An adioynder to the supplement of Father Robert Persons his discussion of M. Doctor Barlowes ansvvere &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. ... Also 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 pro∣ceeding of Iustinian the Emperour against two Popes. (Book 1)

CHAP. I. (Book 1)

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 Car∣dinall Bellarmines Apology; and con∣sidering that the subiect thereof was in effect the same

that Father Persons,* 1.1 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 de∣termined 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 resol∣ued to examine, and confute his Answers, in respect not only of my selfe, but also of the most Worthy Car∣dinall; 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 dis∣charge 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 ha∣uing 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 pre∣cious 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 irre∣fragable: for which cause I am the more willing to en∣ter

into the examination of them. And therefore to the end thou mayst,* 1.2 good Reader, know how far I meane to proceed therin, thou shalt vnderstād, that seeing my Supplement is already vnder the presse, and that I haue no more tyme to bestow on this Adioynder, but vntill the said Supplement be printed, I make account, that I shall haue opportunity to handle but a few points: in which respect I think good, to make choyce of such on∣ly as concerne some of the most important matters, cō∣trouersed betwixt M. Barlow, & me, not doubting but that the same shall suffice to shew ex vngue Leonem, that is, to giue the Reader an aboundant tast and tryall of M. Andrews his good spirit, and sincerity in the defence of his cause.

1. Well then to come to the matter. For as much as one of the chiefest points debated in my Supplement* 1.3 (by occasion of the new Oath) is the question con∣cerning 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,* 1.4 and weight M. Andrewes his Answeres are touching the same, especially in his 16. & 17. page, where he laboureth seriously to proue three wayes a∣gainst Cardinall Bellarmine, that our Sauiours words to S. Peter,* 1.5 Pasce oues meas (alleaged, and learnedly vr∣ged 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 pre∣tendeth to lay downe the very words of those two Fa∣thers.* 1.6 Of S. Augustine thus; Cùm Petro dicitur, ad omnes

dicitur,* 1.7 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 sus∣cepit, & 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. An∣drewes addeth: Nempe dictum illi Pasce &c. for it was said vnto him, Feed, as well in the person of others, as in his owne, at{que} vel sic iacebit Cardinali ratio sua: and so shall the Cardinalls reason serue him to no purpose. Thus argueth he.

3. But to the end, thou maist (good Reader) see, and note with what fidelity and conscience this man alledgeth the Fathers, I will lay downe the place of S. Augustine somewhat more amply then he hath done,* 1.8 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,* 1.9 and when it is said to him, Doest thou loue me? Feed my sheep, it is said to all, and therefore the Ca∣tholick 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, par∣don 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;* 1.10 which we may learne euen in Cicero,* 1.11 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 what∣soeuer 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 Bi∣shop; 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 gouer∣neth. 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 e∣uident by his owne doctrine in other places,* 1.12 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,* 1.13 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 a∣boundant grace, vnus, idem{que} primus Apostolus, one, & he the chiefe Apostle: but when it was said vnto him, Tibi dabo claues, I will giue thee the keyes &c. he signified the

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 ho∣ly Father signifieth also more plainly in another place, saying,* 1.14 Cuius Ecclesiae ille agnoscitur gessisse personā propter Primatum quem in Discipulis habuit: Of which Church he is acknowledged to haue borne the person for the Primacy, which he had amōgst the Disciples. And to the same purpose he saith also elswhere,* 1.15 Petrus à petra cognominatus &c. Pe∣ter 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 & pa∣storall authority to feed his sheep,* 1.16 he gaue the same to all the Church, to wit, because S. Peter hauing the prin∣cipality, 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 ci∣teth 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, signi∣fying nothing else but that all the lawfull Pastors in Gods Church,* 1.17 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 mā∣ner, because (as I haue said) S. Peter representing the person of the whole Church (wherof he was head) re∣ceaued not that Pastorall authority for himselfe alone, but also for the Church.

7. In which respect S. Ambrose saith very well,* 1.18 that all the Pastors of the Church receaued their autho∣rity with him, though not in equall degree (as M. An∣drews would haue it) who therfore bodgeth into S. Am∣brose 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. Pe∣ter had no prerogatiue in that point, but that he and o∣ther 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:* 1.19 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 im∣port, 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 them∣selues, saying,* 1.20 that albeit Andrew was called before Pe∣ter, 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,* 1.21 saith he, a∣ny 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,* 1.22 to wit, Si∣mon 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 per∣fectior 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:* 1.23 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 Sa∣uiour 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 there∣fore he saith: vt perfectiores perfectior gubernaret.

