhaps
it
was
so
then
,
he
concludeth
,
that
now
of
late
recognouerunt
errores
suos
,
they
haue
acknowledged
,
or
recalled
their
errours
.
75.
This
is
M.
Andrews
his
discourse
,
which
how
true
it
is
(
notwithstanding
his
impudent
asseueration
thereof
)
I
do
appeale
to
the
consciences
of
the
learneder
sort
of
Puritans
,
&
Precisians
in
England
,
whether
they
haue
of
late
tyme
,
or
at
any
tyme
,
retracted
,
and
recanted
Caluins
doctrine
and
theirs
in
this
point
as
an
erour
.
For
albeit
I
make
no
doubt
but
that
some
of
them
may
now
in
their
sermons
(
as
others
of
the
weaker
sort
of
them
did
euen
in
M.
Bancrofts
tyme
,
The
fact
of
some
Puritans
in
taking
the
oath
cannot
preiudice
the
opinion
or
doctrin
of
the
rest
.
and
alwayes
before
)
vse
the
ordinary
style
of
his
Maiesties
tytle
,
yea
and
that
otherwyles
some
of
them
also
do
dispence
with
their
consciences
,
and
swallow
the
Oath
to
get
some
Benefice
,
or
Ecclesiasticall
dignity
:
yet
I
assure
my selfe
that
the
more
zealous
,
and
precise
Puritans
,
and
especially
their
whole
Congregation
will
not
acknowledge
this
fact
of
some
of
them
for
any
definition
,
or
decree
of
theirs
,
or
for
a
recantation
of
their
doctrine
,
and
beliefe
in
this
poynt
,
neyther
is
it
sufficient
for
the
recalling
of
an
errour
of
a
whole
sect
standing
still
on
foote
(
as
this
of
the
Puritans
yet
doth
)
that
some
of
them
chang
their
opinion
,
or
for
feare
,
or
promotion
dissemble
it
,
when
the
same
is
not
ratified
by
some
publike
testimony
of
their
whole
company
.
76.
Therefore
I
must
now
vrge
M.
Andrews
to
shew
vs
in
what
printed
booke
,
or
generall
decree
of
their
Congregations
they
haue
recanted
their
opinion
,
and
acknowledged
it
for
an
errour
,
seeing
that
the
same
was
published
before
to
the
world
by
themselues
,
in
such
sort
,
that
M.
Bancroft
(
by
M.
Andrews
his
owne
confession
)
gathered
it
out
of
their
owne
bookes
;
Andr.
p.
34●
.
§.
Porrò
.
&
ita
fortè
tum
fuit
,
saith
he
,
and
so
perhaps
it
was
then
(
he
meaneth
20.
yeares
agoe
)
and
yet
you
see
,
he
saith
it
with
a
perhaps
,
as
if
the
matter
were
in
doubt
,
and
that
perhaps
it
was
not
so
.
But
I
dare
say
without
all
peraduenture
that
it
was
so
;
not
only
20.
yeares
agoe
,
but
also
much
later
,
euen
since
his
Maiesty
came
into
England
,
for
I
am
sure
there
are
ynough
who
know
and
remember
,
that
Burges
a
Puritan
preacher
was
committed
to
Prison
,
for
that
in
a
Sermon
before
his
Maiesty
,
he
would
not
giue
him
his
ordinary
style
,
and
tytle
of
supreme
Gouernour
of
the
Church
.
77.
But
what
if
I
produce
a
very
substantiall
witnes
of
their
continuance
in
that
opinion
some
yeares
after
,
and
such
a
one
as
M.
Andrews
hath
great
reason
to
admit
,
for
that
he
stil
liueth
,
yea
ruleth
in
the
English
Clergy
no
lesse
than
M.
Andrews
himselfe
,
M.
Barlow
a
witnes
against
M.
Andrews
.
I
meane
the
learned
Doctor
and
worthy
superintendent
M.
Barlow
,
who
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Ministers
of
Scotland
,
prefixed
to
the
Sermon
which
he
prated
before
his
Maiesty
against
the
Puritans
the
21.
of
September
in
the
yeare
1606.
(
which
is
not
past
6.
yeares
agoe
)
coupleth
the
Puritans
with
the
Papists
for
their
opinion
in
that
point
,
saying
,
[
](A00916-e107770-b)(b)
(b)
M.
Barlow
in
his
Epistle
to
the
ministers●
of
Scotland
.
that
Papists
,
and
Puritans
will
haue
the
King
to
be
but
an
honorable
member
,
not
a
chiefe
gouernour
in
the
Churches
of
his
dominions
.
Thus
saith
M.
Barlow
,
whome
M.
Andrews
must
needs
allow
for
a
man
of
credit
,
except
he
will
discredit
his
owne
occupation
,
and
ministry
.
78.
Besides
that
,
I
will
adde
to
M.
Barlow
another
authenticall
witnes
,
who
wrote
the
yeare
after
,
and
representeth
the
authority
of
all
the
Clergy
of
England
,
I
meane
M.
Thomas
Rogers
in
his
booke
intytled
;
The
faith
,
doctrine
,
and
religion
professed
,
and
protected
in
the
realme
of
England
&c.
wherein
he
setteth
downe
39.
Articles
agreed
vpon
by
the
whole
Clergy
,
and
analised
by
him
into
propositions
,
with
a
discouery
,
and
confutation
(
as
he
pretendeth
)
of
all
those
that
haue
at
any
tyme
contradicted
the
said
articles
;
and
all
this
he
saith
was
perused
,
The
testimony
of
all
the
English
Clergy
against
M.
Andrews
.
and
by
the
lawfull
authority
of
the
Church
of
England
allowed
to
be
publike
;
So
that
this
is
a
witnes
of
sufficient
credit
,
if
ther
be
any
credit
to
be
giuen
to
the
Church
,
and
Clergy
of
England
,
yea
to
M.
Andrewes
himselfe
,
who
is
a
principall
member
thereof
,
and
therefore
by
all
lykelyhood
gaue
his
suffrage
to
the
approbation
of
M.
Rogers
his
booke
.
Thom.
Rogers
Artic.
37.
propos
.
2.
p.
206.
79.
This
man
hauing
set
downe
the
37.
Article
,
and
the
second
proposition
(
which
concerneth
his
Maiesties
Ecclesiasticall
Supremacy
)
produceth
only
two
sorts
of
aduersaries
to
that
Article
,
to
wit
,
the
Papists
and
the
Puritans
,
and
sayth
of
the
later
thus
:
False
it
is
which
the
Puritans
do
hold
,
namely
that
[
](A00916-e108030-b)(f)
(f)
T.
C.
●●p
.
p.
144.
Princes
must
be
seruants
to
the
Church
,
be
subiect
to
the
Church
,
submit
themselues
to
the
Church
,
&
throw
downe
their
Crowns
before
the
Church
;
That
[
](A00916-e108060-b)(g)
(g)
Ecc.
dis.
p.
185.
Magistrats
as
well
as
other
men
must
submit
them selues
,
and
be
obedient
to
the
iust
&
lawfull
authority
of
the
Church
,
that
is
,
of
[
](A00916-e108090-b)(h)
(h)
Lear.
disc.
p.
89.
the
Presbitery
.
Quis
tandem
Reges
,
&
Principes
,
who
can
exempt
euen
Kings
and
Princes
from
this
,
non
humana
,
sed
diuina
dominatione
,
not
humane
but
diuine
domination
(
meaning
the
Presbitery
saith
,
[
](A00916-e108120-b)(i)
(i)
Beza
d●
presb
.
p.
124.
Beza
,
which
[
](A00916-e108150-b)(k)
(k)
Lear.
disc.
p.
84.
presbitery
they
would
haue
to
be
in
euery
parish
,
quotquot
Ecclesiae
Christi
,
as
many
as
be
members
of
Christ
,
and
of
the
Church
,
they
must
subiect
themselues
to
the
consistorian
discipline
,
non
hic
excipitur
Episcopus
,
aut
Imperator
,
neyther
Bishop
,
or
Emperour
is
excepted
heere
.
Thus
sayth
M.
Rogers
,
Tho.
Rogers
.
p.
208.
§.
penult.
concerning
the
doctrine
of
the
Puritans
,
and
addeth
further
also
in
the
next
leafe
,
that
if
the
King
be
not
included
in
the
number
of
Pastors
,
Elders
,
Deacons
,
and
Widdowes
,
he
cannot
possibly
haue
any
thing
to
doe
in
Church-affaires
in
these
mens
opinions
,
meaning
the
Puritans
.
80.
All
this
wrote
M.
Thomas
Rogers
touching
the
doctrine
of
the
Puritans
not
past
fiue
yeares
agoe
,
for
his
booke
was
printed
in
Cambridge
by
Iohn
Legat
in
the
yeare
of
our
Lord
1607.
If
then
the
Puritans
were
so
lately
(
as
fiue
yeares
agoe
,
of
the
opinion
that
M.
Barlow
,
and
M.
Rogers
report
,
which
is
the
same
that
the
Cardinall
affirmeth
)
eyther
let
M.
Andrews
tell
vs
precisely
in
what
bookes
,
or
sermons
since
that
tyme
they
haue
recalled
this
errour
,
or
els
if
he
will
needs
say
that
they
did
it
before
,
I
will
turne
him
to
these
two
for
answere
,
not
doubting
but
they
are
able
to
giue
him
full
satisfaction
therein
,
especially
M.
Rogers
,
who
hath
pawned
the
credit
of
all
the
English
Clergy
for
the
truth
of
his
testimony
.
M.
Andrewes
his
immodesty
in
reuyling
the
Cardinall
most
iniuriously
.
And
in
the
meane
tyme
I
will
desire
thee
,
good
Reader
,
to
consider
,
whether
M.
Andrews
could
haue
any
iust
cause
,
or
pretence
to
reuile
the
Cardinall
,
and
call
him
lyar
,
and
dotard
as
he
doth
,
for
affirming
a
matter
belonging
to
our
Country
,
which
he
findeth
expressely
testified
by
the
greatest
superintendent
of
our
English
Clergy
,
besids
other
sufficient
reasons
mouing
him
thereto
.
81.
For
put
the
case
it
were
true
(
as
it
is
most
false
)
that
the
Puritans
haue
of
late
recanted
their
errour
(
as
M.
Andrews
tearmeth
it
)
yet
the
same
hauing
neuer
byn
hitherto
so
published
that
strangers
can
take
notice
thereof
,
hath
M.
Andrew●
any
reason
in
the
world
to
reprehend
and
reuyle
any
stranger
for
not
acknowledging
it
,
being
but
a
matter
of
fact
,
which
he
neyther
knoweth
,
nor
is
bound
to
know
?
Truly
,
albeit
M.
Andrews
be
of
a
most
intemperate
tongue
,
and
malignant
disposition
towards
Catholykes
(
as
hath
appeared
diuers
wayes
)
yet
I
verily
think
that
if
the
weakenes
of
his
cause
had
not
forced
him
to
braue
,
and
face
it
out
with
rayling
for
lack
of
reason
to
defend
it
,
he
would
not
in
this
case
haue
byn
so
immoderate
in
contumelies
,
and
reproaches
towards
the
Cardinall
,
as
he
hath
byn
without
any
cause
giuen
of
his
part
.
But
heerin
he
concurreth
so
well
with
his
companion
M.
Barlow
,
that
it
appeareth
euidently
they
are
both
guided
by
one
spirit
.
To
conclude
this
point
concerning
the
Puritans
,
wheras
M.
Andrews
saith
that
they
haue
of
late
acknowledged
their
error
touching
the
Kings
supremacy
,
I
will
in
the
next
Chapter
[
](A00916-e108490-b)(d)
(d)
Chap.
10.
nu.
61.
&
sequent
.
make
it
euident
,
that
not
they
,
but
hee
(
if
he
be
an
English
Protestant
)
may
be
sayd
to
haue
acknowledged
his
error
,
and
that
he
is
turned
Puritan
in
that
point
,
admitting
the
Kings
Ecclesiasticall
supremacy
no
otherwise
,
but
so
,
as
they
may
safely
grant
it
without
change
of
opinion
,
yea
subscribe
,
or
sweare
to
it
in
the
same
sense
that
he
teacheth
it
(
and
so
perhaps
such
of
them
do
as
take
the
Oath
of
supremacy
:
Andr.
p.
15.
§.
verum
.
)
and
this
I
say
,
I
make
no
doubt
to
proue
clearely
in
the
next
Chapter
,
quod
scio
punget
Doctorem
,
as
he
sayd
once
of
the
Cardinall
.
82.
To
these
examples
of
his
egregious
impudency
in
this
kind
,
I
may
well
adde
one
,
or
two
other
examples
of
his
impudent
assertion
of
notable
lyes
without
allegation
of
authour
,
or
witnesse
;
as
when
he
chargeth
certayne
Iesuits
to
haue
affirmed
,
or
(
as
it
seemeth
)
to
haue
written
,
that
they
committed
no
sinne
abannis
,
An
impudent
lye
of
M.
Andrews
touching
certayne
Iesuits
.
saith
he
,
nescio
quot
,
I
know
not
for
how
many
yeares
togeather
;
which
I
dare
boldly
affirme
to
be
a
monstrous
lye
,
I
meane
;
that
any
Iesuit
hath
so
written
,
or
sayd
eyther
of
himselfe
,
or
any
other
man
;
for
although
I
make
no
doubt
but
that
many
Iesuits
,
and
other
good
men
both
Religious
,
and
secular
by
the
help
of
Gods
grace
,
doe
liue
free
from
all
mortall
sinnes
(
that
is
to
say
such
sinnes
as
do
vtterly
depriue
men
of
Gods
fauour
,
&
grace
,
and
deserue
eternall
damnation
)
yet
I
am
well
assured
,
that
no
Catholyke
will
say
,
that
any
man
liueth
free
from
all
sinnes
(
such
I
meane
as
are
called
veniall
)
which
could
not
be
sayd
of
the
Apostles
themselues
,
as
S.
Iohn
testifieth
,
1.
Iohn
1.
saying
,
si
dixerimus
quod
peccatum
non
habemus
&c.
Yf
we
say
that
we
haue
no
sinne
,
we
seduce
our selues
,
and
truth
is
not
in
vs
;
and
to
the
same
purpose
also
the
Scripture
sayth
els
where
,
Prouerb
.
24.
Septies
in
die
cadet
iustus
&c.
The
iust
man
shall
fall
seauen
tymes
a
day
,
and
shall
ryse
againe
.
83.
And
this
is
so
knowne
,
and
firmely
belieued
of
all
Catholykes
,
that
it
is
incredible
that
any
one
who
professeth
the
Catholyke
Religion
should
affirme
of
any
man
(
and
much
lesse
be
so
vayne
to
say
of
him selfe
)
that
he
committed
no
sinne
for
some
yeares
;
&
therefore
M.
Andrewes
must
not
thinke
it
strange
if
we
take
this
for
an
egregious
lye
,
vntill
he
produce
some
other
authour
,
or
witnes
then
himselfe
,
as
I
doubt
not
but
he
would
haue
done
,
if
he
had
any
worth
the
naming
,
or
els
had
not
(
perhaps
)
forgot
his
name
,
as
well
as
the
number
of
yeares
in
which
those
Iesuits
committed
no
sinne
,
for
so
it
appeareth
by
his
ab
annis
,
nescio
quot
;
whereby
we
may
see
what
substantiall
tales
he
telleth
vs
,
seeing
he
writeth
,
eyther
he
knoweth
not
,
or
at
least
he
careth
not
what
.
84.
The
lyke
I
say
also
of
another
matter
auowed
by
him
with
more
particularities
,
Another
egregious
lye
of
M.
Andrews
concerning
a
Iesuit
in
prison
.
and
circumstances
,
to
wit
,
that
a
Iesuit
being
in
Prison
at
the
same
tyme
when
he
wrote
,
confessed
vpon
his
owne
accord
without
all
compulsion
,
feare
,
or
examination
,
(
moued
merely
with
remorse
of
conscience
)
that
the
Popesent
to
England
3.
Buls
of
excommunication
to
be
kept
in
readines
,
and
published
in
three
seuerall
parts
of
the
realme
vpon
the
execution
of
the
powder-plot
,
wherevpon
he
inferreth
that
the
Pope
must
needs
be
priuy
vnto
the
sayd
plot
.
But
for
as
much
as
I
assure
my selfe
,
and
know
right
well
,
that
no
such
Buls
,
as
he
mentioneth
were
euer
made
,
I
do
not
only
deny
the
inference
of
the
Popes
knowledge
of
the
powder-plot
,
but
also
may
iustly
charge
M.
Andrews
to
haue
faygned
the
whole
matter
himselfe
,
vntill
he
name
the
Iesuit
,
who
confessed
it
,
yea
,
and
procure
him
also
to
giue
publyke
testimony
of
it
,
which
by
all
lykelyhood
would
haue
byn
done
long
ere
this
,
if
any
secular
Priest
,
Iesuit
,
or
other
Catholyke
man
(
of
any
credit
,
or
reputation
amongst
Catholykes
)
had
confessed
,
and
acknowledged
any
such
matter
,
especially
in
such
manner
as
he
hath
declared
.
85.
Besydes
,
that
it
is
not
vnknowne
what
Iesuits
haue
bin
in
prison
of
late
yeares
,
or
were
when
he
wrote
,
whereby
also
it
may
easily
be
iudged
by
such
as
know
them
,
how
vnlykely
it
is
,
that
any
of
them
would
(
vpon
pretence
to
discharge
his
conscience
)
charge
,
and
stayne
it
with
such
a
horrible
forgery
as
this
is
.
Neyther
are
we
ignorant
of
the
common
practise
of
M.
Andrews
,
and
his
fellow-ministers
to
calumniate
,
and
slaunder
such
Catholike
Priests
,
and
Iesuits
,
as
they
haue
vnder
lock
and
key
in
close
prison
;
whereof
sufficient
experience
was
seene
when
F.
Garnet
was
in
the
tower
,
of
whome
a
hundreth
false
bruits
were
spread
,
not
only
ouer
all
England
,
but
also
in
forrein
countries
,
yea
ouer
all
christendome
.
And
albeit
he
sufficiently
purged
,
and
cleared
himselfe
at
his
death
of
all
the
slanderous
imputatious
,
yet
M.
Andrews
is
not
ashamed
still
to
auow
some
of
them
;
Andr.
ca.
15.
pag.
342.
lin.
5.6
.
&
7.
as
that
he
acknowledged
by
writing
dyuers
tymes
vnder
his
owne
hand
,
and
thryse
publykly
at
his
death
,
that
he
had
vnderstood
of
the
powder-treason
out
of
confession
;
whereas
he
publykely
protested
the
contrary
:
F.
Garnet
impudently
belyed
by
M.
Andrews
.
for
being
greately
vrged
to
confesse
,
and
acknowledge
that
he
heard
it
out
of
confession
,
he
flatly
denyed
it
,
repeating
thryse
,
neuer
,
neuer
,
neuer
;
and
wheareas
he
was
charged
to
haue
already
acknowledged
it
vnder
his
hand
,
he
also
denyed
it
,
bidding
his
accusers
shew
it
if
they
could
;
and
of
all
this
I
am
well
assured
by
the
relation
of
credible
persons
,
who
were
there
present
,
and
especially
of
an
honorable
Gentleman
,
who
stood
so
nere
him
that
he
heard
euery
word
he
sayd
,
and
hath
vpon
his
credit
,
and
conscience
affirmed
it
vnto
me
.
In
so
much
that
I
dare
boldly
appeale
for
the
truth
of
this
matter
,
to
the
consciences
,
and
knowledge
of
all
those
that
were
within
the
hearing
of
him
;
whome
I
also
beseech
to
consider
what
credit
is
to
be
giuen
to
M.
Andrews
his
report
of
the
other
thing
touching
the
Iesuit
in
prison
(
which
passed
in
secret
)
seeing
he
is
so
shameles
to
lye
concerning
a
publyk
matter
,
wherein
he
may
be
disproued
by
some
hundreths
of
witnesses
.
86.
But
it
is
not
to
be
wondered
that
he
speaketh
his
pleasure
of
F.
Garnet
,
and
other
Iesuits
,
whome
he
professeth
to
hate
,
seeing
he
vseth
(
as
you
haue
heard
)
to
bely
the
ancient
Fathers
,
whom
he
pretendeth
to
loue
and
honour
,
for
he
that
belieth
those
whome
he
supposeth
to
be
his
friends
,
will
care
litle
what
he
saith
of
such
as
he
holdeth
for
enemies
.
And
this
shall
suffice
for
this
matter
,
and
Chapter
,
wherein
I
doubt
not
,
but
it
euidently
appeareth
that
M.
Andrews
will
not
yield
a
iote
to
M.
Barlow
for
all
kind
of
cosenages
,
lyes
,
and
fraudulent
deuises
to
couer
the
nakednes
,
and
pouerty
of
his
cause
.
THAT
Mr.
ANDREWS
OVERTHROWETH
HIS
owne
cause
,
and
fortifieth
ours
,
granting
many
important
points
of
Catholike
Religion
.
THAT
he
is
turned
Puritan
in
the
point
of
the
Kings
Ecclesiasticall
Supremacy
,
and
betrayeth
his
Maiesties
cause
vnder
hand
,
pretending
to
defend
it
:
&
therfore
is
neyther
good
English
Protestant
,
nor
yet
good
Subiect
.
LASTLY
what
is
the
opinion
of
learned
Strangers
concerning
him
,
and
his
Booke
:
with
a
good
aduise
for
a
friendly
farewell
CHAP.
X.
NOw
ther
resteth
only
one
point
to
be
handled
which
is
of
farre
different
quality
from
the
former
.
For
thou
mayst
remember
,
good
Reader
,
that
amongst
many
things
which
I
censured
and
reproued
in
M.
Barlow
,
See
Sup.
c.
8.
nu.
I
greatly
allowed
and
approued
one
which
is
ordinary
in
him
,
to
wit
,
that
he
doth
very
often
ouerthrow
his
owne
cause
,
and
fortifie
ours
,
which
truly
is
no
lesse
but
rather
more
ordinarie
in
M.
Andrews
,
as
it
may
appeare
by
many
examples
which
partly
haue
already
occurred
in
this
Adioynder
,
and
partly
may
be
noted
throughout
his
whole
worke
.
In
the
first
Chapter
I
shewed
how
he
confirmed
(
though
against
his
will
)
the
Catholick
doctrine
concerning
the
Primacy
of
the
Pope
,
by
the
allegation
of
certaine
places
of
S.
Augustin
[
](A00916-e109300-b)(a)
(a)
See
Cap.
1.
nu.
3.4.5.22
.
&
23.
and
S.
Cyril
,
and
of
a
place
of
Deuteronomy
concerninge
[
](A00916-e109360-b)(b)
(b)
Ibidem
nu.
19.
Iosue
,
as
also
of
a
fact
of
[
](A00916-e109390-b)(c)
(c)
Ibid.
nu.
44.45.46.47.48
.
&
sequent
.
Iustinian
the
Emperour
against
Syluerius
the
Pope
.
2.
In
the
second
Chapter
the
same
is
also
euident
in
his
allegation
of
the
28
[
](A00916-e109450-b)(d)
(d)
Chap.
2.
nu.
4
&
seq.
vsque
ad
nu.
11.
Item
nu.
64.65
.
&
66.
Canon
of
the
Councell
of
Chalcedon
which
he
seriously
and
mightily
vrgeth
against
the
supremacie
of
the
Romane
Sea
,
though
it
doth
clearly
proue
the
same
.
In
the
third
Chapter
the
lyke
occurreth
in
certaine
places
of
S.
[
](A00916-e109530-b)(f)
(f)
Chap.
3.
nu.
13.14
.
&
15.
Cyprian
and
S.
[
](A00916-e109590-b)(g)
(g)
Ibid.
nu.
30.37
.
&
sequent
.
Hierome
,
by
occasion
whereof
he
is
forced
to
graunt
as
much
in
effect
as
we
teach
concerning
the
supreme
authority
of
the
Pope
.
In
the
fourth
[
](A00916-e109630-b)(h)
(h)
Chap.
4.
nu.
21.
&
seq.
ad
nu.
31.
Chapter
the
discouery
of
certaine
[
](A00916-e109670-b)(k)
(k)
Ibid.
nu.
34.35
.
&
seq
.
notable
lyes
,
and
corruptions
of
his
,
doth
euidently
proue
the
cleane
contrary
to
that
which
he
falsely
auoweth
,
concerning
the
Roman
Sea
.
And
lastly
in
the
last
Chapter
you
may
remember
a
place
of
[
](A00916-e109710-b)(l)
(l)
Chap.
6.
nu.
21.22
&
sequent
.
vsque
ad
nu.
27.
S.
Hierome
concerning
the
Adoration
of
Reliques
,
which
being
truely
layd
downe
with
the
circumstances
doth
soundly
confirme
the
Catholike
doctrine
,
which
he
sought
to
impugne
therby
;
wherof
,
as
also
of
all
the
former
examples
,
I
forbeare
to
lay
downe
the
perticulars
,
because
thou
mayst
(
good
Reader
)
eyther
call
them
to
mind
,
or
at
least
easily
find
them
out
by
the
quotations
of
the
Chapters
and
numbers
in
the
margent
,
whereto
I
remit
thee
,
and
will
now
add
thereto
some
other
examples
in
the
same
kinde
.
3.
Whereby
it
will
appeare
that
howsoeuer
M.
Barlow
may
in
other
poynts
before
mentioned
goe
beyond
M.
Andrews
:
yet
in
this
he
commeth
farre
behynd
him
.
M.
Andrews
tryeth
how
neere
he
can
goe
to
Catholike
Religion
and
misse
it
For
you
are
to
consider
that
M.
Andrews
seeinge
euidently
that
the
Protestants
religion
cannot
be
defended
with
any
probabilitie
in
the
rigour
of
the
first
groundes
thereof
layed
by
Luther
,
Caluin
and
others
,
taketh
a
new
course
;
which
is
to
see
how
neere
he
can
goe
to
the
Catholyke
Religion
and
misse
it
,
perswading
himselfe
that
he
shall
be
the
more
able
in
that
manner
to
answere
our
obiections
,
and
find
alwaies
some
occasion
or
other
which
how
litle
soeuer
it
be
,
seemeth
to
him
sufficient
:
for
he
maketh
account
that
he
shall
allwayes
be
a
Protestant
good
enough
,
if
he
be
not
a
Catholike
;
wherein
neuertheles
it
befalleth
him
as
it
doth
to
the
fly
that
playeth
with
the
flame
,
comming
now
and
then
so
nere
it
,
that
she
burneth
her
winges
,
and
falleth
into
it
,
whereof
you
shall
see
sufficient
experience
in
this
Chapter
.
