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 ANSVVERS OF M. ANDREWS TO Certayne places of the Councell of Calcedon are exa∣mined, and confuted. His notable fraud in diuers things, and especially in the allegation of a Canon of that Coun∣cell is discouered: and the supreme authority of the Sea Apostolike clearely proued out of the same Councell, and Canon. (Book 2)

CHAP. II. (Book 2)

IN the second Chapter of my Sup∣plement I haue produced certayne cleare testimonies out of the Coun∣cell of Calcedon,* 1.1 for the Popes Vni∣uersall, and Supreme authority ouer the Church of God, and Cardinall Bellarmin also in his Apology hath al∣leaged the same;* 1.2 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.* 1.3 So saith M. Andrewes; & therefore this poynt seemeth to me right worthy to be discussed.

2. Thus then he saith: Legat actione vna totaven∣tilatum &c.* 1.4 Let a man read the matter debated in one whole action (of the Councel) and renewed, and confirmed in an∣other, & finally decreed by a Canon, that the priuiledges of the Bishop of Constantinople shalbe, ne maiora, sed aequalia per omnia, not greater, but equal in all things with the pri∣uiledges 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, Em∣presse, 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 re∣sisted, and contradicted it in vayne.

3. For the first, whereas he saith that the Coun∣cell of Calcedon did by that Canon giue to the Bishop of Constantinople,* 1.5 ne maiora, sed aequalia per omnia priui∣legia, 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 subie∣ction to the Roman Sea, for, par in parem non habet pote∣statem, 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 Constanti∣nople 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.* 1.6

4. The words of the Canon are these:

Sanctorum Patrum decreta vbique sequentes &c. Following euery where the decrees of the holy Fathers, and acknowled∣ging the Canon of an hundreth and 50. Bishops, which was lately read, we do also decree, and deter∣mine 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 hono∣red 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 occa∣sion

to speake after a whyle, when I shall first haue ex∣plicated 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 Constan∣tinople some 60. yeares before, which Canon was a con∣firmation 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,* 1.7 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.

* 1.86. 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 con∣firmed 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 accor∣ding to the Canons of the Councel of Nice, had the se∣cond, 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,* 1.9 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,* 1.10 Et in Ecclesiasticis sicut illa maiestatem habere negotijs, & se∣cundam post illam existere, that is to say, we iudged it con∣uenient that the Citty of Constantinople should haue a

Maiesty in Ecclesiasticall affayres,* 1.11 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: Confir∣mauimus autem, & centum quinquaginta sanctorum Pa∣trū regulam &c. We haue also confirmed the rule, or Canō of the 150. holy Fathers, which were assembled in Con∣stantinople, vnder Theodosius the elder of pious memory, whereby it was ordayned, that after that most holy, and Apostolicall Seat, the Church of Constantinople should haue the honour, which is ordayned to be the secōd &c. Thus wrot the whole Councell of Calcedon to Pope Leo.

7. Now then can any thing be more cleare then that the drift, and meaning of that Canon is no other then to giue the second place to the Church of Constantinople, after the Sea Apostolike? Why then doth M. Andrewes affirme so confidently, that this Canō made thē equall in all things?* 1.12 For although it giueth to the Bishop of Constātinople equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome, yet it neither saith nor mea∣neth that their priuiledges should be equall in all things or in all respects, as M. Andrews corruptly, & fraudulēt∣ly affirmeth in a differēt Letter, as though he laid down the very words of the Canō. Besides that, the equality mētioned in the Canon, is sufficiently explicated by the Canon it self, which hauing signified that the Fa∣thers 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 Metropolita∣ni &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 Grae∣cians) 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 Metro∣politan,* 1.13 but also a Patriarchall Sea, and haue Metro∣politans 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 ex∣ception, and reseruation, that neuerthelesse it should be still inferiour to the Roman Sea, being the second after it, that is to say, it should haue the same place and priuiledge that the Church of Alexandria had in former times, which though it was the chief Church of the East, & the secōd after Rome,* 1.14 yet was alwayes inferiour & subiect thereto, as it is euident by the appeale of the famous Athanasius Bishop of that Sea, to Pope Iulius the first of that name, aboue an hūdreth yeares before the Coūcel of Calcedō.

* 1.159. Therfore the preheminence which the Church of Cōstantinople was to haue by this Canon, was to be preferred before the Churches of Alexandria & Antioch: and the equality that it was to haue with Rome, was no other, but to be a Patriarchall Sea, and head of all the Patriarchall, and Metropolitan Churches of the East, as Rome was in the West, yet with reseruatiō of the right of Primacy due to the Roman Sea. Besides that, it is to be noted that the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which

in our latin Copies is translated aequalis, doth signi∣fy also similis, lyke, not only in prophane Authors (as euery mā may see in the Thesaurus of Henric{us} Stephan{us}) but also in diuers places of holy Scripture, both in the old & new Testamēt. And he that list to see more to this purpose, may read the Paralel of Tortus, & his Tortor, writtē against M. D. Andrews, by the Reuerēd & Learned Father Androas Eudaemon-Ioannes, who hath sufficiently handled,* 1.16 and explicated this point, and hath also produced a cleare testimony out of Theodorus Balsamon a very learned Grecian, and Patri∣arch of Antioch, to proue that the mention of paria priuilegia, equall priuiledges grāted to the Church of Cō¦stantinople in the Coūcell of Calcedō, doth not any way derogate from the supreme dignity of the Romā Sea.

10. Whereto I also add, that the word ae∣qualis in the Scripture doth not alwayes signify a true, and iust Equality in all respects, but som∣tymes also an Equality in a certayne proportion,* 1.17 as in the Apostle to the Corinthians, who exhorteth them to supply the temporall wants, and neces∣sityes of the poore, with their store, and aboun∣dance, vt fiat aequalitas, sayth he, that there may be an equality, meaning an equality in a certayne si∣militude, and proportion, as it appeareth by that which he addeth for the further explication ther∣of, saying: sicut scriptum est, qui muliùm non a∣bundauit, & qui modicum non minorauit, as it is writ∣ten, he which gathered much,* 1.18 had no more, then was necessary for him, and, he that gathered litle, had no less. So sayth the Apostle, alluding to the histo∣ry in Exodus of those who gathered Manna in dif∣ferent quantity,* 1.19 and yet found that they had it in 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

a kind of equality (because euery one had so much as was needfull for him,* 1.20 and no more) so that equality doth not signify heere an Arithmeticall equa∣lity (as the Philosophers,* 1.21 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 pro∣portion according to distributiue Iustice, which (as Aristotle, and the Schoolemen do teach) doth al∣wayes respect equality in the distribution of ho∣nours, priuiledges, and rewards; yet so, as due proportion be obserued correspondent to the diffe∣rent dignity and quality of euery one.* 1.22 And ther∣fore when two persons of different quality and de∣gree (as the Captayne, and his souldiar) are to be rewarded for some one seruice to the common wealth, their rewards, or priuiledges are truly e∣quall, when they are priuiledged,* 1.23 and rewarded in a due proportion to their degrees, without impeach∣ment to the difference that is betwixt them. And so a subiect may be said to haue equall priuiledges with his King, and yet be his subiect still: and in this mā∣ner the words equall, and equality are to be vnderstood in the Coūcell of Calcedō (as is euident by the Canō it self) wherin you see, it was ordayned that the Bishop of Constantinople should haue equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome, and yet haue the secōd place after him.

