This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at eebotcp-info@umich.edu for further information or permissions.
YOVR Second Section treates principally of two points: The Vnity of the Church, where∣in it consists; and; The Commu∣nion of the Church, how farre necessary. Both these points haue been handled in the first Part; where I proued that Difference in any one
point of fayth destroyeth the Being and Vnity of Fayth, and of the Church. And; That, Com∣munion with the true Visible Church is so far necessary, that all voluntary error against her definitions, as Heresy is, and all diuision from her outward Society, which is Schisme, excludes saluation. By these Rules, we can certainly know what is damnable Schisme, and Heresy; whereas you, placing the Vnity of Fayth, and truth of a Church in the beliefe of points, which you call fundamentall, although it be ioyned with diffe∣rence in a thousand other points, and yet not knowing what Articles in particular be funda∣mentall, must giue this finall resolution: The V∣nity of fayth, and of the Church consists in, We know not what. Moreouer, if you measure the Nature, and Vnity of fayth, not by the formall motiue, for which we belieue, to wit, the Word, or Reuelation of God, but by the weight of the particular obiects which are belieued, you will not be able to shew, that he who erreth in some one, or more fundamentall points, doth loose diuine infallible fayth in respect of those other truths which he belieues: and by this meanes, Persons disagreeinge, euen in Fundamentall points, may retaine the same substance or es∣sence of fayth, and be of the selfe same true Church; which is most absurd, & makes a faire way to affirme, that Iewes, and Turkes are of the same Church with Christians, because they all agree in the beliefe of one God. And thus we
haue answered the substance of your Section. Yet because you interpose many other vnne∣cessary points we must follow your wādrings, lest els you may be thought to haue said some∣what to vs which is vnanswerable.
2. After an vnprofitable ostentation of Erudition (which yet required no deeper lear∣ning, then to read some of our Catholique In∣terpreters) about the place Deut. 17. you come in the end to grant, that the High Priest in cases of moment had an absolutely infallible direction &c. And will you giue greater priuiledge of infalli∣bility to the Type, then to the Thing signified, to wit, the true Church of Christ, of which the Synagogue was but a figure? You cite some Ca∣tholique Authours, as affirming that by the Iudge is meant the Ciuill Magistrate, and by the Priest, not the High Priest alone. Of which Ca∣tholique Authours, I haue at the present only the Dowists (as you are pleased to call them) in their Marginall Note on the 2. Chro. 19. Vers. 1. whom I find you to falsify. For their words are only these: A most plaien distinction of spirituall and temporall authority and offices, not instituied by Iosaphat, nor any other King, but by God himselfe. And vpon the words of Deut. 17. Vers. 9. Thou shalt come to the Priest of the Leuiticall Stocke, and to the Iudge that shall be at that time; they say: In the Councell of Priests one supreme Iudge, which was the High Priest. vers. 12. And further they say: There were not many Presidents at once, but in Suc∣cession,
one after another. Is this to affirme, that by the Priest, is meant not the high Priest alone? Do they not say the quite contrary? And as for your Obiectiōs against our Argument drawne from the Synagogue, to proue the infallibility of the Church, I haue answered them(m) heer∣tofore.
3. That Core, Dathan, and Abiron, with all their Company descended aliue into the pit of Hell; you say, is rashly, and(n) vncharitably said by Cha∣rity Mistaken. But you falsify his words which are: The ground(o) opened it selfe and swallowed them aliue, with all their goods into the profound pit of Hell. Are (goods) and (company) two words of one signification? And yet in your second E∣dition, you cite (with all their company &c.) in a differēt letter, as the words of your Aduersarie. But suppose he had said, as you alledge him (with all their company &c.) what great crime had he committed? The holy Scripture sayth of them, and their Complices, without limitation or distinction: The Earth(p) brake in sunder vnder their feete; and opening her mouth, deuoured them with their Tabernacles, and all their substance, and they went downe into Hell quicke, couered with the ground, and perished out of the midst of the multi∣tude. You see the Scripture speakes indefinitely, and so doth Charity Mistaken, without adding any Vniuersall particle, as All, Euery one, or the like, except when he sayth, with all their Goods, which are the very words of Scripture. Nay
since the Scripture sayth: They went downe into Hell quicke, and perished out of the midst of the mul∣titude; by what authority will you affirme, that all perished out of the midst of the multitude, but not all went downe into Hell quicke?
4. Though it were granted that those wor∣des Math. 18.17. If thy Brother offend thee, tell the Church, are meant of priuate wrongs: yet it is cleere, that from thence is inferred à fortiori, that all Christians are obliged to obey the Ca∣tholique Church in her decrees. And no man is so ignorant as not to know, that the holy Fa∣thers do euery where apply those words against Schismatiques and Heretiques, as appeareth by S. Augustine whome heertofore(p) I cited, and S. Cyprian(q) and others. And I pray you, if one vtter some Heresy, in presence of his bro∣ther; doth he not in a very high degree offend his Brother? and consequently, is he not com∣prehended in those words of our Sauiour, If thy Brother offend thee &c.? Now, if the Church were fallible, how could we be obliged vnder payne of being reckoned Pagans and Publicans, to obey her Decrees and Declarations concerning matters of fayth, which is a Vertue, that ne∣cessarily inuolues infallibility? But when did you euer heare any Catholique say what you im∣pose vpon Charity Mistaken, that absolute obe∣dience is due vnto the Church, no appeale being al∣lowed, no not(r) to Scriptures though expounded in a Catholike sense, and consonantly to the iudgment of
the most ancient and famous members of the Church? With what face can you vtter such stuffe? You know we belieue, that the Church cannot oppose Scripture.
5. As for those corruptions of the Text of S. Cyprian in his Booke de vnitate Ecclesiae, which you charge Pamelius to haue committed in fa∣uour of S. Peters Primacy; it is but an old obie∣ction borrowed of others, and purposely an∣swered by Pamelius in his notes vpon that Boo∣ke: where, for his iustification he cites diuers ancient Copies, and one more then nine hun∣dred yeares old. And as for the phrase & maine point it selfe, that Christ built the Church vpon Peter, it is expressely affirmed by S. Cyprian in many other places, which I quote in the(s) Margent: whereby it manifestly appeareth what S. Cyprian belieued about the Authority of Saint Peter: and how much his Booke de Vni∣tate Ecclesiae maketh for the Roman Church: neyther can you in all S. Cyprians workes, or in this place in particular, shew any thing to the contrary, as you are pleased to(t) affirme. To proue that our vnworthy fashion is, to alter & raze many records and Monuments of Anti∣quity, you cite a moderne English Writer, & Six∣tus Senensis. But both of them are alledged af∣ter your fashion: for the first speakes onely of Bookes writen in fauour of the Popes Power in temporall things, wherein neuertheles we can in no wise allow of his saying, nor is he in
this point a competent witnes; and the second directly falsifyed. For you say, he highly com∣mends(u) Pope Pius the fifth for the care which he had to extinguish all dangerous Bookes; and, to purge the writings of all Catholique Authours, es∣pecially of the Ancient Fathers, from the silth and poyson of Heresy; & there you end the sentence. But Sixtus Senensis hath faecibus haereticorum aeta∣tis nostrae: from the dregs of the Heretiques of our tymes, vnderstanding nothing else, but that the sayd holy Pope cause the false Annotations Glosses, Marginall notes &c. of Erasmus, and moderne Heretiques to be blotted, or taken out of the Bookes of the holy Fathers. Is not this playne falsification? And so much lesse excu∣sable, because it could not be done but witting∣ly, and willingly; for that in the Margent you cite the Latin, & when you come to those wor∣des, especially of the ancient Fathers, you breake off with an &c. leauing out that which did directly ouerthrow the purpose for which you alledged those wordes. For want of bet∣ter matter, you tell vs of an Edition of Isido∣rus Pelusiotes his Greeke Epistles approued, because they contayned nothing contrary to the Ca∣tholique Roman Religion: wherein what great harme is there? If the Approbator had left out Roman, would you haue made this obiection? To vs, Catholique and Roman are all one, as heer∣tofore I explicated. But it seemes (say you) that they had not passed, but vpon that Condition.
