S. Austin teacheth that the Sonne of God, is God of God, and not of him selfe. SECTION. 1.

PRotestants Whitaker con­tra Camp. rat. [...]. p. 121. teach that How­soeuer the Fathers of the Nicene Councel affirmed Christ to be God of God, Caluin neuertheles affirmeth, that we are firmly to beleeue, that Christ is [Page 9] God of him selfe. And CaluinEp. 2. ad po­lonos, extant in tract. theol. p. 706. af­firmeth this prayer, holy Trinity one God haue mercy on vs, to displease him, and to sauour of barbarisme; so Contra Bellar. part. 1. c. 19. p. 121. Daneus affirmeth that, Caluin truly thought and writ this phrase, God of God, to be improper, and to sauour of barbarisme. In like sort auocheth M.Synopsis. p. 610. Willet of Christ that, As the sonne of God, he is of him selfe, neither taketh he his essence but person onely of his Father. The same doctrine is also taught by sundry other Snecanus in method. de script. p. 107. Protestant writers.

But contrary to al this S. Austin agreeably with the Nicene Councel, and our now Catholicke Church teacheth that Tom. 9. in Iohn. Tract. 48. paul. an­te med. the sonne is God of God &c. And that, the Father by ge­neration gaue to the sonne that he should be God. And againe Ibidem. tract. 106. paulo post med. of whom (to wit the father) he haith to be (sonne) from him he haith power. Also, Tom. 6. con­tra serm. Ari­anorum. c. 34. See this booke mencioned Tom. 1. l. 2. Retract. c. 52. so God the Father and the sonne, God of God, at once are &c. for so he receiued life from the Father.

Now this faith of S. Austin is so [Page 10] vndoubtedly true, that with him there in agree sundry Protestant doc­tors. ZanchiusDe tribus Elo­him. part. 1. l. 5. p. 322. and in episto­lis. l. 1. p. 206. saith, The very essence of God is in Christ &c. But from whence haith he it? from him selfe or from another? If thou saist simply from him selfe, then he is not begotten of the Father, for what is the sonne begotten of the Father, but God of God, light of light, true God of true God, as the Fathers in the Nicene Councel haue defyned out of the word of God? &c. Therefore from the Father he haith his essence, and what he is &c. He is be­gotten of the Fathers substance. And with Zanchius do agree herein Loc. com. p. 25. Tig. diu. in consensus Orthodoxus in praef. fol. 3. Pezel in his argumentorum et obiect. part. 1. pag. 90. 89. 113. Ab. in his 3. part. of the defence of the refor­med Catho­licke, pag. 38. Tilenus, in Syntagma. pag. 164. Co­uel, in de­fence of Hoo­ker. p. 16. 17. 18. Melancthon, the Tigurin diuines Peze­lius D. Abbot, and sundry other Pro­testant writers.

S. Austin teacheth, that God doth not reprobate any to sinne or dam­nation, or command any thing impossible. SECTION. 2.

CAluinInstitut. l. 3. c. 23. parag. 6. teacheth that God by his councel and appointment [Page 11] doth so ordaine, that amongst men some be borne destined to certaine death from their mothers wombe, who by their perdi­tion may glorify his name. BezaDisplay &c. p. 17. 31. 76. 116. 202. affirmeth that, God decreeth to destruc­tion, createth to perdition, and predesti­nateth to his hatred and destruction: God exciteth the wicked wil of one theife to kil an other &c. This slaughter springeth from God iustly enforcing the wil of the theefe. SuingliusTom. 1. de prouidentia Dei. fol. 365. 366. expresly tearmeth God, The author, mouer, & causer of mans sinne, and he exempli­fyeth in adultery, and murther: and the like is taught by sundry other Luther in As­sert. art. 36. Bucer, in Enar rat. in ep. ad Rom. in c. 1. pag. 94. Bren­tius m Amos. in c. 3. Protestant writers.

But the contrary to this with our Roman Church teacheth S.Tom. 7. de pec. mer. et remis. c. 18. post initium▪ Au­stin that it is wickednes to say, that the euil wil of man is to be referred to God as the author thereof. And againe, Tom. 3. de spir. et lit. c. 31. post med. otherwise is the author of sinne, which God forbid. And according to this he further auoucheth Tom. 7. l. 6. hypognost. c. 2. ante med. that God on­ly foreseeth and not pred [...]stinateth euil (or sinne) but he foreseeth and prede­stinateth good things; & he denounceth [Page 12] of the damned that Ibidem. fine. God doth ther­fore punish them, because he foresaw what they would be, but he made them not, or predestinated to be punished, but onely, as I haue said, he foresaw them in Massa damnabili, in a state of dam­nation; of this he geueth instance in Iudas saying, Ibidem. c. 5. post. med. God foresaw but caused not the sinnes of Iudas, as I haue said before &c. he was onely foreseene not predestinated. And he concludeth that Ibidem. c. 6. paulo post ini­tium. the rule of this disputation is to be houlden most firme &c. That sinners in their sinnes are onely foreseene, not predestinated. This doctrine is so clearely S. Austines, that the Prot. Polanus confesseth that Symphonia. p. 185. Austin, Tom. 7. ad decimum artic. sibi falso imposit. saith, It is an abhominable opi­nion which beleeueth God to be the au­thor of any euil wil, or euil action: the same Austin ad 13. Artic. saith, If any man fal from iustice and godlines, it is through his owne wil &c. Nothing there the Father, nothing the sonne, nothing the holy Ghost, neither in such busines doth any thing of Gods wil happen, by [Page 13] whose helpe we know many to haue bene stayed from falling, but none forced to fal. And our aduersaries in their translation of his booke. de ciuit. Dei. l. 5. c. 9. p. 209. do alledge S. Austin to say, God is not the geuer of al wils, for wicked wils are not of him &c. And the like is acknowledged of S. Austin by Decades in en­glish, dec. 3. serm. 10. p. 494. Bullinger,Loc. com. part. 1. fol. 161. 162. 167. 169. 172. 182. Chemnitius, and Compend. theolog. l. 2. p. 303. 496. 497. 498. 499. 500. Echartus.

And whereas seueral Protestant Calu. instit. l. 3. c. 23. sect. 6. beza in respons. ad acta colloq. Montisbel. part. altera. p. 152. and in his display of Po­pish practises. p. 237. Knoxe in his answeare against the ad­uersaries of Gods predes [...]i­nation. p. 116. 123. doctors do teach that Gods foreknowlege is the cause of things, so as we cannot leaue vndone the sinnes which God foreseeth, S. Au­stin teacheth directly to the contrary that Tom. 5. de ciu. Dei. l. 5. c. 10. post med. we are no wayes compelled, houlding Gods foreknowledge to take a­way the freedome of wil &c. for neither doth man therefore sinne because God foresaw him to be a sinner &c. If he wil not, he sinneth not, & if he wil sinne, God haith also foreseene this. This is Pag. 211. 212. confessed, & accordingly transla­ted in our aduersaries owne english translation de ciuit. Dei. where they further relate S. Austin to say, [Page 14] ItIbid. p. 209. doth not follow that nothing should be left free to our wil, because God knoweth the certaine and set order of al euents. But S. Austin is so ful herein, that the Protestant Symphonia. c. 2. pag. 114. Po­lanus alledgeth seueral sayinges from him and S. Hierome, to this pur­pose.

In like sort whereas Caluin and his followers, as M. Willet relateth, Comment. v­pon the Ro­manes, in c. 9. p. 443. affirme that, God by his absolute wil haith reprobate and reiected some without respect vnto ther sinnes: The same M. Willet confesseth to the contrary that, Ibid. p. 438. Austin referreth reprobation vnto the foresight of original sinne, and considereth man in massa cor­rupta. A point so plaine in S. Au­stin against Caluin, Beza, and the rest, that BezaIn respons. ad acta. colloq. Montisbel. part. 2. p. 164. confesseth it, and therefore reprehendeth S. Austin. Againe where Caluin and others do refer the induration or hardning of Instit. l. 1. c. 18. parag. 2. Bucet. in ep. ad Rom. in c. 9. p. 394. 397. Pharos heart, to the actual wor­king of God, S. Austin is so direct therein against Caluin, that Instit. l. 2. c. 4. sect. 3. Cal­uin confesseth saying the auncient [Page 15] Fathers were somtimes ouer religiously fearful to confesse the truth in this mat­ter &c. Not Austin (him selfe) was free somtimes from that superstition, as where he saith, that induration and ex­caecation pertaine not to the working of God, but to his foreknowledge.

Lastly where M.His meditation vpon the 122. Psal. p. 91. Willet and other Caluinistes do generally teach that Gods commaundements are to vs impossible, S. Austin auoucheth to the contrary that, Tom. 10. de temp. ser. 61. ante med. God who is iust can not commaund any thing impossible, nor he that is holy wil damne man for that which he cannot eschew. Yea, we accurse (saith Tom. 10. de temp. serm. 191. prope fin. he) the blasphe­my of them who affirme any thing im­possible to be commaunded by God. And the very same saying of S.In explanat, Simbol. ad Da­masum. Hie­rome is confessed and reprehended by Tom. 2. Wit­tenberg. fol. 216. Hamel. de tradit. A­post. col. 96. Hof. his com­ment. de pae­nitentia. fol. 55. cent. 4. c. 10. col. 1248. Cal. in­stit. l. 2. c. 7. sec. 5. Luther, by Hamelmannus, Hof­man, the Centuristes, and Caluin. And S. Austin is very expresse herein in sūdry other Tom. 7. de grat. et lib. arb. c. 16. init. et de pec. mer. [...]t remis. l. 2. c. 6. fine. et de natura et gratia. c. 43. et 69. places. In so much as Melancthon forbeareth not to con­fesse and reprehend, l. 1. ep. p. 290. imaginati­onem Augustini de impletione legis, [Page 16] Austines opinion of fulfilling the law.

l. 1. ep. p. 290.S. Austin teacheth that Christ suf­fered not according to his diuine na­ture; nor according to the same was Preist, or offered sacrifice, or was mediator: and that from his natiuity he was free from ignorance, and; after his death descen­ded into hel: and that his body by Gods om­nipotency may be without circum­scription. SECTION. 3.

SVinglius,Tom. 2. in resp. ad confes. Lutheri. fol. 458. Hosp. hist. sacram. part. 2. fol. 57. et 76. and Hospinian, do confesse of Luther, & In epist. theol. ep. 60. p. 185. Beza, of Musculus, and Islebius, that they al of them teach that, Christ suffered according to his diuine nature: But S. Austin condemneth this blasphemous opinion for heresie saying, Tom. 6. de Haeresi. ad quod vult De­um. Haer. 73. initio. And see Tom. 3. dea­gone Christia­no. c. 23. et tom. 2. ep. 102. ad Euo­ditum et tom. [...]0. de tempo. [...]. serm. 191. there is an heresy that saith Christes diuinty [Page 17] to haue suffered when his flesh was fast­ned vpon the Crosse.

M. Iewel, and M. Fulke, with others houlding that, Fulks retentiue p. 89. and his confut. of the Papistes quar­rels, p. 64. 65. And against the Rhem. Test. in Heb. 5. v. 6. sec. 4. fol. 399. Christ ac­cording to his diuinity, was his Fathers Preist, and offered sacrifice. S. Austin opposeth him selfe to the contrary teaching that Tom. 8. in Psal. 109. v. 4. multo post med. according to that he is God, he is not a Preist, but a Preist for his flesh assumpted; In so much as he withal further teacheth against our aduersaries, as the Centuristes say of him, Cent. 5. col. 496. et Aug. Tom. 1. l. 10. confes. c. 43. prope initium. Austin seemeth to attribute to Christ the office of mediator onely according to his humane nature, for so he saith, in as much as he is man he is mediator, but in as much as he is the word, he is not mediator, because he is equal to God▪ & the like Tom. 2. ep. 59. ad Pauli­num. circa med. Tom 3. l. 1. de Trinit. c. 7. ante med. Tom. 6. l. 16. cont. Faust. c. 15. et tom. 9. in Iohn. tract. 82. prope fin. sayings are frequent in him in sundry other places.

In like manner whereas Prote­stantes Wil­let in Synop­fis. p. 599. et 600. teach that Christ was not from his natiuity free from ig­norance, but receiued dayly increase [Page 18] of knowledge by education. D. Sutliue hereupon vrging that Examination of Kellisons Suruey. p. 55. If Christ as man by the vnion (with the Godhead) be omniscient, why is he not also omnipotent and present in al places? S. Austin to the contrary saith Tom. 7. l. 2. de pec. mer. et remis. c. 29. which ignorance I can by no meanes be­leeue to haue beene in that Infant in which the word is made flesh &c. nei­ther can I imagin that infirmity of the minde to haue beene in Christ a child which we see to be in Children &c. A saying so pregnat that Resp. ad Bel­lar. ad 2. con­trouers. c. 1. p. 145. & sec. p. 249. Danaeus answearing thereto confesseth that, Austin. l. 2. c. 29. de pec. mer. et remis. denyeth Christ to haue taken childrens infirmities and ignorance: which to be false (with leaue of so great a man) I haue showed before, saith he. But yet with S. Austin agreeth S.Lib. 8. ep. 42. Gregory, who condemneth this opinion as nouel in the Heretickes who were thereupon tearmed Agno­itae. And with both S. Austin, and S. Gregory, agree also Lib. 10. de­monst. Euang. c. vlt. Eusebius, S.Lib. 5. de fi­de, c, 8. Ambrose, and S. (p) Hierome.

Concerning Christes descending into [Page 19] hel after his death,In c. 11. Isaiae. denyed by D.In his limb [...]. mastix. & Fulke in Wil­lets sinopsis p. 605. 606. Willet, D. Fulke, M.In his booke, that Christ descen­ded not into hel. Car­ [...]il, and many others. S. Austin to the contrary expresly teacheth that Christ was Tom. 2. ep. 57. ad Darda­num. solut. 1. quaest. post. init. in hel according to his soule, but in the graue according to his flesh. And further demaundeth Tom. 2. epist. 99. ad Euodi­um. post init. & tom. 10. serm. 137. de tempore. who but an infidel wil deny Christ to haue beene in hel. To which purpose and sense he is so vnderstood and alled­ged by D. Suruey of Christs suffe­rings. p. 626. 598. 599. A­retius, loc. com. p. 53. Bilson and other Pro­testant writers.

Concerning the possibility of our Sauiours body to be without circum­scriptiō, Protestants in their transla­tions of his bookes l. 22. c. 8. p. 888. de ciuitate Dei, (directly against the Caluinistes Fulke against the Rhemish Test. in Ioan. 20. 19. sec. 2. opinion) do alledge S. Austin as reprouing those that wil not be­leeue that Iesus Christ was borne with­out interruption of the virginal partes, nor passed into his Apostles when the doares were shut. Of which last point him selfe affirmeth that Tom. 2. ep. 3. ad vo­lus. paulo ante med. Christ brought his body through the doares [Page 20] that were shut: Saying further also hereof, If reason here be expected, it were not miraculous, if example, it were not si [...]gular. In so much that wher­as Iouinian then obiected this scruple of our B. Ladies virginity (as our aduersaries do now obiect the scruple of like incircumscription in the sacrament) to be against the truth of his humane and natural bo­dy, S. Austin for him selfe and vs, answeareth and confuteth Iouinian herein, saying, Tom. 7. con­tra Iul. Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. post med. This also did Ioui­nian in the name and sinne of the Mani­chees, denying the virginity of holy Ma­ry, which was while she conceiued, to haue remained when she brought forth, as though we beleeued with the Ma­nichees Christ to be a phantasie, if we affirmed him to be borne, his mothers virginity not corrupted, but &c. The Catholickes haue despised this sharpest argument which Iouinian produced, and they neither beleeue holy Mary by brin­ging forth to haue bene corrupted, nor our Lord to haue bene a phantasy, but that she remained a virgin after the birth, [Page 21] and of her notwithstanding the true body of Christ to haue bene borne. And that Iouinians denyal of our Ladies virgi­nity consisted in this very point, it is confessed by De Haeresibus. c. 82. fol. 233. and see the Centurists. cent. 4. c. 5. col. 381. Danaeus. yea this doctrine is so clearely S. Au­stines, that the Protestant Rungius acknowledgeth the same in these wordes, In disput. 11. ex ep. ad Cor. 2. fol. 83. & Thes. 30. as Austin concerning the entrance of Christ through the doares shut, with reuerence said, let vs graunt that God can do some thing, which we confesse we cannot finde out; Let waight and manner cease for a time &c.

S. Austin teacheth that the blessed Virgin Mary was freed from ori­ginal sinne; that her body was assumpted into heauen: And that shee vowed chastity. He also teacheth the different degrees of Angels and Ar­changels. SECTION. 4.

COncernong our B. Lady the mother of Christ, the [...]ent. 5. c. 4. col. 499. Cen­turistes, vnder their title of the Doc­tors errors, do confesse and alledge of S. AustinIbidem. col. 4 [...]9. thus, as touching origi­nal sinne for as much as concerneth Mary, Austin writeth, excepting the holy Virgin Mary, of whom in honour of our Lord when we treate of sinnes, I wil haue no question at al &c. This therefore Virgin Mary excepted &c.

The same Cent. 5. c. 10. col. 1122. Centurists professing to set dowen a Catalogue of the bookes written by S. Austin vnder [Page 23] the title Col. 1124. de libris quos Episcopus scripsit, do number and place among his other bookes saying Col. 1127. de assump­tione Virginis Maria. lib. 1. And this her assumption was so aunciently & generally receiued, that the Empe­rour Mauritius (aboue 1000. yeares since) celebrated a festiual day thereof, as Lib. 17. c. 28. Nicephorus relateth, and Cent. 6. c. 6. col. 342. Da­naeus in prim. part. alt. parte. p. 1528. Protestants acknowledge. Yea there is extant in S. Hieromes workes a notable sermon, De festo assumptionis Mariae, written by him, or as others thinke, by Sophronius his equal. Further mention also hereof is to be seene in S. Gregory, in Antiphonario et Sacramentario, and in Andreas Cretensis (auncient to S. Gregory) in his special oration of this feast, extant in Surius: In so much as the Protestant Dresserus re­proueth euen S. Damasus saying, De festis die­bus. p. 148. Damasus ordained the feast of the Ascen­tion of Mary in the yeare of Christ 364. for an vngodly vse, that therein honour might be geuen vnto her, & prayers offe­red &c. Therfore this feast is deseruedly reiected, [Page 24] saith this Protestant▪ with whom agreeth M. Perkins in like sort re­iecting Missale Ambrosij, onely be­cause, In problem. p. 21. mentionem facit festi As­sumptionis, it mencioneth the feast of the Assumption. And De tradit. A­post. part. 1. l. 5. col. 434. Hamelmannus alledgeth further testimonies hereof from Nicephorus, Dionisius, and Iune­nalis, an auncient Bishop of Hierusa­lem. The Centuristes affirme that Cent. 7. c. 6. col. 163. Isidore mencioneth the Assumption of Mary. And according to Examen, part. 4. p. 159. Chemnitius, the Councel of Moguntia, c. 36. about the yeare of our Lord 800. numbreth these feasts &c. The Assumption of Mary &c. And that S. Dionisius his writinges, which confessedly record her Assump­tion, were auntient to S. Austin, it is confessed by many Protestant Fulke against Rhem. Test. in 2. Thes. 2. sec. 19. & in 1. Cor. 11. sec. 22. Brid­ges in his de­fence, p. 917. Ormerod, in his picture of a Puritan. fol. G. 3. The Centuristes. cent. 4. c. 10. col. 1129. writers.

S. Austin likewise taught that the B. Virgin vowed perpetual chastity, for thus he writeth Tom. 6. de sancta virgi­nitate. c. 4. prope initium. How saith she shal this be done, hecause I know not man, which truly she would not haue said, if she had not before vowed [Page 25] her selfe a virgin to God &c. Verily she would not haue asked how a woman should hring forth a sonne promised vnto her, if she had married to haue lyen with a man. This is so clearly S. Austines religion, that D. Fulke con­fessing the same, chargeth S. Austin with a non sequitur, saying, Against Rhem. Test. in Luke. c. 1. v. 34. sec. 13. al­though S. Austin gather she vowed virginity, yet it followeth not &c. And Chemnitius (to vse his owne words) attributeth Examen. part. 3. p. 39. And sec. p. 56. to Austin this fained vow of Mary, which directly (saith he) impugneth the Scriptures. Yea saith PeterDe Eucharist. et votis. col. 1609. Martir, Austin in his booke of holy virginity beleeueth that B. Mary vowed virginity &c. which (saith this hereticke) al easily know how absurd it is.

Lastly whereas Instit. l. 1. c. 14. parag. 5. & 6. Hiperius in method. Theol. p. 387. 288. and the ministers of Lincolne Dio­cese in their a­bridgement, p. 74. Caluin & other Protestants do vtterly deny the di­uers orders of Angels, other Prot. them selues translate S. Austin to say, In their English translation of the bookes, de ciuitate Dei, l. 22. c. 30. p. 919. ante med. No inferior shal (in heauen) enuy his superior, euen as now the other Angels do not enuy the Archangels. Yea Che [...]iti [...] alledgeth S. Austin [Page 26] as affirming the diuers degrees of Loc. com. part. 1. fol. 2. Thrones, Dominations, Principali­ties &c. Saying further, how they differ amongst them selues &c. In the next life we shal see face to face.

S. Austin teacheth the sacred Scip­tures to be discerned for such by the authority of the Church. SECTION. 1.

VVHereas Protestants ordi­narily teach that the sa­cred Scriptures are infallibly discer­ned by vs from al Apocriphal wri­tinges either by the Scriptures them selues, or the priuate spirit, S. Au­stin agreeably with the now Roman Church, referreth our certaine knowledge therof to the authority and determination of the Church of [Page 27] Christ, saying,Tom. 6. con­tra ep. funda­menti. c. 5. ante med. I would not beleeue the Gospel, vnlesse the authority of the Catholicke Church moued me therto &c. If thou houldest me to the Gospel, I may hould my selfe to them by whose commaundement I beleeued the Gospel, and these commaunding I wil not credit thee &c. The Authority of Catholickes weakned, I can not then beleeue the Gospel &c. It is necessary that I beleeue the Actes of the Apostles, if I beleeue the Gospel, because Catholicke authority doth commend a like both Scriptures vnto me. And though sundryIn whitakers duplicatio ad­uersus Staple­tonum. l. 2. c. 8. p. 387. Protestants labour to euade this, by affirming that S. Austin spoke of the time past when he was a Manichee, and not as then being Catholicke: al the wordes cyted do clearly con­test the contrary, and accordingly are vnderstoode by the ProtestantCenturiae tres. cent. 2. q. 3. p. 267. Bachmannus in this very sense which we now vrge. And Suinglius hauing recyted this former saying of S. Austin, in steede of better an­sweare, is not ashamed to geue this vndeserued censure, saying,Tom. 1. fol. 135. here [Page 28] I intreat your indifferent iudgement [...] that you freely speake, whether this say­ing of Austin may not be thaught more audacious then meete, or to haue beene vttered imprudently.

S. Austin teacheth the bookes of Tobie, Iudith, Hester, Machabees &c. to be diuine and canonical Scriptures. SECTION. 2.

SAinct Austin professedly dissen­ted from the Canon of the Hebrewes saying,Tom. 5. de ciuit. Dei. l. 18. c. 36. fine. not the Iewes but the Church houldeth the bookes of Machabees for Canonical; which say­ing is so plaine, that the Protest.In his defence englished, art. 5. p. 151. Pierre du Moulin, affirmeth these wordes of the Church houlding thē for Canonical to be an added falsifi­cation, alledging yet not any proofe or testimony thereof, whereas al copies are consenting against him: In so much as ourP. 725. aduersaries [Page 29] english translation of this booke not daring to deny these wordes, doth of fraudulent purpose, and to make them lesse apparent, onely omit this other parcel, (quos non Iudaei sed) be­cause that this but appearing, it ar­gueth the said bookes to be Cano­nical in the same sense wherein they were by the Iewes reiected, and therefore properly Canonical. But concerning al the bookes now in question S. Austin comprehendeth them at once with the other vndoubted Scriptures vnder one and the same word Canonical, saying,Tom. 3. de doctrina Chri­stiana. l. 2. c. 8. ante med. The whole Canon of the Scriptures is contained in these bookes following, and then next immediatly numbring them vp, he placeth in ranke with Genesis, Ex­odus &c. the other now controuer­ted of Tobie, Iudith, Hester &c. which Protestants generally reiect for Apocriphal. And whereas S. Austin was present andCouncil. Car­thag. 3. fine subscri­bed to the Carthage Councel, in the same it was vniuersally decreed.Concil. Car­thag. 3. can. 47. That besides the Canonical Scriptures [Page 30] nothing should be read in the Church vnder the name of diuine Scriptures, now the Canonical Scriptures are Gene­sis Exodus &c. wherwith it in order reckneth the other bookes now in question, most euidently so placing and ranking them vnder the foresaid title of Canonicas Scripturas, and of such as are to be read in the Church, sub nomine diuinarum Scripturarum.

And though M. Moulins obiec­teth that S. Austin saith,His defence, p. 152. and see Aug. tom. 7. contra Epist. Gaudentii. l. 1. c. 31. circa med. The booke of Machabees is receiued not vn­profitably of the Church, if men read it soberly, yet M. Moulin in the same place geueth the answeare him selfe, which in substance is, that S. Austin said this as in respect of Razes killing himselfe: whose example the Dona­tistes of indifferent zeale followed, in reguard whereof S. Austin requi­reth this sobriety. And he further explaineth this (which M. Moulin omitteth) saying,Ibidem. & tom. 2. ep. 61. post med. The Scripture of the Machabees touching Raze his death haith tould how it was done, but not commended it as though it were to be [Page 31] done: Euen as the booke ofCap. 16.30. Iudges reporteth the like of Sampson, whom yet theHebr. c. 11.32. And see Aug. de ciuit. Dei l. 1. c. 21. Apostle commendeth.

Againe to that other often an­sweared cauil of our aduersaries, that the foresaid Councel of Car­thage here mencioneth, fiue bookes of Salamon, whereas we haue but three; I do once more in answeare therto explaine, that the Councel vnder those fiue bookes of Salamon, com­prehendeth also the other two boo­kes of Wisdome and Ecclesiasticus, both which as S. Austin further ex­plaineth,De doctrina Christiana. l. 2. c. 8. circa med. were said to be Salamons, in reguard of a certaine resemblance of stile.

But the truth hereof is so clearly defended by the Carthage Councel, and S. Austin, that our aduersary Mathaeus Tract. tripart. theol. p. 46. Hoe, confesseth and re­proueth the Carthage Councel in these wordes, The Councel of Car­thage haith decreed for Canonical al the bookes of the old Testament, excepting the third and fourth of Esdras, & the third of Machabees &c. I ad that the [Page 32] Councel of Carthage ought not to haue Canonized more bookes, because it had not authority &c. To which the French Prot. Poliander, addeth say­ing,In his refutati­on. p. 44. To come now to the error of some Councels, the Councels of Car­thage, and Florence, haue enrouled for Canonical bookes, and as diuinely inspi­red &c. The bookes of Tobie, Iudith, Wisdome, Ecclesiasticus, and the Ma­chabees &c. And the Popes Innocen­tius, and Gelasius haue reckned these bookes among the Canonical &c. And to be breife, S. Austin is so clearly ours in this waightiest point concer­ning the number of the sacred scrip­tures, that he with the foresaid Councel is therefore sharply reprehen­ded byHist. sacram. part. 1. p. 160. Lub. de prin­cipiis Christ. dog. l. 1. c. 4. p. 8. Hip. in method. theol. l. 1. p. 46. Bucer. in his scrirpta An­glicana, p. 713. Zanch. de sa­cra Script. p 32, 33. Field. of the Church. l. 4. c. 23. p. 246. 247. Rey­noldes in his conclusions annexed to his conference. conclus. 2. p. 699. 700. Hospinian, Lubbertus, Hiperius, Bucer, Zanchius, D. Field, and D. Raynoldes.

S. Austin teacheth that one text of Scripture may haue diuerse true senses. SECTION. 3.

DIrectly contrary toConfut. of Purgat. p. 151. Willet in his si­nopsis. p. 26. D. Fulke, and D. Willet, S, Au­stin teacheth with vs, that one text of Scripture may haue diuerse true senses, saying,Tom. 1. l. 12. confes. c. 31. initio. when one saith this meant the Scripture which I do, an­other saith, yea that which I do, I thinke I speake more religiously in saying, why not both, if both, be true, and if a third and fourth &c. why not al? which in diuerse other places he so often repeateth and confir­meth that sundryThe diuines of Geneua in their propositi­ons and prin­ciples &c. c. 52. p. 149. Zanchius de Scriptura. p. 422. 424. 425. Aretius. loc. com. loc. 59. p 187. 177. The au­thor of Catho­licke Traditi­ons p. 86. 112. Bilson in his suruey p. 418. Prot. authors do assent to his iudgement there­in.

Now this truth supposed, it ful­ly preuenteth our aduersaries vsual euasion in many pointes of controuersy, as for example, where we alledge the Fathers; expounding some texts [Page 34] of Scripture in behalfe of Purgatory, Prot. do commonly obiect the same or some other Father, vpon occati­on of other applicatiō, vnderstāding thereby the tribulation of this life, so opposing this against the other, which exposition the said Fathers neuer intended, but admitted both the said senses. And the like in­stance might be geuen of our aduer­saries like euasion in other pointes of doctrine, as namely in the further exposition of Tu es Petrus et super hanc Petram &c. Hoc est corpus meum &c. and sundry such like. Now this is so certainly S. Austines doc­trine, that the Prot.In the mini­sters defene for refusal of subscription part. 1. p. 61. Hutton ac­cordingly alledgeth and confesseth the forecyted saying of S. Austin to this purpose.

S. Austin teacheth that besides the sacred Scriptures, the Traditiōs of the Church are to be recei­ued and beleeued: as also that al hereticks do insist only vpon the Scriptures. SECTION. 4.

COncerning the question, whe­ther the Scriptures do con­taine al needful pointes of faith and saluation, not onely by general di­rection toHebrewes. 13.17. Obey our Prelates; Math. 18.17. Heare the Church; hould 2. Thes. 2.15. the Traditions &c. which we graunt, and in which sense the Fathers do often commend the Scriptures per­fection; but also so particularly, as that there should be no neede of any vnwritten Traditions, which we de­ny, & Protestants affirme: S. Austin disputing against Ciprians error of rebaptizing,Tom. 7. de Baptismo, con­tra Don. l. 5. c. 23. ante med. saith, The Apostles commaunded nothing herein, but the custome which was opposed against Ci­prian is to be beleeued to haue proceeded [Page 36] from their tradition as many thinges be, which the vniuersal Church houldeth, and are therfore wel beleeued to haue beene commaunded by the Apostles, al­though they be not found writen. And speaking of the Baptisme of Infants heTom. 3. de Gen. & lit. l. 10. c. 23. pro­pe finem. auoucheth that it were Not at al to be beleeued, if it were not an Apo­stolical Tradition. AgaineTom. 2. ep. 118. ad Ianuar. c. 1. Those thinges which we obserue not written but deliuered which are kept al ouer the world ar to be vnderstod to be obserued as decreed either by the Apostles the selues, or gene­ral Councels. And so likewiseTom. 3. de doctrina Cristi­ana. l. 4. c. 21. prope initium. And in concil. Carthag. 3. can. 24. The mixture of water with wine in the Chalice, he confirmeth from Tradi­tion▪ which his sayinges are so eui­dent for Apostolicke Traditions, that M. In Whirguiftes defence. p. 103. Carthwright answea­ring thereto saith, To allow S. Au­stines saying is to bring in Popery againe. AddingIbidem, & in Carthwrightes his 2. [...]eply. part. 1. p, 84. 85. 86. further that If S. Au­stines iudgement be a good iudgement, then there be some thinges commaunded of God which are not in the Scriptures, and thereupon no sufficient doctrine con­tained in the Scriptures.

Lastly whereas M. Carthwright, and others, do vsuallyIn Hookers Eccles. pol. l. 3. sec. 7. p. 118. obiect against vnwritten Traditions cer­taine obscure, and by vs often an­sweared sayinges of S. Austin, and other Fathers, our learned aduersa­rie M. Ibipem. p. 119. Hooker forbeareth not (in our so cleare a cause) by his special explication and answeare, to explaine and cleare them to our han­des, so that al further answeare I deeme ouer tedious and vnworthy. I wil now conclude this point with but remembring how peculiar S. Au­stin maketh it vnto heretickes to in­sist vpon onely Scripture: To which end he induceth the Arian hereticke saying then to Catholickes, as Pro­testants, Puritans, Brounistes, Ana­baptiistes &c. do now say to vs, If Tom. 6. con­tra Maximi­num. l. 1. prope init. & prope finem. you bring any thing from the Scrip­tures &c. it is necessary that we heare it, but these words which be besides Scripture are in no case receiued of vs, seeing our Lord doth admonish vs saying; In vaine they worship me teaching the com­maundements of men. And elswhere [Page 38] he affirmeth as common vnto alTom. 3. de Trinitate. l. 1. c. 3. prope n. Hereticks, to endeuor to defēd their false & deceiptufl opiniōs out of the Script. (As it is in part confessed and ob­serued of him and others by the ProtestantSymphonia. c. 1. p. 96. Polanus.) Yea he fur­ther auoucheth that,Tom. 3. de Gen. ad lit. l. 7. c. 9. propc fin. Not for any other cause they become heretickes, but for not vnderstanding the Scriptures a­right, they obstinatly defend their false opinions against the truth of the Scrip­tures. And thatTom. 9. in Ioan. tract. 18. prope init. Heresies do not rise &c. but when good Scriptures are not wel vnderstood. In which re­spect he saith truly of heretickes,Tom. 7. de Bap. con­tra Don. l. 3. c. 19. post med. Scripturas tenent ad speciem, non ad salutem, they haue the Scriptures for a shew, but not to their saluation. And agreeably with S. Austin, saith S.O­rat. 2. contra Constantium. & l. ad Con­stantium. cy­ted by Polanus in Symphonia. p. 95. Hillary, remember that there is no hereticke which doth not faigne the blasphemies which he teacheth to be ac­cording to Scriptures. Yea saith S.Di­sput. contra A­rianos. Athanasius, (cyted byIn Symphonia. p. 95. Polanus) euery heresy is masked with the doc­trines of Scriptures: whereuponLib. de praescript. & see S. Hie­rome ep. ad Paulinum. Tertulian premonisheth against [Page 39] the vncertaine encounter with the heretickes by Scripture.

S. Austin teacheth that the Church of Christ is freed from error. SECTION. 1.

DIrectly contrary to the gene­ral doctrine of Protestants im­pugning that special priuiledge of the Church of Christ, being freed from error, S. Austin agreeably with vs Catholickes, is so plaine and ful herein to the opposite, as that he doubteth not to refer vs to her final determination in al questions of doubt and difficulty: for speaking of the Rebaptising of hereticks he saith,Tom. 7. con­tra Crescon. l. 1. c. 33. init. Although example of this be not brought out of the Canonical Scriptures, [...]ot the truth of the same Scriptures is [Page 40] houlden of vs in this matter, when we do that which now pleaseth the vniuer­sal Church which the authority of those Scriptures commendeth, that so because the holy Scripture connot deceiue who­soeuer feareth to be deceiued with the obscurity of this question, let him take councel therein of the same Church, which without al ambiguity the holy Scripture demonstrateth. Yea he fur-auoucheth thatTom. 2. ep. 118. c. 5. circa med. It is a point of most insolent madnes to dispute against that which the vniuersal Church thinketh. In so much as he faith,Tom. 7. de Bapt. cont. Don. l. 7. c. 53. cir. med. Of the Churches vniuersal consent (in any point of doctrine) Id autem sit securae vo [...]is asserere, it is secure to affirme it. And lastly he affirmeth the decree of a general Coūcel to be,Tom. 7. cont. duas ep. Pe­lag. l. 4. c. 12. prope fin. com­petens sufficiens (que) Iudicium, a competent and sufficient iugdement.

S. Austin teacheth that the Church of Christ is Catholicke or vni­uersal. SECTION. 2.

THough the very name of Ca­tholicke be so vngratful and odious to the auncienter heretickes, that theAug. tom. 7. l. 1. cont, Gaudent. c. 33. prope init. et post med. Donatists termed the sam an humane fiction, which yet saith (S. Austin) are wordes of blasphemie; as also to the more nouel sectaries, D. Against Rhem. Test. in Act. 11.26. sec. 4. Fulke confessing that, some Lutherans haue altered the word of the Creed, and for Catholicke, put Christi­an. AndPraefat. Noui Testamenti. Anno. 1605. And see the Lutherans in colloq. Altem­berg. in Re­spons. ad ac­cus. corrupt. fol. 154. 353. Beza styling it, The most vaine tearme Catholicke: yet S. Au­stin so highly esteemed thereof, that he said,Tom. 1. de vera religione. c. 7. paul. an­te med. We must hould the com­munion of that Church which is named Catholicke, not onely of her owne, but also of her enemies, for wil they, nil they, Heretickes, and Schismatickes, when they speake not with their owne fellowes but with strangers, cal the Catholicke [Page 42] Church, nothing els but the Catholicke Church, for they could not be vnderstood vnles they discerne it by this name, wherewith she is called by the whol world. And though it be common to Protestants with former here­tickes in wordes to style them selues Catholickes, yet saith S. Tom. 6. l. cont. epist. fundam. c. 4. circ. med. Austin; whereas al heretickes would be called Catholickes, yet if a stranger aske the way to the Catholicke Church, no here­ticke dare shew his owne Church or house. And the like saying is to be seene in S. Catech. 18. Ciril. And euen so at this day the name Catholicke, is or­dinarily appropriated to vs Roman Catholickes by M. Act. mon. p. 613. Sleid. in the english hi­story. l. 7. fol. 96. et l. 10. fol. 127. Iac. in his reasons taken out of Gods word. p. 23. 73. 74. 24. Wilkes. in his obedience, pag. 39. Dres. in Millenar. 6. p. 214. Humf. in vita Iuelli. p. 102. 100. Fox, Sleiden, Iacob, Wilkes, Dresserus, Humfrey, and al other writers.

Yea this name Catholicke was so powerful with S. Austin, as that he made it one special motiue (as now the like it should be to vs) for to preserue and keepe him in the Chur­ches bosome, saying hereof,Tom. 6. cont. epist. fundam. c. 4. circa med. Lastly the very name Catholicke houl­deth me &c. which wordes are so [Page 43] vndenyable, that D. Against Rhem. test. in Act. Apost. c. 11. v. 26. see, 4. Fulke gran­teth that, Among many other thinges which kept S. Austin in the Church, the name of Catholicke was one.