11. But now to deale somewhat more liberally with M. Andrews in this point, let vs put the case that the Fathers in the Councell of Calcedon did meane to giue to the Church of Constantinople that equality with the

Roman sea,* 1.24 which he affirmeth; should he, trow you, gayne any thing thereby? Or could he any way preiu∣dice the vniuersall, and supreme authority, either of Pope Leo at that tyme, or of the other Popes his Suc∣cessors 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 au∣thority 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 con∣uiction of M. Andrews his impudency, and malice, who is not ashamed to auouch such a manifest false∣hood, 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,* 1.25 concerning a schisme raysed by Acatius Bishop of Constantinople in the tyme of Pope Felix his Predeces∣sor, 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 Constanti∣nople, 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. Se∣condly, 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 suc∣ceeded Martian before Pope Leo dyed, attempting with∣in a few yeares after to obtayne the same priuiledges for the Church of Cōstātinople in the tyme of Pope Simplicius, was flatly denyed them, and that it was declared vnto him by Probus Bishop of Canusium the Popes Legat, nullatenus posse tentari, that it might by no meanes be attempted.

13. Finally Gelasius also signifyeth, that Acatius Bi∣shop of Constantinople, who raysed the Schisme wher∣of 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 exe∣cutor of the Popes sentence against them, and that therefore falling also himself afterwards into the fel∣lowship of the condemned Bishops (vpon whome he had executed the Popes sentence of condemnatiō) he deserued no lesse to be condemned then they. All this witnesseth Gelasius; whereby it appeareth euidently that from the tyme of the Councel of Calcedon to his raigne, which was about 40. yeares, the Canon whereupon M. Andrewes relyeth, was not held to be of any waight, for the exemption of the Church of Constantinople from the subiection of the Church to the Roman Sea. For if the Canon had then had any such force, neyther

would the Emperour Martian haue hyghly commen∣ded 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 renew∣ed that suit to Pope Simplicius; neyther yet would Aca∣tius 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 Hereti∣call Emperours,* 1.26 to wit Zeno, and Anastasius, which was about 40. yeares) yet diuers Grecian, and Orien∣tall Bishops which were partakers of the sayd schisme, made earnest, and humble suit in the meane tyme to Pope Symmachus in a generall, and cōmon letter (with the tytle, or superscription of Ecclesia Orientalis &c.) to be restored to the vnion of the Roman Sea,* 1.27 acknow∣ledging 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 habi∣tabilem 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 Con∣stantinople, togeather with Iohn Bishop of that Sea, de∣manded of Pope Hormisdas (who succeeded Symma∣chus) to be reconciled to the Sea Apostolik; and after∣wards the sayd Bishop of Constantinople sent a pro∣fession

of his faith to Hormisdas,* 1.28 acknowledging that the Catholike Religion is alwayes kept inuiolable, and sin∣cere 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 Religio∣nis, & perfecta soliditas, wherein there is sincere•• and perfect solidity of the Christian Religion. Finally, ha∣uing promised to raze the name,* 1.29 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 com∣prehended in the number of those whome he had ana∣thematiz••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,* 1.30 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 Hor∣misdas) 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 Con∣stantinople by that Canon of the Councell of Calcedon.

16. The like may be sayd,* 1.31 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 Agape∣tus to depose Anthymus Bishop of that Sea, as I haue signified before? Why did not either he, or the hereti∣call Empresse Theodora his wyfe, or at least Anthymus himselfe stand vpon the equality granted by the Coun∣cell of Calcedon?* 1.32 Or how can it be imagined that Theo∣dora would afterward labour by all meanes possible, as she did, perfas, & nefas, to induce the two Popes Silue∣rius 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 Vigi∣lius, pretended not this Canon, or the equality suppo∣sed by M. Andrewes, but submitted himself, as also Theo∣dorus did, to the authority of the Roman Sea, crauing absolution, and restitution to the communion thereof.

17. Also Eutychias who succeeded Mennas, clai∣med so litle priuiledge for himself, or his Sea by this Canon,* 1.33 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 al¦though some yeares afterwards Iohn Bishop of Constan∣tinople 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,* 1.34 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 anathe∣matized, or accursed by theyr owne sentence.

18. And after the death of the sayd Iohn, S. Gre∣gory 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 A∣postolik, in case he were guilty; whereupon S. Gregory saith,* 1.35 Nam quòd se dicit Sedi Apostolicae subijci, siqua culpa in Episcopis inuenitur &c. For wheras he saith that he is sub∣iect to the Sea Apostolik, if any fault be found in the Bishops, I know not who is not subiect vnto it.* 1.36 And in another epi∣stle 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,* 1.37 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 predeces∣sors; and afterwards he himself also gaue sentence of ex∣communication, & deposition against Photius Bishop of the same Sea, which sentence Basilius the Empe∣rour executed for feare of incurring the censures of the Sea Apostolike,* 1.38 as he himself testified in the 8. gene∣rall Councell. And when Photius was afterwards by his owne subtile practise restored to his Sea, he was agayne deposed by Pope Stephanus:* 1.39 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 Ste∣phanus 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 perswa∣ded 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 here∣ticall Emperours, and the Bishops of Constantinople, during their raigne, caused diuers schismes, and sepa∣rated 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 Empe∣rour Petrus Altisiodorensis, but also the two Patriarkes

of Constantinople,* 1.40 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 Ca∣tholike doctrine concerning the Vniuersall Authori∣ty, 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,* 1.41 came to a Generall Coun∣cell held by Pope Eugenius at Florence, and there ha∣uing first maturely debated amongst themselues the questiō of the Popes Supremacy according to the testi∣monies not only of the holy Scriptures,* 1.42 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,* 1.43 that presently after their reuolt from this solemne vnion made at Florence, God puni∣shed the Empyre, and Church of Constantinople with that lamentable, and miserable captiuity wherein it hath euer since remayned.

