and nation With which definition the Fathers iointly consent All they saith Saint Augustine which are holy and sanctified which are haue beene and shall be are Citizens of the heauenly Ierusalem And S. Gregory the Pope that my proofe may be the more authenticall saith That all the Elect are embraced in the bosome of the Church and all the Reprobates are without And yet was poore Iohn Husse burnt for an Heretike for affirming the very same O wicked Catholikes that haue made a man to be burnt for an Heretike for affirming no more then what a Saint had done and which is more then a Pope had said before him So then in this signification neither the Church of Rome nor that which themselues call the Reformed Church can properly be called the Catholike Church but only parts of it Nay we cannot truly affirme that they be parts of the Catholike Church but that God hath both in the Romane Church and in the Reformed some that be members of the Catholike Church Which is as much to say as that diuers shall be saued in both Churches Like as there were many amongst the Iewes at the comming of Iesus Christ and at this day be in the Greeke Church and in Prester Iohns Country which doe embrace the Christian faith without acknowledging the Pope So that if we appropriate the title of Catholike to the Romane Church only taking it in this signification it must needs so low that either all the Catholikes are elected though the Catholikes themselues write that diuers Popes haue beene damned or else that no Iew was euer saued before Christs comming and that God hath not had his Church at all times or that no Greeke nor Affrican can be saued in our time and then God should not haue his Church in all places Againe if we attribute not this title of Catholike only to the Church of Rome I can see no reason why the reformed Church should be more excluded then the rest To be briefe when we passe our censure vpon any man whether he be of the Catholike Church or not we must speake either according to Faith or according to Charitie If according to Faith we cannot say that such or such a man is a Catholike because it is God that knoweth who are his saith S. Paul But if wee passe our iudgment according to charity this will haue vs esteeme all those to bee of the true Catholike Church which bee of the visible of which I will next speake and shew how it may bee termed Catholike 2 The Church as I haue proued already comprehends all the Elect those as well that be already in heauen as those that are yet on earth and remaine mingled among the wicked which last though generally more in number yet the Elect beare the name of the better part So that both good and bad which make an outward profession of the true faith are reputed members of the true Church According to the Parable of the net which held the bad fishes as well as the good This Church was separated from the rest of the Gentiles with a partition wall as it were and before the comming of Christ pend vp in one country and restrained to the Family of Israel But since Christs comming This partition wall is as S. Paul saith broken downe so that neither Iew nor Greeke are excluded And by reason of this difference that the Iewes in those dayes had onely this priuiledge and that now no one particular country hath it more then another the Church is called Catholike that is to say Spread all the world ouer And for that shee is so vniuersall shee is diuided into particular Churches As in Saint Pauls time into the Church of Ephesus of Rome of Galatia of Corinth c. and no one of these Churches hauing any priuiledge more then another they were all together called The Church Catholike not that it is alwayes euery-where but for that no country is excluded and no place priuiledged So then no place being excluded there may be other Churches besides that of Rome and no place being priuiledged euen Rome it selfe may be cut off from the Church 3 Thirdly the Church is called Catholike in respect of the Donatists who denied the Church to bee dispersed all ouer the world but held it to be coopt vp in Affrica wherevpon it came to passe that those Churches which held the contrary were called the Catholike Churches Euen as at this day these Churches that hold the Church to haue need of reformation are called The Reformed Churches Which is the reason why the more ancient Fathers neuer vsed this terme Catholike to distinguish the pure Churches from the hereticall but called them Orthodoxall But in processe of time by reason that the Orthodoxe Churches held that the Church was Catholike or Vniuersall these two words Catholike and Orthodoxall were taken in one and the same signification so that at last this title of Catholike was not onely giuen to the Church to distinguish the Orthodox from the Donatists but also from all other Heretikes For a Catholike in proper speech is not opposite to all sorts of Heretikes but to the Iewes onely and the Donatists But for as much as custome is the matter of words as we see in this word Tyrant anciently taken in good part for a King and now onely for a bad King this word Catholike is taken contrary to his nature in the signification of a pure Church in such a sense as that a particular Church may be called a Catholike Church