10. This then being S. Ambrose his sense, and

doctrine concerning the Pastorall cōmission giuen to S. Peter, it is most euident, that when he teacheth that all Pastours receaued their flocks with S. Peter, he teacheth it in the same sense that S. Augustine doth, to wit, that because S. Peter (being supreme Pastour) represented the whole Church, and receaued the Pa∣storall authority not for himselfe alone, but also for all those who were eyther at that tyme, or euer should be subordinate vnto him,* 1.24 therefore all other Pastours re∣ceaued 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, where∣as D. Andrews, to make a greater shew of parity, or equality betwixt S. Peter, and other Pastors, hath ad∣ded 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 appea∣reth, in that hauing gayned nothing,* 1.25 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,* 1.26 pasce oues, was said in the singuler num∣ber, 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 Au∣gustine 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 dis∣cusse it, but will remit to the indifferent Reader to iudge, what cause he hath so to brag of these two Fa∣thers,

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,* 1.27 and to proue the Kings Suprema∣cy 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 Car∣dinall 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,* 1.28 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 ef∣fect, 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,* 1.29 concerning the exemption, and sepa∣tion 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,* 1.30 but) to Aaron and his children, tradidi eos dono Aaron, & fi∣lijs eius de medio populi, I haue giuen them (saith Al∣mighty 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,* 1.31 nei∣ther yet haue any part, or inheritance with the rest of Is∣rael, because he had reserued the same for his owne

seruice, and therfore would himselfe be their possession,* 1.32 portion, and inheritance. So that this being very cleare in the expresse words of the Law,* 1.33 (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 Cardi∣nall, at{que} vel sic iacebit Doctori ratio sua.

14. But put the case this were not so, yea and that the Preists of the old law had byn subiect to the Kings in spirituall matters (wherof I haue already proued the contrary) will M. Andrews inferre theron,* 1.34 that therfore Kings haue also the spirituall Supremacy in the new law, without any new institution, or rati∣fication therof by our Sauiour Christ,* 1.35 or his Apostles? Doth not this great Doctor know, that the Mosaycal law was abrogated by the law of grace, and that wher∣as it was deuided into three parts (to wit, Iudiciall, Ce∣rimoniall, and Morall) the two former vtterly ceased, and the third (I meane the Morall part, contayning the Commaundements) remayneth only in force, not be∣cause it was instituted then, but because those Com∣maundments 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 cōmand∣ment cōcerning the Sabboth, doth not now bynd Chri∣stians, as it was then ordayned and practiced.

15. And therfore M. Andrews might aswell intro∣duce 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 commaun∣dements,

or ordinance therof, in the Acts of Apostles, wheras there is no one syllable in all the new Testa∣ment,* 1.36 to proue that Kings haue any spirituall autho∣rity ouer the Church; it being most euidēt that al those places of Scripture, which he or any other doth, or can alledge out of the new Testament to that purpose, do concerne only temporall obedience to the pagan Em∣perours, 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 here∣after) which sufficiently bewrayeth the beggery and misery of his cause,* 1.37 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 Te∣stament, 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 or∣dinance, and commaundment eyther of Christ, or of his spouse the Church;* 1.38 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 Sy∣nagogue, and the Church) and not to the end to proue any thing to be necessary now, because it was orday∣ned, 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 ra∣ther 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 Tra∣dition; which he neyther doth, nor euer shall be able to do.

17. But who seeth not, how he tryfleth in this point, as cōmonly he doth in all? For how doth it fol∣low, that if it be true which we teach (to wit, that Christ made S. Peter supreme Pastour of the Church by cōmaunding him to feed his sheep) then he gaue the same spirituall authority to Dauid, when he bad him feed his people of Israel?* 1.39 Is it not manifest, that although the word pasce, feed, as it was spoken to them both, doth signifie to gouerne,* 1.40 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 peo∣ple) he gaue him temporall authority, making him head of a temporall Kingdome? So when he bad S. Pe∣ter (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 au∣thority, 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,* 1.41 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,* 1.42 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 Prin∣ces; 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,* 1.43 and I∣dolatrous King, whome God called Pastormeus, and no man I thinke will be so absurd to imagine that he had a∣ny 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.

* 1.4419. For albeit in the Chapter which he quoteth, to wit the 27 it is declared that God commaunded Moy∣ses to assigne and ordaine Iosue for his Successour in the gouernmēt of the people (least they should be like to oues sine Pastore,* 1.45 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 commaun∣ded 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 di∣stribute his dignity,* 1.46 and authority (which was both spirituall, and temporall) betwixt Iosue and Eleazar the High Priest, yet in such sort, that Iosue should be di∣rected in al his affaires by Eleazar, Pro hoc, saith the Scri∣pture, si quid agendum erit &c.* 1.47 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,* 1.48 yet he was but a temporall Pastor, or Gouernour, and to be dire∣cted euen in temporall affaires by the spirituall Pastor E∣leazar, whome Almighty God did illuminate and in∣struct 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.* 1.49 Thus much to his second answere.

