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 (a) 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 (b) 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 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. (c) 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 (d) 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 (m) 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 (e) De Traditionibus Apostolicis part 2. l. 3. col 622. and see the like sayinges of the other Fathers alledged reiected fâ—r the same col 621. 623. 624. 625. Austin in his booke against the epistle of Donatus teacheth that the Church 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 (f) 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 againe (g) Tom. 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 Church (a) Tom. 2. ep 162. multo ante med the principality of the Apostolical chaire euer florished And (b) Tom. 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 (c) 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 (d) Tom. 2. epist 92. ad Innocent prope finem we thinke c. that by the authority of thy holines deriued from the authority of the 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 (e) 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 them (f) Cent. 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 be (g) In 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 an (h) In 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. (i) Tom. 2. epist 106. post init Austin writing to Paulinus of the Pelagian heresy which was condemned in those two foresaid CouÌ„cels meÌ„cioning 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 (k) 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 (l) 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 so duly respectiue to the Roman Sea as that he greauosly reprehended the heretickes of his time for their then (m) Tom. 7. cont lit Petil. l. 2. c. 51. tearming the Roman Church as our aduersaries now do the chaire of pestileÌ„ce teaching with al against the Protestants often
him selfe c. Lastly Sebastianus Francus concludeth for certaine that (z) 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 (a) His Maiesty in his declaratiâ—n concerning his proceedinges with the states in case of Voâ—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 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 the (b) 2. 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 The conclusion of the whole booke HItherto gentle Reader haue I intertained thy paines and patience in making proofe to thee of S. Austines professed religion from his owne alledged sayinges reported miracles with solution also to the contrary obiections vsually pretended from S. Austin only now in conclusion of al I offer to thy consideration how vnlike it is that I should be able to alledge to thee so many plaine and pregnant sayinges of S. Austin in behalfe of so many seueral pointes of religion and al or most of them for such by the learned aduersary confessed and yet further confirmed with like confessed consenting doctrine of the other auncient Fathers that liued next before in and after his age and al this notwithstanding no such matter as some aduersaries pretend to be by S. Austin therin intended or meant Could he not in some onely one or other but in al the cheife pointes of controuersy speake so plainly with vs and against Protestancy and so likewise acknowledged by Protestants them selues and yet himselfe in those very pointes ioyne in religion with Protestants and against vs Al which being so abundantly hertofore in this treatise examined and proued euen from the sparing and wary confession of the learned aduersaries who acknowledge no more then the racke of truth enforceth them vnto may suffice to satisfy thee studious Reader that hereby is deliuered to thee but as it were the bare out side or naked apparance of thinges in comparison of that far greater proofe and euidence which is in very deede at large abouÌ„ding in the writings of S. Austin the other auncient Fathers If therefore any shal without al forehead seeke to abuse thee with denyal of so euident premises I do therein boldly appeale to the equity of thine owne indifferent iudgement And as for those other who with more plaine dealing but no lesse offence in do ingeniously confesse and acknowledge S. Austines foresaid doctrine to make with vs yet withal contemne and reiect the same for Popish if any I say supercilious forehead of that ranke who (c) Math. 13.13.14 hauing eares to heare and wil not heare eyes to see and wil not see shal oppose against vs his owne late aduerse nouel doctrine as pretended from the Scriptures in the vnderstanding wherof he doubteth not to prefer his owne priuate interpretation before S. Austin and the other Fathers I can but yet not without commiseration pronounce of such a one (d) Apoc. 22.11 Qui sordidus est sordescat adhuc And I must needes apply vnto him those wordes of our Kinges most excellent Maiesty which he worthily deliuered against Vorstius a principal pretender of this Christian liberty As for (e) In his foresaid declaration p. 63. 