will make no bones to denie it reserving in his mindâ— chast Lastly if the Iudge or Iustice charge him to use no equivocation or mentall reservation he will say and sweare he useth none reserving in his minde to tell you and so he slips all knots and it may be truly said of him what Pseudolus in the Poet spake of Ballio non potest pietate obsisti huic ut res sunt caeterae this man is oath proofe All heretiques and miscreants deliver mendacia doctrinarum lyes of doctrine but these only doctrinam mendaciorum a doctrine of lyes sodered by mentall reservation these only define doctrinally the lawfulnesse of a lye so that which is untrue in words be salved up with a mentall reservation This is the strange monstrous brat of the Iesuits like a childe halfe in halfe out of the mothers wombe for so is their mixt proposition halfe uttered and halfe concealed or reserved to themselves This is conceived to be the invention of a Iesuit at the first and therefore is tearmed by those who have learnedly impugned it the Iesuits new art of lying and true it is if we peruse the Catalogues of heretiques drawne by Epiphanius Augustine Philastrius together with Alfonsus à Castro Ambrosius de Rusconibus you shall light upon no hereticke who doctrinally maintained such a kinde of equivocation especially in matter of oath to be taken before a lawfull Magistrate It is true the Priscillianists held it to be lawfull to lye and forsweare and some Catholiques in St. Austines time to feigne themselves Priscillianists that they might the better entrap them and discover them but this was fraudulent simulation not mentall reservation the Arch-hereticke Arius when he was demanded whether he had subscribed or would to the Orthodox faith concerning the consubstantialitie of the sonne answered he had or would pointing to a paper in his bosome in which he had written his beliefe touching that point but this was a fraudulent gesture and false significatiin of his minde not a mentall reservation Give therefore the Devill his due this quaint kinde of lye was his prime invention as we may see in the Poet. When the Devill required of the Pagan King who was about to sacrifice unto him Cut me off a head Numa instructed by his familiar appearing to him in the likenesse of the Nymph Oegeria answered I will doe it adding by aequivocation of an Onion when the Devill added nay but thou shalt take of a mans Numa saith he will but addeth what he reserved in his minde haires when the Devill yet farther replyed nay I will have the soule or life you shall saith the King adding what he reserved in his minde of a fish and so plowing with the Devill his owne heifer resolved all diabolicall riddles See here the prototypon of Iesuiticall equivocation by addition and mentall reservation and after what copie either Garnet or Valentia or Navarrus or any other of the like sect wrot who first in our age published in writing and after in print the doctrine of equivocation by mentall reservation Fourthly to descrie to those that sit at the sterne in Church and Common wealth the maine scope and marke at which this Romish Priest and his associates â—ime in perswading all Romish Catholiques within this Realme to resort to our Churches and take the Oathes both of Allegiance and Supremacie It is as be professeth not so much for their indempniâ—iâ— from penall Statutes as to qualifie them for other preferments and even votes in Parliament to the indangering of our Religion and governmâ—nt For what should hinder them whose parts estate and friends are able to raise them from attaining their desires herein sith their Religion is now made no barre unto them and these Oathes he mentions now serve no more for a partition Wall betâ—eene loyall Protestants and dislâ—yall Papists Now the Ephraimites have learned to speake Shiboleth as plaine as the Gileadites whereas before they could but lispe Siboleth And if these Ephraimites by this slight come to be admitted to places of greatest trust in this Kingdome and as their birth and Baronies entitle divers of them to the House of Peeres so they should be chosen indifferently to the House of Commons what a loose end all things would be at How suddenly might we be cheated of our Religion Liberties Lawes yea and lives to Wherefore it were to be humbly desired of those that love the truth in sinceritie even with bended knees that his Maiestie and the high Court of Parliament would make some more certain distinctive signe between Papists and Protestants then monethly coming to Church and taking the Oathes above mentionâ—d This Authour points at such a thing while he speakes of some Articles of thâ—ir faith which it is not lawfull for them in any case to deny If therefore it should seeme good to the wisedome of the State to prescribe such a Confession of faith to be drawn wherein all or the most fundamentall points of their Trent faith are renounced and by name the twelve new Articles added to the Apostles Creede in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth we should either soone see certainely who were Papists and who were not or at least give the Romish Religion a smarter blow then it ever yet received For though this Authour speake of a Fox craft to be used by Prudent Catholiques and though the Priests and Iesuits and the cunningest heads among the Papists would set their wits on the racke to finde out some Eshapatoir or evasion whereby they might goe beyond the State yet they must then be inforced to denie their Religion to save it and to alter the tenets which have hitherto beene held for currant both among their Schoole Divines and Casuists namely that it is a damnable sinne to equivocate when a man is called to give an account of his faith For this cannot be denied to be a plaine deniall of Christ and in their owne sense whosoever so denieth him before men shall be denied by him before his Father in heaven Lastly to shew the great strength of truth and the cleare evidence of the Protestant Religion which convinceth the conscience of most obstinate Papists For this Authour a man of learning and well versed in the booke cases of the Romanists though in some places he jeares at our Preachers and scoffes at our Religion yet in other where he is most serious he lets fall those passages from him which are worthy the taking up namely pag. 6. Recusancie was first brought aâ—ong Catholiques into England by a certaine companie of men for temporall ends procured covertly and by indirect meanes from twelve Fathers of the Councel of Trent and certaine Popes upon false suggestions The false suggestions pag. 7. et deinceps were these viz. That the Protestants of England were idolatrous and blasphemous heretiques hating God and his Church that the commerce with them especially at Church would be an occasion of the
