§ 1^o. That Scandall makes it not unlawfull to goe to the Protestant Church.

SCandall is defined by S^t. Thomas 2^a. 2ae. q. 43. ar. 48. and other Divines (out of S^t. Hierom. in cap. 15. and 18. Matth. To be a word or deed lesse right (or lesse good) giving occasion to another of Spirituall ruine or falling into sinne. Neither doe they take the adverb (lesse) comparatively, but negatively for that, which is not good; that is: with hic & nunc in regard of some particular circumstance of time, place, or persons, want­eth some morall rectitude or goodnesse. This Scandall may be divided into Active & Passive. Active is in him that gives it; Passive in him that takes it; both expressed in the holy Scri­tures by the verbes Active and Passive: to scan­dalize, and to be scandalized, Matth. 15.17.18. Active may be subdivided into per se & per ac­cideus. Active per se is, when a man with an ex­presse and certaine intention gives his neigh­bour occasion of sinning by some word or deed, either intrinsecally or extrinsecally evil. Active [Page 27] per accidens is, when besides the intention of the doer, and nature of the act done, being ex­trinsecally evill, or at leastwise, having some species or shew of evill; by which occasion is taken, to the spirituall ruine of another. Passive scandall is also subdivided, into passive scandall given, and Passive scandall taken. The first pro­ceeds from Active scandall either per se or per accidens, given and received by an other. Such was the scandall forbidden by our Saviour, Mat. 18. ver. 6. He that shall scandalize one of these little ones that beleve in me, it is expedient for him that a millstone bee hanged about his necke, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea. And this is called Scandall of the weake or little ones to whom it belong­eth (as Saint Bernard saith) to be ignorant and moved through weaknesse, and so be scanda­lized. For the perfect (as Saint Hierome saith in the place before cited) are not scandalized. Passive scandall taken is, when a man out of envie and malice taketh occasion of sinne by anothers words or deeds ill interpreted and misunderstood without any lawfull or probable cause. And this is called the scandall of Pha­risees, which is a sinne onely to themselves, and not to be regarded of the speaker or doer; as appeares by the answer of our Saviour, Matt. 15. ver. 14. Sinite illos, caeci sunt et duces caeco­rum. Let them alone, blinde they are, and guides of the blinde.

Hence Divines with S^t. Thomas doe inferre first, that sometime Passive scandall may be [Page 28] without active, as it was in the scandall of the Pharisees. Sometimes active scandall may be without Passive: as when one by his bad word or deed, or ill example, doth scandalize and giveth occasion to others of falling into sinne; and yet none are scandalized, or take the occasion given, to sinne thereby. And some­times they may be both together, as when one by his bad example giveth, and another taketh thereby occasion to sinne.

Secondly, they inferre, that no good works which are necessary, as is the observing of pre­cepts, can give occasion of sinning to any man; and therefore not to be omitted, to avoyd the the Passive scandall, even of the weake ones, as well observeth Alfonsus Tostatus: Because that were to sinne The distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes To­status (learned in Peter Lumbards schoole, not in Christs) may teach, but not truely. For al­though some sinnes may be tearmed veniall comparatè, in respect of others that are of a deeper die, and so lesse in their owne nature pardonable and ex­cuseable: or not at all (as the sinne against the holy Ghost: and though all sinnes of the [...]le [...]t are veniall through grace, or quo ad eventum: yet there are no sinnes which in their owne nature are not mortall. For all sinnes are transgressions of the eternall law, and in them the infinite Majestie of God is some waies slig [...]ted: and therefore Saint Hieromes generall conclusion is true, ep. ad Celantiam, omne quod agimus, omne quod loquimur, aut de angustâ viâ est, quae tendit ad vitam, aut de latâ quâ imus ad mortem: What soever we do, what­soever we speake, either appertaines to the narrow Way wh [...]reby we enter into life, or to the broad way which is the roade to death: and in his second booke against the Pelagians, si ira et sermonis iniuria atque interdum iocus iudicio concilio­que et gehennae ignibus delegatur, quid merebitur turpium rerum appetitio? if unadvised anger and a contumelious word bring us in danger of a iudgement, and a councel, and hell fire: what shall the desire of filthy things deserve? and who can say his heart is cleane from all these? To make light of sinne aggrava­teth our conscience, even those Naevuli & leves aspergines, & pulviseuli, & prolapsiunculae, & peccadili [...]es, (as the Romanis [...]s stile veniall sinnes) either are transgressions of the law of God or not: if they are not transgressions of the law, they are no sinnes at all: for [...], all sinne is the trans­gression of the law, 1 Iohn 3.4. or as the Schooles [...]ut of Saint Augustine define, peccatum est dictum, factum vel concupitum contra legem aeternam, every sinne is a desire, word or deed against the eternall law: and if veniall sinnes be trans­gressions of this law, their punishment is death. For the soule that sinneth shall die, Ezech. 18.4. and the sting of death is sinne, 1 Cor. 15.56. and the wages of sinne is death, Rom. 6.23. These cleare and evident Texts of holy Sc [...]ipture so dazled the eyes of three of their sharpe sighted Schoolemen, that they not onely left the common tract of other popish Divines (as Bellarmine minceth the matter, l. 1. de amiss. grat. et stat. pec. c. 4. (non nihil a communi theologo­rum sententiâ deflexerunt) but went in the direct way of the reformed Do­ctours: these Schoole men are Gerson 3. part. Theolog. tract. de vit. spirit. sect. 1^a Iacobus Almaine Opusc. tract. 3. c. 20. & Iohannes Episcopus Roffensis in refut. 32. artic. Luth. Gersons words are (with whom Almaine accords) peccatū mortale et veniale in esse tali non distinguuntur intrinsecè et essentialiter sed solum per respectum ad divinam gratiam quae peccatum istud imputat: mor­tall and veniall sinnes are not distinguished in their intrinsicall essence, but onely with a relation to the divine grace which imputes the sinne, &c. Roffenfis speaketh to the same purpose, peccatum veniale solum ex Dei misericordia ve­niale est: veniall sinne is onely veniall by the meere mercy of God: not therefore in its owne nature. mortally. (See Bellar. de script Ec­clesiast, & Possevin. in verbo. Alfonsus Tostatus. Which for no cause any man ought to doe; but [Page 29] if they be He meaneth by counsels, accor­ding to the do­ctrine of his Ro­mish Church, such supposed good workes as are not commanded of God, by the performance whereof yet they beleeve that they cannot onely merit at Gods hands, but supererogate. An assertion, as farre from Theologicall truth, as Christian modestie. For first, the law of God is perfect, Psal. 19.7. and consequently commandeth all good, and forbiddeth all evill: else were it not a perfect but a scantive and defective rule of good. Secondly, though there may be many good workes which the law of God commandeth not, to all persons, at all times, and in all places, in every manner and measure; yet neither is there any good worke nor can be, which is not comprised within that great and large Commandement of loving the Lord with all our heart, and all our soule, and all our might: Deut. 6.5. Matth. 22.37. Luk. 10.27. For it implyes a contra­diction, to say that we can love God more then with all our might, and strength, and we see that all is required by this commandement. Thirdly, the aspi­ring to perfection it selfe, so farre as it is attainable by us in this life, falleth under the expresse commandement of our Saviour, Matth. 5.48. Be ye there­fore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect. How can there be any counsels of perfection over and above the law, when the law of Christ requireth per­fection it selfe? What good worke is there or can there be tending to Chri­stian perfection, which Saint Pauls Whatsoever carrieth not, Phil. 4.8. Final­ly brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatso­soever things are iust, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report: if there be any vertue, if there be any praise, thinke on these things. Fourthly, dato et non concesso, admitting for ar­guments sake, that in some one particular or other, that a man might do more then God commands: yet in other things the best man that is, comes short of the law. For in many things we offend all, Iames 4.2. and even such a righ­teous man as Iob was cannot answer one of a thousand, Iob 9.3. What then be­comes of works of supererogation, when a mans stock or treasure of good workes cannot hold out to pay his own debts? Fifthly, though we strive to the uttermost to walke exactly before God, and abstaine from all knowne sinnes, so farre as humane frailtie permits in this life, and fulfill all righteousnesse in doing all the commandements of God with all our might: may we then su­perarrogate any thing to our selves, or supererogate to others? No our Sa­viour teacheth us a contrarie lesson, When you shall have done all these things which are commanded you, say we are unprofitable servants, for we have done that which was our dutie to doe, Luk. 17.10. We are unprofitable servants, therefore not deserving of our Master, and we doe but that which is our du­tie to doe, and therefore not more then we are bound to doe. counsels which are not of necessitie to be done, or things indifferent of themselves, yet necessary to be done, for the safeguard of a mans life, or goods. Then the scandall that a­riseth [Page 30] to some by this, that others doe them: either proceedeth from malice; and then that is a scandall of Pharisees, and to be contemned; [Page 31] and no spiritual or temporal good is to be omit­ted for the same. Or it proceedeth from infir­mitie or ignorance, and it is the aforesaid scan­dall of weaknesse. And for this scandall we must refraine for a time (according to the example of our Saviour, Matth. 17. Who to avoyd He fouly mista­keth the matter, it was no scandall to Christ to bee poore that hee might make us rich, no more then to be abased, to exalt us; to bee stript, to cloth us; to take the forme of a servant, to make us free; to be condemned, to acquit us; to be in an agonie, to com­fort us; and to die, to restore us to life. The viler he became for our sakes, the more highly ought we to esteeme of him. Neither did Christ goe any way about to conceale his povertie, nay he openly proclaimed it: The foxes have holes, and fowles of heaven neasts, but the Sonne of man hath not where to lay his head, Matth. 8.20. But the cause why at that time being destitute of money, he wrought a miracle, was (as the text saith) Matth. 17.27. That he might not offend them, who questioned him about tribute, by not paying it. For though he was free, yet the Iewes not taking notice of that freedome, in pro­babilitie would have inferred from his not paying, that he had denyed that tri­bute ought to be paid to Caesar, and consequently had denyed Caesars authority & soverainty. See Luk. 20.20. But if povertie be scandalous, why do the Fryars by a vow of perfection, as they terme it, undertake this scandalous povertie? the scandall of the Iewes concerning his poverty, bid Saint Peter goe to the Sea, &c.) even from the workes of Evangelicall counsels and things o­therwise indifferent, although necessary to be done. Or we must doe them secretly, lest the ignorant, whose minde is weake be troubled. This must be done, untill having yeilded a rea­son of our actions, and shewed them to be good, or of themselves indifferent, and necessary to be done for safeguard of life or fortunes: and so the scandall cease, which proceeded from ig­norance. But if after a reason be yeilded, the scandall shall not cease, it is not to be esteemed a scandall proceeding from ignorance, but from malice, and to be contemned. Neither ought we then to refraine from any the aforesaid acti­ons [Page 32] to avoyd this scandall. Thus Abulensis in cap. 18. Matth. q. 51. Salmeron, tom. 7. tract. 29. Estius in cap. 8. ad Cor. 1. v. 13. Diana 5. parte tract. 7^o. de scand. p. 186. who expresly teach­eth: that a man is not bound to loose his goods and temporall fortunes to avoyd the scandall of weake ones after an admonition and reason (for the lawfull doing of the act) be yeilded. Lorca in 22. q. 43. ar. 8. n. 11. and divers others cited by the said Diana. But if the great ones (such as are Priests and Teachers) take this scandall, and the doctrine, or action be profitable; they are not to be regarded, for they are incurable, because they are blinde; that is: they will not see and understand what both God and reason dictates to them. And he that is weake (saith Estius) may be sufficiently instructed and taught, that his brother doth well, and that he ought not to be offended by his fact. After which sufficient and full instructions, if he per­severe in scandall; it will be the Scandall of Pharisees as is aforesaid.

Now to proove the assertion, which is the first branch of the Minor. Scandall, is a word or deed lesse right, apt to give occasion to ano­ther of spirituall ruine. [...]ut to goe to Church is no deed lesse right (but prudently and chiefe­ly right) all circumstances considered.) Ergo, to goe to Church is no scandall, and conse­quenter, to goe to Church can yeeld no occa­sion to my neighbour of spirituall ruine; but rather an occasion of both his temporall and spirituall conservation and edification. This [Page 33] Minor I prove. To goe to heare a piece of a Masse in English, is no deed lesse right. But to goe to Church, is to goe to heare a I answer that the Masse being rightly understood our Liturgy ought not to bee cal­led a piece of the Masse. For though there are some passages alike in both: yet they tend not to the same end, nor are retained upon the same ground. Every part of any thing hath a reference to the whole, and consequently every part of the Ro­mish service to their Masse, as a preparatory or an appertenance, or immedi­ate part thereof; whereas no part of our service tendeth at all to that end, nay we are so farre from intending the sacrifice of the Masse in our service, that we disclaime and abominate it and hold it no better then a Masse of su­perstitions and contradictions; superstitions in the manner, and contradictions in the matter thereof. For they teach it to be a sacrifice properly so called, yet nothing therein is properly sacrificed: not the bread and wine: for they are transubstantiated before the sacrifice; not Christs body, for no living thing can properly be sacrificed, unlesse it be slaine, but Christ as the Apostle teacheth us, being once dead dieth no more. Secondly, they teach it, to be an externall and sensible sacrifice, and yet Christ there appeareth to no sense; but is as they teach, couched and concealed under the accidents of bread and wine. Third­ly, they teach that it is an unbloody sacrifice, and yet Christs blood is there truely and really shed and drunke by the communicants with the mouth. Fourthly, that it is a perfect and all-sufficient sacrifice, and yet they repeat it and reiterate it daily. Fifthly, Christs body is there with his humane dimen­sions, and yet is whole in the whole and whole in every smallest part and point of the Host. Secondly, I say, that Christ indeed forbids us to cast pearle before swine, but no where to take a pearle though out of a swines snout, if we finde any such there. Thirdly, I answer, that it cannot be prooved that any part or parcell of our Service booke, was originally taken out of the Mas [...]e. For though there are some of the same Co [...]lects and Pray­ers in it, yet they ought not to be said to be taken out of Missals as their origi­nall Fountaine, sith the most of them if not all might be gathered out of more ancient Liturgies. For which. See Biblioth Patru to 1. And if it be so, then it may be said; That the mud of Popery fell into them, but they sprang not from Popery, but from purer fountains. piece of a Masse in English. Ergo, to goe to Church is no deed lesse right. The Major I prove thus: to goe to heare a whole Masse in English (the na­ture [Page 34] of the thing considered, and abstracting from the constitution of the Church) is not e­vill. For the diversitie of the language takes nothing from the goodnesse of the thing. As is manifest in the Greeke Church, where Masse is alwayes said in Greeke. So that if it be not evill in it selfe, to goe to heare a whole Masse in English, it is not evill, to goe to heare a piece of a Masse in English. And consequently not to goe to Church.

Adde that in the whole Latine Church; where it is not lawfull to say Masse in any other lan­guage then in Latine (bec [...]use of the long It hath been I confesse, a long custome in the Latine Church, e­ver since Pope Vi­talian to celebrate the Church Service in the Latine tongue, but it was never the custome of the Catholique or Vniversall so to doe. The Greeke and Syrian, and African, and other Churches had from the beginning, and have at this day their Service in their own languages. Neither is the reason the Priest alleadgeth here of any force, namely, That cu­stome of the Church, kept alwayes on foot for this reason: that as the Catholique Religion as the Catholike Religion is universall, so it should be exercised in an universall language which he will have to be the Latine. For first there is no necessitie that the Catholike Religion which is universall should be exercised in an universall language, but rather in all languages. Se­condly, since the division of tongues at the tower of Babell, there was no language universall in all the world, the Greeke was for a time the furthest spread, and after the Romane: but neither of them, nor any other, was spo­ken or understood by all Christians, and at this day if we may beleeve travel­lers, no language is so generally knowne and spoken as the Slavonian. Thirdly, the unity of language maketh nothing to the unitie of Religion or the Church, neither doth the Apostle require that the Divine Service be performed in any one tongue, but that it be done in a knowne tongue, to the edification of the Church, 1 Cor. 14.4.12.14.16. And to that end, among others, was the gift of tongues given. is u­niversall, so should it be exercised in an univer­sall [Page 35] language) yet it is lawfull, and in use to say a piece of the Masse (as Collects, Prayers, Psalmes, Epistles, and Gospels) in any Lan­guage of any Countrey whatsoever within the said Church.

It may be here objected first, that although to go to Church, be of its own nature a thing in­different, yet hic & nunc, it is evill. For consider­ing the circumstances of time and place, it hath a shew & appearance of evill, apt to occasion sin in another. From w^ch we are commanded to ab­stain by S^t. Paul, 1 Thess. 5.22. saying, From all shew of evill refraine your selves. To which I answer, first: That all the appearance of evill, which, going to Church hath, is, that in England above other countreys, Priests have not been freely left to the Principles of Divinitie or Lay-men to their Christian libertie; but it hath been pro­cured to have bin declared unlawfull upon false suggestions, and continued thus thought un­lawfull by some erroneous judgements. Which my neighbour likewise phantasing erroneous­ly apprehends it a species cast from going to Church, which indeed is not so; nor otherwise, then if a man with a blood-shotten eye should behold glasse, & say it were red; when a parte rei, it were white. It were very hard, if I eating fish in the lent, and one purblind seeing me eate, & ap­prehending it flesh, because he goes away scan­dalized, as thinking me to have eaten flesh, by reason of his false eyes; that I should be said to have given him scandall. So it would seeme likewise as hard, if a broken phansie, or an er­ring [Page 36] minde should conceive evill species from mine actions, which a parte rei are no species at all of them, but quite contrary to th [...]ir species; that I should thereby be judged to give scandall to little ones. No: I hope as the erroneous eyes shall beare their owne imperfections; so the erroneous judgement shall beare its owne mistake; and neither shall accuse me before God of the scandall of little ones.

Hence I answer, secondly, to the place of the Apostle before objected, tha [...] the appearance or shew of evill, is to be understood; first that it proceeds really from the act done, and that it be not only a conjecturall appearance, but mo­rally certaine. That no man play Tom-foole in striking him that stands next him without a cause. Secondly, that the appearance proceeds not from a deed to be done of necessitie, either by the Law of God, or nature. Otherwise we might inferre the Apostle to command contra­dictories, to refraine and not to refraine from such a deed, whence proceeds the appearance. For if the thing be commanded by the Law of God, it must necessarily be done, or otherwise sinne. And if it were to be done by the Law of Nature; the blessed Apostle was not so un­reasonable, as to bid us refraine from a thing in its owne nature lawfull, and of necessitie to be done; without admittance of some way to avoyd scandall. Although by reason of some circumstance, place or person, it might have a shew of evill, and so for some time be suspended, as some things of naturall necessi­tie; [Page 37] yea, the Evangelicall counsels may have. But in such cases we are to instruct and admo­nish the weake (as I by these presents doe) that although it should seeme to them to be evill, or to have some shew of evill, yet in very deed it is not evill, but good. And I am constrained un­der paine of death to do the same. After which instruction and admonition, if they still persist in their scandall; it is not a scandall of little ones, but of Pharisees and great ones. Neither doth it proceed from infirmitie or ignorance, but from malice: and is not to be regarded. So that it seemes a thing unreasonable, and in the strength of judgement against nature, that a man shall more regard the trouble of his neigh­bours conscience at a thing lawfull, then the hazard of his own life, and ruine of his own fa­mily and fortunes in the execution of the same. See Diana for this Doctrine and all the Authors by him above cited.

If any shall here reply to my first answer of the objection, that the shew of evill is really in the act of going to Church, and not as falsely imagined: and that this shew of evill appeares not only to weake and ignorant people, but to men of understanding of all sorts; and not on­ly to Catholiques, but likewise to Schismaticks of all sorts: who in going to Church to save their goods, confesse that they doe it against their conscience, as conceiving it to be unlaw­full by reason of the aforesaid Declaration of the twelve Fathers in the Councell of Trent, and the foresaid Popes; which whether it were [Page 38] gotten by false suggestions or no, they discerne not, neither doe they dispute, but simply obey. To make up the rime in reason, the more simple they. For reason may teach great ones, and men seeming of understanding that are Schisma­ticks or Lay-Catholiques the contrary; (be­cause nothing is done at Church which is either evill or hurtfull:) and both reason and learning Priests. And therefore I rejoyce with Aristotle: Propter illorum cogitare, nihil mutatur in re, and say, that the shew of evill proceeds not from the act of going to Church. For in all King Ed­wards time, and the beginning of Queene Eli­zabeths time, untill the thirteenth yeere of her Raigne, when all Catholiques did or might goe to Church, going to Church by Catholiques then being in fashion; none took scandall there­by: because there was then, no shew of evill. And why should there be now more shew of e­vill in the act, then at that time? If ye answer by reason of the aforesaid Declaration. I reply that then the species of evill, ought to be in the said Declaration, as gotten upon false grounds, and not in the act of going to Church; which any man might easily perceive, considering the nature of the act it selfe. And the experience of our distressed countrey teacheth us, that those indirect proceedings are more apt to ge­nerate scandal, then the act of going to Church, which of its own nature is lawfull, and hath been lawfully practised and approved by the com­mon opinion of all Divines of any indifferency in other countreyes, and so might have been in [Page 39] ours, had it not been for turbulent people, who for their owne ends have more troubled the Church in procuring of breves and rescripts then all other nations besides of our condition.

To Schismaticks, I say they sin not, in simply going to Church, but in going to Church with an ill conscience, as thinking that to be sin, and doing the same; which indeed is not so: and the ground of their errour, they have had from the misunderstanding of Catholiques.

