she meant that she might dispose of Church matters as her Father had and have power to forme what Church she pleased and so that should suffice her Highnesse It is to be noted thirdly that the aforesaid oath when it was made was unlawfull to be taken by any Catholique as the oath before made in the dayes of King Henry the 8th Although when it was made it was not altogether so unlawfull as that of King Henry because in his dayes there was no other Church extant or like to be extant in England but the Catholique Church of which contrary to the Law of God and his own conscience he made himself head as appears by a booke set forth by the said King himself in the later end of his raigne and many yeers after he had framed his Oath of Supremacie intituled A necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian man set forth by the Kings Majestie of England c. In which he sets forth the Christian faith then to be professed in England Which was as absolutely Catholique and the self-same in every point as now it is in Rome And if any man should have sworne him the supreame head as he intended of that Church he would have sworne false as making the Church a Monster in having two heads or depriving the Pope of his authoritie granted him by God which had been to have denyed an Article of faith but when the said Oath was repealed in Queene Maries dayes And another Oath of Supremacie made in the aforesaid first yeere of Queene Elizabeth It was as I have said to inable her not so much to be head of the Church then extant and to be utterly abolished as to be Governour of a new Church distinct from the Catholique Church then out of hand to be propagated and established of which to sweare Her Head before it was or to sweare Her Head of the Church then extant which she conceived superstitious of which indeed she was not head was in a true and proper sence unlawfull And so continued unlawfull untill after the abrogation of Masse and perfect establishment of the new Protestant Church within this Realme and other His Majesties Dominions Which being established as now it is the said Oath of Supremacie ceased from being unlawfull because then there was an apparant face of a Church distinct from the members of the Catholique Church which then began scarce to appeare in respect of the greater multitude of which only she was supreame governour and chief head and no other person whatsoever had or ought to have any jurisdiction or preheminence in the same and all that were or are not of the same faith and Church were and are in a true and proper sense forreiners to the same It is to be noted fourthly that a man may be said to be a Forreiner in a twofold sence First in respect of a temporall Dominion Secondly in respect of faith whence ariseth a spirituall jurisdiction In the first sence all that are not Natives of His Majesties Dominions although some Lawyers say all that doe no homage to His Majestie are forreiners In the second sence all that are of the Protestant faith with the King are Domesticks of the same faith and within His Dominions only subject to His spirituall jurisdiction by the Laws of the Realme And all that are not of the Protestant faith are forreiners to the same conformable to St. Paul who accounted all those of whatsoever Nation or under whatsoever temporall Dominion or Iurisdiction in the world who were of the same faith with himselfe which he taught were Domesticks of that faith And those of whatsoever Nation or temporall Dominion that were not of the same faith he accounted forreiners Whence he saith Gal. 6.10 Let us doe good to all but especially to the domesticks or those of the house of faith And 1 Thess. 4. vers 12. Rogamus ut honeste ambuletis ad eos qui foris sunt nullius aliquid desideretis We desire you brethren that you walke honestly towards them that are without that is forreiners to our faith and need nothing of any mans It is to be noted fifthly and chiefly what conditions are required in every lawful oath which according to the Prophet Ieremy are three viz Truth Iudgement and Iustice for he saith in his fourth Chapter Thou shalt sweare our Lord liveth in truth and in judgement and in justice upon which place the holy Doctor S. Hierome noteth that the foresaid conditions are requisite to every oath of whom all Divines have leâ—rned the same requiring in every lawfull oath every of the said three conditions The reason hereof is because an oath being an invocation of God as witnesse that what we speake is true it is requisite that we should use judgement or discretion to see that we doe nothing rashly or without due reverence devotion and faith towards so great a Majestie but we must especially regard that we make not him who is the chiefe and Soveraigne veritie and inflexible justice either ignorant oâ— what we say or Patron of a lye as witnesse of that which either is false in assertion or unjust in promise Hence an oath wanting Iudgement or discretion and wisdome is a rash and foolish oath that which wanteth Iustice is called an unjust oath And finally where there is not truth it is adjudged a false or lying oath and is more properly then all the rest called Perjurie These notes premised I shall now prove the said Oath of Supremacie to be lawfull for any Catholique to take Every Oath that is accompanyed with the three said conditions or companions viz. veritie justice and judgement in the opinion of all Divines Canon and Civil Lawyers is a lawfull Oath but such is the Oath of Supremacie above recited in every part and particle of the same Ergo. The Minor is proved discoursing of every branch in particular and first of the first branch wherein I sweare that the King is only Supreame Governour of this Realme as well in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes touching the Church of the said Realm as Temporall touching the State or of any other his Dominions Which I doe sweare discreetly as a thing true and just For there is no other Supreme Governour of temporall things to be assigned but the King as all will confesse nor of Ecclesiasticall things or the Church of England as by a sufficient Enumeration may be proved For the Parliamâ—nt is not supreame governour of the Churches within this Realme when as according to the naturall light of reason the King is governour of that and therefore not supreame The Primate cannot be assigned supreame governour when as he hath all his authoritie of government from the King and so he hath a Superior A Lay-eldership cannot be supreame governour for although it be unknowne what it is or from whence it receiveth its authoritie yet I thinke no Lay-eldership so barbarous as not to
admit the King chiefe governour of the same Neither can the Pope be any way supreame governour of the aforesaid Church because he professeth himself only supreame head and governour of the Catholique Church and of no other according to Saint Paul 1 Cor. 5.12 what is it to him to judge of them that are without of which Catholique Church His Majestie dâ—th not claime to be head Neither will he be governour of any spirituall or ecclesiasticall thing therein as conceiving the same both superstitious and idolatrous Ergo. the King must be supreame governour of the Protestant Church That the King is only Governour is proved because none other can be assigned his equall in preheminencie of government in the aforesaid Protestant Church For the second or third branch it is likewise proved For I sweare them likewise discreetly truly and justly viz. that no forrein Prince Person Prelate c. hath or ought to have any jurisdiction c. within this Realme in the said Protestant Church which I adde as before because according to the intention of the Law and Law-maker as I have before said it was so meant For neither doth His Majestie or did Queene Elizabeth claime to be chiefe Governour of the Catholique Religion or Romane Church or any jurisdiction therein It being by them both as I have often said abhorred as superstitious and abolished for the same reason by the said Queene and State of England therefore it is against reason and a kinde of pettie treason to sweare either of them governour of a Religion which they apprehend so evill but in respect of the Protestant Church established the Pope is a forrein Person and Prelate and his jurisdiction forrein Neither hath he or any other forrein Person any jurisdiction in the aforesaid 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 Catholique faith are domesticks of that faith and all that are not of the same faith are forreiners to it so all that are of the Protestant faith of which His Majestie is governour are domesticks of the same and all that are not of the same are forreiners to that Religion Hence appeares the truth of the said branches wherein is said in the second That no forrein Prince c. and in the third I doe utterly renounce and forsake all forrein jurisdictions c. which I doe justly and lawfully renounce as well in respect of the Protestant Church as of the Catholique for as I have said the Pope is truly a forreiner to the Protestant Church in respect of which I must by the law renounce his jurisdiction And he is no forreiner in respect of the Catholique Church in which I am bound to respect him and his jurisdiction for if all Catholiques be domesticks one to â—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 forreiner his jurisdiction being as internall and intrinsecall as innate and naturall to every Catholique in the world as it is to him that stands next him in his chamber at Rome And therefore there being no forrein jurisdiction in the Catholique Church in every sence I may lawfully renounce all forrein jurisdictions The fourth and last branch can have no difficultie at all with any Catholique So that the words of this Oath seeme to me so cleere and lawfull since the establishment of the Protestant Church that it may be taken of any Catholique without any the least danger of Perjurie or any other sinne scandall being avoyded or without mentall reservation or secret equivocation that I admire that any man hath so long scrupulized to the losse of himselfe and fortunes when as being necessitated to take the same and scandall being easily to be avoyded as I have said out of Diana and others he might have prevented his owne ruine with a safe conscience as I conceive Sir Iohn Winter and other men of estates did who are reported to have lately taken the same It may be objected first that this Oath thus explicated hath no coherencie the first branch with the second and third and therefore that it be coherent and taken conformably to the intention of the law-maker as we sweare the King to be onely Supreame Governour of the Church of England in the first branch so ought we in the second and third branch to renounce all Jurisdiction forreign to the same To which I answer first that coherencie is no condition requisite to an oath but impertinent to the truth or falshood of the same for there be many things of a different nature inserted in an oath Secondly that there is a most perfect coherencie in the aforesaid explication for as in the first branch I sweare the King Head of the Church of England so in the second and third I abjure all forreigne Jurisdictions whatsoever Which are the very direct words of the oath for there are no words in any branch signifying a renunciation of all Jurisdiction forreigne to the Protestant Church of England Whence there is a great difference between renouncing all Jurisdiction forreigne to the particular Church of England and renouncing