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
a Million who haue embroyled themselues in the disputes of the time yet dare I vndertake to reduce the points in controuersie to so short an issue and to set downe such a course for the handling thereof that more of the truth shall be discouered in this one conference than in all the other disputes which haue beene since Martin Luther first opposed himselfe against the Pope For both the issue shall bee so drawne and the meanes so disposed of that the persons of neither Religion keeping themselues to their owne proper Maximes shall be able to reiect them I should be too impudent to giue it out if I were not well assured of my abilitie for the performance But I am acquainted well enough with the euasions of either side I know their fallacies and I haue also the Art to preuent them But the time seemes not to be yet so fit for wee must haue our spirits quiet as well as our State and aboue all free from that same preiudication For if we Catholikes come to a Disputation being confident before hand that the Huguenots are already condemned for Heretikes And they on the other side that they vnderstand the Scriptures better than S. Austin and that all is cleare on their side to what purpose serues such a Conference The Priests and Ministers may seeme as confident as they please for they are our Teachers but we should not be so resolute for we are but Learners The end which they propose is the Victorie but the end which we seeke for is the Truth Which if wee haue found why looke we further But if we beleeue without searching we may very well be deceiued The chiefe reason then which induced me to reassume my designe of writing in this point of Moderation was that our spirits being something pacified wee might be the better prepared to a Conference and in that Conference make discouery of the Truth and by discouery of the Truth establish a Peace in the Church of God But I suspecting mine owne insufficiencie and fearing withall to bestow my labour in vaine and on the other side being wondrously desirous to see an vnion in Religion I chose rather to hazard that paines which I had already taken in publishing that answer which I had made before than to lose a new The reason then why I that am a Catholike doe rather blame the rigour of ours against the Huguenots than theirs against vs both parties being faulty much alike is because he that would reforme another must begin at himselfe The importunitie and arrogancie of mine Aduersarie vrges me sometimes to write not so like a Catholike which I doe not purposely to confute the Catholike Religion but to shew only That the errors of the Huguenots are not so grosse as our side perswades themselues they are And knowing also that no one thing hath more suppressed the Truth than the meane esteeme that the one partie hath of the others Arguments Which God knowes is meerly out of ignorance forsomuch as the deeper learned any man is the more difficultie he finds in confuting his Aduersarie For it is most certaine that Ignorance engenders Vehemencie and Vehemencie blinds vs from discouering the Truth For their ignorance that are in the rights makes those likewise the more vehement that are in the errour and the ignorance of those that are in errour blinds them the more See then the true intent of this my Discourse wherein though I may perchance haue vsed some Reasons which in too rigorous a Iudgement may be esteemed with the most in fauour of these new opinions yet is not my intent with them to seduce any man or to turne them from the Faith of their forefathers but only to purge their spirits from preiudication vntill further proofe be made And if such proofe be made without which I conceiue no hope of vnion in the Church I adiure thee beloued Reader of whether Religion soeuer thou beest to come with a spirit void of this preiudication Such a spirit I wish to thee as I protest I my selfe haue and I pray God to confirme in all of vs. Amen The Argument of the Booke THe Catholique Apologie hath endeuoured to acquit the Huguenots of heresie by two Reasons The first is for that the Religion pretended to be Reformed is not hereticall of it selfe for that the substance of the Catholique Faith is receiued by the Huguenots and that the Ceremonies which they haue reiected were vnknowne to the ancient Church of which two points viz. Doctrine and Ceremonies all Religion is composed The second is that their Religion hath not beene as yet condemned by any lawfull Iudgement because that before the Councell of Trent it was not condemned in any Generall Councell and that the Councell of Trent is neither lawfull of itselfe nor as yet approued of in France Vpon which consideration albeit that the Huguenots had wandred from the true faith yet ought we not to proceed against them as against Heretiques vntill they haue receiued an arrest of condemnation from a generall Councell no more thâ—n we can in iustice put a Malefactor to death although he be notoriously capable vntill he be cast by the Iury and hath had his triall The Author now of the Answer to this Apologie in the second part of his booke from the fifth Chapter to the fifteenth trauailes hard to refute the foresaid Reasons in the fifth Chapter he only propounds his Method in the sixth hee would shew that the Religion of the Huguenots is quite another from that of the Catholiques in the seuenth that the Ceremonies of the moderne Church of Rome were obserued in the Primitiue Church in the eight