and more or lesse Catholike proportionably as it is more or lesse pure So that the question betweene the Catholikes and the Huguenots lies not in this point viz. Which of the Churches is the Church Catholike but whether of them is most Catholike and which most corrupted for in some degree both of them may be Catholike so long as they hold the substance of faith as I shewed in the first Chapter and both of them in some sort may be corrupt it being a thing most certaine That euery visible Church may haue errors more or lesse The Church saith Saint Bernard as long as shee is in the tabernacle of this body hath not attained vnto the perfection of beauty and is not therefore absolutely faire For it is the priuiledge of the Church Triumphant onely to be faire and as S. Paul saith without spot or wrinckle True it is indeed that the Church is sometime called faire but this is euer comparatiuely wherefore the Bridegroome in the Canticles saith of his Spouse which is the Church that shee is the fairest of women that is not simply faire saith S. Bernard but the fairest among women And for that selfe same reason is she in one and the same verse styled both blacke and faire I am blacke saith the Spouse but I am comely I am not ignorant how that the Ancients also did vse this word Catholike for a distinction
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
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
from an Heretike in another signification which in truth was according to the proper interpretation of the word taking Catholike or Vniuersall for a marke of the true Church For which reason in the ancient Church when as the whole visible Church yet retained the faith receiued from the Apostles and that some part of it became corrupted for the exact discerning vnto whether side we ought to leane Vincentius Lyrinensis gaue this Rule What else should we doe saith he but prefer the safety of the body before a rotten member And therefore for that the body of the Church was at that time sound all the Church was called Catholike for so much this word Body as well as that word Catholike implies an vniuersality so that the distinction of Catholike and Heretike serues but to distinguish the sound body from a corrupted member But so soone as the body it selfe became corrupted then this rule and distinction failed For which reason Vincentius makes a difference betweene a Catholike in place and a Catholike in time And euer when a Catholike in place is not a sure marke he hath recourse vnto a Catholike in time But saith he if any new infection goes on not onely to corrupt a part but the whole Church then must we cleaue to antiquity So that the difference between the Catholikes and the Huguenots lying in this point Whether the body of the Church be corrupted or no wee must not speake of the Church which is Catholike according to place but according to time And that Church is Catholike saith Vincentius which holds that religion which hath beene euer hitherto embraced And to discerne which Religion hath beene alwayes embraced when as the body of the Church or the visible Church as saith the same Vincentius is corrupted we must still haue recourse vnto Antiquity and say with Tertullian Illudverum quod primum That is truest which is ancientest So as that is the Catholike Church which agrees in faith with the more Primitiue Church So that if wee would discusse it whether the Catholikes or the Huguenots be most properly the right Catholikes wee must consider first whether of them best holds of the faith of the Apostles and next of that of the ancient Doctors and Councels of the Church As for the Title Apostolike The Church may bee called Apostolike as well in regard of the Writings as of the Preaching of the Apostles As for their Writings those Churches which imbrace the doctrine deliuered in them are intituled Apostolike yea and more or lesse Apostolike as they do more or lesse agree or disagree to or from the said doctrine So that the word Apostolike is all one with the word Orthodox or with Catholike taken in the last signification And if the Church of the Huguenots may bee intituled Catholike or Orthodox they may also by the same reason be called Apostolike nay and more properly Apostolike then Catholike For the visible Church being as I haue shewed not absolutely but comparatiuely more or lesse Catholike or Apostolike the Huguenots though they may offend in default and so be lesse Catholike rather yet in this they offend rather in the excesse and are too Apostolike as being so strict that they will readily beleeue nothing but what the Apostles haue written Secondly those Churches were called Apostolike which were instructed by the liuely voice of the Apostles and where the Apostles haue had their seats as Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus Alexandria c. where the Apostles Peter Iames Iohn and Marke the Euangelist sate and are therefore from all Antiquity styled Apostolicall Seaes as well as Rome howbeit that this signification is rather an ornament then a mark of a pure Church For Antioch Alexandria and other Churches of Greece where the Apostles preached haue either altogether forsaken the name of Christ or are at the least according to the