of ancient Heretikes which hath beene heretofore condemned For the first The chiefe Controuersie is saith hee about the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which is not onely determined by the Councell of Trent but also by tenne most ancient councels of the Church To make good which assertion he cites the Councell of Vercelles Tours Vienna Constance Florence and of fiue others celebrated at Rome the chiefe of which was that of Lateran vnder Innocent the third And these be the tenne Councels which our Aduersary styles the most ancient Councells of the Church Certainely then was the Church a long time without Councels for the ancientest of these was 1000 yeares after the Apostles times But peraduenture he meanes it onely of the Church of Rome as it is different in doctrine from the ancient Church which is as much to say As thâ—se Councells are the most ancient of this Romane Church which not long before the celebrating of these Councells became a new Church and quite contrary to the former And in this sense hee doth not account these Councells as simply ancient but the most ancient onely of that Church which is not ancient I can but wonder how he comes so ill aduised as to giue this aduantage to the Huguenots as to conclude vpon him out of his owne premises That our holy mother Church of Rome is a new Church and so giue a hint to the vulgar to discouer by his owne confession that it is so indeed Which inconuenience the Author of the Catholike Apologie was better aware off to preuent it for knowing very well that we are not able to make good the doctrine of the Romane Church by the ancient Councells he aduiseth rather that wee should labour the calling of a new one lest that by vrging the other which indeed bee not ancient the common people might come by this meanes to suspect that our doctrine is new But to returne to the said Councells besides this that they are all new there be also seuen of the tenne which were neuer receiued for generall by the most learned defenders of the Romane religion and by the opinion therefore of those very Catholikes they may erre and by consequence it will bee lawfull to appeale from them to a generall Councell Iust as the opinion of S. Cyprian about Rebaptization being condâ—mned at Rome in a particular Councell by Pope Cornelius and the sentence ratified by Pope Stephan yet did S. Cyprian neuerthelesse continue in his former opinion accusing both the Popes and the Councels of errour which certainely hee would not haue done had hee esteemed the authority of a particular Councell without appeale whereby it appeares that of those tenne Councells which hee vrgeth theâ—e be but three namely that of Lateran of Vienna and of Florence which be esteemed generall euen by the Catholikes themselues and so by consequence onely three which haue power definitiuely to determine and not to bee subiect to an appeale to bee made from them As for the Decree of that Councell of Lateran wee ought not to thinke it strange that the Huguenots except against it seeing that the said Councell in the iudgement euen of the Catholikes themselues might erre in the sentence giuen against them for Scotus saith of Transubstantiation That it is but an opinion probable now an opinion probable is not necessary and in determining vpon a doctrine which is not necessary Stapleton saith That a generall Councell may erre whereby it appeares that in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Decree of the Councell aforesaid was not certaine Can wee imagine then that the Huguenots will stand to such a Decree which the Catholikes themselues confesse to bee subiect to errour As for the Councell of Vienna this errour saith hee is condemned in it which is That wee ought not to doe any honour or reuerence to the holy Eucharist which as euery man knowes is the errour of Caluin and of all the Sacramentaries I answer That our Aduersary and such as hee doe much iniury the church of Rome in giuing the Huguenots occasion to reproach the Catholikes as to twit them that they bee lyers and slanderers For they of the Religion doe not affirme as hee would make them that wee ought not to giue any honour or reuerence to the Eucharist but that wee should not adore it as the Catholikes doe The last Councell is that of Florence the authority wherof the Huguenots may well except against for that 〈◊〉 dissents from other Councells For the Councells of Bâ—sil and Constance both which our Aduersary rankes here amongst the generall Councels haue adiudged it That the authoritie of a Councell is aboue the Pope whereas the Councell of Florence makes the Pope aboue the Councell Which sentence is not only as I thinke contrary to the Councell of Basil and Constance but contradictory also to the iudgement of all the Diuines in Paris at that time So that if the Huguenots doe ill in dissenting from the Councell of Florence they doe it by the example of Catholike Diuines and of other Councels yea of those which are generall by the iudgement euen of our Aduersary himselfe The second doctrine which he instances in is that of Free-will for denying of which the Manichees and other Heretikes stand condemned by S. Augustine S. Hierome S. Leo c. Now I answer That the Huguenots deny it not in the same manner that those Heretikes did as is to be well seene in the doctrine of the Manichees who made two necessary Principles the one of Good and the other of Euill and as absolutely denied Freewill