that the Doctrine pretended to be Reformed stands condemned by ancient Councels in the 9 10 11 12 13 and 14. he defends the Councell of Trent whereof the 11 12 and 13. are to proue that that Councell is absolutely lawfull and the 9 10 and 14. that it is receiued in France after which method I will also diuide my defence into these six Chapters 1. In my first I will proue against the reasons of his sixt Chapter that the Catholiques and Huguenots thus farre agree in Doctrine that they are both of one and the same Faith and Religion 2. In my second against his seuenth Chapter that neither the Catholiques nor the Huguenots doe accord with the Primitiue Church in the matter of Ceremonies and that for this reason the Huguenots are not to be condemned 3. In my third against his eighth that before the times of the Councell of Trent they stood not publikely and lawfully condemned 4. In my fourth against his 11 12 and 13. Chapters that the Councell of Trent is not lawfull 5. In my fifth against his 9 10 and 14. Chapter that it is not receiued in France 6. In my sixth and last I will conclude that the Huguenots may be good right be still reputed for members of the Catholique Apostolique and Roman Church CHAP. 1. That the
Catholikes and Huguenots thus farre forth agree in Doctrine that they are both of the same Faith and Religion IT is most cleare that men of the same Church and Religion may differ neuerthelesse about some opinions in Diuinitie Austen accords not to Hierome nor Epiphanius to Chrysostome nor Cyprian to Cornelius nor Irenaeus to Victor and questionlesse one of them was in the errour yet were they all Doctors approued by the Church and Saints euery one of them Euery errour doth not separate a man from the Church nor should we regard so much the number as the qualitie of them Arrius accorded with the Catholikes in all points but one insomuch as the change of a word yea of one bare letter would haue compounded the controuersie and yet was he the greatest Heretike that euer the Church was troubled with Origen on the other side dissented in infinite Tenents from the other old Doctors and was yet neuerthelesse esteemed a member of the Church To see then whether the Huguenots be of another Religion than wee neither their errors nor their numbers is the thing which is so much to be regarded but the nature of them only is it That is to say what Errors are to be reputed for Heresies and whether theirs be of that nature There be two things which according to the opinion of the Catholikes make Errors to proue Heresies The one when the Errour is of it selfe so enormous that he is at all times an Heretike that holds it So that euen before the Nicene Councell had decided it Ebion Paulus Samosetanus and Arrius stood then as Heretikes for that they denied the eternall Diuinitie of the Sonne of God The second thing which according to our opinion makes an Errour to become an Heresie is when any man maintains an opinion in point of Doctrine contrary to the Decrees of a Generall Councell So then the Heresie lies not so much in the mischieuousnesse of the opinion as in the resistance made against the ordinance of the Church For example The opinion of S. Cyprian touching Rebaptization was not Heresie in him because there was not as then any Decree of Councell made against it But since that say we this opinion is condemned legally it were flat Heresie in any other that should hold it Of this second Species of Heresie I will intreat in my third Chapter In this only of the former which is Whether the errors of the Huguenots be in themselues so enormous that they destroy the very foundation of Faith and by consequence keepe them off from being of the same Religion with vs. Let vs see then how our Antagonist takes vpon him to proue the contrary In the first place saith he both parties as well the Catholikes as their Aduersaries repute one another for Heretikes I answer that I finde no impossibilitie why they may not be both deceiued For two brothers being in choler may well renounce one another and yet they leaue not for all that to continue true brothers alwaies Cyrill and Theodoret accused one another for Heretiques and yet neither of them was so So that this reason is only drawne from the passion of men when Reason hath abandoned them But how doth he proue that the Catholikes repute the Huguenots for Heretikes The Catholike Church saith he hath by the Councell of Trent condemned diuers of the Lutheran opinions I answer according to my first distinction that it is one thing to returne an opinion for an heresie by condemnation and another thing to repute it so of its owne nature Now whether or no the Huguenots be hereticks by condemnation we will argue it hereafter in our third fourth and fifth Chapters But here we dispute only of the nature of their errour wherein his proofes are nothing to his purpose But saith he At Rome euerie holy Thursday the Pope pronounces them excommunicate and prohibits all Chatholikes to reade their Bookes In like manner the same day also he excommunicats all sinners of whom hee dares not denie but that many are of the Church else should he himselfe be condemned for an hereticke by the Councell of Constance which gaue sentence against Iohn Huz That the Church consists as well of the bad as of the good And whereas the Huguenots Bookes be prohibited so are also the Bookes of Machiauel Aretine and diuers other Catholikes Let vs next see the opinion which the Huguenots haue of the Catholike Doctrine Caluine