THE CATHOLIC MODERATOR: OR A MODERATE EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE of the PROTESTANTS. Proving against the too rigid CATHOLICS of these times, and against the Arguments especially, of that Book called, The Answer to the Catholic Apology, That we, who are members of the CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC, & ROMAN CHURCH, ought not to condemn the PROTESTANTS for HERETICS, until further proof be made. First written in French by a Catholic Gentleman, and now faithfully translated.  
See the occasion of the name of HUGVENOTS, after the Translators Epistle.  
LONDON, Printed for NATHANIEL BUTTER. 1623.   

THE TRANSLATER TO the Christian Readers.  
AND TO ALL THOSE ESPECIALly, whose hard hap it is, or may be, to be seduced unto Popery: That by the help of this Book, and their own Prayers, they may be delivered from the the Evil, when the Priests and jesuits would Led them into temptation.  
THere is a bold Nation of men (the Tempter's above mentioned I mean) slily of late crept in amongst you (wellmeaning and abused people) whose enticements (as you know too well) still begin with the Church; saying you Protestants are direct Heretics, you have no Church: Are you therefore reconciled to the Church? Meaning all this time the Roman Church. Had they fairly meant the Catholic Church, I know no Caluinist that hath put this Article out of his Creed, I believe in the holy Catholic Church. And to say, I believe: What else implies it, but to believe himself to be of it; else, why his Creed? That therefore you may make one Romanist to answer all the rest; do but turn him, that would seduce you, unto these two first Chapters; and he shall there find, that for those few points of Reformation, both in matter of Doctrine and Ceremony, wherein the Protestants have justly dissented from the Papists; we can be no Heretics. And that their own new Doctors, who boast so much of Antiquity, can no where show our Doctrine to be sufficiently condemned, before the time of that fifth Gospel of the Romanists, the Council of Trent I mean, which ended no more than some 60 years ago; the third Chapter will evidently show them. And how incompetent a judge an Adversary is, and how unlawful a Council that of Trent was, the Instances of the fourth and fifth Chapters will evince it. Lastly, that we Protestants, having ever continued true members of the true, holy, and catholic Church, do not now need any Reconciliation to theirs of Rome, the last Chapter will abundantly demonstrate it. Which six Chapters being written by a Gentleman, who every where professes himself one of theirs, if they would offer to shift off (as they have evasions enough) by saying that what is written in this Book, is but the opinion of one Doctor: Lo then, we have not only the Author's opinions, but the strength of his reasons to urge them withal. All which are so mannerly, so directly, and so succinctly touched upon, and come off so handsomely, as no man (in my opinion) hath yet said better, that purposed to say so little.  
To give you therefore the mind of the Author in a word: Nothing was here written, with any intention to urge us Protestants, any whit to depart from our Right in yielding to a Reconciliation with them; but to persuade them rather, to esteem better of us: and to demonstrate withal, that if they will judge right, they must needs think well. And this is the purpose of the Translator also. To show you therefore to understand all this Book: If the Reader shall sometimes feel, that this Author now and then gives the Protestants a light fillip by the way; he shall observe in the conclusion, that it was to reach his own Romanists, a smarter blow; which is satisfaction enough. And that he gives us any at all, let us but consider, that the Author though he were a moderate man, yet that he was withal a Papist, and it will take away much of the scandal. Lastly, which will give us as much advantage as we can desire from one man, which is to answer them by one of their own; this Gentleman the Author H. C. was too well known here in England to have continued a most zealous Roman Catholic until his dying day, and yet nevertheless are all his Reasons for Moderation, directed to the Papists, as if they should first begin it; and all his conclusions directly for the Protestants, as though we should still hold them. Nay and which is somewhat more; whereas all this is with us of England, common to our Brethren the Protestants of France, yet doth this Book make more for us at home, than it doth for them, for whose sakes it was first written. For though we have with them entertained the points of Reformation; yet have we not so far receded from the more Primitive Roman Church (which he stands for) but that we still retain more of the necessary Ceremonies, Solemnities, and Church Discipline, than they of France have done; witness his second Chapter of Ceremonies; which is still for our advantage.  
As therefore this little Book hath been twice already printed in France, which is an Argument of the Protestants good liking of it there; so hath it four or five several times, both by Divines and Gentlemen of our own Religion, been translated both into Latin and English, which is a demonstrative Reason to me, how much it hath been liked and desired. To save therefore the labour of writing it out, which I still observed, as many desirous to do as could get Copies of it, I have thought fit to let mine be published: desiring all those that light upon it, to be as impartial and charitable, as the Author himself wishes them; which if they be, I hope well that the strictest need not be offended, and the well-minded may reap much benefit by it. Which being my only desire, I shall ever pray for.   

THE FIRST OCCASION how the name of HUGVENOTS, which our Author every where useth, came first to be given to the French PROTESTANTS.  
THere is ever some Salt as well as Gall in malice, and this temper makes it sometimes bitterly witty; as may appear by this name of Huguenots, by which and no other, do the French Papists generally vouchsafe to call the Protestants. It was taken up about the year 1559. which was some four or five years before Mr. calvin's death. Till which time they were called Tourengeaux, of the City of Tours, where the Protestants mostly used: But about that time, there having been a foolish opinion, of a Night-Spirits walking up and down the streets, which they called King Hugon: This fancy made one of the City Gates to be called King Hugons' Gate; and the Protestants being once observed in the night to go thorough that Gate unto their Assemblies and holy Exercises; were hereupon called Huguenots. He that will see more of this Name, and the occasion of it, may find a handsome Discourse of it in Monsieur Pasquiers Recherches, lib. 7. cap. 52. whither I refer you.   

TO ALL THE KING'S FAITHFUL SUBJECTS, and principally to those Catholics, that are desirous of the quiet of the Church and State.  
THERE are now thirty years and more (at several times) since we have had perpetual wars with the Huguenots, as with Rebels and Heretics; though we have perceived of late, that our former opinion was wrongfully conceived against them: and we may be also mistaken in the latter; and that time, which hath made it appear, that they are not Rebels, may discover likewise unto us that they are not Heretics. But howsoever, it were much to be wished in the mean time, that we would entertain a charitable conceit of them, till there be more evidence given in against them.  
The bitter dissension in Religion, hath been the springhead of all our miseries. That was it, which brought them forth at first, and which yet nurseth them: whence it is now come to pass, that those men who are at this present, disturbers of the State, have at the very selfsame time begun to raise tumults in the Realm, and to revive and exasperate the differences which we have in Religion: In such fashion, as that the practices of the principal Leaguers, and the turbulent Sermons of diverse Preachers (for I blame not all) have been (as it were) Hypocrates twins, who went always together, laughed always together; and it may chance, that these also may weep together: and we have seen the experience of it, that the tongues of the one have done more mischief than the swords of the other.  
See the cause then, why in the beginning of these late troubles, the Catholic Apology hath laboured to qualify this heat, and to confute the slanders given out against the Reformed Religion, and those of it. Which Apology hath been in part refuted, but so coldly, that no proofs which the Confuter produceth, could make me see any reason, why we should so peremptorily condemn the Huguenots for Heretics, although differing from us, about the explication of some points of Religion. Upon which I was induced a year since & more, to answer the Reason's aforesaid. But finding the Arguments to be of great weight, I judged it fitter to write a just Treatise thereof by itself, than to answer the objections huddled up together by another man: which hath caused me also both to suppress that which I had written already, and to defer that which I purposed to write. And longer I suppose I had deferred it, if these late Tragedies acted in the murders of our two last Kings, 
Henry 3.  had not put me in the conceit of it, 
Henry 4.  how that these horrid Acts sprung from the selfsame fountain, and that only upon this ground too, namely, That the Errors of the Huguenots are so exceedingly enormous; they found their Maxims, by which they persuade themselves; That a man may take any course lawful or unlawful, to destroy them and their favourers.  
Another motive I also had, which induced me to proceed in my purpose of writing. Which was the consideration of the fortunate proceedings of our late King HENRY (whom his enemies made to be called, Great) all the time that he continued Protestant: Then whose troubles we need seek no further example, to show how God both dislikes man's bloody courses, and disposes also of his own proceedings, his own way. For God never produces any extraordinary event, without some extraordinary Design. But how extraordinarily God in the beginning favoured his Majesty, whiles he continued Protestant, none knows so well as his enemies, forasmuch as God made use of their courses, for his advancement. They conceited it, that by embroiling France in Civil wars, to have ruined him; and these wars have increased his honour and power. They, impatient of delays, thought presently by unjustifiable practices, to have urged the late King 
a Henry 3.  to have prosecuted him with more violence, than he had done heretofore; and these plots of theirs, have been both the causes of the utter ruin of his enemies, and of his reconcilement to the King. Briefly, his enemies thrust Arms into his hands for their own destructions: and those devices by which they had thought to have chased him out of Guienne, have brought him into the heart of France; and by the selfsame means whereby they thought to take away his life, they have given him the Kingdom. May we imagine that God had no design, in the bringing about of these purposes? Or what else may we gather out of all this; but that God is angry, when we will not permit him to dispose of his own Church, his own way, but device to prevent him by our own wisdoms? For which respect, I protest before God, that had I been the sorest enemy that the King had had, yet should I think that for no other reason God had so many ways favoured him, than to punish us, who by unjustifiable practices out of an impatient zeal, would have rooted out the Reformed Religion, though erroneous.  
Haply than it may fall out, that if we alter our courses, God will also change his. And as those designs of ours, by which we verily thought to have advanced our Religion have hindered it: So God also may turn the same means which we feared would hinder our Religion, to the advancement of it. In the mean time let us know thus much; That God never blesses those men's courses, which think to anticipate him through impatience. Let us then have patience a while; and when we shall perceive the times of peace to be fittest for our purposes, let us (a God's name) offer the same conditions unto the Huguenots, which they propounded unto us before; which was, to assemble the best learned men in both Religions, to discuss friendly the points in controversy; to the end, that the quiet of the Commonwealth, may go along with that of the Church: which if the Huguenots shall accept of, (as I make no doubt but they will) I persuade myself, that there may be such a course taken in the Conference, that discovery may be made of many things, which have been concealed hitherto from both of us. Not that I imagine any novelty can be found out in Religion, (God forbid that I should ever think so) but that the meaner questions in controversy, being reconciled, the impertinent ones omitted, the greater may be insisted upon, to be cleared by more evident demonstrations.  
Nor can either party (considering the points be already sufficiently discussed) imagine that such a conference would be unprofitable; for although there can hardly be found more solid Arguments, than those wherewith we have served ourselves heretofore; yet is it one thing to prove, and another thing to satisfy: now we must not so much maintain a side, to vanquish; as to win those that are in the wrong. And thus much I dare say, and I will be able to make good against any contradiction; that neither party, have in any conference as yet taken that course, which they ought and might have followed, for the satisfaction of the adverse party, and the clearing of doubts.  
For mine own part, though I be the meanest of a Million, who have embroiled themselves in the disputes of the time, yet dare I undertake to reduce the points in controversy to so short an issue, and to set down such a course for the handling thereof; that more of the truth shall be discovered in this one conference, than in all the other disputes, which have been since Martin Luther first opposed himself against the Pope. For both the issue shall be so drawn, and the means so disposed of; that the persons of neither Religion (keeping themselves to their own proper Maxims) shall be able to reject them. I should be too impudent to give it out, if I were not well assured of my ability for the performance. But I am acquainted well enough with the evasions of either side, I know their fallacies, and I have also the Art to prevent them.  
But the time seems not to be yet so fit, for we must have our spirits quiet, as well as our State; and above all, free from that same preiudication. For if we Catholics come to a Disputation, being confident before hand, that the Huguenots are already condemned for Heretics: And they on the other side, that they understand the Scriptures better than S. Austin, and that all is clear on their side; to what purpose serves such a Conference? The Priests and Ministers may seem as confident as they please, for they are our Teachers; but we should not be so resolute, for we are but Learners. The end which they propose, is the Victory; but the end which we seek for, is the Truth. Which if we have found, why look we further? But if we believe without searching, we may very well be deceived.  
The chief reason then, which induced me to reassume my design of writing in this point of Moderation, was; that our spirits being something pacified, we might be the better prepared to a Conference, and in that Conference make discovery of the Truth; and by discovery of the Truth, establish a Peace in the Church of God. But I suspecting mine own insufficiency, and fearing withal to bestow my labour in vain: and on the other side, being wondrously desirous to see an union in Religion, I chose rather to hazard that pains which I had already taken, in publishing that answer which I had made before, than to lose a new.  
The reason then why I that am a Catholic, do rather blame the rigour of ours against the Huguenots, than theirs against us (both parties being faulty much alike) is; because he that would reform another, must begin at himself.  
The importunity and arrogancy of mine Adversary, urges me sometimes to write not so like a Catholic, which I do not purposely to confute the Catholic Religion: but to show only; That the errors of the Huguenots are not so gross, as our side persuades themselves they are. And knowing also that no one thing hath more suppressed the Truth, than the mean esteem that the one party hath of the others Arguments. Which (God knows) is merely out of ignorance; forsomuch as the deeper learned any man is, the more difficulty he finds in confuting his Adversary. For it is most certain, that Ignorance engenders Vehemency, and Vehemency blinds us from discovering the Truth. For their ignorance that are in the rights, makes those likewise the more vehement that are in the error; and the ignorance of those that are in error, blinds them the more.  
See then the true intent of this my Discourse: wherein though I may perchance have used some Reasons, which in too rigorous a judgement, may be esteemed with the most, in favour of these new opinions; yet is not my intent, with them to seduce any man, or to turn them from the Faith of their forefathers, but only to purge their spirits from preiudication until further proof be made. And if such proof be made (without which I conceive no hope of union in the Church) I adjure thee (beloved Reader, of whether Religion soever thou be'st) to come with a spirit void of this preiudication: Such a spirit I wish to thee, as I protest I myself have; and I pray God to confirm in all of us. Amen.   

The Argument of the Book.  
THe Catholic Apology hath endeavoured to acquit the Huguenots of heresy by two Reasons. The first is, for that the Religion pretended to be Reform, is not heretical of itself, for that the substance of the Catholic Faith is received by the Huguenots, and that the Ceremonies which they have rejected, were unknown to the ancient Church, of which two points, viz. Doctrine and Ceremonies, all Religion is composed. The second is, that their Religion hath not been as yet condemned by any lawful judgement: because that before the Council of Trent, it was not condemned in any General Council, and that the Council of Trent is neither lawful of itself, nor as yet approved of in France. Upon which consideration, albeit that the Huguenots had wandered from the true faith, yet ought we not to proceed against them, as against Heretics, until they have received an arrest of condemnation from a general Council: no more th●n we can in justice put a Malefactor to death, although he be notoriously capable, until he be cast by the jury, and hath had his trial.  
The Author now of the Answer to this Apology, in the second part of his book, from the fifth Chapter to the fifteenth, travails hard to refute the foresaid Reasons: in the fifth Chapter, he only propounds his Method; in the sixth, he would show, that the Religion of the Huguenots is quite another from that of the Catholics; in the seventh, that the Ceremonies of the modern Church of Rome were observed in the Primitive Church; in the eight, that the Doctrine pretended to be Reform, stands condemned by ancient Counsels: in the 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. he defends the Council of Trent; whereof the 11, 12, and 13. are to prove, that that Council is absolutely lawful, and the 9, 10, and 14. that it is received in France: after which method I will also divide my defence into these six Chapters.  
1. In my first, I will prove against the reasons of his sixth Chapter, that the Catholics and Huguenots thus far agree in Doctrine, that they are both of one and the same Faith and Religion.  
2. In my second, against his seventh Chapter, that neither the Catholics, nor the Huguenots, do accord with the Primitive Church in the matter of Ceremonies: and that for this reason the Huguenots are not to be condemned.  
3. In my third, against his eighth, that before the times of the Council of Trent, they stood not publicly and lawfully condemned.  
4. In my fourth, against his 11, 12, and 13. Chapters, that the Council of Trent is not lawful.  
5. In my fifth, against his 9, 10, and 14. Chapter, that it is not received in France.  
6. In my sixth and last I will conclude, that the Huguenots may be good right be still reputed for members of the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church.   

CHAP. 1.  