himselfe disdained This reason seemes to me very strange that a man may goe to Church to serve his King and may not goe to Church to serve himselfe when as charitie alwayes beginneth at home and if a man be naught in or to himselfe to whom can he be good or that feare of displeasure through apprehended disdaine can excuse a man from doing that which were otherwise unlawfull as though a man were not bound rather to suffer the displeasure of his King with losse of his life then suffer wrack of his owne conscience and if feare of displeasure did excuse Naaman why should not the danger of death losse of fortunes ruine of posteritie and the like excuse Catholiques 4. The fourth reason and most especiall difference is say they that Naaman made a promise before the Prophet and his own train that he would from thence forth serve onely the true God and to that purpose carried earth with him to make an Altar for sacrifice Whereas those that goe to the Protestant Church doe not renounce all heresies nor professe to frequent Masse c. But pray give me leave to say they doe and that herein there is no difference at all For Catholikes that goe to Church are knowne to their Confessaries and their minde and intention is likewise to him knowne as Naamans was to the Prophet And if they be knowne Catholiques their beliefe is likewise knowne at leastwise to their traine if not to others by their communion with the See of Rome so that herein there is no disparitie at all And if they be not knowne it is prudence to keepe themselves so more then to their Confessaries which is a sufficient protestation in these troublesome times For I wonder by what law a mâ—n is bound to make any other Protestation of his beliefe for the doing of a thing indifferent So that as I have said for the said foure reasons and likewise because there is Idolatrie committed at Protestant Churches which I never yet could finde as often as I have frequented the same and doe hope to prove the contrarie the aforesaid Doctors make it unlawfull and scandalous to goe to Church and our case different from Naamans Hence they liken it to that of Eleazarus and the other Maccabees 2 Mac. 6.7 who were commanded by eating Swines flesh to depart from the law of God and their fathers Which say they by no meanes was lawfull to doe or to make shew of doing the same And a man may sweare it true For Swines flesh being forbidden by the law they were bound under sinne to abstaine from the same And if they should have made their brethren beleeve in words that they had eaten they would have told an untruth with dissimulation in a matter forbidden by the law both which were mortall sinnes which is as farre different from our case as light from darknesse For we contend that to goe to a Protestant Church is by no law forbidden but a thing indifferent and by a good intention may be made really good without any dissembling And they bring us an example of a thing which in doing many sinnes are committed so that for the reasons which I have given I conceive that the authoritie of the said rewoned Doctors concludeth nothing against our assertion unlesse the Protestants were an assembly of fallen heretiques where there were danger of sinne by subversion or the like which can never be proved It may be fourthly objected that it is the common opinion of men that to go to Church is scandalous because it is a signe of hereticall falshood and a man so doing is reputed as fallen both of Catholiques and Protestants I answer that it is false and experience teacheth us the contrary For who made it such a signe and Schismaticks that goe to Church with an ill conscience only to save their goods notwithstanding in this they are accounted to hurt onely themselves yet of all Catholiques they are trusted and esteemed as honest men and of Protestants they are esteemed no other And they sinne not as I have said in going to Church but in going with an ill conscience and being barred of simple Priests from other meanes of salvation and in doing so give scandall But you will say they deny their faith in this act I deny that They deny onely recusancie with an ill conscience and not religion Yet I grant that such Schismaticks professe no faith at all And if there be any other opinion of men concerning them it is malicious and pharisaical generated by the craft and deceit of others under the species of pretended piety making people beleeve that there is sinne and scandall in the act when there is none and if any Protestant thinketh otherwise of this they have it from the erroneous customary opinion of some Catholiques revealing the same It may be objected fifthly To communicate with heretiques is sinne and scandall but to goe to Church is to communicate with heretiques Ergo. It is sinne and scandall To which I answer first distinguishing the Major to communicate with hereticks publikely and particularly denounced to be such or in their heresie I grant the Major but deny the Minor in the same sence but to communicate with heretiques not denounced such not in point of heresie to be sinne that is most false for then we should neither eate drinke buy or sell with Protestants which is most absurd Which absurditie to take away and all scruple rising from thence by communicating with heretiques as well in service as otherwaies