20. His third is in substance, that albeit S. Augu∣stine, and S. Cyril haue amply cōmented vpon the Ghos∣pell of S. Iohn, and vpon those very words of our Sa∣uiour to S. Peter, Pasce oues meas, yet neyther of them (saith he) saw, illustrem hunc fidei articulum de primatu Petri tem∣porali,* 1.50 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 mat∣ter for himselfe to impugne; for seeing the spirituall pri∣macy of S Peter is so euident in the holy Scriptures, that he is now & then forced to graūt it in some sort, yea (a) 1.51 somtimes as far forth in effect as we demaūd; though at at other times he laboureth vtterly to ouerthrow it (as I

shall haue occasiō to declare more largly (b) 1.52 her after) he wil now needs presuppose that we teach the Popes Pri∣macy 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 (c) 1.53 Supple∣ment.

21. Therefore I will only say for the present, that if the Popes spirituall Primacy may for this cause be cal∣led a temporall primacy,* 1.54 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 some∣tymes 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 nei∣ther S. Augustine, nor S. Cyril, do in the places cyted by M. Andrews speake of any such extension of spiri∣tuall 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 do∣ctrine,

and those very words which I cyted a little be∣fore,* 1.55 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 dis∣cipulis 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,* 1.56 whereof only he, and no other of the Apostles is said to represent the per∣son, and figure; so that S. Augustine sufficiently ac∣knowledgeth S. Peters spirituall Supremacy in the place alledged by M. Andrewes.

23. The like doth S. Cyril also in his cōmentary vpon S. Iohns Ghospell,* 1.57 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 Ca∣put{que} ceterorum primus exclamauit, Tu es Christus filius Dei viui:* 1.58 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 acknow∣ledgeth 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 ney∣ther of these Fathers saw the article touching Peters temporall Primacy,* 1.59 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 tou∣ching 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 euident∣ly 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,* 1.60 they should seeme to hould (or fa∣uour 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 a∣broach, 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,* 1.61 as M. Andrews his fraud, and bad conscience in alledg∣ing 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,* 1.62 and doth elswhere expressely teach the contrary, as when he saith: Sanctus Dauid de criminibus mortiferis &c. Holy Dauid did pennance for mor∣tall sinnes, and yet remayned in his honour, or dignity: and when blessed Peter shed most bitter teares, he repented that he had denied his Lord, and yet remained an Apostle•• (& againe a little after) when Peter the Apostle denied our Sauiour, and wept, and remayned still an Apostle, he had not yet receaued the holy Ghost. Thus saith S. Augustine; and could he teach a doctrine more contrary to that which M. Andrews fat••ereth vpon him?

26. Let vs now see how he handleth S. Cyril,* 1.63 vpō whome it may be he principally relyeth for this matter; for indeed that holy Father saith somewhat concerning the same, though far otherwise then M. Andrews would make his Reader belieue, for thus saith S. Cyril:* 1.64 Dixit, pasce agnos meos, Apostolatus sibi renouās dignitatem, ne propter negationem quae humana infirmitate accidit labe∣factata videretur. He (to wit our Sauiour) said (to Pe∣ter) feed my Lambs, renewing to him his dignity of the A∣postleship, least it might seeme to haue bene decayed by his de∣nyall, which happened by humane infirmity. Thus far S. Cy∣ril; who you see, neyther saith, nor meaneth that S. Pe∣ter 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 digni∣ty 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 him∣selfe

a little before in the same Chapter, when he tear∣med 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. An∣drews doth not here plainly affirme as his owne opi∣nion, that S. Peter fell from the Apostleship, but rela∣teth 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.

* 1.6528.

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,* 1.66 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 ne∣uer 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) conti∣git 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 Bi∣shop 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.* 1.67 Peter the most excellent prince of the Apostles, did not only receiue pardon of his deny∣all (of Christ) verùm etiam dignitatem Apostolicam non ablatam retinuit, but also retayned his Apostolicall dignity not taken from him. So he. And Optatus hauing signi∣fied that,* 1.68 B. Petrus praeferri omnibus Apostolis meruit, Bles∣sed Peter deserued to be preferred before all the Apostles, yea and that, solus accepit claues ceteris communicandas, he only receaued the keyes to be cōmunicated to the rest (which was done bono vnitatis, saith he, for the good of vnity, in which respect, he also calleth him a litle after, caput Apostolorum, the head of the Apostles) he concludeth after a while, that albeit Peter did alone deny Christ,

yet, bono vnitatis de numero Apostolorum separari non me∣ruit: 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 Ca∣tholike doctrine, and arguments grounded vpon the wordes of our Sauiour to S. Peter,* 1.69 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 Fa∣thers, 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 cōmis∣sion, 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 di∣gnity (for he speaketh of that which he acknowled∣geth to haue bene in him before his fall) was renewed by that commission.* 1.70 Wherto may be added the testi∣mony 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,* 1.71 ac reliquis item Apostolis longè praecellere: indued with au∣thority, and also far to excell the rest of the Apostles.

