A Discourse Penned by a Romish Priest

§ 1 ^o . That Scandal makes it not unlawful to go 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 . Jerome. in cap. 15. and 18. Matth. To be a word or deed less right (or less good) giving occasion to another of Spiritual ruin or falling into sin. Neither do they take the adverb (less) 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 moral rectitude or goodness. This Scandal 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 verbs 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 express and certain intention gives his neighbor occasion of sinning by some word or deed, either intrinsically or extrinsically evil. Active per accidens is, when besides the intention of the doer, and nature of the act done, being extrinsically evil, or at leastwise, having some species or show of evil; by which occasion is taken, to the spiritual ruin of another. Passive scandal is also subdivided, into passive scandal given, and Passive scandal taken. The first proceeds from Active scandal either per se or per accidens, given and received by another. Such was the scandal forbidden by our Savior, 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 be hanged about his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea. And this is called Scandal of the weak or little ones to whom it belongeth (as Saint Bernard saith) to be ignorant and moved through weakness, and so be scandalized. For the perfect (as Saint Jerome saith in the place before cited) are not scandalized. Passive scandal taken is, when a man out of envy and malice taketh occasion of sin by another's words or deeds ill interpreted and misunderstood without any lawful or probable cause. And this is called the scandal of Pharisees, which is a sin only to themselves, and not to be regarded of the speaker or doer; as appears by the answer of our Savior, Matt. 15. ver. 14. Sinite illos, caeci sunt et duces caecorum. Let them alone, blind they are, and guides of the blind.

Hence Divines with S ^t . Thomas do infer first, that sometime Passive scandal may be without active, as it was in the scandal of the Pharisees. Sometimes active scandal 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 sin; and yet none are scandalized, or take the occasion given, to sin thereby. And sometimes they may be both together, as when one by his bad example giveth, and another taketh thereby occasion to sin.

Secondly, they infer, 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 avoid the the Passive scandal, even of the weak ones, as well observeth Alfonsus Tostatus : Because that were to sin mortally. (See Bellar. de script Ecclesiast, & Possevin. in verbo. Alfonsus Tostatus. Which for no cause any man ought to do; but if they be counsels which are not of necessity to be done, or things indifferent of themselves, yet necessary to be done, for the safeguard of a man's life, or goods. Then the scandal that ariseth to some by this, that others do them: either proceedeth from malice; and then that is a scandal of Pharisees, and to be contemned; and no spiritual or temporal good is to be omitted for the same. Or it proceedeth from infirmity or ignorance, and it is the aforesaid scandal of weakness. And for this scandal we must refrain for a time (according to the example of our Savior, Matth. 17. Who to avoid the scandal of the Jews concerning his poverty, bid Saint Peter go to the Sea, &c.) even from the works of Evangelical counsels and things otherwise indifferent, although necessary to be done. Or we must do them secretly, lest the ignorant, whose mind is weak be troubled. This must be done, until having yielded a reason of our actions, and shown them to be good, or of themselves indifferent, and necessary to be done for safeguard of life or fortunes: and so the scandal cease, which proceeded from ignorance. But if after a reason be yielded, the scandal shall not cease, it is not to be esteemed a scandal proceeding from ignorance, but from malice, and to be contemned. Neither ought we then to refrain from any the aforesaid actions to avoid this scandal. 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 expressly teacheth: that a man is not bound to loose his goods and temporal fortunes to avoid the scandal of weak ones after an admonition and reason (for the lawful doing of the act) be yielded. 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 scandal, and the doctrine, or action be profitable; they are not to be regarded, for they are incurable, because they are blind; that is: they will not see and understand what both God and reason dictates to them. And he that is weak (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 scandal; it will be the Scandal of Pharisees as is aforesaid.

Now to prove the assertion, which is the first branch of the Minor. Scandal, is a word or deed less right, apt to give occasion to another of spiritual ruin. • ut to go to Church is no deed less right (but prudently and chiefly right) all circumstances considered.) Ergo, to go to Church is no scandal, and consequenter, to go to Church can yield no occasion to my neighbor of spiritual ruin; but rather an occasion of both his temporal and spiritual conservation and edification. This Minor I prove. To go to hear a piece of a Mass in English, is no deed less right. But to go to Church, is to go to hear a piece of a Mass in English. Ergo, to go to Church is no deed less right. The Major I prove thus: to go to hear a whole Mass in English (the nature of the thing considered, and abstracting from the constitution of the Church) is not evil. For the diversity of the language takes nothing from the goodness of the thing. As is manifest in the Greek Church, where Mass is always said in Greek. So that if it be not evil in it self, to go to hear a whole Mass in English, it is not evil, to go to hear a piece of a Mass in English. And consequently not to go to Church.

Add that in the whole Latin Church; where it is not lawful to say Mass in any other language then in Latin (bec • use of the long custom of the Church, kept always on foot for this reason: that as the Catholic Religion is universal, so should it be exercised in an universal language) yet it is lawful, and in use to say a piece of the Mass (as Collects, Prayers, Psalms, Epistles, and Gospels) in any Language of any Country 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 evil. For considering the circumstances of time and place, it hath a show & appearance of evil, 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 show of evil refrain yourselves. To which I answer, first: That all the appearance of evil, which, going to Church hath, is, that in England above other countries, Priests have not been freely left to the Principles of Divinity or Lay-men to their Christian liberty; but it hath been procured to have been declared unlawful upon false suggestions, and continued thus thought unlawful by some erroneous judgments. Which my neighbor 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 glass, & 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 eat, & 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 scandal. So it would seem likewise as hard, if a broken fancy, or an erring mind should conceive evil 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 scandal to little ones. No: I hope as the erroneous eyes shall bear their own imperfections; so the erroneous judgment shall bear its own mistake; and neither shall accuse me before God of the scandal of little ones.

Hence I answer, secondly, to the place of the Apostle before objected, tha • the appearance or show of evil, is to be understood; first that it proceeds really from the act done, and that it be not only a conjectural appearance, but morally certain. That no man play Tom-fool in striking him that stands next him without a cause. Secondly, that the appearance proceeds not from a deed to be done of necessity, either by the Law of God, or nature. Otherwise we might infer the Apostle to command contradictories, to refrain and not to refrain 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 sin. And if it were to be done by the Law of Nature; the blessed Apostle was not so unreasonable, as to bid us refrain from a thing in its own nature lawful, and of necessity to be done; without admittance of some way to avoid scandal. Although by reason of some circumstance, place or person, it might have a show of evil, and so for some time be suspended, as some things of natural necessity; yea, the Evangelical counsels may have. But in such cases we are to instruct and admonish the weak (as I by these presents do) that although it should seem to them to be evil, or to have some show of evil, yet in very deed it is not evil, but good. And I am constrained under pain of death to do the same. After which instruction and admonition, if they still persist in their scandal; it is not a scandal of little ones, but of Pharisees and great ones. Neither doth it proceed from infirmity or ignorance, but from malice: and is not to be regarded. So that it seems a thing unreasonable, and in the strength of judgment against nature, that a man shall more regard the trouble of his neighbors conscience at a thing lawful, then the hazard of his own life, and ruin 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 show of evil is really in the act of going to Church, and not as falsely imagined: and that this show of evil appears not only to weak and ignorant people, but to men of understanding of all sorts; and not only to Catholics, but likewise to Schismatics of all sorts: who in going to Church to save their goods, confess that they do it against their conscience, as conceiving it to be unlawful by reason of the aforesaid Declaration of the twelve Fathers in the Council of Trent, and the foresaid Popes; which whether it were gotten by false suggestions or no, they discern not, neither do 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 Schismatics or Lay-Catholics the contrary; (because nothing is done at Church which is either evil or hurtful:) and both reason and learning Priests. And therefore I rejoice with Aristotle: Propter illorum cogitare, nihil mutatur in re, and say, that the show of evil proceeds not from the act of going to Church. For in all King Edwards time, and the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's time, until the thirteenth year of her Rain, when all Catholics did or might go to Church, going to Church by Catholics then being in fashion; none took scandal thereby: because there was then, no show of evil. And why should there be now more show of evil in the act, then at that time? If ye answer by reason of the aforesaid Declaration. I reply that then the species of evil, 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 self. And the experience of our distressed country 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 lawful, and hath been lawfully practiced and approved by the common opinion of all Divines of any indifferency in other countries, and so might have been in ours, had it not been for turbulent people, who for their own ends have more troubled the Church in procuring of breves and rescripts then all other nations besides of our condition.

To Schismatics, 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 error, they have had from the misunderstanding of Catholics.

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

It may be objected secondly, that it is as much scandal to go to Church, as it was to eat of those meats offered to Idols. Of which Saint Paul speaks, 1 Cor. 8. the eating of which in it self considered, although the Apostle thought no sin in Wise men, or great ones; because they did eat the same without any relation at all to the Idol, as he seemeth to intimate, verse, 4. yet because some ignorant Christians (seeing the said Wise men eat) did likewise eat the same meats with conscience and devotion, as if the said meats had received some virtue or sanctification from the Idol. Saint Paul exhorted the Wise men, to abstain from eating the said flesh; for that out of mistake and misunderstanding of their eating: the aforesaid Christians, then newly converted did take offense and sin. Whereupon in great zeal he said, verse. 13. If meat scandalize my brother, I will never eat flesh, lest I scandalize my brother. So that one would think, 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 express terms, lib. de bon. conjugali cap. 16. saith: It was far better to have died, then to have eaten of those meats so offered to Idols, conformable to himself elsewhere: who likewise saith. That a man may not commit (or occasion) so much as a venial sin, to gain the whole world. Which he that giveth scandal, 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 Catholic to take as said of the act of going to Church.

I answer, denying the consequence: and say that there is a great disparity between 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 show and appearance of evil, but a moral malignity therein, as well to great, as to little ones. Which although the wise did take away, that the said malignity touched not them; yet the weak neither did, or had understanding so to do. Whence the Apostle said, verse. the 7. that there was not knowledge in all. For the moral malignity; that was in those meats to all, was a profanation and impurity in them, as being things dedicated to the Idol or the Devil. So that as a man receiveth good by holy? bread or things sanctified; so he receiveth evil by a thing: profaned or maligned. Which moral malignity 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 Idol as they were in themselves, mere creatures, both created for the use of man, did eat what was useful to eat without sin. Whereas the weak, not so much as considering the profaneness of the meats, but (seeing the Wiser eat) with error of judgment conceived virtue 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 verse. ) polluted thereby. Now in going to Church, their is no moral malignity at all; in so much, that scarce the weakest man can invent how to sin by anything that is there done. It being of its own nature so indifferent, and to a good intention, good, that a parte rei their is no appearance of evil therein.

If any one say that there is appearance of evil, and scandal by reason of disobedience, in that, the act is done contrary to the declaration 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 wills of the said Popes is to us in this matter as yet unknown: and the species or show of evil 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 always been held, as declaring that which hath been best for the soul, and dehorting from going to Church, and that so by reason and virtue hereof, there results a certain show of evil, in doing the same, which maketh it appear to most men unlawful, and consequently scandalous. I rejoice as before, that the instruction and admonition of the indifferency and necessity of the act, ought to take away all scandal howsoever apprehended: and that such as apprehend it unlawful, and will not be satisfied, cannot do it. And lastly such as will not be satisfied, but scandalized, are not to be regarded, as I have said before.

Add out of Navar Man. c. 23. n. 38. That it is not a sin in a man, not to obey his superior, when he hath probable reasons to think, that his superior was deceived in so commanding, or that he would not have given such a command, if he had known the truth. And if any show of evil result, or scandal arise in that he is not obeyed, the necessity of doing the contrary act, being in danger of death, must excuse and take away all scandal, for in such a case no human laws bind as I shall hereafter say. I answer to this Objection secondly, that there is a disparity between the said meats, and going to Church, in that the said meats were not to be eaten of necessity: that is, there was neither hazard of life or goods in abstaining; or more gain then prejudice of souls in eating. And therefore it was more requisite, that the wise should abstain in a matter of so little moment or necessity where there was scandal, then that the weak should have been instructed and admonished, that it might have been done without sin, 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, loss of souls: and therefore of necessity, the weak are to be admonished and instructed, that there is no sin in the act: neither is going to Church prejudicial, but advantageous to souls, as experience teacheth.