But to passe from the name to the thing it selfe, or reason of the name, that the true Church should be cal­led Catholicke, not (as D. Ibidem. Fulke with old hereticks pretendeth) only in reguard of it obseruing al the commaundements of God, which very assertion S. Tom. 2. ep. 48. ad Vincen­tium paulo ante med. Austin confu­teth, saying to the hereticke, thou seemest to haue said somewhat wittily, when thou expoundest the name Catho­licke, not by the communion of the whole world, but by the keeping of al the com­maundements &c. But in reguard of it becomming and continuing after it first encrease Catho­licke & dispersed ouer the world: In proofe whereof S. Austin as the veryCent. 5. c. 4. col. 410. & col. 414. Centuristes do obserue) al­ledgedgeth many testimonies from the sacred Scriptures saying,Tom. 7. de vnit. Eccles. c. 8. initio. Therefore let vs heare some few from the Psalmes song so long agoe, and let vs see with great ioy that they are accmo­plished. [Page 44] And then immediatly after both there, and cap. 9. he alled­geth testimonies from the Psalmes, ouer many to recyte, and right wor­thy of the readers perusal and ob­seruation. And speaking of theIbidem. c. 7. initio. Prophets, How many and how manifest are the testimonies (saith he) of the Church dispersed through al nations ouer al the world, from whence I wil recite some few, leauing more to the leasure of the readers fearing God. And then reckning vp a number of Esaies pro­phecies to this purpose, he affirmeth many more, which (saith he) are so many that from Esay alone, if I should gather al, I should exceede the measure of fitting speach. And in reguard of his so many and plaine predictions, S. Tom. 5. de ci­uit. Dei. l. 18. c. 29. post. init. Austin affirmeth that, Esay prophesyed so, that by some he was tear­med rather an Euangelist then a Pro­phet: concluding also directly to the point, that as heretical conuen­ticles connot be called Catholicke in reguard they do but preauile for certaine times & incertaine prouinces so againe the true Church is called Cath▪ [Page 45] in reguard of i [...] foretold large & la­sting extent; for thus S. Tom. 9. de Symbolo. l. 4. c. vlt. circa med. and see To [...]. 10. de tempo [...]e. ser. 131. post med. Austin writeth, the Church possesseth the whole which she receiued of her hu [...]band in dowry &c. Eu [...]ry congregation of what heresy so euer lurketh in corners, she is a concubine not a matron. O Arian he­resy why dost thou insult? why dost thou puf? why dost thou also for a time vsurpe many thinges? &c. And he vrgeth the Donatists saying,Tom. 7. cont. Gaudent. l. 2. c. 2. circa med. If yours be the Catholicke Church, shew it to stretch out in beames ouer the whol world, shew it to extend it bowes with plenty of fruict ouer the whol earth, for hence by the Greeke word also it is named Catho­licke. And againe it is called in GreekeTom. 2. epist. 170. ad Seue­rinum. ante med. Catholicke, because it is spread ouer the whol world, it is lawful for none to be ignorant of her. And whereas D. Answeare to a counterfeare Catholicke. p. 95. & against Purgatory. p. 14. Fulke obiecteth to the contrary that, the Church is not called Catholicke, because it should be euery where &c. The Popish Church is not in euery part of the world, for Mahomet sect is the greater part, many countries are Idolaters, and most of them that professe are not in the felowship of [Page 46] the Popish Church. This very ob­iection S. Austin answeareth against Cresconius the Donatist in these wor­des,Tom. 7. cont. Crescon. l. 3. c. 63. fine. Thou disputest foolishly against the most manifest truth, that therefore the world doth not communicate with vs, because as yet there are many of barba­rous nations who haue not beleeued in Christ, because vnder the name of Christ there are many heresies different from the communion of our society &c.

S. Austin teacheth that the mili­ant Church must euer continue, and that visibly. SECTION. 3.

THough the militant Churches perpetual continuance, and visibility, be already sufficiently im­plyed in S. Austines foresaid asser­tions of it remaning Catholicke, yet because the contrary is very daun­gerously taught by sundry Prore­stants, I wil yet further proceede therein. And first concerning her [Page 47] continuance, wheras our aduersaries teach that, before Luthers timePerkins vpon the Creede. p. 400. an vniuersal Apostacy ouer spread the whole face of the earth, and that (their) Church was not visible to the world: Also thatChamierus in ep. Iesuit. part 2. p. 49. error pos­sessed not one or other litle portion (of the Church) but the Apostacy auerted the whol body from Christ. That likewiseWhitak. in resp. ad rat. Camp. rat 3. p. 48. the mistery of iniquity went through al the parts of the Church, and so at last possessed the whole Church. In defence of which so miserable a refuge (wherto our aduersaries are enfor­ced to betake them selues vpon our prouoking them to show forth their Church for former times.) D. Fulke, and D. Willet are not abashed to conclude thatAnsweare to a counter­feat. Catholik. pag 79. the visible Church may become an Adultres, and be diuor­ced from Christ: and that theSynopsis. p. 52. 54. visible Church may faile vpon earth. Now S. Austin (directly against al this) reproueth these Protestants in their forefathers the Donatistes, as being erroneous (saith he)Tom. 7. de vnit. Eccles. cap. 13. pro­pe fin. in that they wrested the Scriptures against the [Page 48] Church of God, as though it might haue beene thought to haue fallen away and perished from the whole world. Re­prehending them [...]lso yet further in their saying (as Prot. now did)Tom. 8. in Psal. 101. con. 2. ante med. Apostatauit et perijt Ecclesia de omni­bus gentibus, the Church haith fallen away and perished out of al countries. And againeIbidem. paulo ante. That Church which was of al countries, now is not, but haith perished. whereto he there answea­reth saying, This they say (or obiect) who ar not in the Church, O impudent speach? &c. why dost thou say that the Church haith perished out of al coun­tries? and concludeth thus, Let not heretickes brag as though the dayes of the Church were few, for they are euen vn­to the very end &c.

Now touching the Churches euer visibility, S. Austin affirmeth thatTom. 8. in Psal. 47. pro­pe init. she is the city placed vpon a hil which cannot be hid, the candle which is not hid vnder the bubel (but) knowen to al. And thatTom. 7. cont. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 32. circa med. Hence it is that the true Church is hidden to none, wher­upon that is, which Christ sayeth in the [Page 49] Gospel, a city placed vpon a hil cannot be hid, and therefore in the Psalme it is added, he haith placed his tabernacle in the sunne, id est, in manifestatione, that is clearly to be seene. This inference thus made by S. Austin from the Scriptures argueth, that S. Austin spoke not only as of the Church of his owne time, but also as of the Church in the ensuing times, which the said alledged Scriptures respec­ted both a like: Yea S. Austin is so confident in this doctrine of the Churches euer visibility, as that he doubteth not to set dowen this as a special marke, or as he saith,Tom. 6. cont. Faustum. l. 13. c. 13. initio. A manifest signe whereby euermore to direct the ignorant, which among so many pretended congregations is the true Church.

S. Austin teacheth that the Church was built vpon S. Peter: and that S. Peter was the head of the whole Church. SCTION. 4.

COncerning the Churches be­ing builded vpon the Rocke, as S. Austin acknowledgeth the building thereof vpon Christ (as being the primary Rocke or foundation) so likewise doth he affirme (as from the then common receiued doctrine) our Sauiours building of his Church vpon Peter, as being a secondary or ministerial Rocke or foundation, houlding both these expositions for good and probable, saying hereof expresly,Tom. 1. l. 1. retract. c. 21. post init. Let the reader choose whether of these two opinions be more probable. To this purpose then he writeth,Ibidem. in his booke (contra epi­stolam Donati) I haue said in a certaine place concerning Peter the Apostle, that vpon him as vpon a Rocke the Church [Page 51] is builded, which sense is also song by the mouthes of many in the verses of most blessed Ambrose &c. but I know that since I haue often expounded that which is said by our Lord; thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke I wil build my Church, that it might be vnderstood vpon this which Peter confessed, saying, thou art Christ the sonne of God. And then presently afterwardes (as before he concludeth) but of these two opinions let the reader choose which is the more probable. And he alledgeth and ap­proueth S. Tom. 7. de Bapt. cont. Don. l. 3. c. 1. ante med. Ciprian saying, for neither Peter whom our Lord chose first (or cheifest) and vpon whom he built his Church &c. And him selfe saith elswhere,Tom. 8. in Psal. 30. con. 2. ante med. O Church, that is, o Pe­ter, because vpon this Rocke I wil build my Church, kil and eate. And of Pe­ters sea, he denounceth that,Tom. 7. in Psal. cont. partem Donat. versus finem. It is the Rocke which, the proud gates of hel do not ouercome: In so much that the Protestant Hammelmannus con­fesseth this of S. Austin saying,De Traditioni­bus Apostoli­cis. part. 2. l. 3. col. 622. and see the like sayinges of the other Fathers alledged & re­iected f [...]r the same. col. 621. 623. 624. 625. Austin in his booke against the epistle of Donatus, teacheth that the Church [Page 52] was founded vpon Peter as vpon the Rocke, and he proueth this his opinion by the verses of Ambrose &c. concer­ning the Cooke &c.

But S. Austin proceedeth yet more particularly saying,Tom. 4. quae­stion. ex Nouo Test. quaest. 75. post med. Our Sauiour when he commaunded that there should be geuen for him and Peter, then he seemeth to haue payed for al, because as in our Sauiour there were al causes of preheminence, so also after our Saui­our al are contained in Peter, for he or­dained him the head of them, that he might be the Pastor of our Lords flocke &c. It is manifest that al are contai­ned in Peter, for asking for Peter, he is knowen to haue asked for al, for euer in the superiour, the people are either re­proued or commended. And againeTom. 8. in Psal. 108. enarrat. 1. prope initium. certaine thinges are said (in the Gospel) which properly seeme to belong to Peter the Apostle, yet they haue not a cleare sense, but when they are referred to the Church, whose person figuratiuely he is knowen to haue borne, by reason of the primacy which he had ouer the Di­sciples &c.

S. Austin teacheth the primacy of the Roman Church. SECTION. 5.

COncerning S. Peters succes­sors, the Bishops of Rome, S. Austin acknowledgeth that in the Roman ChurchTom. 2. ep. 162. multo an­te med. the principality of the Apostolical chaire euer florished. AndTom. 6. de v­til. credendi. c. 17. shal we doubt (saith he) to hide our selues in the bosome of that Church, which &c. from the Aposto­lical sea by successions of Bishops haith obtained the hight of authority? To which not to geue the Primacy, is truly either the greatest impiety, or headlong arrogancy. And writing to Pope Bo­nifacius him selfe he saith,Tom. 7. cont. duas epist. Pe­lag. ad Boni­fac. l. 1. c. 1. circa med. It is common to vs al wbo are Bishops, al­though thou therein dost excel by reason of the greater height of thy pastoral watch-tower. In like sort he writeth to Pope Innocentius saying,Tom. 2. epist. 92. ad Inno­cent. prope finem. we thinke &c. that by the authority of thy holines deriued from the authority of the [Page 54] holy Scriptures, that they wil more easily yeald who beleeue such peruerse and per­nicious thinges: so attributing the Popes authority to the Scriptures them selues. And as for Innocentius him selfe, the Centuristes confesse,Cent. 5. col. 1230. 662. and see Osian­der. cent. 5. p. 59. that he laboured much for the pri­macy of the Roman Church, which is euident by al his epistles &c. wheru­pon they alledge from his epistles, sundry of his sayinges, which im­porting so much, are therefore by themCent. 5. col. 775. 779. reprehended. And wher­as Innocentius writ one epistle to the Fathers of the Carthage Councel, wherein he affirmeth the Primacy of the Roman Church to beIn Aug. tom. 2. ep. 91. pro­pe init. and see cent. 5. col. 825. & 780. de­creed, non humana sed diuina sententia, not by humane but diuine sentence. And anIn Aug. tom. 2. ep. 93. multo ante med. and see cent. 5. col. 843. 780. other to the Milleuitane Concel, wherein he chalengeth that matters of faith are to be referred to the Apostolical Sea. Though the Centuristes do dislike and reproue these said epistles for the foresaid doctrines tauhgt therein by Innocen­centius; yet S. Tom. 2. epist. 106. post init. Austin writing [Page 55] to Paulinus of the Pelagian heresy, which was condemned in those two foresaid Coūcels, & mēcioning two seueral letters of those two Coun­cels sent to the Apostolicke sea: To which two letters Innocentius made seueral answeare in his two former recyted epistles from whence are al­ledged the testimonies of his clamed Primacy. S. Austin (I say) of these very answeares or epistles writeth thus worthily,Ibidem. Innocentius of bles­sed memory writ backe vnto vs concer­ning al thinges in that manner which was fit and conuenient for the Bishop of the Apostolicke sea: and elswhere he further saith of the same epistles,Tom. 7. cont. Iulian. Pelag. l. 1. c. 4. post med. what could that holy man (blessed Inno­centius) answeare to the Affrican Coun­cels, but that which aunciently the A­postolicke Sea, and the Roman Church continually held with the rest? Most euidently so hereby geuing his al­lowance of that very Primacy which Innocentius clamed in or by these two foresaid epistles.

But indeede S. Austin was alwaies [Page 56] so duly respectiue to the Roman Sea, as that he greauosly reprehen­ded the heretickes of his time for their thenTom. 7. cont. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 51. tearming the Roman Church (as our aduersaries now do) the chaire of pestilēce; & teaching with al (against the Protestants often ob­iection) our due reuerence therto, not withstanding the wicked liues of any Popes,Tom. 2. ep. 165. ante med. although (saith he) any traitor in those times had crept into that rancke of Bishops, which is conti­nued from Peter himselfe to Anastasi­us, who now sitteth in the same chaire, it would nothing hurt the Church and innocent Christians, for whom our Lord prouiding, saith of euil Pastors, what they say, do ye, but what they do, do ye not. Lastly this wholsome councel he geueth vnto al heretickes,Tom. 7. in Psal. contra partem Donati versus finem. come ye brethren if you wil be ingrafted in the vine, it is a greife when we see you cut of so to lye, number the Preistes euen from the Sea of Peter, and see in that rancke of Fathers who succee­deth another, that is the Rocke which the proud gates of hel do not ouercome.

S. Austin denyeth Ecclesiastical Pri­macy to Emperours, and Kinges. SECTION. 6.

THe Milleuitan Councel (wherat S. Austin was presēt & In the last Ca­non of rhe Mi­leuitan Coun­cel. pre­scribed) decreed in the case of cleargy mē that Can. 19. whosoeuer should aske of the Emperour the knowledge (or hearing) of publicke iudgements, should be de­priued of his honour: Of which Canon Cent. 5. c. 33. p. 152. Osiander saith, It is not worthy of commendation. And wheras M. IewelReply. art. 4. p. 272. obiecteth the testimony of S. Austin concerning Constantine the great vndertaking the iudgements of Bishops and their causes vpon appeale made to him in that behalfe; S. Austin him selfe shal geue him his answeare in these wordes, Tom. 2. ep. 162. multo post med. The Emperour graunted them another iudge­ment at Arles, to wit, of other Bishops, not because it was needful, but yealding to their importunities &c. for neither durst the Christian Emperour so receiue [Page 58] their tumultuous and deceiptful com­plaints, that him selfe would iudge of the sentence of Bishops, which sate at Rome, but as I haue said, he graunted other Bishops, frō whom they also chose to appeale againe to the Emperour, wherein you haue heard how he detested them &c. And as he had yealded to thē to iudge of their cause after the Bishops, after­wardes he asked pardon of the holy Prelates: Yea S. Austin saith further that, Ep. 166. ante med. because Constantine durst not iudge of the cause of a Bishop, he com­mitted the same to be discussed and en­ded by Bishops. Optatus also (who li­ued with S. Austin alledging Con­stantines answeare to the Bishops that appealed to him saith Lib. 1. versus finem. Constan­tine with great anger answeared &c. you aske of me iudgement in the world, when I except the iudgement of Christ. And a litle after, Donatus thinketh that he may appeale from Bishops to which appeale Constantine thus answea­red, O outragious bouldnes of fury, as in the causes of Gentiles &c. Yea this is so cleare in S. Austin, that M [Page 59] Carthwright answeareth to M. Whit­guifts like obiecting hereof saying, 2. Reply part. 2. p. 163. Austin saith that the Emperour was driuen by the Donatistes importu­nity who made no end of appealing vn­to him, to geue sentence in that matter, for the which also he was to craue pardon of the Bishops &c. Lastly S. Atha­nasius reporteth that the Bishop Ho­sius, said to Constantine,In ep. ad soli­tariam vitam agentes. I beseech thee to cease, and remember thou art mortal &c. do not entermedle in Eccle­siastical matters, nor do thou commaund vs in this kind, God haith committed to thee the Empyre; to vs those thinges which concerne the Church &c. Take heede lest that drawing to thee those thinges which concerne the Church, thou be guilty of great crime &c. And a­gaine, who seeing him in decreeing to make him selfe the prince of Bishops, & to be president in Ecclesiastical iudge­ments, may not deseruedly say, that he is that abhomination of desolation which was foretold by Daniel?

S. Austin teacheth that the Sacra­ments do not only signify, but truly confer grace to the worthy re­ceiuer. SECTION. 1.

THough Fulke against Purgat. p. 35. Willet in his Sinopsis p. 415. Perkins in his reformed Ca­tholicke. p. 294. 298. Ie­wel in his de­fence. p. 201. Protestants vsually teach, that Sacraments do signi­fy grace, but not confer it: yet S. Au­stin with vs Catholickes teacheth the contrary saying, Tom. 9. in Iohn tract. 80. versus finem. from whence is that so great vertue of the water, that touching the body it washeth the heart, but the word working it? &c. Clensing therefore would not be attributed to the liquid and slippery element, if it were not added in the word. And he pro­ueth by example of Circumcision, the force of Baptisme to children though they want faith, saying, Tom. 7. l. 4. de Bapt. cont. Don. c. 24. post init. The Sacrament of it selfe was of great force. [Page 61] But this doctrine is so clearly S. Austines, that Luther answeareth to Cochlaeus his obiecting of S. Austin in this manner, Lib. cont. Cochlaeum. But if there be any of the Fathers who haue thought the Sa­craments to iustify by their owne vertue, though it be Austin as Cochlaeus con­tendeth, I nothing care, they are the say­inges of men. Agreeably to which also writeth Caluin,Lib. 4. Instit. c. 14. sec. vlt. peraduen­ture those immoderate commendations of the Sacraments which are read in the auncient writers, as that of Austin &c. haith deceiued those miserable Sophi­sters.

And whearas Willet in his si­nopsis. p. 418. Protestants do further teach that the Sacraments of the old law are equal in force to ours, S. Austin with vs to the con­trary auoucheth that Tom. 8. in Psal. 73. multo ante med. There are some sacraments geuing saluation, others promising the Sauiour; the Sacraments of the new Testament geue saluation, the Sacraments of the old Testament promise the Sauiour. A saying so preg­nant against Protestants that if we beleeue Loc. com. p. 299. and see Caluin. l. 4. institut. c. 14. sec. vlt. Musculus it was spoken in­consideratly [Page 62] by Austin. Yea saith Cal­uin,Lib. 4. instit. c. 15. sec. 7. And see Chemnitius examen. part. 2. p. 38. Let it trouble no man, that the auncient Fathers striue to make a diffe­rence betweene the one and the other, their authority ought not to be such as to shake the infallibility of Scripture &c. Neither is that quircke of Austin to be approued, that by the Baptisme of Iohn sinnes are forgeuen in hope, but by the Baptisme of Christ sinnes are forgeuen indeede.

S. Austin teacheth that certaine of the Sacraments do imprint a Cha­racter or marke in the soule of the receiuer. SECTION. 2.

THough D.Sinopsis. p. 419. and vpon the 112. Psal. p. 91. Willet with o­ther Protestants vtterly deny al such Character, yet S. Austin a­uoucheth the same, comparing the Character imprinted in the soule by certaine Sacraments with the ex­ternal marke or Character vsed in [Page 63] warfare, saying, Tom. 7. l. 2. cont. epist. Parmen. c. 13. post med. tom. 7. l. 6. de Bapt. cont. Don. c. 1. tom. 9. in Ioan. tract. 5. & 6. tom. 7 [...]. cont. lit. Pe­til. l. 2. c. vlt. tom. 7. cont. Crescon. l. 1. c. 30. tom. 9. tract. 5. in ep. Ioan. tom. 2. ep. 23. post med. et ep. 50. 204. when a man is set at liberty and punished, is that Charac­ter renewed, or rather being knowne, is it not allowed? Do Christian Sacra­ments lesse inhere then this corporal marke seeing we see that the very Apostataes do not want Baptisme. But S. Austin is so cleare in this point that D. Couel approueth the same in S. Au­stin against the Puritans saying, Defence of Hooker. art. 13. p. 91. you scof at the word Character, as if there were no stampe at al which made a difference betweene the Cleargy, and Laity &c. S. Austin was the first that vsed that word in this sense, and no doubt of it, there is in Baptisme that marke stamped vpon vs &c. This forme, figure, impr [...]ssion, or Character, is cal­led indeleble, because that is not to be re­iterated, from whence it cometh, that the Character of order is an actiue power &c. And the answearable doctrine of the thing though not of the word, is so certainly taught by M.Eccles. pol. l 5. sec. 77. p. 228. Hooker, that M. Willet doth therefore charge him with teaching that, Meditation on the Psal. 122. p. 91. There is in orders geuen an indeleble Character.

S. Austin teacheth that there are seauen Sacraments. SECTION. 3.

COncerning the number of the Sacraments, which ProtestantsWillet in his si­nopsis p. 423. generally teach to be but two, although S. Austin had no special occation geuen him to write pur­posly of their certaine number, yet by that which he writeth casu­ally and but obiter, as by way of o­ther discourse, he signifyeth his o­pinion to be far different from Pro­testants. Behold (saithTom. 8. in Psal. 103. Concione. 1. ante med. he) the guiftes of the Church, the guift of the Sacraments, in Baptisme, in the Eucha­rist, in the other holy Sacraments, what a guift is it? The Tom. 7. cont. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 104. circa med. Sacrament of Chrisme in the kind of visible signes is sacred, euen as Baptisme it selfe. In like sort comparing Baptisme, with order, and prouing that orders once receiued connot be lost, no more then Baptisme, he saith, for both [Page 65] are Tom. 7. cont. epist. Parmen. l. 2. c. 13. an­te med. Sacraments and with certaine consecration both are geuen to man, that when he is Baptised, this when he is or­dered &c. And againe, If both be Sacramentes, which none doubteth of, why is that lost, and this not? Neither Sacrament must be iniured. Yet fur­ther,Tom. 7. de Baptis. cont. Don. l. 5. c. 20. post med. If &c. by a sinner Sacra­ments are not celebrated, how doth God heare the mortherer praying, either ouer the water of Baptisme, or ouer the oyle, or ouer the Eucharist, or ouer the heades of them vpon whom handes are imposed. And that S. Austin thought the same concerning Matrimony, Penance, and Extreme vnction, shal be showed here­after in their proper places.

Ad only hereunto, that S. Dio­nisius the Arcaopagite, in his writin­ges confessedly auncient to S. Au­stin, doth no lesse confessedly accor­ding to Luther Tom. 2. Wit­tenberg. de captiu. Babil. fol. 84. Humf. in Iesuit. part. 2. p. 519. and D. Hum­freys acknowledgements, mention sixe Sacraments, and S. Ciprian also casually mencioneth fine, asExamen. part, 2. p. 7. Chem­nitius is forced to confesse: Hauing no other answeare therto, but only [Page 66] pretending without al proofe that this sermon is forged and none of Ciprians; wheras the booke, de ope­ribus Cardinalibus Christi, (wherof this sermon de ablutione pedum, and the other de caena Domini, are par­cels) is dedicated to Cornelius Bi­shop of Rome in Ciprians time and to whom Ciprian him selfe wrote, l. 1. ep. 1. & 3. in so much as E­rasmus in his Annotations annexed to Ciprians workes, affirmeth it to be,Vpon the folio. 287. the worke of some learned man of that age. And M. Fulke acknow­ledgeth that,Against Rhem. Test. in 1. Cor. c. 11. v. 20. sec. 6. The author (there­of) was not in time much inferior to Ciprian.

S. Austin teacheth that the Sa­cramentes are to be administred with the signe of the Crosse. SECTION. 4.

DIrectly contrary to al Puritans, and the more vsual practise of Protestants S. Tom. 9. in E­uang. Ioan. tract. 118. prope fin. Austin teacheth [Page 67] that, vnlesse the signe of the Crosse be applyed, whether to the foreheades of the beleeuers, or to the water wherwith they are regenerated, or to the oyle wherwith they are annointed, or to the sacrifice wherwith they are nourished, none of these are rightly administred. And the like he teacheth in sundryTom. 10. de tempore. ser. 181. c. 3. fi­ne. tom. 10. serm. 19. de Sanctis. fine. other places. In so much that the Centu­ristes recyting and reprouing this fore alledged sentence, affirme ther­of that,Cent. 5. c. 6. col. 657. superstisiosé loquitur, he speaketh superstitiously. And D. Fulke acknowledgeth that,Against Rhem. Test. in 1. Cor. 11. v. 34. p. 532. Indeede S. Austin in Iohn. Tract. 118. saith, that the signe of the Crosse was a ceremonie vsed in al the Sacramentes which if it were not vsed, nihil eorum rite perfici­tur, Burges in Co­uels answeare to him. p. 136. Puritanes in their treatise of the signe of the Crosse. p. 21. nothing is performed or done accor­ding to the ryte or custome. with whom agree other Protestants, reprouing S, Austin for this Catholicke doc­trine of the signe of the Crosse. And yet S. Chrisostome (liuing together with S. Austin) geueth like testi­money for the Greeke Church say­ing,In Mathaeum. Hom. 55. post med. al thinges which helpe to our [Page 68] saluation are perfected by the Crosse, for when we are regenerated the Crosse of our Lord is present, when we are nou­rished with the most sacred meate, when wee take Orders, euery where and al­waies that ensigne of victory is at hand.

S. Austin teacheth that Baptisme taketh away al sinnes, both origi­nal and actual. SECTION. 1.

FOr the obtaining of the grace geuen by Baptisme, S. Austin agreeably with our Catholicke schoole men requireth fit dispositi­on: In so much thatHagoges Chri­stiana, part. 4. c. 28. p. 519. Danaeus hauing recyted the effectes of Bap­tisme, affirmeth that, the scholemen say, these are to be vnderstood of those, who put no bar (or hinderance) to the [Page 69] effectes of Baptisme, but it is (saith he) an obscure speach, though Austin. c. 23. ad Bonifacium, saith, obicem ponere. Now this bar supposed to be remo­ued S. Austin teacheth, that,Tom. 7 cont. duas epistolas Pelag. l. 3. c. 3. circa med. Bap­tisme washeth away al sinnes, al altoge­ther, of deedes, wordes, thoughtes, or ori­ginal. And the like he hath inTom. 9. de Symbolo ad Catechum. l. 3. c. 10. initio. Tom. 7. de pec. orig. c. 40. tom. 8. in Psal. 50. ante med. Tom. 7. contra Iulian. Pelag. l. 6. c. 5. tom. 8. in Psal. 118. sū ­dry other places so expresly, that theCent. 5. c. 4. col. 368. & 516. & 1133. Centuristes, andExamen. part. 2. p. 38. Chemnitius, do alledge his sayinges, and confesse his iudgement in our behalfe.

S. Austin teacheth that concupisence remaning after Baptisme is not sinne. SECTION. 2.

IN reguard of this plenary remis­sion of sinne, S. Austin conse­quently further teacheth that Tom. 7. de nuptiis et concupis. l. 1. c. 23. prope initium. concupisence is not now sinne in the rege­nerate. And againe Tom. 7. de pec. mer. et remis. l. 2. c. 4. initio. et cont. Iulian. Pelag. l. 6. c. 5. prope fin. cont. duas ep. Pelag. l. 1. c. 13. tom. 5. de ciuit. Dei l. 1. c. 24. fin. concupisence in children Baptised is free from guilt, it is left for the combate. But this [Page 70] doctrine is so confessedly S. Austins and the other Fathers, that Caluin saith therof Institut. l. 3. c. 3. parag. 10, it is not needful to search much, what here the auncient Fathers thought, when Austin alone may suffice therto, who haith gathered with fidelity and great diligence al their opinions, therfore let the readers take from him, if they wil haue any certanty of the sense (or meaning) of antiquity, but be­tweene him and vs this difference may seeme to be, that he &c. dareth not cal that disease (of concupisence) sinne, but &c. teacheth it then at length to be sinne, when to the (first) conceiuing or apprehension either deede or consent fol­loweth. with whom agreeth Chem­nitius, who speaking of our concu­pisence saith, Loc. com. part. 3. in his Theses therto annexed. fol. 18. b. parag. 10. Austin began to di­spute, that it was not properly sinne but so called by a figure &c. which (if we wil beleeue Chemnitius) was spoken incommodiously.

S. Austin teacheth that children dying vnbaptised are not saued. SECTION. 3.

THough it be now an ordinary opinion amongCarthwright in Whitguiftes defence. p. 516. Dilling­ham in his di­sput breuis de Symbo. p. 4. 5. Protestants that children borne of faithful pa­rents dying without Beptisme may be saued, whose cruel and vnchari­ritable practise herein is ouer fre­quent and answearable: yet S. Au­stin ioyntly with our now Roman Church teacheth the very contrary saying,Tom. 7. de a­nima et eius o­rigine. l. 3. c. 9. initio. tom. 10. de verb. Apost. ser. 14. If thou wilt be a Catholicke, do not beleeue, do not say, do not teach, that children dying before they be Bap­tised, can come to forgeuenes of original sinnes. AndTom. 2. ep. 28. ad Hieron. multo post med. whosoeuer saith that children shal be reuiued in Christ who dye whithout participation of this Sacra­ment, this man truly contradicteth the Apostolical preaching, and condemneth the whole Church &c. So generally receiued was the doctrine hereof in his time. Lastly he teacheth, that [Page 72] thoughTom. 7. de pec. mer. et remis. l. 1. c. 16. initio. it may truly be said, that children dying without Baptisme are to be in damnatione omnium mitissima, in the easiest state of damnation, yet he de­ceiueth and is deceiued, who teacheth that they are not to be damned. Now these sayinges are so vnanswearable in S. Austin that M. Carthwright confesseth thatIn Whitguifts defence. p. 521. Austin was of minde that children could not be saued without Baptisme: for which he ouer bouldly chargeth him with Ibidem. p. 516. absurdity. Sundry otherBullinger his Decades in en­glish. dec. 5. ser. 8. p. 1049. Musculus, loc. com. c. de Baptis. p. 308. Dillinham de Symbo. p. 4. 5. The Cen­turistes. cent. 5. c. 4. col. 379. Protestants ac­knowledging and reprouing like­wise in him the same doctrine.

Now in reguard of this so absolute necessity of Baptisme vnto children, S. Austin is confessed to teach, that in case of necessity it is lawful for the Laity to Baptise, for thus writethIn resp. ad act. colloq. Mon. tisbel. part. 2. p. 143. and see Whitguifes defence, tract. 9. p. 522. 523. Beza, wheras Austin writeth to Parmen. l. 2. c. 13. that he knoweth not whether the Baptisme which a Lay person &c. inforced vpon necessity (of the child) perishing doth administer, is piously to be reiterated, is a blemish (or error in S. Austin saith Beza.

S. Austin teacheth sundry ceremo­nies of Baptisme now vsed in the Roman Church. SECTION. 4.

FIrst then he teacheth that,Tom. 10. in l. 50. homil. hom. 27. mul­to ante med. the water being consecrated in the name of Christ is signed with his Crosse, and that,Tom. 10. de tempore serm. 181. c. 3. pro­pe fin. & ser. 19. de sanctis. prope finem. with this signe the font of Baptisme is sanctifyed: which conse­cratiō of the water is taught by S. Lib. 1. c. vlt. ante med. Ciprian saying, the water ought to be clensed and sanctifyed first by the Preist. And by S.De mister. init. c. 3. post med. and Aug. tom. 9. in Ioan. Tract. 118. prope fin. Ambrose in these wordes, when the water of saluation shal be consecrated with the mystery of the Crosse &c. S.Tom. 2. ep. 105. ad Sixtū. versus fin. Austin also teach­eth, the exorcisme of Infants from the Churches auncient ryte, or custome; as also their Exuflation: of both which, speaking of Iulianus he saith,Tom. 7 de nup. et cōcup. l. 2. c. 29. fin. He haith accused of greiuous crime the most ancient tradition of the Church, wherby, as I haue said, children are exorcised and breathed vpon. And [Page 74] speaking to Iulianus him selfe saithTom. 7. cont. Iul. Pelag. l. 6. c. 5. post init. Thou wert to be blowen but of the whole world, if thou wouldest contradict this exufflation, wherwith the prince of the world is cast out of children.

In like sort concerning Annoyling before Baptisme he further saith,Tom. 9. in E­uang. Ioan. tract. 44. post init. He is annoyled but not yet washed &c. It is not sufficient for the Catechumens) that they are annoyled, let them hasten to washing (or Baptisme.) Of this Carthwright confesseth that,2. Reply, part. 2. c. 4. p. 226. An­noynting in Baptisme was as general & of as long continuance as the Crosse, for b [...]ing in Africke in Tertulians time, it spred it selfe into the east and west Churches.

Concerning Abrenunciation, and Godfathers to Infants. S. Austin affir­meth that,Tom. 10. de tempore. ser. 116. prope fin. And tom. 9. de Symbol. l. 2. c. 1. & l. 3. c. 1. The Godfathers an­sweare for them that they renounce the Diuel, his pompes, and workes: And thatTom 2. ep. 23. ad Bonif. post med. They answeare in the childes behalfe to seueral interrogatories; mentioningTom. 9. in E­uang. Ioan. tract. 44. post init. withal the vse of spistle.

In like manner as touching trinall [Page 75] immersion, S. Austin saith,Tom. 10. de tempore. ser. 201. post med. The mystery of the Trinity is also shewed in the Sacrament of Baptisme, whiles the old man is thrice drowned. This cere­mony is further mentioned byDe co [...]ona mi­litis. Basil. de Spir. Sanct. c. 27 Cir. Ca­tech, 2. Chri­sost. hom. 24. in Ioan. Tertulian, S. Basil, S. Ciril, and S. Chrisostome, which being afterwards misapplyed by the Arians to the sig­nifying of three seueral natures in the three persons (as S.Lib. 1. ep. 41. ad Leandrum. Gre­gory recordeth) one immersion was therupon in some ChurchesConcil. 4. To­letan. c. 5. esta­blished.

To conclude, al these ceremonies of Baptisme are so clearly set downe and taught by S. Austin, that the (f) Centurie writers do particularly and at large record and dislike the same:Cent. 4. c. 6. col. 415. 417. 418. 419. & Cent. 5. c. 6. col. 652. 657. of which also saithResp. ad Tom. 2. Bellar. p. 281. Daneus, so Austin and some Fathers thought, that they were Apostolical tra­ditions, which they beleeued to be most auntient, but without ground, saith Daneus.

S. Austin teacheth the real presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. SECTION. 1.

TOugh the opinions of Prote­stants in this waightiest point of religion are knowen to be many, and those very diuers and distracted amongst them selues, yet S. Austin most conformably to the Roman Church teacheth and beleeueth the true and real presence of Christes sacred body and bloud in the Sacra­ment: for writing vpon those wor­des of the Psalme, he was caried in his owne handes, he demaundeth, say­ing, Tom. 8. in Psal. 33. con­cione. 1. ver­sus fin. & see concione. 2. et ante exposi­tionem Psalmi. Brethren how can this b [...] done? In man who vnderstandeth it? for who is carried in his owne handes? A man [Page 82] may be carried in the handes of others, in his owne handes no man is caried: How this may be vnderstood in Dauid according to the letter I find not, but in Christ I finde it, for Christ was car­ried in his owne handes, when commen­ding his owne body he said; This is my body, for then that his body was carried in his handes. Here note that these wordes, were carried in his handes (ac­cording to S. Austin) are litterally vnderstoode of Christ carrying his body in his handes at the last sup­per, when he gaue the Sacrament to his Disciples. Yea this saying is so vnanswearable that the Protestant Hist. Sacram. part. 1. l. 4. p. 292. 293. Hospinian vndertaking to set dowen the hiperbolical phrases of the Fathers, doth among others for such place this now saying of S. Au­stin.

In like sort doth he affirme that the Communicants do receiue bloud contained in the Cup, no lesse truly then it was contained in the cup of the old Testament; for whereas Vrbicus held, that the old Testament [Page 83] was so changed, as that the beast gaue place to bread, and bloud to the Cup, S, Austin recyteth and reproueth his opinion saying, Tom. 2 in ep. 86. ad Casul. post med. this vrbicus affirmeth old thinges so to be chaunged, that in Christ a beast should geue place to bread &c. bloud to the Cup &c. he affirmeth a beast to haue geuen place to the bread, as not knowing, that thē euen the bread of proposition was accustomed to be placed vpon the table of our Lord, and that now him selfe doth reciue part of the body of the immaculate Lambe, he affirmeth the bloud to geue place to the Cup, not re­membring that now him selfe receiueth bloud in the Cup, therefore how much better and more fitly might he affirme old thinges to haue passed, and new thinges so to be made in Christ that the Altar should geue place to the Altar, sword to the sword, fire to fire, bread to bread, a beast to a beast, bloud to bloud: Affirming so that for the bread of proposition in the old law, we now haue the bread of life, for their then sheepe, the now Lambe of God, [Page 84] and for their then bloud of brute beastes, the now bloud of Christ. To which purpose he further saith, The peopleTom. 4. quaest. in Le­uit. quaest. 57. prope sin. (of the old law) were pro­hibited from the bloud of the sacrifices which were offered for sinnes, but now by those sacrifices this one sacrifice is sig­nifyed, by which is made true remission of sinnes, and yet not any is prohibited, not onely for taking for nourishment (of the soule) the bloud of this sacrifice, but rather those which wil haue life are exhorted to drinke it. According to which also saith S. Serm. de caena Domini. multo ante med. Ciprian, The doctrine of this Sacrament is new &c. Christ being the teacher, this doctrine was first made knowen to the world, that Christians should drinke bloud, the drinking wherof the authority of the old law did most strictly forbid, for the law prohibiteth drinking of bloud, the Gospel commaundeth that it be drunke.

