Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	bishop_n	lord_n	thomas_n	4,086	5	8.4988	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41019	Virtumnus romanus, or, A discovrse penned by a Romish priest wherein he endevours to prove that it is lawfull for a papist in England to goe to the Protestant church, to receive the communion, and to take the oathes, both of allegiance and supremacie : to which are adjoyned animadversions in the in the [sic] margin by way of antidote against those places where the rankest poyson is couched / by Daniel Featley ...	Featley, Daniel, 1582-1645.	1642 (1642)	Wing F597; ESTC R2100	140,574	186

for ever be cleerely extinguished and never to be used or obeyed within this Realme or any other your Maiesties Dominions and Countries may it please your Highnesse that it may be enacted as followeth c. Hence I thus argue No Papist with a good conscience can take an Oath prescribed by an Act of Parliament made purposely and with an expresse intention for the extirpation of the Popes jurisdiction and Supremacie over the whole Church which he claimeth by vertue of Christs promise made to Peter tibi dabo claves But such is the Oath of Supremacie as appeares by the Statutes above cited Ergo No Papist with a good conscience may take it 2. Secondly from the letter of the law and formal● and expresse words of the Oath which are these That neither the See nor Bishop of Rome nor any forreigne Potentate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction power or authoritie within this Realme neither by Gods Law nor by any other iust law or meanes Henry 8.35 yeere hereunto adde the Admonition to the Queenes Injunctions Hence I thus argue No Papist may take an Oath which containeth in it the renouncing a prime Article of his faith necessary to salvation in his Religion and the iudgement of his Church But every Papist taking the Oath of Supremacie renounceth a prime Article of his faith necessarie to salvation For so we reade in the Extravagans cap. unam sanctam de maior et obed Subesse Romano pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus dicimus definimus et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis We saith Boniface the eighth declare say define and pronounce that it is altogether or absolutely necessary to salvation for every humane creature to be subiect to the Bishop of Rome Ergo no Papist may take the Oath of Supremacie 3. Thirdly from the judgement of the Church of Rome which accounteth Fisher Bishop of Rochester and Sir Thomas Moore sometimes Lord Chan●ellour of England blessed and glorious Martyrs because both these lost 〈◊〉 heads ●ather then they would acknowledge the King Supreame Head 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 the Popes Headship To omit the testimonies 〈…〉 ●ovius Bishop in Italie Iohn Cochleus of Germanie William Paradine a learned Historian of France Cardinall Poole living in the Court at Rome and writing to the King in the defence of Ecclesiasticall unitie saith thus by the figure of Apostroph● Thy Father O England thy ornament thy de●●nce was brought to his death being innocent in thy sight and a little after he lef● his life for thy sake left he should overthrow and b●tray thy salvation and Cardinall B●llarmine in his Booke De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis ab Anno 1400. ad 1500. thus writeth of Fisher Bishop of Rochester Iohannes Fischerus natione Anglus Episcopus Roffensis posteà S. R. E. Cardinalis et quod longe gloriofius est Martyr Christi occisus est Henrici octavi Regis anglorum iussu Anno 1535. Iohn Fisher an English man Bishop of Rochester and afterwards Car●inall and which makes him farre more glorious a Martyr of Christ was slaine by the coommandement of King Henrie the eighth in the yeere of our Lord one thousand five hundred thirty five Whence I thus argue To his evasion that it was not the same Oath See the answer p. 119. letter R. and the Appendix p. 141. Either Fisher and Moore were no Martyrs who died for refusing to take this Oath or they are no good Papists who take it But Fisher and Moore were famous and glorious Martyrs in the opinion of the Romane Church as hath beene prooved Ergo they who take the Oath of Supremacie are no good Papists 4. Fourthly from the confession of this Priest pag. 118. The Oath of Supremacie when it was made in the dayes of King Henry 8. was unlawfull to be taken by any Catholique and pag. 119. If any had sworne the King to be Supreame Head of that Church he would have sworne false as making the Church a monster having two heads or depriving the Pope of his authoritie granted him by God Whence I thus argue The Oath of Supremacie prescribed by that Act of Parliament in the 35. of Henry 8. was unlawfull to be taken by any Roman Catholique as this Priest confesseth But the Oath of Supremacie prescribed by Act of Parliament in the first of Elizabeth in force at this day is the same with the Oath prescribed by Act of Parliament in the 35. of Henrie the eighth as appeareth by comparing both the Oathes together with