Add that if there were any human law or Ecclesiastical law forbidding going to Church, it were not to be fulfilled with hazard of life or goods (as all Casuists hold) See Azorius & Navarre. consil. de haeret. above cited : if otherwise it doth not appear forbidden by the law of God. For all human laws 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 soul or body may probably follow; there that law is for the time to be suspended: as appears in the law forbidding to eat flesh in the Lent, saying the divine office, with danger of being apprehended and the like: where the weak ones are rather to be instructed of the necessity of suspending the law, then the body to perish by keeping the same: the same say in our case. And I do with reason persuade myself, considering the Apostles whole discourse in the aforesaid 8. Chapter to the Corinthians, that notwithstanding his words, verse the 13. if there had been no other food to have been gotten for him, to have preserved him from famine, then the said flesh so offered to Idols, that he would rather have persuaded the weak ones, that there had been no sin 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 weak 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 Reims, William Allen (afterwards Cardinal) 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 unlawful for any Catholic to go to the Protestant Church. Ergo, It is unlawful and scandalous to go to the same. To the antecedent I answer, that the said Doctors were reverend and learned men, and their work renowned: but because they would have the same go forth with more l • stre, as pleasing the Pope; and to avoid all opposition of the aforesaid suggestors, they forsook the common opinion of Divines in two points then agitated: the one, that the Pope could not depose Kings of their temporal dominions. And the other, that Catholics might frequent the Churches of Schismatics. Which they might well do 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 appear 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 points have had great authority; and the conclusion have stood good. Whereas now one of the said four, to wit: Gregory Martin having delivered his opinion that it was lawful for a Catholic to go to Church, as appears by the said book of R. P. pag. 109. and 110. it seemeth they did not speak in that point their minds freely: peradventure because it was not expedient for all sorts of people: which I confess to be the best reason. Yet for God's sake let us speak the truth in these troublesome times to men (at leastwise) of reason and understanding. Again the very reasons they give in their annotations upon the fifth Chapter and 19. verse of the 4. book of Kings do show, that they did intend but seeming reason, and not wholly convincing; for whereas for our opinion is, and always hath been usually brought the example of Naaman the Syrian, permitted (as I have said before) by the Prophet Elisha, to go 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 Christ's Gospel (say they) we are more strictly commanded to profess our faith, then in Naaman's time. Which reason I conceive under favor to be impertinent as well to Naaman's case as to ours: for the doing of an act indifferent, may neither be a profession or a denial of faith, but a mean between both, viz. a not discovery of the same. Neither was it more lawful in Naaman's time to deny God, then now.

2. The second Reason is, because of the place: For that the Noblemans religion was not practiced in the Country where he went to the temple: and so there could no scandal arise thereby. This reason is in my judgment besides the purpose: for no more is Catholic religion practiced in this Country where we go to Church. Again, it proves not Naaman's case hereby more lawful, then the going to Church; for there may be scandal, where a thing of its own nature may be lawfully done: as there might have been scandal in our Savior's poverty, Matth. 17. if he had not prevented it. And there may be no scandal, and yet the act unlawful. Therefore if it were lawful abstracting from scandal, that being in our case easily avoided, or taken away, the thing may still remain lawful. For if he that goeth to Church be a known Catholic, the weak are to be admonished of the indifferency of the thing, and the urgent necessity he hath, to do it; and so scandal is avoided. If he be not known; how can he give more scandal, 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 go, lest otherwise the King should have thought himself disdained. This reason seems to me very strange: that a man may go to Church to serve his King, and may not go to Church to serve himself (when as charity always beginneth at home: and if a man be naught in or to himself, to whom can he be good?) or that fear of displeasure through apprehended disdain, can excuse a man from doing that which were otherwise unlawful; as though a man were not bound, rather to suffer the displeasure of his King, with loss of his life, then suffer wrack of his own conscience: and if fear of displeasure did excuse Naaman, why should not the danger of death, loss of fortunes, ruin of posterity, and the like, excuse Catholics?

4. The fourth reason, and most especial difference is (say they) that Naaman made a promise before the Prophet and his own train, that he would from thence forth serve only the true God: and to that purpose carried earth with him to make an Altar for sacrifice. Whereas those that go to the Protestant Church, do not renounce all heresies, nor profess to frequent Mass, &c. But (pray give me leave to say) they do; and that herein, there is no difference at all. For Catholics that go to Church are known to their Confessaries, and their mind and intention is likewise to him known, as Naaman's was to the Prophet. And if they be known Catholics, their belief is likewise known, at leastwise to their train, if not to others, by their communion with the See of Rome; so that herein there is no disparity at all. And if they be not known; it is prudence to keep 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 belief for the doing of a thing indifferent?

So that (as I have said) for the said four reasons, and likewise because there is Idolatry committed at Protestant Churches, (which I never yet could find, as often as I have frequented the same, and do hope to prove the contrary) the aforesaid Doctors make it unlawful and scandalous to go to Church; and our case different from Naaman's. Hence they 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 means was lawful to do, or to make show of doing the same: And a man may swear it true. For Swines flesh being forbidden by the law, they were bound under sin, to abstain from the same. And if they should have made their brethren believe in words, that they had eaten, they would have told an untruth, with dissimulation in a matter forbidden by the law, both which were mortal sins: which is as far different from our case, as light from darkness. For we contend that to go 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 sins are committed: so that for the reasons which I have given, I conceive that the authority of the said rewoned Doctors concludeth nothing against our assertion; unless the Protestants were an assembly of fallen heretics, where there were danger of sin 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 sign of heretical falsehood, and a man so doing is reputed as fallen, both of Catholics and Protestants. I answer, that it is false; and experience teacheth us the contrary. For who made it such a sign? and Schismatics that go to Church with an ill conscience, only to save their goods, notwithstanding in this, they are accounted to hurt only themselves, yet of all Catholics they are trusted and esteemed as honest men, and of Protestants they are esteemed no other. And they sin not (as I have said) in going to Church, but in going with an ill conscience, and being barred of simple Priests from other means of salvation, and in doing so, give scandal. But you will say: they deny their faith in this act. I deny that. They deny only recusancie with an ill conscience, and not religion. Yet I grant that such Schismatics profess 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 believe, that there is sin and scandal 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 Catholics revealing the same.

It may be objected fifthly. To communicate with heretics is sin, and scandal: but to go to Church, is to communicate with heretics. Ergo. It is sin and scandal. To which I answer, first distinguishing the Major: to communicate with heretics publicly, and particularly denounced to be such, or in their heresy. I grant the Major, but deny the Minor in the same sense; but to communicate with heretics not denounced such, not in point of heresy, to be sin: that is most false: for then we should neither eat, drink, buy or sell, with Protestants which is most absurd. Which absurdity to take away, and all scruple rising from thence by communicating with heretics as well in service as otherways, was the before mentioned constitution of Martin the fifth, prudently made.

Add 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 everyone must be bound to get himself convicted for a Popish Recusant, that so Protestants may know him to be a Catholic and no Brownist; and so to avoid water he must run into the fire. If you answer, that so he goeth not to Church it maketh no matter what Protestants think of him, for Catholics know what he is. I reply then by the same reason, that if he go to Church, it maketh no matter what Protestants think of him, for Catholics may likewise know what he is.

I answer secondly, that the Major supposeth what is not granted. viz. That Protestants with whom I go to Church are formal heretics: which I desire to be first proved. For an heretic is he that obstinately denieth any article of faith proposed by the Catholic Church to be believed. How can a Protestant be said obstinately (which includes a known infallibility rejected) to deny an article proposed by the Catholic Church (as I have said before) when he believes none other Church, but his own? For although Protestants hold divers tenets contrary to the Catholic Church ; which have been justly condemned in their Authors as heretics. 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 heresy, that is, a proposition condemned by the Church, without an heretical consent, is no heretic: neither in curreth excommunication denounced against heretics; so that although they be incredulous , and believe not the truth ; yet they are not properly, and in rigor formal heritiques.

Add that there is no more sin, to go to the Protestant Church, then to go to them to dinner, or to go with them to a play, or other sports. And I for my part had rather give twelve pence to hear a Sermon, then take five shillings to see a play. For there is no such sport as to hear a weak fellow speak fustian with gravity, or tell a fable of the whore of Babylon, or Babylonians (for so now they term Catholics) with erected eyes in earnest. Or why should it be more lawful to see a play where most commonly intercedes scurrility and obscene gestures, and the end of which, is nothing, but vanity: then to hear 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 morality, which is the end and intention of the same? I pray resolve me!

§ 2. It is not unlawful to go to Church, because Recusancy is a distinctive sign. Which is the second branch of the Minor.

THat Recusancy is a distinctive sign of a Catholic from a Protestant is most false. Which is thus proved. If Recusancy be a distinctive sign, it is a sign natural or by institution; but neither can be said. Ergo, it is no sign. The Minor is proved. Not natural, for as Hurtado above cited well observeth. Actions and things are not of their own nature significant: but have natural and political uses independent of any signification. For a bush hung out at a Tavern door doth naturally signify no more wine to be sold, then any other creature whatsoever. Nor doth the habit of a Bishop naturally signify a Bishop more then a Judge: and so of other things. No more do naturally the actions of men.

But admit that Recusancy were improperly said a natural sign, yet it would naturally signify no more a Catholic then a Brownist (for he refuseth likewise to go to Church) or any other Sectary. Although a posteriori it might be thought by discourse to signify someone displeased with the Protestant Church, but why, or wherefore, it would never signify.

Not by institution: for if so, who instituted the same? God, or man? Not man; for it is out of his power, to sign the people of God, from not his people. It is only the owner of the flock, that must sign the sheep, and none other; unless, it be by special order from him. Hence when God would sign his people in the Old Testament, from the people of other Nations; he himself instituted Circumcision, Gen 17. as a distinctive sign between them and others: that whosoever had that sign, 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 sign, by which he might be known from others: because he was not thought sufficiently marked, nor accounted any one of God's people, by any other sign then Circumcision. Which was the sole mark of God, saying: All the male kind of you shall be Circumcised. And this is consonant to reason. For one man may get a distinctive sign of another man's institution; shall God therefore own him? Brownists (as I have said) have Recusancy, doth it therefore follow, that they are likewise Catholics? If a sheep in my neighbors flock should tear an ear in a bramble, or bush, or accidentally break an horn; this sheep is hereby distinct from the rest; yet the owner, doth not own it by that mark: but by a mark 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 proof. For where may we find his institution? Unless we should run to the all-knowing spirit of heretics. Hence it follows that Recusancy is no distinctive sign.

If you ask me, what is then the sign to know a Catholic from any other Sectary? I answer. His belief of the Creed of the Catholic Church, and his l • fe at all times in communion with the See Apostolic. 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 sign of a false religion, that properly is such, is a denial of faith, and evil in it self. But the Service said in a Protestant Church is such. Ergo. I grant the Major. For if the sign 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 sign be garments or the like, used to the worship and ceremonies of a false law, which some fondly call a proper sign, then the Major, meaning the use of such a sign to be a denial of faith is false according to Diana resol. 34. pag. 191. above cited, Azorius, Sanches, and many others there. Because such signs being natural things, may be lawfully used (as I have said before) independent of any such signification; and so not properly signs (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 sign? not God, as all Catholics will confess; but rather the contrary, it being Catholic. Not themselves; for it would savor too much weakness, to think that they would institute to themselves, a sign of a false religion. And if it be taken for a sign 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 Catholic. For Catholics say the same service. Catholics preach morality, and each may if he please, receive bread and wine once in a day, in a week, or a month, in remembrance 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 that Christ died for him; and this shall be better done, then to eat 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 necessity) the old custom in the Apostles time, as appears by the Corinthian Christians in Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 11. who did eat and drink in the Church, besides what they received of Christ's institution as his true and real body and blood. For after the Sacrifice and Eucharist was ended, there were kept Church feasts for the relief of the poor, upon the common charges and charity of the rich. By which the charity and unity of all sorts were much preserved: for which cause the said feasts were called Charities of the ancient Fathers; and of Saint Paul, verse. 20. they were called Coenae dominicae, our Lord's Suppers: because they were made in the Churches, which then were called Dominicae, that is, our Lord's houses: in which feasts, because there happened, some foul abuses (which the Apostle rebuking, verse. 22. Why have ye not houses to eat and drink in? or contemn 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 ^• . Just. S ^• . August contra Faustum, lib. 20. cap. 20. S ^t . Chrysost. hom. 27. in 1 Cor. & S ^t . Ambrose upon this same place: by which it appears no new thing for Catholics to take something with a good intention, besides, what was instituted by Christ.

