that is is lawful to vse and worship the Images of Christ and his Sainctes p. 168. Chapter 15. Concerning Christian fastes as abstinence from certaine meates vpon certaine dayes as also concerning vowed chastity and monastical life Section 1. S. Austin teacheth that prescribed dayes of fasting and abstinence from certaine meates are lawful p. 173. Section 2. S. Austin teacheth that the vow of chastity is lawful p. 177. Section 3. S. Austin teacheth that it is lawful to vow the state of monastical or religious life p. 180. Chapter 16. Concerning Antichrist vsury and permission of stewes Section 1. Concerning Antichrist his comming at the end of the world And of Enoch and Elias their comming as then to resist him p. 187. Section 2. S. Austin teacheth vsury to be vnlawful p. 192. Section 3. S. Austin teacheth that stewes may be permitted for the auoiding of greater euil p. 194. Chapter 17. Concerning Ceremonies Section 1. S. Austin teacheth sundry holy ceremonies now vsed in the Catholicke Church in the administration of the Sacraments p. 198. Section 2. S. Austin teacheth sundry ceremonies concerning praier now vsed in the Roman Church p. 204. Chapter 18. Concerning miracles reported by S. Austin and making in further proofe and confirmation of our Catholicke religion by him formerly tauhgt Section 1. S. Austin reporteth seueral miracles in proofe of inuocation of Sainctes p. 213. Section 2. S. Austin reporteth seueral miracles in proofe of the honouring of Sainctes reliques p. 216. Section 3. S. Austin reporteth some miracles in proofe of the signe of the Crosse and of pilgrimage to the holy land p. 218. Section 4. S. Austin reporteth certaine miracles in proofe of the sacrifice of Christes body of Altars and of penetration of bodies p. 220. Section 5. S. Austin reporteth some miracles to be wrought by holy oyle p. 223. Section 6. A further confirmation of these foresaid miracles reported by S. Austin in proofe of our Catholicke Church p. 224. Chapter 19. Concerning such sayinges of S. Austin as are vsually obiected by our aduersaries against his former Catholicke doctrines confessed for such by Protestants and confirmed by miracles Section 1. Such places are answeared as are vrged against the Canonical Scriptures against Traditions and the authority of Councels p. 231. Section 2. Such places are answeared as are obiected from S. Austin against Baptisme by women in case of necessity and against the real presence p. 234. Section 3. Such places are answeared as are vrged from S. Austin against inuocation of Sainctes Images and reliques p. 242 Section 4. Such places are answeared as are vrged from S. Austin against Purgatory p. 246. Section 5. Such places are answeared as are vrged from S. Austin against iustification by workes freewil and merit of workes p. 248. Section 6. Such places are answeared as are obiected from S. Austin concerning vowes miracles and Ceremonies p. 250. Section 7. A further answeare in general to al such obiections as are vrged from S. Austin or other of the Fathers p. 254. Chapter 20. Concerning the doctrine religion of the oâ—her Fathers in general also of those who liued in the age of S. Austin And that it was the same with the doctrine and religion here formerly taught by S. Austin and at this day taught by the Catholicke Roman Church Section 1. The Fathers in general and who liued in the age of S. Austin confessedly taught the same doctrine with him concerning Christ being our mediator only according to his humanity concerning the sacred Scriptures and Traditions p. 264. Section 2. The Fathers in general are confessed to teach the Primacy Ecclesiastical of S. Peter and the Bishops of Rome As also to deny supreme Ecclesiastical gouernment to temporal Princes and that the Pope is not Antichrist p. 267. Section 3. The Fathers in general are confessed to teach our Catholicke doctrines concerning the Sacrament of Baptisme p. 273. Section 4. The Fathers in general are confessed for our Catholicke doctrines concerning the Sacraments of confirmation Orders and Extreame vnction p. 276. Section 5. The Fathers in genâ—ral are confessed for our Catholike doctrines concerning Confession Satisfaction and Pardons p. 278. Section 6. The Fathers in general are confâ—ssed for our Catholicke doctrines concerning real presence the preseruation of the Sacrament and receiuing fasting and Christ p. 283. Section 7. The Fathers in general are confessed concerning our Catholicke doctrines