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.

M. D. ANDREVVS HIS ANSVVERES TO three places of the Fathers are examined. AND By the way the Cardinall is cleared from a false imputation of Iouinians heresy, and M. Andrews truly charged therewith. Finally all that which we teach concerning the Popes authority is necessarily deduced out of M. An∣drews his owne doctrine, and expresse words. (Book 3)

CHAP. III. (Book 3)

HAVING occasion in my Supple∣ment to proue the necessity of a visi∣ble head in Gods Church to cōserue the same in vnity,* 1.1 I alledged two places of S. Cyprian, and S. Hierome, which the Cardinall also cyteth in his Apology, togeather with diuers other testimonies of

the Fathers, to proue the Primacy of S. Peter, and for as much as M. Andrews his answere thereto (if it haue any force at all) maketh as much against me, as a∣gainst the Cardinall,* 1.2 I will examine heere what force, and pith it hath. The Cardinall saith thus of S. Cyprian. Fecit Cyprianus Petrum &c. Cyprian made Peter the head, fountayne, and roote of the Church: and in his Epistle to Quintus: Peter, saith he, whome our Lord first chose, and vpon whome he buylt his Church &c.

Where S. Cyprian doth not only say,* 1.3 that Peter was first chosen, but also addeth that the Church was buylt vpon him; and true∣ly the foundation in a buylding, & the head in a body are all one.

Thus saith the Cardinall, alledging, as you see, two places of S. Cyprian, to both which M. Andrews meaneth to say somewhat.

2. To the first he saith thus,* 1.4

Fecit Cyprianus &c. Cyprian made Peter the head, fountayne, and roote of the Church, not Peter of the Church, but rather maketh the Church it selfe the fountayne from whence many brookes,* 1.5 the light from whence many beames, and the roote from whence many boughs are propagated. Learne this euen of himselfe; Sic & Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa &c. So the Church being wholy resplendent with the light of our Lord, casteth forth her beames throughout the whole world (loe, he sayth the Church, and not Peter) yet the light is one, and the selfe same which is spread euery where (is this light Peter? or is he euery where spread a∣broad?) and the vnity of the body is not separated. The Church through the plenty of her fertility stretcheth forth her branches ouer the whole earth, and doth amply spread abroad her aboundant flowing brookes, yet the head is one, the beginning one, & one mother, copious with the prosperous successe of her fecundity, or fruitfulnes. Caligauit hic

Cardinalis &c the Cardinall was spurre-blynd, or dim∣me sighted here, for (I thinke) he will not say, that Peter is the mother, and therefore not the head.

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

4. S. Cyprian meaning to shew the cause, why the Church is troubled with heresyes,* 1.6 and schismes, and withall to giue the remedy, saith thus:

Hoc eò fit &c. This hapneth, because men do not returne to the be∣ginning of truth, nor seeke the head, nor obserue the do∣ctrin of the heauenly Maister,* 1.7 which if any man will well consider, and examine, he shall not need any longer treatise, or arguments to proue it; the proofe is easy to be belieued by the compendiousnes, or breuity of the truth; our Lord sayd to Peter,* 1.8 I say vnto thee, thou art Peter, and vpon this rock I will buyld my Church, and the gates of hell shall not ouercome it &c.* 1.9 To him also he saith after his resurre∣ction, Feede my sheepe: vpon him being one, he buylt his Church, and to him he recommended his sheep to be fed, and although after his resurrection he gaue

equal power to all his Apostles,* 1.10 and sayd, as my Fa∣ther sent me, so I send you, receaue the holy Ghost &c. neuertheles to manifest, and shew a vnity, he orday∣ned one chayre, and by his authority disposed, that the beginning of the same vnity should proceed from one. Truely the rest of the Apostles were that which S. Peter was, endued with lyke fellowship of honour, and power, but the beginning proceedeth from vnity; the Primacy is giuen to Peter, that one Church of Christ, and one chayre may be shewed.

So he.

5. And prosecuting still the same matter, proueth notably the vnity of the Church, by the vnity of the head,* 1.11 from whence all the vnity of the body is deriued, which he sheweth by three excellent similituds of ma∣ny branches of one tree springing from one roote, many brookes of one water flowing from one foun∣tayne, and many beames of one light deriued from one sunne, concluding his discourse, that notwithstan∣ding the amplitude of the Church, by the propagation, and numerosity of her children, and the extension of her parts, and members all ouer the world, vnum tamen caput est, sayth he, & origo vna &c. yet the head is one, and the origen, or beginning one (that is to say Peter) vpon whome he sayd before (as you haue heard) that our Sauiour buylt his Church, and to whom he recō∣mended his sheep to be fed, yea gaue him Primatum, the Primacy, vt vna Christi Ecclesia, & vna cathedra mon∣stretur, to shew therby one Church of Christ, and one chayre; and this must needs be the true sense of S. Cy∣prian in that-place, if we will make his conclusion con∣forme to his premisses, and to the whole scope of his intention.

6. So that M. Andrews making the Church it selfe

to be the roote, fountayne, and head whereof S. Cyprian speaketh, doth most absurdly confound the tree with the roote, the riuers with the spring, the body with the head, and lameth all that most excellent discourse, of S. Cyprian, yea ouerthroweth the very foundation thereof, denying all that which S. Cyprian layd for his ground, to wit, the Primacy, and supreme authority of S. Peter, from whence he expresly deryueth the vnity of the Church, as he doth also most clearely els where, saying in his Epistle to Iubaianus:* 1.12 Nos Ecclesiae vnius caput, & radicem tenemus: We haue, or do hold the head, and roote of one Church (and after decla∣ring what roote,* 1.13 and head he meaneth, he sayth:) nam Petro primùm Dominus super quem &c. For our Lord gaue this power (of binding, and loosing) to Peter, vpon whome he buylt his Church, & vnde vnitatis orig••nem instituit, & ostendit: and from whence he ordayned, and shewed the beginning of vnity. And agayne after in the same Epistle: Ecclesia quae vna est, super vnum qui claues accepit, voce Domini fundata est. The Church which is one, was by the speach of our Lord founded vpon one, who receaued the keyes. So he. Whereby it eui∣dently appeareth, that his constant, and manifest do∣ctrine is, that all the vnity of the Church, proceedeth from the vnity of her head (to wit S. Peter, and his chayre) and that the Cardinall affirming that S. Cyprian made Peter the head, fountayne, & roote of the Church, gaue vs his true sense: and M. Andrews making the Church it selfe to be the head,* 1.14 fountayne, and roote of it selfe, is very absurd, and wholy repugnant to S. Cy∣prians doctrine or meaning.

7. And this will be more cleere, if we examin a little better M. Andrews his glosse vpon the text of S.

Cyprian, whereby he laboureth to proue, that the Church it selfe, and not S. Peter is the head, fountayne, and roote whereof S. Cyprian speaketh.* 1.15 For hauing layd downe S. Cyprians words (to wit, sic Ecclesia Do∣mini luce perfusa &c. so also the Church shyning with the light of our Lord, reacheth forth her beames ouer the whole world) he noteth that the Father sayth, Ecclesia, non Petrus, the Church, not Peter; and no meruaile, see∣ing he had no occasion then to name Peter, but the Church only; for although the Church, being a visi∣ble body, hath alwayes a visible head vnder Christ, to wit Peter, and his successors; yet S. Cyprian doth speake of it heere, as of a body considered a part, not including the head, meaning afterwards to speake of the head (as he had in lyke manner done before) de∣claring from whence the vnity of that body is deriued, as it will appeare further heereafter.