was the before mentioned constitution of Martin the fifth prudently made Adde that if we may not communicate with Protestants in going to Church we must communicate with Brownists in refraining the Church and so be thought the same with them or else every one must be bound to get himselfe convicted for a Popish Recusant that so Protestants may know him to be a Catholique and no Brownist and so to avoyd water he must runne into the fire If you answer that so he goeth not to Church it maketh no matter what Protestants thinke of him for Catholiques know what he is I reply then by the same reason that if he goe to Church it maketh no matter what Protestants thinke of him for Catholiques may likewise know what he is I answer secondly that the Major supposeth what is not granted viz. That Protestants with whom I goe to Church are formall heretiques which I desire to be first proved For an heretique is he that obstinately denieth any article of faith proposed by the Catholique Church to be beleeved How can a Protestant be said obstinately which includes a knowne infallibility rejected to deny an article proposed by the Catholique Church as I have said before when he beleeves none other Church but his owne For although Protestants hold divers tenets contrary to the Catholike Church which have been justly condemned in their Authours as heretiques Yet whether obstinately held in them the contrary not
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
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
times of obligation before expressed by Saint Thomas and other Divines for the profession of a mans faith As when the honour and glory of God and the spirituall benefit of his neighbour should exact the same Now when or what greater honour could a man have done to God then to have stood for the truth of the Gospel and defence of the Catholike faith being so opposed And in whom could there have beene more edification and greater example given for simple and unlearned men to follow then in Bishops and great men of authoritie Neither was it to purpose for them to alleadge that they were in danger of their lives and fortunes for they were bound to loose both rather then to denie any one Article of faith For although I have said that a man is not bound with danger of life or fortunes to abstaine from a thing lawfull or of its owne nature indifferent as the going to a Protestant Church in a Protestant Countrey taking the oath of Alleagiance or the now oath of Supremacy every of which is farre enough from an Article of faith or point of religion onely more cryed downe because out of fashion then out of any grounded reason or judgement to avoid the scandall of weâ—ke ones after instruction or admonition given of the nature of the thing and the danger in abstaining Yet I never said that a man was not bound to professe his religion in time convenient or that hee might deny his faith or any part or point of the same for feare of death but absolutely the contrary hence I say that the Supremacie in those daies being a point of religion and an article of faith although they might be excused from perjurie yet never from sinne and scandall And therefore I conceive that Suares onely intendeth that then lawes and oathes invented contrary to the law of God may be drawne to an improper sence when scandall may be avoyded with integritie of faith And so those that tooke the aforesaid Kings oath I leave to the judgement of God for as Saint Paul saith 1 Cor. 4. It is our Lord that judgeth who best knoweth the rectitude of all mens actions and the secret intentions of each mans heart The Minor of the said objection is denyed And to the words of K. Iames saying that as the Oath of Supremacie was devised for putting a difference between Papists and them of our profession So was c. I answer that the said King did not by those words undertake to give an absolute and totall reason why the said oath was devised himselfe not being the deviser or maker thereof but spake according to the effect which hee saw the oath of Supremacie tooke in his daies who conceiving that Catholiques held it not an oath lawfull for them to take and therefore some in King Henries daies refused the same out of conscience others since the abrogation of Masse and establishment of the Protestant Church out of scruples not considering either the change of times or alteration of the Church conceived likewise a difference to result thereby betweene them and Protestants so that the said renowned King did not intend by the aforesaid words to make known the intention of the law or lawmaker but onely spake what an effect the said devised oath had in Catholiques wrought That neither of the said oathes of Supremacie were framed to put a difference betweene Papists and Protestants is evident by what I have said for in King Henrie his dayes there were no Protestants knowne in England to differ withall and that oath was made onely and solely for his pleasure And in the said Queens daies the oath was onely made to give and acknowledge her power and authoritie in Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things thereby as I have sufficiently said to propagate and establish the Protestant Church and to no other end or purpose The Major and Minor being thus answered the consequence appeares naught and the assertion for the lawfulnesse of the oath in force If any simple man pardon the bluntnesse of my speech for I know that no discreete or judicious man of either learning oâ— piety will justly censure me shall whisper in a corner that this doctrine is scandalous and unheard of and that divers have suffered and shed their blood rather then they would admit the same and which if it had beene lawfull others of his tribe would have found out before this time hee should have added to men of great qualitie and therefore it being no matter of faith none ought to beleeve it I forgive the poore man for he speakes out of hypocrisie or ignorance or both for he cannot tell you with learning and sinceritie why or how it is