To weake ones I answer, desiring them to be satisfied, because I have and shall prove the thing in it selfe to be lawfull, and that I am (as I have said) in danger and hazard of my life, in not doing the same. So that by a naturall ne­cessitie I am bound to it. Which necessitie if it were not; I might peradventure rest in the common Maxime of Philosophers. Frustra fit per plura, quod potest fieri per pauciora. It is in vain done by more, that may be done by lesse.

It may be objected secondly, that it is as much scandall to goe to Church, as it was to eate of those meats offered to Idols. Of which Saint Paul speaks, 1 Cor. 8. the eating of which in it selfe considered, although the Apo­stle thought no sin in Wise men, or great ones; because they did eate the same without any re­lation at all to the Idoll, as he seemeth to in­timate, verse, 4. yet because some ignorant Christians (seeing the said Wise men eate) did likewise eate the same meats with conscience and devotion, as if the said meats had received some vertue or sanctification from the Idol. [Page 40] Saint Paul exhorted the Wise men, to abstaine from eating the said flesh; for that out of mis­take and misunderstanding of their eating: the aforesaid Christians, then newly converted did take offence and sin. Whereupon in great zeale he said, vers. 13. If meate scandalize my brother, I will never eate flesh, lest I scandalize my brother. So that one would thinke, that the blessed Apo­stle would rather have chosen to die (as the a­foresaid words may import) then by eating the said meats or any flesh to have scandalized his brother. And S^t. Augustine in expresse termes, lib. de bon. conjugali cap. 16. saith: It was farre better to have dyed, then to have eaten of those meats so offered to Idols, conformable to him­selfe elsewhere: who likewise saith. That a man may not commit (or occasion) so much as a See page 28. Letter ^r. veniall sinne, to gaine the whole world. Which he that giveth scandall, must needs at the least commit. Therefore what the said Apostle and S^t. Augustine said and thought of the eating of the said meats; the same ought every Ca­tholique to take as said of the act of going to Church.

I answer, denying the consequence: and say that there is a great disparitie betweene the said meats offered to Idols, and eaten in the temple with Infidels: and the act of going to Church. First, because in the meats so offered, there was not only a shew and appearance of evill, but a morall malignitie therein, as well to great, as to little ones. Which although the wise did take away, that the said malignitie touched not [Page 41] them; yet the weake neither did, or had under­standing so to doe. Whence the Apostle said, vers. the 7. that there was not knowledge in all. For the morall malignitie; that was in those meats to all, was a prophanation and impuritie in them, as being things dedicated to the Idol or the Devill. So that as a man receiveth good by holy? bread or things sanctified; so he recei­veth evill by a thing: prophaned or maligned. Which morall malignitie the Wise taking away (as I have said) by blessing the said meats to the use of their bodies, and conceiving both them, and the Idoll as they were in themselves, meere creatures, both created for the use of man, did eate what was usefull to eate without sinne. Whereas the weake, not so much as considering the prophanenesse of the meats, but (seeing the Wiser eate) with error of judgement con­ceived vertue and sanctification in the same: as being eaten in the temple and offered to the I­dol by Infidels, and so with conscience and de­votion they received the same: and were (as the Apostle saith, in the said seventh vers.) polluted thereby. Now in going to Church, their is no morall malignitie at all; in so much, that scarce the weakest man can invent how to sin by any thing that is there done. It being of its owne nature so indifferent, and to a good intention, good, that a parte rei their is no appearance of evill therein.

If any one say that there is appearance of e­vill, and scandall by reason of disobedience, in that, the act is done contrary to the declaration [Page 42] of the said twelve Fathers, and certain Popes. I answer, that the declaration is, as if it were not; because gotten upon most false suggestions, as I have and shall say; and consequently the minds of the said Fathers and wils of the said Popes is to us in this matter as yet unknowne: and the species or shew of evill from thence procee­ding, rather to be lamented then regarded. If the reply be made as before, that the suggesti­ons are not examined, but the will of the afore­said Superiors hath alwaies beene held, as de­claring that which hath been best for the soule, and dehorting from going to Church, and that so by reason and vertue hereof, there results a certaine shew of evill, in doing the same, which maketh it appeare to most men unlawfull, and consequently scandalous. I rejoyce as before, that the instruction and admonition of the in­differencie and necessitie of the act, ought to take away all scandall howsoever apprehended: and that such as apprehend it unlawfull, and will not be satisfied, cannot doe it. And lastly such as will not be satisfied, but scandalized, are not to be regarded, as I have said before.

Adde out of Navar Man. c. 23. n. 38. That it is not a sinne in a man, not to obey his superiour, when he hath probable reasons to thinke, that his superiour was deceived in so commanding, or that he would not have given such a com­mand, if he had knowne the truth. And if any shew of evill result, or scandall arise in that he is not obeyed, the necessitie of doing the contra­rie act, being in danger of death, must excuse [Page 43] and take away all scandall, for in such a case no humane lawes binde as I shall hereafter say. I answer to this Objection secondly, that there is a disparitie betweene the said meates, and going to Church, in that the said meates were not to be eaten of necessitie: that is, there was neither hazard of life or goods in abstain­ing; or more gaine then prejudice of soules in eating. And therefore it was more requisite, that the wise should abstaine in a matter of so little moment or necessitie where there was scandall, then that the weake should have been instructed and admonished, that it might have beene done without sinne, which is not so, in going to Church. For in abstaining from thence, there is both hazard of life and fortunes, and as I shall hereafter say, losse of soules: and therefore of necessitie, the weake are to be ad­monished and instructed, that there is no sinne in the act: neither is going to Church preju­diciall, but advantageous to soules, as experi­ence teacheth.

Adde that if there were any humane law or Ecclesiasticall law forbidding going to Church, it were not to be fulfilled with hazard of life or goods (as all Casuists hold) See Azorius & Na­varr. consil. de haeret. above cited: if otherwise it doth not appeare forbidden by the law of God. For all humane lawes tend to the preservation and conservation of the whole man, even in the greatest state of perfection: and where by rea­son of keeping a law; disjuncture either of soule or body may probably follow; there that law [Page 44] is for the time to be suspended: as appeares in the law forbidding to eate flesh in the Lent, say­ing the divine office, with danger of being ap­prehended and the like: where the weake ones are rather to be instructed of the necessitie of suspending the law, then the body to perish by keeping the same: the same say in our case. And I doe with reason perswade my selfe, con­sidering the Apostles whole discourse in the a­foresaid 8. Chapter to the Corinthians, that not­withstanding his words, verse the 13. if there had beene no other food to have beene gotten for him, to have preserved him from famine, then the said flesh so offered to Idols, that he would rather have perswaded the weake ones, that there had beene no sinne in it, if with due circumstances they had eaten, and how, and in what manner they might safely have eaten, and so have prevented his sinning against the bre­thren, verse 12. and striking their weake con­sciences, then by abstaining from that (and as is supposed wanting all other food) have peri­shed through hunger.

It may be objected thirdly, that those famous Doctors of Rhemes, William Allen (afterwards Cardinall) Richard Bristoe, William Reynolds, and the aforesaid Gregory Martin; who translated the whole Bible into English with annotations upon the same, in many places, as well of the Old Testament, as of the new, held it unlaw­full for any Catholike to goe to the Protestant Church. Ergo, It is unlawfull and scandalous to goe to the same. To the antecedent I an­swer, [Page 45] that the said Doctors were reverend and learned men, and their worke renowned: but because they would have the same goe forth with more l [...]stre, as pleasing the Pope; and to avoid all opposition of the aforesaid suggestors, they forsooke the common opinion of Di­vines in two points then agitated: the one, that the Pope could not depose Kings of their tem­porall dominions. And the other, that Catho­liques might frequent the Churches of Schis­maticks. Which they might well doe for their ends, being Doct [...]rs, and giving some seeming probable reas [...]ns for the same; the contrary opinions not being condemned by the Church, but left under dispute. Yet hence the conse­quence doth not appeare true. For if the a­foresaid Doctors had spoken from their hearts, grounding themselves upon the Church or reason; their interpretation of Scriptures with notes, would with me in these poynts have had great authoritie; and the conclusion have stood good. Whereas now one of the said foure, to wit: Gregory Martin having delivered his opi­nion that it was lawfull for a Catholike to goe to Church, as appeares by the said booke of R. P. pag. 109. and 110. it seemeth they did not speake in that point their mindes freely: perad­venture because it was not expedient for all sorts of people: which I confesse to be the best reason. Yet for Gods sake let us speake the truth in these troublesome times to men (at leastwise) of reason and understanding. Againe the very reasons they give in their annotations [Page 46] upon the fifth Chapter and 19. verse of the 4. booke of Kings doe shew, that they did intend but seeming reason, and not wholly convin­cing; for whereas for our opinion is, and alwaies hath beene usually brought the example of See the letter ^o. pag. 17. Naaman the Syrian, permitted (as I have said before) by the Prophet Elizeus, to goe to the Idolatrous temple Rimmon; which is most pro­per to our case; the aforesaid good Doctors re­ject the said example as nothing like to the same.

1. The first reason is, because of the time, for since the preaching of Christs Gospel (say they) we are more strictly commanded to professe our faith, then in Naamans time. Which reason I conceive under favour to be imperti­nent as well to Naamans case as to ours: for the doing of an act indifferent, may neither be a profession or a deniall of faith, but a meane be­tweene both, viz. a not discovery of the same. Neither was it more lawfull in Naamans time to deny God, then now.

2. The second Reason is, because of the place: For that the Noblemans religion was not practised in the Countrey where he went to the temple: and so there could no scandall arise thereby. This reason is in my judgement be­sides the purpose: for no more is Catholike re­ligion practised in this Countrey where we goe to Church. Again, it proves not Naamans case hereby more lawfull, then the going to Church; for there may be scandall, where a thing of its owne nature may be lawfully done: as there [Page 47] might have beene scandall in our Saviours po­vertie, Matth. 17. if he had not prevented it. And there may be no scandall, and yet the act unlawfull. Therefore if it were lawfull abstra­cting from scandall, that being in our case easi­ly avoyded, or taken away, the thing may still remaine lawfull. For if he that goeth to Church be a knowne Catholike, the weake are to be ad­monished of the indifferencie of the thing, and the urgent necessitie he hath, to doe it; and so scandall is avoyded. If he be not knowne; how can he give more scandall, then Naaman did? or to whom?

3. The third reason is, because of the diffe­rence of persons, in that Naaman had an Office to serve the King in the temple, and therefore he might goe, lest otherwise the King should have thought himselfe disdained. This reason seemes to me very strange: that a man may goe to Church to serve his King, and may not goe to Church to serve himselfe (when as charitie alwayes beginneth at home: and if a man be naught in or to himselfe, to whom can he be good?) or that feare of displeasure through ap­prehended disdaine, can excuse a man from do­ing that which were otherwise unlawfull; as though a man were not bound, rather to suffer the displeasure of his King, with losse of his life, then suffer wrack of his owne conscience: and if feare of displeasure did excuse Naaman, why should not the danger of death, losse of for­tunes, ruine of posteritie, and the like, excuse Catholiques?

[Page 48]4. The fourth reason, and most especiall difference is (say they) that Naaman made a promise before the Prophet and his own train, that he would from thence forth serve onely the true God: and to that purpose carried earth with him to make an Altar for sacrifice. Whereas those that goe to the Protestant Church, doe not renounce all heresies, nor professe to frequent Masse, &c. But (pray give me leave to say) they doe; and that herein, there is no difference at all. For Catholikes that goe to Church are knowne to their Con­fessaries, and their minde and intention is like­wise to him knowne, as Naamans was to the Prophet. And if they be knowne Catholiques, their beliefe is likewise knowne, at leastwise to their traine, if not to others, by their commu­nion with the See of Rome; so that herein there is no disparitie at all. And if they be not knowne; it is prudence to keepe themselves so, more then to their Confessaries; which is a sufficient protestation in these troublesome times. For I wonder by what law a m [...]n is bound to make any other Protestation of his beliefe for the doing of a thing indifferent?

So that (as I have said) for the said foure rea­sons, and likewise because there is Idolatrie committed at Protestant Churches, (which I never yet could finde, as often as I have fre­quented the same, and doe hope to prove the contrarie) the aforesaid Doctors make it un­lawfull and scandalous to goe to Church; and our case different from Naamans. Hence they [Page 49] liken it to that of Eleazarus and the other Mac­cabees, 2 Mac. 6.7. who were commanded by eating Swines flesh to depart from the law of God, and their fathers. Which (say they) by no meanes was lawfull to doe, or to make shew of doing the same: And a man may sweare it true. For Swines flesh being forbidden by the law, they were bound under sinne, to abstaine from the same. And if they should have made their brethren beleeve in words, that they had eaten, they would have told an untruth, with dissimu­lation in a matter forbidden by the law, both which were See the letter R pag. 28. mortall sinnes: which is as farre dif­ferent from our case, as light from darknesse. For we contend that to goe to a Protestant Church, is by no law forbidden, but a thing in­different, and by a good intention may be made really good without any dissembling. And they bring us an example of a thing, which in doing, many sinnes are committed: so that for the reasons which I have given, I conceive that the authoritie of the said rewoned Doctors con­cludeth nothing against our assertion; unlesse the Protestants were an assembly of fallen he­retiques, where there were danger of sinne by subversion or the like, which can never be pro­ved.

It may be fourthly objected, that it is the common opinion of men, that to go to Church is scandalous, because it is a signe of hereticall falshood, and a man so doing is reputed as fallen, both of Catholiques and Protestants. I answer, that it is false; and experience teacheth us the [Page 50] contrary. For who made it such a signe? and Schismaticks that goe to Church with an ill conscience, only to save their goods, notwith­standing in this, they are accounted to hurt onely themselves, yet of all Catholiques they are trusted and esteemed as honest men, and of Protestants they are esteemed no other. And they sinne not (as I have said) in going to Church, but in going with an ill conscience, and being barred of simple Priests from other meanes of salvation, and in doing so, give scan­dall. But you will say: they deny their faith in this act. I deny that. They deny onely recu­sancie with an ill conscience, and not religion. Yet I grant that such Schismaticks professe no faith at all. And if there be any other opinion of men concerning them, it is malicious and pharisaical, generated by the craft and deceit of others, under the species of pretended piety, making people beleeve, that there is sinne and scandall in the act, when there is none; and if any Protestant thinketh otherwise of this; they have it from the erroneous customary opinion of some Catholiques revealing the same.

It may be objected fifthly. To communi­cate with heretiques is sinne, and scandall: but to goe to Church, is to communicate with he­retiques. Ergo. It is sinne and scandall. To which I answer, first distinguishing the Major: to communicate with hereticks publikely, and particularly denounced to be such, or in their heresie. I grant the Major, but deny the Minor in the same sence; but to communicate with [Page 51] heretiques not denounced such, not in point of heresie, to be sinne: that is most false: for then we should neither eate, drinke, buy or sell, with Protestants which is most absurd. Which ab­surditie to take away, and all scruple rising from thence by communicating with heretiques as well in service as otherwaies, was the before mentioned constitution of Martin the fifth, prudently made.

Adde that if we may not communicate with Protestants in going to Church, we must com­municate with Brownists in refraining the Church, and so be thought the same with them, or else every one must be bound to get himselfe convicted for a Popish Recusant, that so Pro­testants may know him to be a Catholique and no Brownist; and so to avoyd water he must runne into the fire. If you answer, that so he goeth not to Church it maketh no matter what Protestants thinke of him, for Catholiques know what he is. I reply then by the same rea­son, that if he goe to Church, it maketh no matter what Protestants thinke of him, for Ca­tholiques may likewise know what he is.

I answer secondly, that the Major supposeth what is not granted. viz. That Protestants with whom I goe to Church are formall heretiques: which I desire to be first proved. For an here­tique is he that obstinately denieth any article This definition of an heretique is both defective & redundant: defective, for every obstinate deniall of an article of faith makes not an heretique, unlesse his conscience be clearely convinced of his errour out of the word of God, it is redundant also, for a man may be an heretique by de­nying any article of faith, though that article be not proposed to him by the Catholike Church to be beleeved; though but his pastour, or any other, reli­gious Christian out of Gods word clearely propound it to him and prove, it or it be read by himselfe in the Scripture: if he obstinately persist in the de­nyall thereof after his conscience is convinced, he becomes an heretique. of faith proposed by the Catholique Church to [Page 52] be beleeved. How can a Protestant be said ob­stinately (which includes a knowne infallibility rejected) to deny an article proposed by the Catholique Church (as I have said before) when he beleeves The Protestants of England know other Churches besides their own, and some have learnedly discour­sed of all the Churches in the Christian world, as Purchas, Brier­wood, Mocket, M^r. Paget, and others: [...] true it is, they acknowledge no infallibilitie in the Roman or any particular Church, nor receive any Church for true and Orthodoxe, which consenteth not with them in all points of faith either expresly set downe, or by cleare and necessa­rie consequence deduced from holy Scriptures. none other Church, but his owne? For although Protestants hold divers tenets con­trary to the Catholike The Protestants hold no­thing contrary to the Catholique Church, though they hold many things con­trary to the present Romane Church, which is neither the Catholike Church, nor a sound member thereof, as is proved invincibly by Iohn Reynolds praefat. thesium, Sect. 12. & Thes. ss. 27. & Apol. 5.23. And Bilsons answer to Cardinall Allen, part. 4. And Abbot against Bishop, in a Treatise inti­tuled The true ancient Romane Catholike, to which none answer hath yet beene given, nor sufficient can be. Church; which have been justly condemned in their Authours as here­tiques. Yet whether obstinately held in them (the contrary not being sufficiently proposed at leastwise to most of them) I much doubt. For as Diana saith, 5^a. parte pag. 240. col. 1^a. A man speaking heresie, that is, a proposition con­demned by the Church, without an hereticall consent, is no heretique: neither in curreth ex­communication denounced against heretiques; so that although they be incredulous With what face can he say that the Protestants are incredulous and beleeve not the truth? Who entirely beleeve the whole doctrine of the Scriptures, together with the three Creeds; that which beares the name of the Apostles, the Nicene, and that of Athanasius, together with the foure first generall Councels; in which time the Church most flourished: as also the joynt Doctrine and unanimous consent of all the Fathers both of the Greeke and Latine Church for five hundred yeeres after Christ our Lord came into the flesh. Let this traducer of the reformed Churches answer punctually, whether he beleeveth that the learned Doctors, Confessours, and Martyrs who lived and died within the first 500. yeeres, held the entire Catholique faith necessary to salvation or no? If they held it not, how were they saved, upon what good ground or warrant are so many of them canonized for Saints even by the Roman Church? but on the other side, if they beleeved all things necessary to salvation, how can we be e­steemed incredulous, or defective in our faith, who beleeveth all that can be proved to have beene joyntly beleeved, and unanimously professed by them., and beleeve not the truth; yet they are not properly, and in rigor formall heritiques.