* 1.4422. And thereto I will now also add for the con∣clusion 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 be∣came the instruments of his iustice, to punish their pryde, especially from the tyme of the Emperour Con∣stantin called Monomachus, who though in despyte, and hatred of the Roman Church, he graced the Bishop of Constantinople called Michaël, not only with extraordi∣nary 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 vn∣derstood that the Emperours of the West had done the like honour, and seruice to some Popes) neuer∣theles perceauing afterwards that the people did, by this occasion, beare such reuerence, and respect to Mi∣chaël, 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 ey∣ther he, or any other of the Emperours his predeces∣sors had endowed the Church, or Bishops of Constan∣tinople.

23. And from that tyme forward, as S. Antoni∣nus 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 op∣pressors, enioying the stability, security, and maiesty which she still possesseth; wherein the prouidence and

iustice of Almighty God is euidently seene,* 1.45 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,* 1.46 although Almighty God is patiens redditor, a slow paymaster, yet he payeth home in the end; and as Vale∣rius saith,* 1.47 tarditatem supplicij grauitate compensat, he re∣compenseth 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. An∣drewes 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.* 1.48 Whereby it also appea∣reth how vainely and vntruely he saith, that Pope Leo contradicted it in vayne; yea, and which is more ab∣surd, that he made suite,* 1.49 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 interces∣sion, and suite, not only to the Emperour and Em∣presse, but also to Anatolius himselfe.

25. Therefore albeit I am not ignorant that inter∣cedere hath dyuers senses, and amongst the rest signifi∣eth 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 signi∣fieth 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 (d) 1.50 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 vnexa∣mined, to the end thou mayst see,* 1.51 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,* 1.52 & 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 them∣selues) 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 fa∣ction eyther remayned behynd, or els after their depar∣ture returned againe to the place of the assembly, and there made the Canon whereof we now treate. Where∣upon the Legats hauing notice of it,* 1.53 caused the whole Councell to be assembled againe the next day, and fin∣ding Anatolius, and his faction (who were the far greater part of the Councell) resolute in their deter∣mination, protested their owne opposition, & contra∣diction to the Canon, as well in respect, that it was re∣pugnant to the Councell of Nice, as also for that the other (d) 1.54 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 Apo∣stolicall 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 sen∣tence

eyther of the iniury done to his Sea (by the abuse of his Legats) or of the breach of the Canons.* 1.55 Thus sayd the Legats; signifying that it was in his hands, and power to ratify, or abrogate as well this Canon, as all the other Canons of that Coūcell,* 1.56 which also the whole Councell acknowledged sufficiently in a com∣mon letter written to him, wherein they craued of him the ratification of this Canon, most humbly, and in∣stantly, (as it will appeare heereafter) which neuer∣theles he flatly denyed, confirming only the condem∣nation, and deposition of Dioscorus, and the rest of their decrees cōcerning matters of faith (for the which only he sayd the Councell was assembled) and in fine he disanulled the Canon for diuers causes specifyed in his Epistles. First because it had no other ground but the ambitious humour of Anatolius, who inordinatly sought thereby to haue the precedence before the Pa∣triarks of Alexandria, and Antioch. Secondly, because it was not procured, or made Canonically, but by pra∣ctise, and surreption in the absence of his Legats•• Thirdly, for that the other (d) 1.57 Canon of the Councell of Constantinople, vpon the which this seemed to be grounded,* 1.58 was of no validity, hauing neuer been sent to the Sea Apostolike, nor put in practise by the pre∣decessors of Anatolius. Lastly, for that it was flatly re∣pugnant 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 Canoni∣cally made;* 1.59 for, albeit the Councell of Nice had alrea∣dy ordayned: the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and iurisdiction of the Patri∣archal

Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Hierusa∣lem, with the consent of Pope Siluester, who was the head of that Councell (without whose ratification, nothing could be of force that was decreed therein, no more then our Acts of Parliamēt without the Kings approbation) neuertheles, for as much as the Canons of the Nicen Councell touching those Churches, and this Canon also, whereof we now specially treate, did not ordayne, or concerne any thing which was de iure diuino, but only the priuiledges, and iurisdiction of Churches pertayning to Ecclesiasticall Lawes, it is eui∣dent 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 suffici∣ent cause to the cōtrary, as hath beene declared; & ther∣fore the Popes his successors being moued with such o∣ther occasions, and vrgent reasons, as change of tyme produced, not only permitted the Bishops of Constanti∣nople to haue the second place after them, but ordayned it also by a Canon, as I shall haue occasion to shew (c) 1.60 heereafter. In the meane tyme I conclude concerning this poynt, that although Thedorus Balsamon, and Zo∣naras, and some other Grecian collectors of the Coun∣cells, do set downe this Canon in fauour of the Chur∣ches 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. An∣drewes

concerning Pope Leo's intercession,* 1.61 made (as he saith) in vayne to the Emperour, Empresse, and Ana∣tolius, 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 Empe∣rour, that whereas he (I meane Pope Leo) might haue called Anatolius to account long before, for being con∣secrated Bishop by an heretike,* 1.62 he had borne with him at the Emperours request, and that by the Emperours help and by his (I meane Pope Leo's) fauourable con∣sent, 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 Bi∣shops. Also he signifyed to the Emperour, that Anato∣lius 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 insti∣tuted 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 Empe∣rour, crauing indeed with great reason, his help and assistance, for the correction, and amendment of Anato∣lius, yet with great grauity, and authority as you see, and not in vayne, as M. Andrewes would haue vs to sup∣pose; for albeit the Emperour had fauoured greatly the pretence of Anatolius,* 1.63 to prefer the Church of Constan∣tinople 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 Empe∣rour,* 1.64 wherein he signified the contentment, and ioy that he receaued, when he vnderstood by the Empe∣rours letters, that he not only approued his defence of the Canons, but was also himselfe determined to de∣fend them, and to conserue the priuiledges of the Churches, according to the decrees of the Nicen Coun∣cell. So that I hope M. Andrews cannot now say, that Pope Leo's intercessiō to the Emperour was in vayne. Let vs then see what manner of suite he made to the Empresse.

