Bellarmine we cannot be certaine whether we fulfill or not and consequently we cannot bee certaine of our grace and iustice And he saith these places are soe manifest that our aduersaries cannot deny something to be requisite on our parts For though saith he they deny the remission of Sinnes to depend vpon the condition of workes or our penance faith or other act to be the cause or merit of iustification yet they grant them to be requisite and that without them a man cannot be iustified This is Bellarmines discourse wherein he doth neither confesse any good of your haeretiques nor any way allow or approue your saying as you would make one thinke but bringeth your owne confessions against you and euen by soe much as you confesse though that be farre from enough ouerthroweth another error of yours to wit your vaine confidence and certainty of your iustification Now then Sir Humphrey is not this honest dealing in you to take a word spoken by Bellarmine for one purpose and to transferre it to another farre different and againe in fauour of your selfe to alleadge those words out of Bellarmine as his confession which he alleadgeth onely for yours and to take it soe as if his allegation were an approbation or allowance of them whereas he bringeth them but in the nature of an obiection against your selues and there withall plainely declareth the difference betweene your error and our faith that you will not haue faith or works to be any cause or merit of iustification nor iustification to depend vpon works as vpon a condition whereas we teach all the contrary Which though Bellarmine doe not stand to proue there because that was not a place for it yet he plainely sheweth that to be his beleife 3. The second place of Bellarmine you say is touching iustification by faith onely wherein you tell vs he concludeth with the reformed churches saying that either a man hath true merits or hee hath not If he haue not he is dangerously deceiued if he haue true merits he looseth nothing by not respecting them but putting his trust in God onely But in this againe as before and euery where els you still Linde it egregiously For heere you make as if Bellarmine did allow of your iustification by faith onely whereas he confuteth the same largely and learnedly for 13. Lib. 1. de iustif cap. 1. whole chapters together beginning his disputation thus Hominem non sola fide iustificari 5. argumentis principalibus demonstrare conabimur Wee will endeauour by 5. principal arguments to demonstrate that a man is not iustified by faith onely How then doth he conclude with your reformed churches He concludeth against them you tell vs he concludeth with them And this place which you bring out of him is aboue 50. leaues from that where he beginneth to treate of iustification by faith and is an argument for a farre different matter to wit that it is most safe for a man though he may put some trust in his owne good works yet in reguard of the vncertainty he hath of his owne iustice and danger of vaine glory not to put any trust in them but all in God This later part whereof there is noe controuersy betweene vs and Protestants Bellarmine proueth by the reason heere brought Because if he haue not true merits he deceiueth himself but if he haue and yet trust not in them he looseth nothing by not trusting in them And what is all this good Sir Humphrey to your iustification by faith onely and consequently all that you haue said out of Bellarmine in this section to the antiquity and safety of your doctrine or the contrary of ours not one word to any such purpose on either side and therefore all is but vaine bragging wherewith you conclude heerevpon that our best learned confesse that many principal points of their owne religion yea many articles of faith are neither ancient safe nor Catholique Wherein you speake ignorantly in distinguishing principal points of religion from articles of faith for though euery proposition which is de fide be not an article of faith yet euery principal point is and therefore some giue that for the reason why we call a point an article to wit because it is a principal point but this is but to shew that you cannot speake two words soundly without faltering And yet you must be shewing men the WAY forsooth 4. Hauing then said all you can out of Bellarmine you tell vs it is not the name of Catholique which we assume that makes good the Catholique doctrine neither the opinion of learning or multitude of our side that must outface the truth For say your our Sauiour doth specially note the members of his body by the name of a little flocke as if the paucity of true beleeuers were the special character of the true Church And for our learned you bring a saying of S. Paul to the Corinthians 1. Cor. 1.26 Not many wise according to the flesh not many mighty Mat. 11 25. not many noble And another out of S. Mathew I thanke thee Father because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast reuealed them to babes and then you will vs to reflect vpon our owne church and we shall find the marks of a false church foretold that it should be after the working of Satan with all power and signes and lying wonders and after a little of this rauing talke you conclude with S. Augustine that miracles are not now to be expected thus you trowle it out Sir Humphrey Where first to beginne with I might aske what all this is to that which the title of your Section promiseth to witt of the truth of your doctrine out of Bellarmine But that it seemes