as well of doing ill as of doing good But when he can shew that the Huguenots hold any such opinion his examples will serue to some purpose Further he confirmes the said opinion by foure other Councels viz by a particular one held in France and by those of Auranches Sens and Constance I answer that it were but an easie matter so to interpret the said Councels as that the Huguenots need not refuse them in this point of Free-will But for breuities sake I will not stand to examine them because that three of them be particular and for that respect may erre as I haue shewn before and may be appealed from and for the fourth which is that of Constance though it be called generall by our Aduersarie yet Bellarmine neuerthelesse receiues but 18. Councels for generall and lawfull of which ranke this of Constance is none The third heresie that he speakes of is That the Huguenots hold that little Children dying without Baptisme doe not perish which that they doe is plaine enough saith he And how namely by so many testimonies of Scripture by so many Decrees of ancient Councels by so many resolutions of holy Fathers And yet does he alledge but two passages only out of S. Austen who indeed as he was of this opinion That Children could not be saued without Baptisme so held he likewise That they
subscribe to it nor did the King afterwards receiue it or the court of Parliament euer publish it no not after that Saint Bartholmewes day when the time seemed most importune to fauour any thing that might be preiudiciall to the Huguenots But at least the Bishops haue approued it For when the decrees of it were openly read in the last Session the Bishops were present and gaue their voyces and suffrages I answer first that so farre was the consent of the Bishops from confirming of the Councell that quite contrary it discouers the vniust proceedings of it For those Bishops that gaue their voices to it in the last Session gaue their sentence deliberatiue vpon the points which had beene treated vpon in the former Sessions vnder Paulus the third and Iulius the third before that the said Bishops came to the Councell a thing contrary to all Ciuill Law to equity it selfe and to the customes of all the Parliaments high courts of Iustice and other Iudiciaries which out of the persons of many Iudges are made one body In all which those that haue not beene there all the time are not suffered to deliuer their opinions Secondly it does not hereupon follow that the Bishops haue approued of this Councell because they gaue their consents to the Articles of it For there is a great deale of difference betwixt those that agree in opinion with the Decrees of a Councell and those that vphold an opinion only because the Councell hath decreed it For our Aduersarie agrees in opinion with the Deuill in that it is written how God gaue his Angels charge ouer our Lord Iesus Christ yet he does not I thinke beleeue it neuer the more for that the deuill said it Furthermore at what time as they gaue their consent to the Articles aforesaid the Councell was not confirmed by the Pope now it is our Aduersaries owne Tenet That a Councell is voide if not confirmed by the Pope and this one reason he makes to serue his owne turne against the Councell of Basil. It is saith he a Rule most generally knowne that Councels are not to be receiued without the Authoritie of the Pope Whereupon it followes That those who gaue their consents to the said Articles did at the very same time when they gaue their consents hold the said Councell to be as yet no Councell So that a man cannot hereby proue that they did receiue the Councell because they gaue their voices to the Articles To the second Obiection which touches vpon the precedencie of the most Christian King he answers thus in briefe That the Councell was so farre from offering to diminish the Kings Authoritie that to the contrarie the Kings Ambassadors by the vnanimous consent of all were seated immediatly next after the Emperours but the Spanish Ambassador out of his ranke in another place to the end that if it so fell out that any man were set out of his place yet should it not be preiudiciall vnto him He should not haue answered That the Councell seated the Kings Ambassador next vnto the Emperors but only that the Councell did not put him out of his right place For in the 22. Session Monsieur du Ferrier de Pibrac being suspitious of the affection of the Councell went in betimes to take vp their places insomuch that the Count de Luna Ambassador for the King of Spaine made publike protestation before the Fathers how that his place was taken vp Whereupon Monsieur de Pibrac required that the said Protestation of his might not be preiudiciall to his Kings Prerogatiue whose Ambassadors had euer had the first place next to the Emperours as they had at the Councels of Constance and Lateran But for all this the Councell would not vmpire the businesse And though they tooke not the place away from the Kings Ambassadors yet our Aduersary confesseth that they would not pronounce that this place did belong vnto them For first he saith That the Spanish Ambassador was set out of his place Secondly That if any man were by chance set out of his ranke yet would not the Councel haue it to be preiudiciall vnto him Which is nothing else then to declare That that place which they permitted the Kings Ambassadors to keepe for the time for auoiding of contention and for that they had betimes already