Catholikes Tenet quite cut off for Schisme and Heresie from the communion of the true Church and France Spaine Poland Germany England and Denmarke where the Apostles neuer had any Bishopricks haue sithence beene the true Churches So that in this signification a Church may bee pure and yet not bee Apostolike and a Church which is Apostolike may be impure The last title though first in estimation with the Catholiques is that of Roman which I haue obserued to haue beene taken in three seuerall sorts First the Roman Church is only taken for the Diocesse of Rome and was in the beginning for the Citie of Rome alone As in S. Pauls time who inscribed an Epistle seuerally to Rome alone as he did likewise to those Churches of Corinth Ephesus Galatia c. For had the Church of Rome beene euery where at that time spread abroad he had not needed to haue written to other Churches seuerally because that in writing to that of Rome he had then written to them all And yet would our people needs make vse of this Epistle to proue by it The Roman church to be the catholique Church because that in it S. Paul saies Your faith is spread abroad in all the world as if S. Paul had not said the same to the Church of Thessalonica Your faith which you haue to God-ward is spread abroad But had the Church of Rome beene as they would haue it esteemed by S. Paul as all one with the Catholique without all doubt his Epistle to the Romans had beene intituled Catholique as well as those of S. Iohn S. Peter S. Iames and S. Iude which are therefore stiled Catholique for that they were written to the Catholique Church Now taking the Roman Church in this signification I confes that not the Huguenots Churches alone are separated from the Roman Church but all other catholique Churches besides so that to this day they in France make a distinction of sundry customes of the Roman Church and of the Church Gallicane Secondly the Church of Rome is taken for the Westerne Church insomuch that the Roman Latine and Occidental Church doth signifie one and the same thing to distinguish it from the Greeke and Easterne Church iust as the Empire of the East and the Empire of the West were called the Empires of Rome and of Constantinople because that these two Cities were the chiefe seats of the Empire and so by reason of the dignitie of the Citie of Rome which was the seat of the Emperours that reigned in the West all this Westerne part was called the Roman Empire and all the Westerne Church the Roman Church that is to say The Church contained vnder the Roman Empire So then if we call it the Roman Church for distinguishing it from the Greeke and Easterne Churches then also may the Huguenots Churches be members likewise of the Roman Church for that they be Westerne and not Greeke nor Easterne Churches If in respect of the Roman Empire taking the Roman Empire largely as it was they also be vnder the Empire and by consequence vnder the Church But
taking the Empire as it now is then may the Churches of Germanie some of which haue shak't off the Popes authoritie be more properly stiled members of the Roman Church than Rome it selfe insomuch as Germanie and not Rome is at this day called the Roman Empire Lastly the Roman Church is vnderstood for all those that doe in Faith communicate with the Church of Rome that is to say those that be of the Romish Religion I demand then their meaning whether they vnderstand by the Romish Religion those points in which the Huguenots doe agree with vs or those wherein they disagree from vs or both the one and the other If those points wherein they agree with vs then they are directly of the Roman faith If for the points only wherein they dissent then are the beleefe in the Trinitie and all the Articles of the three Creeds of the Apostles of Nice and of Athanasius wherein they doe agree no Articles of the Romish Religion But if they take the Roman Religion for all the points of it together both for those wherein they doe agree and all the other too I demand once againe whether so exact an agreement in all points be required or not And if not then seeing that the points whereupon the Huguenots be agreed with the Catholikes be for number more and for importance greater than those questions are vpon which they disagree they may yet neuerthelesse be reputed to be of the Roman Church and Faith forasmuch as things for the most part take their Denomination from the better part Euen as we vse to say those people are of a sanguine coÌ„plexion in whom bloud is predominant although their temper be of other humours too But if we affirme that no man can be of this Church vnlesse he beleeues all and the selfe-same that the Church of Rome doth then say I that whilest we goe about to proue that the Huguenots be not of our Church we shall shew withal that we haue not any one man who is absolutely of the Church insomuch as that there is no one man learned or vnlearned that beleeues all iust as the Church doth For it is the credit of our Doctors to maintaine singular opinions by themselues which may be the reason why Bellarmine the greatest Aduersarie to the Huguenots accuses all the Catholikes that euer were before him of Error and those especially which haue written against the Huguenots as Genebrard