Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	canonical_a	holy_a	scripture_n	5,721	5	6.0092	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19220	The Catholike moderator: or A moderate examination of the doctrine of the Protestants Prouing against the too rigid Catholikes of these times, and against the arguments especially, of that booke called, The answer to the Catholike apologie, that we, who are members of the Catholike, apostolike, & Roman Church, ought not to condeme the Protestants for heretikes, vntill further proofe be made. First written in French by a Catholike gentleman, and now faithfully translated. See the occasion of the name of Huguenots, after the translaters epistle.; Examen pacifique de la doctrine des Huguenots. English	Constable, Henry, 1562-1613.; W. W., fl. 1623.	1623 (1623)	STC 5636.2; ESTC S109401	62,312	88

affirme for ought that I haue yet seene that the errours of the Huguenots are not so grosse as that they impeach their being members of the Catholike Church To cleere which point I will reduce these questions to these foure heads 1. The Scripture 2. Iustification 3. Prayer 4. The Sacraments Concerning the Scripture he chargeth the Huguenots only with one errour which is that they reiect the Bookes of Tebit Iudith the Machabees and the rest which they call Apocryphall notwithstanding that they were approued for Canonicall by the Councell of Trent To which I answer That the Huguenots doe not altogether reiect them but esteeme of them as of holy writings and full of pietie of greater authoritie than any other booke only they doe not state them in the same ranke with the other bookes which are found written in the holy tongue And this it seemes to me that Bellarmine after a sort accords vnto for that in his diuision of the Bookes of the Old Testament he makes two Classes In the first hee rankes the bookes receiued by the Huguenots And those which be called Apocryphall in the second But what though the opinion of the Huguenots bee in this point condemned by the Councell of Trent yet is the Councell of Laodicea cleere on their sides And so are also Hierome Origen Nicholaus Lyra himselfe Cardinall Caietane and many other pillars of the Roman Church So that I would faine know if that this errour of the Huguenots be so enormous as that for this cause they must necessarily be Heretiques wherefore then did it not as well hinder Hierome from being a Saint and Cardinall Caietane from being a Catholike Now vnder the title of Iustification I cōprehend al the differences mentioned in the answer which were determined in the sixth Session of the Councell of Trent touching 1. The Cause 2. The Matter 3. The Instrument 4. And the Effects of our Iustification By the Source or principall Cause I meane That disposition by which our Nature as we Catholikes vse to say being both preuented and accompanied by the grace of God prepares it selfe to Iustification that is to say To the operation of the Free-will which remained in man after his Fall For the compounding of this difference mans Free-will must be considered in these three estates Before the Fall of Adam after the Fall and in the time of his regeneration after he was againe restored Wherein there is contained whatsoeuer is necessary for a Christian to beleeue namely That man before the Fall of Adam had Free-will both to good and euill And that by his Fall he lost the libertie to doe good And that by Grace in his Regeneration he againe recouered it Thus farre the Catholikes and the Huguenots are agreed The imaginarie controuersie then lies only in the manner how this will is enfranchised or made free The Huguenots auerring That t is the Grace of God which sets it at libertie by giuing it new powers whereof it was altogether destitute before The Catholikes likewise auerring that the grace of God hath set it at libertie by loosing the chaines wherewith it was before so captiuated that it could not set a worke the powers that it had See here then the true difference betweene them in this point wherein though the Huguenots may bee deceiued yet is their errour nothing so dangerous as to ouerthrow the foundation of Faith In the discussing of which point we are principally to regard two things The Iustice of God in punishing Adams sinne by this captiuitie and his Mercy againe in freeing vs. Now if the Huguenots be in the wrong their errour is onely in augmenting the Iustice and Mercie of God by affirming That the freedome of our wills is not onely bound but slaine as it were Death now is a more grieuous punishment than imprisonment and it is a greater mercie to giue life to the will than libertie But what need the common people breake their braines about these Metaphors of binding and killing which they can neuer comprehend T is sufficient for them to know that nothing can be done without Gods good grace and to say all with Saint Austen To doe freely comes from the Nature of man to doe well from Grace but to doe euill from our corrupt Nature Which saying as it containes the whole doctrine of Free-will so is it consented vnto as well by the Catholikes as the Huguenots The second thing which I obserued in Iustification is the Matter that is to say Whether that righteousnesse which