us. Now the arguments, which he bringeth to prove it an heresy, are partly over vveak, partly untrue; over weake, that he beginneth vvith one of Epiphanius; untrue, that he adioyneth the universall consent of the Church. For thogh Epiphanius do say, that Aërius assertion is full of foly, yet he dispro∣ves not the reason, vvhich Aërius stood on, out of the Scripture; nay he dea∣les so in seeking to disprove it, that Bellarm in the Jesuit, To. 1. contr. 5. l. 1. c. 15. desirous to make the best of Epiphanius, whose opinion here in he maintai∣neth against the Protestauts, yet is forced to confesse, that Epiphanius his answer is none of the wisest, nor any way can fit the text. As for the generall consent of the whole Church, which D. Bancroft saith, condemned that opinion of Aërius for an heresy, and himse••f for an heretik, because he persisted in it, that is a large speach: but what proof has he, that the Church did so? it appeares, he saith, in Epiphanius. It doth not, and the contrary appeares by S. Jerom, in epi. ad Tit. & ad Euagr. and sondry others, who lived, some in the same time, some after Epiph. even Austin himself, thogh D. Bancroft cite him, as bearing witnes thereof likewise; I grant, S. Austin in his book of heresies, ascribeth this to Aërius, for one, that he said, Presbyterum ab Episcopo nulla dif∣ferentiâ debere discerni: but it is one thing to say, There ought to be no difference betwixt them (which Aerius saying condemned the Churches order, yea, made a schism therein, and is so censured by S. Austin, counting it an heresy, as in Epiphanius he took it recorded, himself (as he witnesseth de heres. ad Quod vuld. in praefat.) not knowing, hovv farr the name of heresy should be stretched) and another thing to say, that by the word of God there is no dif∣ference betwixt them, but by the order & custom of the Church, vvhich Augustin himself saith in effect, epist. 19. so far vvas he from vvitnessing this to be heresy, by the generall consent of the vvhole Church. Which untruth, hovv vvrongfully it is fathered on him, and on Epiphanius [vvho yet are all the vvinesses, that D. Bancroft hath produced for the proof hereof, or can, for ought that I knovv] it may appear by this, that our learned country man of godly memory Bishop Jevvell def. of the Apol. Par. 2. c. 9. div. 1. pag. 198. when Harding to convince the same opinion of heresy, alledged the same witnesses, he citing to the contrary Chrysostom, Jerom, Austin & Ambrose, knit up his answer with these words, All these, and other mo holy Fathers, to gether with the Apostle S. Paul, for thus saying, by Hardings ad∣vice, mus•• be held for heretiks. And Michaell Medina, a man of great ac∣count in the Councell of Trent, more ingenuous herein than many other Papists, affirmes not only the former ancient writers alledged by Bishop Jewell, but also another Jerom, Thodoret, Primasius, Sedulius and Theophy∣lact, were of the same mind touching this matter with Aërius, With whom agree likwise Oecumenenius on. Tim. 3. and Anselm Archbishop of Canterbur∣ry in epi, ad Tit and another Anselm Collect. can. lib. 7. ca. 87. & 127. and Gregory Polic. lib. 2. tit. 19. & 39. and Gratian ca. Legimus dist. 39. & ca. Olim, dist. 95. and after them how many? It being once enrolled in the Canon-law for sound & catholike doctrin, and thereupon publickly taught by learned men; All which do bear witnes against D. Bancroft of the point in question, that it was not condemned for an Heresy by the generall consent of the whole Church. For if he should reply, that these later witnesses did live a 1000. year after Christ, and therefore touch not him, who said, it was condemned so in the time of S. Austen and of Epiphanius, the most flourishing time of the Church, that ever hapned since the Apostles dayes, either in respect of learning or of zeal, first they whom I named, though living in a later time, yet are witnesses of former. 1▪ Oecumenius the Greek Scholiast treading in the steps of the old Greek Fathers, and the Anselmes