Pighius Eckius Hosius Canus Caietane Scotus Durand S. Bonauenture S. Thomas S. Damascene for he spares not the Saints neither the like courtesie also shewes he to the Ancient Fathers S. Augustine S. Bernard S. Chrysostome and much adoe he hath to let S. Paul alone So that amongst so many dissentions either hath the Church beleeued nothing at all or else hath the Church beleeued them altogether that is to say contradictions or else that the Church hath beleeued but only some of them and perchance they haue all beleeued contrary to what the Church beleeueth Come we now to the common people and they vnderstand not the one halfe part of that which we teach them and when wee tell them of such points of Diuinitie wherein they were neuer brought vp their fancies framing Idea's vnto themselues vpon what they heare make them conceiue Chimaera's in their braines and to beleeue the quite contrary to what the Church doth before they are well aware of it But our Catholikes now haue found out a remedie for that which is That an implicite Faith is enough for the common people which is as much to say as to thinke only to beleeue only as the Church doth though they doe not so indeed So then seeing that an implicite Faith is To beleeue the contrary and yet thinke they beleeue the same if we could but once perswade the Huguenots that they doe verily beleeue as our Church of Rome doth in euery thing although indeed they doe not they shall be of our Church See then if I haue not taken a better method to conuert them than any other Catholikes haue yet light vpon They labour to conuert them to our Explicite faith which were to make them beleeue all the particulars of our Faith And I perceiuing them altogether vncapable of this Explicite Faith haue endeuoured my selfe to make them embrace the Implicite Faith which is much the easier of the two and to perswade them to beleeue that they doe already beleeue as our Church beleeueth and consequently that their Faith is the same and their Church the same That so by this perswasion they may proue if not so good Catholiques as the Priests yet at least as good Catholiques as the people But to returne againe to my purpose it appeares by what hath beene said that if we stand for so strict an vnion in euery point then will not the Catholiques themselues neither learned nor vnlearned be of the Roman Church Forasmuch as the learned will not beleeue as the rest doe and the vnlearned cannot And would we content our selues with an essentiall vnion the Huguenots may then well be of it Whereupon it followes that we must needs yeeld to one of these That either the Huguenots are of the Roman Church or else that the Catholikes are not FINIS Errata in some Copies Pag. 54. l. 5. for Authoritie in the first place reade Articles End Henry 3. Henry 4. a Henry 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first Reason Pag. 20. Pag. 21. Pag. 21. Pag. 21. The second Reason Lindanus in prefat in Lib. de querela pacis Scripture Pag. 23. Tom. 1. Contr. 1. l. cap. 4. Iustification Free-will Pag. 24. The Coniunction of Faith Grace p. 23. Merit of Workes Serm. 1. de anuntiatione Beatae Virginis Prayer Pag. 26. Tom. 1. Contr. 6. lib. 3. cap. 15. The Sacraments and their number Pag. 25. The difference betwixt our Sacraments and those of the old Law Pag. 26. Tom. 2. contr 1. lib. 2. cap. 1. The efficacie of Baptisme Pag. 23. Of Infants dying without Baptisme The Baptisme of Iohn Transubstantiation Pag. 26. Theod. Dialog Gelasius lib. de duabus naturis The Sacrifice of the Masse Pag. 26. Heb. 7. 10. Thomas part quest 83. Artic. 1. Aug. ad Bonifacium epist. 23. Penance Pag 26. In Annotat. ad lib. Tertull. de poenitent a. Purgatorie Pag 26. Lib. 21. de Civ Dei cap. 26. That the Church of Rome agrees not with the Primitiue Church in matter of ceremonies Signe of the Crosse. Pag. 27. Praying towards the East Pag. 28. Lib. 5. cap. 21. Inuocation of the Eucharist Blessing of the water in Baptisme Pag. 28. Homil. 25. in Iohan. Consecration and vse of Oyle in Baptisme Pag 28. Tertull lib. de corona militis Lent Epiphan haerest 75. Hieronim contra Lucif Sacrifice for the dead Baptisme of infants Mixture of water with the wine in the Chalice Perpetuall single life Solitary life Sozomen Histor. lib. 1. cap. 12. Orders of Monkes Athanasius ad Dracontium Election of Meates Tripartite 9. 38. Holy-daies Lib. 5. cap. 21. Soz. 7. 19. That the Huguenots are not to be blamed for leauing off the Ceremonies of the ancient Church Epist. 119. 19. 1 Consid. Aug. Epist. 112 2 Consid. Stapleton Princip Doctrin cont 4. lib. 6. cap. 15. Andradius defenâ—fidâ—â—â—dent Lib. 4. Coâ—cil Trid. Sess. 3. 3. Cons. â— Cons. Transubstantiation Councell of Lateran Councell of Vienna Councell of Florence Freewill Children dying without Baptisme Worshipping of Images That the Doctrine oâ— the Huguenots is not the same with that of the ancient Heretikes already condemned Retractat lib. 2. cap. 17. Prayer for the dead Set Fasting daies Euseb. 5. 16. Distinction of Bishops and Priests Comment in cap. 1. Epist. â—d Titum Mariage and Virginity Merits of Saints Worshipping of Saints and their Reliques Election of meats Durand l. 6 de aliis ieiuniis 〈◊〉 * En denier resort Sigonius de oceidentis Imp. l. â— Tom. 1. Cont. 4. Lib. 4. Cap. 9. Obiect 2. Obiect 3. Theod. l. 10. c. 70. 