annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesijs successores eorum vsque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt neque cognouerunt quale ab his deliratur By which wordes it is manifest that S. Irenaeus doth confute his aduersaries the heretikes not by scripture onely but alsoe cheefely by traditionarie authoritie of the Bishops succeeding frome the Apostles which is directly opposite to the tenets especially of the purer sorte of nouellists whoe neither admitte traditions nor Episcopall authoritie but the onely written worde for absolute and sole Iudge of all Controuersies confutation of heresies Caietan in his Commentarie vpon the historian bookes of the old Testament as I am persuaded doth not plainely affirme neither doth Canus charge him with that error that the bookes of Machabies are not absolutely Canonicall as Sir Humfrey alledgeth but he onely reprehendeth him for vsing a vaine distinction of Canonicall scriptures as if there were some Canonicall onely for instruction of manners and not for matters of faith against the infirmitie or vnsoundnesse of which distinction Canus vseth this reprehensiue conclusion saying Cum sub eodem contextu omnes illi libri nullo facto discrimine definiantur esse Canonici scilicet Ecclesiasticus Sapientia Tobias Iudith Machabaeorū libri duo Baruch ridiculum est vt partim in vna significatione partim in alia libros Cenonicos habeamus Ac si hāc semel distinctionem admittimus authoritate Conciliorum atque Pontificum nullus liber Sacer constare poterit And presently after Id quoniam absurdum omnino est retineamus potius eam rationem oportet quam Caietanus voluit evertere vir vt saepe iam dixi cum primis eruditus pius sed qui in libris Canonicis constituendis Erasmi nouitates ingeniumque secutus dum alienis vestigijs voluit insistere propriam gloriam maculauit And soe you see Canus doth not confesse that directly Caietan maintained the Machabies not to be Canonicall but onely with that distinction neither did in deed Caietan more denye the authoritie of those bookes then he did the Epistle to the Haebrewes that of S. Iames which neuerthelesse he held absolutely for Canonicall tho' not perhaps in the same rigorous sense in which he iudged all the rest of the bookes of scripture to be in the Canon by reason those as alsoe some other partes of scripture haue ben by some ancient authors doubted of in which doubt onely he seemeth to founde his distinction Touching the Canonicall bookes of the olde Testament Sir Humfrey doth most falsely alledge the authoritie of S. Isidore persuading his reader that he reiecteth those same bookes which he and his companions in the newe religion condemne for Apochripha Weras in deed that ancient author numbereth them all in the Christiā Canon And to the end the knights impudencie may more plainely appeare I will rehearse S. Isidores expresse wordes concerning the same whoe in his 6. booke of origenes or etymologies saith thus Quartus est apud nos ordo veteris Testamenti eorum librorum qui in Canone Haebreo non sunt quorum primus sapientiae liber est Secundus Ecclesiasticus Tertius Tobias Quartus Judith Quintus Sextus Machaboeorum Quos licet Haebraei inter Apochrypha separent Ecclesia tamen Christi inter diuinos libros honorat praedicat By which wordes it is soe euident that this holie Father standes for the Romanists and against the pretensiue reformers in this point that I much maruell how Sir Humfrey could haue the face to produce him in fauor of his cause Nay more then this out of the distinction which he maketh betweene the the Hebrewes vs Christians in receiuing the foresaid bookes for Canonicall I frame a firme coniecture that either all or most of these ancient authors whoe seeme to exexclude them out of the Canon doe onely intend to declare that they were not included in it by the Iewes as S. Hilarie S. Hierome S. Epiphanius other authors concerning which point the reader may please to reade the same S. Isidore in lib. Prooemiorum de libris veteris noui Testamenti In the 431. page of his by-way the kinght abuseth Canus whome he there cites lib. 12. cap. 13. For he foysteth in by a parenthesis of his owne the worde reall which neither Canus hath nor yet putteth the force of his reprehension of the bishop of Bitont in that he affirmed in the Councell of Trent that Christ did not offer his reall bodie in his last supper but because he affirmed that Christ did not offer his owne bodie absolutely abstracting frō reall or not reall the question not being in that passage of the reall presence but of the Sacrifice of Christs bodie bloud in the Eucharist which as it seemes by Canus relation the foresaid Bishop in the discussion of this point by way of proposition was of that priuate dictamen how beit after wardes he willingly conformed him selfe to the rest of the Fathers to the decree of the Councell By which it is plaine that this Bishop was not of anie firme setled opinion which might fauor Sir Humfreys doctrine in that particular Illud primum animaduerto iure Cornelium Episcopum Bitontinum in Conelio apud Tridentinum à Patribus Theologis vniuersis explosum qui dixerit Christum in Coena non suum corpus sanguinem obtulisse Canus loco citato And soe you see this is one of Sir Humfreyes prittie pettie trickes which omong other greater will serue to replenish his pages The kinght alsoe in his 157. page of his deuia corrupteth the same author cited in his third booke third chapter Where for these wordes in sacrificio Eucharistiae simul cum corpore sanguinem sacerdotibus esse conficiendum sumendum c. Sacrae litterae nusquam forte tradiderunt he translates the consecrating receiuing of ehe bodie bloud of Christ by the preist c. Are nowhere happily to be found in scripture In which passage the attentiue reader may easily see that the knight plaieth the iugler most nimblely For wheras Canus putteth the force of his sentence in the wordes simul together or at once in the other worde sumendum making an hipotheticall proposition of all his wordes ioyned togither our craftie Circulator soe hādleth the matter that his reader may imagin that Canus affirmed that the consecration of the Eucharist according to the custome of the Roman Church is not found in the bible That which that author neuer dreamed but onely intended to produce as an instance of Apostolicall traditions that copulatiue of the practice of the preists consecrating actuall receiuing both the bodie bloud at one the same tyme in the vse of the Eucharist which Canus supposeth rather to be a tradition then expressely contained in the text of scripture More ouer Sir Humfrey cites Gretzerus but onely twise first in his defense of the tenth
may be made in S. Augustine who as Caluin confesseth being a faithfull witnesse of antiquity Lib. 18 de Ciuit. cap. â—6 Calu. li. 4. â—nst c. 14. Sac. testifieth touching the bookes of the Machabees that althou ' the Iewes receiue them not for Canonicall yet the Church doth receaue them And according to this it being true that few or none of the great multitude of writers which the kinght produceth in euery seuerall age doe positiuely affirme that those 22. bookes of scripture onely which the reformers vse were by the vniuersall Christian Catholike Church held to be the complete or intire Christian Canon of the ould testament or that those particular bookes now in controuersie betwixt vs them were expresly reiected eueÌ„ by the Iewes themselues as not Canonicall or not of infallible credit not rather held by them for sacred diuine althou not registred in their Canon which is the cheife part of Sir Humfreyes proposition it followeth cleerly that he quite faileth in his proofe that for all his braggs he onely steppeth out of his pretended safeway into the same by path he hath euer walked in since he firste began to write neuer omitting his occustomed sleightes in the allegation of authors concluding his section with that laregelye so often repeated by him in this other places as affirming that by his aduersaries owne confessions the true orthodox Church did reiect those Apocriphall bookes which his Church reiecteth the Trent Councell alloweth at this day for Canonicall out of which thrasonicall audacity of this boysterous Caualier the reader may easily take a scantling of the rest so come to know the fox by his tatterd tayle â—ec 6. In his sixt sex section he pretendeth to solue the Romanists arguments deduced froÌ„ authoritie of Fathers Councells for those bookes which the reformers hold for Apocriphall Touching which point althou ' it cannot be denyed but that doubt was made in former times among the fathers whether the foresayd bookes were Canonicall or not in which there was diuersitie of opinions especially before the Councell of Carthage neuerthelesse it is certaine that neither the whole Church in any Councell nor yet anie of the Doctors or fathers did positiuely at any time euer agree to exclude them out of the Christian Canon but as some of the fathers made doubt of the same so others made none at all among whome S. Augustine was so confident in that matter that in his 2. booke of Christian doctrine that not obiter but professedly treating of it he setteth downe the very same number names of the very same bookes which the Roman Church defendeth for Canonicall at this present day yet notobstanding this our aduersarie is so presumptuous voyde of shame that he doubtes not to affirme that Sainct Augustine did not allow the bookes of Iudith â—… 132. wisdome Ecclesiasticus the Machabees for Conanicall In iustification of which his impudent assertion it is wondrous to consider how the crafty Sicophant doth excercise his witts in framing euasions wherby to elude the plaine testimony of that renowned orthodox Doctor the decree of the Councell of Carthage in that particular to which the same S. Augustine subscribed eueÌ„ in this same point of the Canonicall scriptures reiected by the preteÌ„siue reformed Churches Howbeit all that Sir Humfrey could inuent for the infringeing of these two sound irrefragable authorities consists either wholely or cheeflie in equiuocations insincere dealing in the citing construeing of the authors he alleageth yea in vttering of diuers plaine vntruthes as where he saith of the third Councell of Carthage that it is not of that authority as the Romanists themselues pretend adding presently after for reasoÌ„ of his first lye another as great or greater against Bellarmine affirming that the Cardinall wheÌ„ the Protestants produce this Councell against the head of their Church answereth that this prouinciall Councell ought not to binde the Byshops of Rome nor the Byshops of other Prouinces citing him for this sayeing in his 2. booke de Rom. Pont. cap. 31. where neuerthelesse there are no such wordes to be found And finallie to omitt other of lesse noyse he affirmes that S. Augustine declares by pregnant seuerall reasons that the Machabees are Apocriphall yet he denyeth not euen in this very place but that the same S. Augustine both put them in the Canon of the scriptures in his second booke de doct Christ nor yet that he affirmed in his 18. booke de Ciuit. Dei cap. 36. that the Church hath them for Canonicall thou ' the Iewes hould them not for such By which it appeeres that Sir Humfrey touching this point of controuersie is not in the way of S. Augustine of the determination of the Church of Rome in his times but is with shame enuffe fallen againe into his owne by way where he his progenitors haue euer wandred since the daies of Luther Sect. 7. In the seuenth section he reprehendeth the proofe of Catholike doctrine by traditions makes such a trade of dealing vntruelie that one would thinke sure he liues by lyeing And now I verilie persuade my selfe it is most true which a certaine ingenious Protestant sayd of the Puritans that they will rather affoord ten lyes then one oath In his verie firste wordes he affirmes that to admit traditions other constitutions of the Church is the firste article of the Roman Creed to which all Bishops Preists are sworne citing in the margen the Bull of Pius the fourth this is his first lye in this section but he will make sure it shall not be his last for he incontinentlie addeth two or three more one in the neck of another affirming that those obseruations constitutions of the Church which Pope Pius mentioneth are declared by the Councell of Trent to be those traditions which the Church receiueth with equall reuerence religious affection for so the knight insincerelie translates the wordes pari pietatis affectu as she receaues the holie scriptures Ego firma fide credo omnia singula qua contineÌ„tur in symbolo fidei c. Bul Pij 4. sup form iur prof fid adding more that heere was the firste alteration made touching the rule of faith with diuers other falsities too large to recount And yet if when he read the foresayd Bull he had not for hast scipped ouer the whole Creed which the Pope placeth in the verie firste part of the profession of faith showeing euen by that vnfaithfull tricke how little faith he hath I thinke he would neuer haue had the face to calumniate in this manner And if to speake in commendation of diuine Apostolicall traditions in that forme of speach which the Councell vseth were to make alteration in the rule of faith as the knight will haue it yet is it apparentlie false that the Tridentine Councell was the firste author of that
is but onelie one in which it can be sayd with anie coulourable probabilitie that sainct Gregorie in anie of the places heere cited doth contradict the doctrine of the Roman Church that is the point of the Canon of the scriptures in which patricular althou ' he refused to giue the bookes of Machabees the title of Canonicall scripture as yet S. Augustine others did before him the rest of the writers for the most parte euer since haue donne whether it were because he ment onelie they were not contained in the Canon of the Iewes or for that the whole Church had not then declared them for Canonicall vnder that name Neuerthelesse he is not to be iudged more repugnant to the doctrine of the present Roman Church in that point then those who notobstanding that in the primitiue Church certaine bookes of the new Testament as the epistle to the Hebrewes others were doubted of yet now with infallible certaintie faith receaue them for diuine sacred scripture althou ' they were not accounted beleiued for such by all the orthodoxall Fathers of the Church in all former ages since the time of the Apostles who firste published them to the world Especiallie considering that the same sainct Gregorie neuer denyed neyther in the place cited nor in anie other of his workes but that as the declaration of the Church was sufficient to assure all faithfull people that those bookes of which before his dayes there had binne doubt were then trulie Canonicall scripture thou ' not knowne for such in euerie age before him so might the same succeeding Church in later times determine the like of those bookes which in his time so generallie vndoubtedlie were not as yet held for such Neyther according to the rules of diuinitie can that man be reputed not to be of the same religion of which another is because he now beleaueth some thing more in the materiall obiect of faith then the other did in that time in which he liued but at the most it can onelie be truelie verified that he hath the same habit of faith thou ' some what more extended in the obiect as neyther the Apostles were of a diuerse faith when they were firste instructed by Christe before his passion from that they had after his resurrection when yet doubtlesse they receaued more expresse extensiue knowledge in matters of faith then before they had receiued And sure I am S. Gregorie without exception cites both the booke of Tobie Ecclesiasticus sapience most frequentlie none of which bookes neuerthelesse the misreformers admit for the worde of God And till Sir Humfrey or some of his associates can produce out of S. Augustin S. Gregorie as plaine pregnant places either for his owne tenets or against the Roman doctrine as the Romanists haue long since produced for theirs as their workes vpon euerie seuerall controuersie make apparent let them for shame neuer claime them for theirs in anie one point of controuersie for notobstanding they make a plausible vse of some fewe patches of their more ambiguous ill construed ill related sentences yet turne but the iudicious vnpartiall reader to the bookes them selues he will ingenuouslie confesse absolutelie crye a loud all is ours And if it would please his maiestie of his royall clemencie to suffer vs freelie to make tryall of our cause by scripture Fathers I knowe which side would be founde minus habens manie graines to light But it is our great miserie yet in one sense our great happines to be so crossed curbed with seueritie of tēporal lawes