Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	catholic_a	church_n	faith_n	4,551	5	5.8936	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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

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 th●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

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

could not be saued without the Eucharist Which opinion of his euen our Catholikes themselues doe condemne Why then should the Huguenots be Heretikes rather for dissenting from S. Augustine in one Sacrament then the Catholikes are for disallowing his iudgement in the other The fourth point is the Worshipping of Images which was confirmed by the second Councell of Nice vnto which I may well oppose the Councell of Franckford celebrated since that of Nice which both contemned and condemned the authoritie of that Councell and the Decrees of it Neither does it make anything for our Aduersary to say that these testimonies are of weight enough amongst Catholikes for there were none in the Councell of Franckford but Catholikes and the Popes Legates themselues which assisted at it Obserue then all the Councels which our Aduersary hath rakt together against the Huguenots All of which excepting those three of Lateran Vienna Florence and this last of Nice are perticular and so by consequence their Decrees may be anulled and reuersed Further of these foure which by some are accounted generall the first that of Lateran I meane was by the sentence of Scotus and Stapleton two grand Catholikes subiect vnto error The words he vrgeth out of the second viz that of Vienna are nothing to the purpose The Iudgement of the third which is that of Florence is contrary to the Decrees of the Councels of Basile and Constance The last of Nice was condemned by that of Franckford wherefore then should the Huguenots giue way to the authoritie of such Councels from whom the Catholikes themselues yea Councels also of Catholikes themselues doe disagree how can wee hope then to conuert them by such proofes let vs call a new one then let vs giue indifferent audience to their Ministers let vs refute their Arguments to their very faces else shall wee neuer recall the Huguenots that are gone astray into the right way The second reason whereby our Aduersarie confutes the Huguenots i● Because they agree in doctrine with the ancient Heretikes viz the Arrians who as S. Augustine testifies reiected 1. Prayers for the dead 2. The set times of Fasting 3. The difference betwixt the Bishop and the ordinary Priest And 4. with Iouinian and Vigilantius in the point of Continencie and Virginitie 5. Merit and rewards of Saints 6. The Adoration of Reliques 7. The Inuocation of Saints 8. The Election of Meats I answer First That euen as a good Catholike may erre so may an Heretike also speake truth S. Cyprian and Ticonius the Donatist hauing diuersly interpreted a place of the holy Scriptures S. Augustine reiects S. Cyprians exposition and allowes that of Ticonius So that it is not enough barely to shew that an Heretike hath maintained such and such an opinion vnlesse he proue withall that the said opinion is hereticall Secondly I haue shewed in the former Chapter that the vse of things indifferent might be lawfull in the ancient Church and yet vnlawfull in this of ours so that the Huguenots may iustly blame the selfe-same things which the said Heretikes did vniustly except against vntill we can proue not only the things to be the same but also make it appeare that there is not now a greater abuse in the same things then there was then As for the opinions following the Huguenots will affirme that neither did the Fathers hold them in the same manner that the Catholikes now doe nor that the Heretikes tooke the same exceptions to them that the Huguenots now doe as we may perceiue by the examples following First as for Prayer for the Dead the Huguenots will affirme That the Church in the beginning celebrated only a Commemoration of the dead wherein as I shewed in the former Chapter they made mention likewise of the Apostles and of those that be already gone to heauen Now this Commemoration will the Huguenots say brought forth Prayer for the dead this Prayer brought forth Purgatorie Purgatorie Pardons and Pardons haue brought in pence into the Popes coffers Now will they say further that so long as these abuses were not in the Church if any man had found fault with this custome of Commemoration he should but haue shewed himselfe to be of a quarrelsome spirit yea they will further say that petty abuses especially such as bare a shew of Charitie might somewhat be winked at as Prayer for the Dead had which custome serued then also to stirre vp in the Pagans a better esteeme of the Christian faith but this occasion being now ceased and the abuses remaining so great as they affirme them to be t is now no time to winke at them any longer nor is there any other meanes left vs to reforme them then to take away the first occasion whence they proceeded thogh in themselues they be of no great consequence So that if we will shew wherein the Huguenots resemble the other ancient Heretikes in taking exceptions vnto Prayer for the dead we must shew withall how that the ancient Church vsed the same chaffering for Pardons and Indulgences for the deliuering of soules out of Purgatorie that the Church of Rome at this day doth Otherwise the abuse being not the same the things deserue not equall blame and they that finde fault with them are not alike faulty Touching set Fasting daies I am heartily sorry that he in giuing out that the Huguenots doe herein imitate the ancient Heretikes giues them aduantage to reuenge themselues vpon vs and to proue the cleane contrary namely that it is we that follow the ancient Heretikes for Eusebius saith That it was Montanus the Heretike who first set downe the Rules for Fasting seeing that before that these set Fasting daies were not ordained with any intention to bind the Consciences but for orders sake only Surely then he was not in the right whosoeuer found fault with them seeing there was at first no superstition in them But since that say the Huguenots the superstition is come to that height that the very day only because it is such or such a Saints Eue is esteemed much holyer th●n other daies So then this order hauing occasioned superstition to auoid this superstition wee may dispose otherwise of that order And now as concerning the difference betweene the Bishop and the ordinary Priest the Huguenots will say that at first they were both equall but that since then some amongst them haue beene promoted to dignity aboue the rest and at last One is become Monarch ouer them all Now will the Huguenots confesse that before this vniuersall Monarchy of the Pope there was not the like reason to blame the distinction of degrees in Pastors which in it selfe was tolerable and not altogether vnprofitable But they will say withall that it is most manifest how that the Fathers neuer held this distinction to haue beene instituted by God but onely to be a positiue ordinance of men to preserue as Saint Ierome saith the vnity of the Church A

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