31. He wrote also to her diuers Epistles, and in one of them hauing first taxed Anatolius of immoderate pryde,* 1.65 for seeking to passe the limits of his owne dignity, to the preiudice of other Metropolitās; signfying with∣all, 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, Episco∣porum Canonum apud Nicaeam conditorum regulis repu∣gnantes,

vnita nobiscum vestrae fidei Pietate, in irritum mit∣timus, & per auctoritatem B. Petri Apostoli generali pror∣sus 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 gene∣rall 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 po∣wer, and Apostolicall authority, to disanull, and a∣brogate this Canon, as he did.

32. Now it resteth that we see,* 1.66 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 bla∣meth him for taking the occasion he did, to seeke not only to preferre himselfe before the Bishops of Alexan∣dria* 1.67 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 inaudi∣tum, & 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 de∣cision 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 him∣selfe

sufficiently when he acknowledged that the Le∣gats 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 intima∣ted by any of his predecessors to the Roman Sea, & ther∣fore he wished him to remember what Christ threat∣neth 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 ambiti∣ous desires, concluding with this sentence of the Apo∣calyps:* 1.68 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,* 1.69 or no, as M. Andrews affir∣meth 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.* 1.70 Requesting in the behalfe

of Anatolius, that we will bestow vpon him the grace, or fauour of our affection,* 1.71 because he promiseth his a∣mendment &c. So that you see now, Iordanis conuer∣sus 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,* 1.72 wherein he promised that Anatolius should find in him sincerae gratiae animum, an affection of sincere grace, or fauour, in case he fol∣lowed 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?* 1.73 Therfore wher∣as Anatolius had written a letter of submission to him, not only acknowledging his fault in that attempt,* 1.74 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 re∣formed certayne abuses in the Church of Constantino∣ple, he gaue him order withall to make two priests (cal∣led

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 satisfa∣ction 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 dis∣pleased 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 ac∣cessit, 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,* 1.75 by say∣ing 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 op∣position 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 command∣ments, lawes, and ordinances in the Church of Con∣stantinople, 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 be∣liefe 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,* 1.76 and ab∣surdly affirmeth (to wit, that the Fathers in the Coun∣cell of Calcedon meant by this Canon to make the By∣shoprik of Cōstantinople, equal in all respects, with the A∣postolicall Sea of Rome) yet it little importeth, yea ra∣ther maketh for vs, then for M. Andrews, seeing that the C••non was as I haue shewed, presētly ouerthrowne, and ••ade voyd by the authority of the Roman Séa, and that ••ot only Anatolius himselfe (who procured it) acknowledged his errour therin, but also, as well he, as other Catholike Bishops his successors liued in the vnion, and subiection of the sayd Roman Church, as I haue sufficiently shewed by the experience, and pra∣ctise 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 oc∣casion to confute certayne reasons of his, which he further vrgeth out of the circumstances of the foresayd Canon.* 1.77 The first place, or authority, which he vnder∣taketh to answere, is, that in many Epistles, or rather supplications addressed to Pope Leo, and the whole Councell,* 1.78 he is named before the Councell with this tytle: Sanctissimo & Deo amantissimo, & vniuersali Ar∣chiepiscopo, & Patriarchae Magnae Romae Leoni, & Sanctae, & vniuersali Chalcedonensi Synodo,* 1.79 quae voluntate Dei con∣gregata 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 vsua∣ly 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 con∣tradiction of any.

39. Hereto M. Andrews answereth thus:

Cur huc illuc oberret quis &c. why shall a man go vp and downe hither,* 1.80 and thither, throughout all the corners of the Acts (of this Councell) searching the deskes, and loo∣king 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 superscriptiō of a letter, or memoriall wherin euery man knoweth how suiters are wont to extoll, and magnify those to whome they sue) but let him read the matter ventila∣ted, 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 concer∣ning 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 superscripti∣ons of letters, and memorials. The second, that the manner and style of the letters, and memorialls of sup∣pliants, 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 ex∣presse 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 im∣porteth) being by me already fully confuted to his shame, it will easily be seene how he tryfleth in the two former.* 1.81 For as for the first, what skilleth it whether those tytles were written on the insyde, or outside of the supplications, seeing that they were taken, and set downe by the Notaries of the whole Coūcell, no lesse then the Canons, and Actions themselues, and not reproued, or contradicted by any? Is it not therefore cleare inough thereby, that the tytle of vniuersall Bishop was in those dayes vsually giuen to the Bishop of Rome? and seeing his name is set downe before the name of

the Councell (though he himselfe was not present, but only his Legats) was not he sufficiently acknow∣ledged 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 pre∣sent their petitions rather to Pope Leo by name,* 1.82 then to the Bishop of Constantinople, or to other Grecian Bi∣shops, 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 exces∣siue tytle, as well as the Pope? For, if it were need∣full 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 Coun∣cell 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 sup∣plications being directed indifferently to both, and no excesse, or flattery so much as imagined by M. An∣drewes

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 vni∣uersall Pastor of the Church. And thus much tou∣ching his answere to the first place.

43. The second place alledged by Cardinall Bel∣larmine out of that Councell,* 1.83 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 as∣sembled there, & they his members, for thus they wrote speaking of themselues:* 1.84 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,* 1.85 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.* 1.86 So he; meaning that the Canon (whereof we haue hitherto treated) made the Bishop of Constan∣tinople, 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 an∣swere (I meane the Canon) fayling him, his answere must needs fall to the ground, and be altogeather im∣pertinent, and the place alledged by the Cardinall re∣mayne in full force.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

* 1.8744. The third and last place, which he vnder∣taketh to answere, is, that the whole Councell also testi∣fyed in the same Epistle to Pope Leo, that our Sauiour had committed to him the keeping of his vineyard,* 1.88 that is to say, of his Church; whereto M. Andrews answe∣reth, that the vineyard was indeed committed to him, but not to him alone,* 1.89 sed cum alijs in vin••a operarijs, but toge••ther with other workmen in the vineyard, where∣in 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 infe∣riour, 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 Pa∣stor 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,* 1.90 where I confuted the like answere of M. Andrewes to our obiection of the Pastorall commission giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter.