that we cannot be safe in the most priuate corners much lesse can we appeare in any publike assemblie for defense of our Religion Vid. Bell. in quatuor Cōtr. tom valēt Anales fid But yet supposing that S. Gregorie had binne contrarie in that particular of the bookes of Machabies for touching the rest mentioned by the knight he is sufficientlie cleered from that imputation by Bellarmine other Romanists yet could it not possiblie proue that monstrous great proposition of our aduersarie to wit that S. Gregorie in his vndoubted writings directlie opposeth the Romish faith in the maine pointes thereof consequentlie from hence it manifestlie appeereth how farre Sir Humfrey hath walked by the way when in the end of his eleauenth section he auouched his reader should plainlie discerne how the later Popes Bishops doe differ from the former how these two Fathers of the Church meaning sainct Augustine sainct Gregorie concurre expresselie with the doctrine professed in the reformed Churches different from the Roman it being most apparent by the premisses that by anie thing which he hath heere produced out of the foresayd Fathers he hath neyther proued anie one point of his owne religiō nor disproued ours but hath onelie prestigiouslie deluded the eyes of the reader with a coulorable florish yet in realitie remaineth still in the same byway in which he hath hitherto walked separate from the royall street of the ancient Doctors of the primitiue Church Sec. 14. The next section being the fourteenth is that the ingenuous Romanists confesse that the Councells which they oppose against the Reformers were neyther called by lawfull authoritie nor to the right ends Heere I finde that to be most true which a pleasant Protestant pronounceth of the Puritans sayeing their religion willinglie admitts no founder but Bragger they flourished much about a time And in sober sadnes the best Sir Humfrey can make of his aduersaries confession throu ' out his whole worke in fauour of his doctrine doth nothing more then plainlie conuince him to be of no other progenie Neyther doe their confessions fit his purpose anie better then if he should put his shooes vpon his handes or his hose vpon his head A patterne of this you may see in this verie section in which how soeuer he vaunteth of the confession of his aduersaries that by two principall conditions as he sayth ancientlie in vse for the authoritie of Councells are both acknowledged to be abrogated by later Councells to wit because quoth the knight now a dayes the Pope calls Councells without right he his assemble them in their owne name for their owne ends for proofe of which calumnious position he cites but onely two authors those scarce held for sound mettle among the Romanists neyther yet doth eyther of them plainlie auerre his position as it is vttered by him but they onelie speake by way of reprehension of such abuses as might be practised in that nature by the malice of men without taxing the Pope or anie other in particular as the knight would maliciouslie inferre out of their wordes for the confirmation of the sinister opinion he hath of the Church of Rome her head in earth The rest which he hath in this section is but eyther his owne bare assertions those not true as that from
aut domi concubinam foueat tammetsi graui sacrilegio sese obstingat grauiùs tamen peccat si contrahat matrimonium c. Costerus Enchir. cap. 17. de caelib prop. 9. then he who keepeth a concubine at home as Costerus though incompletlie cited and vniustlie taxed by the knigth doth most truelie affirme And this is a certaine knowen trueth among diuines consequent to the prohibition of Priests marriage which prohibition once supposed he that should marrie should not onelie committe a scandalous sinne of the flesh as that Priest doth who should be a Concubinarie but also he should in that case comit a Speciall irreuerence against the Sacrament of marriage by his sacrilegious frustration of the same which sacrilegious action and violation of his now is of it selfe a more grieuous sinne then is the keepinge of a concubine as all men Aug. de bono vide cap. 11. except the reformed brothers doe easilie apprehend conformable to which S. Aug. saith that mariage after a vowe of continencie is worse then adulterie Planè non dubitauerim dicere lapsus ruinas à castitate sanctiore quae nouetur Deo adulterijs esse peâ—ores ibidem To omit that for a Preist to marrie in that manner besides the foresaid crimes it includes also the scandall of Concubinate it selfe But now Sir Humfrey for conclusion of his former discourse passeth to the poynt of merits Lastly saith hee how many for feare of vaine glorie and presumption and by reason of the vncertainetie of their owne workes doe relie wholie vpon the merits of Christ Iesus shewe me that learned man that liueth a professed Papist in the Church of Rome and dyeth not a sounde Protestant in this prime foundation of our faith Thus the knigth who as you may easilie perceiue by way of a glorious Epiphonema goeth about to perswade his reader that all the learned Romanists before their death renounce that article of the Roman Church which affirmeth that a man iustified by the grace of God can merit the Kingdome of heauen by the good workes he doth by vertue of the grace of God and merits of Iesus Christ because forsooth many for feare of vaine glorie and presumption and by reason of the vncertainelie of their owne workes at their death doe relie wholie on the merits of their Sauiour whereas indeede these are two farre different poynts of doctrine the first that is the trueth of mans merit in the sense declared being a matter of faith in the Roman Church the second which is the confidence in merits being none the one being about the substance of merits the other onelie about the qualitie the one about the absolute acknowledgment of merits the other onely about the ouergreate confidence or presumption in them And so he that renounceth the first renounceth Poperie indeede but he that renounceth the second doth not neither can he be called a Protestant as the knight would haue him to be for the onelie deniall of confidence in merits as in it selfe it is most manifest By all which because Sir HuÌ„frey with all his diuinitie had not iudgement to distinguish he proueth nothing but doth onelie hallucinate betweene trueth and falsehood Neither doth the example of B. Gardiner which he alledgeth anie whit auaile his cause for suppose that be true which he affirmeth of him to wit that in his sicknes he set the merits of Christ in the gap to stand betwixt Gods Iudgment his owne sinnes yet caÌ„not he thence inferre that therefore the Bishop renounced the trueth of the doctrine of merits in generall nay nor his owne merits in particular but onelie the presumption of them or the confidence in them by reason of the vncertainetie of them as I haue alreadie declared Besides that this which he is affirmed to say of himselfe being but onelie a relation of Fox we may iustlie doubt of the trueth of it For he hath bene long since hunted to his hole by a learned Catholike and his vnright Reuerence manifestlie conuinced to be a Father of lyes Wherefore he is of no credit with vs neither can his testimonie preuaile against vs. We care not for him his acts and monuments are of no moment among vs his testimonie is not the coÌ„fessioÌ„ of a Romanist which is that our aduersary promised in the title of his booke and we expect he should performe and to omit the smale credit which I and all Catholikes giue to the relations of Master Fox yet I fynde that he who hath dealt so falsely with others hath now founde one of his owne profession who dealt not verie sincerelie with him in recounting out of his relation the passage of B. Gardiner at his death for whereas Sir Humfrey will needs proue by the testimonie of Fox that this Bishop renounced Poperie at his death in the pointe of merits yet Fox in his 2622. page onelie saith thus That according to the reporte of one whome he will not name perhaps he could not when D. Day Bishop of Chichester came to him and began to conforte him great comfort I warant you with wordes of Gods promisse and free iustification in the blood of Christ our Sauiour repeating the scriptures to him Winchester hearing that What my lord quoth he will you open that gap now then farewell altogether to mee and such other in my case you may speake it but if you open this window vnto the