This is but a poore Consequence in Logicke: For, one effect may be produced by some cause, yet in such manner, as that the effect would follow, though that cause were taken away; & accordingly you grant that the aforesayd clause of Approbation is left out in another Edition. Neyther can you be ignorant that Catholiques do print, and reprint the writings of ancient Authours, although they contayne Heresies; as the workes of Tertullian, Origen &c And ther∣fore you are lesse excusable both for making this Obiection in generall, and also for falsify∣ing Sixtus Senensis in particular.
6. The places alledged by you out of S. Augu∣stin against the Donatists, come far short of pro∣uing, that(u) Scripture alone is the Iudge, or ra∣ther (as you correct your selfe) Rule of Cōtro∣uersies: & your bringing thē to that purpose is directly against S. Augustins words & meaning, as will appeare by what now I am about to say. Two Questions were debated between the Ca∣tholiques, & Donatists: the one concerning the Church, whether or no she were confined to that corner of the world, where the faction of Donatus did reside: The other, whether such as were baptized by Heretiques ought to be reba∣ptized. We grant that S. Augustine in the former Question, pressed the Donatists with manifest Scripture to proue the exeternall apparant No∣tes, or Markes of the Church, as Visibility, Per∣petuity, Amplitude, Vniuersality &c. And no
wonder that he appealed to Scripture. For that very Questiō being, whether the Catholiques, or Donatists, were the true Church; to suppose the Catholiques to be the true Church, and v∣pon that supposition to alledge their Authority against the Donatists, had been but to beg the Question: as if there were Controuersy, whe∣ther some particular Booke were Canonical Scri∣pture, or no, it were an idle thing to alledge that very writing in question, to proue it selfe Canonicall: and on the other side, both the Catholikes and Donatists did acknowledge & belieue the same Scriptures, which as S. Au∣gustine is wont to say, speake more cleerely of the Church, then of Christ himselfe: and ther∣fore he had good reason to try that Question concerning the Church by cleer, & not doubtfull Testimonies of holy Writ; wheras the Donatists had recourse eyther to obscure Texts, as that of the Canticles, Shew me where thou feedest, where thou liest in the mid day, to proue that the Church was cōfined to Africa; or els to humane Testimo∣nies as Acts of Notaries or Scriueners, to proue that the Catholiques had been Traditores, that is had giuē vp the holy Bible to be burned; Or that they had sacrificed to Idols; Or had been cause of persecution against Christians; and that ei∣ther for these crimes, or for communicating with such as had committed them, the Church had perished from among Catholiques: Or els they produced their owne bare affirmation, or
mock-Miracles, & false Councels of THEIR OWNE: All which proofes being very par∣tiall, insufficient, and impertinent, S. Augustin had reason to say: Let these fictions(w) of lying men, or fantasticall wonders of deceiptfull Spirits, be remoued. And: Let vs(x) not heare; These things I say; These things thou saist; but let vs heare; These things our Lord sayth. And: What are our words(y) wherin we must not seeke her &c. All that we obiect one against another of the giuing vp of the holy Bookes, of the Sacrificing to Idols, and of the persecu∣tion, are our words. (these words you fraudulent∣ly conceale, although you cite other in the selfe same Chapter, because they plainly shew what S. Augustin vnderstands by Humane Testimo∣nies, & they answere all your Obiections:) And: The Question betweene vs(z) is, where the Body of Christ, that is, the Church is? What then are we to do? Shall we seeke her in our words, or in the words of our Lord Iesus-Chris̄t her head? Surely we ought rather to seeke her in his words who is Truth, and best knowes his owne Body. And: Let this Head(a) of which we agree, shew vs his Body, of which we disagree, that our dissentions may by his words be ended. Which words plainely declare the reason why he ap∣pealed to Scriptures, because both parts agreed about them, but disagreed concerning the Church. And: That we are in the(b) True Church of Christ, and that this Church is vniuersally spread ouer the earth, we proue not by OVR Doctours, or Councels, or Miracles, but by the diuine Scriptures.
The Scriptures are the only (this word only put by you in a different letter, as if it were S. Augu∣stines, is your owne addition:) Document, and foundation of our cause. These are the places by you alleaged so vnfaithfully. And will you in good earnest infer from them, that we must re∣iect all Councels, neuer so lawfull; all Doctors, neuer so Orthodox; all Miracles, neuer so au∣thenticall, euen those which were wrought in the Primitiue Church, & particularly in S. Au∣gustines time, which he himselfe published(c) approued, and admired? And aboue all, will you infer, that after we haue found out the true Church by Markes set downe in Scripture, her voyce for other particular points of doctrine is not to be heard, but to be esteemed a meere hu∣mane testimony of Notaries &c. as S. Augustine vnderstood humane Testimony when he writ a∣gainst the Donatists? Or will you infer that we must learne from Scripture all that which we are obliged to belieue? This you pretend, but with such successe as you are wont; that is, to plead for your Aduersary against your selfe. Which is manifestly proued by the other Que∣stion of Rebaptization, controuerted with the Donatists, for which they were properly and for∣mally Heretiques: and yet S. Augustine confesseth that for this point of beliefe, he could not pro∣duce Scripture, as appeares by his words, which I cited in the first(d) Part, and desire the Rea∣der to saue me the labour of repeating them
heere: and then he will easily see, that there is great difference betwixt the generall question of the Church, and Questions concerning parti∣cular Doctrines deliuered by the Church; in which this holy Father sayth not we must haue recourse to Scripture alone, but that we ought to belieue the Church, which is recommended to vs by Scripture And this he teacheth in that very booke De vnitate Ecclesiae, out of which you brought the aforesaid places, to proue that all Controuersies must be decided by Scripture. With what modesty then do you say, The Mista∣ker was ill aduised to send vs to this(e) Treatise, which both in the generall ayme, and in the quality of the Arguments and proofes is so contrary to his pre∣tensions?
7. You leaue(f) a passage taken out of S. Augustine to Charity Mistaken to ruminate v∣pon: Whosoeuer(g) will belieue aright in Christ the Head, but yet doth so dissent from his Body the Church, that their Communion is not with the whole whersoeuer diffused, but with themselues seuerall in some part; it is manifest that such are not in the Ca∣tholique Church. Well; suppose all were done as you desire; what other thing could be conclu∣ded, then this? But when Luther appeared, Protestantisme was not with the whole wher∣soeuer diffused, but with himselfe alone: What will follow from hence, you haue so much Logicke that you cannot Mistake. Wherefore at this day, and for euer, we must say of the Catholique
Church, as Saint Augustine sayd: Euery one of those (he speakes of Heretiques) is not(g) to be found where she is to be found; but she who is ouer All, is to be found in the selfe same places, where the o∣thers are.