Here some may ask, whether it belongs to me out of my authority to institute or renew this pious ceremony in taking bread and wine in remembrance of the death of Christ, generally for the prudent Catholics of England? I answer no. God forbid that I should presume to institute or renew any ceremony in the Catholic Church: but I do only in compassion of their miseries, present to their necessity (if any be in danger of death, loss of fortunes, or ruin of posterity, and cannot expect leave from the supreme Pastor of our souls) the doctrine of Claudius Carinnus de vi & pot. leg. human. c. 10: that even in laws, every particular man hath power to interpret the same to his advantage, and to dispense with himself therein, if there occur a sudden case of necessity, and there be no open way and recourse to the Superior, much more then, said I, in a pious ceremony 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 necessity, 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 natural necessity, and there uttering some of the said prayers, the Devil 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 lawful 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 Tavern from a Vintners boy: the godly only know the difference.

If you reply again, that so we may offer Incense to an Idol in a temple (because we may burn 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 show there tends to the honor and worship of the Devil. For the place being dedicated to him, whatsoever is therein done as an usual ceremony is taken (whatsoever the intention be) as done to his honor. Which act as it is unlawful in it self to be done, because pretended Idolatry, wherein God's worship is given to the Devil, at least in outward show: so it is unlawful to fain in words the act to be done, becau • e it is dissembling (the object it self being likewise forbidden by the law of God) both which are great sins, and apt to cause great scandal: which I shall make appear, not to be in our case, where I co • tend, there is no sin 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 ways in Religion contrary to the Scripture) for thereby I seem to be otherwise then I am: the reply is false, for I profess but one religion which is Catholic, and at Church I do but observe the picture of true religion ill formed, which is but a human act not hurtful, but by a pious intention may be made good, by which all hypocrisy and dissimulation may be avoided. And if I seem to Protestants to be a Protestant; what am I the worse for that? I never yet could find 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, unless they will on purpose make an Act of Parliament to cut off my head, which shall be no president for any other Judges or Justices: and then I must set up my rest with a Noble man, saying, Contra potentiam non est resistentia. There is no resistance against power. But continuing always loyal both to my King and Country, and obedient to God and his Church, and in so doing, giving both God and Caesar their due, and that without either sin or dissembling. I had rather they censure me unjustly (yet according to the laws established, for I always stand pro Rege & Lege ) and so miss their aim 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 believe the 39. Articles of the Church of England, which is the definition of a Protestant. Which Articles or any other tenets of theirs I meddle not with: for if I must do all things contrary to Protestants, lest I should be thought so▪ when they eat, 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 knowing what a Protestant, or Catholic indeed is (if Catholics went to Church, they would not know how to distinguish, or persecute them; it being lawful among them, for everyone to believe what he pleaseth ) may easily think amiss of me. And for me to take benefit of their ignorance, and to hide myself in persecution, until either the glory of God, or good of my neighbor shall urge me to discover myself: I cannot yet find myself 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. years of Edward the sixth; and 1. and 23. of Q • eene Elizabeth in hatred of God and his Church, as that the Mass should be abrogated, and all the Kings subjects should come to Church to hear such Service as was then o • dained, to distinguish between Catholics and Protestants; and that whosoever should say, or hear Mass afterwards, should incur certain penalties, as by the said Statutes appears. But no man could obey these commands without sin. 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 Catholics as Protestants know: that all human laws bind in conscience no • urther, then they are consonant and conformable to the divine law. And as far as they command lawful unity and uniformity to the good of the common wealth (which is the chief thing that States men aim at, men's 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 Mass ( which by the law of God was unlawful ) they did consequenter to the State government then; for having rejected the authority • f the Pope, they likewise rejected the Mass; as knowing that there could be no Mass without Priests, nor Priests without the Pope. And therefore taking as much of the Mass, 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 himself 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 known, or scarce established. And therefore without wholly granting the Major, or distinguishing the Minor. I answer, that everyone ought under pain of damnation to obey his temporal Prince in matters lawful. Yet to suffer for his religion, and (abstracting from all obedience either to Statute or Resc • ipt) not for Recusancy.

It may be objected thirdly, that of S. Paul to the Romans 10.10. With the heart we believe unto justice: but w • th the mouth confession is made to salvation. Ergo, No man can go to Church. I deny the sequel, and to the Antecedent I answer, that according to Divines; a man is bound to confess his religion Semper, sed non ad semper : always, but not at all ways: 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 honor and glory of God requires the same, or the spiritual profit of our neighbor 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 go into the Market place and cry out; I am a Catholic, who will punish me? or before I am called to publish my religion, to make myself be called; or to live and converse to the same time, as having a settled being, and not going to Church. I read that Saint Felix going to martyrdom, S. Adauc • us, came to the Officers that led him thither, and said to them, that he lived in the same law with Saint Felix, and therefore that they should likewise put him to death. Yet I conceive that he had a special revelation for the same; and that it is no warrant for our indiscretion.

If it be replied, that so a man shall profess no religion. I answer the inference to be naught▪ for suppose a man's recusancie were never discovered, this man professeth some religion; for he doth not live a heathen. Why then recusancie being rejected, should he not profess 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 keep or use that Masters picture, howsoever ill it be drawn.

It may be objected fourthly, that the Rescript of Pope Paul the fifth, in which he writes to the Catholics of England, declareth, that they ought not to go to the Churches of Heretics, or hear their Sermons without detriment of the divine worship, and their own 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 believe he would have written as piously the contrary. For put the case, that those zealous suggestors had presented to the consideration of the Council of Trent, or the Pope himself the truth and lawfulness of Catholics going to Church, with these seven reasons following: supposing an absolute necessity.

1. First that there is no evil or harm done or said in the Protestant Churches to the prejudice of any Catholic soul, that may not either be hindered, or prevented very well, by the instruction of Priests; for they preach not against any notable point of doctrine held in the Catholic Church (although some simple Minister for want of matter may glance at some of our tenets by halfs understood: or in these days to please his auditory may rail against the Pope, which he doth so irrationally, that few Protestants of any judgment do believe 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 only teacheth morality: which why a man may not hear 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 ruin to the family and posterity.

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

4. Fourthly, that it would be a means, that whereas Priests leave their Colleges, and now live in private men's houses, to the benefit of one or two, and to the great danger of themselves and their Patrons; they might by this means more freely converse with all sorts of people after an Apostolical manner, and convert many to the honor of God, the increase of his Church, and good of their own souls. Whereas now they do little good out of that private house, unless maintain some decayed gentlewomen in good clothes to gossip up and down; and like bells to ring their praises, that they may fish one in a year to the disparagement of their function, and great prejudice of their Mission.

5. Fifthly, that divers Schismatics that now go to Church with an ill conscience, and think themselves in state of damnation, do suffer spiritual detriment, and oftentimes being prevented with sudden death everlastingly perish.

6. Sixthly, many thousands that are very moral and well affected Protestants, were it not for the stop of Recusancy would become Catholics. Which, rather then they will undo themselves and Family, now will not hear of it.

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

Again, if the aforesaid suggestions had presented to their consideration, the means and ways of Conversions of kingdoms in general, as that they ought to be done either by miracles, war, or policy. 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 war they could not be done, without a great deal of blood-shed, which ought to be avoided; and most commonly with a great deal of rebellion and treachery, which were utterly unlawful. And that they were fezible in policy, 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 charity, and less displeasing or odious to our State of England, then to suggest that they are Idolatrous heretics, blasphemers of God and his Church, professors (as indeed they are not because they know the true and sincere profess it) of a false religion, subverters of souls (but poor ones God wote), abominable scandalous people, &c. and that it was a scandal for good people to converse with them in things indifferent, and therefore desire that it might be declared unlawful, & commanded that no Catholic might converse w ^th them, as in Christian liberty otherwise he might lawfully do? thereby to introduce for their own ends, our now goodly distinctive sign of recusancie? I appeal to any wise man's judgment. And whether the aforesaid rescript and other briefs were not gotten by mere suggestion (the case being truly set down by me as it is) I appeal likewise to the Pope himself: who, to mine own knowledge hath been likewise lately notably abused in the like manner. Ann. 1639. one Francis Damport, alias a Sancta Clara. being at London, and having written a book (called 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 Holiness and the said Day ; that he publicly • 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 endeavoring revenge against the said Day, substituted a most ignorant and lewd man one George Perrott (his ordinary Broker in seditious matters) to go with the s • id a Sancta Clara his instructions to Signior Gregory Pauzana then the Popes Agent in London; accusing the said Day with much zealous hypocrisy, that he had put forth certain pictures to the hurt of God's Church, and infinite scandal of Protestants. After went a Sancta Clara cum tanta gravitate, seconding with an abominable deal of zeal and authority (having then got himself to be Provincial) the complaint of the said Perrot. Hereupon the said Signior with the said a Sancta Clara's sollicitor, Luke Wadding an Irishman in Rome complains to the Pope: and obtains upon the former men's suggestions, a terrible Bull against the said Day being never cited to answer, admonished, or knowing anything thereof. The Bull being come to the said a Sancta Clara his lodging in Fleetstreet and safe in his deske, he did me the honor to show 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 business to be false; and therefore that both the said Day, the Popes Agent, and the Pope himself 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 practice among Heathens. As for the setting forth of the said pictures, the matter in them contained, as being from my purpose, I omit, Yet thus much will I speak that it was a thing approved of, through the whole Catholic Church: the said pictures themselves liked, yea desired of the said Day his superiors: who to this day do 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 years before, to mine own knowledge. A book at the same time (of a Sancta Clara his complaint) printed at Douay in defense of the same, never proved by oath that any of the said pictures ever came to the hands of any one Protestant. Neither do I think that any one Protestant (unless it might be such, as a Sancta Clara had suborned for his own revenge to speak against the same) ever saw any of them: and therefore there could be no indiscretion or scandal by them proved. Nay, the said pictures being made for some particular friends devotion, not so much as one Catholic to an hundred had or knew of them: but contrariwise some that had them from the said Perrott, were scandalized through weakness 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 self was false. Yet notwithstanding all this, the malicious suggestions of the said a Sancta Clara against this man's doings, did so far prevail, that Days innocence was thought worthy to be condemned by the said Bull for doing a pious and a religious act. This indeed I must 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 fear that those who otherwise honor 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 far fouler nature, which made it high time for him to run. Let any man now judge, whether the Popes Holiness doth not suffer much by hypocritical suggestions: whether he that so notoriously abused him in words, did not likewise do it in deeds. For about the same time, when the said Bull came over, his said book likewise came out of the Inquisition: at which news the said a Sancta Clara again grudging that his said book should be so questioned, and yet pass (although by her Majesty's Servants means, if a Sancta Clara himself may be believed) 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 sign of contempt with his hand) they are slight and weak fellows. Here is a fellow to get Bulls! here is one that got himself made the Popes Protonotary, and bound himself by oath, to reveal whatsoever 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 seem, that he did except himself in his oath, that he might evilly entreat him at his pleasure. That this is true, it will be deposed upon oath by divers witnesses, whensoever his Holiness will be pleased to exact the same. And further the said a Sancta Clara added, that he was writing a book (conceiving as it should seem, the whole Church to be weak, and to want his help) wherein he would show, what Rules general Councils ought to observe in declaring matters of faith; which rules (as he said) not observed, the Council should not be held lawful. 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 heretical humor. And thus leaving the said a Sancta Clara to him that will have him: my intent here is, only to show 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 doors, and continually at his, or their favorites sides, might not also get their rescripts, Bulls and Declarations by the like fraud, for their own ends, although questionless with the like pretended zeal and piety I leave to every man's conscience to judge. For as in Catholic Countries where Bulls and Breves are directed to Bishops of Dioceses there can be no thought of any sinister proceedings: so out of such countries where particular men or Corporations busy themselves in procuring such Bulls, &c. there is never want of suspicion and most commonly of abusive dealing. And it stands with reason: because particular men would never sue for general Briefs concerning a whole State, or trouble themselves more then others, if it were not for their own ends, and did not concern themselves above the rest. And therefore the ancient Piety and Apostolical Clemency of Popes in such Cases hath been, patiently to hear wherein they have been misinformed and abused; for it is not their intention at any time to grant anything either upon a veiled 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 kind of letters (that is, such as proceed upon information, as our Case is) this Condition (If the request be 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 mind, you must not be troubled; but diligently considering the quality of the business, whereof we write, either reverently fulfill our command, or pretend by your letters a reasonable cause why you cannot: for we will endure patiently, if you forbear to perform that, which was suggested to us, by evil information: by which appears the worthy integrity of the See Apostolic, howsoever it be by the unworthiness of flattering hypocrites oftentimes abused.