31. And again, in his Homilyes vpon S. Iohns Ghos∣pell, 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 Fra∣trum, the charge of his Brethren (for so he explicateth Pasce oues meas) Neque negationis meminit,* 1.72 saith he, ne{que} exprobrat; tantùm dicit, si amas me, fratrum curam suscipt∣as, 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,* 1.73 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 be∣ing committed vnto him, he doth not now delegate a∣ny 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 be∣fore, and would not vse the interuention of any of them (because they were vnder his charge) but him∣selfe 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 cōmitted to him;* 1.74 which S. Leo also testifyeth expressely, saying that the charge of feeding the sheep of Christ, was more spe∣cially committed to Peter.* 1.75 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:* 1.76 vt quamuis in popu∣lo 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.

* 1.7733. 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 Fa∣thers the cleare testimonies of Eusebius Emissenus, Theo∣philactus, S. Bernard,* 1.78 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,* 1.79 where with he meant 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pricke the Cardinall, imagining himselfe belike to be the mighty man that shooteth the sharpe arrowes,* 1.80 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 chil∣dren, 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 wor∣thy Cardinall,* 1.81 as he doth euery where, treating him most iniuriously with such opprobrious and contume∣lious tearmes,* 1.82 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,* 1.83 beginning inter Cla∣ras, 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,* 1.84 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, shew∣ed to the Apostolicke Roman Sea, and to the same pur∣pose it is also alledged by Cardinall Bellarmine in his A∣pology,* 1.85 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 ab∣stayned from mentioning Iustinian (the Emperour) who shewed himselfe to be Superiour to the Pope (ali∣qua 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,* 1.86 because he banished Pope Sylue∣rius, 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 Cardi∣nall 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 Cla∣ras, but also, inter clarissimas leges, amongst the most cleare lawes, for so the most famous Lawyer Baldus tear∣meth it;* 1.87 who vpon this very law, maketh this Glosse, Clarissima est lex, in qua Dominus Imperator &c. This is a most cleare law, wherin the Emperour writeth to the Pope cō∣cerning the faith which he professeth.* 1.88 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.* 1.89

36. But perhaps M. Andrewes will say that it can∣not be denyed,* 1.90 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 ignorant∣ly, or maliciously called it in question,* 1.91 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 au∣thority; 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 cānot with any suspicion be impeached, and if one or two books haue it not, it is to be ascribed to the negligence of the Wryters, who somtymes omitted it, because they thought that it doth not much concerne the Science of the Law; neuerthelesse it is not to be doubted, quin genuinus germanus{que} Ioannis sit foetus, but that it is the proper & true worke of Pope Iohn.

Thus saith Alciat, who not only testifieth, as you see, that he had himselfe seene it in very many old copyes, but also yieldeth a probable reason why in some other copyes it might be left out.

37. I could confirme this also by the testimony of the learned Lawier Cuiacius & others,* 1.92 if it were need∣full, as it is not, seeing that Pope Nicolas the first of that name (who liued aboue 800. years agoe) cyteth the Epi∣stle 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,* 1.93 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 Iu∣stinian, wherin that other of Iustinian cyted by Pope Nicolas is inserted) wherby it is euident that the said Law was,* 1.94 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 con∣sult 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 Agape∣tus the Pope,* 1.95 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,* 1.96 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:* 1.97 Cum ipso, saith he, Sanctissimo Papa ve∣teris 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 (d) 1.98 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 cōstitution.

39. Wherein first he testifyeth, that he had written to the Pope of Rome (who was then Iohn the second, as it is euident:) secondly he signifyeth, that the sub∣stance 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, with∣out any translation, because the other to Pope Iohn which followeth in Latin,* 1.99 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 acknow∣ledgeth 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,* 1.100 as of the perpetuall inter∣grity 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 pre∣gnant 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 fri∣uolous and vayne exception so clearly conuinced, as you haue seene? Whereby he also worthily incurreth the malediction of the Prophet, Vae qui dicitis &c. VVo be to you who call good bad,* 1.101 and bad good, and make light dark∣nesse,

and darknesse light. And thus much for this point.

