language adiew or farewell 3. Or the meaning of them may be that which Tremâ—lius and Iunius by comparing this text 2 Kings 5.19 with the 1 Samuel 1.17 collect Quieto animâ— esto ne sis sollicitus de istis rebus quae nihil ad pacem conscientiae tuae faciunt sed potius illâ—m turbaturae sint Deum in te provocaturae Be at peace and take no thought of these things which will nothing conduct to the peace of thy conscience but rather trouble it and provoke the wrath of God against thee 〈◊〉 fourthly the words may carry this sense now thou haâ—t that thou â—â—â—nest for thou art cleansed of thy lâ—prosie Goe home in peace God send thee a prosperous journey for the thing thou wâ—ttest of shall never 〈◊〉 thee for thy Master shall never requiâ—e any such service of thee as to wait on him to his Chappell to worship Rimmon And fifthly what if there be an â—nallage temporis very usuall in the Hebrew Aâ—l mists of obscuritie be taken away if we translate the words thus The Lord be mercifull to thy servant for that when my Master went into the house of Rimmon and leaned on my hand I boweâ— my selfe in the house of Rimmon Howsoever the Prophets valediction Goe â—n peace no more prooveth any approbation of Naamans bowing in the house of Rimmon then of his other demand vers 17. namely Of two Mules load of the earth of the land of Israel and whatsoever Naamans conceit was in iâ— whether he imagined there were any holinesse or vertue in that earth as the inhabitants of Colubraria as Pomponius Mela writeth beleeved that the earth of the neighbour Island Ebusitana was a sovereigne remedie against those serpents wherewith they were infested or whether he meant to make an altar of that earth it is not likely the Prophet would incourage him by his approbation to load his Mules with that earth the former reason being superstitious the latter unwarrantable for they were to sacrifice only in the place which the Lord God should appoint and if the Prophets words carry no approbation but have some other meaning the edge of the Priests argument for assistance at Idol worship is quite dulled p So indeed Hurtado de Mendoza and others by him cited But as the Scriptures saith of Nabal a foole is his name and folly is in him so we may truely say here that Mendoza is Mendosus and Mendax too both faultie and false for Christ who is the truth himselfe teacheth us that our life is better lost to save it then saved to losse Matth. 16.25 he saveth it to losse who saveth it by denying his Saviour and he looseth it to his advantage who looseth it for the testimonie of the Gospell for he shall exchange the losse of a miserable temporall life with blessed immortalitie or immortall blisse If men when they are in danger of death may dissemble their Religion what shall become of the glory of Confessours and crowne of Martyrs At such a time to use the habit and ceremonies of a false law saie of Mahomets or the Persians or the Brachmans or the West Indians who do all their devotions professedly to the Devill himselfe whom they take to be God is it not to deny Christ in our habit and in our actions though not in our words and professions q Surely the Roman Catholiques in England must needs be thought to suffer grievous persecution when as the authour of the answer to the libell of justice cited by this Priest pag. 9. and 10. so much delighteth in it that he would not have a toleration of Catholikes in England if he might and to aske it of God saith he were to aske we know not what for that persecution is better O medicina gravis The truth is the little finger of Queene Mary was heavier against Protestants then Queene Elizabeth her whole loynes against Popish Recusants Neither in her reigne noâ— in the reigne of King Iames nor of our present Sovereigne was any Papist put to death meerely for his conscience but either for some treasonable pâ—actise or violation of some Statute Law the penaltie whereof is Death See pag. 4. G. r The distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes Tostatus learned in Peter Lumbards schoole not in Christs may teach but not truely For although some sinnes may be tearmed veniall comparatè in respect of others that are of a deeper die and so lesse in their owne nature pardonable and excuseable or not at all as the sinne against the holy Ghost and though all sinnes of the â—leâ—t are veniall through grace or quo ad eventum yet there are no sinnes which in their owne nature are not mortall For all sinnes are transgressions of the eternall law and in them the infinite Majestie of God is some waies sligâ—ted and therefore Saint Hieromes generall conclusion is true ep ad Celantiam omne quod agimus omne quod loquimur aut de angustâ viâ est quae tendit ad vitam aut de latâ quâ imus ad mortem What soever we do whatsoever we speake either appertaines to the narrow Way whâ—reby we enter into life or to the broad way which is the roade to death and in his second booke against the Pelagians si ira et sermonis