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. 4.

That the Councell of Trent is not lawfull.

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

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

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

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

To the first Obiection: That the Pope was both Iudge and Party, he answers: That the Pope ought not to lose his right of calling Councells, and of being President in them, for that hee had obtained this right 1500 yeares before. The Hugue∣nots can easily cut him off 500 yeres of his time. In all which space, the Pope neither once called any general Councell, nor sat President in it. The first of Nice was called by Constan∣tine the great. That of Constantinople by Theodosius Senior: That of Ephesus, by Theodosius Iunior: That of Chalcedon, by

Marcianus, the Emperour. The same also may bee affir∣med of those that sat President in them. In the Councell of Nice was Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spaine, Pre∣sident. In the Councell of Ephesus, Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria. And thus much may suffice for so euident a truth.

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

Thirdly, hee shewes by examples, that Pope Marcelline, Sixtus the third, Symachus, Leo, Alexander Patriarch of A∣lexandria, Cyril, and Leo the first, were Iudges in their owne causes. As for S. Marcelline (saith he) when as hee had offe∣red Incense vnto Idols, hee went and accused himselfe in the Councell of Sinuessa, and yet durst no man denounce Sen∣tence against him, but all the Bishops cried out with one con∣sent: Father, iudge thy selfe with thine own mouth. To which I an∣swer: That it is easie to discouer this to be but a forged Coun∣cell, which brings in the Emperor Dioclesian, talking with S.

Marcelline at Rome, and enticing him to Idolatry; whereas Dioclesian was at the same time at Nicomedia, a City of Bithi∣nia. Secondly, there is a great deale of difference betweene a plaine case, & a right in question. For S. Marcelline was accu∣sed of an act, of which he was most apparantly guilty: So that the Bishops perceiuing that the Pope denied not the fact, and that hee was penitent for it, offered to referre themselues to that sentence which hee would giue against himselfe lust as if a man should say to a Theefe that were taken in the man∣ner; Thou seest thy selfe openly guilty, thou knowest like∣wise the punishment ordained by the law for such offences, What thinkest thou that thou hast deserued? Speake a Gods name and bee thine owne Iudge: surely this would bee very acceptable to all malefactors, to conclude thereupon, that they should haue no other Iudges goe vpon them but them∣selues. His second example is of Sixtus the third, who being (saith hee) accused of adultery, would haue a Synode called by th'Emperours authority. But they would not, nor indeed, durst they (saith hee) meddle with his Cause before all the Bishops were met, and that they vnderstood the Popes pleasure, whether hee were willing to haue them so de∣cide his businesse, or not. I answer; that this was but a singu∣lar fauour shewne him by the Emperour Valentinian, by reason of his innocency: For the Pope himselfe was willing that other men should haue beene Iudges in his businesse: But it followes not hereupon, that euery Pope in euery cause ought to clayme the same priuiledge; but the con∣trary rather: viz. That Pope Sixtus the fift, who would not suffer himselfe to bee indged by any other man, ought to haue beene so, because Sixtus the third, who would haue been so was not. What necessity is there in censuring him, whose innocency is cleare; and as it was a token of in∣nocency in the one to submit himselfe vnto censure, so to re∣fuse all mens verdicts, but his own, is an euidence▪ that hee findes himself guilty. But I demand now, whether that singu∣lar priuiledge granted vnto 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 Catholikes will oppose it; for Bellarmine confesseth, that in case of heynous crymes, a Councell may be called to sit vpon the Pope: But the thinks not peraduenture that Sixtus was accused of any heinous crime: which (as I thinke) is the reason that hee names not his fault, because he barely intimates, that he was accused of Adultery; whereas indeed, hee was accused for defiling of a Nunne; which wee, good Catholikes, style not Adultery, but Incest; by reason of the spirituall consanguinity which is be∣twixt a Priest and a Nunne.