2. Reason 3. Reason 4. Reason Rab. Sal. â—archi in Deute onom 5. Reason Mat. 17. 1 Obiection 1 Reason 2 Reason 3 Reason The massacre Anno Dom. 1572 4 Reason 2. Obiection Catholike How the Church is called Catholike in respect of it selfe Heb. 12. 23. Reuel 13. 18. Reuel 5. 9. August de Catechizandis Rudibus cap. 12. Greg. Mor. in Iob. lib. 28. cap. 9. 2 Tim. 2. 19. How the Church is called Catholike in respect of the Iewes Mat. 13. Ephes. 2. 14. How the Church is called Catholike in regard of Heretikes Bernard in Cantica Sermone 38 Ephes. 5. Cant. 1. Vincent Lyr. l. aduers. haereses Eodem lib. adu haeres Tertul. lib de praescript adu haeres Apostolike How the Huguenots may be said to be of the Roman Church Rom. 1. 8. 1 Thess. 1. 8.
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
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
which the Catholikes call Inherent or Secondarie Righteousnesse But they say that they dare not build vpon it but onely vpon that Righteousnesse which being inherent in Christ is by Faith imputed to them Seeing then that this Righteousnesse of Christ is by generall consent acknowledged to bee most perfect though there may perhaps bee thought to be some errour in the Huguenots doctrine yet no danger can come of it Like as when a man laies hold on a strong bough he may very well be deceiued in fearing another may be too weake yet without doubt he cannot fall so long as he embraces that which cannot breake Next followes the Instrument by which we imbrace this Righteousnesse and that is Faith about the nature whereof the Huguenots seeme to him to hold another error For that They deny saies he that Grace may bee lost without the losse of Faith Which is but a meere cauill of his vpon the double signification of the word Faith For if we affirme That Faith is nothing else but to beleeue that God is so and so and that he hath done such and such things and to be briefe that all the Christian doctrine is most true the Huguenots will say with Saint Iames That the deuills also beleeue as much and that the deuills haue Faith though without Grace So that the Huguenots mistake is nothing but in the word for that they teach That the Faith of that man which is deuoid of Grace and Charitie merits not the honourable title of a Iustifying Faith and that such a Faith as this is but the Instrument onely by which we are iustified which is euer accompanied with Grace and followed by good Workes We affirme likewise That a Faith without Charitie is a Faith without Forme wherefore since the Forme is it which giues the Being to the thing it must needs follow That a perfect Faith can haue no Being without Charitie which Tenet is consented vnto both by the Huguenots and the Catholikes themselues onely we differ in termes the Huguenots calling Faith without Charity an Historicall or dead Faith and we a Faith without Forme O my God what a pittie it is to behold the simplicitie of our Christian Faith thus puzled about these quiddities There remaines now the Effects of our Iustification Good Workes By which euen we Catholikes say That a man is not made Iust but that being iustified before he increases in Righteousnesse That is of a Iust man hee becomes more Iust and being regenerate in the state of Grace He may as our Aduersarie saies fulfill the Law in such a sort that he may by it truly and properly merit eternall life But as for the fulfilling of the Law seeing the Huguenots doe their best to performe it although they may be thought to erre in confessing they cannot doe it yet hath our Sauiour himselfe promised free pardon for it in the Parable of the Sonne who refused to doe his Fathers will and yet did it To returne then to Merits by Workes the more accurate sort of Catholikes peremptorily deny that they are at all meritorious vnlesse they be dyed in the blood of Christ. And I assure my selfe that not one amongst ten thousand Catholikes vnderstands sufficiently the meaning of this phrase Workes dyed in the blood of Christ but simply and without other addition they will say That they are in good hope to merit heauen by their Workes So that we see there be three seuerall opinions touching this question The first is of the vulgar Catholikes who are more in number a thousand times and who simply affirme That they are indeed able to merit eternall life by their Good Workes The second is of the Huguenots who absolutely deny That Good Workes doe merit at all only say they God out of his pure Grace for the Loue of his Sonne grants them a recompence The third is the opinion of the Iesuites and the learned Catholikes who deny that any kinde of Workes doe of themselues merit but such onely as I said as are dyed in the blood of Chrâ—st Which opinion accords much better with the Huguenots doctrine then that of the vulgar Catholikes for a thing dyed is not altered in substance as Copper though gilded yet continues Copper still the tincture and the gilding making the thing onely fairer to the eye And so is it with our Workes which being by nature corrupt remaine corrupt still though dyed in the blood of Christ howbeit that the tincture and gilding makes them more pleasing vnto God and