S. Austin teacheth that the very wicked do truly receiue the body of Christ. SECTION. 2.

SAinct Austin affirmeth that,Tom. 7. de Baptismo. cont. Don. l. 5. c. 8. post med. It was the body and bloud of our Lord euen vnto them to whom the A­postle said, he that eateth vnworthily ea­teth iudgement to him selfe. Againe,Tom. 9. in E­uang. Ioan. tract. 27. ver­sus fin. Let vs not eate the flesh of Christ and the bloud of Christ onely in the Sacra­ment, which many euil men do, but let vs eate it to the participation of the spi­rit: And elswhere he mentioneth the whicked,Tom. 7. cont. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 55. fine. who eate and drinke his body in the Sacrament: Now in these two last places, by his thus ad­ding these wordes, in sacramento, in the Sacrament, he doth in preuention of our aduersaries vsual answeare, that by the body is ment the Sacra­ment of his body, most directly to the cōtrary distinguish the body from the outward Sacrament. In which doctrine he is [Page 86] so ful that he affirmeth that,Tom. 7. cont. Fulgent. Do­nat. c. 6. cir­ca med. The traitor Iudas receiued the good bo­dy, and Simon Magus the good baptisme of Christ. And he doubteth not to say further that,Tom. 2. ep. 162. versus finem. Our Lord suffe­red Iudas to receiue amongst the inno­cent Disciples (quod fideles norunt) pretium nostrum, our price (or ransome) which the faithful know. This doctrine is so vndenyable in S. Austin, that the Protest.Compend. theol. l. 1. c. 8. p. 237. 238. Echartus, alledgeth diuerse of these sayinges to this very purpose of wicked mennes real receiuing of Christes body. And Bucer saith,Scripta Angli­cana. p. 679. How often doth Au­stin write that euen Iudas receiued the very body and bloud of our Lord.

S. Austin teacheth that great care is to be vsed lest any part of the Sa­crament do fal vpon the ground: And that it is to be receiued fasting; Besides which, he also teacheth and al­loweth the vse of ho­ly bread now vsed by Catholikes. SECTION. 3.

VVIth what great care do we obserue (saith S. Tom. 10. l. 50. homil. hom. 26. post init. And see serm. ad Infan­tes. Au­stin) when the body of Christ is ministred vnto vs, that nothing therof do fal out of our handes vpon the ground: In which he is so cleare that this doc­trine is acknowleged in him by the Prot. Praxis de Ce­remoniis. sec. 13. p. 10. Crastouius. And yet with him agreeth herein Catech. 5. prope. fin. S. Ciril, saying, Take heede lest any thing of it fal from thee &c. As also Lib. de Cor. mil. Ter­tulian writing, we take it greauosly that any thing of our Chalice or bread do fal vpon the earth. And the same is like­wise [Page 88] taught by Hom. 13. in Exod. Origen. For which their doctrine and reuerence towardes this most holy Sacrament, they are confessed and reproued by the Protestant writers Against Sym­bolising. part. 1. p. 148. Parker,Aphorism. de Eucharist. fol. 230. Vadian,Lib. ep. Suing. et Oecol. p. 690. Oecolumpadius, andReioynder to Bristow, and answeare to Sanders p. 687. Fulke.

In like sort concerning the recei­uing of this Sacrament fasting, it is so euidently taught by S. Tom. 2. ep. 118. c. 6. an­te med. Austin, that Hist. sacram. part. 1. p. 48. Hospinian confesseth that Austin clearly signifyeth this fast to be an Apostolical tradition, and therefore necessary to be obserued, for he saith, It pleaseth the holy Ghost, that in honour of so great a Sacrament, our Lords body should enter into the mouth of a Christi­an before other meates. which prac­tise was so general also in the greeke Church, that Hammelmannus affir­meth that De Apost. tra­dit. part. 3. l. 3. col. 814. Theophilus accused Chri­sostome vnder this title, that he debar­red not from the Sacrament of the Eu­charist, those that were not fasting &c. but Chrisost. taking this for a greauous crime doth greatly excuse him selfe in his Epistle &c. in these wordes, If this be [Page 89] true let my name be blotted out of the booke of life. And the same Hammel­mannus concerning this very point saith vnto S. Ibidem. col. 815. Austin, Although thou Austin affirmest that the Church al ouer the world obserueth this &c. yet I wil bring the contrary against thee.

The same also is acknowledged byDe Sacramen­tis. p. 803. 804. Zepperus of S. Austin, who further thereIbidem. p. 805. recyteth sundry Fathers requiring like enioy­ned Chastity of married persons be­fore their communicating.

Lastly concerning holy bread S. Austin writeth that,Tom. 7. de pec. mer. et remis. l. 2. c. 26. prope init. Though that which the Catechumens receiue be not the body of Christ, yet it is more holy then the meates wherwith we are nou­rished: And that the Catechumen might not receiue the Sacrament (which S. Austin here calleth cor­pus Christi) appeareth by S. Austin in seueralIbidem. c. 2. ad tom. 9. in Ioan. tract. 11. & 96. places. A truth so cleare that D. Against He­skins &c. l. 3. c. 23. p. 377. Fulke answearing therto, tearmeth it, A superstitious bread geuen in S. Austines time to those [Page 90] that were Catechumens, in steede of the Sacrament.

S. Austin teacheth that the Sacra­ment of the Eucharist is to be ado­red: and other Fathers teach that it is to be inuocated; and that Angels are present in time of the sacrifice. SECTION. 4.

THough al Protestants, Calui­nistes, or Suinglians, do general­ly disclaime in the Sacraments adoratiō, yet S. Austin writing vpon that part of the Psalme, Adore ye the foote-stoole of his feete, doth by this foot-stoole vnderstand earth, and by earth the flesh of Christ, saying,Tom. 8. in Psal. 98. circa med. Expoun­ding what is the foote-stoole of his feete, he saith, the earth is the foote-stoole of his feete: I become doubtful, I feare to adoare the earth, lest he con­demne me which made the heauen and the earth. Agine I feare not to adore [Page 91] the foote-stoole of the feete of my Lord, because the Psalme saith vnto me, adore ye the foote-stoole of his feete. wauering I turne my selfe to Christ, because here I seeke him and I finde how the earth may be adored without sinne, how with­out sinne the foote-stoole of his feete may be adored. for he tooke of earth, earth, because flesh is of earth, and of the flesh of Mary he tooke flesh. And because he walked here in that flesh, and gaue vs that flesh to eate for our saluation, now none eateth that flesh but first adoreth it. It is found how such a foote-stoole of the feete of our Lord may be adored, and not onely we may not sinne by adoring, but sinne by not adoring &c. Therefore when thou doest bow downe & prostrate thy selfe to euery earth, do not behould it as earth, but as that holy one whose footestoole it is which thou adorest, for, for him thou doest adore. Now wher­as D. Bilson answeareth hereunto thatHis true diffe­rence. part. 4. p. 536. It is eaten with the spirit, adored with the spirit, yea the very ea­ting of it is the adoring of it, S. Au­stin directly to the contrary distin­guisheth [Page 92] eating from adoring, & ma­keth (as we do) adoring in priority to eating, saying, no man doth eate that flesh before that he adore it. Tea­ching withal there yet further, our adoring thereof not onely in spirit, but also by external bowing downe & prosternation: And al this not as to his body or flesh present to vs al­waies after one and the same man­ner in heauen, but as in reguard of the diuersity of time and place vpon often celebration) ad terram quam­libet, euen to euery earth, or con­secrated host which we behould. And in further discouery of this shift, S. Austin maketh further fre­quent mention of adoration euen in the vnworthy: for speaking of the rich proud men who do vnworthily receiue, acknowledgeth yet their external adoring, saying therof,Tom. 8. in Psal. 21. con­cione. 1. pro­pe fin. Al the rich men of the earth haue ea­ten and adored, the rich men of the earth haue eaten the body of their Lords humility, yet they are not filled to imi­tation as the poore, but yet they haue [Page 93] adored. And againe,Tom. 2. ep. 120. ad Hono­ratum. They are brought to the table of Christ and re­ceiue his body and bloud, but they only adore. they are not filled, because they do not imitate &c. They come to the table, they eate and adore, but they are not filled, because they do not hunger & thirst iustice. This doctrine of Ado­ration is so plainly S. Austines thatScripta Angli­cana. p. 678. Bucer confesseth that Austin wri­teth in many places that the body and bloud of our Lord is to be honoured and receiued in the visible signes.

In further explication of S. Au­stines beleefe in this so material a point of faith, the answearable say­inges of the other Fathers are very pertinent, as namely of S. Ambrose, S. Chrisostome, S. Nazianzen, and S. Basil, al of them liuing in S. Au­stines age, and by him highlyTom. 7. cont. Iulian. Pelag. l. 2. c. 2. 3. 4. 10. commended. S. Ambrose then (as heretofore did S. Austin)De spiritu sancto. l. 3. c. 12. saith, by the footstoole is vnderstoode the earth, and by earth the flesh of Christ, which we also at this day do adore, not mysti­cally or in a mystery, but in mysterijs [Page 94] &c.) in the mysteries of the external elements of the Sacrament. Euen as S. Austin in like manner is confessed by Hospinian to say,Hist. sacram. part. 1. l. 5. p. 533. & see Gratian di­stinct. 2. Nos autem. we do truly honour in the forme of bread and wine which we see, thinges inui­sible, that is to say, flesh and bloud. S. Chrisostome accordingly writeth,In 1. Cor. hom. 24. I wil shew thee vpon earth (and ther­fore not in heauen onely) that which is worthie of greatest honour &c. the kingly body in heauen is now set before thee on earth to be seene &c. And that which is the cheifest and principal of al, thou dost not onely see it vpon earth, but thou touchest it, and not onely tou­chest it, but thou eatest it &c. And ag [...]ne,Ibidem. This body did the wise men worship in the manger &c. And with feare and much trembling adored it: Let vs therefore imitate those strangers &c. Thou seest it not in the manger, but vpon the Altar, not a woman houl­ding it in her armes, but the Preist pre­sent. Yea S. Chrisostome admoni­sheth vs to pray vnto it, saying,In 1. Cor. hom. 41. We do not in vaine celebrate the memory [Page 95] of the deade as the holy mysteries, or come beseeching the Lambe lying there. Agreable to which saith also S. Basil, writing in behalfe of vnwrittenDe spir. sanct. c. 27. Traditions; who haith left in writing the wordes of inuocation whiles the bread of the Eucharist and the Cup of benediction is shewed?

And in reguard of the body thus honoured on the Altar, S. Chriso­stome further teacheth thatDe Sacerdotio. l. 6. c. 4. & hom. 1. de verbis Isaiae. The Angels are present with the Preist, and that the place round about the Altar is filled for the honour of him that lyeth thereō, the Angels cōpassing it about with reuerence. And to preuent al vsual answeare of figuratiue or excessiue speach, he furtherDe sacerdotio. l. 6. c. 4. cōfirmeth the same by a visiō therof tould to him as from an old man to whom many reuela­tions were shewed. AndIn c. 1. Lucae. S. Am­brose saith, doubt not but that the An­gel is present when Christ is present, Christ is sacrificed &c. S. Gregory Nazianzen, reporteth that his sister Gorgonia being diseasedOrat. 11. de Gorgonia so­rore. prostra­ted her selfe before the Altar, and cal­ling [Page 96] vpon him who is worshiped on it &c. O miracle (saith he) she presently re­ceiued health. This place is so euident that D. Fulke (though euading what he may) is yet enforced to affirm therof that,De successione Eccles. p. 230. Gorgonia had the Eucha­rist on the Altar in great reuerence, and peraduenture not without superstion. And Hospinian tearmethHist. sacram. part. 1. p. 477. Gorgo­niaes fact superstitious and wicked, as though the miracle here shewed, or Nazianzens cōmending of her herin, would haue beene for superstition. But this truth is so confessed in the Fathers o [...] that age, thatExamen. part. 2. p. 92. Chem­nitius alledgeth at large the foresaid sayinges of S. Austin, S. Nazianzen, and S. Ambrose, him selfe therupon concluding with Luther, that the Eucharist is Sacramentum venerabile & adorabile, A venerable Sacrament & to be adored. In so much that Chem­nitius saith of him selfe and otherIbidem. & p. 94. Lutherans, by such external con­fession (of the Sacraments adoration) we seperate our selues from the sacra­mentaries. And the very some is [Page 97] taught and confessed from the fore­said Fathers byDe Bapt. et Euchar. p. 472. Chitraeus an other Lutheran.

From this knowen adoration of Christ vnder the Sacramental formes of bread and wine, proceeded the mistaking of the Heathen, who (saith S. Tom. 6. l. 20. contra Faust. Manich. c. 13. post med. Austin) do beleeue that we do honour, insteede of bread and the Chalice, Ceres, and Bacchus. And why were Christians thus charged to worship Ceres, and Bacchus, for the sacrmen­tal bread and Cup, rather then Nep­tune, or some other like for the wa­ter in Baptisme, were it not in re­spect of the honour peculiarly exhi­bited to the Eucharist, and not to Baptisme.

In like sort wheras in regard of the height of the mistery, & the foresaid honor so exhibited the fathers of that age were vnwilling to expose the ce­lebratiō therof to the vnworthy eyes of the Catechumens, wherofIn ep. 8. p. 80. Be­za saith, Most of the most auncient (writers) thought that Christinorum sacra, the sacred mysteries or sacrifices [Page 98] of Christianes were to be hid, not vnlike to certaine mysteries of Ceres, in so much that they would not admit the Catechu­mens to behould them. As also they were vnwilling to expose the same to the prophane scorne or miscon­ceiuing of the Heathen, in so much as they therefore, and especiallyTom. 8. in Psal. 33. & in Psal. 39. Tom. 10. in l. 50. homil. hom. 42. tom. 5. de ciuit. Dei. l. 10. c. 6. fine. Tom. de verbis Domini. in ser. 46. tom. 9. in Ioan. tract. 26. tom. 2. ep. 162. S. Austin professe to speake therof, not without special reseruation, as Norunt fideles, the faithful know, no­runt qui initiati sunt, they who are ad­mitted (or professed) know, and such like. Wherupon Maximus a hea­then writer (though acknowled­gingTom. 2. ep. 43. prope init. one cheife God without be­ginning doth, in reguard of this pri­uate celebration of the Eucharist, wherein (as he conceiued) Christi­ans saw and worshiped Christ their God, present to them in secret places, demand to know from S. Austin, Ibidem. ep. 43. post med. what God that is which you Christiās chalenge as proper to your selues, and dispose your selues to see him present in secret places?

Now wheras Protestants do gene­rally obiect that Pope Honorius, who [Page 99] liued, Anno Domini. 1220. was the first that commanded or decreed the adoration of the Sacrament; the de­cree ofSee cap. sanc. de celebratio­ne Missatum. Honorius only being that, The Preist should often teach his people that when at Masse the Host is eleuated, they should reuerently bow dowen, this thē rather most euidētly proueth the thē before general receiued doctrine and practise therof among the Clear­gy and only argueth the laye peoples then late beginning negligence in some places, and so far is this decree from al suspicion of innouation, that whereas the Roman Church had ma­ny then open aduersaries, no one of them yet chargeth this Honorius with innouation.

But to cleare Honorius, of the least suspition herin, before him liued Odo In Synodicis constit. c. 5. de secram. Al­taris. Parisiensis. Anno. 1175. who aduiseth that, The Laye people be often admonished, that whersoeuer they sbal see the body of our Lord to be carried, forth­with they bow their knees as to their Lord and Creator. Before Odo liued Al­gerus, Anno. Domini. 1060. who [Page 100] saith,De sacram. Euchar. c. 3. with this faith we adore the Sacrament as a diuine thing, we speake vnto it as a liuely and reasonable thing, and pray; Lambe of God which taketh away sinnes haue mercy vpon vs, be­cause we beleeue not that which is seene, but that which truly is, Christ to be there. About these times liued the heathen Philospher Aueroes, Anno. 1142. as witnesseth M. Cronicle. fol. 208. Couper, who testifyeth so abundantly the general practise of this adoration in his time, for which he deryded Chri­stians, that the same is confessed & reported by M. Against He­skins. p. 235. Fulke, and byDe religione Chrstiana. l. 4. c. 18. p. 340. Ramus. In so much that M. Sutliue relateth that,Abridgement or, suruey of Popery. c. 47. p. 295. Aueroes of al religions accounted Popery to be most absurd, for that the Papistes worship a peece of a Masse cake for their God, & yet presently deuour him into their bel­lies. Before al these liued S. Damas­cene, whomCronic. p. 451. Carion chargeth, not onely with Transubstantiation, but withal placeth, the adoration of the reserued and eleuated bread within the second 500. yeares after Christ. Pra­torius [Page 101] De sacramen­tis. p. 288. also not only telling how Damascene taught transubstantiation, but withal affirming that Anno. 735. Adoration of the bread followed it, as if Christ were there, saith he; wherto M. Act. mon. p. 896. Foxe addeth, that if Honorius did not (as we haue seene he did not) first begin the same thē we cannot (saith he) find it out to come in by any other.

And do but now lastly obsetue that whereas D. Appeale. l. 4. c. 29. p. 566. Morton doth praticularly recyte al or most of these alledged premises, he doth yet in liew of direct answere therto, shufle them of with other extraua­gant discourse, and deceipful com­paring of phrases, answearing no­thing at al to the aknowledged te­stimonies of Odo, Algerus, Aueroes, Carion, and Praetorius, al which do euidently proue the obserued prac­tise of adoration, before the time of Honorius the 3. He also answeareth nothing to that which is there infer­red from the wordes of Honorius his decree prouing adoration to haue [Page 102] bene then before general. He like­wise answeareth nothing to the foresaid and there cyted testimonies of S. Austin, Ambrose, Chrisostome, and Nazianzen, nor to Chemnitius, so alledging them. He trifleth a­bout Vrban the 4. who liued after Honorius the 3. He obiecteth for authentical against vs, Cassander, a condemned nouelist, his alledged wordes yet being not against the adoration, but circumgestation of the Sacrament: and he finally endeauo­reth to deceiue and sophiticate his reader from external adoration, to adoration improperly taken, by de­ceiptful comparing of phrases, which course but admitted, no point of religion can be so plainly deliuered, but may therby be euaded, seeing no word almost can be alledged which haith not somtimes by some of the Fathers, in some one or other matter and vpon other occasiō bene improperly vsed.

Wherefore I bouldly prouoke to the readers iudgement that none so [Page 103] stupid as hence discerneth not, that the knowen & vnanswearable prac­tise of this Adoration, perpetuated thus from before the obiected time to the contrary of Honorius the 3. to the foresaid confessed much more auncient times, without any nouel contradicted beginning therof in the meane time knowen, is a most sure and saife interpreter of the other foresaid sayinges alledged formerly in proof thereof from S. Austin, Chri­sostome, and other the auncient Fa­thers of that age, and that as those Fathers did agree with the times following in semblable tearmes of Adoration, so likewise in one and the same intended truth and meaning therof: Then which what can be produced more conuincing and de­monstratiue in proofe of the real pre­sence, which the said adoration doth necessarily suppose.

S. Austin teacheth that the Eucha­rist is a true and proper sacrifice, and that it is propiciatory euen for the deade; And that it was offered vpon Altars consecrated with oyle, and the signe of the Crosse. SETION. 5.

IN further proofe of S. Austines professed doctrine concerning both real presence, and adoration, he affirmeth with vs the Eucharist to be a sacrifice according to the order of Melchisadech, exhibited of Christes bo­dy and bloud offered. To which pur­pose he writeth,Tom. 6. cont. aduers. leg. et Prophet. l. 1. c. 20. post init. Those who reade know what Melchisadech brought forth, when he blessed Abraham, they are al­so partakers of it, they see the like sacri­fice now to be offered to God al ouer the world. Againe,Tom. 2. ep. 95. ad Inno­cent. post med. Melchisadech bringing forth the Sacrament of our Lords table knew to prefigure his eter­nal [Page 105] Preisthood. As also,Tom. 5. de ci­uit Dei. l. 18. c. 35. circa med. we see this sacrifice by the Preisthood o [...] Christ accor­ding to the order of Melchisedech to be now offered to God in euery place from the East to the west. This point of Melchisedeches sacrifycing is so cleare in S. Austin that D. Appeale. p. 166. Morton in his very obiecting of him, yet ac­knowledgeth that S. Austin held that Melchisedeches offering was a sa­crifice.

Now this sacrifice of the new Te­stament according to the order of Melchisedech, S. Austin teacheth to be the sacrifice of the body & bloud of christ saying most pregnātly of christ that,Tom. 8. in Psal. 33. Con. 2. ante expo­sit. Psal. post med. Of his body & bloud he or dai­ned a sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech. As alsoTom. 5. de ciuit. Dei. l. 17. c. 20. post. med. what more credible to speake, then that which per­taineth to the participation of this table, which the Preist him selfe th [...] mediator of the new Testament exhibiteh according to the order of Melchisedech of his owne body and bloud; for this sacrifice haith succeeded to al the sacrifices of the [...] Testament. Againe reporting, [Page 106] howIbidem. l. 22 c. 8. ante med. one whose house had suf­fered hurt by wicked spirits, requested a Preist to goe thither, wherupon (saith S. Austin) one went and offered there the sacrifice of the body of Christ, praying earnestly that that trouble might cease, (and) God forthwith taking pitty, it ceased. And as here he calleth it the sacrifice of Christes body, so els­where he calleth it, the sacrifice of the mediator, saying,Tom. 3. En­chirid. c. 110. initio. It is not to be denyed, that the soules of the deade are reliued by the piety of their liuing fren­des, when the sacrifice of the mediator is offered for them. A saying also so plaine for Purgatory, that for such it is confessed and reiected byIn his Treatise vpon S. Aust. Enchirid. in c. 110. fol. 310. Da­naeus. It is also called The sacrifice of our price or redemption, for S. Austin speaking of his mother Mo­nica then deade, he saith,Tom. 1. l. 9. confes. c. 12. circa med. when the sacrifice of our price was offered for her &c. And againe,Ibidem. c. 13. circa med. she desired that she might be remembred at thy Al­tar &c. where she knew the holy obla­tion to be geuen wherwith the band it cancelled which was against vs. He [Page 107] calleth it also,Tom. 5. de ci­uit. Dei. l. 8. c. 27. ante med. The sacrifice of Christians, See before here at t. which succeeded al the sacrifices of the old Testament: wher­of he also further writeth, that,Tom. 7. de bapt. cont. Don. l. 3. c. vlt. prope fin. Those whom our Lord clensed from the leper he sent backe to the same Sacra­ments, that with the Preistes they might offer for them selues sacrifice, because the sacrifice which he would haue to be celebrated in the Church for them al, had not yet succeeded.

S. Austin also auoucheth, that this sacrifice of Christes body and bloud is propitious or auailable for the soules in Purgatory, his wordes are,Tom. 3. in Enchirid. c. 110. post med. when therefore the sacrifices whether of the Altar, or of the Almes, are offered for al the deade that are Baptised, they are thankes-geuinges for those that are very good, and they are propitiations (or sacrifices to apease Gods displea­sure) for those that are not very euil: These wordes are so conuincing thatDe sacrificio M [...]ssatico. l. 2. c. 7. p. 525. And see the Centuristes. cent. 5. c. 6. col. 674. Hutterus excusing Ciprians ob­iected wordes of sacrifice for the deade, as to be but meant of the sa­crifice of prayer; yet comming next [Page 108] after to answeare this place of S. Austin, in steede of al euasion it is so direct and plaine for external sa­crifice for the deade, that as enfor­ced he saith thereof, In aeternum de­fendi non potest, it can neuer be de [...]en­ded; And therefore immediatly af­ter he prouoketh to the law and te­stimony of Esay. 8.20. hauing affir­med before that, In this present que­stion (of sacrifice) Austin doth not a­gree with him selfe. But S. Austin proceedeth yet further teaching this to be a tradition of the vniuersal Church, saying,Tom. 10. de verbis Apost. serm. 32. c. 2. initio. It is not to be doubted but that the dead are holpen by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the wholsome sacrifice, and Almes, which are geuen for their soules, that our Lord may deale more mercifully with them then their sinnes haue deser­ued. for the vniuersal Church obser­ueth this as deliuered from their fore­fathers, that those should be prayed for, and the sacrifice remembred to be offe­red for them who dye in the communi­on of the body and bloud of Christ, when [Page 109] they are remembred in their place at the time of the sacrifice &c. It is not to be doubted, but that these thinges do profit the deade, but such, who haue so liued before their death, that these things might be profitable to them after their death. for su [...]h as d [...]e without faith, which worketh by charity, and the Sa­craments, in vaine are these workes of piety bestowed vpon them by their frendes &c. Therefore no new m [...]rits are ob [...]ay­ned for the deade, when their frendes do any good for them, but their owne merits going before, these are made to follow. Lastly his aduise is that, as for such thinges which helpe the soules of the dead, as sacrifices, prayers, Almes, they bestow for them more diligently, instantly, abundantly which being deade in flesh not in spirit, they loue not onely carnally but spiritually: This place is so pregnant for our purpose that it is recyted, confessed, and reiected byDe origine er­roris. c. 9. fol. 223. Bullinger. Lastly S. Austin teacheth that this sacrifice is offered vpon Altars saying,Tom. 10. de sanctis ser. 11. prope init. The body of our Lord is offered vpon the Altar. [Page 110] AndTom. 5. de ci­uit Dei. l. 22. c. 10. circa med. we erect Altars in which we sacrifice to one God. Affirming fur­ther that,Tom. 10. de sanctis, ser. 19. prope. fin. Altars are consecrated with the signe of the Crosse: And thatTom. 10. ser. de tempore. 255. initio. The stone is hallowed or annointed, vpon which the diuine sacrifices are consecrated vnto vs. Yea such reue­rence he bore to Altars, that saith he,Ibidem. We celebrate this day the con­secration of the Altar. And rhe vse ofConcil. Aga­thens. can. 14. Altars was such in this age of S. Austines, that the Centuristes say,Cent. 5. col. 744. Osiander. cent. 5. l. 4. c. 18. p. 482. & l. 1. c. 30. p. 123. they begun in this age &c. to consecreate Altars of stone, powring vpon them Chrisme as is decreed in the 26. Canon of the Councel Eupau­nense.

S. Austin teacheth that man haith free wil. SECTION. 1.

THe Sacraments being thus en­ded, I wil now proceed to other doctrines, and first concerning freewil enhabled now in vs, not by nature, but by grace; wherin I find, as in the former points of faith, so likewise in this, S. Austin most agree­able with our now Catholicke Ro­man Church, for thus he teacheth, thatTom. 6. in actis cum Fae­lice Manich. l. 2. c. 4. circa med. euery man haith in his wil, either to choose those thinges which are good, and be a good tree, or to choose those those thinges which are euil, and be an euil tree &c. This therefore our [Page 140] Lord saying, either do ye this, or do ye that, sheweth that it is in their power what they should do. Againe,Tom. 8. in Psal. 7. prope fin. He that made vs would haue it in our power not to consent to the diuel: yea he affir­meth that,Tom. 3. de spir. & lit. c. 34. post med. It is in our wil to con­sent to Gods calling, or to dissent from it: As also,Tom. 2. ep. 47. Valentino. ante med. I haue dealt with yours and our brethren what I could, that they would perseuer in the sound Catholicke faith, which neither denyeth freewil whether to bad life or to good, neither attributeth so much vnto it as that without grace it auaileth any thing. And for our performance of good he teacheth thatTom. 7. Hy­pog. l. 3. cir­ca med. God doth (by his assisting grace) worke and man (by his freewil) cooperate; Saying also of the faithful per­son that,Tom. 9. in E­uang. Ioan. tract. 72. ver­sus finem. Christ working in him he also worketh his owne eternal salua­tion and iustification.

But in this point S. Austin is so confident, as that he doubteth not to condemne the Manichees of here­sy for their denyal of freewil:Tom. 6. de fi­de, cont. Ma­nich. c. 9. fin. Against these thinges (saith he) the [Page 141] Manichees barke with accustomed blind­nes, & when th [...]y are conuinced that na­ture is not euil, but (most pregnant­ly for freewil in vs) that it is in the power of man either to do wel or euil, they say that the soule haith no freewil, and do not see their owne blindnes. with him agreeth S. Hierome affir­ming thatIn proaemio li­brorum aduer­sus Pelagianos. fine. It is proper to the Ma­nichees to condemne the nature of men and to take away freewil and Gods assi­stance; for which error also they are condemned by S.In Ioan. hom. 45. prope ini­tium. Chrisostome: In al which places of these Fathers it is euidēt by the context of thē, that the said Fathers condemned the Manichees as erroneous, not onely for their denyal of freewil in Adam, (as Protestants pretend) but also for their further denyal thereof in vs, as is likewise confessed by the ProtestantDe vniuersali gratia. p. 109. Hemingius: And in this S. Austin laboured so far as that he alledged a whole composedTom. 7. de grat. et lib. arb. c. 2. troughout. Tract of collected Scriptures (not peculiar to Adam, but such as con­cerne vs, in further proofe therof. [Page 142] For which and sundry other his plaine sayinges in proofe of freewil he is acknowledged and disliked by theCent. 5. c. 4. col. 500. 501. Century writers.

Hence also it is, that S. Austin so vtterly disclameth from the Pro­testants supposed impossibility of keeping the commaundements, as that he forbeareth not to affirme,Tom. 7. de grat. & lib. arb. c. 2. init. that the commaundements of God would not profit man vnles he had freewil, wherwith doing them &c. And againe,Tom 6. de fide. cont. Manich. c. 10. initio. who wil not cry out that it is a foolish thing to geue commaundements to him who h [...]ith not freedome to do what is commaunded, and that it is in­iury to cond [...]me him, who had not pow­wer to fulfil the commaundementes. This is so cleare in S. Austin, that Melancthon saith thereof,Lib. 1. epist. p. 290. Austin haith not sufficiently explicated the iusti­fication of faith &c. which thou shalt rightly vnderstand, if thou dost cast away thine eye wholly from the law, and from Austines immagination of fulfilling the law.

Yea S. Austin doubteth not to [Page 143] geue direct sentence against our ad­uersaries concerning Genesis. c. 4. v. 7. referring Caines dominion there expressed, not as intended to Abel, (as Protestants do of late trāslate) but to sinne, saying therof,Tom. 5. de ciuit. Dei. l. 15. c. 7. cir­ca med. Thou shalt haue dominion ouer it, what, of thy brother? God forbid, of what then but sinne? wherto assen­teth his familiar S. Hierome, saying likewise therof,In quaest. in Genes. because thou hast freewil, I do admonish thee, that sinne haue not dominion ouer thee, but thou ouer sinne. And the very same reading is affirmed and made good by di­uerse learned Protestants, as name­lyIn his great Bible in Gen. 4.7. Merce­rus vpon Ge­nesis. in Gen. 4 7. Pezel. in Genes. c. 4. p. 94. Gesne­rus, in Gen. p. 114. Castalio, Mercerus, Pezelius, and Gesnerus, who special [...]y recyteth and answeareth our aduersaries v­sual obiections to the contrary. Yea the agreeable translation hereto is accordingly obserued by the great English Bible of Anno. 1577. and by the english Bible in 4. of Anno. 1584.

And wheras Protestants vsually obiect S. Chrisostome to expound [Page 144] this place according to their mind; the truth is, he geueth both expo­sitions saying therupon,In Genes. hom. 18. I haue deliuered both senses, leauing to your wisdome that to be chosen which seemeth more agreeable to that which haith beene said: yea he inferreth and collecteth from this very place the freedome of wil saying,In Genes. hom. 19. c. 4. prope initium. The Lord of al thinges haith made our nature to haue freewil &c. he suffereth al to lye in the wil of him that is sicke, this therefore is now also done in Cain.

To al which (in more cleare explica­tion of S. Austines iudgement) I wil ad the further answearable consen­ting doctrine deliuered by S. Hie­rome and the Fathers of the Arausi­can Councel, which was celebrated in the age of S. Austin. and against the Pelagians who too much inha­bled freewil as of it selfe sufficient without grace: wherefore S. Hie­rome saith to the Pelagian Dial. 3. ad­uers. Pelag. This is that which I told thee in the beginning, that it is in our power to sinne or not to sinne, that freewil may be kept. The [Page 145] foresaid Councel also saith, (y) This also we beleeue according to the Catho­licke faith, that grace being receiued by Baptisme, al who are baptized through Christes helpe and cooperation may and ought to fulfil such thinges as belong to saluation, if they wil labour faithfully.

S. Austin techeth that our iustificati­on consisteth not onely in remission of sinnes, or not imputation ther­of, but likewise in good wo [...] ­kes: and that the same once had may be lost. SECTION. 2.

HOfman, with other Protestāts, teacheth that,Comment. de paenit. l. 2. fol. 114. The iustice wherwith we are saued &c. consisteth wholly in remission of our sinnes, or as Viril saith,Compendium Christian. re­lig. l. 1. c. 4. fol. 17. in imputation, both whichVolumen Thes. theol. vol. 1. loc. 15. p. 256. Piscator maketh al one. But S. Austin teacheth to the con­trary that,Tom. 2. ep. 106. Bonif. post init. The grace of God &c. [Page 146] bringeth to the life of the second man, not onely by blotting out sinnes, but also by helping not to sinne. As alsoTom. 2. ep. 105. ad Six­tum. post med. neither &c. is any man freed and iusti­fyed but by the grace of God &c. not onely by remission of sinnes, but first by the inspiration of faith it [...]efle, and the feare of God &c. Againe,Tom. 7. de natura & grat. c. 26. post init. Our heauenly Phisition doth to this end only cure our diseases that now they be not, but that hereafter we may walke rightly. And the Milleuitan Councel (wherat S. Austin was present and subscri­bed) decreed that,Can. 3. whosoeuer shal say, that the grace of God wherwith we are iustifyed &c. doth auaile onely to the remissio of sinnes &c. let him be accursed. Yea S. Austin is so plaine herein, as that Caluin mantaining imputatiue iustice by onely faith, and as seclu­ding workes therin, reproueth S. Austins contrary doctrine saying therof,In omnes Pauli epist. ep. ad Rom. c. 3.21. p. 35. I am not ignorant that Austin expoundeth otherwise &c. I know ouer wel, that certaine new spyers do produce very proudly this doctrine of Austin.

And wheras Protestantes vsually obiect S. Paul as contrary to S. Iames concerning Iustification by wor­kes. D. Whitaker confesseth that S. Austin agreeably with vs Catholickes doth reconcile them together say­ing,Resp. ad rat. Camp. rat. 1. p. 12. and see the Centu­ristes. Cent. 5. c. 10. col. 1133. and see Aug. quaest. 83. quaest. 76. Austin reconcyleth Iames to Paul, wherefore (saith Austin) the sentences of the two Apostles Paul, and Iames are not contrary in them selues &c. because Paul speaketh of workes which goe before faith (vnto which neuer Catholicke attributed iustification) and Iames of those workes that follow faith, (which is the very point that Catholickes now teach concerning iustification by workes.

Now that this iustificatiō by faith and workes once had may be lost, it is likewise taught by S. Austin saying,Tom. 7. de praedestinatio­ne Sanctorum. c. 14. post init. why is it graunted to some that they be taken out of the dangers of this life while they are iust, & others that are iust do liue longer in the same daungers vntil they fal from iustice? who knoweth the sense of our Lord? And againe,Tom. 7. de correp. et. grat. c. 13. post init. Let al feare who run wel, [Page 148] it being vnknowen who shal come (to the marke:) Therefore by reason of the profit of this secrecy, it is to be beleeued that some of the sonnes of perdition, not receiuing the guift of perseuerance vnto the end, do begin to liue in faith which worketh by charity, and for a time do liue faithfully and iustly, and after­wardes do fal, neither do they dye before this happen vnto them.

And from this vncertanty of per­seuerance S. Austin likewise adui­seth that,Ibidem. none of the multitude of the faithful, as long as they liue in this mortality, presume them selues to be in the number of the predestinate, because it is needful that that be hid in this place (or life;) which truth is fur­ther confirmed & depending of this his other doctrine that, No man can be certaine of his owne final perseuerance. And so speaking of the iust he af­firmeth (euen according to our ad­uersaries english translation) thatTom. 5. de ci­uit. Dei. l. 11. c. 12. circa med. And ac­cording to the english transla­tion. p. 419. these though they be assured of their reward for their perseuerance, yet are they not sure to perseuer (or rather [Page 149] according to the Latine they are vn­certaine of their perseueranc [...]) for what man knoweth that he shal continue to the end in action and encrease of iustice, vn­lesse he haue it by reuelation? And the good of this vncertanty he auouch­eth saying,Tom. 2. ep. 107. ad Vita­lem circa med. it is profitable to al or most for their sound humility, that they may not know what hereafter they are to be, to this end it is said, he that seemeth to stand, let him take heede lest he fal.

S. Austin teacheth that good workes do merit; and that there are wor­kes of supererrogation. SECTION. 3.

THat good workes do merit remis­sion of sinnes and life eternal, it is clearly taught by S. Austin say­ing.Tom. 3. En­chirid. c. 70. circa med. By almes God is to be paci­fyed for sinnes past. AndTom. 8. in Psal. 37. fin. Let al­mes be geuen, sinnes redeemed. As also,Tom. 5. de ciuit. Deind. 21. c. 27. multo ante med. Our Lord showeth how much al­mes [Page 150] auaile for the blotting out of sinnes past. And he demaundeth saying,Tom. 2. ep. 105. ad Sixtū. multo ante med. And see Tom. 2. ep. 52. 46. 47. & Tom. 3. En­chirid. c. 106. 107. et tom. 7. de nat. et grat. c. 2. Are there no merits of the iust? there are truly, because they are iust &c. yea he further auoucheth that, As to the demerit of sinne death is geuen as wage, so to the merit of iustice as wage life eternal.

He proceedeth also further teach­ing the diuerse degrees of merits in these wordes,Tom. 9. in E­uang. Ioan. tract. 67. cir­ca med. Many mansions do signify the different (degrees or) dig­nities of merits in one life eternal. AndTom. 6. de sancta virgin. c. 26. circa med. & tom. 5. de ciuit. dei. l. 22. c. 30. One star differeth from another in glory &c. these are the diuerse merits of sainctes. But in this he is so ful that the contrary error he condem­neth in Iouinian: We condeme (saithTom. 10. de tempore, ser. 191. prope fin. & tom. 6. haer. 82. tom. 1. l. 2. retract. c. [...]2. he) the error of Iouinian, who affir­meth no difference of merits in the world to come: hereof also say theCent. 5. c. 4. col. 518. & see Chemnit. exam. part. 4. p. 110. 142. And see Wotton in defence of Parkins. p. 500. Cen­turistes, It appeareth that Austin was of that opinion, that virgins dedicated to holines haue more merit with God then the faithful that are married, for be­cause [Page 151] Iouinian thought the contrary, that they had no more merits, this in him reprehendeth Austin. l. 3. de pec. mer.