[Page 53]Adde that there is no more sin, to goe to the Protestant Church, then to goe to them to din­ner, or to goe with them to a play, or other sports. And I for my part had rather give twelue Is this the holy Romane Religi­on, to make a May-game of Religion? and to goe to Sermons as to a play to make them­selves merry, and dispell a Melancholly dumpe? Besides their owne third commandement enjoynes them to keepe Holy-dayes, and their owne Ca­suists allow the Lords day to be a day that is holy. And is this a piece of ho­lynesse to goe on such dayes to a play? yet neither doe I beleeve that he can readily name the man, much lesse many men that spake fustian with gravity in our Pulpits, but I am sure he who patched up this Safeguard out of rags of Religion and falshood speaks Linsewoolsey through his whole Dis­course, and contrary to the law ploweth with an Oxe and an Asse. The later of which here brayeth irrationally and unjustly against the generalitie of Prote­stant Preachers and Sermons. Forsooth, we are silly weake and ignorant men, but they are all profound Gamaliels, nay Angelicall and Seraphicall Doctors. Whereunto I answer, as Saint Paul did to the calumnies of the false Apostles, 2 Cor. 10.12. We dare not make our selves of the number to compare our selves with them that commend themselves, but they measuring themselves by them­selves, and comparing themselves amongst themselves understand not. The Ca­tholiques he saith, are Hounds ( [...]lood Hounds I grant) and our Ministers timo­rous Hares, they dare not encounter the weakest Romane Catholique, they neither understand the controversies of Religion, nor dare meddle with any in their Sermons. If this were true which all our hearers know to be most false: yet me thinks Iuv [...]nal speaks very good reason, Loripedem rectus derideat, Ae­thiopem albus. And what great Clarks (I pray) were those of whom Boniface Bishop of [...] [...]p [...]ke in his time; heretofore we had woodden Chalices and golden Priests, [...]ut now we have golden Chalices and woodden Priests; what great Gamaliels were they of whom Bonaventure complaines; Qui­dam sacerdotum, [...]lavem habent (he speaketh of the Key of knowledge) qui­dam claviculam quidam nullam; what was he upon whom Sir Thomas Moore thus playes in his [...]pigr [...]m, tu bene cavisti ne te ulla occidere possit litera, nam nulla est l [...]tera nota tibi: Be not frighted at the words of the Apostle the letter killeth, thou hast taken good order that it shall not kill thee, for thou knowest not a lett [...]. What was he of whom Poggius writeth, that after he had said Masse, bidding the Feast of Epiphanie, he spake to the honest rusticks on this wise; My good neighbours, to morrow you are to keepe good cheere and celebrate a high feast, the feast of Saint Epiphanie, a most holy wight, but whether Epi­phanie were male or female, a he Saint or a she Saint, I finde it not in my books. What was he that Christened a childe with this forme of words: Ego bapti­zo te in nomine Patria, Filia, & Spiritua Sancta What was he, who reading in the Gospel of Saint Iohn, invenimus Messiam, lept out of his skin for joy, saying, Now to the confusion of all Hugonots, I have found the Masse in the new Testament. What was he, who reading in the Epistle, Melchisedec Rex Salem panem & vinum protulit, translated it thus; King Melchisedec brought forth salt, bread and wine. What was he, who in a dispute about putting here­ticks to death, most Clarke like prooved his conclusion, that hereticks ought to suffer death, because the Apostle saith; Hereticum post unam aut alteram ad­moni [...]ionem devita. 1 Titus 3.10 [...], that is, shun or avoyd but this silly animal mistooke the ver [...]e devita, for a proposition and a nowne, as if the A­postle had said; de vitá, out of life with him. Neither doth Pope Siricius better argue against P [...]iests marriage. Men in holy Orders must not contract Matrimonie, because the Apostle saith, They that are in the flesh cannot please God; neither Innocentius against Lay-mens reading Scripture: The beast that touched the Mount, was to be thrust thorow with a dart. Ergo. The people must not meddle with the Scripture. As for their manner of preaching▪ who so much scorne and deride ours, let all travellers speake, whether it be not thus. A Pa­rish Priest, or some Monk or Frier, gets up into a spacious Pulpit, and there runs himselfe out of breath, from one side to the other; before his houre glasse be halfe run, of whom a man might well demand, as some one did in Tully of a declaimer. Quot millia pass [...]um declamasti? When this shaveling betweene whose head and heaven, there is not a haire first appeares to the people, he crosses himselfe (as their manner is, when they are affraid of evill spirits) then reads the Gospel of the day in Latine, whereof the people understand not a word: and after he hath spent some time in translating it, and scored out his way, he conveighes a prayer into a parenthesis, concluding it with an Ave Maria. After this, resuming the words of his Text, in the handling of them, he robs and deplumes the late written pos [...]ils upon that [...]ospell, and like the Crow in the Poet Cloathes his Discourse with the choicest of their feathers, in the end sticks two or three gaudy feathers out of the Peacock [...] taile: I meane the golden Legend, telling them how S^t. Domin [...]ck spying the Devill sitting in the Church like a Sparrow, called him to him, pluckt off all his feathers, and put him to a great reproach: or how S^t. Dunstane tooke the De­vill by the nose with a paire of tongs fire hot: Or how S^t. Bernard [...]lest good Ale, and giving the same to certaine lewd persons, caused divine grace to en­ter into them. And here if the Author and his Consorts please to be merry at Sermons, spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici: But if any more ingenuous Papists like Lodovicus Vives, condemne the Author of your golden Legend, for a man of a brazen face, and leaden heart, and bring better stuffe; yet even these come farre short of the Preachers of the Reformed Churches, in many remarkable particulars. First, all the Popish Preachers take their text out of the Gospel or [...]pistle of the Day: but the Protestants confine themselves not to those parcels of Scripture, but make choice as God shall direct them, for the most profit of their flocke; of any part of the Canonicall Scripture to ex­pound it. Againe, the Protestant Preachers in their translation follow the ori­ginals, the Greeke and Hebrew: the Papists as they are bound under paine of a curse, follow the corrupt vulgar Latine, which they may not upon any pre­tence reject. The Protestants deliver no Doctrine of faith, for which they bring not Gods word. The Papists ground many of their Doctrines upon un­written Traditions or Decrees of Popes, or Councels. The Protestants build upon the true foundation, gold, silver, and precious stones, that is▪ heavenly, solid and precious Doctrine, conformable to holy Scriptures. The Papists hay and stubble, as namely, the putting Thrones and Dominations, with Archangels, Angels, Cherubins and Seraphins, in ranke and file; a Geographical [...] descrip­tion of foure Regions under the earth, Hell, Purgatory, Limbus Patrum, and Limbus Infantum; an imaginary treasury of super-abundant satisfactions to be dispenced by the Pope, hallowing of Water, Salt, Creame, &c. Christen­ing Bels, Singing Dirges, and Trentals, Pilgrimages, Whippings, Masses, without Communicants, dry Communions, censing Pictures, Invocation of Saints, worshipping of Images, with Reliques, and such like trash. pence to heare a Sermon, then take five shillings to see a play. For there is no such sport as to heare a weake fellow speake fustian with gravitie, [Page 54] [Page 55] [Page 56] or tell a fable of the whore of Babylon, or De te fabula nar­ratur, unlesse you can substantially refute Vigniers his Theater of Popes, or Plessis his Hi­storia Papatus, or Abbot, & Down. and Powell, and infinite others ac­curate and elabo­rate Treatises, De Antichristo, you must aske blessing of the whore of Babylon as your mother. Ba­bylonians (for so now they terme Catholiques) with erected eyes in earnest. Or why should it be more lawfull to see a play where most com­monly intercedes scurrilitie and obscene ge­stures, and the end of which, is nothing, but vanitie: then to heare a Sermon, where per­haps in some places or by some simple men, their may be some untruth told of the Pope to please their Auditory; although most common­ly nothing but moralitie, which is the end and intention of the same? I pray resolve me!

§ 2. It is not unlawfull to goe to Church, because Recusancie is a distinctive signe. Which is the second branch of the Minor.

THat Recusancy is a distinctive sign of a Ca­tholique from a Protestant is most false. Which is thus proved. If Recusancie be a di­stinctive signe, it is a signe naturall or by institu­tion; but neither can be said. Ergo, it is no signe. The Minor is proved. Not naturall, for as Hurtado above cited well observeth. Actions [Page 57] and things are not of their own nature signifi­cant: but have naturall and politicall uses inde­pendent of any signification. For a bush hung out at a Taverne doore doth naturally signifie no more wine to be sold, then any other crea­ture whatsoever. Nor doth the habit of a Bi­shop naturally signifie a Bishop more then a Judge: and so of other things. No more doe naturally the actions of men.

But admit that Recusancy were improperly said a naturall signe, yet it would naturally sig­nifie no more a Catholique then a Brownist (for he refuseth likewise to goe to Church) or any o­ther Sectary. Although a posteriori it might be thought by discourse to signifie some one dis­pleased with the Protestant Church, but why, or wherefore, it would never signifie.

Not by institution: for if so, who instituted the same? God, or man? Not man; for it is out of his power, to signe the people of God, from not his people. It is only the owner of the flocke, that must signe the sheepe, and none o­ther; unlesse, it be by speciall order from him. Hence when God would signe his people in the old Testament, from the people of other Na­tions; he himselfe instituted Circumcision, Gen 17. as a distinctive signe betweene them and others: that whosoever had that signe, should be of his people; and who so had it not, was to be rejected. Neither was it sufficient that any man had accidentally, and by the insti­tution of Abraham, any other signe, by which he might be knowne from others: because he was [Page 58] not thought sufficiently marked, nor accounted any one of Gods people, by any other sign then Circumcision. Which was the sole marke of God, saying: All the male kinde of you shall be Circumcised. And this is consonant to reason. For one man may get a distinctive signe of ano­ther mans institution; shall God therefore own him? Brownists (as I have said) have Recusan­cie, doth it therefore follow, that they are like­wise Catholiques? If a sheepe in my neighbours flocke should teare an eare in a bramble, or bush, or accidentally breake an horne; this sheepe is hereby distinct from the rest; yet the owner, doth not own it by that marke: but by a marke of his own institution and ruddle. So it is in the present.

That God did not institute the same, it is so evident, that it needs no proofe. For where may we finde his institution? Vnlesse we should run to the all-knowing spirit of hereticks. Hence it follows that Recusancie is no distin­ctive signe.

If you aske me, what is then the signe to know a Catholique from any other Sectary? I answer. His beleefe of the Creed of the Catho­lique Church, and his l [...]fe at all times in commu­nion with the See Apostolique. So Stratford, lib. 2. de Eccles. cap. 6. pag. 188.

It may be here objected, first the common opinion of Divines (as the said R. P. saith) 2^a. 2ae. q. 3. To use a distinctive signe of a false re­ligion, that properly is such, is a deniall of faith, and evill in it selfe. But the Service said in a [Page 59] Protestant Church is such. Ergo. I grant the Major. For if the signe be proper of a people re­jected of God as (since the promulgation of the Gospel) Circumcision is to a Jew, the Ma­jor must needs be true. But if the signe be gar­ments or the like, used to the worship and cere­monies of a false law, which some fondly call a proper signe, then the Major, meaning the use of such a signe to be a denyall of faith is false ac­cording to Diana resol. 34. pag. 191. above cited, Azorius, Sanches, and many others there. Be­cause such signes being naturall things, may be lawfully used (as I have said before) independent of any such signification; and so not properly signes (whatsoever R. P. saith to the contrary upon his own bare word). The Minor proposi­tion I deny. For who instituted that service to be such a signe? not God, as all Catholiques will confesse; but rather the contrary, it being Catholique. Not themselves; for it would savor too much weakenesse, to thinke that they would institute to themselves, a signe of a false religi­on. And if it be taken for a signe naturally (al­though improperly) signifying: then I say of its own nature, it signifies no more a false Reli­gion in a Protestant, then a pious ceremony in a Catholique. For Catholiques say the Will you call it the same wine which was pow­red out into two cups, whereof one hath store of rats­bane in it? See pag. 16. letter ^•. and pag. 33. letter^u same ser­vice. Catholiques preach moralitie, and each There was never such a prophane gamster heard of as this Masse-Priest, who playeth not only with the word of God, and prayers, but with Sacraments here, and most solemne oathes hereafter? what horrible prophannesse, what dete­stable hypocrisie is it? I will not say for a Lay Papist, but a Romish Priest, not only to be at our Service, but to stay at the Communion, to heare the Ministers exhortation out of the Apostle, to all persons that come to the holy Table, Diligently to try and examine themselves, before they presume to eate of that bread, and drinke of that cup: for as the benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart and lively faith, we receive that holy Sacrament (for then we spi­ritually eate the flesh of Christ, and drinke his blood; then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we be one with Christ and Christ with us) so is the danger great, if we receive the same unworthily; for then we be guiltie of the body and blood of Christ our Saviour, we eat and drinke our own damnation, not consider­ing the Lords body, we kindle Gods wrath against us, when we provoke him to plague us with divers diseases, and sundry kinds of death. Nay more, if he joyne with the whole congregation in the rehearsall of the words of the in­stitution, and the consecratory prayer, will he present himselfe on his knees (for he excepts no Ceremonies) and receive the consecrated elements, de­livered to him with these words; The body of our Lord Iesus Christ, which was given for thee preserve thy body and soule unto eternall life; and yet all this while, never thinke of receiving the Sacrament; but only of eating a piece of bread, and drinking a draught of wine, which shall be better done with the re­membrance of Christ then without it. He will say, that our Sacrament is no­thing but common bread and wine, and that nought else is to be received a [...] our Communion Table. The Lord rebuke thee, thou false tongue! What▪ because we beleeve not that the bread and wine is transubstantiated into Christs body and blood; must it therefore be nothing but common bread and bare wine. By the same reason he might say, that because the water in Baptisme is not transubstantiated into Christs blood, that therefore it is nothing but faire wa­ter; and he may in a jesting manner wash a childe in remembrance of Christs washing us with his blood. It is true, we teach with Theodoret, Dial. 2. That the sacred symbols after consecration, depart not out of their own nature, but still remaine, [...], in their former sub­stance shape and figure: but withall we teach, that they remaine not the same in use, signification and supernaturall efficacie; by vertue of Christs promise to all that worthily partake of the same. Neither could this prophane scoffer be ignorant hereof, for he saith, He hath often been at our Service, where we pro­fesse, that all, who with a lively faith receive the holy Sacrament spiritually, eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood. He also maketh mention in this Pamphlet of the 39. Articles, which he will have to be the definition of a Protestant, and in those Articles, he could not but reade, Art. 28. Christs body is given, received and eaten in the Supper, but only after a heavenly and spirituall manner; And in the Apologie of the Church of England, part. 2. cap. 14. The Supper of the Lord, is not only a signe of the love that Christians ought to beare amongst themselves, one to the other, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Re­demption by Christs death, in so much, that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we breake, is the partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing, is a partaking of the blood of Christ. With which confession of ours, fully accordeth the Helvetian, the French, the Belgicke, the Augustane, and the Swevick: as he that hath an eare may heare in the Harmony of Confessions, Printed, 1581. cap. 21. De sacrâ coenâ Do­mini. What should I need for further proofe hereof, either to alleadge the te­stimonie of Calvin. Epist. 31. Non modo figuratur in coenae communio quam habemus cum Christo, sed etiam exhibetur: neque verba illic nobis dantur à Do­mino, sed veritas ac res constat cum verbis. Haec porro communio non imagi­naria est, sed qua in unum corpus unam (que) substantiam cum capite nostro coalesci­mus: There is not only figured in the Supper, that communion which we have with Christ, but it is also exhibited; neither doth our Lord deceive us, but the truth of the thing is correspondent to his words; neither is the communion we speake of, an imaginarie, but such a reall one, whereby we grow into one body, and one substance with Chr [...]st, our head; or the testimonie of Bucer. Epist. ad Ita­los addit, hoc est corpus meum, hic sanguis meus, id credamus nec dubitemus haec dari nobis his ipsis symbolis, & dari in cibum & potum vitae aeternae ut magis ma­gis (que) vivamus in Christo, & habeamus illum manentem in nobis: He addeth this is my body, this is my blood; let us beleeve it and no way doubt, but that these things are given unto us by or with these very symbols, and that they are given unto us for the food and drinke of eternall life, that we may more and more live in Christ, and have him living in us. It never came into the thought of any pro­fessour of the Gospel, to celebrate the Supper of the Lord, without the Lord, as Bucer speaketh in this Epistle, or exclude him from his owne Table. We teach he is there truly present, and is truly received by all worthy communi­cants but spiritually by faith, not carnally with the mouth according to the grosse Capernaitical conceipt of Romanists. For first our Saviour in the sixth of Iohn, where he commandeth all, to eate his flesh, and drinke his blood, vers. 53. affirming that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drinke indeed; perceiving that some were offended thereat, saying, vers. 60. this is a hard saying, who can beare it; thus he declareth his own meaning, vers. 63. The words which I speake unto you, they are spirit and they are life, that is, spiritually to be under­stood, not carnally and grossely. Secondly, the Orthodox Fathers disclaime this carnall eating with the mouth: S^t. Cyril in his Anathems denyeth the Sacrament to be hominis comestionem, An Anthropophagie or man eating, S^t. Chrysostome saith, it is mensa aquilarum, not graculorum: and S^t. Austine, that it is cibus mentis, not ventris or dentis; the food of the soule, not of the tooth or belly: Tract 20. in Iohan. Vt quid paras dentes & ventrem crede & mandu­casti: Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly, beleeve and thou hast eaten: and S^t. Cyprian, de coena Dom. haec quoties agimus non, dentes ad manducondum acuimus, sed fide sincera panem sanctum frangimus: As oft as we doe these things, we doe not wh [...]t our teeth to eate, but with sincere faith we breake that holy bread. Thirdly, Christ never instituted any Sacramentall action, but it was profitable to the soule; but the eating of Christs flesh with the mouth, and swallowing it down in the stomack, doth no way at all profit the soule. Fourthly, Christ never wrought any miracle outwardly upon the creature; but the truth therof appeared, even to sense, when he turned the water into wine, Ioh. 2. The change was discovered by the taste, vers. 9, 10. When the Ruler of the feast had tasted it, he said to the Bridegroome thou hast kept the good wine till now: In like man­ner when Christ multiplyed the five Barley loaves and the two fishes, both the taste and the stomacke, and the eyes of all that were present gave testi­monie to the truth of this miracle. For they did all eate and were satisfied, and saw twelve bask [...]ts remaining full of the fragments or broken meat which remain­ed to them that had eaten. Neither can it be shewed, that ever Christ the Au­thor of truth deluded the sense. If therefore the bread had been truly and re­ally turned into the substance of flesh either the sight, or the taste, or the touch would have discerned this change, which yet as themselves confesse, disco­ver nothing but the whitenesse, the roundnesse, the taste, and other accidents of bread. Fifthly, If the flesh of Christ may be eaten with the mouth with­out faith, not only infidels and reprobates, but even rats and mice might some­times through the negligence of Priests gnaw upon the consecrated Host, and eate the flesh of the Son of God, which were horrid to imagine and blasphe­mous to utter. Sixthly, if the Romish Priests undoubtedly beleeve this do­ctrine of transubstantiation, as they doe other Articles of their faith: why did Garnet and other Popish Priests when they were required to say these or the like words; if after I have consecrated and pronounced the words, this is my body, there be not in stead of the bread the very flesh of Christ let me have no part in heaven, they refused so to doe this profession being demanded of them, but a day or two before their deaths, when if ever, men will clearely discharge their conscience and utter whatsoever is in their very heart, it being the last time they are like ever to confesse with the mouth unto salvation. Seventh­ly, if the bread be transubstantiated into Christs body, and his body truly really, and properly taken from the hand of the Priest put into the mouth, chawed with the teeth, and swallowed down into the stomacke of all communicants: either Christ of necessitie must have two bodies, one visible, another invisible, one with the full dimensions of a man, the other of a wafer, one passible, the other impassible, one residing in one place, the other filling a million of places: or at least the selfe same body of Christ must at the same time be visible at the right hand of his Father, and invisible in the Host: with the dimensions of a man in heaven, and of a wafer on earth: with distinction of organs in heaven, and inorganicall upon earth: resting in heaven, and moved on earth from the hand to the mouth, and from the mouth to the stomack of millions of com­municants. Lastly, I demand of this Priest and his pew-fellows, what be­comes of Christs body after it is conveighed into the stomack, doth it remaine there after the forme and accidents of bread are changed or doth it some wayes, remove out of the stomack, or is it there converted into any other sub­stance: they dare not pitch upon any of these three, nothing therefore remain­eth but an annihilation or corruption in the stomack and so the holy one of God whom God would never suffer to see corruption, no not in the grave; shall now af­ter his glorification suffer corruption in the stomack of all Romish Capernaits. may if hee please, receive bread and wine once in a day, in a weeke, or a moneth, in re­membrance [Page 58] [...] [Page 59] [...] [Page 60] [Page 61] [Page 62] [Page 63] that Christ dyed for him; and this shall be better done, then to eate bread and wine, without such remembrance: For recei­ving bread and wine: See that deduced out of Azorius, tom. 1. lib. 8. instit. moral. c. 11. & Navar. consil. 15. de haeret. num. 2. Which were, but to renew (in an urgent point of necessitie) the old custome in the Apostles time, as appears by the Corinthian Christians in Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 11. who did eate and drinke in the Church, besides what they received of Christs institution as his true and reall body and blood. For after the Sacrifice and Eucharist was ended, there were kept Church feasts for the reliefe of the poore, [Page 64] upon the common charges and charitie of the rich. By which the charitie and unitie of all sorts were much preserved: for which cause the said feasts were called Charities of the ancient Fathers; and of Saint Paul, vers. 20. they were called Coenae The Apostle in that place speak­eth not of Suppers in the plurall num­ber, but the Lords Supper in the sin­gular, and vers. 23. delivereth the right manner of administring it ac­cording to Christs institution, and so S^t. Cyprian in his Tract. de caena Do­mini, and the most approved inter­preters both an­cient and mo­derne understand the word, and not of love feasts. As for the reason this authour alleadgeth for this his exposi­tion, it is very fri­volous. For if the love feasts must therfore be tearm [...]d coena Dominicae our Lords Suppers, because they were made in the Churches which were then called Dominicae, by the same reason the Homi­lies and Catechisings, and Songs should be called Dominicae, because they were made said or sung in the Churches which were then called Dominicae. dominicae, our Lords Suppers: be­cause they were made in the Churches, which then were called Dominicae, that is, our Lords houses: in which feasts, because there hapned, some foule abuses (which the Apostle rebu­king, vers. 22. Why have ye not houses to eate and drinke in? or contemne ye the house of our Lord, &c.) they were taken away. See Con. Gang. 11. Con. 3. Laod. can. 27.28. Apollorum, can. 39. Clemens Alex. S•. Iust. S•. August contra Faustum, lib. 20. cap. 20. St. Chrysost. hom. 27. in 1 Cor. & St. Ambrose upon this same place: by which it ap­peares no new thing for Catholiques to take some thing with a good intention, besides, what was instituted by Christ.

Here some may aske, whether it belongs to me out of my authoritie to institute or renew this pious ceremony in taking bread and wine in remembrance of the death of Christ, generally for the prudent Catholiques of England? I an­swer no. God forbid that I should presume to institute or renew any ceremonie in the Catho­lique Church: but I doe onely in compassion of their miseries, present to their necessitie (if [Page 65] any be in danger of death, losse of fortunes, or ruine of posteritie, and cannot expect leave from the supreame Pastor of our soules) the do­ctrine of Claudius Carinnus de vi & pot. leg. hu­man. c. 10: that even in lawes, every particular man hath power to interpret the same to his ad­vantage, and to dispense with himselfe therein, if there occurre a sudden case of necessitie, and there be no open way and recourse to the Supe­riour, much more then, said I, in a pious cere­monie against which there is no law forbidding the same.

And if you reply that this is taken in a strange Church. I answer, That in case of necessitie, the pl [...]ce is impertinent to the thing. For Saint Bonaventure, that great and pious Doctor using much jaculatory prayers, and being upon the place of naturall necessitie, and there uttering some of the said prayers, the Devill asked him, Whether that were a place to pray in? to whom he answered, in opusc. Hic et ubique meum licet orare Deum. That it was lawfull to praise God in all places: and to receive bread and wine in a Protestant Church from a Minister, or to re­ceive the same in a Taverne from a Vintners boy: the godly onely know the difference.