8. You made an ill choyce of S. Epiphanius, to proue by his example that the Fathers were wont to confute Heresies by the only Euidence of Scripture. For he not only approues Tradi∣tions as necessary, but also proues them out of Scripture. We ought (sayth he) to vse also(h) Tradition, for all things cannot be taken from the ho∣ly Scripture: the holy Apostles therfore deliuered some things in writing, and some things by Tradition, as the holy Apostle sayth: As I deliuered to you. And in another place: So I teach, and so I deliuered in the Churches. And the same Father, as we shall see anon, doth most cleerly approue Traditiōs, yea and confutes Aērius by Tradition alone without any Scripture. It is then no wonder, if you corrupt S. Epiphanius to make men belieue that he speakes of Heresies in generall, where∣as his words concerne some few in particular, as the Samosatenians, Arians &c. His wordes as you translate them are these: The Diuine(k) Goodnes hath forewarned vs agaynst Heresies by his Truth, for God foreseeing the Madnes, Impie∣ty, & Fraude of the Samosatenians, Arians, Ma∣nichees, and other Heretiques, hath secured vs by his diuine Word against all their subtilities. But the true Translation of S. Epiphanius is this: Therfore the
holy Scripture doth make vs secure of euery word: That is hath secured vs how we are to speake, or what words to vse against the deceipts of the Samosatenians, Arians, and of other Heresies con∣cerning the blessed Trinity, as it is cleere by these words immediatly following (which you thought fittest to conceale:) For he doth not say the Father is the Only-begotten. For how can he be the Only begotten, who is not Begotten? But he calls the Sonne the only begotten, that the Sonne may not be thought to be the Father &c. Where you see he speakes of Words, or manner of speaking, and concerning particular Heresies, which yet is made more cleere by the words immediatly precedent to the sentence by you cited, which words you also thought good to leaue out. For he first proues out of Scripture that the Word is begotten of the Father, but that the Father is not Begotten, and therfore the Only-Begotten is the Sonne. And then he comes to the words by you cited, and teacheth, that holy Scripture hath warned vs, what words and manner of speach, or phrase we ought to vse in speaking of the Person, of the Blessed Trinity, which Schoole Deuines cal Proprietates Personarum. Yet that your Corruption might not be void of art (or rather a double fraud) in your Margent you put in Greeke S. Epiphanius his words, that so to such as vnderstood not Greeke, nor perceiue your mistranssation, your fraud might passe for honest dealing, and deceiue your Reader; and to
others, you might answere, if need were, that in your Margent, S. Epiphanius was rightly al∣leaged.
9. These words of Charity Mistaken (I must needs obserue, that (m) he (that is, S. Augustin) re∣counts diuers Heresies, which are held by the Prote∣stant Church at this day, and particularly that of de∣nying Prayers, and Sacrifices for the dead) you cor∣ruptly compendiate when you say: The Mistake•• must needs obserue, that the Protestants hold diuers ancient Heresies, and particularly(n) that of denying Prayers for the dead. Where you omit the words (Saint Augustine recounts diuers Heresies, and in particular, that &c. (to make men belieue that it was but a bare affirmation of Charity Mistaken, and not collected out of S. Augustine: As like∣wise you conceale) Sacrifices) lest the world might belieue S. Augustine was a Papist; who neuertheles both in this Treatise de haeresibus ad Quod-vult-Deum, haer. 35. cited by Charity Mi∣staken, and elsewhere, teacheth that the dead are holpen by the holy(o) Sacrifice. After this you say: He is very much(p) mistaken in his Obserua∣tion. The Commemoration of the deceased in the an∣cient Church, which Aērius without reason disal∣lowed, was a thing much differing from those Prayers for the dead, which are now in vse in the Church of Rome. Thus hauing substituted Commemoration of the deceased, insteed of Prayers and Sacrifices for the dead, you add, with your wonted sincerity: Our Roman Catholiques belieue (at least they say so)
that some soules of the faithfull after their departure hence, are detained in a certaine fire bordering vpon Hell till they be throughly purged: and their Prayers for them are, that they may be released, or eased of those torments. But you are still like your selfe. You may read in(q) Bellarmine, that concerning the Question, Vbisit Purgatorium, Where Purgato∣ry is, the Church hath defined nothing. And to the other point: Whether in Purgatory there be true cor∣poreall sire, he answers;(r) That it is the common Opinion of Deuines that properly there is true fire, & of the same nature with our fire. Which Doctrine is not indeed a matter of fayth, because it is no where defined by the Church, yea in the Councell of Florence the Grecians openly profess't, that they did not hold there was fire in Purgatory; neuertheles in the defini∣tion which was made in the last Sess. it was defined that there is a Purgatory, without making any men∣tion of fire: Neuertheles it is a most probable Opinion, by reason of the agreement of the Schoole-Deuines, which cannot be reiected without rashnes. Thus Bel∣larmine.
10. Now for the maine point: That Aë∣rius was put in the list of Heretiques, for denying Prayers for the Dead, which are offered to re∣lease, or ease them of their paine, I proue out of Aërius his owne words; Out of S. Epiphanius whom you seeme to alledge in your behalfe; Out of the ancient Fathers, Greeke, and La∣tine; & out of Protestants themselues; both in regard that they confesse the Doctrine of Pur∣gatory
and Prayer for the dead, euen as Catho∣liques belieue them, to haue been belieued by the Ancient Fathers; and also in regard, they directly acknowledge, that Aërius was con∣demned by the Fathers for denying Prayer for the Dead, as we belieue, and practise it.
11. Heare then your Progenitor Aërius te∣stifying with his owne mouth the practise of Catholiques in those ancient dayes. How (saith he to Catholiques) doe you(*) after Death name, the names of the dead? For if the liuing pray &c. what will it profit the dead? Or if the prayers of them who are heere, be for those who are there, then let no man be vertuous, nor let him doe any good worke, but let him get friends by what meanes he will, eyther by mo∣ney, or leauing that charge to his friends at his death, & let them pray for him that he may not SVFFER any thing there: and that, irremediable sinnes com∣mitted by him may not be layd to his charge. Is it not cleere inough by these wordes, that this Here∣tique taxeth Prayers offered for the dead, to re∣lease or lessen their paynes after this life, & not only for a bare Cōmemoration, or Thankes-giuing, or the like? And that any man may yet further consider, especially if he continue to be of as Puritanicall a Spirit, as he was who most re∣sembles the spirit of this Aërius; let vs, by the way, add these words of his: Neyther ought(s) there to be any appointed fast, for these things are Iudaicall, and vnder the yoake of seruitude. For there is no law appointed for the iust man, but for Mur∣therers
of their Fathers and Mothers, and such like. But if I be resolued to fast, I will choose my selfe any day, and I will fast with freedome.
12. Let vs now see what S. Epiphanius in the same place sayth for your Commemoration of the deceased: As for pronouncing the names of the Dead (sayth he) what can be more profitable, good, and admirable? Because the liuing belieue that the de∣ceased liue, and are not extinct, but haue a being, and liue with our Lord: And, that I may vtter a most pious doctrine, that there is hope in those who pray for their Brethren, as for those who are trauailed to another Countrey. These words you recite out of S. Epiphanius, but leaue out those words which immediatly follow, and are directly against the doctrine which you will proue out of him in that very place. For thus he saith: But the Praiers which are made for them do profit them, although they do not release the whole sin; in regard as long as we are in this world, we faile, and erre both voluntarily and against our will, to the end that, that also may be mentioned which is more perfect, we remember both the lust, & Sinners: For Sinners, imploring the mer∣cy of God: But for the Iust, Fathers, Patriarches, Pro∣phets, Apostles, Euangelists, Martyres, Confessors, Bishops, and Anchorites &c. that we may put a diffe∣rence betwixt our Lord Iesus Christ, and all Orders of men, by that honour which we giue to him, and that to him we may giue adoration. You see that S. Epi∣phanius speakes of forgiuenes of sinnes, & that he makes a difference between Prayers offered
for deceased Sinners, and the Commemoration of Saints, who by way of Thankes-giuing, are remembred as holy men; wheras to our Sauiour Christ highest adoration is exhibited as to God; Or (as Bellarmine(t) sayth,) we distinguish Saints from Christ, because we offer Sacrifice of Thankes-giuing for Saints, but we do not offer Sacrifice for Christ, but to him, together with the Father, and the holy Ghost. You likewise falsi∣fy S. Epiphanius, while you say out of him; That the liuing haue hope for the deceased, as for those which be from home in another Coun∣trey, and that, at length they shall attaine the state which is more perfect. Which last words are not in S. Epiphanius, who neuer taught, that we offer Prayers for Saints, that they may attaine a state which is more perfect. And when S. Epiphanius sayth, that those who pray for their Brethren haue hope of them as of those who are in ano∣ther Countrey; you leaue out Praying, and on∣ly put in Hope. And that you may be assured how contrary S. Epiphanius is to you; not only in the doctrine of Prayer for the dead, but also in the ground and reason, for which he bel••••ues it, namely Tradition; marke his wordes. The Church (sayth he in the same place) doth necessa∣rily practise this by Tradition receiued from our An∣cestors. And who can breake the Ordination of his Mother, and the Law of his Father? as Salomo•• sayth: Heare O Sonne the words of thy Father, and retect not the Ordination of thy Mother: Shewing by this, that
God the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost haue taught both by writing, and without writing, (be∣hold diuine Traditions) and our Mother the Church, hath also in herselfe Ordinances inuiolable which cannot be broken: (behold Ecclesiasticall Traditions.) Since therfore there be Ordinances set downe in the Church, and that all be right, and admi∣rable, this Seducer (Aërius) remaines confuted. And together with him all those that follow his heresy And let vs yet heare S. Epiphanius speaking a little before of another point, thus: But who knowes most of these thinges? Whether this deluded fellow (Aërius) who is yet aliu•••• &c. or those who before vs haue yielded Testimony and haue had the Tradition of the Church, which also was de∣liuered from their Fore-Fathers; as they likewise lear∣ned of those who were before them, in which manner the Church doth still conserue the true Fayth receiued from their Fore-Fathers, and also Traditions? Con∣sider now with what reason you alleaged S. Epi∣phanius, as one who sayth that all Heresy is to be confuted by euidence of Scripture; wheras he doth cleerly auouch Tradition in generall, and doth in particular consute the Heresy of Aerius, without alleaging so much as one Text of Scri∣pture.