prouing but dry matter you take your selfe the freedome without reguard to the consequence of your discourse to talke of the Church of Miracles stronge delusions and other such stuffe good for nothing but to fill paper But this very discourse for the matter it selfe sheweth your witt for you could haue said nothing more to the aduantage of our cause nor more to the disaduantage of your owne For you shew ours to be the true Church your owne a false one Which to be soe I shall shew not in myne owne words but in S. Augustines who giuing account what it was that kept him in the bosome of the Church reckoneth these very things which you make soe little account of as Miracles multitude of people and the very name of Catholique and I may say also learning Aug. cont ep fundam cap. 4. For answearing that epistle of the Manichees called Epistola fundamenti He beginneth his discourse thus In Catholica ecclesia vt omittam sincerissimam sapientiam c. In the Catholique Church to say nothing of the most sincere wisedome Wherein by mentioning this Wisedome in such manner euery man seeth that to him it was a motiue though he did not soe much vrge
Vncertainety and nouelty of his owne For which end you produce 8. seueral places six whereof I haue answeared before and there also shewed that some are nothing in the world to the purpose others most grosly falsified The 1. place to wit that noe maÌ„ can be certaine of his faith because he cannot bee certaine he receiueth a true Sacrament because that dependeth vpon the Ministers intention is answeared and proued most foolish chap. 10. n. 7.8 c. the secoÌ„d place which is of transubstantiation as if Bellarmine confessed it probable that it could not bee proued out of scripture is answeared in Cap. 9. § 2. n. 22. concerning which I onely note that in this place you haue a new corruption For whereas Bellar. saith onely that yt may be doubted whether there be any place of Scripture soe plaine as without the declaration of the Church to enforce transubstantiation because some learned meÌ„ as Scotus did doubt thereof though Bell. saith to him the Scripture seemeth soe plaine as to enforce it heere you make him say it may be doubted whether the Scripture will beare it which is cleane another thing for to enforce a sense beare a sense are two Seueral things neither did Scotus or any Diuine els euer make question but that the scripture would beare that sense but whither that were soe cleare and obuious a sense as of it selfe to enforce the beleife of transubstaÌ„tiation The 3. Bell. lib. 2. de Miss cap. 9. 10. place which is of Masse without coÌ„municants I passed ouer before as impertinent to the purpose and soe I might doe heere but for the Reader 's fuller satisfaction I answeare Bellarmine saith that Masse is ordained both to offer sacrifice to God and to nourish the people with spiritual food in which respect as it is not vnlawful to offer it to God though there be none to communicate but very lawfull good and holy soe is it more perfect and as I may say in a certaine sort more lawfull where be some to communicate For then it hath both the ends for which it was ordained Now what doth this make for you Sir Knight or against vs as also that which followeth heere to wit that there is not any expresse mention among the ancienâ—s where none did coÌ„municate but the Priest alone but onely coniectures For noe more is there any expresse mention to the contrary that noe Priest might nor euer did say Masse without communicants which vnlesse you can shew in Bellarmine you say nothing against vs neither if you could shew it should you therefore say any thing for your owne sacrificelesse communion which hath noe affinity with our Masse the essence whereof consisteth in being a Sacrifice and communion in being a participation of the same Sacrifice Your Protestant communion being but a bitt of vnblessed bread and noe participation of Sacrifice for you absolutely deny all manner of visible Sacrifice in the Church Now for Bellarmines coniectures it is true he giueth them noe other name but of coniectures but they are such as may with great probability perswade any indifferent man to conclude that many times and I may say much more frequently the Priest said Masse without communicants then with them And the lest of them is such that if you had but halfe such an one for any point you hold you would vaunt it and triumph as if you had an vnanswearable demonstration But be it soe or bee it not of some of the peoples communicating whensoeuer the Priest said Masse what maketh it to our purpose which is whether it be lawful to say Masse without communicants or not they did not will you say in the primitiue Church I aske what then may not we now the people did communicate euery day then must euery body communicate now therefore euery day all gaue their goods away and liued in common must euery body doe soe now I beleiue Sir Knight you will not like that soe well If the peoples deuotion grow soe cold as not to participate sacramentally of the sacrifice must the Priests grow soe cold also as not euen to offer Sacrifice for his owne and the peoples sinnes This is noe good councel Sir Humphrey almighty God reprehendeth it by his Prophet Isay 24.2 that the Priest were growne like the people Sicut populus sic Sacerdos We could be glad Sir if you could helpe to mend the people but not marre the Priest which you would doe enkindle their deuotion not destroy their faith nor take away the holy Sacrifice of the Masse which affordeth many benefits euen to not communicants though not soe much as to them that doe communicate sacramentally But what doe I in this discourse heere it is enough to shew that Bellarmine doth not patronize you nor weaken vs. The two places following touching prayer in a knowne tongue and Communion vnder both kinds in the primitiue Church are also answeared before are onely of the same kind of argument with this the 6. place which is as if Bell. taught your two SacrameÌ„ts is answeared in two places vpon seueral occasions Chap. 9. §. 