If you reply againe, that so we may offer In­cense to an Idol in a temple (because we may burne perfume, and the Idol we know to be no­thing) I deny that: and the disparity is in this, that in offering Incense, the act and shew there tends to the honour and worship of the Devill. For the place being dedicated to him, whatso­ever [Page 66] is therein done as an usuall ceremonie is taken (whatsoever the intention be) as done to his honour. Which act as it is unlawfull in it selfe to be done, because pretended Idolatrie, wherein Gods worship is given to the Devill, at least in outward shew: so it is unlawfull to faine in words the act to be done, becau [...]e it is dis­sembling (the object it selfe being likewise for­bidden by the law of God) both which are great sinnes, and apt to cause great scandall: which I shall make appeare, not to be in our case, where I co [...]tend, there is no sinne in the act, nor yet dissembling, nor the object forbidden.

If you reply thirdly, that there is dissembling in going to Church (as going two waies in Reli­gion contrary to the Scripture) for thereby I seeme to be otherwise then I am: the reply is false, for I professe but one religion which is Catholique, and at Church I doe but observe the picture of true religion ill formed, which is but a humane act not hurtfull, but by a pi­ous intention may be made good, by which all hypocrisie and dissimulation may be avoy­ded. And if I seeme to Protestants to be a Pro­testant; what am I the worse for that? I never yet could finde any law, to ground an action a­gainst the censures of men. If they censure me to be a Protestant, I am not under their scourge for religion, unlesse they will on purpose make an Act of Parliament to cut off my head, which shall be no president for any other Iudges or Iustices: and then I must set up my rest with a Noble man, saying, Contra potentiam non est resi­stentia. [Page 67] There is no resistance against power. But continuing alwaies loyall both to my King and Countrey, and obedient to God and his Church, and in so doing, giving both God and Caesar their due, and that without either sinne or dissembling. I had rather they censure mee unjustly (yet according to the lawes established, for I alwaies stand pro Rege & Lege) and so misse their aime by an Ignoramus, then I loose my life by a pure might. But hence it doth not follow, for all their censure, that I am a Protestant: for to be so, I must beleeve the 39. Articles of the Church of England, which is the definition of a Protestant. Which Articles or any other te­nents of theirs I meddle not with: for if I must doe all things contrary to Protestants, lest I should be thought so▪ when they eate, I must fast; and when they sleep, I must wake; which is ridiculous. As for their thinking me a Prote­stant, it proceeds from want of knowledge: for they or most of them neither He meaneth a Romane Catho­lique or Papist, which indeed can hardly be knowne to be a true Ca­tholique. See pag. 1. letter ^c. But doth he think that we know not what a Papist is? Let them remember what Polycarp did answer when Marcion accoasting him said, Nosti me? Doest thou know me? Yes saith Polycarp. Novi primogenitum diaboli. I know the first begotten of the devill. We know you qua tales, to be the naturall issue of the man of sinne, and whore of Babylon: and in this double and dissembling way it is hard to say of what religion you are, or whether of any at all? knowing what a Protestant, or Catholique indeed is (if Catho­liques went to Church, they would not know how to distinguish, or persecute them; it being lawfull among them, for every one to beleeve A lewd slander, it is not lawfull among us for every one to beleeve what hee pleaseth, but this Priest thinketh it lawfull for him to speake what he pleaseth; though against common sense and his owne conscience. For within tenne lines of these words he maketh mention of the 39 Articles of the Church of England, to which we all are bound to give our assent and consent; and in case any Parson or Vi [...]ar doe not reade these Articles and publikely testifie his approbation of them within a moneth after his induction into his Benefice▪ he lapseth his Living. Besides it is the knowne doctrine of all Protestants that the Scripture is the sole and perfect rule of faith, and that as we may not be­leeve any thing contrary unto it; so neither any doctrine as necessarie to sal­vation which cannot be evidently proved out of it. Of what brasse then was the brow of this slanderer made, who affirmeth it to be lawfull among Pro­testants, for every man to beleeve what he pleaseth. what he pleaseth) may easily thinke amisse of [Page 68] me. And for me to take benefit of their igno­rance, and to hide my selfe in persecution, un­till either the glory of God, or good of my neighbour shall urge me to discover my selfe: I cannot yet finde my selfe by any law forbid­den.

It may be objected secondly, that there were divers Statutes made upon the alteration of Re­ligion, in the 2.5. and 6. yeers of Edward the sixth; and 1. and 23. of Q [...]eene Elizabeth in ha­tred of God and his Church, as that the Masse should be abrogated, and all the Kings subjects should come to Church to heare such Service as was then o [...]dained, to distinguish betweene Catholiques and Protestants; and that whoso­ever should say, or heare Masse afterwards, should incurre certaine penalties, as by the said Statutes appeares. But no man could obey these commands without sinne. Ergo. I answer, that I know not much to what purpose this ob­jection can serve R. P. that made it. For all Divines as well Catholiques as Protestants [Page 69] know: that all humane lawes binde in con­science no [...]urther, then they are consonant and conformable to the divine law. And as farre as they command lawfull unitie and uniformitie to the good of the common wealth (which is the chiefe thing that States men aime at, mens consciences being left to themselves) they may be obeyed, as I h [...]ve said out of Azorius tom. 1^o. lib. 8. instit. moral. cap. 27. puncto. 5^o. And for as much as concerned the abrogation of Masse (which by the law of God was unlawfull) they did consequenter to the State government then; for having rejected the authoritie [...]f the Pope, they likewise rejected the Masse; as knowing that there could be no Masse without Priests, nor Priests without the Pope. And therefore taking as much of the Masse, as would serve for their Service, and to be independent of the Pope, they left the rest. But that they did it in hatred of God and his Church: or for any di­stinction sake, it is altogether improbable. For what would a man get, by hating of God? or the Church, of which himselfe must be a mem­ber, to be saved? or how could they make a di­stinction of that they knew not; for the Prote­stant Church was not then knowne, or scarce established. And therefore without wholly granting the Major, or distinguishing the Minor. I answer, that every one ought under paine of damnation to obey his temporall Prince in matters lawfull. Yet to suffer for his religion, and (abstracting from all obedience either to Statute or Resc [...]ipt) not for Recusancie.

[Page 70]It may be objected thirdly, that of S. Paul to the Romans 10.10. With the heart we beleeve unto justice: but w [...]th the mouth confession is made to salvation. Ergo, No man can goe to Church. I deny the sequele, and to the Antecedent I an­swer, that according to Divines; a man is bound to confesse his religion Semper, sed non ad sem­per: alwaies, but not at all waies: that is, not at all times, and in all places: but as I have said before out of Saint Thomas of Aquin in the said two cases, viz. as often as the honour and glory of God requires the same, or the spirituall pro­fit of our neighbour shall exact it, as likely to be impaired by silence: which to be requisite I have before granted. Yet hence it doth not fol­low, that I am bound to goe into the Market place and cry out; I am a Catholike, who will punish me? or before I am called to publish my religion, to make my selfe be called; or to live and converse to the same time, as having a set­led being, and not going to Church. I read that Saint Faelix going to martyrdome, S. Adauc [...]us, came to the Officers that led him thither, and said to them, that he lived in the same law with Saint Faelix, and therefore that they should likewise put him to death. Yet I conceive that he had a speciall revelation for the same; and that it is no warrant for our indiscretion.

If it be replyed, that so a man shall professe no religion. I answer the inference to be naught▪ for suppose a mans recusancie were never dis­covered, this man professeth some religion; for he doth not live a heathen. Why then recusan­cie [Page 71] being rejected, should he not professe the same?

If it be said, that it is written, that no man can serve two masters rightly. Yet a man may serve one Master, and have a servant to serve him, or he may serve one master, and keepe or use that Masters picture, howsoever ill it be drawne.

It may be objected fourthly, that the Re­script of Pope Paul the fifth, in which he writes to the Catholiques of England, declareth, that they ought not to goe to the Churches of He­retiques, or heare their Sermons without de­triment of the divine worship, and their owne salvation. To which I answer, that the said Pope wrote both piously, fatherly, and Aposto­lically, according to the aforesaid suggestions by him received: and if he had had the truth of the state of England, I beleeve he would have written as piously the contrary. For put the case, that those zealous suggestors had pre­sented to the consideration of the Councel of Trent, or the Pope himselfe the truth and law­fulnesse of Catholiques going to Church, with these seven reasons following: supposing an ab­solute necessitie.

1. First that there is no evill or harme done or said in the Protestant Churches to the pre­judice of any Catholike soule, that may not either be hindred, or prevented very well, by the instruction of Priests; for they preach not against any notable point of doctrine held in the Catholique Church (although See page 53. Letter E. some simple [Page 72] Minister for want of matter may glance at some of our tenets by halfes understood: or in these daies to please his auditorie may raile against the Pope, which he doth so irrationally, that few Protestants of any judgement do beleeve him) for if he should seriously preach controversies as insisting seriously upon the true doctrine of both sides, his Auditors (or at lest some of them) would be apt to doubt, and so to search and dive further into the truth: for as Saint Augustine saith, doubt begets science, which might be an occasion of somes falling from him, which fearing, he is silent in doctrine, and onely teacheth moralitie: which why a man may not heare in urgent extremity from any man, I cannot conceive.

2. Secondly, that their going to Church, would be a conservation and a preservation of their lands and goods, with a prevention of ruine to the family and posterity.

3. That it would be a means to obtaine and purchase the love of their neighbours; and a meanes of their conversion by an affable con­versation; by which likewise they might beare the greatest Offices in the common wealth: and become See the Adver­tisement to the Reader. Parliament men as well as others: of whom and whose power and force in matters of Religion, these dayes can somewhat declare.

4. Fourthly, that it would be a meanes, that whereas Priests leave their Colledges, and now live in private mens houses, to the benefit of one or two, and to the great danger of them­selves and their Patrons; they might by this [Page 73] meanes more freely converse with all sorts of people after an Apostolicall manner, and con­vert many to the honour of God, the increase of his Church, and good of their owne soules. Whereas now they doe little good out of that private house, unlesse maintaine some decayed gentlewomen in good clothes to gossip up and downe; and like bels to ring their praises, that they may fish one in a yeere to the disparage­ment of their function, and great prejudice of their Mission.

5. Fifthly, that divers Schismaticks that now goe to Church with an ill conscience, and thinke themselves in state of damnation, doe suffer spirituall detriment, and oftentimes be­ing prevented with sudden death everlastingly perish.

6. Sixthly, many thousands that are very morall and well affected Protestants, were it not for the stop of Recusancie would become Catholiques. Which, rather then they will un­doe themselves and Family, now will not heare of it.

7. Seventhly, that no poore Catholique that is not able to give twenty pound per annum with their children to some Colledge beyond the Seas, can bring them up, either in science or any other art or trade by reason of Recusan­cie: and this, to the ruine of all poore people: many having a very great charge, and small revenues; and part of that likewise taken away for Recusancie.

Againe, if the aforesaid suggestions had pre­sented [Page 74] to their consideration, the meanes and wayes of Conversions of kingdomes in gene­rall, as that they ought to be done either by miracles, warre, or policie. And have reason­ed, that for miracles, they were not to be ex­pected; for that those, God ordinari [...]y granted but to Infidels, and where by secondary causes, they were not probably fezible: that by warre they could not be done, without a great deale of blood-shed, which ought to be avoyded; and most commonly with a great deale of rebellion and treachery, which were utterly unlawfull. And that they were fezible in policie, by civil­ly conversing, intermingling and insinuating themselves by degrees into the conversation of all sorts of people. So that in time a good ef­fect might have been wrought: would not this discourse have been more consonant to truth and charitie, and lesse displeasing or odious to our State of England, then to suggest that they are Idolatrous hereticks, blasphemers of God and his Church, professours (as indeed they are not because they know the true and sincere pro­fesse it) of a false religion, subverters of souls (but poore ones God wote), abominable scandalous peo­ple, &c. and that it was a scandal for good people to converse with them in things indifferent, and therfore desire that it might be declared unlaw­full, & cōmanded that no Catholike might con­verse w^th them, as in Christian libertie otherwise he might lawfully do? thereby to introduce for their own ends, our now goodly distinctive sign of recusancie? I appeale to any wise mans judge­ment. [Page 75] And whether the aforesaid rescript and other briefs were not gotten by meere suggesti­on (the case being truly set down by me as it is) I appeale likewise to the Pope himselfe: who, to mine owne knowledge hath been likewise lately notably abused in the like manner. Ann. 1639. one Francis Damport, alias a Sancta Clara. We are as much beholding to the sti [...]c [...]er up of this Safeguard for the Relation herein closed as the Church of Rome hath little cause to con him thanke for it. For hence we learne first, what credit is to be given to the Popes briefes which may be so easily procured by false suggestions, to the wrong and prejudice of those that deserve well of the Roman cause. A cleare evidence hereof we have in Day the Franciscan who never so much as ap­pearing before his Holinesse to answer for himselfe, is censured by the Popes Bull, and that for doing a pious and religious act. Secondly, what a silly Con­sistory the Papall is at this day, the Pope himselfe as fallible a man as any o­ther, and the Cardinals slight and weake fellows never a skilfull Pilot, sitting at the Sterne of Peters ship. Thirdly, what charitie there is betweene Romish Priests and Iesuits, and how they heape coales of hell fire one upon anothers head. Davenport otherwise Franciscus a Sancta Clara procures a Bull like to Phalaris his brazen Bull with fire in the belly of it, to torment Day the Fran­ciscan without his fault, or knowledge: and this Priest here condemns Sancta Clara to black darknesse for ever: pallentes umbras erebi noct [...]m (que) profundam, this man saith he is descending to Lucifer who will presume to be copartn [...]r with the holy Ghost, and thus leaving him (the said a Sancta Clara) to him that will, have him, &c. tantaene animis caelestibus irae? are they Friers secular Priests, or Devils that thus spit fire one at another? Let Davenport have the day of Day at Rome, what hath Sancta Clara done that in the charita [...]le censure of this Priest Lucifer must have him? He tooke upon him to draw some Rules out of Scriptures and the writings of the ancient Fathers; For the direction of generall Councels in declaring matters of faith: A capitall crime no doubt: but what else hath this Priest against him? this Sancta Clara hath Paraphra­sed upon the Articles of Religion established in the Church of England, and sheweth in what sense and how a good Romane Catholique may with a sa [...]e conscience subscribe to them all, though eighteene at least of them shoot point blancke at their Trent faith and pierce it through and through. Aggra­vate th [...]s fact of his to the height, doth this Priest himselfe doe lesse? who Paraphraseth upon the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacie, and sheweth in what sense a Romane Catholique may take both, though the former directly renounce the Popes temporall, and the latter his spirituall power and juris­diction. Now I see what the matter is — [...]. there is and alwayes will be emulation be­tweene Artificers that worke at the same Trade, this Priest and Sancta Clara are [...] of the same Craft or Trade they both deale in like Commodities, equivocations and mentall reservations and wittie devices to elude oathes, subscriptions to articles of Religion, and religious obligations. Not to dissem­ble with either of them, they both teach, with the Helcesaites, Euseb. hist. lib. 6. cap. 31. [...], dissimulation in point of Re­ligion, and cunning fetches to deceive Chri [...]tian Magistrates when they are convented before them and unlesse they both repent their doome is set down, Apoc. 22.25. Without are Dogs and Idolaters and whosoever loveth and ma­keth a lye. I know well they pretend by this doctrine to keepe men from per­jury and lying: but they doe just as Lycurgus the Law-giver of the Lacede­monians did who to prevent adulterie enacted communitie of wives. For equivocation is no better then an artificiall and made lye as the Bishop of Du­resme, and M^r. Henry Mason prove in their Treatises of this Argument. being at London, and having written a booke (called [Page 76] Deus, Natura, Gratia) which being disliked by one Day a Franciscan, and through the same dis­like at Rome, being there called into the Inqui­sition, was so much displeased both with his Holinesse and the said Day; that he publiquely [...]eered the Pope: saying▪ that whereas before he thought him infallible (which he never thought to my knowledge) now he saw that he was fal­lible as other men were. And indeavouring re­venge against the said Day, substituted a most ignorant and lewd man one George Perrott (his ordinary Broker in seditious matters) to goe with the s [...]id a Sancta Clara his instructions to Signior Gregory Pauzana then the Popes Agent [Page 77] in London; accusing the said Day with much zealous hypocrisie, that he had put forth cer­taine pictures to the hurt of Gods Church, and infinite scandall of Protestants. After went a Sancta Clara cum tanta gravitate, seconding with an abominable deale of zeale and authoritie (having then got himself to be Provinciall) the complaint of the said Perrot. Hereupon the said Signior with the said a Sancta Clara's sollicitor, Luke Wadding an Irishman in Rome complaines to the Pope: and obtaines upon the former mens suggestions, a terrible Bull against the said Day being never cited to answer, admonished, or knowing any thing thereof. The Bull being come to the said a Sancta Clara his lodging in Fleetstreet and safe in his deske, he did me the honour to shew me the same. Which I read, and asking the said a Sacta Clara why he procured it, he told me, for the said Day his putting forth of the said pictures, who likewise said, that the said Day knew nothing of the same: and there­fore desired me to be silent. At which, I was much astonished, and knowing very certainly the ground of the whole businesse to be false; and therefore that both the said Day, the Popes Agent, and the Pope himselfe were most hor­ribly abused; I thought that if the said a Sancta Clara were permitted in this manner to abuse men; the best men living might be censured, excommunicated, degraded; and what not without ever being heard? Which is no pra­ctise among Heathens. As for the setting forth of the said pictures, the matter in them con­tained, [Page 78] as being from my purpose, I omit, Yet thus much will I speake that it was a thing ap­proved of, through the whole Catholique Church: the said pictures themselves liked, yea desired of the said Day his superiours: who to this day doe acknowledge their approbation of the same, countenanced by the said a San­cta Clara, Perrott, and all others ever after they were put forth, for the space of above ten yeers before, to mine own knowledge. A booke at the same time (of a Sancta Clara his complaint) printed at Doway in defence of the same, never proved by oath that any of the said pictures e­ver came to the hands of any one Protestant. Neither doe I thinke that any one Protestant (unlesse it might be such, as a Sancta Clara had suborned for his own revenge to speake against the same) ever saw any of them: and there­fore there could be no indiscretion or scandall by them proved. Nay, the said pictures being made for some particular friends devotion, not so much as one Catholique to an hundred had or knew of them: but contrariwise some that had them from the said Perrott, were scandalized through weaknesse by the said a Sancta Clara his questioning of them in this manner, as though that should be set forth for their devotion, that in it selfe was false. Yet notwithstanding all this, the malicious suggestions of the said a Sancta Clara against this mans doings, did so farre pre­vaile, that Dayes innocency was thought wor­thy to be condemned by the said Bull for doing a pious and a religious act. This indeed I must [Page 79] say, that the said a Sancta Clara when he had him at his mercy, through the remorse and sting of his own conscience, durst not promulgate the said Bull, but kept it dead in his deske, for feare that those who otherwise honour the Popes Bulls honestly and lawfully gotten, would have called him to the Kings Bench Barre for bring­ing in of this. And had he not taken the bene­fit of the Proclamation of banishment (not­withstanding his ambitious and seditious wit) he would have been not only questioned for this Bull, but likewise for other matters of a farre fouler nature, which made it high time for him to run. Let any man now judge, whe­ther the Popes Holinesse doth not suffer much by hypocriticall suggestions: whether he that so notoriously abused him in words, did not likewise doe it in deeds. For about the same time, when the said Bull came over, his said booke likewise came out of the Inquisition: at which newes the said a Sancta Clara again grud­ging that his said book should be so questioned, and yet passe (although by her Majesties Ser­vants means, if a Sancta Clara himselfe may be beleeved) unblemished; told divers persons se­riously speaking, that there was never an able man in Rome. To which some replying, yes: The Pope, and Court of Cardinals: in faith (quoth he) no; (making a signe of contempt with his hand) they are slight and weake fellows. Here is a fellow to get Buls! here is one that got himselfe made the Popes Protonotary, and bound himselfe by oath, to reveale what­soever [Page 80] he heard or saw done evilly against the Pope! yet he is as ready as any to abuse him. I wonder what account he can give to the Pope of this his office: but it should seeme, that he did except himselfe in his oath, that he might e­villy intreat him at his pleasure. That this is true, it will be deposed upon oath by divers wit­nesses, whensoever his Holinesse will be plea­sed to exact the same. And further the said a Sancta Clara added, that he was writing a booke (conceiving as it should seeme, the whole Church to be weake, and to want his helpe) wherein he would shew, what Rules generall Councels ought to observe in declaring mat­ters of faith; which rules (as he said) not ob­served, the Councell should not be held lawfull. Oh abominable presumption and ambition! let any man judge, whether this man be not de­scending to Lucifer, who will presume to be co­partner with the holy Ghost, in directing and [...]eaching his Church? If this man live, we may perchance in time have broached a quaternitie in divinis; but I hope that God will prevent his hereticall humour. And thus leaving the said a Sancta Clara to him that will have him: my intent here is, only to shew upon what unjust grounds by suggestion a Bull may be gotten from Rome. And whether the aforesaid sug­gestors for Recusancy, who lived at the Popes doores, and continually at his, or their favorites sides, might not also get their rescripts, Buls and Declarations by the like fraud, for their own ends, although questionlesse with the like [Page 81] pretended zeale and pietie I leave to every mans conscience to judge. For as in Catho­lique Countreys where Buls and Breves are di­rected to Bishops of Diocesses there can be no thought of any sinister proceedings: so out of such countreys where particular men or Cor­porations busie themselves in procuring such Buls, &c. there is never want of suspition and most commonly of abusive dealing. And it stands with reason: because particular men would never sue for generall Briefs concerning a whole State, or trouble themselves more then others, if it were not for their own ends, and did not concerne themselves above the rest. And therefore the ancient Pietie and Apostolicall Clemencie of Popes in such Cases hath been, patiently to heare wherein they have been mis­informed and abused; for it is not their inten­tion at any time to grant any thing either upon a veyled truth, or unjust (though speciously sug­gested) grounds. Hence Alexander the third, writing to an Archbishop of Canterbury, gives a Rule of large extent; Extra de rescript. ex parte. That in these kinde of letters (that is, such as proceed upon information, as our Case is) this Condition (If the request bee upon true grounds) is ever understood, though it be not expressed. And writing to the Archbishop of Ravenna, Ibidem he saith, Siquando, If at any time we write such things to you, as exasperate your minde, you must not be troubled; but diligent­ly considering the qualitie of the businesse, whereof we write, either reverently fulfill our [Page 82] command, or pretend by your letters a reason­able cause why you cannot: for we will endure patiently, if you forbeare to performe that, which was suggested to us, by evill information: by which appeares the worthy integritie of the See Apostolique, howsoever it be by the un­worthinesse of flattering hypocrites oftentimes abused.

