Saint Austins religion VVherein is manifestly proued out of the vvorks of that learned Father, that he dissented from popery, and agreed with the religion of the Protestants in all the maine points of faith and doctrine. Contrary to that impudent, erronious, and slanderous position of the bragging papists of our times, who falsely affirme, we had no religion before the times of Luther and Caluine.
Cooke, Alexander, 1564-1632.
Page  [unnumbered]

Page  [unnumbered] SAINT AVSTINS RELIGION.

VVHEREIN IS MA∣nifestly proued out of the Works of that Learned Father, that he dissen∣ted from Popery, and agreed with the Religion of the Protestants in all the maine Points of Faith and Doctrine.

Contrary to that Impudent, Er∣ronious, and Slanderous Position of the bragging Papists of our Times, who falsely affirme, we had no Religion before the Times of Luther and Caluine.

LONDON, Printed by A. M. and are to be Sold in Saint Dunstons Church∣yard. 1624.

Page  [unnumbered]

Page  [unnumbered] To all seduced Papistes.

SVch is the grosse ignorance of most Papists in these their times, that they neither know what they do, or should beleeue: much like the aColliar, that told the deuil, he beleeued as the Ro∣mane Church did. Being asked againe what that faith was, answered, the same faith that hee belee∣ued in. Surely the bdeuils gaue better testimony of their faith and knowledge, and the cApostle wit∣nesseth it, and yet the dPopish Prelates will haue their people learne no Creed but this, which is to beleeue they eknow not what.

No marull then, that the Romish Impostors haue taken away the fkey of knowledge; nay they iudge it a gmeere inuention of the Deuill, that lay men should reade the Scripture; and they say that hsome Ploughmen for reading of it, were iustly possessed of the Deuill, and therefore ignorance of the word is best. And as iHosius saith, To know no∣thing, is to know all things, and instead of Bibles, they haue inuented Images and Crucifixes, (wher∣with too many Dames (in these conniuing dayes) adorne their shamelesse breasts) and Masse bookes, commonly imprinted with a mixture of red letters to signifie the die of their Religion, but as for the Scripture, they are farre more dangerous, then the *ribaldry of Terence, the villany of Machiauel, or the Page  [unnumbered] fabulous lies of their Legends,lbeing the maine and principall cause of all heresies, and the very behol∣ding of them is enough to infect silly Catholickes; therefore mmuch lesse may they read them: and if any be permitted to study the Scripture, it must bee such a part thereof as hath bin hallowed with their Expurgatory glosse, & those persons must be such, which the Confessor knowes to be stiffe and obsti∣nate Papists▪ vpon whom that iudgement is already fallen, nThey shall heare with their eares, but shall not vnderstand: they shall see with their eyes, but not per∣ceiue: And all this is not sufficient, but they must haue the permission of the Inquisitor, & the parish Priest too: this is the oCanon of the Conuenticle of Trent, commended by the pRhemists, & seconded by qMolanus, Bellarmine, Hosius, Sanders, and others.

And now you poore seduced soules, why do your holy Fathers constrain you to beleeue ye know not what? and restraine you from the knowledge of Scripture? (whence your faith if it be sound▪ must be truly collected) and the ignorance wherof is the root of all rerror, & the cause of vnbeliefe: is it not because they would haue your soules to depend on their lips? (vnder whose tongue is the poyson of asps is it not because they would carry their hellish positions & practises as in a cloud out of your sight? Is it not because they know that the splendor of Gods word wil soone disperse that Egyptian dark∣nesse they keepe you in? is it not because like Sa∣than they would stake you at their pleasure?

But yet such is the impudency of your false pro∣phets, that notwithstanding, they will tell you, that they teach nothing without the speciall warrant of Page  [unnumbered] Scripture, and that all the Fathers were Papistes, and helde their opinions: both which are their owne fictions, and false. For the first, they will nei∣ther abide the triall of our faith by the Word of God, (which was the reason that tFisher in his last Conference, neither could nor would deny, that the Protestants professed the same faith which Christ and his Apostles taught) nor yet of their owne religon; and the reason is, because it wholly depends vpon the Traditions of the new Romish Church, which is confirmed by uGregorie the thir∣teenth, where hee sayth, Let men receiue with more reuerence, what the Pope teacheth, then the Scriptures. And xCanus confesseth, that most poynts of the Romane Faith, are not contained in the Scripture: And yAndradius speakes plainly, that many poynts of their Faith must needes reele and totter, if they were not supported by the helpe of Tradition; and this is the cause your Masse-priestes will not en∣dure, that the Resolution of the now depending Controuersies betweene vs and them, should be by the authoritie of the Scriptures, but runne from them to the Fathers, from them to the Church, fromthence to the Pope, from him to Councels, and from these to their owne Iudgements.

Now for the second, If the Fathers were Pa∣pistes, as they say, why doe their chiefe Doctors condemne, and contemne them? zBellarmine saith, That Saint Origen was burnt in Hell with Arrius, and Nestorius; and that aTertullian was a Mon∣tanist.bAlphonsus, that he will beleeue Anacletus, better then Saint Ierome, or Saint Augustine.cTollet the Iesuite sayeth, That hee will beleeue neither Page  [unnumbered]Augustine, nor Ambrose, nor Chrysostome, nor Theo∣doret, nor Photius: the like steeme they haue of Cyprian, Gregorie, Beda, and the rest, i in any poynt they make against them, and their doctrine.

And no maruell, for the dDoctors of Paris pro∣fesse boldly, that they will not beleeue either Gra∣tian, or Aquinas, or Lumbard, or Anseme, or Hugo, because they were erronious. eBellarmine againe condemneth Scotus, Durand, Gabriel, Ariminensis, Capreolus, and Marsiius in the poynt of Free will: and yet all these were Popish Writers, famous and most eminent in their times.

Nay, which is more worthy obseruation, though they teach, that the Scriptures and Fathers must haue their authoritie from the Pope, and that wee fought to stand rather to his iudgement, then the iudgement of the whole world; gand that when Questions cannot be fitly decided by the Doctors, then it is free for him to interpose his Authoritie, hthat he is aboue Church and Councels, iand that hee may make that to bee the meaning of things, which indeed is not (as they affirme:) yet notwith∣standing they will not submit themselues in opini∣on and iudgement to the Pope: and therefore the Venetians boldly published Conclusions against Paulus Quintus, and his Supremacie; kCatharinus holds it vnmeet, that wise men should bind them∣selues to the iudgement of the Pope, seeing hee is not alwayes assisted by the Spirit of God. lAlmaine saith, That it is not necessary to beleeue what the Pope determineth. mBellarmine and Caietan hold it lawfull to resist him; nFranciscus Victoria, that it were good a Councell would bridle him; and oBo∣ziusPage  [unnumbered] saith, he may be an Hertike, and both teach and write Heresies; and pmany learned Papistes haue written against his Decrees in Councels.

These things being apparent and true (if we may beleeue your owne Writers, here only cited) what good acceptance can this Booke expect from you? although it doe truely set forth vnto you the mind and iudgement of an holy and learned Father, dis∣agreeing from your opinions in sixtie two seuerall poynts? If your Teachers will bee tryed neither by Scriptures, nor Fathers, nor Pope, Saint Augu∣stine will hardly preuaile: yet because they boa•• to you, that all the Fathers were Papistes, and espe∣cially Saint Augustine, ye shall doe well for your better satisfaction, and the triall of their spirits, to read this insuing Treatise, most faithfully and pain∣fully collected from his writings, and for your ease digested into a few sheetes of paper.

To conclude, search the Scriptures, studie the Fathers, and read the Antiquaries, and see if in them yee can finde Rabbies comparable to your Clerkes, or whether ay Christian or Pagan eer taught or did as they, whether any of their Priestes like them, did seeke to strangle the vitall spirits of humane societie, teaching qneighbours to rob one another of their goods, rdebtors not to pay what they haue promised, sseruants to yeeld no subiecti∣on & fidelity to their masters, twiues no obedience to their husbands, ufathers no loue to their chil∣dren, xchildren no honor to their parents, yand you Catholicks, ot to preserue, but to seeke the blood and life of your parents, brethren, kindred, and countreymen.

