The Catholike moderator: or A moderate examination of the doctrine of the Protestants Prouing against the too rigid Catholikes of these times, and against the arguments especially, of that booke called, The answer to the Catholike apologie, that we, who are members of the Catholike, apostolike, & Roman Church, ought not to condeme the Protestants for heretikes, vntill further proofe be made. First written in French by a Catholike gentleman, and now faithfully translated. See the occasion of the name of Huguenots, after the translaters epistle.

CAP. 5.

That the Councell of Trent hath not as yet been receiued in France.

EVen as the Kings of France ought to haue no one thing in greater recommenda∣tion, then to be the inheritors of the ver∣tues of their predecessors; so should they not likewise bee more carefull of any thing, then to eschew such occasions as might soile the reputation of this vertue, and bewray them to haue cooled in the zeale and piety of

their Ancestors: who (as all know) haue euer beene accoun∣ted the eldest sonnes of the Church, and the maine vphol∣ders of the Sea Apostolique: and for that one reason of this their zeale, haue receiued more priuiledges and honors, then any other Prince of Christendome whatsoeuer. Now then, seeing that the Councell of Trent hath established so many decrees, so directly opposing the former priuiledges and ho∣nors; what hath it done more by so doing, then to proclaime to the world, That the Kings at this day haue lesse zeale then their Ancestors had, and are therefore vnworthy to enioy those honors bestowed vpon them. So that the reason why our later Kings haue reiected the said Councell, may bee, for that they could not well approue of that, without reprouing of themselues; nor publish it, without publishing also vnto the world, a shamefull confession of their owne demerits. But to come to the point; I purpose onely to buckle to the obiecti∣ons of the Catholike Apology, which our Aduersary offers to confute; and those be three.

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

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

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

As for the first point; namely, that it hath neuer beene re∣ceiued by our Kings: he answers to it in generall; That this obiection touches not so much the Councell, as it reproacheth the Kings of France. For what else can this meane (saith he) then to perswade all men, that our Kings haue beene Schismatikes, and disobedient to the Vniuersall Church. I answer, That it is no newes to haue the Kings of France oppose themselues against the Councels of the Church of Rome: seeing that not the Councell of Trent alone, hath beene refused by King Henry the second, and all his Sonnes who reigned after him; but euen the generall Councell of Vienna also, was neuer wholly receiued in France. And euen as King Henry the second, for∣bade his Bishops to be present at the Councell of Trent, so

would not King Charles the seuenth suffer his to bee present at that of Basil: and yet was not he any whit the more a Schis∣matike (as our Aduersary concludes) nor disobedient to the Church vniuersall. But let vs see now, how hee demonstrates the Councell of Trent to haue beene receiued by our Kings: There be certaine Letters (saith he) of Charles the ninth yet to be seene, in which he honoureth and reuerenceth that Councell: and in the very same page, to answer that obiection of K. Henrie the seconds forbidding his Bishops to repaire vnto that Councell, he hauing nothing else to say; then That it is not so necessary to looke so narrowly into what King Henry did at the beginning; for, that the admitting or receiuing of a Councell, ought not to be taken from the beginning but from the ending of it. According to which rule I also answer, That the Letters sent by Charles the ninth, before the Councel broke vp, do not proue his approbation of the Councell, because he refused to receiue it, when it was fully ended. For if the reiecting of it by King Henry the se∣cond before the end of it, does not proue that hee did finally reiect it; no more doth that honor which Charles the ninth did it, before it broke vp, proue that he did receiue it.

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

Thirdly, The King (sayes he) sent his Orator and Ambassa∣dor the Sieur de Lansack, Knight of his owne Order, thither; who in his Maiesties name was at the Councell; with whom he ioy∣ned in commission Reginald Ferrier President of the Parliament, and Guy de Faur, Iudge Maior of Tholouse. A goodly proofe, The King approued of the Councell, because hee sent his Ambassador thither. As though the Electors of Germany of the confession of Ausburgh, sent not their Ambassadors thi∣ther