8. In the meane tyme, let vs see how M. Andrews goeth on with the text; Vnum tamen lumen est &c. Yet it is one light, which is euery where spread, neyther is the vnity of the body separated; heere now he asketh two questions, the one whether Peter be the light,* 1.16 and the other, whether he be euery where dispersed? whereto I an∣swere, that although he is not the light of the Church, as he was a particuler man, yet he may well be so cal∣led, not only as he was an Apostle (seeing that our Sa∣uiour sayd to all the Apostles, Vos estis lux mundi, you are the light of the world) but also much more as he is the Vicar,* 1.17 and substitute of our Sauiour, who being lux vera,* 1.18 the true light, imparteth vnto him his owne excellencyes, so far forth, as is necessary for the gouer∣nement of his Church, which he hath committed to his charge; in which respect it may truely be sayd, that

the light of the Church proceedeth not only from Christ, but also from him, as from the head thereof vnder Christ, and that by his authority it is spread euery where throughout the Church.

9. And this is sufficiēt to make good the similitude according to the intention of S. Cyprian, who only speaketh here of the Church, as of a body receiuing all the vnity of her seueral & many parts from the head, as the light which is spread thoughout the world, re∣ceaueth vnity from the sunne; & therfore he argueth thus in substance:* 1.19 As the light of the sunne dispersed ouer the earth (though it haue many beames, yet) is but one light by reason that it proceedeth from one sunne, so also the body of the Church dispersed by ma∣ny members ouer the whole world, is but one body, because it proceedeth from one head; which reason he giueth yet more expressely in the two other similituds that immediatly follow (of a tree spreading forth ma∣ny boughes, and of many brookes flowing from one fountayne) for of the former he saith, that though the boughes are many, and spread far abroad, Robur ta∣men vnum tenaci radice firmatum: yet the strengeth is one fastned in the strong, and stiffe roote; and of the later he saith in like manner, that notwithstanding the aboun∣dant, and copious plenty of water dispersed by many brookes, yet it is but one water, because vnitas, saith he, seruatur in origine, the vnity is conserued in the spring. Who then seeth not, that to apply this similitude to the Church, we must needs say, that albeit the sayd Church hath very many members, and parts spread ouer the whole world yet it is but one body, because it hath but one head wherein the vnity of all the parts is conserued.

10. And to this is also conforme the rest of S. Cyprians text, which M. Andrews proceedeth to lay downe thus;

Ramos suos Ecclesia &c. The Church, through her aboundant fertility, stretcheth forth her branches ouer the whole earth, and largely spreadeth abroad her copious riuers, or brookes, yet the head is one, the origen, or beginning one, and one mother &c.

So sayth S. Cyprian, teaching, as you see, nothing els in effect, but that the Church being a body disper∣sed ouer the whole world in her members, is vnited in one head, and therefore he saith, vnum tamen caput, & origo vna, yet the head is one, and the origen, or be∣ginning one: and so hauing spoken as well of the head of the Church, as of the body, and declared from whence the vnity of the whole is deryued, he had great reason to adde vna mater, one mother,* 1.20 giuing to vnderstand that as the Church hath one head, so she is one mother; one, in respect of her vnity deryued from her head, and mother, because she is the spouse of Christ, and hath children dispersed throughout the world.

11. And thus may M. Andrews see, that albeit S. Peter is not called in S. Cyprian a Mother,* 1.21 yet he is ac∣knowledged to be the head, from whence the vnity of the whole Church our mother is communicated to vs her children, which would haue bene as cleare as the sunne, if he had layd downe the similituds themselues, as well as he gaue vs only the application of them out of S. Cyprian (beginning his allegation, with Sic & Ecclesia: so also the Church &c.) for he knew full well that his false glosse would haue bene easily disco∣uered if he had set downe the similituds, as they are deliuered, and vrged by the Father himselfe. There∣fore now let the Reader Iudge, Quis caligauit hic? who

was blind heere? the Cardinall, or M. Andrewes? Thus much concerning the first place of S. Cy∣prian.

12. The other place is; Petrus super quem Domi∣nus fundauit Ecclesiam:* 1.22 Peter vpon whom our Lord did found his Church; whereupon the Cardinall infer∣eth that S. Cyprian teacheth, that the Church is buylt vpon S. Peter,* 1.23 and that therfore he is the foundation of the Church, and consequently the head therof, be∣cause the foundation in a buylding, and the head in a body is all one: whereto M. Andrewes answereth thus. Alter verò illi ex Cypriano locus praecidendus erat &c.* 1.24 He thought it necessary to cut of the other place of Cyprian where it seemed little to fauour the Primacy; for thus it is, nam nec Petrus (quem primum Dominus elegit) &c. For neyther did Peter, whome our Lord chose the first, chal∣lenge any thing insolently to himselfe, nor take vpon him arrogantly to say that he had the Primacy, or that he ought to be obayed of those that were yonger, and later then he:

Wherein the mynd or sense of Cyprian seemeth to be, that if Peter had sayd that he had the Primacy, he had insolently challenged somewhat to himselfe, and ther∣fore the Cardinall suppressed this part of the text warily,* 1.25 because it made litle for the Primacy, and rather tooke hold of the former part, where Cyprian saith, that the Church was buylt vpon Peter &c.

13. Thus sayth M. Andrews, with somewhat more, which I will also lay downe after a whyle, when I shall first haue examined this; wherein you see he would fayne make the Reader belieue that the Cardi∣nall had vsed some art, or fraud, in leauing it vncyted, as not fauorable, but rather preiudiciall to S. Peters Primacy; wheras in truth it doth notably proue it, and

no way impayre, or infringe it, as he may see in the Cardinals controuersyes, where amongst very many other places alledged for the Primacy of S. Peter, he vrgeth this, fortifying it notably with the authority of S. Augustine, who also cyteth those words of S. Cy∣prian, though vpon another occasion. Therefore I will set downe the Cardinalls owne words to the end that he may answere for himselfe: who hauing brought the testimonyes of a whole Iury (as I may say) of Greeke Fathers (to wit Origen, Eusebius, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Epiphanius, the two S. Cyrils, S. Chrysostome, Euthymius, Theophilact, Occumenius, and Hugo Etherianus, all of them expressely acknowled∣ging the supremacy of S. Peter aboue all the other Apo∣stles) addeth as many more of the Latin Fathers, and beginneth with S. Cyprian thus.* 1.26

14.

Ex latinis S. Cyprianus in Ep. ad Quintum &c. Of the latin Fathers S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Quin∣tus sayth, that Peter, when he was reprehended by Paul, would not say that he had the primacy, and that he ought to be obayed,* 1.27 whereby he signifyeth that Peter had the primacy, and might command all o∣thers. And lest perhaps our aduersaries may say, that Cyprian meaneth that Peter did not say he had the Pri∣macy, because he should therein haue affirmed that which was false, let vs heare Augustine expounding this place of Cyprian lib. 2.* 1.28 de Baptismo cap. 1. &c.

Thus saith the Cardinall, and after hauing layd downe S. Cy∣prians words alledged by S. Augustine (being the same that you haue heard before) he addeth the words of S. Augustine which are these: Ecce vbi commemorat Cy¦prianus &c. Behold how Cyprian doth shew that Peter the Apostle (in whom the primacy of the Apostles is preeminent

with such an excellent grace) corrected by Paul a later Apostle, when he dealt concerning Circumcision otherwayse then truth required. So sayth S. Augustin, whereby it euidently appeareth, how he vnderstandeth S. Cyprian in this place, to wit, that albeit Peter was preeminent, and far excelled the Apostles by reason of his Primacy, yet when he erred, he patiently suffered himselfe to be corrected by Paul, and did not insolently, and arrogant∣ly defend his errour, standing vpon the authority of his Primacy, and challenging obedience of S. Paul and others.

15. This then being so, and the Cardinalls opini∣on concerning the meaning of S. Cyprian in this place being so ••ell fortified,* 1.29 as you haue now heard, by S. Augustines construction, and iudgement thereof, what reason hath any man to thinke that the Cardinall did, as M. Andrews chargeth him, purposely, and craftily suppresse those words of S. Cyprian, as not making for Peters Primacy; whereas you see he taketh them to make much for it, and doth vrge them notably to proue it? Therefore can any reasonable man imagine any fraud in the Cardinall? Or any other cause why he did not eyte them in his Apology, but partly for breuityes sake (which euery may seeth how much he affecteth in all his workes) and partly because he thought he had al∣ledged sufficient already out of that Father to proue his intent?