That the Catholics and Huguenots thus far forth agree in Doctrine, that they are both of the same Faith and Religion.  
IT is most clear, that men of the same Church and Religion, may differ nevertheless about some opinions in Divinity. Austen accords not to Hierome, nor Epiphanius to chrysostom, nor Cyprian to Cornelius, nor Irenaeus to Victor, and questionless one of them was in the error; yet were they all Doctors, approved by the Church, and Saints every one of them. Every error doth not separate a man from the Church, nor should we regard so much the number, as the quality of them. Arrius accorded with the Catholics in all points but one; insomuch as the change of a word, yea of one bare letter, would have compounded the controversy; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and yet was he the greatest Heretic, that ever the Church was troubled with. Origen, on the other side, dissented in infinite Tenants, from the other old Doctors, and was yet nevertheless esteemed a member of the Church.  
To see then, whether the Huguenots be of another Religion than we, neither their errors, nor their numbers is the thing which is so much to be regarded, but the nature of them only is it: That is to say; what Errors are to be reputed for Heresies, and whether theirs be of that nature.  
There be two things which (according to the opinion of the Catholics) make Errors to prove Heresies. The one, when the Error is of itself so enormous, that he is at all times an Heretic that holds it. So that even before the Nicene Council had decided it, Ebion, Paulus Samosetanus, and Arrius stood then as Heretics, for that they denied the eternal Divinity of the Son of God.  
The second thing which (according to our opinion) makes an Error to become an Heresy, is; when any man maintains an opinion in point of Doctrine, contrary to the Decrees of a General Council. So then, the Heresy lies not so much in the mischievousness 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 Heresy in him, because there was not as then any Decree of Council made against it: But since that (say we) this opinion is condemned legally, it were flat Heresy in any other that should hold it. Of this second Species of Heresy, I will entreat in my third Chapter: In this, only of the former: which is; Whether the errors of the Huguenots be in themselves so enormous, that they destroy the very foundation of Faith, and by consequence keep them off, from being of the same Religion with us.  
Let us see then, 
The first Reason. Pag. 20.  how our Antagonist takes upon him to prove the contrary. In the first place (saith he) both parties, as well the Catholics as their Adversaries, repute one another for Heretics. I answer, that I find no impossibility, why they may not be both deceived. For two brothers being in choler, may well renounce one another; and yet they leave not for all that to continue true brothers always. Cyrill and Theodoret accused one another for Heretics, and yet neither of them was so. So that this reason is only drawn from the passion of men, when Reason hath abandoned them.  
But how doth he prove, 
Pag. 21.  that the Catholics repute the Huguenots for Heretics. The Catholic Church (saith he) hath by the Council of Trent, condemned diverse of the Lutheran opinions. I answer (according to my first distinction) that it is one thing to return an opinion for an heresy by condemnation; and another thing to repute it so, of its own nature. Now whether or no the Huguenots be heretics by condemnation, we will argue it hereafter in our third, fourth, and fifth Chapters. But here we dispute only of the nature of their error; wherein his proofs are nothing to his purpose. But (saith he) At Rome every holy Thursday the Pope pronounces them excommunicate, 
Pag. 21.  and prohibits all catholics to read their Books. In like manner, the same day also he excommunicats all sinners; of whom he dares not deny but that many are of the Church; else should he himself be condemned for an heretic by the Council of Constance, which gave sentence against john Huz: That the Church consists as well of the bad, as of the good. And whereas the Huguenots Books be prohibited, so are also the Books of Machiavelli, Aretine, and diverse other Catholics.  
Let us next see the opinion which the Huguenots have of the Catholic Doctrine. 
Pag. 21.  calvin (saith he) writes that the principal points of Doctrine in the Church of Rome, are almost utterly abolished, and the right use of the Sacraments in many fashions corrupted. He needs but little explication; the words themselves answer him. Calvin says not, that the Sacraments are utterly taken away, but the right use of them, many ways corrupted: Nor, that the principal points of Religion are utterly destroyed, but almost abolished. A man may be almost killed, and yet live.  
Secondly, to prove how their Religion differs from ours, 
The second Reason.  he produces the controversies of Original sin, freewill, justification, Merits, and diverse others which he judges of most consequence. It is the greatest pity in the world to hear how the most of the Preachers in both Religions commonly fight with their own shadows, not understanding what it is that their adversary holds; which comes only of the subtleties of words invented by the Devil to disturb the Peace of the Church. One party understanding the word justification 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 soon find, that the most of these disputes wherewith peoples ears are filled, are only the subtleties of the School, upon the Etimologies and Definitions of words only. Whence it came to pass, that in the conference at Regenspurg, the Catholics and the Protestants fell to some agreement in the question of Original sin, of Predestination, freewill, and diverse 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 ever had. Nevertheless the Author of this answer is so ill advised, as to choose out these questions principally, to show the differences between them and us.  
For mine own part, I will not take upon me to reconcile the said questions, neither know I well (to confess mine own ignorance freely) whether it be possible to be done or no: only thus much I assure myself, that the difference is not so great, as it is judged to be. Nor will I too exactly search out the point in controversy, because I well hope some other man may more happily perform it hereafter. Only I will discourse upon the said questions as they are commonly understood by the best Doctors in each Religion. In which sense I affirm (for aught that I have yet seen) that the errors of the Huguenots are not so gross, as that they impeach their being members of the Catholic Church. To clear which point, I will reduce these questions to these four heads. 1. The Scripture. 2. justification. 3. Prayer. 4. The Sacraments.  
Concerning the Scripture, 
Scripture. Pag. 23.  he chargeth the Huguenots only with one error, which is, that they reject the Books of Tebit, judith, the Maccabees, and the rest which they call Apocryphal, notwithstanding that they were approved for Canonical by the Council of Trent.  
To which I answer: That the Huguenots do not altogether reject them, but esteem of them as of holy writings, and full of piety, of greater authority than any other book; only they do not state them in the same rank with the other books, which are found written in the holy tongue. And this it seems to me, 
Tom. 1. Contr. 1. l. cap. 4.  that Bellarmine after a sort accords unto: for that in his division of the Books of the Old Testament, he makes two Classes. In the first he ranks the books received by the Huguenots: And those which be called Apocryphal, in the second. But what though the opinion of the Huguenots be in this point condemned by the Council of Trent, yet is the Council of Laodicea clear on their sides: And so are also Hierome, Origen, & Nicholaus Lyra himself, Cardinal Caietane, and many other pillars of the Roman Church. So that I would fain know, if that this error of the Huguenots be so enormous, as that for this cause they must necessarily be Heretics; wherefore then did it not as well hinder Hierome from being a Saint, and Cardinal Caietane from being a Catholic.  
Now under the title of justification, 
justification.  I comprehend all the differences mentioned in the answer, which were determined in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent, touching 1. The Cause; 2. The Matter; 3. The Instrument; 4. And the Effects of our justification. By the Source or principal Cause, I mean, That disposition by which our Nature (as we Catholics use to say) being both prevented and accompanied by the grace of God, prepares itself to justification; that is to say, To the operation of the freewill, which remained in man after his Fall. 
freewill. Pag. 24.  For the compounding of this difference; man's freewill 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 again restored. Wherein there is contained whatsoever is necessary for a Christian to believe; namely, That man before the Fall of Adam had freewill both to good and evil; And that by his Fall he lost the liberty to do good: And that by Grace in his Regeneration he again recovered it. Thus far the Catholics and the Huguenots are agreed: The imaginary controversy than lies only in the manner how this will is enfranchised or made free. The Huguenots averring, That 'tis the Grace of God, which sets it at liberty by giving it new powers, whereof it was altogether destitute before. The Catholics likewise averring, that the grace of God hath set it at liberty, by losing the chains wherewith it was before so captivated, that it could not set a work the powers that it had. See here then the true difference between them in this point, wherein though the Huguenots may be deceived, yet is their error nothing so dangerous, as to overthrow the foundation of Faith. In the discussing of which point, we are principally to regard two things: The justice of God in punishing Adam's sin by this captivity; and his Mercy again in freeing us. Now if the Huguenots be in the wrong, their error is only in augmenting the justice and Mercy of God, by affirming, That the freedom of our wills, is not only bound, but slain (as it were.) Death now is a more grievous punishment, than imprisonment, and it is a greater mercy to give life to the will, than liberty. But what need the common people break their brains, about these Metaphors of binding and killing, which they can never comprehend? 'tis sufficient for them to know, that nothing can be done without God's good grace, and to say all with Saint Austen, To do freely, comes from the Nature of man; to do well, from Grace; but to do evil, from our corrupt Nature. Which saying, as it contains the whole doctrine of freewill, so is it consented unto, as well by the Catholics as the Huguenots.  
The second thing which I observed in justification, is the Matter, that is to say; Whether that righteousness, which is infused into us by Grace, or that of Christ imputed unto us by Faith, be it, by virtue whereof we be justified before God. And this question, though it be all one with that of justification, yet our adversary, thereby to multiply the number of his controversies, makes two of them, so desirous he is of contention. Concerning which point, the Huguenots are in no error in the ground and substance of the question; so that though they may be thought to differ never so much from us in the circumstances, yet may they for all that be very good Catholics. For example; A tree which hath the Root, Stock & many Arms of it sound, may be a good tree though some one bough be crazed: But the Catholics and the Huguenots are agreed upon the Root of the question, that is to say, That there are two things necessary: That we be first quit of our Sins, and that we be next endued with Righteousness; to put off our old garments, and reinvest ourselves with new.  
1. Upon the first, the Catholics and the Huguenots are agreed; namely, That we are pardoned of our sins, and redeemed from hell, merely by the blood of jesus Christ.  
2. Touching the second, both sides hold alike; That to be admitted entrance into heaven, we have need of Righteousness, and that this Righteousness comes from Christ.  
Now the Righteousness which is of Christ, is either Inherent in him, & reputed ours, or Inherent in us, & proceeding from him; being by his grace infused into our hearts; which Act the Huguenots call Sanctification: Finally, the Huguenots confess as well as the Catholics, that there be indeed both these kinds of Righteousnesses, only they differ upon this, whether the Righteousness Inherent in Christ and imputed to us, or that Inherent in us, and proceeding from him, be it; by virtue whereof we become justified in the sight of God. And what is it to us, whether another man pays our debts for us, or gives us money to pay it ourselves? So that (in a manner) they both acknowledge the self same Root, the same Stock, and the same Arms of this question, only they cannot agree upon the smaller Branches which grow out of these Arms. Nay more; they both acknowledge the same Branches too, but they cannot agree, upon which of them they should roost. For the Huguenots confess, that whosoever are saved, are also first sanctified; that is to say, That they have that kind of Righteousness, which the Catholics call Inherent or Secondary Righteousness. But they say, that they dare not build upon it, but only upon that Righteousness, which being inherent in Christ, is by Faith imputed to them. Seeing then, that this Righteousness of Christ is by general consent acknowledged to be most perfect; though there may perhaps be thought to be some error in the Huguenots doctrine, yet no danger can come of it. Like as when a man lays hold on a strong bough, he may very well be deceived in fearing another may be too weak; yet without doubt he cannot fall, so long as he embraces that which cannot break.  
Next follows the Instrument by which we embrace this Righteousness, 
The Conjunction of Faith & Grace. p. 23.  and that is Faith; about the nature whereof the Huguenots seem to him, to hold another error; For that, They deny (says he) that Grace may be lost, without the loss of Faith. Which is but a mere cavil of his, upon the double signification of the word Faith. For, if we affirm, That Faith is nothing else, but to believe that God is so and so, and that he hath done such and such things, and to be brief, that all the Christian doctrine is most true; the Huguenots will say (with Saint james) That the devils also believe as much, and that the devils have 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 devoid of Grace and Charity, merits not the honourable title of a justifying Faith; and that such a Faith as this, is but the Instrument only by which we are justified, which is ever accompanied with Grace, and followed by good Works. We affirm likewise; That a Faith without Charity, is a Faith without Form; wherefore, since the Form is it, which gives the Being to the thing, it must needs follow; That a perfect Faith can have no Being, without Charity: which Tenet is consented unto, both by the Huguenots and the Catholics themselves: only we differ in terms: the Huguenots calling Faith without Charity, an Historical or dead Faith; and we, a Faith without Form. O my God, what a pity it is, to behold the simplicity of our Christian Faith, thus puzzled about these quiddities.  
There remains now the Effects of our justification, Good Works: 
Merit of Works.  By which even we Catholics say, That a man is not made Just, but that being justified before, he increases in Righteousness: That is; of a Just man, he becomes more Just; and being regenerate & in the state of Grace, He may (as our Adversary says) fulfil the Law in such a sort, that he may by it truly and properly merit eternal life. But as for the fulfilling of the Law, seeing the Huguenots do their best to perform it, although they may be thought to err, in confessing they cannot do it, yet hath our Saviour himself promised free pardon for it, in the Parable of the Son, who refused to do his Father's will, and yet did it.  
To return then to Merits by Works, the more accurate sort of Catholics peremptorily deny, that they are at all meritorious, unless they be died in the blood of Christ. And I assure myself, that not one amongst ten thousand Catholics, understands sufficiently the meaning of this phrase; Works died in the blood of Christ: but simply and without other addition they will say, That they are in good hope to merit heaven by their Works. So that (we see) there be three several opinions touching this question.  
The first is of the vulgar Catholics, who are more in number a thousand times, and who simply affirm; That they are indeed able to merit eternal life by their Good Works.  
The second is of the Huguenots; who absolutely deny, That Good Works do merit at all: only (say they) God out of his pure Grace, for the Love of his Son, grants them a recompense.  
The third is the opinion of the Jesuits and the learned Catholics, who deny, that any kind of Works do of themselves merit, but such only (as I said) as are died in the blood of Chr●st. Which opinion accords much better with the Huguenots doctrine, then that of the vulgar Catholics: for a thing died, is not altered in substance, as Copper though gilded, yet continues Copper still: the tincture and the gilding making the thing only fairer to the eye. And so is it with our Works, which being by nature corrupt, remain corrupt still, though died in the blood of Christ; howbeit that the tincture and gilding, makes them more pleasing unto God, and for the love which he bears to Christ's blood, to be rewarded. And if peradventure they make conscience of using the word Merit, let us hearken to S. Bernard: A man cannot (saith he) merit eternal life, 
Serm. 1. de anuntiatione Beatae Virgins.  by any good works whatsoever. And yet I trow, that S. Bernard was in this no Huguenot. For I well know, that a jesuit with some neat distinction, can make him speak like a Catholic, whatsoever his meaning was. Let us then but do the Huguenots the like courtesy, and make the same distinction in the interpretation of their Tenent, as we would do in the explication of S. Bernard's, and in this point they will prove as good Catholics as S. Bernard, or ourselves.  
The fourth point is Prayer: 
Prayer. Pag. 26.  to wit, whether we ought to invoke the Saints or not. The difference betwixt us lies in two points: First, whether we ought to direct our prayers unto them; the second, whether they pray for us.  
For the first this I say; That the Catholics themselves make two extremities: to wit, in the not invoking them, as the Huguenots do; and in honouring them too much; which is to say, in attributing to them that honour, which is due only unto God, which the Schoolmen call Latria; which whosoever does, they themselves hold him for an Idolater. Now the poor people which understand not the Greek, nor what Latria means, nor comprehends any other mediocrity, than to adore right down, or not to adore at all; goes to it bonafide, and with as much devotion, adore our Lady and the other Saints, as they do God himself; in such fashion, as that very hardly (even in the judgement of Catholics) can the Catholics themselves herein avoid Idolatry.  
As for the other extremity, those Catholics that maintain Invocation of Saints, teach only thus much: That it is lawful to invoke them, and not unlawful, not to invoke them. So that there can come no great danger of it, in following the Catholics 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 do without invoking them. As a Subject may well honour his Sovereign being absent, though he never presented any petition to him in all his life.  