4 fine and ch 10. fine and in both is shewed your notorious corruption both of words sense 2. Now for your two last testimonies which you brought not before I shall heere examine One you tell vs is touching faith and good works of which say you it is Bellarmines confession Bell lib. 3. de â—ustif cap. 6. that the Protestants doe not deny but that faith repentance are requisite that is a liuely faith and earnest repentance and that without them noe man can be iustified To this I answeare first that you propound the matter very imperfectly and ignorantly in saying thus touching faith and good works it is Bellarmines confession c. not telling vs the particular controuersy for which you bring this saying of Bellarmines there being more controuersies then one betweene you and vs as whither any thing be needful to iustification beside faith or what faith it is that iustifieth and how and whither good works bee necessary or noe and how they concurre for there be all these things and more in question betweene you and vs. And a man would haue thought by your general title of faith and Workes it had beene in proofe of some of these that you had brought Bellarm. But it is for noe such matter Bellarmine in the place cited handling a cleane differeÌ„t question to wit whether a man can be certaine of his owne grace and iustice that is whether he be in the grace and fauour of almighty God or not and for proofe that a man cannot be certaine thereof he bringeth diuers places of Scripture which imply a condition on our part in our iustification as if we turne to God if we seeke him in our whole hart if we doe penance if we beleeue if we doe his will c. God will turne to vs forgiue our sinnes and the like Which condition saith
We command that all the figures of the crosse that are made vpon pauements be taken away or defaced to the end that the triumphant Signe of our Victory be not vnworthily defiled by mens feete And the very title of the Imperial Law is this Nemini licere signum Saluatoris Christi humi vel in Silice vel in marmore aut insculpere aut pingere That it is not lawful for any man to paint the signe of or Sauiour vpon the groūd in flint or marble Now your leauing out the two words humi in solo vpon the ground is it not a manifest corruption both of the words and meaning of the Law but which is more this was a corruption of which Plessy Mourney was conuinced by the Bishop of Eureux in that publique assembly of France And he labouring to excuse himselfe as perhapps you will doe said that he did not looke in the law it selfe but had it out of one Petrus Crinitus whom you also cite heere for author which was shame enough for him and will bee for you also professing soe much Schollership as euen to write bookes and yet not to be able to take such an authority out of the original but borrow it of another or take it vpon trust in a matter of such moment but withall it was vrged against him that Crinitus had beene noted by diuers learned men to be but a bold and rash Gramarian of later tymes Soe as Plessys was foiled on all sides not knowing which way to turne himselfe And Suthcliffe after him againe vndertaking the defence of the same cause was worse foiled yet after all this Sir Hum. you are not ashamed to take vp this notorious corruption againe vent it to the world as if it had neuer beene excepted against but were soe authentical and good soe free from exception as nothing could bee more May not you then beare away the bell from all lying and corrupting fellowes that haue euer gone before you where is your great promise of sincerity nay where is your shame but I say noe more this is enough I suppose Now by this any man may see whither I haue not discharged my selfe of my promise and whither I may not henceforward when I take you tripping tell you you Lind it 15. Hauing then thus notoriously discouered your falshood Sir Humphrey I hope it will not be hard to persuade the Reader the same in other places heereafter which I must passe ouer more briefly for it wil be to long to stand vpon all there being not that place in the whole booke that is not either falsely or impertinently alleadged But to goe on with you you say you forbeare to cite the particular Fathers that opposed and condemned the worship of images in the Primitiue Church onely you will make it appeare by the confession of our learned Romanists that we want Visibility of the ancient Church You forbeare to cite the particular Fathers Sir Humphrey I cannot blame you there is good cause why to wit because you cannot for if you could it had beene as easy a matter to haue cited one Father or two as 8. or 10. obscure and vnknowne authours filling two whole leaues with their authorityes partly false and partly impertinent as I shall shew but what Romanists are these trow you whose confessions you bring you haue 10. authours whereof there bee onely two free from exception V. Bell. de scrip verb. Hincmarus Rhemansis to wit Agobardus