16. So that, whereas M. Andrews sayth, Ea Cypria∣ni mens videtur &c. The mynd or sense of Cyprian see∣meth to be, that if Peter had said he had the Primacy, he had insolently challenged somewhat to himselfe (that is to say more then was due vnto him) he did very well to say videtur, it seemeth; for if he had absolutly affirmed

it, he had ouerlashed very far. Besides that he may learne if it please him to make a great difference be∣twixt insolenter,* 1.30 and ••also, insolently, and falsely; for a man may take vpon him a true authority, and speake of it insolently, that is to say without iust cause, or in defence of some euill act, and yet not falsely, because it is true that he hath the authority which he pretendeth. And therefore I say, that if S. Peter should haue stood vpon his Primacy in defence of his erroneous act, and sayd, that S. Paul ought to follow and obay him therin, because he was the Primate, and head of the Apostles•• he had both sayd, and done insolently, which neuerthe∣les, in defence of a truth, or vpon some other iust oc∣casion, he might both say and do, without all note of insolency, yea iustly, and necessarily, because he had indeed the Primacy, and therefore was to be obayed, and followed in all good, and iust actions.

17. But now M. Andrews goeth forward: and whereas the Cardinall concluded that Peter being the foundation of the Church was therefore the head of it,* 1.31 M. Andrews granteth,* 1.32 that S. Peter was fundamentum quidem vnum, sed non vnicum, one, but not the only foundation: esse enim illiusce aedificij duodecem fundamenta, for that there are twelue foundations of that building. But M. Andrews is heere short of his account, for he should rather haue sayd that there are thirteene, except he will exclude Christ, of whome the Apostle sayth, Fundamen∣tum aliud nemo potest ponere &c. no man can lay any other foundation then that which is already layed,* 1.33 Iesus Christ: of whome also the Prophet sayth, Ecce ego ponam in funda∣mentis Sion lapidem &c.* 1.34 Behold I will lay a stone in the foundation of Sion, an approued stone, a corner, and preci∣ous stone, founded in the foundation &c.

18. And this I am sure M. Andrews will not deny, seeing that it is one of the most speciall arguments whereby his fellowes are wont to exclude S. Peter from being the foundation of the Church (to wit be∣cause Christ is the foundation of it:) if therefore M. Andrews will admit twelue foundations of the Church, without preiudice to Christ, he may also admit eleuen without preiudice to Peter. For albeit the twelue Apo∣stles are all founded vpon Christ, who is the first and principall stone, yet Peter may haue the first place in the foundation next after Christ, being immediatly founded on him (as head and ordinary Pastor of the Church) and the rest vpon Peter, as extraordinary, and subordinate to him. Besides that Peter, and the rest of the Apostles are called foundations in different manner, as I will declare (c) 1.35 more particulerly in the discussion of M. Andrews his answere to the place of S. Hierome.

19. And now to conclude concerning S. Cyprian, whereas the Cardinall argueth vpon his words, that because S. Peter was the foundation of the Church, he was therefore the head thereof (in respect that the head in a body,* 1.36 and the foundation in a buylding is all one) M. Andrews answereth thus:

Vix illuc vsquequa{que} &c. That is scantly true euery way, for I do shew the Car∣dinall a buylding, whereof there are twelue foundations, but hardly can the Cardinall shew me one body, wher∣of there are twelue heads.

So he, very well to the pur∣pose (I assure you) ouerthrowing himselfe with his owne answere; for if that buylding (which he sayth hath twelue foundations) be the Church, as indeed it is (and so it appeareth by his quotation of the 24. Chap∣ter of the Apocalyps* 1.37) then may the Cardinall very easi∣ly

shew him also a body that hath twelue heads, euen according to the doctrine, and opinion of M. An∣drews himselfe, who can not deny but that the Church is a body (I meane such a body as heere we treate of, to wit not a naturall, but a mysticall body) neyther can he deny that the Apostles were heads of that body seeing all of them had (as M. Andrews still telleth vs) the charge, and gouernement of the Church alike; and therefore being twelue gouernours, they were also twelue heads.

20. Is it then so hard a matter for the Cardinall to shew him a body with twelue heads? Nay, which is more, and toucheth more our case, doth not M. An∣drews thinke it possible that such a body may haue a hundreth heads,* 1.38 and all of them subordinate to one head? What will he say of the state of Venice? Will he deny that the Senators (who are many hundreths) are heads thereof? or that they are subordinat to one Doge, or Duke? So that it is to be vnderstood, that in respect of the rest of the Common welth, the Senators are all heads, though in respect of the Doge, they are but mem∣bers subordinate to him. And so in this spirituall buyl∣ding of the Church, or mysticall body of Christ, though the twelue Apostles were twelue foundations, and conse∣quently twelue heads, yet, as all the twelue were sub∣ordinate to Christ, so were eleuen of them subordinate to Peter, whome Christ made their Primacy or Head, which, as you haue heard, is the expresse doctrine of S. Cyprian, teaching that albeit the Apostles had equal power, yet Primatus, sayth he, Petro datur, vt vna Ecclesia Christi, & vna Cathedra monstretur, The Primacy is giuen to Peter, that one Church of Christ, and one chayre may be shewed. Whereby he giueth to vnder∣stand,

that although the Apostles were all of equal powe•• in respect of all other Christians, who were subiect to them,* 1.39 yet they were not equal in respect of Peter to whome our Sauiour himselfe gaue the Primacy to con∣serue vnity amongst them, and in his whole Church. And this I hope may suffise for answere to M. Andrews his glosse vpō the 2. places of S. Cyprian; only, I cannot omit to thanke him, for the paynes he taketh still to corroborate our cause with his answers, & obiections, for truly if he write many bookes in this vayne, we shall not need any other champion to fight for vs but himselfe, as it will also further appeare by his answere to the place of S. Hierome whereof I am now to treate.* 1.40

21. The Cardinall cyteth out of S. Hierome these words, Inter duodecem vnus eligitur, vt capite constitut•• schismatis tollatur occasio: one is chosen amongst twelue, to the end, that a head being made, the occasion of schisme may be taken away,* 1.41 by which words of S. Hierome, spoken expressely of S. Peter, it is cleare that according to S. Hieromes doctrine our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles, and consequently of the whole Church of God;* 1.42 to which purpose I haue also vrged the same in my Supplement.

* 1.4322. Now then M. Andrews answereth the Car∣dinall thus:

Hicronymus idem hic à Cardinale patitur &c. Hierome suffreth heere at the Cardinals hands the same (iniury) that Cyprian suffred before; both their places (or texts) are lamely cyted, for Hi••rome saith thus: At dices (tu scilicet Iouiniane) super Petrum fundatur Ec∣clesia &c.* 1.44 But thou (to wit Iouinian) wilt say, the Church is founded vpon Peter (which the Cardinall doth now so oft, and earnestly inculcate vnto vs, well following Iouinian therein:) but what sayth Hie∣rome?

Although, sayth he, the same is in another place done vpon all the Apostles, and all of them receiue the keyes, and the strength of the Church is equal consolidated, or established vpon them all, yet (neyther in respect of the keyes, nor of the foundation, which are so much esteemed at Rome, but) for this cause one is chosen a∣mongst twelue, that a head being made, the occasion of schisme may be taken away.

