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.

FOVRE OTHER PLACES OF THE FATHERS ARE DEBATED: And M. Andrews his Answers thereto confuted. With a Discouery of notable corruption and falsity in him: and of three manifest lyes within litle more then three lynes. AND By occasion thereof, it is also proued, that 8. Popes who liued in S. Augustines tyme, had, and exercysed an vniuersall and supreme Authority. (Book 4)

CHAP. IIII. (Book 4)

THOV hast seene good Reader in the last Chapter how well M. Andrews hath satisfyed the Cardinalls obiectiō out of S. Cyprian, and S. Hierome; and now in this Chapter I will exa∣mine his Answers to diuers other places of the Fathers, namely of S. Basil, and S. Gre∣gory

Nazianzen, S. Chrysostome, and S. Augustine, which albeit he pretendeth to answere togeather with the former; yet I haue thought good to separate them, because I haue alledged them separatly in my Supplement.

* 1.12. First out of S. Basil, the Cardinall, an I ob∣iect these words to proue the supremacy of S. Peter ouer the rest of the Apostles: Ille beatus qui ceteris prae∣latus discipulis fuit, cui claues regni caelestis commissae. That happy, or blessed (Peter) who was preferred before the rest of the disciples, to whome the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome were committed &c. Hereto M. Andrews answereth thus:

Ex Basilio, ceteris discipulis prae∣latum Petrum, sed an vt esset Monarcha? &c. The Car∣dinall obiecteth out of S. Basil that Peter was preferred before the rest of the Disciples; but was it to the end that he should be a Monarch? is there no other prelacy but of a Monarchy? he was preferred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the testimo∣ny (that was giuen him by Christ) as Basil hath there, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, blessednes: add also (if you will) that he was preferred in order, and place; the King doth also attribute the same vnto him, yea that he may be the Prince of Apostles, yet without a Monarchy.

Thus saith M. Andrews to the first part of S. Basils place: whereto I will say somewhat before I add the rest. Heere then you see he graunteth that S. Peter was preferred before the rest of the Apostles in order, and place, yea and that he was the Prince of the Apostles, and forsooth no Mo∣narch.

* 1.23. But if we consider what he hath graunted in the last Chapter, we shall find that he must needs ac∣knowledge him to be a Monarch, how much soeuer he mislyke the word: for if a Monarch do signify him that

is one chiefe Prince, and s••preme head or gouernour of others, not for his owne particuler benefit, but for the publike and generall good of those whome he go∣uerneth (for so is a Monarch distinguished from a Ty∣rant) he cannot with any reason deny S. P••ter to be the Monarch, that is to say, the supreme Prince, and head of the Church, whome he acknowledgeth togeather with S. Hierome to haue been made by our Sauiour, head of the Apostles, to preuent and remedy schisme, and to haue had not only the precedence of place, and order (as now he saith) but also so much power as suffy∣ced, for the conseruation of Vnity in the Church, whereupon followeth all that power,* 1.3 and authority which we do attribute to S. Peter, and his successors, as I haue declared briefely in the last Chapter.

4. For S. Peter hauing by this commission of our Sauiour, authority to ordaine, commaund, and punish as far as was necessary for the good of the Church, it must needs be graunted that he had the power and au∣thority of a Monarch: and although M. Andrews had not been forced by ••he euidence of S. Hieromes testi∣mony to grant it, yet this very place of S. Basil which he pretendeth heere to answere, doth proue it suffici∣ently, signifying as much in effect as S. Hierome tea∣cheth; seeing that S. Basil not only saith that Peter was preferred before the rest of the Disciples, but also declareth wherein, that is to say (not in place and order only, but) in authority also, and iurisdiction; adding, cui claues Regni caelestis commissae sunt, to whome (to wit Peter) the keyes of the heauenly Kingdome were committed; giuing to vnderstand, that he had by this particuler cōmission of the keyes, a particuler Iurisdiction more then the rest, in respect whereof he was Boatus, happy, 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

or Blessed, and preferred before the rest.

* 1.45. Whereby it may appeare how vainly M. An∣drews seeketh to elude the force of this place, by that which he addeth, saying, Nam claues ei commissas quis dubitat &c. for who doubteth that the keyes were com∣mitted to him, but whether the same was done in his person, or in the person of the Church, Basil doth not declare heere, but Augustine doth in many places. So he: as though S. Basil did not sufficiently explicate himselfe, and shew that S. Peter had by the keyes a greater iuris∣diction then the other Apostles, for els to what purpose did he add, that the keyes were committed to him, but to shew how, and wherein he was Blessed, and preferred be∣fore the rest? And whereas M. Andrews sayth, that Au∣gustine declareth in many places, that the keyes were giuen him in the person of the Church, and not in his owne, I haue sufficiently shewed the vanity of this euasion in the first (c) 1.5 Chapter of this Adioynder, where I haue euidently proued out of S. Augustine himselfe that S. Peter receaued the keyes, and Pastorall authority for the Church, no otherwyse, but as the supreme head, and Gouernour thereof, in which respect he represen∣ted the person of the whole Church, wherein consisteth his preheminence, & preferment before the rest, wher∣of S. Basil speaketh. So that you see M. Andrews hath said nothing to any purpose in answere of the place of S. Basil.

6. Now then let vs see what he saith to a place of S. Gregory Nazianzen obiected as well by the (a) 1.6 Cardi∣nall as by (b) 1.7 me: Vides (sayth he) quemadmodum &c. Thou seest how amongst the Disciples of Christ (all of them truely great, and high, and worthy to be chosen) this, to wit Peter, is called a Rocke, and hath the foundations of the

Church committed to his charge &c.* 1.8 Thus saith this ancient and holy Father: whereto M. Andrews answe∣reth thus:

Ex Nazianzeno, Petrum & Ioannem aliquo prae ceteris priuilegio donatos &c. Out of Nazianzen (he ob∣iecteth) that Peter, and Iohn had some priuiledge more then the rest: Peter that he had a new name taken from a Rock, and that Iohn was beloued more then the rest, and might layne vpon Christs brest, and the rest of the Apostles did not take it ill; what was there heere singular in Peter more then in Iohn? and therefore there is eyther heere no Primacy, or els a double Primacy.

So he.

7. Wherein thou mayst easily see,* 1.9 good Reader, how he paltreth and iuggleth, if thou notest well the obiection, and how he answereth it, partly dissem∣bling those very words which most import, and part∣ly seeking to blynd the Readers eyes with the mention of a priuiledge giuen to S. Iohn, which indeed is also related in that place by S. Gregory Nazianzen, but no∣thing at all preiudiceth the far greater priuiledge of S. Peter, I meane his supreme authority signifyed by S. Gregory in the words obiected by the Cardinall. For when S. Gregory saith, that Peter was called a Rock, and had Ecclesiae fundamenta fidei suae credita, the founda∣tions of the Church committed to his charge, what els doth he affirme therein, but that the Church was buylt vpon Peter, as vpon a Rock; and that the charge, or gouernment thereof was giuen more particulerly to him then to the rest. For if M. Andrews will say heere (as he is wont) that they were all foundations and gouernours of the Church alike, why was he called a Rock more then they? or what was the priuiledge of Peter whereof Nazianzen speaketh heere, according

to M. Andrews his owne confession, who graunteth that Nazianzen testifieth that Peter and Iohn were aliquo priuilegio prae ceteris donati, priuiledged in some things aboue the rest?

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

9. But what shall we say of his absurd inference or conclusion,* 1.10 when he saith, that because a priuiledge was giuen to Iohn, as well as to Peter, therefore there was eyther nullus, or duplex primatus, a double primacy, or none at all? Shall we thinke so great a Doctour, as M. Andrews, to be so simple, as not to see how im∣pertinently he try fleth therein? For what coherence is there betwixt those two priuiledges wherby he should make that inference in them both? especially seeing that he himselfe will, I am sure, deny one part thereof (to wit the double primacy) no lesse then we, and the

other part is also sufficiently contradicted, not only by S. Hierome, but also by himselfe, as I haue shewed amply in the last Chapter, where I haue declared, how S. Hierome answered Iouinians obiection, that the Church was founded vpon Peter, and not vpon Iohn, by occasion whereof S. Hierome teacheth, that al∣though Iohn was more fauoured and beloued of our Sauiour then the rest of the Apostles for his Virginity, yet Peter was preferred before him in the primacy, be∣ing made head of them all to take away the occasion of schisme, and thereby ouerthroweth this his inference of a double primacy or none.

10. For if Peter were head of the Apostles, he was also head of the Church, and consequently there was one primate, or head, and not two, notwithstanding that Iohn layned vpon Christs brest, and was more be∣loued of Christ then the rest; so as M. Andrews doth notably contradict himselfe; besides that he argueth as wisely, as if he should say that when his Maiesty she∣weth more particuler fauour, and affection to any man then to my L. of Canterbury, he maketh eyther two Primates of England, or none at all. Whereby thou mayst see (good Reader) what an absurd, and as I may tearme it, a sleeueles answere he hath made heere to the place of S. Gregory Nazianzen.

11. After this there followeth another place of the Cardinall,* 1.11 taken out of S. Chrysostome, which I haue also obiected in my Supplement. The words layd downe by the Cardinall are these: Sanctus Ioannes Chry∣sostomus ho. 55. in Matthaeum &c.* 1.12 S. Iohn Chrysostome in his 55. homily vpon Matthew saith: (Christ) made Peter Pastor of his future Church. And a litle after: God a∣lone can graunt that the future Church shall remayne immo∣uable,

notwithstanding so many, and so great waues (of persecution) violently bre•••• in vpon it: of which Church a fisherman, and of meane parentage is the Pastor and head &c. Heere we read expressely, that Peter was head of the Church. Thus far the Cardinall.

12. Heereto M. Andrews answereth thus:

Ex Chry∣sostomo, Cuius Pastor & caput homo piscator &c.* 1.13 Out of Chrysostome he obiecteth thus, Whereof the Pastour, and head was a fisherman: but these words (whereof the pa∣stor, and head) are crept into the text, and added in the Latin in fauour of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (he meaneth the Pope) for they are not in the Greeke, where we read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a fisherman, but the word head appeareth no where, nor in that place so much as Pastor, albeit no man will deny that Peter was pastor of the Church, yea, and a chiefe or principall pastor, but yet a pastor togeather with other Pastors his fellow-Apostles, and not alone without others &c.

So he: wherein you see he taketh exception to the words cuius pastor & caput, which he saith are not in the Greeke. Whereto I answere, that put the case they be not now in the Greeke copies which M. An∣drews hath seene, yet it litle importeth, seeing that the latin translatour found them (as it is most probable) in the Greeke copie which he followed, and that S. Chrysostome saith as much in effect, as well in the same homily, as in other places.

13. Whereby it is euident that it is conforme to his doctrine, and not added in fauour of the Pope, as M. Andrews would haue his Reader to suppose. For S. Chrysostome saith in the same homily: Petrus Aposto∣lorum os & vertex,* 1.14 cùm omnes interrogati essent, solus res∣pondit &c. Peter the mouth & head of the Apostles, whē they were all asked, answered alone &c. In which words S.

Chrysostome doth plainly acknowledge S. Peter to be head of the Church, seeing that he called him head of the Apostles. And in the same place alledged by the Cardinall, hauing said, that a poore fisherman (by the power,* 1.15 and vertue of Christs graunt) surpasseth in strength a••d solidity the nature of the dyamond, he pre∣ferreth him far before Hieromy the Prophet, saying; that whereas Almighty God made Hier••my like a pillar of yron, and a brazen wall, and gaue him power, and au∣thority ouer one Nation, hunc autem vniuerso terra∣rum orbi Christus praeposuit, Christ gaue him (to wit Peter) power, and authority ouer the whole world. So he.

14. And because, M. Andrews will be like heere to fly to his common place, and to say, that all the A∣postles had power, and authority ouer the whole world, as well as S. Peter, and that therefore this com∣parison of him with Hieremy proueth not, that he had any more authority then the rest of the Apostles, M. Andrews must consider that S. Chrysostome cannot heere meane that his authority ouer the whole world was no other, then that which the other Apostles had, seeing he hath taught before in the same homily that he was their head; and I thinke M. Andrews will not be so absurd to say that the authority of the head, and of the members is all one: besides that S. Chrysostome teacheth most clearely els where, that S. Peter was head not only of the Apostles, but also of the whole Church, as it may appeare by that which I haue alledged out of him to that purpose, both in the first, and also in the precedent Chapter of this Adioynder.

15. Whereto I will now add a most cleare testi∣mony thereof, out of his learned Commentary vpon

the Acts of the Apostles, where discoursing vpon the election of Matthias the Apostle in the place of Iudas, and particulerly vpon those words, Et in diebus illis sur∣gens Petrus, he noteth not only the fauour of Peter, but also his authority ouer the rest, as ouer the flock committed to his charge. Quàm est feruidus, saith he, quàm agnoscit creditum à Christo gregem &c. How fer∣uent is Peter, how well doth he acknowledge the flock committed to him by Christ! Loe how he is Prince in this company or congregation, and euery where beginneth first to speake &c.