of the sacrifice of Christes body and bloud in the Eucharist As also that the same was propitiatory euen for the soules departed and of mingling water with wine in the Chalice and of Altars p. 289. Section 8. The Fathers in general are confessed for our Catholicke doctrines concerning Prayer for the dead Purgatory and Lymbus Patrum p. 295. Section 9. The Fathers in general are confessed for our Catholicke doctrines of inuocation of Sainctes of our reuerent vse of Images Reliques the Crosse p. 297. Section 10. The Farhers in general are confessed for our Catholicke doctrines concerning free wil and merit of workes p. 302. Section 11. The Fathers in general are confessed for our Catholicke doctrines concerning vowes the single life of Preistes Monachisme prescribed fastes and Ceremonies p. 305. Section 12. The Fathers in general are confessed by Protestants not onely for particular points of faith but ioyntly at once for many or most of them together p. 313. Section 13. That the Fathers who liued next before and after the times of S. Austin agreed with him in the Catholicke Roman faith p. 322. The conclusion of the whole booke 335. A TABLE OF THE PRINCIPAL POINTES contained in this booke A ABsolution geuen by imposition of hands enioyned penance 119. Abstinence from certaine meates prescribed 175. Amen and Alleluia anciently vsed 206. Ancient way to be followed Pref. p. 31. Angels and Archangels are different Orders 25. They are present at the sacrifice of the Masse 95. Answeare in general to such obiections as are vrged from Fathers 254. Antichrist one man 187. 272. He shal come from the Iewes 188. Not before the vtter ruine of the Roman Empyre 188. 271. He is to continue but 3. yeares and a halfe 272. 189. Altars anciently vsed for sacrifice 290. Altars consecrated with the signe of the Crosse and oyle 110. Miracles wrought therat 221. S. Austin him selfe a Monke before the Pref. to the King and 183. Sundry his writinges reiected by Prot. are defended Pref. p. 23. Him selfe commended by Fathers and Prot. 3. The age wherin he liued likewise commended 5. Prot. chalenge S. Austin to be of their religion 5. B BAptisme taketh away al sinnes 68. 273. Children dying without it are not saued 71. 274. Laye persons in case of necessity may baptise 72. 275. Obiections against it answeared 234. Ceremonies of Baptisme aunciently vsed 73. 275. Bigami hindred from holy Orders 135. Bishops haue ciuil Iurisdiction 123. their blessing 125. The Pelagians impugning it reproued 127. They are in dâ—grees aboue Preistes 126. They onely consecrate Virgins and
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
this bar supposed to be remoued S. Austin teacheth that (t) Tom. 7 cont duas epistolas Pelag. l. 3. c. 3. circa med Baptisme washeth away al sinnes al altogether of deedes wordes thoughtes or original And the like he hath in (u) Tom. 9. de Symbolo ad Catechum l. 3. c. 10. initio Tom. 7. de pec orig c. 40. tom 8. in Psal 50. ante med Tom. 7. contra Iulian. Pelag. l. 6. c. 5. tom 8. in Psal 118. suÌ„dry other places so expresly that the (w) Cent. 5. c. 4. col 368. 516. 1133. Centuristes and (x) Examen part 2. p. 38. Chemnitius do alledge his sayinges and confesse his iudgement in our behalfe S. Austin teacheth that concupisence remaning after Baptisme is not sinne SECTION 2. IN reguard of this plenary remission of sinne S. Austin consequently further teacheth that (a) Tom. 7. de nuptiis et concupis l. 1. c. 23. prope initium concupisence is not now sinne in the regenerate And againe (b) Tom. 7. de pec mer. et remis l. 2. c. 4. initio et cont Iulian. Pelag. l. 6. c. 5. prope fin cont duas ep Pelag. l. 1. c. 13. tom 5. de ciuit Dei l. 1. c. 24. fin concupisence in children Baptised is free from guilt it is left for the combate But this doctrine is so confessedly S. Austins and the other Fathers that Caluin saith therof (c) Institut l. 3. c. 3. parag 10 it is not needful to search much what here the auncient Fathers thought when Austin alone may suffice therto who haith gathered with fidelity and great diligence al their opinions therfore let the readers take from him if they wil haue any certanty of the sense or meaning of antiquity but betweene him and vs this difference may seeme to be that he c. dareth not cal that disease of concupisence sinne but c. teacheth it then at length to be sinne when to the first conceiuing or apprehension either deede or consent followeth with whom agreeth Chemnitius who speaking of our concupisence saith (d) Loc. com part 3. in his Theses therto annexed fol. 18. b. parag 10. Austin began to dispute that it was not properly sinne but so called by a figure c. which if we wil beleeue Chemnitius was spoken incommodiously S. Austin teacheth that children dying vnbaptised are not saued SECTION 3. THough it be now an ordinary opinion among (e) Carthwright in Whitguiftes defence p. 516. Dillingham in his disput breuis de Symbo p. 4. 