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
King the Bishops the Clergie and likewise of all the people of France Admit it were so yet for all this does it not follow that it is receiued in France vnlesse hee can shew withall that all the Estates doe receiue it that is The Church the Nobility and the People But hee makes no mention of the Nobility but onely of the Church and the third Estate so that at the most it is receiued but of two of the three Estates which may be the cause that our Aduersary to keep vp the number diuides the Church into two parts viz. Bishops and Clergie The Councell saith hee is receiued of the Bishops the Clergie and likewise of all the people of France Which is a new diuision of the Estates neuer as I perswade my selfe heard of before Iudge then what iust occasion the Nobilitie of France now haue to reiect this Councell when as those who would haue the Councell receiued doe reiect the Nobility CAP. 6. That the Huguenots may very rightly bee accounted members of the Catholike Apostolike and Romane Church THis Chapter at the first blush seemes to treat of the same Argument that the first does for hauing there proued it That the Huguenots are of the same religion with vs Catholikes it may follow also that they bee of the same Church too And yet to my thinking these two Chapters may very well bee parted not so much in regard of the difference of the nature of the subiect as of the humours of the persons For commonly when a Huguenot would draw a Catholike to his opinion he begins euermore with the particular Controuersies and so vpon the purity of his doctrine hee inferres the verity of his Church A Catholike on the other side when hee would winne a Huguenot beginnes still with the Church and so by the verity of the Church concludes the purity of his doctrine and commonly when either of them gets the other out of this tracke they are to seeke which is one of the reasons that they cannot satisfie the aduerse partie For he that would perswade another must not begin with that principle which to him seemes best though indeed it be so but with that which seemes best in his opinion whom hee desires to perswade otherwise hee shall but lose his labour For when a Huguenot shall haue vrged a thousand passages of holy Scripture to proue the truth of his owne particular assertion hee shall not bee a whit the nearer and why For that a Catholike will say instantly with himselfe What though I cannot answer him yet another may and if I am to beleeue nothing which I am not able to maintaine by disputation then should I not beleeue the proceeding of the holy Ghost the vnion of both Natures in Iesus Christ the mysteries of the holy Trinity all which I haue beleeued without being able to maintain them or so much as vnderstand them And euen so the authority of the same Church which makes mee beleeue these mysteries without being able to maintaine them makes me also to beleeue the holy sacrament of the Altar Purgatory c. without being able to maintaine them So that if a Hugu proceeds no further does not shew a reason how a man may be assured of these mysteries without the Churches authority or else which I hold more reasonable why wee ought wholly to relye vpon the authority of the Church in one point and not in another hee shall neuer say ought to the purpose Nor can the Catholikes haue any happier success in their perswasiues for when they talke to the Huguenots of the Church how the Church saies this and the Church saies that and the Church cannot erre They who are not brought vp to such kinde of phrases and who found their faith vpon this perswasion That the Scripture is cleere on their sides What care wee will they say what the Church saith so long as wee agree in opinion with the word of God So that a Catholike shall neuer bee able to perswade them to any thing if hee beginnes not at their foundation and proue that the Scripture makes not so clearely for them as they imagine it does and then when they once perceiue that they cannot confute the Catholikes by Scripture they will bee compelld to confesse That a man can haue no assurance of his faith without submitting his own iudgment to the iudgment of the Church which as wee say according to Christs owne promise is infallibly accompanied with the holy Spirit For mine own part although it bee not my intention to entice any man either to one Religion or the other but to qualifie onely the passions of men yet for feare that I should commit the same errour in this Treatise of Pacification which they often doe in the course of their perswasiues I thoght good to subioine this Chapter also to the end that my reasons might be drawne from the principles of both Religions And thus hauing proued in the first Chapter by examination of the particular questions according to the Huguenots method That they be no Heretikes I was also desirous to adde this Chapter that according to the Catholikes manner of proceeding that is as much to say as according to the Nature of the Church I might also proue them the Huguenots to be no Heretikes For it were but labour lost to tell many of our Catholikes that the Huguenots hold many of the fundamentall points of faith as well as we seeing they take not the skantling of an heretike by his opinions but only by this marke That he is out of the Church