Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	church_n	council_n	trent_n	2,747	5	10.4894	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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

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 Leuie●s and the Iudge appointed for the time in cases of difficultie And Moses saith our Aduersarie addeth not Try the Spirits of the Priests and Iudges But if any grow proud and will not obey the command of the Priests that man shall die by the sentence of the Iudges Nor is this much different from that which our Lord saith in the Gospell of Saint Mathew The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chaire whatsoeuer therefore they say vnto you that obserue and doe As for Moses Commandement it was giuen vnto the Iewes whereupon Rabbi Salomon Iarchi concludes That we are to beleeue whatsoeuer the Iewish Priests say Since then that their Priests interpreted the Prophecies euen of Christ himselfe otherwise then we Christians doe A Iew will say that Christ is not yet come because their Priests deny it and if according to our Aduersaries saying we ought not to trie the Spirits of their Priests I demand then how he will answer the Iewes and I will answer him as he does them namely that in the text this clause is inserted According to Law that is to say we are to obey their Commandements so farre forth ay they are agreeable to the Law which how can we know vnlesse we examine it So that let our Aduersarie take his choice either to confesse that we are not in this place forbidden to try the Spirits of the Priests or else to acknowledge himselfe to be a Iew. To the place of Saint Mathew because he saith how that it is not much vnlike our answer shall likewise be the same For our Sauiour hath not commanded vs to obey the Pharisees in all things simply but not to take such scandall at their liues as that we should refuse to obey them when they speake well For should we simply giue credit to what they bid vs without tryall of it why should we beleeue that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God when as the high Priest said that hee blasphemed in calling himselfe so His last reason is drawne from the Councell of the Apostles mentioned Acts 15. It seemed good vnto the holy Ghost and to vs Whence he concludes That Gods Spirit is so infallibly tyed vnto a lawfull Councell that we ought not to call the definitions of it into question nor would Saint Paul himselfe saith our Aduersary examine the instructions of the Councell of the Apostles as Saint Luke saith Acts 16. Hee gaue them that to obserue which was ordained by the Apostles and the Elders which were at Ierusalem I would faine aske one of our Catholike Doctors to what purpose are there so many disputations and consultations at our Councels if so be that the holy Ghost doth so infallibly direct them His answer will be That Gods ordinary prouidence is such as that hee still assists them with his Spirit when they for their parts apply that diligence which they ought and not otherwise Iust as hee makes not the ground fruitfull but when the husbandman tills and sowes his corne in it and applyes such labour as the soyle requires And thus much is cleare by this passage namely That the Apostles did apply all industry and the aptest meanes for the resoluing of the doubts proposed for it is said That after a long disputation Peter stood vp whence a man may conclude That the holy Ghost is no otherwise promised to a Councell then conditionally viz. when the Councell doth apply all the meanes and industry on their parts for the finding out of the truth and that otherwise it may be destitute of Gods Spirit namely when it doth not apply

that of the Pope is a priuate quarrell wherein the dignitie of his person is questioned Againe Cyril was not President of the Councell so as that hee could allow or anull the Decrees as hee thought good but sate only first in order hauing otherwise but his single voyce whereas the Pope now a dayes hath his negatiue voice to disanull a whole Councell though generall yea and to make his Decretalls vpon what hee lists without a Councell As for Alexander he sate neither as Iudge nor President but only as a priuate Bishop amongst the rest To conclude Leo came not at all to the Councell of Chalcedon and Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople sate President in it His concluding reason why the Pope may bee Iudge is because as hee saith hee is not Iudge alone but hath diuers Assistants I answer That in the latter Councells hee hath beene sole Iudge and that the rest of the Bishops haue not beene so much his Assistants as his Vassalls For whatsoeuer the Councell decrees is voyde without the confirmation of the Pope bee to it witnesse his abrogation of the Councells of Frankford Basil and Constance Contrariwise whensoeuer the Pope makes a Decree without a Councell it is of as much vertue as the definitions of the most holy Councell that euer was or can bee For the Popes Aduocates maintaine that hee cannot erre in a matter of faith though hee should giue iudgement without a Councell and that a Councell may erre if not confirmed by him To what purpose then serue the other Bishops ioined with him as companions when as he may doe all without them and they nothing without him The second Obiection of the Catholike Apologie viz. That the Huguenots had not fayre audience is first saith he confuted by that very booke which the Protestants set forth intituled Causacur Electores For they confesse in that booke that they were summoned to the Councell And wee may read moreouer of many ample safe Conducts whereby full liberty was giuen to the Protestants to come to the Councell And this briefly is his answer to which I reply