5. Protestants that children borne of faithful parents dying without Beptisme may be saued whose cruel and vnchariritable practise herein is ouer frequent and answearable yet S. Austin ioyntly with our now Roman Church teacheth the very contrary saying (f) Tom. 7. de anima et eius origine l. 3. c. 9. initio tom 10. de verb. Apost ser 14. If thou wilt be a Catholicke do not beleeue do not say do not teach that children dying before they be Baptised can come to forgeuenes of original sinnes And (g) Tom. 2. ep 28. ad Hieron multo post med whosoeuer saith that children shal be reuiued in Christ who dye whithout participation of this Sacrament this man truly contradicteth the Apostolical preaching and condemneth the whole Church c. So generally receiued was the doctrine hereof in his time Lastly he teacheth that though (h) Tom. 7. de pec mer. et remis l. 1. c. 16. initio it may truly be said that children dying without Baptisme are to be in damnatione omnium mitissima in the easiest state of damnation yet he deceiueth and is deceiued who teacheth that they are not to be damned Now these sayinges are so vnanswearable in S. Austin that M. Carthwright confesseth that (i) In Whitguifts defence p. 521. Austin was of minde that children could not be saued without Baptisme for which he ouer bouldly chargeth him with (k) Ibidem p. 516. absurdity Sundry other (l) Bullinger his Decades in english dec 5. ser 8. p. 1049. Musculus loc com c. de Baptis p. 308. Dillinham de Symbo p. 4. 5. The Centuristes cent 5. c. 4. col 379. Protestants acknowledging and reprouing likewise in him the same doctrine Now in reguard of this so absolute necessity of Baptisme vnto children S. Austin is confessed to teach that in case of necessity it is lawful for the Laity to Baptise for thus writeth (m) In resp ad act colloq Mon. tisbel part 2. p. 143. and see Whitguifes defence tract 9. p. 522. 523. Beza wheras Austin writeth to Parmen l. 2. c. 13. that he knoweth not whether the Baptisme which a Lay person c. inforced vpon necessity of the child perishing doth administer is piously to be reiterated is a blemish or error in S. Austin saith Beza S. Austin teacheth sundry ceremonies of Baptisme now vsed in the Roman Church SECTION 4. FIrst then he teacheth that (n) Tom. 10. in l. 50. homil hom 27. multo ante med the water being consecrated in the name of Christ is signed with his Crosse and that (o) Tom. 10. de tempore serm 181. c. 3. prope fin ser 19. de sanctis prope finem with this signe the font of Baptisme is sanctifyed which consecratioÌ„ of the water is taught by S. (p) Lib. 1. c. vlt. ante med Ciprian saying the water ought to be clensed and sanctifyed first by the Preist And by S. (q) De mister init c. 3. post med and Aug. tom 9. in Ioan. Tract 118. prope fin Ambrose in these wordes when the water of saluation shal be consecrated with the mystery of the Crosse c. S. (r) Tom. 2. ep 105. ad SixtuÌ„ versus fin Austin also teacheth the exorcisme of Infants from the Churches auncient ryte or custome as also their Exuflation of both which speaking of Iulianus he saith (s) Tom. 7 de nup. et coÌ„cup l. 2. c. 29. fin He haith accused of greiuous crime the most ancient tradition of the Church wherby as I haue said children are exorcised and breathed vpon And speaking to Iulianus him selfe saith (t) Tom. 7. cont Iul. Pelag. l. 6. c. 5. post init Thou wert to be blowen but of the whole world if thou wouldest contradict this exufflation wherwith the prince of the world is cast out of children In like sort concerning Annoyling before Baptisme he further saith (u) Tom. 9. in Euang Ioan. tract 44. post init He is annoyled but not yet washed c. It is not sufficient for the Catechumens that they are annoyled let them hasten to washing or Baptisme Of this Carthwright confesseth that (x) 2. Reply part 2. c. 4. p. 226. Annoynting in Baptisme was as general of as long continuance as the Crosse for bâ—ing in Africke in Tertulians time it spred it selfe into the east and west Churches Concerning Abrenunciation and Godfathers to Infants