people then farewell all And now according to this speech of B. Gardiner let the iudicious reader imagin if he can how Sir Humfrey can possibly gather that he renowced Poprietie and that a wiser man will not rather collect the contrarie to wit that altho ' dayes wordes might be vttered to him others of learning and vnderstanding without danger of peruersion but not perhaps to the coÌ„mon people who by their ignorance and frayletie might easilie misinterpret them as he did that vttered them and so easilie receiue harme by them not withstaÌ„ding that they of themselues in a founde fense include nothing but truth The knight also citeth to the same purpose yet to no purpose Bellarmine in his sixte booke of Iustif 7. chap. and his testament or last will Saying in the first place that it is the safest way to rely wholy on the merits of Christ Iesus But this according to that which hath bene already said of this matter is at the most but onelie a renuntiation of presumption or ouermuch confidence in our owne vncertaine merits as is most apparent out of Bellarmines owne doctrine euen in the verie same chapter where the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey are found thoug much otherwise then by him they are related as afterwardes I will declare Now in the second place the wordes are these I beseech him that is God saith Bellar that he would admitte me into the companie of his Saints and elect not as a valluer of merits but as a giuer of mercie which wordes if the knigth had not bene ouermuch distracted he
text of the sixt of S. Iohn did according to the interpretation of S. Augustin but onely make question of the reall preseÌ„ce or possibility of Christs giuing his bodie to be eateÌ„ not otherwise theÌ„ in that grosse manner which they then conceiued in their mindes whereas yet the knight and the rest of his congregation directly absolutely affirme that Christs body and blood are as farre from being really contained in the Sacrament as heuen is from the altar or Communion table And thus it appeares that by indeauouring to make vs Capharnaites Sir Humfrey showes greater grossenesse of coÌ„ceipte them the grosse Capharnaites did by denying the reall presence vpon the same or like carnall imagination for for which he and his mates renounce it From this Sir Humfrey passes to another parte of his Pedegree wher he putteth in the Popes supremacie as if it were deriued fundamentally from the Gentils and to this purpose he applies the wordes of our Sauiour Lucae 22.25 so ridiculously that it makes me thinke he is will read in the booke of Quodlibets or quaeris he makes vse of Scripture so ingeniously The wordes of our Sauiour are these The King of the Gentils exercise Lordship ouer them and they that exercise authority vpon them are called benefactours Out of which place Sir Humfrey will needes inferre and prooue that the Gentiles haue giuen the Pope his supremacie and consequently that they are the benefactours and founders of the Roman faith in that particular Which passage of the Scripture how falsely and impertinently it is applied and how contrary to the true sense those words of our Sauiour are vsed and abused by the knight I will not spend time in examination of it but leaue to the iudicious reader to censure of it as he pleaseth onely I cannot omitte to take notice how he concludeth this his idle discourse with another place of Scripture out of the 20. of S. Math. where our Sauiour saith to his disciples whosoeuer will be greate amonght you let him be your minister whosoeuer will be chiefe among you let him be your seruant by which words it is most appareÌ„t agreed vpon by all interpreters except the nouellists that our Sauiour intended nothing els but to giue his disciples a lession of humility not so that they ought not in any case to haue superiority and dominion in that nature one ouer an other which were to destroy the Hierarchy gouernment of the Church which he himselfe ordained but that those who were to haue it should not abuse it by dominiering tiraÌ„nically ouer their subiects or subordinates And yet Sir HuÌ„frey I know not by what rule of Alchimie will needs extract out of this place that his and his fellowes doctrine touching the supremacy is receaued from Christ himselfe But in trueth with all my Logike I cannot vnderstand how he inferreth any thing hence for his purpose except he will deduce ex quolibet quodlibet and make a nose of way of the holy Scripture as indeed he doth very frequently framing such a sense to the wordes as maketh for his position and thence deduceing arguments for proofe of the same And if one were disposed to make vse of Scripture in that maÌ„ner he might-aswell inferre out of this place a kinde of supremacie for the ministrie especially if we write the word minister with a greate M. as Sir HuÌ„frey doth And indeede I must confesse that your ministers are greate among you in diuerse respects For some of theÌ„ haue greate Bishoprikes others greate benefices and allmost all greare wiues and greate store of children And if the King would be pleased to suffer them theÌ„ why might they not come to obtaine the supremacie euery one is his turne by succession in that case they might doubtlesse make farre better vse of the cited places of Scripture in fauour of themselues then they doe in applying them against the Romanists And according to his false dealing in applying the Scripture so doth he falsely affirme that the Popes supremacy was first graunted by Phocas falsely applying the testimony of Vrspergensis to that same fol. 149. for Valentinian the Emperour who liued aboue 100. yeares before Phocas in his epist to Theodosius which is extant in the preambles of the Councell of Calced sayth of the Bishop of Rome to whoÌ„ all antiquity gaue the principalitie of preisthood aboue all c. And as for Vispergensis altho' the authoritie of his booke may iustely be suspected as hauing ben published by the reformers or rather deformers of Basill yet doth he not say as Sir Humfrey affirmes that Phocas first granted the supremacie to the Bishop of Constantinople but rather the quite contrarie for thus he sayth Post Gregrorium Bonifacius sedit cuius rogatu Phocas constituit sedem Romanae Apostolicae Ecclesiae caput esse omnium Ecclesiarum cum antea Constantinopolitana Ecclesia se scribebat primam omnium After Gregorie saith Vrspergensis Bonifacius did sit at vhose request Phocas constituted the seat of the Roman and Apostolicall Church head of all Churches for before the Church of Constantinople writ her selfe first of all Churches So that as the reader may plainely knowe Sir H. hath falsified Vrspergensis relating that to be said by him of the Church of Constantinople which he directly speakes of the Church of Rome which neuerthelesse is so little to his purpose that howsoeuer he takes it being not a gift of the Emperour as not being in his power since that nemo dat quod non habet but onely a declaratiue constitution I cannot conceiue why our aduersarie should haue corrupted this authour except it were to exercise his haÌ„d Especially supposing it is a thing vnpossible to appreheÌ„d how either Phocas or anie other maÌ„ or Angell could giue the Pope of Rome his supremacie which is that in this passage he intendeth to proue by coÌ„ferring the same according to our aduersaries relation vpon the Bishop of CoÌ„stantinople And so I leaue this for one of S. HuÌ„freyes vnintelligible mysteries of his reformed faith For worship of Images S. HuÌ„frey deduceth the Pedegree of the Romanists froÌ„ the Basilidians and Carpocrationes But his deduction is false for it he falsely citeth S. Ireneus who saith indeede those fellowes were heretikes for worshipping of images but in another kinde farre differeÌ„t from the honour which the Romanists vse towards pictures Vtuntur auteÌ„ imaginibus incantarionibus reliqua vniuersa pererga Irenaeus l. 1. cap. 23. And he expressely condeÌ„neth Carpocrates as plainely appeareth by his wordes Imagines depictas quasdam de reliqua materia habent fabricaâ—as dicentes formam Christi factam à Pilato illo in teÌ„porequo fuit Iesus cum hominibus has coronant ponunt eas cum imaginibus muÌ„di PhilosophoruÌ„ videlicet cum imagine Pythagorae Platonis Aristotelis reliquem reliquoruÌ„ obseruationem circa eas similiter vt gentes faciunt Iren. eod l. cap. 24. because he put the