all forren Jurisdiction For a forren Jurisdiction renounced is rightly described A power or right denied to be extent to the swearer by any law and is more generall then a Jurisdiction forreign to the Protestant Church which is onely a power not extent to a Protestant quâ talis which although it be forren to the said Church yet it may be properly extent and appertaining to the swearer So that it is intended by the said oath that as in the first branch we sweare the King onely Supreame Governor of the Protestant Church within this Realme and his Dominions so in the second and third we are to renounce all forren Jurisdictions whatsoever which either the Pope or any other forren Person hath or ought to have in the same which every Catholique may lawfully do notwithstanding that generall saying That the Pope hath Iurisdiction over all Christians for that is meant a generall Jurisdiction in the Catholique Church either actuall or potentiall extent to all which is forren to none and which by taking this oath is not denyed I answer thirdly that all penall lawes as is this law for taking the oath in doubtfull words are ever to be taken in the more favourable sense and which makes the law to containe no falshood or injustice And therefore in this law to sweare as the words lye may be done without any injâ—stice or falshood which is and ought to be presumed to be the minde of the lawmaker for no law or lawmaker intends perjurie And therefore it is a frivolous thing to invent scrupulous crotchets which the words doe not import It may be objected secondly that the oath must be interpreted according to the intention of the law and lawmaker for as Suares saith lib.
6â— de leg cap. 1. upon the will and intention of the lawmaker which is the soule of the law the substance and force of the law doth chiâ—fly depend therefore it by any meanes the will of the lawmaker may be knowne according to it especially we must understand the words of the law But the will of the lawmaker is sufficiently knowne concerning this oath to make it apparently unlawfull for any Catholique to take as appeareth by the words of King Iames of blessed memory saying in his Premonition pag. 9. and in his Apology for the oath pag. 2. and 9. that by the oath of Allegiance he intended to demand of his subjects nothing else but a profession of that temporall Allegiance and civill obedience which all subjects by the law of God and nature doe owe to their lawfull Prince c. For as the Oath of Supremacie saith he was devised for putting a difference betweene Papists and them of our profession So was the oath of Allegiance ordained for making a difference between the civilly obedient Papists and the perverse disciples of the Powder treason by which words it appeareth that King Iames held both the law and the law maker intended by the oath of Supremacie to put a difference betweene Papists and Protestants and that no Papist would take that oath wherein the Jurisdiction of the Pope was intended to be abjured Ergo the said oath of Supremacie is to be interpreted accordingly all doubtfulnesse of words set aside and consequenter unlawfull for any Catholique to take To the Major of which Objection I answer first granting the same Secondly with a distinction that the intentions of the law and law maker are to bee sought when they interpret the law in a truer sense then the plaine words doe as they lie otherwise not lest it want veritie To Suarez I answer that himselfe saith in the place before cited that if at any time the propertie of the words of an oath should induce any injustice or like absurditie concerning the minde or meaning of the lawmaker they must be drawne to a sense although improper wherein the law may be just and reasonable for this is presumed to be the minde of the law maker as it hath beene declared by many lawes in F. tit de lege thus Suarez So that although there were in the words of this oath divers significations impropper and unusuall yet in the opinion of Suarez it might be taken and the words interpreted in the truest sense abstracting from the reall intention of the law maker how much more then say I the words being not improper or unusuall but according to the intention of the law and law maker may they be taken in the more favourable sence which may make the law to be just and reasonable See for this doctrine Can. Cum tu de testibus cap. 16. Can. ad nostram de Iurejurando cap. 21. et de regulis â—â—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 sâ—id oath was framed may seeme to some doubtfull and ambiguous although to me they seeme not so that is not cleare and morally certaine and so for one to sweare them in that doubtfull sence were to expose himselfe to danger of perjurie yet considering as I have said that such doubtfull words are to be taken in the more favourable sense and which maketh the law to be just and reasonable and to contain no falshood or injustice If any one sweare those words which of themselves are doubtfull in no doubtfull sense but in a true and determinate sense and wherein they are not doubtfull but cleere and morally certaine there is no danger of perjurie at all It may seeme to follow secondly out of the aforesaid doctrine that such as tooke the oath of Supremacie in King Henry the eighth dayes which rather then those famous and glorious men Sir Thomas Moore and Bishop Fisher would take they worthily chose to die were not to be condemned of perjurie because it might be supposed that they being learned Bishops and Noblemen knowing what belonged to an oath did draw the same to some improper sense which ought to have beene the intention of the aforesaid King to make the law just as if they should have sworne the then King Head or chiefe of the Church of his countrey for that he