is infused into vs by Grace or that of Christ imputed vnto vs by Faith be it by vertue whereof we be iustified before God And this question though it be all one with that of Iustification yet our aduersarie thereby to multiply the number of his controuersies makes two of them so desirous hee is of contention Concerning which point the Huguenots are in no error in the ground and substance of the question so that though they may be thought to differ neuer so much from vs in the circumstances yet may they for al that be very good Catholikes For example A tree which hath the Root Stocke many Armes of it sound may be a good tree though some one bough be crazed But the Catholikes and the Huguenots are agreed vpon the Root of the question that is to say That there are two things necessary That we be first quit of our Sinnes and that wee be next indued with Righteousnesse to put off our old garments and re-invest our selues with new 1. Vpon the first the Catholikes and the Huguenots are agreed namely That we are pardoned of our sinnes and redeemed from hell meerely by the blood of Iesus Christ. 2. Touching the second both sides hold alike That to be admitted entrance into heauen we haue need of Righteousnesse and that this Righteousnesse comes from Christ. Now the Righteousnesse which is of Christ is either Inherent in him reputed ours or Inherent in vs proceeding from him being by his grace infused into our hearts which Act the Huguenots call Sanctification Finally the Huguenots confesse as well as the Catholikes that there be indeed both these kindes of Righteousnesses onely they differ vpon this whether the Righteousnesse Inherent in Christ and imputed to vs or that Inherent in vs and proceeding from him be it by vertue whereof wee become iustified in the sight of God And what is it to vs whether another man paies our debts for vs or giues vs money to pay it our selues So that in a manner they both acknowledge the selfe same Root the same Stocke and the same Armes of this question onely they cannot agree vpon the smaller Branches which grow out of these Armes Nay more they both acknowledge the same Branches too but they cannot agree vpon which of them they should roost For the Huguenots confesse that whosoeuer are saued are also first sanctified that is to say That they haue that kinde of Righteousnesse

the Huguenots say much failed in all these circumstances For first it decided before it measured for as much as euen before their comming to the Councell they were euery man of them resolued to condemne the Huguenots Secondly in examining and measuring of the questions it measured not by the written Word only but by Traditions also as it was agreed vpon at the fourth Session of the said Councell So that it measured sometimes either without a Rule or at least by a Rule very contrary to that of the Councell of Nice Thirdly admit that it had measured by a true Rule yet did it not so much apply the doctrine to the Rule as bend the Rule to make it fit to the doctrine viz peruerted the Scripture by an interpretation forced to their owne opinion For in the fourth Session it was decreed That no man should giue any other interpretation then that which was consonant to the doctrine of the Church of Rome So that in stead of measuring their doctrine by the Rule they measured the Rule by their doctrine But he followes it further against the triall of the Spirits that if we should try all then should we call againe into question the very Bookes of the holy Scripture it selfe I answer no and that it followes not that we should call in question againe the bookes approued by ancient Councels because they reiect some which are approued by the Councell of Trent seeing that in this particular the iudgement of that Councell is suspected euen by Catholikes themselues For Sixtus Senensis a great Catholike yea euen since the Councell of Trent hath reiected for Apocryphall the seuen last Chapters of the booke of Hester which were approued by the Councell of Trent which doubtlesse he would neuer haue done had he held it vnlawfull to try the Spirit of the said Councell Thirdly he argueth that if matters already determined and defined may be brought in question againe what end then would there be of Controuersies I answer that this reason is not sufficient to stay the triall of Councels because that this is the way to set an end to Controuersies for that it is not enough to dispatch Controuersies vnlesse we be sure that this dispatching is a well ending of them And so the Arrians might euen as well haue perswaded vs to rely vpon their packt Councell of Ariminum to giue an end to Controuersies To which our Aduersarie can shape no other answer but that their Councell was not lawfull and that the Councell of Trent was Well then say I that though wee may not examine the Decrees of a Councell yet may we try whether the Councell were lawfull or not and for this once we desire no more aduantage then this and thus much must be granted vs in despite of the world For if we ought simply to rely vpon the Authoritie of Councels which commonly passe for lawfull amongst our Doctors without any further enquirie there is no reason wherefore the Graecians should rather assent to the second