also? Where then lies the force of his Argument, is it in this, that Monseur de Lansacke was a Knight of the Order, or in this, That he was accompanied by Monseur du Ferrier & de Pibrac: For no other sense can I collect out of his words, nor any other proofe for the receiuing of the Councell; nor is there indeed any other. For the King sent not his Ambas∣sadors to the Councell, to confirme it; but to admonish it, to reforme the abuses of the Church; giuing expresse charge vnto his Ambassadors, that they should sollicite the Fathers, not to decree any thing against the Huguenots; vntill they themselues had first of all reformed the abuses in the Ecclesi∣asticall Polity: And in case that this were not done, then that they should protest against the said Councel: all which appears in the Letters which the King himselfe sent vnto Monseur du Ferrier. See here then the briefe of the Kings Commission, and of Monseur du Ferrier and de Pibrac their Orations in the Councell: They both, and Monseur du Ferrier especially, often in the Kings name requiring the reformation of the a∣buses of the Church. Which admonitions for that the Coun∣cell did reiect, they according to their Kings command, re∣iected the Councell, and refused to subscribe to it; nor did the King afterwards receiue it, or the court of Parliament euer publish it; no not after that Saint Bartholmewes day, when the time seemed most importune to fauour any thing, that might be preiudiciall to the Huguenots.

But at least, the Bishops haue approued it. For when the de∣crees of it were openly read in the last Session, the Bishops were pre∣sent and gaue their voyces and suffrages.

I answer: first; that so farre was the consent of the Bishops from confirming of the Councell, that quite contrary it dis∣couers the vniust proceedings of it. For those Bishops that gaue their voices to it, in the last Session; gaue their sentence deliberatiue vpon the points which had beene treated vpon, in the former Sessions vnder Paulus the third, and Iulius the third, before that the said Bishops came to the Councell; a thing contrary to all Ciuill Law, to equity it selfe, and to the customes of all the Parliaments, high courts of Iustice, and

other Iudiciaries, which out of the persons of many Iudges, are made one body; In all which, those that haue not beene there all the time, are not suffered to deliuer their opinions.

Secondly, it does not hereupon follow, that the Bishops haue approued of this Councell, because they gaue their con∣sents to the Articles of it: For there is a great deale of diffe∣rence betwixt those that agree in opinion with the Decrees of a Councell, and those that vphold an opinion, only because the Councell hath decreed it. For our Aduersarie agrees in opinion with the Deuill, in that it is written how God gaue his Angels charge ouer our Lord Iesus Christ: yet he does not I thinke beleeue it neuer the more for that the deuill said it. Furthermore, at what time as they gaue their consent to the Articles aforesaid, the Councell was not confirmed by the Pope: now it is our Aduersaries owne Tenet, That a Councell is voide, if not confirmed by the Pope; and this one reason he makes to serue his owne turne against the Councell of Basil. It is (saith he) a Rule most generally knowne, that Councels are not to be receiued, without the Authoritie of the Pope. Where∣upon it followes, That those who gaue their consents to the said Articles, did at the very same time when they gaue their consents, hold the said Councell, to be as yet, no Councell. So that a man cannot hereby proue, that they did receiue the Councell, because they gaue their voices to the Articles.

To the second Obiection, which touches vpon the prece∣dencie of the most Christian King, he answers thus in briefe: That the Councell was so farre from offering to diminish the Kings Authoritie; that to the contrarie, the Kings Ambassadors by the vnanimous consent of all, were seated immediatly next after the Emperours; but the Spanish Ambassador, out of his ranke in an∣other place: to the end, that if it so fell out, that any man were set out of his place, yet should it not be preiudiciall vnto him. He should not haue answered, That the Councell seated the Kings Ambassador next vnto the Emperors, but only, that the Coun∣cell did not put him out of his right place. For in the 22. Ses∣sion, Monsieur du Ferrier, & de Pibrac, being suspitious of the affection of the Councell, went in betimes to take vp their

places, insomuch that the Count de Luna Ambassador for the King of Spaine, made publike protestation before the Fathers, how that his place was taken vp: Whereupon Monsieur de Pi∣brac required, that the said Protestation of his, might not be preiudiciall to his Kings Prerogatiue, whose Ambassadors had euer had the first place, next to the Emperours, as they had at the Councels of Constance and Lateran: But for all this, the Councell would not vmpire the businesse. And though they tooke not the place away from the Kings Am∣bassadors, yet our Aduersary confesseth, that they would not pronounce that this place did belong vnto them. For first he saith, That the Spanish Ambassador was set out of his place. Secondly, That if any man were by chance set out of his ranke, yet would not the Councel haue it to be preiudiciall vnto him. Which is nothing else then to declare, That that place, which they permitted the Kings Ambassadors to keepe for the time for auoiding of contention (and for that they had be∣times already taken it vp much against the wils of the Fa∣thers) should not be preiudiciall vnto that right, which they thought to be due vnto the King of Spaine.