taken it vp much against the wils of the Fathers should not be preiudiciall vnto that right which they thought to be due vnto the King of Spaine Secondly put case the Councell to haue beene so euenly affected as he would make it yet did they wrong say I neuerthelesse in forbearing to be vmpires openly in the Kings cause For there is no man that can deny a thing most apparant at the first dash but he must gaine vpon it by little and little So that the first degree to it is to call a thing into question nor does any man willfully call a thing into question vnlesse he purposes absolutely to deny it afterwards So that it is easily discerned that the Councell at this time bringing the Kings precedency into question and making the King of Spaine equall with him had a plot in it at the next Councell to giue him the place aboue the King of France Lastly admit the Councell to haue had no such plot vpon him but only to carry an euen regard to both yet the wrong remaines neuerthelesse it being no lesse iniurious to make an inferior equall to his superior then to make an equall superior to his equall Thereremaines now saith our Aduersarie the last Obiection only viz That the Councell of Trent hath decreed diuers things against the Realme of France which is the reason that it is not receiued there But this Obiection saith he serues little to the purpose For the question is not only about Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but about Faith and Religion Wherefore although that the Decrees of the Councell for reformation bee not receiued in France yet the Decrees which treat aboue Faith are Our Aduersary cannot deny but that the Councell of Trent hath decreed some things against the French libertie only he answers that all this hinders not the receiuing of the other Articles which meerely concerne Faith His owne words are This Obiection serues to little purpose for that the question is not only about Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but about Faith and Religion And I say againe that this answer of his serues as little to the purpose for that we treat not of things that concerne either Reformation or Faith but of the Authoritie only by which those Decrees were enacted That is to say whether the Iudgement of the Councell of Trent be in France receiued for a sentence not lyable to be appealed from and whether they here beleeue those Articles wherein they agree with the Councel implicitely for that the Councell hath decreed them For how shall it be proued that a man who beleeues a thing which another hath reported did beleeue it vpon
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
practised anciently notwithstanding that they doe now forbeare them especially when they haue obserued them to change into so much superstition as that our better learned Catholikes doe euen laugh at the poore people whom they themselues haue abused CAP. 3. That the doctrine of the Huguenots hath not beene condemned by any lawfull Iudgement before the Councell of Trent HItherto haue I spoken of the Huguenots Religion as it is in it selfe As well in Doctrine as in Ceremonies viz That Ceremonies be things indifferent And as for their errors in doctrine that they be not in the foundation of faith So that they not being Heretikes in respect of the wickednesse of their opinions let vs now trauerse the Inditement to finde whether they be so by condemnation Now our Aduersarie to conuict them produces the Decrees of diuers Councels to which before I make answer I will propose these 4 Considerations The first is this Whether a generall and lawfull Councell may erre or not in the substance of faith seeing that it is made vp of men in whose testimonie as saith S. Augustine there is so little certaintie his words be these A man may beleeue the Scriptuâ—es without doubting but for any other testimonies it is lawfull either to beleeue them or not to beleeue them So as this priuiledge to be of an irrefageable certaintie is only giuen to the Scriptures which if it be true then all the passages which are drawne from the authoritie of Councels are thus farre forth only of weight as they can be made good by the Scriptures Neuerthelesse this being the common answer of the Huguenots I will make no further vse of it but like a true Catholike confesse this to be an infallible Maxime That a lawfull and generall Councell cannot erre in the substance of faith The second is Whether if such a generall Councell may erre though not in the substance of faith yet at least in other points of Diuinitie of lesse consequence And if they may erre in these then seeing as I haue showne that the Huguenots errors be not in the substance of faith that it followes hereupon That the Councels may erre in their definitiue decisions of those Controuersies which are betwixt the Huguenots and vs being only points of lesser consequence Whereupon it followes That this second sort of heresie becomes supernumerary and their errors not being heresies in their owne nature cannot be made heresies by bare condemnation For the reason why he is counted an Heretike who resists the Decrees of a Councell is for that in doing so he resists the Iudgement of the Holy Ghost which doth still and infallibly accompany the Councell But now if the Holy Ghost be no further forth promised to assist the Councell then when it treateth of things necessary to saluation Then they who hold some tenets contrary to the Councell in other