13. And though S. Epiphanius alone, might suffice both to assure vs what was the Heresy of Aërius in whose time he liued; and also to wit∣nes for all the rest of the Greeke Fathers, yea & for the whole Church, (because he auouched
Prayer for the dead to come from the Traditiō of Gods Church) yet I will add some more of the Greeke Church, as S. Dionysius Areopagita, who saith: Then the Venerable(u) Bishop doth pray ouer the dead party, that the diuine Goodnes would pardon all his sinnes committed by humane frailty, and transferre him to light, and the Countrey of the liuing. I wonder then how in your Text your could tel vs, that(w) conformably to your Opini∣on; The ancient Church in her Liturgy remembred all those that slept in hope of the Resurrectiō of euer∣lasting lyfe, and particularly the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs &c. beseeching God to giue thē rest, and to bring them (you put in a parenthesis at the Resurrectiō) to the place where the light of his coun∣tenance should shine vpon them for euermore. And in your Margent, you cite S. Dionysius as fauouring you, who neuertheles in the very Chapter wch you cite for your Opinion, is directly agaynst you in the words euen now alledged. The like fincerity you shew in the very same Margent in citing S. Cyril, who doth cleerly affirme, that in the Sacrifice we remēber some that they would pray for vs, and others that they may be re∣lieued by our Prayers and Sacrifices, in these words: When we offer this Sacrifice(x) we make mē∣tion of those who are deceased, of Patriarchs &c. that God would receyue our prayers by their intercession. And: we pray for al who are deceased, belieuing that it is a most great help to those for whom the obsecratiō of that holy and dreadfull Sacrifice is offered, S. Gre∣gory
Nyssen saith: He cannot after his departure(y) from the body be made partaker of the Diuinity, vnles the purging fire shall cleanse the staynes of his soule.
14. Among the Latin Fathers, Protestants pretend to esteeme none more then S. Augu∣stine, and yet none can speake more plainely a∣gainst them in this point then he doth, who besids that he rankes Aērius among the Hereti∣ques, in another place, he sayth: Purge me(z) in this lyfe, in such sort, as that I may not need the correcting, or amending fire. And afterward: It is sayd he shall be saued as if it were by fire, and because it is sayd, he shall be saued, that fire growes to be contemned. But so it is; though he shall be saued, yet the paine of that fire is more grieuous, then what∣soeuer a man can suffer in this life. And elsw where; Some suffer(a) temporall punishments, only in this life, others after death, others both now and then. Of which place, Fulke is enforced to say: Augustine concludes very cleerly,(b) that some suffer Tempo∣rall paines after this life, this may not be denied. And in another place, S. Augustine sayth: We ought not(c) to doubt, but that the dead are holpen by the Prayers of the holy Church, and by the holesome Sa∣crifice, and by Ailrnes giuen for their soules, that our Lord would avale with them more mercifully then their sinnes haue deserued. For the whole Church ob∣serues this, as deliuered from our Fathers. Neither can you auoide these Authorities by flying to the Requests of Gods mercy that they may haue their(d) serfect Consummation in body and soule, in the
kingdome of God at the last Iudgment, as you speake. For (besides that all they who depart this life in Gods fauour are most assured of a perfect Consummation independantly of our Almes-deeds, Prayers &c.) S. Augustine as you haue heard speakes of a Purging fire, of Temporall Punlishments, after this life &c. And doth else∣where write as if he had purposely intended to preuent this your Euasion, saying: At the Altar(e) we do not remember Martyrs, as we do other de∣ceased who rest in peace, by praying for them; but ra∣ther that they would pray for vs. Which difference between Martyrs and other deceased, cannot stand with your meere Commemoration of Than∣kesgiuing, or your Request for a perfect Consum∣mation, both which according to your doctrine concerne Martyrs, no lesse then others. The same difference is expressed by S. Cyprian, say∣ing: It is one thing to be purged,(f) after long tor∣ment for ones sinnes, and to be long cleansed with the fire, and another thing to haue wiped away all the sinnes by suffering. S. Hierome sayth: If Ori∣gen affirme that(g) all Creatures endued with rea∣son, are not to be lost, and granteth repentance to the Diuell; what belongs that to vs, who affirme that the Diuell, and all his Officers, and all sinneful and wicked men do eternally perish; and that Christians, if they be taken away in sinne, are to be saued after punish∣ments? More Fathers may be seen in Bellarmine and other Catholique Writers. These may suf∣fice to shew, what was that Beliefe & Practise of
the Church, which Aërius opposed in his time, as you do at this day.
15. Lastly, your owne Brethren beare wit∣nes thus against you. Caluin sayth: More then a thousand three hundred(h) yeares ago, it was a Cu∣stome to pray for the dead: But I confesse they were all driuen into Error. Bucer his words are: Because(i) almost from the beginning of the Church, Prayers and Almes-deeds were offered for the dead, that opi∣nion which S. Augustine sets downe in his Enchiri∣dio cap. 110. crept in by little & little: Neither ought we to deny, that soules are released by the piety of their liuing friends, when the Sacrifice of our Mediatour is offered for them &c. Therfore I doubt not, but that from hence arose that duty of Praying, and offering Sacrifice for them. Fulke speaketh plainely: Aërius taught, that Prayer for the dead(k) was vnprofita∣ble, as witnesseth both Epiphanius, and Augustine, which they count for an Errour. He likewise ac∣knowledgeth, that Ambrose, Chrysostome, & Au∣gustine allowed Prayer for the dead: That, Tertul∣lian, Augustine, Cyprian, Hierome, and a great many more do witnes, that Prayer for the dead is the Tradi∣tion of the Apostles. And that Fulke vnderstands these Fathers in the sense of satisfying for Tem∣porall paines after this life, I hope you will not deny. For it is cleere by what we said out of him aboue; Nay, euen in the Communion Booke allowed, and established by Act of Parlament in the second yeare of Edward the Sixth. and prin∣ted in Lōdon by Edward Whitchurch Anno ••549.
there is Prayer for the dead: and in the yeare 1547. the first yeare of Edward the Sixth his raigne, Stow recounts, that on the 19. of Iune a Dirige was sung in euery parish Church in London for the French King late deceased; and a Dirige was also sung in the Church of S. Paul in the same Citty, & on the next morrow the Archbishop of Canterbury, assi∣sted of eight Bishops, all in rich miters, & other their Pontificalls, did sing a Masse of Requiem. And (to say this by the way) there is in the same Com∣munion Booke offering vp of our Prayers by Angels: as likewise in the first yeare of that Kings raigne, Communion in One Kind, in time of Necessity, is approued, as also in the Collection in English of Statutes &c. the reason heerof is ad∣ded, because at that time the opinion of the Reall presence (as the Collector sayth) was not remoued from vs. Which ingenuous confession supposes that Communion in one kind cannot be disal∣lowed, if we belieue the reall presence, because indeed the Body and Bloud of our Sauiour Christ is both vnder the species of bread, and vnder the species of wine.