a proviso in an Act the fifth of Elizabeth for expounding this Oath where it is said That we confesse and acknowledge in her Maiestie her Heires and Successours no other authoritie then that which was challenged and lately used by the noble King Henrie the eighth and King Edward the sixth as in the Admonition to the Qeenes Injunctions more plainly appeares The Queenes Maiestie would that all her loving subiects should understand that nothing was is or shall be meant or intended by the same Oath to have any other Dutie Allegiance or Bond required by the same Oath then was acknowledged to be due to the most noble King of famous memorie King Henrie the eighth her Maiesties father or King Edward the sixt her Maiesties brother Ergo the Oath of Supremacie prescribed by Act of Parliament the first of Elizabeth is unlawfull to be taken by any Romane Catholique I conclude therefore super tota materia that the taking of the Oath of Supremacie is an abrenunciation of the Romish faith and consequently that we wrong no Papist that takes the Oath if we beleeve him a forswearer who forsweares his beliefe De memorando irrotulat● * The Hel●esaus w●re cond●mned for heretikes for hol●ing a man might deny his faith with his mouth so hee keepe it in his heart Euseb. h●st l. 6. c. 31. a Rom. 10.10 Cic. pro 〈◊〉 Am●r vultu saepe lad●tur 〈◊〉 Ep. ●● contami●ari se 〈…〉 a●am illam vid●●i● 〈◊〉 ibid. Fe●end●m ne est ut gentilis sacrif●c●t christianus inter sit S●zo hist. eccles l. 5. c. 16. prejecto ad pedes au●o c. * Suidas in Auxent * Marcus Bishop of Arrethusa Theod. hist. l. 3 c. 6.

and Supremacie Matth. 10.16 Be ye wise as Serpents and Simple as Doves LONDON Printed by I. L. for Nicholas Bourne at the South entrance to the Royall Exchange 1642. A Preface to the Reader Gentle Reader I Am to write of a point of Controversie wherein I know that I shall undergoe the censure of divers sorts of people yea amaze some at the strangenesse of the thing Yet my intention being good as tending to the safeguard as well of souls as bodies of all and I my selfe being constrained by a kinde of naturall necessitie thereto as suffering much not only by the severitie of the Laws for my Religion which is the least but likewise both spiritually and temporally by the malice and treachery of some evill spirits instigating others to take advantage by Religion doe hope to finde approbation therein at least of the wiser sort Although I cannot see but why in reason not pretending the least prejudice to Religion but rather the good of Gods Church as I shall make appeare the weakest sort of Catholiques should not be likewise pleased therewith For although Religion as it is taken for Christian beliefe ought of every man to be professed according to St. Thomas Aquinas and other Doctors 2a. 2ae q. 3. at two particular times viz. when and as often as the glory of God shall conduce therunto or the spirituall good of our neighbour shall be either conserved or augmented thereby grounding themselves upon the words of our Saviour Matth. 10.32 Qui me confessus fuerit coram hominibus confitebor ego eum coram patre meo qui in caelis est Every one that shall confesse me before men I also will confesse him before my Father which is in heaven Yet it is not necessary to salvation that any man at all times and in all places doe confesse his Religion without necessitie Whence if a man should goe out into the Market place and cry himselfe to be of such and such a Religion or should write upon the frontispice of his house in a countrey contrary to his Religion here liveth a Christian a Protestant or Catholike his act would be thought so farre from vertue or religion as that it would be rather deemed presumption or the height of indiscretion Hence it is that although a Catholike be bound under paine of damnation to professe his religion in the twice before assigned yet he is not bound to professe a Recusancy of a thing of its own nature indifferent thereby at all times and in all places to discover his Religion for this were as much in effect as to cry himselfe over the whole kingdome or to write over his doore that he were A Catholike or at least some Sectary For as I shall hereafter say Recusancy is common both to Catholikes Brownists and other Sectaries different in opinion from Protestants which would be an occasion to call himselfe in question for the Religion he professeth whence I may rightly describe the Recusancy of Catholikes no otherwise then to be an indiscreet discovery of a mans Religion without necessitie or obligation whereby he makes himselfe lyable to the penall laws of England for not going to Church Which was brought first amongst them into England by a certaine company of men for temporall ends procured covertly and by indirect means from twelve Fathers of the Councell of Trent and certaine Popes upon false suggestions to the ruine of many men That I proove what I have said it is necessary that I relate the manner how it was brought in In the beginning of Queen Elizabeths reign and the alteration of Religion in England