iniuria atque interdum iocus iudicio concilioque et gehennae ignibus delegatur quid merebitur turpium rerum appetitio if unadvised anger and a contumelious word bring us in danger of a iudgement and a councel and hell fire what shall the desire of filthy things deserve and who can say his heart is cleane from all these To make light of sinne aggravateth our conscience even those Naevuli leves aspergines pulviseuli prolapsiunculae peccadiliâ—es as the Romanisâ—s stile veniall sinnes either are transgressions of the law of God or not if they are not transgressions of the law they are no sinnes at all for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all sinne is the transgression of the law 1 Iohn 3.4 or as the Schooles â—ut of Saint Augustine define peccatum est dictum factum vel concupitum contra legem aeternam every sinne is a desire word or deed against the eternall law and if veniall sinnes be transgressions of this law their punishment is death For the soule that sinneth shall die Ezech. 18.4 and the sting of death is sinne 1 Cor. 15.56 and the wages of sinne is death Rom. 6.23 These cleare and evident Texts of holy Scâ—ipture so dazled the eyes of three of their sharpe sighted Schoolemen that they not onely left the common tract of other popish Divines as Bellarmine minceth the matter l. 1. de amiss grat et stat pec c. 4. non nihil a communi theologorum sententiâ deflexerunt but went in the direct way of the reformed Doctours these Schoole men are Gerson 3. part Theolog. tract de vit spirit sect 1ª Iacobus Almaine Opusc. tract 3. c. 20. Iohannes Episcopus Roffensis
it will be the Scandall of Pharisees as is aforesaid Now to proove the assertion which is the first branch of the Minor Scandall is a word or deed lesse right apt to give occasion to another of spirituall ruine â—ut to goe to Church is no deed lesse right but prudently and chiefely right all circumstances considered Ergo to goe to Church is no scandall and consequenter to goe to Church can yeeld no occasion to my neighbour of spirituall ruine but rather an occasion of both his temporall and spirituall conservation and edification This Minor I prove To goe to heare a piece of a Masse in English is no deed lesse right But to goe to Church is to goe to heare a piece of a Masse in English Ergo to goe to Church is no deed lesse right The Major I prove thus to goe to heare a whole Masse in English the nature of the thing considered and abstracting from the constitution of the Church is not evill For the diversitie of the language takes nothing from the goodnesse of the thing As is manifest in the Greeke Church where Masse is alwayes said in Greeke So that if it be not evill in it selfe to goe to heare a whole Masse in English it is not evill to goe to heare a piece of a Masse in English And consequently not to goe to Church Adde that in the whole Latine Church where it is not lawfull to say Masse in any other language then in Latine becâ—use of the long custome of the Church kept alwayes on foot for this reason that as the Catholique Religion is universall so should it be exercised in an universall language yet it is lawfull and in use to say a piece of the Masse as Collects Prayers Psalmes Epistles and Gospels in any Language of any Countrey whatsoever within the said Church It may be here objected first that although to go to Church be of its own nature a thing indifferent yet hic nunc it is evill For considering the circumstances of time and place it hath a shew appearance of evill apt to occasion sin in another From which we are commanded to abstain by St. Paul 1 Thess. 5.22 saying From all shew of evill refraine your selves To which I answer first That all the appearance of evill which going to Church hath is that in England above other countreys Priests have not been freely left to the Principles of Divinitie or Lay-men to their Christian libertie but it hath been procured to have bin declared unlawfull upon false suggestions and continued thus thought unlawfull by some erroneous judgements Which my neighbour likewise phantasing erroneously apprehends it a species cast from going to Church which indeed is not so nor otherwise then if a man with a blood-shotten eye should behold glasse say it were red when a parte rei it were white It were very hard if I eating fish in the lent and one purblind seeing me eate apprehending it flesh because he goes away scandalized as thinking me to have eaten flesh by reason of his false eyes that I should be said to have given him scandall So it would seeme likewise as hard if a broken phansie or an erring minde should conceive evill species from mine actions which a parte rei are no species at all of them but quite contrary to thâ—ir species that I should thereby be judged to give scandall to little ones No I hope as the erroneous eyes shall beare their owne imperfections so the erroneous judgement shall beare its owne mistake and neither shall accuse me before God of the