16. And againe afterwards prosecuting the same matter,* 1.16 he sayth: Quid? an non licebat ipsi eligere? Licebat & quidem maxime &c. What? and was it not lawfull for him to choose (Matthias?) Yes truely it was most lawfull, but he did it not, because he would not seeme to gratify any. Also againe after a while, he saith thus, Primus hic Do∣ctorem constituit &c. he (to wit Peter) did first heere make a Doctor;* 1.17 he said not, we are sufficient to teach &c. quamquam autem habebat ius constituendi par omnibus, tamen haec congruenter fiebant &c. Albeit he had as much authority to appoynt him as they all, yet this was done very conueniently. So he, giuing to vnderstand, that notwith∣standing Peters absolute power to choose Matthias himselfe alone, yet out of prudence he determined ra∣ther to do it by the generall consent of all the Apostles, which he also signifyed no lesse plainly afterwards in these words: Meritò primus omnium &c. he doth worthily first of all the rest vse, or exercyse his authority in this busi∣nes, as one that had all the rest in his hand, or power, for to him Christ sayd: & tu aliquando cōuersus, confirma fratres tuos, and thou being sometyme conuerted, confirme they bre∣thren.

17. All this saith S. Chrysostome, concerning the the election of Matthias the Apostle, whereby it ap∣peareth playnly, that he held S. Peter to be head of the Apostles, and of the whole Church, seeing he teacheth not only that he was the Prince in that Congregation, but also that he had as much authority, to make an Apo∣stle, as they all, and might haue done it of himselfe (if he had thought it fit, and conuenient) because he had them all in his hand. So as it is cleare, that when S. Chry∣sostome in the 55. homily vpon Matthew (which the Cardinall alledgeth) calleth S. Peter verticem Apostolo∣rum, the head of the Apostles, and saith that Christ made him power of the Church, and that he gaue him authority ouer the whole world, he meaneth, and tea∣cheth manifestly that he was supreme head, and Pastor of the vniuersall Church: which is the same in sub∣stance, and effect, that those words, Cuius pastor & ca∣put, do signify.

18. Therefore the doctrine being S. Chrysostomes, as well in that homily alledged by the Cardinall as els where, and the words also themselues (which per∣haps may be wanting in some Greeke copie) being ex∣tant, as they are cyted by the Cardinall, in all our Latin translations, it is but a vayne shift of M. An∣drews to say, that they are thrust into the Latin in fa∣uour of the Pope, it being more probable (as I haue sayd) that they were in the old Greeke copies, which the Latin translatours followed, and that eyther the Grecians themselues in the time of their schisme from the Roman Church, or perhaps some of our late here∣tikes (who haue taken vpon them to print the Greeke in these dayes) haue purposely left out the same, in hatred of the supreme authority of S. Peter, and his

successors. But howsoeuer it is, you see the doctrine of S. Chrysostome is cleare to the purpose that those words (which M. Andrewes saith are not in the Greek) do import: and this suffiseth to proue by the testimony of S. Chrysostome, that S. Peter was supreme Pastor and head of the vniuersall Church.

* 1.1819. And as for M. Andrews his stale, and tryfling deuyse to call the Pope 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (alluding to the name of the beast in the Apocalyps, according to the interpreta∣tion of Irenaeus, as he would haue his Reader to sup∣pose, albeit he vse it far otherwise then Irenaeus meant it, who applyed it only to the temporall Empyre, and not to the Roman Sea) I willingly omit it, as not pertayning to the place of S. Chrysostome wherof I now specially treat, and therefore do remit him for his sa∣tisfaction in that point to Cardinall Bellarmines contro∣uersies,* 1.19 where the same is so sufficiently answered, that he, and his fellowes may be ashamed still to repeat it, and not to impugne the manifold, and solid rea∣sons which the Cardinall produceth to confute their ridiculous, and absurd application of that name to the Pope.

20. And now to end concerning the testimony of S. Chrysostome; whereas M. Andrews for conclu∣sion of his answere thereto saith, that no man will deny that Peter was Pastor of the Church, yea and a principall pastor, sed cum alijs pastorem coapostolis suis, non solum sine alijs,* 1.20 but Pastour togeather with other his fellow A∣postles, and not alone without others; I thinke he was in a dreame when he wrot•• it, impugning no man therein for ought I know. For I neuer heard tell of any man yet, who taught that S. Peter was Pastor of the Church alone, or that the other Apostles were not

Pastors as well as he,* 1.21 albeit we teach with S. Chryso∣stome, and others, as you haue heard, that they were subordinate to him, as to the supreme pastor, and their head;* 1.22 which also M. Andrews himselfe doth acknow∣ledge sufficiently, as I haue shewed amply in the last Chapter. And this I hope may suffice concerning S. Chrysostome.

21. There remayneth now only S. Augustin of the 4.* 1.23 Fathers alledged by the Cardinall and my selfe for the proofe of S. Peters Primacy: his words are these: Totius corporis morbum in ipso capite curat Ecclesiae &c. he (to wit Christ) cureth the disease of the whole body in the very head of the Church, & cōpoundeth the health of all the members, in ipso vertice (that is to say) in the very crowne, or top of the head: Thus saith S. Augustin: whereupon the Cardinall saith:* 1.24 Sanctus Augustinus apertè vocat S. Pe∣trum caput corporis Ecclesiae. S. Augustine doth planily call S. Peter head of the body of the Church.* 1.25 To this M. Andrewes saith thus: Concludít testes suos cum Augustino, non Augustino, cuius tempore non fiebant Sermones de tem∣pore. He (to wit the Cardinall) concludeth his wit∣nesses with an Augustine, who is not Augustin; in whose tyme there were not made any Sermons de tempore. So he, taking exceptions to the authority of this allega∣tion, because in S. Augustins tyme (as he would haue vs suppose) there was no such custome in the Church, to make Sermons de tempore (that is to say of the or∣dinary feasts that do occur thoughout the course of the yeare) and that therefore the Authour of those Ser∣mons de tempore, out of the which the Cardinall taketh this place, could not be S. Augustins, but of some other later wryter, who set them out in S. Augustins name.

22. But now if you aske how M. Andrews pro∣ueth that there were no Sermons de tempore in S. Au∣gustins tyme, you must take his bare word for a proofe, for you neyther haue, nor are like to heare any other of him. But for the tryall of this matter I must re∣mit thee, good Reader, to some better, and more au∣thenticall witnesses then M. Andrewes, namely to Possidius a learned Bishop, who being a familiar friend of S. Augustin forty yeares togeather (as he signifieth himselfe) wrote his life,* 1.26 and making a Catalogue of his workes doth mention amongst the rest diuers Ser∣mons, or Treatises of his made of some of the princi∣pall feasts of the yeare, as of Christmas, Ascension, Pente∣cost, Lent, and 23. Tracts, or Sermons per Vigilias Paschae, in the Eues of Easter (whereof by all likely∣hood this very Sermon was one, being made on the Wednesday before Easter:) whereto may be added also diuers other particuler feasts of Saints, menti∣oned in like manner by Possidius, as namely the Nati∣uity of S. Iohn Baptist, of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul,* 1.27 of S. Laurence, S. Cyprian, S. Perpetua and Fe∣licitas, S. Saluius, S. Vincent, and some others which I omit, for that these I trow may suffice to conuince M. Andrews of great ignorance, or malice in that he deny∣eth that there were any Sermons de tempore, in S. Augu∣stins tyme.* 1.28

23. For although it is like inough that neyther S. Augustin, nor any other Father of that age, wrote any work vnder the title of Sermones de tempore (but that such sermons being made at diuers tymes, and disper∣sed in diuers parts of their workes, haue bene since their daies gathered into one volume, and set out vnder that tytle for the ease, and commodity of the

Readers) yet no man that hath byn conuersant in the Fathers can be ignorant that such were vsually made both in the Latin and in the Greeke Church in S. Au∣gustins tyme;* 1.29 which may euidently appeare (besids the testimony of Possidius aforesaid) by the works of S. Ambrose, wherin there are Sermons vpon almost all the great feasts from Aduent to Pentecost:* 1.30 and in the same tyme liued also S. Maximus Bishop of Turin, who wrote diuers homilies vpon the principall feasts of the yeare,* 1.31 as testifyeth Gennadius a famous writer of that age, whereof I shall haue occasion to speake further hereafter. Besids that it cannot be denyed that the like custome was also in the Greeke Church in those daies,* 1.32 seeing that we fynd in S. Gregory Nissen (who was S. Basils brother) diuers Orations made vpon the feasts of the Natiuity of our Sauiour,* 1.33 S. Stephen, Easter, and the Ascension; And others also in S. Gre∣gory Nazianzen vpon the feasts of Easter,* 1.34 Pentecost, the Natiuity of Christ, the Epiphany (which amongst the Greekes was called Sancta Lumina.) In like man∣ner diuers homilies in S. Chrysostom of the fifth feria in Passion week, and of the Resurection, and Ascension of our Sauiour, and of Pentecost, besids diuers others of particuler Saints, as S. Fulgentius S•• Augustines schooler, and others. So that this exception of M. An∣drews to the authority of this place of S. Augustin is too∣to cold, and friuolous, and far vnworthy of a man that professeth to haue read the ancient Fathers, and there∣fore truely he had reason to seeke out another an∣swere that might be of some more weight, which he frameth in these words: Sed nec si tempori cedamus, hic tamen testis satis in tempore venit &c.* 1.35 But though we should yield to tyme (he meaneth that albeit we should

graunt that Sermons were made de tempore in those daies) yet this witnes commeth out of tyme, or season, & very vnluckily, who doth not tell vs of any other head but of a sickly head, nor of any other crowne of a head, but a crazed,* 1.36 or crackt, crowne, which therefore might very well haue been passed with silence.

24. Thus raueth M. Andrews, hauing his head so crazed with the frenzy of heresy, that he vttereth such braynsick, and idle stuffe, as this, which truely no man that were well in his wits, would vtter to the purpose he doth, that is to say, to proue that S. Peter was not head of the Church. For els why doth he say it? seeing that the Cardinall cyteth this place to no other end, but to proue that S. Peter was head of the Church,* 1.37 and therefore M. Andrews giuing this for his second answere (hauing as you haue seene great reason to mistrust the former) must needs conclude thereupon, that S. Peter was not head of the Church. But how doth it follow, that because S. Peter by frayl∣ty denyed our Sauiour, Ergo, he was not head of the Church? Do those that hold, and teach his primacy, deny his fall? Or teach that his successours cannot also erre in matter of fact, as he did, though not in defini∣tion of matters of faith?

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

the Church, which S. Augustine teacheth expressely in these words.

26. Ideo B. Petrum paululum Dominus subdeseruit &c.* 1.38 Our Lord did therefore forsake blessed Peter for a while, to the end that all humane kind might know in him, that without the grace of God it could do nothing, and thereby a rule might be giuen also to him (who was to be gouernour of the Church) to pardon sinners; for the keyes of the Church were to be committed to Peter the Apostle, yea the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen were recommended vnto him: as also in like manner there was to be committed to his charge an innumerable multitude of people,* 1.39 which in respect of the vyces and passions of their nature were wrapped in sinnes, and offences. And againe after a while: Idcirco, saith he, diuinae prouidentiae secretum &c. Therefore did the secret of Gods prouidence so dispose, and permit, that he (to wit Peter) should himselfe first fayle and fall into sinne, that by the consideration of his owne fall he might temper the rigour of his sentence towards sinners: Quantum igitur diuini inuneris &c. Therefore note what great bounty, and goodnes, and how much care and sollicitude God sheweth heerin towards the saluation of man, he c••reth the disease of the whole body in the head of the Church, and compoundeth the health of all the members in the very crowne of the head, & in the very top of the cōfession of Christ, in the very foū∣datiō of an immoueable faith, that is to say, in that Peter, who said, although I should dye with thee, yet I will not deny thee.

27. All this saith S Augustine, and much more to the same purpose, which I omit for breuityes sake, for that this may suffice to teach M. Andrews that S. Peters Primacy was so far from being preiudyced by his fall, that it may rather be in some sort confirmed thereby, seeing it appeareth, that it was conuenient in respect

of his Primacy, that he should fall for the benefit that should ensue thereof,* 1.40 as well to himselfe, as to the Church which is also the expresse doctrine of S. Chry∣sostome, who hauing said, that Orbis terrarum Ecclesiae &c. the Churches of the whole world,* 1.41 and the multituds of people were to be committed to his charge. And hauing al∣so called him Apostolorum verticem, the head of the Apo∣stles, the immouable foundation, the steedfast rock, the pillar of Churches, and mayster of the whole world, he addeth, Peccare permissus est &c. he was suffered to sinne, for this cause chiefly, because the multitude of people was to be com∣mitted vnto him, lest he being seuere and innocent might be vnwilling to pardon the offences of his brethren.* 1.42 So he: to whome I may also adde S. Gregory the Great, who maketh the same construction of S. Peters fall that these two other Fathers do, affirming that God suffe∣red him to fayle, quem praeferre cunctae Ecclesiae disposuerat, whome he had determined to make gouernour of all the Church, that he might learne by his owne fraylty to haue compassion of other sinners.

