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. Stephâ—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 at (m) Lib. 22 de ciu Dei c. 8. and after the engl trans p. 888. Vzaly neare Vtica haue many miracles bâ—ne wrought by power of the said martyr Stephen where Bishop Euodius erected his memorial long before this of ours The same Euodius did accordingly publish a special treatise in 2. bookes de miraculis Protomartyris Stephani extant in S. Austins workes Tom. 10. Also Sigebert Gâ—mblacensis 500. yeares since in l. de illust (n) Cap. 15. Eccles script maketh mention of this Euodius and of his treatise of S. Stephans miracles and the Century writers say from (o) Cent. 5. c. 10. col 1137. Trithemius there is a booke of Euodius extant of the miracles done in Affricke by the reâ—iques of S. Stephen of which miracles mencion is also made by S. (p) Tom. 10. de diuers ser 51. Austin elswhere by (q) In 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 that (r) De 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 (s) 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 (t) Reply to Duraeus p. 886. I do not thinke these miracles vaine and 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 sundry (u) Tom. 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 by (x) Orat. 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. froÌ„ 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 Concerning such sayinges of S. Austin as are vsually obiected by our aduersaries against his former Catholicke doctrines confessed for such by Protestantes and confirmed by miracles CHAPTER 19. 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 (a) 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 whose example the Donatistes of indiscret zeale followed in reguard wherof S. Austin required this sobriety explaning further there and elswhere (b) Tom. 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 (c) Cap. 16.30 is reported the like of Sampson whom yet the Apostle (d) Hebrewes 11.32 and Aug. de ciu Dei l. 1. c. 21. commendeth Wheras M. Carthwright (e) 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 (e) In Hookers Eccles pol. l. 2. sec 7. p. 118. 119. obiecteth against the authority of Councels that S. Austin teacheth that (f) 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 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 subiâ—ct M. Iewel obiecteth (g) Reply 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. (h) 2. Reply part 2. p. 163. Carthwright answeareth hereto in our behalfe that 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 To which purpose also S. Austin and Optatus haue (i) See 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. (k) Can. 100. Carthage Councel saying (l) In Whitguiftes def tract 9. c. 5. p. 523. Let not a woman presume to Baptise But his answeare is geuen him by
Waldo Wicliue Husse Luther Caluin and other damned Heretickes whose very inconstancy and ciuil dissentions amongst them selues may serue vs for a strongest argument that their singular doctrines first proceeding from the spirit of error and ignorance were after mantained by the spirit of pride and obstinacy shortly wil be ended by the spirit of discord and contradiction God saue the KING THE CONTENTES of the preface to the kinges Maiesty THat the sacred Scriptures alone are not sufficient to determine controuersies p. 5. That controuersies in Religion are to be decyded by the Church p. 9. That long education in any profession or Religion is not sufficient security for the truth therof p. 10. That Protestants haue reuoulted from their former professed doctrines And of their great inconstancy and incertanty therein p. 12. The contentes of the Preface to the learned aduersaries Certaine writinges of S. Austin charged by Protestants for counterfeate are defended and other their euasions preuented p. 25. Chapter 1. The Author beginneth his booke to his Catholicke frend p. 1. Chapter 2. CoÌ„cerning God the humanity of Christ the B. Virgin Mary and the holy Angels Section 1. S. Austin teacheth that the sonne of God is God of God and not of him selfe p. 8. Section 2. S. Austin teacheth that God doth not reprobate any to sinne or damnation or commaund any thing impossible p. 10. Section 3. 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 p. 16. Section 4. S. Austin teacheth that the B. Virgin Mary was freed from original sinne That her body was assumpted into heauen and that she vowed chastity He also teacheth the different degrees of Angels and Archangels p. 22. Chapter 3. Concerning the sacred Scriptures Section 1. S. Austin teacheth the sacred Scriptures to be discerned for such by the authority of the Church p. â—26 Section 2. S. Austin teacheth the bookes of Tobie Iudith Hester Machabees c. to be diuine and Canonical Scriptures p. 28. Section 3. S. Austin teacheth that one text of Scripture may haue diuerse true senses p. 33. Section 4. S. Austin teacheth that besides the sacred Scriptures the Traditions of the Church are to be receiued beleeued As also that al heretickes do insist onely vpon the Scriptures p. 35. Chapter 4. Concerning the Church of Christ Section 1. S. Austin teacheth that the Church of Christ is freed from error p. 39. Section 2. S. Austin teacheth that the Church of Christ is Catholicke or vniuersal p. 41. Section 3. S. Austin teacheth that the militant Church must euer continue and that visibly p. 46. Section 4. S. Austin teacheth that the Church was built vpon Peter And that Peter was the head of the whole Church p. 50. Section 5. S. Austin teacheth the Primacy of the Roman Church p. 53. Section 6. S. Austin denyeth Ecclesiastical Primacy to Emperours Kinges p. 57. Chapter 5. Concerning the Sacramentes Section 1. S. Austin teacheth that the Sacraments do not onely signify but truly confer grace to the worthy receiuer p. 60. Section 2. S. Austin teacheth that certaine of the Sacraments do imprint a Character or marke in the soule of the receiuer p. 