Page  [unnumbered] Did yee euer heare or read of any Churchmen, that haue imployed Poynadoes, Poyson, or Salt∣peter, as they haue done? or can you find, or they prooue, that euer any Protestant Bishop, like Pope Sixtus the fourth, with his Legat, did murder two zPrinces in the Church at Masse? (much like to aPilate, that mingled the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifice) did euer any of our Priestes, mixe poyson with the powder of Adamant, in a Communion Cup, with the precious blood of Christ, to poyson an Emperor, as bBernard a Frier did, when therewith hee destroyed Henry the 7. at Bonconuent? Were there euer such Artizans, and Engines of villany of our Religion, that with a poi∣soned knife did stab a King, as Clement a Fryer did Henry the third of France? or with a spark of fire would haue blowne vp the whole body of a king∣dome, as Garnet the Arch-priest with his fellowes attempted not long since? And yet these are your holy Fathers and Confessors, whom you follow and adore; take heed therefore what you learne of these, let them not alienate your soules from God, and your hearts from your countrey, and assure your selues, that so long as ye follow them, ye shall neither get sound comfort, nor a good conscience. cOh thar ye were wise, then would ye vnderstand this, ye would consider your latter end.

Page  1

St. AVGVSTINES Religion: Wherein is prooued that hee dissented from Popery, and agreed with the Re∣ligion of the Protestants in all the maine points of Faith and Doctrine.

IT is hottly Controuerted, be∣tweene vs, and the Papists at this day, Whether the Auncient Fa∣thers, and especially Saint Austin, was of their Religion, or of ours? The aPapists challenge all the an∣cient Fathers, as theirs: and e∣specially, Saint Austin. Of him they bragg aboue measure. Hee (b they say) was a Monke, a Professor, and a stout Defen∣der, and a strong maintainer of their Popery: vndoubtedly no Protestant. The particulars of his doctrine (c they say) touching the seuerall points this day in Controuersie, were consonant and agreeable with their now professed Poperie. All the Haeresies of this Age, Vnius Augusti verbis confutari & proteri vel maxime possunt: may be confuted and con∣founded by proofes fetched onely from Saint Austins writings, dsay the Papists. Whereof, to make some shew vnto the world, as Torrensis a Iesuit in the yeare 1569. published in Latine a Collection, out of Saint Austins workes, of all such speeches as he thought made in any sort for them, and against vs; intiteling that his Collection by the name of Confessio Augustinian: So eabout two yeares since, one Brereby Priest (whether Se∣cular, or Iesuite, I know not) hath published in English such an other Collection, out of the same Saint AustinsPage  2 Works, intitling it, Saint Austins Religion. Now for the discouery of this their insolent bragging of Saint Austin, I haue thought good, to vndertake the proouing of this Assertion. Ʋiz. That Saint Austin was rather of our Religion, then of the Papists: for as much, as in the most materiall points he is vndoubtedly for vs, and a∣gainst them.

That Saint Austin, in the most materiall points of Do∣ctrine, is for vs, and against the Papists: the insu∣ing instances proue manifestly. For

1 FIrst, It is questioned betweene vs and Papists, How farre forth Fathers are to be followed? And asome of them say, Scripta Sanctorum sunt ad vnguem ob∣seruanda. The writings of the Fathers are to be obserued to a nayles breadth. bOthers, Hodie iubentur omnia teneri vsque ad vltimum iota. At this day we are bound to be∣leeue euery thing they say. But cwee say, They are so farre forth to be beleeued as they agree with holy Scrip∣ture, and no further. Against which Assertion of ours, they take great exception. For, This is to giue no more credit to their authoritie, then to Iewes, Turkes, and Here∣ticks, and so it is quite to reiect their authorities, saith dKel∣lison. Yet St. Austin was of our opinion herein. Saint Austin thought not good to follow the Fathers any fur∣ther, neither did he require that any man should follow him any further. He as we tooke libertie, and gaue li∣bertie to iudge of the Fathers writings according to their agreement, or disagreement with holy Scriptures.

That he tooke libertie to himselfe to iudge so, it ap∣peares by this: That when he was pressed by Cresconius the Grammarian with a Testimony taken out of an E∣pistle of Saint Cyprians,ehe answered thus. Ego eius E∣pistolae authoritae non teneor, quia literas Cypriani non vt Canonicas habeo▪ sed as ex Canonicis considero, & quod in ijs diuinarum Scripturarum authoritati congruit, cum laude eius accipio: quod autem non congruit, cum pace eius respuo.Page  3 I am not bound to stand to be tryed by that Epistle, be∣cause I do not account of Cyprians Epistles as of Canoni∣call Scriptures, but examine thē by the Canonicall Scrip∣tures: and what I finde in them agreeable to the holy Scriptures, I receiue it with his commendation: what I finde to disagree from holy Scriptures, with his good leaue, I leaue it. For hereby we are taught (as fEras∣mus noted in the Margent ouer against these wordes) Quomodo tam S. Cypriani dicta, quam aliorum Doctorum accipienda sint. How farre foorth wee are to esteeme of the speeches of Saint Cyprian, and other of the Doctors.

Againe, the same appeares by this, that in the Con∣trouersie betweene him and Saint Ierom, Whether St. Paul, Galat 2 14. reprooued Saint Peter colourably, or in good earnest: where gIerom alledged seuen Fathers against his Assertion: viz. Origen, Didimus, Apollina∣ris, Alexander, Eusebius Emisenus, Theodorus, and Chryso∣stom; of which Fathers, Ierom made so great account, that he desired Austin to suffer him to erre with them, if he thought him to erre. Austin would not yeeld to Jerom, though hee could but name two Fathers who were of his minde, but appeales to Saint Paul himselfe from all Saint Ieroms Fathers, saying: hPro his omni∣bus, imo supra hos omnes Apostolus Paulus occurrit: ad ipsum confugio, ad ipsum ab omnibus qui aliud sentiunt lite∣rarum eius tractatoribus interpello, &c. I haue Paul the Apostle himselfe instead of these all, and aboue these all. To him doe I flye. To him I appeale from all the Do∣ctors (his Interpreters) which are of other mindes, for this shewes he would not follow the Fathers further then he thought they agreed with holy Scriptures.

That he gaue libertie to others to iudge so, it is plaine by these words. Noli meis literis quasi Canonicis Scrip∣turis*insruire: sed in illis & quae non credibas, cuminuene∣ris incunctanter crede: in istis autom quod certum non ha∣bebas, nisi certum intellexris, nli firmum tenere. Giue not like credit to my Writings as to the Canonicall Page  4 Scriptures. If thou findest any thing in the Canonicall Scriptures which thou beleeuest not before, beleeue it presently vpon thy finding of it: but if thou findest a∣ny thing in any writings whereof thou wast not per∣swaded before, vnlesse thou perceiue it to be a certaine truth, doe not beleeue it for truth And by these. kNe∣gare non possum, nec debeo, sicut in ipsis maioribus: ita mul∣ta esse in tam multis Opusculis meis, quae possunt iusto tudi∣cio, & nulla temeritate culpari. I cannot deny but there are many things in my Workes, as there are in the Wri∣tings of the Ancients, which iustly and with good dis∣cretion may be excepted against. For so much in effect is confessed by the lGlozr on the Canon Law, and by mCardinall Turrecremate. For vpon mention of these and such like places as these are Loquitur Augustinus secundum illa tempora cum adhuc scripta Augustins & alio∣rum Patrum non erant authention. Saint Austin spake (say they) agreeably to those times, wherein his, and other holy Fathers Writings were not Authenticall. For such words argue, that in their opinion, Saint Austins, and other holy Fathers writings, were not in Saint Au∣stins time, in so great request, as now with Papists. They were no further to be beleeued then, then men saw good proofe, good reason. Such is acknowledged in plainer nIodochus Clychtoueus. For Liberum est cui{que} a Sanctorum qui post tempora Apostolorum scripserunt pla∣citis, verum iuuestigando, disceptandoque declinare, Vbi maiorem habet authoritatem, ptioremue rationem ad alte∣ram partem impellentem, quemadmodum sacer Augustinus de suis scriptis censet esse faciundum. It is lawfull for e∣uery man who seekes to boult out the Truth by way of disputation to differ in opinion from such holy men as liued since the Apostles daies: prouided they haue greater authoritie and better reason to induce them to the contrarie.