Secondly, put case the Councell to haue beene so euenly affected (as he would make it) yet did they wrong (say I) neuerthelesse, in forbearing to be vmpires openly in the Kings cause; For there is no man, that can deny a thing most appa∣rant, at the first dash, but he must gaine vpon it, by little and little. So that the first degree to it, is to call a thing into que∣stion: nor does any man willfully call a thing into question, vnlesse he purposes absolutely to deny it afterwards. So that it is easily discerned, that the Councell at this time bringing the Kings precedency into question, and making the King of Spaine equall with him, had a plot in it, at the next Councell to giue him the place aboue the King of France.

Lastly, admit the Councell to haue had no such plot vpon him, but only to carry an euen regard to both, yet the wrong remaines neuerthelesse, it being no lesse iniurious to make an inferior equall to his superior, then to make an equall, superior to his equall.

Thereremaines now (saith our Aduersarie) the last Obiection only, viz: That the Councell of Trent hath decreed diuers things against the Realme of France; which is the reason that it is not receiued there. But this Obiection (saith he) serues little to the purpose: For the question is not only about Ecclesiasticall Iuris∣diction, but about Faith and Religion. Wherefore although that the Decrees of the Councell for reformation bee not receiued in France, yet the Decrees which treat aboue Faith, are.

Our Aduersary cannot deny, but that the Councell of Trent hath decreed some things against the French libertie; only he answers, that all this hinders not the receiuing of the other Articles which meerely concerne Faith. His owne words are,

This Obiection serues to little purpose, for that the question is not only about Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, but about Faith, and Religion.

And I say againe, that this answer of his, serues as little to the purpose; for that we treat not of things that con∣cerne either Reformation, or Faith, but of the Authoritie only by which those Decrees were enacted. That is to say, whether the Iudgement of the Councell of Trent, be in France receiued for a sentence not lyable to be appealed from? and whether they here beleeue those Articles wherein they agree with the Councel implicitely, for that the Councell hath decreed them.

For how shall it be proued, that a man who beleeues a thing which another hath reported, did beleeue it vpon the reporters credit, vnlesse he be confident withall, that he who reported this, would not report an vntruth, and that he durst trust him in any thing. But France now does not beleeue the Councell of Trent in all things: for our Aduersarie himselfe confesses, that it refused the Decrees of the Councel which touched vpon Reformation. Wherupon it follows, that though France doth agree in opinion with the Councel in what it de∣creed concerning matters of Faith, yet does it not hold this opinion for any regard to the Councels authority, but for some other respect; else might he conclude as well, That the Hu∣guenots do receiue the said Councell, for that they beleeue di∣uers Articles of it, which are against the Anabaptists, and other Heretikes of our time. For euen as they refuse the authority of

the said Councell, in that very same part whereof they re∣ceiue the Articles; so may we as well refuse the whole Coun∣cell, and yet receiue all the Articles; there being the same re∣spect from the Articles of one part, to the authority of the same part, as from the authority of the whole, to the authori∣tie of the whole. But let vs now marke how he concludes, that this Councell is receiued in France. Our Aduersaries owne selfe confesseth (saith hee) That this Councell is receiued by the Bishops: but what man can perswade himselfe, that the Bishops haue another faith and religion from that professed by the King, and all the Catholike people? For, how may the King bee styled, The most Christian, if hee were of a Faith singular from the Bi∣shops? And how should the people bee called, The Lords Flocke, vnlesse they acknowledged some Pastors?

See then, this in briefe is his Argument: The Bishops haue receiued the Councell; The King and the people haue belee∣ued the Bishops. Ergo, The Councell hath beene receiued by the King, the Bishops, the Clergie, and likewise of all the people of France. I haue shewen already how he hath not made it good as yet, that the Bishops which then were, haue receiued it: and for the Bishops and Clergie at this day, though diuers of them for the aduancement of the Holy League, haue endea∣uoured to cause the said Councell to bee receiued; yet might the King and the people refuse it notwithstanding, and yet not cease for all that, to bee of the same faith with them; in so much as the approbation of that Councell is not an Article of faith: for the Councell of Ephesus hath expresly prohibited vs the addition of any other Article of faith vnto those which were then receiued; in which number, the receiuing of the Tridentine Councell is not. But, supposing that they were not of the same faith, what danger could come of it? The King (saith he) should not then bee most Christian, nor the people Christ his flocke. First, as for the King, for as much as this reason is drawne from his Title; I say, that if the King were the grea∣test Heretike in the world, yet should hee not bee depriued of his Title. Henry the eight, King of England, receiued the Title of Defender of the faith from Pope Leo the tenth, for