He likewise further teacheth by the example of Moyses preualing for the Israelites, Tom. 4. super Exodum. quaest. 149. post med. that we should be ad­monished, that when our owne merits do hould vs downe that we be not loued of God, that we may be holpen with him by the merits of them whom God loueth. In so much that he further auocheth that,Tom. 6. cont. Faustum. l. 20. c. 21. post init. & tom. 5. de ciuit. Dei. l. 21. c. 27. post med. Christian people do celebrate with religious solemnity the memories of martyrs &c. that they may be par­takers of their merits, and holpen with their prayers. yea be encorageth vs to do good in hope or expectation of reward, for thus he writeth,Tom. 8. in Psal. 120. post med. when thou dost a good worke, do it for life eternal &c. do it not but for life eternal, if therefore thou doest it, thou doest it securely, for this God haith commaunded.

And as for workes of supererroga­tion or Christian perfection, that is, that a man may do more then he is [Page 152] commanded to do, S. Austin spea­king of Commaundements and Coun­cels, and alluding to Luke, 10.35. saith,Tom 6. de sancta virgin. c. 30. circa med. Those things are exacted these are offered, if these be done, they are commended, if those be not done they are condemned, in those our Lord commaun­deth what is debt, but in these if ye shal any thing supererrogate, at his returne he wil repay you. And againeTom. 10. de temp. serm. 61. circa med. One thing is counsel, another commaund, &c, he that willingly heareth counsel and doeth it shal haue greater glory, he that fulfilleth not the cammaunde­ment, vnlesse he repent, cannot escape punishment. To this purpose he also cyteth those wordes of S. Paul to theTom. 7. Hy­pognost. l. 3. c. 8. multo post med. Corinthians, Of virgins I haue no commaundement of our Lord, but I geue counsel. And in further example hereof the Protestant writer M. Vpon Iude. p. 226. and see Aug. tom. 2. ep. 89. versus finem. Trig saith, S. Austin counting it a degree of perfection in Christianity not to seeke after the riches of the world, thus writes of himselfe: I who write these thinges haue loued that perfection, wherof our Lord spake to the yong man, [Page 153] goe and sel al thou hast, how far I haue gone forward in this way of perfection I know more then any other &c. and to this purpose with al my might I exhort others, and &c. haue companions to whom this is perswaded by my ministrie. But to conclude this doctrine of workes of supererrogation is so true & cleare, that it is therefore assented vnto by M. Eccles. pol. l. 3. sec. 8. p. 140. & l. 2. p. 103. 122. Hooker, and D. Defence of Hooker. art. 8. p. 49. 50. 51. 52. Couel.

Lastly S. Austin is so plainly a­greeing with vs and dissenting from Protestants in these questions of iu­stification and merits ef workes, as that he is therefore reproued by sundry Protestant wri [...]ers. Austin somtime (saithCent. 4. l. 4. c. 23. p. 520. Osiander) in the article of iustifi [...]ation seemeth to attribute ouer much to the merits of good workes which are done after a mans conuersion. The Centuristes likewise say,Cent. 5. c. 4. col. 507. Austin somtimes geueth ouer much to good wor­kes. Brentius In confes. Wit­tenberg. & see Melancthon. l. 1. epist. p. 290. and in Concil. theol. p. 240. Cal­uin institut. l. 3. c. 11. sec. 15. affirmeth that, S. Austin taught affiance in mans merits towardes remission of sinne. The di­uines of Wittenberge charge S. Austin [Page 154] for his teaching (sayEnglish har­mony of con­fessions. sec. 16. c. 25. p. 509. they) that we obtaine remission of our sinnes and life, not onely for Christ his sake through faith, but also for the merit of our workes. Melancthon writeth that,In colloquio Altembe [...]g. fol. 307. we are iust not onely by faith, but by al guiftes and vertues, and this truly is Austines mind: yea he preuenteth the obiection of S. Austin somtimes mencioning onely faith, saying,Ibidem. fol. 308. with Austin onely faith onely excludeth workes going before (faith.)

S. Austin teacheth that mortal and venial sinnes do differ of their owne natures. SECTION. 4.

COncerning the distinction of mortal and venial sinne; the dif­ference wherof aryseth, according to the Protestants opinion, not from the diuersity of the sinnes in them selues, but of the parties committing [Page 155] them, so as to their faithful profes­sors (if we wil beleeueInstitut. l. 3. c. 4. sec. 28. Fulke against Rhem. Test. in ep. Iean. sec. 5. fol. 447. Caluin, Fulke, and others) al sinnes are venial, and vnto others asWillet sinopsis. p. 560. Papistes, al sinnes are mortal. yet S. Austin tea­cheth the contrary, somtimes (saithTom. 3. En­chirid. c. 22. post med. he) we lye for the good of others, a sinne therefore it is, but venial. And,Tom. 7. cont. duas ep. Pelag. l. 3. c. 3. post init. Al sinnes do not make vs the sonnes of the deuil. yea he recyteth,Tom. 10. de sanctis. serm. 41. post init. And Tom. 3. Enchirid. c. 78. 79. quae sunt minuta peccata, which are litle sinnes as for example, as often as a man ea­teth and drinketh more then is necessary, or speaketh more then is meete, or is more silent then is expedient, with a num­ber more such like. In so much that Peter Martir writeth thatCommon pla­ces. part. 3. c. 4. sec. 81. p. 153. S. Au­stin in his books de spir. et lit. c. 28. saith, euen as there are certaine venial sinnes without which euery iust man cannot liue, and yet they hinder vs not from salua­tion, so are there &c. And as for these venial sinnes, S. Austin thinketh that the saying of our Lords prayer is ex­piatory for them, for thus he wri­teth, There Tom. 9. de symbolo ad Catechum. l. 1. c. 7. circa med. are venial sinnes with­out which this life is not &c. for litle [Page 156] sinnes, without which we cannot be, pray­er is inuented, what haith prayer? for­geue vs our debtes &c. if their sinnes were smale ones, this dayly prayer would suffice to blot them out. In like sortTom. 4. de vera et fal. pae­nit. c. 4. pro­pefin. There are certaine venial sinnes which are dayly loosed by our Lords pray­er &c. but others which are to death, are not so loosed, but by the fruictes of penance. Againe,Tom. 3. Enchirid. c. 71 for dayly, short, and light sinnes without which this life is not spent, the dayly prayer of the faith­ful satisfyeth. And he expresly ma­keth difference betweeneTom. 5. de ci­uit. Dei. l. 21. c. 27. & in rhe Eng. trans. p. 871. 872. sinne, and crime, betweene great sinnes and smale sinnes; affirming withal that this which he speaketh of our Lords prayer concerneth smale sinnes onely. To which purpose he is further al­ledged by the 4. Tolletane Can. 9. Coun­cel. As lastly that S. Austin doub­teth not to affirme that,Tom. 4. de vera et fal. pae­nit. c. 20. et vlt. post init. venial sinnes were alwaies forgeuen by ceremo­nies. Now this doctrine of the dif­ference of mortal and venial sinnes is so cleare a truth that with S. Austin and vs it is likewise taught and de­fended [Page 157] byLoc. com. part. 3. in his Thesis therto annexed. fol. 24. Melancth. in concil. E­uang. p. 546. Musculus. loc. com. p. 29. The harmony of confessions. p. 81. Chemnitius, Melanc­thon, and other Protestant wri­ters.

S. Austin teacheth that it is lawful and godly to pray for the dead; & that there is a place of Purga­tory after this life. SECTION. I.

COncerning prayer for the dead, S. Austin was so wholly Ca­tholicke, as that without altergiuer­sation or staggering he spareth not to write that,Tom. 10. de verbis Aposto­li. serm. 32. c. 2. initio. It is not to be doubted but that the dead are holpē by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the wholsome sacrifice and almes which are geuen for [Page 158] their soules, that our Lord may deale more mercifully with them then their sinnes haue deserued; for the vniuersal Church obserueth this as deliuered from their forefathers, that those should be prayed for, and the sacrifice remembred to be offered for them, who dye in the communion of the body and bloud of Christ, when they are remembred in their place at the time of the sacrifice &c. It is not to be doubted, but that these thinges do profit the dead, but such, who haue so liued before their death, that these thinges may be profi­table to them after their death: for such as dye without faith, which worketh by charity, and the Sacraments, in vaine are these workes of pitty bestowed vpon them by their frendes &c, Therefore no new merits are obtained for the dead, when their frendes do any good for them, but their owne merits going before, these are made to follow. Yea his aduise is that, as for such thinges which helpe the soules of the deade, as sacrifices, prayers, almes, they bestow vpon those more diligently, instantly, abundantly, [Page 159] who being deade in flesh not in spirit, they loue not onely carnally but spiritu­ally. Againe,Tom. 3. En­chirid. c. 110. initio. there is one so good that these thinges he needeth not, and againe, another so euil that neither can he be holpen with these when he dyeth &c. therefore they profit not al men &c. when then the sacrifice of the Altar, or of any Almes are offered for al the deade that are baptised, for those that are very good they are thanksgeuinges, for those that are not very euil they are pro­pitiatiōs, or sacrifices satisfying Gods iustice. Also,Tom. 4. de cura pro mor­tuis. c. 18. init. they profit not al for whom they are done, but those onely who while they liued deserued that they profit them, but because we know not who those are, we ought to do them for al the regenerate. Now wheras D. Morton and other Protestants do vulgarly obiect that S. Austin prayed for his mother Monica, whom yet he thought to be in heauen, and that the like was done by other Fathers for those who vndoubtedly were also in heauen; this S. Austin for him selfe and the other Fathers haith [Page 160] answeared and explained in the pre­cedent wordes, affirming that for such as were very good, or in heauen, prayers were thankesgeuinges, and for those who were not very euil, or in hel, they were propitiations, or satis­factions. Yea S. Austin is so Ro­man Catholicke, as that M. Fulke auoucheth that,Confut. of Purg. p. 349. Austin defended prayer for the dead, and that,Ibidem. p. 326. it was the common error of his time: for which also he is acknowledged and reproued byTract. theol. p. 394. Bul­ling. de origi­gine erroris. c. 9. fol. 223. Caluin, and Bul­linger.

In like sort concerning Purgato­ry or temporal punishment after this life, S. Austin affirmeth expresly that,Tom. 5. de ciuit. Dei. l. 21. c. 13. [...]ane. & after the eng. translation. l. 21. c. 16. p. 857. & l. 21. c. 21. p. 860. & l. 21. c. 24. p. 863. some suffer temporal punish­ments onely in this life, others after death, some in both; and that there areTom. 5. de ciu. Dei. l. 20. c. 25. ante med. certaine Purgatory paines for certaine persons hereafter: In so much that D. Fulke acknowledgeth thatConfut. of Purgat. p. 110. Austin de ciuit. Dei. l. 21. c. 13. concludeth very clearly that some suffer temporal paines after this life, this may not be denyed. And that,Ibidem. p. 78. Au­stin [Page 161] speaketh indeede of the amending fire, but had no ground of that fire, but in the common error of his time.

S. Austin teacheth local hel, and material fire therin: As also Lim­bus Patrum, or Christes de­scending into hel. SECTION. 2.

COncerning local hel, and that the material fire therof puni­sheth the wicked spirits and soules of men; wheras M. Iacob saith,In Bilsons sur­uey of Christes sufferinges p. 43. You set your selfe to proue that in hel there is material fire &c. you cal it true fire which we vtterly deny. AndIbidem. p. 46. The Scripture show no more any cor­poral or material, or true fire in hel, then a corporal worme, material brimstone &c. which are onely so tearmed metaphorically. yet S. Austin to the contrary affirmeth that,De ciu. Dei. l. 21. c. 10. incorpo­real spirits may be strange yet true mea­nes be tormented with the punishment of [Page 162] corporal fire: In so much as D. Bil­son confesseth thatIn his suruey. p. 44. S. Austin long since haith plainly resolued, that the fire of hel is not onely a true fire, but a corporal fire, that shal punish both men and deuils; auoching yet further this to be a doctrine receiued by the Fa­thers of al ages in Christes Church. Amongst whom S. Hierome condem­neth Origen for teaching this error that,Ad Auitum. And see Bil­sons suruey. p. 51. The fire of hel &c. doth not torment, but the conscience of sinners. And yet Danaeus is content to be con­demned for an hereticke with Origen in defending that,Resp. ad Bel­lar. disput. part. altera. ad. 6. con­trou. p. 1227. The word fire is taken in the holy Scripture Metaphorically and tropically, not properly. As also D. Reynoldes mantaining that,Censura libro­rum Apocri­phorum, in his title of lecture. 51. 52. 53. 54. 56. 57. the fire of hel is not material, nor burneth soules corporally; with whom also a­greethInstitut. l. 3. c. 25. parag. 1 [...]. Caluin. Lastly S. Austin is so cleare herein, that Danaeus be­ing to answeare his testimonie ob­iected by Bellarmine, haith no other refuge left him, but barely to say that,In re [...]pons. vbi supra. p. 1327. the authority of Austin here is none, or of no worth.

So likewise concerning Limbus Patrum, or Christes descending into hel, S. Austin teacheth that,Tom. 10. de tempore. ser. 137. prope init. Christ laid his flesh in the monument, and his soule accompaning him he descended to hel, wherby the elect, who though they were in the bosome of tranquillity, yet being detained within the gates of hel, are brought againe to the pleasures of Para­dise: neither was this the priuate opi­niō of S. Austin, for he further auoch­eth that,Tom. 2. ep. 99. ad Euodi­um. multo an­te med. almost the whole Church agreeth concerning the first man (Adam) that Christ loosed him (from hel.) To which purpose D. Bilson Suruey. p. 598. particularly alledgeth S. Austin.

S. Austin teacheth that Sainctes are to be inuocated, and worshiped: As also their reliques to be reuerenced. SECTION. 3.

COncerning inuocation of Sainctes, S. Austin is so fully agreeing [Page 164] with vs, that him selfe doubteth not to pray vnto S. Ciprian, being long before martyred, saying,Tom. 7. de Baptismo. con­tra Don. l. 7. c. 1. & see l. 5. c. 17. Let him helpe vs with his prayers &c. that our Lord graunting, we may immitate his goodnes, as much as we are able▪ yea he reporteth in proofe hereof this strange miracle,Tom. 5. de ciuit. Dei. l. 12. c. 8. circ. med. & in the english transla­tion. p. 886. One Florentius (saith he) here of Hippo, a poore old man lost his vpper garment, and being vnable to buy an other, he came to the shrine of the 20. Martyrs, and prayed aloud vnto them to helpe him to ray­ments &c. at his departure he espyed a great fish newly cast vp by the sea &c. and cutting the fish he found in the bellie therof a ring of gold. And in this doctrine S. Austin is so cleare, that Chemnitius relating his former prayer to S. Ciprian affirmeth that,Examen. part. 3. p. 211. Austin did this without Scripture, yealding to the time and custome: So general was the custome of praying to the Sainctes in the time of S. Au­stin; for which he is also further re­prehended by otherThe Centu­ristes. Cent. 5. c. 6. col. 674. Lectius. in praescript. theol. l. 2. p. 174. 277. 280. Protestants; M. Fulke not forbearing also to ac­knowledge [Page 165] and say,Reioynder to Bristow. p. 5. I confesse that Ambrose, Austin, and Hierome, held inuocation of Sainctes to be lawful.

In like sort, in proofe that Sainctes may be worshiped, he wryteth thus of martyrs,Tom. 5. de ciu. Dei. l. 8. c. 27. init. we honour their memories as of holy men of God. And,Ibidem. l. 20. c. 21. ante med. we worship Martyres with that worship of loue &c. but with that worship which in gre [...]ke is called Latria (or which is proper onely to God) we neither worship them nor teach them to be wor­shiped. Yea S. Austin is reproued for vsing our now vsual distinction of Dulia, and Latria, by Hospinian saying,De Templis. p. 207. Blessed Austin first inuen­ted this distinction of Dulia and Latria, and amongst religious worshipes he thus distinguished, that, that which is due onely to God, he calleth Latria, and that he nameth Dulia which is lawful to geue vnto creatures. And to this purpose he alledgeth sundry sayinges of S. Austin.

But S. Aust. also approueth the feasts celebrated in honour of Sainctes say­ing,Tom. 8. in Psalm. 63. initio. Hauing this day the feast of the [Page 166] passion (or death) of holy Martyrs &c. As also,In Psal. 88. con. 2. and see Concil. 3. Carthag. can. 47. The martyrs, whose birth d [...]yes we celebrate, said &c. yea Chem­nitius alledgeth S. Austin to say,Examen. part. 2. p. 176. & see Aug. tom. 6. contra Fau­stum. l. 20. c. 21. post init. Christian people do celebrate together the memories, of martyrs with religious solemnity. Furthermore concerning the honoring of the Reliques of Sainc­tes, the 5. Carthage Councel (wher­at S. Austin was present) decreed thus,Can. 14. It pleaseth vs that Altars which are errected in the feildes & high wayes, as the memories of martyrs, in which no body or reliques of martyrs placed, are approued by the Bishops &c. be cast dowen. This Canon Osiander tearmethCent. 5. l. 1. c. 33. p. 158. a foolish and grosly su­perstitious constitution, Austin being ei­ther presēt or approuing it. And the like dislike of this Canon is to be seene in theCent. 5. col. 697. Century writers. But S. Au­stin him selfe further saith,Tom. 2. ep. 103. ad Quin­tianum fine. They carry the reliques &c. of Stephen the martyr, which your holines knoweth how fitly you ought to honor as we haue done. And,Tom. 3. de Eccles. dog. c. 73. initio▪ we beleeue that the re­liques of martyrs are most sincerely to [Page 167] be honoured as the members of Christ &c. if any impugne this opinion, he is not to be thought a Christian, but an Eunomian, and Vigilantian. This point of doctrine was so receiued in that age of S. Austin as that O­siander faith of S. Hierome (who was familiar with S. Austin) that,Cent. 4. l. 4. c. 19. p. 506. He foolishly contended, that the re­liques of Sainctes were to be worshiped. And the Centuristes recyte the very wordsCent. 4. c. 10. col. 1250. and col. 602. of S. Hierome concer­ning the worship of Reliques as also of Vigilantius obiecting to Catholickes their then vsual honouring of re­liques: The doctrine wherof S. Hie­rome reporteth to haue beene the receiued doctrine in his time (to vse his owneLib. contra Vi­gil. c. 3. wordes Non vnius vrbis, sed totius orbis, not of one Citty, but of the whol world. yea they were as then so religiously esteemed, as that,Tom. 2. ep. 137. multo an­te med. And see tom. 3. de Eccles. dog. c. 73. Pilgrimages were made vnto the places of their abode.

Lastly wheras Faustus the Mani­thee charged Christians in their ho­nouring of martyrs to haue made [Page 168] them Idols, euen asWhite in his way to the true Church. p. 220. Protestants do now charge vs Catholickes for worshiping of Sainctes, S. Austin thinketh so vnworthily & so basely of this obiection, as that he saith therof,Tom. 6. cont. Faust. Manich. l. 20. c. 21. initio. And see c. 4. & tom. 2. ep. 43. It doth not moue me so much as to answeare this calumnis &c.

S. Austin teacheth that it is lawful to vse and worship the Images of Christ and his Sainctes. SECTION. 4.

ALthough occasion to intreate of Images was not so ministred to S. Austin as of other thinges, yet he leaueth vs not without al te­stimony therof, but indeede affir­meth that it was vsual & frequent in his time to haue the pictures of Christ and his Sainctes: for vpon occasion of certaine Pagans deuised forgeries against Christ, and Peter, and Paul, S. Austin coniecturing why they [Page 169] named therin those two Apostles ra­ther thē the other, saith,Tom. 4. de consensu Euan­gelist. l. 1. c. 10. circa med. I thinke it was becau [...]e they had seene in many pla­ces them pictured together with him, to wit, Christ: And which argueth him to speake of Christian countries, he addeth immediatly next after (as in reason of being so painted to­gether with Christ) because Rome doth more famously & solemnly celebrarte the merits of Peter, and Paul, euen for the same day of their sufferinges.

And as concerning the diuision of the ten Commaundements into the first and second table, S. Au­stin (directly to the contrary of our aduersaries pretended argument a­gainst Images) differeth from them, therinTom. 4. quae­stionum in Ex­od. l. 2. q. 21. post init. affirming this part of the cōmandement. Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen thing, not to be a seueral distinct precept of it selfe, but parcel of (and therefore explai­ned by) this former, Thou shalt not haue strange Gods. Herein he wri­teth so largely, and his iudgement is so confessed, that Musculus spea­king [Page 170] of Catholickes saith,Loc. com. de Decalogo. p. 39. They diuide the precepts of the first table into three, and of the second into seauen, & so they leaue out the commaundement concerning Images and grauen thinges &c. following Austin who l. 2. quaest. super Exodum. c. 71, &c. appointeth three preceptes to the first table, and the other seauen to the second. And then as pretending most vnworthily, S. Austin to be herein contrary to him selfe, he further saith, But the same Austin plainly differeth from him selfe &c. againe if the authority please, why doth it not please in that which he writeth agreeably with the rest of the more auncient (Fathers) rather then in that which he write differently from others and him selfe; but it agreed better to the time wherin grauen thinges & Images were brought into the Church of Christ. Willet likewise for this very cause reproueth S. Austin saying,Comment. v­pon Exodus in c. 20. p. 515. As for the reasons of the contrary opinion, they are of no value, Austin would haue but three precepts in the first table. And againe,Ibidem. p. 314. The Romanistes [Page 171] opinion is, that there are but three com­maundements in the first table, put­ting the two first into one &c, of this opinion is Austin quaest. 71. in Exod.

And as by the premises S. Austin includeth the lawfulnes of sacred I­mages, so withal he confessedly teach­eth (which in direct tearmes exten­deth it selfe to theNumeri. 21. 8. brasen serpent, and the Images of Exod. 25.18. Cherubins, ap­pointed by God him selfe) this our Catholicke principle, that,Tom. 3. de doctrina Christ. l. 3. c. 9. initio. The honour geuen vnto profitable signes ap­pointed by God (as being in it selfe lawful) passeth from them to the thing signifyed. To which purpose Hospi­nian affirming that Sacraments may as signes be honoured, saith (euen as we say ofHist. sacram. part. 1. l 5. c. 8. p. 477. Images) that honour stayeth not in them, but passeth from them to the thinges which are signifyed. In proofe of which opinion, he also alledgeth S. Austin saying, Those thinges which Austin writ, de doctrina Christiana. l. 3. c. 9. do agree with these, who adoreth (saith he) a profi­table signe apointed by God, whose power [Page 172] and signification he vnderstandeth, doth not honour that which is seene and pas­seth, but rather that wherunto al such thinges are to be referred. This place is so pregnant, as that it is therfore alledged to the same purpose byDefens. de Eu­char. loc. 1. col. 382. Peter Martir.

Ad lastly therunto that the Lu­theranes haue stil Images in their Churches, as witnessethDefence of the English trāslat. of the Bible. c. 3. p. 119. M. Fulke, and are therin defended by diuerse Caluinistes, as namely D. Answeare to certaine ob­iect. p. 83. & 53. Tuch. An­tidot. p. 92. Bucer, in Cen­turia. ep. the­ol. p. 270. Pet Mart. & Melanc. in Polmerus. de Imaginibus. sec. 374. 476. 471. Fotherby, M, Tuchborne, Bu­cer, Peter Martir, and Melancthon.

S, Austin teacheth that prescribed dayes of fasting, and abstinence [...] from certaine meates are law­ful. SETION, 1.

FIrst as concerning the fast of Lent, S. Austin teacheth that,Tom. 10. de tempore. ser. 77. init. & ser. 62. not to keepe it at al is sacriledge, & in part to breake it is sinne: This doctrine is confessed and disliked in S. Austin by theCent. 5. c. 6. col. 686. 687. Centuristes, andDe tradit. A­post. part. 3. l. 3. col. 824. Hamelmannus; and it is fur­ther explained by S. Ambrose, whose disciple S. Aust. was, as the sameIbidem. col. 786. Hamelmannus testifyeth: and of whom Oecolampadius saith, [Page 174] How Epist. Oecol. & Suing. p. 608. should Austin teach contrary to Ambrose by whom he was ordered! Now it is euident that S. Ambrose expresly affirmeth thatSer. 25. 34. 36. It is sinne not to fast in Lent; wherin he is con­fessed and reproued by M. In Whitguiftes def. p. 100. Carthwright, who also saith of them both2. Reply part. 1. p. 83. Ambrose and Austin were both of them corrupt in Lent fast: for which also S. Ambrose is at large reprehended byDe tradit. A­post. col. 788. Hamelmannus.

In like sort concerning the then vsual fast of Wednesday, fryday, and Saturday, S, Austin saith,Tom. 1. ep. 86. ad Casula­num. mult. ante med. The Christian who accustometh to fast Wed­nesday, fryday, and Saturday, &c. This saying also is acknowledged by theCent. 5. c. 6. col. 730. 686. Centuristes.

But S. Austin proceedeth yet fur­ther condemning the contrary opi­nion of Protestants in the hereticke Aerius, saying of him,Tom. 6. haer. 53. init. It is re­ported that he haith added some opinions of his owne, saying that we ought not to pray or offer sacrifice for the deade, and that appointed fastes are not solemnly to be kept. In which his censure he is [Page 175] acknowledged and disliked byDe haeres. c. 53. fol. 177. Fulke in his answ. to a coū ­ter. Cath. p. 44. 45. Osiand. cent. 4. l. 3. c. 47. p. 434. Danaeus, Fulke, and Osiander: And yet the same censure is geuen against Aerius for the greeke Church by S.Haeres. 75. Epiphanius.

And wheras the Puritans, as M. Welsh, one of them confesseth,Reply against Browne. p. 196. say, we thinke it no heresy to fast on the Lords day, more then other dayes. yet S. Austin auoucheth that,Tom. 2. ep. 86. ad Casu­lanum. To fast on the Lords day is a great scandale, yea a scandal of the whol Church. In which he is confessed and alledged by M. Defence. p. 102. Whitguift and theCent. 4. col. 445. 401. Cen­turistes, and both he and S. Ambrose byDe tradit. A­post. part. 3. l. 3. col. 786. 787. Hamelmannus, and the 4.Can. 64. Carthage Councel for decreeing the same doctrine is reproued byCent. 5. p. 13. Osiander.

In like manner concerning ab­stinence from certaine meates, S. Austin reporteth of his time thatTom. 6. cont. Faust. Manich. l. 30. c. 5. post init. see Tom. 1. de moribus Ec­cles. c. 31. Catholickes &c. do abstaine, not onely from flesh, but also from certaine fruictes of the earth, not that they thinke them vncleane &c. And, almost al in Lent obserue this abstinence; which also [Page 176] may yet more appeare by Faustus the hereticke Manichee, who in defence of his owne wicked perpetual absti­nence from certaine meates, as of thier owne nature vncleane, signi­fyeth the Churches then Catholicke custome, in his obiecting therof & saying to S. Austin, Aug. Tom. 6. cont. Faust. Manich. l. 30. c. 4. post init. If Lent be obserued by you without wine and flesh not superstitiously but by Gods law &c. yea in this S. Austin was so ful that he censured and condemned Iouini­an for his contrary doctrine: wher­of saithExam. part. 4. p. 142. and see Aug. tom. 6. haer. 82. circa med. Chemnitius, Austin affir­meth Iouinian to haue taught, fastes or abstinence from certaine meates to pro­fit nothing. Of which also S. Austin saith him selfe,Tom. 3. de Eccles. dog. c. 68. init. & see the Cen­tur. cent. 4. c. 5. col. 381. to beleeue that no merit encreaseth to those that abstaine from wine or flesh, is not the part of a Christian, but of a Iouinian, or nouel Protestant; amongst whom3. part of his defence of the reform. Cath. p. 60. Wil. in Antilogie. p. 13. Dan. in 1. part. alt. part. p. 938. D. Abbot, Willet, and Danaeus, are not ashamed to defend Iouinian in his foresaid error.

S. Austin teacheth that the vow of chastity is lawful. SECTION. 2.

TO omit that S. Austin affir­meth it to be Tom. 1. l. 2. Retract. c. 22. initio. the heresy of Iouinian to equal the merit of wiues with virgins; he taught (as before) the lawfulnes of vowed chastity amongst those who are married, affirming that to such See before chap. 12. as with mutual con­sent haue vowed to God chastity, that a greater reward is truly due vnto them; and that Tom. 2. ep. 45. prope fin. such thinges are not to be vowed by married persons but by mutual consent &c. which once had he ad­deth further, geue both to God what you haue both vowed; yea he censu­reth the breach of the vow of chasti­ty for damnable adultery, saying. Tom. 8. in Psal. 83. post init. If he shal marry after the vow which he haith promised to God, he shal be condemned &c. If a Nunne shal marry, she shal be reputed to haue com­mitted adultery against Christ. To this [Page 178] purpose also the fourth Carthage Councel (wherat S. Austin was pre­sent and subscribed) decreed con­cerning vowed widowes, that Can. 104. If any widowes though yong in yeares &c. shal vow thēselues to God, and casting of their laye habit, shal appeare in religious ha­bit vnder the testimony of the Bishop & the Church, and shal afterwardes turne to secular marriages, according to the Apostle, they shal haue damnation. This decree is so disliking to Danaeus, that he chargeth the Councel and S. Austin with 1. partis. alt. parte. p. 1011. abusing manifestly the word of God; and as Osiander thin­keth Cent. 5. l. 1. c. 1. p. 20. this Canon haith great er­rors in it.

And wheras the auncient Noue­listes did vsually obiect (as Prote­stantes stil do) that of 1. Tim. 4.3. thence to infer, that the Churches forbidding of marriage in vowed persons, is the doctrine of diuels. S. Austin answeareth therto in these wordes, Tom. 6. cent. Faust. Manich. l. 30. c. 6. prope init. He forbiddeth to marry, who saith that it is euil, not he who preferreth before this good an other thing [Page 179] better. And the same answeare is made by Protestantes in the case of fasting from certaine meates as name­ly by M.Eccles. pol. l. 5. sec. 72. p. 209. Iacob in his defence of the Church. p. 59. quaeri­monia Eccle­siae. p. 106. 107. Hooker, M. Iacob, & others. Ad lastly herunto that this vowing of chastity by Preistes, Virgins, or Widowes, was not (as Protestants seeke to euade) in S. Austines iudge­ment Aug. Tom. 6. de virginit. c. 13. 22. 23. And see Fulke against Rhem. Test. in 1. Cor. c. 7. ad 28. in reguard of this present life, neither that they should passe the time without greater troubles, nor for the auoiding of greater vexations, but ex­presly for the life to come, which is pro­mised in the kindome of heauen. And according to this he reporteth Ioui­nians condemned error, saying, Tom. 6. haer. 82. prope fin. He would not marry, not for any grea­ter merit with God in the kingdome of life euerlasting, but for the present ne­cessity lest he should suffer the troublet of marriage.

S. Austin teacheth that it is lawful to vow the state of monastical or religious life. SECTION. 3.

COncerning the professed po­uerty of Monkes, S. Austin re­prehendeth one Ianuarius for that Tom. 10. de diuersis. serm. 49. de com. vita Cleric. c. 2. ante med. professing a life in common, he made a wil and apointed heires &c, wherof he further saith, Proh dolor illius so­cietatis, O greefe of that community. The beginning of this very sermon is aboue 900. yeares since alled­ged verbatim vnder S. Austines name by S. Bede in 2. Cor. c. 8. And this sermon and these very wordes now cyted, are at large recyted vn­der S. Austines name aboue 100. yeares since in the Councel of Cap. 112. Aquisgrane, vnder Lewis the first. The Centuristes also say hereof, Cent. 5. col. 710. Austin by the way reherseth certaine thinges of Monkes &c. as that, None of them possessed any thing proper to them [Page 181] selues: And the same is confessed by Polit. Eccles. l. 2. c. 13. p. 474. Hosp. de orig. Monach. fol. 74. Zepperus, and Hospinian, as also of S. Hierome, byEstate of the Church. p. 132. Chrispinus.

And that this profession of Mona­thisme was vnder vow, S. Austin further saith, Tom. 8. in Psal. 75. mult. post med. what is it, they made voide their first faith? they haue vowed & not performed; therfore let no brother placed in the Monastery say, I wil leaue the Monastery &c. it is answered to him they haue not vowed, thou hast vowed, thou hast looked backe &c. remember Lots wife. And yet in more ful expli­cation of S. Austines iudgment and the doctrine of his time; the Pro­testant Mollitor affirmeth euen of the Calcedon Councel, De Eccles. milit. p. 80. and see Concil. Calced. can. 15. that it, against the Oracles of the holy Ghost, forbad the vse of marriage to Monkes, and Nunnes.

But S. Austin yet further impug­neth the hereticke Petilianus for in­ueighing against this profession, he spake (saith S.Tom. 7. cont. lit. Petil. l. 3. c. 40. post med. Austin) with con­tumelious mouth in disprase of Monkes and Monasteries. And he chargeth [Page 182] the Circumcelians, for that Tom. 8. in Psal. 132. post init. they were accustomed to say what meaneth this name of Monkes. And againe, Ibidem. ante med. what do they say who insult against vs concerning the name of Monkes &c. who say vnto vs, show ye where the name of Monkes is written?

Now as concerning the religious habit of professed Virgins, Widowes, and Monkes, the 4. Carthage Coun­cel (wherto S. Austin subscribed) speaking of professed Widowes, saith, Can. 104. Those who leauing their laycal habit haue vowed them selues to God vnder the testimony of the Bishop & the Church in a religious habit &c. The Centuristes also confesse Cent. 5. c. 7. col. 744. and see also Osi­and. cent. 5. p. 155. veiled virgins (to be mencioned) in the 26. Canon of the Milleuitan Councel, wherto also S. Austin subscribed; as also to the 4. Carthage Councel wherin it was decreed that Can. 11. when a Nunne is pre­sented to the Bishop for her consecration, that she be clothed with such garments as shal be fit for her profession & sancti­mony euer after to vse. This Canon is also acknowledge by Osiander, [Page 183] charging it Cent. 5. l. 1. c. 1. p. 6. with superstitious and hipocritical habits. And the like is to be seene in the 3. Can. 4. Carthage Coun­cel, reported also by the same Cent. 4. p. 523. Osiander. The Centuristes also spea­king of the Monkes of the 4. age, confesse that they vsed Cent. 4. c. 6. col. 472. and see cent. 5. c. 6 col. 704. & Sozom. hist. l. 3. c. 13. a certaine clothing (or couering) vpon their heades, which they called their hood, a girdle also about their loynes, and a garment vpon their shoulders; and they mencion also the Cent. 5. c. 6. col 733. habit of Nunnes. In like manner as touching the ab­stinence of Monkes the Centuristes re­port from Cent. 5. c. 6. col. 688. and col. 711. 732. S. Austin their almost incredible fastes, affirming also from him that, some spent very often three whol dayes and more without meate or drinke, and that they abstained also from flesh and wine: and that Aust. in ep. 86. telleth that many in the Monaste­ries fasted fiue dayes in the weeke during their whol life.

S. Austin also testifyeth him selfe to haue beene a Monk, for speaking of Monachisme he saith, Tom. [...]. ep. 89. ad Hilari­um. versus fin. I who write these thinges &c. do exhort others [Page 184] to this purpose with al my power, and in the name of our Lord I haue parta­kers. And speaking against Petilia­nus he affirmeth that, Tom. 7. cont. lit. Petil. l. 3. c. 40. post med. he spoke with contumelious mouth in disprase of Monasteries and Monkes, reprehen­ding also me, that this kind of life was instituted by me. To which pur­pose also saith Passidonius of S. Aust. that, In vita August. c. 5. init. being made Preist, presently he erected a Monastery within the Church, and began to liue with the ser­uants of God according to the manner and rule. yea S. Austin further saith of him selfe, Tom. 10. de diuersis serm. 49. de com. vita Cleric. I disposed my selfe to be in the Monastery with the brethren &c. I sould my slender meanes, & gaue to the poore &c. behould how we liue, it is not lawful for any in our company to haue any thing proper to them selues. And the Centuristes likewise report that Gent. 5. c. 6. col. 701. Aust. in Psal. 103. exhor­teth rich men, that they wil sel their gooddes, fieldes, villages, gardens, to geue to the seruants of God, and to build Churches and Monasteries, yea [...] the 11. epistle is troubleth him not to [Page 185] number him selfe with the Monkes, when he saith, I in my litle cottage with my Monkes &c. The Centuristes al­so say concerning Eremits.Cent. 5. c. 6. col. 714. It is euident that there were Eremits &c. but they are called Anchoretes &c. Austin Tom. 1, de moribus Cathol. Eccl [...]s. l. 1. c. 31. expresly saith, that kind of men to be dispersed cheifly through the East and Aegipt, who liuing most priuate, altogether from the sight of men, do inhabit most desert places, and do en­ioy the speach of God: Of whom also S. Austin there affirmeth for their dyet that they were content onely with bread and water; mencioning also particularly one Tom. 5. de ciuit. Dei. l. 5. c. 26. post. init. And after the english translation. p. 232. Iohn an E­remite and Prophet.

Lastly though Protestants would delude al this, by barely affirming that the Monkes of those Primitiue times were much different in their profession and manner of life from ours of these, yet, besides the pre­mises which do ouer clearly con­uince the contrary, it is euident that, that very Monachisme which S. Au­stin [Page 186] haith thus described and com­mended, is much disliked by our li­bertine Nouelistes, & so according­ly Institut. l. 4. c. 13. sec. 16. Caluin saith, In the meane time I do not dissemble, but that in that very auncient forme (of Monachisme) there is some thing which litle pleaseth me. for which also both S. Austin and S. Hierome are further confessed and reprehended herein by De origine Monach. fol. 100. 106. Hospinian, who tearmeth also Ibidem. fol. 33. Austin a great louer of monastical profession according to the custome of that age &c. but this Father (let it be spoken otherwise with leaue of so great a man) wresteth the wordes of the Prophet, saith this Protestant: So litle pleasing is S. Austin and the auncient Monkes with their perfection and austerity of life to moderne Protestantes.

Concerning Antichrist his comming at the end of the world: And of Enoch, and Elias, their com­ming as then to resist him. SECTION. 1

VVEreas our aduersaries do thinke, the word Anti­christ to signify, not an open profes­sed aduersary, but Christes preten­ded Centuristes cent. 1. l. 2. col. 435. Mu­sulus, loc. com. p. 184. Vicar; the Centuristes do to the contrary confesse, that S. Austin is of opinion that Antichrist shal be one, who wil directly oppose him selfe to Christ, for thus they write, Cent. 5. c. 4. col. 416. Austin teacheth the Etimology of Antichrist, in epist. Ioannis. Tract. 3. Antichrist in latine he is said who is con­trary to Christ &c. some vnderstand Antichrist to be so called, because he is [Page 188] to come before Christ &c. it is not so said, it is not so written, but Antichrist, that is, contrary to Christ &c. likewise in Tract. de Antichristo, desiring to know of Antichrist; first you shal marke why he is so called, to wit, for that he wil be contrary to Christ in al thinges &c. he wil dissolue the Euangelical law, and wil recal into the world the worshi­ping of diuels.

