Saint Augustines Religion

To all seduced Papists.

S Vch is the gross ignorance of most Papists in these their times, that they neither know what they do, or should believe: much like the Colliar, that told the devil, he believed as the Roman Church did. Being asked again what that faith was, answered, the same faith that he believed in. Surely the devils gave better testimony of their faith and knowledge, and the Apostle witnesseth it, and yet the Popish Prelates will have their people learn no Creed but this, which is to believe they know not what.

No maru • ll then, that the Romish Impostors have taken away the key of knowledge; nay they judge it a mere invention of the Devil, that lay men should read the Scripture; and they say that some Ploughmen for reading of it, were justly possessed of the Devil, and therefore ignorance of the word is best. And as Hosius saith, To know nothing, is to know all things, and instead of Bibles, they have invented Images and Crucifixes, (wherewith too many Dames (in these conniuing days) adorn their shameless breasts) and Mass books, commonly imprinted with a mixture of red letters to signify the die of their Religion, but as for the Scripture, they are far more dangerous, then the ribaldry of Terence, the villainy of Machiauel, or the fabulous lies of their Legends, being the main and principal cause of all heresies, and the very beholding of them is enough to infect silly Catholics; therefore much less may they read them: and if any be permitted to study the Scripture, it must be such a part thereof as hath been hallowed with their Expurgatory gloss, & those persons must be such, which the Confessor knows to be stiff and obstinate Papists▪ upon whom that judgment is already fallen, They shall hear with their ears, but shall not understand: they shall see with their eyes, but not perceive: And all this is not sufficient, but they must have the permission of the Inquisitor, & the parish Priest too: this is the Canon of the Conuenticle of Trent, commended by the Rhemists, & seconded by Molanus, Bellarmine, Hosius, Sanders, and others.

And now you poor seduced souls, why do your holy Fathers constrain you to believe ye know not what? and restrain you from the knowledge of Scripture? (whence your faith if it be sound▪ must be truly collected) and the ignorance whereof is the root of all error, & the cause of unbelief: is it not because they would have your souls to depend on their lips? (under whose tongue is the poison of asps is it not because they would carry their hellish positions & practices as in a cloud out of your sight? Is it not because they know that the splendor of God's word will soon disperse that Egyptian darkness they keep you in? is it not because like Satan they would take you at their pleasure?

But yet such is the impudency of your false prophets, that notwithstanding, they will tell you, that they teach nothing without the special warrant of Scripture, and that all the Fathers were Papists, and held their opinions: both which are their own fictions, and false. For the first, they will neither abide the trial of our faith by the Word of God, (which was the reason that Fisher 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 own religion; and the reason is, because it wholly depends upon the Traditions of the new Romish Church, which is confirmed by Gregory the thirteenth, where he saith, Let men receive with more reverence, what the Pope teacheth, then the Scriptures. And Cano confesseth, that most points of the Roman Faith, are not contained in the Scripture: And Andradius speaks plainly, that many points of their Faith must needs reel and totter, if they were not supported by the help of Tradition; and this is the cause your Mass-priests will not endure, that the Resolution of the now depending Controuersies between us and them, should be by the authority of the Scriptures, but run from them to the Fathers, from them to the Church, fromthence to the Pope, from him to Councils, and from these to their own Judgments.

Now for the second, If the Fathers were Papists, as they say, why do their chief Doctors condemn, and contemn them? Bellarmine saith, That Saint Origen was burnt in Hell with Arius, and Nestorius; and that Tertullian was a Montanist. Alphonsus, that he will believe Anacletus, better then Saint Jerome, or Saint Augustine. Tollet the Jesuit saith, That he will believe neither Augustine, nor Ambrose, nor Chrysostom, nor Theodoret, nor Photios: the like • steeme they have of Cyprian, Gregory, Beda, and the rest, i • in any point they make against them, and their doctrine.

And no marvel, for the Doctors of Paris profess boldly, that they will not believe either Gratian, or Aquinas, or Lombard, or Anse • me, or Hugo, because they were erroneous. Bellarmine again condemneth Scotus, Durand, Gabriel, Ariminensis, Capreolus, and Marsi • ius in the point of Free will: and yet all these were Popish Writers, famous and most eminent in their times.

Nay, which is more worthy observation, though they teach, that the Scriptures and Fathers must have their authority from the Pope, and that we ought to stand rather to his judgment, then the judgment of the whole world; and that when Questions cannot be fitly decided by the Doctors, then it is free for him to interpose his Authority, that he is above Church and Councils, and that he may make that to be the meaning of things, which indeed is not (as they affirm:) yet notwithstanding they will not submit themselves in opinion and judgment to the Pope: and therefore the Venetians boldly published Conclusions against Paulus Quintus, and his Supremacy; Catharinus holds it unmeet, that wise men should bind themselves to the judgment of the Pope, seeing he is not always assisted by the Spirit of God. Almaine saith, That it is not necessary to believe what the Pope determineth. Bellarmine and Cajetan hold it lawful to resist him; Franciscus Victoria, that it were good a Council would bridle him; and Bozius saith, he may be an Her • tike, and both teach and write Heresies; and many learned Papists have written against his Decrees in Councils.

These things being apparent and true (if we may believe your own Writers, here only cited) what good acceptance can this Book expect from you? although it do truly set forth unto you the mind and judgment of an holy and learned Father, disagreeing from your opinions in sixty two several points? If your Teachers will be tried neither by Scriptures, nor Fathers, nor Pope, Saint Augustine will hardly prevail: yet because they boa •• to you, that all the Fathers were Papists, and especially Saint Augustine, ye shall do well for your better satisfaction, and the trial of their spirits, to read this ensuing Treatise, most faithfully and painfully collected from his writings, and for your ease digested into a few sheets of paper.

To conclude, search the Scriptures, study the Fathers, and read the Antiquaries, and see if in them ye can find Rabbies comparable to your Clerks, or whether a • y Christian or Pagan e • er taught or did as they, whether any of their Priests like them, did seek to strangle the vital spirits of human society, teaching neighbors to rob one another of their goods, debtors not to pay what they have promised, servants to yield no subjection & fidelity to their masters, wives no obedience to their husbands, fathers no love to their children, children no honor to their parents, and you Catholics, • ot to preserve, but to seek the blood and life of your parents, brethren, kindred, and countrymen.

Did ye ever hear or read of any Churchmen, that have employed Poynadoes, Poison, or Saltpeter, as they have done? or can you find, or they prove, that ever any Protestant Bishop, like Pope Sixtus the fourth, with his Legat, did murder two Princes in the Church at Mass? (much like to Pilate, that mingled the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifice) did ever any of our Priests, mixe poison with the powder of Adamant, in a Communion Cup, with the precious blood of Christ, to poison an Emperor, as Bernard a Frier did, when therewith he destroyed Henry the 7. at Bonconuent? Were there ever such Artizans, and Engines of villainy of our Religion, that with a poisoned knife did stab a King, as Clement a Friar did Henry the third of France? or with a spark of fire would have blown up the whole body of a kingdom, as Garnet the Arch-priest with his fellows attempted not long since? And yet these are your holy Fathers and Confessors, whom you follow and adore; take heed therefore what you learn of these, let them not alienate your souls from God, and your hearts from your country, and assure yourselves, that so long as ye follow them, ye shall neither get sound comfort, nor a good conscience. Oh thar ye were wise, then would ye understand this, ye would consider your latter end.

