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 [Page 2] 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, The first Rea­son. Pag. 20. 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, Pag. 21. that the Catholikes repute the Hu­guenots for Heretikes. The Catholike Church (saith he) hath by [Page 3] 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, Pag. 21. 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. Pag. 21. 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, The second Reason. 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 [Page 4] 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, Lindanus in pre­fat. in Lib. de querela pacis. which is also confessed by Bishop Lindanus one of the tartest enemies that the Huguenots euer had. Neue [...]thelesse the Authour of this answer is so ill aduised, as to chuse out these questions principally, to shew the differences betweene them and vs.

For mine owne part, I will not take vpon me to reconcile the said questions, neither know I well (to confesse mine owne ignorance freely) whether it be possible to be done or no: only thus much I assure my selfe, that the difference is not so great, as it is iudged to be. Nor will I too exactly search out the point in controuersie, because I well hope some other man may more happily performe it hereafter. Only I will discourse vpon the said questions as they are commonly vn­derstood by the best Doctors in each Religion. In which sense I affirme (for ought that I haue yet seene) that the er­rours of the Huguenots are not so grosse, as that they impeach their being members of the Catholike Church. To cleere which point, I will reduce these questions to these foure heads. 1. The Scripture. 2. Iustification. 3. Prayer. 4. The Sacraments.

1 Concerning the Scripture, Scripture. Pag. 23. 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.

[Page 5]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, Tom. 1. Contr. 1. l. cap. 4. 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, Iustification. I cōprehend al the dif­ferences 2 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. Free-will. Pag. 24. 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 [Page 6] are agreed: The imaginarie controuersie then lies on­ly in the manner how this will is enfranchised or made free. The Huguenots auerring, That tis 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? Tis 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 [Page 7] though they may be thought to differ neuer so much from vs in the circumstances, yet may they for al that be very good Catholikes. For example; A tree which hath the Root, Stocke & many Armes of it sound, may be a good tree though some one bough be crazed: But the Catholikes and the Huguenots are agreed vpon the Root of the question, that is to say, That there are two things necessary: That we be first quit of our Sinnes, and that wee be next indued with Righteousnesse; to put off our old garments, and re-invest our selues with new.

1. Vpon the first, the Catholikes and the Huguenots are agreed; namely, That we are pardoned of our sinnes, and redeemed from hell, meerely by the blood of Iesus Christ.

2. Touching the second, both sides hold alike; That to be admitted entrance into heauen, we haue need of Righte­ousnesse, and that this Righteousnesse comes from Christ.

Now the Righteousnesse which is of Christ, is either Inhe­rent in him, & reputed ours, or Inherent in vs, & proceeding from him; being by his grace infused into our hearts; which Act the Huguenots call Sanctification: Finally, the Hugue­nots confesse as well as the Catholikes, that there be indeed both these kindes of Righteousnesses, onely they differ vpon this, whether the Righteousnesse Inherent in Christ and imputed to vs, or that Inherent in vs, and proceeding from him, be it; by vertue whereof wee become iustified in the sight of God. And what is it to vs, whether another man paies our debts for vs, or giues vs money to pay it our selues? So that (in a manner) they both acknowledge the selfe same Root, the same Stocke, and the same Armes of this question, onely they cannot agree vpon the smaller Branches which grow out of these Armes. Nay more; they both acknow­ledge the same Branches too, but they cannot agree, vpon which of them they should roost. For the Huguenots confesse, that whosoeuer are saued, are also first sanctified; that is to say, That they haue that kinde of Righteousnesse, which the Catholikes call Inherent or Secondarie Righteousnesse. But they say, that they dare not build vpon it, but one­ly vpon that Righteousnesse, which being inherent in [Page 8] Christ, is by Faith imputed to them. Seeing then, that this Righteousnesse of Christ is by generall consent acknow­ledged to bee most perfect; though there may perhaps bee thought to be some errour in the Huguenots doctrine, yet no danger can come of it. Like as when a man laies hold on a strong bough, he may very well be deceiued in fearing ano­ther may be too weake; yet without doubt he cannot fall, so long as he embraces that which cannot breake.

Next followes the Instrument by which we imbrace this Righteousnesse, The Coniun­ction of Faith & Grace. p. 23. and that is Faith; about the nature whereof the Huguenots seeme to him, to hold another error; For that, They deny (saies he) that Grace may bee lost, without the losse of Faith. Which is but a meere cauill of his, vpon the double signification of the word Faith. For, if we affirme, That Faith is nothing else, but to beleeue that God is so and so, and that he hath done such and such things, and to be briefe, that all the Christian doctrine is most true; the Huguenots will say (with Saint Iames) That the deuills also beleeue as much, and that the deuills haue Faith, though without Grace. So that the Huguenots mistake, is nothing but in the word, for that they teach, That the Faith of that man, which is deuoid of Grace and Charitie, merits not the honourable title of a Iustifying Faith; and that such a Faith as this, is but the In­strument onely by which we are iustified, which is euer ac­companied with Grace, and followed by good Workes. We affirme likewise; That a Faith without Charitie, is a Faith without Forme; wherefore, since the Forme is it, which giues the Being to the thing, it must needs follow; That a perfect Faith can haue no Being, without Charitie: which Tenet is consented vnto, both by the Huguenots and the Catholikes themselues: onely we differ in termes: the Huguenots calling Faith without Charity, an Historicall or dead Faith; and we, a Faith without Forme. O my God, what a pittie it is, to be­hold the simplicitie of our Christian Faith, thus puzled about these quiddities.

There remaines now the Effects of our Iustification, Good Workes: Merit of Workes. By which euen we Catholikes say, That a man is [Page 9] not made Iust, but that being iustified before, he increases in Righteousnesse: That is; of a Iust man, hee becomes more Iust; and being regenerate & in the state of Grace, He may (as our Aduersarie saies) fulfill the Law in such a sort, that he may by it truly and properly merit eternall life. But as for the ful­filling of the Law, seeing the Huguenots doe their best to per­forme it, although they may be thought to erre, in confessing they cannot doe it, yet hath our Sauiour himselfe promised free pardon for it, in the Parable of the Sonne, who refused to doe his Fathers will, and yet did it.

To returne then to Merits by Workes, the more accurate sort of Catholikes peremptorily deny, that they are at all me­ritorious, vnlesse they be dyed in the blood of Christ. And I assure my selfe, that not one amongst ten thousand Catholikes, vnderstands sufficiently the meaning of this phrase; Workes dyed in the blood of Christ: but simply and without other addi­tion they will say, That they are in good hope to merit hea­uen by their Workes. So that (we see) there be three seuerall opinions touching this question.

The first is of the vulgar Catholikes, who are more in num­ber 1 a thousand times, and who simply affirme; That they are indeed able to merit eternall life by their Good Workes.

The second is of the Huguenots; who absolutely deny, 2 That Good Workes doe merit at all: only (say they) God out of his pure Grace, for the Loue of his Sonne, grants them a recompence.

The third is the opinion of the Iesuites and the learned 3 Catholikes, who deny, that any kinde of Workes doe of themselues merit, but such onely (as I said) as are dyed in the blood of Chr [...]st. Which opinion accords much better with the Huguenots doctrine, then that of the vulgar Catho­likes: for a thing dyed, is not altered in substance, as Copper though gilded, yet continues Copper still: the tincture and the gilding making the thing onely fairer to the eye. And so is it with our Workes, which being by nature corrupt, re­maine corrupt still, though dyed in the blood of Christ; howbeit that the tincture and gilding, makes them more [Page 10] pleasing vnto God, and for the loue which hee beares to Christs blood, to bee rewarded. And if peraduenture they make conscience of vsing the word Merit, let vs hearken to S. Bernard: A man cannot (saith he) merit eternall life, Serm. 1. de anun­tiatione Beatae Virginis. by any good works whatsoeuer. And yet I trow, that S. Bernard was in this no Huguenot. For I well know, that a Iesuite with some neat distinction, can make him speake like a Catholike, what­soeuer his meaning was. Let vs then but doe the Huguenots the like courtesie, and make the same distinction in the inter­pretation of their Tenent, as we would doe in the explication of S. Bernards, and in this point they will proue as good Ca­tholikes as S. Bernard, or our selues.

4 The fourth point is Prayer: Prayer. Pag. 26. to wit, whether we ought to inuoke the Saints or not. The difference betwixt vs lies in two points: First, whether we ought to direct our prayers vn­to them; the second, whether they pray for vs.

For the first this I say; That the Catholikes themselues make two extremities: to wit, in the not inuoking them, as the Hu­guenots doe; and in honouring them too much; which is to say, in attributing to them that honour, which is due only vnto God, which the Schoolemen call Latria; which whoso­euer does, they themselues hold him for an Idolater. Now the poore people which vnderstand not the Greeke, nor what Latria meanes, nor comprehends any other mediocritie, than to adore right downe, or not to adore at all; goes to it bonafide, and with as much deuotion, adore our Lady and the other Saints, as they doe God himselfe; in such fashion, as that very hardly (euen in the iudgement of Catholikes) can the Catho­likes themselues herein auoid Idolatry.

As for the other extremitie, those Catholikes that maintaine Inuocation of Saints, teach only thus much: That it is lawfull to inuoke them, and not vnlawfull, not to inuoke them. So that there can come no great danger of it, in following the Ca­tholikes doctrine if true, nor in following the Huguenots though erroneous. The Huguenots say furthermore, that we ought to honour them; which we may very well doe with­out inuoking them. As a Subiect may well honour his So­ueraigne [Page 11] being absent, though he neuer presented any peti­tion to him in all his life.

As for the second point; to wit, whether they pray for vs or not: I affirme that there be Huguenots, that will confesse that they doe; neither doth Caluin himselfe deny it: only he saith, that he troubles not himselfe greatly, to know whether they doe or no. But should any of them denie it; where is the danger? Bellarmine that great Master of Controuersies affirms, Tom. 1. Contr. 6. lib. 3. cap. 15. That the soules in Heauen, doe pray for the soules in Purga­tory, and they in Purgatory, for those on earth. And yet not­withstanding confesseth, that Dominicus à Soto denieth the first, and S. Thomas Aquinas the second. Wherefore seeing that Purgatory is more beneficiall to the Pope than Paradice, I can perceiue no reason wherefore the Huguentos should rather be Heretiques for disagreeing with the Catholikes about the Intercession of the Saints in Heauen, than the Catholikes are for differing amongst themselues about the Intercession both of the soules, and for the soules in Purgatory.