64. this Christian liberty saith he which Vorstius doth vrge so much certainly he doth it with no other intention but onely vnder this faire pretext c. to abuse the world c. To abuse Christian liberty in presuming to propound a new doctrine to the world in point of the highest and holiest mysteries of God is a most audacious rashnes and impudent arrogancy And againe (f) Ibid. p. 61. 62. If one particular man may take vpon him such singularity as this how shal he be subiect to general national and synodical Councels c. Wherefore he is plainly discouered to be resolued not to be subiect in any sort to the iudgement of the Church c. for he knowes to wel that the auncient Church c. is against him And this is the reason why he wil not in these pointes submit him selfe to the iudgement of any mortal man but vpon this occasion mantaines his Christian liberty Thus far his Maiesty against Vorstius and indeede against al Protestants who being pressed with the aucthority of S. Austin the other Fathers of the Primitiue Church either for the interpretation of the Scriptures or for our knowledge of the practise of those purest times in matters of faith and religion do finally betake them selues to this desperate refuge of contemning S. Austin and al Fathers vpon pretence of this Christian liberty that al controuersies are to be decyded onely by the priuate spirit interpreting the Scriptures Now lastly as to al Catholicke Readers I conclude that seeing the faith which at this day we beleeue and professe is confessedly the same with that of S. Austines and the other holy Bishops and Doctors of the Primitiue Church that therfore amongst the other greatest blessinges of God bestowed vpon vs we euer esteeme this with highest respect of our happy vocation In due requital and gratitude wherto let vs with al exultation of minde accept and embrace what pressures punishmeÌ„ts and torments so euer inflicted vpon vs for our defence therof yea if death it selfe be vrged let vs rather make choice to dye in our Lord with S. Austin S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Gregory and the other holy Prelates Martyrs Confessors Virgins of those purest times then to dye the death of the wicked with Aerius Iouinian Vigilantius
SAINCT AVSTINES RELIGION COLLECTED FROM HIS owne writinges from the confessioÌ„s of the learned Protestants Whereby is sufficiently proued and made knowen the like answearable doctrine of the other more auncient Fathers of the Primitiue Church Written by IOHN BRERELEY Quod Patres credunt credo quod tenent tenâ—o quod dâ—cent doceo quod praedicant praedico c. Aquiesce istis et quiescis à me Aug. Tom. 7. contra Iulian. Pelag. l. 1. c. 5. prope finem Printed 1620. D. Augustinus Monachus Perrexit Petilianus ore maledico in vituperationem Monasteriorum et Monachorum arguens etiam me quod hoc genus vitae a me fuerit institutum Aug. Tom. 7. contra literas Petil. l. 3. c. 40. post med Disponebam esse in Monasterio cum fratribus c. capi bom propositi fratres celligere compatres meos nihil habentes sicut nihil habebam et imitantes me vt quando ego tenuem paupertatulam meam vendidi et pauperibus erogaut sic facerent et illi qui mecum esse voluissent vt de communi viueremus c. nulli licet in societate nostra habere aliquid proprium Aug. Tom. 10. de diuersis serm 49. de communi vita Clericorum post init Quantum in hac perfectionis via profecerim magis quidem noui ego quam quis quam alius homo c. Et ad hoc proposituÌ„ quantis possum viribus alios exhortor et in nomine Domini habeo consortes quibus hoc per meum ministerium persuasum est Ang. Tom. 2. epist 89. versus finem S. Austines being a Monke is coÌ„fessed by the CeÌ„tury writers cen 5. c. 6. col 701. TO THE MOS HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE IAMES by the grace of God King of great Britaine France Ireland defender of the faith my most gracious dread Soueraigne THe much obserued and no lesse commended care wherwith your highnes endeauoreth to enrich your