First that the booke which hee mentions deliuers no reason why they came not to the Councell but why they iudged that the forme of proceeding in that Councell was like to bee such as that their comming thither would haue beene to no purpose But to what end answers hee that they were summoned The Apologie affirmes not that they were not called but that they were not heard For it is not enough for a Iudge to call both the parties before him if hee suffers but one of them to speake and iust thus fell it out at that Councell of Trent for Brentius and other Diuines of Sweuia were sent thither by the Duke of Wittenberge but might not be suffered to dispute when they came there Melancthon also and other Ministers of Saxony were vpon the way but turned back againe hauing receiued intelligence from Mauritius the Electors Ambassador there that they could not be heard Secondly I reply that admit that they had beene suffered to dispute and had been heard yet were the Conditions altogether vnequal for they requiring to haue a deciding voice with the rest of the Councel according to the form of the safe Conduct graunted to the Bohemians by the Councell of Basil. But the Tridentine Fathers would none of that refusing to admit of any to haue decisiue voices but only the Catholike Diuines Thirdly the Huguenots had good cause to suspect the safe conduct for Iohn Hus had also a safe conduct from the Emperour Sigismund to come to the Councell of Constance and yet comming thither was there burnt To the third Obiection viz That the Apostle commands vs to trie the Spirits whether they be of God or no he answers That the Apostle there speakes not of such things as be already certaine and defined in the Church but of matters rather vp-start ambiguous as are those of our trecherous Aduersaries Soft and faire not too fast there is no man affirms that we must try a thing that is certaine but that we are not to settle our beleef vpon it without proofs that it is certain For a thing may be certaine in it selfe neuerthelesse if it does not appeare to be certaine vnto vs we may well make triall of it for that without trying we cannot vnderstand the certaintie But it is saith he lawfull to try the Huguenots opinions because they be new and ambiguous If then it be lawfull to try the new t is also lawfull say I to try the old for two opposite Opinions are Relatiues so that we cannot make demonstration that the new are false but we must proue withall that the old are true And as for the ambiguitie of the Hugnenots doctrine if it be ambiguous then is it not certainly false and if their doctrine be not certainly false then is not the Catholikes certainly true and consequently euen by the iudgement of our Aduersarie himselfe it is lawfull to trie it But let vs now examine his reasons vpon which he concludes that it is not lawfull to try the Spirits of the Councell First saith he if we ought to try them all then were it lawfull to try the Spirits of the Councell of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon Whereupon it must follow that we ought to discusse againe the wicked heresies of Arrius Macedonius Nestorius and Eutiches and examine againe the sacred Scriptures themselues the Oracles of the Prophets the History of Moses and finally the holy Gospell At length he concludes That if things which be determined by the holy Councels ought to be held for certaine there is no reason to suffer the Decrees of the Councell of Trent to be called againe into question I answer That we ought to hold the Decrees of the former Councels for most certaine and yet is it lawfull neuerthelesse to make question of the determinations of the Councell of Trent to which purpose diuers reasons might be alledged how be it this one may suffice for the present For that in euery Councell we ought to deliberate and measure things before we iudge and after this the iudgement of a Councell which hath duly examined and iudged according to the right measure ought not to be called againe in question But to know now whether a man hath truly measured we must take consideration of the size and manner of measuring by it Now will the Huguenots say that the Rule which the Conncell of Nice did measure by was only the Scripture or the written Word as the words of Constantine doe testifie which be these All seditious contention set aside let vs discusse the things in controuersie by the testimonie of the Scriptures diuinely inspired The manner of measuring then was to apply the Doctrine to the said Rule or Scripture and accordingly to receiue or reiect it as it was conformable or varying to or from the said Rule But now hath the Councell of Trent will

for omitting this ceremony In like manner the better learned amongst the Hugenots will confesse that it is lawfull and why then should they blame the Catholikes for obseruing it That which is not necessary may lawfully be omitted and that obserued which is lawfull Another example is of perpetuall single life which the Huguenots blame not but they will say that the obseruation of it in those times was voluntary and not constrained and that men were neuer compelled to vow it as appears by the very Canōs themselues The Church saith one Canō after the constitution of the Apostles added some counsell of perfection as this of the single life of Priests where we may obserue 2. things against the answer one is that single life was ordained by way of counsell not of commandement the other that it was ordained since the Apostles times could therefore be no tradition of the Apostles The next example is of the solitary or contemplatiue life which the Huguenots will not absolutely condemne but they may well say that it hath beene in times past much different from this of our Hermites and