our times was in dislike with greater volumes as al weryed or rather offended with prolixity of discourse In which respect you moued me to vndertake as my health whould permit some such short labour as might become grateful thereupon propounding for matter fitting to be hanled the doctrine of S. Austin concerning the many now controuerted pointes of religion wherof you willed me to collect set downe for euery one some litle And albeâ—t that your thus directing me to such enioyned breuity which in case of the aduersaries answeares thereto lyeth commonly open to the inconuenience of great disaduantage be contrary to that forme of larger discourse which (a) Tom. 2. ep 23. Bonifacio post med S. Austin obserued from Nebriclius for necessary who affirmed that in a great question he hated a short answeare the more yet that I haue sithence considered of your motion the more with al did I as condescending to the necessity of the times incline so breifly as the matter wil permit and without al affected curiosity of wordes to vndertake in satisfaction therof this ensuing labour as receiuing I must confesse no smale encoragement thereto both from auncient writers and Doctors and our moderne Protestant aduersaries them selues al of theÌ„ approuing much commending S. Austin and his (b) Ep. to S. Aug. extant in Austines workes Tom. 2. ep 25. prope initium doctrine S. Hierome saith to S. Austin I haue alwaies reuerenced thy sainctity with that honor which is fitting and I haue loued our Lord and Sauiour dwelling in thee c. increase in vertue thou art famous in the world Catholickes do worship thee as the builder againe of the auncient faith c. S. (c) Extant in S. Austin Tom. 2. ep 31. paulo post initium Paulinus Bishop of Nola in his like Epistle to S. Austin tearmeth him the salt of the earth and the light worthily placed vpoÌ„ the candlestick of the Church (d) Ep. ad quosdaÌ„ Galliarum Epis extant Tom. 1. Con. cil Caelestinus saith we haue alwaies accompted Austin a man of holy memory for his life and merits of our Communion c. whom we haue long sicne remembred to haue beene of so great knowledge that by our predicessors he was alwaies esteemed amongst the best Maisters Prosper (e) Lib. 3. de vita contemp cap. 31. describeth S. Austin to be sharpe of wit c. painful in Ecclesiastical labours cleare in dayly diputations c. Catholicke in his expositioÌ„ of our faith c. yea he slyleth him (f) Ep. de gratia et de lib. arb ad Ruffinum The cheife portion of the Preistes of our Lord of that time And the like deserued prases are largely geuen to S. Austin by (g) In his epistle extant Aug. tom 2. ep 37. Possid in vita Aug. Hil. ep ad Aratum Vic. l. 1. de persec Vand. Cas in prologo super Psalterium Seuerus Sulpitius Possidonius Hillarius Victor Cassiodorus and sundry others But the splendour of his deserts is so shyning as that euen the learnedst Protestants rest in greatest admiratioÌ„ therof So D. (h) Tom. 7. Wittenberg fol. 405. Luther affirmeth that since the Apostles times the Church neuer had a better Dactor then S. Austin And (i) Loc. com clas 4. pag. 45. after the sacred Scriptures there is no doctor in the Church who is to be compared to Austin Doctor (k) Answeare to Iohn Burges pag. 3. Couel affirmeth that he was A man far beyond al that euâ—â— were before him or shal in likelihood follow after him both for diuine and humane learning those being excepted that were inspired With whom agreeth Doctor (l) Of the Church l. 3. fol. 170. Field tearming Austin the greatest of al the Fathers and worthiest diuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times which so high commendation made of him is not the onely priuate iudgement of these few for an other (m) Gomarus his speculum verae Ecclesiae pag. 96. Protestant writer acknowledgeth that Austin of al the Fathers is houlden most pure in the opinion of al. And M. (n) Monas Tessagraphica c. in proâ—m p. 3. Forrester styleth him That monarch of the Fathers S. Austin But not onely S. Austin personally but euen the age wherein he liued for sainctity and learning haâ—th beene euer and very specially houlden for most renowmed So D. (o) In his letter to Sir Fraucis Knowles extant in the treatise entituled informations from Scotland p. 80. Raynoldes affirmeth that The time of S. Austin was the most storishing time that euer happened since the Apostles dayes either for learning or zeale Yea saith M. (p) His tryal of the Romish Cleargy p. 293. Wootton The Church in S. Austines time by the blessing of God was so enlarged that it had the possession of many partes of the world And that in comparison of it the Arian heresy was but in corners Caluin (q) Institut l. 3. c. 3. sec 10. him selfe hereupon yet further acknowledging that Austin onely is sufficient to shew the iudgement of the auncient Church In so much as M. (r) His Retentiue p. 85. Fulke forbeareth not to beare the world in hand that to vse his wordes the Popish Church is but an heretical assembly departed from the vniuersal Church long since Augustines departure out of this life wherto D. (s) Answeare to F. Campion in English in the contents fol. a. 2. parag 28. Whitaker addeth that Austin was wholly on the Protestants side Now as it cannot vpon these premises be denyed concerning S. Austines religion ingeneral but that euen in our aduersaries iudgement it vndoubtedly was the same religion which the Apostles pubiished and deliuered to posterity so can I not but ioyne with you in resting hopeful that if I can be able though but breifly yet truly to make it appeare that the particulars of S. Austines doctrine touching the seueral points at this day in controuersy were consonant and agreeable with our now professed Catholicke religion this then wil fal out to be a matter vnto our aduersaries very perswading and to al indifferent readers no lesse then conuincing that our said religion is the very same for truth substance with that vndoubted Primitiue faith which the Apostles them selues first taught and deliuered afterwardes by their successors to S. Austin And for so much as S. Austin liuing so many ages before our times and as then ignorant of our late since vprysing and dayly encreasing controuersies could not foresee to leaue behind him direct and pnuctual resolution to euery of our now occurring particular doubtes or further to entreate of them then as was casually ministred to him by the accidental occasions of those times the due obseruation herof doth premonish the indifferent reader as discerning the sunnes great brightnes though shyning to him but through a slender creuise how to esteeme of that litle in comparison which shal so appeare
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. Whâ—â—guifâ— directly answeareth to this place obiected saying (m) Defence traâ—â— 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 explanatioÌ„ of these other like occurring obscure sayinges of S. Austin other Fathers wherin as our aduersaries acknowledge (n) Beza ep theol â—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 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 obseruation (o) Snecanus 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 (p) In argument â—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 (q) 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 answeare for doth not D. Whitaker in steede of better answeare say (r) De sacra Scriptura p. 690. though Austin in this place seemeth to fauor Traditions yet in other places he defendâ—th earnestly the perfection of the Scripture And of S. Basil he likewise saith concerning the same traditions (s) Ibidem p. 670. he fighteth with him selfe And (t) De principiis Christ dog l. 2. c. 10. p. 675. Lubertus saith I oppose Basil against Basil As also (u) Whitaker vbi supra p. 678. Chrisostome fighteth with him selfe And (x) Lubertus vbi supra p. 676. I oppose Chrisostome to Chrisostome Neither (y) Ibidem p. 678. doth Damascen agree with him selfe The like simple answeare is geuen by Hospinian against S. Austin saying (z) Hist sacram part 1. in indice 3. PatruÌ„ 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 saith (a) Synopsis 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 (b) 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 â—ut to the better sort Ambrose 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 (c) 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 (d) 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 Martâ—r (e) 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 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 acknowlâ—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 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 (f) Tom. 7. contra Iulian. Pelag l. 1. c. 6. multo ante med intellige propriâ— 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 (g) Common places in english part 2. p. 228. Martir as also by
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