was Sovereigne Lord and ruler of both persons Spirituall and Temporall all sorts being bound to obey his lawfull civill lawes and commandements And so in this sense although it be a kinde of improper speech every King is Head of the Clergy and all others of his owne Countrey Or peradventure they might sweare him Supreame Head of the Church of England that is Chiefe of the congregation of beleevers within his dominions for so in our language we commonly say him to be the head of a Colledge Court or Citie that is the chiefe and him to be chiefe who is supreame therein The Church being then taken by all Divines for a congregation of men Why might not King Henrie be improperly sworne in the opinion of Suarez Head of the then congregation in England So that what Sir Thomas Moore lawfully and piously refused with relation to the intention of the aforesaid King others might without perjurie take with relation to the law of God abstracting from all unlawfull intentions to wit that every oath be just and reasonable as being to be taken in Veritie Iustice and Iudgement and so what was unlawfull in a proper sence might at lest be free from Perjurie in an improper Thus understanding the first branch and the second and third in the same sence before delivered they might peradventure be excused as I have said from perjurie But never from sinne For considering the state of England in those dayes and the absolute intention of the King which well knowne to the whole world was to be sworne Supreame Head of the Catholique Church Catholique religion still here remaining as I have said his oath was as much different from this now oath of Supremacie as darknesse from light For by this the Queene claimed not the Supremacie granted by Christ to Saint Peter as did her father but onely to be Supreame governour of a Church out of which she would not onely discard the Pope but likewise roote out all Catholique religion contrary to her fathers minde as I have shewed so that the question in the said Kings dayes was about an Article of faith viz. Whether the Supremacie were granted by God to the King or to the Pope Which Article they were bound with losse of their lives to have professed being called thereunto for then did occurre the
Priest against him this Sancta Clara hath Paraphrased upon the Articles of Religion established in the Church of England and sheweth in what sense and how a good Romane Catholique may with a saâ—e conscience subscribe to them all though eighteene at least of them shoot point blancke at their Trent faith and pierce it through and through Aggravate thâ—s fact of his to the height doth this Priest himselfe doe lesse who Paraphraseth upon the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacie and sheweth in what sense a Romane Catholique may take both though the former directly renounce the Popes temporall and the latter his spirituall power and jurisdiction Now I see what the matter is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is and alwayes will be emulation betweene Artificers that worke at the same Trade this Priest and Sancta Clara are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Craft or Trade they both deale in like Commodities equivocations and mentall reservations and wittie devices to elude oathes subscriptions to articles of Religion and religious obligations Not to dissemble with either of them they both teach with the Helcesaites Euseb. hist. lib. 6. cap. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissimulation in point of Religion and cunning fetches to deceive Chriâ—tian Magistrates when they are convented before them and unlesse they both repent their doome is set down Apoc. 22.25 Without are Dogs and Idolaters and whosoever loveth and maketh a lye I know well they pretend by this doctrine to keepe men from perjury and lying but they doe just as Lycurgus the Law-giver of the Lacedemonians did who to prevent adulterie enacted communitie of wives For equivocation is no better then an artificiall and made lye as the Bishop of Duresme and Mr. Henry Mason prove in their Treatises of this Argument p Yet some of these Greyhounds have beene taken by the Hares he speakes of as Albertus Piggius by Calvinâ— Paulus Virgerius by Breâ—tius and divers others but of this see pag. 53. letter E. q It is true that the Romanists teach the simpler sort of the vulgar that they are not to adore Images but onely to use them for memorie sake and Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in his second Booke De imaginibus sanctorum c. 22. hath these expresse words quantum ad modum loquendi praesertim in concione ad populum non est dicâ—dum imagines ullas adorari debere latriâ sede contrariò non debere sic adorari For the manner of speech especially in Sermons to the people we must not say that any Images ought to be adored cultu latriae but on the contrarie that they ought not to be so adored Yet the truth is that the Romane Church maintaineth the religious worship of Images For in the second Councell of Nice confirmed by Pope Adrian they are thunder smitten who adore them not clamat Synodus saith Bellarmine in the Chapter above cited imagines adorandas and venerabiles imagines amplexamur qui secus faxit anathemate percellimus and in the nineteenth yeere of King Richard the Second the Lollards have a forme of recantation prescribed them in these words From this day forward I shall worship Images with praying and offering unto them in the worship of the aints that they be made after Ex Rotulo Clausarum de Anno decimo nono R. sec. in 18. dorso See the Appendix to the Animadversions And to come neerer the Councell of Trent Sess. 25 decreeth in these words Imagines Christi et deiparae virginis et sanctorum in templis perpetuò habendae et retinendae sunt