* 1.10241. The other point which now resteth to be dis∣cussed 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,* 1.103 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 ex∣pelled 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 vniuer∣sall Pastour ouer the whole Church) M. Andrews an∣swereth thereto:* 1.104 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,* 1.105 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,* 1.106 Quae dicunt faci∣te &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,* 1.107 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 orday∣ned Mennas Bishop in his place, wherwith the hereti∣call and wicked Empresse Theodora, wife to Iustinian, (and speciall Patronesse of Anthymus) was so highly of∣fended,* 1.108 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 let∣ters, to haue intelligence with the Gothes against the Roman Empyre,* 1.109 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 audia∣mus? 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 wic∣ked Empresse intruded Vigilius into his Seat, vpon assu∣red promise on his part,* 1.110 to satisfy her desire. And al∣though Vigilius (as some write) began to publish De∣crees

in fauour of her heresy,* 1.111 during the life of Siluerius (that is to say, whyles he himselfe was an Intruder, and no true Pope) yet such was Gods mercifull proui∣dence for the preseruation of S. Peters Seat in the inte∣grity of the Catholike faith, that Siluerius deceasing shortly after, and Vigilius being by the meanes of Belli∣sarius canonically chosen (whereby he became of an Vsurper to be true Pope, and successour to S. Peter) he vtterly changed his mind, and former course, & not only refused to performe his promise to the Empresse, in the restitution of Anthymus, but also cōming after∣wards to Constantinople (where the Emperour recei∣ued 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,* 1.112 yet others affirme (with more probabili∣ty) that the same hapned after her death, and was procured by the instigation of Theodorus Bishop of Cae∣sarea 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 im∣pugned 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 (c) 1.113 before. So that it is no meruail that the Emperour being himselfe so ignorant, and vn∣learned as he was (not hauing so much skill, as either to writ, or read, being as Suydas testifieth Analphabe∣tus, one that neuer learned his Christ-crosse, and ther∣fore easy to be abused by the practise of subtle Heritiks) it is I say no meruail that he transgressed the bounds,* 1.114

and limitts of his Imperiall authority,* 1.115 as well in these two Acts concerning these two Popes, as also in diuers others. In which respect Euagrius a famous Historio∣grapher (who wrote his history at the same tyme) ha∣uing signified that God strooke him with suddayne death,* 1.116 for punishment of his wickednes, made no doubt to conclude, concerning him, in these words: Iustinianus cùm omnia omnino turba, at{que} tumultu comple∣uisset &c. When Iustinian had filled all the world with trou∣ble, and tumult, and receaued in the end a due reward for the same, he passed from this life to endure the penalty ther∣of 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 Em∣perour were no lesse repugnant to all the Catholicke Emperours his predecessours (of whome I haue trea∣ted amply (d) 1.117 before) then to his owne course and pro∣cedings 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 Epi∣phanius Bishop of Constantinople (wherof I haue spo∣ken sufficiently already:* 1.118) but also by the great honour he did, and the reuerent respect which he bare to Aga∣petus the next predecessour to Siluerius, whom as the Historiographers do testifie, he receaued into Constan∣tinople, cum summa veneratione, with exceeding great veneration.

47 And when Agapetus had conuinced & con∣founded

the Eutichian Bishop Anthymus,* 1.119 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,* 1.120 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 pre∣ferred 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 ouer∣weygh M. Andrews his words, and approbation of on∣ly two facts done in fauour of Heretykes, and by their instigation, who notably abused Iustinian, and cir∣cum••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?* 1.121

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,* 1.122 kindred, benefit, or former acquayntance, (seeing that for ought that is knowne to the contrary, they neuer saw one another before Siluer, came to Pa∣tera, which was the place assigned for his banishment) whereupon it followeth,* 1.123 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,* 1.124 who then liued and wrote the story: Iudicium Dei, saith he, contestatus est de tantae Sedis Epi∣scopi expulsione.* 1.125 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 propheti∣call 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 ma∣lice, I leaue it to God,* 1.126 & his owne conscience to iudge, and will only say of him, that preferring, as he doth the inconsiderate act of the ignorant, and vnlearned Empe∣rour (misled by heretikes) before the zealous, & graue speach & cesu••e of a Catholik, & learned Bishop, he suf∣ficiently discouereth his owne heretical spirit, especially seing that he could not but see in Libera••us, of what mo∣ment, & weight the Bishops words were, which appea∣reth by the notable effect that they wrought in the Empe¦rour himself,* 1.127 who was moued therby to recall his fact•• as