S. Austin likewise affirmeth that he shal spring from the Iewes saying, Tom. 9. tract. de Antichristo. post. init And see cent. 5. c. 4. col. 416. And see tom. 3. de benedict. Iacob. prope fin. As our authors say, Antichrist shal [...]e borne of the people of the Iewes, of the tribe of Dan, according to the Prophet saying &c.

The Centuristes also confesse that in S. Austines iudgement Antichrist should not come til al the subiected kingdomes were reuolted from the Roman Empyre which yet is vnac­complished, for thus they write, Cent. 5. c. 4. col. 420. Austin in his treatise of Antichrist de­clareth in few wordes the time of An­tichristes comming, therfore the Apostle Paul from hence affirmeth Antichrist not to come before into the world, vnles [Page 189] first a departure shal come, that is, vn­les al kingdomes shal depart from the Roman Empyre, which were before sub­iect vnto it: And then next after­wardes they ad, but this time is not yet come because though we see the Ro­man Empire for the greatest part to be ouerthrowen, yet as long as the kinges of France shal continue who must possesse the Roman Empyre, it shal not wholly perish, because it shal stand in it kinges. And the same continuance yet of the Roman Empyre, is collected by other Dresserus in Millenario 5. in his oration added to the end therof. de Monarchia 4. fol. Nn. 2. & fol. Nn. 3. Sonhius, tom. 1. continen. scripta. &c. p. 173. Springe­rus de pace re­ligionis. p. 18. 20. Protestantes euen from the Scriptures them selues.

Now concerning the short raigne of Antichrist, S. Austin (according to our english translation) Tom. 5. de ci­uit. Dei. l. 20. c. 23. circa med. And ac­cording to the engl. transl. p. 823. writeth Antichristes kingdome shal be most cruel against the Church, though it last but a while &c. The times, time, and halfe a time, is three yeares and a halfe: a yeare, two yeares, and halfe a yeare, and this is declared by a number of dayes afterwardes, and by the number of monethes in other places of Scripture. As also, Ibidem. c. 8. p. 801. bound he is, and in the last [Page 190] and smalest remainder of time shal he be loosed, for we read that he shal rainge in his greatest malice onely three yeares & six monethes. And againe, Tom. 9. tract. de Antichristo. prope fin. Anti­christ when for three yeares and a halfe &c. he shal vex the world &c. after­wardes he shal kil Enoch and Elias.

But as touching Enoch, and Elias, S. Austin saith, Tom. 7. de pec. orig. c. 23. post med. & tom. 3. de Gen. ad lit. l. 9. c. 6 post med. and tom. 3. de mirabili­bus sacrae Scripturae. l. 1. c. 3. post med. We doubt not Enoch, and Elias, to liue in the bodies wherwith they were borne: which he confirmeth in sundry other places, and of the same opinion are also sundry Protestantes.Pet. Mart. in his common places in en­glish. part. 3. c. 16. sec. 17. p. 380. Cal­uin. in Haebr. in c. 11. 5. and see Luther Tom. 6. Wit­temb. fol. 79. Willet vpon Gen. in. 5. p. 69.But S. Austin yet teacheth further saying, Tom. 5. de ciuit Dei l 20. c. 29 post init. & after the eng. transl. p. 830. that Elias shal conuert the Iewes to Christ, (vltimo tempore) before the end of the world &c. is most commonly beleeued and taught of vs Christians, and is held as a point of infallible truth, for we may wel hope of the comming of him before the iudgemēt of Christ, whom we do tru­ly beleeue to liue in the body at this houer, without euer hauing taisted of death. A­gaine (euen according to our en­glish Ibidem. p. 834. translatiō) somwhat before the [Page 191] day of iudgement, Elias shal come, the Iewes shal beleeue, Antichrist shal per­secute, Christ shal iudge, and the deade shal arise.

Lastly S. Austin teacheth that at the day of iudgement Christ shal come Tom. 10. de tempore. ser. 130. post med. with the signe of the Crosse before him: And the same is taught by Origen, Chrisostome, Hierome, Hil­lary, Theophilact, Euthemius, and Bede, in their seueral commentaries vpon Math. 28.30. And the same is de­fended by the Protestant M. Trig, saying, True Catho­licke. p. 295. Gualter of famous memory so expoundes Math. 24.30. And by the signe of the sonne of man, he vnder­standeth the Crosse, these be his wordes, most of the auncient Fathers expound the Crosse to be this signe &c. Also Thomas Couper Bishop of Lincolne said, my brethren can you not endure that signe to be made here vpon earth, which be­fore the comming of the iudge shal be conspicuous in heauen? And yet al this is so Popish to M. Nappeir, that he blusheth nor to write, Vpon the Re­uelat. p. 89. 90. 214. 215. 219. and Pro­position. 31. p. 72. 73. 74. 75. The signe or Crosse which appeared in [Page 192] vision to Constantine with these wordes in hoc signo vinces, in this signe thou shalt ouercome, was the first publicke & visible marke of Antichrist. O times, o times, what a monster haue ye bred?

S. Austin teacheth vsury to be vn­lawful. SECTION. 2.

THough many Molinaeus in Fentō of vsury. l. 2. c. 2. sec. 3. p. 44. Bu­cer. in his scripta Angli­can. p. 789. 790. 791 Vi­rel, in his prin. groundes of re­ligion engli­shed. p. 148. Bullinger in his Decades in en­glish. Dec. 3. serra. 1. p. [...]7 [...]. Osiander. cent. 16. l. 4. c. 34. p. 1047. Protestants do defend vsury for lawful, yet the contrary with al Catholickes is mantained by S. Austin, of whom thus writeth M Fenton,Treatise of vsu­ry, l. 2. c. 3. p. 52. If we desire S. Austines iudgement (who is in steede of many) he is so confident, that he appealeth to the vsurers them selues, who practised in his dayes, say­ing in Psal 36. quam detestabile sic, quam odiosum, quam execrandum, pute et ipsi Faeneratores norunt, (how dete­stable, how odious, how execrable, it is, the very vserers know them selues:) [Page 193] but he might happely speake of some ex­cessiue vsury or extortion, obserue ther­fore how presently he explaineth him selfe in the very same place saying, Si aliquid plus quā dedisti expectes accipere, Faenera­tor es, et in hoc improbandus, (If thou expect to receiue any more then thou de­liuered, thou art a Vsurer, and in this thou art to be condemned:) the common obiection which is made for vsury &c. is answeared by the same Father saying. the vsurers also dare say, they haue not els wheron to liue, so may the robber say &c. so may the burgler say &c. so may the baud say &c. his final sen­tence is, that vsurers belong not to the Church of God. Thus far M. Fen­ton from S. Austin against vsury.

S. Austin teacheth that stewes may be permitted for the auoyding of greater euil. SECTION. 3.

AS concerning Stewes which are permitted in some Catholicke countries in preuention of grea­ter inconuenience, as of vnnatural or violent accomplished lustes, and the general ouer spreading of that particular euil, which otherwise; like the plague, would disperse it self into al or most partes of the citty were it not restrayned (as is the other to the pesthouse) to the sink or chan­nel or some one like reserued seueral precinct: In this respect Catholicke diuines hould, that for the preuen­ting of greater mischeife, it may be so permitted, though not allowed; as in like respect theMath. 19.8. libel of di­u [...]rce was by Moyses not allowed, but permitted for the hardnes of the Iewes heartes; or as is vsury by the [Page 195] ChurchFenton in his treatise of vsu­ry. l. 2. c. 9. p. 71. 73. of England, and someOf Geneua, see Hutton in his preface to the 2. part of the answeare. other Protestant Churches not allowed, but like wise permitted, in respect of trade, commerse & other important necessity. To which pur­pose wryteth,In nou. Test. in Anot. in Math. 19.8. Beza, The ciuil lawes if they be wel enacted, do com­maund nothing which God prohibiteth, nor prohibite any thing which God commaundeth, but through the iniquity of men they are compelled onely to mode­rate many thinges, which they cannot quite take away, and these are they which are said to be permitted by the lawes, for example, Christian charity forbiddeth to commit vsury, yet by reason of the tra­ding of men, many Magistrates see they cannot absolutely forbid it, therfore they prescribe a certaine quantity of gaine. But is it therfore lawful with a good conscience to commit vsury? No truly: neither do the ciuil lawes approue, but rather condemne what they only tollerate, the wickednes of men compelling them therto. Luther also writeth that,In Deutero. in c. 24. fol. 160. Christ Math. 19. proueth sufficiently the law of diuorce to be merely ciuil and [Page 196] permitted for the hardnes of the people &c. Many thinges in a common wealth are to be suffered by reason of those that are hard and vntractable, lest greater euils be done. And hereof also saithIn Mat. c. 19. 8. Pelican, he pardoned the lesser e­uil, lest the greater should be commit­ted.

Now vpon this one and the same like ground is established our not allowance, but like permitting of stewes, yet not without condigne answearable punishment inflicted v­ponFenton vbi supra. l. 2. c. 9. p. 70. 57. vsurers and See F. Persons in his answeare to Nichols. fol. 1. & 3. stewes.

But to come to the point of stewes, S. Austin wryteth,Tom. 1. l. 2. de ordine. c. 4. circ. med. what can be said more vncleane, more void of com­lines, more ful of turpitude, then har­lots, baudes, and such other like pesti­lences? take harlots from among men, and you shal disturbe al thinges with le­cherous lustes &c. A saying so direct and pertinent, that it is therefore confessed and reiected by Peter Common pla­ces in english. part. 2. c. 11. sec. 6 p. 471. Iewel in his de­fence of the A­pology. p. 409. Martir and M. Iewel. And wheras M. Iewel would euade, that S. Au­stin wrote those wordes, him selfe yet [Page 197] keeping a concubine, and liuing in whor­dome: It is euident to the contrary and confessed by theCent. 5. c. 10. col. 1120. vn­der the titie, scripta ab Au­gust. cum ad­huc esset Ca­techumenus. Centuristes, that S. Austin after his conuersion and before his Preisthood, wrote many excellent treatises, among which this booke de Ordine, was specially one, and for such mencio­ned by the Centuristes, and written by S. Austin as him selfe testifyeth,Tom. 1. l. 1. Retract. c. 3. initio. whē he wrote contra Academicos, which was as him self yet further testifyeth,Lib. 1. retract. c. 1. initio. euē whē he had geuen ouer the world: And which is most, S. Austin ranketh this booke among his many other excellent treatises by him spe­cially mencioned and reuewed in his booke of Retractations, and explay­ning or retracting from each of them what he thought needful, he doth the like to this,Lib. 1. retract. c. 3. but yet without al explanation or exception to the saying now alledged.

S. Austin teacheth sundry holy cere­monies now vsed in the Catholicke Church in the administration of the Sacraments. SECTION. 1.

HAuing thus gone through the many particular pointes of doctrine, we wil now lastly end with Ceremonies, which how forcible they be to stir vp in vs deuotion, S. Au­stin very pertinently affirmeth saying.Tom. 2. ep. 119. ad Ianu­arium. c. 11. fine. and see c. 7. I thinke that the very motion of the minde, as long as it is yet entangled in earthly thinges, is more slowly infla­med, but if it be directed to corporal si­militudes, & from thence to thinges spi­ritual, which are represented by those simi­litudes, by the very passage as it were it is strengthned, and as fyre stirred vp, it is inflamed, and with more ardent [Page 199] loue is drawen to rest and quiet. As al­soTom. 2. ep. 5. ad Marcel. post init. There are certaine signes, by the celebration and vse wherof, not to God, but to vs, profitable offices of piety are excercised. AndTom. 9 de vi­sit. Infirm. l. 2. c. 3. init. there are certaine exterior signes which somtimes stir vp sluggish faith. In example wherof he further saith,Tom. 4. de cura pro mort. c. 5. post init. when they kneele dowen, when they stretch out their han­des, when they lye prostrate vpon the ground &c. A man by these doth better stir vp himselfe to pray &c. And, the same external thinges visibly done, that internal inuisible (motion) which caused them is increased, and hereby the affec­tion of the heart, which went before, that these thinges might be, increaseth, because they are done.

But to descend to Ceremonies in particular, and first concerning Ce­remonies vsual in administratiō the of Sacraments, we haueSee before, c. 5. sect. 4. already al­ledged from S. Austin the confessed general vsage of the signe of the Crosse in the administration of the Sacra­mentes: we haue also alledged fromSee before c. 6. sect. 4. him the other vsual Cerem [...] [Page 200] vsed in Baptisme, as namely, the Con­secration of the water of Baptisme, Ex­ercisme, Exuflation, Annoyling, Abre­nunciation, the vsage of spitle, Godfa­thers, and trinal imersion. As con­cerning Confirmation, we haue alled­ged theSee before. c. 7. consecration of Chrisme or Oyle, the signing of the party confirmed with the signe of the Crosse and, impo­sition of handes.

As touching the Eucharist, S. Austin with the third Carthage coun­cel decreed concerning the mixture of water with wine in the Chalice, thatCan. 24. and Aug. tom. 3. de doc. Christ. l. 4. c. 21. and Tom. 3. de Eccles. dog. c. 75. in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord, nothing more be of­fered then our Lord him selfe deliuered, that is, bread and wine, mingled with water; This is confessed by Osian­der, who saith therof,Cent. 4. l. 4. c. 24. p. 527. mingling of water is not without superstition. In like sort concerning the consecration of the Sacrament with the signe of the Crosse, S. Austin writeth,Tom. 9. in Ioan. tract. 118. prope fin. which signe vnles it be applyed to the foreheades of the beleeuers or to the water wher­ [...] they are regenerated, or to the oyle [Page 201] wherwith they are annoynted, or to the sacrifice, wherwith they are nourished, none of them are duly performed. As also,Tom. 10. ser. 19. de Sanctis. prope fin. with the signe of the Crosse &c. the Sacraments of the Altar with addition of our Lords wordes are made. And most plainly,Tom. 10 ser. 181. de temp. c. 3. fine. with this signe of the Cros the body of our Lord is cos [...]crated. This point is so plaine in S Austin that for such it is confessed by M. In Couels an­sweare to Bur­ges. p. 130. Burges, and theTreatise of the signe of the Crosse. p. 27. Puritans.

S. Austin also taught before the receiuing of the SacramentSee before. c. 8. sect. 3. fa­sting; and the vse of holy bread. He also teacheth that,Tom. 8. in Psal. 113. con. 2. post med. vessels conse­crated by their very ministery are called holy: wherof also saith S. Ep. ad The­oph. Alex. an­te libros pas­chales Hie­rome, the sacred Chalices and holy co­ueringes, by reason of touching the body and bloud of our Lord, are to be worshi­ped (eadem maiestate) in like sort as the body and bloud. And S. Austin with the 4. Carthage Councel decreed that,Can. 5. the Subdeacon when he taketh Orders &c. shal take from the hand of the Bishop the empty Paten, and the emp­ty Chalice, and from the hand of the [Page 202] Archdeacon, the Cruet with water and Towel. Al which is confessed by theCent. 4. c. 9. col. 873. Osi­and. cent. 5. l. 1. c. 1. p. 4. Centuristes and Osiander. And as for Deacons and their office, S. Austin saith,Tom. 4. in quaest. Vet. et nou. Test. q. 101. they power water v­pon the handes of the Preist, as we see in al Churches: so general was the v­sage hereof in this auncient age. And we haue seeneSee before. c. 8. sect. 5. before that S. Austin taught that, the body of our Lord is offered vpon the Altar: And that Altars were consecrated with the signe of the Crosse and Chrisme.

We haue seene likwiseSee before. c. 9. cōcerning the Sacrament of Penance, that S. Austin mencioneth confession of our sinnes, and the Preistes absolution with imposition of handes, and enioyned pe­nance: for the mitigating wherof pardons were somtimes graunted.

And as for the Sacrament of Or­ders we haue likewise seeneSee before. c. 11. be­fore the seueral rytes vsed in ordai­ning Bishops, Preistes, Deacons, Sub­deacons, Acolites, Exorcistes, Readers, and Doorekeepers: In some wherof are mentioned, Chalice, Paten, Cruet, [Page 203] Towel, Waxen candles for Church ligh­tes, bookes of Exorcisme &c. Al which is confessed and reproued by Osian­der forCent. 5. l. 1. c. 1. p. 4. 5. superstitious. It was like­wise decreed in the 4. Carthage Can. 41. Councel that, the Deacon should onely weare the Albe in time of the sacrifice or reading. Of which Canon Osian­der also saith,Cent. 5. p. 10. these thinges smel of the idle Roman pontificial Ceremonies; S. Austin likewiseTom. 4. quaest. vet. et nou. Test. q. 46. post med. mencioneth as is also confessed by M. 2. part. of the answ. p. 194. Hutton the vestiment called Dalma­tica, worne by Deacons. But to con­clude many in one. M. Parker affir­meth that,Against sym­bolising. part. 1. c. 1. p. 52. The Fathers wil haue the garments to be religious which are vsed in the Church.

Lastly concerning Matrimony, S. Austin See before. c. 12. before mencioned the Preistes blessing of the Bride and Brid­groome.

S. Austin teacheth sundry Ceremo­nies concerning prayer now vsed in the Roman Church. SECTION. 2.

TO forbeare the many other Ceremonies, which would re­quire a larger discourse, and to re­cite but some few of those which are concerning prayer. And first con­cerning euen the Rogation weeke, D. Boyes auoucheth that,Exposition of the dominical epistles, the spring part. p. 219. 220. It is more then probable that rogations were in the Church before the dayes of S. Austin; in proofe wherof he alledgeth di­uerse of S. Austins wrytinges.

Concerning Canonical houres, S. Austin aduiseth thus,Tom. 10. de temp. serm. 55. post init. vpon the vigils ryse more early & aboue al thinges assemble together at the third, the sixt, and the ninth (houres.) And con­cerning prayer towardes the East, the Centuristes confesse and say of Austin that he,Cent. 5. c. 6. col. 677. l 2 de sermone Domini in monte. testifyeth that they [Page 105] did pray standing, and with their faces towardes the East. And the like is confessed of S. Basil, and the other Fathers by the sameCent. 4. col. 432. Centuristes. In like sort S. Austin mencionethTom. 4. de cura pro mort. c. 5. post init. our kneeling dowen, our stretching out our handes, our lying prostrate vpon the ground, our Tom. 10. de verbis Domini. ser. 8. post init. and de temp. ser 48. and tom. 8. in Psal. 31. enar. 2. ante med. knocking of our brestes, as Ceremonies helping to better deuotion in prayer.

He commendeth also the signing of our foreheades with the signe of the Crosse: The people (saithTom. 6. cont. Faust. Manich. l. 12. c. 30. circa med. he) are marked in their foreheades with the signe of our Lords passion, in preseruati­on of their saifty; and,Tom. 9. in E­uang. Ioan. tract. 3. post init. he would not haue a star to be his signe in the foreheades of the faithful, but a Crosse. Yea speaking of him selfe and his owne practise, he glorieth of the Crosse in these wordes,Tom. 8. in Psal. 141. circa med. and tom. 9. in Io. tract. 36. and tom. 8. in Psal. 46. I am so far from being ashamed of the Crosse, that I do not keepe the Crosse of Christ in a hidden place, but I carry it in my forehead. yea further speking against the Pagan contemning the Crosse he saith,Tom. 8. in Psal. 141. circa med. Let him insult against [Page 206] Christ crucified let me see the Crosse of Christ in the foreheades of Kinges.

He likewise affirmeth that,Tom. 2. ep. 178. mult. post med. and tom. 7. cont. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 78. and see Willet vpon the Romans in c. 16. p. 737. confessing this. Al nations do sing Amen, and Alleluia, in the Hebrew wordes, which (saith he) neither the Latin nor the barberous may translate: And thatTom. 3. de doc. Christ. l. 2. c. 11. pro­pe init. And see this confes­sed by Fulke a­gainst. Rhem. Test. in reuel. 19. 4. sect. 2. for the more sacred authority of the wordes so re­maining.

The Centuristes also report from him concerning the practise of the Christians in those times that,Cent. 5. c. 6. col. 692. as before Easter they spent the Lent with affliction of the body, as haith beene said before, so after Easter they spent the Quinquagesima (or dayes betweene Easter and Whitsontide) with much ioy, so that &c. they vsed Alle­luia in their Hymnes and Canticles, as Austin relateth. Tract. 17. in Ican­et Ep. 86. & 119. Of this also saith S. Austin him selfe,Tom. 8. in Psal. 106. pro­pe init. & tom. 10. de temp. ser. 151. cir­ca med. there is Alleluia, and twise Alleluia, which at certaine times we are accustomed so­lemly to sing, according to the aunci­ent tradition of the Church. Againe, speaking of Easter time he saith, that [Page 207] thenTom. 2. ep. 119. ad Ianuar. c. 15. prope fin. fastinges are released, and we pray standing &c. and Alleluia is sung. And according to this M. Hooker Eccles. pol. l. 5. sec. 71. p. 199. 205. 215. And see Aug. Tom. 8. in Psal. 110. post init. approueth the Churches appoin­ting of seueral times, some in signi­fication of our ioy, and others of our sorrow.

S. Austin with the fift Carthage Councel decreeth that,Can. 6. as often as any doubt is had of Churches whether they be consecrated, without al feare let them be consecrated. Of this Canon Osiander saith,Cen. 5. l. 1. c. 33. p. 157. and see the Centu­ristes. cent. 5. col. 644. the other part of this chapter concerning the cosecration of Churches is superstitious.

The Church thus consecrated S. Austin affirmeth it to be a sanctuary for persons fleeing therunto, wher­of he writeth thus to Bonifacius, Tom. 2. ep. 187. prope init. And see tom. 5. de ciu. Dei. l. 1. c. 4. and the Cen­turistes. cent. 5. col. 720. 721. thou hast taken violently a man out of the Church &c. therefore restore him againe saife to the Church whom thou most irreligious hast taken away &c. and I do excommunicate thee vntil &c. And Osiander recyteth and reproueth asCent. 5. l. 2. c. 28. p. 294. and see Socrat. hist. l. 6. c. 5. & Concil. Agath. can. 29. & To­let. 12. can. 10. and Iler­dense. can. 8. and Matisco­nense. 2. can. 8. wholly superstitious the 5. Ca­non [Page 208] of the Arausecau Councel, in which it was decreed that, such as fled to the Church ought not to be deli­uered vp, but defended for the reuerence and intercession of the holy place.

Concerning also seueral parcels of the Masse, S. Austin speaking of Kyrie leison, affirmeth that,Tom. 2. ep. 178. versus fin. Al Christiā Greekes, Latines, & barbarous, do pray for mercy in the greeke tongue. And the like vsage therof, at Mat­tins, Masse, and Euensong, is expresly affirmedCan. 5. (about S. Austins time) in the Councel Vasense, and after­wardes by S. Lib. 7. ep. 63. Gregory.

He mencioneth alsoTom. 7. de bono perseuer. c. 13. and tom. 20. de temp. ser. 44. versus fin. and tom. 8. in Psal. 85. and Ciprian de orat. Dom. versus fin. and D. Boyes in his exposition of the Lyturgy. p. 118. & Aug. tom. 2. ep. 57. ad Dar­dan. ante med. and tom 3. de spir. et lit. c. 11. Sursum eorda, habemus ad Dominum, gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro, dignum et iustum est &c. which argueth the then publicke Lyturgy of the west Church, to haue been for substance the same in forme and language with ours now of this age.

And yet in further proofe of the Latin language of publicke seruice in those auncient times of S. Austin it is made yet more certaine, in that [Page 209] no nouel contradicted beginning therof since S. Austines time can be named, wheras to the contrary, Masse in Latin is confessed by theCent. 7. c. 6. col. 154. Centuristes to hane beene, Anno Domini. 681. And the vsage ther­of before this in England is acknow­ledged by theCent. 7. c. 7. col. 233. & 143. Osiand. Cent. 7. p. 189. Sparke a­gainst Iohn de Albinis. c. 17. p. 161. Centuristes, Osian­der, and M. Sparke: In so much that Willet him selfe wryteth that,Sinopsis contr. 4. q. 10. p. 160. 164. about the yeare of our Lord 666. the Latin seruice was commaunded to be vsed in al countries. And the no lesse antiquity therof is graunted byHist. sacram. part. 1. l. 3. p. 192. Hospinian. But M White aryseth yet higher confessing that,Way to the true Church. p. 378. Masse in Latin, where the people vnderstood it not (to haue beene) in the time of Grego­ry 600. yeares after Christ.

And wheras al that our aduersa­ries do hence infer is, that they do not expresly finde Masse in Latin be­fore these times; D. Sparke very pertinently confesseth and answea­reth vnto the like obiection in an­other matter saying to the Puritans,Perswasion to vniformity. p. 25. The most diligent searcher of aunci­ent [Page 210] wryters cannot shew the first begin­ning & original therof, he may shew when first he reades it was vsed, but that wil not proue that it was not vsed before, but rather shewes the contrary. Hereunto only yet ad the example of al ancient Lyturgies of the westerne Church wherof none be found in England, French, Spanish, Dutch, or Italian: And also that the publicke Lyturgy in Latin, though confessedly it was auncient, is not yet knowen to haue bene contradicted vpon any first knowen nouel beginning therof sinnce S. Austines time, and theru­pon then let the reader iudge but indifferently of the whole.

Lastly S. Austin mencioneth the very word Masse it selfe, saying,Tom. 10. de temp. serm. 91. init. And see ser. 237. In the lesson which is to be read to vs at Masse, we are to heare &c And wheras M. Against Rhem. test. in 1. Cor. 20. sec. 9. fol. 279. Fulke doth in euasion hereof ouer bouldly without al profe answeare, those sermons of S. Au­stin, wherin Masse is so named to be couterfeated, he is refelled ther­in by his owne Protestant brethren [Page 211] Peter In Crispinus of the estate of the Church. p. 141. And see him selfe in his common pla­ces in English. part. 4. c. 12. p. 216. Martir, and De opificio Missae. l. 1. sec. 12. p. 5. Crastouius, of whom thus writeth Crispinus, Many doubt whether these sermons be Austines, but Peter Martir saith, the style and sentences seeme to be Austines. I am of opinion that in the time of Au­stin the word Missa began to be vsurped. And Crastouius confesseth that, S. Austin, and S. Ambrose, vsed the word Masse, and thereby vnderstood that sacred action of the Christian Lytur­gy. M. Problem. p. 31. Perkins also among his other exceptions against some of S. Austins sermons, forbeareth yet to except against these sermons now al­ledged.

But not only S. Austin, but al the Fathers of the 2.Can. 3. Carthage Coun­cel, as also of the 4.Can. 84. & the Mille­uitan Can. 12. and see Osiander confessing this cent. 5. l. 1. c. 1. p. 17. & l. 1. c. 33. p. 149. Councel do mencion the word Missa: In so much that M. Fulke confesseth that;Against Rhem. Test. in 1. Cor. 10.21. sect. 8. about S. Austines time the name of Missae began to be in vse, as it seemeth by Concil Mil­leuitan. can. 12. Hereto I wil only ad, that where the Apostle promi­seth concerning the publicke cele­bration [Page 212] of the Eucharist saying,1. Cor. 11. vers. vlt. the rest I wil dispose when I come; & yet wrote nothing more afterwar­des of that point, wherby are infi­nuated those many thinges concer­ning the same which are obserued by tradition, S. Austin framethTom. 2. ep. 118. ad Ianuar. c. 6. post med. therupon his like answearable col­lection, and so plainly, thatDe tradit. A­post. part. 3. l. [...]. col. 815. Hammelmannus reiecting him therin, betaketh him selfe to the vnwor­thy, and yet common refuge of Protestantes, of pretending S. Au­stin to be contrary to him selfe: And thus much of Ceremonies

S. Austin reporteth seueral miracles in proofe of inuocation of Sainctes. SECTION. 1.

NOw for the further, and yet more cleare vnderstanding, & no lesse confirming of S. Austins now examined religion, we wil next breifly recite or rather but abridge, certaine of those miracles done in testimony therof and reported by S. Austin him selfe in his vndoubted booke de ciuitate Dei. l. 22. c. 8. which (in reguard of the knowen worthines of the said booke) is by a Protestant (tearmed by one of his owne brethrenPreface of the translation to the Earle of Pembrooke. a famous Father) now lately translated into English. [Page 214] first then in proofe of inuocation of Sainctes, S. Austin relateth (as be­fore that oneDe ciuit. Dei. l 22. c. 8. & in the Engl. transl. p. 886. Florentius of Hippo a poore old man, lost his vpper garment, and being vnable to buy another, he came to the shrine of the 20. martyrs, and prayed aloud vnto them to helpe him to rayments &c. at his departure he spyed a great fish vpon the shore &c. which cutting in peeces he found in the belly therof a ring of gold.

He reporteth also ofIbidem. and in the engl. trans. p. 887. one Bassus a Syrian that dwelt at Hippo, who praying for his sicke daughter at S. Stephens shrine, and hauing her garment with him, word came by a boy that she was deade &c. he comming home fyn­ding al in teares, laid her garment vpon her and she presently reuiued.

He likewise relateth,Ibidem. and p. 889. a mi­racle wrought (saith he) amnngst vs so famous, that I thinke none of Hippo but saw it, or knew it. The substance of this his report concerneth partly Paladia a deuout woman and greatly diseased, who repared for her health to the monument of S. Stephen, and [Page 215] descending Ibidem. and p. 890. from the steps wherupon she stood, she went to pray to the holy martyr (these last wordes are purpos­ly left out in the English translati­on) and hauing touched the grate, she therupon fel-downe as it were a sleepe, and rose vp againe sound &c. then rose such an exultation both of men and wo­men &c. their ioy was so loudly expres­sed, that it was able to strike the strong­est eare with stupour. This he repor­teth as of a thing done in his owne presence.

He besides reportethAug. tom. 4. de cura pro mort. c. 16. prope init. the apa­rition made to the Citizens of Nola by (holy) Faelix when it was oppugned by the Barbarians: And though theCent. 5. c. 13. col. 1482. Centuristes reiect such apparitions of the disceased, they do yet reportCent. 5. c. 13. col. 1482. 1486. 1487. 1489. other like from the other Fa­thers of S. Austines age.

S. Austin reporteth seueral miracles in proofe of the honouring of Saictes reliques. SECTION. 2.

TO this purpose he saith, Ibidem. and p. 883. The miracle that was done at Millaine when I was there, when a blind man obtained his sight, might come to the notice of many &c. the thing was done many people being witnes that ran to the bodies of the mar­tyrs Protasius, and Geruasius, who lying hid and altogether vnknowen, were found by Ambrose the Bishop by reuelation in his sleepe. This miracle S. Austin also recordeth in his booke Lib. 1. c. 13. post med. of Retractations: And Lib. 9. con­fes. c. 7. elswhere relateth that the bodies of Protasius, and Geruasius, were miraculously pre­serued after many yeares vncorrup­ted, and at last reuealed to S. Am­brose.

He reporteth also that, Ibidem. and p. 886. when Bishop Proiectus brought the reliques of [Page 217] Stephen the martyr to his tombe, many people flocked together, amongst whom a blind woman prayed them to lead her to the Bishop that carried the holy reliques: the Bishop gaue her certaine flowers which he had in his hand, she tooke thē, put thē to her eyes, and forthwith had her sight restored, she went before them reioycing, those who were present being astoni­shed.

He testifyeth also of Ibidem. and p. 887. Eucheri­us a Spanish Preist, that dwelt at Calam, who was cured of the stone by the same reliques which Possidius brought thither: and being afterwardes of another disease laid out so for dead (vt ei iam pollices ligarentur) that his handes were bound, by the help of the said martyr, when the garment of the said Preist was carried backe from the shrine and laid vpon his body as he lay, he was raised to life.

The like he mencioneth of a cer­taine Ibidem. and p 887. Voteresse, who being sicke and past recouery, sent her garment to the same shrine, but before it came backe she was dead, yet her Parents couered her dead carcase with it, which done she [Page 218] presently reuiued. Elusinus (also saith Ibidem. and p. 888. he) a captaine, seeing his sonne dead, tooke him and laid him vpon the shrine &c. where after he had prayed a while, he found him reuiued.

S. Austin reporteth some miracles in proofe of the signe of the Crosse: And of pilgrimage to the holy land. SECTION. 3.

HE recordeth that, In CarthageIbidem. and p. 884. Innocentia a most religious woman &c. had a canker in her brest, a disease, as the Phisitians say, incurable, &c. she turned her selfe onely to God in prayer, and was admonished in her sleepe, that &c, what woman who being baptised did first meete her, should marke that place with the signe of the Crosse, she did so, and forthwith was cured. This miracle is also reported by the Gent. 5. c. 6. col. 661. Centuristes.

And as concerning the holy Land, [Page 219] or Pilgrimage therto, S. Austin affir­meth of a certaine man that Ibidem. and p 885. had bestowed on him by a frend a litle of the holy earth, brought from Ierusalem, where Christ being buried rose the third day: he hanged it in his Chamber for the better auoydance of euil (or wicked il­lusions) from his person, now when the house was cleared of that infestation he began to thinke what to do with that earth, which for reuerence therto he would not keepe longer in his chamber: It happened that I and my fellow Bishop Maximus being neare &c. he desired vs that it might be buried some where, and there a place to be made for publicke praier &c. and it was done accordingly. There was there a yong man troubled with the palsy, who hearing hereof de­sired his parents, that without delay they would bring him to that holy place, whether being brought, he prayed and forthwith he went away vpon his owne feete sound.

S. Austin reporteth certaine miracles in proofe of the sacrifice of Christes body; of Altars, and of penetra­tion of bodies. SECTION. 4.

HE recordeth that, Ibidem. and p. 885. one He­sperius who liueth at this day (saith he) by vs, haith a farm [...] called Zubedie, in the territory of Fussali, which he hauing obserued by the harme done to his seruants, and cattel, that his house was hanted with euil spirits, he desired our Preistes in my absence, that some one of them would go thither, by whose prayers they might depart, one went, and offered there the sacrifice of Christes body (for which the English translation most corruptly saith, one went, prayed, and minstred the Com­munion) praying very earnestly that the vexation might cease, and by Gods mer­cy it forthwith ceased. This miracle is confessed by the Cent. 5. c. 6. col. 684. Ho­spinian. hist. sacram. part. 1. p. 389. 591. Lauath. de spectris. part. 3. c. 10. p. 254. Centuristes, and Hospinian, as also by Lauatherus, [Page 221] who recyting this story verbatim, in­ferreth therupon, that it is cleare that superstition presently, began &c. As al­so, to pray and sacrifice for soules.

In proofe of Altars he reporteth how that Ibidem. and p. 886. A yong man possessed with a deuil being brought to the memorial of the two martyrs Geruasius and Prota­sius &c. with a terrible noise catched fast hould vpon the Altar, whence he durst not once moue or could not, but held it as if he had beene bound to it &c. then the diuel within him with great howling asked that he might be spared &c. and departed out of the man.

Concerning penetration of bodies, S. Austin reporteth how that Ibidem. and p. 888. Petronia a most excellent woman was miraculously cured of a great and conti­nual sicknes, in which al the helpes of the Phisitians failed &c. she affirmed that she was perswaded by a certaine Iew that she should sow a ring within a girdle of haire, which she should weare about her next her naked body: and the ring should haue a stone in it which is found in the raines of an oxe. Being tyed as it were [Page 222] with this remedy (of the Magitian) she came to the shrine of the holy martyr. But going from Carthage &c. rising to go on her iorney, she saw the ring lying before her feete, and wondring she felt the girdle of haire wherwith she was gir­ded: which when she perceiued to be fast tyed, as it was at first, she suspected that the ring was broken and so fel of; but when that was found to be whole she presumed she had receiued as it were a pledge of her future health by so great a miracle, and so loosing the girdle, she cast it with the ring into the riuer. They do not beleeue this (saith S. Au­stin) that wil not beleeue that Christ was borne without interruption of the virginal partes, nor passed into his Apostles, when the doares were shut. But let them in­quire of this, and if they finde it true, let them beleeue the other. The woman is famous, nobly borne, nobly married, she dwelleth at Carthage, a great Citty, a great person, those that are inquisitiue after it, they wil not suffer to be ignorant of it. The martyr him selfe, by whose prayers she was cured, beleeued in the [Page 223] sonne of the perpetual virgin, beleeued in him, who went into his Disciples the doare being shut.

S. Austin reporteth some miracles to be wrought by holy Oyle. SECTION. 5.

I Knew (saith S. Ibidem. and p. 886. Austin) a vir­gin in Hippo, who was freed from the diuel by annoynting her selfe with oyle, into which the Preist that prayed for her had mingled his teares. As also, Ibidem. and p. 888. Irenaeus his sonne being dead, and ready to be buried, one of his frendes ad­uised him &c. that the body should be annoyled with the oyle of the same Mar­tyr (S. Stephen.) It was done and he reuiued.

A further confirmation of these fore­said miracles reported by S. Au­stin in proofe of our Catholicke religion. SECTION. 6.

VVHeras it is obiected a­gainst these miracles, and against this chapter of S. Austin, that Viues in his annotations vpon this chapter affirmeth that he su­spected many thinges to haue beneViues in com­ment. in l. 22. de ciu. Dei. c. 8. And see his preface in comment. ad libros de ciuit. Dei. added therto: This his suspition is not concerning any the miracles therin mencioned, but onely con­cerning some few wordes (which he saith were in his opinion) added, velut declarands gratia, for more cl [...]are explication, of which he further saith, some I wil leaue out, others according to my custome I wil be content onely to point vnto; wheras he neither omit­teth nor excepteth against any of these miracles, but to the contrary there iustifyeth his addition of them [Page 225] from the answearable correspon­dence of diuerse auncient In Aug. de ciu. Dei. l. 22. c. 8. at k. q. s. z. and in prae­fat. in com­ment. ad libros de ciu. Dei. manu­scriptes; and from diuerse oldIn his other praef. there de veteribus in­terpretibus hu­ius operis expositors of this booke, who neuer tooke exception against this chapter now in question. The diuines also of Louaine in the fift Tome, after the end ofPag. 313. the bookes de ciuitate Dei. do mention 8. old manuscriptes, or copies there in particular named, ac­cording to which they had conferred and published the bookes de ciuitate Dei. Hereto I but annex, the 9. and 10. chapters of the same 22. booke de ciu. Dei. most euidently relating to the many great miracles, there next before mencioned, which can not be true, if the forementioned miracles reported there c. 8. vnto which they so relate, be but added or forged.