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

The fourth example is of Leo the third, of which passage the troath is this: The Romans bearing a spleene to Leo, for that Charlemaigne the Emperour had inforced them to sweare alleageance to him; out of meere malice laid many slanders vpon him; But Charlemaigne appearing at Rome, they, for feare of him, durst not stand to it to prosecute their proofes against him, but at the very first canuasse they all cryed out; That the Apostolike Sea could not bee iudged by any man. Which clamour testifies nothing else, then, That is the nature of the vulgar, to fall from one extreame to another. And therefore they hauing slandered the Pope before out of malice, they afterwards thought to curry fauour againe, by flattering him for feare. But let vs heare what followes: Did not Arrius (saith hee) heretofore dispute the case in a matter of faith with Alexander? Notwithstanding was this Alexander iudge in the Councell of Nice. Was not Cyril President in the Coun∣cell of Ephesus, notwithstanding hee was one of the parties? And who but Leo sat President at the Counsell of Chalcedon, notwithstanding that all the difference then was betwixt him

and Dioscorus? I answer: That the controuersies which then were betwixt Alexander, Cyril, Leo, and the foresaid Here∣tiques, concerned them no more, then it did the rest of the Bishops of the Church: whereas that of the Pope is a priuate quarrell, wherein the dignitie of his person is questioned. A∣gaine, Cyril was not President of the Councell, so as that hee could allow or anull the Decrees as hee thought good; but sate only first in order, hauing otherwise but his single voyce; whereas the Pope now a dayes hath his negatiue voice to dis∣anull a whole Councell though generall: yea, and to make his Decretalls vpon what hee lists, without a Councell. As for Alexander, he sate neither as Iudge nor President, but on∣ly as a priuate Bishop amongst the rest. To conclude, Leo came not at all to the Councell of Chalcedon, and Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople sate President in it.

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

The second Obiection of the Catholike Apologie, viz. That the Huguenots had not fayre audience: is first (saith he) confuted by that very booke which the Protestants set forth, intituled, Causacur Electores: For they confesse in that booke that they were summoned to the Councell. And wee may read moreouer of many ample safe Conducts, whereby full li∣berty

was giuen to the Protestants, to come to the Councell. And this briefly is his answer; to which I reply:

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

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

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

To the third Obiection, viz: That the Apostle commands vs to trie the Spirits whether they be of God, or no; he answers: That the Apostle there speakes not of such things as be alrea∣dy certaine, and defined in the Church: but of matters rather vp-start & ambiguous, as are those of our trecherous Aduersa∣ries. Soft and faire, not too fast; there is no man affirms, that we must try a thing that is certaine; but that we are not to settle our beleef vpon it, without proofs that it is certain. For a thing may be certaine in it selfe; neuerthelesse, if it does not appeare

to be certaine vnto vs, we may well make triall of it, for that without trying, we cannot vnderstand the certaintie. But it is (saith he) lawfull to try the Huguenots opinions, because they be new and ambiguous. If then it be lawfull to try the new, tis also lawfull (say I) to try the old; for two opposite Opinions are Relatiues; so that we cannot make demonstration that the new are false, but we must proue withall, that the old are true. And as for the ambiguitie of the Hugnenots doctrine; if it be ambiguous, then is it not certainly false; and if their doctrine be not certainly false, then is not the Catholikes cer∣tainly true: and consequently, euen by the iudgement of our Aduersarie himselfe, it is lawfull to trie it. But let vs now ex∣amine his reasons vpon which he concludes, that it is not law∣full to try the Spirits of the Councell.

First (saith he) if we ought to try them all, then were it lawfull to try the Spirits of the Councell of Nice, Constanti∣nople, Ephesus, & Chalcedon: Whereupon it must follow, that we ought to discusse againe the wicked heresies of Arrius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutiches, and examine againe the sacred Scriptures themselues, the Oracles of the Prophets, the History of Moses, and finally the holy Gospell. At length he concludes, That if things which be determined by the holy Councels, ought to be held for certaine, there is no reason to suffer the Decrees of the Councell of Trent, to be called againe into question. I answer: That we ought to hold the Decrees of the former Councels for most certaine; and yet is it lawfull neuerthelesse, to make question of the determinations of the Councell of Trent: to which purpose diuers reasons might be alledged; how be it, this one may suffice for the present: For that in euery Councell, we ought to deliberate and mea∣sure things, before we iudge; and after this, the iudgement of a Councell which hath duly examined and iudged, (accor∣ding to the right measure) ought not to be called againe in question. But to know now, whether a man hath truly mea∣sured, 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 doe testifie: which be these.