§. 3. That it is not unlawfull to goe to Church for feare of danger of subversion or Blasphemy, which is the third and last branch of the Minor to be proved.

WHich I prove thus. Not danger of subversion: for to what purpose should they preach subversive doctrine? when that supposeth a knowledge in the Minister of some people there present to be subverted. Which supposition is false, and must needs savour of a broken fancie. For the Minister intends no more, then to exhort his Auditors to a good life, and to instruct them in moralitie. For as I have said, if he should preach controversies, he must know some Catholiques to be there; or otherwise he would but ingender doubts a­mong Protestants, and doubts science: and by that meanes would more trouble and disturbe the mindes of the people, then profit them; which out of prudencie, he forbeares: and so contents himselfe now and then, with an un­truth, and away. And in Catholique countries [Page 83] I my selfe have heard Priests rebuked for preaching of controversies to a Catholique au­ditorie, as being a meanes rather to disturbe them, then profit them, as troubling themselves with doubts of things either above their reach and capacitie; or whereof otherwise they are infallibly certaine: so that generally contro­versies are never preached, unlesse it be to bring people from their doubts, to a better and greater certaintie then they were in before; which hath onely place among people newly converted, or staggering in their religion.

Secondly. A man is said to be in danger, when that which is feared commonly & oftner hapneth then the contrary: so a man is in dan­ger of subversion by going to a place, where few come, but are subverted: but so it hapneth not in the Protestant Church: as is apparent by Schismaticks of all sorts; who many yeeres fre­quent the Protestant Church, and yet retaine their opinion of the Catholique religion with­out subversion, and become Catholiques at last.

Adde that going to Church will rather con­firme Catholiques in their religion, then sub­vert them from the same: for then they will have upon their owne knowledge, what now they take upon trust: for if what is done in Pro­testants Churches, be opposite to what is done in Catholique Churches (as the contrarie opi­nion useth to say, comparing them to light and darkenesse, which are privative opposites ac­cording to Dialecticks; although the compa­rison [Page 84] be false) I say, opposita per se posita magis elucescunt: opposites being set together doe more clearely shew each other; then that which is best, sends the best species to the power from the object, and consequently to be embraced. Now if a man hath the best already, it will then more clearely appeare; and he is not so mad, as to leave the best, and take the wor [...]; but will be more sure and certain, that he hath the best: as seeing the opposite, and confirme himselfe the [...]ein. This appeares true to every meane ca­pacitie: What danger then can there be in go­ing to Church? shall we be afraid to let a Grey­hound goe into the Yet some of these Greyhounds have beene taken by the Hares he speakes of, as Al­bertus Piggius by Calvin [...], Paulus Virgerius by Bre [...] ­tius, and divers o­thers, but of this see pag. 53. letter E. field, for feare he should be taken by an Hare?

Thirdly, those that goe to Church, either they were borne Catholiques, or converted Protestants; if the latter: then that which mo­ved them to become Catholiques, cannot move them to be Protestants againe. If the first, it were a wonderfull thing, that hearing a little moralitie, should make them fall from the doctrine they were brought up in all their life: or hearing a small piece of controversie men­tioned (if it should so happen) by a Minister, they should be presently carried away from the doctrine they have so long knowne, and never once tell it to the priests, they daily converse with: especially when they goe not out of any dislike of their religion, but with a cleare con­science for some other ends. I conceive it would rather confirme them, in hearing that spoken, which in their owne conscience they [Page 85] know to be untrue, that it will be so farre from troubling or striking their consciences, that they will come home rejoycing at the truth, which they heard that day impugned: as that they heard the Minister speake of such, or such a point: as that Catholiques adored It is true that the Romanists teach the simpler sort of the vulgar, that they are not to a­dore Images, but onely to use them for memorie sake: and Cardinall Bel­larmine himselfe in his second Booke De imaginibus sanctorum, c. 22. hath these expresse words, quantum ad modum loquendi, praesertim in concione ad populum, non est dic [...]dum imagines ullas adorari debere latriâ; sede contrariò non debere sic adorari: For the manner of speech especially in Sermons to the people, we must not say that any Images ought to be adored cultu latriae, but on the con­trarie, that they ought not to be so adored: Yet the truth is, that the Romane Church maintaineth the religious worship of Images. For in the second Councell of Nice confirmed by Pope Adrian they are thunder smitten who adore them not, clamat Synodus, saith Bellarmine in the Chapter above cited, imagines adorandas and venerabiles imagines amplexamur; qui secus faxit ana­themate percellimus: and in the nineteenth yeere of King Richard the Second, the Lollards have a forme of recantation prescribed them in these words. From this day forward I shall worship Images with praying and offering unto them, in the worship of the aints, that they be made after Ex Rotulo Clausarum de Anno decimo nono R. sec. in 18. dorso. See the Appendix to the Anim­adversions. And to come neerer; the Councell of Trent, Sess. 25, decreeth in these words, Imagines Christi, et deiparae virginis et sanctorum in templis per­petuò habendae et retinendae sunt, iisque debitus honor et veneratio impertienda. The Images of Christ, and of the Virgine the mother of God, and of Saints are perpetually to be had and kept in Churches, and due honour and veneration to be given unto them: and lest any should thinke that this worship and veneration is not to be exhibited, to the Images themselves, but only to glance through them to the Saints. Cardinall Bellarmine in his second booke De imaginibus sanctorum, c. 21. most plainely and expresly resolves the point: Imagines Christi et sanctorum venerandae sunt, non solum per accidens vel improprie; sed etiam per se et proprie; ita ut ipsae terminent venerationem, ut in se considerantur; et non solum ut vi [...]em gerunt exemplaris: The Images of Christ and Saints are to be worshipped not onely by accident and improperly, but also by themselves an [...] properly; so that the worship is terminated in them as they are considered in themselves, and not onely in regard of that they represent. And cap. 20. He ac­knowledgeth it to be the opinion of Alexander of Hales, Tho: Aquinas, Caietane, Bonaventure, Marsilius, Almaine, Carthusian, Capreolus, and o­thers, that the same honour is due to the Image and the patterne; and theref [...]re the Image of Christ is to be worshipped with latria or divine wor­ship. And Vasquez de adorat. l. 1. disp. 6. c. 3. Rex Nebucadonosor admi­rans sapientiam et spiritum Danielis, in signum honoris et reverentiae, iussit ei of­feri munera odorum et suffituum, id quod nos etiam secundum fidem nostram im­maginibus facere consuevimus. Nebucadonosor admiring the wisedome and spirit of Daniel, in signe of honour and reverence unto him, commanded that sweete o­dours and incense should be offered unto him, as we according to our faith use to doe to our images: and now let the intelligent Reader judge whether Pro­testant Ministers are slanderers, or Papists Idolaters and Image-worshippers by their owne profession p [...]ctures, or the like; which they knew in their owne con [...]sciences to be false, and thereby stirre up an earnestnesse in them in religion, as zealing their owne being opposed by falshood: and this may ingender such passion or distraction in the hea­rer, that it may be thought zeale of religion or [Page 86] heate of devotion. Which heate, if after this fight of contrarieties or opposition, should not be allayed (the parties being as it were swal­lowed up, with zeale of the house of our Lord) and the dislike of the Sermon as fraught with untruths, seeme too troublesome: they may depart the Church, for there be many cases of necessitie, to make a man go out of the Church, and as many likewise to make him come short of the same: as to Service (if it stand: if not, there is the lesse to be done, and it shall never trouble me) Sermon, or both: for as there are many waies to the wood, so there are many waies to the Protestant Church. And I have [Page 87] alwaies observed, that most commonly Catho­liques converted from Protestancie, have been more firme and solid in religion, as knowing both, then those that never knew but one. And if Schismaticks (of whom I have before spoken) from the wisest to the meanest of capacity, that notwithstanding they goe to Church, and are voyd of grace, are never so much as shaken from their intention of being Catholiques, or their opinion of Catholique religion; why should those that abound so much with Gods grace and professed Catholiques, be said to be in danger, or feared to swerve from a religion they so well know?

As for blasphemie there is likewise none. If you reply (as the contrary opinion useth to doe out of Saint Thomas 2^a. 2ae. q. 13. art. 1. and 2.) that Protestants out of a set intent and purpose ascribe their heresies to Gods revelation, and denie his revelations to Orthodox articles of faith, in which consists blasphemy, and without this blasphemy they cannot preach: and there­fore no Catholique can goe to Church. I an­swer the antecedent to be false; and this blas­phemie to be much like the Rhemists Idola­try, as preferring and embracing their owne o­pinions before God: and so honouring a crea­ture and rejecting their Creator: but in truth and charitie, we ought not to make them worse then they are: for blasphemie and Idolatrie be­ing sinnes, there must be some formall intenti­on in the sinner to deny God his due in what he doth. And so likewise there must be an inten­tion [Page 88] of committing Idolatry; that is, of prefer­ring and embracing that which is a morally knowne creature before the Creator; and so to give the creature what is due to the Creator: or otherwise there can be neither blasphemie nor Idolatry. As no man will say, that I eating flesh on a fasting day unknowne or forgotten, com­mit Idolatry in preferring my belly before the law of Gods Church, and consequently God, because I had no intention thereto: so no man can say that in the Protestant Church there is formall Idolatry or blasphemy, because they mistake. For Diana saith, 5^a. parte tract. de par. mamae. resol. pag. 138. that blasphemy is a sinne, in that contumelious words are spoken against God with a minde or intention to dis­honour God, either directly, or indirectly, vir­tually, or interpretative. Now in the Protestant Churches what contumelious words are spo­ken against God with a minde, &c? If you say as before, that they ascribe their heresies to Gods revelation, and deny his revelation to Orthodoxe Articles. I answer, th [...]t their minds and intentions are not so much as interpretativè to dishonour God thereby; or indeed so to as­cribe their heresies. For if they knew their o­pinions to be heresies, and the tenents they re­ject to be Orthodoxe Articles, as we do by the light of faith; it would evidently follow, that they spake sometimes contumeliously against God, which they doe not know, but simply in­terpret Scripture according to their owne fan­cies, and therein they erre and mistake. And [Page 89] because they doe not endeavour the meanes to search and know the truth, by the definitions of Councels, and Doctrine of Catholique Fa­thers, they sinne: yet doe not commit Idola­trie: for it is not their intention, to make an Idol of their opinion, unlesse you take Idolatry so largely, as every sinner may be said to be an Idolater: because in every sinne there is an a­version from God, and a conversion to the creature: and consequently in this sense, all sin­ners are Idolaters. And if it be unlawfull to converse with these Idolaters, or the like blas­phemers; that is, such as sinne by word or deed; we must converse onely in spatio imaginario, or as Saint Paul saith, 1 Cor. 5. vers. 10. We must goe out of this world.

There were divers very learned and holy Fathers, as Saint Cyprian in the question of Ba­ptisme administred by hereticks, S^t. Anselme and others, who did mistake and erre, before they knew the sense and definition of the Church: whom therefore to call blasphemers or Idolaters were blasphemie indeed. So like­wise there are divers points this day controver­ted among Catholique Divines, as the imma­culate conception of our blessed Lady and the like; the Authours of which to count blasphe­mers, before they knew the sense of the Church, were more then peevish. Neither are they to be so accounted, after the sense of the Church is knowne, for the time they held their opinions before. So it is with Protestants, for although the Orthodoxe Articles are knowne [Page 90] to us by the Church; yet to them they are un­knowne; and to most of them so unknowne, as if they had not been revealed at all; because they know none other Church but See page 52. let­ter [...]. their owne. And therefore what they beleeve, they have by errour and mistake, and not as blasphemy. Whence in my opinion it were more proper and Apostolicall for such men, as call them blas­phemers and Idolaters, to use some prudent and faire way, to propose to the aforesaid Pro­testants, the true Church, and the authoritie of the same, without all suspition of partialitie, and then they should see, whether having this meane of beliefe in a balanced judgement, they would attribute their heresies to Gods revela­tion, and deny his revelation to Orthodoxe Articles, or no.

To the authoritie of S^t. Thomas. I answer, that he meaneth such as attribute heresies qua­tenus tales to Gods revelation: and deny his re­velation to Orthodox Articles quâ tales: as Arch-hereticks did in this reduplicative sense to be blasphemers. But not such as take Scrip­ture for the revealed word of God, and mis­understand the same in a specificative sense, through their own ignorance or infirmitie, to be blasphemers; Neither did S^t. Thomas or any other temperate and solid Divine ever inte [...]d to say.

It may be here first objected, that Catho­liques in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths Raigne went to Church, and so did likewise the Catholiques in Scotland: and they were all, in [Page 91] a short time subverted. Ergo: there is danger of subversion in going to Church. I deny the later part of the antecedent: and say, that while the plot of Recusancie was working, there was a command got, upon the former suggestions, that no Catholiques should goe to the Prote­stant Church. So by barring them of their Christian libertie by degrees to bring in Recu­sancie, as a pretended signe, betweene a good Christian and a bad. Which some few Catho­liques then beleeving themselves bound to o­bey (as indeed they were not, but might as well withall reverence and obedience have be­seeched the Pope to have recalled his com­mand) refused the Church. Others (and those the most part of the kingdome, as appeares by the afore Author of the Answer to the Libell of Justice, cap. 8. pag. 172. & 182.) fearing the pe­nalties of the said Statutes, did not refuse: but continued to goe to Church: who being neg­lected by Priests (being but a few then in Eng­land, and those of most power, being for the said recusancy) as having no spirituall comfort, or instructions in what sense, they might truely and lawfully doe what they did, to avoyd the said penalties of the Law, and likewise thinking that those Priests thought them to doe ill▪ in what themselves found no hurt, they dyed as they lived. But whether in Protestant tenents or Catholique: or whether they would not have dyed Catholiques if they had had helpe, especially such as lived before in Queene Ma­ries time, I present to any wise and pious mans [Page 92] judgement truly considering the state of those times. And afterwards their children being still neglected upon this point of Recusancy, and living in ignorance, ingendred the Prote­stant Re [...]igion now on foot. So that the cause of their falling was not their subversion, as may be proved by witnesses yet alive; but over in­discreet zeale in Priests the chiefest heads of whom (ayming as is evident at a temporall end) neglecting and rejecting such as would not o­bey their unreasonable command: and in the same manner it hapneth with Catholiques that now goe to Church in these dangerous times. Who going to Church only to save themselves from ruine, and being rejected as judged to be fallen from the true faith by ignorant Priests, and therefore not looked after, with any Chri­stian instructions or admonitions faine them­selves Protestants, rather then they will bee thought to live against their conscience. Whence I may truely say (and prove by the Authour last before cited, who confesseth that in the thirteenth yeere of Queen Elizabeths reigne the third part of this Kingdome at least was Catholique) that since the fall of Religion in England, by this onely Cheate of recusancie, tenne soules have beene lost, for one gained, which is both lamentable and damnable to those that were the first Authors of the same.

As for the Scots: their fall was neither sub­version or Recusancie which was never gene­rally admitted (because not covertly procu­red) by the Clergie of that Kingdome: but [Page 93] want of Priests to administer the Sacraments, and give them other spirituall comfort; who seeing the soyle not so fertile as ours, and the lawes more severe; those few that were, rather chose to converse on the Northern borders of England, then in their owne Countrey. And Catholiques there, seeing themselves destitute of all spirituall comfort, went to Church to save their inferiour portion from ruine; who if they had had but plenty, or sufficiencie of priests to have instructed them, I doubt not, but they would have still remained Catholiques. And it had been farre more easie, so to have conserved them, then fallen now to convert them. And thus came the bane of The bane of Po­perie not of Ca­tholique religion. See pag. 1. letter C and pag. 52. let­ter C. Catholique religion in­to both Kingdomes; which are like so to con­tinue remedilesse, unlesse they be assisted by Gods infinite and miraculous power.

It may be objected secondly; that divers Popes, as Paul the fourth, Pius the fifth, both the last Gregories, Sixtus, Clement, and Paul the fifth, granted to priests their faculties with an intention, that they should administer the Sa­craments to onely such, as abstained from Pro­testant Churches. I answer that it is so said by R. P. but whether it be so in truth or no, I know not: peradventure such faculties might be granted to such as received them from the a­foresaid suggestors hands, and to none others. Neither did I ever see any faculties as yet so limited, nor I hope ever shall. For although the aforesaid Popes might be inclined to the said suggestors tribe, & so admit of their sugge­stions, [Page 94] thinking them to proceed from zeale, and not from hypocrisie: who likewise thought their pretenses holy: and what a Christian like thing it was, to suffer persecution for Gods sake; and what a number of Martyrs were made in England, & sanguinem martyrum esse semen Ecclesiae: that the blood of the Martyrs was the seed of the Church. Further, what an abomi­nable people Protestants were: Idolaters, blas­phemous heretiques, subversive of soules, and many other the like exaggerating speeches; up­on which any Pope living (unlesse he had fore­knowne their drift) would have done the like. Whereas certainly had they but made known, the true State of England in those dayes, and sought the good of souls (and not themselves) in truth they ought to have done; the said Popes would never have done, as they did to us, more then to the Scots, Hollanders, Germans and other nations: by subjecting us and all poste­ritie by this device of Recusancie to all misery and slavery. Neither hath his Holinesse that now is, ever declared any such thing, for I per­ceive that he (better knowing by experience the said suggestors tribe, and their plots, with their moth-like dealings in most Kingdomes) will be advised hence forward, how he granteth any more Rescripts, or limiteth any faculties upon their importune suggestions. As for our Martyrs of England. I hope them truely Mar­tyrs, because they died not so much for recu­sancie, Nay not so much for Religion, noe nor at all for it, but for Treason and disloyaltie. See pag. 22. letter Q. as for Religion and a good conscience (although that might be a meanes to bring [Page 95] them to their death, sooner then otherwise). Yet I dare not call all of them Saints, untill the holy Church doth bid me, as having approved of their miracles: but most of them I think true­ly to be blessed men, and of great charitie. For as our Saviour saith, Ioh. 15. v. 13. Majorem chari­tatem nemo habet, quam ut animam suam ponat quis pro amico suo. No man hath greater love, then who layeth downe his life for his friend. Yet I hope likewise others some, who yet live, to be as blessed, and their charitie or love as great; although not so apparent for the present, be­cause as yet not exercised in fight, but when God shall be pleased to call them to suffer for their Religion, they may make it as manifest. For although a man of a thinne skin, and a veine transparent with lesse art strooke, doth present­ly bleed in abundance: yet no man may hence inferre, that a man of a thicker skinne, and a more obscure veine not lightly strook, hath no blood in his body to shed; so it is in the present, betweene him that suffers for Religion being discovered by Recusancie, and him that suffers not, being undetected by rejecting the same. And in this they differ; that as the one suffers for a good conscience sake; so the other suffers not, with a good conscience. As for the said exaggerating speeches, they doe so much strengthen and confirme me, knowing them to be false, that I am morally certaine: that the said The Fathers heo speakes of were the flower of the Councel of Trent, neither were they abused by any false suggestion, for the case was put truely unto them, and they resolved it according to their conscience after long disputation and mature deliberation. See an ex­tract of their Decree in the Appendix to the Animad versions. twelve Fathers in the Councel of Trent, [Page 96] selected by the said suggestors for recusancie were abused; aswell as the aforesaid Popes. And therefore as they are said to have granted to some limited faculties, meerely upon the said false suggestions (which how farre they did binde, the suggestors at their pleasure, to great persons according to their custome, could very well tell) they might as well have granted the same, without any such limitation, if it had plea­sed them: and I am perswaded more to the glo [...]y of God and increase of his Church as dai­ly experience teacheth. For it is improbable with me, and against the nature of an Aposto­licall mission, that men should be sent out of Colledges into Protestant countries to private mens houses, to play bo-peepe: as fearing to be seene conversing with Protestants, and Prote­stants not caring to come to them, for any mat­ter of religion. I wonder by this kinde of con­versation, what kinde of conversion could en­sue? whereas Saint Paul said to them that were about him, Act. 20. vers. 20. You know how I have withdrawne nothing that was profitable, but that I preached it to you, and taught you openly, and from house to house. Neither doe I beleeve that any man can prove any notable increase of Catholike religion in England, either in great families or in small, from the time of this recusancie brought in, unto this present: onely this I see, a great impoverishment of the Catholiques here, and halfe a dozen faire high Colledges built beyond the seas, besides what common purse I know not: and this I conceive [Page 97] to be all the effect of recusancie; for persecuti­on (as I have said) begets prayers to God, and almesdeeds to his supposed servants, which pro­duce great Colledges for refuge to them­selves.