Princely vnderstanding not forbearing so much as at the time of your bodily repast to haue for the then like feeding of your intellectual part your highnes table surrounded with the attendance conference of your graue and learned diuines in which respect you may not vnaptly be tearmed in the very wordes of Eunapius a liuing liberary walking study addeth a more then ordinary lustre of ornament to your royal estate and encorageth my otherwise fearful humble thoughtes more bouldly to approch and salute your highnes with this saying of S. (a) Lib. 8. indict 3. ep 37. Innocentio prope sin Gregory Si delicioso copitis pabulo saginari beati Augustini opuscula legite And although the viandes hereby thus prepared may in reguard of the Cookes plaine or rather vnskilful workmanship in confection seeme vnworthy of your royal preseÌ„ce for so much yet as they be of them selueâ— soueraigne Antidotes whereby to repel the dispersed contagioÌ„ of dangerous infection and are now placed on the table before your highnes by the attendance and seruice of men to your Maiesty not vngrateful or suspected euen the learnedst Protestantes them selues from whose frequent abounding confessioÌ„ the many hereafter ensuing particulars of S. Austines professed religion are collected I am not without hope that your highnes wil in such respect vouchsaife to esteeme them as not vnworthy either of your owne taist or the view and further tryal of your attending learned diuines And pardon great Saueraigne your meanest yet wel meaning subiect but to put your Maiesty in remembrance that seeing our knowledge in this life is but in (b) 1. Cor. 13.9 part euen by a (c) 1. Cor. 13.12 glasse in a darke sort and that the Sciptures a lone are prescribed by your learnedst diuines for the satisfying quieting of our knowlege in al doubts of religioÌ„ whatsoeuer that your Maiesty would plese to take notice that the said sacred Scriptures are not able to afford vs so much as certaine infallible proofe knowledge of them selues for as the titles of the said bookes can be no certaine proofe of their diuine authority considering that many writinges of like title were forged vnder the (d) See Eusebius hist l. 3. c. 19. et lib. 6. c. 10. S. Aug. contra aduers leg et Proph. l. 1. c. 20. Zozom hist l. 7. c. 19. Hmmelmannus de tradit Apost part 1. l. 1. col 251. et part 3. l. 3. col 841. Aâ—d see 2. Thes 2.2 Apostles names and neuer receiued by the Church for Canonical So likewise Protestant writers expresly teach (e) Hooker in Eccles pol. l. 1. sec 14. p. 86. conclude resolutly that of thinges necessary the very cheifest is to know what bookes we are to esteeme holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And (f) Ibid. l. 2. see 4. p. 102. 146. Couel in his defeÌ„ce of Hooker art 4. p. 31. it is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs that we do wel to thinke it is his word From whence it is that yet to this present Protestantes so importantly differ in the very Canon of the Scriptures for it is wel knowen that the (g) Adamus Francisci in Margarita Theol. p. 448. Chemnit in exam part 1. p. 55. 56. 57. and in Enchirid p. 63. Hafenref in loc Theol. loc 7. p. 292. Osiand Cent. 4. l. 3. c. 38. p. 399. The Centuristes cent 1. l. 2. c. 4. col 54. Lutheran Churches do stil reiect as Apocryphal the Epistle to the Hebrewes the Epistle of S. Iames the second and third of S. Iohn the latter of S. Peter the Epistle of S. Iudas and the Apocalips of S. Iohn with whom agreeth (h) Loc. com c. de iustific parrag 5. p. 250. Wolphangus Musculus a Caluinist in reiecting the Epistle of S. Iames as erroneous in iustification by workes Now if the Scriptures be coÌ„fessedly thus vnable to afford vs but so much as certaine proofe of them selues then in al true consequence of reasoÌ„ much lesse are they able to direct exempt vs in case of al doubt or question infallibly from error And the rather cosidering that in such case as D. (i) Conference c. 2. diuis 2. p. 68. Raynoldes confesseth It is not the shew but the sense of the wordes of Scripture that must decide controuersies and that touching this questionable sense the Scripture howsoeuer infaliible and sufficient in it selfe which none denyeth yet it is not which is the onely point now pertinent and questionable infallibly sufficient as to vs in her instruction therof as not resoluing and instructing vs therein infallibly because not immediatly of it selfe but onely by certaine meanes (k) Whitaker de Scriptura controuer 1. q. 5. c. 9. p. 251. on our behalfe required as (l) Whitaker ib. p. 521. 522. 523. Reynoldes in his coÌ„fer c. 2. p. 83. 84. 92. namely Our skil in the tongues our waighing the circumstances of the text our conferring of places our