In like manner wheras M. Mau­lin obiecteth saying,Defence of the Cath. faith, englished. art. 17. p. 323. S. Austin Tom. 5. de ciu. Dei. c. 8. is to be suspected, for he speaketh there of mi­racles done in Affrica &c. wheras him selfe, Tom. 2. ep. 137. saith that &c. [Page 226] in Affrica there were not any miracles wrought in any place. In solutiō herof, to forbere al distinguishmēt of times according to which the said 137. epistle might be written long before the other booke de ciu. Dei. as in deede S. Austin in hisLib. 2. and see Danaeus his like answeare con­cerning ano­ther booke. in prologom. ad Ang. Enchirid. Retracti­ons, placeth this booke de ciu. Dei. among his other latest bookes (which onely obseruation in other matters sufficeth to reconcile no lesse great seeming repugnances:) And to forbeare likewise, that if repug­nancy were admitted, greater proofe is yetSee hereafter in this section at r. s. alledged of this booke de ciuitate Dei, then can be for that foresaid Epistle: for a Protestant writer in his preface vsually set be­fore S. Austines Epistles printed in 8. censureth thus of them, that cer­taine were mingled which at the first were found not to be Austines &c. some absolutly to be forged &c. In so much as he setteth dowen in thePag. 757. mar­gin vpon S. Austins foresaid wor­des of tryal by compulsory confes­sion, wherupon M. Moulins now [Page 227] obiected wordes are depending and immediatly next following therto, nouum iudicium, as thinking the same but nouel and forged. But besides al this it is otherwise answeared that as S. Austin ep. 137. most euident­lyTom. 2. ep. 137. ante med. speaketh of certaine suspected delinquents, who denying the of­fence, were for their tryal sent, not indifferently to al places of the mar­tyrs reliques, where miracles were showed, but only vnto certaine such, as the offending party repairing therto, was there miraculously com­pelled to confesse his fault, (of which kind of compulsion S. Ibidem. & Hi­erome in Apol. aduersus Iouin. Austin, and S. Hierome, do make particular mention) so likwise his therupon ensuing there denyal of miracles in Affrica is not concerning the miracles of health, formerly alledged from this booke de ciu. Dei. much lesse thē not indefinitly of al miracles (as Mou­lin pretendeth) but respectiuely as to the premisses, and with limi­tation, as but denying onely talia hic fieri, such other kind of miraculous [Page 228] compulsory confession of the offence to be done in Affricke, as is last be­fore mencioned: wherupon S. Au­stin there entreth into special consi­deration concerning the great diuer­sity of miraculous giftes, diuersly attributed both to persons and pla­ces. A thing to euident that Mou­lin him selfe doth in his very fore­said booke acknowledge the fore­mencioned miracleDefence &c. art. 9. p. 208. of the house haunted with spirits, and cleared by the Preist saying Masse in it.

To conclude therefore this pas­sage concerning the miracles (most of them done in Affrica at the me­morial of S. Steph [...]n) reported by S. Austin in his foresaid booke de ciu. Dei, it is yet further to be ob­serued, that the same are also ac­knowledged and recorded by Euo­dius of whom thus writeth S. Austin, atLib. 22 de ciu. Dei. c. 8. and after the engl. trans. p. 888. Vzaly neare Vtica, haue many miracles b [...]ne wrought by power of the said martyr, (Stephen) where Bishop E­uodius erected his memorial long before this of ours. The same Euodius did [Page 229] accordingly publish a special trea­tise in 2. bookes de miraculis Proto­martyris Stephani, extant in S. Au­stins workes Tom. 10. Also Sigebert G [...]mblacensis (500. yeares since) in l. de illust. Cap. 15. Eccles. script. maketh mention of this Euodius, and of his treatise of S. Stephans miracles, and the Century writers say fromCent. 5. c. 10. col. 1137. Trithemius, there is a booke of Euodius extant, of the miracles done in Affricke by the re [...]iques of S. Stephen: of which miracles mencion is also made by S. Tom. 10. de diuers. ser. 51. Austin elswhere, byIn script. Ec­cles. in Lucia­no. c. 46. in. Auito. c. 47. in Orosio. c. 39. Bede. l. Rerract. in act. Apost. c. 5. 8. et in l. de tem­por. ratione. Nicep. hist. l. 14. c. 9. Gena­dius, Bede, and Nicephorus. A truth so cleare that Hospinian confesseth thatDe Templis. p. 301. Austin telleth many true mi­racles done by the signe of the Crosse & the deuil put to flight, de ciu. Dei. l. 22. c. 8. Yea he further saith,Pag. 138. hither b long those other true miracles which other Fathers mention, as also Austin de ciu. Dei. l. 22. c. 8. And wheras Duraeus obiecteth these fore­said miracles. D. Whitaker denyeth not but confesseth saying,Reply to Du­raeus. p. 886. I do not thinke these miracles vaine (and [Page 230] therfore not forged) which are affir­med to haue bene done at the monu­ments of the martyrs. Moreouer our aduersaries them selues haue in such like respect not forborne to translate and publish in english S. Austines foresaid booke of miracles.

In further confirmation of al which, I might yet ad sundry other miracles mencioned by S. Austin in sundryTom. 1. l. 1. Retract. c. 13. post med. tom. 7. de vnit. Ec­cles. c. 19. an­te med. Tom. 1. l. 9. confes. c. 7. Tom. 9. in Ioan. tract. 120. circ. med. other of his writinges, as also byOrat. in ma­mant. Naz. orat. in Cipri. Chrisost. l. contra Genti­les. Amb. ser. de S. Geruas. et Protas. Hier. cont. Vigilan. & ep. ad Eu­stochium. and in vita Hila­rion. Sulpt. in vita Martini. and see Cent. 5. c. 13. from col. 1478. til 1493. & cent. 4. c. 13. frō col. 1433. til col. 1456. S. Basil. S. Gregory Na­zianzen, S. Chrisostome, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, Sulpitius, and the Cen­tury writers; against al which if any yet vnsatisfyed, shal oppose his owne bare vnwarranted denyal, we leaue that man as much more wor­thy of contempt then further reply: And thus much breifly concerning such miracles collected from S. Au­stin, as do clearly conuince what re­ligion it was, whether Catholicke or Protestant, which was by him professed, and by miracles thus con­firmed.

Such places are answeared, as are vrged against the Canonical Scrip­tures: against Traditions, and the authority of Councels. SECTION. 1.

AGainst the booke of Machabees, M. Moulin obiecteth that S. Austin saith,Defence. p. 152. The booke of Ma­chabees is receiued not vnprofitably of the Church, if men read it soberly: M. Moulin in the same place geueth the answeare him selfe, which in sub­stance is, that S. Austin said this as in respect of Razes killing himselfe, [Page 232] whose example the Donatistes of in­discret zeale followed, in reguard wherof S. Austin required this sobrie­ty; explaning further there, and els­whereTom. 2. ep. 61. post med. (which Moulin omitteth) that, The Scripture of the Machabees haith, touching Razes death, tould how it was done, but not commended it as though it were to be done. And in the booke of Iudges Cap. 16.30. is reported the like of Sampson, whom yet the A­postleHebrewes. 11.32. and Aug. de ciu. Dei. l. 1. c. 21. commendeth.

Wheras M. Carthwright In Hookers Eccles. pol. l. 2. sec. 7. p. 118. 119. ob­iecteth against vnwritten traditions, certaine obscure sayinges of S. Au­stin, and other Fathers: M. Hooker forbeareth not (in our so cleare a case) by his special explication and answeare, to explaine, and cleare them to our handes.

D. Fulke In Hookers Eccles. pol. l. 2. sec. 7. p. 118. 119. obiecteth against the authority of Councels, that S. Austin teacheth that,Answeare to a counterf. Cath. p. 89. And Aug. tom. 7. de Bapt. cont. Don. l. 2. c. 3. post med. general Councels themselues may be often amended, the former by the later, when by some ex­perience of thinges, that is opened which before was shut, and that knowen which [Page 233] before was vnknowen: But his meaning here is onely concerning matters of fact, or at most but concerning such pointes of faith, as were by former Councels, not erroneously determi­ned, but onely left vndefyned, and afterwardes resolued vpon by later Councels; for S. Austins wordes of Amendment argue him not to speake of faith (seeing faith or he­resy is not properly said to be amen­ded) but of matters of fact, which are subiect to amendment. A truth yet more euident in that this amend­ment is here said to come to passe by the experience of thinges, vnto which experience not doctrine of faith, but matters of fact be properly sub­i [...]ct.

M. Iewel obiectethReply. art. 4. p. 272. the testi­mony of S. Austin concerning Con­stantine the great, vndertaking the iudgement of Bishops, and their cause vpon appeale made to him in that behalfe, but M. 2. Reply. part. 2. p. 163. Carthwright answeareth hereto in our behalfe, that, Austin saith, that the Emperour [Page 234] was driuen by the Donatistes importu­nity, who made no end of appealing vnto him, to geue sentence in that matter, for the which also he was to craue par­don of the Bishops. To which purpose also S. Austin, and Optatus haueSee before c. chapter. 4. sec. 6. formerly made their seueral, an­sweares.

Such places are answeared, as are obiected from S. Austin against Baptisme by women in case of necessity: And against the real presence. SECTION. 2.

MAister Carthwright obiecteth against Baptisme by women, the 4. Can. 100. Carthage Councel saying, In Whitguiftes def. tract. 9. c. 5. p. 523. Let not a woman presume to Bap­tise: But his answeare is geuen him by his Protestant aduersary M. Whitguift in these wordes, Ibidem. that Canon inhibiteth women to Baptise in the open Church, and this (saith he) [Page 235] is a sufficient answeare. with whom agreeth Osiander, affirming that this obiected Canon is, Cent. 4. l. 1. c. 1. p. 19. rightly vnder­stood, de Baptismate publico, of publicke Baptisme.

Against the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, some obiect S. Austin to cal it somtimes a signe or figure; but this we also acknowledge it to be, and the same yet no more against our real presence, then confessedly it is against the other not onely Sacra­mental, but also real presence affir­med by Instit. l. 4. c. 17. parag. 7. & 10. & 32. Iuel. reply. p. 341. Pol. In Syllog. p. 307. Beza in ep. theol. ep. 5. p. 59. Caluin, Iewel, Polanus, and Beza, by some of whom and o­thers this seeming difficulty is auoy­ded & answeared: for Caluin writeth that. In omnes Pauli ep. in 1. Cor. 11. p. 323. wheras some gather from hence that Christ is absent from the supper, because a memory (or remem­brance) is not but of a thing absent, the answeare is ready &c. saying also of the Sacrament, Instit. de caena Dom. c. 12. p. 331. It doth not only figure (or represent) but also truly exhibite &c. And againe, Institut. l. 4. c. 17. sec. 10. There is no cause that any should obiect that it is a figuratiue speach, wherby the name [Page 236] of the thing signed is geuen to the signe. wherof other Caluinistes also say Collatio Cath. orthod. &c. p. 548. there is not any found amongst the Or­thodoxal, who affirme the body of Christ to be onely figured or signifyed in the sup­per of the Lord: which also M. Bruce explaineth yet more fully saying, Sermon vpon the Sacrament pag. 10. I cal them signes, because they haue the body and bloud of Christ conioyned with them, yea truly is the body and bloud of Christ conioyned with the bread &c. and not in respect onely of their repre­sentation are they called signes. But Beza writing to Alemannus, who obiected against Bezaes foresaid real presence (as the Caluinistes vsually do against ours) an obscure sentence of S. Austin, answeareth saying, Ep. theol. ep. 5. p. 59. therefore that place of Austin in Psalm. 98. you are not to eate this body which you see &c. thou art not so to take, as though it fauored thy opinion, for Austin doth not so exclude al eating of the true body. In like manner also answea­reth Bucer saying, Scripta Angli­cana. p. 678. Here it is ob­iected, that the holy Fathers, especiallly Austin, do cal the bread the signe of the [Page 237] Lords body. which he explaineth further saying. where do the holy Fa­thers make the Sacramental signes, the signes of Christ absent; &c. The Fa­thers cal them signes, but they vnder­stand signes that do exhibit. And the like answeare is Tom. 7. Wit­temberge. fol. 405. geuen by Lu­ther.

Hereby and otherwise is also an­sweared that common obiection ta­ken from S. Austin saying, Tom. 2. ep. 23. ad Bonifac. versus fin. As in a certaine manner the Sacrament of Christes body, is the body of Christ, the Sacrament of Christes bloud, is the bloud of Christ, so the Sacrament of faith, is faith: forEp. ad Frude­gardum. Paschasius and Lib. cont. Be­rengarium. Lanfranfrancus do answeare this to be spoken of Christes body and bloud, as in respect of the Crosse, and that the external Sacrament of both kindes, though being but (as in respect of his passion vpon the Crosse) a representation of his body there crucified, and of his bloud there shed might neuerthelesse in respect of such representation, be tearmed the thing it selfe in such manner suf­fering [Page 238] vpon the Crosse (for of that Immolation so once made in the words there next before he speaketh.) Al­gerus resteth in the other answeare before mencioned, affirming the Sa­crament to be called Christes body both Lib. 10. de sa­cram. Euchar. properly and improperly, im­properly, (saith he) for as much as con­cerneth the species and forme of the e­lements, properly, for as much as con­cerneth the sumbstance which it contai­neth. And if S. Austin otherwise with Suinglius had intended an only Sacramental representation, with­out real presence of the thing it selfe therto annexed, why then should he in the now obiected wordes, tearme Baptisme a Sacrament of faith, and not a Sacrament of Christes bloud? This point Carthwright obserued, & therin disliked S. Austin, saying therfore as to this now very obiected sentence, In Whitguiftes def. tract. 16. p. 619. I can not allow S. Au­stins reason which he maketh, nor the proportion that is betweene the Sacrament of the body and bloud, and his body and bloud it selfe on the one side, & betweene [Page 239] the Sacrament of Baptisme and faith on the other side &c. wheras he should haue said, that as the supper being the Sacrament of the body of Christ, is after a sort the body of Christ, so baptisme be­ing a Sacrament of the bloud of Christ, is after a sort the bloud of Christ: so many wayes are these common ob­iections answeared, and that by Pro­testants them selues. CaluinInstitut. l. 4. c. 17. parag. 34. also obiecteth S. Austin as seeming to Tom 5. l. 21. de ciu. Dei. c. 25. vers. fin. deny that the wicked do receiue the body of Christ in the Sacrament; in explicatiō herof it is obserueable, that S. Austin mencioneth a double receiuing of Christes body, the one onely Sacramental, wherby is recei­ued Christes body present vnder the Sacramental formes of bread and wine, common with the wicked & the good; the other spiritual, of which S. Austin to the ful clearing of this point saith, Tom. 10. de verbis Domini. serm. 2. There is a certaine manner of eating that flesh &c. according to which whosoeuer eateth re­maineth in Christ &c. but after a cer­taine manner. Now by this spiritual [Page 240] together with the Sacramental re­ceiuing, is likewise receiued the grace and spiritual effectes of that body peculiar onely to the good; and this kind of receiuing Christes body it is which he denyeth to the wicked: In which respect be com­mendeth those, Tom. 5. de ciu. Dei. l. 21. c. 25. ante med. & prope fin. who eate the body of Christ, not onely in the Sacrament, but in very deede; admonishing ther­fore that, Tom. 9. in Ioan. tract. 27. versus fin. we eate the flesh & bloud of Christ not onely in the Sacrament, which also many wicked do, but that we eate it to the participation of the spirit. And againe, Ibidem. tract. 26. post med. See brethren that you eate the heauenly bread spiritually; And yet most pregnantly, Tom. 10. de verbis Apost. ser. 2. This sermon is cy­ted for S. Aust. by Bede. in 1. Cor. 10. and ad Philip. c. 2. The bloud and body of Christ wil be life to euery one, if that which is taken in the Sa­crament visibly, be eaten spiritually (in ipsa veritate) in very truth; explay­ning yet further of the wicked that Tom. 9. in Ioan. tract. 26. versus fin. he doth not eate his flesh spiritually &c. although he cut with his teeth the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ carnally and visibly. And lastly he concludeth as See before. c. 8. sec. 2. before, that [Page 241] the wicked do according to the fir­ster foresaid sense truly receiue Chri­stes body; And this so plainly that Bucer recyting the common obiecti­on from S. Austin concerning panem Dominum, and panem Domini, conclu­deth neuerthelesse of the wicked say­ing, Scripta Angli­cana. p. 679. In how many places doth Au­stin affirme, that they also receiue the body and bloud of our Lord? how often doth he write, that Iudas himselfe re­ceiued the body and bloud of the Lord?

In proofe also against Incircum­scription, it is vrged that S. Austin saith, Ep. 57. ad Dardan. Take space of places from bodies and they wil be no where: And against the being of a body in many places at once; It is likewise obiected, that S. Austin affirmeth of Christ, Lib. 20. cont. Faust. c. 11. post. med. that he could not be at one time in the Sunne, and in the Moone, and vpon the Crosse: But Chemnitius answea­reth for him selfe and vs that Loc. com. part. 3. fol. 195. Austin when he disputeth of the common law and order of nature, he saith, If spaces of places be taken away, bodies haue not where to be, nor can be: But yet he [Page 242] doth not therefore deny, when the Scrip­ture deliuereth that the body of Christ entred through the doares being shut, where penetration of dimensions being made, two bodies were in one place or place was wanting to a body, but he affir­meth that by the power of the law of God, the law of nature doth cease. Auou­ching yet further hereof that, Al an­tiquity with one consent &c. doth so take it and vnderstand it. But hereof we haue spoken more largly See before. c. [...]2 sec. 3. here­tofore.

Such places are answeared, as are vrged from S. Austin against in­uocation of Sainctes, Images, and reliques. SECTION. 3.

AGainst inuocation of Sainctes, M. Moulin Defence. &c. englished. art. 8. p. 199. obiecteth these wordes of S. Austin, Tom. 5. de ciu. Dei. l. 22. c. 10. circ. med. At which sacrifice &c. martyrs are named in their place and order, but they are [Page 243] not inuocated by the Preist who sacrifi­ceth. S. Austin hereby onely mea­neth, that in the act of sacrifycing due onely to God, not martyrs but onely God him selfe is inuocated or sacrifyced vnto: accordingly as he most euidently explaineth him selfe in the same treatise saying,Ibidem. l. 8. c. 27. prope init. And tom. 6. cont. Fast. Manich. l. 20. c. 21. who of the faithful euer heard the Preist standing at the Altar &c. to pray, I offer sacrifice to thee o Peter, o Paul, or o Ciprian; This therefore is the onely inuocation, to wit, by way of sacrifice, which he impugneth.

M. Mouling alsoVbi supra. art. 8. p. 198. vrgeth these other wordes of S. Tom. 7. l. 2. cont. Parmen. c. 8. ante et post med. Austin Per­menianus in a certaine place maketh the Bishop mediator betweene God and the people &c. If therefore Paul should be a mediator &c. the reason of Paul should not be good, wherin he said one God, one mediator &c. wherupon Moulin inferreth that S. Austin said thus as against mediatorship or inter­cession: But D. Orthodoxus Iacobus. p. 48. Gordan, though obiecting this saying, yet explaineth there from S. Austines other wor­des [Page 244] in the same place, that this doth not take away our mutual in­tercession one for another, showing further also that,Ibidem. p. 45. Christ is the mediator of God and men (not because he is the onely mediator of inter­cession but) because in him being one, God and man are ioyned. As for Par­menian the Donatist, his error being, that the grace of the Sacrament did so depend vpon the goodnes of the Preist, that a good Preist Baptising did sanctify, and that the euil Preist Baptising did defile; this tying so of grace to the Preistes personal goodnes, did (as S. Austin argueth against it) consequently infer, that the Preist should be the mediator of grace and redemption, which is the point that S. Austin confuteth in the place obiected.

Against pictures and reliques this place of S. Austin is ordinarily ob­iected,Tom. 1. de moribus Ec­cles. c. 34. post med. do not follow the troupes of ignorant men, who in their very religion are superstitious &c. I know that there are many worshipers of sepulchres and [Page 245] pictures. I know that there are many who drinke most riotously ouer the dead, and bringing banquets to the dead bodies, they bury themselues ouer those that are buried, and ascribe their gluttony and drunkennes to religion. This he spoke not as against al religious reuerence done before the pictures, or at the monuments of the deade Sainctes or martyrs, but onely as against those who put the same in practise pro­miscuously to or before the picture or sepulchre of any deade person, whether martyr or other, and the same also not without luxurious ex­cesse of drinking: This superstitious and ignorant abuse he there taxeth, as also elswhere saying,Tom. 2. ep. 63. Aurelio. circa med. drunken­nes an ryetous banquets in Church-yards, were thought by the carnal and ignorant people, not onely to be the honours of Martyrs, but also the comforts of the dead. Besides this we haue seeneSee before. c. 14. sec. 3. 4. before S. Austins acknowlegment of the reuerence due to profitable signes, and reliques: As also the orderly v­sageTom. 1. l. 6. confes. c. 2. and tom. 5. de ciu. Dei. l. 8. c. 27. ante med. of bread and wine &c. at the [Page 246] sepulchres of Sainctes, which him selfe reporteth his owne mother Moni­ca to haue practised, vntil the con­trary vpon iust occasion was pro­hibited by S. Ambrose. And he yet further saith,Tom. 2. ep. 42. ad Madau­renses. circa med. you haue seene &c. the highest top of the most noble Empyre (or the Emperour) bowing dowen his crowne to pray at the sepulchre of Peter the fisher: But of S. Austines allow­ance of pictures, and reliques, we haue seene more larglySee before. c. 14. sect. 3. 4. before.

Such places are answeared as are vrged from S. Austin against Purgatory. SECTION. 4.

DOctor Fulke Against Rhem. test. in 1. Cor. 3. sec. 6. fol. 267. obiecteth these wordes of S. Austin Tom. 7. Hy­pognost. cont. Pelag. l. 5. The third place we are vtterly ignorant of: But S. Austin said this as onely a­gainst the Pelagians who (as M. Of the Church l. 5. c. 19. p. 71. And see the same in Danae­us in Isagog. Christ. part. 4. p. 557. Field confesseth) taught that there [Page 247] was besides heauen, and hel, another third place of euerlasting continuance for such childrē as dyed vnbaptised. Now in respectiue cōfutatiō of this said ima­ginary third place of euerlasting rest, S. Austin said as is obiected: other­wise how ful and resolute S. Austin was concerning Purgatory, and prayer for the deade we haue clearly seeneSee before. c. 14. sec. 1. before, and for such confessed by Protestantes.

But D. Against Rhem. test. in 1. Cor. 3. sec. 6. fol. 267. Fulke further obiec­teth, that S. Austin saith,Tom. 3. En­chirid. c. 69. init. et 68. post. init. It is not incredible that some such thing is done after this life, and it may be inqui­red of, whether it be so and either be found or hid: S. Austin vttered these wordes not as being doubtful of Purgatory, but onely whether that some of the faithful after this life be saued so much later or sooner by a cer­taine Purgatory fire, as they more or lesse loued their transitory goodes. So that his doubt there is not, whether there be any Purgatory, which by the very wordes obiected is rather supposed, & in this very same booke [Page 248] is confessedly affirmed, but, onely (as he yet further in this place ob­iected, explaineth himIbidem. c. 68, post init. selfe) whether that such affection to worldly thinges lawfully enioyned (as to wife, children &) that without greefe of minde he cannot part with them, be punished in Purgatory or not. This onely is his doubt, and may by vs yet be doubted of, but without al scruple or doubt of Purgatory in him or vs.

Such places are answeared, as are v [...] ­ged from S. Austin against iusti­fication by workes, freewil, and merit of workes. SECTION. 5.

VVEreas some obiect in be­halfe of iustification by faith, and against workes, that S. Au­stin in some places affirmeth onely faith to iustify. This is explained and answeared [...] See before. c. 13. s [...]c. 2. & 3. by D. [Page 249] Whitaker, and Melancthon, both of them affirming that S. Austin in those places onely intendeth to se­clude such workes from iustificati­on as goe before faith, not such as follow; which is the same which we al teach.

Others likwise obiect certaine places which seeme to make against freewil; but in those places S. Austin writ against the Pelagians, who to much enhabled freewil, and natural workes, as of them selues sufficientTom. 2. ep. 200. ad Aselli­cum.. multo ante med. an ep. 89. ad Hil­larium. quaest. 2. init. without grace, which doth no­thing preiudice vs, disclaming in the sufficiency either of freewil or workes without Gods grace. But Hemingius doth answeare this obiection very directly saying,Lib. de vniuer­sali gratia. p. 105. As often as Au­stin weakneth freewil, he speaketh against the opinion of Pelagius, for otherwis [...] he often attributeth freewil to man, and confesseth that man without freewil can neither liue wel nor sinne &c. nor that there is any place for rewardes or punish­ments: wherefore it is diligently to be obserued, in wh [...] respect freewil is some [Page 250] times affirmed and somtimes denyed by S. Austin.

Such places are answeared as are ob­iected from S. Austin concerning vowes, miracles, and Ceremo­nies. SECTION. 6.

SOme obiect certaine placesDe sancta vir­ginitate. c. 34. de bono vidui­tatis. c. 9. & 10. & ep 72. ad Bonifacium. of S. Austin to make for the marriage of votaries, as that such marriage should be in force and not voide: In answeare hereto, and to other like obiected sayinges from S.Lib. 1. ep. 11. Epiph. haer. 61. Ciprian, Epiphanius, and others, it is to be obserued, that there is a double vow, the one priuate or simple, wherein is nothing but the parties bare promisse, the other tearmed a solemne vow, wherein is not onely a promise, but a deliuery also made of the thing promised, whereof the Church taketh solemne acceptance, and the party is therupon by the [Page 251] Church specially consecrated to Christ: In the firster case, the mar­riage though sinful by breach of the simple vow, is yet in force, and of this vow are the Fathers obiected sayinges vnderstood; but in the o­ther foresaid case where the thing promised is solemnly deliuered ouer the special consecration of the party, al pretended marriage is a meere nullety, and so by S. Austin and o­ther Fathers adiudged; for in this case any pretended marriage is tear­med by the fourthCan [...]. 104. Carthage Councel, crimen adulterij, the sinne of adultery, and therefore nothing lesse then marriage; in so much as Osian­der reprehendeth this Canon, as af­firmingCent. 5. l. 1. c. 1. p. 20. spiritual marriage betwixt consecrated widowes and Christ. And it is further tearmed Adultery by S. Ep. 6. ad Theodor. Ba­sil. de vera vir­ginit. Ambros. ad virg. laps. c. 5. Aug. Tom 8. in Psal. 83. mul­to ante med. Innocent. ep. ad Victoricum. c. 12. 13. Concil. 2. Tu­ron. can. 21. wherof see the Centuristes. cent. 6. c. 9. col. 575. Osi­ander. Cent. 6. l. 3. c. 2. p. 209. Ha­melman. de tradit. Apost. part. 3. l. 3. col. 814. Chrisostome, S. Basil, S. Ambrose, S. Austin, S. Innocentius, and by S. Hierome, not onely adultery but incest. And S. Innocentius mencioneth the former distinction of simple and so­lemne vow, affirming of the first, that [Page 252] the breach therof is sinful, but the marriage true, but of the latter, that it is adultery and not marriage.

D. Fulke Confut. of Purgat. p. 333. obiecteth S. Tom. 7. de vnit. Eccles. c. 19. prope init. Austin as disclaming from miracles; it is answeared that S. Austin wri­ting against the Donatistes, who bragged of their secret apparitions (commmon likewise to the Prote­stants Hacket, Carolastadius, Suingli­us, and Luther) which he tearmed the false reportes of lying men, or els the wonders of deceiuing spirits, doth not reiect, but in that spe [...]ial disputation onely forbeare the argument of mi­racles, especially seeing that the mi­racles wherof the Donat [...]stes so brag­ged, were (though graunted for true) but such as the Diuel might bring to passe, as not exceeding the power of nature. But as concer­ning such true miracles as exceed al power of nature and secundary cau­ses, as curing the diseased without meanes of phisicke, raysing of the deade &c. these are vrged byTom. 5. de ciu. Dei. l. [...]2. c. [...]. S. Austin him selfe as a strong argu­ment [Page 253] against the Pagans: In so much that he numbring vpTom. 6. cont. ep. fundam. c. 4. ante med. the many thinges that held him in the Churches bosome, nameth expresly miracles for one.

Against Ceremonies sundryFulke against Rhem. test. in Gal. 4.3. sec. 3. Morton in his appeale. p. 53 Caluin, institut. l. 4. c. 10. sec. 13. Protestants do obiect S. Tom. 2. ep. 119. c. 19. Austin; but he in the very place obiected explaineth him selfe to speake onely against such, which neither are contai­ned in the authorities of Scriptures, nor found to be decreed in the Councels of Bishops nor strengthned with the custome of the vniuersal Church &c. so that scarce, or not at al, can reasons be found which people followed in the making of them. To which purpose also M. Wh [...]guif [...] directly answeareth to this place obiected saying,Defence. tra [...]. 10. c. 2. p. 545. Austin. ep. 119. speaketh but of vnprofitable ceremonies &c. neither grounded vpon the Scriptures, determined by Councels, nor confirmed by custome.

A further answeare ingeneral to al such obiections as are vrged from S. Austin, or others of the Fa­thers. SECTION. 7.

AS concerning al these & such other like triuial and vnwor­thy obiections so often from S. Au­stin and the other Fathers by our aduersaries reenforced and vrged, and by our writers more then often explained and answeared, we do hereby once for al premonish and commend to the readers remem­brance these few further general ob­seruations next ensuing, in more ful explanatiō of these & other like oc­curring obscure sayinges of S. Austin & other Fathers wherin (as our ad­uersaries acknowledgeBeza ep. theol. [...]p. 82. p. 382. Snecanus me­thod. descript. p. 429. Chem­nitius examen. part. 1. fol. 80. White in his way to the true Church. pref. to the reader, sec. 17. and an­sweare) they could not possibly fore see to write of al things so distinctly & clearly, as is now to be wished.

The first then is, that (according [Page 255] to the direction euen geuen by Pro­testants) we do vnderstand the ob­scure saying of any Father, agree­ably to his many more plainer say­inges deliuered in other places of the same matter: and much more then that we do not insist vpon any seeming doubtful saying against those many more which are plaine, and for such confessed. Of this ob­seruationSnecanus me­thod. descript. p. 414. Snecanus alledgeth Ter­tulian saying, It is fit that the fewer be vnderstood by the more. And againe, lest one speach should ouerthrow many o­thers, it is to be expounded according to al, rather then against al. Hereof also saith Pezelius, In argument. [...]t obiect. p. 254. A profitable rule in teaching is deliuered, that it is fit that the fewe be vnderstood by the more. M. Carthwright yet saith further,2. Reply. part. 1. p. 627. If it be a simple answeare to set one author against another, it is much more simple to set one authority at vari­ence with it selfe, without shewing any way of reconciliation.

And yet what more frequent with Protestants then this simple kind of [Page 256] answeare for doth not D. Whitaker, in steede of better answeare say,De sacra Scrip­tura. p. 690. though (Austin) in this place seemeth to fauor Traditions, yet in other places he defend [...]th earnestly the perfection of the Scripture. And of S. Basil he like­wise saith concerning the same tra­ditions,Ibidem. p. 670. he fighteth with him selfe. AndDe principiis Christ. dog. l. 2. c. 10. p. 675. Lubertus saith, I oppose Basil against Basil. As also,Whitaker. vbi supra p. 678. Chrisostome fighteth with him selfe. And,Lubertus. vbi supra. p. 676. I op­pose Chrisostome to Chrisostome. Nei­therIbidem. p. 678. doth Damascen agree with him selfe. The like simple answeare is geuen by Hospinian against S. Au­stin saying,Hist. sacram. part. 1. in in­dice 3. Patrū. at the word Augustinus. col. 3. He wanteth the testimony of Scripture▪ neither agreeth he with him selfe, yea, he contradicteth him selfe. Of whom also saithSynopsis de Patribus. p. 34. Tossanus, Austin is often wauering, and not agree­ing with him selfe in al thinges. with these also answeareth no lesse simply Malancthon saying,In ep. ad Rom. in c. 14. p. 418. I know many thinges may be gathered out of the aun­cient (writers) which are contrary to our opinions &c. I prouoke not to al the writers, [...]ut to the better sort, Ambrose, [Page 257] Austin, and as far forth as the rest a­gree with these, who seeing they sometimes speake contrary thinges, they shal geue vs leaue if we reprehend some thinges. But Beza extendeth this simple kind of answeare yet further, for speaking of the auncient Fathers in Theodosius his time, he saith,In nou. Test. in praefat. ad principem Condensem. p. 4. I confesse that as then there were many most learned Bishops, but withal I affirme &c. that scarce any of them can be found, who differeth not, both from him selfe, and from many others in matters of greatest moment. Caluin also hauing mecio­ned the auncient Fathers and better writers of this age, saith of them,Instit. in prae­fat. ad Regem. Gal. p. 7. Those holy men were ignorant of many thinges, they do often feight amongst them selues, and somtimes with them selues. And the like saith Peter Mar­t [...]r, De votis. p. 463. that cheifly is to be obserued that the Fathers do not alwayes agree amongst them selues, and somtimes not one with him selfe.

Wherefore to omit this kind of simple answeare, as in it selfe base, to the Fathers iniurious, and vsed [Page 258] onely by such as fynd them selues galled, or rather condemned by the same Fathers, seeing the foremen­tioned obiections of our aduersaries taken from S. Austin, being at the least but places obscure and questi­onable, and those other by vs al­ledged being plaine, and for such by the learnedst Protestants acknow­l [...]dged, it were absurd and against al sequel of reason, either to vrge these places as one contrary to an­other, or to expound and determine the sense of those that be so confes­sedly plaine and out of question, by these other whose sense is obscure, doubtful, and yet depending in que­stion; which only obseruation being in it selfe so cleare and manifest, sufficeth of it selfe to dissolue al the foresaid, and other obiections fra­med from S. Austin or other Fathers by so many Protestant writers.

The second obseruation is, that we also vnderstand the Fathers doubtful sayinges according to the then common receiued opinion of [Page 259] the other Fathers, as is by S. Au­stin him selfe in this case confessedly obserued: for wheras Iulianus the hereticke, to proue that children are without original sinne, obiected this sentence of S. Chrisostome, we baptise Infantes though they haue no sinnes: S. Austin teacheth how to vnderstand this obscure sentence saying,Tom. 7. con­tra Iulian. Pe­lag. l. 1. c. 6. multo ante med. in­tellige propri [...], vnderstand it of sinnes of their owne, (or actual) and there is no contention; but thou wilt say, why did not (Chrisostome) ad propria, their owne? why do we thinke but because disputing in a Catholicke Church, he thought he should not be otherwise vn­derstood, nobody was troubled with such a question, you not as then wrangling, he spoke securely. This point and very example is obserued by Peter Common pla­ces in english. part. 2. p. 228. Martir, as also by Chemnitius, who therupon obserueth & inferrethExamen. part. 1. fol. 80. And see Sneca­nus in method. descript. p. 429. 430. 432. that, In this sort Austin, de natura et gratia, applyeth the sentences of Hillary, Ambrose, Chrisostome, Hierome, which Pelagius had alledged in confirmation of his error, according to the Analogy [Page 260] of faith, adding a fit interpretation.

Now according to this obserua­tion and practise of S. Austin al. our aduersaries mistaken obiection [...] from him are againe at once deter­mined by the confessed contrary doc­trine in the next Chapters alledged from the other Fathers, that seueral­ly liued in the same age with S. Au­stin, and in the other ages next be­fore and after him. As also accor­ding to both these foresaid rules may easily be auoyded that preten­ded necessity of childrens receiuing the Eucharist vnder paine of dam­nation, wherwith S. Austin is by D. Answeare to a counterf. Ca­tholicke. p. 87. Fulke and many others so often and so seriously mischarged. For hereto it may be answeared, that in S. Austines opinion▪ children in Baptisme receiued the effect of the other Sacrament, without which vertual communicating he thought them not saued: otherwise that he did not thinke their Sacramental receiuing of the Eucharist necessary appeareth, first, in that he taught be­fore, that in Baptisme was a plena [...] [Page 261] remission of al sinnes. Secondly in that our aduersaries cannot alledge any his saying affirming directly to to the point, that a Baptised childe dying before his communicating is damned. Thirdly in that S. Austin teacheth thatSerm. ad In­fantes apud Bedam. in 1. Cor. 10. And see Tom. 7. l. 1 de pec. mer. et rem. c. 19. and tom. 5. de ciuit. Dei. l. 21. c. 16. and after the en­glish transl. p. 856. none ought any wayes to doubt, but that euery one of the faithful is made partaker of the body & bloud of our Lord, when he is made in Baptisme a member of Christ, and that he is not estranged from the fellowship of that bread and Chalice, although be­fore he eate that bread, and drinke the Chalice, he depart out of this world be­ing in the vnity of the body of Christ, This point is so cleare in S. Austin as that theCent. 5. c. [...]. col. 604. Centuristes do in par­ticular free him from this imputi­on.

As for S. Austines communica­ting to Infants (but without al opi­nion of the necessity before suppo­sed) we graunt his doctrine therof: A doctrine likewise houlden good not onely by S. Ciprian, who recy­teth aSerm. de lap­sis. circ. med. memorable miracle con­curring [Page 262] therwith, and one in his owne presence; But also Musculus, who maketh true andLoc. com. e. de caena Dom. p. 34 [...]. direct answeare to those wordes of S. Paul, Let a man proue him selfe, and alled­gethIbid. p. 341. the auncient Churches iudgement and practise in proofe therof. A doctrine also stil defendedLib. ep. Oe­colam. et Suing. p 305. 329. by the Bohemians.

The third obseruation is, that ac­cording to our aduersaries owneChemnitius examen. part. 1. fol. 80. Snecanus me­thod. de script. p. 290. Ban­croftes suruey. p. 336. Hum­frey in Iesuit. part. 2. rat. 5. p. 501. & rat. 2. p. 129. and see S. Basil. ep. 64. rule, we do discerne the Fathers sayinges by them vttered in heat or feruor of disputation, from those other which they write dogmati­cally; for that in the first kind, the Fathers being more attent and busi­ed how to conuince and ouercome, then alwayes precisely obseruant or circumspect of their manner of spea­king (which they neuer doubted would be vnderstood otherwise then according to the Catholicke re­ceiued sense, euen as next here be­fore S. Austin expounded and ex­cused S. Chrisostome) their meaning may the more colourably be mista­ken: [Page 263] In which respect such their ob­iected sayinges (as namely those commonly vrged against freewil, and merit of workes, taken from S. Austins disputation with the Pelagians who enhabled these as auaileable with­out grace) are not houlden so con­uincing or fit for argument; which few obseruations thus propounded being but duly obserued, by the stu­dious and indifferent reader, wil suffice to deliuer him from the doubtful laborinth of al vprising obiected difficulties. And thus much breifly in answeare to al the obiections pretended from S. Austin, wherein our aduersaries most colourable en­deauour is, but to make him no fur­ther contrary to vs, then confessedly therein he should be contrary to him selfe, which is nothing; he being in very deede so plaine in our behalfe, and so far from Luthers new erected doctrine, that one of Luthers scho­lers blushed not to say,Alberus contra Carolastadia­nos. l. 7. And see the like in Musculus in praefat. in li­bel. Ger. de diaboli tyran­nide. And Ho­spin. hist. sa­cram. part. 1. fol. 346. I doubt not but if that Austin were non liuing, he would not be [...] to pr [...]fe [...]e [Page 264] him selfe Luthers scholler.