But some may here againe reply; that if re­cusancie had beene rejected, and conformitie admitted, yet Protestants would have had some other invention to punish Catholiques for their religion. I answer it might be so, if some evill spirits had told them the proceedings of Ca­tholiques before hand (as I never yet knew in my life Catholiques private to themselves) o­therwise why should they have invented more to punish Catholiques, then they have hitherto done to punish Schismaticks or Separatists? The said Suggestors had best invent for them some way more then they have already, to con­tinue a persecution, which were but conform­able as it seemes, to the said Authour of the An­swer, &c. cap. 9. pag. 216. as is before said: who delighteth more to have a persecution (al­though not to fall upon himselfe or his tribe) then a toleration in religion. Yet in the meane time, we had done the uttermost of humane prudence, and then wee might have left the rest more safely to God; who ordinarily, what second causes cannot doe in working to his will, himselfe mercifully supplyeth▪ and then at leastwise, it would have beene more apparent to the whole world, that we had suffered meer­ly for religion, and not for a toy, to wit: If Recusancie be so small a matter, the more to blame all Papists who for such a toy as Re­cusancie, doth dis­obey the Lawes. The easier the performance of a cōmandement is, the greater con­tumacie in diso­beying it. Re­cusancie.

[Page 98]Adde that whatsoever had beene invented ei­ther by oath or abjuration, or what else, it must have been done in justice, and I hope by a Here he hath found la [...]bram periurio, this con­ceit, of not being bound to answer the truth but before a competent Iudge (and they will have none a competent [...]udge but one of their owne religion) is the [...]yges ring by which the late Papists, especially those that are Iesuited goe invisible in and from all our Cour [...]s of Iustice. But I demand of them First, why our Iudges in England are not as competent, as those beyond the [...]eas: if the King be, as it is treason for them or any other to denie, our Leige Lord and lawfull So­vereigne, those that are put in authoritie under him (being men of learning and integritie) cannot be denied to be competent Iudges. The Apostles rule is without exception, There is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God, Rom. 13.1. And by higher powers to whom we must be subject, he understandeth not onely Kings, but all those that are in authoritie under them, 1 Tim. 2.2. First the King as supreame, and after governours, as them that are sent by him, 1 Pet. 2.13, 14. Secondly, I demand of them, whether that com­mand of Saint Peter, 1 Pet. 3.15. may be limited by their distinction of a Iudge competent and incompetent? surely though in other causes a man is not bound to appeare or answer coram iudice non competente: yet in matter of faith when we are required to give an account o [...] it there is no excepting a­gainst our Iudge. For we must be ready alwaies to give an answer to every man that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us with meekenesse and feare. Thirdly, I demand of them whether they account Pilate a competent Iudge in Christs cause, or Nero in Peters and Pauls cause, or any of the Roman Deputies and Proconsuls before whom the glorious army of Martyrs (who signed the Chri­stian Faith with their bloud) were brought, were competent Iudges? they were no Roman Catholiques nor Christians; yet Christ Iesus before Pontius Pilate, 1 Tim. 6 13. and Peter and Paul before Nero; and the rest of Christs noble souldiers before heathen Iudges, witnessed a good profession. Fourthly, I demand when that confession of faith which the Apostle implyeth to be neces­sary to salvation is to be made, Rom. 10.10. With the mouth confession is made to salvation, is it not when we are brought before Kings and Rulers for Christs name sake, Luke 21.12. For a testimony against them? If we are bound to con­fesse our faith onely to those of our owne religion, because they are onely sup­posed to be competent judges, no man ever need to suffer for his religion, and all the noble Confessors and Martyrs of former ages by this Iesuiticall doctrine deserved rathers fooles caps then Martyrs crownes: for they did not shed their blouds for Christs cause, but they spilt it causelesly. For they needed not to confesse what they were, before incompetent Iudges. Here I will make bold to use the words of David concerning Abner, 2 Sam. 3.33. Did Abner die a foole? Did all those worthies whose soules cryed under the Altar, Apoc. 6.10. How long Lord, holy and true, dost thou not iudge and avenge our bloud on them that dwell on the earth, and to whom white robes were given, vers. 11. Die as fooles? it seemed they died so in the judgement of this Priests pru­dent Catholique, who though by this slight he now avoid all confession of his faith (that he is not examined before a competent Iudge) yet he shall one day, when he shall come before the Iudge of all the earth condemne his own folly, and justifie and magnifie also Christs noble Confessors and Martyrs, ta­king up the lamentation of the reprobate set down in the booke of Wisedome, We fooles accounted their life madnesse, and their end to be without honour, but now how are they numbred among the children of God, and their lot is among the Saints, therefore have we erred from the way of truth, and the Sunne of righte­ousnesse hath not shined upon us, Wisdome 5.6. com­petent Judge▪ or otherwise I should have taught out of the common opinion of Catholique Di­vines, [Page 99] as well Schoolemen as Casuists, that put­ting off their hats, they might have passed by, in Justice: for as Titelman saith, contra vulpem I have read, logi­cam si vis discere lege Titlemannum, ille Sophistarū crimi [...]a pandere vult, but I never read, theologiam si vis discere, lege Titlemannum, he is in a very ill case who rules his conscience by this ca­suist whose divinitie is no better here then his Latine. I confesse in Machia­vels schoole it is a lesson read to those of the upper forme, leoninae assuere vulpi­nam, to piece out the Lions skinne with a Foxes, but in Christs schoole Zuicki­us teacheth us another lesson, non decet in hac causa cum vulpibus vulpinari et cum astutissimis huius mundi sapientibus, astutia certare, certandum est nobis solâ perseverantiâ pietate simplicitate adeo et patientiâ crucis: we ought not to play the fox with foxes, nor contend with the subtile vizards of this world in craft and subtiltie, but we must fight against them, with sole perseverance and piety, and simplicitie, and bearing of the Crosse. In the whole Scripture we ne­ver reade of fox or fox craft commended. The Spouse in the Canticles com­manded to take the foxes, the little foxes that spoile the grapes, Cant. 2.15. And it is Davids curse upon Gods enemies, let them be a portion for foxes: and our Saviour to brand Herod with perpetuall infamie, calleth him a fox, Luk. 13.32. saying, Goe ye and tell [...]hat fox, neither can it be proved to bee more lawfull for us to play the fox with foxes, then play the wolfe with wolves, or play the Sophister with Sophisters, or play the hypocrite with hypocrites, or play the Devill with Devils. Though craftie companions may deserve to be served with their owne sawce, yet it is not fit for us to dresse it for them. The very Poet could say ac tu indignus qui faceres. That may be very just and fit for one to suffer which is not yet fit for another to inflict or put upon him. However this Priest is not his crafts master. For it is against fox craft to professe it: he will hardly or never deceive a m [...]n, who brags before hand he will doe it, and though it may be this Priest and his complices are annosae vulp [...]s, old foxes, and the proverbe is, annosa vulpis haud capitur la­queo: an old fox is seldome or never caug [...]t in a snare: yet if those who are com­manded to catch these foxes should be pleased to make snares with this fox his owne cords here stretched out by him, namely to put them to an expresse abiu­ration of the maine and fundamentall points of their Trent faith, or set them such a forme of recantation of their tenents, and with such conditions as they en­joyned the Lollards in the dayes of King Richard the second, (See the Ap­pendix to the Animadversions infra) it may verily be hoped through Gods blessing upon the wisedome and care of zealous Magistrates, that this King­dome of England may in time be as free of these foxes as it is now of wolves, with which in former ages it much abounded. vulpizare licet. It is lawfull for a man to play the fox against a fox.

[Page 100]It may be objected thirdly, that it was De­creed in the 63 Canon of the Apostles. That if any Clarke, or Lay-man did enter into the Sy­nagogue of Jews or Hereticks to pray, he should be deposed, and excommunicated. I answer, that it might be a necessary Decree: because then there were but young Christians, and they newly instructed, in very high mysteries, as the mystery of the Incarnation, which was so hard to them, as that God should be borne man, [Page 101] poore, live poorely, and at last be put to so shamefull a death, by the hands of men, his own creatures, that the forcible Arguments of the Jews might have There was no feare of the Iews perverting the pri­mitive Christians, especially in the Apostles dayes in which we reade in the Acts, how mightily the A­postles and their converts confoun­ded the Iewes, Christ making good his promise to them that he would give them a mouth and wis­dome which their enemies should not be able to resist, Luk. 21.15. but the true reason why they made such a Canon (if yet they made such Canons w^ch is very much doubted) was to pre­vent the scandall which the Church might receive by the Christians frequenting the Iews Synagogues in which the now abrogated rites of Moses were to the injury of the Gospell retained, and Christ himselfe blasphemed which no Christian eare ought to endure. easily perverted them. Againe, the Jews were formall blasphemers of God; our Saviour telling them himself; that he had done those signes among them, that no other man could doe. Whereby he gave them to know, that he was God: all which the Jews rejected as naught, and said, that he did them in Beelzebub Prince of the Devils. And when he told them, Ioh. 10. vers. 36. that he was the Sonne of God, they answered that he blasphemed, to whom he replyed, vers. 37. If I doe not the works of my Fa­ther beleeve me not. And therefore it was requi­site, that those Christians should abstaine from their synagogue, least they should have fallen to have been as they were.

The company of hereticks, the Apostles might likewise forbid: because they were such as fell from and amongst themselves, and very likely particularly denounced excommunicate; so that danger of subversion was there immi­nent: because their intention was formally to subv [...]rt, and infected with one or two points of heresie were not so easily to be discerned, as those that professe themselves so wholly dif­ferent from the Catholique Church, that if they did but know a Papist to be in their Chur­ches, they would goe neere to pull them downe [Page 102] to the ground; and so borne and bred, as they know no other religion, but their own, and there doe so rest: teaching their own but to live morally which is both common to Catholique and Protestant. Which motive or reason hath no place in our case, where (I contend) there is no danger at all.

Hence it may be generally observed that what Scriptures, Councels, Fathers, or Canons soever, forbid Communication with hereticks: they are to be understood of notorious here­ticks in point of their heresie, or particularly de­nounced excommunicated for heresie and fal­len in Catholique countreyes or from amongst Catholiques. And not of such as are not for­mall and subversive hereticks, but borne incre­dulous in a countrey to be converted, and not knowing the Catholique Church.

After all this, some may yet say, that it hath been a long custome with them to abstain from the Protestant Church above these threescore yeers: and they have suffered and lost much by refusing the same; and can I have so little judge­ment, as to thinke upon mine own bare word or opinion to make them leave this their cu­stome? I answer (how small soever my judge­ment be) that it is not only my opinion, but the common opinion of Divines in the Catholique Church: and I never spake with any Priest in England about this point in my life, that was able to give me satisfaction to the contrary. Some indeed have answered me, that it were lawfull, if it were not for scandall. Others, if [Page 103] it were not a distinctive signe: and when I have urged, that scandall may be avoyded (as I have before said) and for a distinctive signe, I knew none, for who should institute that signe? then they have answered, that a long custome had brought it in: I have blessed my self to thinke, that men should so unjustly deale with poore Catholiques, as to bring upon them a yoake or fetters; which they can keepe upon them by no other law, then that they themselves cun­ningly got them on, or chained them about threescore yeeres since, and now to kicke of these chaines, or their devises would prove (forsooth) scandall: because they would seeme refractary and disobedient to their suggestive humours: but to give me a reason why going to Church was unlawfull before the refusall thereof became this supposed distinctive signe, or before the same could be cause of scandall I could never yet heare any man give: but only the aforesaid R. P. hath given in writing the a­foresaid suggested untruths (with a great deale of passion that this my opinion was thought ra­tionall [...]or almost fortie yeers agoe and since re­cusancy was brought in, (as appears by his said booke) of many most prudent men in this king­dome,) which is to me no reason at all. For let us propose to any Divine in Christendome these three following questions: relating the true state of the Protestant Church in exterior actions (for we meddle not (as I have said) with their opinions in matters of faith) and withall adding that we are constrained to them [Page 104] under See page 22. let­ter Q▪ paine of death, and losse of all temporall fortunes.

1. Whether it be lawfull for a Catholique to heare the Prayers, Epistles, Gospels and Psalmes of the Catholique Church among Protestants in their Church?

2. Whether it be lawfull to heare a Prote­stant preach in the same place, some moralitie, although it should by chance happen that some ignorant Minister should speake of some point of mistaken doctrine: as that Catholiques trust in their If Papists trust­ed not in their owne merits, it would goe better with them then I feare it will with many, who the more they arrogate to themselves, the more they derogate from our Saviour, and the further they go from salvation. I confesse many of them upon their death-beds have renounced their own merits, and wholly stucke to our Saviours: yet certaine it is that the generall doctrine of the Church of Rome is for trust in their own merits. For they teach that faith alone doth not justifie us before God, that good works are not only satisfactory for sin, but also meritorious of eternall life, and supererogatory also for others▪ (Consil. Trid. in sess. 16. Bellar. l. 5. de iustif. c. 16.) and they who beleeve that they can so farre stead them do commonly confide in them. Let them returne to the more ancient and true tenent with Bernard, saying, Meritum meum est miseratio Domini; Gods mercy is my merit, and if their be any worke of our own meritorious it is the renouncing our owne merits and flying meerely to Christ; sufficit ad meritum scire quod non sufficiant merita. Let them confesse with holy Iob, Iob. 9.3. that they cannot answer one of a thousand, and professe with Esay, Esa. 64.6. All our righteousnesse is as fil­thy clowts; and pray with David, Psal. 143.2. Lord enter not into iudgement with thy servants, for in thy sight shall no man living be iustified; and close up their last Will and breath also, as Bellar. is said to have done: (For Papists often dye in another faith then they lived,) with that holy ejaculation; Lord vouchsafe to receive me into the number of thy Saints, non meriti estimator, sed veniae largitor, not weighing my merits, but pardoning my offences, and we will not only cleare them of Pharisaicall pride, and trusting in themselves, but also conceive a better hope of their salvation. own merits or the like falshood?

[Page 105]3. Whether it be lawfull for a Catholique to receive bare bread and wine in remembrance that Christ dyed for him, as a pious ceremony? and whether not better, so taken, then without such remembrance?

I dare say that there is no impartiall Divine, but will answer. Yes. And for these opinions I make no question, but if I had been as well backed in Rome, as the said R. P. was, I would have got as great approbation to the same; as he had to the same questions after his subdol [...]us manner proposed as followeth.

1. Whether it be lawfull to frequent the Churches of hereticks, where there is both imminent danger of subversion and scandall?

2. Whether it be lawfull to heare the blas­phemous and id [...]latrous Sermons of hereticks, in which both God and his Church is notori­ously and highly abused?

3. Whether it be lawfull to receive Calvines See a spunge to wipe out this false aspersiō upon that worthy servant of Christ and great Instrument of Gods glory, pag. 59. letter H. Communion of bread and wine, w^ch they hold a Sacrament, and is a signe of hereticall perfidi­ousnesse, whereby a man betrayeth and denyeth his faith?

To which every Catho [...]ique whatsoever would and must answer. No, but this in truth is not our case. For the beliefe of Catholiques is not questioned, nor subversion, or blasphe­mie, or denyall of faith, either apprehended or feared. Neither can they scarce possibly hap­pen in the Protestant Church, as I have before said, but the question only is, what Catholiques may exteriorly doe, for the safeguard of life [Page 106] with a good intention, and how, and in what manner, they may best converse, and preserve themselves from ruine with most securitie. Therefore I pray forgive the said R. P. who pro­posed the said questions in Rome out of his a­boundant See the Adver­tisement to the Reader. zeale (of money, and youth to propa­gate his family) not once considering that it is an impossible thing for them to be hereticks, who never were Catholiques. As for their custome of Recusancie. I say, first that it is no custome, for a custome is a continuance of a thing time out of minde without any interruption. Now re­cusancy hath been interrupted oftentimes, first by Doctor Wright who wrote against the same, Ann. 1607. and since him Master Broughton, and now my selfe. Neither hath it been time out of minde, for there are some yet alive borne in Queene Maries dayes, who have knowne when our recusancie was not in England, and thereup­on in these troublesome times doe now goe to Church. I say, secondly, that an inconvenient custome with imprudencie, is better broken, then kept: and the prescrip [...]ion of threescore yeeres not good. Yet if they will needs claime a right in and to their actions by the same. I doe hereby promise, not to take it from them, by any suit in law. For I doe write, more to avoyd the scandall of the weake: then that I do thinke thereby to satisfie the weake, or rob them of their said custome. As for their sufferings and losses I am sorry for them, and doe assure my selfe, that they will receive a great reward for the same: because they suffered not so much, [Page 107] for the love of recusancie, as for the love of God: for whosoever doth the meanest worke (no indiscretion therein being apprehended by the doer) either for Gods sake or for vertue sake, although of some (considering the act it selfe, and not knowing the doers intention) it may be judged indiscreet: yet the worke may have a reward from God, and yet another that doth not the same, no punishment.

Thus the three branches of the said Minor proposition being proved: the Conclusion standeth good for the lawfulnesse of going to the Protestant Church.

Me thinks here I heare some storme, that if this my opinion should be admitted as lawfull: it would follow, that they must likewise take all the oathes that are made against Catholiques, which will tend to perjurie. To which I an­swer, that I would have them to do things con­sequenter, and any thing for safeguard of life, wherein their is no sinne. And to chuse: both the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacie; which, if with patience they will but heare, when I have said what they are, I will presently prove, that they may be most lawfully taken.

This Oath according to every part and par­cell of the same may be lawfully taken by any Catholike; as have averred both M. Widdrington, [Page 110] Sir William Howard, and others; who have so substantially wrote of the same with explana­tions of each branch; that I thinke no wise man dares hazard his credit in going about to refute the same. Yet the weaknesse of some Catho­liques hath beene so great, that they have not onely taken scandall, (being of the Pharisees not much to be regarded) but gone about to defame such as stood for this Oath to their great prejudice; notwithstanding the said M^r. Widdrington in his Newyeeres-gift, hath suffi­ciently proved, that besides the authoritie of many famous Divines, it was the opinion of the chiefest secular Priests in England; but these uncharitable proceedings were hatched by a sort of arrogant and covetous people, who la­boured to make every thing scandalous among Catholiques that was not done by their appro­bation; and to this purpose, the first principles were to leade people into scruples, and being there, to put a ring upon them, abusively tear­med, the yoake of our blessed Lady; by which they might more easily leade them to their o­pinions and censures, as men doe Bears to their purposes. Oh wise Venetians! how sacred are your lawes? would a man thinke that such blind­nesse, or rather envious peevishnesse could be in Catholiques, as, what they understand not, to censure at their pleasure without any respect of persons? and presently judge them as fallen men whom they dislike? although indeed fir­mer then themselves, and very well able to teach most of their guides. But to the purpose, [Page 111] the truth is, that the aforesaid Authours have so fully proved the lawfulnesse of taking the said Oath, that no man needs speake more in proofe thereof, as not being able to speak better to the purpose. And therefore I referre every man to the said Writers to informe themselves lest they demeritoriously suffer for refusing the [...]ame.

This onely give me leave to insert, as a cau­tion to some, that considering it is contrarie to the Popes (forced) opinion as appeareth by his Declarative Breve; he that shall sweare or abjure the doctrine and position (That Princes which be, &c.) in the fourth branch, as impious, hereti­call, and damnable (I conceive) indirectly ab­jureth the Popes opinion, as impious, hereti­call, and damnable: and what a fault that may be made in Rome (especially by some sugge­stors, who although to mine owne knowledge doe teach, this Oath lawfull in private, to men of qualitie: yet in publique, and to his Holy­nesse out of a seeming zeale they will lament the fact) I leave to the judgement of wise men. When as they shall sweare his doctrine erro­neous in such bitter terms, whom they acknow­ledge to be the supreame Pastour of their souls: questionlesse in such, it will be interpreted at the least arrogacie and presumption. And I for mine owne part should thinke it very hard to be forced to take the Oath of Supremacie in Rome under any termes directly or indirectly misbe­seeming my dutie to my naturall Prince: how­soever he might erre in mistake. And there­fore [Page 112] I doe humbly present the consideration of our case in this Oath of Allegiance to his Ma­jesties most gracious Clemencie. This caution or consideration I present to such, as having taken the said Oath, intend afterwards to con­verse at Rome. But if death or ruine urge, then (spectata conscientia) I say as before, follow the opinion of Sir William Howard, and Master Widdrington as secure. For in such extremitie it is to be hoped, that his Holinesse will be ra­ther a pious and pittifull father, then too se­vere a Judge.

If any be urged to this Oath out of any tem­porall preferment: let him follow the example of that huge Divine a Sancta Clara (an acquain­tance of mine) and take it in private before a Master of the Chancery, and get a Certificate thereof from him, and it will be sufficient.

Here is to be noted the intolerable abuse which some suggestors did put upon the Popes Holinesse, concerning this Oath of Allegiance; who procured him to send forth a declarative Briefe, forbidding English Catholiques to take the same; as conteining many things plainly re­pugnant to faith and salvation: and by this meanes compelled him against his will, to make the Doctrine adverse to the Oath, his owne opi­nion. When as the procurers themselves, and their abettors did (as I have said) counsell in private, some men of qualitie (who were friends to them) to take the same as lawfull, as may be easily proved. And which is more strange, that they should procure it to be declared so repug­nant: [Page 113] when as the doctrine to be abjured in the said oath wrote by Santarellus was declared by all the Sorbon Doctors and sixteene of the chiefest Jesuits in France to be wicked: so that what is held lawfull by most Divines in the Church (it being the most common opinion, except some few that would seeme to flatter the Pope) should be held wicked only for us to take: but I conceive, as I have said before, that the intent and end of the procuration of such Briefs is, that nothing should be thought good or law­full in England to be done, without the speciall approbation of the suggestors tribe: so that if any man should doe what they have not appro­ved, by vertue of the Popes Briefe, he shall be presently blasted for an heretick: and if he doe what they approve, he shall be saved harmelesse by them both at home and abroad, let him be never so bad. Sed meliora Spero.

