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
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
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