28. And to the end M. Andrewes may see that S. Augustine doth also else where plainly acknowledg the Primacy of S. Peter notwithstanding his fall;* 1.43 he shall do well to read a place alleadged by himselfe in his first chapter, to proue that S. Peter had nothing peculiar to himself by his pastorall commission; which place if he had layd downe at large (as he curtolled, and maymed it after his manner) it might haue sufficed to conuince him, as well in the matter for the which he produced it, as also in this. For there S. Augustin hauing taught that S. Peter receauing the keyes, & the cōmission of Pastor, represented the person of the Church, inferreth that the Church ought to pardon repentant

sinners, seeing that Peter bearing the person of the Church was pardoned whē he had denyed his maister.* 1.44

29. Wherein S. Augustine not only deduceth a pious document out of S. Peters offence (as you see he doth in the other place) but also acknowledgeth suffi∣ciently his supreme Dignity,* 1.45 teaching that he bare the person of the Church, which he did no otherwise, but as he was supreme head, and Gouernour thereof, as I haue declared at large in the first Chapter of this Ad∣ioynder, where I haue layd downe the words of S. Au∣gustine,* 1.46 and discouered M. Andrews his fraud more particulerly,* 1.47 and produced also a cleare testimony of S. Cyril concerning the Primacy of S. Peter (whome he calleth Principem & Caput Apostolorum: the Prince & head of the Apostles) though he do there grant his fall which he saith hapned by humane infirmity,* 1.48 whereof M. Andrews cannot be ignorant, seeing he cyteth also that place of S. Cyril, no lesse then the other of S. Augustin, though with greater fraud, as I haue also shewed in the first Chapter.

30. Finally I may add to these, those other testi∣monies which I haue now lastly examined, and deba∣ted with M. Andrewes out of S Cyril, S. Hierome, S Ba∣sil, and S. Chrysostome, as also the rest of that grand Iury of 24. Fathers, Greeks, and Latins alledged by Cardinall Bellarmine in his controuersies to proue the supreme authority of S. Peter ouer the Apostles, all which most learned, and ancient Fathers, being the lights of the Church, knew as well as M. Andrews, that S. Peter had denyed our Sauiour, and yet neuertheles did not take the same to be any preiudice to his Supre∣macy. Whereupon I conclude, that if their heads were sound, then M. Andrews his head must needs be very

sick and crazed, seeing his sense, and iudgment is so far different from theirs, as to seek to ouerthrow, or disproue S. Peters Primacy by his fall, and to speake of him so contemptibly, and opprobriously, as he doth.

31. But will you heare how well he mendeth the matter? Marke him well, I pray you, and you shall see that as his head hath ben hitherto somewhat crackt, so now he is become wholy distract, talking as idly, as if he were more fit for Bedlam then for a Bishoprick. For hauing sayd, as you haue heard before, that this testi∣mony of S. Augustine was vnluckily produced by the Cardinall, because it giueth vs notice of no other head, but of a sickly head (to wit S. Peter) and that therfore it might very well haue bin pretermitted, he goeth for∣ward thus:* 1.49 Praesertim cùm eùmdem morbum in capite vestro notarint diu iam medicorum filij. et si omnes non ego, id est, plus ego quàm omnes: especially seeing that the Phisitians children haue now a long tyme noted the same disease in your head, although all not I, that is to say, I more then all. Thus saith he, so mystically I assure you, that he seemeth to propound a riddle, and therefore may do well to explicate his meaning, and let vs know who were those Phisitians, and their children that haue noted the same disease in our head.

* 1.5032. Neuertheles for as much as it may be presu∣med, that by the children he meaneth Luther, Caluin, Beza and himselfe, with other Sectaries of this age, we may also make a reasonable coniecture who were the Phisitians, seeing that we are not ignorant that the true progenitours of all the Sectaries aforenamed, were dyuers old heretykes, whose herefies they haue reuy∣ued; namely the (b) 1.51 Donatists, whose doctrine they

professe concerning the fall of the visible Church; (c) 1.52 Aerius whome they follow in denying Sacrifyce for the dead; (d) 1.53 Vigilantius with whome they impugne the reuerend vse of reliques; (f) 1.54 Iouinian who taught diuers points of their beliefe touched particulerly in the last (g) 1.55 Chapter, and other Arch-heretikes con∣demned by the Church in ancient tyme, who (as S. Augustine witnesseth) vsed also to barke (though in vayne) against the Sea Apostolike, no lesse then these their children do.

33. But although we may ghesse who were the Phisitians, and their children, yet it will not be so easy to coniecture what he meaneth by etsi omnes non ego, id est plus ego quàm omnes: although all not I, that is to say, I more then all; for truely I haue shewed it to diuers, and haue not found two that agree in the in∣terpretation of it, but the most probable seemeth to be the one of two; one is, that he alludeth to the words of S. Peter,* 1.56 * 1.57 when he sayd etsi omnes scandalizati fuerint sed non ego: Although all shall be scandalized, yet not I, who neuerthelesse was scandalized more then they all, because he alone denyed his mayster: which sense hath great difficulty, because it neyther hath conne∣xion with that which goeth immediatly before, nor is truly applicable to the Pope (of whome M. An∣drews seemeth there to treate) but is only contumelious to S Peter (being a taunting kind of exprobration of his fall) and therefore me thinkes M. Andrews should not admit it to be his meaning, as sauouring too much of impiety.

34. The other sense is, that it should be referred to M. Andrews himselfe, and that there is some litle fault in the print, I mean in the points, though not in the

words, which therefore should be pointed this, & si omnes, non ego? and if all, not I? that is to say, if all haue noted this disease in your head, why should not I note it? Giuing to vnderstand, that he will not yield to any of his brethren for zeale, & skill in noting the faults of Popes, but rather, plus ego quàm omnes, that is to say, therein will I go beyond them all:* 1.58 which sense hath at least some good coherence with the precedent clause and well befitteth M. Andrews his zeale to the Ghos∣pell and hatred to the Pope, and so may passe for his meaning. But whatsoeuer his meaning is, I cannot forbeare to tell him, that seeing his brayn is so intoxi∣cated that he cannot write intelligibly, and yet will take vpon him to play the Physitian, and to cure the Popes diseases, I will say to him with our Sauiour Medice cura teipsum, and wish him to purge his owne head,* 1.59 with some good quantity of a drug called Ca∣tholicon, and a litle Helleborum to restore him againe to his right wits, before he presume to be the Popes Phy∣sitian, and to iudge of the diseases of the head of the Church.

35. And whereas he goeth forward to shew vs a difference in the cure of Peters disease, and of the di∣seases of his Successors, let vs follow him a while, and you shall see him runne as well out of his honesty, as out of his wit. For thus he saith:

Sed ab eo morbo sana∣tum hoc caput &c. But this head (to wit S. Peter) was healed of this disease, but your head (he meaneth the Pope) neyther will be healed, nor yet is curable: yet if he euer be healed, let him be the head of the Church of Rome,* 1.60 as he was in Augustines tyme, but, let no man appeale to him from beyond the sea, or if any appeale, he is to be excommunicated by Augustine, who was

far from acknowledging Zosimus, Bonifacius, and Ce∣lestinus for heads of the Church, in whome neuertheles he cured the same disease.

So he, which I beseech thee good Reader, well to note, and thou shalt see his con∣science no lesse crackt then his brayne, ioyning ex∣treme falsity with folly, abusing the authority not only of S. Augustine, but also of the whole Councell of African Bishops (though he name S. Augustin only, and none of the other) and finally vttering 3. nota∣ble lyes in litle more then 3. lynes. The first is, that the [ 1] Pope had no further authority but ouer his Church of Rome in S. Augustines tyme. The second, that no man [ 2] might in those daies appeale to the Sea Apostolicke out of Africk. The third, that S. Augustine was far [ 3] from acknowledging those three Popes Zosimus, Boni∣facius, and Celestinus to be heads of the Church, yea and that he cured S. Peters disease in them. Of these 3. points, the first wilbe fully cleared by the discussion of the second and the third.

36. First then concerning the second, whereas M. Andrews affirmeth that all Appeales from Africk to Rome were forbidden by S. Augustin,* 1.61 vnder payne of excommunication, wee shall neede no other wit∣nesse to conuince him, but S. Augustine himselfe, who teacheth the flat contrary not only in expresse words, but also by practise, as it will euidently appeare after a whyle; for albeit there was a controuersy betwixt the Church of Africk, and the Roman Sea, in S. Augustins tyme, partly about appeales to Rome, and partly about the Canons of the Nicen Councell, for that a Canon related by the Popes Legate, as out of the said Coun∣cell, was not found in the Copies that were then in Africk (whereof the causes may be seene at large as

well in Cardinall Bellarmins Controuersies,* 1.62 as in the history of Cardinall Baronius, who doe fully answere all our aduersaryes cauills concerning the same:) al∣beit, I say, this controuersy continued some 4. or 5. yeares,* 1.63 and grew in great part, by reason of abuses cōmitted by some of the Popes legates, in the rigorous, and violent execution of the Popes sentences (which may suffice to proue the comon vse of Appeales from Africk to Rome in those daies) neuertheles it is euident that during the tyme of this controuersy there was no prohibition of the appeales of Bishops from Africk, to Rome; for that all the African Bishops agreed to con∣tinue the wonted course of Appeales without in∣nouation, vntill they should haue answere out of Greece, concerning the Canons of the Nicen Coun∣cell.

37. And when they had receaued the same, they were so far from excommunicating such as should ap∣peale to Rome, or from prohibiting the same, by a Synodicall Decree, that they only wrote a common letter to Pope Celestinus, wherein they did not impugne the right of Appeales to Rome, but shewed their dislike of the manner, and meanes that had ben vsed in the prosecutiō thereof. And whereas there were 3. wayes vsed by the Sea Apostolyke in the prosecution, and decision of appeales,* 1.64 the first, by calling the parties and witnesses to Rome; the second, by sending Le∣gates to the place from whence the appeales came, with commission to heare, and determin them, some∣tymes with the assistance of the Bishops of that pro∣uince, and sometymes without them; and the third, to remit the matter wholy to the determination of the Metropolitan, or of some Prouinciall Synod of the same

country (as S. Gregory the great did in Africk dyuers tymes, whereof I shall haue occasiō to lay downe some examples (d) 1.65 heereafter:) of these 3. wayes I say, the African Bishops held the two former to be very incon∣uenient for them, but tooke no exception at all to the third way (which was to remit the causes to be tried at home by the Metropolitans or by Prouinciall Synods) & therfore the reasōs which they vrged, tended especially to proue that it was most conuenient, & conforme to the Councell of Nice, that causes should be decyded by the Metropolitans, and Synods of the same Country, where the controuersy should ryse; and this the Pope might haue graunted (if he had thought it conueni∣ent) and yet haue reserued to himselfe the right of ap∣pellation, and haue decyded Appeales also by his com∣mission, as it shall further appeare after a while by the practise of S. Gregory.

38 But put the case,* 1.66 that S. Augustine, and the Bishops of Africk had required of Pope Celestinus to be quite rid of Appeales, what will M. Andrewes infer thereon? Will he say, that therefore they decreed, vt transmarinus nemo appellet, & si appellet excommunican∣dus, that no man appeale out of Africk, and that if he doe, he shallbe excommunicated? Will he infer this vpon their demaund, or petition? I say their petition, for that when they come to treate of that matter in their Epistle,* 1.67 they begin it thus: Praefato debitae sa∣lutationis officio impendiò deprecamur, vt &c. The office or duty of due salutations premised, we do most earnestly beseech you, that you will not ouer easily giue eare to such as come from hence &c. Will then M. Andrewes make no difference betwixt demaunds, and decrees? petitions, and prohibitions? must he not rather confesse that the

African Bishops acknowledged that Pope Celestinus had power to dispose appeales? For otherwyse why did they rather seeke satisfaction by letters to him, then resolue by some Synodicall decree to exclude his au∣thority, and to debar him from further medling in those affaires? as it is like they would haue done, had they had byn perswaded that his authority in that be∣halfe was vsurped. But let M. Andrewes take the re∣quest of the African Bishops in what sense he list (I meane eyther for the exclusion of Appeales, or for moderation in the prosecution of them) yet he can neuer make good his forgery of transmarinus nemo ap∣pellet &c. it beeing most euident,* 1.68 that neyther these petitions of theirs, nor any Canon of the African Sy∣nods, nor yet any one word in S. Augustin did euer prohibite all Appellation from Africk to Rome, or yet cause any surcease, or interruption thereof, nor yet hinder the moderate and conuenient prosecution of appeales; for the proofe whereof I shall not need (as I haue said) to produce any other witnes then S. Au∣gustine himselfe, and his owne practise not past 5. or 6. yeares before his death in the cause of a Bishop cal∣led Antony, whome he had made Bishop of Fus∣sula.