things do not herein resist the iudgement of the Holy Ghost and by consequence are no Heretikes Stapleton professor of the Controuersies at Doway and one of the most learned Catholikes of our times who hath written most accurately of this Argument holds That the holy Ghost is onely promised to assist the Councells in necessary things and that in other things they may erre And Andradius himselfe who defends the Councell of Trent in the very same Booke wherein hee does defend it as generall lawfull and sound in the matter of Faith condemnes the vulgar translation of the Bible as corrupted although the said Councell had authorized it for authenticall so little did hee trust to the iudgement of Councells in things which were beside the essence of faith But admitting thus much That a lawfull Councell cannot erre at all yet is there still a third difficulty viz. Whether these Councells which hee produceth against the Huguenots bee lawfull which euen a Catholike may safely deny for as much as there bee diuers nillities to bee found in them and namely in their manner of proceeding which are no where found in the ancient Councells as I will shew in the next Chapter when I treat of the Councell of Trent Now the Huguenots will bee very well content to bee tryed by the Ancient Councells held in the first 600 yeares of Christ namely vntill such time as the Pope as they say hauing gotten so absolute a Monarchie in the Church tooke away the liberty of Councells and subiected the suffrages of the other Bishops to giue with him now all the Councels alleadged by our Aduersarie are since that time There remaines a fourth difficulty namely Whether the Huguenots haue been iustly condemned by the latter Councells Now vpon these foure considerations a man may perceiue how friuolous his brags are of the Councels for as much as he is able to conclude nothing vnlesse he hath leaue granted him before hand to adde what authority to the Councels he pleaseth to make what Councells lawfull hee listeth and to force the Councells to speake what hee would haue them The most innocent man in the world might bee conuicted by such proofes if a man would beleeue without further examination whatsoeuer euery witness shall bring against him and when his Aduersary also shall haue leaue both to packe the witnesses at his owne pleasure and also to iudge of their testimonies But to returne to our purpose Let vs see next whether the Huguenots stand lawfully condemned by those Councells which hee produceth or not The Catholike Apologie denies it whereby in my conceit hee shewes a great deale of zeale to the Romane Religion For considering what a world of people are infected with the Huguenots doctrine by reason that it is not yet condemned by any lawfull forme of proceeding he endeuors to perswade with the Catholikes to cause a lawfull Councell to bee called to confute them to the end that the Huguenots might bee satisfied by being shewed their errors and bee left without excuse for reiecting the doctrine of the Church of Rome But obseruing that there bee many seditious Catholikes who rather thirst to kill their bodies then to saue their soules doe hinder so holy a designe vnder colour that they bee already condemned by other Councells The Catholike Apology doth very well herein to aduise them not to desist for all this but to pursue so good an enterprise for as much as the former Decrees by which the Huguenots stand condemned are not of such authority but that they may appeale from them to an higher power So that wee must sue out another Processe against them to get such a Iudgment as they themselues shalâ— neuer bee able to except against Now our Aduersary answers that there is no neede to take this course affirming that they bee indeed cast already by such a Iudgment which hee proues by two reasons One is that the doctrine of the Romane Church hath beene publikely confirmed by generall Councells before that of Trent The second is that the Huguenots religion is the same with that
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 iâ— 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 thâ—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
the Huguenots say much failed in all these circumstances For first it decided before it measured for as much as euen before their comming to the Councell they were euery man of them resolued to condemne the Huguenots Secondly in examining and measuring of the questions it measured not by the written Word only but by Traditions also as it was agreed vpon at the fourth Session of the said Councell So that it measured sometimes either without a Rule or at least by a Rule very contrary to that of the Councell of Nice Thirdly admit that it had measured by a true Rule yet did it not so much apply the doctrine to the Rule as bend the Rule to make it fit to the doctrine viz peruerted the Scripture by an interpretation forced to their owne opinion For in the fourth Session it was decreed That no man should giue any other interpretation then that which was consonant to the doctrine of the Church of Rome So that in stead of measuring their doctrine by the Rule they measured the Rule by their doctrine But he followes it further against the triall of the Spirits that if we should try all then should we call againe into question the very Bookes of the holy Scripture it selfe I answer no and that it followes not that we should call in question againe the bookes approued by