S ^t . AVGVSTINES Religion: Wherein is proved that he dissented from Popery, and agreed with the Religion of the Protestants in all the main points of Faith and Doctrine.

I T is hottly Controuerted, between us, and the Papists at this day, Whether the Auncient Fathers, and especially Saint Austin, was of their Religion, or of ours? The Papists challenge all the ancient Fathers, as theirs: and especially, Saint Austin. Of him they brag above measure. He ( they say) was a Monk, a Professor, and a stout Defender, and a strong maintainer of their Popery: undoubtedly no Protestant. The particulars of his doctrine ( they say) touching the several points this day in Controuersie, were consonant and agreeable with their now professed Popery. All the Haeresies of this Age, Vnius Augusti verbis confutari & proteri vel maxim possunt: may be confuted and confounded by proofs fetched only from Saint Austin's writings, say the Papists. Whereof, to make some show unto the world, as Torrensis a Jesuit in the year 1569. published in Latin a Collection, out of Saint Austin's works, of all such speeches as he thought made in any sort for them, and against us; intiteling that his Collection by the name of Confessio Augustinian • : So about two years since, one Brereby Priest (whether Secular, or Jesuit, I know not) hath published in English such another Collection, out of the same Saint Austin's Works, intitling it, Saint Austin's Religion. Now for the discovery of this their insolent bragging of Saint Austin, I have thought good, to undertake the proving of this Assertion. Uiz. That Saint Austin was rather of our Religion, then of the Papists: for as much, as in the most material points he is undoubtedly for us, and against them.

That Saint Austin, in the most material points of Doctrine, is for us, and against the Papists: the ensuing instances prove manifestly. For

1 FIrst, It is questioned between us and Papists, How far forth Fathers are to be followed? And some of them say, Scripta Sanctorum sunt ad vnguem obseruanda. The writings of the Fathers are to be observed to a nails breadth. Others, Hodie iubentur omnia teneri vsque ad vltimum iota. At this day we are bound to believe everything they say. But we say, They are so far forth to be believed as they agree with holy Scripture, and no further. Against which Assertion of ours, they take great exception. For, This is to give no more credit to their authority, then to Jews, Turks, and Heretics, and so it is quite to reject their authorities, saith Kellison. Yet St. Austin was of our opinion herein. Saint Austin thought not good to follow the Fathers any further, neither did he require that any man should follow him any further. He as we took liberty, and gave liberty to judge of the Fathers writings according to their agreement, or disagreement with holy Scriptures.

That he took liberty to himself to judge so, it appears by this: That when he was pressed by Cresconius the Grammarian with a Testimony taken out of an Epistle of Saint Cyprians, he answered thus. Ego eius Epistolae authorita • e 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. I am not bound to stand to be tried by that Epistle, because I do not account of Cyprians Epistles as of Canonical Scriptures, but examine thē by the Canonical Scriptures: and what I find in them agreeable to the holy Scriptures, I receive it with his commendation: what I find to disagree from holy Scriptures, with his good leave, I leave it. For hereby we are taught (as Erasmus noted in the Margent over against these words) Quomodo tam S. Cypriani dicta, quam aliorum Doctorum accipienda sint. How far forth we are to esteem of the speeches of Saint Cyprian, and other of the Doctors.

Again, the same appears by this, that in the Controuersie between him and Saint Jerome, Whether St. Paul, Galat 2 14. reproved Saint Peter colourably, or in good earnest: where Jerome alleged seven Fathers against his Assertion: viz. Origen, Didimus, Apollinaris, Alexander, Eusebius Emisenus, Theodorus, and Chrysostom; of which Fathers, Jerome made so great account, that he desired Austin to suffer him to err with them, if he thought him to err. Austin would not yield to Jerome, though he could but name two Fathers who were of his mind, but appeals to Saint Paul himself from all Saint Jerome's Fathers, saying: Pro his omnibus, imo supra hos omnes Apostolus Paulus occurrit: ad ipsum confugio, ad ipsum ab omnibus qui aliud sentiunt literarum eius tractatoribus interpello, &c. I have Paul the Apostle himself instead of these all, and above these all. To him do I fly. To him I appeal from all the Doctors (his Interpreters) which are of other minds, for this shows he would not follow the Fathers further then he thought they agreed with holy Scriptures.

That he gave liberty to others to judge so, it is plain by these words. Noli meis literis quasi Canonicis Scriptures ins • ruire: sed in illis & quae non credibas, cuminueneris incunctanter creed: in istis autom quod certum non habebas, nisi certum intellex • ris, n • li firmum tenere. Give not like credit to my Writings as to the Canonical Scriptures. If thou findest anything in the Canonical Scriptures which thou believest not before, believe it presently upon thy finding of it: but if thou findest anything in any writings whereof thou wast not persuaded before, unless thou perceive it to be a certain truth, do not believe it for truth And by these. Negare non possum, nec debeo, sicut in ipsis maioribus: ita multa esse in tam multis Opusculis meis, quae possunt iusto tudicio, & nulla temeritate culpari. I cannot deny but there are many things in my Works, as there are in the Writings of the Ancients, which justly and with good discretion may be excepted against. For so much in effect is confessed by the Gloz • r on the Canon Law, and by Cardinal Turrecremate. For upon mention of these and such like places as these are Loquitur Augustinus secundum illa tempora cum adhuc scripta Augustine's & aliorum Patrum non erant authention. Saint Austin spake (say they) agreeably to those times, wherein his, and other holy Fathers Writings were not Authentical. For such words argue, that in their opinion, Saint Austin's, and other holy Fathers writings, were not in Saint Austin's time, in so great request, as now with Papists. They were no further to be believed then, then men saw good proof, good reason. Such is acknowledged in plainer Iodochus Clychtoueus. For Liberum est cui{que} a Sanctorum qui post tempora Apostolorum scripserunt placitis, verum iuuestigando, disceptandoque declinare, Vbi maiorem habet authoritatem, p • tioremue rationem ad alteram partem impellentem, quemadmodum sacer Augustinus de suis scriptis censet esse faciundum. It is lawful for every man who seeks to boult out the Truth by way of disputation to differ in opinion from such holy men as lived since the Apostles days: provided they have greater authority and better reason to induce them to the contrary.