39. It is therefore to be vnderstood that this An∣tony being depriued of his Bishoprick by a Synodicall sentence of African Bishops (for his outragious misde∣meanours) appealed to Rome to Pope Bonifacius,* 1.69 wher∣upon the Pope being moued partly with the Primats letters, and partly with such other testimony as Antony had cunningly produced for his purgation, resolued to returne him to his Bishopricke (yet with this ex∣presse condition, as S. Augustine witnesseth, if the in∣formation

which he had giuen, were found to be true) but before it could be executed, it chanced that Pope Boni∣facius dyed, and Celestinus succeeded him.

40. And for as much as many rumours were spred in fauour of Antony, that he should be restored by the Popes sentence, and the same executed by violence with the help of secular power, if need were (as the like had byn also vsed in former occasions) the people of Fussula were so exasperated therewith, that they were like to fall to tumult, and conceiued no small in∣dignation against S. Augustine himselfe, complayning of him to the Pope, because he had made Antony their Bishop, wherewith he was so afflicted, that he wrote a most pittifull letter to Celestinus successor to Bonifacius lamēting greatly his owne mishap in that he had made such an vnworthy Bishop;* 1.70 and recommended the de∣cision of the case to his wife, and charitable conside∣ration, saying thus amongst diuers other things:* 1.71 Collabora nobiscum pietate venerabilis, Domine beatis∣sime, & debita charitate suscipiende sancte Papa &c. Most blessed Lord venerable for thy piety, and holy Pope, to be receaued with due charity, labour togeather with vs, and commaund that all those things which are sent, be read, or related vnto thee. So he.

41. And whereas Antony being depriued of the Bishoprick, and remayning still with the tytle, had greatly vrged, that seeing he had still the tytle of Bi∣shop of Fussula, he ought also to haue the Bishoprick,* 1.72 S. Augustine made instance on the other side, that the sentence giuen against Antony might stand, for that it was conforme euen to former sentences giuen in like cases by the Sea Apostolike, and therefore he saith: Existat exemplo ipsa Sede Apostolica iudicante, vel aliorum

iudicata firmante &c. Let it serue for an example, the Sea Apostolike either iudging so it selfe, or els con∣firming the iudgments or sentences of others. So he, and then addeth diuers examples of Bishops, who being depriued of their Bishoprikes retayned still their tytle; and sayth moreouer thus.

* 1.73

Ego Fussulenses Catholicos filios in Christo meos &c. I doe recommend to the benignity of the charity of your Holynes, as well the Catholike people of Fus∣sula my children in Christ, as Antony the Bishop my sonne also in Christ, for that I loue them both &c. Let both of them deserue your mercy; they, that they may suffer no ill, he, that he may do no ill; they, lest they may hate the very name of Catholike, if they receiue no help from Catholike Bishops, especially from the Sea Apostolike against a Catholike Bishop; and he, lest he may commit so great a wickednes as to alienate those from Christ, whome he seeketh to make his owne against their wills &c. Finally S. Augustine con∣cludeth thus: Si autem membra Christi quae in illa regione sunt &c. If you do relieue the members of Christ which are in that quarter (he meaneth Fussula) from the deadly feare and sorrow wherein they liue, and do comfort my old age with this mercifull iustice, he will reward you, as well in this present life, as in the future, who doth by you succour vs in this our trou∣ble, and hath placed you in that seat.

42. Thus wrote S. Augustine to Celestinus the Pope, and much more to the same purpose, intreating most earnestly for the people of Fussula, especially that there m••ght be no violence vsed to restore Antony, and therefore hauing signified what was reported and feared in that behalfe,* 1.74 he said, non sinas ista fieri per

Christi sanguinem &c. suffer not these things to be donne for the bloud of Christ, and for the memory of Peter, who admonished the gouernours of Christian people not to exercise a violent dominion amongst their brethren. So he; giuing a necessary aduise to Pope Celestinus, though with all humility, as you see, to preuent the inconueniences that were feared, and had hapned before by the in∣discreet, and violent proceeding of some of the Popes Legats in like cases. And so far was he from any mea∣ning to oppose himselfe to the Popes authority,* 1.75 or to the restitution of Antony (in case the Pope should haue ordayned it) that he resolued for his part, as he signified, that, if he could not obtayne his sute of Ce∣lestinus he would renounce his Bishoprick, and retyre himselfe to a priuate life, to do penance, for hauing bene partly the cause of so great a scandall, in making Antony Bishop.

43. By all which it appeareth how far S. Augu∣stine and other Bishops of Africk,* 1.76 were from denying the Popes authority to admit Appeales, seeing that the primate of Numidia himselfe assisted Antony in his Appeale to Pope Bonifacius; and S. Augustine wrote also to Celestinus concerning the same with such sub∣mission, as you haue heard, not threatning to excom∣municate Antony for his Appeale to Rome (as M. An∣drewes would haue vs to suppose, saying: si appellet, ab Augustino excommunicandus, if any man appeale he is to be excommunicated by Augustine) but most humbly, crauing mercifull iustice, and moderation in the decision of the cause. So as we must needs say, that eyther S. Augustine contradicteth himselfe and his owne actions (which is not credible) or els that M. Andrewes hath belyed him in this poynt, as indeed he

hath; and therefore he had reason not so much as to quote in his margent any place of S. Augustine for the proofe, or confirmation of his assertion.

44. Neuertheles for as much as he mentioneth an excommunication threatned by S. Augustine to all such as should appeale from Africk to Rome,* 1.77 he seemeth to ayme at a Canon of a Coūcell held at Mileuis, where S. Augustin was present, in which Synod it was indeed ordayned vnder payne of excommunication, that no Priests or Deacons, or other Clergy men of the inferiour sort should appeale from their owne Bishops and Me∣metropolitans in Africk to Bishops beyond the seas. And to the end M. Andrewes his cosenage may the better ap∣peare, I will set downe the Canon it selfe, which is this: Placuit, vt Presbyteri, Diaconi, vel inferiores Clerici &c. we haue ordayned that Priests, deacons, and other infe∣riour Clergymen, if in the causes which they shall haue, they complaine of the iudgments of their Bishops, they may be heard by the Bishops their neyghbours &c. And if they shall thinke it necessary to appeale from them, that they appeale not to any, but to the Councells of Africk, or to the Primats of their owne Prouinces; Ad transmarina autem qui putauerit appellandum &c. and he that shall thinke it conuenient to appeale to the parts beyond the seas, shall not be admitted to the communion of any within Africke. Thus saith that Canon. And who seeth not, that those words (qui putauerit appellandum &c. he which thinketh con∣uenient to appeale) are to be referred only to those of whome the Canon expressely speaketh immediatly before (to wit,* 1.78 Priests, and Deacons, and other inferiour Clergymen) and therefore do not any way concerne Bishops, and much lesse exclude all Appeales, as M. Andrewes doth with his transmarinus nemo.

45. To which purpose it is to be considered that this Canon is conforme to another made many yeares before in the great generall Councell of Sardica,* 1.79 ap∣proued by Pope Iulius the first (in which Councell also the Appeales of Bishops to Rome were expressely confirmed) besides that the very Councell of Mil••uis in which this Canon was made,* 1.80 was receaued, and confirmed by Pope Innocentius the first, as it shall ap∣peare further after a whyle. So that this Canon which concerneth only the appeales of inferiour Clergy men, and not of Bishops, and was admitted by the Popes themselues did not any way preiudice the right of Appeales to Rome, or the authority of the sea Apo∣stolicke; and this also may be clearely proued out of S. Augustine himselfe, who writing to the Donatists, and reprehending them for their temerarious presump∣tion in excommunicating, and condēning Caecilianus the Catholike Bishop of Carthage, aduertised them with all of their folly, in that they considered not how vayne their attempt was therin, and how litle cause Caecilian{us} had to care for their sentēce, seing it was free for him to reserue his cause to the iudgement of other Bishops beyond the seas, and especially of the Aposto∣lyke Church, meaning there by especially the Aposto∣lyke Sea of Rome, which he alwayes called the Aposto∣lyke seat, or Apostolike Chayre, per antonomasiam, as it may be noted in diuers places of his workes (whereof I haue alledged some already, and shall haue occasion to alledge others hereafter) insomuch that when he speaketh of the Apostolicke Church, or Apostolicke seat, or Apostolike chaire, without naming any in particuler, he speaketh vndoubtedly of the Roman Church

46. And therefore he saith in the same Epistle to

the Donatists that Caecilianus might well contemne the multitude of his enemyes,* 1.81 seeing that he held com∣munion, as well with the Roman Church) in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit principatus, wherein the principality, or soueragnity of the Apoctolike chayre hath alwayes florished) as with other Catholicke countryes from whence the Ghospell was brought to Africk &c. More∣ouer in the said Epistle he maketh playne distinction betwixt the Appeales of Bishops, and Priests, saying: neque enim de Presbyteris &c.* 1.82 Neyther was the question heere concerning Priests, or Deacons or other Clergy men of the inferiour sort, but concerning our collegues, who may reserue their cause entyre, and whole to the iudgement of other their collegues, and especially of the Apostolicke Chur∣ches. So he: whereby it appeareth, that albeit he signi∣fieth that there was a restraynt of Appeales of Priests, and inferiour Clergy men (according to the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis) yet he graunteth that Bi∣shops had free liberty to appeale out of Africk to the Apostolike Churches, and especially to the Romā Church, wherein (as you haue heard him say before) Apo∣stolicae Cathedrae semper viguit principatus, the soue∣raignty of the Apostolike chayre hath alwayes flori∣shed.

47. And to the end it may appeare, that neyther the Councell of Mileuis,* 1.83 nor yet the petition of the African Synode to Pope Celestinus, did hinder the course of appeales to Rome, or the decision of them in Africk by the Popes authority, I will conclude with some examples very notable for this purpose. The first shalbe of Lupicinus a Bishop of Mauritania in A∣frick, restored to his seat shortly after S. Augustines tyme, by the sentence of Pope Leo,* 1.84 who also sent thi∣ther

a Bishop called Potentius, as his Legate, and the Bishops of Africk admitted him, albeit the African Synod had requested Pope Celestinus to send no more Legats thither.

48. Another example may be of a comission sent by Pope Gregory the Great to an Agent, or officer of his in Africk,* 1.85 called Hilarius, to assemble a Prouinciall Synod there, for the examinatiō of a complaynt made to him by two deacons Felicissimus and Vincentius, a∣gainst Agentius their Bishop, in which commission order was giuen to Hilarius punctually to execute the sentence of the Synod.* 1.86 Also the same Pope, hauing heard the complaints of certayne Priests in Africk a∣gainst Paulinus their Bishop, committed the hearing, and decision of the cause to Victor the primate of Nu∣midia, and Columbus, with other Bishops, giuing them commission to heare and determyn it amongst them∣selues,* 1.87 except they should thinke the assistance of his officer Hilarius needfull for the better determination of the cause.* 1.88 In like manner a complaynt being exhi∣bited to the said Pope by Donadeus a Deacon, against Victor his Bishop, he deputed the foresaid Columbus, and other Bishops to examin the cause, and to punish the Bishop if he were found in fault. And the like com∣mission he gaue also to a Synod of Bishops held at Bi∣zacium in Africk, for the tryall of the cause of Clemen∣tius their Primate.

49. Now then in these examples two things are to be noted, the one that the Popes vsed to decyde ap∣peales, and other controuersyes, in diueres manners, sometymes ordayning and disposing thereof by their Legats or other officers, and sometymes giuing no other commission to their said Legats, and officers, but

to assemble some Prouinciall Synode, and to see the sentence thereof executed: and sometymes againe giuing all power, and authority to the Metropolitan, & Bishops of that country to decyde the causes; which last way, and manner of tryall was no way repugnant to the request of the African Synod in their letter to Pope Celestinus,* 1.89 as I haue signifyed before.

50. The other thinge to be noted, is, that the Popes vsed still iure suo,* 1.90 their owne right (notwith∣standing the forsaid request of the African Synod) yea, and that the Bishops of Africk approued, and acknow∣ledged the same by their obedience, knowing full well that the petitions of their predecessors to Celesti∣nus rested wholy in his will and pleasure, to be gran∣ted, or denied, as he should see cause, whereof ••here fell out shortly after an euident example, and proofe in the Councell of Calcedon: for albeit the Fathers of that famous generall Councell not only made earnest sute to Pope Leo by a common letter to obteyne the second place after Rome for Constantinople, but also or∣dayned, and decreed it by a speciall Canon, neuerthe∣les Pope Leo denyed their sute, disanulled their decree, and forced the Authors thereof to acknowledge their errour, as I haue amply proued in the second (h) 1.91 Chap∣ter; and therefore much more might Pope Celestinus deny the request of a Prouinciall Synode, and might also haue disanulled their decrees, if they had made any preiudiciall to the Roman Sea, as they did not.