iisque debitus honor et veneratio impertienda The Images of Christ and of the Virgine the mother of God and of Saints are perpetually to be had and kept in Churches and due honour and veneration to be given unto them and lest any should thinke that this worship and veneration is not to be exhibited to the Images themselves but only to glance through them to the Saints Cardinall Bellarmine in his second booke De imaginibus sanctorum c. 21. most plainely and expresly resolves the point Imagines Christi et sanctorum venerandae sunt non solum per accidens vel improprie sed etiam per se et proprie ita ut ipsae terminent venerationem ut in se considerantur et non solum ut viâ—em gerunt exemplaris The Images of Christ and Saints are to be worshipped not onely by accident and improperly but also by themselves anâ— properly so that the worship is terminated in them as they are considered in themselves and not onely in regard of that they represent And cap. 20. He acknowledgeth it to be the opinion of Alexander of Hales Tho Aquinas Caietane Bonaventure Marsilius Almaine Carthusian Capreolus and others that the same honour is due to the Image and the patterne and therefâ—re the Image of Christ is to be worshipped with latria or divine worship And Vasquez de adorat l. 1. disp 6. c. 3. Rex Nebucadonosor admirans sapientiam et spiritum Danielis in signum honoris et reverentiae iussit ei offeri munera odorum et suffituum id quod nos etiam secundum fidem nostram immaginibus facere consuevimus Nebucadonosor admiring the wisedome and spirit of Daniel in signe of honour and reverence unto him commanded that sweete odours and incense should be offered unto him as we according to our faith use to doe to our images and now let the intelligent Reader judge whether Protestant Ministers are slanderers or Papists Idolaters and Image-worshippers by their owne profession See page 52. letter â— s The bane of Poperie not of Catholique religion See pag. 1. letter C and pag. 52. letter C. t Nay not so much for Religion noe nor at all for it but for Treason and disloyaltie See pag. 22. letter Q. u The Fathers heo speakes of were the flower of the Councel of Trent neither were they abused by any false suggestion for the case was put truely unto them and they resolved it according to their conscience after long disputation and mature deliberation See an extract of their Decree in the Appendix to the Animad versions w If Recusancie be so small a matter the more to blame all Papists who for such a toy as Recusancie doth disobey the Lawes The easier the performance of a coÌ„mandement is the greater contumacie in disobeying it x Here he hath found laâ—â—bram periurio this conceit of not being bound to answer the truth but before a competent Iudge and they will have none a competent â—udge but one of their owne religion is the â—yges ring by which the late Papists especially those that are Iesuited goe invisible in and from all our Courâ—s of Iustice. But I demand of them First why our Iudges in England are not as competent as those beyond the â—eas if the King be as it is treason for them or any other to denie our Leige Lord and lawfull Sovereigne those that are put in authoritie under him being men of learning
much delighteth in tribulation which ariseth by this recusancie that he would not a toleration of Catholike religion in England if he might Although in his answer to the Authour of the said libell he saith as knowing him not able to procure of Queene Elizabeth and the State a toleration for Catholikes that upon certaine conditions of his he would accept of the same but when he speakes from his heart of the thing it selfe he saith in his said Book cap. 9. pag. 216. That it is such as to aske it of God were to aske we know not what for that persecution is better That the said declaration and Popes rescripts were got by the aforesaid suggestions appears by the writings themselves as they are cited and further by one R. P. of the same family who wrote a booke printed Anno 1607. Contra Anonymum against a man without name Doctor Wright that it was not lawfull to frequent Churches of heretikes where promiscuously he relates all the aforesaid suggestions as the ground of his opinion and bringeth Cardinall Bellarmine and Baronius with eight others most of them of the same Schoole for the approbation of his case Which case as he puts it I thinke any man living would likewise have approved That these men above others were so laborious and serious for this recusancie appeares in that whosoever would oppose them were presently blasted for heretikes or at least fallen men insomuch that Azorius who wrote that it was lawfull for a Catholike to goe to the Church of Schismaticks was so troubled by the importunitie of these suggestions that he was constrained through feare that that part of his family should have suffered some great temporall detriment by his judicious writing as they say to recant his opinion and hold it not lawfull in our case of England See the said booke pag. 106. by all which any man may easily perceive that the aforesaid company were the busie-bodies and that for their owne ends as I have said upon the aforesaid grounds otherwise why should they more then others have beene so importune as to perswade yea compel Azorius who not perceiving under the species of piety their rare politicall drift wrote a common opinion to the whole world to denie that common opinion to have place in England That the foresaid Suggestions were and are false it is certaine by experience to any that know the state of the Protestant Church of England and that to the ruine of soules as shall be proved in the question following That it was procured covertly and by indirect meanes appeares in that onely twelve Fathers were chosen and