The last point wherein the Huguenots are departed from 5 the Roman faith is, touching the Sacraments; wherein the number, The Sacra­ments and their number. Pag. 25. nature, and particular Sacraments are to be conside­red of. And they first miscount themselues in the number, reckoning but two, whereas the Councell of Trent hath con­cluded it, that there are seuen. Which obiection of his is but friuolous; insomuch as the difference lies more in the words, than in the thing. For taking the word Sacrament properly, S. Austin saith, that there be but two, that is to say, Baptisme, & the Eucharist. Further, it is an ordinarie phrase amongst vs Catholikes to say, That all the Sacraments issued out of our Sa­uiours side: whereas there issued nothing frō thence saue water and bloud, which according as Chrysostome, Cyril, and other Ancients interpret it, represent the two Sacraments: that is, Baptisme by the water, and the Cup of the Lords Supper, by the bloud. To which our Catholike Doctors giue no other an­swer than this: That the two Sacraments haue some kinde of dignity aboue the rest; which comes to no more than to say, that there be two principall Sacraments, and fiue more, infe­riour to those two. Which is all one with the Huguenots opi­nion, [Page 12] though in diuers termes. They say that there be but two properly; we say that there be but two principally: We againe, that there be fiue more of an inferiour order; they confesse that there may be more, if we meane of Sacraments in the generall signification.

For Caluin yeelds, that Order is a Sacrament, but not com­mon to all men, nor will our Catholike Doctors say other­wise. Againe, they will confesse with S. Paul, that Mariage is also a Sacrament, taking it in that generall signification wherein the Ancients haue translated the Greeke word. Briefely, they will yeeld that there be seuen, but not barely seuen. And in truth there was none of the Ancient Fathers, that euer light vpon this number of seuen. So that though the Huguenots cannot so euenly iumpe vpon the number, see­ing the Primitiue Church could not doe it; wee may per­chance condemne them of ignorance in Arithmeticke, but their errour in Theologie cannot be so great.

But he may argue, that they are mistaken in the very nature of the Sacraments; The difference betwixt our Sa­craments, and those of the old Law. Pag. 26. because they deny them to be distingui­shed in force and vertue, from the Sacraments of the old Law, or that they confer grace. I answer: That this is a meere slan­der; for the Huguenots doe distinguish them from the Sacra­ments of the old Testament; and doe affirme, that they doe also confer grace. What would you desire more of them? But not (saith he) ex opere operato. The difference then is not in the matter, whether our Sacraments confer more grace, or are of more efficacie, than those of the old Law, but in the manner only, by what meanes this grace is conferred. As for the man­ner, we should not me thinks too narrowly prie into it, as Bel­larmine very sagely aduiseth vs. Tom. 2. contr. 1. lib. 2. cap. 1. Like as in Christs miracles (saith he) the parties that were healed, needed not to inquire in what manner the garment of Christ did cure them, it being suffi­cient to them to beleeue only, that the touch of it wrought the cure: iust so is it not necessarie (saith he) that the Ministers or the Receiuers of the Sacraments should be curious to know, in what manner they become the causes of our Iustification.

We come next to the particular Sacraments, whereof hee makes mention but of three only: That is to say, Baptisme, The efficacie of Baptisme. Pag. 23. [Page 13] the Sacrament of the Altar, and Penance. Touching Baptisme, they affirme, saith he, That Originall sin sticks so close to man, that neither by Baptisme, nor any other remedie, can it be gotten off. I answer: That euen the Huguenots confesse as freely as the Catho­likes, that a man is washed from Originall sinne by Baptisme, which is enough for a Christian to beleeue in this point: so that the difference lies meerely in the nicity of the word, whether it should rightliest be called Sinne, or no Sinne: The Catholikes holding, that the Sinne is so farre remitted, that the concupis­cence which remaines, ought not to be called Sinne: The Hu­guenots affirming, that the remaining Concupiscence may very well be called Sinne, although they herein consent to the Catho­likes, That a man is so clearely absolued and discharged of it, that it is not reputed as a Sinne. For which cause in no other sense doe they deny the grace receiued in Baptisme, though they still esteeme themselues sinners altogether, than the Debtor doth his Creditors mercy; who confessing that he hath receiued the fa­uour of him, to haue his debts forgiuen, doth neuerthelesse ac­knowledge himselfe his debtor. Which way soeuer it be taken, the sinner is pardoned, and the debtor discharged, and what need haue we to desire more?

Hee may say perchance againe: Of Infants dying without Baptisme. That the Huguenots erre not so much in acknowledging the benefits receiued in Baptisme, because they are not so well aware of the danger that followes the want of it: For they affirme (saith he) that the children of Christians may be esteemed righteous, and haue admittance into the kingdome of heauen without Baptisme, notwithstanding that Iesus Christ hath said, That whosoeuer is not borne againe of water and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen: I answer: that the Huguenots affirme not, that euery childe borne of Chri­stian Parents dying without Baptisme is saued, but those only whom God in his eternall counsell hath elected. So that the que­stion is not so much about Baptisme, as about Gods electiō: wher­in there can be no danger, to confesse our ignorance, referring still Gods owne decrees to his owne good pleasure, as the Huguenots doe. For they instance not in what children are elected, but for­beare to presse into Gods cabinet, and out of that to pronounce, that such and such children shall be saued.

[Page 14]And if he replies againe, That the Election of God is neuer de­stitute of these secondarie meanes, and that Baptisme is the means, by which he saues those that are elected; and that it is a most ma­nifest signe, that those who are depriued of this Baptisme, are also depriued of that election: I answer; That there be Catholikes, who teach, that a man may be saued without these secondarie meanes. S. Damascene, S. Brigid, and some other Catholikes doe hold, that the Emperour Trajanes soule was deliuered out of Hell by the prayers of S. Gregory, notwithstanding that he died a Pai­nim, and without Baptisme. If they then be not Heretiques, that teach the mercy of God to be so great, that he saued one who had sinned actually, notwithstanding that he died without Faith, and without Baptisme; why should it be accounted Heresie, to say, that he sometimes saues little Innocents, who neuer had more than Originall Sin? For it is a more extraordinary thing, to draw one out of Hell, than to keepe one from going thither. And what fauour God had shewen to one, he may likewise shew to many.

As for that text of S. Iohn, Regenerate of water and of the Holy Ghost, it is to shew; that the ordinary meanes vnto saluation, is to conioyne the outward signe, to the inward grace, according to S. Pauls saying, That with the heart man belieues vnto righteousnes, & with the tongue he confesses to saluation; which shewes thus much; that ordinarily the outward cōfessiō goes with the inward affecti­on: nor can it be inferred out of the former text, That faith can ne­uer be without the confessiō of the mouth, no more than it can by the other, that Grace cannot be without the washing of the body. Finding now no great matter in the Huguenots Doctrine blame­worthy about the Baptisme of Christ; The Baptisme of Iohn. he descends to the Bap­tisme of Iohn: which in the Huguenots opinion differs not at all from that of Christ. To which I answer; That all the Huguenots hold not this opinion: Secondly, that this difference is of no such great importance, because that they that hold it, doe it not to de­rogat from the Baptisme of Christ; for that they esteeme it not Iohns Baptisme, but Christs, administred by Iohn, before Christs declaring of himselfe, as it was by the Apostles afterwards. Finally, all this dispute is not about Christs Baptisme which the people receiue, but about Iohns, which they receiue not; and consequent­ly it matters not much, to vnderstand the force & efficacie of it.

[Page 15]In the next place followes the Sacrament of the Altar, Transubstanti­ation. Pag. 26. which comprehends two differences propounded in the answer. Which be, Christs presence in it; and the Sacrifice of the Masse. Vpon the first the Huguenots are accorded with the Catholikes in the thing it selfe; that is, That our Sauiour is truly present in the holy Sacrament, and that we doe eat his body, and drinke his blood. The difference only lies in the manner, how he is present, & how we eat and drinke him. Which errour cannot touch the founda­tion of Faith, for as much as, according to our Catholike Doctors opinion, it was left free for euerie man, by the space of 1000 yeeres after Christs death, to beleeue this presence of his, in what manner they thought best, prouided that they beleeue it at all. Whence it is manifest, that it is but the Huguenots ill luck to liue in such a rigorous age of the Church, otherwise they should not for this haue beene heretickes. For diuers of the ancient Fathers were infected with this errour. Theod. Dialog. Gelasius lib. de duabus naturis. Theodoret, yea and Gelasius too, who was also Pope, haue written in expresse words, That euen af­ter the Consecration of these holy Mysteries, the very nature and substance of the bread remained still. True it is that the Hugue­nots may well be shent for reuiuing of this errour, when they see that the Church of Rome, and which is more, the Pope himselfe hath condemned it; neuerthelesse seeing that Gelasius, who was likewise a Pope, held the verie same error; we Catholikes should doe well to qualifie it all we can, for the reputation of the Sea Apostolique.

Now for the Sacrifice of the Masse, The Sacrifice of the Masse. Pag. 26. they both confesse with S ^t. Paul, that there is but one Sacrifice for sinne, namely, that one of Iesus Christ vpon the Crosse; in such sort, that the Catholikes af­firme not, that they make any new Oblation, but only represent that former one, so oftentimes ouer, as they celebrate the Eucha­rist, in which Christ is continually offered vp. But for as much as S ^t. Paul teaches, Heb. 7. 10. That there is not only but one Sacrifice, but also that Iesus Christ is but once offered: this Doctrine of ours had neede be verie subtilly interpreted, which no man in my iudge­ment could finelier doe then S ^t. Thomas Aquinas, who saith, Thomas part. quest. 83. Artic. 1. That this Sacrament is named an Immolation of Christ, in two regards, the first, for that (as S ^t. Austin saith) Signes are called by the names of the things whereof they be Signes: the second, for that by vertue [Page 16] of this Sacrament, we are made partakers of the death of Iesus Christ. Well, let vs see then how far the Huguenots accord with S ^t. Tho­mas in these two manners of the offering vp of Christ Iesus. For the first, seeing that it is collected out of S ^t. Austen, let vs heare him in his owne words. Aug. ad Bonifa­cium, epist. 23. He falsifies not (saith he) who saies that Iesus Christ is offered vp euerie day, for if the Sacraments had not a kind of resemblance of the things whereof they be Sacraments, they could not be Sacraments at all; and by reason of this resemblance, they ordinarily take the names of the things themselues. According to which interpretation the Huguenots will also say, that Christ is offered vp in the Sacrament, for as much as the Sacraments haue the name of the things which they signifie. And seeing that the Eucharist signifies the death of Christ, a man may well giue the same tearme to the Eucharist, which he does to his death. And for as much as he was offered vp by his death, the Huguenots will confesse likewise, that he is also offered vp in the Eucharist, by reason (as S ^t. Austen saith) of this resemblance betweene them.