51. And now to conclude vpon these premisses 3. things do euidently follow thereon. The first, that [ 1] the Appeales of Bishops from Africk to Rome were ne∣uer prohibited, or so much as interrupted by any de∣crees, or Canons, and much lesse by the letters of the

African Synode to Pope Celestinus. The second that [ 2] the Canon of the Councell of Mileuis which M. An∣drewes seemeth to alledge (as forbidding appeales to Rome, vnder payne of excommunication) did only concerne Priests and Deacons, and other Clergy men of the inferiour sort, and therefore did not prohibite the Appeales of Bishops, and much lesse of all men in generall, besides that being made with the Popes con∣sent it was not any way preiudicall to the authority of the Sea Apostolike. The third, that M. Andrews iug∣leth [ 3] notably with his Reader, when he saith as out of S. Augustine,* 1.92 Ad eum transmarinus nemo appellet &c. To him (that is to say to the Bishop of Rome) let no man appeale from beyond the seas: or if he appeale, he is to be ex∣communicated by Augustine, for neyther those words nor the sense thereof are to be found any where in S. Augustine, who, as you haue seene, expressely taught and practised the contrary. So that transmarinus nemo being set downe by M. Andrews in a different letter to be noted, is indeed worth the noting for a notable fal∣sity, and a flat corruption of the Canon, and abuse of S. Augustine, and of all the Bishops in that Councell. What then shall we say of this mans truth, and fidelity who maketh no bones to bely the Fathers,* 1.93 and corrupt whole Synods? Can any man thinke that he hath any regard of conscience, or shame? Thus much for the second point.

52. And now to say somewhat of the third, he af∣firmeth as you haue heard, that S. Augustine was far from acknowledging the Popes Zosimus, Bonifacius and Celestinus for heads of the Church, whereof you haue already seene the contrary in two of them, to wit Bonifacius, and Celestinus, whose power, and custome

to admit, and determyne Appeales from Africk, S. Augustine clearely acknowledged, and approued in the cause of Antony Bishop of Fussula (as I haue amply (c) 1.94 shewed) which power could not otherwise be due to Bonifacius, and Celestinus, but only in respect of their supreme, and vniuersall authority ouer the whole Church.* 1.95 And that S. Augustine had also the same opi∣nion of Zosimus, it appeareth sufficiently in an Epi∣stle of his to Optatus, to whome he writeth, that he re∣ceaued his letters at Caesarea, quò nos (saith he) iniun∣cta nobis à venerabili Papa Zosimo Apostolicae sedis Episcopo Ecclesiastica necessitas traxerat; whither we were drawne by an Ecclesiasticall necessity, inioyned, or imposed vpon vs by the venerable Pope Zosimus, Bishop of the Apostolicall seat. So he; which may also be confirmed out of Possidius, who writeth, that Litterae sedis Aposto∣licae compulerunt &c. The letters of the Sea Apostolike com∣pelled Augustine with other Bishops to go to Caesarea in Mauritania,* 1.96 to consult and determyne of diuers necessityes of the Church.

53. Whereby it is manifest that S. Augustine ac∣knowledged in Pope Zosimus an Ecclesiasticall power, and authority to impose vpon him, and other Bishops a necessity to obay his commaundements in matters concerning the seruice of God, and the Church, which Zosimus could not do otherwise then as supreme and vniuersall Pastor, or head of the Church, for that the Church of Africk was not otherwise subiect to him, then as all other Churches were. But of Pope Zosimus, and of S. Augustines opinion concerning his Primacy I shall haue occasion to speake further after a while: and in the meane tyme this I hope may suffise to proue that S. Augustine was so far from impugning these

three Popes, that he acknowledged their supreme and vniuersall authority, and consequently that they were heads of the vniuersall Church, notwithstanding M. Andrews his peremptory assertion of the con∣trary, which therefore may passe for another vn∣truth.

54. Whereupon it also followeth, that he forgot himselfe much more when he so confidently affirmed in the first poynt, as you haue heard, that the Bishops of Rome in S. Augustines tyme, were but only heads of the Church of Rome, which I noted before. For the first of the 3. vntruthes, though I remitted the parti∣culer answere thereof vntill I had discouered the other two, because they would not a litle help to the disco∣uery of the first, as you may haue already noted; for it being cleare by all this former discourse that Ap∣peales from Africk to Rome were vsuall, frequent, and neuer prohibited in S. Augustines tyme; and againe that he acknowledged an authority and power in Pope Zosimus to lay iniunctions, & commaundements vpon him, and other Bishops in Africk, it must needs follow that the Bishops of Rome had a more ample au∣thority in his dayes then ouer the particuler Church of Rome.* 1.97 And to the end thou mayst yet haue, good Reader, a more aboundant satisfaction in this poynt, I will say somewhat of all the Popes that liued in S. Au∣gustines tyme who were 8. in all, to wit Liberius (in whose tyme he was borne) Damasus, Siricius, Anasta∣sius, Innocentius, Zosimus, Bonifacius, & Celestinus. And first of Liberius.

55. We read in the Ecclesiasticall history, that certayne Arian heretykes being excommunicated,* 1.98 and deposed from their Bishopricks by the Catholike Bi∣shops

of the East Church sent their Legats to Pope Lib••rius crauing to be restored by his authority, and for as much as they craftily dissembled their heresy, and faygning to be repentant, made open profession of the Catholicke faith, according to the beliefe, and do∣ctrin of the Councell of Nice, they obtayned his letters for their restitution,* 1.99 which they presented at their returne in a Synod held at Tyana, and by vertue thereof were restored, as S. Basil witnesseth, saying, that Eustathius Bishop of Sebasta (who was the chiefe of that Legacy) brought an Epistle (from Liberius) by the which he should be restored, and when he had presented it to the Synod at Tyana, in locum suum restitu∣tus est, he was restored to his place. So he.

56. Whereby it appeareth that the authority of Liberius extended further then to his owne Church of Rome; seeing he could restore Bishops to their seats in the East Church, as also his predecessor Pope Iulius had done not long before, vpon the appeales of the fa∣mous Athanasius deposed by the Arians, and of Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, Asclepa Bishop of Gaza, and Lucian Bishop of Hadria∣nopolis, all of them vniustly expelled from their seats v∣pon diuers pretences; whose causes Iulius discussing (saith the Story) tamquam omnium curam gerens propter propriae Sedis dignitatem singulis reddidit suas Ecclesias, as hauing a care of all for the dignity of his owne seat restored their Churches to euery one of them.* 1.100 So saith Sozom••n in the tripartite history, which I haue thought good to add to the former example of Liberius. For although it fell not out in S. Augustines tyme (where∣of I now specially treate) yet it was not aboue 14. yeares before him, and therefore may well be applyed

to his tyme, as the Eue to the Feast. Besides, that doth demonstrate what was the beliefe of the Ca∣tholike Church at that tyme concerning the su∣preme dignity of the Roman Sea, seeing that not only other Catholike Bishops, but also Athanasius himselfe (who was the mirrour of sanctity, zeale, and inte∣grity in that age) had recourse thereto, as to the su∣preme tribunall on earth, for the reparation of his wrongs; but now to proceed.

57. After Liberius succeeded Damasus,* 1.101 whose vni∣uersall authority is sufficiently testified euen by the A∣frican Bishops, whome M. Andrewes maketh most op∣posit to the Roman Sea. This may be veryfied by an Epistle of 3. Councells of Africk, and the Archbishop Stephanus, who wrote to Pope Damasus, giuing him the title of most Blessed Lord, raysed to the heyght of Apo∣stolicall dignity,* 1.102 holy Father of Fathers, Damasus Pope, and chiefe Bishop of Prelats, and in the Epistle it selfe they do clearely acknowledge the supremacy of his sea, cōplayning of certayne Bishops their neyghbours who without his consent, or knowledge had presumed to depose Bishops, which they said was against the decrees of all the Fathers, and ancient rules, and Ca∣nons of the Church, by the which (say they) sancitum est, vt quicquid horum vel in remotis &c. it was decreed, that whatsoeuer should be treated, though in remote, and far distant Prouinces, concerning these matters (that is to say the deposition of Bishops, and other im∣portant affiayres of the Church) the same should not be receiued, nisi ad notitiam almae Sedis vestrae fuisset de∣ductum &c. except it were brought to the knowledge of your holy seat, to the end, that whatsoeuer should be resolued might be confirmed with the authority thereof: thus wrot

they,* 1.103 and much more to the same purpose, calling him also, ipsum Apostolicum verticem Praesulum, the very Apo∣stolicall top (or head) of Prelats.

58. And therefore no meruaile, that another Father of the same tyme,* 1.104 calleth him the gouernour of the Church of God; expounding these words of the A∣postle to Timothy: Ecclesia est domus Dei viui &c. where∣upon he saith, Ecclesia domus Dei dicitur, cuius rector hodie est Damasus: the Church is called the house of God, the gouernour whereof at this day, is Damasus So he; wherto I may add a notable testimony of S Hierome, who wryting also to Damasus to know of him, with whome he might communicate in Syria, and whether he might vse the word hypostasis, affirmed that he held Cōm••nion with his Beatitude, that is to say (saith he) with Peters Chayre, and that he knew the Church to be buylt vpon the rock, inferring thereupon, that whosoeuer did eate the Lambe out of that house (he meaneth the commu∣nion of Damasus, or of Peters Chayre) he was a profane man, and out of the Arck of Noe: wherupon I infer, that S. Hierome affirming the Church to be built vpon Da∣masus, acknowledgeth him to be head thereof, for the reason vrged (c) 1.105 before by me in the last chapter, to wit, because the head of a mysticall, or politicall body, and the foundation in a buylding are all one; besyds that he also acknowledgeth the same, by exclu∣ding all those from the vnity of the Church, who did not hold communication with Damasus, because the vnity of the body is deriued principally from the vnity of the head thereof, according to the expresse doctrin of S. Cyprian, which I haue also amply layd downe in the last (d) 1.106 Chapter.

59. Finally, S. Hierome demanding resolution

from Damasus with whome he should cōmunicate in Syria (where was then a great Schisme) and whe∣ther he might vse the word hypostasis, sheweth, that Damasus had authority to determyne,* 1.107 and decyde con∣trouersies and resolue doubts, or difficult questions in matter of religion; and therfore S. Hierome saith vnto him, Discernite, siplacet, obsecro, non timebo tres hypostases dicere, si iubetis: I beseech you iudge, or determyne, if it please you, for I will not feare to say that there are three hypostases, if you command me. And againe afterwards; Quamobr••m obtestor Beatitudinem tuam per crucifixum &c. Therefore I beseech your Beatitud for Christs sake cru∣cified, and for the consubstantiall Trinity, that authority may be giuen me by your letters, eyther to vse, or to for∣beare the word hypostasis &c. as also that you will signifie vnto me, with whome I may communicate at Antioch; for that the Campenses, and the heretikes called Tharsenses being vnited togeather, nihil aliud ambiunt, quàm vt au∣ctoritate communionis vestrae fulti &c. do seeke nothing more, or with greater ambition, then that being vpheld with the authority of your communion, they may vse the word hypostasis in the old sense. So he.

60. Wherin two thinges are to be noted, the one that S. Hierome doth not aske counsaile or aduise of Pope Damasus, but a definitiue sentence (vt auctori∣tas detur, that authority be giuen him) that is to say, that Damasus should by his letters determin and ordein what S. Hierome should doe in those cases. The other is that not only the Catholikes in the East parts (as S. Hierome and the Aegyptians, whome he also called the collegues of Damasus) but also the heretyks sought to fortifie themselues, by the communion and authority of the Sea Apostolike. Whereupon two things do also

follow euidently: the one, that Damasus had power to decyde and determyne controuersies euen in the East Church; and the other, that his authority was not re∣streyned to his owne Church at Rome, as M. Andrews seemeth to suppose, but was vniuersall, and therefore acknowledged as well in the East, as in the West.

61. This may be notably confirmed by the resti∣tution of Peter Bishop of Alexandria to his seat, who immediatly succeeded Athanasius, and being oppressed by the Arians, followed the example of his worthy pre∣decessour, and fled to Rome to Pope Damasus,* 1.108 and re∣turning with his letters (which confirmed as well his creation, as the Catholike faith) was restored by the people, qui illis confisus (saith Socrates) expollit Lucium, & Petrum in eius locum introducit; who by the vertue of those letters expelled Lucius the Arrian Bishop, and put Peter into his place.

62. Also Vitalis an heretike in Antioch being ac∣cused to Pope Damasus of heresy, was forced to come to Rome to purge himselfe:* 1.109 and albeit after he had there professed himselfe to be a Catholike, he was remitted by Pope Damasus to Paulinus Bishop of Antioch for his final absolution, yet Damasus prescribed to Paulinus a forme of abiuration, whereto Vitalis should subscribe; which being done Paulinus absolued him. Whereby it is euident that Damasus had a supreme authority as well in the East, or Greeke Church, as in the West; for o∣therwise neyther would Peter Bishop of Alexandria (who was a very holy man) haue appealed vnto him, nor the people haue receaued Peter by the vertue of his letters; neither yet would Vitalis haue gone from An∣tioch to purge himselfe at Rome, nor Paulinus Bishop of Antioch permitted that Damasus should intermeddle in

matters pertayning to his charge.