2 It is questioned between us and Papists, Whether, When there is difference in Bibles about the reading of the Text, the Originals should rather be believed then the Translation, that is, Whether the Hebrew of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New Testament should be preferred before the vulgat Latin. The Papists in our days teach, That now, Non est quod ad Hebraica vel Graeca recurramus exemplaria: there is no reason why we should have recourse to the Hebrew, or to the Greek. Now the vulgat Latin is so Authentical, Vt nemo illa reiicere quouis praetextu audeat. No man may be so bold under any pretence or color to reject it. Now Graeci & Hebraici Codices, sicubi a vulgata editione dissideant; per vulgatam corrigendi & emendandi sunt. If the Hebrew or the Greek Books differ from the vulgat Latin, they are to be corrected and amended by the vulgat Latin, saith Gregory de Valentia But we teach the contrary. And that S. Austin is of our opinion herein, it is plain by his own words: for, Ei Linguae potius credatur vnde est in aliam, per Jnterpretes facta Translatio. When there is difference in Books and both cannot be true; believe thou rather saith S. Augustine, what is written in the Book translated, then in the Translation. And Latinae Linguae homines duabus aliis ad diuinarum Scripturarum cognitionem habent opus, Hebraica scilicet & Graeca, vt ad exemplaria praecedentia recurratur, si quam dubitationem attulerit Latinorum Jnterpretum infinita varietas. Those men who understand Latin, stand in need of two other Languages for the better understanding of holy Scripture, to wit, Hebrew & Greek to the end that when any doubt ariseth by reason of the multiplicity of Latin Translations, they may have recourse unto the Originalls, saith the same Austin. And so much is confessed by Azorius the Jesuit, and by Lud • uicus Uiues: for, Olim cum multa esset Latinorum Codicum varietas, patres dicebant, ad Hebraicos vel Graecos Codices recurrendum esse Sic Hieronimus, sic Augustinns. In former days when there was great variety of Latin Copies, the Fathers such as Jerome and Augustine, held opinion that we might have recourse to the Hebrew or Greek Copies, saith Azorius. And Hocipsum Hieronimus clamat, hoe ipsad • cet ratio, & nullus est saniore iudicio qui repugnat. The same truth is taught by Jerome, and enen reason it self confirms the fame: neither doth any man of sound judgment think otherwise, saith Viues in his Annotations upon the former place.

3 The Papists teach, That the Apostles had no Commandment from God to write that which they writ, falsum est Deum mand • sse Apostolis vt scriberent. It is not true that God commanded the Apostles to write anything, saith Bell. Nem • ni obscurum est, Christum nihil ipsum scripsisse sed neque scribendum quiequam Apostolis praecepisse. It is not unknown to any man that Christ himself writ nothing: neither is it unknown to any man, that he never commanded his Disciples to write anything, saith Cardinal Hosius. Yet we teach contrary. And so doth S. Austin for Quicquid ill (viz Christus) de suis factis & dictis nos legere voluit, hoc scribendum illis, tanquam suis manibus imperanit. Whatsoever it pleased Christ that we should read concerning his words or wor • es, that he commanded his Apostles to write as it were with his own fingers, saith S. Austin.

4 The Papists generally teach That all things necessary to salvation are not contained in Scripture. And we teach the contrary. The Papists generally teach. That the Scriptures are full of obscurity: and one of the greatest Rufflers among them at this day, is not ashamed to say, Scripturā totam etiam vbi clarissima videtur, ita esse difficilem & obscuram, vt Jnterprete certo egeat, qui nobis veram eius sententiam aperiat. The whole Scripture, even where it seems most plain, is yet so hard & obscure, that it stands in need of a special Expositor, who may open unto us the meaning of it. But we say, though some places of Scripture be wonderful obscure, and standin need of Interpreters; yet such matters as concern Salvation, are so plainly set down, that they may easily be learned without any such set and special Expositor, as Papists drea • e of. Now that S. Austin is of our opinion in both these questions, it is plain by his own words: For speaking of the propagation of Original sin and of souls, and being sore puzzled about the point at length he concludes thus. Illud credo quod eti • m hinc (1. de hac re) diuinorum eloquiorum clarissima esset authoritas, si homo illud sine dispendio promissae salutis ignorare non posset. I verily persuade myself there should have been plain proof hereof in holy Scripture, if a man might not be ignorant thereof without danger of his salvation. And Jn ijs quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt, inueniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque viuendi. All things concerning faith and manners are plainly set down in Scripture, saith the same S. Austin, upon another occasion. Which latter testimony is so pregnant, that Costerus the Jesuit, is driven by the evidence of it, and another such like testimony of S. Chrysostom's, to deny there is any Controuersie between us and them Sint ne omnia fidei & vitae Christianae dogmata ad salutē necessaria in sacris literis perspicue conscripta. Whether all the Doctrines which concern faith and manners, being necessary to Salvation, are plainly set down in Scripture: for Illud affirmamus cum sanctis Chrysostom. & August. We affirm so much with S. Chrysostom 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 never so Catholikely translated▪ In some, they forbid only such to read Bibles Catholikely translated, who have not express Licenses under the hands of the Ordinaries to read them. In no place will they permit every man indifferently to read the Scriptures in their Mothers Tongue, as we do. Now that S. Austin is of our opinion it is plain: so, Eo mihi venerabilior & sacrosancta fide dignior apparebat authoritas (Scripturae) quo omnibus ad legendum esset in promptu, verbis aptissimis & humilimo genere loquendi se cunctis praebens, &c. I reverenced and held the Scriptures worthy of so much the more credit, by how much the more I saw them readier for every man to read, and that they framed themselves to every man's capacity by the plainness of the words, and the familia • nesse of the Style, saith S. Austin. And Legite Scripturas: ideo voluit Deus vt scriberentur, vt nos conso • aremur. Read ( • aith he, speaking out of the Pulpit to his Auditors) the Scriptures; for it was God's will they should be written, that we might receive comfort by them saith the same man.

6 The P pists think it a worthy question, How Scripture may be known to be Scripture We upon diverse good considerations think it an idle question. And so did S. Austin: for Persuasisti mihi non audiendos esse, si qui forte mihid • cerent, vnde scis illos libros (Scripturae) vnius veri & veracissimi dei spiritu esse humano genert ministratos. Thou (O God) didst persuade me they d served not so much as hearing, who did ask of me, how knowest thou that the Books of holy Scripture were given unto the Church by God's appointment.

7 Then Papists teach, that the true Church may be known by Antiquity, Vniuersality, unity, &c. but not by the Scriptures only infallibly. We say it may be known by the Scriptures only. And in this S. Augustine is as clear on our side as M. Calvin: for, Inter nos & Donatistas quaestio est vbi sit Ecclesia, vtrum apud nos, an apud illos. It is a question between the Donatists and us, (saith he) where the Church is; whether they or we have it. Quid ergo facturi sumus, in verbis nostris eam quaesituri, an • t verbis Capit is sui domini nostri Jesus Christi? Puto quod in illius potius verbis • am quaerere debeamns, qui veritas est, & optimenouit corpus suum. What therefore shall we do? shall we seek for it in our own words, or in the words of her own head our Lord Jesus Christ? I think we ought to seek it rather in his word who is the truth, and best knoweth his own body. And afterwards, Utrum ipsi Ecclesiam tene • it, non nisi diuinarum Scripturarum libris ostendant. If they be the Church, let them make proof thereof out of the Canonical Books of Scripture only, saith Saint Austin.