62. Section 3. S. Austin teacheth that there are seauen Sacramentes p. 64. Section 4. S. Austin teacheth that the Sacraments are to be administred with the signe of the Crosse p. 66. Chapter 6. Concerning Baptisme Section 1. S. Austin teacheth that Baptisme taketh away al sinnes both original and actual p. 68. Section 2. S. Austin teacheth that concupisence remaning after Baptisme is not sinne p. 69. Section 3. S. Austin teacheth that children dying vnbaptised are not saued p. 71. Section 4. S. Austin teacheth sundry Ceremonies of Baptisme now vsed in the Roman Church p. 73. Chapter 7. Concerning the Sacrament of Confirmation p. 76. Chapter 8. Concerning the real presence or Sacrament of the Eucharist Section 1. S. Austin teacheth the real Presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament of the Eucharist p. 81. Section 2. S. Austin teacheth that the very wicked do truly receiue the body of Christ p. 85. Section 3. 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 Catholickes p. 87. Section 4. 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 p. 90. Section 5. S. Austin teacheth that the Eucharist is a true and proper sacrifice and that it is propitiatory euen for the dead and that it was offered vpon Altars consecrated with oyle and the signe of the Crosse p. 104. Chapter 9. Concerning the Sacrament of penance wherin auricular confession to Preistes imposed Penance and dayes of pardon are taught by S. Austin and other Fathers p. 111. Chapter 10. Concerning the Sacrament of Extreme vnction wherein is proued the same to be a Sacrament and vsed in the Primitiue Church p. 122. Chapter 11. Concerning the Sacrament of Orders wherein S. Austin teacheth that they are properly a Sacrament geuen onely by a Bishop who haith authority to excommunicate euen the deade And that Preistes may not marry or be one that was Bigamus p. 125. Chapter 12. Concerning the Sacrament of Matrimony taught by S. Austin and that the innocent party vpon Adultery may not marry an other And of the Preistes blessing after marriage p. 134. Chapter 13. Concerning free wil iustification merit of workes workes of superogation and the difference of mortal and venial sinnes Section 1. S. Austin teacheth that man haith free wil. p. 139. Section 2. S. Austin teacheth that our iustification consisteth not onely in remission of sinnes or not imputation therof but likewise in good workes and that the same once had may be lost p. 145. Section 3. S. Austin teacheth that good workes do merit and that there are workes of supererogation p. 149. Section 4. S. Austin teacheth that mortal and venial sinnes do differ of their owne natures pag. 154. Chapter 14. Concerning praier for the deade Purgatory material fire in hel Limbus Patrum inuocation of Sainctes their worship and Images Section 1. S. Austin teacheth that it is lawful and godly to pray for the dead and that there is a place of Purgatory after this life p. 157. Section 2. S. Austin teacheth local hel and material fire therin as also Limbus Patrum or Christes descending into hel p. 163. Section 3. S. Austin teacheth that Sainctes are to be inuocated and worshiped as also their reliques to be reuerenced p. 163. Section 4. S. Austin teacheth
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 (q) 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 (r) 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 Councel of Carthage ought not to haue Canonized more bookes because it had not authority c. To which the French Prot. Poliander addeth saying (s) 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 by (t) Hist 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 to (a) Confut. 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 (b) 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 sundry (c) The 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 of Scripture in behalfe of Purgatory Prot. do commonly obiect the same or some other Father vpon occation of other applicatioÌ„ vnderstaÌ„ding 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. (d) 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 TraditioÌ„s 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 to (e) Hebrewes 13.17 Obey our Prelates (f) Math. 18.17 Heare the Church hould (g) 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 (h) 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 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 he (i) Tom. 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 Againe (k) Tom. 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 likewise (l) Tom. 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. (m) In Whirguiftes defence p. 103. Carthwright answearing thereto saith To allow S. Austines saying is to bring in Popery againe Adding (n) Ibidem in Carthwrightes his 2. â—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 vsually (o) In 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. (p) 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 (q) 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
vnto him vpon examination taken in this kind from S. Austines dispersed writings which animaduersion thereof but once for al hereby thus remembred I wil now breifly according to your desire proceede to the seueral here next ensuing points of controuersy not in such exact order of method I must confesse as a curious reader may perhaps exspect but so as the condition of my present estate wanting both health and leasure to renew and set in better frame this my cursory and indigested labour can permit CoÌ„cerning God the humanity Christ the Blessed Virgin Mary and the holy Angels CHAPTER 2. S. Austin teacheth that the Sonne of God is God of God and not of him selfe SECTION 1. PRotestants (a) Whitaker contra Camp rat â— 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 God of him selfe And Caluin (b) Ep. 