Councell of Nice which allowed of Images then to that of Constantinople made vp of 300. of their owne Bishops which condemned them The fourth Reason for which he takes away the libertie of trying their doctrine from the people is quoted out of the 17. Chapter of Deuteronomie where it is commanded That men should enquire of the Priests and Leuie●s and the Iudge appointed for the time in cases of difficultie And Moses saith our Aduersarie addeth not Try the Spirits of the Priests and Iudges But if any grow proud and will not obey the command of the Priests that man shall die by the sentence of the Iudges Nor is this much different from that which our Lord saith in the Gospell of Saint Mathew The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chaire whatsoeuer therefore they say vnto you that obserue and doe As for Moses Commandement it was giuen vnto the Iewes whereupon Rabbi Salomon Iarchi concludes That we are to beleeue whatsoeuer the Iewish Priests say Since then that their Priests interpreted the Prophecies euen of Christ himselfe otherwise then we Christians doe A Iew will say that Christ is not yet come because their Priests deny it and if according to our Aduersaries saying we ought not to trie the Spirits of their Priests I demand then how he will answer the Iewes and I will answer him as he does them namely that in the text this clause is inserted According to Law that is to say we are to obey their Commandements so farre forth ay they are agreeable to the Law which how can we know vnlesse we examine it So that let our Aduersarie take his choice either to confesse that we are not in this place forbidden to try the Spirits of the Priests or else to acknowledge himselfe to be a Iew. To the place of Saint Mathew because he saith how that it is not much vnlike our answer shall likewise be the same For our Sauiour hath not commanded vs to obey the Pharisees in all things simply but not to take such scandall at their liues as that we should refuse to obey them when they speake well For should we simply giue credit to what they bid vs without tryall of it why should we beleeue that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God when as the high Priest said that hee blasphemed in calling himselfe so His last reason is drawne from the Councell of the Apostles mentioned Acts 15. It seemed good vnto the holy Ghost and to vs Whence he concludes That Gods Spirit is so infallibly tyed vnto a lawfull Councell that we ought not to call the definitions of it into question nor would Saint Paul himselfe saith our Aduersary examine the instructions of the Councell of the Apostles as Saint Luke saith Acts 16. Hee gaue them that to obserue which was ordained by the Apostles and the Elders which were at Ierusalem I would faine aske one of our Catholike Doctors to what purpose are there so many disputations and consultations at our Councels if so be that the holy Ghost doth so infallibly direct them His answer will be That Gods ordinary prouidence is such as that hee still assists them with his Spirit when they for their parts apply that diligence which they ought and not otherwise Iust as hee makes not the ground fruitfull but when the husbandman tills and sowes his corne in it and applyes such labour as the soyle requires And thus much is cleare by this passage namely That the Apostles did apply all industry and the aptest meanes for the resoluing of the doubts proposed for it is said That after a long disputation Peter stood vp whence a man may conclude That the holy Ghost is no otherwise promised to a Councell then conditionally viz. when the Councell doth apply all the meanes and industry on their parts for the finding out of the truth and that otherwise it may be destitute of Gods Spirit namely when it doth not apply

but a wrangling about the word as I haue shewed before when I discourst of the number of the Sacraments As for the parts Namely Contrition Confession and Satisfaction if that he blames the Huguenots for not holding them properly parts thereof I answer him That neither doe all Catholikes hold them so For Durandus makes but two parts Confession and Absolution and Scotus saies that there is but one which is Absolution But if the question be whether these three things be requisite or not the Huguenots will also say that they are to wit that it is necessary for a Penitent to haue Contrition and sorrow of heart to confesse and acknowledge our sins vnto God nay and that it is profitable also to confesse them to the Pastors of the Church but not so absolutely necessarie because according to the iudgment of the learned Catholikes this Auricular Confession was neuer instituted by God nor yet of a long time practised in the Church as Beatus Rhenanus who was himselfe a Catholike hath very well obserued Finally as for Satisfaction it is to be considered either in this life or in the life to come in Purgatory That in this life the Huguenots approue of and teach it to bee most necessary to Saluation to giue satisfaction to men whom we haue any way offended and in regard of our sins against God to walke in newnesse of life Moreouer they confesse that God punisheth men in this life by temporall afflictions yea euen those whose sins are pardoned