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
Chemnitius who therupon obserueth inferreth (h) Examen part 1. fol. 80. And see Snecanus in method descript p. 429. 430. 432. that In this sort Austin de natura et gratia applyeth the sentences of Hillary Ambrose Chrisostome Hierome which Pelagius had alledged in confirmation of his error according to the Analogy of faith adding a fit interpretation Now according to this obseruation and practise of S. Austin al. our aduersaries mistaken obiectionâ— from him are againe at once determined by the confessed contrary doctrine in the next Chapters alledged from the other Fathers that seuerally liued in the same age with S. Austin and in the other ages next before and after him As also according to both these foresaid rules may easily be auoyded that pretended necessity of childrens receiuing the Eucharist vnder paine of damnation wherwith S. Austin is by D. (i) Answeare to a counterf Catholicke p. 87. Fulke and many others so often and so seriously mischarged For hereto it may be answeared that in S. Austines opinion children in Baptisme receiued the effect of the other Sacrament without which vertual communicating he thought them not saued otherwise that he did not thinke their Sacramental receiuing of the Eucharist necessary appeareth first in that he taught before that in Baptisme was a plenaâ—â— remission of al sinnes Secondly in that our aduersaries cannot alledge any his saying affirming directly to to the point that a Baptised childe dying before his communicating is damned Thirdly in that S. Austin teacheth that (k) Serm. ad Infantes apud Bedam in 1. Cor. 10. And see Tom. 7. l. 1 de pec mer. et rem c. 19. and tom 5. de ciuit Dei l. 21. c. 16. and after the english transl p. 856. none ought any wayes to doubt but that euery one of the faithful is made partaker of the body bloud of our Lord when he is made in Baptisme a member of Christ and that he is not estranged from the fellowship of that bread and Chalice although before he eate that bread and drinke the Chalice he depart out of this world being in the vnity of the body of Christ This point is so cleare in S. Austin as that the (l) Cent. 5. c. â— col 604. Centuristes do in particular free him from this impution As for S. Austines communicating to Infants but without al opinion of the necessity before supposed we graunt his doctrine therof A doctrine likewise houlden good not onely by S. Ciprian who recyteth a (m) Serm. de lapsis circ med memorable miracle concurring therwith and one in his owne presence But also Musculus who maketh true and (n) Loc. com e. de caena Dom. p. 34â— direct answeare to those wordes of S. Paul Let a man proue him selfe and alledgeth (o) Ibid. p. 341. the auncient Churches iudgement and practise in proofe therof A doctrine also stil defended (p) Lib. ep Oecolam et Suing p 305. 329. by the Bohemians The third obseruation is that according to our aduersaries owne (q) Chemnitius examen part 1. fol. 80. Snecanus method de script p. 290. Bancroftes suruey p. 336. Humfrey in Iesuit part 2. rat 5. p. 501. rat 2. p. 129. and see S. Basil ep 64. rule we do discerne the Fathers sayinges by them vttered in heat or feruor of disputation from those other which they write dogmatically for that in the first kind the Fathers being more attent and busied how to conuince and ouercome then alwayes precisely obseruant or circumspect of their manner of speaking which they neuer doubted would be vnderstood otherwise then according to the Catholicke receiued sense euen as next here before S. Austin expounded and excused S. Chrisostome their meaning may the more colourably be mistaken In which respect such their obiected sayinges as namely those commonly vrged against freewil and merit of workes taken from S. Austins disputation with the Pelagians who enhabled these as auaileable without grace are not houlden so conuincing or fit for argument which few obseruations thus propounded being but duly obserued by the studious and indifferent reader wil suffice to deliuer him from the doubtful laborinth of al vprising obiected difficulties And thus much breifly in answeare to al the obiections pretended from S. Austin wherein our aduersaries most colourable endeauour is but to make him no further contrary to vs then confessedly therein he should be contrary to him selfe which is nothing he being in very deede so plaine in our behalfe and so far