the whole Corps of the Councell left out and amongst the rest the Bishop of Worcester there then present who knowing better the State and affaires of our Countrey then all the rest it seemes to me that he might have beene one of the twelve whose authoritie would have given more satisfaction to this point to our countrey then all the other selected But it should seeme that it was declared without any debate as a matter of no great importance although it seemeth to my weakenesse a matter of as great weight as any that was then agitated in the said Councel and therefore to leave a whole Councel in so weighty a matter that concerned the affaires of a whole Kingdome in point of Religion and where we might have had an infallibilitie and to adhere to twelve men fallible by suggestion without any debate or dispute in my judgement cannot be without great suspition of sinister proceedings Partly therefore supposing and partly intending further to prove the foresaid suggestions to be false and consequently the said Councel and Popes to hâ—ve beene abused he will indevour to examine the truth of the matter it selfe according to the principles of Divinitie within the bounds of the Catholike Church who wisheth all happinesse and prosperitie aswell to the said Church as to all the distressed members of the same with as much brevitie as may be in the insuing question A SAFEGARD FROM Shipwracke to a Prudent Catholique Question Whether it be lawfull for a Catholique to go to the Protestant Church I Answer it to be lawfull for him who doth it without a doubtfull conscience or thought of sin which I say because if a man should do that which in it selfe is lawfull doubting or not being satisfied whether it be lawfull or no he would sin in doing the same because he would put himselfe in hazzard or danger of sin and as the Wise man saith Eccles. 3. Qui amat periculum peribit in eo He that loves danger shall perish in the same So he that thinks a thing which in it selfe is indifferent to be sinne and doth the same sinneth because such a man hath a will to doe the thing although it were sin and by reason of his sinfull will commits sin Otherwise as I have said before it is lawfull Which I prove first The thing in it selfe is not forbidden by any Law either by the Law of God or the Church Not by the Law of God for no place of holy Scripture can be shewed by which it is forbidden Nor by the Law of the Church for no Councell or Canon of the Church can be produced for the prohibition of the same Ergo it is lawfull It is secondly prooved by an example of holy Scripture Lib. 4. Reg. cap. 5. where Naaman the Syrian Prince is permitted to goe to the Idolatrous Temple Rimmon to waite upon the Syrian King there offering sacrifice Ergo a man may be permitted to go to the Protestant Churches where neither Idolatry is committed or any hurt done Againe by the examples of Ioseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus Joh. 19.38 39. who although they went to the Synagogue of Jews and so not apparent disciples of our Saviour yet they were his disciples in secret For it is there said that after the death of our Saviour Ioseph of Arimathea because he was a disciple of Jesus but secret for feare of the Jews desired Pilate c. Nicodemus also came he that at the first came to Iesus by night c. by which appeares that the Jews knew not of their Religion It is manifest likewise that all the Apostles as freely conversed in the Synagogues of Jews as out of the same when thereby they could best exercise their function and mission For the Rhemists in their annotations upon the 20 Chapter of the Acts vers 16. Confesse that notwithstanding the festivitie of Pentecost was established among Christians yet Saint Paul might hasten to the festivitie of the Jews Therefore as these holy men might goe to the Synagoue and reserve their Religion to themselves so may a Catholique to the Protestant Churches And indeed it is an essentiall ingredient to the Mission of all Apostolicall men to treate and converse with all men concerning salvation in all places best for their purpose It is prooved thirdly by Azorius tom 1. lib. 8. institut
of the common wealth which is the chiefe thing that States men aime at mens consciences being left to themselves they may be obeyed as I hâ—ve said out of Azorius tom 1o. lib. 8. instit moral cap. 27. puncto 5o. And for as much as concerned the abrogation of Masse which by the law of God was unlawfull they did consequenter to the State government then for having rejected the authoritie â—f the Pope they likewise rejected the Masse as knowing that there could be no Masse without Priests nor Priests without the Pope And therefore taking as much of the Masse as would serve for their Service and to be independent of the Pope they left the rest But that they did it in hatred of God and his Church or for any distinction sake it is altogether improbable For what would a man get by hating of God or the Church of which himselfe must be a member to be saved or how could they make a distinction of that they knew not for the Protestant Church was not then knowne or scarce established And therefore without wholly granting the Major or distinguishing the Minor I answer that every one ought under paine of damnation to obey his temporall Prince in matters lawfull Yet to suffer for his religion and abstracting from all obedience either to Statute or Rescâ—ipt not for Recusancie It may be objected thirdly that of S. Paul to the Romans 10.10 With the heart we beleeve unto justice but wâ—th the mouth confession is made to salvation Ergo No man can goe to Church I deny the sequele and to the Antecedent I answer that according to Divines a man is bound to confesse his religion Semper sed non ad semper alwaies but not at all