45. Therefore I remit him, and the Reader to what I haue discoursed there, touching that poynt•• and wil also ad further heere cōcerning Pope Leo, that wher∣as M. Andrewes granteth his Pastorall authority, togea∣ther with other Pastors (meaning that he had no more, nor other authority ouer the Church then other Bi∣shops had) he is easily conuinced by the circumstances of the same place which the Cardinall obiecteth,* 1.91 and he pretendeth now to answere; for there Dioscorus is accu∣sed of three things: the first, that he had taken vpon him to condemne, and depose Flauianus Bishop of Con∣stantinople,

and Eusebius Bishop of Doryleum against the Canons of the Church. The second, that whereas Pope Leo had depriued Eutyches the heretyk of his dig∣nity in the Church of Constantinople (where he was Ab∣bot of a Monastery) Dioscorus had restored him thereto, and so, irruens in vineam &c. breaking into the vineyard which he found notably well planted,* 1.92 he ouerthrew it &c. The thyrd was, that, post haec omnia, saith the Councell, insuper, & contra ipsum &c. And after all this, he did more∣ouer 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 di∣stinguisheth 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 o∣ther 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 deposi∣tiō 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 Be∣sids 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 Con∣stantinople,

if as well the Bishop of that Church, as Eu∣tiches had not been subiect to him; whereto it may also be added, that, as Liberat{us} testifieth, this Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople (for whose iniurious deposition Dio∣scorus is here accused by the Councell) appealed for re∣medy to Pope Leo,* 1.93 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,* 1.94 of the whole vineyard, be∣cause totius is not in the text of the Councell: Nec totius vineae dicitur (saith M. Andrewes) sed commoda vox (totius) Cardinali visum est adijcere:* 1.95 neyther is it said, of the whole vineyard, but the Cardinall thought good to add totius, because it is a commodious word for his purpose, whereby it seemeth that he would haue some vnwary Reader to imagin that the Cardinall had corrupted the text, by adding the word totius, whereas there is no such matter; for hauing alledged the words of the Coū∣cell, as they are (to wit, cui vineae custodia à Saluatore commissa est) he doth afterwards in his owne discourse, and for the explication therof, adde totius, saying, vbi fatentur totius vineae custodiam &c. where they (to wit the Fathers of the Councell of Calcedon) do confesse that the charge of all the vineyard,* 1.96 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,* 1.97 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 equal∣ly, 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,* 1.98 then all other men haue. And why? Marry, forsooth, because all men are equal∣ly bound to haue care of the vnity and peace of the Church; which truly may passe for a very strange para∣doxe, howsoeuer he vnderstandeth it, I meane, whe∣ther 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 (b) 1.99 Supplement. I haue also shewed that M. (c) 1.100 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,* 1.101 by our Saui∣our,

vt schismatis tollatur occasio (as S. Hierome saith) that the occasion of schisme may be taken away:* 1.102 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 (d) 1.103 here after.

50. If then Pastors, or gouernours are (by his owne confession) instituted in the Church to con∣serue 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,* 1.104 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 sup∣pressed, 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 con∣seruation

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 Empe∣rour in his Epistle to the Councell of Ephesus;* 1.105 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••i∣call consultations, and affayres. So he. And the like sayd Basilius the Emperour in the 8. Generall Councell,* 1.106 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,* 1.107 that, Concilium Episcoporum est, a Councell consisteth of Bi∣••••ops; whereupon it followeth euidently,* 1.108 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 assem∣bled 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,* 1.109 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 do∣ctrine to the Romans,* 1.110 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 ex∣horteth in exhorting, he that giueth in simplicity, he that ruleth in carfulnes,* 1.111 he that sheweth mercy in cheerfulnes.

54. Thus far the Apostle, who exemplifying heere, as you see, the different gifts, and graces that God be∣stoweth 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 Go∣uernour 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 Chri∣stians are) neuertheles we see in the Apocalyps that none of them but the Bishop only,* 1.112 was reprehended for ne∣gligence, 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 comman∣ded 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,* 1.113 or hotch-potch of the different members of Christs my∣sticall body confounding their seuerall functions, and making them all eyes, or heads, requyring the obliga∣tion of a Pastor, or Gouernor in euery particuler man? And truly if this doctrine were generally imbraced in England,* 1.114 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 dis∣charge of his conscience, and obligation? For if his

band in that behalfe were equal with the band of Pa∣stors, 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,* 1.115 for when power of performance wan∣teth, 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 do∣ctrine.

56. And albeit (to auoyde this absurdity) he should restrayne his generall propositiō to Pastors only, and say, that whatsoeuer violateth the vnity of the whole Church doth belong equally to the care of all Pastors; yet he were no lesse ridiculous then before, seeing that he must needs acknowledge an inequality of obligation, and care euen amongst them, accor∣ding 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 au∣thority 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,* 1.116 & 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 Cap∣taynes (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 vni∣ty, and peace of his estate, wherein consisteth the pub∣lyke, 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,* 1.117 who ought (accor∣ding 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,* 1.118 in hope vtterly to ouerthrow the Popes Pri∣macy. 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,* 1.119 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,* 1.120 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,* 1.121 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) compre∣hendeth all priuiledges whatsoeuer; whereas you see the Canon speaketh only of priuiledges giuen to the Ro∣man Church, in respect of the Imperiall Seat; so that other priuiledges might be giuen thereto for other res∣pects, 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) con∣sider 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?* 1.122 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:* 1.123

Quod ergo habet Roma de Primatu &c. Therefore that which Rome hath of the Primacy, is not from Christ, but from the Fathers, and in respect of the Emperours Seat, and not for the Sea of Peter.

61. VVhereto I answere, first that M. Andrews must learne to distinguish betwixt the Primacy of S. Peter, and the priuiledges granted to the Sea of Rome, for that the sayd Primacy could not be from any, but

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 there∣fore M. Andrews argueth most absurdly from the Pri∣uiledges, 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 sim∣ple if he see not,* 1.124 that the pēners of the Canon had great reason to auoyd therein all mention of the keyes, and of the Pastorall commission giuen by our Sauiour to S. Peter, as also of the Priuiledges granted to the Roman Church in respect of S. Pet••rs Sea; seeing that the same could not any way further the pretence of the Bishop of Constantinople, but rather hinder it. For what could he demaund for any of those respects? Would M. Andrews haue had him to say that because Christ gaue S. Peter the keyes and commission to feed his sheepe, therefore it was conuenient that the Councell should also giue the lyke authority to the Bishop of Constantinople, or prefer him before the Bishop of Alexandria, and An∣tioch (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 priui∣ledged by reason of the Imperiall Seat, it was conue∣nient, that also the Church of Constantinople should haue like priuiledges for the same reason.