16. You say, the Ancient Church(n) in her Liturgies remembred all those that slept in hope of the Resurrection of euer lasting lyfe, and particularly the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles &c. beseeching God to giue vnto them rest, and to bring them, (at the Resurrection, as you add) to the place where the light of his countenance should shine vpon them for euermore.
17. But reade(o) Bellarmine, and you shall find a farre different thing in the Greeke Litur∣gy, of which S. Epiphanius makes mention, whome you also cite in your Margent: We offer Sacrifice to thee, O Lord, for all the Patriarchs, A∣postles, Martyrs, and especially for the most Blessed Mother of God. And that the Sacrifice was offe∣red for those Saints onely in Thankes-giuing, the words following doe shew: By whose Prayers O God, looke vpon vs. But for other faythfull de∣ceased, the speach is altered, thus: And be mind∣full of all the faythfull deceased who haue slept in hope of the Resurrection, and grant them to rest where the light of thy Countenance is seene. Which last words you vntruly applied to Patriarches &c. and ad∣ded at the Resurrection; wheras they are referred only to other faithfull people, for whom Sacri∣fice is offered, that they may come to see the light of Gods Countenance, euen before the Resurrection; that is, as soone as they haue satis∣fied for their sinnes. And now how many wayes is the Greeke Liturgy repugnant to you? It speakes of Sacrifice, which you turne to Re∣membrance; It speakes of some persons whom we intreate to pray for vs, & others for whom we pray: It teacheth Prayers to Saints: It tea∣cheth that Saints do already enioy the Beatifi∣call Vision, and therfore that Sacrifice only of Thankes-giuing is offered for them And as for the latter Schismaticall, and Hereticall Crecians, although their Authority weigh not much; yet
euen they professed in the Councell of Florence, that they belieued a Purgatory, & only denied that the soules were there tormented by fire; teaching neuertheles that it was a darke place, and full of paine. and your owne(q) Brethren Sparke, Osiander, and Crispinus affirme; that about Prayer for the dead they conformed themselues to Rome. And Sr. Edwin(r) Sands saith; that the Greeke Church doth concur with Rome in the opinion of Transubstantiation, in Praying to Saints, in offering Sacrifices, and Prayer for the dead, Purgatory, &c. And a Treatise published by the Protestant Diuines of Wittemberge An∣no 1584. intituled Acta Theologorum Wittember∣gensium &c. affirmeth that the Greeke Church at this day belieues Inuocation of Saints, and Prayer for the dead, as heertofore I noted. All which considered, with what Modesty can you say: The generall opinion of(t) the Ancient Do∣ctors Greeke and Latin, downe almost to these last Ages, was (and is the opinion of the Greeke Church at this day) that all the spirits of the Righteous de∣ceased, are in Abrahams bosome, or in some outward Court of heauen &c. And to mend the matter you alleage in your Margent, for what you say a∣bout the Greeke Church at this day, the Coun∣cell of(u) Florence; wheras indeed it is affirmed in the Councell, that Declaratum fuit &c. It was at length declared, that the Saints haue both attained, and not attained Perfect Beatitude; that is, that the soules as Soules haue attained perfect Beatitude, yet
that they shall receiue some perfection with their bo∣dies, when they shall shine as the sunne. And it is to be noted that before this declaration was made, the Greeke Emperour came into the Councell, and so it was done with the common consent of the Grecians.
18. And heere let me put you in mind, that if the Heresy of Aërius, (whether you take it in our, or your owne sense) were not fundamentall, then you may learne that to make an Heresy, or Heretique it is sufficient that the error consist in any point, though the same be not fundamen∣tall. If you hold it to be fundamentall; then it fol∣lowes, that Tradition, and Custome of the Church extends it selfe euen to fundamentall points in such sort, as to oppose such Tradition is a fundamentall error. For as we haue seene before, S. Epiphanius, and S. Augustine proue Prayer for the dead by Tradition, though I grant we want not Scripture for it: but you who both deny the Machabees, and also turne Prayer for the Dead, into a bare Commemoration &c. will find no Scripture, wherby to refute Aërius. Moreouer wheras you are wont to impugne a third place distinct from Heauen and Hell, by those words of Scripture: If the Tree shall fall to the South(w) or the North, in what place soeuer it shall fall, there shall it be: and such like Argu∣ments; how come you now to admit a third Temporary place, and so be forced to solue your owne obiections?
19. Now, I wish you to consider, that ey∣ther the Grecians did belieue that the Saints en∣ioy the Beatificall Vision, & are not (as you teach) in some outward Court; or els they thought that Inuocation of Saints may well be defended, though they doe not see the face of God; which two points you(x) deny, can stand togeather. For you haue heard both out of the Greeke Li∣turgy, and your Protestant Writers, that the Grecians belieue Inuocation of Saints. True it is, if Saints doe not enioy the Beatificall Vision, they cannot heare, or see our Prayers in verbo, or in the Diuine Essence, but yet they may behold vs and our Prayers by particular Reuelation, as some Catholique Deuines teach de facto, of the blessed soules, and Angels.
20. Yet if you will needs suppose that In∣uocation of Saints cannot be defended, vnlesse they enioy the Beatificall Vision; you should not in true reason deny Inuocation because they are not Blessed; but contrarily you ought to belieue that they are in Blisse, because it hath alwayes beene the practise of the Ancient Church to inuocate them. Nor ought Protestants in geue∣rall, to deny prayers to Saints, because they cannot heare vs; but they ought on the other side to belieue that they cā heare vs, because the Church both Greeke, and Latin hath alwayes practised, and allowed Prayers to them. M. Whitgift, as I sayd already, confesseth; that al∣most all the Bishops and Writers(y) of the Greeke
Church and Latin also, for the most part, were spot∣ted with the doctrines of Freewill, of Merit, of In∣uocation of Saints, and such like. In particular, the Saints, Ambrose, Augustine, Hierome, Nazian∣zen, Basill, Nyssen, Chrysostome, are taxed by your Brethren for holding Inuocatiō of Saints. And your Conturists not only charge ancient O∣rigen for praying for himselfe to holy Iob: but they also say, that there are manifest steps of In∣uocatiō of Saints in the Doctors of that ancient(z) Age. And D. Couel affirmeth that diuers both of the Greeke(a) and Latin Church, were spotted with errours about Freewill, Merits, Inuocation of Saints &c. That Vigilantius was condemned as an Heretike for denying Prayers to Saints, may be seen in(b) S. Hierome, and is confessed by(c) Fulke. Thus then we see what the Ancient Church held concerning Innocation of Saints, & consequently they belieued that they heare our Prayers.
21. Your saying, that we inuocate Saints as Commissioners(d) vnder God, to whome he hath delegated the power of conferring sundry benefias, de∣posited in their hands, & to be bestowed at their plea∣sure; I let passe as a very vulgar slaunder, vn∣worthy of a particular answere. For (as the sa∣cred Councell of Trent speaketh) we implore(e) their assistance, that they would vouchsafe to pray for vs in heauen, whose memory we keep on earth. Which wordes are also in the Masse.