waies that is not at all times and in all places but as I have said before out of Saint Thomas of Aquin in the said two cases viz. as often as the honour and glory of God requires the same or the spirituall profit of our neighbour shall exact it as likely to be impaired by silence which to be requisite I have before granted Yet hence it doth not follow that I am bound to goe into the Market place and cry out I am a Catholike who will punish me or before I am called to publish my religion to make my selfe be called or to live and converse to the same time as having a setled being and not going to Church I read that Saint Faelix going to martyrdome S. Adaucâ—us came to the Officers that led him thither and said to them that he lived in the same law with Saint Faelix and therefore that they should likewise put him to death Yet I conceive that he had a speciall revelation for the same and that it is no warrant for our indiscretion If it be replyed that so a man shall professe no religion I answer the inference to be naught for suppose a mans recusancie were never discovered this man professeth some religion for he doth not live a heathen Why then recusancie being rejected should he not professe the same If it be said that it is written that no man can serve two masters rightly Yet a man may serve one Master and have a servant to serve him or he may serve one master and keepe or use that Masters picture howsoever ill it be drawne It may be objected fourthly that the Rescript of Pope Paul the fifth in which he writes to the Catholiques of England declareth that they ought not to goe to the Churches of Heretiques or heare their Sermons without detriment of the divine worship and their owne salvation To which I answer that the said Pope wrote both piously fatherly and Apostolically according to the aforesaid suggestions by him received and if he had had the truth of the state of England I beleeve he would have written as piously the contrary For put the case that those zealous suggestors had presented to the consideration of the Councel of Trent or the Pope himselfe the truth and lawfulnesse of Catholiques going to Church with these seven reasons following supposing an absolute necessitie 1. First that there is no evill or harme done or said in the Protestant Churches to the prejudice of any Catholike soule that may not either be hindred or prevented very well by the instruction of Priests for they preach not against any notable point of doctrine held in the Catholique Church although some simple Minister for want of matter may glance at some of our tenets by halfes understood or in these daies to please his auditorie may raile against the Pope which he doth so irrationally that few Protestants of any judgement do beleeve him for if he should seriously preach controversies as insisting seriously upon the true doctrine of both sides his Auditors or at lest some of them would be apt to doubt and so to search and dive further into the truth for as Saint Augustine saith doubt begets science which might be an occasion of somes falling from him which fearing he is silent in doctrine and onely teacheth moralitie which why a man may not heare in urgent extremity from any man I cannot conceive 2. Secondly that their going to Church would be a conservation and a preservation of their lands and goods with a prevention of ruine to the family and posterity 3. That it would be a means to obtaine and purchase the love of their neighbours and a meanes of their conversion by an affable conversation by which likewise they might beare the greatest Offices in the common wealth and become Parliament men as well as others of whom and whose power and force in matters of Religion these dayes can somewhat declare 4. Fourthly that it would be a meanes that whereas Priests leave their Colledges and now live in private mens houses to the benefit of one or two and to the great danger of themselves and their Patrons they might by this meanes more freely converse with all sorts of people after an Apostolicall manner and convert many to the honour of God the increase of his Church and good of their owne soules Whereas now they doe little good out of that private house unlesse maintaine some decayed gentlewomen in good clothes to gossip up and downe and like bels to ring their praises that they may fish one in a yeere to the disparagement of their function and great prejudice of their Mission 5. Fifthly that divers Schismaticks that now goe to Church with an ill conscience and thinke themselves in state of damnation doe suffer spirituall detriment and oftentimes being prevented with sudden death everlastingly perish 6. Sixthly many thousands that are very morall and well affected Protestants were it not for the stop of Recusancie would become Catholiques Which rather then they will undoe themselves and Family now will not heare of it 7. Seventhly that no poore Catholique that is not able to give twenty pound per annum with their children to some Colledge beyond the Seas can bring