scandalous And if any did suffer for the same I pray let him likewise whisper when or in what yeere or Kings reign and then compare his speech to what I have said Yet whensoever they did it because they would not sinne against their consciences which rather then to offend they not understanding the â—ruth of the said doctrine and their phansie being the contrary way strong were bound to doe Yet good brother Simple doe not perswade me against my conscience unlesse you can confute me in reason for I conceive that I say nothing although not written of before but what is evident with Grace in reason although it be not certaine by divine fâ—ith And therein I shew my selfe a true friend to my distressed Countrey for certus amicus in re incerta cernitur A sure friend is tried in a doubtfull matter Yet I should be loath that any man should charge me with the least thing said as contrary to faith or the doctrine of the Catholique Church To which and whose censure I doe in all humility submit my selfe for all my doings sayings and writings as well for the satisfaction of mine owne conscience as that ignorant braines may take no offence And iâ— this doctrine were never heard of before what then Is it therefore false or scandalous And if your tribe did not finde it out before is it a wonder None at all with me for I should wonder indeed to heare you the inventers of any thing beneficiall to Gods Church howsoever you may and doe write over and translate other mens workes and so seeme to ignorant men to finde out something for the good of the Church that was never lost or before wanting therein because as yet I have never heard or knowne so much Those therfore that shall hearken to such whisperings I will wish them no other punishment then that the Vicar of fooles may be their ghostly father In the meane time maugre all censures I will thanke God that he hath enabled me to helpe my distressed friend at a dead lift by counselling and instructing to a lawfull I had almost said meritorious but that I feared more anger and discreet act Thus then seriously to conclude If any man shall yet remaine unsatisfied I knowing that an Angel of
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
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 formalâ— 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 Chanâ—ellour of England blessed and glorious Martyrs because both these lost 〈◊〉 heads â—ather then they would acknowledge the King Supreame Head 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 the Popes Headship To omit the testimonies 〈…〉 â—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 Apostrophâ— Thy Father O England thy ornament thy deâ—â—nce was brought to his death being innocent in thy sight and a little after he lefâ— his life for thy sake left he should overthrow and bâ—tray thy salvation and Cardinall Bâ—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 Carâ—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 irrotulatâ— * The Helâ—esaus wâ—re condâ—mned for heretikes for holâ—ing a man might deny his faith with his mouth so hee keepe it in his heart Euseb. hâ—st l. 6. c. 31. a Rom. 10.10 Cic. pro 〈◊〉 Amâ—r vultu saepe ladâ—tur 〈◊〉 Ep. â—â— contamiâ—ari se 〈…〉 aâ—am illam vidâ—â—i◠〈◊〉 ibid. Feâ—endâ—m ne est ut gentilis sacrifâ—câ—t christianus inter sit Sâ—zo hist. eccles l. 5. c. 16. prejecto ad pedes auâ—o c. * Suidas in Auxent * Marcus Bishop of Arrethusa Theod. hist. l. 3 c. 6.
if the latter then that which moved them to become Catholiques cannot move them to be Protestants againe If the first it were a wonderfull thing that hearing a little moralitie should make them fall from the doctrine they were brought up in all their life or hearing a small piece of controversie mentioned if it should so happen by a Minister they should be presently carried away from the doctrine they have so long knowne and never once tell it to the priests they daily converse with especially when they goe not out of any dislike of their religion but with a cleare conscience for some other ends I conceive it would rather confirme them in hearing that spoken which in their owne conscience they know to be untrue that it will be so farre from troubling or striking their consciences that they will come home rejoycing at the truth which they heard that day impugned as that they heard the Minister speake of such or such a point as that Catholiques adored pâ—ctures or the like which they knew in their owne conâ—sciences to be false and thereby stirre up an earnestnesse in them in religion as zealing their owne being opposed by falshood and this may ingender such passion or distraction in the hearer that it may be thought zeale of religion or heate of devotion Which heate if after this fight of contrarieties or opposition should not be allayed the parties being as it were swallowed up with zeale of the house of our Lord and the dislike of the Sermon as fraught with untruths seeme too troublesome they may depart the Church for there be many cases of necessitie to make a man go out of the Church and as many likewise to make him come short of the same as to Service if it stand if not there is the lesse to be done and it shall never trouble me Sermon or both for as there are many waies to the wood so there are many waies to the Protestant Church And I have alwaies observed that most commonly Catholiques converted from Protestancie have been more firme and solid in religion as knowing both then those that never knew but one And if Schismaticks of whom I have before spoken from the wisest to the meanest of capacity that notwithstanding they goe to Church and are voyd of grace are never so much as shaken from their intention of being Catholiques or their opinion of Catholique religion why should those that abound so much with Gods grace and professed Catholiques be said to be in danger or feared to swerve from a religion they so well know As for blasphemie there is likewise none If you reply as the contrary opinion useth to doe out of Saint Thomas 2a. 2ae q. 13. art 1. and 