22. But how solidly Bellarmine(f) proues
that the Saints enioy the sight of God, may be seen by weighing his Arguments drawne from Scriptures, Councels, Fathers, both Greeke and Latin, and Reasons grounded on Scripture: And your affirming, that, It may be(g) thought he spake against his knowledge, & conscience, comes very vnseasonably, besides the grosse vntruth, and great folly of it, in a Treatise wherin you tax others for want of Charity. But I remember that S. Thomas among the causes of suspition, putteth the first of them to proceed from this: That a man is(h) ill himselfe, and therfore being conscious of his owne sinne, he easily conceiues ill of o∣thers; according to that Eccle s. 10. The foolish man walking by the way, he himselfe being foolish, doth ac∣count all to be Fooles. Did your prime Brethren speake against their conscience, who affirme so many Ancient Fathers to haue beene spotted with the Inuocation of Saints, which you say cannot stand with their want of Beatitude?
23. You say; The Roman Writers vtterly con∣demne the(i) former doctrine, and practise of Anti∣quity. One of them feares not to censure it as absurd and impious: for which last words you cite in your(k) Margent, Azor. But it is an egregious vntruth, and falsification. For we do both ad∣mitland practise Thankes-giuing for the hap∣pines of Saints. And your further Requests of Gods mercy that they may haue their perfect Consum∣mation both in body and soule in the kingdome of God at the last Iudgmēt, are wholy needles at lest,
because without any dependance, or reference to our Prayers, they are most assured therof by the immutable decree of God. And you might in the same manner make Requests, that they may not loose their happines in body & soule, when they shall once haue attained it, after the generall Resurrection, which were a Request sa∣uouring of Infidelity, as if the Saints could be depriued of Beatitude once enioyed. Now as for Azor, he proues in the place cited by you, that the Grecians do not altogether take away some kind of Purging fire, but only seeme to deny a certaine determinate punishment of corporall fire, Because (sayth he) they do truly offer Sacrifice and Prayers to God for the dead, surely not for the Blessed, nor for those which be damned in Hell, which were plainely absurd and impious: it must therfore be for them, who are deceased with fayth and Piety, but haue not fully satisfied for the temporall punishment due to their sinnes. Is this to condemne the do∣ctrine of Antiquity as absurd, and impious? Did Antiquity offer Sacrifice, and Prayers for the damned Ghosts, or for the Saints to satisfy for the paine due to their sinnes, as Azor meanes & speakes, and therfore doth truly say, it were ab∣surd and impious? Is not this to corrupt Au∣thors?
24. Wherfore vpon the whole matter we must conclude, that Aërius was condemned by the Church, and was reckoned among Hereti∣ques, and particularly by S. Epiphanius, and S.
Augustine, for the selfe same Error which you maintaine. To which Maior Proposition, if we adde this Minor, (which Charity Mistaken ex∣pressely notes(m) and you conceale:) But S. Augustine sayth, Whosoeuer should hold any one of the Heresies by him recounted, (wherof this of Aërius is one) were not a Christian Catholique; The Conclusion will follow of it selfe.
25. Would to God, your selfe, and all Prote∣stants did seriously consider, what accompt will be exacted at the last day, of those who by their erroneous doctrine, and opposition to the visi∣ble Church of Christ, depriue the soules of faythfull people deceased, of the many Prayers, Sacrifices, and other good deeds, which in all ri∣gour of Iustice are due to them by Title of foun∣ding Colledges. Chanonryes, Chantries, Hos∣pitals &c. Lesse cruelty had it been to rob them of their Temporall goods, or to bereaue them of their corporall liues, then to haue abando∣ned them to the Torment of a fier, which al∣though as S. Augustine sayth(n) is sleighted by worldly men, yet indeed is more grieuous then whatsoeuer can be endured in this world. Consider I say, whether this manifest Iniustice, though it did not proceed (as it doth) from he∣reticall perswasion, were not alone sufficient to exclude saluation. And so much of this point concerning Prayer for the dead.
26. The words of S. Thomas, whom you cite (pag. 40.) to strengthen your distinction of
points fundamentall and not fundamentall, do directly ouerthrow that sense, and purpose for which you make vse of them. For as much (sayth he) as belongs to the prime(o) Obiects of Beliefe, which are the Articles of Fayth, a man bound ex∣plicitely to belieue them, as he is bound to haue Fayth. But as for other Obiects of fayth, a man is not bound to belieue them explicitely, but only implicitely, or in readines of mind, for as much as he is ready to belieue whatsoeuer the holy Scripture containes: But he is bound to belieue them explicitely, only when it ap∣peares to him that it is contained in the doctrine of fayth. Now our Question is not about nescience, or ignorance of some points of fayth, but of dis∣agreeing concerning them, one denying what another affirmes: in which case, according to the aforesaid doctrine of S. Thomas, there is nei∣ther explicite, nor implicite Beliefe of such points, but positiue & direct error in them: and therfore such disagreement cannot stand with Vnity of fayth. It is strange Diuinity, to con∣found, as you do, points secundary or not funda∣mentall, with probable points. For how many millions of Truths are there contained in Scri∣pture, which are not of their owne nature prime Articles? Will you therfore infer that they are but probable? Primary, and secundary respect the matter which we belieue: Probable, and certaine are deriued from the formall reason, or motiue for which we belieue. Let two disagree in some points euen fundamentall, yet not sufficiently
propounded as reuealed Truths, they still re∣taine the same fayth; and contrarily, put case that two agree in all fundamentall points, if they disagree in any secundary point sufficient∣ly applied to their vnderstanding as a reuealed truth, then the one must be an Heretique, and differ from the other, in the very nature, and substance of fayth. For as in a Musicall Consort (say you) a discord(p) now and then (so it be in the Descant, and depart not from the ground) swee∣tens the Harmony: so say I (retorting your own sweet similitude) because euery least error op∣posing a reuealed Truth is not in the Descant, but departs from the ground of fayth, which is the attestation of God, it doth not sweeten the Har∣mony, but destroyes the substance of Fayth. And heerafter it shalbe shewed, that you wrong Sta∣pleton, no lesse(q) then you do S. Thomas.
27. That, Variety of Opinions or Rites in parts of the Church doth rather commend then preiu∣dice the Vnity of the whole, you pretend to proue out of(s) Farmilianus in an Epistle to S. Cyprian; which doctrine though it be true in some sense, yet according to your application, it is perni∣cious: as if it were sufficient to Vnity of Fayth, that men agree in certaine fundamentall points, though they vary in other matters con∣cerning fayth. And you should haue obserued, that Firmilianus (who wrote that Epistle in fa∣uour of S. Cyprians error about Rebaptization) speakes in that place of the Custome of kee∣ping
Easter: which point after it was once de∣fined, remained no more indifferent, but grew to be a necessary Obiect of Beliefe, in so much that the Heretiques called Quartadecimani were for that point condemned, and anathematized by the Vniuersall Church in the Councels of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus. Wherby it is e∣uident that though some point be not in it selfe fundamentall; yet if it be once defined by the Church, the Errour degenerates into Heresy. Your Charity is alwayes Mistaken, aduantaging your Aduersary by your owne Arguments.
28. I said already that to be separate from the Church for Heresy, or Schisme destroies Sal∣uation, because persons lyable to those crimes are in the Church neither in re, nor in voto; nei∣ther in fact, nor in effectuall desire; as Cathecu∣mens are, and as Excommunicate persons may be, if repenting their former Obstinacy, they can∣not by reason of some extrinsecall impedi∣ment, obtaine Absolution from the Censure.
29. You extend your Charity so far to In∣fidels, as to forget fidelity in relating what Ca∣tholique Deuines teach concerning them, not telling whether they require some supernaturall fayth at lest, for some Obiect; and quoting Au∣thors with so great affected confusion, that a man would thinke them to maintaine the opi∣nion which they expressely condemne as erro∣neous, or in the next degree to Heresy. But be∣cause it were a vanity to muster a number of
Writers in a question impertinent to our pre∣sent designe, which is only against Heresy or Schisme, both which exclude inuincible igno∣rance; I hold it best to passe them ouer in si∣lence.