for the loue which hee beares to Christs blood to bee rewarded And if peraduenture they make conscience of vsing the word Merit let vs hearken to S. Bernard A man cannot saith he merit eternall life by any good works whatsoeuer And yet I trow that S. Bernard was in this no Huguenot For I well know that a Iesuite with some neat distinction can make him speake like a Catholike whatsoeuer his meaning was Let vs then but doe the Huguenots the like courtesie and make the same distinction in the interpretation of their Tenent as we would doe in the explication of S. Bernards and in this point they will proue as good Catholikes as S. Bernard or our selues The fourth point is Prayer to wit whether we ought to inuoke the Saints or not The difference betwixt vs lies in two points First whether we ought to direct our prayers vnto them the second whether they pray for vs. For the first this I say That the Catholikes themselues make two extremities to wit in the not inuoking them as the Huguenots doe and in honouring them too much which is to say in attributing to them that honour which is due only vnto God which the Schoolemen call Latria which whosoeuer does they themselues hold him for an Idolater Now the poore people which vnderstand not the Greeke nor what Latria meanes nor comprehends any other mediocritie than to adore right downe or not to adore at all goes to it bonafide and with as much deuotion adore our Lady and the other Saints as they doe God himselfe in such fashion as that very hardly euen in the iudgement of Catholikes can the Catholikes themselues herein auoid Idolatry As for the other extremitie those Catholikes that maintaine Inuocation of Saints teach only thus much That it is lawfull to inuoke them and not vnlawfull not to inuoke them So that there can come no great danger of it in following the Catholikes doctrine if true nor in following the Huguenots though erroneous The Huguenots say furthermore that we ought to honour them which we may very well doe without inuoking them As a Subiect may well honour his Soueraigne being absent though he neuer presented any petition to him in all his life As for the second point to wit whether they pray for vs or not I affirme that there be Huguenots that will confesse that they doe neither doth Caluin himselfe deny it only he saith that he troubles
not himselfe greatly to know whether they doe or no. But should any of them denie it where is the danger Bellarmine that great Master of Controuersies affirms That the soules in Heauen doe pray for the soules in Purgatory and they in Purgatory for those on earth And yet notwithstanding confesseth that Dominicus à Soto denieth the first and S. Thomas Aquinas the second Wherefore seeing that Purgatory is more beneficiall to the Pope than Paradice I can perceiue no reason wherefore the Huguentos should rather be Heretiques for disagreeing with the Catholikes about the Intercession of the Saints in Heauen than the Catholikes are for differing amongst themselues about the Intercession both of the soules and for the soules in Purgatory The last point wherein the Huguenots are departed from the Roman faith is touching the Sacraments wherein the number nature and particular Sacraments are to be considered of And they first miscount themselues in the number reckoning but two whereas the Councell of Trent hath concluded it that there are seuen Which obiection of his is but friuolous insomuch as the difference lies more in the words than in the thing For taking the word Sacrament properly S. Austin saith that there be but two that is to say Baptisme the Eucharist Further it is an ordinarie phrase amongst vs Catholikes to say That all the Sacraments issued out of our Sauiours side whereas there issued nothing frō thence saue water and bloud which according as Chrysostome Cyril and other Ancients interpret it represent the two Sacraments that is Baptisme by the water and the Cup of the Lords Supper by the bloud To which our Catholike Doctors giue no other answer than this That the two Sacraments haue some kinde of dignity aboue the rest which comes to no more than to say that there be two principall Sacraments and fiue more inferiour to those two Which is all one with the Huguenots opinion though in diuers termes They say that there be but two properly we say that there be but two principally We againe that there be fiue more of an inferiour order they confesse that there may be more if we meane of Sacraments in the generall signification For Caluin yeelds that Order is a Sacrament but not common to all men nor will our Catholike Doctors say otherwise Againe they will confesse with S. Paul that Mariage is also a Sacrament taking it in that generall signification wherein the Ancients haue translated the Greeke word Briefely they will yeeld that there be seuen but not barely seuen And in truth there was none of the Ancient Fathers that euer light vpon this number of seuen So that though the Huguenots cannot so euenly iumpe vpon the number seeing the Primitiue Church could not doe it wee may perchance condemne them of ignorance in Arithmeticke but their errour in Theologie cannot be so great But he may argue that they are mistaken in the very nature of the Sacraments because