2 It is questioned between vs and Papists, Whe∣ther, When there is difference in Bibles about the reading ofPage  5the Text, the Originals should rather bee beleeued then the Translation, that is, Whether the Hebrew of the Old Te∣stament, and the Greeke of the new Testament should be pre∣ferred before the vulgat Latine. The oPapists in our dayes teach, That now, Non est quod ad Hebraica vel Graeca re∣curramus exemplaria: there is no reason why wee should haue recourse to the Hebrew, or to the Greeke. Now the vulgat Latine is so Authenticall, pVt nemo illa reiicere quouis praetextu audeat. No man may be so bold vnder any pretence or colour to reiect it. Now qGraeci & Hebraici Codices, sicubi a vulgata editione dissideant; per vulgatam corrigendi & emendandi sunt. If the Hebrew or the Greeke Bookes differ from the vulgat Latine, they are to be cor∣rected and amended by the vulgat Latine, saith Gregory de Valentia But we teach the contrary. And that S. Austin is of our opinion herein, it is plaine by his owne words: for, rEi Linguae potius credatur vnde est in aliam, per Jnter∣pretes facta Translatio. When there is difference in Books and both cannot bee true; beleeue thou rather saith S. Augustine, what is written in the Booke translated, then in the Translation. And sLatinae Linguae homines duabus aliis ad diuinarum Scripturarum cognitionem habent opus, He∣braica scilicet & Graeca, vt ad exemplaria praecedentia re∣curratur, si quam dubitationem attulerit Latinorum Jnter∣pretum infinita varietas. Those men who vnderstand La∣tine, stand in need of two other Languages for the better vnderstanding of holy Scripture, to wit, Hebrew & Greeke to the end that when any doubt ariseth by reason of the multiplicity of Latine Translations, they may haue re∣course vnto the Originalls, saith the same Austin. And so much is confessed by Azorius the Iesuite, and by Lud∣uicus Ʋiues: for, Olim cum multa esset Latinorum Codi∣cum varietas, patres dicebant, ad Hebraicos vel Graecos Co∣dices recurrendum esse Sic Hieronimus, sic Augustinns. In former dayes when there was great variety of Latine Co∣pies, the Fathers such as Ierome and Austine, held opinion that wee might haue recourse to the Hebrew or Greeke Copies, saith tAzorius. And Hocipsum Hieronimus cla∣mat,Page  6hoe ipsadcet ratio, & nullus est saniore iudicio qui re∣pugnat. The same truth is taught by Ierome, and enen rea∣son it selfe confirmes the fame: neither doth any man of sound iudgement thinke otherwise, saith uViues in his Annotations vpon the former place.

3 The Papists teach, That the Apostles had no Com∣mandement from God to write that which they writ, falsum est Deum mandsse Apostolis vt scriberent. It is not true that God commanded the Apostles to write any thing, saith xBell. Nemni obscurum est, Christum nihil ipsum scripsisse sed neque scribendum quiequam Apostolis praece∣pisse. It is not vnknown to any man that Christ himselfe writ nothing: neither is it vnknowne to any man, that he neuer commanded his Disciples to write any thing, saith Cardinall yHosius. Yet wee teach contrary. And so doth S. Austin for Quicquid ille (viz Christus) de suis factis & dictis nos legere voluit, hoc scribendum illis, tanquam suis ma∣nibus imperanit. Whatsoeuer it pleased Christ that wee should read concerning his words or wores, that he com∣manded his Apostles to write as it were with his owne fingers, saith zS. Austin.

4 The aPapists generally teach That all things necessa∣ry to saluation are not contained in Scripture. And we teach the contrary. The bPapists generally teach. That the Scriptures are full of obscurity: and cone of the greatest Rufflers among them at this day, is not ashamed to say, Scripturā totam etiam vbi clarissima videtur, ita esse diffici∣lem & obscuram, vt Jnterprete certo egeat, qui nobis veram eius sententiam aperiat. The whole Scripture, euen where it seemes most plain, is yet so hard & obscure, that it stands in need of a speciall Expositor, who may open vnto vs the meaning of it. But we say, though some places of Scripture be wonderfull obscure, and standin need of Interpreters; yet such matters as concerne Saluation, are so plainly set downe, that they may easily bee learned without any such set and speciall Expositor, as Papists dreae of. Now that Page  7 S. Austin is of our opinion in both these questions, it is plaine by his owne words: For speaking of the propagati∣on of Originall sinne and of soules, and being sore puzzled about the point at length he concludes thus. Illud credo*quod etim hinc (1. de hac re) diuinorum eloquiorum cla∣rissima esset authoritas, si homo illud sine dispendio promissae salutis ignorare non posset. I verily perswade my selfe there should haue beene plaine proofe hereof in holy Scripture, if a man might not be ignorant thereof without danger of his saluation. And eJn ijs quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt, inueniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vi∣uendi. All things concerning faith and manners are plain∣ly set downe in Scripture, saith the same S. Austin, vpon another occasion. Which latter testimony is so pregnant, that fCosterus the Iesuite, is driuen by the euidence of it, and another such like testimony of S. Chrysostomes, to de∣ny there is any Controuersie between vs and them Sint ne omnia fidei & vitae Christianae dogmata ad salutē necessaria in sacris literis perspicue conscripta. Whether all the Do∣ctrines which concerne faith and manners, being necessary to Saluation, are plainly set downe in Scripture: for Illud affirmamus cum sanctis Chrysostom. & August. We affirme so much with S. Chrysostome and S. Austin, saith he.

6 The Papists in some Countries absolutely forbid the*People the reading of the Bible in their vulgat tongue, though it be neuer so Catholikely translated▪ In hsome, they forbid onely such to read Bibles Catholikely translated, who haue not expresse Licenses vnder the hands of the Ordinaries to read them. In no place will they permit euery man indif∣ferently to read the Scriptures in their Mothers Tongue, as we do. Now that S. Austin is of our opinion it is plaine: so, Eo mihi venerabilior & sacrosancta fide dignior appare∣bat*authoritas (Scripturae) quo omnibus ad legendum esset in promptu, verbis aptissimis & humilimo genere loquendi se cunctis praebens, &c. I reuerenced and held the Scriptures worthy of so much the more credit, by how much the more Page  8 I saw them readier for euery man to read, and that they framed themselues to euery mans capacity by the plainnes of the words, and the familianesse of the Stile, saith S. Austin. And kLegite Scripturas: ideo voluit Deus vt scri∣berentur, vt nos consoaremur. Read (aith hee, speaking out of the Pulpit to his Auditors) the Scriptures; for it was Gods will they should be written, that wee might receiue comfort by them saith the same man.

6 The lP pists think it a worthy question, How Scrip∣ture may be knowne to be Scripture We vpon diuers good cōsiderations think it an idle question. And so did mS. Au∣stin: for Persuasisti mihi non audiendos esse, si qui forte mi∣hidcerent, vnde scis illos libros (Scripturae) vnius veri & veracissimi dei spiritu esse humano genert ministratos. Thou (O God) didst perswade mee they d serued not so much as hearing, who did aske of me, how knowest thou that the Bookes of holy Scripture were giuen vnto the Church by Gods appointment.

*7 Then Papists teach, that the true Church may be known by Antiquity, Vniuersality, vnity, &c. but not by the Scrip∣tures onely infallibly. Wee say it may be knowne by the *Scriptures onely. And in this S. Austine is as cleare on our side as M. Caluin: for, Inter nos & Donatistas quaestio est vbi sit Ecclesia, vtrum apud nos, an apud illos. It is a question betweene the Donatists and vs, (saith he) where the Church is; whether they or wee haue it. Quid ergo facturi sumus, in verbis nostris eam quaesituri, an t verbis Capit is sui domini nostri Iesu Christi? Puto quod in illius potius verbis am quaerere debeamns, qui veri∣tas est, & optimenouit corpus suum. What therefore shall we doe? shall wee seeke for it in our owne words, or in the words of her owne head our Lord Iesus Christ? I thinke wee ought to seeke it rather in his word who is the truth, and best knoweth his owne body. And pafterwards, Ʋtrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneit, non nisi diuinarum Scriptu∣rarum libris ostendant. If they bee the Church, let them Page  9 make proofe thereof out of the Canonicall Bookes of Scripture onely, saith Saint Austin.

8 TheqPapists teach, That by working of Miracles the Church may be discerned. But wee teach the contra∣ry: And so did SaintrAustin. For he professth that though many Miracles had beene done by man of his Religion: though some of them had bene Miraculous∣lie healed and cured: the bodies of some Martyrs lying hid for many yeares discouered to Saint Ambrose, an oldman well knowne to all the Jnhabitants of Millan, restored to his sight vpon touching of the Beere whereon those bodies were carried, which is reckoned bysBellarmine as a spe∣ciall Miracle. Though some had seene Visions, some had beene rapt in spirit, and heard that either they should not ioyne themselues with Donatus, or that they should for∣sake Donatus: yet he and his followes desired not (in re∣gard thereof) to be beleeued they were the Church, conclu∣ding: Quaecunque talia in Catholica fiunt, ideo sunt ap∣probanda quia in Catholica fiunt, non ideo ipsa manifesta∣tur Catholica, quia haec in ea fiunt. Though all such Mi∣racles are to be approued of, because they are wrought in the Catholike Church: yet the Church is not proo∣ued Catholike, because such Miracles are wrought in it.