As for the second point; to wit, whether they pray for us or not: I affirm that there be Huguenots, that will confess that they do; neither doth Calvin himself deny it: only he saith, that he troubles not himself greatly, to know whether they do or no. But should any of them deny it; where is the danger? Bellarmine that great Master of Controversies affirms, 
Tom. 1. Contr. 6. lib. 3. cap. 15.  That the souls in Heaven, do pray for the souls 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 beneficial to the Pope than Paradise, I can perceive no reason wherefore the Huguentoes should rather be Heretics for disagreeing with the Catholics about the Intercession of the Saints in Heaven, than the Catholics are for differing amongst themselves about the Intercession both of the souls, and for the souls in Purgatory.  
The last point wherein the Huguenots are departed from 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 themselves in the number, reckoning but two, whereas the Council of Trent hath concluded it, that there are seven. Which objection of his is but frivolous; 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, Baptism, & the Eucharist. Further, it is an ordinary phrase amongst us Catholics to say, That all the Sacraments issued out of our Saviour's side: whereas there issued nothing from thence save water and blood, which according as chrysostom, Cyril, and other Ancients interpret it, represent the two Sacraments: that is, Baptism by the water, and the Cup of the Lords Supper, by the blood. To which our Catholic Doctors give no other answer than this: That the two Sacraments have some kind of dignity above the rest; which comes to no more than to say, that there be two principal Sacraments, and five more, inferior to those two. Which is all one with the Huguenots opinion, though in diverse terms. They say that there be but two properly; we say that there be but two principally: We again, that there be five more of an inferior order; they confess that there may be more, if we mean of Sacraments in the general signification.  
For Calvin yields, that Order is a Sacrament, but not common to all men, nor will our Catholic Doctors say otherwise. Again, they will confess with S. Paul, that Marriage is also a Sacrament, taking it in that general signification wherein the Ancients have translated the Greek word. Briefly, they will yield that there be seven, but not barely seven. And in truth there was none of the Ancient Fathers, that ever light upon this number of seven. So that though the Huguenots cannot so evenly jump upon the number, seeing the Primitive Church could not do it; we may perchance condemn them of ignorance in Arithmetic, but their error 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 virtue, from the Sacraments of the old Law, or that they confer grace. I answer: That this is a mere slander; for the Huguenots do distinguish them from the Sacraments of the old Testament; and do affirm, that they do also confer grace. What would you desire more of them? But not (saith he) ex opere operato. The difference than is not in the matter, whether our Sacraments confer more grace, or are of more efficacy, than those of the old Law, but in the manner only, by what means this grace is conferred. As for the manner, we should not me thinks too narrowly pry into it, as Bellarmine very sagely adviseth us. 
Tom. 2. contr. 1. lib. 2. cap. 1.  Like as in Christ's 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 believe only, that the touch of it wrought the cure: just so is it not necessary (saith he) that the Ministers or the Receivers of the Sacraments should be curious to know, in what manner they become the causes of our justification.  
We come next to the particular Sacraments, whereof he makes mention but of three only: That is to say, Baptism, 
The efficacy of Baptism. Pag. 23.  the Sacrament of the Altar, and Penance. Touching Baptism, they affirm, saith he, That Original sin sticks so close to man, that neither by Baptism, nor any other remedy, can it be gotten off. I answer: That even the Huguenots confess as freely as the Catholics, that a man is washed from Original sin by Baptism, which is enough for a Christian to believe in this point: so that the difference lies merely in the nicety of the word, whether it should rightliest be called Sin, or no Sin: The Catholics holding, that the Sin is so far remitted, that the concupiscence which remains, ought not to be called Sin: The Huguenots affirming, that the remaining Concupiscence may very well be called Sin, although they herein consent to the Catholics, That a man is so clearly absolved and discharged of it, that it is not reputed as a Sinne. For which cause in no other sense do they deny the grace received in Baptism, though they still esteem themselves sinners altogether, than the Debtor doth his Creditors mercy; who confessing that he hath received the favour of him, to have his debts forgiven, doth nevertheless acknowledge himself his debtor. Which way soever it be taken, the sinner is pardoned, and the debtor discharged, and what need have we to desire more?  
He may say perchance again: 
Of Infants dying without Baptism.  That the Huguenots err not so much in acknowledging the benefits received in Baptism, because they are not so well aware of the danger that follows the want of it: For they affirm (saith he) that the children of Christians may be esteemed righteous, and have admittance into the kingdom of heaven without Baptism, notwithstanding that jesus Christ hath said, That whosoever is not borne again of water and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven: I answer: that the Huguenots affirm not, that every child borne of Christian Parents dying without Baptism is saved, but those only whom God in his eternal counsel hath elected. So that the question is not so much about Baptism, as about God's election: wherein there can be no danger, to confess our ignorance, referring still Gods own decrees to his own good pleasure, as the Huguenots do. For they instance not in what children are elected, but forbear to press into God's cabinet, and out of that to pronounce, that such and such children shall be saved.  
And if he replies again, That the Election of God is never destitute of these secondary means, and that Baptism is the means, by which he saves those that are elected; and that it is a most manifest sign, that those who are deprived of this Baptism, are also deprived of that election: I answer; That there be Catholics, who teach, that a man may be saved without these secondary means. S. Damascene, S. Brigid, and some other Catholics do hold, that the Emperor Trajanes soul was delivered out of Hell by the prayers of S. Gregory, notwithstanding that he died a Painim, and without Baptism. If they then be not Heretics, that teach the mercy of God to be so great, that he saved one who had sinned actually, notwithstanding that he died without Faith, and without Baptism; why should it be accounted Heresy, to say, that he sometimes saves little Innocents', who never had more than Original Sin? For it is a more extraordinary thing, to draw one out of Hell, than to keep one from going thither. And what favour God had shown to one, he may likewise show to many.  
As for that text of S. john, Regenerate of water and of the Holy Ghost, it is to show; that the ordinary means unto salvation, is to conjoin the outward sign, to the inward grace, according to S. Paul's saying, That with the heart man believes unto righteousness, & with the tongue he confesses to salvation; which shows thus much; that ordinarily the outward confession goes with the inward affection: nor can it be inferred out of the former text, That faith can never be without the confession 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 blame-worthy about the Baptism of Christ; 
The Baptism of john.  he descends to the Baptism of john: 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, do it not to deerogate from the Baptism of Christ; for that they esteem it not john's Baptism, but Christ's, administered by john, before Christ's declaring of himself, as it was by the Apostles afterwards. Finally, all this dispute is not about Christ's Baptism which the people receive, but about john's, which they receive not; and consequently it matters not much, to understand the force & efficacy of it.  
In the next place follows the Sacrament of the Altar, 
Transubstantiation. Pag. 26.  which comprehends two differences propounded in the answer. Which be, Christ's presence in it; and the Sacrifice of the Mass. Upon the first the Huguenots are accorded with the Catholics in the thing itself; that is, That our Saviour is truly present in the holy Sacrament, and that we do eat his body, and drink his blood. The difference only lies in the manner, how he is present, & how we eat and drink him. Which error cannot touch the foundation of Faith, for as much as, according to our Catholic Doctors opinion, it was left free for every man, by the space of 1000 years after Christ's death, to believe this presence of his, in what manner they thought best, provided that they believe it at all. Whence it is manifest, that it is but the Huguenots ill luck to live in such a rigorous age of the Church, otherwise they should not for this have been heretics. For diverse of the ancient Fathers were infected with this error. 
Theod. Dialog. Gelasius lib. de duabus naturis.  Theodoret, yea and Gelasius too, who was also Pope, have written in express words, That even 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 reviving of this error, when they see that the Church of Rome, and which is more, the Pope himself hath condemned it; nevertheless seeing that Gelasius, who was likewise a Pope, held the very same error; we Catholics should do well to qualify it all we can, for the reputation of the Sea Apostolic.  
Now for the Sacrifice of the Mass, 
The Sacrifice of the Mass. Pag. 26.  they both confess with St. Paul, that there is but one Sacrifice for sin, namely, that one of jesus Christ upon the Cross; in such sort, that the Catholics affirm not, that they make any new Oblation, but only represent that former one, so oftentimes over, as they celebrate the Eucharist, in which Christ is continually offered up. But for as much as St. Paul teaches, 
Heb. 7. 10.  That there is not only but one Sacrifice, but also that jesus Christ is but once offered: this Doctrine of ours had need be very subtly interpreted, which no man in my judgement could finelier do then St. 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 St. Austin saith) Signs are called by the names of the things whereof they be Signs: the second, for that by virtue of this Sacrament, we are made partakers of the death of jesus Christ. Well, let us see then how far the Huguenots accord with St. Thomas in these two manners of the offering up of Christ jesus. For the first, seeing that it is collected out of St. Austen, let us hear him in his own words. 
Aug. ad Bonifacium, epist. 23.  He falsifies not (saith he) who says that jesus Christ is offered up every 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 themselves. According to which interpretation the Huguenots will also say, that Christ is offered up in the Sacrament, for as much as the Sacraments have the name of the things which they signify. And seeing that the Eucharist signifies the death of Christ, a man may well give the same term to the Eucharist, which he does to his death. And for as much as he was offered up by his death, the Huguenots will confess likewise, that he is also offered up in the Eucharist, by reason (as St. Austen saith) of this resemblance between them.  
Concerning the second respect, for which S. Thomas says, that the Eucharist is called the Immolation of jesus Christ, that is, for that in the Sacrament we are made partakers of the death of jesus 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 jesus Christ. Now if there be any third way of offering, questionless it is no matter of any great importance; for that S. Thomas was so good a Catholic, and so subtle a Logician, and above all, so experienced in the distinctions and other stratagems of the School, would never have 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 observes no difference, but only names it in that fashion, that I cannot see what fault he finds in the Huguenots doctrine. But to pick 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 have showed before, when I discoursed of the number of the Sacraments. As for the parts; Namely, Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction, if that he blames the Huguenots for not holding them properly parts thereof; I answer him, That neither do all Catholics hold them so: For Durandus makes but two parts, Confession and Absolution, and Scotus says, 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 have Contrition and sorrow of heart, to confess and acknowledge our sins unto God, nay, and that it is profitable also to confess them to the Pastors of the Church, but not so absolutely necessary: because (according to the judgement of the learned Catholics) this Auricular Confession was never instituted by God, 
In Annotat. ad lib. Tertull. de penitent. a.  nor yet of a long time practised in the Church; as Beatus Rhenanus, who was himself a Catholic, hath very well observed.  
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 approve of, and teach it to be most necessary to Salvation, to give satisfaction to men whom we have any way offended, and in regard of our sins against God, to walk in newness of life. Moreover, they confess that God punisheth men in this life by temporal afflictions, yea, even those whose sins are pardoned.  
'tis true indeed, 
Purgatory, Pag 26.  that they deny any satisfaction or punishment to be in Purgatory after death for sin: 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 Catholics agree upon it amongst themselves; some of them placing Pargatory here upon earth, others under it; some neither above, nor below, but in the Air. Some affirm, that all the Elect shall go thither, yea the Apostles and Martyrs themselves: others thrust in those only, who have not in this life given full satisfaction for their sins. And for the fire, some would have it a Material fire; some, fire and water; others, neither of both. Lastly, some there be that teach, that the souls are there tormented by Devils; others, by Angels, others by neither of both. How then I pray is this question likely to be so necessary, about which there is so much uncertainty, that we neither know (as I have showed) who they be that go thither, nor where it is, nor by whom they are to be tormented, nor what they are to suffer. The difference then betwixt the Catholics and the Huguenots, is but this; That the Huguenots believe it not at all, and the Catholics know not what they believe.  
See here in brief the Huguenots opinions upon the points before mentioned, by which we may perceive their errors not to be in the substance of Faith, and do not therefore hinder them from being of the Church and Catholic Religion. For every error in Theologie doth not separate a man from the Church. S. Cyprian was an Anabaptist in the point of Rebaptisation, and yet was he a Martyr. S. Hierome (as I said before) held those books of Scripture for Apocryphal, which the Council of Trent hath since concluded to be Canonical, and yet remains he still Canonised for a Saint. Tertullian one of the ancient Fathers fell to be a Montanist: And Origen alone held as many errors, as all the Huguenots together; yet was he one of the most famous Doctors of the whole Church. And to come nearer to our times; In how many questions of Divinity did Scotus and Thomas Aquinas differ, the two prime pillars of Schoole-divinitie? Melchior Canus and Bellarmine accuse Caietane of diverse errors, who for all that remains one of the venerable College of Cardinals. The Dominicans and Franciscans could never yet agree about our Lady's conception, yet be both of them held for very good Catholics. So that, as I said, the Huguenots may very safely be accounted good Catholics, so long as they hold the foundation of Divinity, although they put some few tiles out of order on the roof of the house, and build with hay and straw: upon condition still, that (as S. Paul saith) it be upon the same foundation. Otherwise we must conclude, the Martyrs, the Saints, the ancient Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, the prime Schoolmen, the Cardinals, yea and the Catholics themselves, to be no Catholics.   

CAP. 2.  
〈…〉 Catholics as well as the Huguenots do not agree with the ancient Church in matter of Ceremonies: and that therefore the Huguenots are not to be condemned.  
AS in men we consider their bodies, and their apparel; so in the Church likewise we consider the Doctrine, and the Ceremonies. As for the doctrine or body of Religion, I have shown in the former Chapter that the Huguenots have the brain, the heart, and the liver, and all other the vital parts, whole and sound: that is, that they yet hold all the principal points of faith, and that the main thing that can seem to be blamed in them, is, that they have some certain warts or spots in their skin; certain errors I mean, in the circumstances and application of that faith. Now for the apparel and ceremony of Religion, I confess 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 monarchs of the world: which I judge to be the reason why the Catholic Apology endeavoured to excuse the simple and naked Ceremonies of the Reformed Church, without any intent thereby to disparage the gorgeous and gay attire of the Catholic Church; but to show only, That we should not so meanly esteem this outward simplicity, as to condemn it without hearing. Even as that officer would be held too rigid and severe, that would hinder a poor man from presenting his Petition to the Prince, because he 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 herself with the like simplicity. Now upon this occasion the Author of the answer persuades himself that he hath gotten a great advantage upon the Catholic Apology: Because (saith he) he can prove, that diverse of these ceremonies which the Huguenots do reject are very ancient: To which I answer, That I willingly accept as much as he grants, that is, that he cannot prove that all the ceremonies of the Church of Rome be most ancient, but only (as he saith) diverse of them. As for those diverse which he instanceth in, that you may see how impertinent they are, I will make it appear in these two things: First, that he doth not prove against the Huguenots that the Church of Rome doth agree with the ancient Church in the self same ceremonies. Secondly, that admitting that the ancient Church had them in use, yet are not the Huguenots to be condemned for having disused them.  
For the first point: 
That the Church of Rome agrees not with the Primitive Church in matter of ceremonies.  my purpose is not to condemn the ceremonies of our Mother the holy Church, but since that our side are so straight laced, as to hinder our reconciliation for a thing so indifferent as these ceremonies are; I have taken the boldness to oppose them: and to show, That the Huguenots may easily answer the argument which he alleages: which I write not to justify them, but with a purpose that we should not so confidently assure ourselves, that all is so clear on our sides. Let us hear then how the Huguenots may answer the 15 examples which he bringeth.  
The first example is the sign of the Cross: 
Sign of the Crosse. Pag. 27.  concerning which, the Huguenots will confess that it hath been anciently used; but that the use of this was brought into the Church, upon a particular occasion, and proper only to that age. For the Pagans amongst whom the Christians in those days conversed, were wont when they met with a Christian to make the sign of the cross in derision of their Christianity, for that the God whom they worshipped was hanged upon a cross; so that the Christians, to show that they were not ashamed of such a death, in all their actions would still make the sign of the cross. But now this occasion being taken away, the Huguenots may likewise say, that it is not necessary to continued the practice no more than it is to apply a plaster to a wound already healed.  
As for praying to the East: I never yet knew any Huguenot that held it unlawful to pray towards the East, nor any Catholic that thought it unlawful to pray also towards other quarters of the world. 
Praying towards the East. Pag. 28.  What more than is there to be said between them, but only that it is an indifferent custom, which hath not been always so strictly observed in all Churches. For Socrates saith that in the Church of Antioch, 
Lib. 5. cap. 21.  the high Altar was placed clean contrary, and towards the West.  