Anchorits at this day For they which first brought in this manner of liuing obserued it onely in the time of persecution to auoid idolatry and all other occasions of being enforced to vnlawfull actions by the tyrants which then ruled as the Ecclesiasticall stories do testifie in the liues of S. Paul and S. Anthony the two first Hermits Now for the order of Monkes the Huguenots will name the very yeare when each of them was inuented And what though the name of Monks was vsuall in the primitiue Church yet were they then other manner of Monkes then ours at this day For first they earned their liuings by the sweat of their browes Secondly diuers of them were marryed as Athanasius writes Finally the Huguenots will say that there was neuer Monke in the Primitiue Church that killed a King nor any Catholike in those times that would haue approued it There remaines the election of meats which the Huguenots approue so that it be done with discretion and not meerly for conscience according to the custome of the ancient Church For the better clearing of this point we may me thinkes distinguish betweene the difference of meats and the choyce of meats For the Huguenots will say that there is no difference of meats in respect of Religion for that it is lawfull to eat indifferently of all sorts of meats without making scruple of Conscience but that men for the taming of their flesh may abstaine from such meats as they finde to prouoke them to concupiscence which kinde of abstinence because it is left free to the choise of him that fasteth may properly be called Election of meats For the Apostles saith the Ecclesiasticall Story haue left it to euery mans libertie to vse as well in their fasts as on other dayes such kinds of meats as they best like of Whereas the Fasts enioyned by the Church of Rome may rather will the Huguenots say be called A Prescription of meats then a free Election Because Election is still voluntary and their abstinence is constrained Finally concerning Holy-daies which they call an Apostolicall tradition I say that the Ecclesiasticall Stories shew the cleane contrary For Socrates saith in expresse words That the Apostles ordained nothing concerning Holy-dayes Again they which supposed them to haue beene ordained by the Apostles are enforced at length to place the obseruation of them in the Classe of things indifferent For of all the Festiuall daies there was not one of them which hath beene obserued with more deuotion then Easterday which notwithstanding the Westerne Church vsed to celebrate vpon Sunday and the Easterne vpon other daies the one confirming their custome by the tradition of S. Peter and Paul and the other by the tradition of Philip and Iohn Which controuersie was thus taken vp betwixt Polycarpus and Victor Bishop of Rome namely that the obseruation of it should be left free and indifferent Now the Huguenots doe not simply condemne the obseruation of Holy-daies but only the forcing to the obseruation of them For in England Germany Switzerland and other Countries where the pretended Reformed Religion is established they to this day obserue diuers Saints daies without reprehension of the Huguenots in France But put the case that the vse of all the foresaid Ceremonies were such in the ancient Church as they now are 〈◊〉 the Romane yet say I that all these examples make nothing to the purpose Forasmuch as Ceremonies as I haue said are but the apparell which alters the fashion euery foot and are fitted to time and place which our Aduersary himselfe confesseth For knowing that the most part of our Ceremonies were vnknowne to the Ancients he hath no other Answer then this which will also serue to answer him againe viz That it matters not much whether the Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies were in vse in the Primitiue Church or were newly taken vp in these latter times Now the Scriptures will the Huguenots say denounces the same curse against those which adde as against those which take away so that if it be lawfull for the Romane Church to adde any thing to the ancient Ceremonies it is as lawfull for them also to take away especially those which haue beene added Secondly the Church is called Primitiue either in regard of it selfe because it is truly ancient or in respect of the moderne Church of Rome as it is more ancient in its selfe If we speake now of the Church as it is ancient in it selfe the Huguenots will say that there is no resemblance betwixt the Ceremonies of the ancient Church and those of the moderne But if we speake of that which is more ancient then ours from which only our Aduersaries Arguments are drawne they will say that besides all this that the most part of our Ceremonies are different yet at that time also were there too too many in the Church in so much as Saint Augustine in his time complained exceedingly of the multitude of them Finally as the ancient Church had some Ceremonies which the Huguenots haue not so had it likewise others which the Church of Rome hath not as Milke and Honey in Baptisme and the fashion of plunging the Infant thrice to the bottome which haue beene abrogated as Saint Thomas saith to auoid the calumnies of the Sabellians who for this custome reproched the Christians that they worshipped three Gods From whence we may collect how indifferent things these Ceremonies are so long as they are not abused and on the other sid● how lawfull it is yea and how necessary to take away the vse of them for preuenting of an inconuenience So that we may say thus much in the Huguenots behalfe that they doe not in this point swarue so much from the practice of the ancient Church seeing they doe not condemne those diuers Ceremonies which were

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