9 The tPapists denie, That all the Actions of Ifi∣dels are sinne. Yet we say, they are sinnes. And in this St. uAustin is so apparently on our side that Papists are driuen to confsse it. For, Sine fide tiam quae videntur bo∣na opera in peccata vertuntur. The works which are done without Faith, though they seeme good are turned into finne, saith Saint Austin in one place. And in xanother▪ Virtutes quas sibi animus habere videtur per quas imperat corpori & vitijs ad quodlibet adipiscendum vel tenendum nisi ad Deum retulerit, etiam ipsae potius vitia sunt qum virtutes. Nam licet a quibusdam tunc verae & honestae puten∣tur cum ad s••psas referuntur, nec propter aliud expet••nturPage  10etiam tuncifltae & superbae sunt, & ideo non virtutes sed vitia judicandae sunt. The vertues which the minde of him that knowes not God seeme to haue, by which shee swaies the body and her vitious affections if they be not referred to God, are indeed rather vices then vertues. For though some hold them to be true and reall vertues, when they are affected onely for their owne sakes and nothing else, yet euen so they are full of vanitie and pride, and to bee adiudged vices and not vertues, saith he. In which words, Tam aperte virtutes has inter pec∣cata numerat, vt nulla videntur tergiversatione aliò posse torqueri, saith yMichael Bains, Professor of Diuinitie in Louaine. And Non sequenda illa opinio est quam Trd. Conc. nuper merito damnauit; omnia Jnfidelium opera esse peccata, quamuis maximum Authorem D. Augustinum habuisse videatur. Wee may not defend that opinion which the Councell of Trent did iustly of late con∣demne: viz. that all the actions of Infidels are sinne, though the great Father Saint Austin seemes to haue beene of that opinion, saith zMaldonat.

10 TheaPapists teach, Some good workes may be done by Infidels through the strength of nature onely. Wee say nay. And for proofe of our Negatiue in this wee al∣ledge*Saint Austin, who speaking of the Heretike Pe∣ligius, writes thus: Jnterdum it a paribus moment is pote∣statem voluntat is aequa lance perpendit, vt aliquantulum eti∣am ad non peccandum valere definiat. Quod si it a est, nul∣lus locus adiutorio gratiae reseruatur, sine qua nos dicimus, ad non peccandum nihil voluntatis arbitrium habere. Hee weighs sometimes the power of a mans will in such an euen paire of skales, as that he teacheth it for truth, It is able to doe somewhat that may keepe a man from sin∣ning. Which if it bee true, hee leaues nothing to the helpe of Gods grace. Without which, we say, a mans free Will is of no power to keepe a man from sinning. Vpon which words,cMichael Baius aboue named Glo∣zeth thus. Nos, inquit, Igitur Pelagiorum vox est, po∣testatem Page  11 testatem voluntatis aliquantulum ad non peccandum va∣lere: Christianorum vero professio est, sine adiutori gratiae ad non peccandum ihil valere voluntatis arbi∣trium.

12 The dPapists teach, That some sinnes are veni∣all and pardonable of their owne nature, such, for which God cannot in Iustice keepe a man out of heauen, and adiudge him to the second death. But we teach contrary. And so did Saint Austin, as eBaius the Professor of Diuinitie at Louaine acknowledgeth: yea and fFerdinandus Velosillus also. For he hauing obserued how gAustin writes, That Minuta plu∣ra peccata si negliguntur, occidunt. Many little sinnes (the Papists call them Veniall) if men be carelesse of them, kill the soule: deliuering his opinion of the Words, saith thus. Pro Augustino respondemus, quod quando dicit, Quod plura peccata minuta, si negliguntur*occidunt: agebat vicem cocionatoris, qui vt populum a peccatis retrahant, grauitatem delictorum exaggeran∣tes, in odium delicti, saepe excedunt. To Austin I an∣swer, that when he spake such words, he spake them as a Preacher, who in hatred of sinne, and out of a desire to affright men from sinne, doe sometimes so exaggerate the greeuousnesse of sinne that they speake ouer.

12 The iPapists teach, That Poena damni, not Poena sensus, is due to Originall sinne. Wherefore they generally teach, That Children dying in Originall sinne, are punished onely with Poena damni, but not with Poena sensus. But we say, That such childen as die in Originall sinne are punished with Poena sensus, and not with Poena damni onely. For in our opinion, Poena sensus, and not Poena damni onely, is due to O∣riginall sinne. And of our opinion Saint Austin was. For (to omit what is written, To. 3. operum AugustiPage  12de fide ad Pel. Cap. 27. and To. 10. de verb. Apostoli Serm. 13. and 14. and To. 7. Hypognosticon Lib. 5. which sound so fully, that the Iesuit Azorius had no way to elude the testimonies, but by the denying some of the Bookes to be Saint Austins, and by ma∣king doubt of other some) in a knowne and an approued worke of his, khe writes thus. Quicunque ab illa perditionis massa quae facta est per hominem pri∣mum non liberantur per vnum Mediatorem Dei & hominem, resurgent quidem etiam ipsi vnusquisque cum sua carne: sed vt cum Diabolo & Angelis eius puniantur. Whosoeuer they bee that are not deliue∣red from that Masse of corruption, which was caused by Adam, through the meanes of that our Mediator betweene God and man, euery of them shall rise a∣gaine in their owne flesh, yet to that end they may be punished with the Deuill and his Angels Which last words to be punished with the Deuill and his angels, imply necessarily Poenam sensus.

13 The Papists teach, That our workes are meri∣torious, and the very cause of Saluation. But we say, they are not. In this St. mAustin is so plaine on our side, saying, Coronat te, quia dona sua coronat, non merita tua. He Crownes thee because he crownes his gifts, not thy merits: that nBishop the Prieft denyes there is any such saying in Saint Austin as this is. Saint Austin was too wise to let any such foolish sentence to passe his pen, saith Bishop.

14 The oPapists teach, That there are seauen Sacra∣ments of the Church, truely and properly so called; and neither mo, nor fewer. Wee teach, that in true and proper sense, there are onely two Sacraments of the Church; neither mo, nor fewer. Now that S. Austin is of our opinion herein, his wordes shew: for in pone place hee affirmes, that de latere Christi in crucePage  13pendentis lancea percusso, Sacramenta Ecclesiae profluxe∣rent: when Christs side was pierced with a Speare, the Sacraments of the Church issued thereout. And in an qother, that percussum est latus, & statim manarunt sanguis & aqua, quae sunt Ecclesiae geminae Sacramenta. Christs side was pierced, and immediately there gush∣ed out both blood and water, which are the two Sa∣craments of the Church. He meaning, the Lords Sup∣per, by bloud; by water, Baptisme.

The rPapists teach, That Women ay Baptize. And wee teach the contrary. Now that S. Austin was of our opinion herein, it is plaine by this; That in sthe fourth Councell at Carthage, whereunto he subscri∣bed, it was absolutely decreed, Mulier baptizare ne praesumat. Let not women baptize, and not with limi∣tation, as tGratian, and uLombard corruptly cite it, Mulier baptizare ne praesumat nisi necessitate cogente. Let not Women baptize, except in cases of ne∣cessity.

16 The xPapists teach, That S. Paul by the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11. meant not the Eucharist, and that most great Authors now are of that opinion. But wee teach the contrary. And notwithstanding yone of them would impudently face vs downe, that in cal∣ling the Eucharist by the name of the Lords Supper, wee are destitute of all proofe out of Scripture, and of all warrant from the ancient Fathers, and of all reason: yet zCardinall Baronius witnesseth with vs, that, Idem esse manducare Coenam Dominicam quod Eu∣charistiam sumereaAugustinus demonstrat. Austin proues manifestly, to eate the Lords Supper and to receiue the Eucharist are both one, making this note (as it were) by the way. Sic patres appellare consueue∣runt institutionem sacratissimae Eucharistiae. So the Fa∣thers were wont to call the Eucharist. Ouer against Page  22 which in the Margent is set, Omnes qui interpretati sunt locum 1 Cor. 11. Euen all the Fathers which haue written Commentaries vpon 1 Cor. 11.

17 The bPapists teach, That the Sacrament is their Lord and God. But wee teach the contrary. We say with S. cAustin, it is, Panis Domini, not Panis Do∣minus: The Bread of the Lord; but not Bread, our Lord.