2. that Protestants out of a set intent and purpose ascribe their heresies to Gods revelation and denie his revelations to Orthodox articles of faith in which consists blasphemy and without this blasphemy they cannot preach and therefore no Catholique can goe to Church I answer the antecedent to be false and this blasphemie to be much like the Rhemists Idolatry as preferring and embracing their owne opinions before God and so honouring a creature and rejecting their Creator but in truth and charitie we ought not to make them worse then they are for blasphemie and Idolatrie being sinnes there must be some formall intention in the sinner to deny God his due in what he doth And so likewise there must be an intention of committing Idolatry that is of preferring and embracing that which is a morally knowne creature before the Creator and so to give the creature what is due to the Creator or otherwise there can be neither blasphemie nor Idolatry As no man will say that I eating flesh on a fasting day unknowne or forgotten commit Idolatry in preferring my belly before the law of Gods Church and consequently God because I had no intention thereto so no man can say that in the Protestant Church there is formall Idolatry or blasphemy because they mistake For Diana saith 5a. parte tract de par mamae resol pag. 138. that blasphemy is a sinne in that contumelious words are spoken against God with a minde or intention to dishonour God either directly or indirectly virtually or interpretative Now in the Protestant Churches what contumelious words are spoken against God with a minde c If you say as before that they ascribe their heresies to Gods revelation and deny his revelation to Orthodoxe Articles I answer thâ—t their minds and intentions are not so much as interpretativè to dishonour God thereby or indeed so to ascribe their heresies For if they knew their opinions to be heresies and the tenents they reject to be Orthodoxe Articles as we do by the light of faith it would evidently follow that they spake sometimes contumeliously against God which they doe not know but simply interpret Scripture according to their owne fancies and therein they erre and mistake And because they doe not endeavour the meanes to search and know the truth by the definitions of Councels and Doctrine of Catholique Fathers they sinne yet doe not commit Idolatrie for it is not their intention to make an Idol of their opinion unlesse you take Idolatry so largely as every sinner may be said to be an Idolater because in every sinne there is an aversion from God and a conversion to the creature and consequently in this sense all sinners are Idolaters And if it be unlawfull to converse with these Idolaters or the like blasphemers that is such as sinne by word or deed we must converse onely in spatio imaginario or as Saint Paul saith 1 Cor. 5. vers 10. We must goe out of this world There were divers very learned and holy Fathers as Saint Cyprian in the question of Baptisme administred by hereticks St. Anselme and others who did mistake and erre before they knew the sense and definition of the Church whom therefore to call blasphemers or Idolaters were blasphemie indeed So likewise there are divers points this day controverted among Catholique Divines as the immaculate conception of our blessed Lady and the like the Authours of which to count blasphemers before they knew the sense of the Church were more then peevish Neither are they to be so accounted after the sense of the Church is knowne for the time they held their opinions before So it is with Protestants for although the Orthodoxe Articles are knowne to us by the Church yet to them they are unknowne and to most of them so unknowne as if they had not been revealed at all because they know none other Church but their owne And therefore what they beleeve they have by errour and mistake and not as blasphemy Whence in my opinion it were more proper and Apostolicall for such men as call them blasphemers and Idolaters to use some prudent and faire way to propose to the aforesaid Protestants the true Church and the authoritie of the same without all suspition of
their originall Fountaine sith the most of them if not all might be gathered out of more ancient Liturgies For which See Biblioth Patru to 1. And if it be so then it may be said That the mud of Popery fell into them but they sprang not from Popery but from purer fountains * It hath been I confesse a long custome in the Latine Church ever since Pope Vitalian to celebrate the Church Service in the Latine tongue but it was never the custome of the Catholique or Vniversall so to doe The Greeke and Syrian and African and other Churches had from the beginning and have at this day their Service in their own languages Neither is the reason the Priest alleadgeth here of any force namely That w as the Catholike Religion is universall so it should be exercised in an universall language which he will have to be the Latine For first there is no necessitie that the Catholike Religion which is universall should be exercised in an universall language but rather in all languages Secondly since the division of tongues at the tower of Babell there was no language universall in all the world the Greeke was for a time the furthest spread and after the Romane but neither of them nor any other was spoken or understood by all Christians and at this day if we may beleeve travellers no language is so generally knowne and spoken as the Slavonian Thirdly the unity of language maketh nothing to the unitie of Religion or the Church neither doth the Apostle require that the Divine Service be performed in any one tongue but that it be done in a knowne tongue to the edification of the Church 1 Cor. 14.4.12.14.16 And to that end among others was the gift of tongues given x See page 28. Letterr. y See the lettero. pag. 17. z See the letter R pag. 28. a This definition of an heretique is both defective redundant defective for every obstinate deniall of an article of faith makes not an heretique unlesse his conscience be