4.
It
appeareth
[
](A00916-e109890-b)(a)
(a)
Cap.
●
.
nu.
7.
&
8.
before
that
he
admitteth
the
adoration
not
only
of
our
Sauiour
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
of
the
Eucharist
,
but
also
of
the
Sacrament
togeather
with
Christ
,
Andr.
ca●
8.
p.
195.
§.
In
adorati●one
.
for
as
he
denieth
with
vs
the
adoration
of
the
bare
Sacrament
,
that
is
to
say
,
the
exteriour
formes
of
bread
and
wyne
without
the
presence
of
our
Sauiour
Christ
,
whome
he
calleth
(
and
that
very
well
rem
Sacramenti
,
Ibidem
.
the
thing
of
the
Sacrament
)
so
also
he
acknowledgeth
that
Christ
is
to
be
adored
in
,
&
cum
Sacramento
,
in
,
and
with
the
Sacrament
;
as
being
there
verè
presens
,
&
verè
adorandus
,
truly
present
and
truly
to
be
adored
(
for
so
he
saith
)
and
sheweth
also
afterward
how
the
Sacrament
may
be
adored
togeather
with
Christ
.
Ibidem
p.
201.
lin.
8.
For
treating
of
the
same
matter
,
he
alleadgeth
S.
Augustine
teaching
how
the
humanitie
of
Christ
may
be
adored
,
and
how
not
.
Ipsa
humanitas
,
Ibidem
.
saith
he
,
vt
disputat
,
Augustinus
non
nuda
vel
sola
adoranda
est
&c.
The
very
humanitie
of
Christ
,
is
not
to
be
adored
naked
,
or
alone
by
it selfe
but
with
the
diuinity
,
as
the
Kings
Royall
Robe
,
not
when
it
lyeth
by
it selfe
,
but
when
the
King
is
vested
or
clad
,
with
it
.
How
the
Sacrament
(
that
is
to
say
the
exteriour
formes
of
bread
and
wyne
)
may
be
adored
according
to
M.
Andrews
.
So
he
5.
And
then
he
addeth
also
further
out
of
S.
Augustine
concerning
the
flesh
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
,
&
cùm
vel
illam
adoras
,
ait
,
ne
cogitatione
remaneas
in
carne
&c.
And
when
thou
adorest
that
(
flesh
)
doe
not
(
sayth
Augustine
)
rest
with
thy
cogitation
in
the
flesh
,
wherby
thou
shalt
not
be
quickned
with
the
spirit
,
for
the
spirit
,
sayth
he
,
quickneth
,
or
giueth
lyfe
,
the
flesh
profiteth
nothing
,
thus
saith
M.
Andrews
out
of
S.
Augustine
,
explicating
notably
how
the
very
Sacrament
(
that
is
to
say
the
exteriour
formes
of
bread
&
wyne
)
may
be
adored
,
to
wit
,
together
with
the
person
of
Christ
which
it
conteineth
:
for
as
the
humanity
,
or
flesh
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
may
be
adored
because
it
is
ioyned
with
the
Diuinity
,
so
also
the
Sacrament
conteyning
Christ
truely
and
really
present
,
may
be
adored
togeather
with
him
,
as
the
Kings
royall
Robe
(
saith
M.
Andrews
)
may
be
togeather
with
the
Kings
person
,
though
not
without
it
;
so
that
in
this
point
you
see
he
teacheth
the
very
same
that
we
do
,
concerning
the
adoration
of
the
blessed
Sacrament
,
though
Caluin
[
](A00916-e110390-b)(b)
(b)
Caluin
li.
4.
Instit.
c.
17.
§.
35.
&
all
the
Sacramentaries
with
[
](A00916-e110430-b)(c)
(c)
Melanch
.
in
Iudicio
suo
de
Coena
Dom.
ed
an
.
1559.
Melancthon
,
[
](A00916-e110460-b)(d)
(d)
Illyric
.
in
confes
.
Antuerp
.
&
Apolog.
ca.
14.
See
Bellar.
de
Euchar.
li.
4.
c.
29.
Illyricus
and
diuers
other
Lutherans
do
hold
it
for
Idolatry
,
and
so
I
am
sure
it
hath
bene
commonly
held
by
the
Protestants
of
England
heretofore
,
as
it
appeareth
in
the
39.
Articles
agreed
vpon
by
the
whole
English
Clergy
,
and
set
forth
by
M.
Thomas
[
](A00916-e110560-b)(e)
(e)
Tho.
Rogers
art
:
28.
propos
.
5.
p
176.
&
177.
Rogers
in
his
booke
intituled
the
Faith
,
Doctrine
,
and
Religion
professed
and
protected
in
the
Realme
of
England
&c.
Thus
much
for
this
point
and
now
let
vs
passe
to
another
.
Luther
.
li.
de
libert.
Christia
.
&
in
asser
.
ar.
2.31.32
.
&
36.
Caluin
l.
3.
Instit.
ca.
14.
§.
9.
&
in
Antido
.
Concil.
sess.
6.
ca.
11.
Melancth.
in
locis
con.
an
.
1521.
tit
.
de
peccatis
.
See
Bellar.
de
Iustif.
li.
4.
ca.
10.
&
li.
5.
ca.
1.
6.
No
man
I
thinke
that
vnderstandeth
the
matter●
in
controuersie
betwixt
our
aduersaries
and
vs
,
is
ignorant
what
is
their
opinion
concerning
the
reward
of
good
workes
,
as
that
Luther
,
Caluin
,
and
most
of
their
followers
are
so
farre
from
houlding
them
to
be
meritorious
of
eternall
reward
,
that
they
teach
,
the
best
workes
of
the
iustest
man
to
be
mortall
sinnes
,
&
to
deserue
eternall
damnation
,
though
they
say
they
are
reputed
as
iust
for
the
merits
of
C●rist
:
and
those
who
seeme
to
haue
the
most
fauorable
opinion
of
good
workes
,
doe
teach
,
that
howsoeuer
they
may
haue
some
reward
euen
in
the
next
lyfe
,
yet
they
cannot
merit
eternall
Saluation
,
because
the
same
is
merited
for
vs
by
Christ
,
and
apprehended
by
only
faith
.
But
M.
Andrewes
goeth
much
further
,
&
commeth
indeed
so
neere
the
Catholike
doctrine
that
he
acknowledgeth
it
.
For
although
he
take
some
exceptions
to
merit
,
yet
he
vnderstandeth
it
otherwise
then
we
doe
,
and
so
in
effect
doth
not
deny
or
impugne
that
which
we
teach
concerning
the
same
,
notwithstanding
his
vayne
cauils
,
See
chap.
6.
nu
45.46.47.48
.
&
sequent
.
and
malicious
interpretation
of
our
doctrine
,
whereof
I
haue
already
touched
some
particulers
in
the
last
Chapter
.
7.
Therefore
it
is
to
be
vnderstood
,
that
he
granteth
,
and
teacheth
expressely
,
that
eternall
reward
shall
be
giuen
to
good
workes
,
albeit
he
doe
it
with
this
restriction
,
Andr.
ca.
7.
p.
165.
§.
Reddi
.
non
ex
pondere
humani
meriti
,
sed
ex
vi
promissi
diuini
,
not
by
the
weight
of
mans
merit
,
but
by
the
force
of
Gods
promise
,
whereof
grace
is
the
foundation
,
by
the
which
,
saith
he
,
our
mercifull
Sauiour
hath
promised
mercedem
plenam
operi
non
pleno
,
mercedem
encomion
operi
horario
,
a
full
hire
to
a
scant
or
vnperfect
worke
,
a
daies
wages
to
an
howers
worke
.
Math.
20.
So
he
,
alluding
,
no
doubt
,
to
the
Parable
of
the
Gospell
of
the
workmen
,
who
hauing
laboured
in
the
vineyard
,
Hieron
.
li.
2.
in
Iouin
.
Aug.
li.
de
Sancta
virgin
.
c.
26.
Gregor.
Moral
.
li.
4.
ca.
31.
See
also
the
Commentaryes
vpon
ca.
20.
Math.
Andr.
vbi
supra
.
some
a
whole
day
,
and
some
but
an
houre
,
had
neuerthelesse
all
of
them
equall
pay
,
to
wit
the
penny
promised
for
the
dayes
work
,
which
penny
the
Fathers
vnderstand
to
signify
eternall
Saluation
promised
for
our
labour
in
Gods
seruice
during
our
lyfe
,
and
so
doth
M.
Andrews
,
no
doubt
,
vnderstand
it
,
who
proceedeth
thus
,
And
that
which
he
promised
of
his
me●re
grace
,
and
goodnes
,
he
rendreth
by
Iustice
;
for
he
should
not
be
iust
except
he
should
stand
to
his
promise
.
Wee
may
say
(
to
God
)
with
conuenient
humility
,
giue
me
the
reward
which
thou
hast
promised
,
but
I
thinke
wee
cannot
say
,
giue
me
that
which
I
haue
deserued
,
or
that
which
thou
owest
me
for
my
merit
;
for
setting
aside
the
promise
of
God
,
there
is
not
any
sufficient
tytle
for
the
which
,
Valent.
8.9.4
.
God
ought
to
recompence
such
a
worke
with
eternall
lyfe
.
Thus
saith
M.
Andrews
.
8.
Wherein
although
he
exclude
all
consideration
of
merit
from
the
reward
of
works
,
M.
Andrews
granteth
the
merit
of
good
workes
by
consequence
.
neuertheles
granting
,
as
he
doth
,
the
reward
to
be
due
by
the
force
of
Gods
promise
,
he
granteth
in
effect
as
much
as
we
desire
.
To
which
purpose
,
I
wish
two
thinges
to
be
noted
in
this
his
discourse
,
the
one
,
that
he
speaketh
clearly
of
eternall
reward
and
lyfe
euerlasting
,
acknowledging
the
same
to
be
due
to
good
workes
by
the
force
of
Christs
promise
;
the
other
that
the
merit
which
he
impugneth
,
is
only
such
as
excludeth
the
consideration
of
Gods
promise
,
as
it
appeareth
by
the
reason
which
he
giueth
out
of
Gregory
de
Valentia
,
to
wit
,
Andr.
vbi
supra
.
because
setting
aside
the
promise
of
God
,
there
is
not
any
sufficient
tytle
or
cause
why
God
is
bound
to
reward
good
workes
with
lyfe
euerlasting
.
This
then
being
the
reason
why
he
excludeth
merit
,
it
is
cleare
that
he
doth
not
exclude
the
merit
whereof
we
speake
,
nor
conclude
any
thing
against
vs
,
but
rather
argueth
for
vs
;
for
we
are
so
farre
from
reiecting
the
consideration
of
Gods
promise
from
our
merit
,
that
we
graunt
the
merit
of
euerlasting
lyfe
especially
thereupon
.
9.
For
albeit
we
teach
,
that
the
grace
of
God
doth
giue
a
great
dignity
and
valour
to
the
worke
,
and
therefore
concurreth
to
the
merit
thereof
,
yet
we
teach
withall
,
that
the
same
were
not
sufficient
for
the
merit
of
eternall
saluation
,
The
consideration
of
Gods
promise
for
the
merits
of
Christ
necessarily
included
in
the
consideration
of
our
merit
.
if
God
had
not
promised
it
for
the
merits
of
our
Sauiours
passion
(
which
is
the
ground
of
all
mans
merit
)
&
therfore
almighty
God
hauing
couenanted
and
bargayned
with
vs
to
giue
such
a
reward
for
such
a
worke
,
yea
&
assisting
vs
with
his
grace
to
doe
the
worke
,
hath
not
only
made
himselfe
our
debter
,
if
we
doe
it
,
but
also
maketh
vs
able
to
merit
the
reward
promised
.
I
say
merit
,
though
M.
Andrewes
doth
not
admit
the
word
,
who
neuertheles
doth
acknowledge
it
sufficiently
when
he
saith
,
that
God
hath
promised
,
and
will
render
mercedem
diariam
operi
horario
,
Reward
&
merit
are
correlatiues
,
&
cannot
be
,
but
in
respect
of
one
another
.
the
dayes
wages
to
an
howers
worke
,
for
merces
&
meritum
,
reward
and
merit
are
correlatiues
,
and
cannot
be
the
one
,
but
in
respect
of
the
other
,
for
reward
is
neuer
due
but
to
him
that
doth
merit
or
deserue
it
,
and
he
only
that
meriteth
may
iustly
clayme
reward
.
And
therefore
the
Apostle
saith
expressely
,
●i
qui
operatur
mer●●s
imputatur
,
non
secundum
gratiam
,
sed
secundum
debitum
:
to
him
that
worketh
the
reward
is
imputed
,
not
according
to
Grace
,
but
according
to
debt
.
M.
Andrewes
acknowledging
the
reward
of
the
work
granteth
the
merit
of
the
worke
,
&
the
worker
.
10.
So
as
M.
Andrews
acknowledging
that
God
hath
promised
,
and
doth
render
mercedem
operi
,
a
r●ward
to
the
worke
,
doth
consequently
acknowledge
meritum
operis
,
&
operantis
,
the
merit
both
of
your
worke
,
and
of
the
worker
;
for
,
dignus
est
operarius
mercede
sua
,
(
saith
our
Sauiour
)
the
workman
is
worthy
of
his
wages
,
that
is
to
say
,
he
meriteth
or
deserueth
it
.
In
which
respect
also
the
Apostle
saith
,
Vnusquisque
mercedem
accipiet
secundum
laborem
suum
,
Euery
one
shall
receiue
reward
according
to
his
labour
,
that
is
to
say
,
as
his
labour
deserueth
,
or
as
he
meriteth
for
his
labour
.
And
a●beit
almightie
God
of
his
infinite
bounty
hath
promised
greater
rewardes
then
our
workes
do
in
rigour
of
Iustice
merit
,
●
.
Reg.
18.
The
question
of
the
reward
,
&
merit
of
good
works
explicated
by
an
example
of
king
Dauid
.
yet
the
couenant
,
and
promise
being
made
,
he
that
doth
the
workes
,
doth
iustly
merit
the
rewardes
.
As
for
example
,
King
Saul
promised
to
giue
his
daughter
Mich●l
to
Dauid
in
mariage
,
y●
he
brought
him
a
hundred
prepaces
of
the
Philistines
,
and
albeit
Dauid
thought
himselfe
vnworthy
to
marry
the
Kinges
daughter
(
saying
that
he
was
a
poore
man
,
and
of
s●●al
ability
)
yet
when
he
had
performed
the
condition
,
he
claymed
performance
of
the
Couenant
,
and
had
her
to
wyfe
;
and
afterwards
when
she
was
taken
from
him
by
Saul
,
&
giuen
to
Phaltiel
,
he
required
her
againe
(
after
Sauls
death
)
not
only
because
she
was
his
wyfe
,
but
also
because
he
had
bargayned
for
her
,
and
got
her
by
Couenant
,
●
.
Reg.
3.
quam
despondi
mihi
,
saith
he
,
centum
praeputijs
Philistinorum
;
whome
I
betrothed
vnto
me
,
with
a
hundred
prepuces
of
the
Philistines
,
as
who
should
say
,
that
it
was
reason
he
should
haue
her
,
because
he
had
deserued
her
.
11.
And
much
more
truly
may
the
lyke
be
said
of
the
good
workes
of
iust
men
,
The
dignity
of
Gods
grace
increaseth
the
valew
of
merit
.
proceeding
from
Gods
grace
,
which
workes
besids
the
couenant
and
promise
of
reward
,
are
enobled
also
,
and
dignified
by
grace
,
and
so
made
not
only
acceptable
vnto
God
,
but
also
much
more
worthy
of
the
reward
promised
,
then
any
moral
workes
could
be
,
though
God
should
promise
to
reward
them
eternally●
so
that
the
dignity
of
Gods
grace
concurring
in
the
good
worke
,
with
Gods
promise
of
reward
,
maketh
the
same
truly
meritorious
,
be
the
worke
neuer
so
smal
,
and
the
reward
promised
neuer
so
great
;
and
therefore
whosoeuer
doth
for
the
pure
loue
of
God
,
forsake
his
lands
,
or
parents
,
or
wyfe
,
he
meriteth
that
great
reward
which
our
Sauiour
promised
,
to
wit
[
](A00916-e111580-b)(a)
(a)
Math.
19.
Mar.
10.
Luc.
19.
Magdeburg
.
ca.
4.
Caluin
.
l.
3.
Inst.
c.
15.
§.
2.
&
seq.
See
Bellar.
lib.
●●
de
●us●if
.
c.
1.2.3.4
.
&
seq
.
Centuplum
&c.
an
hundreth
fold
in
this
world
,
and
lyfe
euerlasting
in
the
other
.
And
in
this
sense
do
all
the
Fathers
teach
the
merit
of
workes
so
expressely
,
that
not
only
the
Magdeburgenses
,
but
also
Caluin
taketh
exceptions
to
them
all
,
for
vsing
the
word
merit
so
frequently
as
they
do
,
which
indeed
is
most
euident
in
theyr
wrorkes
,
and
may
be
seene
by
innumerable
places
of
the
sayd
Fathers
alledged
by
Cardinall
Bellarmine
and
others
,
to
proue
the
merit
of
good
workes
;
which
I
pretermit
,
for
that
my
meaning
is
not
here
so
much
to
proue
or
confirme
our
doctrine
in
this
poynt
,
as
somewhat
to
explicate
it
,
vpon
this
occasion
offered
.
12.
Andr.
vbi
supra
.
This
then
being
the
constant
doctrine
of
Catholiks
,
it
appeareth
how
idle
is
M.
Andrews
his
distinction
,
in
his
Conclusion
,
to
wit
,
reddendum
cuique
secundum
opera
,
sed
ex
vi
promissi
,
non
valore
meriti
.
Euery
one
is
to
rewarded
according
to
his
workes
,
but
by
the
force
of
the
promise
,
M.
Andrews
maketh
an
ydle
distinction
,
and
why●
and
not
by
the
valour
of
the
merit
.
This
distinction
,
I
say
,
is
very
impertinent
for
two
causes
,
the
one
,
for
that
it
excludeth
the
effect
by
the
cause
,
that
is
to
say
,
the
merit
by
the
promise
of
reward
,
from
whence
the
said
merit
groweth
:
for
albeit
we
add
thereto
another
consideration
,
to
wit
the
dignitie
of
Gods
grace
,
increasing
the
valour
of
the
merit
,
yet
the
same
followeth
also
vpon
the
promise
,
because
God
hath
promised
to
reward
eternally
such
workes
only
as
proceed
from
his
grace
,
and
are
dignified
thereby
,
and
consequently
made
the
more
meritorious
,
in
which
respect
we
allwayes
say
with
S.
Augustine
,
S.
Aug.
ep.
105.
that
omne
bonum
meritum
nostrum
non
facit
in
nobis
nisi
gratia
,
nothing
but
grace
doth
cause
in
vs
all
our
good
merit
,
and
cùm
Deus
coronat
merita
nostra
,
nihil
aliud
coronat
nisi
munera
sua
,
When
God
doth
crowne
our
merits
,
M.
Andrews
cannot
deny
,
that
the
dignity
of
Gods
grace
increaseth
the
valour
of
merit
,
except
he
will
take
part
with
the
Pelagians
.
he
doth
crowne
nothing
els
but
his
owne
guifts
.
And
truly
I
cannot
see
how
M.
Andrewes
can
deny
that
grace
increaseth
the
valour
of
the
merit
,
except
he
will
take
part
with
Pelagius
the
heretike
,
and
impugne
the
dignity
of
Gods
grace
,
so
as
he
must
needes
graunt
that
the
worthines
of
grace
being
added
to
the
force
of
Gods
promise
,
doth
make
the
worke
more
worthie
of
reward
.
The
other
cause
why
I
say
the
distinction
is
ydle
(
or
rather
M.
Andrews
for
making
it
)
is
because
he
maketh
the
same
to
confute
the
Cardinall
,
as
if
the
Cardinall
did
exclude
the
Consideration
of
Gods
promise
from
the
reward
of
workes
,
whereof
he
might
see
the
contrary
in
the
Cardinalls
controuersies
,
Bellar.
de
Iustifi●
.
lib.
5.
c.
14.
where
he
debated
the
question
at
large
,
and
substantially
proueth
the
necessity
of
Gods
promise
to
make
a
worke
meritorious
,
and
therefore
wheras
M.
Andrews
seeketh
also
to
proue
the
same
by
[
](A00916-e112060-b)(*)
(*)
Greg.
de
valen.
de
effec
.
grat
.
disput.
8.
quaest.
16.
punct.
4.
Gregorius
de
Valentia
whom
he
alledgeth
to
that
purpose
(
as
if
he
would
confute
the
Cardinall
by
one
of
his
owne
profession
)
he
is
,
as
I
haue
said
,
very
impertinent
therin
,
labouring
to
proue
that
which
the
Cardinall
denyeth
not
,
but
expressely
teacheth
.
So
as
,
you
see
still
M.
Andrewes
doth
nothing
els
but
idly
beate
the
aire
,
and
fight
with
his
owne
shaddow
,
impugning
only
his
owne
conceit
,
and
in
the
rest
granting
our
doctrine
concerning
the
reward
and
merit
of
good
workes
.
Thus
much
for
this
point
.
13.
Amongst
the
examples
which
I
gaue
in
the
last
[
](A00916-e112160-b)(b)
(b)
Cap.
6.
nu.
10.
Chapter
of
his
changing
the
state
of
the
question
,
one
was
concerning
the
veneration
of
reliques
,
for
that
he
will
[
](A00916-e112190-b)(c)
(c)
Andr.
ca.
1.1.47.48.49
.
&
50.
needes
suppose
that
we
do
worship
reliques
with
deuine
adoration
,
and
honour
;
and
therefore
[
](A00916-e112240-b)(d)
(d)
Ibid.
p.
50.
§
Necesse
habet
.
he
impugneth
,
and
derideth
the
Cardinals
distinction
,
of
dyuers
kinds
of
adoration
,
[
](A00916-e112280-b)(e)
(e)
See
before
Ca.
6.
nu.
11.
Apoc.
19.
&
22.
labouring
to
proue
that
adoration
is
not
to
be
taken
otherwayes
,
then
for
deuine
honour
;
but
in
this
I
haue
sufficiently
shewed
his
ignorance
and
absurdity
,
and
haue
also
proued
[
](A00916-e112330-b)(f)
(f)
Ibid.
from
nu.
10.
to
nu.
31.
that
we
do
not
honor
and
worship
reliques
with
diuine
adoration
,
but
with
a
Religious
worship
due
to
holy
men
,
or
holy
things
for
the
honor
and
loue
of
God
:
in
which
point
it
seemeth
M.
Andrews
agreeth
fully
with
vs
,
confessing
that
the
dead
bodyes
and
reliques
of
holy
Martyrs
,
and
Saynts
(
which
are
truely
knowne
to
be
such
)
are
to
be
honoured
,
Greg.
Nys
.
in
orat
.
in
S.
Theodor.
Card.
ca.
1.
p.
13.
and
kept
with
reuerence
,
and
therefore
answering
to
a
place
of
S.
Gregory
Nyssen
,
alledged
by
the
Cardinall
,
he
alloweth
that
the
body
of
a
Martyr
,
Andr.
ca.
1.
p.
48.
§.
Nyssen
.
si
veri
Martyris
verum
corpus
,
if
it
be
the
true
body
of
a
true
Martyr
,
is
to
be
adorned
,
and
decked
with
honour
,
&
in
Augusto
,
Sacratoque
loco
poni
,
Praefat.
Monitor
.
pag.
43.
and
to
be
placed
in
a
Maiesticall
and
Sacred
place
:
yea
and
he
confirmeth
it
with
the
authoritie
of
his
Maiesty
,
saying
,
Idem
hoc
vult
,
&
Rex
honorifico
loco
solemniter
inferri
.
The
King
also
will
haue
the
same
to
be
solemnly
carried
into
an
honorable
place
.
14.
And
afterwards
answering
to
a
place
of
S.
Ambrose
which
the
Cardinall
obiecteth
,
he
saith
that
wheras
Ambrose
will
haue
vs
to
honor
the
body
of
the
dead
Martyr
,
S.
Ambros.
ser.
14.
de
Sanct.
Card.
vbi
supra
p.
15.
Andr.
vbi
supra
.
§.
Honorare
.
and
the
seed
of
eternity
in
him
,
Facimus
,
saith
he
,
non
illibenter
,
wee
doe
it
willingly
,
&
then
addeth
:
Quid
porrò
quaerit
?
sed
pallium
breue
est
,
hon●s
non
pertingit
ad
adorationem
.
What
doth
he
desire
more
?
but
the
cloake
is
too
short
,
honour
doth
not
reach
to
adoration
.
So
he
.
Meaning
by
adoration
,
diuine
honor
,
which
we
graunt
him
;
for
we
say
also
that
the
honor
due
to
Reliques
,
doth
not
extend
it selfe
to
a
diuine
adoration
,
&
therefore
we
desire
no
more
of
him
then
that
he
do
a
religious
honor
and
worship
therto
;
for
such
is
the
honour
wherof
S.
Ambrose
speaketh
,
because
it
is
due
,
and
exhibited
to
Saynts
for
the
honour
and
loue
of
God
whose
seruants
they
are
,
S.
Hieron
.
vbi
supra
.
quin
seruorum
honos
,
saith
S.
Hierome
,
redundat
ad
Dominum
,
the
honor
of
the
seruants
redoundeth
to
their
Lord
.
In
which
respect
the
same
holy
Father
signifieth
that
all
the
adoration
which
was
done
to
the
Reliques
of
the
Prophet
Samuel
(
when
they
were
transported
with
great
solemnity
and
honour
from
Palestine
to
Constantinople
)
was
not
done
so
much
to
Samuel
as
to
Christ
,
whose
Leuite
&
Prophet
Samuel
was
,
as
I
haue
signified
more
at
large
in
the
last
[
](A00916-e112800-b)(k)
(k)
See
ca.
9.
nu.
25.
Chapter
15.
Whereby
it
appeareth
that
the
honor
done
to
the
seruants
of
Christ
for
Christs
sake
only
(
and
not
for
any
ciuil
and
temporall
respect
)
must
needes
be
a
religious
honour
:
such
I
meane
,
as
I
haue
declared
in
the
last
[
](A00916-e112860-b)(m)
(m)
Ibidem
nu
.