T is true indeed that they deny any satisfaction or punishment to be in Purgatory after death for sinne but herein their error cannot be great first because S. Austen puts it down no otherwise than as a thing probable and not necessary saying no more but It may be that it is true And secondly because that neither can the Catholikes agree vpon it amongst themselues some of them placing Pargatory here vpon earth others vnder it some neither aboue nor below but in the Aire Some affirme that all the Elect shall goe thither yea the Apostles and Martyrs themselues others thrust in those only who haue not in this life giuen full satisfactiō for their sins And for the fire some would haue it a Materiall fire some fire and water others neither of both Lastly some there be that teach that the soules are there tormented by Deuils others by Angels others by neither of both How then I pray is this questiō likely to be so necessary about which there is so much vncertainty that we neither know as I haue shewed who they be that goe thither nor where it is nor by whom they are to be tormented nor what they are to suffer The difference then betwixt the Catholikes and the Huguenots is but this That the Huguenots beleeue it not at all and the Catholikes know not what they beleeue See here in briefe the Huguenots opinions vpon the points before mentioned by which we may perceiue their errours not to be in the substance of Faith and doe not therefore hinder them from being of the Church and Catholike Religion For euery errour in Theologie doth not separate a man from the Church S. Cyprian was an Anabaptist in the point of Rebaptization and yet was he a Martyr S. Hierome as I said before held those bookes of Scripture for Apocryphall which the Councell of Trent hath since concluded to be Canonicall and yet remaines hee still Canonized for a Saint Tertullian one of the ancient Fathers fell to be a Montanist And Origen alone held as many errours as all the Huguenots together yet was he one of the most famous Doctors of the whole Church And to come neerer to our times In how many questions of Diuinitie did Scotus and Thomas Aquinas differ the two prime pillars of Schoole-Diuinitie Melchior Canus and Bellarmine accuse Caietane of diuers errors who for all that remaines one of the venerable Colledge of Cardinals The Dominicans and Franciscans could neuer yet agree about our Ladies conception yet be both of them held for very good Catholikes So that as I said the Huguenots may very safely be accounted good Catholikes so long as they hold the foundation of Diuinitie although they put some few tyles out of order on the roofe of the house and build with hay and straw vpon condition still that as S. Paul saith it be vpon the same foundation Otherwise we must conclude the Martyrs the Saints the ancient Fathers the Doctors of the Church the prime Schoolemen the Cardinals yea and the Catholikes themselues to be no Catholikes CAP. 2. 〈…〉 Catholikes as well as the Huguenots doe not agree with the ancient Church in matter of Ceremonies and that therefore the Huguenots are not to be condemned AS in men we consider their bodies and their apparell so in the Church likewise we consider the Doctrine and the Ceremonies As for the doctrine or body of Religion I haue showne in the former Chapter that the Huguenots haue the braine the heart and the liuer and all other the vitall parts whole and sound that is that they yet hold all the principall points of faith and that the maine thing that can seeme to be blamed in them is that they haue some certaine warts or spots in their skinne certaine errors I meane in the circumstances and application of that faith Now for the apparell and ceremony of Religion I confesse that the Church of the Huguenots is not so gorgeously or richly set out as the Church of Rome and is for the same cause not so well entertained and more despised in the Courts of great Princes and Monarches of the world which I iudge to be the reason why the Catholike Apology endeuoured to excuse the simple and naked Ceremonies of the Reformed Church without any intent thereby to disparage the gorgeous and gay attire of the Catholike Church but to shew onely That wee should not so meanly esteeme this outward simplicity as to condemne it without hearing Euen as that officer would bee held too rigide and seuere that would hinder a poore man from presenting his Petition to the Prince because hee is not clad like a Courtier The reason for which the Apology doth excuse them is for that the ancient Church did sometimes heretofore content her selfe with the like simplicity Now vpon this occasion the Author of the answer perswades himselfe that he hath gotten a great aduantage vpon the Catholike Apology Because saith he he can proue that diuers of these ceremonies which the Huguenots doe reiect are very ancient To which I answer That I willingly accept as much as hee grants that is that he cannot proue that all the ceremonies of the Church of Rome be most ancient but onely as he saith diuers of them As for those diuers which hee instanceth in that you may see how impertinent they are I will make it appeare in these two things First that he doth not proue against the Huguenots that the Church