clearely convinced of his errour out of the word of God it is redundant also for a man may be an heretique by denying any article of faith though that article be not proposed to him by the Catholike Church to be beleeved though but his pastour or any other religious Christian out of Gods word clearely propound it to him and prove it or it be read by himselfe in the Scripture if he obstinately persist in the denyall thereof after his conscience is convinced he becomes an heretique b The Protestants of England know other Churches besides their own and some have learnedly discoursed of all the Churches in the Christian world as Purchas Brierwood Mocket Mr. Paget and others 〈◊〉 true it is they acknowledge no infallibilitie in the Roman or any particular Church nor receive any Church for true and Orthodoxe which consenteth not with them in all points of faith either expresly set downe or by cleare and necessarie consequence deduced from holy Scriptures c The Protestants hold nothing contrary to the Catholique Church though they hold many things contrary to the present Romane Church which is neither the Catholike Church nor a sound member thereof as is proved invincibly by Iohn Reynolds praefat thesium Sect. 12. Thes. ss 27. Apol. 5.23 And Bilsons answer to Cardinall Allen part 4. And Abbot against Bishop in a Treatise intituled The true ancient Romane Catholike to which none answer hath yet beene given nor sufficient can be d With what face can he say that the Protestants are incredulous and beleeve not the truth Who entirely beleeve the whole doctrine of the Scriptures together with the three Creeds that which beares the name of the Apostles the Nicene and that of Athanasius together with the foure first generall Councels in which time the Church most flourished as also the joynt Doctrine and unanimous consent of all the Fathers both of the Greeke and Latine Church for five hundred yeeres after Christ our Lord came into the flesh Let this traducer of the reformed Churches answer punctually whether he beleeveth that the learned Doctors Confessours and Martyrs who lived and died within the first 500. yeeres held the entire Catholique faith necessary to salvation or no If they held it not how were they saved upon what good ground or warrant are so many of them canonized for Saints even by the Roman Church but on the other side if they beleeved all things necessary to salvation how can we be esteemed incredulous or defective in our faith who beleeveth all that can be proved to have beene joyntly beleeved and unanimously professed by them e Is this the holy Romane Religion to make a May-game of Religion and to goe to Sermons as to a play to make themselves merry and dispell a Melancholly dumpe Besides their owne third commandement enjoynes them to keepe Holy-dayes and their owne Casuists allow the Lords day to be a day that is holy And is this a piece of holynesse to goe on such dayes to a play yet neither doe I beleeve that he can readily name the man much lesse many men that spake fustian with gravity in our Pulpits but I am sure he who patched up this Safeguard out of rags of Religion and falshood speaks Linsewoolsey through his whole Discourse and contrary to the law ploweth with an Oxe and an Asse The later of which here brayeth irrationally and unjustly against the generalitie of Protestant Preachers and Sermons Forsooth we are silly weake and ignorant men but they are all profound Gamaliels nay Angelicall and Seraphicall Doctors Whereunto I answer as Saint Paul did to the calumnies of the false Apostles 2 Cor. 10.12 We dare not make our selves of the number to compare our selves with them that commend themselves but they measuring themselves by themselves and comparing themselves amongst themselves understand not The Catholiques he saith are Hounds â—lood Hounds I grant and our Ministers timorous Hares they dare not encounter the weakest Romane Catholique they neither understand the controversies of Religion nor dare meddle with any in their Sermons If this were true which all our hearers know to be most false yet me thinks Iuvâ—nal speaks very good reason Loripedem rectus derideat Aethiopem albus And what great Clarks I pray were those of whom Boniface Bishop of 〈◊〉 â—pâ—ke in his time heretofore we had woodden Chalices and golden Priests â—ut now we have golden Chalices and woodden Priests what great Gamaliels were they of whom Bonaventure complaines Quidam sacerdotum â—lavem habent he speaketh of the Key of knowledge quidam claviculam quidam nullam what was he upon whom Sir Thomas Moore thus playes in his â—pigrâ—m tu bene cavisti ne te ulla occidere possit litera nam nulla est lâ—tera nota tibi Be not frighted at the words of the Apostle the letter killeth thou hast taken good order that it shall not kill thee for thou knowest not a lettâ—â— What was he
taste and other accidents of bread Fifthly If the flesh of Christ may be eaten with the mouth without faith not only infidels and reprobates but even rats and mice might sometimes through the negligence of Priests gnaw upon the consecrated Host and eate the flesh of the Son of God which were horrid to imagine and blasphemous to utter Sixthly if the Romish Priests undoubtedly beleeve this doctrine of transubstantiation as they doe other Articles of their faith why did Garnet and other Popish Priests when they were required to say these or the like words if after I have consecrated and pronounced the words this is my body there be not in stead of the bread the very flesh of Christ let me have no part in heaven they refused so to doe this profession being demanded of them but a day or two before their deaths when if ever men will clearely discharge their conscience and utter whatsoever is in their very heart it being the last time they are like ever to confesse with the mouth unto salvation Seventhly if the bread be transubstantiated into Christs body and his body truly really and properly taken from the hand of the Priest put into the mouth chawed with the teeth and swallowed down into the stomacke