Thus far doth M. Andrews alledge the words of S. Hierome, and glosse them, as you see, wherein two things are specially to be obser∣ued for the present, the one that he taxeth the Car∣dinall for wronging S. Hierome now, no lesse then he wronged S. Cyprian before, in the lame, and corrupt citation of their places. The other, that he would make the Reader belieue, that to hold the Church to be buylt vpon Peter was one of Iouinians heresyes, and not S. Hieromes doctrine; and that therefore the Cardinall teaching, and oft inculcating the same, doth follow Iouinian; of these two points I must needs say somwhat before I passe further; for truely they deserue to be well examined, and the good conscyence of M. An∣drews to be layed open to the world.

23. In the first point I must needs say he hath some reason, to wit, in saying that S. Hierome is as much wronged by the Cardinall,* 1.45 as S. Cyprian was be∣fore; which is most true; for neyther of them both receiue any wrong at all by the Cardinall,* 1.46 as you haue already seene in the place of S. Cyprian, and will easi∣ly see also in this place of S. Hierome, if you conferre that which the Cardinall left vncyted (and is layd downe by M. Andrews) with that which followeth, and is cyted by the Cardinall: for albeit S. Hierome do teach in the words which M. Andrews cyteth, that the

Church was equally buylt vpon all the Apostles, yet it is euident by that which the Cardinall alledgeth, that the same is so to be vnderstood, that it doth not any way preiudice the Primacy of S. Peter, seeing that S. Hierome affirmeth expressely (notwithstanding the equality, whereof he speaketh) that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles; and therefore it is manifest that M. A••drews doth vnderstand this equality in other manner then S. Hierome doth, who indeed sayth, with great reason, as also diuers other Fathers do (and no Catholike will deny it) that the Church was buylt vpon all the Apostles (ex aequo, equally) but in what sense the same is to be vnderstood,* 1.47 I would wish Mr. Andrews to learne of Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in his controuersyes, where he declareth the same very learnedly,* 1.48 perspicuously, and briefely, as he is wont.

24. Thus then he sayth, answering to this very place of S. Hierome and certayne others taken out of the Scriptures, and obiected by Luther: Respondeo, tri∣bus modis Apostolos omnes fuisse Ecclesiae fundamenta &c.* 1.49 I answere that all the Apostles were three wayes the foundations of the Church, yet without any preiudice to Peter. The first is, because they were the first that did found Churches euery where, for Peter did not himselfe alone conuert the whole world vnto the fayth of Christ, but some Nations were conuerted by him, others by Iames, and others by the rest. And therefore S. Paul Rom. 15. saith:

Sic praedicaui &c. I haue so prea∣ched this Ghospell where Christ was not named, least I should buyld vpon other mens foundation. And 1. Cor. 3. vt sapiens architectus &c. I haue layd the foundation lyke a wyse Ar∣chitect, and another buyldeth thereupon. And in this manner all Apostles are foundations alyke, which

I thinke is meant in the 21. Chapter of the Apoca∣lyps.

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

26. The Apostles also are sayd a third way, to be foundations of the Church, to wit in respect of their gouernement; for all of them were heads, gouernours, and Pastors of the vniuersall Church, but not in the same manner that Peter was, for they had a chiefe, and most ample power as Apostles, or Legats; but Peter had it as ordinary Pastor; besides that they had their full power in such sort, that neuerthelesse Peter was their head, and they depended of him, and not he of them: and this is that which was promised to Peter Matth. 16. when it was sayd vnto him in presence of the rest, Vpon this rock I will buyld my Church, which besides the other Fathers before cyted, S. Hierome tea∣cheth in his first booke against Iouinian; where expli∣cating what is the meaning of buylding the Church vpon Peter, he sayth thus: Licèt super omnes Apostolos &c.

Although the strength of the Church be established equally vpon all the Apostles, yet therefore one was chosen amongst the twelue, to the end, that a head being made, the occa∣sion of schisme might be taken away.

27. Thus far the Cardinall, which I hope may suf∣fice to teach M. Andrews how the Church was foun∣ded equally vpon the Apostles, to wit, the two first waye, (whereof the Cardinall speaketh as mentioned in the Apocalyps, and the Epistle to the Ephesians, where not only the Apostles, but also the Prophets are called foundations of the Church) which may well stand with the Primacy of S. Peter, and S. Hieromes doctrine concerning the same; whereas M. Andrews making S. Hierome impugne S. Peters Primacy by the equality that he mentioneth, maketh him contradict himselfe, and ouerthrow his owne doctrine in the very next words after, wherein he expoundeth (as the Cardinall noteth very well) what is meant by the buyl∣ding of the Church vpon S. Peter, signifying that it is to be vnderstood thereby, that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles, as I will shew further here∣after, by M. Andrews his owne confession. So that it is cleare inough that the Cardinal left not those words of S. Hierome vncyted,* 1.50 as preiudiciall to Peters primacy, but only for breuityes sake;* 1.51 and that therefore M. Andrews hath notably calumniated him, as well in this place as in the former, seeking to cast vpon him some suspition of fraudulent dealing in the cytation of Au∣thors, which is indeed the proper talent of M. Barlow, and M. Andrews, as you haue hitherto seene sufficient∣ly proued in them both, and shall see further exemply∣fied heereafter in M. Andrews, to his confusion.

28. The second point which I wished to be ob∣serued

in his Glosse vpon S. Hieromes text,* 1.52 is that he sayth the Cardinall followeth Iouinian in affirming, that the Church was founded vpon S. Peter, as if the Cardinall did teach therein so••e heresy of Iouini••n, and not S. Hieromes doctrine: but this surpasseth all impudency. For, no doubt, he speaketh against his owne conscience, and knowledge, seeing he cannot be ignorant of the contrary, if he haue read, and exa∣mined that very place in S. Hierome which he obie∣cteth, where it is euident, that the matter then in con∣trouersy betwixt S. Hierome, and Iouinian was about the merit of Virginity,* 1.53 because Iouinian equalled mar••ryage with it, which heresy S. Hierome in that place laboured to confute•• and for as much as the heretyke had obiected the marriage of the Apostles (inferring thereupon that if Virginity were to be preferred before marriage, Christ would not haue chosen marryed men, but Virgins to be his Apostles, and the Princes, and Captains of Christian disciplin) therefore S. Hierome answereth, that it appeareth not in the Scriptures that any of them had a wyfe except Saint Peter, and that he being married whiles he was vnder the law, liued continent from his wyfe after his vocation to the Apo∣stleship; and that if any of the rest had wyues before their vocation, they abstayned from them euer after; and that S. Iohn Euangelist being chosen a Virgin, was singularly beloued, and specially fauoured of our Sa∣uiour aboue the rest for his Virginity.

29. And whereas Iouinian also vrged the supreme dignity of S. Peter, as that the Church was founded v∣pon him, being a married man, and not vpon S. Iohn who was a Virgin (wherein it is euident that Iouinian sought to fortify his heresy by an argument drawne

from a point of knowne Catholike doctrine) S. Hie∣rome was so far from denying the Church to be foun∣ded on Peter, that he notably confirmed it, declaring that Peter was made thereby head of the Apostles; for hauing taught that the Church was also founded equally vpon all the Apostles (in the sense that I haue declared) he gaue a reason not only why S. Peter was made head of the rest (to wit to take away the occasion of schisme) but also why he (being a married man) was endowed with that power, and dignity, rather then S. Iohn who was a Virgin, whereof he yielded this probable reason, that respect was had to the age of them both, because Peter was a man of yeares, and Iohn very yong; and therefore to auoyd murmura∣tion against Iohn himselfe (which would haue hapned in case he being the yongest of them all should haue bene made their head) Peter was worthily preferred before him.* 1.54 This is briefely the substance of S. Hie∣romes discourse in that place. Whereby it is euident that he notably confirmeth our Catholike doctrine concerning the Supremacy of S. Peter, acknowled∣ging him to be made the head as well of S. Iohn, as of all the rest.