18 The dPapists forced Berengarius to sweare by the blessed Trinity, that hee beleeued; Verum corpus & sanguinem Domininostri Iesu Christi fidelium denti∣bus atteri, the true body and bloud of our Sauiour Ie∣sus Christ, is torne with Christian mens teeth, when they receiue the Sacrament: Yet wee beleeue with *S. Austin, that Christum vorari dentibus fas non est. It is not lawfull for a Christian to teare Christ with his teeth. Which beliefe is so contrary to that of Beren∣garius, that the fGlozer had no way to reconcile them, but was driuen to confesse, that Berengarius hyperbolice loquutus est, & veritatem excessit, vsed an Hyperbole, and spake more then the truth.

19 The g Papists cannot brooke to heare that our Sauiour saying: This is my Body, meant, This is a signe of my Body. Yet wee say his meaning was such. And so doth hS. Austin: for, Non dubitauit Dominus dicere Hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret corporis sui. Our Lord did not doubt to say, This is my Body, when he gae the signe of his Body, saith S. Austin. With which words the Papists are so troubled, ithat some of them haue made question whether they were not heretofore patched into S. Austins workes, by some follower of Berengarius: & kothers haue been forced to shift them off, vnder pretence that S. Austin in fighting against the Manichees oftentimes vseth not hisPage  23owne sense, but those things, which by some meanes howsoe∣uer it were, might seeme to giue him aduantage then; so as hee might put them to the worse.

20 The lPapists affirme that it is an impudent forgery to write. that the Iewes receiued no lesse the truth and substance of Christ in their Sacraments, then we do in ours: Yet we write and teach so. And so did S. mAustin: for Eundem cibum spiritualem manduca∣uerunt. Quid est eundem, nisi quod cum, quem etiam nos. The Apostle affirmes (saith S. Austin) that they (the Iewes) ate the same spirituall meate, what meanes he to say the same, but that they ate that which we al∣so eate? And a little after, Suffecerat vt diceret, cibum spiritualem manducauerunt, eundem inquit, eundem non intelligo quomodo intelligendum, nisi um, quem manduca∣mus & nos. It had beene sufficient to haue said, They ate spirituall meate; but hee saith more they ate the same. I cannot tell how I should vnderstand that word the same, except he meane they ate the same, for that they ate the same which we doe eate. And nin another place, Apostolum vndi. Hearken what the A∣postle saith, saith S. Austin. Omnes eandemescam spiri∣tualem manducauerunt, spiritualem vtique candem, nam corporalem alteram: quia illi, Manna: nos alud, spi∣ritualem vero quam nos, They all ate the same spiritu∣all meate; marke, the same spirituall meate; for they ate not the same corporall meate: they ate Manna, we eate another thing; but they ate the same spirituall meate which we cate. Which words are so signifi∣cant and expresse for vs, that oMaldonate confesseth, S. Austin was of our opinion; though yet in his per∣swasion, if Austin had liued in our dayes, hee would haue beene of another opinion: for, Hoc dico, (saith the Iesuite) persuasum me habere D. Augustinum, si no∣stra suisset aetate, longe aliter sensurum. You must think he wanted a Iesuite to informe him better.

Page  16 21 The pPapists teach, That Accidents remains in the Sacrament without subiects, And we teach con∣trarie. Now if the Booke Soliloquorum bee Saint Austins, as qBellarmine saith it is▪ Saint Austin is ours in this. For thus that rAuthor writes therein. Quis concesserit, aut cui posse fieri videatur, vt id quod in subiecto est, maneat, ipso intereunte subiecto? Mon∣struosum enim & a veritate alienissimum est, vt id quod non esset, nis in ipso esset, ettam cum ipsum non fuerit, posit esse. Who can grant, or to whom can it seeme probable, that that which is in a subiect should re∣maine when the subiect is destroyed? It is mon∣strous and farre from all shew of truth, that that which should haue no being, vnlesse it were in such a subiect, should haue a being, euen when that sub∣iect hath no being.

22 The sPapists at this day teach, That the Sacrifice offered in the Communion, or Masse, as they call it, is a very Soueraigne, true, and proper Sa∣crifice: meaning thereby, That Christ is killed there indeed, and sacrificed to God. But wee say, That therein ther is onely made a Commemoration▪ of the true, and soueraigne, and proper Sacrifice of the Crosse, and not an Oblation of the true and soue∣raigne proper sacrifice it selfe. And with vs stands *Saint Austin: For first, In singulari & solo vere sacrificio pro nobis Christi sanguis effusus est. That is the onely true and soueraigne sacrifice, wherein Christs bloud was shed for vs, saith Saint Austin.*Now in the Communion or Masse, no bloud is shed. Secondly, Huius Sacrificij Caro & Sanguis ante ad∣uentum Christi, per victimas similitudinum promitteba∣tur, in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddeba∣tur: Post ascensum Christi, per Sacramentum memoria celebratur. The flesh and bloud of the Sacrifice of Christ, was promised by Sacrifices of resemblance Page  17 before hee came, was performed in truth and deed when hee suffered: is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance, (marke, a Sacrament of remem∣brance) since hee ascended, saith the same S. Au∣stin, in another place. In which he is so constant and so plaine, that xPeter Lombard, Maister of the Sentences, proposing this question. Si quod gerit Sacerdos proprie dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio. Whether that which the Priest doth execute bee pro∣perly called a Sacrifice or an oblation, resolues it is not, saying; Ad hoc breniter dici potest, illud quod affer∣tur & consecratur a sacerdote: vocari sacrificium, & oblationem, quia memoria est & repraesentatio veri sacri∣ficii, & sunctae immolationis factae in ara Crucis. To this I answer briefly, That that which is offered and con∣secrated by the Priest, is called a Sacrifice and an of∣fering, because it is a remembrance and representa∣tion of the true Sacrifice and holy Offering made on the Altar of the Crosse, grounding his conclusion vp∣on other testimonies in yS. Austin, and in S. Chry∣sostome.

* 24 The Papists teach, That the body of our Lord may bee in millions of places a t one tyme; euen in uery place where there is a Priest which consecrates, and in euery host (bee they neuer so many) which is con∣secrated by any Priest. But we teach contrary. And so did S. bAustin: for hee intending to shew the dif∣ference betweene Christs body and his truth, viz. his word: and that in respect of the places where they might bee found. Donec saeculum finietur sursum est dominus; sdtiam tamen hic nobisum est veritas domi∣ni. Corpus enim domini in quo resurrexit in vno loco esse*oportet, veritas autem eius vbique diffusa est. Till Doomes-day, saith hee, our Lord is aboue; yet the Page  18 truth of the Lord is with vs; for our Lords body in which hee arose from the dead, must bee in one place, but his truth is in euery place.

24 ThecPapists teach, That euill men euen Infidels: yea, bruite beastes may eate and drinke the Body and Bloud of Christ. But wee say, Nay. Now Saint Augustine speakes plainely for vs. For, Ipse (Christus) dicens, Qui manducat car∣nem meam, & bibit sanguinem meum, in me ma∣net, & ego in eo: ostendit quid sit non Sacrmen∣to tenus, sed revera Corpus Christi manducare, & eius sanguinem bibere: hec est enim in Christo ma∣nere, vt in illo maneat & Christus, sic enim hoc dixit, tanqum diceret. Qui non in me manet, & in quo ego non maneo, non se dicat, aut existimet manducare Corpus meum aut bibere Sanguinm me∣um. *When Christ said (saith Saint Augustine) Hee that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in mee and I in him: hee shewed what it is, to receiue Christ (not Sacramentally meere∣ly, but) truely: euen to dwell in Christ, that Christ may also dwell in him. For when hee said this, it was as much as if hee had said: He that dwelleth not in mee, nor I in him, let him not say, nor thinke that he eates my flesh or drinkes my bloud.

26 The Papists at Rome teach, That the Pope is in authoritie aboue a Generall Councell. But wee teach the contrarie. And so did Saint Augustine. For he putting the case, that Melchiades Bishop of Rome, and certaine other Bishops sitting in Commis∣sion with him (by the Emperours commandement) vpon a Controuersie between the Donatists and Caeci∣lian, had done the Donatists wrong in giuing sentence Page  19 against them and for Caecilian. Restabat adhuc plenarium*Ecclesae vniuersae concilium, vbi etiam cum ipsis iudioibus causa posset agitari, vt si male indicasse conucti essent, orum sententiae soluerentur. There remained (saith hee) a further helpe for them, euen a generall Councell, in which they might haue argued the case with the Commissioners appointed to be their Iudges: and procured reuersement of their iudgement, vpon proofe they had iudged vniustly. Which words are so pregnant for our position, that gCardinall Cusan, and diuers other Papists alledge them for proofe of the same conclusion.