Concerning the second respect, for which S. Thomas saies, that the Eucharist is called the Immolation of Iesus Christ, that is, for that in the Sacrament we are made partakers of the death of Iesus Christ; the Huguenots will also agree thereunto. For it is their common phrase of speech to say, that in this Supper they are made partakers of the death and passion of Iesus Christ. Now if there be any third way of offering, questionlesse it is no matter of any great importance; for that S. Thomas was so good a Catholike, and so subtle a Logician, and aboue all, so experienced in the di­stinctions and other stratagems of the Schoole, would neuer haue made mention barely of two manners of offerings, had there been any third of any consequence.

The last Sacrament which he instances in, is Penance, Penance. Pag 26. wherein the Author of the answer obserues no difference, but onely names it in that fashion, that I cannot see what fault hee findes in the Huguenots doctrine. But to picke out his meaning, I trow, that the difference lies principally in two points: That is to say, Whe­ther this Penance be well called a Sacrament, or not; and second­ly, What be the parts of it. For the first point, of the title of Sa­crament; It is but a wrangling about the word, as I haue shewed before, when I discourst of the number of the Sacraments. As for [Page 17] 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, In Annotat. ad lib. Tertull. de poe­nitent. a. 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.

Tis true indeed, Purgatorie, Pag 26. that they deny any satisfaction or punishment to be in Purgatory after death for sinne: but herein their error cannot be great; Lib. 21. de Civ. Dei, cap. 26. 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 w ^ch there is so much vncertainty, [Page 18] 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.

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 [Page 18] 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 of Rome doth agree with the ancient Church in the selfe same ceremonies. Secondly, that admitting that the ancient Church had them in vse, yet are not the Hugue­nots to be condemned for hauing disused them.

For the first point: That the Church of Rome agrees not with the Primitiue Church in mat­ter of ceremo­nies. my purpose is not to condemne the ceremonies of our Mother the holy Church, but since that our side are so strait laced, as to hinder our reconciliation for a thing so indifferent as these ceremonies are; I haue taken the boldnesse to oppose them: and to shew, That the Huguenots may easily answer the argument which hee alleages: which I write not to iustifie them, but with a purpose that wee should not so confidently assure our selues, that all is so cleare on our sides. Let vs heare then how the Huguenots may answer the 15 examples which he bringeth.

1 The first example is the signe of the Crosse: Signe of the Crosse. Pag. 27. concerning which, the Huguenots will confesse that it hath beene ancient­ly vsed; but that the vse of this was brought into the Church, vpon a particular occasion, and proper onely to that age. For the Pagans amongst whom the Christians in those dayes con­uersed, were wont when they met with a Christian to make the signe of the crosse in derision of their Christianity, for that the God whom they worshipped was hanged vpon a crosse; so that the Christians, to shew that they were not ashamed of such a death, in al their actions would stil make the sign of the crosse. But now this occasiō being taken away, the Huguenots may likewise say, that it is not necessary to cōtinue the practice no more then it is to apply a plaister to a woūd already healed.

As for praying to the East: I neuer yet knew any Huguenot [Page 19] that held it vnlawfull to pray towards the East, nor any Ca­tholike 2 that thought it vnlawfull to pray also towards other quarters of the world. Praying to­wards the East. Pag. 28. What more then is there to be said be­tweene them, but onely that it is an indifferent custome, which hath not beene alwayes so strictly obserued in all Churches. For Socrates saith that in the Church of Antioch, Lib. 5. cap. 21. the high Altar was placed cleane contrary, and towards the West.

As for the inuocation of the Eucharist, our aduersary af­firmes, 3 that it appeareth by Saint Basile, Inuocation of the Eucharist. That this inuocation was then and from the Apostles time practised, when they shewed the Eucharist. I answer; that these words make nothing against the Huguenots, for a man may very well vse inuocation in the time of the celebration of the Sacrament, and all the while di­rect his inuocation to God, and not to the Sacrament. True it is, that there was a speciall Prayer appointed for that pur­pose, which Saint Basile thought to haue beene a tradition of the Apostles: But now the Catholikes themselues doe not any longer obserue that forme of prayer: and it cannot be found in any antiquity, what forme of prayer that was, which Saint Basile speakes of. So that if this prayer were an Apostolicall tradition, our Church hath had small care in preseruing it; which made me beleeue that we haue some things put vpon vs vnder the title of Apostolicall tradition, which are not so. For it is still as easie to inuent some new tradition, which wee haue not yet receiued, as to forget those which we haue alrea­dy entertained. For God ordinarily where he takes away the memory, supplies that defect with inuention and sufficiency of iudgement. It being very wisely done, when we haue lost one tradition, to put another in the place, thereby to keepe the number full still, and entire.

The fourth example is of Hallowing the water in Baptisme. 4 Now the Huguenots will confesse with Saint Basile, Blessing of the water in Bap­tisme. Pag. 28. that the water of Baptisme ought to bee blessed: But this they deny; that this hallowing was such heretofore, as that now in vse with vs. For as much as they say, That water and all other creatures are sanctified by God already: and particularly that the water of Baptisme needs no benediction to make it more [Page 20] holy; Homil. 25. in Iohan. because (as saith Saint Chrysostome) Christ by his Bap­tisme hath blessed all waters. But if my Antagonist will pro­ceed further to inferre, that the water in Baptisme ought of necessity to be hallowed in the same sort that it is now; I say that Eusebius writes that Constantine the Great would haue men to baptise in Iordan; and yet I neuer heard that all the water of Iordan was made holy water.

5 6 They will say as much of the consecration of the Oyle: the word consecration at the first, Consecration and vse of Oyle in Baptisme. Pag 28. Tertull lib. de corona militis. signifying no more then the in­stitution of a signe to an holy vse. And as for the vse of oyle, like as the ancient Church made vse of it in Baptisme, so did they also of milke and honey; neither of which are any more in vse, no not in the Romane Church. Why then should the Huguenots be blamed more for the want of one ceremony, then the Catholikes would be for want of another? And this also serues to disproue that other example which followes, to wit, that the Romane Church agreeth with the ancient in all the ceremonies of Baptisme.

7 His next example is of the Fast in Lent, Lent. which Saint Hie­rome esteemes for an Apostolicall tradition. To which the Huguenots will answer, that Epiphanius saith, Epiphan. haerest. 75. that it is an A­postolicall tradition also to fast vpon Wednesdayes and Fry­dayes, except vpon those betwixt Easter and Whitsontide: in which time the said S. Hierome in the very book quoted by the Answerer, Hieronim. con­tra Lucif. saith that it is vnlawfull to fast: & yet do the Catho­likes fast notwithstāding vpon Fridaies in that very time. Why then are the Huguenots more to be blamed for disusing the cu­stome of the ancient Church in the obseruation of the forty dayes before Easter, then the Catholikes, for dissenting from the same Church, in the obseruation of the 50. dayes after?

8 Concerning the sacrifice for the dead, it appeares by that Liturgy of the Greekes, Sacrifice for the dead. which is read in the fift Tome of Saint Chrysostomes workes, that they made mention amongst the dead (for whom they made their oblations) of the Apostles and Marytrs; who according to the iudgement of all parties, doe goe directly into heauen, and haue no need of any such oblation as men offer at this day, for the easing of the soules [Page 21] departed. So as the Huguenots will say, that it must needs follow that the soules of the Saints which are in Paradise are holpen by such oblations, (which none of the wiser Catho­likes will maintaine) or else that the sayd sacrifice for the dead was no other thing then a Commemoration made in the time of the Celebration of the Eucharist; and thus much the wiser sort of Huguenots will not find fault withall.

The next example is of the Baptisme of Infants: Baptisme of in­fants. which the 9 Huguenots allow of as well as the Catholikes.

As for the mixing of water with the wine in the Chalice, Mixture of water with the wine in the Chalice. 10 this in the iudgement of the better learned Catholikes, is not a thing so necessarily required. And why then should we blame the Huguenots for omitting this ceremony? In like manner the better learned amongst the Hugenots will confesse that it is lawfull: and why then should they blame the Catholikes for obseruing it? That which is not necessary may lawfully be omitted, and that obserued which is lawfull.

Another example is of perpetuall single life, Perpetuall single life. which the Hugue­nots 11 blame not: but they will say that the obseruation of it in those times was voluntary, and not constrained; and that men were neuer compelled to vow it, as appears by the very Canōs themselues. The Church (saith one Canō) after the constitution of the Apostles, added some counsell of perfection, as this of the single life of Priests: where we may obserue 2. things against the answer; one is, that single life was ordained by way of counsell, not of commandement: the other, that it was ordained since the Apo­stles times, & could therefore be no tradition of the Apostles.

The next example is of the solitary or contemplatiue life; Solitary life. 12 which the Huguenots will not absolutely condemne: but they may well say that it hath beene in times past, much different from this of our Hermites and Anchorits at this day. For they which first brought in this manner of liuing, obserued it onely in the time of persecution, to auoid idolatry, and all other oc­casions of being enforced to vnlawfull actions by the tyrants which then ruled: Sozomen. Histor. lib. 1. cap. 12. as the Ecclesiasticall stories do testifie in the liues of S. Paul and S. Anthony, the two first Hermits. 13

Now for the order of Monkes: Orders of Monkes. the Huguenots will name [Page 22] the very yeare when each of them was inuented. And what though the name of Monks was vsuall in the primitiue Church yet were they then other manner of Monkes, then ours at this day. For first, they earned their liuings by the sweat of their browes. Secondly, diuers of them were marryed, as A­thanasius writes. Athanasius ad Dracontium. Finally, the Huguenots will say, that there was neuer Monke in the Primitiue Church that killed a King; nor any Catholike in those times, that would haue approued it.