vnderstanding thereby no other Church then that which we call Catholike Apostolike and Romane excluding all those out of the Church to whom these three titles may not be giuen what opinion soeuer they be of For which reason I resolued to proue that these three titles doe belong vnto the Huguenots And first touching the title of Catholike the Church is called Catholike in three respects First in regard of it selfe 2. In regard of the Iewes 3. In regard of Heretikes Now the Church is called Catholike in regard of it selfe because in the vniuersalitie thereof it comprehends all times and all places viz the whole number of the Elect as well those who haue beene since the beginning of the world and are now departed and triumphant in heauen enioying euerlasting blisse as those that are ordained to the like blessednesse whether now aliue or to be borne hereafter Which definition is founded vpon the Scriptures for S. Pauls words are The Church of the first-borne which are written in Heauen and who are written in heauen but the Elect from whom the reprobates are in this specialty distinguished That their names are not written in the Booke of the Lambe The Church then consists of the Elect who are not restrained to any place or time For Iesus Christ hath redeemed with his bloud saith Saint Iohn Out of euery kinred and tongue and people
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 CHVRCH 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 HVGVENOTS after the Translaters Epistle LONDON Printed for NATHANIEL BVTTER 1623. THE TRANSLATER TO the Christian Readers AND TO ALL THOSE ESPECIALly whose hard hap it is or may be to be seduced vnto Popery That by the helpe of this Booke and their owne Prayers they may be deliuered from the the Euill when the Priests and Iesuits would Lead them into temptation THere is a bold Nation of men the Tempters aboue mentioned I meane slily of late crept in amongst you well-meaning and abused people whose enticements as you know too well still begin with the Church saying you Protestants are direct Hereticks you haue no Church Are you therefore reconciled to the Church Meaning all this time the Romane Church Had they fairely meant the Catholike Church I know no Caluinist that hath put this Article out of his Creed I beleeue in the holy Catholike Church And to say I beleeue What else implies it but to beleeue himselfe to be of it else why his Creed That therefore you may make one Romanist to answer all the rest doe but turne him that would seduce you vnto these two first Chapters and he shall there finde that for those few points of Reformation both in matter of Doctrine and Ceremonie wherein the Protestants haue iustly dissented from the Papists we can be no Heretiques And that their owne new Doctors who boast so much of Antiquitie can no where shew our Doctrine to be sufficiently condemned before the time of that fifth Gospell of the Romanists the Councell of Trent I meane which ended no more than some 60 yeeres agoe the third Chapter will euidently shew them And how incompetent a Iudge an Aduersarie is and how vnlawfull a Councell that of Trent was the Instances of the fourth and fifth Chapters will euince it Lastly that we Protestants hauing euer continued true members of the true holy and catholique Church doe not now need any Reconciliation to theirs of Rome the last Chapter will abundantly demonstrate it Which six Chapters being written by a Gentleman who euery where professes himselfe one of theirs if they would offer to shift off as they haue euasions enow by saying that what is written in this Booke is but the opinion of one Doctor Loe then we haue not only the Authors opinions but the strength of his reasons to vrge them withall All which are so mannerly so directly and so succinctly toucht vpon and come off so handsomely as no man in my opinion hath yet said better that purposed to say so little To giue you therefore the minde of the Authour in a word Nothing was here written with any intention to vrge vs Protestants any whit to depart from our Right in yeelding to a Reconciliation with them but to perswade them rather to esteeme better of vs and to demonstrate withall that if they will iudge right they must needs thinke well And this is the purpose of the Translator also To shew you therefore to vnderstand all this Booke If the Reader shall sometimes feele that this Author now and then giues the Protestants a light fillip by the way he shall obserue in the conclusion that it was to reach his owne Romanists a smarter blow which is satisfaction enough And that hee giues vs any at all let vs but consider that the Author though he were a moderate man yet that he was withall a Papist and it will take away much of the scandall Lastly which will giue vs as much aduantage as we can desire from one man which is to answer them by one of their owne this Gentleman the Author H. C. was too well knowne here in England to haue continued a most zealous Roman Catholique vntill his dying day and yet neuerthelesse are all his Reasons for Moderation directed to the Papists as if they should first begin it and all his conclusions directly for the Protestants as though we should still hold them Nay and which is somewhat more whereas all this is with vs of England common to our Brethren the Protestants of France