As for the invocation of the Eucharist, our adversary affirms, that it appeareth by Saint Basile, 
Invocation of the Eucharist.  That this invocation was then and from the Apostles time practised, when they showed the Eucharist. I answer; that these words make nothing against the Huguenots, for a man may very well use invocation in the time of the celebration of the Sacrament, and all the while direct his invocation to God, and not to the Sacrament. True it is, that there was a special Prayer appointed for that purpose, which Saint Basile thought to have been a tradition of the Apostles: But now the Catholics themselves do not any longer observe that form of prayer: and it cannot be found in any antiquity, what form of prayer that was, which Saint Basile speaks of. So that if this prayer were an Apostolical tradition, our Church hath had small care in preserving it; which made me believe that we have some things put upon us under the title of Apostolical tradition, which are not so. For it is still as easy to invent some new tradition, which we have not yet received, as to forget those which we have already entertained. For God ordinarily where he takes away the memory, supplies that defect with invention and sufficiency of judgement. It being very wisely done, when we have lost one tradition, to put another in the place, thereby to keep the number full still, and entire.  
The fourth example is of Hallowing the water in Baptism. Now the Huguenots will confess with Saint Basile, 
Blessing of the water in Baptism. Pag. 28.  that the water of Baptism ought to be blessed: But this they deny; that this hallowing was such heretofore, as that now in use with us. For as much as they say, That water and all other creatures are sanctified by God already: and particularly that the water of Baptism needs no benediction to make it more holy; 
Homil. 25. in johan.  because (as saith Saint chrysostom) Christ by his Baptism hath blessed all waters. But if my Antagonist will proceed further to infer, that the water in Baptism ought of necessity to be hallowed in the same sort that it is now; I say that Eusebius writes that Constantine the Great would have men to baptise in jordan; and yet I never heard that all the water of jordan was made holy water.  
They will say as much of the consecration of the Oil: the word consecration at the first, 
Consecration and use of Oil in Baptism. Pag 28. Tertull lib. de corona militis.  signifying no more than the institution of a sign to an holy use. And as for the use of oil, like as the ancient Church made use of it in Baptism, so did they also of milk and honey; neither of which are any more in use, no not in the Roman Church. Why then should the Huguenots be blamed more for the want of one ceremony, than the Catholics would be for want of another? And this also serves to disprove that other example which follows, to wit, that the Roman Church agreeth with the ancient in all the ceremonies of Baptism.  
His next example is of the Fast in Lent, 
Lent.  which Saint Hierome esteems for an Apostolical tradition. To which the Huguenots will answer, that Epiphanius saith, 
Epiphan. haerest. 75.  that it is an Apostolical tradition also to fast upon Wednesdays and fridays, except upon those betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide: in which time the said S. Hierome in the very book quoted by the Answerer, 
Hieronim. contra Lucif.  saith that it is unlawful to fast: & yet do the Catholics fast notwithstanding upon Fridays in that very time. Why then are the Huguenots more to be blamed for disusing the custom of the ancient Church in the observation of the forty days before Easter, than the Catholics, for dissenting from the same Church, in the observation of the 50. days after?  
Concerning the sacrifice for the dead, it appears by that Liturgy of the greeks, 
Sacrifice for the dead.  which is read in the fifth Tome of Saint Chrysostom's works, that they made mention amongst the dead (for whom they made their oblations) of the Apostles and Marytrs; who according to the judgement of all parties, do go directly into heaven, and have no need of any such oblation as men offer at this day, for the easing of the souls departed. So as the Huguenots will say, that it must needs follow that the souls of the Saints which are in Paradise are holpen by such oblations, (which none of the wiser Catholics will maintain) or else that the said 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 withal.  
The next example is of the Baptism of Infants: 
Baptism of infants.  which the Huguenots allow of as well as the Catholics.  
As for the mixing of water with the wine in the Chalice, 
Mixture of water with the wine in the Chalice.  this in the judgement of the better learned Catholics, 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 Huguenots will confess that it is lawful: and why then should they blame the Catholics for observing it? That which is not necessary may lawfully be omitted, and that observed which is lawful.  
Another example is of perpetual single life, 
Perpetual single life.  which the Huguenots blame not: but they will say that the observation of it in those times was voluntary, and not constrained; and that men were never compelled to vow it, as appears by the very Canons themselves. The Church (saith one Canon) after the constitution of the Apostles, added some counsel of perfection, as this of the single life of Priests: where we may observe 2. things against the answer; one is, that single life was ordained by way of counsel, not of commandment: 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 contemplative life; 
Solitary life.  which the Huguenots will not absolutely condemn: but they may well say that it hath been in times past, much different from this of our Hermit's and Anchorites at this day. For they which first brought in this manner of living, observed it only in the time of persecution, to avoid idolatry, and all other occasions of being enforced to unlawful actions by the tyrants which then ruled: 
Sozomen. Histor. lib. 1. cap. 12.  as the Ecclesiastical stories do testify in the lives of S. Paul and S. Anthony, the two first Hermits.  
Now for the order of Monks: 
Orders of Monks.  the Huguenots will name the very year when each of them was invented. And what though the name of Monks was usual in the primitive Church yet were they then other manner of Monks, than ours at this day. For first, they earned their livings by the sweat of their brows. Secondly, diverse of them were married, as Athanasius writes. 
Athanasius ad Dracontium.  Finally, the Huguenots will say, that there was never Monk in the Primitive Church that killed a King; nor any Catholic in those times, that would have approved it.  
There remains the election of meats; which the Huguenots approve, 
Election of Meats.  so that it be done with discretion, and not merely for conscience, according to the custom of the ancient Church. For the better clearing of this point, we may (me thinks) distinguish between the difference of meats, and the choice of meats. For the Huguenots will say, that there is no difference of meats in respect of Religion; for that it is lawful to eat indifferently of all sorts of meats, without making scruple of Conscience; but that men for the taming of their flesh may abstain from such meats, as they find to provoke them to concupiscence: which kind of abstinence because it is left free, to the choice of him that fasteth, may properly be called Election of meats. For the Apostles (saith the Ecclesiastical Story) have left it to every man's liberty, 
Tripartite 9 38.  to use as well in their fasts, as on other days, such kinds of meats as they best like of. Whereas the Fasts enjoined by the Church of Rome, may rather (will the Huguenots say) be called A Prescription of meats, than a free Election: Because Election is still voluntary, and their abstinence is constrained.  
Finally, concerning Holidays, which they call an Apostolical tradition, 
Holidays.  I say, that the Ecclesiastical Stories show the clean contrary; 
Lib. 5. cap. 21.  For Socrates saith in express words, That the Apostles ordained nothing concerning Holidays. Again, they which supposed them to have been ordained by the Apostles, are enforced at length, to place the observation of them in the Class of things indifferent. For of all the Festival days, there was not one of them which hath been observed with more devotion than Easterday; which notwithstanding, the Western Church used to celebrate upon Sunday, and the Eastern, upon other days: the one confirming their custom by the tradition of S. Peter and Paul, and the other by the tradition of Philip and john. 
Soz. 7. 19  Which controversy, was thus taken up betwixt Polycarpus, and Victor Bishop of Rome; namely, that the observation of it should be left free and indifferent. Now the Huguenots do not simply condemn the observation of Holidays, but only the forcing to the observation of them. For in England, Germany, Switzerland, and other Countries, where the pretended Reformed Religion is established, they to this day observe diverse Saints days, without reprehension of the Huguenots in France.  
But put the case, 
That the Huguenots are not to be blamed for leaving off the Ceremonies of the ancient Church.  that the use of all the foresaid Ceremonies were such in the ancient Church, as they now are 〈◊〉 the Roman; yet say I, that all these examples make nothing to the purpose; Forasmuch as Ceremonies (as I have said) are but the apparel, which altars the fashion every foot, and are fitted to time and place: which our Adversary himself confesseth. For, knowing that the most part of our Ceremonies were unknown to the Ancients, he hath no other Answer then this, which will also serve to answer him again, viz: That it matters not much, whether the Ecclesiastical Ceremonies were in use in the Primitive Church, or were newly taken up in these latter times. Now the Scriptures (will the Huguenots say) denounces the same curse against those which add, as against those which take away: so that if it be lawful for the Roman Church to add any thing to the ancient Ceremonies, it is as lawful for them also to take away, especially those which have been added.  
Secondly, the Church is called Primitive, either in regard of itself, because it is truly ancient; or in respect of the modern Church of Rome, as it is more ancient in its self. If we speak now of the Church, as it is ancient in itself; the Huguenots will say, that there is no resemblance betwixt the Ceremonies of the ancient Church and those of the modern. But if we speak of that which is more ancient than ours, (from which only our Adversary's Arguments are drawn) they will say, that (besides all this, that the most part of our Ceremonies are different) yet at that time also were there too too many in the Church; 
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 have not; so had it likewise others, which the Church of Rome hath not; as Milk and Honey in Baptism, and the fashion of plunging the Infant thrice to the bottom: which have been abrogated (as Saint Thomas saith) to avoid the calumnies of the Sabellians, who for this custom reproached 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 lawful it is, yea, and how necessary, to take away the use of them, for preventing of an inconvenience. So that we may say thus much in the Huguenots behalf; that they do, not in this point, swerve so much from the practice of the ancient Church, seeing they do not condemn those diverse Ceremonies which were practised anciently; notwithstanding, that they do now forbear them, especially when they have observed them to change into so much superstition, as that our better learned Catholics, do even laugh at the poor people, whom they themselves have abused.   

CAP. 3.  
That the doctrine of the Huguenots hath not been condemned by any lawful judgement, before the Council of Trent.  
HItherto have I spoken of the Huguenots Religion as it is in itself, 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 Heretics in respect of the wickedness of their opinions; let us now traverse the Indictment, to find whether they be so by condemnation. Now our Adversary to convict them, produceth the Decrees of diverse Counsels: to which, before I make answer, I will propose these 4 Considerations.  
The first is this: 
1 Consid. Aug. Epist. 112,  Whether a general and lawful Council, may err or not in the substance of faith; seeing that it is made up of men, in whose testimony (as saith S. Augustine) there is so little certainty, his words be these: A man may believe the Scriptures, without doubting; but for any other testimonies, it is lawful either to believe them or not to believe them. So as this privilege, to be of an irrefageable certainty, is only given to the Scriptures: which if it be true, than all the passages which are drawn from the authority of Counsels, are thus far forth only, of weight, as they can be made good by the Scriptures. Nevertheless, this being the common answer of the Huguenots: I will make no further use of it; but like a true Catholic, confess this to be an infallible Maxim; That a lawful and general Council, cannot err in the substance of faith.  
The second is: 
2 Consid.  Whether if such a general Council may err, though not in the substance of faith; yet at least in other points of Divinity of less consequence; And if they may err in these, then, seeing (as I have shown) that the Huguenots errors be not in the substance of faith, that it follows hereupon, That the Counsels may err in their definitive decisions of those Controversies which are betwixt the Huguenots and us, being only points of lesser consequence. Whereupon it follows, That this second sort of heresy becomes supernumerary, and their errors not being heresies in their own nature, cannot be made heresies by bare condemnation. For the reason why he is counted an Heretic, who resists the Decrees of a Council, is; for that in doing so, he resists the judgement of the Holy Ghost, which doth still, and infallibly, accompany the Council. But now, if the Holy Ghost be no further forth promised to assist the Council, then when it treateth of things necessary to salvation; Then they, who hold some tenets contrary to the Council in other things, do not herein resist the judgement of the Holy Ghost, 
Stapleton Princip. Doctrine. cont. 4. lib. 6. cap. 15.  and by consequence are no Heretics. Stapleton, professor of the Controversies at Douai, and one of the most learned Catholics of our times, who hath written most accurately of this Argument) holds, That the holy Ghost is only promised to assist the Counsels in necessary things, and that in other things they may err. 
Andradius defen●fid●●●dent. Lib. 4.  And Andradius himself, who defends the Council of Trent, in the very same Book wherein he does defend it as general, lawful, and sound in the matter of Faith, 
Co●cil. Trid. Sess. 3.  condemns the vulgar translation of the Bible, as corrupted, although the said Council had authorized it for authentical; so little did he trust to the judgement of Counsels in things which were beside the essence of faith.  
But admitting thus much; 
3. Cons.  That a lawful Council cannot err at all, yet is there still a third difficulty; viz. Whether these Counsels which he produceth against the Huguenots be lawful: which even a Catholic may safely deny; for as much as there be diverse nillities to be found in them, and namely in their manner of proceeding, which are no where found in the ancient Counsels, as I will show in the next Chapter, when I treat of the Council of Trent. Now, the Huguenots will be very well content to be tried by the Ancient Counsels, held in the first 600 years of Christ; namely, until such time as the Pope (as they say) having gotten so absolute a Monarchy in the Church, took away the liberty of Counsels, and subjected the suffrages of the other Bishops to give with him: now all the Counsels alleged by our Adversary are since that time.  
There remains a fourth difficulty, 
● Cons.  namely, Whether the Huguenots have been justly condemned by the latter Counsels. Now upon these four considerations, a man may perceive how frivolous his brags are of the Counsels; for as much as he is able to conclude nothing, unless he hath leave granted him before hand to add what authority to the Counsels he pleaseth; to make what Counsels lawful he listeth, and to force the Counsels to speak what he would have them: The most innocent man in the world might be convicted by such proofs, if a man would believe without further examination, whatsoever every witness shall bring against him: and when his Adversary also shall have leave, both to pack the witnesses at his own pleasure, and also to judge of their testimonies.  
But to return to our purpose. Let us see next, whether the Huguenots stand lawfully condemned by those Counsels which he produceth, or not. The Catholic Apology denies it; whereby (in my conceit) he shows a great deal of zeal to the Roman Religion. For, considering what a world of people are infected with the Huguenots doctrine, by reason that it is not yet condemned by any lawful form of proceeding; he endeavours to persuade with the Catholics, to cause a lawful Council to be called to confute them, to the end, that the Huguenots might be satisfied by being showed their errors, and be left without excuse for rejecting the doctrine of the Church of Rome. But observing that there be many seditious Catholics (who rather thirst to kill their bodies, then to save their souls) do hinder so holy a design, under colour, that they be already condemned by other Counsels: The Catholic Apology doth very well herein, to advise 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 appeal from them to an higher power. So that we must sue out another Process against them, to get such a judgement as they themselves shal● never be able to except against. Now our Adversary answers, that there is no need to take this course, affirming that they be indeed cast already by such a judgement; which he proves by two reasons. One is, that the doctrine of the Roman Church hath been publicly confirmed by general Counsels, before that of Trent. The second is, that the Huguenots religion is the same with that of ancient Heretics, which hath been heretofore condemned.  
For the first, 
Transubstantiation:  The chief Controversy is (saith he) about the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; which is not only determined by the Council of Trent, but also by ten most ancient counsels of the Church. To make good which assertion, he cities the Council of Vercelles, Tours, Vienna, Constance, Florence: and of five others, celebrated at Rome; the chief of which was that of Lateran, under Innocent the third. And these be the ten Counsels which our Adversary styles the most ancient Counsels of the Church. Certainly, than was the Church a long time without Counsels, for the ancientest of these was 1000 years after the Apostles times. But peradventure he means it only of the Church of Rome, as it is different in doctrine from the ancient Church; which is as much to say, As th●se Counsels are the most ancient of this (Roman) Church, which not long before the celebrating of these Counsels, became a new Church, and quite contrary to the former. And in this sense, he doth not account these Counsels as simply ancient, but the most ancient only of that Church▪ which is not ancient. I can but wonder how he comes so ill advised, as to give this advantage to the Huguenots, as to conclude upon him out of his own premises; That our holy mother Church of Rome, is a new Church: and so give a hint to the vulgar to discover by his own confession, that it is so indeed. Which inconvenience, the Author of the Catholic Apology was better aware off to prevent it, for knowing very well, that we are not able to make good the doctrine of the Roman Church by the ancient Counsels, he adviseth rather that we should labour the calling of a new one; lest that by urging the other, which indeed be not ancient, the common people might come by this means to suspect that our doctrine is new.  