30. And to the end that M. Andrews may eui∣dently see that S. Hierome did not impugne, or disal∣low this proposition, the Church is founded vpon Peter (but reiected only the false consequent that Iouinian drew thereon, against the merit of Virginity) I wish him to read S. Hieromes Commentary vpon the 16. Chapter of S. Matthew, and particulerly vpon these words of our Sauiour, super hanc petr••m aedifi••abo Eccle∣siam meam &c. vpon this rock will I buyld my Church &c. where he shall see that the proposition, which Iouinian

obiected,* 1.55 is also the cleare, and expresse doctrine of S. Hierome, who sayth thus in the person of our Sauiour to S. Peter: Because thou Simon hast sayd to me, thou art Christ the Sonne of God,* 1.56 I also say to thee (not with a vayne, or idle speach that hath no operation, or effect) sed quia meum dixisse fecisse est, but because my saying is a doing (or making) therefore I say vnto thee, thou art Peter (or a Rock) and vpon this rock I will buyld my Church. As Christ being himselfe the light, granted to his disciples that they should be called the light of the world, so to Simon who belieued in Christ the Rock, he gaue the name of Peter (that is to say, a Rock) and according to the meta∣phor of a Rock it is truly sayd to him, I will buyld my Church vpon thee.

31. Thus far S Hierome, teaching expressely that Christ buylt his Church vpon Peter,* 1.57 which also he teacheth in diuers other places, as in an Epistle to Marcella, where he hath these wordes, Petrus super quē Dominus fundauit Ecclesiam &c. Peter vpon whome our Lord founded his Church; and in another Epistle to Pope Damasus he affirmed the same, not only of him, but also of the chayre of Peter saying: Ego nullum pri∣mum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae, id est Cathe∣drae Petri,* 1.58 communione consocior: super illam Petram, aedi∣ficatam Ecclesiam scio; I following no first, or chiefe but Christ,* 1.59 do cōmunicate with thy Beatitude, that is to say, with the chayre of Peter; vpon that Rock I know the Church is buylt. Finally in the selfe same booke against Iouinian, where he answereth the for∣mer obiection, he calleth S. Peter, Petram Christi, the Rock of Christ, saying: O vox digna Apostolo, & Petra Christi! O speach worthy of an Apostle, and the Rock of Christ! signifying thereby, that S. Peter was the Rock

whereupon Christ buylt his Church.

32. So as it cannot be denyed, that S. Hierome both firmely belieued, and expressely taught that our Sauiour buylt his Church vpon Peter, wherein you haue already (d) 1.60 seene, that he agreeth with S. Cyprian (who wrote long before him) and with the whole Councell of Calcedon, which calleth S. Peter, Petram, & crepidinem Ecclesiae,* 1.61 the rock, and top of the Church, and rectae fidoi fundamentum, the foundation of the true faith. Besids that you may also see in Cardinall Bellar∣mins controuersyes,* 1.62 that he agreed therin with Origen, S. Athanasius, S Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Epi∣phanius, S. Chrysostome, S. Cyril, Tertullian, S. Hila∣ry, S. Ambrose, S. Maximus, S. Leo, S. Gregory the Great, and other learned Fathers.

33. Wherupon it followeth that Iouinian did not obiect the same, as his owne singular opinion (which he knew well would be litle esteemed, and was to be proued, and not obiected) but as a matter generally acknowledged by Catholikes, and that therefore he only sought to draw some consequence out of it (as out of a knowne principle of the Catho∣like faith) for the confirmation of his heresy,* 1.63 as all heretykes do also seeke to do the like, not only out of Catholike opinions, but also out of the Scripture it selfe. What then may we thinke of M. Andrews, who is not ashamed to taxe the Cardinall as a follower of Iouinian for teaching that the Church was buylt vpon Peter? Can we thinke that he hath any conscience, or care of what he saith, especially seeing that he himselfe is a true scholler, and follower of Iouinian, except he dissent not only from Luther, Caluin and other Arch∣sectaries his great Maisters, but also from his brethren

of the present English Church.

34.* 1.64 For who knoweth not that they all hold, and teach that marriage is of equal merit with virginity and viduall continency, which is the proper heresy of Iouinian, condemned for such in his owne tyme, first by Pope Siricius,* 1.65 and a Synode of Bishops held at Rome, and afterwards by another Synode held at Milan, where S. Ambrose was present? Besides that, the same is learnedly impugned,* 1.66 and clearely confuted by S. Hierome in his bookes written purposely against him; as also by S. Augustine, in his treatises de Bono coniugali, & de Virginitate, which he wrote expressely for the confutation of that heresy,* 1.67 as he testifyeth himselfe in his Retractations, where he calleth Iouinian a monster for teaching that doctrine, and registreth him for an here••tike in his Tract, and Catalogue of heresyes, as well for that opinion,* 1.68 as for impugning the custome, and vse of the Catholike Church, in fasting, and absti∣nence from certayne meates wherin also the forena∣med sectaries of our dayes and the English Church at this present, and consequently M. Andrews himselfe (except he will disclayme from all his brethren) do follow Iouinian. Whereto I might add other heresyes of his taught by many Archsectaries of our tyme (wher∣in,* 1.69 it may be, M. Andrewes hath his share amongst the rest) as that merits, and rewards of the lust are equal; and that the corporall virginity, and integrity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, was corrupted, and lost by the birth of our Sauiour.

35. All which opinions being heresyes of Iouinian, and registred for such by S. Augustine,* 1.70 haue bene re∣uyued in these our dayes, partly by Luther, and Caluin, and partly by the Magdeburgenses, Bucer, Molinaeus,

and others,* 1.71 as Cardinall Bellarmine sheweth out of their owne workes, in his controuersies. Therefore I remit it now to the iudgement of the indifferent Rea∣der, who is the follower of Iouinian, the Cardinall, or M. Andrewes, and his fellowes? seeing that the Car∣dinall holdeth nothing els with Iouinian, but only that Catholike doctrine which Iouinian held, and professed togeather with S. Hierome, and all other Fathers of his tyme (as all heretikes haue alwayes agreed with Ca∣tholikes in some points) and condemneth all those heresyes wh••ch the Fathers aforesayd, and the whole Church of their tyme condemned in him, and his fol∣lowers, wheras M. Andrews, and his fellowes expres∣sely professe, and teach those very heresyes, for th•• which Iouinian, and his followers were by the ancient Fathers censured, and condemned as monstrous here∣tikes, as hath ben before declared: so that I thinke of this there can be no further controuersy.

* 1.7236. Now then let vs proceed with the examina∣tion of what he saith further to the place of S. Hierome alledged by the Cardinall, which is this:

Propterea inter duodecim &c. Therefore amongst twelue one is chosen•• that a head being appointed, the occasion of schisme may be taken away: whereto he answereth thus: Inter duodecim vnum eligi &c. that one be chosen amongst twelue, or some number which some one man may be able to gouerne,* 1.73 and prouyde for, or els to take away schisme, who doth forbid a head to be chosen? or so much power to be giuen him, as may suffice for the end, or purpose for the which he was ordayned? But the question is how far that power, and that number extendeth, lest the head become caput heteroclitum (an extrauagant head, or a head out of course) and not so much the occasion

of schisme taken away,* 1.74 as an occasion giuen of tyran∣ny.

So he, all which I beseech thee, good Reader, well to note, and particulerly that he granteth these points following: The first, that S. Peter was chosen head of the Apostles: the second, that a head is necessary for auoyding of schisme: the third, that the same head is [ 1] to haue as much authority as is conuenient for the end [ 2] for which he is ordayned; and the fourth that of all [ 3] this there is no question, for that the question is (saith [ 4] he) concerning the power of the head, how far it ex∣tendeth, and how great may be the number that he is to gouerne.