14.15
Chapter
to
haue
bin
often
exhibited
in
the
holy
Scripture
to
Angells
,
and
holy
men
with
the
terme
of
adoration
,
and
with
the
exhibition
of
a
Corporall
reuerence
,
which
may
be
more
or
lesse
according
to
the
deuotion
of
the
exhibitours
thereof
,
so
that
it
be
in
their
mind
and
intention
distinguished
from
diuine
honour
due
to
God
alone
,
in
which
intention
consisteth
the
true
difference
and
distinction
of
diuine
,
religious
,
and
ciuil
adoration
,
as
I
haue
also
declared
before
in
the
last
[
](A00916-e112910-b)(n)
(n)
Ibidem
Chapter
.
So
as
M.
Andrews
confessing
an
honor
to
be
due
to
holy
Reliques
,
cannot
with
reason
exclude
from
the
same
any
Corporall
reuerence
,
so
that
the
intention
be
to
doe
only
a
religious
and
not
diuine
worship
;
As
he
must
needs
also
acknowledge
the
lyke
in
ciuil
adoration
and
honor
done
to
Princes
and
great
personages
.
16.
For
whereas
the
same
is
diuersly
performed
,
somtymes
by
putting
of
the
cap
,
sometymes
by
bowing
the
body
,
and
somtymes
by
kneeling
,
and
other
whiles
also
by
prostration
vpon
the
ground
(
which
maner
of
ciuill
adoration
is
often
mentioned
in
the
old
testament
,
and
was
vsed
in
tymes
past
amongst
the
Persians
to
their
Kinges
)
there
is
no
doubt
,
but
that
as
all
these
may
lawfully
be
vsed
when
the
intention
is
no
other
but
to
do
a
Ciuill
honor
thereby
,
so
also
the
least
of
them
were
vnlawfull
,
yea
Idolatry
,
if
the
intention
of
the
doer
were
to
giue
thereby
a
diuine
honor
to
any
man
:
and
the
lyke
,
I
say
must
needes
be
graunted
,
concerning
the
externe
honor
due
to
the
holy
Reliques
of
Saints
,
which
how
great
it
was
in
the
tyme
of
S.
Ambrose
,
S.
Hierome
,
S.
Hieron
.
aduers.
Vigilant
.
and
S.
Augustine
we
may
vnderstand
by
the
custome
then
vsuall
to
kisse
them
for
deuotion
sake
;
and
to
carry
them
about
in
procession
(
as
we
now
terme
it
)
with
great
solemnity
and
reuerence
;
which
appeareth
not
only
in
S.
Hierome
,
who
seuerely
reprehended
Vigilantius
for
carping
at
the
same
(
as
I
haue
signified
in
the
last
[
](A00916-e113080-b)(g)
(g)
Cap.
6.
nu
22.23.24
.
&
25.
Chapter
)
but
also
by
the
testimony
of
S.
[
](A00916-e113130-b)(h)
(h)
S.
Aug
de
ciuit
.
Dei
l.
22.
ca.
8.
Augustine
,
who
recounteth
diuerse
Miracles
done
by
reliques
while
they
were
so
carried
by
Bishops
;
as
namely
that
Lucillus
the
Bishop
was
himselfe
cured
of
a
fistula
carrying
a
certaine
relique
of
S.
Stephen
,
populo
praecedente
&
sequente
,
the
people
going
before
him
,
and
following
him
;
and
that
a
blind
woman
being
brought
to
the
Bishop
Proiectus
,
as
he
carried
Sacra
pignora
(
so
termeth
he
the
holy
Reliques
of
S.
Stephen
)
was
restored
to
her
sight
by
applying
to
her
eyes
certayne
flowers
which
had
touched
them
.
17.
Such
was
the
honour
that
Catholike
people
bare
to
holy
Reliques
in
those
dayes
,
that
they
sought
either
to
touch
them
,
or
to
haue
some
thing
that
had
touched
them
,
or
bene
neere
about
them
;
whereby
diuers
great
Miracles
were
done
,
Idem
ibid.
yea
dead
men
reuiued
,
as
S.
Augustine
testifieth
in
the
same
place
by
diuers
examples
which
he
relateth
,
and
therefore
I
leaue
it
to
the
Iudgment
of
any
reasonable
man
how
great
the
deuotion
,
and
the
religious
honour
was
which
then
was
vsuall
in
the
Church
,
and
allowed
by
these
Fathers
to
be
done
to
the
reliques
of
Saints
,
especially
seeing
that
the
same
was
also
approued
,
and
confirmed
from
heauen
by
innumerable
Miracles
;
which
M.
Andrewes
himselfe
granteth
,
saying
,
Augustino
assentimur
&c.
we
grant
with
Augustin
that
the
body
of
the
Protomartyr
was
conueniently
,
Andr.
vbi
supra
.
p.
5.
or
duely
to
be
honored
,
after
that
it
pleased
god
to
worke
certaine
Miracles
thereat
.
M.
Andrewes
granteth
that
Miracles
were
donne
at
the
reliques
of
Martyres
in
S.
Augustins
time
So
he
;
wherein
besides
the
graunt
of
due
honour
to
be
done
to
holy
reliques
(
whereof
now
I
speake
)
I
wish
also
to
be
noted
,
that
he
graunteth
that
Miracles
were
done
in
Gods
Church
in
S.
Augustins
tyme
,
which
most
of
the
Sectaries
of
these
daies
haue
hitherto
denyed
,
affirming
that
Miracles
ceassed
after
the
tyme
of
the
Apostles
,
which
they
are
forced
to
say
because
we
exact
of
them
to
shew
Miracles
in
their
Church
as
an
vndoubted
signe
of
the
true
Church
;
shewing
on
our
part
the
continuance
thereof
in
our
Church
from
the
Apostles
to
this
day
,
whereof
sufficient
experience
hath
bene
seene
in
euery
age
,
Many
notable
miracles
lately
done
at
Valentia
in
Spayne
.
and
euen
now
lately
by
innumerable
cures
of
all
sorts
of
diseases
,
at
Sichem
in
Flanders
,
at
Minich
in
Bauiere
,
in
diuerse
partes
of
Italy
,
and
at
this
present
at
Valentia
in
Spaine
,
at
the
body
of
a
holy
Preist
who
dyed
in
April
last
,
all
so
publick
and
so
sufficiently
testified
to
the
world
,
that
impudencie
it selfe
cannot
deny
the
truth
thereof
.
18.
So
that
seeing
M.
Andrewes
graunteth
that
Miracles
were
done
in
the
Church
of
God
,
for
4.
hundreth
yeares
,
and
we
can
proue
the
continuance
thereof
in
our
Church
vntill
this
day
,
either
he
must
shew
vs
in
what
age
they
ceassed
after
S.
Augustines
time
,
and
why
then
rather
then
before
,
yea
and
proue
also
that
all
the
miracles
done
in
the
Catholike
Church
euer
since
,
haue
bene
diabolicall
illusions
;
or
els
he
must
confesse
,
that
the
Protestants
Church
is
not
the
true
Church
,
No
Miracles
done
in
the
protestants
Church
.
seeing
that
they
haue
not
hitherto
had
so
much
as
a
lame
or
sickd
og
healed
in
all
their
Congregations
by
the
vertue
of
any
of
their
profession
dead
or
aliue
,
notwithstanding
their
liuely
and
strong
faith
whereof
they
are
wont
so
much
to
vaunt
.
And
this
I
say
the
rather
,
because
I
find
that
M.
Andrewes
is
verie
silent
about
this
point
,
euen
when
the
Cardinall
giueth
him
sufficient
cause
to
speake
thereof
,
who
answering
an
obiection
of
the
Apology
for
the
Oath
concerning
witchcraft
imputed
to
Catholikes
(
because
they
quench
fire
with
Agnus
Deis
)
sayth
[
](A00916-e113560-b)(a)
(a)
Card.
c.
1●
.
p.
116.
§.
R●spondeo
.
:
Respondeo
miracula
diuina
&c.
I
answere
that
diuine
Miracles
are
seene
only
amongst
the
Catholikes
;
and
M.
[
](A00916-e113620-b)(b)
(b)
Andr.
ca.
12.
p.
283.
§.
Veneficia
.
Andrewes
comming
to
answere
that
paragraph
which
beginneth
with
those
words
,
left
them
out
wholly
,
and
setteth
downe
the
next
wordes
following
for
the
beginning
of
the
Cardinalls
text
in
that
place
,
perhaps
he
lakt
[
](A00916-e113680-b)(c)
(c)
Idem
praefat
ad
Lector
.
paper
and
place
for
them
,
or
tooke
them
for
words
quae
abesse
poterant
,
which
might
well
be
spared
;
for
such
as
you
may
remember
[
](A00916-e113720-b)(d)
(d)
See
before
chap.
●
.
nu.
31.
he
sayd
he
would
leaue
out
sometimes
.
19.
But
to
conclude
concerning
holy
Reliques
,
it
appeareth
sufficiently
hereby
that
M.
Andrewes
graunteth
as
much
concerning
them
as
we
desire
,
to
wit
,
that
they
are
to
be
decked
,
and
adorned
,
layd
vp
with
honour
and
solemnitie
,
reserued
and
kept
in
honourable
and
holy
places
,
and
finally
that
they
are
to
be
honored
,
yea
and
that
God
doth
somtimes
worke
Miracles
by
them
(
which
he
cannot
deny
to
be
a
notable
and
diuine
confirmation
of
the
honour
that
is
done
vnto
them
)
and
therefore
for
as
much
as
the
honour
that
he
graunteth
to
be
due
vnto
them
,
is
neither
diuine
honour
(
which
both
he
and
we
conclude
in
this
case
)
nor
ciuill
honour
,
(
seeing
it
is
not
done
for
any
temporall
or
ciuill
respect
,
but
proceedeth
out
of
deuotion
,
and
tendeth
directly
to
the
honour
of
God
)
he
must
needs
graunt
it
to
be
a
religious
honour
,
and
that
the
same
may
be
exhibited
with
much
more
externall
worship
and
reuerence
then
the
ciuill
honour
or
worship
,
which
is
due
to
any
Prince
:
yea
so
much
more
,
as
respect
of
deuotion
and
Religion
surpasseth
and
excelleth
temporall
and
ciuil
respects
:
so
that
if
ciuill
honour
do
require
corporall
reuerence
with
cap
and
knee
,
bowing
and
prostrating
of
the
body
,
much
more
doth
the
Religious
honour
due
to
Saints
,
and
their
Reliques
require
the
same
.
Thus
much
for
this
point
.
20.
Whereas
the
Cardinall
hauing
occasion
to
speak
of
Monks
,
Card.
c.
12.
p.
157.
§.
d●
multitudine
.
and
Religious
women
,
he
saith
,
that
their
Institute
cannot
be
reprehended
,
except
we
reprehend
all
the
Fathers
of
the
first
500.
yeares
,
M.
Andrews
granteth
it
to
be
true
,
Andr.
c.
12.
p.
284.
§.
nec
instituta●
for
he
saith
that
his
Maiesty
meant
not
to
reprehend
the
Institute
of
Monks
,
but
the
Monkes
themselues
,
because
they
haue
long
since
gone
from
their
Instituts
or
rule
,
being
degenerated
into
Locusts
,
apud
quos
,
saith
he
,
desidia
nimium
verè
,
nimium
saepe
in
luxuriam
despumauit
,
whose
Idlenes
,
or
sloath
hath
too
truly
,
and
too
oft
turned
to
a
very
foame
,
or
froath
of
luxurious
and
licentious
life
.
So
he
,
and
then
he
addeth
,
that
because
their
Institute
was
not
of
the
diuine
law
,
but
only
of
the
positiue
,
and
now
gone
in
merum
abusum
,
into
a
meere
abuse
,
therfore
it
is
worthily
antiquated
,
or
abolished
amongst
the
Protestants
;
wherin
that
which
I
wish
especially
to
be
noted
,
is
,
that
he
approueth
the
first
Institute
of
Monks
,
and
consequently
must
needs
approue
diuers
important
pointes
of
Catholike
doctrine
,
and
vtterly
condemne
his
owne
Religion
.
21.
For
it
is
most
euident
that
the
first
Institut
and
discipline
of
Religious
life
,
In
what
consisted
the
religious
disciplin
of
the
ancient
Monks
.
consisted
principally
,
as
still
it
doth
,
in
the
obseruation
of
the
Euangelicall
Counsells
of
our
Sauiour
,
to
wit
,
of
voluntary
pouety
,
Chastity
,
and
obedience
,
abnegation
of
a
mans
selfe
,
and
Chastisment
of
his
flesh
,
by
fasting
,
Pennance
,
wearing
of
hairecloath
,
disciplines
,
&
diuers
other
Mortifications
as
it
is
manifest
partly
in
the
Monasterial
discipline
obserued
by
the
first
Monkes
in
the
Apostles
time
,
and
related
by
Philo
[
](A00916-e114320-b)(a)
(a)
de
vita
.
contemp
.
●
the
Iew
,
(
as
Eusebus
[
](A00916-e114360-b)(b)
(b)
Eccles.
hist.
l.
2.
c.
16.
,
S.
Hi●rome
[
](A00916-e114400-b)(c)
(c)
de
Scriptor
.
Eccles.
in
Phil.
Epiphanius
[
](A00916-e114430-b)d)
d)
de
haeres
.
l.
1.
haer.
29.
S.
Bede
[
](A00916-e114470-b)(e)
(e)
in
Prologo
super
Matth.
Sozomen
[
](A00916-e114500-b)(f)
(f)
l.
1.
c.
12.
and
Nicephorus
[
](A00916-e114540-b)(g)
(g)
l.
2.
c.
16.
do
testify
)
and
partly
in
the
Monasticall
constitutions
which
are
to
be
seene
expresly
set
downe
in
S.
Basill
[
](A00916-e114580-b)(h)
(h)
in
constit
.
Mon●st
&
regul.
breuior
.
Item
de
institut.
Monach.
and
often
touched
and
mentioned
by
Cassianus
[
](A00916-e114610-b)(i)
(i)
de
institut.
renuntiant
.
Palladius
[
](A00916-e114640-b)(k)
(k)
Histor.
Lausia
.
Theodoretus
[
](A00916-e114670-b)(l)
(l)
Histor.
religios
.
Ioannes
Climacus
[
](A00916-e114700-b)(m)
(m)
in
scala
paradisi
.
,
Seuerus
Suspitius
[
](A00916-e114730-b)(n)
(n)
Vita
Sancti
Martini
.
S.
Augustine
[
](A00916-e114760-b)(o)
(o)
de
moribus
Eccl.
ca.
3●
.
S.
Hierome
[
](A00916-e114790-b)(p)
(p)
ad
Marcellam
vt
commig
.
Beethlem
.
S.
Dionys.
Eccles.
Hierar
.
ca.
10.
S.
Basil.
and
other
Fathers
of
the
first
400.
yeares
,
to
omit
S.
Benets
Rules
yet
extant
which
were
made
in
the
age
following
.
So
that
M.
Andrewes
approuing
the
Institutes
of
the
old
Monks
,
alloweth
the
practise
of
all
that
Catholicke
doctrine
before
mentioned
,
which
other
Sectaries
of
this
time
haue
hitherto
condemned
,
derided
and
abhorred
,
as
repugnant
to
the
liberty
of
their
Ghospell
and
their
owne
sensuality
.
22.
Besides
that
,
he
also
approueth
thereby
workes
of
supererogation
,
(
such
I
mean
as
are
not
commanded
,
but
counselled
and
left
to
our
owne
free
choice
)
and
consequently
he
granteth
the
difference
betwixt
a
Counsell
,
&
a
Precept
,
contrary
to
the
doctrin
of
Luther
Caluin
,
and
other
Sectaries
.
Finally
he
alloweth
vowes
of
Pouertie
,
Chastity
,
and
Obedience
which
are
,
and
alwaies
haue
bene
as
it
were
,
the
link
and
band
of
Monasticall
and
Religious
profession
,
as
it
appeareth
euidently
in
the
ancient
Fathers
,
as
in
Dionysius
S.
Paules
disciple
,
who
testifieth
that
those
who
were
made
Monkes
in
his
time
(
which
was
the
tyme
of
the
Apostles
)
made
a
solemne
promise
and
couenant
before
the
Altar
to
renounce
the
world
,
and
imbrace
the
Monasticall
lyfe
.
And
S.
Basil
writing
to
a
Monke
that
was
fallen
,
Ep.
1.
ad
Monach.
lapsum
in
fine
.
&
in
ep.
ad
Virgin
.
laps
.
Idem
.
reg.
14.
fusius
explic
.
S.
Aug.
in
psal.
75.
ante
finem
.
putteth
him
in
mynd
of
his
couenant
made
with
God
,
and
pr●fessed
coram
multis
testibus
,
before
many
witnesses
:
and
in
his
Monasticall
rules
signifieth
that
he
which
hath
vowed
himself
to
God
in
this
Religious
profession
,
and
passeth
afterward
to
another
state
of
life
,
sacrilegij
se
scelere
obstringit
,
is
guilty
of
Sacriledg
,
because
he
hath
,
saith
he
,
as
it
were
stolne
himselfe
from
God
,
to
whome
he
had
dedicated
and
consecrated
himselfe
.
23.
Also
S.
Augustine
saith
to
the
same
purpose
,
Nemo
potiùs
in
Monasterio
frater
dicat
&c.
Let
no
brother
or
religious
man
that
is
in
a
monasterie
,
say
,
I
will
leaue
and
forsake
it
,
or
that
it
is
not
to
be
thought
,
that
only
those
shall
be
saued
who
liue
in
Monasteries
,
or
that
others
which
liue
abroad
,
do
not
pertaine
to
god
,
for
to
him
that
should
say
so
,
it
is
to
be
answered
,
illi
non
vouerunt
,
tu
vouisti
.
They
haue
not
vowed
,
but
thou
hast
vowed
.
So
he
.
Finally
Ioannes
Cassianus
who
liued
also
in
the
same
tyme
,
treating
of
the
perfection
of
Religious
men
,
and
hauing
said
,
that
inestimable
glory
in
heauen
,
is
promised
them
yf
they
keep
their
Rules
,
and
most
grieuous
paines
prepared
for
them
if
they
neglect
them
,
concludeth
,
Meliusest
enim
&c.
For
it
is
better
according
to
the
sentence
of
the
Scripture
not
to
vow
,
then
to
vow
and
not
to
performe
it
.
Thus
saith
Cassianus
,
to
whome
I
might
add
many
other
witnesses
,
Ioan
Cass.
de
Iustit
.
renūti
.
li
4.
c.
13.
but
that
it
is
needlesse
,
seing
these
may
suffice
to
shew
M.
Andrews
allowing
as
he
doth
the
Instituts
of
the
Monks
of
the
primitiue
Church
must
needes
admit
,
&
allow
religious
vowes
of
Pouerty
,
Chastity
,
&
Obedience
,
whereto
all
Religious
men
are
,
and
euer
haue
bene
bound
by
their
Institutes
.
24.
So
as
it
is
cleare
by
all
this
,
that
in
this
one
point
he
hath
graunted
diuers
important
points
of
Catholike
religion
,
yea
and
vtterly
condemned
his
owne
,
which
denyeth
and
impugneth
all
those
things
practised
in
Monasticall
lyfe
,
according
to
the
first
Institutes
thereof
.
Besides
that
it
also
followeth
theron
,
that
his
religion
is
vtterly
voyd
of
all
christian
perfection
,
which
specially
consisteth
in
the
true
imitation
of
Christs
lyfe
,
by
the
obseruation
of
the
Euangelicall
Counsells
professed
and
practised
in
Religious
discipline
;
for
which
cause
all
the
Ancient
Fathers
placed
the
highest
perfection
of
christian
Religion
therein
,
as
I
haue
euidently
shewed
in
any
Supplement
by
the
clear
testimonies
of
S.
Dionysius
Areopagita
,
See
supl.
c.
7.
nu.
59.
&
60.
Eusebius
,
S.
Gregory
Nazianzen
,
S.
Basil
,
S.
Chrisostome
,
S.
Hierome
,
S.
Augustin
,
Sozomenus
,
&
S.
Bernard
.
25.
Therefore
it
litle
importeth
for
the
matter
in
hand
what
he
iangleth
against
Monkes
:
for
put
the
case
it
were
true
that
they
were
all
degenerated
from
their
first
institute
(
as
it
is
most
false
,
and
affirmed
by
him
without
any
proofe
,
and
therfore
to
be
answered
with
a
bare
deniall
)
yet
it
suffiseth
for
the
proofe
of
that
which
I
haue
heere
vndertaken
,
M.
Andrews
approuing
the
first
institute
of
monks
approueth
many
important
points
of
Catholke
Religion
.
that
the
sayd
institut
consisted
in
the
practise
of
many
notable
,
and
important
points
of
Catholike
religion
,
and
that
he
hath
by
an
euident
consequent
granted
,
and
approued
the
said
points
,
together
with
the
institut
against
the
current
of
the
doctrine
,
and
profession
of
all
his
fellowes
;
in
which
respect
I
shall
not
need
to
trouble
thee
,
good
Reader
with
any
answere
to
the
rest
of
his
impertinent
discourse
,
and
namely
to
his
friuolous
stale
obiection
,
concerning
the
idlenes
of
Monkes
,
See
Card.
Bellar.
l.
de
.
monachis
.
c.
42
43.
&
seq
.
answered
fully
long
since
by
dyuers
Catholiks
,
and
namely
by
Cardinall
Bellarmine
in
his
Controuersies
,
whereto
I
remit
him
,
because
I
am
forced
to
hast
to
an
end
:
for
otherwise
truly
,
I
would
not
only
say
somewhat
therto
,
but
also
I
would
examine
,
and
debate
with
him
2.
or
3.
other
points
which
he
toucheth
,
and
especially
what
was
the
true
cause
,
why
monasticall
profession
was
first
abrogated
amongst
the
Protestants
,
and
why
they
pretending
to
reforme
the
Church
in
these
our
dayes
,
did
rather
quite
abolish
the
institute
of
Monks
,
them
seeke
to
restore
it
to
the
first
integrity
,
if
it
were
good
at
the
first
,
and
only
fallen
to
decay
,
and
corruption
,
as
he
signifieth
.
26.
For
whereas
he
seemeth
to
giue
two
causes
thereof
,
the
one
that
Monkes
were
growne
to
be
idle
,
and
the
other
,
that
their
idlenes
was
turned
to
licentiousnes
;
if
that
were
true
,
those
reformers
should
rather
haue
sought
to
redresse
the
abuse
,
and
to
reduce
the
Monkes
to
their
first
rules
,
then
to
antiquate
the
whole
Institute
,
which
being
grounded
vpon
the
holy
Scriptures
,
the
expresse
Counsels
of
our
Sauiour
,
and
the
example
of
his
lyfe
,
was
ordeyned
[
](A00916-e115550-b)(b)
(b)
See
Supplem
Chap
7.
n.
58
59.60
.
by
the
Apostles
(
as
I
haue
shewed
in
my
Supplement
)
and
doth
conteyn
in
it
all
true
Christian
perfection
according
to
the
opinion
of
all
the
Fathers
,
in
which
respect
it
could
not
by
any
humane
authority
be
lawfully
abrogated
,
and
taken
quite
out
of
the
Church
.
Besides
that
it
is
euident
that
the
Ringleaders
in
that
pretended
reformation
,
I
meane
Luther
,
Oecol●mpadius
,
Bucer
,
Peter
Martyr
,
Ochinus
,
Michonius
,
Menius
,
Musculus
,
Pelicanus
,
Pomeranus
,
and
Munsterus
,
being
all
of
them
Votaries
,
that
is
to
say
Monkes
,
Fryars
,
and
religious
men
,
abolished
the
Institutes
of
monasticall
lyfe
,
only
because
they
themselues
were
so
transported
with
the
fury
of
lust
,
and
sensuality
,
that
they
could
no
longer
indure
the
restraint
therof
in
religious
discipline
.
27.
And
therefore
they
resolued
not
only
to
teach
most
beastly
and
fleshly
doctrine
tending
to
all
liberty
of
the
flesh
(
as
that
,
it
[
](A00916-e115630-b)(a)
(a)
Luther
in
colloqu
.
Germa
.
c.
de
matrimo
.
is
no
more
possible
to
liue
chast
,
then
to
liue
without
meate
.
That
[
](A00916-e115660-b)(b)
(b)
Idem
.
to.
8.
de
matrimo
.
fol.
119.
if
the
wyfe
will
not
come
,
let
the
maid
come
.
That
Poligamy
or
the
hauing
of
many
wiues
at
once
,
is
[
](A00916-e115720-b)(c)
(c)
Idem
de
Bigamia
Episcop.
proposit
.
62.
Item
Ochinus
dialog.
l.
2.
dial
.
21.
See
Caluinoturcis
.
l.
2.
cap.
11.
not
forbidden
in
the
new
law
:
Yea
and
that
it
is
not
lawfull
for
a
man
to
[
](A00916-e115790-b)(d)
(d)
Bucer
in
cap.
1.
&
19.
Mat.
pray
for
the
guift
of
Chastity
,
except
he
surely
know
that
God
will
giue
it
him
:
)
They
resolued
I
say
not
only
to
teach
this
beastly
and
Mahometicall
doctrine
,
but
also
to
incite
men
therto
by
their
examples
,
euen
with
the
damnable
breach
of
their
owne
vowes
,
[
](A00916-e115840-b)(e)
(e)
1.
Tim.
●
.
habentes
damnationem
quia
primam
fidem
[
](A00916-e115870-b)(f)
(f)
Tertul.
lib.
de
monogam
.
c.
13.
S.
Epiphanius
lib.
2.
haeres.
61.
in
fine
.
S.
Chrysost.
hom.
19.
in
1.
Cor.
7.
&
in
1.
Tim.
8.
hom.
15.
S.
Aug.
in
Psal.
75.
Item
Concil.
Carthag.
4.
can.
104.
irritam
fecerunt
,
hauing
damnation
because
they
broke
their
first
faith
,
as
S.
Paul
said
of
the
yong
widdowes
,
who
after
their
vowes
of
chastity
,
had
but
only
a
wil
and
desire
to
marry
,
wheras
these
deformers
hauing
bound
themselues
both
to
Chastity
,
and
Monasticall
lyfe
by
solemne
vowe
,
abandoned
both
the
one
and
the
other
,
and
(
as
S.
[
](A00916-e116110-b)(g)
(g)
S.
Basil.
de
vera
virginitate
.
The
first
Euangelists
of
the
Protestants
Ghospell
,
were
the
true
Locusts
that
destroyed
religiou●
profession
and
perfection
.
Basil
saith
of
such
)
did
seek
to
couer
stupri
scelus
honesto
coniugij
nomine
,
the
wickednes
of
whordome
with
the
honest
name
of
Marriage
,
most
of
them
taking
harlots
vnder
the
name
of
wiues
.
28.
So
as
M.