the whole miserere Psalme and crying out with an amplius laua for a perpetuall testimony of the same And now supposing as I say all this the doctrine practice of Indulgēces now vsed by the cheefe Pastours of the Roman Church is so well groūded that except onely in those in whom obstinacie reigneth more then reason it admitteth no trergiuersation in the credibilitie and faith of it For as God is infinitly not onely iust but also mercifull in himselfe by essēce so hath he cōmunicated to the gouernours of his church a kind of participatiue mixture of both those attributes betweene which according to that of the psalme iustitia pax osculatae sunt he hath made a most louing league to the end that according to diuers causes and occasions his spirituall officers may so vse them in earth as the vse may be approued in Heauen sometimes vsing rigour of discipline for the satisfaction of Gods iustice other times lenity for the exercise of his mercy But now touching the confirmation of this doctrine by the authority of Fathers I will onely produce the testimonies of Tertull. and S. Cyprian who being both so ancient as they are knowne to be they may iustely serue for sufficient witnesses of the ancient practice of the same in those primatiue times Tertullian therefore in his booke to the Martirs and first chapter speaketh of the remission of the paine due to sinnes which the Bishops gaue vnto the sinners either at the petition of martyrs or for other causes calling it by the name of peace Which peace faith he some that haue it not in the Church are accustomed to aske it of the martyrs in prision and therefore you also meaning the Bishops ought for that cause to haue norish and keepe it in your selues to the end that if perhaps you may communicate it to others where Tertullian by the worde peace vnderstandes the Bishops absolution at the least frome some parte of the sinners pennance by application of the superabundant satisfactions of the martyrs which application is also in the worde peace included as manifestly may be gathered out of the same Tertullian who afterwardes falling in to heresie in his 22. chap. of his booke of chastitie recalled that which he had tought before to wit that indult could not be giuen to those that had fallen at the petition of the martyrs because saith he now turned Heretike there remaine no satisfactions of martyrs which satisfactions hee calleth oleum faculae which can suffice for themselues others All which as the reader may clearelie perceiue is nothing els in substance but such an Indulgence as is now practiced by the Bishops of Rome of whome and others by their comission the foresayd authour doth speake in the place rehearsed And the same saith S. Cyprian in his last Sermon de lapsis saith paenitenti operanti roganti potest clementer ignoscere potest in acceptum referre quicquid pro talibus petierint martyres fecerint Sacerdotes To the working or laboring penitent the Bishop of whome he speaketh as I suppose may clemently pardon accept as receiued whatsoeuer the martyrs demaunde the Preists doe or performe And the like the same S. Cyp. hath l. 3. epist 15. or 11. I omit Sainct Gregorie whome yet both S. Thom. and Atisiodorus his predecessour testifie to haue graunted Indulgences in forme which altho' it is not founde in his workes now extant yet it is farre more credible and certaine that those two authours would not haue vsed that testimonie with out infalible grounde that it was S. Gregories then that it was feigned because kemnitius and other nouellists reiect it as suppositious And if they will not admit of this testimonie because they see it not At the least they must of necessitie admit of that which being yet more auncient is to be seeme in the Chappell of S. Crosse of Hierusalem in Rome written in legible letters that S. Siluester who was Bishop Pope aboue 1200. years paste did consecrate that Chappell and adorne it with maine reliquies of saints and indulted diuers perdons to the visiters of it I could alsoe cite the Popes which since the time of S. Greg. in seuerall ages haue very frequentlie graunted Indulgences but because I knowe our presumptuous aduersaries contemne their authority tho' iniustlie for that they haue ben of as great authoritie as their anticessours I will saue the labour and onely aduertice the reader that ther is farre greater reason for a prudent man to giue credit vnto them in the affirmatiue of this question then there is to rely vpon the authoritie of the sectaries for the negation in regard that euen by their owne confession the affirmatiue hath ben tought and practiced publikelie in the Christian world at the least for the space of 400. years euen according to Kemnitius who tho' most falsely for that it may be proued That Leo the third who liued in the 8. or 9. hundreth yeare gaue pardons according to the manner of those our times affirmeth that Indulgences began aboute the yeare 1200. who neuertelesse on the contrary contradicting himselfe graunteth that the first denyers of the same were the Waldenses a company of pore ignorant beggarlie fellowes From whence we may inferre how impudentlie the kinght affirmeth antiquitie vniuersalitie in his owne Church for the denyall of Indulgences yet dinying the same in the Church of Rome for her defence of them supposing he could not produce as much as one authour either more or lesse auncient for the negatiue parte liuing before the pore men of lions who hauing no other saint for their founder then one waldo a verie idiot appeared aboute the yeare of our Lord 1170. that is manie hundreths of yeares after Indulgences had beene practized in the Christian world euen according to the forme now vsed It is true Sir Humfrey alledgeth diuers Roman diuines as he vseth to doe but it is but a meere shift he vseth to colour his position as being destitute of all other auncient authoritie proofe For I haue examined those authours I finde there is not one of them which is not a zelous defender both of the power which Christ gaue vnto the Church to graunt Indulgences also of the lawfullnes profit of them nor doth anie one of them confesse the want of antiquitie consent of the same but some of them onelie confesse indeed there is no certainetie of their beginning or when the vse of them came into the Church in the manner they are now vsed To which purpose the testimonie cited out of B. Fisher may seeme to serue who yet doth not say as the knight falselie relates that it is not sufficientlie manifest from whome Indulgences had their Originall but he onelie sayth non certo constare a quo primum tradi caeperunt that it is not certainelie apparent who first began to giue them And altho' that author hath the rest of the wordes which Sir Humfrey
no authoritie But suppose Cephas did indeed not signifie the head yet what great recorde I praye can that be for Sir Humfreys Church And so whether Cephas signifie the head or the feet whether ridiculum est be in or out of the bookes it auayles him nothing but some smale matter to quarell aboute yet the truth is that the most authenticall edition of Anwerpe 1585. hath the same wordes which Sir Humfreyes cites out of the Roman print in such sorte as one may rather much more suspect those wordes it is ridiculous to be falselie added in the Moguntin edition then detracted in the others Finallie whether the wordes of the Councell of Laodicea be that wee ought not to leaue the Church of God inuocate Angells as Sir Humfrey will haue it also some Catholike copies haue or whether in steed of the worde Angells wee reade angles or corners as some other editions haue the matter is not great so the decree be reight vnderstood that is so that the sense bee this we ought not to leaue the Church of God inuocate Angells superstitiouslie as some did in those tymes For this being the true meaning of the Councell as it appeareth by the subsequent wordes which are those and make congregations of abominable idolatrie to the Angells it is more then plaine that no recorde can there be founde for the doctrine of the reformed Churches But onelie it serues Sir Humfrey to make a plausible florish to the simple reader to the end that by working vpon his weaknesse by falselie taxing his aduersaries hee may make his owne impostures saleable which otherwise would putrifie spoile for want of vtterance Lastelie for proofe of his accusation Sir Humfrey after all this sturre he hath made produceth onelie one witnesse that a false one and altho' for the greater credit of his cause he held