Catholikes went to Church to conforme themselves to the State as they did in K. Edward the sixths time yet privately kept to themselves the exercise of their owne Religion Which some Priests perceiving not convenient for the propagation of their owne family then newly hatched wrought in the Councel of Trent that twelve Fathers of the said Councel not all Bishops yet favourers of the said family might be selected to declare to English Catholikes upon these suggestions following viz. that the Protestants of England were idolatrous and blasphemous hereticks hating God and his Church that their commerce especially at Church would be an occasion of the subversion and ruine of their soules denying and betraying of the true faith giving of scandall to men of tender conscience as breaking that signe which was distinctive betweene the people of God and not his people that it was altogether unlawfull for them to goe any longer to the Protestant Church as appeareth by the words of the said declaration which if I had by me I would willingly have here inserted This declaration being thus obtained they possessed certain Popes to wit Paul the fourth Pius the the fifth the two last Gregories Sixtus Clement and Paul the fifth so strongly with the same and the aforesaid suggestions that the said Popes likewise declared as it is said by certaine rescripts which I never yet could see their going to Church to be likewise unlawfull Which said suggestions had they beene or were they true I should likewise say and grant it unlawfull but not being true as I shall hereafter shew the common opinion of Divines in this point is to be followed to wit that it is a thing indifferent and therefore may be lawfull to frequent the Churches of Schismaticks Now to prove what I have said that it was first brought in by a certaine company of men It is evident in it selfe by the carriage of the businesse for it is altogether improbable that one mans authoritie to wit Doctor Sanders who is named to be the onely Agent herein a man alwaies ill relished in our state and therefore in this point to be esteemed partiall could select so many Fathers out of the said Councel in a matter of such importance upon his owne bare suggestion or that the said Fathers would or ought to have declared the same unlesse they had been made beleeve that the aforesaid suggestions were true in the common opinion of most of the Priests then in our kingdome That it was wrought for temporall ends by the said company the event shewes the same for there is none that have got or do get thereby but onely the said company as appeares by their abundant treasure and rich Colledges for Recusancie begets persecution and persecution almes deeds that God may assist the afflicted in their distresses And by this Recusancie great mens children can get no learning or science within this kingdome but must be sent beyond the Seas each at twentie five or thirtie pound per annum by which their said family was and is propagated and their heape increased Further the politicall invention of recusancie was so sweet and pleasing by reason of the great gaine which it brought that one of the said company Authour of the answer to the libell of Justice all besmeared with wonted pietie so

6● de leg cap. 1. upon the will and intention of the lawmaker which is the soule of the law the substance and force of the law doth chi●fly depend therefore it by any meanes the will of the lawmaker may be knowne according to it especially we must understand the words of the law But the will of the lawmaker is sufficiently knowne concerning this oath to make it apparently unlawfull for any Catholique to take as appeareth by the words of King Iames of blessed memory saying in his Premonition pag. 9. and in his Apology for the oath pag. 2. and 9. that by the oath of Allegiance he intended to demand of his subjects nothing else but a profession of that temporall Allegiance and civill obedience which all subjects by the law of God and nature doe owe to their lawfull Prince c. For as the Oath of Supremacie saith he was devised for putting a difference betweene Papists and them of our profession So was the oath of Allegiance ordained for making a difference between the civilly obedient Papists and 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 ●●ris in 6. reg 49. in paenis leg Benignius F. de leg Leg. In ambigua ibidem Hence it followeth first out of the doctrine of the said Suarez that although the words and sentences contained in this oath being considered barely by themselves and without due circumstances to wit the intention of the law and lawmaker and to what end and purpose the s●id oath was framed may seeme to some doubtfull and ambiguous although to me they seeme not so that is not cleare and morally certaine and so for one to sweare them in that doubtfull sence were to expose himselfe to danger of perjurie yet considering as I have said that such doubtfull words are to be taken in the more favourable sense and which maketh the 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