scandall of little ones Hence I answer secondly to the place of the Apostle before objected thaâ— the appearance or shew of evill is to be understood first that it proceeds really from the act done and that it be not only a conjecturall appearance but morally certaine That no man play Tom-foole in striking him that stands next him without a cause Secondly that the appearance proceeds not from a deed to be done of necessitie either by the Law of God or nature Otherwise we might inferre the Apostle to command contradictories to refraine and not to refraine from such a deed whence proceeds the appearance For if the thing be commanded by the Law of God it must necessarily be done or otherwise sinne And if it were to be done by the Law of Nature the blessed Apostle was not so unreasonable as to bid us refraine from a thing in its owne nature lawfull and of necessitie to be done without admittance of some way to avoyd scandall Although by reason of some circumstance place or person it might have a shew of evill and so for some time be suspended as some things of naturall necessitie yea the Evangelicall counsels may have But in such cases we are to instruct and admonish the weake as I by these presents doe that although it should seeme to them to be evill or to have some shew of evill yet in very deed it is not evill but good And I am constrained under paine of death to do the same After which instruction and admonition if they still persist in their scandall it is not a scandall of little ones but of Pharisees and great ones Neither doth it proceed from infirmitie or ignorance but from malice and is not to be regarded So that it seemes a thing unreasonable and in the strength of judgement against nature that a man shall more regard the trouble of his neighbours conscience at a thing lawfull then the hazard of his own life and ruine of his own family and fortunes in the execution of the same See Diana for this Doctrine and all the Authors by him above cited If any shall here reply to my first answer of the objection that the shew of evill is really in the act of going to Church and not as falsely imagined and that this shew of evill appeares not only to weake and ignorant people but to men of understanding of all sorts and not only to Catholiques but likewise to Schismaticks of all sorts who in going to Church to save their goods confesse that they doe it against their conscience as conceiving it to be unlawfull by reason of the aforesaid Declaration of the twelve Fathers in the Councell of Trent and the foresaid Popes which whether it were gotten by false suggestions or no they discerne not neither doe they dispute but simply obey To make up the rime in reason the more simple they For reason may teach great ones and men seeming of understanding that are Schismaticks or Lay-Catholiques the contrary because nothing is done at Church which is either evill or hurtfull and both reason and learning Priests And therefore I rejoyce with Aristotle Propter illorum cogitare nihil mutatur in re and say that the shew of evill proceeds not from the act of going to Church For in all King Edwards time and the beginning of Queene Elizabeths time untill the thirteenth yeere of her
moral cap. 11. 27 punctâ— 2.4 5. who saith It is lawfull for Catholiques to prâ—y together with Protestants to heare their Service and goe to their Sermons And for this opinion he citeth Navarr lib. 5. Con. 10. 12. de haeret who as all men know was a pious Divine and a man of a tender conscience Againe the said Azorius saith in the said cap. 27. puncto 5. That if an hereticall Prince commands his Subjects that are Catholiques to goe to Church upon paine of death or losse of goods if he doe this only because he will have his lawes obeyed and not to make it Symbolum hereticae pravitatis nor have a purpose to discern thereby Catholiques from Hereticks they may obey it Gregory Martin one of the translators of the Bible into English cited by the said R. P. in his book aforesaid pag. 101. 109. Diana 5. part tract de scandal pag. 191. resol 33. where he saith a man may use the habit and ceremonies of a false law being in danger of death See Hurtado de Mendoza and others by him cited And Paulus Comitolius Resp. moral lib. 1. q. 47. when he comes to handle the question whether a Professour of the Romane faith being sent into those parts where the Greeke Church observes other rites may goe to their service he allows it and builds upon this reason That by the Law of God and nature it is lawfull and the precepts of the Church if any there were that forbid this doe not binde Christians in cases of great detriment to the life or soule or honour or fame or outward things See Azor. above cited for going to the Schismaticall Church of the Greeks where he saith that a Catholique hearing Masse in a Schismaticall Church there on a Sunday fulfilleth the precept of the Church commanding the same See further the Decree of the Councell of Constans