Andrewes
may
see
who
were
indeed
those
Locusts
,
whose
slothfull
idlenes
turning
to
a
froath
of
licencious
lyfe
destroyed
monasticall
perfection
and
profession
amongst
the
Prostestants
,
to
wit
,
the
very
first
Apostles
,
and
Euangelists
of
their
Ghospell
,
I
meane
the
votaries
aboue
named
,
and
other
such
of
their
humour
,
and
crew
,
who
being
weary
of
the
seuerity
of
Monasticall
discipline
became
Apostata's
,
and
renegats
,
and
the
better
to
cloake
and
excuse
their
owne
Apostasy
,
not
only
sought
to
abrogate
all
monasticall
discipline
,
but
did
also
set
abroach
the
new
doctrine
which
M.
Andrewes
and
all
other
Protestants
now
professe
,
and
therefore
it
is
easie
to
iudg
what
good
fruit
such
bad
trees
could
yield
,
and
consequently
from
what
spirit
as
well
the
abrogation
of
monasticall
profession
amongst
the
Protestants
,
as
their
whole
doctrine
proceedeth
.
And
thus
much
for
this
point
.
29.
The
Cardinall
to
proue
that
the
name
Catholike
doth
most
properly
belong
to
them
that
liue
in
the
vnitie
,
and
obedience
of
the
Roman
Church
,
alleageth
S.
Ambrose
;
who
hauing
declared
that
his
brother
Satyrus
being
by
shipwrack
cast
vpon
a
coast
where
there
were
many
Schismatiks
called
Luciferians
,
That
the
name
Catholike
belongeth
only
to
the
Apostolike
Roman
Church
,
&
to
the
children
thereof
.
asked
the
Bishop
of
the
place
,
whether
he
did
agree
with
the
Catholike
Bishops
,
and
explicated
the
same
presently
saying
,
id
est
,
an
cum
Romana
Ecclesia
consentiret
,
that
is
to
say
,
whether
he
agreed
with
the
Roman
Church
,
whereto
M.
Andrewes
answereth
that
Ambrose
did
aske
the
Bishop
with
great
reason
whether
he
agreed
with
the
Roman
Church
,
sciebat
enim
Episcopum
tum
Romae
Catholicum
,
for
he
knew
that
the
Bishop
of
Rome
then
was
a
Catholike
.
So
he
;
wherin
he
granteth
consequently
that
the
Pope
is
supreme
and
vniuersall
Pastor
of
the
whole
Church
,
Andr.
c.
5.
pag.
125.
§.
Quod
affert
.
for
that
must
needes
follow
of
his
grant
;
seeing
it
is
euident
that
he
who
then
was
Bishop
of
Rome
,
and
whom
he
alloweth
for
Catholik
,
had
,
and
exercised
a
supreme
and
vniuersall
authority
;
to
which
purpose
it
is
to
be
considered
who
was
Bishop
of
Rome
at
that
time
;
wherto
M.
Andrewes
himselfe
giueth
vs
no
small
light
,
signifying
presently
after
,
that
Liberius
was
Bishop
a
litle
before
him
;
and
sure
it
is
,
that
Damasus
succeeded
Liberius
,
and
reygned
many
yeares
,
who
therefore
must
needes
be
the
Catholike
Bishop
that
M.
Andrewes
meaneth
.
30.
Now
then
what
authority
Damasus
had
,
and
exercised
during
his
raigne
,
it
appeareth
sufficiently
by
that
which
I
signified
before
concerning
him
and
his
supremacy
,
in
the
4.
[
](A00916-e116550-b)(a)
(a)
See
Chap.
4.
nu.
57.58
.
&
sequent
.
Chapter
,
where
I
shewed
that
the
same
was
acknowledged
not
only
in
Affrick
,
by
the
Byshops
of
3.
African
Synods
,
who
in
a
common
Epistle
to
him
,
gaue
cleare
and
euident
testimony
thereof
,
but
also
in
the
East
Church
,
euen
by
the
chief
Patriarkes
therof
,
to
wit
,
by
[
](A00916-e116620-b)(b)
(b)
Ibid.
nu.
61.
Peter
the
holy
Bishop
of
Alexandria
,
who
immediately
succeeded
Athanasius
and
being
expelled
from
his
Church
by
the
Arians
,
fled
to
Pope
Damasus
,
Magdeb.
cent.
4.
c.
10.
Socrat.
l.
4.
c.
30.
and
by
the
vertue
and
authority
of
his
letters
was
restored
to
his
seat
,
as
the
Magdeburgians
themselues
do
relate
,
out
of
the
Ecclesiasticall
histories
.
And
in
the
Church
of
Antioch
,
his
authority
was
acknowledged
by
Paulinus
Byshop
therof
,
receiuing
instructions
and
orders
from
him
,
[
](A00916-e116790-b)(c)
(c)
Cap.
4.
nu.
62.
for
the
absolution
of
Vitalis
the
Heritick
.
Also
afterwards
[
](A00916-e116830-b)(d)
(d)
Ibid.
nu.
63.
Theopilus
Byshop
of
Alexandria
,
and
S.
Chrysostome
Byshop
of
Constantinople
,
were
suters
to
him
to
obtain
pardon
for
Flauianus
Byshop
of
Antioch
,
as
may
be
seene
more
particulerly
in
the
fourth
Chapter
of
this
Adioynder
,
where
I
haue
also
set
downe
the
cleer
[
](A00916-e116910-b)(e)
(e)
Ibid.
nu
.
58.
&
59.
testimonies
of
some
Fathers
,
who
liued
at
the
same
time
,
and
euidently
acknowledged
his
supremacy
.
31.
So
that
M.
Andrewes
granting
that
Pope
Damasus
was
a
Catholike
Bishop
,
and
that
the
Church
of
Rome
was
in
such
integrity
vnder
him
,
that
S.
Ambrose
had
reason
to
hold
none
for
Catholickes
,
but
such
as
held
vnion
therewith
.
It
m●st
needs
follow
that
the
supreme
and
vniuersall
authority
,
which
Pope
Damasus
had
and
vsed
,
was
not
vsurped
,
but
due
to
him
,
&
his
Sea
,
and
consequently
to
his
successors
.
And
wheras
M.
Andrewes
signifieth
that
the
Roman
Church
,
and
Bishops
were
not
alwaies
in
the
like
integrity
,
that
they
were
at
that
time
,
to
wit
,
neither
a
little
before
in
the
time
of
Liberius
,
nor
shortly
after
in
the
time
of
Honorius
,
because
both
of
them
subscribed
to
heresy
,
(
as
he
saith
)
I
will
not
now
stand
to
debate
that
point
with
him
,
both
because
I
should
digresse
too
much
from
the
matter
in
hand
(
hauing
here
vndertaken
to
shew
what
he
granteth
in
fauour
of
Catholicks
,
&
not
to
disproue
what
he
denieth
or
affirmeth
otherwise
)
as
also
because
he
may
see
those
old
and
stale
obiections
fully
answered
by
the
Cardinall
himself
in
his
Controuersies
,
Bellar.
d●
Pont.
Rom.
l.
4.
ca.
8.
&
11.
not
only
concerning
those
two
Popes
,
but
also
touching
all
the
rest
,
whom
our
aduersaries
were
wont
to
calumniate
in
like
manner
,
and
therfore
I
remit
him
therto
.
32.
There
followeth
presently
after
a
large
and
liberall
grant
of
M.
Andrews
right
worth
the
noting
.
For
wheras
the
Cardinall
still
prosecuteth
the
same
matter
(
touching
the
application
of
the
name
Catholicke
to
the
Roman
Church
)
and
hauing
produced
the
precedent
authority
of
S.
Ambrose
remitteth
his
Reader
for
further
proofe
therof
,
to
the
last
page
of
his
[
](A00916-e117180-b)(a)
(a)
Idem
Resp.
ad
Apolog.
p.
vlt.
former
Booke
(
which
was
his
Answere
to
the
Apology
for
the
Oath
)
it
is
to
be
vnderstood
,
that
in
the
said
book
and
page
,
he
proueth
by
the
authority
of
3.
Ancient
Fathers
(
to
wit
[
](A00916-e117210-b)(b)
(b)
Pa●id
.
Ep.
ad
Sympronian
.
Pacianus
[
](A00916-e117240-b)(c)
(c)
S.
Ciril
Hier.
c.
18.
S.
Cyrill
and
[
](A00916-e117270-b)(d)
(d)
Aug.
in
lib
contra
ep.
Fundamen
.
cap.
●●
S.
Augustine
)
that
the
name
Catholike
is
a
most
true
and
proper
note
of
the
true
Church
,
and
that
it
could
neuer
be
vsurped
by
Hereticks
,
yea
and
that
our
aduersaries
themselues
(
namely
in
the
Apology
for
the
Oath
)
do
so
call
vs
,
Andr.
c.
5.
p.
125.
Nam
quae
.
and
distinguish
vs
from
themselues
by
that
name
,
and
do
consequently
acknowledge
vs
to
be
members
of
the
true
Church
,
whereto
M.
Andrews
answereth
thus
.
Nam
quae
in
extrema
pagina
&c.
For
as
for
those
things
which
the
Cardinall
wrote
in
the
last
page
of
his
former
booke
,
and
would
gladly
haue
his
Reader
to
see
,
fatemur
omnia
,
we
graunt
and
acknowledge
them
all
.
So
he
.
Whereby
he
granteth
that
we
being
called
Catholiks
,
euen
by
our
aduersaries
themselues
haue
the
true
signe
&
note
of
the
true
Church
,
and
are
therefore
true
members
thereof
,
and
that
he
and
his
fellowes
,
who
haue
not
the
same
note
are
Heretikes
or
Schismatiks
.
For
this
is
in
effect
the
Argument
of
the
Cardinall
,
grounded
vpon
the
authority
of
the
Fathers
aforesayd
,
which
(
you
see
)
M.
Andrews
graunteth
saying
,
fatemur
omnia
.
Andr.
vbi
supra
.
33.
And
albeit
he
seeketh
presently
an
euasion
,
by
a
distinction
,
yet
it
helpeth
him
nothing
,
for
thus
he
saith
.
Nec
de
nominis
honore
lis
vlla
,
sed
vtri
è
re
magis
nomen
habeant
,
M.
Andr.
his
distinction
helpeth
him
nothing
.
neyther
is
there
any
contention
(
betwixt
vs
)
about
the
honour
of
the
name
,
but
whether
of
both
haue
the
name
(
deriued
)
from
the
thing
.
So
he
,
allowing
vs
as
you
see
,
the
honor
of
the
name
(
for
the
which
he
saith
they
do
not
contend
with
vs
)
and
calling
in
question
only
to
whome
belongeth
the
thing
,
signified
by
that
name
,
whereas
neuertheles
it
is
euident
,
that
according
to
the
authorities
alledged
and
vrged
by
the
Cardinall
out
of
the
Fathers
,
the
name
and
the
thing
expressed
by
the
name
do
alwaies
so
concur
,
that
they
are
neuer
separated
;
for
which
cause
those
Fathers
do
hold
and
teach
,
that
the
very
name
,
and
word
Catholyke
is
an
euident
note
,
to
distinguish
the
true
Catholike
faith
and
Church
,
from
the
false
doctrine
and
Congregation
of
Heretickes
,
which
they
could
not
do
,
if
some
might
haue
only
the
name
Catholike
,
and
others
the
faith
,
or
Church
which
it
signifieth
.
34.
And
therefore
S.
Augustine
in
the
place
alledged
by
the
Cardinall
,
Aug.
vbi
supra
.
Item
de
vera
religione
c.
7.
saith
that
the
very
name
Catholike
held
him
in
the
Catholike
Church
:
quod
(
saith
he
)
non
sine
caus●
inter
tot
haereses
ista
Ecclesia
sola
obtinuit
,
which
name
this
Church
only
hath
obteyned
amongst
so
many
heresies
not
without
cause
.
So
saith
S.
Augustine
,
whereto
the
other
Fathers
,
which
the
Cardinall
also
cyteth
,
do
agree
,
all
teaching
that
heretikes
or
hereticall
congregations
neuer
did
or
could
vsurpe
the
name
Catholike
,
but
that
the
same
hath
alwayes
been
,
and
euer
shall
be
peculiar
to
the
true
Church
;
wherby
they
teach
euidently
that
the
name
,
and
the
thing
signified
by
the
name
do
euer
concur
.
So
as
M.
Andrews
granting
not
only
the
Fathers
doctrine
in
this
poynt
,
but
also
giuing
vs
freely
the
honour
of
the
name
,
alloweth
vs
to
haue
the
thing
expressed
by
the
name
,
and
so
in
conclusion
with
his
fatemur
omnia
,
he
acknowledgeth
vs
for
true
Catholiks
and
himselfe
,
and
his
fellowes
for
heretikes
,
Luc.
c.
19.
and
therefore
I
may
well
say
vnto
him
with
our
Sauiour
in
the
Ghospell
ex
ore
tuo
te
iudico
serue
nequam
.
35.
And
the
lyke
I
may
also
say
concerning
his
grant
in
another
matter
,
Andr.
c.
7.
pa.
168.
§.
Nam
de
nostr.
to
wit
,
that
our
Bishops
are
true
Bishops
,
and
that
the
Protestant
Bishops
of
England
had
their
ordination
from
ours
,
yea
from
3.
of
ours
(
for
so
he
giueth
to
vnderstand
)
whereupon
he
also
inferreth
,
that
he
and
his
fellow
Superintendents
haue
a
true
ordination
and
succession
from
the
Catholike
Church
,
whereas
the
quite
contrary
followeth
vpon
his
grant
,
for
if
our
Bishops
be
true
Bishops
(
as
hauing
a
true
succession
from
the
Apostles
)
and
that
the
protestant
Bishops
haue
no
other
lawfull
ordination
but
from
ours
,
two
consequents
do
directly
follow
thereon
,
the
one
;
that
we
haue
the
true
Church
and
doctrine
if
M.
Andrewes
his
fellow
and
friend
M.
Barlow
[
](A00916-e117850-b)(b)
(b)
Barl.
Ser.
an.
1606.
21.
Septemb.
say
true
,
who
in
his
famous
sermon
(
mentioned
by
me
[
](A00916-e117880-b)(c)
(c)
See
before
chap.
6.
nu.
77.
els
where
)
affirmeth
,
the
Successiue
propagation
of
Bishops
from
the
Apostles
,
to
be
the
mayne
roote
of
Christian
Society
(
according
to
S.
Augustine
)
and
the
mayne
proofe
of
Christian
doctrine
(
according
to
Tertullian
)
as
I
haue
shewed
amply
in
my
[
](A00916-e117960-b)(d)
(d)
See
Suppl
.
Chap.
4.
nu.
54.55
.
&
seq
.
Suplement
,
and
proued
thereby
that
M.
Barlow
,
and
his
fellowes
are
(
e
)
heretykes
and
Schismatikes
.
The
other
consequent
is
,
that
if
the
English
Protestant
Bishops
had
no
other
lawfull
ordination
then
from
the
Catholikes
,
they
had
none
at
all
;
for
that
at
the
change
of
religion
in
Queen
Elizabeths
tyme
,
they
were
not
ordayned
by
any
one
Catholyke
Bishop
and
much
lesse
by
three
(
as
M.
Andrews
saith
they
were
)
but
by
themselues
,
and
by
the
authority
of
the
Parliament
as
I
haue
also
declared
at
large
in
my
Supplement
[
](A00916-e118060-b)(f)
(f)
Suppl
.
ca.
5.
nu.
2.3.4
.
&
5.
.
Where
neuertheles
,
I
am
to
aduertise
thee
,
good
Reader
,
of
an
errour
not
corrected
amongst
the
faults
escaped
in
the
Print
.
For
,
whereas
it
is
said
there
,
they
had
almost
seduced
an
Irish
Archbishop
,
and
perswaded
him
to
consecrate
some
of
them
Byshops
,
there
want
certaine
wordes
,
to
wit
,
a
Welsh
Bishop
,
hauing
in
vaine
sollicited
,
which
words
,
are
to
be
inserted
thus
;
they
had
almost
seduced
a
Welsh
Bishop
(
hauing
in
vaine
solicited
an
Irish
Archbishop
)
and
perswaded
him
to
consecrate
some
of
them
Bishops
after
the
Catholike
manner
&c.
And
agayne
a
litle
after
,
whereas
it
is
said
thus
;
seeing
the
Irish
Bishop
would
not
performe
his
promise
,
they
resolued
to
ordaine
themselues
&c.
there
want
also
these
words
,
cons●●t
,
nor
the
Welsh
Bishop
;
which
words
are
to
be
added
thus●
seeing
the
Irish
Bishop
would
not
consent
,
nor
the
Welsh
Bishop
performe
his
promise
,
they
resolued
to
ordayne
themselues
.
Thus
,
I
say
,
it
should
be
corrected
.
36.
Whereby
it
may
euidently
appeare
what
a
beggarly
Church
and
Clergy
they
then
had
,
What
a
beggarly
Church
&
Clergy
the
Sectaries
haue
in
England
and
still
haue
:
for
hauing
then
not
so
much
as
any
pretended
Archbishop
,
or
Bishop
of
their
owne
profession
,
they
were
forced
to
begg
their
consecration
euen
of
the
Catholikes
their
aduersaries
,
and
hauing
solicited
an
Archbishop
in
vaine
,
and
being
out
of
hope
to
haue
the
consent
of
a
Metropolitan
to
their
ordination
,
&
much
more
to
be
consecrated
by
2.
or
3.
Bishops
,
according
to
the
ancient
Canons
of
the
Church
,
they
determined
,
as
I
may
say
,
to
play
small
game
,
rather
then
to
sit
forth
,
being
desirous
to
haue
some
kind
of
ordination
from
any
one
Catholik
,
though
inferiour
Bishop
,
yea
and
in
fyne
they
sought
to
haue
it
from
such
a
one
,
as
was
held
to
be
the
simplest
man
that
then
was
,
or
perhaps
euer
had
bene
of
the
English
Clergy
;
for
so
indeed
was
esteemed
the
Bishop
of
Land●●●
,
whome
they
had
almost
inueygled
,
and
induced
〈◊〉
their
turne
.
But
Almighty
God
out
of
his
infinite
prouidence
so
disposed
(
for
the
eternall
shame
of
their
pretended
Prelacy
,
and
Clergy
)
that
he
also
in
the
end
refused
to
do
it
,
vpon
a
sharp
message
which
he
receaued
from
Bishop
●onner
then
Prisoner
,
who
being
Bishop
of
London
(
and
consequently
chiefe
Bishop
in
the
prouince
of
Canterbury
by
the
death
of
Cardinall
Pole
Archbishop
thereof
)
sent
one
M.
Cosen
his
Chaplen
to
the
sayd
Bishop
of
Landaff
to
threaten
him
with
excommunication
in
case
he
did
consecrate
any
of
them
,
whereupon
he
defisted
from
his
purpose
,
and
they
resolued
to
ordayne
,
and
consecrate
one
another
,
and
so
they
did
,
as
I
haue
signified
in
my
Supplement
,
vpon
the
testimony
of
one
that
was
an
eye-witnes
of
what
passed
amongst
them
at
their
ordination
,
See
Supl.
vbi
supra
nu.
5.
to
wit
,
M.I
Thomas
N●ale
a
graueman
,
well
knowne
,
no
doubt
,
to
many
yet
liuing
in
Oxford
,
where
he
was
many
yeares
after
Reader
of
the
Hebrew
Lecture
.
37.
Whereupon
I
inferre
two
things
,
the
one
that
they
haue
no
Clergy
nor
Church
;
for
ha●ing
no
Bishops
,
they
haue
no
Priests
,
(
because
none
can
make
Priests
but
Bishops
)
and
hauing
neither
Bishops
,
See
Supl.
vbi
supra
nu.
6.
nor
Priests
,
they
haue
no
Clergy
and
consequently
no
Church
as
I
haue
shewed
in
my
Supplement
out
of
S.
Hierome
.
S.
Hieron
.
aduers.
Lucifer
.
The
other
is
,
that
M.
Andrewes
,
and
his
fellowes
are
neyther
true
Bishops
,
nor
haue
any
succession
from
the
Catholike
Church
(
as
he
sayth
they
haue
)
no●
yet
any
lawfull
mission
or
vocation●
and
that
therefore
they
are
not
those
good
shepheards
which
as
our
Sauiour
saith
)
enter
into
the
fold
by
the
dore
,
Iohn
.
10.
but
fures
&
〈◊〉
,
theeues
and
robbers●
who
clymbe
vp
another
way
,
or
breake
into
it
by
intrusion
and
force
,
vt
mactent
●●●●rdant
,
to
kill
,
and
destroy
the
flocke
and
so
they
are
rotten
bought
broken
of
from
the
may
n●
root
of
Christian
society
,
and
consequently
heretikes
and
schismatikes
,
as
well
by
M.
Barlowes
ground
before
[
](A00916-e118710-b)(c)
(c)
See
before
nu.
35.
also
Suppl
.
chap.
4
nu.
54.55
.
&
seq
.
mentioned
as
according
to
M.
Andrewes
his
owne
graunt
els
let
him
name
vnto
vs
those
3.
Catholike
Bishops
who
(
as
he
saith
)
consecrated
their
first
Bishops
,
at
the
change
of
religion
in
Queene
Elizabeths
tyme
,
Luc.
19.
which
I
know
he
cannot
doe
,
and
therefore
I
conclude
of
him
in
this
point
,
as
I
did
in
the
last
,
ex
ore
tuo
te
iudico
.
38.
And
this
truly
might
suffice
to
shew
how
he
fortifieth
our
cause
,
and
ouerthroweth
his
owne
;
but
that
,
besides
diuers
other
points
which
I
might
handle
to
this
purpose
(
and
am
forced
to
omit
for
lack
of
tyme
)
there
is
one
,
whereof
I
promised
in
the
last
[
](A00916-e118840-b)(b)
(b)
Chap.
6●
nu.
81●
Chapter
to
say
somewhat
,
to
wit
,
his
doctrine
touching
the
Kings
Ecclesiasticall
Supremacie
,
which
in
verie
truth
he
abaseth
,
disgraceth
,
and
vtterly
supplanteth
,
whiles
he
seeketh
,
or
at
least
pretendeth
to
confirme
,
and
establish
it
,
as
hath
partly
appeared
already
by
his
graunt
that
our
Sauiour
made
S.
Peter
head
of
the
Apostles
,
to
take
away
all
occasion
of
Schisme
,
yea
and
that
he
gaue
him
as
much
authority
as
was
necessary
to
that
end
,
whereupon
I
inferred
necessarily
that
not
only
S.
Peter
but
also
his
successours
haue
all
that
power
,
and
authority
which
we
attribute
vnto
them
(
as
may
be
seene
in
the
third
Chapter
[
](A00916-e118890-b)(d)
(d)
Chap.
3.
nu.
37.
&
sequent
.
of
this
Adioynder
)
and
vpon
this
it
followeth
also
directly
that
no
temporall
Prince
is
Supreme
head
of
the
Church
.
What
a
poore
conceipt
M.
Andrews
hath
of
the
Kings
ecclesiasticall
supremacy
.
But
his
opinion
concerning
the
Kings
Ecclesiasticall
supremacy
will
be
much
more
manifest
,
if
we
consider
what
a
poore
conceipt
he
hath
of
it
,
and
how
he
abaseth
it
,
being
so
farre
from
graunting
it
,
to
be
a
principall
article
of
faith
,
(
as
we
hold
the
Popes
Primacy
to
be
)
that
he
saith
it
is
,
ne
articulus
quidem
,
not
so
much
as
an
Article
,
vtpote
de
exteriori
modo
regimine
&c.
as
of
a
thing
which
concerneth
only
the
externall
gou●rment
of
the
Church
,
Andr.
c.
1.
pag
21.
§.
Neque
tam●
so
far
forth
as
it
requireth
,
and
admitteth
humane
help
,
and
authority
.
And
therefore
h●
placeth
it
not
amongst
points
which
are
to
be
belieued
,
Ibidem
.
but
amongst
matters
of
perswasion
,
such
I
meane
as
we
are
perswaded
to
be
true
;
and
therfore
he
saith
,
nec
sic
singula
trahimus
ad
fidem
&c.
we
do
not
so
draw
all
things
to
faith
,
it
sufficeth
for
some
heads
or
points
of
religion
to
belieue
them
with
the
Apostle
,
and
of
some
others
to
be
perswaded
only
,
quae
tamen
infra
fidem
subsistant
,
which
neuertheles
are
beneath
,
or
vnder
matters
of
faith
.
Therefore
it
is
inough
if
it
be
without
the
compasse
of
faith
,
so
that
it
may
haue
place
only
amongst
orthodox
,
or
true
doctrine
.
So
he
;
Ibid.
p.
29.
§.
A●
recepta
.
and
to
the
same
purpose
he
also
saith
in
another
place
,
that
it
is
a
truth
,
but
extra
symbolum
,
out
of
the
creed
,
The
Ecclesiastical
Supremacy
of
temporall
Princes
,
may
be
in
M.
Andrews
his
Pater
noster
but
is
not
in
his
Creed
.
so
that
it
may
perhaps
be
come
into
his
Pater
noster
,
but
is
not
yet
into
Creed
.
Whereupon
diuers
things
might
be
inferred
worth
the
noting
;
but
I
will
touch
only
two
or
three
.
39.
If
the
Kings
Supremacy
be
not
a
matter
of
Faith
,
then
is
it
neither
expressely
taught
in
Scripture
,
nor
necessarily
deduced
from
it
;
for
if
it
were
,
then
must
it
needes
be
a
matter
of
Faith
,
and
therevpon
it
followeth
that
although
M.
Andrews
doe
alleage
Scripture
to
proue
it
,
yet
he
himselfe
is
of
opinion
that
it
is
but
only
probably
gathered
out
of
Scripture
,
and
consequently
that
a
man
may
without
daunger
of
damnation
,
choose
whether
he
will
belieue
it
or
no.
For
of
thinges
which
are
in
Controuersy
,
and
not
defined
,
but
only
probably
gathered
out
of
Scripture
,
a
man
may
without
daunger
of
his
soule
adhere
to
eyther
parte
,
which
truly
may
serue
for
a
great
Motiue
to
all
Protestants
to
make
small
account
of
the
Kinges
Ecclesiasticall
Su●remacy
,
otherwise
then
in
respect
of
the
temporall
Lawes
,
especially
seeing
that
so
great
a
Doctor
as
M.
Andrewes
,
(
who
pretendeth
expresly
to
maintaine
and
defend
it
)
teacheth
,
The
oath
of
the
supremacy
vnlawful
,
if
the
supremacy
be
no
matter
of
faith
that
it
is
no
matter
of
faith
.