§. 3. That it is not unlawful to go to Church for fear 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 savor of a broken fancy. For the Minister intends no more, then to exhort his Auditors to a good life, and to instruct them in morality. For as I have said, if he should preach controversies, he must know some Catholics to be there; or otherwise he would but ingender doubts among Protestants, and doubts science: and by that means would more trouble and disturb the minds of the people, then profit them; which out of prudency, he forbears: and so contents himself now and then, with an untruth, and away. And in Catholic countries I myself have heard Priests rebuked for preaching of controversies to a Catholic auditory, as being a means rather to disturb them, then profit them, as troubling themselves with doubts of things either above their reach and capacity; or whereof otherwise they are infallibly certain: so that generally controversies are never preached, unless it be to bring people from their doubts, to a better and greater certainty then they were in before; which hath only 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 & oftener happeneth 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 happeneth not in the Protestant Church: as is apparent by Schismatics of all sorts; who many years frequent the Protestant Church, and yet retain their opinion of the Catholic religion without subversion, and become Catholics at last.

Add that going to Church will rather confirm Catholics in their religion, then subvert them from the same: for then they will have upon their own knowledge, what now they take upon trust: for if what is done in Protestants Churches, be opposite to what is done in Catholic Churches (as the contrary opinion useth to say, comparing them to light and darkness, which are privative opposites according to Dialecticks; although the comparison be false) I say, opposita per se posita magis elucescunt: opposites being set together do more clearly show 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 clearly appear; 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 confirm himself the • ein. This appears true to every mean capacity: What danger then can there be in going to Church? shall we be afraid to let a Greyhound go into the field, for fear he should be taken by an Hare?

Thirdly, those that go to Church, either they were borne Catholics, or converted Protestants; if the latter: then that which moved them to become Catholics, cannot move them to be Protestants again. If the first, it were a wonderful thing, that hearing a little morality, should make them fall from the doctrine they were brought up in all their life: or hearing a small piece of controversy mentioned (if it should so happen) by a Minister, they should be presently carried away from the doctrine they have so long known, and never once tell it to the priests, they daily converse with: especially when they go not out of any dislike of their religion, but with a clear conscience for some other ends. I conceive it would rather confirm them, in hearing that spoken, which in their own conscience they know to be untrue, that it will be so far from troubling or striking their consciences, that they will come home rejoicing at the truth, which they heard that day impugned: as that they heard the Minister speak of such, or such a point: as that Catholics adored p • ctures, or the like; which they knew in their own con • sciences to be false, and thereby stir up an earnestness in them in religion, as zealing their own being opposed by falsehood: and this may ingender such passion or distraction in the hearer, that it may be thought zeal of religion or heat of devotion. Which heat, if after this fight of contrarieties or opposition, should not be allayed (the parties being as it were swallowed up, with zeal of the house of our Lord) and the dislike of the Sermon as fraught with untruths, seem too troublesome: they may depart the Church, for there be many cases of necessity, 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 less to be done, and it shall never trouble me) Sermon, or both: for as there are many ways to the wood, so there are many ways to the Protestant Church. And I have always observed, that most commonly Catholics converted from Protestancy, have been more firm and solid in religion, as knowing both, then those that never knew but one. And if Schismatics (of whom I have before spoken) from the wisest to the meanest of capacity, that notwithstanding they go to Church, and are void of grace, are never so much as shaken from their intention of being Catholics, or their opinion of Catholic religion; why should those that abound so much with God's grace and professed Catholics, be said to be in danger, or feared to swerve from a religion they so well know?

As for blasphemy there is likewise none. If you reply (as the contrary opinion useth to do 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 God's revelation, and deny his revelations to Orthodox articles of faith, in which consists blasphemy, and without this blasphemy they cannot preach: and therefore no Catholic can go to Church. I answer the antecedent to be false; and this blasphemy to be much like the Rhemists Idolatry, as preferring and embracing their own opinions before God: and so honoring a creature and rejecting their Creator: but in truth and charity, we ought not to make them worse then they are: for blasphemy and Idolatry being sins, there must be some formal intention in the sinner to deny God his due in what he doth. And so likewise there must be an intention of committing Idolatry; that is, of preferring and embracing that which is a morally known creature before the Creator; and so to give the creature what is due to the Creator: or otherwise there can be neither blasphemy nor Idolatry. As no man will say, that I eating flesh on a fasting day unknown or forgotten, commit Idolatry in preferring my belly before the law of God's Church, and consequently God, because I had no intention thereto: so no man can say that in the Protestant Church there is formal Idolatry or blasphemy, because they mistake. For Diana saith, 5 ^a . parte tract. de par. mamae. resol. pag. 138. that blasphemy is a sin, in that contumelious words are spoken against God with a mind or intention to dishonor God, either directly, or indirectly, virtually, or interpretative. Now in the Protestant Churches what contumelious words are spoken against God with a mind, &c? If you say as before, that they ascribe their heresies to God's revelation, and deny his revelation to Orthodox Articles. I answer, th • t their minds and intentions are not so much as interpretative to dishonor God thereby; or indeed so to ascribe their heresies. For if they knew their opinions to be heresies, and the tenets they reject to be Orthodox Articles, as we do by the light of faith; it would evidently follow, that they spake sometimes contumeliously against God, which they do not know, but simply interpret Scripture according to their own fancies, and therein they err and mistake. And because they do not endeavor the means to search and know the truth, by the definitions of Councils, and Doctrine of Catholic Fathers, they sin: yet do not commit Idolatry: for it is not their intention, to make an Idol of their opinion, unless you take Idolatry so largely, as every sinner may be said to be an Idolater: because in every sin 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 unlawful to converse with these Idolaters, or the like blasphemers; that is, such as sin by word or deed; we must converse only in spatio imaginario, or as Saint Paul saith, 1 Cor. 5. verse. 10. We must go out of this world.

There were divers very learned and holy Fathers, as Saint Cyprian in the question of Baptism administered by heretics, S ^t . Anselm and others, who did mistake and err, before they knew the sense and definition of the Church: whom therefore to call blasphemers or Idolaters were blasphemy indeed. So likewise there are divers points this day controverted among Catholic Divines, as the immaculate conception of our blessed Lady and the like; the Authors 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 known, for the time they held their opinions before. So it is with Protestants, for although the Orthodox Articles are known to us by the Church; yet to them they are unknown; and to most of them so unknown, as if they had not been revealed at all; because they know none other Church but their own. And therefore what they believe, they have by error and mistake, and not as blasphemy. Whence in my opinion it were more proper and Apostolical for such men, as call them blasphemers and Idolaters, to use some prudent and fair way, to propose to the aforesaid Protestants, the true Church, and the authority of the same, without all suspicion of partiality, and then they should see, whether having this mean of belief in a balanced judgment, they would attribute their heresies to God's revelation, and deny his revelation to Orthodox Articles, or no.

To the authority of S ^t . Thomas. I answer, that he meaneth such as attribute heresies quatenus tales to God's revelation: and deny his revelation to Orthodox Articles quâ tales: as Arch-heretics 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 infirmity, 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 Catholics in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Rain went to Church, and so did likewise the Catholics in Scotland: and they were all, in 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 Recusancy was working, there was a command got, upon the former suggestions, that no Catholics should go to the Protestant Church. So by barring them of their Christian liberty by degrees to bring in Recusancy, as a pretended sign, between a good Christian and a bad. Which some few Catholics then believing themselves bound to obey (as indeed they were not, but might as well withal reverence and obedience have beseeched the Pope to have recalled his command) refused the Church. Others (and those the most part of the kingdom, as appears 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 go 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 spiritual comfort, or instructions in what sense, they might truly and lawfully do what they did, to avoid the said penalties of the Law, and likewise thinking that those Priests thought them to do ill▪ in what themselves found no hurt, they died as they lived. But whether in Protestant tenets or Catholic: or whether they would not have died Catholics if they had had help, especially such as lived before in Queen Mary's time, I present to any wise and pious man's judgment truly considering the state of those times. And afterwards their children being still neglected upon this point of Recusancy, and living in ignorance, engendered 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 zeal in Priests the chiefest heads of whom (aiming as is evident at a temporal end) neglecting and rejecting such as would not obey their unreasonable command: and in the same manner it happeneth with Catholics that now go to Church in these dangerous times. Who going to Church only to save themselves from ruin, 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 fain themselves Protestants, rather then they will be thought to live against their conscience. Whence I may truly say (and prove by the Author last before cited, who confesseth that in the thirteenth year of Queen Elizabeth's reign the third part of this Kingdom at least was Catholic) that since the fall of Religion in England, by this only Cheate of recusancie, ten souls have been 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 Recusancy which was never generally admitted (because not covertly procured) by the Clergy of that Kingdom: but want of Priests to administer the Sacraments, and give them other spiritual comfort; who seeing the soil not so fertile as ours, and the laws more severe; those few that were, rather chose to converse on the Northern borders of England, then in their own Country. And Catholics there, seeing themselves destitute of all spiritual comfort, went to Church to save their inferior portion from ruin; who if they had had but plenty, or sufficiency of priests to have instructed them, I doubt not, but they would have still remained Catholics. And it had been far more easy, so to have conserved them, then fallen now to convert them. And thus came the bane of Catholic religion into both Kingdoms; which are like so to continue remediless, unless they be assisted by God's infinite and miraculous power.

It may be objected secondly; that divers Popes, as Paul the fourth, Pius the fifth, both the last Gregory's, Sixtus, Clement, and Paul the fifth, granted to priests their faculties with an intention, that they should administer the Sacraments to only 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, thinking them to proceed from zeal, and not from hypocrisy: who likewise thought their pretenses holy: and what a Christian like thing it was, to suffer persecution for God's 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 heretics, subversive of souls, and many other the like exaggerating speeches; upon which any Pope living (unless he had foreknown their drift) would have done the like. Whereas certainly had they but made known, the true State of England in those days, 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 posterity by this device of Recusancy to all misery and slavery. Neither hath his Holiness 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 Kingdoms) will be advised hence forward, how he granteth anymore Rescripts, or limiteth any faculties upon their importune suggestions. As for our Martyrs of England. I hope them truly Martyrs, because they died not so much for recusancie, as for Religion and a good conscience (although that might be a means to bring them to their death, sooner then otherwise). Yet I dare not call all of them Saints, until the holy Church doth bid me, as having approved of their miracles: but most of them I think truly to be blessed men, and of great charity. For as our Savior saith, John. 15. v. 13. Majorem charitatem nemo habet, quam ut animam suam ponat quis pro amico suo. No man hath greater love, then who layeth down his life for his friend. Yet I hope likewise others some, who yet live, to be as blessed, and their charity 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 thin skin, and a vein transparent with less art struck, doth presently bleed in abundance: yet no man may hence infer, that a man of a thicker skin, and a more obscure vein not lightly struck, hath no blood in his body to shed; so it is in the present, between him that suffers for Religion being discovered by Recusancy, 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 do so much strengthen and confirm me, knowing them to be false, that I am morally certain: that the said twelve Fathers in the Council of Trent, selected by the said suggestors for recusancie were abused; as well as the aforesaid Popes. And therefore as they are said to have granted to some limited faculties, merely upon the said false suggestions (which how far they did bind, the suggestors at their pleasure, to great persons according to their custom, could very well tell) they might as well have granted the same, without any such limitation, if it had pleased them: and I am persuaded 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 Apostolical mission, that men should be sent out of Colleges into Protestant countries to private men's houses, to play bo-peep: as fearing to be seen conversing with Protestants, and Protestants not caring to come to them, for any matter of religion. I wonder by this kind of conversation, what kind of conversion could ensue? whereas Saint Paul said to them that were about him, Act. 20. verse. 20. You know how I have withdrawn nothing that was profitable, but that I preached it to you, and taught you openly, and from house to house. Neither do I believe that any man can prove any notable increase of Catholic religion in England, either in great families or in small, from the time of this recusancie brought in, unto this present: only this I see, a great impoverishment of the Catholics here, and half a dozen fair high Colleges built beyond the seas, besides what common purse I know not: and this I conceive to be all the effect of recusancie; for persecution (as I have said) begets prayers to God, and almsdeeds to his supposed servants, which produce great Colleges for refuge to themselves.