14 There remaines the election of meats; which the Hugue­nots approue, Election of Meates. so that it be done with discretion, and not meer­ly for conscience, according to the custome of the ancient Church. For the better clearing of this point, we may (me thinkes) distinguish betweene the difference of meats, and the choyce of meats. For the Huguenots will say, that there is no difference of meats in respect of Religion; for that it is lawfull to eat indifferently of all sorts of meats, without ma­king scruple of Conscience; but that men for the taming of their flesh may abstaine from such meats, as they finde to pro­uoke them to concupiscence: which kinde of abstinence be­cause it is left free, to the choise of him that fasteth, may pro­perly be called Election of meats. For the Apostles (saith the Ecclesiasticall Story) haue left it to euery mans libertie, Tripartite 9. 38. to vse as well in their fasts, as on other dayes, such kinds of meats as they best like of. Whereas the Fasts enioyned by the Church of Rome, may rather (will the Huguenots say) be called A Prescription of meats, then a free Election: Because Electi­on is still voluntary, and their abstinence is constrained.

15 Finally, concerning Holy-daies, which they call an Apo­stolicall tradition, Holy-daies. I say, that the Ecclesiasticall Stories shew the cleane contrary; Lib. 5. cap. 21. For Socrates saith in expresse words, That the Apostles ordained nothing concerning Holy-dayes. Again, they which supposed them to haue beene ordained by the A­postles, are enforced at length, to place the obseruation of them in the Classe of things indifferent. For of all the Festiuall daies, there was not one of them which hath beene obserued with more deuotion then Easterday; which notwithstanding, the Westerne Church vsed to celebrate vpon Sunday, and the [Page 23] Easterne, vpon other daies: the one confirming their custome by the tradition of S. Peter and Paul, and the other by the tra­dition of Philip and Iohn. Soz. 7. 19. Which controuersie, was thus ta­ken vp betwixt Polycarpus, and Victor Bishop of Rome; namely, that the obseruation of it should be left free and in­different. Now the Huguenots doe not simply condemne the obseruation of Holy-daies, but only the forcing to the ob­seruation of them. For in England, Germany, Switzerland, and other Countries, where the pretended Reformed Religi­on is established, they to this day obserue diuers Saints daies, without reprehension of the Huguenots in France.

But put the case, That the Hu­guenots are not to be blamed for leauing off the Ceremo­nies of the ancient Church. that the vse of all the foresaid Ceremo­nies were such in the ancient Church, as they now are [...] the Romane; yet say I, that all these examples make nothing to the purpose; Forasmuch as Ceremonies (as I haue said) are but the apparell, which alters the fashion euery foot, and are fitted to time and place: which our Aduersary himselfe con­fesseth. For, knowing that the most part of our Ceremonies were vnknowne to the Ancients, he hath no other Answer then this, which will also serue to answer him againe, viz: That it matters not much, whether the Ecclesiasticall Ceremo­nies were in vse in the Primitiue Church, or were newly taken vp in these latter times. Now the Scriptures (will the Hu­guenots say) denounces the same curse against those which adde, as against those which take away: so that if it be law­full for the Romane Church to adde any thing to the ancient Ceremonies, it is as lawfull for them also to take away, espe­cially those which haue beene added.

Secondly, the Church is called Primitiue, either in regard of it selfe, because it is truly ancient; or in respect of the mo­derne Church of Rome, as it is more ancient in its selfe. If we speake now of the Church, as it is ancient in it selfe; the Hu­guenots will say, that there is no resemblance betwixt the Ce­remonies of the ancient Church and those of the moderne. But if we speake of that which is more ancient then ours, (from which only our Aduersaries Arguments are drawne) they will say, that (besides all this, that the most part of our [Page 24] Ceremonies are different) yet at that time also were there too too many in the Church; Epist. 119. 19. in so much as Saint Augustine in his time complained exceedingly of the multitude of them.

Finally, as the ancient Church had some Ceremonies which the Huguenots haue not; so had it likewise others, which the Church of Rome hath not; as Milke and Honey in Baptisme, and the fashion of plunging the Infant thrice to the bottome: which haue beene abrogated (as Saint Thomas saith) to auoid the calumnies of the Sabellians, who for this custome repro­ched the Christians, that they worshipped three Gods. From whence we may collect, how indifferent things these Cere­monies are, so long as they are not abused: and on the other sid [...] how lawfull it is, yea, and how necessary, to take away the vse of them, for preuenting of an inconuenience. So that we may say thus much in the Huguenots behalfe; that they doe, not in this point, swarue so much from the practice of the ancient Church, seeing they doe not condemne those diuers Ceremonies which were 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.

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 [Page 25] Councels: to which, before I make answer, I will pro­pose these 4 Considerations.

The first is this: 1 Consid. Aug. Epist. 112, 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 Scriptu [...]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: 2 Consid. 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, Stapleton Prin­cip. Doctrin. cont. 4. lib. 6. cap. 15. and by consequence are no Heretikes. Stapleton, professor of the [Page 26] 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. Andradius de­fen [...]fid [...] [...] ­dent. Lib. 4. 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, Co [...]cil. Trid. Sess. 3. 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; 3. Cons. 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, [...] Cons. 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: [Page 27] 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 shal [...] 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 of ancient Heretikes, which hath beene heretofore con­demned.

For the first, Transubstanti­ation: 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, [Page 28] 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 th [...]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 con­d [...]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 [Page 29] 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, the [...]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, 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, 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; Councell of Florence. the authority wher­of, the Huguenots may well except against, for that [...] dissents from other Councells. For the Councells of B [...]sil and Con­stance, both which our Aduersary rankes here amongst the ge­nerall [Page 30] 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, Freewill. is that of Free­will; 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 Free­will. 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, Children dy­ing without Baptisme. 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 [Page 31] 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 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: 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 [Page 32] gone astray, into the right way.

2 The second reason, whereby our Aduersarie confutes the Huguenots, i [...]; That the Do­ctrine o [...] the Huguenots is not the same with that of the ancient Here­tikes already condemned. 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, Retractat. lib. 2. cap. 17. 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, Prayer for the dead. 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 [Page 33] 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; tis 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 2 giuing out, Set Fasting daies. 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: Euseb. 5. 16. for Eusebius saith, That it was Montanus the Heretike, who first set downe the Rules for Fa­sting, seeing that before that, these set Fasting daies were not ordained with any intention to bind the Consciences, but for orders sake only. Surely then he was not in the right, who­soeuer found fault with them, seeing there was at first no su­perstition in them. But since that (say the Huguenots) the superstition is come to that height, that the very day, only be­cause it is such, or such a Saints Eue, is esteemed much holyer th [...]n other daies. So then, this order hauing occasioned su­perstition, to auoid this superstition, wee may dispose other­wise of that order.

[Page 34] 3 And now as concerning the difference betweene the Bi­shop and the ordinary Priest; Distinction of Bishops and Priests. 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, Comment in cap. 1. Epist. [...]d Titum. to preserue (as Saint Ierome saith) the vnity of the Church. A Priest (saith he) is the same with a Bishop, but it was afterwards ordained throughout the world that one should be made choice of aboue the rest, for the auoi­ding of Schisme. Howbeit he confesseth that Bishops are su­perior to Priests, by Custome rather, then by diuine Or­dination.

4 The fourth point wherein he saith that the Huguenots doe imitate the ancient Heretikes, Mariage and Virginity. is concerning Mariage and Vir­ginity, which is but a meere calumny: for the Huguenots af­firme not with Iouinian, That mariage is simply equall to vir­ginity; but onely in such a sense as Saint Augustine speakes it, who sayes, that he dares not prefer the virginity of S. Iohn, be­fore the mariage of Abraham. Nor with Vigilantius, that it is vnlawfull to make a Priest, vnlesse he were first maried: but with that holy man Paphnutius, that it is lawfull for a Priest to be maried.

5 Touching the Merits and rewards of the Saints, I cannot tell what he would say: Merits of Saints. for if he meanes by it, That the Saints re­ceiue a recompence of their good workes the Huguenots wil agree to it: but if he meanes it of workes of supererrogation, laid vp (as they say) in the treasury of the Church, and applied by the Popes Indulgences, vnto the soules of other men; the Catholikes will say, that the Church liued in the same igno­rance for the first thousand yeares, that the Huguenots now doe: for it is not long since that for the benefit and aduance­ment [Page 35] of the Pope, God first reuealed this treasure, which had lyen hid so long, and the most gainfull commoditie of In­dulgences also.

Now as for Reliques, I say that euen the same Saint Hierome 6 7 who wrote against Vigilantius for taking exception to the Re­liques of Saints; Worshipping of Saints and their Reliques▪ doth yet in the same booke against Vigilanti­us, allow of the Eues of Saints: howbeit for certaine abuses committed in the night of the said Eues, which they called the Vigils, the Catholikes themselues haue forbidden them: And now fast onely vpon the Eues, although the dayes doe still retaine the names of Eues. So then, we must either grant that the catholikes are condemned by Saint Hierome, as wel as the Huguenots; or else that the abuse of things, causes them to be thought blame worthy at one time, and not at another. So that we must not consider whether the Huguenots agree with Vigilantius, in the taking exception to Reliques; but whether there bee not now more abuse in the worshipping of them, then in Saint Hieromes time. For the Huguenots doe not now simply except against Reliques, insomuch that I haue heard diuers Huguenots say, That if they could bee certaine that they had any ancient monument of our Sauiour, or of his A­postles, they would make very pretious esteeme of them: and farre more, then of any antique medall or other antiquity of the old Romanes. By greater reason then doe they honour their persons, although they doe not inuoke them being dead, for that (say they) themselues forbade it whilest they liued. So that if we will proue the Huguenots to be enemies to the ho­nour of the Apostles, wee must proue out of their writings, That such was their will to be inuocated. Else will the Hugue­nots tell vs, That they haue the Saints in more honour then the Catholikes; in that they haue such a care to obserue their precepts now after their deaths: It being euident, That that child who is most carefull to performe his last will and testa­ment, loues hid deceased father best, then if he should onely keepe his picture by him.

The eight and last opinion of the ancient Heretikes, Election of meats. is, 8 the Election of meats. Whereunto the Huguenots will giue the [Page 36] same answer as to the former obiections: viz. that it was vn­lawfull in those times to find fault with the election of meats, and yet lawfull to condemne it now. The reason is, for that it was then an order onely, without enforcing of the consci­ence to obserue it.