Besides
that
I
cannot
see
how
he
can
approue
the
Oath
of
the
Kings
Ecclesiasticall
supremacy
,
to
be
lawfully
tendred
or
taken
,
as
of
an
vndoubted
truth
,
if
it
be
no
matter
of
faith
.
For
he
that
sweareth
a
thing
to
be
simply
true
,
which
he
doth
not
certainly
belieue
,
but
only
is
probably
perswaded
that
it
is
true
,
Aureol
.
in
3.
dist.
39●
Ang.
verb.
periurium
.
See
Nauar.
manuale
c.
12.
nu.
3.
&
Suarez
de
relig.
Tom.
2.
li.
3.
ca.
4.
nu.
7.
sinneth
in
the
opinion
of
the
Diuines
&
Canonists●
Wherupon
it
followeth
that
M.
Andrews
who
holdeth
the
Kings
Supremacy
to
be
no
matter
of
faith
,
but
only
a
probable
truth
,
can
neither
lawfully
take
the
Oath
of
the
said
Supremacy
,
nor
iustly
approue
it
to
be
exacted
of
any
,
and
this
will
be
as
cleere
as
the
Sun
,
if
we
consider
by
what
Scriptures
he
laboureth
to
proue
the
Kings
Supremacy
,
wherby
we
shall
easily
see
that
the
same
is
not
so
much
as
probably
gathered
out
of
Scripture
,
and
therfore
not
to
be
held
for
an
vndoubted
truth
,
and
much
lesse
to
be
sworne
for
such
.
Card.
c.
1.
pag.
7.
40.
For
wheras
the
Cardinall
obiecteth
that
it
is
a
new
doctrine
,
taught
first
in
the
time
of
King
Henry
the
8.
who
first
tooke
vpon
him
the
title
of
supreme
head
of
the
Church
,
Andr.
c.
1.
p.
22.
§.
Sed.
nec
.
M.
Andrews
denieth
it
saying
,
tantum
abest
&c.
It
is
so
farre
from
being
(
so
new
as
the
Cardinall
saith
(
to
wit
)
a
thousand
fiue
hundred
yeares
after
Christ
)
that
it
was
a
thousand
fiue
hundred
yeares
before
Christ
was
borne
.
Neither
was
Henry
the
8.
the
Authour
of
that
in
our
age
,
but
Moyses
in
his
,
who
hauing
put
off
(
or
laid
away
)
his
Priesthood
,
was
neuerthelesse
aboue
Aaron
:
and
when
he
gaue
to
the
King
the
Law
,
he
gaue
him
withall
the
chiefe
power
to
keepe
Religion
(
which
is
the
first
and
chiefest
part
of
the
Law
)
and
to
cause
it
to
be
kept
.
So
he
.
Wherein
he
giueth
two
reasons
or
groundes
out
of
the
old
Law
,
for
the
spirituall
Supremacy
of
temporall
Princes
.
The
one
because
Moyses
laid
aside
his
Priesthood
(
and
being
therfore
but
a
temporall
man
)
was
superiour
to
Aaron
.
M.
Andrews
his
grosse
ignorance
.
And
the
other
,
because
he
gaue
to
Kings
,
the
chief
power
and
charge
of
Religion
,
when
he
gaue
them
the
copy
of
the
Law
.
41.
In
the
former
point
of
the
two
,
he
notably
bewrayeth
his
owne
ignorance
,
in
saying
that
Moyses
laid
aside
his
Priesthood
,
or
ceased
to
be
Priest
,
after
he
was
once
Priest
,
as
if
Moyses
his
Priesthood
had
bin
like
to
the
Ministry
of
the
Protestants
,
which
may
be
put
of
and
on
like
a
Ierkin
,
or
a
Cloake
when
they
list
,
whereas
his
Priesthood
was
so
permanent
and
inseparably
annexed
to
his
person
,
that
albeit
he
might
cease
from
the
execution
of
the
function
,
yet
he
could
neuer
put
off
the
power
of
his
Priesthood
during
his
life
.
Besides
that
he
was
so
farre
from
putting
off
his
Priesthood
,
that
he
was
not
only
still
Priest
after
Aaron
was
consecrated
,
S.
Aug.
Quaest.
in
.
Leuit.
li.
3.
quaest.
23.
but
also
(
as
S.
Augustine
teacheth
expresly
)
chief
Priest
either
togeather
with
Aaron
,
or
els
aboue
him
.
Ambo
,
saith
he
,
tunc
summi
Sacerdotes
erant
:
both
Moyses
and
Aaron
were
then
high
Priests
,
or
rather
was
not
Moyses
high
Priest
,
and
Aaron
vnder
him
?
Thus
saith
S.
Augustine
,
wherby
you
see
how
weake
and
seelly
is
M.
Andrews
his
first
reason
grounded
vpon
his
own
ignorant
conceipt
,
that
Moyses
left
off
his
Priesthood
,
and
that
neuertheles
he
was
still
superiour
to
Aaron
,
being
a
meere
temporall
Prince
(
for
if
he
meant
not
so
,
his
argument
,
for
the
temporall
Princes
supremacy
is
not
worth
a
rush
:
)
but
you
haue
heard
out
of
S.
Augustine
,
that
Moyses
was
not
only
a
Priest
after
the
Consecration
of
Aaron
,
but
also
chief
Priest
,
I
meane
aboue
Aaron
in
which
respect
it
may
be
thought
that
God
commaunded
Moyses
&
not
Aaron
to
cloath
Eleazar
Aaron
Sonne●
Num.
2●
.
with
Aarons
vestments
in
the
pre●●nce
of
Aaron
himself
,
to
succeed
him
in
the
office
of
high
Priest
:
42.
In
his
second
reason
(
concerning
the
chiefe
power
and
charge
of
Religion
giuen
to
Kings
by
Moyses
togeather
with
the
copy
of
the
Law
)
he
sheweth
most
euident
and
notorious
malice
in
the
manifest
abuse
&
corruption
of
Scripture
,
M.
Andrew
his
notorious
malice
in
the
abuse
of
holy
Scripture
.
no
such
thing
,
but
rather
the
cleane
contrary
,
being
to
be
gathered
out
of
that
place
of
Deuteronomy
,
Deut.
17.
where
Moyses
ordayned
that
the
copy
of
the
Law
,
should
be
giuen
by
the
Priestes
,
to
the
future
Kings
.
I
say
future
,
for
that
there
was
no
King
ouer
Gods
people
in
the
time
of
Moyses
,
See
c.
6.
nu.
68.69.70
.
nor
of
400.
years
after
,
as
I
haue
signified
in
the
last
Chapter
,
where
I
also
charged
as
wel
M.
Andrews
as
M.
Barlow
with
the
euident
abuse
of
this
place
of
holy
Scripture
in
diuers
respects
,
and
therfore
I
beseech
thee
good
Reader
,
take
paines
to
reuiew
what
I
haue
said
there
,
if
thou
dost
not
well
remember
it
.
So
as
I
may
now
conclude
vpon
these
two
reasons
of
M.
Andrews
,
that
he
is
both
an
ignorant
and
a
corrupt
Doctor
:
ignorant
in
affirming
that
Moyses
laid
a
way
his
Priesthood
,
and
corrupt
in
notably
abusing
the
holy
Scriptures
.
43.
And
whereas
he
very
of●
recurreth
for
the
profe
of
this
point
to
the
examples
of
the
Kings
in
the
old
Testament
,
See
Suppl
.
c.
1.
nu.
10.
&
seq
.
I
haue
sufficiently
answered
therto
in
my
Supplement
,
where
I
haue
proued
first
,
that
the
law
of
Moyses
did
expressely
and
manifestly
giue
to
the
high
Preist
the
supreme
authoritie
not
only
in
matters
of
religion
,
but
also
euen
in
temporall
affaires
,
forasmuch
as
concerned
the
decision
of
doubts
and
difficult
questions
.
Secondly
that
the
[
](A00916-e120110-b)(g)
(g)
Ibid.
nu
.
●4
.
&
seq
.
Kinges
were
not
at
their
institution
exempt
from
this
law
,
but
rather
commanded
to
obserue
it
.
Thirdly
that
the
[
](A00916-e120140-b)(h)
(h)
Ibid.
nu.
3●
.
&
seq
.
particuler
examples
which
he
and
others
are
wont
to
alledg
of
Iosua
,
[
](A00916-e120180-b)(i)
(i)
nu.
44.
Dauid
,
[
](A00916-e120210-b)(k)
(k)
nu.
45.
&
50.
Salomon
,
[
](A00916-e120250-b)(l)
(l)
nu.
49.
&
seq
.
Ezechtas
[
](A00916-e120290-b)(m)
(m)
nu.
3●
.
&
seq
.
,
and
Iosias
doe
make
nothing
for
their
purpose
,
&
that
diuers
other
[
](A00916-e120330-b)(n)
(n)
nu.
28.
&
seq
.
examples
do
clearly
proue
the
contrary
.
And
lastly
that
although
it
were
true
,
that
Kings
were
superiour
to
Preists
in
the
old
law
,
yet
it
doth
not
[
](A00916-e120380-b)(o)
(o)
nu.
53.54.55
.
&
56.
follow
theron
that
they
are
so
now
also
in
the
new
law
,
as
well
because
the
law
of
Moyses
(
at
least
the
iudiciall
and
ceremoniall
part
thereof
)
was
wholly
abrogated
by
the
law
of
Christ
,
as
also
because
our
Sauiour
ordained
a
new
and
farr
more
excellent
Preisthood
,
&
manner
of
gouernment
in
his
Church
,
which
beginning
in
the
Apostles
and
spirituall
Pastors
,
was
continued
also
most
euidently
in
them
for
300
:
yeares
,
without
interruption
(
to
wit
during
the
paganisme
of
the
Emperours
)
and
no
new
commission
euer
since
that
tyme
knowne
to
be
giuen
by
Christ
to
Kings
,
whereby
they
were
authorized
to
take
vpon
them
the
gouerment
of
the
Church
.
44.
So
that
I
am
to
demaund
of
M.
Andrews
(
as
I
also
did
of
M.
Barlow
in
my
[
](A00916-e120500-b)(p)
(p)
See
sup.
Chap.
1.
nu.
83.
&
84.
It
cannot
be
shewed
how
Kings
af●ter
they
were
Christened
came
to
haue
the
gouernment
of
the
Church
.
Supplement
)
how
,
and
by
what
Commission
the
supreme
authority
in
Ecclesiasticall
affayres
was
transferred
from
the
Apostles
and
their
Successors
,
to
Kings
after
they
were
Christened
;
seeing
that
they
can
neyther
claime
any
succession
therin
from
the
Kinges
of
the
old
law
(
which
as
I
haue
said
was
quite
abrogated
by
Christ
)
nor
pretend
any
new
authority
giuen
them
in
the
new
lawe
,
it
being
most
manifest
that
all
the
texts
of
Scripture
,
which
M.
Andrewes
or
other
of
our
aduersaries
doe
,
or
can
alleage
for
the
spirituall
Supremacy
of
temporall
Kinges
out
of
the
new
Testament
,
do
ordeyne
obedience
to
the
Pagan
Princes
that
the
raigned
,
no
lesse
then
to
others
,
which
therfore
cannot
be
vnderstood
to
concerne
spirituall
matters
,
and
much
lesse
to
make
them
heades
of
the
Church
,
except
M.
Andrewes
will
be
so
absurd
to
say
,
that
the
most
wicked
Emperours
,
Tyberius
,
Caius
,
Claudius
,
and
Nero
were
heades
or
supreme
Gouernours
of
the
Church
,
and
that
they
could
commaund
and
ought
to
be
obeyed
in
spirituall
and
Ecclesiasticall
affayres
.
45.
Now
then
seeing
M.
Andrewes
neither
bringeth
,
nor
is
able
to
bring
,
any
other
proofes
then
these
out
of
the
old
or
new
Testament
for
the
Ecclesiasticall
Supremacy
of
Kinges
,
I
may
well
conclude
,
that
as
he
hath
great
reason
to
hould
it
for
no
matter
of
faith
,
and
therfore
not
to
admit
it
into
his
Creed
(
as
being
neither
expressely
taught
in
Scripture
,
nor
necessarily
deduced
from
it
)
so
I
may
with
no
lesse
reason
aduise
him
also
to
put
it
out
of
his
Pater
noster
(
if
it
be
gotten
so
farre
into
his
bookes
)
seeing
it
is
not
so
much
as
probably
gathered
out
of
Scripture
;
The
Ecclesiasticall
supremacy
of
temporall
Princes
excluded
by
a
rule
of
M.
Andrewes●
in
which
respect
also
I
am
to
put
him
in
mind
of
a
rule
giuen
by
himselfe
in
another
question
,
to
witt
,
that
nothing
is
to
be
admitted
and
practised
in
the
Church
,
whereof
some
precept
is
not
to
be
shewed
in
holy
Scriptures
,
for
so
doth
he
tell
vs
concerning
prayer
to
Saints
,
saying
,
non
audemus
vota
nostra
&c.
We
dare
not
direct
our
prayers
to
Saints
,
because
we
haue
no
precept
thereof
,
hauing
a
precept
in
expresse
wordes
.
Andr.
c.
1.
pag.
37.
§.
Verùm
.
Quod
tibi
praecepero
hoc
tantum
facies
,
Thou
shalt
only
do
this
which
I
shall
command
thee
,
wherevpon
we
dare
only
doe
that
whereof
we
haue
a
precept
.
46.
Thus
sayth
he
,
and
therefore
according
to
this
his
owne
rule
,
I
must
now
exact
of
him
to
shew
vs
some
precept
whereby
the
Kinges
spirituall
Supremacie
is
commaunded
or
ordeyned
in
Scripture
,
but
this
he
acknowledgeth
sufficiently
he
cannot
do
,
seing
he
teacheth
that
we
are
not
bound
to
belieue
it
as
an
article
of
faith
but
to
be
perswaded
only
that
it
is
a
truth
,
which
he
neither
could
,
nor
as
I
thinke
,
would
say
if
he
could
shew
any
precept
or
commaundement
of
it
in
Scripture
.
And
this
being
so
,
how
then
dare
he
and
his
fellowes
admit
it
into
their
Church
,
seeing
he
sayth
,
Id
tantùm
audemus
facere
&
●
we
dare
only
doe
that
whereof
we
haue
a
precept
?
And
how
can
he
approue
that
men
should
be
compelled
to
sweare
it
as
an
vndoubted
truth
,
when
neuertheles
it
is
no
matter
of
faith
(
by
his
owne
confession
)
nor
hath
any
ground
in
Scripture
,
(
as
I
haue
shewed
)
and
much
lesse
is
ordeyned
and
commaunded
in
Scripture
,
and
therefore
,
according
to
his
owne
rule
,
not
to
be
admitted
&
practised
in
the
Church
,
and
consequently
not
to
be
ratified
by
a
solemne
Oath
for
an
infallible
verity
,
as
if
it
were
one
of
the
most
important
Articles
of
our
Creed
.
47.
But
yet
let
vs
examine
the
matter
a
litle
further
&
sound
the
depth
of
M.
Andrewes
his
doctrine
concerning
the
Kings
Ecclesiasticall
Supremacy
,
I
doubt
not
but
we
shall
find
that
he
is
neither
good
English
Protestant
,
nor
yet
a
good
subiect
;
for
if
it
fall
out
that
his
doctrine
agreeeth
not
with
the
moderne
Lawes
and
Statuts
of
the
Realme
,
he
is
neither
of
both
,
seing
that
according
to
the
doctrine
of
English
Protestants
,
none
can
be
accounted
to
be
of
their
congregation
,
neither
yet
a
good
subiect
who
belieueth
not
the
Kings
Supremacy
as
it
is
taught
,
M.
Andrewes
doth
not
allow
any
spirituall
authority
to
the
King
.
and
ordeyned
by
the
Statutes
of
King
Henry
the
8.
King
Edward
the
6.
and
●he
late
Queene
Elizabeth
:
but
this
M.
Andrewes
doth
not
,
for
he
doth
not
allowe
the
King
any
spirituall
power
at
all
,
●eaching
expresly
that
the
King
himselfe
acknowledgeth
,
non
se
aliter
esse
supra
Ecclesiam
quàm
vt●
nutritius
&
●utor
.
Andr.
ci
14.
p●
323.
lin.
33.
That
he
is
not
otherwise
ouer
the
Church
,
but
as
a
foster-father
and
defender
.
Which
he
also
explicateth
adding
,
vt
eam
scilicet
nutriat
&
tu●atur
,
that
is
to
say
,
to
the
end
that
he
may
nou●●sh
and
defend
it
,
to
which
purpose
he
also
sayd
[
](A00916-e120950-b)(d)
(d)
nu.
37.
before
(
as
you
haue
heard
)
that
the
Kings
Supremacy
is
no
matter
or
article
of
faith
,
becaus
it
concerneth
only
externall
gouerment
so
farre
forth
as
the
Church
requireth
,
Ibid.
c.
1.
p.
21.
§.
nequ●
tamen
.
&
admitteth
humane
help
&
authority
.
48.
Therefore
whereas
in
the
gouerment
of
the
Church
,
two
things
are
specially
con●idered
,
the
one
internall
and
diuine
,
and
the
other
externall
and
humane
,
the
former
(
which
is
a
spirituall
&
heauenly
power
,
communicated
by
almighty
God
to
man
)
he
excludeth
from
the
Kings
Supremacy
,
and
admitteth
only
the
latter
,
which
is
a
meere
externall
and
humane
power
;
and
the
same
also
,
non
aliter
,
no
oth●rwise
,
then
for
the
nourishment
and
defence
of
the
Church
,
so
as
you
see
he
acknowledgeth
therby
no
other
power
ouer
the
Church
,
but
only
externall
,
humane
,
and
temporall
,
whereto
I
make
no
doubt
but
all
the
Puritans
in
England
and
Scotland
will
subscribe
;
What
manner
of
Ecclesiasticall
power
M.
Andrewe●
acknowledgeth
in
temporall
Princes
.
neither
do
the
Catholiks
deny
,
but
affirme
and
teach
,
that
Kings
are
bound
to
nourish
the
Church
with
their
purses
,
and
defend
it
with
their
power
and
authority
;
as
all
or
most
Christian
Kinges
at
their
Coronation
are
sworne
to
doe
.
And
not
only
Christian
Kings
haue
this
power
,
but
also
any
Pagan
Prince
hath
,
and
may
exercise
the
same
,
as
the
Kings
of
Chinae
and
Persia
(
the
one
a
Pagan
and
the
other
a
Mahumetan
)
doe
at
this
day
.
49.
For
the
King
of
China
nourisheth
,
and
defendeth
the
Church
of
Christ
in
the
Colledges
and
Residences
of
the
Fathers
of
the
Society
,
A
Pagan
Prince
hath
as
much
authoritie
ouer
the
Church
,
as
M
Andrewes
alloweth
to
his
Maiestie
.
not
only
in
his
principall
Citty
called
Pachyn
(
where
he
keepeth
his
Court
)
but
also
in
diuers
other
partes
of
his
Dominions
,
giuing
them
mayntenance
,
immunities
and
priuiledges
,
and
shewing
them
many
other
particuler
fauours
.
As
also
the
King
of
P●rsia
doth
the
lyke
to
the
Carmelitan
Fathers
in
his
Country
,
though
I
think
no
man
will
say
,
that
these
Kinges
haue
any
spirituall
power
ouer
the
Church
of
Christ
,
as
our
late
Statutes
haue
giuen
to
our
Kinges
;
An.
26.
Hen.
8.
●
.
1.
which
may
appeare
by
a
Statute
of
King
Henry
the
8.
whereby
it
was
ordayned
in
these
wordes
:
Be
it
enacted
&c.
that
the
King
our
Soueraigne
Lord
,
his
heires
,
and
successors
Kinges
of
his
Realme
,
shall
be
taken
,
accepted
,
and
reputed
the
only
supreme
head
of
the
Church
of
England
,
The
Parliament
Statutes
giue
spirituall
authority
to
the
Kings
,
&
Queens
of
England
.
called
Anglicana
Ecclesia
,
and
shall
haue
and
enioy
,
annexed
and
vnited
to
the
Imperiall
Crowne
of
this
Realme
,
as
well
the
Title
,
and
stile
thereof
,
as
all
Honours
,
Dignities
,
Preheminences
,
Iurisdictions
,
Priuiledges
,
Authorities
,
Immunities
,
profits
and
commodities
to
the
said
Dignitie
of
supreme
head
of
the
same
Church
belonging
.
So
saith
the
Statute
,
which
must
needes
be
vnderstood
to
giue
spirituall
authority
,
when
it
giueth
all
that
Power
,
Dignity
,
and
Iurisdiction
which
belongeth
to
the
head
of
the
Church
.
50.
For
seing
that
the
Church
is
a
spirituall
&
Ecclesiasticall
body
,
it
must
needes
bee
gouerned
by
a
Spirituall
and
Ecclesiasticall
power
,
residing
in
the
head
thereof
.
And
therfore
it
was
also
enacted
by
our
Parliaments
that
King
H●nry
migh●
not
only
visit
all
Ecclesiasticall
Persons
,
Ibidem
.
&
reforme
all
kind
of
errours
,
heresies
and
abuses
in
the
Church
of
England
,
but
also
assigne
32.
persons
to
examine
all
manner
of
Canons
,
con●●itutions
and
ordinances
Prouin●iall
and
synodicall
.
And
further
to
set
in
order
and
establish
all
such
Lawes
Ecclesiasticall
,
as
should
be
thought
by
him
,
and
them
conuenient
to
be
vsed
,
and
set
forth
within
his
Realme
and
Dominions
,
in
all
spirituall
Courts
,
and
Conuentions
,
and
that
such
Lawes
,
and
Ordinances
Eccl●siasticall
,
as
should
be
deuised
,
and
made
by
the
Kings
Maiestie
,
and
these
32.
persons
and
declared
by
his
Maiesties
Proclamation
vnder
his
great
Seale
,
should
be
only
taken
,
reputed
,
and
vsed
as
the
Kings
Lawes
Ecclesiasticall
&c.
51.
Furthermore
King
Henry
made
the
L.
Crōmwell
his
Vicar
generall
for
the
exercise
of
his
spirituall
,
and
Ecclesiasticall
Iurisdiction
,
by
vertue
whereof
the
said
L.
Cromwell
ordayned
Ecclesiasticall
Lawes
,
The
Lord
Cromwel
Vicar
General
to
K.
Henry
the
8.
for
th●
exercise
of
his
spirituall
Iurisdictio●●
or
iniunctions
and
published
them
vnder
the
Seale
of
his
Vicariat
,
directing
them
to
all
Archbishops
,
Abbots
,
and
the
rest
of
the
Clergy●
And
albeit
Queene
Elizab●th
did
not
vse
in
her
stil●
and
Ti●le
,
the
name
of
supreme
head
,
as
K.
Henry
and
K.
Edward
did
(
but
of
Supreme
Gouernesse
)
yet
it
is
euident
that
she
did
hould
the
same
and
all
the
authoritie
belonging
thereto
,
to
be
no
lesse
due
to
her
,
then
to
her
Father
,
seing
that
in
her
first
Parliament
she
reuiued
her
Fathes
Lawes
concerning
the
same
,
An.
1.
Elizab.
c.
1.
ordayning
,
that
all
and
euery
branch
,
word
,
and
sentence
of
the
sayd
seuerall
acts
,
and
euery
of
them
,
should
be
iudged
,
deemed
and
taken
,
to
extend
to
her
Highnes
,
her
heires
,
and
successours
,
as
fully
,
and
largely
,
as
euery
of
the
●ame
act
,
or
any
of
them
did
extend
to
the
said
K.
Henry
the
8.
her
Highnes
Father
.
Whereby
it
appeareth
that
as
well
the
Title
of
Sup●●me
head
,
as
all
the
spirituall
preheminences
,
prerogatiues
,
authoritie
,
and
Iurisdiction
graunted
by
the
Parliament
to
King
Henry
,
and
exercised
by
him
,
belonged
in
like
manner
to
the
Queene
his
daughter
,
her
heyres
,
and
successors
,
and
consequently
,
to
his
Maiesty
that
now
is
.
52.
Besides
that
,
the
Parliament
granted
also
expresly
to
the
Queene
spirituall
authority
,
Spirituall
Iurisdiction
granted
to
Q.
Elizabeth
by
the
Parliament
.
An.
1.
Elizab.
c.
1.
ordayning
that
such
Iurisdiction
,
Priuiledges
,
Superiorities
,
Preheminences
spirituall
or
ecclesiasticall
,
as
by
any
spirituall
or
Ecclesiasticall
power
,
or
authority
hath
heretofore
bin
,
or
may
lawfully
be
exercised
,
or
vsed
for
the
visitation
of
the
ecclesiasticall
state
,
or
persons
,
&
for
the
reformation
,
order
,
and
correction
of
the
same
,
and
of
all
manner
of
errours
,
heresies
,
schismes
,
abuses
,
offences
,
contempts
,
and
enormities
shal
be
for
euer
vnited
,
and
annexed
to
the
Imperiall
Crowne
of
this
Realme
.
Thus
farre
the
Statute
;
which
you
see
annexeth
to
the
Crowne
all
such
spirituall
,
and
ecclesiasticall
power
,
or
Iurisdiction
as
may
lawfully
be
exercised
in
the
visitation
of
Ecclesiasticall
persons
and
the
reformation
of
heresies
&c.
53.
Moreouer
it
was
also
granted
to
our
Kings
,
that
they
should
haue
power
not
only
to
giue
licence
by
their
Letters
Patents
to
consecrate
Bishops
,
but
also
to
grant
Commissions
in
certaine
cases
,
to
giue
all
manner
of
such
Licences
,
Dispensations
,
Compositions
,
Faculties
,
Grantes
&c.
For
causes
not
being
contrary
to
the
Scripture
,
and
Lawes
of
God
as
heretofore
hath
bin
vsed
,
and
accustomed
to
be
had
,
and
obtayned
at
the
Sea
of
Rome
:
all
which
power
must
needs
be
granted
to
be
meere
spirituall
,
besides
that
it
was
declared
by
a
statute
of
King
Ed●
.
the
6.
Th●●
all
●●tha●●y
of
Iurisdiction
spirituall
,
and
temporall
,
is
deriued
and
deduced
from
the
Kings
Maiesty
as
supreme
head
of
the
Churches
,
An.
1.
Edward
.
6.
c.
2.
All
the
Spirituall
Iurisdiction
and
authoritie
of
the
Clergy
of
England
declared
by
a
statute
to
be
deryued
from
the
Prince
.
and
Realmes
of
England
,
and
Ireland
,
and
so
iustly
acknowledged
by
the
Clergy
of
the
said
Realmes
.