The Fathers in general & who liued in the age of S. Austin confessedly taught the same doctrine with him cōcerning Christ being our medi­ator only according to his humanity; concerning the sacred Scriptures. & traditions. SECTION. 1.

HAuing thus hitherto entreated of the religion professed by [Page 265] S. Austin to whom aboue al the Fa­thers Protestants do vsually make their bouldest claime, a [...] pretending him to make most for them, and a­gainst vs: Hereby I hope sufficient­ly appeareth, what is to be expected in this kind from the other Fathers; for if D. Boyes doth acknowledge that,Exposition of the dominic. epist. the win­ter part. p. 253. and see before. c. 1. the most indifferent for both parties among the Fathers is Austin, who yet standeth so aduerse against them, as we haue formerly seene by al the premisses, much more aduerse then in al probability are the other Fathers. And for so much as the fur­ther explanation of the other Fa­thers iudgements yealdeth a yet fur­ther strong proofe of S. Austires See before in the pref. to the learned aduer­sary. professed like consenting religion, and that in reguard of my enioyned and affected breuity, I haue not oppor­tunity to demonstrate the same from the other Fathers owne alledged­ged sayinges at large, I wil now therefore onely ad (as in ful satis­faction of al reasonable readers) a breife recytal of our learned aduer­saries [Page 266] them selues, charging and re­prouing the Fathers indefinitly, or els sundry of them at once, & char­ging also diuerse of those who liued in S. Austins age with their kno­wen confessed iudgements & prac­tise in particular of our Catholicke faith.

First then in proofe of our Saui­ours office of mediatorship onely according to his haman nature, Cal­uin him selfe denying it, yet saith of the FathersInstit. l. 2. c. 14. sec. 3. & Beza in ep. theol. ep. 28. p. 174. herein the error of the auncient Fathers cannot be ex­cused.

In like sort concerning the ca­nonical Scriptures the Protestant Poliander saith.See before. c. 3. sec. 2. to come now to the error of some Councels, the Councels of Carthage, and Florence, hauing rouled for Canonical bookes, and as diuinely inspired &c. the bookes of Tobie, Iu­dith, Wisdome, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees &c. and the Popes Inno­centius, and Gelasius, haue reckoned these bookes among the canonical. And the like is formerly confessed by [Page 267] sundry other Protestants.

Traditions are so fully taught by the Fathers, as that for teaching the same D. Raynoldes Conclusions annexed to hi [...] confer. con­clus. 1. p. 689. reproueth S. Basil, and S. Epiphanius: Chemnitius reprehendethExamen. part. 1. p. 87. 89. 90. Clemens Alexandri­nus. Origen, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Hie­rome. Maximus, Theophilus, Basil, Damascen. D. Fulke acknowledgeth as much ofConfut. of Purg. p. 362. 303. 397. and against Marti­al. p 170. 178. & against Bristowes mo­tiues. p. 35. 36. Chrisostome, Tertulan, Cipriā, Austī, Hierom. & D. Whitaker confesseth the like ofDe sacra Script. p. 678. 681. 683. 685. 690. 695. 696. 668. 670. and see Schrod [...]us in opusc. theol. p. 72. Chrisostome, Epiphanius, Tertulian▪ Ciprian, Austin, Innocentius, Leo, Basil, Eusebius Da­mascen.

The Fathers in general are confessed to teach the Primacy Ecclesiastical of of Peter, and the Bishops of Rome: As also to deny supreme Ecclesi­astical gouernment to temporal Princes; and that the Pope is not Antichrist. SECTION. 2.

COncerning S. Peter, and his then successors, Bishops of [Page 268] Rome in the foresaid auncient times; sundry of the Fathers are by Pro­testants reprehended for their af­firming the Church to be builded vpon Peter, wherof Caluin saith,Instit l. 4. e. 6. parag. 6. Some of the Fathers haue so expounded (those wordes super hanc Petram) but al the Scripture cryeth the contrary. Danaeus also saith of the Fathers,Resp. ad Bel­lar. part. 1. p. [...]77. the say­ing of Christ, thou art Peter &c. they haue noughtily expounded of the person of Peter. And theCent. 3. col. 84. 85. & cent. 4 col. 1250. & col. 1141. & col. 555. 557. 558. Centuristes do expresly reprehend and charge many of the auncient Fathers with this o­pinion. D. Fulke affirmeth that (not some fewConfut of the Papistes quar­rels. p. 4. but) many of the auncient Fathers &c. were deceiued to thinke something more of Peters prero­gatiue, and the Bishops of Romes digni­ty, then by the word of God was geuen to either of them: In so much as in reguard of the Roman Bishops then c [...]aimed and enioyed Primacy, Pro­testantes feare not to affirme, that the Roman Bishops in the time of Constantine the great, were very An­tichristes▪ whereof writeth M. In Apocalip. p. 539. [Page 269] Brightman, Antichrist haith raigned from the time of Constantine the great to this very day: And speaking of the Pope of Rome he saith,Ibidem. p. 477. and see p. 471. for these thousand three hundred yeares he is that Antichrist; whom M. Nappier na­methVpon the re­uel. p. 362. 85 88. 75. 68. And see Gau­uius in Palma Christiana. p. 34. to be Siluester the first.

But Protestants forbeare not to reproue and charge with affected & vsurped Primacy, euen S. Peter him selfe, and the other next to him suc­ceeding bishops of Rome, for of this certaine Caluinistes write thus,Catalogus te­stium veritatis tom. 1. p. 27. It may not be denyed but that Peter was somtimes faulty in ambition and desire of power &c. by which infirmity of Peter, doubtles it was signifyed, that those Bi­shops which bragged of Peters succession, were to be faulty of the like, yea with greater ambition by infinit degrees &c. wherfore this so peruerse abition of Pe­ter and ignorance of heauenly thinges, and negligence withal &c. did without doubt signify that the Roman Bishop, be­cause he would be cheife and heire of Peters priuiledges, was to be ignorant and a contemner of heauenly thinges, and [Page 270] one desirous of human riches, power, and pleasures. To which purpose also auoucheth another Protestant writer that,Philippus Ni­cholai, in com­ment. de reg­no Christi. p. 221. The affectation of Pri­macy was a common infirmity of the A­postles, as also of the first Bishops of the Citie of Rome.

Hence also it is that the auncient Fathers did confessedly reproue some Emperours of their times for vsur­ping of Ecclesiastical gouernment, of which thus write the Centuristes, Cent. 4. c. 7. col. 54 [...]. The Emperours also did somtimes assume to them selues vnseasonably the iudge­ment of matters of faith, which Atha­nasius reprehendeth in Constantius, and Ambrose in Valentinian: of which lat­ter also saithCent. 4. l. 4. c. 9. p. 477. And D. Down­ham in his de­fence. l. 1. c. 8. p. 162. 163. Osiander, Ambrose answeared, o Emperour, do not trouble thy selfe to thinke that thou hast any im­perial right ouer heauenly thinges, do not extol thy selfe &c. with whom agreeth M. 2. Reply. part. 2. p. 161. 162. 155. 156. Carthwright adding further, Ambrose saith, it was not read nor h [...]ard of before, that any Emperour was iudge ouer a Bishop in a cause of faith; which was not the iudgment of Ambrose [Page 271] onely but of other Bishops round about. Of which point also Polanus alled­gethSymphonica. e. 22. Thes. 2. p. 836. 837. 838. 839. 841. 842. 843. 844. 849. sundry testimonies of the auncient Fathers.

Concerning Antichrist whose com­ming, person, and continuance were no doubt plainly and faithfuly de­liuered by the Apostles to their fol­lowers, and from them successiuely continued in the Church of God, in better forewarning and discouery of the monster when he should ap­peare: And first as touching the time of his comming, foretould not to be before the end of the Roman Empire, M. Fulke confesseth say­ing,Against Rhem. test. in 2. Thes. 2.3. sec. 4. Indeed most of the auncient Fathers did iudge that the Roman Em­pire should first be decayed before An­tichrist were reueled: wherof also saith Caluin, In 2. Thes. 2.3. for as much as they haue expounded this place of the defection of the Roman Empire, it is more friuolous then that it needeth any long con­futation, and I do maruel that so many writers otherwise learned and witty, haue beene deceiued in so easy a thing, but that [Page 272] when one had erred, the rest without iudgment followed in troupes: which their pretended error was for sooth, because they did not agree in the said exposition with theFulke in his an­sweare to a counterf. Cath. p. 27. 36. Downham of Antichrist. l. 1. p. 4. Willet in synops. p. 160. Perkins vpon the Creede. p. 307. Danaeus. resp. ad Bel. part. 1. p. 371. Whitak. de Ec­cles. controu. 2. quaest. 4. p. 144. Powel, de Antichristo in praefat. p. 1. Prote­testants late nouel opinion concer­ning the reuelation of Antichrist in Boniface the third Anno. 607. At what time, as also yet to this pre­sent, the Roman Empyre then was, and yet is not dissolued, butSee before c. 16. sec. 1. pre­serued and in being.

As concerning the person of An­tichrist, M. Whitaker saith,Lib. de Antichristo. p. 21 The Fathers for the most part thougt that Antichrist should be but one man, but in that, as in many other thinges they erred: wherof also saith2. Repl. part. 1. p. 508 Carthwright, diuerse of the auncient and cheifest of them imagined fondly of Antichrist, as of one singular person: for which doc­trine also the Fathers are charged with error byHist. Anti­christi. p. 11. Gracerus.

Now as for the short time of the height of his persecution, M. Foxe confesseth thatIn Apoc. c. 12. p. 345. Almost al the ho­ly and learned interpreters do by a time. [Page 273] times, and halfe a time, vnderstand one­ly three yeares and a halfe. Affirming further this to be,Ibid. p. 362. the consent and opinion of almost al the auncient Fathers: In further proofe therof also saith Bullinger, Vpon the re­uel. englished in c. 11. ser. 46. fol. 142. doubtles al expositors in a manner, grounding them selues vpon this text, haue attributed to the king­dome of Antichrist, and to his most cruel persecutions, no more them three yeares and a halfe.

The Fathers in general are confessed to teach our Catholicke doctrines con­cerning the Sacrament of Bap­tisme. SECTION. 3.

IN proofe of the efficacy of Sacra­ments, and of the grace geuen thereby Suinglius writeth,Tom. 2. de bapt. fol. 70. Here most of the doctors vnderstanding by the name of water, that material and exter­nal water of Baptisme, haue attributed vnto it much more then was fit, wherupon [Page 274] it afterwardes came to passe, that they ascribed the clensing of soules to the ele­ment of water. Of which also saith Luther, Tom. 2. Wit­ [...]emberg. fol. 229. I excuse the Fathers, who driuen either by temptation, or necessity, stoutly denyed sinne to remaine after Bap­tisme: In so much as Caluin acknow­ledgeth,See before. c. 6. sec. 1. the auncient Churches iudgement coneerning concupisence re­maining after Baptisme not to be sinne, without our consent therto; And he and others also do reprehendSee before. c. 5. sec. 1. the Fathers for preferring the efficacy of our Sacraments before the other Sacraments of the old Testament.

In like manner concerning the ne­cessity of Baptisme, Musculus granteth that,Loc. com. p. 308. some Fathers, amongst whō is Austin, haue subiected Infantes dying without Baptisme, to damnation; Of the generality of which opinion we haue spokenSee before. c. 6. sec. 3. before. And whereas M. In his appeale. p. 244. Morton insteede of answeare hereto, obiecteth as from the Fa­thers their like supposed erroneous necessity of childrens receiuing the Eucharist, that this necessity was not [Page 275] as in respect of saluation, but by him mistaken, I haue showedSee before. c. 19. sec. 7. alrea­dy. Yea the Fathers were so resolute herein that as Caluin testifyethInstit. l. 4. c. 15. sec. 20. of them, it was vsual many ages since, euen almost from the beginning of the Church, that in daunger of death Laye people might baptise, if the minister was not present in due time: AndConference at Hampton court. p. 18. the denying of priuate persons in case of ne­cessity to baptise, were to crosse al antiqui­ty, saith D. Bilson. And as for the Ceremonies of Baptisme, and the Eu­charist, Beza saith,Ep. theol. ep. 8. p. 79. I cannot suffici­ently admire al that decking, wherwith the most auncient thought to adorne Bap­tisme and the Lords supper: And ha­uing recyted sundry of these cere­monies he calleth themIbid. p. 80. stagelike fooleries, affirming further that, those who make the Apostles authors of these fooleries, are not worthy of confutation, how auncient writers so euer they be. Zepperus also hauing mencioned ho­ly water, salt, Oyle, Exorcisme, Spitle, &c. saith hereof,Politia Eccles. l. 1. c. 12. p. 123. I confesse these superstitious ceremonies are very auncient [Page 276] in the Church, being not many ages af­ter the Apostles times; wherof also see Echartus Compend. theol. l. 1. c. 8. p. 204. alledging these ceremo­nies from the Fathers.

The Fathers ingeneral are confessed for our Catholicke doctrines concer­ning the Sacraments of Confir­mation, Orders, and Ex­treme vnction. SECTION. 4.

COncerning Confirmation, it is reported how that M.The confe­rence at Hampton court. p. 10. And Downhams de­fence. l. 4. p. 23. Whitguift shewed at large the antiquity of confirmation, as being vsed in the Church euer since the Apostles times. And the ministers of Lincolne diocesse charge Abripgment. p. 41. Tertulian, Ciprian, Am­brose, with error of vsing the Crosse in confirming those that were baptised: wherto the Century writers ad the Fathers further confessed vsage of Cent. 4. c. 6. col. 478. Chrisme in Confirmation; wherin Bucer yet further acknowledgeth [Page 277] that in the Primitiue Church it was done with Scripta Angli­cana. p. 570. hand-imposing onely of a Bishop.

As touching Orders, D. Field a­uoucheth that Of the Church l. 5. c. 25. p. 121. and the Centuristes. cent. 3. c. 7. col. 149. 150. there is no question but that the minor Orders of Subdea­cons, Acolites, Exorcistes Lectors and Ostiaries, are very auncient; alledging further in proofe therof S. Ciprian and many other Fathers.

And as for Extreme vnction, M. Whitaker answearing to the auncient Fathers obiected testimonies in be­halfe thereof, confesseth saying, Contra Durae­um. l. 8. p. 650. I acknowledge the superstitious custome of this vnction to haue continued longer in the Church then was meete.

The Fathers in general are confessed for our Catholicke doctrines concer­ning Confession, satisfaction & pardons. SECTION. 5.

THe Century writers speaking of those auncientest times of Ciprian, and Tertulian, affirme that,Cent. 3. c. 6. col. 127. and cent. 4. c. 6. col. 425. they gaue absolution from sinnes thus, if any did penance they should first confesse their sinne, for so doth Tertulian in his booke de paenitentia, greatly vrge confession, and it appeareth by certaine places of Ciprian, that priuate confession was vsual, wherin they confessed their sinnes and wicked thoughtes, as in serm. 5. de lapsis. et l. 3. epist. ep. 14. & 16. where he expresly saith, of lesser sinnes also, which are not committed a­gainst God, it is needful that confession be made, and this also he often comman­deth to be. l. 1. ep. 3. &c. that satis­faction also was accustomed to be imposed according to the offence, it appeareth [Page 279] serm. 5. de lapsis. And wheras M. Morton affirmeth against this con­fession of the Centuristes that,Appeale. l. 2. c. 14. parag. 2. p. 254. Ciprian mencioneth not sinnes of thought: May it please him to read Ciprian. serm. 5. de Multo post med. lapsis, where he thus writeth, but because they haue but thought herof, let them confesse this sorrowfully and simply to the Preistes of God &c. they disburden their mindes, they seeke for wholsome cure, though but for litle and smale woundes &c. I be­seech you brethren that euery one con­fesse his sinne &c. whiles satifaction and remission made by the Preistes is grateful with our Lord. And the same necessity of priuate confession isEp. 91. ad Theodor. et ep. 80. ad Episc. Campa­niae. Basil in quaest. breu. interrogat. 288. And see further Cipri­an. l. 3. epist. 16. 17. taught by S. Leo, and S. Basil.

As for the common obiection to the contrary of Confession abroga­ted by Nectarius (vrged by M. Appeale. p. [...]56. Morton:) admmitting the story for true, it is answeared therto first, that the confession abrogated by Nectari­us, was not priuate, but publicke confession, somtimes by penitents vpon deuotion voluntarily vsed. [Page 280] This he abrogated vpon occasion of scandale in a particular cause thence ensuing, as appeareth by Cassidorus Hist. tripart. l. 9. c. 35. his more auncient translation, and wherof see Bellar­mine De penit. l. 3. c. 14. more at large. Secondly I answeare that the fact of Nectarius is reprehended byLib. 7. c. 16. finc. Sozomen the re­porter therof, as geuing occasion vnto desolute life. Thirdly I say that thereby was onely abrogated at the most, not al confession, but a then late precedent, and there mencioned particular order for Con­fession to be made vnto the peni­tentiary parish Preist, leauing the penitents at liberty to resort for confession elsweare. Fourtly, wher­as the Nouatian heretickes were condemned for that they denyed Preistes power to remit sinne (and consequently therby confession) that these also were the men, who then first impugned this appointed peni­tentiary Preist, appeareth by the re­porters of this obiectionLib. 5. c. 19. and Soz. l. 7. c. 16. Socra­tes, and Sozomen, who likewise do [Page 281] furtherSoc. l. 5. c. 10. Soz. l. 7. c. 12. report how much Necta­rius depended vpon the aduise and counsail (in other matters) of the same Nouatians; which is also ac­knowledgedCent 4. col. 862. ct 1129. by the Centuristes, and for which he is by Osiander Cent. 4. l. 4. c. 13. p. 486. tearmed Nectarius Bishop of smale iudgement and counsail in matters of diuinity. In reguard of al which se­ueral premisses, what can this su­spected and perplexed fact of Necta­rius, who is therin also reprehendedCent. 4. c. 7 col. 501. by the Centuristes, preuaile a­gainst the confessed cleare streame and current of al antiquity?

Furthermore concerning Penance and satisfaction, the Century writers speaking of the 4. age, do therein houldCent. 4. col. 294. and see col. 231. reproueable the Fathers of that age, and the other ages precedent: Caluin also houlding herein,Instit. l. 4. c. 12. parag. 8. & l. 3. c. 4. parag. 38. in­excusable the immoderate austerity of the auncient Fathers, as wholly different (saith he) from the Lords commaun­dement. And, I am not Ignorant (saithExamen. part. 4. p. 68. Chemnitius) that the auncient do somtimes cōmend that canonical discipline [Page 282] ouer largely, and with ouer great wordes. wherof also saithLibelli aliquot. fol. 11. Melancthon, Al the Nicene Councel being ouercome with the consent of the multitude and time, approued the Canons of Penance. M. Whitaker addeth yet more ex­presly that,Contra Camp. rat. 5. p. 78. the Fathers thought by their external discipline to pay the paines due for sinne, and to satisfy Gods iustice: And that,Ibidem. not Ciprian onely write some thinges concerning pe­nance very incommodiously, and foolishly, but almost al the most holy Fathers at that time were in that error &c. and depraued penance. Lastly concerning Pardons. D. Field confesseth that,Of the church. l. [...]. c. 17. p. 33. the auncient Bishops were wont to cut of great parts of enioyned penance, which remission was called an Indulgence. And wheras he would euade, that the enioyned penance thus remited, was not then imposed as in satisfac­tion of Gods iustice, it is so euident­ly against the Fathers iudgementes confessed here by M. Whitaker and others, as needeth no further con­futation.

The Fathers in general are confessed for our Cathlicke doctrines concer­ning real presence, the reserua­tion of the Sacrament and re­ceiuing fasting, and chast. SECTION. 6.

NOw as concerning the confes­sed iudgement of the auncient Fathers in proofe of the real presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament, Caluin affirmeth that Lib. epist. & resp. ep. 208. p. 392. The auncient Fathers & cheifly Hillary, and Ciril, went further herein then was fitting, and that therefore he wil not subscribe to them: Of which also saith PeterIn ep. annexed to his common places in en­glish. ep. to Beza. p. 106. Martir, I wil not easily sub­scribe to Ciril, who affirmed such a com­munion, as thereby euen the substance of the flesh and bloud of Christ, first is ioy­ned to the blessing, for so he calleth the holy bread: In so much as he is not ashamed to tearme 2. Alphabet. table at the word heresy. it the heresy of Ciril, touching our communion with Christ. And Bucer (though falsly pre­tending [Page 284] the Fathers) professeth yet Scripta erudita &c p. 37. to auoide the sayinges of the holy Fathers &c. as being different (saith he) from the word of God, and serui­ceable to Antichrist.

Now in reguard of the knowen antiquity of real presenceSee Protest. Apol. tract. 1. sec. 3. p. 82. Praetorius de sacram. p. 221. 288. Zepperus de sacram. p. 48. Vrsinus in commonefact. &c. p. 211. Centuristes. Cent 8. c. 4. col. 312. con­fessed in Gregory, Ambrose, Chriso­stome Eusebius Emissen, S, Ciprian, & others, a learned aduersary acknow­ledgeth that Adamus Fran­cisci in marga­rita. p. 256. euen Transubstanti­ation entred early into the Church. And another also confesseth saying, Antonie de Adamo in A­notamy of the Masse. fol. 246. I haue not yet hitherto beene able to know when this opinion of the real and bodily being of Christ in the Sacrament did begin.

In like sort concerning the vsed chastity euen of married persons be­fore their receiuing of the Sacrament Hospinianus confesseth that, Hist. sacra. part. 1. l. 2. p. 46. in the Primitiue Church the Eucharist was receiued chast. for which he alledgeth sundry Fathers testimonies. And the same doctrine is reprehended by Zepperus,De sacram c. 36. p. 805. in Tertulian, Hierome, and the Fathers of the Councel of [Page 285] Eliberis.

So also as touching receiuing fa­sting, Hospinian affirmeth that, Hist. sacram. part. 1. l. 2. p. 47. In the Primitiue Church they fasted before the receiuing of the supper: wher­of I haue spoken more at large See before. c. 8. sec. 3. heretofore.

But now to speake of the Reserua­tion of the Sacrament, vsed in al Ca­tholicke countries for the more pre­sent helpe and comforth to the sicke and which is neglected generally by al Protestants; M. Fulke confesseth and reprehendeth the Fathers saying▪ Against He­skins &c. p▪ 77. that the Sacrament of some was re­serued in the elder dayes of the Church, is not so great a controuersy, as whether it ought to be reserued. Caluin spea­king of Catholickes reseruing the Sacrament for the sicke saith, Instit. l. 4. c. 17. parag. 39. I confesse that those who do so, haue the example of the auncient Church, but in so great a matter, and wherin the error is not without great daunger, nothing is more secure then to follow the truth. And wheras S. Ciril, speaking of the heretickes Anthropomorphits saith [Page 286] of them, Ad Calosyriū. I heare they say, that the mystical blessing, if any remnant therof remaine til the next day following, is vnprofitable to sanctification, but they are mad in so saying, for Christ is not ano­ther, neither shal his body be chaunged, but the vertue of blessing and liuely grace do alwayes remaine in it; Hereto Peter Martir answeareth Aduersus Gar­den. ob. 213. col. 838. wheras it is added that the remnants of the Eucha­rist kept til the day following, do not cease from sanctification, I thinke this belon­geth to a certaine receiued custome &c. which custome though it tasted of some superstition, yet Ciril and others subscri­bed vnto it: for forthwith from the times of the Apostles by litle and litle they began to degenerate from that auncient simplicity of Gods worship &c. the An­thropomorphits heretickes beleeued, that those remnants had such a coniunction with the body of Christ, that what cor­ruption happened to them, they thought did also happen to the body of Christ. Now how could the heretickes haue immagined thus; had not the real presence beene the receiued doctrine [Page 287] of those auncient times? And as for M. Mortons answeare Appeale. p. 602. 603. therto, it is so impertinent and extrauagant as I deeme it vnworthy of al further reply.

Wherefore to proceed, according to Chemnitius,Exam. part. 2. p. 102. witnesses of this custome of priuate reseruation of the Eu­charist, are Tertulian, Ciprian, Ambrose, Hierome, Basil &c. it is knowen how much certaine of the auncient (writers) haue commended this priuate reseruation, as Nazianzen, Ambrose, &c. and truly if the antiquity of a custome vniuersally dispersed or long continued might impose either necessity, or prescribed to the truth, by no meanes ought that priuate reser­uation either be chaunged or abrogated. Now whereas D.Appeale. l. 2 [...]. c. 3. p. 136. Morton would diuert his reader from the point vr­ged, under pretext that, the carrying of the Sacrament vnto priuate mens houses, vsed in the time of persecution in the Primitiue Church, haith beene si­thence abrogated, the persecution be­ing ceased, what is this against the reseruation of the Sacrament in the [Page 288] Church for such as are sicke? or in answeare to the inference made v­pon the other, as namely that the Fathers therefore thought it a sacra­ment, and Christ present before our receiuing therof: to the contrary wherof Protestants teach that Willet in his synops. p. 460, It is no Sacrament, vnles it be receiued. In like sort where M. Morton ob­iecteth the Fathers deliuering some­times the remaines left of the Sa­crament, vnto App [...]le. p. 136. Innocent children to be by them eaten, or els to the pure element of the fyre to be there consumed, to what purpose was al this, had the Fathers but thought of the remanies of the Sacrament, as Protestants now do, to wit that they were but particles of bread on­ly representing the body of Christ? And lastly wheras the same M. Morton yet vrgeth, that S. Ciprian saith, Ibidem. p. 135. that that bread is receiued not shut vp; what auaileth this but to proue that the Sacrament should be not onely reserued, but also re­ceiued? Otherwise how plaine S. [Page 289] Ciprian was for reseruation appeareth by his owne Serm. 5. de lapsis. writinges, and is formerly confessed by Chemnitius.

But Oecolampadius yet further hence acknowledgeth, Lib. epist. Oe­colam. and Suing. p. 690▪ the religi­on of the auncient Fathers, who tooke it greeuously that the Eucharist should fal vpon the ground: for which the said Fathers are reproued by M. Parker, who tearmeth Against sym­bolising. part. 1. c. 3. 10. 11. p. 148. it in them hypocri­sy; and the like is acknowledged by Aphorism. de Euchar. l. 6. fol. 230. Vadian.

The Fathers in general are confessed concerning our Catholicke doctrines of the sacrifice of Christes body & bloud in the Eucharist: As also that the same was propitiatory euen for the soules departed; & of mingling water with wine in the Chalice; and of Altars. SECTION. 7.

DOctorConference. p. 552. Reynoldes affirmeth concerning Altars, & sacrifices, [Page 290] that they are linked together by nature in relation and mutual dependance one of another: So as proofe of the one is also proofe of the other. Now M. Carthwright sa [...]th, 2. Reply. part. 2. c. 9. p. 264. the abuse of the auncient writers herein may easily appeare, in that in this so great liberty of speach, they vsed to cal the supper a sacrifice, and the communion table an Altar; wherof also Peter Martir saith, Common pla­ces. part. 4. c. 12. p. 225. the Fathers should not with so much liberty haue seemed here and there to haue abused the name Altar: In so much as in respect of this an­tiquity of Altars, diuerse See Milius in volumen 1. di­sput. 15. fol. 254. 257. learned Protestants do retaine and defend them against their other brethren. But as touching sacrifice it selfe, Cal­uin writeth, In Haebr. c. 7. 9. p. 924. when so many aunci­ent doctors of the Church had forged without commaundement a sacrifice in the supper of Christ, and so by adding sacrifice had adulterated the supper, af­terwardes they endeauored on euery side how to get colours wherwith to shodow their error. And againe, De vera Ec­cles. reform. in tract. theol. p. 389. and i [...]st. l. 4. c. 18. parag. 11. The auncient (Fathers) are not to be excu­sed, [Page 291] for so much as it appeareth that they haue varied from the pure and proper institution of Christ, for seeing the supper is to be celebrated to this end, that we communicate with the sacrifice of Christ, they not content herewith haue also ad­ded an oblation, this addition I affirme to be faulty. Crastouius a learned Cal­uinist confesseth that, Lib. 1. de opi­ficio Missae. p. 28. 58. 102. 171. And in Caluin in ep. ad Haebr. c. 7. 9. p. 924. The Fathers thought the Eucharist to be a sacrifice according to the order of Melchisadech. Fulke also saith hereof, Against He­skins. p. 99. I confesse that diuerse of the old Fathers were of opinion, that the bread and wine which Melchisadech brought forth was sacrifi­ced by him, and that it was a figure of the Sacrament, which they improperly called a sacrifice &c. Cipriā also thouhgt that herein Melchisadech resembled the Preisthood of Christ.

And that the Fathers taught, that this sacrifice of the Eucharist was also propitiatory or satisfactory for sinne, the same Crastouius acknow­ledgeth saying, Lib. 1. de opi­ficio Missae. p. 167. But the sayinges of the Fathers do not onely import im­petration, but also a certaine intrinsecal [Page 292] force of appeasing, Origen. hom. 13. in Leuit. saith, This is the onely com­memoration which maketh God propiti­ous to men. Athanasius serm. de de­functis, cyted by Damascen saith, the oblation of the vnbloudy hoast is a pro­pitiation. And he alledgeth yet fur­ther to the same purpose the like sayinges of S. Chrisostome, Ambrose, Austin, Gregory, Bede, &c.

The Fathers also confessedly taught that this sacrifice of the Eu­charist was to be offered also for the deade; hereof also writeth In tract. theol. p. 394. Caluin, There remaneth another sort of the deade whom (the Fathers) would haue remembred at the supper, that place of rest might be geuen them &c. I do not deny that this was a most ancient custome. which also was so general, that M. Gifford confesseth that, Demonstratiō against Brou­nistes. p. 38. in the (Churches) publicke worship to pray for the soules of the deade, and to offer ob­lation for the deade, was general in the Church long before the day s of Austin, as appeareth in Ciprian, and Tertuli­an. ZepperusDe sacram. p. 47. alledgeth S. Austin [Page 293] and diuerse other Fathers, by whom (saith he) sacrifice for the quicke and the deade was made of the holy supper. And according to Bullinger,De orig. erro­ris. fol. 223. And see Deca­des in english. dec. 5. serm. 9. p. 1082. Au­stin maketh mencion of oblation for the deade &c. in Enchirid. c. 109. &c. which I therefore speake of more largely, that you may vnderstand this custome of offering for the dead, not to be ordained by the Apostles, but by the holy Fathers. M. Fulke doth not deny but plainly acknowledgeth that, Confut. of Purgat. p. 362. 303. 393. and Osiander in his refutatio ad­uersus Coste­rum. p. 73. Tertulian, Ciprian, Austin, Hierome, and a great many more, do witnes, that sacrifice for the deade is the tradition of the Apostles. And wheras S. CirilCatech. Mi­stag. 5. ante med. tearmeth the Sacrament the hoast of propitiation, and the greatest helpe for soules (depar­ted) for which it is offered; Hospinian hereupon saith, Hist. sacram. part. 1. l. 2. c. 7. p. 167. Ciril affirmeth according to the receiued custome of his time that the sacrifice of the Altar is the greatest helpe of soules. To con­clude, not onely the generality of Masse for the 1000. yeares last past is graunted by many Protestant Bacon in his reliques of Rome. fol. 344. Danaeus de Antichristo. c. 20. p. 101. the Cet [...]ristes. cent. 6. c. 6. col. 336. Ho­spin. concord. discord. in pro­logom. fol. 3. Hutterus de sacrif. Missat. l. 1. c. 23. p. 377. writers, but they likewise fur­ther [Page 294] admit that, Ascam. in A­pol. pro caena Dom. p. 31. It cannot be kno­wen at what time and by what men the super of the Lord was cast out of possession by the Masse.

Lastly as concerning the mingling of water with wine in the Chalice for the sacrifice (by vs houlden ne­cessary, not to make the Eucharist a Sacrament, wherin M.Appeale. l. 2. c. 4. p. 138. 139. Morton deludeth his vnwary reader, but as to the bene esse of it, or representati­on, so as to omit the same were sinne wherunto D. Morton answeareth nothing) M. Whitguift auoucheth that, Defenc. tract. 8. p. 473. Ciprian was greatly ouerseene in making it a matter so necessary in ce­lebration of the Lords supper to haue water mingled with wine, which was at that time no doubt common to more then to him; wherto agreeth M.Ibidem. p. 525. Carthwright: In so much as M. Iewel confesseth of this mixture that, Reply to Har­ding. p. 34. and Parker a­gainst symbo­lysing. part. 1. c. 2. p. 103. Indeede S. Ciprian and certaine old Fa­thers speake of it and force it much.

The Fathers ingeneral are confessed for our Catholicke doctrines con­cerning prayer for the deade, Purgatory and Limbus Pa­trum. SECTION. 8.

DOctor Fulke confesseth that, Confut. of Purgat. p. 313. and see cent. 4. c. 6. col. 454. In the burial of Constantine (our first christian Emperour) is mencion of prayer for his soule according to the error of the time. And againe, Confut. of Purgat. p. 320. 326. Am­brose indeede alloweth prayer for the deade, it was a common error of his time. with him agreeth M. Gifford saying, Demonstratiō against Brou­nistes. p. 38. this corruption (of prayer for the deade) was general in the Chuurch long before the dayes of Austin &c. It was the practise of the Church ingeneral, & the corruption so auncient, that Tertu­lian saith, it was obserued by tradition from the Apostles &c. the doctrine of Purgatory was crept in also. wherto might be added sundry Willet in Te­trast. part. 3. p. 97. Chem­nit. exam. part. 3. p. 107. Fulke in his re­tentiue against Brist. p. 106. Hospin. hist. sacra. part. 1. p. 155. Cal­uin. instit. l. 3. c. 5. parag. 10. other testimonies of our aduersaries, so [Page 296] likewise reprehending and charging the Fathers with prayer for the dead. But M. Carthwright forbeareth not to con [...]esse that, 2. Reply. part. 1. p. 619. Epiphanius (a greeke Father) esteemed Aerius to be an hereticke for his iudgement, that we ought not to pray or make any obla­tion for the dead; and Austin (a Father of the Latin Church) reporteth this as one of his heresies. Of this also saith D. Fulke in the like wordes, Answeare to a counterf. Ca­thol. p. 44. 45. Aerius taught that prayer for the dead was vnprofitable, as witnes both Epipha­nius and Austin, which they count for an error. But D. Fulke saith yet fur­ther of Confut. of [...] Purgat. p. 161. Purgatory, The error of Purgatory was somwhat rifly budded in Austines time. And againe, Ibidem. p. 78. 194. Au­stin speaketh of the amending fire in the place by M. Allen alledged, he doth so indeede but had no ground of that fire, but in the common error of his time.

In like sort as touching Limbus Patrum, M. Iacob for the Puritanes confesseth that, In Bilsons ful redemption. p. 188. Al the Fathers with one consent do affirme, that Christ deliuered the soules of the Patriarches [Page 297] and Prophets, out of hel and his com­ming thither, and sospoyled Satan of those that were then in his present possession. And D. Barlow confesseth likewise for the Bishops that, Defence of the articles. of the Prot. relig. p. 173. This passeth most rife among the Fathers, who taking inferi. for Abrahams bosome, expound it, that Christ went thither ad liberandū liberandos, to conuey the Fathers decea­sed before his resurrection into the place where now they are: wherto might be added like further confession and testimony of D.Contra Duraeū l. 8. p. 567. Dan. ad Bellar. disput. part. 1. p. 176. Bil [...]on in his ful re­demption. p. 189. and in his suruey of Christes suffe­ringes. p. 656. Iacob in his defence of the treatise of Christes suffe­rings. p. 199. 200. Whitaker, Da­naeus and sundry others.

The Fathers in general are confessed for our Catholicke doctrines of inuo­cation of Sainctes, of our reuerent vse of Images, reliques, and the Crosse. SECTION. 9.

OF the Fathers beleefe concer­ning inuocation of Sainctes and Angels, D. Fulke saith, Reioynder to Brist. p. 5. I confesse [Page 298] that Ambrose, Austin, and Hierome, held inuocation of Sainctes to be lawful. And Chemnitius hauing alledged S. Austin, praying to S. Ciprian being martyred before, concludeth thus therof, Examen. part. 3. p. 211. Austin did this without the Scripture, yealding to the times and cu­stome. And againe, Ibidem. part. 3. p. 200. Inuocation of Sainctes began to be brought into the publicke assemblies of the Church a­bout the yeare of our Lord 370. by Ba­sil, Nyssen, and Nazianzen. The Cent. 3. c. 4. col. 83. Century writers also speaking of the more auncient times of Ciprian, and Origen, do confesse that they also containe manifest tokens of the inuocati­on of Sainctes. So litle do these con­fessions of our learned aduersaries agree with or rather so far do they exceede D.Appeale. p [...]. 227. Mortons euasion of Rhetorical Apostraphes.

In more ful confirmatiō wherof ad only that Chemnitius in this respect doth not excuse with retorical Apostraphes, but flatly accuse and reiect Examen. part. 3. p. 211. most of the Fathers, as Nazianzen, Nyssen, Theodoret, Ambrose, Hierome. [Page 299] &c. who (saith he) did not disput [...] but auouch the soules of martyrs and Sainctes, &c. to heare the petitions of those that prayed, and to carry them to God &c. they went to the monuments of martyrs, and often inuocated the mar­tyrs by name. Of which also saith M.Volum. 2. p. 592. Parkins, The Fathers, especially those after the 400. yeares, haue erred in the inuocation of Sainctes.

As touching the publicke placing of Images in the Church (which M. Fulke thinketh to be Defence of the engl. translat. c. 3. p. 119. against the cōmandement) sundry examples or te­stimonies of the anciēt Fathers are in profe therof alleged by M.Against syboli­sing. part. 1. p 32. Chem. exam. part. 4. p. 26. 29. 30. Cent. 4. col. 409. Parker Chemnitius, and the Century writers: In so much that in respect of such auncient publicke allowance of ima­ges, the Protestant Functius affirmeth that Lib. 7. com­ment. in prae­cedent. Chro­nolog. at An­no. Christi. 494. fol. m. c [...] Anno. 494. Xenaias was the first in the Church that stirred vp warre against Images.