37. But if M. Andrews consider well what he granteth,* 1.75 he may consequently decyde the question, or doubt that he maketh, and shall see that he hath granted as much in effect as we teach, or demand con••cerning the authority of S. Peter, and his successors. For if S. Peter were made head of all the Apostles to whome Christ left the gouernment of his Church, it cannot be denied, but that he was made head of the Church; for who is head of any common welth, but he that is head of all those that haue the administra∣tion, charge, and gouernement of it? And if the rea∣son why he was ordayned head of the Apostles, was to auoyde and preuent the danger of schisme, it must needs be granted, that so long as the same cause, and reason (I meane the danger of schisme) continueth in the Church,* 1.76 so long also the remedy is to continue ther∣in; and that the greater the danger is, the more neces∣sary also is the remedy; whereupon it followeth that seeing the danger of schisme doth, and euer shall con∣tinue in the Church, the remedy also of one head is euer to continue. And for as much as the danger of schisme

in the Apostles tyme was not so great (they being all of them most holy men,* 1.77 and particulerly guyded by the holy Ghost) as it is, and•• alwayes hath bene euer since. Therefore the remedy of one head which our Sa∣uiour ordayned for the same, is more necessary now, then it was in their dayes, yea and was more specially intended by his diuyne prouidence for all ensuing ages after the Apostles tyme, then only during their li••es.

* 1.7838. Moreouer it being euident in the holy Scri∣ptures that our Sauiour planted his Church to stand to the worlds end, it were absurd to say that he ordayned that forme of gouernement vnder one head to last only during the Apostles tyme,* 1.79 as though he had lesse care of the vnity of his Church in future ages then in the beginning when (as I haue sayd) the danger of schisme should be far lesse, then it would be afterwards. Ther∣fore I conclude that seeing S. Peter was made head of the Apostles,* 1.80 and consequently of the whole Church, to auoyd schisme, M. Andrews can not deny the same au∣thority to S. Peters successors for the same reason; es∣pecially seeing that our Sauiours prouidence therein is euident (to the very eye of euery man that list not to be willfully blynd) in that he hath permitted the suc∣cession of all the Apostles to fayle in all the Churches where they gouerned, excepting only the succession of S. Peter in the Roman Church, which he hath mira∣culously conserued, to make it manifest to the world, that S. Peter, and his chayre (as you haue heard out of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome) is the Rock whereupon he promised to buyld his Church,* 1.81 and that as S. Augu∣stine sayth: Ipsa est Petra, quam non vincunt superbae in∣ferorum portae, that is, the Rock which the proud gates

of hell do not ouercome.

39. Furthermore, whereas M. Andrews granteth also that a head appoynted in the Church for the re∣medy of schisme is to haue so much power, as is neces∣sary for that end, he must needs consequently grant all that power which we requyre, and acknowledge it in S. Peter and his successors to the same end;* 1.82 I meane, not only a power & authority to define, & decyde cō∣trouersies (without the which no schisme, or diuision concerning matter of doctrine can be conueniently compounded) but also power, and iurisdiction to pu∣nish such as do obstinatly infringe and violate the vni••ty, and peace of the Church; for how can the head sufficiently remedy schisme if he cannot punish those which do cause, and mayntayne it? and if M. Andrews will say that Christ hath therfore left authority to his Church to punish only by excommunication, and spirituall censures, I must demand of him, what re∣medy the head of the Church can giue thereby, when his censures are contemned, and specially by an abso∣lute Prince? shall he haue then no further power to re∣medy the inconuenience? how then is his power such as M. Andrews himselfe granteth it to be, to wit quan∣ta rei satis si••, cui constitutus est, as much as may be suf∣ficient for the thing, for the which he was made head, that is to say, to remedy, and take away schisme?

40.* 1.83 And who seeth not that the greatest harme that groweth to the Church by schisme commonly is, when secular Princes do eyther rayse it themselues, or mayntayne it in others? Shall not then the head of the Church haue sufficient power to remedy this greatest danger, and mischiefe that can hap to the Church? Or shall he not haue meanes as well to correct his 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

greatest and most powerfull subiects,* 1.84 as the least, and meanest? Then (as I haue sayd in my Supplement) the power of the Church should be no better then a cob∣web, that holdeth the little flyes, and letteth go the great ones, and consequently the prouidence of Al∣mighty God should be very defectiue, in ordayning a head to conserue his Church in vnity, and not giuing him sufficient power to performe it, which no wyse temporall Prince would do, if he should make a Lieu∣tenant to gouerne in any part of his dominions. Wher∣to it may be added, that the Lawyers teach, that he which granteth iurisdiction, is presumed to grant all things necessary for the execution of it; which is also conforme to the Philosophers Maxime, to wit, Qui dat esse, dat consequentia ad esse, he which giueth a being, giueth togeather with it all those things which are consequents thereof, or necessarily requyred thereto, as I haue amply proued in my (b) 1.85 Supplement, where I haue deduced the necessity of this consequent from the very Law of (c) 1.86 nature, and light of reason.

41. Besides that, I haue also declared (d) 1.87 there that he which hath power ouer the soule for the benefit thereof,* 1.88 must needs haue also power ouer the body, and goods, which by the very Law of nature are sub∣iect to the soule, and ordayned to serue it, and there∣fore to be disposed by the spirituall Gouernour, or Pa∣stor, so far forth, as is necessary for the saluation of the soule, in which respect the Church hath alwayes vsed (and still doth) to impose not only fasting, and o∣ther bodily pennance, but also imprisonments, and pecuniary mulcts vpon her disobedient children, when the benefit of their soules, and the publick good of the Church doth requyre it, which is also vsed by our

Aduersaries themselues in their Ecclesiasticall disci∣pline, who in their spirituall Tribunals, and Courts do punish the disobedient, as well by pec••niary penal∣ties, as by corporall imprisonements. Whereupon it followeth, that when Princes (who are members of the Church) do violate the vnion thereof, and are incorrigible by excommunication, they may be cha∣stised by their supreme head, or spirituall Pastor euen in their temporall states, so far as shall be necessary for the good of their soules, and the benefit of the whole Church; for otherwyse the head of the Church should not haue that sufficient power to remedy schismes, and other inconueniences, which M. Andrews himselfe granteth, and it cannot indeed be denied.

42. This then being so, M. Andrews his first que∣stion, or doubt is sufficiently solued,* 1.89 to wit, How far the power of the head, whereof S. Hierome speaketh, doth extend; that is, to the direction, gouernement yea and chastisment (when occasion requyreth) of all his inferiour members, of what degree soeuer, and consequently of Kings and Princes, so far forth as shal∣be needfull for the cōseruation of vnity in the Church; and that therefore when only excommunication will not suffice to reduce them to vnity, and obedience, the head may extend his spirituall power to chastise them in their bodyes, goods, and states, as far as shall be conuenient for the good of soules, and the glory of God, whereto all mens temporall states, goods, lands, and lyues are principally ordayned.* 1.90

43. And now to come to his other question con∣cerning the mumber, which this head may gouerne to auoyd and remedy schisme, let M. Andrews well ponder what he hath already granted, and of this

there will be no doubt at all. For if Peter was head of the Apostles (as S. Hierome teacheth, and M. An∣drews confesseth) then consequently he was head of as many in number, as were subiect to them; which was no lesse then all the world, whereof they had the spi∣rituall charge, and gouernement, in which respect the Royall Prophet sayth of them and their successors, pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filij &c.* 1.91 For thy Fathers, children are borne vnto thee, thou shalt ordayne them to be Princes ouer all the earth. So saith the Prophet of the A∣postles, & of Bishops who succeed them in their charge, and are therfore Princes & Gouernours of the Church as S. Augustine,* 1.92 S. Hierome, and other Fathers ex∣pound this place; which therefore is verified, espe∣cially in the Apostles, who being the Princes, and Gouernours of the Church, did not only plant, but also propagate throughout the world in their owne tyme, according to the commission, and commaund∣ment of our Sauiour, who sayd vnto them: Euntes in vniuersum mundum &c. Going into the vniuersall world preach the Ghospell to euery creature;* 1.93 which also the Royal Prophet fore-told of them saying, In omnem terram exi∣uit sonus eorum &c.* 1.94 The sound of them went forth into all the earth, and their words into the bounds thereof.