8 The Papists teach, That by working of Miracles the Church may be discerned. But we teach the contrary: And so did Saint Austin. For he profess • th that though many Miracles had been done by man of his Religion: though some of them had been Miraculouslie healed and cured: the bodies of some Martyrs lying hid for many years discovered to Saint Ambrose, an old • man well known to all the Jnhabitants of Milan, restored to his sight upon touching of the Beer whereon those bodies were carried, which is reckoned by Bellarmine as a special Miracle. Though some had seen Visions, some had been wrapped in spirit, and heard that either they should not join themselves with Donatus, or that they should forsake Donatus: yet he and his follows desired not (in regard thereof) to be believed they were the Church, concluding: Quaecunque talia in Catholica fiunt, ideo sunt approbanda quia in Catholica fiunt, non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica, quia haec in ea fiunt. Though all such Miracles are to be approved of, because they are wrought in the Catholic Church: yet the Church is not proved Catholic, because such Miracles are wrought in it.

9 The Papists deny, That all the Actions of I • fidels are sin. Yet we say, they are sins. And in this St. Austin is so apparently on our side that Papists are driven to conf • sse it. For, Sine fide • tiam quae videntur bona opera in peccata vertuntur. The works which are done without Faith, though they seem good are turned into sin, saith Saint Austin in one place. And in another▪ 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 qu • m virtutes. Nam licet a quibusdam tunc verae & honestae putentur cum ad s •• psas referuntur, nec propter aliud expet •• ntur etiam tunci • fl • tae & superbae sunt, & ideo non virtutes sed vitia judicandae sunt. The virtues which the mind of him that knows not God seem to have, by which she swaies the body and her vicious affections if they be not referred to God, are indeed rather vices then virtues. For though some hold them to be true and real virtues, when they are affected only for their own sakes and nothing else, yet even so they are full of vanity and pride, and to be adjudged vices and not virtues, saith he. In which words, Tam aperte virtutes has inter peccata numerat, vt nulla videntur tergiversatione alio posse torqueri, saith Michael Baines, Professor of Divinity in Louaine. And Non sequenda illa opinio est quam Tr • d. Conc. nuper merito damnauit; omnia Jnfidelium opera esse peccata, quamuis maximum Authorem D. Augustinum habuisse videatur. We may not defend that opinion which the Council of Trent did justly of late condemn: viz. that all the actions of Infidels are sin, though the great Father Saint Austin seems to have been of that opinion, saith Maldonado.

10 The Papists teach, Some good works may be done by Infidels through the strength of nature only. We say nay. And for proof of our Negative in this we allege Saint Austin, who speaking of the Heretike Peligius, writes thus: Jnterdum it a paribus moment is potestatem voluntat is aequa lance perpendit, vt aliquantulum etiam ad non peccandum valere definiat. Quod si it a est, nullus locus adiutorio gratiae reseruatur, sine qua nos dicimus, ad non peccandum nihil voluntatis arbitrium habere. He weighs sometimes the power of a man's will in such an even pair of scales, as that he teacheth it for truth, It is able to do somewhat that may keep a man from sinning. Which if it be true, he leaves nothing to the help of God's grace. Without which, we say, a man's free Will is of no power to keep a man from sinning. Upon which words, Michael Baius above named Glozeth thus. Nos, inquit, Igitur Pelagiorum vox est, potestatem testatem voluntatis aliquantulum ad non peccandum valere: Christianorum vero professio est, sine adiutori • gratiae ad non peccandum • ihil valere voluntatis arbitrium.

12 The Papists teach, That some sins are venial and pardonable of their own nature, such, for which God cannot in Justice keep a man out of heaven, and adjudge him to the second death. But we teach contrary. And so did Saint Austin, as Baius the Professor of Divinity at Louaine acknowledgeth: yea and Ferdinandus Velosillus also. For he having observed how Austin writes, That Minuta plura peccata si negliguntur, occidunt. Many little sins (the Papists call them Veniall) if men be careless of them, kill the soul: delivering his opinion of the Words, saith thus. Pro Augustino respondemus, quod quando dicit, Quod plura peccata minuta, si negliguntur occidunt: agebat vicem co • cionatoris, qui vt populum a peccatis retrahant, grauitatem delictorum exaggerantes, in odium delicti, saepe excedunt. To Austin I answer, that when he spake such words, he spake them as a Preacher, who in hatred of sin, and out of a desire to affright men from sin, do sometimes so exaggerate the grievousness of sin that they speak over.

12 The Papists teach, That Poena damni, not Poena sensus, is due to Original sin. Wherefore they generally teach, That Children dying in Original sin, are punished only with Poena damni, but not with Poena sensus. But we say, That such child • en as die in Original sin are punished with Poena sensus, and not with Poena damni only. For in our opinion, Poena sensus, and not Poena damni only, is due to Original sin. And of our opinion Saint Austin was. For (to omit what is written, To. 3. operum Augusti de 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 Jesuit Azorius had no way to elude the testimonies, but by the denying some of the Books to be Saint Austin's, and by making doubt of other some) in a known and an approved work of his, he writes thus. Quicunque ab illa perditionis massa quae facta est per hominem primum non liberantur per vnum Mediatorem Dei & hominem, resurgent quidem etiam ipsi vnusquisque cum sua carne: sed vt cum Diabolo & Angels eius puniantur. Whosoever they be that are not delivered from that Mass of corruption, which was caused by Adam, through the means of that our Mediator between God and man, every of them shall rise again in their own flesh, yet to that end they may be punished with the Devil and his Angels Which last words to be punished with the Devil and his angels, imply necessarily Poenam sensus.

13 The Papists teach, That our works are meritorious, and the very cause of Salvation. But we say, they are not. In this St. Austin is so plain on our side, saying, Coronat te, quia dona sua coronat, non merita tua. He Crowns thee because he crowns his gifts, not thy merits: that Bishop the Prieft denies there is any such saying in Saint Austin as this is. Saint Austin was too wise to let any such foolish sentence to pass his pen, saith Bishop.

14 The Papists teach, That there are seven Sacraments of the Church, truly and properly so called; and neither mo, nor fewer. We teach, that in true and proper sense, there are only two Sacraments of the Church; neither mo, nor fewer. Now that S. Austin is of our opinion herein, his words show: for in one place he affirms, that de latere Christi in cruce pendentis lancea percusso, Sacramenta Ecclesiae profluxerent: when Christ's side was pierced with a Spear, the Sacraments of the Church issued thereout. And in an other, that percussum est latus, & statim manarunt sanguis & aqua, quae sunt Ecclesiae geminae Sacramenta. Christ's side was pierced, and immediately there gushed out both blood and water, which are the two Sacraments of the Church. He meaning, the Lord's Supper, by blood; by water, Baptism.

The Papists teach, That Women • ay Baptize. And we teach the contrary. Now that S. Austin was of our opinion herein, it is plain by this; That in the fourth Council at Carthage, whereunto he subscribed, it was absolutely decreed, Mulier baptizare ne praesumat. Let not women baptize, and not with limitation, as Gratian, and Lombard corruptly cite it, Mulier baptizare ne praesumat nisi necessitate cogente. Let not Women baptize, except in cases of necessity.

