As for the general• consent of the whole Church, which D•. Bancroft saith, condemned that opinion of Aerius for an heresy, and himself for an h•retik•, because he persisted in it, that is a large speech: but what proof hath h• that th• whole Church did so. It appeareth he saith in lEpiphanius. It doth not, and the contrary appeareth by m•• […], & sundry others▪ who lived, some in the same time, some after Epiphanius▪ even S• Austin himself, ⟨p. 5⟩though Dr Bancroft cite him, as bearing witness thereof likewise; I grant S• Austin nin his book of heresies, ascribeth this to Aerius, for one, that he said, Presbyterum ab episcopo nulla differentia deberi 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 so is censured by St Austin, counting it an heresy, as oin Epiphanius he took it recorded, himself, as phe witnesseth not knowing how far the name of Heresy should be stretched) another thing to say, that by the word of God there is no difference betwixt them, but by the order and custom of the Church, which St Austin qsaith in effect himself, so far was he from witnessing this to be heresy by the general consent of the whole Church. Which untruth, how wrongfully it is fathered on him, and on Epiphanius (who yet are all the witnesses that Dr Bancroft hath produced for the proof hereof, or can for ought that I know) it may appear by this, that our learned Country man (of godly memory) Bishop rJewell, when Harding to convince the same opinion of heresy, alleged the same witnesses, he citing to the contrary Chrysostom, Jerome, Austin, and Ambrose, knit up his answer with these words: All these, and other moe holy Fathers, together with the Apostle St Paul, for thus saying, by Hardings advice, must be held for heretics. And Michel Medina, sa man of great account in the Council of Trent, more ingenious herein than many other Papists, affirmeth, not only the former ancient writers, alleged by Bishop Jewel but also an other Jerome, Theodoret, Primasius, Sedulius, and Theophilact were of the same mind touching this matter with Aerius. With whom agree likewiset Oecumenius, and uAnselus Archb: of Canterbury, and xanother Anselmus and yGregory and zGra••• and after them how many?
As for the general• consent of the whole Church, which D•. Bancroft saith, condemned that opinion of Aerius for an heresie, and himselfe for an h•retik•, because he persist•d in it, that is a large speech: but what proofe hath h• that th• whole Church did so. It appeareth he saith in lEpiphanius. It doth not, and the contrary appeareth by m•• 〈…〉, & sundry others▪ who lived, some in the same time, some after Epiphanius▪ even S• Austin himselfe, ⟨p. 5⟩though Dr Bancroft cite him, as bearing witnesse thereof likewise; I grant S• Austin nin his book of heresies, ascribeth this to Aerius, for one, that he said, Presbyterum ab episcopo nulla differentia deberi 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 schisme therein, and so is censured by St Austin, counting it an heresie, as oin Epiphanius he took it recorded, himselfe, as phe witnesseth not knowing how farre the name of Heresie should be stretched) another thing to say, that by the word of God there is no difference betwixt them, but by the order and custome of the Church, which St Austin qsayth in effect himselfe, so far was he from witnessing this to be heresie by the generall consent of the whole Church. Which untruth, how wrongfully it is fathered on him, and on Epiphanius (who yet are all the witnesses that Dr Bancroft hath produced for the proofe hereof, or can for ought that I know) it may appeare by this, that our learned Country man (of godly memory) Bishop
- lHeresy 15▪Heresie 15▪
- mI• […] •d […] • & •p•st. 8• […].I• 〈…〉 •d 〈…〉 • & •p•st. 8• 〈…〉.
- nCap. 53.
- oIn Argu. prefix. l. 3. Tom. 2.
- pD• haeres. ad quod vult Deum in prefatione.
- qEpist. 19.
- rDef. of the Apol. part. 2. ca. 9▪ divis. 1. page 198.
- sDe sacrif. hom orig & confir▪ lib. 1. cap. 5.
- tIn 1 Tim. 3.
- uIn Epist. ad Titum.
- xCollect. Ca•. li. 7. cap. 87. & 1 27.
- yPolicar. lib. 2. Tit. 19. & 39.
- z