Whereby
it
appeareth
euidently
that
the
King
according
to
these
Lawes
and
statutes
(
yea
and
by
the
confession
and
acknowledgement
of
all
the
English
Clergy
)
not
only
hath
spirituall
authority
,
power
,
and
iurisdiction
,
but
also
is
the
very
fountaine
and
spring
,
from
whence
it
floweth
to
all
Bishops
and
Clergy
in
his
dominions●
Whereupon
it
followeth
that
if
there
be
any
spirituall
iurisdiction
and
power
in
the
Church●
and
Clergy
of
England
,
the
same
is
much
more
in
the
King
then
in
them
,
seeing
it
is
deduced
and
deriued
from
him
,
to
the
Church
,
as
from
the
head
to
the
body
.
54.
Now
then
this
being
most
euident
,
how
doth
M.
Andrewes
his
doctrine
agree
with
this
?
seeing
he
teacheth
that
the
King
is
no
otherwise
ouer
the
Church
,
(
that
is
to
say
)
he
hath
no
power
or
authority
ouer
it
,
but
as
a
foster-father
and
a
tutor●
vt
eam
nutriat
et
defendat
that
he
may
nourish
and
defend
it
,
which
as
I
haue
said
,
M.
Andrewes
depriueth
the
Kings
Maiesty
of
all
the
spirituall
authority
that
the
Parliaments
haue
giuen
him
.
all
Catholike
Princes
do
,
and
Pagan
Princes
may
do
without
any
spirituall
power
at
all
.
So
that
you
see
M.
Andrewes
depriueth
his
Maiesty
of
all
the
spirituall
authority
and
iurisdiction
,
which
the
Parliament
hath
giuen
him
.
And
the
like
he
doth
also
in
other
places
,
where
he
ouerthroweth
the
Kings
Ecclesiasticall
Supremacy
in
other
manner
;
for
wheras
the
Cardinall
obiecteth
Caluins
doctrine
,
that
no
man
ought
to
be
called
Head
of
the
Church
,
M.
Andrews
saith
that
Caluin
indeed
did
not
like
it
quo
s●nsu
Papa
&c.
in
the
sense
that
the
Pope
is
called
the
Ministeriall
head
,
but
I
know
saith
he
,
it
would
not
dislike
Caluin
in
the
sense
that
Saul
was
head
of
the
Tribes
of
Israel
,
and
so
also
the
head
of
the
Tribe
of
Leui
:
so
he
.
Giuing
to
vnderstand
that
Kings
are
heades
of
the
Church
,
in
no
other
sense
then
as
Saul
was
head
of
the
Tribe
of
Leui.
55.
Whereupon
i●
followeth
,
that
Kings
are
neither
heads
of
the
Church
,
nor
yet
haue
any
authoritie
at
all
ouer
it
;
for
that
Saul
had
none
ouer
the
tribe
of
Leui
,
which
(
as
I
haue
shewed
in
the
[
](A00916-e121980-b)(a)
(a)
See
before
chap.
●
.
nu.
13.
first
Chapter
of
this
adioynder
,
and
much
more
amply
in
my
[
](A00916-e122010-b)(b)
(b)
suppl
.
c.
1.
nu.
18.19
.
&
seq
.
supplement
)
was
by
the
expresse
commaundement
of
God
exempted
from
the
temporall
and
politicall
state
,
in
such
sort
,
that
the
L●uits
were
not
somuch
as
to
be
numbred
[
](A00916-e122060-b)(c)
(c)
Num.
●
.
amongst
the
people
,
being
Gods
owne
portion
,
[
](A00916-e122090-b)(d)
(d)
Deut.
10.
&
18.
part
,
and
inheritance
,
and
giuen
by
him
for
a
guift
(
saith
the
[
](A00916-e122150-b)(e)
(e)
Numer.
8.
Scripture
)
to
Aaron
and
his
children
,
so
as
the
temporall
Magistrate
had
nothing
to
doe
with
them
.
And
although
it
should
be
graunted
that
Saul
was
head
of
the
Tribe
of
Leui
,
as
well
as
of
the
rest
,
it
would
not
follow
,
that
he
was
their
spirituall
head
,
it
being
manifest
,
that
all
the
spirituall
authority
and
iurisdiction
in
the
lawe
of
Moyses
resyded
in
the
Preists
,
and
especially
in
the
high
Priest
,
as
I
haue
proued
at
large
in
my
[
](A00916-e122240-b)(f)
(f)
Suppl
.
c.
1.
from
nu.
10.
to
53.
supplement
,
where
I
haue
also
shewed
[
](A00916-e122280-b)(g)
(g)
Ibid.
nu.
51.52
.
that
King
Saul
had
no
lawfull
power
and
authority
either
spirituall
or
temporall
ouer
the
person
of
the
high
Priest
,
as
it
appeared
,
in
that
his
owne
naturall
subiects
(
who
knew
the
law
of
God
)
refused
to
obey
him
when
he
commaunded
them
to
kill
Achimelech
the
high
Priest
,
K.
Saul
had
no
authority
ouer
the
hygh
Priest
.
S.
Aug.
in
psal.
51.
which
therefore
he
caused
to
be
done
by
Doeg
the
Idumean
,
who
being
a
stranger
,
and
not
knowing
the
law
of
God
,
or
contemning
it
(
and
representing
,
as
S.
Augustine
testifieth
,
the
Earthly
Kingdome
and
societie
of
wicked
men
)
executed
his
tyranicall
and
sacrilegious
commaundement
.
56.
Therefore
whereas
M.
Andrewes
signifieth
that
our
Kings
are
Heades
of
the
Church
of
God
in
England
,
as
Saul
was
head
of
the
tribe
of
Leui
,
he
alloweth
them
no
authority
at
all
ouer
the
Church
,
neither
spirituall
nor
temporall
;
for
that
,
as
I
haue
sayd
,
the
Leuiticall
tribe
was
wholy
exempt
from
the
temporall
state
,
and
subiect
only
to
the
high
Preist
:
and
albeit
Saul
was
truly
head
of
all
the
other
tribes
,
yet
he
was
only
their
temporall
head
,
and
had
no
other
but
temporall
power
ouer
them
.
And
therefore
M.
Andrewes
doth
also
by
this
example
depriue
his
Maiestie
(
if
not
of
all
authority
)
at
least
of
all
the
spirituall
power
and
iurisdiction
which
our
Parliaments
haue
graunted
him
.
57.
To
this
may
be
added
also
his
doctrine
in
his
Tortura
Torti
,
Andr.
Tort.
Torti
.
p.
151.
where
he
saith
,
facimus●
we
doe
not
graunt
the
power
of
censure
to
the
Prince
,
whereby
he
taketh
from
the
King
all
that
ample
authority
aboue
mentioned
,
which
is
annexed
to
the
Crowne
by
the
statutes
aforesayd
,
An.
26.
Hen.
8.
c.
1.
&
an
1.
Eliz.
ca.
1.
The
King
might
(
according
to
the
statut
)
excommunicate
an
heretyke
,
as
well
as
any
Bishop
.
to
wit
,
all
such
Iurisdictions
,
priuiledges
,
superiorityes
,
and
preheminences
spirituall
&
Ecclesiasticall
,
as
by
any
Spirituall
or
Ecclesiasticall
power
hath
heretofore
byn
,
or
may
lawfully
be
exercised
or
vsed
for
the
visitation
of
Ecclesiasticall
persons
,
&
the
reformation
and
correction
of
errors
,
heresies
,
and
abuses
&c.
In
which
wordes
(
being
the
wordes
of
the
Statute
)
no
man
can
deny
but
that
all
manner
of
Censures
are
cōprehēded●
without
the
which
,
heresies
&
abuses
can
neuer
be
sufficiently
corrected
,
&
reformed
;
&
therfore
if
the
Prince
thought
good
to
excommunicate
any
obstinat
heretike
he
might
(
according
to
this
Statute
)
do
it
as
well
or
better
then
any
Bishop
in
his
Realme
,
seeing
that
no
Bishop
can
doe
it
otherwise
then
by
the
authority
and
iurisdiction
which
he
hath
from
the
Prince
,
as
I
haue
[
](A00916-e122620-b)(d)
(d)
Supra
nu.
53.
declared
before
out
of
the
Statuts
;
neither
could
the
Prince
giue
it
to
any
other
,
if
he
had
it
not
truly
and
properly
in
himselfe
,
in
whose
person
the
same
must
needes
principally
reside
,
seeing
that
by
the
expresse
words
of
the
Statute
,
it
is
vnited
and
annexed
to
the
Imperiall
Crowne
of
England
,
The
King
could
not
giue
the
power
of
censure
to
other
if
he
had
it
not
in
himfelse
.
for
what
right
,
Power
,
of
Iurisdiction
soeuer
is
in
the
Crowne
,
the
same
must
needes
be
vnderstood
to
be
principally
and
most
properly
in
the
Prince
.
58.
Whereby
it
is
manifest
that
the
Kinges
of
England
may
according
to
this
Statute
,
not
only
giue
all
manner
of
Iurisdiction
(
wherein
all
kind
of
Censures
are
included
)
but
also
exercise
the
same
themselues
if
it
please
them
,
as
in
lyke
case
they
might
(
yf
they
thought
it
conuenient
)
do
and
exercise
the
acts
of
all
the
ciuill
offices
in
the
common
wealth
,
as
well
as
the
officers
themselues
,
See
suppl
.
c.
6●
nu.
61.
who
haue
their
Power
and
Iurisdiction
from
them
,
as
I
haue
signified
more
at
large
in
my
Supplement
vpon
the
lyke
occasion
ministred
by
M.
Barlow
,
M.
Andrews
neyther
good
Subiect
nor
.
good
English
Protestant
.
and
therefore
M.
Andrewes
denying
the
Power
of
Censures
to
the
King
,
denyeth
him
the
Royall
prerogatiue
,
and
supreme
spirituall
authority
wherewith
our
Parliaments
haue
indued
him
:
whereupon
it
followeth
directly
that
he
is
neither
good
subiect
nor
good
English
Protestant
.
For
seeing
he
abridgeth
his
Maiesties
authority
,
denying
his
Ecclesiasticall
Supremacy
in
the
sense
and
manner
that
our
late
Parliaments
haue
ordayned
the
same
,
he
cannot
be
accounted
a
good
subiect
.
59.
And
if
he
say
that
by
this
argument
,
I
confesse
that
we
our selues
are
no
good
Subiects
,
because
we
deny
the
Kings
Ecclesiasticall
Supremacy
,
A
great
difference
to
be
noted
betwixt
M.
Andrews
his
deniall
of
the
Kings
supremacy
and
ours
.
he
is
to
vnderstand
,
that
the
case
betwixt
him
and
vs
,
is
farre
different
;
for
,
we
deny
it
only
of
meere
conscience
,
because
we
hold
our selues
bound
to
belieue
,
as
a
matter
of
faith
,
that
S.
Peter
and
his
successors
are
supreme
heades
of
the
Church
(
being
a
doctrine
deduced
from
our
Sauiours
expresse
words
and
commission
giuen
to
S.
Peter
,
acknowledged
by
the
vniforme
consent
of
the
ancient
Fathers
,
and
confirmed
by
the
continuall
practise
of
the
Church
,
euen
from
S.
Peters
time
to
these
our
daies
,
as
I
haue
proued
sufficiently
throughout
this
Treatise
,
)
in
which
respect
we
haue
great
reason
to
say
with
the
Apostles
,
Act.
5.
opertet
magis
obedire
Deo
,
quàm
hominibus
,
and
to
giue
our
liues
,
rather
then
to
offend
God
,
and
our
consciences
,
in
the
deniall
of
such
an
important
article
of
our
faith
,
to
the
euerlasting
damnation
of
our
soules
.
M.
Andrews
hath
no
such
obligation
to
deny
the
Kings
supremacy
,
as
we
haue
.
But
M.
Andrews
holding
the
Kings
Supremacy
to
be
no
article
of
faith
,
or
beliefe
,
but
only
a
matter
of
perswasion
,
(
which
passeth
not
the
boundes
of
probability
)
hath
no
such
cause
and
obligation
to
deny
it
,
as
we
haue
,
and
yet
neuerthelesse
(
vnder
the
colour
and
pretence
to
defend
it
)
he
doth
so
extenuate
and
abase
it
,
that
he
maketh
it
nothing
,
but
an
externall
,
humaine
and
meere
temporall
authority
,
and
consequently
as
any
Pagan
Prince
may
exercise
,
as
well
as
a
Christan
.
M.
Andrews
lyke
to
a
treacherous
frend
or
a
preuaricating
aduocate
.
60.
And
therefore
he
dealeth
therin
no
otherwise
then
one
who
being
chosen
by
his
friend
to
maintaine
his
quarrell
,
draweth
his
sword
with
pretence
to
defend
him
,
and
giueth
him
a
deadly
wound
behind
his
backe
:
or
like
to
some
preuaricating
Aduocate
,
who
being
hyred
to
defend
a
cause
,
pleadeth
for
the
aduerse
party
:
for
so
doth
he
,
who
being
specially
chosen
by
his
Maiesty
,
to
defend
and
maintaine
his
Ecclesiasticall
Supremacy
,
doth
couertly
,
and
vnderhand
betray
him
,
M.
Andrews
doth
vnderhand
betray
the
Kings
cause
.
depriuing
him
of
all
the
spirituall
power
that
the
Parliament
hath
giuen
him
,
and
leauing
him
only
the
bare
title
without
the
effect
;
which
kind
of
dealing
,
if
it
were
but
amongst
frendes
and
equals
,
were
no
lesse
then
treacherous
and
perfidious
,
and
therefore
what
it
is
in
a
subiect
towardes
his
Prince
,
especially
in
a
man
so
much
honored
&
aduanced
by
his
Maiesty
,
as
M.
Andrewes
hath
bin
,
I
leaue
it
to
the
iudgement
of
any
indifferent
man
,
but
sure
I
am
it
cannot
be
counted
the
part
of
a
good
subiect
.
61.
Neither
can
he
be
thought
to
be
a
good
Enlish
Protestant
,
for
who
knoweth
not
that
the
English
Protestant
differeth
from
all
other
Protestants
of
other
Nations
,
especially
in
holding
and
maintayning
the
Ecclesiasticall
and
spirituall
Supremacy
,
that
our
Parliament
first
gaue
to
King
Henry
the
8.
which
you
see
M.
Andrews
doth
not
,
Why
M.
Andrewes
is
no
good
English
Protestant
.
who
(
as
I
haue
said
)
hath
so
pared
,
shaued
,
and
abridged
it
,
that
he
hath
made
it
nothing
in
effect
,
at
least
much
lesse
,
and
of
farre
other
condition
then
the
Parliament
ordayned
it
.
Wherby
he
is
not
only
subiect
to
the
penalties
of
the
Parliamentall
statutes
,
See
constitut.
and
Canons
Ecclesiasticall
,
printed
.
by
Rob.
Barker
,
Anno.
1604.
Can.
2.
as
a
Traytor
,
but
also
incurreth
the
censure
of
excommunication
imposed
by
a
late
Synodicall
constitution
of
the
Byshops
and
Clergy
of
the
Prouince
of
Canterbury
,
vpon
such
,
as
impeach
in
any
part
,
(
saith
the
Canon
)
his
Maiesties
Regall
supremacy
in
Ecclesiasticall
causes
,
restored
to
the
Crowne
by
the
Lawes
of
this
Realme
therin
established
,
and
so
strickt
is
the
Canon
against
such
persons
,
that
it
ordayneth
further
,
that
they
being
excommunicated
ipso
facto
,
shall
not
be
restored
,
but
only
by
the
Archbyshop
,
after
their
repentance
,
and
publike
reuocation
of
their
wicked
errour
.
So
as
this
Canon
,
and
all
the
rest
made
in
that
Conuocation
,
being
authorized
by
his
Maiesty
,
and
published
by
his
Regall
authority
,
vnder
the
great
Seale
of
England
,
I
remit
to
the
iudgment
of
all
true
English
Protestantes
,
whether
M.
Andrews
hauing
incurred
the
censure
of
this
Canon
(
and
being
consequently
cut
off
from
the
vnion
of
their
Congregation
)
can
be
a
member
of
their
body
,
or
any
other
to
them
,
then
an
Ethnick
,
or
a
Publican
,
vntill
he
haue
publikly
reuoked
his
errour
,
and
be
absolued
,
and
restored
by
the
Archbishop
.
62.
And
no
maruell
,
seeing
that
he
is
(
as
it
seemeth
)
so
farre
from
being
an
English
Protestant
(
whatsoeuer
he
hath
ben
hertofore
)
that
he
is
now
turned
flat
Puritan
in
this
point
,
M.
Andrewes
seemeth
to
be
turned
Puritan
,
in
the
point
of
the
K.
Supremacy
.
allowing
the
King
no
more
power
ouer
the
Church
then
to
mayntayne
,
and
defend
it
,
which
is
the
very
doctrine
of
the
Puritans
,
who
therfore
do
willingly
sweare
obedience
to
their
Princes
for
the
defence
,
and
conseruation
of
the
Church
,
as
it
appeareth
by
the
Oath
of
the
Puritans
in
Scotland
,
who
sweare
thus
:
Quoniam
percepimus
Ecclesiae
,
&
religionis
nostrae
tranquillitatem
&c.
Forasmuch
as
we
perceiue
that
the
tranquillity
,
The
Oath
of
the
Puritans
of
Scotland
,
set
forth
in
the
yeare
1584.
&
stability
of
our
Church
,
and
religion
doth
depend
on
the
health
,
and
good
gouernment
of
his
Maiesty
,
as
of
the
comfortable
instrument
of
gods
mercy
,
granted
the
Realm
for
the
conseruation
of
the
Church
,
and
the
administration
of
iustice
amongst
vs
;
we
do
couenant
,
and
promise
with
our
hart
,
vnder
the
same
Oath
,
subscription
,
and
penalties
,
to
defend
his
person
,
authority
,
and
dignity
,
with
our
goods
,
bodies
,
and
liues
,
for
the
defence
of
the
Ghospell
of
Christ
,
and
the
liberty
of
our
Countrey
.
63.
Thus
sweare
they
,
and
no
more
teacheth
M.
Andrewes
in
substance
,
granting
no
other
power
to
Kings
ouer
the
Church
,
then
they
do
,
to
wit
,
that
Kings
are
but
as
Foster-fathers
,
&
defenders
of
it
.
Wherin
neuerthelesse
this
difference
may
be
noted
betwixt
the
Puritans
and
him
,
What
difference
may
be
noted
betwixt
M.
Andrews
and
the
Puritans
.
that
they
do
belieue
it
as
a
matter
of
faith
(
no
lesse
then
we
)
wheras
M.
Andrewes
is
only
perswaded
that
it
is
true
,
seing
that
he
placeth
therin
the
Kings
Ecclesiasticall
Supremacy
,
which
he
holdeth
to
be
no
matter
of
fayth
,
and
therfore
if
the
said
Supremacy
consist
only
in
the
defence
of
the
Church
,
(
as
it
doth
according
to
his
doctrine
)
then
both
we
,
and
the
Puritans
are
better
subiects
then
he
,
Both
Catholikes
&
Puritans
are
better
Subiects
then
M.
Andrews
.
because
we
belieue
the
same
to
be
a
matter
of
faith
,
and
consequently
do
think
our selues
bound
in
conscience
to
maintaine
it
,
though
it
be
with
los●e
of
our
liues
,
wheras
he
taking
it
to
be
but
only
a
matter
of
perswasion
,
will
not
,
by
all
liklyhood
,
loose
six
pence
to
defend
it
.
64.
Furthermore
to
shew
that
he
doth
truly
Puritanize
in
the
point
of
the
Supremacy
,
it
is
to
be
vnderstood
,
that
whereas
the
[
](A00916-e123530-b)(a)
(a)
Card.
Apol.
ca.
1.
pag.
10
Cardinall
obiecteth
out
of
the
Basilicon
Doron
of
his
Maiesty
,
that
the
Puritans
do
not
admit
the
Kings
Ecclesiasticall
primacy
,
because
they
introduce
a
certaine
parity
into
the
Church
,
he
[
](A00916-e123600-b)(b)
(b)
Andr.
c.
1.
p.
30.
§.
Postremo
.
answereth
that
albeit
they
maintayne
a
parity
a
mongst
themselues
(
reiecting
the
distinction
of
degrees
of
Byshops
aboue
Ministers
or
of
one
Minister
,
aboue
another
)
yet
they
doe
not
hold
,
that
there
is
any
parity
betwixt
the
King
,
and
them
,
but
do
admit
and
acknowledg
his
Supremacy
ouer
them
;
thus
teacheth
M.
Andrews
,
and
addeth
presently
after
in
the
[
](A00916-e123670-b)(c)
(c)
Ibid
§.
Nec
habet
.
next
paragraph
,
that
wheresoeuer
the
Religion
is
reformed
,
the
supreme
temporall
Magistrats
haue
this
Power
,
euen
this
selfe
same
,
which
the
King
hath
.
So
he
,
whereupon
two
things
may
be
euidently
gathered
.
The
one
,
that
the
Puritans
haue
the
same
doctrine
concerning
the
Ecclesiasticall
primacy
of
temporall
Princes
,
that
is
taught
in
all
the
reformed
Churches
,
which
indeed
they
also
affirme
of
themselues
.
The
other
is
,
that
the
King
hath
no
other
Ecclesiasticall
power
but
the
self
same
that
the
Puritans
,
and
all
the
reformed
Churches
doe
graunt
to
their
temporall
Magistrate
.
65.
But
what
the
Puritans
teach
concerning
this
point
,
See
c.
6.
n.
78.79
.
you
heard
in
the
last
Chapter
by
the
testimony
of
M.
Rogers
,
approued
,
and
warranted
by
all
the
Cleargy
of
England
,
to
wit
,
that
Princes
must
be
seruants
to
the
Church
,
The
Puritans
doctrine
concerning
the
Kings
subiection
to
their
Presbytery
.
subiect
to
the
Church
,
submit
their
Scepters
to
the
Church
,
and
throw
downe
their
Crownes
before
the
Church
,
and
that
(
as
Beza
testifieth
)
they
cannot
be
exempted
from
this
diuine
domination
of
the
presbitery
;
whereupon
I
gather
two
things
,
the
one
,
that
the
Supremacy
which
(
as
M.
Andrews
saith
)
the
Puritans
do
acknowledg
in
the
King
,
is
to
be
vnderstood
only
in
temporall
matters
,
wherein
they
doe
indeed
admit
him
to
be
theyr
supreme
head
,
and
Gouernour
,
though
(
as
you
see
in
M.
Rogers
)
they
hold
him
in
spirituall
matters
to
be
wholly
subiect
to
the
Presbitery
.
The
other
is
,
that
all
the
reformed
Churches
are
also
of
the
same
mynd
,
seeing
that
they
professe
the
same
doctrine
concerning
the
Kings
Ecclesiasticall
supremacy
,
that
the
Puritans
doe
,
as
M.
Andrews
himselfe
confesseth●
whereupon
it
also
followeth
that
the
Kings
Maiestie
hath
no
spirituall
power
,
or
authority
at
all
ouer
the
English
Church
,
seeing
that
(
by
M.
Andrewes
his
owne
confession
)
he
hath
no
other
power
but
that
which
the
Puritans
and
the
reformed
Churches
doe
admit
in
their
temporall
Princes
.
66.
Besides
that
,
albeit
we
should
grant
,
that
the
Puritans
and
reformed
Churches
do
allow
the
temporall
Magistrat
to
haue
some
power
,
and
authority
in
Ecclesiasticall
matters
,
yet
it
is
euident
that
they
do
not
allow
them
that
spirituall
Iurisdiction
and
authority
,
The
pretended
reformed
churches
do
not
allow
in
temporall
Princes
any
such
spirituall
authority
as
our
Parlaments
haue
granted
to
our
Kings
.
which
our
Parliaments
haue
granted
to
our
Kinges
,
to
wit
,
that
all
the
spirituall
power
of
the
Church
shall
reside
principally
in
them
,
and
is
to
be
deduced
from
them
to
the
Church
,
as
from
the
head
to
the
body
,
&
that
they
may
giue
Dispensations
,
Licences
,
and
Faculties
in
matters
of
Conscience
,
make
Ecclesiasticall
Lawes
,
giue
Commissions
to
consecrate
Bishops
,
to
excommunicat
,
interdict
,
suspend
,
censure
,
to
visit
&
correct
all
Ecclesiasticall
Persons
,
and
to
reforme
all
heresyes
,
and
abuses
:
this
I
say
being
a
meere
spirituall
power
,
and
exercised
by
our
Kings
in
England
(
according
to
the
grant
of
the
Parliament
)
is
not
admitted
,
and
much
lesse
practized
in
any
of
the
reformed
Churches
,
M.
Andrews
professing
the
doctrine
of
the
Puritans
and
reformed
Churches
concerning
the
Kings
supremacy
denieth
it
to
be
spirituall
.
as
all
those
know
,
who
know
any
thing
of
their
doctrine
and
practise
.
67.
Therfore
wheras
M.
Andrews
saith
,
that
aswell
the
reformed
Churches
as
the
Puritans
,
do
grant
the
self
same
authority
to
the
temporall
Prince
,
which
our
King
hath
,
and
exerciseth
in
England
:
he
sheweth
euidently
that
in
his
opinion
his
Maiesty
hath
no
such
spirituall
iurisdiction
,
and
authority
as
hath
bin
granted
him
by
our
Parliament
,
for
that
(
as
I
haue
said
)
the
Puritans
&
reformed
Churches
(
whose
doctrine
in
this
point
he
approueth
)
do
not
acknowledg
any
such
spirituall
authority
in
temporall
Princes
,
but
only
a
temporall
power
,
and
obligation
to
mayntayne
,
and
defend
the
Church
,
so
farre
forth
as
the
same
hath
need
of
externall
,
and
humane
helpe
,
assistance
,
or
defence
,
which
is
indeed
the
self
same
,
&
all
that
M.
Andrewes
(
as
you
haue
heard
[
](A00916-e124150-b)(b)
(b)
supr●
nu
.
47.
before
)
alloweth
to
the
Kings
Maiesty
,
when
he
saith
,
that
he
is
no
otherwise
ouer
the
Church
,
but
as
a
foster-father
&
a
tutor
to
nourish
and
defend
it
,
and
that
the
question
of
the
Kings
Ecclesiasticall
supremacy
concerneth
[
](A00916-e124180-b)(c)
(c)
nu.
37.
only
the
externall
gouernment
of
the
Church
,
M.