of all communicants either Christ of necessitie must have two bodies one visible another invisible one with the full dimensions of a man the other of a wafer one passible the other impassible one residing in one place the other filling a million of places or at least the selfe same body of Christ must at the same time be visible at the right hand of his Father and invisible in the Host with the dimensions of a man in heaven and of a wafer on earth with distinction of organs in heaven and inorganicall upon earth resting in heaven and moved on earth from the hand to the mouth and from the mouth to the stomack of millions of communicants Lastly I demand of this Priest and his pew-fellows what becomes of Christs body after it is conveighed into the stomack doth it remaine there after the forme and accidents of bread are changed or doth it some wayes remove out of the stomack or is it there converted into any other substance they dare not pitch upon any of these three nothing therefore remaineth but an annihilation or corruption in the stomack and so the holy one of God whom God would never suffer to see corruption no not in the grave shall now after his glorification suffer corruption in the stomack of all Romish Capernaits i The Apostle in that place speaketh not of Suppers in the plurall number but the Lords Supper in the singular and vers 23. delivereth the right manner of administring it according to Christs institution and so St. Cyprian in his Tract de caena Domini and the most approved interpreters both ancient and moderne understand the word and not of love feasts As for the reason this authour alleadgeth for this his exposition it is very frivolous For if the love feasts must therfore be tearmâ—d coena Dominicae our Lords Suppers because they were made in the Churches which were then called Dominicae by the same reason the Homilies and Catechisings and Songs should be called Dominicae because they were made said or sung in the Churches which were then called Dominicae k He meaneth a Romane Catholique or Papist which indeed can hardly be knowne to be a true Catholique See pag. 1. letterc. But doth he think that we know not what a Papist is Let them remember what Polycarp did answer when Marcion accoasting him said Nosti me Doest thou know me Yes saith Polycarp Novi primogenitum diaboli I know the first begotten of the devill We know you qua tales to be the naturall issue of the man of sinne and whore of Babylon and in this double and dissembling way it is hard to say of what religion you are or whether of any at all l A lewd slander it is not lawfull among us for every one to beleeve what hee pleaseth but this Priest thinketh it lawfull for him to speake what he pleaseth though against common sense and his owne conscience For within tenne lines of these words he maketh mention of the 39 Articles of the Church of England to which we all are bound to give our assent and consent and in case any Parson or Viâ—ar doe not reade these Articles and publikely testifie his approbation of them within a moneth after his induction into his Benefice he lapseth his Living Besides it is the knowne doctrine of all Protestants that the Scripture is the sole and perfect rule of faith and that as we may not beleeve any thing contrary unto it so neither any doctrine as necessarie to salvation which cannot be evidently proved out of it Of what brasse then was the brow of this slanderer made who affirmeth it to be lawfull among Protestants for every man to beleeve what he pleaseth m See page 53. Letter E. n See the Advertisement to the Reader o We are as much beholding to the stiâ—câ—er up of this Safeguard for the Relation herein closed as the Church of Rome hath little cause to con him thanke for it For hence we learne first what credit is to be given to the Popes briefes which may be so easily procured by false suggestions to the wrong and prejudice of those that deserve well of the Roman cause A cleare evidence hereof we have in Day the Franciscan who never so much as appearing before his Holinesse to answer for himselfe is censured by the Popes Bull and that for doing a pious and religious act Secondly what a silly Consistory the Papall is at this day the Pope himselfe as fallible a man as any other and the Cardinals slight and weake fellows never a skilfull Pilot sitting at the Sterne of Peters ship Thirdly what charitie there is betweene Romish Priests and Iesuits and how they heape coales of hell fire one upon anothers head Davenport otherwise Franciscus a Sancta Clara procures a Bull like to Phalaris his brazen Bull with fire in the belly of it to torment Day the Franciscan without his fault or knowledge and this Priest here condemns Sancta Clara to black darknesse for ever pallentes umbras erebi noctâ—mque profundam this man saith he is descending to Lucifer who will presume to be copartnâ—r with the holy Ghost and thus leaving him the said a Sancta Clara to him that will have him c. tantaene animis caelestibus irae are they Friers secular Priests or Devils that thus spit fire one at another Let Davenport have the day of Day at Rome what hath Sancta Clara done that in the charitaâ—le censure of this Priest Lucifer must have him He tooke upon him to draw some Rules out of Scriptures and the writings of the ancient Fathers For the direction of generall Councels in declaring matters of faith A capitall crime no doubt but what else hath this