But to return to the said Counsels: besides this, that they are all new, there be also seven of the ten which were never received for general, by the most learned defenders of the Roman religion; and by the opinion therefore of those very Catholics, they may err, and by consequence it will be lawful to appeal from them to a general Council. Just as the opinion of S. Cyprian about Rebaptization, being condemned at Rome in a particular Council, by Pope Cornelius, and the sentence ratified by Pope Stephan; yet did S. Cyprian nevertheless continue in his former opinion, accusing both the Popes and the Counsels of error; which certainly he would not have done, had he esteemed the authority of a particular Council, without appeal: whereby it appears, that of those ten Counsels which he urgeth, the●e be but three, namely, that of Lateran, of Vienna, and of Florence, which be esteemed general, even by the Catholics themselves: and so by consequence only three, which have power definitively to determine, and not to be subject to an appeal to be made from them.  
As for the Decree of that Council of Lateran, 
Council of Lateran.  we ought not to think it strange, that the Huguenots except against it, seeing that the said Council, in the judgement even of the Catholics themselves might err, in the sentence given against them; for Scotus saith of Transubstantiation, That it is but an opinion probable; now, an opinion probable is not necessary; and in determining upon a doctrine which is not necessary, Stapleton saith: That a general Council may err: whereby it appears, that in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, the Decree of the Council aforesaid was not certain. Can we imagine then that the Huguenots will stand to such a Decree, which the Catholics themselves confess to be subject to error.  
As for the Council of Vienna, 
Council of Vienna.  this error (saith he) is condemned in it, which is: That we ought not to do any honour or reverence to the holy Eucharist; which, as every man knows is the error of Calvin, and of all the Sacramentaries. I answer: That our Adversary, and such as he, do much injury the church of Rome, in giving the Huguenots occasion to reproach the Catholics, as to twit them, that they be liars and slanderers. For they of the Religion do not affirm (as he would make them) that we ought not to give any honour or reverence to the Eucharist: but that we should not adore it as the Catholics do.  
The last Council is that of Florence; 
Council of Florence.  the authority whereof, the Huguenots may well except against, for that 〈◊〉 dissents from other Counsels. For the Counsels of B●sil and Constance, both which our Adversary ranks here amongst the general Counsels, have adjudged it, That the authority of a Council is above the Pope; whereas the Council of Florence, makes the Pope above the Council. Which sentence is not only (as I think) contrary to the Council of Basil and Constance, but contradictory also to the judgement of all the Divines in Paris at that time. So that if the Huguenots do ill in dissenting from the Council of Florence, they do it by the example of Catholic Divines and of other Counsels, yea of those which are general, by the judgement even of our Adversary himself,  
The second doctrine which he instances in, 
Freewill.  is that of freewill; for denying of which, the Manichees and other Heretics stand condemned by S. Augustine, S. Hierome, S. Leo, etc. Now I answer: That the Huguenots deny it not in the same manner that those Heretics did, as is to be well seen in the doctrine of the Manichees: who made two necessary Principles; the one of Good, and the other of Evil; and as absolutely denied Freewill, as well of doing ill, as of doing good. But when he can show, that the Huguenots hold any such opinion, his examples will serve to some purpose.  
Further, he confirms the said opinion by four other Counsels, viz: by a particular one held in France, and by those of Auranches, Sens, and Constance. I answer; that it were but an easy matter so to interpret the said Counsels, as that the Huguenots need not refuse them in this point of freewill. But for brevity's sake, I will not stand to examine them, because that three of them be particular, and for that respect may err (as I have shown before) and may be appealed from: and for the fourth, which is that of Constance, though it be called general by our Adversary, yet Bellarmine nevertheless receives but 18. Counsels for general and lawful, of which rank this of Constance is none.  
The third heresy that he speaks of is, 
Children dying without Baptism.  That the Huguenots hold, that little Children dying without Baptism, do not perish; which that they do, is plain enough (saith he.) And how? namely, by so many testimonies of Scripture, by so many Decrees of ancient Counsels, by so many resolutions of holy Fathers; And yet does he allege but two passages only out of S. Austen, who indeed as he was of this opinion, That Children could not be saved without Baptism; so held he likewise, That they could not be saved without the Eucharist Which opinion of his, even our Catholics themselves do condemn. Why then should the Huguenots be Heretics rather for dissenting from S. Augustine in one Sacrament, than the Catholics are for disallowing his judgement in the other?  
The fourth point is the Worshipping of Images: 
Worshipping of Images.  which was confirmed by the second Council of Nice, unto which I may well oppose the Council of Frankford, celebrated since that of Nice, which both contemned and condemned the authority of that Council, and the Decrees of it. Neither does it make anything for our Adversary, to say that these testimonies are of weight enough amongst Catholics, for there were none in the Council of Frankford but Catholics, and the Pope's Legates themselves, which assisted at it. Observe then all the Counsels which our Adversary hath raked together against the Huguenots; All of which, excepting those three of Lateran, Vienna, Florence, and this last of Nice, are particular, and so by consequence, their Decrees may be annulled and reversed. Further of these four, which by some are accounted general; the first, (that of Lateran I mean) was by the sentence of Scotus and Stapleton (two grand Catholics) subject unto error. The words he urgeth out of the second, (viz: that of Vienna) are nothing to the purpose. The judgement of the third (which is that of Florence) is contrary to the Decrees of the Counsels of Basile and Constance. The last of Nice, was condemned by that of Frankford: wherefore then, should the Huguenots give way to the authority of such Counsels, from whom the Catholics themselves, yea Counsels also of Catholics themselves, do disagree, how can we hope then to convert them by such proofs? let us call a new one then; let us give indifferent audience to their Ministers, let us refute their Arguments to their very faces, else shall we never recall the Huguenots, that are gone astray, into the right way.  
The second reason, whereby our Adversary confutes the Huguenots, i●; 
That the Doctrine o● the Huguenots is not the same with that of the ancient Heretics already condemned.  Because they agree in doctrine with the ancient Heretics, viz: the Arrians, who (as S. Augustine testifies) rejected, 1. Prayers for the dead: 2. The set times of Fasting: 3. The difference betwixt the Bishop and the ordinary Priest: And 4. with jovinian and Vigilantius, in the point of Continency and Virginity. 5. Merit and rewards of Saints: 6. The Adoration of Relics: 7. The Invocation of Saints: 8. The Election of Meats. I answer. First, 
Retractat. lib. 2. cap. 17.  That even as a good Catholic may err, so may an Heretic also speak truth. S. Cyprian and Ticonius the Donatist, having diversely interpreted a place of the holy Scriptures, S. Augustine rejects S. Cyprians exposition, and allows that of Ticonius. So that it is not enough barely to show that an Heretic hath maintained such and such an opinion, unless he prove withal, that the said opinion is heretical. Secondly, I have showed in the former Chapter, that the use of things indifferent, might be lawful in the ancient Church, and yet unlawful in this of ours: so that the Huguenots may justly blame the selfsame things which the said Heretics did unjustly except against, until we can prove, not only the things to be the same; but also make it appear, that there is not now a greater abuse, in the same things, than there was then. As for the opinions following, the Huguenots will affirm, that neither did the Fathers hold them in the same manner that the Catholics now do, nor that the Heretics took the same exceptions to them, that the Huguenots now do, as we may perceive by the examples following.  
First, 
Prayer for the dead.  as for Prayer for the Dead, the Huguenots will affirm, That the Church in the beginning, celebrated only a Commemoration of the dead, wherein (as I showed in the former Chapter) they made mention likewise of the Apostles, and of those that be already gone to heaven. Now this Commemoration (will the Huguenots say) brought forth Prayer for the dead, this Prayer brought forth Purgatory; Purgatory, Pardons; and Pardons have brought in pence into the Pope's 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 custom, of Commemoration, he should but have showed himself to be of a quarrelsome spirit, yea, they will further say; that petty abuses, especially such as bare a show of Charity, might somewhat be winked at, as Prayer for the Dead, had: which custom served then also to stir up in the Pagans, a better esteem of the Christian faith: but this occasion being now ceased, and the abuses remaining so great, as they affirm them to be; 'tis now no time to wink at them any longer, nor is there any other means left us, to reform them, then to take away the first occasion whence they proceeded, though in themselves they be of no great consequence. So that if we will show wherein the Huguenots resemble the other ancient Heretics, in taking exceptions unto Prayer for the dead, we must show withal; how that the ancient Church used the same chaffering for Pardons and Indulgences, for the delivering of souls out of Purgatory, that the Church of Rome at this day doth. Otherwise, the abuse being not the same, the things deserve not equal blame, and they that find fault with them, are not alike faulty.  
Touching set Fasting days, I am heartily sorry, that he, in giving out, 
Set Fasting days.  that the Huguenots do herein imitate the ancient Heretics, gives them advantage to revenge themselves upon us, and to prove the clean contrary; namely, that it is we that follow the ancient Heretics: 
Euseb. 5. 16.  for Eusebius saith, That it was Montanus the Heretic, who first set down the Rules for Fasting, seeing that before that, these set Fasting days were not ordained with any intention to bind the Consciences, but for order's sake only. Surely then he was not in the right, whosoever 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 Eve, is esteemed much holier th●n other days. So then, this order having occasioned superstition, to avoid this superstition, we may dispose otherwise of that order.  
And now as concerning the difference between the Bishop and the ordinary Priest; 
Distinction of Bishops and Priests.  the Huguenots will say, that at first they were both equal: but that since then, some amongst them have been promoted to dignity above the rest, and at last One is become Monarch over them all. Now (will the Huguenots confess) that before this universal Monarchy of the Pope, there was not the like reason to blame the distinction of degrees in Pastors, which in itself was tolerable, and not altogether unprofitable: But they will say withal, that it is most manifest, how that the Fathers never held this distinction to have been instituted by God, but only to be a positive ordinance of men, 
Comment in cap. 1. Epist. ●d Titum.  to preserve (as Saint Jerome saith) the unity 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 above the rest, for the avoiding of Schism. Howbeit he confesseth that Bishops are superior to Priests, by Custom rather, then by divine Ordination.  
The fourth point wherein he saith that the Huguenots do imitate the ancient Heretics, 
Marriage and Virginity.  is concerning Marriage and Virginity, which is but a mere calumny: for the Huguenots affirm not with jovinian, That marriage is simply equal to virginity; but only in such a sense as Saint Augustine speaks it, who says, that he dares not prefer the virginity of S. john, before the marriage of Abraham. Nor with Vigilantius, that it is unlawful to make a Priest, unless he were first married: but with that holy man Paphnutius, that it is lawful for a Priest to be married.  
Touching the Merits and rewards of the Saints, I cannot tell what he would say: 
Merits of Saints.  for if he means by it, That the Saints receive a recompense of their good works the Huguenots will agree to it: but if he means it of works of supererrogation, laid up (as they say) in the treasury of the Church, and applied by the Pope's Indulgences, unto the souls of other men; the Catholics will say, that the Church lived in the same ignorance for the first thousand years, that the Huguenots now do: for it is not long since that for the benefit and advancement of the Pope, God first revealed this treasure, which had lain hid so long, and the most gainful commodity of Indulgences also.  
Now as for Relics, I say that even the same Saint Hierome who wrote against Vigilantius for taking exception to the Relics of Saints; 
Worshipping of Saints and their Relics▪  doth yet in the same book against Vigilantius, allow of the Eues of Saints: howbeit for certain abuses committed in the night of the said Eues, which they called the Vigils, the Catholics themselves have forbidden them: And now fast only upon the Eues, although the days do still retain the names of Eues. So then, we must either grant that the catholics are condemned by Saint Hierome, as well 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 Relics; but whether there be not now more abuse in the worshipping of them, then in Saint Hieromes time. For the Huguenots do not now simply except against Relics, insomuch that I have heard diverse Huguenots say, That if they could be certain that they had any ancient monument of our Saviour, or of his Apostles, they would make very precious esteem of them: and far more, then of any antique medal or other antiquity of the old Romans. By greater reason than do they honour their persons, although they do not invoke them being dead, for that (say they) themselves forbade it whilst they lived. So that if we will prove the Huguenots to be enemies to the honour of the Apostles, we must prove out of their writings, That such was their will to be invocated. Else will the Huguenots tell us, That they have the Saints in more honour than the Catholics; in that they have such a care to observe their precepts now after their deaths: It being evident, That that child who is most careful to perform his last will and testament, loves hid deceased father best, then if he should only keep his picture by him.  
The eight and last opinion of the ancient Heretics, 
Election of meats.  is, the Election of meats. Whereunto the Huguenots will give the same answer as to the former objections: viz. that it was unlawful in those times to find fault with the election of meats, and yet lawful to condemn it now. The reason is, for that it was then an order only, without enforcing of the conscience to observe it.  
And if any man reply, That they now in the Church do but the same, and that it is only the meaner sort of people that account one meat holier than another: and that the better learned Catholics hold, that the sin of eating flesh upon days whereon it is forbidden, is only 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 use of this reason, to confirm abstinence from eating of flesh; namely, That fish is a more holy meat: for that in the time of Noah's flood, God cursed the earth, and the creatures that it brought forth, but not the waters.  
See here now the ancient heresies revived (as he saith) by the Huguenots: but he is in the wrong: for that they ought not to be ranked amongst the Heretics, until such time as we have made proof, how that the Church of Rome doth not only agree with the Primitive in the same things, but also in the very circumstances of the things: for those things which are of themselves ceremonies, are also of themselves indifferent; and it is the right use or abuse of them, which makes them lawful or unlawful. So that by consequence it may be at this time lawful, and at another time unlawful, to take exceptions to them; Even as it was not lawful to break the brazen Serpent, 
〈◊〉  whilst it was a Sacrament, but necessary to break it, when it became an Idol.   

CAP. 4.  
That the Council of Trent is not lawful.  
WE are come at last, thanks be to God, to the holy Council of Trent; a Council whereof our Adversary had need to make good account, for that the proofs drawn from the former Counsels, concerned only two or three questions; and those also, rather probable conjectures, than proofs. But as for the Council of Trent, that openly confutes all the heresies now maintained by the Huguenots; by reason whereof, our Adversary toils himself more in the defence of that, then in any other question whatsoever: albeit he uses not any proofs to confirm it, but answers only to the objections of the Catholic Apology, which I find to be three in number.  
The first is; That the Pope did therein take upon him the office both of judge and Party: and that himself convoked the Council, and sat Precedent in it.  
The second is; That those who sought the reformation, could not be heard in it.  
The third: that for as much as the Huguenots are able to allege diverse nullities, both in the form, and also in the definitions of the said Council; we are not bound to accept of the ordinances thereof without examination of them: For as much as S. john hath commanded us to try the Spirits.  
To the first Objection: That the Pope was both judge and Party, he answers: That the Pope ought not to lose his right of calling Counsels, and of being Precedent in them, for that he had obtained this right 1500 years before. The Huguenots can easily cut him off 500 years of his time. In all which space, the Pope neither once called any general Council, nor sat Precedent in it. The first of Nice was called by Constantine the great. That of Constantinople by Theodosius Senior: That of Ephesus, by Theodosius junior: That of Chalcedon, by Marcianus, the Emperor. The same also may be affirmed of those that sat Precedent in them. In the Council of Nice was Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spain, President. In the Council of Ephesus, Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria. And thus much may suffice for so evident a truth.  
Secondly, he answers; That it is nothing repugnant to the equity of a great Prince, to be both judge and Party. In so much as a Sovereign Prince is perpetually judge, until he be lawfully declared to have forfeited his principality, although the suit be commenced against himself. But I say, that there is still a third, which arbitrates betwixt the Prince and his Subjects, when there is a suit between them: And although the judge be the Prince's Officer, yet may he pronounce sentence against him, 
* En denier resort.  which himself cannot repeal; and there is no Prince, but a Tyrant, that would reverse that judgement, as the Pope hath done in disannulling the decrees of the Counsels of Basil & Constance, made against himself. But admit I should confess, that a Prince might be judge in his own cause; yet ought that to be understood in a suit of mean consequence: but when the controversy be, whether he be a lawful King or not, we may well assure ourselves that he would never be deposed, if he might be his own arbitrator: and of this nature is the first Article of the process against the Pope. The Huguenots deny him to be head of the church; How then I pray shall this Controversy be decided, if there be no other judge besides himself?  