Andrews
no
English
Protestant
but
a
flat
Puritan
.
so
farre
forth
as
it
requireth
,
and
admitteth
humane
help
and
authority
.
So
that
you
see
M.
Andrews
is
not
in
this
point
an
English
Protestant
,
but
rather
a
flat
Puritan
.
68.
And
if
this
be
now
the
common
opinion
of
the
Protestants
in
England
(
as
M.
Andrewes
would
haue
vs
to
suppose
)
we
may
more
truly
say
of
them
,
The
learned
English
Protestants
ashamed
o●
their
wonted
doctrine
concerning
the
Ecclesiasticall
supremacy
of
temporall
Princes
.
then
he
said
of
the
Puritans
,
dies
diem
docuit
,
&
ex
eo
facti
aequiores
recognouerunt
errorem
suum
:
time
hath
taught
them
more
wit
,
and
so
now
they
haue
recanted
their
errour
.
And
no
meruaile
,
seing
that
their
former
doctrine
is
of
it selfe
so
absurd
,
&
hath
bin
so
canuassed
,
&
battered
by
Catholicks
,
that
they
are
worthely
ashamed
of
it
,
especially
such
of
them
as
,
haue
any
learning
,
or
shame
at
all
,
for
some
no
doubt
there
are
of
the
ministry
,
that
will
not
stick
to
defend
it
,
or
any
thing
els
,
how
absurd
soeuer
it
be
,
amongst
whom
M.
Barlow
may
go
for
one
,
who
in
his
Preambler
Epistle
to
the
ministers
of
Scotland
,
which
I
haue
mentioned
before
vpon
another
occasion
)
is
not
ashamed
to
make
the
Pagan
,
See
befor●
nu.
35.
&
●
chap.
6.
nu.
77.
and
Infidell
Emperours
supreme
heades
of
the
Church
,
in
the
time
of
the
Apostles
,
saying
that
S.
Paul
appealed
to
Caesars
iudgment
as
the
supreme
,
wheras
Papists
and
Puritans
will
haue
the
King
to
be
but
an
honorable
member
,
not
a
chief
gouernour
in
the
Churches
of
his
dominions
.
So
he
.
69.
Wherein
two
things
are
to
be
noted
,
the
one
that
he
doth
ridiculously
make
the
Pagan
Emperours
the
chief
members
,
that
is
to
say
,
the
heads
,
or
gouernours
of
the
Church
,
who
neuertheles
being
Idolatours
,
could
not
be
so
much
as
the
meanest
members
thereof
.
The
other
,
that
he
seemeth
to
make
the
Kings
Maiesty
no
other
wise
chief
gouernour
in
the
Church
,
then
they
were
,
albeit
I
think
he
will
not
be
so
absurd
,
as
to
acknowledge
any
spirituall
authority
in
them
,
M.
Barl.
seemeth
to
make
the
King
head
of
the
Church
no
otherwyse
than
as
the
Pagan
Emperours
were
.
seing
they
were
altogeather
vncapable
therof
,
being
as
I
haue
sayd
,
Idolatours
,
enemies
,
and
violent
persecutors
of
the
Church
,
and
faith
of
Christ
.
So
as
herby
it
appeareth
that
he
also
concurreth
with
M.
Andrews
to
depriue
his
Maiesty
of
all
the
spirituall
iurisdiction
,
and
authority
which
the
Parliaments
haue
granted
to
our
Kings
,
and
that
consequently
they
are
both
of
them
in
one
predicament
of
disloyalty
towards
his
Maiesty
,
and
defection
from
the
wonted
Protestantisme
of
England
,
in
the
point
of
the
Kings
Ecclesiasticall
Supremacy
.
70.
Now
then
to
conclude
concerning
them
both
,
&
all
the
premises
,
thou
hast
seene
,
good
Reader
,
how
well
these
two
Prelats
of
the
English
Church
do
simbolize
,
&
agree
,
not
only
in
seeking
to
delude
their
Readers
with
dyuers
lyes
,
fraudulent
shifts
,
and
deuises
,
but
also
in
betraying
their
owne
cause
,
and
fortifying
ours
which
is
so
euident
in
them
both
,
that
they
may
well
be
accounted
the
most
harmles
,
or
rather
the
most
propitious
enemies
that
euer
the
Catholikes
had
,
and
therfore
may
in
some
sort
be
compared
to
the
Scorpion
,
which
being
a
most
venemous
Serpent
,
M.
Barlow
and
M.
Andrews
,
like
to
the
Scorpion
,
and
why
.
yieldeth
a
sufficient
remedy
against
his
owne
poison
,
and
so
do
they
;
for
albeit
they
are
replenished
with
venom
,
and
malignity
,
yea
and
sting
somtimes
most
maliciously
,
(
not
with
solid
arguments
,
but
with
spitefull
gibes
,
and
contumelious
iests
)
yet
their
malice
doth
commonly
carry
with
it
the
remedy
of
it selfe
,
being
for
the
most
part
so
manifest
,
and
accompanyed
with
such
apparant
falshood
,
and
euident
folly
,
that
no
man
of
learning
,
and
consideration
can
receiue
any
harme
thereby
,
but
rather
great
benefit
by
the
discouery
of
their
imbecility
,
&
the
weakenes
of
their
cause●
Seing
they
cannot
otherwyse
defend
it
,
then
by
such
contumelious
,
and
malicious
proceedings
.
71.
Insomuch
that
the
learned
strangers
,
who
read
M.
Andrewes
his
booke
in
latin
,
The
opinion
of
the
learned
strangers
concerning
M.
Andrewes
his
bookes
against
Cardinall
Bellarmine
.
and
do
consider
withall
the
speciall
choyce
that
the
English
Clergy
hath
made
of
him
to
mayntayne
the
combat
against
Cardinall
Bellarmine
,
in
the
eye
,
and
view
of
the
Christian
world
,
do
exceedingly
wonder
,
as
well
at
the
penury
of
learned
Deuines
in
England
,
as
at
their
want
of
iudgment
in
venturing
the
credit
of
their
cause
,
vpon
so
weake
a
Champion
,
whose
valour
consisteth
in
nothing
els
,
but
in
certayne
Thrasonicall
braggs
,
Satyricall
scoffes
,
and
a
vayne
presumption
of
his
latin
stile
;
M.
Andrews
gerally
disliked
for
his
obscurity●
which
neuertheles
seemeth
to
learned
men
more
fit
for
a
Comicall
,
or
Satyriall
Poet
,
then
for
a
Doctor
of
Diuinity
;
wherein
also
they
obserue
such
obsurdity●
that
they
hold
it
for
no
lesse
vicious
in
a
Deuine
writing
of
matters
in
controuersy
,
then
it
would
be
in
an
Orator
or
Aduocat
pleading
a
cause
,
in
whome
nothing
is
more
requisit
,
then
perspicuity
:
and
therefore
Quintilian
greatly
reprehendeth
such
as
affecting
an
extraordinary
breuity
,
necessaria
subtrahunt
verba
&c.
do
leaue
out
,
saith
he
,
necessary
words
.
And
(
as
if
it
were
sufficient
that
they
know
their
owne
meaning
)
care
not
whether
others
vnderstand
them
or
no.
So
sayth
Quintilian
.
72.
And
truly
the
same
is
so
well
verifyed
in
M.
Andrewes
that
he
may
iustly
say
with
the
Poet
dum
breuis
esse
laboro
obscurus
fio
,
whyles
I
labour
to
be
briefe
I
become
obseure
,
in
so
much
that
he
is
farre
more
easy
to
be
confuted
,
M.
Andrewes
compared
for
his
obscurity
to
a
fish
called
a
Cuttle
.
then
vnderstood
,
seeming
somtymes
rather
to
propound
riddles
,
then
to
argue
or
discourse
;
which
he
doth
(
perhaps
)
of
purpose
to
the
end
that
being
obscure
,
and
ambiguous
he
may
alwayes
haue
some
starting
hole
,
or
other
,
when
he
is
pressed
by
his
aduersary
;
not
vnlike
to
a
fish
(
called
in
latin
sepia
,
in
English
a
Cuttle
)
which
when
she
is
in
danger
to
be
taken
casteth
out
a
kind
of
black
licour
lyke
inke
,
Plyn
.
l.
9.
ca.
29.
wherwith
she
obscureth
,
and
troubleth
the
water
in
such
sort
that
she
cannot
be
seene
,
and
so
the
more
easily
escapeth
.
73.
Neuertheles
M.
Andrews
reapeth
not
the
like
benefit
by
his
obscurity
,
being
discouered
wheresoeuer
he
lurketh
,
and
taken
tardy
at
euery
turne
,
whereof
sufficient
experience
hath
bene
seene
in
these
few
points
of
his
booke
,
which
I
haue
had
occasion
to
handle
,
being
only
such
as
are
incident
to
matters
treated
in
my
Supplement
,
besydes
dyuers
others
of
the
same
sort
,
which
I
am
forced
,
for
lack
of
time
,
to
omit
,
wherein
I
might
much
more
amply
haue
displayed
his
insufficiency
,
falsity
,
and
folly
:
and
therfore
I
leaue
it
to
thee
good
Reader
,
to
imagin
what
a
number
of
absurdityes
,
lyes
,
frauds
,
and
corruptions
his
whole
worke
would
affoard
,
if
it
were
well
examined
.
74
But
now
to
end
in
no
lesse
charitable
manner
with
him
,
A
good
aduise
for
a
frendly
farewell
to
M.
Andrews
.
then
I
did
with
M.
Barlow
,
I
will
only
wish
him
well
to
consider
those
few
aduyses
which
I
gaue
to
M.
Barlow
in
the
8.
last
paragraphs
of
my
[
](A00916-e124860-b)(b)
(b)
Se
sup.
ca.
8.
nu.
100.
&
seq
.
Supplement
,
and
to
take
them
also
as
meant
,
and
giuen
to
himselfe
,
to
the
end
he
may
seriously
reflect
vpon
them
,
&
specially
vpon
his
vayne
endeauours
,
and
lost
[
](A00916-e124910-b)(c)
(c)
Ibid.
nu.
103.
&
104.
labour
in
impugning
the
Apostolike
Roman
Sea
,
weyghing
withall
in
what
a
dangerous
,
and
miserable
state
he
standeth
,
so
long
as
he
is
separated
from
the
vnion
therof
,
which
I
haue
there
[
](A00916-e124950-b)(d)
(d)
Ibid.
nu.
105.
&
seq
.
euidently
shewed
by
the
testimony
of
the
most
ancient
,
and
holy
Fathers
.
Almighty
God
(
of
his
infinit
mercy
)
open
his
eyes
that
he
may
see
it
,
and
duly
ponder
our
Sauiours
most
important
aduyse
,
&
golden
lesson
[
](A00916-e124980-b)(f)
(f)
Mat.
16.
Mar.
8.
Quid
prodest
homini
&c.
What
doth
it
profit
a
man
,
if
he
gayne
all
the
world
,
and
loose
his
owne
soule
?
FINIS
.
AN
APPENDIX
TOVCHING
A
Register
alleadged
by
M.
Francis
Mason
,
to
proue
THAT
The
first
Protestant
Byshops
,
in
the
reigne
of
Queene
Elizabeth
,
had
a
lawfull
Consecration
.
THIS
Adioynder
being
printed
,
and
some
copyes
ready
to
be
diuulged
,
it
was
my
chance
to
vnderstand
by
a
Letter
written
to
a
frend
of
myne
,
that
one
M.
Mason
hath
lately
published
a
Book
,
Touching
the
cause
and
subiect
of
this
Appendix
.
wherin
he
pretendeth
to
answere
the
Preface
to
Fa.
Persons
his
Discussion
,
especially
concerning
one
point
treated
therin
,
to
wit
,
the
Consecration
of
the
first
Protestant
Bishops
in
the
raigne
of
Queene
Elizabeth
:
&
further
,
that
he
indeauoureth
to
proue
their
consecration
by
a
Register
,
testifying
that
4.
Bishops
consecrated
M.
Parker
,
the
first
Archbishop
of
Canterbury
in
the
said
Queenes
dayes
;
wherupon
,
if
it
be
true
,
it
must
needes
follow
that
all
other
Bishops
consecrated
after
him
,
and
his
successors
,
euen
vntill
this
day
,
haue
some
more
shew
of
lawfull
consecration
,
and
succession
,
then
the
Catholickes
haue
hitherto
known
or
imagined
.
2.
And
therfore
for
as
much
,
as
not
only
the
Authour
of
the
Preface
to
Fa.
Persons
his
Discussion
,
but
also
my selfe
in
my
Supplement
,
See
Suppl
.
p.
208.
nu.
3
Adioy●d
.
ca.
10.
nu.
35.
and
in
this
Adioynder
haue
constantly
denyed
,
that
they
had
any
such
consecration
,
I
thought
good
to
stay
the
publication
of
this
Adioynder
,
vntill
I
had
added
therto
this
briefe
Appendix
concerning
M.
Masons
pretended
Register
,
left
otherwise
M.
Barlow
,
and
M.
Andrewes
may
hold
me
to
be
sufficiently
answered
by
M.
Mason
,
and
remit
me
to
his
Register
for
that
point
.
Thou
shalt
therfore
vnderstand
,
Good
Reader
,
that
this
our
exception
,
touching
the
lawfull
vocation
,
and
Consecration
of
the
first
Protestant
Bishops
in
the
late
Queenes
dayes
,
The
exception
taken
by
Catholik●
to
the
first
Protestant
Bishopes
in
Q.
Elizabeth●
dayes
,
i●
no
new
quarrell
.
is
not
a
new
quarrell
now
lately
raised
by
vs
two
only
,
(
I
meane
the
Authour
of
the
foresaid
Preface
,
and
my self
)
but
vehemently
vrged
dyuers
tymes
heretofore
by
many
other
Catholykes
many
yeares
ago
,
yea
in
the
very
beginning
of
the
late
Queenes
reygne
,
as
namely
to
omit
others
,
by
the
two
learned
Doctors
Harding
,
and
Stapleton
in
theyr
bookes
against
the
Apology
of
the
Ch●rch
of
England
,
M.
Iewell
,
and
M.
Horne
,
whome
they
pressed
mightily
with
the
defect
of
due
vocation
,
and
consecration
,
vrging
them
to
proue
the
same
,
and
to
shew
how
,
and
by
whome
they
were
made
Priests
,
and
Bishops
.
3.
To
which
purpose
M.
D.
Harding
in
his
confutation
of
the
Apology
,
D.
Hard.
confut.
of
the
Apolog.
par.
2.
fol.
59.
printed
an
.
Dom.
1565.
speaking
to
M.
Iewell
the
pretended
Bishop
of
Salisbury
,
and
hauing
already
proued
,
that
he
had
no
succession
in
his
Episcopall
function
from
the
Apostles
,
sayth
thus
:
Therefore
to
goe
from
your
succession
,
to
your
vocation
,
how
say
you
Syr
?
You
beare
your selfe
,
D.
Hardings
chaleng
to
M.
Iewell
concerning
the
consecration
of
the
first
Protestant
Bishops
.
as
though
you
were
a
Bishop
of
Salisbury
;
but
how
can
you
proue
your
vocation
?
By
what
authority
vsurp
you
the
administration
of
doctrine
,
and
Sacraments
?
What
can
you
alledg
for
the
right
,
&
proof
of
your
ministry
?
Who
hath
called
you
?
Who
hath
layd
hands
on
you
?
By
what
example
hath
he
done
it
?
how
,
and
by
whome
are
you
consecrated
?
Who
hath
sent
you
&c.
So
he
.
4.
In
lyke
manner
M.
Doctor
Stapleton
in
his
answere
to
M.
Iewells
booke
intituled
,
D.
Staplet
.
return
of
vntru
.
fol.
130.
lin.
26.
A
reply
&c.
saith
thus
:
How
chanced
then
M.
Iewell
,
that
you
and
your
fellowes
bearing
your selues
for
Bishops
,
haue
not
so
much
as
this
congruity
,
D.
Stapletons
chalenge
to
M.
Iewell
,
and
M.
Horne
touching
their
consecration
.
and
consent
,
I
will
not
say
of
the
Pope
,
but
of
any
Christian
Bishop
at
all
throughout
all
Christendome
,
neyther
are
lyked
,
and
allowed
of
any
one
of
them
all
,
but
haue
taken
vpon
you
that
office
without
any
imposition
of
hands
,
without
all
Ecclesiasticall
authority
,
without
all
order
of
Canons
and
right
?
I
aske
not
who
gaue
you
Bishoprikes
,
but
who
made
you
Bishops
&c.
So
he
.
Who
also
in
his
Counterblast
against
M.
Horne
the
pretended
Bishop
of
Winchester
,
saith
to
him
thus
:
It
is
not
the
Princes
only
pleasure
that
maketh
a
Bishop
,
Idem
counterblast
fol.
301.
but
there
must
be
both
free
election
,
without
eyther
forcing
the
Clergy
to
a
choyse
,
or
forcing
the
chosen
to
filthy
brybery
,
and
also
there
must
follow
a
due
consecration
,
which
you
,
and
all
your
fellowes
doe
lack
,
and
therefore
you
are
indeed
(
by
the
way
to
conclude
it
)
no
true
Byshops
,
An.
1.
Elizab.
ca.
1.
neyther
by
the
law
of
the
Church
,
neyther
yet
by
the
lawes
of
the
Realme
,
for
want
of
due
consecration
,
expressely
required
by
an
act
of
Parliament
renewed
in
this
Queens
dayes
in
suffragan
Bishops
,
much
more
in
you
.
Thus
sayth
M.
Stapleton
,
which
I
haue
layd
downe
at
large
in
his
owne
words
,
togeather
with
the
lyke
out
of
D.
Harding
before
,
to
the
end
it
may
appeare
how
earnestly
they
pressed
M.
Iewell
,
&
M.
Horne
(
who
were
two
of
the
first
pretended
Byshops
in
Queene
Elizabeths
tyme
)
to
shew
from
whom
,
and
by
whom
,
they
had
their
vocation
,
and
consecration
.
5.
And
what
,
M.
Horne
answered
nothing
concerning
his
consecration
.
trow
you
,
was
answered
therto
?
was
there
any
Bishop
named
who
had
consecrated
them
?
were
there
any
witnesses
alledged
of
their
consecration
?
was
M.
Masons
register
,
or
any
other
authenticall
proof
therof
produced
,
eyther
by
M.
Iewell
,
or
M.
Horne
?
Iewell
defence
of
the
Apology
pag.
130.
No
truly
;
for
as
for
M.
Horne
he
neuer
replyed
,
or
any
man
for
him
,
for
ought
I
euer
heard
.
And
M.
Iewell
though
he
tooke
vpon
him
to
answere
it
,
yet
did
it
so
weakely
,
coldly
,
and
ambiguously
,
that
he
sufficiently
fortified
and
iustified
his
aduersaries
obiection
.
6.
For
whereas
D.
Harding
had
demanded
of
him
how
he
could
proue
that
he
was
a
Bishop●
who
had
called
him
,
who
had
layd
hands
on
him
,
and
who
had
consecrated
him
;
he
answered
,
that
he
was
a
Bishop
by
the
free
,
and
accustomed
Canonicall
election
of
the
whole
Chapter
of
Salisbury
,
M.
Iewels
ambiguous
and
weak
answere
touching
his
lawfull
consecration
.
but
to
the
question
how
he
was
consecrated
,
or
by
whome
,
he
answereth
no
otherwyse
,
then
thus
,
Our
Bishops
are
made
,
saith
he
,
in
forme
and
order
,
as
they
haue
byn
euer
,
by
free
election
of
the
Chapter
,
by
consecration
of
the
Archbishop
,
and
3.
other
Bishops
,
wherein
you
see
,
he
saith
not
,
I
was
made
,
or
wee
were
made
,
by
the
consecration
of
the
Archbishop
,
and
3.
other
Bishops
(
as
he
should
haue
said
,
to
answere
directly
to
the
question
)
but
our
Bishops
are
made
&c.
declaring
directly
,
and
truly
nothing
els
,
but
the
custome
that
then
was
receiued
,
and
vsed
amongst
them
,
for
the
making
of
Bishops
,
which
was
not
denyed
,
or
doubted
of
by
D●
Harding
,
neyther
was
it
any
thing
at
all
to
the
purpose
,
because
the
same
concerned
not
the
institution
,
and
consecration
of
M.
Iewell
himselfe
,
or
the
first
pretended
Bishops
,
and
much
lesse
did
it
concerne
the
ordination
,
and
consecration
of
their
Archbishop
,
which
as
M.
Iewell
could
not
but
know
,
most
imported
to
be
declared
.
7.
For
albeit
it
should
be
true
,
that
the
Arch-Bishop
,
and
3.
others
consecrated
M.
Iewell
himselfe
,
and
the
rest
,
How
much
it
imported
M.
Iewell
to
haue
proued
the
consecration
of
their
Archbishop
.
yet
if
the
sayd
Archbishop
,
and
those
three
others
,
had
themselues
no
consecration
,
neyther
they
,
nor
any
other
ordayned
by
them
were
Bishops
;
and
therefore
this
was
the
difficulty
which
M.
Iewell
should
principally
haue
cleared
,
as
M.
Doctor
Harding
afterwards
in
his
detection
told
him
roundly
,
saying
thus
:
And
how
I
pray
you
was
your
Archbishop
himselfe
consecrated
?
what
3.
Bishops
in
the
realme
were
there
to
lay
hands
vpon
him
?
You
haue
now
vttered
a
worse
case
for
your selues
,
Doct.
Har.
detect
.
fol.
234.
p.
2.
then
was
by
me
before
named
,
for
your
Metropolitan
,
who
should
giue
authority
to
all
your
consecrations
,
himselfe
had
no
lawfull
consecration
.
Yf
you
had
byn
consecrated
after
the
forme
,
and
order
which
hath
euer
byn
vsed
,
yee
might
haue
had
Bishops
out
of
France
to
haue
consecrated
you
,
in
case
there
had
lacked
in
England
.
But
now
there
were
ancient
Bishops
ynough
in
England
,
who
eyther
were
not
required
,
or
refused
to
consecrate
you
,
which
is
an
euident
signe
that
you
sought
not
such
a
consecration
,
as
had
byn
euer
vsed
,
but
such
a
one
,
whereof
all
the
former
Bishops
were
ashamed
.
Thus
saith
D.
Harding
.
8.
Now
then
,
good
Reader
,
I
wish
heere
certaine
thinges
to
be
considered
,
first
,
that
this
controuersy
betwixt
D.
Harding
,
and
M.
Iewell
,
was
thus
debated
,
as
you
haue
heard
,
in
the
very
beginning
of
the
Queenes
reygne
,
not
past
5.
or
6.
yeares
after
the
institution
of
those
first
pretended
Bishops
,
as
it
may
appeare
by
Doctor
Hardings
confutation
of
the
Apology
,
printed
in
the
yeare
of
our
Lord
1565.
and
by
Doctor
Stapletons
Returne
of
vntruths
,
printed
the
yeare
following
.
9.
Secondly
I
wish
it
well
to
be
weyghed
,
whether
it
be
probable
,
that
these
two
learned
men
(
Doctor
Harding
,
and
Doctor
Stapleton
)
would
haue
obiected
to
M.
Iewell
,
and
M.
Horne
,
this
defect
of
their
consecration
in
printed
bookes
,
so
confidently
,
and
resolutely
,
as
they
did
,
if
they
had
not
bin
well
assured
of
it
,
especially
them
,
when
their
consecration
would
haue
byn
so
fresh
in
memory
(
if
they
had
byn
consecrated
at
all
)
that
the
denyers
of
it
might
haue
byn
conuinced
by
multitudes
of
witnesses
to
their
perpetuall
shame
.
10.
Thirdly
,
Touching
M.
Iewels
irresolute
ambiguous
&
indirect
answere
.
let
it
be
considered
,
whether
M.
Iewell
being
expresly
demanded
,
and
vrged
to
shew
who
consecrated
him
and
his
fellowes
,
would
haue
answered
so
irresolutly
,
ambiguously
,
and
indirectly
as
he
did
,
if
he
could
haue
proued
theyr
consecration
eyther
by
witnesses
,
or
by
Registers
,
or
any
other
authenticall
proofe
;
to
which
purpose
it
is
also
to
be
noted
,
that
he
made
no
doubt
at
all
,
to
speake
resolutly
,
and
clearely
of
his
election
,
because
it
was
true
,
and
euident
,
that
he
was
chosen
by
the
Chapter
of
Salisbury
,
How
much
it
imported
the
first
Protestant
Bishops
to
haue
had
a
publick
&
most
solemne
Consecration
.
&
therfore
for
that
point
he
boldly
appealed
to
D.
Hardings
owne
knowledg
.
And
would
he
not
trow
you
,
haue
spoken
as
resolutly
&
clearely
of
his
consecration
,
if
he
could
haue
produced
the
lyke
proof
therof
,
or
any
other
probability
at
all
?
especially
seeing
that
it
was
the
poynt
which
was
then
chiefly
in
question
?
nay
would
not
he
haue
cried
shame
on
D.
Harding
for
denying
,
or
calling
in
question
a
matter
that
must
needs
haue
bin
most
notorious
at
the
same
time
if
there
had
bin
any
such
thing
at
all
?
For
besids
that
the
consecration
of
Bishops
is
allwayes
wont
to
be
don
in
publik
,
who
knoweth
not
that
it
greatly
imported
those
new
pretended
Bishops
,
for
the
credit
of
their
cause
,
&
honour
of
all
theyr
future
Clergy
,
to
haue
bene
consecrated
with
all
the
publicity
,
and
solemnity
in
the
world
,
if
they
could
haue
had
any
shew
of
lawfull
consecration
,
espicially
by
4.
Bishops
,
as
M.
Masons
register
reporteth
?
How
improbably
M.
Mason
affirmeth
out
of
his
Registers
that
4.
Bishops
consecrated
M.
Parker
the
first
Archbishop
.
11.
Neither
can
it
be
imagned
that
M.
D.
Harding
would
haue
bene
so
inconsiderate
as
to
demand
of
M.
Iewell
expresly
,
what
three
Byshops
in
the
Realme
were
to
lay
hands
vpon
him
(
meaning
Protestant
Bishops
)
if
there
had
bene
4.
it
being
a
thing
whereof
neither
he
,
nor
any
man
els
could
haue
bene
ignorant
at
that
tyme
,
if
there
had
bene
so
many
,
the
persons
themselues
being
then
all
alyue
by
all
lyklyhood
when
D.
Harding
wrote
this
,
which
was
within
6.
or
7.
yeares
after
this
pretended
consecration
;
at
least
if
any
of
them
should
haue
bene
dead
,
the
memory
of
them
would
haue
bene
so
fresh
,
that
M.