All seditious contention set a∣side, let vs discusse the things in controuersie by the testimonie of the Scriptures diuinely inspired.

The manner of measuring then was, to apply the Doctrine to the said Rule or Scripture, and accordingly to receiue or reiect it, as it was conformable or varying, to or from the said Rule. But now hath the Coun∣cell of Trent (will the Huguenots say) much failed in all these circumstances.

For first, it decided before it measured, for as much as euen before their comming to the Councell, they were euery man of them, resolued to condemne the Huguenots. Secondly, in examining and measuring of the questions, it measured not by the written Word only, but by Traditions also, as it was a∣greed vpon at the fourth Session of the said Councell. So that it measured sometimes, either without a Rule, or at least by a Rule, very contrary to that of the Councell of Nice. Thirdly, admit that it had measured by a true Rule; yet did it not so much apply the doctrine to the Rule, as bend the Rule, to make it fit to the doctrine, viz: peruerted the Scripture by an interpretation forced to their owne opinion: For in the fourth Session, it was decreed, That no man should giue any other interpretation, then that which was consonant to the doctrine of the Church of Rome. So that in stead of measuring their doctrine by the Rule, they measured the Rule by their doctrine.

But he followes it further against the triall of the Spirits; that if we should try all, then should we call againe into que∣stion, the very Bookes of the holy Scripture it selfe. I answer no; and that it followes not, that we should call in question againe the bookes approued by ancient Councels, because they reiect some, which are approued by the Councell of Trent; seeing that in this particular, the iudgement of that Councell, is suspected euen by Catholikes themselues. For Sixtus Senensis a great Catholike, yea, euen since the Councell of Trent, hath reiected for Apocryphall, the seuen last Chapters of the booke of Hester, which were approued by the Councell of Trent; which doubtlesse he would neuer haue done, had

he held it vnlawfull to try the Spirit of the said Councell.

Thirdly he argueth; that if matters already determined and defined, may be brought in question againe, what end then would there be of Controuersies? I answer, that this reason is not sufficient to stay the triall of Councels, because that this is the way to set an end to Controuersies: for that it is not enough to dispatch Controuersies, vnlesse we be sure that this dispatching, is a well ending of them. And so the Arri∣ans might euen as well haue perswaded vs, to rely vpon their packt Councell of Ariminum, to giue an end to Controuer∣sies. To which our Aduersarie can shape no other answer, but that their Councell was not lawfull, and that the Coun∣cell of Trent was. Well then (say I) that though wee may not examine the Decrees of a Councell, yet may we try whe∣ther the Councell were lawfull or not: and for this once, we desire no more aduantage then this; and thus much must be granted vs in despite of the world. For if we ought simply to rely vpon the Authoritie of Councels, which commonly passe for lawfull amongst our Doctors, without any further enquirie; there is no reason wherefore the Graecians should rather assent to the second Councell of Nice, which allowed of Images; then to that of Constantinople, made vp of 300. of their owne Bishops, which condemned them.