they deny them to be distinguished in force and vertue from the Sacraments of the old Law or that they confer grace I answer That this is a meere slander for the Huguenots doe distinguish them from the Sacraments of the old Testament and doe affirme that they doe also confer grace What would you desire more of them But not saith he ex opere operato The difference then is not in the matter whether our Sacraments confer more grace or are of more efficacie than those of the old Law but in the manner only by what meanes this grace is conferred As for the manner we should not me thinks too narrowly prie into it as Bellarmine very sagely aduiseth vs. Like as in Christs miracles saith he the parties that were healed needed not to inquire in what manner the garment of Christ did cure them it being sufficient to them to beleeue only that the touch of it wrought the cure iust so is it not necessarie saith he that the Ministers or the Receiuers of the Sacraments should be curious to know in what manner they become the causes of our Iustification We come next to the particular Sacraments whereof hee makes mention but of three only That is to say Baptisme the Sacrament of the Altar and Penance Touching Baptisme they affirme saith he That Originall sin sticks so close to man that neither by Baptisme nor any other remedie can it be gotten off I answer That euen the Huguenots confesse as freely as the Catholikes that a man is washed from Originall sinne by Baptisme which is enough for a Christian to beleeue in this point so that the difference lies meerely in the nicity of the word whether it should rightliest be called Sinne or no Sinne The Catholikes holding that the Sinne is so farre remitted that the concupiscence which remaines ought not to be called Sinne The Huguenots affirming that the remaining Concupiscence may very well be called Sinne although they herein consent to the Catholikes That a man is so clearely absolued and discharged of it that it is not reputed as a Sinne. For which cause in no other sense doe they deny the grace receiued in Baptisme though they still esteeme themselues sinners altogether than the Debtor doth his Creditors mercy who confessing that he hath receiued the fauour of him to haue his debts forgiuen doth neuerthelesse acknowledge himselfe his debtor Which way soeuer it be taken the sinner is pardoned and the debtor discharged and what need haue we to desire more Hee may say perchance againe That the Huguenots erre not so much in acknowledging the benefits receiued in Baptisme because they are not so well aware of the danger that followes the want of it For they affirme saith he that the children of Christians may be esteemed righteous and haue admittance into the kingdome of heauen without Baptisme notwithstanding that Iesus Christ hath said That whosoeuer is not borne againe of water and of the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen I answer that the Huguenots affirme not that euery childe borne of Christian Parents dying without Baptisme is saued but those only whom God in his eternall counsell hath elected So that the question is not so much about Baptisme as about Gods electiō wherin there can be no danger to confesse our ignorance referring still Gods owne decrees to his owne good pleasure as the Huguenots doe For they instance not in what children are elected but forbeare to presse into Gods cabinet and out of that to pronounce that such and such children shall be saued And if he replies againe That the Election of God is neuer destitute of these secondarie meanes and that Baptisme is the means by which he saues those that are elected and that it is a most manifest signe that those who are depriued of this Baptisme are also depriued of that election I answer That there be Catholikes who teach that a man may be saued without these secondarie meanes S. Damascene S. Brigid and
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 reporters credit vnlesse he be confident withall that he who reported this would not report an vntruth and that he durst trust him in any thing But France now does not beleeue the Councell of Trent in all things for our Aduersarie himselfe confesses that it refused the Decrees of the Councel which touched vpon Reformation Wherupon it follows that though France doth agree in opinion with the Councel in what it decreed concerning matters of Faith yet does it not hold this opinion for any regard to the Councels authority but for some other respect else might he conclude as well That the Huguenots do receiue the said Councell for that they beleeue diuers Articles of it which are against the Anabaptists and other Heretikes of our time For euen as they refuse the authority of the said Councell in that very same part whereof they receiue the Articles so may we as well refuse the whole Councell and yet receiue all the Articles there being the same respect from the Articles of one part to the authority of the same part as from the authority of the whole to the authoritie of the whole But let vs now marke how he concludes that this Councell is receiued in France Our Aduersaries owne selfe confesseth saith hee That this Councell is receiued by the Bishops but what man can perswade himselfe that