carpers at it have been as mute as fishes o See p. 117. letter â— p A shameles untruth in his sense for he taketh Catholike as usually in this Pamphlet for the Romish and Popish Church in that sense it is most false For there were many congregations in England before this 35 of Hen. 8. of Protestants and divers crowned with martyrdome as Th. Man in the yeere 1518. Io. Browne in the yeere 1517. and divers others set down in the Acts and Monuments of the Church some before and some after Luther began the Reformation in Germanie q A notorious untruth as appeares by the very Act Ann. 35. in which the Oath of Supremacy was first required to be taken King Henry never challenged to himselfe the Style of Head of the universall Church but only to bee supreame Hâ—ad under God of the Church of England and Ireland and all other His Majesties Dominions r No other Oath at all in sense but the former only abridged in words as will appeare evidently by comparing them both which are copied out in the Appendix s A ridiculous evasion and contrary to the intention and letter of the law as shall be proved hereafter The intention of the law was to abrogate the Popes usurped jurisdiction not over the Protestant Churches which he never had but over the Romish Catholiques or Papists which he before that time enjoyed and exercised Besides the letter of the law carryeth supreame governour of the Realme and all other Her Highnesse Dominions and Countreys not only of the Protestant Church within Her Realmes This is made more evident in the Admonition to the Injunctions 1. Eliz. where Her Supremacie is described to be over all manner of persons borne within Her Realmes Dominions and Countreys therefore over Papists as well as Protestants unlesse they be no manner of persons t I acknowledge the word forreiner is sometimes taken for an opposite to domesticus fidei a stranger from the covenant of grace but in the Act of Parliament and Oath of Supremacie as it is expounded in the Admonition which is also Enacted the word forreiner can signifie no other but those who are not natives u Neither can the Pope Here we thanke him for freeing us from all subjection to the Pope and See of Rome Though he challengeth not to be the Head of the Catholike that is the universall Church of Christ scattered farre and wide over the whole face of the earth yet he challengeth to be and is Supreame Governour of all His Subjects within His Dominions whether they are members of the Romish or Reformed Church w The superstition and Idolatry of Papists practised in England doth not any way abridge His Majesties Supreame power for he exerciseth His power not in regulating those idolatrous and superstitious rites but in suppressing them and punishing those who so defile Gods worship in His Kingdome x See this Evasion refuted pag. 120. letter S. y The words of the Oath are not that no forreiner Prince or Prelate hath or ought to have any iurisdiction or spirituall authoritie within the Protestant Church but within the Realmes therefore no jurisdiction within His Majesties Dominions over any members either of the Protestant or of the Romish Church z See the Answer to this sophisme pag. 120. letter T. a It is true if the words will beare it and it be agreeable to the intention of the law lawmaker but maledicta glossa quae corrumpit contextum cursed be the Glosse which corrupts the Text quite perverts the meaning of the law as this doth See the Injunctions b Of the intention of the law and lawmaker in prescribing this oath to that which I have spoken before I shall adde something in the close of this Chapter to which â—referre the Reader for further answer c The law is just and reasonable without your forced and forged Glosse for why should not all that enjoy the benefit of his Majesties lawes as well as Protestants submit themselves to his Majesties scepter and supreame power over themselves as well as Protestants especially seeing the power is the same which the most religious Kings of Iuda and most Christian Emperours of Rome and divers of his Majesties Predecessors within this Realme have exercised upon all their subjects d See pag. 119. letter Q. e See pag. 119. letter R. f And yet his words as you cite them out of his Praemonitorie Preface pag. 9. are these The oath of Supremacie was devised for putting a difference betweene Papists and them of our profession Devised by whom but by the lawmakers and if devised by the the lawmakers for this end to put a difference betweene Papists Protestants it cannot be denied but that it was their intention to make this oath as a didinctive signe whereby to know Papists in the kingdome from Protestants g See pag. 118. letter P. h The question whether a Papist may with a safe conscience take the â—ath of Supremacie may be understood either in sensu diviso or in sensu composito in sensu diviso it is true that a Papist may and ought to take the Oath of Supremacie for he that is now a Papist may become a Protestant and then he not onely may but ought to take this Oath being lawfully tendered unto him but in sensu composito it is false that a Papist continuing in his faith and profession of popery may with a safe conscience take this Oath for this Oath implyeth the renouncing a maine Article of his faith from whence he hath the denomination of a Papist See the Notes of the Rhemists upon Act. 11.26 which fasten and assume this word or name Papist to the children of their papall Church namely the Popes Supremacie and this as before was promised shall now be demonstrated 1. â—irst from the intention of the law and lawmakers who prescribed this Oath of Supremacie as appeares both by the Preface to the Oath Whereas therâ— was a Statute made and ordained against such as would extoll and stand to the iurisdiction power and authoritie of the See and Bishop of Rome in which Statute there is comprised another oath in such wise as in the same Statute among other thinâ—â— is mentioned for as much as in both the said Oathes there lacketh full anâ— sufficient words whereby some doubts might rise Be it enacted by the authoritie of this Parliament that this Oath hereafter mentioned in this Act shall sâ—and in force and place of the same two Oathes And by these words in the bodie of the Oath I shall keepe all the contents of the Act and all other Acts and Statutes made in and for that purpose viz. the derogation the extirpation and extinguishment of the usurped and pretended authoritie power and iurisdiction of the See and Bishop of Rome As likewise by the Preface to the Act of Parliament in 1. Elizabeth viz. To the intent that all usurped and forreigne power and authoritie Spirituall and Temporall may