ancient Councels because they reiect some which are approued by the Councell of Trent seeing that in this particular the iudgement of that Councell is suspected euen by Catholikes themselues For Sixtus Senensis a great Catholike yea euen since the Councell of Trent hath reiected for Apocryphall the seuen last Chapters of the booke of Hester which were approued by the Councell of Trent which doubtlesse he would neuer haue done had he held it vnlawfull to try the Spirit of the said Councell Thirdly he argueth that if matters already determined and defined may be brought in question againe what end then would there be of Controuersies I answer that this reason is not sufficient to stay the triall of Councels because that this is the way to set an end to Controuersies for that it is not enough to dispatch Controuersies vnlesse we be sure that this dispatching is a well ending of them And so the Arrians might euen as well haue perswaded vs to rely vpon their packt Councell of Ariminum to giue an end to Controuersies To which our Aduersarie can shape no other answer but that their Councell was not lawfull and that the Councell of Trent was Well then say I that though wee may not examine the Decrees of a Councell yet may we try whether the Councell were lawfull or not and for this once we desire no more aduantage then this and thus much must be granted vs in despite of the world For if we ought simply to rely vpon the Authoritie of Councels which commonly passe for lawfull amongst our Doctors without any further enquirie there is no reason wherefore the Graecians should rather assent to the second Councell of Nice which allowed of Images then to that of Constantinople made vp of 300. of their owne Bishops which condemned them The fourth Reason for which he takes away the libertie of trying their doctrine from the people is quoted out of the 17. Chapter of Deuteronomie where it is commanded That men should enquire of the Priests and Leuieâ—s and the Iudge appointed for the time in cases of difficultie And Moses saith our Aduersarie addeth not Try the Spirits of the Priests and Iudges But if any grow proud and will not obey the command of the Priests that man shall die by the sentence of the Iudges Nor is this much different from that which our Lord saith in the Gospell of Saint Mathew The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chaire whatsoeuer therefore they say vnto you that obserue and doe As for Moses Commandement it was giuen vnto the Iewes whereupon Rabbi Salomon Iarchi concludes That we are to beleeue whatsoeuer the Iewish Priests say Since then that their Priests interpreted the Prophecies euen of Christ himselfe otherwise then we Christians doe A Iew will say that Christ is not yet come because their Priests deny it and if according to our Aduersaries saying we ought not to trie the Spirits of their Priests I demand then how he will answer the Iewes and I will answer him as he does them namely that in the text this clause is inserted According to Law that is to say we are to obey their Commandements so farre forth ay they are agreeable to the Law which how can we know vnlesse we examine it So that let our Aduersarie take his choice either to confesse that we are not in this place forbidden to try the Spirits of the Priests or else to acknowledge himselfe to be a Iew. To the place of Saint Mathew because he saith how that it is not much vnlike our answer shall likewise be the same For our Sauiour hath not commanded vs to obey the Pharisees in all things simply but not to take such scandall at their liues as that we should refuse to obey them when they speake well For should we simply giue credit to what they bid vs without tryall of it why should we beleeue that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God when as the high Priest said that hee blasphemed in calling himselfe so His last reason is drawne from the Councell of the Apostles mentioned Acts 15. It seemed good vnto the holy Ghost and to vs Whence he concludes That Gods Spirit is so infallibly tyed vnto a lawfull Councell that we ought not to call the definitions of it into question nor would Saint Paul himselfe saith our Aduersary examine the instructions of the Councell of the Apostles as Saint Luke saith Acts 16. Hee gaue them that to obserue which was ordained by the Apostles and the Elders which were at Ierusalem I would faine aske one of our Catholike Doctors to what purpose are there so many disputations and consultations at our Councels if so be that the holy Ghost doth so infallibly direct them His answer will be That Gods ordinary prouidence is such as that hee still assists them with his Spirit when they for their parts apply that diligence which they ought and not otherwise Iust as hee makes not the ground fruitfull but when the husbandman tills and sowes his corne in it and applyes such labour as the soyle requires And thus much is cleare by this passage namely That the Apostles did apply all industry and the aptest meanes for the resoluing of the doubts proposed for it is said That after a long disputation Peter stood vp whence a man may conclude That the holy Ghost is no otherwise promised to a Councell then conditionally viz. when the Councell doth apply all the meanes and industry on their parts for the finding out of the truth and that otherwise it may be destitute of Gods Spirit namely when it doth not apply
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