it expedient to giue him the decree of a diuinitie reader professor Deane of Louaine yet hauing examined the matter I founde by better information then Sir Humfrey can haue that Boxhorne before his reuolte had onelie the place a certaine of obscure Deanrie which function altho' it be a place of some credit yet it is farre inferiour to the dignitie either of a Deane of a Capitall Church or of a publike professour of diuinitie in the vniuersitie of Louaine both in learning honour profit And yet this man as I receiued by authenticall relation of the Deane of S. Gudula Church in Brussels others after some extraordinary familiarity which out of his ouer amorous nature he vsed to a domestike maide seruant of his owne out of an vnsetlednesse of his lubrik mynde began at first to defend that it was not necessarie for the Preist to prononce the wordes of consecration orally but onelie to speake them mentallie afterwardes as nemo repente fit malus Boxorno once a pettie-master by degrees falling into plaine heresie founde oportunitie to passe into the land of libertie I meane into Holand with bag bagage I meane with his Sacrilegious spouse the sacred spoiles of his Church Where from the place of a fugitiue Pedant he is preferred to the dignitie of a new Euangelist is become a blostering trumpeter in the pulpits of the misreformed congregations And this is the onely man which Sir Humfrey could bring for a witnesse against the practice of the Roman Church in her manner of censuring bookes or correcting the same or approuing them according to the order decree of the Councell of Trent which collapsed Deane being so infamous in his life as by this which I haue specified and more which I could relate doth appeare and being also now a professed enimy and Apostata from his mother Church let the reader iudge whether in reason his testimony ought to be admitted against her and let him withall be pleased to consider that Sir Humfrey in lue of conuincing his aduersaries of ill conscience he hath by his owne bad proceeding in this section conuinced his owne to be the worst of all so is fallē in to the same pit he prepared for his enimies incidit in foueam quam fecit by forgeing of false recordes hath incurred a farre deeper dungeon of cēsure then hitherto he did in which he must remaine either till he hath payde a double fine or put in suretie for the amendment of his manners THE XIII PERIOD IN His fourteeneth section Sir Humfrey indeuoreth to conuince his aduersaries of the defence of a desperate cause by their blasphemous exceptions as he calleth them against the scriptures by which we see that as his booke increaseth in number of leaues so he increaseth in multiplication of his malicious and false accusations and these being the cardes he playeth with let vs examen his gaime He continueth confidently his allegation of his false Deane of Louaine for a witnesse against the Romanists whose worde notwithstanding ought not either in reason or according to the course of lawe to be admitted for recorde against those from whose religion he hath reuolted And so whereas he accuseth the Romā Church of poyson in religion tiranny in the common welth it is to be taken as proceeding from a poysonous minde which being once corrupted hateth the truth as much as an ill stomake loathes dainty meates As for the scriptures it is false slaunderous to affirme that the Romanists refuse to be tryed by them so they be taken together with the authoritie of the Church which the same scriptures commende as Saint Augustin speaketh against his aduersaries and in a true sense without which as one of the auncient Fathers saith verbum Dei male intellectum non est verbum Dei that is the worde of God ill vnderstanded is not the word of God Quamuis certum de scripturis non proferatur exēplum tamē earundem scripturarū à nobis tenetur veritas cum id facimus quod vniuersae placet Ecclesia quam ipsarum scripturarum commēdat authoritas Aug. lib. 1. cōtra Cres c. 33. And according to this not that sacred Bible which was in the Apostles till the dayes of Luther without alteration is as you calumniously affirme ranked by the Inquisitors inter libros prohibitos among the prohibited bookes but your execrated Bible I meane your execrable translations and annotations mutilations of the most holy Bible are those that are registred in the censure where whether it haue as you affirme I knowe not certainely but I am sure it deserueth the first place because as the Philosopher saith corruptio optimi pessima and so as your Bible-corruption is in the highest degree of badnesse so ought it in reason to be ranked in the highest station of such false wares as that Catalogue condemnes And of the censure of your owne abuses I graunt you may with shame enough to your selues be eye witnesses but if you meane you are eye witnesses of the censure of the true scriptures
be fed with this vision but let the mynde reuerence God whoe both giues to his saints a crowne of victorie and to vs the assistance of their intercession And the like he affirmes of honor of saincts a little aboue in this same page Wher althou ' he iustely reserueth the supreame worship of Sacrifice to God a lone yet he expressely grauntes an other inferior honor to Saints and Angels saying Adoretur colatur veneretur a fidelibus Deus c. Let God be adored worshiped or serued and reuerenced by faithfull people let Sacrifice be offered to him a lone either in the mysterie of his bodie and bloud or in the Sacrifice of a contrite and humble harte let Angels or holye men be loued honored with charitie not with seruitude let not Christs bodie be offered vnto them And according to this sense Agobardus speakes throu ' his whole booke particularly in his second leafe wher he reprehendeth certaine idolaters whoe imagined a certaine sanctitie to reside in images saying In which nature these alsoe whoe call images holye are founde not onely Sacrilegious for that they giue diuine worship to the workes of their handes but alsoe foolish in attributing sanctitie to images which haue no life or soule By all which wordes it is cleare that Agobarde onely condemnes the exhibition of such honor to saincts or images as is due to God a lone Which doctrine is soe farre from being anie way contrarie to the honor of images practised in the Roman Church that it doth rather exactely agree with the honor of the Councell of Trent in this particular which in the 25. Session defines that due honor is to be giuen to images not because it should be beleeued that ther is anie diuinitie or virtue in them for which they ar to be worshiped or that anie thing should be craued of them or that confidence or hope should be put in thē as in tymes past the Gentiles did whoe placed their hope in Idols but because the honor which is exhibited vnto them is referred to the prototypes or persons which they represent soe that by the images which we salute or kisse and before which we vncouer our head and prostrate our selues we adore and reuerence Christ and the saints whose representations or similetudes they beare True it is I haue noted in reading his booke that Agobard purposely refuseth to vse these wordes adorare colere adore or serue yet I plainely gather by his whole discourse he doth not soe to signifye ther by that images ar not to be vsed with anie honor at all as I haue alreadie declared by his owne text but onely declineth the vse of those wordes in regarde he takes them in a strict sense as they signifie religion or honor proper to God him self and not due to anie creature and perhaps alsoe because at that tyme as it may seeme by his nicenes and some others of that age the worde adoration was offensiue euen to some whoe otherwise were both Catholique and learned men to say nothing of the common people some of whome peraduentute out of ignorance and weakenes of iudgement euen at this day make danger to vse it and scruple to heare it yet neither the one nor the other omitting to honore images according to the approbation and practise of the Church Wheras yet if it be taken in the sense in which the Roman Church according to the definition of the 7. Synod and custome of diuines accepteth it that is for a kynde of inferior honor distinct from proper latrie and religion and as euen according to the vse of scriptures it signifyes worship common alsoe to creatures then doth it include no manner of scandall or offense at all Cumque introisset in conspectu Regis adorasset eum pro nus in terram c. 3. Reg. 1. 