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.
chuse both the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacie which if with patience they will but heare when I have said what they are I will presently prove that they may be most lawfully taken The Oath of Allegiance divided into eight branches 1. I A. B. Doe truely and sincerely acknowledge professe testifie and declare in my conscience before God and the world that our Soveraigne Lord King Charles is lawfull and rightfull King of this Realme and all other his Majesties Dominions and Countryes 2. And that the Pope neither of himselfe nor by any authoritie of the Church or See of Rome or by any other means with any other hath any power or authoritie to depose the King or to dispose any of his Majesties Kingdomes or Dominions or to authorize any forreign Prince to invade or annoy Him or His Countreys or to discharge any of his Subjects of their Allegiance or obedience to his Majestie or to give licence or leave to any of them to beare armes raise tumults or to offer any violence or hurt to his Majesties Royall Person State or Government or to any of His Majesties Subjects within His Majesties Dominions 3. And I doe sweare from my heart that notwithstanding any Declaration or Sentence of Excommunication or Deprivation made or granted by the Pope or his successors or by any authority derived or to be derived from him or his See against the said King his heires or successors or any absolution of the said subjects from their obedience I will beare faith and true Allegeance to his Majestie his heires and successors and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their persons their Crown and Dignitie by reason or colour of any such sentence or declaration or otherwise and will doe my best indeavour to disclose and make knowne unto His Majestie his heires and successors all treasons and trayterous conspiracies which I shall know or heare of to be against him or any of them 4. And I doe further sweare that I doe from my heart abhorre detest and abjure as impious and hereticall this damnable doctrine and position that Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever 5. And I doe beleeve and in my conscience am resolved that neither the Pope or any Person whatsoever hath power to absolve me of this Oath or any part thereof 6. Which I acknowledge by good and full authoritie to be lawfully ministred unto me and doe renounce all Pardons and Dispensations to the contrary 7. And all these things I doe plainly and sincerely acknowledge and sweare according to the expresse words by me spoken according to the plaine and common sense and understanding of the same words without any equivocation or mentall evasion or secret reservation whatsoever 8. And I doe make this recognition and acknowledgement heartily willingly and truly upon the true faith of a Christian. So helpe me God This Oath according to every part and parcell of the same may be lawfully taken by any Catholike as have averred both M. Widdrington Sir William Howard and others who have so substantially wrote of the same with explanations of each branch that I thinke no wise man dares hazard his credit in going about to refute the same Yet the weaknesse of some Catholiques hath beene so great that they have not onely taken scandall being of the Pharisees not much to be regarded but gone about to defame such as stood for this Oath to their great prejudice notwithstanding the said Mr. Widdrington in his Newyeeres-gift hath sufficiently proved that besides the authoritie of many famous Divines it was the opinion of the chiefest secular Priests in England but these uncharitable proceedings were hatched by a sort of arrogant and covetous people who laboured to make every thing scandalous among Catholiques that was not done by their approbation and to this purpose the first principles were to leade people into scruples and being there to put a ring upon them abusively tearmed the yoake of our blessed Lady by which they might more easily leade them to their opinions and censures as men doe Bears to their purposes Oh wise Venetians how sacred are your lawes would a man thinke that such blindnesse or rather envious peevishnesse could be in Catholiques as what they understand not to censure at their pleasure without any respect of persons and presently judge them as fallen men whom they dislike although indeed firmer then themselves and very well able to teach most of their guides But to the purpose the truth is that the aforesaid Authours have so fully proved the lawfulnesse of taking the said Oath that no man needs speake more in proofe thereof as not being able to speak better to the purpose And therefore I referre every man to the said Writers to informe themselves lest they demeritoriously suffer for refusing the â—ame This onely give me leave to insert as a caution to some that considering it is contrarie to the Popes forced opinion as appeareth by his Declarative Breve he that shall sweare or abjure the doctrine and position That Princes which be c. in the fourth branch as impious hereticall and damnable I conceive indirectly abjureth the Popes opinion as impious hereticall and damnable and what a fault that may be made in Rome especially by some suggestors who although to mine owne knowledge doe teach this Oath lawfull in private to men of qualitie yet in publique and to his Holynesse out of a seeming zeale they will lament the fact I leave to the judgement of wise men When as they shall sweare his doctrine erroneous in such bitter terms whom they acknowledge to be the supreame Pastour of their souls questionlesse in such it will be interpreted at the least arrogacie and presumption And I for mine owne part should thinke it very hard to be forced to take the Oath of Supremacie in Rome under any termes directly or indirectly misbeseeming my dutie to my naturall Prince howsoever he might erre in mistake And therefore I doe humbly present the consideration of our case in this Oath of Allegiance to his Majesties most gracious Clemencie This caution or consideration I present to such as having taken the said Oath intend afterwards to converse at Rome But if death or ruine urge then spectata conscientia I say as before follow the opinion of Sir William Howard and Master Widdrington as secure For in such extremitie it is to be hoped that his Holinesse will be rather a pious and pittifull father then too severe a Judge If any be urged to this Oath out of any temporall preferment let him follow the example of that huge Divine a Sancta Clara an acquaintance of mine and take it in private before a Master of the Chancery and get a Certificate thereof from him and it will be sufficient Here is to be noted
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