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 (c) 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. (d) 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 (e) 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 (f) 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 (g) Ibidem tract 106. paulo post med of whom to wit the father he haith to be sonne from him he haith power Also (h) 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 vndoubtedly true that with him there in agree sundry Protestant doctors Zanchius (i) De 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 (k) 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. CAluin (a) Institut l. 3. c. 23. parag 6. teacheth that God by his councel and appointment 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 Beza (b) Display 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 Suinglius (c) Tom. 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 (d) 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. (f) 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 (g) 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 (h) Tom. 7. l. 6. hypognost c. 2. ante med that God only foreseeth and not predâ—stinateth euil or sinne but he foreseeth and predestinateth good things he denounceth of the damned that (i) 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 (k) 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 (l) 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 (m) 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 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 (n) Decades in english dec 3. serm 10. p. 494. Bullinger (o) Loc. com part 1. fol. 161. 162. 167. 169. 172. 182. Chemnitius and (p) Compend theolog l. 2. p. 303. 496. 497. 498. 499. 500. Echartus And whereas seueral
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. (m) 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 (n) Lib. 10. demonst Euang. c. vlt. Eusebius S. (o) Lib. 5. de fide c 8. Ambrose and S. p Hierome Concerning Christes descending into hel after his death (p) In c. 11. Isaiae denyed by D. (q) In his limbâ— mastix Fulke in Willets sinopsis p. 605. 606. Willet D. Fulke M. (r) In his booke that Christ descended not into hel Carâ—il and many others S. Austin to the contrary expresly teacheth that Christ was (s) 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 (t) 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. (u) 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 circumscriptioÌ„ Protestants in their translations of his bookes (x) l. 22. c. 8. p. 888. de ciuitate Dei directly against the Caluinistes (y) 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 (z) Tom. 2. ep 3. ad volus paulo ante med Christ brought his body through the doares that were shut Saying further also hereof If reason here be expected it were not miraculous if example it were not siâ—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 (a) 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 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 (b) 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 (c) 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 (d) â—ent 5. c. 4. col 499. Centuristes vnder their title of the Doctors errors do confesse and alledge of S. Austin (e) Ibidem col 4â—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 (f) Cent. 5. c. 10. col 1122. Centurists professing to set dowen a Catalogue of the bookes written by S. Austin vnder the title (g) Col. 1124. de libris quos Episcopus scripsit do number and place among his other bookes saying (h) 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 (i) Lib. 17. c. 28. Nicephorus relateth and (k) 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 (l) 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 saith this Protestant with whom agreeth M. Perkins in like sort reiecting Missale Ambrosij onely because (m) In problem p. 21. mentionem facit festi Assumptionis it mencioneth the feast of the Assumption And (n) 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 (o) Cent. 7. c. 6. col 163. Isidore mencioneth the Assumption of Mary And according to (p) 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 (q) 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 (r) 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 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 (s) 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 (t) 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 Peter (u) De 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 (w) 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 (x) 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 Cheâ—â—itiâ—â— alledgeth S. Austin as affirming the diuers degrees of (y) 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 Concerning the sacred Scriptures CHAPTER 3. 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 Christ saying (b) 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 sundry (c) In 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 Protestant (d) Centuriae 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 (e) Tom. 1. fol. 135. here I intreat your indifferent iudgementâ— 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 (f) 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 (g) In his defence englished art 5. p. 151. Pierre du Moulin affirmeth these wordes of the Church houlding theÌ„ 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 our (h) P. 725. aduersaries 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 (i) 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 and (k) Council Carthag 3. fine subscribed to the Carthage Councel in the same it was vniuersally decreed (l) Concil Carthag 3. can 47. That besides the Canonical Scriptures 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 (m) 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 (n) 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 done Euen as the booke of (o) Cap. 16.30 Iudges reporteth the like of Sampson whom yet the (p) Hebr. 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