27 The hPapists teach, That any man who thinks himselfe ronged, may appeale to Rome. But we teach, they should not▪ Now that S. Austin was of our opinion it is plaine. For he was one at the Councell of Milenis, wherein it was de∣creed, That if any Elder or Deacon, or Clergy man of inferiour state, appealed ouer Sea (meaning to the Pope) no man in Africa should communicate with him. The words of the iCanon running thus: Placuit vt Pres∣byteri, diaconi, vel caeteri inferiores Clerici in causis quas habu∣erint, vicini Episcopi eos audiant, & inter eos quicquid est finiant &c. quod si ab eis prouocandum putauerint, non prouocent nisi ad Africana Concilia, vel ad primatus prouinciarum suarum. Ad transmarina autem qui putauerint appellandum, à nullo intra Africam in communionem suscipiantur. Which words sound so fully for vs, and against the Papists, that though kGraci∣an in one place cite them simply and truly as they are in se∣uerall editions of the Councels: yet in lanother place▪ he patcheth to them certaine words of his owne, viz. nisi forte Romanam sedem appellauerint, vnlesse perhaps they appeale to Rome, indeuouring thereby to make the world beleeue, that S. Austin and his Colleagues allowed of Appeales to Rome, and denyed them to other places onely. Where∣as (by the confession of mTheodorus Balsamon, yea of nBel∣larmine) that Canon was especially made to restraine ap∣peales of Elders and Deacons to Rome.

28 The oPapists teach That all Bishops may (doubtlesse) appeale to Rome. But we deny this also. And no question, Page  20 but S. Austin denyed it in his time: for in the Canon a∣boue cited, to which he subscribed, wee preade, that the Bishops professed, what they decreed then touching the restraining of Elders and Deacons, &c. from appealing to Rome: the same, De Episcopis sape definitum est, they had of∣ten decreed touching Bishops. In S. Austins opinion, it was no more lawfull for Bishops, then for the inferiour Clergy, to appeale to Rome.

29 The Papists teach, That the Pope may absolue such from Excommunication as are excommunicated by others. But we teach, he cannot. Now that S. rAustin was of our mind in this, it is plaine. For, He, with others, in their Epistle to Pope Caelestin, charge him with *doing that which hee ought not to haue done: in that he restored Apiarius vn∣to the Communion, whom they had restrained therefrom; intreating him he wold no more *absolue such as were ex∣cōmunicated by them, alledging this as a reason, viz. Hoc in Nicaena Synodo definitum, &c. It was agreed vpon in the Councell of sNice, Qui ab alijs abiecti, ab alijs non admit∣tendi. Such as were excommunicated by one, should not be absolued by another.

30 The tPapists teach, That the Pope may send his Legats in∣to Prouinces afarre off to decide Controuersies among the Clergy. We teach, he might doe better to keepe them at home. And that S. Austin was of our opinion it is cleare by the E∣pistle aboue cited, which he and other Bishops writ to Pope Caelestin: for therein, hauing signified vnto him, they could notfind it decreed by any Councell that he should send any Legats into other Countries; they desire him in that re∣spect to send no such Legats, intimating vnto him, that it smelt of pride and smoaking statelinesse in the world. With which speeches of his, and his fellow Bishops, the Papists *are wonderfully offended. uStapleton saith, It is manifestè falsum, a starke lie, that no such decree is to be found in any Councell. Hîc à crassaignorantia excusari vix possunt. In this, S. Austin and his fellow Bishops can hardly bee excused from grosse ignorance. And whereas they said, such sen∣ding of Legats smelt of worldly pride, temerè prolatum fuissePage  21manifestum est, It is euident they spoke rashly, saith the same Stapleton.

31 The Papists grant, that Prouinciall Councels may erre: but they will not grant that their Pope can erre. But wee say, that in as much as Prouinciall Councels are subiect to er∣ring, no doubt their Pope is subiect to erring. Wherein S. Austin concurreth in opinion with vs. For He, and his fel∣low Bishops in their Epistle to Caelestin, thought it absurd, that any man should imagine God would inspire the tryall of right into one man, and deny it to a great number of Bishops assembled in a Councell. Which makes so fully for our assertion, that yStapleton saith bluntly, Non est ab∣surdum quod illi Africani absurdum existimauerunt. It is not absurd which the Fathers of Africa thought absurd. And, Non necessario tenemur credere quicquid Episcopi illi dicunt—praesertim cum satis apparet—eos modum in verbis nonnihil excessisse. Wee are not of necessitie to beleeue whatsoeuer those Bishops spake, considering it is plaine, they ouershot themselues much in their words, saith zBellarmine.

32 The aPapists teach, that a generall Councell cannot erre in matters of faith. But we say the contrary. Now S. Austin disputing against the Donatists about a point of faith, viz. whether such as were baptized by Heretickes and Schismatickes were rightly baptized: and being pres∣sed by the Donatists with a Decree of a Prouinciall Councell, held by Cyprian, in which it was affirmed, that such as were baptized by Heretickes or Schismaticks were not rightly baptized: he falls into a singular commendation of Scrip∣ture, preferring it before all writings of the Fathers, either single, or assembled in Councels, bshewing that the single writings of the Fathers may be corrected by Councels: Prouinciall Councels by generall Councels: and that euen generall Councels themselues may often be amended, the former by the later, when by some experience of things, that is opened which before was shut, and that knowne which before was vnknowne. Which argues, S. Austin was of our opinion, That a generall Councell may erre in a mat∣ter of faith.

Page  22 33 The cPapists say, that the first Nicen Councell made 80 Canons. We say, they made but 20. Now that S. Au∣stin was of our opinion herein, it appeares by this, That hee & his fellow Bishops in the dsixt Councel at Carthage, and ethe African, acknowledged no moe then 20. Hee and his fellow Bishops held, that the copies of the Nicen Ca∣nons which were sent them from Alexandria and Con∣stantinople, in which there were 20 Canons onely, were the truest copies. For this testimony is so euident, that the Pa∣pists haue no way to auoid it handsomely, but are driuen to say rudely, fNon debuerunt patres Africans haec exempla∣ria pro verissimis venditare: The Fathers of Africa ought not to haue accounted these copies (sent them from Alex∣andria and Constantinople) the truest copies.

34 The aPapists teach, That we may beleeue in Saints: And wee teach the contrary. Now so did S. Austinb: for Credimus Paulo, sed non credimus in Paulum: credimus Pe∣tro, sed non credimus in Petrum. Wee beleeue (saith hee) S. Paul, but we beleeue not in S. Paul. We beleeue S. Pe∣ter, but we beleeue not in S. Peter.

35 The cPapists approue of the erection of Altars vnto Saints, which we doe not, nor dS. Austin, for Nulls marty∣rum, sed ipsi Deo martyrum constituimus altaria. We build Altars to him who is the God of Martyrs, but not to any of the Martyrs, saith S. Austin.

36 The ePapists teach, That Temples may be built to Saints: But we teach, that Temples, or Churches as we call them, should be built to God onely. So did fAustin, for Nnne si templum altm sanct Angelo excellentissimo de liguis et lpidibus saceremus, anathematizaremur à veritate Christi, & ab Ecclesia dei, quoniam creature exhibiremus eam seruitu∣tem quae vni tantum debetur Deo? If we should build a Church of Wood and Stone to one of the chiefest Angels, should wee not bee anathematized of Christ and of his Church, saith S. Austin, seeing in doing so we should giue that honour vnto a creature, which is due onely vnto the Creator? Which words are so contrary to the Popish pra∣ctice of building Churches to Saints (which practice of Page  23 building proceeds from their opinion of the lawfulnesse thereof) that gErasmus set this Note ouer against them in the margent, Hoe nunc fit quibuslibet diuis: intimating, that howeuer Austin thought it idolatrous to build Churches to the chiefest Angels, yet now there were Churches built to euery of the Saints. With which his free confession, it tending to the shame of Popery, the hPapists are so much offended, that in their Purgatory Iudices, direction is giuen, that his words be blotted our.

37 The iPapists teach, That our Sauiour Christ after the resurrection did first appeare vnto his mother, assuring them∣selues, kNemo pius negarit, No honest man will deny it. Yet we deny it; and so doth Saint Austin: For speaking there∣of, lMaria Magdalenae dignatus est primitus apparere; Christ (saith he) vouchsafed to appeare first vnto Mary Mag∣dalen.

38 The mPapists generally teach at this day, That the Virgin Mary was not conceiued in origina•• sinne. And wee teach the contrary. Now that these words of nAustin, Quae∣cun{que} nascitur proles (ex concupiscentiae carnis) originali obliga∣ta est peccato: Whatsoeuer child is borne, by concupiscence of the flesh, the same is infected with originall sinne; proue that the Virgin Mary was conceiued in sinne, it is confes∣sed by odiuers Papists. And by the same men it is confes∣sed in like manner, that the same conclusion is proued by these words: pFirmissime tene, & nullatenus dubites, omnem hominem, qui per concubitum viri & mulieris concipitur, cum peccato originall nasci: Beleeue thou this for a certaine truth, that whosoeuer is gotten by coniunction of man and wo∣man, he or she is borne with originall sinne.