24. And now in that rigorous meaning Agobard takes the worde adoratiō when alledgeing the same wordes of the Eliberitan Councell which Sir Humfrey here researseth he intendeth onely to proue that images ar not to be adored or serued in which passage he proueth nothing against the Roman Catholique honor of images but onely disputeth either against some reliquies of the Antropomorphitan heresie or against some other superstitious and idolatrous adorers of Saints images of those dayes from both which kyndes of errors as Agobardus him self was soe alsoe the Roman Church with her cheefe Pastors and rulers to which he then was a subordinate member and prelate as other of his workes doe witnesse were free and innocent as likewise now they be in this our present age not obstanding the frequent calumniations of our moderne sectaries to the contrarie Finally I adde to this that in the verie conclusion and last period of his booke Agobard expressely teacheth that genuflection is to be made to the name of Iesus which yet our Puritan aduersaries out of their singular puritie or rather pure singularitie reiect as idolatrous not obstanding by Gods commaundement not onely men but deuils alsoe ar enioyned and compelled to bowe their knees at the sounde of that soueraine name And surely he who holdes this for lawfull as Agobardus doth must for the same reasons hold it likewise lawfull to honor the images of Iesus supposing that the name of Iesus being to be honored onely for the representation it hath of him much more lawfully may his image be soe honored in regarde it doth more permanently and ferfectly represent him then doth his name which consists in carracters and a transitorie sounde of letters Besides this Agobardus as the verie first wordes of his booke doe declare doth not directly and professedly treate in it of the honor and vse of images as it is practised in the church but of the sense of the first commaundement in which he includes the prohibition of the adoration of images deliuered by God in the old Testament as a parte of the same onely intending to proue in his whole worke that by virtue of this precept diuine honor is not to be tendered to anie creature but to God alone not to either idoles or images And Therfore in his laste page the same Agobardus expressely speaketh of honor proper to God him self applying to his purpose the wordes of Isaias honorem meum alteri non dabo by all which it is most clearely apparent that what soeuer Agobarde seemes to vtter against the adoration of images is onely spoken against such as attributing ouer much honor vnto them worship thē in an idolatrous or superstitious fashion contrarie to the tradition of Fathers and practise of the Catholique Church as his wordes quoted in my margen sufficiently declare haec est sincera religio hic mos Catholicus haec antiqua patrum traditio c. Agobardus fol. vlt. post authoritates Patr. citatus And soe I leaue him as no enimie to the Catholique cause nor anie fauorer of the disalawers of the same in this particular point how be it the ambiguitie of
Sir Humfrey passeth to another matter that is to the testimonies of the ancient fathers where he chargeth the Romanists that they eyther openly reiect them or secretly decline their authority by euasions in particular pointes This is the tenth section a great part of which is repeated out of his firste booke ansered by me in my censure He makes a large preamble touching the clayme the Romanists make to the ancient fathers as patrons of their doctrine as if they did arrogate that which is not their owne but the discourse is very idle mutatis mudandis may be verie iustely verified of the knight his predecessors especiallie Iewell Plessis who both of them were the greatest braggars in that kind that euer were yet none so shamelesse in corrupting the Fathers workes abusing their sense as themselues The rest of this section is verie meane stuffe consisting of captious constructions of the sayeings of some Romanists contorting them to this matter as if they did disesteeme or reiect the ancient Fathers authoritie which is impossible to be true as is manifestlie conuinced by the continuall vse they make of them much more then the Nouellists as it is well knowne to the world And the truth is that the Romanists onelie modestlie confesse especiallie when they are vrged to it by the clamours of the sectaries that some of the Fathers in their single opinions or in such cases as they did not all consent together did sometimes perhapps fall into some erroneous point of doctrine that they are not alwayes in euerie point to be followed in their expositions of scriptures or otherwise in matters nothing concerning the controuersies of these tymes But onelie when they all agree in matters of faith or by graunting that in pointes of practise for example about the Communion in one kinde or priuate Masse they are not all in all matters expreslie for them How beit they knowe they neither are against them all things considered Which if it be duelie pondered is no inconuenience at all in regard that these things such others be mutable according to the diuersitie of times persons consequentlie might be otherwise thē by practised thē by vs. Neyther doe the Romanists when they affirme the Fathers to be for them teach as the knight doth falselie deceitfullie suppose that all the Fathers in euerie point of faith be it transubstantiation or anie other are positiuelie for them but onelie that the whole streame nay nor anie part of them is positiuelie against them in anie such doctrine that in the most pointes they are expresselie wholie for them against the reformers in all Pag. 290. Out of which the reader may collect how impudently the kinght doth belye the foresaid Romanists when he affirmeth that they are reputed no good Catholikes by their owne tenets that teach not contrary to the vniforme consent of Fathers especiallie considering that he himselfe hath already related how the same Romanists take an expresse oath to follow that consent Sect. 4. init And by this it may in like fashion be easilye perceaued how little credit this man deserues when he accuseth his aduersaries of citation of counterfeit authors wheras he himselfe doth deale so vniustly in that nature especially with Bellarmine that he doth not onely mutilate his wordes but also citeth that which is not to be found as by way of example you may see page 290. where he affirmes Bellarmine to professe that they are not to be numbred among Catholiques that thinke the Virgin Mary was conceiued in originall sinne for hauing deligently passed ouer two seuerall times the 15. chap. of the 4. booke de amiss grat which is that same Sir Humfrey citeth I find no such sentence nor words in it but rather the quite contrary doctrine as by his owne words in my margen related clerely appeares Neque desunt qui impudenter affirment ab Ecclesia Romanae defendi cōceptionem immaculatam Virginis Mariae tanquam articulum fidei Bell. loco cit neither is it lesse plainly false which he affirmeth for the conclusion of this section to wit that Bellarmine the Romanists in generall some times condemne the Fathers as counterfeit some times they purge them as if they were full of corruptions that according to seuerall occasions they haue their seuerall deuices to produce them or auoyd them at their pleasure yea that they cōfessing thē to be counterfeit yet produce them for their doctrine all which particulars are so farre from truth that they cry shame on the author so much the more in regard that he his brothers are not a little guiltie in this busines but doe daily offend in the same kinde as by many instances might be proued particularly in that one for example of the Imperfect which passing vnder the name of S. Chrisostome is conuinced by Bellarmine others not to be his in regard it houldeth the Homousians for heretikes yet is it commonly cited by our aduersaries euen by Sir Humfrey himself in diuers places of his workes in which they verifie most fitly that of the Apostle Rom. 2.21 in that while they preach to others that they must not steale they steale themselues Neyther yet doe any of the testimonyes which the kinght produceth for his accusation of Bellarmine in this nature proue his intent nor any thing more then that both Bellarmine other Romanists doe indeed some times produce such authors in fauour of