and Martin the 5. which beginneth In super ad evitanda scandala c. for the communicating with hereticks as well in service as otherwaies Which Decree extends it selfe further then to our purpose For by the same we may communicate with Hereticks fallen in a Catholike countrey if it be not in point of heresie Yea receive the Sacraments of Priests excommunicated either by law or any sentence of man so they be tolerated and not by name excommunicated See Diana pag. 175. col 1. and the said Hurtado whom he citâ—th If then we may communicate with such men where there may be some danger of sin why should we not communicate with Protestants where there can be no danger of sinne as shall be hereafter prooved It is fourthly proved by the practice of all Catholikes in forreigne Countries for Germany See for Germany and France Navarr lib. 5. Consil. 12. de Heret and see the foresaid Author of the answer his words are these cap. 9. pag. 216. And indeed if the German Catholiques had beene so restrained persecuted and put to death as the English have beene these yeers and had not gone by halfes with the Protestants as in some places the have done they had had perhaps farre more Catholiques at this day and them more zealous and their whole Nation perchance reduced ere this Thus he Where is to be noted that his perhaps and perchance are nothing worth For by their going to Church as he termeth it by halfes with the Protestants their countrey became Catholike long since whereas his zeale of persecution hath not converted ours yet neither is yet like to doe For Scotland it is confessed by the said R. P. pag. 69. with his judgement of their miserie insâ—ing thereby but the truth of the miserie I shall shew hereafter who yet in plaine termes doth not deny my assertion but here and there granteth that some learned discreete man where there is no scandall and in whom there is no danger of subversion may goe to the Church of heretiques and heare their Sermons Much more say I then to the Church of Protestants most of whom are not to be called properly formall hereticks for to heresie as it is a sinne against faith and maketh a formall hereticke is required obstinacie or pertinacie against the doctrine declaration and sence of the Church See Saint Thomas of Aquin. 2â— â—ae q. 11. ar 2o. Cajetan Bannes idem Aragona art 1o. Suares disput 19. de fide sect 3. Now what obstinacie can Protestants be said to have in their opinions with relation to a Church they know not for they know none other but their owne so that although they beleeve amisse whereby they may suffer in the next world and speake hereticall propositions yet because they proceed not from an hereticall mind or consent they are not perfectly heretiques Adde that I my selfe in Germany with other Catholiques of the same countrey have gone to a Synagogue of Iewes without any scandall or having beene judged to have done amisse Ergo I and others may go to a Church of Protestants without any scandall or being judged in reason to have done amisse And I can assure my selfe whatsoever others may thinke of my assurance that the lawfulnesse of going to Church is the common opinion of all forreign Divines that ever I conversed with in any Vniversitie Which in part may be proved by the fact of a certaine Catholique Lady who going to Church in England sent her Priest to Paris to have this case resolved by the Sorbon Doctors who all Subscribed That a Catholique in England might lawfully goe to the Protestant Church That this is true it may be justified by some persons of great qualitie yet alive If any English Scholler shall answer that we went to the Synagogue of Iewes out of curiositie and when they did not exercise their rites and ceremonies I reply that to choose we would have gone if we might have had private conveniencie unknowne to them to have seene their rites and ceremonies neither doe we set downe our intention of going for if it may be done with any intention lawfully especially where the whole matter of all their rites and ceremonies is alwaies conserved to wit a burning lampe with oyle for the soules departed now as they conceive in Limbo patrum a place where the oblation of oyle to that purpose is alwaies kept the tenne Commandements placed in veneration a number of linnen rolles or bands wrote with Hebrew letters wherwith they binde the tenne Commandements according to their distinction of feasts the knife of Circumcision and the like Which may be stumbling blocks to some weake Christians although the men to performe these rites should not be present why should wee not goe to the Protestant Church with some intention lawfully where there are onely men within bare wals saying some Catholique service by them pieced up together without any Catholique forme not to the possible hurt of any but themselves and whether I went to the said Synagogue out of curiositie or out of the love of science to reason
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