from Luthers new erected doctrine that one of Luthers scholers blushed not to say (r) Alberus contra Carolastadianos l. 7. And see the like in Musculus in praefat in libel Ger. de diaboli tyrannide And Hospin hist sacram part 1. fol. 346. I doubt not but if that Austin were non liuing he would not be 〈◊〉 to prâ—feâ—â—e him selfe Luthers scholler Concerning the doctrine and religiâ—a of the other Fathers in general and also of those who liued in the age of S. Austin And that it was the same with the doctrine religioÌ„ here formerly taught by S. Austin and at this day taught by the Catholicke Roman Church CHAPTER 20. The Fathers in general who liued in the age of S. Austin confessedly taught the same doctrine with him coÌ„cerning Christ being our mediator only according to his humanity concerning the sacred Scriptures traditions SECTION 1. HAuing thus hitherto entreated of the religion professed by S. Austin to whom aboue al the Fathers Protestants do vsually make their bouldest claime aâ— pretending him to make most for them and against vs Hereby I hope sufficiently appeareth what is to be expected in this kind from the other Fathers for if D. Boyes doth acknowledge that (a) Exposition of the dominic epist the winter part p. 253. and see before c. 1. the most indifferent for both parties among the Fathers is Austin who yet standeth so aduerse against them as we haue formerly seene by al the premisses much more aduerse then in al probability are the other Fathers And for so much as the further explanation of the other Fathers iudgements yealdeth a yet further strong proofe of S. Austires (b) See before in the pref to the learned aduersary professed like consenting religion and that in reguard of my enioyned and affected breuity I haue not opportunity to demonstrate the same from the other Fathers owne alledgedged sayinges at large I wil now therefore onely ad as in ful satisfaction of al reasonable readers a breife recytal of our learned aduersaries them selues charging and reprouing the Fathers indefinitly or els sundry of them at once charging also diuerse of those who liued in S. Austins age with their knowen confessed iudgements practise in particular of our Catholicke faith First then in proofe of our Sauiours office of mediatorship onely according to his haman nature Caluin him selfe denying it yet saith of the Fathers (c) Instit l. 2.
opinion that the bread and wine which Melchisadech brought forth was sacrificed by him and that it was a figure of the Sacrament which they improperly called a sacrifice c. CipriaÌ„ also thouhgt that herein Melchisadech resembled the Preisthood of Christ And that the Fathers taught that this sacrifice of the Eucharist was also propitiatory or satisfactory for sinne the same Crastouius acknowledgeth saying (o) Lib. 1. de opificio Missae p. 167. But the sayinges of the Fathers do not onely import impetration but also a certaine intrinsecal force of appeasing Origen hom 13. in Leuit. saith This is the onely commemoration which maketh God propitious to men Athanasius serm de defunctis cyted by Damascen saith the oblation of the vnbloudy hoast is a propitiation And he alledgeth yet further to the same purpose the like sayinges of S. Chrisostome Ambrose Austin Gregory Bede c. The Fathers also confessedly taught that this sacrifice of the Eucharist was to be offered also for the deade hereof also writeth (p) In tract theol p. 394. Caluin There remaneth another sort of the deade whom the Fathers would haue remembred at the supper that place of rest might be geuen them c. I do not deny that this was a most ancient custome which also was so general that M. Gifford confesseth that (q) DemonstratioÌ„ against Brounistes p. 38. in the Churches publicke worship to pray for the soules of the deade and to offer oblation for the deade was general in the Church long before the day s of Austin as appeareth in Ciprian and Tertulian Zepperus (r) De sacram p. 47. alledgeth S. Austin and diuerse other Fathers by whom saith he sacrifice for the quicke and the deade was made of the holy supper And according to Bullinger (s) De orig erroris fol. 223. And see Decades in english dec 5. serm 9. p. 1082. Austin maketh mencion of oblation for the deade c. in Enchirid. c. 109. c. which I therefore speake of more largely that you may vnderstand this custome of offering for the dead not to be ordained by the Apostles but by the holy Fathers M. Fulke doth not deny but plainly acknowledgeth that (t) Confut. of Purgat p. 362. 