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. 2.

〈…〉〈…〉 Catholikes as well as the Huguenots doe not agree with the ancient Church in matter of Ceremonies: and that there∣fore the Huguenots are not to be condemned.

AS in men we consider their bodies, and their apparell; so in the Church like∣wise we consider the Doctrine, and the Ceremonies. As for the doctrine or body of Religion, I haue showne in the former Chapter that the Hu∣guenots haue the braine, the heart, and the liuer, and all other the vitall parts, whole and sound: that is, that they yet hold all the prin∣cipall points of faith, and that the maine thing that can seeme to be blamed in them, is, that they haue some certaine warts or spots in their skinne; certaine errors I meane, in the cir∣cumstances and application of that faith. Now for the appa∣rell and ceremony of Religion, I confesse that the Church of the Huguenots is not so gorgeously or richly set out as the Church of Rome, and is for the same cause not so well enter∣tained, and more despised in the Courts of great Princes and Monarches of the world: which I iudge to be the reason why the Catholike Apology endeuoured to excuse the simple and naked Ceremonies of the Reformed Church, without any in∣tent thereby to disparage the gorgeous and gay attire of the Catholike Church; but to shew onely, That wee should not so meanly esteeme this outward simplicity, as to condemne it without hearing. Euen as that officer would bee held too ri∣gide and seuere, that would hinder a poore man from presen∣ting his Petition to the Prince, because hee is not clad like a Courtier.

The reason for which the Apology doth excuse them, is, for that the ancient Church did sometimes heretofore content her selfe with the like simplicity. Now vpon this occasion the Author of the answer perswades himselfe that he hath got∣ten

a great aduantage vpon the Catholike Apology: Because (saith he) he can proue, that diuers of these ceremonies which the Huguenots doe reiect are very ancient: To which I an∣swer, That I willingly accept as much as hee grants, that is, that he cannot proue that all the ceremonies of the Church of Rome be most ancient, but onely (as he saith) diuers of them. As for those diuers which hee instanceth in, that you may see how impertinent they are, I will make it appeare in these two things: First, that he doth not proue against the Huguenots that the Church of Rome doth agree with the ancient Church in the selfe same ceremonies. Secondly, that admitting that the ancient Church had them in vse, yet are not the Hugue∣nots to be condemned for hauing disused them.

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

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

As for praying to the East: I neuer yet knew any Huguenot

that held it vnlawfull to pray towards the East, nor any Ca∣tholike [ 2] that thought it vnlawfull to pray also towards other quarters of the world. What more then is there to be said be∣tweene them, but onely that it is an indifferent custome, which hath not beene alwayes so strictly obserued in all Churches. For Socrates saith that in the Church of Antioch, the high Altar was placed cleane contrary, and towards the West.

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

The fourth example is of Hallowing the water in Baptisme. [ 4] Now the Huguenots will confesse with Saint Basile, that the water of Baptisme ought to bee blessed: But this they deny; that this hallowing was such heretofore, as that now in vse with vs. For as much as they say, That water and all other creatures are sanctified by God already: and particularly that the water of Baptisme needs no benediction to make it more

holy; because (as saith Saint Chrysostome) Christ by his Bap∣tisme hath blessed all waters. But if my Antagonist will pro∣ceed further to inferre, that the water in Baptisme ought of necessity to be hallowed in the same sort that it is now; I say that Eusebius writes that Constantine the Great would haue men to baptise in Iordan; and yet I neuer heard that all the water of Iordan was made holy water.

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

[ 7] His next example is of the Fast in Lent, which Saint Hie∣rome esteemes for an Apostolicall tradition. To which the Huguenots will answer, that Epiphanius saith, that it is an A∣postolicall tradition also to fast vpon Wednesdayes and Fry∣dayes, except vpon those betwixt Easter and Whitsontide: in which time the said S. Hierome in the very book quoted by the Answerer, saith that it is vnlawfull to fast: & yet do the Catho∣likes fast notwithstāding vpon Fridaies in that very time. Why then are the Huguenots more to be blamed for disusing the cu∣stome of the ancient Church in the obseruation of the forty dayes before Easter, then the Catholikes, for dissenting from the same Church, in the obseruation of the 50. dayes after?