yet doth this Booke make more for vs at home than it doth for them for whose sakes it was first written For though we haue with them entertained the points of Reformation yet haue we not so far receded from the more Primitiue Roman Church which he stands for but that we still retaine more of the necessarie Ceremonies Solemnities and Church Discipline than they of France haue done witnesse his second Chapter of Ceremonies which is still for our aduantage As therefore this little Booke hath beene twice already printed in France which is an Argument of the Protestants good liking of it there so hath it foure or fiue seuerall times both by Diuines and Gentlemen of our owne Religion been translated both into Latine and English which is a demonstratiue Reason to me how much it hath beene lik'd and desired To saue therefore the labour of writing it out which I still obserued as many desirous to doe as could get Copies of it I haue thought fit to let mine be published desiring all those that light vpon it to be as impartiall and charitable as the Author himselfe wishes them which if they be I hope well that the strictest need not be offended and the well-minded may reape much benefit by it Which being my only desire I shall euer pray for THE FIRST OCCASION how the name of HVGVENOTS which our Author euery where vseth came first to be giuen to the French PROTESTANTS THere is euer some Salt as well as Gall in malice and this temper makes it sometimes bitterly witty as may appeare by this name of Huguenots by which and no other doe the French Papists generally vouchsafe to call the Protestants It was taken vp about the yeere 1559. which was some foure or fiue yeeres before Mr. Calvins death Till which time they were called Tourengeaux of the Citie of Tours where the Protestants mostly vsed But about that time there hauing beene a foolish opinion of a Night-Spirits walking vp and downe the streets which they called King Hugon This fancie made one of the Citie Gates to be called King Hugons Gate and the Protestants being once obserued in the night to goe thorow that Gate vnto their Assemblies and holy Exercises were hereupon called Huguenots He that will see more of this Name and the occasion of it may finde a handsome Discourse of it in Monsieur Pasquiers Recherches lib. 7. cap. 52. whither I refer you TO ALL THE KINGS FAITHFVL SVBIECTS and principally
Catholikes and Huguenots thus farre forth agree in Doctrine that they are both of the same Faith and Religion IT is most cleare that men of the same Church and Religion may differ neuerthelesse about some opinions in Diuinitie Austen accords not to Hierome nor Epiphanius to Chrysostome nor Cyprian to Cornelius nor Irenaeus to Victor and questionlesse one of them was in the errour yet were they all Doctors approued by the Church and Saints euery one of them Euery errour doth not separate a man from the Church nor should we regard so much the number as the qualitie of them Arrius accorded with the Catholikes in all points but one insomuch as the change of a word yea of one bare letter would haue compounded the controuersie and yet was he the greatest Heretike that euer the Church was troubled with Origen on the other side dissented in infinite Tenents from the other old Doctors and was yet neuerthelesse esteemed a member of the Church To see then whether the Huguenots be of another Religion than wee neither their errors nor their numbers is the thing which is so much to be regarded but the nature of them only is it That is to say what Errors are to be reputed for Heresies and whether theirs be of that nature There be two things which according to the opinion of the Catholikes make Errors to proue Heresies The one when the Errour is of it selfe so enormous that he is at all times an Heretike that holds it So that euen before the Nicene Councell had decided it Ebion Paulus Samosetanus and Arrius stood then as Heretikes for that they denied the eternall Diuinitie of the Sonne of God The second thing which according to our opinion makes an Errour to become an Heresie is when any man maintains an opinion in point of Doctrine contrary to the Decrees of a Generall Councell So then the Heresie lies not so much in the mischieuousnesse of the opinion as in the resistance made against the ordinance of the Church For example The opinion of S. Cyprian touching Rebaptization was not Heresie in him because there was not as then any Decree of Councell made against it But since that say we this opinion is condemned legally it were flat Heresie in any other that should hold it Of this second Species of Heresie I will intreat in my third Chapter In this only of the former which is Whether the errors of the Huguenots be in themselues so enormous that they destroy the very foundation of Faith and by consequence keepe them off from being of the same Religion with vs. Let vs see then how our Antagonist takes vpon him to proue the contrary In the first place saith he both parties as well the Catholikes as their Aduersaries repute one another for Heretikes I answer that I finde no impossibilitie why they may not be both deceiued For two brothers being in choler may well renounce one another and yet they leaue not for all that to continue true brothers alwaies Cyrill and Theodoret accused one another for Heretiques and yet