303. 393. and Osiander in his refutatio aduersus Costerum p. 73. Tertulian Ciprian Austin Hierome and a great many more do witnes that sacrifice for the deade is the tradition of the Apostles And wheras S. Ciril (u) Catech. Mistag 5. ante med tearmeth the Sacrament the hoast of propitiation and the greatest helpe for soules departed for which it is offered Hospinian hereupon saith (x) Hist sacram part 1. l. 2. c. 7. p. 167. Ciril affirmeth according to the receiued custome of his time that the sacrifice of the Altar is the greatest helpe of soules To conclude not onely the generality of Masse for the 1000. yeares last past is graunted by many Protestant (y) Bacon in his reliques of Rome fol. 344. Danaeus de Antichristo c. 20. p. 101. the Cetâ—ristes cent 6. c. 6. col 336. Hospin concord discord in prologom fol. 3. Hutterus de sacrif Missat l. 1. c. 23. p. 377. writers but they likewise further admit that (z) Ascam in Apol pro caena Dom. p. 31. It cannot be knowen at what time and by what men the super of the Lord was cast out of possession by the Masse Lastly as concerning the mingling of water with wine in the Chalice for the sacrifice by vs houlden necessary not to make the Eucharist a Sacrament wherin M. (a) Appeale l. 2. c. 4. p. 138. 139. Morton deludeth his vnwary reader but as to the bene esse of it or representation so as to omit the same were sinne wherunto D. Morton answeareth nothing M. Whitguift auoucheth that (b) Defenc. tract 8. p. 473. Ciprian was greatly ouerseene in making it a matter so necessary in celebration of the Lords supper to haue water mingled with wine which was at that time no doubt common to more then to him wherto agreeth M. (c) Ibidem p. 525. Carthwright In so much as M. Iewel confesseth of this mixture that (d) Reply to Harding p. 34. and Parker against symbolysing part 1. c. 2. p. 103. Indeede S. Ciprian and certaine old Fathers speake of it and force it much The Fathers ingeneral are confessed for our Catholicke doctrines concerning prayer for the deade Purgatory and Limbus Patrum SECTION 8. DOctor Fulke confesseth that (e) Confut. of Purgat p. 313. and see cent 4. c. 6. col 454. In the burial of Constantine our first christian Emperour is mencion of prayer for his soule according to the error of the time And againe (f) Confut. of Purgat p. 320. 326. Ambrose indeede alloweth prayer for the deade it was a common error of his time with him agreeth M. Gifford saying (g) DemonstratioÌ„ against Brounistes p. 38. this corruption of prayer for the deade was general in the Chuurch long before the dayes of Austin c. It was the practise of the Church ingeneral the corruption so auncient that Tertulian saith it was obserued by tradition from the Apostles c. the doctrine of Purgatory was crept in also wherto might be added sundry (h) Willet in Tetrast part 3. p. 97. Chemnit exam part 3. p. 107. Fulke in his retentiue against Brist p. 106. Hospin hist sacra part 1. p. 155. Caluin instit l. 3. c. 5. parag 10. other testimonies of our aduersaries so likewise reprehending and charging the Fathers with prayer for the dead But M. Carthwright forbeareth not to conâ—esse that (i) 2. Reply part 1. p. 619. Epiphanius a greeke Father esteemed Aerius to be an hereticke for his iudgement that we ought not to pray or make any oblation for the dead and Austin a Father of the Latin Church reporteth this as one of his heresies Of this also saith D. Fulke in the like wordes (k) Answeare to a counterf Cathol p. 44. 45. Aerius taught that prayer for the dead was vnprofitable as witnes both Epiphanius and Austin which they count for an error But D. Fulke saith yet further of (l) Confut. ofâ— Purgat p. 161. Purgatory The error of Purgatory was somwhat rifly budded in Austines time And againe (m) Ibidem p. 78. 194. Austin speaketh of the amending fire in the place by M. Allen alledged he doth so indeede but had no ground of that fire but in the common error of his time In like sort as touching Limbus Patrum M. Iacob for the Puritanes confesseth that (n) In Bilsons ful redemption p. 188. Al the Fathers with one consent do affirme that Christ deliuered the soules of the Patriarches and Prophets out of hel and his comming thither and sospoyled Satan of those that were then in his present possession And D. Barlow confesseth likewise for the Bishops that (o) Defence of the articles of the Prot. relig p. 173.
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