39 Theq Papists teach, Fide Catholica creds deiparam semper virginem in sanctitate natam esse: That it is one point of the Catholike faith, to beleeue that the Virgin Mary was holy euen when she was borne. But we thinke not so. Neither did Saint Austin thinke so. For, Fieri nullo modo potest, vt quis renascatur, antequam nascatur: It cannot bee possibly (r saith Austin) that a man should be borne againe, Page  24 before he be borne: which sentence doth so distaste the Iesuit Vasquez. that she professeth; Nulli Catholicorum ita licet opinari. No Catholike may thinke so.

40 The tPapists teach, that Exspeciali Dei priuilegio, By an especiall priuiledge granted by God, the Virgin Mary was freed from all sinne.uShe had so much grace giuen her, that shee neuer sinned so much as venially. But we teach the contrary: and so (doubtless:) did Saint Austin. For speaking of Christ, Nullus est hominum praeter ipsum qui peccatum non fece it gran∣dioris aetatis accessu, quia nullus est hominum praeter ipsum qui peccatum non habuerit infantilis aetatis exortu: There was ne∣uer any man but Christ (saith xSaint Austin) who sinned not in his elder yeares, because no man but Christ was free from sinne in his infancy. And in another place, discour∣sing vpon the words, Iohn 2. 4. Woman, what haue I to doe with thee? he ybrings in our Sauiour saying vnto her thus, Non competit tibi vt iubeas Deo; competit autem vt subdita sis Deo: It becomes thee not to command God; it becomes thee to be subiect vnto God: Which words argue that he reproued her; and by consequence, that she made some fault. For, Vbi nulla culpa est, nec reprehensio, aut increpatio lo∣cum habet: Where no fault is committed, no checke or re∣proofe should be vsed: as zCardinall Tolet obserueth.

41 The aPapists teach, That it is lawfull to represent God in the image of an old man. And we teach the contrary; and so did Saint. Austin. For speaking of their sacriledge, who turned the glory of the incorruptible God, into the simi∣litude of a corruptible man, Nefas est collocare tale simula∣chrum Deo: It is a foule fault to expresse God in such an image, saith bSaint Austin.

42 As the Papists allow of representing God in the image of an old man, so they allow of the worshipping of such images. For cCaietan speaking of the images of God, and of Christ, &c. Hac non solum pinguntur, vt ostendantur (sicut Cherubin olim in Templo) sed vt adorentur, vt frequens vsus Ecclesia testatur: These images (saith he) are made, not for shew (as the Cherubins in the Temple in times past) Page  25 but to the end they may be worshipped, as the vsuall pra∣ctice of the Church sheweth. But we teach the contrary; and so did Saint Austin. For, Nulla imago Dei coli debet isi illa, quae hoc est vt ipse: No image of God may be worship∣ped (d saith he) but that which is all one with himselfe, meaning Christ Iesus: Colos. 1. 15. and Heb. 1. 3.

43 The ePapists teach, That the images of Saints may be worshipped euen with that worship which is due to the Saint him∣selfe, dulia, hyperdulia. But we teach the contrary; and so (it seemes) did fSaint Austin. For he speaking of supersti∣tious and euill liued Christians who liued in the Church, whom the Church disliked much, and laboured to reclaim; comprehends amany of them vnder picturarum adoratores, worshippers of Images: which toucheth the Papists so neere the quicke, that gBellarmines best answer is, Aug: scripsisse eum librum in primordijs conuersionis suae ad fidem Ca∣tholicam, &c. Saint Austin writ that book alledged, present∣ly after his conuersion to Christianity, at what time hee thought many customes to be idolatrous, which vpon bet∣ter information he held tolerable.

44 The Papists teach, That Images are lay-mens bookes. And we teach, they are not. Now there is no question but Saint Austin was of our opinion. For he hspeaking of some who imagined, contrary to Scripture, that Saint Paul was one of our Sauiour Christs best beloued Disciples in his life time: because they had seene him and Saint Peter pi∣ctured with our Sauiour vpon some wals: Sic omnino errare meruerunt qui Christum & Apostolos eius non insanctis codici∣bus, sed in pictis parietibus quaesierunt: So they deserued to erre (saith he) who sought for Christ and his Apostles vpon painted wals, and not in the Bible.

45 The iPapists teach, That Africa had her Religion from Rome. Which we beleeue not. Because kSaint Austin saith in expresse words, Ab orientalibus Ecclesus Euangelium in Africam venit; The Gospell came into Africa from the Greeke Church.

46 The Papists teach, Men may dine on a fasting-day:Page  26 but so doe not we, nor S. Austin, for he ldisputing about Saturday fast, makes a plaine opposition betweene dyning and fasting; giuing vs to vnderstand (which is confessed by mBellarmine) that he who dynes fasts not, he who fasts dynes not.

47 The nPapists teach, It is a sinne against the first Com∣mandement, to disswade or hinder any from entring Religion: that is, according to their language, from being a Monke or a Nunne. But we thinke not so, neither did S. Austin thinke so: for it is cenfessed by oClaudius Espencaeus, that in his 70 Epistle. A Monachisms vote Bonifacium reuocauit. He disswaded Earle Boniface from Monkery, which (que∣stionlesse) he would neuer haue done, if he had been min∣ded as the Papists, That to disswade a man from Monkery, had beene a sinne against the first Commandement.

48 The pPapists teach, A man may liue chastly, and yet play the fornicator; for fornication preiudiceth not the po∣pish vow of chastitie: But we teach the contrary, and so did S. Austin: for, Ad castitatem pertinet, non fornicari, non maechari, nullo illicito concubitu maculari; He that would liue chastly, must neither play the Fornicator, nor the adulterer, nor defile himselfe by any vnlawfull copulation qsaith S. Austin.

49 The Papists teach, That neither Monkes nor Clergy-men may liue with their wines like maried men. And iure quo nunc vtimur, Religiosus professus dominij & proprietatis capax non est. By the law which now stands in force, No Monke hath right or propriety in goods, rsaith Azorius: Yet wee teach the contrary. And so did sS. Austin, for he finds fault with the hereticks called Apostolici, eo quod in suam communionem non reciperent vtentes coniugibus, & res propri∣as possidentes, quales habet Ecclesia Catholica & Monachos & Clerics plurimos: for that they would not receiue into communion with them such as liued with their wiues like maryed men, and had propriety in goods: Whereas there were many Monkes and Clergy-men in the Catho∣licke Church, who liued with their wiues like maried men, Page  27 and had propriety in goods. To which tEspencaeus knowes not what to say, saue that in many other places S. Austin saith the contrary. And seeing that vna aut altera hyrundo non fa∣cit ver. One or two Swallowes make not Summer, there is no reason to beleeue this single testimony, before so many other to the contrary.

50 The uPapists teach, That a simple vow; doubtlesse, a solemne vow, makes a nullity of mariage: and we teach the contrary. And so did S. Austin: for speaking of that argu∣ment, Qui dicūt taliū nuptias non esse nuptias, sed potius adulte∣ria, non mihi videntur satis aute & diligenter considerare quid dicunt. They who say such mariages are no mariages, but ra∣ther adulteries: in my opinion consider not aduisedly what they say, xsaith Austin: which testimony is so plaine, that ySmith, Reader of Diuinity in Oxford, in Queene Maries dayes, could shape no better answer vnto it, then this: viz. He would neuer haue taught, that the mariages of Ʋotaries had beene true mariages, but in opposition to Heretickes, of which some condemned second mariages, some all mariages. And zMaldonat the Iesuite was forced to confesse (without pretending any such excuse as that of Smithes) that S. Au∣stin was flat of contrary opinion to them in thus: for dispu∣ting the question, An votum solenne castitatis dirimat Ma∣trimonium quod postea contraitur? hauing alleadged diuers Fathers (among whom, S. Austin was one) and Councels for the negatiue: comming to answer, Quod attinet ad Argumentum ex testimonijs veterum Authorum; Non vide∣tur mihi esse negandum multos illorum in ea fuisse sententia vt existimarent per votum solenne non dirimi matrimonium. Nam August: non tantùm aperte dicit sed etiā contendit, &c. To the Argument (saith he) taken from the testimonies of the ancient Writers, my answer is; That in my opinion, many of them thought a solemne vow did not make a nullitie of mariage: for Austin doth not onely say so much in plaine termes, but hee confidently auowes it for a certaine truth, &c.