* 1.9544. Seeing then the Apostles were Gouernours of the whole Church, and yet subiect to S. Peter, as to their head, it must needs be granted that he was su∣preme head, and gouernour of the whole Church, pro∣pagated, and dispersed throughout the world vnder their gouerment; for which cause S. Chrysostome saith with great reason (not only of all the Apostles in ge∣nerall, that they were to haue orbis terrarum curam, the charge of all the world, but also much more) of S.

Peter in particuler.* 1.96 That, Petro Apostolo orbis terrarum Ecclesiae, the Churches of all the world, and the multitudes of people were to be committed to Peter the Apostle; and therefore euen in the former place, where he saith, that the Apostles were to receiue of Christ the charge of the world,* 1.97 he acknowledgeth that S. Peter was Princeps Apostolorum, & vertex totius coetus, the Prince of the Apostles, and the top, or head of all their congre∣gation, and that Christ committed vnto him curam fratrum, the charge of his brethren (that is to say of the Apostles) and finally that Christ recommended vnto him orbis terrarum curam, the charge of the whole world. Finally, comparing S. Iames the Apostle with S. Peter in the same place (by the way of obiection, demanding why then Iames was made Bishop of Hie∣rusalem, and not Peter) he answereth: Hunc totius orbis magistrum praeposuisse, that our Sauiour preferred Peter to be the Maister of the whole world, giuing to vn∣derstand, that whereas S. Iames was only Bishop of Hierusalem, and the Countries adioyning (as also the other Apostles had euery one of them some part of the world allotted vnto him to gouerne) S. Peter had the charge of the whole.

45. By all which it is euident that albeit the Apo∣stles had the gouerment of all the Church, yet they were but subordinate to S. Peter, who had a commis∣sion peculiar, and singular to himselfe, which was to haue the care, charge, and gouerment of them, as well as of all others subiect to them: So that his power, and authority was wholy independant on them, wher∣as theirs must needs depend of him, as of their imme∣diate head vnder our Sauiour, whereby it may appeare what an idle head M. Andrews hath, to exclude no

lesse S. Peter then euery other particuler man from the gouerment of the whole Church,* 1.98 for no better reason, then lest he might become heterochtum cuput (an extra∣uagant head) or perhaps proue a Tyrant, through the excesse eyther of power, or of the number of subiects: wherein he sheweth himselfe no lesse prophane, then absurd, attributing as it seemeth, no force, or effect to our Sauiours promise of his continuall assistance to his Apostles, and Church for euer: besides that he erreth gros••ely if he make the multitude of subiects a notice•• or cause of Tyranny,* 1.99 it being euident that the greater the number of the subiects is,* 1.100 the greater also is the difficulty to oppresse them by Tyranny, and the greater the feare, and danger to attempt it.

46. And therefore we see more frequent tyranny in small States then in great Monarchies,* 1.101 and when great Monarches are Tyrants, they commonly exercyse their Tyranny vpon some part of their Dominions and not vpon the whole, whereas a small State contayning a few subiects, is easily Tyrannized vniuersally; so that the multitude of subiects is not properly a motiue, but rather a brydle to Tyranny, though it is properly a cause of schisme, when they are not gouerned by one head, which M. Andrews acknowledgeth sufficiently, when he confesseth,* 1.102 that one head is necessary to take away the occasion of schisme amongst twelue, or some other small number: for if that be true, then the grea∣ter the number is, the greater is the danger of schisme, if they haue many heads independant one of another; whereupon it followeth that one supreme head is most necessary for the whole Church, cōsisting of an innu∣merable multitude of the faithfull, dispersed through∣out the whole world, who being all visible members

of one visible body, could not possibly be conserued long in vnity if they had not one visible head (whome they were all bound in conscience to obay) as I haue (d) 1.103 shewed more at large in my Supplement, euen by the testimony of M. Barlow (e) 1.104 himselfe.

47. For which cause not only S. Cyprian (as you haue heard before in this (f) 1.105 Chapter) but also S. Hie∣rome in this place teacheth with great reason that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the Apostles, to auoyde and remedy the schismes, which might grow (not so much amongst them, as) in the whole Church; for in them (after they had receiued the holy Ghost) there was no danger thereof, though in the whole Church, which was to be propagated by them ouer the world, the danger of schisme was very great, not only in their tyme, but also much more afterwards (as I haue signi∣fyed (g) 1.106 before) in which respect it was needefull to be preuented by the institution of one head ouer the whole Church;* 1.107 and therefore when S. Hierome an∣swering Iouinian, saith, that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles, he meaneth that he was made head of the Church, which was represented in them, as in the Gouernours thereof; for seeing that the obiection of Iouinian which S. Hierome answereth, concerned the foundation of the Church vpon S. Peter, his answere must needs also concerne the same: to which purpose it is to be considered, that he denyeth not Iouinians proposition (as I haue proued (h) 1.108 before) but explica∣teth what is t••e meaning of super Petr••m fundatur Ec∣clesia, signifying that it meaneth nothing els in effect, but that Peter was made head of the Apostles, which is as much so say, as that he was the foundation of the Church, or that the Church was founded vpon him,

because, as Cardinall Bellarmine saith very well, the foundation in a buylding, and the head in a politycall, or mysticall body is all one: so as S. Peter being made head of the Apostles (who represented the Church as Gouernours thereof) he was consequently made the head, and foundation of the Church; and this being so, it appeareth that this place of S. Hierome is cleare for vs, and directly proueth that our Sauiour made S. Peter head of the vniuersall Church.

48. And whereas M. Andrews in his glosse vpon S. Hieromes text note••h with a parenthesis, that S. Peter was made head of the Apostles (not for the keyes, saith he,* 1.109 or for the foundation, which are so much este••med at Rome, but to take away the occasion of schisme) I know not w••at els he impugneth thereby,* 1.110 but his owne idle conceipt: for no man saith at Rome, or any where els for ought I know, that S. Peter was made head of the Church for the keyes, or for the foundation, other wayes then that in receiuing the keyes, and being made the foundation of the Church he was made head thereof, to take away the occasion of s••hisme. And this is S. Hi••∣romes doctrine, so euident, that M. Andrews himselfe is forced thereby to confesse that S•• Peter was made head of the Apostles, yea, and that he had so much power, and authority giuen him as was necessary for the pre∣uention, and remedy of schisme, whereupon all our do••trine concerning the Popes autho••ity necessarily followeth, as I haue (d) 1.111 shewed: so that you see, he still pleadeth for vs, and well deserueth his fee (if not for his good wil, yet at least) for his paynes in defen∣ding our cause against his will.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Suppl. cap. 4. nu. 3. & 4.
• * 1.2

  Apol. Card. Bel. cap. 8. p. 125. Cypriā. de vnit. Eccles.
• * 1.3

  Idem ep. ad Quintum.
• * 1.4

  Andr. Resp. cap. 8. pag. 217. ••in. penult.
• * 1.5

  M. An∣drews graue dis∣course in answere to the Cardinall.
• * 1.6

  The drift and mea∣ning of S. Cyprian.
• * 1.7

  Cyprian vbi supra.
• * 1.8

  Matth. 1.6.
• * 1.9

  Ioan. 21.
• * 1.10

  Ibid. 20.
• * 1.11

  S. Cypriā proueth the vnity of the Church by the vnity of the head thereof.
• * 1.12

  Idem ep. ad Iubaian.
• * 1.13

  Ibid.
• * 1.14

  A foolish glosse of M. An∣drews v∣pon the text of S. Cyprian.
• * 1.15

  Andr. vbi supra pag. 218. lin. 2.
• * 1.16

  How S. Peter might be called the light of the Church.
• * 1.17

  Matth. 5.
• * 1.18

  Ioan. 11.
• * 1.19

  The vini∣ty of the Church notably proued, and dedu∣ced by S. Cyprian from the vnity of the Head.
• * 1.20