and Peresius who are not against vs. Hincmarus is a Catholique indeede but that place by you cited is noted of manifest errour not in matter of Doctrine but in matter of fact which he relateth of the Councel of Francfort falsely being mistaken as our authours shew and as I shall after declare more See Exam of Fox his Calender Nicolaus Clemangis and Polydor Virgil his worke by you cited marked in the Romane Index though I shall shew you to abuse Polydore egregiously besids Clemangis himself is a Wickleffian haeretique Cassāder Erasmus Cornelius Agrippa Wicelius euery man knoweth what goodly and learned Romanists they are and of what account The last of your Romanists is Chemnitius in his Examen of the Councel of Trent as good a Romanist as your selfe who telleth vs it is not to be found that any of the Patriarches and Prophets for Fathers did adore images but that the scriptures cry out to worship one God him onely to adore and glorify and that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church did forbid the adoration of Images as he saith appeares by Epiphanius and Augustine who reckon the Worshippers of images among the Symonians and the Carpocratian Haeretiques Wherein you are also pleased to shew vs a tricke of your witt for in the text you put these words the Councel of Francfort in the beginning as you doe your other authours as if the text following against Images were the very words of the Councel but in the margent you putt Chemnitius which is wicked dealing to make the lesse careful Reader fall into error by taking the Haeretiques words for the words of the Councel whereas the Councel hath not one word of that that is there sett downe nor indeede at all of images all that we haue is by relation of some histories whereof 3. or 4. haue erred in the relation of a matter of fact concerning the same Councels condemning the 2. Councel of Nice as is most manifest not onely by contrary authorityes of greater weight but by the very contradiction which out of ignorance they shew in their owne narration for they say that the false Councel of Constantinople vnder Constantine and Irene was condemned at Francfort Which is manifestly false there hauing neuer beene any such Councel at Constantinople in their two tymes Binius in annot ad Conc. Francfor 794. but because this requireth a longer dispute I turne you Sir Humphrey to Binius Bell and others with them Onely heere I tell you that whereas you bring Hincmarus his authority and the Councel of Francfords out of Chemnitius Bellarmine sheweth by testimony of the same Hincmarus the Magdeburgian's Lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 14. and other your awne authors that that very Councel did say Anathema to all such as deface images is not this then abhominable falsehood in your freind Chemnitius to cite nay forge it against images in you follow him in it 16. Polydore Virgil shal be next out of whom you say Poly. Vir. de rerum inuentor lib. 6. cap. 13. The worshipping of images not onely those who knew not our religion but as S. Hierome witnesseth almost all the anciēt Fathers condemned for feare of idolatry This place was brought by Dr. White in his reply to Mr. Fisher's 9. points and soe answeared againe in the Reioynder to his reply as if you Sir Humphrey had had any reguard to Dr. Whites credit you would neuer haue giuen occasion to renew the memory thereof againe The
section soe are you not able to proue it Safe in this Wherein notwitstāding wee must heare a little what you say And first I wonder you talke still soe much of prouing the Safety and Comfort of your faith out of our authors when you cānot name that man that saith any such word For suppose you find one author or two of ours that saith something different from the common opinion in this or that particular point of doctrine doth hee presently say the Protestant faith is Safe For example one saith communion in both kinds of it selfe giueth more gtace doth he therefore say your faith is safe noe verily but the same man doth condemne your doctrine for most vnsafe and dangerous and leading to the very pitt of hell For euen those things which of themselues might perhaps seeme indifferent your disobedience and spirit of contradiction maketh them damnable to eate is a thing indifferent but yet to eate with offence of our neighbour is ill as S. Paul saith Rom 14.20 Malum est homini qui manducat per offendiculum It is ill for a man that eateth by giuing offence and if the offending and scandalizing of one of the little ones which our Sauiour shewed speaking of this matter of Scandal be able to make a thing indifferent to become so ill how much more is Scandalizing of the whole Church and rebellious stifnes able to make a thing otherwise indifferent or perhaps in some respect good to become not onely ill but damnable But leauing that I come to the point 2. You proue the Safety of your doctrine aboue ours because Bellarmine saith of the Scripture that it is a most certaine and safe rule of beleeuing and soe also say we but what then wherein is your faith more safe then ours wee rely vpon the same ground of Safety as much and more then you how then are we lesse safe You say we rely vpon the Pope and Church which is but the authority of Man Well grant for disputation sake it be but the authority of man if it were soe that we did leaue the authority of Scripture sticke onely to the Pope and Church it were somewhat then you might with some colour at least say your way is more safe but