Thirdly, he shows by examples, that Pope Marcelline, Sixtus the third, Symachus, Leo, Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria, Cyril, and Leo the first, were judges in their own causes. As for S. Marcelline (saith he) when as he had offered Incense unto Idols, he went and accused himself in the Council of Sinuessa, and yet durst no man denounce Sentence against him, but all the Bishops cried out with one consent: Father, judge thyself with thine own mouth. To which I answer: That it is easy to discover this to be but a forged Council, which brings in the Emperor Dioclesian, talking with S. 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 Bithynia. Secondly, there is a great deal of difference between a plain case, & a right in question. For S. Marcelline was accused of an act, of which he was most apparently guilty: So that the Bishops perceiving that the Pope denied not the fact, and that he was penitent for it, offered to refer themselves to that sentence which he would give against himself lust as if a man should say to a Thief that were taken in the manner; Thou seest thyself openly guilty, thou knowest likewise the punishment ordained by the law for such offences, What thinkest thou that thou hast deserved? Speak a God's name and be thine own judge: surely this would be very acceptable to all malefactors, to conclude thereupon, that they should have no other judges go upon them but themselves. His second example is of Sixtus the third, who being (saith he) accused of adultery, would have a Synod called by th'emperors authority. But they would not, nor indeed, durst they (saith he) meddle with his Cause before all the Bishops were met, and that they understood the Pope's pleasure, whether he were willing to have them so decide his business, or not. I answer; that this was but a singular favour shown him by the Emperor Valentinian, by reason of his innocency: For the Pope himself was willing that other men should have been judges in his business: But it follows not hereupon, that every Pope in every cause ought to claim the same privilege; but the contrary rather: viz. That Pope Sixtus the fifth, who would not suffer himself to be judged by any other man, aught to have been so, because Sixtus the third, who would have been so was not. What necessity is there in censuring him, whose innocency is clear; and as it was a token of innocency in the one to submit himself unto censure, so to refuse all men's verdicts, but his own, is an evidence▪ that he finds himself guilty. But I demand now, whether that singular privilege granted unto Sixtus, must thenceforth be taken for a leading cause or not? If he answers no, then is this instance nothing to his purpose: if yea, The Catholics will oppose it; for Bellarmine confesseth, 
Tom. 1. Cont. 4.  that in case of heinous crimes, a Council may be called to sit upon the Pope: 
Lib. 4. Cap. 9  But the thinks not peradventure that Sixtus was accused of any heinous crime: which (as I think) is the reason that he names not his fault, because he barely intimates, that he was accused of Adultery; whereas indeed, he was accused for defiling of a Nun; which we, good Catholics, style not Adultery, but Incest; by reason of the spiritual consanguinity which is betwixt a Priest and a Nun.  
His third example is of Symachus, whose consent (saith he) was required even for the calling of that Council, wherein himself was accused. The Huguenots will desire no more at the Pope's hands, then to do as Symachus did; for, albeit his consent went to the calling of the Council; yet when it was called, he took not upon him the part of a judge in it, but with all humbleness purged himself before the Council of those crimes which he was charged withal.  
The fourth example is of Leo the third, of which passage the troth is this: The Romans bearing a spleen to Leo, for that Charlemaigne the Emperor had enforced them to swear allegiance to him; out of mere malice laid many slanders upon him; But Charlemaigne appearing at Rome, they, for fear of him, durst not stand to it to prosecute their proofs against him, but at the very first canvas they all cried out; That the Apostolic Sea could not be judged by any man. Which clamour testifies nothing else, then, That is the nature of the vulgar, to fall from one extreme to another. And therefore they having slandered the Pope before out of malice, they afterwards thought to curry favour again, by flattering him for fear. But let us hear what follows: Did not Arrius (saith he) heretofore dispute the case in a matter of faith with Alexander? Notwithstanding was this Alexander judge in the Council of Nice. Was not Cyril Precedent in the Council of Ephesus, notwithstanding he was one of the parties? And who but Leo sat Precedent at the Counsel of Chalcedon, notwithstanding that all the difference than was betwixt him and Dioscorus? I answer: That the controversies which then were betwixt Alexander, Cyril, Leo, and the foresaid Heretics, concerned them no more, than it did the rest of the Bishops of the Church: whereas that of the Pope is a private quarrel, wherein the dignity of his person is questioned. Again, Cyril was not Precedent of the Council, so as that he could allow or annul the Decrees as he thought good; but sat only first in order, having otherwise but his single voice; whereas the Pope now a days hath his negative voice to disannul a whole Council though general: yea, and to make his decretals upon what he lists, without a Council. As for Alexander, he sat neither as judge nor Precedent, but only as a private Bishop amongst the rest. To conclude, Leo came not at all to the Council of Chalcedon, and Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople sat Precedent in it.  
His concluding reason why the Pope may be judge, is; because (as he saith) he is not judge alone, but hath diverse Assistants. I answer: That in the latter Counsels he hath been sole judge; and that the rest of the Bishops have not been so much his Assistants, as his Vassals. For, whatsoever the Council decrees, is void, without the confirmation of the Pope be to it, (witness his abrogation of the Counsels of Frankford, Basil, and Constance.) chose, whensoever the Pope makes a Decree without a Council, it is of as much virtue as the definitions of the most holy Council, that ever was or can be. For the Pope's Advocates maintain, that he cannot err in a matter of faith, though he should give judgement without a Council: and that a Council may err, if not confirmed by him. To what purpose then, serve the other Bishops joined with him as companions, when as he may do all without them, and they nothing without him?  
The second Objection of the Catholic Apology, 
Obiect. 2.  viz. That the Huguenots had not fair audience: is first (saith he) confuted by that very book which the Protestants set forth, entitled, Causacur Electores: For they confess in that book that they were summoned to the Council. And we may read moreover of many ample safe Conducts, whereby full liberty was given to the Protestants, to come to the Council. And this briefly is his answer; to which I reply:  
First, that the book which he mentions, delivers no reason why they came not to the Council, but why they judged, that the form of proceeding in that Council was like to be such, as that their coming thither would have been to no purpose. But to what end answers he, that they were summoned? The Apology affirms not, that they were not called, but that they were not heard. For it is not enough for a judge to call both the parties before him, if he suffers but one of them to speak: and just thus fell it out at that Council of Trent; for Brentius, and other Divines of Swevia were sent thither by the Duke of Wittenberg, but might not be suffered to dispute when they came there▪ Melancthon also, and other Ministers of Saxony, were upon the way, but turned back again, having received intelligence from Mauritius, the Electors Ambassador there, that they could not be heard.  
Secondly, I reply; that admit that they had been suffered to dispute, and had been heard, yet were the Conditions altogether unequal, for they requiring to have a deciding voice, with the rest of the Council, according to the form of the safe Conduct granted to the Bohemians by the Council of Basil. But the Tridentine Fathers would none of that; refusing to admit of any to have decisive voices, but only the Catholic Divines.  
Thirdly, the Huguenots had good cause to suspect the safe conduct; for john Hus had also a safe conduct from the Emperor Sigismond, to come to the Council of Constance; and yet coming thither, was there burnt.  
To the third Objection, 
Obiect. 3.  viz: That the Apostle commands us to try the Spirits whether they be of God, or no; he answers: That the Apostle there speaks not of such things as be already certain, and defined in the Church: but of matters rather vp-start & ambiguous, as are those of our treacherous Adversaries. Soft and fair, not too fast; there is no man affirms, that we must try a thing that is certain; but that we are not to settle our belief upon it, without proofs that it is certain. For a thing may be certain in itself; nevertheless, if it does not appear to be certain unto us, we may well make trial of it, for that without trying, we cannot understand the certainty. But it is (saith he) lawful to try the Huguenots opinions, because they be new and ambiguous. If then it be lawful to try the new, 'tis also lawful (say I) to try the old; for two opposite Opinions are Relatives; so that we cannot make demonstration that the new are false, but we must prove withal, that the old are true. And as for the ambiguity 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 Catholics certainly true: and consequently, even by the judgement of our Adversary himself, it is lawful to try it. But let us now examine his reasons upon which he concludes, that it is not lawful to try the Spirits of the Council.  
First (saith he) if we ought to try them all, then were it lawful to try the Spirits of the Council of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, & Chalcedon: Whereupon it must follow, that we ought to discuss again the wicked heresies of Arrius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutiches, and examine again the sacred Scriptures themselves, the Oracles of the Prophets, the History of Moses, and finally the holy Gospel. At length he concludes, That if things which be determined by the holy Counsels, aught to be held for certain, there is no reason to suffer the Decrees of the Council of Trent, to be called again into question. I answer: That we ought to hold the Decrees of the former Counsels for most certain; and yet is it lawful nevertheless, to make question of the determinations of the Council of Trent: to which purpose diverse reasons might be alleged; how be it, this one may suffice for the present: For that in every Council, we ought to deliberate and measure things, before we judge; and after this, the judgement of a Council which hath duly examined and judged, (according to the right measure) ought not to be called again in question. But to know now, whether a man hath truly measured, we must take consideration of the size and manner of measuring by it. Now will the Huguenots say, that the Rule which the Conncell of Nice did measure by, was only the Scripture, or the written Word, as the words of Constantine do testify: 
Theod. l. 10. c. 70.  which be these. All seditious contention set aside, let us discuss the things in controversy by the testimony of the Scriptures divinely inspired. The manner of measuring then was, to apply the Doctrine to the said Rule or Scripture, and accordingly to receive or reject it, as it was conformable or varying, to or from the said Rule. But now hath the Council of Trent (will the Huguenots say) much failed in all these circumstances.  
For first, it decided before it measured, for as much as even before their coming to the Council, they were every man of them, resolved to condemn 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 upon at the fourth Session of the said Council. So that it measured sometimes, either without a Rule, or at least by a Rule, very contrary to that of the Council 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: perverted the Scripture by an interpretation forced to their own opinion: For in the fourth Session, it was decreed, That no man should give 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 follows it further against the trial of the Spirits; 
2. Reason.  that if we should try all, then should we call again into question, the very Books of the holy Scripture itself. I answer no; and that it follows not, that we should call in question again the books approved by ancient Counsels, because they reject some, which are approved by the Council of Trent; seeing that in this particular, the judgement of that Council, is suspected even by Catholics themselves. For Sixtus Senensis a great Catholic, yea, even since the Council of Trent, hath rejected for Apocryphal, the seven last Chapters of the book of Hester, which were approved by the Council of Trent; which doubtless he would never have done, had he held it unlawful to try the Spirit of the said Council.  
Thirdly he argueth; 
3. Reason.  that if matters already determined and defined, may be brought in question again, what end then would there be of Controversies? I answer, that this reason is not sufficient to stay the trial of Counsels, because that this is the way to set an end to Controversies: for that it is not enough to dispatch Controversies, unless we be sure that this dispatching, is a well ending of them. And so the Arrians might even as well have persuaded us, to rely upon their packed Council of Ariminum, to give an end to Controversies. To which our Adversary can shape no other answer, but that their Council was not lawful, and that the Council of Trent was. Well then (say I) that though we may not examine the Decrees of a Council, yet may we try whether the Council were lawful or not: and for this once, we desire no more advantage than this; and thus much must be granted us in despite of the world. For if we ought simply to rely upon the Authority of Counsels, which commonly pass for lawful amongst our Doctors, without any further enquiry; there is no reason wherefore the Grecians should rather assent to the second Council of Nice, which allowed of Images; then to that of Constantinople, made up of 300. of their own Bishops, which condemned them.  
The fourth Reason, 
4. Reason.  for which he takes away the liberty of trying their doctrine, from the people, is quoted out of the 17. Chapter of Deuteronomie, where it is commanded, That men should inquire of the Priests and Leuie●s, and the judge appointed for the time in cases of difficulty. And Moses (saith our Adversary) addeth not, Try the Spirits of the Priests and judges; But if any grow proud, and will not obey the command of the Priests, that man shall die, by the sentence of the judges. Nor is this much different from that which our Lord saith in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chair, whatsoever therefore they say unto you, that observe and do. As for Moses Commandment, it was given unto the jews; 
Rab. Sal. ●archi in duty onom.  whereupon Rabbi Solomon jarchi concludes, That we are to believe whatsoever the jewish Priests say. Since than that their Priests interpreted the Prophecies, even of Christ himself, otherwise than we Christians do. A jew will say that Christ is not yet come, because their Priests deny it; and if according to our Adversary's saying, we ought not to try the Spirits of their Priests; I demand then, how he will answer the jews, 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 Commandments, so far forth, ay they are agreeable to the Law; which how can we know, unless we examine it. So that let our Adversary take his choice; either to confess, that we are not in this place forbidden to try the Spirits of the Priests, or else to acknowledge himself to be a Iew.  
To the place of Saint Matthew, 
5. Reason.  because he saith, how that it is not much unlike: our answer shall likewise be the same. For our Saviour hath not commanded us to obey the Pharisees in all things, simply; but not to take such scandal at their lives, as that we should refuse to obey them, when they speak well. For, should we simply give credit to what they bid us, without trial of it, 
Mat. 17.  why should we believe that jesus Christ is the Son of God, when as the high Priest said that he blasphemed in calling himself so.  
His last reason is drawn from the Council of the Apostles mentioned Acts 15. It seemed good unto the holy Ghost and to us: Whence he concludes, That God's Spirit is so infallibly tied unto a lawful Council, that we ought not to call the definitions of it into question: nor would Saint Paul himself (saith our Adversary) examine the instructions of the Council of the Apostles: as Saint Luke saith, Acts 16. He gave them that to observe, which was ordained by the Apostles and the Elders which were at jerusalem. I would fain ask one of our Catholic Doctors, to what purpose are there so many disputations and consultations at our Counsels, if so be that the holy Ghost doth so infallibly direct them? His answer will be, That God's ordinary providence is such, as that he still assists them with his Spirit, when they for their parts, apply that diligence, which they ought, and not otherwise; Just as he makes not the ground fruitful, but when the husbandman tills and sows his corn in it, and applies such labour as the soil requires. And thus much is clear by this passage: namely, That the Apostles did apply all industry and the aptest means, for the resolving of the doubts proposed: for it is said, That after a long disputation Peter stood up: whence a man may conclude; That the holy Ghost is no otherwise promised to a Council, then conditionally; viz. when the Council doth apply all the means and industry on their parts, for the finding out of the truth: and that otherwise it may be destitute of God's Spirit, namely; when it doth not apply the means. So that albeit we are not to examine the Decrees of that Council, which hath used these means; yet may we inquire whether it hath applied these means or no; for that we cannot be otherwise assured that God's Spirit did assist it. The Huguenots I know well, will require another manner of trial; not only of the course in the proceedings, but of the Articles also concluded upon. But that the Huguenots may not have a twofold advantage against us, we should do well to show them: first, That the Council of Trent hath observed these lawful courses; and then shall we have but one thing to do; which is, To make good the Articles; which are so difficult to be proved, that it would be wisely done of us, to put it off as long as we can, and first to decide all other differences.   

CAP. 5.  
That the Council of Trent hath not as yet been received in France.  
EVen as the Kings of France ought to have no one thing in greater recommendation, then to be the inheritors of the virtues of their predecessors; so should they not likewise be more careful of any thing, then to eschew such occasions as might soil the reputation of this virtue, and bewray them to have cooled in the zeal and piety of their Ancestors: who (as all know) have ever been accounted the eldest sons of the Church, and the main upholders of the Sea Apostolic: and for that one reason of this their zeal, have received more privileges and honours, than any other Prince of Christendom whatsoever. Now then, seeing that the Council of Trent hath established so many decrees, so directly opposing the former privileges and honours; what hath it done more by so doing, then to proclaim to the world, That the Kings at this day have less zeal than their Ancestors had, and are therefore unworthy to enjoy those honours bestowed upon them. So that the reason why our later Kings have rejected the said Council, may be, for that they could not well approve of that, without reproving of themselves; nor publish it, without publishing also unto the world, a shameful confession of their own demerits. But to come to the point; I purpose only to buckle to the objections of the Catholic Apology, which our Adversary offers to confute; and those be three.  
1 That the Kings of France have ever refused that Council.  
2 That it hath called in question the precedency and priority of place, which was due unto our Kings, in all assemblies.  
3 That there be diverse things decreed in the said Council, flatly against the liberties of the French Church, and the Majesty of the King.  