writing against Luther. King Edward the sixt, and the last Queene of famous memory, and the now raigning KING, who haue changed the Religion, for defending of which, King Henry receiued this Title, doe still keep the same Style: And by very good right too; for Titles, though personall, and proper only to the first of the Race that receiue them, (as Ca∣tholike to Ferdinando King of Arragon; Defender of the faith, to Henry the eight King of England) yet doe they descend vnto their successors, as ornaments onely annexed to their State. So that it is not Philip of Austria, who is Catholike in that sense, but the King of Spaine. For, if wee consider of Kings onely in point of Religion, the King of France may be as good a Catholike as the King of Spaine; and the King of Spaine as good a Christian as the King of France; and yet the Title of Christian belongs onely vnto the one, and the Title of Catho∣like to the other.

But aboue all, is this reason ill applied against the King of France, for that Christian is not a title to distinguish one Chri∣stian from another, but to distinguish them all from Pagans; and in this sense is it giuen to the King of France, as to the first King of Europe, that abolished Paganisme, and who still had the most warres of all with the Sarazens, enemies of the name of Christ. True it is, that this title might incline him the more to imbrace that doctrine which is best, but for that it hath not beene hitherto agreed vpon which of the two is the best, wee must not proue one doubt by another. For the Huguenots may as well conuert this reason to perswade the King to reforme the Church, as the Catholikes vse it, to in∣cline him to maintaine the Romish Religion: howbeit there is not any thing that the King can doe, more worthy of this Title of his, then to doe both; that is to say, to maintaine the Romane Church, and to reforme it. Neither is there any con∣tradiction in these two, seeing there is no better meanes to make the Iron endure long, then to scowre away the rust; nor to maintaine the Church of Rome, then to reforme the abu∣ses of it. Neuerthelesse, to establish such a course, that any of the Iron bee not scraped away, in stead of the rust; and yet

see that it bee bright scowred; there is no safer meanes then to doe quite contrary to that which our Aduersay aduiseth; viz. To let their Councell of Trent sleep, and to call another, wherein both parts may haue indifferent hearing: by which meanes, if so bee that there bee any corruption in the Church of Rome, it may bee seene into and purged. And if there be any error in the doctrine of the Huguenots; they may bee e∣victed and instructed in a better faith. And this were the way to reunite vs all in one faith; and this would bee an act in∣deede well worthy a most Christian King.

3 But descend wee now to the people: How should they (saith he) bee the sheepe of Christs flocke, if so bee they acknowledg not any Pastors? I answer; That they may well enough ac∣knowledge their Pastors, though they beleeue not iust as the Pastors of their Countrey doe. For that no man is obliged to build his faith, but vpon an infallible foundation: and it is confessed by the Catholikes themselues, that all the Bishops in a whole countrey may erre in point of faith. So that the peo∣ple are not alwaies obliged, to ground their faith vpon that of their Bishops, and consequently may bee of another faith, and yet bee of the flocke of Iesus Christ: As in very troath, our Sauiour does not call them his Sheep which heard the Bishops, but those that heare his voyce; which is, the word of God.

Let vs now looke vpon his conclusion: And so (saith hee) is the Councell honoured of the King, the Bishops, the Clergie, and likewise of all the people of France. Admit it were so; yet for all this does it not follow, that it is receiued in France, vn∣lesse hee can shew withall, that all the Estates doe receiue it: that is, The Church, the Nobility, and the People: But hee makes no mention of the Nobility, but onely of the Church, and the third Estate, so that at the most it is receiued but of two of the three Estates: which may be the cause that our Ad∣uersary, to keep vp the number diuides the Church into two parts, viz. Bishops, and Clergie: The Councell (saith hee) is receiued of the Bishops, the Clergie, and likewise of all the people of France. Which is a new diuision of the Estates, neuer, as I

perswade my selfe, heard of before. Iudge then what iust oc∣casion the Nobilitie of France now haue to reiect this Coun∣cell, when as those who would haue the Councell receiued, doe reiect the Nobility.

Notes

• 1 Obiection.
• 1 Reason.
• 2 Reason.
• 3 Reason.
• The massacre Anno Dom. 1572
• 4 Reason.
• 2. Obiection.