Liberatus testifieth in these words: Quem audiens Im∣perato•••• reuocari Roman Silu••rium 〈◊〉〈◊〉 &c. The Em∣perour hearing the Bishop of Pater••;* 1.128 commaunded Sil∣uerius, 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 Bi∣shops admonition, commaunded that the matters whereof Siluerius was accused, should be better exami∣ned; 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 Em∣perours order, Bellisarius caused him (at the instance of Vigilius,* 1.129 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 & mise∣ry, in an Iland called Palmaria; wherby it appeareth how the Emperours reuocation of his fact was frustra∣ted, to wit, not by his owne fault, but by the sinister practise of his officers, & ministers, who by the help of the wicked Empresse Theodora, easily deluded him. So that M. Andrews might learne by this relatiō of Liberat{us} how potent were the Bishops words, which he so litle esteemeth; and the reader may note as well M. Andrews

his folly,* 1.130 as his bad conscience: his folly, in that he maketh more accompt of the temerarious, and errone∣ous act of the Emperour (which he himself acknow∣ledged for such, & recalled) then of the Bishops admo∣nition, 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 ima∣gine 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; & ther∣fore 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,* 1.131 or damnatiō of mens soules) not caring what he saith or dissembleth so that he may shift of the matter for the tyme with some shew of probability, whereof we shall see much more experience hereafter in him, as we haue already seene the like in M. Barlow. For truely it is hard to say whether of them is more fraudulent, and absurd in this kind.

51. In the meane time two things are euident by this which hath been heere debated; the one, how weakely M. Andrewes argueth when he saith, that the Emperour Iustinian shewed himself in these two acts to be superiour to the Pope aliqua exparte, for it may well be graunted in some sense,* 1.132 & he gaine nothing by it, se∣ing the like may be said of Nero, who put to death S. Peter, and S. Paul; of Herod, who killed S. Iohn Baptist; and of Pilate, who gaue sentēce of death against Christ, for they and all other persecutors of Gods Church (yea Iustinian also himself in the end of his raigne when he declared himself an heretick, and expelled Catholick

Bishops from their seats,* 1.133 because they would not sub∣scribe 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 per∣mission power ouer them, and exercysing the same po∣wer vpon them: neuertheles I hope no good Christian man will say that because they did this, ergo, it was law∣fully done, which must eyther be the conclusion of M. Andrewes his argument à facto, or els he concludeth no∣thing 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 (al∣ledged 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 here∣ticks, 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,* 1.134 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 Iusti∣nian, and the law inter Claras, seeing that he hath gay∣ned thereby nothing els, but to manifest his owne folly to bewray the weaknes of his cause, & to fortify ours.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The rea∣son that moued the Author to adde this Adioyn∣der to the former Suplemēt.
• * 1.2

  The Au∣thors in∣tention in this Ad∣ioynder.
• * 1.3

  What question is specially handled in this Ad∣ioynder.
• * 1.4

  Supplemēt chap. 1. nu. 58.59. & seq.
• * 1.5

  D. Andr. Respons. ad Apolog. ca. 1. pag. 16.
• * 1.6

  Aug. de Agon. Christ. c. 30.
• * 1.7

  Ambros. de sacerd. dignitate cap. 20.
• * 1.8

  S. Augu∣stine lame∣ly and fraudulēt∣ly alled∣ged by M. Andrews.
• * 1.9

  August. vbi supra.
• * 1.10

  Cic. offic. l. 1.
• * 1.11

  How S. Peter did beare the person of the Chu∣rch when he recea∣ued the keyes.
• * 1.12

  S. Augu∣stines mea¦ning de∣clared out of his owne do∣ctrine.
• * 1.13

  Tract. vlt. in Ioan.
• * 1.14

  Idem in Ps. 108.
• * 1.15

  Idem ser. 13. de verb. Dom.
• * 1.16

  M. An∣drewes fraud a∣gainst the intention of S. Au∣gustine.
• * 1.17

  S. Ambr. de Sacerd. dignit. c 1.
• * 1.18

  The mea∣ning of S. Ambrose declared.
• * 1.19

  Andr. ca. 3. pag. 74. § Verum
• * 1.20

  Ambr. in 2. Cor. 12.
• * 1.21

  Idē lib. 10. cōment. in cap. 24. Euāg. Luc.
• * 1.22

  S. Am∣brose pro∣ueth S. Peters Su∣premacy out of the wordes Pasce oues meas.
• * 1.23

  Three things taught by S. Am∣brose.
• * 1.24

  D. An∣drews can help the dyce whē he is put to his shifts.
• * 1.25

  A vayne. brag of D. Andrews.
• * 1.26

  Andr. cap. 8. pag. 214. & 215.
• * 1.27

  The secōd argument & answer of M. An∣drews which he taketh to be so sharp that it will prick the Cardinall.
• * 1.28