now that we acknowledge and reuerence the authority of Scripture as much nay much more then you and ioyne therewith the authority of the Pope and Church for exposition of the same though it should be but humane how doth that diminish the authority of the Scripture or make it lesse safe A man in his right witts would thinke it would rather helpe then hinder But what if this authority bee more then humane as indeede it is are we not then much more safe I say nothing of vnwritten traditions which come not short for authority euen of the written word it self and which in two resspects seeme euen to surpasse it One respect is that traditions extend themselues to more things then the written word and euen to the authorizing expounding of the same For by tradition we receiue both the books of Scripture vnderstand the sense thereof The other that they are lesse subiect to the cutting kniues of haeretiques which maketh them soe madde at them For they cannot soe corrupt them by putting in and out at their pleasure as they can do the writtē Word And this indeede seemed the Safest way in Vincentius Lerinensis his dayes for he being desirous to learne how he might discerne Catholique truth from haeretical falshood receiued this answeare from euery body as he saith that if he would auoide the deceits and snares of Haeretiques and remaine sound in faith he should strengthen his faith two wayes to wit by the authority of the diuine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholique Church Whereby you see the iudgment of antiquity concerning your Safety and Ours 3. Againe you say it is safer to adore Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father then to adore the Sacramental bread I aske how you proue it for say I againe it is as dangerous to deny adoration to Christ in the Sacrament as to Christ in heauen For hee is as surely in the Sacrament as in heauen the same Catholique faith teaching vs both verityes and to make you study a little I may say in some sort more sure For a man that would be contentious might deny Christ to sitt at the right hand of his Father because his Father hath neither right nor left hand Wherein for answeare you must fall to expound the Scripture and declare the meaning of that article which saieth it and therein you shall find as much to doe as we doe in expounding the words HOC EST CORPVS MEVM Besids doe not we adore him in heauen too as well as you How are you more safe then wee Yea but you will say that we adore him on the altar too It is true wee doe indeede and to suppose it doubtfull for the present whether hee be there or noe I aske wherein are you more safe then we if hee be not there we are in danger of adoring him where he is not if he be there then are you in danger by not adoring him where hee is and it is as much danger not to adore him there if he be there as not to adore him in heauen Wherein I say then are you more safe though there were noe more certainty of beleife on our side then yours 4. Thirdly you tell vs out of S. Aug. it is more safe to trust wholy in God then partly in God partly in our selues Soe we say also and soe we doe Wherein then are you more or we lesse safe you say we trust in our good works it is true thus farre that we teach that men by good worke may cooperate to iustification meriting grace and glory but that is but conditionally if a man doe such good works but yet we are farre from nourishing your confidence which you speake of which is not grounded soe much in that general principle of good works as in the particular that I for example doe these and these good works Wherefore I say it is false in your sense For we doe not teach any man to perswade himself that he is iust and holy but teach him to feare and doubt himself continually and in all his works according to the example of Iob. Verebar omnia opera mea I did feare all my works and if a man doe good works we teach that hee cannot be sure that they are good as they are done by him that is that he doth them with such a right intention and by helpe of supernatural grace and that therefore noe man can bee sure of his owne iustification according to that alsoe of Iob. Iob 9.28 Etsi fuero simplex hoc ipsum ignorabit anima mea Although I shal be simple that is good the selfe same shall my soule be ignorant of Iob 9.21 Againe we say
followed curiosities becoming Christians confessed their deeds and burnt their books Soe we see afterwards the books of Arius were commanded to be burnt and men forbidden to keepe them vnder paine of death Socrat. hist lib. 1. cap. 6. and soe of others which I will not heere stand vpon onely contenting my selfe with one exāple of this kind which for the antiquity and authority may be both proofe and warrant for the practize of the Catholique Church now at this tyme wherein the Haeretiques doe soe much cry out against the Inquisition and index expurgatorius 2. This example is that of Gelasius 1. Pope about the yeare 490. who in a Councel at Rome gathered for that end made a Decree to declare what Scriptures were canonical what Fathers and Doctours might be safely read and what not whereof hauing made a catalogue he addeth these words in the end Item opuscula atque tractatus omnium orthodoxorum c. Also we decree to be read the workes and treatises of all the orthodox Fathers who in nothing haue strayed from the company of the holy Romane Church nor haue been separated from the faith and preaching thereof but by the grace of God haue held with the same euen to