And if any man reply, That they now in the Church doe but the same, and that it is onely the meaner sort of people that account one meat holier then another: and that the bet­ter learned Catholikes hold, that the sin of eating flesh vpon dayes whereon it is forbidden, is onely in regard of the ordi­nance, and not in regard of the nature of the meats: Whence comes it then that Durandus that great defender of the cere­monies of our Church, Durand. l. 6 de aliis ieiuniis. makes vse of this reason, to confirme abstinence from eating of flesh; namely, That fish is a more holy meat: for that in the time of Noahs flood, God cursed the earth, and the creatures that it brought forth, but not the waters.

See here now the ancient heresies reuiued (as he saith) by the Huguenots: but he is in the wrong: for that they ought not to be ranked amongst the Heretikes, vntill such time as we haue made proofe, how that the Church of Rome doth not onely agree with the Primitiue in the same things, but also in the very circumstances of the things: for those things which are of themselues ceremonies, are also of themselues indifferent; and it is the right vse or abuse of them, which makes them lawfull or vnlawfull. So that by consequence it may be at this time lawfull, and at another time vnlawfull, to take exceptions to them; Euen as it was not lawfull to breake the brazen Serpent, [...] whilest it was a Sacrament, but necessa­ry to breake it, when it became an Idoll.

WEE are come at last, thankes bee to God, to the holy Councell of Trent; a Councell whereof our Aduersary had need to make good account, for that the proofes drawne from the former Councells, concerned on­ly two or three questions; and those also, rather probable coniectures, then proofes. But as for the Councell of Trent, that openly confutes all the heresies now maintained by the Huguenots; by reason whereof, our Aduersarie toyles himselfe more in the defence of that, then in any other question whatsoeuer: albeit hee vses not any proofes to confirme it, but answers onely to the obiections of the Catholike Apologie, which I find to bee three in number.

The first is; That the Pope did therein take vpon him 1 the office both of Iudge and Partie: and that himselfe con­uoked the Councell, and sat President in it.

The second is; That those who sought the reformation, 2 could not bee heard in it.

The third: that for as much as the Huguenots are able to 3 alledge diuers nullities, both in the forme, and also in the definitions of the said Councell; wee are not bound to accept of the ordinances thereof without examination of them: For as much as S. Iohn hath commanded vs to try the Spirits.

To the first Obiection: That the Pope was both Iudge and Party, he answers: That the Pope ought not to lose his right of calling Councells, and of being President in them, for that hee had obtained this right 1500 yeares before. The Hugue­nots can easily cut him off 500 yeres of his time. In all which space, the Pope neither once called any general Councell, nor sat President in it. The first of Nice was called by Constan­tine the great. That of Constantinople by Theodosius Senior: That of Ephesus, by Theodosius Iunior: That of Chalcedon, by [Page 38] Marcianus, the Emperour. The same also may bee affir­med of those that sat President in them. In the Councell of Nice was Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spaine, Pre­sident. In the Councell of Ephesus, Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria. And thus much may suffice for so euident a truth.

Secondly, he answers; That it is nothing repugnant to the equity of a great Prince, to bee both Iudge and Partie. In so much as a Soueraigne Prince is perpetually Iudge, vntill hee bee lawfully declared to haue forfeited his principality, al­though the suite bee commenced against himselfe. But I say, that there is still a third, which arbitrates betwixt the Prince and his Subiects, when there is a suit betweene them: And although the Iudge bee the Princes Officer, yet may he pro­nounce sentence against him, En denier re­sort. which himselfe cannot repeal; and there is no Prince, but a Tyrant, that would reuerse that iudgment, as the Pope hath done in disanulling the decrees of the Councels of Basil & Constance, made against himselfe. But admit I should confesse, that a Prince might bee Iudge in his owne cause; yet ought that to be vnderstood in a suit of mean consequence: but when the controuersie be, whether he be a lawfull King or not, we may well assure our selues that he would neuer bee deposed, if hee might bee his owne arbitra­tor: and of this nature is the first Article of the processe against the Pope. The Huguenots deny him to be head of the church; How then I pray shall this Controuersie bee decided, if there be no other Iudge besides himselfe?

Thirdly, hee shewes by examples, that Pope Marcelline, Sixtus the third, Symachus, Leo, Alexander Patriarch of A­lexandria, Cyril, and Leo the first, were Iudges in their owne causes. As for S. Marcelline (saith he) when as hee had offe­red Incense vnto Idols, hee went and accused himselfe in the Councell of Sinuessa, and yet durst no man denounce Sen­tence against him, but all the Bishops cried out with one con­sent: Father, iudge thy selfe with thine own mouth. To which I an­swer: That it is easie to discouer this to be but a forged Coun­cell, which brings in the Emperor Dioclesian, talking with S. [Page 21] Marcelline at Rome, and enticing him to Idolatry; Sigonius de ocei­dentis Imp. l. [...]. whereas Dioclesian was at the same time at Nicomedia, a City of Bithi­nia. Secondly, there is a great deale of difference betweene a plaine case, & a right in question. For S. Marcelline was accu­sed of an act, of which he was most apparantly guilty: So that the Bishops perceiuing that the Pope denied not the fact, and that hee was penitent for it, offered to referre themselues to that sentence which hee would giue against himselfe lust as if a man should say to a Theefe that were taken in the man­ner; Thou seest thy selfe openly guilty, thou knowest like­wise the punishment ordained by the law for such offences, What thinkest thou that thou hast deserued? Speake a Gods name and bee thine owne Iudge: surely this would bee very acceptable to all malefactors, to conclude thereupon, that they should haue no other Iudges goe vpon them but them­selues. His second example is of Sixtus the third, who being (saith hee) accused of adultery, would haue a Synode called by th'Emperours authority. But they would not, nor indeed, durst they (saith hee) meddle with his Cause before all the Bishops were met, and that they vnderstood the Popes pleasure, whether hee were willing to haue them so de­cide his businesse, or not. I answer; that this was but a singu­lar fauour shewne him by the Emperour Valentinian, by reason of his innocency: For the Pope himselfe was willing that other men should haue beene Iudges in his businesse: But it followes not hereupon, that euery Pope in euery cause ought to clayme the same priuiledge; but the con­trary rather: viz. That Pope Sixtus the fift, who would not suffer himselfe to bee indged by any other man, ought to haue beene so, because Sixtus the third, who would haue been so was not. What necessity is there in censuring him, whose innocency is cleare; and as it was a token of in­nocency in the one to submit himselfe vnto censure, so to re­fuse all mens verdicts, but his own, is an euidence▪ that hee findes himself guilty. But I demand now, whether that singu­lar priuiledge granted vnto Sixtus, must thenceforth be taken for a leading cause or not? If he answers no, then is this instance [Page 40] nothing to his purpose: if yea, The Catholikes will oppose it; for Bellarmine confesseth, Tom. 1. Cont. 4. that in case of heynous crymes, a Councell may be called to sit vpon the Pope: Lib. 4. Cap. 9. But the thinks not peraduenture that Sixtus was accused of any heinous crime: which (as I thinke) is the reason that hee names not his fault, because he barely intimates, that he was accused of Adultery; whereas indeed, hee was accused for defiling of a Nunne; which wee, good Catholikes, style not Adultery, but Incest; by reason of the spirituall consanguinity which is be­twixt a Priest and a Nunne.

His third example is of Symachus, whose consent (saith hee) was required euen for the calling of that Councell, wher­in himselfe was accused. The Huguenots will desire no more at the Popes hands, then to doe as Symachus did; for, albeit his consent went to the calling of the Councell; yet when it was called, hee tooke not vpon him the part of a Iudge in it, but with all humblenesse purged himselfe before the Councel of those crimes which hee was charged withall.

The fourth example is of Leo the third, of which passage the troath is this: The Romans bearing a spleene to Leo, for that Charlemaigne the Emperour had inforced them to sweare alleageance to him; out of meere malice laid many slanders vpon him; But Charlemaigne appearing at Rome, they, for feare of him, durst not stand to it to prosecute their proofes against him, but at the very first canuasse they all cryed out; That the Apostolike Sea could not bee iudged by any man. Which clamour testifies nothing else, then, That is the nature of the vulgar, to fall from one extreame to another. And therefore they hauing slandered the Pope before out of malice, they afterwards thought to curry fauour againe, by flattering him for feare. But let vs heare what followes: Did not Arrius (saith hee) heretofore dispute the case in a matter of faith with Alexander? Notwithstanding was this Alexander iudge in the Councell of Nice. Was not Cyril President in the Coun­cell of Ephesus, notwithstanding hee was one of the parties? And who but Leo sat President at the Counsell of Chalcedon, notwithstanding that all the difference then was betwixt him [Page 41] and Dioscorus? I answer: That the controuersies which then were betwixt Alexander, Cyril, Leo, and the foresaid Here­tiques, concerned them no more, then it did the rest of the Bishops of the Church: whereas that of the Pope is a priuate quarrell, wherein the dignitie of his person is questioned. A­gaine, Cyril was not President of the Councell, so as that hee could allow or anull the Decrees as hee thought good; but sate only first in order, hauing otherwise but his single voyce; whereas the Pope now a dayes hath his negatiue voice to dis­anull a whole Councell though generall: yea, and to make his Decretalls vpon what hee lists, without a Councell. As for Alexander, he sate neither as Iudge nor President, but on­ly as a priuate Bishop amongst the rest. To conclude, Leo came not at all to the Councell of Chalcedon, and Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople sate President in it.

His concluding reason why the Pope may bee Iudge, is; because (as hee saith) hee is not Iudge alone, but hath diuers Assistants. I answer: That in the latter Councells hee hath beene sole Iudge; and that the rest of the Bishops haue not beene so much his Assistants, as his Vassalls. For, whatsoeuer the Councell decrees, is voyde, without the confirmation of the Pope bee to it, (witnesse his abrogation of the Councells of Frankford, Basil, and Constance.) Contrariwise, whensoe­uer the Pope makes a Decree without a Councell, it is of as much vertue as the definitions of the most holy Councell, that euer was or can bee. For the Popes Aduocates maintaine, that hee cannot erre in a matter of faith, though hee should giue iudgement without a Councell: and that a Councell may erre, if not confirmed by him. To what purpose then, serue the other Bishops ioined with him as companions, when as he may doe all without them, and they nothing without him?