63. Agayne, what should the Bishop of Constan∣tinople haue gayned by mentioning priuiledges granted to Peters Sea? Should he not haue hindred his owne cause thereby, and pleaded against himselfe for Alexan∣dria, 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,* 1.125 and of the priuiledges granted thereto, then M. Andrews had in setting downe the substance of the Canon, to con∣ceale, 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:* 1.126

in sua autem iam potestate esse, ex ea∣dem 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 digni∣ty; 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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,* 1.127 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, these words do fol∣low immediatly in the Greeke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which in our Latin copyes is very well transla∣ted 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 con∣science could he so deepely dissemble it, as not only to leaue out all mention of it, but also to make an equa∣lity, and parity in dignity, and in all things els be∣twixt the Churches of Rome, and Constantinople? Wher∣as 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 Chur∣ches,

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 accor∣ding 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 allea∣ged by M. Andrews, or the Latin in our translation, with the restriction that immediately followeth (wher∣by the second place after Rome is assigned to Constanti∣nople) it is most cleare,* 1.128 that they cannot possibly signify (as he would haue them) parificare, &, ad parem digni∣tatem 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 con∣cealing 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,* 1.129 which is this: Quod habet ergo Roma de primatu &c. therfore that which Rome hath of the pri∣macy, it hath not from Christ, but from the Fathers, and in respect of the seat of the Emperour,* 1.130 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; conclu∣ding as you see two things, the one concerning the pri∣macy 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 di∣stinguish betwixt the Primacy of the Roman Sea granted by Christ to S. Peter, and the priuiledges which the Fa∣thers, 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 ra∣ther 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, be∣cause they made the Church of Constantinople equal with the Roman Sea, you see that all the equality wher∣upon he buyldeth, is but his owne fiction, and repu∣gnant to that very Canon, which he layeth for his foun∣dation;

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 Pri∣macy, 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 extra∣hat nescio quid,* 1.131 & 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,* 1.132 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 Car∣dinall 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,* 1.133 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 autho∣rity sufficed to disanul it euen in the Iudgment of Ana∣tolius himselfe, who hauing been the cause, and au∣thour

of it, acknowledged his errour therein and cra∣ued pardon for the same, as I haue amply declared be∣fore. 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 op∣position (especially from the tyme of Iustinian the Em∣perour, which was about a 100. yeares after the Coun∣cell of Calcedon, yea and afterwards also Pope Innocen∣tius the third ratifyed,* 1.134 and confirmed it by a Canon in the great Councell of Lateran) yet the supreme autho∣rity of the Sea Apostolike was no way preiudiced there∣by, as it appeareth euidently by the relation, which I haue made before of the subiection, and obedience of the Catholike Emperours,* 1.135 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.

* 1.13671. 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 appea∣reth by their Epistle to Pope Leo wherin they acknow∣ledge that he being ordayned to be the interpeter of the voyce of Blessed Peter to all men,* 1.137 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 pre∣pared for them that spirituall banquet (meaning their Synod) by his Letters; that he by his Legates had go∣uerned them in that Councell, as the Head gouerneth the members; that the keeping of the Vineyard was commit∣ted to him by our Sauiour; and that he had depriued Eu∣tyches the heretike of his dignity in Constātinople,* 1.138 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 Con∣stantinople, 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 condes∣cend to confirme, that which they had ordayned con∣cerning the said Church, for the auoyding of confusi∣on, 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 vouch∣safe to imbrace these things, as your owne, and friend∣ly, and most conuenient, or fit for good order.

73.* 1.139 And afterwards hauing declared that the three Legats of Pope Leo did contradict this Canon,* 1.140 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 no∣ted,

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 re∣dound to their fathers, who account, and make the same their owne) therefore, Rogamus (say they) & tuis de∣cr••tis nostrum ••onor•• iudicium: we beseech thee, honour also our iudgement with thy decrees, & sicut n•••• (c) 1.141 capiti in bo∣nis adiecimus consonantiam, sic & (d) 1.142 Summitas tua filijs (quod decet) adimpleat: and as we haue yielded conformi∣ty, on our parts to (you) our head, so let your High∣nes 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 holy∣nes as a law) & Sedes Constantinopolitana suscipi••t praemiū, and the Church of Constantinople shall receiue a reward, or benefit, which Church hath alwayes performed all endeauour towards you, to the cause of piety, and conioyned it selfe with you,* 1.143 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) whe∣ther any thing could be written in this kind more effe∣ctually 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 (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, consuetè soliciti, say those Fath••rs, spea∣king 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 there∣fore do, as I may say, begge at his hands the confir∣mation of their Canon in fauour of the Church of Con∣stantinople, 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 de∣pend 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 op∣position was sufficient to ouerthrow it, as hath bene (d) 1.144 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,* 1.145 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 al∣so be confirmed with their other publike testimonies of their beliefe concerning his authority, as that they ac∣knowledged not only that he was successor to S. Peter (saying in their generall acclamation to an Epistle of his,* 1.146 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 Coun∣cell, was to depose Dioscorus,* 1.147 Bishop of Alexandria, which done by the sentence of Pope Leo, pronoun∣ced by his Legates in these words:* 1.148

Sanctissimus, & Bea∣tissimus Archiepiscopus magnae & senioris Romae Leo, per nos, & per presentem sanctam Synodum, vnà cum ter bea∣tissimo, & omni laude digno beato Petro Apostolo, qui est petra & crepido Ecclesiae, & ille qui est rectae fidei funda∣mentum, 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 sen∣tence 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,* 1.149 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 fol∣loweth, that he was president, and head thereof, and that the sayd Synod was but, as it were, his instru∣ment, 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 Coū∣cell, without any contradiction, or exception taken to any part thereof, it is euident, that the whole was conforme to the faith, and beliefe of the Councell, and consequently that they held Pope Leo not only for S. Peters successor,* 1.150 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 im∣portant 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,* 1.151 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.* 1.152 So they; whereby they gaue sufficient testimony of the soueraygnty of Pope Leo, acknowled∣ging 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,* 1.153 that he was vn∣doubtedly 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 By∣shop.