they can alleadge some speciall priviledge to the contrary but divers generall Councels have erred A generall Councel of Prophets 1 Kings 22.12 erred saying The Lord shall deliver Ramoth Gilead into the Kings hand a generall Councel of Priests Matthew 26.65 erred damnably in condemning Christ for a blasphemer guiltie of death The generall Councel held at Arminum erred denying the Sonnes equalitie with the Father at Ephesus confounding the two natures in Christ at Nice under Irene decreeing that Angels are to be painted because they are of a corporeall nature at Constance denying the Laitie to be bound to receive the communion in both kindes against the expresse precept of Christ Matth. 26.28 and Iohn 6.53 And of the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.28 At Florence and after at Trent defining that the effect of the Sacrament depends upon the intention of the Priest or Bishop who administreth it Which if it were true no man in the Roman Church could ever be assured either of his baptisme or of his confirmation or of his absolution or of his ordination or of the validitie of his matrimonie or of his safe adoration of the Host or of the vertue of his extreme unction For how can he certainly know the intention of the Bishop or Priest who administred unto him these rites all which they account sacraments Neither can they evade by saying that these Councels might erre because they were not confirmed by the Pope for the Popes were present at all these later either in person or by their Legates and it is for certain that their second Councel at Nice was confirmed by Pope Adrian at Constance by Pope Martine at Florence by Pope Eugenius at Trent by divers Popes Lastly if Councels had an immunitie from error the prayer which they made at their Councels registred by Gregory the Great l. 7. Epist. were a meere mockerie The prayer was conceived in this forme Quia conscientià remordente tabescimus ne aut ignorattia nos traxerit in errorem aut praeceps forsitan voluntas impulerit a iustitia declinare ob hoc te poscimus te rogamus ut si quid offensionis in hac concilii celebritate attraximus condonare et remissibile facere digneris Because we pine away through remorse of conscience fearing lest either ignorance have drawn us into error or a headie will driven us to swerve from justice for this we pray thee we beseech thee that if we have done any thing amisse in this great and famous assembly thou wouldest vouchsafe to pardon it I conclude therefore with the words of Leo in his Epistle to Anatolius who lightly phillips off the authoritie of the generall Councel held at Ephesus in which there were above 600. Fathers In one word Tanquam refutari nequeat quod illicitè voluerit multitudo as if that could not be refuted which a multitude hath unlawfully determined giving withall most wholesome conusell to all Councels nulla sibi de multiplicitate congregationis concilia blandiantur Let no Councels flatter themselves with the great multitude of persons assembled in them as if that might priviledge them from errour n Here least the Reader should before he be aware be bitten by a snake lying under the grasse I hold it necessary to distinguish between two questions which may seem to be a like but indeed are very different The first whether Papists may goe to Protestant Churches The second whether a Protestant may goe to a Popish Church He that shall give the same solution to both these questions shall give a greater wound to the Protestant cause in the latter then his plaister will salve in the former The Protestants and Papists in this stand not upon even tearmes for there is nothing in the Protestant Liturgie or Service which the Romanists doe or by their own Rules can except at The Confession forme of Absolution Prayers Hymnes Collects Lessons Epistles and Gospels are either such as the Papists themselves use or at least such as they dislike not whereas it is farre otherwise in the Romane Missall For there is sprinkling exorcised water censing books and pictures worshipping images invocation of Saints prayers for the dead intercession by the prayers and merits of souls departed and which is the height of all idolatry adoration of their Host or breaden God and all this service performed in an unknowne tongue contrary to the expresse order of the Apostle 1 Cor. 14. all which the Reformed Churches condemne and abhorre and whereas this Author alleadgeth there can be no text of Scripture brought forbidding Papists to come to our Church I beleeve him but on the other side there are many expresse Texts of holy Scripture from whence it may be strongly inferred that no Protestant whose conscience is convinced of the manifold idolatries and superstitions wherewith the Romish Liturgie is polluted can with a safe conscience goe to Masse as namely Psal. 26.4 I have not sate with vaine persons neither will I goe in with dissemblers I have hated the congregation of evill doers and will not sit with the wicked 1 Cor. 10.7 Neither be ye idolaters as were some of them vers 14. Wherefore my dearely beloved flee from idolatrie 1 Ioh. 5.21 Keepe your selves from idols 2. Cor. 6.14 What fellowship hath righteousnesse with unrighteousnesse or what communion hath light with darknesse vers 16 What agreement hath the Temple of God with idols vers 17. Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the uncleane thing and I will receive you o Although I have no meaning to drive away Papists from our Churches nor purpose to enervate the kindly and right arguments which this Priest bringeth to perswade them thereunto yet I cannot let passe this wherwith true Professours may be very much scandalized For what religious heart doth not tremble to thinke of going in and bowing in the temple of an â—doll in which as the Apostle teacheth the service that is done and the sacrifice that is offered is to devils 1 Cor. 10.20 and no better was this Rimmon the Syrian idoll I answer therefore 1 that the case of conscience Naaman put was not whether he might goe with his Master into the house of Rimmâ—n and offer sacrifice with him unto the idoll but whether he might not waite upon his Master thither and performe a civill for the bowing spoken of was as Câ—iâ—tan well noteth genuflexio obsequii non imitativa a bowing to the King not to the Idoll oâ—â—ice to him or make an obeysance whilest the King leaned on his hand and yet his heart smote him for this and his conscience misgave him that the Lord would be displeased with him for it for so much his prayer importeth The Lord pardon thy servant in this thing Secondly the words of the Prophet Elisha Goe in peace doe not necessarily import an approbation or permission of that which Naaman proâ—ounded but either a meere forme of valediction as if he had said in our