neither of them was so So that this reason is only drawne from the passion of men when Reason hath abandoned them But how doth he proue that the Catholikes repute the Huguenots for Heretikes The Catholike Church saith he hath by the Councell of Trent condemned diuers of the Lutheran opinions I answer according to my first distinction that it is one thing to returne an opinion for an heresie by condemnation and another thing to repute it so of its owne nature Now whether or no the Huguenots be hereticks by condemnation we will argue it hereafter in our third fourth and fifth Chapters But here we dispute only of the nature of their errour wherein his proofes are nothing to his purpose But saith he At Rome euerie holy Thursday the Pope pronounces them excommunicate and prohibits all Chatholikes to reade their Bookes In like manner the same day also he excommunicats all sinners of whom hee dares not denie but that many are of the Church else should he himselfe be condemned for an hereticke by the Councell of Constance which gaue sentence against Iohn Huz That the Church consists as well of the bad as of the good And whereas the Huguenots Bookes be prohibited so are also the Bookes of Machiauel Aretine and diuers other Catholikes Let vs next see the opinion which the Huguenots haue of the Catholike Doctrine Caluine saith he writes that the principall points of Doctrine in the Church of Rome are almost vtterly abolished and the right vse of the Sacraments in many fashions corrupted He needs but little explication the words themselues answer him Caluin saies not that the Sacraments are vtterly taken away but the right vse of them many waies corrupted Nor that the principall points of Religion are vtterly destroied but almost abolished A man may be almost kild and yet liue Secondly to proue how their Religion differs from ours he produces the controuersies of Originall sinne Free-will Iustification Merits and diuers others which he iudges of most consequence It is the greatest pittie in the world to heare how the most of the Preachers in both Religions commonly fight with their owne shadowes not vnderstanding what it is that their aduersarie holds which comes only of the subtleties of words inuented by the Deuill to disturbe the Peace of the Church One partie vnderstanding the word Iustification in one sense and another in another one Faith one way and another in another one Grace in one fashion another after another and so of the rest that which we say being true in our acception of the word and that which they say being likewise true as they take it So that if the desire of contention were once taken away we should soone finde that the most of these disputes wherewith peoples eares are filled are onely the subtelties of the Schoole vpon the Etimologies and Definitions of words only Whence it came to passe that in the conference at Regenspurg the Catholikes and the Protestants fell to some agreement in the question of Originall sinne of Predestination Free-will and diuers other points which is also confessed by Bishop Lindanus one of the tartest enemies that the Huguenots euer had Neueâ—thelesse the Authour of this answer is so ill aduised as to chuse out these questions principally to shew the differences betweene them and vs. For mine owne part I will not take vpon me to reconcile the said questions neither know I well to confesse mine owne ignorance freely whether it be possible to be done or no only thus much I assure my selfe that the difference is not so great as it is iudged to be Nor will I too exactly search out the point in controuersie because I well hope some other man may more happily performe it hereafter Only I will discourse vpon the said questions as they are commonly vnderstood by the best Doctors in each Religion In which sense I
a Million who haue embroyled themselues in the disputes of the time yet dare I vndertake to reduce the points in controuersie to so short an issue and to set downe such a course for the handling thereof that more of the truth shall be discouered in this one conference than in all the other disputes which haue beene since Martin Luther first opposed himselfe against the Pope For both the issue shall bee so drawne and the meanes so disposed of that the persons of neither Religion keeping themselues to their owne proper Maximes shall be able to reiect them I should be too impudent to giue it out if I were not well assured of my abilitie for the performance But I am acquainted well enough with the euasions of either side I know their fallacies and I haue also the Art to preuent them But the time seemes not to be yet so fit for wee must haue our spirits quiet as well as our State and aboue all free from that same preiudication For if we Catholikes come to a Disputation being confident before hand that the Huguenots are already condemned for Heretikes And they on the other side that they vnderstand the Scriptures better than S. Austin and that all is cleare on their side to what purpose serues such a Conference The Priests and Ministers may seeme as confident as they please for they are our Teachers but we should not be so resolute for we are but Learners The end which they propose is the Victorie but the end which we seeke for is the Truth Which if wee haue found why looke we further But if we beleeue