saith he writes that the principall points of Doctrine in the Church of Rome are almost vtterly abolished and the right vse of the Sacraments in many fashions corrupted He needs but little explication the words themselues answer him Caluin saies not that the Sacraments are vtterly taken away but the right vse of them many waies corrupted Nor that the principall points of Religion are vtterly destroied but almost abolished A man may be almost kild and yet liue Secondly to proue how their Religion differs from ours he produces the controuersies of Originall sinne Free-will Iustification Merits and diuers others which he iudges of most consequence It is the greatest pittie in the world to heare how the most of the Preachers in both Religions commonly fight with their owne shadowes not vnderstanding what it is that their aduersarie holds which comes only of the subtleties of words inuented by the Deuill to disturbe the Peace of the Church One partie vnderstanding the word Iustification in one sense and another in another one Faith one way and another in another one Grace in one fashion another after another and so of the rest that which we say being true in our acception of the word and that which they say being likewise true as they take it So that if the desire of contention were once taken away we should soone finde that the most of these disputes wherewith peoples eares are filled are onely the subtelties of the Schoole vpon the Etimologies and Definitions of words only Whence it came to passe that in the conference at Regenspurg the Catholikes and the Protestants fell to some agreement in the question of Originall sinne of Predestination Free-will and diuers other points which is also confessed by Bishop Lindanus one of the tartest enemies that the Huguenots euer had Neueâ—thelesse the Authour of this answer is so ill aduised as to chuse out these questions principally to shew the differences betweene them and vs. For mine owne part I will not take vpon me to reconcile the said questions neither know I well to confesse mine owne ignorance freely whether it be possible to be done or no only thus much I assure my selfe that the difference is not so great as it is iudged to be Nor will I too exactly search out the point in controuersie because I well hope some other man may more happily performe it hereafter Only I will discourse vpon the said questions as they are commonly vnderstood by the best Doctors in each Religion In which sense I
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
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
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
taking the Empire as it now is then may the Churches of Germanie some of which haue shak't off the Popes authoritie be more properly stiled members of the Roman Church than Rome it selfe insomuch as Germanie and not Rome is at this day called the Roman Empire Lastly the Roman Church is vnderstood for all those that doe in Faith communicate with the Church of Rome that is to say those that be of the Romish Religion I demand then their meaning whether they vnderstand by the Romish Religion those points in which the Huguenots doe agree with vs or those wherein they disagree from vs or both the one and the other If those points wherein they agree with vs then they are directly of the Roman faith If for the points only wherein they dissent then are the beleefe in the Trinitie and all the Articles of the three Creeds of the Apostles of Nice and of Athanasius wherein they doe agree no Articles of the Romish Religion But if they take the Roman Religion for all the points of it together both for those wherein they doe agree and all the other too I demand once againe whether so exact an agreement in all points be required or not And if not then seeing that the points whereupon the Huguenots be agreed with the Catholikes be for number more and for importance greater than those questions are vpon which they disagree they may yet neuerthelesse be reputed to be of the Roman Church and Faith forasmuch as things for the most part take their Denomination from the better part Euen as we vse to say those people are of a sanguine coÌ„plexion in whom bloud is predominant although their temper be of other humours too But if we affirme that no man can be of this Church vnlesse he beleeues all and the selfe-same that the Church of Rome doth then say I that whilest we goe about to proue that the Huguenots be not of our Church we shall shew withal that we haue not any one man who is absolutely of the Church insomuch as that there is no one man learned or vnlearned that beleeues all iust as the Church doth For it is the credit of our Doctors to maintaine singular opinions by themselues which may be the reason why Bellarmine the greatest Aduersarie to the Huguenots accuses all the Catholikes that euer were before him of Error and those especially which haue written against the Huguenots as Genebrard Pighius Eckius Hosius Canus Caietane Scotus Durand S. Bonauenture S. Thomas S. Damascene for he spares not the Saints neither the like courtesie also shewes he to the Ancient Fathers S. Augustine S. Bernard S. Chrysostome and much adoe he hath to let S. Paul alone So that amongst so many dissentions either hath the Church beleeued nothing at all or else hath the Church beleeued them altogether that is to say contradictions or else that the Church hath beleeued but only some of them and perchance they haue all beleeued contrary to what the Church