30. Your saying, that A man may be a true visible membër(t) of the holy Catholique Church, who is not actually (otherwise then in vow) a mem∣ber of any true visible Church; destroyes it selfe. For in the same manner and degree, neyther more nor lesse, a man is a visible member in act, or in desire of the visible Church, as he is a mē∣ber of the true Catholique Church, which is visible. And Bellarmine, whome you cite for your selfe, is directly agaynst you. For he tea∣cheth that a man may(u) be in the Church in desire, which is sufficient for Saluation (when he is inuo∣luntarily hindred from being actually of the Church) and yet not in the Church by externall Co∣munion, which properly maketh him to be of the visi∣ble Church; which is directly to deny what you affirmed. I might reflect what a pretty conne∣ction you make in saying: who is not actually o∣therwise then in vow &c. you might as well haue sayd, who is not actually, otherwise then not in act &c. But such small matters as these I willing∣ly dissemble. The poore man in the Ghospell was cast out of the Synagogue by notorious in∣iustice, and therefore still remayned a member of the Iewish Church, not only in desire, but also in act. You say, Athanasius stood single in
defense of diuine Truth, all his Brethren the other Patriarchs (not he of Rome excepted) hauing subscri∣bed to Arianisme, and cast him out of their Commu∣nion. And you referre vs to Baronius cited in your Margent, to what purpose I know not, ex∣cept to display your owne bad proceeding. For Baronius in the place by you alledged(w) doth (not incidently, or only by the way, but) in∣dustriously, and of set purpose cleere Pope Li∣bertu•• from hauing euer subscribed to Arianisme. He subscribed indeed to the condemnation of S. Athanasius, which was not for matter of faith but of fact, to wit, for certayne crimes obiected agaynst him, as Bellarmine(x) affirmeth, which being false, S. Athanasius did not therefore cease to be a member of the Catholike Church. If the errours of Tertullian were in themselues so smal, as you would make them, it may serue for an example, that not so much the matter, as the manner, and obstinacy is that which makes an Heretique; which ouerthrowes your distinction of points fundamentall &c.
31. The proofes which you bring from the Africans, and others, that Communion with the Roman Church was not alwayes held neces∣sary to Saluation, haue been a thousand tymes answered by Catholique Writers; and they are such as you could not haue chosen any more disaduantagious to your cause. Heertofore I shewed, that Communion with the Roman Church, was by Antiquity iudged to be the
marke of a true Belieuer. And indeed seing you speake of those times wherin Rome stood in her purity (as you say) how could any be diuided from her fayth, and yet belieue aright? Do not your selfe say: Whosoeuer professeth himselfe to for∣sake(y) the Communion of any one member of the Body of Christ, must confesse himselfe consequently to forsake the whole? How then could any diuide themselues from the Romane Church while she was in her purity? Euen S. Cyprian, whose exam∣ple you alleage, fayth: They(z) presume to saile to the Roman Church, which is the Chaire of Peter, and to the principall Chaire, from whence Priestly Vnity hath sprung. Neither do they consider that they are Romans, whose fayth was commended by the prea∣ching of the Apostle, to whom falshood cannot haue ac∣cesse. Optatus Mileuitanus, also an African, saith: At Rome hath been constituted to Peter(a) the E∣piscopall Chaire, that in this only Chaire, the Vnity of all might be preserued. And S. Augustine, like wise an African, affirmeth, that Cacilianus might des∣pise(b) the conspiring multitude of his enemies, (that is, of seauenty Bishops of Africa assembled in Numidia) because he saw himselfe vnited by let∣ters Communicatory with the Roman Church, in which the Principality of the Sea Apostolique had al∣wayes flourished. And after Pelagius had been iud∣ged in the East by the Bishops of Palestine, and Celestius his Disciple had been excommunicated for the same cause in Asrica by the African Bi∣shops; the Mileuitan Councell referred them
finally to the Pope, saying: We hope by the(c) mercy of our Lord Iesus-Christ, who vouchsafe to go∣uerne thee consulting with him, and to heare thee praying to him, that those who hold these Doctrines so peruerse and pernicious, will more easily yield to the authority of thy Holynes, drawne out of the holy Scri∣ptures. Behold the Popes prerogatiue drawne out of the holy Scriptures. And it is very strang that you will alleage the Authority of S. Cy∣prian, and other Bishops of Africa, against Pope Stephen, who opposed himselfe to them in the Question of Rebaptization, wherin they agreed with the Heresy of the Donatists, which was condemned not only by the Pope, but by the whole Church, yea by those very Bishops who once adhered to S. Cyprian, as S. Hierome witnes∣seth, saying: Finally they who had been(d) of the same opinion, set forth a new decree, saying: What shall we do? So hath it been deliuered to them by their Ancestors and ours. And Vincentius Lyrinensis spea∣king of Stephen his opposing S. Cyprian, sayth: Then(e) the blessed Stephen resisted, together with, but yet before his Collegues; iudging it as I conceiue to be a thing worthy of him, to excell them as much in Fayth, as he did in the authority of his place.
32. Neither are you more fortunate in the example of Pope Victor, then in the other of Ste∣phen. For although Eusebius (whom S. Hierome(f) stiles the Ensigne-bearer of the Arian Sect, and who was a profest Enemy of the Roman Church) doth relate that S. Irenaeus(g) repre∣hended
Victor, for hauing excommunicated the Churches of Asia, for the question about kee∣ping Easter: yet euen he dare not say, that Ire∣naeus blamed the Pope for want of Power, but for misapplying it; which supposeth a Power to do it, if the cause had been sufficient. And the successe shewed, that euen in the vse of his Power, Pope Victor was in the right. For after his death, the Councels of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus (which you receiue as lawfull Ge∣nerall Councels) excommunicated those who held the same Custome with the Prouinces which Victor had excommunicated: and so they came to be ranked among Heretiques vnder the name of Quartadecimam. You may know what opinion S. Irenaeus had of Popes by these words: Euery Church ought to haue recourse(h) to Rome, by reason of her more powerfull Principality. And e∣uen in this your instance, Eusebius doth only say, that Irenaeus did fitly exhort Pope Victor, that he should not cut off all the Churches of God, which held this ancient Tradition. Which exhortation doth necessarily imply, that Pope Victor had Power to do it, as I said already. And now I pray you, reflect vpon your precipitation in say∣ing of Vactor and Stephen. Their Censures(i) were much sleighted, and their Pride and Schisme in trou∣bling the peace of the Church much condemned. For they did nothing which was not approued by the vniuersall Church of God; and the Doctri∣nes which they condemned were no lesse then
hereticall. And therfore (to answere also to what you obiect pag. 52.) If the British and Scotish Bishops did adhere to the Churches of Asta in their Celebration of Easter, after the matter was knowne to be defined by the Church, their example can only be approued by such, as your selfe; nor can it either impeach the Authority, or darken the proceeding of the Pope. You cite Baronius(l) in the Margent, who directly a∣gainst you relates out of Bede; that when our Apostle S. Augustine, could neither by Argu∣ments, nor by Miracles wrought in their pre∣sence, bow their stifnes, he prophefied that they should perish by the English, as afterwards it hapned. But you are a fit Champion for such men, and they no lesse fit examples to be al∣leaged against the Authority of the Roman Church.