praier diligence c. Al which though endeauored by vs with al possible care are yet as being actions on our part most clearly not infallible but humane and subiect to (m) Lubbeâ—tus de princip Christian dog l. 6. c. 13. p. 442. Whitaker de Eccles controuer 2. q. 4. p. 221. error And such as the same notwithstanding Luther and many other his followers haue euen according to our aduersaries censures no lesse confessedly then greeuously (n) Whitguift in defence p. penult Bridges in def of the gouernment p. 559. Hospin hist sacram part 2. fol. 14. 44. 55. 49. 57. erred and therin persisted (o) Luther de caen a Domini tom 2. Germ. fol. 174. euenconcerning such pointes of doctrine as they from their owne careful obseruation of these foresaid meanes held for most certaine vndoubted cleare And the like might be exemplifyed in the (p) In their Apol. p. 103. Broumstes (q) Hooker Eccles pol. in pref sec 8. p. 38. Anabaptistes (r) Carrh wright in his second reply part 1. p. 18. 509. Puritanes (s) Caluin Tract theol p. 533. c. Libertines and (t) Colloq Ratisbone Lutheranes whoal of them in like manner haue no lesse carefully conferred and seriously pretended the Scriptures in defence of their so many different errors which each of them seuerally apprehended for vndoubted true and yet the same notwithstanding al of theÌ„ confessedly erred Vpon due consideratioÌ„ therefore had of these premises so necessarily inferring our owne incertanty al foresaid pretence of Scripture to the contrary notwithstanding and like further obseruation that the cheife question of the Canonical Scriptures theÌ„ selues is determined to vs not by Scripture it selfe as haith (*) See here before at e. f. beene shewed nor (u) Whitaker aduersus Stap. l. 2. c. 6. p. 370. l. 2. c. 6. p. 357. by priuate testimony of the spirit but according to the learnedst (x) The author of the treatise of the Scriptures and the Church c. 16. fol. 75. Whitaker cont Staplet l. 2. c. 4. p. 298. 300. Chemnit in examen part 1. p. 69. Lubbertus de princip Christian dog l. 1. c. 4. p. 18. Protestants by iudgement of the Church which confessedly (y) Fulke his answeare to a count Cath. p. 5. Iewel in def of the apol part 2. p. 242. Witaker contra Stap. l. 1. c. 5. p. 69. had the assistance of the holy Ghost in her infallible discerning to vs which bookes of Scripture were sacred and which not wherby also is further argued or rather conuinced her no lesse needful assistance of the same spirit in her like discerning to vs the sense (z) Chemnit in ex am part 1. p. 74. Sarâ—â—ia in defen tract cont Bezam p. 8. of the said Scripture for what auaileth it vs to be made certaine of the bookes and left incertaine of the sense What reason can our aduersaries allegde wherby to acknowledge the Churches priuiledge in the one deny it where it is no lesse needful in the other It cannot therfore I hope in these times of so great doubt question seeme either vnfitting or vnsafe that for our owne more certaine instruction in the doctrine of the Primitiue Church which both parties acknowledge for the true Church we should make humble recourse vnto the receiued and renowmed writinges of S. Austin a principal member of the said church who liuing so long before these our times and being in such respect indifferent to our late since vprisen controuersies is by our learned aduersaries professedly reuerenced as the vndoubted (a) See hereafter c. 1. h. c. best witnes since the Apostles times of Apostolicke doctrine Neither can the perswasion which is oftentimes setled and growen strong in vs by education afford any infallible certanty to your greatest Maiesty or your learned diuines whereby to secure your selues from error as might be made plaine without al further needful discourse by example not onely of sundry auncient Kinges and (b) See the Protest Apol. tract 2. c. 3. sec 6. parag 2. p. 513. at s Emperours who brought vp in Arianisme did thereupon imbrace and by their lawes establish the error therof as a truth most consonant to the Scriptures but also of diuerse moderne Lutheran Princes as of Denmarke Saxony Brunswicke c. who vpon their like education in Lutheranisme do professe as not to be questioned their monster of (c) See Whitguifâ— in his defence of the answeare p. penult Bridges in his def of the gouernement l. 7. p. 559. Hospin in hist Sacram fol. 14. 44. 55. 49. 57. And part 2. fol. 245. 282. 286. 