And as for reliques of Sainctes and pilgrimage therto, the CenturyCent. 4. c. 6. col. 456. writers do charge the Fathers of the 4. age, with publicke transla­tion [Page 300] of Sainctes reliques. And Chem­nitius affirmeth that, Examen. part. 4. p. 10. from transla­tions presently were made cicumgestati­ons of reliqu [...]s, as is to be seene in Hie­rome, and Austin &c. yea saith he, Ibidem. and see cent. 4. c. 6. col. 457. they made pilgrimages to the places where they heard there were reliques famous by miracles, so they went in pil­grimage to the holy land, and to Rome, to the Churches of Peter, and Paul: and the like hereof is testifyed by the Century writers.

Now in more semblable profe yet of Images, M. Parkins reporteth cōcer­ning the reuerēce in anciēt times geuē to the Crosse, that Volum. 2. p. 596 and Fulke against He­skins. p. 657. Paulinus. ep. 11. saith, the Bishop of Hierusalē yearly at Eaester set forth the Crosse for the people to worship, him selfe being the cheife of the worshipers. So general and receiued was the vsage therof in the time of Paulinus, who according to Cent. 5. l. 3. c. 2. p. 387. Osi­ander, was familiar with Hierome, Au­stin, and Ambrose. Neither was this reuerence exhibited to the Crosse by the cleargy or vulgar people onely for Prudentius reporteth the like [Page 301] practise therof in the old Emperours saying, In Apothe [...]. Vexillum Crucis summus dominator adorat, the greatest comman­der (the Emperour) adoreth the stan­dred of the Crosse. DanaeusPrimae partis. alt. part. ad Bellar. 5. con­trou. resp. p. 1415 And Parker against symbolising. part. 2. c. 7. p. 61. also af­firmeth that S. Ciril, and sundry o­ther learned Fathers were plainly su­perstitious and blinded with this enchant­ment of the Crosses adoration. Further­more M. Burges saith concerning the Fathers opinion of the Crosse (with exception onely to the point of adoration, which is next hereto­fore already sufficiently confessed) that, In Couels an­sweare to Bur­ges. p. 130. 136. there is nothing ascribed to the Crosse in or out of Baptisme by the rankest Papistes, but the Fathers are as deeply engaged in the same, so as if we wil vse it as the Fathers did &c. we take the soule to be fenced with crossing of the body, and the Crosse to haue vertue of consecrating the Sacrament, driuing away deuils, witchcraft &c. In proofe wherof he alledgeth sundry auncient Fathers, and the like is affirmed by seueral Treatise of the signe of the Crosse. p. 21. and see cent. 4. col. 3 [...]2. & 1493. Puritans and the Centu­ristes: In so much that as to the ma­ny [Page 302] miracles by vs obiected in this behalfe from the Fathers, D. Couel auoucheth that, Answeare to Burges. p. 138. No man can deny but that God manifested his power to the amasement of the world in this contemp­tible signe, as being the instrument of many miracles.

The Fathers in general are confessed for our Catholicke doctrines con­cerning freewil, and merit of workes. SECTION. 10.

COncerning the Fathers doc­trine of freewil, Protestants af­firme that Discouery of vntruthes in D. Bancrofts sermon. p. 23. the error of freewil de­riued from Iustin martyr, and Irenaeus, was at the time of the Nicene Councel in some ripenes &c. we know that euer since the Apostles times in a manner it florished euery where, til Martin Lu­ther tooke the sword in hand against it. The Centuristes, speaking of the times next after the Apostles, do [Page 303] thinke, Cent. 2. c. 4. col. 58. that scarcely there is any point of doctrine which began so soone to be darkned as this of freewil. As al­so Ibidem. col. 59. and cent. 4. col. 291. Calu. instit. l. 2. c. 2. parag. 4. Hamelman. de tradit. Apost. l. 2. c. 7. col. 93. after the same manner Clemens euery where affirmeth freewil, that it may appeare, that not onely al the Doc­tors of that age were in such darknes, but also that the same encreased after­wardes in the later ages. In like man­ner concerning induration, Caluin affirmeth that, See before. c. 2. sec. 2. The auncient Fa­thers wer [...] superstitious, and affraid to confesse the truth therof.

And as for the Fathers doctrine of workes, D. Humfrey is fully of opi­nion that, In Iesuit. part. 2. p. 530. It may not be denyed, but that Ireneus, Clemens, and others, whom they cal Apostolical (in respect of the time in which they liue) haue litle Apostolically inserted into their writinges the opinion of freewil, and me­rit of workes. Melancthon also thin­keth that, In ep. ad Ro­manos. p. 391. Origen; and many others following him, faigned men to be iust for their workes. And M. Whitaker houl­deth chargable Resp. ad rat. Camp. p. 78. and in Fulkes defence of the engl. transl. p. 368. with error herein (to vse his owne wordes) not onely [Page 304] Ciprian, but almost al the most holy Fa­thers of that time. The Centuristes speaking of the Fathers of those aun­cient times say, [...]ent. 3. c. 4. col. 79. It seemeth that for the most part this cheifest article of iusti­fication to haue beene obscured, for they attributed to workes iustice euen before God. Againe, Ibidem. col. 78. and see cent. 4. col. 292. 293. The doctors of this (third) age haue declined from the true doctrine of Christ and the Apostles con­cerning good workes: yea they con­clude vpon recytal of sundry of the auncient Fathers sayinges thus, Ibidem. col. 293. Now let the godly reader thinke how far this age haith declined in this article from the doctrine of the Apostles▪ Lastly Caluin writeth. Instit. l. 3. c. [...]5. parag. 2. I confesse that the writers of the ancient Church haue euery where vsed (the name of merit) and I would to God that by the abuse of this word they had not geuen to posterity oc­casion of error; yea the Fathers were so ful herein, that we haue seene be­fore See before. c. [...]3. sec. 3. their confessed condemning of Iouinianus for his denyal of me­rit [...].

The Fathers ingeneral are confessed for our Catholicke doctrines con­cerning vowes, the single life of Preistes, Monachisme, pre­scribed fastes, and Cere­monies. SECTION. 11.

VVE are not ignorant (saith Exam. part. 3. p. 41. Chemnitius) that the Fathers allowed the vowes of perpetual single life, and that they also brought them to be obligatory, or to bind in conscience. Peter Martir thinketh De votis. p. 524. Epiphanius with many other of the Fathers to erre, in that they said it was sinne to break [...] such a vow when neede required, and that they badly ascribed it to Apostolical tra­dittion. M. Wootton censureth Defence of Parkins. p. 491. this to be one of the blemishes of the auncient writers: wherof also saith Instit. l. 4. c. 13. parag. 17. Caluin, they say this was obserued frō longest memory, that those who would de­dicate them selues wholly to our Lord, should bind them selues with the vow of [Page 306] chastity, truly I confesse that this custome was aunciently receiued, But I do not graunt that this age was free from al vice.Retentiue against Bristow p. 64. Carthw. 2. Reply. part. 1. p. 509. cent. 4. col. 847. 303. 877. and Cent. 3. col. 85. 86. Beza de Poligamia. p. 211. 212. 213. 214. But Hospinian affirmeth yet fur­ther that, De orig. mo­nach. fol. 102. not onely Austin, but o­ther Fathers also erred in the vowed cha­stity by mutual consent (euen) of mar­ried persons. And as for the forbid­ding of Bigams, and marriage vnto Preistes, the first is so general and auncient that M. Fulke confesseth that he which haith had two wiues, could not be a Preist in Hieromes time. And as for the other, of the vnmar­ried life of Preistes, M. Iewel saith, Defence of the Apology. p. 195. and cent. 3. c. 6. col. 148. and cent. 4. col. 616. 486. 303. 704 1293. Osiand. cent. 5. l. 1. c. 33. p. 156. Szeged. loc. com. p. 327. Osiand. cent. 4. l. 2. c. 27. p. 195. cent. 5. l. 1. c. 39. p. 176. & p. 45. 30. 298. 395. 406. cent. 4. p. 46. 167. Chem. exam. part. 3. p. 50. 52. 62. Here I graunt M. Harding is like to finde some good aduantage, as ha­uing vndoubtedly a great number of ho­ly Fathers on his side. Bucer likewise acknowledgeth that, Gra­tulatio ad Ec­cles. Anglic. p. 35. The Church of the East Aegipt, and the sea Aposto­licke were accustomed in S Hierom s time, not to take for Preistes, but either such as were not married. or ceased to be, by abstaining from their wiues. [Page 307] Hereto ad, that the defending of Preistes marriage was condemned in Contra Vigi­lant. c. 1. & Fulke against Rhem. test. in 1. Tim. 3. sec. 5 p. 683. 684. and cent. 4. c. 8 col. 603. Vigilantius, and Contra Iouin. l. 1. c. 19. 14. et ad Pan [...]ach, Apol. c. 8. Iouinian, by S. Hierome: wherof also saith Tom. 6. haer. 82. fine. and Danaeus de haeresibus. haer. 82. fol. 230. S. Austin, This heresy was quicly trod­den dowen and extinguished, neither could it euer preuaile so much as to the deceiuing of any Preistes.

But now to speake of the professed religious life of Monkes, and Nunnes, M. Carthwright acknowledgeth that In Whiteg. def. p. 344. Ruffin, Theodoret, Sozomen, Socra­tes, do mencion monkes a most in euery page. And the Centuristes do begin a whole special tract, the title wher­of is, Cent. 4. c. 10. col. 294. Of the Monkes through Sy­ria, Palistine, Bithinia, and the other places of Asia vnder Constantine the great: They do also make another like special tract, the title therof be­ing Ibidem. col. 1306 The Affrican Monkes through Aegipt, vnder Constantine the great; and yet another bearing this title, Ibid. col. 1331 Monk [...]s through Europ. They also heretofore mencioned their See before. c. 15. sec. 3. r [...]li­gious habit; and further affirme that many of them Cent. 4. col. 471. neither had houses, [Page 308] nor did eate bread, nor supping meates, nor drunke wine, but dwelled in moun­taines; As also abstained Ibid col. 474. from al flesh, fish, egges, and cheese. Osiander and the Centuristes do also report Osiand. cent. 4. p. 100. 440. the Centurists. cent. 4. col. 1323. their inclosing or muring vp of them selues in litle strait Celies. They af­firme also, Ibid. col. 474. that many of them slept vpon the ground, others went barefooted, and others weared hairecloth priuatly. And as for their professed voluntary pouerty they further say, Ibid. col. 464. 300. 301. and Osiand. cent. 5. l. 3. c. 13. p. 356. It is eui­dent that those who were to professe mo­nastical life, did distribut their goodes be­fore they entred into the Monastery. In like sort concerning the vowed chastity of Monkes, the Councel of Calcedon is therefore reprehended by Cent. 5. l. 3. p. 359. Osiander. And as for Nunnes, the Century writers report that there were Cent. 4. c 6. col. 467. Monasteries of women profes­sing chastity: And that there were vir­gins before Constantines time professing perpetual chastity. Iustus MolitorDe Eccles. mi­lit. 8. also saith, The Councel of C [...]lcedon con­trary to the oracles of the holy Ghost, forbad the vse of marriage to Monkes, [Page 309] and Nunnes. And of the very name of Nunnes, the Centuristes say, Cent. 4. c. 6. col. 470. Hieronimus ad Eustochium Nonnae eti­am vocabulo vsus est, Hierome vsed the word Nunne: And they report that Ibid. col. 468. They were cloathed in the Church before the Altar &c. candles burning. And of the consecration of their Mo­nasteries,Cent. 5. l. 3 [...]. c. 13. p. 362. Osiander cyteth the Can. [...]4. Calcedon Councel decreeing in these wordes, we haue decreed that such Mo­nasteries as are once consecrated &c. shal euer so continue &c. and that af­terwardes they shal not be turned into secular habitations. The Centuristes also testify, Cent. 5. c. 6. col. 709. the obedience of Mon­kes to be such, as that they went not out of their Cel vpon any occasion without licence of their superior, whom they called Ibid. col. 708. the Abot.

By al this I hope is sufficiently discouered the extreame bouldnes or ignorance of many Pet. Mart. in com. places in engl. part. 4. c. 1. p. 7. White in his way to the true Church. sec. 42. parag. 11. p. 307. Hum­fred. in Iesuit. part. 2. rat. 5. p. 587. Zep­perus. in polit. Eccles. l. 1. c. 8. p. 90. Protestant writers, who beare their readers in hand, that these auncient Monaste­ries and Monkes of the Primitiue Church, were nothing lesse then Po­pish, [Page 310] as being (say they) in very deede no other then Colledges of stu­dēts, such as are yet in vse in Cābridge, Oxford, and other vniuersities: But this euasion is further plainly confu­ted by the like confessed Cent. 4. c. 6. col 467. 476. 1335. 1337. Osiand. cent. 4. l. 4 c. 19. p. 503. 507. Mo­nasteries of virgins (which I hope our aduersaries wil not pretend to haue beene Colledges of women students. As also by M. Carthwright, who in re­guard of so euident premisses, con­cludeth to the flat contrary, that 2. Reply. part. 1. p. 502. Monkes are Antichristian, notwithstan­ding their auncienty, and that, Ibid. p. 500. the Monkes, Eremites, and Anchorites, in Hieromes time were very grosse.

To speake now of the prescribed fastes approued and vsed in the Pri­mitiue Church, wherof Caluin wri­ting saith Instit. l. 4. c. 12. parag. 19. 20. I cannot altogether ex­cuse the auncient (Fathers) in this re­spect, but that they laid some seedes of su­perstition &c. the obseruation of super­stitious Lent was then euery where in force. Chemnitius also acknowled­geth that, Exam. part. 1. p. 89. Ambrose, Maximus, Theophilus Hierome, and others, do af­firme [Page 311] the fast of Lent, to be an Aposto­lical tradition: wherof also saith Scro­derusOpusculum theologic. p. 71. almost in the same wordes, Ambrose, Theophilus, Hierome, and o­thers, do decree Lent to haue descended from Apostolical tradition. The Cent. 4. c. 6. col. 440. Centuristes also do charge the Fathers of the fourth age with superstitious fasting vpon Wednesday, and Fryday. In so much as M.In his true Ca­tholicke. p. 601. Trig, in reguard of such their confessed antiquity, professeth to defend & vrge against his other Protestant brethren, The fast of Lent and solemne weekely fast of Wednesday, and Fryday: wherto might be added the auncient Churches Heretofore. c. 15. sec. 1. confessed condemning of Aerius, and Iouinian, for their contrary doctrine, though they be Danaeus de haeres haer. 53. p. 177. Fulke in his answeare to a counter. Cath. p. 44. Whitak. de Eccles. p. 305. defended in their errors by sundry Protestants.

And as for the common obiection of Montanus his condemned fastes, and of Socrates reporting the indiffe­rency and liberty of fasting. The firster is explained and answeared by M.Eccles. pol. l. 5. sec. 72. p. 209. 210. and Quaerimonia Eccles. p. 110. Hooker, and others his brethren, and the second touching [Page 312] Socrates, and his confessed euident vntruth in this kind it haith beene formerly See Whitguift in his defence. Tract. 8. c. 2. p. 350. Frigi­uelleus Gauius in Palma Chri­stiana. p. 103. and Protest. Apol. p. 181. &c. discouered both by Catholickes and Protestants.

Lastly as concerning Ceremonies, M. Calfhil (to omit others) affir­meth that, In Fulkes Re­ioynder to Martials reply. p. 131. 132. The Fathers declined al from the simplicity of the Gospel in Ceremonies. As for D.Appeale. p. 53. 324. Mortons obiecting of S. Austin against Cere­monies, it is euident that S.Tom. 2. ep. 119. Au­stin spoke not of the Churches ce­remonies, but onely of such particu­lar Ibid. paul [...] ante med. customes as were taken vp of the common people as not instituted by the Church: An answeare so cleare that M. Whitguift answeareth Defence. tract. 10. c. 2. p. 545. Carth­wright agreeably in these wordes, Austin ep. 119. speaketh but of vnpro­fitable ceremonies &c. neither grounded of the Scriptures, determined by Coun­cels, nor confirmed by custome.

The Fathers ingeneral are confessed by Protestants not onely for parti­cular pointes of faith, but ioyntly at once for many or most of them together. SECTION. 12.

TO forbeare as now al such like particular further allegation, and to comprehend at once many or the most of the pointes in contro­uersy; D. Whitguift discoursing of Defence pag. 472. 473. doctrine taught in any age since the Apostles times, affirmeth without any other exception either of age or fa­ther, that almost al the Bishops and lear­ned writers of the Greeke Church and Latin also for the most part, were spot­ted with doctrines of freewil, of merit, of inuocation of Sainctes, and such like &c. Meaning thereby such other like points of our now Catholicke doc­trine: which his assertion is now si­thence specially renewed and made good almost in the same wordes by [Page 314] D. Couel, saying, Against the plea of the In­nocent. c. 9. p. 120. diuerse both of the Greeke and Latin Church were spot­ted with the errors about freewil, merits, inuocation of Sainctes, many thinges might be alledged in this kind if it were any vertue to rip vp their faults, whom we ought to honour.

In like manner concerning the like liberal acknowledgment of the Century writers, Caluin, and whita­kers; wheras Cardinal Bellarmine al­ledgeth the particular sayinges of Caluin and the Centuristes, as charging the auncient Fathers with De notis Ec­clesiae. l. 4. c. 9. nota. 6. error in freewil, Limbus Patrum, denyal of our concupisence without con­sent to be sinne, satisfaction. prayer for the deade, merit, penance, the fast of Lent, the vnmarried life of Preistes, Baptisme of laye persons in case of neces­sity, the manner of sacrifycing &c. Whi­taker answearing therto iustifyeth the same saying, De Eccles. controu. 2. 9. 5. p. 299. wheras Bellar­mine alledgeth certaine testimonies from Caluin, and the Century writers, as no­ting certaine errors of the auncient Fa­thers, which were common to them with [Page 315] the Papistes, as namely freewil, merit, Limbus, Inuocation of Sainctes, the vn­married life of Preistes, satisfaction, and certaine other such like &c. (before mencioned by Bellarmine) I answeare therto, that it is true which Caluin and the Century writers haue written, that in many thinges the auncient Church er­red, as in Limbus, freewil, merit of workes, and in the residue of those other before recyted.

Agreeably hereunto also acknow­ledgeth Nouum. te­stam. praefat. ad Principem Condensem. Beza of the times of Ci­prian, Austin, and Chrisostome, that euen then Satan did laye the first founda­tion in Greece of inuocation of the deade, wherto some Bishops of cheifest note were so far from opposing them selues &c. that they did not only not expresse the opē superstitions arising, but also nourished them &c. Hence those opinions of freewil &c. affirming presently after that the knowledge of prouidence, freewil, faith, and free iustification, was as then almost oppressed with the commentaries of the Grecian Bishops &c. At the same time inuocation of the deade preuailed, and [Page 316] the foolish opinion of single life; which shamful errors being openly defended, the multitude also of Ceremonies increa­sed &c. and the Monkes in Aegipt and Syria &c. almost al admired as An­gels, prayers also for the deade, begun then to be vsed more freely, and the Platonical question concerning Purgato­ry fire &c. This acknowledgment of Beza is so certaine that the Prote­stant Asinus Auis. sec. 43. p. 60. Holderus purposly preuen­teth al extenuation or excuse ther­of.

M.In Apoc. in c. 14. p. 382. Brightman hauing named S. Athanasius, Basil Chrisostome, Am­brose, Hi [...]rome Augustine &c. auou­cheth further, that they were in words condemning Idolatry, but indeed esta­blishing it, by inuocatiō of Saincts, worshi­ping of Reliques, & such other like wic­ked superstitions; affirming yet further that no more pure doctrine can be drawen out of their writinges, then any profitable notion be gathered by the beating of the waues▪

In like sort M. Napier recordeth that, Vpon the reue­lation p. 361. The Bishops staf, the Arch­bishos [Page 317] cloake or pale &c. Item, their holy water, their Chrismes in Baptisme, the shauing of their heades, their golden and siluer vessels in the Church, their Albes, and Corporals, of linnen for the Altar, their consecration of the Altar, the obseruation of dayes &c. the fasting in Lent from flesh, the choice of meates, the pretended chastity of the Cleargy, the celebration of Masses in memory of Martyrs, the adoration of the Crosse, were al instituted and deuised, and arose about the 313. yeare of Christ, together with the style of Primacy, vsurped by the Roman Bishop: TheIb. p. 362. supper of the Lord (was then) degenerate and tur­ned ouer to the Masse, to be celebrated for deade men &c. and mixed with water. In theIb. p. 363. 20. Articles of the first Councel of Nice are superstitious rytes, euen the obseruation of dayes, to wit, of peace (or indulgence) and su­perstitious penances &c. Th [...]se and di­uerse other abuses and superstitious rites creeped in, in the outward visible face of the Church in Siluester the first his dayes.

The Century writers in their fift Century being that age wherin S. Austin flourished, affirme that as thē [...]. dedic. euery where Monasteries and Celles of Eremites were builded, and that they had for their praisers Austin, Chriso­stome, and others most excellent men: Hence also the cheife articles of faith, of free remission of sinnes by faith in Christ, began to be obscured and defyled &c. The doctrine also of good workes was di­uersly corrupted &c. They attributed saluation to them with reproch and iniu­ry to the merit of Christ &c. The light also of true inuocation began to be obscure &c. Afterwardes also because ouermuch should be challenged to the merits and worship of deade men, in this age also rise vp the worship of Reliques &c. run­ning to peeces of Sainctes, as they were commonly thought: Therefore these cheife heades being adulterated, it is easy to conceaue that in the other parts also of heauenly doctrine sincerity was many wayes corrupted &c. The Roman Bishops not onely greedily, but also impudently sowed the seedes of their Primacy or emi­nency [Page 319] aboue other Churches of the world, &c. Rome formerly the head & mistres of the world is becom the seat of Antichrist &c. & more particularly they charg the Fathers of this age as erring in our Catholicke doctrines ofCap. 4. col. 500. free­wil, ofCol. 504. Iustification, of goodCol. 506. workes, ofCol. 510. prayer, of humanCol. 513. Traditions, ofCol. 513. virginity, ofCol. 513. Pe­nance, ofCol. 515. Baptisme, of the LordsCol. 517. supper, ofCol. 518. marriage, of theCol. 520. Church, of the place ofCol. 520. soules, and of theCol. 523. Canonical bookes: In al which they recyte and reiect their particular sayinges. And the like also might be seene vnder the titles ofCap. 7. col. 774. Primacy, ofc. 6. col. 684. Lent, ofCol. 697. Reliques, and their translation ofCol. 700. Monkes, ofCol. 714. Heremites, and the Ce­remoniesCol. 727. of Baptisme. In so much that Osiander auoucheth that, Cent. 5. l. 1. c. 1. p. 1. Most diuines of this Century did no litle diuert from the purity of Apostolical doctrine vnto human opinions and Tradi­tions &c. In this Century Antichristi­anisme was conceiued in the braine of Am­bitious Bishops &c. So confessedly [Page 320] auncient are both the foresaid rites and doctrines of our Catholicke re­ligion from the abounding testimo­nies of the Centuristes, Osiander, Cal­uin, Beza, Whitaker, Brightman, and Napier.

And here it may be wel obserued that the foresaid Protestants reiec­ting the Fathers thus in general for agreeing with Catholickes in al the foresaid points of faith, that this preuenteth and confuteth D. Mor­tons vsual euasion throughout his Ap­peale, in pretending that the Fathers held these pointes, but in other man­ner then we Catholickes now do, as though the Fathers agreed with vs in wordes & tearmes and differed from vs in meaning.

Ad now lastly hereunto, that in reguard of our foresaid sympathie with the Fathers in matters of faith and religion, that D. Whitaker fur­ther auoucheth, [...]ontra Durae­um. l. 6. p. 4 [...]3. The Popish religion to be a patched couerlet of the Fathers errors sowed together. And Stratagem. Sa­tanae. l. 6. p. 296. Iacobus Acontius informed Queene Elizabeth [Page 321] that this kind of tryal by the Fathers, was a most pernicious course and altoge­ther to be auoided. D.De vita Iuelli. p. 212. Humfrey did greauously reprehend M. Iewel for his so bould appealing to the Fathers, saying therefore to vs of him, He graunted ouermuch, and yeal­ded more then of right vnto you, and iniured him selfe ouermuch &c. and in a manner spoiled him selfe & the Church &c. what haue we to do with the Fa­thers, with flesh or bloud? Lastly Peter Martir concludeth for certaine, De votis. p. 476. that so long as we do insist vpon Councels, and Fathers, we shal be alwayes conuer­sant in the same errors.

And do but now remember that which is heretofore Heretofore in the preface to the learned ad­uersarie alledged, as acknowledged concerning the vnanswearable argument thus taken and prosecuted from the frequent abounding confession of the learned aduersaries testifying against them selues; and then let the indifferent reader in Gods name but consider whether that the foresaid doctrine of our now professed Catholicke re­ligion [Page 322] taught thus by S. Austin and the other auncient Fathers, be not sufficiently in this kind explained & made manifest, both particularly, and in general, euen to the ful preuenting of al colourable reply to the con­trary.

That the Fathers who liued next be­fore and after the times of S. Au­stin agreed with him in the Ca­tholicke Roman faith. SECTION. 13.

HItherto haith bene discuorsed concerning S. Austines religi­on, as wel from his owne confessed sayinges and reported miracles, as also from the like confessed answearable iudgement of such Fathers (amongst other) as were conuersant and li­uing with him: Onely now in more euident & concluding proofe of his religion, we wil lastly ad a breefe touch of the religion in general, [Page 323] confessedly professed in the seueral ages which were next after and be­fore the time in which S. Austin li­ued. First as concerning the age af­ter, nothing is more memorable in illustration therof, then is the very conuersion of vs English men by the other S. Austin sent therto by S. Gregory, Anno Dom. Cooper in Chron. fol. 156. Fox. act, mon. p. 117. 599. whose doctrine was so agreeable with our professed religion, that our learned aduersaries them selues do not only confesse al theHumfrey in Ie­suit. part. 2. rat. 5. p. 626. Carion. in Chron. l. 4. p. 567. and see the Protest. Apol. tract. 1. sec. 1. Particulars therof, but tearming it in such respectFulke in con­fut. of Purg. p. 333. our peruersion, do yet further affirme ingeneral that,Harison in de­script. of Bri­tanny set be­fore Hollins­head Chron. vol. 1. p. 29. 27. Austin came and brought in Popery; and that,Bale in catal. script. illust. cent. 14. p. 117. Au­stin by his interpreters taught our people the Papistical faith: And according to Bale, Austin was sent from Cent. 1. fol. 3. Gregory to season the English with the Popish faith, and that King Ethelbert dyed one and twenty yeares after he had receiued Popery. And being thus (in the opi­nion of Protestantes) the Ascham in Apolog. pro caena Dom. p. 33. ouer­thrower of true religion, and establisher (not of some part but) of al Popish [Page 324] doctrine, he heretoforeOsiander cent. 6. p. 290. after his death vndoubtedly went to hel there to receiue his reward.

In like sort concerning our coun­try man S, Bede (who was liuingIn his hist. An­glorum. l. 5. c. vlt. in the age next after our said conuersion, and til whose time accor­ding toIn Lombardū in Proleg. fol. * .iiii. Danaeus, S. Austines doc­trine was defended, Osiander Cent. 8. l. 2. c. 3. p. 58. auou­cheth that He was enwrapped with al the Popish errors in the articles in which (saith he) we differ this day from the Pope.

And for so much as our Catho­licke religion, wherto we were so conuerted, was not then priuate on­ly to vs english men, but (as is knowen and confessed by many Pro­testants) wasParkins in his exposition of the Creed. p. 307. 400. Ho­spin. hist sa­cram. l. 2. p. 157. Fulke in his answeare to a counter. Cath. p. 36. And see the Protest. Apol. in diuerse pla­ces. vniuersally then dispersed and professed ouer the Christian world, it thence euidently followeth, that it was not as then begun with innouation, b [...]t was the same with that former religion which the elder S. Austin i [...] the time so nere precedent professed & taught.

This point is made as yet more [Page 325] clearly euident by the vndoubted great miracles shewed by God, at the time of our said conuersion, and the same so credibly and certainly reported from S. Lib. 7. ep. 30. Indict. 1. Bede. hist. l. 1. c. 26. lib. 2. c. 3. Foxe. act. mon. p. 117. 121. 122. Goodwin in his Catal. of Bishops of England. p. 4. Holins Chron. vol. 1. lib. 5. c. 21. p. 10 [...]. 100. 108. 109. Stow, his An­nuals. p. 66. Gregory, S. Bede, Foxe, Goodwin, and our owne Protestant historiographers Stow, Hollinshead, that D. Morton in his special answeare therto, as not da­ring to deny so euident a truth, haith no refuge at al but to confesse say­ing.Appeale. lib. 3. c. 18. p. 424. Among them who professe the faith of Christ, albeit not with equal truth and sincerity, the lesse sincere par­ties may worke miracles wherto God con­curreth, but not for proofe of the errors, which are proper vnto them selues, but for confirmation of the truth, which with them is common to the Church; there­fore &c. we may graunt that God doth cooperate by them to the conuersion of In­fidels. In like sort answeareth D. Comment. de regno Christi. l. 1. p. 91. 289. 312. 313. 314. 318. Philip. Nicola [...] speaking of those knowen and confessed miracles, which impudency it selfe may not deny to haue beene shewed by God in the late Conuersions in this age of [Page 326] sundry nations in the oriental India and elswhere, The Iesuites (saith he) and Popish Preistes &c. do like the Bi­leamites build the Church of Christ, and do in the name of God among the Indians, and Americans, succesfully ex­pel the Idols and diuels of the Gentils, and do worke great miracles, especially when they vndertake the conuersion of Idolatrical nations, and now commeth his answeare, Huc vsque enim Ibid. p. 91. 53. Lutheranizant &c. that they do al this as in confirmation of the Lu­theran religionIbid. p. 5 [...]. Conuerting the Gentiles in that way of religion to Christ which them selues do not so much as enter into. Thus both Lutherans and Caluinistes being vnable to deny the euident truth of so many great mi­racles vndoubtedly wrought by our Church vpon her conuerting so ma­ny heathen nations to the faith of Christ, are neuertheles not abashed to pretend that the foresaid miracles were yet by God so shewed, as in confirmation not of our Catho­licke faith but of their Protestant re­ligion: [Page 327] Speake now here ingeniously, can you beleeue them?

Neither doth D. Morton his euasi­on any thing helpe him, alledging the example of the water miraculously vanishing away from the font, at such time as a dissembling Iew came hi­pocritically vnto a Nouatian Bishop for to be Baptised: for here was no miracle wrought at the instance of the nocatian, or by his agency, or ministery, or in any sort colourable to confirme Nouationisme, but rather to the contrary; for this perfide­ous Iew (asHist. lib. 7. c. 17. Socrates reporteth and theCent. 5. c. 13. col. 1483. Ceturistes confesse) ha­uing beene before baptised after the Catholicke manner by Atticus a Ca­tholicke Bishop of Constantinople, and comming now againe (vnder pretence therby of begging money) to be a new baptised of Paulus the no­uatian Bishop, God him selfe as vn­willing to haue his Catholicke bap­tisme formerly receiued to be so scornfully and sacrilegiously propha­ned, did immediatly of him selfe, & [Page 328] without al agency therin of the No­uatian, miraculously hinder the said Iew from being againe baptised by the heretical Bishop: A thing so far from confirming Nouationisme, as it argueth rather directly the con­trary.

And no lesse if not more dispa­rity, or rather impertinency is ob­serueable in D. Mortons like further obiecting of Balaam, and Cayphas, (not working miracles but) prophe­cying of Christ against their owne wickednes: wherto but further ad concerning al these examples, aswel that no one of them came to passe (as did our foresaid other miracles) vpon occasion or in behalfe of com­mending or publishing to the hea­then people or others, any doctrine then before there vnknowen or not receiued; as also that Cayphas his ob­iectedIoan. 11.49.50. Prophecying was but for once, the Apostles then doing manyMath. 10.1. great miracles: As likewise wasNumer. 24.17. Balaams Prophecying for once, euen in the time of Moyses, whose [Page 329] many stupendious miracles neede no recytal; And so in like manner that which is obiected to concerne the Nouatian, was but for once and the fift Century when as the Church of God was mostCent. 5. c. 13. from col. 1478. til 1494. glorious in mi­racles: wheras in the other foresaid examples of vndoubted miracles confessedly wrought by S. Austin in our conuersion, and by our Catholicke Preistes in their late cōuersions in this age of sundry heathen nations, the Protestant Church was confessedly destitute of al like answearable ex­ample in that kind, as is confessed by D. Fulke, saying,Against Rhem. test. in Apoc. 13. sect. 3. fol. 478. It is knowen that C [...]luin and the rest, whom the Pa­pistes cal Arch-heretickes, do w rke no miracles; with whom agreeth D. Sutliue in these wordes,Examination of Kellisons suruey. p. 8. neither do we practise miracles, nor do we teach that the doctrine of truth is to be confir­med with miracles. And of Luther in­particular, his owne Prot. neigh­boures say,Diuines of the Count Pala­tine in their Admonitio Christiana de libro concor­diae. c. 6. p. 203. we haue not heard of any miracle that he did. And thus much in proofe that the ages next [Page 330] succeeding S. Austin agreed with him in our Catholicke Roman faith.

But now to come to the age pre­cedent to S. Austin, that the same Catholicke faith was then also vni­uersally professed, and Protestancy not so much as knowen to haue beene then in being, to omit much other proofe (wherof this short in­tended treatise is not capable) that learned and so excellent a manDeut. vpon the reuelat. p. 262. M. Napier (in his treatise dedica­ted to the Kinges maiesty, and for the supposed worth therof reprinted in London, Anno. 1594. and now againe sithence reprinted in London by M. Norton, Anno. 1611. cum priuilegio Regiae maiestatis. Besides the furtherIn the Preface to the Christi­an Reader. imprinting therof di­uerse times in the French, and Ducth tongues: and yet further promised,Ibidem. publishing the same shrotly in Latin to the publicke vtility of the whol Church; this so learned and esteemed Pro­testant writer auocheth that, be­tweene the yeare of Christ 300.Vpon the reue­lat. printed. Anno. 1594. p. 68. and af­ter the later e­dition. p. 90. 85. and 316. the Antichristian and Papi­stical [Page 331] raigne began, raigning vniuersally and without any debatable contradiction 1260. yeares, next ensuing the first 300. yeares after Christ: And the same not (as D. Morton wouldAppeale. p. 72. euade) in reguard of some one or o­ther onely point of Popery, (so to vse their phrase) but so generally in reguard of the whole, that saith M. Vpon reuelat. p. 161. Napier, from the yeare of Christ 316. God haith withdrawen his visible Church from the outward assemblies to the hearts of particular godly men, du­ring the space of 1260. yeares Ibid. p. 191. Gods true Church most certainly abyding so long latent & inuisible, Ibid. p. 161. 156. 237. 23. 188. the Pope Ib. p. 145. & his Cleargie duringal tbat time poses­sing the outward visible Church of Christians; &Ibid. p. 239. neuer suffering for the space of 1000. yeares after Siluester the first, any to be seene vouchable or visible of the true Church &c. Thus far M. Napier. To whom assenteth M. Bro­chard, affirming thatVpon the reue­lat. fol. 110. The Pope fel from Christ in the time of Siluester, and that,Ibidem. the Church was trodden dowen and oppressed by the Papacy euen [Page 332] from Siluesters time to these times, du­ringIb. fo. 123. the said 1260. yeares. with these agreeth M. In Apoc. in his Synopsis be­fore the booke. fol. a. 1. parag. 11. Brightman tea­ching that, The Church was latent from the time of Constantine for 1260. yeares, and thatIn Apoc. in c. 17. p. 462. euer since the time of Con­stantine the great. Rome haith beene the whore of Babilon, and the Roman Bi­shop haith beene the beast and Antichrist foretould in the Apocalips: wherto M. Leigh addeth thatBritannies great deliuery. fol. B. 2. The Popes euer since the first 300. yeares haue beene Diuels.

We may yet further ad hereto in behalfe of the like yet further ac­knowledged antiquity of our Catho­licke religion, that M. Napier fur­ther auouchethVpon the re­uel. in c. 16. p. 191. that, during euen the second and third ages (next after Christ) the true temple of God and light of the Gospel was obscured by the Roman Antichrist himselfe. That also in the booke soIn ep. theol. ep. 46 p. 232. gratful to Beza, and penned by Caelius secundius Curio (a Caluinist) is affirmed and houlden for good,De amplitudi­ne regni. Dei. lib. 1. p. 43. 45. 47. that, The world continued in great darknes, blindnes, & ignorance, [Page 333] almost from the Apostles age to these very times, in which aboue al expecta­tion the Lord began to manifest him selfe &c. Lastly Sebastianus Francus con­cludeth for certaine that,Ep. de abro­gandis. stat. Eccles. Present­ly after the Apostles times al thinges were turned vpside downe &c. And that for certaine through the worke of Anti­christ, the external Church together with the faith and Sacraments vanished away presently after the Apostles departure, & that for these 1400. years the Church haith beene no where external and visible &c. So peremptorily do they charge the auncient and holy Fathers of the Primitiue Church with Antichristian Apostacy from the faith of Christ. Yea they do not forbeare to publish to the world their special booke of that argument entituled,His Maiesty in his declarati [...]n concerning his proceedinges with the states in case of Vo [...] ­stius. p. 15. 19. 35. De A­postasia Sanctorum, and to send the same to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury, and to mantaine further by letter vnto the said Archbishop, that the doctrine con­tained in that booke, de Apostasia Sanc­torum, was agreeable to the doctrine of the Church of England. The mise­rable [Page 334] deceiued author therof, and other his complices, Napier, Bright­man, Brocard, Leigh, and sundry o­ther Protestant writers not discer­ning, that by such their pretended Apostacy, them selues do in very deed, as precursors, prepare and make way to that fearful Apostacy, which is in their opinion foretould by the2. Thes. 2.3. and see Caluin vpon the same place, as also Piscator. Apostle to happen before the end of the world: for what els is this pre­tended Apostacy of the Primitiue Church, other then a plaine prepa­ration and earnest perswasion to make Apostacy or departure from the doctrine of the Primitiue church, and so consequently from the doc­trine of Christ and his Apostles? So cleare it is that not onely the ages subsequent, but also precedent to S. Austin vp to the Apostles are al of them disliked and condemned by Protestants, as wholly papistical, and Antichristian.