63. And this may yet further appeare by the ear∣nest endeuours of S. Chrysostome then Bishop of Con∣stantinople, and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria to pa∣cify Damasus towards Flauianus Bishop of Antioch;* 1.110 who had committed periury, and byn the cause of a great diuision and trouble in the Church, for the re∣medy wherof they sent Embassadours to Rome to per∣swade Damasus that it was necessary for the good of the Church,* 1.111 that he should pardon the offence of Flauianus, for the concord and peace of the people; which being graunted by Damasus: & communione (saith Socrates) Flauiano ad hunc modum reddita: and Flauianus being by this meanes restored to the communion of the Church, the people of Antioch were in tyme reduced to concord, and vni∣on with him.

64. Whereto Theodoretus addeth,* 1.112 that the Empe∣rour Theodosius in the tyme partly of Pope Damasus, and partly of his successor Syricius and Anastasius, la∣boured to procure the reconciliation of Flauianus with the sea Apostolick, and commaunded him to goe to Rome to answere for himselfe which he promised to doe in the spring following, though he did not per∣forme it. Finally the Emperour made his peace with the Pope in the end, vpon condition that Flauianus should send his Embassadours to Rome, which he did (saith Theodoretus) with a sollemne embassadge of Bi∣shops, Priests, and Deacons, vnder Acacius Bishop of Berroea, who was at that tyme a man of great fame; whereupon all the Bishops of Aegipt (who vntill then would not communicat with him) admitted him to their communion. So that albeit the Historiographers do differ concerning the tyme when Flauianus was re∣concyled

with the Pope, yet they all agree, that he could neuer be fully restored to the peace, and com∣munion of the vniuersall Church, vntill he had sub∣mitted himselfe to the Roman Sea, which sheweth eui∣dently that the Bishops of Rome had far greater and more ample authority, then M. Andrewes doth affoard them. Thus much concerning Damasus.

* 1.11365. And now to come to his successor Syricius, it is euident euen in this cause of Flauianus (by the te∣stimony of S. Ambrose) that his authority extended it selfe to the Greek, and Eastern Church, no lesse then to the Latin, and West Church; seeing that in a Synod held at Capua,* 1.114 the hearing of Flauianus his cause was committed to Theoph••lus Bishop of Alexandria, and to the Bishop of Aegipt, with this limitation (as S. Am∣brose witnesseth) that the approbation, and confir∣mation of their sentence should be reserued to the Ro∣man Sea, and the Bishop thereof, who was then Syricius. In like manner we fynd that his authority was admit∣ted and acknowledged not only in Spayne, and France, but also in Africk,* 1.115 as it may appeare by his Decretall Epistle writtē to Himerius, or Himericus Bishop of Ar∣ragon in Spayne, in answere of diuers demaunds of his, in which epistle he ordayned that those his decrees should be sent by Himerius, as well to Carthage in A∣frick, as to Portugal, and France, and that they should be of no lesse force there, and els where, then in Ar∣ragon.

66. To this will I add a testimony of an African Father that liued in the tyme of Siricius,* 1.116 to wit of Op∣tatus Bishop of Mileuis, who clearely deduceth the pri∣macy of Syricius from the primacy of S. Peter: for wri∣ting against Parmenian the Donatist, and vrging him

that he could not deny but that Petrus omnium Apostolo∣rum caput, Peter the head of all the Apostles sate first in the Roman chayre (wherof he also yieldeth these reasons, viz. that in the said chaire vnity might be kept of all men,* 1.117 that the rest of the Apostles should not euery one of them defend or callenge to himselfe a single chayre, and that he might be held for a Schismatik, and a wiked man who should set vp a chaire contra singularem Ca∣thedram, against the singular, or principall chayre) ha∣uing, I say, vrged this, he reckoneth all the Popes from S. Peter to his tyme, ending with Syricius, and conclu∣ding, that because the Donatists held not communi∣on with him, therefore they could not haue the true Church.

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

68. Therefore (omitting heere how aptly this may be applyed to M. Andrews and his fellowes as well as to the Donatists) that which I wish specially to be obserued, is, that Optatus being an African acknow∣ledged

the same soueraignty in Syricius which he affir∣med to be in S. Peter: for whereas he calleth him not only the head of the Apostles, but also Principem nostrum, our Prince; it is cleare that the principality, and soue∣raignty of Peter in the tyme of Optatus, could not be otherwise vnderstood, but in his successor Syricius, who consequently was Prince, and head of the Church as Peter was.

69. The very same is taught also by S. Augustine concerning Pope Anastasius,* 1.118 who succeeded Syricius; for S. Augustine presseth the Donatists with the same ar∣gument that Optatus doth, and naming all the Popes vntill his owne tyme,* 1.119 he endeth with Anastasius, ha∣uing first deriued their lineall succession from S. Peter, Cui, saith he, totius Ecclesiae figuram gerenti &c. to whome bearing the figure of the whole Church our Lord sayd: Vpon this rock I will buyld my Church: wherein it is to be no∣ted, that S. Augustine acknowledging the primacy of S Peter, in saying, that the Church was built vpon him, and that he bare the figure of the whole Church (which he did not in any other respect but because he was head thereof, as I haue proued in the first Chapter of this Adioynder) he acknowledgeth the same in his successors, and namely in Anastasius, whome therefore he draweth by lyneall succession from S. Peter: and to this purpose it may be also obserued, that elswhere he ascribeth the great prerogatiue of S. Peter (to wit his being the rock, or foundation whereupon the Church was buylt) to his chayre, or seat, and to the succession of Bishops deriued from him, bidding the Donatists reckon the Priests,* 1.120 that had succeeded one another in Peters seat, and then concluding, Ipsa est Petra &c. that is the rock which the proud gates of hell doe not ouer∣come:

whereby it is euident, that S. Augustine ac∣knowledged Anastasius, and all other successors of S. Peter for heads of the vniuersall Church, seeing he a∣ffirmeth them to be the foundation thereof.

70. This may be confirmed also by a Canon of an African Synod, where it was decreed, that letters should be sent to their brethren and fellow-Bishops abroad,* 1.121 and especially to the Sea Apostolike, to informe Anastasius, who then was Pope, how necessary it was for the Church of Africk, that such Donatists as being Clergy men should returne to the vnity of the Catho∣like Church, might be receiued and admitted, without preiudice to their former dignityes, if the Catholike Bishops that should receiue them, should thinke it conuenient, notwithstanding a Decree made to the contrary before, in another Synod held beyond the seas: whereby it appeareth that notwithstanding the great need which the Africā Church had of this decree (as they signifyed) yet they would not ordayne it without his knowledge and consent or rather, as it seemeth, they expected his leaue, and order to do it, and no meruail seeing that in other Synods and name∣ly in the next following in the tyme of his immediate successor Innocentius* 1.122 (of whome I am now to treat) the African Bishops craued confirmation of their de∣crees from the Sea Apostolike;* 1.123 vt statutis, say they, nostrae mediocritatis etiam Apostolicae Sedis adhibeatur au∣ctoritas &c. That the authority of the Sea Apostolike may also be added to the statutes of our mediocrity, to conserue the saluation of many, and to correct the peruersity of some.

71. Thus wrote they to Pope Innocentius, giuing clearely to vnderstand, not only that the validity of

their decrees depended vpon his confirmation, but al∣so that the conseruation of the faithfull in the true faith and the correction of peruerse, and obstinate heretiks did specially belong to his care, and proceed from his authority. This will further appeare by another Epi∣stle written to the same Pope Innocentius by them in another Synod held at Mileuis,* 1.124 as also by his answere to them. Thus then they wrote: Quia te Dominus gra∣tiae suae praecipuo munere in Sede Apostolica collocauit &c. Because our Lord hath by his speciall guift of his grace placed thee in the Apostolicall seat, and ordayned thee to be such a one in these our tymes that we should rather cōmit the fault of negligence if we should con∣ceale from thy Reuerence those things that are to be suggested for the Church, then that thou canst eyther disdayne them, or contemne them; therefore we be∣seech thee, to vse and apply thy Pastorall diligence to the great dangers of the weaker members of Christ &c. So they, whereby they shewed sufficiently their opinion concerning as well the worthynes of his per∣son, as his Pastorall power and authority ouer all the members of Christ; as it will more euidently appeare by his answere, whic•• was this.

72. Diligenter & congruè Apostolico consulitis honori &c.* 1.125 You do diligently, and conueniently prouyde for the Apostolicall honour, I meane the honour of him, who besides other intrinsecall things, hath the sollici∣tude, or care of all Churches (to declare what sentence is to be held in doubtfull matters) wherein truely you follow the rule that you know hath bene kept with me alwayes throughout the whole world &c. So he: and a litle after, he saith further, that as often as there is question of matter of faith, all Bishops ought to referre

all that which is for the generall good of the Church to Peter, the authour of their name, and honour•• giuing to vnderstand that all Episcopall honour and dignity, and other Ecclesiasticall authority proceedeth imme∣diatly from the visible head of the Church vnder Christ, that is to say, S. Peter, and his successors; and that therefore the cōdemnation of heresyes, & deter∣mination of all doubts in faith ought to be expected and required specially from them.

73. And to the end that M. Andrews may know that Pope Innocentius did not in this vrge his owne A∣postolicall authority more then S. Augustine, and the other African Bishops approued; I wish him to read an Epistle of S. Augustine, and Alypius, where hauing sayd that relations were sent ex duobus Concilijs, Catha∣ginensi, & Mileuitano ad Apostolicam sadem,* 1.126 from the two Councells of Carthage, and Mileuis to the Sea A∣postolike, they add afterwards (concerning the an∣swere of Pope Innocentius) ad omnia illa rescripsit ••o mo∣do, quo fas erat, atque oportebat Apostolicae sedis Antisti∣tem: he (to wit Innocentius) wrote backe or answered to all things in such sort as was conuenient, and as the Bishop of the Apostolike Sea ought to do. So they; ap∣prouing as you see, not only the substance, and matter of his Epistle, but also his Apostolicall manner of wri∣ting, acknowledging it to be fit for a man of his Apo∣stolicall dignity. So that it appeareth as well by the Epistle of the African Bishops to Pope Innocentius, as also by his answere to them, and their approbation thereof,* 1.127 that the Bishops of Rome in those dayes had, and exercysed a supreme authority in the confirmation of Synods, resolution of doubts, and condemnation of heresyes, and heretikes.

* 1.12874. Whereof there occurred at that tyme a nota∣ble example in the condemnation of the Pelagian here∣sy: for although the African Bishops did particulerly condemne it in their prouinciall Synods (which could not prescrybe lawes to the whole Church, yet the ge∣nerall and vniuersall condemnation thereof, through∣out the world proceeded from the authority of the Sea Apostolyke, and the seuerall sentences of the two Popes Innocentius, an Zosimus, which they signifyed in their letters not only to the Bishops of Africk, but also to all Bishops vniuersally, in respect of the vni∣uersall care,* 1.129 and authority they had ouer the whole Church. And therefore S. Augustine saith, that the heretikes, Pelagius & Celestius were, toto Christiano orbe dānati, cond̄ened throughout all the Christian world, by the vigilācy of the Episcopall Synods of Africk, etiā à Venerabilibus Antistitibus Apostolicae sedis Papa Innocen∣tio, & Papa Zosimo, and by the venerable Bishops of the Apostolick Sea, Pope Innocentius, and Pope Zosi∣mus.

75. Thus saith S. Augustine; which his great friend Possidius Bishop of Calama (who wrote his life) confirmeth,* 1.130 and explicateth notably, signifying that the 2. Popes Innocētius and Zosimus did (at the great instance of the Councell of Africk) cut off the Pelagi∣ans, from the members of the Church, and by letters dire∣cted to the Churches, as well of Africk, as of the East, and West, iudge them to be held as accursed, and to be auoyded of all Catholikes, Et hoc tale, saith he, de illis Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae pronuntiatum iudicium, etiam pijssi∣mus Imperator Honorius audiens & sequens &c. and the most pious Emperour Honorius hearing, and following this such a notable Iudgmēt of the Catholike Church

of God pronounced against them, condemned them by his lawes,* 1.131 and ordayned that they should be held for here∣tikes. So he; wherein three things are specially to be noted. The first, that the Pelagian heresy was condem∣ned vniuersally by the authority of the Sea Apostolike, to wit, by the sentence of the Popes Innocentius and Zo∣simus, signified by their letters, not only to the Chur∣ches [ 1] of Africk, but also to all other Churches; in which respect S. Augustine also in his foresaid Epistle to Opta∣tus,* 1.132 aduertiseth him, that he sent him the copies of such writings, and letters of the Sea Apostolike, as were come to his hands, concerning those matters, addressed eyther particulerly to the Bishops of Africk, or vniuer∣sally to all Bishops.