16 The Papists teach, That S. Paul by the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. 11. meant not the Eucharist, and that most great Authors now are of that opinion. But we teach the contrary. And notwithstanding one of them would impudently face us down, that in calling the Eucharist by the name of the Lord's Supper, we are destitute of all proof out of Scripture, and of all warrant from the ancient Fathers, and of all reason: yet Cardinal Baronius witnesseth with us, that, Idem esse manducare Coenam Dominicam quod Eucharistiam sumere Augustinus demonstrate. Austin proves manifestly, to eat the Lord's Supper and to receive the Eucharist are both one, making this note (as it were) by the way. Sic patres appellare consueuerunt institutionem sacratissimae Eucharistiae. So the Fathers were wont to call the Eucharist. Ouer against which in the Margent is set, Omnes qui interpretati sunt locum 1 Cor. 11. Even all the Fathers which have written Commentaries upon 1 Cor. 11.

17 The Papists teach, That the Sacrament is their Lord and God. But we teach the contrary. We say with S. Austin, it is, Panis Domini, not Panis Dominus: The Bread of the Lord; but not Bread, our Lord.

18 The Papists forced Berengarius to swear by the blessed Trinity, that he believed; Verum corpus & sanguinem Domininostri Jesus Christi fidelium dentibus atteri, the true body and blood of our Savior Jesus Christ, is torn with Christian men's teeth, when they receive the Sacrament: Yet we believe with S. Austin, that Christum vorari dentibus fas non est. It is not lawful for a Christian to tear Christ with his teeth. Which belief is so contrary to that of Berengarius, that the Glozer had no way to reconcile them, but was driven to confess, that Berengarius hyperbolice loquutus est, & veritatem excessit, used an Hyperbole, and spake more then the truth.

19 The g Papists cannot brook to hear that our Savior saying: This is my Body, meant, This is a sign of my Body. Yet we say his meaning was such. And so doth S. 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 ga • e the sign of his Body, saith S. Austin. With which words the Papists are so troubled, that some of them have made question whether they were not heretofore patched into S. Austin's works, by some follower of Berengarius: & others have been forced to shift them off, under pretence that S. Austin in fighting against the Manichees oftentimes useth not his own sense, but those things, which by some means howsoever it were, might seem to give him advantage then; so as he might put them to the worse.

20 The Papists affirm that it is an impudent forgery to write. that the Jews received no less the truth and substance of Christ in their Sacraments, then we do in ours: Yet we write and teach so. And so did S. Austin: for Eundem cibum spiritualem manducauerunt. Quid est eundem, nisi quod cum, quem etiam nos. The Apostle affirms (saith S. Austin) that they (the Jews) ate the same spiritual meat, what means he to say the same, but that they ate that which we also eat? And a little after, Suffecerat vt diceret, cibum spiritualem manducauerunt, eundem inquit, eundem non intelligo quomodo intelligendum, nisi • um, quem manducamus & nos. It had been sufficient to have said, They ate spiritual meat; but he saith more they ate the same. I cannot tell how I should understand that word the same, except he mean they ate the same, for that they ate the same which we do eat. And in another place, Apostolum vndi. Hearken what the Apostle saith, saith S. Austin. Omnes eandemescam spiritualem manducauerunt, spiritualem vtique candem, nam corporalem alteram: quia illi, Manna: nos all • ud, spiritualem vero quam nos, They all ate the same spiritual meat; mark, the same spiritual meat; for they ate not the same corporal meat: they ate Manna, we eat another thing; but they ate the same spiritual meat which we cate. Which words are so significant and express for us, that Maldonado confesseth, S. Austin was of our opinion; though yet in his persuasion, if Austin had lived in our days, he would have been of another opinion: for, Hoc dico, (saith the Jesuit) persuasum me habere D. Augustinum, si nostra suisset aetate, longe aliter sensurum. You must think he wanted a Jesuit to inform him better.

21 The Papists teach, That Accidents remains in the Sacrament without subjects, And we teach contrary. Now if the Book Soliloqu • orum be Saint Austin's, as Bellarmine saith it is▪ Saint Austin is ours in this. For thus that Author writes therein. Quis concesserit, aut cui posse fieri videatur, vt id quod in subiecto est, maneat, ipso intereunte subiecto? Monstruosum enim & a veritate alienissimum est, vt id quod non esset, nis • in ipso esset, ettam cum ipsum non fuerit, pos • it esse. Who can grant, or to whom can it seem probable, that that which is in a subject should remain when the subject is destroyed? It is monstrous and far from all show of truth, that that which should have no being, unless it were in such a subject, should have a being, even when that subject hath no being.

22 The Papists at this day teach, That the Sacrifice offered in the Communion, or Mass, as they call it, is a very Sovereign, true, and proper Sacrifice: meaning thereby, That Christ is killed there indeed, and sacrificed to God. But we say, That therein there is only made a Commemoration▪ of the true, and sovereign, and proper Sacrifice of the Cross, and not an Oblation of the true and sovereign proper sacrifice it self. And with us stands Saint Austin: For first, In singulari & solo vere sacrificio pro nobis Christi sanguis effusus est. That is the only true and sovereign sacrifice, wherein Christ's blood was shed for us, saith Saint Austin. Now in the Communion or Mass, no blood is shed. Secondly, Huius Sacrificij Caro & Sanguis ante aduentum Christi, per victimas similitudinum promittebatur, in passion Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur: Post ascensum Christi, per Sacramentum memoria celebratur. The flesh and blood of the Sacrifice of Christ, was promised by Sacrifices of resemblance before he came, was performed in truth and deed when he suffered: is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance, (mark, a Sacrament of remembrance) since he ascended, saith the same S. Austin, in another place. In which he is so constant and so plain, that Peter Lombard, Master of the Sentences, proposing this question. Si quod gerit Sacerdos proprie dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio. Whether that which the Priest doth execute be properly called a Sacrifice or an oblation, resolves it is not, saying; Ad hoc breniter dici potest, illud quod affertur & consecratur a sacerdote: vocari sacrificium, & oblationem, quia memoria est & repraesentatio veri sacrificii, & sunctae immolationis factae in ara Crucis. To this I answer briefly, That that which is offered and consecrated by the Priest, is called a Sacrifice and an offering, because it is a remembrance and representation of the true Sacrifice and holy Offering made on the Altar of the Cross, grounding his conclusion upon other testimonies in S. Austin, and in S. Chrysostom.

24 The • Papists teach, That the body of our Lord may be in millions of places a t one time; even in • very place where there is a Priest which consecrates, and in every host (be they never so many) which is consecrated by any Priest. But we teach contrary. And so did S. Austin: for he intending to show the difference between Christ's body and his truth, viz. his word: and that in respect of the places where they might be found. Donec saeculum finietur sursum est dominus; s • d • tiam tamen hic nobis • um est veritas domini. Corpus enim domini in quo resurrexit in vno loco esse oportet, veritas autem eius vbique diffusa est. Till Doomes-day, saith he, our Lord is above; yet the truth of the Lord is with us; for our Lord's body in which he arose from the dead, must be in one place, but his truth is in every place.