The second Obiection of the Catholike Apologie, Obiect. 2. viz. That the Huguenots had not fayre audience: is first (saith he) confuted by that very booke which the Protestants set forth, intituled, Causacur Electores: For they confesse in that booke that they were summoned to the Councell. And wee may read moreouer of many ample safe Conducts, whereby full li­berty [Page 42] was giuen to the Protestants, to come to the Councell. And this briefly is his answer; to which I reply:

First, that the booke which hee mentions, deliuers no rea­son why they came not to the Councell, but why they iudg­ed, that the forme of proceeding in that Councell was like to bee such, as that their comming thither would haue beene to no purpose. But to what end answers hee, that they were summoned? The Apologie affirmes not, that they were not called, but that they were not heard. For it is not enough for a Iudge to call both the parties before him, if hee suffers but one of them to speake: and iust thus fell it out at that Coun­cell of Trent; for Brentius, and other Diuines of Sweuia were sent thither by the Duke of Wittenberge, but might not be suf­fered to dispute when they came there▪ Melancthon also, and o­ther Ministers of Saxony, were vpon the way, but turned back againe, hauing receiued intelligence from Mauritius, the Ele­ctors Ambassador there, that they could not be heard.

Secondly, I reply; that admit that they had beene suffered to dispute, and had been heard, yet were the Conditions altoge­ther vnequal, for they requiring to haue a deciding voice, with the rest of the Councel, according to the form of the safe Con­duct graunted to the Bohemians by the Councell of Basil. But the Tridentine Fathers would none of that; refusing to admit of any to haue decisiue voices, but only the Catholike Diuines.

Thirdly, the Huguenots had good cause to suspect the safe conduct; for Iohn Hus had also a safe conduct from the Em­perour Sigismund, to come to the Councell of Constance; and yet comming thither, was there burnt.

To the third Obiection, Obiect. 3. viz: That the Apostle commands vs to trie the Spirits whether they be of God, or no; he answers: That the Apostle there speakes not of such things as be alrea­dy certaine, and defined in the Church: but of matters rather vp-start & ambiguous, as are those of our trecherous Aduersa­ries. Soft and faire, not too fast; there is no man affirms, that we must try a thing that is certaine; but that we are not to settle our beleef vpon it, without proofs that it is certain. For a thing may be certaine in it selfe; neuerthelesse, if it does not appeare [Page 43] to be certaine vnto vs, we may well make triall of it, for that without trying, we cannot vnderstand the certaintie. But it is (saith he) lawfull to try the Huguenots opinions, because they be new and ambiguous. If then it be lawfull to try the new, tis also lawfull (say I) to try the old; for two opposite Opinions are Relatiues; so that we cannot make demonstration that the new are false, but we must proue withall, that the old are true. And as for the ambiguitie of the Hugnenots doctrine; if it be ambiguous, then is it not certainly false; and if their doctrine be not certainly false, then is not the Catholikes cer­tainly true: and consequently, euen by the iudgement of our Aduersarie himselfe, it is lawfull to trie it. But let vs now ex­amine his reasons vpon which he concludes, that it is not law­full to try the Spirits of the Councell.

First (saith he) if we ought to try them all, then were it lawfull to try the Spirits of the Councell of Nice, Constanti­nople, Ephesus, & Chalcedon: Whereupon it must follow, that we ought to discusse againe the wicked heresies of Arrius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutiches, and examine againe the sacred Scriptures themselues, the Oracles of the Prophets, the History of Moses, and finally the holy Gospell. At length he concludes, That if things which be determined by the holy Councels, ought to be held for certaine, there is no reason to suffer the Decrees of the Councell of Trent, to be called againe into question. I answer: That we ought to hold the Decrees of the former Councels for most certaine; and yet is it lawfull neuerthelesse, to make question of the determinations of the Councell of Trent: to which purpose diuers reasons might be alledged; how be it, this one may suffice for the present: For that in euery Councell, we ought to deliberate and mea­sure things, before we iudge; and after this, the iudgement of a Councell which hath duly examined and iudged, (accor­ding to the right measure) ought not to be called againe in question. But to know now, whether a man hath truly mea­sured, we must take consideration of the size and manner of measuring by it. Now will the Huguenots say, that the Rule which the Conncell of Nice did measure by, was only the [Page 44] Scripture, or the written Word, as the words of Constantine doe testifie: Theod. l. 10. c. 70. which be these. ‘ All seditious contention set a­side, let vs discusse the things in controuersie by the testimonie of the Scriptures diuinely inspired.’ The manner of measuring then was, to apply the Doctrine to the said Rule or Scripture, and accordingly to receiue or reiect it, as it was conformable or varying, to or from the said Rule. But now hath the Coun­cell of Trent (will 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; 2. Reason. 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 [Page 45] he held it vnlawfull to try the Spirit of the said Councell.

Thirdly he argueth; 3. Reason. 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, 4. Reason. for which he takes away the libertie of trying their doctrine, from the people, is quoted out of the 17. Chapter of Deuteronomie, where it is commanded, That men should enquire of the Priests and Leuie [...]s, and the Iudge appointed for the time in cases of difficultie. And Moses (saith our Aduersarie) addeth not, Try the Spirits of the Priests and Iudges; But if any grow proud, and will not obey the com­mand of the Priests, that man shall die, by the sentence of the Iud­ges. Nor is this much different from that which our Lord saith in the Gospell of Saint Mathew, The Scribes and Phari­sees sit in Moses chaire, whatsoeuer therefore they say vnto you, that obserue and doe. As for Moses Commandement, it was giuen vnto the Iewes; Rab. Sal. [...]archi in Deute onom. whereupon Rabbi Salomon Iarchi concludes, That we are to beleeue whatsoeuer the Iewish Priests say. Since [Page 46] 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, 5. Reason. 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, Mat. 17. 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 [Page 47] 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 meanes. So that albeit wee are not to examine the Decrees of that Councell, which hath vsed these meanes; yet may wee en­quire whether it hath applied these meanes or no; for that we cannot be otherwise assured that Gods Spirit did assist it. The Huguenots I know well, will require another manner of tryall; not onely of the course in the proceedings, but of the Articles also concluded vpon. But that the Hugenots may not haue a twofold aduantage against vs, we should doe well to shew them: first, That the Councell of Trent hath obser­ued these lawfull courses; and then shall wee haue but one thing to doe; which is, To make good the Articles; which are so difficult to be proued, that it would be wisely done of vs, to put it off as long as we can, and first to decide all other differences.

EVen as the Kings of France ought to haue no one thing in greater recommenda­tion, then to be the inheritors of the ver­tues of their predecessors; so should they not likewise bee more carefull of any thing, then to eschew such occasions as might soile the reputation of this vertue, and bewray them to haue cooled in the zeale and piety of [Page 48] their Ancestors: who (as all know) haue euer beene accoun­ted the eldest sonnes of the Church, and the maine vphol­ders of the Sea Apostolique: and for that one reason of this their zeale, haue receiued more priuiledges and honors, then any other Prince of Christendome whatsoeuer. Now then, seeing that the Councell of Trent hath established so many decrees, so directly opposing the former priuiledges and ho­nors; what hath it done more by so doing, then to proclaime to the world, That the Kings at this day haue lesse zeale then their Ancestors had, and are therefore vnworthy to enioy those honors bestowed vpon them. So that the reason why our later Kings haue reiected the said Councell, may bee, for that they could not well approue of that, without reprouing of themselues; nor publish it, without publishing also vnto the world, a shamefull confession of their owne demerits. But to come to the point; I purpose onely to buckle to the obiecti­ons of the Catholike Apology, which our Aduersary offers to confute; and those be three.

1 That the Kings of France haue euer refused that Councel.

2 That it hath called in question the precedency and prio­rity of place, which was due vnto our Kings, in all assemblies.

3 That there be diuers things decreed in the said Coun­cell, flatly against the liberties of the French Church, and the Maiesty of the King.

As for the first point; 1 Obiection. namely, that it hath neuer beene re­ceiued by our Kings: he answers to it in generall; That this obiection touches not so much the Councell, as it reproacheth the Kings of France. For what else can this meane (saith he) then to perswade all men, that our Kings haue beene Schismatikes, and disobedient to the Vniuersall Church. I answer, That it is no newes to haue the Kings of France oppose themselues against the Councels of the Church of Rome: seeing that not the Councell of Trent alone, hath beene refused by King Henry the second, and all his Sonnes who reigned after him; but euen the generall Councell of Vienna also, was neuer wholly receiued in France. And euen as King Henry the second, for­bade his Bishops to be present at the Councell of Trent, so [Page 49] would not King Charles the seuenth suffer his to bee present at that of Basil: and yet was not he any whit the more a Schis­matike (as our Aduersary concludes) nor disobedient to the Church vniuersall. But let vs see now, how hee demonstrates the Councell of Trent to haue beene receiued by our Kings: There be certaine Letters (saith he) of Charles the ninth yet to be seene, 1 Reason. in which he honoureth and reuerenceth that Councell: and in the very same page, to answer that obiection of K. Henrie the seconds forbidding his Bishops to repaire vnto that Councell, he hauing nothing else to say; then That it is not so necessary to looke so narrowly into what King Henry did at the beginning; for, that the admitting or receiuing of a Councell, ought not to be taken from the beginning but from the ending of it. According to which rule I also answer, That the Letters sent by Charles the ninth, before the Councel broke vp, do not proue his approbation of the Councell, because he refused to receiue it, when it was fully ended. For if the reiecting of it by King Henry the se­cond before the end of it, does not proue that hee did finally reiect it; no more doth that honor which Charles the ninth did it, before it broke vp, proue that he did receiue it.

Secondly, 2 Reason. The King (saith he) shewed the reason why the Bishops of France came no sooner to the Councell; which is one of the most pleasant Arguments that yet I euer heard. For if this be a sufficient reason to proue that the King did receiue the Councell, because he gaue a reason for the absence of his Bishops; then haue the Protestant Princes of Germany also receiued it, because they publisht a whole booke of the reasons that moued them to absent themselues from thence.