Let any judicious man consider all the Buls, Breves and Censures that have beene procured touching the affaires of English Catholiques from the first Bull of excommunication against Queen Elizabeth by Pius Quintus to the last be­fore spoken of in Anno 1639. against one who knowes nothing of the same, and he shall finde, by farre, more hurt done to Catholiques, then ever good. It were a blessed turne if some or­der might be taken by our most gracious Queene for the prevention of such mischiefes: which serve for nothing more, then to make Schismes and Rents in the Church of God, and the Pope, and his authoritie to be lesse regar­ded. [Page 114] It were more fitting in my poore judge­ment, that Catholiques were succoured in tri­bulation, then by barring them of their Chri­stian liberty, in what they may lawfully doe, to adde affliction to affliction. I must say no more; for I perceive that some beginne to swell, but the matter is not great: for I will write nothing by Gods grace contrary to the Catholique Church. Yet I feare they will breake before I have done with:

Where is to be The head of con­troversies, be­tweene the Ro­mish and Refor­med Churches is the controversie a­bout the Head of the Church, which the Papists will have the Pope to be, but reformed Churches Christ alone: I say head of the Vniversall or Catholique Church, but of particular Churches, sovereigne Princes within their severall Realmes may be termed Heads, that is, chiefe Governours which this Priest here ac­knowledgeth. For the acknowledgement of this supreame authoritie and power of the King in his dominions of England and Ireland, the Oath of Su­premacie was appointed by Act of Parliament in the 35. of Henry the eighth, to be taken by all his Majesties subjects; this Act was continued in the reigne of Edward the sixth, but repealed in the first and second of Philip and Mary, and revived the first of Queene Elizabeth: now the question here is, whe­ther the Oath of Supremacie thus confirmed by divers Acts of Parliament, exclude not that Spirituall jurisdiction, which all Papists beleeve to be in the Pope Iure divino: or, which comes all to one, whether a Papist ut si [...], that is, remaining a Papist and holding his Popish religion, may salv [...] conscientiâ, take this Oath of Supremacie: this Priest affirmeth he may; but we shall demon­strate the contrary hereafter by impregnable arguments drawne from the in­tention of the Law-makers, the letter of the Acts of Parliament, and the Queenes Injunctions, the judgement of the Church of Rome, and the confes­sion of the adversarie himselfe. noted first, that in the first yeere and Parliament of Queene Elizabeths reigne; when they abolished the Popes autho­ritie, and would have yeelded the Not the same authoritie which the Pope had in all things, but so farre as it is expounded and limited in the Queenes Injunctions in the first yeere of her reigne; the Queene (as her brother and father before) onely resumed that power, which the Pope had unjusty ta­ken from the Crowne, and usurped it himselfe; a power which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme, that is, under God to have the Sovereigntie and rule over all manner of persons, borne within these Realmes and Dominions, and Countries, of what estate either Ecclesiasticall or temporal soever they be. See admonition to the Injunctions in the Appendix. same authori­tie [Page 116] with the Title of Supreme head to the Queen, as it was given before, to her father and brother: divers especially moved by Minister Calvine concei­ved that King Henry the eighth by the Title of Head of the Church, challeng­ed a farre greater power then what the Act of Parlia­ment acknow­ledged in him, or he ever exercised: but after the Title of Head of the Church was pub­likely declared and expounded by Q. Elizabeth, bo [...]h he and all the Refor­med Churches rested satisfied in the lawfulnesse of that Title which imported not Supreame teacher or directer unto Trtuh: but Supreame commander for the Truth, in all causes, and over all Persons. Calvines writing (who h [...]d condemned in the same Princes, that calling) liked not the terme; and therefore procured that some other equivalent terme, but lesse offensive (although in truth, it is all one with the other) might be used. Vpon which formalitie, it was enacted, that she was the Chiefe Governour aswell in causes Ecclesiasti­call or Spirituall; as Civil & Temporal▪ because otherwise there could have beene no colour, to make new lawes for the change of Religion. So the abovesaid Author to the Answer, &c. cap. 1. pag. 7. and 8. And this was the onely and sole intention, of making the aforesaid Oath: which was div [...]rs from the The intention of Henry the eighth, and Queene Elizabeth, was the selfe same as is expressed in the Act of Parliament 35. Henry the eighth; and the Admoni­tion annexed to the Injunctions of the 1 Elizabeth: namely the extirpation and extinguishment of the usurped and pretended authoritie, power and iurisdi­ction of the See and Bishop of Rome: and the recovery of their owne right by adorning the Crowne with a flowre before wrongfully taken from it: and here I cannot sufficiently admire the impudence of this Priest who so confi­dently affirmes that the intention of Queene Elizabeth was divers from her father in prescribing and requiring this Oath, whereas she her selfe in the a­bove named Admonition declareth to all her loving subjects, That nothing was, is, or shall be meant or in [...]ended by the same Oath, to have any other dutie, al­legiance or bond required by the same, then was acknowledged to be due to the most nobl [...] King of famous memory, K. H. 8. her Maiesties father, or K. Ed. 6. her Maiesties bro [...]er. [...]ntention of King Henrie the eighth, and consequently the Oath not the same. For his intention in assuming to himselfe [Page 117] the Supremacie was not (as I shall say beneath in the third note) to alter any principle of Re­ligion (the Supremacie onely excepted) or so much as any ceremonie of the Catholique Church: but to give himselfe a more The liberty he speakes of was gi­ven by the appro­bation of the chief Vniversities be­yond the Sea of the Romish Re­ligion. licentious libertie in point of marriage and divorce, and to make the same libertie justifiable to his subjects; and because he could not have the same granted to him by the Pope, was angry and displeased with him, and tooke it of his owne accord: and for his sake, disturbed the Church and Clergy of England, and took away their lands, and gave them to his Nobilitie.

It is to be noted secondly, that we are to sweare, that the King is chiefe Governour as well in all spirituall things, &c. Where by (All) is to be understood; in all things ordered or to be ordered by him, unlesse some exception bee made in reason touching the establishment or regi­ment of the Protestant Church of England: that the spirituall things were meant touching the Church, appears by the very words themselves: Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall: and that they were meant touching a Church to be established, di­stinct from the then Catholique Church in England: appeares by the intention of the oath which was (as I have said) to inable the Queene to change and alter Religion; and to forme an Not to forme another Church, but to reforme that Church w^ch was before, and restore Religion to her puritie by the example of Ezekiah, Iosiah, and other religi­ous Kings. other Church diverse, from that which then was; which is the Protestant Church: and that there are some spirituall things justly excepted No power at all excepted but the former power explained onely how farre it ex­tended (viz) Not to the authoritie and power of Mi­nistrie of divine Office in the Church, which none of the Kings or Queenes of this Realme possessours of the Crowne ever challenged. from the [Page 118] King; appeares by the Declaration of Queene Elizabeth, in her next visitation of the Clergie, after the said Oath was made; wherein she her selfe made an exception, and declared in print (the same being published by her commande­ment) that in truth She had not power (we will not examine then, from whence her Nor I in this place by what au­thoritie your Bi­shops anoynt your thumbes and or­daine your Priests to offer the un­bloody sacrifice of the Mas [...]e for the living & the dead. There is nec vola nec vestigium of a­ny such calling in the Scripture or purer Antiquitie, as for our Ministry it is [...]o clearely ju­stified together with the successi­on thereof, out of your own best re­cords and tenents by Francis Mason de succes. Episc. & Ministerio Angl. that ever since the printing therof all your Romish ca­villers & carpers at it, have been as mute as fishes. Ministers power came she having none her selfe) by the words of the Oath and Act, to minister the Sacra­ments. Neither had she any such intent, and that no such thing was implyed in her Title, or claime of Spirituall regiment; nor no other thing, nor more then was before granted to her father, by the terme of Supreame Head: requi­ring all her loving subjects to receive the Oath at least in that sence (which was, she meant, that she might dispose of Church matters, as her Fa­ther had: and have power to forme See p. 117. letter [...]. what Church she pleased) and so that should suffice her High­nesse.

It is to be noted thirdly that the aforesaid oath when it was made, was unlawfull to be ta­ken by any Catholique; as the oath before made in the dayes of King Henry the 8^th. Al­though when it was made, it was not altogether so unlawfull, as that of King Henry: because in his dayes there was no A shameles untruth in his sense: for he taketh Catholike (as usually in this Pamphlet) for the Romish and Popish Church & in that sense it is most false. For there were many congregations in England before this 35 of Hen. 8. of Protestants, and divers crowned with martyrdome as Th. Man in the yeere 1518. Io. Browne in the yeere 1517. and divers others set down in the Acts and Monuments of the Church, some before and some after Luther began the Reformation in Germanie. other Church extant, [Page 119] or like to be extant in England, but the Catho­lique Church: of which A notorious un­truth as appeares by the very Act, Ann. 35. in which the Oath of Su­premacy was first required to be ta­ken, King Henry never challenged to himselfe the Style of Head of the universall Church, but only to bee supreame H [...]ad under God of the Church of England, and Ire­land, and all other His Majesties Do­minions. contrary to the Law of God, and his own conscience, he made himself head (as appears by a booke set forth by the said King himself, in the later end of his raigne, and many yeers after he had framed his Oath of Supremacie; intituled: A necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian man, set forth by the Kings Majestie of England, &c. In which he sets forth the Christian faith, then to be profes­sed in England. Which was as absolutely Ca­tholique, and the self-same in every point, as now it is in Rome. And if any man should have sworne him the supreame head, as he intended of that Church: he would have sworne false: as making the Church a Monster in having two heads: or depriving the Pope of his authoritie granted him by God: which had been to have denyed an Article of faith: but when the said Oath was repealed in Queene Maries dayes. And another Oath No other Oath at all in sense, but the former only abridged in words as will appeare e­vidently by com­paring them both which are copied out in the Appen­dix. of Supremacie made in the afore­said first yeere of Queene Elizabeth. It was as I have said to inable her (not so much to be head of the Church then extant, and to be utterly abolished, as) to be Governour of a new Church distinct from the Catholique Church then out of hand to be propagated and established: of which to sweare Her Head, before it was: or to sweare Her Head of the Church then extant, which she conceived superstitious: of which indeed she was not head, was in a true and pro­per sence unlawfull. And so continued unlaw­full untill after the abrogation of Masse, and [Page 118] [...] [Page 119] [...] [Page 120] perfect establishment of the new Protestant Church within this Realme, and other His Ma­jesties Dominions. Which being established as now it is: the said Oath of Supremacie ceased from being unlawfull: because then there was an apparant face of a Church (distinct from the members of the Catholique Church, which then began scarce to appeare, in respect of the greater multitude) of which only A ridiculous eva­sion and contrary to the intention and letter of the law, as shall be proved hereafter. The intention of the law was to a­brogate the Popes usurped jurisdicti­on not over the Protestant Chur­ches which he ne­ver had: but over the Romish Ca­tholiques or Pa­pists which he be­fore that time en­joyed, and exer­cised. Besides, the letter of the law carryeth supreame governour of the Realme and all other Her Highnesse Dominions and Countreys, not only of the Protestant Church within Her Realmes. This is made more evident in the Admonition to the Injunctions, 1. Eliz. where Her Supremacie is described to be over all manner of persons borne within Her Realmes, Dominions and Countreys: therefore over Papists as well as Protestants, unlesse they be no manner of persons. she was su­preame governour and chief head, and no other person whatsoever had or ought to have any jurisdiction or preheminence in the same, and all that were or are not of the same faith and Church were and are in a true and proper sense forreiners to the same.

It is to be noted fourthly: that a man may be said to be a Forreiner I acknowledge the word forreiner is sometimes taken for an opposite to domesticus fidei, a stranger from the covenant of grace: but in the Act of Parliament and Oath of Supremacie, as it is expounded in the Admonition (which is also Enacted) the word forreiner can signifie no other but those who are not natives. in a twofold sence. First, in respect of a temporall Dominion. Secondly, in respect of faith, whence ariseth a spirituall ju­risdiction. In the first sence, all that are not Na­tives of His Majesties Dominions (although some Lawyers say) all that doe no homage to His Majestie) are forreiners. In the second [Page 121] sence, all that are of the Protestant faith with the King, are Domesticks of the same faith, and within His Dominions only subject to His spi­rituall jurisdiction by the Laws of the Realme. And all that are not of the Protestant faith, are forreiners to the same, conformable to S^t. Paul, who accounted all those of whatsoever Nation, or under whatsoever temporall Dominion or Iurisdiction in the world) who were of the same faith with himselfe which he taught, were Do­mesticks of that faith. And those of whatso­ever Nation or temporall Dominion, that were not of the same faith, he accounted forreiners. Whence he saith, Gal. 6.10. Let us doe good to all: but especially to the domesticks (or those of the house) of faith. And 1 Thess. 4. vers. 12. Roga­mus ut honeste ambuletis ad eos qui foris sunt, & nul­lius aliquid desideretis. We desire you brethren, that you walke honestly towards them that are without, (that is, forreiners to our faith) and need nothing of any mans.

It is to be noted fifthly and chiefly, what con­ditions are required in every lawful oath: which according to the Prophet Ieremy, are three. viz▪ Truth, Iudgement, and Iustice: for he saith in his fourth Chapter. Thou shalt sweare our Lord liveth, in truth and in judgement and in justice: upon which place the holy Doctor, S. Hierome no­teth, that the foresaid conditions are requisite to every oath: of whom all Divines have le [...]r­ned the same; requiring in every lawfull oath, every of the said three conditions. The reason hereof is: because an oath being an invocation [Page 122] of God, as witnesse that what we speake is true; it is requisite that we should use judgement or discretion, to see that we doe nothing rashly, or without due reverence, devotion and faith, to­wards so great a Majestie, but we must especial­ly regard, that we make not him, who is the chiefe and Soveraigne veritie and inflexible ju­stice, either ignorant o [...] what we say: or Patron of a lye, as witnesse of that, which either is false in assertion, or unjust in promise. Hence an oath wanting Iudgement or discretion and wisdome: is a rash and foolish oath, that which wanteth Iu­stice: is called an unjust oath. And finally, where there is not truth: it is adjudged a false or lying oath, and is more properly then all the rest, cal­led Perjurie.

These notes premised, I shall now prove, the said Oath of Supremacie to be lawfull for any Catholique to take.

Every Oath that is accompanyed with the three said conditions or companions, viz. veri­tie, justice, and judgement (in the opinion of all Divines, Canon and Civil Lawyers) is a law­full Oath: but such is the Oath of Supremacie above recited in every part and particle of the same. Ergo. The Minor is proved, discoursing of every branch in particular, and first, of the first branch: wherein I sweare that the King is only Supreame Governour of this Realme, as well in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes, touching the Church of the said Realm: as Temporall touching the State, or of any o­ther his Dominions. Which I doe sweare dis­creetly [Page 123] as a thing true and just. For there is no other Supreme Governour of temporall things to be assigned, but the King: as all will con­fesse: nor of Ecclesiasticall things, or the Church of England; as by a sufficient Enumera­tion may be proved. For the Parliam [...]nt, is not supreame governour of the Churches within this Realme; when as according to the natu­rall light of reason, the King is governour of that: and therefore not supreame. The Pri­mate cannot be assigned supreame governour, when as he hath all his authoritie of govern­ment from the King, and so he hath a Superior. A Lay-eldership cannot be supreame gover­nour, for although it be unknowne, what it is, or from whence it receiveth its authoritie; yet I thinke no Lay-eldership so barbarous: as not to admit the King chiefe governour of the same. Neither can the Pope be any way su­preame governour of the aforesaid Church: be­cause he professeth himself only supreame head and governour of the Catholique Church and of no other according to Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 5.12. what is it to him to judge of them that are with­out, of which Catholique Church His Neither can the Pope. Here we thanke him for freeing us from all subjection to the Pope and See of Rome. Though he challengeth not to be the Head of the Catholike, that is, the universall Church of Christ scattered farre and wide over the whole face of the earth: yet he chal­lengeth to be and is Supreame Go­vernour of all His Subjects within His Dominions, whether they are members of the Romish or Reformed Church. Majestie d [...]th not claime to be head. Neither will he be governour The superstition and Idolatry of Papists practised in England doth not any way abridge His Majesties Supreame power, for he exerciseth His power not in regulating those idolatrous and superstitious rites, but in suppressing them, and punishing those who so defile Gods worship in His Kingdome. of any spirituall or ecclesiasticall [Page 124] thing therein, as conceiving the same both su­perstitious and idolatrous. Ergo. the King must be supreame governour of the Protestant Church.

That the King is (only) Governour is pro­ved: because none other can be assigned his e­quall in preheminencie of government in the aforesaid Protestant Church.

For the second or third branch it is likewise proved. For I sweare them likewise discreetly, truly and justly. viz. that no forrein Prince, Person, Prelate, &c. hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, &c. within this Realme (in the See this Evasion refuted, pag. 120. letter S. said Protestant Church) which I adde as before, be­cause according to the intention of the Law and Law-maker (as I have before said) it was so meant. For neither doth His Majestie or did Queene Elizabeth claime to be chiefe Gover­nour of the Catholique Religion, or Romane Church, or any jurisdiction therein. It being by them both (as I have often said) abhorred as superstitious, and abolished for the same rea­son by the said Queene and State of England: therefore it is against reason, and a kinde of pet­tie treason to sweare either of them governour of a Religion which they apprehend so evill▪ but in respect of the Protestant Church esta­blished, the Pope is a forrein Person and Pre­late: and his jurisdiction forrein. Neither hath he, or any other forrein Person any jurisdiction in the aforesaid The words of the Oath are not that no forreiner, Prince, or Prelate, hath or ought to have any iurisdiction or spirituall authoritie within the Protestant Church but within the Realmes, therefore no jurisdiction within His Majesties Dominions, over any members either of the Protestant or of the Romish Church. Church, or ought to have: for as [Page 125] I have said in the fourth note, out of Saint Paul: as all those that are of the Catholique faith, are domesticks of that faith: and all that are not of the same faith, are forreiners to it: so all that are of the Protestant faith (of which His Maje­stie is governour) are domesticks of the same: and all that are not of the same, are forreiners to that Religion. Hence appeares the truth of the said branches: wherein is said (in the se­cond) That no forrein Prince, &c. and (in the third) I doe utterly renounce and forsake all forrein jurisdictions, &c. which I doe justly and lawful­ly renounce as well in respect of the Protestant Church, as of the Catholique: for as I have said the Pope is truly a forreiner to the Prote­stant Church: in respect of which, I must by the law renounce his jurisdiction. And he is no forreiner in respect of the Catholique Church, in which I am bound to respect him and his ju­risdiction: for if all Catholiques be domesticks one to [...]he other (as I have proved out of Saint Paul) how can the Pope who is chief of that faith be said to be a See the Answer to this sophisme, pag. 120. letter T. forreiner? his jurisdiction being as internall and intrinsecall, as innate and natu­rall to every Catholique in the world; as it is to him, that stands next him in his chamber at Rome. And therefore there being no forrein jurisdiction in the Catholique Church, in eve­ry sence I may lawfully renounce all forrein ju­risdictions.

The fourth and last branch can have no dif­ficultie at all, with any Catholique. So that the words of this Oath seeme to me so cleere and [Page 126] lawfull, since the establishment of the Prote­stant Church; that it may be taken of any Ca­tholique without any the least danger of Per­jurie, or any other sinne (scandall being avoy­ded) or without mentall reservation or secret equivocation: that I admire that any man hath so long scrupulized to the losse of himselfe and fortunes: when as being necessitated to take the same, and scandall being easily to be avoy­ded (as I have said out of Diana and others) he might have prevented his owne ruine with a safe conscience: as I conceive Sir Iohn Winter and other men of estates did, who are reported to have lately taken the same.

It may be objected first, that this Oath thus explicated, hath no coherencie, the first branch with the second and third; and therefore that it be coherent, and taken conformably to the intention of the law-maker, as we sweare the King to be onely Supreame Governour of the Church of England in the first branch; so ought we in the second and third branch to renounce all Jurisdiction forreign to the same. To which I answer first, that coherencie is no condition requisite to an oath, but impertinent to the truth or falshood of the same: for there be ma­ny things of a different nature inserted in an oath.

Secondly, that there is a most perfect cohe­rencie in the aforesaid explication: for as in the first branch, I sweare the King Head of the Church of England, so in the second and third: I abjure all forreigne Jurisdictions whatsoever. [Page 127] Which are the very direct words of the oath: for there are no words in any branch signifying a renunciation of all Jurisdiction forreigne to the Protestant Church of England. Whence there is a great difference between renouncing all Jurisdiction forreigne to the particular Church of England, and renouncing all forren Jurisdiction. For a forren Jurisdiction renoun­ced is rightly described A power or right denied to be extent to the swearer by any law, and is more generall, then a Jurisdiction forreign to the Protestant Church: which is onely a power not extent to a Protestant quâ talis: which although it be forren to the said Church; yet it may be properly extent and appertaining to the swea­rer. So that it is intended by the said oath; that as in the first branch, we sweare the King onely Supreame Governor of the Protestant Church within this Realme and his Dominions: so in the second and third; we are to renounce all forren Jurisdictions whatsoever; w^ch either the Pope, or any other forren Person hath, or ought to have in the same: which every Catholique may lawfully do, notwithstanding that generall saying; That the Pope hath Iurisdiction over all Christians: for that is meant, a generall Juris­diction in the Catholique Church, either actu­all or potentiall, extent to all; which is forren to none: and which, by taking this oath is not denyed. I answer thirdly, that all penall lawes (as is this law for taking the oath) in doubtfull words, are ever to be It is true if the words will beare it and it be agree­able to the inten­tion of the law & lawmaker, but ma­ledicta glossa quae corrumpit contex­tum; cursed be the Glosse which cor­rupts the Text, & quite perverts the meaning of the law as this doth. See the Injuncti­ons. taken in the more favoura­ble sense, and which makes the law to containe [Page 128] no falshood, or injustice. And therefore in this law to sweare, as the words lye, may be done without any inj [...]stice or falshood; which is and ought to be presumed to be the minde of the lawmaker; for no law or lawmaker intends perjurie. And therefore it is a frivolous thing to invent scrupulous crotchets, which the words doe not import.