their doctrine as are not by all Romanists held to be of certaine vndoubted authority or at the least not certainly iudged to be the workes of those authors whose names they beare thou ' otherwise althose who cite them hold them for workes of ancient standing not counterfeit at least in the substance of theie authority as the knight doth counterfeitly indeuore to perswade his reader nay Bellarmine whome the knight particularly taxeth in this behalf showeth himself so iust sincere in this point that he is not content eyther alwayes or for the most parte to aduertise the reader when he cites doubtfull authors in his tomes of controuersies but also to take away all occasion of scruple in himself of calumniation in others he hath made a particular censure of such authors as are in anie sort held for doubtfull or Apochriphal or otherwise called in question And so to conclude this the reader may see by what indirect courses Sir Humfrey huddles vp this parte of his by-way for himself freinds to spend their tyme in Sec. 11. In his eleauenth section he indeuoureth to proue that the substantiall pointes of the Romane faith as they are now receiued taught by the Church of Rome were neuer taught by the primitiue Church nor receiued by the ancient Fathers these are the contents of the section but it containes so little substance that we may trulie say it stands onelie for a
were by strong fauor of the secular power This is that in substance which Sir Hūfrey alledgeth out of Gerson yea an something more then he him self produceth And yet neuerthelesse as the reader may easily vnderstand there is nothing agreeable to the reformation of Luther and Caluin For Gerson onely reprehends and that iustely some particular persons in some particular countryes and in some particular obseruations which soe exactely and rigorously obserue theit rules lawes soe exorbitantly estreeme of them that they often tymes by indiscreet zeale are more diligent in performing them then they are in keeping the lawes of God and that they some tymes punish more seuerely a religious person offending against one of those monasticall rules or statutes or against one of the Popes preceps or lawes of the decretalls or others then they punish him whoe committeth adulterie or sacrilege Wher as those twoe false reformers Martin and Iohn were not content with this and to procure a reformation in some particular persons rules and statues but they tooke away all monasticall obseruations either of vowe rule or constitution and extingnissed all Ecclesiasticall lawes both of the Pope and Church as much as lay in their power violating euerting and razing the verie buildings of religious houses and consuming by fyre the bookes of the decretals and whole Canon lawes quyte destroying that and much more by rage and furie which Gerson out of a pious Christian zeale onely wished to haue amended Gerson complained of the euill life of fryres and nunnes with desire to haue them reformed and reduced to the obseruation of their ancient rules and constitutions onely excepting against the multiplicie and varietie of religious orders suntque per haec caelestia tonitruasublata prohibita damnata omnia istius generis vota penitissimè Lut. tom 2. fol. 272. But those companions in impietie Luther and Caluin would haue all religious and monasticall discipline wholely extingnished as Sacrilegious damnable and contrarie to the lawe of God vsing opprobrious speaches against all Religious persons their profession Gerson tooke to consideration whether the multitude and varietie of images might not be occasion of idolatrie in the simple people yet did not he reproue the due honor of them But our newe reformers or rather deformers either will haue no images at all in Churches as Caluinists or at the least they will not haue them honored with religious reuerence as Lutheranes reprouing all kinde of veneration or worship of them as superstitious and idolatrous Gerson onely reprehended the excesse as he apprehended in the canonization of soe manie newe saints the more religious obseruation of thers feastes then of the feastes of the Apostles by some particular persons or Churches but these twoe prophane fellowes allowe not of anie religious celebration of the feasts of either ancient or moderne saints neither of Apostles nor Euangelists neither of confessers nor martyres making account onely of the sabaoth day as they cōmonly call the sunday in that nature alsoe houlding the canonization of noe saints for either necessarie lawdable or authenticall desiring rather their memories should be extingiushed rhen reuerenced Gerson likewise comdemneth instely superstitions comitted by particular persons in the worship of saints vaine obseruations ouer great credulitie giuen by them to euerie passage recounted in some inauthentichall legendes yet admitting defending due moderate honor of saints the authentical true histories of their liues But our pretended reformers reiect all religious honor of Saintcts hould the relatiōs of their liues miracles for Apocriphall fabelous at the least of moderne saints Gerson defended the Roman doctrine of indulgences most Catholiquely as his treatice of that matter doth testifye Indulgentiarum cōcessio non est parui pendenda seu contemnenda sed amplectēda deuote in fide spe charitate Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui potestatem lium clauium Ecclesiasticarum dedit hominibus Gerson p. 2. act 23. and onely taxed some particular pardons of sinnes as he relates for saying soe manie pater nosters in such a Church before such an image calling them superstitious opiniōs and friuolous additions as hauing neuer ben approued by the Roman Church But our newe doctors masters Luther Caluin vtterly condemne all sortes of Indulgence graunted by the Pope yea and the power of the Church to graunte them Gersō speaking onely of some vitious Ecclesiastical persons reprehendes preists for that vnder the pretense of maydes they keepe cōcubines yet plainely supposing the lawe of Celibate or single life of cleargie to haue ben in vse in and before his tymes as a thing lawdable and fitting for their vocation quoniā assidue nostri sacerdotes sacris occupantur mysterijs quid diuinius quam vt continua polleant castitate Gers 2. part dialog de celib Act. 4 But those twoe luxurious imps the one a professed fryer the other a vowed priest according to their newe reformation teach it lawfull and laudable for preists not obstanding their vowes of chastitie to chāge the state of chastitie in to the state of mariage they being the first that gaue example of that sacrilegious action and leading the daunce them selues Gerson complaines that Cathedrall Churches are made dennes of theeues and consecrated monasteries markets Innes But by the followers of Luther and Caluin those holie cloysters are not onely made markets and Innes but euen stables and hogstyes Cathedrall Churches as it were common burses or exchanges for relation of newes and negotiations in which manifould iniustices and illicit contracts are plotted and accorded to the great profanation of the house of God ordained for onely prayer seruice and Sacrifyce soe that if Gerson were now aliue doubtlesse he would rather taxe the pretended reformers in this nature then those Catholique profaners of his owne tymes Gerson bids inquirie to be made if ther be not Apocryphall Scriptures and prayers introduced in the Church to the great preiudice of Christian faith not meaning of anie Scriptures or prayers approued for Canonicall and pious by the authoritie of the Roman Church as are the bookes of machibies Sapience Ecclesiasticus Tobie and Iudith and prayers to saints all which Gerson him selfe did receiue for such but he onely reprehendes such false Scriptures or prayers as some newfangled priuate persons had published and inuented with out warrant or authoritie of the prelates and gouernors of the Church But Luther Caluin and their schollers peremptoriely reiected and excluded out of the text and canon of seripture the forosayde bookes and some others as allsoe all manner of prayers to sainrs euen those prayers and kookes of scripture which had ben most anciently approued and read in the seruice of the vniuersall Church at the least since the tyme of Innocēt the first Pope of that name and soe vsed in the dayes of S. Augustin and euer since till the late dayes of Luther And now by this breefe collation or cōparision