As for the first point; 
1 Objection.  namely, that it hath never been received by our Kings: he answers to it in general; That this objection touches not so much the Council, as it reproacheth the Kings of France. For what else can this mean (saith he) then to persuade all men, that our Kings have been Schismatics, and disobedient to the Universal Church. I answer, That it is no news to have the Kings of France oppose themselves against the Counsels of the Church of Rome: seeing that not the Council of Trent alone, hath been refused by King Henry the second, and all his Sons who reigned after him; but even the general Council of Vienna also, was never wholly received in France. And even as King Henry the second, forbade his Bishops to be present at the Council of Trent, so would not King Charles the seventh suffer his to be present at that of Basil: and yet was not he any whit the more a Schismatic (as our Adversary concludes) nor disobedient to the Church universal. But let us see now, how he demonstrates the Council of Trent to have been received by our Kings: There be certain Letters (saith he) of Charles the ninth yet to be seen, 
1 Reason.  in which he honoureth and reverenceth that Council: and in the very same page, to answer that objection of K. Henry the seconds forbidding his Bishops to repair unto that Council, he having nothing else to say; then That it is not so necessary to look so narrowly into what King Henry did at the beginning; for, that the admitting or receiving of a Council, 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 Council broke up, do not prove his approbation of the Council, because he refused to receive it, when it was fully ended. For if the rejecting of it by King Henry the second before the end of it, does not prove that he did finally reject it; no more doth that honour which Charles the ninth did it, before it broke up, prove that he did receive it.  
Secondly, 
2 Reason.  The King (saith he) showed the reason why the Bishops of France came no sooner to the Council; which is one of the most pleasant Arguments that yet I ever heard. For if this be a sufficient reason to prove that the King did receive the Council, because he gave a reason for the absence of his Bishops; then have the Protestant Princes of Germany also received it, because they published a whole book of the reasons that moved them to absent themselves from thence.  
Thirdly, 
3 Reason.  The King (says he) sent his Orator and Ambassador the Sieur de Lansack, Knight of his own Order, thither; who in his Majesty's name was at the Council; with whom he joined in commission Reginald Ferrier Precedent of the Parliament, and Guy de Faur, judge Maior of Tholouse. A goodly proof, The King approved of the Council, because he sent his Ambassador thither. As though the Electors of Germany of the confession of Augsburg, sent not their Ambassadors thither 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 proof for the receiving of the Council; nor is there indeed any other. For the King sent not his Ambassadors to the Council, to confirm it; but to admonish it, to reform the abuses of the Church; giving express charge unto his Ambassadors, that they should solicit the Fathers, not to decree any thing against the Huguenots; until they themselves had first of all reformed the abuses in the Ecclesiastical Polity: And in case that this were not done, then that they should protest against the said Council: all which appears in the Letters which the King himself sent unto Monseur du Ferrier. See here then the brief of the King's Commission, and of Monseur du Ferrier and de Pibrac their Orations in the Council: They both, and Monseur du Ferrier especially, often in the King's name requiring the reformation of the abuses of the Church. Which admonitions for that the Council did reject, they according to their King's command, rejected the Council, and refused to subscribe to it; nor did the King afterwards receive it, or the court of Parliament ever publish it; no not after that Saint Bartholomew's day, 
The massacre Anno Dom. 1572  when the time seemed most importune to favour any thing, that might be prejudicial to the Huguenots.  
But at least, the Bishops have approved it. For when the decrees of it were openly read in the last Session, the Bishops were present and gave their voices and suffrages.  
I answer: 
4 Reason.  first; that so far was the consent of the Bishops from confirming of the Council, that quite contrary it discovers the unjust proceedings of it. For those Bishops that gave their voices to it, in the last Session; gave their sentence deliberative upon the points which had been treated upon, in the former Sessions under Paulus the third, and julius the third, before that the said Bishops came to the Council; a thing contrary to all Civil Law, to equity itself, and to the customs of all the Parliaments, high courts of justice, and other judiciaries, which out of the persons of many judges, are made one body; In all which, those that have not been there all the time, are not suffered to deliver their opinions.  
Secondly, it does not hereupon follow, that the Bishops have approved of this Council, because they gave their consents to the Articles of it: For there is a great deal of difference betwixt those that agree in opinion with the Decrees of a Council, and those that uphold an opinion, only because the Council hath decreed it. For our Adversary agrees in opinion with the Devil, in that it is written how God gave his Angel's charge over our Lord jesus Christ: yet he does not I think believe it never the more for that the devil said it. Furthermore, at what time as they gave their consent to the Articles aforesaid, the Council was not confirmed by the Pope: now it is our Adversaries own Tenet, That a Council is void, if not confirmed by the Pope; and this one reason he makes to serve his own turn against the Council of Basil. It is (saith he) a Rule most generally known, that Counsels are not to be received, without the Authority of the Pope. Whereupon it follows, That those who gave their consents to the said Articles, did at the very same time when they gave their consents, hold the said Council, to be as yet, no Council. So that a man cannot hereby prove, that they did receive the Council, because they gave their voices to the Articles.  
To the second Objection, 
2. Objection.  which touches upon the precedency of the most Christian King, he answers thus in brief: That the Council was so far from offering to diminish the King's Authority; that to the contrary, the King's Ambassadors by the unanimous consent of all, were seated immediately next after the Emperors; but the Spanish Ambassador, out of his rank 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 prejudicial unto him. He should not have answered, That the Council seated the King's Ambassador next unto the Emperors, but only, that the Council did not put him out of his right place. For in the 22. Session, Monsieur du Ferrier, & de Pibrac, being suspicious of the affection of the Council, went in betimes to take up their places, insomuch that the Count de Luna Ambassador for the King of Spain, made public protestation before the Fathers, how that his place was taken up: Whereupon Monsieur de Pibrac required, that the said Protestation of his, might not be prejudicial to his King's Prerogative, whose Ambassadors had ever had the first place, next to the Emperors, as they had at the Counsels of Constance and Lateran: But for all this, the Council would not umpire the business. And though they took not the place away from the King's Ambassadors, yet our Adversary confesseth, that they would not pronounce that this place did belong unto 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 rank, yet would not the Council have it to be prejudicial unto him. Which is nothing else then to declare, That that place, which they permitted the King's Ambassadors to keep for the time for avoiding of contention (and for that they had betimes already taken it up much against the wills of the Fathers) should not be prejudicial unto that right, which they thought to be due unto the King of Spain.  
Secondly, put case the Council to have been so evenly affected (as he would make it) yet did they wrong (say I) nevertheless, in forbearing to be umpires openly in the King's cause; For there is no man, that can deny a thing most apparent, at the first dash, but he must gain upon it, by little and little. So that the first degree to it, is to call a thing into question: nor does any man wilfully call a thing into question, unless he purposes absolutely to deny it afterwards. So that it is easily discerned, that the Council at this time bringing the King's precedency into question, and making the King of Spain equal with him, had a plot in it, at the next Council to give him the place above the King of France.  
Lastly, admit the Council to have had no such plot upon him, but only to carry an even regard to both, yet the wrong remains nevertheless, it being no less injurious to make an inferior equal to his superior, then to make an equal, superior to his equal.  
Thereremaines now (saith our Adversary) the last Objection only, viz: That the Council of Trent hath decreed diverse things against the Realm of France; which is the reason that it is not received there. But this Objection (saith he) serves little to the purpose: For the question is not only about Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but about Faith and Religion. Wherefore although that the Decrees of the Council for reformation be not received in France, yet the Decrees which treat above Faith, are.  
Our Adversary cannot deny, but that the Council of Trent hath decreed some things against the French liberty; only he answers, that all this hinders not the receiving of the other Articles which merely concern Faith. His own words are, This Objection serves to little purpose, for that the question is not only about Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but about Faith, and Religion. And I say again, that this answer of his, serves as little to the purpose; for that we treat not of things that concern either Reformation, or Faith, but of the Authority only by which those Decrees were enacted. That is to say, whether the judgement of the Council of Trent, be in France received for a sentence not liable to be appealed from? and whether they here believe those Articles wherein they agree with the Council implicitly, for that the Council hath decreed them.  
For how shall it be proved, that a man who believes a thing which another hath reported, did believe it upon the reporters credit, unless he be confident withal, that he who reported this, would not report an untruth, and that he durst trust him in any thing. But France now does not believe the Council of Trent in all things: for our Adversary himself confesses, that it refused the Decrees of the Council which touched upon Reformation. Whereupon it follows, that though France doth agree in opinion with the Council in what it decreed concerning matters of Faith, yet does it not hold this opinion for any regard to the Counsels authority, but for some other respect; else might he conclude as well, That the Huguenots do receive the said Council, for that they believe diverse Articles of it, which are against the Anabaptists, and other Heretics of our time. For even as they refuse the authority of the said Council, in that very same part whereof they receive the Articles; so may we as well refuse the whole Council, and yet receive 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 authority of the whole. But let us now mark how he concludes, that this Council is received in France. Our Adversaries own self confesseth (saith he) That this Council is received by the Bishops: but what man can persuade himself, that the Bishops have another faith and religion from that professed by the King, and all the Catholic people? For, how may the King be styled, The most Christian, if he were of a Faith singular from the Bishops? And how should the people be called, The Lord's Flock, unless they acknowledged some Pastors?  
See then, this in brief is his Argument: The Bishops have received the Council; The King and the people have believed the Bishops. Ergo, The Council hath been received by the King, the Bishops, the Clergy, and likewise of all the people of France. I have shown already how he hath not made it good as yet, that the Bishops which then were, have received it: and for the Bishops and Clergy at this day, though diverse of them for the advancement of the Holy League, have endeavoured to cause the said Council to be received; yet might the King and the people refuse it notwithstanding, and yet not cease for all that, to be of the same faith with them; in so much as the approbation of that Council is not an Article of faith: for the Council of Ephesus hath expressly prohibited us the addition of any other Article of faith unto those which were then received; in which number, the receiving of the Tridentine Council 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 be most Christian, nor the people Christ his flock. First, as for the King, for as much as this reason is drawn from his Title; I say, that if the King were the greatest Heretic in the world, yet should he not be deprived of his Title. Henry the eight, King of England, received the Title of Defender of the faith from Pope Leo the tenth, for writing against Luther. King Edward the sixth, and the last Queen of famous memory, and the now reigning KING, who have changed the Religion, for defending of which, King Henry received this Title, do still keep the same Style: And by very good right too; for Titles, though personal, and proper only to the first of the Race that receive them, (as Catholic to Ferdinando King of Arragon; Defender of the faith, to Henry the eight King of England) yet do they descend unto their successors, as ornaments only annexed to their State. So that it is not Philip of Austria, who is Catholic in that sense, but the King of Spain. For, if we consider of Kings only in point of Religion, the King of France may be as good a Catholic as the King of Spain; and the King of Spain as good a Christian as the King of France; and yet the Title of Christian belongs only unto the one, and the Title of Catholic to the other.  
But above 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 given to the King of France, as to the first King of Europe, that abolished Paganism, and who still had the most wars of all with the Saracens, enemies of the name of Christ. True it is, that this title might incline him the more to embrace that doctrine which is best, but for that it hath not been hitherto agreed upon which of the two is the best, we must not prove one doubt by another. For the Huguenots may as well convert this reason to persuade the King to reform the Church, as the Catholics use it, to incline him to maintain the Romish Religion: howbeit there is not any thing that the King can do, more worthy of this Title of his, then to do both; that is to say, to maintain the Roman Church, and to reform it. Neither is there any contradiction in these two, seeing there is no better means to make the Iron endure long, then to scour away the rust; nor to maintain the Church of Rome, then to reform the abuses of it. Nevertheless, to establish such a course, that any of the Iron be not scraped away, in stead of the rust; and yet see that it be bright scoured; there is no safer means then to do quite contrary to that which our Aduersay adviseth; viz. To let their Council of Trent sleep, and to call another, wherein both parts may have indifferent hearing: by which means, if so be that there be any corruption in the Church of Rome, it may be seen into and purged. And if there be any error in the doctrine of the Huguenots; they may be evicted and instructed in a better faith. And this were the way to reunite us all in one faith; and this would be an act indeed well worthy a most Christian King.  
3 But descend we now to the people: How should they (saith he) be the sheep of Christ's flock, if so be they acknowledge not any Pastors? I answer; That they may well enough acknowledge their Pastors, though they believe not just as the Pastors of their Country do. For that no man is obliged to build his faith, but upon an infallible foundation: and it is confessed by the Catholics themselves, that all the Bishops in a whole country may err in point of faith. So that the people are not always obliged, to ground their faith upon that of their Bishops, and consequently may be of another faith, and yet be of the flock of jesus Christ: As in very troth, our Saviour does not call them his Sheep which heard the Bishops, but those that hear his voice; which is, the word of God.  
Let us now look upon his conclusion: And so (saith he) is the Council honoured of the King, the Bishops, the Clergy, and likewise of all the people of France. Admit it were so; yet for all this does it not follow, that it is received in France, unless he can show withal, that all the Estates do receive it: that is, The Church, the Nobility, and the People: But he makes no mention of the Nobility, but only of the Church, and the third Estate, so that at the most it is received but of two of the three Estates: which may be the cause that our Adversary, to keep up the number divides the Church into two parts, viz. Bishops, and Clergy: The Council (saith he) is received of the Bishops, the Clergy, and likewise of all the people of France. Which is a new division of the Estates, never, as I persuade myself, heard of before. judge then what just occasion the Nobility of France now have to reject this Council, when as those who would have the Council received, do reject the Nobility.   

CAP. 6.  
That the Huguenots may very rightly be accounted members of the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church.  
THis Chapter at the first blush, seems to treat of the same Argument that the first does; for having there proved it, That the Huguenots are of the same religion with us Catholics, it may follow also, that they be of the same Church too: And yet to my thinking, these two Chapters may very well be parted; not so much in regard of the difference of the nature of the subject, as of the humours of the persons. For commonly, when a Huguenot would draw a Catholic to his opinion, he begins evermore with the particular Controversies; and so, upon the purity of his doctrine, he infers the verity of his Church.  
A Catholic, on the other side, when he would win a Huguenot, begins 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 track, they are to seek; which is one of the reasons that they cannot satisfy the adverse party. For he that would persuade another, must not begin with that principle which to him seems best, (though indeed it be so) but with that which seems best in his opinion whom he desires to persuade; otherwise, he shall but lose his labour.  
For, when a Huguenot shall have urged a thousand passages of holy Scripture, to prove the truth of his own particular assertion, he shall not be a whit the nearer; and why? For that a Catholic will say instantly with himself; What though I cannot answer him, yet another may: and if I am to believe nothing which I am not able to maintain by disputation, then should I not believe the proceeding of the holy Ghost, the union of both Natures in jesus Christ, the mysteries of the holy Trinity: all which I have believed, without being able to maintain them, or so much as understand them. And even so, the authority of the same Church which makes me believe these mysteries, without being able to maintain them, makes me also to believe the holy sacrament of the Altar, Purgatory, etc. without being able to maintain them. So that if a Hugu: proceeds no further, & does not show a reason how a man may be assured of these mysteries without the Church's authority; or else (which I hold more reasonable) why we ought wholly to rely upon the authority of the Church in one point, and not in another; he shall never say aught to the purpose. Nor can the Catholics have any happier success in their persuasives; for when they talk to the Huguenots of the Church; how the Church says this, and the Church says that, and the Church cannot err: They who are not brought up to such kind of phrases; and who found their faith upon this persuasion, That the Scripture is clear on their sides; What care we (will they say) what the Church saith, so long as we agree in opinion with the word of God. So that a Catholic shall never be able to persuade them to any thing, if he begins not at their foundation, and prove, that the Scripture makes not so clearly for them, as they imagine it does: and then when they once perceive, that they cannot confute the Catholics by Scripture, they will be compelled to confess; That a man can have no assurance of his faith, without submitting his own judgement to the judgement of the Church: which (as we say) according to Christ's own promise, is infallibly accompanied with the holy Spirit. For mine own part, although it be not my intention to entice any man, either to one Religion or the other, but to qualify only the passions of men: yet for fear that I should commit the same error in this Treatise of Pacification, which they often do in the course of their persuasives, I thought good to subioine this Chapter also; to the end that my reasons might be drawn from the principles of both Religions. And thus having proved in the first Chapter, by examination of the particular questions, according to the Huguenots method, That they be no Heretics; I was also desirous to add this Chapter, that according to the Catholics manner of proceeding (that is as much to say, as according to the Nature of the Church) I might also prove them (the Huguenots) to be no Heretics. For, it were but labour lost, to tell many of our Catholics, that the Huguenots hold many of the fundamental points of faith as well as we, seeing they take not the scantling of an heretic by his opinions, but only by this mark, That he is out of the Church, understanding thereby no other Church, then that which we call Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman: excluding all those out of the Church, to whom these three titles may not be given, what opinion soever they be of. For which reason I resolved to prove, that these three titles do belong unto the Huguenots.  