But some may here again reply; that if recusancie had been rejected, and conformity admitted, yet Protestants would have had some other invention to punish Catholics for their religion. I answer it might be so, if some evil spirits had told them the proceedings of Catholics before hand (as I never yet knew in my life Catholics private to themselves) otherwise why should they have invented more to punish Catholics, then they have hitherto done to punish Schismatics 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 seems, to the said Author of the Answer, &c. cap. 9. pag. 216. as is before said: who delighteth more to have a persecution (although not to fall upon himself or his tribe) then a toleration in religion. Yet in the mean time, we had done the uttermost of human prudence, and then we might have left the rest more safely to God; who ordinarily, what second causes cannot do in working to his will, himself mercifully supplieth▪ and then at leastwise, it would have been more apparent to the whole world, that we had suffered merely for religion, and not for a toy, to wit: Recusancy.

Add that whatsoever had been invented either by oath or abjuration, or what else, it must have been done in justice, and I hope by a competent Judge▪ or otherwise I should have taught out of the common opinion of Catholic Divines, as well Schoolmen as Casuists, that putting off their hats, they might have passed by, in Justice: for as Titelman saith, contra vulpem vulpizare licet. It is lawful for a man to play the fox against a fox.

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 Heretics 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, poor, live poorly, and at last be put to so shameful a death, by the hands of men, his own creatures, that the forcible Arguments of the Jews might have easily perverted them. Again, the Jews were formal blasphemers of God; our Savior telling them himself; that he had done those signs among them, that no other man could do. 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, John. 10. verse. 36. that he was the Son of God, they answered that he blasphemed, to whom he replied, verse. 37. If I do not the works of my Father believe me not. And therefore it was requisite, that those Christians should abstain from their synagogue, least they should have fallen to have been as they were.

The company of heretics, 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 heresy were not so easily to be discerned, as those that profess themselves so wholly different from the Catholic Church, that if they did but know a Papist to be in their Churches, they would go near to pull them down to the ground; and so borne and bred, as they know no other religion, but their own, and there do so rest: teaching their own but to live morally which is both common to Catholic 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, Councils, Fathers, or Canons soever, forbid Communication with heretics: they are to be understood of notorious heretics in point of their heresy, or particularly denounced excommunicated for heresy and fallen in Catholic countries or from amongst Catholics. And not of such as are not formal and subversive heretics, but borne incredulous in a country to be converted, and not knowing the Catholic Church.

After all this, some may yet say, that it hath been a long custom with them to abstain from the Protestant Church above these threescore years: and they have suffered and lost much by refusing the same; and can I have so little judgment, as to think upon mine own bare word or opinion to make them leave this their custom? I answer (how small soever my judgment be) that it is not only my opinion, but the common opinion of Divines in the Catholic 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 lawful, if it were not for scandal. Others, if it were not a distinctive sign: and when I have urged, that scandal may be avoided (as I have before said) and for a distinctive sign, I knew none, for who should institute that sign? then they have answered, that a long custom had brought it in: I have blessed myself to think, that men should so unjustly deal with poor Catholics, as to bring upon them a yoke or fetters; which they can keep upon them by no other law, then that they themselves cunningly got them on, or chained them about threescore years since, and now to kick of these chains, or their devises would prove (forsooth) scandal: because they would seem refractary and disobedient to their suggestive humors: but to give me a reason why going to Church was unlawful before the refusal thereof became this supposed distinctive sign, or before the same could because of scandal I could never yet hear any man give: but only the aforesaid R. P. hath given in writing the aforesaid suggested untruths (with a great deal of passion that this my opinion was thought rational • or almost forty years ago and since recusancy was brought in, (as appears by his said book) of many most prudent men in this kingdom,) which is to me no reason at all. For let us propose to any Divine in Christendom 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 withal adding that we are constrained to them under pain of death, and loss of all temporal fortunes.

1. Whether it be lawful for a Catholic to hear the Prayers, Epistles, Gospels and Psalms of the Catholic Church among Protestants in their Church?

2. Whether it be lawful to hear a Protestant preach in the same place, some morality, although it should by chance happen that some ignorant Minister should speak of some point of mistaken doctrine: as that Catholics trust in their own merits or the like falsehood?

3. Whether it be lawful for a Catholic to receive bare bread and wine in remembrance that Christ died for him, as a pious ceremony? and whether not better, so taken, then without such remembrance?

I dare say that there is no impartial 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 lawful to frequent the Churches of heretics, where there is both imminent danger of subversion and scandal?

2. Whether it be lawful to hear the blasphemous and id • latrous Sermons of heretics, in which both God and his Church is notoriously and highly abused?

3. Whether it be lawful to receive Calvin's Communion of bread and wine, w ^ch they hold a Sacrament, and is a sign of heretical perfidiousness, whereby a man betrayeth and denieth his faith?

To which every Catho • ique whatsoever would and must answer. No, but this in truth is not our case. For the belief of Catholics is not questioned, nor subversion, or blasphemy, or denial 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 Catholics may exteriorly do, for the safeguard of life with a good intention, and how, and in what manner, they may best converse, and preserve themselves from ruin with most security. Therefore I pray forgive the said R. P. who proposed the said questions in Rome out of his abundant zeal (of money, and youth to propagate his family) not once considering that it is an impossible thing for them to be heretics, who never were Catholics. As for their custom of Recusancy. I say, first that it is no custom, for a custom is a continuance of a thing time out of mind 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 myself. Neither hath it been time out of mind, for there are some yet alive borne in Queen Mary's days, who have known when our recusancie was not in England, and thereupon in these troublesome times do now go to Church. I say, secondly, that an inconvenient custom with imprudencie, is better broken, then kept: and the prescrip • ion of threescore years not good. Yet if they will needs claim a right in and to their actions by the same. I do hereby promise, not to take it from them, by any suit in law. For I do write, more to avoid the scandal of the weak: then that I do think thereby to satisfy the weak, or rob them of their said custom. As for their sufferings and losses I am sorry for them, and do assure myself, that they will receive a great reward for the same: because they suffered not so much, for the love of recusancie, as for the love of God: for whosoever doth the meanest work (no indiscretion therein being apprehended by the doer) either for God's sake or for virtue sake, although of some (considering the act it self, and not knowing the doers intention) it may be judged indiscreet: yet the work 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 lawfulness of going to the Protestant Church.

Me thinks here I hear some storm, that if this my opinion should be admitted as lawful: it would follow, that they must likewise take all the oaths that are made against Catholics, which will tend to perjury. To which I answer, that I would have them to do things consequenter, and anything for safeguard of life, wherein their is no sin. And to choose: both the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy; which, if with patience they will but hear, when I have said what they are, I will presently prove, that they may be most lawfully taken.

The Oath of Allegiance divided into eight branches.

1. I A. B. Do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify and declare in my conscience before God and the world, that our Sovereign Lord King Charles is lawful and rightful King of this Realm, and all other his Majesty's Dominions and Countries.

2. And that the Pope neither of himself, nor by any authority of the Church, or See of Rome, or by any other means with any other, hath any power, or authority to depose the King, or to dispose any of his Majesty's Kingdoms, or Dominions, or to authorize any foreign Prince to invade or annoy Him or His Countries, or to discharge any of his Subjects of their Allegiance, or obedience to his Majesty, or to give license, or leave to any of them to bear arms, raise tumults, or to offer any violence, or hurt to his Majesty's Royal Person, State, or Government, or to any of His Majesty's Subjects within His Majesty's Dominions.

3. And I do swear from my heart, that notwithstanding any Declaration, or Sentence of Excommunication, or Deprivation, made or granted by the Pope or his successors, or by any authority derived, or to be derived from him or his See against the said King, his heirs or successors, or any absolution of the said subjects from their obedience. I will bear faith and true Allegeance to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power, against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their persons, their Crown and Dignity, by reason or color of any such sentence or declaration, or otherwise: and will do my best endeavor to disclose, and make known unto His Majesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons, and traiterous conspiracies which I shall know, or hear of, to be against him or any of them.

4. And I do further swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical, this damnable doctrine and position, that Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever.

5. And I do believe, and in my conscience am resolved, that neither the Pope, or any Person whatsoever, hath power to absolve me of this Oath, or any part thereof.

6. Which I acknowledge by good and full authority to be lawfully ministered unto me, and do renounce all Pardons and Dispensations to the contrary.

7. And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear, according to the express words by me spoken, & according to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same words without any equivocation, or mental evasion or secret reservation whatsoever.

8. And I do make this recognition and acknowledgement heartily, willingly and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian. So help me God.

This Oath according to every part and parcel of the same may be lawfully taken by any Catholic; as have averred both M. Widdrington, Sir William Howard, and others; who have so substantially wrote of the same with explanations of each branch; that I think no wise man dares hazard his credit in going about to refute the same. Yet the weakness of some Catholics hath been so great, that they have not only taken scandal, (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 authority 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 labored to make everything scandalous among Catholics that was not done by their approbation; and to this purpose, the first principles were to lead people into scruples, and being there, to put a ring upon them, abusively termed, the yoke of our blessed Lady; by which they might more easily lead them to their opinions and censures, as men do Bears to their purposes. Oh wise Venetians! how sacred are your laws? would a man think that such blindness, or rather envious peevishness could be in Catholics, 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, the truth is, that the aforesaid Authors have so fully proved the lawfulness of taking the said Oath, that no man needs speak more in proof thereof, as not being able to speak better to the purpose. And therefore I refer every man to the said Writers to inform themselves lest they demeritoriously suffer for refusing the • ame.

This only give me leave to insert, as a caution to some, that considering it is contrary to the Popes (forced) opinion as appeareth by his Declarative Breve ; he that shall swear or abjure the doctrine and position ( That Princes which be, &c. ) in the fourth branch, as impious, heretical, and damnable (I conceive) indirectly abjureth the Popes opinion, as impious, heretical, and damnable: and what a fault that may be made in Rome (especially by some suggestors, who although to mine own knowledge do teach, this Oath lawful in private, to men of quality: yet in public, and to his Holynesse out of a seeming zeal they will lament the fact) I leave to the judgment of wise men. When as they shall swear his doctrine erroneous in such bitter terms, whom they acknowledge to be the supreme Pastor of their souls: questionless in such, it will be interpreted at the least arrogacie and presumption. And I for mine own part should think it very hard to be forced to take the Oath of Supremacy in Rome under any terms directly or indirectly misbeseeming my duty to my natural Prince: howsoever he might err in mistake. And therefore I do humbly present the consideration of our case in this Oath of Allegiance to his Majesty's most gracious Clemency. This caution or consideration I present to such, as having taken the said Oath, intend afterwards to converse at Rome. But if death or ruin urge, then ( spectata conscientia ) I say as before, follow the opinion of Sir William Howard, and Master Widdrington as secure. For in such extremity it is to be hoped, that his Holiness will be rather a pious and pitiful father, then too severe a Judge.

If any be urged to this Oath out of any temporal 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 Holiness, concerning this Oath of Allegiance; who procured him to send forth a declarative Brief, forbidding English Catholics to take the same; as containing many things plainly repugnant to faith and salvation: and by this means compelled him against his will, to make the Doctrine adverse to the Oath, his own opinion. When as the procurers themselves, and their abettors did (as I have said) counsel in private, some men of quality (who were friends to them) to take the same as lawful, as may be easily proved. And which is more strange, that they should procure it to be declared so repugnant: when as the doctrine to be abjured in the said oath wrote by Santarellus was declared by all the Sorbon Doctors and sixteen of the chiefest Jesuits in France to be wicked: so that what is held lawful by most Divines in the Church (it being the most common opinion, except some few that would seem 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 lawful in England to be done, without the special approbation of the suggestors tribe: so that if any man should do what they have not approved, by virtue of the Popes Brief, he shall be presently blasted for an heretic: and if he do what they approve, he shall be saved harmless by them both at home and abroad, let him be never so bad. Sed meliora Spero.