  Andr. c. 1. pag. 16. §. Verū vim videam{us}.
• * 1.29

  See Suppl. Chap. 1. n. 18.19. & sequ.
• * 1.30

  Num. c. 8.
• * 1.31

  Num. 1.
• * 1.32

  Deut. 10. & 18.
• * 1.33

  Supplem. c. 1. n. 22.23. & 24.
• * 1.34

  Suppl. cap. 1. vbi supr.
• * 1.35

  In what case Chri∣stiās may ground v∣pon the law of Moyses.
• * 1.36

  M. An∣drews his beggarly proofe for a tempo∣ral princes spirituall Suprema∣cy.
• * 1.37

  See infra. cap. 6.
• * 1.38

  M. An∣drews proofes of the tem∣porall Princes suprema∣cy, sauour of Iu∣daisme.
• * 1.39

  2. Reg. 5.
• * 1.40

  D. An∣drews doth e∣quiuocate egregious∣ly.
• * 1.41

  Andr. vbi supra.
• * 1.42

  D. An∣drews ar∣gueth im∣pertinent∣ly.
• * 1.43

  Isa. 44.
• * 1.44

  Num. 27.
• * 1.45

  D. An∣drews cō∣founded by an in∣stance of his owne.
• * 1.46

  Theodor. quast. 48. in Num. See Suppl. nu. 21.
• * 1.47

  Num. 27.
• * 1.48

  M. An∣drews pricking argument doth wound none but himselfe.
• * 1.49

  The third answere of D. An∣drews e∣xamined.
• * 1.50

  Andr. vbi supra pag. 17. lin. 4.
• (a) 1.51

  See af∣ter c. 3. n. 36.37. & seq.
• (b) 1.52

  Cap. 5. n. 18.19.20.
• (c) 1.53

  Supple∣ment cap. 1. nu. 59. & sequent.
• * 1.54

  If the Popes pri∣macy be a temporall Primacy, M. An∣drews is a pecuniary Pastour.
• * 1.55

  S. Augu∣stine ac∣knowled∣geth S. Peters su∣premacy in the place al∣leadged by M. An∣drews.
• * 1.56

  S. August. Tract. 124. in Euang. Ioan. Idem. in psal. 108.
• * 1.57

  S. Cyril cō∣ment. in Cap. vlt. Ioan.
• * 1.58

  S. Cyril also ac∣knowled∣geth S. Peters su∣premacy in the place which M. Andrews alleadgeth
• * 1.59

  Andr. vbi supra.
• * 1.60

  M. An∣drews ma∣keth S. Augustin & S. Cyril fauour a pernici∣ous here∣sy.
• * 1.61

  S. Augu∣stine bely∣ed by D. Andrews.
• * 1.62

  Aug. Ep. 50.
• * 1.63

  S. Cyril notably a∣bused by M. An∣drews.
• * 1.64

  Cyril vbi supra.
• * 1.65

  Andr. pag 215. §. No•• vero.
• * 1.66

  M. An∣drews worthily suspected to hold that Magi∣strats fall from their dignity by mortal sinnes.
• * 1.67

  S. Cyril Hierosol. Cathech. Mystag. 2.
• * 1.68

  Optat. l. 7. de Schis∣mate Do∣natistarū••
• * 1.69

  The pla••ces of 3. Fathers alledged by M. An∣drews do confute him.
• * 1.70

  S. Chryso∣stome for S. Peters Suprema∣cy.
• * 1.71

  Chrysost. de Sacerd. l. 2.
• * 1.72

  Ibidem.
• * 1.73

  Ibid.
• * 1.74

  S. Leo. ep. 89.
• * 1.75

  Idem. ser. 3. de assumpt. sua ad Pontif.
• * 1.76

  Supplem. cap. 5. nu. 25.26. & 27.
• * 1.77

  Euseb. Emis. ho. de natiuit. Ioan. Euan. Theophil. in cap. vlt. Ioan.
• * 1.78

  S. Ber. l. 2. de consider.
• * 1.79

  Psal. 1.19. Psal. 63.
• * 1.80

  M. An∣drews his sharpe ar∣rowes do proue but shuttle∣cocks, or fools bolts Eccl. 19.
• * 1.81

  Prou. 16.
• * 1.82

  Concer∣ning a law in the Code of Iustinian.
• * 1.83

  Supplem. Chap. 1. nu. 99.
• * 1.84

  Apol. Car. Bellar. c. 3. pag. 17.
• * 1.85

  Andr. Resp. ad Apolog. cap. 3. pag. 81.
• * 1.86

  The law Inter Cla∣ras proued to be a most true & cleare Law, though M. An∣drews hold it for ob∣scure and counter∣fait.
• * 1.87