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

77. And now to proceed, if M. Andrews do yet desire any further proofe of this matter,* 1.133 let him read S. Prosper S. Augustines disciple, who sayth that a Synod of 217. Bishops being held at Carthage, their Synodicall decrees were sent to Zosimus: quibus probatis, per totum 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

mundum haeresis Pelagiana condemnata &c. which being approued, the Pelagian heresy was condemned though∣out the whole world. And againe in another place he saith of Innocentius: Tunc Pelagianorum, machinae fractae sunt &c. and then were the engines of the Pelagians bro∣ken, when Innocentius of blessed memory stroke the heads of their wicked errour with his Apostolicall sword.* 1.134 So he, and a litle after he affirmeth the like of Pope Zosimus who added, saith he, the force of his sentence to the de∣crees of the African Councell, and armed the right hands of Bishops with the sword of Peter, ad detruncationem im∣piorum, for the excommunication of the wicked. So he; giuing to vnderstand, that not only the force of the African Synods against the Pelagians, but also the general condemnation of them throughout the world, proceeded from the authority of the Roman Sea: wher∣upon it must needs follow, that the said authority was vniuersall, and that the Bishops of that Sea (and name∣ly Innocentius and Zosimus) were more then Caput Ecclesiae suae Romanae, heads of their Church of Rome.

78. And albeit this might suffice cōcerning these two Popes; yet I cannot omit the most famous,* 1.135 and sollemne appeale of S. Chrysostome to one of them (to wit to Innocentius) to whome he sent 4. Bishops to complayne of his vniust banishment procured by Theo∣philus Bishop of Alexandria, and wrote also himselfe vnto him thus: Obsecro, vt scribat &c. I beseech you write, and decree by your authority that these thinges which were so vniustly done (when I was absent,* 1.136 aud did not refuse to be iudged) may be of no force (as indeed of their owne nature they are not) and that those which haue done so vniustly, may be subiect to the penalty of the Ecclesiasticall lawes &c.

Thus wrote S. Chrisostome with much more to the same purpose which he would not haue donne, if he had thought that the authority of Innocentius had byn lymited within the particuler Church of Rome, or ra∣ther if he had not knowne that his authority was vni∣uersall and sufficient to determyne his cause,* 1.137 which al∣so was euident by the progresse and issue of the matter; for not only he as playntife appealed to Innocentius, but also Theophilus, as defendant sent a Priest of his called Peter with letters to iustifie his cause; besids that all the Bishops of the East,* 1.138 and Greek Church (being in this controuersy deuided) sent messingers or letters to Rome in fauour of the one, or of the other, as wit∣nesseth Palladius Bishop of Helenopolis,* 1.139 who was S. Christostomes disciple, and went also to Rome to prose∣cute his cause, and further testifyeth that Pope Inno∣centius gaue sentence for S. Chrysostome, disanulling the act, and iudgment of Theophilus.

79. And whereas Atticus was made Bishop of Constantinople after the expulsion of S. Chrystostome,* 1.140 In∣nocentius suspended him frō his Episcopall function, vntill the causes should be fully heard,* 1.141 and determi∣ned, ordayning that in the meane tyme Proclus Bishop of Cyzicum should gouerne the Church of Constātinople. And albeit Innocentius forbare for sometyme to pro∣ceed against Theophilus by way of censure; yet after S. Chrysostomes death (who dyed in banyshment within 3. yeares) he excommunicated not only Theophilus, and Atticus for the excesses cōmitted on their part, but also Arcadius the Emperour, and Eudoxia the Empresse for assisting them with their Imperiall authority, as Georgius Alexandrinus, Gennadius, Glicas, and Nicephorus do testify. Finally although Theophilus remayned ob∣stinate

so long as he liued (which was not past 5. yeares after S. Chrysostomes death) yet he dyed repen∣tant, and Atticus after much suite and many Embassa∣ges sent (as Theodoretus testifyeth) was reconcyled to the Roman Church. As also Arcadius the Emperour vpon his submission, and humble petition of pardon was absolued by Pope Innocentius as appeareth by the letters of them both, which are set downe in Glycas. And thus passed this matter,* 1.142 which alone may suffice to proue the supreme, and vniuersall authority of In∣nocentius.

80. And as for Zosimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus, who succeeded Innocentius and were the 3. last Popes of the 8. that liued in S. Augustins tyme, I shall not need to say much, seeing that I haue already spoken sufficiently of them as of Zosimus a litle (a) 1.143 before, con∣cerning the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy, be∣sides a former (b) 1.144 testimony of S. Augustine, touching an assembly of himselfe, and other African Bishops at Cesaraea, by the inuention or commaundment of Pope Zosimus. In like manner I haue (c) 1.145 shewed before that not only S. Augustine, but also the Primate of Numidia in Africk acknowledged the primacy of the Popes Bo∣nifacius, and Celestinus by recommending to them the cause betwixt Antony Bishop of Fussula, and the people of that Diocesse, whereto neuertheles I thinke good to add concerning Bonifacius, that it appeareth by his letters to the Bishops of 7. Prouinces in France, that * 1.146the Clergy of the Citty of Valentia sent to him a bill of complaynt with the testimony of the whole Pro∣uince against Maximus an hereticall Bishop of the Ma∣nichaean sect, accusing him of many haynous crymes, and that thereupon Bonifacius did delegate the hearing

of the cause to the said Bishops,* 1.147 whereby it is euident that his power, and authority was not confyned with∣in the Church of Rome.

81. And now to conclude with Celestinus, who was the last of the 8. methinks M. Andrews should not be ignorant how far his authority, and Iurisdiction extended, seeing that, it cannot be denyed that he was President and head of the generall Councell of Ephesus, and that the famous S. Cyril Bishop of Ale∣xandria was but his substitute, and Legate therein, which is euident not only by the testimony (a) 1.148 of Hi∣storiographers but also by the letters of Celestinus to (b) 1.149 Cyrillus to whome he wrote thus: Adiuncta tibi no∣strae sedis auctoritate ipse qui vice nostra potestate{que} fungeris &c. Thou which holdest our place and power (the authority of our seat concurring with thee) shalt with all euerity pro∣nounce this sentence against Nestorius, that if within 10. daies after this admonition, he do not detest and renounce his wicked doctrine &c. Thou shalt prouide his Church (of a Pastor) and he shall vnderstand that he is excluded from our communion &c.

82. Thus wrote Celestinus to Cyril, who therefore in his (c) 1.150 letters, to Nestorius signifyed vnto him, that if he did not recant, and reforme his errours within the tyme limited, and prescrybed by Pope Celestinus, he should be excommunicated, and depriued. And the whole Councell also pronouncing (d) 1.151 sentence of con∣demnation against Nestorius, affirmed, that they were compelled to vse that seuerity not only by the Canons of the Church, but also by the letters of Pope Celestinus: and (f) 1.152 in their Epistle to the said Pope they signifyed, that they reserued, and remitted the cause of Iohn the Patriarch of Antioch (who was a fauourer of (g) 1.153 Nesto∣rius,)

to his iudgment and sentence. Besides that Ni∣cephorus testifieth that the common fame was in his time, that certayne priuiledges were graunted to S. Cyril, (which also his successours enioyed) by reason of his Legacy, and substitution to Pope Celestinus in that Councell and amongst other things that he had the title of Iudex vniuersi orbis, Iudge of the whole world.

* 1.15483. Now then I report me to thee, good Reader, whether Celestinus was no more then the head of his Church of Rome as M. Andrews maketh him. For is it likely that eyther S. Cyrill (who was Bishop of Alex∣andria, and consequently the first and chiefe Patriarke of the East) would haue stouped to be his substitute and Legate, and to receiue commissions and orders from him, or yet that the whole Councell, (beeing most of them also of the Greeke and East Church) would haue acknowledged themselues to be compel∣led by his letters to condemne Nestorius, yea and re∣mitted the cause of the second Patriarke of the Greeke Church to his finall determination, if they had not ta∣ken him for the vniuersall and supreme Pastour of the whole Church? As I shewed also the like be∣fore in the second (d) 1.155 Chapter of this Adioynder, con∣cerning the authority of Pope Leo in the great Coun∣cell of Chalcedon, which was held in the same age, not past 20. yeares after this other of Ephesus. So that M. Andrewes cānot by any meanes excuse himselfe from a manifest lye in this, no more then in other two poynts before mentioned.

* 1.15684. Whereby it appeareth euidently that he hath made 3. notable lyes as I may say with one breath, that is to say within litle more then 3. lynes, Besyds an

egregious corruption of the Canon, of the African Sy∣nod (with his transmarinus nemo) and a foule abuse as well of S. Augustine (in making him say, that which he neyther sayd, nor meant) as also of his Reader in seeking to perswade him, that S. Augustine excom∣municated all those that would appeale to Rome out of Africk, yea and cured Peters-diseases in the 3. last Popes; for so he also saith, in quibus tamen eumdem morbum curauit, in whome, to wit (Zosimus Bonifacius, and Celestinus) Augustine cured the same diseases (that is to say the diseases of Peter) meaning as I take it, eyther Peters presumptiō of his owne strength or els his denyall of Christ: which neuertheles I cannot see how he can apply to them, and much lesse pre∣tend that S. Augustine cured the same diseases in them.

85. Therefore whereas his drift was no other in all this, as it seemeth but to perswade thee (good Rea∣der) that S. Augustine was at daggers drawing with these 3. Popes, thou hast partly seene already by that which hath bene said concerning two of them to wit Zosimus, & Celestinus, how much he hath sought to a∣buse thee therin, & the like will also euidently appeare concerning Pope Bonifacius, if thou consider with what affection,* 1.157 reuerend respect, and submission S. Augustine dedicated vnto him his 4. bookes a∣gainst two Epistles of the Pelagians writing to him thus:

86. Noueram te quidem fama celeberrima praedicante &c. I knew thee truely before,* 1.158 by the most famous report of thy renoumne, and vnderstood by many most frequent, and true relations, how aboundantly thou art replenished with Gods grace (most blessed and venerable Pope Boniface)

but after that my brother Alipius, had seene thee, and been receiued by thee with all benignity and sincerity &c. I had so much more notice of thy Holinesse, by how much more certeyne is our amity; for thou, who takest no gust, or de∣light in high things (though thou art in a higher degree then others) dost not disdayne to be a friend to the meane and inferiour sort. So he; and afterwards hauing signi∣fyed that he had vndertaken to write against 2. epi∣stles of the Pelagians, he concludeth: Haec ergo quae duabus Epistolis &c. These things therefore which I doe answere in this disputation to two Epistles of the Pelagians, I haue determyned to direct specially to thy Holynes, not as things needfull to be learned by you but to be examined, and amended if any thing do chance to dislyke you. Thus wrote S. Augustine to Pope Bonifacius: being so far from ha∣uing any auersion or alienation from him, and much more from presumyng to cure any diseases in him (that is to say to correct any errours in his person or gouern∣ment) that he shewed all dutifull loue and reuerend affection towards him, giuing notable testimony to his rare vertue, & sanctity, and not only acknowledging the dignity of his seat, but also submitting himselfe and his workes to his censure, and Iudgment, to be examined corrected, and amended by him as he should see cause, whereby it appeareth that S. Augustine liued in perfect vnion with Pope Bonifacius.

87. And in what tearmes he stood with Pope Celestinus (though we may gather it sufficiently by his owne letter (a) 1.159 before mentioned concerning the Bishop of Fussula) yet it shall not be amisse to vnder∣stand it also by the testimony of Celestinus himselfe. It is therefore to be vnderstood that S. Augustine dying in the tyme of Pope Celestinus, and his workes (especi∣ally

those against the Pelagians) being by their practise much impugned and defamed in France S. Prosper who had been a disciple (as I haue sayd before) of S. Augustine, and was then Bishop of Aquitane, went pur∣posely to Rome togeather with Hilarlus Bishop of Arles, to complayne thereof & to procure the letters of Pope Celestinus in iustifycation of him, and his workes: Whereupon Celestinus wrote a generall letter to all the Bishops of France, as well in defence of S. Augustine, as in condemnation of the Pelagians, and amongst o∣ther things sayth of S. Augustine thus:* 1.160 Augustinum sanctae record••tionis virum pro vita sua & meritis in nostra semper communione habiumus &c. We haue alwayes held Augu∣stine, of holy memory, in our communion for his life, and merits: neyther was he euer toucht with so much as any ru∣mor of euill suspition, whome we haue knowne to haue been so learned,* 1.161 that he was held by my predecessours for one of the chiefe, or best maisters. So he.