Let any judicious man consider all the Bulls, Breves and Censures that have been procured touching the affairs of English Catholics from the first Bull of excommunication against Queen Elizabeth by Pius Quintus to the last before spoken of in Anno 1639. against one who knows nothing of the same, and he shall find, by far, more hurt done to Catholics, then ever good. It were a blessed turn if some order might be taken by our most gracious Queen for the prevention of such mischiefs: which serve for nothing more, then to make Schisms and Rents in the Church of God, and the Pope, and his authority to be less regarded. It were more fitting in my poor judgment, that Catholics were succoured in tribulation, then by barring them of their Christian liberty, in what they may lawfully do, to add affliction to affliction. I must say no more; for I perceive that some begin to swell, but the matter is not great: for I will write nothing by God's grace contrary to the Catholic Church. Yet I fear they will break before I have done with:

The Oath of Supremacy, which is as followeth, divided into four branches.

1. I A. B. Do utterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the Kings highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm, and of all other his Highness dominions and countries, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes, as Temporal.

2. And that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate, hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence or authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, within this Realm.

3. And therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign Jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authorities.

4. And do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Highness, his heirs and lawful successors; and to my power shall assist, and defend all Jurisdictions, privileges, preeminences and authorities, granted or belonging to the Kings Highness, his heirs and successors, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. So help me God, and by the contents of this Book.

Where is to be noted first, that in the first year and Parliament of Queen Elizabeth's reign; when they abolished the Popes authority, and would have yielded the same authority with the Title of Supreme head to the Queen, as it was given before, to her father and brother: divers especially moved by Minister Calvin's writing (who h • d condemned in the same Princes, that calling) liked not the term; and therefore procured that some other equivalent term, but less offensive (although in truth, it is all one with the other) might be used. Upon which formality, it was enacted, that she was the Chief Governor as well in causes Ecclesiastical or Spiritual; as Civil & Temporal▪ because otherwise there could have been no color, to make new laws for the change of Religion. So the abovesaid Author to the Answer, &c. cap. 1. pag. 7. and 8. And this was the only and sole intention, of making the aforesaid Oath: which was div • rs from the • ntention of King Henry the eighth, and consequently the Oath not the same. For his intention in assuming to himself the Supremacy was not (as I shall say beneath in the third note) to alter any principle of Religion (the Supremacy only excepted) or so much as any ceremony of the Catholic Church: but to give himself a more licentious liberty in point of marriage and divorce, and to make the same liberty 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 took it of his own accord: and for his sake, disturbed the Church and Clergy of England, and took away their lands, and gave them to his Nobility.

It is to be noted secondly, that we are to swear, that the King is chief Governor as well in all spiritual things, &c. Where by (All) is to be understood; in all things ordered or to be ordered by him, unless some exception be made in reason touching the establishment or regiment of the Protestant Church of England : that the spiritual things were meant touching the Church, appears by the very words themselves: Spiritual or Ecclesiastical: and that they were meant touching a Church to be established, distinct from the then Catholic Church in England: appears by the intention of the oath which was (as I have said) to enable the Queen to change and alter Religion; and to form an other Church diverse, from that which then was; which is the Protestant Church: and that there are some spiritual things justly excepted from the King ; appears by the Declaration of Queen Elizabeth, in her next visitation of the Clergy, after the said Oath was made; wherein she her self made an exception, and declared in print (the same being published by her commandment) that in truth She had not power (we will not examine then, from whence her Ministers power came she having none her self) by the words of the Oath and Act, to minister the Sacraments. Neither had she any such intent, and that no such thing was implied in her Title, or claim of Spiritual regiment; nor no other thing, nor more then was before granted to her father, by the term of Supreame Head: requiring all her loving subjects to receive the Oath at least in that sense (which was, she meant, that she might dispose of Church matters, as her Father had: and have power to form what Church she pleased) and so that should suffice her Highness.

It is to be noted thirdly that the aforesaid oath when it was made, was unlawful to be taken by any Catholic; as the oath before made in the days of King Henry the 8 ^th . Although when it was made, it was not altogether so unlawful, as that of King Henry: because in his days there was no other Church extant, or like to be extant in England, but the Catholic Church: of which contrary to the Law of God, and his own conscience, he made himself head (as appears by a book set forth by the said King himself, in the later end of his reign, and many years after he had framed his Oath of Supremacy; entitled: A necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian man, set forth by the Kings Majesty of England, &c. In which he sets forth the Christian faith, then to be professed in England. Which was as absolutely Catholic, and the self-same in every point, as now it is in Rome. And if any man should have sworn him the supreme head, as he intended of that Church: he would have sworn false: as making the Church a Monster in having two heads: or depriving the Pope of his authority granted him by God: which had been to have denied an Article of faith: but when the said Oath was repealed in Queen Mary's days. And another Oath of Supremacy made in the aforesaid first year of Queen Elizabeth. It was as I have said to enable her (not so much to be head of the Church then extant, and to be utterly abolished, as) to be Governor of a new Church distinct from the Catholic Church then out of hand to be propagated and established: of which to swear Her Head, before it was: or to swear Her Head of the Church then extant, which she conceived superstitious: of which indeed she was not head, was in a true and proper sense unlawful. And so continued unlawful until after the abrogation of Mass, and 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 perfect establishment of the new Protestant Church within this Realm, and other His Majesty's Dominions. Which being established as now it is: the said Oath of Supremacy ceased from being unlawful: because then there was an apparent face of a Church (distinct from the members of the Catholic Church, which then began scarce to appear, in respect of the greater multitude) of which only she was supreme governor and chief head, and no other person whatsoever had or ought to have any jurisdiction or preeminence 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 foreigners to the same.

It is to be noted fourthly: that a man may be said to be a Forreiner in a twofold sense. First, in respect of a temporal Dominion. Secondly, in respect of faith, whence ariseth a spiritual jurisdiction. In the first sense, all that are not Natives of His Majesty's Dominions (although some Lawyers say) all that do no homage to His Majesty) are foreigners. In the second sense, all that are of the Protestant faith with the King, are Domesticks of the same faith, and within His Dominions only subject to His spiritual jurisdiction by the Laws of the Realm. And all that are not of the Protestant faith, are foreigners to the same, conformable to S ^t . Paul, who accounted all those of whatsoever Nation, or under whatsoever temporal Dominion or Jurisdiction in the world) who were of the same faith with himself which he taught, were Domesticks of that faith. And those of whatsoever Nation or temporal Dominion, that were not of the same faith, he accounted foreigners. Whence he saith, Gal. 6.10. Let us do good to all: but especially to the domestics (or those of the house) of faith. And 1 Thess. 4. verse. 12. Rogamus ut honest ambuletis ad eos qui foris sunt, & nullius aliquid desideretis. We desire you brethren, that you walk honestly towards them that are without, (that is, foreigners to our faith) and need nothing of any man's.

It is to be noted fifthly and chiefly, what conditions are required in every lawful oath: which according to the Prophet Jeremiah, are three. viz▪ Truth, Judgment, and Justice: for he saith in his fourth Chapter. Thou shalt swear our Lord liveth, in truth and in judgment and in justice: upon which place the holy Doctor, S. Jerome noteth, that the foresaid conditions are requisite to every oath: of whom all Divines have le • rned the same; requiring in every lawful oath, every of the said three conditions. The reason hereof is: because an oath being an invocation of God, as witness that what we speak is true; it is requisite that we should use judgment or discretion, to see that we do nothing rashly, or without due reverence, devotion and faith, towards so great a Majesty, but we must especially regard, that we make not him, who is the chief and Sovereign verity and inflexible justice, either ignorant o • what we say: or Patron of a lie, as witness of that, which either is false in assertion, or unjust in promise. Hence an oath wanting Judgment or discretion and wisdom: is a rash and foolish oath, that which wanteth Justice: 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 Supremacy to be lawful for any Catholic to take.

Every Oath that is accompanied with the three said conditions or companions, viz. verity, justice, and judgment (in the opinion of all Divines, Canon and Civil Lawyers) is a lawful Oath: but such is the Oath of Supremacy 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 swear that the King is only Supreame Governor of this Realm, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes, touching the Church of the said Realm: as Temporal touching the State, or of any other his Dominions. Which I do swear discreetly as a thing true and just. For there is no other Supreme Governor of temporal things to be assigned, but the King: as all will confess: nor of Ecclesiastical things, or the Church of England ; as by a sufficient Enumeration may be proved. For the Parliam • nt, is not supreme governor of the Churches within this Realm; when as according to the natural light of reason, the King is governor of that: and therefore not supreme. The Primate cannot be assigned supreme governor, when as he hath all his authority of government from the King, and so he hath a Superior. A Lay-eldership cannot be supreme governor, for although it be unknown, what it is, or from whence it receiveth its authority; yet I think no Lay-eldership so barbarous: as not to admit the King chief governor of the same. Neither can the Pope be any way supreme governor of the aforesaid Church: because he professeth himself only supreme head and governor of the Catholic 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 Catholic Church His Majesty d • th not claim to be head. Neither will he be governor of any spiritual or ecclesiastical thing therein, as conceiving the same both superstitious and idolatrous. Ergo. the King must be supreme governor of the Protestant Church.

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

For the second or third branch it is likewise proved. For I swear them likewise discreetly, truly and justly. viz. that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, &c. hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, &c. within this Realm (in the said Protestant Church) which I add 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 Majesty or did Queen Elizabeth claim to be chief Governor of the Catholic Religion, or Roman 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 Queen and State of England: therefore it is against reason, and a kind of petty treason to swear either of them governor of a Religion which they apprehend so evil▪ but in respect of the Protestant Church established, the Pope is a foreign Person and Prelate: and his jurisdiction foreign. Neither hath he, or any other foreign Person any jurisdiction in the aforesaid Church, or ought to have: for as I have said in the fourth note, out of Saint Paul: as all those that are of the Catholic faith, are domestics of that faith: and all that are not of the same faith, are foreigners to it: so all that are of the Protestant faith (of which His Majesty is governor) are domestics of the same: and all that are not of the same, are foreigners to that Religion. Hence appears the truth of the said branches: wherein is said (in the second) That no foreign Prince, &c. and (in the third) I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, &c. which I do justly and lawfully renounce as well in respect of the Protestant Church, as of the Catholic: for as I have said the Pope is truly a foreigner to the Protestant Church: in respect of which, I must by the law renounce his jurisdiction. And he is no foreigner in respect of the Catholic Church, in which I am bound to respect him and his jurisdiction: for if all Catholics be domestics 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 foreigner? his jurisdiction being as internal and intrinsical, as innate and natural to every Catholic in the world; as it is to him, that stands next him in his chamber at Rome. And therefore there being no foreign jurisdiction in the Catholic Church, in every sense I may lawfully renounce all foreign jurisdictions.