[ 8] Concerning the sacrifice for the dead, it appeares by that Liturgy of the Greekes, which is read in the fift Tome of Saint Chrysostomes workes, that they made mention amongst the dead (for whom they made their oblations) of the Apostles and Marytrs; who according to the iudgement of all parties, doe goe directly into heauen, and haue no need of any such oblation as men offer at this day, for the easing of the soules

departed. So as the Huguenots will say, that it must needs follow that the soules of the Saints which are in Paradise are holpen by such oblations, (which none of the wiser Catho∣likes will maintaine) or else that the sayd sacrifice for the dead was no other thing then a Commemoration made in the time of the Celebration of the Eucharist; and thus much the wiser sort of Huguenots will not find fault withall.

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

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

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

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

Now for the order of Monkes: the Huguenots will name

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

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

[ 15] Finally, concerning Holy-daies, which they call an Apo∣stolicall tradition, I say, that the Ecclesiasticall Stories shew the cleane contrary; For Socrates saith in expresse words, That the Apostles ordained nothing concerning Holy-dayes. Again, they which supposed them to haue beene ordained by the A∣postles, are enforced at length, to place the obseruation of them in the Classe of things indifferent. For of all the Festiuall daies, there was not one of them which hath beene obserued with more deuotion then Easterday; which notwithstanding, the Westerne Church vsed to celebrate vpon Sunday, and the

Easterne, vpon other daies: the one confirming their custome by the tradition of S. Peter and Paul, and the other by the tra∣dition of Philip and Iohn. Which controuersie, was thus ta∣ken vp betwixt Polycarpus, and Victor Bishop of Rome; namely, that the obseruation of it should be left free and in∣different. Now the Huguenots doe not simply condemne the obseruation of Holy-daies, but only the forcing to the ob∣seruation of them. For in England, Germany, Switzerland, and other Countries, where the pretended Reformed Religi∣on is established, they to this day obserue diuers Saints daies, without reprehension of the Huguenots in France.

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

Secondly, the Church is called Primitiue, either in regard of it selfe, because it is truly ancient; or in respect of the mo∣derne Church of Rome, as it is more ancient in its selfe. If we speake now of the Church, as it is ancient in it selfe; the Hu∣guenots will say, that there is no resemblance betwixt the Ce∣remonies of the ancient Church and those of the moderne. But if we speake of that which is more ancient then ours, (from which only our Aduersaries Arguments are drawne) they will say, that (besides all this, that the most part of our

Ceremonies are different) yet at that time also were there too too many in the Church; in so much as Saint Augustine in his time complained exceedingly of the multitude of them.

Finally, as the ancient Church had some Ceremonies which the Huguenots haue not; so had it likewise others, which the Church of Rome hath not; as Milke and Honey in Baptisme, and the fashion of plunging the Infant thrice to the bottome: which haue beene abrogated (as Saint Thomas saith) to auoid the calumnies of the Sabellians, who for this custome repro∣ched the Christians, that they worshipped three Gods. From whence we may collect, how indifferent things these Cere∣monies are, so long as they are not abused: and on the other sid•• how lawfull it is, yea, and how necessary, to take away the vse of them, for preuenting of an inconuenience. So that we may say thus much in the Huguenots behalfe; that they doe, not in this point, swarue so much from the practice of the ancient Church, seeing they doe not condemne those diuers Ceremonies which were practised anciently; notwith∣standing, that they doe now forbeare them, especially when they haue obserued them to change into so much superstiti∣on, as that our better learned Catholikes, doe euen laugh at the poore people, whom they themselues haue abused.

Notes

• That the Church of Rome agrees not with the Primitiue Church in mat∣ter of ceremo∣nies.
• Signe of the Crosse. Pag. 27.
• Praying to∣wards the East. Pag. 28.
• Lib. 5. cap. 21.
• Inuocation of the Eucharist.
• Blessing of the water in Bap∣tisme. Pag. 28.
• Homil. 25. in Iohan.
• Consecration and vse of Oyle in Baptisme. Pag 28. Tertull lib. de corona militis.
• Lent.
• Epiphan. haerest. 75.
• Hieronim. con∣tra Lucif.
• Sacrifice for the dead.
• Baptisme of in∣fants.
• Mixture of water with the wine in the Chalice.
• Perpetuall single life.
• Solitary life.
• Sozomen. Histor. lib. 1. cap. 12.
• Orders of Monkes.
• Athanasius ad Dracontium.
• Election of Meates.
• Tripartite 9. 38.
• Holy-daies.
• Lib. 5. cap. 21.
• Soz. 7. 19.
• That the Hu∣guenots are not to be blamed for leauing off the Ceremo∣nies of the ancient Church.
• Epist. 119. 19.