24 The Papists teach, That evil men even Infidels: yea, brute beasts may eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ. But we say, Nay. Now Saint Augustine speaks plainly for us. For, Ipse (Christus) dicens, Qui manducat carnem meam, & bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet, & ego in eo: ostendit quid sit non Sacr • mento tenus, sed revera Corpus Christi manducare, & eius sanguinem bibere: hec est enim in Christo manere, vt in illo maneat & Christus, sic enim hoc dixit, tanqu • m diceret. Qui non in me manet, & in quo ego non maneo, non se dicat, aut existimet manducare Corpus meum aut bibere Sanguin • m meum. When Christ said (saith Saint Augustine) He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him: he shown what it is, to receive Christ (not Sacramentally merely, but) truly: even to dwell in Christ, that Christ may also dwell in him. For when he said this, it was as much as if he had said: He that dwelleth not in me, nor I in him, let him not say, nor think that he eats my flesh or drinks my blood.

26 The Papists at Rome teach, That the Pope is in authority above a General Council. But we teach the contrary. And so did Saint Augustine. For he putting the case, that Melchiades Bishop of Rome, and certain other Bishops sitting in Commission with him (by the Emperors commandment) upon a Controuersie between the Donatists and Caecilian, had done the Donatists wrong in giving sentence against them and for Caecilian. Restabat adhuc plenarium Eccles • ae vniuersae concilium, vbi etiam cum ipsis iudioibus causa posset agitari, vt si male indicasse conu • cti essent, • orum sententiae soluerentur. There remained (saith he) a further help for them, even a general Council, in which they might have argued the case with the Commissioners appointed to be their Judges: and procured reuersement of their judgment, upon proof they had judged unjustly. Which words are so pregnant for our position, that Cardinal Cusan, and diverse other Papists allege them for proof of the same conclusion.

27 The Papists teach, That any man who thinks himself • ronged, may appeal to Rome. But we teach, they should not▪ Now that S. Austin was of our opinion it is plain. For he was one at the Council of Milenis, wherein it was decreed, That if any Elder or Deacon, or Clergy man of inferior state, appealed over Sea (meaning to the Pope) no man in Africa should communicate with him. The words of the Canon running thus: Placuit vt Presbyteri, diaconi, vel caeteri inferiores Clerici in causis quas habuerint, vicini Episcopy 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 us, and against the Papists, that though Gracian in one place cite • them simply and truly as they are in several editions of the Councils: yet in another place▪ he patcheth to them certain words of his own, viz. nisi forte Romanam sedem appellauerint, unless perhaps they appeal to Rome, endeavoring thereby to make the world believe, that S. Austin and his Colleagues allowed of Appeales to Rome, and denied them to other places only. Whereas (by the confession of Theodorus Balsamon, yea of Bellarmine) that Canon was especially made to restrain appeals of Elders and Deacons to Rome.

28 The Papists teach That all Bishops may (doubtless) appeal to Rome. But we deny this also. And no question, but S. Austin denied it in his time: for in the Canon above cited, to which he subscribed, we read, 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 often decreed touching Bishops. In S. Austin's opinion, it was no more lawful for Bishops, then for the inferior Clergy, to appeal to Rome.

29 The Papists teach, That the Pope may absolve such from Excommunication as are excommunicated by others. But we teach, he cannot. Now that S. Austin was of our mind in this, it is plain. For, He, with others, in their Epistle to Pope Caelestin, charge him with doing that which he ought not to have done: in that he restored Apiarius unto the Communion, whom they had restrained therefrom; entreating him he would no more absolve such as were excommunicated by them, alleging this as a reason, viz. Hoc in Nicaena Synodo definitum, &c. It was agreed upon in the Council of Nice, Qui ab alijs abiecti, ab alijs non admittendi. Such as were excommunicated by one, should not be absolved by another.

30 The Papists teach, That the Pope may send his Legates into Provinces afar off to decide Controuersies among the Clergy. We teach, he might do better to keep them at home. And that S. Austin was of our opinion it is clear by the Epistle above cited, which he and other Bishops writ to Pope Caelestin: for therein, having signified unto him, they could notfind it decreed by any Council that he should send any Legates into other Countries; they desire him in that respect to send no such Legates, intimating unto him, that it smelt of pride and smoking stateliness in the world. With which speeches of his, and his fellow Bishops, the Papists are wonderfully offended. ^u Stapleton saith, It is manifest falsum, a stark lie, that no such decree is to be found in any Council. Hîc à crassaignorantia excusari vix possunt. In this, S. Austin and his fellow Bishops can hardly be excused from gross ignorance. And whereas they said, such sending of Legates smelt of worldly pride, temere prolatum fuisse manifestum est, It is evident they spoke rashly, saith the same Stapleton.

31 The Papists grant, that Provincial Councils may err: but they will not grant that their Pope can err. But we say, that in as much as Provincial Councils are subject to erring, no doubt their Pope is subject to erring. Wherein S. Austin concurreth in opinion with us. For He, and his fellow Bishops in their Epistle to Caelestin, thought it absurd, that any man should imagine God would inspire the trial of right into one man, and deny it to a great number of Bishops assembled in a Council. Which makes so fully for our assertion, that Stapleton saith bluntly, Non est absurdum quod illi Africani absurdum existimauerunt. It is not absurd which the Fathers of Africa thought absurd. And, Non necessario tenemur credere quicquid Episcopy illi dicunt—praesertim cum satis apparet—eos modum in verbis nonnihil excessisse. We are not of necessity to believe whatsoever those Bishops spake, considering it is plain, they ouershot themselves much in their words, saith Bellarmine.

32 The Papists teach, that a general Council cannot err 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 Heretics and Schismatics were rightly baptized: and being pressed by the Donatists with a Decree of a Provincial Council, held by Cyprian, in which it was affirmed, that such as were baptized by Heretics or Schismatics were not rightly baptized: he falls into a singular commendation of Scripture, preferring it before all writings of the Fathers, either single, or assembled in Councils, showing that the single writings of the Fathers may be corrected by Councils: Provincial Councils by general Councils: and that even general Councils themselves may often be amended, the former by the later, when by some experience of things, that is opened which before was shut, and that known which before was unknown. Which argues, S. Austin was of our opinion, That a general Council may err in a matter of faith.

33 The Papists say, that the first Nicene Council made 80 Canons. We say, they made but 20. Now that S. Austin was of our opinion herein, it appears by this, That he & his fellow Bishops in the sixth Council at Carthage, and the African, acknowledged no moe then 20. He and his fellow Bishops held, that the copies of the Nicene Canons which were sent them from Alexandria and Constantinople, in which there were 20 Canons only, were the truest copies. For this testimony is so evident, that the Papists have no way to avoid it handsomely, but are driven to say rudely, Non debuerunt patres Africans haec exemplaria pro verissimis venditare: The Fathers of Africa ought not to have accounted these copies (sent them from Alexandria and Constantinople) the truest copies.

34 The Papists teach, That we may believe in Saints: And we teach the contrary. Now so did S. Austin : for Credimus Paulo, sed non credimus in Paulum: credimus Petro, sed non credimus in Petrum. We believe (saith he) S. Paul, but we believe not in S. Paul. We believe S. Peter, but we believe not in S. Peter.