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,* 1.154 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 pro∣cure 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 Bi∣shops of Greece (in respect of his eminent learning, wisdome, and vertue) yet there is no probability in the world,* 1.155 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 impro∣bable 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 Presi∣dent

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 su∣premacy, and how far M. Andrews is from their faith, and Religion, yea and what a seared conscience he hath,* 1.156 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 fol∣loweth 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 on∣ly 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.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Supplem: cap. 2. nu•• 15 & 16. Apolog. Car Bellow, pag. 92. cap. 7.
• * 1.2

  Whether the Popes authority be establi∣shed, or ouer∣throwne by the councell of Cal∣cedon.
• * 1.3

  Andr. pag. 170. cap. 7. §. Quod ibi.
• * 1.4

  Ibidem.
• * 1.5

  M. An∣drews his shameles dealing.
• * 1.6

  Concil. Chalced. Act. 15. Can. 28.
• * 1.7

  Concil. Cō∣stant. Can. ••.
• * 1.8

  The sense and mea∣ning of the Canon of the Councell of Cal. al∣leadged by M. An∣drews.
• * 1.9

  Can. 28.
• * 1.10

  Concil. Calced. Act. 16.
• * 1.11

  Relatio Synodi ad Leon. in fine Còcil.
• * 1.12

  M. An∣drews corrup∣teth the text of the Canon, adding vnto it per omnia.
• * 1.13

  What māner of Equality the Church of Cōstan¦tinople should haue with the Romā Church.
• * 1.14

  Sozom. hist. l. 3. cap. 7.
• * 1.15

  What prehemi∣nence the Church of Cōstā∣tinople sought to haue in the Coū∣cell of Calcedon.
• * 1.16

  See Paral. Torti. ac Tort. cap. 4. p. 157. edit. Colon, 1611.
• * 1.17

  How E∣quality is vnder∣stood somtimes in the Scriptures.
• * 1.18

  2. Cor. 8.
• * 1.19

  Exod. 18.
• * 1.20

  See S. Tho. in ep. 2. ad Cor. cap. 8.
• * 1.21

  Item Ioan. Gagnaeus in hunc lo∣cum.
• * 1.22

  Two kinds of equality correspō∣ding to two kinds of Iustice.
• * 1.23

  Aristot. Ethic. 5. S. Thom. 2.2. q. 16.
• * 1.24

  The Ca∣non which graunted the priui∣ledges to the Church of Constā∣tinople a∣brogated by Pope Leo.
• * 1.25

  Foure things to be noted in an Epi∣stle of Pope Ge∣lasius for the inua∣lidity of the Canō.
• * 1.26

  The East Church acknow∣ledged to be subiect to the Sea of Rome.
• * 1.27

  Ep. orient. Episcop. ad Symmachū. To. 2. Concil.
• * 1.28

  Exemplar libelli Ioan. Ep. Cōstan∣tin. To. 2. Concil.
• * 1.29

  Vide etiam Ep. Iustini Imperat. ad Hormis∣dam •• P. To. 20. Concil.
• * 1.30

  The Pri∣macy of the Romā Sea ac∣knowled∣ged by the Greeke Church, to be groun¦ded vpon the ex∣presse words of Christ.
• * 1.31

  Libe••at. in Breu••ario c. 22. Nice∣phor. li. 17. c. 9. Ana∣stas. in A∣gapeto. Paul Dia∣con. l. 16.
• * 1.32

  Nicepho. li. 17. c. 26. vide etiam Constit. Vi∣gilij apud Binium to. 2. Concil. p. 5••2. Ba∣ron. An. 551.552. & 553.
• * 1.33

  Ep. Euty∣chij ad Vi∣gilium To. 2. Concil. in Concil. 5. Generali collat. 2.
• * 1.34

  ••p. 8. Pe∣lag. To. 2. Concil.
• * 1.35

  S. Greg. lib. 7•• ••p. 65••
• * 1.36

  Idem ibid. ep. 64.
• * 1.37

  Many Bi∣shops of Constanti∣nople de∣posed by the Popes of Rome.
• * 1.38

  Ep. Nicolai 1. ad Mi∣chael. Impe∣rat.
• * 1.39

  To. 4. con∣cil in 8. Sy∣nodo gener. in appen∣dice ex Act. 6.
• * 1.40

  S. Anto∣nin. Tit. ••9. cap. 1. §. 6. Naucler. gener. 41. Bloud. lib. 6. dec. 2. in fine. Platina in vita In∣nocen. 3. To. 3. Con∣cil. in Con∣cilio Late∣ran.
• * 1.41

  See Sup∣lem. cap. 2. n••. 1. & 2.
• * 1.42

  S. Antoni∣nus Tit. 22. cap. 13. §. 1.2. & seq. Item Concil. Florentin. sess. vlt.
• * 1.43

  See Sup∣lem. cap. 1. nu. 114. & 115.
• * 1.44

  The iust Iudgmēts of God v∣pon the Church of Constan∣tinople.
• * 1.45

  Matth. 16.
• * 1.46

  Eccli. 5.
• * 1.47

  Valer. Maxim. l. 1. cap. 1.
• * 1.48

  Andr. cap. 7. p. 170.
• * 1.49

  Bad dea∣ling of M. Andrews.
• (d) 1.50

  p. 177. & p. 35. §. de Inuo∣catione. & p. 45. §•• Locus.
• * 1.51

  Liberat. in Breuiar. cap 13. Ep. Leo. 53.54.55.59.70.71.
• * 1.52

  How the Canon for the B. of Constan∣tinoples priuiledgs was made.
• * 1.53

  Concil. Calced. act. 16.
• (d) 1.54

  Concer∣ning the in∣ualidity of this Canon see Baron. To. 4. pag. 4••3. an. 381. edit. Romae an. 1593.
• * 1.55

  Relat. Sy∣nodi ad Leo. in fine Concil.
• * 1.56

  Leo. ep. 61. ad Episcop. in Synodo Chal. con∣greg. Item ep. 55.70. & 71.
• (d) 1.57

  See more con∣cerning this Canon in Binius. To. 1. Cōcil. pag. 517. edit. Colo∣niae an. 1606.
• * 1.58

  Leo ep. 53. ad Anato∣lium. Idem ep. 55. ad Pulcher.
• * 1.59

  Concil. Nicen. Can. 6.
• (c) 1.60

  See af∣ter in the end of this Chapter.
• * 1.61

  What maner of intercessiō Pope Leo made to Martian the Empe∣rour a∣gainst A∣natolius.
• * 1.62