287. vbiquity and other now dissenting opinions condemning therupon the aduerse doctrines of Caluin and Suinglius for (d) Luther Tom. 2. Wittenberg fol. 503. and tom 7. fol. 382. Fulke against the defence of the censure p. 101. 155. Hospin hist saciam part 2. fol. 183. errors most execrable In like sort the reformed Churches so are they (e) By Hooker in Eccles pol. l. 4. sec 8. p. 101. 183. styled of Transiluania Poland and hungary who being Antitrinitaries and yet otherwise (f) See Gratianus Prosper in his instrumen tum doctrinarum c. onely differing from the Caluinistes in the doctrine of the Trinity the Baptisme of infants haue together with their milke sucked the poyson of Arianisme are vpon this like ground euen to this present so carried away against our receiued doctrine of the blessed Trinity that they forbeare not to compare it to the (g) See Osiander cent 16. l. 2. c. 22. p. 209. three headed Cerberus condemning the same in their sundry (h) Gratianus Prosper Socinus Gentilis Seruetus Blandrata and other new Arians published writinges stored with plentiful alledged testimonies of Scripture for the cheifest brand of al Popish and Antichristian (i) See Osiander cent 16. l. 2. c. 22. p. 209. corruption And as we can not assure our selues but that in case of our like supposed educatioÌ„ in those opinions so once in like manner established with the current and countenance of the state our iudgements no lesse then theirs in like sort might haue beene preoccupated and transported with the same errors so their example affordeth vs iust forwarning not to rest secure vpon the appearing probability of any such like setled perswasion whatsoeuer And so much the lesse if we not onely obserue ingeneral the great reuoult of late made by so many of the learnedst Caluinistes from Caluins former receiued so much applauded (k) See Willet in Rom. c. 9. p. 442. Melancth in Con. Theol. part 2. p. 111. Hemingius de vniuersali gratia Snecanus in method de script p. 124. 430. 441. Castalio in his booke hereof de praedest Fox in Apoc. p. 473. sundry others doctrines concerning Reprobation induration vniuersality of grace (l) So did Caluin Beza and the French Protestantes and our now
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 he affirmeth as common vnto al (r) Tom. 3. de Trinitate l. 1. c. 3. prope n. Hereticks to endeuor to defeÌ„d their false deceiptufl opinioÌ„s out of the Script As it is in part confessed and obserued of him and others by the Protestant (s) Symphonia c. 1. p. 96. Polanus Yea he further auoucheth that (t) 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 that (u) Tom. 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 (w) 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. (x) 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. (y) Disput contra Arianos Athanasius cyted by (z) In Symphonia p. 95. Polanus euery heresy is masked with the doctrines of Scriptures whereupon (a) Lib. de praescript see S. Hierome ep ad Paulinum Tertulian premonisheth against the vncertaine encounter with the heretickes by Scripture Concerning the Church of Christ CHAPTER 4. 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 (c) Tom. 7. contra Crescon l. 1. c. 33. init Although example of this be not brought out of the Canonical Scriptures â—ot the truth of the same Scriptures is 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 that (d) Tom. 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 (e) 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 voâ—is asserere it is secure to affirme it And lastly he affirmeth the decree of a general CouÌ„cel to be (f) Tom. 7. cont duas ep Pelag l. 4. c. 12. prope fin competens sufficiensque 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 the (g) Aug. 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. (h) 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 And (i) Praefat. 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 (k) 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 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. (l) 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. (m) Catech. 18. Ciril And euen so at this day the name Catholicke is ordinarily appropriated to vs Roman Catholickes by M. (n) 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 (o) Tom. 6. cont epist fundam c. 4. circa med Lastly the very name Catholicke houldeth me c. which wordes are so vndenyable that D. (p) 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. (q) Ibidem Fulke with old hereticks pretendeth only in reguard of it obseruing al the commaundements of God which very assertion S. (r) 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 very (s) Cent. 5. c. 4. col 410. col 414. Centuristes do obserue alledgedgeth many testimonies from the sacred Scriptures saying