without searching we may very well be deceiued The chiefe reason then which induced me to reassume my designe of writing in this point of Moderation was that our spirits being something pacified wee might be the better prepared to a Conference and in that Conference make discouery of the Truth and by discouery of the Truth establish a Peace in the Church of God But I suspecting mine owne insufficiencie and fearing withall to bestow my labour in vaine and on the other side being wondrously desirous to see an vnion in Religion I chose rather to hazard that paines which I had already taken in publishing that answer which I had made before than to lose a new The reason then why I that am a Catholike doe rather blame the rigour of ours against the Huguenots than theirs against vs both parties being faulty much alike is because he that would reforme another must begin at himselfe The importunitie and arrogancie of mine Aduersarie vrges me sometimes to write not so like a Catholike which I doe not purposely to confute the Catholike Religion but to shew only That the errors of the Huguenots are not so grosse as our side perswades themselues they are And knowing also that no one thing hath more suppressed the Truth than the meane esteeme that the one partie hath of the others Arguments Which God knowes is meerly out of ignorance forsomuch as the deeper learned any man is the more difficultie he finds in confuting his Aduersarie For it is most certaine that Ignorance engenders Vehemencie and Vehemencie blinds vs from discouering the Truth For their ignorance that are in the rights makes those likewise the more vehement that are in the errour and the ignorance of those that are in errour blinds them the more See then the true intent of this my Discourse wherein though I may perchance haue vsed some Reasons which in too rigorous a Iudgement may be esteemed with the most in fauour of these new opinions yet is not my intent with them to seduce any man or to turne them from the Faith of their forefathers but only to purge their spirits from preiudication vntill further proofe be made And if such proofe be made without which I conceiue no hope of vnion in the Church I adiure thee beloued Reader of whether Religion soeuer thou beest to come with a spirit void of this preiudication Such a spirit I wish to thee as I protest I my selfe haue and I pray God to confirme in all of vs. Amen The Argument of the Booke THe Catholique Apologie hath endeuoured to acquit the Huguenots of heresie by two Reasons The first is for that the Religion pretended to be Reformed is not hereticall of it selfe for that the substance of the Catholique Faith is receiued by the Huguenots and that the Ceremonies which they haue reiected were vnknowne to the ancient Church of which two points viz. Doctrine and Ceremonies all Religion is composed The second is that their Religion hath not beene as yet condemned by any lawfull Iudgement because that before the Councell of Trent it was not condemned in any Generall Councell and that the Councell of Trent is neither lawfull of itselfe nor as yet approued of in France Vpon which consideration albeit that the Huguenots had wandred from the true faith yet ought we not to proceed against them as against Heretiques vntill they haue receiued an arrest of condemnation from a generall Councell no more thâ—n we can in iustice put a Malefactor to death although he be notoriously capable vntill he be cast by the Iury and hath had his triall The Author now of the Answer to this Apologie in the second part of his booke from the fifth Chapter to the fifteenth trauailes hard to refute the foresaid Reasons in the fifth Chapter he only propounds his Method in the sixth hee would shew that the Religion of the Huguenots is quite another from that of the Catholiques in the seuenth that the Ceremonies of the moderne Church of Rome were obserued in the Primitiue Church in the eight that the Doctrine pretended to be Reformed stands condemned by ancient Councels in the 9 10 11 12 13 and 14. he defends the Councell of Trent whereof the 11 12 and 13. are to proue that that Councell is absolutely lawfull and the 9 10 and 14. that it is receiued in France after which method I will also diuide my defence into these six Chapters 1. In my first I will proue against the reasons of his sixt Chapter that the Catholiques and Huguenots thus farre agree in Doctrine that they are both of one and the same Faith and Religion 2. In my second against his seuenth Chapter that neither the Catholiques nor the Huguenots doe accord with the Primitiue Church in the matter of Ceremonies and that for this reason the Huguenots are not to be condemned 3. In my third against his eighth that before the times of the Councell of Trent they stood not publikely and lawfully condemned 4. In my fourth against his 11 12 and 13. Chapters that the Councell of Trent is not lawfull 5. In my fifth against his 9 10 and 14. Chapter that it is not receiued in France 6. In my sixth and last I will conclude that the Huguenots may be good right be still reputed for members of the Catholique Apostolique and Roman Church CHAP. 1. That the
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
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 Leuieâ—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