And first touching the title of Catholic; 
Catholic.  the Church is called Catholic in three respects. First, in regard of itself. 2. In regard of the jews. 3. In regard of Heretics.  
Now the Church is called Catholic in regard of itself, because in the universality thereof, 
How the Church is called Catholic in respect of itself.  it comprehends all times, and all places, viz: the whole number of the Elect, as well those who have been since the beginning of the world, and are now departed and triumphant in heaven, enjoying everlasting bliss; as those that are ordained to the like blessedness whether now alive, or to be borne hereafter. Which definition is founded upon the Scriptures; for S. Paul's words are; The Church of the firstborn, 
Heb. 12. 23.  which are written in Heaven: and who are written in heaven, but the Elect? from whom the reprobates are in this specialty distinguished, 
Reuel. 13. 18.  That their names are not written in the Book of the Lamb. The Church than consists of the Elect, who are not restrained to any place or time, For jesus Christ hath redeemed with his blood (saith Saint john) Out of every kindred, 
Reuel. 5. 9  and tongue, and people, and nation. With which definition the Fathers jointly consent; 
August. de Catechizandis Rudibus, cap. 12.  All they (saith Saint Augustine) which are holy and sanctified, which are, have been, and shall be, are Citizens of the heavenly jerusalem: 
Greg. Mor. in job. lib. 28. cap. 9  And S. Gregory the Pope (that my proof may be the more authentical) saith, That all the Elect are embraced in the bosom of the Church, and all the Reprobates are without. And yet was poor john hus burnt for an Heretic, for affirming the very same.  
O wicked Catholics, that have made a man to be burnt for an Heretic, for affirming no more, than 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 themselves call the Reformed Church, can properly be called the Catholic Church, but only parts of it. Nay, we cannot truly affirm, that they be parts of the Catholic Church; but that God hath both in the Roman Church, and in the Reformed, some that be members of the Catholic Church. Which is as much to say, as that diverse shall be saved in both Churches. Like as there were many amongst the jews at the coming of jesus Christ, and at this day be in the Greek Church, and in Prester john's Country, which do embrace the Christian faith, without acknowledging the Pope. So that if we appropriate the title of Catholic to the Roman Church only taking it in this signification; it must needs so low, that either all the Catholics are elected (though the Catholics themselves write that diverse Popes have been damned) or else, that no jew was ever saved before Christ's coming, and that God hath not had his Church at all times: or that no Greek nor African can be saved in our time; and than God should not have his Church in all places. Again, if we attribute not this title of Catholic only to the Church of Rome, I can see no reason why the reformed Church should be more excluded than the rest. To be brief, when we pass our censure upon any man, whether he be of the Catholic Church, or not; we must speak either according to Faith, or according to Charity. If according to Faith, we cannot say, that such or such a man is a Catholic, because it is God that knoweth who are his, 
2 Tim. 2. 19  saith S. Paul: But if we pass our judgement according to charity, this will have us esteem all those to be of the true Catholic Church, which be of the visible; of which I will next speak, and show how it may be termed Catholic.  
2 The Church, as I have proved already, comprehends all the Elect, those as well that be already in heaven, 
How the Church is called Catholic, in respect of the jews.  as those that are yet on earth, and remain mingled among the wicked; which last, though generally more in number, yet the Elect bear 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 coming of Christ penned up in one country, and restrained to the Family of Israel: But since Christ's coming, 
Ephes. 2. 14.  This partition wall is (as S. Paul saith) broken down; so that neither jew nor Greek are excluded. And by reason of this difference, that the jews in those days had only this privilege, and that now no one particular country hath it more than another, the Church is called Catholic: that is to say, Spread all the world over. And for that she is so universal, she is divided into particular Churches: As in Saint Paul's time, into the Church of Ephesus, of Rome, of Galatia, of Corinth, etc. and no one of these Churches having any privilege more than another, they were all together called The Church Catholic: not that it is always everywhere, but for that no country is excluded, and no place privileged. So then, no place being excluded, there may be other Churches besides that of Rome; and no place being privileged, even Rome itself may be cut off from the Church.  
3 Thirdly, the Church is called Catholic, in respect of the Donatists, 
How the Church is called Catholic, in regard of Heretics.  who denied the Church to be dispersed all over the world; but held it to be cooped up in Africa: whereupon it came to pass, that those Churches which held the contrary, were called the Catholic Churches. Even as at this day, these Churches that hold, the Church to have need of reformation, are called The Reformed Churches: Which is the reason why the more ancient Fathers never used this term Catholic, to distinguish the pure Churches from the heretical; but called them Orthodoxal. But in process of time, by reason that the Orthodox Churches held, that the Church was Catholic or Universal; these two words Catholic and Orthodoxal, were taken in one and the same signification: so that at last, this title of Catholic, was not only given to the Church, to distinguish the Orthodox from the Donatists, but also from all other Heretics. For a Catholic in proper speech is not opposite to all sorts of Heretics, but to the jews only and the Donatists. But for as much as custom is the matter of words (as we see in this word Tyrant, anciently taken in good part for a King, and now only for a bad King) this word Catholic 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 Catholic Church, and more or less Catholic, proportionably as it is more or less pure. So that the question between the Catholics and the Huguenots, lies not in this point, viz. Which of the Churches is the Church Catholic; but whether of them is most Catholic, and which most corrupted: for in some degree both of them may be Catholic, so long as they hold the substance of faith, (as I showed in the first Chapter) and both of them in some sort may be corrupt: it being a thing most certain, That every visible Church may have errors, more or less. 
Bernard▪ in Cantica, Sermone. 38  The Church (saith Saint Bernard) as long as she is in the tabernacle of this body, hath not attained unto the perfection of beauty, and is not therefore absolutely fair: For it is the privilege of the Church Triumphant only to be fair, and as S. Paul saith, without spot or wrinkle. 
Ephes. 5.  True it is indeed that the Church is sometime called fair, but this is ever comparatively: 
Cant. 1.  wherefore the Bridegroom in the Canticles saith of his Spouse (which is the Church) that she is the fairest of women: that is, not simply fair (saith S. Bernard) but the fairest among women. And for that self same reason, is she in one and the same verse, styled both black and fair. I am black (saith the Spouse) but I am comely.  
I am not ignorant how that the Ancients also did use this word Catholic, for a distinction from an Heretic, in another signification; which in truth was according to the proper interpretation of the word, taking Catholic or Universal, for a mark of the true Church. For which reason in the ancient Church, when as the whole visible Church yet retained the faith received from the Apostles, and that some part of it became corrupted; for the exact discerning unto whether side we ought to lean, Vincentius Lyrinensis 
Vincent. Lyr. l. advers. haereses.  gave this Rule: What else should we do (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 Catholic, for so much this word Body, as well as that word Catholic, implies an universality; so that the distinction of Catholic and Heretic, serves but to distinguish the sound body, from a corrupted member. But so soon as the body itself became corrupted, than this rule and distinction failed. For which reason Vincentius makes a difference between a Catholic in place, and a Catholic in time. And ever when a Catholic in place is not a sure mark, he hath recourse unto a Catholic in time. But (saith he) if any new infection goes on, 
Eodem lib. adu. haeres.  not only to corrupt a part, but the whole Church, then must we cleave to antiquity. So that the difference between the Catholics and the Huguenots, lying in this point, Whether the body of the Church be corrupted or no? we must not speak of the Church which is Catholic according to place, but according to time. And that Church is Catholic (saith Vincentius) which holds that religion which hath been ever hitherto embraced. And to discern which Religion hath been always embraced, when as the body of the Church, or the visible Church (as saith the same Vincentius) is corrupted; we must still have recourse unto Antiquity, and say with Tertullian, Illudverum, quod primum: 
Tertul. lib, de prescript▪ adu, haeres.  That is truest which is ancientest. So as that is the Catholic Church, which agrees in faith with the more Primitive Church. So that if we would discuss it, whether the Catholics or the Huguenots be most properly the right Catholics; we must consider first, whether of them best holds of the faith of the Apostles: and next, of that of the ancient Doctors and Counsels of the Church.  
As for the Title Apostolic; The Church may be called Apostolic, as well in regard of the Writings, as of the Preaching of the Apostles. As for their Writings, those Churches which embrace the doctrine delivered in them, are entitled Apostolic; yea, and more or less Apostolic, as they do more or less agree, or disagree, to or from the said doctrine. So that the word Apostolic is all one with the word Orthodox, or with Catholic, taken in the last signification. And if the Church of the Huguenots may be entitled Catholic, or Orthodox, they may also by the same reason be called Apostolic: nay, and more properly Apostolic then Catholic. For the visible Church, being (as I have showed) not absolutely, but comparatively, more or less Catholic or Apostolic: the Huguenots, though they may offend in default, and so be less Catholic rather; yet in this, they offend rather in the excess, and are too Apostolic: as being so strict, that they will readily believe nothing, but what the Apostles have written.  
Secondly, those Churches were called Apostolic, which were instructed by the lively voice of the Apostles, 
Apostolic.  and where the Apostles have had their seats, as jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Alexandria, etc. where the Apostles Peter, james, john, and Mark the Evangelist, sat; and are therefore from all Antiquity styled Apostolical Seas, as well as Rome: howbeit that this signification is rather an ornament than a mark, of a pure Church. For Antioch, Alexandria, and other Churches of Greece, where the Apostles preached; have either altogether forsaken the name of Christ, or are at the least (according to the Catholics Tenet) quite cut off for Schism and Heresy, from the communion of the true Church: and France, Spain, Poland, Germany, England, and Denmark, where the Apostles never had any Bishoprics, have sithence been the true Churches. So that in this signification a Church may be pure, and yet not be Apostolic; and a Church which is Apostolic, may be impure.  
The last title, though first in estimation with the Catholics, 
How the Huguenots may be said to be of the Roman Church.  is that of Roman; which I have observed to have been taken in three several sorts. First, the Roman Church is only taken for the Diocese of Rome, and was in the beginning, for the City of Rome alone. As in S. Paul's time, who inscribed an Epistle severally to Rome alone, as he did likewise to those Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, etc. For had the Church of Rome been every where at that time spread abroad, he had not needed to have written to other Churches severally, because that in writing to that of Rome, he had then written to them all: And yet would our people needs make use of this Epistle, to prove by it, The Roman church to be the catholic Church, because that in it, 
Rom. 1. 8.  S. Paul says, 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 have to God-ward is spread abroad. But had the Church of Rome been (as they would have it) esteemed by S. Paul as all one with the Catholic; without all doubt his Epistle to the Romans had been entitled Catholic, as well as those of S. john, S. Peter, S. james, and S. jude, which are therefore styled Catholic, for that they were written to the Catholic Church. Now taking the Roman Church in this signification, I confess that not the Huguenots Churches alone are separated from the Roman Church, but all other catholic Churches beside: so that to this day they in France make a distinction of sundry customs of the Roman Church, and of the Church Gallicane.  
Secondly, the Church of Rome is taken for the Western Church, insomuch that the Roman, Latin, and Occidental Church, doth signify one and the same thing, to distinguish it from the Greek and Eastern Church; just 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 chief seats of the Empire: and so by reason of the dignity of the City of Rome, which was the seat of the Emperors that reigned in the West, all this Western part, was called the Roman Empire, and all the Western Church the Roman Church: that is to say; The Church contained under the Roman Empire. So then, if we call it the Roman Church, for distinguishing it from the Greek and Eastern Churches; then also may the Huguenots Churches be members likewise of the Roman Church, for that they be Western, and not Greek, nor Eastern Churches. If in respect of the Roman Empire, (taking the Roman Empire largely, as it was) they also be under the Empire, and by consequence, under the Church. But taking the Empire as it now is, then may the Churches of Germany, some of which have shaked off the Pope's authority, be more properly styled members of the Roman Church, than Rome itself; insomuch as Germany and not Rome, is at this day called the Roman Empire.  
Lastly, the Roman Church is understood, for all those, that do 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 understand by the Romish Religion, those points in which the Huguenots do agree with us, or those wherein they disagree from us, or both the one and the other.  
If those points wherein they agree with us; then they are directly of the Roman faith. If for the points only wherein they descent, then are the belief in the Trinity, and all the Articles of the three Creeds, of the Apostles, of Nice, and of Athanasius, wherein they do 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 do agree, and all the other too; I demand once again, 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 Catholics, be for number more, and for importance greater, than those questions are, upon which they disagree; they may yet nevertheless be reputed to be of the Roman Church and Faith: forasmuch as things for the most part take their Denomination from the better part. Even as we use to say; those people are of a sanguine complexion, in whom blood is predominant, although their temper be of other humours too. But if we affirm, that no man can be of this Church, unless he believes all, and the selfsame, that the Church of Rome doth; then say I, that whilst we go about to prove, that the Huguenots be not of our Church, we shall show withal, that we have not any one man, who is absolutely of the Church: insomuch as that there is no one man, learned or unlearned; that believes all, just as the Church doth.  
For it is the credit of our Doctors, to maintain singular opinions by themselves; which may be the reason why Bellarmine, the greatest Adversary to the Huguenots, accuses all the Catholics that ever were before him, of Error, and those especially, which have written against the Huguenots; as Genebrard, Pighius, Eckius, Hosius, Canus, Caietane, Scotus, Durand, S. Bonaventure, S. Thomas, S. Damascene: (for he spares not the Saints neither) the like courtesy also shows he to the Ancient Fathers, S. Augustine, S. Bernard, S. chrysostom, and much ado he hath to let S. Paul alone So that amongst so many dissensions, either hath the Church believed nothing at all, or else hath the Church believed them altogether, that is to say, contradictions; or else that the Church hath believed but only some of them: and perchance, they have all believed contrary to what the Church believeth.  
Come we now to the common people, and they understand not the one half part of that, which we teach them: and when we tell them of such points of Divinity, wherein they were never brought up; their fancies framing Ideas unto themselves, upon what they hear, make them conceive Chimaeras in their brains, and to believe the quite contrary to what the Church doth, before they are well aware of it.  
But our Catholics now have found out a remedy for that; which is, That an implicit Faith is enough for the common people, which is as much to say, as to think only, & to believe only as the Church doth, though they do not so indeed. So then, seeing that an implicit Faith is, To believe the contrary, and yet think they believe the same; if we could but once persuade the Huguenots, that they do verily believe as our Church of Rome doth in every thing, although indeed they do not, they shall be of our Church. See then, if I have not taken a better method to convert them, than any other Catholics have yet light upon. They labour to convert them to our Explicite faith, which were to make them believe all the particulars of our Faith. And I, perceiving them altogether uncapable of this Explicite Faith, have endeavoured myself to make them embrace the Implicit Faith, which is much the easier of the two, and to persuade them to believe, that they do already believe, as our Church believeth: and consequently, that their Faith is the same, and their Church the same. That so by this persuasion they may prove, if not so good Catholics as the Priests, yet at least, as good Catholics as the people.  
But to return again to my purpose; it appears by what hath been said; that if we stand for so strict an union in every point, then will not the Catholics themselves, neither learned nor unlearned, be of the Roman Church. Forasmuch as the learned will not believe as the rest do, and the unlearned cannot. And would we content ourselves with an essential union, the Huguenots may then well be of it. Whereupon it follows, that we must needs yield to one of these; That either the Huguenots are of the Roman Church, or else that the Catholics are not.  
FINIS.   

Errata in some Copies.  
Pag. 54. l. 5. for Authority (in the first place) read Articles.  
End