is not lawful to marry another whiles she liueth And againe (i) Tom. 6. de adult coniug l. 1. c. 21. fin de bono coniug c. 7. and de adult coniug l. 1. c. 8. l. 2. c. 4. 9. l. 11. c. 21. 22. 24. He that dismisseth his wife except for fornication causeth her to commit adultery but if for this cause he dismisse her let him so remaine him selfe And agreeably to this the (k) Can. 17. Milleuitan Councel wherat S. Austin was present is so plaine herein that it is therefore reproued by (l) Cent. 5. l. 1. c. 33. p. 151. Pelarg. in his disput and â—â—â—â—d to his schola â—â—dei fol. 5 〈◊〉 Osiander and Pelargus Melancthon also acknowledgeing that (m) In ep ad Rom. in c. 14. p. 367. The Milleuitan Councel at which Austin was present c. decreed concerning diuorce that the innocent person should not marry againe wherof also say the (n) Cent. 5. c. 4. col 519. c. 10. col 1133. Centuristes The opinion of Austin is that it is not lawful for the innocent party to marry another for which also he is reprehended by (o) Examen part 2. p. 263. Chemnitius S. Austin further teacheth commendeth the vowed perpetual chastity by mutual assent of married persons for speaking of man and wife he saith (p) Tom. 6. de bono coniug c. 25. circa med c. 3. Tom. 4. l. 1. de serm Domini in monte c. 14. Tom. 3. de fide ad Petrum c. 3. Let both know who with like consent haith vowed to God Chastity that a greater reward is truly due vnto them In which place and sundry other he is so plaine herein that the Century writers do obiect to him his opinion hereof tearming it (q) Cent. 5. c. 4. col 518. An opinion not agreeable to the word of God But yet S. Austin is so ful in this point that he perswadeth Armentarius and his wife to the accomplishment of their vow in that behalfe writing vnto them both a special epistle (r) Tom. 2. ep 45. init to that purpose of which and such other like examples out of S. Austin Peter Martir saith (s) De Euchar. et vot col 1608. 1609. These thinges brought out of Austin do not agree with the sacred Scriptures And the man of God writeth these thinges being deceiued as man And the like reprehension is geuen to S. Austin by (t) De origine Monach. fol. 102. 105. Hospinian Lastly the blessing of the bridgroome and bride by the Preist after marriage made is decreed by the 4. Carthage Councel in these wordes (u) Can. 13. The husband and the wife when they are to be blâ—ssed by the Preist and when they haue receiued the benediction in reuerence therof let them remaine the same night in virginity This Canon is reproued by (x) Cent. 5. l. 1. c. 1. p. 6. Osiander and confessed by the (y) Cent. 4. c. 6. col 453. Centuristes Concerning free wil Iustification merit of workes workes of superogation the difference of mortal and venial sinnes CHAPTER 13. 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 that (a) Tom. 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 Lord saying either do ye this or do ye that sheweth that it is in their power what they should do Againe (b) 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 (c) 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 (d) 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 that (e) Tom. 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 (f) 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 (g) Tom. 6. de fide cont Manich c. 9. fin Against these thinges saith he the Manichees barke with accustomed blindnes when thâ—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 that (h) In 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. (i) In Ioan. hom 45. prope initium Chrisostome In al which places of these Fathers it is euideÌ„t by the context of theÌ„ 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 Protestant (k) De vniuersali gratia p. 109. Hemingius And in this S. Austin laboured so far as that he alledged a whole composed (l) Tom. 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 For which and sundry other his plaine sayinges in proofe of freewil he is acknowledged and disliked by the (m) Cent. 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 (n) 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 (o) Tom 6. de fide cont Manich. c. 10. initio who wil not cry out that it is a foolish thing to geue