beleeueth Come we now to the common people and they vnderstand not the one halfe part of that which we teach them and when wee tell them of such points of Diuinitie wherein they were neuer brought vp their fancies framing Idea's vnto themselues vpon what they heare make them conceiue Chimaera's in their braines and to beleeue the quite contrary to what the Church doth before they are well aware of it But our Catholikes now haue found out a remedie for that which is That an implicite Faith is enough for the common people which is as much to say as to thinke only to beleeue only as the Church doth though they doe not so indeed So then seeing that an implicite Faith is To beleeue the contrary and yet thinke they beleeue the same if we could but once perswade the Huguenots that they doe verily beleeue as our Church of Rome doth in euery thing although indeed they doe not they shall be of our Church See then if I haue not taken a better method to conuert them than any other Catholikes haue yet light vpon They labour to conuert them to our Explicite faith which were to make them beleeue all the particulars of our Faith And I perceiuing them altogether vncapable of this Explicite Faith haue endeuoured my selfe to make them embrace the Implicite Faith which is much the easier of the two and to perswade them to beleeue that they doe already beleeue as our Church beleeueth and consequently that their Faith is the same and their Church the same That so by this perswasion they may proue if not so good Catholiques as the Priests yet at least as good Catholiques as the people But to returne againe to my purpose it appeares by what hath beene said that if we stand for so strict an vnion in euery point then will not the Catholiques themselues neither learned nor vnlearned be of the Roman Church Forasmuch as the learned will not beleeue as the rest doe and the vnlearned cannot And would we content our selues with an essentiall vnion the Huguenots may then well be of it Whereupon it followes that we must needs yeeld to one of these That either the Huguenots are of the Roman Church or else that the Catholikes are not FINIS Errata in some Copies Pag. 54. l. 5. for Authoritie in the first place reade Articles End Henry 3. Henry 4. a Henry 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first Reason Pag. 20. Pag. 21. Pag. 21. Pag. 21. The second Reason Lindanus in prefat in Lib. de querela pacis Scripture Pag. 23. Tom. 1. Contr. 1. l. cap. 4. Iustification Free-will Pag. 24. The Coniunction of Faith Grace p. 23. Merit of Workes Serm. 1. de anuntiatione Beatae Virginis Prayer Pag. 26. Tom. 1. Contr. 6. lib. 3. cap. 15. The Sacraments and their number Pag. 25. The difference betwixt our Sacraments and those of the old Law Pag. 26. Tom. 2. contr 1. lib. 2. cap. 1. The efficacie of Baptisme Pag. 23. Of Infants dying without Baptisme The Baptisme of Iohn Transubstantiation Pag. 26. Theod. Dialog Gelasius lib. de duabus naturis The Sacrifice of the Masse Pag. 26. Heb. 7. 10. Thomas part quest 83. Artic. 1. Aug. ad Bonifacium epist. 23. Penance Pag 26. In Annotat. ad lib. Tertull. de poenitent a. Purgatorie Pag 26. Lib. 21. de Civ Dei cap. 26. That the Church of Rome agrees not with the Primitiue Church in matter of ceremonies Signe of the Crosse. Pag. 27. Praying towards the East Pag. 28. Lib. 5. cap. 21. Inuocation of the Eucharist Blessing of the water in Baptisme Pag. 28. Homil. 25. in Iohan. Consecration and vse of Oyle in Baptisme Pag 28. Tertull lib. de corona militis Lent Epiphan haerest 75. Hieronim contra Lucif Sacrifice for the dead Baptisme of infants Mixture of water with the wine in the Chalice Perpetuall single life Solitary life Sozomen Histor. lib. 1. cap. 12. Orders of Monkes Athanasius ad Dracontium Election of Meates Tripartite 9. 38. Holy-daies Lib. 5. cap. 21. Soz. 7. 19. That the Huguenots are not to be blamed for leauing off the Ceremonies of the ancient Church Epist. 119. 19. 1 Consid. Aug. Epist. 112 2 Consid. Stapleton Princip Doctrin cont 4. lib. 6. cap. 15. Andradius defenâ—fidâ—â—â—dent Lib. 4. Coâ—cil Trid. Sess. 3. 3. Cons. â— Cons. Transubstantiation Councell of Lateran Councell of Vienna Councell of Florence Freewill Children dying without Baptisme Worshipping of Images That the Doctrine oâ— the Huguenots is not the same with that of the ancient Heretikes already condemned Retractat lib. 2. cap. 17. Prayer for the dead Set Fasting daies Euseb. 5. 16. Distinction of Bishops and Priests Comment in cap. 1. Epist. â—d Titum Mariage and Virginity Merits of Saints Worshipping of Saints and their Reliques Election of meats Durand l. 6 de aliis ieiuniis 〈◊〉 * En denier resort Sigonius de oceidentis Imp. l. â— Tom. 1. Cont. 4. Lib. 4. Cap. 9. Obiect 2. Obiect 3. Theod. l. 10. c. 70. 2. Reason 3. Reason 4. Reason Rab. Sal. â—archi in Deute onom 5. Reason Mat. 17. 1 Obiection 1 Reason 2 Reason 3 Reason The massacre Anno Dom. 1572 4 Reason 2. Obiection Catholike How the Church is called Catholike in respect of it selfe Heb. 12. 23. Reuel 13. 18. Reuel 5. 9. August de Catechizandis Rudibus cap. 12. Greg. Mor. in Iob. lib. 28. cap. 9. 2 Tim. 2. 19. How the Church is called Catholike in respect of the Iewes Mat. 13. Ephes. 2. 14. How the Church is called Catholike in regard of Heretikes Bernard in Cantica Sermone 38 Ephes. 5. Cant. 1. Vincent Lyr. l. aduers. haereses Eodem lib. adu haeres Tertul. lib de praescript adu haeres Apostolike How the Huguenots may be said to be of the Roman Church Rom. 1. 8. 1 Thess. 1. 8.