The fourth and last branch can have no difficulty at all, with any Catholic. So that the words of this Oath seem to me so clear and lawful, since the establishment of the Protestant Church; that it may be taken of any Catholic without any the least danger of Perjurie, or any other sin (scandal being avoided) or without mental reservation or secret equivocation: that I admire that any man hath so long scrupulized to the loss of himself and fortunes: when as being necessitated to take the same, and scandal being easily to be avoided (as I have said out of Diana and others) he might have prevented his own ruin with a safe conscience: as I conceive Sir John 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 swear the King to be only Supreame Governor of the Church of England in the first branch; so ought we in the second and third branch to renounce all Jurisdiction foreign to the same. To which I answer first, that coherencie is no condition requisite to an oath, but impertinent to the truth or falsehood 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 swear the King Head of the Church of England, so in the second and third: I abjure all foreign Jurisdictions whatsoever. Which are the very direct words of the oath: for there are no words in any branch signifying a renunciation of all Jurisdiction foreign to the Protestant Church of England. Whence there is a great difference between renouncing all Jurisdiction foreign to the particular Church of England, and renouncing all foreign Jurisdiction. For a foreign Jurisdiction renounced is rightly described A power or right denied to be extent to the swearer by any law, and is more general, then a Jurisdiction foreign to the Protestant Church: which is only a power not extent to a Protestant quâ talis: which although it be foreign 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 swear the King only Supreame Governor of the Protestant Church within this Realm and his Dominions: so in the second and third; we are to renounce all foreign Jurisdictions whatsoever; w ^ch either the Pope, or any other foreign Person hath, or ought to have in the same: which every Catholic may lawfully do, notwithstanding that general saying; That the Pope hath Jurisdiction over all Christians: for that is meant, a general Jurisdiction in the Catholic Church, either actual or potential, extent to all; which is foreign to none: and which, by taking this oath is not denied. I answer thirdly, that all penal laws (as is this law for taking the oath) in doubtful words, are ever to be taken in the more favorable sense, and which makes the law to contain no falsehood, or injustice. And therefore in this law to swear, as the words lie, may be done without any inj • stice or falsehood; which is and ought to be presumed to be the mind of the lawmaker; for no law or lawmaker intends perjury. And therefore it is a frivolous thing to invent scrupulous crotchets, which the words do 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 soul of the law the substance and force of the law doth chi • fly depend: therefore it by any means, the will of the lawmaker may be known, according to it especially we must understand the words of the law. But the will of the lawmaker is sufficiently known concerning this oath, to make it apparently unlawful for any Catholic to take as appeareth by the words of King James 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 temporal Allegiance and civil obedience, which all subjects, by the law of God and nature, do owe to their lawful Prince, &c. For as the Oath of Supremacy, (saith he) was devised for putting a difference between Papists and them of our profession. So was the oath of Allegiance ordained for making a difference between the civilly obedient Papists and the perverse disciples of the Powder treason; by which words it appeareth that King James held, both the law and the law maker intended by the oath of Supremacy, to put a difference between 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 Supremacy is to be interpreted accordingly, all doubtfulness of words set aside; and consequenter unlawful for any Catholic 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 be sought, when they interpret the law in a truer sense, then the plain words do, as they lie; otherwise not, lest it want verity.

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

So that although there were in the words of this oath divers significations impropper and unusual; yet in the opinion of Suarez, it might be taken; and the words interpreted in the truest sense, abstracting from the real intention of the law maker: how much more then (say I) the words being not improper, or unusual, but according to the intention of the law and law maker, may they be taken in the more favorable sense, 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 seem to some doubtful and ambiguous (although to me they seem not so) that is, not clear and morally certain; and so for one to swear them in that doubtful sense, were to expose himself to danger of perjury: yet considering (as I have said) that such doubtful words, are to be taken in the more favorable sense, and which maketh the law to be just and reasonable, and to contain no falsehood or injustice. If any one swear▪ those words, which of themselves are doubtful, in no doubtful sense, but in a true and determinate sense, and wherein they are not doubtful, but clear and morally certain, there is no danger of perjury at all.

It may seem to follow secondly out of the aforesaid doctrine, that such as took the oath of Supremacy in King Henry the eighth days (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 perjury; 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 been the intention of the aforesaid King to make the law just; as if they should have sworn the then King, Head or chief of the Church of his country; for that he was Sovereigne Lord and ruler of both persons Spiritual and Temporal: all sorts being bound to obey his lawful civil laws and commandments. And so in this sense (although it be a kind of improper speech) every King is Head of the Clergy and all others of his own Country. Or peradventure they might swear him Supreame Head of the Church of England ; that is, Chief of the congregation of believers within his dominions: for so in our language, we commonly say him, to be the head of a College, Court or City, that is the chief; and him to be chief who is supreme therein. The Church being then taken by all Divines for a congregation of men; Why might not King Henry be improperly sworn (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 of the aforesaid King, others might without perjury take with relation to the law of God (abstracting from all unlawful intentions) to wit, that every oath be just and reasonable as being to be taken in Veritie, Justice and Judgment: and so what was unlawful in a proper sense, might at lest be free from Perjurie in an improper. Thus understanding the first branch; and the second and third in the same sense before delivered, they might peradventure be excused (as I have said) from perjury; But never from sin. For considering the state of England in those days, and the absolute intention of the King which (well known to the whole world) was; to be sworn Supreame Head of the Catholic Church, Catholic religion still here remaining as I have said: his oath was as much different from this now oath of Supremacy, as darkness from light: For by this, the Queen claimed not the Supremacy granted by Christ to Saint Peter, as did her father: but only to be Supreame governor of a Church, out of which, she would not only discard the Pope, but likewise root out all Catholic religion, contrary to her fathers mind as I have shown: so that the question in the said Kings days, was about an Article of faith, viz. Whether the Supremacy were granted by God to the King, or to the Pope. Which Article they were bound with loss of their lives to have professed being called thereunto: for then did occur the times of obligation before expressed (by Saint Thomas and other Divines) for the profession of a man's faith. As when the honor and glory of God, and the spiritual benefit of his neighbor should exact the same. Now when or what greater honor could a man have done to God, then to have stood for the truth of the Gospel, and defense of the Catholic faith being so opposed? And in whom could there have been more edification and greater example given, for simple and unlearned men to follow, then in Bishops and great men of authority. Neither was it to purpose for them to allege, that they were in danger of their lives and fortunes; for they were bound to loose both, rather then to deny any one Article of faith. For although I have said, that a man is not bound, with danger of life, or fortunes, to abstain from a thing lawful, or of its own nature indifferent (as the going to a Protestant Church in a Protestant Country, taking the oath of Alleagiance, or the now oath of Supremacy; every of which is far enough from an Article of faith, or point of religion; only more cried down, because out of fashion, then out of any grounded reason or judgment) to avoid the scandal 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 profess his religion in time convenient; or that he might deny his faith, or any part or point of the same for fear of death; but absolutely the contrary: hence I say, that the Supremacy in those days, being a point of religion, and an article of faith, although they might be excused from perjury, yet never from sin and scandal. And therefore I conceive that Suares only intendeth that then laws and oaths invented contrary to the law of God, may be drawn to an improper sense, when scandal may be avoided with integrity of faith. And so those that took the aforesaid Kings oath, I leave to the judgment of God: for as Saint Paul saith, 1 Cor. 4. It is our Lord that judgeth; who best knoweth the rectitude of all men's actions, and the secret intentions of each man's heart.

The Minor of the said objection is denied. And to the words of K. James saying: that as the Oath of Supremacy 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 total reason, why the said oath was devised, (himself not being the deviser or maker thereof) but spake according to the effect, which he saw the oath of Supremacy took in his days: who conceiving that Catholics held it, not an oath lawful for them to take (and therefore some in King Henries days refused the same out of conscience; others since the abrogation of Mass 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 between them and Protestants; so that the said renowned King did not intend by the aforesaid words, to make known the intention of the law or lawmaker, but only spake what an effect the said devised oath had in Catholics wrought.

That neither of the said oaths of Supremacy were framed to put a difference between Papists and Protestants is evident by what I have said; for in King Henry his days, there were no Protestants known in England to differ withal: and that oath was made only and solely for his pleasure. And in the said Queens days, the oath was only made to give and acknowledge her power and authority in Spiritual or Ecclesiastical 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 appears naught; and the assertion for the lawfulness of the oath in force.

If any simple man (pardon the bluntnesse of my speech, for I know that no discreet 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 been lawful, others of his tribe would have found out, before this time: (he should have added to men of great quality) and therefore it being no matter of faith, none ought to believe it. I forgive the poor man; for he speaks out of hypocrisy or ignorance, or both; for he cannot tell you with learning and sincerity why, or how it is scandalous. And if any did suffer for the same, I pray let him likewise whisper when, or in what year, or Kings reign? and then compare his speech to what I have said. Yet whensoever they did it, because they would not sin against their consciences; which rather then to offend, they (not understanding the • ruth of the said doctrine, and their fancy being the contrary way strong) were bound to do. Yet good brother Simple do not persuade me against my conscience; unless 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 certain by divine f • ith. And therein I show myself a true friend to my distressed Country; for certus amicus in re incerta cernitur. A sure friend is tried in a doubtful 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 Catholic Church. (To which and whose censure, I do in all humility submit myself, for all my doings, sayings and writings; as well for the satisfaction of mine own conscience, as that ignorant brains may take no offense). And i • this doctrine were never heard of before; what then? Is it therefore false or scandalous? And if your tribe did not find it out before; is it a wonder? None at all with me: for I should wonder indeed, to hear you the inventers of anything beneficial to God's Church; (howsoever you may and do write over, and translate other men's works; and so seem to ignorant men, to find out something for the good of the Church, that was never lost, or before wanting therein) because as yet I have never heard or known so much. Those therefore that shall hearken to such whisperings, I will wish them no other punishment then that the Vicar of fools may be their ghostly father. In the mean time (maugre all censures) I will thank God, that he hath enabled me to help my distressed friend at a dead lift, by counseling and instructing to a lawful (I had almost said meritorious, but that I feared more anger) and discreet act.

Thus then seriously to conclude; If any man shall yet remain unsatisfied: I knowing, that an Angel of light cannot infuse either wisdom into a fool, or prudence into a simple man: and nothing harder for the best Divine, then to yield the continuance of a serene conscience to a scrupulous person: do only desire and entreat, th • t what he himself either cannot, or will not receive satisfaction in; he would not judge amiss in others; and so be scandalized, (which will prove to himself rather the scandal of Pharisees then weak 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 God's grace I will practice. And if any man can give a better reason, for the contrary to what I do, then I can give for what I say: I do hereby promise to subscribe: otherwise let everyone look and dive into his own actions, and not into other men's; for he shall render an account, only for his own, and not for theirs. And because All in these times (perchance) are not bound under sin to embrace these opinions ( the question not being, which is absolutely the safest or perfectest way, and all dispositions of each soul, 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 necessity they may not be done; and what may best in prudence be done; (yet safe enough, with a good conscience, and without sin) the condition of times and persons considered) those that shall not embrace the same; but suffer for their conscience sake; I shall beseech Almighty God to lay no more upon them, then they are able to bear; that they do nothing against their conscience; for that were to carry a continual hell about them: which of all earthly miseries were the greatest: from which God of his infinite mercy preserve us all: Amen.

Ex Rotulo clausarum de Anno decimo nono Richardi Secundi — m. 18. dorso.

MEmorand. quod primo di • Septembris Anno Regni Regis Richardi secundi▪ post conquestū decimo nono Wilhelmus Dinet, Nich-Taylor, Nich-Poucher, et Wilhelmus Steynour de Nottingham in Cancellar. ipsius Regis personaliter, constituti Sacramenta divisim praestiterunt sub eo qui sequitur tenore.

I William Dynet byfor yhow worschipefull fader and Lord Archbishop of Yho • ke and yhour Clergy with my free will and full avysede swear to God and to all his Seynts upon this holy Gospels, yat fro this day forthwarde I shall worship images with preying, and offering unto hem in the worschep of the Seintes, that they be made after. And also I shall nevermore despise pygremage ne states of holy Chyrche in no degree. And also I shall be buxum to the laws of holy Chyrche and to yhow as mine Archbishop and to mine other ordinaries and Curates, and keep though laws up my power, and meyntein hem. And also I shall never more meyntein ne techen, ne defenden Errors, conclusions, ne techinges of the Lollards, ne swych conclusions and techynges that men clepyth Lollards doctrine, ne I shall her books ne swych books ne hem or any suspect or diffamede of Lollardery receive or company withal wittingly or defend in though ma • ters, and if I know any swych, I shall with all the haste that I may do yhow or else your ner officers to wytten and of her books. And also I sha • l excite and stir all though to good doctrine that I have hyndred with mine Doctrine up my power. And also I shall stond to yhour declaration which es heresy or error and do thereafter. And also what penance yhe wool for that I have done for meyteyning of this falls doctryn injuyne me and I shall fulfill. And I submit me thereto up my power. And also I shall make no other gloss of this mine oath, bot as the words stonde. And if it be soe that I come again or do again this oth or any party thereof, I yhelde me here cowpable as an heretyk and to be punished by the law of an heretic, and to forfeit all my godes to the Kings will withouten any other process of law; and thereto I require the Notarie to make of all this the which is my will an Instrument agayns me.

Et ex habundanti idem Wilhelmus Dyn • t eodem die voluit et recognovit quod omnia bona et catalla sua mobilia nobis sint forisfacta in casu quo ipse juramentum praedictum seu aliqua in eodem juramento contenta de cetero contravenerit ullo modo.

Declaratio Patrum concilli Tridentini, circa frequentationem Ecclesiarum, Eo tempore, quo hereticiritus exercentur, aut praedicatur haeresis.

Pax Christi quae exuperat omnem sensum, custodiat corda vestra & intelligentias vestras, Amen.