Iewell
might
,
and
no
doubt
would
,
not
only
haue
named
them
,
How
litle
credit
M.
Masons
new-found
Register
deserueth
.
but
also
haue
appealed
to
the
knowledge
,
and
testimony
of
hundreths
of
witnesses
,
who
must
needs
haue
knowne
them
,
and
remembred
,
this
pretended
Consecration
;
which
was
as
I
haue
sayd
so
constantly
denyed
by
Catholikes
at
the
same
tyme
,
that
it
highly
imported
M.
Iewell
,
and
his
fellowes
to
lay
downe
their
best
,
and
most
substantiall
,
and
authenticall
proofes
of
it
,
for
the
defence
of
theyr
owne
honour
and
credit
of
theyr
whole
Clergy
and
Cause
.
12.
This
then
being
so
,
I
report
me
to
the
iudgment
of
any
indifferent
man
,
what
credit
M.
Masons
new
found
register
deserueth
,
being
produced
now
after
fifty
and
odd
yeares
to
testify
this
consecration
,
Andr.
Resp.
ad
Apol.
p.
41.
§.
proximi
.
whereof
not
so
much
as
any
one
witnes
was
named
,
nor
any
register
pretended
by
those
whom
it
most
imported
to
proue
it
,
within
5.
or
6.
yeares
after
it
was
supposed
to
be
done
.
Barl.
answ●
to
a
name
.
Catholike
p.
283.
13.
And
therefore
seeing
it
pleaseth
M.
Andrewes
to
say
of
S.
Ephraems
Tomes
translated
by
Vossius
,
that
they
are
Crypticae
fidei
,
With
how
great
reason
exception
is
to
be
taken
to
M.
Masons
Register
vntill
he
shew
it
to
Catholiks
,
who
may
giue
testimony
of
it
.
because
they
were
found
in
Crypta
ferrata
,
and
M.
Barlow
in
his
pleasant
humour
iesteth
at
an
Authour
alledged
by
Cardinall
Baronius
out
of
a
manuscript
,
calling
him
a
Corner-creeping
relatour
,
and
a
Vatican
deske-creeper
;
as
also
others
of
our
aduersaries
are
wont
to
reiect
what
soeuer
we
alledge
out
of
the
manuscripts
of
the
Vatican
,
&
other
Libraries
,
vpon
no
better
ground
,
but
because
they
will
needes
haue
an
vncharitable
,
or
rather
malicious
conceipt
,
and
imagination
of
fraudulent
dealing
in
vs
;
I
hope
it
will
not
seeme
to
any
reasonable
man
,
vnreasonable
,
or
strange
,
that
vpon
so
good
ground
,
and
reason
,
as
I
haue
heere
declared
,
I
take
a
mayne
exception
to
this
Register
of
M.
Masons
,
vntill
he
,
or
some
of
his
fellowes
do
shew
the
same
to
some
learned
,
discreet
,
and
sincere
Catholikes
,
who
vpon
the
view
,
and
due
consideration
thereof
,
may
giue
iudgement
,
and
testimonie
of
the
truth
,
and
validity
of
it
.
What
is
to
be
considered
in
M.
Masons
Register
to
make
it
autenticall
.
14.
For
I
doubt
not
but
that
it
will
easily
appeare
,
whether
it
be
an
olde
,
and
authenticall
Register
,
as
well
by
the
antiquity
of
the
booke
,
and
letter
,
and
the
formalities
requisite
thereto
,
as
also
by
the
matters
antecedent
,
and
consequent
to
this
pretended
Consecration
.
For
as
there
were
many
things
,
no
doubt
,
done
before
,
worth
the
Registring
,
so
also
diuers
thinges
haue
passed
since
in
the
space
of
55.
yeares
,
which
wil
be
found
in
their
due
order
&
place
,
whereby
the
validity
of
the
pretended
Register
may
be
the
more
easily
discerned
;
therefore
I
say
,
let
it
be
shewed
,
and
in
recompence
thereof
I
promise
as
well
in
my
owne
behalfe
,
as
for
other
Catholikes
heere
in
Rome
,
that
if
any
English
Protestant
come
hither
,
(
as
many
do
dayly
)
and
shall
desire
to
see
any
manuscript
in
Rome
alledged
by
any
Catholike
authour
,
we
will
procure
him
ample
satisfaction
therein
,
and
doe
him
what
other
seruice
we
may
,
An
offer
to
shew
any
manuscript
in
Rome
to
English
Protestants
.
as
we
are
wont
to
doe
to
all
our
louing
countrymen
that
come
into
these
parts
;
which
many
Noblemen
,
and
Gentlemen
of
great
reputation
,
and
some
of
the
greatest
,
(
who
haue
receiued
courtesy
,
and
seruice
at
our
hands
)
may
,
and
no
doubt
will
testify
.
And
thus
much
I
haue
thought
good
to
say
to
M.
Masons
Register
in
generall
,
leauing
the
particuler
examination
,
and
answere
thereof
to
such
Catholikes
as
shall
haue
the
sight
of
it
,
and
occasion
withall
to
treate
of
the
matter
which
it
handleth
,
as
I
doubt
not
,
but
some
will
haue
,
ere
it
be
long
.
Faultes
escaped
in
the
Printing
.
Pag.
22.
lin.
12.
much
confirmed
by
these
very
places
&c.
sic
corrig●
much
confirmed
euen
by
those
Fathers
,
to
wit
,
S.
Augustine
&c.
Also
in
the
marginall
note
,
which
is
,
The
places
of
3.
Fathers
alleaged
&c.
corrige
,
The
3.
Fathers
alleaged
&c.
Pag.
24
lin.
12.
So
that
saith
this
famous
,
dele
,
that
.
Pag.
31.
lin.
11.
of
the
Citty
,
read
of
,
that
Citty
.
Pag
40.
lin.
16.
saying
,
read
suyng
,
Pag.
48.
lin.
penult
from
the
subiection
of
the
Church
to
the
Roman
Sea
,
read
,
from
subiection
to
the
Roman
Sea
.
Pag.
69.
lin
12.
out
of
the
booke
,
read
,
out
of
the
backside
of
the
booke
,
Pag.
75.
lin.
28.
I
haue
also
shewed
,
read
,
where
I
haue
also
shewed
Pag
130.
lin.
11.
notice
,
read
,
motiue●
Pag.
139.
lin.
11.
schisme
;
and
therby
&c.
read
,
schisme
,
which
(
as
you
haue
heard
)
M.
Andrewes
himself
confesseth
;
and
therby
&c.
Pag.
140.
lin.
2.
break
,
read
,
breaking
,
Pag.
142.
lin.
4.
fauour
,
read
,
feruour
.
Pag.
143.
lin.
13.
Power
of
the
Church
,
read
,
Pastour
of
the
Church
.
Pag.
147.
lin.
24.
where
it
is
said
,
as
S.
Fulgentius
S.
Augustines
scholler
and
others
,
those
wordes
must
be
placed
in
the
margent
for
a
citation
,
thus
:
See
S.
Fulgentius
&c.
Pag.
191.
lin.
11.
saith
S.
Augustine
,
read
,
saith
of
S.
Augustine
,
Pag.
238.
lin.
22.
which
faith
,
read
,
with
faith
.
Pag.
268.
lin.
24.
vnswerable
,
read
,
vnanswerable
.
Pag.
378.
lin.
18
seeme
,
read
,
seene
.
Pag.
380.
lin.
vlt.
taught
,
read
,
caught
Pag.
383.
lin.
1.
when
in
it
is
,
read
,
when
it
is
.
Pag.
395.
lin.
1.
quod
per
,
read
,
quos
per.
Pag.
418.
lin.
21.
by
noted
,
read
,
be
noted
.
A
TABLE
OF
THE
PRINCIPALL
MATTERS
HANDLED
IN
THIS
ADIOYNDER
.
A
-
ADORATION
diuersly
mentioned
in
Scripture
.
371.373.376
.
-
S.
Ambrose
his
proofe
of
S.
Peters
Supremacy
out
of
the
words
Pasce
oues
meas
.
pag.
8.
abused
by
M.
Andrews
,
281.282.283
-
Anatolius
Bishop
of
Constantinople
censured
by
Pope
Leo.
p.
62.63
.
His
submission
,
p.
65.
-
M.
Andrewes
his
abuse
of
S.
Augustin
&
S.
Ambrose
,
p.
5.6.7
.
8.18.415
.
His
vayne
braggs
,
p.
9.
his
beggarly
proofe
of
Princes
spirituall
Supremacy
,
p.
12.
sauours
of
Iudaisme
ibid.
His
egregious
equiuocation
,
pag.
13.
confounded
by
his
owne
Instance
,
pag.
14.
How
he
is
a
pecuniary
Pastour
,
pag.
16.
His
abuse
of
S.
Cyril
,
pag.
19.
His
shuttlecocks
&
fools
bolts
,
pag.
24.
His
abuse
of
the
Law
Inter
Claras
,
p.
33.34.35
.
&
38.
His
belying
and
corrupting
the
Councell
of
Calcedon
,
pag.
40.43
.
&
82.
his
Galli-maufrey
or
hoch-potch
pag.
79.
his
strang
paradox
,
pag.
75.
His
strayning
of
the
Greeke
text●
ib.
His
cause
ouerthrowne
by
himself
.
pag
89.
his
seared
conscience
p.
97.
His
foolish
Glosse
,
&
fraud
vpon
S.
Cyprian
,
pag.
102.105
.
&c.
His
abuse
of
Cardinall
Bellarmine
,
pag.
113.116.117.355
.
His
profession
of
Iouianisme
120.
His
idle
head
,
pag.
130.
His
impertinent
trifling
pag.
1●8
.
His
trifling
tale
of
Latinos
.
pag.
144
His
zeale
greater
then
his
wit
,
pag
154.
His
Transmarinus
Nemo
,
pag.
162.
His
Father
a
Father
of
lyes
,
192.
proued
a
wrangler
,
cap.
5.
&
6.
pertotum
.
he
ouerthroweth
all
subordination
in
the
Church
,
198.
His
petty
frauds
,
202.
his
phantasticall
conceipts
,
203.
His
dull
head
,
204.
His
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
207.360
.
greatly
troubled
with
litle
words
.
208.
His
●igh●
in
the
ayre
,
pag
●09
.
A
pecuniary
Pastour
,
210.
Confuteth
himself
,
220.
A
meere
wrangler
,
pag.
222.268
.
His
inference
of
Quidlibet
ex
Quolibet
,
pag.
233.
His
Cripticall
Cauill
against
S.
Ephrem
.
23●
.
His
Goggery
.
pag.
241.
His
abuse
of
S●
Epiphanius
.
254.
Of
S.
Ambrose
,
269.
His
euill
fortune
,
274.
His
clipping
&
paring
of
Fathers
authorities
when
they
make
against
him
278.
His
confusion
of
the
Priest
with
the
people
,
Masse
with
Mattines
&c.
298.
His
abuse
of
Theodoret
,
307.
his
scrupulosity
in
alleaging
of
Authorityes
,
323.
Pressed
with
his
owne
Argument
,
324.
Proueth
himselfe
a
Iew
,
325.
His
transgression
of
the
Synodicall
Canons
of
England
.
333.
His
silly
discourse
about
prayer
to
Saints
337.
Prodigall
of
his
Rhetorick●
343.
Wrongeth
his
Maiesty
,
349.
His
erring
of
malice
●56
.
His
trifling
obiections
,
357.358.359
.
His
changing
the
state
of
the
Question
about
the
Popes
Primacy
,
362.
Concerning
holy
reliques
,
368.
His
poore
conceipt
of
S.
Iohn
the
Euangelist
,
370.
A
iest
of
his
spoyled
,
374.
Triumpheth
when
he
looseth
,
377.
His
Dissimulation
of
matters
that
most
import
to
be
explicated
386.388
.
His
want
of
paper
in
text
&
margent
to
set
downe
the
truth
394.
His
Lucidum
interuallum
,
405.
His
abuse
of
S.
Gregory
407.
his
bad
conscience
412.
His
outfacing
of
matters
when
he
cannot
answere
,
418.
His
abuse
of
the
Iesuits
,
425.426
.
He
tri●th
how
neere
he
can
go
to
the
Catholike
Religion
&
misse
it
,
430.431
.
his
poore
conceyt
of
the
K.
Ecclesiasticall
Supremacy
,
459.
How
it
may
be
in
his
Pater
noster
,
but
not
in
his
Creed
,
460.
Excluded
by
M.
Andrews
,
467.
from
his
Maiesty
471.
How
he
is
turned
Puritan
,
pag.
477.480
.
-
Angell
in
the
Apocalyps
for
bad
S.
Iohn
to
adore
him
&
why
?
pag.
370.
-
Appeales
to
Rome
,
pag.
155.
by
Anthony
Byshop
of
Fussula
,
160.
allowed
by
the
Primate
of
Numidia
,
164.
testified
by
S.
Augustine
and
others
,
pag.
165.
by
S.
Iohn
Chrysostome
,
184.
-
S.
Augustine
abused
by
M.
Andr.
p●
4.5.6
.
his
acknowledgment
&
respect
of
S.
Peters
Supremacy
p.
17.
p.
150.159.167.189
.
his
approuing
of
prayers
to
Saints
296.297.298
.
-
Authority
of
the
Sea
of
Rome
in
all
ages
,
p.
169.170.173.180.181.188
.
proued
by
all
the
ancient
Fathers
,
passim
.
by
Origen
,
198.
by
S.
Hilary
,
189.200
.
-
Authors
reason
and
intention
of
this
Booke
p.
2.3
.
what
question
handled
therin
.
ibid.
pag.
4.
B
-
M.
BARLOW
and
M.
Andrewes
disagree
about
our
English
Clergies
gouernement
,
422.
-
S.
Basils
discourse
of
prayer
to
Saints
218.
of
Inuocation
of
Martyrs
.
223.
-
Beggary
of
the
Church
&
Clergy
of
England
,
457.
-
Ca.
Bellarmine
abused
by
M.
Andrewes
&
cleared
pag.
108.221
.
355.
his
meaning
about
our
prayers
to
Saints
,
and
their
praying
for
vs
explicated
,
215.
-
Bishops
of
the
East-church
deposed
by
the
Pope
pag●
53.
C
-
CHRIST
our
Mediatour
&
Aduocate
,
339.
-
S.
Chrisostome
proueth
S.
Peters
Supremacy
pag.
22.
&
142.
His
appeale
to
Pope
Innocentius
184.
His
testimony
for
inuocation
of
Saints
.
244.
-
Church
of
the
East
subiect
to
the
West
,
pag.
49.
Church
why
it
is
called
one
Mother
pag.
105.
built
equally
vpon
the
Apostles
,
pag.
144.
how
it
only
challengeth
the
name
Catholick
451.
Church
of
England
beggarly
,
457.
-
Collyridians
their
heresy
,
255.
-
Constantinople
subiect
to
the
Church
of
Rome
,
pag.
50.
Gods
Iudgement
vpon
that
Church
for
her
schisme
,
pag.
54.
-
Constitutions
of
the
pretended
Bishops
of
England
,
pag.
330.
conuinced
of
fraud
by
his
Maiesty
332.
-
Conference
at
Hampton-Court
before
his
Maiesty
.
332.
-
L.
Cromwell
Vicar
Generall
to
K.
Henry
8.
in
spiritualibus
469.
-
Councell
of
Calcedon
approued
the
Popes
Supremacy
,
pag.
39.40
.
Councell
of
Ephesus
&
head
therof
187.
Councels
why
assembled
,
pag
227.
Councell
of
Loadicea
forbiddeth
Idolatry
to
Angels
308.
-
Customes
Ecclesiasticall
of
what
force
&
validity
pag.
293.
-
S.
Cyprian
proueth
the
vnity
of
the
Church
by
the
vnity
of
the
head
thereof
101.104
.
also
the
Primacy
of
S.
Peter
.
pag.
106.
-
S.
Cyril
acknowledged
S.
Peters
Supremacy
.
pag.
17.
abused
by
M.
Andrewes
pag.
19.
D
-
DAMASVS
Pope
what
authority
attributed
to
him
by
S.
Hierome
pag.
173.
-
Difference
betweene
the
Primacy
of
S.
Peter
,
and
the
priuiledges
graunted
to
the
Roman
Sea
.
83.
-
Dignity
of
Gods
grace
increaseth
the
value
of
merit
.
437.
-
Dioscorus
Patriark
of
Constantinople
depriued
by
Pope
Leo.
p.
94.
E
-
S.
EPHREM
calumniated
by
M●
Andrews
239.
-
S.
Epiphanius
abused
by
M.
Andrewes
,
254.
-
Equality
how
it
is
sometimes
to
be
vnderstood
,
pag.
45.46
.
-
Equality
of
obligation
requireth
equality
of
care
,
pag.
80.
F
-
FATHERS
of
the
Church
abused
,
misconstrued
,
belyed
and
falsified
by
M
Andrewes
.
pag.
5.6.7.18.19.415
.
&
passim
.
-
Father
of
Lyes
M.
Andrewes
his
Father
,
192.
-
Fall
of
S.
Peter
no
preiudice
to
his
Primacy
.
pag.
148.149.150
.
-
Francis
,
vide
Mason
.
G
-
F.
GARNET
impudently
belyed
by
M.
Andrewes
247.
-
Grace
of
Christ
worketh
a
true
inherent
Iustification
in
vs
.
pag.
391.
H
-
HERETICKS
the
later
follow
the
elder
.
pag.
152.
Heresy
to
condemne
prayer
to
Saints
,
249.
Heresy
of
the
Collyridians
,
255.
Heretikes
their
tricks
to
ouerthrow
playne
places
by
obscure
.
279.
-
S.
Hierome
abused
by
M.
Andrewes
,
pag.
113.
how
he
acknowledgeth
S.
Peters
Supremacy
pag.
119.
His
contradiction
of
Vigilantius
for
denying
prayer
to
Saints
,
p.
228.
-
S.
Hilaryes
proof
for
S.
Peters
Primacy
,
pag.
199.200
.
I
-
IDOLATRY
of
the
Phrygians
done
to
Angells
310.
-
Iesuits
belyed
by
M.
Andrewes
for
not
synning
.
425.
-
Images
of
Saints
vsed
in
the
Church
,
264.
approued
by
S.
Gregor.
Nissen
.
ibid.
-
Inuocation
of
him
in
whome
we
belieue
,
how
it
is
meant
by
S.
Paul
pag.
213.
Inuocation
of
Martyrs
,
●23
.
miraculous
effects
thereby
225.
not
confirmed
by
any
decree
in
the
primitiue
Church
&
why
?
p.
227.
warranted
by
S.
Chrisostome
pag.
244.
Vniuersall
in
his
tyme
,
245.
How
the
belief
thereof
is
necessary
to
saluation
248.
approued
by
S.
Gregorie
Nazianz.
253.
by
Nissen
.
264.
practised
by
Theodosius
the
Emperour
,
286.
defended
by
S.
Paulinus
,
295.
by
S.
Augustine
296.
impugned
by
Protestants
,
336.337
.
-
Justinian
the
Emperour
his
law
for
the
Popes
Supremacy
,
pag.
25.
His
facts
against
two
Popes
examined
&
reproued
pag.
30.
His
ignorance
,
pag.
32.
His
death
and
repentance
,
pag.
33.36.37
.
K
-
KEYES
and
Pastorall
Commission
giuen
to
S.
Peter
not
mentioned
in
the
Canon
of
the
Councell
of
Constantinople
,
pag.
84.
-
Kings
neuer
came
to
the
Gouernement
of
the
Church
464.
Excluded
by
a
Rule
of
M.
Andrewes
,
465.
King
of
England
taketh
his
power
E●clesiasticall
from
the
Parliament
.
468.
L
-
LAW
of
Moyses
,
how
Christians
may
ground
theron
.
p.
11.
-
P.
Leo
his
controuersy
with
Martian
the
Emperour
and
Anatolius
Bishop
of
Constantinople
,
pag.
62.63.64.70.72.73
.
His
primacy
acknowledg
by
the
Councell
of
Calcedon
.
pag.
90.92
.
93.94
.
-
Locusts
that
destroy
Religious
profession
&
perfection
are
Protestants
.
450.
M
-
Mr.
MASON
his
Register
for
the
Consecration
of
the
first
Protestant
Bishops
confuted
.
In
appendice
per
totum
.
-
Martian
the
Emperour
his
controuersy
with
Pope
Leo
,
pag.
61.
-
Martyrs
inuocated
223.
miraculous
effects
therby
225.
-
S.
Maximus
B.
of
Turin
his
homiles
of
Saints
,
pag.
205.
-
Merits
of
Christ
how
we
are
saued
by
them
342.
Merit
of
good
works
granted
by
M.
Andrewes
434.436
.
-
Miracles
in
the
Cath.
Church
done
at
the
Reliques
of
Saints
443.
at
Valentia
in
Spaine
ibid.
None
wrought
in
the
Protestants
Church
&
why
ibid.
-
Monks
of
the
Primitiue
Church
&
their
discipline
.449
.
their
first
Institute
approued
by
M.
Andrews
448.
N
-
NAME
Catholike
belongeth
only
to
the
Roman
Church
451.
-
S.
Greg.
Nazianz.
his
approbation
of
prayer
to
Saintes
.
pag.
253.
to
our
B.
Ladie
.
ibid.
-
S.
Greg.
Nissen
his
approbation
of
holy
reliques
in
the
Church
,
264.
of
prayer
to
Saints
ibid.
His
prayer
to
S.
Theodor
the
Martyr
,
267.
O
-
OATH
of
Supremacy
,
why
it
is
vnlawfull
,
461.
-
Origen
his
proof
of
S.
Peters
Primacy
,
198.
P
-
PASTORS
their
obligation
of
care
of
their
Churches
,
pag.
76.78
.
-
Prayer
to
Saintes
approued
by
S.
Basil
218.
Impugned
by
Protestants
336.337
.
conform
to
Scripture
&
deduced
from
it
344.
-
Power
ouer
the
soule
,
implyeth
power
ouer
the
body
.
pag.
126.
-
Priuiledges
granted
to
the
Church
of
Constantinople
.
pag.
44.45.46
.
Abrogated
by
Pope
Leo
pa.
47.
-
Puritans
their
Doctrine
concerning
the
Kinges
Supremacy
,
419.
How
some
of
them
take
the
Oath
of
Supremacy
,
420.
-
S.
Peter
how
he
bare
the
person
of
the
Church
when
he
receaued
the
Keyes
,
pag.
5.
His
Supremacy
grounded
vpon
the
wordes
Pasce
oues
meas
pag.
8.
acknowledged
by
S.
Augustine
pag.
17.
By
S
:
Cyril
,
ibid.
&
by
S.
Hierome
,
pag.
119.
by
Origen
198.
by
S.
Hilary
,
199.
How
he
was
called
the
light
of
the
Church
pag.
103.
How
he
was
reprehended
by
S.
Paul
pag.
107.
how
he
is
the
foundation
of
the
Church
,
pag.
109.
preferred
before
S.
Iohn
&
why
.
pag.
118
,
How
he
may
be
called
a
Monarch
pag.
134.
His
fall
no
preiudice
to
his
Primacy
,
pag.
148.
Q
-
QVEENE
Elizabeth
her
spirituall
Gouernment
giuen
vnto
her
by
the
Parliament
476.
R
-
RELIQVES
of
Saints
vsed
in
the
Church
,
284.
approued
by
S.
Gregory
Nissen
.
ibid.
-
M.
Rogers
against
M.
Andrews
concerning
our
English
Clergy
,
422
423.
-
Roman
Church
neuer
fayled
in
Faith
by
Gods
prouidence
pag.
124.
S
-
SAINTS
praied
vnto
in
all
ages
,
passim
.
how
they
heare
our
prayers
and
help
vs
,
pag.
288.
how
they
know
our
praiers
and
actions
,
291.318.319
.
practised
in
the
primitiue
Church
334.
impugned
by
Protestants
out
of
Scripture
336.337
.
How
they
helpe
vs
by
the
participation
of
Christs
power
,
347.
Protectors
of
Citties
&
Countries
,
ibid.
-
Schisme
whence
it
commonly
ariseth
,
pag.
125.
-
Signe
of
the
Crosse
in
Baptisme
334.336
.
-
Sermons
de
tempore
in
Latin
and
Greeke
in
S.
Augustines
tyme
pag.
146.
by
S.
Maximus
Bishop
of
Turin
.
205.
-
Siluerius
the
Pope
his
vsage
by
Theodora
,
and
Iustinian
,
pag.
32.33
.
defended
by
the
Bishop
of
Patera
,
24.35.36
.
-
Speaches
conditionall
do
not
alwayes
suppose
a
doubt
in
the
Speaker
.
261.
-
Supremacy
of
S.
Peter
grounded
vpon
the
words
Pasce
oues
meas
,
pag.
8.
proued
by
S.
Chrisostome
,
142.
-
Supremacy
Ecclesiasticall
of
the
King
of
England
and
M.
Andrews
conceit
thereof
.459
,
excluded
by
a
Rule
of
M.
Andrewes
465.
T
-
THEODOSIVS
the
Emperour
inuocated
Saints
pag.
286.
particulerly
S.
Iohn
Baptist.
ibid.
-
Theodoretus
restored
to
his
Bishoprike
by
Pope
Leo
pag.
59.
Abused
by
Maister
Andrewes
,
307.
-
Theodora
the
Empresse
her
practise
against
Pope
Siluerius
,
pag.
31.
-
Tyranny
more
frequent
in
smal
States
,
then
in
great
Monarchies
.
pag.
130.
V
-
VIGILANTIVS
his
heresy
against
prayer
to
Saints
pag.
228.
resisted
by
S.
Hierome
ibid.
377.378.379
.
M.
Andrews
his
progenitour
.
377.
-
Vniuersall
Bishop
the
title
giuen
to
the
Pope
by
the
Councell
of
Calcedon
,
pag.
68.
-
Votiue
representations
of
hands
,
feet
,
eyes
&c.
hung
vp
in
Churches
,
in
the
Primitiue
Church
2●0
.
W
-
WORKS●
good
Works
how
the
are
said
to
saue
vs
.
272.
-
Wryters
of
diuers
partes
of
Scripture
vncertayne
,
pag
250.
FINIS
.
Notes, typically marginal, from the original text
Notes for div A00916-e1410
Notes for div A00916-e12460
Notes for div A00916-e27290
Notes for div A00916-e37570
Notes for div A00916-e54920
Notes for div A00916-e59810
Notes for div A00916-e70170
Notes for div A00916-e79820
Notes for div A00916-e91930
Notes for div A00916-e109120
Notes for div A00916-e125040