33. Your other example, that S. Augustine and diuers other Bishops of Africa, and their Successours for one hundred yeares together were se∣nered from the Roman Communion. is manifestly vntrue in S. Augustine, and some other chiefe Bi∣shops. For when king Thrasimundus had bani∣shed into Sardinia almost all the Bishops, to wit, two hundred and twenty, Pope Symmachus maintained them at his owne charges, as per∣sons belonging to his Communion. To the Epistle of Boniface the second to Eulalius Bi∣shop of Alexandria, and the Epistle of Eulalius to the same Boniface, recited by you, out of
which it is gathered, that after the sixt Coun∣cell of Carthage for the space of one hundred yeares, the Bishops of Carthage were separated from the Communion of the Roman Church, & that in the end they were reconciled to her, Eulalius submitting himselfe to the Apostolique Sea, and anathematizing his Predecessors; Bel∣larmine(m) answereth, that these Epistles may iustly be suspected to be Apochryphall for di∣uers reasons which he alleageth, and it seemeth also by your owne words that you do doubt of them: For you say, If their owne Records(n) be true. Yet if they be authenticall, their meaning cannot be, that all the Predecessors of Eulalius were for so long space diuided from the Roman Church; the contrary being most manifest not only in S. Augustine, who kept most strict amity with Zozimus, Innocentius, and Celestinus Popes, but also in S. Fulgentius and others: but it must be vnderstood only of some Bishops of Car∣thage, and in particular of Eulalius, himselfe, till he being informed of the truth, submitted him∣selfe to the Roman Church. And you ought ra∣ther to haue alleaged his submission, and con∣demnation of his Predecessors to proue the Po∣pes Authority ouer the African Church; then to obiect against it the example of some of his Predecessors, & of himselfe who afterward re∣pented, and condemned his owne fact. You do well, only to mention the Protensions and forge∣ries of the sea of Rome in the matter of Appeales. For
you may know that Bellarmine(o) doth so fully answere that point, as nothing can be more ef∣fectuall to proue the Popes Supremacy in Afri∣ca, then the right of Appeales from Africa to Rome, in causes of greater moment.
34. Your last instance about three Chap∣ters of the Councell of Chalcedon, condemned by the fifth Generall Councell, the Bishop of Rome at length consenting, for which diuers Bishops of Italy, and also the Bishops of Ireland did ioyntly de∣part from the Church of Rome, is like to your for∣mer Obiections. For Baronius whome you cite in your Margent hath these words as cōtrary to your purpose as may be. Hence was it, that the(q) Bishops of Venice & the adicyning Regions did gath•••• together a Councell at Aquileia agaynst the Fifth Sy∣node; and the diuisions at length went as farre as ••re∣land: for all these relying on the Decree of Vigilius Pope, persuaded themselues that they might doe it. Is this to depart from the Pope, or the Roman Church; to oppose that which he is thought to oppose, & formally, because he is thought to op∣pose it? Now, as for the thing it selfe, when Vi∣gilius had afterward condēned the three Chap∣ters, which at the first he refused to doe, and had confirmed the fifth Councell which had cō∣demned them, whosoeuer opposed that Con∣demnation, were accounted Schismatiques by the whole Catholique Church: which plainly shewes the Popes Authority, and therefore whatsoeuer Bishops had opposed Vigilius, their
example could proue no more, then the faction of rebellious persons can preiudice the right of a lawfull King. And in fine, all this Contro∣uersy did nothing concerne any matter of faith, but only in fact; and not doctrine, but persons, as may be seen at large in Baronius: Neither was it betwixt Catholiques and Heretiques, but a∣mong Catholiques themselues. The rest of your Section needs no answere at all: Only whereas you say; Whosoeuer willfully opposeth(r) any Ca∣tholique Verity maintayned by the Catholique Visible Church, as doe Heretiques; or peruersly diuides him∣selfe from the Catholique Communion, as doe Schis∣matiques; the Condition of both them is damnable: What vnderstand you by Catholique verities of the Catholique Church? Are not all Verityes mayntayned by the Catholique Church, Catho∣lique Verities? or how do you now distinguish Heresy, and Schisme from the Catholique Com∣munion? You tells vs, (pag. 76.) that it is the property of Schisme to cut off from the Body of Christ, and the hope of Saluation, the Church from which it separats: and is it not an Heresy to cut off from the Body of Christ & hope of Saluation, the Ca∣tholike Church? How then can one (accor∣ding to your principles) be a Schismatique from the Catholique Church, & not be iointly an He∣retique?
1. Part. Chap. 2. n. 23.
Pag. 29.
Pag. 16.
Num. 16. ••. 31.32.33.
1. part. cap. 5. num. 7.
Lib. 1. epist. 3. & Ibid. ep. 6.
pag. 28.
De ex∣hort. Mart. c. 11. ep. 55.69.73. which last is cited by S. Augu∣stin de Bapt. lib. 3. c. 17. as he cites the like wor∣des out of epist. 71. ad Quint.
Pag. 30.
Epist. de∣die. ad Pium 5.
pag. 32.
De vnïe. Eccles. cap. 19.
cap. 3.
cap. 2.
cap. 2.
cap. 4.
cap. 19.
De ciuit. Det lib. 22. çap. 8.
Chap. ••. num. 16.
pag. 33.
pag. 33.
S. Aug. de vnit. Eç∣çles. çap. 4.
De Vnit Eççles. ç. 3.
Haeres. 61.
Haeres. 65.
Pag. 3••.
De ver•••• Apost. serm. 34.
Pag. 35.
De Purg. lib. 2. cap. 6.
Ib. c. 11.
Apud Epiph. hae∣res. 75.
Ibid.
De Purg. lib. 1. cap. 9.
Eccles. Hierarch, cap. 1.
Pag. 37.
Catech. 5.
In Orat. pro mortuis.
In Psal. 37.
De ciuit. lib. 21. c. 13.
Consut. of Purg. pag. 110.
De verbis Apost. serm. 34.
Pag. 39.
Tract. 84. in Joan.
Lib. 4. ep. 2. alias epist. 52.
Lib. 1. cont. Pela∣gianos.
Instit. l. 3. c. 5. Sect. ••••.
In his e∣narrat. in sacra qua∣tuor Euang. printed Basil. 1536. in Matt. ••. 12.
In his answer to a counterfeyt Cath. pag. 44.
Pag. 37.
De Purg. lib. 1. cap. 9.
Ʋid. A∣pol. Prot. tract. 1. Sect. 7. subd. 12. at 11.
In his re∣lation &c.
Pag. 36.
Graeeï in Conc. Flor. ante Sess. 1. in Quaest. de Purgat.
Eccle∣siast. cap. 11.3.
Pag. 36.
In his de∣fence of the answer. pag. 473.
Ʋid. A∣pol Prot. tract. 1. Sect. 3. subd. 7
In his E∣xamination &c. pag. 120.
Cont. Ʋigilant. c. 2. & 3.
In his answer to a counterfeyt Cath. pag. 46.
pag. 36.
Sess. 22. cap. 3.
De San∣ctorum Bea∣titud lib. 1. cap. 2.3.4. ••. 6.
pag. 35.
2.2. q. 60. art. 3. in corp
pag. 3••
Azor. Instit. Mo∣ral. tom. 1. cap. 20. lib. 8. § Neque vero.
Pag. 27.
In Psal. 37.
2.2. q. 2. art. 5. in cor∣por.
pag. 40.
Infra chap. 5. num. 17.
Epist. 75. apud Cypr.
Pag. 47.
de Eccles. milit. cap. 6. Respondeo.
Anno 357. num. 44. apud Spond.
De Rom. Port lib. 4. cap. 9.
Pag. 76.
Ad Cor∣nel. ep. 33.
〈◊〉〈◊〉 Parm. lib. 2.
Epist. 62
Ep. Conc. Mileu. ad Innocent. inter epist. Aug. epist. 92
Coutra Luçifer.
In Com. part. 1.
Contra Ruff. Apol. 1.
Hist. Ec∣cles. lib. 5. c. 24.
Aduers. Haeres. lib. 3. cap. 3.
Pag. 50.
Aun. 604.
de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 25.
Pag. 50:
Ʋbisup.
Ann. 553. num. 14. apud Spond.
Pag. 57