88. Whereby it is euident that S. Augustine euer liued in the vnion and obedience of the Roman Sea, for otherwyse Pope Celestinus would not haue giuen this testimony of him especially if he had byn so opposit to him, and his predecessours as M. Andrewes affirmeth, I meane if he had taken vpon him not only to correct, and reforme them, and to excommunicate euery one that should appeale to them out of Africk, but also to deny and impugne their supreme, and vniuersall au∣thority which all Christendome acknowledged at that tyme, as I haue euidently shewed So that now I leaue it to thee, good Reader, to consider whether M. Andrews hath not (as it pleased him to say of S. Peter) caput morbidum, & verticem malè sanum, being so possest and opprest with the peccant, or rather pestilent here∣ticall

humour of lying, that it floweth out of his mouth in such aboundance, as we see. And therefore where∣as he pretendeth to descend of the race of Phisitians, and to be one of those Medicorum filij, who make speci∣all profession to pry into the diseases of Popes,* 1.162 I may truly say that whosoeuer was his Grand father (were he Phisitian, or Apothecary) his father could be no other but the Father of lyes, from whome he hath con∣tracted this pestiferous, and diuelish disease, which therefore being hereditary is, as it may be feared, in∣curable: in which respect we may more truely say of his head, then he said of ours, nec est sanum, nec vt videtur, sanabile.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Card. Bel∣lar. Apolo. c. 8. pag. 125 Suppl. cap. 4 nu. 15. S. Basil. in serm. de iu∣dicio Dei. Andr. cap. 8. p. 218. §. Ex Basilio.
• * 1.2

  How S. Peter may be sayd to be a Mo∣narch.
• * 1.3

  Chap. 3. nu. 39.40. & 41.
• * 1.4

  Andr. vbi supra. A vaine cauill of M. An∣drews.
• (c) 1.5

  Cap. 1. nu. 3.4. & 5.
• (a) 1.6

  Card. Bellar. Apolog. vbi supra.
• (b) 1.7

  Suppl. cap. 4. nu. 10. S. Greg. Nazianzen orat. de moderat. &c.
• * 1.8

  Andr. vbi supra.
• * 1.9

  A place of S. Grego∣ry Nazi∣an. expli∣cated and vrged.
• * 1.10

  M. An∣drews im∣pertinent trifling.
• * 1.11

  Suppl. cap. 4. nu. 15. Card. Apol. vbi supra.
• * 1.12

  S. Chrysost•• ho. 55. in Matth.
• * 1.13

  Andr. cap. 8. pag. 219.
• * 1.14

  Chrysost. vbi supra.
• * 1.15

  Idem ibid.
• * 1.16

  Idem. ho. 3. in Acta Apost.
• * 1.17

  A notable discourse of S. Chry∣sostome prouing S. Peters Supre∣macy.
• * 1.18

  A stale trifeling conceyt touching the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 againe brought in by M. Andrews
• * 1.19

  Bellar. de Rom. Pon. lib. 3. cap. 10. §. Se∣cunda opinio.
• * 1.20

  A drea∣ming fancy of M. An∣drews.
• * 1.21

  Chap. 3. n••. 39.40. & 41.
• * 1.22

  Card. Bell. Apolog. vbi supra. Supple. chap. 4.
• * 1.23

  Aug. Ser. 124. de tempore quiest pri∣mus feriae•• 4. post Domin. Palma.
• * 1.24

  Andr. vbi sup.
• * 1.25

  M. An∣drewes bold as∣sertion without all proofe.
• * 1.26

  Possidius in vita Augustin. Indic. Pos∣sid. cap. 9. & 10.
• * 1.27

  Ibidem.
• * 1.28

  Sermons were made de tempore both in the Latin•• and in the Greeke Church in S. Augu∣stins tyme.
• * 1.29

  Ambros. To. 5. Serm de tempore.
• * 1.30

  S. Maxi∣mus.
• * 1.31

  Gennadius de viris Il∣lustrib.
• * 1.32

  Gregor. Nyssen.
• * 1.33

  Gregor. Nazian.
• * 1.34

  Chrysost. To. 3.
• * 1.35

  Andr. vbi supra.
• * 1.36

  M. An∣drews ra∣uing fit.
• * 1.37

  S•• Peters fall no preiudice to his Pri∣macy.
• * 1.38

  S. Aug. ser. 124. de temp.
• * 1.39

  S. Augu∣stine tea∣cheth that S. Peter was per∣mitted to fall be∣cause he was to be supreme head of the Church.
• * 1.40

  The same also taught by S. Chry∣sostome.
• * 1.41

  S. Chrysost. hom. in S. Petrum & Eliam.
• * 1.42

  S. Greg. ho. 21. in E∣uangel.
• * 1.43

  Another place of S. Augu∣stine ac∣knowled∣ging S. Peters su∣premacy notwith∣standing his fall. See Andr. cap. 1. pag. 16. lin. 17.
• * 1.44

  Aug. de agone Christ. cap. 30.
• * 1.45

  See before Chap. 1. nu. 3.4. & 5.
• * 1.46

  Cyril. in cap. vlt. Ioan.
• * 1.47

  Vbi supra nu. 23. & 24.
• * 1.48

  Bellar. de Rom. Pont li. 1. c. 25.
• * 1.49

  O caput elleboro dignum!
• * 1.50

  The later hereticks do follow the old.
• (b) 1.51

  Aug. de Vnit. E••cl. ca. 12.
• (c) 1.52

  Epiphā. haer. 75.
• (d) 1.53

  Hieron aduers. Vigilant.
• (f) 1.54

  Idem. contra Io∣uin.
• (g) 1.55

  See be∣fore chap. 3. nu. 34. & 35. Aug. de vtilitate credendi cap. 17.
• * 1.56

  Marc. 14.
• * 1.57

  Matth. 26.
• * 1.58

  M An∣drews zeale grea∣ter then his wit.
• * 1.59

  A good recipe for M. An∣drews.
• * 1.60

  Three notorious lyes.
• * 1.61

  Concer∣ning the prohibi∣tion of ap∣peals from Afrike to Rome ob∣iected by M. An∣drews.
• * 1.62

  Bellar. de Rom. Pont l. 2. c. 25. Baron. an. 419.
• * 1.63

  A contro∣uersy be∣twixt the Bishops of Africk, & the Sea of Rome cō∣cerning the prose∣cution of Appeals.
• * 1.64

  Three wayes vsed in the prose∣cution & decision of appea∣les.
• (d) 1.65

  infra nu. 47.48. & 49.
• * 1.66

  Ibid.
• * 1.67

  To. 1. Con∣cil. in Con∣cil. Afri∣cano ca. 10••.
• * 1.68

  M. An∣drews his forgery.
• * 1.69

  S. Aug. ep. 261. The case of Anto∣ny Bishop of Fussula appealing to Rome.
• * 1.70

  Ibid.
• * 1.71

  S. Augu∣stine his dutifull respect to Pope Ce∣lestinus.
• * 1.72

  Ibid.
• * 1.73

  Ibid.
• * 1.74

  Ibid.
• * 1.75

  Ibid.
• * 1.76

  The pri∣mate of Numidia in Africk approued the Ap∣peale of Antony to Rome.
• * 1.77

  Concil. Mileu. Can. 12.
• * 1.78

  M. An∣drewes Transma∣rinus nemo.
• * 1.79

  Concil. Sard. ca. 17.
• * 1.80

  S. Aug. ep. 92. & 93.
• * 1.81

  ••. Aug. ep. 1.62.
• * 1.82

  S. Augu∣stine testi∣fyeth that appeales to Rome were allo∣wed to the Bi∣shops of Africk though prohibi∣ted to the inferour Clergy.
• * 1.83

  Examples of Appea∣les from Africk to to Rome.
• * 1.84

  S. Leo ep. 87. ad Epis. Maurit.
• * 1.85

  S. Greg. Regist. lib. 1. ep. 82.
• * 1.86

  Idem ibid. lib. 10. ep. 31. & 32.
• * 1.87

  Ibid. lib. 10. ep. 8.
• * 1.88

  Ibid. ep. 35.
• * 1.89

  Supra nu. 36.
• * 1.90

  The re∣quest of the Afri∣can Bi∣shops to Pope Cele∣stinus con∣cerning appeals, neyther did nor could pre∣iudice the right of the sea A∣postolick.
• (h) 1.91

  See cap. 2. nu. 24. & seq. vs{que} ad nu. 28.
• * 1.92

  M. An∣drews maketh no bones to falsify whole Sy∣nods and bely the Fathers.
• * 1.93

  It is pro∣ued S. Au∣gustine ac∣knowled∣ged the Popes Zosimus, Bonifacius and Cele∣stinus, for heads of the Church.
• (c) 1.94

  See be∣fore nu. 38.39. & seq.
• * 1.95

  S. Aug. ep. 157. ad Optat.
• * 1.96

  Posidius in vita Augustini
• * 1.97

  8 Popes. who liued in S. Au∣gustins tyme, exercysed a supreme & vniuer∣sall autho∣rity.
• * 1.98

  Pope Li∣berius.
• * 1.99

  ••. Basil ep. 74. & 82.
• * 1.100

  Tripartit. hist. lib. 4. ca. 15.
• * 1.101

  P. Dama∣sus.
• * 1.102

  Concil. To. 1. inter ep. Damas.
• * 1.103

  S. Am∣bros in ca. 3. ep. 1. ad Timoth.
• * 1.104

  S. Hier. ep. ••7. To. 2.
• (c) 1.105

  Chap. 3. nu. 17.18.19. & 20.
• (d) 1.106

  nu. 4.5.6. •• se∣quent.
• * 1.107

  What authority S. Hie∣rome did attribute vnto Da∣masus.
• * 1.108

  Socrat. lib. 4. ca. 30.
• * 1.109

  Elias Cre∣tens. in ep. 2. ad Cledō. Greg. Na∣zian. Ba∣ron. an. 373. To. 1. Concil. ep. 1. Damas.
• * 1.110

  Sozom. li. 8. cap. 3.
• * 1.111

  Socrat. li. 5. c. 15.
• * 1.112

  Theodor. lib. 5. cap. 23.
• * 1.113

  P. Syri∣cius.
• * 1.114

  ••. Am∣brose ep. 78. See Binius To. 1. Concil. Baron. an. 389.
• * 1.115

  To. 1. Con∣cil. inter Siricij ep. & decret.
• * 1.116

  Optat. li. ••. contra Parmen.
• * 1.117

  The argu∣ment of Optatus Mileuita∣nus.
• * 1.118

  Anastasi∣us.
• * 1.119

  Aug. ep. 165.
• * 1.120

  Idem in psal. con∣tra part. Donati.
• * 1.121

  Concil. African. can 35. vide ••inni∣um pag. 637. edit. Colon. 1606.
• * 1.122

  P. Inno∣centius.
• * 1.123

  Ep. 90. inter ep. August.
• * 1.124

  Ibid. ep. 92.
• * 1.125

  Ibid. ep. 93.
• * 1.126

  August. ep. 106. ad Bonifac.
• * 1.127

  Marke this con∣sequence.
• * 1.128

  The Pela∣gian here∣sy con∣demned by Zozsi∣mus and Innocen∣tius.
• * 1.129

  Aug. ep. 157.
• * 1.130

  Possid. in vita Au∣gust. ca. 18.
• * 1.131

  3. things to be no∣ted in the precedent testimony of Possi∣dius.
• * 1.132

  Aug. vbi supra.
• * 1.133

  Prosper in Chron.
• * 1.134

  Idem con∣tra collat. ca. 41.
• * 1.135

  The fa∣mous ap∣peale of S. Iohn Chryso∣stome to Innocenti∣us.
• * 1.136

  Chrysost. ep. ad Inno. To. 5.
• * 1.137

  Palladius in vita Chrysost.
• * 1.138

  Zosom. li. 8. ca. 26.
• * 1.139

  Georg. Alexand. in vita Chrysost.
• * 1.140

  Idem ibid. Nicep. l. 13. ca. 34.
• * 1.141

  Glycas Annal. part. 4. Gennadius Patriar. Constant. Exposit. pro Concil. Florent. ca. 5. Sect. 7. Theodoreti histor. Eccle. li. 5. c. 34.
• * 1.142

  Glycas part. 4. Annal.
• (a) 1.143

  Supra nu. 74.
• (b) 1.144

  Supra nu. 52. & 53.
• (c) 1.145

  Supra nu. ••8. & seq.
• * 1.146

  To. 1. Con¦cil. ep. 2. Bonif.
• * 1.147

  P. Cele∣stinus head of the gene∣rall Coū∣cell of E∣phesus.
• (a) 1.148

  Euagr. lib. 1. c. 4. Prosper. in chron. Liberat. c. 5 Photin. de 7. Synod. & To. 2 ca. 17. Concil. Ephesc. ibid. To. 1. ca. 14
• (b) 1.149

  Concil. Ephes. To. 1. cap. 16. & 17.
• (c) 1.150

  Ibid. To. 1. cap. 14.
• (d) 1.151

  Ibid. To. 2. ca. 1••. Euag. lib. 1. ca. 4. Nicepho. l. 14. cap. 34.
• (f) 1.152

  To. 4. cap 17. Concil. Ephes.
• (g) 1.153

  Niceph. li. 14. ca. 34
• * 1.154

  An euidēt argumēt that Cele∣stinus was vniuersall and su∣preme Pa¦stor of the Church.
• (d) 1.155

  See cap. 2. per. ••otum.
• * 1.156

  M. An∣drews fa∣cility in ••ing.
• * 1.157

  August. contra. duas ep. Pe∣lag. lib. 1•• cap. 1.
• * 1.158

  S. Augu∣stins duti∣full respect vnto Pope Ba∣nifacius.
• (a) 1.159

  See be∣fore nu. 38. & seq.
• * 1.160

  To. 1. Concil. ep. 1. Celest. S. Prosper contra Collator. cap. 42.
• * 1.161

  Vincent. lirinens. cap. vlt.
• * 1.162

  M. An∣drewes his Father, a Father of lyes.