The fourth Reason, for which he takes away the libertie of trying their doctrine, from the people, is quoted out of the 17. Chapter of Deuteronomie, where it is commanded, That men should enquire of the Priests and Leuie••s, and the Iudge appointed for the time in cases of difficultie. And Moses (saith our Aduersarie) addeth not, Try the Spirits of the Priests and Iudges; But if any grow proud, and will not obey the com∣mand of the Priests, that man shall die, by the sentence of the Iud∣ges. Nor is this much different from that which our Lord saith in the Gospell of Saint Mathew, The Scribes and Phari∣sees sit in Moses chaire, whatsoeuer therefore they say vnto you, that obserue and doe. As for Moses Commandement, it was giuen vnto the Iewes; whereupon Rabbi Salomon Iarchi concludes, That we are to beleeue whatsoeuer the Iewish Priests say. Since

then that their Priests interpreted the Prophecies, euen of Christ himselfe, otherwise then we Christians doe. A Iew will say that Christ is not yet come, because their Priests deny it; and if according to our Aduersaries saying, we ought not to trie the Spirits of their Priests; I demand then, how he will answer the Iewes, and I will answer him, as he does them; namely, that in the text this clause is inserted, According to Law, that is to say, we are to obey their Commandements, so farre forth, ay they are agreeable to the Law; which how can we know, vnlesse we examine it. So that let our Aduersa∣rie take his choice; either to confesse, that we are not in this place forbidden to try the Spirits of the Priests, or else to ac∣knowledge himselfe to be a Iew.

To the place of Saint Mathew, because he saith, how that it is not much vnlike: our answer shall likewise be the same. For our Sauiour hath not commanded vs to obey the Phari∣sees in all things, simply; but not to take such scandall at their liues, as that we should refuse to obey them, when they speake well. For, should we simply giue credit to what they bid vs, without tryall of it, why should we beleeue that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God, when as the high Priest said that hee blas∣phemed in calling himselfe so.

His last reason is drawne from the Councell of the Apostles mentioned Acts 15. It seemed good vnto the holy Ghost and to vs: Whence he concludes, That Gods Spirit is so infallibly tyed vnto a lawfull Councell, that we ought not to call the definitions of it into question: nor would Saint Paul himselfe (saith our Aduersary) examine the instructions of the Councell of the Apostles: as Saint Luke saith, Acts 16. Hee gaue them that to obserue, which was ordained by the Apostles and the Elders which were at Ierusalem. I would faine aske one of our Catholike Doctors, to what purpose are there so many disputations and consulta∣tions at our Councels, if so be that the holy Ghost doth so in∣fallibly direct them? His answer will be, That Gods ordina∣ry prouidence is such, as that hee still assists them with his Spirit, when they for their parts, apply that diligence, which they ought, and not otherwise; Iust as hee makes not the

ground fruitfull, but when the husbandman tills and sowes his corne in it, and applyes such labour as the soyle requires. And thus much is cleare by this passage: namely, That the Apostles did apply all industry and the aptest meanes, for the resoluing of the doubts proposed: for it is said, That after a long disputation Peter stood vp: whence a man may con∣clude; That the holy Ghost is no otherwise promised to a Councell, then conditionally; viz. when the Councell doth apply all the meanes and industry on their parts, for the fin∣ding out of the truth: and that otherwise it may be destitute of Gods Spirit, namely; when it doth not apply the meanes. So that albeit wee are not to examine the Decrees of that Councell, which hath vsed these meanes; yet may wee en∣quire whether it hath applied these meanes or no; for that we cannot be otherwise assured that Gods Spirit did assist it. The Huguenots I know well, will require another manner of tryall; not onely of the course in the proceedings, but of the Articles also concluded vpon. But that the Hugenots may not haue a twofold aduantage against vs, we should doe well to shew them: first, That the Councell of Trent hath obser∣ued these lawfull courses; and then shall wee haue but one thing to doe; which is, To make good the Articles; which are so difficult to be proued, that it would be wisely done of vs, to put it off as long as we can, and first to decide all other differences.

Notes

• En denier re∣sort.
• Sigonius de ocei∣dentis Imp. l. ••.
• Tom. 1. Cont. 4.
• Lib. 4. Cap. 9.
• Obiect. 2.
• Obiect. 3.
• Theod. l. 10. c. 70.
• 2. Reason.
• 3. Reason.
• 4. Reason.
• Rab. Sal. ••archi in Deute onom.
• 5. Reason.
• Mat. 17.