35 The Papists approve of the erection of Altars unto Saints, which we do not, nor S. Austin, for Nulls martyrum, 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 Papists teach, That Temples may be built to Saints: But we teach, that Temples, or Churches as we call them, should be built to God only. So did Austin, for N • nne si templum alt • m sanct • Angelo excellentissimo de liguis et l • pidibus saceremus, anathematizaremur à veritate Christi, & ab Ecclesia dei, quoniam creature exhibiremus eam seruitutem quae vni tantum debetur Deo? If we should build a Church of Wood and Stone to one of the chiefest Angels, should we not be anathematized of Christ and of his Church, saith S. Austin, seeing in doing so we should give that honor unto a creature, which is due only unto the Creator? Which words are so contrary to the Popish practice of building Churches to Saints (which practice of building proceeds from their opinion of the lawfulness thereof) that Erasmus set this Note over against them in the margent, Hoe nunc fit quibuslibet diuis: intimating, that however Austin thought it idolatrous to build Churches to the chiefest Angels, yet now there were Churches built to every of the Saints. With which his free confession, it tending to the shame of Popery, the Papists are so much offended, that in their Purgatory Iudices, direction is given, that his words be blotted our.

37 The Papists teach, That our Savior Christ after the resurrection did first appear unto his mother, assuring themselves, Nemo pius negarit, No honest man will deny it. Yet we deny it; and so doth Saint Austin: For speaking thereof, Maria Magdalenae dignatus est primitus apparere; Christ (saith he) vouchsafed to appear first unto Mary Magdalene.

38 The Papists generally teach at this day, That the Virgin Mary was not conceived in origina •• sin. And we teach the contrary. Now that these words of Austin, Quaecun{que} nascitur proles (ex concupiscentiae carnis) originally obligata est peccato: Whatsoever child is borne, by concupiscence of the flesh, the same is infected with original sin; prove that the Virgin Mary was conceived in sin, it is confessed by diverse Papists. And by the same men it is confessed in like manner, that the same conclusion is proved by these words: Firmissime tene, & nullatenus dubites, omnem hominem, qui per concubitum viri & mulieris concipitur, cum peccato original nasci: Believe thou this for a certain truth, that whosoever is gotten by conjunction of man and woman, he or she is borne with original sin.

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

40 The Papists teach, that Exspeciali Dei priuilegio, By an especial privilege granted by God, the Virgin Mary was freed from all sin. She had so much grace given her, that she never 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 grandioris aetatis accessu, quia nullus est hominum praeter ipsum qui peccatum non habuerit infantilis aetatis exortu: There was never any man but Christ (saith Saint Austin) who sinned not in his elder years, because no man but Christ was free from sin in his infancy. And in another place, discoursing upon the words, John 2. 4. Woman, what have I to do with thee? he brings in our Savior saying unto 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 subject unto God: Which words argue that he reproved her; and by consequence, that she made some fault. For, Vbi nulla culpa est, nec reprehensio, aut increpatio locum habet: Where no fault is committed, no check or reproof should be used: as Cardinal Tolet observeth.

41 The Papists teach, That it is lawful to represent God in the image of an old man. And we teach the contrary; and so did Saint. Austin. For speaking of their sacrilege, who turned the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of a corruptible man, Nefas est collocare tale simulachrum Deo: It is a foul fault to express God in such an image, saith Saint 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 Cajetan 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 testator: These images (saith he) are made, not for show (as the Cherubims in the Temple in times past) but to the end they may be worshipped, as the usual practice of the Church showeth. 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 worshipped ( saith he) but that which is all one with himself, meaning Christ Jesus: Colos. 1. 15. and Heb. 1. 3.

43 The Papists teach, That the images of Saints may be worshipped even with that worship which is due to the Saint himself, dulia, hyperdulia. But we teach the contrary; and so (it seems) did Saint Austin. For he speaking of superstitious and evil lived Christians who lived in the Church, whom the Church disliked much, and labored to reclaim; comprehends amany of them under picturarum adoratores, worshippers of Images: which toucheth the Papists so near the quick, that Bellarmine's best answer is, Aug: scripsisse eum librum in primordijs conuersionis suae ad fidem Catholicam, &c. Saint Austin writ that book alleged, presently after his conversion to Christianity, at what time he thought many customs to be idolatrous, which upon better information he held tolerable.

44 The Papists teach, That Images are lay-men's books. And we teach, they are not. Now there is no question but Saint Austin was of our opinion. For he speaking of some who imagined, contrary to Scripture, that Saint Paul was one of our Savior Christ's best beloved Disciples in his life time: because they had seen him and Saint Peter pictured with our Savior upon some walls: Sic omnino errare meruerunt qui Christum & Apostolos eius non insanctis codicibus, sed in pictis parietibus quaesierunt: So they deserved to err (saith he) who sought for Christ and his Apostles upon painted walls, and not in the Bible.

45 The Papists teach, That Africa had her Religion from Rome. Which we believe not. Because Saint Austin saith in express words, Ab orientalibus Ecclesus Euangelium in Africam venit; The Gospel came into Africa from the Greek Church.

46 The Papists teach, Men may dine on a fasting-day: but so do not we, nor S. Austin, for he disputing about Saturday fast, makes a plain opposition between dyning and fasting; giving us to understand (which is confessed by Bellarmine) that he who dynes fasts not, he who fasts dynes not.

47 The Papists teach, It is a sin against the first Commandment, to dissuade or hinder any from entering Religion: that is, according to their language, from being a Monk or a Nun. But we think not so, neither did S. Austin think so: for it is cenfessed by Claudius Espencaeus, that in his 70 Epistle. A Monachisms vote Bonifacium reuocauit. He dissuaded Earl Boniface from Monkery, which (questionless) he would never have done, if he had been minded as the Papists, That to dissuade a man from Monkery, had been a sin against the first Commandment.

48 The Papists teach, A man may live chastely, and yet play the fornicator; for fornication preiudiceth not the popish vow of chastity: 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 live chastely, must neither play the Fornicator, nor the adulterer, nor defile himself by any unlawful copulation saith S. Austin.

49 The Papists teach, That neither Monks nor Clergy-men may live with their wines like married men. And iure quo nunc vtimur, Religiosus professus dominij & proprietatis capax non est. By the law which now stands in force, No Monk hath right or propriety in goods, saith Azorius: Yet we teach the contrary. And so did S. Austin, for he finds fault with the heretics called Apostolici, eo quod in suam communionem non reciperent vtentes coniugibus, & res proprias possidentes, quales habet Ecclesia Catholica & Monachos & Cleric • s plurimos: for that they would not receive into communion with them such as lived with their wives like married men, and had propriety in goods: Whereas there were many Monks and Clergy-men in the Catholic Church, who lived with their wives like married men, and had propriety in goods. To which Espencaeus knows not what to say, save that in many other places S. Austin saith the contrary. And seeing that vna aut altera hyrundo non facit ver. One or two Swallows make not Summer, there is no reason to believe this single testimony, before so many other to the contrary.