the last day of their life and then before he come to make a catalogue of the haereticall books which he forbiddeth he saith thus Coetera quae abhaereticis c. Other things which haue beene written or preached by Haeretiques or Schismatiques the Catholique and Apostolique Romane Church doth noe way receiue of which some few that come to mind and are to be shunned by Catholiques we thinke good to sett downe heere and soe there setteth them downe Now I would know of the Knight or anie man els that crieth out soe bitterly against our Index expurgatorius what he can say against it that he may not say against this decree and Councel of Gelasius and against which we may not defend our selues by opposing it as a buckler against all their darts 3. But of this matter therefore I neede not say more it being euident by the light of nature that supposing there be a certaine rule of faith to which all men must cōforme their thoughts sayings and writings and that the swaruing from it is a declining to haeresy it pertaineth to the Catholique Romane Church which must of necessity be this rule of faith For it hath neither spot nor wrinckle as Gelasius saith which cannot be said of any Church els what soeuer to preuent the danger that may come by such books forbidding the vse of them and a more dangerous and vnnatural part it would be in her not to vse this care then it were in a Mother that should see sugar and ratts-baine lye together and seing her child going to tast thereof should forbeare to warne it but leaue the choice thereof to the child But of this matter I said somewhat in the beginning and there being diuers learned treatises of this subiect particularly I neede say noe more but remitt such as desire satisfaction to them or euen to the very rules sett downe in the beginning of the Index expurgatorius which are grounded vpō soe good reason as I presume noe indifferent man that readeth them can disallow of them I will not therefore stand particularly to examine euery particular authour and iustify the Inquisition for it would be both a long needlesse labour Onely I cannot omitt one authour called Bertram whom to turne my speech to you Sir Humphrey me thinks you among all men liuing should neuer soe much as name considering how much disgrace you haue sustained by translating his booke and venturing your owne credit and the credit of your Church vpon the faith thereof and for him I answeare that though his booke were proued plainely to containe good Catholique doctrine in the matter of transubstantiation yet because it was obscure in many places and thereby gaue occasion of erring and indeede was of vncertaine authority this onely being certaine that it hath beene in this last age published by Haeretiques we know not out of what records with some errours of their owne inserted therefore it might well be forbidden by the Inquisition but I say you should of all men liuing most labour to haue the memory thereof blotted out therewith to obliterate your owne shame 4. Another thing which I am also to note is concerning your coting of a Canon of the Councel of Laodicea in this section whereat I wonder that the inquisition hauing said nothing to it why you should reckon it heere among such authours as you say are razed or clipped by the inquisition But let vs heare what it is that you say to it you cite the Canon thus in English onely We ought not to leaue the Church of God and inuocate Angels saying withall that in the same Councel published by Merlin and Crabbe by change of a letter Angelos is turned into Angulos Angels into Angles and Corners thus that we must not leaue the Church of God and haue recourse to Angles or Corners and this say you lest soe faire an euidence of an ancient Councel should be produced against inuocation of Angels V. Bin. to 1. Concil thus you Sir Humphrey wherein first is to be noted your error in chronology concerning the tyme of this Councel which you make to be the yeare 368. which was 43. Con. Laodien can 35. yeares after the 1. Councel of Nice whereas it was celebrated before that Councel Secondly your corruption in the translation and cutting of of the Canon which is thus Non oportet relicta ecclesia ad Angelos abominandae idolatriae congregrationes facere quicunque autem inuentus fuerit occultae huic idololaetriae vacans Anathema sit quoniam relinquens Dominum IESVM Christum filium Dei accessit ad idola Noe man must leauing the Church of God make congregations to the Angels of abominable idolatry and whosoeuer shal be found exercizing this secret idolatry let him be anathema because leauing IESVS Christ the Sonne of God he hath come to idols Now where in this Canon doe you find the word inuocation of Angels Which is the thing that you pretend to be forbidden and much lesse doe you find such inuocation of Angels as we vse For in this Canon is onely forbidden such idolatrical inuocation as the Simonian and other haeretiques did vse praeferring the Angels before Christ and making them the creatours of the world and the onely or chiefe mediatours without whose helpe there was noe accesse to be had to God which is the same wicked haeresy which Saint Paul speaketh against Coloss 2. as all interpreters vnderstand him By whose words it is plaine that those Haeretiques left Christ and had recourse to Angels in this sense Nemo vos seducat non tenens caput c. Let noe man seduce you not holding the head that is not holding by Christ Now where doe you finde that we by inuocation of Angels forsake Christ