Thirdly, 3 Reason. The King (sayes he) sent his Orator and Ambassa­dor the Sieur de Lansack, Knight of his owne Order, thither; who in his Maiesties name was at the Councell; with whom he ioy­ned in commission Reginald Ferrier President of the Parliament, and Guy de Faur, Iudge Maior of Tholouse. A goodly proofe, The King approued of the Councell, because hee sent his Ambassador thither. As though the Electors of Germany of the confession of Ausburgh, sent not their Ambassadors thi­ther [Page 50] also? Where then lies the force of his Argument, is it in this, that Monseur de Lansacke was a Knight of the Order, or in this, That he was accompanied by Monseur du Ferrier & de Pibrac: For no other sense can I collect out of his words, nor any other proofe for the receiuing of the Councell; nor is there indeed any other. For the King sent not his Ambas­sadors to the Councell, to confirme it; but to admonish it, to reforme the abuses of the Church; giuing expresse charge vnto his Ambassadors, that they should sollicite the Fathers, not to decree any thing against the Huguenots; vntill they themselues had first of all reformed the abuses in the Ecclesi­asticall Polity: And in case that this were not done, then that they should protest against the said Councel: all which appears in the Letters which the King himselfe sent vnto Monseur du Ferrier. See here then the briefe of the Kings Commission, and of Monseur du Ferrier and de Pibrac their Orations in the Councell: They both, and Monseur du Ferrier especially, often in the Kings name requiring the reformation of the a­buses of the Church. Which admonitions for that the Coun­cell did reiect, they according to their Kings command, re­iected the Councell, and refused to 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, The massacre Anno Dom. 1572 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: 4 Reason. 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 [Page 51] 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, 2. 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 [Page 52] 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.

[Page 53]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 [Page 54] 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 [Page 55] 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 [Page 56] 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 King, the Bishops, the Clergie, and likewise of all the people of France. Admit it were so; yet for all this does it not follow, that it is receiued in France, vn­lesse hee can shew withall, that all the Estates doe receiue it: that is, The Church, the Nobility, and the People: But hee makes no mention of the Nobility, but onely of the Church, and the third Estate, so that at the most it is receiued but of two of the three Estates: which may be the cause that our Ad­uersary, to keep vp the number diuides the Church into two parts, viz. Bishops, and Clergie: The Councell (saith hee) is receiued of the Bishops, the Clergie, and likewise of all the people of France. Which is a new diuision of the Estates, neuer, as I [Page 57] perswade my selfe, heard of before. Iudge then what iust oc­casion the Nobilitie of France now haue to reiect this Coun­cell, when as those who would haue the Councell receiued, doe reiect the Nobility.

THis Chapter at the first blush, seemes to treat of the same Argument that the first does; for hauing there proued it, That the Huguenots are of the same religion with vs Catholikes, it may follow also, that they bee of the same Church too: And yet to my thinking, these two Chap­ters may very well bee parted; not so much in regard of the difference of the nature of the subiect, as of the humours of the persons. For commonly, when a Huguenot would draw a Catholike to his opinion, he begins euermore with the par­ticular Controuersies; and so, vpon the purity of his doctrine, hee inferres the verity of his Church.

A Catholike, on the other side, when hee would winne a Huguenot, beginnes still with the Church, and so by the ve­rity of the Church, concludes the purity of his doctrine: and commonly, when either of them gets the other out of this tracke, they are to seeke; which is one of the reasons that they cannot satisfie the aduerse partie. For he that would perswade another, must not begin with that principle which to him seemes best, (though indeed it be so) but with that which seemes best in his opinion whom hee desires to perswade; o­therwise, hee shall but lose his labour.

For, when a Huguenot shall haue vrged a thousand passa­ges of holy Scripture, to proue the truth of his owne particu­lar assertion, hee shall not bee a whit the nearer; and why? For that a Catholike will say instantly with himselfe; What though I cannot answer him, yet another may: and if I am to [Page 58] beleeue nothing which I am not able to maintaine by dispu­tation, then should I not beleeue the proceeding of the holy Ghost, the vnion of both Natures in Iesus Christ, the mysteries of the holy Trinity: all which I haue beleeued, without being able to maintain them, or so much as vnderstand them. And euen so, the authority of the same Church which makes mee be­leeue these mysteries, without being able to maintaine them, makes me also to beleeue the holy sacrament of the Altar, Pur­gatory, &c. without being able to maintaine them. So that if a Hugu: proceeds no further, & does not shew a reason how a man may be assured of these mysteries without the Churches authority; or else (which I hold more reasonable) why wee ought wholly to relye vpon the authority of the Church in one point, and not in another; hee shall neuer say ought to the purpose. Nor can the Catholikes haue any happier success in their perswasiues; for when they talke to the Huguenots of the Church; how the Church saies this, and the Church saies that, and the Church cannot erre: They who are not brought vp to such kinde of phrases; and who found their faith vpon this perswasion, That the Scripture is cleere on their sides; What care wee (will they say) what the Church saith, so long as wee agree in opinion with the word of God. So that a Catholike shall neuer bee able to perswade them to any thing, if hee beginnes not at their foundation, and proue, that the Scripture makes not so clearely for them, as they imagine it does: and then when they once perceiue, that they cannot confute the Catholikes by Scripture, they will bee compelld to confesse; That a man can haue no assurance of his faith, without submitting his own iudgment to the iudgment of the Church: which (as wee say) according to Christs owne promise, is infallibly accompanied with the holy Spirit. For mine own part, although it bee not my intention to en­tice any man, either to one Religion or the other, but to qualifie onely the passions of men: yet for feare that I should commit the same errour in this Treatise of Pacification, which they often doe in the course of their perswasiues, I thoght good to subioine this Chapter also; to the end that my [Page 59] reasons might be drawne from the principles of both Religi­ons. And thus hauing proued in the first Chapter, by exami­nation of the particular questions, according to the Huguenots method, That they be no Heretikes; I was also desirous to adde this Chapter, that according to the Catholikes manner of proceeding (that is as much to say, as according to the Na­ture of the Church) I might also proue them (the Hugue­nots) to be no Heretikes. For, it were but labour lost, to tell many of our Catholikes, that the Huguenots hold many of the fundamentall points of faith as well as we, seeing they take not the skantling of an heretike by his opinions, but only by this marke, That he is out of the Church, vnderstanding there­by no other Church, then that which we call Catholike, Apo­stolike, and Romane: excluding all those out of the Church, to whom these three titles may not be giuen, what opinion soe­uer they be of. For which reason I resolued to proue, that these three titles doe belong vnto the Huguenots.

And first touching the title of Catholike; Catholike. the Church is 1 called Catholike in three respects. First, in regard of it selfe. 2. In regard of the Iewes. 3. In regard of Heretikes.

Now the Church is called Catholike in regard of it selfe, 1 because in the vniuersalitie thereof, How the Church is cal­led Catholike in respect of it selfe. it comprehends all times, and all places, viz: the whole number of the Elect, as well those who haue beene since the beginning of the world, and are now departed and triumphant in heauen, enioying euer­lasting blisse; as those that are ordained to the like blessednesse whether now aliue, or to be borne hereafter. Which defini­tion is founded vpon the Scriptures; for S. Pauls words are; The Church of the first-borne, Heb. 12. 23. which are written in Heauen: and who are written in heauen, but the Elect? from whom the re­probates are in this specialty distinguished, Reuel. 13. 18. That their names are not written in the Booke of the Lambe. The Church then consists of the Elect, who are not restrained to any place or time, For Iesus Christ hath redeemed with his bloud (saith Saint Iohn) Out of euery kinred, Reuel. 5. 9. and tongue, and people, and nation. With which definition the Fathers iointly consent; August. de Ca­techizandis Ru­dibus, cap. 12. All they (saith Saint Augustine) which are holy and sanctified, [Page 60] which are, haue beene, and shall be, are Citizens of the heauenly Ierusalem: Greg. Mor. in Iob. lib. 28. cap. 9. And S. Gregory the Pope (that my proofe may be the more authenticall) saith, That all the Elect are embraced in the bosome of the Church, and all the Reprobates are without. And yet was poore Iohn Husse burnt for an Heretike, for affirming the very same.

O wicked Catholikes, that haue made a man to be burnt for an Heretike, for affirming no more, then what a Saint had done, and (which is more) then a Pope had said before him. So then in this signification, neither the Church of Rome, nor that which themselues call the Reformed Church, can pro­perly be called the Catholike Church, but only parts of it. Nay, we cannot truly affirme, that they be parts of the Catho­like Church; but that God hath both in the Romane Church, and in the Reformed, some that be members of the Catho­like Church. Which is as much to say, as that diuers shall be saued in both Churches. Like as there were many amongst the Iewes at the comming of Iesus Christ, and at this day be in the Greeke Church, and in Prester Iohns Country, which doe embrace the Christian faith, without acknowledging the Pope. So that if we appropriate the title of Catholike to the Romane Church only taking it in this signification; it must needs so low, that either all the Catholikes are elected (though the Catholikes themselues write that diuers Popes haue beene damned) or else, that no Iew was euer saued before Christs comming, and that God hath not had his Church at all times: or that no Greeke nor Affrican can be saued in our time; and then God should not haue his Church in all places. Againe, if we attribute not this title of Catholike only to the Church of Rome, I can see no reason why the reformed Church should be more excluded then the rest. To be briefe, when we passe our censure vpon any man, whether he be of the Catholike Church, or not; we must speake either according to Faith, or according to Charitie. If according to Faith, we cannot say, that such or such a man is a Catholike, because it is God that knoweth who are his, 2 Tim. 2. 19. saith S. Paul: But if wee passe our iudg­ment according to charity, this will haue vs esteeme all those [Page 61] to bee of the true Catholike Church, which bee of the visible; of which I will next speake, and shew how it may bee termed Catholike.

2 The Church, as I haue proued already, comprehends 2 all the Elect, those as well that be already in heauen, How the Church is cal­led Catholike, in respect of the Iewes. as those that are yet on earth, and remaine mingled among the wic­ked; which last, though generally more in number, yet the Elect beare the name of the better part. So that both good and bad, which make an outward profession of the true faith, are reputed members of the true Church. According to the Parable of the net, Mat. 13. which held the bad fishes as well as the good. This Church was separated from the rest of the Gentiles, with a partition wall (as it were) and before the comming of Christ pend vp in one country, and restrained to the Family of Israel: But since Christs comming, Ephes. 2. 14. This partition wall is (as S. Paul saith) broken downe; so that neither Iew nor Greeke are excluded. And by reason of this difference, that the Iewes in those dayes had onely this priuiledge, and that now no one particular country hath it more then another, the Church is called Catholike: that is to say, Spread all the world ouer. And for that shee is so vniuersall, shee is diuided into particular Churches: As in Saint Pauls time, into the Church of Ephe­sus, of Rome, of Galatia, of Corinth, &c. and no one of these Churches hauing any priuiledge more then another, they were all together called The Church Catholike: not that it is alwayes euery-where, but for that no country is excluded, and no place priuiledged. So then, no place being excluded, there may be other Churches besides that of Rome; and no place being priuiledged, euen Rome it selfe may be cut off from the Church.