  Why the Church is called one Mother.
• * 1.21

  M. An∣drews fraudulent in his lame allegation of S. Cy∣prian.
• * 1.22

  S. Cypr. ep. ad Quint.
• * 1.23

  Card. Bel∣lar. Apolo. c. 8. p. 125. Andr. cap. 8. pag. 218.
• * 1.24

  A shifting answere of M. An∣drews, falsely charging the Cardi∣nall with fraud.
• * 1.25

  The Pri∣macy of S. Peter is notably proued, by those words of S. Cypriā, which M. Andrews sayth the Cardinall fraudulēt∣ly left out.
• * 1.26

  Bellar. d•• Romano Pout. l. ••. cap. 25.
• * 1.27

  S. Cypriā cleerly ex∣plicated by the Card. out of S. Au∣gustine.
• * 1.28

  S. Peter being head of the A∣postles suffered himselfe to be repre∣hended by S. Paul.
• * 1.29

  Bellar∣mine clea∣red from M. An∣drews im∣putatio••.
• * 1.30

  How a man may speake of his owne authority insolently, and yet truly.
• * 1.31

  Andr. v•••• supr.
• * 1.32

  How S. Peter is tearmed the foun∣dation of the Church by S. Cy∣prian.
• * 1.33

  1. Cor. 3.
• * 1.34

  Isa. 28.
• (c) 1.35

  See after nu. 24.25. & 2••.
• * 1.36

  A bad in∣ference of M. An∣drews a∣bout twelue heads.
• * 1.37

  Apoc. 24.
• * 1.38

  A politi∣call or mysticall body may haue ma∣ny heads subordi∣nat to one head.
• * 1.39

  M. An∣drews so wryteth as he doth much help his Aduersa∣ryes cause
• * 1.40

  Card. Bel∣lar. Apol. c. 8. pag. 126 Hierom. l. ••. aduers. Iouinian.
• * 1.41

  Touching the place of S. Hie∣rome.
• * 1.42

  Supple. c. 4. nu. 3.
• * 1.43

  Andr. vbi supra pag. 219. §. Hie∣ronymus.
• * 1.44

  M. An∣drews bad glosse vpō S. Hie∣roms text.
• * 1.45

  Supra nu. 15.
• * 1.46

  The Car∣dinal false¦ly charged by M. An∣drew•• with fra••d in the cita∣••ion of S. Hierome.
• * 1.47

  Psal. 86. Apocal. 21. Ephes. ••.
• * 1.48

  Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 11.
• * 1.49

  How the Church according to Cardi∣nal Bellar∣mine is buylt e∣qually vpō all the A∣postles.
• * 1.50

  See after nu. ••6. & sequ.
• * 1.51

  M. An∣drewes calumni∣ateth Bel∣larmine.
• * 1.52

  M. An∣drews second charge a∣gainst the Cardinall touching Iouinia∣nisme re∣futed and retorted••
• * 1.53

  S Hier. li. 1. contra. Iouinian.
• * 1.54

  Why S. Peter was preferred by our Sauiour to the supre∣macy be∣fore S. Io••n.
• * 1.55

  S. Hier. in 16. cap. Matth.
• * 1.56

  S. Peter•• suprema∣cy ac∣knowled∣ged by S. Hierome, and groū∣ded vpon our Saui∣ours own•• word••.
• * 1.57

  Idem ep. a•• Marcella•••• ep. 54.
• * 1.58

  Ibid. ep. 5••.
• * 1.59

  Li. 1. con∣tra Ioui••.
• (d) 1.60

  See be∣fore nu. 4.5. & sequēt
• * 1.61

  See before cap. 2. nu. 76.
• * 1.62

  Bellar. de Rom. Pon∣tif. l. 1. c. 10.
• * 1.63

  How shameles M. An∣drews is to charge the Cardinall with Ioui∣nianisme, which he himselfe professeth, except he dissent frō his fellows of the En∣glish cler∣gy.
• * 1.64

  Ambros. ep. li. 1. ep. 6. & 7.
• * 1.65

  Hieronym. contra Io∣uinian.
• * 1.66

  Aug. li. de bono con∣iug. & de virginit.
• * 1.67

  Idem Re∣tract. lib. 42. cap. 22. & 23.
• * 1.68

  Idem. de haeres. ad Quoduul••. haer. 82.
• * 1.69

  Aug. vbi sup. & Ser. 191. de temp.
• * 1.70

  Idem. de haeres. haer. 82.
• * 1.71

  Bellar de notis Ec∣cles. l. 4. cap. 9.
• * 1.72

  The an∣swere of M. An∣drews to the place of S. Hie∣rome exa∣mined.
• * 1.73

  Andr cap. 8. pag. 219. § Hierony∣mus.
• * 1.74

  Foure things to be noted in M An∣drews his answere.
• * 1.75

  M. An∣drews large graunt, cōcerning the pri∣macy of S. Peter.
• * 1.76

  What fol∣loweth of M. An∣drews hi•• gra••nt.
• * 1.77

  One ••ead more ne∣cessary now in the Church then in the Apo∣stles time, and why
• * 1.78

  Psal. ••7. & 8••. Isa. 61.
• * 1.79

  Matt•••• 16. & vlt. Luc. 1. Ephes. 4.
• * 1.80

  Our Saui∣ours pro∣uidence in the conser∣uation of the Romā Church when all other A∣postlicall Churches haue fay∣led.
• * 1.81

  ••. Aug. in Psal. cōtra part. Do∣nati.
• * 1.82

  Power to punish & to define, necessary in the head of the Church to remedy schismes.
• * 1.83

  Whence the grea∣test danger of schisme common∣ly aryseth.
• * 1.84

  See Sup∣plem. cap. 1. nu. 61.62
• (b) 1.85

  Ibidem à nu. 60. ad nu. 67.
• (c) 1.86

  Ibid. nu. 67. & s••qu.
• (d) 1.87

  Ibid. nu. 63. & 64.
• * 1.88

  Power ouer the soule ne∣cessarily implieth some power ouer the body.
• * 1.89

  A doubt of M. An∣drews sufficient∣ly solued.
• * 1.90

  Touching the num∣ber com∣mitted to S. Peters charge.
• * 1.91

  Psal. 44.
• * 1.92

  In Psal. 44.
• * 1.93

  Mar. vlt.
• * 1.94

  Psal. 18.
• * 1.95

  M. An∣drews granting S. Peter to be head of the Apo∣stles gran∣teth that he was head of the whole Church.
• * 1.96

  Idem. ho. 5. in Petris Apost. & Eliant.
• * 1.97

  Idem. ho. 87. in Ioan.
• * 1.98

  M. An∣drews head very idle.
• * 1.99

  Matth. 16. & vlt.
• * 1.100

  A para∣dox of M. Andrews.
• * 1.101

  Tyranny more fre∣quent in small stats then great Monar∣chies.
• * 1.102

  M. An∣drews ac¦knowled∣geth by a necessary cōsequent that one head is necessary for the whole Church.
• (d) 1.103

  See sup∣pl. cap. 1. nu. 81. & cap. 4. à nu. 3. ad nu. 18.
• (e) 1.104

  Ibid. nu. 7.8. & 9.
• (f) 1.105

  num. 2.3.4. & se∣quent.
• (g) 1.106

  nu. 37.
• * 1.107

  The con∣clusion cōcerning the place of S. Hie∣rome.
• (h) 1.108

  nu. 29. & s••qu.
• * 1.109

  Andr. vbi supra.
• * 1.110

  M. An∣drews hath gran∣ted by cō∣sequent as m••ch as we de∣mand cō∣c••rning the s••∣preme au∣thority of S. Peter••
• (d) 1.111

  See be∣fo••e nu•• 17•• 38. & sequent.