It may be objected secondly, that the oath must be interpreted according to the intention of the law and lawmaker: for as Suares saith, lib. 6 [...]. de leg. cap. 1. upon the will and intenti­on of the lawmaker (which is the soule of the law the substance and force of the law doth chi [...]fly depend: therefore it by any meanes, the will of the lawmaker may be knowne, according to it especially we must understand the words of the law. But the will of the lawmaker is suffi­ciently knowne concerning this oath, to make it apparently unlawfull for any Catholique to take as appeareth by the words of King Iames of blessed memory, saying, (in his Premonition pag. 9. and in his Apology for the oath, pag. 2. and 9.) that by the oath of Allegiance, he in­tended to demand of his subjects nothing else, but a profession of that temporall Allegiance and civill obedience, which all subjects, by the law of God and nature, doe owe to their lawfull Prince, &c. For as the Oath of Supremacie, (saith he) was devised for putting a difference betweene Papists and them of our profession. So was the oath of Allegiance ordained for making a diffe­rence between the civilly obedient Papists and [Page 129] the perverse disciples of the Powder treason; by which words it appeareth that King Iames held, both the law and the law maker intended by the oath of Supremacie, to put a difference be­tweene Papists and Protestants: and that no Papist would take that oath, wherein the Juris­diction of the Pope, was intended to be abju­red, Ergo, the said oath of Supremacie is to be interpreted accordingly, all doubtfulnesse of words set aside; and consequenter unlawfull for any Catholique to take.

To the Major of which Objection; I answer first, granting the same. Secondly with a di­stinction; that the intentions of the law and law maker are to bee sought, when they inter­pret the law in a truer sense, then the plaine words doe, as they lie; otherwise not, lest it want veritie.

To Suarez I answer, that himselfe saith in the place before cited, that if at any time the pro­pertie of the words of an oath should induce any injustice, or like absurditie, concerning the minde, or meaning of the lawmaker: they must be drawne to a sense, although improper; wherein the law may be just and reasonable: for this is presumed to be the minde of the law ma­ker, as it hath beene declared by many lawes in F. tit. de lege. thus Suarez.

So that although there were in the words of this oath divers significations impropper and unusuall; yet in the opinion of Suarez, it might be taken; and the words interpreted in the truest sense, abstracting from the reall intention [Page 130] of the law maker: how much more then (say I) the words being not improper, or unusuall, but according to the intention of the Of the intention of the law and lawmaker in pre­scribing this oath to that which I have spoken be­fore I shall adde something in the close of this Chap­ter to which [...]re­ferre the Reader for further an­swer law and law maker, may they be taken in the more favoura­ble sence, which may make the law to be just and reasonable? See for this doctrine Can. Cum tu de testibus cap. 16. Can. ad nostram de Iurejuran­do, cap. 21. et de regulis [...]ris in 6. reg. 49. in paenis leg. Benignius F. de leg. Leg. In ambigua ibidem.

Hence it followeth first out of the doctrine of the said Suarez, that although the words and sentences contained in this oath, being consi­dered barely by themselves, and without due circumstances (to wit, the intention of the law and lawmaker, and to what end and purpose the s [...]id oath was framed) may seeme to some doubtfull and ambiguous (although to me they seeme not so) that is, not cleare and morally certaine; and so for one to sweare them in that doubtfull sence, were to expose himselfe to danger of perjurie: yet considering (as I have said) that such doubtfull words, are to be taken in the more favourable sense, and which maketh the The law is just and reasonable without your for­ced, and forged Glosse: for why should not all that enjoy the benefit of his Majesties lawes as well as Protestants, sub­mit themselves to his Majesties scep­ter, and supreame power over them­selves as well as Protestants, espe­cially seeing the power is the same, which the most religious Kings of Iuda, and most Christian Emperours of Rome, and divers of his Majesties Predecessors with­in this Realme have exercised upon all their subjects. law to be just and reasonable, and to contain no falshood or injustice. If any one sweare▪ those words, which of themselves are doubtfull, in no doubtfull sense, but in a true and determinate sense, and wherein they are not doubtfull, but cleere and morally certaine, there is no danger of perjurie at all.

[Page 131]It may seeme to follow secondly out of the aforesaid doctrine, that such as tooke the oath of Supremacie in King Henry the eighth dayes (which rather then those famous and glorious men, Sir Thomas Moore and Bishop Fisher would take, they worthily chose to die) were not to be condemned of perjurie; because it might be supposed, that they being learned Bishops and Noblemen, knowing what belonged to an oath, did draw the same to some improper sense, which ought to have beene the intention of the aforesaid King to make the law just; as if they should have sworne the then King, Head or chiefe of the Church of his countrey; for that he was Sovereigne Lord and ruler of both per­sons Spirituall and Temporall: all sorts being bound to obey his lawfull civill lawes and com­mandements. And so in this sense (although it be a kinde of improper speech) every King is Head of the Clergy and all others of his owne Countrey. Or peradventure they might sweare him Supreame Head of the Church of England; that is, Chiefe of the congregation of belee­vers within his dominions: for so in our lan­guage, we commonly say him, to be the head of a Colledge, Court or Citie, that is the chiefe; and him to be chiefe who is supreame therein. The Church being then taken by all Divines for a congregation of men; Why might not King Henrie be improperly sworne (in the opi­nion of Suarez) Head of the then congregation in England? So that what Sir Thomas Moore law­fully and piously refused with relation to the in­tention [Page 132] of the aforesaid King, others might without perjurie take with relation to the law of God (abstracting from all unlawfull intentions) to wit, that every oath be just and reasonable as being to be taken in Veritie, Iustice and Iudge­ment: and so what was unlawfull in a proper sence, might at lest be free from Perjurie in an improper. Thus understanding the first branch; and the second and third in the same sence be­fore delivered, they might peradventure be ex­cused (as I have said) from perjurie; But never from sinne. For considering the state of England in those dayes, and the absolute intention of the King which (well knowne to the whole world) was; to be sworne Supreame Head See pag. 119. let­ter Q. of the Catholique Church, Catholique religion still here remaining as I have said: his oath was as much different from this See pag. 119. let­ter R. now oath of Supre­macie, as darknesse from light: For by this, the Queene claimed not the Supremacie granted by Christ to Saint Peter, as did her father: but onely to be Supreame governour of a Church, out of which, she would not onely discard the Pope, but likewise roote out all Catholique re­ligion, contrary to her fathers minde as I have shewed: so that the question in the said Kings dayes, was about an Article of faith, viz. Whe­ther the Supremacie were granted by God to the King, or to the Pope. Which Article they were bound with losse of their lives to have pro­fessed being called thereunto: for then did oc­curre the times of obligation before expressed (by Saint Thomas and other Divines) for the [Page 133] profession of a mans faith. As when the honour and glory of God, and the spirituall benefit of his neighbour should exact the same. Now when or what greater honour could a man have done to God, then to have stood for the truth of the Gospel, and defence of the Catholike faith be­ing so opposed? And in whom could there have beene more edification and greater ex­ample given, for simple and unlearned men to follow, then in Bishops and great men of autho­ritie. Neither was it to purpose for them to al­leadge, that they were in danger of their lives and fortunes; for they were bound to loose both, rather then to denie any one Article of faith. For although I have said, that a man is not bound, with danger of life, or fortunes, to abstaine from a thing lawfull, or of its owne na­ture indifferent (as the going to a Protestant Church in a Protestant Countrey, taking the oath of Alleagiance, or the now oath of Supre­macy; every of which is farre enough from an Article of faith, or point of religion; onely more cryed downe, because out of fashion, then out of any grounded reason or judgement) to a­void the scandall of we [...]ke ones, after instructi­on or admonition given of the nature of the thing, and the danger in abstaining Yet I ne­ver said, that a man was not bound to professe his religion in time convenient; or that hee might deny his faith, or any part or point of the same for feare of death; but absolutely the con­trary: hence I say, that the Supremacie in those [Page 134] daies, being a point of religion, and an article of faith, although they might be excused from perjurie, yet never from sinne and scandall. And therefore I conceive that Suares onely in­tendeth that then lawes and oathes invented contrary to the law of God, may be drawne to an improper sence, when scandall may be avoy­ded with integritie of faith. And so those that tooke the aforesaid Kings oath, I leave to the judgement of God: for as Saint Paul saith, 1 Cor. 4. It is our Lord that judgeth; who best knoweth the rectitude of all mens actions, and the secret intentions of each mans heart.

The Minor of the said objection is denyed. And to the words of K. Iames saying: that as the Oath of Supremacie was devised for putting a diffe­rence between Papists and them of our profession. So was, &c. I answer that the said King did not by those words, undertake to give an absolute and totall reason, why the said oath was devised, (himselfe not being the deviser or maker there­of) but spake according to the effect, which hee saw the oath of Supremacie tooke in his daies: who conceiving that Catholiques held it, not an oath lawfull for them to take (and therefore some in King Henries daies refused the same out of conscience; others since the a­brogation of Masse and establishment of the Protestant Church, out of scruples, not consi­dering either the change of times, or alteration of the Church) conceived likewise a difference to result thereby betweene them and Prote­stants; [Page 135] so that the said And yet his words as you cite them out of his Praemonitorie Pre­face, pag. 9. are these: The oath of Supremacie was devised for putting a difference be­tweene Papists and them of our profes­sion, Devised by whom but by the lawmakers; and if devised by the the lawmakers for this end, to put a difference be­tweene Papists & Protestants, it can­not be denied but that it was their intention, to make this oath as a di­dinctive signe whereby to know Papists in the kingdome from Protestants. renowned King did not intend by the aforesaid words, to make known the intention of the law or lawmaker, but one­ly spake what an effect the said devised oath had in Catholiques wrought.

That neither of the said oathes of Suprema­cie were framed to put a difference betweene Papists and Protestants is evident by what I have said; for in King Henrie his dayes, there were no Protestants See pag. 118. let­ter P. knowne in England to differ withall: and that oath was made onely and solely for his pleasure. And in the said Queens daies, the oath was onely made to give and ac­knowledge her power and authoritie in Spiritu­all or Ecclesiasticall things; thereby (as I have sufficiently said) to propagate and establish the Protestant Church: and to no other end or purpose.

The Major and Minor being thus answered, the consequence appeares naught; and the as­sertion for the lawfulnesse of the oath in force.

If any simple man (pardon the bluntnesse of my speech, for I know that no discreete or judi­cious man of either learning o [...] piety will justly censure me) shall whisper in a corner that this doctrine is scandalous and unheard of: and that divers have suffered and shed their blood, rather then they would admit the same: and which, if it had beene lawfull, others of his tribe would have found out, before this time: (hee should have added to men of great qualitie) and there­fore it being no matter of faith, none ought to beleeve it. I forgive the poore man; for he [Page 136] speakes out of hypocrisie or ignorance, or both; for he cannot tell you with learning and since­ritie why, or how it is scandalous. And if any did suffer for the same, I pray let him likewise whisper when, or in what yeere, or Kings reign? and then compare his speech to what I have said. Yet whensoever they did it, because they would not sinne against their consciences; which rather then to offend, they (not under­standing the [...]ruth of the said doctrine, and their phansie being the contrary way strong) were bound to doe. Yet good brother Simple doe not perswade me against my conscience; un­lesse you can confute me in reason: for I con­ceive, that I say nothing (although not written of before) but what is evident with Grace in reason; although it be not certaine by divine f [...]ith. And therein I shew my selfe a true friend to my distressed Countrey; for certus amicus in re incerta cernitur. A sure friend is tried in a doubtfull matter. Yet I should be loath, that any man should charge me with the least thing said, as contrary to faith, or the doctrine of the Catholique Church. (To which and whose cen­sure, I doe in all humility submit my selfe, for all my doings, sayings and writings; as well for the satisfaction of mine owne conscience, as that ignorant braines may take no offence). And i [...] this doctrine were never heard of be­fore; what then? Is it therefore false or scan­dalous? And if your tribe did not finde it out before; is it a wonder? None at all with me: for I should wonder indeed, to heare you the [Page 137] inventers of any thing beneficiall to Gods Church; (howsoever you may and doe write over, and translate other mens workes; and so seeme to ignorant men, to finde out something for the good of the Church, that was never lost, or before wanting therein) because as yet I have never heard or knowne so much. Those therfore that shall hearken to such whisperings, I will wish them no other punishment then that the Vicar of fooles may be their ghostly father. In the meane time (maugre all censures) I will thanke God, that he hath enabled me to helpe my distressed friend at a dead lift, by counsel­ling and instructing to a lawfull (I had almost said meritorious, but that I feared more anger) and discreet act.

Thus then seriously to conclude; If any man shall yet remaine unsatisfied: I knowing, that an Angel of light cannot infuse either wisdome into a foole, or prudence into a simple man: and nothing harder for the best Divine, then to yeeld the continuance of a serene conscience to a scrupulous person: doe only desire and in­treat, th [...]t what he himselfe either cannot, or will not receive satisfaction in; he would not judge amisse in others; and so be scandalized, (which will prove to himselfe rather the scan­dall of Pharisees then weake ones) according to the exhortation of the Apostle: Qui non man­ducat, manducantem non Spernat: he that eateth not, let him not despise him that eateth. As for mine own part what I preach with Gods grace I will practise. And if any man can give a better [Page 138] reason, for the contrary to what I doe, then I can give for what I say: I doe hereby promise to subscribe: otherwise let every one looke and dive into his owne actions, and not into other mens; for he shall render an account, onely for his owne, and not for theirs. And because All in these times (perchance) are not bound under sinne to imbrace these opinions (the The question whether a Papist may with a safe conscience take the [...]ath of Supremacie, may be understood either in sensu diviso, or in sensu composito, in sensu diviso it is true, that a Papist may and ought to take the Oath of Supremacie: for he that is now a Papist may become a Protestant, and then he not onely may, but ought to take this Oath being lawfully ten­dered unto him: but in sensu composito it is false that a Papist continuing in his faith and profession of popery may with a safe conscience take this Oath: for this Oath implyeth the renouncing a maine Article of his faith from whence he hath the denomination of a Papist (See the Notes of the Rhemists upon Act. 11.26. which fasten and assume this word or name Papist to the children of their papall Church) namely the Popes Supremacie: and this as before was promised shall now be demonstrated. 1. [...]irst from the intention of the law and lawmakers, who prescribed this Oath of Supremacie as appeares both by the Preface to the Oath: Whereas ther [...] was a Statute made and ordained against such as would extoll and stand to the iurisdiction, power and authoritie of the See and Bishop of Rome: in which Statute there is comprised another oath in such wise as in the same Statute among other thin [...] is mentioned: for as much as in both the said Oathes there lacketh full an [...] sufficient words, whereby some doubts might rise: Be it enacted by the authoritie of this Parliament, that this Oath hereafter mentioned in this Act shall s [...]and in force and place of the same two Oathes. And by these words in the bodie of the Oath, I shall keepe all the contents of the Act, and all other Acts and Statutes made in and for that purpose: viz. the derogation, the extir­pation, and extinguishment of the usurped and pretended authoritie, power and iurisdiction of the See and Bishop of Rome. As likewise by the Preface to the Act of Parliament in 1. Elizabeth, viz. To the intent that all usurped and for­reigne power, and authoritie Spirituall and Temporall, may for ever be cleerely extinguished, and never to be used or obeyed within this Realme, or any other your Maiesties Dominions and Countries: may it please your Highnesse that it may be enacted as followeth, &c. Hence I thus argue: No Papist with a good conscience can take an Oath prescribed by an Act of Parliament made purposely, and with an expresse intention for the extirpation of the Popes jurisdiction and Supremacie over the whole Church, which he claimeth by vertue of Christs pro­mise made to Peter, tibi dabo claves. But such is the Oath of Supremacie as appeares by the Statutes above cited. Ergo, No Papist with a good conscience may take it. 2. Secondly, from the letter of the law and formal [...] and expresse words of the Oath, which are these: That neither the See, nor Bishop of Rome, nor any forreigne Potentate hath or ought to have, any Iurisdiction, power, or authoritie, within this Realme; neither by Gods Law, nor by any other iust law or meanes, Henry 8.35. yeere, hereunto adde the Admonition to the Queenes Injun­ctions. Hence I thus argue. No Papist may take an Oath which containeth in it the renouncing a prime Article of his faith, necessary to salvation in his Religion and the iudgement of his Church. But every Papist taking the Oath of Supremacie re­nounceth a prime Article of his faith necessarie to sal­vation. For so we reade in the Extravagans, cap. unam sanctam de maior. et obed. Subesse Romano pontifici, omni humanae creaturae declaramus dicimus, definimus, et pro­nunciamus, omnino esse de necessitate salutis. We (saith Boniface the eighth) declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is altogether or absolutely necessary to salvation for every humane creature to be subiect to the Bishop of Rome. Ergo, no Papist may take the Oath of Supremacie. 3. Thirdly, from the judgement of the Church of Rome, which account­eth Fisher Bishop of Rochester, and Sir Thomas Moore sometimes Lord Chan [...]ellour of England, blessed and glorious Martyrs, because both these lost [...] heads [...]ather then they would acknowledge the King Supreame Head [...] and [...] the Popes Headship. To omit the testimonies [...] [...]ovius Bishop in Italie, Iohn Cochleus of Germanie, William Para­dine a learned Historian of France, Cardinall Poole, living in the Court at Rome and writing to the King in the defence of Ecclesiasticall unitie, saith thus by the figure of Apostroph [...]: Thy Father O England, thy ornament, thy de [...]nce was brought to his death being innocent in thy sight; and a little after, he lef [...] his life for thy sake, left he should overthrow and b [...]tray thy salvation: and Cardinall B [...]llarmine in his Booke De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis ab Anno 1400. ad 1500. thus writeth of Fisher Bishop of Rochester. Iohannes Fische­rus natione Anglus, Episcopus Roffensis, posteà, S. R. E. Cardinalis, et quod longe gloriofius est, Martyr Christi occisus est Henrici octavi Regis anglorum iussu, Anno, 1535. Iohn Fisher an English man Bishop of Rochester, and after­wards Car [...]inall, and which makes him farre more glorious, a Martyr of Christ was slaine by the coommandement of King Henrie the eighth, in the yeere of our Lord one thousand five hundred thirty five: Whence I thus argue. To his evasion that it was not the same Oath. See the answer, p. 119. letter R. and the Appendix p. 141. Either Fisher and Moore were no Martyrs, who died for refusing to take this Oath, or they are no good Pa­pists who take it. But Fisher and Moore were famous and glorious Martyrs in the opinion of the Romane Church as hath beene prooved. Ergo, they who take the Oath of Supremacie are no good Papists. 4. Fourthly, from the confession of this Priest, pag. 118. The Oath of Su­premacie when it was made in the dayes of King Henry 8. was unlawfull to be taken by any Catholique: and pag. 119. If any had sworne the King to be Su­preame Head of that Church, he would have sworne false, as making the Church a monster having two heads, or depriving the Pope of his authoritie granted him by God. Whence I thus argue. The Oath of Supremacie prescribed by that Act of Parliament, in the 35. of Henry 8. was unlawfull to be taken by any Roman Catholique, as this Priest con­fesseth. But the Oath of Supremacie prescribed by Act of Parliament in the first of Elizabeth in force at this day, is the same with the Oath prescribed by Act of Parliament in the 35. of Henrie the eighth, as appear­eth by comparing both the Oathes together, with a pro­viso in an Act the fifth of Elizabeth for expounding this Oath, where it is said: That we confesse and acknowledge in her Maiestie, her Heires and Successours, no other au­thoritie, then that which was challenged, and lately used by the noble King Henrie the eighth, and King Edward the sixth: as in the Admonition to the Qeenes Injun­ctions more plainly appeares. The Queenes Maiestie would that all her loving subiects should understand that nothing was, is, or shall be meant, or intended by the same Oath, to have any other Dutie, Allegiance, or Bond re­quired by the same Oath, then was acknowledged to be due to the most noble King of famous memorie, King Henrie the eighth her Maiesties father, or King Ed­ward the sixt, her Maiesties brother. Ergo, the Oath of Supremacie prescribed by Act of Parliament the first of Elizabeth, is unlawfull to be ta­ken by any Romane Catholique. I conclude therefore, super tota materia that the taking of the Oath of Su­premacie, is an abrenunciation of the Romish faith, and consequently, that we wrong no Papist that takes the Oath, if we beleeve him a forswearer who forsweares his beliefe. question not being, which is absolutely the safest or per­fectest way, and all dispositions of each soule, [Page 139] [Page 140] [Page 141] not being alike; but only whether the said opi­nions are forbidden or not forbidden by the Law of God, or the Church, so that absolutely in case of necessitie they may not bee done; and what may best in prudence bee done; (yet safe enough, with a good conscience, and with­out sinne) the condition of times and persons considered) those that shall not imbrace the same; but suffer for their conscience sake; I shall beseech Almightie God to lay no more [Page 142] upon them, then they are able to beare; that they doe nothing against their conscience; for that were to carry a continuall hell about them: which of all earthly mise­ries were the greatest: from which God of his infinite mercy pre­serve us all: Amen.