words The body of our Lord Iesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy body and soule unto eternall life and yet all this while never thinke of receiving the Sacrament but only of eating a piece of bread and drinking a draught of wine which shall be better done with the remembrance of Christ then without it He will say that our Sacrament is nothing but common bread and wine and that nought else is to be received aâ— our Communion Table The Lord rebuke thee thou false tongue What because we beleeve not that the bread and wine is transubstantiated into Christs body and blood must it therefore be nothing but common bread and bare wine By the same reason he might say that because the water in Baptisme is not transubstantiated into Christs blood that therefore it is nothing but faire water and he may in a jesting manner wash a childe in remembrance of Christs washing us with his blood It is true we teach with Theodoret Dial. 2. That the sacred symbols after consecration depart not out of their own nature but still remaine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their former substance shape and figure but withall we teach that they remaine not the same in use signification and supernaturall efficacie by vertue of Christs promise to all that worthily partake of the same Neither could this prophane scoffer be ignorant hereof for he saith He hath often been at our Service where we professe that all who with a lively faith receive the holy Sacrament spiritually eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood He also maketh mention in this Pamphlet of the 39. Articles which he will have to be the definition of a Protestant and in those Articles he could not but reade Art 28. Christs body is given received and eaten in the Supper but only after a heavenly and spirituall manner And in the Apologie of the Church of England part 2. cap. 14. The Supper of the Lord is not only a signe of the love that Christians ought to beare amongst themselves one to the other but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christs death in so much that to such as rightly worthily and with faith receive the same the bread which we breake is the partaking of the body of Christ and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. With which confession of ours fully accordeth the Helvetian the French the Belgicke the Augustane and the Swevick as he that hath an eare may heare in the Harmony of Confessions Printed 1581. cap. 21. De sacrâ coenâ Domini What should I need for further proofe hereof either to alleadge the testimonie of Calvin Epist. 31. Non modo figuratur in coenae communio quam habemus cum Christo sed etiam exhibetur neque verba illic nobis dantur à Domino sed veritas ac res constat cum verbis Haec porro communio non imaginaria est sed qua in unum corpus unamque substantiam cum capite nostro coalescimus There is not only figured in the Supper that communion which we have with Christ but it is also exhibited neither doth our Lord deceive us but the truth of the thing is correspondent to his words neither is the communion we speake of an imaginarie but such a reall one whereby we grow into one body and one substance with Chrâ—st our head or the testimonie of Bucer Epist. ad Italos addit hoc est corpus meum hic sanguis meus id credamus nec dubitemus haec dari nobis his ipsis symbolis dari in cibum potum vitae aeternae ut magis magisque vivamus in Christo habeamus illum manentem in nobis He addeth this is my body this is my blood let us beleeve it and no way doubt but that these things are given unto us by or with these very symbols and that they are given unto us for the food and drinke of eternall life that we may more and more live in Christ and have him living in us It never came into the thought of any professour of the Gospel to celebrate the Supper of the Lord without the Lord as Bucer speaketh in this Epistle or exclude him from his owne Table We teach he is there truly present and is truly received by all worthy communicants but spiritually by faith not carnally with the mouth according to the grosse Capernaitical conceipt of Romanists For first our Saviour in the sixth of Iohn where he commandeth all to eate his flesh and drinke his blood vers 53. affirming that his flesh is meat indeed and his blood is drinke indeed perceiving that some were offended thereat saying vers 60. this is a hard saying who can beare it thus he declareth his own meaning vers 63. The words which I speake unto you they are spirit and they are life that is spiritually to be understood not carnally and grossely Secondly the Orthodox Fathers disclaime this carnall eating with the mouth St. Cyril in his Anathems denyeth the Sacrament to be hominis comestionem An Anthropophagie or man eating St. Chrysostome saith it is mensa aquilarum not graculorum and St. Austine that it is cibus mentis not ventris or dentis the food of the soule not of the tooth or belly Tract 20. in Iohan. Vt quid paras dentes ventrem crede manducasti Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly beleeve and thou hast eaten and St. Cyprian de coena Dom. haec quoties agimus non dentes ad manducondum acuimus sed fide sincera panem sanctum frangimus As oft as we doe these things we doe not whâ—t our teeth to eate but with sincere faith we breake that holy bread Thirdly Christ never instituted any Sacramentall action but it was profitable to the soule but the eating of Christs flesh with the mouth and swallowing it down in the stomack doth no way at all profit the soule Fourthly Christ never wrought any miracle outwardly upon the creature but the truth therof appeared even to sense when he turned the water into wine Ioh. 2. The change was discovered by the taste vers 9 10. When the Ruler of the feast had tasted it he said to the Bridegroome thou hast kept the good wine till now In like manner when Christ multiplyed the five Barley loaves and the two fishes both the taste and the stomacke and the eyes of all that were present gave testimonie to the truth of this miracle For they did all eate and were satisfied and saw twelve baskâ—ts remaining full of the fragments or broken meat which remained to them that had eaten Neither can it be shewed that ever Christ the Author of truth deluded the sense If therefore the bread had been truly and really turned into the substance of flesh either the sight or the taste or the touch would have discerned this change which yet as themselves confesse discover nothing but the whitenesse the roundnesse the