51 The aPapists generally teach, That Lymbus puero∣rum,Page  28 is a part of Hell, wherein children are punished paena solius damni aeterna; distinct from that part of Hell, where∣in the Deuill and his angels are punished, paena damni & sensus aeterna. But we say this doctrine of theirs is not true. After this life there is no place for any but either in heauen with Christ, or in Hell with the Deuill. And of this minde was S. Austin; for, Nec est vllus vlli medius locus vt possit esse nisi cum diabolo, qui non est cum Christo. There is no third place left for any, but hee must needes be with the Deuill, who is not with Christ, bsaith he: Wherein he is so con∣stant, that cCardinall Contarenus speaking hereof, Hunc lo∣cum Augustinus in multis suorum operum locis non videtur ag∣noscere. S. Austin (saith he) in many of his Tomes seemes not to acknowledge any such place as Lymbus puerorum.

52 The dPapists reach, that Lymbus patrum, otherwise called Abrabams bosome, is a part of Hell, wherein the holy Fathers, who dyed before Christs passion, were punished paenasolius damni temporali: which doctrine we dislike. And so did S. Austin. For considering he read in Scripture, that there was a great Gulfe betweene the rich man in Hell, and Lazarus in Abrahams bosome, and hee could neuer finde that the name of Hell was vsed in good part, in any part of Scripture. he econcluded that Abrahams bosome, which is the same with that which Papists call Limbus patrum, was (questionlesse) no part of Hell, for which he is reprooued by fLorinus a Iesuite.

53 The gPapises say, that it was Samuel himselfe who appeared to Saul, 1 Sam. 28. and not some euill spirit which tooke his similitude. But we say the contrary: And that S. Austin was of our opinion herein, it is confessed by hBo∣din, who discoursing vpon this point, acknowledgeth: Austin was one of them who held hunc fuisse diabolum, that he who appeared to Saul was the Deuill. And as much is acknowledged by iMarianus Victorius, in these words, Hier. tom. 4. falsum esse scribit, Samuelē à pythonissa illa muliere susci∣tatum cum potius visa fuerit idfecisse quam fecerit: quod etiam Augustinus latius probat. S. Ierom in his 4 Tome writes, it is Page  29 false, that Samuel was raised by the Pythonist▪ for she rather seemed to raise him, then indeed raised him. Which truth is proued more at large by Austin. And, Augustinum magis inclinare in eam partem vt credatur non vere spiritum Samuelis à suae requie excitatum fuisse, sed aliquod phantasma, &c. That S. Austin enclined rather to thinke it was not indeed Sa∣muel, but some Hob-goblin that was raised, it is confes∣sed kby Iansenius.

54 The oPapists teach, That the Rock whereon our Sa∣uiour promised to build his Church, was S. Peter. But wee say, it was Christ himselfe, and not Saint Peter. Now that S. Austin is herein of our opinion it is plaine by his owne words: for thus he pwrites, Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram quam confessus es, super hanc petram quam cognouisti (dicens tu es Christus Filius Dei viui) adificabo Ecclesiam meam i. Super meipsum filium Dei viui adificabo Ecclesiam meam, su∣per me aedificabo te, non me super te, &c. Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rocke which thou hast confessed, vpon this Rocke which thou hast knowne (saying, Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God) will I build my Church: that is, vpon my selfe the Sonne of the liuing God, will I build my Church, I will build thee vpon me, not me vpon thee, &c. VVhich words found so fully, that our qRhemists best answer is, S. Austin examined not the nature of the origi∣nall words which Christ spake, nor of the Greeke.rBellarmins best answer is, Ex ignorantia linguae Hebraeae deceptum: Au∣stin was deceiued for want of knowledge in the Hebrew. sPighius censure of Austin is, Nusquam haeret, nusquam figit pedem, sed vbique explorat, vbi{que} tentat, subodoratur omnia: & quicquid probabile occurrit, alicubi amplectitur, quod continuò post displicet, & retractatur: He can neuer resolue certainly vpon any thing, but fetcheth about this way and that way, and after that a third way: and at length lighting vpon some probability, he layeth hold on that, yet dislikes it pre∣sently, and retracts it. Affirming further, that S. Austin ne∣uer expounded these words so, but *when hee was idle∣headed, and giuen to crotchets. Concluding, it was Con∣torta expositio, at{que} adeo ipsis verbis Christi manifeste aduersa∣ria:Page  30 A forced exposition, and quite contrary to Christs words.

55 The tPapists teach, That the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen to Peter onely. But we say, that Peter represented the person of the Church, when Christ said vnto him, To thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdome of hea∣uen. And so saith S.uAustin. For, Petrus quando claues acce∣pit, Ecclesiam sanctam significauit, When Peter receiued the keyes, he represented the Church, saith S. Austin. Which speech so gawles the Papists, that thereupon xPighius breakes out into these words; De Augustino possem dicere, quod vnus homo fuerit, hac in re nec secum firmiter, nec cum aliis consentiens. At patrum sententiae tunc apud nos est praecipuae authoritas, quando & seeum, & cum aliis consentientes, ipsam nobis explicant communem Orthodoxae Ecclesiae sententiam. I may truly say of Austin, that he is the onely man, who in this point neither agreeth constantly with himselfe, nor with others. Now wee giue credit to the Fathers, when agreeing with themselues, and with other of their fel∣lowes, they deliuer vnto vs the common opinion of the Orthodoxall Church.

56 The yPapists say, That the young man who told our Sauiour Mat. 19. 20. that he had kept al the cōmandements of God, spake truly: but we say, he spake vntruly: and so did S. Austin: For, Puto, quod se arrogantius, quam verius seruasse responderat: I thinke hee spake more proudly then truly, zsaith S. Austin: which is confessed to be S. Austins opini∣on by aMaldonate.

57 The bPapists teach, That the words of Christ Mat. 26. 29. I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the vine, &c. are not to be vnderstood of the Sacramentall cup, but of the aschll. We say the contrary. Now S. Austin is so fully of our opinion, that cBellarmin turnes him off with this an∣swer, Dio August: non expendisse hunc locum diligenter, vt ex eo patet, quod breuissime se expediit ab hac difficultate: Austin did not well consider of this text, which appeares by this that he passed it ouer briefly.

Page  31 58 The dPapists teach, That the words Iohn 10. 16. There shall be one flocke, and one shepheard, are not ment of Christ, but of the Pope. But we teach the contrary. And so did S. Austin, Tract. 47. in Ioh. and Ser. 49. de verbis Do∣mini.

59 Some ePapists hold opinion, That in the contro∣uersie betweene S. Peter and S. Paul mentioned Gal 2. Saint Peter did not minimum delinquere, sin so much as venially: others fhold, perhaps he sinned venially. But we say he sin∣ned grieuously. And so did S. Austin, For in him we reade, that S. PetergContra regulam veritatis cogebat gentes Iudai∣care: compelled the Gentils against the rule of faith to play the Iewes. S. Peter, in simulationē superstitiosam, yea, hin prauam simulationē lapsus est; fell into superstitious and wicked dissimulation. With which speeches of his iBaro∣nius is so much offended, that he sticks not to say, S. Austin did therein A linea Catholicae sides aberrare, & in lapidem of∣fensionis incurrere, Swerue from the Catholike faith, and stumble vpon the stone of offence.

60 The kPapists teach, That Iacob adored the top of his sonne Iosephs rod, Heb. 11. 21. But we say Iacob worship∣ped not Iosephs rod, but that leaning vpon his owne rod, by reason of his weaknesse, he adored God. Now that S. Austin so expounds the place, our jRhemists are forced to confesse.

61 The mPapists say, That the words Heb. 13. 16. should be translated, God is promerited: we say, God is well pleased. Now that S. Austin is on our side, it is witnessed by nƲiues for in his Notes vpon Austin de Ciuitate Dei, where the words Heb. 13. 16. are thus cited, placatur Deus, God is pacificed. In antiquis, placetur Deo, vtrumque melius quam quò modò vulgo habemus, promeretur deus. In the ancient co∣pies (saith he) we reade, God is pleased, both readings be∣ing better then the common reading, God is promerited.

62 The oPapists teach, That by the Incense mentioned Mal. 1. 7. is meant their Sacrifice of the Masse. But we say, Page  32 thereby is meant the prayers and praises of the Saints. And pS. Austin agreeth so fully with vs herein, that qAzoriut best answer is, August: reliquem veterum patrum coetum op∣ponimus, & Synodi Tridentinae testimoniū: We oppose against S. Austin the generall consent of other Fathers, and the te∣stimony of the Councell of Trent.

Page  [unnumbered]