3 Thirdly, the Church is called Catholike, in respect of 3 the Donatists, How the Church is cal­led Catholike, in regard of Heretikes. who denied the Church to bee dispersed all ouer the world; but held it to be coopt vp in Affrica: where­vpon it came to passe, that those Churches which held the contrary, were called the Catholike Churches. Euen as at this day, these Churches that hold, the Church to haue need of reformation, are called The Reformed Churches: Which is [Page 62] the reason why the more ancient Fathers neuer vsed this terme Catholike, to distinguish the pure Churches from the hereticall; but called them Orthodoxall. But in processe of time, by reason that the Orthodoxe Churches held, that the Church was Catholike or Vniuersall; these two words Ca­tholike and Orthodoxall, were taken in one and the same signi­fication: so that at last, this title of Catholike, was not onely giuen to the Church, to distinguish the Orthodox from the Donatists, but also from all other Heretikes. For a Catholike in proper speech is not opposite to all sorts of Heretikes, but to the Iewes onely and the Donatists. But for as much as custome is the matter of words (as we see in this word Tyrant, anciently taken in good part for a King, and now onely for a bad King) this word Catholike is taken contrary to his nature, in the signification of a pure Church; in such a sense as that a particular Church may be called a Catholike Church, and more or lesse Catholike, proportionably as it is more or lesse pure. So that the question betweene the Catholikes and the Huguenots, lies not in this point, viz. Which of the Chur­ches is the Church Catholike; but whether of them is most Catholike, and which most corrupted: for in some degree both of them may be Catholike, so long as they hold the substance of faith, (as I shewed in the first Chapter) and both of them in some sort may be corrupt: it being a thing most certaine, That euery visible Church may haue errors, more or lesse. Bernard▪ in Can­tica, Sermone. 38 The Church (saith Saint Bernard) as long as shee is in the tabernacle of this body, hath not attained vnto the perfection of beauty, and is not therefore absolutely faire: For it is the priui­ledge of the Church Triumphant onely to be faire, and as S. Paul saith, without spot or wrinckle. Ephes. 5. True it is indeed that the Church is sometime called faire, but this is euer comparatiue­ly: Cant. 1. wherefore the Bridegroome in the Canticles saith of his Spouse (which is the Church) that shee is the fairest of wo­men: that is, not simply faire (saith S. Bernard) but the fairest among women. And for that selfe same reason, is she in one and the same verse, styled both blacke and faire. I am blacke (saith the Spouse) but I am comely.

[Page 63]I am not ignorant how that the Ancients also did vse this word Catholike, for a distinction from an Heretike, in ano­ther signification; which in truth was according to the pro­per interpretation of the word, taking Catholike or Vniuer­sall, for a marke of the true Church. For which reason in the ancient Church, when as the whole visible Church yet re­tained the faith receiued from the Apostles, and that some part of it became corrupted; for the exact discerning vnto whether side we ought to leane, Vincentius Lyrinensis Vincent. Lyr. l. aduers. haereses. gaue this Rule: What else should we doe (saith he) but prefer the safety of the body, before a rotten member. And therefore, for that the body of the Church was at that time sound, all the Church was called Catholike, for so much this word Body, as well as that word Catholike, implies an vniuersality; so that the di­stinction of Catholike and Heretike, serues but to distinguish the sound body, from a corrupted member. But so soone as the body it selfe became corrupted, then this rule and distin­ction failed. For which reason Vincentius makes a difference betweene a Catholike in place, and a Catholike in time. And euer when a Catholike in place is not a sure marke, he hath recourse vnto a Catholike in time. But (saith he) if any new infection goes on, Eodem lib. adu. haeres. not onely to corrupt a part, but the whole Church, then must we cleaue to antiquity. So that the difference between the Catholikes and the Huguenots, lying in this point, Whe­ther the body of the Church be corrupted or no? wee must not speake of the Church which is Catholike according to place, but according to time. And that Church is Catholike (saith Vincentius) which holds that religion which hath beene euer hitherto embraced. And to discerne which Religion hath beene alwayes embraced, when as the body of the Church, or the visible Church (as saith the same Vincentius) is corrupted; we must still haue recourse vnto Antiquity, and say with Tertullian, Illudverum, quod primum: Tertul. lib, de praescript▪ adu, haeres. ‘ That is truest which is ancientest. So as that is the Catholike Church, which a­grees in faith with the more Primitiue Church.’ So that if wee would discusse it, whether the Catholikes or the Huguenots be most properly the right Catholikes; wee must consider [Page 64] first, whether of them best holds of the faith of the Apostles: and next, of that of the ancient Doctors and Councels of the Church.

As for the Title Apostolike; The Church may bee called Apostolike, as well in regard of the Writings, as of the Prea­ching of the Apostles. As for their Writings, those Churches which imbrace the doctrine deliuered in them, are intituled Apostolike; yea, and more or lesse Apostolike, as they do more or lesse agree, or disagree, to or from the said doctrine. So that the word Apostolike is all one with the word Orthodox, or with Catholike, taken in the last signification. And if the Church of the Huguenots may bee intituled Catholike, or Or­thodox, they may also by the same reason be called Apostolike: nay, and more properly Apostolike then Catholike. For the visible Church, being (as I haue shewed) not absolutely, but comparatiuely, more or lesse Catholike or Apostolike: the Hu­guenots, though they may offend in default, and so be lesse Ca­tholike rather; yet in this, they offend rather in the excesse, and are too Apostolike: as being so strict, that they will readily be­leeue nothing, but what the Apostles haue written.

2 Secondly, those Churches were called Apostolike, which were instructed by the liuely voice of the Apostles, Apostolike. and where the Apostles haue had their seats, as Ierusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Alexandria, &c. where the Apostles Peter, Iames, Iohn, and Marke the Euangelist, sate; and are therefore from all Antiquity styled Apostolicall Seaes, as well as Rome: how­beit that this signification is rather an ornament then a mark, of a pure Church. For Antioch, Alexandria, and other Chur­ches of Greece, where the Apostles preached; haue either al­together forsaken the name of Christ, or are at the least (ac­cording to the Catholikes Tenet) quite cut off for Schisme and Heresie, from the communion of the true Church: and France, Spaine, Poland, Germany, England, and Denmarke, where the Apostles neuer had any Bishopricks, haue sithence beene the true Churches. So that in this signification a Church may bee pure, and yet not bee Apostolike; and a Church which is Apostolike, may be impure.

[Page 65]The last title, though first in estimation with the Catholiques, How the Hu­guenots may be said to be of the Roman Church. is 3 that of Roman; which I haue obserued to haue beene taken in three seuerall sorts. First, the Roman Church is only taken for the Dio­cesse of Rome, and was in the beginning, for the Citie of Rome alone. As in S. Pauls time, who inscribed an Epistle seuerally to Rome alone, as he did likewise to those Churches of Corinth, Ephe­sus, Galatia, &c. For had the Church of Rome beene euery where at that time spread abroad, he had not needed to haue written to other Churches seuerally, because that in writing to that of Rome, he had then written to them all: And yet would our people needs make vse of this Epistle, to proue by it, The Roman church to be the catho­lique Church, because that in it, Rom. 1. 8. S. Paul saies, Your faith is spread abroad in all the world: as if S. Paul had not said the same to the Church of Thessalonica, 1 Thess. 1. 8. Your faith which you haue to God-ward is spread abroad. But had the Church of Rome beene (as they would haue it) esteemed by S. Paul as all one with the Catholique; with­out all doubt his Epistle to the Romans had beene intituled Catho­lique, as well as those of S. Iohn, S. Peter, S. Iames, and S. Iude, which are therefore stiled Catholique, for that they were written to the Catholique Church. Now taking the Roman Church in this signi­fication, I confes that not the Huguenots Churches alone are separa­ted from the Roman Church, but all other catholique Churches be­sides: so that to this day they in France make a distinction of sun­dry customes of the Roman Church, and of the Church Gallicane.

Secondly, the Church of Rome is taken for the Westerne Church, 2 insomuch that the Roman, Latine, and Occidental Church, doth sig­nifie one and the same thing, to distinguish it from the Greeke and Easterne Church; iust as the Empire of the East, and the Empire of the West, were called the Empires of Rome and of Constantinople, because that these two Cities were the chiefe seats of the Empire: and so by reason of the dignitie of the Citie of Rome, which was the seat of the Emperours that reigned in the West, all this Westerne part, was called the Roman Empire, and all the Westerne Church the Roman Church: that is to say; The Church contained vnder the Roman Empire. So then, if we call it the Roman Church, for distinguishing it from the Greeke and Easterne Churches; then also may the Huguenots Churches be members likewise of the Roman Church, for that they be Westerne, and not Greeke, nor Easterne [Page 66] Churches. If in respect of the Roman Empire, (taking the Roman Empire largely, as it was) they also be vnder the Empire, and by consequence, vnder the Church. But taking the Empire as it now is, then may the Churches of Germanie, some of which haue shak't off the Popes authoritie, be more properly stiled members of the Roman Church, than Rome it selfe; insomuch as Germanie and not Rome, is at this day called the Roman Empire.

Lastly, the Roman Church is vnderstood, for all those, that doe in Faith communicate with the Church of Rome: that is to say, those that be of the Romish Religion. I demand then their meaning, whe­ther they vnderstand by the Romish Religion, those points in which the Huguenots doe agree with vs, or those wherein they disagree from vs, or both the one and the other.

If those points wherein they agree with vs; then they are dire­ctly of the Roman faith. If for the points only wherein they dissent, then are the beleefe in the Trinitie, and all the Articles of the three Creeds, of the Apostles, of Nice, and of Athanasius, wherein they doe agree, no Articles of the Romish Religion.

But if they take the Roman Religion, for all the points of it toge­ther, both for those wherein they doe agree, and all the other too; I demand once againe, whether so exact an agreement in all points, be required or not? And if not; then seeing that the points where­upon the Huguenots be agreed with the Catholikes, be for number more, and for importance greater, than those questions are, vpon which they disagree; they may yet neuerthelesse be reputed to be of the Roman Church and Faith: forasmuch as things for the most part take their Denomination from the better part. Euen as we vse to say; those people are of a sanguine cōplexion, 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 [Page 67] 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.

[Page 68]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.