  The testi∣mony of Baldus.
• * 1.88

  see the Code l. 1. tit. de sūm. Trin.
• * 1.89

  Accurfius
• * 1.90

  The testi∣mony of Alciat.
• * 1.91

  Alciat. l. 4. Parergō cap. 25.
• * 1.92

  Pope Ni∣colas the first cyted this law aboue 800. years agoe.
• * 1.93

  Nicol. ep. ad Michael Imperat.
• * 1.94

  The same cōfirmed out of Li∣beratus who liued in Iustini∣ans dayes. Liberat. in breuiar. c. 20.
• * 1.95

  Tom. 2. Concil. ep. Iustin. ad Agapetū vide Bīniū.
• * 1.96

  Ibidem ep. 2. Ioan. 2. ad Senatores.
• * 1.97

  L. 6. Tit. de sum. Trinit.
• (d) 1.98

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.99

  See the Code vb•• supra.
• * 1.100

  A cleare testimony of the vni∣uersall au∣thority, & perpetual•• integrity of the Roman Sea:
• * 1.101

  Esa. 5.
• * 1.102

  Two facts of Iustiniā the Emp. against 2. Popes ex∣amined & reproued.
• * 1.103

  Liberat. in Breuiar. c. 22.
• * 1.104

  Andr. vbi supra. pag 81. §. Vt nobis.
• * 1.105

  A most absurd ar∣gument of M. An∣drews.
• * 1.106

  Matth. 23.
• * 1.107

  Anast. in Agapeto Hist. miscel. & Paul. Diac. l. 16. Liberat. in Breuiar. c. 22.
• * 1.108

  Platina Blond. dec. ••. lib. 3. Niceph. l. 17. cap. 18. Naucler. Gener. 18. anno 510.
• * 1.109

  The wic∣ked pra∣ctise of the hereticall Empresse Theodora against Pope Syl∣uerius.
• * 1.110

  Liberat. i•• Breu. c. 22.
• * 1.111

  Paul. Dia∣con. in Iu∣s••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.
• * 1.112

  Idem An. 538. & Libe∣rat. in Bre∣niar. c. 24.
• (c) 1.113

  Sup∣lem. cap. 1. nu. 108. Iustinian the Empe∣rour was so igno∣rant that he could neyther wryte nor read, and therefore easily de∣ceaued by subtil he∣retiks.
• * 1.114

  Suydas in Iustiniano
• * 1.115

  Euagr. l. 4. cap. 40. Idem lib. 5. cap. 1.
• * 1.116

  The Iudgment of Euagri concer∣ning Iu∣stinians death, and the state of his soule.
• (d) 1.117

  See sup∣plem. cap. 1 nu. 90. & seq.
• * 1.118

  Anastas. in Aga∣peto. Blond dec. 1. l. 3. Naucler Gen. 18. an. 510.
• * 1.119

  Anastas•• in Aga••e∣to. Naucle. vbi supra, Nouel. 42.
• * 1.120

  The two facts of Iu¦stiniana a••gainst two Popes, ouerwayd with ma••ny other of his owne in honour & fauour of the Sea Apostolik.
• * 1.121

  The im∣portance of the Bi∣shop of Patera his reprehen∣sion of Iu∣stinians fact a∣gainst Pope Syl∣uerius.
• * 1.122

  Liberat. in breuiar•• ca. 22.
• * 1.123

  The Bi∣shop of Patera Protested Gods Iudgment against Iu∣stinian.
• * 1.124

  Idem•• ibid••.
• * 1.125

  See Card. Apol. pag. 27.
• * 1.126

  M. An∣drews dis∣couereth an hereti∣call spirit in his Iudgment of Iustini∣ans fact.
• * 1.127

  Liberat. vbi supra.
• * 1.128

  Iustinian reuoked his sentēce against Pope Sil∣uerius v∣pon the reprehen∣si•• giuen him by the Bishop of Patera.
• * 1.129

  Idem ibi∣dem.
• * 1.130

  M. An∣drews hi•• folly in appro∣uing an act which the author of it did after disal∣low and repent.
• * 1.131

  The bad conscience of M. An∣drews in dissem∣bling the truth which he could not but see in Liberatus.
• * 1.132

  A weake & foolish argument of M. An∣drews, to proue Iu∣stinian su∣periour to 2. Popes.
• * 1.133

  M. An∣drews must de∣uyse new answeres to the Car∣dinal, con∣cerning the law in∣ter Claras, & the Bi∣shop of Patera his reprehen∣sion of Iu∣stinian.
• * 1.134

  M. An∣drews his words of the Cardi∣nall iustly retorted v∣pon him∣selfe.