Viri Dignitate conspicui, religione, & multis nominibus illustres aequam & honestam postulationem vestram ad nos detulerunt N. & C. quam à vobis ad se praelatam asserebant cujus hoc est exemplum.

REligione in Anglia mutatâ, & poenâ propositâ, si quis Diebus Dominicis & festis à templis abstineat, interim Dum Psalmi, & ex utro{que} testamento lections, lingua vulgari recitantur: laici multi catholici, nobiles, & Deum timentes; partim in carcere agents, partim mox eo conjiciendi, amicorum & consanguineorum precibus ac monitionibus & imminentium periculorum metu invitantur, ut saltem ea tenus, de sententia denuo, se permittant, ut in templis protestantium tantisper interesse velint Diebus Dominicis & aliis festis, Dum Psalmi ex more linguâ vulgari, decant arisoliti & lections ex Bibliis linguâ item vulgari depromptae; nec non conciones quae ad eorum dogmata approbanda apud pop. frequentiùs habentur; commemoratae sunt. I am qui huc usque nullo modo deduci potuerint, ut publicis predictis precibus, & concionibus interessent, magnopere 〈◊〉 postulant, quid his faciendum censeant viri pii & 〈◊〉 Nam si nullo animae periculo, aut nulla Dei offensione, • ubli • o regni sui Decreto parere & obedire liceat: liben •• r • d fecerint. Contra vero si quid in hac re periculum sit sa • utis aeternae, aut l • sae Divinae Majestatis: quae vis perpeti de • reverunt potiùs qùam quicquam agere aut committere unde Deum off • nsum iri, aut irritatum intelligant. Haec quest •• cum multas pias & religiosas conscientias exerceat, & co • tu • bet, r • ga • di estis omnes per v • scera misericordiae, & charitatem quam Christus à suis omnibus exigit, ut eam palu • & dilucide quam primùm expediatis, qua multi in ho • regno implicat • torquentur.

Quod haec charta complectitur, nullius nomine singulariter praefertur quia non ad unum aliquem pertinet, quod hic petitur, sed ad omnes fere nobiles quos Anglia habet Catholicos, quibus jam multis modis pericula intentantur. Iis universis in tua illustrissima Dominatione magna spes auxilii effulget, si eadem vel Dei, vel nobilitatis respectu, agere dignabitur cum amicis quos in concilio habet Tridentino ut huic questioni, quae totius nobilitatis nomine his adjuncta est, responsum maturum & Deliberatum accommodetur, & huc commoda tuae D. opera perferatur. In quo haud dubie acquiessent perturbatae nunc conscientiae, si ex tetam sancto & nobili patre certiores fieri possint, quid patres hac de re iudicent. Quanquam fortasse tutum non fuerit, hanc questionem publice in concilio proponi, ne res divulgata nostrorum protestantium animos exacerbet, & aliquibus periculum acceleret, (nisi tuae prudentiae aliter videatur) ideo tua prudentia consultius fecerit, si ita cum selectis quibusdam hanc causam egerit, ut quod ipsi in hac causa piissimi & doctissimi theologi consulti significaverint, id proinde valeat, ac si universi patres sententias dixissent: Caeterum hoc totum tuae Do judicio, & arbitrio relinquendi satius sit, ut ipsa quod magis in rem esse prospiciat, • d libere agat. Qui in Anglia • unc sunt theologi partim metuunt, partim vary respondent▪ ideo plane omnibus satisfaciet, quod te procurante ex Triden •• no huc respondebitur.

Pro quo vestro tam firm christiano & vere religioso animo non possumu • non Deo opt. max. agere gratias, & nobis magnopere gratulari. Etsi enim calamitatum vestrarum sensus, cunctos vehementer tangat & cruciet, ut Christiana charitas hortatur, quae tam arcto necessitudinis vinculo omnes devinctos & constrictos tenet, ut mutuo afficiat membra, atque fratrum commoda & incommoda non aliena sed propria ducat; in illo tamen non est minima consolatio, quod calamitosis hisce temporibus & in eo potissimum regno, in quo fides religiosorum misere jacet, cernimus nullo iniuriarum concursu, aut metus vi charitatis vestrae ardorem extingu • , aut fidem convelli, aut constantiam labefactari: quinimo vos esse, qui in tanta rerum omnium confusion, ac molestiarum turbulentissimá tempestate nunquam curvaveritis genua ante Baal, non sine magna Divini nominis Christianae{que} disciplinae gloria. Ne igitur vestris constans animus, qui nullis cōmodis ad impietatem torqueri flective unquam potuit, fallacibus rationibus ad vestram perniciem comparatis aut Divinae legis ignoratione pietatisve simulatione deciperetur & minueretur: quod sustinemus dignum & Christiani hominis officio debitum existimavimus vestris piissimis optatis morem gerere; causam{que} vestram examinandam accurate, diligenter, mature{que} commissimus gravissimis quibusdam patribus ac reverendissimis Dominis Archiepiscopo Bracharensi, Archiepiscopo Lanci • nensi, Episcopo Dombriscensi, Episcopo Lerenensi, reverendo patri Iacobo Laine • generali societatis Jesus: simul{que} spectatissimis quibusdam Doctoribus Alphonso Salmeroni Fratri Petro de Soto quem arbitramur vobis & facie & nomine notissimum; D. Georgio de Fr. Francisco Fercensi. Doct. Melchiori Cornelio: Iacobo Paiva de Andrada item Doctori, quorum omnium religio, pietas & eruditio certissimis testimoniis explorata est. Quorum sententias nostro etiam judicio comprobatas non dubitamus quin sententiae totius concilii instar sitis merito habituri. H • i igitur patres ac Theologi quibus haec provincia data est, cum s • pe convenissent, atque diligenter & circumspecte divina oracula, & sanctorum patrum sententias & instituta deliberando evolvissent, communibus suffragiis concluserunt minime vobis sine magno scelere, divina{que} indignatione licere hujusmodi hereticorum precibus, illorumve concion • bus in • eresse; ac longe multum praestare, quaevis atrocissima perpeti quam in profligatissimis sceleratissimis{que} rit • bus, quovis signo illis consentire. &c.

The Oath of Supremacy Enacted 35. Henrici octavi.

I A. B. Having now the veil of darkness of the usurped power, authority and jurisdiction of the See and Bishops of Rome, clearly taken away from mine eyes, do utterly testify, and declare in my conscience, that neither the See, nor the Bishop of Rome, nor any foreign Potentate, hath, nor ought to have any jurisdiction, power, or authority, within this Realm, nether by God's, law nor by any other just law, or means. And though by sufferance and abuse in times passed, they aforesaid have usurped, and vendicated a feigned and unlawful power and jurisdiction within this Realm, which hath been supported till few years passed, therefore because it might be deemed, and thought thereby, that I took or take it for just and good, I therefore now do clearly and frankly renounce, refuse, relinquish, and forsake that pretended authority, power and jurisdiction, both of the See and Bishop of Rome, and of all other foreign powers. And that I shall never consent and agree, that the foresaid See, or Bishop of Rome or any of their successors, shall practice, exercise, or have any manner of authority, jurisdiction or power within this Realm, or any other the Kings Realms or Dominions, nor any foreign Potentate, of what estate, degree, or condition soever he be, but that I shall resist the same at all times, to the uttermost of my power: And that I shall bear faith, truth, and true Allegiance to the Kings Majesty, and to his heirs and successors, declared or hereafter to be declared by the authority of the Act made in the Session of the Parliament holden at Westminster the fourteenth day of January, in the five and thirtieth year, and in the said Act made in the eight and twentieth year of the Kings Majesty's reign. And that I shall accept, repute and take the Kings Majesty, his heirs and successors (when they or any of them shall enjoy his place to be the only supreme Head in earth, under God of the Church of England and Ireland, and of all other His Highnesses Dominions. And that with my body, cunning, wit, and uttermost of my power, without guile, fraud, or other undue means, I shall observe, keep, maintain, and defend all the Kings Majesty's styles, titles, and rights, with the whole effects and contents of the Acts provided for the same, and all other Acts and Statutes made, or to be made within this Realm, in and for that purpose, and the derogation, extirpation and extinguishment, of the usurped and pretended authority, power and jurisdiction of the See and Bishop of Rome, and all other foreign Potentates, as afore. And also as well the said Statute made in the said eight and twentieth year, as the Statute made in the said Session of the Parliament holden the 35. year of the Kings Majesty's Reign, for establishment and declaration of His highness succession, and all Acts and Statutes made, and to be made in confirmation and corroboration of the Kings Majesty's power, and Supremacy in earth, of the Church of England and Ireland, and of other the Kings Dominions. I shall also defend and maintain with, by body and goods, and with all my wit and power, and this I shall do against all manner of persons, of what estate, dignity, degree, or condition they be, and in no wise do nor attempt, nor to my power • uffer, or know to be done, or attempted, directly or indirectly, anything or things privily or apertly to the let, hindrance, damage or derogation of any of the said Statutes, or of any part of them, by any manner of means, or for or by any manner of pretence. And in case any Oath hath been made by me to any person or persons in maintenance, defense, or favor of the See and Bishop of Rome, or his authority, jurisdiction or power, or against any Statutes aforesaid, I repute the same as vain and annihilate, and shall wholly and truly observe and keep this Oath, so help me God, all Saints, and the holy Evangelists.

The Oath of Supremacy enacted 1 ^•. Elizabeth, cap. 1 ^o .

I, A. B. Do utterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the Queens highness is the only Supreame governor of this Realm, and of all other her Highness Dominions, and Countries, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things, or causes, as Temporal, and that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, Ecclesiastical, or Spiritual, within this Realm: and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictio • s, powers, superiorities, and authorities, and do •• omise that from henceforth I shall bear faith an • • rue Allegiance to the Queens Highness, her 〈◊〉 and lawful Successor and to my power, shall ass • st and defend all jurisdictions, privileges, preeminences, and authorities, granted or belonging to the Queens Highness, her Heirs, and Successors, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. So help me God, and by the Contents of this Book.

A Proviso in an Act 5 ^o. Elizabeth, c. 1 ^o . for expounding this Oath.

PRovided also, that the Oath expressed in the said Act made in the said first year shall be taken and expounded in such form as is set forth in an Admonition annexed to the Queens Majesty's Injunctions, published in the first year of her Majesty's reign, that is to say, to confess and acknowledge in her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, none other authority, then that was challenged and lately used by the noble King Henry the eighth, and King Edward the sixth, as in the said Admonition more plainly may appear.

The Admonition annexed to the Injunctions Elizabeth 1 ^o . follows with this Title.

An Admonition to simple men deceived by malicious.

THe Queens Majesty being informed, that in certain places of this Realm, sundry of her native subjects, being called to Ecclesiastical Ministry in the Church, be by sinister persuasion, and perverse construction, induced to find some scruple in the form of an Oath, which by an Act of the last Parliament is prescribed to be required of divers persons for the recognition of their Allegiance to her Majesty, which certainly neither was ever meant, ne by any equity of words, or good sense can be thereof gathered; would that all her loving subjects should understand, that nothing was, is, or shall be meant, or intended by the same Oath, to have any other Duty, Allegiance or Bond required by the same Oath, then was acknowledged to be due to the most noble Kings of famous memory, King Henry the eight her Majesty's Father, or King Edward the sixth her Majesty's Brother.

And further her Majesty forbiddeth all manner her subjects to give ear or credit to such perverse and malicious persons, which most sinisterly and maliciously labor, to notify to her loving subjects, how by the words of the said Oath it may be collected that the Kings or Queens of this Realm possessors of the Crown, may challenge authority and power of Ministry of Divine Offices in the Church, wherein her said subjects be much abused by such evil disposed persons. For certainly her Majesty neither doth, ne ever will challenge any other authority, then that was challenged and lately used by the said noble Kings of famous memory, King Henry the eight, and King Edward the sixth, which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, that is, under God to have the Sovereigntie and rule over all manner of persons borne within these her Realms, Dominions and Countries, of what estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be, so as no other foreign power, shall or ought to have any superiority over them.

And if any person that hath conceived any other sense of the form of the said Oath shall accept the same Oath, with this interpretation, sense, or meaning, her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such in that beh • lfe, as her good and obedient subjects, and shall acquit them of all manner penalties contained in the said Act, against such as shall peremptorily or obstinately refuse to take the same Oath.