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 (d) 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 sundry other Protestants Traditions are so fully taught by the Fathers as that for teaching the same D. Raynoldes (e) Conclusions annexed to hiâ— confer conclus 1. p. 689. reproueth S. Basil and S. Epiphanius Chemnitius reprehendeth (f) Examen part 1. p. 87. 89. 90. Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Epiphanius Ambrose Hierome Maximus Theophilus Basil Damascen D. Fulke acknowledgeth as much of (g) Confut. of Purg. p. 362. 303. 397. and against Martial p 170. 178. against Bristowes motiues p. 35. 36. Chrisostome Tertulan CipriaÌ„ AustiÌ„ Hierom. D. Whitaker confesseth the like of (h) De sacra Script p. 678. 681. 683. 685. 690. 695. 696. 668. 670. and see Schrodâ—â—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 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 (i) 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 (k) Resp ad Bellar part 1. p. â—77 the saying of Christ thou art Peter c. they haue noughtily expounded of the person of Peter And the (l) Cent. 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 few (m) Confut 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 câ—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. (n) In Apocalip p. 539. Brightman Antichrist haith raigned from the time of Constantine the great to this very day And speaking of the Pope of Rome he saith (o) Ibidem p. 477. and see p. 471. for these thousand three hundred yeares he is that Antichrist whom M. Nappier nameth (p) Vpon 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 (q) 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 one desirous of human riches power and pleasures To which purpose also auoucheth another Protestant writer that (r) 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 (s) Cent. 4. c. 7. col 54â— 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 saith (t) Cent. 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. (u) 2. Reply part 2. p. 161. 162. 155. 156. Carthwright adding further Ambrose saith it was not read nor hâ—ard of before that any Emperour was iudge ouer a Bishop in a cause of faith which was not the iudgment of Ambrose onely but of other Bishops round about Of which point also Polanus alledgeth (x) Symphonica 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 (y) 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 (z) 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 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 the (a) Fulke 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
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
(4) 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 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 the (u) Ibidem 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. (w) 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 in reguard of iâ— foretold large lasting extent for thus S. (x) Tom. 9. de Symbolo l. 4. c. vlt. circa med and see Toâ— 10. de tempoâ—e ser 131. post med Austin writeth the Church possesseth the whole which she receiued of her huâ—band in dowry c. Euâ—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 (y) 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 Greeke (z) Tom. 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. (a) 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 the Popish Church This very obiection S. Austin answeareth against Cresconius the Donatist in these wordes (b) 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 continuance wheras our aduersaries teach that before Luthers time (c) Perkins 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 that (d) Chamierus 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 likewise (e) Whitak 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 that (f) Answeare to a counterfeat Catholik pag 79. the visible Church may become an Adultres and be diuorced from Christ and that the (g) Synopsis 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 (h) Tom. 7. de vnit Eccles cap. 13. prope fin in that they wrested the Scriptures against the Church of God as though it might haue beene thought to haue fallen away and perished from the whole world Reprehending them â—lso yet further in their saying as Prot. now did (i) 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 againe (k) Ibidem 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 that (l) Tom. 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 that (m) Tom. 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 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 (n) 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