  Leo. ep 54. ad Martiā.
• * 1.63

  Relatio Synod. Chalced. ad Martian. in fine Concil.
• * 1.64

  Leo. ep. 59. ad Martiā.
• * 1.65

  Leo ep. 55. ad Pulche∣riam.
• * 1.66

  What in∣tercession Pope Leo made to Anatolius
• * 1.67

  Leo. ep. 53. ad Anatol.
• * 1.68

  Apoc. 3.
• * 1.69

  What ef∣fect Pope Leo's in∣tercession had.
• * 1.70

  Leo. ep. 68.
• * 1.71

  The Em∣perour made suite to Pope Leo for Anatolius.
• * 1.72

  Idem ep. 70. ad Martian.
• * 1.73

  Leo. ep. 71. ad Anatol.
• * 1.74

  Anatolius his sub∣mission to Pope Leo
• * 1.75

  A mani∣fest and sound lye of M. An∣drews.
• * 1.76

  Pope Leo his su∣preme au∣thority proued by the ouer∣throw of the Canon alledged by M. An∣drews.
• * 1.77

  Apol. Bellar. pag. 92.
• * 1.78

  Concil. Calced. Act. 3.
• * 1.79

  The name of Vniuer∣sall Bishop giuen to the Pope by the ge∣nerall Councell of Calce∣don.
• * 1.80

  Andr. pag. 170. §. Quod ibi.
• * 1.81

  M. An∣drews his tryfling answers.
• * 1.82

  M. An∣drews hardly vrged.
• * 1.83

  Bellar. Apol. vbi supra.
• * 1.84

  Relat. Sy∣nodi ad Leon. in fine Cōcilij.
• * 1.85

  Andr. vbi supra.
• * 1.86

  A weake and idle answere of M. An∣drews.
• * 1.87

  Card. A∣polog. vbi supra.
• * 1.88

  Relat. Sy∣nodi ad Leon.
• * 1.89

  Andr. vbi supra.
• * 1.90

  See cap. 1. nu. 3.4.5. & sequent
• * 1.91

  Relat. Sy∣nodi ad Leon.
• * 1.92

  A cleere testimony for Pope Leo's su∣premacy.
• * 1.93

  Liberat. in Breuiar. cap. 12.
• * 1.94

  Andr. vbi supra p. 171.
• * 1.95

  Andr. vbi supra.
• * 1.96

  Apolog. C. Bellar. pag. 92.
• * 1.97

  Andr. vbi supra.
• * 1.98

  A strange paradoxe of M. An∣drews.
• (b) 1.99

  See Supplem. c. 4. nu. 3.4.5. & 6.
• (c) 1.100

  Ibid. nu. 7.8.
• * 1.101

  Andr. cap. 8. pag. 219.
• * 1.102

  Hieron. li. 1. cont. Iouin.
• (d) 1.103

  Chap. 3. nu. 37. & seq.
• * 1.104

  Pastors are more bound to haue care of the Church then pri∣uate men.
• * 1.105

  Ep. Theo∣do••••j ad Sy∣nod. Ephe∣sin. To. 1. Concil.
• * 1.106

  To. 4. Concil. in 8. Concil. ge∣neral. ex act. 6.
• * 1.107

  Suppl. cap. 1. nu. 112. & 113.
• * 1.108

  Act. ••••
• * 1.109

  1. Cor. 12.
• * 1.110

  Rom. 12.
• * 1.111

  Pastours bound more then other men to haue care of the Church according to the doctrine of the Apostle.
• * 1.112

  Apoc. 2.
• * 1.113

  M. An∣drews galli-mau∣frey or hotch-potch.
• * 1.114

  M. An∣drews tea∣cheth sedi∣tious do∣ctrine.
• * 1.115

  Equality of obliga∣tion re∣quireth equality of care.
• * 1.116

  Isa. 32.
• * 1.117

  If M. An∣drews his position be true he must lay away his tytle of Lord Bi∣shop.
• * 1.118

  Andr. cap. 7. pag. 171.
• * 1.119

  M. An∣drews cor∣rupteth the text of the Councel of Calce∣don.
• * 1.120

  M An∣drews groundeth his argu∣ments v∣pon his owne fraud.
• * 1.121

  Act. 15. ca••. 28.
• * 1.122

  A silly collection of M. An∣drews.
• * 1.123

  A diffe∣rence to be noted be∣twixt the primacy of S. Peter, and the priuiledgs granted to the Ro∣man Sea.
• * 1.124

  Why those which penned the Canō alledged by M. An∣drews, made no mention of the keys, and Pastorall commissiō giuen to S. Peter.
• * 1.125

  M. An∣drews his fraud in alledging the Canon
• * 1.126

  Andr. vbi supra.
• * 1.127

  Can. 28.
• * 1.128

  M. An∣drews streyneth the Greek text to make it serue his turne.
• * 1.129

  Andr. pag. 171.
• * 1.130

  A very false and foolish conclusiō of M. An∣drews.
• * 1.131

  Andr. vbi supra.
• * 1.132

  Wisely forsooth.
• * 1.133

  The Canō alledged by M. An∣drews ouer¦throweth his cause••
• * 1.134

  Concil. Lateran. sub Inno∣cent. 3. cap. 5.
• * 1.135

  See before from num. 1••. to nu. 24.
• * 1.136

  Relatio Synod ad Leo.
• * 1.137

  The Coū∣••ell of Calcedon acknow∣ledged Pope Le∣o's supre∣••acy.
• * 1.138

  See before nu. 45. & 4••.
• * 1.139

  Ibidem.
• * 1.140

  The Coū∣cell ascry∣bed their determi∣nation of matters of fayth to the autho∣rity of Pope Leo
• (c) 1.141

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• (d) 1.142

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.143

  How effe∣ctually & clearly the Councell of Calce∣don ac∣knowled∣ged Pope Leo's su∣premacy, in their generall letter to him.
• (d) 1.144

  See b••∣fore from nu. 29. to nu. 39.
• * 1.145

  Other proofes that Pop•• Leo's su∣premacy was ac∣knowled∣ged by the Coūcel of Calcedo••••
• * 1.146

  Act. 2••
• * 1.147

  Ac••. ••.
• * 1.148

  Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexan∣dria depo∣sed by Pope Leo.
• * 1.149

  Three things to be noted in the de∣positiō of Dioscorus prouing Pope Leo's su∣premacy.
• * 1.150

  Concil•• Calced. Act. ••.
• * 1.151

  Ep. Theo∣dor. ad Leonem.
• * 1.152

  Theodo∣retus re∣stored to his Bisho∣prike by Pope L••o.
• * 1.153

  Pope Leo was vn∣doubtedly the head and presi∣dent of the Coū∣cell.
• * 1.154

  Caluin confuted cōcerning the cause why Pope Leo was president of the Councell.
• * 1.155

  Pope Leo head of the Coūcel of Calcedō in respect of his su∣preme au∣thority ouer the whole Church.
• * 1.156

  What a seared cō∣science M. Andrew•• hath.