the Bishops haue another faith and religion from that professed by the King and all the Catholike people For how may the King bee styled The most Christian if hee were of a Faith singular from the Bishops And how should the people bee called The Lords Flocke vnlesse they acknowledged some Pastors See then this in briefe is his Argument The Bishops haue receiued the Councell The King and the people haue beleeued the Bishops Ergo The Councell hath beene receiued by the King the Bishops the Clergie and likewise of all the people of France I haue shewen already how he hath not made it good as yet that the Bishops which then were haue receiued it and for the Bishops and Clergie at this day though diuers of them for the aduancement of the Holy League haue endeauoured to cause the said Councell to bee receiued yet might the King and the people refuse it notwithstanding and yet not cease for all that to bee of the same faith with them in so much as the approbation of that Councell is not an Article of faith for the Councell of Ephesus hath expresly prohibited vs the addition of any other Article of faith vnto those which were then receiued in which number the receiuing of the Tridentine Councell is not But supposing that they were not of the same faith what danger could come of it The King saith he should not then bee most Christian nor the people Christ his flocke First as for the King for as much as this reason is drawne from his Title I say that if the King were the greatest Heretike in the world yet should hee not bee depriued of his Title Henry the eight King of England receiued the Title of Defender of the faith from Pope Leo the tenth for writing against Luther King Edward the sixt and the last Queene of famous memory and the now raigning KING who haue changed the Religion for defending of which King Henry receiued this Title doe still keep the same Style And by very good right too for Titles though personall and proper only to the first of the Race that receiue them as Catholike to Ferdinando King of Arragon Defender of the faith to Henry the eight King of England yet doe they descend vnto their successors as ornaments onely annexed to their State So that it is not Philip of Austria who is Catholike in that sense but the King of Spaine For if wee consider of Kings onely in point of Religion the King of France may be as good a Catholike as the King of Spaine and the King of Spaine as good a Christian as the King of France and yet the Title of Christian belongs onely vnto the one and the Title of Catholike to the other But aboue all is this reason ill applied against the King of France for that Christian is not a title to distinguish one Christian from another but to distinguish them all from Pagans and in this sense is it giuen to the King of France as to the first King of Europe that abolished Paganisme and who still had the most warres of all with the Sarazens enemies of the name of Christ. True it is that this title might incline him the more to imbrace that doctrine which is best but for that it hath not beene hitherto agreed vpon which of the two is the best wee must not proue one doubt by another For the Huguenots may as well conuert this reason to perswade the King to reforme the Church as the Catholikes vse it to incline him to maintaine the Romish Religion howbeit there is not any thing that the King can doe more worthy of this Title of his then to doe both that is to say to maintaine the Romane Church and to reforme it Neither is there any contradiction in these two seeing there is no better meanes to make the Iron endure long then to scowre away the rust nor to maintaine the Church of Rome then to reforme the abuses of it Neuerthelesse to establish such a course that any of the Iron bee not scraped away in stead of the rust and yet see that it bee bright scowred there is no safer meanes then to doe quite contrary to that which our Aduersay aduiseth viz. To let their Councell of Trent sleep and to call another wherein both parts may haue indifferent hearing by which meanes if so bee that there bee any corruption in the Church of Rome it may bee seene into and purged And if there be any error in the doctrine of the Huguenots they may bee evicted and instructed in a better faith And this were the way to reunite vs all in one faith and this would bee an act indeede well worthy a most Christian King 3 But descend wee now to the people How should they saith he bee the sheepe of Christs flocke if so bee they acknowledg not any Pastors I answer That they may well enough acknowledge their Pastors though they beleeue not iust as the Pastors of their Countrey doe For that no man is obliged to build his faith but vpon an infallible foundation and it is confessed by the Catholikes themselues that all the Bishops in a whole countrey may erre in point of faith So that the people are not alwaies obliged to ground their faith vpon that of their Bishops and consequently may bee of another faith and yet bee of the flocke of Iesus Christ As in very troath our Sauiour does not call them his Sheep which heard the Bishops but those that heare his voyce which is the word of God Let vs now looke vpon his conclusion And so saith hee is the Councell honoured of the