50 The Papists teach, That a simple vow; doubtless, a solemn vow, makes a nullity of marriage: and we teach the contrary. And so did S. Austin: for speaking of that argument, Qui dicūt taliū nuptias non esse nuptias, sed potius adulteria, non mihi videntur satis a • ute & diligenter considerare quid dicunt. They who say such marriages are no marriages, but rather adulteries: in my opinion consider not advisedly what they say, saith Austin: which testimony is so plain, that Smith, Reader of Divinity in Oxford, in Queen Mary's days, could shape no better answer unto it, then this: viz. He would never have taught, that the marriages of Uotaries had been true marriages, but in opposition to Heretics, of which some condemned second marriages, some all marriages. And Maldonado the Jesuit was forced to confess (without pretending any such excuse as that of Smiths) that S. Austin was flat of contrary opinion to them in thus: for disputing the question, An votum solenne castitatis dirimat Matrimonium quod postea contra • itur? having alleged diverse Fathers (among whom, S. Austin was one) and Councils for the negative: coming to answer, Quod attinet ad Argumentum ex testimonijs veterum Authorum; Non videtur 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 solemn vow did not make a nullity of marriage: for Austin doth not only say so much in plain terms, but he confidently auowes it for a certain truth, &c.

51 The Papists generally teach, That Lymbus puerorum, is a part of Hell, wherein children are punished paena solius damni aeterna; distinct from that part of Hell, wherein the Devil 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 heaven with Christ, or in Hell with the Devil. And of this mind 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 he must needs be with the Devil, who is not with Christ, saith he: Wherein he is so constant, that Cardinal Contarenus speaking hereof, Hunc locum Augustinus in multis suorum operum locis non videtur agnoscere. S. Austin (saith he) in many of his Tomes seems not to acknowledge any such place as Lymbus puerorum.

52 The Papists reach, that Lymbus patrum, otherwise called Abrabams bosom, is a part of Hell, wherein the holy Fathers, who died before Christ's 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 Gulf between the rich man in Hell, and Lazarus in Abraham's bosom, and he could never find that the name of Hell was used in good part, in any part of Scripture. he concluded that Abraham's bosom, which is the same with that which Papists call Limbus patrum, was (questionless) no part of Hell, for which he is reproved by Lorinus a Jesuit.

53 The Papises say, that it was Samuel himself who appeared to Saul, 1 Sam. 28. and not some evil spirit which took his similitude. But we say the contrary: And that S. Austin was of our opinion herein, it is confessed by Bodin, who discoursing upon this point, acknowledgeth: Austin was one of them who held hunc fuisse diabolum, that he who appeared to Saul was the Devil. And as much is acknowledged by Marianus Victorius, in these words, Hier. tom. 4. falsum esse scribit, Samuelē à pythonissa illa muliere suscitatum cum potius visa fuerit idfecisse quam fecerit: quod etiam Augustinus latius probat. S. Jerome in his 4 Tome writes, it is false, that Samuel was raised by the Pythonist▪ for she rather seemed to raise him, then indeed raised him. Which truth is proved 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 inclined rather to think it was not indeed Samuel, but some Hob-goblin that was raised, it is confessed by Jansen.

54 The Papists teach, That the Rock whereon our Savior promised to build his Church, was S. Peter. But we say, it was Christ himself, and not Saint Peter. Now that S. Austin is herein of our opinion it is plain by his own words: for thus he writes, 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, super me aedificabo te, non me super te, &c. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast known (saying, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God) will I build my Church: that is, upon myself the Son of the living God, will I build my Church, I will build thee upon me, not me upon thee, &c. Which words found so fully, that our Rhemists best answer is, S. Austin examined not the nature of the original words which Christ spake, nor of the Greek. Bellarmins best answer is, Ex ignorantia linguae Hebraeae deceptum: Austin was deceived for want of knowledge in the Hebrew. Pighius censure of Austin is, Nusquam haeret, nusquam figit pedem, sed vbique explorat, vbi{que} tentat, subodoratur omnia: & quicquid probable occurrit, alicubi amplectitur, quod continuo post displicet, & retractatur: He can never resolve certainly upon anything, but fetcheth about this way and that way, and after that a third way: and at length lighting upon some probability, he layeth hold on that, yet dislikes it presently, and retracts it. Affirming further, that S. Austin never expounded these words so, but when he was idleheaded, and given to crotchets. Concluding, it was Contorta expositio, at{que} adeo ipsis verbis Christi manifest aduersaria: A forced exposition, and quite contrary to Christ's words.

55 The Papists teach, That the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to Peter only. But we say, that Peter represented the person of the Church, when Christ said unto him, To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And so saith S. Austin. For, Petrus quando claues accepit, Ecclesiam sanctam significauit, When Peter received the keys, he represented the Church, saith S. Austin. Which speech so gawles the Papists, that thereupon Pighius breaks 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 only man, who in this point neither agreeth constantly with himself, nor with others. Now we give credit to the Fathers, when agreeing with themselves, and with other of their fellows, they deliver unto us the common opinion of the Orthodoxall Church.

56 The Papists say, That the young man who told our Savior Mat. 19. 20. that he had kept all the commandments of God, spake truly: but we say, he spake untruly: and so did S. Austin: For, Puto, quod se arrogantius, quam verius seruasse responderat: I think he spake more proudly then truly, saith S. Austin: which is confessed to be S. Austin's opinion by Maldonado.

57 The Papists teach, That the words of Christ Mat. 26. 29. I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, &c. are not to be understood of the Sacramental cup, but of the • asch • ll. We say the contrary. Now S. Austin is so fully of our opinion, that Bellarmine turns him off with this answer, Di • o August: non expendisse hunc locum diligenter, vt ex eo patet, quod breuissime se expedi • it ab hac difficultate: Austin did not well consider of this text, which appears by this that he passed it over briefly.

58 The Papists teach, That the words John 10. 16. There shall be one flock, and one shepherd, are not meant of Christ, but of the Pope. But we teach the contrary. And so did S. Austin, Tract. 47. in John. and Ser. 49. de verbis Domini.

59 Some Papists hold opinion, That in the controversy between S. Peter and S. Paul mentioned Gal 2. Saint Peter did not minimum delinquere, sin so much as venially: others hold, perhaps he sinned venially. But we say he sinned grievously. And so did S. Austin, For in him we read, that S. Peter Contra regulam veritatis cogebat gentes Iudaicare: compelled the Gentiles against the rule of faith to play the Jews. S. Peter, in simulationē superstitiosam, yea, in prauam simulationē lapsus est; fell into superstitious and wicked dissimulation. With which speeches of his Baronius is so much offended, that he sticks not to say, S. Austin did therein A linea Catholicae sides aberrare, & in lapidem offensionis incurrere, Swerue from the Catholic faith, and stumble upon the stone of offense.

60 The Papists teach, That Jacob adored the top of his son Joseph's rod, Heb. 11. 21. But we say Jacob worshipped not Joseph's rod, but that leaning upon his own rod, by reason of his weakness, he adored God. Now that S. Austin so expounds the place, our Rhemists are forced to confess.

61 The Papists 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 Uiues for in his Notes upon 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 quo modo vulgo habemus, promeretur deus. In the ancient copies (saith he) we read, God is pleased, both readings being better then the common reading, God is promerited.

62 The Papists teach, That by the Incense mentioned Mal. 1. 7. is meant their Sacrifice of the Mass. But we say, thereby is meant the prayers and praises of the Saints. And S. Austin agreeth so fully with us herein, that Azoriut best answer is, August: reliquem veterum patrum coetum opponimus, & Synodi Tridentinae testimoniū: We oppose against S. Austin the general consent of other Fathers, and the testimony of the Council of Trent.